Nif Dağı Metal Üretim Alanının Kaba Küme Temelli Mekansal Analizi

Yıl 2022, Sayı: 84, 65 - 81, 01.07.2022

Tutku Tuncalı Yaman

Öz

Nif (Olympus) Kazı Projesi, İzmir'in doğusundaki Nif Dağı'nın güneydoğusunda yer alan dört farklı kazı alanına sahiptir. Projenin önemli bir sahası, Arkaik Dönem'e ait bir kırsal metal üretim alanı olarak tanımlanan ve 500'e yakın demir ve bronz ok ucu, metal üretim fırınları ve cüruf gibi zengin buluntularıyla öne çıkan Karamattepe’dir. Söz konusu bağlam her ne kadar mekânsal analize uygun görünse de, Kuzey-Güney ekseninde doğal bir eğime sahip olan alan, modern dönemde yaklaşık 100 yıl boyunca tarım arazisi olarak bile kullanılmıştır. Bilindiği gibi hem doğal eğim hem de arkeolojik alanlarda gerçekleştirilen tarımsal uygulamalar özellikle küçük buluntuların yer değiştirmesine neden olmaktadır. Bu koşullar altında bağlam, deterministik yöntemler kullanılarak yapılacak mekansal analiz için uygun görünmemektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Karamattepe'deki metal üretiminin özelliklerini anlamak adına kaba küme teorisine dayalı mekansal bir analiz yapmaktır. Çalışılan veriler, CBS'den elde edilen ok uçlarının coğrafi konumlarını, alanda tespit edilen fırınlara Öklid mesafelerini, (ağırlık, uzunluk, v.b.) çeşitli metrikleri ve ok uçlarının analog tipolojisini içerir. Önerilen yaklaşımla metal buluntular ile üretim noktaları arasındaki ilişki belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışmanın, peyzaj arkeolojisinde mekansal analiz için çok boyutlu belirsizliklerin üstesinden gelmek için araştırmacılara ışık tutacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaba Kümeler, Mekansal Analiz, Metal Üretimi, Ok Ucu, Karamattepe

Rough Sets Based Spatial Analysis for Metal Production Area at Mount Nif

Öz

Nif (Olympus) Excavation Project has four different excavation areas where southeast of Nif Mountain, located in the east of Izmir, Turkey. A significant spot of the project is Karamattepe, defined as a rural metal production area in the Archaic Period, which outshines rich metal finds such as nearly 500 pieces of iron and bronze arrowheads, metal production furnaces, and slags. Albeit mentioned context seems suitable to spatial analysis, per contra, the area which has a natural incline in the North-South axis, had even been used as agricultural land for approximately 100 years in the modern period. As known, both natural slope, and agricultural practices such as plowing and spudding in archaeological sites cause translocation, especially in small finds. Under these circumstances, the context does not seem suitable for spatial analysis with deterministic methods. The goal of the study is to understand the specs of the rural metal production area at Karamattepe by spatial analysis. Studied data include geolocations of arrowheads that are obtained from GIS, their Euclidean distances to the furnaces, various metrics (weight, length, i.e.), and analogical typology as inputs. With the proposed Rough Sets-based approach, the relation between metal finds and production points is determined. It is thought that this study will shed light on the researchers to cope out multi-dimensional uncertainties for spatial analysis in landscape archaeology.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rough Sets, Spatial Analysis, Metal Production, Arrowheads, Karamattepe

Kaynakça

• Agapiou, A., Hadjimitsis, D. G., Georgopoulos, A., Sarris, A., and Alexakis, D. D. 2012. “Towards an Archaeological Index: Identification of the Spectral Regions of Stress Vegetation Due to Buried Archaeological Remains.” In Euro-Mediterranean Conference, 129-138. Heidelberg: Springer.
• Atanassov, K. 1986. “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20, 1:87–96.
• Banning, E. B. 2020. “Systematics: Classification and Grouping.” In: The Archaeologist's Laboratory. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Cham: Springer.
• Barceló, J. A. 2005. “Multidimensional Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Beyond The GIS Paradigm.” Presented at the GIS Symposium Reading the Historical Spatial Information in the World Studies for Human Cultures and Civilizations based on Geographic Information Systems ( February 7, 11, 2005, Kyoto).
• Barceló, J. A. 2009. “The Birth and Historical Development of Computational Intelligence Applications in Archaeology.” Archeologia e calcolatori 20: 95-109.
• Barceló, J. A. 2010. “Computational Intelligence in Archaeology. State of the Art.” In Making History Interactive. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA). Proceedings of the 37th International Conference, 11-21. Williamsburg, Virginia, United States of America: Archaeopress.
• Barceló, J. A. 2016. “The Role of Computers to Understand the Past. The Case of Archaeological Research.” it-Information Technology 58,2:104-111.
• Baykan, D. 2015. “Metal Finds From Nif-Olympus.” In: Recent studies on the archaeology of Anatolia, edited by E. Laflı, S. Patacı, 41-48. Oxford: Archaeopress.
• Baykan, D. 2015b. “Nif Dağı Kazısı Karamattepe ve Ballıcaoluk’ta Bulunan Ok Uçları.” MASROP E-Dergi, 9,12:1-40.
• Baykan, D. 2017. “Karamattepe (Nif Dağı) Verilerinin Anadolu Arkeometalürjisine Katkıları.” 32. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı (23 -27 Mayis 2016, Edirne), 105-118.
• Chan, H. F., Skali, A., and Torgler, B. 2020. A Global Dataset of Human Mobility (No. 2020-04). Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA), viewed 10 June 2021, <http://www.crema-research.ch/papers/2020-04.pdf >.
• Clarke, D. L. 1977. Spatial Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.
• Costin, C. L. 2001. “Craft Production Systems.” In: Archaeology at the Millennium, edited by G.M. Feinman, T.D. Price, 273-327. Boston: Springer.
• Dallas, C. 2016. “Jean-Claude Gardin on Archaeological Data, Representation and Knowledge: Implications for Digital Archaeology.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23,1: 305-330.
• Flannery, K. V. 1976. The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press.
• Gillings, M., Hacıgüzeller, P., and Lock, G. 2020. Archaeological Spatial Analysis: A Methodological Guide. New York: Routledge.
• Grzymala-Busse, J. W. 1988. “Knowledge Acquisition Under Uncertainty—A Rough Set Approach.” Journal of intelligent and Robotic Systems 1,1: 3-16.
• Hacıgüzeller, P. 2012. “GIS, Critique, Representation and Beyond.” Journal of Social Archaeology 12:245–263.
• Hahmann, S. and Burghardt, D. 2013. “How Much Information is Geospatially Referenced? Networks and Cognition.” International Journal of Geographical Information Science 27: 1171-1189.
• Hietala, H. J., and Stevens, D. E. 1977. “Spatial Analysis: Multiple Procedures in Pattern Recognition Studies.” American Antiquity 42:539- 559.
• Hodder, I., and Orton C. 1976. Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kaptan, E. 2016. “Nif (Olympos) Dağı Karamattepe’deki Cevher Zenginleştirmede Kullanılan Taş Alet”, In IV. ODTÜ Arkeometri Çalıştayı Türkiye Arkeolojisinde Taş: Arkeolojik ve Arkeometrik Çalışmalar, Prof. Dr. Hayriye Yeter Göksu Onuruna (7-9 Mayıs 2015 Ankara), 45-50.
• Karataş, İ., and Kırbaş, İ. 2015. “Özgür ve Açık Kaynak Kod Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemi Yazılımlarının Karşılaştırmalı Değerlendirmesi.” XVII. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı (AB2015) Eskişehir Türkiye, 68-74.
• Kintigh, K. W., and Ammerman, A. J. 1982. “Heuristic Approaches to Spatial Analysis in Archaeology.” American Antiquity 47,1: 31-63.
• Kvamme, K. L. 1999. “Recent Directions and Developments in Geographic Information Systems.” Journal of Archaeological Research 7:153–201.
• Lambrick, G. 2004. “The Management of Archaeological Sites in Arable Landscapes.” In Preserving archaeological remains in situ?: Proceedings of the 2nd Conference, 12-14 September 2001, edited by M. Corfield, et al., 168-173. London: Museum of London Archaeology Service.
• Lazar, A., 2002. “Heuristic Knowledge Discovery for Archaeological Data Using Genetic Algorithms and Rough Sets.” In Heuristic and Optimization for Knowledge Discovery, 263-278. Hershey: IGI Global.
• Lazar, A., and Reynolds R.G., 2003 “ Heuristic Knowledge Discovery for Archaeological Data Using Cultural Algorithms and Rough Sets”, In Heuristics and Optimization for Knowledge Discovery Vol. 2, edited by R. A. Sarker, H. A. Abbass, C. S. Newton. USA:Idea Group Publishing.
• Lee, H., and Kang, K. 2015. “Interpolation of Missing Precipitation Data Using Kernel Estimations for Hydrologic Modeling.” Advances in Meteorology 2015: 1-12.
• Lennox, P. (2012). “GIS is an important tool for local government.” Geospatial World. viewed 10 June 2021, https://www.geospatialworld.net/article/gis-is-an-important-toolfor-local-government
• McCoy, M. D., and Ladefoged, T. N. 2009. “New Developments in The Use of Spatial Technology in Archaeology.” Journal of Archaeological Research 17:263–295.
• Niccolucci, F., and Hermon, S. 2015. “Time, Chronology and Classification.” In Mathematics and Archaeology, edited by J. A. Barceló, I. Bogdanovic, 257-270. Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group.
• Noble, G., Lamont, P., and Masson-Maclean, E. 2019. “Assessing the Ploughzone: The Impact of Cultivation on Artefact Survival and the Cost/Benefits of Topsoil Stripping Prior to Excavation.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 23: 549-558.
• Pagliani, P., and Chakraborty, M. 2008. A Geometry of Approximation: Rough Set Theory: Logic, Algebra and Topology of Conceptual Patterns. Warsaw: Springer . Pawlak, Z. 1982. “Rough set.” International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences 11,5: 341-356.
• Pawlak, Z. 1991. Rough Sets Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Data. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Pawlak, Z. 1996. “Rough Sets, Rough Relations and Rough Functions.” Fundamenta Informaticae 27, 2, 3:103-108.
• Pawlak, Z. 2002. “Rough Sets and Intelligent Data Analysis.” Information Sciences 147,1–4: 1-12,
• Pawlak, Z. 2004. “Some issues on rough sets.” In Transactions on rough sets I, LNCS 3100, edited by J. F. Peters, et al., 1–58. Heidelberg: Springer Verlang.
• Pinder, D., Shimada, I., and Gregory D. 1979. “The Nearest-Neighbor Statistic: Archaeological Application And New Developments.” American Antiquity 44:430-445.
• Prędki, B., and Wilk, S. 1999. “Rough Set Based Data Exploration Using ROSE System.” In International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, 172-180. Heidelberg: Springer.
• Predki, B., Słowiński, R., Stefanowski, J., Susmaga, R., and Wilk, S. 1998. “ROSE-Software Implementation of the Rough Set Theory.” In International Conference on Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing, 605-608. Heidelberg: Springer.
• Robertson, E. C. 2006. Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. ‎Albuquerque: UNM Press.
• Russell, S. J. and Norvig, P. 1995. Artificial Intelligence a Modern Approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Talmage, V., and Chesler, O. 1977. The importance of small, surface, and disturbed sites as sources of significant archeological data (No. 183). USA: National Park Service, US Department of the Interior.
• Tulunay, E. T., Peker, M., Baykan, D., Lenger, D. S., Bilgin, M., and Baykan, C., 2019. “Nif (Olympos) Mountain Research and Excavation Project: 2019 Season.” 41. Uluslararası Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı Diyarbakır-Turkey, 11-32.
• Tulunay, E.T. 2006. “Nif (Olympos) Dağı Araştırma Projesi: 2004 Yılı Yüzey Araştırması.” AST 23,2: 189-200.
• Tuncalı Yaman, T. 2019. “A Model-Based Statistical Classification Analysis for Karamattepe Arrowheads.” Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 2,1: 1-9.
• Tuncalı Yaman, T. 2020. “Application of Multiple Imputation Using Fuzzy Archaeological Data.” In Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques in Big Data Analytics and Decision Making. INFUS 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1029, edited by C. Kahraman et al., 322-329. Cham: Springer.
• Verhagen, P. 2007. Case Studies in Archaeological Predictive Modelling. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
• Verhagen, P. 2012. “Biting Off More Than We Can Chew? The Current and Future Role of Digital Techniques in Landscape Archaeology.” In: Landscape Archaeology Between Art and Science. From a Multi- to an Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by S. J. Kluiving, E. Guttman-Bond, 309–320. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
• Verhagen, P. 2018. “Spatial Analysis in Archaeology: Moving into New Territories.” In Digital Geoarchaeology. Natural Science in Archaeology, edited by C. Siart, M. Forbriger, O. Bubenzer, 11-25. Cham: Springer.
• Wagtendonk, A., Verhagen, P., Jeneson, K., Soetens, S., and de Kleijn, M. 2009. “Past in Place: The Role of Geo-ICT in Present-Day Archaeology.” In Geospatial Technology and the Role of Location Within Science, edited by H. J. Scholten, R. van de Velde, N. van Manen, 59-86. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Whallon, R., Jr. 1973. “Spatial Analysis of Occupation Floors I: Application of Dimensional Analysis of Variance.” American Antiquity 38:266-278.
• Whallon, R., Jr. 1974. “Spatial Analysis of Occupation Floors II: Application of Nearest Neighbor Analysis.” American Antiquity 39:16-34.
• Wirth, L. 1925. “A Bibliography of the Urban Community.” In The City, edited by R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, 161-228. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Yager, R.R. 1986. “A characterization of the extension principle.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 18,3: 205–217.
• You, M., Xiao, Y., Zhang, S., Yang, P., and Zhou, S. 2019. “Optimal Mathematical Programming for the Warehouse Location Problem with Euclidean Distance Linearization.” Computers & Industrial Engineering, 136: 70-79.
• Zadeh, L. 1972. “Fuzzy-Set-Theoretic Interpretation Of Linguistic Hedge.” Journal of Cybernetics, 2: 4–34.
• Zadeh, L. 1975. “The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning-1.” Information Sciences 1975:199–249.