Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity: Select Papers 9781789692068, 9781789692075

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity contains a selection of some two dozen of t

870 105 33MB

English Pages [316] Year 2017

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity: Select Papers
 9781789692068, 9781789692075

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright page
Contents Page
Preface
List of Figures and Tables
Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies around the Black Sea*
Gocha R. Tsetskhladze
The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana*
A.V. Podossinov
5.22.3
Archaic East Greek Transport Amphorae: Secure Advances and Muddles. An Assessment
Pierre Dupont
Tekkeköy: Land of Legends from Past to the Future*
Sümer Atasoy
An Epigram for a Sinopean from Tomis
Alexandru Avram
Late Classical-Hellenistic Imports at Açic Suat (Caraburun) (4th-3rd Century BC)
Vasilica Lungu
The Chronology of Arrowhead and Dolphin-Shaped Monetary Signs from Berezan
Dmitry Chistov
Essay on the Economy of Myrmekion in Pre-Roman Times
Alexander Butyagin and Alexei Kasparov
The Necropolis of Porthmion (from the Excavations of 2004-2013)
M.Y. Vakhtina and P.G. Stolyarenko
Artyushchenko-1 Settlement on the Taman Peninsula (6th Century BC-4th Century AD)
Yurii A. Vinogradov
The Southern Pontic Import Discovered at Classical Period Sites in Ajara*
Amiran Kakhidze and Emzar Kakhidze
A Brief Report on the Archaeological Excavations in Gonio-Apsarus, 2014-2017*
Shota Mamuladze and Kakhaber Kamadadze
The Traces of the Chalcolithic Culture of Alaca Höyük in the Coastal Settlements of the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey*
Hulya Çalışkan Akgül
The Baruthane Tumuli at Amisos/Samsun
Sümer Atasoy
Evaluations of Iron Finds from the Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası Excavations
Ayşe Fatma Erol and Ertaç Yıldırım
New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris
Fatma Bağdatlı Çam, Ali Bora and Handan Bilici Altunkayalıer
The Ancient City of Sebastopolis in the Light of Archaeological Data and Inscriptions
Şengül Dilek Ful
Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia
Manolis Manoledakis
A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia
Şahin Yıldırım
The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük*
Şevket Dönmez
An Overview of Iron Age Sites of Zile District
Mehmet Özsait and Nesrin Özsait
Evaluation of the Recent Finds at Komana from the Early and Middle Byzantine Period*
Mustafa N. Tatbul and D. Burcu Erciyas
A Group of Glass Bracelets from Samsun Museum
Akın Temür and Özkan Özbilgin
Some Observations on the Dating of the Kavak Bekdemir Mosque in Samsun*
E. Emine Naza Dönmez
List of Contributors

Citation preview

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Select papers from the third international conference ‘The Black Sea in Antiquity and Tekkeköy: An Ancient Settlement on the Southern Black Sea Coast’ 27-29 October 2017, Tekkeköy, Samsun edited by

Gocha R. Tsetskhladze and Sümer Atasoy

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Select papers from the third international conference ‘The Black Sea in Antiquity and Tekkeköy: An Ancient Settlement on the Southern Black Sea Coast’ 27-29 October 2017, Tekkeköy, Samsun

edited by

Gocha R. Tsetskhladze and Sümer Atasoy with the collaboration of

Akın Temür and Davut Yiğitpaşa

Archaeopress Archaeology

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-78969-206-8 ISBN 978-1-78969-207-5 (e-Pdf)

© Authors and Archaeopress 2019 Cover: Sebastopolis, Roman baths.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Printed in England by Oxuniprint, Oxford This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Contents

Preface������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ iii List of Figures and Tables���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� iv Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies around the Black Sea������������������������������������1 Gocha R. Tsetskhladze The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������42 A.V. Podossinov Archaic East Greek Transport Amphorae: Secure Advances and Muddles. An Assessment�������������������������������52 Pierre Dupont

Western Black Sea Tekkeköy: Land of Legends from Past to the Future������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������69 Sümer Atasoy An Epigram for a Sinopean from Tomis�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������77 Alexandru Avram Late Classical-Hellenistic Imports at Açic Suat (Caraburun) (4th-3rd Century BC)�����������������������������������������������82 Vasilica Lungu

Northern Black Sea The Chronology of Arrowhead and Dolphin-Shaped Monetary Signs from Berezan��������������������������������������������99 Dmitry Chistov Essay on the Economy of Myrmekion in Pre-Roman Times���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������108 Alexander Butyagin and Alexei Kasparov The Necropolis of Porthmion (from the Excavations of 2004-2013)������������������������������������������������������������������������113 M.Y. Vakhtina and P.G. Stolyarenko Artyushchenko-1 Settlement on the Taman Peninsula (6th Century BC-4th Century AD)�������������������������������126 Yurii A. Vinogradov Eastern Black Sea The Southern Pontic Import Discovered at Classical Period Sites in Ajara�����������������������������������������������������������139 Amiran Kakhidze and Emzar Kakhidze A Brief Report on the Archaeological Excavations in Gonio-Apsarus, 2014-2017������������������������������������������������145 Shota Mamuladze and Kakhaber Kamadadze

Southern Black Sea The Traces of the Chalcolithic Culture of Alaca Höyük in the Coastal Settlements of the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������157 Hulya Çalışkan Akgül i

The Baruthane Tumuli at Amisos/Samsun����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������167 Sümer Atasoy Evaluations of Iron Finds from the Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası Excavations���������������������������������������������������������������������177 Ayşe Fatma Erol and Ertaç Yıldırım New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris����������������������������������������������������������������������������190 Fatma Bağdatlı Çam, Ali Bora and Handan Bilici Altunkayalıer The Ancient City of Sebastopolis in the Light of Archaeological Data and Inscriptions������������������������������������208 Şengül Dilek Ful Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������214 Manolis Manoledakis A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������226 Şahin Yıldırım The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������244 Şevket Dönmez An Overview of Iron Age Sites of Zile District����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������258 Mehmet Özsait and Nesrin Özsait Evaluation of the Recent Finds at Komana from the Early and Middle Byzantine Period��������������������������������272 Mustafa N. Tatbul and D. Burcu Erciyas A Group of Glass Bracelets from Samsun Museum��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������281 Akın Temür and Özkan Özbilgin Some Observations on the Dating of the Kavak Bekdemir Mosque in Samsun�����������������������������������������������������289 E. Emine Naza Dönmez List of Contributors�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������299

ii

Preface

initiative of the Governor and the Mayor and we are much obliged to both of them. 

This volume publishes a selection of some two dozen of the papers presented at an international conference held in October 2017 at Tekkeköy in Samsun, ancient Amisos, on the Turkish Black Sea coast. The archaeology sessions included presentations not only about the Tekkeköy/Samsun region but other parts of the Black Sea by participants from Bulgaria, France, Georgia, Romania, Russia, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The selection offered here includes almost all of the contributions on archaeology and ancient history. The conference spread its wings to include folklore, museology and tourism, but we felt that a more focused publication was necessary.

Many contributed to the success of the conference. We should like to thank in particular the Governor of Samsun, Osman Kaymak; Prof. Dr Sait Bilgiç (Rector), Prof. Dr Bekir Batı (Dean of the Faculty of Letters), Prof. Dr M. Yavuz Erler, Asst Prof. Dr Davut Yiğitpaşa, Asst Prof. Dr Tuba Yiğitpaşa and Asst Prof. Dr Akın Temür, of Ondokuzmayıs University, Samsun; and Hasan Togar, Mayor of Tekkeköy and Şeref Aydın, Director of Culture, Samsun Tekkeköy Municipality. In addition, we thank all of the participants in the conference and, especially, those who have submitted papers to the volumes. Our gratitude to Dr David Davison and his team at Archaeopress in Oxford for prompt publication and to Dr James Hargrave for assistance with copy-editing.

The conference was the child of Ondokuzmayıs University in Samsun (whose Archaeology Department regularly organises symposia on the Black Sea), the municipal authorities of Tekkeköy and the Governor of Samsun. It is unusual to find local public authorities keen to organise events such as this, particularly inviting overseas participation. This was a personal

Gocha R. Tsetskhladze and Sümer Atasoy Editors

iii

List of Figures and Tables

*

Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies around the Black Sea Gocha R. Tsetskhladze

Figure 1. Map of the Black Sea showing principal Greek colonies and local peoples (author’s map).�������������������������������������������������� 2 Table 1. Earliest East Greek tableware from settlements of the local population of the northern Black Sea littoral.���������������������� 5 Figure 2. Map of the northern Black Sea littoral and the Kuban region showing settlements and tombs wi.������������������������������������ 6 Table 2. Early Greek pottery from the Halys Bend.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 Figure 3. Distribution map of early Greek pottery in the Halys Bend (L. Summerer).���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7 Table 3. Local kurgans of the northern Black Sea littoral and the Kuban area with the earliest East Greek pottery of the 7th century BC.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8 Figure 4. Selection of early Greek pottery from Nemirov (M.Y. Vakhtina).���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 Figure 5. Map of the modern Taman Peninsula showing ancient Greek colonies (not to scale) (author’s map).����������������������������� 14 Table 4. Greek colonies on the Taman Peninsula.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 15 Figure 6. Pistiros inscription (L. Domaradzka).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16 Figure 7. General plan of the Eastern Gateway area, Emporion Pistiros (J. Bouzek and L. Domaradzka).����������������������������������������� 17 Figure 8. Plan of the Eastern Gateway, Emporion Pistiros (J. Bouzek and L. Domaradzka).����������������������������������������������������������������� 17 Figure 9. Ground plan of Vetren tomb (J. Bouzek et al.).����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 Figure 10. Plan of Seuthopolis (D.P. Dimitrov and M. Čičikova).���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 20 Figure 11. Ullastret. Plan of the settlement (A. Martín i Ortega).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 20 Figure 12. Ullastret. Fortification walls and stone houses (A. Martín i Ortega).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 21 Figure 13. Pottery from Ullastret imitating mainly Greek shapes (A. Martín i Ortega).���������������������������������������������������������������������� 22 Figure 14. Map of Colchis showing major sites (not to scale) (author’s map).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 25 Figure 15. A Colchian settlement according to Ps.-Hippocrates. Reconstruction. I. Plan of excavated man-made hill; II. Section 26 Table 5. Earliest Greek pottery in Colchis.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27 Table 6. Main Archaic Greek colonies and settlements in the Black Sea.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 28 Table 6. Continued.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29 Table 6. Continued.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 Table 6. Continued.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31 Table 6. Continued.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32

The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana A.V. Podossinov

*

Figure 1. The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana (western part).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 43 Figure 2. The Black Sea and the Sea of Azov on the Tabula Peutingeriana (middle part).����������������������������������������������������������������������� 44 Figure 3. The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana (eastern part).���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 44 Table 1.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 49 Figure 4. Enlargement of segment of the Tabula Peutingeriana (eastern part).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 49

Archaic East Greek Transport Amphorae: Secure Advances and Muddles. An Assessment Pierre Dupont Figure 1. Typological challenge 1: differentiating early Chian from early Clazomenian jars. Abdera (left); Thermi (right).��������� 53 Figure 2. Zeest’s ‘Dorian’ type (second half of 6th century BC): actually Chian. Panticapaeum (left); Olbia, OLV 50����������������������� 53 Figure 3. ‘Clazomenian circle’, actually Teian? Kition (left); Berezan (centre); Khopry (right).���������������������������������������������������������� 54 Figure 4. Amphorae of Clazomenian type: wine containers. North Ionian Late Wild Goat oinochoe from Panticapaeum.������������ 54 Figure 5. Typological challenge 2: differentiating ‘Samian’ containers. Collapse of the lineage.�������������������������������������������������������� 55 Figure 6. Amphora of Milesian type and variants���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 56 Figure 7. Zeest’s ‘Samian’ and ‘Protothasian’ types: canonical North Ionian variants. Olbia (left); Berezan (centre and right).��� 56 Figure 8. Zeest’s ‘Samian’ type: Chian variants. Berezan (left); Volna (right).���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 57 Figure 9. Zeest’s ‘Samian’ and ‘Protothasian’ types: North Aegean variants. Berezan (BOR 22 on right).����������������������������������������� 57 Figure 10. Zeest’s ‘Samian’ type: Milesian variant (right: after W. Voigtländer). ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 58 Figure 11. Zeest’s ‘Samian’ wine amphorae: resin coating. Mesambria (left); Simagre, Colchis (right).�������������������������������������������� 58 Figure 12. Taman Peninsula. Zeest’s ‘Protothasian’ jar; reuse: naphtha content (courtesy S. Solov'ev).������������������������������������������� 59 Figure 13. Tektaş Burnu shipwreck: ‘pseudo-Samian’ jar stamped EPY (right: after D, Carlson).������������������������������������������������������� 59 Figure 14. Tektaş Burnu ‘pseudo-Samian’ type: comparanda.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 60 Figure 15. Stamp AΦY on spindle-shaped ‘Samian’ amphorae.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 60 Figure 16. Spindle-shaped ‘Samian’ amphorae: both of Milesian chemical pattern.����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 61 Figure 17. Spindle-shaped ‘Samian’ amphora: North Ionian chemical pattern. Chersonesus CRI 3.�������������������������������������������������� 61 Figure 18. V. Grace’s early types of ‘Samian’ amphorae: genuine Samian chemical patterns. ������������������������������������������������������������ 62 Figure 19. V. Grace’s later types of ‘Samian’ amphorae: genuine Samian chemical patterns�������������������������������������������������������������� 62 Figure 20. ‘Samian’ jars of type Qurneh 849: Samian chemical patterns.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63 Figure 21. ‘Samian’ amphorae: North Ionian chemical patterns. .������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 63

iv

Figure 22. V. Grace’s ‘Samian’ amphora: Milesian chemical pattern. Berezan, BOR 16.������������������������������������������������������������������������ 64 Figure 23. Typological challenge 3: differentiating amphorae of Lesbian type: red, grey and others.����������������������������������������������� 64 Figure 24. Left: ‘Lesbian grey’, fine-grained light grey variant; Abdera, ABR 54.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 65 Figure 25. Wine jars of ‘Lesbian red’ type: partly irrelevant to Lesbos.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 65 Figure 26. Early ‘Lesbian grey’ and ‘Lesbian red’ variants with twisted handles.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 66 Figure 27. Amphorae of ‘Lesbian grey’ type: Φ-profiled variants.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 66 Figure 28. Antissa. Amphora finds excavated by W. Lamb (Mytilene Museum).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 67 *

Tekkeköy: Land of Legends from Past to the Future Sümer Atasoy

Figure 1. So-called castle.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 70 Figure 4. The stairs to the dwellings.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 71 Figure 2. General view of the caves.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 71 Figure 3. The stairs to the ‘holed rock’.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 71 Figure 5. One of the rooms.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 72

Western Black Sea An Epigram for a Sinopean from Tomis Alexandru Avram Figure 1. Marble stele, Institute of Archaeology, ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 77

Late Classical-Hellenistic Imports at Açic Suat (Caraburun) (4th-3rd Century BC) Vasilica Lungu Figure 1. Position of the site Açic Suat on the map of the northern Dobrudja.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 83 Figure 2. The main chronology of the site Açic Suat.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 83 Figure 3. Image of the Hellenistic buildings.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 84 Figure 4. Loom-weights and lids.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 84 Figure 5. Skyphos of the Fat Boy group.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 85 Figure 6. Pelike rim with egg-and-dot pattern.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 85 Figure 7. Oinochoe in West Slope style.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 85 Figure 8. Attic cup-skyphos.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 85 Figure 9. Plain rim kantharoi.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 Figure 10. Plain rim kantharoi.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 Figure 11. Attic fish-plate.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 Figure 12. Black glazed oinochoe.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 Figure 13. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 1).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 Figure 14. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 2).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 Table 1. Attic and non-Attic fine vessels.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 87 Figure 15. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 3).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 Figure 16. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 4).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 Figure 17. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 5).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 Figure 18. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 6).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 Figure 19. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 7).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 Figure 20. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 8).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 Figure 21. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 9).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 Figure 22. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 10).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 Figure 23. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 11).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 Figure 24. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 1).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 Figure 25. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 2).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 Figure 26. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 3).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 Figure 27. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 4).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 90 Figure 28. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 5).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 90 Figure 29. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 6).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 90 Figure 30. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 7).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 90 Figure 31. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 8).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 90 Figure 32. Heraclea Pontica amphora stamp (HP 1).����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91 Figure 33. Heraclea Pontica amphora stamp (HP 2).����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91 Figure 34. Heraclea Pontica amphora stamp (HP 3).����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91 Table 2. Production centres attested by stamps. ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 Figure 35. Chersonese amphora stamp (Ch 1).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 Figure 36. Main distribution routes of stamped amphorae.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 93

v

Northern Black Sea The Chronology of Arrowhead and Dolphin-Shaped Monetary Signs from Berezan Dmitry Chistov Figure 1. Summary table of the finds of arrowhead and dolphin-shaped monetary signs.���������������������������������������������������������������� 100 Figure 2. The comparative ratio between the finds of arrowhead and dolphin-shaped monetary signs ��������������������������������������� 100 Figure 3. Types of the arrowhead cast signs, found on Berezan������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 102 Figure 4. The distribution of types of arrowhead cast signs within the whole sample of 2004-2016.���������������������������������������������� 103 Figure 5. The distribution of types of arrowhead cast signs according to chronological periods and phases.������������������������������� 103 Figure 6. Main groups of dolphin-shaped monetary signs, found on Berezan.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 104 Figure 7. The distribution of types of dolphin-shaped monetary signs within the whole sample of 2004-2016.��������������������������� 105 Figure 8. The distribution of types of dolphin-shaped monetary signs according to chronological periods and phases.������������ 105 Figure 9. 1 – Big dolphin coin: 2 – Cast segment coin.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 106

Essay on the Economy of Myrmekion in Pre-Roman Times Alexander Butyagin and Alexei Kasparov Figure 1. Location of Myrmekion in the Kerch Peninsula.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 109 Table 1. Animals bones from the Myrmekion site (6th-1st centuries BC).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 109 Table 2. Herd bones from the Myrmekion site (6th-1st centuries BC)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 109 Figure 2. Myrmekion winery capacity.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 110 Table 3. Wild animals bones from the Myrmekion site (6th-1st centuries BC).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 110 Figure 3. The fragment of a mould for jewellery. Myrmekion, 4th century BC.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 111 Figure 4. Examples of carved bones.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 111 Figure 5. The fragment of a clay mould for making ‘Megarian’ bowls. Myrmekion, 3rd-2nd centuries BC.����������������������������������� 112

The Necropolis of Porthmion (from the Excavations of 2004-2013) M.Y. Vakhtina and P.G. Stolyarenko Figure 1. Porthmion necropolis (view from the south-west). ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 114 Figure 2. Burials in pits. 1 – Burial 1; 2 – Burial 2.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 115 Figure 3. 1 – Pit burial 6; 2 – Cyst burial 1.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 116 Figure 4. 1 – Crypt 1; 2 – Crypt 2.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 117 Figure 5. ‘Megarian’ bowl from Crypt 2.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 118 Figure 6. 1 – Crypt 3; 2 – Burial inventory from Crypt 3.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 119 Figure 7. 1 – Crypt 4; 2 – Crypt 5.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 121 Figure 8. 1 – Crypt 7; 2 – Burial inventory from Crypt 7.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 123 Figure 9. Porthmion necropolis. Age and sex structure. ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 124

Artyushchenko-1 Settlement on the Taman Peninsula (6th Century BC-4th Century AD) Yurii A. Vinogradov Figure 1. Plan of the settlement Artyushchenko.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 127 Figure 2. Handmade pottery of the Archaic period (last third of the 6th-first third of the 5th century BC).��������������������������������� 128 Figure 3. Finds from sacral contexts (3rd-2nd centuries BC). Taman Archaeological Museum.�������������������������������������������������������� 129 Figure 4. Terracotta figurines from the sacral pit (3rd-2nd centuries BC). Taman Archaeological Museum.��������������������������������� 130 Figure 5. Handmade pottery of the Roman period (1st-3rd centuries AD).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 131 Figure 7. Remains of the cow in pit no. 87 (2nd-3rd centuries AD).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 Figure 6. Remains of the dog and cow in pit no. 80 (2nd-3rd centuries AD).���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 Figure 8. Pit no. 55 with four human skulls (2nd-3rd centuries AD).����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 Figure 9. Pit no. 88 with human skeleton (2nd-3rd centuries AD).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133 Figure 10. Pithouse of the 4th century AD. ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 134

Eastern Black Sea *

The Southern Pontic Import Discovered at Classical Period Sites in Ajara Amiran Kakhidze and Emzar Kakhidze

Figure 1. Map of south-western Georgia.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 140 Figure 2. Earlier Sinopean silver drachma discovered at Pichvnari in 1967.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 140 Figure 3. Earlier Sinopean silver drachma discovered at Pichvnari in 2001.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 140 Figure 4. Sinopean silver drachma minted in 400-370 BC.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 141 Figure 5. Heraclean amphora dated to 370-330 BC. ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 141 Figure 6. Heraclean amphora discovered in Batumi.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 142 *

A Brief Report on the Archaeological Excavations in Gonio-Apsarus, 2014-2017 Shota Mamuladze and Kakhaber Kamadadze

Figure 1. Plan and aerial photograph of the fort of Gonio-Apsarus.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 146

vi

Figure 2. South-eastern part of the fort (SOXII sector).���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147 Figure 3. South-western part of the fort (SWVI and SWIX sectors).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 148 Figure 4. North-eastern part of the fort (NO sector).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 149 Figure 5. 1-2 Amphorae of the Byzantine period��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 151 Figure 6. 1-2. Clay lids; 3-4 Lamps; 5-6 Sinopean louteria; 7-9 Glass. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 152 Figure 7. 1-2, 4, 6 Small size pottery; 3, 5, 7, 8 Pots, cauldron-pots and jugs; 9-10 Lamps������������������������������������������������������������������� 153

Southern Black Sea The Traces of the Chalcolithic Culture of Alaca Höyük in the Coastal Settlements of the Central Black Sea * Region of Turkey Hulya Çalışkan Akgül Figure 1. Sites and regions mentioned in the text.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 158 Figure 2. Monochrome ware at Alaca Höyük level 9-12? a) Al.h.281-Inv. No. 1-3-74 Çorum Museum���������������������������������������������� 159 Figure 3. a) Red-black burnished ware, Al.j.227-Inv. No 1-16-74 Çorum Museum; b) Red-slipped ware������������������������������������������� 160 Figure 4. a-c) Carinated bowls from Alaca Höyük, level 10-12; d) Carinated bowl from Dündartepe; e) Carinated bowl from Tekkeköy.����160 Figure 5. Horn-shaped handles from Alaca Höyük, level 9-12.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 161 Figure 6. a) Red-black burnished ware with white painted decoration;.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 161 Figure 7. a-c) Dündartepe; d) Alaca Höyük level 9-12; e) Alaca Höyük level 9?; f) İkiztepe I-Level I; g) İkiztepe I-Level I; h-i) .��� 163 Figure 8. Possible routes of communications and interactions between North-Central and North-East Anatolia.����������������������� 164

The Baruthane Tumuli at Amisos/Samsun Sümer Atasoy Figure 1. The burial grounds of Amisos.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 167 Figure 2. Baruthane tumuli from north.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 168 Figure 3. Long wall between two mounds.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 169 Figure 4. Lead clamps.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 169 Figure 5. Stamped amphora handle.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 169 Figure 7. Plan of Grave 1.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 170 Figure 6. Entrance of Grave 1.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 170 Figure 8. Outer chamber of Grave 1.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 171 Figure 9. Pseudo-stone rows of outer chamber, Grave 1.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 171 Figure 11. Chian-type amphora.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 172 Figure 12. Unguentarium.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 172 Figure 10. Two signatures in outer chamber, Grave 1.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 172 Figure 13. Finds (nails, bone disk).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 173 Figure 14. Inner chamber of Grave 1.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174 Figure 15. Plan of Grave 2.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174 Figure 16. Chambers of Grave 2.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 175 Figure 17. Niche in back chamber of Grave 2.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 175 Figure 18. Walking paths and restaurant.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 176

Evaluations of Iron Finds from the Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası Excavations Ayşe Fatma Erol and Ertaç Yıldırım Figure 1. Location of Cıngırt Kayası.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 178 Figure 2. Iron melting pot.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 179 Figure 3. Military equipment.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181 Figure 4. Structural fittings (1-7); medical or cosmetic implements (8-9).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 183 Figure 5. Fittings for wooden objects.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 184 Figure 6. Tools.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 186

New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris Fatma Bağdatlı Çam, Ali Bora and Handan Bilici Altunkayalıer Figure 1. Borders of Amasra and 2017 research region.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 191 Figure 2. Research sectors of Amasra and surroundings.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 192 Figure 3. Research sectors of Amasra district centre.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 192 Figure 4. Research sectors in surroundings of Amasra.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 193 Figure 5. Plan of Amasra fortification.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 194 Figure 6. Fortification system between the two harbours. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 195 Figure 7. Genoan heraldry on the city walls of Amastris. ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 195 Figure 8. West gate (Sormagir) of the citadel: spolia.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 Figure 9. The fresco remains on the west gate (Sormagir).���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 196 Figure 10. Pottery finds fom the citadel.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 197 Figure 11. Late Classical black-glazed bowl fragment.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 197 Figure 12. Remains of an arched structure (Boztepe).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 198

vii

Figure 13. Architectural blocks from Boztepe (Temple?).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 198 Figure 14. Inscription on architrave block from the Amasra district dump.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 198 Figure 15. Stone stairs of East (Big) Harbour.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 199 Figure 16. The west gate of the citadel. Pottery fragments in the deposits of West (Small) Harbour shore.���������������������������������� 199 Figure 17. Inscription fragment on the house wall behind the eastern gate.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 Figure 18. The inscribed ostotheca. ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 200 Figure 19. Find from Amastra district dump.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 Figure 20. Inscribed architrave fragment from the district dump.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 201 Figure 21. Architectural fragment from the district dump.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 201 Figure 22. Greek inscription from the ancient theatre.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 202 Figure 23. Terracotta figurine fragment.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 202 Figure 24. Clay deposit.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 202 Figure 25. Roman lamp fragment.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 Figure 26. Chipped stone tools and hammers.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 Figure 27. Ancient stone quarry and a monogram.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 Figure 28. Ancient road.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 Figure 29. Ancient road and relief figure on monument.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 Figure 30. A piece of crescent-shaped lug.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205

The Ancient City of Sebastopolis in the Light of Archaeological Data and Inscriptions Şengül Dilek Ful Figure 1. The inscription on the Roman bridge.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 208 Figure 2. Heracles.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 209 Figure 3. Moses’ epitaph.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 210 Figure 4. Maximus’ epitaph.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 211 Figure 5. The Roman baths.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212 Figure 6. Byzantine church.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 212

A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia Şahin Yıldırım Figure 1. The Location of Great Göztepe Tumulus.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 227 Figure 2. The general view of Great Göztepe Tumulus.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 228 Figure 3. Geophysical survey on the tumulus and the doubtful red area uncovered by the geophysical survey. ������������������������� 229 Figure 4. One of the tombs found on the tumulus, dated to the Middle Byzantine period.��������������������������������������������������������������� 229 Figure 5. View of the stone layers from the north, placed to the centre of the tumulus.������������������������������������������������������������������� 230 Figure 6. View of the stone layers from the east, placed to the centre of the tumulus.���������������������������������������������������������������������� 230 Figure 7. A sea urchin fossil, one of the hundreds of marine fossils found in the tumulus deposit.������������������������������������������������� 230 Figure 8. Some of the ceramic fragments from the Bronze Age, found in the tumulus fill. �������������������������������������������������������������� 231 Figure 9. The Great Göztepe Tumulus and the plan of the grave structure inside.������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 232 Figure 10. Very early moments of uncovering of the grave structure in the tumulus.����������������������������������������������������������������������� 232 Figure 11. Outer circle surrounding the grave structure, built of stone.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 233 Figure 12. View of the outer circle from the east.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 233 Figure 13. Drawings of south, east and north sections of the Great Göztepe tumulus.����������������������������������������������������������������������� 234 Figure 14. Pickaxe and tray found in the tunnel opened by the treasure hunters.������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 234 Figure 15. Tholos forming the grave section heavily destroyed and tomb-raiders’ tunnels.�������������������������������������������������������������� 235 Figure 16. The treasure tunnel that caused the grave structure to be plundered.������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 235 Figure 17. Grave section uncovered in the excavations of 2015 and façade drawing.������������������������������������������������������������������������� 236 Figure 18. Beehive shaped grave section.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 236 Figure 19. Piece of mandible, probably belonged to the owner of the grave.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 237 Figure 20. A piece of a circle embossed mouth of a trefoil. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 238 Figure 21. Ceramic pieces dated to the Middle Phrygian period.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 238 Figure 22. Grey-ware bowl fragment dated to the Middle Phrygian period.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 239 Figure 23. Iron ox-shoe found in the stone circle of tomb structure.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 240 Figure 24. Rock-cut altar in Kuzyaka Köseler village near Safranbolu.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 240 Figure 25. Rock-cut altar in Hacılarobası village near Safranbolu.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 241 *

The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük Şevket Dönmez

Figure 1. Oluz Höyük and its immediate vicinity in the 5th and 4th centuries BC.����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 245 Figure 2. Oluz Höyük. General view from the south-east.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 246 Figure 3. Expansion of the Achaemenid empire.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 246 Figure 4. Atashkadah, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 247 Figure 5. Atashkadah and the early Zoroastrian sanctuary, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.������������������������������������������������������ 247 Figure 6. Atashkadah and the early Zoroastrian sanctuary, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.������������������������������������������������������ 248 Figure 7. Haldi temple, Ayanis.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 249 Figure 9. Hearth at the northern Side of the Haldi temple, Ayanis (Ayanis Excavation Archive).����������������������������������������������������� 250 Figure 8. Hearth at the southern side of the Haldi temple, Ayanis (Ayanis Excavation Archive).����������������������������������������������������� 250

viii

Figure 10 a-b. Stone base of oil lamp, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 251 Figure 11. Excavation work on the sacred fire pit, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.���������������������������������������������������������������������� 252 Figure 12. Bronze plate found during excavation of the sacred fire pit, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.���������������������������������� 252 Figure 13 a-b. Clay plate, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 252 Figure 14 a-b. Clay plate, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 253 Figure 15. Excavation work on the Persian road, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.������������������������������������������������������������������������� 253 Figure 16 a-b. Roof tile, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 254 Figure 17 a-b. Roof tile, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 254 Figure 18 a-b. Roof tile, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 255 Figure 19 a-b. Roof tile, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 255 Figure 20 a-b. Roof tile, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 256 Figure 21 a-b. Bronze tool, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 256 Figure 22 a-b. Bronze tool, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 256

An Overview of Iron Age Sites of Zile District Mehmet Özsait and Nesrin Özsait Table 1. Iron Age sites in Zile.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 259 Figure 1. Map of Iron Age sites.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 260 Figure 2. Zile Kaletepe.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 260 Figure 3. Zile Kalesi finds.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 261 Figure 4. Akdoğan Höyük.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 261 Figure 5. Akdoğan Höyük finds.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 262 Figure 6. Alkaya Höyük.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 262 Figure 7. Alkaya Höyük finds.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 263 Figure 8. Asar Pınar Höyük.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 263 Figure 9. Çakırpeteği. ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 263 Figure 10. Çakırpeteği finds.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 264 Figure 11. Dikmen Tepe.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 264 Figure 12. Dikmen Tepe finds.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 265 Figure 13. Höblek.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 265 Figure 14. Höblek finds.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 266 Figure 15. Kale Boynu find.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 266 Figure 16. Kalenin Dibi. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 266 Figure 17. Kalenin Dibi finds.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 267 Figure 18. Kalenin Tepe.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 267 Figure 19. Kalenin Tepe finds.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 268 Figure 20. Karayün Höyük.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 268 Figure 21. Karayün Höyük finds.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 268 Figure 22. Kırlar Yüzellik Tepe finds.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 269 Figure 23. Küçük Bultunun Çal.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 269 Figure 24. Küçük Bultunun Çal finds.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 270 Figure 25. Ütük Höyük.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 270 Figure 26. Ütük Höyük finds.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 271 *

Evaluation of the Recent Finds at Komana from the Early and Middle Byzantine Period Mustafa N. Tatbul and D. Burcu Erciyas

Figure 1. Komana excavation area (Hamamtepe mound).����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 273 Figure 2. Terracotta oil lamp found as burial find (HTP01).��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 274 Figure 3. Glass cup found in the tile paved grave (G123).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 274 Figure 4. Tile paved grave with an apse in the western part.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 275 Figure 5. A group of three in situ pithoi recovered in the Early Byzantine layers.������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 276 Figure 6. The inner structure of a pithos which was measured as 170 cm in depth.��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 276 Figure 19. Kalenin Tepe finds.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 268 Figure 8. Ottoman domestic structure on the top of the fortification wall (HTP02).�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 277 Figure 7. Sea snail shell found in the Early Byzantine layers (HTP01).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 277 Figure 9. North-western part of the fortification wall (HTP02).������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 278 Figure 10. Phocas coin (AD 602-610).����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 278

A Group of Glass Bracelets from Samsun Museum Akın Temür and Özkan Özbilgin Figure 1. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 1.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 283 Figure 2. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 2.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 284 Figure 3. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 3.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 284 Figure 4. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 4.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 285 Figure 5. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 5.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 285 Figure 6. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 6.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 286 Figure 7. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 7.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 286

ix

Figure 8. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 8.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 287 Figure 9. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 9.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 287 Figure 10. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 10.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 288 *

Some Observations on the Dating of the Kavak Bekdemir Mosque in Samsun E. Emine Naza Dönmez

Figure 1. Map of the Samsun region.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 291 Figure 2. Plan of Bekdemir Mosque.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 292 Figure 3. Bekdemir Mosque exterior.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 292 Figure 4. Bekdemir Mosque exterior.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 293 Figure 5. Bekdemir Mosque, decoration detail.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 293 Figure 6. Prayer detail, inside Bekdemir Mosque door.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 294 Figure 7. Minber decorations inside Bekdemir Mosque.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 294 Figure 8. Floral decorative details inside Bekdemir Mosque.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 295 Figure 9. Names of Allah, Muhammed and Four Caliphs on the panels inside Bekdemir Mosque.��������������������������������������������������� 295 Figure 11. Detail on inscription on the mihrap executed in Müsenna style, Bekdemir Mosque.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 296 Figure 10. Circular panel detail on the western side of the mihrap, Bekdemir Mosque.��������������������������������������������������������������������� 296 Figure 12. Detail on the wooden pendant in the ceiling, leaves opening outwards, Bekdemir Mosque.����������������������������������������� 297

x

Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies around the Black Sea *

Gocha R. Tsetskhladze Abstract This is a further consideration of the dating and interpretation of the earliest examples of Greek pottery found in local settlements of the northern and eastern Black Sea coasts and hinterland, and the use and misuse of this data in relation to the foundation dates of the Black Sea Greek colonies, especially those on these two coasts. In addition, attention is focused on the term emporion, often-used for settlements in the hinterland, taking Vetren and the Pistiros inscription as the principal example and making comparisons between emporia and local royal residences.

Pottery and colonies

Much has been and continues to be written about the establishment of Greek cities around the Black Sea (Fig. 1), especially those of its northern littoral.1 I shall explain later why I am coming back to this topic yet again. First, let me summarise briefly the new developments about which Russian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Turkish and Georgian scholars have written. The results of their excavations and investigations were presented a few years ago.2 If so much has been written about the establishment of the first Greek colonies, especially in the northern Black Sea, why am I obliged to return to this subject? The reasons will become increasingly apparent below. *

Now we have a new date for the establishment of Olbia, based on the study of all the East Greek pottery from this site: 620/610-590 BC. For the present, this seems very well substantiated.3 After many years of excavation at Panticapaeum the Archaic levels have been reached in several trenches. This has resulted in a downward revision of its foundation date to 575-550 BC, despite previous excavations here unearthing some pottery of the end of the 7th-beginning of the 6th century BC.4 Another early Greek settlement might have existed at Taganrog, now submerged completely by the Sea of Azov: what we have are pieces of Greek pottery washed up on its shore. In 2007, V. Kopylov dated the establishment of the Taganrog settlement as no later than the third quarter of the 7th century BC, and its abandonment to the third quarter of the following century. He states:

This papers discusses not just the establishment of the Greek colonies around the Black Sea but many other problems connected with them: the local population, the status of overseas settlements and of the settlements of the hinterland, mainly emporia. Pistiros in the Thracian hinterland forms a central part of this discussion. What the term emporion connotes in the colonial world is still disputed, and how to identify them remains unclear.

Early pottery from the Taganrog settlement is represented by 32 fragments of cups decorated with lozenge and bird friezes. This is the most representative collection of pottery of this kind that has ever been found in the sites of the northern Black Sea littoral. These fragments are divided into two groups: one is dated to the third quarter of the 7th century BC and the other, according to the type of the painting, from the last quarter of the same century. However one should admit that these dates are rather approximate, as the vessels are very

* I should like to thank colleagues and friends for providing me with their books and articles and the most recent information: S. Atasoy, A. Avram, J. Bouzek, M. Damyanov, D. Demetriou, N. Gavrilyuk, V. Kopylov, M. Manoledakis, A. Podossinov, E.. Redina, M. Rusakov, I. Shramko, M. Treister, M. Vakhtina, M. Vassileva, S. Yıldırım and S. Zadnikov. 1  For a summary and previous discussion, see Avram et al. 2004, city by city, using all available evidence and providing bibliography up to 2004; and Tsetskhladze 2015 up to 2015. In this paper I am giving only what is essential. Exhaustive bibliographies in Eastern and Western European languages exist in other publications, notably those of A. Avram (for the latest, see Badoud and Avram 2019), but mainly mine. For new evidence and bibliography, see Tsetskhladze et al. 2013; 2015; Manoledakis et al. 2018; and the other papers in the present volume. The proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities (85 papers), held in Constanţa in September 2017, will be published in 2020. A bibliography of the Black Sea is published in Cojocaru 2014; 2018. 2  Tsetskhladze 2018a. See also Tsetskhladze 2015.

3  Buiskikh 2013: 223. See also Buiskikh 2007. On the several dates previously given for the establishment of Olbia, see Rusyaeva 1998. Recently, five pottery kilns dating from the Archaic period were discovered in Olbia (see Krutilov 2015). 4  For the results of this excavation, see Tolstikov 1984; 2001; 2007; 2010a; 2010bb; Tolstikov, Astashova and Samar 2017; Tolstikov, Zhuravlev and Lomtadze 2004.

1

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 1. Map of the Black Sea showing principal Greek colonies and local peoples (author’s map).

fragmentary and their sherds have been rounded by sea to a great extent.

excavation of domestic and public buildings and in the chora of Apollonia Pontica, hitherto practically uninvestigated. Rescue excavation within the city itself has unearthed East Greek pottery of the end of the 7thbeginning of the 6th century BC, demonstrating that the foundation date of Apollonia given in the written sources (Strabo 7. 6. 1; Pliny NH 4. 13, 34. 7; etc.) – ca. 610 BC – is indeed correct;10 and on the peninsula of Sveti Kirik it has revealed the remains of an Archaic temple which could be that of Apollo mentioned in written sources (Strabo 7. 6. 1; Pliny NH 4. 13, 34. 7, etc.). Not far from this temple is another, of later date. Thus, the area was the temenos of Apollonia Pontica.11 Recent archaeological investigation unearthed evidence of the earliest Greek metallurgy not far from the temples. The slags were found in so-called House 1, which is overlaid by an Archaic altar. Other slags were discovered in Pits 1, 3 and 8. These features are very well dated by the numerous pottery they contained to ca. 600 or the early 6th century BC and a pottery kiln.12 We have the same situation in Berezan, where a metalworking shop was discovered.13

But, in the next paragraph, he notes that the earliest example of pottery from this settlement is a fragment of the neck of an amphora of SOS type dated to 650 BC.5 There was a Russo-German project around Taganrog active until recently.6 Kopylov is certain that the ancient name of the Taganrog settlement was Kremnoi,7 a name first mentioned by Herodotus (4. 20, 110), according to whom it was an emporion of the Royal Scythians situated on the northwestern side of the Sea of Azov, or a city. Identification is problematic and different opinions have been voiced – even that it was actually Panticapaeum.8 Thus the location of Kremnoi is still not at all certain. The West Pontic coast has witnessed intensive excavation. Bulgarian-French teams have been active at Apollonia Pontica. Two projects with distinct focuses can be identified: in the first phase, excavation of the funeral monuments at Kalfata on the beach of presentday Sozopol, the results of which are published;9 then

10  Baralis et al. 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013; Baralis, Panayotova et al. 2016. See also Baralis and Lungu 2015; Damyanov 2015; Martinez et al. 2015, which publishes fresh evidence about Greeks and locals; etc. 11  Panayotova et al. 2014. 12  Damyanov and Panayotova 2018. Seee also Baralis et al. 2016: 159-60 (pottery kiln); 159 (metal workshop). 13  Domanksij and Marčenko 2003.

Kopylov 2007: 66-67. Dally et al. 2009; 2016; Schlöffel et al. 2012; van Hoof et al. 2012. 7  Kopylov 2011; 2018. 8  Hind 1997. 9  Hermary 2010. 5  6 

2

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies Histria continues to be excavated after more than a century of work, latterly on a reduced scale thanks to economic difficulties in Romania, now with a RomanianAmerican project in place. But the very impressive publication programme continues undiminished.14 At Orgame, which was established either by Ionians at the end of the 7th/beginning of the 6th century BC or as a secondary colony by Histria, a Romanian-French team has concentrated mainly on the excavation of the chora, finding stone buildings.

the city centre, a rescue excavation revealed a shrine of Cybele, with much Greek and Phrygian pottery dating from the 6th century BC as well as terracotta figurines of Cybele. Some Greek sherds bear graffiti with the names Kubaba and Cybele. Greek tombstones of the 6th-5th century BC, some with Greek inscriptions, were unearthed not far from this site.22 As to the existence of an earlier Chersonesos, an Ionian settlement dating to the last third of the 6th century BC, before Heraclea Pontica founded (Dorian) Chersonesos (422/1 BC), study and re-examination of the material demonstrates that this is now less certain than it once seemed. The lid of a black-figure lekane, initially identified as Boeotian and dated to the third quarter of the 6th century BC, the starting point for moving back the foundation date of Chersonesos, in reality dates to the middle/beginning of the third quarter of the 5th century and is not from Boeotia but from Attica or an Asia Minor workshop. J. Boardman had earlier expressed doubts about both its supposed Boeotian origin and date.23 Other materials (amphorae, other pottery, etc.) are also no earlier than the 5th century BC, and the earliest ostraca also date to the second half of that century.24

Recent excavation of Sinope has brought forth pottery of the 7th-4th centuries BC. Unfortunately, which part of the 7th century is not specified. Furthermore, there is a large quantity of handmade pottery from the Bafra region and elsewhere, and some material from the Bronze Age. These could indicate that, as in other parts of the Black Sea, local people(s) formed part of the population in Sinope, or that a local settlement had existed here before Sinope was established, or both.15 Tieion/Tios, which was probably founded by Miletus (together with Phocaea?) in the early 6th century, is the only site on the southern Black Sea to have been excavated extensively because it has not been overbuilt. The work of the last ten years has recently been published; it has revealed the Acropolis, a Hellenistic temple, a Roman Street, a theatre and baths.16 The earliest pottery was found on the Acropolis: four East Greek pieces of the very end of the 7th/early 6th century BC.17 Pottery of the 5th century BC is present in substantial quantities.18 In 2019, an iron-working shop, dated to the last quarter of the 7th century-middle of the 6th century, was discovered near pithouses in the south of the Acropolis.19 These pithouses were the first to be recorded in the southern Black Sea: examples were previously known on all other Pontic shores.20 Furthermore, according to Ş. Yıldırım, the territory around Tios was heavily populated by locals, probably of Phrygian origin.21

I shall present below material about the suggested foundation dates of colonies along the Colchian coast, a matter in dispute for many decades. U. Schlotzhauer and D. Zhuravlev vs G. Tsetskhladze

Amisos, like all Greek colonies on the Turkish Black Sea coast except Tios, is overbuilt. The only possible investigations are rescue excavations in the suburbs of the modern city of Samsun. Recently, about 7 km from

The discovery of the earliest Greek pottery in local sites of the Ukrainian steppes is a phenomenon which has been mulled over for many times. Let me write about it again for a particular reason: during an international conference in Rome in November 2018, ‘Comparing Greek Colonies: Mobility and settlement consolidation from Southern Italy to the Black Sea (8th-6th century BC)’, Udo Schlotzhauer and Denis Zhuravlev presented a paper ‘Vom ersten Kontakt zur Formierung der griechischen Kolonien am Kimmerischen Bosporus und Kuban’.25 In this paper I was criticised for repeatedly dating this pottery to the last quarter of the 7th century BC26 when they gave a dating of the middle of the 7th

Notably, the monumental Histria 7 volume by P. Alexandrescu (2005). Talmaţchi 2011; I. Bîrzescu 2012; 2013; Avram et al. 2013; Lungu 2013; Martinez et al. 2015; Botttez 2015. See also Mateevici 2007; Taufer 2013; F. Bîrzescu et al. 2013; Buzoianu et al. 2013; I. Bîrzescu 2018. Papers to celebrate a century of excavation at Histria have been published in Avram et al. 2014. See also Angelescu 2018. The journals Il Mar Nero, Pontica and Dacia carry articles on Histria and other Greek colonies on the Romanian Black Sea coast periodically. 15  Doonan 2016: 218-19. See also Doonan et al. 2015; 2016; 2017. 16  Atasoy and Yıldırım 2015. 17  A joint Turko-Russian project to study the Greek pottery started this year (2019) between Ş. Yıldırım and M. Vakhtina. 18  Atasoy 2016; 2018. 19  Ş. Yıldırım (pers. comm., 16 September 2019). 20  See Tsetskhladze 2004. 21  On the Phrygians in the southern Black Sea, see Vassileva 2015.

22  Tsetskhladze 2015: 18-21 (with bibliography and illustrations). For the latest publication on Amisos, see Summerer 2018. Fragments of amphorae, some of them stamped, all from Black Sea cities have been uncovered in Gordion (Lawall 2010). They most probably reached Gordion via Amisos, which had access by river to the hinterland. 23  Boardman 1998: 203-04. 24  Shevchenko 2014. 25  This was the title on the programme. Actually, it was given in English and covered a wider region than the Cimmerian Bosporus and the Kuban, including, for instance, local sites of the Ukrainian steppes at which early Greek pottery had been found. 26  I shall not be able to answer their criticisms in the publication of the Rome conference proceedings on account of the tight word limit. Thus, I do so here. My teacher, Prof. Sir John Boardman, once told me that repeating conclusions is sometimes necessary in order to make colleagues pay attention to them. Indeed, this is so.

14 

3

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity century or even earlier. In 1999, Michael Kerschner and Udo Schlotzhauer unveiled a new chronology of East Greek pottery, especially the early phases, including pottery from the northern Black Sea, mainly Berezan and the local Nemirov settlement but also some from the Crimea. Recognising the importance of this work for further discussion, I published it in my journal Ancient West and East in 2005.27 All the pieces presented in that article are given high (or even higher) dates.28 The presentation in Rome obliged me to consider these issues once again, and to remind the authors of several points.

only some Russian and Ukrainian scholars have taken up the new chronology, avidly and uncritically, and have started to date the early pottery according to it. I shall explain why below. Other colleagues working on the Black Sea and the Mediterranean have met it with practically complete silence or do not use it. To explain yet again my own opinion: The problems of dating some pieces are obvious. They range from the first third to the last quarter/ second half/end of the 7th century BC. According to Kerschner, the earliest is a fragment of a bird bowl from Trakhtemirov. Others date this to the middlesecond half of the 7th century. I have already observed that the later date should be favoured in line with pieces from the other settlements under discussion. All the chronological ranges given – 650630 BC, 640-630 BC, 630-590 BC, last quarter of the 7th century BC, second half of the 7th century BC, middle-second half of the 7th century BC – fall, in some degree or other, within the last third of the 7th century. In short, it is entirely reasonable to assign all our examples to this latter, single period, rather than looking to over-refine the differences within a very limited body of evidence. Just as some favour the upper range of dates, others, me included, favour the lower (which is compatible with the archaeological data we possess for the foundation of the first Greek colonies). As well as tableware, amphora fragments have been found. Recently, a mid-7th century date has been given to the very small number of fragments of early East Greek trade amphorae found at Black Sea sites. The authors remark that this date ‘fits quite well with that of “Middle Wild Goat I” finds and provides us with a supplementary chronological marker for the Greek penetration of the Black Sea’. But this seems to contradict what they said previously, namely that ‘The earliest pottery finds in the Black Sea area consist of Milesian Middle Wild Goat I of ca. 630, of North Ionian bird bowls of the last third of the 7th century and of South Ionian cups of Vallet-Villard A1-A2 types, some of which possibly date back to the mid-7th century.’ But can ‘ca. 630’ be considered ‘middle’?33

In 2012, I published a long article dedicated to early Greek pottery from Berezan, local sites of the Ukrainian steppes and other northern Black Sea regions (Table 1; Fig. 2), including in it a short survey of early Greek pottery in the eastern and southern Black Sea29 (where it is found in the ‘Halys Bend’ – see Table 2) (Fig. 3).30 My article gave, wherever possible, the contexts in which the pottery was found, chronology and interpretation, as well as illustrations of most of the pieces.31 Expecting criticisms of my dating from supporters of the high chronology, I provided explanations for my own chronology as well as answering them with their own statement. Let me repeat (yet again) the statement of Schlotzhauer and Kerschner from their Ancient West and East article: The proposed classification should be regarded as no more than a framework awaiting further detailed studies at different production centres as well as wherever East Greek pottery might be found in the future. The aim of this draft is merely to achieve clarity and unambiguity of the terminology and to make comparisons between different classes of pottery easier.32 I had assumed that, as the authors promised, this high chronology would be developed further with additional proofs. I also expected other colleagues to question it and debate it. But I was to be disappointed. On the contrary, 27  Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005. The new classification is mainly for South Ionian pottery. In this, R. Cook’s Early Orientalising and Early Wild Goat styles correspond to the new South Ionian Archaic Ia (SiA Ia: ca. 670-650 BC), his Middle Wild Goat (MWG) I to SiA Ib (ca. 650-630 BC), MWG II to SiA Ic (ca. 630-610 BC), and MWG II advanced examples and MWG III to SiA Id (ca. 610-580 BC). 28  See also Kerschner 2006. 29  Only the western Black Sea has failed so far to yield the same kind of early pottery as the other shores, but while this is the case for Pontic Thrace, Aegean Thrace does resemble the position of the other regions of the Black Sea littoral (see, for instance, Baralis 2008; 2010). The earliest pottery there has similarities with Argilos (Perreault and Bonias 2010; see also Božkova 2005). Local sites in this area of Thrace also yielded Mycenaean pottery (see Alexandrov 2005). 30  See also Manoledakis 2018. The tables reproduced in this chapter have been updated to include new evidence. At the same time, some unfortunate errors have been corrected. 31  Tsetskhladze 2012. 32  Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005: 52. See also Schlotzhauer 2010; Kerschner 2006.

In these circumstances, I am very surprised at the criticism when, in reality, I already answered it in my 2012 piece. The Rome presenters had not paid attention to this initially and their response now is very belated. My question to them was: if this pottery from local sites of the Ukrainian steppes is really as early their chronology supposes, how and why did it get to where it was found before there were any Greek colonies thereabouts? My question remained unanswered, which is understandable since there is 33 

4

Tsetskhladze 2012: 334-35.

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies

No.

Site

Region

1.

Nemirov

Upper South Bug

2.

Greek Pottery

Date

About 70 pieces of Archaic East Greek pottery, mainly painted. Or 100 including amphora fragments and probably 6th-century material 1. Three fragments of a cup, possibly of bird- 1. Possibly third quarter of 7th century BC 2. 650-630 BC bowl type 2. Fragment previously identified as of an oinochoe, now believed to be of an amphora 3. Second half of 7th century BC/middle3. Fragment of Milesian(?) cup second half of 7th century BC (South Ionian) 4. Vast majority belong to oinochoai (round- 4. 630-600 BC/650-630 BC/630-610 BC/ mouthed and trefoil) of Middle Wild Goat 610-580 BC I-II produced in southern Ionia Pottery of 6th century is not so numerous

Trakhtemirov Middle Dnieper 1. Fragment of North Ionian bird bowl

1. First third of 7th century BC/second half of 7th century BC/middle-second half of 7th century BC

2. Fragment of Samian Wild Goat krater/ 2. Last quarter of 7th century BC South Ionian oinochoe 3.

Zhabotin/ Middle Dnieper Fragment of East Greek vessel/fragment of an Last quarter of 7th century BC/late 7thZhabotinskoe oinochoe frieze early 6th century BC

4(?).

Ivane-Puste

Middle Dnieper Fragments of Chian painted pottery (number Second half of 7th century BC/end of 7thnot given) first half of 6th century BC/second half of 7th-first half of 6th century BC

5(?).

Zalesya

Middle Dnieper Fragments of Chian painted pottery (number Second half of 7th-first half of 6th century not given); fragments of spherical bowls, BC bowls and Ionian cups

6. 7.

Motroninskoe Middle Dnieper One fragment of Milesian oinochoe Belsk (Gelonus)

8(?).

Pozharnaya Balka

9.

Alekseevka

Vorskla Basin Before 1988 1. Fragment of a bird bowl, North Ionian 2. Fragment of Middle Wild Goat I-II vessel/ South Ionian vessel (oinochoe?) After 1988 About 40-50 pieces (with amphorae about 100) dating from the last quarter of 7th-first half of 6th century BC including 1. Two fragments of bird bowls 2. Several fragments of Middle Wild Goat I oinochoai 3. Fragment of Middle Wild Goat II oinochoe Vorskla Basin Fragment of ‘Rhodian-Ionian vessel’ Not far from Fragment of bird bowl Greek Gorgippia (modern Anapa)

640-600 BC 1. Middle/last quarter of 7th century BC 2. Last quarter of 7th century BC/630-610 BC/610-580 BC)

650-615 BC 640-630 BC 615-600 BC ‘Early Rhodian-Ionian group’ 630/620-590 BC

Table 1. Earliest East Greek tableware from settlements of the local population of the northern Black Sea littoral.

no reasonable answer. Another colleague commented that Byzantium and a few other colonies existed at the relevant time. Again, my question: why should they go so far away (the northern Black Sea hinterland) when there is the West Pontic coast almost next to these cities, and in that region no single piece of Greek pottery has been found that is earlier than the foundation of the Greek colonies. This too went unanswered. Some colleagues also reminded me about currents: but the Black Sea current reaches

the western shore before the northern, and no early pottery has been discovered in the western Pontus (at least so far). Another question is why Greeks should go to local settlements far inland before they had set up their own coastal colonies. It is impossible to answer. There were no metals in the steppes, and, in the Archaic period, there was no grain or slave trade from the Black Sea.34 34 

5

Tsetskhladze 2008a; 2008b.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 2. Map of the northern Black Sea littoral and the Kuban region showing settlements and tombs which have yielded East Greek pottery of the last third of the 7th century BC. Not to scale (author’s map). 1. Nemirov/Nemirovskoe; 2. Trakhtemirov/Trakhtemirovskoe; 3. Zhabotin/Zhabotinskoe; 4. Ivane-Puste; 5. Zalesya; 6. Motroninskoe; 7. Belsk/Belskoe; 8. Pozharnaya Balka; 9. Alekseevka/Alekseevskoe; 10. Burial ground Krasnogorovka III. Kurgan 14, grave 5; 11. Kurgan Temir-Gora; 12. Burial Boltyshka; 13. Kurgan 1 near the village of Kolomak; 14. Destroyed tomb, Kiobruchi village; 15. Filatovka; 16. Bolshaya; 17. Krivorozhie; 18. Krasnyi. No.

Site

Greek Pottery

Date

1.

Akalan (18 km inland of Amisos) Fragments of two Milesian jugs, Middle Wild Goat II End of 7th century BC

2.

Village of Dalsaray near Mecitözü Complete North Ionian bird bowl

3.

Alişar

4.

Boğazköy

5.

Kaman-Kalehöyük

Third quarter of 7th century BC

Fragment of Milesian vase

Early 6th century BC

Small number of Milesian and Corinthian pottery

Mid-7th century BC

1. Some pottery fragments of Protogeometric period 1200-800 BC 2. Fragment of Attic krater 6th century BC Table 2. Early Greek pottery from the Halys Bend.

Local settlements and Greek pottery

deliberately, otherwise colleagues will be left confused in the fog of the debate without appreciating its basic features.

Now let me briefly pay attention, yet again, to early Greek pottery and why it was found in local settlements, in the hope that I will not be criticised for banging this particular drum too loudly and too often – but it has serious consequences for dating the establishment of Greek settlements.35 I do so

Table 1 presents the settlements of the hinterland where early Greek pottery has been discovered. It also gives the number of pieces insofar as this can be deduced from the publications, and the different datings of these pieces suggested by different authors at different times – the highest dates, of course, are those given by Kerschner and Schlotzhauer in their 2005 paper. The table is a simplified version of that which I presented in

On the Graeco-local relationship, see Tsetskhladze 1998b; 2002; 2011b; Handberg and Jacobsen 2011: 183-88; papers in Hermary and Tsetskhladze 2012; Rollinger and Schnegg 2014; Tréziny 2001; and Jensen 2018. See also Tsetskhladze 2015 (with references); and Ulf 2009.

35 

6

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies This large settlement on the Southern Bug, Nemirov, was one of the political centres of the local chiefs. It occupies a plateau and the adjacent flat territory, overall 110 ha, all surrounded by a ditch and rampart up to 9 m in height/depth, 32 m in width and extending to 4.5-5.5 km.39 The site is known primarily for the discovery of about 100 fragments of Greek pottery (tableware and amphorae), the vast majority of it from the 6th century BC, with the early pottery dating from the last third/last quarter of the 7th century (Fig. 4). The production of the North Ionian centres is represented, while the amphorae are from Aeolia, Chios and Clazomenae.40 The pottery was found in pithouses 1 and 2; altogether three pithouses are known. It is interesting that there is a complete lack of Attic pottery at Nemirov. This is explained by the city-site existing from the end of the 8th to the beginning/first third of the 6th century BC. The archaeology of Nemirov has now been divided into two main phases: pre-colonisation and colonisation period.

Figure 3. Distribution map of early Greek pottery in the Halys Bend (L. Summerer).

2012, where there is extensive bibliography and details of who dated what and when.36 As I have written, all the pottery was discovered in large settlements, which, based on the other material unearthed from them, were political and economic centres from which local rulers controlled the surrounding territory.37

There are 17 main types of vessel; the late G. Smirnova identified 19 different sub-types. Some pottery is close to the Chernolessk and Zhabotin cultures of the middle Dniester and middle Dnieper regions.41 There is locally produced pottery as well, showing different cultural influences, especially Hallstatt; further pottery which, according to typology and production technology, is actual Hallstatt (end of HaB-HaC) of the burial grounds of eastern Austria and adjoining regions of Hungary and Slovakia; and another type of pottery resembling Carpatho-Danubian Hallstatt (pottery of the Basarabi and Bîrseşti-Ferigile cultures).42 It is believed that pottery of the so-called Early Scythian culture has also been found. This culture, of the middle Bug region, is divided into three phases: beginning, pre-colonisation and colonisation.

Table 3 shows amphorae and pottery found in kurgans. These pieces accord with the dates of tableware in settlements. The vast majority of tableware has been discovered at two settlements: Nemirov and Belsk (Gelonus). Until recently we lacked a clear picture of the former settlement and its pottery, be that Greek or local. But now, thanks to a large article and recent book by M. Kashuba and M. Vakhtina,38 we are placed in a much better position, both about the settlement as a whole and the context of the finds of Greek pottery. It must be said that the excavation was on a small scale, and had it continued, more pottery would undoubtedly have been found.

Investigation of the site began with excavations in 1909 and 1910; the last period of excavation was 1946-48. Much material and documentation has been lost. Surviving finds are kept in the State Hermitage; and documentation in the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg (Kashuba and Vakhtina 2017: 211-12). For the history of excavations and investigations, see Smirnova et al. 2018: 17-43. 40  See now Smirnova et al. 2018: 193-222; catalogue and illustrations of Greek pottery at pp. 276-305. See also Vakhtina 2018. 41  Kashuba and Vakhtina 2017: 221-22; Smirnova et al. 2018: 137-92. 42  Kashuba and Vakhtina 2017: 224-25. 39 

Tsetskhladze 2012: 354-56. Tsetskhladze 2012: 339-41 Kashuba and Vakhtina 2017; Smirnova et al. 2018 (unfortunately, this book appeared too recently for me to incorporate its findings fully into this paper, but Kashuba and Vakhtine 2017 gives a lengthy and clear summary). 36  37  38 

7

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

No.

Site

Region

1.

Burial ground Krasnogorovka III. Kurgan 14, grave 5

Lower Don

2.

Kurgan Temir-Gora

3.

Burial Boltyshka

4.

Kurgan 1 near the village of Kolomak

5.

Destroyed tomb, Kiobruchi village

Dniester (Moldova)

6.

Filatovka

Crimea

7.

Bolshaya

8.

Krivorozhie

River Kalitva

9.

Krasnyi

Kuban

Crimea

Amphorae

Date

Transport amphorae: 1. One Samian 2. One Clazomenian

Third quarter-end of 7th century BC 650-620 BC

Milesian painted oinochoe

640-630 BC/650-630 BC

Tyasmin Basin Neck of East Greek oinochoe

650-630 BC/end of 7th-first third of 6th century BC/late 7th century BC/ ca. 630-610 BC

Vorskla Basin Two Chian (or Clazomenian?) transport amphorae

Third quarter of 7th century BC

17 fragments of three vessels produced in Miletus

Last quarter of 7th century BC

North Ionian oinochoe

635-625 BC

River Tsutskan Neck of East Greek vase in the form of a panther’s head

Last quarter of 7th century BC

Neck of East Greek vase in the form of a ram’s head

Late 7th century BC

Two East Greek oinochoai

Last quarter of 7th century BC

Table 3. Local kurgans of the northern Black Sea littoral and the Kuban area with the earliest East Greek pottery of the 7th century BC.

There is some confusion in this and other publications on Nemirov. The site has been variously dated and described as Early Iron Age, period of Early Scythian Culture, Early Scythian and Scythian. This can be explained by the very complicated ethnic situation on the site. What is meant by Early Scythian culture or the beginning of Scythian culture? How Scythian are these periods? The Scythians were nomadic at the time that this settlement was established and existed; and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to identify nomadic cultures archaeologically. In this period there were, as we know, no Scythians on the Ukrainian steppes; the terms Pre-Scythian and Early Scythian are coinages of modern scholars. Nomads do not build settlements or erect dwellings.43

hilltop settlement of Heuneburg,45 with a large amount of Greek pottery, even Greek craftsmen living there (which can be proposed for Nemirov as well), Greektype mud-brick fortifications, etc. The only difference is that dwellings and public buildings in Heuneburg have wooden superstructures, whereas in Nemirov the dwellings are subterraneous. Thus, it would not be a mistake to consider or propose that Nemirov was a Hallstatt settlement.46 Indeed, study of the material demonstrates that the steppes and the northern Black Sea were popoulated by Hallstatt people(s).47 Let me turn to Belsk – better studied than Nemirov and with an on-going excavation – which is the largest local site in Europe: it occupied 4020 ha, had a defensive perimeter of 25 km and an estimated population of 4000-5000. The ramparts were 9 m high and ditches over 5 m deep.48 It included three forts – Western (72 ha), Eastern (65.2 ha) and Kuzeminskoe (15.4 ha), each with its own fortifications – and about nine other populated places. It has been excavated successfully for many years. The earliest tableware and amphorae, found before 1988, were mentioned in

How Scythian or Early Scythian was Nemirov? It existed for a relatively short period, from the end of the 8th to the beginning/first third of the 6th century BC, as a centre of local chief-men. According to Kashuba and Vakhtina, it belongs to the Early Scythian period and represents one of ‘the administrative, economic and ideological centres of European Archaic Scythia’.44 The materials known so far do not confirm that it was Scythian in general, let alone Early Scythian. It is obvious that it was a hub of different cultures; perhaps those of peoples of the ‘Early Scythian’ period, peoples that were not Scythian, were included in this hub. If not Scythian, what kind of settlement was it? It reminds me very closely of large Hallstatt settlements that were also the political and economic centres of different chief-men. The most striking parallel is the Hallstatt

Kimmig 2000; Rolley 2003; Kurz 2007; etc. Tsetskhladze 2018c. On Hallstatt in the northern Black Sea, especially domestic architecture (including the same types of subterranean dwelling as in Nemirov), see Kashuba 2012a; 2012b; Kashuba and Levitskii 2011; Bandrivskii 2012. 47  Bruyako 2005: 40-87. 48  Belsk is the best excavated and published local site anywhere within Ukrainian or Russian territory. The Belsk team publishes annually a hefty volume containing the year’s excavation reports. Furthermore, it has started to publish material from earlier excavations: the first volume in this series appeared recently (see B. Shramko, I. Shramko and Zadnikov 2018). All the published works of B.A Shramko, excavation director at Belsk for 40 years, were brought together in under one cover in B. Shramko 2016 (this includes his 1987 monograph). 45  46 

43  On the absence of Scythians in this and other areas, see Gavrilyuk 2017; Kopylov and Rusakov 2016a; 2016b. 44  Kashuba and Vakhtina 2017: 225.

8

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies

Figure 4. Selection of early Greek pottery from Nemirov (M.Y. Vakhtina).

9

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity my 2012 piece (see Table 1: the quantities and dating are given as far as the publications allow). They are studied by S. Zadnikov, a Greek pottery specialist. Of course, as the excavation proceeds, more pieces will be uncovered. So far, about 40-50 pieces of East Greek tableware of the last quarter of the 7th-first half of the 6th century BC have been discovered (and with amphorae of the same date the overall number is about 100).49 All of the Greek pottery at Belsk comes from the Western Fort, exclusively from ash-hills. In total, about 7000 pieces of pottery were found in Belsk, including from the Classical period.50 According to the late B.A. Shramko, this pottery, by origin, is 16% Ionian, 12.6% Chian (including amphorae), 7.8% Thasian amphorae, 3.7% Attic (a little painted, mostly black-glaze), 1.7% Lesbian amphorae, 38.1% amphorae of unidentified origin.51

It should be mentioned that Belsk, like Nemirov, has yielded Basarabi pottery dated to the first half of the 7th century BC. Basarabi influence is still visible in the middle-third quarter of the 7th century.55 Despite this pottery and Basarabi influence, until the arrival of the Greek the population of Belsk comprised local agricultural tribes.56 What kind of settlement was Belsk, the city of Gelonus? Here it is appropriate to give again the information of Herodotus, describing his own time: The Budini are a great and numerous nation; the eyes of all of them are very bright, and they are ruddy. They have a city built of wood, called Gelonus. The wall of it is 30 furlongs in length on each side of the city; this wall is high and all of wood; and their houses are wooden, and their temples; for there are among them temples of Greek gods, furnished in Greek fashion with images and altars and shrines of wood; and they honour Dionysus every two years with festivals and revels. For the Geloni are by their origin Greeks, who left their trading ports to settle among the Budini; and they speak a language half Greek and half Scythian. But the Budini speak not the same language as the Geloni, nor is their manner of life the same (Herodotus 4. 108).

Yet again, as an example, let me give some information about the earliest Greek tableware and amphorae and their context.52 The situation at Belsk changed when the excavation passed into new hands. Studies in 1988 and 2008 yielded new pieces of East Greek pottery. These were discovered in ash-hills (zol’nik) 5, 10, 11, 12 and 13, which are located in the central and eastern parts of the Western Fort. I have tried to count the numbers; with difficulty, I arrived at a total of about 15 pieces dating from the last quarter of the 7th to the first half of the 6th century BC.53 Two fragments of (separate) bird bowls were discovered in ash-hill 5, dated by the publishers to 650-615 BC; ash-hills 5, 12 and 13 produced several fragments of Middle Wild Goat (MWG) I oinochoai, dated to 640-630 BC; and ash-hill 10 one fragment of an oinochoe of MWG II, dated to 615600 BC.54

The discoveries in Belsk, especially from the Western Fort, show that Herodotus, in this instance, should be trusted. It looks as though the Greeks were living only in the Western Fort, the earliest of the three (the others were established later, in the 6th century BC). Unfortunately, the vast majority of the settlement’s kurgans were looted in antiquity or in modern times.57 It is important to mention one other site among several of this type, i.e. centres of economic and political power and the domicile of the local elites.58

I should like to thank M. Zadnikov for providing me with this information (pers. comm.), reinforced by his many publications on Greek pottery. 50  S. Zadnikov is preparing a catalogue of all Greek pottery found at Belsk. I thank I. Shramko and S. Zadnikov for this information. 51  B. Shramko 1987: 121-26, 174-79. 52  Bandurovskii 2001 (which should be read with caution). 53  Zadnikov 2007a; 2007b; 2009; Zadnikov and I. Shramko 2009. 54  In addition, a small number of fragments of Clazomenian, Lesbian and Chian amphorae of the final third of the 7th century BC were discovered in these ash-hills (Zadnikov 2009: 16-20). Seven coins were also found, all from northern Black Sea colonies. The earliest dates to the end of the 6th century BC. I am most grateful to S. Zadnikov for the information (pers. comm.). His paper about these and other coins will be published in the proceedings of the conference ‘Money on the Margins: Coinage, Forms and Strategies of Intercultural Commerce on the Black Sea Shore in the Classical and Hellenistic Eras’, held in Zichron Yaakov, Israel, 18-22 June 2017. It must be noted that coins found in a local context cannot demonstrate a monetary relationship between Greeks and locals: the basis of local trade was barter and, in any case, seven is too small a number of coins to form the basis for a serious discussion of a monetary relationship, and if such a relationship were to have existed, it would have been between the Greeks living in Belsk and those of the northern Black Sea colonies. I have not seen the coins themselves, nor even photographs of them. For the most part, coins found in a local context have a round hole punched in them – showing that they were used as personal ornaments. 49 

During the excavation of the Motroninskoe settlement, 65,000 fragments and about 50 complete and archaeologically complete examples of local handmade pottery were found. The Greek pottery consists of more I. Shramko 2013. B. Shramko 2016: 368-73 (from his 1987 monograph). 57  From time to time, the Belsk expedition of Kharkov University excavates kurgans in Skorobir. In 2017, during excavation of mound 2017/1 of the last third of the 6th century BC, a unique burial was found. Although it had been robbed in antiquity it yielded an amphora, the lid of a lekane and a pot (see I. Shramko and Zadnikov 2018). I am most grateful to S. Zadnikov for drawing this to my attention and for sending me a copy of the publication. See also I. Shramko and Zadnikov 2016. On the necropolis of Belsk in general, see Kulatova and Suprunenko 2010. During the 2019 field season, an unrobbed tumulus of the middle of the 6th century BC was discovered containing a femals body. Gold ornaments from her headdress were unearthed in situ. There were other grave-goods as well (bronze and pottery). I am most grateful to I.B. Shramko and S. Zadnikov for this information. 58  For others, see Rusyaeva 1998; 1999; Tsetskhladze 2003. 55  56 

10

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies than 7500 fragments, 96% of them from amphorae, and five archaeologically complete vessels. Overall, the Greek pottery forms 15.5% of all pottery found, and the vast majority of it comes from the last third of the 6thfirst quarter of the 5th century BC.59

around the Black Sea.68 Were emporia really just trading settlements, intermediate between the Mediterranean and Black Sea and local societies, or did they, like Naukratis, for instance, contain production facilities?69 Eusebius’ dates. ‘Pre-colonial’ links again?

Motroninskoe spread over 200 ha, of which 70 ha is enclosed within fortifications formed of earthen ramparts 10.5 m high and a ditch/moat 4-6 m deep and 10-15 m across. Outside the fortifications are three burial grounds with 60 kurgans.60 Trakhtemirov extended to 500 ha, defended by earthen ramparts, ditches and a wooden fortification structure.

Now it is time to address the question of some scholars’ firm belief in Kerschner and Schlotzhauer’s chronology. Discussion is concentrated on the establishment of the first Greek colony in the northern Black Sea: the Berezan settlement, now on an island but in ancient times a peninsula, and, in the Classical period, an emporion of Olbia (Herodotus 4. 17), as Piraeus for Athens, the only example from mainland Greece.

Thus, there are very good grounds for suggesting not only that locals formed part of the population of Greek colonies from the very beginning, but that Greeks were living in the political and economic centres of local rulers.61 This phenomenon is very well known from the western Black Sea and throughout the Mediterranean.62

Eusebius gives an establishment date of Berezan as 647 BC (Chron. 95b), and some would like this to be true. Indeed, this date fits quite well with the high chronology,70 and the pottery found about 500 km distant in the local settlements of the hinterland would, taking this high chronology, have reached them from Berezan. But, as has been pointed out several times though ignored, Eusebius’ dates cannot in general be trusted and should not be used. Once again, I give another long citation explaining why his establishment dates are flawed:

In 2000, Jane Bouzek introduced the term ‘Greeks over land’, demonstrating that Greek pottery had even reached as far as Bohemia. He updated his list in 2019.63 Thus Greek pottery reaching so far into the hinterland is not only a characteristic of the northern Black Sea. A most striking site is Krševica in central Serbia, which yielded a vast quantity of Greek pottery, especially amphorae, some of them with stamps, that the publishers felt able to suggest the existence here of an emporion.64 Goods in amphorae reached the Kharkov area in the distant hinterland of the Ukraine, demonstrated by the discovery of amphora fragments and stamps from some centres of the northern Black Sea.65 It is most likely that they reached here from Belsk, which is quite close by.

... the tendency to move away from giving foundation dates of colonies in the form of chronology relative to another Greek or Near Eastern event, or a king (Hdt. 4.144 on Kalchedon/Byzantion; Ps.-Skymnos 730ff, on a string of Pontic colonies), and towards the practice of using Olympiads and their fouryearly cycle. Eventually, in the Christian writers of the later Roman Empire, the era of Abraham was added as well. The dates in Eusebius and Jerome have an aura of exactness about them that is misleading (Chron. 95b), being based on a chain of previous pagan tradition that was very late in finding its tabular form. For colonies within the Pontos three dates have gained common acceptance: Istros in 657, Olbia in 647, Sinope in 631. But these should be regarded as dates arrived at by being put belatedly into tabular form, and not as a canon, sanctified by the Christian Fathers. A fourth date, found in the Armenian version of Eusebios, relating to Trapezous (757, ann. Abr. 1260) is to be discounted as a mistake, referring to the city of Kyzikos in the Propontis... Setting aside the exaggerated numbers of Milesian colonies and the (misleading) seeming exactitude of the few colonial dates provided by the chronographers, we may now turn to the

We frequently use the term emporion,66 often to describe a type of trading settlement that existed in the colonial world in circumstances where the Greeks were unable to establish full colonies because of the existence of a strong local polity. They existed not only in the western Mediterranean67 from the Archaic period but also Bessonova and Skoryi 1999: 37. The Greek pottery is still unpublished. Bessonova and Skoryi 1999. On Greek imports in Scythia, see Gavrilyuk 2007. 61  Tsetskhladze 2003. In two articles the authors had expressed this same opinion: Fabritsius 1951: 71 (he dates the presence of the Greeks and the existence of the local populations in the hinterland to the end of the 7th-end of the 6th century BC); and Gavrilyuk 2007. Gavrilyuk writes: ‘There is no doubt that the Greek dealers penetrated deep into the territory occupied by local tribes from the middle of the 7th century BC. Greek handicraftsmen or dealers visited and probably also lived in the territory for some time, for example, on the Bel’sk hillfort (the Left Bank Forest-steppe) or Pastyrskoe, Shapovskoe or Motronino (the Right Bank Forest-steppe)’ (2007: 639). 62  Tsetskhladze 2002; and see now Tsetskhladze 2014 (both with bibliography). 63  Bouzek 2000; 2019. 64  Popović 2009; Popović and Vukadinović 2011. 65  Boiko 2008; Gutsalov 2009; Koloda 2009. 66  Hansen 2006; Demetriou 2012; Gailledrat et al. 2018; etc. 67  Gailledrat et al. 2018. 59 

60 

Hind 1997; Tsetskhladze 2000; Koshelenko and Marinovitch 2000. For Naukratis, see Demetriou 2012: 105-52. For the latest, see Möller 2019. 70  Perhaps Eusebius’ work influenced the high dating of pottery from the northern Black Sea? 68  69 

11

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity distribution, character and development of the poleis in the Pontic region.71

7th century and that from Trakhtemirov may be dated to the middle-second half of the 7th century.80

For instance, he gives the foundation date of Histria as 657 BC (Chron. 95b).72 Fallacious. There, primary attention has been given to several dozen pieces of early East Greek pottery and not to the account of Eusebius.73

The Berezan piece was not found in situ but during the cleaning of the wall of the Building with an Apse, which is dated to after the middle of the 6th century BC. The author concludes that this piece demonstrates ‘precolonial’ links and also the validity of Eusebius’ date for the establishment of Berezan. I have already discussed this piece at length.81 Here it is sufficient to remark that her dating is problematic, and that the true date of this and the other two pieces is inconsistent with ‘precolonial’ contacts. It must be said that the notion of pre-colonial links has receded as more evidence comes to light from both the eastern82 and western83 regions of Greek overseas settlement.

Special study of the East Greek pottery from Berezan by R. Posamentir has demonstrated that there is nothing earlier than the last quarter of the 7th century BC,74 yet again ignored by those who believe in Eusebius’ date for Berezan’s establishment. It must be emphasised that V.M. Otreshko found a solution in 1989 (albeit published just in an abstract of his paper).75 Based on the methodology employed by other scholars, who had examined evidence from the Near East about Lydia relating to the dates of known historical events and those given for them by Eusebius, and had shown that Eusebius’ dating was 20 years too early, he applied the same to the establishment dates of Berezan and Histria, bringing those of Eusebius forward by the same 20 years. Thus, Berezan was founded ca. 625 BC and Histria in ca. 637 BC, and the disparity between Eusebius’ dates and those given by archaeology is reconciled. Otreshko’s opinion has been completely ignored.

Pre-colonial contacts around the Black Sea had been discussed many times but were forgotten. Then, in 1990, controversy flared up again. A.J. Graham accepted the establishment of Sinope by Miletus as dating to before 756 BC, and of Trapezus as a colony of Sinope in 756 BC.84 These dates were taken from written sources. In support of the appearance of the Greeks in the Black Sea as early as the 8th century BC, Graham cited pottery: the rim of an LG kotyle (a Euboean copy of a Corinthian type dated to ca. 750-720 BC) allegedly coming from Histria; a small geometric hydria, allegedly from Berezan, bought from a dealer (called Attic of Atticising and assigned to MG II; dated ca. 800-760 BC); and two fragments of Cypriot ‘White Painted IV’ ware of the Cypro-Archaic period (ca. 740-660 BC) found at Histria and Berezan. Boardman, in his 1991 paper,85 convincingly demonstrated that this earliest pottery and its origins in Histria and Berezan were false. After this, the matter of pre-colonial links in the Black Sea once again fell silent.

Furthermore, some go so far as to give even earlier dates to pottery. One piece from Berezan has recently been published by A.V. Buiskikh.76 It was found by V.V. Lapin in 1963 but lay forgotten for half a century despite its enormous potential importance for the discussion of the foundation dates of Greek colonies in the northern Black Sea area. Buiskikh identifies it as a skyphos in Subgeometric style of probably Milesian origin. She dates it to the second third of the 7th century BC, based on the high chronology proposed by Kerschner and Schlotzhauer. In the chronology more generally used this piece would be dated some 20-30 years later.77 Buiskikh introduces into her discussion as comparisons for dating a fragment of a vessel from Nemirov78 and a fragment of a bird bowl of North Ionian production from Trakhtemirov city-site,79 both of which she dated similarly to the Berezan piece. Vakhtina dated the Nemirov fragment to possibly the third quarter of the

It is obvious from the dating of the earliest pottery from Berezan that it lies in the same range as the earliest East Greek tableware from local settlements; and it is logical that such pottery reached them from Berezan and did so in the form of gifts from newly arrived Greeks to local rulers in pursuit of friendly relations and economic benefit.86 The question is why it travelled Kashuba and Vakhtina 2017; Smirnova et al. 2018. The bibliography for the different dating of this material can be found in Tsetskhladze 2012: 354-56, table 1. 81  Tsetskhladze 2016a. 82  See, for example, Tsetskhladze 1998b: 10-15; Boardman 2002; Gates 2010; Maier et al. 2009. 83  For example, Ridgway 2000; 2004; Denti 2008; etc. Cf. Morel 2006. 84  Graham 1990: 52-54. 85  Boardman 1991: 387. Previously, other material – some fibulae; bronze figurines of a sleeping woman holding a child to her breast, from Samos and Colchis; bronze belts from Samos, allegedly made in the Caucasus; clay figurines depicting two- and three-headed fantastic animals from Vani, dated to the 8th-7th century BC – has been adduced as demonstrating pre-colonial links, but further study has demonstrated that this is not the case: see Tsetskhladze 1994: 113-14 (with references). 86  Tsetskhladze 2012: 335-46 passim. See also Tsetskhladze 2010. As N.A. Gavrilyuk puts it: ‘The first stage of interaction between Greeks 80 

Avram et al. 2004: 924-25 (with bibliography). See, for instance, Avram et al. 2004: 933, no. 685. 73  Ps-Scymnus fr. 6 gives a later foundation date. 74  Posamentir 2010. 75  Otreshko 1989; republished in Otreshko 2009. 76  Buiskikh 2015a; 2015b. 77  Even Udo Schlotzhauer also has doubts about Buiskikh’s dating (pers. comm.). 78  Buiskikh 2015b: 244. For more on East Greek pottery from Nemirov, see Vakhtina 2000; 2002; 2004a; 2004b; 2007a; 2007b [Vachtina]; 2009; Vakhtina and Kashuba 2014; Kashuba and Vakhtina 2017. See now Smirnova et al. 2018: 193-222, 276-305. 79  Buiskikh 2015b: 244-46. 71  72 

12

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies so far. What about the local peoples in the immediate vicinity of Berezan and Olbia? The answer is that there were none until the end of the 6th/beginning of the 5th century BC:87 the Greeks were the first people to settle in this and other areas.88 Moreover, the absence of a local population around Berezan, Olbia and other places before then has serious implications when we consider the ethnic composition of the Archaic Greek colonies, especially from the end of the 7th century BC to the first half of the 6th century. Discussion has long continued about the earliest domestic architecture of the Milesian Black Sea Greek colonies – subterranean and semi-subterranean dwellings known in Russian and Ukrainian literature as pithouses and semi-pithouses, of which the largest number, over 200, are from Berezan. Some scholars consider them indications of a strong presence of local people within the colonies: these were their dwellings. Another aspect, much discussed, is the high proportion of handmade pottery in these colonies, again taken as an indicator of a large local presence. But how can this be when there was no local population thereabouts? The vast majority of the handmade pottery is cooking pots, very often with traces of fire. It must have been produced by the Greeks (of course the typical Greek fine tableware also found was not used for cooking). Handmade pottery was known in Miletus,89

the mother-city. So too were subterranean dwellings – and throughout Anatolia, even as far as Metapontum in southern Italy. Thus, not the dwellings of non-existent locals but of Greek settlers.90 Another criticism by Schlotzhauer and Zhuravlev was of my using a piece of pottery from Alekseevka that predates – though they do not accept it – the establishment of Greek colonies in the Taman Peninsula and the Kuban (Table 1.9; Fig. 5).91 The Alekseevka settlement is situated not far from Gorgippia and it is possible that it was subsequently incorporated into the latter’s chora. The piece dates to 630/620-590 BC, while the establishment of the Greek colonies actually began from the beginning of the 6th century BC (Table 4). Thus their criticism is very strange and without grounds – or are they now taking low dates and not high ones! Emporion or royal residence? The terminology used to define the status of Greek overseas settlements is not necessarily clear.92 Above, I have mentioned emporion a few times.93 We sometimes use this term for settlements such as those where Greeks lived in the residences/political centres of local chiefs and kings or as part of a local settlement.94 But where should we draw the line? The best example comes from Thrace: this is the important site of Adjiyska Vodenitsa

and Barbarians of the Northern Black Sea took place in the 7thfirst half of the 6th centuries BC. It was the acquainted stage of interaction’s process between the bearers of antique civilization and a native population of the Northern Black Sea area. Luxury goods such as ceremonial pottery utensils (weapon, fine ware, other craft goods) appear on the sites of the forest-steppe as the most populated regions of the Northern Black Sea. Volumes of such supplies are insignificant, the quantity of goods is not great and there may have been several deliveries (or even single arrivals) of ceremonial utensils. It is possible that the objects of Greek manufacture from sites of the Northern Black Sea were not goods, but gifts of the first Greek settlers, to separate representatives of the Scythian nobility’ (Gavrilyuk 2007: 655-56). 87  Gavrilyuk and Tymchenko 2015: ‘The results of research on new sets of finds of handmade pottery, as well as reprocessing old collections using modern methods of data-base treatment, allow us to take a fresh look at the problem of the origin and further development of Olbia and Berezan. Olbia’s handmade pottery (from the sectors Temenos, UZA, NGS; Berezan and chora settlements) of the Archaic period was divided into several groups. These were similar to the ceramic complexes of the Dniester-Danube basins and the forest-steppe of the northern Black Sea area. Museum collections and a mass material from field schedules (more than half a million pieces and unbroken vessels) were analysed. A special “bathymetric” method of analysing the mass material was developed. Handmade pottery appeared in Olbia at the turn of the 6th/5th centuries BC. A Thracian group was classified; functional types of pottery and its distribution within the Archaic chora of Olbia were identified; pathways of infiltration of carriers of Thracian culture into the Olbian district were examined. The results obtained may suggest that, in the initial phase of colonisation, the principal attraction of the BerezanOlbia hinterland was the existence of extensive, free and rich natural resources, and uninhabited territory with favourable conditions for agriculture behind the Dnieper-Bug estuary. The choice of location was strategically very successful. Within a few decades Olbia’s hinterland had expanded considerably and it became possible to develop trade with the vast barbarian world (mainly) between the lower reaches of the Danube, Dniester, Southern Bug and Dnieper rivers and the forest-steppe under future nomadic control.’ 88  See Kopylov and Rusakov 2016a; 2016b; Gavrilyuk 2017: 186-87. 89  Gavrilyuk 2017: 187-92.

About pithouses, the Greek and handmade pottery recovered from them, and comparative material, see Tsetskhladze 2004. 91  The ancient geography of the Taman Peninsula is a matter of debate. The present peninsula is a single landmass of some 1200 km2. In antiquity, it is thought that it was three or five islands (see, for example, Strabo 11. 2. 9-12). Obviously this affects the nine Greek colonies of the peninsula: which were on which island(s). Since 2006, a Russo-German project has been actively studying the ancient geography. The conclusion is, indeed, that the peninsula was once an archipelago, but it was formed of a principal island (on which Hermonassa, Phanagoria, Kepoi and some others were situated) plus two small ones. This pattern followed the post-glacial regression of 5000 cal. BC. There was then a broad channel, the ‘Kuban Bosporus’, where now the Kuban Delta is to be found, providing another passage between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Sea levels changed over time (by between 2 and 5 m – see papers in Baralis, Bivolaru et al. 2016) and cliffs were eroded, lagoons formed and islands were linked, coastal settlements that had been on promontories when they were established in the 6th century were cut off from the open sea by sand spits during the 4th-2nd centuries BC (Tsetskhladze 2016b, with discussion and bibliography: see table 1 on p. 47 showing all colonies on the present-day Taman Peninsula; also discussion of fluctuations in sea levels and the effects on the cities and on their investigation – parts are submerged). Thirteen settlements now inland have been investigated with varying degrees of thoroughness (see Tsetskhladze 2016b: 52, table 2) and the evidence suggests that some were originally coastal. If this is so, their status remains unknown. Otheers had always been inland, and a few of these have yielded Greek pottery and Greek-type architecture including a temple. This could demonstrate the existence of emporia there. The settlements were all established at different times in the 6th and even the beginning of the 5th century BC. For the extensive trade between the Greek colonies of the Taman Peninsula and the Kuban, see, for instance, Ulitin 2013. 92  Tsetskhladze 2006b, xxxviii-xlii. 93  On emporia, see Bresson and Rouillard 1993; Hind 1997; Koshelenko and Marinovitch 2000; Hansen 2006; Demetriou 2011; 2012; Gailledrat et al. 2018. 94  See, for instance, Demetriou 2012: 24-152; Gailledrat et al. 2018: 55190. 90 

13

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 5. Map of the modern Taman Peninsula showing ancient Greek colonies (not to scale) (author’s map).

(Vetren), situated on the Maritsa river, the ancient Hebros, about 200 km inland from the Black Sea in the municipality of Septemvri in Central Bulgaria. The river, which was navigable, has changed its course over time and washed away some part of the settlement. Excavation of the site has continued for over 30 years and the results have been published extensively.95 Indeed, Pistiros/Vetren demonstrates the problem very well: was it an emporion or the residence of a local minor king? Until the discovery of the Pistiros inscription at Asar Deme, about 2 km to the south-east, lying at the edge of a field not far from architectural remains (it is obvious that it had been reused in the construction of some building) belonging to Lissae, a station on the Roman road of the beginning of the 4th century AD, the site was interpreted from an archaeological point of view as a settlement. Afterwards, Bulgarian and Czech colleagues with few exceptions interpreted it through the inscription and considered it Emporion Pistiros. The settlement itself existed from the late 5th to the early 2nd century BC.

many times.97 I merely note that not all is/was clear. Different dates have been suggested for its creation, even the beginning of the 3rd century BC. The reading and interpretation of it also provoked discussion.98 It is now strongly suggested that the decree dates after 359 and before 352 BC, being issued by Amadokos II to confirm an agreement already in force between the emporitans and his predecessor, Kotys I.99 To go back to the settlement: several phases have been identified. The first, before 400 BC, demonstrates that Vetren did not arise in empty land, based on an increasing amount of evidence: finds of some Greek painted pottery including fragments of Panathenaic Velkov and Domaradzka 1996; Avram 1999; Dossier Pistiros 1999; Domaradzka 2002b. See now Demetriou 2012: 158-69. Since the inscription is not only important but unique, I provide a translation: ‘(If anyone should swear by) Dionysos and | ... he will owe a due. If any of the | [5] emporitai has a cause to plead against another, | they will be judged each among his own | relatives, and with respect to such things as are owed | by the emporitai at the Thracians, | no cancellation of debts is to be | [10] made. The land and pasture belonging | to the emporitai shall not be taken from them. | The epaulistai shall not be sent to | the emporitai. No garrison | is to be placed at Pistiros, neither by him | [15] nor should (any) be handed over to another. | The kleroi of the inhabitants of Pistiros | are not to be changed nor handed over to another. | Neither shall the possessions of the emporitai be appropriated | by him or by any of his people. | [20] No dues shall be levied on the goods | which are imported to Maroneia | from Pistiros or from the | emporia, or from Maroneia to Pistiros | and to the emporia Belana of the Prasenoi. | [25] The emporitai the wagons | to open and close. At the same time | valid is as in Kotys’ time: | ‘I will not send over any citizen of Maroneia; nor will I | kill him, nor will I let his property be confiscated, | [30] neither during his lifetime nor after his death, | neither I myself nor any of my people. | Nor (will I kill) any of the Apollonians, nor | the Thasians who are at Pistiros, | [35] nor will I (imprison any of them) nor will I deprive any | man of his property, | neither alive nor dead, | neither I myself nor any of my people... | ...(nevertheless, if any) of the dwellers | ... of the empor- | are | if not AM- | ... (but if anyone) should commit a crime (against another) | ...... every year | [45] ....... | ............ A.’ Translation: Domaradzka 2002b. For the latest discussion, with minor changes in the reconstruction of the inscription and translation, see Demetriou 2012: 161-62. 98  Velkov and Domaradzka 1996; Avram 1999; Dossier Pistiros 1999; Domaradzka 2002b. 99  Domaradzka 2002b. 97 

Let me again96 pay attention to the Vetren settlement and the Pistiros inscription. The inscription indeed mentions Emporion Pistiros (Fig. 6). I will not dwell on it: this has already been done Not only have six volumes of excavation and studies been published (Bouzek, Domaradzki and Archibald 1996; Bouzek, Domaradzka and Archibald 2002; 2007; 2010; Bouzek, Domaradzka et al. 2013; Bouzek et al. 2016), but further articles and addenda to these volumes have appeared in the Prague-based periodical Studia Hercynia. See also Bouzek and Domaradzka 2005: 1-46. Twenty years of excavation at Pistiros was celebrated in articles in Eirene (Pistiros Jubilee 2010; 2011). For a list of further publications, see Bouzek et al. 2007: 11-16. For the latest, see Pavúk 2018: 361-456. An international symposium, ‘Between the Aegean and the Danube: Thracians, Greeks and Celts in the Balkans during the Classical and Hellenistic Periods’, organised to celebrate 30 years of excavation at Pistiros, was held in Sofia and Septemvri, September 19-23, 2018. The papers from it will be published. 96  See previously Tsetskhladze 2000; 2011a. 95 

14

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies

No.

Colony

Foundation date according to earliest pottery

Mother City

References in ancient authors

1.

Bata

Second half of 6th century BC?

Miletus?

Strabo 11. 2. 14

Not identified firmly.

2.

Corocondame

580-560 BC

Ionians

Strabo 11. 2. 8-9, 14; Ps.-Arrian PPE 64; Steph. Byz s.v

Around Cape Tuzla. Settlement itself completely washed away. Part of the necropolis survives. Identification not firm.

3.

Hermonassa

Middle 6th century BC

4.

Kepoi

580-560 BC

Miletus

Ps.-Scymnus 899; Pliny NH 6. 18; Strabo 11. 2. 10; Ps.-Scylax 72

3 km north-east of Phanagoria. Identification not firm.

5.

Patraeus

Middle 6th century BC

Miletus?

Strabo 11.2.8; Steph. Byz s.v.

Village of Garkusha. Identification not firm. Large part is under the Taman Gulf.

6.

Phanagoria

ca. 542 BC

Teos

Ps-Scymnus 886; Dionysius Periegetes vv. 549551; Strabo 11. 2. 10; Arrian Bith fr. 55 Roos = FGrH 156 fr. 71; Ps.-Scylax 72; Hecat. fr. 212 apud Steph. Byz. 657. 8. The oikist Phanagoras as is known (Arrian Bith. fr. 55 Roos = FGrH 156 fr. 71)

Village of Sennaya, confirmed by two inscriptions found on site: CIRB 971; Y.G. Vinogradov and M. Wörrle in Chiron 22 (1992), 160-61. About 25 ha of the 75 ha site is under the waters of the Taman Gulf.

7.

Sindice/Sindic Harbour/ Gorgippia

Middle-last quarter of 6th century BC

Miletus

Herodotus 4. 8. 6, 4. 28. 1; Strabo 7. 4. 6, 11. 2. 12, 14; Ps.-Scymnus 886-889; Arrian Periplus 18. 4-19. 1; Anon. Periplus 62; Ptolemy Geog. 5. 8. 8; Steph. Byz. s.v.

Large site beneath modern city of Anapa. Part well excavated as a result of rescue excavation. Identification as Sindice/Sindic Harbour is not firm at all. Gorgippia as Anapa is very well documented from 4th century BC.

8.

Toricos

Second half of 6th century BC

Miletus?

Ps.-Scylax 74

Not far from city of Gelendzik. Identification not firm.

9.

Tyramba

End of 6th century BC

Ionians?

Strabo 11. 2. 4; Ptolemy Geog. Not far from the town of Temryuk. 5. 8. 4 Identification not firm at all. The local museum holds complete Greek vessels from the Tyramba? necropolis.

Ionian/Aeolian Arrian Bith fr. 55 Roos = FGrH jt foundation 156 fr. 71; Steph. Byz. s.v. Eustathius Comm. 549 = GGM II 324; Hecataeus FGrH 1 fr. 208; Ps.Scymnus 886-891. Name derives from the wife of the oikist after he had died (Arrian Bith. fr. 55 Roos – FGrH 156 fr. 71)

Site identification

Village of Taman, but no firm evidence found. Much of site washed away by the waters of the Taman Gulf.

Table 4. Greek colonies on the Taman Peninsula.

amphorae, fibulae, etc.,100 even a lamp nozzle of ca. 500 BC, a bronze bowl and a fragment of a fibula of the 6th century BC.101

the third quarter of the 5th century BC, which is when typically Greek fortification walls with a gate were erected, built mainly by architects from Thasos (Figs. 7-8).102 Not far from it there is also a chamber tomb (Fig. 8), built using the same masonry technique as the city walls (Fig. 9).103 This kind of tomb was widespread

Thus, the archaeological evidence shows that the settlement at Vetren as we now know it was founded in 100  101 

Bouzek 2016b: 21. Bouzek 2016b: 21.

102  103 

15

Bouzek 1996a. Bouzek 2016b: 21.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity The second phase starts from the beginning of the 4th century. The settlement had Hippodamian planning, stone-paved streets appeared, one of them the main street, stone houses, etc. There are also stone drainage channels. Thus, it indeed looks Greek, populated by Greeks,106 but detailed study of the material presents a different picture. I have already discussed the question of whether the settlement at Vetren was a thriving emporion in two previous articles.107 I repeat here what is most striking: the absence of Greek altars or anything to point to the existence of a Greek shrine or temple; whereas there are several typical Thracian clay altars with geometric decoration.108 It has been claimed that ‘two shrines’ existed at the gate, but are they really shrines or Greek? It is very difficult to know since we still await their publication, proper drawings and details of what material they contained. So far we have only a brief mention.109 I remain sceptical. As evidence for an extensive trade relationship and Greek residency let me turn first to the Greek pottery: altogether about 15,000 sherds of Attic pottery have been found, dating from the second half of the 5thearly 4th century BC, among them 12800 of blackglazed vessels and 2200 of painted ones.110 This pottery is concentrated primarily in two areas connected to buildings with stone foundations,111 which may demonstrate where the Greeks were living; in addition, it spreads even outside the fortification walls. There are several pits in which some Greek pottery has been discovered. Other characteristic features of Greek life such as terracottas and lamps are found in limited number, likewise amphorae, and only a handful of amphora-stamps.112 There are other features indicating Bouzek 2016a; 2016c. Tsetskhladze 2000; 2011a. 108  Lazov 1996. 109  Bouzek 2016c: 24, where there is some serious confusion. Bouzek, when he writes about a shrine, cites Bouzek, Musil et al. 2013: 57-59. There, at p. 59, is a very brief mention of a ‘Small Gate Sanctuary’, which is ‘apparently identical with that uncovered already by M. Domaradzki in his neighbouring trench (cf. Pistiros I, 20-22)’ [i.e. Domaradzki 1996]. Domaradzki’s report carries no mention of any sanctuary, simply, at p. 21, that in a pile of stones in the interior of a tower of the Eastern Gateway ‘four fragments of re-used altar were found inscribed with the name of Metrophon’ and provides of photograph of the pile. I would question seriously the idea of sanctuaries here. 110  Petrova 2018: 391-92. Only a fraction, less than 2%, has been published. See Archibald 1996; 2002a; Bouzek 2010; Bouzek and Domaradzkaa 2007a. Z.H. Archibald (2002a: 132) promised a full catalogue of figured and plain and glazed pottery, with statistics, would be published in the next Pistiros volume (= Bouzek, Domaradzka and Archibald 2007). It did not appear there and has not appeared in the any subsequent volume. See also Bozkova 2017. 111  Petrova 2018: 394; map on pp. 392-93. 112  ‘I encountered the same problem when seeking to consolidate the statistics about amphorae from different publications, sometimes within the same publications. It is noted that amphora neckfragments were not studied in detail and not included in any statistics, but also that their centres of production were similar in proportion to those of the toes. Overall, 137 toes and 73 stamps were identified (Thasian, 32 and 54 respectively; Mende 7 and 2; Peparetos 32 and 7; the ‘Thasian circle’ 13 and 4 (Ainos); Lesbos 17 and 0; Chios 17 and 0; Cnidus 7 and 1; Heraclea 12 and 5). This is really very small 106  107 

Figure 6. Pistiros inscription (L. Domaradzka).

in Thrace as a burial place of a local ruler: the Vetren tomb is a typical example of such a royal tomb (a second tomb, which had been nearly destroyed, was also excavated, again not far from the settlement),104 indeed, it is one of the earliest examples of them, dating to ca. 400 BC.105 104  105 

See my observation in Tsetskhladze 2000: 239. Bouzek and Domaradzka 2007b. See also Tsetskhladze 1998c.

16

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies

Figure 7. General plan of the Eastern Gateway area, Emporion Pistiros (J. Bouzek and L. Domaradzka).

Figure 8. Plan of the Eastern Gateway, Emporion Pistiros (J. Bouzek and L. Domaradzka).

17

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity have yielded 24 proper names, of which 17 are of Greek and seven of Thracian origin. It is possible to interpret them in many ways, one of which is that they belong to Greek artisans and others who were living in Adjiyska Vodenitsa, as they lived in many other local settlements where their skills were required. One graffito in Greek reads ‘Athenagores salary for a day’.116 This surely is further evidence that Greeks were employed by local rulers.117 It should be considered that skilled labour was one of the forms of tax or tribute that Greeks might pay to the local rulers of the hinterland.118 Let us turn to coins. One publication gives a number of about 1500; another around 1800. Those minted by Thracian kings are: Amadokos I – 27; Kotys I – 42; Amadokos II – 14; Kersebleptes – 1; Teres II – 9; and Seuthes III – 3. There are some foreign coins – silver from Parion, the Chersonese, Mesembria and Apollonia Pontica.119 The overwhelming preponderance is of Macedonian coins, including a hoard of 552, in a clay vessel, dateable to the 280s BC, now published,120 all from a period in which the area was dominated by Macedonia.

Figure 9. Ground plan of Vetren tomb (J. Bouzek et al.).

The settlement at Vetren was the site of various productive activities, which is just to be expected in such cases of Greek craftsmen dwelling in a place of royal residence: pottery (kiln for the production of local wares have been found outside the fortification wall),121 textiles,122 bronze-working (plaques and fibulae)123 and possibly terracotta figurines.124 What I have presented is just a short overview of the site. I believe that the settlement at Vetren is not Emporion Pistiros but was the seat of a local ruler whose residence was built by the Greeks.125 Only a few scholars have continued to express what was Domaradzki’s initial

that the whole settlement was not populated by Greeks,113 but I shall not give details here, except to mention the enormous quantity of local pottery that has been discovered. I must underline that I am judging the Pistiros material purely from what has been published.114

116  Domaradzka 2007: 224, no. 1 (the vessel fragment itself dates to the 5th century BC; the graffiti to the second half or end of the 5th century). 117  Indeed, this inscription demonstrates only too well the presence of Greek craftsmen at Vetren even before the foundation date of the supposed Emporion Pistiros. 118  See for instance, with bibliography, Tsetskhladze 2002; 2010; 2014. 119  Archibald 2014 (with references). 120  Bouzek et al. 2016: 65-152. 121  Taneva 2013. 122  Bouzek 1996b. 123  Domaradzki 2002; Lazov 2013. 124  Lazov 2002. 125  If we must accept that Vetren was an emporion, then the emporion would be a designated area where Greeks lived and conducted trade, and not the whole settlement. I must repeat the question: what happened to the royal residence and why did it cease to exist? Domaradzka has written: ‘The huge amount of fine pottery imported from Greece and the amphorae, weights and trade seals unequivocally suggest that trade was the major occupation of the inhabitants of Pistiros’ (Domaradzka 2005: 20). What is strange is that such important evidence and trade seights and seals has not been published. As far as I know, from real emporia, be they in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean, such evidence is yet to be found. Sling bullets from the site, some with inscriptions of personal names have been published by Avram et al. 2013: 240, 290, 295. About this kind of evidence, see also Avram 2011a; 2011b; 2016.

There are some 250 graffiti on Greek and local potsherds, the vast majority dating from the first half of the 4th century BC and several from the mid/late 5th century.115 Some hold the opinion that there are a few ‘ostraka’, but the names on them can be interpreted in several ways. There are four, possibly five, inscriptions, including the famous Pistiros inscription itself. These beer for an emporion, even adding the unspecified number of necks and a few unidentifiable stamps, when, as I mentioned in 2000, other clearly identified trading settlements around the Black Sea have yielded several times these numbers of both stamps and amphorae. Moreover, many of these settlements have been excavated for far shorter periods than 20 years and are frequently less well preserved than Adjiyska Vodenitsa’ (Tsetskhladze 2011: 17). The situation has not changed much since. 113  See Tsetskhladze 2000; 2011 (with references). 114  L. Domaradzka kindly informed me that there is unpublished material, which I have not seen, in the depot. See also Domaradzka 2005. 115  Not all published. See publications in Domaradzka 1996; 2002a; 2002b; 2007a; 2007b; 2013. See also Petrova 2018: 394.

18

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies view, namely ‘that the city could be a royal residence of the sub-king of the Upper Maritsa valley’.126 Domaradzki changed his mind,127 again thanks to the inscription. But nowadays more have come to doubt that Vetren was the thriving Emporion Pistiros of the 4th century BC and several have arrived at the same interpretation that I expressed in my two articles.128 I give just one example:

what happened after 400 BC, and why Vetren ceased to be such a residence. Of course, it continued to exist: there is no evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Royal residences were nothing new for Thrace: Seuthopolis, Kabyle and a few others looked very much like Greek poleis and contained inscriptions in Greek.131 The same can be said about the Greek-type fortified Getic capital at Sboryanovo in north-eastern Bulgaria: its necropolis was Sveshtari.132 (Excavation of Sboryanova revealed Greek pottery including amphorae and amphora-stamps, stone buildings with tiles, etc.133) But most striking is Vasil Levski, where not only was Late Archaic Greek pottery found but also a large building constructed with ashlar masonry, as well as Corinthian/Corinthian-type tiles.134

In his article, however, G. Tsetskhladze disputes the identification, in my opinion persuasively. The archaeological remains indicate that Vetren was a non-Greek community, whereas the inscription shows that Pistiros was a mixed settlement with a strong element of Greek settlers among its inhabitants. According to Tsetskhladze, Pistiros has not yet been found.129

A revealing comparison comes from Seuthopolis,135 the capital city of Seuthes III. It was situated on a readily defensible spur of land on a bend of the River Tundja. This site, unique for Thrace, is now unfortunately submerged by a dam. As the plan reproduced here shows (Fig. 10), it was nearly square and had a fortification system with towers. Among other public places it had an agora. Nobody has ever called this site an emporion, although there is a foundation inscription. Like Vetren, it had regular planning and stone buildings. If Vetren really had an agora (and a colonnade),136 as we can see from Seuthopolis, this is still no reason to consider Vetren as anything other than the residence of a local king.

Previously, the period before 400 BC was not included in the phasing of the Vetren settlement; now it is called Phase 1 and, indeed, the then settlement is interpreted as the residence of a minor king.130 A big question is Domaradzki 1993; cf. Domaradzki 1996a. I was not aware of these publications when writing my 2000 article. Domaradzki is not the only one to change his mind. Z.H. Archibald doubted the identification of Vetren with Pistiros: ‘Vetren, regional centre of the Odrysian kings of the mid-5th until the 2nd centuries B.C. …’ (Archibald 1998: 343; see also Archibald 2002b). Her book appeared after I had given my paper (Tsetskhladze 2000) at the Pistiros conference and submitted it for publication. In Archibald 2004: 895-96, however, she considered Pistiros to have been as a polis, which is stretching the evidence beyond the reasonable (although it had a fortification system, this was erected while the site was the residence of a local king before the supposed Pistiros was established; later it enjoyed regular planning and stone-paved streets, but these cannot be considered as indicators of polis-status; while it did not emit coins, there were no magistrates, and no agora [although one has been suggested, without proper proof, likewise a colonnade – Bouzek 2016c] or public buildings, etc. – which are characteristic and defining features of a polis per Hansen and Nielsen 2004a), and the Vetren settlement and Pistiros to be one and the same. 127  Domaradzki 1993; cf. Domaradzki 1996a. 128  See bibliography in Tsetskhladze 2011: 15, n.6. These other authors were, as far as I know, unaware of my article. 129  Hansen 2006: 21. 130  About the existence of Thracian minor kings, according to Herodotus (5. 3), the Thracians were the largest people in the world after the Indians, and they had many names, each tribe according to its region. The exact number of these tribes is not known: Strabo 7. fr. 47 (48) gives it as 22, while Pliny the Younger (NH 4. 11. 40) wrote that Thrace was divided into 50 administrative units, and Ptolemy (3. 11. 6) that it was divided into 14. Whatever their number, the Thracian tribes formed quite a diverse group and it is rather difficult to identify them archaeologically, especially in the Iron Age. Thus, the later Odrysian kingdom was neither strong nor centralised. Hence, there were many local minor kings and rulers. The manner in which Odrysian kings conducted their affairs is described by Thucydides (2. 97): ‘As for the tribute which came in from the barbarian territory and from all the Hellenic cities over which the Odrysians acquired sway in the time of Seuthes – who, succeeding Sitalces on the throne, brought the revenues to a maximum – its value was about four hundred talents in coin, and was paid in gold and silver; and gifts in equal value to the tribute, not only of gold and silver, but besides these all manner of stuffs, both embroidered and plain, and other articles for household use, were brought as offerings to the King, and not for him only, but also for the subordinate princes and nobles of the Odrysians. For these kings had established a custom which was just the opposite of that prevailing in the kingdom of the Persians, namely, to take rather 126 

For me, Vetren has striking similarities to Ullastret, about 40 km inland, not far from Ampurias in Spain: Ullastret was the residence of a local ruler, it had typically Greek impressive fortifications, all buildings in the settlement were constructed of Greek-type stone masonry and nearly all rooms excavated yielded large numbers of Greek pottery fragments, etc. (Figs. 11-12). Furthermore, there are traces of the production of local pottery, mainly imitating Greek (Fig. 13), metalworking, etc.137 than to give; indeed it was more disgraceful for a man not to give when asked than to ask and be refused. This custom was observed among the other Thracians also; but the Odrysian kings, as they were powerful, followed it more extensively; indeed it was not possible to accomplish anything without giving gifts’. See also Polybius 4. 45. On Thrace, with a discussion of the major issues and problems, see, for example, Theodossiev 2011 (with exhaustive bibliography). The Getic lands show the same situation as in Thrace (Avram 2011) and other parts of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean (see Zournatzi 2000; Tsetskhladze 2010). 131  Bouzek 2002b; 2005. For the latest on the important Seuthopolis inscription, see Graninger 2018 (with previous bibliography). 132  Stoyanov 2002. 133  Stoyanov 2002. 134  Bouzek 2002b. 135  Dimitrov and Čičikova 1978. 136  See n. 126. I am not opposed to the presence of an agora and colonnade at Vetren, but I should prefere to see them clearly: a proper drawing rather than a pile of stones in an illustration. 137  Martín i Ortega 2001. For Spanish bibliography, see Tsetskhladze 2011: 20, n. 57. See also Tsetskhladze 2014: 223, 226-28, figs. 6-8.

19

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 10. Plan of Seuthopolis (D.P. Dimitrov and M. Čičikova).

Figure 11. Ullastret. Plan of the settlement (A. Martín i Ortega).

20

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies

Figure 12. Ullastret. Fortification walls and stone houses (A. Martín i Ortega).

Vetren.140 Those at Semibratnee were erected for the Greek Bosporan king as a result of the gradual Bosporan penetration and ultimate annexation of Sindian territory in the first half of the 4th century BC. The excavator of Semibratnee has compared it with Pistiros and posed the rather strange question: was it an emporion?141 Certainly the presence of princely tumuli suggests its status as a royal residence.142 If it were a royal residence, then Greek craftsmen and traders would naturally have settled there, especially since Sindian territory was agriculturally extremely rich. The most recent excavations have clearly demonstrated the strong Greekness of Labrys, with its stone buildings and even a temenos.143

Another site which might be used for comparison (and has been) is Semibratnee (Labrys) in the Sindian hinterland, known from an inscription.138 The Greektype fortifications at this site have been known for a considerable time and it has been interpreted as the residence of the Greek Bosporan king in the land of the local Sindians.139 A recent publication uses the settlement near Vetren for comparison, suggesting that the fortifications of Labrys were built by architects from Thasos, as is the case with the settlement near 138  SEG XLIII, 515; Graham 2002: 95-99. The inscription was discovered in the territory of Semibratnee in 1985 during ploughing. I shall give the translation from Graham (2002: 97): ‘In accordance with his vow, Leucon, son of Satyrus, archon of Bosporus and Theodosia, set up this statue for Phoebus Apollo-in-Labrys, the guardian of the city of the Labrytans, having driven out by battle and force from the land of the Sindians Octamasades, the son of Hecataeus, king of the Sindians, who, after expelling his father from his ancestral rule, confined (?) him in this city.’ 139  The existence of the local Sindian kingdom and coins has long been disputed. For the latest, see Kuznetsov 2018.

140  Goroncharovskii 2009; Bouzek 2009. For the Greek pottery from Semibratnee, see Vdovichenko 2006. 141  Goroncharovskii 2009. 142  There is some disagreement about dating the tumuli. For the latest, see Goroncharovskii 2013. 143  Goronchorovskii 2019.

21

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 13. Pottery from Ullastret imitating mainly Greek shapes (A. Martín i Ortega).

An attempt has been made at comparing Pistiros with Elizavetovskoe city-site of the sedentary Scythians on the Don (the ancient Tanais).144 Most striking here are the existence of a Greek temple on the Acroplis of the Scythian settlement, and a designated quarter in which the Greeks used to live.145 The Greek

presence here declines in the 270s BC.146 Thus, this city-site demonstrates the penetration of Greek in local settlements, which is quite different from the position at Vetren. Furthermore, Elizavetovskoe citysite has yielded about 235,000 amphorae – indicating

144  Bouzek 2013. On Elizavetovskoe city-site, see Brašinskij and Marčenko 1984. 145  Kopylov 2015; Kopylov and Kovalenko 2012. Recent excavations

revealed a bronze-working workshop and the production of beads. See Kopylov and Kopylov 2019. 146  Kopylov 2015.

22

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies that every year some 1750-1900 amphorae were brought.147

fragment of a boat containing amphorae was found in the Dnieper; many amphorae of the 5th-3rd centuries BC, whole or fragmented, were found nearby between 1971 and 1990. It seems probable that Kamenskoe had its own riverside port area.150

To move on to another important site, Kamenskoe, in the far hinterland of the northern Black Sea: not only was it the centre of a sedentary Scythian administrative/political entity,148 it revealed rich remains of bronze- and iron-working. Material excavated from the site strongly suggests that Greek goldsmiths were active here – punches, reject gold objects in Greek style, etc. But the most remarkable aspect is the number of amphora fragments recovered from the settlement and the surrounding area: more than 42,000, which is almost double the number of those of Scythian handmade pottery found here. The amphorae came from Sinope, Heraclea Pontica, Thasos, etc., although it is hard to imagine that they had done so directly; rather, they had reached Kamenskoe through the Greek colonies of the northern Black Sea coast. Furthermore, about 40 4th-century BC coins were found at Kamenskoe, all from a variety of Black Sea Greek colonies and Macedonia, and all in the area identified as the supposed Greek quarter/ emporion, which again demonstrates that goods were coming from the Black Sea colonies, not directly from the Mediterranean. To put this in the wider context of the Dnieper delta: from the 4th century BC Greek tableware gradually but almost completely supplanted local handmade tableware in Scythian settlements. In sites that show evidence of the Scythians having become sedentary, amphorae account for 30-40% of all finds; in settlements this rises to 53-60%; and in Kamenskoe, exceptionally, it is 66.3%.149

Back to the Pistiros inscription and the site at Vetren: I give the conclusions drawn by M. Tacheva, who was given access to the unpublished material: As clearly seen from the text of the inscription, Pistiros and its inhabitants are mentioned separately from the emporia and the emporitai, and the provisions do not confirm the earlier view that Pistiros was an emporion. Insofar as other archaeological proof is missing, the settlement discovered near the village of Vetren can be identified for the time being with the inscription found near it, i.e. it would be more correct to call it ‘the inscription about Pistiros’…. In my opinion, the reason [why the settlement at Vetren is not rich in numismatic evidence] should be sought in the character of the settlement until the mid-4th century BC. The limited numismatic complex in the settlement with the tower (tyrsis) near Vetren, as well as its strategic location, suggest a fortified royal residence in the system of the Odrysian administrative and political organisation …151 As we can see, she has independently come to the same view as me: she was unaware of my 2000 article.152 If we think of an emporion as a trading place, then logically it had be trading with somebody. Royal settlements, of course, were emporia for the surrounding locals. The same can be said about poleis in the colonial world: locals used to come from afar for trade and to exchange goods. As I have tried to demonstrate, within such residences, be they around the Black Sea or the Mediterranean, there were Greek craftsmen, merchants, etc. serving the kings there resident. We also know that Seuthopolis, Ullastret and several other places look very Greek. This is because the resident rulers employed those Greek craftsmen to create their own royal art. This does not mean that the rulers became Greek: the architecture (in our case) was just a means of underlining their status and wealth. To conclude: as before, I consider Vetren to have been another such residence of a local king who made use of Greek architects, etc.

All local settlements mentioned in this paper were situated on (in ancient times) navigable rivers, along which Greek goods travelled. Before, we thought that they were brought by Greeks, but there is a very strong possibility that locals were also involved. Very interesting evidence comes from Peshchannoe in the Ukraine, 500 km from any Greek city: a boat was discovered, large and simple, made from the trunk of a single oak. The skull of the boatman suggested that he was of Mediterranean origin. In the boat were 15 magnificent Greek gold-plated bronze vessels (amphorae, jugs, dishes, buckets, plates, etc.). A 147  Brashinskii 1980: 92. About the abundant quantity of painted and plain black-glazed pottery, see Brashinskii 1980, passim. See also Kopylov and Marchenko 2017. Fragments of amphorae and amphorastamps have been found in 197 sites in Getic lands, for example: amphorae from Thasos at 63 locations; from Rhodes at 78; Heraclea Pontica 36; Sinope 29; Cos 14; Cnidus 12; Chios 11; and Chersonesos 4 (Sirbu 1985; Teleaga 2008, passim). 148  Like the Thracians, the Scythians were not a monolithic people or culture. The name Scythian is Greek. The Greek sources also give us the names of the different Scythian tribes. Each had its own chiefman’s residence and these were, at the same time, economic and administrative centres of their areas. 149  For new investigations of Kamenskoe city-site and the surrounding area, and study of the economy, including pottery etc., see now Gavrilyuk 1999, passim.

Indeed, the interpretation of the inscription about Pistiros, which is not the site at Vetren at all and which awaits discovery not far from where the inscription was found, is very difficult:153 Tsetskhladze 1998b: 65 (with references). Tacheva 2007: 591-92. 152  Tsetskhladze 2000. 153  For the latest, Demetriou 2012: 153-87. 150  151 

23

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Pistiros is not explicitly called an emporion, but from the term emporitai and the reference to other emporia in the neighbourhood (lines 22-24) it seems safe to infer that the place was an emporion, an inference supported by Stephanus of Byzantium’s note: Pivstiro”, ejmpovrion Qravkh” (524. 11).’154

I have mentioned trade many times throughout this paper. It is essential to know what was traded (exports and imports), especially between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea colonies, between those colonies and the political and economic centres of the local population, and finally thence to the peoples of those areas. I have already remarked on the discovery in local settlements of Greek pottery, including amphorae, and other objects. These could not have been exported directly from the Mediterranean; rather, they arrived via the Greek colonies around the Black Sea.159 The best information was have is that given by Polybius (4. 38. 4-6):

The emporion of Pistiros was an inland trading station, originally founded by merchants coming from the polis of Pistiros, a dependency of Thasos situated on the Thracian coast (Herodotus 7. 109).155 It is, of course, possible to suggest different explanations which fit the information provided by the new inscription. Yet I note that, according to the above reconstruction, Pistiros seems to have been organised more or less like Naukratis: both were Greek urban settlements surrounded by an indigenous population and under the suzerainty of a non-Greek king; they were organised partly as a dependent polis of respectively Pistirenians and Naukratitans, and partly as an emporion inhabited by citizens from a number of other Greek poleis and, to some extent, with their own separate institutions… Loukopoulou (1999: 366-68) makes the same comparison, but does not share my view that Pistiros and Naukratis were poleis as well as emporia.156

as regards necessities, it is an undisputed fact that the most plentiful supplies and best qualities of cattle and slaves reach us from the countries lying around the Pontus, while among luxuries, the same countries furnish us with an abundance of honey, wax and preserved fish; from the surplus of our countries they take olive oil and every kind of wine. As for grain, there is give-and-take – with them sometimes supplying us when we require it and sometimes importing it from us. It is obvious that the composition of imports and exports was changing all the time. The most disputed questions concern the grain160 and slave161 trades.

To sum up: In Pistiros, a multi-ethnic emporion situated in a non-Greek land, the close encounters among different Greek groups and between Greeks and Thracians also led to the expression of several levels of collective identities: Greeks identified in terms of their polis of origin in relation to other Greeks, they had a strong political identity as Pistirenoi vis-à-vis the other Greek communities in the Thasian peraia, and they probably also saw themselves as Greeks when encountering Thracians; the Thracians, on the other hand, adopted Greek perceptions of themselves and thus distinguished among the various Greek groups and even called themselves Thracians, rather than specifying their intraThracian group.157

The Colchian Black Sea coast We should now turn to the eastern Black Sea littoral, known in antiquity as Colchis (Fig. 14). Here the earliest Greek tableware and amphorae discovered in native sites helps to suggest the establishment dates of the Colchian Greek colonies, in contrast to the northern Black Sea. These were Phasis, Gyenos and Dioscurias – a few smaller Greek settlements were founded much later than these cities. We have practically no archaeological evidence for these colonies. Phasis has never been located, mainly because the coastal area was marsh/wetland, in antiquity (information from Ps.-Hippocrates Airs, Waters, Places 15)162 as it is

In the western Black Sea, the Getic lands contain most interesting sites such as Albeşti, in the hinterland of Tomis. It had a mixed local-Greek population. It is square, defended by stone fortifications, and all buildings are constructed of stone and roofed in tile. Many materials unearthed here (even a few fragments of Colchian amphorae) demonstrate that it was a very active trading settlement. Furthermore, it was also a production centre for pottery, metalworking, etc.158

Tsetskhladze 2013. Tsetskhladze 2008a (with previous literature). Tsetskhladze 2008b (with previous literature). 162  ‘Concerning those in Phasis, the land is marshy, hot, humid and wooded. In every season the rains here are frequent and heavy. Here men live in the marshes. The dwellings are of wood and reed, constructed in the water. They seldom go on foot in the polis and the emporium, but canoe up and down in dug-outs, for there are many canals. The water they drink is hot and stagnant, corrupted by the sun and swollen by the rains. The Phasis itself is the most stagnant of rivers and flows most sluggishly. And all the crops which grow here are bad, of poor quality and without taste, on account of the excess of water. Consequently they do not ripen. Much mist enshrouds the land, owing to the water. And for the same reason the Phasians have an appearance different from that of other men. As to size, they are large and corpulent in body. Neither joint nor vein is evident. They have a yellow flesh, as if victims of jaundice. Their voices are deeper than other men’s: the air they breathe is not clear, but humid and 159  160  161 

Hansen 2006: 20. Hansen 2006: 22 156  Hansen 2006: 22-23. 157  Demetriou 2012: 186. 158  Rădulescu et al. 2002; Buzoianu and Bărbulescu 2008. 154  155 

24

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies

Figure 14. Map of Colchis showing major sites (not to scale) (author’s map).

now,163 and the existence of Lake Paliastomi. Moreover, the course of the River Rioni (ancient Phasis) at its mouth has undergone numerous changes. Local settlements were situated on man-made hills, surrounded by wetlands, with wooden architecture and wooden fortifications. In these circumstances we should expect the Greeks to have constructed the same kind of settlement, but using the same materials as the locals (Fig. 15). Gyenos was probably situated on three artificial hills of which only a small part of one has been excavated – this method of construction reflects, again, the marshy nature of the terrain. Dioscurias lies beneath present-day Sukhum(i). Finds from the sea have demonstrated that the ArchaicClassical city is underwater, while the HellenisticRoman one is overbuilt by the modern city, rendering nothing beyond very small-scale rescue excavations possible: these have yielded nothing except pottery and the water table is only 2 m below the modern surface.

long after colonisation: none is contemporary. The vast majority of scholars believe that the Colchian Black Sea colonies were established in the middle of the 6th century, based mainly on the situation in Asia Minor and other parts of the Black Sea.164 In these circumstances we need to find other evidence which could help to suggest more precise dating than that. As I mentioned above, we have early Greek pottery in the local settlements in this part of the Black Sea as well. Its presence on native sites in Colchis can help to determine the foundation dates of the Greek colonies. As in the northern Black Sea hinterland, in the eastern Black Sea this pottery was found in settlements that were the political and economic centres of native rulers,165 yet again demonstrating that the Greek incomers were seeking a close and amicable relationship with the locals. Table 5 lists discoveries of this kind of pottery in Colchis. In Colchis (the exception is Dioscurias), as at Ampurias and Massalia in the West, the lands surrounding the colonies were unsuited to agriculture: rocky in the

The establishment of Greek colonies is a complex matter. What ancient written sources we have date

164  On the Greek colonies and colonisation of Colchis, see Tsetskhladze 1998a; 2018b (with more recent literature and discussion). 165  Colchis, like Thrace and Scythia, is a name bestowed by ancient authors and it comprises different peoples. Colchis also had residences of tribal chiefs, for instance Vani, Sairkhe, Eshera and Batumis Tsikhe. The Colchian proto-kingdom was neither centralised nor strong; according to Strabo (11. 2. 18), the country was divided into ‘sceptuchies’. An interesting pattern emerges: Odrysian, sedentary Scythian kingdom and the Colchian proto-kingdom were founded at the same time: middle-late 5th century BC.

murky. As to physical labour, they have a rather idle nature. The seasons do not vary much, either in heat or in cold. The winds are mostly moist, except one breeze peculiar to the country, called kenkhron, which sometimes blows strong, violent and hot. The north wind makes little impact, and when it blows it is weak and feeble.’ See now Licheli 2016. 163  In the 1930s and since, drainage of the wetlands has been undertaken for agricultural purposes, but some marshland still exists (Licheli 2016).

25

Figure 15. A Colchian settlement according to Ps.-Hippocrates. Reconstruction. I. Plan of excavated man-made hill; II. Section (G. Lezhava).

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

26

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies

No.

Site

Region

1.

Batumis Tsikhe/ Batumi (Batus?)

South-west Colchis

1. Fragments of banded oinochoe and 32 of End of 7th-first half of 6th century BC East Greek pottery 2. A few fragments of Chian banded amphora End of 7th-first half of 6th century BC

2(?).

Pichvnari

South-west Colchis

Fragment of Ionian kylix, known only from Allegedly first half of 6th century BC publication

3.

Petra Fortress/ Tsikhisdziri

South-west Colchis

Fragments of ‘Ionian pottery’

4.

Simagre (not far from Poti/ Phasis)

West Colchis

1. Small number of fragments of rosette Beginning-first half of 6th century BC bowls 2. Fragment of amphora neck decorated First half of 6th century BC with wide red bands 3. Foot of Chian amphora First half of 6th century BC

5.

Vani

6.

Greek Pottery

Central Colchis Fragment of Chian chalice-style bowl

Chognari (12 km Central Colchis Fragment of rosette bowl from Kutaisi)

Date

First half of 6th century BC (known to me from literature)

First half of 6th century BC First half of 6th century BC

7.

Krasnyi Mayak (next to Sukhum/ Dioscurias)

North-west Colchis

‘Fragments of a Greek vessel’ found in the ‘End of 7th century BC’ 1930s, since lost

8.

Eshera (inland site, 10 km north of centre of Sukhum/ Dioscurias)

North-west Colchis

1. Three fragments of closed vessel, North Beginning/first third of 6th century BC Ionian Late Wild Goat 2. Several fragments of rosette bowls 3. A few fragments of Ionian cups 600-540 BC Second/third quarters of 6th century BC

9.

Merkheuli (not far from Dioscurias)

North-west Colchis

Some fragments of closed vessel, North Beginning/first third of 6th century Ionian Late Wild Goat BC

10.

Ochamchira (Gyenos)

North-west Colchis

Fragments of Chian amphorae and of Ionian First half of 6th century BC pottery

11.

Vereshchagin Hill (not far from Dioscurias)

North-west Colchis

8 fragments of East Greek pottery

First half of 6th century BC

Table 5. Earliest Greek pottery in Colchis.

former, marshy in the latter.166 From the beginning, Greeks had friendly relationships with the surrounding local populations and much Greek pottery was found in the residences of the local chief-men: indeed, at Ullastret, Greek architects built fortification walls, which is also the case at Heuneburg, where, again, a large quantity of Greek pottery was discovered.167 In Colchis, echoing local practice, colonies were built on artificial hills. At Chersonesos in the Crimea, set amidst rocky surroundings, the Greek population cut pits in the rocky territory of the near chora, filled them with earth, and planted vine and fruit trees.

Greek settlement in the eastern Black Sea. Batumis Tsikhe, on the outskirts of the modern city of Batumi (Table 5.1), has yielded very interesting evidence: 32 pottery fragments dated to the end of the 7th-first half of the 6th century BC, far outnumbering those from all other Colchian settlements combined. It is obvious that some Greek settlement existed not far from it, perhaps at a location now beneath Batumi. No archaeological material is known from Batumi itself (except for a stamped Heraclean amphora); the modern city has overbuilt the area, a considerable amount of land has been reclaimed from the sea, and the marshy land towards the airport has been drained, part laid out as a park, and new buildings erected on the rest.

Thus, based on consideration of the earliest Greek pottery at native sites in Colchis (Table 5), we can suggest that Phasis was established in ca. 600-570 BC, Gyenos within the same date range and Dioscurias in ca. 610-570.168 The latter seems to have been the earliest

Batumi has been identified, on the basis of a mention in the Tabula Peutingeriana (10), as the Roman ‘Pontus Altus’. It has been suggested that Batumi/Batumis Tsikhe, which was on a small hill not far from the coast and next to the river, was called in Greek Βαθὺς, based on the expression ta; kalouvmena Baqu;ς found

Tsetskhladze 2014 (with bibliography). Kimmig 2000; Rolley 2003; Kurz 2007; etc. 168  For details, see Tsetskhladze 2018b: 512. 166  167 

27

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity in Aristotle’s Meteorology (350 A: 4351 A). Furthermore, the name of the River Batis in the south-western part of the Black Sea region is mentioned by Pliny (NH 6. 12), Adrian (§ 7) and in the Anonymous Periplus (§ 2). The geographical situation of Batis described in the works of ancient authors and the present location of Batumis Tsikhe/Batumi provide some basis for such an assumption.169 In other words, Βαθὺς is held to be the Greek name for the modern city of Batumi/Batumis Tsikhe, Roman Portus Altus.170 It is highly probable that another early colony existed: Batus, with an establishment date approximately the same as that of Dioscurias.

and eastern Black Sea can be used and interpreted: in the north its presence accords with Greek settlement; in the east it helps to date it.

The situation in Colchis regarding the establishment of Greek colonies was, therefore, like that in other parts of the Black Sea. They were founded half a century (or more) earlier than had been thought previously, i.e. the middle of the 6th century BC. Dioscurias (and probably Batus) fits very well in date with the earliest Greek colonies on the other shores of the Black Sea. Thus we can no longer accept that the Greek colonisation on Colchis took place later than in the rest of the Pontus. What is clear, however, is how differently the earliest Greek pottery in the northern

We should remember that finding Greek pottery171 in local settlements does not always betoken a trade relationship or direct contacts between the locals and the Mediterranean world. The pottery could arrive for different reasons, and it might have been carried not only by Greeks but by locals too.172 We are facing here a very familiar problem: pots and people.173 A key question is whether trade followed the flag or vice versa. Logically, I believe the former.174

Conclusions The evidence once again presented here demonstrates, however, the unsustainability of criticism of my publications by Schlotzhauer and Zhuravlev. At the same time, my present piece brings together in these tables, especially Table 6, what we have for the establishment of the major Greek colonies of the Black Sea littoral.

Pottery was much cheaper than metal vessels. At the same time, it is more important to archaeologists for dating etc. than it was to the ancient peoples who made and used it (Bouzek 1990). 172  For details, with bibliography, see Tsetskhladze 2013. 173  For discussion, see Boardman 2002; Hall 2007: 106-10; Gates 2001: 44-45, etc. 174  For discussion, see Tsetskhladze and Hargrave 2011. 171 

169  Batumis Tsikhe is situated on a natural hill. As numerous finds of local pottery here demonstrate, it was the residence of a local chiefman. 170  See Tsetskhladze 2018b: 512-14.

Foundation Earlier dates local Mother city/ Literary dates References in ancient Settlement according Notes cities for foundation authors populato earliest tion pottery Amisos Miletus (and End of 7th- Ps.-Scymnus 957, 961- ca. 600-575 Yes Beneath modern Samsun. Phocaea) beginning of 6th 962; Strabo 12. 1. 3; BC Rescue excavations in the century BC Theopompus fr. 389 apud city’s suburbs revealed Strabo 12. 3. 14; Hecataeus pottery and other material fr. 199 apud Strabo 12. 3. 25; of the 6th century BC. Ephor. fr. 162. 12; etc. Apollonia Miletus ca. 610 BC Ps.-Scymnus 730-733; Late 7th Yes Beneath modern Sozopol. Only rescue excavations Pontica Steph. Byz 96. 2-4, 160. 2; century BC are possible. Necropoleis of Aelianus Var. Historia 3. 17; the Classical and Hellenistic etc. periods are situated on the beach, which may indicate that the Archaic necropolis is already underwater. Yes Batus/Batumi is overbuilt by Batus Miletus Aristotle Met. 350 A, 435 End of 7ththe modern city of Batumi. (Batumi/ 1A; Pliny NH 6. 12; Tabula first half of The only archaeological Peutingeriana 10; Arrian 6th century Batumis material is a stamped Tsikhe) Periplus 7; Anon. Periplus 2 BC (610-570 Heraclean amphora from BC) the marshes. Batumis Tsikhe, situated on a hill next to the river, is the site of a restaurant. Only smallscale rescue excavation has been possible. Table 6. Main Archaic Greek colonies and settlements in the Black Sea.

28

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies

Settlement

Mother city/ Literary dates cities for foundation

Berezan/ Borysthenes

Miletus

Callatis

Heraclea Pontica

Chersonesos Taurica

Heraclea Pontica

Dioscurias

Miletus

Gyenos

Miletus

Heraclea Pontica

Megara and Boeotians

Hermonassa

Miletus and Mytilene

647 BC

Foundation Earlier dates References in ancient local according Notes authors populato earliest tion pottery Eusebius Chron. 95b; Last quarter Not Peninsula in antiquity; now Herodotus 4. 17-18, 24 of 7th until an island. From Classical century BC end of period an emporion of Olbia. the 6th/ start of the 5th century BC Ps.-Scymnus fr. 4; Strabo 4th century Yes? Overbuilt. 7. 6. 1; Memnon FGrH 434 BC fr. 13 (21); Pompon. 2. 2. 22; Arrian Anabasis 6. 23. 5; Diodorus 19. 73. 1, 20. 25. 1; etc.

Late 6th century BC. Re-foundation by Heraclea Pontica in late 5th century. Initial coloniser unknown 422/1 BC Ps.-Scylax 68; Ps.-Scymnus 525-500 BC? 822-830; etc.

Ps.-Scylax 81; Strabo 1. 3. Late 7th 2, 11. 2. 12, 16, 19; Arrian century BC/ Periplus 10. 4; Steph. Byz. early or 233. 15; Pliny NH 6. 15-16; first third of App. Mithr. 101; etc. 6th century Greek pottery (local inland settlements) (610-570 BC) Ps.-Scylax 81; Pompon. 1. First half of 110 6th century BC (600-570 BC) 554 BC

Ps.-Scymnus 1016-1019; Strabo 12. 3. 4; Pausanias 5. 26. 7; Ap. Rhod. 2. 841850; Ephor. fr. 44b; Xen. Anabasis 5. 6. 10, 19; 6. 2. 1, 18-19; 6. 4. 23; Thucydides 4. 75. 2; Aen. Tact. 12. 5; Ps.Scylax 91; etc. Arrian Bith fr. 55 Roos 575-550 BC = FGrH 156 fr. 71; Steph. Byz. 278. 10-12; Eustathius Comm. 549 = GGM II 324; Hecataeus FGrH 1 fr. 208; Ps.-Scymnus 886-891; etc. Name derives from the wife of the oikist after he had died (Arrian Bith. fr. 55 Roos – FGrH 156 fr. 71) Table 6. Continued.

29

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

?

525-500 BC was given by M. Zolotariev and Y.G. Vinogradov. New study of the material on which they based their conclusion demonstrates a date of middle/ second half of 5th century BC. Identified with modernday Sukhum(i). Archaic and Classical period city is most probably under the Black Sea; Hellenistic and Roman period under modern city.

Situated on man-made hills, surrounded by marshes and wetland. Only smallscale rescue excavation was possible. Mostly under modern town of Eregli. Part submerged.

Village of Taman, but no firm evidence found. Much of site washed away by the waters of the Taman Gulf. More is lost each year.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Settlement

Mother city/ Literary dates cities for foundation

Histria

Miletus

657 BC

Kepoi

Miletus

Mid-6th century BC

Mesembria

Megara, Byzantium, Chalcedon

493 BC

Myrmekion

(Miletus or) Panticapaeum Nymphaeum Miletus Odessos

Miletus

Olbia/ Borysthenites

Miletus

Orgame

Middle-second half of 6th century BC Middle of 6th century BC 585-539 BC

Foundation Earlier dates References in ancient local according Notes authors populato earliest tion pottery Eusebius Chron. 95b; ca. 633-630 Yes Not overbuilt in modern Herodotus 2. 33; Ps.BC times. Scymnus fr. 6; Aristotle Politics 1305b5-6; Diodorus 19. 73. 2; etc. Ps.-Scymnus 899; Pliny NH 580-560 BC ? 3 km north-east of 6. 18; Strabo 11. 2. 10; Ps.Phanagoria. Identification Scylax 72; etc. not firm. Herodotus 4. 93; 6. 33; ca. 500 BC Yes In antiquity on a peninsula; Ps.-Scylax 67; Strabo 7. 6. now an island. Most of 1; Ps.-Scymnus 739-742; ancient city is under Anon. Periplus 83-84; etc. modern one. Only rescue excavation possible. Part of Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine fortification with gate survives very well Ps.-Scylax 68; Strabo 7. 4. 575-550 BC No Panticapaeum may have 5, 11. 2. 16; Steph. Byz. 464. established other cities: 1; etc. Tyritake and Porthmeus. Ps.-Scylax 68; Krateros 580-570 BC Yes FGrH 242 fr. 8; Aeschin. 3. 171; Strabo 7. 4. 4; etc. Ps.-Scymnus fr. 1; Strabo ca. 560 BC ? Beneath modern-day Varna. 7. 6. 1; Pliny NH 4. 11. 45; Roman and Byzantine Ps.-Scylax 67; Diodorus 19. remains survive well. 73. 3, 20. 112. 2; Hippoc. Prorrheticon 1. 72. 3; etc. Herodotus 4. 21. 3, 4. 24. 620/610-590 Not Not overbuilt. Some parts 1, 4. 78. 3, 4. 78. 5, 4. 79. BC until are underwater. 5; Strabo 7. 3. 17; Ps.end of Scymnus fr. 10; Steph. Byz. the 6th/ 176. 14-16; etc. start of the 5th century BC Steph. Byz. 494. 16; etc. Second half Urban remains of 6th-4th of the 7th centuries BC are poor as century BC early levels destroyed by (Middle Wild Late Roman citadel. Tumular Goat style cemetery produced remains ware) from 7th-4th centuries.

Miletus or secondary colony of Histria. More and more evidence demonstrates that it was an independent foundation of Ionians. PanticapaMiletus Beginning of Strabo 7. 4. 4, 11. 2. 10; 575-550 BC eum 6th century BC Pliny NH 4. 26. 86; Ammian Marc. 22. 8. 36; Ps.-Scylax 68; Herodotus 4. 20. 1; Anon. Periplus 50; Diodorus 12. 31. 1; Ephor. fr. 158; etc. Patraeus Miletus? Strabo 11. 2. 8; Steph. Byz. Middle of 6th s.v.; etc. century BC Table 6. Continued.

30

No

Some pottery dates from the end of 7th-beginning of 6th century BC. Established three secondary colonies (see Myrmekion). Village of Garkusha. Identification not firm. Large part is under the Taman Gulf.

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies

Settlement

Mother city/ Literary dates cities for foundation

Phanagoria

Teos

Phasis

Miletus

Sindice/ Sindic Harbour/ Gorgippia

Miletus

Sinope

Miletus

Taganrog settlement

Miletus?

Theodosia

Miletus

Tieion/ Tios

Toricos

ca. 545/542 BC

1 pre-657 BC 2 631/30 BC

550-500 BC

Miletus (and Late 7thPhocaea) beginning of 6th century BC

Miletus?

Foundation Earlier dates References in ancient local according Notes authors populato earliest tion pottery Ps-Scymnus 886-889; ca. 542 BC No Village of Sennaya, confirmed by two Dionysius Periegetes vv. 549-551; Strabo 11. 2. 10; inscriptions found on site: Arrian Bith fr. 55 Roos = CIRB 971; Y.G. Vinogradov and M. Wörrle in Chiron 22 FGrH 156 fr. 71; Ps.-Scylax 72; Hecataeus fr. 212 apud (1992), 160-61. About 25 ha of 75 ha site is under the Steph. Byz. 657. 8; etc. The oikist Phanagoras is waters of the Taman Gulf. known (Arrian Bith. fr. 55 Roos = FGrH 156 fr. 71) Ps-Scylax 81; Strabo 11. First half of Yes Not located. Pottery 2. 17, 12. 3. 17; Herodotus 6th century comes from surrounding settlements of the local 4. 86. 2; Heracl. Lemb. 46; BC (600-570 Pompon. 1. 108; Steph. BC) population, especially Simagre. Byz. 661. 1; Arrian Periplus 9; Hippoc. Acr. 15; etc. Yes Large site beneath modern Herodotus 4. 8. 6, 4. 28. Middle-last city of Anapa. Very well 1; Strabo 7. 4. 6, 11. 2. quarter of excavated as a result 12, 14; Ps.-Scymnus 886- 6th century of rescue excavation. 889; Ps.Scylax 72; Arrian BC Identification as Sindice/ Periplus 18. 4-19. 1; Anon. Sindic Harbour is not firm Periplus 62; Ptolemy Geog. at all. Gorgippia as Anapa is 5. 8. 8; Steph. Byz. s.v; etc. very well documented from 4th century BC. Ps.-Scymnus 981-997; Last third of Yes Situated under modern Eumelus FGrH 451; 7th century Sinop. Established three Herodotus 1. 76. 1, 4. 12. 2; BC secondary colonies: Xen. Anabasis 4. 8. 22, 5. 5. Trapezus, Kotyora and 7-8, 13, 23; Ps.-Scylax 89; Cerasus. Secondary colonies Aen. Tact. 40. 4; Strabo 12. paid tribute to Sinope. 3. 10-11; Plutarch Luc. 23; Plutarch Per. 20; Diodorus 14. 31. 2; Polybius 4. 56; etc. Last quarter/ Yes Settlement completely end of 7th submerged by Sea of Azov. century BC Large amount of pottery (32 pieces of washed up on sea shore. pottery of this date) Ps.-Scylax 68; Strabo 7. 4. 580-570 BC No Overbuilt. 4, 6; Arrian Periplus 19. 3; Anon. Periplus 51, 77; Dem. 20. 33 Strabo 12. 3. 5, 10; Ps.- Four pieces Yes Only one of the southern Scylax 90; Pompon. 1. of East Greek Black Sea colonies not 104; Ps.-Scymnus 1005; pottery overbuilt, but most of land Memnon FGrH 434; Steph. dating from is in private hands. Acropolis Byz. 624. 20-23; etc. the end of revealed Greek pottery, 7th-early 6th early and from later periods. century BC Excavated for the last 10 years. Ps.-Scylax 74 Second Yes Not far from city of half of 6th Gelendzik. Identification century BC not firm. Table 6. Continued.

31

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Settlement

Mother city/ Literary dates cities for foundation 557/6 BC

References in ancient authors

Trapezus

Sinope

Eusebius Chron. 95b; Xen. Anabasis 4. 8. 22-23, 5. 1. 11, 5. 4. 1-2, 5. 5. 15; Ps.-Scylax 85; etc.

Tyramba

Ionian?

Strabo 11. 2. 4; Ptolemy Geog. 5. 8. 4; etc.

Tyras

Miletus

Mid-6th century Ps.-Scymnus fr. 9, 799-800; BC Steph. Byz. 622. 4-5, 642. 7-8; Alex. Polyh. fr. 138 (FGrH 273); Anon. Periplus 62; Ptolemy Geog. 3. 10. 7-8; Ps.-Scylax 68; Strabo 7. 3. 16; Pliny NH 4. 12(26). 82; etc. Table 6. Continued.

Bibliography

Foundation Earlier dates local according Notes populato earliest tion pottery No archaeoYes Paid tribute to Sinope (like logical other two sub-colonies). excavation or material exist End of 6th Not far from the town of century BC Temryuk. Identification not firm at all. Second Yes half of 6th century BC

Atasoy, S. 2018. ‘Surveys and Excavations on the Southern Black Sea Coast’. In Manoledakis et al. 2018: 109-46. Atasoy, S. and Yıldırım, Ş. (eds) 2015. Zonguldak’ta bir Antik Kent: Tios. 2006-2012 Arkeolojik Çalışmaları ve Genel Değerlendirme/An Ancient City in Zonguldak: Tios. General Assessment of Works between 2006 and 2012 (Istanbul). Avram, A. 1999. ‘Notes sur l’inscription de l’emporion de Pistiros en Thrace’. Il Mar Nero 3 (for 1997-98): 3746. Avram, A. 2011a. ‘Marginalien zur griechisch beschrifteten Schleudergeschosen (I)’. In Piso, I. et al. (eds) Scripta Classica. Radu Ardevan sexagenario dedicate (Cluj-Napoca): 195-99. Avram, A. 2011b. ‘Marginalien zur griechisch beschrifteten Schleudergeschosen (II)’. In Măgureanu, D., Măndescu, D. and Matei, S. (eds) Archaeology: Making of and Practice. Studies in Honor of Mircea Babeş at his 70th Anniversary (Piteşti), 34550. Avram, A. 2011c. ‘The Getae: Selected Questions’. In Tsetskhladze 2011b: 61-76. Avram, A. 2016. ‘Marginalien zur griechisch beschrifteten Schleudergeschosen (III)’. In Panaite, A., Cîrjan, R. and Căpiţă, C. (eds) Moesica et Christiana. Studies in Honour of Professor Alexandru Barnea (Brăila): 489-93. Avram, A., Bîrzescu, I., Mărgineanu Cărstoiu, M. and Zimmermann, K. 2013. ‘Archäologische Ausgrabungen in der Tempelzone von Histria, 19902009’. Il Mar Nero 8 (for 2010-11): 39-101. Avram, A., Buzoianu, L., Chera, C., Custurea, G., Dupont, P. and Nastasi, I. (eds) 2014. Histria, histoire

Abbreviations CIRB V.V. Struve (ed.) Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporani (Moscow/Leningrad 1965). FGrH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (Berlin/Leiden 1923-58). GGM K. Müller, Geographi Graeci Minores, 3 vols. (Paris 1855-61). Alexandrescu, P. 2005. Histria 7: La zone sacrée d’époque grecque (fouilles 1915-1989), 2 vols. (Bucharest). Alexandrov, S. 2005. ‘The Earliest Mycenaen pottery imports in Bulgaria’. In Bouzek and Domaradzka 2005: 47-49. Angelescu, M. 2018. ‘Histria. Quelques notes sur le port antique’. In Avram et al. 2018: 343-84. Archibald, Z.H. 1996. ‘Imported Athenian figured pottery (1988-91)’. In Bouzek, Domaradzki and Archibald 1996: 77-88. Archibald, Z.H. 1998. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford). Archibald, Z.H. 2002a. ‘Attic Figured pottery from Adjiyska Vodenitsa (Adžijska Vodenica), Vetren, 1989-95. In Bouzek, Domaradzka and Archibald 2002: 131-48. Archibald, Z.H. 2002b. ‘The Odrysian river port near Vetren, Bulgaria, and the Pistiros inscription’. Talanta 32-33 (for 2000-01): 253-75. Archibald, Z.H. 2004. ‘Inland Thrace’. In Hansen and Nielsen 2004b: 885-99. Atasoy, S. 2016. ‘Excavations at Tios: 2006-2015’. In Manoledakis 2016: 207-16. 32

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies Baralis, A., Lungu, V., Panayotova, K., Blanco, T., Bony, G., Comfort, A., Claquin, L., Delfieu, R., Dolea, A., Dupont, P., Flaux, C., Guy, M., Muşat, A., Nedev, D., Riapov, A., Rossignol, I., Slavova, I., Streinu, M. and Thiriot, J. 2012. ‘Le programme ANR Pont-Euxin: bilan des campagnes 2012 à Apollonia du Pont (Sozopol, dpt. de Bourgas, Bulgarie) et Orgamè/ Argamum (Jurilovca, dpt. de Tulcea, Roumanie)’. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 38.2: 165-87. Baralis, A., Nedev, D., Gyuzelev, M., Iacob, M., Lungu, V., Mănucu-Adameşteanu, M. and Panayotova, K. 2010. ‘Le programme ANR Pont-Euxin: bilan des campagnes 2010 à Apollonia du Pont (Sozopol, dpt. de Bourgas, Bulgarie) et Orgamè/Argamum (Jurilovca, dpt. de Tulcea, Roumanie)’. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 36.2: 178-88. Baralis, A., Panayotova, K., Bogdanova, T., Gyuzelev, M., Nedev, D. and Gospodinov, K. 2016. ‘Apollonia Pontica (Sozopol, Bulgaria): the results of the FrancoBulgarian archaeological mission’. In Manoledakis 2016: 153-79. Bessonova, S.S. and Skoryi, S.A. 1999. ‘Motroninskoe gorodishche i kurgannyi mogil’nik. Itogi i perspektivy issledovaniya’. In Tolochko, P.P. et al. (eds) Problemy skifo-sarmatskoi arkheologii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (K 100-letiyu B.N. Grakova) (Zaporozhe): 35-38. Bîrzescu, F. Panait, Bîrzescu, I., Matei-Popescu, F. and Robu, A. (eds) 2013. Poleis în Marea Neagră: Relaţii interpontice şi producţii locale (Bucharest). Bîrzescu, I. 2012. Histria 15: Die archaischen und frühklassischen Transportamphoren (Bucharest). Bîrzescu, I. 2013. ‘Transport Amphoras of the Second Half of the 7th-Beginning of the 6th Cent. BC in Histria’. In Buzoianu et al. 2013: 201-12. Bîrzescu, I. 2018. ‘Archaeological Research on the Western Black Sea Coast from the Archaic Period until the Roman Conquest: An Overview’. In Manoledakis et al. 2018: 243-71. Boardman, J. 1991. ‘Early Greek Pottery on Black Sea Sites?’. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 10.3: 38789. Boardman, J. 1998. ‘Olbia and Berezan: the Early Pottery’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.) The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Stuttgart): 201-04. Boardman, J. 2002. ‘Greeks and Syria: Pots and People’. In Tsetskhladze and Snodgrass 2002: 1-16. Boiko, Y.N. 2008. ‘Novye issledovaniya kurgannogo mogil’nika u s. Kup’evka’. Drevnosti 2006-2008: 20405. Bottez, V.-V. 2015. ‘Old digs, new data: archaeological topography of the southern part of the acropolis of Istros during the Greek period (the Basilica Pârvan Sector)’. In Tsetskhladze et al. 2015: 363-69. Bouzek, J. 1990. Studies of Greek Pottery in the Black Sea Area (Prague).

et archéologie en Mer Noire (= Pontica 47, Suppl. 3) (Constanţa). Avram, A., Buzoianu, L. and Lungu, V. (eds) 2018. Koinè et mobilité artisanale entre la Méditerranée et la Mer Noire dans l’Antiquité: Hommage à Pierre Dupont à son 70e anniversaire (= Pontica 51, Suppl. 5) (Constanţa). Avram, A., Chiriac, C. and Matei, I. 2013. ‘Balles de fronde grecques en pays gète et ailleurs. Sur les traces de Zopyrin dans le Bas Danube. Revue Archéologique 2: 227-304. Avram, A., Hind, J. and Tsetskhladze, G. 2004. ‘The Black Sea Area’. In Hansen and Nielsen 2004b: 92473. Badoud, N. and Avram, A. 2019. ‘Bulletin amphoroligique (2012-2016)’. Revue des Études Grecques 132.1: 129-246. Bandrivskii, M.S. 2012. ‘Kommentarii k stat’e M.T. Kashuby’. Rossiskii Arkheologicheskii Ezhegodnik 2: 473-78. Bandurovskii, A.V. 2001. ‘O putyakh proniknoveniya antichnogo importa v verkhov’ya Severskova Dontsa v skifskuyu epokhu (po materialam raskopok i razvedok poslednikh let)’. In Arkheologichni doslidzhennya 1999-2000 (Kiev): 5-10. Baralis, A. 2008. ‘The Chora Formation of the Greek Cities of Aegean Thrace: Towards a Chronological Approach to the Colonization Process’. In Bilde, P.G. and Petersen, J.H. (eds) Meetings of Cultures in the Black Sea Region: Between Conflicts and Coexistence (Aarhus): 101-30. Baralis, A. 2010. ‘Habitat et réseaux d’occupation spatiale en Thrace égéene: l’impact de la colonisation grecque (Xe-Ve s. av. J.-C.)’. In Tréziny, H. (ed.) Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la mer Noire (Paris/Aixen-Provence): 247-64. Baralis, A., Bivolaru, A., Marriner, N., Morhange, C., Porotov, A.V. and Zinko, V.N. (eds) 2016. Géomorphologie et géoarchéologie des littoraux de mer Noire (= Méditerranée: revue geographique des pays méditerranéens 126) (Montpellier). Baralis, A., Dupont, P., Gyuzelev, M., Iacob, M., Lungu, V., Mănucu-Adameşteanu, M., Nedev, D. and Panayotova, K. 2011. ‘Le programme ANR PontEuxin: bilan des campagnes 2011 à Apollonia du Pont (Sozopol, dpt. de Bourgas, Bulgarie) et Orgamè/ Argamum (Jurilovca, dpt. De Tulcea, Roumanie)’. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 37.2: 220-34. Baralis, A., Gyuzelev, M., Nedev, D., Gospodinov, K. and Lorain, T. 2013. ‘Aperçu sur l’organisation urbaine d’Apollonia du Pont: la parcelled UPI XI-XII-551’. In Tsetskhladze et al. 2013: 315-23. Baralis, A. and Lungu, V. 2015. ‘Stratégies coloniales et réseaux d’occupation spatiale gètes sur le littoral de la Dobroudja du Nord: les acquis du Programme ANR Pont-Euxin’. In Tsetskhladze et al. 2015: 37186. 33

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Bouzek, J. and Domaradzka, L. 2007b. ‘Emporion Pistiros between greater powers (ca. 450-278 B.C.). An attempt to sketch its history’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka and Archibald 2007: 254-63. Bouzek, J. and Domaradzka, L. 2011. ‘Greeks in Inner Thrace’. In Pistiros Jubilee 2011: 45-60. Bouzek, J. and Domaradzka, L. 2016. ‘Emporion Pistiros: 450-278 B.C. An outline of its history’. In Bouzek et al. 2016: 11-20. Bouzek, J., Domaradzka, L. and Archibald, Z.H. (eds) 2002. Pistiros II: Excavations and Studies (Prague). Bouzek, J., Domaradzka, L. and Archibald, Z.H. (eds) 2007. Pistiros III: Excavations and Studies (Prague). Bouzek, J., Domaradzka, L. and Archibald, Z.H. (eds) 2010. Pistiros IV: Excavations and Studies (Prague). Bouzek, J., Domaradzka, L., Gotzev, A. and Archibald, Z.H. (eds) 2013. Pistiros V: Excavations and Studies (Prague). Bouzek, J., Domaradzki, M. and Archibald, Z.H. (eds) 1996. Pistiros I: Excavations and Studies (Prague). Bouzek, J., Militky, J., Taneva, V. and Domaradzka, E. (eds) 2016. Pistiros VI: The Pistiros Hoard (Prague). Bouzek, J., Musil, J., Weissová, B., Tušlová, P. et al. 2013. ‘Square B11’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka et al. 2013: 5763. Božkova, A. 2005. ‘A pottery group with Geometric decoration from a Thracian site at Koprivlen in southwestern Bulgaria’. In Bouzek and Domaradzka 2005: 85-90. Bozkova, A. 2017. Antichna keramika mezhdu Khemus, Rodopa i Evksinskiya Pont (VII-I v. pr.khr.): Kharakteristika, razprostranenie i upotreba (Veliko Tarnovo). Brashinskii, I.B. 1980. Grecheskii keramicheskii import na Niznem Donu v V-III vv. do n.e. (Leningrad). Brašinskij, I.B. and Marčenko, K.K. 1984. Elisavetovskoje: Skythische Stadt im Don-Delta (Munich). Bresson, A. and Rouillard, P. (eds) 1993. L’Emporion (Paris). Bruyako, I.V. 2005. Rannie kochevniki v Evrope: X-V vv. do. R. kh. (Kishinev). Buiskikh, A.V. 2007. ‘The Earliest East Greek Pottery from Olbia Pontica’. In Cobet, J., von Graeve, V., Niemeier, W.-D. and Zimmermann, K. (eds) Frühes Ionien: Eine Bestandsaufnahme (Mainz): 499510. Buiskikh, A.V. 2013. Arkhaicheskaya raspisnaya keramika iz Ol’vii (Kiev). Buiskikh, A.V. 2015a. ‘Keramika pershoi polovini VII st. do n.e. Ta pitannya dokolonizatsiinikh zv’yazkiv u pivnichnomu prichornomor’i’. Arkheologiya (Kiev) 1: 3-11. Buiskikh, A.V. 2015b. ‘Subgeometricheskii skifos iz Borisfena (K voprosu o dokolonizatsionnykh svyazyakh v Severnom Prichernomor’e)’. Antichnyi Mir i Arkheologiya 17: 238-52. Buzoianu, L. and Bărbulescu, M. 2008. Albeşti: Monografie Arheologică, 2 vols. (Constanţa).

Bouzek, J. 1996a. ‘The position of the Pistiros fortification in the development of ancient poliorcetics and stonecutting techniques’. In Bouzek, Domaradzki and Archibald 1996: 43-46. Bouzek, J. 1996b. ‘Textile industry’. In Bouzek, Domaradzki and Archibald 1996: 117-68. Bouzek, J. 2000. ‘Greeks Overland’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Prag, A.J.N.W. and Snodgrass, A.M. (eds) Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman (London): 33-40. Bouzek, J. 2002a. ‘The North Greek wheel-made glazed pottery from Pistiros, Part 1: classification and possible sources’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka and Archibald 2002: 149-82. Bouzek, J. 2002b. ‘The First Thracian Urban and Rural Dwellings, and Stonecutting Techniques’. Talanta 32-33 (for 2000-01): 243-52. Bouzek, J. 2005. ‘Urbanisation in Thrace’. In Bouzek and Domaradzka 2005: 1-7. Bouzek, J. 2009. ‘Greek Pottery and Greek Presence in the Inland Areas of the Black Sea Region’. In Kopylov, V.P. (ed.) Mezdunarodnye otnosheniya v baseine Chernogo Morya v skifo-antichnoe i khazarskoe vremya (Rostov-on-Don): 73-80. Bouzek, J. 2010. ‘A note on Greek pottery from the Southern House’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka and Archibald 2010: 186-90. Bouzek, J. 2013. ‘Grekii i grecheskaya keramika za predelami kolonii – paralleli mezdu oblastyami Dona i Maritsy’. In Kovalenko, A.N. (ed.) Prichernomor’e v antichnoe i rannesrednevekovoe vremya: Sbornik nauchnikh trudov posvyashchenyi 65-letiyu professora V.P. Konylova (Rostov-on-Don): 107-14. Bouzek, J. 2016a. ‘The emporion of Pistiros: Hippodamean foundation and market place’. In Manoledakis 2016: 89-98. Bouzek, J. 2016b. ‘The outline of the chronology of Pistiros’. In Bouzek et al. 2016: 21-22. Bouzek, J. 2016c. ‘Urban planning of Pistiros’. In Bouzek et al. 2016: 23-25. Bouzek, J. 2019. ‘Relations between Greece and Central Europe Revisited: Early Iron Age Imports of Attic Pottery in Bohemia and Possible Pythagorean Links of Celtic Art’. Ancient West and East 18: 61-84. Bouzek, J., Archibald, Z.H., Domaradzka, L., Gotsev, A. et al. 2007. ‘The Emporion of Pistiros and its environs – twenty years of study’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka and Archibald 2007: 5-19. Bouzek, J. and Domaradzka, L. (eds) 2005. The Culture of Thracians and their Neighbours: Proceedings of an International Symposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Domaradzki, with a Round Table ‘Archaeological Map of Bulgaria’ (Oxford). Bouzek, J. and Domaradzka, L. 2007a. ‘Panathenaic amphorae at Pistiros’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka and Archibald 2007: 239-42. 34

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies Rabadzhiev, K. (eds) Pitue. Izledvaniya v chest na prof. Ivan Marazov (Sofia): 294-306. Domaradzka, L. 2005. ‘Graeco-Thracian Relations in the Upper Maritza Valley (5th-4th c. B.C.) (based on epigraphic evidence)’. In Bouzek and Domaradzka 2005: 19-26. Domaradzka, L. 2007a. ‘Catalogue of graffiti discovered during excavations at Pistiros-Vetren (1988-2004). Part two: graffiti on pottery used in the household’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka and Archibald 2007: 22135. Domaradzka, L. 2007b. ‘The extent and Use of Greek Language and Literacy in Thrace during the Classical and Early Hellenistic Times (Based on Epigraphic Evidence)’. Eirene 43: 69-81. Domaradzka, L. 2013. ‘Newly discovered graffiti on pottery from Pistiros (2004-2010)’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka et al. 2013: 198-206. Domaradzki, M. 1993. ‘Pistiros – centre commercial et politique dans la vallée de Maritza (Thrace)’. Archeologia (Warsaw) 44: 35-57. Domaradzki, M. 1996a. Emporion Pistiros: Trako-Gratski targovski otnoshenya (Pazardžik). Domaradzki, M. 1996b. ‘An interim report of archaeological investigations at Vetren-Pistiros, 1988-1994’. In Bouzek, Domaradzki and Archibald 1996: 13-34. Domaradzki, M. 2002. ‘La production des fibules à Pistiros’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka and Archibald 2002: 249-54. Doonan, O.P. 2016. ‘Sinope, new understandings of the early colony based on recent research at Sinop Kale’. In Manoledakis 2016: 217-23. Doonan, O.P., Bauer, A., Sherratt, E.S., Casson, A., Feathers, J., Conrad, M., Besonen, M., Evren, E., Domzalski, K and Smokotina, A. 2015. ‘Sinop Regional Archaeological Project: Report on the 2010-2012 Field Seasons’. In Steadman, S.R. and McMahon, G. (eds) The Archaeology of Anatolia I: Recent Discoveries (2011-2014) (Newcastle-upon-Tyne): 298-327. Doonan, O.P., Vural, H., Goldman, A., Bauer, A., Rempel, J., Sherratt, S., Krotschek, U., Maranzana, P. and Sökmen, E. 2017. ‘Sinop Kalesi Archaeological Excavations, 2015-2016 Field Seasons’. In Steadman, S.R. and McMahon, G. (eds) The Archaeology of Anatolia II: Recent Discoveries (2015-2016) (Newcastleupon-Tyne): 178-99. Dossier Pistiros 1999. ‘Dossier: Nouvelles perspectives pour l’étude de l’inscription de Pistiros’. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 123: 247-371. Fabritsius, I.V. 1951. ‘Do pitannya pro topografizatsiyu plemen Skifii’. Arkheologiya (Kiev) 5: 50-80. Gailledrat, É., Dietler, M. and Plana-Mallart, R. (eds) 2018. The Emporion in the Ancient Western Mediterranean: Trade and Colonial Encounters from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period (Montpellier).

Buzoianu, L., Dupont, P. and Lungu, V. (eds) 2013. PATABS III: Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea (Constanţa). Cojocaru, V. 2014. Bibliographia classica orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini 1: Epigraphica, Numismatica, Onomastica et Prosopographica (Cluj-Napoca). Cojocaru, V. 2018. Bibliographia classica orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini 2: Archaeologica (Cluj-Napoca). Dally, O., Attula, R., Brückner, H., Kelterbaum, D., Larenok, P.A., Neef, R. and Schunke, T. 2009. ‘Die Griechen am Don – Ergebnisse der deutschrussischen Ausgrabungen in Taganrog unf Umgebung, Kampagnene 2004-2007’. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1: 73-119. Dally, O., Huy, S., Larenok, P.A. and Schunke, T. 2016. ‘Taganrog, Russische Föderation: Die Arbeiten des Jahres 2013’. e-Forschungsberichte des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 1: 103-09. Damyanov, M. 2015. ‘The Greek Colonists’. In Valeva, J., Nankov, E. and Graninger, D. (eds) A Companion to Ancient Thrace (Malden, MA/Oxford): 295-307. Damyanov, M. 2018. ‘On the Early Date of the Sanctuary of Demeter in Apollonia: Some East Greek Pottery’. In Avram et al. 2018: 141-54. Damyanov, M. and Panayotova, K. 2018. ‘On the Chronology of the Earliest Greek Metallurgy at Apollonia Pontica’. Poster, 19th International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Cologne/Bonn, 22-26 May 2018 (published on Academia.edu). Demetriou, D. 2011. ‘What is an Emporion? A Reassessment’. Historia 60.3: 255-72. Demetriou, D. 2012. Negotiating Identity in the Mediterranean: The Archaic and Classical Greek Multiethnic Emporia (Cambridge). Denti, M. 2008. ‘La circulation de la céramique du “Wild Goat Style” (MWGS I), de la Mer Noire à l’Occident. Les contextes de réception et de destination’. Revue Archéologique 1: 3-36. Dimitrov, D.P. and Čičikova, M. 1978. The Thracian City of Seuthopolis (Oxford). Domanksij, J.V. and Marčenko, K.K. 2003. ‘Towards Determining the Chief Function of the Settlement of Borysthenes’. In Bilde, P.G., Højte, J.M. and Stolba, V.F. (eds) The Cauldron of Ariantas: Studies Presented to A.N. Ščeglov on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (Aarhus): 30-36. Domaradzka, L. 1996. ‘Graffiti’. In Bouzek, Domaradzki and Archibald 1996: 89-95. Domaradzka, L. 2002a. ‘Catalogue of graffiti discovered during excavations at Pistiros-Vetren 1988-1998. Part one: graffiti on imported fine pottery’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka and Archibald 2002: 209-28. Domaradzka, L. 2002b. ‘Addenda ad Pistiros I.: The Pistiros-Vetren Inscription’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka and Archibald 2002: 339-42. Domaradzka, L. 2002c. ‘Pistiros and its Contribution to Classical Greek Epigraphy’. In Gicheva, R. and 35

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Gates, C. 2010. ‘Greeks in the East: A View from Cilicia’. In Solovyov, S.L. (ed.) Archaic Greek Culture: History, Archaeology, Art and Museology (Oxford): 41-45. Gavrilyuk, N.A. 1999. Ekonomicheskaya istoria Stepnoi Skifii VI-III vv. do n.e. (Kiev). Gavrilyuk, N.A. 2007. ‘Greek Imports in Scythia’. In Grammenos, D.V. and Petropoulos, E.K. (eds) Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea 2 (Oxford): 627-76. Gavrilyuk, N.A. 2017. ‘Khinterland kak ekonomicheskaya sostavlyashchaya arkhaicheskikh Borisfena i Ol’vii’. In Buiskikh, A.V. (ed.) Pivnichne Prichornomor’ za sntichnoi dobi (na poshanu S.D. Kruzhits’kogo) (Kiev): 177-94. Gavrilyuk, N.A. and Tymchenko, N. 2015. ‘The Hinterland of Archaic Olbia: Handmade Pottery’. In Tsetskhladze et al. 2015: 535. Georgieva, R., Stoyanov, T. and Momchilov, D. (eds) 2010: Yugoiztochna Bolgariya prez II-I khilyadoletie pr. Khr. (Varna). Goroncharovskii, V.A. 2009. ‘Labris (Semibratnee gorodishche): sindskii gorod ili grecheskii emporii?’. In Kopylov, V.P. (ed.) Mezdunarodnye otnosheniya v baseine Chernogo Mor'ya v skifo-antichnoe i khazarskoe vremya (Rostov-on-Don): 99-106. Goroncharovskii, V.A. 2013. ‘O khronologii Semibratnikh kurganov’. In Kovalenko, A.N. (ed.) Prichernomor’e v antichnoe i rannesrednevekovoe vremya: Sbornik nauchnikh trudov posvyashchenyi 65-letiyu professora V.P. Konylova (Rostov-on-Don): 161-73. Goroncharovskii, V.A. 2019. ‘Semibratnoe gorodishche (Labris) po dannym raskopok Bosporskoi ekspeditsii IIMK RAN v 2001-2009 gg.’. In Vinograadov, Y.A., Vasilev, S.A. and Kirpichnikov, K. (eds) Proshloe chelovechestva v trudakh peterburskikh arkheologov na rubezhe tysyacheleteii (k 100-letiyu sozdaniya rossiiskoi akademicheskoi arkheologii) (St Petersburg): 212-29. Graham, A.J. 1990. ‘Pre-colonial Contacts: Questions and Problems’. In Descœudres, J.-P. (ed.) Greek Colonies and Native Populations (Oxford): 45-60. Graninger, C.D. 2018. ‘New Contexts for the Seuthopolis Inscription (IGBulg 3.2 1731)’. Klio 100: 178-94. Gutsalov, S.Y. 2009. ‘Mogil’nik u s. Pesochin pod Khar’kova v kontekste istorii drevnikh kochevnikov Yuzhnogo Urala’. Drevnosti 2009: 69-79. Hall, J.M. 2007. A History of the Archaic Greek World, ca. 1200-479 BCE (Malden, MA/Oxford). Handberg, S. and Jacobsen, J.K. 2011. ‘Greek or Indigenous? From Potsherd to Identity in Early Colonial Encounters’. In Gleba, M. and Horsnaes, H.W. (eds) Commanding Identity in Italic Iron Age Communities (Oxford): 175-94. Hansen, M.H. 2006. ‘Emporion. A Study of the Use and Meaning of the Term in the Archaic and Classical Periods’. In Tsetskhladze 2006a: 1-39.

Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. 2004a. ‘Part I: Introduction’. In Hansen and Nielsen 2004b: 3-155. Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. (eds) 2004b. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford). Hermary, A. (ed.) 2010. Apollonia du Pont (Sozopol): La nécropole de Kalfata (Ve-IIIe s. av. J.-C.). Fouilles francobulgares (2002-2004) (Paris/Aix-en-Provence). Hermary, A. and Tsetskhladze, G.R. (eds) 2012. From the Pillars of Hercules to the Footsteps of the Argonauts (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA). Hind, J.G.F. 1997. ‘Colonies and Ports-of-Trade on the Northern Shores of the Black Sea: Borysthenes, Kremnoi and the “Other Pontic Emporia” in Herodotus’. In Nielsen, T.H. (ed.) Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Stuttgart): 107-16. Jensen, E. 2018. Barbarians in the Greek and Roman World (Indianapolis/Cambridge). Kashuba, M.T. 2012a. ‘Sravnitel’noe issledovanie domostroitel’stva gal’shtattskikh kul’tur Vostochnogo Prikarpat’ya (XII-VIII/VII vv. do n.e.)’. Rossiskii Arkheologicheskii Ezhegodnik 2: 433-72. Kashuba, M.T. 2012b. ‘Eshche o domostroitel’stve i gal’shtatte v Severnom Prichernomor’e’. Rossiskii Arkheologicheskii Ezhegodnik 2: 479-82. Kashuba, M.T. and Levitskii, O.G. 2011. ‘Kruglye zhilishcha ranneskifskogo vremeni v SeveroZapadnom Prichernomor’e: naselenie i kontakty, istoki i traditsii domostroitell’stva’. In Bosporskii Fenomen: Naselenie, yazyki, kontakty (St Petersburg): 522-33. Kashuba, M.T. and Vakhtina, M.Y. 2017. ‘Nekotorie aspekti izucheniya materialov rannego zheleznogo veka iz raskopok Nemirovskogo gorodishcha v Pobuzh’e’. Arkheologicheskie Vesti 23: 211-28. Kerschner, M. 2006. ‘Zum Beginn und zu den Phasen der griechischen Kolonisation am Schwarzen Meer. Die Evidenz det ostgriechischen Keramik’. Eurasia Antiqua 12: 227-50. Kerschner, M. and Schlotzhauer, U. 2005. ‘A New Classification System for East Greek Pottery’. Ancient West and East 4.1: 1-56. Kimmig, W. (ed.) 2000. Importe und mediterrane Einflüsse auf der Heuneburg (Mainz). Koloda, V.V. 2009. ‘Nakhodka dvukh novykh antichnykh amfornykh kleim bliz Khar’kova’. Drevnosti 2009: 232-94. Kopylov, A.V. and Kopylov, V.P. 2019. ‘Proizvodstvennyi kompleks pervoi poloviny IV v. do n.e. Elizavetovskogo gorodishcha’. Prichernomor‘e v antichnoe i rannesrednevekovoe vremya 2 (Rostov-onDon): 335-46. Kopylov, V.P. 2007. ‘Tanais River Region: GreekBarbarian Relations in the 7th-6th Centuries BC’. In Solovyov, S.L. (ed.) Greeks and Natives in the Cimmerian Bosporus, 7th-1st Centuries BC (Oxford): 66-69. 36

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies Lazov, G. 2013. ‘Clay moulds for bronze appliqués from Emporion Pistiros’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka et al. 2013: 209-23. Lezhava, G. 1979. Antikuri khanis Sakartvelos arkitekturili dzeglebi (Tbilisi). Licheli, V. 2016. ‘Geoarchaeology of Phasis (Georgia)’. In Baralis, Bivolaru et al. 2016: 119-28. Loukopoulou, L. 1999. ‘Sur le statut et l’importance de l’emporion de Pistiros’. In Dossier Pistiros 1999: 35971. Lungu, V. with Dupont, P. 2013. Histria 14: La céramique de style West Slope (Bucharest/Paris). Maier, A.M., Fantalkin, A. and Zukerman, A. 2009. ‘The Earliest Greek Import in the Iron Age Levant: New Evidence from Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel’. Ancient West and East 8: 57-80. Manoledakis, M. (ed.) 2016. The Black Sea in the Light of New Archaeological Data and Theoretical Approaches (Oxford). Manoledakis, M. 2018. ‘The Early Greek Presence in the Southern Black Sea’. In Manoledakis et al. 2018: 173241. Manoledakis, M., Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Xydopoulos, I. (eds) 2018. Essays on the Archaeology and Ancient History of the Black Sea Littoral (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT). Martín i Ortega, A. 2001. Ullastret (Barcelona). Martinez, J.-L., Baralis, A., Mathieux, N., Stoyanova, T. and Tonkova, M. 2015. L’Epopée des rois thraces des guerres médiques aux invasions celtes, 479-278 av. J.-C. Découvertes archéologiques en Bulgarie (Paris). Mateevici, N. 2007. Amforele greceşti în mediul barbar din nord-vestul Pontulini Euxin în sec. VI-începutul sec. II a. Chr. (Chişinău). Matys, A. 2013. ‘Textile industry: loom-weights and spindle-whorls’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka et al. 2013: 173-90. Möller, A. 2019. ‘Naukratis – Yet Again’. In Morais, R., Leão, D. and Rodríguez Pérez, D. (eds) Greek Art in Motion: Studies in Honour of Sir John Boardman on the Occasion of his 90thh Birthday (Oxford): 355-57. Morel, J.-P. 2006. ‘Phocaean Colonisation’. In Tsetskhladze 2006a: 358-428. Otreshko,  V.M. 1989. ‘O datakh osnovaniya Istrii i Borisfena’. In Vinogradov, Y.G. (ed.) Tezisy dokladov oblastnoi konferentsii ‘Problemy skifosarmatskoi arkheologii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya’ posvyashchvennoi 90-letiuy so dnya rozhdeniya professora B.N. Grakova, vol. 1 (Zaporozhe), 10910. Otreshko, V.M. 2009. ‘O datakh osnovaniya Istrii i Borisfena’. In Kryzhitskii, S.D. (ed.) Ol’viiskie drevnosti: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov pamyati Valeriya  Mikhailovicha Otreshko (1949-1999) (Kiev), 61. Panayotova, K., Damyanov, M., Stoyanova, D. and Bogdanova, T. 2014. ‘Apollonia Pontica, the Ancient

Kopylov, V.P. 2011. ‘Taganroskoe poselenie – Gavan’ Kremny?’. Atichnyi Mir i Arkheologiya 15, 22340. Kopylov, V.P. 2015. ‘New data on the dynamics of relations between Greeks and Barbarians at the mouth of the Tanais river in the final stage of Scythian history (5th-3rd centuries BC)’. In Tsetskhladze et al. 2015: 105-08. Kopylov, V.P. 2018. ‘Miletskaya apoikia Kremny i kolonizatsia Bospora’. In Bosporskii fenomen: Obshchee i osobennoe v istoriko-kul’turnom prostranstve antichnogo mira, Part 1 (St Petersburg): 65-69. Kopylov, V.P. and Kovalenko, A.N. 2012. ‘Khramovyi kompleks Elizavetovskogo gorodishcha na Donu (predvaritel’noe soobshchenie)’. In Telnov, N.P. (ed.) Drevnosti Severnogo Prichernomor’ya III-II vv. do n.e. (Tiraspol): 96-100. Kopylov, V.P. and Marchenko, A.A. 2017. ‘Krasnofigurnye kratery iz Elizavetovskogo gorodishcha’. In Kostromichev, D.A. (ed.) Antichnye Relikvii Khersonesa: Otkrytiya, Nakhodki, Teorii: Materialy mezdunarodnoi konferentsii, Sevastopol, 10-12 oktyabriya 2017 goda (Sevastopol): 116-19. Kopylov, V.P. and Rusakov, M.Y. 2016a. ‘K voprosu ob otsutsvii ranneskifskikh pamyatnikov v zone vliyaniya Borisfenidy i Olv’ii’. In Eminak. Forum Olbicum I. Pam’yati V.V. Krapivinoi (= Naukovii shchokvartal’nik no. 4 [16], zhovten’-gruden’, 2016) (Kiev/Nikolaev): 41-44. Kopylov, V.P. and Rusakov, M.Y. 2016b. ‘Spetsifika raspostraneniya ranneskifskikh pogrebal’nykh pamyatnikov v Severnom Prichernomor’e’. Starodavne Prichornomor’ya 11: 275-79. Koshelenko, G.A. and Marinovitch, L.P. 2000. ‘Three Emporia of the Kimmerian Bosporus’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Prag, A.J.N.W. and Snodgrass, A.M. (eds) Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman (London): 171-77. Krutilov, V.V. 2015. ‘Keramichni pechi z Borisfena seredini VI st. do n.e.’. Arkheologiya (Kiev) 2, 11624. Kulatova, I.M. and Suprunenko, O.B. 2010. Kurgani skifs’kogo chasu zakhidnoi okrugi Bil’s’kogo gorodishcha (Kiev). Kurz, S. 2007. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung der Heuneburg in der späten Hallstattzeit (Stuttgart). Kuznetsov, V.D. 2018. ‘“Sindian” Coins: Some Remarks’. In Avram et al. 2018: 123-40. Lawall, M.L. 2010. ‘Pontic, Aegean and Levantine amphorae at Gordion’. In Kassas Tezgör, D. and Inaishvili, N. (eds) PATABS I: Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea (Istanbul): 159-65. Lazov, G. 1996. ‘Clay altars’. In Bouzek, Domaradzki and Archibald 1996: 63-76. Lazov, G. 2002. ‘Toreutic production from Pistiros’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka and Archibald 2002: 243-48. 37

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Schlöffel, M., van Hoof, L., Schütt, B. and Dally, O. 2012. ‘Human Impact on Landscape Dynamics in the Steppe Environs of the Don Delta (Southern Russia)’. In Bronnikova, M. and Panin, A. (eds) Geomorphic Processes and Geoarchaeology: From Landscape Archaeology to Archaeotourism. International Conference, August 20-24, 2012, MoscowSmolensk (Extended Abstracts) (Moscow), 231. Schlotzhauer, U. 2010. ‘The Chronology of Pottery from Asia Minor: A Review Article’. Ancient West and East 9: 261-73. Shevchenko, A.V. 2014. ‘Kryshka chernofigurnoi lekany iz Khersonesa Tavricheskogo’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 1: 61-69. Shramko, B.A. 1987. Bel’skoe gorodishche skifskoi epokhi (gorod Gelon) (Kiev). Shramko, B.A. 2016. Bil’s’ke Gorodishche v nakovikh pratsyakh B.A. Shramka, compiled by S.A. Zadnikov and I.B. Shramko (Kotelva/Kharkov). Shramko, B.A. (✝), Shramko, I.B. and Zadnikov, S.A. 2018. Zakhidne ukriplennya: zol’nik no. 11 (1958) (Arkheologichnii kompleks ‘Bil’s’ke Gorodishche) (Kharkov/Kotelva). Shramko, I.B. 2013. ‘Basrabi Features in the Ceramic Complex of the Belsk Settlement’. In Sîrbu, V. and Schuster, C. (eds) The Thracians and their Neighbors in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Programme, Reports and Abstracts (Brǎila): 135-36. Shramko, I.B. and Zadnikov, S.A. 2016. ‘Rich Grave of Early Scythian period at Belsk Necropolis Skorobor’. Ukrainian Archaeology 2016: 47-53. Shramko, I.B. and Zadnikov, S.A. 2018. ‘Doslidzhennya kurganiv na nekropoli Skorobir u 2017 r.’. In Skorost, I.I. (ed.) Arkheologichnii doslidzhennya Bil’skogo gorodishcha 2017 (Kiev/Kotel’va): 6-22. Sirbu, V. 1985. ‘Considerations concernant l’importation des amphores grecques sur le territoire de la Roumanie (les VIe-Ier siècles av. n. è.)’. Thracia Pontica 2: 243-71. Smirnova, G.I. (✝), Vakhtina, M.Y., Kashuba, M.T. and Starikova, E.G. 2018. Gorodishche Nemirov na reke Iuzhnii Bug. Po materialam raskopok v XX veke iz kollektsii Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha i Nauchnova arkhiva IIMK RAN (St Petersburg). Stoyanov, T. 2002. ‘The Getic Capital at Sboryanova (North-Eastern Bulgaria)’. Talanta 32-33 (for 200001): 207-21. Summerer, L. 2007. ‘Greeks and natives on the southern Black Sea coast in antiquity’. In Erkut, G. and Mitchell, S. (eds) The Black Sea: Past, Present and Future (London/Istanbul): 27-36. Summerer, L. 2018. ‘Votivterrakotten der ionischen koine aus einem spätarchaisch/frühklassischen Fundkontext in Amisos’. In Avram et al. 2018: 15580. Tacheva, M. 2007. ‘The Pistiros Inscription: the Mirror of a New Thracian Society’. In Iakovidou, A. (ed.)

Temenos and Settlement on the Island of St. Kirik’. In Álvarez, J.M., Nogales, T. and Rodà, I. (eds) ICCA 18: Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, vol. 1 (Mérida): 595-98. Pavúk, P., Klontza-Jaklová, V. and Harding, A. (eds) 2018. EUDAIMWN: Studies in Honour of Jan Bouzek (Prague). Perreault, J.Y. and Bonias, Z. 2010. ‘Argilos aux VIIeVIe siècles’. In Tréziny, H. (ed.) Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la mer Noire (Paris/Aix-en-Provence): 225-39. Petrova, V. 2018. ‘Attic painted pottery from emporion Pistiros – spatial distribution’. In Pavúk et al. 2018: 391-401. Pistiros Jubilee 2010. [Pistiros’ Jubilee: 20 Years of Emporion Pistiros Excavations Part I]. Eirene 46.12: 157-225. Pistiros Jubilee 2011. ‘Pistiros’ Jubilee: 20 Years of Emporion Pistiros Excavations Part II’. Eirene 47.12: 7-60. Popović, P. 2009. ‘Archaeological finds from the vaulted building at Krševica’. Starinar 58 (for 2008): 95-106. Popović, P. and Vukadinović, M. 2011. ‘Water supply at Krševica (4th century BC)’. Starinar 61, 15570. Posamentir, R. 2010. ‘Archaic Greek Culture: The Archaic Ionian Pottery from Berezan’. In Solovyov, S.L. (ed.) Archaic Greek Culture: History, Archaeology, Art and Museology (Oxford): 66-74. Rădulescu, A. (✝), Buzoianu, L., Bărbulescu, M. and Georgescu, N. 2002. ‘Albeşti (Departement de Constanza), Site Fortifié Greco-Indigène’. Talanta 32-33 (for 2000-01): 189-206. Ridgway, D. 2000. ‘The First Western Greeks Revisited’. In Ridgway, D., Serra Ridgway, F.R., Pearce, M., Herring, E., Whitehouse, R.D. and Wilkins, J.B. (eds) Ancient Italy in its Mediterranean Setting. Studies in Honour of Ellen Macnamara (London): 17992. Ridgway, D. 2004. ‘Euboeans and others along the Tyrrhenian Seaboard in the 8th century B.C.’. In Lomas, K.H. (ed.) Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean: Papers in Honour of Brian Shefton (Leiden/Boston): 15-33. Rolley, C. (ed.) 2003. La tombe princière de Vix, 2 vols. (Paris). Rollinger, R. and Schnegg, K. (eds) 2014. Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten: vom Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA). Rusyaeva, A.S. 1998. ‘K voprosu ob osnovanii ioniitsami Ol’vii’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 1, 16070. Rusyaeva, A.S. 1999. ‘Proniknovenie Ellinov na territoriyu Ukrainskoi lesostepi v arkhaicheskoe vremya (k postanovke problemi)’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 4: 84-97. 38

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies Thrace in the Graeco-Roman World (Athens), 58895. Talmaţchi, G. 2011. Monetările oraşelor vest-pontice: Histria, Callatis şi Tomis în epocă autonomă. Iconografie, legend, metrologie, cronologie şi contramarcare (ClujNapoca). Taneva, V. 2013. ‘Potter’s kiln in grid square Ж (Ž) 5 at Adkiyska Vodenitza (Pistiros)’. In Bouzek, Domaradzka et al. 2013: 26-33. Taufer, M. (ed.) 2013. Sguardi interdisciplinary sulla religiosità dei Geto-Daci (Freiburg-im-Breisgau). Teleaga, E. 2008. Griechische Importe in den Nekropolen an der unteren Donau, 6. Jh.-Anfang des 3. Jhs. v. Chr. (Rahden). Theodossiev, N. 2011. ‘Ancient Thrace during the First Millennium BC’. In Tsetskhladze 2011b: 1-60. Tolstikov, V.P. 1984. ‘K probleme obrazovaniya Bosporskogo gosudarstva (opyt rekonstruktsii voenno-politicheskoi situatsii na Bospore v kontse VI-pervoi polovine V v. do n.e.)’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3: 24-48. Tolstikov, V.P. 2001. ‘Rannii Pantikapei v svete novykh arkheologicheskikh issledovanii’. Drevnosti Bospora 4: 385-427. Tolstikov, V.P. 2007. ‘Akropol’ Pantikapeya – stolitsy Bospora Kimmeriiskovo. Itogi za 60 let’. In Maslennikov, A.A. and Gavrilyuk, N.A. (eds) Antichnyi mir i varvary na yuge Rosii i Ukrainy: Ol'viya, Skifiya, Bospor (Moscow/Kiev/Zaporozhe): 244-57. Tolstikov, V.P. 2010a. ‘Khram Apollona na akropole Pantikapeya. Problemy datirovki, tipologii i periodizatsii’. Problemy istorii, filologii, kultury 1 (27): 277-315. Tolstikov, V.P. 2010b. ‘The Early Temple of Apollo on the Acropolis at Panticapaeum: Questions of Dating, Typology and the Periods of its Construction’. In Petropoulos, E.K. and Maslennikov, A.A. (eds) Ancient Sacral Monuments in the Black Sea (Thessaloniki): 335-65. Tolstikov, V.P., Astashova, N.S. and Samar, O.Y. 2017. ‘Specific Features of Ceramic Materials from the Earliest Level of Panticapaeum’. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 13: 558-64. Tolstikov, V.P., Zhuravlev, D.V. and Lomtadze, G.A. 2004. ‘Novye materialy k khronologii i istorii rannego Pantikapeya’. Drevnosti Bospora 7: 344-65. Tréziny, H. (ed.) 2001. Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la mer Noire (Aix-en-Provence). Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1994. ‘Greek Penetration of the Black Sea’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. and De Angelis, F. (eds) The Archaeology of Greek Colonisations: Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman (Oxford): 111-35. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1998a. Die Griechen in der Kolchis (historisch-archäologischer Abriß) (Amsterdam). Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1998b. ‘Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Stages, Models, and Native Population’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.) The

Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Stuttgart): 9-68. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1998c. ‘Who Built the Scythian and Thracian Royal and Elite Tombs?’. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 17.1: 55-92. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2000. ‘Pistiros in the System of Pontic Emporia (Greek Trading and Craft Settlements in the Hinterland of the Northern and Eastern Black Sea and Elsewhere)’. In Domaradzki, M., Domaradzka, L., Bouzek, J. and Rostropowicz, J. (eds) Pistiros et Thasos: Structures économiques dans la péninsule Balkanique VIIe-IIe siècle avant J.-C. (Opole): 235-46. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2002. ‘Ionians Abroad’. In Tsetskhladze and Snodgrass 2002: 81-96. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2003. ‘Greeks beyond the Bosporus’. In Karageorghis, V (ed.) The Greeks Beyond the Aegean: From Marseilles to Bactria (New York): 12966. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2004. ‘On the Earliest Greek Colonial Architecture in the Pontus’. In Tuplin, C.J. (ed.) Pontus and the Outside World. Studies in Black Sea History, Historiography and Archaeology (Leiden/ Boston): 225-81. Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.) 2006a. Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, vol. 1 (Leiden/Boston). Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2006b. ‘Introduction: Revisiting Ancient Greek Colonisation’. In Tsetskhladze 2006a, xxiii-lxxxiii. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2008a. ‘“Grain for Athens”. The View from the Black Sea’. In Alston, R. and van Nijf, O. (eds) Feeding the Ancient Greek City (Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA): 47-62. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2008b. ‘Pontic Slaves in Athens: Orthodoxy and Reality’. In Mauritsch, P., Petermandl, W., Rollinger, R. and Ulf, C. (eds) Antike Lebenswelten: Konstanz-Wandel-Wirkungsmacht. Festschrift für Ingomar Weiler zum 70. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden): 309-19. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2010. ‘“Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts”: Gifts, Tribute, Bribery and Cultural Contacts in the Greek Colonial World’. In Rollinger, R., Gufler, B., Lang, M. and Madreiter, I. (eds) Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt: Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts (Wiesbaden): 41-61. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2011a. ‘Pistiros Revisited’. In Pistiros Jubilee 2011: 14-25. Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.) 2011b. The Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First Millennium BC (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA). Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2012. ‘Pots versus People: Further Consideration of the Earliest Examples of East Greek Pottery in Native Settlements of the Northern Pontus’. In Hermary and Tsetskhladze 2012: 315-74. 39

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Vakhtina, M.Y. 2002. ‘Eshche raz ob osnovnom pogrebenii v kurgane Temir-Gora i nekotorykh voprosakh grecheskoi kolonizatsii Kimmeriiskogo Bospora’. In Zinko, V.N. (ed.) Bospor Kimmeriiskii: Pont i varvarskii mir v period antichnosti i srednevekov’ya (Kerch): 31-35. Vakhtina, M.Y. 2004a. ‘Grecheskaya arkhaicheskaya stolovaya keramika v varvarskikh pamyatnikakh Severnogo Prichernomor’ya: vremya i puti raspostraneniya’. In Zinko, V.N. (ed.) Bospor Kimmeriiskii i varvarskii mir v period antichnosti i srednevekov’ya. Etnicheskie protsessy (Kerch): 54-58. Vakhtina, M.Y. 2004b. ‘O nachale raspostraneniya yuzhno-ioniiskogo keramicheskogo importa v varvarskom mire Severnogo Prichernomor’ya’. In Bosporskii fenomen: Problemy khronologii i datirovki pamyatnikov, Part 2 (St Petersburg): 204-11. Vakhtina, M.Ju. 2007a. ‘Archaic East Greek Pottery from Nemirovo (Preliminary Survey)’. In Cobet, J., von Graeve, V., Niemeier, W.-D. and Zimmermann, K. (eds) Frühe Ionien: Eine Bestandsaufnahme (Mainz): 511-18. Vachtina, M.Ju. 2007b. ‘Greek Archaic Orientalising Pottery from the Barbarian Sites of the Foreststeppe Zone of the Northern Black Sea Coastal Region’. In Gabrielsen, V. and Lund, J. (eds) The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges (Aarhus): 23-37. Vakhtina, M.Ju. 2009. ‘Archaic Greek Painted Pottery at the Sites of Local Population of the Black Sea Coastal Region in the Period of Forming of “Scythian Animal Style”’. Il Mar Nero  6 (for 200406): 203-09. Vakhtina, M.Ju. 2018. ‘Archaic East Greek Pottery from Nemirov Fortified Settlement and Some Questions of Distribution of Early Greek Pottery in the Northern Black Sea Region’. In Avram et al. 2018: 69-84. Vakhtina, M.Y. and Kashuba, M.T. 2014. ‘Nakhodki rannei grecheskoi keramiki v varvarskhikh pamyatnikakh Severnogo Prichernomor’ya i vremya poyavleniya postoyannykh antichnykh poselenii v regione’. In Zinko, V.N. (ed.) Bospor Kimmeriiskii i varvarskii mir v period antichnosti i srednevekov’ya. Aktual’nye problemy khronologii (Kerch): 69-81. van Hoof, L., Dally, O. and Schlöffel, M. 2012. ‘Staying Home or Staying with your Cattle? Different Reactions to Environmental Changes in the Late Bronze Age of the Lower Don Area (Southern Russia)’. In Bebermeier, W., Herbenstreit, R., Kaiser, E. and Krause, E. (eds) Landscape Archaeology = eTopoi: Journal of Ancient Studies, Special vol. 3: 71-75. Vassileva, M. 2015. ‘Phrygia and the southern Black Sea’. In Tsetskhladze et al. 2015: 91-96. Vdovichenko, I.I. 2006. ‘Raspisnaya keramika Semibratnego gorodishcha’. In Solovyv, S.L. (ed.)

Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2013. ‘Not all things Greek came through Greek trade or at the hands of Greeks’. In Tsetskhladze et al. 2013: 69-82. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2014. ‘From the Pillars of Hercules to the Scythian Lands: Identifying Ethno-Cultural Interactions’. In Rollinger and Schnegg 2014: 21551. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2015. ‘Greeks, locals and others around the Black Sea and its hinterland: recent developments’. In Tsetskhladze et al. 2015: 1142. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2016a. ‘Notes on “Pre-Colonial” Links – Once Again’. Ancient West and East 15: 279301. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2016b. ‘Greeks in the Asiatic Bosporus: New Evidence and Some Thoughts’. In Manoledakis 2016: 45-59. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2018a. ‘“Greek Penetration of the Black Sea”: Twenty Years On’. In Manoledakis et al. 2018: 1-64. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2018b. ‘The Colchian Black Sea Coast: Recent Discoveries and Studies’. In Manoledakis et al. 2018: 425-545. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2018c. ‘Pontic Notes’. In Avram et al. 2018: 47-67. Tsetskhladze G.R. 2019. ‘Some Recent Developments in the Study of Greeks Overseas’. In Morais, R., Leão, D. and Rodríguez Pérez, D. (eds) Greek Art in Motion: Studies in Honour of Sir John Boardman on the Occasion of his 90th Birthday (Oxford): 59-65. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Atasoy, S., Avram, A., Dönmez, Ş. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds) 2013. The Bosporus: Gateway between the Ancient West and East (1st Millennium BC5th Century AD) (Oxford). Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds) 2015. The Danubian Lands between the Black, Aegean and Adriatic Seas (7th Century BC-10th Century AD) (Oxford). Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Hargrave, J.F. 2011. ‘Colonisation from Antiquity to Modern Times: Comparisons and Contrasts’. Ancient West and East 10: 16182. Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Snodgrass, A.M. (eds) 2012. Greek Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea (Oxford). Ulf, C. 2009. ‘Rethinking Cultural Contacts’. Ancient West and East 8: 81-132. Ulitin, V.V. 2013. ‘Trade relations between the Maeotian tribes of the Kuban and the ancient world based on the evidence of amphorae (end of the 7th centuryfirst half of the 1st century BC)’. In Tsetskhladze et al. 2013: 89-101. Vakhtina, M.Y. 2000. ‘Grecheskaya stolovaya keramika VI v. do n.e. iz raskopok Nemirovskogo gorodishcha v Pobuzh’e’. In Zuev, V.Y. (ed.) SUSSITIA: Pamyati Yuriya Viktorovicha Andreeva (St Petersburg): 209-17. 40

G.R. Tsetskhladze: Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies gorodishche’. In Kopylov, V.P. (ed.) Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya v baseine Chernogo Morya v skifoantichnoe i khazarskoe vremiya (Rostov-on-Don): 15-21. Zadnikov, S.A. 2013. ‘Antichnaya keramika iz zemmlyanok kontsa VI-pervoi chetverti VI v. do n.e. Zapadnogo Bel’skogo gorodishcha’. In Bosporskii fenomen: Greki i varvary na Evraziiskom perekrestke (St Petersburg): 366-71. Zadnikov, S.A. and Shramko, I.B. 2009. ‘K voprosu o pervykh kontaktakh naseleniya Bel’skogo gorodishcha s antychnym mirom’. In Bosporskii fenomen: Iskusstvo na priferii antichnogo mira (St Petersburg): 473-77. Zournatzi, A. 2000. ‘Inscribed Silver Vessels of the Odrysian Kings: Gifts, Tribute, and Diffusion of the Forms of “Achaemenid” Metalware in Thrace’. American Journal of Archaeology 104: 683-706.

Greki i varvary na Bospore Kimmeriiskom, VII-I vv. do n.e. (St Petersburg): 32-35. Velkov, V. and Domaradzka, L. 1996. ‘Kotys I (383/359 B.C.) and emporion Pistiros’. In Bouzek, Domaradzki and Archibald 1996: 205-16. Zadnikov, S.A. 2007a. ‘Stolovaya antichnaya keramika Bel’skogo goridishcha vtoroi poloviny VII-prevoi poloviny VI v. do n.e.’. In Bosporskii fenomen: Sakral’nyi smysl reziona, pamyatnikov, nakhodok (St Petersburg): 41-47. Zadnikov, S.A. 2007b. ‘Rannaya antichnaya keramika Bel’skogo gorodishcha’. In Kopylov, V.P., Kovalenko, A.N., Klyuchnikov, V.V., Yangulov, S.Y. and Andrianova, N.V. (eds) Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya v basseine Chernogo Morya v drevnosti i srednie veka (Rostov-on-Don): 19-21. Zadnikov, S.A. 2009. ‘Antichnaya keramika tret’ei chetverti VII v. do n.e. iz raskopok na Bel’skom

41

The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana *

A.V. Podossinov Abstract The Tabula Peutingeriana (TP) is the only ancient map which represents the territory of the Black Sea and its surrounding. It dates back to the first centuries AD and reflects the geographical, ethnographic and political situation of this period. The Black Sea appears on it like a long belt stretched from west to east. The Sea of Azov has no connection with the Black Sea, that is why many names are placed here wrongly. But, on the whole, rivers, mountains and peoples of the northern Black Sea region are situated in accordance with Graeco-Roman geographical tradition. On the western shore the famous Roman road, leading from Histria to Constantinopolis, is indicated with its 21 stations. On the southern shore of the TP many geographical subjects are depicted and indicated: three political unities (Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Pontus Polemoniacus); the citizens of the Pontus Polemoniacus are indicated as Pontici; ten rivers flow into the Black Sea; a route along the sea from the Thracian Bosporus up to Trapezus; this route has junctions with other routes at three points – Sinope, Polemonium and Trapezus; and 34 stations on the route, the majority of them known also from other sources (various peripli, Strabo, Pliny, Arrian, Ptolemy, etc.). One of the peculiarities of the TP is the location of Trapezus on the north-eastern shore of the Black Sea.

In this paper, I would like to take a look at the Black Sea and its coasts in terms of how they are depicted on Peutinger’s map. The so-called Tabula Peutingeriana (or Peutinger’s map), a Latin world map now held in the National Library in Vienna (codex Vindobonensis 324),1 is the only cartographical relic of antiquity that represents the territory of the Black Sea. It contains important information about the geography and history of regions surrounding the sea.

The TP has a northern orientation. Correlation between its length and height caused an exaggerated stretching out of the continents and lands from east to west and a corresponding compression on the vertical axis northsouth. The main contents of the map include a huge road network with cities, stations, junction points, river crossings and the distances between them. Many settlements are marked with symbols – the so-called vignettes – by pictures of towers, houses, harbours, altars, temples, etc. (summa summarum 557 vignettes).2 Many mountains and rivers are depicted, and names of the peoples and the provinces are given – in all, around 3500 names.

The map was made, according to palaeographical evidence, in the late 12th-early 13th century. However, most historians think that it dates back to the first centuries AD and reflects the geographical, ethnographic and political situation of this period: they base this conclusion on the form and content of the map.

***

The map is painted on 11 pieces of parchment which were originally glued together, forming a narrow but long scroll, 675 cm long by 34 cm high. It is a typical book form of the Late Antique period (volumen – roll). The TP contains the entire world (orbis terrarum), known in late antiquity – from the Atlantic Ocean in the West to the Eastern Ocean, Sri Lanka and India in the East, and from the Northern Ocean in the North to the mountains in the southern coast of Africa. One or two sheets of parchment that show the West with the Iberian Peninsula, a part of Britain and West Africa, have been lost in the course of time.

The most important and at the same time most difficult question of historical interpretation of the TP is its date. First of all, its contents testify to the antiquity of its archetype. The map reflects the road network existing in the first centuries AD within the limits of the Roman empire. Place names, the names of people(s) and the boundaries of the empire itself and of its provinces date back partly to the time of Augustus, but include later elements up to the 5th century AD. The majority of historians believe that the TP derives from an itinerary of the roads of the Roman empire, destined for use by officials. One of the copies from such an itinerary could be the TP.

*  The work on this paper was supported by Russian Scientific Foundation (RNF, project 14-18-02121). 1  For a facsimile edition, see Weber 1976. See also the editions Podossinov 2002; Prontera 2003; Rathmann 2016.

2 

42

Levi 1967.

A.V. Podossinov: The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana

Figure 1. The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana (western part).

In general, there are three3 (currently and hotly debated) hypotheses about the time of the creation of the Peutinger map – in the Hellenistic period (‘UrTabula’ by Michael Rathmann4), in the time of Agrippa in the end of the 1st century BC (as Eckehard Weber insists5) or during the tetrarchy of Diocletian ca. AD 300 (according to Richard Talbert6). I believe that all three hypotheses have the right to exist. In fact, no one will dispute the fact that the fundamentals of the geo-cartographic mapping of the oecumene were laid down precisely by Hellenistic scientists; then, 300 years later, becoming common property for the Greeks and Romans, they were reflected in the work of Agrippa, which probably was reworked and supplemented again 300 years later with the Tetrarchs.7

indicated, as usual on this map, by a wavy line, without any differentiation or any attempt to represent the real configuration of the sea. The transformation of the west coast into a narrow point led to the Danube flowing into the Black Sea on the map practically on the northern Black Sea coast, and the cities of the western Black Sea region, which are on the road from the Danube to Constantinople, first go west, then east (instead of from the north to the south and then to the east). Here, the secondary application of the Roman road network to the map is particularly noticeable, which was not intended for such a work. The name of the sea – Pontus Euxinus – is written in large letters just across the sea (Segm. VIII, 1-IX, 1) and is the name of the Black Sea traditional for antiquity (beginning with Pindar Nem 4. 79).9 But this is not the only designation of the sea: in the western part of the sea the inscription Sinus [E]usin[u]s is read, that means the ‘Eusine Bay’.

*** On the TP, the Black Sea appears as a long narrow belt, stretched from west to east, as a result of the form of the map as a long scroll whereby all seas are reduced to narrow channels (from Segm. VII, 3-IX, 38) (Figs. 1-3).

It is possible that this name is simply a doublet to the name Pontus Euxinus, since in ancient sources the Black, like other seas, was perceived as the bay of ‘Our’ or ‘Great’ Sea. For example, the Black Sea was so designated by Anonymous from Ravenna, who worked on sources close to the TP: in 1. 17 of his Cosmography he calls the Black Sea colfus Ponticus. Pliny the Elder speaks of the Black Sea as the bay (sinus) of Europe (NH 4. 75).

The disproportion is so great that the width of the straits of the Thracian Bosporus appears on the map more than the width of the Black Sea itself. The coastline is 3  There is a fourth hypothesis, suggesting the creation of TP in the 9th century AD in the Reichenau scriptorium at Bodensee in southern Germany (Albu 2014); discussion of this somewhat strange hypothesis is not one of the tasks of this article. 4  See, for example, Rathmann 2011-12; 2013. 5  Weber 1976: 22; 1989: 117; 2012: 215. Besides Weber, this view was held by some other historians (see Gisinger 1938: 1407-08; Gross 1913: 87, etc.). 6  Talbert 2010. 7  In detail, see Podossinov 2016. 8  Numbering of TP segments is given after Weber 1976.

On the other hand, there is some evidence that the Black Sea was divided in antiquity into two large areas of 9 

43

On the perception of the Black Sea in antiquity, see Burr 1932: 29-36.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 2. The Black Sea and the Sea of Azov on the Tabula Peutingeriana (middle part).

Figure 3. The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana (eastern part).

This latter (sc. Pontus Euxinus) is a double sea, so to speak: for two promontories jut out at about the middle of it, one from Europe and the northern parts, and the other, opposite to it, from Asia, thus

water, separated by a line running from Cape Carambis on the south coast to Cape Criumetopon on the north. This distance was considered the shortest between the two coasts. Thus, Strabo writes (2. 5. 22): 44

A.V. Podossinov: The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana contracting the passage between them and forming two large seas. The promontory of Europe is called Criumetopon, and that of Asia, Carambis; and they are about two thousand five hundred stadia distant from each other.10

temple of Achilles, allegedly carried here by his mother Thetis after his death at Troy.18 However, because of the latitudinal stretching of the map, the island turns up in the middle of the Black Sea. Over the island, depicted as an oval with the vignette of the house inside, there is inscription Ins[ula]. Achillis s[ive] Leuce dicta – ‘Achilles Island, also called Leuce’.

Paulus Orosius also identifies the eastern part of the Black Sea as a separate sea with the name mare Cimmericum (1. 2. 25, 36, 49). Obviously, under the influence of Orosius, many mediaeval maps placed the same name in the eastern part of the Black Sea.11 Perhaps this view is echoed in the two names of the Black Sea on the TP.

*** A few words about the continuation of the Black Sea – the Sea of Azov. It is clear that with such an elongation of the map both the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov are turned into a narrow strip, much elongated in length. Surprisingly, on the TP, the Sea of Azov (in antiquity – Maeotis) does not connect with the Black Sea at all! The fact that Maeotis is depicted as a closed lake, I am inclined to derive from a cartographic aberration associated with the name of the sea lacus (‘lake’) or paludes (‘swamp’), and I think that such an ‘innovation’ could appear on the world map of Agrippa, which was manufactured after his death ex destinatione et commentariis M. Agrippae (Pliny NH 3.1 7). Since these commentarii were about la[c]us M(a)eotidis (this name is on the TP), it is not hard to imagine how the draftsman drawing the map without the participation of its initiator should represent it.

I would like to note another interesting feature of the TP. On the map there are only about one and a half dozen inscriptions made in the sea-space of the map, near the coast and bearing the names of ports. Five of them are in the western ‘gulf ’ of the Black Sea. They can barely be deciphered and interpreted, as they are inscribed with black ink on a dark green background of the sea. The furthest to the west (Segm. VII, 3-4) is read as port[us] Callire?, is located near the West Caspian cities of Bizone and Dionysopolis and has no analogies in Black Sea onomastics; the other four ports are Port[us] Themomontus,12 Boeotorum,13 Meomensium14 and Helodos15 (?).

The lack of a strait between the Azov and the Black Sea explains also the absence of the Crimean Peninsula on the TP. All the Crimean toponyms are concentrated here on a narrow strip of land dividing the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea.

Opposite the mouth of the Danube in the sea (Segm. VII, 5), there is an island with the inscription Ins[ula] Helru (?), i.e. Helru Island. Various publishers read this name differently – Helru, Helous, Hel.v.16 This name is unknown from other sources. At the same time, ancient authors often put in this place the island of Peuce (Πεύκη, Peuce).17 Perhaps the poorly read Helru is just a distorted name for Peuce.

These are well known from other sources, although here and in a somewhat distorted form (listed from west to east): Taurica (above the eastern part of Maeotis), Meote (ditto), Salolime (Kalos limen), Ac[r?]a, Nimphi, Bosforani, Seracoe, Chimerium, Psaccani, Aspurgiani, Lazi, Alani, Eniochi, Phamacorium, Arsoae, Cepos, Hermonassa, Ach[a]ei, Sindecae.

On the TP there is another island in the Black Sea – the famous island of Achilles (in antiquity Leuce, modern Zmeinyj), usually also localised by ancient authors near the mouth of the Danube. On this island was the

Among the toponyms there are also hapaxes (Sorices, Cabacos, Teagina, Hermoca, Cannate, B[.]ruani, Amyrni, Macara?, Sardetae and some others).

Translated by H.L. Jones. 11  Chekin 2006: 128, 133, 135, 136, 138-39, 156, 164, 218; Ernst 1985: 143-45. 12  Perhaps in this name one should see the damaged name of the mountain Haemimons in Thrace (modern Stara Planina in Bulgaria), which is mentioned among the coastal Thracian cities of Odessa and Mesembria by Pliny (NH 4. 45: mons Haemus) and Strabo (7. 6. 1). In Nomina provinciarum omnium 4, one of the provinces of the Diocese of Thrace, along with the provinces of Thrace, Scythia and Lower Moesia, is called Haemimontus. 13  ‘The port of Boeotians’ from other sources is unknown. Ancient authors often write about who owned this or that colony; so, on the western coast of the Black Sea, they are called the colonies of Miletus, Heracliotes and Megarians. No information is available on the colonisation activities of the Boeotians in the western Black Sea. 14  We are dealing here perhaps with the damaged name Portus Messembriorum (‘the port of the Messembrians’). 15  This name is practically unreadable, since in this place a hole has formed in the parchment. 16  Cf. Miller 1916b: 606. 17  See, for example, Pliny NH 4. 79; Ptolemy 3. 10. 2. 10 

At the same time, the four largest and more important cities of the northern Black Sea region – Tyra, Olbia, Chersones and Panticapaeum – are absent, and there is no Bosporan kingdom, but there are inhabitants of the Bosporos: Bosforani.19 However, K. Miller considered the latter form as the error of the copyist (‘höchstwahrscheinlich das a am Schlusse nur durch den Abschreiber vergessen worden ist’20), and in A detailed description of the island and temple of Achilles is left by Arrian (PPE 32-34). 19  Writing Βόσφορος replaced in the Middle Ages the ancient Βόσπορος (already by Malala Chron. 431, 21). 20  Miller 1916b: 612. 18 

45

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity the original was to be Bosforania, as is the case in the Cosmography of Anonymous from Ravenna (4. 3), which refers to the patria Bosforanie; in 4. 5 patria Bosphorana is mentioned. Miller’s hypothesis has a reason, since the name Bosforani, written in red ink and in large letters, runs across the entire land that divides Maeotis and Pontus Euxinus. In this case, the names of cities and peoples of the Bosporan kingdom, written in black ink and in smaller letters, are inscribed above or below the Bosforani inscription, or even in the space between its letters.

nameless mountains, above which Alani is inscribed, i.e. it obviously flows from the Caucasus Mountains. The third river, starting in the Northern Ocean, crosses these mountains and passing some (also anonymous) lake, flows into the eastern extremity of Maeotis. In all these rivers one can see, probably, echoes of ideas about the Kuban (the ancient Hypanis), which fell with one mouth into Maeotis, with the second into the Black Sea, and the last – easternmost – river may reflect vague ideas about the Volga, which, on the one hand, was considered as flowing from the Northern Ocean, and on the other, flowing into the Caspian Sea.

On the other hand, ancient authors often used the name ‘Bosporans’ to refer to the inhabitants of the Bosporus (see, for example, Cicero Or. De imp. 9; Pompeius Trogus Prol. 37; Tacitus Ann. 12, 16, etc.). Strabo expressly states that ‘All the people who are subject to the potentates of the Bosporus are called Bosporans (Βοσπορανοί)’ (11. 2. 10). Ptolemy (5. 9. 4) believes that ‘on both sides of the Cimmerian Bosporus live Bosporans’.

Three more rivers flowing into the Black Sea are depicted between the Danube and Tanais: the flu[men]. Agalingus, flowing from the eastern slopes of the Carpathians into the Black Sea north-east of the Danube. Usually it is identified with the Dniester,21 and in the name they see a German roots. The next to the east is the Hypanis (modern Southern Bug), which is reflected in the name – Cap[ut]. [Hyp] anis paludis (‘Source of the Hypanis Marsh’). This river also flows ‘from sea to sea’, starting in the Northern Ocean. The third, which is nearest to the Don-Tanais, is called the Nusacus (Cap[ut]. fl[uminis]. Nusacus). Judging by the sequence of the northern Black Sea rivers, this should be the Borysthenes-Dnieper. The river flows from a small nameless lake, located to the south of a mountain chain which has no name. Thus, the map accurately reflects the number and location of the rivers of the northern Black Sea region, although, of course, the origins of these rivers were little known to the cartographer. This, probably, should explain their origins in the Northern Ocean.

Cassius Dio and Paulus Orosius, who told about Agrippa’s intervention in the affairs of the Bosporus in 14 BC, both speak of ‘Bosporans’ – ‘...when Agrippa came to Sinope and planned a campaign against them... so the Bosporans (Βοσπορανοί) laid down the weapons’ (Cassius Dio 54. 24. 6); Bosporanos vero Agrippa superavit.../’Agrippa defeated the Bosporans’ (Orosius 6. 21. 28) – which may indicate the influence of the Agrippa tradition on this designation of the TP. It is also interesting to compare the inscription of Bosforani with the way the cartographer mentioned the inhabitants of Byzantium/Constantinople: in Segm. VII, 5-VIII, 1 the city itself is designated as Constantinopolis, the old name, Byzantium, is absent, but near the city there is a larger inscription claiming to cover the entire peninsula: Byzantini. We can note also on TP (Segm. VIII, 5-IX, 3) a polytonym Pontici, which refers to the inhabitants of Pontus and is inscribed on the Black Sea coast. It is interesting that Strabo also mentions that Cappadocians who live at the Pontus Euxinus had a name Pontici (11. 8. 4).

*** So, in the northern Black Sea region, the TP knows some well-known (to us) peoples: the Taurians, Maeotians, Siraki, Psesses, Aspurgians, Lazi, Alans, Heniochi, Aorses, Achaeans, Sindi, almost all of them mentioned by ancient authors. But the location of the main ethnic groups of the northern Black Sea region – the Scythians and Sarmatians – is interesting. Since the time of Herodotus and Hecataeus, the entire Greek geography, the Hellenistic period included, considered the Scythians to be the main population of this region. By the time of Roman penetration to the Danube and the shores of the Black Sea, they were no longer confronted with the Scythians but with the Sarmatians, who occupied a vast territory from the Don to the Pannonian region to the north of the Danube, becoming neighbours of the Germanic tribes. Already from the beginning of the 1st century AD neither Mela nor Pliny, Strabo nor Ptolemy know the

Four rivers flow into Lake Maeotis. The most westerly, designated as Tanasis-Galatie, flows from some mountains (the Riphaean?) from the north-west to Maeotis. At the source of the Tanais there is even an inscription: flum(en) Tanais qui dividit Asiam et Europam, which reflects the traditional view of the Tanais-Don as the border between Europe and Asia. To the east of the Tanais are three other nameless rivers; two of them begin in the Northern Ocean. Thus, the first river after Tanais to the east, starting in the Northern Ocean, flows into Maeotis next to the ethnonym Seracoe. The next to the east begins in the

21 

46

Weber 1976: 26.

A.V. Podossinov: The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana Scythians in Eastern Europe, the latter were gradually shifting to Asia.

On the southern and eastern shores of the Black Sea, many political and geographical subjects are depicted and indicated. First of all we have here three political unities: Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Pontus Polemoniacus. They have a southern boundary with, correspondingly, Phrygia, Galatia and Cappadocia. The map has here only one name of a people, written on the shore of the Black Sea, it means the citizens of Pontus Polemoniacus (Pontici).

What do we see on the TP? Here, to the north of the Danube, starting from its middle course and further east to the Black and Caspian seas, the names of several Sarmatian tribes are depicted – Sarmate vagi, Solitudines Sarmatarum, Amaxobii Sarmate, Lupiones Sarmate, Venadi Sarmatae, Roxulani Sarmate, Suani Sarmatae, Sasone Sarmatae. The Scythians are all attributed to the territory of Asia – from the Caspian Sea up to the Eastern Ocean – Paralocae Scythae, Otio Scythae, Sagae Scythae, Rumi Scythae, Essendones Scythae, Abio Scythae, Xatis Scythae. It is interesting that the placement of Sarmatians in Eastern Europe was in fact carried out for the first time by Agrippa in his Chorographia or the world map.

Ten rivers flow into the Black Sea. Five of them are named, with the names often corrupted: Ad Herbas fl. (Rhebas), Sagaris fl. (Sangarius), Hyppium fl. (Hypius), Bylaeum fl. (Elaeus), Lygum fl. (Lycus), and five are not. Along the sea from the Thracian Bosporus up to Trapezus a road is depicted.22 Thirty-two cities or stations on the road are named with miles distances between many of them. The majority of stations (cities, harbours) are known also from other sources (various peripli, Strabo, Mela, Pliny the Elder, Ptolemy, Arrian, etc.). They are (from the west to the east):23 Iovis Urius (Urion) – 25 – Ad Promontorium (Promunturium) – 31 – Melena (Melaena) – 16 – Artane (Artanes) – 19 – Philium (Psillis) – 27 – Chelas – 73 – Heraclea – 30 – Scylleum (Psylla?) – 12 – Tium (Tios, Tium) – 12 – Mastrum (Amastris) – 20 – Tycae – 15 – Cereas – 15 – Mileto (Mileton) – 19 – Sinope – 7 – Cloptasa – Orgibate – Zacoria (Zagoria) – 25 – Helega (Halys?) – 12 – Nautagino (Naustathmos) – 20 – Ezene (Eusene) – 8 – Missos (Amisos) – 24 – Ancon – 40 – Heracleon – 30 – Caena (Oenoe?) – 7 – Camila (Ameletus?) – 8 – Pytane (Phygamus?) – 20 – Polemonio (Polemonium) – 8 – Melantum (Melanthius) – 36 – Carnasso (Cerasus) – 24 – Zepyrium (Zephyrium) – 11 – Philocalia – 30 – Cordile (Cordyle) – 16 – Trapezunte (Trapezus).24 Some

Thus, only a few features of the image of the northern Black Sea region on the TP go directly to the Hellenistic patterns; however, it contains a lot of information relating to Roman times, and some directly have their source Agrippa and his map or Chorographia. *** As for the western coast of the Black Sea, unlike the northern, there is a Roman road marked that traverses the entire coast from the mouth of the Danube (station Ad Stoma) to the Black Sea mouth of the Bosporus and to Constantinopolis itself. This road connects the most important cities of the western Black Sea coast, mentioned on the map: Histropoli (Istria), Tomis, Callatis, Bizone, Dyosinopoli (Dionysopolis), Odessos, Me[s]sembria, Anc[h]ialis, Apollonia and other less known – in total 21 stations. Since the Black Sea appeared on the map as a narrow strip stretching from west to east, and the Danube does not flow into the westernmost corner of the sea, but at a considerable distance to the east along the northern coast, the path from Tomis to Constantinople first lead westward, then to the south and finally to the east.

The existence of roads in northern Turkey is confirmed by finding in region many milestones and bridges of Roman time (Olshausen 1999: 99-102). 23  For their identification with the ancient names (given in parentheses) and modern localities and names see Danoff 1962: 1036-46, 1062-65; Miller 1916b: 629-55. On Roman roads in Asia Minor, see Wilson 1960; French 1980; Biller 1987; Olshausen 1999. For the collection of ancient literary texts about cities from Themiskyra to Trapezus, see Argoud et al. 1988. On the history of ancient cities of the southern coast of the Black Sea, see still Maximova 1956. Numerals between names indicate the distances in Roman miles. 24  Cf. the list of the littoral localities (stations and rivers) mentioned by Arrian in his Periplus Ponti Euxini (numerals show the distances in Greek stades): Hieron tu Dios tu Uriu – 90 – Rhebas fl. – 150 – Melaina – 150 – Artane fl. – 150 – Psilis fl. – 210 – Calpes Limen – 20 – Rhoe – 40 – Chelae – 180 – Sangarios fl. – 180 – Hypios fl. – 100 – Lilaion – 60 – Elaion – 120 – Cales – 80 – Lycos fl. – 100 – Heracleia – 80 – Metroon – 40 – Posideion – 45 – Tyndaridae – 15 – Nymphaion – 30 – Oxinas fl. – 90 – Sandarace – 60 – Crenidae – 30 – Psylla – 90 – Tios – 20 – Billaios fl. – 100 – Parthenios – 90 – Amastris – 60 – Erythinoi – 60 – Kromna – 90 – Kytoro – 60 – Aigialoi – 90 – Thymena – 120 – Carambis – 60 – Zephyrion – 150 – Abonuteichos – 150 – Aiginetes – 60 – Kinolis – 180 – Stephane – 150 – Potamoi – 120 – Lepte – 60 – Armene – 40 – Sinope – 150 – Carusa – 150 – Zagora – 30 – Halys fl. – 90 – Naustathmos – 50 – Conopeion – 120 – Eusene – 160 – Amisos – 160 – Ancon – 360 22 

Constantinople is designated by this name, which indicates the incursion of the editor into the contents of the map in the 4th century AD, when the the emperor Constantine re-founded and re-christened Byzantium. But it is interesting that the ancient name of the inhabitants of the city is inscribed nearby and sounds like Byzantini (remember Bosforani and Pontici!). There is not a single river between the Danube and the Bosporus on the TP, which corresponds to reality – they are few and insignificant. There is also not a single politonym or ethnonym. *** 47

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity of these ‘stations’ are in reality rivers (such as ArtaneArtanes,25 Philium-Psillis, Helega-Halys?, Caena-Oenoe or Melantum-Melanthius) or a promontorу (MelenaMelaena). The names of these rivers and promontory were also depicted as names of the stations on this road.

ran from Nikomedeia to Satala. Trapezus was also an important meeting point of trade roads,29 indeed it was already so since the time of Xenophon, who used it during his famous march to the Black Sea in 400 BC. Amisos (Missos) had such a junction too and its road to the hinterland of the coast was one of the most important in this region,30 but our map does not show it. It is important to note that eastward of Sinope only it, Amisos and Trapezus had harbours, which is significant for trade relations at sea and on land.

It is assumed that in the description of cities on the southern coast of the Black Sea, the map-maker used a periplus of Menippos type, which described only coastal cities, settlements, rivers estuaries, capes and ports.26 Thus, for example, instead of the city-stations of the Roman road, the map sometimes designates ports whose names occurred in a periplus but which were not on the road, and the rivers and capes of the periplus became stations by mistake.

Nine towns-stations on this road are marked with vignettes: Iovis Urius – the image of a large house with four windows, which corresponds to the design of the temple31 (in this case of Zeus), then the towns of Melena, Artane, T[h]ium, Mastrum (Amastris), Sinope, Missos (Amisos), Polemonio (Polemonium) and Trapezunte (Trapezus) – with an image of standing next to each other, sometimes interconnected towers.32 Levi and Levi write that it is a mistake to think that ‘la costruzione turrita sia necessariamente simbolo di una città e di una città di importanza particolare’.33

The road starts with Iovis Urius, as in the peripli of this part of the Black Sea, although to the west of it, near the exit of the Bosporus to the Black Sea, the city of Chrisoppolis is designated with the image (vignette) of a long house consisting of two connected parallel buildings and a nearby lighthouse that was, of course, at the exit of the Bosporus.27 According to other sources, Chrysopolis was connected by road with Iovis Urius, although this connection is not shown on the TP.

Nevertheless, such vignettes often (though not everywhere) meant large stations where different roads intersected, and the designation of the stations of Sinope, Polemonium and Trapezus – important junctions of trade roads – is quite logical. Understandable is the presence of the vignette at Amisos: it was at a crossing of two roads, though for some reason they are not indicated on the map. Tium and Amastris on the map have no connection with other roads, but were important trade centres. It is not clear the presence of such vignettes by the names Melena and Artane, which are the name of a cape and river. But from Artane a branch road leaves to the south, so the cartographer had to designate this place with a vignette.

It is interesting that on TP there are only two images of the lighthouse, the second (of Рharos) is located next to Alexandria Africana in Segm. VIII, 3.28 The road on the TP has junctions with others at three points – Sinope, Polemonium and Trapezus. They were the most important Greek ports of the Paphlagonian and Pontic region in Roman times and had connections to roads inland. From other sources we know that from Sinope a southern trade road crossed the mountains giving access to the valley of the Amnias and the city of Pompeiopolis. From Polemonium a Roman road ran southward to the Lykos valley and joined the great Roman road which

Most distances given on the map between stations are not too precise, more often exaggerated.34 Let us compare the distances between Amisos and neighbouring stations, indicated on the TP (in Roman miles) (see Fig. 4) and, for example, in Arrian’s Periplus of the Black Sea (in Greek stades).

– Heracleion – 40 – Thermodon fl. – 90 – Beris fl. – 60 – Thoaris fl. – 30 – Oinoe – 40 – Phigamus fl. – 150 – Phadisane – 10 – Polemonion – 130 – Iasonion – 90 – Boön – 90 – Cotyora – 60 – Melanthios fl. – 150 – Pharmatenos – 120 – Pharnaceia (= Cerasus) – 150 – Zephyrion – 90 – Tripolis – 20 – Argyria – 90 – Philocaleia – 100 – Coralla – 150 – Hieron oros – 40 – Kordyle – 45 – Hermonassa – 60 – Trapezus – 180 – Hyssu Limen – 180 – Ophis fl. – 30 – Psychros fl. – 30 – Kalos fl. – 120 – Rhizios fl. – 30 – Askuros fl. – 60 – Adienos fl. – 180 – Athenae – 7 – Zagatis fl. – 33 – Prytanis – 90 – Pyxites fl. – 90 – Archabis – 60 – Apsarus (PPE 1-7, 12-66). 25  Perhaps also a fortress on this river with the temple of Aphrodite (Miller, 1916b: 638). 26  See, for example, Gross 1913: 56-58; Gisinger 1938: 1410-11. Miller supposes a certain dependence of map-maker of TP from the PPE of Arrian (Miller 1916b: 631). 27  Edifici ad elementi paralleli in classification of Levi and Levi (1967: 208). In total there are ten such vignettes on the TP. 28  Levi and Levi 1967: 127-30; Seidel 2010.

Maximova 1956: 71. Maximova 1956: 53; Olshausen 1999: 104: ‘Diese Strecke war der einzige unproblematische Verbindungsweg zwischen der Schwarzmeerküste und dem anatolischen Binnenland und in dieser Funktion für ganz Kleinasien von Bedeutung.’ 31  Tempio in the classification of Levi and Levi (1967: 202-03). In total there are 44 such vignettes on the TP. 32  Le due torri in the classification of Levi and Levi (1967: 197-201). In total there are 429 such vignettes on the TP. 33  Levi and Levi 1967: 79. 34  Miller 1916b: 631. Sometimes 1 Roman mile is 1 km. 29  30 

48

A.V. Podossinov: The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana TP

Arrian

Ezene – 8 miles – Missos – 24 miles – Ancon Eusene – 160 stades – Amisos – 160 stades – Ancon Ezene – 12 km – Missos – 36 km – Ancon

Eusene – 35 km – Amisos – 35 km – Ancon Table 1.

the Danube, along the Black Sea coast to Trapezus and further to the Euphrates.37 *** One detail of the representation of the territory of Paphlagonia and Pontus is of particular interest. It is the strange location of Trapezus (modern Trabzon) – shown on the north-eastern shore of the Black Sea. In reality, Trapezus was situated, as we know, on the southern coast, in the Pontic province. The road on the map changes direction after the station Polemonio (Polemonium). It was a capital of the province Pontus Polemoniacus, founded by Polemon I and situated near the mouth of the river Bolaman. Here the road on the TP turns to the north and goes along the eastern coast and surprisingly from east to west on the northern coast of the Black Sea. For all this, the road after Trapezus continues to name other stations and cities of the Pontic coast of the Black Sea up to Apsarus, traditionally located in the south-eastern corner of the sea: Trapezunte (Trapezus) – 24 – Nyssillime (Hyssi portus) – 18 – Opiunte (Opius) – 15 – Reila (Rhizus) – 18 – Ardinco (Gadinio?) – 16 – Athenis (Athenae) – 9 – Abgabes (Archabis?) – 11 – Cissa – 16 – Apsaro (Apsarus). This road goes even further up to Artaxata, but it stretches now from Trapezus eastward along the Northern Ocean shore far from the Black Sea.

Figure 4. Enlargement of segment of the Tabula Peutingeriana (eastern part).

Already from this comparison it is clear that if the distances from Amisos to Ancon is three times that to Ezene on the TP, for Arrian both are the same. The conversion of stades into miles is made at the rate of 8:1. Thus the distances between Eusene (Ezene) and Amisos and between Amisos and Ancon in Arrian is equal to 20 miles (about 35 km), and on the TP to 8 miles (12 km) and 24 miles (36 km) respectively. As we can see, the distances between Eusene35 and Amisos strongly diverge, while between Amisos and Ancon they coincide.

The prominent expert on this map, Konrad Miller, thought that this aberration had been a result of lack of space on the surface of the map for this part of the road belonging to the southern shore of the Black Sea, or of ‘the low level of his geographical knowledge’.38 It is quite possible. Nevertheless, I think it is not only the error of the map-maker. I see the same error in some other maps and geographical descriptions.

Summing up the distances indicated on the TP and in Arrian between, say, Amisos and Trapezus, we arrive at the following numbers: on the TP this distance is 264 miles (about 400 km), in Arrian – 2495 stades (about 300 miles = 450 km). The difference is not great, and it can be explained by the fact that Arrian wrote a periplus, and the distance for a ship sailing around headlands and bays would have been more than the distance measured by travelling overland along the coast. The number 400-450 km corresponds to the real distance.36

Thus, I suggest that this error appears also on the map, which was painted on the leather parchment of the shield of a Roman soldier, excavated in DuraEuropos on the Euphrates in Syria in the 1920s. The fragment shows part of the Black Sea shore, where the following northern Black Sea cities are mentioned: Tyra, Borysthenes, Chersonesos, Trapezus, Artaxata.39

On the whole, it should be recognised that the Roman road from the mouth of the Danube to Trapezus, the only one running along the western and southern coasts of the Black Sea, was an important transport artery connecting vast territories from the Rhine across

37  See Olshausen 1999: 98: ‘Die West- und die Südküste des Schwarzen Meeres zwischen der Donau-Mündung und Trapezus war für das römische Kaiserreich von besonderer strategischer Bedeutung’ (cf. also p. 109). 38  Miller 1916b: 632. 39  Τύρα, Βορ[υ]σ[θέν]ης, Χερ[σ]όν[ησος], Τραπε[ζοῦς]. For editions and studies of this map, see Arnaud 1988; 1989; Cumont 1925; 1926: 323-37; Dilke 1985: 120-21; Dilke, in Harley and Woodward 1987: 85–

The precise localisation of Eusene is not known (Miller identified it presumably with Kuru Balur); Ancon was identified with modern Cιva Burnu (Arslan 2005: 121). 36  The distance between the estuary of the Halys (modern Kιzιl Irmak) and Trapezus (modern Trabzon) is approximately 470 km (Olshausen 1999: 94). 35 

49

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Trapezus is here near Chersonesos in the Northern Black Sea coast!

dans l’Antiquité. Textes littéraires grecs et latins d’Hécatée de Milet (VIe siècle av. J.C.) à Ammien Marcellin’. In Rémy, B. (ed.) Anatolia Antiqua/Eski Anadolu 1987 (Istanbul): 69-82. Arnaud, P. 1988. ‘Observations sur l’original du fragment de carte du pseudo-bouclier de Doura Europos’. Revue des Études Anciennes 90: 151-62. Arslan, M. 2005. Arrianus’un Karadeniz Seyahati/Arriani Periplus Ponti Euxini (Istanbul). Biler, J. 1987. ‘Streifzüge durch Pontos. Eine Landschaft und ihre Geschichte’. In Olshausen, E. (ed.) Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 1, 1980 (Bonn): 213-32. Burr, V. 1932. Nostrum mare. Ursprung und Geschichte der Namen des Mittelmeeres und seiner Teilmeere im Altertum (Stuttgart). Chekin, L. 2006. Northern Eurasia in Medieval Cartography (Turnhout). Cumont, F. 1925. ‘Fragment de bouclier portant une liste d’étapes’. Syria 6.1: 1-15. Cumont, F. 1926. Fouilles de Doura-Europos (1922-1923) (Paris). Danoff, C.M. 1962. Pontos Euxeinos (Stuttgart). Dilke, O.A.W. 1985. Greek and Roman Maps (London). Elnitskii, L.A. 1937. ‘Novyi istochnik geografii drevnego Severnogo Prichernomor’ya’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 1: 240-46. Ernst, R. 1985. ‘Cimmericum mare’. In Ferluga, J. et al. (eds) Glossar zur frühmittelalterlichen Geschichte im östlichen Europa (Wiesbaden): 143-45. French, D.H. 1980. ‘The Roman Road-system of Asia Minor’. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.7.2: 698-729. Gisinger, F. 1938. ‘Peutingeriana’. RE 19.2: 1405-12. Gross, H. 1913. Zur Entstehungs-Geschichte der Tabula Peutingeriana (Bonn). Harley, J.B. and Woodward, D. (eds) 1987. The History of Cartography 1: Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and Mediterranean (Chicago/ London). Levi, A. and Levi, M. 1967. Itineraria picta: Contributo allo studio della Tabula Peutingeriana (Rome). Maximova, M.I. 1956. Antichnye goroda yugo-vostochnogo Prichernomor’ya. Sinopa. Amis. Trapezunt (Moscow/ Leningrad). Miller, K. 1916a. Die Peutingerische Tafel oder Weltkarte des Castorius, mit kurzer Erklärung, 18 Kartenskizzen der überlieferten römischen Reisewege aller Länder und der 4 Meter langen Karte in Facsimile neu herausgegeben (Stuttgart; reprint 1962). Miller, K. 1916b. Itineraria Romana. Römische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana (Stuttgart). Mititelu, I. 1943. ‘Itineraria Romana: Le Bouclier de Dura Europos’. Buletinul Societăţii Numismatice Romîne 37: 78-91. Olshausen, E. 1999. ‘Pontica IV. Das römische Straßennetz in Pontos. Bilanz und Ausblick’. Orbis terrarum. 5: 93-113.

It is interesting that this tradition influenced other literary geographical descriptions of antiquity and the early Middle Ages which are closely connected with maps. Thus, the Latin historian Jordanes in the 6th century AD gave in his Getica (32) a description of the northern Black Sea coast and enumerated the following coastal cities: Borysthenide, Olbia, Callipolida, Chersona, Theodosia, Careon, Myrmicion et Trapezunta. Trapezus, as we see, appears here among the cities of the northern part of the Pontus Euxinus. Around the year 700, the unknown author from Ravenna wrote a cosmography, which, on the one hand, has many common features with the TP, and on the other appeals directly to the authority of Jordanes. That is why it is not unexpected that the Ravenna author also locates Trapezus among the northern Pontic cities (‘in Bosforanie patria’): ‘Chimerion / Panthuas / Ratyra / Murmicon / Cabalo / Salonime / Boristhenida / Olbiabolis / Capolis / Dori / Chersona / Theosiopolis / Careon / Trapezus’ (Cosm. 4. 3). These facts make it very probable that the erroneous location of Trapezus reflects a certain Roman cartographic tradition, originating maybe on the map of Agrippa. It is known that Agrippa took an active part in the integration of the Bosporan kingdom with the Pontus of Polemon I in 14 BC, which could be the reason for the placement of Trapezus on the northern Black Sea coast.40 As we saw, a prototype of the Tabula Peutingeriana could date back to the famous world map of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, who died in 12 BC.41 This map, in the opinion of most scholars, became a standard work and example for many following centuries. Such historical realities and cartographic aberrations associated with the area of the Black are contained on the most famous ancient map – the map of Peutinger! Bibliography Albu, E. 2014. The Medieval Peutinger Map: Imperial Roman Revival in a German Empire (Cambridge). Argoud, G., des Courtils, J. and Rémy, B. 1988. ‘Les sites côtiers du Pont-Euxin, de Thémiskyra à Trapézous, 105; Elnitskii 1937; Mititelu 1943; Podossinov 2002: 80-101; Rebuffat 1986; Uhden 1932. 40  For more detail, see Podossinov 2003. 41  Pliny said that Agrippa orbem terrarum orbi spectandum propositurus esset and that Augustus after Agrippa’s death ordered it to be exposed in a special portico (Pliny NH 3. 17). Dilke considers Agrippa’s map as ‘the most important map in Roman cartography’ (in Harley and Woodward 1987: 207).

50

A.V. Podossinov: The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana Seidel, Y. 2010. ‘Leuchttürme in der Tabula Peutingeriana’. In Meyer, M. and Gassner, V. (eds) Standortbestimmung. Akten des 12. Österreichischen Archälogentages (Vienna): 321-26. Talbert, R.J.A. 2010. Rome’s World: The Peutinger Map Reconsidered (Cambridge). Uhden, R. 1932. ‘Bemerkungen zu dem römischen Kartenfragment von Dura Europos’. Hermes 67: 11725. Weber, E. (ed.) 1976. Tabula Peutingeriana. Codex Vindobonensis 324, vollständige Faksimile Ausgabe im Originalformat (Graz). Weber, E. 1989. ‘Zur Datierung der Tabula Peutingeriana’. In Herzig, H.E. and Frei-Stolba, R. (eds). Labor omnibus unus. Gerold Walser zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern (Stuttgart/ Wiesbaden): 113-17. Weber, E. 2012. ‘Ein neues Buch und das Datierungsproblem der Tabula Peutingeriana’. Tyche 27: 209-16. Wilson, D.R. 1960. The Historical Geography of Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Pontus in the Greek and Roman Periods. A New Survey with Particular Reference to Surface Remains still Visible (Dissertation, Oxford).

Podossinov, A.V. 2002. Vostochnaya Evropa v rimskoi kartograficheskoi traditsii (Moscow). Podossinov, A.V. 2003. ‘Das Schwarze Meer in der geokartographischen Tradition der Antike und des frühen Mittelalters. I. Lokalisation von Trapezus’. Ancient West and East 2.2: 308-24. Podossinov, A.V. 2016. ‘K voprosu o vremeni sozdanija “Pevtingerovoi karty”’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 4: 93855. Prontera, F. (ed.) 2003. Tabula Peutingeriana: Le antiche vie del mondo (Florence). Rathmann, M. 2011-12. ‘Neue Perspektiven zur Tabula Peutingeriana’. Geographia antiqua. Rivista di geografia storica del mondo antico e di storia della geografia 20-21: 83-102. Rathmann, M. 2013. ‘The Tabula Peutingeriana in the mirror of ancient cartography. Aspects of a reappraisal’. In Geus, K. and Rathmann, M. (eds) Vermessung der Oikumene (Berlin/Boston), 20322. Rathmann, M. 2016. Tabula Peutingeriana. Die einzige Weltkarte aus der Antike. Eingeleitet und kommentiert von Michael Rathmann (Darmstadt). Rebuffat, R. 1986. ‘Le Bouclier de Doura’. Syria 63: 85105.

51

Archaic East Greek Transport Amphorae: Secure Advances and Muddles. An Assessment Pierre Dupont Facies non omnibus una Nec diversa tamen… Abstract From the beginning of the 1980s onward, systematic programmes of chemical analysis have produced major advances in the determination of the origin of the main categories of Archaic East Greek transport amphorae, undercutting the work of Virginia Grace, Marcelle Lambrino and Virginia Clinkenbeard in varying degree. These major reassessments needed to be qualified on account of the variable extent of the area of manufacture of a given type of trade amphora (not at all as emblematic of a given polis as previously claimed by Michel Gras).

occur with the early shapes of Clazomenian type (Fig. 1). The main stumbling block lies in the fact that, whereas a clear partition of chemical pattern is to be obtained on representative samples from these two centres, it sometimes happens that related finds collected on overseas settlements do not fit at all with our references for either the island or the opposite mainland area including, besides Clazomenae and its θαλάττης (Diosc. 5. 19), other representative poleis such as Erythrae, Old Smyrna, Teos and Colophon. In order to untangle the situation, additional comparative tests with references from Aeolis, the Troad, the Straits and from several North Aegean centres (Thasos, Samothrace, Maroneia, etc.) also prove to be negative so far. More anecdotal is another case of morphological overlap with Chian lineage, viz. Zeest’s ‘Dorian’ type of later 6th-century date, clearly Chian indeed judging from the chemical pattern revealed by the Olbia find put forward as ‘Dorian’ by Zeest3 (Fig. 2). It is to be feared that the list of similar traps will grow ever longer: for the Hellenistic period let us keep in mind the case of these imitations of Chian amphorae manufactured in Phocaea.4

From the beginning of the 1980s onward, systematic programmes of chemical analyses undertaken by the Lyons laboratory have led to some major advances in the determination of origin of the main categories of Archaic East Greek transport amphorae,1 viz. 1) the reattribution to Miletus and North Ionia of the greater part of Virginia Grace’s ‘Samian’ lineage for the Archaic period; 2) the rather scattered chemical pattern of Grace’s earlier models of her ‘Samian’ type; 3) the attribution to Clazomenae of Marcelle Lambrino’s ‘amphores à bandes larges’ from Histria/ Istros; 4) the attribution to Mytilenean workshops of most canonical grey jars of Lesbian type; 5) the refutation of Thasos island as the place of manufacture of Lesbian red amphorae, as previously put forward by Virginia Clinkenbeard. Meanwhile, it gradually appeared that these major reassessments needed to be qualified, in each case because of the variable extent of the area of manufacture of a given type of trade amphora, not at all as emblematic of a given polis as previously claimed by Michel Gras2 and more often than was expected extending to a greater or lesser degree around it. And this is without mentioning various overlaps of chemical pattern between some polis or other, as well as occasional imitations of a given shape by other moreor-less remote centres; so much so that, despite all recent advances, the attribution of origin of isolated jars often remains something of a challenge.

In the same manner, even if their production was centred on Clazomenae, jars of Clazomenian type were most probably also made and exported by other North Ionian cities such as Erythrae, Teos and additional unidentified ones, as clearly evidenced in Abdera for half of our samples of early Clazomenian type, the chemical pattern of which quite unexpectedly proved to differ from both our Chian and continental North Ionian references. As for the chalice-profiled variants with either toric or beak-shaped rim (Fig. 3), still referred to under the blurred label ‘Clazomenian circle’ for lack of any clear evidence, the tentative attribution to the Teos-Lebedos area of related jars by preliminary

It is even the case with the most prolific and probably the best studied lineage of transport amphorae, viz. the Chian one, at least as concerns its early phase of development down to the turn of the 7th century BC. In the light of laboratory studies, a risk of confusion did 1  2 

Dupont 1983; 2006; 2010; 2011; Dupont and Skarlatidou 2013. Gras 1987, esp. 41.

3  4 

52

Zeest 1960: 71, 138, pl. II.6a (‘type with broad bands, Dorian centre’). Okan et al. 2015.

P. Dupont: Archaic East Greek Transport Amphorae: Secure Advances and Muddles

Figure 1. Typological challenge 1: differentiating early Chian from early Clazomenian jars. Abdera (left); Thermi (right).

Figure 2. Zeest’s ‘Dorian’ type (second half of 6th century BC): actually Chian. Panticapaeum (left); Olbia, OLV 50 (centre and right).

53

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 3. ‘Clazomenian circle’, actually Teian? Kition (left); Berezan (centre); Khopry (right).

Figure 4. Amphorae of Clazomenian type: wine containers. North Ionian Late Wild Goat oinochoe from Panticapaeum (left: after V. Tolstikov); Simagre, Colchis (right).

chemical data5 seems now validated by the results of recent excavations in Teos which now point to their 5 

local manufacture.6 Additional variants are attested too, such as one with heavy slanting neck, one unpainted

Dupont 1983: 26.

6 

54

Sezgin 2017.

P. Dupont: Archaic East Greek Transport Amphorae: Secure Advances and Muddles

Figure 5. Typological challenge 2: differentiating ‘Samian’ containers. Collapse of the lineage reconstructed by Virginia Grace.

branch of jars topped by a high splaying convex lip, more or less concave inside (Fig. 6 left), widely distributed overseas though to a much lesser degree than the Chian and Clazomenian leaders on the export markets, a gap most probably connected with their single content restricted to olive oil. Nevertheless, even if the exported series of Milesian type seem to have been issued mostly by Milesian workshops, more or less distant regional imitations are also attested or assumed. Ephesian counterparts have been evidenced by the Bochum laboratory,9 but seemingly not attested on export markets. Others, convincingly assumed by Mark Lawall10 as ‘South Aegean’ variants, first of all

with thick beak-shaped rim, one with grooved rim foreshadowing the 4th-century Clazomenian models (Doğer, type 6B) and so on. But no doubt we are mainly faced with wine containers (Fig. 4). The most consequential upheaval introduced by laboratory studies is represented by the utter breaking up of Virginia Grace’s ‘Samian’ lineage,7 reduced to its simplest expression at least as concerns its genuine Samian component (Fig 5).8 Within the South Ionian sphere, the most important advance was the identification of a canonical Milesian 7  8 

Grace 1970. Dupont 2006; 2010; 2017.

9 

Kerschner and Mommsen 2005. Lawall, in Greene et al. 2008: 688-91, figs. 4-5.

10 

55

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 6. Amphora of Milesian type and variants. Abdera (left); Papuç Burnu (centre: after M. Lawall); Histria, DUP 110 (top right); olpe from Cnidus (bottom right).

Figure 7. Zeest’s ‘Samian’ and ‘Protothasian’ types: canonical North Ionian variants. Olbia (left); Berezan (centre and right).

peripheral area, even if the chemical pattern of our Histria sample proved to differ from both our Milesian and Cnidian references.

his ‘Halikarnassos’ type with barely concave lip inside, on the basis of the Pabuç Burnu shipwreck finds (Fig. 6 middle), would need more systematic inquiries in order to delimit the extent of the area of manufacture of orthodox Milesian amphorae southward of Miletus across olive-oil producing Caria down to the Halikarnassos seaside. At first glance more anecdotal, a last variant with upright biconvex lip (Fig. 6 right) was nevertheless reported on such distant sites as Salamis on Cyprus and Histria; due to the fact that such a lip profile is also encountered on some Cnidian jugs, this variant might well be ascribable to this

As for Virginia Grace’s Late Archaic ‘Samian’ shape, alias Ireïda Zeest’s ‘Samian’ and ‘Protothasian’ types,11 chemical analyses revealed that the major part of them were ascribable to North Ionia (Figs. 7-8) and, to a much 11  Zeest 1960: 70 and pl. I.3 (Samian), 79 and pls. V.15a-б, VI.в-г (Protothasos). See also Abramov 1993, esp. 90.I-III (Samos), 82-83A-Б groups (‘amphorae with multibevelled ring foot’).

56

P. Dupont: Archaic East Greek Transport Amphorae: Secure Advances and Muddles

Figure 8. Zeest’s ‘Samian’ type: Chian variants. Berezan (left); Volna (right).

Figure 9. Zeest’s ‘Samian’ and ‘Protothasian’ types: North Aegean variants. Berezan (BOR 22 on right).

lesser degree, to Aegean Thrace (Fig. 9), whereas Miletus itself also produced some imitations though seemingly not for overseas export (Fig. 10). The leading role of mainland North Ionia proved to be beyond doubt, to judge from its market share on most prominent Pontic settlements, the main area of manufacture seeming to be centred on the Mimas Peninsula facing Chios, possibly scattered all over the Erythrae rural territory (seat of a rural sanctuary worshipping a Herakles

‘Ipochtonus’, i.e. killer of the vine-eating parasite ips), judging from the E stamp to be found on numerous handles of the mainland North Ionian variants (but not exclusively, other single letters being also attested). In any case, based on the data processing of chemical analyses, several regional producers were involved to satisfy the needs in wine containers, the whole region being devoted to viticulture, as frequently evidenced by traces of interior resin coating (Fig. 11). Incidentally, 57

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 10. Zeest’s ‘Samian’ type: Milesian variant (right: after W. Voigtländer).

Figure 11. Zeest’s ‘Samian’ wine amphorae: resin coating. Mesambria (left); Simagre, Colchis (right).

concerning the imported examples distributed along the northern Black Sea littoral, some instances of reuse for carrying local naphtha have been reported, the layers of which are not to be misinterpreted with resin-coating (Fig. 12). The question which must be considered would be to explain why both Chios and Miletus as well as Aegean Thrace advisedly chose to imitate the model of Zeest’s ‘Samian’ and associated

‘Protothasian’ types, with only slight morphological as well clay differences. Both variants are attested among the Black Sea finds though at a far lesser degree as the mainland North Ionian originals. At this stage, I shall digress shortly beyond the Archaic period to warn against the confusion introduced by the debatable interpretation of the stamp EPY borne by a 58

P. Dupont: Archaic East Greek Transport Amphorae: Secure Advances and Muddles spindle-profiled ‘Samian’ jars with high convex lip, first of all the AΦY borne by several finds from Palestine to the North Pontic area (Fig. 15). Incidentally, the high convex lip cannot be considered as a good enough criterion for an attribution to South Ionia: as revealed by chemical analyses, spindle-profiled ‘Samian’ jars of Milesian manufacture can also be topped by a thick bolster rim (Fig. 16), whereas others with high convex lip have revealed a North Ionian origin (Fig. 17). For all these reasons, it would be rather premature to subscribe to the recent reassessment of most of Grace’s ‘Samian’ lineage in favour of Erythrae.12 Conversely, whereas most main types of East Greek transport amphorae reveal rather homogenous groupings of chemical pattern, the remaining shapes still ascribable to Samos provided rather scattered results of more uncertain interpretation, maybe only connected with both the heterogeneous geological substratum of the island combined with the scattering of workshops. Such a lack of shape standardisation would fit rather with an olive oil content than with vintage wine, for which the island was not yet

Figure 12. Taman Peninsula. Zeest’s ‘Protothasian’ jar; reuse: naphtha content (courtesy S. Solov'ev).

Figure 13. Tektaş Burnu shipwreck: ‘pseudo-Samian’ jar stamped EPY (right: after D, Carlson).

batch of amphorae from the Tektaş Burnu shipwreck off Teos, of mid-5th-century date (Fig. 13). Whereas the shape of jars bearing such stamps obviously look closer to the Milesian type (Fig. 14), the connection of the legend EPY with Erythraean minting was immediately favoured, even if the amphorae do not seem to be significantly attested there! In any case, other alphabetical legends are attested on 5th-century

particularly renowned (as reported by Strabo 14. 637). Most of the shapes concerned correspond to the earlier stage of Grace’s ‘Samian’ lineage, primarily models with piriform body, short neck tightly constricted at base, echinoid rim profile and peak arching oval handles (Figs. 18-19). An additional later Samian stage, also 12 

59

Monakhov 2012; contra Dupont 2017.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 14. Tektaş Burnu ‘pseudo-Samian’ type: comparanda. Tektaş Burnu (left and centre: after D. Carlson); Miletus (right: after W. Voigtländer).

Figure 15. Stamp AΦY on spindle-shaped ‘Samian’ amphorae. Panticapaeum (left); Tel Michal (right).

results obtained for others still remain questionable, as in the case of a variant with low convex rim, markedly concave inside, and peak arching handles (Fig. 22), falling into a minor secondary chemical group attested both in Miletus and Samos together with Fikellura samples, supposedly rather Milesian.

evidenced by chemical analysis, is represented on the export markets by a variant with oval-profiled body, short cylindrical neck and outward thickened rim (Fig. 20). In the same manner, the origin of several other variants was unveiled, such as some ones of unexpected North Ionian chemical pattern (Fig. 21), whereas the 60

P. Dupont: Archaic East Greek Transport Amphorae: Secure Advances and Muddles

Figure 16. Spindle-shaped ‘Samian’ amphorae: both of Milesian chemical pattern. Miletus, MIL 125 (left); Histria, DUP 799 (right).

completely oxidised inside, a feature suggesting a firing at a lower temperature than for the standard series. In the same manner, what seems to be a parallel lineage, is represented by light grey jars characterised by their much finer clay, straight-profiled body, slanting neck and slight edge-projecting rim underlined by a wide listel (Fig. 24). As for the red lineage, alias Ireïda Zeest’s ‘tumbler bottomed’ or debatable Barbara Clinkenbeard’s ‘fractional red’ types13 (Fig. 25), the prevailing wine content of which proves to be beyond doubt,14 its rather homogenous look would a priori suggest a common centre or area of manufacture, whether still centred on the island or not,15 an homogenous look which proves to be actually misleading. The results of chemical analyses still in progress point to a more complex situation than expected. Whereas most standard widespread grey shapes, as well as the minor black-smoked variant with orange core, still remain definitely issued from the wine- and oilproducing lands of eastern Lesbos and distributed overseas from Mytilene, a secondary variant, beige with dark grey core, seemingly originating from the western part of the island and centred upon Methymna, was individualised. Except a small amount of seemingly reoxidised standard grey shapes, whether intentionally or accidentally, orthodox ‘Lesbian red’ specimens split into two separate chemical groups. The greater part of them fall into a specific group, together with some

Figure 17. Spindle-shaped ‘Samian’ amphora: North Ionian chemical pattern. Chersonesus CRI 3.

In the case of containers of Lesbian type, the rather simplistic dichotomy between ‘Lesbian grey’ and ‘Lesbian red’ series, both fitted with round handles (Fig. 23), though deeply rooted among scholarship, now requires to be reassessed too. Besides what one would call the canonical Lesbian uniformly grey series, either resin-coated inside or not depending on whether intended for a wine- or oil content, several similar-profiled buff variants, not necessarily misfired, are attested too, as well as a particular one, intentionally black-smoked outside though still

13  Clinkenbeard 1982. Incidentally, the term ‘fractional’ proves to be inappropriate, judging from the range of attested full-sized specimens. 14  However, their orange fabric was not especially intended for differentiating their wine content, considering their later spread on overseas markets. 15  As often asserted by Russian scholarship, which usually draws a distinction between native Lesbian grey series and an ‘Aeolian type with sawn-off conical bottom’. See Abramov 1993: 85-86 (Lesbian grey), 70, 80-81, 87-88 (Aeolian types).

61

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 18. V. Grace’s early types of ‘Samian’ amphorae: genuine Samian chemical patterns. Abdera, ABR 1 (left); Olbia OLV 14 (right).

Figure 19. V. Grace’s later types of ‘Samian’ amphorae: genuine Samian chemical patterns. Abdera, ABR 67 (left) and ABR 3 (right).

of our samples of grey wares from Mytilene, thus a priori assumed to be of local manufacture, apart from the fact that strong overlaps of chemical pattern with

our references for the Hellespont, viz. the AbydosSestos area, thus inviting us to consider the eventuality of being faced with an imported group, considering 62

P. Dupont: Archaic East Greek Transport Amphorae: Secure Advances and Muddles

Figure 20. ‘Samian’ jars of type Qurneh 849: Samian chemical patterns. Qurneh 849 (left); Pointe Lequin 1A shipwreck, MAR 501 (top right); Histria, DUP 111 (bottom right).

Figure 21. ‘Samian’ amphorae: North Ionian chemical patterns. Abdera, ABR 2 (left) and ABR 78 (right).

Priapus, Lampsacus ‘for their country is abundantly supplied with the vine’ (Strabo 12. 1. 12) and Cyzicus (one post-Archaic amphora stamp with tunny device).

our complete lack of information on the range of jars surely needed to contain the wines produced along the Straits and Propontic littoral by such cities as Parium, 63

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity the opposite mainland peraia of Mytilene, also famous for its very fertile soils,16 but for which no reference data were at our disposal. Conversely, comparisons of chemical pattern with North Aegean references invalidate Clinkenbeard’s attribution of her ‘fractional red’ type to Thasian workshops.17 The same assessment applies to the rather debatable attribution to Attica put forward a while ago by Ruban.18 Regrettably, the very first specimens of epigraphical stamps attested on both later Archaic ‘Lesbian grey’ and ‘Lesbian red’ specimens still remain less than informative about their place of manufacture. Laboratory studies of samples of Lesbian type from the Clazomenian necropolis of Abdera also provided interesting results concerning the early stage of the Lesbian lineage during the second half of the 7th

Figure 22. V. Grace’s ‘Samian’ amphora: Milesian chemical pattern. Berezan, BOR 16.

Figure 23. Typological challenge 3: differentiating amphorae of Lesbian type: red, grey and others.

century BC.19 Whereas the above-mentioned light grey jars with straight-profiled body, slanting neck and slight edge-projecting rim proved to originate from the eastern part of Lesbos, several samples of both grey and red/re-oxidised specimens of an odd variant with twisted handles (Fig. 26) stood out by their distinctive chemical pattern, together with various samples of vases from such sites as Eressos, Antissa, Pyrrha and

The fact that most of the settlements in the Troad were claimed to belong to the Lesbian sphere (Strabo 13. 1. 38), first of all Arisbe (Stephanus of Byzantium s.v.), would quite agree with such a location for a secondary branch of manufacture outside the island. Laboratory studies are still in progress to clarify the situation about it, but detailed reports on the amphora finds from Troad-Hellespontine settlements would be urgently required to check their results. As for the remaining ‘Lesbian red’ examples, they form a quite distinct homogenous chemical group, corresponding to a still unlocated centre, presumably situated somewhere in

Newton 1865: 50. Clinkenbeard 1986. 18  Ruban 1980: 108-09, fig. 2. 19  Dupont and Skarlatidou 2013: 257-59, figs. 15-17. 16  17 

64

P. Dupont: Archaic East Greek Transport Amphorae: Secure Advances and Muddles

Figure 24. Left: ‘Lesbian grey’, fine-grained light grey variant; Abdera, ABR 54. Right: Palestine, Early Lesbian grey jars (8th-7th centuries BC). 1a and 1b, Tell Qudadi; 2a and 2b Mesad Hashavyahu (after A. Fantalkin).

Figure 25. Wine jars of ‘Lesbian red’ type: partly irrelevant to Lesbos. Apollonia (left); Odessos (right).

65

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 26. Early ‘Lesbian grey’ and ‘Lesbian red’ variants with twisted handles. Abdera, ABR 62 (left) and ABR 55 (right).

Figure 27. Amphorae of ‘Lesbian grey’ type: Φ-profiled variants. Phocaea (left); Myrmekion (right).

66

P. Dupont: Archaic East Greek Transport Amphorae: Secure Advances and Muddles

Figure 28. Antissa. Amphora finds excavated by W. Lamb (Mytilene Museum).

go deeper into the imbroglio of their often unexpected secondary branches, often scattered far abroad from their homeland, thus inviting us not to refer too confidently to the rather simplistic attributions of origin asserted by Monakhov’s or Sezgin’s current typologies – all the more finely constructed they are – as well as to stopgap groupings, first of all Lawall’s ‘Samos-Miletus’ one, nor to the countless resulting frequency charts.

Methymna, thus assumed to be rather issued from the western part of the island. A last puzzling grey variant, viz. the phi-profiled one20 (Fig. 27), mainly distributed in Egypt and far less scarcely in the northern Black Sea,21 also appears conspicuous by its absence among the Mytilene finds, the closest discovery of which was made recently off Phocaea.22 For that reason, its attribution to Lesbos itself still remains open for lack of samples for chemical analyses.

Bibliography Abramov, A. 1993. Antichnye Amfory. Periodizatsiya i khronologiya (Moscow). Bîrzescu, I. 2012. Histria 15: Die archaischen und frühklassischen Transportamphoren (Bucharest). Clinkenbeard, B.G. 1982. ‘Lesbian wine and storage amphoras. A progress report on identification’. Hesperia 51.2: 248-67. Clinkenbeard, B.G. 1986. ‘Lesbian and Thasian wine amphoras: questions concerning collaboration’. In Empereur, J.-Y. and Garlan, Y. (eds) Recherches sur les amphores grecques (Athens): 353-62. Cook, R.M. and Dupont, P. 1998. East Greek Pottery (London/New York). Dupont, P. 1983. ‘Classification et détermination de provenance des céramiques grecques orientales archaïques d’Istros’. Dacia n.s. 27.1-2: 19-43. Dupont, P. 2006. ‘Amphores “samiennes” archaïques de mer Noire (approche archéométrique)’. In Solovyov,

Furthermore it must be pointed out that the range of transport jars ascribable to western Lesbos might well not to have been restricted to shapes fitted with round handles. Specimens with flattened handles seem also attested though to a much lesser degree judging from those formerly excavated in Antissa by Winifred Lamb (Fig. 28), whether North Aegean imports or local imitations. Summing up, it appears that, despite the major advances provided by laboratory studies on the origin of the main centres of manufacture of Archaic East Greek transport amphorae, there is still a long way to Cook and Dupont 1998: 160, 157, fig. 23.4 (h-i); Sezgin 2012: 214-15, 231, 240: Gles3.01-05. 21  Leipunskaya 1987: 99, figs. 33.1, 34.6 (Berezan); Vinogradov 1992: 104-15, fig. 3.1 (Myrmekion); Bîrzescu 2012: 30, fig. 4 (Histria). 22  Okan 2011: 95, 97, cat. no. 2, 100, fig. 2. 20 

67

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity S.L. (ed.) Greki i varvary na Bospore Kimmeriiskom (VII–I vv. do n.e.) (St Petersburg): 64-75. Dupont, P. 2010. ‘Les amphores “samiennes” et “protothasiennes” de Zeest: vers une relocalisation en Ionie du Nord?’. In Kassab-Tezgör, D. and Inaishvili, N. (eds) Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea 1 (Istanbul): 39-43. Dupont, P. 2011. ‘Données archéométriques préliminaires sur les amphores du type de Lesbos’. In Tzochev, C., Stoyanov, T. and Bozkova, A. (eds) Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea 2 (Sofia): 171-78. Dupont, P. 2017. ‘Erythrai versus South Ionia: “Samian” amphoras revisited’. In Kuznetsov, V. (ed.) Fanagoria 6. Resul’taty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii (Moscow): 88-100. Dupont, P. and Skarlatidou, E. 2013. ‘Archaic Transport Amphoras from the First necropolis of Clazomenian Abdera’. In Tiverios, M., Misailidou-Despotidou, V., Manakidou, E. and Arvanitaki, A. (eds) Archaic Pottery of the Northern Aegean and its Periphery (700-480 BC) (Thessaloniki): 253-64. Grace, V. 1970. ‘Samian amphoras’. Hesperia 40: 52-95. Gras, M. 1987. ‘Amphores commerciales et histoire archaïque’. Dialoghi di Archeologia 3. Serie, Anno 5, Fasc. 2: 41-50. Greene, E., Lawall, M. and Polzer, M. 2008. ‘Inconspicous Consumption: The Sixth-Century B.C.E. Shipwreck at Pabuç Burnu, Turkey’. American Journal of Archaeology 112: 685-711. Kerschner, M. and Mommsen, H. 2005. ‘Transportamphoren milesischen Typs in Ephesos’. In Brandt,

B., Gassner, V. and Ladstätter, S. (eds) Synergia: Festschrift für F. Krinzinger, vol. 1 (Vienna): 119-30. Leipunskaya, N. 1987. ‘Amfory’. In Kryzhitskii, S.D. (ed.) Kul’tura naseleniya Ol’vii i ee okrugi v arkhaicheskoe vremya (Kiev): 87-102. Monakhov, S. 2003. Grecheskie amfory v Prichernomor’e (Saratov). Newton, C.T. 1865. Travels and Discoveries in the Levant (London). Okan, E. 2011. ‘Foça Açıklarından Ele Geçen Bir Grup Lesbos Amphorası’. Arkeoloji Dergisi 16: 93-100. Okan, E., Atila, C. and Akyol, A. 2015. ‘The production of Chios-style amphorae at a ceramic workshop in Phocaea (Foça)’. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 15.3: 259-76. Ruban, V. 1980. ‘O datirovke Yagorlykskogo poseleniya’. Issledovaniya po Antichnoi Arkheologii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Kiev): 104-13. Sezgin, Y. 2012. Arkaik Dönem İonia Üretimi Ticari Amphoralar/Archaic Trade Amphoras of Ionian Manufacture (Istanbul). Sezgin, Y. 2017. ‘Arkaik dönemde Teos’ta ticari amphora üretimi: sorunlar ve gözlemler/Archaic products of transport amphoras at Teos: questions and remarks’. Anadolu 43: 15-36. Vinogradov, Y.A. 1992. ‘Mirmekii’. In Koshelenko, G.A. (ed.) Ocherki Arkheologii i Istorii Bospora (Moscow): 99120. Voigtländer, W. 1981. ‘Milet 1980. Vorbericht über die Arbeiten des Jahres 1980’. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 31: 101-54. Zeest, I.B. 1960. Keramicheskaya tara Bospora (Moscow).

68

Tekkeköy: Land of Legends from Past to the Future *

Sümer Atasoy Abstract Tekkeköy is 17 km to the south-east of Samsun. The region has water sources, fertile land and climatic conditions suitable for settlement.The valley of Tekkeköy is 4 km inland from the coast and 20 m above the sea level. On the valley sides of the Findıcak and Çınarcık streams there are cave and rock dwellings. The bedrock consists a combinationn of basalt, andesite, sandstone and pebble. The natural caves have been settled either with their natural conditions or have been partly formed by the inhabitants. First establishment of the cave dwellings are uncertain. However the open-air settlement in this region was in the Late Chalcolithic (4000-3200 BC) and Bronze Ages (3200-1200 BC).

agriculture. There were a lot of timber and it was used for heating, architecture and ship construction. Also, there were minerals such as silver, alum and iron.

The earliest human traces were revealed in Tekkeköy through research conducted in Samsun (Amisos). Stone tools and animal bones belonging to the Mesolithic period (22,000-10,000 BC) were found in cave shelters. However the open-air settlement in this region was in the Late Chalcolithic (4000-3200 BC) and Bronze Ages (3200-1200 BC).1 Excavations conducted in Tekkeköy, Dündartepe, the mound of Kaledoruğu and Ikiztepe revealed that all settlements were in the form of village and they were formed by small communities.2 The society lived in wooden houses, and engaged in hunting, fishing and animal husbandry. They knew weaving and leather-working. They made weapons, jewellery and tools by using pure copper at first; later, they used arsenical copper for the tools they made.

The Cimmerians, Scythians and Medes came to the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey in the 7th century BC. Later, Greeks established cities close to the coast. Over time, all communities living in the area communicated with one another. The Persians invaded the area in the 6th century BC, as did Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC. After Alexander died in 301 BC, Mithridates I established the Pontic kingdom. Greek became the official language. Hellenic, Persian and Anatolian cultures affected one another. The Pontic kingdom and Rome were often at war in the 1st century BC. When Mithridates VI died, Romans settled in Anatolia. In the same century, the Lazic people came to the eastern Turkish Black Sea region from Caucasia; originally Georgian, they established an empire between Trabzon and Batumi in the 6th century. This empire, called Lazistan, became a part of the Byzantine empire. Meanwhile, the area was attacked by Iranians and Arabs. In 1204, the empire of Trebizond was established. When Mehmed the Conqueror invaded Trabzon in 1461, the city fell to the Ottomans.

After the skeletons in Ikiztepe necropolis were examined, it was determined that the people living in the area were related to those living in the northern Black Sea, Romania, Bulgaria and the Caucasian littoral. The fact that many weapons, tools and jewellery were found in Ikiztepe shows that people living in the area were not nomadic.3 Our knowledge about the people living in the Samsun (Amisos) area is insufficient. According to what we learn from ancient (but later) authors such as Herodotus and Strabo, a society called Cappadocian or White Syrian lived between the Halys/ Kızılırmak and Çarşamba. The Paphlagonians were to the east of the Kızılırmak; the Amazons, the Chalybes, the Tibarenoi, the Mossynoikoi and the Colchians were to the east of Çarşamba.

During the Ottoman-Russia wars between 1828 and 1877, the Muslim people in the Caucasus were forced to move to Ottoman land. Circassians, Abkhaz, Daghestani and Chechen people were settled in different parts of Ottoman territory. During World War I, many Muslim people came to the Eastern Black Sea Region, Samsun, Van and Bitlis regions from the Caucasus.

Throughout history, people settling in the region preferred the coastal or mountainous areas. Valleys and plains around the rivers created fertile soil for

In summary, we can say that various groups, known as the local people of Anatolia, lived in the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey in antiquıty. Later, Sasanians and Greeks came to the region and settled there. These people were administrators and merchants living in the

* All images from archive of Tekkeköy municipality. 1  Kökten et al. 1945: 383. 2  Atasoy 2003: 1335-36. 3  Bilgi 1990: 165-66.

69

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 1. So-called castle.

city. In the Roman and Byzantine periods, local people significantly integrated with the incomers in terms of ethnicity and culture. The local people, who were Christian and adopted Hellenic culture, were part of Black Sea society. When the Turks came to the region, they encountered such a society. There was a rapid Turkisation policy in the Eastern Black Sea Region as there was in Anatolia after the 11th century.

culture. As a result of these changes, ‘Black Sea society’, which has its own characteristics appeared, also affected by geography. Tekkeköy Tekkeköy is 17 km to the south-east of Samsun. The region has water sources, fertile land and climatic conditions suitable for settlement. The valley of Tekkeköy is 4 km inland from the coast and 20 m above the sea level.

Areas that were not conquered by the Seljuks were conquered during the beyliks’ period and later in the 14th and 15th centuries. Chepni people and Oghuz tribes (Kipchaks and Pechenegs), following the Chepnis, settled in the region after the 13th century.

On the valley sides of the Findıcak and Çınarcık streams there are cave and rock dwellings. The bedrock consists a combination of basalt, andesite, sandstone and pebble. The natural caves were settled either in their natural conditions or were partly refashioned by the inhabitants. The first establishment of the cave dwellings is uncertain (Figs. 1-5).

In the 18th century, the people living in the region were Turks and Christians speaking in Greek. In the 19th century, people migrated from Caucasia and settled in the region because of Russian pressure. The ethnic structure of the region changed after the migration. In the republican period, the region became a place where only Turks lived.

Academic articles and studies on the Tekkeköy caves are very limited.4 In 1940-41 study was conducted in Tekkeköy and environs by T. and N. Özgüç, led by K. Kökten of Ankara University. They found that the district had been used as a settlement since the Palaeolithic age. Prehistorıc artefacts like hand axes, spearheads, knives and daggers have been dated to the Late Chalcolithic (4000-3200 BC).5

In conclusion, we can say that local people living in the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey, many of whom were known as Caucasian, became Orthodox Christian and adopted Hellenic culture in the Roman and Byzantine periods because of the policy the state. Some converted to Islam. Those who did not liked the Turkish culture thanks to its tolerant and peaceful atmosphere, and they spoke in Turkish. With the settlement of Turkic tribes in the region in the Ottoman period, the region completely owned the characteristics of Turkish

Two new pieces of researches were presented at the Third International Symposium on The Black Sea in 4  5 

70

Uzun 1993; 1995. Kökten et al. 1945: 361-400.

S. Atasoy: Tekkeköy: Land of Legends from Past to the Future

Figure 2. General view of the caves.

Figure 3. The stairs to the ‘holed rock’.

Figure 4. The stairs to the dwellings.

71

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 5. One of the rooms.

Antiquity and Tekkeköy. M. Kartal of Ankara University had some new information on K. Kökten’s archive in the Prehistory Laboratory at the university. A. Türker, of Ondokuz Mayıs University, has evaluated finds of the Tekkeköy mound and environmental observations together with other unpublished samples. Finds in Samsun Museum show that the cave settlements were Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. The Tekkeköy caves are considered the third oldest settlement in Turkey, after Antalya Karain and Istanbul Yarımburgaz Cave; also the oldest settlement on the Turkish Black Sea coast.

do not have the luxury of repeating mistakes made in other areas in Turkey. We will offer unspoiled nature, different vegetation, pure seashore and rich archeology to people coming here. We can protect the future and the past with well-planned and well-thought-out projects. Organic vegetables and fruits in home and school gardens, green areas in the city and untouched local foods, historical and cultural environment, etc., contribute strongly to tourism. Local administrations should be leaders for tourism respectful of cultural heritage. Cultural heritage is not only for the tourists: it is also for our people and nation. It is the identity and value of Turkey. It is the knowledge of being the custodians of Anatolia. Moreover, it is integration with the world and Europe.

The future of Tekkeköy It is becoming important to prevent the problems brought to the natural, social and economic structure of the district and to provide harmonious and useful adaptation with the projects around Tekkeköy. It is necessary to draw the attention of the relevant institutions and organisations to identify current problems and find solutions to them. What will the projects bring to the district and take away from it? We have to determine these and find the proper methods.

There are distinguishing properties to Tekkeköy and districts around it: archeological wealth, the waters, fertile soil, topography, fresh air, and transport. It is necessary to protect these and to identify how these properties can adapt to city life. Motor vehicles are troublesome for people and cities. On the other hand, green areas, pedestrian areas, parks and gardens are signs of social development.

Economic growth, one of the preconditions of development, requires investments providing development in every aspect. Tourism needs to be developed in order to solve or minimise problems. With the help of the tourism sector, income increases, environmental awareness is raised, and local people benefit from the services provided for tourists. History, culture, folklore and natural sources are used consciously. Tourism is crucial for the local people. We

Tekkeköy’s people have to protect its cultural inheritance. Society learns and likes its history. Later, it organises to protect that history. If research and archeological excavations are conducted in Tekkeköy, remains and findings that will change and guide the Black Sea region and world history will be discovered. If you really want to protect Tekkeköy and 72

S. Atasoy: Tekkeköy: Land of Legends from Past to the Future its surroundings and reveal its underground wealth, you need to create an information and documentation centre and wait for the experts. People living in the district have to create a collective consciousness about urbanisation and planning. If the plans and the projects do not succeed, cities and their surroundings will be uninhabitable. People will become unhappy, anxious and unhealthy. Such a society cannot be productive and efficient.

research and excavation, and contribute to construction plans which are in harmony with culture and nature if they want Tekkeköy to be an historical, cultural, natural and touristic place. Bibliography Atasoy, S. 2003. ‘Amisos’. In Grammenos, D.V. and Petropoulos, E.K. (eds) Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, vol. 2 (Thesseloniki): 1331-77. Bilgi, Ö. 1990. ‘Metal objects from İkiztepe-Turkey’. Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie, 9-10: 119-219. Kökten, K., Özgüç, T. and Özgüç, N. 1945. ‘1940-41. Yıllarında Türk Tarih Kurumu adına yapılan Samsun Bölgesi hakkında ilk kısa rapo’. Belleten IX: 361-400. Uzun, A. 1993. ‘Tekkeköy çevresinde Kovuklu çözülme şekilleri’. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 8: 291-303. Uzun, A. 1995. ‘Tekkeköyde (Samsun) Mağara-Kale Yerleşmeleri’. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi 1: 413-33.

Protection of cultural inheritance is not an obstacle to investment and development for society. Supporting studies with international standards and designing successful projects can provide consciousness to the society to protect the environment. Modernity is knowledge, culture and education. Today, social life has changed its direction and has degenerated. People who have to live in small towns are trapped in monotonous, hopeless and unhappy expectations. People living in Tekkeköy should support archaeological

73

74

Western Black Sea

75

76

An Epigram for a Sinopean from Tomis Alexandru Avram Abstract I recently identified among the unpublished inscriptions in the collection of the Institute of Archaeology at Bucharest a fragmentary epigram for a Sinopean (2nd or 3rd century AD). Unfortunately, there is no information about the provenance of this piece: it comes surely from the Dobrudja but we are not aware of the Greek city which produced it. Nevertheless, the style and some other internal elements strongly indicate Tomis, the city which furnished the most numerous epigrams during the imperial age. Comparison can be made with several other productions of Tomitan ‘poetry’.

Among the inscriptions in the collection of the National Museum of Antiquities (now, Institute of Archaeology at Bucharest) with unknown provenance, partially unedited and coming from Greek cities of the western Pontus, in particular from those which are situated on the Romanian shore,1 I recently identified a fragmentary monument containing remains of a Greek funerary epigram (inv. no. L 918).2 The monument consists of three joining fragments of a stele of marble of fine quality. The right and lower parts are missing: height 0.310 m; width 0.310 m; depth 0.035 m (Fig. 1). The letters are carefuly and deeply engraved and adorned with apices: height 0.020-0.022 m (letter Φ: 0.038-0.040 m). Attention is required by alpha with broken middle bar, by omega carved as a W but with vertical extremities, by the rectangular sigma, by zeta as in the Latin script (Ζ) and in particular by the strange shape of nu with its two vertical strokes and, in between and without any incidence with them, an incurved line like an S of the Latin alphabet. A partially similar letter of this kind (but with a lying S) occurs on a funerary inscription from Tomis dating from the Severan age (ISM II 278) consisting of two joining fragments, one at the Museum of National History and Archaeology at Constanţa (inv.  no. 15930), the other one at the same National Museum of Antiquities at Bucharest (inv. no. L 909), nevertheless, on this stele it renders the eta, and not the nu, as in our case.3 The palaeographic features indicate a date in the second half of the 2nd century or very early in the 3rd century AD.

Figure 1. Marble stele, Institute of Archaeology, Bucharest, inv. no. L 918.

I suggest following readings and restorations:4 Σινώπη πατ̣ρ̣ί̣[ς ἐστί μοι, - - - - - - ] τιανὸς δὲ καλοῦμα̣ι̣, . . [ - - - - ἀκα] χήσας πατέρα κλυτὸν Ἀ̣[ - - - - - - ]4 ον· ἀλλά με Μοῖρα τάρχυσε [τῷδ’ ἐ] δάφει καὶ ἐνόσφισε φένγ[ους εἰς τύμ] βον μέλλοντα γάμοις ζυ[γίοις μείγνυσ] θαι· τοίνυν ἐγὼ προλέγ[ω - - - - - - - ] 8 χρι..[ - - - - - - - ].η χρη [ - - - - - - - - - ] --------------------------

1  Some Latin inscriptions have been published in Tudor 1956: 601 and 613-14; Matei-Popescu 2003-05, 310-11, no. 3 (very probably from Oescus); 2012: 306-08, no. 2; 2014: 337-41, no. 1 (very probably from Oescus). Greek inscriptions, which could be in some cases attributed thanks to internal criteria either to Istros/Histria or to Tomis in CCET IV 189; Matei-Popescu 2008-09, nos. 1-3; 2011, nos. 1-3; 2012: 305-06, no. 1. A research project involving Florian Matei-Popescu (for Latin inscriptions), Dragoş Hălmagi and myself (for Greek inscriptions) is aiming for publishing of all these inscriptions. 2  A brief description and transcription in majuscules has been made on an inventory card (apparently ca. 1960-70) by the late Gabriella Bordenache. 3  Bordenache already referred to fragment L 909 in her description.

L. 2: remains from two vertical strokes after καλοῦμα̣ ι̣. – 3: at the end alpha only partially visible but sure. – 5: at the end gamma only partially visible but sure. – 8: at the beginning, after ΧΡ very probably iota 4  I am deeply indebted for their help to Prof. Christopher Jones (Harvard University) and Prof. Gregor Staab (University of Cologne).

77

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity and remains from two other vertical strokes (or, less probably, eta and an indefinite stroke, i.e. ΧΡΗ.); at the end only the upper part of some letters is visible, very probably .ΗΧΡΗ).

GVI 1869 = CIRB 131 (Panticapaeum, mid-1st century BC / beginning of the 1st century AD), v. 3: πατρὶς ἁλιστέφανός με γοναῖς ἔσπιρε Σινώπη; GVI 1265 = CIRB 129 (Panticapaeum, 1st century BC), vv. 3/4: ἐγ δὲ Σινώπας | πατρίδος; GVI 1627 = RECAM II 184 = SGO III 15/02/11 (Emergazi, region of Ancyra, 2nd century BC), v. 9: πατρὶς μία τοῖσδε Σινώπ̣[η]; MAMA IV 133 = GVI 779 = Drew-Bear 1978: 22, no. 13 = SGO III 16/63/01 (Metropolis, Phrygia, 2nd century AD), v. 3: Μάξιμον, ὃν Πόντου περικαλλὴς θρέψε Σεινώπη; EG 702 = IG XIV 1787 = GVI 731 = IGUR III 1255 (Rome, Roman period), vv. 5/6: ἐκπρολιπὼ̣[ν δὲ π]άτραν Σινώπην τῷδε πρόκε[ιμ]αι | τύμβῳ.

The verses can be divided in the following manner: Σινώπη πατ̣ρ̣ί̣[ς ἐστί μοι, - - ]τιανὸς δὲ καλοῦμα̣ι̣, [ - - - - - ἀκα]χήσας πατέρα κλυτὸν Ἀ̣[ ⏑ ⏑ – ]ον· ἀλλά με Μοῖρα τάρχυσε [τῷδ’ ἐ]δάφει καὶ ἐνόσφισε φένγ[ους] 4 [εἰς τύμ]βον μέλλοντα γάμοις ζυ[γίοις μείγνυσ]θαι· τοίνυν ἐγὼ προλέγ[ω - - - - - - ]χρι..[ - - - - - - - - - ] [ - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - ].η χρη[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] -----------------------------------Translation: ‘Sinope is my fatherland, and I am called [ - - ]tianos. - - I grieved (my) father, the glorious A[ - - ]os. But Destiny buried me solemnly and removed me from the light in this ground in the tomb when I was about to be joined in the yoke of marriage. Hence I proclaim ...’

V. 2. [ἀκα]χήσας has been restored by Gregor Staab (per epist.) based on Iliad 23. 223: θανὼν ἀκάχησε τοκῆας, ‘he grieved the begetters by (his) death’. I can add other parallels on stone epigrams for this Homeric cliché: SP III 164 = GVI 1633 = SGO II 11/09/02 (region of Amaseia), v. 2: ὃς ῥα θανὼν ἀκάχη[σ]ε φίλους, ‘who grieved (his) friends by (his) death’;8 MAMA VII 560 (Kuyulu Zebir, South Galatia), v. 3: ὃς πάτρην ἀκάχησε θανών, ‘who grieved (his) fatherland by (his) death’, and, from the same place, an epigram composed beyond any doubt by the same poet, Anderson 1899: 287, no. 185, v. 3: ὃς πολλοὺς ἀκάχησε θανὼν αἱὺς (i.e. ἑοὺς) δὲ τοκῆα, ‘who grieved many people by (his) death, as well as his own begetters’. In the non lapidary poetry we also can find AP 7.528, v. 4: Λάρισσαν δὲ φίλην ἤκαχε καὶ τοκέας, ‘her dear Larissa and her parents were stricken with sorrow’ (in W.R. Paton’s translation). Nevertheless, the restoration [ἀκα]χήσας (⏑ ⏑ – –) implies an impure dactylic hexameter: [ἀκα]χήσας πατέρα κλυτόν (⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑). Our epigram is full of irregularities, as we already have seen, therefore, we can suppose here one more. Nevertheless, a possible metrical solution to avoid it would be, as I think, to suppose that the stone cutter omitted a καί before πατέρα and that πατέρα belonged to a zeugma whose first member occurred in the lacuna. Therefore, I would try to search for something like [ὃς πάτρην ἀκα]χήσας πατέρα (– ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏔ – ⏑ ⏑ –), ‘who grieved (my) fatherland and (my) father’. But in this case we would have, like in v. 3 (and possibly also in v. 1) an heptameter.

If we assume that the verse division is right, hence I do not see any other possibility, it becomes obvious that this epigram does not contain clear dactylic hexameters. It seems so, that each verse began in a pure dactylic form and continued with a tendency to dactylic rhytmus, of course, but without any metrical accuracy.5 On the other hand, v. 3 had surely seven feet (an heptameter) and, as we will see, we are allowed to suppose the same also for vv. 1 and 2. V. 1 can be restored by using the banal present (πατ̣ρ̣ί̣[ς ἐστί μοι ⏑ ]) which supposes that the name of the deceased began with a long vowel, e.g. Ἀττιανός, Οὐεττιανός, etc.,6 with shortened μοι before it (as, for example, in ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα). The alternative solution would be to add a supplementary foot (see v. 3) and to restore as heptameter something like Σινώπη πατ̣ρ̣ί̣[ς ἐστιν ἐμοί, φίλε, – ]τιανὸς δὲ καλοῦμα̣ ι̣, with a name beginning with a consonant, e.g. [Πον]τιανός, or Σινώπη πατ̣ρ̣ί̣[ς ἐστιν ἐμοί, ξένε, – ]τιανὸς δὲ καλοῦμα̣ ι̣. The advantage of this restoration would be that it fits better the rather long size of the lacuna in l. 1 but it supposes another irregularity (too many feet). Finally, all name ending in -τιανός could candidate, taking into account that personal names were very often difficult to be metrically inserted into the verse.7

For πατέρα κλυτόν see IG XIV 888 = GVI 882 (Suessa Aurunca, Roman period). The father’s name in acc. cannot be restored (e.g. Ἀ̣[ρτεμίδωρ]ον but there are many other possibilities).

For Sinope as patris several parallels in epigrams of Hellenistic and Roman periods can be adduced:

V. 3. We find another Homeric word, τάρχυσε (here – ⏑ ⏑ ). The meter is once again odd because a short syllable after Μοῖρα ( – ⏑ ) is missing. Thereafter, there would be a Hiatkürzung of καί before ἐνόσφισε (ka-ye-nós-

See as parallel Staab, Petzl and Tanriver 2014: 7-12, no. 3, an epigram from Hadrianuthera from AD 312/3 (with commentary on the metrics). 6  Names as Ἀττιανός (e.g.) scanned as a molossus ( – – – ) require taking -τια- as a monosyllable, which is perfectly usual (C.P. Jones). 7  Kassel 1975; Thonemann 2014: 194-95 and 209. 5 

8 

78

Translated in SGO as ‘der die Freunde betrübte, als er starb’.

A. Avram: An Epigram for a Sinopean from Tomis phi-se), although we can also suppose καί νόσφισε in the model, insofar the form without augment is more frequent in poetry, as we can see from several examples:

fifteen years’. I, therefore, cautiously suggest [μείγνυσ]θαι for the end of the verse.10 Although the provenance of the inscription is unknown, we must suspect one of the Greek cities of the Romanian shore of the Black Sea, in which case Tomis would be the best candidate, if not the only serious one. Not only this city furnished by far the most poems on stone during the Roman period but the style of our epigram remembers several other productions of Tomitan ‘poetry’. The first verse has a close parallel in ISM II 269 (SEG 27, 406): οὔνομα μέν μυ ἔην Μάρκελλος, ἦ δέ τε πάτρῃ Ἄφρος,11 ‘my name was Marcellus and I  was African by native land’. For the image of the deceased loosing the light of the sun see in particular GVI 1026 = ISM II 189 (GSMI, 175, no. 187): φῶς λίπον ἀελίου, ‘I left the light of the sun’. Finally, the cliché of the father’s pain is close to GVI 1813 (GG 362) = ISM II 174: ὑπὸ τῷδε τέθαμμαι | εἰκοσέτης Ἀκύλας πατρὶ λιπὼν ὀδύνας, ‘I, Acylas, aged twenty years, I am buried under this tomb and let my father suffering pain’.

EG 192 = IG XII.3 868 = GVI 1010 (Thera, Roman period), v. 5: πατρὸς νόσφισε Μοῖρ’ ὀλοή, ‘the deadly Destiny removed (me) from (my) father’. EG 563 = IG XIV 803 = CIL X 1494 = GVI 1039 = I. Napoli II 150 (Neapolis, Roman period), v. 8: ὥς με τάχος βιότου νόσφισε καὶ γαμέτου, ‘because the speed of the life removed me also from my husband’. IG II2 8955 = GVI 1995 (Attica, end of the 2nd century AD), v. 12: [Καππαδόκ]ης γένος εἰμί, [πάτρης δέ] με νόσφισε δαί[μων] (restored by W. Peek), ‘I am of Cappadocian race but the daimon removed me from (my) fatherland’. GVI 1305 = I. Kition 2083 (Kition, Cyprus, 2nd/3rd century AD), v. 6: Μοῖρά μ’ ἐτῶν ζωῆς νόσφισεν ᾗδε τάφῳ, ‘Destiny removed me from the years of life by this tomb’. EG 474 = IG V.1 726 = GVI 646 (Sparta, 2nd century BC), v. 6: ἣν Ἀΐδης φθονερὸς νόσφισεν α̣ὐξομένου, ‘whom the jealous Hades removed from the increasing’.9

Our epigram attests the second Sinopean in Tomis. The first one was a certain [ - - ]ος Πολυδώ[ρου] who dedicated κατὰ ὄναρ, ‘following a dream’, to Sarapis (ISM II 152).12 Sinopeans abroad, studied in the last time by Ligia Ruscu13 and registered in my external prosopography of the Black Sea region (PPE 2813-3056: 3333-3338: 3356-3357), are remarkably numerous in the North Pontus (in Olbia, nos. 2951-2957; in Chersonesus Taurica, nos. 2958-2964; in Panticapaeum, nos. 29652974, some of them in funerary epigrams) but only the two Sinopeans mentioned above are attested on the West shore of the Black Sea. As I wrote in a paper focused on the relations between the South Pontus and the regions of Thrace, Moesia inferior and North Black Sea shore during the Imperial period,14 Sinope, Amisos and Tios seem to have had close connections with the North Pontus rather than to the Lower Danube. But the only community of the West Pontus where not only Sinopeans, as in our case, but also Tianoi are attested (PPE 3098: 3099: 3125: 3126, perhaps also 3100-3102, with references) remains Tomis, a very cosmopolite harbour-city and a real ‘capital’ of the western Pontus. I, therefore, infer from this remark a supplementary

Very close to the image of being removed from the light stand two epigrams from the 2nd century AD, one from Mantineia (IG V.2 325 = GVI 954, vv. 1/2: ὁ φθονερὸς δαίμων με τριηκοστῷ λυκάβαντι | νόσφισεν ἠελ̣ίο̣υ̣ καὶ γλυκεροῦ τέκεος, ‘the jealous daimon removed me in the third year from the light of the sun and from my sweet begetter’), the other one from Perge, in Pamphylia (GVI 1083 = I. Perge II 411 = SGO IV 18/13/06, v. 4: Μοῖρα πρὶν ἡλικίης νόσφισεν ἠελίου, ‘Destiny removed (me) from the light of the sun’). V. 4. At the beginning a possible restoration would have been [πρώθη]βον, ‘in the prime of youth’, insofar this form of πρωθήβης (acc. πρωθήβην) is attested in Bacchylides 17.57 (already mentioned in LSJ). Nevertheless, since there are, as I suspect, no other occurrences of this type of declension, I suggest here rather the banal [τύμ]βον, ‘grave, tomb’, connected, therefore, by the preposition [εἰς] to the previous verse. After γάμοις, perhaps ζυ[γίοις] (suggested by G. Staab) because there are, in fact, few words beginning with ζυ-. I find as comparanda Eur. Iph. A. 907 (μὴ γάμοισιν ἐζύγης) and in particular SEG 45, 641 (cf. 54, 555, for the location), an epigram from Euthydrion, in Thessaly, from the 3rd century AD: ἦν δὲ γάμῳ ζευχθεσα. The word ending in -σ]θαι is required, no doubt, by μέλλοντα. An epigram from Larissa which seems to be from the Roman period (IG IX.2 649 = GVI 988) furnishes a fine parallel: καὶ μέλλου[σα] γάμῳ δεκαπενταετὴς μείγνυσθαι, ‘and when I was about to be joined by marriage at the age of

10  G. Staab (per epist.) cautiously suggests as an alternative solution: ‘Das führt mich zur vorsichtigen Erwägung, ob im Folgenden davon die Rede gewesen sein könnte, daß ein verstorbener, hier noch junger Ehegatte bzw. vor der Hochzeit stehender Jüngling sich erhofft, irgendwann wieder mit seiner Frau/Braut im Grab vereinigt zu sein. Ε.g. [εἰς τύμ]βον μέλλοντα γάμοις ζυ[γίοις συνάγεσ]θαι, oder Ähnliches.’ 11  Suggested by C.P. Jones, per epist. (ἦ Attic form of ἦν). See also Merkelbach 1980: 200-01, no. 2; Boyaval 2008: 107 (SEG 58, 269). 12  See also SIRIS 706; Tacheva-Hitova 1983: 11, no. I.15; Takács 1995: 187; RICIS 618/1003. Cf. Mora 1990 II, 481, no. 107; Chiekova 2008: 254; Buzoianu and Bărbulescu 2012: 134 and 138-39. This Sinopean is registered in PPE 2949-2950. 13  Ruscu 2008. 14  Avram 2013: 112-13.

But see, with augment, AP 9.452, v. 5: ἐνόσφισε φωνῆς, ‘removed (him) from (his) voice’.

9 

79

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity RICIS

argument for my assumption that our epigram must be indeed attributed to Tomis. Bibliography

SCIVA

Abbreviations

SEG

AP

W.R. Paton, The Greek Anthology, vols. I-V (London 1916-18). CCET N. Hampartumian, Corpus cultus Equitis Thracii, vol. IV: Moesia Inferior (Romanian Section) and Dacia (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 74) (Leiden 1979). CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae editum (Berlin 1863- ). CIRB V.V. Struve (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporani (Moscow/Leningrad 1965). EG G. Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus conlecta (Berlin 1878). GG W. Peek, Griechische Grabgedichte (Schriften und Quellen der alten Welt 7) (Berlin 1960). GSMI S. Conrad, Die Grabstelen aus Moesia Inferior. Untersuchungen zu Chronologie, Typologie und Ikonographie (Leipzig 2004). GVI W. Peek, Griechische Vers-Inschriften I: Die Grab-Epigramme (Berlin 1955). I. Kition M. Yon (ed.), Kition-Bamboula V: Kition dans les textes. Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et Corpus des inscriptions (Paris 2004). I. Napoli II E. Miranda, Iscrizioni greche d’Italia: Napoli, vol. II (Rome 1995). I. Perge S. Şahin, Die Inschriften von Perge, vols. I-II (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 54 and 61) (Bonn 1999; 2004). IG Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin 1903- ). IGUR L. Moretti, Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae, vols. I-IV (Rome 1968-90). ISM II I. Stoian, Inscripţiile din Scyhtia Minor greceşti şi latine II: Tomis şi teritoriul său (Bucharest 1987). LSJ H.G. Liddell, R. Scott and H.S. Jones, A GreekEnglish Lexicon (Oxford 1940). MAMA IV W.H. Buckler, W.M. Calder and W.K.C. Guthrie, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua IV: Monuments and Documents from Eastern Asia and Western Galatia (Manchester 1933). MAMA VII W.M. Calder, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua VII: Monuments from Eastern Phrygia (Manchester 1956). PPE A. Avram, Prosopographia Ponti Euxini externa (Colloquia Antiqua 8) (Leuven/Paris/ Walpole, MA 2013). RECAM II S. Mitchell, with D. French and J. Greenhalgh, Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor II: The Ankara District. The Inscriptions of North Galatia (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 135) (Oxford 1982).

SGO SIRIS SP

L. Bricault, Recueil des inscriptions concernant les cultes isiaques (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 31) (Paris 2005). Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie (Bucharest). Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Leiden). R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, vols. I-V (Stuttgart/Leipzig 1998-2004). L. Vidman, Sylloge inscriptionum religionis Isiacae et Sarapiacae (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 28) (Berlin 1969). J.G.C. Anderson, F. Cumont and H. Grégoire, Studia Pontica III: Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines du Pont et de l’Arménie, fasc. 1 (Brussels 1910).

Anderson, J.G.C. 1899. ‘Exploration in Galatia cis Halym. Part II’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 19: 52-134 and 280318. Avram, A. 2013. ‘Les Bithyniens en Thrace, en Mésie inférieure et dans le Pont Nord à l’époque impériale’. In Bru, H. and Labarre, G. (eds) L’Anatolie des peuples, des cités et des cultures (IIe  millénaire av. J.-C.-Ve siècle ap. J.-C.), Colloque international de Besançon – 26-27 novembre 2010, vol. 1 (Besançon): 111-32. Boyaval, B. 2008. ‘Notes épigraphiques grecques’. Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de papyrologie et d’égyptologie de Lille 27: 107-40. Buzoianu, L. and Bărbulescu, M. 2012. Tomis. Comentariu istoric şi arheologic – Historical and Archaeological Commentary (Constanţa). Chiekova, D. 2008. Cultes et vie religieuse des cités grecques du Pont Gauche (VIIe-Ier siècles avant J.-C.) (Berne). Drew-Bear, T. 1978. Nouvelles inscriptions de Phrygie (Zutphen). Kassel, R. 1975. ‘Quod versu dicere non est’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie une Epigraphik 19: 211-18. Matei-Popescu, F. 2003-05. ‘Note epigrafice I’. SCIVA 54-56: 303-12. Matei-Popescu, F. 2008-09. ‘Note epigrafice II’. SCIVA 59-60: 241-45. Matei-Popescu, F. 2011. ‘Note epigrafice III’. SCIVA 62.3-4: 265-73. Matei-Popescu, F. 2012. ‘Note epigrafice IV’. SCIVA 63.3-4: 305-12. Matei-Popescu, F. 2014. ‘Note epigrafice V’. SCIVA 65.3-4: 337-45. Merkelbach, R. 1980. ‘Zwei Epigramme aus Tomis’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie une Epigraphik 39: 200-01. Mora, F. 1990. Prosopografia Isiaca, vols. I-II (Leiden). Ruscu, L. 2008. ‘Sinopeans Abroad and Foreigners at Sinope’. Ancient West and East 7: 81-106. Staab, G., Petzl, G. and Tanriver, C. 2014. ‘Neue metrische Inschriften aus Lydien und Mysien’. Epigraphica Anatolica 47: 1-12. 80

A. Avram: An Epigram for a Sinopean from Tomis Tacheva-Hitova, M. 1983. Eastern Cults in Moesia Inferior and Thracia (5th Century B.C.-4th Century A.D.) (Leiden). Takács, S.A. 1995. Isis and Sarapis in the Roman World (Leiden).

Thonemann, P. 2014. ‘Poets of the Axylon’. Chiron 44: 191-232. Tudor, D. 1956. ‘Inscripţii romane inedite din Oltenia şi Dobrogea’. Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 2: 563-623.

81

Late Classical-Hellenistic Imports at Açic Suat (Caraburun) (4th-3rd Century BC) Vasilica Lungu Abstract The settlement at Açic Suat/Caraburun (Baia village, Tulcea county), located between Orgame and Histria/Istros on the shores of the Golovița and Sinoe lakes (Dobroudgea, Romania), was recently excavated. The general feature of the site is that of a coastal open settlement reflected in the easy access to navigation and fishing resources. Judging from its position close to Danube delta, an attribution to the chora of Istros was put forward some years ago. Recent excavations carried out at the sea side have brought to light some rectangular buildings of Late Classical-Hellenistic times, ranging from the 4th to the first half of the 3rd century BC. The uppermost fill contained large quantities of building materials (stones, tiles, etc.), as well as sherds of Hellenistic imported vessels, loom-weights, a few coins, rare cooking pots and terracottas in the lowest fill. Most of them consist of imported items including transport amphorae, many of them bearing stamps. The recorded finds also include a few Attic or pseudo-Attic black glazed shapes as well as light and grey common wares of Istrian manufacture, all of them of strong chronological significance. The most accurately datable issues are represented by the amphora stamps from Thasos, Heraclea Pontica and Sinope. The purpose of this paper is to present a preliminary analysis of some selected imports at Açic Suat, in order to point out some important chronological, economic and social markers for the history of this site.

The site of Açic Suat, identified by Peters in 1867 and revisited by Canarache in the mid-20th century,1 is supposed to be part of the large chora of Istros/ Histria.2 It is located on the north slope of an elongated peninsula with a homonymic name, surrounded to the north and east by the waters of the Goloviţa and Sinoe lakes, in the vicinity of the Danube delta (Fig. 1). Its high position would have formed a natural protection for the open settlements at the lake shore.

obtained for the Archaic,5 Late Classical–Hellenistic and Early Roman times (Fig. 2). Most of the excavated buildings belonging to these periods face east-west and were built of stones, adobe and earth, and covered during some definite periods with ceramic roof tiles6 (Fig. 3). Our evidence is supported by the results of four seasons of excavations in ten sectors distributed within the area of the site. Study of the pottery and other finds such as coins and amphora stamps, collected from excavations in the years 2011: 2015-2017, refine the chronology of multiple phases of occupation. It suggests that the settlement was built by Greeks in early 6th century BC and it was first abandoned in Late Hellenistic times, most probably in the second half of the 3rd century BC. The final occupation at Açic Suat is attested by the Early Roman settlement dated between the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, the site being definitively abandoned after the middle of the 3rd century AD.7 An analysis of the continuities and discontinuities in settlement pattern from one period to another may reveal changes occurring in the coastal occupation pattern.

Recently, this site was included for study within the framework of the ANR Pont Euxin project for 2010-2013, in the second Franco-Romanian project ANR Pont Euxin for 2015 (Orgame: nécropole et territoire, 2015-2017) and in 2018 in the third Franco-Romanian project (2018-2020), all of them jointly headed by A. Baralis and V. Lungu.3 Various multi-disciplinary investigations, led by the Louvre Museum, Aix-Marseille University and the Institute for South Eastern European Studies (Romanian Academy), include photogrammetric studies, georadar and geo-magnetic surveys, geomorphological, palynological and paleo-zoological analysis, pottery studies and pottery chemical analysis, etc.4

After the first stage in Archaic period, the continuity of settlement of Açic Suaht/Caraburun receives further confirmation from analysis of the ceramic history of the second phase of its occupation, which covers the time between the 4th century and the third quarter/ second half of the 3rd century BC. This period indicates a comparatively high rate of settlement occupation

Such joint studies help as to understand the status of this site during different times in its history. The first results revealed a dense occupation in two periods, Greek and Roman, the most evident being those 1  Peters (1867) identified Istros at Caraburun (see also Pick 1898: 40). Canarache noted pottery of the 6th to the 2nd century BC (cf. Stoian 1957: 198). 2  Avram 1990; 2006: 62; Avram et al. 1985. 3  Baralis and Lungu 2015. 4  Baralis and Lungu 2018; Baralis et al. 2017; Lungu and Baralis 2017.

Baralis and Lungu 2015; 2018; Dupont et al. 2016. Dolea 2016. 7  Mușat-Streinu 2017. 5  6 

82

V. Lungu: Late Classical-Hellenistic Imports at Açic Suat (Caraburun)

Figure 1. Position of the site Açic Suat on the map of the northern Dobrudja.

Figure 2. The main chronology of the site Açic Suat.

83

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity from the Archaic to Classical and Hellenistic and may indicate that the Greek colonists made few changes in settlement pattern and in competitive exploitation of natural regional resources. From the second quarter of the 4th to the third quarter of the 3rd century BC, imports of the Greek products transported or used in different vessels are accumulated in the abandoned layers of the Hellenistic settlement and testify to a flourishing period in the development of the site. Specific to this period are the large stone basement buildings with adobe walls, covered by ceramic tiles (Fig. 3). The study of the ceramic finds, which produced evidence for economic and social developments, as well as for some domestic activities including textile

manufacturing (Fig. 4), is able to strike a unified chord on the essential matters of the development of the site. In the course of these two successive centuries imports had developed and achieved their fullest possibilities, and in a natural way, had achieved economic success, in terms of substantial increases in living standards for the people living there. Among the most frequent finds were Attic and pseudo-Attic imports of fine pottery and especially transport amphorae of different centres of the Pontic and Aegean seas. Both will be well represented in the selected groups to be discussed below.

Figure 3. Image of the Hellenistic buildings.

Figure 4. Loom-weights and lids.

84

V. Lungu: Late Classical-Hellenistic Imports at Açic Suat (Caraburun)

Figure 6. Pelike rim with egg-and-dot pattern.

Fine Pottery (Figs. 5-12) The Late Classical-Early Hellenistic fine pottery group is formed particularly of drinking and serving tableware. The main identified shapes of fine vessels are: skyphoi, cup-skyphoi, kantharoi, oinochoai, pelikai. Four decorative techniques are revealed: red-figured, West Slope, black-glazed and stamped motif inside on floor. Most of them are manufactured in the standard Attic with fine buff clay and fine decoration. The group of red-figured pottery is formed by little skyphoi of the Fat Boy group8 (Fig. 5) and fragments which preserve about a quarter of the rim from two or three different pelikai, glazed on both sides and decorated on the with egg-and-dot pattern (Fig. 6). Given that these fragments of Attic red-figure pelikai are so shattered, nothing can be retrieved of the

Figure 7. Oinochoe in West Slope style.

fragments of Attic cup-skyphoi (Fig. 8) with heavy wall and thickened rim projecting outwards.10 Other pieces, like both fragmentary plain kantharoi (Figs. 9-10), are probably to be dated in the second or third quarter of the 3rd century BC. It is noticeable that their fabric and changing colour glaze belong to the group of nonAttic pattern and are to be sought in northern Aegean or Pontic Hellenistic productions.11 With the Early Hellenistic period the number of fragments increases considerably, some fragments of black-glazed fish plates, some of them dated to the last quarter of the 4th century BC12 (Fig. 11), and oinochoai with riled body, dated to the same period13 (Fig. 12), seem to fall within this phase.

Figure 5. Skyphos of the Fat Boy group.

subjects represented on the body of the vessels. Both decorated shapes are inscribed among the latest redfigured decorated pieces of this Attic style dated about 370-350 BC. From the West Slope group, a shoulder fragment of an oinochoe present applied decoration in buff clay (Fig. 7). The shape is typical Attic from the earliest decorated examples found in the Athenian Agora in the early second quarter of the 3rd century BC.9

Figure 8. Attic cup-skyphos.

So small are many of the fragments collected from the site that I have suggested definite attributions for only a selected group able to give a coherent overview of the main fine pottery groups at Açic Suat. By a comparative study of the shapes identified in the table vessels one

The group of black-glazed fine wares is more numerous and includes various shapes of Attic and nonAttic fabrics. Among the earliest shapes were some

Sparkes and Talcott 1970: 280, no. 621, fig. 6: early 4th century BC. Dupont and Coja 1979, pl. 2.12-13. On Pontic black-glazed vases, see Dupont 2014; Dupont and Baralis 2014; Bojkova 2017: 53-72. 12  Sparkes and Talcott 1970: 311, fig. 10, 1076. Similar fish shapes are frequnetly found in the Orgame necropolis. 13  Rotroff 1997: 294, no. 473, fig. 35, pl. 47, ca. 325-300 BC. 10  11 

Beazley 1963: 1490, under nos. 174, and 1696: many more in Beazley’s list are by the same hand. For identical at Istros, see Coja and Dupont 1979, pl. 1.6. 9  For the type, see Rotroff 1997, nos. 460-466. 8 

85

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 13. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 1).

Figure 9. Plain rim kantharoi.

Figure 14. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 2).

may determine a provisional balance between various functions of these ceramics; the preliminary results reflects a rate of six vessels for liquids for two for solid food.

Figure 10. Plain rim kantharoi.

Figure 11. Attic fish-plate.

Transport Amphorae Transport amphorae, identified exclusively by fragments of different parts, were found in the fill of buildings or in surface layers. Typological and fabric analyses have confirmed that a considerable number of transport amphorae found at Açic Suat were imports. None seems to have been made in a local or regional milieu. The amphora assemblages from Late ClassicalEarly Hellenistic time were chronologically dominated by imports of Thasos, follow by those of Heraclea Pontica and Sinope, and sporadically by other centres, such as Chersonesos, Mende and Peparethos. Some of them have stamped handles and the chronological span of such material is entirely appropriate for the

Figure 12. Black glazed oinochoe.

86

V. Lungu: Late Classical-Hellenistic Imports at Açic Suat (Caraburun)

Shape

Bowl

Kantharos

Cup-skyphos.

Fish Plate

Oinochoe

Oinochoe

Pelike

Skyphos

Quality

BG

BG

BG

BG

BG

WS

RF

RF

Attic &

Attic &

Attic &

Attic &

Non-Attic

Non-Attic

Non-Attic

Non-Attic

Attic

Attic

Attic

First half 3rd c. BC

First half 3rd c. BC

Second half 4th c. BC

First half 3rd c. BC

ca. 275

Second quarter 4th c. BC

Second quarter 4th c. BC

Origin Date

Attic early 4th c. BC

Table 1. Attic and non-Attic fine vessels.

general pottery facies of the site. Although any detailed quantitative analysis is problematic before finishing our excavation and study programme, a small selection limited to some representative stamped handles may be consistent with the general pottery pattern at Açic Suat. Thasos (Figs. 15-23. Th 1-Th 11) From the first excavations about 15 Thasian stamped handles have been collected. More numerous, rich and varied is the fragmentary material of rims, bases, bodies and unstamped handles, and of such wide bearing. The excavated area represents no more than 1% of the presumed settled area of the site; they represent a quite important group. Many of them were found in the fill of buildings giving them a chronology. The evidence is summarised here as a prime example of the possibility of mutual development of chronologies, in this case between the Thasian amphora stamps of the ancient group with two names (eponym + maker) and Thasion as ethnicon, and the recent group with only magistrate’s name and ethnicon. The identifications imply three examples of the first group and twelve of the second.

Figure 15. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 3).

The Thasian amphora-stamp series properly begins with the amphora of Kleofon associated to the maker Pausanies and with symbol of a lizard (Fig. 13. Th 1), attested by one example of the group E1-Garlan, 365-360 BC.14 It is followed closely by Philokrates, associated to the maker Xenophanes and an octopus as symbol (Fig. 14. Th 2);15 next is an example of the eponymic group of ‘Phiale’ with Lysikles as maker and the symbol of a grape (Fig. 15. Th 3); it is attributed by Garlan to F1 group, dated about 356-343 BC.16 The following two attested names of magistrates on the stamps – Herakleitos by two examples (one symbol is arc, arrow, letter B [Fig. 16. Th 4];17 and the second arc, arrow, letter H [Fig. 17. Th

Figure 16. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 4).

14  Group E, Avram 1996, no. 38 (Istros); group E1, Garlan 1999, no. 461, ca. 365-360 BC; or group II (364-338 BC), Tzochev 2016: 80. 15  Group F, Avram 1996, nos. 77-87, with other makers at Istros; group F1, Garlan 1999, no 695, ca. 360-350 BC; or group II, Tzochev 2016: 80 and table 2, ca. 364-338 BC). 16  Group F, Avram 1996, no. 60 (Istros); group F1, Garlan 1999, no 593, ca. 360-350 BC; goup. II, Tzochev 2016, table 2, ca. 364-338 BC. 17  Avram 1996, nos. 246 (Istros), 584 (Sinoe-Zmeica), ca. 325-317 BC; group Ib, ca. 331-320 BC, cf. Debidour 1999 I, 235-36; group II, Garlan

Figure 17. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 5).

87

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 20. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 8).

Figure 18. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 6).

Figure 21. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 9).

IV with shield (Fig. 22. Th 10)23 and Hegesipolis with Satyr’s head (Fig, 23. Th 11)24 – later than the middlethird quarter of the 3rd century BC. Thasian stamps currently cover a large span of time – between 365 and 250 BC. They show much variation in their chronology, fabric and dimensions of stamps and of letters. The presence of considerable continuity and considerably early chronology is to be noted. Thasian material in such fills is entirely in accordance with finds elsewhere in Hellenistic Pontic sites.

Figure 19. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 7).

5]);18 and Leodikos with the symbol of Heracles archer and spear (Fig. 18. Th 6)19 – are no later than the end of the 4th century. To my knowledge, there is no reason to place the next five selected stamps – Poulys with a pomegranate symbol (Fig. 19. Th 7),20Archênax with a spearhead symbol (Fig. 20. Th 8),21 Pythion III with cupskyphos and letters PR linked (Fig. 21. Th 9),22 Pythion

This selection is however too small and the excavations are at too early a stage to warrant much in the way of general conclusions or the development of a chronological table of Thasian amphora stamps. However, it is quite interesting to observe that all identified names correspond in proportion of 3:2 to those revealed by corpora of the colonies’ stamps (Histria25 and Orgame),26 as well as by inventories

2004-05, 323, ca. 326-322 BC; Tzochev 2016, table 2, group IV, ca. 324304 BC. 18  Group Ib, ca. 331-320 BC, cf. Debidour 1999 I, 235-36; group II, Garlan 2004-05, 323, ca. 326-322 BC. 19  Avram 1996, nos. 259-268, ca. 316-311 BC; group III, Garlan 2004-05, 324, ca. 322-317 BC; group IV, Tzochev 2016, table 2, ca. 324-304 BC. 20  Avram 1996, no. 293, ca. 310-295 BC; group IV, Garlan 2004-05, 324, ca. 315-311 BC; Tzochev 2016, table 2, group IV, ca. 324-304 BC. 21  Avram 1996, nos. 354-357, ca. 294-287 BC, with other symbols; group III, Debidour 1999 II, 368, no. 102, ca. 325-310 BC; group VI, Garlan, 2004-05, 325, ca. 299-295 BC; Tzochev 2016, table 2, group VI, ca. 292-274 BC. 22  Avram 1996, nos. 414-423, ca. 286-274 BC; group VIII, Garlan 200405, 325, ca. 287-283 BC; Tzochev 2016, table 2, group VI, ca. 292-274 BC.

Avram 1996, no. 441, ca. 273-267 BC; group IX, Garlan 2004-05, 325, ca. 281-274 BC; Tzochev 2016, table 2, group VI, ca. 292-274 BC. 24  Avram 1996, no. 498, ca. 251-240 BC; group XI. Garlan 2004-05, 326, ca. 258-250 BC; Tzochev 2016, table 2, group IX, ca. 241-227 BC. 25  The rate of correspondence at Istros is 100%, see the notes above. 26  Seven of ten eponymic names (with phiale group) are common at Orgame, a 70% correspondence rate: Kleofon, Philokrates, Herakleitos, Leodikos, Poulys, Pythíon IV. Most of them are unpublished. 23 

88

V. Lungu: Late Classical-Hellenistic Imports at Açic Suat (Caraburun)

Figure 24. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 1).

Figure 22. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 10).

Figure 25. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 2).

Figure 23. Thasian amphora stamp (Th 11). Figure 26. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 3).

of rural settlements, such as Sarichioi,27 all of them situated on the shoreline close to our area. The different rates can partly be explained by fluctuations in digging programmes and publication, which impact on reportage of the intensity of imports. Even if comparative analysis is useful, here is not the place to recall the numerous other sites in the Pontic and Aegean with corresponding material; such a subject demands a particular study.

interesting for the site. These are as follows, organised in chronological order. The first attested are the astynome Attalos and the maker Fílon, with the symbol of a male head (Fig. 24. S. 1), dated in group IV.72 by Conovici or VA by Garlan.28 The next five astynomoi are dated in group IV by Conovici or group V by Garlan, as follows: Hekataios (1), Hekataios’ son and the maker Midas (I) probably used the symbol of a thyrse, on the next sample29 (Fig. 25. S. 2); the next of this group is the astynome Aristion (Aristipou) in the time of the maker Kefalion and the symbol of a satyr (Fig. 26. S. 3);30 the astynome Kallisthenes (1, Nossou) is named together with the maker Protos (I) on a stamp with a

Sinope (Figs. 24-31. S. 1-S. 8) With a total of 17 stamps, we are particularly concerned here with a bigger number of collected stamps than with Thasian amphorae. A detailed description of the Sinopean stamps is proposed here for the first time. From the total we select a representative group of nine stamps better preserved and chronologically

Group IV.72, Conovici 1998: 39, nos. 82-86 (unattested combination); group VA, Garlan 2004: 97, cat. 219. Dated to 279 BC, this stamp is a terminus post-quem for the destruction of the ‘Weaving House’ at Açic Suat. 29  Combination unattested at Conovici 1998; group VA, Garlan 2004: 73. 30  Group IV.9, Conovici 1998, nos. 290-292; group VB, Garlan 2004: 97, cat. 272. 28 

The names of six of nine magistrates (without phiale group) attested at Açic Suat, are present at Sarichioi: Kleofon, Herakleitos, Leodikos, Poulys, Arhenax, and Pythion III (see Lungu 1991). This means a 67% correspondence rate.

27 

89

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 30. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 7). Figure 27. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 4).

Figure 28. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 5).

Figure 31. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 8).

The selected sequence of Sinopean stamps is consistent enough and it is here presented according to the chronological evolution of the stamps between the second and third quarters of the 3rd century BC. There is a general aspect to this assortment: the attested names are concentrated in the last three chronological groups of Sinopean stamped amphorae. This line was determined by the distribution of the astynomoi between groups IV-V of Conovici, corresponding to groups V-VI of Garlan. The attested astynomoi and makers are mostly close together in date and have a great number of individual parallels in the Pontic area, from which we selected those of the closest sites.

Figure 29. Sinopean amphora stamp (S. 6).

quiver with arrows as symbol (Fig. 27. S. 4);31 Demetrios 3 (Heroxenou) appears with two makers, Mithridates (Fig. 28. S. 5) and Hermon;32 Aishines (5), the son of Iphios, signed on the amphorae of the maker Kteson (II), with the symbol of a grape (Fig. 29. S. 6).33 From the next group we note the follow astynomoi: Zenis, Apollodoros’ son, with the maker Hefaistios (I or II) and the symbol of a trophy(?) (Fig. 30. S. 7)34 and Mantitheos (2), Protagoros’ son, with the maker Kteson, bearing a lion as symbol(?) (Fig. 31. S. 8).35

The size of the Sinopean assemblage makes it a good test for the frequency of couplings of magistrate with maker, and in this way sometimes helps us to advance some chronological conclusions for the archaeological contexts. Thus, some general observations on Sinopean handles present at Açic Suat may be noted. Sinopean amphora production began in the middle of the 4th century BC, about 355 BC,36 but the earliest independently datable stamps on our site are no earlier than the first two decades of the 3rd century BC, with most of the early material dating to the second quarter-middle of that century. As with the Thasian group, there are also analogies for all attested names in published corpora of nearby sites, above all, the names of astynomoi: Kallisthénes (1, Nossou), as well as Mantitheos 2 Protagorou, Aristion (Aristipou),

31  Group IV.3, Conovici 1998, nos. 139-141, ca. 260-256 BC; group VC, Garlan 2004: 73, 97. 32  Group IV.3, Conovici 1998, nos. 254-260 (with Hermon); no. 268 (with Mithridates); group VB, Garlan 2004, cat. 285 (with Hermon); the combination with Mithridates is unattested by Garlan. 33  Group IV.3, Conovici 1998, no. 198 (Iphios 4); group VC, cf. Garlan 2004: 70, 97. 34  Group V.8, Conovici 1998, no. 425, ca. 255-251 BC, group VI, Garlan 2004: 97, cat. 353. 35  Group V.8, Conovici 1998, nos. 457-458; group VIB, Garlan 2004: 97, cat. 396-402; unattested combination.

Garlan (2004: 94) proposed 355-185 BC as limits for the chronology of stamped Sinopean amphorae.

36 

90

V. Lungu: Late Classical-Hellenistic Imports at Açic Suat (Caraburun) Demetrios 3 (Heroxenou), Aishines (5) Iphios, Zenis (Apollodorou), Mantitheos (2) Protagorou have been identified at Orgame.37 Except for Hekataios (1), the others are also present at Istros.38 Heraclea Pontica (Figs. 32-34. HP 1- HP 3) Stamps of Heraclea Pontica, collected from the settlement’s fill, present quite scarce evidence. Only five39 examples appear in the present material and only three are reasonably preserved. Two of them belong to the group of stamps with two names (referring to the coupling of magistrate and maker). They are signed by the abbreviated name of the magistrates Xe(nos) with the maker Daos,40 and of Ia(-), with Theogenes as maker.41 Only Xe(nos) is present om abbreviated form; Ia(-), is supposed by analogy with comparative stamps found elsewhere. The combination of Xe(nos) and Daos does not occur in the group recently published from Kostadin Tcheshma (Debelt, Bulgaria).42 They are for the first time attested on this site and rarely appear on other sites.43

Figure 33. Heraclea Pontica amphora stamp (HP 2).

The second group is formed by two stamps of the fabricant Menes which indicate the presence of the uninominal stamps. Considering the finds of Histria,44 Cogealac,45 Tomis,46 Callatis,47 Albeşti48 and Orgame/ Argamum (Capul Dolojman),49 this maker is better known in the Pontic region than the previous ones.

Figure 34. Heraclea Pontica amphora stamp (HP 3).

These four stamps (five, with a more fragmentary one) therefore suggest a period of the late 4th century BC to the beginning of the 3rd century BC. The first two stamps with names of magistrates are earlier then the next two of Menes, and they stay close to the first half of the 4th century, while the products of Menes have been found in contexts dated until the beginning of the 3rd century BC. The dates assigned together are supported by a variety of other pieces of pottery evidence, including imports of fine Attic pottery, as well as Thasian stamps. Other centres The assortment of stamped handles from outside Thasos, Heraclea Pontica and Sinope is fairly limited. The amphorae of Chersonesos, with the only stamp identifying probably astynomos Apollonios (Fig. 35. Ch 1),50 were never reported with the frequency of the other centres presented above.

Figure 32. Heraclea Pontica amphora stamp (HP 1). Lungu 2016, tabl. 1. See Conoivici 1998. One of them is not illustrated here; it is severely damaged preserving partially the Greek letters -PI-. 40  For the magistrate: Teleagă 2008: 87. For the maker: Balabanov et al. 2016: 142-43, cat. 100C-101C, first half of the 4th century BC. 41  Balabanov et al. 2016: 114, cat. 9Ba, first half of the 4th century BC. 42  See Balabanov et al. 2016. 43  Without Menes, the others are not reported from Orgame, for exemple. See Lungu 1992: 93, cat. 72, pl. VII. 44  Canarache, 1957: 199, no. 472. 45  Avram, 1999: 224, no. 21, pl. VI. 46  Gramatopol, Poenaru-Bordea, 1968: 59, no. 80; for no. 83, the name is corrected at Buzoianu, 1992: 105. 47  Gramatopol, Poenaru-Bordea, 1970: 239, nos. 834-838; Buzoianu, 1979: 88, no. 23, pl. II.2. 48  Buzoianu and Bărbulescu 2008: 142, S69. 49  Lungu 1992: 93, no. 72. 37  38  39 

The situation with other contemporary South Aegean centres is rather different: the first groups of Rhodian stamped amphorae, for example, so frequent in southern Dobrudjan sites, are here almost inexistent. In contrast 50  Apollonios is an astynome of 3A sub-group of Kats 1994: 89, no. 24, dated about 230-215 BC. This chronology is later then any other amphora’ stamp found on the site. Apollonios of Chersonesos is attested as proxenos by epigraphic evidence of the 3rd century at Callatis (see Avram 2009: 55).

91

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Centres

Thasos

Heraclea Pontica

Sinope

Chersonesos

Others

Total

15

5

17

1

2

40

37.5%

12.5%

42.5%

2.5%

5%

100%

No. of examples Percentage

Table 2. Production centres attested by stamps.

only as second-hand exports by Athenian traders as was recently suggested.55 The increase of a Thasian amphora presence on the western coast of the Black Sea after the middle of the 4th century BC until the first half of the 3rd may have been influenced rather by the ascension of Macedonian power in this area than by regular commerce with Athens.56 The noticeable scarcity of amphorae made at Mende, Peparethos or Akanthos, associated by Tzochev to Thasian ones exported by Athens in the western Pontic area, is also, in my opinion, against the theory of a regular and continuous trade developed in the 4th-3rd centuries BC by Athenians in the Black Sea following the Aegean west coast.57 Sinopean amphorae production, transported to the western Black Sea probably by traders from this city, is better represented at Açic Suat, especially in the first half of the 3rd century BC, when one considers that Sinopean amphorae were stamped with more frequency than those of other centres in the Black Sea. The rate of imports from Mende and Peparetos was rather low. Chersonesian wine was generally exported to the western Pontic shore in small quantities and there is just one stamp at the site.

Figure 35. Chersonese amphora stamp (Ch 1).

with Thasian and Sinopean amphorae, Rhodian did not appear to circulate regularly and the import of stamped amphorae of the first group, which is contemporary with the other attested centres, remains unknown at this site.51 For Rhodian amphorae, we have identified just some few body sherds and one early base;52 no rims, no stamps or stamped handles. The absence of Rhodian stamps in Açic Suat during the 3rd century BC does not reflect a decrease in production and export from Rhodes, more the gradual fall in local preferences for imported wine. Taking this evidence into consideration along with the overall view of finds from the excavated complexes, the flourishing period of the site probably ceased somewhere in the first half of the 3rd century BC, followed by decadence and abandonment.

A growing dominance is evident for Thasian and Sinopean transport amphorae over the rest of the material coming from other centres, and it attests the opening of new opportunities and new commercial orientations in the second major period at Açic Suat. The Pontic networks developed more than the others, and it is the first time that Aegean centres are outclassed by Pontic. Indeed, imported amphorae are 42.5% of Aegean origin and 57.5% of Pontic.58 Unsurprisingly, following the study of the ceramic materials in western Pontic sites, the same picture is now emerging in some of the better known.59 This phaenomenon may correspond to an economic Pontic koine, which likely affected the circulation of the few transport amphorae from the Black Sea region into the Aegean and Mediterranean in the second part of the Hellenistic period.60

Main maritime routes The production centres of imported amphorae may suggest the main maritime routes contemporary with the Late Classical-Early Hellenistic settlement at Açic Suat (Fig. 36). Thasian amphorae were exported in greater quantity towards the north-east, into the Black Sea, and are not found in great numbers anywhere after the mid-3rd century BC. Commerce with Thasian amphorae on the western Pontic coast may have been developed initially by noble, wealthy or influential families originally from this island or from the cities of Thasian peraea,53 or by Histrian aristocratic families, one of them established in Athens,54 and not

in the Museum of Pireus (see Steinhauer 2006). 55  By Tzockev 2016: 96. 56  It begins with the conflicts between Philip II and the Scythian king Ateas in western Pontic areas (see Justin 9. 1-3; Diodorus Siculus 2. 43; Strabo 7. 307, 16. 752; Plutarch Apophth.reg. c. 19, p. 174). See more at Gardiner-Garden 1989. 57  From the Archaic period, the most used sea route is by the eastern Aegean. 58  Comparatively with the Archaic period, for example, when Aegean centres are largely dominant, almost exclusive (see Dupont et al. 2016). 59  See Albeşti. Cf. Buzoianu and Bărbulescu 2008. 60  For more extensive discussion on the subject, see Lund 2007.

Finkielsztejn 2001, dated ca. 304-235 BC; Jöhrens 2001, dated from the end of the 4th century to ca. 241 BC. 52  Monakhov 2003: 113, type IA, pl. 79.6, dated to the end of the 4th century BC. 53  Some of them dedicated the temple of Theos Megas at Istros (see Alexandrescu-Vianu 2001: 78). 54  This idea my be supported by the presence of the funerary monument of Nikeratos’ family discovered at Kallithea and exhibited 51 

92

V. Lungu: Late Classical-Hellenistic Imports at Açic Suat (Caraburun)

Figure 36. Main distribution routes of stamped amphorae.

Conclusions

region, which is supposed to have been Istros. We find here reason to believe that the local inhabitants would always have a market for their supply (fish, honey, wood, cattle, etc.). This may also be why the site sprang up in the closing years of the 4th century BC and flourished during the following decades and more at the very beginning of the 3rd century BC,61 assumed as the second important stage corresponding to a new, more consistent, urbanisation phase (streets, stone buildings, pavements, etc.). At the time of the amphora stamps, we must assign the presence of Attic and nonAttic fine pottery, collected together from some good contexts of the 4th-beginning of the 3rd century BC. Comparing the quantities of both analysed groups, the differences seem to reflect a higher demand for products (wine, oil, etc.) than for instruments helping their consumption. The archaeological evidence shows something similar to a general emulation of Greek culture observed in the big cities of Istros and Orgame. This reflects common cultural habits, not a ‘desire for alien goods’, as was logically explained by Michael Dietler for indigenous consumption of similar goods.62 A necessary focus on models of consumption offers

Summing up, we can say that this first preliminary study of two main categories of pottery collected from the site of Açic Suat shows that most of the tableware and storage-transport vessels used by the inhabitants of this site were made in other areas situated far from it. Based on the available data, the supply of amphoratransport commodities to open settlements in the Pontic region did not stop after the Archaic period and continued down to the second half of the 3rd century, and even then in relatively large numbers. In this second well-defined phase of the site, the 4th-3rd centuries BC, the most commonly attested types are mainly variants of wine-carrying North Aegean and Pontic amphorae, although as early as the first half of the 4th century BC some unstamped specimens of Chian origin reach the inventory. The modest volume of amphorae in this period issuing from centres other than Thasos, Heraclea Pontica and Sinope is a phenomenon common for western Pontic sites and one often considered in archaeological research. The occurrence of Late Classical and Early Hellenistic amphorae at this site, more developed then any known indigenous rural site, as well as general and regular use of Greek pottery – typical shapes for wine and fish consumption, associated with wine drinking and solid food – similar to that in Greek colonies such as Istros and Orgame. Moreover, the names of Thasian and Sinopean magistrates correspond at a rate of more than 90% in all three sites, and it can be taken into consideration in judging the characteristics of regional distribution by the principal market of the

This period is also common for all three sites. As Michael Dietler noted for the western Mediterranean, we can say that patterns of demand for imported Aegean goods and their historical paths of consumption may differ from one region to another on the western Pontic shore, but it is not so considerably in this case. ‘A consumption-oriented approach, focused upon the social and cultural logic of desire for alien goods, the relationship between objects and objectives in colonial interactions, and the unintended entangling consequences of consumption, offers the potential of restoring access to indigenous agency and the fundamental historicity of the colonial situation’ (Dietler 2002; 2005: 67). 61  62 

93

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity possibilities for broader consideration of some matters raised by comparative studies between indigenous and Greek sites in the vicinity of ours.63

Avram, A. 1999. ‘Matériel amphorique et nonamphorique dans deux sites de la chôra d’Istros (Histria Pod et Cogealac)’. In Garlan, Y. (ed.) Production et commerce des amphores anciennes en Mer Noire (Aix-en-Provence): 215-30. Avram, A. 2006. ‘The territories of Istros and Kallatis’. In Bilde, P.G. and Stolba, V.F. (eds) Surveying the Greek Chora. The Black Sea Region in a Comparative Perspective (Aarhus): 59-80. Avram, A. 2009. ‘Timbres amphoriques et épigraphie lapidaire: astynomes et proxènes’. In Cândea, I. (eds) Tracii și vecinii lor în antichitate/The Thracians and Their Neighbors in Antiquity. Studia in Honorem Valerii Sîrbu (Brăila): 53-61. Avram, A., Bounegru, O. and Chiriac, C. 1985. ‘Cercetări perieghetice în teritoriul histrian’. Pontica 18: 11324. Balabanov, O., Garlan, Y. and Avram, A. 2016. Les timbres amphoriques grecs d’Héraclée Pontique et de quelques autres centres de production recueillis dans l’établissement de Kostandin Tchechma, près de Débelt (Bulgarie) (première moitié du IVe siècle av. J.-C.). (Constanţa). Baralis, A., Dupont, P., Gyuzelev, M., Iacob, M., Lungu, V., Mănucu-Adameşteanu, M., Nedev, D. and Panayotova, K. 2011. ‘Le programme ANR PontEuxin: bilan des campagnes 2011 à Apollonia du Pont (Sozopol, dpt. de Bourgas, Bulgarie) et Orgamè /Argamum (Jurilovca, dpt. de Tulcea, Roumanie)’. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 37.2: 220-34. Baralis, A. and Lungu, V. 2015. ‘Stratégies coloniales et réseaux d’occupation spatiale gètes sur le littoral de la Dobroudja du Nord: les acquis du Programme ANR Pont-Euxin’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A. and Hargrave, J. (eds) The Danubian Lands between the Black, Aegean and Adriatic Seas (7th Century BC-10th Century AD) (Oxford): 369-84. Baralis, A. and Lungu, V. 2018. Colonising the Southern Sectors of Danubian Delta: The Settlement of Caraburun-Atchik-Suhat. In Bifocal Perspectives on The Black Sea: Macro-and Microcosms (Aarhus), forthcoming. Baralis, A., Lungu, V. and Dupont, P., with collaborators 2017. ‘L’établissement d’Acık Suat (commune de Baia, département de Tulcea). Méthodologie d’une enquête pluridisciplinaire’. Pontica 50: 453-86. Beazley, J. 1963. Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, 2nd ed. (Oxford). Bojkova, A. 2017. Fine Pottery between the Haemus, the Rhodope and the Pontus Euxinus (7th-1st c. B.C.). Characteristics, Distributions and Utilization (Veliko Tîrnovo). Bony, G. 2013. Contraintes et potentialités naturelles de quelques sites portuaires antiques de Méditerranée et de mer Noire (Fréjus, Ampurias, Kition, Istanbul, Orgamè) (Dissertation, University Aix-Marseille). Bony, G., Baralis, A., Lungu, V., Marriner, N. and Morhange, C. 2013. ‘Mobilité des paysages et

Alongside this, an inherent regional economic system may be observed. The fact that Açic Suat’s inhabitants consumed large quantities of wine and oil transported in amphorae produced in some of the most active centres of the time most likely indicates that the site was under the economic influence of nearby Greek colonies, Istros and Orgame. However, connecting pottery with political and economic geography should be undertaken with caution, since, in some cases, common pottery may reflect not political expansion but only common cultural traditions. Similar features are found in contemporary settlements at Cogealac, Histria Pod, Sinoe-Insula Lupilor and Nuntaşi, all of them included in the territory of Istros.64 Alexandru Avram has argued that Istros’ large territorial expansion in the Greek period should be explained by her need for more pasture and agriculture in order to cope with her growing population and other social problems.65 The search for growing territory was an important, but probably not the only reason for Istros’ expansion to the north. Strategically located on one of the northern peninsulas close to the water, Açic Suat benefited from trade goods, like many other coastal settlements, and equally from local fishing products. As imports stimulated cultural achievements and the urban topography developed more than in the previous period of this site, this paper has established some of the basic features of the inhabitants’ consumption of local and imported resources. By doing so, it enables us to examine how the consolidation of the ethnic Greek profile generated social distinction among people who often lived in similar milieu.66 Moreover, based on the pottery material and its complex problems of origins, quantities and qualities, we can trace some features of the economic evolution of the site and of Pontic settlement patterns near large Greek cities. Bibliography Alexandrescu-Vianu, M. 2001. ‘Théos Mégas’. Dacia 4345: 73-78. Avram, A. 1990. ‘Das histrianische Territorium in griechisch-römischer Zeit’. In Alexandrescu, P. and Schuller, W. (eds) Histria. Eine Griechenstadt an der rumänischen Schwarzmeerküst (Konstanz): 9-46. Avram, A. 1996. Histria 8: Les timbres amphoriques. 1: Thasos (Bucharest/Paris). Some preliminary data are given in Baralis, Lungu and Dupont 2017. 64  Avram 1990; 2006. 65  Avram 2006: 62, n. 4, with particular reference at Sinope: ‘Insula Lupilor’. 66  As was established for the Archaic period (see Baralis and Lungu 2015: 384, fig. 10). 63 

94

V. Lungu: Late Classical-Hellenistic Imports at Açic Suat (Caraburun) stratégies coloniales au sud du Delta du Danube: la colonie grecque d’Orgamé/Argamum (Jurilovca, département de Tulcea, Roumanie)’. In Saint Martin, J.-P. (ed.) Recherches croisées en Dobrogea (Bucharest): 133-56. Buzoianu, L. 1979. ‘Noi ştampile de amfore de la Callatis’. Pontica 12: 77-95. Buzoianu, L. 1992. ‘Importuri amforice la Tomis în perioada elenistică’. Pontica 25: 99-165. Buzoianu, L. and Bărbulescu, M. 2008. Albeşti. Monografie Arheologică (Constanţa). Canarache, V. 1957. Importul amforelor ştampilate la Istria (Bucharest). Coja, M. and Dupont, P. 1979. Histria 5: Ateliers céramiques (Bucharest). Conovici, N. 1998. Histria 8: Les Timbres Amphoriques. 2: Sinope (Bucharest/Paris). Debidour, M. 1999. Les timbres amphoriques thasiens de type récente. Méthodologie, chronologie et interprétation, 2 vols. (Dissertation, University of Lyon 2). Dietler, M. 2002. ‘L’Archéologie du colonialisme: consommation, emmêlement culturel, et rencontres coloniales en Méditerranée’. In Lurgeon, L. (ed.) Regards croisés sur le métissage (Quebec): 135-84. Dietler, M. 2005. ‘The Archaeology of Colonization and the Colonization of Archaeology. Theoretical Challenges from an Ancient Mediterranean Colonial Encounter’. In Stein, G. (ed.) The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives (Santa Fe, NM): 33-68. Dolea, A. 2016. ‘The Roof Tiles Found at Açik Suhat– Caraburun (Baia, Tulcea County, Romania). Preliminary Results’. In Panaite, A., Cîrjan, R. and Capiţă, C. (eds) Moesica et Christiana: Studies in Honour of Professor Alexandru Barnea (Bucharest): 259-64. Dupont, P. 2014. ‘Vernis Noir du Pont Gauche. Premiers résultats archéométriques’. In Povalahev, N. (ed.) Phanagoreia und darüber hinaus....Festschrift für Vladimir Kuznetsov (Göttingen): 347-56. Dupont, P. and Baralis, A. 2014. ‘Ateliers céramiques et réseaux d’échanges dans le Sud-Ouest de la mer Noire à l’époque classique et au début de l’époque hellénistique’. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 138.1: 387-428. Dupont, P., Baralis, A. and Lungu V. 2016. ‘Caraburun apud Orgame. The pottery assemblage of the archaic period’. In Eminako, International Colloquium in Memory of Valentina Vladimirovna Krapivina ‘Forum of Olbia’ (Kiev): 65-76. Finkielsztejn, G. 2001. Chronologie détaillée et révisée des éponymes amphoriques rhodiens, de 270 a 108 av. J.-C. (Oxford). Garlan, Y. 1999. Les Timbres Amphoriques de Thasos 1. Timbres protothasiens et thasiens anciens (Athens/ Paris). Garlan, Y. 2004-05. ‘En visitant et revisitant les ateliers amphoriques de Thasos’. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 128-129: 269-329.

Gardiner-Garden, J. 1989. ‘Ateas and Theopompus’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 100: 29-40. Gramatopol, M. and Poenaru Bordea, G. 1968. ‘Amfore ştampilate din Tomis’. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 19.1: 41-61. Gramatopol, M. and Poenaru Bordea, G. 1970. Amphora Stamps from Callatis and South Dobroudja (Bucharest). Jöhrens, G. 2001. ‘Amphorenstempel hellenistischer Zeit aus Tanais’. Eurasia Antiqua 7: 367-479. Kats, V.I. 1994. Keramicheskie kleima Khersonesa Tavricheskogo (Saratov). Kats, V.I. 2003. ‘A New Chronology for the Ceramic Stamps of Herakleia Pontike’. In Bilde, P.G., Højte, J.M. and Stolba, V.F. (eds) The Cauldron of Ariantas: Studies Presented to A.N. Ščeglov on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday (Aarhus): 261-78. Lund, J. 2007. ‘The Circulation of Ceramic Fine Wares and Transport Amphorae from the Black Sea Region in the Mediterranean, c. 400 BC-AD 200’. In Gabrielsen, V. and Lund, J. (eds) The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional  and Interregional Economics Exchanges (Aarhus): 183-94. Lungu, V. 1991. ‘Nouveaux timbres amphoriques de Sarichio’. Dacia n.s. 35: 185-88. Lungu, V. 1992. ‘Circulaţia amphorelor ştampilate în zona Capul Dolojman’. Pontica 25: 69-97. Lungu, V. 2016. ‘Timbres amphoriques de l’habitat d’Orgame-Argamum (I)/Amphora stamps at Orgame-Argamum (I)’. Peuce n.s. 14: 43-78. Lungu, V. and Baralis, A. 2017. ‘Caraburun’. In Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România, Campania 2016 (Bucharest): 225-28. Lungu, V. and Baralis, A. 2018. Une possible localisation du vicus Quintionis à Açic Suhat, forthcoming. Lungu, V., Baralis, A., Iacob, M. et al. 2012. ‘Jurilovca’. In Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din Romania, Campania 2011 (Bucharest): 226-32. Monakhov, S.I. 2003. Grecheskie amphori v Prichernomor’e (Moscow). Mușat-Streinu, A. 2017. ‘Early Roman finds from Açic Suat (Caraburun, Baia, Tulcea county)’. Peuce n.s. 15: 279-94. Peters, K.F. 1867. ‘Grundlinien zur Geographie und Geologie der Dobrudscha’. Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaft in Wien, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse 27, Abt. 2: 83-144. Pick, B. 1898. Die antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands 1: Dacien und Moesien 1 (Berlin). Rotroff, S.I. 1997. The Athenian Agora 29: Hellenistic Pottery. Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material (Princeton). Sparkes, B.A. and Talcott, L. 1970. The Athenian Agora 12: Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B.C. (Princeton). Steinhauer, G. 2006. ‘La restauration du monument funéraire de Kallithea’. In Lungu, V., Simion, G. and Topoleanu, F. (eds) Pratiques funéraires et 95

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity manifestations de l’identité culturelle (Age du Bronze et Age du Fer) (Tulcea): 145-50. Stoian, I. 1957. ‘În legătură cu vechimea teritoriului rural al Histriei’. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 8.1-4: 183200.

Teleagă, E. 2008. Griechische Importe in den Nekropolen an der unteren Donau (6. Jh- Anfang des 3. Jhs. v. Chr (Rahden). Tzochev, C. 2016. The Athenian Agora 37: Amphora Stamps from Thasos (Princeton).

96

Northern Black Sea

97

98

The Chronology of Arrowhead and Dolphin-Shaped Monetary Signs from Berezan Dmitry Chistov Abstract The paper is devoted to the problems of the chronology of cast monetary signs – bronze arrowhead coins and dolphin coins. The study was carried out on the basis of a representative sample of 648 monetary signs of both above-mentioned types, found during excavations of the north-eastern part of the Archaic settlement on Berezan island from 2004 to 2016. Finds associated with reliably dated structures and layers were distributed according to the periods and phases of the site’s stratigraphic sequence, which covers the time from the early 6th up to the third quarter of the 5th century BC. Finds from Berezan indicate that both dolphin- and arrowhead monetary signs came into circulation not earlier than the middle of the 6th century BC. Apparently, if a chronological interval between the beginning of arrowhead and dolphin-shaped signs production existed, it was very short, and might be placed within the end of the second-third quarter of the 6th century BC. Arrowhead monetary signs were in circulation along with dolphin signs throughout the second half of the 6th century BC, but then went out of circulation at the beginning or during the first half of the 5th century BC. The distribution of individual series of both monetary sign-types according to stratigraphic phases does not give a picture of consistent interchange of separate series over time. As previously suggested by scholars, several series of dolphin-shaped monetary signs were present in circulation simultaneously. The only exceptions are dolphin-shaped signs of the late ‘D’ group, most of which were found in structures of the Classical period ΙΙΙ (middle-third quarter of the 5th century BC).

Ruban and Ursalov determined that arrowhead coins circulated in the first half of the 6th century BC, and linked production with the Berezan settlement, while they dated the dolphin coins from the second half of the 6th to the first two-thirds of the 5th century BC.3

The issue of the chronology of two main types of cast monetary (or pre-monetary) signs in the north-eastern Pontic region in the Archaic and Early Classical period – bronze arrowhead coins and dolphin coins – has not received significant progress over past decades. Existing classifications of these signs does not permit judgment about the chronology of certain types because they do not fully reflect the existing diversity. Moreover, thanks to the discovery of hoards of both arrowhead and dolphin coins, simultaneous treatment of some (or most) of the selected groups was undertaken.1

The present study is based on quite a representative sample: 641 cast coin signs found in the course of excavations in the north-eastern part of Berezan Island (sector ‘O-Western’) between 2004 and 2016 (Fig. 1). Arrowhead coins made up about one-third of this sample (30.7%), and ‘dolphins’ the rest (69.3%). Some 21.5% of the total number of dolphin and arrowhead signs were found in the upper layers, and in a few structures from Hellenistic and Roman times, being an accidental admixture from the earlier Archaic layers.

To date, almost no attempts have been made to establish the chronology of individual types of cast arrowhead and dolphin money, based not on the composition of individual hoards or stylistic observations but on a mass of archaeological material from well-documented contexts. The only example of the latter approach is the article by V.V. Ruban and V.N. Ursalov, in which they map the finds of arrowhead and dolphin cast signs within the territory of the Olbian chora, and compare the result with the chronology of the settlements in which they were found. The distribution zones of the two types were found to be different: whereas finds of arrowhead coins are confined to a relatively small territory from the lower reaches of the Berezanski Liman estuary to the mouth of the Southern Bug Liman, dolphin coins are spread throughout the Lower Bug region.2 Based on the dating of settlements and the lack of hoards in which arrowheads and dolphins were found together,

Finds from the fill of structures dated to the 6th5th centuries BC, as well as from well-dated contexts associated with buildings of the Archaic and Classical periods, were allocated according to stratigraphic periods and phases4 which correlate with these structures and layers. The ratio of arrowhead and dolphin coins within certain periods and phases allows important observations concerning their mutual chronology to be made (Fig. 2). The first period, from the end of the 7th to approximately the mid-6th century BC, is characterised by a relatively Ruban and Ursalov 1986: 50. For the current periodisation of Berezan Island, see Chistov et al. 2012: 6-7, 120-23; Chistov 2016: 7-8. 3 

Balabanov 1979; Lapin 1971; Zolotaryov 1997: 143. 2  Ruban and Ursalov 1986: 32-33. 1 

4 

99

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 1. Summary table of the finds of arrowhead and dolphin-shaped monetary signs (Berezan settlement, sector O-Western, excavations of 2004-2016).

trend developed in the next phase, ΙΙ-Β (stages 1-2), which corresponds to the last quarter or end of the 6th century BC through to the beginning of the second quarter of the 5th century BC. With a comparable number of finds (176), the proportion of arrowhead coins is reduced to 27%, with dolphin coins increased. In structures of the Classical period (ΙΙΙ), few on Berezan,5 finds of the arrowhead coins make up only 13%. These data do not allow one to judge the supposedly diachronic circulation of the two main types of cast monetary signs on Berezan, supposed by Ruban and Ursalov. The dramatic increase in the number of finds from the third quarter of the 6th century BC definitely associates Figure 2. The comparative ratio between the finds of them with the period of existence arrowhead and dolphin-shaped monetary signs by of the urbanised settlement (colony) chronological periods and phases. founded then. A significant part of the finds of cast monetary signs small number of cast monetary signs. In the structures in dugouts and storage pits of the first period can be of that period only 55 monetary signs were found: 30 occasional admixtures from later strata. Often in the arrowhead coins (55%) and 25 dolphin coins (45%). course of excavation, levelling layers can be found, The following, significantly shorter phase ΙΙ-Α (which filling the upper parts of storage pits and dugouts of the apparently corresponds to a period of several decades third quarter of the 6th century BC. Therefore, some from the 540s until the last quarter of the 6th century of the items dated to the time of mass construction of BC) is marked by a dramatic growth of the number houses of mud-brick and stone, could appear within of cast monetary signs: 195 were found in structures earlier assemblages. In some cases, nevertheless, series belonging to this phase. It is noteworthy that the share of dolphin coins was already considerably more 5  Solovyov 1999: 98-99; Chistov et al. 2012: 105-06; Chistov and Ilyna significant than that of arrowheads (63.6%: 36.4%). This 2015. 100

D. Chistov: The Chronology of Arrowhead and Dolphin-Shaped Monetary Signs from Berezan of arrowhead coins were found on the floor levels of early dugouts. Such finds allow one to assume the beginning of their circulation on Berezan as early as the second quarter (or middle) of the 6th century BC.6

BC, in fact, eliminates the possibility of their West Pontic origin. The concentration of finds of this type of coin in the area of Berezanski Liman12 also links their emission with the Berezan settlement. Unlike in the modernday territories of Romania and Bulgaria, big hoards of arrowhead cast monetary signs are not known in the vicinity of Olbia and Berezan. The single small hoard of them from the Olbian chora was found on the western shore of Berezanski Liman.13 Two small ‘current expenses’ hoards, consisting of 11 arrowhead coins each, were found at the Berezan settlement in 1977 and 2013. Both originate from edifices dated to the second half of the 6th century BC.14 Arrowhead signs are also well known among the archaeological finds from the Olbia excavations,15 although their amounts in the cultural layers of Olbia are not comparable with Berezan. On the other hand, the assortment of types of arrowhead coins from Berezan settlement is almost identical to one of the known West Pontic hoards,16 i.e. the same types were cast in different western and north-western Pontic centres simultaneously. Nevertheless, the period of emission of arrowhead signs in the Lower Bug region could have a much shorter duration than in West Pontic poleis, especially Apollonia and Histria, which probably were the origin of this tradition.17 Some of the earliest finds of arrowhead coins within the contexts of the first half of the 6th century BC could also have West Pontic not local origin. However, this will be difficult to prove, since the composition of the copper alloy of arrowhead coins found on Berezan indicates a western origin for the metal from which they were cast.18

Thus, if there were a chronological gap between the beginning of the circulation of arrowhead and dolphin coins, its duration was very short: mass production of the first series of dolphins definitely took place in the third quarter of the 6th century BC. Taking into account our current concept of the rapid urbanisation of the Berezan settlement during the 540s BC,7 the distribution of this new type of cast monetary signs within Berezan as in Olbia is logically associated with the second colonisation wave and the cult of Apollo Delphinius’ gaining a leading role in the region.8 However, available data give no unambiguous answer to the question of when circulation of arrowhead coins ceased. The decrease in their ratio in phase ΙΙ-Β can be regarded as indirect confirmation of the fact that in the first half of the 5th century BC they were no longer used at Berezan. Nevertheless, the probability of synchronous circulation of two types of cast monetary signs in the Lower Bug region in the second half of the 6th century BC is very high. For the middle-third quarter of the 5th century BC, the absence of arrowhead coins in circulation can be considered proven by their negligible appearance in the structures of this time. As a justification for the rather late date for arrowhead coins being in use, the famous graffiti from Olbia, published by B.N. Grakov,9 is usually cited. The point of the frivolous inscription is the charge of 11 ‘arrows’ for the sexual services of Hefaestodoros. According to Grakov, this young man himself acts as a prize for playing kottabos. However, the black-glazed skyphos with this inscription is dated not to the late 6th-early 5th century BC, as believed by Grakov,10 but rather to the second quarter-middle of the 5th century BC,11 i.e. to the time when arrowhead coins should already have gone out of circulation.

The sample at our disposal also makes it possible to trace the occurrence of various types of arrowhead and dolphin coins within certain stratigraphic periods and phases. However, it should be noted that assigning a particular item to a particular type is not always Ruban and Ursalov 1986: 32-33. Zaginailo 1982. 14  The hoard of 1977 briefly described in Naumov 1990. This assemblage consisted of 11 arrowhead signs: one of type 1 (α); three of type 2A (β); and seven of type 2 (β). I am grateful to S.L. Solovyov for the opportunity to study the composition of this hoard together with the hoard of dolphin-shaped coins, found in 1983 (both in the collection of the State Hermitage Museum). The hoard of 2013 is still unpublished, mentioned in Krutilov et al. 2014: 193. It consisted only of type 2 (β) signs of laurel-leaf shape (I am grateful to V.V. Krutilov for this information). 15  Skudnova 1956. 16  Aricescu 1975, pls. I-IV; Balabanov 1979; Poenaru-Bordea and Oberlander-Tarnoveanu 1980. The distribution of types within each hoard may not show the same picture as the Berezan statistics. For example, in the hoard from Constanta (ancient Tomis peninsular area) among 141 arrowhead coins found in an Ionian olpe the ‘α’ type was represented by 33.6% of finds, ‘β’ type by 16.8% and ‘γ’ type by 37.6% (Talmaţchi and Papuc 2007: 12-16). 17  The period of arrowhead coin circulation in the West Pontic region has been placed in a very wide chronological framework: from the late 7th to the 4th centuries BC (Topalov 2007: 129-58; Balabanov 2011: 168); as well as to the much narrower chronological frame of the mid-6th to mid-5th centuries BC. The narrower dates are better supported by archeological contexts (Talmaţchi and Papuc 2007: 2022). 18  Olgovskii 1986. 12  13 

The significant share of arrowhead-shaped coins within the total of cast monetary signs in the layers of Berezan settlement dated to the second half of the 6th century To date, only a few structures of the first period are known, with numerous finds of arrowhead coins which could not be explained as accidental admixtures. Among them are rounded dugout no. 77 (five arrowhead coins of types 1 and 2 were found on its floor level) and oval dugout no. 39, dated to the second quarter-middle of the 6th century BC. The fill of the latter contained three arrowhead coins (two of them of the type 2, one poorly preserved). Also in each of several dugouts (nos. 27, 31 and 35) and storage pits of the first period (nos. 65, 227, 244) two arrowhead coins were found. 7  Chistov 2016: 7; Chistov et al. 2012: 72, 120-21. 8  Anokhin 1989: 8; Rusyaeva 2005: 210-11; Vinogradov 1989: 80. 9  Grakov 1968; 1971. 10  Grakov 1968: 115, fig. 4. 11  Cf. Sparkes and Talcott 1970, fig. 4, no. 359. 6 

101

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 3. Types of the arrowhead cast signs, found on Berezan: 1-5 – type 1 (α), 6-13 type 3 (γ), 14-18 – type 2A, 19-26 – type 2 (β), 27-28 – type 2B.

possible since we are dealing with material originating from archaeological layers. Unlike the finds from hoards, cast monetary signs from such contexts have a different condition. Thus, for example, it is noted that the cast coins from the fire destruction layers of the last quarter of the 6th century BC had the worst preservation. Many of them came in a fragmented, deformed or highly oxidised state. For this reason, it was necessary to exclude indefinable or defective coins from consideration (these constitute up to 8.5% of relevant finds). Also, I shall not consider the two-bladed bronze combat arrowheads with chopped off points, which are represented in arrowhead coins hoards and which, undoubtedly, were used for the same purpose.19 In the case of isolated finds of such arrowheads in the cultural layers of the site, no one can be sure that the point has been cut off deliberately.

arrowhead coins in the form of a willow leaf, frequently with central and two very noticeable lateral ribs (Fig. 3.15).20 The most widespread, type 2 (β), includes signs of laurel-leaf shape (Fig. 3.14-26);21 and type 3 (γ) includes wide arrowhead coins of an angular or rhomboid form (Fig. 3.6-13).22 In the composition of our sample, there are also laurel-leaf-shaped arrowhead coins with relief ornament in the form of ribs that intersect the blade at an angle to the central shaft (Fig. 3.14-18)23 – on the table and diagrams they are designated type 2A (Figs. 1, 4-5). Also, among our finds, there were no examples of arrowhead coins with alphabetic or symbolic designations (images of a wheel, an anchor, a fish), as known for Apollonia Pontica.24 The finds of such cast signs have never been reliably recorded during archaeological research on Berezan. Another rare type, an arrowhead coin with a forked shaft in the form of a fish tail,25 is represented by a few finds (Fig. 3.27-28). These are designated type 2Β, because their shape, on the whole, is closer to the second, ‘laurel leaf ’ type.

For the distribution of arrowhead coins by type, the classification developed by Bulgarian and Romanian scholars on the basis of known hoards was used, also the similar classification proposed by P.O. Karyshkovskii. In accordance with them, arrowhead coins fall into three main groups. Type 1 (α) includes elongated narrow

Karyshkovskii 1988: 31, fig. 3.1; Poenaru Bordea and OberländerTârnoveanu 1980: 144-45, fig. 2.1-7. 21  Karyshkovskii 1988: 31, fig. 3.2; Poenaru Bordea and OberländerTârnoveanu 1980: 144-45, fig. 2.8-14. 22  Karyshkovskii 1988: 31, fig. 3.3; Poenaru Bordea and OberländerTârnoveanu 1980: 144-45, fig. 2.15-21. 23  Cf. Karyshkovskii 1988: 31, fig. 3.5. 24  Topalov 2007: 150-56. 25  Cf. Balabanov 2011: 178, fig. 7v; Pivorovich 2010, fig. III.1. 20 

19  Cf. Talmaţchi 2010 fig. 3.3-4. In the Consanta hoard such arrowheads had a share more than a 10% of total amount of monetary signs (Talmaţchi and Papuc 2007: 12).

102

D. Chistov: The Chronology of Arrowhead and Dolphin-Shaped Monetary Signs from Berezan

Figure 4. The distribution of types of arrowhead cast signs within the whole sample of 2004-2016.

Figure 5. The distribution of types of arrowhead cast signs according to chronological periods and phases.

The statistical distribution of dolphin coins from our sample across types is more problematic due to the variety of forms and the lack of an established classification. The classification of L.P. Kharko26 was taken as a basis, also with the one used by Karyshkovskii27 and, with certain additions, by V.V. Lapin.28 Group 1 (A)29 refers to small dolphins with the treatment of the body by a contoured schematic line and a straight tail, the opposite side of which is often flat (Fig. 6.1-5). Group 2 (group B of Kharko;30 B-B1

Among the 146 arrowhead coins distributed over the types listed above, the most numerous group is formed by arrows of type 2 in the form of a laurel leaf: they account for approximately 61%, while coins in form of a willow leaf (type 1) are about 17%. The results of the distribution of types according to stratigraphic phases, presented in Fig. 5, indicate that all the types described above obviously coexisted, with the prevalence of type 2 arrows remaining unchanged for each phase. Wide arrowhead signs of type 3, apparently, are most characteristic for the last two quarters of the 6th century BC. ‘Fish-like’ arrowhead coins of type 2B were encountered only in contexts of the Late Archaic phase II-B, but this could be an accident explained by their small number.

Kharko 1964. Karyshkovskii 1988: 34-37. 28  Lapin 1971. 29  Kharko 1964: 324, tab. Ι. 30  Kharko 1964: 325, tab. ΙΙ. 26  27 

103

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 6. Main groups of dolphin-shaped monetary signs, found on Berezan. 1-5 – group1 (A), 6-17 – group 2 (B), 18-22 – group 4 (V), 23-40 –group 3 (G), 41-47 – group 5 (D).

according to Lapin31) includes dolphin coins with a more embossed body, a characteristic notch in the lower part, and a curved tail (Fig. 6.6-22). Group 3 (G)32 includes socalled ‘realistic’ or ‘pretentious’ dolphins with a curved body (Fig. 6.28-45). It should be noted that this group is the least homogeneous, and is represented by a large number of various series, very different in size, profiling, bend of the body, etc. Group 4 (V)33 consists

of so-called ‘fish-like’ or ‘arrow-like’ dolphins (Fig. 6.2327). Group 5 (D)34 includes the latest dolphin coins – of small size with a schematic ‘degraded’ interpretation of the body (Fig. 6.46-52). Among 315 definable dolphin coins, the most numerous group (44.8%) are ‘realistic’ dolphins of the third type (Fig. 7). Almost as numerous are dolphin coins of group 2 (B) (39.7%). The dolphins of groups 1, 4 and 5 are much less common, each forming 4-6% (Fig. 7). The

Lapin 1971: 44, figs. 1-2. Kharko 1964: 328, tab. ΙV; Lapin 1971: 46, fig. 3. 33  Kharko 1964: 326, tab. ΙΙΙ; Lapin 1971, fig. 2. 31  32 

34 

104

Kharko 1964: 329, tab. V; Lapin 1971, fig. 4.

D. Chistov: The Chronology of Arrowhead and Dolphin-Shaped Monetary Signs from Berezan

Figure 7. The distribution of types of dolphin-shaped monetary signs within the whole sample of 2004-2016.

Figure 8. The distribution of types of dolphinshaped monetary signs according to chronological periods and phases.

Consequently, the entire period of issue could not be very long.36 Moreover, it is possible to draw some conclusions about the chronology of certain types. First of all, the rapid growth of the amount of late dolphins of the fifth (D) group in the structures of the middle and second half of the 5th century BC attracts attention, although a small numbers of them are also found in layers of Late Archaic Phase II-B (in earlier strata they do not occur at all). It is quite obvious that

distribution of types according to chronological phases (Fig. 8) can serve as yet another proof of the fact that dolphins, classified according to formal characteristics to different groups, were in circulation at the same time, as also indicated by their joint finds in hoards.35 Four known hoards of dolphin-shaped monetary signs from Berezan included dolphins of various groups: Lapin 1971; Zolotaryov 1997; Nazarov 2004; Chistov et al. 2012: 113, 280, tab.114.25. The two biggest hoards, found in 1962 (Lapin 1971) and 1983 (Zolotaryov 1997), consisted of 171 and 31 dolphin coins respectively. The first one contained 11 dolphins of group 1 (A), 33 of group 2 (B-B1), 120 of group 3 (G) and four of group 5 (D). The last ones (Lapin 1971: 48, fig. 4) should rather be attributed to variants of group 3 (G). The hoard of 1983 was found in Room 2 of House 2 in the north-western sector (about this house, see Solovyov 1999: 67-69). It consisted of

35 

three coins of group 1 (A), 11 of group 2(B) and 16 of group 3 (G). One more fragmented dolphin could be attributed to the ‘fish-like’ 4th (V) group. The other two hoards constitute a much smaller assemblages of 9-11 coins each, belonging to the same groups. 36  Lapin 1971: 42; Karyshkovskii 1988: 36.

105

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 9. 1 – Big dolphin coin: 2 – Cast segment coin.

this type of dolphin was produced in Olbia. The time of their emission fits the period of decline of the Berezan settlement, quit by most of its inhabitants in the second quarter of the 5th century BC.

In conclusion, let me briefly touch on the issue of the dating of large dolphin-shaped coins and the cast copper segments of trapezoidal form, now interpreted by many scholars as a kind of cast money.39 Since the finds of dolphins of large dimension and cast coin segments are rare enough, they are not reflected in the statistics above: only two such find were made within the O-Western sector during the excavations of 20042017. A large dolphin (Fig. 9.1) (8.5 x 2.6 cm, weighing 37.35 grammes) was found in the layer of 5th century BC, overlapping the remains of structures of phase IIB.40 This coin was cast one-sided; its form in general corresponds to the dolphin coins of the second (B) group. Also in 2017, a new find of a segmented coin (5.0 x 3.6 cm, weighing 49.52 grammes)41 was made in the same excavation sector, with the image of an arrowhead coin with ribs in the relief on one side, and a fish’s head (tuna?) on the other (Fig. 9.2).42 It was discovered in the destruction layer of a residential house of phase ΙΙ-A that was destroyed in a fire in the last quarter of the 6th century BC. Thus, it is very likely that the time of emission of such cast monetary signs falls within the third quarter or the beginning of the last quarter of the 6th century BC. This also supports current concepts of their dating.43

The questions of mutual chronology of other types of cast dolphin coins and their place of production are much more complicated. The ‘isolated’ group 2 (B), which does not fit stylistically into the line of development of other groups,37 appears to be present in structures of the entire second half of the 6th and the early 5th century BC. As for the supposed sequential development of forms from the ‘early’ types 1 and 2 to ‘realistic’ dolphins of the third type, our data does not confirm the possibility of such a consistent evolution. As we can see, already in the contexts of phase ΙΙ-Α, dated to the third quarter-beginning of the last quarter of the 6th century BC, ‘realistic’ dolphin coins of the third type make up more than half of all definable samples (Fig. 8). In addition, for the next Late Archaic phase, ΙΙ-Β, the number of dolphins of type 2 (B) is somewhat larger than of type 3 dolphins. Thus, it seems that the dolphins of the two first stylistic groups, from one side, and various series of the third type, from the other, were not links in one evolutionary chain, but represented two parallel series of cast coins issued in two different centres or groups of workshops. Since the ‘realistic’ type 3 (G) and the late type 5 (D) appear to belong to the same line of development of cast coins, which also includes the Olbian epigraphic dolphins of the ΑΡΙΧΟ and ΘΥ series,38 a link between ‘realistic’ series and the Olbian polis seems very likely. The diversity of the third type of dolphins seems to be explained by the fact that it includes various series of dolphin coins issued in the course of half a century or more. 37  38 

Bibliography Alekseev, V.P. 2010. ‘Novye varianty litykh monet Nizhnego Pobuzhya’. Stratum Plus 6: 122-31. Solovyov 2006 68-69; Pivorovich 2000: 121, fig. 4; Alekseev 2010: 123. 40  Chistov et al. 2012: 112, tab. 124.25a. 41  Known examples of these monetary signs have a wide range of weights; V. Alekseev suggested the existence of two denominations with the average weight 71 and 34.5 grammes (Alekseev 2010: 124). 42  Cf. the earlier find from Berezan (1989): Borisfen–Berezan 2005: 119, cat. 208. 43  Solovyov 2006: 67; Nazarov 2005. 39 

Lapin 1971: 49-50. Kharko 1964: 326-29.

106

D. Chistov: The Chronology of Arrowhead and Dolphin-Shaped Monetary Signs from Berezan Anokhin, V.A. 1986. ‘Monety-strelki’. In Rusyaeva, A.S., Kryzhitskii, S.D. and Mazarati, S.N. (eds) Olviya i ee okruga (Kiev): 68-89. Anokhin, V.A. 1989. Monety antichnykh gorodov SeveroZapadnogo Prichernomor’ya (Kiev). Aricescu, A. 1975. ‘Tezaurul de semne de schimb premonetare de la Enisala’. Studii şi cercetări de numismatică 6: 17-24. Balabanov, Р. 1979. ‘Nouvelles étude des monnaiespointes de fléches de la peninsule d’Athia’. Thracia Pontica 1: 40-47. Balabanov, Р. 2011. ‘Nemonetnye formy deneg v Skifii i Frakii’. Antichnyi mir i Arkheologiya 15 (Saratov): 16280. Borisfen–Berezan 2005. Borisfen–Berezan: Nachalo antichnoi epokhi v Severnom Prichernomor’e. K 120-letiyu arkheologicheskikh raskopok na ostrove Berezan (Exhibition Catalogue) (St Petersburg). Chistov, D. 2016. ‘Houses of the Berezan Settlement: Some Observations on the Features of Archaic Residential Buildings’. In Manoledakis, M. (ed.) The Black Sea in the Light of New Archaeological Data and Theoretical Approaches (Oxford): 7-28. Chistov, D.E. and Ilyna, Y.I. 2015. ‘Novye dannye o Berezanskom poselenii klassicheskogo perioda’. In Olbio: in memoriam V.V. Krapivina (= Arkheologiya i davnya istoriya Ukrainy 1/14) (Kiev): 230-50. Chistov, D.E., Zuev, V.Y., Ilina, Y.I., Kasparov, A.K. and Novoselova, N.Y. 2012. Materialy Berezanskoi (Nizhnebugskoi) antichnoi arheologicheskoi ekspeditsii 2: Issledovaniya na ostrove Berezan v 2005-2009 g.g. (St Petersburg). Grakov, B.N. 1968. ‘Legenda o skifskom tsare Ariante’. In Istoriya, arkheologiya ii etnografiya Srednei Azii. K 60-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya chl.-korr. AN SSSR S.P. Tolstova (Moscow): 101-16. Grakov, B.N. 1971. ‘Eshche raz o monetakh – strelkakh’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3: 125-27. Karyshkovskii, P.O. 1988. Monety Ol’vii. Ocherk denezhnogo obrashcheniya Severo-Zapadnogo Privchernomor’ya v antichnuiu epokhu (Kiev). Kharko, L.P. 1964. ‘Monety iz raskopok Olvii v 1946-1947 gg.’. In Gaidukevich, V.F. (ed.) Olviya, Temenos i agora (Moscow): 321-79. Krutilov, V.V., Smirnov, O.I. and Bondarenko, D.V. 2014. ‘Roskopki antichnogo poselennya Borisfen (o. Berezan) na dilyantsi “GSh”’. In Arkheologichni doslidzhennya v Ukraini 2013 (Kiev): 193-94. Lapin, V.V. 1971. ‘Gruppovaya nahodka ol’viiskikh “delfinov” na Berezani’. In Materialy po Arkheologii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya 7 (Odessa): 42-51. Naumov, V.I. 1990. ‘Klad monet-strelok iz raskopok 1977 na o. Berezan i problema vozniknoveniya monetnogo obrashcheniya v Pobuzhe i Podnestrove’. In Problemy istorii i arkheologii Nizhnego Podnestrovya 2 (BelgorodDnestrovskii): 61-62. Nazarov, V.V. 2004. ‘Eschce odna gruppovaya nakhodka delfinovidnykh monet na ostrove Berezan’. In

Kryzhitskii, S.D. and Nazarov, V.V. (eds) Borysthenika – 2004. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi koferentsii k 100-letiiu nachala issledovanii ostrova berezan E. R. fon Schternom (Nikolaev): 41-45. Nazarov, V.V. 2005. ‘Eshche raz ob odnoi gruppe arkhaicheskikh bronzovkh izdelii s Berezani’. In Radzikhovskaya, E.A. (ed.) Drevnee Prichernomor’ye (Odessa): 109-16. Olgovskii, S.Y. 1986. ‘Metall litykh monet Nizhnego Pobuzhya’. In Rusyaeva, S.N., Kryzhitskii, S.D. and Mazarati, S.N. (eds) Ol’viya i ee okruga (Kiev): 89-105. Pivorovich, V.B. 2000. ‘Drevneishie denezhnye znaki Sevenogo Prichernomor’ya’. Letopis’ Prichernomor’ya: literatura, istoriya, arkheologiya, numizmatika 4 (Kherson): 119-22. Poenaru Bordea, G. and Oberländer-Târnoveanu, E. 1980. ‘Contributions à ľétude des monnaies-pointes de flèche à la lumière des trésors de Jurilovca, dép. de Tulcea’. In Vulpe, R. (ed.) Actes du IIe Congrès International de Thracologie (Bucarest, 4-10 septembre 1976) 2: Histoire et Archéologie (Bucharest): 141-50. Ruban, V.V. and Ursalov, V. N. 1986. ‘Istoriya denezhnogo obrashcheniya na sel’skoi territorii Borisfenidy i Ol’vii dogetskogo vremeni’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 4: 31-53. Rusyaeva, A.S. 2005. Religiya pontiiskikh grekov v antichnuiu epokhu (Kiev). Skudnova, V.M. 1956. ‘Monety-strelki iz Ol’vii’. Soobshcheniya Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 10, 3839. Solovyov, S.L. 1999. Ancient Berezan. The Architecture, History and Culture of the First Greek Colony in the Northern Black Sea (Leiden/Boston/Cologne). Solovyov, S.L. 2006. ‘Monetary Circulation and the Political History of Archaic Borysthenes’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 12.1: 63-75. Sparkes, B.A. and Talcott, L. 1970. The Athenian Agora 12: Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B.C., 2 vols. (Princeton). Talmaţchi, G. 2010. ‘About Some Discoveries of Arrowheads – Monetary Signs in South-West Dobruja’. Pontica 43: 387-98. Talmaţchi, G. and Papuc, G. 2007. ‘The arrowhead monetary signs hoard, founded in Constanţa (Constanţa county)’. In Custurea, G., Dima, M. and Talmaţchi, G. (eds) Coin Hoards of Dobrudja, vol. 1 (Constanţa): 11-36. Topalov, S. 2007. Apoloniya Pontika: prinosi kam prouchvane monetosecheneto na grada VI-I v. pr. n.e. (Sofia). Vinogradov, Y.G. 1989. Poloticheskaya istoriya Ol’viiskogo polisa VII-I vv. do n.e. (Moscow). Zaginailo, A.G. 1982. ‘Kamenskii klad strelovidnykh monet’. In Numizmatika antichnogo Prichernomor’ya (Kiev): 20-27. Zolotaryov, M.I. 1997. ‘Novyi skarb ol’viiskikh delfinopodobnykh monet z raskopok na o. Berezan’. Arkheologiya (Kiev) 1: 141-44. 107

Essay on the Economy of Myrmekion in Pre-Roman Times Alexander Butyagin and Alexei Kasparov Abstract Economic issues have attracted much attention in Russian literature since the Soviet era, . Nevertheless, by now we have very general information on the economic life of the ancient Bosporus. Let us try to summarise our data on Myrmekion in preRoman times, when it was a town, starting with agriculture. The cultivation of grapes is recorded only for the Hellenistic period. In Myrmekion, many wineries have been identified, but their size suggests that they served primarily domestic use. During excavations, seeds of wheat, barley and other cereals were found, so too were agricultural tools – ards and grape-knives. Fishing is recorded by the large number of fish bones (primarily of sturgeon and carp), particularly great in the Late Archaic layers. Animal husbandry flourished, especially small cattle, but also large. Hunting is indicated by the presence of the bones of wild animals and birds. Traces of various industries are found. For the Archaic and Classical periods, various casting forms related to jewellery have been discovered. For the Classical period a bone-carving workshop using the bones of red deer was found. During the Hellenistic period, ‘Megarian’ bowls were made here. Standard finds are clay and lead weights. A lead letter is devoted to trade in clothing. Indirect evidence of wealth is the big hoard of Kizik electrum coins, a large monetary accumulation.

Since the beginning of the 20th century research on the northern Black Sea region has paid attention to the economic foundations of the Greek colonies. The first results of these studies were summarised in Viktor Gaidukevich’s Bosporskoe Tsarstvo (the Bosporan Kingdom).1 Great interest has been shown in the dynamics of amphora imports to the region, since this allows the intensity of the trade with one or another city of the northern Black Sea area to be assessed. Despite numerous works on, there remains much uncertainty about the economics of the Greek colonies. While a rough picture of trade can be presented, the role of each particular centre in the economic structure of the region often remains unclear.

In this short paper, we seek to outline the general directions of the economy of Myrmekion at a time period when it can be considered a town, or rather a small town, i.e. from the 5th to the 1st century BC but including some data from the pre-urban period of the 6th century BC, concentrating on livestock, hunting and agriculture. This is not completed research, but, in fact, the first attempt to summarise the available data on the economic opportunities of Myrmekion. First, we will review the data on agriculture, then hunting and fishing, and, finally, traces of production. Data on these branches of the economy are fragmentary and based on various sources, which affects our understanding of the general picture.

The ancient settlement of Myrmekion is situated on the northern shore of Kerch Bay (Fig. 1). It is located close to the capital of Bosporan kingdom, Panticapaeum, and it might have been an outer quarter, a suburb, separated from the city by water. Myrmekion had been founded in the first quarter of the 6th century BC and intermittently existed until the turn of the 3rd/4th centuries AD.2 During this time the settlement was repeatedly destroyed and restored. A serious change in its status took place after the middle of the 1st century BC, when the settlement was destroyed in the course of some events after the death of Mithridates VI Eupator. In the early 1st century AD Myrmekion was rebuilt, but not in the form of a city, rather as a system of large estates or farms close to each other (we might call it an elite village).3 Naturally, the economy of the settlement also changed radically.

As we know, agriculture was one of the foundations of the economy of ancient Greece. Cattle breeding at the settlement can be studied by the remains of ungulates. Since 1999, the expedition has been carefully recording all bone remains of animals. As a result, very representative material has been collected. Based on it, we can draw the following conclusions about the herd of Myrmekion in ancient times (Tables 1 and 2). Obviously, goats and sheep prevailed. They are 51% of the composition of the domestic ungulates bones. Cattle are significantly inferior to them, accounting for 34%. In addition, pig and horse bones are approximately 7% each. Horses were also was used for food, apparently, after they stopped being used as sled or draught animals. Donkey bones are very rare. In general, this picture is quite typical for the entire Mediterranean. Chicken also belonged to the domestic sphere and the number of bones is very significant.

Gaidukevich 1949: 349-438. Butyagin et al. 2003: 803-18. 3  Butyagin et al. 2003: 817-18. 1  2 

108

A. Butyagin and A. Kasparov: Essay on the Economy of Myrmekion in Pre-Roman Times Concerning agriculture, our data are based on the analysis of the grain remains found during excavations. The results of analysis have been published by Galina Pashkevich in a number of works.4 The main crops grown in ancient times were bare-grained wheat and barley; these are absolutely dominant in the samples. Such a composition of crops is typical for the diet of the Greeks of the Mediterranean.5 Besides, millet, einkorn wheat and emmer wheat, spelt and glumaceous barley also have been found. Moreover, the number of traces of rodent bites on the bones of animals Figure 1. Location of Myrmekion in the Kerch Peninsula. in well-dated layers is lower than in other settlements of the Bosporus, which Animal Bones % indicated the small quantity of grain stored in the Hedgehog 1 0.01 town. Legumes were cultivated, as indicated by large Hare 54 0.28 finds of the fruit of the bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia), and Ferret 2 0.01 some lentils and peas.6 Cat

27

0.14

Fox

41

0.21

Wild boar

4

0.02

Saiga

2

0.01

Red deer

9

0.05

Donkey

2

0.01

Horse

945

4.92 23.09

Cow

4433

Sheep

940

4.90

Goat

424

2.21

Sheep or Goat

5305

27.63

Pig

892

4.65 12.82

Dog

2461

Dolphin

308

1.60

Birds

810

4.22

Tortoise

4

0.02

Fish

2536

13.21

Total

19200

100.00

Animal

%

Donkey

0.02

Horse

7.3

Cow

34.3

Sheep

7.3

Goat

3.3

Sheep or Goat

41

Pig

6.9

An important aspect of the life of Hellenistic Myrmekion was viticulture. Finds of the fragments of iron grapeknives confirm its development. Grains of grapes were found in the layers of the settlement from the Archaic period. There are no traces of a winery on the Bosporus earlier than the end of the 4th century BC,7 but traces of no less than 12 from Hellenistic and Roman times have been found in Myrmekion. Their number allowed Gaidukevich to write of ‘Mirmekii – gorod vinodelov’ (Myrmekion – the city of winemakers) in 1966.8 Seven wineries belong to Greek times, not including finds of individual tarapans (small stone winepresses) of wineries. The capacity of their tanks is over 30,000 litres.9 It should be noted that two of the wineries are badly damaged and a few thousand litres could be added to the result. This scale of wine production indicates that it was exclusively for local needs. It should be noted that the average size of the Myrmekion wineries is slightly less than that for the cities of Bosporus, about 3800 litres compared with an average of 4500 litres for 19 wineries.10 This is not too surprising, as wineries from rural estates are larger in size (Fig. 2). Probably, they were producing wine for sale.

Table 1. Animals bones from the Myrmekion site (6th-1st centuries BC).

Table 2. Herd bones from the Myrmekion site (6th-1st centuries BC)

See bibliography in Pashkevich 2016: 292. Sarpaki 1992; Garnsey 1999: 13. 6  Pashkevich 2016: 224-32. 7  Pashkevich 2016: 230-31; Vinogradov 2005; Butyagin 2007: 25. 8  Gaidukevich 1966. 9  According to the data of Vinokurov 2007: 412-30. 10  We use the data of Vinokurov 2007: 416-18, 424. 4  5 

109

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 2. Myrmekion winery capacity.

Hunting, apparently, was not so important for inhabitants, which is quite natural inside a zone of dense human habitation. Nevertheless, among the animal bones there are sporadic finds of wild animals and birds. First place is taken by hare – a typical inhabitant of the steppe (it accounts for 48% of the bones of wild animals) – paired with its predator, the fox (36%). In addition wild boar, saiga, red deer and ferret were hunted (Table 3). Wild animals

%

Hedgehog

0.8

Hare

46.6

Ferret

1.7

Fox

35.3

Wild boar

3.4

Saiga

1.7

Red deer

7.8

Tortoise

3.4

vast majority of birds are waterfowl; more than two dozen species are represented. Among them the great cormorant, great crested grebe, mute swan, mallard, greylag goose and tufted duck prevail, and the northern gannet, which currently does not occur in the Crimea. Near ancient Myrmekion were thickets of reeds and the valley of a small river, where birds sought refuge.13 It is not excluded that city residents could trade a gamebird that had been preying near the city. There is no doubt that fishery played an important role in the economy of the Bosporan Greeks. Suffice it to say that on a 4th-century BC bronze coin of Panticapaeum there was an ear and a sturgeon.14 The fishing industry is identified by finds of hooks and weights for nets (stone and lead), as well as numerous fish bones that are represented in all layers of the settlement. Judging by the preliminary analysis, sturgeon and carp were of particular interest to the residents of Myrmekion. No traces of salting or fish drying have been found. Nevertheless, the proportion of fish bones, which reaches 13% of all bone finds, significantly exceeds that of other comparable settlements. The successful location of the settlement close to the straits brought a highly developed fishery. Fishing with nets is indirectly confirmed by the finds of dolphin bones, which were not extracted specially, but could fall into fishing nets accidentally.

Table 3. Wild animals bones from the Myrmekion site (6th-1st centuries BC).

The red deer is often represented by horns, which were used in bone carving.11 Birds apparently played a significant role in hunting. In general, bird bones form more than 4% of animal, bird and fish bones, which is a very significant part: they do not reach 3% in other settlements studied (including the ancient settlement of Nymphaeum and rural settlements).12 A third of them can be allocated to domestic chicken, but the scale of hunting is very impressive nonetheless. The 11  12 

As to manufacturing, at present no house or room that could be reliably associated with some craftsman

Peters 1986: 25-26. Kasparov 2017: 98-99.

13  14 

110

Butyagin and Chistov 2015: 29-30. Zograf 1951, taf. XL, 12.

A. Butyagin and A. Kasparov: Essay on the Economy of Myrmekion in Pre-Roman Times

Figure 3. The fragment of a mould for jewellery. Myrmekion, 4th century BC.

Figure 4. Examples of carved bones.

(coroplast, jeweller, etc.) has been found in Myrmekion. Finds of objects related to production are very rare and, usually, in a displaced form. The most frequent finds from domestic production are ceramic loom-weights and spindles, which served for home weaving.15 In addition, in a mixed layer, several small pyramidal lead loom-weights were recovered, but their dating and purpose are still problematic.

Apparently, the discharge of waste from bone carving (more precisely, products made from the red deer horn) is dated to the same time. About two dozen fragments carry traces of sawing, cutting and the use of a weaving loom for processing. This bone discharge was found during the 2017 season and needs additional study (Fig. 4). Furthermore, in a redeposited layer, a fragment of a clay mould for making ‘Megarian’ bowls has been found (Fig. 5). The fact that the grey moulded bowls were made in the Bosporus is long known,16 but no traces of their production in Myrmekion had been found hitherto. It is unlikely that the clay mould had been moved to the city from another place, so now the settlement can confidently be considered a place of production of ‘Megarian’ bowls.

The existence of jewellery production in Myrmekion is proved by the find of a large fragment of a mould from a pit of the first half of the 4th century BC (Fig. 3). Fragments of moulds were also discovered in Archaic and Hellenistic layers, which indirectly indicate that simple jewellery had been manufactured in the city constantly. 15 

Butyagin 2010.

16 

111

Kovalenko 1996.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity period antichnosti i srednevekov’ya. Remesla i promysly (Kerch): 50-54. Butyagin, A.M. and Chistov, D.E. 2006. ‘The Hoard of Cyzicenes and Shrine of Demeter at Myrmekion’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 12.1-2: 77132. Butyagin, A.M. and Chistov, D.E. 2015. ‘Paleorel’ef Karaninnogo mysa I arkhaicheskaya zastroika Mirmekiya’. In Zinko, V. (ed.) Bosporskie Chteniya 16: Bospor Kimmeriiskii i varvarskii mir v period antichnosti i srednevekov’ya. Geograficheskaya sreda i sotsium (Kerch): 29-37. Butyagin, A.M. and Treister, M.Y. 2006. ‘A bronze olpe from the Myrmekion hoard’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 12.1-2: 133-46. Butyagin, A.M., Vakhtina, M.Y. and Vinogradov, Y.A. 2003. ‘Myrmekion-Porthmeus. Two “small” towns of Ancient Bosporus’. In Grammenos, D.V. and Petropoulos E.K. (eds) Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, vol. 2 (Thessaloniki): 803-40. Gaidukevich, V.F. 1949. Bosporskoe Tsarstvo (Moscow/ Leningrad). Gaidukevich, V.F. 1966. ‘Mirmekii – gorod vinodelov’. In Bernhard, M.L. (ed.) Mélanges offerts à Kazimier Michalowski (Warsaw): 397-409. Garnsey, P. 1999. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge). Kasparov, A.K. 2017. ‘Mirmekii. Povsednevnaya zhizn’ i khozyaistvo obitatelei: izmeneniia vo vremeni’. Peripl: ot Borisfena do Bospora: materialy yubileinykh konferentsii (St Petersburg): 97-105. Kovalenko, S. 1996. ‘Some Notes on the Production of Hellenistic Mould–Made Relief Ware in the Bosporan Kingdom’ In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (еd.) New Studies on the Black Sea Littoral (Oxford): 51-57. Pashkevich, G.A. 2016. ‘Arkheobotanicheskie issledovaniya Bospora’. Bosposkie Issledovaniya 32: 205-99. Peters, B.G. 1986. Kostoreznoe delo v antichykh gosudarstvakh Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Moscow). Sarpaki, A. 1992. ‘The Paleoethnobotanical Approach. The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartet?’. In Wells, B. (ed.) Agriculture in Ancient Greece (Stockholm): 6176. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2005. ‘K izucheniiu zeren kulturnykh rastenii, naidennykh v Mirmekii’. In Khersonesskii sbornik 14 (Sevastopol): 94-98. Vinokurov, N.I. 2007. Vinogradorstvo i vinodelie antichnykh gosudarstv Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Simferopol/ Kerch). Zograf, A.N. 1951. Antichnye monety (Moscow/ Leningrad).

Figure 5. The fragment of a clay mould for making ‘Megarian’ bowls. Myrmekion, 3rd-2nd centuries BC.

In general, we can conclude that during the period of Mymekion’s existence as a city, the same branches of production as in other Greek cities of the Mediterranean developed. Hunting and fishing flourished more than in other neighbouring settlements thanks to the successful location of Myrmekion. Surprising for a small town are the traces of manufacture of jewellery, bone-carving and ‘Megarian’ bowls. Apparently, Myrmekion’s proximity to Panticapaeum, the capital of the Bosporan kingdom, determined the location of a number of workshops there. The discovery in the course of the 2003 season of a hoard of 99 Cyzican electrum staters, a significant number, indirectly attests the wealth of local residents.17 They were found in a small bronze olpe,18 buried in the second quarter of the 4th century BC. It seems that the economic opportunities of Myrmekion played an important role in the accumulation of this money. Bibliography Butyagin, A.M. 2007. ‘Archaic Myrmekion’. In Solovyov, S.L. (ed.) Greeks and Natives in the Cimmerian Bosporus, 7th-1st Centuries BC (Oxford): 22-25. Butyagin, A.M. 2010. ‘Proizvodstvo i ispol “zovanie pyramidal” nykh keramicheskikh gruzil na antichnom Bospore’. In Zinko, V. (ed.) Bosporskie Chteniya 11: Bospor Kimmeriiskii i varvarskii mir v

17  18 

Butyagin and, Chistov 2006: 77-89. Butyagin and Treister 2006.

112

The Necropolis of Porthmion (from the Excavations of 2004-2013) M.Y. Vakhtina and P.G. Stolyarenko Abstract The joint Porthmion archaeological expedition of the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine (until 2009; after 2014, the Porthmion section of the Bosporan expedition of the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences) studied the ancient settlement of Porthmion and its necropolis in the eastern Crimea. In 2004, investigation began in the area of the necropolis, situated to the west of the settlement. These excavations were basically of a rescue-conservation nature. They revealed burials of different types – individual inhumations in simple pits or in pits lined with stone slabs, as well as collective burials in crypts made with worked slabs of local limestone. These tombs are richly furnished in comparison with the other types of burials. Among the offerings found were numerous examples of red and grey pottery, clay figurines, beads, bronze objects (rings, bracelets, and mirrors), coins and small fragments of golden leaves belonged to funeral wreaths. The majority of the excavated complexes belong to the Late Hellenistic period. Most of those buried at Porthmion necropolis were placed in graves with their heads towards the east; the funeral rite was obviously Greek.

identify the edges of the burial pits, while bone- and pottery finds are frequently in rather bad condition. For the same reason it is impossible to identify the upper parts of the limestone crypts here, because in all cases the coverings had been destroyed.

Ancient Porthmion is one of the so-called ‘small towns’ of the Greek Bosporan kingdom. Information about it and its location is provided by both Classical and Late Antique literary sources. Porthmion is usually identified with the remains of a settlement found in the north-eastern part of the Kerch Peninsula (eastern Crimea) on a small rocky elevation close to the shore of the Straits of Kerch. The foundation of the town took place around the middle of the 6th century BC and it came to an end in the 1st century BC. Although excavation of the site began in 1953, the necropolis remained unexplored until the beginning of the present century. It was situated to the west and southwest to the town (Fig. 1). Between the settlement and the territory of the necropolis there is a cleft in the landscape, which in spring and autumn becomes a small river. This river seems to have been a marker in antiquity of the distinction between the world of the living and that of the dead.

Burial construction types Burials excavated at the Porthmion necropolis can be divided into three types. The most basic and fairly common were burials made in simple grave pits. Here we shall give briefly examples of every type. Simple Pit Burials. This type was widespread in the Greek colonies of the northern Pontus and constitutes the majority of the burials opened there. Porthmion burial pits contained only one body each and had a rather poor burial inventory. The remains of Burial 1 (Fig. 2.1) measured 2.3 x 1.2 m, at a depth of 0.7 m from the modern surface. The remains of a covering made of a slab of local limestone (1.09 x 0.78 m; 0.12 m. thick) were identified in the south-eastern part of the burial. To its south-west a narrow slab erected vertically was found (0.3m x 0.2 m; 0.13 m thick). The two slabs probably belonged to the construction of the cover. The burial contained the fragmented skeleton of an adult (male, aged 20-35 years). The skull was discovered under the slab in the eastern part of the burial covered with large blocks of local limestone. The burial had been robbed almost completely, so that only several fragments of Hellenistic transport amphorae were found – part of a double-barrelled handle of an amphora from Cos. The handle dates the burial to the 2nd-first half of the 1st century BC.

The first discoveries were made near where a lot of soil had been removed early in the 1950s, to be used in the construction of Port Crimea nearby.1 It was at this place in 2004 that the first burials were revealed. Further investigation showed that this part of the necropolis, situated to the west of the town, contained largely burials of the later centuries of the settlement’s existence.2 Burial complexes excavated here date from the second half of the 4th century down to the 1st century BC. The land in the area has suffered much from long-term ploughing. In consequence, we often cannot Veselov 2005: 14-16. On discoveries in the area of Porthmion necropolis, see Vakhtina and Stoyanov 2006; Vakhtina and Stolyarenko 2013; 2014; 2017. 1  2 

113

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 1. Porthmion necropolis (view from the south-west). The remains of the ancient town are on the hill in the background.

In most of the cases the bodies in such pits were placed on their back, in an extended posture, oriented to the east. Only a few exceptions have been identified. In Burial 2 the body, a woman aged about 30, was oriented to the west-north-west (Fig. 2.2). In the layer above the pit were found fragments of red clay vessels, a fragment of the rim of a Chian amphora and a handle of a Heraclean amphora. The burial also contained beads of several types. It can be dated to the 2nd-1st centuries BC. Burial 6, in an oval pit (1.25 x 0.65 m at a depth of 0.7 m from the modern surface), was oriented on a north-south axis and contained the remains of a woman aged 35-40, with her head to the north (Fig. 3.1). The posture of the body shows that at Porthmion necropolis the custom of burying the dead in a crouched position was also practised. The burial has no goods, though in the fill of the pit were found a local Bosporan coin of the 4th century BC and a bronze three-edged arrowhead. There has been much discussion about how to interpret such burials with regard to their possible social or ethnic attribution.

the northern wall of the pit, was 1.27 x 0.25 x 0.41 m in size. In general, the construction gives the impression that whatever materials were to hand were used: the builders probably did not make the blocks specially, but took such stones as they could find. In this regard the cists differ from the crypts of the necropolis, which were made of substantial limestone blocks, similar in dimension and manufacture. This burial had been robbed and contained few goods. Among these were an unworked pebble, a small fragment of a so-called Megarian cup and a piece of the shell of a deep-sea scallop. Crypts constitute the next burial type at the Porthmion necropolis, the most complicated and interesting burial constructions. Ten have been uncovered so far. They were built with large blocks of local limestone, with worked inner faces. All the crypts were oriented on an east-west axis. They consisted of a corridor/dromos and a burial chamber. In all excavated crypts the dromos led to the chamber from the west side. Each dromos had an earth floor, whereas the floors in the chambers were covered with limestone blocks. The dimensions and proportions of these constructions differed. It is possible to distinguish large crypts from smaller ones. The length of the chamber usually was approximately 2 m; the width ranged between 1 and 1.5 m for smaller examples and about 2 m for the bigger ones.

As to more complicated constructions, we have also Cist burials. These consist of walls at the sides of the burial, covered with stone slabs and with an earthen floor. Burials of this type could contain one or more individuals. For example, Cist 1, one of the best preserved (Fig. 3.2), contained the remains of a woman and two children. It was oriented on an east-west axis. Its outer dimensions were 2.06 x 0.88 m, its inner 1.81 x 0.4-0.68 m. The floor was earth, covered with small pieces of limestone. The walls of the pit were edged with small limestone blocks of rectangular shape. Only the eastern, northern and western sides survived for excavation; from the southern side most of the stones had been removed, perhaps in ancient times. The slabs differed in scale; the biggest one, placed at

These stone burial crypts usually contained the remains of about ten individuals, buried at different times, which shows that the complexes were reused and allows the suggestion that they may well have served as family vaults. In almost all cases the bodies were placed on the floor of the chamber with their heads towards the east. All the crypt complexes had been disturbed at least twice – in ancient and in modern times. Thus, the 114

M.Y. Vakhtina and P.G. Stolyarenko: The Necropolis of Porthmion

Figure 2. Burials in pits. 1 – Burial 1; 2 – Burial 2.

bones are usually uncovered in a state of disarray in the fill inside the chambers. Only at the bottom is it possible to locate bones in situ. Although the burial chambers had been robbed, what remains of their goods reflects the rather high material living standards of some citizens in this small Bosporan town. Among the goods in crypts simple pottery predominates. We usually find numerous fragments of red and grey pottery (jugs, cups, plates, toilette vessels). There are also beads, fragments of bronze ornamentation (such as rings and bracelets) and terracotta figurines. Local coins found in the crypts were discovered mostly among the bones of the skull. Perhaps originally they were put in the

mouths of the dead – the so-called Charon’s obol. No amphora fragments have been found inside the crypts, in the fill of the dromos or in the chambers. However, investigation of layers above the crypts revealed traces of funeral feasts, namely amphora fragments and burnt animal bones. Crypt 1 is one of the best-preserved examples (Fig. 4.1),3 though its upper part had been destroyed by agriculture. The crypt had been robbed, but The excavations of Crypts 1 and 2 were carried out under the supervision of R.V. Stoyanov.

3 

115

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 3. 1 – Pit burial 6; 2 – Cyst burial 1.

fragments of local table- and kitchenware remained, dated to the 3rd-2nd centuries BC.4 Among these were some examples of handmade vessels, showing analogies to Scythian pottery of the 3rd-1st centuries BC. 4 

From the level above the crypt there were fragments of fish plates of the late 3rd-first half of the 2nd century BC, of plates of the 3rd-1st centuries BC, of cups decorated with relief ornament of the late 3rd-2nd century BC and toilette vessels dated to the same period.5 Probably

Vakhtina and Stoyanov 2006: 191, fig. 9.

5 

116

Vakhtina and Stoyanov 2006: 190, fig. 8.

M.Y. Vakhtina and P.G. Stolyarenko: The Necropolis of Porthmion

Figure 4. 1 – Crypt 1; 2 – Crypt 2.

some of these finds are to be connected with one or more funeral feasts at the complex(es).

found; it had evidently been relocated there from the chamber to clear space for the more recently deceased. Two beads were found close to these remains. There was a step between this corridor and the chamber. The chamber was 1.85 m in length and 0.75 m in width. The maximum preserved height in its eastern part (where the masonry survived up to the third course) reached

The dimensions of the dromos were 1.02 x 1.1 m. Its sides were marked by two large blocks of limestone, leading to the entrance of the chamber, decorated by a kind of pilasters. Here the remains of a skeleton were 117

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity 1.01 m. The northern side wall also survived up to the third course of masonry. The floor of the chamber was paved. Fragments of bones were found in all levels of the fill. Only fragments of the skeletons were identified on the floor in situ. They belonged to two adult individuals and one child, aged seven or eight years. In addition, the fill held the remains of the skeletons of at least six adults and two children. Among the remains of burial goods from the chamber there were pottery fragments, a fragment of a terracotta figurine, beads and a small bronze bracelet. Crypt 2 had a more modest construction and an almost square shape (Fig. 4.2). Its dimensions were 2.4 x 1.9 m. This crypt had been seriously damaged by deep ploughing. The dromos was almost completely destroyed. Analysis of bone finds suggests that at least four individuals were buried here, two adult males and two adult females, aged 40-50 years. Among the gravegoods6 was a fragmented ‘Megarian’ bowl with relief decoration that shows Erotes driving chariots (probably Ionian production) (Fig. 5). This topic was popular in the decoration of Megarian vessels ca. 220-150 BC. Numerous figured bowls and their fragments decorated with so-called ‘idyllic’ scenes of winged Erotes are known from the Athenian Agora.7 The closest analogy to this composition can be seen on a fragmentary bowl found by chance in Panticapaeum.8 The bowl from Porthmion, as well as that from Panticapaeum, can be dated to the 2nd century BC. The upper part of Crypt 3 had been destroyed by ploughing. Only the lower row of masonry of the chamber survived (Fig. 6.1). The interior dimensions of the chamber were 2.05 x 1 m. To the west of the chamber large stone debris from the demolition have been identified, while during its dismemberment, several fragments of long bones, cranial bones and a lower jaw with teeth were found. Probably the destroyed stone construction belonged to the dromos, and the skeletal remains had been removed thence from the chamber to clear the space for subsequent burials. The dromos, which was completely destroyed, had a dirt floor; the floor of the chamber was paved by three large slabs of limestone. The western and eastern walls of the chamber were formed each by one block and the northern and southern each by two. The construction survived up to approximately 0.50 m in height. A peculiar feature of Crypt 3 are the remains of ancient fastening joints in the limestone blocks. On the surfaces of parts of the lower row of masonry stone ‘locks’ and wholes are visible. In the fill of the chamber many pottery fragments have been found. Among them were pieces of Heraclean Vakhtina and Stoyanov 2006: 192, fig. 10. Rotroff 1982: 19, pls. 16-57. 8  Grzegrzółka 2010: 55-56, cat. 26. 6  7 

Figure 5. ‘Megarian’ bowl from Crypt 2.

118

M.Y. Vakhtina and P.G. Stolyarenko: The Necropolis of Porthmion

Figure 6. 1 – Crypt 3; 2 – Burial inventory from Crypt 3.

119

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity and Sinopean amphorae, the fragment of a grey clay glazed bowl, fragments of table- and kitchenware and 59 fragments of a red clay pelike (Fig. 6.2.1) that allowed the shape of the vessel to be reconstructed (Fig. 6.2.2). Close to the northern wall of the chamber a fragmented bronze mirror was found (Fig. 6.2.3); close to the floor, two bronze Bosporan, one with images of a bow and an arrow and the inscription ΠΑΝ (Fig. 6.2.4), and the other with the image of a tripod (Fig. 6.2.5). The first coin can be attributed to type n. 133 according V.A. Anokhin and dates to ca. 275-245 BC, the other to type n. 142 and to ca. 230-220 BC.9

fragments of the base of a handmade vessel with red coating and two paste beads The chamber was 1.85 m in length and in width 0.75 m in its eastern part and 0.58 m in its western. At their highest points, the walls survived to the height of 0.90 m in its northern part and 1.02 m in its eastern part, where three courses survived. At its east the dimensions of the stones in the upper course was 0.6 x 0.3 x 0.3 m. The middle course consisted of a single block, 0.86 x 0.35 m. The lower course consisted of two stones, 0.63 x 0.41 m. The wall on the northern side also survived to a height of three courses and was 1.8 m in length. The lower course also consisted of three stones, of which the largest was 0.9 х 0.37 m. The middle stones of the wall construction had been disturbed by the pressure of the soil, as a result of which the wall had collapsed into the burial. A western cross-wall separated the dromos from the chamber. It was represented by a single course of stones, measuring 0.53 х 0.27 х 0.35 m. The southern side wall consisted of two courses of stones. The length of the upper course was 1.85 m, consisting of three blocks, of which the largest was 0.84 х 0.35 х 0.25 m. The lower course also consisted of three blocks and measured 0.80 х 0.35 m.

Fragments of skeletons were found in all levels of the fill, but only of lower limbs on the floor in situ. These belonged to at least two adult males, aged 20-30 years, and one child. The bone fragments from the fill belonged at least to four individuals: three males (one aged 18-30, two aged 30-50, one aged 50-60) and a child. The cranial bones from the dromos belonged to a woman of 45-50 years of age. The materials from Crypt 3 show that it functioned for rather a long period of time. Probably it was built in late 4th-early 3rd century BC and was also used during the 2nd century BC. Crypt 4 is one of the most interesting complexes in the Porthmion necropolis.10 It consisted of a rectangular chamber and dromos, which were oriented in an eastwest direction (Fig. 7.1), while its upper portion had been destroyed by the plough. The straight walls that formed the north and south sides of the chamber survived up to the second course. In addition, four large, long blocks, identified as the third and last course, were found on the surface, where they had been left by robbers close to the south of the pit.

All the blocks of the chamber walls were thoroughly worked on their inner sides, while their outer faces were only roughly cut. The chamber floor was earth, with a gravel covering. In the western part of the chamber we located the remains of a skull and the upper portion of a skeleton, and in the eastern part small foot-bones were found. On the floor of the eastern part of the chamber was found also the upper portion of an adult male skeleton in situ. Among its bones were found paste beads: one was small with two ends, while the other resembled a pendant. Between the skull and the southern wall of the chamber were found the deteriorated remains of a child’s skull. In the north-western corner of the crypt were also bones from another skeleton, which had not been disturbed.

The dromos was bounded to north and south by two side walls. It was traceable for a length of some 1.02 m, with a width of 1.1 m. The main stone construction of the crypt was strengthened from outside by small stones and, outside them, by large stone (up to 0.58 x 0.35 m). The entrance to the chamber was set with thin squarish slabs, placed vertically, with maximum dimensions of 0.47 x 0.40 m and a thickness of 0.1 m. After the removal of the large exterior stone, the entrance to the chamber was cleaned. The floor of the dromos was earthen (the only instance known so far in a Porthmion crypt).

In sum, the bones indicated the presence of two adults and of a child aged seven to eight. However, in addition to these, examination of the fill from the chamber revealed the bones of at least six adults and two children (one aged about seven or eight, the other ten). The chamber also contained fragments of ‘Megarian’ bowls and fragments of red and grey clay table- and toilette-ware and a few paste beads. Fragments of bone and pottery were discovered at every level of the fill from the chamber. The pottery fragments were quite numerous and consisted of fragments of red clay tableware of the Hellenistic period. The finds from Crypt 4 show that it was used repeatedly over an extended period. The pottery indicates that the last deposition in the crypt occurred in the 2nd century

In the fill of the dromos was a small quantity of pottery fragments, largely from the sides of red clay tableware. There was also a wall fragment of a red clay closed vessel with remains of dark glaze, rim fragments of small red clay dishes of the Hellenistic period, and a part of the lip of a so-called Megarian cup. The dromos also had Anokhin 1986, pl. 4. For more detail about its construction and the finds, see Vakhtina and Stolyarenko 2013: 121-24; 2015; 2017: 64-65. 9 

10 

120

M.Y. Vakhtina and P.G. Stolyarenko: The Necropolis of Porthmion

Figure 7. 1 – Crypt 4; 2 – Crypt 5.

121

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity BC. However, the crypt itself was probably constructed significantly earlier than that and used and reused over a long period. Objects in the crypt testify to the relatively comfortable, high status of the deceased. The inclusion of kitchenware may well be explained by the funeral feast.

stones placed horizontally with a slight incline towards the dromos. The dimensions of the ‘steps’ were 0.27 x 0.2 x 0.15 and 0.6 x 0.2 x 0.15 m. This peculiarity creates an affinity between Crypt 7 and Crypt 1, which also had a step between chamber and dromos. In the fill of the south-east section of the chamber the upper part of a skeleton has been revealed. It probably belonged to an adult female (age undetermined). Fifteen centimetres to the north of the scull was a fragmented Megarian cup with red overlay (Fig. 8.2.1). It has an ornament of overlapping leaves on the body; the rim is decorated with friezes of inverted eggs and stylised bull heads. Imbricate relief bowls decorated with overlapping leaves and flowers were produced from the last quarter of the 3rd to the early 1st century BC.12 The cup from the Crypt 7 can be dated within the frames of the 2nd century BC; it was probably of Ionian production. To the north of the chest was a jug (laginos) with a light-coloured overlay (Fig. 8.2.2). On the floor of the chamber the remains of three skeletons in situ survived fragmentally. Among the bones were found paste beads, of types typical for Late Hellenistic and Early Roman times (Fig. 8.2.4). According the position of the bones, the deceased lay in an extended position, with heads toward the east. The fill of the chamber also contained fragments of bones. In sum, these indicated the presence of at least nine adults: six males of about 17-25, 20-25, 30-35, 35, under 35 and 35-40 years of age; two females, one aged 20-25, the second undetermined; and another adult of undetermined age and sex. The crypt also contained the remains not fewer than five children, aged between four and five and six and seven, one younger (possibly an infant). Crypt 7 was robbed, like all previous ones. However, in the fill and in the remains of the robbers’ diggings a large number of inventory remains were found. Among them was a fragmented red clay plate (Fig. 8.2.3). In the western part of the fill was a piece of a Bosporan tile with part of a stamp ΒΑ[ΣΙΛΙΚΗ]. It can be dated to the time of Perisades II (ca. 283-245 BC).13 The fill contained amphora fragments, 62 pieces of red clay tableware and parts of relief bowls.

Crypt 5 was probably the earliest of those excavated at Porthmion necropolis (Fig. 7.2). Its burial chamber takes the form of a stone coffin, in that its walls are formed by four limestone slabs set vertically. Along the outer perimeter of the chamber were various stones (which probably represent the remains of its covering) up to 0.70 х 0.40 m in size. Finds from among these stones and nearby included fragments of amphora walls, part of the lip of a black-glaze lekythos of the 4th century BC, as also of an open handmade vessel. The internal dimensions of the chamber were 1.90 х 0.84 m, with a depth of 0.98 m. The stones of the sides were thoroughly worked on the inside, with smooth surfaces, but the outer faces were only roughly cut. The northern slab was 1.96 х 1.10 х 0.25 m; the southern, 1.93 х 0.96 х 0.18 m; the eastern, 1.23 х 0.88 х 0.21 m; and the western, 0.8 х 0.8 х 0.21 m. The northern slab bore a groove in its upper part, at a distance of some 0.65 m from the eastern, which seems to be the result of efforts to split the stone, perhaps at the time of construction. The eastern wall had depressions to allow the insertion of fastenings to attach it to the northern and southern walls. By contrast, the western wall simply abutted its neighbours, which may suggest that the dromos was on this side. The floor of the chamber was paved with substantial stone slabs, up to 1.1 x 0.78 m; five of these were located. In all likelihood the dromos was a depression in the earth: it was impossible to gain a sense of its dimensions. This crypt had been robbed, like all others from the Porthmion necropolis. However, the fill and the remains of the robbers’ diggings yielded the much-disturbed bones of an adult.11 From the fill of the chamber came part of the foot of a Mendean amphora of the 4th century BC. On the chamber floor was a bronze coin of Panticapaeum, dated 330-315 BC. On this basis we may consider that the crypt was built and began to be used no later than the late 4th century BC.

Conclusions As for the results of this brief survey of burial complexes excavated at Porthmion necropolis, we may observe that in the Hellenistic period different types of burial structure coexisted here. We may suspect that the earliest burial forms involved placing the deceased in simple pits in the ground. That was the burial method most widespread in the cities of the northern Black Sea region.14 In the 4th century BC, the first crypts appeared: their construction was a more laborious matter and

Crypt 7 was partly damaged by a wartime trench, which completely destroyed the northern wall of the chamber (Fig. 8.1). The internal dimensions of the chamber were 2.15 x 1.47 m. Its eastern wall was formed by one slab, the southern by two and the western by three. The floor of the chamber was paved with rectangular stones. The dromos led to the chamber from the west; only its southern wall partly remained. It consisted of one slab; its dimensions were 0.6 x 0.4 x 0.3 m. Between the chamber and the dromos were two steps made of flat 11 

Rotroff 1982: 16-17. Anokhin 1999: 199, fig. 62, type n. 133. 14  Arseneva 1984: 222. 12  13 

Examination beneath the body was not possible.

122

M.Y. Vakhtina and P.G. Stolyarenko: The Necropolis of Porthmion

Figure 8. 1 – Crypt 7; 2 – Burial inventory from Crypt 7.

123

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 9. Porthmion necropolis. Age and sex structure.

entailed correspondingly more expense. Evidently, these crypts were the family vaults of the more wealthy and prominent citizens of the community. This explains why those buried in crypts were deposited with a relatively rich array of goods. Crypts could also be used repeatedly over an extended period of time: as the burial chambers filled, earlier remains were removed from time to time to make way for the more recently deceased. However, that practice makes dating more difficult: in the course of excavation, later depositions were often noted.

pottery are extremely rare. It is possible that the single example of a crouched burial (no. 6), without goods, is a non-Greek rite. Unfortunately, because of the local salty soil and the activity of robbers, bone remains survive quite badly. Thus, it is often impossible to determine the age and sex of the deceased and, correspondingly, form reliable vital statistics. But it seems quite evident that infant mortality (especially for children under the age of seven) in Hellenistic Porthmion was rather high, as well as the mortality of women of fertile age (Fig. 9).

It seems that burials in simple pits in the ground continued, at the same time as crypts were in use. These pits contained single burials with poorer goods.

The crypts excavated at Porthmion clearly share common construction features, a similar design and orientation, and they show a wealth of goods by comparison with other burials. However, each crypt is unique and they show a considerable variety of characteristics: they differ in dimensions, in idiosyncrasies of construction, in the quantity of bodies, etc.

We may characterise burial practices at Porthmion as Greek. The very choice of location for the necropolis tends to support this, for burials were made to the west of the walls of the settlement, across a natural cleft in the landscape, which, in antiquity, seems to have been a small river. All the excavated burials were inhumations; overwhelmingly the bodies were oriented to the east. Even after the looting of most of the gravegoods, we can see that the inventory was varied and substantial. Small Bosporan coins were found regularly, which permits the suspicion that they were placed in burials as Charon’s obol. Traces of burial feasting may be ascribed to customs practised both in classical and barbarian societies:15 such traces were often found in levels above burials. Finds of fragments of handmade 15 

In some respects these burials may be compared with burial complexes excavated elsewhere in the Bosporus. These include, for example, coffins formed by stone slabs at Tyritake16 and on the Azov coast of the Crimea.17 There are also elements in the archaeology of the Asiatic Bosporus which may be set in the same tradition.18 Of course, we must also be aware that burial practices in each community of the Bosporus vary somewhat from those of its neighbours: the shared Zinko and Zinko 2012: 157-67, figs. 1, 2, 4, 7-10. Maslennikov 1995, figs. 3-16, 18, 21, 30, 31, 34, 36 and 37. 18  Krushkol and Novichikhin 2010: 23-25. 16  17 

Kastanayan 1959: 263.

124

M.Y. Vakhtina and P.G. Stolyarenko: The Necropolis of Porthmion features of a common tradition took on specific local features from place to place. Therefore studies of the Porthmion necropolis not only broaden our knowledge of Greek burial customs and their transformation in a peripheral region of the ancient world, but also shed light on idiosyncratic aspects of burial/commemorative practice among the inhabitants of Porthmion, a small settlement in the European part of the Bosporan kingdom.

Rotroff, S.I. 1982. The Athenian Agora 22: Hellenistic Pottery. Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls (Princeton). Vakhtina, M.Y. and Stoyanov, R.V. 2006. ‘Novye dannye o nekropole Porfmiya’. In Arkheologicheskie Vesti 13 (St Petersburg): 182-94. Vakhtina, V.Y. and Stolyarenko, P.G. 2013. ‘Nekropol’ Porfmiya (po materialam raskopok 2004-2012 gg.)’. In Kul’turnyi sloi 2 (Nizhnii Novgorod): 114-45. Vakhtina, V.Y. and Stolyarenko, P.G. 2014. ‘Gruntovoi nekropol’ Porfmiya. Osobennosti pogrebal’nogo obryada “malogo” Bosporskogo goroda’. In. Zuev, V.Y. and Khrshanovskii, V.A. (eds) Pogrebal’naya kul’tura Bosporskogo tsarstva (St Petersburg), 12935. Vakhtina, V.Y. and Stolyarenko, P.G. 2015. ‘Sklep no. 4 ellinisticheskogo nekropolya Porfmiya’. In Olbio: in memoriam V.V. Krapivina (= Arkheologiya i davnya istoriya Ukrainy 1/14) (Kiev): 298-307. Vakhtina, V.Y. and Stolyarenko, P.G. 2017. ‘The Necropolis of Porthmion: the Results of Recent Excavations’. In Kiyashkina, P., Damyanov, M., Bozkova, A. and Delev, P. (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Ancient Greek Necropoleis along the Black Sea Coast’, Nessebar, October 4-7, 2012 (Veliko Turnovo), 6185. Veselov, V.V. 2005. Svodnaya vedomost’. Rezul’taty arkheologicheslikh razvedok na Kerchenskom i Tamanskom poluostrovakh v 1949-64 gg. (Moscow). Zinko, V.N. and Zinko, A.V. 2012. ‘Novye issledovaniya nekropolya Tiritaki’. In Drevnosti Bospora 16 (Moscow): 156-68.

Bibliography Anokhin, V.A. 1986. Monetnoe delo Bospora (Kiev). Anokhin, V.A. 1999. Istoriya Bospora Kimmeriiskogo (Kiev). Arseneva, T.M. 1984. ‘Pogrebal’nyi obryad’. In Koshelenko, G.A, Kruglikova, I.T. and Dolgorukov, V.S. (eds) Antichnye goroda Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Moscow): 222-25. Grzegzółka, S. 2010. ‘Megarian’ bowls from the collection of the Kerch History and Culture Preserve 1 (Warsaw). Kastanayan, E.G. 1959. ‘Gruntovye nekropoli bosporskikh gorodov v V-IV vv.do n.e. i ikh osobennosti’. In Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 69 (Moscow/Leningrad): 257-95. Krushkol, Y.S. and Novichikhin, A.M. 2010. ‘Opisanie pogrebal’nykh kompleksov. Katalog’. In Malyshev, A.A. (ed.) Naselenie arkhaicheskoi Sindiki po materialam nekropolya u khutora Rassvet, Nekropoli Chernomory’ya 3 (Moscow). Maslennikov, A.A. 1995. Kammennye yaschiki Vostochnogo Kryma (K istorii sel’skogo naseleniya Evropeiskogo Bospora v VI-I vv. do n.e. (Moscow).

125

Artyushchenko-1 Settlement on the Taman Peninsula (6th Century BC-4th Century AD) Yurii A. Vinogradov Abstract The article deals with materials of excavations at the agricultural settlement Artyushchenko–1 on the Taman Peninsula (Asian side of the Cimmerian Bosporus). There are five periods of habitation: Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Late Roman (post-Gothic). Interruptions between these periods were no less then 50 years. Numerous finds of handmade pottery demonstrate that the settlement was inhabited mostly by natives of the barbarian tribes from the basin of the Kuban river. Only in the Hellenistic period the population was mainly Greek, a workshop for dressing iron ore and producing iron functioned here that time.

rural surrounding (chora) of the polis of Hermonassa. It seems also that it was a temporary (seasonal) settlement, visited by peasants only during times of field work. Numerous finds of handmade pottery (Fig. 2) demonstrate that the settlement was inhabited mostly by natives of local tribes from the Kuban river region.7 Such an unusual situation was fixed firstly in the history of archaeological investigations of rural territories of the Taman Peninsula. Finds of charred grains of cereals suggest that peasants sowed here mainly naked wheat (Triticum aestivum) and six-rowed barley (Hordeum vulgare), what was typical for all Greek agricultural settlements of the northern Black Sea region.8

Archaeological investigations of ancient agricultural settlements of the Cimmerian Bosporus have now a special importance.1 One of these settlements, Artyushchenko–1, is the object of excavations by the Bosporan Expedition of the Institute for the History of Material Culture (St Petersburg). It was first investigated by the famous Russian archaeologist V.D. Blavatskii in 1951.2 Our excavations started in 1998, and so, we can sum up the man results of 20 years of work.3 This large settlement is located on the Taman Peninsula (the Asian side of the Cimmerian Bosporus), on the precipiced shore of the Black Sea (Fig. 1). The site has been partly washed away by coastal erosion.4 Artyushchenko–1 is divided into east and west parts by an ancient ravine. The results of the excavations also revealed the difference between these two parts. The eastern side was inhabited in the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods, while the western side was occupied only during the Roman period. It is important to stress that the intermittent history of the settlement was demonstrated clearly by archaeological excavation. Populations came and went for long periods of time. It seems that all of these interruptions in the history of the settlement were connected with changes of militarypolitical and ethnic situation in the steppe zone of the northern Black sea region.5 It is possible to distinguish reliably five periods of occupation of the site.

Classical period After a prolonged interruption, occupation of Artyushchenko–1 was resumed in about the mid4th century BC and continued probably for a fairly short time. Remnants of the Classical period are less numerous than of previous time. There are grounds for supposing that the settlement was also seasonal and possibly barbarian in terms of its population. Hellenistic period A settlement existed at the site only in the second part of the 3rd-first half of the 2nd century BC. Some peculiarities of the material culture of this time (small amount of handmade pottery, the presence of Bosporan coins,9 terracotta figurines, etc.) suggest that it was mostly Greeks who lived here at this time.

Archaic period: last third of the 6th-first third of the 5th century BC Some primitive pithouses and numerous pits belong to this time.6 The settlement was probably a kome of the

This phase of habitation was connected with the functioning of a workshop for dressing iron ore and producing iron.10 Many important parts of this

See Kruglikova 1975; Maslennikov 1998. Blavatskii 1953: 150-53. 3  General publications about the site: Vinogradov 2013a; 2015a; Vinogradov and Lebedeva 2005. 4  Vinogradov and Kashaev 2016. 5  Vinogradov 2007; 2008a. 6  Vinogradov 2002. 1  2 

Vinogradov 2006. Pashkevich 2016. 9  Vinogradov and Tereshchenko 2009. 10  Vinogradov 2010. 7  8 

126

Y.A. Vinogradov: Artyushchenko-1 Settlement on the Taman Peninsula

Figure 1. Plan of the settlement Artyushchenko–1: 1 – boundaries of the settlement; 2 – places of excavations; 3 – modern constructions.

his hand is not clearly identifiable, but it is very similar to a ‘Pan’s flute’.

workshop were studied during excavations of the area: special places for storing iron ore, the foundations of stone ‘tables’ on which the ore was ground and washed out, drains for disposing of used water, pits for keeping charcoal, hundreds of iron blooms, etc.

Another set composed of six statuettes was uncovered in one of the larger pits.13 Here also were a female protome (Fig. 4.1) and a female figurine, standing, with head severed. Fairly interesting are the statuette of a rider (Fig. 4.2) and of a woman sitting with a lyre in her hands. Of more interest still is a figurine of an actor holding a comic mask in his left hand (Fig. 4.3). The most interesting object in this set is a draped figurine of a woman pressing some object (probably a spindle) to her throat (Fig. 4.4).

The workshop was related to a series of cult installations.11 In these, or near them, finds of terracotta figurines, a multi-layered lamp (Fig. 3.4) and other cult objects were concentrated. One such deposit contained three female protomes (Fig. 3.1-2) and a fragment of a black-glazed relief vessel with a representation of a ‘musician’ – Silenus with musical instrument (Fig. 3.3).12 The instrument he is holding in

Excavations over recent years have taken place on the western part of the site. Life began here in the

Vinogradov and Lebedeva 2005: 316-17; Vakhtina et al. 2010: 370-73, figs. 19-22. 12  Vinogradov and Lebedeva 2005: 318, figs. 1, 2; Vakhtina et al. 2010: 371, 392, fig. 20. Specially about the ‘musician’: Novikova 2007; Vinogradov 2008b. 11 

13  Vinogradov and Lebedeva 2005: 318-19, figs. 3-8; Vakhtina et al. 2010: 372, 393-94, figs. 21.1-2, 22.1-4.

127

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 2. Handmade pottery of the Archaic period (last third of the 6th-first third of the 5th century BC).

1st century AD. The settlement’s history reveals two periods of occupation in Roman times: pre-Gothic (before invasion by German Gothic tribes in the northern Black Sea region in the middle of the 3rd century AD) and post-Gothic.

The materials from pits and dwellings are typical of the culture of the agricultural population of the Bosporan kingdom during the Roman period. It should also be stressed that numerous finds of handmade pottery discovered here were manufactured in a way typical for local tribes, and were characteristic finds at settlements of this region (Fig. 5).

Pre-Gothic period: 1st century ad-first half of 3rd century ad

Some pits contained skeletons of dogs and pigs. One skeleton in one pit is usual. These finds may be understood to be sacrificial. In all probability the settlement was both rural and seasonal. Finds of charred grains of cereals suggests that the peasants

Remains of eight primitive pithouses,14 numerous pits and some special constructions belong to this time. 14 

Vinogradov 2013.

128

Y.A. Vinogradov: Artyushchenko-1 Settlement on the Taman Peninsula

Figure 3. Finds from sacral contexts (3rd-2nd centuries BC). Taman Archaeological Museum: 1, 2 – terracotta figurines; 3 – fragment of a blackglazed relief vessel; 4 – multi-layered lamp.

threshing-floor.15 But this was a mistake. Bearded wheat was never cultivated on Bosporus; it was characteristic of the steppe-forest zone of the modern Ukraine, not of the Taman Peninsula or Kuban region. So it is necessary to find another explanation. Maybe it was the part of a cult complex, and some unusual finds were concentrated at the area. We did not find here terracotta statuettes or numerous coins, as in the Hellenistic sanctuary of the eastern part of Artyushchenko–1. Nevertheless, some finds from the area are very characteristic: handmade

sowed here mainly naked wheat and six-rowed barley. I have to repeat that this combinations was typical for Greek colonies of the northern Black Sea. In 2012–2017, an extraordinary construction was excavated at the western boundary of the settlement. It was a rectangular area, about 130 m² in extent, covered with a layer of clay (5 cm thick). A large amount of charred cereal grains were found here, but what was highly unusual is that bearded wheat (Triticum monococcum) was by far the most numerous here – 95% or more. It was supposed initially that this area was a

15 

129

Vinogradov 2015a: 159; 2015b; 2016.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 4. Terracotta figurines from the sacral pit (3rd2nd centuries BC). Taman Archaeological Museum.

130

Y.A. Vinogradov: Artyushchenko-1 Settlement on the Taman Peninsula

Figure 5. Handmade pottery of the Roman period (1st-3rd centuries AD).

pottery ornamented in a very special style, small clay breads and so on.

unusual concentration? Maybe it was connected with a very special sacrificial ceremony that was carried in the western part of the settlement? We can suppose that what was investigated was part of a big rural sanctuary.17 I have no doubt that it was not connected with Greek tradition but was purely local. I know of nothing similar in the Kuban region in this time.

Some unusual big pits of the 2nd-3rd centuries AD were investigated near this area. Four of them contained animal skeletons (dogs, pigs, cows, etc.). It necessary to stress that no pit included just one skeleton (Fig. 6.7). Pottery finds from these pits are very characteristic;16 handmade pottery is numerous here (see Fig. 5). We can suppose that all of these pits were connected with special sacrifices.

Post-Gothic period: 4th century ad The remains of three pithouses belong to this period.18 One of them is well preserved (Fig. 10). It is rectangular in shape, with a staircase and two-part clay heath situated in the corner. The pottery found in these dwellings is both numerous and diverse, with fragments of various

There are two shallow pits of another type. Four human skulls were found in one of them (Fig. 8). A human skeleton was found in a very small pit at the northern part of the area (Fig. 9). What is the reason for such an 16 

17 

Maslennikov 1990.

18 

131

Vinogradov 2017. Vinogradov 2011.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 6. Remains of the dog and cow in pit no. 80 (2nd-3rd centuries AD).

Figure 7. Remains of the cow in pit no. 87 (2nd-3rd centuries AD).

types of handmade pottery forming the majority of the collection. The set of grains found in a heap of ash near the heath is typical for such finds, with naked wheat as the dominant component. No a single grain of Triticum monococcum was found here! The classical set of cereals kept its stability until the post-Gothic period.

The final phase of occupation of the site was connected with the Saltovskaya archaeological culture of the 8th-9th centuries AD. But that is a subject for special publication.

132

Y.A. Vinogradov: Artyushchenko-1 Settlement on the Taman Peninsula

Figure 8. Pit no. 55 with four human skulls (2nd-3rd centuries AD).

Figure 9. Pit no. 88 with human skeleton (2nd-3rd centuries AD).

133

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 10. Pithouse of the 4th century AD.

poluostrove’. Zapiski Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury RAN 1: 69-76. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2007. ‘Cimmerian Bosporus: Main Phases of Pre-Roman History’. In Solovyov, S.L. (ed.) Greeks and Natives in the Cimmerian Bosporus, 7th-1st Centuries BC (Oxford): 145-49. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2008a. ‘Rhythms of Eurasia and the Main Historical Stages of the Kimmerian Bosporos in Pre-Roman Times’. In Bilde, P.G. and Petersen, J.H. (eds) Meetings of Cultures in the Black Sea Region: Between Conflict and Coexistence (Aarhus): 13-27. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2008b. ‘Terrakotovye statuetki s izobrazheniem aktera i muzykantov s poseleniya Artyushchenko–1 na Tamanskom poluostrove’. In Matsievskii, I.V. (ed.) Instrumental’naya muzyka v mezhkul’turnom prostranstve. Problemy artikulyatsii (St Petersburg): 181-84. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2010. ‘Zhelezodelatel’naya masterskaya na poselenii Artyushchenko–1 (Tamanskii poluostrov)’. In Zinko, V. (ed.) Bosporskie Chteniya 11: Bospor Kimmeriiskii i varvarskii mir v period antichnosti i srednevekov’ya. Remesla i promysly (Kerch): 80-84. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2011. ‘Kompleks IV v. n.e. na poselenii Artyushchenko–1 (Tamanskii poluostrov)’. In Machinskii, D.A. (ed.) Evropeiskaya Sarmatiya. Sbornik, posvyashchennyi Marku Borisovichu Shchukinu (St Petersburg): 314-20. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2013a. ‘Osnovnye itogi izucheniya poseleniya Artyushchenko–1 (Tamanskii

Bibliography Blavatskii, V.D. 1953. ‘Vtoroi god raboty Sindskoi ekspeditsii’. Kratkie soobshcheniya Instituta archeologii 51: 149-55. Kruglikova, I.T. 1975. Sel’skoe khozyaistvo Bospora (Moscow). Maslennikov, A.A. 1990. Naselenire Bosporskogo gosudarstva v pervykh vekakh n.e. (Moscow). Maslennikov, A.A. 1998. Ellinskaya khora na krayu Oikumeny. Sel’skaya territoriya evropeiskogo Bospora v antichnuyu epokhu (Moscow). Novikova, A.N. 2007. ‘Izobrazhenie silena iz Artyushchenko–1’. In Bosporskii fenomen: Sakral’nyi smysl regiona, pamyatnikov, nakhodok’ 1 (St Petersburg): 207-10. Pashkevich, G.A. 2016. ‘Arkheobotanicheskie issledovaniya Bospora’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 32: 205-99. Vakhtina, M.Y., Vinogradov, Y.A. and Goroncharovskii, V.A. 2010. ‘Cult complexes and objects discovered by the Bosporan expedition of the Institute for History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences (Saint-Petersburg)’. In Petropoulos, E.K. and Maslennikov, A. (eds) Ancient Sacral Monuments in the Black Sea (Thessaloniki): 36798. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2002. ‘Arkhaicheskie kompleksy poseleniya Artyushchenko–1’. Tamanskaya Starina 4: 61-66. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2006. ‘Lepnaya keramika archaicheskogo vremeni s poseleniya Artyushchenko–1 na Tamanskom 134

poluostrov)’. Problemy istorii, filologii, kultury 2: 23341. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2013b. ‘Stroitel’nye kompleksy rimskogo vremeni na poselenii Artyushchenko–1 (Tamanskii poluostrov)’. In Anfimovskie chteniya po arkheologii Zapadnogo Kavkaza 3 (Krasnodar), 2530. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2015a. ‘Excavations at the Settlement of Artyushchenko I (Bugazskoe) on the Taman Peninsula’. Hyperboreus 21.1: 157-60. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2015b. ‘Ob otkrytii molotil’nogo toka na poselenii Artyushchenko–1 (Tamanskii poluostrov)’. In Tavricheskie studii 7 (Simferopol): 4345. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2016. ‘Izuchenie molotil’nogo toka na poselenii Artyushchenko–1’. In Tavricheskie studii 10 (Simferopol): 32-36.

Vinogradov, Y.A. 2017. ‘Molotil’nyi tok ili sel’skoe svyatilishche? K interpretatsii ob”ekta, otkrytogo na poselenii Artyushchenko–1 (Tamanskii poluostrov).’ In Vishnyatskii, L.B. (ed.) Ex Ungue Leonem. Sbornik statei k 90–letiyu. L’va Samuilovicha Kleina (St Petersburg): 322-33. Vinogradov, Y.A. and Kashaev, S.V. 2016. ‘Antichnye poseleniya Artyushchenko–1 i Artyuschenko–2 na Tamanskom poluostrove. K otsenke masshtabov prirodnogo razrusheniya’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 33: 95-109. Vinogradov, Y.A. and Lebedeva, E.Y. 2005. ‘Excavations at the Classical-Period Settlement of Artyushchenko–1 (Bugazskyoe) on the Taman Peninsula’. Hyperboreus 11.2: 316-19. Vinogradov, Y.A. and Tereshchenko, A.E. 2009. ‘Monety s poseleniya Artyushchenko–1 na Tamanskom poluostrove’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 22: 135-49.

135

136

Eastern Black Sea

137

138

The Southern Pontic Import Discovered at Classical Period Sites in Ajara *

Amiran Kakhidze and Emzar Kakhidze Abstract The coastal population of south-western Georgia had close contacts with a number of advanced urban centres of the southern Black Sea cities since the first half of the 5th century BC. Sinopean drachmas discovered in both the Colchian and Greek cemeteries at Pichvnari might be mentioned from this point of view. After Athens’s defeat in the Peloponnesian War, the share of southern Black Sea production in the eastern Black Sea area increased dramatically. Sinopean and Amisian coins of the 4th century BC have been found repeatedly at Pichvnari and other sites; dozens of Heraclean amphorae were recovered at the Greek and Colchian cemeteries and settlement site of Pichvnari as well.

are oval in section, the clay is yellowish-brown, with inclusions.4 This is the first time that such amphorae have been found in Georgia, although analogies have been found elsewhere in the northern Black Sea area.5 They are close to Heraclean wares.6

The coastal population of south-western Georgia, Ajara (Fig. 1), had close contacts with a number of advanced urban centres of the classical world, including the southern Black Sea area. There is no doubt as to the existence of close, direct relations between Sinope and the Athenian cleruchy of Pichvnari1 since the first half of the 5th century BC.

Athenian interest in the eastern Black Sea area becomes ever more apparent after the Persian Wars and the creation of the Delian League. It is likely that these developments were in large part the result of the activities of Pericles when he mounted an expedition in the Black Sea area during the 440s BC (Plutarch Pericl. 20. 1-2). Fragmentary tribute lists include the following members of the Delian League: Heraclea, Sinope, Amisos, Karussa, etc. on the south coast of the Black Sea. As well as in Pichvnari, Athens must have had similar footholds in the eastern Black Sea littoral as well.7

A Sinopean silver drachma, with the head of a dolphin to left on the obverse and ordinary quadratum incusum on the reverse (Fig. 2), was found at the Colchian cemetery of the 5th century BC in 1967.2 Another two similar coins were recovered from the Greek cemetery of the 5th century BC in 1983 and the Colchian cemetery of the 5th century BC in 2001:3 Obv: Realistic head of a dolphin to left; image of dolphin bellow have to be damaged Rev: Greek character λ in quadratum incusum (Fig. 3).

Apparently, the coastal population of south-western Georgia along with Athens had close contacts with a number of cities of the southern Black Sea area: Heraclea Pontica, Sinope and Amisos. The import of these cities to the eastern Black Sea area increases dramatically after Athens’s defeat in the Peloponnesian War.

Particularly interesting are amphorae from an as yet unknown centre found in burial complexes and ritual platforms of the second half of the 5th century BC at Pichvnari. Their tall neck is swollen in the upper part, and they have sloping shoulders, a small ovoid body, and a cylindrical depression at the tip. The handles

Sinopean drachms, minted in 400-370 BC, were found in burials 101 and 117 of the 4th-century BC Greek necropolis at Pichvnari:

This work was supported by the Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation (SRNSF), grant no. 217910: Georgian Cultural Heritage Monuments Protected in the Central Part of Historical Chaneti (Fortifications, Churches, Communication). 1  On this site, see Kakhidze 1963; 1971; 1974c; 1979a; 1979b; 2005; 2007: 225-27; 2016: 150-62; Kakhidze and Kakhidze 2010; 2011; 2014: 65-81; Kakhidze and Mamuladze 2016: 144-51; Vickers and Kakhidze 2001; 2004: 143-225; 2014: 189-243. 2  Kakhidze 1974a: 88-92; 1974b: 82; Dundua 1987: 34, No. 4; Iashvili 1987: 44; Kakhidze, Iashvili and Vickers 2001; Varshalomidze 2016: 8, fig. 3. Analogous coin dated by S. Grose (1929: 17, pl. 252.18) to 500443 BC. G. Vartanov (1982: 72) clarifies the date as 500 BC. 3  Vickers and Kakhidze 2004: 40, fig. 87; Kakhidze 2007: 220; Varshalomidze 2016: 8, fig. 4. A. Zograf (1951: 230, No. 67, pl. 2) dated this type to 500-443 BC, whereas I. Iashvili (1987: 45) to 500-453 BC. *

Obv: Nymph of Sinope head, to left; NI to right at neck. Rev: Eagle over dolphin; [S]IN[W] beneath dolphin (Fig. 4). 4  Vickers and Kakhidze 2004: 178, fig. 173; Kakhidze 2007: 215-16, figs. 70.3, 83.14. 5  Gaidukevich 1959: 214-16, fig. 142; Zeest 1960: 90, pl. 13.27b; Monakhov 1999: 88, pl. 23.3. 6  Zeest 1960: 90, pl. 12.27. 7  Kakhidze 2005: 117.

139

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 1. Map of southwestern Georgia.

Figure 2. Earlier Sinopean silver drachma discovered at Pichvnari in 1967.

Figure 3. Earlier Sinopean silver drachma discovered at Pichvnari in 2001.

Obv: Profile of female (Hera or nymph Amisos) Rev: Owl with spread wings; ΠΕΙΡΑ beneath.11

Similar coins have been found at other sites of south-western Georgia, namely Batumi and Ureki,8 and at the north-west edge of western Georgia in Sukhumi.9

A similar coin, but with the graffito ΣΩΧΑ, was another chance find, made at the fort of Sukhumi at the turn of the 20th century.12

A silver drachma minted at Amisos in the first half of the 4th century BC was discovered accidentally in Kobuleti, close to Pichvnari in 1966:10 Dundua 1987: 33-35. Zograf 1945: 60. 10  Brashinskii 1967; Dundua and Dzalaghania 2009: 9. 8  9 

11  12 

140

Dundua 1987: 35. Pakhomov 1910.

A. Kakhidze and E. Kakhidze: The Southern Pontic Import Discovered at Classical Period Sites in Ajara

Figure 4. Sinopean silver drachma minted in 400-370 BC.

Amphorae manufactured in Heraclea Pontica, some of them stamped,13 were discovered in the graves and ritual platforms of the 4th-century BC Greek cemetery at Pichvnari during Soviet-era excavations.14 On the basis of Iosif Brashinskii’s classification,15 the smaller one (Fig. 5) is dated to 370-330 BC. A couple of Heraclean amphorae were discovered in recent years too: stamped amphorae were found in burials 84 and 106.16 There are plain ones as well.17 Here should be mentioned one stamped amphora kept at the Ajarian State Museum, which was found by chance in the Chaobi area of Batumi (Fig. 6). A separate group of objects consists of grey ware vessels found in burial complexes and ritual platforms of the first half of the 4th century BC at Pichvnari. A main characteristic is the novelty of shape. Most are jugs. Some of them have graffiti. A jug found in burial 25 13  For instance, the amphora discovered in Burial 9 is distinguished by clay resembling Sinopean origin but bearing an obviously Heraclean stamp: Δαματριο(υ) Μολοσσο(υ). A similar stamp was attested at the cultural level not exceeding 320 BC in Myrmekion (Pruglo 1972: 10, fig. 56, no. 22); vessels with this stamp are also located at the Hermitage (Pridik 1917: 123, nos. 77-78) and Rostov Museum (No. EΓ 70/115; cf. Kakhidze 1974c: 73, pl. 8.1). 14  Kakhidze 1963: 52-53; 1974; 1979a; Kakhidze and Kakhidze 2014: 69, figs. 13.2-3, 7, 15.4, 16.1, 19.7. 15  Brashinskii 1965: 24. 16  Vickers and Kakhidze 2004: 194, figs. 248, 250-251; Kakhidze and Kakhidze 2014: 69, figs. 27.7, 32.3. 17  Vickers and Kakhidze 2004: 194, figs. 188, 219.

Figure 5. Heraclean amphora dated to 370-330 BC.

141

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity of Phanagorian origin,24 and examples from the Voikovo necropolis, where red clay vessels have been found as well. Some items were made down to the 3rd century BC. They indeed were widespread among Bosporan polities of the Classical period.25 Other analogues for the Pichvnari jugs are to be found in the Don Basin.26 We have no doubt that they were made in the same place. It is an open question whether there existed other, local, coloured clay vessels. Owing to the scanty archaeological material from the southern Black Sea area we have not enough comparative information. Judging by the Pichvnari finds, the import of the above mentioned vessels coincided with the import of Heraclean amphorae. In our view, it is possible that this kind of vessel, along with other ceramic containers of the same origin, spread from the southern Black Sea area to its eastern, northern and western coastal centres. Some details of the form and structure of these grey ware jugs are so much alike that we can hardly envisage different centres of manufacture. Archaeological excavations on the territory of Heraclea Pontica may cast light on this subject. As a rule, it is fragments of grey ware vessels as well as Heraclean amphorae that are to be found in the cultural levels of the Pichvnari settlement site.27 A wide variety of imported wares ware found there shows that the local population enjoyed the use of foreign goods in life as well as in death.

Figure 6. Heraclean amphora discovered in Batumi.

The archaeological evidence brought to light at Pichvnari and other Classical period sites in Ajara can help us to reconstruct the various trades and crafts practised in the eastern part of the Black Sea in antiquity. In brief, this region will have been a major contact zone of native and Greek worlds.

has inscribed on its side ΟΤΩΙΟΣ.18 Another has the two letters ΕΓ on its body.19 Generally, this type of vessel has been found in large numbers in recent years.20 Vessels of the same type are not preserved at other sites of the eastern Black Sea area, but are widespread in the northern and western Black Sea: specimens from Apollonia necropolis are dated to the second half of the 4th century BC. They are thought to be of local manufacture.21 Similar vessels from Histria are dated, generally, to the 4th century BC.22 Grey and red clay pottery is widespread along the rivers Bug and Dnieper. According to Vladimira Petrenko, their place of manufacture should be the Greek colonies of the northern Black Sea area, unless they were imported from Thrace.23 Our finds have analogues, including those from the Tyramba necropolis, although they are

Bibliography Abbreviation SDSDz Samkhret-dasavlet sakartvelos dzeglebi (Annual of Batumi Niko Berdzenishvili Scientific and Research Institute of the Georgian Academy of Sciences). Alexandrescu, P. 1966. ‘Necropola tumulara, Sapaturi 1955-1961’. In Condurachi, E. (ed.) Histria 2 (Bucharest): 133-294. Brashinskii, I.B. 1965. ‘Keramicheskie kleyma Geraklei Pontiyskoi’. Numizmatika i epigrafika 5: 10-30. Brashinskii, I.B. 1967. ‘K istorii ekonomicheskikh svyazei Vostochnogo Prichernomor’ya v antichnuyu epokhu

Kakhidze 1979b: 59, pl. 17.2; Kakhidze and Kakhidze 2014: 73, fig. 17.10. 19  Vickers and Kakhidze 2004: 196, figs. 200-201; Kakhidze and Kakhidze 2014: 73, fig. 20.13-14. 20  Vickers and Kakhidze 2001: 79, fig. 22; 2004: 196, figs. 218-219, 229, 240-241, 245; 2014: 100. 21  Ivanov 1963: 162, pl. 86.328. 22  Alexandrescu 1966: 231, pl. 83. 23  Petrenko 1967: 24-25, pl. 21.17. 18 

Коrоvinа 1968: 70, fig. 17.2-3, 6-7. Knipovich 1935: 146, figs. 39-41; Kruglikova 1957: 122-25; Kaposhina 1959: 137-39, figs. 42-46. 26  Gulyaev and Savchenko 1998: 117-20, figs. 2.9, 37. 27  Vickers and Kakhidze 2004: 218-20. 24  25 

142

A. Kakhidze and E. Kakhidze: The Southern Pontic Import Discovered at Classical Period Sites in Ajara (po numizmaticheskim materyalam)’. Sakartvelos metsnierebata akademiis moambe 3: 759-64. Dundua, G. 1987. Numizmatika antichnoi Gruzii (Tbilisi). Dundua, G. and Dzalaghania, I. 2009. Kartuli numizmatikuri leksikoni (Tbilisi). Gaidukevich, V.F. 1959. ‘Nekropoli nekotorykh Bosporskikh gorodov (po materialam raskopok 1930-x godov)’. In Gaidukevich, V.F. (ed.) Nekropoli Bosporskikh gorodov (Moscow): 154-238. Grose, S.W. 1929. Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek Coins 3: Asia Minor, Farther Asia, Egypt, Africa (Cambridge). Gulyaev, V.I. and Savchenko, E.I. 1998. Rogovoi greben’ skifskogo vremeni s territorii Srednego Dona. Rossiyskaya Arkheologiya 3: 145-49. Iashvili, I. 1987. ‘Adreuli sinopuri vertskhlis drakhma sinopedan’. SDSDz 16: 44-46. Ivanov, T. 1963. ‘Antichnaya keramika iz nekropolya Apolonii’. In Venedikov, I. et al. (eds) Apollonia: Les fouilles dans la nécropole d’Apollonia en 1947-1949 (Sofia): 65-274. Kakhidze, A. 1963. ‘Pichvnarshi 1962 tsels tsarmoebuli arkeologiuri dazvervis shedegebi’. In Annotations of Ivane Javakhisvili Institute Sessions Dedicated to the Results of Field Archaeological Excavations in 1962 (Tbilisi): 52-53. Kakhidze, A. 1971. ‘Keramikuli tara pichvnaris antikuri khanis nakalakaridan’. SDSDz 2: 28-66. Kakhidze, A. 1974a. ‘Inozemnye monety mogil’nika Pichvnari’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3: 88-92. Kakhidze, A. 1974b. ‘Pichvnaris samarovanze 1967-1968 tslebshi agmochenili utskhouri monetebi’. Matsne 3: 79-85. Kakhidze, A. 1974c. ‘Pichvnaris dzv.ts. IV saukunis samarovnis arkeologiuri gatkhrebis dziritadi shedegebi’. SDSDz 4: 49-93. Kakhidze, A. 1979a. ‘Drevnegrecheskii mogil’nik v Pichvnari (IV v do n.e.)’. Sovietskaya Arkheologiya 1: 171-80. Kakhidze, A. 1979b. ‘Pichvnaris dzv.ts. IV s berdznul nekropolze 1976 tsels gankhortsielebuli savele kvleva-dziebis shedegebi’. SDSDz 8: 42-67. Kakhidze, A. 2005. ‘Athens and the Black Sea area in the late Archaic and Classical periods’. In Kacharava, D., Faudot, M. and Geny, É. (eds) Pont Euxin et Polis. Polis Hellenis et Polis Barbaron (Besançon): 115-18. Kakhidze, A. 2007. Pichvnari 2: The Classical World in the Eastern Black Sea Area: the Fifth Century BC Greek Necropolis at Pichvnari. Results of Excavations conducted by the N. Berdzenishvili Batumi Research Institute Pichvnari Expedition, 1967-1987 (Batumi/Oxford). Kakhidze, A. 2016. Pichvnari 7: Daily Life and Culture of the Eastern Black Sea Area Local Population in the Classical Period. The Pichvnari Fifth Century BC Colchian Cemetery: Results of Excavations conducted by the N. Berdzenishvili Batumi Research Institute, the Joint British-Georgian and the Batumi Archaeological Museum Pichvnari Expeditions, 1966-2015 (Batumi).

Kakhidze, A., Iashvili, I. and Vickers, M. 2001. ‘Silver coins of Black Sea coastal cities from the fifth century BC necropolis at Pichvnari’. Numismatic Chronicle 161: 282-88. Kakhidze, A. and Kakhidze, E. 2010. ‘Burial customs of Greek and local population of Pichvnari’. In Petropoulos, E.K. and Maslennikov, A.A. (eds) Ancient Sacral Monuments in the Black Sea (Thessaloniki): 44154. Kakhidze, A. and Kakhidze, E. 2011. ‘The 4th-century BC Greek cemetery at Pichvnari’. In Skinner, P., Tumanishvili, D. and Shanshiashvili, A. (eds) The Caucasus: Georgia on the Crossroads. Cultural Exchanges Across the Europe and Beyond (Florence/Tbilisi): 7881. Kakhidze, A. and Kakhidze, E. 2014. Pichvnari 5: Results of Greek Colonization of Eastern Black Sea. Results of Excavations conducted by the N. Berdzenishvili Batumi Research Institute, the Joint British-Georgian and the Batumi Archaeological Museum Pichvnari Expeditions, 1967-2012 (Batumi/Oxford). Kakhidze, A. and Mamuladze, S. 2016. Archaeological Monuments in Ajara (Tbilisi). Kaposhina, K.I. 1959. ‘Nekropol’ v rayone poselka im. Voykova bliz g. Kerchi’. In Gaidukevich, V.F. (ed.) Nekropoli Bosporkikh gorodov (Moscow): 108-53. Knipovich, T.N. 1935. ‘Opyt kharakteristiki gorodisha u stanitsy Elizavetskoi po nakhodkam ekspeditsii GAIMK v 1928’. In Gaidukevich, V.F. (ed.) Concerning the History of Bosporus (Leningrad): 111-201. Korovina, A.K. 1968. ‘Tiramba (gorodishe i nekropol’). Itog arkheologicheskikh rabot ekspeditsii... za 1959: 1961-1963. 1965 godi’. Soobshcheniya Gosudarstvennogo Muzeya Izobrazitel’nykh Iskusstv imeni A.S. Pushkina 4: 54-84. Kruglikova, I.T. 1957. ‘Remeslennoe proizvodstvo prostoi keramiki v Pantikapee v VI-III vv. do n.e.’. In Zeest, I.B. (ed.) Pantikapei (Moscow): 104-38. Monakhov, S.Y. 1999. Grecheskie amfory v Prichernomor’e. Kompleksy keramicheskoy tary (Saratov). Pakhomov, E.A. 1910. Monety Gruzii 1 (St Petersburg). Petrenko, V.G. 1967. ‘Pravoberezh’e srednego Pridneprov’ya v V-III vv. do n.e.’. In Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov D1-4 (Moscow): 5-179. Pridik, E.M. 1917. Inventarnyy katalog kleym iz amfornykh ruchkakh i gorlyshkakh i na cherepitsakh Ermitazhskogo sobranya (Petrograd). Pruglo, V.I. 1972. ‘Englificheskie kleyma Geraklei Pontiyskoi iz Mirmekii’. Kratkie soobsheniya Instituta arkheologii AN SSSR 130: 12-20. Varshalomidze, I. 2016. Numismatic Treasury of Batumi Archaeological Museum (Batumi). Vartanov, G.A. 1982. ‘Kolkhidskaya didrakhma naydennaya v Germonasse’. In Yanin, V.L. et al. (eds) Numizmatika antichnogo Prichernomor’ya (Kiev): 7174. Vickers, M. and Kakhidze, A. 2001. ‘The BritishGeorgian Excavation at Pichvnari, 1998: the “Greek” 143

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity and “Colchian” cemeteries’. Anatolian Studies 51, 6590. Vickers, M. and Kakhidze, A. 2004. Pichvnari 1: Greeks and Colchians on the East Coast of the Black Sea. Results of Excavations Conducted by the Joint British-Georgian Pichvnari Expedition, 1998-2002 (Batumi/Oxford).

Vickers, M. and Kakhidze, A. 2014. Pichvnari 6: Greeks and Colchians on the East Coast of the Black Sea. Results of Excavations Conducted by the Joint British-Georgian Pichvnari Expedition, 2003-2007 (Batumi/Oxford). Zeest, I.B. 1960. Keramicheskaya tara Bospora (Moscow). Zograf, A.N. 1945. ‘Rasprostranenie nakhodok antichnykh monet na Kavkaze’. Trudy otdela numizmatiki Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 1: 29-85.

144

A Brief Report on the Archaeological Excavations in Gonio-Apsarus, 2014-2017 *

Shota Mamuladze and Kakhaber Kamadadze Abstract The Georgian-Polish joint archaeological excavation of Gonio-Apsarus fort in 2014-2017 has revealed rich and diverse artefacts and remains of buildings that are a valuable historical source to study the past. The excavations yielded additional materials to attest and date two construction levels in the Roman cultural layer: 1) the second half of the 2nd to the end of the 3rd century AD; 2) the first half of the 1st to the second half of the 2nd century AD.

Gonio-Apsarus Fort is situated in the south-western part of the city of Batumi, on the left bank of the River Chorokhi. The stronghold is built close to the sea on a strategically important site (Fig. 1). Gonio-Apsarus has been described many times. Ancient sources for this site have been compiled and discussed in the publications of modern scholars.1 Archaeological excavations have revealed rich and diverse artefacts that are a valuable source. Combining them with written sources made it possible to trace developments from the 8th/7th centuries BC almost up to modern times.2

with ceramic tiles or plastered with mortar have been documented. Work is still underway in this area. A 5-10 cm charcoal layer has been identified along the entire length between the floors of the first and second construction levels in the southern and the eastern sections of the ditch. Apparently, for reasons unknown to us, in the second half of the 2nd century the Romanperiod constructions must have been destroyed and the surface levelled, which was later rebuilt with new constructions. Here as well, like everywhere else, Ottoman waste pits are revealed.3

The Georgian-Polish joint project has been carried on since 2014. The excavation areas of the fort are divided into three sections: 1) south-eastern part of the fort (SOXII sector); 2) south-western part of the fort (SWVI and SWIX sectors); and 3) north-eastern part of the fort (NO sector).

2. The second section (SWVI and SWIX) is the southwestern part of the fort. A rectangular structure was revealed (Fig. 3). The wall is preserved in two, sometimes in three horizontal rows. The building was divided into two – eastern and western – parts by a relatively thinner wall. Certain parts of the walls continue into an unexcavated area. The excavations revealed stone bases with quadrangular holes to accommodate wooden columns. Wooden structures seem to have prevailed in the architecture of GonioApsarus, stone being used mainly for building the foundation and occasionally, the ground floor. The building must have had a gable roof. Mainly solentype tiles were used for roofing, while in later constructions, both local and Roman, cases of applying grooved tiles appeared. The floor was laid with mortar and ceramic tiles. This construction is supposed to have been a barracks. Excavation finally revealed two Roman cultural layers here: 1) mainly corresponding to the Roman presence (from the second half of the 2nd century to the end of the 3rd century AD); and 2) earlier remains of the buildings together with the materials dated from the 1st century up to the second half of the 2nd century AD.

1. In the first (SOXII) sector excavations began in 2012 (Fig. 2). Those conducted in 2014-2017 yielded additional materials to separate clearly and date two construction levels in the Roman cultural layer: 1) Upper, with its buildings and archaeological materials, dated to the period from the second half of the 2nd century to the end of 3rd century AD; and 2) Lower, also with building remains and materials, belonging to the period from the first half of 1st century to the second half of 2nd century AD. So far, it has been impossible to determine the complete layout. Parts of their walls go into an unexcavated area. Both are large structures. Alongside the remains, the remains of a floor laid * This work was supported by Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation (SRNSF), grant no. 217910: Georgian Cultural Heritage Monuments Protected in the Central Part of Historical Chaneti (Fortifications, Churches, Communication). 1  See Mamuladze, Kakhidze and Kakhidze 2007: 31-49; Mamuladze et al. 2016; E. Kakhidze 2008: 309-314; Karasiewicz-Szczypiorski and Kakhidze 2015; Karasiewicz-Szczypiorski et al. 2016; A. Kakhidze and Mamuladze 2016: 159-72; Kamadadze 2015. 2  A. Kakhidze and Mamuladze 2004; Khalvashi 2002; Shalikadze 2004; Ebralidze 2005; Varshalomidze 2009.

Next to the barrack are remains of the other building, which was destroyed by the Ottomans. The Ottomans 3  Mamuladze et al. 2017; Mamuladze, Shalikadze and Kamdadze 2017; Karasiewicz-Szczypiorski et al. 2016; Mamuladzea et al. 2016.

145

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 1. Plan and aerial photograph of the fort of Gonio-Apsarus.

built a wooden building. It was burned in the Late Middle Ages. The reason is not clear yet.

(Fig. 4). The floor, covered with fragments of mortar and ceramics, was found. To the south of it, over a large area (7 x 12 m) the remains of floor covered with mosaics of geometrical motifs were identified. It was made up of small mosaic stones produced from local coloured

3. In the third section (NO) the Georgian-Polish joint expedition revealed a trace of a Roman-period bath 146

S. Mamuladze and K. Kamadadze: A Brief Report on the Archaeological Excavations in Gonio-Apsarus

Figure 2. South-eastern part of the fort (SOXII sector).

147

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 3. South-western part of the fort (SWVI and SWIX sectors).

148

S. Mamuladze and K. Kamadadze: A Brief Report on the Archaeological Excavations in Gonio-Apsarus

Figure 4. North-eastern part of the fort (NO sector).

149

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity stones. At different levels the remains of a hypocaust, praefurnium and apodyterium have been discovered. Stratigraphic observations, analysis of architectural material, and the artefacts point to two stages of construction. Originally, the architectural assembly consisting of several rooms was used to expand to the north. After its reconstruction, the structure was reduced and the northern part was almost abandoned. The appearance of a new bath with a mosaic floor was associated with the complete reconstruction of the building. Earlier, the remains of the architectural assembly were located under the mosaic floor. The materials suggest that the site was built at a very early stage, immediately after the Roman establishment here. The construction was, presumably, built in the second half of the 1st century AD. It is not known when exactly the thermae were destroyed for the first time and then rebuilt immediately. The final destruction of the thermae took place in the 2nd century AD, probably still in the time of Hadrian’s rule, perhaps after Antoninus Pius took power.4

of brownish-reddish clay of different sizes. Sinopean examples are also met (Fig. 7.11). Red-glazed pottery is present in fragments (Fig. 5.3-5). Similar pottery was widely spread in the 1st century AD. In the 1st-3rd centuries AD there are different technical variations.7 Among the archaeological artefacts of Gonio-Apsarus are Sinopean louteria (Fig. 6.5-6) of two types: Type 1: The horizontally unfolded mouth of one of the fragments is roundish (Fig. 6.5). The inner lap is separated from the body with a groove made with a sharp instrument. Louteria with similar shapes found in Apsarus are dated to the end of the 1st century and the first half of the 2nd century AD. This type is rare in the eastern Black Sea area.8 Type 2: There is a relief rib modelled to the mouth and body junction on the inside surface (Fig. 6.6). Such types of louteria are dated to the 2nd-3rd centuries AD and were widespread.9

Here we will briefly describe the materials obtained in 2014-2017.

The next variety of imported pottery is lamps (Figs. 6.3-4, 7.9-10). The bulk are Pergamene wares. Samian shapes are also found.10

Amphorae represent the majority of household transit ceramics. Small size brown-clay (Fig. 5.6-7) amphorae represent the evolutional development of one of the versions of Colchian amphorae of the Late Hellenistic period. This type of ceramic was produced locally in Apsarus. According to the stratigraphic data, this type of amphora began spreading if not from the end of the 1st century AD, then at least from the beginning of the 2nd century AD, and existed up to the first half of the 3rd century AD.5 Among imported amphorae we should distinguish fragments of Sinopean manufacture (Fig. 5.8-9). Mouth pieces of amphorae of the Byzantine period are also encountered (Fig. 5.1-2).

Another product found in 2014-2017 is small size pottery made of different clay (Fig. 7.1-2, 4, 6). It is dated to the 2nd-3rd centuries AD. Glass items are represented by fragments of drinking vessel mouths, bottom walls and the bottom of verticalrib bowls, perfume containers and decanter-like vessels (Fig. 6.7-9). These vessels were made in western Mediterranean workshops. They are dated to the 1st3rd centuries AD.11 As it is well known, drinking vessels were spread widely in the ancient world.

Quite often kitchen and table utensils of the Roman period are discovered: pots, cauldron-pots and jugs (Fig. 5.10-13; Fig. 7.3, 5, 7-8); also clay lids catch attention too (Fig. 6.1-2). They repeat the shapes uncovered earlier.6

Among the archaeological artefacts are glass finger rings (Fig. 7.14-15) and a small bronze sculpture (Fig. 7.1 6). All items are dated to the 1st-3rd centuries AD. These are the main results of the archaeological excavations conducted in 2014-2017. The excavation is to be continued in the future.

A great part of the finds are of construction ceramics (Fig. 7.11-13), the majority being solen-type tiles made

Ebralidze 2005: 35. Ebralidze 2005: 70, fig. 50. 9  Ebralidze 2005: 70-71, fig. 51. 10  Ebralidze 2005: 53-66. 11  Shalikadze 2004: 17-20; A. Kakhidze and Shalikadze 2009: 57.

Karasiewicz-Szczypiorski and Mamuladze 2017; KarasiewiczSzczypiorski 2016; Karasiewicz-Szczypiorski et al. 2016; Mamuladze et al. 2016. 5  Khalvashi 2002: 35-51. 6  A. Kakhidze and Mamuladze 2004: 55-56.

7 

4 

8 

150

S. Mamuladze and K. Kamadadze: A Brief Report on the Archaeological Excavations in Gonio-Apsarus

Figure 5. 1-2 Amphorae of the Byzantine period; 3-5 Red-glazed pottery; 6-7 Brown-clay amphorae; 8-9 Sinopean amphorae; 10-13 Pots, cauldron-pots and jugs.

151

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 6. 1-2. Clay lids; 3-4 Lamps; 5-6 Sinopean louteria; 7-9 Glass.

152

S. Mamuladze and K. Kamadadze: A Brief Report on the Archaeological Excavations in Gonio-Apsarus

Figure 7. 1-2, 4, 6 Small size pottery; 3, 5, 7, 8 Pots, cauldron-pots and jugs; 9-10 Lamps; 11-13 Construction ceramics; 14-15 FInger rings, 16 Bronze sculpture.

153

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Bibliography

Karasiewicz-Szczypiorski, R. and Mamuladze, S. 2017. ‘Gonio (Apsaros) in Ajara-Excavations of the Roman Fort. A Polish-Georgian Archaeological Expedition. Seasons 2014 and 2015’. In Kakhidze, A. (ed.) Ajara: Tsarsuli da tanamedroveoba 3 (Batumi): 259-301. Karasiewicz-Szczypiorski, R., Mamuladze, S., Jaworski, P. and Wagner, M. 2016. ‘Gonio (Apsaros) in Ajara: Excavations of a Roman Fort interim Report on the first season of the Polish-Georgian Archaeological Expedition’. In Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 25: 521-32. Khalvashi, M. 2002. Keramikuli tara Gonio-Apsarosidan (Batumi). Mamuladze, S., Kakhidze, A. and Kakhidze, E. 2007. Gonio-Apsarus (Tbilisi). Mamuladze, S., Karasiewicz-Szczypiorski, R., Shalikadze, T., Surmanidze N. and Kakhidze, E. 2016. ‘Interim Report on the Polish-Georgian excavation of a Roman fort I Gonio (Apsaros) in 2014’. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 25: 533-52. Mamuladze, S., Shalikadze, T. and Kamadadze, K. 2017. ‘2015 tsels Gonio-Apsaroshi tsarmoebuli arkeologiuri gatkhrebis dziritadi shedegebi’. In Kakhidze, A. (ed.) Ajara: Tsarsuli da tanamedroveoba 3 (Batumi): 238-58. Mamuladze, S., Shalikadze, T., Surmanidze, N. and Kamadadze, K. 2017. ‘Gonio-Afsarosshi 2014 tsels warmoebuli arkeologiuri gatkhrebis angarishi’. In Kakhidze, A. (ed.) Ajara: Tsarsuli da tanamedroveoba (Batumi): 207-38. Shalikadze, T. 2004. Gvian antikuri da adreshuasaukuneebis minis nawarmi samxret dasavlet saqartvelos zgvispiretidan (Batumi). Varshalomidze, I. 2009. Monetebi Gonio-apsarosidan (Batumi).

Ebralidze, T. 2005. Samkhret-dasavlet Saqartvelos zgvispireti gvianelinistursa da romaul khanashi (Batumi). Kakhidze, A. and Mamuladze, S. 2004. ‘Samkhret karibchisa da abanotubnis teritoriaze 1995-1999 tslebshi tsarmoebuli kvleva-dziebis umtavresi shedegebi’. In Kakhidze, A et al. (eds) Gonio-Apsarus IV (Batumi): 3-104. Kakhidze, A. and Mamuladze, S. 2016. Adjaris arkeologiuri dzeglebi (Tbilisi). Kakhidze, A. and Shalikadze, T. 2009. Pichvnari 4/GonioApsarus 9: Minis natsarmi samkhret-dasavlet Saqartvelos zgvispiretidan/Glassware from the Southwestern Littoral of Georgia (Batumi/Oxford). Kakhidze, E. 2008. ‘Apsaros: A Roman fort In Southwestern Georgia, Meetings of Cultures in the Black Sea Region: Between Conflict and Coexistence’. In Bilde, P.G. and Petersen, J.H. (eds) Meetings of Cultures in the Black Sea Region: Between Conflict and Coexistence (Aarhus): 309-14. Kamadadze, K. 2015. ‘Gviani shuasaukuneebis arkeologiuri nagebobebi Gonio-afsarosis tsikhidan’. In Meskhia. E. (ed.) Saertashoriso Conperentsiis ‘Cultura da Khelovneba: kvleva da martva’ masalebi (Batumi): 136-41. Karasiewicz-Szczypiorski, R. 2016. ‘Apsarus. Early Headquartwrs Buiding (principia. New Localization?’. Pro-Georgia, Journal of Kartvelological Studies 26 (Warsaw): 53-64. Karasiewicz-Szczypiorski, R. and Kakhidze, E. 2015. ‘The Roman “Apsaros” in Gonio-early phase. New Discoveries and Perspectives for Investigations’. ProGeorgia, Journal of Kartvelological Studies 25 (Warsaw): 171-81.

154

Southern Black Sea

155

156

The Traces of the Chalcolithic Culture of Alaca Höyük in the Coastal Settlements of the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey *

Hulya Çalışkan Akgül Abstract Tekkeköy, located near Samsun, was excavated together with Dündartepe and Kaledorugu settlements of the same region in 1940-41. İkiztepe settlement near Samsun has become a significant reference point for comparative analysis of Tekkeköy pottery finds, although the excavations were started about 33 years later than a Tekkeköy. As a result of many years of study, the stratigraphy of İkiztepe has become the backbone of the prehistory of the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey. However, the stratigraphy and dating of İkiztepe constitute one the major topics of Anatolian archaeology for which the compelling debates of different views have taken place. At this point, Alaca Höyük, being one of the unique settlements of Anatolia and with its long stratification and location in inner region, has a great importance for the prehistory of the Central Black Sea Region. In this study, preliminary results of the pottery, which has been recently found at Alaca Höyük and obtained from the studies aimed at reaching the earliest levels of the mound, will be discussed. Also, the situation of the Central Black Sea Region during the Chalcolithic period, in which the raw materials and the technology transfers between remote areas took place, will be discussed.

Introduction

the first half of the 3rd millennium BC as a general statement.3 During the Alaca Höyük excavations it has been stated that following levels 7-8, dated as ‘Copper Age’, a differentiation started in pottery tradition at level 9 and significant similarities with the Chalcolithic finds of Alişar Höyük have been observed, thus 9-12 were dated as ‘Chalcolithic’.4

The chronology debates in the Kızılırmak Basin, a challenging place regarding both terminology and chronology, are due mainly to differences in the interpretations of von der Osten and Bittel’s Alişar stratigraphy.1 When the Alişar chronology was formed, the principle that the layers follow each other with no gaps between was accepted, thus the stratigraphy was constituted by correlating to Trojan and Mesopotamian chronology. Accordingly, levels 12-19M predating Troy have been dated to the Chalcolithic period. As for levels 7-11M lying between the Early Bronze Age and Chalcolithic period, the term ‘Copper Age’ has been used so as not to disrupt this idea.2 This chronological principle developed with the Alişar excavations was adapted to all of the settlements of the Kızılırmak Basin and the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey. Today, however, the use of the term ‘Copper Age’ has been removed from archaeological literature.

In the 1960s, Orthmann interpreted Bittel’s view that all known early phases date to the Early Bronze Age as a generally accepted chronological system.5 After Orthmann, the ceramic inventory from Alaca 9-12 was separated into two groups by Thissen. The first group associated with Büyük Güllücek was dated to an earlier phase and defined as ‘Alaca Early Chalcolithic’, the rest as ‘Alaca Late Chalcolithic’. Between the horizons, which include two different pottery inventories, it has been claimed that a gap of almost 1000 years exists.6 The last data, which can be useful for dating, is that the aforementioned pottery assemblage surprisingly shows up in the Upper Euphrates region. The first clues of this chronological matching, which was initially indicated by M. Özdoğan, were detected in Late Chalcolithic 5 levels at Tepecik and Arslantepe settlements. In Upper Euphrates settlements, ceramic ware with Central Anatolian origins, such as pottery with a bichrome pattern along with new forms such as bowls on high stems, so-called fruit-stands, accompanies the pottery

In addition to these, von der Osten stated that the exact beginning and end dates of the Alişar 12-19M levels, which were described as ‘Chalcolithic’, could not be determined. For this reason, 12-19M levels were dated between the second half of the 4th millennium BC and * This paper was presented at the 3rd International Symposium ‘The Black Sea in Antiquity and Tekkeköy: An Ancient Settlement on the Southern Black Sea Coast’, Tekkeköy-Samsun, 27-29 October 2017. I would like to thank Prof. Aykut Çınaroğlu for encouraging and supporting me to excavate in a new area at Alaca Höyük and giving me total access to excavation data and material. 1  von der Osten 1937a; 1937b; Bittel 1934. 2  Schoop 2005: 66; Ivanova 2013: 233.

von der Osten 1937a: 28-30. Koşay 1938: 150. 5  Orthman 1963. 6  Thissen 1993: 209-10. 3  4 

157

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 1. Sites and regions mentioned in the text.

inventory which is associated with the Late Uruk ceramic inventory of the Mesopotamian world.7

The most distinctive finds from the earlier excavations have been published. Ceramic vessels, which were found during each season, were grouped within general chronological and cultural categories such as Early Bronze Age, Copper Age and Chalcolithic Age without giving any details.9 In these publications it is impossible to obtain information such as the level from which the finds came, the context in which the pottery was found or the relationship between the groups of artefacts. In publications with catalogues, Chalcolithic vessels are described as black and grey to mottled black and reddish on surfaces. It was noted that ceramic vessels with incised, notched, painted and relief decorations were few. It was also reported that a small group of the Chalcolithic assemblage is red-black burnished ware and that red-slipped ware had a coarser structure than that found in Early Bronze Age levels. Pottery coming from levels 9-14 is mostly characterised by coarse mineral inclusions, black or greyish-black coloured, well-burnished, while in the upper levels this group diminished in quantity.10

Chalcolithic period of Alaca Höyük and pottery inventory The mound is located in the Kızılırmak Basin, Alaca district, which is 40 km south-west of Çorum (Fig. 1). This settlement has been the subject of research and excavation since 1835. On behalf of the Turkish Historical Institution, scientific studies started in 1935 under the direction of R.O Arık, and from 1936 onwards, were organised by H.Z. Kosay. Until the 1970s these excavations continued intensively, followed by smaller-scale work. Excavation was re-started in 1997 by Prof. A. Çınaroğlu and has continued since. In 2011, a new project was launched to understand the earliest levels of the site. While detailed analyses of the pottery finds obtained during the excavation season of 2017 continue, preliminary results suggest their significant value for the prehistory of the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey.

The ceramic remains that survive today are effectively the pieces of a special collection, and expecting any help from them to bring new breath to discussions about the Central Anatolian Chalcolithic is pointless. For this simple reason the recently started excavations of the Alaca Höyük Chalcolithic period are significant.

The stratigraphy was established during the early period of excavations. Layer IV (levels 9-12) of Alaca Höyük was unearthed during 1935: 1936: 1940-48 and 1963-67. Despite the Late Chalcolithic levels being locating centrally in the mound, as shown in main cross-section drawing by Koşay, there is no detailed information about them. In the first excavation season (1935), the Chalcolithic levels were indicated as 9-14 and in later publications as 9-12.8

Although analysis helps us to identify some groups of samples clearly, it should be emphasised that the building levels of the Chalcolithic period have not yet

7  For detailed information, see Palmieri 1973; Esin 1982; Özdoğan 1991; 218-20, 1996; Ökse 2007; Palumbi 2008; Çalışkan Akgül 2012; 2013. 8  Koşay 1938: 150-57; Koşay and Akok 1966: 5.

9 

Gürsan-Salzmann 1992; Çalışkan Akgül 2013. Koşay 1938: 150, 157.

10 

158

H. Çalışkan Akgül: The Traces of the Chalcolithic Culture of Alaca Höyük

Figure 2. Monochrome ware at Alaca Höyük level 9-12? a) Al.h.281-Inv. No. 1-3-74 Çorum Museum, b) Al.g.89-Inv. No. 1-17-74 Alaca Höyük Museum, c) Al.n.108-Inv. No. 1-214-68 Çorum Museum.

been reached. Moreover the pottery comes from the fill layer beneath building levels dated to the Early Bronze Age.

of the 5th millennium BC, and earlier examples were detected in Can Hasan I-2B and Gelveri.11 The dark coloured and mineral-added wares in the Chalcolithic repertoire of Alaca Höyük and the redblack burnished pottery groups could be traced in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey. Furthermore, carinated bowls with inverted rim (Fig. 4), examples with incised and notched decorations, animal and/or horn shaped handle (Fig. 5) and light-white painted decoration on black surfaces (Fig. 6) are features similar to the pottery assemblage of the Central Black Sea coastal settlements.

The ceramic inventory of Alaca Höyük Chalcolithic period is generally dominated by dark colour. There are samples that are named as monochrome ware with mostly brown, reddish-brown and greyish-brown colour and mottled black pattern (Fig. 2a-c). The clay is mineral-added and has vegetal inclusions. The outer surfaces of vessels are well burnished. Some of the samples have burnishing even forming a thick layer. In addition to this, black ware with black or reddish-black on both surfaces, red-black burnished ware (Fig. 3a) with alternate chromatic pattern, red-slipped ware (Fig. 3b) in which vegetal inclusion is dominant and coarse ware with intense mineral inclusions constitute the rest of the ceramic inventory. Another noteworthy feature from recent excavations is the presence of examples resembling scored ware (Fig 3c-e). Scored ware was used in an area comprising northern Mesopotamia, Cilicia and South-Central Anatolia in the second half

The effects of Alaca Höyük on the central Black Sea littoral The Samsun region, studied since 1940, has the richest scope for providing data of anywhere along the entire Black Sea coast. During 1940-41, K. Kökten, T. Özgüç, 11 

159

French 2005: 21; Özbudak 2016: 106-07; Demirtaş 2017: 280.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 3. a) Red-black burnished ware, Al.j.227-Inv. No 1-16-74 Çorum Museum; b) Red-slipped ware, Al.l.79 – level 9?- Inv. No. 1-1148-74, Alaca Höyük Museum; c-e) Scored ware.

and N. Özgüç carried out excavations at Dündartepe and Tekkeköy near Samsun and Kaledoruğu near Kavak (Fig. 1). In Tekkeköy, 14 km east to Samsun, a small sounding was dug, yielding various information. In the valley and on a flat field, two cultural periods were identified.12 The pottery found after 1.50 m depth has been morphologically and typologically matched with that from Dündartepe second level and defined as the ‘Copper Age culture’. Inside this thickly excavated level (the depths of the level adjusted to the surface slope of excavation area: 3.10-5.40 m and 1.64-4.62 m) 17 skeletons were unearthed in single or double burials containing pottery, earrings, knives, daggers and wedges.13 The common feature of the ceramic vessels found in this filling floor is that they are handmade and plant-mineral added. Although the pottery finds were analysed in a general sense during the excavation 12  13 

Figure 4. a-c) Carinated bowls from Alaca Höyük, level 10-12; d) Carinated bowl from Dündartepe; e) Carinated bowl from Tekkeköy.

Kökten et al. 1945: 382-83. Özgüç 1948: 407-09.

160

H. Çalışkan Akgül: The Traces of the Chalcolithic Culture of Alaca Höyük

Figure 5. Horn-shaped handles from Alaca Höyük, level 9-12.

Figure 6. a) Red-black burnished ware with white painted decoration; b) Redblack burnished ware with light-white painted decoration; c) Black burnished ware with punctuated decoration filled white paste (Alaca Höyük 12b/9, 2012).

constituting the backbone of the prehistory of the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey, despite all the controversies about its chronology. In addition to the Tekkeköy, Dündartepe and Kaledoruğu finds, İkiztepe is also the initial reference point for other surveys currently underway. The first striking feature of the pottery obtained is the documentation of bichrome production.16

period, the use of terms ‘red-black pottery and black on outside or opposite’ is striking. Besides white paint decorated cups and special handle types it is highlighted that these types of ceramic finds were detected side by side throughout the whole level.14 Kavak-Kaledoruğu, located near Samsun, was excavated in a considerably short time and 13 simple earth burials were found. In addition to burials dated to the ‘Copper Age’, various architectural elements such as stairs and thick walls were also identified. Due to the fact that the walls and burials in the excavation share the same level, intra-mural burial is mentioned. Having the same characteristics with examples from Tekkeköy, the similarity of these vessels with Alaca Höyük and Alişar was also emphasised.15

When we move a little south of the Black Sea, the earliest example of bichrome pottery production can be found in Büyük Güllücek, dated to the 5th millennium BC.17 The same technique of red-black ceramic production is encountered through all the excavation sites in the region. However, with the exception of Çadır Höyük, the tradition of bichrome in the Chalcolithic settlements of the Kızılırmak Basin follows a fundamental rule: in open forms such as bowls, the inner surface is black and burnished, while in closed forms such as pots, it is the

Thirty-three years after both of the settlements were excavated, the İkiztepe excavations were launched, 14  15 

Kökten et al. 1945: 386. Özgüç 1948: 414-15.

16  17 

161

Alkım et al. 1988; 2003. Koşay and Akok 1948: 477; Schoop 2005: 45.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity 7l-m); and the juglets, which are common in Kızılırmak Basin, are detected in all of the regions involved (Fig. 7n-r).

outer surface that is black and burnished, i.e. surface varies with shape (alternate chromatic pattern). Only in Çadır Höyük do the open forms yield examples where the outer surface is black.18 Although the same pattern occurs at many settlements along the Central Black Sea littoral, a significant difference exists between the coast and the hinterland. This, which can also be seen in Tekkeköy, Dündartepe and İkiztepe C and F soundings, is based on the fact that the outer surfaces of the pots are black and burnished irrespective of the form of the vessels (fixed chromatic pattern).19 For this reason, the white painted decoration applied to black surfaces is on the inside within Kızılırmak Basin settlements such as Alaca Höyük, but on the outer surface in coastal settlements such as Tekkeköy (Fig. 7a-d). This situation, underlined by L. Thissen, is explained by a chronological difference.20 K. Kökten, however, states that in the definitions of ceramics, ‘vessels with black burnished inner surface and reddish outer surface’21 also exist at coastal settlements as in the Late Chalcolithic levels at Çadır Höyük. Thus, it seems that alternate and fixed chromatic patterns coexist in the same level. The manufacture of bichrome pottery in both regions should be taken as a sign of a common tradition in the Kızılırmak Basin and the Central Black Sea Region. The fixed chromatic pattern in red-black burnished ware revealed in Tekkeköy and Dündartepe reminds us of finds in North-East Anatolian Late Chalcolithic pottery and brings out that there could have been interaction and communication between the Central Black Sea Region and North-East Anatolia in the Late Chalcolithic.

Discussion Excavations of earlier levels of Alaca Höyük reveal interesting data. But at this point it is necessary to discuss the meaning of the term Chalcolithic for the Kızılırmak Basin. In Anatolia, all settlements with metal finds prior to the Early Bronze Age, which was initiated with the stratigraphy of Troy, have been defined as ‘Chalcolithic’.22 The Kızılırmak Basin has inadequate data, C-14 dates and unidentified stratigraphic interpretations contradict the earliest archaeological research initiated in Anatolia. These Chalcolithic settlements with inadequate data from the past, less attractive than the strong Hittite period, have been described as ‘small with farm-based economy and a stable character’.23 While describing the Chalcolithic period of the Kızılırmak Basin as such, in the east of Anatolia the ‘early state’ idea was shaped.24 Therefore, the Chalcolithic period indicates different types of progress in different areas, the vast Anatolian geography varying from one region to another. It is not surprising that this phenomenon results in confusion. On the other hand, exhibiting different chronological approaches for similar finds also makes it difficult to shift. Probably the use of a term specific to a particular region or place of residence could be one way to prevent the confusion.

Another interesting feature of the Central Black Sea ceramic inventory is the absence of bowls on high stems – the fruit-stands, which are peculiar to the Kızılırmak Basin. However, the presence of cut-out decorations on stems in examples from İkiztepe is worth mentioning. The presence of the same decoration style can be interpreted as another sign of the influence of the Kızılırmak Basin (Fig. 7e-g).

In 1945, T. Özgüç indicated that the Central Anatolian ceramic repertoire differed from the assemblage of Mesopotamia and that the Chalcolithic period of Central Anatolia should begin earlier than the end of the 4th millennium BC.25 Nevertheless, the problem of defining the periods in Central Anatolia today is still a challenge. Alaca Höyük constitutes the large part of this issue.

Some features of the Chalcolithic period ceramic repertoire of the Central Black Sea Region also exist throughout the Late Chalcolithic 5 pottery inventory of the upper Euphrates valley. Bowls with incised decoration on the outer surface observed in the late Uruk levels of Tepecik are, perhaps, the most important element (Fig. 7h-k). This type of incised decoration with a motif of triangles filled in with oblique lines and stepped-patternrs is also observed in the ceramic repertoire of Sos Höyük VA and İkiztepe I-level I (Fig.

Although the analyses of ceramic examples consists of selective comparison, it may still indicate crucial points. For instance, the fruit-stands show that the thick Chalcolithic levels of Alaca Höyük and Alişar Höyük should not be dated to the end of the 4th millennium BC.26 In addition, these fruit-stands have also been found in non-domestic structures dated to cal. 3620-3590 BC at Çadır Höyük.27 This form was also unearthed in the Karg 1999; Schoop 2011; Ivanova 2013: 233-35. Düring 2011: 796-98. Frangipane 2017a. 25  Özgüç 1945: 357. 26  Schoop 2005: 331-35; Düring 2016: 258-59. 27  Şerifoğlu et al. 2016: 307-08.

18  For definitions of Late Chalcolithic vessels from Çadır Höyük, see Steadman et al. 2008: 78-83. 19  Kökten et al. 1945: 370-71; Özgüç 1948: 399; Alkım et al. 1988: 33, 9295; Thissen 1993: 211-16. 20  Thissen 1993: 211-15. 21  Kökten et al. 1945: 370-71.

22  23  24 

162

H. Çalışkan Akgül: The Traces of the Chalcolithic Culture of Alaca Höyük

Figure 7. a-c) Dündartepe; d) Alaca Höyük level 9-12; e) Alaca Höyük level 9?; f) İkiztepe I-Level I; g) İkiztepe I-Level I; h-i) Dündartepe; j-k) Tepecik 15-A level 2; l) İkiztepe; m) Sos Höyük, layer VA; n) Alaca Höyük, Al.n.158; o) Alaca Höyük, Al.n.161; p) İkiztepe II-Level II-Phase 1; r) Arslantepe VIA, 219/96, A651.

163

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 8. Possible routes of communications and interactions between North-Central and North-East Anatolia, end of the 4th millennium BC.

final phase VII (3500 BC) and phase VIA (3350-3100 BC) at Arslantepe.28 In Alaca Höyük scored ware proposes a date as early as the 5th millennium BC.29

Late Chalcolithic period, reflect the development in metallurgical activities, explaining the similarities in ceramic inventory within these three regions.33 At this point, the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey, defined as terra incognita regarding prehistorical settlements, is worth mentioning.34 The presence of red-black pottery in the Bayburt-Gümüşhane-Ordu (Mesudiye)-Tokat and Amasya regions, which constitute a route south of the eastern Black Sea coast retains its importance.35 This evidence supports the connection within these areas by the route mentioned (Fig. 8). But we do not currently know the situation in the coastal part of the Eastern Black Sea Region due to the lack of archaeological research. It should be noted that the red-black pottery found along the east-west corridor is dated to the Early Bronze Age.

These analyses indicate the ability of the Chalcolithic community of Alaca Höyük to communicate and interact with remote regions, but further investigations are required to show the presence of this ability in other cultural elements as well. Nevertheless, the presence of metallurgical activities in Çamlıbel Tarlası and Derekutuğun and the discovery of buildings defined as a public area in Çadır Höyük reveal the potential of the region in the Chalcolithic period.30 The momentum of this potential could be the increase in metallurgical activities. Indeed the arsenical copper artefacts, which were found in settlements of the Kızılırmak Basin, the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey31 and the upper Euphrates valley32 in the

Red-black burnished ware is the most significant symbol of the Early Bronze Age Kura-Araxes culture of Transcaucasian origin, which is defined as nomadic in character. Current studies of this culture discuss its concept and nature of migration.36 The results obtained at Sos Höyük (Erzurum) and Chobareti (Georgia) have shown that in the earlier period of this culture, dated to the Late Chalcolithic, it had monochrome ceramic tradition,37 thus suggesting that the bichrome pattern

Frangipane 2017a; Palumbi et al. 2017: 118-20. During the symposium, A. Türker presented that pottery pieces similar to scored ware had been found during his survey conducted in the Samsun region. This data has not been published yet. If it is correct, the significance of Alaca Höyük should be re-considered because we have no data about scored ware from other Kızılırmak Basin settlements so far. 30  Schoop 2011; Yalçın and İpek 2011: 18; Steadmann et al. 2008. 31  The rich array of metal artefacts such as tri-partite and leaf-shaped blade and quadruple spiral plaque are found on the Black Sea coast at İkiztepe and Dündartepe; the date of the levels and burials is still a matter of debate (Bilgi 1990, figs. 10-11, 19; Alkım et al. 1988, pl. 58; 2003; Yener 2000: 50; Zimmermann 2007). 32  Nine swords, 12 spearheads and a quadruple spiral plaque have been found at a VIA palace in Arslantepe. Archaeometric analyses demonstrate that metal pieces have shown a concordance in chemical composition. Additionally, rather than a single mine, different ore beds might have been used over time. Four of these objects match the copper deposits located in the Black Sea region, whereas five match Central Anatolian (Yapraklı, north-east of Ankara) metal resources. Indeed, these areas including the east of the Black Sea Region and 28  29 

central and North-Central Anatolia are rich in metal ores, so may have played an important role in the procurement of raw materials (Caneva and Palmieri 1983: 642-43; Hauptmann et al. 2002: 64-65; Frangipane 2017b). 33  Frangipane 2017b: 192-93, 207, fig. 13.3; Palumbi 2008; Çalışkan Akgül 2012; 2013. 34  Çalışkan Akgül 2016. 35  Özsait 1993; 1994; 2004; Sagona et al. 1993; Çiğdem 2008; Işıklı 2011: 252. 36  Işıklı 2011. 37  Kakhiani et al. 2013: 48-49; Palumbi 2008.

164

H. Çalışkan Akgül: The Traces of the Chalcolithic Culture of Alaca Höyük might have been imported at a slightly later period to the homeland of the Kura-Araxes culture. The earliest examples of red-black burnished ware with alternate chromatic pattern have been observed in the settlements of the Kızılırmak Basin in the Chalcolithic period, as has been mentioned. However, the reasons and place of the change from an alternate to a fixed chromatic firing technique to the north, toward the coastal area of the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey, are not known.

Çalışkan Akgül, H. 2012. ‘Looking to the West: The Late Chalcolithic Red-Black Ware of the Upper Euphrates Region’. Origini 34: 97-109. Çalışkan Akgül, H. 2013. East Anatolian Red-Black Burnished Ware and Central Anatolian Relations at the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 3rd Millennium BC (Dissertation, ‘La Sapienza’ University of Rome). Çalışkan Akgül, H. 2016. ‘Türkiye’nin Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesinin Prehistoryası: Bir Terra Incognita Analizi’. Uluslararası Karadeniz İncelemeleri Dergisi 21: 9-26. Çiğdem, S. 2008. Gümüşhane Bölgesi’nin Tarih ve Arkeoloji Araştırmaları (Erzurum). Demirtaş, I. 2017. Obeyd Kültür Yayılımı Çerçevesinde Güvercinkayası Yerleşmesi: Güvercinkayası-Obeyd Etkileşimi (Dissertation, Istanbul University). Düring, B.S. 2011. ‘Millennia in the Middle? Reconsidering the Chalcolithic of Asia Minor’. In Steadman, S.R. and McMahon, G. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia (Oxford): 796-812. Düring, B.S. 2016. Küçük Asya’nın Tarihöncesi Karmaşık Avcı-Toplayıcılardan Erken Kentsel Toplumlara (Istanbul). Esin, U. 1982. ‘Tepecik Kazısı, 1974’. In Keban Projesi 19741975 Çalışmaları (Ankara): 71-118. Frangipane, M. 2017a. ‘Different Trajectories in State Formation in Greater Mesopotamia: A View from Arslantepe (Turkey)’. Journal of Archaeological Research, published online on 28 June 2017. Frangipane, M. 2017b. ‘The Role of Metal Procurement in the Wide Interregional Connections of Arslantepe during the Late 4th-Early 3rd Millennia BC’. In Maner, Ç., Horowitz, M.T. and Gilbert, A.S. (eds) Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology, A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener (Leiden/ Boston): 186-210. French, D. 2005. Can Hasan I: The Pottery (London). Gürsan-Salzmann, A. 1992. Alaca Höyük, A Reassessment of the Excavation and Sequence of the Early Bronze Age Settlement (Dissertation, University of Michigan). Hauptmann, A., Schmitt-Strecker, S., Begemann, F. and Palmieri, A. 2002. ‘Chemical Composition and Lead Isotopy of Metal Objects from the “Royal” Tomb and Other Related Finds at Arslantepe, Eastern Anatolia’. Paléorient 28.2: 43-69. Işıklı, M. 2011. Doğu Anadolu Erken Transkafkasya Kültürü Çok Bileşenli Gelişkin Bir Kültürün Analizi (Istanbul). Ivanova, M. 2013. The Black Sea and the Early Civilizations of Europe Near East and Asia (Cambridge). Kakhiani, K., Sagona, A., Sagona, C., Kvavadze, E., Bedianashvili, G., Massager, E., Martin, L., Herrscher, E., Martkoplishvili, 
I., Birkett-Rees, J. and Longford, C. 2013. ‘Archaeological Investigations at Chobareti in southern Georgia, the Caucasus’. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 50: 1-138. Karg, N. 1999. ‘Tarsus and Anatolian Chronology in Retrospect’. Olba 2: 283-301.

Concluding remarks According to the archaeological evidence, the Kızılırmak Basin has a significant role in the formation of the Chalcolithic culture in littoral settlements of the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey: even common traditions in pottery manufacture and metal artefacts can be also found in Upper Euphrates region and North-East Anatolia. Prehistoric communities of North-Central Anatolia seem to have had the ability to obtain raw material and to take part in more complex communication and interaction networks in all the regions involved in the Late Chalcolithic. Certainly, one of the elements stimulating this ability of North-Central Anatolian communities in the Chalcolithic period should be related to the increase and development in metallurgical activities. If the interpretation that the red-black pottery production technique was imported to Transcaucasia is correct, then the coastal settlements of Central Black Sea Region such as İkiztepe, Dündartepe and Tekkeköy should have played a part in spreading information on bichrome firing techniques. It seems that an east-west corridor located just south of the mountainous area of the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey may have become a route connecting Transcaucasia with the North-Central Anatolian world in the course of the 4th millennium BC. Bibliography Alkım, B.U., Alkım H. and Bilgi, Ö. 1988. İkiztepe I: Birinci ve İkinci Dönem Kazıları (1974-1975) (Ankara). Alkım, B.U., Alkım H. and Bilgi, Ö. 2003. İkiztepe II: Üçüncü, Dördüncü, Beşinci, Altıncı, Yedinci Dönem Kazıları (1976-1980) (Ankara). Bilgi, Ö. 1990. ‘Metal Objects from İkiztepe-Turkey’. Beitrage zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archaologie 9-10: 119-219. Bittel, K. 1934. ‘Prähistorische Forschung in Kleinasien’. Istanbuler Forschungen 6: 59-83. Caneva, C. and Palmieri, A.M. 1983. ‘Metalwork at Arslantepe in Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I: The Evidence from Metal Analyses’. Origini 12.2: 637-54. 165

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Koşay, H.Z. 1938. Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yapılan Alaca Höyük Hafriyatı, 1936’daki Çalışmalara ve Keşiflere Ait İlk Rapor (Ankara). Koşay, H.Z. and Akok, M. 1948. ‘Büyük Güllücek araştırmaları üzerine ilk rapor. Preliminary report on test excavations at Büyük Güllücek’. Belleten 12: 471-85. Koşay, H.Z. and Akok, M. 1966. Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yapılan Alaca Höyük Kazısı, 1940-1948 Deki Çalışmalara ve Keşiflere Ait İlk Rapor (Ankara). Kökten, K., Özgüç, N. and Özgüç, T. 1945. ‘Türk Tarih Kurumu Adına Yapılan Samsun Bölgesi Kazıları Hakkında İlk Kısa Rapor’. Belleten 9: 361-400. Orthmann, W. 1963. Die Keramik der frühen Bronzezeit aus Inneranatolien (Berlin). Ökse, T.A. 2007. ‘Ancient Mountain Routes Connecting Central Anatolia to the Upper Euphrates Region’. Anatolian Studies 57: 35-45. Özbudak, M.O. 2016. Koyu Yüzlü Çizi-Kazı Bezemeli Çanak Çömlek Işığında Orta Anadolu’da Orta Kalkolitik’e Geçiş Sorunu (Dissertation, Istanbul University). Özdoğan, M. 1991. ‘Eastern Thrace before the beginning of Troy I – an archaeological dilemma’. In Lichardus, J. (ed.) Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche 1 (Bonn): 217-24. Özdoğan, M. 1996. ‘Pre-Bronze Age Sequence of Central Anatolia: An Alternative Approach’. In Magen, U. and Rashad, M. (eds) Vom Halys zum Euphrat, Thomas Beran zu Ehren (Münster): 185-202. Özgüç, T. 1948. ‘Samsun hafriyatının 1941-1942 yılı neticeleri’. In III. Türk Tarih Kongresi 1943 (Ankara): 393-419. Özgüç, T. 1993. ‘1991 Yılı Ordu-Mesudiye Yüzey Araştırmaları’. In 10. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara): 311-30. Özgüç, T. 1994. ‘1992 yılı Ordu-Mesudiye Yüzey Araştırmaları’. In 11. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara): 301-10. Özgüç, T. 2004. ‘2002 Yılı Samsun-Amasya Yüzey Araştırmalarının İlk Sonuçları’. In 21. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara): 273-84. Palmieri, A. 1973. ‘Scavi nell’area sud-occidentale di Arslantepe’. Origini 7: 55-179. Palumbi, G. 2008. The Red and The Black. Social and Cultural Interaction between the Upper Euphrates and

Southern Caucasus Communities in the Fourth and Third Millennium BC (Rome). Palumbi, G., Alvaro, C., Grifoni, C. and Frangipane, M. 2017. ‘A “communal” building of the beginning of the Early Bronze Age at Arslantepe-Malatya (Turkey). Spatio-functional analysis and interpretation
of the archaeological context’. Paléorient 27.1: 89-123. Sagona, A.G., Pemberton, E. and McPhee, I. 1993. ‘Excavation at Büyüktepe Höyük 1992: Third Preliminary Report’. Anatolian Studies 46: 69-83. Schoop, U.D. 2005. Das Anatolische Chalkolithikum. Eine chronologische Untersuchung zur vorbronzezeitlichen Kultursequenz im nördlichen Zentralanatolien und den angrenzenden Gebieten (Remshalden). Schoop, U.D. 2011. ‘Çamlıbel Tarlası, ein metallverarbeitender Fundplatz des vierten Jahrtausends v. Chr. im nördlichen Zenralanatolien’. In Yalçın, Ü. (ed.) Anatolian Metal V (Bochum): 53-68. Şerifoğlu, T.E., McMahon, G. and Steadman, S.R. 2016. ‘Çadır Höyük 2014 Sezonu’. In 37. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara): 305-22. Steadman, S.R., Ross, J.C., McMahon, G. and Gorny, R.L. 2008. ‘Excavations on the North-central plateau: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age occupation at Çadır Höyük’. Anatolian Studies 58: 47-86. Thissen, L. 1993. ‘New Insights in Balkan-Anatolian Connections in the Late-Chalcolithic: Old Evidence from the Turkish Black Sea Littoral’. Anatolian Studies 43: 207-37. von der Osten, H.H. 1937a. The Alishar Höyük: Season of 1930-32, Part I (Chicago). von der Osten, H.H. 1937b. The Alishar Höyük: Season of 1930-32, Part III (Chicago). Yalçın, Ü. and İpek, Ö. 2011. ‘Derekutuğun Tarihöncesi Maden İşletmeleri’. Çorum Kazı ve Araştırmalar Sempozyumu 2: 11-31. Yener, A.K. 2000. The Domestication of Metals. The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia (Leiden). Zimmermann, T. 2007. ‘Anatolia and the Balkans, once again: ring-shaped idols from western Asia and a critical reassessment of some “Early Bronze Age” items from İkiztepe, Turkey’. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 26.1: 25-33.

166

The Baruthane Tumuli at Amisos/Samsun Sümer Atasoy Abstract The two tumuli on Baruthane Hill have been revealed after the rescue excavations that took place in the summers of 2004 and 2005. In the South Tumulus a two-chambered tomb was carved into a conglomerate layer. The walls, ceiling and the floor of the chambers were covered by cream-coloured plaster. Fragments of amphorae, an unguentarium, three bronze nails and a bone disk were recovered from the front chamber. In the North Tumulus a three-chamber tomb was carved into a conglomerate layer. No plastering was applied in the chambers only pseudo-half columns were formed. The two tumuli were built in the Hellenistic period.

Introduction Various burial grounds with varying numbers from the Hellenistic and Roman periods are attested in the rescue excavations at Amisos.1 The burial grounds were located on the eastern and western slopes of Toraman Hill and in the south (Fig. 1). As a result of illegal excavations the simple burials and rock-cut graves have been robbed and the finds have been sold to European museums and to collectors.2 The research and excavation of the necropolis is impossible. The land is still private property. The Classical necropolis of the Amisos has not been found, thus we do not know what Amisian graves of the Classical period looked like.3 There are also many tumuli in the centre of Samsun. Only five of them (Baruthane, Toptepe Atakent, Lerdüge and Dondortepe) were investigated by Samsun Museum and only brief reports of the excavations were published.4 The Baruthane (or Kalkanca) tumuli are located 3 km to the west of Samsun city centre (Fig. 2). They marked the entrance of the port to ancient mariners and are said to have been dedicated to SS Cosma and Damien. It is also claimed that there was a temple of Dioscuros and that the temple was depicted on coins.5

Figure 1. The burial grounds of Amisos.

For graves at Amisos, see Atasoy 1997: 51-52; 2009: 169. Atasoy 2003: 1351, n. 57. 3  In 2009, during the construction of Samsun light rail system, a small ancient settlement was discovered at Kurupelit, 7 km west of Amisos, and a rescue excavation was undertaken by Samsun Museum. Architectural remains, pottery sherds and terracotta figurines (Cybele and Kore) which have been dated to the Archaic period were recovered; and 400 m north-west of the Kurupelit settlement six grave stones dating to the 6th-5th century BC were found. See Şirin and Kolağasıoğlu 2016; Akyüz 2013: 33-50; Atasoy 2018: 140. 4  For the rescue excavations of Amisos graves, see Ünan 2009; 2013: 389-94. 5  Cumont 1906: 122. 1  2 

The larger tumulus (Tumulus 1) lies in the south, with a diameter of 40 m and height of 15 m. The peak of this tumulus is 85 m above sea level. The smaller (Tumulus 2) lies in the north, with a diameter of 30 m and height of 8 m. Its peak is 75 m above sea level. In 2004 and 2005 rescue excavations of both tumuli were carried out by a team from Samsun Museum 167

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 2. Baruthane tumuli from north.

and Istanbul University, financed by the Samsun Metropolitan Municipality.6

the grave was found. The tunnel extended in an eastwest direction. Approximately 3 m of the tunnel was cleared, 2 m high and 1.5 m wide. There were no finds in this part of the tunnel.

It was decided first to investigate the area using remote sensing equipment. A geophysical survey of the area was carried out and the measurements from three points revealed the need for sondages. Three were placed on the mound where the geophysical work was conducted.

The sondage revealed information regarding how the tumulus was built. Detailed investigation, photography and sketches of the eastern side of the site have revealed that Tumulus 1 was formed by the combination of several smaller hills. The investigation of the 12 m long eastern section has revealed signs of two small hills (one to the north and one to the south).

Sondage 1 (Tumulus 1) The sondage was opened in a north to south direction with a length of 10 m. It is known that in the Samsun region the entrances of burial chambers face east. Some examples include the tomb with dromos in Ikiztepe, Bafra, and the burial chambers of the Lerduge, Havza and Çivril, and Kavak tumuli. Subsequently, it was decided to dig the north-eastern side of Tumulus 1.7

Sondage 2 (Tumulus 1) Sondage 2 was opened in the eastern side of Tumulus 1. Some looters had dug this part of the tumulus extensively and they had found large unprocessed stones. This was the main purpose of digging this site.

Under the surface soil was a layer made up of large and small stones at 1.60 m depth on the southern side of the dig site. On the same side there was a filling made up of large and small stones. After this level, it was found that the fill soil contained pottery sherds.

At a 2.60 m depth, unprocessed river stones emerged to form the foundation of an architectural remain. There was a hard filling of soil between these two rows of stones. The bedrock was covered by plaster starting from 3.70 m deep.

A long wall was found between two mounds and it extended in a north-south direction (Fig. 3). It was followed and found to be 21.70 m long, 1.30 m high, and the average thickness of the stone was 0.35 m. The wall was constructed of three rows of rectangular stones without mortar. Lead clamps were used to connect cut stones horizontally (Fig. 4). It was found that the wall was built on a dry rubble wall in the eastern side. A stamped amphora was found during cleaning (Fig. 5).

The large round stones, which were found in the northern and southern sections and also in the middle of the dig site, were identified as a surrounding wall, 2 m thick, that covered the foothill of Tumulus 1. Grave beneath Tumulus 1 (South) After the surrounding wall was found, further digging revealed that a two-chambered grave was carved into a conglomerate layer. It has a total length of 6 m, a width 2.5 m and a height of 2.10-2.32 m. A large closing sandstone slab that was placed in front of the grave indicates that the surrounding wall was built after the burial chamber was sealed (Fig. 6).

In the middle of the sondage, at the level of the wall, the opening of an illegal tunnel used previously to enter 6  Atasoy et al. 2005; Atasoy 2018: 139; The excavation team: S. Atasoy (academic adviser), M. Endoğru, Ş. Dönmez, H. Madenli, N. Kodalak, E. Yılmaz, S. Kurudere and U. Akyüz. 7  Atasoy 2003: 1335; Bilgi 1993: 199.

168

S. Atasoy: The Baruthane Tumuli at Amisos/Samsun

Figure 3. Long wall between two mounds.

are conglomerate-cut benches. The southern bench measures 2.50 x 0.44 x 0.32 m and the northern 2.50 x 0.51 x 0.32 m. Both benches have been destroyed by robbers (Fig. 8). The ceiling of the chamber is carved in a vault. The ceiling, floor and walls of the chamber are covered by cream-coloured plaster. This is incised to give the appearance of seven rows of a stone wall. The incised lines are painted dark blue. On the upper parts of the pseudo-stone rows, there are two red horizontal bands 0.006 m thick (Fig. 9).

Figure 4. Lead clamps.

Figure 5. Stamped amphora handle.

There are two niches in the two sides of the inner door (Fig. 9). The northern niche measures 0.48 x 0.42 x 0.27 m; the southern 0.45 x 0.34 x 0.22 m. The inner parts of the niches, which are at the level of the horizontal bands, are painted yellow. There are two handwritten signatures above the northern niche, painted in black. These are thought to belong to robbers who ravaged the grave around the 1900s (Fig. 10).

The grave is made up of two chambers which are connected through an inner door. The entrance has a step 0.26 m high that is made up of clear-cut blocks. The entrance, 1.13 m high and 0.64 m wide, is followed by a descending step 0.20 m high (Fig. 7). The front/outer chamber is 3.16 m in length, 2.55 m wide and 2.32 m high. Along its side walls there 169

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 6. Entrance of Grave 1.

Figure 7. Plan of Grave 1.

170

S. Atasoy: The Baruthane Tumuli at Amisos/Samsun

Figure 8. Outer chamber of Grave 1.

Figure 9. Pseudostone rows of outer chamber, Grave 1.

0.67m wide. It measures 3.00 x 2.43 x 2.10 m. The ceiling is carved in a vaulted manner, like the front chamber. There is a kline in front of the western wall. It measures 2.51 x 1.15 x 0.67 m. The front of the kline is decorated with egg-shaped ornament in red and black. (Fig. 14). The same decoration was found in a wall-painting of Hellenistic house at Knidos.9

Cleaning efforts in the front chamber have revealed a few fragments from an amphora of Chian type, an unguentarium, three bronze nails and a bone disk8 (Figs. 11-13). The inner chamber, which is built in the same direction, is entered through an internal door 0.95 m high and

The ceiling, floor and the walls of the chamber are covered by cream-coloured plaster. At 1.46 m from the floor there is a red horizontal band 0.08 m thick. There

8  Chios amphora: Jancheray 1976: 23, no. 53 (3rd-2nd century BC); Grace 1961, fig. 47 (3rd-1st century BC); Alpözen et al. 1995: 85 (late 4th century BC); Çavdar 1998: 90 (4th century BC). Unguentarium: Tülük 1999, cat. 21 (mid-3rd century BC); Indgjerd 2014,19-24 (late 2nd century BC). Three bronze nails and one bone disk (Hellenistic period).

9 

171

Bingöl 1997: 92, pls. 17-21.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 10. Two signatures in outer chamber, Grave 1.

Figure 12. Unguentarium.

Figure 11. Chian-type amphora.

172

S. Atasoy: The Baruthane Tumuli at Amisos/Samsun

Figure 13. Finds (nails, bone disk).

plastering was applied in the chamber, only pseudohalf columns formed symmetrically, four each on the northern and southern sides of the chamber. The ceiling is carved in a vaulted manner (Fig. 16).

are also red-dotted decorations on the plaster. The plastered and painted grave is the first example on the southern coast of the Black Sea.10 Grave beneath Tumulus 2 (North)

A step 0.20 m high, and an inner door, 1.10 x 1.00 x 1.60 m, lead to back chamber, which measures 5.50 x 5.60 x 2.50 m and has a vaulted ceiling. This contains ten pseudo-half columns: four each on the northern and southern walls and two on the eastern wall. The columns are 0.30 m wide and 2 m high. There is a large niche on the western wall of the chamber, 2.50 x 3.10 x 2.50 m (Fig. 17).

Sondage 3 was opened in the north-eastern side of Tumulus 2 and revealed the entrance of a burial chamber. A three-chambered grave was carved into a conglomerate layer. It has a total length of 18 m, a width of 2.80 m and a height of 2.80 m (Fig. 15). The entrance door of the burial chamber measures 1.40 x 1.00 x 1.90 m. The front chamber measures 5.50 x 3.15 x 2.55 m. The ceiling is carved in a vaulted manner and the walls are smooth.

The southern corner of the chamber contains a 37 m-long illegal tunnel, but it was abandoned without results. There are no archaeological finds in this grave.

An inner door, 1.50 x 1.00 x 1.90 m, leads to the middle chamber, which measures 6.00 x 4.60 x 2.80 m. No

The Baruthane tumuli excavations have revealed invaluable archaeological information. These discoveries have opened up the history and

The walls of the chamber of Dondortepe Tumulus are covered by plaster (see Ünan 2013: 394).

10 

173

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 14. Inner chamber of Grave 1.

Figure 15. Plan of Grave 2.

174

S. Atasoy: The Baruthane Tumuli at Amisos/Samsun

Figure 16. Chambers of Grave 2.

further archaeological investigation. New discoveries and future study should also further clarify issues of dating and interpretation. Nothing can be said about date, but the architectural characteristics of the graves and the findings show that the two tumuli were built in Hellenistic period. The finds from both graves suggest features of the Hellenistic period. The grave in Tumulus 1 was restored by the Conservation and Restoration Department of the Istanbul University, Faculty of Letters. Samsun Municipality has designated the area where the tumuli were situated as an archaeological park. This is reached by cable car. It has wooden walking paths giving the opportunıty to visit the two graves, a café and a restaurant with a wide view of the Black Sea11 (Fig. 18).

Figure 17. Niche in back chamber of Grave 2.

development of the burial customs at Amisos. Many questions raised by the present study still need

11 

175

Atasoy 2007.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 18. Walking paths and restaurant.

Bibliography

Bingöl, O. 1997. Malerei und Mosaik der Antike in der Turkei (Mainz). Çavdar, M. 1998. ‘The Amphoras at Sadberk Hanım Museum’. Palmet 2: 111-16. Cumont, F.E. 1906. ‘Amisos’. In Cumont, F.E., Voyage d’exploration archéologique dans le Pont et la Petite Arménie (Brussels): 111-17. Grace, V.R. 1961. Amphoras and The Ancient Wine Trade (Princeton). Indgjerd, H. 2014. The Grave Goods of Roman Hierapolis. An Analysis of the Finds from Four Multiple Burial Tombs (Dissertation, University of Oslo). Jancheray, J.P. 1976. Essai de classification des amphores découvertes lors de fouilles sous-marines, 2nd ed. (Fréjus). Şirin, O.A. and Kolağasıoğlu, M. 2016. ÇakalcaKaradoğan Höyüğü: Arkaik Dönemde Amisos ve Kybele Kültü (Samsun). Tülük, G.G. 1999. ‘Die Unguentarien im Museum von İzmir’. Anatolia Antiqua 7: 127-66. Ünan, S. 2009. ‘Samsun-Dondortepe (Hacı İsmail) Tümülüsü’. Masrop 4: 1-28. Ünan, S. 2013. ‘Tunç Çağından Roma Dönemine Amisos ve Çevresinde Yer Alan Mezar Tipleri ve Ölü Gömme Adetleri Üzerine Genel Bir Değerlendirme’. In Dönmez, Ş. (ed.) Güneş Karadeniz’den Doğar: Sümer Atasoy’a Armağan Yazılar/Lux et Ponto Euxino: Studies Presented in Honour of Sümer Atasoy (Ankara), 385412.

Akyüz, U. 2013. ‘Samsun-Kurupelit’de Ele Geçen Bir Grup Mezar Steli ve Çakalca-Karadoğan Höyük Üzerine Bir İnceleme’. Kubaba 22: 33-50. Alpözen, O., Özdaş, A.H. and Berkaya, B. 1995. Bodrum Sualtı Arkeoloji Müzesi Ticari Amphoraları. Eski Çağda Akdeniz Deniz Ticareti (Bodrum). Atasoy, S. 1997. Amisos: Karadeniz Kıyısında Antik bir kent/ An Ancient City on the Black Sea Coast (Samsun). Atasoy, S. 2003. ‘Amisos’. In Grammenos, D.V. and Petropoulos, E.K. (eds) Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, vol. 2 (Thessaloniki): 1331-78. Atasoy, S. 2007. History Revealed: Ancient Samsun (Amisos) (Istanbul). Atasoy, S. 2009. ‘New Graves at Amisos’. In Giresun ve Doğu Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Sempozyumu 09-11 Ekim 2008, Bildiriler 2 (Ankara): 169-78. Atasoy, S. 2018. ‘Surveys and Excavations on the Southern Black Sea Coast’. In Manoledakis, M., Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Xydopoulos, I. (eds) Essays on the Archaeology and Ancient History of the Black Sea Littoral (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT): 109-46. Atasoy, S., Endoğru, M. and Dönmez, Ş. 2005. ‘Samsun Baruthane Tümülüsü Kurtarma Kazısı’. Anadolu Araştırmaları 18.2: 153-65. Bilgi, Ö. 1993. ‘İkiztepe Kazılarının 1991 Dönemi Sonuçları ve Restorasyon Çalışması’. In 15. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara): 199-201.

176

Evaluations of Iron Finds from the Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası Excavations Ayşe Fatma Erol and Ertaç Yıldırım Abstract This paper aims to present iron finds that were obtained during excavations conducted in Cıngırt Kayası, which is located in Yapraklı village, Fatsa/Ordu, in the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey. Cıngırt Kayası was part of the area where the Chalybes, a tribe famous for its ironworking, lived in antiquity. The iron finds have been categorised according to their function, and they have been evaluated in terms of their periodisation, typology and purpose using excavation data and parallel materials. One of the main goals of this paper is, in light of these finds, to contribute to the archaeological analysis of the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey, which has been relatively overlooked in archaeological studies.

Introduction

Period is evidenced by a pavement that was revealed at the upper levels of the excavated trench. Moreover, Byzantine lead seals,7 glazed ceramics8 and glass finds dating back to 7th-8th centuries AD point to the same conclusion.9

Cıngırt Kayası is a settlement that was in the Pontic region in antiquity. It is currently in the East Black Sea Region of Anatolia, 5 km away from the centre of the town of Fatsa, in the village of Yapraklı. Located at an altitude of 200 m, it sits on a double-headed natural rock cliff that is made of limestone and volcanic tuff. Hence, it commands a dominant position over the sea and the valley (Fig. 1).1 Cıngırt Kayası is currently 750 m away from the sea as the crow flies, but it has been suggested that in ancient times it was much closer to the shore, and thus had more command over the sea.2

Information on the historical geography of Cıngırt Kayası is available from ancient writers, as well as modern research. Arrian (Periplus Ponti Euxini 16) mentions Phadisane as one of the important destinations along the coast. He gives distances between these destinations and, based on these calculations, it is possible to locate Phadisane near Fatsa.10 His exact words for this settlement are Phadisane phrourion (Φαδισάνην φρούριον) (Periplus Ponti Euxini 16).

Excavations started in 2012 and were carried out over three years at the summit of the hill and on the northern slopes of Cıngırt Kayası.3 Evidence obtained from the exacavations suggested that the earliest settlement in the area was during the reign of the last Pontic king, Mithridates VI.4 Archaeological data also showed that the area was settled during the Roman and Byzantine Periods. The settlement in the 3rd century AD, during the reign of the emperor Valerian, can be explained by the fact that fortresses on the eastern shores of the Pontic region were used as garrisons because of increasing attacks by the Goths.5 That the area being was settled during these times is further supported by the bronze coins unearthed by the Cıngırt Kayası excavations that belong to the reigns of the emperors Valerian, Volusian and Severus Alexander in the 3rd century AD.6 Settlement in the Byzantine

In antiquity, Phadisane was located in the Sidene region that was between Cape Iasonion (Yason) and the River Thermodon (Terme). The name Sidene comes from the Side fortress situated at the point where the Sidenos (Bolaman) stream meets the sea. Strabo mentions three fortified settlements along the coast in the Sidene region: Chabakta (Ünye/Kaleköy), Phabda and Side/Polemonion (Bolaman) (12. 3. 16). He also points out that the topography of the region, with its mountain ranges, high cliffs and deep valleys, is very conducive for building big forts (12. 3. 28). Olshausen and Biller describe Phabda as a Hellenistic fort in the Sidene region, which was defined by the harbour of Phadisane.11 Wilson conducted surveys and concluded that Phadisane, with its fort settlement, was the harbour of Polemonium. He also mentioned that Phabda, located

Erol 2015a: 383; 2015b: 453. The distance to the shore has been increased by the construction of the coastal road between Samsun and Ordu from 1987 to 1997. 3  The excavation was conducted under the chairmanship of the Directorate of Ordu Museum, and under the scientific supervision of Ayşe Fatma Erol. 4  Erol 2015a: 384-85; 2015b: 453, 459-60; Erol and Tamer 2014: 74-77. 5  Mitford 1997: 138. 6  For these coins, see Erol 2015b: 457, fig. 9. 1  2 

Erol and Ünal 2012: 117-22, figs. 2a, 2b. Erol 2015b: 459, fig. 12. 9  Erol and Tamer 2016. 10  Olshausen and Biller 1984: 155. 11  Olshausen and Biller 1984: 154-55. 7  8 

177

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 1. Location of Cıngırt Kayası.

up to the Karenitis region (Ps.-Skylax 88; Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica 2. 370-380, 995-1010; Pliny NH 6. 4. 11; Stephanus of Byzantium s.v. Xαλύβης; Strabo 11. 14. 5, 14. 5. 24). Their land was highly mountainous and unsuited to agriculture (Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica 2. 370-380; Strabo 12. 3. 19), forcing them to make a living out of mining (Xenophon Anabasis 5. 5. 1; Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica 2. 1000-1009; Strabo 12. 3. 19).16 Their mining skills and excellent craftsmanship in iron and steel earned them fame in the ancient world (Xenophon Anabasis 5. 5. 1; Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica 2. 375-378; Ammianus Marcellinus 22. 8. 21; Catullus 66. 47-50; Virgil Georgics 1. 58; Aeneid 8. 420-421; Aeschylus Prometheus Bound 714-716): strengthened iron-steel was named chalyps [χάλυψ] after them.17

near the River Kahveler (Kavaklar), could be sited at Cıngırt Kayası.12 All this information suggest that Phadisane was the harbour of Polemonium and that it was protected by a phrourion (fort).13 This, in turn, must be Phabda, possibly Cıngırt Kayası. Based on a study conducted using geographical information systems, it was suggested that the only visible area within a 15 km zone around Cıngırt Kayası14 is Polemonium. Weimert, on the other hand, argues that these forts were built in order to protect the iron reserves to the east of Sidene.15 The Greeks, beginning in the 6th century B.C, started to colonise and settle in the region to look for natural resources and to engage in trade. That is how they met the local communities, which were described by ancient authors as savage tribes lacking political unity (Strabo 12. 3. 18; Ammianus Marcellinus 22. 8. 21; Pliny NH 6. 4. 11). One of these tribes was the Chalybes, who settled in the hinterland of the city of Cotyora, from the east of the Hemiskyra region to the Paryadres Mountains across Cerasus. In time they expanded

Cıngırt Kayası is thus situated in the region settled by the Chalybes, rich in metal reserves and highly active in mining in the Pontic region from early on.18 Strabo (12. 3.19) mention that in his time, this area only had iron reserves despite also having had silver mines in 16  Silver mines were present in the hinterland of the lands of Chalybes, as were copper and iron, etc. (see Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica 2. 1000-1009; Strabo 12. 3. 19). 17  Peake 1933: 644; Arslan 2007: 35. 18  For the iron reserves around city of Ordu, see Muhly et al. 1985: 72, fig. 1; Tylecote 1981: 137-18. For the copper and lead-silver reserves around Ünye and Fatsa, see MTA 1972: 23-24; Kaptan 1976: 48. For a detailed analysis of the regional mining activities in antiquity, see Koçak 2006: 1-38.

Wilson 1960: 199. The settlement is thought to be a phrourion during the reign of Mithridates VI (see Erol 2015b; 2016: 563-65; Erol and Tamer 2014, 84). 14  Sökmen 2016: 452. 15  Weimert 1984: 152. 12  13 

178

A.F. Erol and E. Yıldırım: Evaluations of Iron Finds from the Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası Excavations

Figure 2. Iron melting pot.

different groups according to the metal used and their purpose. Among them, this study examines iron finds that have little corrosion, found intact or nearly so, and presents them by form and function: military equipment, structural fittings, medical or cosmetic implements, and fittings for wooden objects and other tools.

earlier period. This can be explained by the fact that the shoreline is very narrow, the mountains, full of forests and mines, rise straight from the coast, and most of the coast was already worked out. Metal reserves, as well as firewood, are needed for metallurgy to thrive.19 Strabo (12. 3. 19) reports that the area was rich in trees in antiquity, much like the present. Thus, the firewood necessary for metallurgy was readily available, which makes Cıngırt Kayası a desirable location for such activities.

Military equipment This group consists of arrowheads and what is thought to be a spear butt. The arrowheads have been categorised based on whether they belonged to arrows shot by a bow or through an arrow-throwing mechanism.

Both ancient sources and contemporary mining studies suggest that the Middle and Eastern Black Sea Region has important metal reserves. Data from the Turkish General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA) point to the city of Ordu for a large portion of the iron reserves in Eastern Black Sea Region.20

Those used with a bow are small in size and are easy to carry. The samples obtained during the excavations consist of trilobate and bilobate arrowheads. The body of the trilobate arrowheads thins and becomes sharper side-ways. The lobes are generally formed symmetrically. They are star like shape or triangular in section and have a tang at their back for the arrow to be attached.21 The earliest examples of this arrowhead, which is usually described as Scythian-type, were obtained from tombs in the Caucasus dated to Early Iron Age.22 This type, known from the 5th century BC in its bronze and socketed forms,23 also presents examples made of iron, which might have been evolved out of bronze arrowheads

Iron and lead slag and various material produced from these metals were discovered during the excavations in Cıngırt Kayası. Moreover, the north-east sector of trench J15 revealed a 20 cm-wide metal melting pot, carved into the bedrock (Fig. 2). All these discoveries suggest that this area was active in mining activities. Finds Metal objects found during excavations at Cıngırt Kayası between 2012 and 2014 can be classified in

Compared with bilobate samples, trilobate arrowheads are much more stable, with higher rates of accuracy (see James 2004: 195). Thanks to these features, this form of arrowhead was preferred for a long time and over a wide area, despite the difficulty and complexity of its production (see Zanier and Guggenmos 1995: 22; Ureche 2013: 186 and James 2004: 195). 22  Sulimirski 1954: 308; Alekperov 2011: 418-19, fig. 3.3. 23  Waldbaum 1983: 35. 21 

Iron melts at 1400-1500°C, which necessitates a great deal of firewood for it to be processed. Therefore, until coal was available, iron processing centres were places where both the iron reserve and an abundant supply of trees were within reach (see Tümertekin and Özgüç 2012: 254). 20  http://www.mta.gov.tr/v3.0/sayfalar/bilgi-merkezi/maden_potansiyel_ 2010/Ordu_Madenler.pdf (consulted 6 April 2018). 19 

179

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity during the Hellenistic period and its aftermath.24 These arrowheads were favoured by the Roman army25 and they were predominantly found in the Eastern Provinces of the Roman empire, especially in Palestine during the reigns of the emperors Nero and Hadrian.26 Samples from Dura Europos,27 Porolissum28 (dated to 3rd century AD), and those from Kibyra29 from the 6th century AD suggest that these arrowheads were used in regions over a long timeframe.

Arrowheads used with an arrow-throwing mechanism, compared with those used with bows, are heavier and larger. They were attached to a wooden shaft through a socket or a tang. Those obtained from Cıngırt Kayası fall into three main categories.36 Cıngırt Type 1 (Fig. 3.8): The head is pyramidal and square in section. It ends with a socket that is circular in section and which gets wider towards the bottom. It is 7.8 cm long, while the head is 1.6 cm thick and the socket diameter is 1.7 cm. This type constitutes the majority of arrowhead finds from Cıngırt Kayası used with an arrow-throwing mechanism.37

Trilobate arrowheads obtained from Cıngırt Kayası (Fig. 3.1-5) vary in size (3.3-6.7 cm long, and 1.1-1.6 cm wide), though they have been fundamentally produced in the same form.30 The majority of the finds, based on the settlement stratigraphy and other material found with them during the excavations, have been dated to the 1st century BC.

Cıngırt Type 2 (Fig. 3.9): The pointy tip starts sharp and then gets wider towards the other end constituting a long pyramidal form. The head is square in section. It ends with a socket that is circular in section. It is 7.8 cm long, while the head is 1.1 cm thick and the diameter of the socket is 1.2 cm.38

The bilobate arrowheads from Cıngırt Kayası have a flat shaft and two lobes that get thinner and sharper towards the edges and ended with a tang.31 One of the finds (Fig. 3.6) has a long and thin form, and the sharp edges have spurs, whilst the other (Fig. 3.7) is shorter and wider.32

Cıngırt Type 3 (Fig. 3.10): The head has a long pyramidal form with a square in section and ends with a tang that is circular in section. It is 12.1 cm long and 1.6 cm thick, making it much bigger and heavier than the other two types.39 It was the most destructive.40

Coulston mentions that these arrowheads were probably preferred for hunting.33 However, there is also data suggesting that they were also used in weaponry.34

Types 1 and 3 were found with coins from the reign of Mithridates VI, thus dating to the 1st century BC. Type 2 could not be dated decisively since it was obtained from a test trench.41

The bilobate arrowheads from Cıngırt Kayası are made of iron, and their earliest bronze versions go back as far as 2000 BC in Anatolia.35 Nevertheless, one (Fig. 3.6) has been evaluated with contextual data and been dated to 1st century BC, whereas the other (Fig. 3.7) could not be dated because of a lack of data.

Other finds from Cıngırt Kayası have very basic form, are conical and pointy at the tip, 8.2 cm long, with a socket diameter of 1.6 cm (Fig. 1.11). These objects, similar to those obtained from military and civil settlements, are known to be used for various functions.42 Since Cıngırt Kayası was a military

Davies 1977: 260. Davies 1977: 264; Coulston 1985: 264; Manning 1989: 177-78. 26  This is associated with two Jewish insurgencies in this period (see Coulston 1985: 264). 27  James 2004: 195. 28  Gudea and Tamba 2005: 479. 29  Demirer 2013: 55. 30  Comparanda. Fig. 3.1, see Bishop and Coulston, 2006: 58, fig. 27.8; Coleman 1986: 96, pl. 38: D37; James 2004: 201, 683, 705; Stiebel and Magness 2007: 87, pl. 23.5; Delrue 2007: 243, fig. 3.7; Rajtar 1994: 87, abb. 4.6. Fig. 3.2, see James 2004: 204, 718; Stiebel and Magness 2007: 90, pl. 26.6; Rajtar 1994: 87, abb. 4.12. Fig. 3.3, see Bishop and Coulston 2006: 167, fig. 106.14; Stiebel and Magness 2007: 87, pl. 23.5; Rajtar 1994: 87, abb. 4.14, 15. Fig. 3.4, see James 2004: 204, 718. Stiebel and Magness 2007: 90, pl. 26.6; Rajtar 1994: 87, abb. 4.12; Delrue 2007: 243, fig. 3.7. Fig. 3.5, see Bishop and Coulston 2006: 167, fig. 106.14; Porat et al. 2007: 43, fig. 11.12; Manning 1989, pl. 85.282; Stiebel and Magness 2007: 87, pl. 23.4; Delrue 2007: 243, fig. 4.3; Rajtar 1994: 87 abb. 4.14, 15; Stiebel 2015: 436, pl. 12.II:20. 31  Bilobate arrowheads, though not piercing armour as well as trilobate examples, are far superior in speed. Moreover, since they are lighter, they can travel greater distances, and could be used to harass enemies from afar (see Miller et al. 1986: 18). 32  For comparanda for Fig. 3.6, see Petrie 1917, pl. XLII.210; Fig. 3.7, see Manning 1989, pl. 85.281. 33  Coulston 1985: 268. 34  Robinson 1941: 380, 382. 35  Yalçıklı 2016: 87, 97. 24  25 

Since the mechanisms to release arrows were made from organic material, they did not survive. The only material survived till today is metal washers that were used in torsion ballistas. Our excavations did not reveal any rondelas or a different firing mechanism component, making it difficult to discern how these arrows were fired. That is why we have refrained from specifying any particular arrow-throwing mechanism. 37  For comparanda, see Horvat 2002: 185, pl. 14.8; Feugère 1994: 10, fig. 7.9; Bishop and Coulston 2006: 60, fig. 29.3f; Davidson 1987, pl. 93.1546. 38  For comparanda, see Horvat 2002: 185, pl. 14.13, 15; Bishop and Coulston 2006. 60, fig. 29.3c, 90, fig. 47.3b, d and e, 137, fig. 82.2; Manning 1989, pl. 82.167, 240. 39  For comparanda, see James 2004: 219, 785, 793; Porat et al. 2009: 27, fig. 7; McNicoll 1983: 186, fig. 90.26; Robinson 1941, pl. CXXIII.1988: 2001. Because it has not been restore, it has not been possible to draw it in detail. 40  Latham and Paterson mention arrows that are heavy and with square or triangular cross section as the most effective for piercing armour (see Latham and Paterson 1970: 25-26). 41  For more information on the arrowheads obtained from Cıngırt Kayası, see Erol and Yıldırım 2016. 42  Manning 1989: 141. 36 

180

A.F. Erol and E. Yıldırım: Evaluations of Iron Finds from the Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası Excavations

Figure 3. Military equipment.

Structural fittings

settlement, these objects might be spear butts43 or arrowheads for arrow-throwing mechanisms.44

Nails were found at the summit of the settlement from various excavated sectors. This study presents only those that were retrieved whole. Whilst they are generally classified as type 1, it is also possible to subcategorise them under two groups, one longer than 10 cm (type 1a, Fig. 4.1-2) and the other between 5 and 10 cm in length (type 1b, Fig. 4.3-6).

Manning 1989: 141; Bishop and Coulston 2006: 53. Manning argues that these finds would be suitable arrowheads for arrow-throwing mechanisms without needing to alter their forms (Manning 1989: 141). For similar samples to Fig. 3.11, see Manning 1989, pl. 66: S69; Bishop and Coulston 2006: 54, fig. 24.9, 14.

43 

44 

181

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Type 1a: The head is generally round or conical, or its upper surface is a flattened convex. It has a shaft that is square in section getting thinner and sharper towards the other end. Length varies between 11 and 15 cm, whilst the head diameter is 2.4 cm.45

flat spatula-shaped tip, with a thin circular body in a stylus form. It is 11 cm long, with a shaft diameter of 0.4 cm.53 The other (Fig. 4.9) has a tip that looks like a slightly bent spoon, while the shaft is again circular in section. It is 11 cm long, with a body diameter of 0.4 cm.54 The other tip of these samples are missing.

Type 1b has the same features; these nails vary between 6 and 9 cm in length, whilst the diameter of the head ranges from 1.6 to 2.5 cm.46

Fittings for wooden objects Metal finds that could have been used in the production of doors, boxes or furniture, as well as in their decoration, have been analysed under this heading. Among them are rings, keys, chains and some nails.

Upon close examination, it is possible to argue that the nails were used in roof beams, door headstalls and in other main structural components used to carry weight.47 They were also used to fix roof tiles into place,48 in lighter wooden beams carrying weight, in repairs to buildings, etc.49 These functions are evidenced by nails found in situ.

Much like the structural fittings, nails, used in doors, boxes and in furniture, are prominent. The majority are made of bronze, whilst a few are of iron. The example shown in Fig. 5.1 is 10.4 cm long, with a shaft diameter of 0.5 cm and a head diameter of 3.4 cm. Its shaft is thin, long and slightly sharp, square in section, whereas the head is slightly convex, wide and round.55 Similar examples used on door reinforcement straps and latch hooks have been found in situ.56 The similarity of the samples from Cıngırt Kayası to the other samples that have been referenced here suggests that they were used for the same purposes.57

Clamps were used horizontally to connect block stones in antiquity. Those used in Cıngırt Kayası for this purpose are one of the most common type, the ‘Π’ (Pi) form.50 In Cıngırt Kayası, it is possible to observe hollows for clamps on masonry blocks of the Hellenistic period. Moreover, clamps and the lead coating applied to them to prevent rust and to fasten them to the block, can also be seen in situ. This study presents one example that has been obtained whole, 7.3 cm long and 0.8 cm thick. Since it was found in situ on a wall that presents Hellenistic features, it has been dated to 1st century BC.51

Regarding other examples of smaller size (Fig. 5.2-4), they again are of square section and have a tang getting thinner and sharper towards the end. Their length varies between 1.7 and 3 cm, and the head diameter between 1.3 and 1.7 cm. The information gathered from the excavations has not been conclusive in suggesting a definitive function for these nails. However, other studies argue that they were used in the production of furniture, in window hinges, in upholstery or in decorations.58 Since most of these finds were obtained from the surface, and because they were used over a long period without any alterations, it is impossible to set a decisive date for them.59

Medical or cosmetic implements This group of finds from Cıngırt Kayası consists of probes,52 primarily made of iron, much bigger than bronze versions. One of these (Fig. 4.8) has a wide and Comparanda. Fig. 4.1, see Manning 1989, pl. 87.R87; Waldbaum 1983, pl. 22.320; Gerstel et al. 2003: 187, fig. 47.1992-336, 1992-337; Jones and Bishop 1988: 68, fig. 86.160; Simpson 2000, pl. 43.4; Başaran and Kasapoğlu 2013, fig. 10. Fig. 4.2, see Waldbaum 1983, pl. 21.304; Simpson 2000, pl. 43.5c; Small 1994; Şahin 2010: 139, J23; Poulter 2007: 57, fig. 2.28:2283; Başaran and Kasapoğlu 2013, fig. 10. 46  Comparanda. Fig. 4.3, see Poulter 2007: 57, fig. 2.28:2283; Scott 2013: 266, fig. 151.IR56. Fig. 4.4, see Gerstel et al. 2003: 187, fig. 47.1992339. Fig. 4.5, see Poulter 2007: 57, fig. 2.28:2285; Scott 2013: 266, fig. 151.IR563-564; Gerstel et al. 2003: 187, fig. 47.1992-332; Chavane 1990, pl. XI.318. Fig. 4.6, see Poulter 2007: 57, fig. 2.28:2284, Gerstel et al. 2003: 186, fig. 46.1992-174. 47  Cleere 1959: 56. 48  Poulter 2007: 58. 49  Waldbaum 1983: 68. 50  Double T, Z, wide and narrow U and dovetail clamp types are also known (see Nylander 1966: 133; Bingöl 2012: 236; Malacrino 2010: 108). 51  For comparanda for Fig. 4.7, see Poulter 2007: 39, fig. 2.15:21702173; Waldbaum 1983, pl. 20.287; Oransay 2006, pl. XXIII-i4. 52  Probes were used in preparing medicine, in applying that medicine to a patient’s wound, pressing on the patient’s tongue in dental treatments, and cauterising open wounds (see Jackson and Niece 1986: 158). Celsus explains in detail the use of probes in prognosing the wound (see Celsus On Medicine 5. 28. 12). 45 

Even though the two examples shown in Fig. 5.5-6 with their reverse ‘L’ form might be different from each other in terms of the shaping technique, they both are Styluses, in addition to their use in medicine, were also used as writing tools during the Roman period. For comparanda, see Baykan 2012: 120, cat. no. 198; Manning 1989, pl. 35.N17; Gültekin 2012: 79, 24; Curle 1911: 307, 1. 54  For comparanda, see Baykan 2017: 131, res. 16.Md.795. 55  The fact that the head is so wide suggests that it was meant to provide a firmer grip or was just a decorative choice. 56  Scott 2013: 264; Gazitche 2005: 55-57, abb.11-13. 57  For comparanda, see Scott 2013: 264, fig. 146: type-B; Poulter 2007: 57, fig. 2.28.2280; Gaitzcsh 2005, taf. 37. N1. 58  Manning 1989: 135-36; Cleere 1959: 58. 59  Comparanda. Fig. 5.2, see Small 1994; Dunn 2007, fig. 17.5:103; Gaitzcsh 2005, taf. 36.N5. Fig. 5.3, see Gaitzcsh 2005, taf. 36.N5; Cleere 1959: 58, fig. 3h; Small 1994. Fig. 5.4, see Waldbaum 1983, pl. 22.326, 337; Poulter 2007: 57, fig. 2.28:229; Baykan 2017: 128, res. 12.Md.283. 53 

182

A.F. Erol and E. Yıldırım: Evaluations of Iron Finds from the Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası Excavations

Figure 4. Structural fittings (1-7); medical or cosmetic implements (8-9).

square in section with a thinning and sharpening tang. They are 6.5 cm long and 0.8 cm thick.60

on lower grades and on the same level revealed a high number of nail fragments, iron hoops and bits of chain. This suggests that they were all used on door hinges or other door-related components.

As they were obtained together during excavation and both have sharp ends, it is possible to argue that they shared the same purpose. Moreover, excavations

These finds were obtained from the Roman layer, and since Roman coins dated to 3rd century AD61 were

Comparanda for Fig. 5.5: see Jacobi 1897, taf. XXXXIII.17; Dusenbery 1998: 1041, XS-488. Cleere 1959: 59, fig. 4a, d, h.

60 

61 

183

For these coins, see Erol 2015b: 457, fig. 9.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 5. Fittings for wooden objects.

184

A.F. Erol and E. Yıldırım: Evaluations of Iron Finds from the Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası Excavations found in that layer, these nails have also been dated to the same period.

These tools are not specific to one single type of craft, but were used in the same way across different crafts.71

Another important door component is locks. The Cıngırt Kayası excavations revealed two slide keys that we have established to belong to tumbler locks. The key displayed in Fig. 5.7 is 12.3 cm long, 1.7 cm wide, and with a ring diameter of 2.9 cm. The one in Fig. 5.8 is 10 cm long, 1.4 cm wide, with a ring diameter of 2.9 cm. The former has been retrieved intact, with a hole to hang the key from, as well as the teeth that are unique to each key. The second one lacks bit and teeth.62

The examples shown in Fig. 6.1-3 are tools used to extract rock and stone from its source, and subsequently to shaping, correct and cut it. The object at Fig. 6.1 has a long shaft and is rectangular in section. Towards the bottom it is flat and wide, thus it is a chisel. It is 18 cm long, has a shaft 1 cm thick, whilst it is 5.1 cm wide towards the bottom.72 The chisel or punch shown in Fig. 6.2 has a shaft that starts with a round shape at the back, and then continues to form a square in section. The sharp and pointy bottom has the same thickness as the body.73 It is 14.3 cm long, with a shaft diameter of 1.6 cm.74

The example shown in Fig. 5.9 is a link/piece that belongs to a chain which look like a stretched version of the number eight.63 Chains were used widely in antiquity, much like today, in door components, to tie animals to a fixed spot, to hang objects and in harnessing equipment. However, it has not been possible to determine the exact function of the chains at hand for lack of data.64 This example has been dated to the 3rd century AD since it was obtained from the same spot as Roman coins of that period.65

Fig. 6.3 is thought to depict the sharp tip of a mason’s pick, used to extract stone, shape it and cut it into smaller pieces. The other end is currently missing, but the object is assumed to have a sharp or pointy end on the other side as well.75 The knife (Fig. 6.4) has a main shaft that was sharp on one side, getting pointier towards the tip, slightly curving upwards. It was probably broken towards the handle. In antiquity, knives were used for domestic purposes, as well as in agriculture and in warfare if necessary.76 The blunt side of the knife has deformations on it, most probably because another object was smashed onto it as it was used. The preserved part of the knife is 10.7 cm long and 1.4 cm wide, which suggests that it was more suitable for kitchen use.77

The example shown in Fig. 5.10 is 5.1 cm long and 3.7 cm wide. It has an oval shape, with a circular section.66 It has not been possible to agree on its function; its form suggests that it might have been a chain hoop. The ring displayed in Fig. 5.11, has a circular form, with a 4.8 cm diameter. Its profile is not entirely circular in section.67 Much like other metal finds, rings were produced in the same form for centuries without undergoing any significant alterations. They were used in horse harnesses,68 in chains used to tie animals to a specific spot, in door fittings with loop-headed spike 69 or handles on wooden boxes.70

The example displayed in Fig. 6.5 is 9.2 cm long and 1.2 cm wide. It is wide in the middle, and gets thinner and sharper towards the tips, resembling a lozenge shape. While one part of the tool is pyramidal and is square in section, the bottom part sharpens towards the tip and has a circular section to enable it to be attached to a handle. The purpose of this find is undetermined. Similar material has been described as arrowheads in other publications.78 On the other hand, it has also been referred as an awl that was used to pierce leather or make a hole on it,79 or a tool used widely by carpenters.80

Tools The finds from Cıngırt Kayası classed as tools covers masonry tools and various other hand appliances. 62  Comparanda for Fig. 5.7-8, see Manning 1989, pl. 41.O39; Jacobi 1897, taf. XXXXIV.11; Simpson 2000: 162, pl. 36.21; Oransay 2006, şek. 21.J32. 63  Manning categorises the chains under three main headings: those with an oval form, those that look like the number eight, and those that resemble a streched number eight (Manning 1989: 139). 64  For comparanda, see Gaitzsch 2005, taf. 26.KE1; Manning 1989, pl. 64.S16, 17; Rivers 1887, pl. XXIX.14; Demirer 2013: 277, F9. 65  For these coins, see Erol 2015b: 457, fig. 9. 66  For comparanda, see Poulter 2007: 48 fig. 2.23:2233. 67  For comparanda, see Manning 1989, pl. 65.S31, 32. 68  Gaitzsch 2005, taf. 60.Z5; Clark et al. 1995: 44, 27. 69  Gaitzcsh 2005, taf. 65.4-5. 70  Manning argues that the dimensions of rings can be indicative of their function. For example, rings with a diameter ranging between 4.3 cm and 7.8 cm could be used in horse harnesses, saddles, or as tying agents like the looped spike used to tie animals. Rings with smaller diameters could be parts of chains, handles to a wooden box, or even a finger ring (see Manning 1989: 140).

Waldbaum 1983: 47; Manning 1989: 9-10. For comparanda, see Jacobi 1897, taf. XXXIV.24; Waldbaum 1983, pl. 12.156. 73  Because the tip is so deformed, it has not been possible to determine whether this was a chisel or a punch. 74  For comparanda, see Manning 1989, pl. 6.A29; Waldbaum 1983, pl. 12.150; Petrie 1917, pl. 21.42; Gaitzsch 2005, taf. 35.ME4; Alagöz 2012, cat. no. 108, lev. XXV-108. 75  For comparanda, see Manning 1989, pl. 13.C1; Gaitzsch 2005, taf. 17.H4-5. 76  Waldbaum 1983: 54. 77  For comparanda, see Gjerstad 1948: 135 fig. 21.2d; Raubitschek 1998, pl. 60.369; Davidson 1987, pl. 93.1571. Waldbaum 1983, pl. 15.198; Petrie 1917, pls. XXVI.154, XXIX.245; Gaitzsch 2005, taf. 34.M99. 78  Demirer 2013: 118. 79  Manning 1989: 39; Webster 1975: 240. 80  Manning 1989: 40. 71  72 

185

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 6. Tools.

186

A.F. Erol and E. Yıldırım: Evaluations of Iron Finds from the Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası Excavations Manning studied awls from the British Museum and suggested five main types. The one obtained from Cıngırt Kayası shows similarities to Manning’s group 4a. This suggests it could have been an awl.81

formed out of levelling work carried out in the bedrock. That also applies to how the walls were constructed in this period. That is why the aforementioned tools must primarily have been appliances used in masonry.

The object shown on Fig. 6.6 has a thin long form and twisted, is 13 cm long and has a diameter of 0.5 cm. However, only a portion of the twisted part can be seen because of extensive corrosion. Both tips of the find are missing. After close examination and comparisons with similar material,82 it is argued that this find was either a spatula83 used to peel dough from the surface and cut pastry, or the handle of a small shovel.84

The earliest date for the coins obtained from Cıngırt Kayası is 111-105 BC, which is during the reign of Mithridates VI. This also constitutes a terminus ante quem for Hellenistic-period finds retrieved alongside with these coins and other material. Unless stated otherwise, finds have been presented with other material obtained alongside, and have been dated to the 1st century BC, not least thanks to the coins from the period of Mithridates VI.86

Conclusion

By presenting the iron finds made during excavations conducted in the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey, this study has aimed to share data and thus enrich regional archaeology. It also hopes to pave the way for further study and for more finds to be brought to light, in quality and quantity.

As to the composition of all the metal finds from the excavations, iron forms the biggest group with 49%.85 These iron finds have then been analysed under five main groups in accordance with their functions. Fifty arrowheads retrieved from Cıngırt Kayası across three seasons of excavation constitute an important area for examination. The struggle between Mithridates and Rome in this region has been evidenced by the presence of burnt layers in many sectors of the excavations. The majority of the arrowheads found here have also been obtained from these layers.

Bibliography Alagöz, U. 2012. Zeugma Antik Kenti Dionysos ve A Evleri Metal Buluntuları (Dissertation, Ankara University). Alekperov, A.I. 2011. ‘Gruntovoye pogrebeniye u sela Alvadi Masallinskogo raiona’. In Arkheologiya kazakhstana v epokhu nezavisimosti: itogi, perspektivy (Almaty): 417-19. Arslan, M. 2007. Mithradates Eupator VI: Roma’nın Büyük Düşmanı (Istanbul). Arslan, M. (transl.) 2012. ‘Pseudo-Skylaks, Periplous’. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities 2.1: 239-57. Başaran, C. and Kasapoğlu, H. 2013. ‘Parion Kazısı Metal Buluntuları’. In Ayter, P., Demirci, Ş. and Özer, M.A. (eds) III. ODTÜ Arkeometri ÇalıştayıTürkiye Arkeolojisinde Metal: Arkeolojik ve Arkeometrik Çalışmalar (Ankara): 126-40. Baykan, D. 2012. Allianoi Tıp Aletleri (Istanbul). Baykan, D. 2017. ‘Metal Buluntular ve Arkeometlürji Verileri’. In Peker, M., Baykan, C. and Baykan, D. (eds) Nif Dağı. Ballıcaoluk (2008-2016) Prof. Dr. Elif Tül Tulunay Onuruna (Istanbul): 119-60. Bingöl, O. 2012. Bu Koca Taşları Nasıl İşlediler, Nasıl Kaldırdılar (Istanbul). Bishop, M.C. and Coulston, N.C.J. 2006. Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome (Oxford). Chavanne, M.J. 1990. La Necropole d’Amathonte: Tombes 110-385. IV: Les Petits Objets (Nicosia). Clark, J., Egan, C. and Griffiths, N. 1995. ‘Harness Fittings’. In Clark, J. (ed.) The Medieval Horse and Its Equipment, c.1150-1450 (London): 43-74. Cleere, F.H. 1959. ‘Roman Domestic Ironwork, as Illustrated by the Brading, Isle of Wight, Villa’. Bulletin of Institute of Archaeology 1: 55-74.

It is suggested that the majority of the carbonised wooden parts of the aforementioned nails belonged to a roof structure because they were found in the same layer as many roof tiles. Type 1a nails, in particular, must have been used in the wooden beams carrying the roof because of their size. Type 1b nails would have been used mostly in the secondary carrying elements and in general structural repair work. Based on excavation data and comparisons to similar material, finds described as fittings to wooden objects must have been primarily used in doors, windows and furniture production. As pointed out above, the tools presented in this study were used in different crafts. Upon close examination of the settlement’s geological features, it is possible to argue that this is a rocky area, with stone textures that are easy to process. All the foundations of the structures revealed during excavations were observed to be Manning 1989: 38. For comparanda, see Manning 1989, pl. 16.E10; Webster 1975: 241, fig. 128.212; Rautman 1996: 78, fig. 29.3.50; Goldman 1937: 278, fig. 35. 82  For comparanda, see Gaitzsch 2005, taf. 27-28: KÜ3, 4, 6, 12, 13; Crummy 1995: 112, fig. 115.2979; Manning 1972: 165, fig. 6. 6. 83  Gaitzsch 2005, taf. 27-28.KÜ3, 4, 6, 12, 13. 84  Manning 1972: 164. Manning describes these as fire shovels. These items were necessary objects used in metal ovens, as well as in the fire burning on the altar, Crummy 1995: 112 fig. 115: 2979. 85  Other metal finds are 29% bronze, and 22% lead (see Yıldırım 2017: 113-14, Çizelge 1). 81 

86 

187

For theses coins, see Erol and Tamer 2013, lev. 2-11.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Coleman, E.J. 1986. Excavation at Pylos in Elis (Princeton). Coulston, J.C. 1985. ‘Roman Archery Equipment’. In Bishop, C.M. (ed.) The Production and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment (Oxford): 220-366. Crummy, N. 1995. ‘Tools’. In Crummy, N. (ed.) The Roman Small Finds from Excavations in Colchester 1971-9 (Colchester): 107-13. Curle, J. 1911. A Roman Frontier Post and its People: The Fort of Newstead in the Parish of Melrose (Glasgow). Davidson, R.G. 1987. Corinth 12: The Minor Objects (Princeton). Davies, J.L. 1977. ‘Roman Arrowheads from Dinorben and the Sagittarii of the Roman Army’. Britannia, 257-70. Delrue, P. 2007. ‘Trilobate Arrowheads at ed-Dur (U.A.E, Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain)’. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 18: 239-50. Demirer, Ü. 2013. Kibyra Metal Buluntuları (Dissertation, Akdeniz University, Antalya). Dunn, A. 2007. ‘Small Finds’. In Megaw, S.H.A. (ed.) Kourion: Excavations in the Episcopal Precinct (Washington, DC): 527-40. Dusenbery, B.E. 1998. Samothrace 11: The Nekropoleis, Catalogues of Objects by Categories (Princeton). Erol, A.F. 2015a. ‘Ordu İli Fatsa İlçesi Cıngırt Kayası Kazısı 2013’. In 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara): 383-400. Erol, A.F. 2015b. ‘New Findings on the History and Archaeology of the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey: The Excavation at Cıngırt Kayası’. In Tsetkhladze, G.R., Avram, A. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds) The Danubian Lands between the Black, Aegean and Adriatic Seas (7th Century BC-10th Century AD) (Oxford): 453-60. Erol, A.F. 2016. ‘Ordu İli, Fatsa İlçesi Cıngırt Kayası Kazısı 2014’. In 37. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara): 559-72. Erol, A.F. and Tamer, D. 2013. ‘Fatsa Cıngırt Kayasından Ele Geçen 10 Sikke Üzerine Gözlemler’. Seleucia ad Calycadnum 3: 159-81. Erol, A.F. and Tamer, D. 2014. ‘The Excavation at Cıngırt Kayası: Assessments in the Light of Archaeological Findings’. In Hrnčiarik, E. (ed.) Turkey Through The Eyes of Classical Archaeologists: 10th Anniversary of Cooperation Between Trnava University and Turkish Universities (Trnava): 73-98. Erol, A.F. and Tamer, D. 2016. ‘Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası Erken Bizans Dönemi Cam Buluntuları’. Seleucia ad Calycadnum 6: 319-59. Erol, A.F. and Ünal, E. 2012. ‘Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası’ndan Ele Geçen Bir Bizans Kurşun Mührü’. In Yiğit, T., Kaya, M.A. and Sina, A. (eds) Ömer Çapar’a Armağan (Ankara): 117-22. Erol, A.F. and Yıldırım, E. 2016. ‘Fatsa Cıngırt Kazısında Bulunan Ok Uçları’. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 153: 133-48. Feugère, M. 1994. ‘L’équipement militaire d’époque republicaine en Gaule’. Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5: 3-23.

Gaitzsch, W. 2005. Eisenfunde aus Pergamon: Geraete, Werkzeuge Und Waffen (Berlin). Gerstel, S.E.J., Munn, M., Grossman, E.H., Barnes, E., Rhon, H.A. and Kiel, M. 2003. ‘A Late Medieval Settlement at Panakton’. Hesperia 72.1: 147-234. Gjertad, E. 1948. The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods (Stockholm). Goldman, H. 1937. ‘Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, 1936’. American Journal of Archaeology 41.2: 262-86. Gudea, N. and Tamba, D. 2005. ‘Heiligtümer Und Militar in Porolissum’. In Visy, Z. (ed.) Limes XIX: Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Pécs, Hungary, September 2003 (Pecs): 471-83. Gültekin, A. 2012. Pisidia Antiokheia Antik Kenti Metal Buluntuları (Dissertation, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta). Horvat, J. 2002. ‘The Hoard of Roman Republican Weapons from Grad near Smihel’. Arkeoloski Vesnik 53: 117-92. Jackson, R. and Niece, L.S. 1986. ‘A Set of Roman Medical Instruments from Italy’. Britannia 17: 119-67. Jacobi, H. 1897. Das Römerkastell Saalburg bei Homburg vor der Höhe, 2 vols. (Homburg). James, S. 2004. Excavations at Dura-Europos 7: The Arms and Armour and Other Military Equipment (London). Jones, L.A. and Bishop, M.C. 1988. Excavations at Roman Corbridge: The Hoard (London). Kaptan, E. 1976. Türkiye Madencilik Tarihi ve Kalay’ın Kökeni Hakkında Kahramanmaraş, Tokat, Ordu, Kastamonu ve Çorum Bölgelerindeki Eski Cüruf Depolarında Yapılan Genel Bir Araştırma (MTA Raporu 5546) (unpublished) (Ankara). Koçak, Ö. 2006. ‘Eskiçağ’da Orta Karadeniz Bölümü Madenciliği/Mining at the Central Black Sea Region in the Ancient Period’. In Erciyas, D.B. and Koparal, E. (eds) Karadeniz Araştırmaları Sempozyum Bildirileri 1617 Nisan 2004/Black Sea Studies Symposium Proceedings 16-17 April 2004 (Ankara): 1-38. Latham, D.J. and Paterson, W.F. 1970. Saracen Archery: An English Version and Exposition of a Mameluke Work on Archery (AD 1368) (London). McNicoll, A. 1983. Taşkun Kale: Keban Rescue Excavations, Eastern Anatolia (Oxford). Malacrino, G.C. 2010. Constructing the Ancient World: Architectural Techniques of the Greeks and Romans (Los Angeles). Manning, H.W. 1972. ‘The Iron Objects’. In Frere, S. (ed.) Verulamium Excavations, vol. 1 (London): 163-95. Manning, H.W. 1989. Catalogue of the Romano-British Iron Tools Fittings and Weapons in the Biritish Museum (Dorchester). Miller, R., McEwen, E. and Bergman, C. 1986. ‘Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near East Archery’. World Archaeology, Weaponry and Warfare 18.2: 178-95. Mitford, M.T. 1997. ‘The Inscriptions of Satala (Armenia Minor)’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 115, 137–67. 188

A.F. Erol and E. Yıldırım: Evaluations of Iron Finds from the Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası Excavations MTA 1972. Lead, Copper and Zinc Deposits of Turkey (MTA yayınları 133) (Ankara). Muhly, D.J., Maddin, R., Stech, T. and Özgen, E. 1985. ‘Iron in Anatolia and the Nature of the Hittite Iron Industry’. Anatolian Studies 35: 67-84. Nylander, C. 1966. ‘Clamps and Chronology’. Iranica Antiqua 6.1: 130-46. Olshausen, E. and Biller, J. 1984. Historisch-geographische Aspekte der Geschichte des Pontischen und Armenischen Reiches 1: Untersuchungen zur historischen Geographie von Pontos unter den Mithradatiden (Wiesbaden). Oransay, B.S.A. 2006. Arykanda Antik Kentinde 19712002 Kazı Sezonlarında Ele Geçen Madeni Buluntular ve Madencilik Faaliyetleri (Dissertation, Ankara University). Peake, H. 1933. ‘The Origin and Early Spread of Ironworking’. Geographical Review 23.4: 639-652. Petrie, M.W.F. 1917. Tools and Weapons, illustrated by the Egyptian Collection in University College, London (London). Porat, R., Eshel, H. and Frumkin, A. 2007. ‘Finds from the Bar Kokhba Revolt from Two Caves at En Gedi’. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 139.1: 35-53. Poulter, A.G. 2007. ‘The Metalwork’. In Poulter, A.G. (ed.) Nicopolis ad Istrum, A Late Roman and Early Byzantine City: The Finds and Biological Remains (Oxford): 15-64. Rajtar, J. 1994. ‘Waffen und Ausrüstungsteile aus dem Holz–Erde–Lager von Iza’. Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5: 83-95. Raubitschek, I.K. 1998. Isthmia 8: The Metal Objects (19521989) (Princeton). Rautman, L.M. 1996. ‘Two Late Roman Wells at Sardis’. In Dever, W.G. (ed.) Preliminary Excavation Reports: Sardis, Idalion, and Tell El-Handaquq North (= Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 53) (Atlanta): 37-84. Rivers, P. 1887. Excavations in Cranborne Chase near Rushmore on the Borders of Dorset and Wilts., vol. 1 (London). Robinson, D.M. 1941. Excavations at Olynthus 10: Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds, an Original Contribution to Greek Life (London). Şahin, F. 2010. Patara Metal Buluntuları (Dissertation, Akdeniz University, Antalya). Scott, I. 2013. ‘Ironwork’. In Aylward, W. (ed.) The Rescue Excavations at Zeugma, vol. 3 (Los Altos, CA): 167-278.

Simpson, G. 2000. Roman Weapons, Tools, Bronze Equipment and Brooches from Neuss –Novaesium Excavations, 19551972 (Oxford). Small, M.A. 1994. ‘Building Materials’. In Buck, J.R. and Small, M.A. (eds) The Excavations of San Giovanni di Ruoti 1: The Villas and Their Environment (Toronto): 123-48. Sökmen, E. 2016. Surveying the Pontic Landscape through the Fortresses of the Mithradatids/Mithradat Krallık Coğrafyasındaki Kalelerin Tanımlanması (Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara). Stiebel, D.G. 2015. ‘Military Equipment from the Area of the Mausoleum and the Theater at Herodium’. In Porat, R., Chachy, R. and Kalman, Y. (eds) Herodium: Final Reports of the 1972–2010 Excavations. 1: Herod’s Tomb Precinct (Jerusalem): 432-53. Stiebel, D.G. and Magness, J. 2007. ‘The Military Equipment from Masada’. In Aviram, J., Foerster, G., Netzer, E. and Stiebel, D.G. (eds) Masada 8: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Report (Jerusalem): 1-94. Sulimirski, T. 1954. ‘Scythian Antiquities in Western Asia’. Artibus Asiae 17.3-4: 282-318. Tümertekin, E. and Özgüç, N. 2012. Ekonomik Coğrafya: Küreselleşme ve Kalkınma (Istanbul). Tylecote, F.R. 1981. ‘Iron Sands from the Black Sea’. Anatolian Studies 31: 137-38. Ureche, P. 2013. ‘The Bow and Arrow during the Roman Era’. Ziridava Studia Archaeologica (Arad) 27, 185301. Waldbaum, C.J. 1983. Metalwork from Sardis: The Finds through 1974 (Cambridge, MA). Webster, J. 1975. ‘Object of Iron’. In Cunliffe, W.B. (ed.) Excavations at Portchester Castle 1: Roman (London). Weimert, H. 1984. Wirtschaft als landschaftsgebundenes Phänomen. Die Antike Landschaft Pontos – Eine Fallstudie (Dissertation, Stuttgart University). Wilson, R.D. 1960. The Historical Geography of Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Pontos in the Greek and Roman Periods (Dissertation, University of Oxford). Yalçıklı, D. 2016. Anadolu’da Demir Çaği Metal Silâhları (Saarbrücken). Zanier, W. and Guggenmos, W.S. 1995. ‘Zur Herstellung Römischer Dreiflügeliger Pfeilspitzen’. SaalburgJahrbuch 48: 19-25.

189

New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris Fatma Bağdatlı Çam, Ali Bora and Handan Bilici Altunkayalıer Abstract The ancient city of Amastris, about which little is known archaeologically, is situated on the southern shore of the Black Sea, between the important settlements of Heraclea Pontica in the west and Sinope in the east. With its location, the city is an indispensable part of Black Sea archaeology, but scholarly activity has, for the most part, lagged behind. In this respect, the archaeological surveys that started in 2017 aim to reveal the role as well as the history and cultural heritage of the city which. The work has been conducted by experts from many universities and in an interdisciplinary context. The findings and determinations contain important additions and modifications to what was known and also reveal new observations. At the same time, these studies, which provide an infrastructure for the archaeological excavations planned to be started in the near future, also make an internationally important contribution to regional archaeology. Our work on the northern coasts of Anatolia contributes to the maintenance of the cultural heritage and its transfer to future generations through identification of the evidence of public and civil architectural in ancient Amastris.

A surface survey was initiated in Amasra district (ancient Amastris) in 2017 (Fig. 1) within the scope of ‘The Surface Survey of Bartın Province and Districts’ Project.1 The purpose of the project is to identify preserved cultural assets within the boundaries of Bartın province from the oldest to the Early Republican period and to ensure their protection by recording and documenting them. The region has been researched for a relatively short period of time, but the acceleration of urbanisation and industrialisation reveal the importance and urgency of protecting the existing cultural heritage in a region which has been a centre for treasure hunters and illegal excavations for many years.

the primary focus. In this respect, the foundations were the accounts of foreign travellers who visited Amasra since the 15th century, data2 obtained at the Amasra citadel from surface surveys conducted by Crow and Hill between 1988 and 1991, the archaeological identifications3 made by Semavi Eyice in his articles and in his book Küçük Amasra Tarihi (A Short History of Amasra), the Paphlagonian research4 of Ahmet Gökoğlu, who served in Kastamonu Museum, Nejdet Sakaoğlu’s publications,5 in which he shared his findings and observations from the years he served in the Archaeology Museum, and other related publications.6 In addition, thanks to the data obtained from archaeological excavations and surveys7 in Paphlagonia, detections and evaluations were carried out.

Within the scope of the overall project, identification, definition and the historical context of archaeological remains in Amasra district and its surroundings were

Two main research sectors were identified in the surface survey:

With the permission of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Directorate General of Cultural Assets and Museums, dated 29 June 2017, no. E.131463; the work carried out between 14 and 25 August 2017 under the direction of Assoc. Prof. Fatma Bağdatlı Çam of Bartın University. Government representative: Güray Can Aytekin. Team members: İlkay Yıldız and Serdar Hasar (students), R.A. Mükerrem Kürüm (Department of Art History) and Dr Feride İmrana Altun, all Adnan Menderes University; Asst. Prof. Asuman Kuru (Sub Department of Protohistory and Eastern Archaeology), Kütahya Dumlupınar University; Asst. Prof. Handan Bilici Altunkayalier, Asst. Prof. Ali Bora, R.A. İzzettin Elalmış and R.A. Sinan Paksoy (Archaeology Department), Melisa Bahçacı and Eda Köksalan (students), and R.A. Abdül Halim Varol (Department of Art History), all Bartın University. The project was supported by the Bartın Governorship, the Rectorate of Bartın University, Bartın Provincial Culture and Tourism Directorate, Bartın Municipality, Amasra Municipality and Kozcağız Municipality. We would like to thank all the institutions and administrators for their valuable contributions. All images unless otherwise attributed belong to the BIYA Project Archive.

1 

1. Centre of Amasra District (Figs. 2, 3). Construction techniques, identification of spolia and the latest Crow and Hill 1990; 1995; Hill and Crow 1992: 1993. Eyice 1965. Gökoğlu 1952. 5  Sakaoğlu 1999; Ainsworth 1839: 233-34; Hoffman 1989; Crow and Hill 1990. 6  Ainsworth 1839: 233-34; Belke 1996; Brandes 1989; Bryer and Winfield 1985; Cresswell 1952; Crow and Hill 1990; de Clavijo 1928; Dull 1989; Foss and Winfield 1986; Hasluck 1910-11; Hoffman 1989; Kalkan 1991; Marek 1985; 1989; 1993; Mitchell 2010. 7  Marek 1993; for Tios Excavations: Yıldırım 2018; for Pompeiopolis: Summerer 2012; for Hadrianapolis excavations: Keleş, Çelikbaş and Yılmaz 2012. In addition, we would like to express our thanks to Asst. Prof. Tayyar Gürdal who conducted the surface survey of Heraclea Pontica begun in 2017. 2  3  4 

190

F.B. Çam et al.: New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris

Figure 1. Borders of Amasra and 2017 research region.

conditions of the inscriptions were identified at the citadel gates and fortification walls. On the Boztepe side of the citadel, we detected rocky areas which are probably used for stone extraction, square-shaped ritual pits, architectural blocks which possibly belong to a temple, ceramic finds and two new inscriptions which made identifications about Byzantine and Ottoman structures. The fortification wall and tower systems which lie between the eastern and western gates around the city walls were measured.

2. The Periphery of Amasra (Figs. 2, 4). At the Kuşkayası Monument8 and its surroundings, which is located on the ancient Roman road reaching Amasra, surveys were conducted in order to determine the continuation of the Roman road. The road could be detected a few kilometres from the monument. An unexpected find was the presence of Palaeolithic instruments on the hill to the north of the monument. In addition to this, a site used as a stone quarry was found 300 m west of the monument.

Frequent ceramic finds, the earliest pieces dating to the Bronze Age, were identified in and around Tekketepe (Tekke Hill). The current condition of the ancient theatre, used today as the municipal cemetery area, was observed. A Greek inscription was found at the bottom of the vaulted structure of the theatre and Ottoman tombstones in the cemetery were examined and identified. A marble quadrangular altar/pillar and a clay bed stratigraphy were found on the western slope of the Kaleşah neighbourhood.

Amasra Centre Survey Area Fortification Structure and Citadel (Fig. 2, Sector 2 and Fig. 5) In our Amasra survey, the first aim was to examine the surroundings of the citadel’s fortifications and also the interior areas. Thus, we sought to observe the current state and status of the finds from the surface surveys conducted by Hill and Crow in and around the citadel between 1988 and 1991 and to determine other information they could not elaborate (Fig. 5).9 Hence, a general evaluation of the fortification walls of the citadel was undertaken. Surface finds, structures and structural traces in the inner and outer area of the

In the county dump site, amongst rubble that possibly came from the foundations of new construction, were found ancient architectural blocks and an inscribed stone block that will help to illuminate the cultural and socio-economic status of Amastris during the Roman period. The presence of numerous Roman pottery in the strata around the Bartın-Amasra highway indicates concentrated settlement activity in that period.

8  The Kuşkayası monument consists of a cloaked man figure within an aedicula on the bedrock and an eagle figure on the top of a column. It is on the ancient route reaching Amasra from Bartın province and it was dated to the Roman period. See Eyice 1955. 9  Hill 1990; 1991; Hill and Crow 1992; 1993.

191

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 2. Research sectors of Amasra and surroundings.

Figure 3. Research sectors of Amasra district centre.

192

F.B. Çam et al.: New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris

Figure 4. Research sectors in surroundings of Amasra.

fortification walls, etc. were examined to determine (Fig. 6) the arrangement of the fortification and the presence of spolia in related structures. Along the walls, especially in the lower parts, were bossage blocks, marble architectural fragments belonging mainly to the Roman period, inscribed pieces and embossed blocks, plus a coat of arms from the Genoese period (Fig. 6).10 The fortification structure is composed of well-crafted blocks at the bottom, but it transforms into an uneven stone structure with smaller stones in the upper parts; it can clearly be understood from the traces that the walls have undergone restoration over time. Crow and Hill determined that the walls were built in the late 8th century AD, corresponding with the architecture of the fortification. In the west of the inner citadel, the presence of bossage blocks – which can point to the Hellenistic period – in the bottom of walls that are on the shore of Küçük Liman and traces of Roman-period wall construction on the fortifications facing the East Harbour indicate that the wall structure had probably existed since the Hellenistic period.11

There are two gates in the city walls to reach the city’s two harbours. Restorations since the Byzantine period were detected in the fortification structure, approximately 300 m long, between these two gates. Restoration and completion works caused changes in the original structure of the fortification, especially towards the East Harbour. The city gates were rebuilt during the period of Genoese dominance and besides spolia blocks such as Roman architectural pieces, the coat of arms of a dominant Genoese family in the administration was placed on top of the city gates (Fig. 7).12 The citadel is surrounded by two rows of fortification walls and thus consists of an inner and an outer fortress. In terms of differences observed in the arrangement of the walls, the inner fortress, known as Boztepe, was surrounded together with the part on the mainland during the Byzantine and Genoese periods, and the outer fortress was formed as a result.13 Thus, it is understood that workmanship can be observed in walls at Trabzon citadel and various other buildings. See Bryer and Winfield 1985, figs. 110a, 111a, 111b. 12  In recent years, Amastris and its relation with other settlements have been examined in studies on the mediaeval period. The coat of arms was mentioned and detailed information has been obtained by communicating with the scholars involved. See Quirini-Popławski 2012; Hasluck 1910-11. 13  Crow and Hill 1990; 1995.

10  Thus, it could be observed that Hill and Crow’s architectural elements, which possibly belong to Hellenistic(?)-Roman-period structures used as spolia in the walls, were still preserved. See Hill 1989; 1990; Hill and Crow 1992; 1993. See also Cresswell 1952. 11  In other cities of the Black Sea, well-known examples of mediaeval structures survive and preserve earlier wall traces. Classical-period

193

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 5. Plan of Amasra fortification.

the East Harbour gate and the West Harbour gate are contemporary. After passing through the western gate, the Kemere Bridge connecting Boztepe to the mainland and the gate of the inner fortress (Sormagir Gate) can be reached (Fig. 8). On the western gate, striking Roman-period spolia is to be seen – marble architectural blocks, a pedestal and an altar. Traces of a fresco have been preserved on the inner surface of the Sormagir Gate at the intersection with the city wall (Fig. 9). Careful examination of these traces reveals the presence of a bearded male head in a halo. According to information from the local people, the fresco was taken away by a Russian sailor in the early 1900s. Since the inner fortress is important for observing traces of the pre-Byzantine settlement of Amastris, we aimed to

investigate the inner and outer parts of the city wall that surrounds the island. The ceramic finds observed in the fortress, which was particularly damaged by the dense settlement activities in the 1990s, are composed of small numbers from the Late Classical/Early Hellenistic and Roman periods, while there are numerous glazed ceramics of Late Byzantine date (Fig. 10). Byzantine ceramics are concentrated between the 9th and 11th centuries AD and the most common examples seem to belong to the 11th century. A Late Classical/Early Hellenistic black-figured bowl fragment, found during the ground survey just outside 194

F.B. Çam et al.: New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris

Figure 6. Fortification system between the two harbours.

Figure 7. Genoan heraldry on the city walls of Amastris.

century BC). Black-glazed ceramics dating to the Late Classical period, found at the citadel, constitute the earliest evidence of such kind. The remains of ancient walls in the form of arched structures seen among the foundations of modern houses beyond the western gate on Boztepe are evidence of the presence of structures on the citadel during the Roman period (Fig. 12).

the eastern part of the island, constitute important evidence of the citadel’s early period of occupation (Late Classical/Hellenistic) (Fig. 11).14 The only study of ancient Amastrian ceramics relates to amphorae:15 it is known that the city had amphora production in the Early Hellenistic period (the first quarter of the 3rd Sparkes and Talcott 1970: 135, 299, nos. 887-888, fig. 9. Inside the black-glazed small bowl, on the tondo, incised palmette decoration is widely seen in the second half of the 4th century BC; this decoration disappears with the Hellenistic period. In the dating of these little bowls, along with palmette decoration, the groove which is seen in the interior of the pedestal is common in 4th-century BC examples. 15  Ščeglov 1986; Stolba 2003. 14 

The wall built with large rectangular fine blocks and the marble Corinthian capital in and around the garden of the Meteorology Building (located on the top of the Boztepe) suggest a temple structure that can be dated to the Roman period at least (Fig. 13). 195

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 8. West gate (Sormagir) of the citadel: spolia.

Figure 9. The fresco remains on the west gate (Sormagir).

modern restoration and renovation works are more intense in this area. The wall construction northward was raised immediately on the bedrock. Here again, architectural blocks from the Roman period and the presence of Genoese-period coats of arms on the walls were detected. It was clear from the surveys on the breakwater at the East Harbour that the stones used here consist of those from the fortification wall and architectural fragments from other structures. Although the steps on the bedrock at the beginning of the breakwater seem roughly processed, they reflect ancient workmanship (Fig. 15). The rock steps, which

Excavations to be conducted in this area will ensure that evidence of constructions that can shed light on the Roman and Hellenistic periods of Amastris is revealed. The harbours (Figs. 3, 14, East and West Harbours) At the East Harbour, properly processed stone blocks, understood to be the remains of the ancient harbour, partly survive on the surface, starting from beneath the sea. The city walls on the east and north of the Great Harbour side of the fortress extend uninterrupted; 196

F.B. Çam et al.: New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris

Figure 10. Pottery finds fom the citadel.

Figure 11. Late Classical blackglazed bowl fragment.

structure, perhaps a sign of the cult of the Mother Goddess.16 The wall structures of the citadel’s western gate, which are on the Small Harbour side, were investigated. Here, well-crafted stone blocks, which can illuminate the early construction phases, are placed on the bedrock without using mortar between the joints. In the earth fill that is in the lower part of the wall large quantities of Roman pottery were encountered, supporting the suggestion of Hill and Crow that the city in the Hellenistic and Roman periods was in the area where the citadel is located. are probably characteristic of the Paphlagonian region, may have been part of a stepped-altar

16  Işık 1996; Roller 2004: 94-95, figs. 16 and 18, Phrygian altar 7th-6th century BC; Tamsü Polat 2010; Temur 2014.

197

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 12. Remains of an arched structure (Boztepe).

Figure 13. Architectural blocks from Boztepe (Temple?).

Figure 14. Inscription on architrave block from the Amasra district dump.

198

F.B. Çam et al.: New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris

Figure 15. Stone stairs of East (Big) Harbour.

Figure 16. The west gate of the citadel. Pottery fragments in the deposits of West (Small) Harbour shore.

The presence of architectural blocks in the bay between the western harbour gate and the citadel and the numerous Roman pottery contexts observed are important evidence for the citadel’s Roman period (Fig. 16).

House, 35 Camiönü Street) (Fig. 18). In addition to the recent detected inscriptions, two others, previously published, were reviewed. The inscriptions confirm our determinations about the Roman-period settlement of the citadel.

The spolia seen in the structures inside the outer fortress was examined. It consists of two inscriptions: one on the wall of a house that is behind the eastern gate (Fig. 17), the other on an ostotheca in Ali Uğurtan’s garden opposite the Fatih Mosque (Derviş Mehmet

Detections in the District Dump (Figs. 3, 14, sector 5; and Fig. 4) The most important discoveries in the Amasra district were made here. Large quantities of architectural 199

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity manifestation of the damage to the ancient city caused by rapid modern urbanisation. The most important examples of these architectural fragments are architrave blocks of a monumental structure (possibly a temple). A Latin inscription was detected on two of the fascias (Figs. 14, 20). This may be a dedication by a high-ranking officer who probably served in a legion at Amastris during the Roman period (presumably the 2nd century BC). A detailed study is being undertaken by Asst. Prof. Bülent Öztürk. Together with this inscribed piece, marble architrave fragments, Corinthian capitals and many architectural blocks were detected.

Figure 17. Inscription fragment on the house wall behind the eastern gate.

Tekketepe (Fig. 2, sector 5; Fig. 3, sector 4; and Fig. 5) Surveys were made in the Tekketepe area opposite the PTT building in central Amasra, where the first detection had been made by Hill and Crow;17 the area was extensively damaged by a just-completed building. The floor was completely covered, because the front of the building has been laid with a cobblestone pavement and the western slope of the hilly area has been turned into a park. However, during the survey on the soil area in the eastern part of the hill, ceramic fragments dated to the Bronze Age were detected, confirming the Bronze Age settlement mentioned by Hill and Crow.18

Figure 18. The inscribed ostotheca.

Figure 19. Find from Amastra district dump.

Theatre sector (Figs. 3, 14, sector 6)

marble and other kind of stone blocks were found in the dump site on the southern coast of the Small Harbour among the rubble from modern building constructions. They were probably discarded there quite recently: the concentration of these architectural blocks in a certain area suggests this (Figs. 19 and 21). They are a

The floor of the theatre was covered with parquet stone; this situation prevented further exploration. 17  18 

200

Hill and Crow 1992: 85. Hill and Crow 1992: 85.

F.B. Çam et al.: New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris

Figure 20. Inscribed architrave fragment from the district dump.

Figure 21. Architectural fragment from the district dump.

southern foot of the vault, the presence of a probable Greek inscription was detected (Fig. 22). It was cleaned and photographed, and its readable parts were recorded. The reading and publication of this inscription is of great importance because it will present the most valuable information about Greek population living in Bartın before the population exchange in 1924: the dates 1800-1820 can be read on it.

In the cavea section of the theatre, which has become the modern cemetery of the district, tombstones of the Ottoman period were examined by our art history team and photographic studies were carried out. It was determined that most of the tombs were built using ancient architectural stone blocks. On the west of the sloping area of the theatre used as a cemetery, where the seating area should be (kerkides), one of the vaulted entrances to the theatre survives. Some of the seating rows belonging to the theatre were removed to the Fatih Mosque in the outer fortress. This shows that architectural blocks from Roman-period structures were used in the renovation work of the city during the Byzantine or Genoese periods. At the bottom of the

Large-sized stone architectural upper structure materials, some of them marble, columnar bodies and brick wall-masonry were detected in a field in front of the fire station on the north of the theatre sector. Pieces damaged in their original location during 201

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity construction of the Amasra highway were moved here. In the same area, Roman-period ceramic (terra sigillata) and terracotta fragments were detected in the soil that was hoed for cultivation (Fig. 23). Their coordinate points were recorded and they were taken to the Museum. The south of the district centre (Figs. 3, 14, sector 8) The entire area along the slope was investigated northwards from the Amasra Kaleşah neighbourhood, and Figure 22. Greek inscription from the ancient theatre. the Industrial Area was also investigated up to Bedesten. A small marble altar/pillar was found on the roadside of the slope which is right on the north of Kaleşah neighbourhood; its coordinates were recorded and it too was taken to the Museum. In the same area, a clay bed was detected on the wayside. Unfortunately most of this section is covered by a modern concrete road (Fig. 24). Traces of the rescue excavation carried out by Amasra Museum were seen on the slope on the western side of the modern road. This area surrounds Figure 23. Terracotta a valley from the south-east of where the building figurine fragment. terraces of the ancient city remain. The probable clay strata indicates that here may have been ateliers or the pottery workshops of ancient Amastris. Today, it is located just behind the Industrial Area of the modern city. In examinations carried out on the Roman-era Kemerdere Bridge, which can be regarded as the starting point of the ancient road towards the south from ancient Amastris, pickaxes and shovels were found at the foot of the bridge. These suggest that an illegal excavation was underway there and that the bridge had been damaged. The area which extends to the TKI (Turkish Coal Enterprises) houses in the hilly area on the southwest of the district centre was scanned by following the AmasraBartın highway. On the upper strata of a modern retaining wall beside the west of the highway, brick wall traces and numerous Roman-period ceramics were visible in the soil fill (Fig. 25). They were photographed and their coordinates were recorded. To the north of the TKI houses,

Figure 24. Clay deposit.

202

F.B. Çam et al.: New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris the Kuşkayası Monument, north of where the stone pavement of the road starts to disappear. Flintstone fragments were detected (Fig. 26) and the ground was carefully scanned, based on the probability of this being a prehistoric stone tool (Fig. 2, sector 18). There were traces of engraving on the flint pieces. Thus it was understood that these are materials (cores, flakes) from the Palaeolithic. The coordinates of the flints were recorded and the fragments taken to the Museum for further identification by experts from the Department of Prehistory. Figure 25. Roman lamp fragment.

Figure 26. Chipped stone tools and hammers.

The ancient stone quarry (Fig. 2, sector 16)

architectural stone blocks and broken sarcophagus pieces were observed on the roadside. Possibly, these were parts from the necropolis area, described in detail by Ainsworth19 when he visited the city in the first half of the 19th century.

A survey was commenced to detect the continuation of the ancient road north-westward of the Kuşkayası Monument. Because the ground was damaged by very dense vegetation and landslides, no continuation of the road could be detected. However, about 300 m further from the monument, there are dense chisel traces on the rocky surface where the monument is engraved, and Greek letters on the bottom of the anchoring holes on the rocky surface indicate that this area was used as a stone pit (Fig. 27). The bedrock in this area is an andesite-basalt formed by the rise of lava columns known from Güzelcehisar. This rocky area is basically a rock structure consisting of andesite, basalt and limestone units.

Periphery of Amasra: detection survey of ancient road (Fig. 3, sectors 14-18) Kuşkayası monument and the ancient Roman road (Fig. 2, sector 17; and Fig. 4) In the surveys of the Kuşkayası Monument 20 and its periphery, inscriptions of the Roman period, niches carved into the rock and wall crafts were examined and photographed by following the road southwards, which is carved into the bedrock. Surveys commenced on the hillside area that extends to the upper part of 19  20 

The ancient road (Fig. 2, sectors 14-15) By proceeding from the area north of the Kuşkayası Monument, where the prehistoric artefacts were

Ainsworth 1839: 216-76. For Kuşkayası monument, see n. 8 above.

203

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 27. Ancient stone quarry and a monogram.

Figure 28. Ancient road.

Conclusions

located, in a north-easterly direction, the surveys continued to find traces of the ancient road, and traces of the stone pavement started to be seen under the path to the west a few kilometres further on (Fig. 28). It was found that the path leading to the modern-day Kirazlar Hotel near the main road heading to Amasra is a continuation of the paved Roman road, its wayside rocky surface crafted in a similar way to the Kuşkayası Monument. A triangular roofed naiskos-shaped relief is carved into the rock (Fig. 29). However, treasure hunters have repeatedly dynamited the monument and only the tracks on the rock surface were protected. This route, which is the continuation of the ancient road from the Kuşkayı Monument, was first identified and coordinates were taken from the area to the point where the tracks disappeared. Preparations have begun for application to the Karabük Preservation Board in order to make this area a Grade 1 site, which is not an archaeological site.

Evaluation regarding the Prehistoric periods21 Surveys of Palaeolithic material in the Black Sea region of Turkey have been limited by the dense vegetation. Within the scope of the current project, the Palaeolithic finds detected near the Kuşkayası Monument in Gömu village in the Amasra district are of great importance (Fig. 2, sector 18). The chipped stone finds consist mainly of flakes of different sizes. In addition to flakes, there are a few retouched tools (scrapers) (Fig. 26). The raw material is probably present in the form of a primary geological source. It is not generally high in quality, since it We would like to express our thanks to Berkay Dinçer and Zeynep Kelpetin for their valuable insights in the evaluation of the Prehistoric finds.

21 

204

F.B. Çam et al.: New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris

Figure 29. Ancient road and relief figure on monument.

has not been fully silicified. The structure of the raw material and its quality prevent the Palaeolithic tools from being ‘typical’. Among the finds, two round and flat volcanic rocks are probably percuteurs. Examination of the geological structure of the terrain indicates that percuteurs made of volcanic rocks are not naturally found there and these must have been brought to the region by humans.

Figure 30. A piece of crescent-shaped lug.

According to initial surveys, the existence of both percuteurs and cortex flakes indicate that tools were produced here, perhaps by a small, short-lived atelier where instant (ad hoc) stone tools were produced. These tools are currently the earliest finds from Bartın. Since they were detected by surface survey, it is necessary to analyse them in a laboratory environment in order to be certain of those which can be dated to the Palaeolithic periods techno-typologically.

result of the surface surveys. This is a rim sherd of a simple rim bowl with a cream/buff colour from Middle Bronze ware groups. Nowadays, as the Tekketepe area is damaged by construction activities, it is not possible to conduct a detailed study. A rim sherd belonging to a convex-rim bowl (called crescent or half-moon handled in the ware group of the ceramics unearthed at Tekketepe) was found in Bedesten Street, to the south of Tekketepe (Fig. 30).

Evaluation regarding the Protohistoric periods22 The earliest evidence for the Amasra region was found by the surface survey conducted under Stephen Hill in 1989-91 and 1993. The Late Bronze Age was seen in the area called Tekketepe (Fig. 3, sector 5; Fig. 14, sector 4; Fig. 4), which is thought to be a hill settlement or mound opposite today’s post office building. It was stated that these ceramics, reported to be in Amasra Museum, were unfortunately unpublished.23 The surface surveys which we carried out at Tekketepe area in 2017 support these findings. One piece of ceramic dating to the Middle Bronze Age was recovered as a

The ceramic sherds detected in the 1990s and 2017 suggest that there might have been a Middle Bronze Age settlement in Amasra. Western Anatolia has special characteristics when the groups of ceramics found in 2017 are taken into consideration. Although it has been destroyed considerably by intensive modern construction activities, we can speak of the presence of a possible coastal settlement in the Middle Bronze Age in Amasra, which yields ware groups characteristic of western Anatolia.

We would like to thank our team member Dr Asuman Kuru for her evaluation of the protohistoric periods. 23  Crow and Hill 1995.

The survey in and around Amasra revealed that settlement dates back to much earlier ages; indeed, the

Evaluation regarding the Greek and Roman periods

22 

205

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Palaeolithic evidence proves that the western Black Sea region of Turkey has been settled by humans since the Stone Age. Evidence from the research of the 1990s and our study shows that there was settlement in the centre and around of Amasra in the Bronze Age.

existence of an ancient stone quarry and the historical development of Amastris and its surroundings. The first year of the project has yielded evidence of the ancient city’s destruction day by day. There has been continuous settlement since prehistoric times, without seeing daylight under the modern city. This is in fact the destruction of the history of a city and the erasure of the past. For this reason, we wish to complete our research in Bartın and surrounding area as soon as possible, to ensure that our cultural assets are preserved by being detected and recorded before they disappear.

Construction of the citadel continued from the Late Classical/Early Hellenistic period through Roman, Byzantine and Genoese times into the Ottoman era, with restorations. Our survey, carried out in order to observe the current state of what had been reported in the studies conducted by Hill and Crow in and around Amasra citadel between 1988 and 1991, especially the pottery finds, indicates that the citadel had been inhabited since the Late Classical/Early Hellenistic period. On the Small Harbour (West Harbour) side, well-crafted blocks which can illuminate the early building phases of the wall were placed on the bedrock without mortar. Dense pottery finds were encountered in the soil fill in the lower part of the wall. Thus it was understood that settlement continued here during the Roman period.

Bibliography Ainsworth, W. 1839. ‘Notes on a Journey from Constantinople, by Heraclea, to Angora, in the Autumn of 1838’. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 9: 216-76. Belke, K. 1996. Paplagonien und Honorias (Vienna). Brandes, W. 1989. Die Städte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert (Amsterdam). Bryer, A.A.M. and Winfield, D. 1985. The Byzantine Monuments of the Pontos (Washington, DC). Cresswell, K.A.C. 1952. ‘Fortification in Islam before A.D. 1250’. Proceedings of the British Academy 38: 99-108. Crow, J. and Hill, S. 1990. ‘Amasra, a Byzantine and Genoese Fortress on the Black Sea’. Fortress 2, 315. Crow, J. and Hill, S. 1995. ‘The Byzantine fortifications of Amastris in Paphlagonia’. Anatolian Studies 45: 25165. de Clavijo, R.G. 1928. Embassy to Tamerlane (1403–1406), transl. G. Le Strange (London). Dull, S. 1989. ‘Das Wappenbild als Geschichtsquelle. Florentiner Kaufleute in der Genuesenfestung Samastri am Schwarzen Meer’. Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Instituts in Florenz 33: 369-77. Eyice, S. 1955. ‘Das Denkmal von Kuskayasi bei Amasra’. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 6: 109-12. Eyice, S. 1965. Küçük Amasra tarihi ve Eski Eserler Kılavuzu (Ankara). Foss, C. and Winfield, D. 1986. Byzantine Fortifications: An Introduction (Pretoria). Gökoğlu, A. 1952. Paphlagonia (Kastamonu, Sinop, Çankırı, Safranbolu, Bartın, Bolu, Gerede, Mudurnu, İskilip, Bafra, Alaçam ve civarı) Gayri Menkul Eski Eserleri ve Arkeolojisi, vol. 1 (Kastamonu). Hasluck, F.W. 1910-11. ‘Genoese Inscriptions and Heraldry at Amastra’. Annual of the British School at Athens 17: 132-44. Hill, S. 1990. ‘Preliminary Survey at Amasra, Zonguldak’. In 7. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara): 81-91. Hill, S. 1991. ‘Survey Work at Amasra, 1989’. In 8. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara): 311-21. Hill, S. and Crow, J. 1992. ‘Amasra, Yüzey Araştırması 1990’. In 9. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara): 83-92.

Unfortunately, Tekketepe, where various Bronze Age ceramics were found by Hill and Crow, is the victim of new construction activities. However, several particular Bronze Age ceramic objects, which emerged in foundation debris, confirm the detection of Hill and Crow. Architectural blocks of the Roman period, thrown into the Amasra district dump with debris that seems to come from building works, show that new construction in the city has destroyed the traces of antiquity. The presence of part of an inscribed architrave here brings to mind the possible existence of a legion(?) in Amastris during the Roman period. Unfortunately, while an inscription found in the city’s dump proves that there was a military unit in Amastris in Roman times, nothing can be made out about its position. Four unpublished inscriptions from the centre of the district will cast light on the Roman period of the city. The inscription found in the theatre constitutes very important proof of the Greek population here in modern times, before the exchange of populations in the 1920s. The clay deposits to the south of the ancient city provide clues to where probably pottery workshops were situated. The continuation of the Roman road preserved at the location of the Kuşkayası Monument was identified in the direction of Amasra (north). The monument on this road, unfortunately, was the victim of treasure hunters. The determination of an important part of the ancient road provided important information about the 206

F.B. Çam et al.: New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris Hill, S. and Crow, J. 1993. ‘1991 Yılı Amasra Yüzey Araştırması’. In 10. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara): 19-27. Hoffman, A., 1989. ‘Zum “Bedesten” in Amastris. Ein römischer Marktbau?’. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 39: 197-210. Işık, F. 1996. ‘Zum Ursprung lykischer Felsheiligtümer’. In Blakolmer, F., Krierer, K.R. and Krinzinger, F. (eds) Fremde Zeiten: Festschrift für Jürgen Borchhardt zum sechszigsten Geburtstag am 25. Februar 1996, vol. 1 (Vienna): 51-64. Kalkan, H. 1991. ‘Eine Inschrift aus Amasra (Amastris): Statuenstiftung des Gaius zu Ehren des Antoninus Pius’. Epigraphica Anatolica 18: 97-98. Keleş, V., Çelikbaş, E. and Yılmaz, A. 2012. ‘Hadrianoupolis 2010 Yılı Çalışmaları’. In 33. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara): 39-53. Marek, C. 1985. ‘Katalog der Inscriften im Museum von Amasra’. Epigraphica Anatolica 6: 133-56. Marek, C. 1989. ‘Amastris, Geschichte, Topographie, Archäologische Reste’. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 39: 373-89. Marek, C. 1993. Stadt, Ära und Territorium in PontusBithynia und Nord-Galatia (Tübingen). Mitchell, S. 2010. ‘The Ionians of Paphlagonia’. In Whitmarsh, T. (ed.) Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World (Cambridge): 86-110. Quirini-Popławski, R. 2012. ‘Art in the Genoese Colonies on the Black Sea (in the 13-15th c.). Present State

of Knowledge and Selected Research Problems’. Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 74.3-4: 425-72. Roller, L.E. 2004. Ana Tanrıça’nın İzinde, Anadolu Kybele Kültü, transl. B. Avunç (Istanbul) (= In Search of God the Mother...[Berkeley 1999]). Sakaoğlu, N. 1987. Amasra’nın Üç Bin Yılı (Zonguldak). Sparkes, B.A. and Talcott, L. 1970. The Athenian Agora 12: Black and Plain Pottery, Part 1 (Princeton). Stolba, V.F. 2003. ‘Some reflections on the amphora stamps with the name of Amastris’. In Bilde, P.G., Højte, J.M. and Stolba, V.F. (eds) The Cauldron of Ariantas: Studies Presented to A.N. Ščeglov on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday (Aarhus): 279-301. Summerer, L. 2012. ‘Pompeiopolis 2010 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları’. In 33. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankrara): 337-52. Ščeglov, A.N. 1986. ‘Les amphores timbrées d’Amastris’. In Empereur, J.-Y. and Garlan, Y. (eds) Récherches sur les amphores grecques (Athens/Paris): 365-73. Tamsü Polat, R. 2010. ‘Yeni Buluntular Işığında Phryg Kaya Altarları ve Bir Tipoloji Önerisi’. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 10.1: 203-21. Temur, A. 2014. ‘Amasya Yassıkaya Açık Hava Tapınım Alanı Üzerine Gözlemler’. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 7 (no. 35): 432-40. Yıldırım, Ş. 2018. ‘Tios-Tieion 2016 Yılı Kazı, Restorasyon ve Konsevasyon Çalışmaları’. In 39. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 3 (Ankara): 147-68.

207

The Ancient City of Sebastopolis in the Light of Archaeological Data and Inscriptions Şengül Dilek Ful Abstract Sebastopolis, 68 km south of Tokat, is located in the Kulupene section of the Pontus Region. From the late 19th century onwards, travellers such as D. Damon, V. Cuinet, W.M. Ramsay, J.G.C. Anderson and the brothers Cumont recorded it. A number of the inscriptions in this region were transcribed and studied by some of them. These inscriptions provided significant information on the socio-economic and religious structure of the ancient city as well as on its inhabitants. Archaeological excavations carried out in the Sebastopolis between 1987 and 1990 and studies conducted between 2013 and 2017 have revealed important details about the architecture of the ancient city: a Roman Baths and some parts of a Byzantine Church have been excavated. In this paper the ancient city of Sebastopolis will be examined in light of the inscriptions and excavations, especially those since 2013.

The ancient city of Sebastopolis is located in the centre of Sulusaray district, 68 km from Tokat. Sulusaray, in an area settled for 5000 years, from the Early Bronze Age and in the Hittite, Phrygian, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods. The earliest information about the ancient city was presented by travellers and scholars such as D. Damon,1 V. Cuinet,2 W.M. Ramsay,3 J.G.C. Anderson,4 the brothers Cumont,5 H. Grégoire,6 G. de Jerphanion,7 and W. Ruge,8 and more recently by D. Magie,9 T. Bruce Mitford,10 Olshausen and Biller,11 D.H. French,12 B. Le GuenPollet13 and B. Remy.14 Some of what they recorded provides information about a variety of artefacts that are no longer extant. Most important are inscriptions – offerings to gods, dedications to emperors, their wives and special people, milestones and epitaphs that provide significant information about the socioeconomic and religious structure of this city and its inhabitants.

Figure 1. The inscription on the Roman bridge.

the Roman bridge over the Çekerek river (Fig. 1).15 Sebastopolis, which is a Greek word, derives from sebasto (‘great, noble, magnificent, wonderful’) and polis (‘city’). i.e. ‘great, noble city’.16 Heracleopolis means the city of Heracles. Since Heracles symbolises power in the Greek and Roman mythology, it has the same meaning as Sebastopolis. In Sebastopolis there are other inscriptions where the names of Sebastopolis and Heracleopolis are used together. These inscriptions show that this ancient city had a people’s assembly and advisory council in 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. In addition to its being known with both names, the inscriptions also show that the city had an intensive Heracles cult.

This city, founded in the 1st century BC, was known as Sebastopolis or Heracleopolis during the Roman period. Damon found this information from an inscription he discovered by chance during a visit to Amasya-Sivas in 1871. The inscription is located on Guen-Pollet 1989: 60; Mitford 1991: 194. Cuinet 1892-94, 736. 3  Ramsey 1960: 281. 4  Anderson 1900: 153-56; 1903: 34-36. 5  Cumont 1902: 320, no. 20; 1904: 333-34; Cumont and Cumont 1906: 201-08. 6  Grégoire 1909. 7  de Jerphanion 1908: 452-54, nos. 13-16; 1921: 8-12, nos. 12-16. 8  Ruge 1921, col. 956, no. 3. 9  Magie 1950: 1285-86, n. 25, 1329, n. 49. 10  Mitford 1966: 473-75; 1991. 11  Olshausen and Biller 1984: 96-97, 108, 139-40. 12  French 1988, nos. 941, 951, 958, 963, 975, 980. 13  Guen-Pollet 1989: 51-56. 14  Rémy 1991; Guen-Pollet and Rémy 1991. 1  2 

The inscription on Çekerek river is badly damaged and only a small piece of it has been preserved. Travellers visiting Sebastopolis in 19th century provide information about it: Ramsey 1960: 361; 1882: 154-55; Guen-Pollet 1989: 60-61; Özcan 1990: 264; Mitford 1991: 194-96, no. 8. 16  Özcan 1990: 264. 15 

208

S.D. Ful: The Ancient City of Sebastopolis in the Light of Archaeological Data and Inscriptions

Figure 2. Heracles.

Inscription: PÊlvni ÉEpk-/ Òƒ Dom¤tio Stator¤ou Seko-/Ê[n]d[o]u ÍpartikoË

Additionally, the intensive Heracles descriptions on the coins from the time of Septimius Severus, Julia Donma, Caracalla and Gallienus prove that the leading god of the city was Heracles. On these coins, Heracles is depicted as standing with his bat and wearing a lion skin or as a cult statue at a temple. There are also stories about the valour of Heracles among the depictions. The descriptions on the city coins also show that there were two temples dedicated to Heracles and a cult statue in the city (Fig. 2).17

O-/

The Pylon epithet, representing the protection of city gates and the security of people, is found only in Zara and Comana Pontica. Small divine spaces around the city gates in Sebastopolis and Comana for Pylon were found. Additionally, they were worshipped by the beneficiarii consularis during the 2nd century AD.23 As a result, the security of the people at the gates and on the roads, was divinely maintained, which was among the major duties of the provost forces around Pontus.24 Zeus emerges with the Hypsistos epithet on an inscription found on the garden wall of another house in Sebastopolis.25

According to finds from the city, another intensively worshipped god was Zeus,18 the supreme god of the Hellenic pantheon, god of light, sky and lightning. Mentioned with a variety of names in the Iliad, Zeus is mostly named as the son of Cronus, the father of human beings and gods, or the god of all gods.19 Although there are differences between mainland Greece and Anatolia in terms of function, the existence of cults with shared epithets is also known. Zeus, the god of the sky, has been turned into an Anatolian god by syncretism with local gods or having been given a local epithet.20 The existence of his cult in Sebastopolis has been proved through inscriptions. One, found on the wall of a house, indicates that the epithet Pylaios was used in worship of Zeus.21

Inscription: Ye“ ÑU-/c¤stƒ/ eÈx∞w/ xãrin Pon-/ t¤a OÈale-/r¤a This epithet of the god mentioned by ancient authors is related to the cult of Theos Hypsistos, an abstract god of Jewish belief and pioneer of monotheistic beliefs. The existence of the Zeus Hypsistos cult in Sebastopolis, who is understood as the supreme god of Anatolian Jews,26 shows the existence of a Jewish community in the region. Apart from this inscription, various tombstones found in the region support the existence of a Jewish population hereabouts. There are reliefs of menorahs, a Jewish symbol, on the tombstones dedicated to Despoina,27 Maria28 and Sara.29 Additionally, someone called Moses, as the head of synagogue, is mentioned on

Inscription: [D]i‹ Pula¤ƒ/ Sept¤miow/ ÉApollinãri-/ ow Pylaios, a rare epithet, was used for gods other than Zeus in the Hellenistic period.22 Also, Pylon, the name of another god, was found on an octagonal altar from the same centre.

Mitford 1966: 480; 1991: 186-87; Robert 2017: 25. Mitford 1966: 480; 1991: 186-87; Kaymakçı 2012: 89. Mitford 1991: 190; Şahin 2001: 64-65; Sayar 1999: 134: An inscription found near Kilikia, Anazarbos and another inscription that was found on an altar dedicated to Zeus Hypsistos indicates that Zeus was worshipped as the god of the highest hills, i.e. as a god of mountains. 26  Mitford 1991: 190; Şahin 2001: 64-65. 27  Guen-Pollet and Remy 1991: 120. 28  Guen-Pollet 1989: 79. 29  Guen-Pollet and Remy 1991: 119; Mitford 1991: 229. 23  24 

Amandry and Rémy 1998: 8, 13; Işık 2004: 279. For more information about Zeus, see Cook 1914; 1925; 1940; Şahin 2001; Karaosmanoğlu 2005: 24-32. 19  Homer Iliad 1. 488-611. 20  For more details, see Şahin 2001. 21  Mitford 1966: 475; Guen-Pollet 1989: 57; Mitford 1991: 188; Şahin 2001: 158. 22  Guen-Pollet 1989: 57, No: 1; Şahin 2001: 158. 17 

25 

18 

209

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity The inscriptions found in the region show that Sebastopolis was visited by Roman emperors. Hadrian undertook two great travels to the eastern regions of the Roman empire between AD 121 and 133. The first was between AD 121 and 125, and the second between AD 128 and 133. During the latter, he is known to have reached at Black Sea region through Eastern Anatolia and to have visited the Pontic cities.32 Inscriptions found in Sebastopolis show that Hadrian also briefly visited there, which led to the creation of Imperial cults in the city.33 In this context, the people and assembly of Sebastopolis presented dedicatory inscriptions to the Roman emperors for their services, contributions and good deeds to the city. These are shown on steles and pedestals made for emperors and important people. The inscription on the stele dedicated to Marcus Antonius Rufus and a pedestal belonging to Lucius Antonius show that a gymnasium, a temple, a stoa34 surrounded with workshops, an entry gate and an arena where gladiatorial and animal fights were held were constructed during Hadrian’s reign.35 Antonius Rufus is known to have served together with his wife Stratonikeia as a high priest during the cultic events held for Hadrian.36 It is also understood that the city’s population consisted of tribes as the name of the Sergia tribe is mentioned on the same inscriptions.

Figure 3. Moses’ epitaph.

another tombstone displayed in Sulusaray Outdoor Museum. This indicates that there was a synagogue in ancient Sebastopolis and that its head lived there (Fig. 3).30

Inscription: M. ÉAnt≈nion Serg¤a ÑRoËfon épÒ te t«n pr[o]-/ gÒnvn diashmÒtaton ka[‹] épÚ t«n �d¤vn aÈtoË/ filoteimi«n lamprÒtaton, pãsaw m¢n leitour-/g¤aw/ diejelyÒnta, §n pãsaiw d¢ filoteim¤ai[w]/ eÈdokimÆsanta, êrjanta ka‹ yiasarxÆsan-/ta pollãkiw, égoranomÆsanta pleonãkiw,/ pontarxÆsanta §n tª mhtropÒlei toË PÒ[n]-/tou Neokaisare¤a, pollå m¢n ka‹ megã-/ la ¶rga kataskeuasãmenon diÉ §pime-/le¤aw, polÁ d¢ ple¤ona épÚ t«n •aut[oË],/ pr«ton m¢n éno¤janta tÚ gumnãsion, ér-/xierasãmenon d¢ diå b¤ou t“ yeiotãtƒ/ AÈtokrãtori ÑAdrian“ metå t∞w diashmo-/ tãthw [g]unaikÚw aÈtoË ÉAntvn¤aw Strat[o]-/ne¤khw, kunhg°sia ka‹ monomax¤aw/ diaferoÊsaw paresxhm°non, §pimelh-/y°nta d¢ ka‹ toË metå tØn teleutØn •au-/toË xrÒnou ka‹ y°aw §ths¤ouw ka‹ filotei-/m¤aw dacile›w diå b¤ou katalipÒnta,/ka¤, ˘ m°gistÒn §stin, diédoxon ka‹ toË g°no[u]w/ ka¤ t«n filoteimi«n tØn •autoË yugat°ra/ 'Antvn¤an Maj¤man parasxÒmenon ka‹/ ım≈numon yugatridoËn §j éndrÚw prv-/teÊontow §n tª mhtropÒlei ÉAmase¤a ka‹/ parÉ ≤me›n KornhlianoË Kap¤tvnow/ ka‹ z«nta pollãkiw ≤ Sebastopolet«n/ pÒliw ka‹

Inscription: ¶nya katã-/kite Mous∞w/ érxisunãgo-/ gow §n e�rÆn˙ How Jewish people came to Sebastopolis is, however, unknown. During antiquity, Sulusaray was probably an important thermal spring centre as it is today. The healing effects of its sulphurous spring waters are still known. People who used the thermal spring to alleviate their health problems during ancient times presented offerings to Asclepios to show their gratitude once healed. The altar and inscription found at a thermal spring in Ilıcak village near Sulusaray support this claim. The grey limestone altar was dedicated to Asclepios, the god of healing.31 Inscription: Ye“ ÉAsklh-/pi“ Svt∞ri Asclepios is mentioned as ‘soter’ which means ‘saviour’. Therefore, in Pergamon, this inscription demonstrated the existence of a cult belonging to Asclepios in the centre of Sebastopolis. 30  31 

Umar 2000: 60. Mitford 1991: 192-93. For more information about Roman Imperial cults, see Price 2004. 34  Magie 1950: 622. 35  Anderson 1900: 153-56; Mitford 1991: 192-93, 200-05, nos. 7, 11-12. 36  Guen-Polet 1989: 66-67. 32  33 

Ful and Sørensen 2014. Mitford 1991: 189.

210

S.D. Ful: The Ancient City of Sebastopolis in the Light of Archaeological Data and Inscriptions teleutÆsanta §te¤mhsen tª t«n/ éndriãntvn katå fulØn énay°sei : én°-/yhken d¢ toÍw éndriãntaw épÚ t[«]n •a[u]-/t∞w ≤ yugãthr aÈtoË ÉAntvn¤a Maj¤ma. A funerary stele at Sulusaray Outdoor Museum, dedicated to a Greek grammar teacher called Maximus by one of his students, informs us about the language of the people. (Fig. 4).37 Inscription: Ga›ã me t¤kten êfv[n]-/on §n oÎresin pary°n[o]/n ègnÆn, ≤sÊxion t[Ú p]-/ ãroiyex, nËn a lal°[ou]-/san ëpasin, smiligl[Ê]-/ [f]oiw t°xn˙sin k∞rÉ e[�]-/[p]oËsa yanÒntow:/ §nyãde Mãjimon gram-/matik∞w §pi¤stora t°xn-/hw, én°ra semnÒn, g∞ [m]-/ Æthr §kãluce yanÒnt[a]/ [xa¤rete dÉ Œ pãrodoi],/ gnÒntow dØ t°rma b[¤oio]. It was possible that the people of the city were being Graecised via the teaching of the Greek language: the population consisted of local people using their local language. However, as the Greek language was spoken in Sebastopolis and as Maximus and his colleagues taught Greek to the villagers coming to Sebastopolis, the local people were Graecised in a short time.38

Figure 4. Maximus’ epitaph.

One of Asia Minor’s biggest churches of the Early Christian period was constructed in Sebastopolis, which was the seat of a bishop during the Byzantine period (Fig. 6). Excavations have revealed the main apse, southern and northern apses, naos, bema and synthronon as well as some parts of the floor covering in the opus sectile technique.39 In terms of its plan40 and the floor covering,41 the church is similar to St Nicholas church in Kale, Antalya, which was constructed in the 5th and 6th centuries AD.42

Architectural remains across a large area prove the vastness of the city, while a number of inscriptions in the centre and around of Sulusaray indicate its significance. The Roman bath on the eastern skirts of the mound located in the centre of Sulusaray and the Byzantine church on the north-eastern fringe of the district centre present significant data on the architectural texture of the ancient city.

Conclusion The inscriptions, coins and the archaeological remains across the centre of Sulusaray indicate that Sebastopolis was intensively settled during the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods. The city developed into an important centre during the Roman empire due to its healing springs, fertile lands and a location on important roads.

The Roman bath (Fig. 5) consisted of apodyterium, frigidarium, tepidarium and two caldaria that have an octagonal plan. The two doors on the east wall of the frigidarium open to the apodyterium. Excavations in the apodyterium revealed bone objects, some of which are coloured, with meander, geometrical and floral motifs as well as with a crucifix motif among the bird motifs. Bone objects with crucifix motifs indicate that some parts of the bath were used for differing purposes during the Byzantine period. Together with the bone objects, a number of corroded Byzantine coins found in the bath also support this claim. 37  38 

While the most important god of the city was Heracles, Greek gods such as Zeus and Asclepius were also worshipped. Asclepius, the god of healing, was respected Özcan 1991: 171-72. The church reminds us of Kariye Mosque and Hagia Irene in Istanbul in terms of its form and size (Kohl et al. 2011: 562). 41  Doğan et al. 2014: 55. 42  Özcan 1990: 268. 39  40 

Guen-Polet 1989: 71-72; Mitford 1991: 222-23, no. 27. Özcan 1991: 171-72.

211

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 5. The Roman baths.

Figure 6. Byzantine church.

largely because the thermal spring in Sulusaray was very important for treatment and health. Additionally, an Imperial cult emerged in the city as Roman emperors were deified for their useful services to it.

of the population was observed. Epigraphic evidence from the 3rd-4th centuries AD also proves that Jewish people lived in the region. Together with the spread of Christianity in Sebastopolis beginning from 4th century AD, the city became an episcopal see in the Early Byzantine period.

The inhabitants of the city consisted of predominantly of locals but also Greeks but a policy of Graecisation

212

S.D. Ful: The Ancient City of Sebastopolis in the Light of Archaeological Data and Inscriptions Bibliography

Karaosmanoğlu, M. 2005. Mitoloji ve Ege’nin Tanrıları (Erzurum). Kaymakçı, S. 2012. Antik Çağda Kelkit Vadisi’ndeki İnanç ve Tapınımlar-Kültler’. TÜBA-AR 15: 79-94. Kohl, M., Matoğlu, M. and Alkan, A. 2011. ‘TokatSulusaray/Sebastopolis: Temizlik Çalışmaları ve Ziyaretçiler İçin Bir Gezi Güzergâhı Oluşturulmasında İlk Adımlar’. In 33. Kazı, Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 4 (Ankara): 559-68. Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ (Princeton). Mitford, T. Bruce 1966. ‘The God Plon in Eastern Pontus’. Byzantion 36.2: 471-90. Mitford, T. Bruce 1991. ‘Inscriptiones Ponticae – Sebastopolis’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 87: 181-243. Olshausen, E. and Biler, J. 1984. Historisch-geographische Aspekte der Geschichte des Pontischen und Armenischen Reiches (Wiesbaden). Özcan, B. 1990. ‘Sulusaray-Sebastopolis Antik Kenti’. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri 1: 261-84. Özcan, B. 1991. ‘Sulusaray 1990 Kurtarma Kazısı’. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri 2: 167-200. Öztürk, B. 2010. ‘Karadeniz’de Dinsel Yaşam ve Kültler’. Aktüel Arkeoloji 18: 38-49. Parker, R. 2017. Greek Gods Abroad: Names, Natures and Transformations (Oakland, CA). Pollitt, J.J. 1986. Art in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge). Price, S.R.F. 2004. Ritüel ve İktidar. Küçük Asya’da Roma İmparatorluk Kültü (Ankara) (= Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Culture in Asia Minor [Cambridge 1984]). Ramsey, W.M. 1882. ‘Inscriptions of Cilicia, Cappadocia and Pontus’. The Journal of Philology 11: 142-60. Ramsey, W.M. 1960. Anadolu’nun Tarihi Coğrafyası (Istanbul) (= The Historical Geography of Asia Minor [London 1890]). Rémy, B. 1991. ‘Deux inscriptions du Pont en l’honneur de L. Aelius Caesar’. In Rémy, B (ed.) Pontica 1: Recherches sur l’histoire du Pont dans l’Antiquité (Istanbul): 97-115, Ruge 1921. ‘Sebastopolis’. Real-Encyclopädie II A: 955-57. Şahin, N. 2001. Zeus’un Anadolu Kültleri (Kaleiçi/ Antalya). Sayar, M.H. 1999. ‘Kilikia’da Tanrılar ve Kültle’. Olba 2: 131-54. Umar, B. 2000. Karadeniz Kappodokia’sı (Pontus) (Istanbul).

Amandry, M. and Rémy, B. 1998. Les Monnaies de l’atelier de Sebastopolis du Pont (Istanbul). Anderson, J.G.C. 1900. ‘Pontica’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 20: 151-58. Anderson, J.G.C. 1903. A Journey of Exploration in Pontus (Brussels). Cook, A.B. 1914. Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, vol. 1 (Cambridge). Cook, A.B. 1925. Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, vol. 2 (Cambridge). Cook, A.B. 1940. Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, vol. 3 (Cambridge). Cuinet, V. 1892-94. La Turquie d’Asie: Géographie administrative, statistique descriptive et raisonnée du chaque province de l’Asie-Mineure, 4 vols. (Paris). Cumont, F. 1902. ‘Nouvelles Inscriptions Du Pont’. Revue des Études Grecques 15 (65-66): 311-35. Cumont, F. 1904. ‘Nouvelles Inscriptions Du Pont’. Revue des Études Grecques 17 (76-77): 329-34. Cumont, F. and Cumont, E. 1906. Voyage d’exploration archéologique dans le Pont et la Petite Arménie (Brussels). de Jerphanion, G. 1921. ‘Inscriptions de Cappadoce et du Pont’. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph (Beyrouth) 7 (for 1914-21): 1-22. de Jerphanion, G. and Jalabert, L. 1908. Inscriptions d’Asie Mineure (Pont, Cappodoce, Cilicie) (Paris). Doğan, S., Çorağan, N., Bulgurlu, V., Alas, Ç., Fındık, E. and Apaydın, E. 2014. Demre-Myra Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi (Istanbul). French, D.H. 1988. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor 2: An Interim Catalogue of Milestones (Oxford). Ful, Ş.D. and Sørensen, S.L. 2014. ‘An Archisynagogos in Pontos’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 192: 176-80. Grégoire, H. 1909. ‘Rapport Sur un Voyage D’Exploration Dans Le Pont et en Cappodoce’. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 33: 3-169. Guen-Pollet, B.L. 1989. ‘Sébastopolis du Pont (Sulusaray)’. Epigraphica Anatolica 13: 51-86. Guen-Pollet, B.L. and Rémy, B. 1991. ‘Trois inscriptions gréco-juives de Sebastopolis du Pont (Sulusaray)’. In Rémy, B. (ed.) Pontica 1: Recherches sur l’histoire du Pont dans l’Antiquité (Istanbul): 117-23. Işık, A. 2004. Pers, Helenistik ve Roma İmparatorluk Dönemlerinde Paphlagonia ve Pontus Bölgesi Kültleri (Dissertation, Istanbul University).

213

Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia Manolis Manoledakis Abstract Among the several nations that inhabited the southern Black Sea littoral in the historical times, the Paphlagonians stand out as one that managed to establish a significant position in the region. One of the aspects of the Paphlagonians’ civilisation, on which the sources provide some interesting data, is politics. It is these data that we attempt to approach in this paper, focusing on the political and diplomatic flexibility and adaptability that the Paphlagonians or specific Paphlagonian individuals displayed in several periods of their history. From this data we may conclude that political manoeuvring and effective diplomacy have characterised the Paphlagonians more than any other people of the southern Black Sea littoral. With more than 25 known individuals, three of whom even managed to climb to the highest office of their time in the eastern world, Paphlagonia was distinguished as a place that ‘produced’ intelligent and sly political personalities, from the age of the Persian empire until the Sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders.

Among the several nations that inhabited the southern Black Sea littoral in the historical times, the Paphlagonians stand out as one that managed to establish a significant position in the region, as compared with most of both their western (e.g. Mariandynoi, Caucones) and eastern (e.g. Leucosyroi, Chalybes, Tiberenoi, Mossynoikoi) neighbours. Of course, this distinction may not be visible through the archaeological data, which are silent about almost all the peoples of the southern Black Sea littoral, but it clearly results from the references of the literary sources, which not only are far more on the Paphlagonians than on the other peoples, but also imply a cultural influence, if not a cultural dominance, of the Paphlagonians over most of their neighbours.1

be stressed that are all Greek – in the 5th century BC, namely in a period when Paphlagonia had already been subjected to the Persian empire. The first concrete references that we have pertain to officials in the region. However, sometimes only the title is mentioned and not the name of the official, while in cases where we have a name, it is not always accompanied by the same title, nor does it always bear the same form. Let us consider these references in detail. The passage referring to the earliest period is not written by the earliest author. It is Plutarch (Pericles 20. 1) who, talking about the expedition of Pericles to the southern Black Sea, and specifically to Sinope, mentions kings and dynasts2 of the barbarian populations around the city in the 430s BC or a bit earlier.3 However, it is not clear whether he means only the Paphlagonians, since the specific region was inhabited in antiquity by other local peoples as well, many of whom appear nevertheless in the literature to have kinship with the Paphlagonians.4

One of the aspects of the Paphlagonians’ civilisation, on which the sources provide some data, is politics. These data may be insufficient to lead to specific and safe conclusions concerning the precise political structures of the Paphlagonians in antiquity. However, in some cases they indicate that the Paphlagonians not only had such structures, compared with most of their neighbours, but they also proved to have used them effectively under various political circumstances. It is these data that we will be attempting to approach in this paper, focusing on the political and diplomatic flexibility and adaptability that the Paphlagonians or specific Paphlagonian individuals displayed in several periods of their history.

Plutarch’s narration of Pericles’ expedition to the Black Sea (in general) has been considered by some scholars as unreliable, or even as an Athenian invention of the 4th century BC.5 However, we cannot prove that the reference to his visit to Sinope (specifically) is a product of fiction,6 and besides what interests us here is that Plutarch speaks about kings and dynasts of the local peoples in the southern Black Sea littoral. Indeed, the same author mentions elsewhere (Agesilaus 11. 1) Kotys as king of the Paphlagonians (see below).

Under the Persians and the Macedonians: the Classical period

Wherever the term king appears here in italics, it is a translation of the original word βασιλεύς. Similarly, dynast is used for δυνάστης, satrap for σατράπης, archon for ἄρχων, and eparchos for ἔπαρχος. 3  The two main theories proposed talk about ca. 450 BC and 438-436 BC. See the bibliography in Tsetskhladze 1997 and de Boer 2005: 168. 4  For this issue, see Manoledakis forthcoming b. 5  Ferrarese 1974; Tsetskhladze 1997, with bibliography. De Boer (2005: 167) seems to consider this view exaggerated. 6  Cf. de Boer 2005: 167. 2 

Official titles in Paphlagonia Information of a political nature concerning the Paphlagonians appears in the written sources – it must 1 

For this issue, see Manoledakis forthcoming b.

214

M. Manoledakis: Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia The next source of information is about the time of Alcibiades’ death (404 BC) and comes from Diodorus, who, citing Ephorus, mentions (14. 11. 3) a satrap in Paphlagonia, without naming him. Alcibiades is reported to have asked this satrap’s assistance, after the refusal of Pharnabazus, but nowhere else is such a satrap mentioned in the literature.

then we have also a fourth variant of the name. A. Avram considers most probable that the initial form of the name was Otys and the series of the consecutive corruptions as follows: 1) Ὄτυς → Κότυς, 2) Ὄτυς → Τυς, 3a) Τυς → Θῦς or 3b) Τυς → Τυης → Γύης.10 Another ‘king of the Paphlagonians’, Cotykas, is mentioned by Aelius Herodianus (De pros. cath. 3. 1. 54), but without any further data, so we cannot decide whether Herodianus means Corylas or Cotys (only the latter is called king by some authors), or even whether he used this type trying to combine both, having been confused himself.

However, for the period around the end of the 5th century BC, Xenophon states that the archontes of all the king’s territories that he and the Ten Thousand traversed were as follows: Artimas of Lydia, Artacamas of Phrygia, Mithradates of Lycaonia and Cappadocia, Syennesis of Cilicia, Dernes of Phoenicia and Arabia, Belesys of Syria and Assyria, Rhoparas of Babylon, Arbacas of Media, Tiribazus of the Phasians and Hesperites; then the Carduchians, Chalybians, Chaldaeans, Macronians, Colchians, Mossynoecians, Coetians, and Tibarenians, who were independent; and then Corylas archon of  Paphlagonia, Pharnabazus of the Bithynians, and Seuthes of the Thracians in Europe (Anabasis 7. 8. 25). More about the Paphlagonian archon Corylas is narrated by Xenophon in his Anabasis, referring to 400 BC (see below).

However, what is more interesting here is not the confusion concerning the name variants but the one concerning the titles. Judging from all the abovementioned references of the ancient texts, it becomes obvious that there was a problem in the use of the official titles. The term satrap appears in the ancient Greek literature in the late 5th-early 4th century BC (Xenophon, Ctesias). A bit earlier, just after the mid-5th century BC, Herodotus clearly indicates that only the Persians used the term satrapies for the provinces that he calls archai,11 however, curiously enough, we never encounter such a term (or any corresponding one for the territory) in the Achaemenid sources, only the title (satrap) in connection to a person.12 Moreover, in the Greek sources certain lists of satrapies appear only for the period of Alexander the Great and his successors.13 But even from Xenophon’s period onwards, it is far from clear in the sources which exact duties the satrap had,14 thus the same is the case with the satrap of Paphlagonia mentioned by Diodorus (14. 11. 3). Judging from Herodotus’ ‘translation’, we could suspect that the satrap may more or less have been something like the archon, but nothing can prove such a conclusion. It appears that the term satrap refers to an official of the Persian empire, while the term archon to local rulers.

Only a few years later, another Paphlagonian official appears in the sources and this is Otys (Ὄτυς). Xenophon again is the first who mentions him as king of the Paphlagonians, while narrating the expedition of king Agesilaus of Sparta against the Persians (Hellenica 4. 1. 1-19). The events narrated took place in 395 BC and refer to the alliance contracted between Otys and Agesilaus, encouraged by the Persian Spithridates. The same ‘king of the Paphlagonians’ is mentioned also by Plutarch (Agesilaus 11. 1), but this time as Kotys, a name that, curiously enough, is given by Xenophon himself in another work of his (Agesilaus 3. 4), where he calls him archon of the Paphlagonians and not king, as in the Hellenica.7 A third variant of the name (Gyes) is encountered in Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (22. 1). If Thys, dynastes of Paphlagonia according to Nepos (Datames 2. 2) or king of the Paphlagonians (Athenaeus Deipn. 4. 25, invoking Theopompus), who was also a great eater (cf. Aelian VH 1. 27),8 is the same person, which is possible judging by the date of the events connected to him,9

I am most grateful to Alexandru Avram, who kindly entrusted me with the draft of his unpublished paper on Paphlagonian personal names, where he cites also epigraphic testimonies of these variants. Cf. also Meyer 1909: 26; Bruce 1967: 143. Diodorus (2. 26. 8. Cf. Ctesias FGH 3c, 688, F.1b) mentions a Kottas, eparchos of Paphlagonia (another title again), who was the most loyal subject of the Assyrian king Sardanapalus (7th century BC). Although the person is fictitious, and Paphlagonia was not part of the Assyrian empire (Murphy 1989: 34, n. 73), his name might not be invented accidentally, but in order to remind of the 4th century historical person. It would be worth noticing here that two of the three Hecatoncheires were called Gyes and Kottos (Hesiod Theogony 734). 11  ‘ἀρχὰς  [...],  τὰς  αὐτοὶ  καλέουσι  σατραπηίας (Herodotus 3. 89). Herodotus himself later calls the provinces nomoi (3. 90-94), indicating that even to him the whole issue was not absolutely clear. 12  Klinkott 2005: 31. 13  Klinkott 2000: 16. 14  For the term ‘satrap’ in the written sources and the difficulty to clearly define it, see Klinkott 2005: 32-37, and 387-94 for a definition attempt. 10 

7  Paradoxically, while Plutarch follows the name that Xenophon gives in the Agesilaus he follows the title given in the Hellenica. For the political events, see Occhipinti 2016: 52-55. 8  Athenaeus Deipn. 4. 25; cf. 10. 8. 15; Eustathius Comm. ad Hom. Od. 1. 13. Theopompus (4th century BC), in Book 35 of his Histories, says that ‘whenever the Paphlagonian king Thys dined, he had a  hundred do everything prepared for the table, beginning with oxen; and even when he was carried away a captive to the Persian king’s court and kept under guard, he again had the same number serve him, and lived on a splendid scale. Wherefore, when Artaxerxes heard of it, he said that it was plain to him that Thys was living as though he had made up his mind to die soon’. 9  Thys had revolted from king Artaxerxes but was reduced to subjection by the Cappadocian satrap Datames (Nepos Datames 2. 2) in the early 370s BC: Judeich 1892: 191-92; Lenschau 1942: 1889; Kuhrt 2007: 376.

215

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity In any case, C. Tuplin questioned the accuracy of Diodorus’ words by saying that Paphlagonia is absent from the list of Asia’s regions where Cyrus appointed friends of his as satraps, according to Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, Cyrus sent out no Persians as satraps over  Cilicia or Cyprus or Paphlagonia, unlike many neighbouring regions, because he believed that those areas joined his expedition against Babylon voluntarily; he did, however, require even these nations to pay tribute (Cyropaedia 8. 6. 7-8).15 But Xenophon refers here, of course, to the much earlier period of Cyrus the Great, so the absence of Paphlagonia from this list cannot be used as an argument for what was valid about one and a half century later. Besides, the historical credibility of Cyropaedia has been disputed.16 However, we could note that Paphlagonia appears neither in the closer in time Achaemenid royal inscriptions nor in the list of Herodotus as a separate province,17 and this would be a strong argument against Diodorus’ words.

when the term is used for both the Paphlagonian and the Persian king in the same sentence of Xenophon’s Hellenica (4. 1. 2).19 Why shouldn’t there be a distinction here as well?

Let us examine the other titles, which are attributed to local rulers of Paphlagonia. Otys/Kotys/Thys is mentioned as king by Xenophon, Plutarch and Theopompus (Athenaeus), as archon by Xenophon, and as dynastes by Nepos. Aelian does not give a title. The discrepancy could be explained by the fact that all these three titles may have had a similar broad meaning (king, chief, ruler, etc.).18 In this case, the different terms used by Xenophon could be due to purely different language choices, which is possible but still a bit doubtful. We should also note that Xenophon sometimes avoids giving the title of Corylas himself (e.g. Anabasis 5. 5. 12, 22; 5. 6. 3, 11), while he clearly presents him as archon in the same work (Anabasis 6. 1. 2; 7. 8. 25). A clue may be given in the last passage (7. 8. 25), where Xenophon calls archontes all the rulers of the king’s territories that he and the Ten Thousand traversed, since in the same sentence he uses the term king for the Persian king (ἄρχοντες δὲ οἵδε τῆς βασιλέως χώρας ὅσην ἐπήλθομεν...). Thus here, on the one hand we might have a confirmation of the above-mentioned thought on the general meaning of the term archon, especially since it is used for all these territories of Asia, which could not easily have the same political structure, and on the other an indication that these archontes had a more confined (both geographically and politically) authority as related to the ‘king’, who is always the Persian king. This means that whenever the term king is used for the Paphlagonian rulers, it also has this confined meaning. But then we fall into doubt again,

The question is how local these local rulers were. The dominant view is that the authority of those rulers was regional rather than national, and thus none of them (e.g. Corylas, Otys) ruled over all Paphlagonians.21 Within this frame, it has been claimed that ‘Paphlagonia must have been split among several rival chieftains’22 or that ‘the Paphlagonians were rather acting as a loose federation of tribal groups’.23 Moreover geographical differentiations have been traced. For example, Tuplin stated that ‘Corylas was encountered around the eastern borders of Paphlagonia, whereas Otys was much further west’. On the contrary, other scholars have considered Otys as successor of Corylas.24

It seems that the Greek authors used the titles almost indiscriminately or at least not consciously, according to their era or the earlier texts they were influenced by. Nevertheless, we can assume that Paphlagonia could not have been a separate administrative province from the beginning until the end of the Persian empire, neither under the Macedonians, and that, apart from the Persian king via his satrap, it must have been ruled also by local rulers, like Corylas and Otys, which makes even more sense if we consider Paphlagonia belonging to the same administrative province with several other peoples.20 The geographical territory of the Paphlagonian rulers

But most of the above is hypothetical, since the only evidence about political organisation in the relevant areas does not positively confirm such conclusions. Furthermore, the texts mentioning names of Paphlagonian rulers that we have examined25 do not help gain an understanding as regards the exact administration system in the area. Corylas is mentioned only by the protagonists of the Anabasis and the relevant discussion about him may take place in Cotyora (5. 5. 22), but it is clearly stated that Corylas entertains 19  Λέγοντος δὲ τοῦ Σπιθριδάτου ὡς εἰ ἔλθοι πρὸς τὴν Παφλαγονίαν σὺν αὐτῷ, τὸν τῶν Παφλαγόνων βασιλέα καὶ εἰς λόγους ἄξοι καὶ σύμμαχον ποιήσοι, προθύμως ἐπορεύετο, πάλαι τούτου ἐπιθυμῶν, τοῦ ἀφιστάναι τι ἔθνος ἀπὸ βασιλέως. 20  In Herodotus (3. 89) Paphlagonia belonged to the same province together with Hellespontine Phrygia, Phrygia, Bithynia, Mariandynia and Syria (the land of the Leucosyroi), while in the Achaemenid royal inscriptions it seems (according to the geographical distinctions made) that it belonged to Cappadocia. For the Achaemenid royal inscriptions, see Lecoq 1997. 21  Ruge 1949: 2521-22; Briant 2002: 642; Tuplin 2004: 178; Kuhrt 2007: 376; Summerer and von Kienlin 2010: 195-96, 216. 22  Briant 2002: 642. Cf. Summerer and von Kienlin 2010: 195. Not much different is the view of Tuplin 2004: 177-78. 23  Matthews 2009: 156. 24  Meyer 1909: 26, n. 2; Lenschau 1942: 1889; Ruge 1949: 2521. 25  See also Debord 1999: 110-15.

Cf. Tuplin 1987: 114, n. 25; 2007: 10. Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993: 512-14, with bibliography. 17  See n. 20. On the much discussed question of whether both Herodotus and the Achaemenid royal inscriptions mention real satrapies of the Persian empire or not, see indicatively Klinkott 2000: 11-16; 2005: 67-109; Dan 2013: 87-88, 106, all with previous bibliography. 18  See the entries in the Greek and Latin dictionaries by Liddell and Scott, and Lewis and Short. 15  16 

216

M. Manoledakis: Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia expansionist views over the territory of Sinope, while later (6. 1. 2) he is said to have sent ambassadors to the Greeks in Cotyora, so he is located more to the west than the eastern borders of Paphlagonia, but without more specific details.

were subjected to the Persian empire) and what freedom they had to act autonomously. A first hint is provided in Xenophon’s Anabasis (5. 6. 8), by the Sinopean envoy Hecatonymus who claims that ‘very recently’, i.e. before 400 BC, some Paphlagonians refused to present themselves when the Persian king summoned them, as their archon – who must have been Corylas – was too proud to obey, and because they regarded their cavalry as superior to the whole of the king’s cavalry. Tuplin interpreted this27 as a subjection to Persia.28 But what kind of subjection would this refusal indicate? There are no consequences mentioned for this refusal, neither are there any for the similar refusal of Otys, some years later, to go up to the Persian king when he was summoned by him (Xenophon Hellenica 4. 1. 3).

The placement of Otys ‘much further west’ of Cotyora and Sinope has not been proved as well. Nothing indicates that the narrations mentioning him could refer only to western Paphlagonia and not to a larger area. On the contrary, in Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (21. 6-22. 1-2), it is mentioned that after Gordium, ‘Agesilaus led the Peloponnesians and their allies to the borders of Phrygia and Paphlagonia and there he encamped his army, and sent Spithradates to Gyes (Otys). He made a truce with the Paphlagonians and quickly led his army towards the sea, since he feared that they would be short of supplies for the winter’. Thus Otys must have ruled over the southern part of Paphlagonia, including the borders with Phrygia, so that Agesilaus was able to make a truce with him, but also over the whole territory as far as the sea, namely the northern part, towards which Agesilaus was able to lead his army after the truce.

Besides, the fact that the Paphlagonians had sent soldiers to Cyrus in Cunaxa (Anabasis 1. 8. 5) does not necessarily mean a general Paphlagonian ‘obligation to serve in satrapal forces’;29 after all exactly the same did also the Greek mercenaries. The king at that time was Artaxerxes, Cyrus’ enemy, and the peoples subjected to him would be expected to send soldiers to Artaxerxes. So, the Paphlagonians serving with Cyrus should not be considered as the official Paphlagonian forces in the war. They were just 1000 horsemen, who might be the only ‘barbarians’ mentioned by their ethnic name by Xenophon, but still very few in comparison to the ‘more than 120,000 Paphlagonian infantry’ (Anabasis 5. 6. 9), or to the 100,000 barbarians serving Cyrus (Anabasis 1. 7. 10), and even fewer in comparison to the 1,200,000 (Anabasis 1. 7. 11) or 400,000 (Plutarch Artaxerxes 13. 3, citing Ctesias) soldiers and 6000 horsemen (Anabasis 1. 7. 11) serving with Artaxerxes, whose nationalities are not recorded but Paphlagonians were certainly among them.

This means that theoretically both Corylas and Otys might (or might not) have ruled over the same part of Paphlagonia, which could (or could not) be actually the whole Paphlagonia. Such a conclusion would be reinforced by the fact that no other ruler of the Paphlagonians is mentioned in the sources for the same periods, except for Corylas in the late 5th century and Otys in the first decades of the 4th century BC. When Xenophon says that ‘when Spithridates said that if he (Agesilaus) would come to Paphlagonia with him, he would bring the king of the Paphlagonians to a conference and make him an ally, Agesilaus eagerly undertook the journey’ (Hellenica 4. 1. 2), and that ‘upon his (Agesilaus’) arriving in Paphlagonia, Otys came and concluded an alliance’ (Hellenica 4. 1. 3), the impression given about Otys is not that of a geographically restricted local ruler. After all, why should he (or Corylas) be called king or archon or dynastes ‘of the Paphlagonians’ or ‘of Paphlagonia’ indiscriminately? In this case, Otys could indeed have been successor of Corylas, but as mentioned, this is just an assumption. What is not positively confirmed by the sources in any way is that ‘there were several rival chieftains in Paphlagonia’.26

Therefore, on the one hand the Paphlagonians serving with Cyrus do not seem to ‘represent’ the whole Paphlagonia. But on the other hand they rather strengthen the impression created by the two above-mentioned refusals by the Paphlagonians to present themselves to the king than indicate a strict Paphlagonian subjection to the Persian king. The impression of a very ‘elusive’,30 if not permissive Persian presence in Paphlagonia. We are able to confirm this kind of presence throughout most of Xenophon’s narration of the Ten Thousands’ passage through our area of interest in the fifth book of the Anabasis. Xenophon talks about several fights between his army and the locals, not

The Paphlagonian rulers’ attitude towards the Persians Whether of more or less local authority, it would be interesting to examine what kind of relations these rulers of Paphlagonia had with the Persian king and officials (it is considered certain that the Paphlagonians 26 

I suppose the fact that the king summoned the Paphlagonians. Tuplin 2004: 177 and n. 74. 29  Tuplin 2004: 177 and n. 74. 30  As Tuplin (2004: 177) himself calls it. 27  28 

Briant 2002: 642.

217

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity only the Paphlagonians (Anabasis 6. 1-2), but also the Colchians, the Drilae, and the Mossynoikoi, usually because the Greeks ravaged their villages in order to obtain food. Not even once is any kind of Persian intervention mentioned, as if the Persians were completely indifferent of what was happening in their administrative territory. And towards the plans of the newly arrived Greeks of Xenophon to establish a colony in the vicinity of Cotyora it is only the aggressive attitude of merchants from Heraclea and Sinope that is mentioned and none from the Persian side (Anabasis 5. 6. 15-21). Thus, a dominant Persian presence on the Paphlagonian Black Sea littoral is far from indicated in ca. 400 BC.31 Some decades later, when Alexander the Great invades Asia Minor, the Paphlagonians do not even pay tribute to the Persians, as Curtius (3. 1. 23) states.32

was a Persian nobleman and official in the court of Pharnabazus II, satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, against whom he revolted and joined forces with Agesilaus in his war against Persia in 396 BC. Spithridates went with Agesilaus in Paphlagonia, where Otys provided him with 3000 men and married his daughter (Xenophpn Hellenica 4. 1. 1-14; Agesilaus 3. 4; Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 21. 6-22. 2; Plutarch Agesilaus 11. 2). This was a hostile act of Otys towards Persia, though not the only one. We have already mentioned his refusal to go up to the Persian king when he was summoned by him (Xenophon Hellenica. 4. 1. 3). Otys seems to have had the habit to ignore the king’s commands. An explanation for this could be the fact that he was a near relative of Datames (they were sons of a brother and a sister), who was the satrap of Cappadocia (Nepos Datames 2). As we have seen, Paphlagonia must have belonged to the satrapy of Cappadocia,34 so Otys might feel that he had the luxury to be a bit more relaxed toward the commands of the Persian king. However, the latter did not forgive this attitude and made war upon Otys, giving the command of the enterprise to Datames himself, who tried to bring back his kinsman to his duty without having recourse to arms. Yet the remorseless Otys planned to kill Datames, but thanks to his mother’s warnings the satrap escaped the danger, declared war against Otys, captured him and brought him to the king in a pompous way (Nepos Datames 2-3; Theopompus 115 F 179). This happened in ca. 380 BC,35 while later Datames managed to take possession of Paphlagonia, and probably even of the powerful city of Sinope, as certain coins of the 4th century BC may indicate.36 In any case, after Otys, the Paphlagonians seem to have returned to a more loyal attitude towards the Persians, since in ca. 361-360 BC Artabazus tried to draw supplies from the ‘friendly lands of Upper Phrygia, Lydia and Paphlagonia’ (Demosthenes Aristocrates 155) for his war against Charidemus in Hellespontine Phrygia.37

How then did the Paphlagonians manage to keep such a favourable treatment within the Persian empire? Were they so good diplomats? Was it their relation to the Greek colonies of the coast, which especially in the late Classical period had begun to develop themselves in important economic centres, something that the Persians seem to have realised, as the order of Artaxerxes to Datames to stop his invasion to Sinope (Polyaenus 7. 21. 2-5; Aeneas Tacticus 40. 4) might indicate?33 Did they provide the Persians with something else, for example, related to their natural resources, unlike other peoples of the empire? The question is very difficult and without any safe answer resulting from the ancient literature, but to my mind the Paphlagonians were indeed very skilled in keeping balance with everyone who was acting in their region, including both the Persians and the Greek colonists. In 400 BC, Hecatonymus, the Sinopean envoy to Xenophon’s army, threatens the latter in Cotyora that he will join forces with the Paphlagonians of Corylas to drive them out of his city’s colony (Anabasis 5. 5. 12). Corylas appears to have expansionist views over Sinope (5. 5. 22-23), but at the same time to be a friend of the Sinopean Hecatonymus, who is his official representative at Sinope (5. 6. 11). This unclear relation between the Sinopean envoy Hecatonymus and the Paphlagonian ruler Corylas may indicate that the Paphlagonians tried to have diplomatic relations with the (constantly economically growing) Greek colonists, without at the same time abandoning their desire for the latter’s territories.

Otys, who according to Nepos (Datames 3. 1) was ‘a man of huge stature, and frightful aspect, being of a black complexion, with long hair and long beard’, is presented by the same Latin author (Datames 2. 2) as ‘a man of ancient family, descended from that Pylaemenes whom Homer states to have been killed by Patroclus’. What we may have here is a well-known practice of rulers to present themselves to their people as descendants of great mythical figures of their past for reasons of propaganda. Here, we meet the leader See n. 20. For the date, see Judeich 1892: 191-92; Meyer 1909: 26; Lenschau 1942: 1889. 36  For these coins, on which, although the 4th-century type of the city is followed, the typical legend ΣΙΝΩ is replaced by the names of Datames and other Persian officials, see Robinson 1920: 10-16; Harrison 1982, with bibliography; Price 1993, pl. LIII; Avram et al. 2004: 961. 37  For the dating and location of these events, see Heskel 1997: 119. More about this period with regards to the Paphlagonians in Xenophon Hellenica 4. 1. 34 

As for the other Paphlagonian ruler, Otys, he made an alliance with Spithridates (see above). The latter

35 

See also Lane Fox 2004: 30-31; Tuplin 2004: 176-78; 2007: 13, 25-28. Cf. Briant 2002: 498. This is not confirmed by any other author. For the doubts about Curtius’ historical accuracy, see indicatively Baynham 1998: 1-2, 5767. 33  For this, see Manoledakis forthcoming c. 31  32 

218

M. Manoledakis: Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia of the Paphlagonians in the Trojan War, Pylaemenes, who was admired by Homer as ‘stout-hearted’ (Homer Iliad 2. 851),38 and it might be a unique case of such exploitation by a southern Black Sea ruler.39 So maybe, after all, Aristophanes had not chosen the name Paphlagon accidentally for the protagonist of the Knights (424 BC), the politician Cleon, whom he detested and wished to defame, contrary to the view dominant already from antiquity.40

think that any ruler took advantage from it at that time; not to mention that the whole area had already been conquered by the Persians well before Otys’ time. On the other hand, why would Otys erect the gravestone for him and his wife at a site to the east of the central part of the Halys, about 25 km north-northeast of the Phrygian settlement that succeeded Hattusa, in an area that is rather outside the Paphlagonian territory?47 The era of the Macedonian expansion

Before leaving Otys, it would be worth mentioning that O. Haas, in his monograph on the Phrygian language,41 went as far as considering this Paphlagonian ruler the beneficiary who may have taken advantage from the collapse of the Phrygian kingdom. Haas dealt with Otys on the occasion of an Old Phrygian inscription from Alacahöyük42 that mentions in the first verse Otys and his wife and assumed that the former must be the Paphlagonian king and the latter the daughter of Spithridates (he thus dated the monument to 395-380 BC). The explanation for such a rather unexpected view seems to lie in Haas’ conviction that the population of Paphlagonia must have belonged to the same ‘folk’ (Volkstum) as the elder group of the Phrygians, and that ‘die Sprache von Paphlagonien ist gleich der großphrygischen’,43 a theory that cannot be proven in any way.44

The next information concerning our topic comes from the time of Alexander’s invasion to Asia Minor and is again noteworthy: in 334 BC, after the victory at the Granicus, Alexander appointed Kalas satrap of the Hellespontine Phrygia, the first satrapy that fell into his hands, and ordered the inhabitants of the region to pay to him the same tribute that they gave also to Darius (Arrian 1. 17). Next, he moved southwards to the Greek cities of the Aegean coast, before turning north to Gordion in 333 BC. After having cut the Gordian knot, he reached Ankara. There, he had his only, as it seems, meeting with envoys of a local southern Black Sea nation, the Paphlagonians (Plutarch Alexander 18. 5; Arrian 2. 4; Curtius Rufus 3. 1. 22-24), who offered him their land, asking him not to invade it, and also not to pay tribute to him. Alexander accepted their requests and just commanded them to obey Kalas.48

But there are several other problems with this theory: First of all, the dating of the inscription is rejected by most scholars, who date it much earlier, to the 6th or the 7th century BC.45 Secondly, there have been different readings of the first verse of the inscription proposed than the ‘Otys himself and the wife’ of Haas.46 But even if Haas’ identification is correct, other issues appear. The early 4th century BC seems too far from the collapse of the Phrygian kingdom in order to make us

Here we may have one of the smartest diplomatic movements in the Paphlagonian history: it seems that the Paphlagonians, seeing the impetuous advance of Alexander towards Asia and realising that he was aiming to move towards the heart of Persia and not the southern Black Sea littoral, they went to meet him themselves before his passing from their land and achieved an enviable result: they persuaded Alexander not to invade Paphlagonia and also not even to demand tax tribute from them, by telling a king conqueror exactly what he would like to hear: a people declaring allegiance to him. But this declaration meant practically nothing. As was the case with Alexander’s command to them to obey Kalas. For as soon as Alexander would move away from the region, the Paphlagonians not only could continue their normal life and activity in their land, but also make it a scene of Persian efforts to recover areas of the empire that had been conquered by the Macedonians.49 And so it happened, almost at once: in less than a year from this meeting vigorous young soldiers from Paphlagonia (and Cappadocia) helped some generals of Darius who had survived the battle of

Unlike the verses 853-855 of Book 2 of the Iliad, which mention specific Paphlagonian towns and seem to have been interpolated in the 3rd century BC, the verses mentioning Pylaemenes (Iliad 2. 851852, cf. 5. 576-579 and 13. 643-659) must have belonged to the original form of the epic. See Manoledakis 2013: 30-34, with bibliography. 39  See also below for the Paphlagonian rulers with this name. 40  According to which, the choice of the name was made because of the meaning of παφλάζω as splutter. More on this issue in Manoledakis forthcoming b, with the relevant bibliography. 41  Haas 1966: 18 with n. 1, 179-82. 42  Friedrich 1932: 127, no. 15. Images in Haas 1966: 180; Brixhe and Lejeune 1984 II, pls. CXIX-CXX. The inscription was found in 1893. The whole bibliography on it (from 1898 on) in Brixhe and Lejeune (1984: 235). 43  Haas 1966: 9, 11, 14-17, 181, 231, 235, 242. Haas invokes also the view of Akurgal (1955: 93, 126) that Paphlagonia belonged to the Phrygian cultural sphere in the 6th-4th century BC. 44  On this issue, see more in Manoledakis forthcoming b, with more bibliography. 45  Young (1969: 271, n. 42) argues that the boustrophedon writing of the inscription, similar to the inscriptions of the Midas Monument, surely belongs to the 6th century BC, or even earlier. Brixhe and Lejeune (1984: 227, 235, 237) seem to date the inscription to the 7th century BC, but don’t deny the possibility that there is another, earlier Otys mentioned on it. 46  All of them in Brixhe and Lejeune 1984: 237. 38 

47  Strabo (12. 3. 9) mentions the Halys as the eastern border of Paphlagonia with the land of the Leucosyroi. So, even if Otys was indeed mentioned in the Paphlagonian borders with Phrygia (see above), the site of the inscription is still beyond these borders. 48  For the southern Black Sea regions in the time of Alexander, see Manoledakis forthcoming c. 49  In the worst case, that of Alexander entering Paphlagonia, they would be left unhurt and free from tribute obligations.

219

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Issus to recover Lydia (Curtius 4. 1. 34), while Kalas was forced to invade Paphlagonia (Curtius 4. 5. 13), which was supposed to obey him.

to the latter (Livy 38. 26. 4). His royal residence was Gangra (Strabo 12. 3. 41), not very far to the south from Kimiata. In 179 BC Pharnaces of Pontus had to pay him compensation according to the treaty with Eumenes II of Pergamon, because he had plundered his territory, as he should also ‘evacuate Paphlagonia, after restoring the inhabitants whom he had previously expelled, with their shields, javelins, and other equipment’ (Polybius 25. 2. 5, 9). All this reminds us of the situation we have met in the Classical period, when local rulers had to deal with the powerful kingdom of that era. The difference is that for the Hellenistic period it is not clear how much of Paphlagonia was subject to the Pontic kingdom. It seems that the southern part was not in the time of Pharnaces. What is also unclear is whether Morzios ruled over the whole (southern) Paphlagonia or just a part of it.

Hellenistic period It was only in 322 BC that Perdiccas defeated the Persian Ariarathes, who was satrap and later king of Cappadocia (350-322 BC), conquered Paphlagonia and gave it to Eumenes (Diodorus 18. 16. 1, 18. 22. 1; Plutarch Eumenes 3. 2; Arrian Events after Alex. 10; Justin 13. 6). What is not clear in the sources is whom was Paphlagonia ruled by after Datames’ death in ca. 362 and until 322 BC, or at least until 333 BC, if we suppose that Kalas kept at least a typical arche over the Paphlagonians. In the Treaty of Triparadeisos in 321 BC, Paphlagonia is again not mentioned as a separate satrapy, but judging from Diodorus’ (18. 39. 6) and Arrian’s (Photius Bibliotheca 92. 71b) formulations, it seems more possible that it belonged to the satrapy of Cappadocia, among those that ‘faced the north’. In that case, Paphlagonia was ruled by Nikanor (cf. Appian Mithridates 8). After the death of this not clearly identified person,50 maybe in 311 BC (Appian Syr. 55; contra Diodorus 19. 92. 5; 19. 100. 3), Paphlagonia seems to have been under the control of Antigonus and, after the Battle of Ipsus (301 BC), of Lysimachus, until 281 BC, when both of them died and the Pontic kingdom was born under Mithridates I, who used the Paphlagonian fortress Kimiata as a base of his operations. In this period nothing of interest concerning our topic is mentioned.

It is also interesting that in this time (first half of the 2nd century BC) we find a Galatian ruler as well: Gaizatorix, who approached Eumenes II for help against Pharnaces, although he had earlier allied with the latter (Polybius 24. 14; 25. 2). The place-name ‘land of Gezatorix’ mentioned by Strabo (12. 3. 41) as an area of Paphlagonia in its western part, near Bithynia, could refer to him and thus indicate possession of a Paphlagonia’s part also by the Galatians, maybe at the same time as Morzios ruled over another part of the region. Some decades later, Mithridates VI allied with Nicomedes III of Bithynia and invaded and conquered Paphlagonia (and Cappadocia) before starting his wars with Rome (Justin 37. 4; 38. 4-5). When the Romans required both kings to quit Paphlagonia, Mithridates VI replied that this ‘kingdom’ had fallen to his father, Mithridates V, ‘not by conquest or force of arms, but by adoption in a will, and as an inheritance on the death of its own sovereigns’ (Justin 37. 4. 5; 38. 5. 4, 8. 10). Mithridates V was indeed ruling over the coastal part, as an inscription form Abonuteichos indicates,52 but we don’t have any evidence that the same was the case with the hinterland. Otherwise, why had his son needed to conquer it? Most probably, we face here another of those propagandistic traditions that Mithridates VI had created to base his (in this case expansionistic) policy on.53

During the period of the Pontic kingdom, although generally it was the Mithridatids that controlled Paphlagonia or at least its northern part, we read in Memnon’s history (11. 2) that when the Gauls crossed over to Asia, in ca. 277 BC, Nicomedes of Bithynia made a pact with them, according to which ‘they should always support Nicomedes and should be allies of the Byzantines, if necessary, and of the inhabitants of Tius and Heraclea and Chalcedon and Cierus, and of some other nations’ rulers’. It is not explained who these latter rulers were, but according to the wider geographical area mentioned, it seems very possible that again we have to do with some Paphlagonian rulers.

As for Nicomedes III, he altered his son’s name to Pylaemenes, ‘the common name of the Paphlagonian kings; and thus, as if he had restored the throne to the royal line, he continued to occupy the country on this frivolous pretext’ (Justin 37. 4. 8). However, it seems that both Mithridates and Nicomedes soon quit their occupation of the areas, since we read that the Roman Senate ‘took away Cappadocia from Mithridates, and, to

Strabo (12. 3. 41) confirms that not much before his time Paphlagonia was governed by many rulers, whose family had by the Roman period died out, although he does not clearly mention their Paphlagonian nationality. The first of them known by name is Morzios or Morzeos,51 who during Cn. Manlius Vulso’s war against the Galatians in 189 BC sent assistance More than one persons with that name are mentioned in the same period. 51  We meet only the genitive form, as Μορζίου (Polybius. 25. 2. 5, 9) or Μορζέου (Strabo 12. 3. 41). Morzi in Livy 38. 26. 4. 50 

Reinach 1905; Marek 1993, Kat. Abonuteichos 1. Cf. Magie 1950: 196-97, 1093, n. 56, who attributes this propagandistic effort also to Morzios; Braund 2014: 148-49.

52  53 

220

M. Manoledakis: Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia console him, Paphlagonia from Nicomedes’ and offered to both Cappadocians and Paphlagonians their liberty (Justin 38. 2. 6-7). Apparently, in the sources it is not clear how exactly Paphlagonia and Cappadocia were divided between Mithridates and Nicomedes.

the Provincia Bithynia et Pontus, where he also established several new cities. Mithridates’ son, Pharnaces II, managed later to get possession of some of those cities, including Amisos, at the time of the quarrel between Caesar and Pompey (Cassius Dio 42. 45-46).

But what is most interesting here is the reappearance of the name Pylaemenes, the leader of the Paphlagonians in the Trojan War (Homer Iliad 2. 851). We tried to show a connection to the mythical Paphlagonian hero in Otys’ policy in the 4th century BC (see above), and Nicomedes seems to have followed a similar propagandistic trick, as a typical Hellenistic ruler would do.

From Strabo (12. 3. 1) we learn what happened to the hinterland of Paphlagonia, where Pompey gave over to the descendants of Pylaemenes (τοῖς ἀπὸ Πυλαιμένους) the office of king over certain of the Paphlagonians situated in the hinterland between Pontus and Bithynia. One of them was himself called Pylaemenes (Eutropius 6. 14; Suda s.v. Πομπήιος).58 So we have evidence about a whole family of Pylaemenides (cf. Strabo 12. 3. 41), and it may be due to this family that Paphlagonia was in Pliny’s time also known as Pylaemenia (ΝΗ 6. 5). Another ruler, whom together with Pylaemenes Paphlagonia was restored to by Pompey, was Attalus (Appian Mithridates 114; Eutropius 6. 14). Strabo’s statement (12. 3. 41) that although the Paphlagonian hinterland was small, it was governed by several rulers is also noteworthy. From his words (12. 3. 1) it seems that Pompey also gave over the Galatians of Paphlagonia to the hereditary tetrarchs.

However, there was indeed a Paphlagonian ruler named Pylaemenes mentioned in 131 BC, who helped the Romans in the battle against Aristonicus, son of Eumenes II (Eutropius 4. 20; Orosius 5. 10. 2). This must be the one to whom the coins bearing the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΥΛΑΙΜΕΝΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ belong,54 and he could also be the person who ‘bequeathed’ Paphlagonia to Mithridates V. On the other hand, Orosius (6. 2. 2) and Eutropius (5. 5) mention also that much later (during the Mithridatic wars) Mithridates VI invaded Paphlagonia and drove out its ruler, who was Pylaemenes. For this Pylaemenes some believe that he is just imaginary,55 while others identify him with the above-mentioned son of Nicomedes.56 Thus, it is not clear whether Mithridates finally possessed Paphlagonia before the Mithridatic wars or not and which part. According to Strabo, he possessed the whole coastal part from its eastern border, the Halys, as far to the west as Heraclea (12. 3. 1, 9), including the inland area around Mount Olgassys (12. 3. 40), but not the more western inland part that bordered Bithynia (12. 3. 9, 41).

These Paphlagonian rulers must have been loyal to Pompey, since they had sent aid to him in Pharsalus in 48 BC (Appian Bella civlia 2. 71). Besides, Festus (Brev. 11) mentions that king Pylaemenes, who controlled Paphlagonia, was a friend of the Romans. ‘Having often been driven thence from his kingdom, he was restored by the Romans and, with his death, the legal status of a province was imposed on Paphlagonia’. Festus seems to refer to the last king of Paphlagonia, but this is supposed to have been Deiotarus (Strabo 12. 3. 41), ‘the son of Castor II,59 surnamed Philadelphus, who possessed Gangra, the royal residence of Morzios, which was at the same time a small town and a fortress’. In the naval battle of Actium (31 BC), although Deiotarus initially joint Marc Antony as a subject king, he defected to Octavian when he noticed that the latter was going to win (Plutarch Antonius 61, 63; Cassius Dio 50. 13), and therefore he kept his rule over Paphlagonia:60 another indication of the ability of the Paphlagonians to quickly adapt to changing situations. It seems that for a period of time he ruled together with Deiotarus Philopator61 and then alone, until his death in 7-5 BC.

In any case, it is noteworthy that we meet the name of Pylaemenes again, this time as a name of a historical person, especially since no other historical ruler of a people from those mentioned by Homer as allies of the Trojans in the Trojan Catalogue (Iliad 2. 840-877) appears in the literature to bear the name of his mythical ancestor and predecessor. Besides, it is worth stressing that in the 1st century AD we meet also some Galatians called Pylaemenes, one of which was the son of king Amyntas.57 Roman period

Gangra may have remained the capital or at least a very important town of the inland Paphlagonian territory

After the Mithridatic wars and the defeat of Mithridates, Pompey incorporated the coastal part of Paphlagonia in

He is also considered by Waddington et al. (1925: 162.9) imaginary. Who was son of Castor I and had succeeded Attalus (Cassius Dio 38. 33. 5). Cf. Magie 1950: 434. 60  Exactly the same did the above-mentioned Amyntas, king of Galatia, whose son was called Pylaemenes. 61  Since their names appeared together on coins: SNGvA 509; Waddington et al. 1925: 164.6. Cf. Magie 1950: 1283, n. 20. 58 

SNGvA 509; Waddington et al. 1925: 163.1-3. 55  Waddington et al. 1925: 162.8. 56  Ruge 1949: 2525. 57  Bosch 1967: 35. 51. For this Pylaemenes, see Braund 2014: 162, nn. 74 and 77. For other Galatians with this name, see Bosch 1967: 225. 174; Strubbe 2005: 12. 54 

59 

221

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Late Antiquity and Byzantine period

(of the province of Galatia), since the oath of loyalty to Augustus by the Paphlagonians was written down there in 4/3 BC.62 Much later, in 340, the Synod held in ‘Gangra of the Paphlagonians’ indicates the importance of the town. The fact that at the same time, and already from the late 1st century, Pompeiopolis appears as the metropolis or the most glorious city of Paphlagonia in inscriptions and on coins does not necessarily mean a ‘replacement’ of Gangra, but could also indicate that the Paphlagonians continued to consider Gangra their own capital in the new Roman reality.

This survival of Paphlagonia as a political and ethnographic entity, which results from the literature not only for the Roman but also for the Byzantine period,68 should not be considered irrelevant to its peoples’ skills. Thus the image of the Paphlagonians as simpletons, wretched, mostly superstitious, and peoples ‘who had only their outward shape to distinguish them from sheep’ as presented by Lucian (Alexander, passim) in the 2nd century, does not seem to reflect reality, but rather to suit the needs of the author to present the ideal audience of the fraud (Alexander of Abonuteichos), whom he wished to disgrace. On the contrary, the Scholiast of Lucian, like several other authors of the Byzantine period,69 may be closer to reality, when he says that the Paphlagonians are not quiet people, but rather are capable of inventing any kind of evil and using it in shameless ways (42. 9), and that they can turn good into rubbish (56. 27). Indeed, another Scholiast says that even in Lucian’s time not all the Paphlagonians could have been stupid, since Alexander of Abonuteichos was himself a Paphlagonian (42. 22)!70

Very soon after Paphlagonia’s annexation to the Roman empire we meet a Koinon of Paphlagonia on a coin dating from the reign of Domitian (AD 81-96),63 while there could be a [paphlagonia]rches mentioned in an inscription of the late Imperial period,64 but this is extremely hypothetical,65 since the ending –rches could belong to many other titles. After the death of Deiotarus the inland Paphlagonia was annexed to the Roman province of Galatia, while the coastal one remained to the province of Bithynia and Pontus. But it seems that Paphlagonia never disappeared as a political entity. Indeed it appears even as a coastal province in the works of several geographers, like the Periploi of Menippus/Marcian, Arrian, and the Anonymous, while others, like Strabo and Pliny mention Paphlagonians on the coast. In the 2nd century, Ptolemy (5. 4. 5-7) divides the southern Black Sea coast into Pontus and Bithynia, Galatia, and Cappadocia up to Greater Armenia. From the few words inserted in his catalogue it seems that he may have considered Paphlagonia a sub-region between Pontus-Bithynia and Galatia, mainly within the latter’s borders.66 Moreover, when Lucian wrote his Alexander in the late 2nd century, he mentioned crowds of Paphlagonians that inhabited the coastal city of Abonuteichos (Alexander 9, 15). And as a separate coastal province we find Paphlagonia from the 3rd-4th centuries, probably after Diocletian’s restructuring of the provinces,67 until the 7th century, when it became part of the Theme of Opsikion, and later (8th century) of the Bucellarian Theme. In ca. 820 Paphlagonia re-emerged as a separate province (Theme of Paphlagonia).

This image of the Paphlagonians, as convincing as it may have been to the Byzantine audience, is, of course, still clearly subjective, even spiteful. It was peaked in the 10th-12th centuries, and expressed among others by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (De them. Asia 7), who called the Paphlagonians blameworthy, shameless, rude, and ‘the derision, the shame, and the contempt of the human race’, Georgius Cedrenus, who wrote about the detestable Paphlagonians that ‘emasculated their children and sold them during a famine’ (Comp. hist. 1. 566, 590), or Eustathius of Thessalonica (De capta Thess. 32-34), who called them presumptuous. How this detestation of the Paphlagonians emerged might be understood through Constantine the Rhodian’s (In Theod. Paphlag.) vilification of the eunuch Theodore of Paphlagonia, and via him the Paphlagonians, as porkbutchers and bacon-curers. A vilification suggesting that there must have been a political motivation behind this hate, something that is reinforced by a Scholiast’s comment (Schol. in Luc. 42. 22) that if Lucian had lived in his days he would have seen ‘all nations vanquished and the whole world most intelligently governed by the mind of the Paphlagonians’.

Anderson 1910: 66. Waddington et al. 1925: 165. Ruge (1949: 2532) thinks that the Koinon was established for sure by some of the eleven cities founded by Pompey (see above). 64  Marek 1993, Kat. Pompeiopolis 2; Marek and Frei 2016: 417. 65  As Ruge (1949: 2532) correctly points out. 66  For the southern Black Sea littoral in the works of the Roman geographers, see Manoledakis forthcoming a. 67  See, for example, the mention of some coastal cities as Paphlagonian bishops in the acts of the First Council of Nicaea (325), the Council of Ephesus (431), and the Council of Constantinople (553). Also, Hierocles Synecdemus 695. 4-696. 3; Constantine Porphyrogenitus De them. Asia 7. Cf. Jones 1971: 162-73; Belke 1996: 64-65. For the Roman provinces in Asia Minor, see also Sartre 1991: 257-308 and, most recently, Marek 2010. 62  63 

68  By the 6th century most of the peoples that inhabited the southern Black Sea littoral in antiquity seem to have disappeared, as implied by Anonymous’s use of the word πρώην (former) in the five cases of local peoples that he mentions (Chalybes, Tibarenoi, Mossynoikoi, Makrones/Makrokephaloi, Becheires) in his Periplus (32-38). The Paphlagonians, however, still existed for many centuries more. 69  For the dating of the works of the Scholiasts to Lucian, see Dickey 2007: 69. 70  For these Scholiasts’ texts, see Rabe 1906: 180-85.

222

M. Manoledakis: Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia It was P. Magdalino71 who convincingly indicated that this attitude towards the Paphlagonians had political origins, mainly having to do with their highly visible role in Byzantine society and their great influence on politics in the 10th and 11th centuries. Indeed we know of many important political personalities of Paphlagonian origin, including the emperor Michael the Paphlagonian, with whom the empress Zoe fell in love, the emperor Constantine X Doukas, and other individuals from the 9th to the 11th centuries, among them members of the Macedonians, the Doukai and the Komnenoi. Already from the 9th century Paphlagonia was well known as the homeland of the famous empress Theodora, Theophilos’ wife, remembered especially for the restoration of the veneration of icons. But among them all, Magdalino lays stress on seven Paphlagonian eunuchs of the imperial household, who had a great influence on political life and are, according to the author, to be blamed for the bad reputation of the Paphlagonians in this period.72

well as others of the same character, so readily assented to the letters then written by Novatus.75 Fornication and adultery are regarded among them as the grossest enormities: and it is well known that there is no race of men on the face of the earth who more rigidly govern their passions in this respect than the Phrygians and Paphlagonians’. Later, we find positive comments also on very powerful political figures from Paphlagonia, like the empress Theodora (Ephr. Chron. 2327-2332), the emperor Michael (e.g. Ephr. Chron. 3003-3014; John Skylitzes Synopsis, Mich. 4 and other Byzantine sources), and John Doukas, the brother of the emperor Constantine Doukas (Mich. Psellos Chron. 7. Mich. VI26, Mich. VII1617), but also even on some Paphlagonian eunuchs, like Constantine Phagitzes (John Skylitzes Synopsis, Mich. 4), and John Orphanotrophus (Mich. Psellos Chron. 4. 12-13, who includes the negative aspects of his character). Conclusion

Magdalino’s research led him to distinguish a Paphlagonian faction at the imperial court in the 10th and 11th centuries, as well as point out the fact that ‘Paphlagonian eunuchs tended to rise and fall together when regimes changed’, and that ‘some regimes were more Paphlagonian-friendly than others’.73 He also cited some reasons to believe that the whole connection that led to the choice of Theodora by the emperor Theophilos as his wife began with a eunuch from Paphlagonia in the 8th century, since the relevant bride show was arranged by Theophilos’ stepmother Euphrosyne, whose mother was Paphlagonian.

As indicated in the previous pages, the Paphlagonians were present in the literature for at least seventeen centuries, for several reasons and in very diverging ways. This long lasting and at the same time noteworthy presence may most probably be due to Paphlagonia’s very strong and influential culture, which was pointed out in the beginning of this paper. But it seems that a strong element of this culture must, in turn, have been politics, or, more specifically, the ability of the Paphlagonians, or at least of those who ruled them, to adapt to the changing political circumstances, and to manoeuvre between the powers that influenced their destiny, trying always to maintain the best possible state for them.

So, what is interesting in the Roman and the Byzantine periods is that we now meet references and comments not only on specific Paphlagonian individuals, which continues to be the case,74 but also on the Paphlagonians in general. However, these comments are surprisingly controversial. Until now, we presented only the negative ones. But at the same time other authors gave completely different verdicts of the Paphlagonians. For example, in the 5th century the church historian Socrates of Constantinople, known as Socrates Scholasticus (Hist. Eccl. 4. 28), praised the Paphlagonians, saying that, ‘while the inhabitants of the East are addicted to sensual pleasures, the Paphlagonians and Phrygians are prone to neither of these vices; nor are the sports of the circus and theatrical exhibitions in much estimation among them even to the present day. And for this reason, it seems to me, these people, as

With more than 25 known individuals, three of whom even managed to climb to the highest office of their time in the eastern world (Byzantine emperors), Paphlagonia was distinguished as a place that ‘produced’ intelligent and sly political personalities, from the age of the Persian empire until the Sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders. Among them we find Paphlagonian politicians or Paphlagonian representatives who dared to resist the king or the forces that had occupied them (e.g. Corylas, Morzios), or even turn against them (e.g. Otys), others who on the contrary were proven friendly and loyal to them, in order to keep their local offices (e.g. several Pylaemeneses); people who managed to leave their nation unhurt from powerful invaders (the envoys to Alexander the Great), others who,

Magdalino 1998. Magdalino 1998: 143-50. 73  Magdalino 1998: 145-46. 74  In the 6th century we meet the Paphlagonian Priscus involved with politics. He is mentioned by Procopius (Anecd. 16. 7) as an ‘extremely wicked’ secretary of Justinian.

75  Socrates mentions that there were a great number of the Novatian sect in Paphlagonia in the mid-4th century, and that with the emperor’s permission Bishop Macedonius of Constantinople therefore sent soldiers to the city of Mantinium and slew many Paphlagonians (Hist. Eccl. 2. 38; see also Photius Bibliotheca 257. 476b; Suda s.v. Μακεδόνιος).

71  72 

223

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Dickey, E. 2007. Ancient Greek Scholarship (Oxford). Ferrarese, P. 1974. ‘La spedizione di Pericle nel Ponto Eusino’. Contributi dell’ Istituto di storia antica 2 (Propagandi e persuasione occulta nell’ antichità) (Milan): 7-19. Friedrich, J. 1932. Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler (Berlin). Haas, O. 1966. Die Phrygischen Sprachdenkmäler (Sofia). Harrison, C.M. 1982. ‘Persian Names on Coins of Northern Anatolia’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 41.3: 181-94. Heskel, J. 1997. The North Aegean Wars, 371-360 BC (Stuttgart). Jones, A.H.M. 1971. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford). Judeich, W. 1892. Kleinasiatische Studien (Marburg). Klinkott, H. 2000. Die Satrapieregister der Alexander- und Diadochenzeit (Stuttgart). Klinkott, H. 2005. Der Satrap: ein achaimenidischer Amtsträger und seine Handlungsspielräume (Frankfurt). Kuhrt, A. 2007. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period (London/New York). Lane Fox, R. 2004. ‘Introduction’. In Lane Fox, R. (ed.) The Long March. Xenophon and the Ten Thousand (New Haven/London): 1-46. Lecoq, P. 1997. Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide (Paris). Lenschau, T. 1942. ‘Otys’. RE XVIII.2, 1889. Magdalino, P. 1998. ‘Paphlagonians in Byzantine Society’. Byzantine Asia Minor (6th-12th cent.) (Athens): 141-50. Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor, vol. 1 (Princeton). Manoledakis, M. 2013. ‘The Southern Black Sea in the Homeric Iliad: Some Geographical, Philological and Historical Remarks’. In Manoledakis, M. (ed.) Exploring the Hospitable Sea (Oxford): 19-37. Manoledakis, M. forthcoming a. ‘The southern Black Sea in the Roman geographic texts’. In Braund, D., Chaniotis, A. and Petropoulos, E. (eds) Proceedings of the Conference ‘The Black Sea Region in the Context of the Roman Empire’ held in Athens in May 2015 (Athens). Manoledakis, M. forthcoming b. ‘The Paphlagonians and the Greeks’ perception of them’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds) The Greeks and Romans in the Black Sea and the Importance of the Pontic Region for the Graeco-Roman World (7th century BC-5th century AD) (Oxford). Manoledakis, M. forthcoming c. ‘The districts of the southern Black Sea littoral in the era of Alexander the Great’. In Akamatis, I, Manoledakis, M., Nigdelis, P. and Xydopoulos, I. (eds) Ancient Macedonia 8: Ancient Macedonia from the Death of Philip II until August’s Rise to Power (Thessaloniki). Marek, C. 1993. Stadt, Ära und Territorium in PontusBithynien und Nord-Galatien (Tübingen). Marek, C. 2010. Geschichte Kleinasiens in der Antike (Munich).

according to their interests, easily shifted from allies of a powerful world leader to allies of his enemies, especially when they noticed that the latter were going to prevail (e.g. Gaizatorix, Deiotarus), and others who secretly influenced the policy of a whole empire (in the Byzantine period). For no other nation that inhabited the Anatolian coast of Pontus do we know of so many political personalities’ names for such a long period of time. Therefore, we could claim that political manoeuvring and effective diplomacy may have characterised the Paphlagonians more than any other people of the southern Black Sea littoral. Bibliography Abbreviation SNGvA Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland, Sammlung Hans von Aulock 1: Pontus, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, Mysia, Troas, Aiolis, Lesbos, Ionia (Berlin 1957). Akurgal, E. 1955. Phrygische Kunst (Ankara). Anderson, J.G.C. 1910. Studia Pontica:  Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines du Pont et de l’Arménie, vol. 3 (Brussels). Avram, A., Hind, J. and Tsetskhladze, G. 2004. ‘The Black Sea Area’. In Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. (eds) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation (Oxford): 924-74. Baynham, E. 1998. Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius (Ann Arbor). Belke, K. 1996. Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9: Paphlagonien und Honōrias (Vienna). Bosch, E. 1967. Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ankara im Altertum (Ankara). Braund, D.C. 2014. Rome and the Friendly King. The Character of Client Kingship (Oxford). Briant, P. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander (Winona Lake, IN). Brixhe, C. and Lejeune, M. 1984. Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes (Paris). Bruce, I.A.F. 1967. An Historical Commentary on the ‘Hellenica Oxyrhynchia’ (Cambridge). Dan, A. 2013. ‘Achaemenid World Representations in Herodotus’ Histories: some geographic examples of cultural translation’. In Geus, K., Irwin, E. and Poiss, T. (eds) Herodots Wege des Erzählens. Logos und Topos in den Historien (Frankfurt): 83-121. de Boer, J.G. 2005. ‘The foundation of Agathopolis/ Alaeouteichos and the Athenian Black Sea policy in the 5th century BC’. In Kacharava, D., Faudot, M. and Geny, É. (eds) Pont-Euxin et Polis. Polis Hellenis et Polis Barbaron (Besançon): 167-80. Debord, P. 1999. L’Asie mineure au IVe siècle (412-323 a.C.): Pouvoirs et jeux politiques (Bordeaux). 224

M. Manoledakis: Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia Marek, C. and Frei, P. 2016. In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World (Princeton). Matthews, R. 2009. ‘A Dark Age, grey ware and elusive empires: Paphlagonia through the Iron Age, 1200330 BC’. In Matthews, R. and Glatz, C. (eds) At Empires’ Edge: Project Paphlagonia. Regional Survey in North-Central Turkey (London): 149-72. Meyer, E. 1909. Theopomps Hellenika (Halle). Murphy, E. 1989. The Antiquities of Asia. A Translation with Notes of Book II of The Library of History of Diodorus Siculus (New Brunswick, NJ/Oxford). Occhipinti, E. 2016. The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and Historiography: New Research Perspectives (Leiden/ Boston). Price, M. 1993. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum 9: The British Museum 1. The Black Sea (London). Rabe, H. 1906. Scholia in Lucianum (Leipzig). Reinach, T.A. 1905. ‘Stele from Abonuteichos’. The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society 5: 113-19. Robinson, E.S.G. 1920. ‘A Find of Coins of Sinope’. The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society 20: 1-16. Ruge, W. 1949. ‘Paphlagonia’. RE XVIII.4: 2486-2537. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. 1993. ‘Cyropaedia’. Encyclopaedia Iranica 6.5: 512-14. Sartre, M. 1991. L’Orient romain. Provinces et sociétés provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-C.–235 après J.-C.) (Paris).

Strubbe, J. 2005. The Inscriptions of Pessinous (Bonn). Summerer, L. and von Kienlin, A. 2010. ‘Achaemenid Impact in Paphlagonia: Rupestral Tombs in the Amnias Valley’. In Nieling, J. and Rehm, E. (eds) Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea. Communication of Powers (Aarhus): 195-221. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1997. ‘Plutarch, Pericles and Pontus: Some Thoughts’. In Schrader, C., Ramón, V. and Vela, J. (eds) Plutarco y la Historia (Zaragoza): 461-66. Tuplin, C. 1987. ‘The Administration of the Achaemenid Empire’. In Carradice, I. (ed.) Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires (Oxford): 109-66. Tuplin, C. 2004. ‘The Persian Empire’. In Lane Fox, R. (ed.) The Long March. Xenophon and the Ten Thousand (New Haven/London): 154-83. Tuplin, C. 2007. ‘A Foreigner’s Perspective: Xenophon in Anatolia’. In Delemen, I., Casabonne, O., Karagoz, S. and Tekin, O. (eds) The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Culture in Anatolia (Istanbul): 7-32. Waddington, W.H, Babelon, E. and Reinach, T. 1925. Récuéil General des Monnaies Grecques d’ Asie Mineure 1: Pont et Paphlagonie (Paris). Young, R.S. 1969. ‘Old Phrygian Inscriptions from Gordion: Toward a History the Phrygian Alphabet’. Hesperia 38.2: 252-96.

225

A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia Şahin Yıldırım Abstract The Great Göztepe Tumulus, which is located in the city of Safranbolu in inland Paphlagonia, has been little studied so far. The salvage excavations initiated in 2011 revealed an unprecedented tomb structure in the region. At the centre of the tumulus there is a stone circle with a diameter of 15 m constructed in the dry masonry technique. Inside this circle there is a tholos tomb in the form of beehive which is filled with soil. This tomb is constructed in the dry masonry technique as well. The tumulus was exposed to looting many times by tomb raiders, hence there is not a solid finding in the tomb inventory. However a number of pottery sherds found inside the tomb structure shows that the tumulus dates back to the Middle Phrygian period. Although the architecture of the tomb does not correspond to traditional Phrygian tomb architecture, it is considered that the owner of the tomb was a local noble who lived in the Phrygian period. In and around Safranbolu there are very few remains dating to Phrygian period and these are located in the Soğanlı valley to the south-east. Examples of Phrygian influence in the valley are some open-air altars dedicated to Cybele and the façade of a Hellenistic-period rock-cut tomb. There are dozens of tumuli over the hills close to Safranbolu.

Introduction

the 7th and 6th centuries BC, new settlements started to emerge around almost all the strategic natural harbours and at the river mouths whence transport to the interior was easy. In this period, cities such as Sinope, Sesamos, Cromna, Cytoros, Ionopolis and Abanouteichos emerged on the coast of Paphlagonia and contributed to the significant economic development of the region through their commercial activities.5

Safranbolu and its surroundings fall into the region known since the Iron Age as Paphlagonia, which is also mentioned by Homer in the Illiad (2. 851-857). It covers the western and central parts of the southern Black Sea region. It is believed that the Parthenios river (today the Bartın) constitutes the western boundary of Paphlagonia and the Halys river (Kızılırmak) forms the eastern limits of the region. The Black Sea was the northern limit, and Galatia and Phrygia were the southern boundary of the region.

In modern sources there is not consensus on the ancient name of Safranbolu.6 Although some researchers claim the ancient name of the city was Dadybra,7 the same name is also offered for Daday and Devrek.8 Until now no inscription or Roman coin has been found to verify the ancient name of the city. The fortress and its surroundings are considered to be the centre of the city but no archaeological excavation has been conducted at these sites so far. Several archaeological sources state the name of the city was Theodorapolis and Germia in the Byzantine period.9

In Paphlagonia, finds from the early periods are very scarce. However, archaeological studies conducted in recent years show that settlement of the interior of the region commenced in the Palaeolithic.1 On the other hand, quite a few settlements dating to the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages were revealed as a result of these studies.2 From the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age the southern parts of the region especially came under the rule of the Hittite empire. Hittite texts state that local tribes such as the Palas and Kaskas existed at the northern part of the region.3 Paphlagonia was exposed to Phrygian and Cimmerian invasions respectively after the collapse of the Hittite empire with great chaos.4 Herodotus (1. 16) states that for a period the region came under the rule of the Lydian kingdom. However, the archaeological evidence for this period in Paphlagonia is quite limited. The Greek cities were located in the coastal areas of Paphlagonia. With the increasing colonisation movement, especially between

Nothing has survived today of the ancient architectural structures of the city. Nevertheless, the rocky place called the fortress probably formed the Acropolis of the settlement in ancient times. Spread over the hills surrounding the Acropolis are the only ancient representatives of the city: the tumuli. One of these is called Göztepeler. Another large-scale example is located in a district called Gümüş on a hill near the fortress. Safranbolu is quite rich in tumuli. There are Tsetskhladze 1994: 117; 1998; Boardman 1964: 245-47. Ulukavak 2017: 17-28. Gökoğlu 1952: 33; Yazıcıoğlu and Al 1982: 33-38; Soykan and Gür 2015: 103. 8  Wittek 1969; Çelikdönmez 2000: 58; Umar 1993: 211. 9  Ainsworth 1842: 65; Leonhard 1915: 140-41; Gökoğlu 1952: 33. 5  6 

Kökten 1948; 1951. Özdoğan et al. 1997; 1998; 1999; Matthews and Glatz 2009. 3  Ünal 2003: 48-63. 4  Ruge 1949: 2516. 1 

7 

2 

226

Ş. Yıldırım: A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia

Figure 1. The Location of Great Göztepe Tumulus.

more than one hundred rock-cut tombs and tumuli in its close vicinity.10

flowing through Safranbolu form three different canyons. At the southern part of Paphlagonia these rivers merge with one of the tributaries of the Billaios called the Araç Brook.

Tumuli are dispersed throughout Paphlagonia, a greater number inland than in the coastal region. These tumuli are concentrated in old settlements like Karabük, Kastamonu and Çankırı, Kastomonu ranking first with regards to the number of tumuli, then Karabük.11

Excavations The excavations at Great Göztepe had been initiated in 2011, conducted by the Archaeology Department of Bartın University under the control of the Karadeniz Ereğlisi and Kastamonu Museum Directorates. Scholars from the Geophysical Engineering Department of Istanbul University conducted geoelectric and georadar surveys on the tumulus, revealing anomalies at different depths and of varied dimensions at five different locations in the tumulus. The concentration of the anomalies at the centre of the tumulus presented a challenge. Excavations on this tumulus, one of the biggest in Paphlagonia, continued intermittently until January 2017.

The tumulus of Great Göztepe Among the tumuli of Safranbolu, Great Göztepe tumulus, also known as Gümüş Tumulus by the locals, has a significant place. It was located on a dominant hill within the city (Figs. 1, 2). The preserved height of Great Göztepe is 20 m and it has a diameter of 100 m. The altitude of the tumulus is approximately 540 m and its coordinates are 41⁰ 15’ 09” N and 32⁰ 41’ 34” E. In spite of the fact that the tumuli is quite close to the city centre it has been exposed to many illegal excavation attempts. At almost all sides of the tumulus there are illegal pits and tunnels dug by looters.

Excavations were undertaken at two locations on the southern slope of the tumulus where anomalies had been detected. However, both excavated trenches encountered bedrock. This fact showed that the tumulus does not have a long dromos extending along slope of the hill. These trenches yielded no significant finds that can contribute to dating the tumulus, just some insignificant pottery sherds. In 2011, excavation was interrupted by winter; no excavation was undertaken

The hill where Great Göztepe stands is a canyon wall formed by the Gümüş river. All of the canyons in Safranbolu and in its surroundings were formed during the Eocene.12 The rivers of Gümüş, Akçasu and Tokatlı Yıldırım 2016; 2018. Yıldırım 2018: 1299. 12  İlhan 1967: 100-02. 10  11 

227

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 2. The general view of Great Göztepe Tumulus.

in 2012 because of permit problems; work resumed in 2013.

dislocation were observed. Overall, the analysis revealed poor health and heavy working conditions.13

During 2103, at the peak and eastern slope of the tumulus, new measurements were made using more developed techniques (Fig. 3). As a result, at the east side of tumulus, close to the slope of the hill, two trenches were excavated. Again no significant clues were found. However, the second trench encountered a tunnel dug by looters. This tunnel extended for 10 m from the slope of the hill and was filled with soil by a collapse after 15 m.

As the excavations continued, they encountered stone layers made up of coarsely cut stones and with an increasing rate towards the centre of the tumulus. These stone layers are considerably thicker at the centre than at the sides: on average, 1.5 m towards the centre and 40 cm at the sides (Figs. 5, 6). By considering the structure of the tumulus, it can be said that these stone layers were located to cover exactly the tomb structure lying at the very centre of the tumulus. Probably the layers were located thus as security against robbery from the top of the tumulus: there are five separate stone layers between the top and the tomb structure at the bottom. Thus, the central filling of tumulus is composed of consecutive layers of soil and stone.

Since the main anomaly detected by geophysics pointed to the centre of the tumulus, the last big trench was excavated to cover the centre of the hill. Later, this trench was enlarged in order to prevent subsidence. During excavation on the peak of the tumulus, tombs of the Middle Byzantine period were revealed starting 50 cm under the surface. Most of them were formed simply with a pit surrounded by limestones. Five were made of tiles. In addition, a couple of inhumation burials were unearthed.

Regional soil and stones were used in the fill of the tumulus, obtained from the surrounding hills and plains. We deduce this from the sea-urchin (echinoidea) fossils found in the fill. The layers with such fossils are brown and beige coloured and resemble the surrounding soil layers. In the Mesozoic a considerable part of Asia Minor was covered with sea. Today, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea are considered as remnants of the great Tethys Sea of the Mesozoic Age.14 During excavation of Great Göztepe, hundreds of sea-urchin fossils were found in both the soil fill of the tumulus and the stones covering the tomb structures. These fossils are dated to the Upper Cretaceous period of the Mesozoic. The rocks near Great Göztepe contains plenty of sea-urchin and various marine species fossils (Fig. 7).

At the peak and on the slopes of the tumulus, 17 tombs were found within an area of approximately 100 m2. Inside them 24 human skeletons were unearthed (Fig. 4). Palaeo-demographic analysis on these skeletons showed them to be twelve females, eight males, three infants and one adolescent. To discover the health status of the population of Great Göztepe tumulus the skeletons were examined palaeo-pathologically. As a result, on the skull of a male individual a cut wound caused by a sharp object was identified. In the population, some pathologies like rickets stemming from vitamin D deficiency, plantar fasciitis and hip

13  14 

228

Şarbak et al. forthcoming, 69; Çırak et al. 2017: 98. Şengör and Yılmaz 1983: 3-5; Ekin and Şeşen 2018: 36.

Ş. Yıldırım: A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia

Figure 3. Geophysical survey on the tumulus and the doubtful red area uncovered by the geophysical survey.

Figure 4. One of the tombs found on the tumulus, dated to the Middle Byzantine period.

229

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 5. View of the stone layers from the north, placed to the centre of the tumulus.

Figure 6. View of the stone layers from the east, placed to the centre of the tumulus.

Also used in the fill, at the western side of the peak, was red-and-brown-coloured clayey soil. It goes down 8 m underground. This soil had to be brought from a neighbouring settlement. It contained pottery sherds dating from the Late Chalcolithic period up to Early Iron Age (Fig. 8). A small scale survey was conducted in the vicinity in order to determine the origin of these pottery sherds; no results were obtained.

Figure 7. A sea urchin fossil, one of the hundreds of marine fossils found in the tumulus deposit.

230

Ş. Yıldırım: A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia

Figure 8. Some of the ceramic fragments from the Bronze Age, found in the tumulus fill.

The pottery sherds dating to Roman and Byzantine periods found on the tumulus surface were not evaluated stratigraphically. The sherds found in the inner structure of tumulus cannot be dated to a period later than the Early Iron Age. This implies that the tumulus was constructed earlier than others in the region, which are of Hellenistic and Roman date.

2014, six weeks in 2015, and four months in 2016. As a result, a unique tomb structure was revealed, unlike anything encountered elsewhere in Asia Minor. This tomb has two parts: the first is an outer stone circle made up of coarse stones connected with mud; the second and main part is the burial in the form of a beehive annexed to the south-east of the outer stone circle. (Figs. 9, 10).

Tomb

Stone circle

Excavation of the tomb section of the tumulus was carried out between 2014 and 2016, for two months in

The outer stone circle is irregular. The thickness of this wall varies between 3.5 and 4 m and it has a diameter 231

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 9. The Great Göztepe Tumulus and the plan of the grave structure inside.

Figure 10. Very early moments of uncovering of the grave structure in the tumulus.

mud (Fig. 17). There are some indications that the burial chamber and the gigantic soil fill of the tumulus were constructed simultaneously. The tumulus was formed by being raised from outside to inside. Initially, the outside contours of the tumulus were raised and thus an easy flow of soil towards the inside was obtained. With the raising of the outer circle which encircles the tomb, the sustaining walls extending along the fill were also raised. Thus, the top of the tomb was covered. Thereafter stone and soil layers were gradually located over the tomb up to the peak of the tumulus.

of 15 m (Figs. 11, 12). The height of this wall is not uniform throughout. At the southern side of the hill it is 5 m from ground, increasing towards the north until, at the northern edge of the circle, it extends for up to 10 m from the ground (Fig. 13). This stone wall was constructed in the dry stack masonry technique; between its joints only soil and mud were used as binders. This fact increased the risk of collapse. The constructors of the wall supported it by building up sustaining walls. These were constructed in the same dry stack technique with stones bound with soil and 232

Ş. Yıldırım: A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia

Figure 11. Outer circle surrounding the grave structure, built of stone.

Figure 12. View of the outer circle from the east.

233

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 13. Drawings of south, east and north sections of the Great Göztepe tumulus.

The masonry technique used on the outer circle wall is almost the same as that of traditional Safranbolu domestic architecture. Furthermore, a technique of building up stones located in a sloping fashion, which resembles the opus spicatum technique seen in 18thand 19th-century traditional Safranbolu houses, was also used at the eastern part of the circular stone wall. This technique is known and applied in Asia Minor from the layer of Troy I.15 Such continuity in the masonry of local architecture in the region is remarkable. At Great Göztepe, the thick outer circle built with broken stones and the beehive-formed wall were constructed in order to prevent the tholos from robbery. However, this precaution was to no avail. Burial The burial area of the tumulus was severely damaged. It has been exposed to illegal excavation from the 19th century until today (as can be understood by the objects left behind by the robbers: pickaxes, trays, etc.) (Fig. 14). Many tunnels into the tumulus reached the burial and did irreparable damage to it and the tholos (Fig. 15). In the burial chamber and in its surrounding there are six main and eleven connecting tunnels. The chief damage of the burial was caused by a 47 m tunnel starting from the side slope and reaching the burial by penetrating the outer circle of the tumulus (Fig. 16). Other illegal tunnels reached this part and it was considerably enlarged by the robbers. In consequence of the heavy damage caused by the looters, nothing has been found in the burial besides pottery sherds and a rusty iron ox-shoe (which is a doubtful find).

Figure 14. Pickaxe and tray found in the tunnel opened by the treasure hunters.

for a chamber. The tholos has a diameter of 5 m and height of 10 m. Its eastern side is adjacent to the outer circle. This tholos-shaped burial structure was created inside the tumulus like a core filled with soil. More precisely, the deceased was inhumed at the centre of this place, the corpse was covered with earth, and the surrounding of the burial was encircled by two or three rows of stone wall in the shape of a beehive, creating a dome shape (Figs. 17, 18). With this beehive shape, the burial structure represents a very primitive example of the Mycenaean tholos tombs.

The burial has quite distinctive architecture. The flattened schist ground of the tumulus has a diameter of 100 m. At its centre is a dry stone circular wall with a diameter of 15 m and inside this wall a beehiveshaped primitive tholos filled up with soil (Fig. 24). The craftsmen of Great Göztepe did not organise a space 15 

The ground of the burial structure and the circular stone wall were covered with a floor made of broken stones. However, this floor was considerably damaged by the looters’ tunnels.

Naumann 1991: 69-70.

234

Ş. Yıldırım: A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia

Figure 15. Tholos forming the grave section heavily destroyed and tomb-raiders’ tunnels.

A lower jawbone piece found inside the burial structure was associated with the deceased (Fig. 19). Assoc. Professor Mustafa Tolga Çırak of the Anthropology Department of Hittite University identified it as belonging to a male aged between 35 and 50 years. It points to an inhumation rather than a cremation. Finds Unfortunately, no solid artefacts belonging to the burial were found. The tholos and the layer inside constituting the burial structure were destroyed to a large extent. Among the pottery sherds obtained from the beehiveshaped tholos and its surrounding, a piece belonging to a trefoil-mouthed vessel with a concentric circle motif is notable. Similar vessels are frequently encountered at the mound in Gordion and by excavations conducted in tumuli near Gordion (Fig. 20). A significant part of these vessels date to the 9th-8th centuries BC. A very similar example with a concentric circle motif was found in the destruction level of Gordion.16 Three red, terracotta, glazed pottery pieces with a black motif band are also dated to the Middle Phrygian period (Fig. 21). In addition, one of the pottery pieces found in the burial structure belongs to the body part of a small

Figure 16. The treasure tunnel that caused the grave structure to be plundered.

16 

235

See Sams 1994, pl. 72/708.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 17. Grave section uncovered in the excavations of 2015 and façade drawing.

Figure 18. Beehive shaped grave section.

grey-ware vessel (Fig. 22). This type of pottery is abundantly encountered in the Middle Phrygian period layers at Gordion.17 17 

The iron ox-shoe is intensely corroded and has a ‘D’ shape, close to a semicircle. Probably it belonged to a bovine. It has a height of 10.5 cm, length of 4.9 cm and width of 0.4 cm (Fig. 23). There are four nails in it, three

Henrickson 2007: 194.

236

Ş. Yıldırım: A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia Due to the severe damage to Great Göztepe by treasure hunters, it is not certain whether the oxshoe is in situ or not. The surrounding archaeological survey did not provide any bone or physical remains connected to this find. From the myth of the Gordion Knot we know of the importance of cattle for Phrygian society.24 Perhaps, in Great Göztepe, a bovine was sacrificed, as happened in the Phrygian tumulus in Ankara. However, the damage to the burial structure and its environs precludes us obtaining reliable information. At the excavations of Gordion, mound and tumuli, nothing similar was found.

Figure 19. Piece of mandible, probably belonged to the owner of the grave.

In the ancient written sources, the information on the use of horseshoes is quite limited. In Greek sources there is no mention of an iron horseshoe. All the information given is about horses, camels or mules. Aristotle (Historia Animalum 499A) mentions leather shoes or sandals for camels used in expeditions. Xenophon (Anabasis 4. 5. 36) writes of the wrapping up of horses’ and mules’ feet with cloths in snow. The first information on iron horseshoes comes from the Roman Catullus. (17. 26): that iron shoes were made for horses but they could be lost since they were not nailed on.25 One of the earliest examples revealed archaeologically is in an Etruscan burial in Corneto: four bronze horseshoes, dating to the 4th century BC, with the nail holes and the oxidised remnants of nails visible.26 Use of iron horseshoes became widespread in the Roman period. In Britain, Pompeii and Saalburg there are examples of iron horseshoes.27 But ancient sources contain no record of the shoeing of cattle. For Asia Minor the earliest example of a cattle-shoe was found in Pergamum and dates to the Middle Ages.28 During excavations of Gordion, many iron agricultural objects were found,29 but there is no animal shoe among them.

in good condition, which show that it was nailed to the hoof an animal. Among Phrygian tumuli are a couple of examples with animal burials. During the 1955 excavation in Gordion some horse burials were encountered in Tumulus KY.18Also, in the excavations of the Phrygian necropolis at Ankara, horse burials were encountered. Ankara is the second city after Gordion in which archaeological surveys were conducted on Phrygian tumuli.19 The archaeological data show the importance of Ankara until the Phrygian period as much as Gordion.20 In Ankara more than 20 Phrygian tumuli have been identified to date.21 During construction of Ankara railway station two tumuli salvage excavations were conducted. In one of these tumuli horse bones and teeth were found.22 Another tumulus in Ankara in which horse bones were found is located in Beştepeler district. They were recovered by salvage excavations carried out during the construction of the premises of the Gençlerbirliği sports club. This tumulus also contained cattle bones.23

The iron pickaxes and copper trays left by looters have already been mentioned. On these Late Ottoman objects there is a thin layer of corrosion but generally they are in good condition. This is not so for the iron shoe. It has a dense corrosion layer that indicates its long presence under the earth. The shoe has been deformed slightly because of this corrosion. It is considered that it belongs to the ancient period since it was found in the outer According to the myth, the Phrygians did not have a king. In order to find a king for themselves, they consulted the oracle in Telmessos, according to whom the first man entering their city with an oxcart should become king. A farmer called Gordios entered the city with an oxcart and the Phrygians accepted him as a king. Midas, son of Gordios, devoted this oxcart to Sabazios and the oxcart was tied to somewhere with a complicated knot. Rumour has it that the one who cut the Gordion knot would be the ruler of Asia Minor (Arrian Anabasis 2. 3). 25  Ellis 1889: 66. 26  Bates 1902: 400. 27  Winkelmann 1928: 137-38; Ruprechtsberger 1975: 27. 28  Gaitzsch 2005: 126-28. 29  McClellan 1975. 24 

18  Young 1959. However, since the bronze armour plates found in Tumulus KY were not encountered in any other burials of Gordion, it is also considered that this tumulus belongs to a Cimmerian soldier of fortune (Kohler 1995: 74). 19  There is a Phrygian necropolis in the district between Atatürk Orman Çiftliği-Anıttepe-Bahçelievlercomposed of tumuli with miscellaneous dimensions dating to the 8th-7th centuries BC. 20  Mitchell 2012: 524-29. 21  Makridi 1926: 35-38; Özgüç and Akok 1947; Tuna 2007. 22  Makridi 1926: 42. 23  Buluç 1993: 83-95; Tekkaya 1988.

237

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 20. A piece of a circle embossed mouth of a trefoil.

Figure 21. Ceramic pieces dated to the Middle Phrygian period.

stone circle, near the burial. If this shoe is related to the burial it will be recorded as the first Phrygian example. To confirm this hypothesis clearly, excavations must be carried out in the intact tumuli of the region.

surroundings where ancient Pompeipolis is located. As well as around Taşköprü, the surroundings of Safranbolu, Eflani, Ovacuma, Daday, Çankırı and Boyabat yield an abundance of tumuli.30 Many scholars studying Paphlagonia have mentioned the tumuli they encountered in their publications

Conclusion Paphlagonia is a quite rich region in terms of tumuli, especially so in the Taşköprü district and in its

30 

238

Yıldırım 2018: 1304.

Ş. Yıldırım: A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia Great Göztepe is one of the three biggest tumuli in Paphlagonia and with its extraordinary architecture it is a unique example not only for Pahplagonia but also for Asia Minor. No other tumulus of the Phrygian period has been encountered in this region so far.

Figure 22. Grey-ware bowl fragment dated to the Middle Phrygian period.

and have sought to classify them historically and culturally.31

Phrygia was a Gordion-based kingdom to the south-east of Ankara. Strabo (1. 3. 21) writes of the suicide of king Midas by drinking ox blood upon the invasion and razing of Gordion by the Cimmerians. Eusobius and Julius Africanus inform us about the Cimmerian invasion: the former dates it to 696/5 BC (Chronology); the latter to 675/4 BC.37 In addition, the mention of Midas in 717 and 709 BC in NeoAssyrian documents was the main reason for dating the Cimmerian destruction layer in Gordion to the 7th century BC.38

C14 analyses of the Gordion destruction layer points, however, to a date approximately a hundred years earlier than these39 – to 827-800 BC.40 This new dating brought about some discussions. According to a new hypothesis based on it, the Cimmerian invasion had no relation with the new destruction layer, and Midas was not living at the time of the destruction layer. With this new dating, Tumulus MM, previously thought to have been the tomb of Midas,41 could no longer be so attributed.42

In Paphlagonia almost all tumuli date to the Late Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods. Only Kadironbaşı, located in Elmayazı in the Daday district of Kastamonu, was constructed in the Early Iron Age.32 The excavation results of this tumulus have not yet been published. There are many different types of burial chamber in Paphlagonian tumuli.33 Notably, some architectural styles seen in burial chambers of the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic period are very similar to the examples in Bithynia and Thrace.34 In Paphlagonia, in the Yenice, Safranbolu, Eflani districts of Karabük and in the Daday and Araç districts of Kastamonu, some tumuli are contemporary with those in Bithynia, and their burial chambers present similar architectural features (circular or rectangular plan) with their counterparts. In Paphlagonia and Thrace there are some examples of beehive-shaped tholos tombs.35 This type essentially reflects the architectural features of the Treasury of Atreus in Mycenae and it became very common in Thrace in the 4th century BC.36

In Gordion, the capital of Phrygia, and across the hills around it are 240 different sized tumuli (those that have vanished through agricultural activities are not included), of which 44 have been analysed archaeologically.43 Five were excavated by the brothers Körte in 1900 and the results of these excavations were published.44 Rodney Young, who initiated the systematic excavations of Gordion, conducted excavations in 31 tumuli.45 In addition, salvage excavations were carried out by the Museum of Anatolian Civilisations in eight tumuli.46 A significant part of these tumuli were dated Bossert 2000: 158; Voigt and Henrickson 2000: 51. Young 1955: 16; Matsumura 2008: 175. 39  Kromer et al. 2001. 40  DeVries 2007: 80-81; Sams 2012: 57-58; Liebhart et al. 2016: 629; Voigt 2009. 41  Young 1981: 271. 42  DeVries 2005: 43. 43  Liebhart 2012: 145; Liebhart et al. 2016: 628. 44  Körte and Körte 1904. 45  Young 1955: 16-17; 1981. 46  Saatçi and Kopar 1990; Mermerci and Yağcı 1990; Temizsoy 1992. 37  38 

31  Leonhard 1915: 103, 127, 141, 225; Jakopi 1937; 1938; Gökoğlu 1952: 47-57; von Gall 1966: 114-15; Belke 1996: 203; Marek 2003: 28; 2007; Matthews and Glatz 2009; Johnson 2010. 32  Yıldırım 2018: 1304. 33  Yıldırım 2015; 2016; 2017. 34  For the examples in Thrace, see Yıldırım 2008; 2016. 35  Archibald 1998: 245; Tsetskhladze 2005: 63; Yıldırım 2012: 76-80; 2016: 235; 2017: 136; 2018: 1304. 36  Dimitrov and Čičikova 1978.

239

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity to the Phrygian Iron Age, between the 9th and 6th centuries BC.47 The architectural features of Phrygian tumuli are generally similar. The burial chamber was composed of a rectangular pit with durable wooden logs of cedar or juniper at the sides. The roof of the burial chamber was built up with wooden logs and it had no entrance door. The roof was supported by a rubble wall at its surrounding and this stone layer was covered by a capstone, which in turn was covered by earth conically. The height of the cone varied according to the importance and strength of the burial’ owner.48 During the early periods inhumation was common in burial customs, from the 7th century BC cremation had also started to be seen as a burial custom.49 The pottery sherds found in Great Göztepe enable us to date the tumulus to the end of the 9th/beginning of the 8th century BC, i.e. within the Middle Phrygian period. However the architectural features of the tomb are considerably different from the tombs excavated in Gordion and other Phrygian centres. The burial part of Great Göztepe lacks the rectangular

Figure 23. Iron ox-shoe found in the stone circle of tomb structure.

Figure 24. Rock-cut altar in Kuzyaka Köseler village near Safranbolu.

Liebhart et al. 2016: 628. Kohler 1995: 165-78. 49  Kohler 1980: 65. 47  48 

240

Ş. Yıldırım: A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia

Figure 25. Rock-cut altar in Hacılarobası village near Safranbolu.

tomb chamber with wooden logs of other Phrygian tumuli. Only the tomb chambers of Ankara Fidanlık and Anıtkabir II tumuli are built with stones in the dry masonry technique.50 But both of these burials are of rectangular not circular plan as Great Göztepe. The capstone is another feature that is similar to Phrygian practice, but this is inadequate to relate Great Göztepe with other Phrygian tumuli. Indeed, besides the pottery sherds, the tumulus has nothing that can be related to Phrygian culture.

From the 9th century BC, the Phrygians became powerful in the region and they pursued a policy of Phrygianisation by means of architecture, painting, burial customs, writing, even language. Their policy covered an area starting from their core region north of the Halys/Kızılırmak and extending to AntalyaElmalı in the north and the Halys Bend in the east. As a result of this policy the post-Hittite communities living within the Halys Bend became Phrygianised without creating a genuine identity.52 A similar situation would be valid for societies living in the southern Black Sea region to the north. There is a very slight possibility that Safranbolu was not influenced by the dominant Phrygian culture.

Probably, Great Göztepe was the burial of Paphlagonian noble who lived in Phrygian period. The craftsmen of this tumulus built it in line with their burial customs, culture and rituals, which makes it distinct from other tumuli of the region.

The severe damage to the Great Safranbolu Tumulus caused the disappearance of significant archaeological data. Around Safranbolu are two of unexcavated tumuli. Future archaeological studies conducted on these may perhaps pave the way to revealing significant new archaeological data concerning this interesting tomb architecture and culture.

The limited archaeological research on the region makes it difficult to obtain finds directly related to the Phrygians. However, there are some remains in the surroundings of Safranbolu. One of these is the Cybele altar carved in the bedrock within the boundaries of Kuzkaya Köseler village 8 km south-east of Safranbolu (Fig. 24). Another Cybele altar was found in Hacılarobası village (Fig. 25). Also some of the rock-cut tombs, which are encountered abundantly near Safranbolu, show Phrygian influence. Remarkable among them is one in Karakoyunlu village in the valley of Soğanlı. This rockcut tomb, dating to the 4th century BC, has a triangular façade. Some scholars have identified Phrygian influence on this façade.51

Bibliography Ainsworth, W.F. 1842. Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Chaldea, and Armenia, vol. 1 (London). Archibald, Z.H. 1998. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford). Bates, W.N. 1902. ‘Etruscan Horseshoes from Corneto’. American Journal of Archaeology 6.4: 398-403. Belke, K. 1996. Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9: Paphlagonien und Honōrias (Vienna).

Özgüç and Akok 1947. von Gall 1966: 73-82; Johnson 2010: 353; Vassileva 2012: 145; 2015: 93-94; Yıldırım 2018: 1307. 50  51 

52 

241

Dönmez 2017: 248.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Boardman, J. 1964. The Greeks Overseas (Harmondsworth). Bossert, E.M. 2000. Die Keramik phrygischer Zeit von Boğazköy: Funde aus den Grabungs kampagnen 1906: 1907: 1911: 1912: 1931-1939 und 1952-1960 (Mainz). Buluç, S. 1993. ‘Anadolu’ da Kremasyon – Ölü Yakma Geleneği’. 1992 Yılı Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Konferansları, 83-102. Çelikdönmez, Ö. 2000. Devrek Tarihi (Ankara). Çırak, M., Şarbak, A. and Çırak, A. 2017. ‘Accessory Mental Foramen (Amf) in the Byzantine Population of Great Göztepe Tumulus/Safranbolu’. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 17.2: 97-104. DeVries, K.R. 2005. ‘Greek Pottery and Gordion Chronology’. In Kealhofer, L. (ed.) The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion (Philadelphia): 36-55. DeVries, K.R. 2007. ‘The Date of the Destruction Level at Gordion: Imports and the Local Sequence’. In Çilingiroğlu, A. and Sagona, A.G. (eds) Anatolian Iron Ages 6 (Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA): 80-101. Dimitrov, D.P. and Čičikova, M. 1978. The Thracian City of Seuthopolis (Oxford). Dönmez, Ş. 2017. Amasya Oluz Höyük: Kuzey Orta Anadolu’da BirAkhaimenid (Pers) Yerleşmesi, 2009-2013. Dönemi Çalışmaları Genel Değerlendirme ve Önsonuçlar (Istanbul). Ellis, R. 1889. A Commentary on Catullus (Oxford). Ekin, İ. and Şeşen, R. 2018. ‘An Example to the Change of Earth Shape: Evidence of Tethys Sea in Diyarbakır’. Middle East Journal of Science 4.1: 36-44. Gaitzsch, W. 2005. Eisenfunde aus Pergamon: Geräte, Werkzeuge und Waffen: Gerate, Werkzeuge Und Waffen (Berlin/New York). von Gall, H. 1966. Die Paphlagonischen Felsgräber; eine Studie zur kleinasiatischen Kunst geschichte (Tübingen). Gökoglu, A. 1952. Paphlagonia, Kastamonu, Sinop, Safranbolu, Bartın, Bolu, Gerede, Mudurnu, İskilip, Bafra, Alaçam ve Civarı Gayrimenkul Eski Eserleri ve Arkeolojisi (Kastamonu). Henrickson, R.C. 2007. ‘Frig Çanak Çömleği’. In Friglerin Gizemli Uygarlığı (Istanbul): 189-200. İlhan, E. 1967. ‘Kuzey Batı Anadolu Bitümlü Şist Yatakları’. Bilimsel Madencilik Dergisi, 99-106. Jacopi, G. 1937. ‘Mission e archeologica italiana in Anatolia relazione sulla prima campagna esplorativa’. Bollettino del Reale Istitutodi Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte 7: 3-26. Jacopi, G. 1938. ‘Esplorazioni e studi in Paflagoniae Cappadocia’. Bollettino del Reale Istitutodi Archeologia e Stori adell’Arte 8: 3-43. Johnson, P. 2010. Landscapes of Achaemenid Paphlagonia (Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). Kohler, E. 1980. ‘Cremations of the Middle Phrygian Period at Gordion’. In DeVries, K.R. (ed.) From Athens to Gordion: The Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young (Philadelphia): 65-89.

Kohler, E. 1995. The Lesser Phrygian Tumuli 1: The Inhumations (Philadelphia). Kökten, İ.K. 1948. ‘1947 Yılı Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları’. Belleten 12(45): 223-26. Kökten, İ.K. 1951. ‘Kuzeybatı Anadolu’nun Tarihöncesi HakkındaYeni Gözlemler’. DTCF Dergisi 9.3: 201-09. Körte, G. and Körte, A. 1904. Gordion: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungim Jahre 1900 (Berlin). Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Kuniholm, P.I., Newton, M.W., Spurk, M. and Levin, I. 2001. ‘Regional 14CO2 Offsets in the Troposphere: Magnitude, Mechanisms, and Consequences’. Science 294: 2529-32. Leonhard, R. 1915. Paphlagonia; Reisen und Forschungenim nörlichen Kleinasien (Berlin). Liebhart, R.F. 2012. ‘Phrygian Tomb Architecture: Some Observations on the 50th Anniversary of the Excavations of Tumulus MM’. In Rose, C.B. (ed.) The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion, Royal City of Midas (Piladelphia): 128-48. Liebhart, R.F., Darbyshire, G., Erder, E. and Marsh, B. 2016. ‘A Fresh Look at the Tumuli of Gordion’. In Henry, O. and Kelp, U. (eds) Tumulus as Sema: Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the First Millennium BC (Göttingen): 627-36. McClellan, J.A. 1975. The Iron Objects from Gordion, a Typological and Functional Analysis (Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). Makridi, T. 1926. ‘Ankara Höyüklerindeki Hafriyata Dair Rapor’. Maarif Vekaleti Mecmuası 6: 35-45. Marek, C. 2003. Pontus et Bithynia; die Römischen Provinzen im norden Kleinasiens (Mainz). Marek, C. 2007. ‘Paphlagonia’. Brill’s New Pauly 10: 47779. Matsumura, K. 2008. ‘A Note on Anatolian Iron Age Ceramic Chronology: Black Lustrous Ware with Diamond Faceting’. Anatolian Archaeological Studies/ Kaman–Kalehöyük 17: 175-84. Matthews, R. and Glatz, C. (eds) 2009. At Empires’ Edge: Project Paphlagonia. Regional Survey in North-Central Turkey (London). Mermerci, D. and Yağcı, R. 1990. ‘Yalacık Tümülüsü İskelet Buluntuları’. In 1. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri (Ankara): 101-04. Mitchell, S. 2012. ‘Roma Dönemi’nde Ankyra: Epigrafik kültür’. In Kurt, Y. and Ünlü, E. (eds) Tarihte Ankara UluslararasıSempozyumu, Ankara 25-26 Ekim 2011: Bildiriler (Ankara): 523-30. Naumann, R. 1991. Eski Anadolu Mimarlığı (Ankara). Özdoğan, A., Marro, C., and Tibet, A. 1997. ‘Kastamonu Yüzey Araştırması 1995 Yılı Çalışmaları’. In 14. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara), 30330. Özdoğan, A., Marro, C., and Tibet, A. 1998. ‘Kastamonu Yüzey Araştırması 1996 Yılı Çalışmaları’. In 15. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara): 63-104. Özdoğan, A., Marro, C., and Tibet, A. 1999. ‘Kastamonu Yüzey Araştırması 1997 Yılı Çalışmaları’. In 16. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara): 219-44. 242

Ş. Yıldırım: A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia Özgüç, T. and Akok, M. 1947. ‘Türk Tarih Kurumu Adına Anıtkabir Alanında Yapılan Tümülüs Kazıları’. Belleten 11(41): 27-56. Ruge, W. 1949. ‘Paphlagonia’. RE 18: 2516-37. Ruprechtsberger, E.M. 1975. ‘Hipposandalen und Hufeisen. Die Hufeisen aus dem Ennser Museum’. Jahrbuch des Ober österreichischen Museal vereines 120: 25-36. Saatçi, T. and Kopar, A. 1990. Gordion Kızlarkayası Kazısı -1989. In 1. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri (Ankara): 151-62. Sams, G.K. 1994. The Early Phrygian Pottery (Philadelphia). Sams, G.K. 2012. ‘The new Chronology for Gordion and Phrygian Pottery’. In Rose, C.B. (ed.) The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion, Royal City of Midas (Philadelphia): 56-66. Şarbak, A., Çırak, A. and Çırak, M.T. forthcoming. ‘Paleopathological Investigation of the Gumus Tumulusu Population Skeleton in the Byzantine Period’. XVIth European Conference on Social and Behavioral Sciences, Prizren, Kosovo, May 10-12, 2018. Şengör, A.M.C. and Yılmaz, Y. 1983. Türkiye’de Tetis’in Evrimi: Levha Tektoniği Açısından Bir Yaklaşım (Ankara). Soykan, A.N. and Gür, D. 2015. ‘Safranbolu, Yazıköy Kilise (Mimari, Süsleme, Liturjik Elemanlar)’. Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Özel Sayı 1: 103-29. Tekkaya, İ. 1988. ‘Ankara Atlı Spor Kulübü Yakınındaki Tümülüs’te: Bulunan Bos (Öküz) Kemikleri’. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 4: 81-89. Temizsoy, İ. 1992. ‘Ankara Polatlı İlçesi Beylik Köprü Köyü Mamaderesi Tümülüsü’. Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi 1991 Yıllığı, 3-28. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1994. ‘Greek Penetration of the Black Sea’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. and De Angelis, F. (eds) The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation: Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman (Oxford): 111-35. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1998. ‘The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Stages, Models, and Native Population’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.) The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Stuttgart): 9-68. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2005. ‘İskit ile Thrak Kral ve Seçkin Mezarlarını Kim İnşa Etti?’. In Atasoy, S. (ed.) Karadeniz’in Tarih ve Arkeolojisi Üzerine (Istanbul): 3794. Tuna, N. 2007. ‘ODTÜ Müzesinin Ankara Frig Nekropolünde Araştırma ve Kurtarma Kazıları’. In Sivas, H. and Sivas, T. Tüfekçi (eds) Friglerin Gizemli Uygarlığı/Mysterious Civilization of the Phrygians (Exhibition Catalogue) (Istanbul): 99-113.

Tuna, N., Buluç, S. and Tezcan, B. 2012. ODTÜ Arkeoloji Müzesi-The METU Museum of Archaeology (Ankara). Ulukavak, K. 2017. Bir Safranbolu’lunun Penceresinden Safranbolu, Bizim Büro Kitabevi (Ankara). Umar, B. 1993. Türkiye’deki Tarihsel Adlar, İnkılap Kitabevi (Ankara). Ünal, A. 2003. Hititler Devrinde Anadolu II (Istanbul). Vassileva, M. 2012. ‘The Rock-Cut Monuments Of Phrygia, Paphlagonia and Thrace: A Comparative Overview’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.) The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Phrygia in Antiquity: Aspects of Archaeology and Ancient History (Oxford): 243-52. Vassileva, M. 2015. ‘Phrygia and the southern Black Sea littoral’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds) The Danubian Lands Between the Black, Aegean and Adriatic Seas (7th Century BC-10th Century AD) (Oxford): 91-96. Voigt, M.M. 2009. ‘The chronology of Phrygian Gordion’. In Manning, S. and Bruce, J.J. (eds) Tree Rings, Kings and Old World Archaeology (Ithaca): 319-27. Voigt, M.M. and Henrickson, R.C. 2000. ‘Formation of the Phrygian State: The Early Iron Age at Gordion’. Anatolian Studies 50: 37-54. Winkelmann, F. 1928. ‘Über das Hufeisen’. Korrespondenzblatt der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission des Deutschen archäologischen instituts 12.4: 135-43. Wittek, P. 1969. ‘Bizanslılardan Türklere Geçen Yer Adları’. Araştırmaları Dergisi 1: 193-240. Yazıcıoğlu, H. and Al, M. 1982. Safranbolu (Safranbolu – Karabük – Ulus – Eflani) (Karabük). Yıldırım, Ş. 2012. Doğu Trakya’da Mezar Tepelerinin Ortaya Çıkışı ve Gelişimi (Ankara). Yıldırım, Ş. 2015. ‘The Rescue Excavation of the Selmanlı Tumulus in Kastamonu’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds) The Danubian Lands Between the Black, Aegean and Adriatic Seas (7th Century BC-10th Century AD) (Oxford): 445-52. Yıldırım, Ş. 2016. ‘The Rescue Excavation of the Hacılarobası Tumulus’. In Manoledakis, M. (ed.) The Black Sea in the Light of New Archaeological Data and Theoretical Approaches (Oxford): 225-38. Yıldırım, Ş. 2017. ‘Paphlagonia’da Bir Tholos Mezar: Kayı Köyü Tümülüsü’. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Dergisi 155: 127-40. Yıldırım, Ş. 2018. ‘Gökbel Köyü Hamas Kıranı Tümülüsü’. Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Sayı 2: 1295-1319. Young, R.S. 1955. ‘Gordion: preliminary report – 1953’. American Journal of Archaeology 59: 1-18. Young, R.S. 1981. Three Great Early Tumuli (Philadelphia).

243

The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük *

Şevket Dönmez Abstract The contribution of Oluz Höyük to the Iron Age of the Halys Basin has taken a religious turn. The evidence and the small finds uncovered in layers 2B (425-300 BC) and 2A (300-200 BC) present important data regarding early Zoroastrianism and the earlier periods of the Fire Cult, a topic where unknown data far surpasses what is known. The remains started to be uncovered in 2017 with the discovery of a sacred fire pit, understood to belong to a fire temple, and a sanctuary. Thereby the presence of monotheistic people in Oluz Höyük who worshipped or revered fire and had no belief in figurines of deities was attested. It is understood that these people, who concretised their beliefs by building an atashkadah (fire temple), a sanctuary and a sacred road (Persian Road) leading to them between 425 and 200 BC were Persian in origin and created one of the first communities of early Zoroastrianism. When the historical process of Zoroastrianism is taken into account, fire burning preserved outdoors in the earlier period (5th century BC) seems to be the central practice of the new religion institutionalised in Oluz Höyük. The presence of the rituals and practices that constituted early Zoroastrianism in the Early and Middle Achaemenid periods shows that North-Central Anatolia (Pontica Cappadocia) and Cappadocia should be evaluated within the sacred geography of the Avesta.

Introduction

the religion was established. The Oluz Höyük finds prove that sources regarding the formation process of Zoroastrianism should be sought in North-Central Anatolia and Katpatuka/Cappadocia besides Mada/ Media (southern Azerbaijan) and the land east of the Caspian Sea (Uvarazmi – Khorasan) (Fig. 3).

Ten structural layers were discovered in the eleventh year of systematic archaeological excavations in Oluz Höyük1 (Figs. 1-2), located 25 km south-east of Amasya city centre and 2 km north of the Çekerek (Skylax) one of the largest tributaries of the Yeşilırmak (Iris). In stratification spanning from the Early Bronze Age (mid-3rd millennium BC) to the Late Hellenistic period (47 BC, Battle of Zela), the second architectural layer (425-200 BC) has made Oluz Höyük a very important settlement for the Anatolian Late Iron Age with its Persian (Achaemenid) finds.

Zoroastrianism is thought to have originated in Mada/ Media (southern Azerbaijan) or Uvarazmi (Khorasan) and spread into Anatolia in the 6th century BC with the westward expansion of the Median kingdom. The birth place and dates of Zoroaster, its founder, are undetermined; it is widely accepted that he lived for 77 years between 628 and 551 BC. The name Zoroaster, about whom we know too little, is thought to mean ‘With Golden Camels/Golden Camel Owner/Camel Owner/Camel Driver’ in Persian.2 His mother was Daughdhova and his father Porouchaspa. In his twenties he left Iran and travelled for ten years in search of truth. This process continued until he found the truth by feeling the presence of Ahura Mazda and receiving a revelation. Zoroaster, returning to Iran and starting to spread his doctrine, was the first man to define moral good and evil on a religious basis without considering the complex relation between two.3 In the religion of Zoroaster, the owner and representation of good is Ahura Mazda4 and the owner and the representation of the evil is Anghra Mainyu (Ahriman/Ehrimen). There are doubts whether this dualism, apparent especially in

The contributions of Oluz Höyük to the Iron Age of the Halys Basin has taken a religious turn. The evidence and the small finds uncovered in layers 2B (425-300 BC) and 2A (300-200 BC) present important data regarding early Zoroastrianism and the earlier periods of the Fire Cult, a topic where unknown data far surpasses what is known. The value of unique and up-to-date finds uncovered in Oluz Höyük is evident since they represent the land where Zoroastrianism was born, the time when Zoroaster had lived and the period when I would like to extend my thanks to archaeologist Burçin Adısönmez, archaeologist-designer Fidane Abazoğlu, designer Nurcan Koç (MA) and my student Selmin Yüzbaşıoğlu for their help in preparation of this article, and Prof. Mehmet Işıklı who trusted me with the photographs of Ayanis. The Oluz Höyük Systematic Archaeological Excavations of 2017 were supported financially by the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums and the Scientific Research Projects Department of Istanbul University (Project Nos. 25792 and 26133). 1  For Oluz Höyük, see Dönmez 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013; 2017; Dönmez and Naza-Dönmez 2010a; 2010b; Dönmez and Yurtsever-Beyazıt 2013; 2014. * 

2  Zoroaster is mentioned in the Avesta as Zarathustra. While Zarat means gold in Old Persian, hustra, which constitutes the other half of the name, means camel (Sarianidi 2010: 121). In Greek, on the other hand, Zoroaster means ‘he who worships the star’. 3  Solmaz 2004: 14. 4  De Jong 2010: 85-89.

244

Ş. Dönmez: The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük

Figure 1. Oluz Höyük and its immediate vicinity in the 5th and 4th centuries BC.

245

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 2. Oluz Höyük. General view from the south-east.

Figure 3. Expansion of the Achaemenid empire.

the Sasanid period (AD 224-641), had a place in earlier belief. Archaeological evidence shows that in the formation processes of Zoroastrianism, which started in the 6th century BC, the idea of unity (singularity) is more prevalent than duality. In Anatolia, until the early 6th century BC when the Median conquest started, a strong culture of paganism was eminent in which many belief systems had a place. With the Medes, however, it is understood that early Zoroastrianism with its belief in unity started to take root within and east of the Halys Basin. Without doubt we find evidence of a religion in Oluz Höyük which lacked sacred idols or altars, where

fire took their place. Perhaps fire was used as a Kiblah. In layer 2 (425-200 BC), which corresponds to the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic period, we encounter no figurines of gods and goddesses of Greek religion, surely an indicator that a strict restriction on figurines was an aspect of the fire-based early Zoroastrian faith. Today there are deep and complicated questions about when the Avesta, the holy book of Zoroastrianism, was written and how far the holy texts we read today resemble the original scriptures. Archaeological evidence shows that the early Zoroastrianism which 246

Ş. Dönmez: The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük We lack any concrete evidence of how the words and sayings of Zoroaster became the holy book which we can now call the Avesta for want of details about the formative period of early Zoroastrianism in the 6th and the first half of the 5th century BC. What is known, rather it is informed guesswork, is that the words of Zoroaster was memorised by the Median magi and recited to their congregations orally. This process must have established the purpose of the magi. We can assume that the magi, with their mission of spreading Zoroastrianism, would first have entered Anatolia as missionaries ca. 590 BC, possibly never returning to their homeland. Figure 4. Atashkadah, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Figure 5. Atashkadah and the early Zoroastrian sanctuary, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

In the Anatolian expansion of Zoroastrianism in the early Achaemenid period (550-400 BC), with its one god–one prophet–one revelatory system first encountered in Near East, the magi seem to have been the sole clerical establishment. This process must have established them as the owners, representatives and inheritors of Zoroastrian religion. So it seems

emerged in 6th-century BC Iran had no holy book in its formative years. And the idea that Zoroaster lived between 628 and 551 BC interestingly corresponds with the Median conquest of Anatolia in ca. 590 BC and the atashkadah (Figs. 4-5) and sanctuary (Figs. 5-6) uncovered in layer 2B at Oluz Höyük (425-300 BC). 247

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 6. Atashkadah and the early Zoroastrian sanctuary, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

of why no material cultural evidence has been found in Anatolia related to Medes. This is also because they had no writing, thus none of their own written sources. In the light of these archaeological realities we can assume that the holy scripture of early Zoroastrianism was written at the beginning of the 4th century BC, and that the memorised verses belonging to Zoroaster had been written and copied by the magi. The first Avesta that was written is known to have been inscribed on 120,000 bull skins with liquid gold, placed securely in the imperial governmental centre, Persepolis, in the reign of Darius III (336-330 BC). Alexander the Great burned down and destroyed Persepolis in January 330 BC and in this destruction the holy texts went missing. The Alexandrian destruction of Persepolis was not limited to the burning of scriptures; in the destruction, the magi who memorised the Avesta were most probably murdered. This would have been a more severe blow to early Zoroastrianism than the destruction of the texts, which were irrecoverably lost. Even though the Parthian kingdom and, especially, the Sasanid empire sought later to remedy this disaster, it is understood that the texts were never fully replaced. In gathering the remaining texts and with later additions we can conclude that Zoroastrianism forsook the tenet of unity and moved towards a belief in duality. The question of how much the later texts resembled the destroyed originals is a mystery that probably will never be answered.

to have come to pass that to become a magus (mog in Persian) one must have been born into the clergy and later attainment of the title was impossible. In this period, the tenets of Zoroastrianism become exclusive dogmas which were passed from father to son, never to leak out of the clerical caste. Thus in the 6th and 5th centuries BC, magi became the sole emissaries of Zoroastrianism, with a vital role in the continuation of the oral tradition. In this context we can assume that early Zoroastrianism, with its formative practices like the Fire Cult, cult of Haoma, Sacrificial Cult and Water Cult, had gone through a period as an oral belief without scripture in 5th-century Oluz Höyük. It seems that the practices and rituals encountered in Oluz Höyük should be considered as from a preparatory period for the constitution of a scripture. Magi, coming from an oral tradition, might have been the most prominent obstacle to writing down scripture in early Zoroastrianism: a clerical elite of Median origin, immured in the oral tradition of their culture, they had long memorised the holy texts. The Medes, one of the oldest peoples of Iran, did not escape the notice of Herodotus. The corroboration of his writing on Median kings in Assyrian sources5 proves the reliability of the information he gives on Anatolia and its immediate vicinity. Contrary to the military, political and religious weight of the Medes in their homeland of northwestern Iran, the lack of archaeological evidence of them there,6 i.e. of powerful Median identification in the archaeological evidence, is another explanation 5  6 

The Ateshkadah of Oluz Höyük and the early Zoroastrian sanctuary Even though there is evidence pointing towards religious rites related to fire in the Early Bronze

Scurlock 1990: 160. Muscarella 1987; Razmjou 2005.

248

Ş. Dönmez: The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük

Figure 7. Haldi temple, Ayanis.

Age,7 Hittite8 and Urartian kingdoms,9 the evidence regarding the most prominent ritual and the practice of Zoroastrianism, the Fire Cult,10 points towards Katpatuka/Cappadocia and the immediate vicinity.

8-9) built on the northern and southern façades of the temple also proves the relation between the Fire Cult and the temple, which is thought to have been built ca. 670 BC based on archaeological and philological evidence – especially the location where the lion’s head shield and inscription were found. The close proximity of Iran to Ayanis is important in order to examine it in the context of the early Zoroastrianism which would emerge in the 6th century BC in western Iran. The similarity of the plans of Zendan-i Suleiman14 in Pasargadae and Ka᾽ba-ye Zartosht15 in Naqsh-e Rostam with Urartian temples has become much more significant with the evidence gained from Ayanis.

The Haldi temple (Fig. 7) discovered in the Ayanis Fortress (Rusaḫinili Eiduru-kai) built in the reign of Rusa II of Urartu (685-645 BC) gives new information about the religious connection we can trace between Anatolia and north-western Iran on the basis of the Fire Cult. On an inscription found on a bronze shield11 with a lion’s head umbo, uncovered in the northern façade of the temple, we see expressions regarding fire that are a new development for the Urartian world:

The finds we started to uncover at Oluz Höyük in 2013 with the discovery of the sacred fire pit were reinforced by 2017 with an Ateshkadah (Figs. 4-5) and a sanctuary (Figs. 5-6). In detailed excavation work centred upon the fire pit, which was bordered by stone masonry turned red or blackened because of the exposure to fire, we found that the sanctuary consists of a cella, a masonry platform and rooms with paved floors (Fig. 6). The atashkadah consists of a sacred fire pit of 1.60 m diameter bordered with a single row of masonry and a cella paved with rough stones and masonry (Fig. 4). A stone oil lamp (Fig. 10), found in the masonry of the fire pit, proves that these artefacts, encountered in large numbers in Oluz Höyük, were an important part of the Fire Cult ritual. It is understood that even if these oil lamps, in which the fire is burnt, were destroyed they were not cast away but were used as a part of the atashkadah. The atashkadah, which was bordered with a stone masonry wall to its north and west, seems to have

To Haldi, (his) lord, Rusa, the son of Argišti made and dedicated this shield for his life; he put it in Rusahinili Eidurukai. Through the Greatness of Hali (I am) Rusa, the son of Argišti, the mighty king, the great king, the king of the lands, the king of Biainili (Urartu), the strong(?) king, the lord of the city Tušpa. Rusa says: he who takes this shield, he who throws(?) it, he who …s waters, he who …s, he who th[rows?] earth (qiura) on fires and (or: of the) earths, he who effaces my name and puts his name, may God Haldi destroy him, his seed and the seed of his seed under the sunlight.12 This inscriptions seems to give sanctity to fire in its ever-burning state. Furthermore, two hearths13 (Figs. Kiras 2017: 44-72. Taş 2011. 9  Baştürk 2009: 138-42; 2012: 310. 10  Kellens 1983; Darrow 1988. 11  Çilingiroğlu 2004, Res.7. 12  Salvini 2001: 272. 13  Çilingiroğlu 2004, Res. 7-8. 7  8 

14  15 

249

Schmidt 1953, fig. 6B. Stronach 1967, pl. XXIV.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 8. Hearth at the southern side of the Haldi temple, Ayanis (Ayanis Excavation Archive).

Figure 9. Hearth at the northern Side of the Haldi temple, Ayanis (Ayanis Excavation Archive).

been designed and built together with the sacred fire pit. There is a large room with a stone floor to the east of the atashkadah (Figs. 5-6). Here we found a large, clean cut stone measuring 0.70 x 0.20 m, placed deliberately on the floor facing north-south (Figs. 4-5). This stone is most probably the platform on which a cleric, a magus, stood while reciting prayers and conducting rituals in the sacred fire pit.

(atashkadahs) in Cappadocia as places bordered with walls with an open cella where the eternal fire burned: In Cappadocia (for there the sect of the Magi, who are also called Pyraethi [fire-kindlers], is large, and in that country are also many temples of the Persian gods), the people do not sacrifice victims with a sword either, but with a kind of tree-trunk, beating them to death as with a cudgel. They also have Pyraetheia, noteworthy enclosures; and in the midst of these there is an altar, on which there is a large quantity of ashes and where the Magi keep

When the diameter of the fire pit of 1.60 m is considered, we can assume that the atashkadah was not an enclosed space and had no roof. Strabo mentions Pyraetheia 250

Ş. Dönmez: The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük

Figure 10 a-b. Stone base of oil lamp, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

the fire ever burning. And there, entering daily, they make incantations for about an hour, holding before the fire their bundles of rods and wearing round their heads high turbans of felt, which reach down over their cheeks far enough to cover their lips. The same customs are observed in the temples of Anaïtis and Omanus; and these temples also have sacred enclosures; and the people carry in procession a wooden statue of Omanus. Now I have seen this myself; but those other things, as also what follows, are recorded in the histories (15. 3. 15).

atashkadahs, other than in the writings of Strabo, is also supported by the need for the flames of the eternal fire to be built in the open air. In other words, fire-related rituals had to be conducted in open-air locations because of the requirement that the fire should be built outside. When we consider how rare fire-related religious rituals are in the Near East, the importance of the atashkadah and sanctuary of Oluz Höyük is once again asserted, which is a unique evidence related to the Fire Cult. Additionally, the atashkadah, dated to the 5th century BC, is important as a testimony to the rituals of the Fire Cult and of early Zoroastrianism conducted by the Late Iron Age people of North-Central Anatolia and Halys Basin (Cappadocia) with their prominent fire-worshipping identity. The fire rituals conducted by the magi would have moved to the altars in atashkadahs with the passage of time. We can assume that the Fire Cult, once the preserve of a limited elite, had found a large field of expansion with the rituals and worship becoming public spectacles.

This important information proves not only the presence of the atashkadahs in the Roman period but also shows that they were prominent before the Romans. The atashkadah in Oluz Höyük is the first archaeological confirmation of the presence of temples where the eternal fires burned in Cappadocia before the time of Strabo – under Achaemenid sovereignty in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. Strabo is the witness for this tradition surviving into the Roman period even though there were changes in its nature.

In the excavations of the atashkadah and sanctuary of Oluz Höyük from 2013 it was observed that these buildings were covered with stones and earth. This shows that their architectural elements were purposefully destroyed, laid down and buried under stones and earth in order to prevent their further use. The situation with the sacred fire pit was similar: on the ashes in the pit, mud-brick blocks (Fig. 11), potsherds, a bronze plate (Fig. 12) and two clay plates (Figs. 1314) were uncovered. These show that the pit was

The location of the atashkadah and sanctuary on the south and south-east of the Persian Road (Fig. 15) is worthy of attention. The close proximity of the atashkadah to the road, other than the practical purpose of the road as a means of travel into the settlement, has the more sacred meaning and purpose of enabling travel to the sanctuary. The concept of open-topped 251

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 11. Excavation work on the sacred fire pit, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Figure 12. Bronze plate found during excavation of the sacred fire pit, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Figure 13 a-b. Clay plate, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.

252

repurposed as a bothros and covered. It is understood that the atashkadah and sanctuary were destroyed by the residents of layer 2A by the end of the 3rd century BC. The most important evidence for this dating is the plates uncovered at the highest part of the sacred fire pit (Figs. 13-14). It is obvious that the Persian Road shared the fate of the atashkadah and sanctuary. The stones from the eastern spur of the southern part of the road were removed and an angular structure was built with them by the western spur of the road, thus ending its purpose (Fig. 15). It seems that this change was embraced by the residents of layer 2A in parallel with the political developments of the period. The most important result of Alexander the Great’s Eastern Campaign, which started in 334 BC, was the end of Achaemenid dominion over Anatolia which had lasted for almost 220 years. With the death of Darius III in 330 BC the political climate in Anatolia and beyond started to change. In parallel, religious transformation became the norm in the conquered lands. We can assume that the cultural and religious values of the Persians in Oluz Höyük, who lived there for 250 years, were also forced to change. The severity of this change, which aimed not only to abandon or deny some values but rather totally and irrecoverably destroy them, can be

Ş. Dönmez: The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük

Figure 14 a-b. Clay plate, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Figure 15. Excavation work on the Persian road, layer 2B (425-300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

253

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity seen in the Persian Road (Fig. 15), atashkadah (Figs. 4-5) and sanctuary (Figs. 5-6). It is great luck that the Oluz Höyük religious structures reached our day despite the destruction directed at them in the late 3rd century BC. That no large, monumental structures were built on the covered area of the atashkadah afforded that area and the sacred structures beneath it some degree of protection. Actually, it is an archaeological irony that similar change and destruction were instigated by the residents of layer 2B. The Persian upper class that arrived Oluz Höyük by 450 BC, in their attempt to materialise their settlement designs and their religious structure, had destroyed some of the buildings of layer 3: the temple of Kubaba was partially destroyed, its high walls were levelled, and their stone blocks were piled up into its cella. The stone Kubaba statuette with its missing upper body is evidence that everything belonging to her cult was destroyed.

The ateshkadah and sanctuary of Oluz Höyük have not yet been fully excavated. We plan to broaden the excavation by work especially at the southern part of trench A, aiming to reach the further units of the sanctuary. Even though the atashkadah and sanctuary stood for a period of 250 years, in the period of layers 2B and 2A they were also damaged by fires and earthquakes. Seven destroyed stroteres (roof tiles) (Figs. 16-20) uncovered in a bothros (b.3030) inside the sanctuary in 2015 are evidence of this, and also evidence that the rooms or entrances most probably were supported by wooden beams in the yet to be excavated parts of the sanctuary. Tiles with 4thcentury BC characteristics and reaching a length of 50 cm hint at buildings with strong roof structures in Oluz Höyük. In addition, many iron chains, rings and parts thought to belong to the doors of the atashkadah and

Figure 16 a-b. Roof tile, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Figure 17 a-b. Roof tile, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.

254

Ş. Dönmez: The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük

Figure 18 a-b. Roof tile, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Figure 19 a-b. Roof tile, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.

or revered fire, valued a belief in unity and who cared nothing for, or openly spurned, religious figures of deities. It is understood that these people, who materialised their beliefs by building an atashkadah, sanctuary and road between 425 and 200 BC, were Persian in origin and one of the first societies of the early Zoroastrian religion. When we examine the historical process of Zoroastrianism, we observe that fire-burning and being protected in the outdoors in the earlier period (5th century BC) became the central practice of a new religion which started to form and institutionalise in Oluz Höyük. The discovery in Oluz Höyük of evidence of the rituals and practices of early Zoroastrianism, which experienced its formative years in the Early and Middle Achaemenid periods, shows that North-Central Anatolia and Cappadocia should be considered to fall within the sacred geography of the Avesta.

sanctuary, and two long, thin bronze tools (Figs. 21-22) were uncovered in the bothros. The bronze tools, 30 cm in length, one of them damaged, can be considered as tools used by the magi in their rituals to manipulate the sacred fire while praying. They would have been too hot to handle if used in the fire, so we can assume that they had some form of wooden handles. When considered together with the special stone on which the magus leading the sacred fire ritual stood, these bronze tools would have been constant parts of early Zoroastrian fire rituals. Conclusion Archaeological research that started with the discovery of the Persian Road in 2009 and culminated in discovery of the sacred fire pit in 2013 proves the existence of a people in Oluz Höyük who worshipped 255

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 20 a-b. Roof tile, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Figure 21 a-b. Bronze tool, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Figure 22 a-b. Bronze tool, layer 2A (300-200 BC), Oluz Höyük.

256

Ş. Dönmez: The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük Bibliography

Amasya-Oluz Höyük. Kašku Ülkesi’nin Önemli Kenti. 2007 ve 2008 Dönemi Çalışmaları Genel Değerlendirmeler ve Ön Sonuçlar/The Principal Site of Kašku Land. The Preliminary Reports of 2007 and 2008 Seasons General Evaluations and Results (Ankara): 21-31. Dönmez, Ş. and Naza-Dönmez, E.E. 2010b. ‘Oluz Höyük 2008 Dönemi Çalışmaları’. In Dönmez, Ş. (ed.) Amasya-Oluz Höyük. Kašku Ülkesi’nin Önemli Kenti. 2007 ve 2008 Dönemi Çalışmaları Genel Değerlendirmeler ve Ön Sonuçlar/The Principal Site of Kašku Land. The Preliminary Reports of 2007 and 2008 Seasons General Evaluations and Results (Ankara): 33-57. Dönmez, Ş. and Yurtsever-Beyazıt, A. 2013. ‘Oluz Höyük Kazısı Altıncı Dönem (2012) Çalışmaları: Değerlendirmeler ve Sonuçlar’. Colloquium Anatolicum 12: 165-92. Dönmez, Ş. and Yurtsever-Beyazıt, A. 2014. ‘Oluz Höyük Kazısı Yedinci Dönem (2013) Çalışmaları: Değerlendirmeler ve Sonuçlar’. Colloquium Anatolicum 13: 103-30. Kellens, J. 1983. ‘Der Religion der Achameniden’. Altorientalische Forschung 10: 107-23. Kiras, E. 2017. Demir Çağ Anadolusu’nda Ateş Kültü: Antik kaynaklar ve Arkeolojik Bulgular (Dissertation, İstanbul University). Muscarella, O.W. 1987. ‘Median Art and Medizing Scholarship’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46.2: 10927. Razmjou, S. 2005. ‘Religion and Burial Customs’. In Curtis, J. and Tallis, N. (eds) Forgotten Empire. The World of Ancient Persia (London): 150-80. Salvini, M. 2001. ‘Royal Inscritions on Bronze Artifacts’. In Çilingiroğlu, A. and Salvini, M. (eds) Ayanis I: Ten Years’ Excavations at Rusaḫinili Eiduru-kai, 1989-1998 (Rome): 271-78. Sarianidi, V.I. 2010. Zadalgo do Zaratushtry. Arkheologicheskie dokazatel’stva protozoroastrizma v Baktrii i Margiane (Moscow). Schmidt, E.F. 1953. Persepolis 1: Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions (Chicago). Scurlock, J.A. 1990. ‘“Herodotos” Median Chronology Again’. Iranica Antiqua 25: 149-63. Solmaz, Y.S. 2004. Ateşe Tapmayanlar. ‘Zerdüştiler’ (Istanbul). Stronach, D. 1967. ‘Urartian and Achaemenian Tower Temples’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26: 278-88. Taş, İ. 2011. ‘Hititçe Çivi Yazılı Belgelere Göre Ocak Kültü ve Ocağın Kutsallığı Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler’. Kubaba 18: 7-18.

Baştürk, M.B. 2009. ‘Ayanis Tapınağı’ndaki Simgeler Işığında Urartu Kült Uygulamaları Üzerine’. In Sağlamtimur, H., Abay, E., Derin, Z., Erdem, A.Ü., Batmaz, A., Dedeoğlu, F., Erdalkıran, M., Baştürk, M.B. and Konakçı, E. (eds) Altan Çilingiroğlu’na Armağan. Yukarı Denizin Kıyısında Urartu Krallığı’na Adanmış Bir Hayat/ Studies in Honour of Altan Çilingiroğlu. A Life Dedicated to Urartu on the Shores of the Upper Sea (Istanbul): 133-49. Baştürk, M.B. 2012. Doğu Anadolu’da Demir Çağlar İnanç Sistemlerinin Arkeolojik ve Filolojik Veriler Işığında İncelenmesi (Dissertation, Ege University, Izmir). Çilingiroğlu, A. 2004. ‘Silah, Tohum ve Ateş’. In İşkan, H. and Işın, G. (eds) 60. Yaşında Fahri Işık’a Armağan. Anadolu’da Doğdu/Festschrift für Fahri Işık zum 60. Geburtstag (Istanbul): 257-67. Darrow, W.R. 1988. ‘Keeping the Waters Dry: The Semiotics of Fire and Water in the Zoroastrian “Yasna”’. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 56.3: 417-42. De Jong, A. 2010. ‘The Contribution of the Magi’. In Curtis, V.S. and Stewart, S. (eds) Birth of the Persian Empire (London): 85-99. Dönmez, Ş. 2010. ‘Oluz Höyük 2007 ve 2008 Dönemi Çalışmaları. Değerlendirmeler ve Sonuçlar’. In Dönmez, Ş. (ed.) Amasya-Oluz Höyük. Kašku Ülkesi’nin Önemli Kenti. 2007 ve 2008 Dönemi Çalışmaları Genel Değerlendirmeler ve Ön Sonuçlar/The Principal Site of Kašku Land. The Preliminary Reports of 2007 and 2008 Seasons General Evaluations and Results (Ankara): 59-69. Dönmez, Ş. 2011. ‘Oluz Höyük Kazısı Dördüncü Dönem (2010) Çalışmaları: Değerlendirmeler ve Sonuçlar’. Colloquium Anatolicum 10: 103-28. Dönmez, Ş. 2012. ‘Oluz Höyük Kazısı Beşinci Dönem (2011) Çalışmaları: Değerlendirmeler ve Sonuçlar’. Colloquium Anatolicum 11: 151-78. Dönmez, Ş. 2013. ‘Oluz Höyük: Kuzey-Orta Anadolu’nun Kralî Pers Merkezi’. In Dönmez, Ş. (ed.) Güneş Karadeniz’den Doğar. Sümer Atasoy Armağanı/Lux ex Ponto Euxino. Studies Presented in Honour of Sumer Atasoy (Ankara): 103-40. Dönmez, Ş. 2017. Amasya-Oluz Höyük. Kuzey-Orta Anadolu’da Bir Akhaimenid (Pers) Yerleşmesi. 20092013 Çalışmaları Genel Değerlendirmeler ve Önsonuçlar (Amasya). Dönmez, Ş. and Naza-Dönmez, E.E. 2010a. ‘Oluz Höyük 2007 Dönemi Çalışmaları’. In Dönmez, Ş. (ed.)

257

An Overview of Iron Age Sites of Zile District Mehmet Özsait and Nesrin Özsait Abstract This paper presents an overview of the results of surveys conducted between 1986 and 2009 in the Zile district of Tokat province.

Settling in Western and Central Anatolia, the Thracian peoples known as Phrygians were influenced by the local cultures of those areas for almost four centuries. They established a mighty state in the 8th century BC and showed great development in a very short period of time.

On behalf of Istanbul University Faculty of Letters, we conducted archaeological surveys in the Central Black Sea Region provinces of Amasya, Samsun, Tokat and Ordu between 1986 and 2009. Within this period, we investigated a significant part of Zile, an adorable district of Tokat province, including its mountains, lowlands and highlands. We have identified 93 sites as a result of our investigations, in which we systematically surveyed four small towns and 105 villages, and have discovered 112 settlements ranging from the Late Chalcolithic (4000-3300 BC) to the end of late antiquity.

Excavations and surveys conducted show that Anatolia started to become a bustling place at the beginning of the 8th century BC, i.e. Middle Iron Age. Having made a great advances westwards under their king, Midas, at the end of the 8th century BC, the Phrygian state was invaded by the Cimmerians. King Midas committed suicide and the Phrygian capital, Gordion, was utterly destroyed. Hence, the Phrygians lost their political independence. Phrygian cultural elements, on the other hand, continued to exist, though weakened, until the end of the Late Classical period.4

In 34 out of the 93 identified sites (together with other cultural data) we found ceramics belonging to the Iron Age, which is dated to 1190-330 BC and studied in three phases according to their cultural features: Early Iron Age 1190-850 BC; Middle Iron Age 850-650 BC; Late Iron Age 650-330 BC.1 After giving some basic information about the district of Zile, we will introduce the Iron Age sites with their main features, which make up a considerable portion of the material cultural data.

Investigations in Zile district Different aspects of Zile district had been investigated by 19th century traveller-scholars such as C. Texier, W.J. Hamilton, A.D. Mortdmann and, from the beginning of the 20th century, such as J.L. Myres, F. and E. Cumont, K. Bittel, H. Frankfort, H.G. Güterbock, E. Akurgal, T. and N. Özgüç, H.H. von der Osten, M. Şenyürek, İ.K. Kökten, C.A. Burney, G.E.S. Durbin, J. Garstang, O.R. Gurney, W. Orthmann, K. Emre and A. Özçağlar.

At the beginning of the 12th century BC, following the Aegean migrations and conflicts between Illyrian and Thracian peoples in the Balkan Peninsula, various Thraco-Phrygian peoples started penetrating into Anatolia after the fall of Troy.2 As a result of these invasions, the Hittites, already weakened by internal conflicts, were destroyed (1190 BC); their capital Hattusa (Boğazköy) was captured and sacked.3 Thick layers of fire unearthed during excavations in other important Hittite centres such as Alaca Höyük, Alişar and Maşat Höyük reveal the severity of this invasion. In the aftermath of this catastrophe, it has been thought that great parts of Anatolia entered a Dark Age which lasted until the early 8th century BC.

Zile is an important district of Tokat province, located in the southern part of the Central Black Sea Region. The district is surrounded to the west and north by the Buzluk Mountains (İşişpinuua?), one of the southern extensions of North Anatolian Mountains, and on the south and south-east by the Deveci Mountains. Geographically it is gifted with the fertile Zile Plain as well as the Çekerek (named Zulia-Zuliaş in Hittite period, Scylax in Classical Age) and Zile small rivers, which carry the waters of this basin to the Yeşilırmak (İris).

Özsait 2000; 2007; Özsait and Özsait 2009; 2010; 2013; Dönmez 2009: 1301-02. 2  Barnett 1975; Özkaya 1995: 2. 3  Breasted 1906: 64; Götze 1975: 266-70. 1 

4 

258

Özkaya 1995: 13.

M. Özsait and N. Özsait: An Overview of Iron Age Sites of Zile District Fourteen of the Iron Age sites identified in Zile will be presented here with their main characteristics. Maşat Höyük (Tapigga), excavated thoroughly by Tahsin Özgüç in 1973-1980, has made great contributions to the Zile area and Anatolian cultural history. It will not be included in this study.

have been found during the Maşat Höyük (Tapigga) excavations. There are no differences in the techniques used on monochrome and decorated pottery. All of their clay includes fine sand, while in a few instances there are lime additives. Almost all pottery is wheel-made, lined and burnished. Decorated pottery has colours ranging from black, white, cream, fallow to red, as well as all the shades of brown, dun and light dun.

Main characteristics of Iron Age finds from Zile The fragments of pitchers, stoups, kraters, bowls, pots and cups unearthed in our surveys belong to wares of daily use. Ornaments on these wares share the common pottery characteristics found in all other sites of the Kızılırmak/Halys Basin. The most beautiful examples of this ware, also known as Eastern Phrygian pottery,

Geometric patterns, such as rows of lozenges, triangles and concentric circles, were used on decorated pottery along with ornaments such as wavy lines, multiline zigzags, parallel bold bands, grid hatchings and broad-

Table 1. Iron Age sites in Zile.

259

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 1. Map of Iron Age sites.

Figure 2. Zile Kaletepe.

Zile fortress (Fig. 1, no. 190)

indexed beams, while beam arrays were used on metopes.

Zile district was known as Anziliya in Hittite period, according to the Maşat Höyük (Tapigga) tablets; and Zela in the Roman period (Fig. 2). The unearthed ceramics from Zile Fortress mound indicate that this place has been a site of continuous settlement until the present, from the Late Chalcolithic.

We have not come across any Early Iron Age finds on the sites we discovered in Zile. Our finds come from the Middle and mostly the Late Iron Age. As shown in Table 1, in the light of discovered find, seven of the Iron Age sites were newly settled locations, while ten were founded on Early Bronze Age site, and 17 were re-established on 2nd-millennium BC sites (Fig. 1; Table 1).

Zile Fortress Iron Age finds (Fig. 3): krater piece, with beam array on metope, with black over reddish-brown lining, in the centre, bold parallel bands and wavy line 260

M. Özsait and N. Özsait: An Overview of Iron Age Sites of Zile District

Figure 3. Zile Kalesi finds.

Figure 4. Akdoğan Höyük.

ornament, and on top series of rhombus shapes; krater piece(?), with wavy line ornament; krater opening piece, with bold lines with black colour over light brown lining, and grid hatching.

Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age are found intensely on the mound surface.5 Akdoğan Kale Tepe Iron Age pottery was found in very small pieces. Generally, our finds are with cream or brown linings, and they have black and red line ornaments. In Fig. 5c, black lines over white lining and a point ornament in a triangle and in Fig. 5d, black wavy line ornament over brown lining are shown.

Akdoğan Kale Tepe (Fig. 1, no. 214) We have identified a mound in an area known as Castle Hill, located on ridges 1.5 km south-east of Akdoğan village, 8 km west of Zile. It is surrounded by Zuvallık to the north, Dayıoğlunun Eşme to the east and the Kayalı stream, which flows within a deep bed, to the west. The mound is 100 m in diameter, and its height is 40 m from the Kayalı stream and 35 m from the plain (Fig. 4). Strategically significant in every aspect, the site was destroyed by treasure hunters to a great extent. Ceramics dating to the Late Chalcolithic Age, Early

Alkaya (Ağılkaya) Höyük (Fig. 1, no. 221) Alkaya is located on a rocky hill to the north of the ZileTurhal highway and railway, 5 km south-east of Ede village and 12 km east of Zile (Fig. 6). Height from the 5 

261

Özsait 2000: 78.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 5. Akdoğan Höyük finds.

Figure 6. Alkaya Höyük.

highway is 8 m and the dimensions are about 50 x 60 m. Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age ceramics were found on the surface.6

found on the surface of. These ceramics are with wavy line ornaments and bold bands coloured in black, with light brown lining.

Alkaya Iron Age pottery was found in very small pieces. Generally, our finds are with cream or brown linings. Ornaments are grid hatching between parallel bold bands (Fig. 7 a-c); beam array (Fig. 7d, f); wavy line (Fig. 7g); nested trio concentric circles (Fig. 7h, ı, i).

Çakırpeteği Höyük (Fig. 1, no. 426) Çakırpeteği Höyük is located on top of a hill in the middle of a wide, fertile plain 2.5 km east of Uzunköy. Pottery found on the surface dates to the Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age. The site is used for agriculture, with the dimensions of 125 x 175 m including the slopes, and the height from the plain is 12 m (Fig. 9).

Asar Pınar Höyük (Fig. 1, no. 443) Asar Pınar Höyük is located 2 km north-east of Çeltek village, 100 m west of Yayla Hill (Fig. 8). Pottery found on the fields dates to the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman period. Scarce amount of Iron Age ceramics was 6 

We found a few pieces of monochrome and decorated Iron Age pottery along with 2nd millennium BC ceramics. A black line ornament on the rim of a light

Özsait 2000: 79.

262

M. Özsait and N. Özsait: An Overview of Iron Age Sites of Zile District

Figure 7. Alkaya Höyük finds.

Figure 8. Asar Pınar Höyük.

Figure 9. Çakırpeteği.

263

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 10. Çakırpeteği finds.

Figure 11. Dikmen Tepe.

Höblek (Fig. 1, no. 451)

brown lined basin is present (Fig. 10a) while another piece has parallel line ornament coloured in black.

Höblek is a wide and flat hill 1502 m high, 9 km south of Zile-Yıldıztepe town in the Samanlı highlands, 2 km north-east of Evren village (Fig. 13). Numerous illegal diggings can be traced on the surface, as well as pottery indicating dense Iron Age settlement.

Dikmen Tepe Höyük (Fig. 1, no. 425) Dikmen Tepe Höyük is located on a hill (1368 m) rising 700 m east of Büyükkozluca village road and situated 1 km west of Yalnızköy, which is 13 km north-west of Zile (Fig. 11). Its diameter reaches 175 m (including the slope). On the surface, ceramics from Early, Middle and Late Bronze and Iron Age sites were found to a high degree. The tomb of Dikmen Dede is located on top of the hill.

Beam array ornaments in black over light brown lining (Fig. 14a), and equilateral triangles in black (Fig. 14c) are identified on the ceramics we found on the surface, which came from the end of the Iron Age. Kale Boynu (Fig. 1, no. 201)

We found a few of monochrome and coloured Iron Age ceramics on the surface of the hill. Of these, one has a series of equilateral triangles on the surface of a fallow lined basin (Fig. 12a); another has black wavy line ornament on the spine, rim and the upper half, starting from its spine (Fig. 12d).

Kale Boynu is located 3 km east of Kozdere village, which is 10 km south-west of Maşat Höyük. Found on a high steep ridge of 350 m above the plain surface, 1.5 km south of Göyneksiz Dede Türbesi (shrine), Kale Boynu housed only Iron Age sites. Coloured and 264

M. Özsait and N. Özsait: An Overview of Iron Age Sites of Zile District

Figure 12. Dikmen Tepe finds.

Figure 13. Höblek.

monochrome Iron Age ceramics were discovered on the surface.

Maşat Höyük excavations (750-650/600 BC)7 in terms of production and technique.8

The Kale Boynu site is outstanding for one of its Iron Age ceramics: a piece of the edge of a krater, in terms of its lining and colouring technique. The dun or light brown lined piece has a black beam array over a black coloured line, and above that a parallel band with a pinstriped scanning contoured by a black line (Fig. 15a). Similarities with kraters belonging to layer III of the

Other pieces discovered at Kale Boynu are thought to belong to the Late Iron Age. One of them (Fig. 15b) is the rim of a krater, ornamented with a bold, black band. 7  8 

265

Özgüç 1982: 21- III. Frig Katı. Özgüç 1982: 54, lev. 71.2, 5, 6.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 14. Höblek finds.

Kalenin Dibi (Fig. 1, no. 424) This is located at 4 km north-west of Kervansaray village and 2 km south of Akyazı village, Amasya province. The mound is located on top of a hill (1023 m) that overlooks and controls the shortest route between Zile and Amasya (Fig. 16). Dimensions of Kalenin Dibi are 100 x 150 m (for hill and slope). Ceramics dating to the Late Chalcolithic, Early Bronze, Iron Age and Roman period were found in the area. On the mound surface ceramics ornamented with black and red triangles over fallow and reddishbrown lining (Fig. 17a), on the handle (Fig. 17c), bold parallel lines (Fig. 17e) and wavy lines (Fig. 17b-d) were found.

Figure 15. Kale Boynu find.

Figure 16. Kalenin Dibi.

266

M. Özsait and N. Özsait: An Overview of Iron Age Sites of Zile District

Figure 17. Kalenin Dibi finds.

Figure 18. Kalenin Tepe.

Kalenin Tepe Höyük (Fig. 1, no. 421)

Karayün Höyük (Fig. 1, no. 211)

Kalenin Tepe Höyük is located 400 m west of Çayır village, which lies 13 km north-west of Zile (Fig. 18), on the southern ridge of a hill (1317 m) surrounded by streams from all sides (such as Bakla Lake stream and Hamam stream); dimensions of 150 x 200 m. Ceramics were found on the surface from Late Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age sites.

Karayün mound is located 1.5 km south-west of Karayün village, which is located 17 km. south-west of Zile, 350 m south of Karayün Kelle (Karayün Beli) and 200 m south of the Zile-Alaca-Ankara road. In the middle of fertile lowland and in the vicinity of Yazı, Karayün Höyük, also known as Eski Köy Yeri and Höyük Tepesi, measures 90 x 125 m and rises 12 m above the lowland surface (Fig. 20). Being under constant threat of destruction, the mound holds pottery from the Late Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Iron Age and the Roman period.9

Ceramics found on the surface of Kalenin Tepe are monochrome and decorated (Fig. 19b, c) with fallow and reddish-brown lining and date to the Iron Age. They have ornaments such as black lines (Fig. 19a, d, g), equilateral triangle (Fig. 19f) and wavy lines (Fig. 19e).

9 

267

Özsait 2000: 77.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 19. Kalenin Tepe finds.

Figure 20. Karayün Höyük.

Figure 21. Karayün Höyük finds.

268

M. Özsait and N. Özsait: An Overview of Iron Age Sites of Zile District Iron Age pottery on the surface of Karayün Höyük is fallow and light brown lined. The pieces obtained are very small. They are screened with black (Fig. 21a) and with black lines (Fig. 21b, c). If their colour were not changed due to fire, dark black wavy line ornament is present on a body piece of a grey lined basin (Fig. 21d).

Iron Age ceramics found in very small pieces on the surface of Kırlar-Yüzellik Tepe are ornamented in black lines, wavy lines and triangle shapes (Fig. 22a-i). Grid hatchings were found on the upper part of a fallow lined body, separated by a bold line (Fig. 22ı). Küçük Bultunun Çal (Fig. 1, no. 438)

Kırlar-Yüzellik Tepe (Fig. 1, no. 387)

We named this mound, located 3 km north-east from Koçaş village, 2 km south of Uzunköy (Büyük Bultu) and 2 km south of Uğurluören village (Uğurluören Çamlığı) by its local name, Küçük Bultunun Çal. Located on a peak in the Buzluk Mountains, the mound rises to 1700

It is located 10 km east of Zile, on elevated ground 1.5 km south-west of Kırlar village. Early Bronze and Iron Age ceramics on the surface of this site were identified, which extends to an area 250 m in diameter.

Figure 22. Kırlar Yüzellik Tepe finds.

Figure 23. Küçük Bultunun Çal.

269

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity m above sea level and 250 m from the surface of the plain (Fig. 23).

of the Zile-Tokat highway. Situated in the middle of a fertile plain, the dimensions of the mound are 120 x 175 m (Fig. 25). The surface held ceramics dating to the Early Bronze Age and (mostly) Iron Age.

The surface of Küçük Bultunun Çal (dimensions of 150 x 300 m) yielded ceramics dating to the Early Bronze and Iron Age and Roman periods. Here, the monochrome and coloured Iron Age ceramics are fallow and brown lined. Black and a few red lines and wavy lines decorate the surfaces of coloured ceramics (Fig. 24a-c).

We identified monochrome and decorated Iron Age ceramics at Ütük Höyük, with red and black ornaments over reddish-brown and cream lining (Fig. 26a-d, f, h). Since the pieces are very small, it is difficult to determine shapes. Among them are examples decorated with black lines, wavy lines (Fig. 26ı), equilateral triangle (Fig. 26e, i) ornaments over brown lining. White dye is seen on a piece from a reddishbrown lined basin (Fig. 26g).

Ütük Höyük (Fig. 1, no. 222) Ütük Höyük lies 1 km north-west of Ütük village, which is located 10 km south-east of Zile, and 400 m south

Figure 24. Küçük Bultunun Çal finds.

Figure 25. Ütük Höyük.

270

M. Özsait and N. Özsait: An Overview of Iron Age Sites of Zile District

Figure 26. Ütük Höyük finds.

To conclude, close equivalents of Zile Iron Age ceramics are found at sites spread over a wide area ranging from the Black Sea to the north, the eastern Taurus Mountains to the south, and Sivas and Malatya provinces to the east. In general terms, this land is named the Kızılırmak (Maraşantiya–Halys) Basin. It is home to sites (such as Alişar and Alacahöyük) with significant cultural characteristics dating to the Median and then Achaemenid empires. In that respect, as Özgüç stated, every Iron Age piece obtained maintains the technique and style of Central Anatolia.10

Breasted, J.H. 1906. Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, vol. 1 (Chicago). Donmez, Ş. 2009. ‘Protohistorik Çağ’da Amasya’. In I.Amasya Araştırmaları Sempozyumu Bildirileri, Amasya, 13-15 Haziran 2007: 2 vols. (Amasya): 1295-1310. Götze, A. 1975. ‘The Hittites and Syria’ In Edwards, I.E.S. et al. (eds) The Cambridge Ancient History 2.2: History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region, c. 1380-1000: 3rd ed. (Cambridge): 252-73. Özgüç, T. 1982. Maşat Höyük II: Boğazköyʼün kuzeydoğusunda bir Hitit merkezi/A Hittite Center Northeast of Boğazköy (Ankara). Özkaya, V. 1995. İ.Ö. Erken Birinci Binde Frig Boyalı Seramiği (Erzurum). Özsait, M. 2000. ‘1997 ve 1998 Yılı Tokat-Zile ve Çevresi Yüzey Araştırmaları’. In 17. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara): 73-88. Özsait, M. 2007. ‘2005 Yılı Tokat İli, Zile ve Turhal İlçeleri Yüzey Araştırması’. In 24. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara): 451-62. Özsait, M. and Özsait, N. 2009. ‘Arkeolojik Verilerin Işığı Altında Zile’. In Tarihi ve Kültürü ile Zile Sempozyumu, Zile, 9–12 Ekim 2008 (Samsun): 228-36. Özsait, M. and Özsait, N. 2010. ‘2008 Yılı Tokat ve Amasya İlleri Yüzey Araştırmaları’. In 27. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara): 195-222. Özsait, M. and Özsait, N. 2013. ‘Prospections en Cappadoce pontique’. In Bru, H. and Labarre, G. (eds) L’Anatolie des peuples, des cités et des cultures (IIe  millénaire av. J.-C.-Ve siècle ap. J.-C.), Colloque international de Besançon – 26-27 novembre 2010, vol. 2 (Besançon): 171-88.

Similarly, it can be said that Zile Iron Age finds display close similarities with the pottery we recovered in our surveys in Amasya, Samsun and Ordu provinces. Mounds we identified during our surveys in Zile, such as Akdoğan Kale Höyük, Alkaya Höyük and Ütük Höyük, hold very intense Iron Age surface finds. It is our opinion that if, in particular, Akdoğan-Kale Höyük could have been systematically excavated, it would have contributed greatly to the chronology of the Turkish Black Sea region, just as Beycesultan did. Bibliography Barnett, R.D. 1975. ‘Phrygia and the Peoples of Anatolia in the Iron Age’. In Edwards, I.E.S. et al. (eds) The Cambridge Ancient History 2.2: History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region, c. 1380-1000: 3rd ed. (Cambridge): 417-42. 10 

Özgüç 1982, XXII, 121.

271

Evaluation of the Recent Finds at Komana from the Early and Middle Byzantine Period *

Mustafa N. Tatbul and D. Burcu Erciyas Abstract New evidence on the settlement history of Komana has become available as a result of the excavations conducted at Hamamtepe since 2009. In 2015 preliminary results, including information on the 17th-18th-century Ottoman village, 12th-early 14th-century Danishmend/Seljuk fortified settlement and 11th-12th-century Middle Byzantine churches with an associated graveyard, were published as an interdisciplinary monograph. Since then, the excavations have revealed evidence regarding earlier periods at the site. In this paper, this earlier evidence is presented with the hopes of a better understanding of Komana during the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods.

Introduction

the most characteristic finds were terracotta tobacco pipes together with limited numbers of pottery. The settlement must have been a small village in Ottoman times.

Komana is located 10 km north-east of Tokat, in the modern day village of Gümenek. During extensive archaeological surveys conducted within the territory of Komana between 2004 and 2008, various archaeological sites dating from the Early Bronze Age to the Ottoman periods were identified in the vicinity of the site.1 Hamamtepe mound, with its elevated position and its strategic location on the bank of Yeşilırmak (Iris), in the middle of a fertile valley and on the road network connecting the Black Sea hinterland with the coast, promised from the early days of the explorations to provide valuable data regarding the site. There were ruins partly visible on the surface, which is rare for the site in general, and the location had already been identified by various travellers of the 19th and 20th centuries.2 During excavations conducted at Komana (Hamamtepe) since 2009 (Fig. 1), it was understood that both the hill itself and the flat land around it, where Gümenek is settled today, were continuously occupied from the Hellenistic to the Ottoman periods.3

During the Danishmend/Seljuk period, the site had a greater significance. A fortification wall, from an earlier use, surrounded buildings that enclosed many utility features such as ovens, storage and garbage pits. Glazed ceramics, metals, glass, animal bones and plant remains were found in abundance in layers that could be dated to this period. Industrial production in this phase was apparent from frequent finds including ceramic tripods as kiln furniture, and ceramic, metal and glass slag as production refuse. Unlike the Ottoman period, the Danishmend/Seljuk was a period of intense production and consumption, and discard as a result, which indicated a very dynamic time for the site. The impact of the Turkish presence can be observed at Hamamtepe from the second half of the 12th century AD onward. In this period, the fortified settlement at Komana was used as a graveyard. There were two adjacent Middle Byzantine churches surrounded with graves. After the Turks settled in the region, the graveyard and churches would have lost their function and were abandoned. After a short period of time, the churches were dismantled, modified and reused as part of the building complex described above. The orientation of the buildings on Hamamtepe is the same through the centuries, aligned from north-west to south-east. This had begun already in the Early Byzantine period. The constant reuse of the walls, both those from the Early Byzantine period and from the churches, had a determinant role in the orientation of the buildings that proceeded. This also clearly indicates that the walls and foundations were visible to a certain degree during the transitional periods and had an impact on the multi-layered plan.

The site stratigraphy The Ottoman phase at Hamamtepe is represented by large rooms constructed with dry wall foundations and compact soil floors. In all the rooms, at the corners and sometimes at the centre, reused blocks were used as bases for wooden pillars possibly carrying the roof. There were very few in situ features within the rooms. A few ovens and pots were discovered, but * All images from Komana Archaeological Research Project archive unless otherwise attributed. 1  Erciyas 2006; 2007; 2008; 2012; Erciyas and Sökmen 2009; 2010a; 2010b. 2  Cramer 1832: 309; Hamilton 1842: 350; Hogarth and Munro 1893: 95; Anderson 1903: 63; Cumont and Cumont 1906; von der Osten 1929a: 35; 1929b: 132.
 3  Erciyas et al. 2011; Erciyas 2014; Erciyas and Tatbul 2015; 2016.

272

M.N. Tatbul and D.B. Erciyas: Evaluation of the Recent Finds at Komana

Figure 1. Komana excavation area (Hamamtepe mound).

In the last three years of excavations, mortared walls that are dated to the Early Byzantine period began to emerge under the foundations of the churches. Other mortared walls by the north-western fortifications (HTP02), which were revealed in the earlier years of the excavations, could also be related to the walls beneath the churches. This discovery enabled an overall understanding of these buildings as representing a widespread Early Byzantine building programme.4 Some mortared walls were also uncovered on the east slopes of Hamamtepe (HTP03). Along with these walls a large pithos and contexts with Late Roman-Middle Byzantine ceramics were recovered.5 These walls could be associated with the mortared walls on the hill, although HTP03 buildings are situated outside the fortifications.

phases shows the degree to which the structures had disintegrated and, if present, must be expected from deeper levels. Dates of the coins and ceramics range between the 2nd century BC and the 3rd century AD. These dates coincide with the architectural spolia found in the church and cemetery phase and the Danishmend/ Seljuk and Ottoman contexts. In the recent years, there has been an increase in the number of Hellenistic-period coins at Komana, which represent the second most common group after the Byzantine anonymous folles.7 A Roman silver coin dated to Hadrian’s reign was also found. A few Hellenisticperiod Megarian bowl-fragments were found in the foundations of the Early Byzantine structures in HTP01. Another example was found in a rock-cut pit towards the western fortification area. The warriors depicted on this piece suggested a 2nd-century BC date. In 2017, a fragment of a female figurine was discovered in an HTP01 context; the figurine could possibly be dated to the Hellenistic period. Hellenistic pottery fragments and Pontic sigillata dominated the same layers.

There is an apparent increase in the number of finds from the Hellenistic and Roman period, however these cannot yet be associated with in situ architecture.6 The numbers of Hellenistic- and Roman-period ceramics and coins from the foundation fills and below the floor levels of the Early Byzantine structures are considerable.

Excavations of larger areas and deeper layers changed the character of the finds from the site, broadening the chronology. The involvement of multidisciplinary specialists and the progress in their work also contributed to our understanding of the site and resulted in modification of our earlier interpretations.

Hellenistic- and Roman-period finds recovered from the Early Byzantine fill suggests that there may be Hellenistic and Roman building levels in deeper sections of the mound. However, the density of spolia in the later Erciyas et al. 2015: 33. Among the finds was a bronze oil lamp preliminarily dated to the 5th-6th century AD, which was ornamented with a cross and seashell cap (Erciyas et al. 2015: 34). 6  The preliminary observations on the Roman-period materials were published in Erciyas and Tatbul 2017. 4 

We would like to present a more up-to-date view of the Middle and Early Byzantine periods at the site,

5 

7 

273

Personal communication, D. Burcu Erciyas and Polina Ivanova.

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity following a chronological order from the latest to the earliest evidence. A new look at the burial assemblage of the middle Byzantine graveyard of the 11th-12th century Since the beginning of excavations in 2009 at Komana, ca. 140 graves have been revealed. The vast majority of are simple inhumations with schist caps. In some cases, tegulae were reused to cover the top of the burials. A few graves were carved into the bedrock.8 The majority of the graves did not include any grave-goods. A number of graves included personal belongings such as rings, earrings, bronze bracelets and crosses. An increase in grave-goods was observed in the last two years, especially with the expansion to the east of Church B. Here, mostly in children’s graves, glass and sometimes bronze bracelets were recovered on the skeleton. Some graves from the immediate vicinity of the churches (north of Church A) included glazed terracotta oil lamps and fine glass cups (Fig. 2). The distribution of bronze crosses, bracelets, earrings and rings showed a more random spatial patterning. This new pattern offers new avenues of investigation in the future.

Figure 2. Terracotta oil lamp found as burial find (HTP01).

Glass cups were found both in a simple grave at Church B and in a more elaborately built grave to the north of Church A (Fig. 3). This grave was built of tiles and mortar. The west end, where the head of the deceased was placed, was shaped into an apse (Fig. 4). This grave was probably constructed for a notable, possibly a cleric, among the community of Komana. The presence of glass cups in both less elaborate and elaborate graves may indicate that they could have been gifts of value, which could be afforded. Another grave built of tiles and mortar was found under the floor of southern nave in Church B; it had multiple burials and was possibly of important persons within the community. While there were no finds recovered, a number of iron nails discovered in the grave indicate that the deceased was buried in a coffin.

Figure 3. Glass cup found in the tile paved grave (G123).

The two best comparanda for Komana are the mediaeval settlements at Boğazköy and Çadırhöyük, both in North-Central Anatolia.9 At Boğazköy, where a Middle Byzantine village (occupied from the mid10th to early 12th century AD, ending with a rapid abandonment) was excavated, 500 graves were detected and 310 of them were excavated in the 1980s.10 Gravegoods were found in 40 of the 310 (11%), including glass and bronze bracelets, bronze finger rings, bronze earrings, pearls and bronze knives, in graves scattered

The cemetery at Hamamtepe indicates long-term use and slow development rather than a hasty establishment following a war or plague. Graves with multiple burials and bones pushed aside in order to lay out a later deceased are strong evidence for the prolonged use of the cemetery. Besides multiple use, the diversity in grave types and burial finds might also indicate change in trends through time. As new graves are excavated the data from them increase, especially data on age, sex and pathology become available. Increasing amounts of grave-goods enrich typologies. These will certainly improve our understanding of Middle Byzantine Komana.

The contemporaneity of Komana with Boğazköy is supported not only by the chapel, graveyard and burial customs, but also by the rich assemblage of metal finds, especially the abundance of reliquary crosses in similar forms (see Acara-Eser 2015 and Böhlendorf-Arslan 2012 for comparison). Also, Cassis dates the first phase of the Middle Byzantine period at Çadırhöyük to the 9th-11th centuries AD based on the metal finds including bronze pendant and processional crosses (Cassis 2017: 373). 10  Böhlendorf-Arslan 2012. 9 

Stone cists and graves carved into bedrock were also reported at Boğazköy (Böhlendorf-Arslan 2017: 367).

8 

274

M.N. Tatbul and D.B. Erciyas: Evaluation of the Recent Finds at Komana

Figure 4. Tile paved grave with an apse in the western part.

an indication of a building project on the hill during this period.

around both the graveyard chapel and the monastery complex.11 At Boğazköy, the closest secular structures to the graveyard (courtyard house no. 1 and house no. 20 assigned to metal working function) were about 5-10 m distant.12 At Komana, no contemporary secular units have yet been excavated around the churches and the graveyard. Our data until now indicate that the hill (Hamamtepe) was used exclusively for burials during the Middle Byzantine period. The churches must have been graveyard churches. This being said, future excavations may reveal different functions if public or domestic structures are discovered in other parts of the hill.

Within an alley/a long narrow room in one of the Early Byzantine buildings described above, three large pithoi were found in situ (Fig. 5). They had been covered with stone slabs; only one such cover survives. The pithos with the lid was empty while the other two were filled with soil. One of these measured 170 cm in height (Fig. 6). Another pithos was found in the eastern part of HTP01 area, enclosed in Early Byzantine mortared walls. A fifth was recovered in the terraced slopes to the east of Hamamtepe (HTP03). This pithos was also accompanied by mortared walls. Distribution of the pithoi at the site in different locations shows that the Early Byzantine settlement was expanding to a large area both within and without the fortification walls. Pithoi fragments had been found within the layer fill in previous years. Pithoi were also used in secondary contexts as ovens with missing bottoms. On some 12thearly 14th-century AD ovens they were found to have been used as supports on the exteriors.

New data for the early Byzantine period at Komana Walls, pithoi and domestic contexts Subsequent to the 12th-early 14th-century AD dry walls, and the 11th-12th-century AD churches, which were constructed with stones, spolia, tiles and mortar, an earlier period is represented with mortared walls. No tiles or spolia were used in the construction of these walls. Contexts around these walls included large amounts of roof tile fragments. Through the nine years of excavation we had come across large numbers of tiles in secondary contexts; here we can associate the tegulae and imbrices in their primary contexts, once covering the roofs of these early structures. The lack of spolia in the structures might be an indication of continuing use of earlier public structures. The stones of the walls were acquired from the same quarry and this consistency is

The ceramic typology from the layer fill has suggested that the mortared structures were used for domestic purposes and could be dated to the Early Byzantine period. However, since Early Byzantine ceramic typology is not completely established in the Black Sea region, further and detailed work on the Komana ceramics is necessary. Dating of the coarse ceramics is also problematic due to the consistency in use of certain types for long periods.13

Böhlendorf-Arslan 2017: 361, 367; 2012: 351, 353. Böhlendorf-Arslan 2017: 363 (current author’s observation on the site plan published).

Casssis claims that majority of the ceramic finds recovered in the region (especially Cide and its close vicinity) are utilitarian wares, which remained unchanged for long periods of time (Cassis 2015).

11 

13 

12 

275

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 5. A group of three in situ pithoi recovered in the Early Byzantine layers.

during the Danishmend/Seljuk period. During the Middle Byzantine, Danishmend/Seljuk and Ottoman periods, such an abundance of shell fish is also absent. Only small amounts of possibly river fish are present during the Danishmend/Seljuk period. This suggests that from the Early Byzantine to the Middle Byzantine period changes in dietary habit occurred. Fortification wall and settlement patterns in relation to major political events Figure 6. The inner structure of a pithos which was measured as 170 cm in depth.

New finds also indicated a variety in dietary habits at Komana. Large number of oysters and clams were found in Early Byzantine contexts. Their recovery indicates the presence of different proteins in the Early Byzantine diet. Among the species was also a sea snail shell in the Early Byzantine period (Fig. 7). In this period, there was an increase in domestic pig and wild boar species. There is a marked decline in pig and wild boar bones 276

The full chronology of the fortification wall has not been established, but during excavation of the north-western section of the wall, the two top subsequent phases were preliminarily understood. The excavations revealed the foundations of a large building situated right on top of the fortifications. This building, dating to the Ottoman period, overlapped the wall thus disabling it (Fig. 8). A second phase could be detected through a threshold which appeared after the removal of the Ottoman walls,

M.N. Tatbul and D.B. Erciyas: Evaluation of the Recent Finds at Komana an earlier gate may be due to the rebuilding activities which took place after the fort was taken by the Turks. A mortared wall was revealed in front of the gate, on the outside and below what could have been the foundations of a staircase (Fig. 9). At the corner of the gate building and this wall, an early 7th century gold Byzantine coin was found. This is a tremissis (1.47 grammes) dating to the reign of Phocas (AD 602-610) (Fig. 10). It was accompanied by a glass weight, the weight value of which is equivalent to a gold solidus.14 The discovery of the glass weight together with the gold coin may have some significance. Although rather isolated, they may represent involvement in large scale trade during the early 7th century AD as well as presence of a tax official.

Figure 7. Sea snail shell found in the Early Byzantine layers (HTP01).

The coin and the glass weight and the context in which they were discovered are important in terms of dating the fortification wall and for settlement history. It could be suggested that there was a structure constructed at the latest in the early 7th century AD on the external part of the fortification. The proximity

Figure 8. Ottoman domestic structure on the top of the fortification wall (HTP02). The striking of copper and gold coins continued until AD 680. After this date the purity of gold coins decreased (as a result of the Arab invasions of Anatolia (Decker 2016: 69). Niewöhner mentiones a hoard of 47 fresh gold coins of emperor Constans II (AD 641-668) at Germia, where he interpretes this find asof coins buried just before a battle against the Arabs ca. AD 668, which resulted in defeat for the Byzantine forces (Niewöhner 2017: 348).

14 

and a pedestrian gate into the fortifications could be identified as a result. There were only a few stairs visible; the rest must have been removed for reuse. Initially, it was thought that this entrance dated to the Danishmend/Seljuk use of the walls. The absence of 277

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 9. North-western part of the fortification wall (HTP02).

occupied eastern Byzantine Anatolia (Edessa, Antioch, Damascus, Jerusalem, Caesarea, Alexandria etc.) in AD 613. Heraclius, regaining power from AD 622 onwards, defeated the Sasanians in AD 628.15 According to a numismatic survey conducted at the Hadrianopolis and Pompeiopolis excavations and in Amastris, Amaseia and Sinop museum collections, there was a gap in coin emission between AD 616 and 627. This was taken as an indication that Sasanian hegemony in the region had stopped the coin circulation network. Ritter also suggests that the presence of Sasanians did not affect urbanisation in Paphlagonia, where Hadrianopolis and Pompeiopolis were not abandoned until the Arab attacks in the early 8th century AD.16 After the reign of Heraclius, the number of coins found in archaeological excavations decreases at almost all sites.17 The sequence of coin evidence from Hadrianopolis also supports continuous occupation from Justin I (AD 518-527) until Leo III (AD 717-741), when the city was supposed to have been abandoned due to the Arab invasions of ca. AD 725.18

Figure 10. Phocas coin (AD 602-610).

of the early wall to the fortification suggests that the fortification wall predates the early wall. If so, the fortification could be dated to before the 7th century AD. The coin coincides exactly with the beginning of Sasanian attacks on Anatolia, which were followed by two centuries of Arab invasions until the middle of the 9th century. In this case, we can consider the possibility that the fortification wall was built before the Sasanian and Arab attacks, which have been seen as the reason for political instability during the so-called ‘Byzantine Dark Ages’ in Anatolia.

Almost all of the fortified hilltop sites identified in Project Paphlagonia were dated to the 7th century

The political instability and its indirect effects can be traced through numismatic studies. Ceasing to mint coins is a generally accepted consequence of Sasanian and Arab attacks in Anatolia. Sasanian Persians

Decker 2016: 14, 15. Ritter 2015: 129. 17  Decker 2016: 159. 18  For detailed catalogue of Early and Middle Byzantine coins, see Laflı et al. 2016. 15  16 

278

M.N. Tatbul and D.B. Erciyas: Evaluation of the Recent Finds at Komana AD and their latest use were suggested as the 12th century AD when the Turks entirely controlled the region.19 The defensive wall of Euchaita was built in AD 515-518, during the reign of the emperor Anastasius, and its status was raised to archiepiscopal; the later construction of the towers, walls and ditches were dated to the mid-7th century AD.20 Also, the construction of the early 6th century AD walls was related to Hunnic raids and the early fortifications of Amorium and Dara were suggested as parallels.21

seem reasonable thanks to the recent archaeological data. It may be suggested that Komana was not entirely abandoned, even though some people might have moved to Dazimon for shelter during the raids. If any of these scenarios applied to Komana, the first two seem more reasonable, since the rural territories of Komana are at quite high elevations, in less accessible naturally protected locations which enjoy proper environmental conditions for self-sufficient communities. A considerable number of Byzantine settlements in the territory of Komana were found at over 1000 m.27

There is insufficient data at Komana concerning this matter, but this might be due to the very limited Early Byzantine layers excavated at the site. It should also be mentioned that there is no evidence for any warfare related destruction layers or any material remains indicating the presence of a military garrison at Komana so far. Furthermore, there is no historical record mentioning Sasanian or Arab attacks on Komana, but the potential indirect effects of the instability should be investigated in Komana and its countryside during the Dark Ages.

Conclusion The newly recovered archaeological data, especially that dating to the Early and Middle Byzantine periods, are promising. These periods can be better understood and interpreted in the future when new survey data will be integrated. The widely accepted decline of cities to kastra and the revival of the countryside with increasing numbers of churches seems to be valid for Komana as well. Komana also provides a valuable example for Middle Byzantine graveyards with churches.

Haldon provides a list of cities that were captured between AD 636 and 670. Among them are Neocaesarea, Euchaita, Sebastea, Amaseia, Gangra, Sinope, Amastris, Amisos, Satala, Koloneia and Trebizond, all in close proximity to Komana.22 Cassis notes that in their survey area of Cide, Sasanian and Arab attacks of the 7th-8th centuries AD had no direct effects. Repeating Haldon’s suggestion, she says that those cities, which were not directly affected by hostile actions, would have suffered like other cities due to the dramatic conditions of the empire in decline.23 Cassis also states that at the rural settlement of Çadırhöyük, which was supposed to be isolated from the direct invasion, the population remained though with a smaller size.24

Archaeological surveys and excavations provide the only source of data for the periods between the 7th and 9th centuries AD, while written sources are extremely sparse.28 Therefore, recent finds at Komana dating to the Late Roman and Early Byzantine periods will contribute to our understanding of the settlement history of the inland Black Sea region for this littleknown period as well. The increasing number and variety of coins may be helpful in understanding the settlement history of Komana and its territory. As with any archaeological material, ceramics from secure contexts are also scarce in the Black Sea region, thus the Komana excavations reveal valuable contextual data which will contribute to the mediaeval ceramic corpus of the region.

Ritter suggests that conditions in Paphlagonia in the 6th century AD were almost the same as for the rest of Anatolia, where settlements diminished, declined and were abandoned gradually rather than from momentary disaster.25 He suggests three possibilities: abandonment of sites to establish small upland settlements, state enforced relocation of populations to uplands and trans-urbanisation of sites. He also suggests that trans-urbanisation from Komana to Dazimon/Dokeia in the 6th century AD seems reasonable.26 Excavation, however, indicates that Komana was well functioning at least by the early 7th century AD. Abandonment of the site and an entire population shift to Dazimon do not

Bibliography Acara-Eser, M. 2015. ‘Komana Kazısı Metal Buluntularından Bir Grup: Röliker Haçlar’. In Erciyas and Tatbul 2015: 167-80. Anderson, J.G.C. 1903. A Journey of Exploration in Pontus (Brussels). Böhlendorf-Arslan, B. 2012. ‘Das Bewegliche Inventar eines Mittelbyzantinischen Dorfes: Kleinfunde Aus Bogazkoy’. In Bohlendorf-Arslan, B. and Ricci, A. (eds) Byzantine Small Finds in Archaeological Contexts (Istanbul): 351-68.

Matthews and Glatz 2009: 196. Haldon et al. 2015: 331. 21  Haldon et al. 2015: 340-41. 22  Haldon 1997: 107. 23  Cassis 2015; Haldon 1997: 105. 24  Cassis 2017: 370. 25  Ritter 2015: 127. 26  Ritter 2015: 128. 19  20 

Hamamtepe, at the centre of Komana is ca. 625 m in altitude. See Erciyas and Sökmen 2010 for a detailed evaluation on the survey results of identified Byzantine sites in the territory of Komana. 28  Decker 2016: 23. 27 

279

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Böhlendorf-Arslan, B. 2017. ‘Boğazköy’. In Niewöhner, P. (ed.) The Archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia From the End of Late Antiquity until the Coming of the Turks (Oxford): 361-67. Cassis, M. 2015. ‘The Cide-Şenpazar Region in the Byzantine Period (Chapter 11)’. In Düring, B.S. and Glatz, C. (eds) Kinetic Landscapes: The Cide Archaeological Project. Surveying the Turkish Western Black Sea Region (Warsaw): 294-363. Cassis, M. 2017. ‘Çadır Höyük’. In Niewöhner, P. (ed.) The Archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia From the End of Late Antiquity until the Coming of the Turks (Oxford): 36874. Cramer, J.A. 1832. Geographical and Historical Description of Asia Minor, vol. 1 (Oxford). Cumont, E. and Cumont, F. 1906. Voyage d’exploration archéologique dans le Pont et la Petite Arménie (Brussels). Decker, M.J. 2016. The Byzantine Dark Ages (London). Erciyas, D.B. 2006. ‘Tokat İli Komana Antik Kenti Yüzey Araştırması 2004’. In 23. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara): 13-22. Erciyas, D.B. 2007. ‘Komana Yüzey Araştırması 2005’. In 24. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara): 15566. Erciyas, D.B. 2012. ‘Komana ve Çevresinde Çağlar Boyu Yerleşim’. In Akyol, A.A. and Özdemir, K. (eds) Türkiye’de Arkeometrinin Ulu Çınarları: Prof. Dr. Ay Melek Atalay ve Prof. Dr. Şahinde Demirci’ye Armağan/ Two Eminent Contributors to Archaeometry in Turkey: To Honour of Prof. Dr. Ay Melek Özer and Prof. Dr. Şahinde Demirci (Istanbul): 163-70. Erciyas, D.B. 2014. ‘Komana’da (Sisiyye) 2010-2012 Yılları Kazı Çalışmaları’. In 35. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara): 281-91. Erciyas, D.B. and Sökmen, E. 2010a. ‘Komana Antik Kenti Arkeolojik Araştırma Projesi 2008 Yılı Raporu’. In 27. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara): 355-74. Erciyas, D.B. and Sökmen, E. 2010b. ‘An overview of Byzantine Period settlements around Comana Pontica in north-central Turkey’. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 34.2: 119-41. Erciyas, D.B. and Sökmen, E. 2009. ‘Komana Yüzey Araştırması 2007’. In 26. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1. (Ankara): 289-306. Erciyas, D.B., Sökmen, E and Kalaycı, T. 2008. ‘Komana Yüzey Araştırması 2006’. In 25. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara): 197-212. Erciyas, D.B., Sökmen, E. and Kocabıyık, C. 2011. ‘Komana Antik Kenti 2009 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları’. In 32. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 4 (Ankara): 121-33.

Erciyas, D.B. and Tatbul, M.N. (eds) 2015. Komana Ortaçağ Yerleşimi/The Medieval Settlement at Komana (Istanbul). Erciyas, D.B. and Tatbul, M.N. (eds) 2016. ‘Anadolu’da Ortaçağ Kazıları ve Komana’. In 37. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara): 611-26. Erciyas, D.B. and Tatbul, M.N. (eds) 2017. ‘The Roman Period at Komana’. In Manoledakis, M. (ed.) The Black Sea in the Light of New Archaeological Data and Theoretical Approaches (Oxford): 239-50. Haldon, J. 1997. Byzantium in the Seventh Century (Cambridge). Haldon, J., Elton, H. and Newhard, J. 2015. ‘Euchaita’. In Steadman S.R. and McMahon, G. (eds) The Archaeology of Anatolia: Recent Discoveries (2011-2014), vol. 1 (Newcastle-upon-Tyne): 328-51. Hamilton, W.J. 1842. Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia, vol. 1 (London). Hogarth, D.G. and Munro, J.A.R. 1893. Modern and Ancient Roads in Eastern Asia Minor (London). Laflı, E., Lightfoot, C. and Ritter, M. 2016. ‘Byzantine Coins from Hadrianoupolis in Paphlagonia’. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 40.2: 187-206. Matthews, R. and Glatz, C. (eds) 2009. At Empire’s Edge: Project Paphlagonia. Regional Survey in North-Central Turkey (London). Niewöhner, P. 2017. ‘Germia’. In Niewöhner, P. (ed.) The Archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia: From the End of Late Antiquity until the Coming of the Turks (Oxford): 34248. Ritter, M. 2015. ‘The End of Late Antiquity in Paphlagonia: Disurbanisation from a Comparative Perspective’. In Winther-Jacobsen, K. and Summerer, L. (eds) Landscape Dynamics and Settlement Patterns in Northern Anatolia during the Roman and Byzantine Period (Stuttgart): 119-33. Vanhaverbeke, H., Vionis, A.K., Poblome, J. and Waelkens, M. 2009. ‘What Happened after the 7th century AD? A Different Perspective on PostRoman Rural Anatolia’. In Vorderstrasse, T. and Roodenberg, J. (eds) Archaeology of the Countryside in Medieval Anatolia (Leiden): 177-90. von der Osten, H.H. 1929a. Researches in Anatolia 1: Explorations in Central Anatolia, Season of 1926 (Chicago). von der Osten, H.H. 1929b. Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor, 1927-28 (Chicago).

280

A Group of Glass Bracelets from Samsun Museum Akın Temür and Özkan Özbilgin Abstract Ancient glass functioned as a significant raw material. Initially for the upper classes, glass was used for display; it became an industrial material with the development of different forming techniques, and with the acceleration of production it came to be used by people from every segment of society. In particular, glassware, which appeared in different vessel forms such as plates, cups and bottles, was used extensively for the formation of ornamental items. The use of glass in making bracelets for women has been seen since the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. With the development of glass-forming techniques, these bracelets, which were produced in different colours and types, became an indispensable part of society, due to an increase in production since the Roman period, and they were used intensely used in the following periods since they were like precious stones. Within the scope of this study, a group of glass bracelets in Samsun Museum has been examined and dated with consideration to their forms and technical specifications.

It is widely accepted that the bracelets were initially made in small sizes and for children, and that adults began to use them over time.7 In addition, bracelets were not just for the wrist but can also be seen on the arms and even elbows of maids in frescos of the 11th12th centuries AD;8 glass bracelets, which are basically in the form of rings, come in four main forms: circular, quadrilateral, thin quadrilateral (D-shaped) and triangular, depending on their production technique and ornaments. When they are considered in terms of ornament, they can be seen categorised as with plain surface, painted, vertical or cross fluted, appliqué or seal printed, single colour spiral twisted, multicolour spiral twisted, or frequent and loose spiral twisted.9

Although much research into the discovery, production and historical development of glass has been conducted in recent times, much remains unknown. Glass was used in making ornamental items such as beads, necklaces from the outset and it has been utilised intensely in social life and in containers for food and beverages, medicine, cosmetics, etc., according to archaeological data. Women ancient and modern have given importance to ornament and beauty and to this end used various items of jewellery such as necklaces, earrings etc. in ancient times. Of the most popular in antiquity was the bracelet. It has been considered that glass bracelets, which could be produced from different materials depending on characteristics and preferences, appeared as an imitation of precious materials.1

We can see that two different production techniques are used for the bracelets: thread winding (seamed) and circular winding (seamless). In the former, the molten glass is simply pulled from the two ends by means of a tool, brought to the desired thickness, and the two ends are attached with twisting by the tool. In this technique, the joint is often apparent and can be flattened by reheating. In the latter, by piercing a piece of glass at the tip of a tool by means of metal and rolling it around its axis by heating it repeatedly after it is taken from the rod. On the inner surfaces of the seamless bracelets, horizontal lines and spots like rust can be seen.10

Glass bracelets have been known since the 2nd millennium BC. The earliest examples were excavated in the grave of Amenophis II (1450-1425 BC) in Egypt.2 In addition, there are some examples of glass bracelets which have very good workmanship in terms of production and ornament from the La Tène culture of Northern Europe in the 1st millennium AD.3 However, this type of glass bracelet has not been found in the eastern Mediterranean, an important glass production centre in terms of style and technique, nor later in the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods.4 In the Near East, the earliest examples are dated to the 3rd century AD;5 glass bracelets had become popular in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods.6

Glass bracelets are difficult finds to study because they are given insufficient importance during excavations, they are not published in detail and they are often lumped in with unspecified finds. The situation has improved gradually in recent years, particularly thanks

Spaer 1988: 51-52. Daressy 1902: 208, no. 24834, pl. 45; Spaer 1988: 51. Haevernick 1960: 39-66; Spaer 1988: 51. 4  Spaer 1988: 51. 5  Spaer 1988: 51. 6  Spaer 1988: 52, 60. 1 

Spaer 1988: 60. Parani 2005: 152. 9  Spaer 1988. 10  Spaer 1988: 52; Shindo 2001: 77; Çömezoğlu 2007: 339; Uysal 2008: 469-70; 2010: 45; Çakmakçı 2012: 117; 2017: 127-28; Karpuz 2017: 146-47.

2 

7 

3 

8 

281

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity to the two studies by Spaer,11 whose classification plays a significant role in dating and typological examination of glass bracelets. On the other hand, another significant study published by Çakmakçı12 has shown that there are different types that Spaer does not include. In addition, many studies of glass bracelets which were discovered in various excavations in Anatolia and dated to Early, Middle and Late Byzantine period have been published.

ornaments; they are classified in sub-groups as bracelet with double-lined interwoven wave ornaments, bracelet with irregular zigzag ornaments, and bracelet with painting between thin lines. The first, type 2a (Cat. No. 5) has been adorned by enamel technique.21 This seamed bracelet has a quadrangular cross-section and was made by the circular winding technique. It has been adorned with enamel-coloured double-lined wave ornament on a brownish-yellow painted surface. It is 7.9 cm in diameter and the thickness is 0.6 cm. A similar bracelet was dated by Ligthfoot22 to the Middle Byzantine, while Çakmakçı23 has stated that this bracelet dates to between the 10th and 12th centuries AD.

Within the scope of this study, ten glass bracelets in Samsun Museum have been examined and assessed. All had been obtained through purchase and their find-spots and contexts are unknown. The bracelets have been classified according to cross section and ornamental characteristics. They have been examined under three main groups as ‘twisted’, ‘ornamental’ and ‘cross sections’; they have classified in groups based on the typologies prepared by Spaer and Çakmakçı; and an attempt has been made to date them.

The irregular zigzag patterned bracelet, classified as type 2b (Cat. No. 6), has been adorned by applying the enamel technique as in type 1. The seamed bracelet has a quadrangular section and was produced by the thread winding technique. It was almost covered with yellowish paint and decorated with zigzag ornament in irregular and even serpentine form in enamel colour. It is in 4.3 cm diameter and the thickness is 0.4 cm. Spaer has dated a similar example from Khirbet alMinyeh to between the 10th and 12th centuries AD,24 while Zanon25 has dated it to the 10th-11th centuries AD in consideration of examples excavated in different settlements, and Çakmakçı26 has dated this example to the 10th-12th centuries AD.

Type 1: twisted bracelets The twisted bracelets, which were widely used in the Islamic period, have a spiral appearance produced by twisting spun glass(es). In twisted bracelets which are wrapped with single or multi-coloured spun glass, the thread winding technique has been applied.13 One of the four examples is monochrome black and has been identified as type 1a (Cat. No. 1); the other three, 1b-1, 1b-2 and 1b-3, contain blue and white spun glass within transparent glass (Cat. Nos. 2-4). All have a circular section and have been seamed. The average diameter is 4.5-7.2 cm and their thicknesses has been calculated as 0.4-0.6 cm. They have dense or loose twisted form. The monochrome example has been classified as Spaer’s type C1b, the others as Spaer type C5b.14

The sample with the double painted line, type 2c (Cat. No. 7), was adorned by the enamel technique. The seamless bracelet has a quadrangular cross section and is made by the circular winding technique. It is bordered by two lines of white (cream/enamel) colour, decorated with a sequential pattern surrounding the entire ring. Its diameter is 6.7 cm and the thickness is 0.6 cm. Spaer has stated that a similar example in the cemetery of Tel Dan B has been examined with the coins in the same context and dated to the 14th-15th centuries AD, however there was no connection between the coins and bracelets afterwards.27

These types began to be produced from the 3rd-4th centuries AD, before the Islamic period, and were in wide use afterwards.15 For instance, Type 1b has been dated to the Early Byzantine era in Yenikapı,16 to the Middle Byzantine in Kadıkalesi/Anaia17 and to the 11th-13th centuries AD in St Nicholas Church.18 It is known that this group was produced in Hebron19 until the 19th century AD and dated to the 10th-12th centuries AD in Sardes.20

When ornamental bracelets are examined in general, it is seen that the each of three was painted with the enamel technique. This technique was a tradition which belongs to the 9th-12th centuries AD.28

Type 2: ornamental bracelets

Type 3: cross section bracelets

Three examples have been examined. In general, these bracelets have geometric or irregularly shaped

Three examples which have outer surface designed by tooling have been examined, and three different types

Spaer 1988; 1992. Çakmakçı 2012. Spaer 1988: 59; Uysal, 2008: 471. 14  Spaer 1992: 49. 15  Spaer 1988: 59. 16  Atik 2009: 14, fig. 69. 17  Çakmakçı 2008: 292-93. 18  Çömezoğlu 2007: 337, 574, fig. 3.245, 247. 19  Spaer 1992: 50, 62, figs. 7, 27. 20  Saldern 1980: 98, dp. 2, 99, no. 738. 11  12 

Köroğlu 2011. Gill 1999: 341, 343, fig. G13. 23  Çakmakçı 2010, res. 1, type. VId-f. 24  Spaer 1992: 60, fig. 25.19. 25  Zanon 2013: 188, type 5a. 26  Çakmakçı 2010, res. 1, type. Ib. 27  Spaer 1992: 57-58, fig. 23.14. 28  Spaer 1992: 45-46; Köroğlu 2011: 87. 21 

13 

22 

282

A. Temür and Ö. Özbilgin: A Group of Glass Bracelets from Samsun Museum have been identified. They have been classified as 12 ribbed and decorated with floral rosettes, sparse vertical ribbing (ribbed) and rounded embossed ornaments.

context or location. Nevertheless, the extensive study by Spaer and the increase in publications on glass bracelets in recent years have helped with dating the bracelets in the study and making it easier to place the bracelet types within a chronology. Overall, the bracelets studied here, taken with the dating of close comparanda, belong primarily to the 10th-12th centuries AD.

The bracelet with 12 ribbed and flower rosettes as ornament, type 3a (Cat. No. 8), was adorned by the enamel technique. The seamless bracelet is triangular in cross-section, made by the circular winding technique and shaped by a tool. It has been adorned with orange- and cream-coloured flower rosette ornaments embroidered in a sequential pattern on the ring in accordance with geometrical shapes. Its diameter is 5.6 cm and the thickness is 0.4 cm. A similar sample with ten ribs was classified by Spaer as type B1 and has been dated to the Roman, Late Roman and Byzantine periods, and another example with 12 ribs has been dated to the 3rd-4th centuries AD.29 If we ignore the flower rosette, there is no difference between the sample with 12 ribs and this sample in terms of typology. But the fact that the rosette was made by the enamel technique points to a date in the 10th-12th centuries. A similar example was excavated at Amorium.30

Catalogue Cat. No. 1 (Fig. 1) Museum Inv. No. 2007-115 (A) Size: Width: 4.7 cm, Length: 4.7 cm, Wall length: 0.6 cm, Wall width: 0.4 cm Colour: Opaque green (Transparent) Technique: Thread winding and tooling. Status: Full, iridescent and deformations on some parts. Definition: Seamed, circular cut-section, ring-form, self-twisted-diagonal form; joint formed by matching two ends, one with a snakestone on it, and flattened by tool; noble trace on the joint point and on the opposite side. Counterparts: Spaer type C1b Date: 8th-12th cc AD

The lined (ribbed) example, type 3b (Cat. No. 9), was made by applying the circular winding technique and the outer surface has been entirely shaped by a tool to provide a gear-wheel appearance. The seamless bracelet is thin rectangular (D) in section, its diameter is 5.6 cm and its thickness is 0.3 cm. A monochrome version, classified as Spaer type B2a, was used extensively in pre-Islamic periods, and has been dated to the 3rd-4th centuries AD.31 The example with round embossed ornament, type 3c (Cat. No. 10), was made by applying the circular winding technique and the entire outer surface was shaped by a tool and designed in a round embossed form. The seamless bracelet is thin rectangular (D) in section, and its diameter is 4.5 cm and the thickness is 0.5 cm. A monochrome version, labelled as Spaer type B5a, has mostly been dated to pre-Islamic period, 3rd4th centuries AD and was widely used.32 Conclusion Glass bracelets, which have been classified among small finds in archaeological excavations, have been underestimated, since they can easily be damaged and often cannot be found in a complete form. They have been studied mostly in a single group or they have been superficially considered. Therefore, serious problems arise in dating. As in many works, the typology made by Spaer is used as basis in this study. All of the bracelets considered were purchased by the museum, bereft of Spaer 1988: 55, fig. 2. Gill 1999: 340-42, fig. G8. 31  Spaer 1988: 55-56, fig. 3; 1992: 48-49, tab. 1. 32  Spaer 1988: 57, fig. 7; 1992: 48-49, tab. 1. 29  30 

Figure 1. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 1.

283

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Cat. No. 2 (Fig. 2) Museum Inv. No. 2009-85 (A) Size: Width: 4.3 cm, Length: 4.5 cm, Wall length: 0.4 cm, Wall width: 0.4 cm Colour: Transparent – blue and white two spun glass in twisted form. Technique: Thread winding and tooling. Status: Full, iridescent, opaque and deformations on some parts. Definition: Seamed, circular cross section, ring-form, in twisted-diagonal form, adorned by scrolled spun glass, on transparent glass, line ornament in scrolled form, blue-white spun glass ornament inside glass; joint formed by matching two ends, one with a snakestone on it, and flattened by tool. Counterparts: Spaer type C5b Date: 10th-13th cc AD

Cat. No. 3 (Fig. 3) Museum Inv. No. 2010-2 (A)-6408 Size: Width: 7 cm, Length: 7.1 cm, Wall length: 0.7 cm, Wall width: 0.5 cm Colour: Transparent – blue and white scroll ornament in glass Technique: Thread winding Status: Full, iridescent, opaqueness and deformations on some parts. Definition: Seamed, circular cross section, ring-form, in twisted-diagonal form, scrolled spun glass lined, and twisted ornament with blue-white parallel two spun glass; joint formed by matching two ends, one with a snakestone on it, and flattened by tool; noble trace on the joint point and on the opposite side. Counterparts: Spaer type C5b Date: 10th-13th cc AD

Figure 2. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 2.

Figure 3. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 3.

284

A. Temür and Ö. Özbilgin: A Group of Glass Bracelets from Samsun Museum Cat. No. 4 (Fig. 4) Museum Inv. No. 2010-3(A)-6490 Size: Width: 7 cm, Length: 7.2 cm, Wall length: 0.6 cm, Wall width: 0.6 cm Colour: Transparent – blue and white scroll ornament in glass Technique: Thread winding Status: Full, iridescent, corrosion traces on some parts. Definition: Seamed, circular cross section, ring-form, in twisted-diagonal form, scrolled spun glass lined, thick scrolled, and, thick twisted ornament with blue-white parallel two spun glass; joint formed by matching two ends, one with a snakestone on it, and flattened by tool; noble trace on the joint point and on the opposite side. Counterparts: Spaer type C5b Date: 10th-13th cc AD

Cat. No. 5 (Fig. 5) Museum Inv. No. 13-1/1970-95 Size: Width: 7.8 cm, Length: 7.9 cm, Wall length: 0.9 cm, Wall width: 0.6 cm Colour: Brownish-yellow Technique: Circular winding Status: Full, iridescent, corrosion Definition: Seamed, quadrangular section, ring-form, has trace as rim in a line form, the joint part slightly flattened; noble traces on the opposite side of the joint and on the base part; brownish-yellow painted, white paint in scroll form on it. Counterparts: Çakmakçı type VId-f Date: 10th-12th cc AD

Figure 5. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 5.

Figure 4. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 4.

285

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Cat. No. 6 (Fig. 6) Museum Inv. No. 13-4/1999-5381 Size: Width: 4.1 cm, Length: 4.3 cm, Wall length: 0.5 cm, Wall width: 0.4 cm Colour: Covered blue-green surface. Technique: Thread winding Status: The end point is broken, iridescent, turned into opaque form. Definition: Seamless, quadrangular section, semielliptical form; the inner surface is plain, the other surfaces are yellowish in colour and formed with long zigzag ornaments, scroll (line-wave) ornament which completely covers the bracelet, ornaments in line form in an order which cover the inner and outer surface of the ring. Counterparts: Çakmakçı Type Ib Date: 10th-13th cc AD

Cat. No. 7 (Fig. 7) Museum Inv. No. 3-10/1979-2800 Size: Width: 6.3 cm, Length: 6.7 cm, Wall length: 0.9 cm, Wall width: 0.6 cm Colour: Dark blue (opaque) Technique: Circular winding Status: Full, iridescent, deformations on some parts, ornaments have been substantially preserved as it was. Definition: Seamless, quadrangular section, ring-form; lines on two sides covering the ring and on the outer surfaces, narrowed by two coloured lines in white (enamel colour) on the outer surface; the ring completely adorned by embossed pressed ornament in an order. Counterparts: Spaer 1992, fig. 23.14 Date: 10th-12th cc AD

Figure 6. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 6.

Figure 7. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 7.

286

A. Temür and Ö. Özbilgin: A Group of Glass Bracelets from Samsun Museum Cat. No. 8 (Fig. 8) Museum Inv. No. 2-2/1999-5321 Size: Width: 5.5 cm, Length: 5.6 cm, Wall length: 0.9 cm, Wall width: 0.4 cm Colour: Blueish turquoise Technique: Circular winding and tooling Status: Full, iridescent, deformations on some parts Definition: Seamless, triquetrous and ring-form; lozenge-patterned outer surface, geometrical patterned, plain inner and lateral surfaces; orangeand cream-coloured flower rosette completely ordered on the ring. Counterparts: Spaer type B1 Date: 10th-12th cc AD

Cat. No. 9 (Fig. 9) Museum Inv. No. 2-1/1999-5320 Size: Width: 5.6 cm, Length: 5.4 cm, Wall length: 1 and 0.7 cm, Wall width: 0.3 cm Colour: Blueish-greenish turquoise Technique: Circular winding and tooling Status: Full, iridescent, deformations on some parts Definition: Seamless, thin quadrangular (D) cross section, ring-form; inner and outer surfaces are plain, outer surface has zigzag wavy ornament. Counterparts: Spaer type B2a Date: 3rd-4th cc AD

Figure 9. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 9.

Figure 8. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 8.

287

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Bibliography

Cat. No. 10 (Fig. 10) Museum Inv. No. 2009-86 (A) Size: Width: 4 cm, Length: 4.5 cm, Wall length: 0.6-0.9 cm Wall width: 0.5 cm Colour: Opaque green Technique: Circular winding and tooling Status: Full, iridescent, opaqueness and deformations on some parts, intense air bubbles. Definition: Seamless, thin quadrangular (D) cross section, ring-form; thinning on some parts and thickening on some parts; plain inner surface; zigzag formed and scattered wave formed outer surface along with the ring. Counterparts: Spaer type B5a Date: 3rd-4th cc AD

Atik, Ş. 2009. ‘Late Roman/Early Byzantine Glass Finds from the Marmaray Rescue Excavation at Yenikapı in İstanbul’. In Laflı, E. (ed.) Late Roman/Early Byzantine Glass in the Eastern Mediterranean (Izmir): 1-16. Çakmakçı, Z.O. 2008. Örnekler Işığında Bizans Asia’sında Cam Sanatı (Dissertation, Ege University, Izmir). Çakmakçı, Z.O. 2010. ‘12.-13. Yüzyıllarda Cam Bileziklerinde Bezeme ve Biçim Değişimleri’. In I. Uluslararası Sevgi Gönül Bizans Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, 25-28 Haziran (Istanbul), 545. Çakmakçı, Z.O. 2012. ‘Kuşadası-Kadıkalesi Kazılarından Süs Amaçlı Cam Objeler: Boncuklar ve Bilezikler’. In II. ODTÜ Arkeometri Çalıştayı, 6-8 Ekim 2011 (Türkiye Arkeolojisinde Cam: Arkeolojik ve Arkeometrik Çalışmalar) (Ankara): 114-35. Çakmakçı, Z.O. 2017. ‘Ödemiş Müzesi Koleksiyonundaki Bizans Dönemi Boyalı Cam Bilezikleri’. TUBA-KED 16: 125-44. Çömezoğlu, Ö. 2007. Akdeniz Çevresi Ortaçağ Camcılığı Işığında Demre Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Cam Buluntuları (Dissertation, Istanbul University). Daressy, M.G. 1902. Fouilles de la Vallée des Rois (Cairo). Gill, M.A.V. 1999. ‘The Amorium Project: The 1997 Study Season’. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 53.1: 340-43. Haevernick, T.E. 1960. Die Glasarmringe und Ringperlen der Mittel- und Spätlatenezeit auf dem europäischen Festland (Bonn). Karpuz, G.G. 2017. ‘Mardin Müzesi’nde Bulunan Bezemesiz Cam Bilezikler Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme’. Atatürk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 59: 145-56. Köroğlu, G. 2011. ‘Bizans Dönemi Camlarında Emay Tekniği ve Halûk Perk Müzesi’ndeki Örnekleri’. Tuliya 2: 80-93. Parani, M.G. 2005. ‘Representations of Glass Objects as a Source on Byzantine Glass: How Useful Are They?’. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 59: 147-71. Saldern, A.V. 1980. Ancient and Byzantine Glass from Sardis (London). Shindo, Y. 2001. ‘The Classification and Chronology of the Islamic Glass Bracelets from al-Tur, Sinai’. In Nishio, T. (ed.) Cultural Change in the Arab World (Osaka): 73-100. Spaer, M. 1988. ‘The Pre-Islamic Glass Bracelets of Palestine’. Journal of Glass Studies 30: 51-61. Spaer, M. 1992. ‘The Islamic Glass Bracelets of Palestine: Preliminary Findings’. Journal of Glass Studies 34: 4462. Uysal, Z. 2008. Kubad-Abad Sarayı Cam Buluntuları (19812004) (Dissertation, Ege University, Izmir). Uysal, Z. 2010. ‘Kubad Abad Kazılarında Bulunan Cam Bilezikler (2005-2010)’. Sanat Tarihi Dergisi 19.2: 4354. Zanon, M. 2013. ‘Tyana/Kemerhisar (Niğde): Glass bracelets of the Byzantine and Islamic Period’. Anatolia Antiqua 21: 181-97.

Figure 10. Glass bracelet Cat. No. 10.

288

Some Observations on the Dating of the Kavak Bekdemir Mosque in Samsun *

E. Emine Naza Dönmez Abstract Bekdemir Mosque, a unique wooden mosque in the village of Bekdemir, 59 km from Samsun and 9 km from Kavak, used to be located in the village cemetery but it was taken down and relocated in 19th century. The ground floor of the building was built in 1585 and the first floor was included in 1876, probably after the movement and a large scale restoration of the mosque. The rectangular building constructed with wooden blocks and covered with a sloping tiled roof is very well proportioned with monumental appearance. The rich decorations on both the interior and exterior of the mosque can be classified as wooden carved/engraved and painted decorations. The intricately decorated entrance door, fully decorated main area with handpainted decorations, fully hand-decorated minber and painted mihrap niche makes this mosque a unique and valuable example of wooden mosque tradition of northern Anatolia. In an inscription on the mihrap the decorations of the mosque attested to one Nakkaş Said with the date 1876. The decorative characteristics can be described as Late Baroque-style provincial examples of the Westernisation period.

It has been observed that the geological and geographical characteristics of the structure of the Black Sea region of Turkey are reflected in a greater way in the architecture than they are in other regions. It is a geographical reality that the mountain ranges parallel to the Black Sea are covered with forests and the coastal strip between these mountains and the seas has a rainy and damp climate. The fact that the amount of stone suitable for use in architecture in the coastal sections of the Turkish Black Sea is extremely limited, along with the tendency of stone to gather damp, has caused its use as a building material to be minimised. In contrast, the easy availability of wood from trees in the forests led to its becoming the main building material used in the architecture of the region.

in the area in the periods following these – the later phases of the Middle Bronze Age (1750-1450 BC) and the Late Bronze Age (1450-1200 BC), the Early (1200-850 BC) and Middle (850-650 BC) Iron Ages – and this explains why research has shown that there are no surviving settlements in this area coastal strip of the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey. Wood also played an important role in the settlements of the Middle (850-650 BC) and Late Iron Age (650-330 BC). As in the present day, the architecture of the mountain settlements of the Iron Age was predominantly based on wood and, due to the topography, must have consisted of scattered homes, grain storage depots and animal shelters. Most of the settlements that have been identified are settlements on slopes, settlements on flat ground and low mound types. This shows that as well as the settlements being scattered and the materials used in construction being lightweight ones, the amount of rubble and cultural filling also seems very small.

It is understood from the results of excavations of protohistoric sites at Bafra-İkiztepe and SamsunDündartepe that traditional wooden architecture dates back to the Late Chalcolithic period (4500-3500 BC) and that it continued throughout the Early Bronze Age (3500-2000 BC) and the early phases of the Middle Bronze Age (2000-1750 BC). As a result of the excavations at İkiztepe, which have been in progress since 1974, it is known that the buildings were constructed by placing a four-cornered base plate on the flattened and smoothed surface without a foundation, and built up with stacked hewn logs that were connected to each other at the corners.1

Although few in number, it is known that there were some fortress-type settlements in the region during the Iron Age. Akalan is the most important of these.3 It is surrounded by sloping fortified walls reaching 4.55 m in height. Although it is not clearly stated in the report of the excavations that most of the buildings inside the castle area were made of wood, the lack of any mention of stone foundations or any kerpiç (mudbrick) building remains and the mention of evidence of a large fire and the inability to identify the plans of the buildings during the excavations all indicate that the buildings must have been wooden. In 1906 excavations were carried out by T. Macridy under the auspices of

It is known from Hittite sources that the Kashkeans (Gashkeans), a people with a nomadic lifestyle,2 lived I would like to thank archaeologists Burçin Adısönmez and Fidane Abazoğlu for their technical help in preparation of this article. 1  For the protohistoric architecture of the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey, see Alkım et al. 2003: 77-86; Danışman 1986. 2  Bilgi 1998: 66; Dönmez 2002a: 876; 2002b: 247. *

3  For information on Akalan, see Macridy 1907; Cummer 1976; Dönmez 2004.

289

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Müze-i Hümayun (now known as Istanbul Archaeology Museums), and the most important and interesting finds were the group consisting of architectural covering plaques made of clay, roof tiles and acroterion pieces. There are relief and matt-painted motifs on the plaques, which are brick red on cream, dark brown, brownish black, greyish black and yellowy brown in colour. The architectural covering plaques show that there must have been a wooden building at Akalan that was probably a temple. As a result of the research work carried out here, it is known that the wooden temple thought to have been found at Akalan was probably of megaron type and would have been a building with a saddleback roof and a triangular pediment. It is known that this building type was used over a period that extended up to the beginning of the 3rd century. Architectural covering plaques made of clay were found during the surveys carried out by Ş. Dönmez in the settlements at Köyiçi Höyük4 located in Mazlumoğlu village in the Ladik district of Samsun, and Zindankaya in the district of Vezirköprü,5 showing that this type of wooden temple decorated with plaques was fairly common in the region.

that the chronology of these buildings extend from the 12th to the 20th century and that geographically they are found over an area of 800 square miles. These buildings include Islamic buildings, Orthodox churches (Greek and Serbian) and monasteries, public buildings and military settlements. Kuniholm informs us that, when the chronology from Bekdemir Mosque is added to the forest chronology obtained from Zonguldak, a Black Sea oak chronology is obtained that goes back to the year 1058. Kuniholm also says that the treering profiles from Bekdemir Mosque have enabled us to ascertain that the wood used in some buildings in fairly distant locations was imported from the Black Sea coast and gives examples. Among the examples he cites are the north-west buttress of St Sophia, sections of the octagonal tower in Salonica (Frourio Vardari), the mansion of the Algerian Hasan Pasha at Çanakkale and the Istanbul Karaköy ferry pier.6 It can be seen that wooden architecture continued in the Samsun region after the Turks entered Anatolia. Among the wooden buildings and mosques Göğceli/ Gökçeli Mosque, located in the district of Çarşamba in Samsun and dated to the 13th century,7 is one of the most interesting of the mosques constructed using the round-log construction technique. Some of the structural details of this mosque show a strong resemblance to the architectural characteristics uncovered and identified at İkiztepe.

We know from ancient writers that wooden architecture was found in the Black Sea region during antiquity. For example, Xenophon informs us that the buildings of the Mossynoeci who lived in the Giresun/Kerasos area were wooden (Anabasis 5. 2. 25). Vitruvius says that there are buildings in the Pontus region that were prone to catching fire (De Architectura 2. 1. 4). In his Geography (12. 3. 12, 38), Strabo says that there are significant forests in the Pontus region.

In spite of the disadvantages, even today wooden building architecture continues in the region, especially in rural areas. J. Yakar and J.L. Garzon, who both show a keen interest in the architecture of the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey, conclude that the geographical and topographical conditions of the region have led to the traditional architectural characteristics being preserved, especially in village contexts.8 Until the arrival of concrete buildings in recent years, the buildings of the region were mainly wooden constructions. These buildings usually had only one storey and were surrounded with a fence. Next to the buildings, there was wooden food storage structure called a serander,9 that is a barn in which grain and straw and hay prepared for winter fodder were found.10

The vegetation covering of the region is definitely very rich. However, apart for the mountainous area, the forest areas of the plains and interior sections have decreased so much they barely exist. Today it is still possible to see some forest areas on the plains of Çarşamba and Terme. In the past there were dense forest areas in these regions and on the slopes behind the plains. There are many rich forest areas in the districts of Çarşamba, Alaçam, Kavak and Vezirköprü. Oak, beech, horn beech, ash and horse chestnut trees are all grown in the region and the wooden mosques of the region are usually made from oak trees.

When we seek the origin of wooden architecture in the Black Sea region in the Turkish period, one of the most important sources is the travel book of İbn Batuta.

Dendrochronologist P. Kuniholm, who specialises in dating of wood, identified some interesting details form the pieces he took from the wooden mosques of the Samsun region, especially the ones taken from Kavak Bekdemir Mosque which is the topic of our research. The wooden pieces from this building served to confirm the tree-ring chronology dating of 65 buildings and place them in the correct chronological order by means of cross-dating or date confirmation, and he says 4  5 

Kuniholm 2000: 97-98. Kuniholm 2000: 130. 8  Yakar and Garzon 1976: 46. 9  In the construction of these seranders, wooden posts varying in height from 0.50 to 1.50 m are placed in the corners of the foundation log and in other places. These posts are supported by bent posts called ‘elbow’ posts and a second log is placed on top of them; the seranders are built on this top log. In this kind of construction, protection is provided both against potential damage from damp and puddles of water, through the extensive air currents, and also from wild animals. 10  Özçağlar 1995: 100. 6  7 

Dönmez 2005. Dönmez 2007.

290

E.E. Naza Dönmez: Some Observations on the Dating of the Kavak Bekdemir Mosque in Samsun

Figure 1. Map of the Samsun region.

While staying in Kastamonu, İbn Batuta did his Friday prayers in a wooden mosque in this city and described the building according to the order of prayers as follows:

while the ruler’s son and servants did their prayers on the second level mahfil. Friday mosques were used widely in the early period of Ottoman architecture in Iznik (Nicaea) and the western Black Sea area of Turkey. Although we do not know their current condition, some of these buildings are the village mosques of Aftun Dere in Düzce, Düzce Geriş and Izmit Emir Ali. These buildings are dated to the Orhan Gazi period (13241362).12 Friday mosques were constructed as communal mosques in the scattered settlement areas. Most of them are located inside cemeteries. These mosques enable the congregation to gather together on Fridays and religious holidays. These wooden mosques can be found in all the forest areas of Anatolia. Almost all of the wooden buildings and mosques we examined in the Samsun region were constructed as part of this ‘Friday mosque’ tradition.

On Fridays the ruler of Kastamonu does his Friday prayers in a mosque far from the palace, reaching there on horseback with a ceremonial accompaniment. This was the usual arrangement. The large mosque of Kastamonu is a three storey wooden building. The ruler, high level government officials, the kadı [Muslim judge], fıkıh [Muslim jurisprudence] and military commanders did their Friday prayers on the lowest level, the sultan’s brother known as ‘efendi’, his servants, confidantes and trustworthy local people on the middle level; and the Prince (the governor’s son and heir to the throne) Cevâd with his young slaves, servants and the local people did their Friday prayers on the top level.11

Bekdemir Mosque13 is in Kavak, in Bekdemir village. According to village residents, the building used to be located in the cemetery on the edge of the village but was taken down in the 19th century and moved to its current location (Figs. 1-2).

This description gives some clues to help us understand the topographical position and location of the wooden buildings. The location of the mosque outside the city shows that the ‘Friday mosque’ tradition began in earlier periods and continued to be used. In the description of the mosque the building is three-storey and has two levels of mahfil areas; the main government officials and religious representatives did their Friday prayers on the ground floor and the ruler’s son and the local people of the region did theirs on the top level mahfil,

The rectangular plan building is constructed with wooden blocks placed on top of stone blocks and covered For the other buildings, see Ayverdi 1966: 120-34. Ayverdi also suggests, based on the information on the remains of buildings six or seven centuries old and built with giant logs described by Sven Hedin (who travelled throughout Turkistan) in his publication Takla Makan, that Turks brought this tradition from Central Asia and the origins of this building type were in that region (Ayverdi 1966: 120). 13  Can 2004: 34-42, Naza Dönmez 2008: 32-42. 12 

Ebû Abdullah Muhammed İnb Battûta Tancî, İbn Battûta Seyahatnâmesi I, ed. A.S. Aykut (Istanbul 2000), 440.

11 

291

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity are on the same axis as the sides of the mosque and give the mosque a monumental appearance. The building is very well proportioned and has two rows of rectangular windows on both of the two levels on three sides, on all sides except the northern side. On the northern side there is an entrance door and two rectangular windows on the upper level. The windows have wooden latticework. The main area is surrounded by mahfils on three sides, which are supported by three wooden posts the eastern and western sides and four on the northern side. These wooden posts continue on the same axis on the mahfil level and support the ceiling (Figs. 3-4). There is a central ceiling design in the middle of the plain wooden ceiling. The minber and mihrap of the building are wooden. There are rich decorations on both the interior and exterior of the mosque. These can be classified as wooden and engraved decorations. The entrance door has two leaves. These door leaves are symmetrically arranged and divided into three sections (panels); the lower and upper sections are rectangular and the section in the centre is square. In the centre of the lower panel there is a rectangular frame filled with stylised plant decorations and there is a rosette on top of it. This framework is surrounded by leaf decoration consisting of S and C volutions. Inside the square panels of the central section there is a round rosette in the shape of a sun. In the upper panel there is a decoration with sunrays in the form of a fan on the S- and C-shaped branches. Inside the round panel in the form of a sun standard on the door there is an inscription of a prayer not written very neatly. The prayer begins with the

Figure 2. Plan of Bekdemir Mosque.

with a sloping tiled roof. The wooden screen walls of the mosque are joined at the corners using round log construction technique. The building has riwaqs on the eastern, western and northern sides. These riwaqs are supported by seven wooden posts on the eastern and western sides, and by six wooden posts on the northern side, which is larger and also functions as a congregation area for latecomers. The wooden posts of the building

Figure 3. Bekdemir Mosque exterior.

292

E.E. Naza Dönmez: Some Observations on the Dating of the Kavak Bekdemir Mosque in Samsun

Figure 4. Bekdemir Mosque exterior.

Bismillah and continues with these words: ‘Ya mufettihu’l-ebvab iftah lena hayre’l ebvab’ (O opener of the doors, open for us the blessed auspicious doors) (Figs. 5-6). The latticework of the windows on the sides of the mosque is diagonal in design on the upper level, while those on the lower level are in cubed design. The main area is fully decorated. The hand-painted decorations are applied with a madder plant dye of red, green and yellow tones. The wooden minber is inside a concave niche, which is hand decorated. The side borders are oval chains and the section inside these chains is decorated with stylised plants. There is a curtain shaped decoration on the mihrap niche, there are stylised plant decorations hanging down on the sides on the curtain. In the centre of the Mihrap niche there is a plain green line with a motif of a flowerpot on a stand on it. Inside this flowerpot there is a naturalistic representation of weeping bride flowers (frittaria imperialis).14 There are large rosette decorations on both sides of the flowers. Five lamp decorations can be seen under the line. At the lowest level there are five green-leaved rose motifs. A triangular wooden pediment with Sand C-shaped decorations formed using fretwork technique. On the hand-carved decorative wooden door of the minber in the mosque there is a standard sun

Figure 5. Bekdemir Mosque, decoration detail.

shape with a sun ray decoration formed using fretwork technique and on this S- and C-shaped circular decorations at the top a standard in the shape of a

These flowers are first seen on 17th-century tiles. They were used with popularity in the 18th century. They are especially seen on women’s gravestones. 14 

293

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity wide borders and the insides of these are painted. On the conical spire there is also a crest decorated with S- and C-shaped decorations formed with fretwork technique and this has a standard on it. The railings of the minber are decorated with stylised plant motifs formed using fretwork technique. The cubbyhole section in the side wing of the minber has hand-drawn decorations and antique arches with pillars and stylised plant motifs have again been placed inside these. On the wide surface of the side wing there are some handdrawn stylised naturalistic plant decorations. There is a round table with a stand next to giant leafed stylised plants. On this table there is a sliced watermelon and a knife on the side. There other decorations consist of vine branches with grapes around the table, a date palm next to these and bunches of roses in the corner (Figs. 7-8). A general evaluation of the decorations of this section would suggest that this represents a kind of Garden of Paradise. On the wall of the mihrap and on both sides of the mihrap there are hand-carved round panels. There are three panels on the western side and four on the eastern side. The names of Allah, Muhammed and the Four Caliphs are written on these panels. On the last panel on the eastern side there is a decoration in the form of a clock (Fig. 9). On the wing of the window on the western side of the mihrap there is a hand-drawn ewer with a red fruit tree motif on it. There is also some hand-drawn writing on the mihrap wall. On the circular panels on the western side of the mihrap there is a plaque with an inscription on it: ‘Sahibu’l-hayrat ve l-hasenat el Hacı Abdurrahman’ (Fig. 10). This is most probably the name of the person

Figure 6. Prayer detail, inside Bekdemir Mosque door.

stylised date tree. The conical spire of the pavilion is surrounded by railings with S- and C-shaped decorations formed using fretwork technique. The conical spire consists of two cones placed one on top of the other. The surface of the cones has been hand decorated with

who restored the building. In another inscription on the mihrap in müsenna style (mirror writing or double writing) the words ‘Maşallah Nakkaş Said 1293 (1876)’ are written (Fig. 11). Nakkaş Said, mentioned in this inscription, must have been the artist who executed the hand decorations in this building. The mahfil railings of this building are plain. The surfaces have been painted alternately in squares. There are floral plant decorations inside undulating branches on the fronts of the wooden posts of the mahfil. The hand-carved designs on the decorated ceiling are surrounded by square borders one inside the other; the border becomes octagonal in the centre and a circular wooden central ceiling design has been placed inside it. The border on the outer edge of the ceiling consists of alternately painted diamonds. The other borders inside each other are decorated with

Figure 7. Minber decorations inside Bekdemir Mosque.

294

E.E. Naza Dönmez: Some Observations on the Dating of the Kavak Bekdemir Mosque in Samsun

Figure 8. Floral decorative details inside Bekdemir Mosque.

Figure 9. Names of Allah, Muhammed and Four Caliphs on the panels inside Bekdemir Mosque.

stylised plant motifs and a grift design. The wooden central ceiling design consists of engraved plant leaf decorations formed with S and C volutions, but left unpainted. In the middle of the ceiling design there is a wooden pendant with leaves opening outwards (Fig. 12). Bekdemir Mosque is the most decorated of the buildings studied. These decorations must have been

created when it was restored in 1876. The decorative characteristics can be described as Late Baroque provincial examples of the Westernisation period. Bekdemir Mosque is an important example of Black Sea wooden architecture. The structure differs from the other wooden mosques of the Samsun region both by its 295

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity

Figure 10. Circular panel detail on the western side of the mihrap, Bekdemir Mosque.

structure. Kuniholm, who took examples from the trees used in the construction of the building for analysis, gave two dates and made some unusual comments: he took wooden samples from both the lower and upper levels of the mosque, dated the lower level to 1585 and the upper to 1876. He established the fact that the two levels belonged to completely different periods but could not explain why the trees of the upper level were newer (Figs. 4-5). He found no evidence that the upper level of the mosque had been destroyed by fire and ponders whether the building could have undergone a change when it was carried from its original location; but the newer building was constructed with exactly the same dimensions as the older. The answer is that the upper level of the building was added later. This means that the building was initially single storey, and the second storey including the mahfil section was added later when the mosque underwent a full-scale restoration. The interior decorations must also have been added at this time (1876). Actually, the solution to this problem lies in the riwaq posts that surround the building on three sides and are the height of both levels. If samples had been taken from these posts, it would probably have become clear whether or not the original building was one or two storeys. However, Kuniholm does not say anything about the dating of the riwaq posts. In conclusion, it is clear that the building was constructed around the early date of 1585 and restored in 1876, the same as the date on the muralist’s inscription. We can therefore accept the date suggested by Kuniholm to be accurate.

Figure 11. Detail on inscription on the mihrap executed in Müsenna style, Bekdemir Mosque.

architecture and its decoration. The two-floor portico which surrounds the structure on three sides can only be encountered here, and this also helps us in dating the 296

E.E. Naza Dönmez: Some Observations on the Dating of the Kavak Bekdemir Mosque in Samsun

Figure 12. Detail on the wooden pendant in the ceiling, leaves opening outwards, Bekdemir Mosque.

Kuniholm15 also made some striking comments about the wood samples he took from Bekdemir Mosque. He states that they have yielded results that are different from and more important than those of all the other buildings and, as remarked above, that they have been used to date 65 buildings of divers purpose extending from the 12th century to the 20th over a wide area; that, added to the forest chronology obtained from Zonguldak, they provide a Black Sea oak chronology up to 1058; and that the wood used in some buildings in distant places was oak imported from the Black Sea coast, his examples stretching from Salonica to Istanbul via Çanakkale. As a result, Bekdemir Mosque should arouse the interest of those researching the history of art and architecture and be seen as an important building from that perspective.16

Danışman, G. 1986. ‘Samsun Yöresi Ahşap Mimarisinin Gelenekselliği. Bafra, İkiztepe Arkeolojik Verilerinin Işığında Çarşamba, Gökçeli Camii’nin İncelenmesi’. In IX. Türk Tarih Kongresi, vol. 1 (Ankara): 135-44. Dönmez, Ş. 2002a. ‘1997-1999 Yılları Yüzey Araştırmalarında İncelenen Samsun-Amasya İlleri İ.Ö. 2. Binyılı Yerleşmeleri’. Belleten LXV/244: 873903. Dönmez, Ş. 2002b. ‘The 2nd Millennium BC Settlements in Samsun and Amasya Provinces, Central Black Sea Region, Turkey’. Ancient West and East 1.2: 243-93. Dönmez, Ş. 2004. ‘Akalan Hakkında Yeni Gözlemler’. Anadolu Araştırmaları 17.1: 67-91. Dönmez, Ş. 2005. ‘Orta Karadeniz Bölgesi’nde Önemli Bir Demir Çağı Yerleşmesi: Ladik-Köyiçi Tepesi/ Ikizari’. Anadolu Araştırmaları 18.1: 65-109. Dönmez, Ş. 2007. ‘Zindankaya: The Largest Known Iron Age Settlement in the Central Black Sea Region, Turkey’. In Third International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities (Pontic Congress), Prague, 11-18 September 2005) (= Eirene 43) (Prague): 143-60. Kuniholm, P.I. 2000. ‘Dendrochronologically dated Ottoman Monuments’. In Baran, U. and Carroll, L. (eds) A Historical Archaeology of the Ottoman Empire: Breaking New Ground (New York): 93-136. Macridy, T. 1907. ‘Une citadelle Archaique du Pont’. Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gessellschaft 4: 16775. Naza Dönmez, E.E. 2008. Wooden Mosques of the Samsun Region, Turkey from the Past to Present in the Light of Surveys Carried Out in the Years 2001-2003 (Oxford).

Bibliography Alkım, U.B., Alkım, H. and Bilgi, Ö. 2003. İkiztepe II: Üçüncü, Dördüncü, Beşinci, Altıncı, Yedinci Dönem Kazıları (1976-1980) (Ankara). Ayverdi, E.H. 1966. İstanbul Mimari Çağının Menşe’i. Osmanlı Mimarinsin İlk Devri (Istanbul). Bilgi, Ö. 1998. ‘MÖ 2. Binyılda Orta Karadeniz Bölgesi’. III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi, (Ankara) 63-75. Can, Y. 2004. Samsun Yöresinde Bulunan Ahşap Camiler (Istanbul). Cummer, W.W. 1976. ‘Iron Age Pottery from Akalan’. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 26: 31-36. 15  16 

Kuniholm 2000: 97-98. Kuniholm 2000: 97-98.

297

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Özçağlar, A. 1995. ‘Çarşamba Ovası ve Yakın Çevresinde Araziden Faydalanma’. Ankara Üniversitesi Türkiye Coğrafyası Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi 3: 93128.

Yakar, J. and Garzon, J.L. 1976. ‘The Survival of Ancient Traditions in the Popular Architecture of NorthCentral Turkey’. Expedition 18: 43-47.

298

List of Contributors Hülya Çalışkan Akgül Archaeology Department Faculty of Letters Karadeniz Technical University Kanuni Campus 61080 Ortahisar/Trabzon Turkey [email protected]

Dmitry Chistov Department of Classical Antiquity State Hermitage Museum 190000 St Petersburg Russia [email protected] E. Emine Naza Dönmez Art History Department/Turkish and Islamic Art Department Faculty of Letters Istanbul University 34453 Beyazıt/Istanbul Turkey [email protected]

Handan Bilici Altunkayalıer Archaeology Department Faculty of Letters Bartın University Kutlubey Campus – Yazıcıilar Bartıin Turkey [email protected]

Şevket Dönmez Protohistory and Near Eastern Archaeology Department Faculty of Letters Istanbul University 34453 Beyazıt/Istanbul Turkey

Sümer Atasoy Fenerbahçe Mehmet Şengül sokak 5, D. 6 34726 Istanbul Turkey [email protected] Alexandru Avram Faculty of Letters, Languages and Human Sciences Le Mans University Avenue Olivier Messiaen 72000 Le Mans France [email protected]

Pierre Dupont Laboratoire de Céramologie Maison de l’Orient 7 rue Raulin 69007 Lyon France [email protected]

Ali Bora Archaeology Department Faculty of Letters Bartın University Kutlubey Campus – Yazıcıilar Bartıin Turkey [email protected]

D. Burcu Erciyas Graduate Program of Settlement Archaeology Middle East Technical University Çankaya/Ankara Turkey [email protected]

Alexander Butyagin Department of Classical Antiquity State Hermitage Museum 190000 St Petersburg Russia [email protected]

Ayşe F. Erol Department of Archaeology Faculty of Letters Ankara Haçı Bayram Veli University Ankara Turkey [email protected]

Fatma Bağdatlı Çam Archaeology Department Faculty of Letters Bartın University Kutlubey Campus – Yazıcıilar Bartıin Turkey [email protected]

Şengül Dilek Ful Art History Department Faculty of Arts and Sciences Gaziosmanpaşa University Tokat Turkey [email protected] 299

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity Amiran and Emzar Kakhidze Batumi Shota Rustavelli State University Batumi Georgia [email protected] [email protected]

Alexandr V. Podossinov Novoyasenevskii Pr. 12-3-119 117574 Moscow Russia [email protected]

Kakhaber Kamadadze Gonio-Apsarus Archaeological-Architectural Museum and Sanctuary Georgia [email protected]

P.G. Stolyarenko Historico-Cultural Museum Preserve Aaverdlova str. 7 298320 Kerch Republic of Crimea Russia [email protected] 

Aleksei Kasparov Institute for the History of Material Culture Russian Academy of Sciences Dvortsovaia emb.18 191186 St Petersburg Russia [email protected]

Mustafa Nuri Tatbul Koç University Istanbul Turkey [email protected] Akın Temür Department of Archaeology Faculty of Letters Ondokuz Mayıs University Kurupelit Campus 55139 Samsun Turkey [email protected]

Vasilica Lungu Institut d’Études Sud-Est Européennes Bucuresti CP 22-159 Romania [email protected] Sota Mamuladze Batumi Shota Rustavelli State University Batumi Georgia [email protected]

Gocha R. Tsetskhladze The Gallery Spa Road Llandrindod Wells Powys LD1 5ER UK [email protected]

Manolis Manoledakis  School of Humanities  International Hellenic University 14th km Thessaloniki-N. Moudania 57001 Thermi Greece [email protected]

Marina Y. Vakhtina Institute for the History of Material Culture Russian Academy of Sciences Dvortsovaia emb.18 191186 St Petersburg Russia [email protected]

Özkan Özbilgin Department of Archaeology Social Sciences Institute Ondokuz Mayıs University Kurupelit Campus 55139 Samsun Turkey [email protected]

Yurii A. Vinogradov Institute for the History of Material Culture Russian Academy of Sciences Dvortsovaia emb.18 191186 St Petersburg Russia [email protected]

Mehmet and Nesrin Özsait Sahrayıcedid Mah. Bayar Caddesi, Eser Apt. No. 7, Daire 24 Kadıkoy Istanbul Turkey

300

List of Contributors Davut Yiğitpaşa Department of Archaeology Faculty of Letters Ondokuz Mayıs University Kurupelit Campus 55139 Samsun Turkey [email protected]

Şahin Yıldırım Department of Archaeology Faculty of Letters Bartıin University Bartin Turkey [email protected]

Ertaç Yıldırım Department of Archaeology Gazi University Ankara Turkey [email protected]

301

Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity contains a selection of some two dozen of the papers from an international conference held in October 2017 at Tekkeköy in Samsun, ancient Amisos, on the Turkish Black Sea coast. The archaeology sessions included presentations not only on the Tekkeköy/Samsun region but also on other parts of the Black Sea. They were presented by participants from Bulgaria, France, Georgia, Romania, Russia, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The selection offered here includes almost all of the contributions on archaeology and ancient history. The papers cover all shores of the Black Sea, studying (once again), the establishment dates of some Greek colonies, East Greek transport amphorae, the Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana, the history of Tekkeköy, a Sinopean from Tomis, imports at Açic Suat (Caraburun), arrowhead and dolphin-shaped monetary signs from Berezan, the pre-Roman economy of Myrmekion, the necropolis of Porthmion, Artyushchenko-1 settlement on the Taman Peninsula, South Pontic imports at Classical sites in Ajara, recent excavations in Gonio-Apsarus, the Alaca Höyük Chalcolithic culture in coastal settlements, the Baruthan Tumuli at Amisos, iron finds from the Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası excavations, new excavations at Amastris, ancient Sebastopolis, politics and diplomacy in Paphlagonia, the Great Göztepe tumulus in Paphlagonia, Amasya-Oluz Höyük, the Iron Age sites of Zile district, Byzantine finds at Komana, glass bracelets from Samsun Museum, and dating the Kavak Bekdemir Mosque in Samsun.

Gocha Tsetskhladze (PhD Moscow, DPhil Oxford) is a classical archaeologist who specialises in ancient Greek colonisation and the archaeology of the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, Caucasia, Anatolia, and Central and Eastern Europe in the 1st millennium BC. For more than 20 years he has excavated several Greek colonial sites around the Black Sea (in Georgia, Russia, and the Ukraine). In 2009 he became director of the excavation at Pessinus in central Anatolia. From 2004 to 2015 he taught Mediterranean, Anatolian, and Black Sea archaeology at Melbourne University, Australia. Prior to moving there he had resided in England for 14 years, four of them in Oxford as a pupil of Prof. Sir John Boardman, then ten teaching classical archaeology at the University of London, where he was also director of the University of London excavations in Phanagoria, a Greek colony in South Russia. He has now returned to Britain. Professor Tsetskhladze is the author of more than 250 books, edited volumes, chapters, articles, etc.; founder and series editor of the publication series Colloquia Pontica, now Colloquia Antiqua; and founder and editor-in-chief of the journal Ancient West and East. He has organised many international conferences, congresses, etc., notably the International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities that he established in 1995. He was awarded the Gold Medal of Charles University, Prague, in May 2015, in recognition of his academic achievements, and was made Professor of the University of Bucharest, honoris causa, in November 2015. He has lectured extensively at universities in Europe and North America. Sümer Atasoy (PhD Istanbul) is a classical archaeologist and a specialist in museum studies and cultural heritage. He taught at several universities in Turkey, including Istanbul. He has excavated many sites in Anatolia, including Amisos/ Samsun, one of the principal Greek colonies on the southern Black Sea coast. He has published a book on Amisos in Turkish and English. For more than ten years he has been director of excavations at Tios, the only Greek colony in the southern Black Sea not to have been overbuilt. Recently, a large volume detailing the work of the Tios excavation appeared (in Turkish with extensive English summaries). He has written on the metal lamp collections of Istanbul Archaeological Museums (published by Archaeopress in BAR). He is the author of many articles and a member of several editorial boards, including the journal Ancient West and East and its monograph supplement, Colloquia Antiqua. He has visited the UK several times (under the auspices of the British Academy and the British Council), the USA (Dumbarton Oaks) and other countries to conduct research.

Archaeopress Archaeology www.archaeopress.com