I

Anadolu Kültürlerine Bir BakışSome Observations on Anatolian Cultures

Armağan Erkanal’a ArmağanCompiled in Honor of Armağan Erkanal

II III

II III

Anadolu Kültürlerine Bir BakışSome Observations on Anatolian Cultures

Armağan Erkanal’a ArmağanCompiled in Honor of Armağan Erkanal

Editörler Kurulu / Editorial BoardNazlı Çınardalı-Karaaslan

Ayşegül AykurtNeyir Kolankaya-Bostancı

Yiğit H. Erbil

Hacettepe ÜniversitesiYayınları

IV V

Anadolu Kültürlerine Bir BakışSome Observations on Anatolian Cultures

Armağan Erkanal’a ArmağanCompiled in Honor of Armağan Erkanal

Editörler Kurulu / Editorial Board

Nazlı Çınardalı-Karaaslan

Ayşegül Aykurt

Neyir Kolankaya-Bostancı

Yiğit H. Erbil

ISBN: 978-

Kapak Fotoğrafı (Tasarım Zülfikar Akyüz) / Front Cover Photo (Design Zülfikar Akyüz)

Armağan Erkanal, Panaztepe, 1995 (Photo by Bora Uysal)

Panaztepe, 1992 - AV tholos mezarından Levant silindir mühür baskısı (Çizim, Derya Yalçıklı)

Panaztepe 1992 - Levant cylinder seal impression from tholos AV (Drawn by Derya Yalçıklı)

Tasarım / Book Design by

Suna Güler-Hökenek

Baskı / Printed by

1. Basım 2014 / First Puplished 2014

© Her hakkı saklıdır. Değerlendirme dışında yayıncı yazılı izni olmadan kitap içerisinden hiçbir kısım kullanılamaz ve çoğaltılamaz. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission from the Publisher except in the context of reviews.

IV V

İÇİNDEKİLER

Sunuş .............................................................................................................................................................................. IX

Preface............................................................................................................................................................................XI

Prof. Dr. Armağan Erkanal’ın Yayınları ................................................................................................................. XIII

Kutlama Listesi / Tabular Gratulatorum ................................................................................................................XIX

Akdeniz, EnginGediz Ovası’nda Stratejik Bir Yerleşim: Asartepe (Urganlı)............................................................................................ 1

Ateşoğulları, SonerHaymana, Bahçecik Nekropolü Kurtarma Kazısında Bulunan İki Küpe ....................................................................... 17

Ay-Efe, DenizKüllüoba Kazısında Ele Geçen Pişmiş Toprak Bir Figürün Gövdesi ............................................................................. 23

Aydıngün, ŞengülA New Interpretation for Western Anatolian Figurines of the Early Bronze Age .......................................................... 29

Ayengin, NurperiErken Tunç Çağı’nda Tekstil ve Dokumacılık ta Kullanılan Kemik Aletler .................................................................. 37

Aykurt, AyşegülAn Example of Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery: Krater from Liman Tepe ........................................................................ 55

Baltacıoğlu, HatçeHitit Yazılı Kaynaklarında ve Alaca Höyük Hitit Heykeltraşlık Eserlerinde Sfenks...................................................... 75

Bahçeci, MügeKültür Bakanlığı-Dünya Bankası Toplumsal Kalkınma ve Kültürel Miras Projesi Kapsamında Başlayan Bir Süreç: Pamukkale’de Alan Yönetimi 2000-2010.................................................................................... 101

Bilgi, ÖnderBir İlk Tunç Çağı Yerleşmesi İkiztepe’den Sembol Nitelikli Metal Buluntular ........................................................... 115

Börker-Klähn, Jutta Landeskundliches: Suppilulija, Karahna, Urista........................................................................................................... 131

VI VII

Böyükulusoy, KadirGediz Nehri ve Deltası.................................................................................................................................................. 147

Caymaz, TayfunMenemen Ovası Kuzeyinde Üç Prehistorik Yerleşimve Geç Kalkolitik Çağ’dan Erken Tunç Çağı’na Uzanan Süreçle İlgili Veriler ....................................................................................................... 157

Çelik, BahattinMale Figures in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period......................................................................................................... 171

Çınardalı-Karaaslan, NazlıPanaztepe’den Ele Geçen Kabartma Biçimli Cam Boncuk Üzerine Bir Çalışma ........................................................ 179

Efe, TuranKüllüoba İlk Tunç Çağı Boyalı Kaselerine Ait Birkaç Örnek ...................................................................................... 187

Engin, AtillaGre Virike Eski Tunç Çağı Seramiğinde Çömlekçi İşaretleri ....................................................................................... 197

Eran, YaprakHelen Kültüründe Bilgisel Aydınlanma ve Değişen Anıtsallık Anlayışı: Arkaik ve Klasik Çağlar ............................. 211

Erbil, Yiğit HayatiFasıllar ve Çevresi Yüzey Araştırması.......................................................................................................................... 227

Erkut, SedatHititler’de Demir Üretimi Üzerine Bazı Ayrıntılar....................................................................................................... 235

French, ElizabethChanging Patterns in the Contacts Between Anatolia and The Aegean World in the Second Half of The Second Millennium BC ................................................................................................................ 239

Günel, SevinçMÖ 2. Binde Çine Tepecik Yerleşmesinin Batı Anadolu Arkeolojisindeki Yeri ve Katkıları ...................................... 243

Horejs, BarbaraThe 2nd millennium BC in the Bakırcay (Kaykos) Valley. An overview ...................................................................... 257

Kaptan, ErgunAnadolu’da Eski Dönemlere Ait Ahşap Madenci Merdivenleri ................................................................................... 275

Kolankaya-Bostancı, Neyirİzmir Bölgesi Orta Tunç Çağı Yontmataş Endüstrisi: Gerileme ve Gelenek................................................................ 287

Müler-Karpe, AndreasHethitische Großköniginnen des Mittleren Reichs im Spiegel neuer Siegelfunde....................................................... 299

VI VII

Müller-Karpe, Vuslat Kayalıpınar’da Bulunmuş Olan Üç Silindir Mühür Baskısı Üzerine Değerlendirmeler .............................................. 309

Özfırat, AynurBozkurt Kurgan Mezarlığından Ayrışık Bir Kap .......................................................................................................... 319

Savaş-Güleç, Ersin, İsmail Özer, Başak Koca Özer, Mehmet Sağır ve Timur GültekinGeçmişten Günümüze Anadolu’da Beslenme .............................................................................................................. 327

Sevim-Erol, Ayla, Serpil Özdemir ve Yener Alper YavuzAntropoloji Bilimi ve Türkiye’de Gelişimi .................................................................................................................. 343

Sevin, VeliVan/Ernis –Evditepe ve Alacahan Mezarlık ve Yerleşimleri Işığında Kimi Düşünceler: Demir Çağlar Sorunu .................................................................................................................................................... 355

Strobel, Karl The Cimmerians in Asia Minor..................................................................................................................................... 369

Tekkök, BillurAyna ve Yansıma “Katoptrika” .................................................................................................................................... 387

Tuna, NumanMenderes (Cumaovası) Alt-Bölgesinde Geç Kalkolitik Çağ ve Erken Tunç Çağı Yerleşimlerinin Mekan Organizasyonu .................................................................................................................................................. 405

Türkçan, Ali, UmutNeolitik Çağ Çatalhöyük Simgeciliğinde Duvar Resimleri ve Damga Mühürleri ....................................................... 441

Uysal, BoraOylum Höyük’ten Ele Geçen Orta Tunç Çağı’na Ait Üç Başlı Yaratık Figürler .......................................................... 453

Uysal, GülfemMorphological Relation Between The Index of Foramen Magnum (FM) and Cranial Index...................................... 463

Ünal, AhmetFraudulent Premises of Anatolian Istoriography and Early Hittite Involvement in and Direct Control of Cilicia – Kizzuwatna ........................................................................................................................ 469

Yakar, JakThe Archaeology and Political Geography of the Lower Land in the Last Century of the Hittite Empire ................. 501

Yener, K. AslıhanAn Animal Frieze in Repousé on a Copper Plated Artifact at Alalakh......................................................................... 511

Yılmaz, DeryaErken Tunç Çağı’nda Batı ve Orta Anadolu’da Balkan Kökenli Başı Delikli İdoller .................................................. 517

VIII IX

462 463

MORPHOLOGICAL RELATION BETWEENTHE INDEX OF FORAMEN

MAGNUM (FM) AND CRANIAL INDEX

Gülfem UYSAL*

Özet

Kafatası ve Foramen Magnum (FM)’dan elde edilen ölçüler birçok çalışmada incelenmesine karşın bu çalışmaların bir çoğunda kadavralar ve röntgen filmleri kullanılmıştır. Bu araştırmalardan elde edilen sonuçlar, klinik çalışmalarda ve ameliyatlarda kullanılmak üzere büyük önem taşımaktadırlar. FM’nin boyutları birçok hastalığın habercisi olabilmekle beraber adli bilimlerde ve ırksal çalışmalarda kullanılabilmektedir. Bu çalışmadaki temel hedef, FM’nin morfolojik yapısını ve varyasyonlarını ortaya koymaktan çok, ölçülebilen özelliklerinin kafatasından elde edilen metrik değerler ile karşılaştırması esasına dayanmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı Foramen Magnum (FM) ölçülerinden yola çıkarak kafatası boyutları hakkında bir fikir yürütmek, hatta bu ilişkiyi formüle etmektir. Belirlenen örneklemin tümü Hacettepe Üniversitesi Biyolojik Antropoloji Laboratuvarında bulunan bazı iskelet serilerine ait kafataslarından oluşmaktadır. Buna göre 8 farklı kazı alanından gün ışığna çıkarılan toplam 120 kafatası; kafatasının en büyük uzunluğu (sagital diameter), kafatasının en büyük genişliği (transverse diameter), benzer biçimde foramen magnum (FM)’dan, en büyük uzunluk (sagital diameter), ve bu ölçümü dik kesen en büyük genişlikler (transverse diameter) milimetrik olarak ölçülmüştür. Bu değişkenler, genişlik x 100 / uzunluk formülüne yerleştirilerek kafatası ve foramen magnum (FM)’a ait endisler hesaplanmıştır. Materyalin % 63,3’ünü erkekler, % 27,5’ini kadınlar ve % 9,2’sini bebek ve çocuklar oluşturmaktadır. Elde edilen ölçümlere pearson analizi ve farklılıkların ortaya konması için student-t testi ve descriptive istatistikleri uygulanmıştır. Erkeklerin kafatası ve FM ortalama değerlerinin beklenildiği üzere kadınlardan % 5 anlamlılık düzeyinde daha büyük olduğu görülmüştür. Kafatası maksimum genişliği ve FM maksimum genişliği arasındaki pearson correlation coefficient değeri 0.293 olarak hesaplanmıştır ve bu değer de istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır (p: 0.003). Aynı şekilde FM maksimum uzunluğu ile kafatası maksimum uzunluğu arasındaki ilişki katsayısı 0.239 olarak hesaplamıştır, bu değer de istatistiki olarak anlamlı bulunmuştur (p: 0.016).

Introduction

There are many studies about the dimensions of the human skull and foramen magnum (FM) on cadavers and roentenograms. Size of the foramen magnum gives important information concerning the etiology of various clinical

* Dr. Gülfem UYSAL, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Antropoloji Bölümü, 06800, Beytepe, Ankara. guysal@hacettepe.edu.tr

464 465

conditions like achondroplasia, cerebellar herniation and neurologic diseases.1 Apart from clinical studies, dimensions of the FM have been used for sex determination in forensic medicine and anthropological analyses.2

This study is based more on the comparison of metric characteristics of FM and the skull then to introduce variations and morphological composition of FM. During the forensic and anthropologic exhumation of human burials, usually the skull is damaged except its base and the occipital bone. For this reason, these parts can be used for sex determination, cranial volume calculation and analyses of various pathologies on individuals. Aim of this study is to find a correlation and morever a mathematical formulation between the FM dimensions and dimensions of the skull in archaeological materials. For this reason possible relation between measurements and calculated indexes obtained from both skull and FM were examined statistically.

Material and Method

All the measures are taken from the skulls of some skeletal series haused at the Biological Anthropology Labouratory, Hacettepe University. There were no limitations about the materials to represent the same period since our aim was to test the relationship of measurable values. 120 skulls found in 8 different sites were measured (Tab. 1). All the measurements were made using compasses of the GPM Anthropologische Instrumente, Siber Hegner Maschinen AG company, Switzerland.

The material choice was performed with random distribution and among the samples 63,3 % were male, 27,5 % were female and 9,2 % were children and babies (Tab. 2). Differences between males and females was also investigated in which babies and children were excluded. Relation between the variables was assesed with Pearson analysis, differences were established with student-t test and descriptive statistics were performed.

Especially the skeletons from the Salattepe and Andaval excavations were fragmented and some measurements could not be made. Sex and age of the individuals were detected using the epiphyses, closing state of the cranial sutures, teeth eruption for children and teeth wear, development of the ribs and pubic sympyhsis, for the adults.3 4 anthropometric measurements were taken from the skulls. The greatest length of the skulls (sagittal diameter) was measured between the glabella (the most anterior point of the fore-head in the midline at the level of the supra-orbital ridges.) and opisthocranion (the posterior-most point of the skull in the median saggitale plane), the largest width between euryon (the points of greatest breadth of the brain case perpendicular to the median sagittal plane. The point is taken on parietal eminences above temporals) was measured between the parietal protuberances. Similarly, the greatest length (sagittal diameter) of the foramen magnum (FM) was measured between the basion (midpoint of the anterior margin of the foramen magnum) and opisthion (midpoint of the posterior margin of the foramen magnum) and greatest width (transverse diameter) was measured 90 degrees to the sagittal diameter in milimeters.4 Indexes for the skull and FM were calculated by the formula width x 100 / length.

1 Acer et al. 2006; Murshed et al. 2003; Kızılkanat et al. 2006; Muthukumar et al. 2005.2 Günay 2000.3 Ubelaker 1978, 70-75, Krogman and İşcan 1986, İşcan and Loth 1989, 45.4 Steele-Gentry and Bramblett 1988; Workshop of European Anthropologist, 1980.

Gülfem Uysal

464 465

Results

Initial analyses were performed excluding the babies and children. The main statistics for the adults are given at Table 3 and 4. Analysis were done discarding the sex differences and also performed for different sexes. Using the student-t test the dimensions in the males were significantly 5% greater than the females.

In order to show the possible corelation between the skull and FM diameters, Pearson correlation values were calculated for both measurements. 0,293 and this values was statistically significant (p: 0,003). Similarly Pearson correlation values between the skull transverse diameter and FM transverse diameter was 0,239 and this values was also statistically significant (p: 0,016). Scatter diagrams for width and length for both values are shown below (Grp.1 and Grp. 2).

The relation seems to be linear in the graphs but the linear regression model is not significant for the values. Although the Pearson correlation values were significant statistically, the changes in the measurements of the skull can not be explained using merely the measurements of FM. Additional explanations are required for the situation. Similar analyses were made on different sex groups but significant results could not be obtained.

Upon general view, the model and coefficients are valuable but since the measurement values are small and scatter graphs are irregular, this model seems inappropriate for assessment purposes.

Discussion

Acer et al.5 have found a well correlation between the intracranial volume, skull dimensions and foramen magnum surface area. The statistical difference between this study and our results may be due to the “height” variable which was not measured in our skulls.

In our material, the dimensions of the foramen magnum are greater in men than womenwhich is supported by many other studies.6 On the other hand, Lugoba and Wood, in their study on FM position in higher primates, have not found difference in different sexes.

The length (35,9 mm) and width (30,0 mm) of FM in our material were almost identical to the dimensions found by Mursdhed et al.7 (35,9 mm lenght and 30,4 mm width) in accordance to the dimensions found by Kızılkanat et al.8 (34,8 mm lenght and 29,6 mm width), Wanebo and Chicoine9 (36,0 mm lenght and 31,0 mm width), Olivera et al.10 (34,5 mm lenght and 29,4 mm width) whereas they were different from the dimensions found by Muthukumar et al.11 (33,3 mm lenght and 27,9 mm width), Berge and Bergman12 (33,8 mm lenght and 28,3 mm width) (Tab. 5).

5 Acer et al. 2006.6 Acer et al. 2006, 327, Murshed et al. 2003, 305.7 Mursdhed et al. 2003.8 Kızılkanat et al. 2006.9 Wanebo and Chicoine 2001.10 Olivera et al. 1985.11 Muthukumar et al. 2005, 890.

Morphological Relation Between the Index of Foramen Magnum (Fm) and Cranial Index

466 467

The index found by Kızılkanat et al. is different from ours due to the formulation in their study. Kızılkanat et al.13 calculated the index by the formula: length/width whereas our anthropometric FM index14 is calculated by the formula: width x 100 / length.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to staff of the Department of Anthropology, Hacettepe University, for their help and cooperation in the conduct of this study.

12 Berge and Bergman 2001.13 Kızılkanat et al. 2006.14 France 2003, 237.

Gülfem Uysal

466 467

Bibliography

Acer, N., B. Şahin, N. Ekinci, H. Ergür and H. Basaloğlu. 2006. “Relation Between Intracranial Volume and the Surface Area of the Foramen Magnum.” Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 17/2: 326-330.

Berge, J. K. and R. A. Bergman. 2001.”Variations in Size and in Symmetry of Foramina of the Human Skull.” Clinical Anatomy 14: 406-413.

France, D. L. 2003. Lab Manual and Workbook for Physical Anthropology. Wasworth.

Günay, Y. and M. Altınkök. 2000. “The Value of the Size of Foramen Magnum in sex Determination.” Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine 7: 147-149.

İşcan, M. Y. and S. R. Loth. 1989. “Osteological Manifestations of Age in the Adult.” Y. İşcan and K. A. R. Kennedy (eds.), Reconstruction of Life from the Skeleton: 23-40. New York.

Kızılkanat, E. D., N. Boyan, R. Sogmes and O. Özkan. 2006. “Morphometry of Hypoglossal Canal, Occipital Condyle, and Foramen Magnum.” Neurosurgery Quarterly 16/3: 121-125.

Krogman, W. M. and M. Y. İşcan. 1986. The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Springfield.

Luboga, S. A. and B. A. Wood. 1990.”Position and Orientation of the Foramen Magnum in Higher Primates.” American Journal of Physical American Anthropology 81/1: 67-76.

Muthukumar, N., Swaminathan R., Venkatesh G. and S. P. Bhanumathy. 2005. “A Morphometric Analysis of the Foramen Magnum Region as it relates to the Transcondylar Approach.” Acta Neurochir (Wien), 147: 889-895.

Murshed, K. A., A. E. Çiçekçibaşı and I. Tuncer. 2003. “Morphometric Evaluation of the Foramen Magnum and Variations in its Shape: A Study on Computerized Tomographic Images of Normal Adults.” Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 33: 301-306.

Olivera, E., A. L. Rhoton, and D. Peace. 1985. “Microsurgial Anatomy of the Region of the Foramen Magnum.” Surgical Neurology 24: 293-352.

Steele-Gentry, D. and C. A. Bramblett. 1988. Anatomy and Biology of Human Skeleton. Texas.

Ubelaker, D. H. 1978. Human Skeletal Remains: Excavations, Analysis, Interpretation. Chicago.

Wanebo, J. E. and M. R. Chicoine. 2001. “Quantitative Analysis of the Transcondylar Approach to the Foramen Magnum.” Neurosurgery 49: 934-943.

Workshop of European Anthropologist. 1980 “Recommendations for age and sex Diagnoses of Skeletons.” Journal of Human Evolution 9: 517-549.

Morphological Relation Between the Index of Foramen Magnum (Fm) and Cranial Index

468 469