SUALTI ARKEOLOJİK KÜLTÜR VARLIKLARININ IN SITU KORUMA YÖNTEMLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 33, 191 - 214, 01.06.2024

Hiranur Gültekin , Namık Kılıç

https://doi.org/10.18603/sanatvetasarim.1375920

Öz

Sualtı kültür varlıklarının in situ olarak korunması, 2001 yılından beri uluslararası projeler kapsamında etkileri değerlendirilen bir çalışma alanıdır. 2001 yılında kabul edilen, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)’nun uluslararası ‘Sualtı Kültür Mirasının Korunması Sözleşmesi’nde in situ koruma yönteminin tercih edilmesi gereken ilk yöntem olması gerektiği yönünde öneriler bulunmaktadır. Bir sualtında in situ koruma yapılmasına karar verildiğinde sit alanında kültür varlıkları üzerinde etkili olan; fiziksel, kimyasal, biyolojik çevresel risk unsurları ile alanda etkili olan insan kaynaklı risk faktörleri, koruma yönteminin seçiminde önem taşımaktadır. Farklı çevresel koşullar farklı koruma yöntemlerinin korunmasını gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışmada; denizel ortamda kültür varlıkları üzerinde etkili olan fiziksel, kimyasal, biyolojil ve insan kaynaklı risk faktörleri incelenmiştir. Bu risk faktörlerine karşı in situ koruma konusunda kullanılan ve uluslararası projeler ile etkinlikleri test edilen koruma yöntemleri incelenerek bu yöntemlerin karşılaştırması gerçekleştirilmiştir. Böylece Türkiye’de in situ koruma çalışmaları yapan ya da yapacak olan uzmanlar için bir kaynak oluşturmak hedeflenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sualtı kültür varlıkları, in situ koruma, önleyici koruma, bozulma faktörleri, arkeolojik kültürel miras

Kaynakça

• Baert, K. (2017). The role of asellus aquaticus on organic matter degradation on constructed wetlands, [Yüksek Lisans Tezi], Universiteit Gent, Faculty Of Biocience Engineering, Environmental Technology, Belgium.
• Baeye, M. & Demerre I. (2000). Sedimanation- erosion study and future modelling. Machu Final Report, 56-58.
• Bartuli, C. Petriaggi R., Davidde B., Palmisano E., Lino G. (2008). In Situ conservation by cathodic protection of cast iron findings in marine environment, 9th International Conference On Non Destructive Investigations And Microanalysis For The Diagnostics And Conservation Of Cultural And Environmental Heritage Of Art, 25–30 May 2008, Jerusalem.
• Bathencourt, M. Fernández-Montblanc, T. Izquierdo, A. González-Duarte. M. Muñoz-Mas, C. (2018). Study of the influence of physical, chemical and biological conditions that influence the deterioration and protection of underwater cultural heritage. Science of the Total Environment, (613- 614), 98- 114.
• Beaubien, S.E. Graziani, S. Annunziatellis, A. Bigi, S. Ruggiero, L. Tartarello, M.C. Lombardi, S. (2014). Spatial- temporal water column monitoring using multiple, low-cost Gaspro-pco2 sensors: implications for monitoring, modelling, and potential impact. Energy Procedia, (63), 3840– 3847.
• Björdal, C.G. (2012). Evaluation of microbial degradation of shipwrecks in the baltic sea. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, (70), 126- 140.
• Björdal, C.G. (2012b). Microbial degradation of waterlogged archaeological wood. Journal Of Cultural Heritage, (135), 118- 122.
• Björdal, C.G. & Nilsson, T. (2007). Reburial of shipwrecks in marine sediments: a long-term study on wood degradation. Journal Of Archaeological Science, (35), 862-872.
• Borges, L. Marckelbach, L. Cragg, S.M. (2014). Biogeography of wood-boring crustaceans (Isopoda: Limnoriidae) established in European coastal waters, PlosOne, Vol 9, Issue 10, 1-9.
• Breitzke, M. (2006). Physicalproperties of marine sediments, Marine Geochemistry, 27-71.
• Brennan, M.L. Davis, D. Ballard, R.D. Trembanis, A.C., Vaughn, J.I. Krumholz J.S. Delgado, J.P. Roman, C.N. Smart, C. (2016). Quantification of bottom trawl fishing damage to ancient shipwreck sites, Marine Geology, (371), 82- 88.
• Cámara, B. Alvarez De Buergo, M. Bethencourt, M. Fernandez Montblanc, T. La Russa, M.F. Ricca, M. Fort, R. (2017). Biodeterioration of marble in an underwater environment, Science Of The Total Environment, (609), 109-122.
• Can, A. & Sivrikaya, H. (2020). Evaluation of marine wood boring organism’s attack on wood materials in the Black Sea coastal region. Bioresources, 15(2), 4271- 4281.
• Caple, C. (2004). Towards a benign reburial context: the chemistry of the burial environment. Conservation And Management Of Archaeological Sites, 155-165.
• Caple, C. (2008). Preservation in situ the future for archaeological conservators?. Studies At Conservation, (53), 214- 217.
• Coroneos, C. (2006). A cheap and effective method of protecting underwater cultural heritage. R. Grenier, D. Nutley, I. Cochran (Eds.). Heritage At Risk Spatial Edition: Underwater Cultural Heritage At Risk: Managing Natural And Human Impacts (Special Edition, 55- 57). ICOMOS, Biedermann Offsetdruck.
• Crony, J.M. (1990). The Elements Of Archaeological Conservation, Contributions On Marine Material, London: Routledge.
• Davidde Petriagi, B. (2004). Methods and strategies for the conservation and museum display in situ of underwater cultural heritage, Archaeologia Maritima Mediterranea, 137- 150.
• Davidson, S. & Newton, R. G. (2003). Conservation And Restoration Of Glass, A. Oddy (Ed). Butterwoth-Heinmann Series In Conservation And Museology, Series Arts And Archaeology (Second Edition). Routledge.
• Di Laurea, T. (2014). In Situ Conservation Of The Shipwrecks In The Mediterranean Sea, Yayınlanmış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Universitâ Ca’foscari Venezia, Scienze Dell’antichitâ Letterature, Storia E Archaeologia, Venezia.
• Dix, J. Cazenave, P. Lambkin, D. Rangecroft, T. Pater, C. Oxley, I. (2000). Sedimanation- erosion modelling as a tool for underwater cultural heritage management. Machu Final Report, 48-53.
• Dorušić, V. & Čvrljak, M. (2019). Technological Protection Of An Underwater Archeological Site; A Newly Discovered Roman Shipwreck From The 1 st Century Bc, On The Island Of Pag, Croatia. International Conference In Management Of Accessible Underwater, Cultural And Natural Heritage Sites: “Dive in Blue Growth”, Athens, Greece, 16-18 October 2019.
• Eriksen, A. M., Gregory, D., Shashoua, Y. (2015). Selective attack of waterlogged archaeological wood by Teredo navalis and its implications for in situ preservation. Journal Of Archaeological Science, (55), 9- 15.
• Ezcurra, P. & Rivera- Collazo, I.C. (2018). An assessment of the impacts of climate change on Puerto Rico's cultural heritage with a case study on sea-level rise. Journal Of Cultural Heritage, (32), 198- 209. Florian, M.L.E. (1987b). The Underwater Environment. S. G., Rees-Jones (Ed) Conservation Of Marine Archaeological Objects. Butterworth- Heinemann Series In Conservation And Museology (Second Edition, s.1-20). Routledge.
• Geldiay, R. ve Kocataş, A. (2014). Deniz biyolojisi (9. Basım). Dora Basım Yayın Ltd. Şirketi. Grave, B.H. (1924). Natural history of shipworm, Teredo navalis, at woods hole, Massachusetts, Biological Bulletin, 55(4), 260-282.
• Gregory, D. (1998). Re‐burial of timbers ın the marine environment as a means of their long‐ term storage: experimental studies in lynæs sands. International Journal Of Nautical Archaeology, 27(4), 343- 358.
• Gregory, D. (2020). Characterizing the preservation potential of buried marine archaeological sites, Heritage, 3(3), 838-857.
• Khakzad, S. & Van Balen, K. (2012). Complications and effectiveness of ın situ preservation methods for underwater cultural heritage sites. Conservation And Mgmt Of Arch. Sites, 14 (1-4), 469- 478.
• Kırkım, F. Kocataş, A. Katağan, T. Sezgin, M. (2006). Contribution tothe knowledge of the free- living isopods of the Aegean Sea coast of Turkey. Turk J Zool, (30), 361- 372.
• Kırkım, F. Özcan, T. Bakir, K. Katağan, T. (2017). The Isopod Crustacea of fethiye bay, Levant Sea, Surkey, North-Western Journal Of Zoology, 13(2), 244-250.
• Kocabaş, U. (1997). Arkeolojik Sualtı Kalıntılarının Konservasyonu (1. Baskı). Norm Ajans.
• Koçtaş, A. (2017). Oseonoloji, (11. Baskı). Dora Basın ve Yayın Ltd.
• Komorowicz, M. Wroblewska, H. Fojutowski, A. Kropacz, A. Noskowiak, A. Pomian I. (2018). The impact of 5 years underwater exposure in the Baltic Sea (Puck Bay) on selected properties of English oak wood samples. International Biodeterioration, (131), 40-50.
• Krause Jensen, D. Serrano, O. Apostolaki, E.T. Gregory, A.J. Duarte, C.M. (2019). Seagrass sedimanary deposits as security vaults and time capsules of the human past. Ambio, (48), 325- 335.
• Macleod, I.D. (2013). The mechanism and kinetics of in situ conservation of iron cannon on shipwreck sites. The International Journal Of Nautical Archaeology, 42(2), 382- 391.
• MacLeod, I.D. (2019). Corrosion and conservation management of the submarine hmas ae2 (1915) in the sea of Marmara Turkey. Heritage, 2(1), 868-883.
• Manders, M. (2012). In situ preservation, training manual for the unesco foundation course on the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage ın asia and the pacific. UNESCO 208- 242.
• Manders, M. (2017). How do we physically protect underwater heritage sites in situ, preserving a layered history of the western wadden sea: managing an underwater cultural heritage resource, [Doctoral Thesis] Universiteit Leiden.
• Manders, M. (Ed.). (2011). Guidelines for protection of submerged wooden cultural heritage, ıncluding cost benefit analysis, Wreck Project, Seventh Framework Programme, Amersfoort.
• Manders, M. (2008). In situ preservation: the preferred option. Museum International, 60(4), 31- 41.
• Martina, C. (2014). The Conservation and Restoration of Glass. B. Luca (Ed). Conservation of underwater archaeological finds manual. (Secon Edition, 39-46). International Centre For Underwater Archaeology in Zadar.
• Marzeion, B. & Levermann, A. (2014). Loss of cultural world heritage and currently inhabited places to sea- level rise. Environmental Research Letters, (9), 1- 7.
• Moncrieff, A. & Weaver, G. (1992). Cleaning, science for conservators, (2), Psychology Press, Routhlegde.
• Morrissey, J.F. & Sumich, J.L. (2012). Introduction to the biology of marine life (10. Edition). Jones & Barlett Publishers.
• North, N.A. & Macleod, I.D. (1987). Corrosion of metals, C. Pearson, (Ed.), Conservation Of Marine Archaeological Object (Second Edition, 68- 99). Butterworth Series In Conservation And Museology.
• Perez-Alvoro, E. (2016). Climate change and underwater cultural heritage: ımpacts and challenges. Journal Of Cultural Heritage, (21), 842– 848.
• Perez-Alvoro, E. (2001). Underwater Cultural Heritage: Ethical Concepts And Practical Challenges. Routledge.
• Pinna, D. (2001). Microbial growth and its effects on ınorganic heritage materials. E. Joseph (Ed). Microorganisms In The Deterioration And Preservation Of Cultural Heritage. (Open Accsess). Springer. Creative Commons license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Pournou, A. (2020). Biodeterioration of wooden cultural heritage: organisms and decay mechanisms in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, Springer E-Books.
• Pringle, H. (2013). Troubled waters for ancient shipwrecks. Science, 340(6134), 802- 807. Reinmann, L. Athanasios Vafeidis, T. Brown, S. Hinkel, J. Tol, R.S.J. (2018). Mediterenean UNESCO world heritage at risk from coastal flooding and erosion due to sea- level rise. Nature Communications, 9(1), 4161.
• Ricca, M. La Russa, M.F. (2020). Challenges for the protection of underwater cultural heritage (UCH), from waterlogged and weathered stone materials to conservation strategies: an overview. Heritage, 3(2), 402- 411.
• Richards, V. (2012). In situ preservation and monitoring of the James Matthews shipwreck site. Conservation And Mgmt Of Arch Sites, 14(1-4), 169- 181.
• Shefi, D. & Veth, P. (2015). A critical analysis and philosophical review of ‘rapid reburial’: the clarence project. The International Journal Of Nautical Archaeology, 00(00), 1– 11.
• Simĉiĉ, T. & Brancelj, A. (2006). Effects of pH on electron transport system (ets) activity and oxygen consumption in gammarus fossarum, Asellus aquaticus and Niphargus sphagnicolus. Freshwater Biology, (51), 686- 694.
• Singh, A.P. Kim, Y.S. Singh, T. (2016). Bacterial degradation of wood, Secondary Xylem Biology, Academic Press, 169- 190.
• Steyne, H. (2010). Cegrass, sand and marine habitats: a sustainable future for the William Salthouse wreck. J, McKinnon. & V, Richards (Eds.). In situ conservation of cultural heritage: public, professionals and preservation (40-49). The PAST Foundation.
• Varinlioğlu, G. (2020). Assesing a decade of Kaş underwater archaeopark. International Journal Of Nautical Archaeology, 49(1),74- 86.
• Votruba, G.F. Artzy, M. Erkanal, H. (2016). A set archaic anchor arm exposed within p. oceanica matte at Klazomenai/ Liman Tepe, Turkey: a contribution for understanding marine stratigraphy. Journal Of Field Archeology, 41(6), 671- 683.
• Williams, T. (2015). Preservation In Situ: Not An Ethical Principle, But Rather An Option Amongst Many, M. H, Van den Dries. S. J, Van der Linde. & A, Strecker (Eds.). Fernweh crossing borders and connecting people in archaeological heritage management, essays in honour of Prof. Willem J. H. WILLEMS (38- 41). Sidestone Press,
• Türkmenoğlu, E. (2021). Yenikapı 27 batığı: gemi elemanları, yapım tekniği ve yapısal özellikler. Art- Sanat Dergisi, (16), 557- 574.
• Yılmaz, A. (2002). Türkiye denizlerinin biyojeokimyası: dağılımlar ve dönüşümler. TurkishJournal Of Engineering And Environmental Sciences, (26), 219-235.
• Yılmaz, Z. & Şener, Y.S. (2019). Arkeolojik kazı buluntusu metallerin, kazıda bulunmalarından koruma onarım uygulamalarına kadarki süreçleri. Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, (23), 431-439.
• Quinn, R. (2006). The role of scour in shipwreck site formation processes and the preservation of wreck-associated scour signatures in the sedimanary record–evidence from seabed and sub- surface data. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33(10), 1419- 1432.
• İnternet Kaynakları
• ICOMOS. (1996). Sualtı Kültür Mirasının Korunması ve Yönetimi ile İlgili Tüzük, Icomos Türkiye Tüzükleri. Http://www.Icomos.Org.Tr/Dosyalar/Icomostr_Tr0882066001536913778.Pdf
• UNESCO. (2001). Convention on the protection of the underwater cultural Heritage. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/convention-protection-underwater-cultural-heritage?hub=66535.