پایش ماهواره‌ای و باستان‌شناسی در تور عابدین، ترکیه: گزارش نهایی پروژه باستان‌شناسی فنلاندی سوئدی در بین‌النهرین (FSAPM)، ۲۰۱۴-۲۰۱۶

In 2014-2016 the Finnish-Swedish Archaeological Project in Mesopotamia (FSAPM) initiated a pilot study of an unexplored area in the Tur Abdin region in Northern Mesopotamia (present-day Mardin Province in southeastern Turkey). FSAPM is reliant on satellite image data sources for prospecting, identifying, recording, and mapping largely unknown archaeological sites as well as studying their landscapes in the region. The purpose is to record and document sites in this endangered area for saving its cultural heritage. The sites in question consist of fortified architectural remains in an ancient border zone between the Graeco-Roman/Byzantine world and Parthia/Persia. The location of the archaeological sites in the terrain and the visible archaeological remains, as well as their dimensions and sizes were determined from the ortorectified satellite images, which also provided coordinates. In addition, field documentation was carried out in situ with photographs and notes. The prospecting of sites in the Tur 'Abdin satellite imagery surpassed many of the expectations. In the first directory of archaeological sites identified, 40% are new and previously unknown, which is a small token of the huge research potential still hidden in northern Mesopotamia. Some variation appeared in the number of sites in each of the arbitrarily defined regions, and their characters appear to be quite different, too. The project has located new, important archaeological remains of the Roman military presence on the eastern border against Persia in late antiquity, and had also been able to suggest new border arrangements. Cover Title Page Copyright Page Contents List of Figures, Tables and Plates Figure 1. South-eastern Turkey. The city of Mardin (red) and the research area 2014-2016 (green). Figure 2. Detailed map with elevation contours of the region of Mardin and the high plateau of Ömerli. The research area is marked in the red dotted oval. Source and courtesy: Tactical Pilotage Charts G-4B (Date of production 8.4.2016), Stanfords Cartogra Figure 3A. Ömerli region, the research area, and the sites of Beşikkaya Fafe and Keferde. Figure 3B. Ömerli region, the research area, and the sites of Beşikkaya Fafe and Keferde in 1968. Figure 4. Source and credit: Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, extract from Map 89: Armenia. Northern Mesopotamia in the region of Mardin. The area is flanked in the east by the Mount Gaugalion and in the north by Mount Izala (ancient Mount M Figure 5. The area of the research project in Ömerli, Turkey, as shown on a map A. Poidebard drawn in 1933. Original scale 1:100 000. The red rectangular drawn in the north-east corner of the map illustrates the area east of present-day Mardin in the dire Figure 6. Keferde, Ömerli. General map. Figure 7. The suggested boundaries of the archaeological site of Keferde in Ömerli, measured on behalf of the Diyarbakir Cultural Heritage Preservation Regional Board Directorate within the scope of the Turkish National Inventory System (TUES) on digitiza Figure 8a. Keferde, Ömerli. Preliminary identification of the archaeological structures of the fortified site, according to the archaeological reconnaissance work in 2014-2016. Basemap: GeoEye-1 satellite image 2010. Figure 8b. Keferde, Ömerli. Red arrows mark the visible archaeological remains. In the west, the area of Features 34, 36-37 can be seen. In the north, parts of the Upper City buildings are visible, and in the east, the tower. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2023 Figure 9. Keferde, Ömerli. Building 3, gate to the west, SE to NW. Figure 10a. Area 4. Street between buildings 3 and 5, S to N. Ömerli Municipal staff at the site. Figure 10b, Area 4, Street and gate between Building 3 and 5. S to N. The corner of the wall. Figure 11. Area 4. Street between buildings 3 and 5, N to S. Photo No. 8579, Kenneth Silver. Figure 12. Rock-cut cistern in building 6 as seen from S to N. Photo No. 3200, Kenneth Silver. Figure 13. The tower with the collapsed remains, the buildings, and the walls above it along the north-eastern slope. Photo taken from the nearby hill, E to W. Photo No. 8486, Kenneth Silver. Figure 14. The tower with the still intact entrance in the western wall, W to E. Area Ξ. Photo No. 8505, Minna Silver. The Roman dirt road is seen in the background. Figure 15. The tower in area Ξ seen from SW to NE. The polygonal architecture of the masonry is clearly seen in the south-western corner of the tower. The Roman dirt road is seen in the background, and the hill to the right that served as a necropolis, a Figure 16. Building 7 with the gate in the background, NW to SE. Photo No. 3153, Kenneth Silver. Figure 17. Building 7 with the gate, SE to NW. Photo No. 8519, Kenneth Silver. Figure 18. Structure 27, S to N. Photo No. 3361, Kenneth Silver. Figure 19. Building 29 or gate, S to N. Photo No. 3367, Kenneth Silver Figure 20. Feature 34, corner wall, E to W. Feature 37 in the background to W. Photo No. 8889, Kenneth Silver. Figure 21. Feature 34, corner wall, S to N. Photo No. 3387, Kenneth Silver. Figure 22b. Feature 37 and corner wall, S to N, Photo No. 3401, Kenneth Silver. Figure 22a. Feature 37, N to S. Photo No. 8907, Kenneth Silver. Figure 23. A modern Bedouin house belonging to the local farmers, S to N. Photo No. 8919, Kenneth Silver. Figure 24. Ancient structures to the west of the modern house of the farmers, S to N. Photo No. 8918, Kenneth Silver. Figure 25. South-west slope, S to N. Photo No. 8928, Kenneth Silver. Figure 26. South-east slope with the tower, E to W. Photo No. 8559, Kenneth Silver. Figure 27a. South-west slope, reused late Roman or early Byzantine masonry, S to N. Photo No. 8916, Kenneth Silver. Figure 27 b. South-west slope, reused late Roman or early Byzantine architectural remains, seen embedded in a modern fence, S to N. Photo No. 8926, Kenneth Silver. Figure 27 c. Roman glass as seen in 2016. Photo No. 9016, Kenneth Silver. Figure 28. Entrance to quarry or cultic space 65, E to W. Photo No. 9170, Kenneth Silver. Figure 29a. To the left, quarry 65, western wall with a small cultic triangle-shaped niche to the left. To the right, a clearly visible, red-painted circle with a geometric design. Photo No. 9178, Kenneth Silver. Figure 29b. To the right, an attempted sketch of the basic geometric design in quarry 65. Figure 30. A niche and shallow ritual bath across the entrance to the chamber, NE to SW. Photo No. 9179, Kenneth Silver. Figure 31. Round underground cisterns, SE to NW. Photo No. 9181, Kenneth Silver. Figure 32. Round underground cisterns, S to N. Photo No. 9182, Kenneth Silver. Figure 33. Fragments of a basalt aqueduct seen on the ground, N to S. Photo No. 9165, Kenneth Silver. Figure 34. Keferde, hill to the east of the settlement with quarries and rock-cut tombs, SW to NE. Photo No. 9098, Kenneth Silver. Figure 35a. Keferde, entrance to one quarry, S to N. Photo No. 9103, Kenneth Silver. Figure 35b. Keferde, inside the quarry with chisel marks on the walls, and signs of modern reuse, probably arising from sheltering and keeping animals recently. Photo No. 9104, Kenneth Silver. Figure 36. The suggested boundaries of the archaeological site of Beşikkaya Fafe, Ömerli, measured on behalf of the Diyarbakir Cultural Heritage Preservation Regional Board Directorate within the scope of the Turkish National Inventory System (TUES) on di Figure 37. Beşikkaya Fafe. General view SE to NW along the hilltop. Photo No. 8684, Kenneth Silver. Figure 38. Beşikkaya Fafe. General view SE to NW. In front and to the left, remains of the massive fortifications, walls, and towers. Photo No. 8696, Kenneth Silver. Figure 39. Beşikkaya Fafe. Remains of the wall and massive tower on top of the ridge in the western sector, S to N. Photo No. 8686, Kenneth Silver. Figure 40. Beşikkaya Fafe. Remains of the wall and massive tower on top of the ridge in the western sector, NW to SE. Photo No. 8687, Kenneth Silver. Figure 41. Beşikkaya Fafe. Remains of the wall and massive tower on top of the ridge in the western sector. Interior of tower, W to E. Photo No. 8708, Kenneth Silver. Figure 42. Beşikkaya Fafe. Curtain wall and towers on the western slope, SW to NE. Photo No. 8693, Kenneth Silver. Figure 43. Beşikkaya Fafe. Curtain wall and towers on the western slope, NE to SW. Photo No. 8690, Kenneth Silver. Figure 44. Beşikkaya Fafe. Panorama of fortifications along the western slope, S to N. Photo No. 3261, Kenneth Silver. Figure 45. Beşikkaya Fafe. Remains of walls along the eastern slope, S to N. Photo No. 8714, Kenneth Silver. Figure 46. Beşikkaya Fafe. Byzantine church on top of hill, E to W. Photo No. 8713, Kenneth Silver. Figure 47. Beşikkaya Fafe. Byzantine church on top of hill, W to E. Photo No. 8719, Kenneth Silver. Figure 48a. Beşikkaya Fafe. Rock-cut cemeteries in the western ridge. Photo 2011: Courtesy Mardin Museum and the then director Nihat Erdogan. Unknown photographer. Figure 48b. Beşikkaya Fafe. Rock-cut cemeteries in the western ridge. Photo 2011: Courtesy Mardin Museum and the then director Nihat Erdogan. Unknown photographer. Figure 49. Beşikkaya Fafe graveyard in the late 1970s or early 1980s, according to Gernot Wiessner.2 Figure 50a. Preliminary reconstruction of the archaeological remains at the southern end of Beşikkaya Fafe, Ömerli (see also Figure 36 above). The base map was produced on the GeoEye 1 satellite image, complemented with the data from the documentation at Figure 50b. Enlargement of the visible archaeological remains at the southern end of Beşikkaya Fafe, Ömerli. GeoEye 1 satellite image, 2010. Mapping: Minna Silver and Kenneth Silver 2023. Figure 50c. Beşikkaya Fafe in 1968. To the left at the red arrow, the pre-Roman fortifications are visible, and on the southern, central crest, the E-W aligned fortification wall. The image also shows that the southern slope was quite forested. Mapping: K Figure 51a. The landscape of Çimenlik, S to N. In the center, plantations of grapevines.In the background, the small village of Çimenlik surrounded by the hills. Photo No. 8483, Kenneth Silver. Figure 51b. Çimenlik in 1968. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2023. CORONA satellite image. Declassified, Entity ID: DS1104-1025DA010_b. USGS, Earth Explorer. Figure 52. The village centre of Çimenlik, S to N. Possible remains of fortification walls and buildings. Photo No. 9193, Kenneth Silver. Figures 53-55. The village centre of Çimenlik, architectural fragments. Photo Nos. 9198, 9196, 9200, Kenneth Silver. Figures 56-57. The village centre of Çimenlik, plain column and worn capital. Photo No. 9187, 9189, Kenneth Silver. Figure 58. The village centre of Çimenlik, architectural fragment with decoration. Photo No. 9197, Kenneth Silver. Figure 59A. The village centre of Çimenlik, Byzantine (?) capital and block. Photo No. 9194, 9199, Kenneth Silver. Figure 60. Panorama from Keferde to the north and the Beşikkaya Fafe fort, N to S. Photo No. 3320, Kenneth Silver. Figure 61. 3D model of Keferde showing the cone-shaped hill, terrain, and the vegetation, SE to NW. Prepared by Markus Törmä in 2017 based on the data from the GeoEye-1 satellite, and information provided by Minna and Kenneth Silver. Figure 62. 3D model of the sites of Keferde and Beşikkaya Fafe showing the terrain, the altitude, the vegetation, and the Roman dirt road that connected the sites, and which continues to the south in the direction of Dara. View S to N. Prepared by Markus Figure 63. The Acropolis, the carved ledge. Photo No. 8755, Kenneth Silver. Figure 64. 3D model of Beşikkaya Fafe and Keferde showing the terrain, the altitude, and the vegetation, NE to SW. Prepared by Markus Törmä in 2017 based on data from the GeoEye-1 satellite, and the information provided by Minna and Kenneth Silver. Figure 65. Besikkaya Fafe. Ancient relief depicting a hunting lion above entrance to a private house on the hill. Photo: courtesy by M. Ali Açil. Figure 66. Beşikkaya Fafe, ancient relief depicting a lion hunting an antelope, as seen above the entrance to a private house on the hill. Photo: courtesy by M. Ali Açil. Figure 67. A lion hunting. Roman mosaic, ca. 3rd to 5th century AD. Sales Catalogue, August 13th, 2020, Artemis Gallery, America. Mentioned provenance: ex-Phoenicia Holland Antiquities, ex-Fortuna Art Gallery collected in the 1990s (?). Figure 68. Roman mosaic unearthed in Lod/Lydda, Israel, in 1996, from what appeared to be a private Roman villa from the early 4th century AD. Photo: Niki Davidov. Courtesy: The Israel Antiquities Authority Figure 69. Roman mosaic unearthed in Lod/Lydda, Israel, in 1996, from what appeared to be a private Roman villa from the early 4th century AD, a leopard and gazelle. Photo: Niki Davidov. Courtesy: The Israel Antiquities Authority. Figure 70. Roman mosaic unearthed in Lod/Lydda, Israel, in 1996, from what appeared to be a private Roman villa from the early 4th century AD, the lion and Persian deer in the upper registry of the central panel. Photo: Niki Davidov. Courtesy: The Israel Figures 71-72. Beşikkaya Fafe, relief depicting males wearing helmets or a religious headdress. Photo 2011: Mardin Museum, courtesy the then director Nihat Erdogan. Unknown photographer. Photo editing and AI techniques: Kenneth Silver Figure 73. ‘Excavations, tombstones at the entrance of the hall’, Mardin Museum exhibition. Courtesy: Mardin Museum, archive. Figure 74. Fafe tower tomb. Ancient metope fragment No. 1 depicting the torso of a nereid, water nymph or a male facing forward. Parts of the next panel are still attached to the circular medallion to the right, apparently from the panel portraying what l Figure 75. Fafe tower tomb. A fragment of a metope as seen in situ in Fafe by the Germans in the 1980s (G. Wiessner 1981, 155, Abb. 111). Figure 76. Fafe tower tomb. Metope No. 2. The information says: ‘Fafe Köyü’ or Fafe, village. Dolphin to the right? Courtesy: Mardin Museum, archive. Figure 77. Fafe tower tomb. Metope No. 3. Courtesy: Mardin Museum, archive. Figure 78. Fafe tower tomb. Metope No. 4. The museum label says: ‘Mardin kalesi’ or Mardin Castle. Courtesy: Mardin Museum, archive. Figure 79. Beşikkaya Fafe. A possible baptismal font of basalt. Photo 2011: Mardin Museum, courtesy the then director Nihat Erdogan. Unknown photographer. Figure 80. The Valley of Tombs in Palmyra, Syria, 18th century drawing, F. Cassas. Figure 81. The tower tombs of Palmyra as seen from an aerial perspective along the road into the city of Palmyra, A. Poidebard 1934. Figures 82-83. Fafe tower tomb. The east facade showing shallow engaged pilasters and Corinthian capitals. Below entablature, carved human torsos are set. Above the architrave is a carved frieze decorated with rinceaux, human heads and animals. Gertrude B Figure 84. Fafe tower tomb. View from the south-east showing shallow engaged pilasters and Corinthian capitals. Below entablature, carved human torsos are set. Fragment of Greek inscription on lower wall. Men seated nearby, horse in foreground. Gertrude B Figure 85. Fafe tower tomb. View of the south facade of the tower tomb showing shallow engaged pilasters and Corinthian capitals. Below entablature, carved human torsos are set. Fragment of Greek inscription on lower wall. Men seated in foreground. Gertru Figure 86. Fafe tower tomb. View of the south-east facade showing shallow engaged pilasters and Corinthian capitals. Below entablature, carved human torsos are set. Fragment of Greek inscription on lower wall Gertrude Bell Archives, Newcastle University, Figure 87. Fafe tower tomb. View of the east facade showing shallow engaged pilasters and Corinthian capitals. Below entablature, carved human torsos are set. A family seated in foreground. Gertrude Bell Archives, Newcastle University, R_177. Photographer Figure 88. Fafe tower tomb. The east façade, enlargement of the visible panels with the motifs (R_177). Figure 89. Fafe tower tomb. The south façade, enlargement of the visible panels with the motifs (R_174). Figure 90. Basilica of Neptune, Rome. Credit: http://www.JeffBondono.com. Figure 91. Basilica of Neptune, Rome. Detail of capital. Credit: http://www.JeffBondono.com. Figure 92. To the left, Fafe tower tomb. Enlargement of the dolphin metope in the eastern facade. Figure 93. To the right, Basilica of Neptune, the dolphins (Source: Wikipedia). Figure 94. Tomb of Elahbel, Palmyra, Syria. Library of Congress, Matson Collection 1920-1933. Figure 95. To the left, Tomb of Elahbel, Palmyra, Syria, details, Library of Congress, Matson Collection 1920-1933. Figure 96. To the right, Tomb of Elahbel, Palmyra. Roof construction with pilasters and Corinthian capitals. SYGIS, Kenneth Lönnqvist 2004. Figure 97. Fafe tower tomb. Fallen cornice block on the south-east slope of the tower tomb. Gertrude Bell Archives, Newcastle University, R_178. Photographer Gertrude Bell, April 22nd, 1911. Figure 98. To the left, Serrin tower tomb, Syria. Details of the facade and the carved animal torsos. Gertrude Bell Archives, Newcastle University Figure 99. To the right, Ersi tower tomb, Syria. Façade with pilasters. Gertrude Bell Archives, Newcastle University Figure 100. Tomb of Elahbel, Palmyra. Frontal view with the tabula ansata (inscription) above which is a funerary couched with a carved relief. Image: Gabriele Fangi 2015. Figure 101. Main Roman roads between Rome and Asia Minor, with the ‘empty area’ of the Ṭūr ’Abdīn, according to Mouterde and Poidebard 1945, 23. Figure 102. Assumed roads in Roman Mesopotamia and the Ṭūr ’Abdīn area. After the Peutinger Table in Miller 1962 edition, 253. Figure 103. The assumed borders of the Roman and Byzantine Empire towards Persia in late antiquity. After Freeman and Kennedy 1986. Partially redrawn by Kenneth Silver. Figure 104. Screen shot of the Ṭūr ‘Abdīn area from the Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire (Centre for Digital Humanities at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) showing Roman or Byzantine sites. Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 105. Roman/Byzantine Martyropolis/Justinianopolis/Silvan, aerial view, S to N. The mosque is marked with a red arrow. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Height ca. 650-665 m a.s.l, and image height 3 568 m. Coordinates: central poin Figure 106. Martyropolis according to A. Gabriel 1940, Figure 159 (Fig C2.1 in Gregory 1997, Vol. 3). Drawing of the ancient fort. The Grand Mosque is marked with a red arrow, as in Figure 105 above. Traces of ancient walls and lines can be seen in the ar Figure 107. Roman Amida, aerial view. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. View S to N, to the right the Tigris River. Height ca. 650-665 m a.s.l, and image height 4 576 m. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 54ˈ 39 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 14ˈ 11 ˈ̎ E. Mappin Figure 108. Plan showing Roman Amida S to N, according to A. Gabriel 1940 (Figure 142), the shaded eastern sector representing the suggested construction by Constantius II. Reproduced from Gregory 1997, Vol. 3, Figure C1.8. Out of copyright. Figure 109. Roman Amida, aerial view. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. View NW to SE, to the right the Tigris River. Height ca. 650-665 m a.s.l., image height 4 576 m. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 54ˈ 39 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 14ˈ 11 ˈ̎ E. In the Figure 110. Charcha/Kurkh/Üçtepe, aerial view S to N. Height of fort 600 m a.s.l. Image height 1 578 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 49ˈ 34 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 32ˈ 23ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 111. Charcha/Kurkh/Üçtepe, aerial view SW to NE, 3D. Height of fort 600 m a.s.l. Image height 843 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 49ˈ 34 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 32ˈ 23ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 112. Hasankeyf. General view S to N of the area in 2019 before the flooding. © Maxar WV02 image. World Imagery Wayback, ESRI, www.livingatlas.arcgis.com. Mapping: Kenneth Silver, 2022. Figure 113. Roman-Byzantine Hasankeyf. View S to N. Earth observatory, NASA. Operational Land Imager on Landsat 8. Image above taken on February 22nd, 2019. Figure 114. Roman-Byzantine Hasankeyf. View S to N. Earth observatory, NASA. Operational Land Imager on Landsat 8. Image taken on March 12th, 2020. The greatly increased basin is clearly visible in the NASA image above, resulting in the submerging of larg Figure 115. Roman-Byzantine Ripaltha/Ripalthas, 3D view, SW to NE. Image height 1 628 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 43ˈ 14 ˈ̎ N, 41 ̊ 13ˈ 37ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022 Figure 116. Roman-Byzantine Ripaltha/Ripalthas, 3D view, N to S. Northern and southern extensions shown by red arrows. Image height 1 026 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 43ˈ 14 ˈ̎ N, 41 ̊ 13ˈ 37ˈ̎ E. M Figure 117. Kaynagi 1/Derbent, aerial view 2D, S to N. Southern compound (No. 1): Height ca. 665-685 m a.s.l. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 39ˈ 49 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 53ˈ 17ˈ̎E. Northern compound (No. 2): height ca. 665-675 m a.s.l. Coordinates: central point: 37 Figure 118. Kaynagi 1/Derbent, 3D, W to E. The Savur Stream with the seasonal wadi is between the settlements, and the eastern compound up on the hill overlooking the valley. Image height 1 014 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Mappin Figure 119. Kaynagi 2, aerial view 2D, S to N. Height ca. 655-660 m a.s.l. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 41ˈ 05 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 52ˈ 25ˈ̎E. Image height 1 829 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 120. Kaynagi 2, aerial view 3D, NW to SE. View of the Savur Stream and the valley. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 41ˈ 05 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 52ˈ 25ˈ̎E. Image height 878 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 121. Hisarkaya, aerial view 3D, NW to SE, detail. Red arrows showing high walls. Height of fort ca. 770 m a.s.l. Image height 1 037 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 38ˈ 36 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 54ˈ 30ˈ̎ E. Figure 122. Suggested plan of Hisarkaya after Wiessner (1980, p. 9, Figure 1). Redrawn by Kenneth Silver. Figure 123. Hisarkaya, aerial view 3D, N to S. Height of fort ca. 770 m a.s.l. Image height 1 794 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 38ˈ 36 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 54ˈ 30ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 124. To the left, Zerzevan 1, 2D, S to N. Height of fort ca. 895 m a.s.l. Image height 2 283 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 36ˈ 31 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 29ˈ 56ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 125. To the right, Zerzevan sketch plan made by Deichmann and Peschlow, as published in S. Gregory 1997, Figure C5.1. Figure 126. Zerzevan 1, 3D, N to S. The dominance of the site in the landscape is easily recognizable from the 3D image. Height of fort ca. 895 m a.s.l. Image height 1 277 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: Figure 127. Zerzevan 2, S to N. Height of fort ca. 878 m a.s.l. Image height 1 586 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 35ˈ 08 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 30ˈ 10ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 128. Zerzevan 2, W to E. Height of fort ca. 878 m a.s.l. Image height 1 586 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 35ˈ 08 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 30ˈ 10ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 129. Rabat, aerial view, S to N. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Height ca. 952 m a.s.l., and image height 1 832 m. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 24ˈ 16 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 12ˈ 03 ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 130. Rabat, aerial view, SW to NE, 3D. View of fort along the ridge, moats in the front and the background. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Height ca. 952 m a.s.l., and image height 1 386 m. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 24ˈ 16 Figure 131. Rabat, aerial view northern perimeter, NW to SE, 3D. View of fort along the ridge, moats in the left, centre and right. The southern access roads are also seen in the background. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Height ca. 95 Figure 132. Rabat (centre, No. 1) and two unknown, probably ancient sites on a N-S axis that stretches ca. 9,2 km in the direction of Roman Amida/Diyarbakir. Seen S to N. CNES/Airbus/ Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Image height 17 000 m. Mapping: Figure 133. Rabat, Çukursu, aerial view, northern perimeter, S to N. View of site along the ridge, buildings in the north, and maybe animal pens in the south. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Height ca. 840 m a.s.l., and image height 1 7 Figure 134. Rabat, Çukursu, aerial view, SW to NE. View of site along the ridge, buildings in the north, and maybe animal pens in the south. Figure 135. Rabat, Çukursu, aerial view, NE to SW. View of site along the ridge, buildings in the north, and maybe animal pens in the south (up). CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Height ca. 840 m a.s.l., and image height 1 117 m. Mapping Figure 136. Rabat, Söğütözü, aerial view, 2D, S to N. Height ca. 762 m a.s.l., and image height 2 157 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 21ˈ 13 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 13ˈ 21 ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 137. Rabat, Söğütözü, aerial view, 3D, NW to SE. Height ca. 762 m a.s.l., and image height 2 157 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 21ˈ 13 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 13ˈ 21 ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 138. Sauras 1, S to N. Height of fort ca. 945 m a.s.l. Image height 5 884 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 32ˈ 30 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 53ˈ 13ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 139. Sauras 1, aerial view, 3D, W to E. View N (up) to S. Height of fort ca. 945 m a.s.l. Image height 5 884 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 32ˈ 30 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 53ˈ 13ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver Figure 140. Sauras 2, possible western fort, 2D, aerial view, S to N. Height of fort ca. 938 m a.s.l. Image height 1 724 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 32ˈ 57 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 52ˈ 49ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth S Figure 141. Sauras 2, possible western fort, aerial view 3D, W to E. Height of fort ca. 938 m a.s.l. Image height 1 331 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/ Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 32ˈ 57 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 52ˈ 49ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Si Figure 142. Roman-Byzantine Mardin, aerial view of castle and citadel, 3D, N to S. Height 942 m a.s.l. Image height 3 393 m. CNES/Airbus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 19ˈ 00 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 44ˈ 29 ˈ̎ E. North represents the direction of th Figure 143. Roman-Byzantine Benabil (Bülbül), 3D, S to N. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Height 1 085 m a.s.l. Image height 1 892 m. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 18ˈ 39 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 51ˈ 16 ˈ̎ E. Google Earth 2021. Mapping: Kenneth Silv Figure 144. Roman-Byzantine Benabil (Bülbül), 3D, N to S. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Height 1 085 m a.s.l. Image height 1 892 m. To the right, the village of Bülbül, and up centre, the valley and road to Mardin. Mapping: Kenneth Si Figure 145. Byzantine Dara, aerial view, S and N. The city and the ancient necropolis and the walls west of the city. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Height a.s.l. ca. 580 m, Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 10ˈ 53 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 57ˈ 12 ˈ̎ E. Figure 146. Byzantine Dara. The massive water cisterns or granaries, W to E. Photo: Kenneth Silver 2016. Figure 147. Byzantine Dara. General view of the necropolis and the road as seen S to N. Photo: Kenneth Silver Figure 148. Byzantine Dara. Partial view of the necropolis, the road, and the old quarries, E to W. Photo: Kenneth Silver Figure 149. Byzantine Dara. Byzantine tomb (6th century AD?) with a relief showing Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones, E to W. Photo: Kenneth Silver Figure 150. Byzantine Dara. Byzantine tomb (6th century AD?) with a relief showing Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones, details, E to W. The story of the Valley of Dry Bones in Ezekiel is connected to God’s promise to regenerate his people, the Jewish nati Figure 151. Byzantine Korde (Kurdis), 2D, S to N. Height 755-800 m a.s.l. Image height 2 499 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 13ˈ 45 ˈ̎ N, 40 ̊ 58ˈ 11ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 152. Unknown Roman-Byzantine fort (Yavruköy) found in 2022, 2D, S to N. Height 830 m a.s.l. Image height 1 457 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 14ˈ 11 ˈ̎ N, 41 ̊ 03ˈ 31ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silve Figure 153. Unknown Roman-Byzantine fort (Yavruköy) in 2022, 3D, N to S. Height of fort 830 m, and riverbed ca. 730-750 m a.s.l. Image height 1 457 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 14ˈ 11 ˈ̎ N, 41 ̊ 03ˈ Figure 154. The suggested boundaries of the archaeological site of Ömerli, Keferde, measured on behalf of the Diyarbakir Cultural Heritage Preservation Regional Board Directorate within the scope of the Turkish National Inventory System (TUES) on digitiza Figure 155. Roman-Byzantine Beşikkaya Fafe, 3D, N to S. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Height 994 m a.s.l. Image height 1 228 m. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 22ˈ 04 ˈ̎ N, 41 ̊ 05ˈ 23 ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 156. Roman-Byzantine Beşikkaya Fafe, 3D, W to E. Two hills with maybe two forts guarding passageways. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Height 994 m a.s.l. Image height 1 228 m. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 22ˈ 04 ˈ̎ N, 41 ̊ 05ˈ Figure 157. Roman-Byzantine Beşikkaya Fafe, S to N. Height 980 m a.s.l. GeoEye-1 image 2010. On top of the hill is the Turkish army garrison that has been considerably enlarged since 2010. It is unclear if there was an ancient fort, and what its shape may Figure 158. Beşikkaya Fafe, 2D, S to N. The Turkish garrison in 2022. Height 980 m a.s.l. Image height 2 107 m. Google Earth 2021. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 159. The suggested boundaries of the archaeological site of Beşikkaya Fafe, measured on behalf of the Diyarbakir Cultural Heritage Preservation Regional Board Directorate within the scope of the Turkish National Inventory System (TUES) on digitizat Figure 160. Çimenlik Mersê, 2D, NE to SW. Village as seen today. Height ca. 975 m a.s.l. Image height 2 168 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Coordinates: central point: 37 ̊ 23ˈ 29 ˈ̎ N, 41 ̊ 01ˈ 16 ˈ̎ E. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 161. Çimenlik Mersê and the prospected sites in the ancient river deltas. 3D, NE to SW. Image height 6 339 m. CNES/Airbus/Landsat/Copernicus, Google Earth 2022. Mapping: Kenneth Silver 2022. Figure 162. Part of the southern edge of the Nisibis towards al-Qhamisli and Syria, 2D, S to N. Visible parts of the ancient city have been sketched on the map in red colour. The Corinthian columns and capitals are marked with a red arrow, a focal point o Figure 163. Nisibis in 2016, N to S. The Corinthian columns and capitals in the present ‘no-mans-land’ between Turkey and Syria, one of the few archaeological remains still seen. This may have been the ancient forum of the In 2014-2016 the Finnish-Swedish Archaeological Project in Mesopotamia (FSAPM) initiated a pilot study of an unexplored area in the Tūr Abdin region in Northern Mesopotamia (present-day Mardin Province in southeastern Turkey). FSAPM is reliant on satellite image data sources for prospecting, identifying, recording, and mapping largely unknown archaeological sites as well as studying their landscapes in the region. The purpose is to record and document sites in this endangered area for saving its cultural heritage. The sites in question consist of fortified architectural remains in an ancient border zone between the Graeco-Roman/Byzantine world and Parthia/Persia. The location of the archaeological sites in the terrain and the visible archaeological remains, as well as their dimensions and sizes were determined from the ortorectified satellite images, which also provided coordinates. In addition, field documentation was carried out in situ with photographs and notes. The prospecting of sites in the Ṭūr ’Abdīn satellite imagery surpassed many of the expectations. In the first directory of archaeological sites identified, 40% are new and previously unknown, which is a small token of the huge research potential still hidden in northern Mesopotamia. Some variation appeared in the number of sites in each of the arbitrarily defined regions, and their characters appear to be quite different, too. The project has located new, important archaeological remains of the Roman military presence on the eastern border against Persia in late antiquity, and had also been able to suggest new border arrangements. Remote Sensing,Satellite Images,Roman Limes,Byzantine,Archaeological Survey,GIS,Mesopotamia Presents results from the Finnish-Swedish Archaeological Project in Mesopotamia (FSAPM) pilot study of T?r Abdin, Turkey. Aiming to record and document sites in this endangered area to save its cultural heritage, the sites consist of fortified remains in an ancient border zone between the Graeco-Roman/Byzantine world and Parthia/Persia. In 2014-2016 the Finnish-Swedish Archaeological Project in Mesopotamia (FSAPM) initiated a pilot study of an unexplored area in the T?r Abdin region in Northern Mesopotamia (present-day Mardin Province in southeastern Turkey). FSAPM is reliant on satellite image data sources for prospecting, identifying, recording, and mapping largely unknown archaeological sites as well as studying their landscapes in the region. The purpose is to record and document sites in this endangered area for saving its cultural heritage. The sites in question consist of fortified architectural remains in an ancient border zone between the Graeco-Roman/Byzantine world and Parthia/Persia. The location of the archaeological sites in the terrain and the visible archaeological remains, as well as their dimensions and sizes were determined from the ortorectified satellite images, which also provided coordinates. In addition, field documentation was carried out in situ with photographs and notes.