Dig Permit Problems in Turkey?

Very interesting item in Spiegel:

It used to be easy for foreign archaeology teams to get excavation permits in Turkey. This year, though, dozens of scientists are still waiting for government permission even though the dig season has begun. Some suspect that politics and nationalism are in play.

On the surface, the mood is buoyant at the annual archaeology conference in southern Turkey. Eager academics, more than a few of them clad in khaki vests and breathable pants, engage in animated conversation as they network and discuss their pet projects. Outside, a warm sun is shining.

But looks are deceiving. For many of those present, the future is filled with uncertainty. The Turkish government in Ankara has still not granted annual permits to many of the excavations that the careers of the scientists present depend on. And there is concern that the reason for the delay has much more to do with the state of Turkey’s relations with the West than with the merits of the projects in question.

“This is not a scientific meeting,” says one German archaeologist who asked to remain anonymous because his permit is still pending(he had hoped to begin digging this month). “It’s all about politics. Everyone is talking about permits and being nice to the bureaucrats.”

The Germans here have reason to worry. The new Turkish minister of culture and tourism, Ömer Çelik, told SPIEGEL in March that some German-led excavations in Turkey are sloppy. “There are many that simply leave sites however they happen to look at the end of an excavation, disorderly and without having been restored in any way — a deserted landscape,” he said.

The interview was essentially a delayed response to insensitive comments made by the head of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, Hermann Parzinger, who told SPIEGEL a year ago that “Turkey doesn’t have an established system for preserving historical artefacts” and that cultural heritage “is the last thing they think about.”

The harsh words are part of a long quarrel between Germany and Turkey about the provenance of Turkish antiquities that fill German museums. Ankara wants them back and German museum directors have, in some cases, been slow to respond. German archaeologists fear that Çelik’s comments could be a hint that permits might be difficult to come by this year as a result — that science might fall victim to politics.

Becoming Frustrated

Numerous international teams in Turkey that were hoping to start digging in May have not yet been granted permits and dozens of archaeologists from universities around the world are simply waiting. Many archaeologists here at the 35th Annual Symposium of Excavations, Surveys and Archaeometry in Mugla are becoming frustrated by the delays.

“I want to start excavations soon,” said the German archaeologist. “I have a large team and I can’t tell anybody what is going to happen.”

He said there is a real possibility the team will break apart. For one, as the vacation season approaches, flights to Turkey are getting more expensive by the day — making it more difficult for scientists still in Germany to travel to the dig site. Furthermore, funding organizations can’t wait forever to find out if the dig will go forward. In short, a process that used to be a formality has become a ritual of nail-biting.

Many believe that the delays may be simply because Çelik has not been in office for long and that the efficiency of the permit system has suffered. Others, though, fear that Turkey’s approach to archaeology and artefacts is becoming suffused with nationalism.

There are currently far more Turkish-led sites than foreign-led digs. And the latter have been decreasing, from 48 in 2009 to 39 in 2012 — against 116 permits granted to Turkish teams, according to the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Many of the foreign permits, though, are for important sites that have been continually excavated by researchers from that country for decades and withdrawing permits in favor of a Turkish team could be detrimental.

Changing the Surgeon

“From my point of view, one could not excavate without the archives and without knowing what’s been done there for the last 100 years,” said a German archaeologist. “You could think about archaeology as a very complicated surgery. You don’t want to change the surgeon halfway through.”

Ankara denies that it is pursuing a strategy of nationalizing digs in the country. In a statement provided to SPIEGEL ONLINE, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism said it treated all permit applications equally, regardless of who they came from.

But many of the scientists at the symposium in Mula aren’t so sure. “The mistake of the last few years has been that of trying to combine science and politics,” said Mehmet Ösdoan, a professor emeritus at Istanbul University. “That hurts science.”

Money, though, could also be a motivation. Many Turkish and international archaeologists say that the current administration prioritizes economic development above everything else, including science. It is a complaint that echoes those of protesters who have been marching through the streets of cities and towns across the country in recent days. Archaeologists can cite numerous examples where important sites were destroyed in recent years during the rush to build things like dams, hotels and subways.

Furthermore, tourism in the country is booming; the number of annual visitors has skyrocketed in the last decade, from 15.2 million in 2002 to 36.7 million in 2012, and a visit to an archeology museum or important site from antiquity is on most itineraries. The grander the site or object, the better the tourism draw — a connection which, given that tourism and archeology permits are managed by the same ministry, Ankara is sure to have made.

“In the past, tourists went to a few select places,” said Ösdoan, who has worked in the field for 50 years. “Now they are everywhere.”

Turkey has also been flexing muscle when it comes to the return of artefacts and has adopted a much harsher tone. Indeed, the increasingly brusque and frequent demands being made of museums like the Metropolitan in New York, the Louvre in Paris and London’s British Museum are what prompted many archaeologists at the conference to bring up their concerns of nationalism. German museums in particular, which hold many excellent pieces from Turkish antiquity, have been a target.

Ethics and Politics

Often, though, it is difficult to determine just how a given object found its way out of Turkey. Despite the fact that the Ottoman Empire banned the export of antiquities in 1884, exemptions were sometimes granted, meaning that the decision as to whether a specific object should be returned is often more about ethics and politics than about legality and science.

“If they have the papers, they should put them on the table,” one German archaeologist, who asked not to be named, said about museums holding controversial items. “And if they don’t, they should return them. We are not in an age where we can fill our museums with stolen objects. That is not compatible with our values.”

Turkey has managed to get some items returned. But archaeologists have often played the role of pawn in the battle. For example, Germany sent the ancient Sphinx of Hattusa back to Turkey in 2011, but only following threats and, later, the withholding of digging permits for German teams. In 2009, German-led teams held 14 permits to lead excavations in Turkey; by 2012 that number had dropped to eight.

Germany is particularly vulnerable to such pressure. The Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation oversees several significant museums in the country while at the same time holding sway over the German Archaeological Institute that coordinates and funds German digs.

“In the US, archaeology is totally independent. We have no real sway nationally or among other universities (pertaining to the return of antiquities). Putting the pressure on archaeologists is just not effective in the US because we have no power,” said one American archaeologist who asked not to be named because he is waiting for a permit. “Germans are more under threat because there is more at stake.”

Judging by the more-than-weekly announcements of finds from various sites in Turkey, it sounds as if Turkey figures they have hit the point where they believe they can do things on their own. Still, it’s kind of disappointing that the archaeologists (and students going on digs) are the ones who get caught in the middle of fights which began probably before they were even conceived …

 

Digging to Resume at Sebastapolis

From Hurriyet:

After a 22-year hiatus, archaeological excavations will begin once again in the ancient city of Sebastapolis in the Central Anatolian province of Tokat’s Sulusaray district.

Sulusaray district administrator Yaşar Kemal Yılmaz said Sebastapolis was known as one of the most significant ancient cities in the Central Black Sea and Northeastern Anatolian region.

Yılmaz said the ancient city had been the capital of a number of states in the past. “One of the leading Roman cities, Sebastapolis, is regarded as a ‘second Ephesus’ by archaeologists and experts. It is a highly significant area. But because of some technical problems and a lack of interest, the excavations that were carried out between 1987 and 1991 were insufficient. The ancient city is in a bad and idle situation. We are doing our best for the protection of ancient pieces there with the help of security forces. Excavations should begin as soon as possible to unearth these works and present them to the world,” he said.

Yılmaz added that unearthing the ancient city was also important for Sulusaray district in terms of attracting visitors. “Sebastapolis has strategic importance. The ancient works will shed light on the past. Once the ancient city is unearthed, the district will be a center of attraction,” he said.

Yılmaz said the excavation works would begin this month under the leadership of the Tokat Museum Directorate and the scientific consultancy of Gaziosmanpaşa Univesity History of Department member Associate Professor Şengül Dilek Ful.

Ancient city of Sebastapolis

It is reported in some resources that the ancient city of Sebastapolis was established in the 1st century B.C. The ancient city was included in the Cappadocia region after being separated from the Pontus Galatius and Polemoniacus states at the time of the Roman Emperor Trajan between 98 and 117 A.D. It was known as one of the five largest cities in the Black Sea 2,000 years ago because of the fact that it was located on passageways and thanks to its thermal sources, which are still being used today.

As an indicator of its wealth at the time of the Roman Empire, Sebastapolis had the authority to print money. It is reported that the city lost its importance and was forgotten over time, largely due to big wars, destruction, disasters and changes to passageways.

Finds from Zakynthos

I’m somewhat skeptical about this one as it is being reported … from the Greek Reporter:

A submerged underwater archaeological site with extensive sunken architectural remains was found by the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities team at a depth of 200 to 600 m. off the Alikanas beach on northeast Zakynthos, the Ionian Sea Island, as archaiologia.gr revealed.

The team has begun exploring around the area since May 13, 2013, after an invitation made by the Municipality of Zakynthos.

The large site covers about 30,000 sq. m., something that reflects the existence of a significant ancient settlement in the Alikanas area. It contains a visible courtyard, ancient building material and at least 20 circular column bases, with a 34 cm hollow in the center where a wooden column may have been inserted.

Initial assessment leads to the result that the remains belong to a large ancient public building, which is probably related to the ancient city’s port. However, due to the absence of pottery from the surface, it is still not that easy to date the find.

The Municipality of Zakynthos along with the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities will proceed to more extensive research and mapping of the site as soon as possible, so as new evidence will be found of the history and topography of ancient Zakynthos.

The original article includes a photo of what might be one of the column bases. Even so — and acknowledging that the area around Zakynthos is earthquake prone — we’re talking a very large site which is supposedly 200m to 600m below the surface of the sea. That’s pretty deep for a major site to sink and no one to mention it. I’m very curious how this was explored (divers? submarine? robot?) and whether it might not make more sense to see this as one or more shipwrecks full of building materials … we definitely need more details on this one.

Battle of Mons Graupius Site Found (?)

From the Herald:

A HISTORIAN is claiming to have found the site of one of Scotland’s most significant battles.

Archaeologist Mike Haseler believes he has evidence to suggest that the battle of Mons Graupius took place in Moray.

Mons Graupius was a key battle for British independence against the repressive hand of Rome almost 2000 years ago.

According to the Romans, 10,000 Britons died that day at the hands of this first European super-state, while many others fled the scene.

Despite stringent efforts by experts, the site of the battle between the Romans and the Caledonians – in either 83AD or 84AD – has never been conclusively identified.

However, Mr Haseler believes his research strongly points to the battle taking place near Elgin, at Quarrelwood Hill to the north-west of the town.

He is now asking that experts pay closer attention to the site and examine what he believes to be a possible Roman fort a short distance away.

From his research and examining the formation of aerial crop circles, Mr Haseler believes he has discovered the fort just south of Elgin.

“I knew the site was a really good candidate from looking at old maps, but I never thought I would find what appeared to be the ditches of a Roman fort staring out at me from the computer screen,” he said.

“I have looked and looked at the evidence, and everything fits.

“I have been to the site, and it is just as described by the Roman writer Tacitus and, barring going up with a metal detector, which is clearly illegal, there is nothing else I can do but present the evidence I have for the public to decide.”

Mr Haseler, who is based in Lenzie, East Dunbartonshire, found the location while completing his certificate of field archaeology at Glasgow University.

Key to his discovery was his reconstruction of a second century map to help him pinpoint the homeland of the Caledonian tribe.

Considerable debate and analysis has surrounded the site of the battle, which is known to have taken place on Scottish soil.

Touted locations include Perthshire, to the north of the River Dee, while other historians have suggested it may have taken place in Kincardineshire or even Bennachie in Aberdeenshire.

However, Mr Haseler’s research brought him to Moray.

“It is the right size and the only way to prove or disprove it is to go public and ask for experts to assess the site,” he added. “The general position of the site is an excellent fit for Mons Graupius.

“The Caledonian army of about 30,000 would be gathering on Quarrel Hill and were probably expecting the Romans to take two days to reach them.

“Instead, I think [Roman governor] Agricola pressed on with a surprise attack and took only one.

“The Romans, having sent out scouts to select a suitable site for a temporary camp, would have arrived to the surprise and consternation of the Caledonians very late in the day, and made camp a few miles from the Caledonian army.

“So, the main battle would have been fought on the south of Quarrelwood Hill, and perhaps on the immediate plain in front.

“Having looked at all the possible candidates, I am convinced that this site is the best fit to what we know about the battle, mainly because most other sites are just too far south even to consider.

“Historians have been gradually moving the assumed locations of tribes further north, so a lot of the potential sites are now located too far south, but we simply don’t know what is there until we start digging.”

Of course the obvious question is to ask about any archaeological evidence that has already been found in the area …

UPDATE (a couple days later): Adrian Murdoch is also skeptical: Battle of Mons Graupius Found?

From the Italian Press: Seeking Remains from Trasimene?

Interesting item from Fresco di Web. The quickie version is thus: Back in 2004/5 they found anomalies associated with a high metal concentration in a certain area along  Lake Trasimeno. In terms of depth, apparently, it corresponds roughly with two millennia ago and so is thought to perhaps be remains of the Roman debacle there in 217 or so, but the article seems to be spinning the ‘phoenician tourism’ side of things. Whatever the case, it seems to be an ongoing project, but I don’t see any mention of archaeologists being involved (?!) …

Comincia oggi fino al 18 maggio un rilievo geofisico ad altissima risoluzione sul lago Trasimeno lungo il tratto di costa del Comune di Tuoro. Un progetto di ricerca geologico-storico-archeologica che vedrà al lavoro gli esperti del centro di ricerca Ismar (l’Istituto di Scienze marine) del Cnr di Bologna e che nasce a seguito di “un’anomalia” emersa durante la serie di studi, condotti nel 2004 e nel 2005 per conto della Regione Umbria all’interno del Progetto Carg-Cartografia geologica e geotematica del lago Trasimeno.
L’anomalia è dovuta a una concentrazione di metalli con punte massime essenzialmente localizzate nell’area compresa tra Tuoro, Passignano e Isola Maggiore. Secondo la stima del tasso medio di sedimentazione, la profondità indiziata corrisponderebbe a circa due millenni fa. Queste anomalie metalliche potrebbero riferirsi alla battaglia del Trasimeno, nel giugno del 217 a.C. (II Guerra Punica), il cui teatro di svolgimento in base alla più recente ricostruzione scientifica dei luoghi della battaglia (Gambini-Brizzi, 2008) sembra essere la piana di Tuoro. Polibio dice infatti che alcuni legionari tentarono di salvarsi gettandosi in acqua, ma il peso delle armature li trascinò a fondo. Di questi reperti non si son mai cercate le tracce.
È dunque possibile che siano custodite sotto metri di sabbie in questo tratto del lago di Tuoro, importanti testimonianze dello storico episodio. I rilievi fatti indicano la presenza di oggetti sepolti a profondità di qualche metro al di sotto del manto sedimentario.
Per tutta la durata delle indagini La Rotta dei Fenici e il Comune di Tuoro hanno previsto e richiesto l’assistenza archeologica sul campo, in accordo con la Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici dell’Umbria. Inoltre, il sistema Sonar che sarà utilizzato è assolutamente silenzioso e totalmente innocuo per la flora e per la fauna locale, nell’ottica di rispetto del paesaggio inteso come patrimonio da tutelare e custodire.
L’iniziativa in corso segue il lavoro svolto nel corso degli ultimi anni dal piccolo centro lacustre in collaborazione con la “Rotta dei Fenici”, itinerario culturale riconosciuto dal Consiglio d’Europa, che si propone come un sistema di sinergie tra diversi Paesi (ben 18, e oltre ottocento città di origine e cultura fenicio-punica), che pone le basi dell’interculturalità come fondamento di un Itinerario Culturale Mediterraneo. E che ha visto il Comune di Tuoro inaugurare prima i percorsi annibalici, itinerari turistico-archeologici della Battaglia del Trasimeno, e poi il Centro di Documentazione a Palazzo del Capra, che sta registrando un buon successo di visite da parte di turisti e gite organizzate.
«Con questi rilievi – spiega Lorenzo Borgia, assessore alla Cultura del Comune di Tuoro – intendiamo apportare il nostro contributo alla ricerca di un nuovo rapporto tra l’uomo e il patrimonio culturale e naturale che lo circonda, confidando nei migliori risultati».