Conference Presentations by Fatih Hakan Kaya
Studia Bithynica. Proceedings of an e-conference on the archaeology and history of Bithynia in north-western Anatolia, 10 May 2023 / Izmir, Turkey, Colloquia Anatolica et AegaeaStudia Bithynica. Proceedings of an e-conference on the archaeology and history of Bithynia in north-western Anatolia, 1..., 2023
Bithynia was an ancient region and Roman province located on the south-eastern edge of the Marmar... more Bithynia was an ancient region and Roman province located on the south-eastern edge of the Marmara Sea in the north-western part of present-day Turkey. It was bordered by Mysia, Paphlagonia and Phrygia. From the fourth century BC it was an independent Hellenistic kingdom, and around 74 BC it became a Roman province. During the seventh century AD it was incorporated into the Byzantine theme of Opsikion. It became a border region to the Seljuk Empire in the 13th century, and was conquered by the Ottoman Empire in the early 14th century. Several major cities of Bithynia set on the fertile shores of the Propontis or in the forested inland, such as Nicomedia (İzmit-Kocaeli), Nicaea (İznik), Chalcedon (Kadıköy), Cius (Gemlik), Prusa ad Olympum (Bursa) and Apamea Myrlea (Mudanya). Besides being a coastal region, it is also occupied by mountains as well as forests, and has valleys of great fertility. Since the studies of F. K. Dörner in the 1950s, archaeologically and historically Bithynia became a special focus in t he fields of ancient Anatolian studies.
42. Uluslararası Kazı, Araştırma ve Arkeometri Sempozyumu, 2023
Göndereceğiniz bildiri metinlerinin aşağıda belirtilen kurallara uygun olarak gönderilmesi, kitab... more Göndereceğiniz bildiri metinlerinin aşağıda belirtilen kurallara uygun olarak gönderilmesi, kitabın zamanında basımı ve kaliteli bir yayın hazırlanması açısından önem taşımaktadır. Bildirilerin yazımında kitaptaki sayfa düzeni esas alınarak; * Yazılar A4 kağıda, üstten 5.5cm. alttan 5cm. soldan 4.5cm. sağdan 3cm.lik bir boşluk bırakılarak, 10 punto ile, bir satır aralığı olacak şekilde, Times New Roman fontu ile en fazla 10 sayfa yazılmalı, * Başlık 14 punto, büyük harf ve bold olacak şekilde yazılmalı, * Bildiri sahiplerinin isimleri başlığın altında, sağ üstte yer almalı, alt alta sıralanmalı ve unvan kullanılmamalı, dipnotta unvan, adı soyadı, bağlı olduğu kurum, şehir, ülke ve e-mail adresi mutlaka yazılmalıdır. * Metinde ana başlıklar büyük harflerle ve italik, alt başlıklar, baş harfleri büyük ve italik olarak yazılmalı, * Metin içinde geçen yabancı sözcük ve terimler, örneğin "in-situ" italik olarak yazılmalı, * Metin içinde Milattan Önce gibi çok alışılagelmiş kısaltmalar dışında kısaltma kullanılmamalı, Milattan Önce ve sonra kısaltması: M.Ö., M.S. Erken Tunç Çağı: ETÇ olarak kullanılmalıdır. * Bölge adlarının ilk harfleri, aynı şekilde yer, coğrafya ve kurum adlarının ilk harfleri büyük yazılmalıdır. Örneğin: Doğu Anadolu, Yakın Doğu, Avrupa, Akdeniz Bölgesi, Dicle Nehri, Ankara Üniversitesi, Türk Tarih Kurumu gibi. * Ölçü ve ağırlıklar m. cm. mm. lt. gr. şeklinde yazılmalı, * Dipnotlar metnin altında ve metin içinde numaraları belirtilerek, 8 puntoda yazılmalı, * Dipnot ve kaynakçada (bibliyografya) kitap ve dergi isimleri italik yazılmalı, * Harita, çizim ve resimler 15 adetten fazla olmamalı, fotoğraflar JPG veya TlFF olarak gönderilmeli, gönderilen resimlerin çözünürlüğünün en az 300 pixel/ınch olmalı, * Çizimlere (Çizim: 1), resimlere (Resim: 1), haritalara (Harita: 1) olarak alt yazı yazılmalı ve kesinlikle levha sistemi kullanılmamalı, * Yayım için telif anlaşması gerektiren Googleearth gibi görseller kullanılmamalı, Yayınlanacak bildiri sayışının artması, kitapların zamanında basımını güçleştirdiğinden, bildirilerinizin sempozyum sırasında teslim edilmesi ya da en geç 1 Ağustos tarihine kadar,
41. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 2020
40. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 2019
BUĞDAYIN AKDENİZ’DEKİ YOLCULUĞU, 2019
Smyna/İzmir Kazı ve Araştırmaları III. Uluslararası Çalıştayı Özet Kitabı
Papers by Fatih Hakan Kaya
Cercetări Arheologice 31.2, 2024, 2024
In the last fifty years the Archaeological Museum of İznik (ancient Nicaea) in southeastern Marma... more In the last fifty years the Archaeological Museum of İznik (ancient Nicaea) in southeastern Marmara has acquired 14 new fibulae. Twelve of these fibulae date to the Phrygian period, and two examples are from the Roman period. Among Phrygian fibulae there are several examples of the type Caner 1983 A IV, 3 variant, which are most likely of local production in Bithynia. Two other examples appear to be unique due to their size and the shape of their bow. For the Roman period, one Aucissa fibula and one Zwiebelknopffibel are present, with a pairing that is also found in other Anatolian sites. At the end of the article in the appendix 1 we present a list, updated to the year 2024, of the all Zwiebelknopffibels known from Türkiye. In the appendix 2 we also present a list of all fibulae from the main archaeological fieldworks in Türkiye between 1983 and 2022 after the appearance of Ertuğrul Caner's publication in 1983. Résumé : Fibules de Nicée en Bithynie (sud-est de Marmara) Au cours des cinquante dernières années
2019-2020 YILI KAZI ÇALIŞMALARI, 2022
CERCETĂRI ARHEOLOGICE, 2024
In this paper 34 earrings are presented, all of which are curated in the Archaeological Museum of... more In this paper 34 earrings are presented, all of which are curated in the Archaeological Museum of İznik in southwestern Marmara region of Turkey. They are significant, as very few items of jewellery from Bithynia have been
published.
TUBA-AR, 2023
In this study, it was aimed to examine two sarcophagi with the depiction of Eros Komos and dated ... more In this study, it was aimed to examine two sarcophagi with the depiction of Eros Komos and dated to the Roman Period, which were found during the 2021 excavations in Hisardere Nekrolpol in the Iznik District of Bursa.In the study, analogical evaluations were made with the literature review, petrographic analyzes were carried out by taking samples from the sarcophagi and the ancient stone quarries in the vicinity in order to determine the quarries and workshops. As a result of the studies, it was seen that the use of Eros Komos depictions in Roman city and Attica sarcophagi became widespread after the second half of the 2nd century AD. In Anatolian workshops, complete and in-situ examples of sarcophagi containing these scenes, which were produced for a short time under the influence of Attica, are rare. In addition, a complete and in-situ example of the group of “plaster column sarcophagi” attributed to the Nicaea workshops, but which could not be definitively judged, is the subject of this study. During the literature studies, in addition to the canonical Eros Komos types, new types parallel to local beliefs were also identified in the sarcophagi examined in this article. These data, which were determined for the first time with this article, will shed light on other studies to be carried out.
SMYRNA/İZMİR KAZI VE ARAŞTIRMALARI III, 2019
European travellers writing about İzmir and environs in the XVIII-XIX. centuries have called the ... more European travellers writing about İzmir and environs in the XVIII-XIX. centuries have called the hot spring we know today as Halkapınar the “Diana Baths”. They have not specified what kind of building complex was found around the Halkapınar pond. Corinthian capitals kept inside the gardens of Halkapınar IZSU facilities today are also but a small part of the building materials here. These capitals, which enable us to date the building complex to an extent, are important in the sense that they bring together the testimony of the ancient age with that of XVIII-XIX. centuries. This paper discusses the dating of Halkapınar Corinthian capitals as well as the identity of the building complex found in this hot spring in the light of both ancient and XVTII-XIX. century sources.
Meltem , 2018
MÖ I. yüzyıldan itibaren imparatorluk kimliği kazanmaya başlayan Roma, hemen hemen tüm Akdeniz co... more MÖ I. yüzyıldan itibaren imparatorluk kimliği kazanmaya başlayan Roma, hemen hemen tüm Akdeniz coğrafyasının mutlak hâkimi haline gelmişti. Gerek Roma’da gerek merkezden yönetilen eyaletlerde İmparatorluk, ihtişamını düzenli şehirler ve bu şehirlerde girişilen imar faaliyetleri ile göstermekteydi. Akdeniz’de yaşanmaya başlanan Roma Barışı ile gelişen ticaret sonucunda kalabalıklaşan kentlerde kamu-sal alanların yeniden düzenlenmesi, hatta imar edilmesi ihtiyacı doğmuştur. Bu ya-şanan hızlı gelişim sonucunda Helenistik dönemden beri taş bezemeciliğinde öne çıkan kentler, yeni imar edilen Roma kentlerinde mimari bezeme biçemleri ile yeni akımlar yaratmışlardır. Ephesos, Pergamon ve Aphrodisias gerek hammaddeye olan yakınlığı gerek plastik işçiliğindeki gelenekleri nedeniyle tüm Anadolu, hatta Akde-niz coğrafyasında hâkim akımlar haline gelmiştir. MS II. yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren mimari plastik ve bezeme biçemini etkisi altına almaya başlayan Aphrodi-sias Okulu’nun yaratılarını, Roma, Yunanistan, Suriye-Filistin ve Kuzey Afrika’nın yeniden imar edilen kentlerinde görmek mümkündür. Aphrodisias Bezeme Oku-lu’nun özgün biçemini yansıtan eserlerin yanı sıra Anadolu dışında üretilen eserler-de yerel biçemlere, hatta unsurlara yer verdiği örneklere de rastlamak mümkündür. Yazılı kaynaklara göre Roma İmparatorluğu tekelinde olan taş ocaklarından mimari elemanlar yarı işlenmiş olarak sevk edilmekteydi. Olasılıkla sevk edilen bu başlıkla-ra taş ustaları da eşlik etmekteydi. Farklı lisanların konuşulduğu ve birden çok ırkın bir arada yaşadığı Roma kentlerinde, bu taş “ticareti” sanatsal etkileşim ile birlikte kültürel etkileşimi de beraberinde getirmekteydi.
Rome, which acquired the identity of an empire from the first century BCE, had become the absolute ruler of almost all of the Mediterranean. In both Rome and the provinces governed by the center, the Empire showed its grandeur through well-ordered cities and building activities in these cities. The need for reorganization and even reconstruction of public spaces emerged in the cities which got crowded as a result of the growing trade following the Roman Peace in the Mediterranean. As a result of this rapid development, the cities which were prominent in stone ornamentation during the Hellenistic period created new trends with their architectural ornamentation styles in the newly built Roman cities. Ephesos, Pergamon and Aphrodisias became dominant schools in Asia Minor and even throughout the Mediterranean due to their proximity to raw materials and their long tradition of working stone. It is possible to see the works of Aphrodisias School, which started to influence the architectural ornamentation style with the second half of the 2nd century onwards, in the newly built cities in Rome, Greece, Syria-Palestine and North Africa. In addition to the works that reflect the original style of Aphrodisias Ornamentation School, it is possible to see examples that include local styles and even elements in the works produced outside of Asia Minor. According to the written sources, the architectural elements of the stone quarries which were monopolized by the Roman Empire were shipped in semi-finished form. They were probably accompanied by stonemasons. In the Roman cities where different languages were spoken and multiple races lived together, this stone “trade” brought cultural interaction together with artistic interaction.
Uploads
Conference Presentations by Fatih Hakan Kaya
Papers by Fatih Hakan Kaya
published.
Rome, which acquired the identity of an empire from the first century BCE, had become the absolute ruler of almost all of the Mediterranean. In both Rome and the provinces governed by the center, the Empire showed its grandeur through well-ordered cities and building activities in these cities. The need for reorganization and even reconstruction of public spaces emerged in the cities which got crowded as a result of the growing trade following the Roman Peace in the Mediterranean. As a result of this rapid development, the cities which were prominent in stone ornamentation during the Hellenistic period created new trends with their architectural ornamentation styles in the newly built Roman cities. Ephesos, Pergamon and Aphrodisias became dominant schools in Asia Minor and even throughout the Mediterranean due to their proximity to raw materials and their long tradition of working stone. It is possible to see the works of Aphrodisias School, which started to influence the architectural ornamentation style with the second half of the 2nd century onwards, in the newly built cities in Rome, Greece, Syria-Palestine and North Africa. In addition to the works that reflect the original style of Aphrodisias Ornamentation School, it is possible to see examples that include local styles and even elements in the works produced outside of Asia Minor. According to the written sources, the architectural elements of the stone quarries which were monopolized by the Roman Empire were shipped in semi-finished form. They were probably accompanied by stonemasons. In the Roman cities where different languages were spoken and multiple races lived together, this stone “trade” brought cultural interaction together with artistic interaction.
published.
Rome, which acquired the identity of an empire from the first century BCE, had become the absolute ruler of almost all of the Mediterranean. In both Rome and the provinces governed by the center, the Empire showed its grandeur through well-ordered cities and building activities in these cities. The need for reorganization and even reconstruction of public spaces emerged in the cities which got crowded as a result of the growing trade following the Roman Peace in the Mediterranean. As a result of this rapid development, the cities which were prominent in stone ornamentation during the Hellenistic period created new trends with their architectural ornamentation styles in the newly built Roman cities. Ephesos, Pergamon and Aphrodisias became dominant schools in Asia Minor and even throughout the Mediterranean due to their proximity to raw materials and their long tradition of working stone. It is possible to see the works of Aphrodisias School, which started to influence the architectural ornamentation style with the second half of the 2nd century onwards, in the newly built cities in Rome, Greece, Syria-Palestine and North Africa. In addition to the works that reflect the original style of Aphrodisias Ornamentation School, it is possible to see examples that include local styles and even elements in the works produced outside of Asia Minor. According to the written sources, the architectural elements of the stone quarries which were monopolized by the Roman Empire were shipped in semi-finished form. They were probably accompanied by stonemasons. In the Roman cities where different languages were spoken and multiple races lived together, this stone “trade” brought cultural interaction together with artistic interaction.
This video conference took place on November 18, 2022 in Izmir, Turkey with an archaeological excursion to the sites and museums within the city of Izmir on November 19. All the lectures and discussions in our e-conference were on Zoom and in English, and were recorded for later viewing on YouTube for participants who were unable to attend the live performance presentation. The symposium was first announced in May 2022. Between May and September 2022 there were more than ten paper applications from six countries, including – in alphabetical order – Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, Russia, Turkey and U.S.A., ten of which were accepted. Three speakers held their lectures both physically in Izmir and virtually on Zoom; the rest of the papers were presented on Zoom. Session 1 was organized in the Main Conference Hall of the Faculty of Letters in Tınaztepe Campus (in Block C), and Session 2 was organized in the office of Professor Laflı. This book was arranged mainly in November 2022 where papers were placed in order by speakers’ turns at the conference. It was constantly being updated in its online version on our Academia account. It is also published by the Press House of the Dokuz Eylül University in December 2022.
This first symposium on the archaeology of western Anatolia is dedicated to the 20th death anniversary of Professor Ekrem Akurgal, founder of modern Turkish archaeology, who passed away on November 1st, 2002.
Records of the e-conference in YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1o__WLJLyM
Among Phrygian fibulae there are several examples of the type Caner 1983 A IV, 3 variant, which are most likely of local production in Bithynia. Two other examples appear to be unique due to their size and the shape of their bow.
For the Roman period, one Aucissa fibula and one Zwiebelknopffibel are present, with a pairing that is also found in other Anatolian sites.
At the end of the article in the appendix 1 we present a list, updated to the year 2024, of the all Zwiebelknopffibels known from Türkiye. In the appendix 2 we also present a list of all fibulae from the main archaeological fieldworks in Türkiye between 1983 and 2022 after the appearance of Ertuğrul Caner’s publication in 1983.
Keywords: Archaeological Museum of İznik, Nicaea, Bithynia, Türkiye, Phrygian fibulae, Urartian fibulae, Aucissa fibulae, Zwiebelknopffibels.
We are glad to inform you that an international e-conference on bone objects in the Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine in the eastern Mediterranean, Near East, Black Sea area and Balkans will take place on May 14, 2025 on Zoom.us. Ancient bone objects were found in relatively large quantities in the entire Mediterranean, from Spain to Syria and Egypt to France, where they were manufactured between the Neolithic and Medieval periods. The art of carving animal bones involves especially antler and horn. However, the spectrum of the worked bone objects recovered from Anatolia, rest of the eastern Mediterranean, Near East, the Black Sea area and Balkans is very varied, and reflects different characteristics of Graeco-Roman and Byzantine daily life. In these areas they were also utilised as grave goods secondarily. They were exported or imported over the entire ancient Graeco-Roman and Byzantine worlds.
In this conference papers dealing with ancient artefacts or objects manufactured by worked bone, antler, ivory, animal teeth, mother of pearl and cockleshell will be included. Main material groups made by bones are as follows: items connected to personal grooming, weaponry, artifacts used in to spinning or in pottery decoration, artifacts related to cosmetics, jewellery, combs, pins for clothing and women’s hair, items related to dressmaking and textile (particularly sewing needles, weaving implements or buttons), parts of soldiers’ equipment, items used for leather working, amulets and other magical items, knife handles, musical instruments, playing stones (e.g., lopsided dices), frames of various kinds (e.g., of mirrors), furniture (including fittings, wood sidings and inlayed decoration), boxes, plaques, writing items (for example, κάλαμοι, calami in Lat.), liturgical and religious items (e.g., crosses and reliquaries), half-finished products and miscellania. Just as in other Roman sites in the rest of the ancient world, hairpins are the most numerous artifacts made of bone or antler in the Eastern part of the Empire. Gaming pieces represent the other widespread and customary instrumentum category of the worked bones. Several other material groups also used during the proceesing of bone artefacts, for example, some objects may have been filled with coloured wax to make them to stand out.
So far the study of this material group has been overlooked, whereas there is still a huge amount of unpublished material from excavations, field surveys and museums in the entire Mediterranean and rest of the ancient world. There is a regular conference series of the Worked Bone Research Group (WBRG; cf. <https://www.wbrg.net/>) which include almost all periods and areas. In our e-meeting in 2025 we only focus on bone objects between the fourth century B.C. and the sixth century A.D., and attempt to set out a comprehensive model for the study of bone objects, including their definition, typology, chronology, contexts, function, regional characteristics, production and distribution patterns in the whole eastern Mediterranean geographies, including the Near East, Black Sea area and Balkans. The increasing number of recent finds in our concerned areas over the last thirty years, thanks to the development of preventive archaeology, has tended to challenge our previous observations and assumptions on Graeco-Roman and Byzantine worked bone objects.
It is also our intention to create a complete bibliography of previous publications on bone objects for several areas and chronologies.
We warmly invite contributions by scholars and graduate students from a variety of disciplines related to this material group. Intended to bring together scholars of Greek, Roman and Early Byzantine instrumenta / artefacts’ archaeology to discuss a range of issues concerning this material group characteristics, this video conference should be an excellent opportunity to increase our knowledge about ancient worked bones. The following theme groups are the main questions of the conference which are prescriptive:
- Bone objects from archaeological field projects, museums and private collections,
- Graeco-Roman bone objects in comparison with the bone objects of the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic periods, Bronze and Iron Ages,
- Graeco-Roman bone objects in comparison with the Minoan and Mycenaean bone objects,
- Etymology of bone objects in ancient Near Eastern, eastern Mediterranean and Aegean languages,
- Ancient Greek, Latin and Byzantine textual sources on bone objects,
- Typological evolution and design of bone objects,
- Selection criteria for some certain animal genres for bone-working,
- Decoration of bone objects, as detailed chronologies should be established for both the produced forms and their decoration,
- Chronologies of these objects that can highlight the social spread of these products,
- Manufacturing technics, manufacturing tools, major production centers and workshops of bone objects in the Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine periods, their organisation and interactions.
- Distribution of bone objects, economic and social aspects: in what type of socio-economic context are they found?,
- Typological and functional features of bone objects during the Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine periods: what might the utilitarian, social and/or symbolic functions or practices of these objects have been?
- Identification of the economic factors that contributed to the standardization in the bone-working,
- What ancient Greeks, Romans and Byzantines thought about afterlife? Bone objects in the eastern Mediterranean funerary contexts,
- The role of monastic or religious economy on Early Byzantine bone-working,
- Commodities and their trade through bone objects,
- Relations of bone objects to metal, terracotta, glass, wooden or stone objects: how did this material group fit in with objects made from different materials, particularly metal, glass, or wood? Can any stylistic links be found between them?
- Roman bone objects in the eastern and western Mediterranean and Europe, and their differences,
- Hellenistic and Roman gravestones and other iconographic media depicting bone objects,
- Conservation of worked bone objects, especially excavated finds: current strategies and future approaches,
- Archaeometric analyses of these objects,
- Miscellanea.
On these themes and questions, all approaches and methods susceptible to bring some progress to our current knowledge are of course welcome: archaeology, physical anthropology, archaeozoology, osteoarchaeology, bioarchaeology, palaeohistology, ancient history, history of art, cultural anthropology etc.
A special focus of the workshop is the identification of workshops from different regions, cities and areas, in particular capital cities (such as Byzantium, Ephesus, Pergamum, Antioch-on-the-Orontes, Alexandria, Athens, Rome etc.) with main workshops. A regional approach will enable us to understand the influences and contacts between workshops. Were these exclusively urban activities, or also rural? What motivated their establishment? Political powers, raw materials, the development of urban centres and the urban elite (merchants, craftsmen, religious orders, etc.) or economic outlets? And, are there any imitations or copies in certain localities suggesting competition between workshops?
Another important topic is the manufacturing techniques which were varied and depended on the composition and morphology of each raw material type as much as on the artefact to be produced. Regardless of the raw material, the manufacturing process of an ancient bone object was usually multi-stage:
1. Selection and acquisition of the raw material;
2. Preparation of the raw material, including cleaning, drying and cutting into pieces;
3. The appropriate working processes using instruments like knives, chisels, files, lathes and bow-drills;
4. Finishing the worked objects by grinding, polishing and colouring.
The previous finds reflect that mostly manufacturing techniques were related to an organized production where the different manufacturing stages were standardized and predefined which can be identified as a chaîne opératoire. Particular attention should be paid to these technical aspects, which are the integral parts of the uniqueness of most of the ancient worked bone objects.
Ancient bone objects were found in relatively large quantities in the entire Mediterranean, from Spain to Syria and Egypt to France, where they were manufactured between the Neolithic and Medieval periods. The art of carving animal bones involves especially antler and horn. However, the spectrum of the worked bone objects recovered from Anatolia, rest of the eastern Mediterranean, Near East, the Black Sea area and Balkans is very varied, and reflects different characteristics of Graeco-Roman and Byzantine daily life. In these areas they were also utilised as grave goods secondarily. They were exported or imported over the entire ancient Graeco-Roman and Byzantine worlds.
In this conference papers dealing with ancient artefacts or objects manufactured by worked bone, antler, ivory, animal teeth, mother of pearl and cockleshell will be included. Main material groups made by bones are as follows: items connected to personal grooming, weaponry, artifacts used in to spinning or in pottery decoration, artifacts related to cosmetics, jewellery, combs, pins for clothing and women’s hair, items related to dressmaking and textile (particularly sewing needles, weaving implements or buttons), parts of soldiers’ equipment, items used for leather working, amulets and other magical items, knife handles, musical instruments, playing stones (e.g., lopsided dices), frames of various kinds (e.g., of mirrors), furniture (including fittings, wood sidings and inlayed decoration), boxes, plaques, writing items (for example, κάλαμοι, calami in Lat.), liturgical and religious items (e.g., crosses and reliquaries), half-finished products and miscellania. Just as in other Roman sites in the rest of the ancient world, hairpins are the most numerous artifacts made of bone or antler in the Eastern part of the Empire. Gaming pieces represent the other widespread and customary instrumentum category of the worked bones. Several other material groups also used during the proceesing of bone artefacts, for example, some objects may have been filled with coloured wax to make them to stand out.
So far the study of this material group has been overlooked, whereas there is still a huge amount of unpublished material from excavations, field surveys and museums in the entire Mediterranean and rest of the ancient world. There is a regular conference series of the Worked Bone Research Group (WBRG; cf. <https://www.wbrg.net/>) which include almost all periods and areas. In our e-meeting in 2025 we only focus on bone objects between the fourth century B.C. and the sixth century A.D., and attempt to set out a comprehensive model for the study of bone objects, including their definition, typology, chronology, contexts, function, regional characteristics, production and distribution patterns in the whole eastern Mediterranean geographies, including the Near East, Black Sea area and Balkans. The increasing number of recent finds in our concerned areas over the last thirty years, thanks to the development of preventive archaeology, has tended to challenge our previous observations and assumptions on Graeco-Roman and Byzantine worked bone objects.
It is also our intention to create a complete bibliography of previous publications on bone objects for several areas and chronologies.
We warmly invite contributions by scholars and graduate students from a variety of disciplines related to this material group. Intended to bring together scholars of Greek, Roman and Early Byzantine instrumenta / artefacts’ archaeology to discuss a range of issues concerning this material group characteristics, this video conference should be an excellent opportunity to increase our knowledge about ancient worked bones. The following theme groups are the main questions of the conference which are prescriptive:
- Bone objects from archaeological field projects, museums and private collections,
- Graeco-Roman bone objects in comparison with the bone objects of the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic periods, Bronze and Iron Ages,
- Graeco-Roman bone objects in comparison with the Minoan and Mycenaean bone objects,
- Etymology of bone objects in ancient Near Eastern, eastern Mediterranean and Aegean languages,
- Ancient Greek, Latin and Byzantine textual sources on bone objects,
- Typological evolution and design of bone objects,
- Selection criteria for some certain animal genres for bone-working,
- Decoration of bone objects, as detailed chronologies should be established for both the produced forms and their decoration,
- Chronologies of these objects that can highlight the social spread of these products,
- Manufacturing technics, manufacturing tools, major production centers and workshops of bone objects in the Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine periods, their organisation and interactions.
- Distribution of bone objects, economic and social aspects: in what type of socio-economic context are they found?,
- Typological and functional features of bone objects during the Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine periods: what might the utilitarian, social and/or symbolic functions or practices of these objects have been?
- Identification of the economic factors that contributed to the standardization in the bone-working,
- What ancient Greeks, Romans and Byzantines thought about afterlife? Bone objects in the eastern Mediterranean funerary contexts,
- The role of monastic or religious economy on Early Byzantine bone-working,
- Commodities and their trade through bone objects,
- Relations of bone objects to metal, terracotta, glass, wooden or stone objects: how did this material group fit in with objects made from different materials, particularly metal, glass, or wood? Can any stylistic links be found between them?
- Roman bone objects in the eastern and western Mediterranean and Europe, and their differences,
- Hellenistic and Roman gravestones and other iconographic media depicting bone objects,
- Conservation of worked bone objects, especially excavated finds: current strategies and future approaches,
- Archaeometric analyses of these objects,
- Miscellanea.
On these themes and questions, all approaches and methods susceptible to bring some progress to our current knowledge are of course welcome: archaeology, physical anthropology, archaeozoology, osteoarchaeology, bioarchaeology, palaeohistology, ancient history, history of art, cultural anthropology etc.
A special focus of the workshop is the identification of workshops from different regions, cities and areas, in particular capital cities (such as Byzantium, Ephesus, Pergamum, Antioch-on-the-Orontes, Alexandria, Athens, Rome etc.) with main workshops. A regional approach will enable us to understand the influences and contacts between workshops. Were these exclusively urban activities, or also rural? What motivated their establishment? Political powers, raw materials, the development of urban centres and the urban elite (merchants, craftsmen, religious orders, etc.) or economic outlets? And, are there any imitations or copies in certain localities suggesting competition between workshops?
Another important topic is the manufacturing techniques which were varied and depended on the composition and morphology of each raw material type as much as on the artefact to be produced. Regardless of the raw material, the manufacturing process of an ancient bone object was usually multi-stage:
1. Selection and acquisition of the raw material;
2. Preparation of the raw material, including cleaning, drying and cutting into pieces;
3. The appropriate working processes using instruments like knives, chisels, files, lathes and bow-drills;
4. Finishing the worked objects by grinding, polishing and colouring.
The previous finds reflect that mostly manufacturing techniques were related to an organized production where the different manufacturing stages were standardized and predefined which can be identified as a chaîne opératoire. Particular attention should be paid to these technical aspects, which are the integral parts of the uniqueness of most of the ancient worked bone objects.
We also need to look at the distribution of these objects on a local, regional, and even supra-regional scale, and trade networks. Some have crossed the overseas, such as Anatolian products unearthed in England. How can these exchanges be explained?
Our conference is primarily virtual, and will take place on Zoom; but if any of participant will wish to appear in Izmir physically, she/he is welcome to present her/his paper in our conference room to the audience which will also be livestreamed and broadcasted simultaneously on Zoom. The conference is free.