Limited access: U-M users only
Access by request
Access via HathiTrust
Access via FulcrumF092: Yahşiler Tumulus
| dc.contributor.author | Aphrodisias Regional Survey | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2012-08-24T19:01:24Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2012-08-24T19:01:24Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2008-06-17 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | Page reference: Christopher Ratté and Peter D. De Staebler (eds.). Aphrodisias V. The Aphrodisias Regional Survey (Verlag Philipp von Zabern: Darmstadt/Mainz, 2012), 55, 58 - Book catalogue no.: Tumuli cat. 11. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/93095> | en_US |
| dc.identifier.other | F092 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/93095 | |
| dc.description | Local Name: Yahşiler | en_US |
| dc.description | Local Information: Exposed by looters beneath a high tension power line, a few 100 m north of the road between Yaşiler and Tavas, about 2.5 km east of Yahşiler | en_US |
| dc.description | Latitude: 37.37.48.814 | en_US |
| dc.description | Longitude: 28.54.32.438 | en_US |
| dc.description | Elevation: 988m | en_US |
| dc.description | Dimensions: Chamber: H: 2.45m; W: 1.87m; L: 2.60m ** Antechamber: H: 2.0m; W: 1.60m; L: 0.75–1.25m ** Dromos: H: uncertain; W: 1.60m; p. L: 1.1m ** Diameter of mound: c. 20-25m | en_US |
| dc.description | Description: Chamber. The chamber is built entirely out of a conglomerate rock of varying fineness; in places, it resembles sandstone, in others, terrazzo or coarse concrete. The first part of the chamber to be laid was the floor, consisting of slabs 0.2 m thick. The walls of the chamber were then built up in five courses, the lowest resting on top of the floor. This lowest course served as a kind of orthostat (H: 0.68 m) supporting couches (W: 0.71 m) socketed into the back (west) and south walls of the chamber. The couches were monolithic slabs (Th: 0.10 m). The couch on the back wall was supported on the back and both sides by the bottom course of the chamber walls; the couch on the south wall, by contrast,was simply cantilevered out from the south wall itself. Perhaps it was also supported from the bottom by, for example, legs at the corners, of which no trace remains. But it is also possible, since the couch slabs presumably projected through most or all the thickness of the wall (at least 0.4 m, as revealed by the robber's holes), that additional supports were not necessary. Both couches have been hacked away by the tomb robbers. ** Above the level of the couches, the courses of the walls become progressively less high (from 0.42 m to 0.35 m, 0.34 m, and 0.30 m), except for the fifth and final course (H: 0.36 m), which belongs to a kind of ceiling zone. Incorporated into this course are two transverse ceiling beams; in addition, all four sides of the chamber step inward 0.02 m. The ceiling beams are 0.35 m thick and so are essentially square in section. They are undecorated except for simple reveals (W: 0.03 m; D: 0.02 m) running along the long edges on their undersides. The west ceiling beam is 0.59 m from the west wall, the east beam the same distance from the east wall, but the two beams are 0.67 m apart. ** On top of the ceiling beams are three monolithic ceiling slabs. In one place where the edge of a ceiling slab has been chipped away, the upper part of the east ceiling beam has been revealed, showing that, rather than being flat on top, the beam has a notched profile, with the ceiling slab resting on a shallow ledge 0.07 m wide. The top of the central part of the beam is not visible. This detail would presumably have served to strengthen the ceiling beam, by making it thicker along its longitudinal axis and by ensuring that the weight of the ceiling slabs, which were quite adequately supported by the side walls of the chamber, did not fall along this line. If this interpretation is correct, then the beams were essentially decorative and nonstructural. ** The east wall of the chamber, which contains the doorway, is built differently from the other walls. The doorjambs are monolithic slabs (Th: 0.43 m). The door (W: 0.95 m) has been placed off center so as to accommodate a couch on the south wall. The north jamb (W: 0.22 m) is bonded into the bottom course of the north wall of the chamber but abuts on the upper two courses, and so is L-shaped in east and west elevation. On the exterior, the north jamb exhibits a simple reveal (W: 0.35 m; D: 0.6 m), presumably for socketing in a doorplug. The south jamb (W: 0.71 m) is entirely buried and so cannot be examined. ** Antechamber and Dromos. The antechamber and dromos are essentially a single architectural unit, a corridor (W: 1.60 m) giving access to the chamber. The only difference between them is that the antechamber was built, at least on its north side, of ashlar masonry and roofed by a single ceiling slab (the south side is not exposed), while in the dromos, the construction of the walls shifts to unmortared rubble (schist and quartz), and there was no roof. ** The north wall of the antechamber is in fact simply the continuation of the north wall of the chamber, which runs behind the north jamb of the doorway (except at the level of the bottom course). The main purpose of continuing the ashlar masonry beyond the doorway was presumably to support the ceiling slab, so as to protect the entrance to the chamber during construction of the tumulus. It is interesting to note that the masonry of the north wall projects irregularly beyond the edge of this ceiling slab (Th: 0.30 m). There was no need to end the ashlar section of the wall neatly here; on the contrary, the rubble-masonry continuation of the wall in the dromos was strengthened by being bonded into the ashlar masonry, rather than abutting on a straight joint. That the dromos was unroofed is shown by the fact that its rubble masonry continues above the level of the ceiling slab. As noted, the south side of the antechamber is not exposed. It must be built differently from the north side, inasmuch as it does not continue the same line as the south wall of the chamber. Presumably it abuts on the south doorjamb. It is worth noting that the antechamber and dromos are not centered on the doorway. Perhaps the builders felt that if the south wall were symmetrical with respect to the doorway with the north wall, the resulting corridor (W: 1.39 m) would be impracticably narrow. ** The floor, if there was one, of the antechamber and dromos has not been exposed. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Tumuli | en_US |
| dc.subject | 3: Hellenistic | en_US |
| dc.title | F092: Yahşiler Tumulus | en_US |
| dc.type | Other | en_US |
| dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Archaeology | en_US |
| dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Social Sciences | en_US |
| dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/93095/1/RS53.JPG | |
| dc.owningcollname | Aphrodisias Regional Survey |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.