|
©The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey - TAY Project
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurbanaga Magarasi |
|
|
For site maps and drawings please click on the picture...  |
For photographs please click on the photo...  |
|
Type:
|
Cave |
|
Altitude:
|
m |
|
Region:
|
Eastern Anatolia |
|
Province:
|
Kars |
|
District:
|
Kagizman |
|
Village:
|
Camuslu |
|
Investigation Method:
|
Excavation |
|
Period:
|
ÜP OP |
|
|
|
  |
|
| Location: This site is south of the city of Kars; southwest of the village of Çamuslu; a district of the town of Kötek; which is northwest of the town of Kagizman. Although we are not informed about the exact location of this cave; we know that it is on the eastern flanks of Mount Aladag; very close to Tombultepe. |
| Geography and Environment: The mouth of this cave; located about 6 km south of the Yazilikaya open-air habitation site and stele; faces south. The depth of the cave is 11.50 m; the interior width is 5.50 m while the width of the mouth is 12.50 m. The cave-art on the outer walls and on the ceiling of the cave was made by chiseling; a technique foreign to Yazilikaya. The panels depict goats; some with arrows shot into them; traps made of nets; wooden stakes and braided lassos. It is certain that these wall paintings date to the Palaeolithic. |
| History: |
| Research and Excavation: The cave was discovered in 1969 by Kiliç Kökten; who opened a 3.5x8 m test trench immediately outside the cave that same year. Unfortunately; detailed information on the strata and on the finds has not been published; although it is indicated that the upper levels of the site date to the Early Bronze Age. Beneath this is a layer where Upper and Middle Palaeolithic tools were found together. We are not certain whether virgin soil was reached. Because we do not know what levels the Palaeolithic artifacts came from; the dating of site should be viewed with scepticism. It takes place in the registered archaeological sites list prepared by Ministry of Culture and Tourism. |
| Stratigraphy: |
| Small Finds: There is nothing published on these tools and their typological characteristics cannot be deciphered from the photos [Kökten 1975:fig.9]. |
| Remains: |
| Interpretation and Dating: |
