From Threshold to Museum: Conserving a Rare Neolithic Footprint Feature

Öz

Located in Bursa Province, the site of Barcın Höyük yielded a residential complex of rectangular rooms dating to the seventh millennium BCE. Just inside the threshold of one of the dwellings dating to 6400 BCE, the 2014 excavations discovered a set of two human footprints. The preservation of such features is rare in archaeological contexts yet given the unusual sequence of burning and plastering episodes, the imprints survived the ensuing 8400 years practically unharmed. After presenting background on the Neolithic context of the footprints, the paper discusses the archaeological and symbolic aspects of footprints placed in thresholds in Anatolia and the Near East. While the discovery of a horned cattle cranium directly beneath the footprint adds to the symbolic nature of the find at Barcın Höyük, it nonetheless complicated the process of lifting the block unharmed. The main focus of the paper is the planning, lifting, conservation and restoration phases that enabled the feature to be removed as a complete block, which was eventually transported intact and delivered to the İznik Museum. Attention is given to the conservation and restoration treatments and techniques as well as the methods and materials used when the feature/block was supported, lifted carried, stored and installed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Archaeological conservation
• Block lifting
• Heritage preservation
• Anatolian Neolithic
• Barcın Höyük

Destekleyen Kurum

Netherlands Institute in Turkey, Koç University, Boğaziçi University

Proje Numarası

Barcın Höyük

Etik Beyan

We declare that the authors have no conflict of interest

Teşekkür

We thank the T.C. Ministry of Culture and Tourism for the permission to carry out the research at Barcın Höyük and Uludağ University and the İznik Museum for its logistical and/or lodging support. The Barcın Höyük project was directed by the Netherlands Institute in Turkey.

Eşikten Müzeye: Nadir Bir Neolitik Ayak İzi Kalıntısının Korunması

Öz

Bursa ili sınırlarında yer alan Barcın Höyük’te, MÖ yedinci binyıla tarihlenen dikdörtgen planlı odalardan oluşan bir yerleşim kompleksi gün yüzüne çıkarılmıştır. 2014 kazıları sırasında MÖ 6400 dolaylarına tarihlenen yapılardan birinin eşiğinde, insana ait iki adet ayak izi saptanmıştır. Arkeolojik bağlamlarda bu tür izlerin korunarak günümüze ulaşması son derece ender görülen bir durumdur; ancak burada sıvanmış yapının yangına maruz kalması sayesinde söz konusu izler yaklaşık 8400 yıl boyunca neredeyse hiç bozulmadan korunmuştur. Makale, öncelikle ayak izlerinin Neolitik dönem bağlamını ele almakta, ardından Anadolu ve Yakın Doğu’da eşiklere yerleştirilen ayak izlerinin arkeolojik ve sembolik anlamlarını tartışmaktadır. Ayak izlerinin hemen altında boynuzlu bir sığır kafatasının bulunmuş olması, Barcın Höyük buluntusunun sembolik önemini daha da artırırken, ayak izi içeren bloğun zarar vermeden kaldırılması sürecini de oldukça karmaşık hale getirmiştir. Çalışmanın temel odağı, bu yapının tek parça halinde kaldırılmasını ve bozulmadan İznik Müzesi’ne taşınmasını mümkün kılan planlama, kaldırma, koruma ve restorasyon süreçleridir. Bu kapsamda, bloğun desteklenmesi, yerinden kaldırılması, taşınması, depolanması ve yeniden yerleştirilmesi sırasında kullanılan yöntem ve malzemeler ile uygulanan koruma ve restorasyon teknikleri ayrıntılı biçimde değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Arkeolojik konservasyon
• Blok kaldırma
• Kültürel mirasın korunması
• Anadolu Neolitiği
• Barcın Höyük

Destekleyen Kurum

Netherlands Institute in Turkey, Koç University, Boğaziçi University

Proje Numarası

Barcın Höyük

Kaynakça

1. Gerritsen, F., & Özbal, R. (2019). Barcın Höyük, a seventh-millennium settlement in the Eastern Marmara region of Turkey. Documenta Praehistorica, 46, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.46.4
2. Özbal, R., & Gerritsen, F. (2019). Barcın Höyük in interregional perspective: An initial assessment. In A. Marciniak (Ed.), Concluding the Neolithic: The Near East in the second half of the seventh millennium BC (pp. 287–305). Lockwood Press. https://doi.org/10.5913/87913.CN.13
3. Van den Bos, E., & Gerritsen, F. (2024). Adjoining spaces, building communities: Agglutinative architecture at Neolithic Barcın Höyük in north-west Anatolia. In J. Sisa-López de Pablo, A. Bach-Gómez, & M. Molist (Eds.), Households and collective buildings in Western Asian Neolithic societies (pp. 103–115). Brepols. https://doi.org/10.1484/M.LEMA-EB.5.136709
4. Atamtürk, D., Özbal, R., Gerritsen, F., & Duyar, İ. (2018). Analysis and interpretation of Neolithic period footprints from Barcın Höyük, Turkey. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, 18(1), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1161355
5. Russell, N. (2011). Social zooarchaeology: Humans and animals in prehistory. Cambridge University Press.
6. García-Diez, M., Garrido, D., Hoffmann, D., Pettitt, P., Pike, A., & Zilhão, J. (2015). The chronology of hand stencils in European Palaeolithic rock art: Implications of new U-series results from El Castillo Cave. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 93, 135–152.
7. Lewis-Williams, D. (2004). Constructing a cosmos: Architecture, power and domestication at Çatalhöyük. Journal of Social Archaeology, 4(1), 28–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605304039849
8. Thomas, P. B. (2008). The riddle of Ishtar’s shoes: The religious significance of the footprints at ‘Ain Dara from a comparative perspective. Journal of Religious History, 32(3), 303–319.

9. Duru, G., & Özbaşaran, M. (2005). A “non-domestic” site in Central Anatolia. Anatolia Antiqua, 13(1), 15–28.
10. Erdoğu, B., & Ulubey, A. (2011). Colour symbolism in the prehistoric architecture of Central Anatolia and Raman spectroscopic investigation of red ochre in Chalcolithic Çatalhöyük. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 30(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2010.00356.x
11. Turner, V. (1967). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual. Cornell University Press.
12. Bell, C. (1992). Ritual theory, ritual practice. Oxford University Press.
13. Mohammed, M. H., & Mohammed, W. S. (2024). Evaluating nano Primal AC33 for protection and consolidation processes of archaeological pottery: A comparison study with silica and montmorillonite nanoparticles. Pigment & Resin Technology, 53(4), 484–492.
14. Colas, A. (2005). Silicones: Preparation, properties and performance. Dow Corning Life Sciences.
15. Rochow, E. G. (1987). Silicon and silicones: About stone-age tools, antique pottery, modern ceramics, computers, space materials and how they all got that way. Springer.
16. Baş, G., & Yaman, A. (2022). 3D modeling of historical artifacts with terrestrial photogrammetric method: Roman sarcophagus and tomb stele example. Cultural Heritage and Science, 3(1), 12–18.
17. Çakıcı, F. Z., & Kaçdi, R. (2023). Systematic analysis of the digital technologies used in the documentation of historical buildings. Cultural Heritage and Science, 4(2), 69–77.
18. Pulat, F., Yakar, M., & Ulvi, A. (2022). Three-dimensional modeling of the Kubbe-i Hasiye Shrine with terrestrial photogrammetric method. Cultural Heritage and Science, 3(1), 6–11.
19. Çubuk, G. (2024). 3D printing for the reinterpretation of architectural heritage: Proposal of a model. Cultural Heritage and Science, 5(1), 24–37.
20. Duran, Z., & Atik, M. E. (2021). Accuracy comparison of interior orientation parameters from different photogrammetric software and direct linear transformation method. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 6(2), 74–80.