The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Phrygia in Antiquity: Aspects of archaeology and ancient history 9781407310312, 9781407340104

Table of contents :
Pages 349-354from 9781407310312.p-4.pdf
1
2
3
4
5
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Preface
List of Illustrations
List of Tables
A HOARD OF BRONZE PONTIC AND BOSPORAN COINS OF THE REIGN OF MITHRADATES VI FROM PHANAGORIA, 2007
THE LATE CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC POTTERΥ OF SINOPE AND AMISOS
MARGINAL OR MAINSTREAM? THE CHARACTER OF SETTLEMENT IN LATE ROMAN PAPHLAGONIA
NEW EXPLORATION OF THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA COAST: FILYOS – TIOS
ANCIENT ANATOLIA: CULTURAL MOSAIC, NOT MELTING POT
LES PONTOBITHYNIENS EN DACIE ROMAINE
PAPHLAGONIA BETWEEN GOTHS, SASANIDS AND ARABS (3rd-8th centuries AD)
THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN CERAMICS FROM FIELD SURVEYS AT DEVREK AND ITS ENVIRONS, WEST BLACK SEA REGION OF TURKEY
A NEW EXCAVATION IN PONTIC CAPPADOCIA: AMASYA-OLUZ HÖYÜK. PRELIMINARY RESULTS FOR THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD AND IRON AGE LAYERS
REGIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT NETWORK OF THE COASTAL PONTIC PROVINCES IN THE EARLY BYZANTINE PERIOD
THE PONTIC ARMY: INTEGRATING PERSIAN AND MACEDONIAN TRADITIONS
MILESIAN AND SINOPEAN TRADERS IN COLCHIS (GREEKS AT PHASIS AND THE RANSOMING OF SHIPWRECKED SAILORS)
THE AMISOS TREASURE: A HELLENISTIC TOMB FROM THE AGE OF MITHRADATES EUPATOR
A 3D DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MODEL OF A ROMAN ‘BIRDROCK MONUMENT’ IN THE NORTH-WEST REGION OF ANATOLIA
SINOPEAN AMPHORAE IN APSARUS
CHERSONESUS IN THE CRIMEA: EARLY BYZANTINE CAPITALS WITH FINE-TOOTHED ACANTHUS LEAVES
BASILICA LESNOE-1 NEAR SOCHI IN THE NORTH-EASTERN BLACK SEA REGION
THE HESTIATORION OF THE CHAIKA SETTLEMENT IN THE NORTH-WESTERN CRIMEA
DREI NEU ENTDECKTE PHALLOSSTEINE AUS DER CHORA VON HADRIANOPOLIS
RED SLIP WARE IN CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE
STRABO ON THE PERSIAN ARTEMIS AND MÊN IN PONTUS AND LYDIA
FINDS OF ROMAN COINS OF ASIA MINOR PROVINCIAL MINTAGE IN THE TERRITORY OF CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE
BITHYNIA, PAPHLAGONIA AND PONTUS ON THE TABULA PEUTINGERIANA
CULTES ISIAQUES EN PONT ET PAPHLAGONIE
INVESTIGATION OF THE LATE SCYTHIAN CINDER HEAP ON THE SITE OF CHAIKA NEAR EVPATORIA IN THE NORTH-WEST CRIMEA
STRATEGIES OF CONTINUITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ETHNIC AND CULTURAL IDENTITY: THE LINEAGE AND ROLE OF ZEUS STRATIOS IN PONTUS AND PAPHLAGONIA
PAPHLAGONIAN HORSEMEN IN CUNAXA (Xenophon Anabasis 1. 8. 5)
THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA COAST AND ITS HINTERLAND: AN ETHNO-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
THE ROCK-CUT MONUMENTS OF PHRYGIA, PAPHLAGONIA AND THRACE: A COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW
STASIS AND POLEMOS AT PONTUS IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 4TH CENTURY BC ACCORDING TO AENEAS TACTICUS: THE DATAMES’ SIEGE OF SINOPE
THE SAGA OF THE ARGONAUTS: A REFLEX OF THRACO-PHRYGIAN MARITIME ENCROACHMENT ON THE SOUTHERN PONTIC LITTORAL
AMASTRIS (PAPHLAGONIA): A STUDY IN BYZANTINE URBAN HISTORY BETWEEN LATE ANTIQUITY AND THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES
PECULIARITIES OF THE PAINTINGS OF BOSPORAN CRYPTS OF THE 3RD-6TH CENTURIES AD
Appendix 1 PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON
Appendix 2 PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2011 FIELD SEASON

Citation preview

BAR S2432 2012 TSETSKHLADZE (Ed.) THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY

B A R

The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Phrygia in Antiquity Aspects of archaeology and ancient history

Edited by

Gocha R. Tsetskhladze With the assistance of Erguen Laflı, James Hargrave and William Anderson

BAR International Series 2432 2012

The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Phrygia in Antiquity Aspects of archaeology and ancient history Edited by

Gocha R. Tsetskhladze With the assistance of Erguen Laflı, James Hargrave and William Anderson

BAR International Series 2432 2012

ISBN 9781407310312 paperback ISBN 9781407340104 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407310312 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Table of Contents Preface................................................................................................................................... iv List of illustrations ................................................................................................................. v List of tables ......................................................................................................................... xv A hoard of bronze Pontic and Bosporan coins of the reign of Mithradates VI from Phanagoria, 2007 ..................................................................................................... 1 Mikhail ABRAMZON The Late Classical and Hellenistic pottery of Sinope and Amisos ......................................... 9 Anna ALEXANDROPOULOU Marginal or mainstream? The character of settlement in Late Roman Paphlagonia ............ 13 William ANDERSON and Abby ROBINSON New exploration of the southern Black Sea coast: Filyos – Tios ......................................... 29 Sümer ATASOY Ancient Anatolia: cultural mosaic, not melting pot.............................................................. 35 Eka AVALIANI Les Pontobithyniens en Dacie romaine ................................................................................ 39 Lucreţiu MIHAILESCU-BÎRLIBA Paphlagonia between Goths, Sasanids and Arabs (3rd-8th centuries AD) ........................... 45 Thomas BRÜGGEMANN The Hellenistic and Roman ceramics from field surveys at Devrek and its environs, west Black Sea region of Turkey......................................................... 53 Ertekin DOKSANALTI and Güngör KARAUĞUZ A new excavation in Pontic Cappadocia: Amasya-Oluz Höyük. Preliminary results for the Hellenistic period and Iron Age layers ................................................................ 67 Şevket DÖNMEZ Regional transformations and the settlement network of the coastal Pontic provinces in the Early Byzantine period ......................................................................................... 79 Dimitris P. DRAKOULIS The Pontic army: integrating Persian and Macedonian traditions ........................................ 97 Cristian E. GHITA

i

Milesian and Sinopean traders in Colchis (Greeks at Phasis and the ransoming of shipwrecked sailors) ................................................................................................. 105 J.G.F. HIND(†) The Amisos Treasure: a Hellenistic tomb from the age of Mithradates Eupator ............... 109 Monica M. JACKSON A 3D digital photogrammetric model of a Roman ‘birdrock monument’ in the north-west region of Anatolia ............................................................................. 117 Güngör KARAUĞUZ, Özşen ÇORUMLUOĞLU, İbrahim KALAYCI and İbrahim ASRI Sinopean amphorae in Apsarus .......................................................................................... 123 Merab KHALVASHI and Emzar KAKHIDZE Chersonesus in the Crimea: Early Byzantine capitals with fine-toothed acanthus leaves ............................................................................................................. 129 Liudmila G. KHRUSHKOVA Basilica Lesnoe-1 near Sochi in the north-eastern Black Sea region ................................. 141 Liudmila G. KHRUSHKOVA and Dmitri E. VASILINENKO The Hestiatorion of the Chaika settlement in the north-western Crimea ........................... 153 Sergei A. KOVALENKO Drei neu entdeckte Phallossteine aus der Chora von Hadrianopolis .................................. 163 Ergün LAFLI und Eva CHRISTOF Red Slip Ware in Chernyakhov culture .............................................................................. 171 Boris MAGOMEDOV and Sergey DIDENKO Strabo on the Persian Artemis and Mên in Pontus and Lydia ............................................ 191 Iulian MOGA Finds of Roman coins of Asia Minor provincial mintage in the territory of Chernyakhov Culture ............................................................................................... 197 Kyrylo MYZGIN Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Pontus on the Tabula Peutingeriana ....................................... 203 Alexander V. PODOSSINOV Cultes isiaques en Pont et Paphlagonie .............................................................................. 207 Jean-Louis PODVIN Investigation of the Late Scythian cinder heap on the site of Chaika near Evpatoria in the north-west Crimea ...................................................................... 213 Elena A. POPOVA and Tatiana V. EGOROVA Strategies of continuity in the construction of ethnic and cultural identity: the lineage and role of Zeus Stratios in Pontus and Paphlagonia ................................. 223 Annette TEFFETELLER Paphlagonian horseman in Cunaxa (Xenophon Anabasis 1. 8. 5) ...................................... 229 Bruno TRIPODI The southern Black Sea coast and its hinterland: an ethno-cultural perspective ................ 235 Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE ii

The rock-cut monuments of Phrygia, Paphlagonia and Thrace: a comparative overview ................................................................................................ 243 Maya VASSILEVA Stasis and polemos at Pontus in the first half of the 4th century BC according to Aeneas Tacticus: the Datames’ siege of Sinope ...................................... 253 José VELA TEJADA The saga of the Argonauts: a reflex of Thraco-Phrygian maritime encroachment on the southern Pontic littoral ............................................................... 263 Fred C. WOUDHUIZEN Amastris (Paphlagonia): a study in Byzantine urban history between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages ................................................................... 273 Luca ZAVAGNO Peculiarities of the paintings of Bosporan crypts of the 3rd-6th centuries AD................... 285 Elena A. ZINKO Appendix 1: Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2010 Field Season ................................................................................................................. 293 Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE, William ANDERSON, Alexandru AVRAM, Suzana AVRAM, Vincent CLARK, Kristal FLEMMING, Eser KORTANOĞLU, Damjan KRSMANOVIC, Michelle NEGUS CLEARY, Armin SCHMIDT and Robert WEILAND Appendix 2: Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2011 Field Season ................................................................................................................. 329 Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE, Jason ADAMS, Alexandru AVRAM, Suzana AVRAM, Edward DANDROW, Andrew MADDEN, Paolo MARANZANA, Layal NASERDIN and Armin SCHMIDT

iii

Preface The ambition of this present volume is to cover a very large area – the Black Sea region, Paphlagonia, Pontus (the latter in two geographical terms as the Romans understood them) and Phrygia. The papers vary in their coverage, from the archaeological to the linguistic, from numismatics to pottery (and peoples), jewellery to rock-cut tombs, inscriptions to basilicas, and from the myth of the Argonauts to the Tabula Peutingeriana. Some present new evidence, others reinterpret old; in addition, there are contributions with a more theoretical focus. From the outset, the aim was to bring together all different types of available evidence about the areas under consideration, plus the results of recent excavations and surveys, particularly in Pontus, Paphlagonia and Phrygia (this last represented by the appendices on Pessinus). I hope that this has been realised. Papers are arranged alphabetically: the original intention of dividing them into various headings and categories did not survive close scrutiny of their contents, since so many of them cross borders, geographical and thematic; and their chronological range is almost a millennium. Moreover, those focused on the Black Sea form an overwhelming plurality. It is in acceptance of the diversity that I also cast aside a plan to write an Introduction that would have sought to bind all the regions and contents together: the 35 papers in this collection simply range too wide to be done justice in this way. As a partial substitute, my own paper, ‘The southern Black Sea coast and its hinterland: an ethno-cultural perspective’, seeks to cover a broad spectrum of recent developments and interpretations for the southern Black Sea coast and hinterland. The volume has been three years in gestation. Editing, copy-editing and the checking of references are time-consuming activities. I would like to thank James Hargrave, William Anderson and Ergün Laflı for their help with these tasks. Ergün Laflı translated all the abstracts into Turkish, except those for the appendices, which were the work of Tugce Tagmat. My sincere thanks go to David Davison and his colleagues for agreeing to publish the volume and for their technical help. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze Melbourne

iv

List of Illustrations Mikhail Abramzon: A hoard of bronze Pontic and Bosporan coins of the reign of Mithradates VI from Phanagoria, 2007 Fig. 1: First hoard before cleaning ......................................................................................... 1 Fig. 2: Hoard of Panticapaeum tetrachalkoi (double original size) ........................................ 2 Fig. 3: Second hoard from burned building............................................................................ 3 Fig. 4: Second hoard on plate ................................................................................................. 3 Fig. 5: Ceramic plate on which second hoard was placed ...................................................... 3 Fig. 6: Bosporan and Pontic coins from Phanagoria .............................................................. 4 Fig. 7: Bosporan and Pontic coins from Phanagoria .............................................................. 5

William Anderson and Abby Robinson: Marginal or mainstream? The character of settlement in Late Roman Paphlagonia Fig. 1: Map of Anatolia and surroundings showing the Project Paphlagonia survey region ........................................................................... 14 Fig. 2: Map of Roman/Byzantine sites recorded by Project Paphlagonia ............................ 15 Fig. 3: Forms of evidence for Roman/Byzantine sites in Paphlagonia................................. 16 Fig. 4: Roman/Byzantine site types recorded by Project Paphlagonia ................................. 16 Fig. 5: Kaisareia Hadrianopolis, with excavated bath house in the foreground ................... 18 Fig. 6: Ceramics from Antoninopolis, PS066 ...................................................................... 18 Fig. 7: The Devrez valley at Ilgaz, where many Late Roman sites are located .................... 19 Fig. 8: Pottery from intensive survey near Ilgaz, site ILG4-7 .............................................. 19 Fig. 9: Limestone outcrop in the east of Hadrianopolis ....................................................... 21 Fig. 10: Bozoğlu Tepe, near Çerkeş ..................................................................................... 22 Fig. 11: View from the summit of Bozoğlu Tepe, with collapsed walls in the foreground ............................................................................................................ 22 Fig. 12: Flat, rock-cut graves near Hadrianopolis ................................................................ 23 Fig. 13: Carved capital outside Çankırı Museum ................................................................. 23 Fig. 14: Reused columns and capitals in the Büyük Camii, Çankırı .................................... 23

Sümer Atasoy: New exploration of the southern Black Sea coast: Filyos – Tios Fig. 1: Location of Tios ........................................................................................................ 30 Fig. 2: The Acropolis ........................................................................................................... 31 Fig. 3: Pottery from the Acropolis........................................................................................ 31

v

Fig. 4: The city centre .......................................................................................................... 31 Fig. 5: The ancient harbour .................................................................................................. 32 Fig. 6: The sea walls............................................................................................................. 32 Fig. 7: The aqueduct ............................................................................................................. 32 Fig. 8: The theatre ................................................................................................................ 32 Fig. 9: The theatre ................................................................................................................ 32 Fig. 10: Finds from theatre ................................................................................................... 33

Ertekin Doksanalti and Güngör Karauğuz: The Hellenistic and Roman ceramics from field surveys at Devrek and its environs, west Black Sea region of Turkey Fig. 1: Settlements and ceramics finds ................................................................................. 54 Fig. 2: Cooking pots ............................................................................................................. 56 Fig. 3: Casseroles ................................................................................................................. 57 Fig. 4: Pots ........................................................................................................................... 58 Fig. 5: Large bowls .............................................................................................................. 59 Fig. 6: Tepecikören .............................................................................................................. 60 Fig. 7: Emdüller ................................................................................................................... 62 Fig. 8: Bodaç ........................................................................................................................ 63

Şevket Dönmez: A new excavation in Pontic Cappadocia: Amasya-Oluz Höyük. Preliminary results for the Hellenistic period and Iron Age layers Fig. 1: Location of Oluz Höyük ........................................................................................... 68 Fig. 2: General view from the north-east.............................................................................. 69 Fig. 3: General view, Building Layer 2, Trench A ............................................................... 70 Fig. 4a-b: Bronze coin, Building Layer 1, End of 2nd-beginning of 1st century BC, Trench A ......................................................................................................................... 71 Fig. 5: Clay oil lamp, Building Layer 1, Trench A .............................................................. 71 Fig. 6: Marble mortar, Building Layer 1, Trench A ............................................................. 71 Fig. 7: Vessel in the shape of a woman’s breast, Building Layer 2, Trench A .................... 72 Fig. 8: Bowl, Building Layer 2, Trench A ........................................................................... 72 Fig. 9: Crater fragment, Building Layer 2, Trench A ........................................................... 72 Fig. 10: General view, Building Layer 1, Trench B ............................................................. 73 Fig. 11: Pitcher, Building Layer 4, Trench B ....................................................................... 74

Dimitris P. Drakoulis: Regional transformations and the settlement network of the coastal Pontic provinces in the Early Byzantine period Fig. 1: The coastal Pontic provinces in the Early Byzantine period ..................................... 80 Fig. 2: The Eastern Roman Empire in the 6th century AD .................................................. 81 Fig. 3: The Roman provinces in Asia Minor in the 3rd century AD .................................... 82 Fig. 4: The provinces of the Dioecesis Pontica in the 4th century AD, according to the Laterculus Veroniensis......................................................................... 83 Fig. 5: The provinces of the Dioecesis Pontica in the 6th century AD, according to the Synecdemus of Hierocles ..................................................................... 83 Fig. 6: The coastal Pontic provinces in the 5th century AD, according to the Notitia Dignitatum ............................................................................... 83 Fig. 7: The coastal Pontic provinces during the Justinianic reforms, Novellae XXI-XXIX, AD 535-548................................................................................. 84

vi

Monica M. Jackson: The Amisos Treasure: a Hellenistic tomb from the age of Mithradates Eupator Fig. 1: (a). Ground plan of tomb; (b). Cross-section of tomb ............................................................................................ 110 Fig. 2: Grave 2. Myrtle wreath ........................................................................................... 110 Fig. 3: Grave 3. Hair pin .................................................................................................... 111 Fig. 4: Grave 3. Eros earring. ............................................................................................. 111 Fig. 5: Grave 3. Glass skyphos ........................................................................................... 111 Fig 6: Grave 3. Glass phiale ............................................................................................... 111 Fig. 7: (a). Grave 3. Biconical bead necklace; (b). Knuckle bone necklace .......................................................................................... 112 Fig. 8: (a). Grave 3. Detail of finial from female head bracelet; (b) Female head bracelet finial ..................................................................................... 112 Fig. 9: (a)-(b). Grave 4. Lion’s head bracelets ................................................................... 113 Fig. 10: (a)-(b). Grave 3. Pair Erotes earrings .................................................................... 114 Fig. 11: Pair Earrings, Erotes riding dolphins. Burton Y. Berry Collection, Indiana University Art Museum ................................................................................... 115 Güngör Karauğuz, Özşen Çorumluoğlu, İbrahim Kalayci and İbrahim Asri: A 3D digital photogrammetric model of a Roman ‘birdrock monument’ in the north-west region of Anatolia Fig. 1: Birdrock Monument, Amasra ................................................................................. 118 Fig. 2: Distribution of photographic stations surrounding the façade of the monuments ......................................................................................................... 119 Fig. 3: Creation stage of 3D model by softcopy photogrammetric software ...................... 120 Fig. 4: The finished work of 3D models of the monument ................................................ 121 Merab Khalvashı and Emzar Kakhıdze: Sinopean amphorae in Apsarus Fig. 1: Fragments of Pseudo-Cosian amphorae .................................................................. 124 Fig. 2: Amphorae with handles attached to the shoulder ................................................... 124 Fig. 3: Thick-walled amphorae .......................................................................................... 125 Fig. 4: Thin-walled amphorae ............................................................................................ 125 Fig. 5: Amphorae of the Early Byzantine period ............................................................... 126 Liudmila G. Khrushkova: Chersonesus in the Crimea: Early Byzantine capitals with fine-toothed acanthus leaves Fig. 1: Chersonesus. Vew to the north-west ....................................................................... 129 Fig. 2: Chersonesus Museum. Lapidarium ......................................................................... 130 Fig. 3: Chersonesus Museum. Composite capital 1............................................................ 131 Fig. 4: Chersonesus Museum. Composite capital 2............................................................ 131 Fig. 5: Chersonesus Museum. Composite capital 3............................................................ 131 Fig. 6: Chersonesus Museum. Lapidarium: composite capital ........................................... 132 Fig. 7: Chersonesus. Basilica 1935: view to the south-east................................................ 133 Fig. 8: Chersonesus. Basilica 1935: Corinthian capital ...................................................... 133 Fig. 9: Chersonesus Museum. Composite capital 4............................................................ 133 Fig. 10: Chersonesus. Basilica 15: view to the north-east .................................................. 133 Fig. 11: Hermitage Museum. Two-zone capital ................................................................. 134 Fig. 12: Chersonesus Museum. Two-zone capital 1........................................................... 134

vii

Fig. 13: Chersonesus Museum. Two-zone capital 2........................................................... 134 Fig. 14: Chersonesus Museum. Corinthian capital 1 .......................................................... 135 Fig. 15: Chersonesus Museum. Corinthian capital 2 .......................................................... 135 Fig. 16: Chersonesus Museum. Corinthian capital 3 .......................................................... 135 Fig. 17: Chersonesus Museum. Capitals and fragments (above)........................................ 136 Fig. 18: Chersonesus Museum. Fragment of capital .......................................................... 136 Fig. 19: Uvarov Basilica. View to the south-east ............................................................... 136 Fig. 20: Museum of History, Moscow. Ionic impost capital .............................................. 136 Fig. 21: Chersonesus Museum. Lapidarium: lyre-shaped capital....................................... 137 Fig. 22: Chersonesus Museum. Lapidarium: v-shaped capital ........................................... 137

Liudmila G. Khrushkova and Dmitri E. Vasilinenko: Basilica Lesnoe-1 near Sochi in the north-eastern Black Sea region Fig. 1: Sochi Museum. Glass vessel ................................................................................... 142 Fig. 2: Sochi Museum. Amphora ....................................................................................... 142 Fig. 3: Amphora, detail ...................................................................................................... 143 Fig. 4: Sochi Museum. Marble slab ................................................................................... 143 Fig. 5: Sochi Museum. Marble capital ............................................................................... 143 Fig. 6: Lesnoe (Lesnyanskaya)-1 basilica. Plan ................................................................. 144 Fig. 7: East part, view to the east ....................................................................................... 145 Fig. 8: West porch, view to the east ................................................................................... 145 Fig. 9: Doorway from the nave in the north aisle ............................................................... 145 Fig. 10: North wall, view to the south-east ........................................................................ 145 Fig. 11: North aisle, view to the west ................................................................................. 146 Fig. 12: North apse, detail .................................................................................................. 146 Fig. 13: South apse, view to the south ................................................................................ 146 Fig. 14: South apse, baptismal font .................................................................................... 146 Fig. 15: Narthex, view to the north .................................................................................... 146 Fig. 16: Tombs 7 and 8, view to the south ......................................................................... 147 Fig. 17: Tomb 7 .................................................................................................................. 147 Fig. 18: Glass vessel from Tomb 7..................................................................................... 147 Fig. 19: Brick ..................................................................................................................... 148 Fig. 20: Lesnyanskaya-2 basilica. Central apse.................................................................. 149 Fig. 21: Lesnyanskaya-2 basilica. South apse, baptismal font ........................................... 149

Sergei A. Kovalenko: The Hestiatorion of the Chaika settlement in the north-western Crimea Fig. 1: General plan of the Chaika settlement with location of Room 111 ........................ 154 Fig. 2: Room 111. Architectural plan ................................................................................. 154 Fig. 3: Room 111. View from the east ............................................................................... 155 Fig. 4. Room 111. South-eastern corner. View from the south-east .................................. 155 Fig. 5: Room 111. South-eastern corner. Crepidoma. View from the south-east ............... 155 Fig. 6: Kitchen and well to the north from hestiatorion. View from the north-east ........... 156 Fig. 7: Hestiatorion. Doorway in the eastern wall. View from the east ............................. 157 Fig. 8: Hestiatorion. Inside location of klinai. Reconstruction .......................................... 157 Fig. 9: Hestiatorion. Reconstruction .................................................................................. 158

viii

Fig. 10: Relief with banqueting Heracles. Found at the Chaika settlement in 1965........... 159

Ergün Laflı und Eva Christof: Drei neu entdeckte Phallossteine aus der Chora von Hadrianopolis Abb. 1: Der Tumulus von Çeştepe in Eskipazar, Ansicht von Osten ................................. 164 Abb. 2: Der Tumulus von Safranbolu, Ansicht von Westen .............................................. 164 Abb. 3: Phallosstein vom Nordabhang der Akropolis von Kimistene................................ 165 Abb. 4: Der zweite Phallosstein aus Kimistene.................................................................. 165 Abb. 5: Phallosstein am Friedhof in Ortaköy ..................................................................... 165 Abb. 6: Hellenistischer Phallosstein aus Daskyleion ......................................................... 166 Abb. 7: Römischer Löwe aus Adak-Sükrüşeyh bei Eflani. Lokaler Kalkstein .................. 166 Abb. 8: Eingang zu einer der römischen Felsgrabkammern in Hacılarobası ..................... 167 Abb. 9: Marmorbasis aus der Moschee von Hacıahmetler; 3. Jh. n. Chr. H.: 100 cm; Dm der Säulenbasis: 50 cm; Dicke des Steines: 60 cm .................................. 167 Abb. 10: Römischer Sarkophagdeckel in Form eines Löwen; Im Bahçepınar-Viertel, Eskipazar-Stadtzentrum, im Garten des Wohnhauses Nr. 7 in der Fevzi-ÇakmakStraße, dorthin verschleppt aus einer nicht näher bekannten Stelle in der Chora von Hadrianopolis. Lokaler Kalkstein ............................................................... 167 Abb. 11: Giebelstele im Belediye-Park von Eskipazar, wahrscheinlich aus der Chora; 2.-3. Jh. n. Chr.; max. H.: 154 cm; Länge: 230 cm; Dicke: 52 cm; Dm der Nische: 92 cm; Tiefe der Nische 25 cm........................................................... 167 Abb. 12: Römische Giebelstele verbaut in der Gartenmauer von Haus Nr. 79 im unteren Teil des Dorfzentrums von Hacılarobası bei Safranbolu; Länge: 99 cm; max. H. 36 cm; min. Dicke: 9 cm; Nische: 30 x 31 cm. Lokaler Kalkstein ......................................................................................................... 167 Abb. 13: Säulenförmige Grabstele, sog. Columella, mit Inschrift aus dem Dorf Kızılcapınar, im Dorfzentrum, Dm: 84 cm; max. gesamte Höhe: 89 cm; Buchstabenhöhe: ca. 4 cm; 3. Jh. n. Chr ....................................................................... 167 Abb. 14: Marmor-Grabstele mit Patera und Schlangen vor dem Rathaus von Eskipazar; gefunden in der Stadtmitte von Hadrianopolis; 3. Jh. n. Chr. H: 196 cm; Breite: 55 cm; Tiefe: 62.5 cm; (vgl. ein ornamentiertes Exemplar aus dem Museum von Bodrum und zwei weitere aus der von C.T. Newton ergrabenen Hagia-MarinaKirche in Türkkuyusu, in Halikarnassos/Karien) ......................................................... 168 Abb. 15: Römische Grabstele aus dem Dorf Tamışlar, Emiroğlu-Viertel, im Garten der heute nicht mehr verwendeten Eski Camii (alten Moschee). Lokaler Marmor ...... 168

Boris Magomedov and Sergey Didenko: Red Slip Ware in Chernyakhov culture Fig. 1: Locations of red slip ware on sites of the Chernyakhov culture. а – types of ’North Black Sea’ series; b – types of ’West Black Sea’ series; c – towns; d – the boundaries of the Chernyakhov culture in the middle of the 4th century; e – limes.......................................................................................... 172 Fig. 2: Red slip ware from sites of the Chernyakhov culture (1-5, 9-11, 13-18) and comparanda (6-8, 12, 19). On all pictures the analogues are marked with the letter ‘A’ ......................................................................................................... 173 Fig. 3: Red slip jugs from sites of the Chernyakhov culture (1, 2, 4, 7) and comparanda (3, 5, 6, 8) .......................................................................................... 176 Fig. 4: Red slip jugs from sites of the Chernyakhov culture (1, 4, 7) and comparanda (2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9) .................................................................................. 178 Fig. 5: Red slip jugs from sites of the Chernyakhov culture (1, 2, 5, 8) and comparanda (3, 4, 6, 7, 9) ...................................................................................... 180 Fig. 6: Red slip jugs from sites of the Chernyakhov culture (1-8) and comparanda (9-11) ................................................................................................. 182

ix

Fig. 7: Red slip jug-oinochoes from sites of the Chernyakhov culture .............................. 183 Fig. 8: Red slip goblet from the Chernyakhov stratum in Tyras (1), vase and cup from the cemetery in Nagornoe ІІ (4, 6) and comparanda (2, 3, 5, 7-9) ....................... 185 Fig. 9: Types and variants of red slip ware from sites of the Chernyakhov culture. А – vessels from the eastern zone (‘North Black Sea’ series) ...................................... 186 Iulian Moga: Strabo on the Persian Artemis and Mên in Pontus and Lydia Fig. 1: (a). The Motaleis: Anaïtis, Mên and Apollo of Hierapolis; (b). The Dioscuri and the Psidiam Goddess ................................................................. 193 Fig. 2: (a). Mên Ploutodotes as a luni-solar god; (b). Helios Apollo Lairbenos represented as a luni-solar god..................................................................... 193 Fig. 3: (a). Mâ as a luni-solar goddess; (b). Artemis Pergaia as a luni-solar goddess ........ 193 Kyrylo Myzgın: Finds of Roman coins of Asia Minor provincial mintage in the territory of Chernyakhov Culture Fig. 1: Finds of Roman coins in the territory of Chernyakhov culture. 1. Single finds; 2. Treasures ......................................................................................... 198 Fig. 2: Finds of Roman coins of Asia Minor provincial mintage in the territory of Chernyakhov culture .................................................................................................... 199 Fig. 3: Roman coin of Asia Minor provincial mintage (Gordian III) from the village Khrushchovaya Nikitovka (Kharkov region, Ukraine) ................................................. 199 Fig. 4: The second stage of the Scythian wars (AD 256-275) ............................................ 200 Jean-Louis Podvin: Cultes isiaques en Pont et Paphlagonie Fig. 1: Sérapis sur la klinè sur une monnaie de Caracalla (Sinope).................................... 209 Fig. 2: Sérapis debout à gauche sur une monnaie de Diaduménien (Sinope) ..................... 209 Fig. 3: Buste de Sérapis à droite sur une monnaie de Géta (Sinope).................................. 209 Fig. 4: Buste de Sérapis à gauche sur une monnaie de Maximin le Thrace (Sinope) ......... 209 Fig. 5: Apis à droite sur une monnaie d’Antonin le Pieux (Sinope)................................... 209 Fig. 6: Isis à la voile sur une monnaie de Faustine la jeune (Amastris) ............................. 209 Fig. 7: Tête d’Isis sur une monnaie de Faustine la jeune (Amastris).................................. 209 Fig. 8: Apis marchant à droite sur une monnaie de Géta (Amastris).................................. 210 Fig. 9: Sérapis debout à gauche sur une monnaie d’Orbiana (Trébizonde) ........................ 210 Fig. 10: Sérapis trônant à gauche sur une monnaie d’Antonin le Pieux (Amaseia) ........... 210 Elena A. Popova and Tatiana V. Egorova: Investigation of the Late Scythian cinder heap on the site of Chaika near Evpatoria in the north-west Crimea Fig. 1: Late Scythian cinder heap and rooms nos. CLIV and CLVII ................................. 214 Fig. 2: Stratigraphy of cinder heap ..................................................................................... 215 Fig. 3: Small pits filled with the remains of fireplaces and pure cinders ........................... 216 Fig. 4: The pit with the terracotta altar. View from the east ............................................... 216 Fig. 5: Terracotta altar ........................................................................................................ 216 Fig. 6: Clay imitations of grains, olives (1) and bread (2).................................................. 217 Fig. 7: Handmade pottery ................................................................................................... 218 Fig. 8: Room No. CLVI. View from the north ................................................................... 219 Fig. 9: Grain stores. Plan. 1. Grain pits, first level; 2. Grain pits, second level ................. 219 Fig. 10: Room No. CLVI. The grain pit ............................................................................. 220 Fig. 11: Room No. CLI. The grain pit ................................................................................ 220 x

Annette Teffeteller: Strategies of continuity in the construction of ethnic and cultural identity: the lineage and role of Zeus Stratios in Pontus and Paphlagonia Fig. 1: Zeus Labrandeus. Coin of Mausolus, Caria, 4th century BC .................................. 226 Fig. 2: Altar of Zeus Stratios. Coin of Commodus, Amasia, 2nd century AD ................... 226

Maya Vassileva: The rock-cut monuments of Phrygia, Paphlagonia and Thrace: a comparative overview Fig. 1: The rock-cut niche at Kastamonu ........................................................................... 244 Fig. 2: Phrygian rock-cut niche at Kümbet Asar Kale ....................................................... 244 Fig. 3: Phrygian rock-cut tomb at Yapildak ....................................................................... 244 Fig. 4: Drawing of the Gerdek Boğazı tomb façade at Karakoyunlu ................................. 245 Fig. 5: The painted façade at Balkaya, near Sivrihisar ....................................................... 245 Fig. 6: The façade of ‘Evkayisi’ tomb in Kastamonu......................................................... 245 Fig. 7: Phrygian rock-cut façade Arslankaya ..................................................................... 246 Fig. 8: Plan of Gredek Boğazı tomb ................................................................................... 247 Fig. 9: Drawing of the interior of the Kurt-Kale antechamber, Mezek .............................. 247 Fig. 10: General view of the Ostrousha cult complex ........................................................ 248 Fig. 11: The coffer ceiling of the Ostrousha tomb ............................................................. 248 Fig. 12: The rock-carved wheel on the ceiling of the Direklikaya tomb in Salarköy ......... 248 Fig. 13: Plan of the Direklikaya tomb ................................................................................ 248 Fig. 14: The main chamber of the Shoushmanets tomb, near Kazanluk ............................ 249 Fig. 15: The floor of the main round chamber of the ‘Big Arsenalka’ tomb near Kazanluk ............................................................................................................... 249 Fig. 16: Detail from the round chamber of the Starosel complex ...................................... 249 Fig. 17: The lion relief from the Zhaba Mogila Tumulus near Strelcha ............................. 250

José Vela Tejada: Stasis and polemos at Pontus in the first half of the 4th century BC according to Aeneas Tacticus: the Datames’ siege of Sinope Fig. 1: Map of the Black Sea showing Greek colonies ...................................................... 255 Fig. 2: Map of the Aegean.................................................................................................. 255 Fig. 3: Sinopean coins of Datames ..................................................................................... 260

Fred C. Woudhuizen: The saga of the Argonauts: a reflex of Thraco-Phrygian maritime encroachment on the southern Pontic littoral Fig. 1: Frieze of the Schimmel vase ................................................................................... 264 Fig. 2: Map of Anatolia with distribution of findspots of (a) Hittite cuneiform texts and (b) Luwian hieroglyphic Late Bronze Age inscriptions (b1) on rock and stone monuments, (b2) on seals and sealings, and (b3) on a bronze bowl, and the extent of the Hittite empire based hereon ................................................................................ 266 Fig. 3: Map of Anatolia with distribution zones of (a) Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions and (b) Minyan ware ................................................................................. 267 Fig. 4: Map of the Mediterranean with distribution of (a) Linear A inscriptions found outside Crete and (b) places referred to by Linear B forms related to toponyms located outside Crete and the Greek mainland (including Euboea); note that the remaining legends refer to locations with tin deposits presumably mined already during antiquity ..................................................................................... 268 xi

Luca Zavagno: Amastris (Paphlagonia): a study in Byzantine urban history between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages Fig. 1: Map of Amastris ..................................................................................................... 274 Fig. 2: Aerial photograph of the Black Sea with the main cities mentioned in the text ...................................................................................................................... 275 Fig. 3: The walls of Amastris (from the east) ..................................................................... 276 Fig. 4: The walls of Amastris (from the east) ..................................................................... 276 Fig. 5: Fortified bridge ....................................................................................................... 277 Fig. 6: Projecting barbican ................................................................................................. 277 Fig. 7: Byzantine churches at modern Mesçidi .................................................................. 277 Fig. 8: Byzantine churches at modern Fatih Çami ............................................................. 277 Fig. 9: Map of Amorium .................................................................................................... 278 Fig. 10: Plan of Cherson..................................................................................................... 279 Fig. 11: Aerial view of Sinope ........................................................................................... 279 Elena A. Zinko: Peculiarities of the paintings of Bosporan crypts of the 3rd-6th centuries AD Fig. 1: Crypt 46, 2003 system ............................................................................................ 287 Fig. 2: Crypt 11, 2000 system ............................................................................................ 288 Fig. 3: Crypt of 1912(1), system in Zhelyabov Street 27 ................................................... 288 Fig. 4: Crypt 2, 2000 system .............................................................................................. 290 Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, William Anderson, Alexandru Avram, Suzana Avram, Vincent Clark, Kristal Flemming, Eser Kortanoğlu, Damjan Krsmanovic, Michelle Negus Cleary, Armin Schmidt and Robert Weiland: Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2010 Field Season Fig. 1: Location of Pessinus ............................................................................................... 294 Fig. 2: New site map, Pessinus ........................................................................................... 295 Fig. 3: New topographical plan, Pessinus .......................................................................... 296 Fig. 4: New topographical plan, Pessinus .......................................................................... 297 Fig. 5: New topographical plan, Pessinus .......................................................................... 298 Fig. 6: Location of Sector R, Trench R1 ............................................................................ 300 Fig. 7: Remains of surface Context 7 (under north arrow), looking west .......................... 301 Fig. 8: Looking north. Wall Context 13 on top of earlier wall Context 37, with surface Context 19 to right. To the left are flat stones that formed part of surface Context 30 (to right of unexcavated step) ............................................. 301 Fig. 9: View north showing wall Contexts 37 (to right) and 39 (to left), with remnants of earthen floor in narrow passageway between these walls. Floor Context 45 is in foreground and floor Context 40 is beyond pit Context 35, which separates the two remnants of surface. Beneath the north arrow is pit Context 38, associated with the robbing of stones from wall 39. Note the tool marks along the western edge (left of photograph) of floor Context 45 ....................... 302 Fig. 10: Surface Context 32, with associated wall Context 37 to left................................. 302 Fig. 11: Final top plan of Sector R, Trench R1 .................................................................. 303 Fig. 12: Fragment of glass vessel from Sector R, Trench R1 ............................................. 304 Fig. 13: Fragment of glass vessel from Sector R, Trench R1 ............................................. 304 Fig. 14: Parts of Late Roman (5th-6th centuries AD) amphora from Contexts 3 and 7 ........................................................................................................... 305 Fig. 15: Fragment of moulded sigillata with floral decoration, part of a platter handle ............................................................................................................. 305 xii

Fig. 16: Part of mould-made lamp, 3rd century AD........................................................... 305 Fig. 17: Lamp from Context 18, late 6th/7th century AD .................................................. 305 Fig. 18: Early Byzantine brown ware ................................................................................. 306 Fig. 19: A bone playing die from Sector R, Trench R1...................................................... 306 Fig. 20: Early Roman Sigillata fragments from Context 35 ............................................... 306 Fig. 21: Small amphora (6th or early 7th century AD) from floor surface 42.................... 306 Fig. 22: Survey map of Roman road .................................................................................. 308 Fig. 23: Roman road preserved in Section 2, showing remains of embankment with stone infill and cobbling ....................................................................................... 309 Fig. 24: The Roman road at the southern end of Section 3, showing stone cobbles, embankment and camber of road .................................................................................. 309 Fig. 25: Map of extensive archaeological features, Pessinus ............................................. 310 Fig. 26: Notched stone tool ................................................................................................ 311 Fig. 27: Extensive survey map, Tekören ............................................................................ 312 Fig. 28: Location of surveyed fields, Tekören (Field A investigated in 2009; Fields B and C in 2010) ................................................................................................ 313 Fig. 29: Surveyed sites in Ballıhisar ................................................................................... 315 Fig. 30: Promontory (P13, F132), 0.1 m thick GPR time slices at approximate depths of 0.3 m (Slice 1), 0.6 m (Slice 2), 1.1 m (Slice 3) and 1.3 m (Slice 4) ............ 316 Fig. 31: Watchtower, earthwork survey ............................................................................. 317 Fig. 32: Tekören, Field B (P18), magnetic anomalies ........................................................ 318 Fig. 33: Tekören, Field C (P16), magnetic anomalies ........................................................ 319 Fig. 34: Funerary stele from the surroundings of Pessinus ................................................ 325 Fig. 35: Funerary stele from the surroundings of Pessinus (drawing) ................................ 325 Fig. 36: Funerary stele from the surroundings of Pessinus ................................................ 325 Fig. 37: Funerary stele from the surroundings of Pessinus (drawing) ................................ 325 Fig. 38: Funerary stele from the surroundings of Pessinus ................................................ 326 Fig. 39: Funerary stele from the surroundings of Pessinus (drawing) ................................ 326 Fig. 40: Fragment of stele from Pessinus ........................................................................... 326 Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, Jason Adams, Alexandru Avram, Suzana Avram, Edward Dandrow, Andrew Madden, Paolo Maranzana, Layal Naserdin and Armin Schmidt: Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2011 Field Season Fig. 1: Map of Pessinus showing Sector S and Bağlar area ............................................... 331 Fig. 2: Map of Pessinus showing Sector S ......................................................................... 332 Fig. 3: Sector S: location of Trenches 1 and 2 ................................................................... 333 Fig. 4: Sector S, Trench 1: Wall 1 (Tower) ........................................................................ 334 Fig. 5: Sector S, Trench 1: Wall 1 (Tower) – detail ........................................................... 334 Fig. 6: Sector S, Trench 1: Wall 1 (Tower) ........................................................................ 335 Fig. 7: Sector S, Trench 1: pottery and glass fragments ..................................................... 336 Fig. 8: Sector S, Trench 1: pottery and glass fragments ..................................................... 336 Fig. 9: Sector S, Trench 1: pottery fragments .................................................................... 336 Fig. 10: Sector S, Trench 2: pottery fragments .................................................................. 337 Fig. 11: Two unworked stone blocks, Context 3, Sector S, Trench 2 ................................ 337 Fig. 12: Map showing Pessinus, Tekören and Hamamtepe ................................................ 338 Fig. 13: Bağlar: map of surveyed area ............................................................................... 339 Fig. 14: Tekören: map of surveyed areas ........................................................................... 340 xiii

Fig. 15: Tekören, Slope A: stone features .......................................................................... 341 Fig. 16: Pessinus Sector I: robbers’ trench (May 25th 2012) ............................................. 342 Fig. 17: Pessinus Sector I: robbers’ trench (May 25th 2012) ............................................. 342 Fig. 18: Pessinus Sector I: robbers’ trench (May 25th 2012) ............................................. 342 Fig. 19: Pessinus Sector I: robbers’ trench (May 25th 2012) ............................................. 342 Fig. 20: Pessinus Sector I: robbers’ trench (May 25th 2012) ............................................. 342 Fig. 21: Grave I.3.81 reopened by robbers (May 25th 2012) ............................................. 342 Fig. 22: Grave I.3.81 reopened by robbers (May 25th 2012) ............................................. 343 Fig. 23: Robbed tomb at Gediközü .................................................................................... 343 Fig. 24: Robbed tomb at Gediközü after cleaning and partial excavation .......................... 343 Fig. 25: Plundered tomb at Gediközü: fragments of pottery scattered around tomb .......... 343 Fig. 26: Plundered tomb at Gediközü: human bones scattered around tomb ..................... 343 Fig. 27: Plundered tomb at Gediközü: pottery ................................................................... 344 Fig. 28: Plundered tomb at Gediközü: pottery ................................................................... 344 Fig. 29: Broken marble from Bağlar .................................................................................. 344 Fig. 30: Fluted column drum, Bağlar ................................................................................. 344 Fig. 31: Fragment of octagonal marble pillar, Bağlar ........................................................ 345 Fig. 32: View of trench dug by villagers, Pessinus ............................................................ 345 Fig. 33: Marble capital with crosses as seen in the west bank of the dry River Gallos ................................................................................................. 345 Fig. 34: Marble capital with crosses (Pess11.1) ................................................................. 345 Fig. 35: Marble capital with crosses (Pess11.1) ................................................................. 345 Fig. 36: Marble capital with crosses (Pess11.1) ................................................................. 346 Fig. 37: Marble capital with crosses (Pess11.1) ................................................................. 346 Fig. 38: Coin of Constantius II ........................................................................................... 347 Fig. 39: Coin of Justin II .................................................................................................... 347 Fig. 40: Coin of Volusian ................................................................................................... 348 Fig. 41: Coin, civic issue, from Apamea (Phrygia) ............................................................ 348 Fig. 42: GPR depth slices for the structure in Sector S ...................................................... 349 Fig. 43: GPR depth slices over the road running south of the temple ................................ 350 Fig. 44: GPR depth slices in Eastern Cemetery 2 .............................................................. 350 Fig. 45: GPR depth slices from Bağlar............................................................................... 351 Fig. 46: GPR depth slices from Field C in Tekören ........................................................... 352 Fig. 47: Hamamtepe, prismatic blocks ............................................................................... 352 Fig. 48: Plan of Hamatepe showing visible surface features .............................................. 353 Fig. 49: 3D model of Hamamtepe, from the east ............................................................... 353 Fig. 50: 3D model of Hamamtepe, from the east ............................................................... 353 Fig. 51: Inscription (Pess10.2) ........................................................................................... 354 Fig. 52: Inscription (Pess11.2) ........................................................................................... 354 Fig. 53: Door-stone with fragmentary inscription .............................................................. 355 Fig. 54: Door-stone with inscription (Pess11.7) ................................................................. 355 Fig. 55: Visit of the Australian Ambassador and Mrs Biggs, August 4th .......................... 355 Fig. 56: Visit of the Australian Ambassador and Mrs Biggs, August 4th .......................... 355

xiv

List of Tables Mikhail Abramzon: A hoard of bronze Pontic and Bosporan coins of the reign of Mithradates VI from Phanagoria, 2007 Table 1: Coins of Paphlagonia and Pontus from Bosporan hoards ........................................ 6 William Anderson and Abby Robinson: Marginal or mainstream? The character of settlement in Late Roman Paphlagonia Table 1: Attributes of Roman/Byzantine sites recorded by Project Paphlagonia ................. 17 Şevket Dönmez: A new excavation in Pontic Cappadocia: Amasya-Oluz Höyük. Preliminary results for the Hellenistic period and Iron Age layers Table 1: Preliminary conclusions about the stratification at Oluz Höyük ............................ 75 Dimitris P. Drakoulis: Regional transformations and the settlement network of the coastal Pontic provinces in the Early Byzantine Period Table 1: Quantitative features of the study area ................................................................... 84 Table 2: Historical and cultural criteria ................................................................................ 85 Table 3: Geographical and spatial criteria ............................................................................ 86 Table 4: Settlements of Honorias ......................................................................................... 86 Table 5: Settlements of Paphlagonia .................................................................................... 87 Table 6: Settlements of Helenopontus.................................................................................. 88 Table 7: Settlements of Pontus Polemoniacus...................................................................... 89 Table 8: Geographical and spatial features of Honorias....................................................... 91 Table 9: Geographical and spatial features of Paphlagonia.................................................. 92 Table 10: Geographical and spatial features of Helenopontus ............................................. 93 Table 11: Geographical and spatial features of Pontus Polemoniacus ................................. 94 Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, William Anderson, Alexandru Avram, Suzana Avram, Vincent Clark, Kristal Flemming, Eser Kortanoğlu, Damjan Krsmanovic, Michelle Negus Cleary, Armin Schmidt and Robert Weiland: Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2010 Field Season Table 1: Simplified chronology of ceramics from the trench in Sector R .......................... 305 Table 2: Parameters of geophysical survey ........................................................................ 314

xv

A HOARD OF BRONZE PONTIC AND BOSPORAN COINS OF THE REIGN OF MITHRADATES VI FROM PHANAGORIA, 2007 Mikhail ABRAMZON History Faculty, Magnitogorsk State University, Pr. Lenina 114, 455038 Magnitogorsk, Russia [email protected]

Abstract: In 2007, during excavation of the ancient city-site of Phanagoria, a hoard of 19 bronze coins was found. It was hidden in a building destroyed in a fierce fire. Coins were covered with a thick layer of soot. The hoard, composed of 11 tetrachalkoi of Panticapaeum and Phanagoria and 8 obols of Pontic cities, belongs to a group of Bosporan hoards containing Pontic bronze coins of the Mithradatic period. The presence of coins of Pontic and Paphlagonian cities is common for many Bosporan hoards of the late 2nd-first half of the 1st century BC. Twelve known Bosporan hoards contained 165 coins of Amisos, Amastris, Amaseia, Comana, Gaziura, Sinope and Taulara, and many Bosporan coins struck on Pontic coins. Coins of Pontic cities were also found during excavations of Bosporan cities (Panticapaeum, Tyritake, Myrmekion, Nymphaeum, Phanagoria, Gorgippia) and rural settlements. The appearance of Pontic coins in the Bosporus is undoubtedly connected with the passage of the region under the control of Mithradates VI Eupator in 110/109 BC. All Pontic obols from the 2007 Phanagoria hoard belong to the type ‘Head of Zeus right – eagle seated on thunderbolt’. Such coins have been issued in Pontus (Amaseia, Amisos, Gaziura, Laodikeia, Taulara, Chabacta) and in Paphlagonia (Amastris, Pimolisa, Sinope). The hoard contained obols of Amisos – 1, Gaziura – 1, Taulara – 2, Amastris – 1, uncertain centres – 3 (very poor condition). It was buried during the dramatic Phanagorian revolt against Mithradates in 63 BC. 2007 YILINDA PHANAGORIA’DA BULUNMUŞ OLAN VI. MITHRIDATES DÖNEMİNE AİT BRONZ PONTOS VE BOSPHOROS SİKKELERİ DEFİNESİ Özet: 2007 yılında antik Phanagoria’daki kazılar sırasında 19 bronz sikkeden oluşan bir define açığa çıkarıldı. Define ağır bir yangın geçirmiş bir binada saklanmıştı. Bu sikkeler kalın bir is tabakası ile kaplıydılar. Define, 11 adet Pantikapaion ve Phanagoria tetrachalkoi’u ile 8 adet Pontos kenti obolünden oluşur ve bu şekli ile Mithridates Dönemi Pontos bronz sikkelerini ihtiva eden bir Bosporos defineleri grubuna aittir. Çoğu İ.Ö. geç 2. yy. ve İ.Ö. 1. yy.’ın ilk yarısı Bosporos definelerinde Pontos ve Paphlagonia şehir sikkelerinin varlığı yaygındır. Bosporos’dan bilinen 12 define 165 adet Amisos, Amastris, Amaseia, Comana, Gaziura, Sinope ve Taulara sikkesi içermektedir ve birçok Bosporos sikkeleri Pontos sikkesi üzerine basmıştır. Ayrıca Pontos kentlerine ait sikkeler Bosporos kentlerinde yapılan kazılarda (Pantikapaion, Tyritake, Myrmekion, Nymphaion, Phanagoria, Gorgippia) ve taşra yerleşmelerinde bulunmuştur. Bosporos’ta Pontos kent sikkelerinin ortaya çıkışı şüphesiz VI. Mithridates Eupator’un İ.Ö. 110-109 yıllarında bölgenin kontrolünü ele geçirmesi ile bağlantılıdır. 2007 yılında Phanagoria’da ele geçen tüm Pontos obolleri “Sağa doğru Zeus grubuna aittir. Bu tür sikkeler Pontos’ta (Amaseia, Amisos, Gaziura, Laodikeia, Pimolisa, Sinope) basılmışlardır. Bu define Amisos’tan bir, Gaziura’dan bir, merkezlerden üç adet (çok kötü durumda) oboller içermektedir. Define İ.Ö. ayaklanması sırasında yanmıştır.

In 2007-08, the Taman Archaeological Expedition of the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, continued the excavations of the big building destroyed by a great fire at the acropolis of Phanagoria. This building was found in 1998 and occupied a large square of about 350 m2. It was possibly the ruins of the palace of Mithradates VI Eupator. Among finds there are massive golden rings and earrings damaged by fire, three hoards of coins of the Mithradatic period, a lot of silver coins of Panticapaeum and Phanagoria, a tetradrachm of Mithradates VI and bronze coins of Bosporan and Pontic cities. In the 2007 season, two hoards were found in the building. The first was composed of Panticapaeum tetrachalkoi of 100-75 BC and probably was the contents of a purse which was lost during the fire (Figs. 1-2). The second hoard was hidden in the corner of the building (Fig. 3). The 19 coins were situated on a ceramic plate (Figs. 4-5) and were covered with a thick layer of soot. Some coins suffered

portresi – yıldırım demeti üzerine oturan kartal” Taulara, Chabacta) ve Paphlagonia’da (Amastris, Taulara’dan iki, Amastris’ten bir ve bilinmeyen 63’te Mithridates’e karşı başlatılan Phanagoria

Fig. 1: First hoard before cleaning 1

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 2: Hoard of Panticapaeum tetrachalkoi (double original size)

heavily from the fire, and the legends are not clear. The hoard is divided into two groups. The first group is composed of 11 Bosporan tetrachalkoi belonging to the type ‘Artemis – stag’ countermarked with a wheat-ear (Fig. 6):

The second group consists of 8 obols of to the type ‘Zeus – eagle on thunderbolt’, struck by the cities of Paphlagonia and Pontus (Fig. 7): Group II 4) Amisos – 1 specimen 5) Gaziura – 1 specimen 6) Taulara – 1 specimen 7) Amastris – 1 specimen 8) Uncertain centres (poor condition) – 4 specimens.

Group I 1. Panticapaeum – 5 specimens 2. Phanagoria – 4 specimens 3. Uncertain (poor condition) – 2 specimens. 2

M. ABRAMZON: A HOARD OF BRONZE PONTIC AND BOSPORAN COINS OF THE REIGN OF MITHRADATES VI FROM PHANAGORIA, 2007

Fig. 3: Second hoard from burned building

Fig. 4: Second hoard on plate

Fig. 5: Ceramic plate on which second hoard was placed

To my knowledge, 16 hoards of the time of Mithradates VI have been found in the Bosporus: 1-2. Panticapaeum (1857);1 3. Panticapaeum (1910);2 4. Tyritake (1935);3 5. Mymekion (1949);4 6. Patraeus (1950);5 7. Sudak (1959);6 8. Stanitsa Fantalovsraea (1963);7 9. Kumatyr’ (1976);8 10. Fadeevo (1977);9 11. Panticapaeum (1996);10 12. Patraeus (1998);11 13. Phanagoria (2000?);12 14-15.

Phanagoria (2007); 16. Phanagoria (2008). Thirteen of these contained Pontic bronze coins (Table 1). Some hoards were buried during the aggravated political situation in the Bosporus in the 80s BC: during the First Mithradatic War (88-85 BC) and the Second Mithradatic War (83-81 BC) the local population suffered heavily from taxation and recruiting and revolted twice (Appian Mith. 64, 67). General ravaging forced the people to bury hoards.

1

Otchyot Imperatorskoi Arkheologicheskoi Komissii 1897, 72. Shkorpil 1910. 3 Kharko 1952, 361-62; Thompson et al. 1973, no. 1145. 4 Krushkol 1952, 137-41; Belova 1958, 343-44, nos. 219-234; Golenko 2003, 67. 5 Krushkol 1952, 137-41; Golenko 2003, 67. 6 Kazamanova 1963, 144-151. 7 Salov 1965, 101; Golenko 1965a. 8 Abramzon et al. 2002a. 9 Abramzon et al. 1999. 10 Frolova 1998. 11 Abramov and Boldyrev 2001, 144. 2

Twelve hoards of the Mithradatic period contained only bronze coins and only two hoards were composed of Bosporan silver: the 1963 hoard from the Phantalovski Peninsula13 and the 1998 hoard from Patraeus.14 The 1897 12

Lagos 2000. Golenko 1964, 58-59; 1965a-b. 14 Abramov and Boldyrev 2001, 144. 13

3

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 6: Bosporan and Pontic coins from Phanagoria 4

M. ABRAMZON: A HOARD OF BRONZE PONTIC AND BOSPORAN COINS OF THE REIGN OF MITHRADATES VI FROM PHANAGORIA, 2007

Fig. 7: Bosporan and Pontic coins from Phanagoria

Kerch hoard15 was a mixture of Pontic and Bosporan bronze coins and five Bosporan silver coins. In 2008, one more mixed hoard was found in Phanagoria. It contained 65 bronze coins of Panticapaeum, Phanagoria and Amisos and two silver coins of Phanagoria. The significant 15

Phantalovskii hoard consisting of 487 didrachms of Phanagoria, Gorgippia and Panticapaeum was probably a part of the military exchequer and was buried in 83-80 BC during the revolt of Bosporan cities against Mithradates VI. The 1950 and 1998 Patraeus hoards and the 2008 Phanagoria hoards were found in the layers of the great fires of 63 BC when Phanagoria and Patraeus

Thompson et al. 1973, no. 1144; Shelov 1983, 47.

5

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Table 1: Coins of Paphlagonia and Pontus from Bosporan hoards

Sinope

5

Taulara

6

Komana

7

Gaziura

8

Uncertain Total

1 1

?

2

1

2

34

9

2

1

2

3

1

1 2

6

2

6 49

2

1

3 1

? 66

81 2

1

15

Total

«Poljanka» (1984)

Patraeus (1950)

Myrmekion (1949)

Tyritake (1935)

Kerch (1910)

1

Phanagoria (2008)

4

1

Phanagoria (2007)

Amaseia

3

Batareika I (1997)

3

1

«Poljanka» (1985)

Amastris

62

Fadeevo (1977)

2

?

Kumatyr (1976)

Amisos

Kerch (1897)

1

Kerch (1852)

Centres

No.

Hoards

1

2 3

36

5

were destroyed by Mithradates. The 1897 Kerch hoard and the 1985 Poljanka hoard16 containing Pontic coins were buried in the time of Asander (49/48-21/20 BC).

4

1

1

8

15

2

1

1

2

6

7

164

from the Pontic kingdom shows that after the passage of the Bosporus under the rule of Mithradates VI in 110/109 BC (when, in the face of growing barbarian pressure, the Bosporan king Paerisades V ceded control of the territory to Mithradates VI of Pontus) the histories of the Pontus and the Bosporus become closely linked, which is reflected in their respective coinages. A close connection between Bosporus and Pontus is reflected in many of the motifs that were adopted on the coinage.

The 2007 Phanagoria hoard is probably connected with dramatic events of 63 BC, when the troops of Mithradates VI laid siege to Phanagoria (Appian Mith. 108). It belongs to the group of hoards containing Pontic bronze coins. The appearance of bronze coins of Paphlagonia and Pontus within the hoards or isolated finds is common in the Bosporus at the end of the 2nd-early 1st century BC.17 The widespread distribution of the finds of bronze coins from the Pontic cities in the Bosporus has repeatedly been noted in Russian archaeological literature.18 They were found in the hoards from Kerch (1852,19 1897,20 1910),21 Tyritake (1935),22 Patraeus (1950),23 Kumatyr (1976),24 Fadeevo (1977),25 Poljanka (1985), and Phanagoria (2008). These hoards contained the bronze coinages of Amisos, Amastris, Komana, Sinope, Gaziura and Taulara, and also some Bosporan coins which were struck from Pontic types. Pontic bronze coinages were also represented in hoards of the Early Roman period. Isolated Pontic coins were found during archaeological excavations at Panticapaeum, Tyritake, Myrmekion, Nymphaeum, Iluraton, Phanagoria, Gorgippia, Kepoi and Patraeus.26 The appearance of coins

It is clear from Table 1 that coins of Amisos dominate in the Bosporus. The tetrachalkoi of Sinope take second place in the circulation of Pontic coins. The composition of hoards shows that the regular receipt of Pontic coins in the Bosporus began in 120-110 BC and continued until the end of the rule of Mithradates VI. Moreover, it should be noted that the flow of Pontic coins gradually increases, and the maximum number of finds comes in the group of 85-65 BC. The circulation of Pontic coins was one of the innovations in the Bosporan economy under Mithradates VI. However, it is clear that there remained major differences in the monetary circulation of Bosporus and Pontus. All Pontic obols from the 2007 hoard belong to the type ‘Zeus – eagle on thunderbolt’. This type had been issued by six cities of Pontus: Amaseia,27 Amisos,28 Gaziura,29 Laodikeia,30 Taulara31 and Chabakta,32 and three cities of

16

Ireland and Frolova 1999. Golenko 2003. 18 Golenko 2003, 64. 19 Lyutsenko 1880, 20-21. 20 Thompson et al. 1973, no. 1144. 21 Golenko 2003, 67. 22 Thompson et al. 1973, no. 1145. 23 Krushkol 1952. 24 Abramzon et al. 2002a. 25 Abramzon et al. 2002b, 158-209. 26 Zograph 1941, Krushkol 1951, 257; Kharko 1952, 385-86; Belova 1958, 351; Golenko 1964, 59; Frolova and Shelov 1965; Golenko 1974, 17

68; Shelov 1962; 1965, 47; Kruglikova and Frolova 1980; Anisimov 1992; Frolova 1997, 147-48; 1980; 2001; Zinko 2000; Golenko 2003. 27 Price 1993, nos. 1048-1050. 28 Price 1993, nos. 1144-1146. 29 Price 1993, nos. 1266-1267. 30 Price 1993, no. 1270. 31 Price 1993, nos. 1288-1289. 32 Price 1993, no. 1249.

6

M. ABRAMZON: A HOARD OF BRONZE PONTIC AND BOSPORAN COINS OF THE REIGN OF MITHRADATES VI FROM PHANAGORIA, 2007

Paphlagonia: Amastris,33 Pimolisa34 and Sinope35 in 10085 BC.

Similar. 10. Inv. no. F-07-68; 5.4 g 11. Inv. no. F-07-69; 3.7 g

In 2008 one more hoard of Bosporan and Pontic bronze coins was found in the burned building in Phanagoria. It also dates to 63 BC. Thus, the 2007-08 Phanagoria hoards are the latest in the group of hoards of the Mithradatic period. It is known that in 63 BC Phanagoria rose in rebellion against Mithradates VI and that other cities of the northern Black Sea region followed her. Appian (Mith. 108) mentioned that while Pompey was in Syria, Mithradates VI sent a part of his troops to Phanagoria, a port in the sea mouth, to control her from both sides. However, an inhabitant of Phanagoria named Castor, who had been insulted by the royal eunuch Tryphon, attacked him when he entered the city, killed him and called the people to revolt. While Artaphernes and other children of Mithradates retained control of the acropolis, the people of Phanagoria placed wood around the fortress and set it on fire until Mithradates’ besieged and frightened children capitulated. Only Cleopatra, elder daughter of the king, continued to stand up to the enemy, and Mithradates enraptured with her courage, sent many biremes to save her.

2. Obols of Paphlagonia and Pontus Amisos 100-85 BC Obv. Zeus laurated r. Rev. AMIΣOY Eagle l. on .thunderbolt. Price 1993, nos. 1144-1146. 12. Inv. no. F-07-70; 9.4 g Gaziura 100-85 BC Similar. ГАΣIOYРΩN Price 1993, nos. 1266-1267. 13. Inv. no. F-07-71; 15.0 g Taulara 100-85 BC Similar. TAYΛAΡΩN Price 1993, nos. 1288-1289. 14. Inv. no. F-07-73; 10.9 g 15. Inv. no. F-07-76; 17.2 g; Monogram

Thus, the 2007 Phanagoria hoard was probably money forgotten in the burning building during the siege of the city. The archaeological context of the find testifies to the possible link with the fire of 63 BC.

Amastris 100-85 BC Similar. AMAΣТРЕΩN BMC 13, 1889, pl. XIX.6 16. Inv. no. F-07-72; 15.9 g

CATALOGUE

Uncertain centres Similar. 17. Inv. no. F-07-74; 16.1 g 18. Inv. no. F-07-75; 15.8 g; …ΡΩΝ (Gaziura, Taulara?) 19. Inv. no. F-07-77; 11.4 g

1. Bosporan tetrachalkoi Panticapaeum 100-75 BC Obv. Artemis r., in pointed cap, bow and quiver at shoulder. Angular countermark,’wheat-ear’. Rev. ПАΝТΙКАПАΙТΩΝ Stag lying l. Frolova and Ireland 2002, 12, pl. II.4. 1. Inv. no. F-07-59; 7.1 g 2. Inv. no. F-07-60; 6.0 g 3. Inv. no. F-07-61; 6.5 g 4. Inv. no. F-07-62; 5.5 g 5. Inv. no. F-07-63; 5.7 g

Bibliography Abbreviations

Phanagoria 100-75 BC Similar. ФАNАГОРITΩN Price 1993, nos. 1000-1003; Frolova and Ireland 2002, 13, pl. II.8. 6. Inv. no. F-07-64; 6.5 g 7. Inv. no. F-07-65; 7.9 g 8. Inv. no. F-07-66; 6.2 g 9. Inv. no. F-07-66; 6.4 g

BMC

British Museum Catalogue.

MIA

Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR.

NE

Numismatika i Epigrafika.

VDI

Vestnik Drevnei Istorii.

ABRAMOV, A.P. and BOLDYREV, S.I. 2001: ‘“Klady” 1998 g. iz Patraeya’. In Bosporskii fenomen 1: Kolonizatsiya regiona, formirovanie polisov, obrazovanie gosudarstva (St Petersburg), 143-46. ABRAMZON, M.G., FROLOVA, N.A. and GORLOV, Y.V. 1999: ‘Fadeevskii klad bronzovykh bosporskikh monet IV-I vv. do n.e.’. Problemy istorii, filologii, kultury 7, 326-43.

Phanagorian or Panticapaeum tetrachalkoi of poor condition.

ABRAMZON, M.G., FROLOVA, N.A. and GORLOV, Y.V. 2002a: ‘Кumatyrskii klad bronzovykh monet IV–I vv. do n.e.’. Rossiiskaya Arkheologia 3, 14552.

33

BMC 13, 1889, XIX.6. Price 1993, nos. 1350-1351. 35 Price 1993, nos. 1526-1527. 34

7

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

КАZAMANOVA, L.N. 1963: ‘Klad monet IV-II vv. do n.e. iz Sudaka’. VDI 4, 144-51.

ABRAMZON, M.G., FROLOVA, N.A. and GORLOV, Y.V. 2002b: Klady antichnykh monet na Yuge Rossii (po materialam Krasnodarskogo Kraya) (Moscow).

KHARKO, L.P. 1952: ‘Monety iz raskopok Tyritaki i Myrmekiya v 1935-1940 gg.’. MIA 25, 357-86.

ANISIMOV, A.I. 1992: ‘Monety iz raskopok Pantikapeya 1977-1986 gg.’. In Danilova, I.E. (ed.), Arkheologiya i iskusstvo Bospora (Soobshcheniya Gosudarstvennogo Muzeya Izobrazitel’nykh iskusstv imeni A.S. Pushkina 10) (Мoscow), 329-53.

KRUGLIKOVA, I.T. 1970: ‘Monety iz raskopok Gorgippii v 1960-1966 gg.’. NE 8, 27-44. KRUGLIKOVA, I.T. and FROLOVA N.A. 1980: ‘Monety iz raskopok Gorgippii 1967-1972 gg.’. In Kruglikova, I.T. (ed.), Gorgippia 1 (Krasnodar), 10321.

BELOVA, L.N. 1958: ‘Monety iz raskopok Tyritaki, Myrmekiya and Ilurata 1946-1953 gg.’. MIA 85, 33051. FROLOVA, N.A. 1980: ‘Monety is raskopok Gorgippii 1973-1977 gg.’. In Kruglikova, I.T. (ed.), Gorgippia 1 (Krasnodar), 122-35.

KRUSHKOL, Y.S. 1951: ‘Monety Fanagoriiskogo gorodishcha raskopok 1937 and 1939 gg. Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo Muzeya’. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 15, 256-72.

FROLOVA, N.A. 1997: ‘Monety is raskopok Gorgippii 1979-1989 gg.’. Problemy istorii, filologii, kultury 4, 143-75.

KRUSHKOL, Y.S. 1952: ‘Monety s monogrammami is Patreiskogo klada 1950 g.’. VDI 3, 137-47. KRUSHKOL, Y.S. 1956: ‘Patreiskii klad 1950 g.’. Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Materialnoi Kul’tury Akademii Nauk SSSR 66, 116-17.

FROLOVA, N.A. 1998: ‘Klad bosporskikh monet kontsa III-II vv. do n.e. (Kerch, 1996)’. In Shestaya Vserossiiskaya numizmaticheskaya konferentsiya (Tezisy dokladov i soobshchenii) (St Petersburg), 2326.

LAGOS, C. 2000: ‘Two Second Century BC Bronze Hoards from the Black Sea’. Numismatic Chronicle 160, 268-70.

FROLOVA, N.A. 2001: ‘Finds of coins from ancient Gorgippia (Anapa), 1960-1989’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and Studies (Colloquia Pontica 6) (Leiden/Boston/Cologne), 399-422.

LYUTSENKO, E.E. 1880: ‘Opisanie kladov s drevnimi monetami, naidennymi na Kerchenskom i Tamanskom poluostrovakh, chast’yu v Novorossiiskom krae (na Yuge Rossii)’. Manuscript, Archive of the Institute of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, F. 28, D. 22.

FROLOVA, N.A. and IRELAND, S. 2002: The Coinage of the Вosporan Kingdom from the First Century BC to the First Century AD (BAR International Series 1102) (Oxford).

PRICE, M. 1993: Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum 9: The British Museum. Part 1: The Black Sea (London). SALOV, A.I., 1965: ‘Klad bosporskikh monet, naidennyi v stanitse Fantalovskoi’. VDI 2, 101-02.

FROLOVA, N.A. and SHELOV, D.B. 1965: ‘Monety iz raskopok v Kepakh v 1958-1963 gg.’. Numismatika i Sfragistika 2, 168-93.

SHELOV, D.B. 1962: ‘Monety iz raskopok Fanagorii v 1947-1951 gg.’. NE 3, 56-129.

GOLENKO, K.V. 1964: ‘Monetnaya med’ gorodov Ponta i Paflagonii vremen Mitridata VI v bosporskikh nakhodkakh’. Palestinskii Sbornik 11 (74), 58-73.

SHELOV, D.B. 1965: ‘Materialy po istorii denezhnogo obrashcheniya na Bospore v VI-I vv. do n.e.’. NE 5, 31-50.

GOLENKO, K.V. 1965a: ‘Fantalovskii klad bosporskikh didrakhm’. VDI 4, 141-58.

SHELOV, D.B. 1983: ‘Iz istorii obrashcheniya pantikapeiskikh mednykh monet’. In Yanin, V.L. (ed.), Numismatika antichnogo Prichernomor’ya (Kiev), 45-50.

GOLENKO, K.V. 1965b: ‘Pontiiskaya med’ vremen Mitridata VI na Bospore’. Klio 46, 307-22. GOLENKO, K.V. 1966: ‘Imitatsii mednykh monet Ponta i Paflagonii vremen Mitridata Evpatora’. VDI 3, 14249.

SHKORPIL, V.V. 1910: ‘Raport v Arkheologicheskuyu Komissiyu ot 24.05.1910’. Archive of the Institute of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg.

GOLENKO, K.V. 1974: ‘Monety iz raskopok v Nimfee v 1939-1970’. NE 11, 61-93.

THOMPSON, M., MØRKHOLM, O. and KRAAY, C.M. 1973: An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (New York).

GOLENKO, K.V. 2003: ‘Pontic Currency of the Period of Mithradates VI on the Bosporus’. Numismatic Circular 111.2, 64-69.

ZINKO, V.N. 2000: ‘Pontiiskie monety is Pantiкapeiskogo khrama v antakh’. Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnographii Tavrii 7, 219-21.

IRELAND, S. and FROLOVA, N.A. 1999: ‘Two Hoards of Bosporan coins of the 1st century BC from the ancient settlement of Poljanka (Kerch)’. Hermathene 166, 31-39.

ZOGRAPH, A.N. 1941: ‘Monety iz raskopok Tiritaki i Myrmekiya 1932-1934 gg.’. MIA 4, 157-71.

8

THE LATE CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC POTTERΥ OF SINOPE AND AMISOS Anna ALEXANDROPOULOU Committee for the Preservation of Apollo Epikourios at Vassai, Hellenic Ministry of Culture c/o Arktinou 2, Athens, Greece [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract: With the exception of the amphorae from Sinope, which of late have been the subject of extensive study, very little is known in relation to other types of pottery from Sinope and Amisos that date to the 4th century BC and subsequently. The main aim of the present paper is to bring together the published Late Classical and Hellenestic vessels from Sinope and Amisos, which to date appear either sporadically in brief reports of rescue excavations or summarily in studies focusing on other artistic genres. SINOPE VE AMISOS’UN GEÇ KLASİK VE HELLENİSTİK ÇAĞI SERAMİKLERİ Özet: Son zamanlarda daha geniş bir şekilde araştırılan Sinope amphoraları dışında Sinope ve Amisos’un İ.Ö. 4. yy. ve sonrası seramiği ile ilgili olarak çok az şey bilinmektedir. Bu çalışmanın başlıca amacı Sinope ve Amisos’dan birbirinden kopuk bir şekilde kurtarma kazılarının kısa raporlarında ya da başka malzemeler arasında yayımlanmış Geç Klasik ve Hellenistik Dönem kaplarını bir araya derlemektir.

The main aim of the present paper is to bring together the published Late Classical and Hellenistic vessels from the south coast of the Black Sea, which to date appear either sporadically in brief reports of rescue excavations or summarily in studies focusing on other artistic genres. This bibliographical research constitutes the basis of the next stage of the study, which is to evaluate the character of the pottery from this region, its peculiarities and its influences.

Thasos in the Aegean.4 Since 1993, excavations in the region have brought to light over ten amphorae workshops, which provide crucial information on the production, the techniques and the distribution of Sinopean amphorae.5 Study of the stamps on the handles shows that the first amphorae were made around the mid4th century BC. Also dated to the second half of the 4th century BC is an Attic nuptial lebes with marriage scene6, which bears witness to the city’s relations with Athens.7 These relations are reinforced by the polychrome vessels with relief representations from Sinope, which are dated after the mid-4th century BC.8 The Sinopean polychrome vessels differ in morphological traits from their Attic counterparts, which began to be produced from the late 5th century BC and were disseminated widely, both in South Italy and in the region of the Euxine Pontus. It seems that under the influence of the imported Attic examples local imitations were created, the relief representations on which differ in structure and composition from those of the Attic models.

The archaeological evidence for the Late Classical and Hellenistic period in Paphlagonia and the Pontus coastline is minimal. Exceptions are the cities of Sinope and Amisos, the first a renowned centre of amphora production and trade,1 the second famed for the terracotta figurines that possibly were made there.2 The vessels presented here come from rescue excavations as well as systematic investigations conducted in and around these two cities.3 It should be noted that the Late Classical and Hellenistic period is not represented to the same degree in Sinope and Amisos, but this is due probably to chance, given the patchiness of research. For this reason, it was decided that a geographical presentation of the pottery is preferable to its classification according to categories or types of vessel.

To date, the sole source of information on the Hellenistic pottery from Sinope is the surface survey work of an American team from the University of Pennsylvania. Although from the very few published drawings of sherds9 it is not possible to draw conclusions on the

SINOPE Sinope was one of the most important centres of amphora production, on a par with those of Rhodes, Cnidus and

4 For the amphorae of Sinope see recently Garlan 2004; Conovici 2005; Lund 2007; Garlan 2007. 5 For the amphora workshops, see Garlan 1998; Garlan and Kassab Tezgör 1996. 6 Garlan 1995, 35. 7 For epigraphical and historical testimonies on the relations between Sinope and Athens, see Doonan 2003, 1382-83. 8 Kammerer-Grothaus 1976, 238, 244, 247, figs. 2, 8, 11. For the lebes gamikos, see Barr-Sharrar 2000, 518, pl. 258a. 9 Doonan 2004, 86, figs. 4-11.

1

For bibliography, see n. 4. For the terracotta figurines of Amisos, see Summerer 1999. 3 Laflı assembled some of the available evidence concerning the Late Hellenistic and Roman pottery of Paphlagonia and Pontus and it is now on display on the web-site of the Paphlagonia Project: E. Lafli, ‘Hellenistic and Roman Archaeology on the Southern Black Sea Coast’. . For an overview on the Hellenistic Pottery from Amisos, see also Summerer forthcoming. 2

9

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Hellenistic pottery of the region, it seems that usual types of fine ware are reproduced, such as fishplates, kantharoi and relief skyphoi.

Prototypes’. In E΄Epistemoniki Synantisi gia tin ellinistiki keramiki, Chania 1998 (Athens), 515-19. BILGI, Ö. 1996: ‘Ikiztepe’. In XVIII. Kazı Sonçlari Toplantisi, vol. 1 (Ankara).

AMISOS

BILGI, Ö. 1999: ‘Ikiztepe in the Late Iron Age’. Anatolian Studies 49, 27-46.

In contrast to Sinope, the 4th century BC is terra incognita for the pottery of Amisos. With the exception of two lamps10 belonging to the Late Classical tradition, nothing else has been published so far. In contrast, information on the pottery of the Hellenistic period is much richer.

CONOVICI, N. 2005: ‘The Dynamics of Trade in Transport Amphoras from Sinope, Thasos and Rhodos on the Western Black Sea Coast: a Comparative Approach’. In Stolba, V.F. and Hannestad, L. (eds.), Chronologies of the Black Sea Area in the Period c.400-100 BC (Black Sea Studies 3) (Aarhus), 97-117.

The Hellenistic lamps from Amisos in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, which were recently the subject of a systematic study,11 are dated mainly to the second half of the 2nd and the first half of the 1st centuries BC. A part of these is attributed to Ephesian workshops, while it is speculated that the provenance of others is a Pontic workshop.

DÖNMEZ, S. 2007: ‘Sinop province during the Iron Age in the light of new research’. Anatolia Antiqua 15, 5965. DOONAN, O.P. 2003: ‘Sinope’. In Grammenos, D.V. and Petropoulos, E.K. (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, vol. 2 (Thessaloniki), 1379-1402. DOONAN, O.P. 2004: Sinop Landscapes: Exploring Connection in a Black Sea Hinterland (Philadelphia).

The excavations carried out in Amisos by the Samsun Museum in 1991,12 as well as recent publications of some Hellenistic graves in Amisos and its region,13 yielded a series of fusiform unguentaria,14 which appear to have been widely disseminated as grave-goods throughout the Hellenistic period. Indeed, one of them belongs to the category of grey unguentaria and attests to their hitherto unknown spread to the south coast of the Black Sea.15

ERCIYAS, D.B. 2006: Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey (Colloquia Pontica 12) (Leiden/Boston). GARLAN, Y. 1995: ‘Sinope, ville reine de mer Noire’. Archéologia 308, 32-39. GARLAN, Y. 1998: ‘Les fouilles des ateliers amphoriques de Sinope de 1994 à 1997’. Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Comptes rendus des séances de l'année 1998, 29-32.

In addition to the lamps and unguentaria, other common types of Hellenistic vessels, such as plates,16 bowls17 and amphorae18 have been recovered at Amisos.

GARLAN, Y. 2004: Les timbres céramiques sinopéens sur amphores et sur tuiles trouvés à Sinope: presentation et catalogue (Corpus international des timbres amphoriques 10) (Varia Anatolica 16) (Istanbul/Paris).

Finally, except for the local pottery, which was Greek in character, in Amisos, and, to a lesser extent, in Sinope, the polychrome painted pottery tradition of the Iron Age survives well into the Hellenistic period.19

GARLAN, Y. 2007: ‘Echanges d΄amphores timbrées entre Sinope et la Méditerranée aux époques classique et hellénistique’. In Gabrielsen, V. and Lund, J. (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity. Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges (Black Sea Studies 6) (Aarhus), 143-48.

Bibliography AKKAYA, M. 1993: ‘Amisos Antik Kenti Kurtarma Kazisi’. In III. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri 1992 (Ankara), 207-18.

GARLAN, Y. and KASSAB TEZGÖR, D. 1996: ‘Prospection d'ateliers d'amphores et de céramiques de Sinope’. Anatolia Antiqua 4, 325-34.

BARR SHARRAR, B. 2000: ‘Observations on the Relationship of Ceramic Reliefware to Metal

KAMMERER-GROTHAUS, H. 1976: ‘Plakettenvasen aus Sinope’. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 237-52.

10

Erciyas 2006, 73, fig. 21; Akkaya 1992, 217, fig. 16. Kassab Tezgör and Sezer 1995, nos. 341-343, 773, 402-403 and passim. 12 Akkaya 1993. 13 Erciyas 2006; Summerer forthcoming; Bilgi 1999. 14 Akkaya 1993, 216, fig. 14; Bilgi 1996, 158, fig. 13; 1999, 36-37, 40, figs. 17-18, 21, 23. Erciyas 2006, 75, fig. 24; Summerer forthcoming. 15 For the grey unguentaria, see recently Rotroff 2006, 140-57. 16 Akkaya 1993, 216, fig. 13; Summerer forthcoming. 17 Akkaya 1993, 215, fig. 12. See also the bowls in Bilgi 1999, 39, fig. 22. 18 Akkaya 1993, 217, fig. 15; Summerer 1999, 31-32, nn. 156-157. 19 Summerer 1999, 29-31; 2007, 30; Bilgi 1999, 27-28, figs. 5-8; Dönmez 2007, 60. 11

KASSAB TEZGÖR, D. and SEZER, T. 1995: Catalogue des lamps en terre cuite du Musée archéologique d’Istanbul, vol. 1: Époques protohistorique, archaïque, classique et hellénistique (Varia Anatolica 6.1) (Istanbul/Paris). LUND, J. 2007: ‘The Circulation of Ceramic Fine Wares and Tranport 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 Economic

10

A. ALEXANDROPOULOU: THE LATE CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC POTTERY OF SINOPE AND AMISOS

and Mitchell, S. (ed.), The Black Sea: Past, Present and Future (Proceedings of the International Interdisciplinary Conference, 14-16 October 2004) (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 42) (London/Istanbul), 27-36.

Exchanges (Black Sea Studies 6) (Aarhus), 18394. ROTROFF, S.I. 2006: Hellenistic Pottery: The Plain Wares (Athenian Agora 33) (Princeton). SUMMERER, L. 1999: Hellenistische Terrakotten aus Amisos: ein Beitrag zur Kunstgeschichte des Pontosgebietes (Geographica Historica 13) (Stuttgart).

SUMMERER, L. forthcoming: ‘Neglected Ceramics: An overview on the Hellenistic Pottery from Amisus’. In Pottery, Peoples and Places: the Late Hellenistic period, c. 200-50 BC between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (International conference at Sandbjerg Manor house, Denmark, 27-29 November 2008).

SUMMERER, L. 2007: ‘Greeks and natives on the southern Black Sea coast in antiquity’. In Erkut, G.

11

MARGINAL OR MAINSTREAM? THE CHARACTER OF SETTLEMENT IN LATE ROMAN PAPHLAGONIA William ANDERSON Classics and Archaeology, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, Old Quad, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia [email protected]

Abby ROBINSON Classics and Archaeology, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, Old Quad, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia [email protected] Abstract: Archaeological survey offers a means to investigate historical landscapes at various spatial and temporal scales and to consider natural and cultural influences on settlement patterns. Project Paphlagonia, a recent survey programme in north-central Turkey, has gathered new evidence from this mountainous and seemingly marginal part of Roman Anatolia. Inner Paphlagonia’s geographical position, its topography and environment greatly influenced the trajectory of settlement in antiquity, however, the situation is also comparable with other parts of Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean, including an upturn in rural and urban settlement levels during the 5th and 6th centuries. Towns, villages and farms, as well as places associated with military, ritual and funerary activities, display attributes, chronology and material culture that are both regionally distinctive and also bear similarities with other provinces of the late Roman empire. MARJİNAL YA DA POPÜLER? GEÇ ROMA DÖNEMİNDE PAPHLAGONIA’DA YERLEŞİM KARAKTERİ Özet: Arkeolojik yüzey araştırması tarihi alanların mekansal ve zamansal ölçekleri ve yerleşim karakterlerine doğal ve kültürel etkileşimlerini araştırmayı amaçlar. Paphlagonia Projesi Orta Anadolu’nun kuzeyinde yakın zamanda gerçekleştirilmiş bir proje olup, Roma Dönemi Anadolusu’nun bu dağlık ve marjinal görülen kısmında yeni bazı veriler kazandırmıştır. İç Paphlagonia’nın coğrafi pozisyonu, topografisi ve içinde bulunduğu şartları antik Dönem yerleşiminin yörüngesini oldukça etkilemiş olmakla birlikte, buradaki durum İ.S. 5. ve 6. yy.’larda taşra ve kent yerleşim seviyesinde değişikliklere sahne olan Anadolu’nun ve Doğu Akdeniz’in diğer bölgeleri ile karşılaştırılabilir. Kentler, köyler ve çiftlikler, ayrıca askeri, dini ve mezarlık bağlantılı yerler kronolojik ve materyal kültürü bazında bölgesel değişiklikler ihtiva etmekte ve Doğu Roma İmparatorluğu’nun diğer bazı eyaletleri ile benzerlik göstermektedir.

there are indications of growing regionalism during late antiquity,3 it is hard to define a singular Pontic or Paphlagonian identity, as this was subjectively experienced, continually evolving and being reinvented.4 There are, though, clues that Paphlagonia’s geography greatly influenced its political and social development. Its terrain may have made it hard to govern centrally; in the 5th and 6th centuries cities such as Gangra and Euchaita (in Pontus) were considered suitably remote to be places of exile for dissident churchmen; it was the scene of banditry, conflict and insurrection, and a place of religious non-conformity.5 This duality, of a place that was both significant and peripheral, is a useful starting point from which to examine the character of settlement.

In this paper, we examine the historical landscape of north-central Anatolia between approximately the 4th to the 8th centuries AD, specifically considering how the pattern of settlement accords with and differs from that in other parts of Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean. The geographical focus is on southern or Inner Paphlagonia, south of the Ilgaz (ancient Olgassys) mountain range. The North Anatolian fault zone runs directly across this region, which encompasses a diverse topography and environment, from steep, forested mountains in the north, through fertile river valleys and foothills, southwards to the arid steppe of the central Anatolian plateau.1 Paphlagonia has long been a transitional zone, a junction and barrier between central Anatolia and the Black Sea coast, and a key thoroughfare between east and west. Its position and terrain make the region strategically vital, and yet somewhat remote.

3

Liebeschuetz 2000, 276-83; Roueché 2000, 572. Mitchell 2002. 5 An account of Paphlagonia’s political and religious history is beyond the scope of this paper. Regarding Paphlagonia as a place of exile, see Matthews et al. 2009, 191. The banishment of Dioskoros and Timothy the Cat to Gangra in the mid-5th century is recorded by Evagrius Ecclesiastical History 2. 5 and 2. 11. Instances of heresy in the region include the popularity of Novatianism in the 4th century, supposedly the pretext for the siege of Mantineion (Sozomen Ecclesiastical History 4. 21. 1-2), and the heresy of Eustathius, which prompted the Council of Gangra in the 340s (Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 3. 14. 3136). 4

Paphlagonia is regarded as a distinctive place culturally as well as geographically. Greek and Roman writers often portrayed Paphlagonians in negative terms and similar stereotypes persisted in Byzantine literature.2 But while 1 2

Matthews 2009; Marsh et al. 2009. Magdalino 1998.

13

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Following the Roman conquest of the Mithridatic kingdom, the land known as Paphlagonia was divided into a patchwork of political units and after being annexed to the provinces of Pontus, Bithynia and Galatia, was appointed within a succession of provincial boundaries.6 Travel routes were formalised from the 1st century AD with the construction of a road network that connected the region’s few larger settlements.7 These poleis were granted municipal status as administrative centres that controlled territories in their hinterlands. During the 5th and 6th centuries, there was an upturn in the overall level and spread of settlement, including in urban centres and in the number of villages and farms that were dotted along river valleys, roadways and in the territories of larger towns, as well as previously unsettled lands. But despite these developments, Paphlagonia never became as urbanised as the hinterlands of western Asia Minor. Along the southern Black Sea coast were economically and politically vibrant emporia, while inland only a few places including the southern capital of Gangra (later Germanikopolis) and Kaisarea (later Hadrianopolis) in the west could truly be called cities. Inner Paphlagonia can, then, be said to display traits of marginality in its environment, economy and political status.8

and material culture on a case-by-case basis to form site function categories.

PROJECT PAPHLAGONIA In recent years, several survey and excavation projects have started and been completed in north-central Turkey, which before had seen relatively little archaeological work, especially on the Roman and post-Roman periods.11 Project Paphlagonia, an archaeological survey led by Roger Matthews, then director of the British Institute at Ankara, took place during five field seasons between 1997 and 2001 within the province of Çankırı and the districts (ilçeler) of Eskipazar and Ovacık in the southeast of Karabük province (Fig. 1).12 The field methods included an extensive or general site survey across an area of almost 8500 km² followed by intensive surface artefact collection in ten, 10 km x 4 km blocks in different parts of the survey region.13

The words assigned to describe archaeological sites are crucial in conveying their function and character. Formulating a classification of settlements is no easy task. The definition of cities, for instance, may be temporally and regionally specific. For the GraecoRoman period, historians have often looked to the Greek nomenclature to clarify site function. However, there is inconsistency in the terms used and debate over whether the words polis, kastron and kome denote specific political or economic status, whether they imply a settlement’s function in relation to other settlements or whether they describe physical attributes, principally size.9 In a wide-ranging article on ‘the transformation from polis to kastron’ in the Balkans, Archibald Dunn identified four classes of ‘upper-level’ settlement, distinguishable from the rural majority, which he termed ‘civic urban settlements; non-civic urban settlements; non-civic, non-urban fortifications; and fortified settlements’.10 This classification recognises the variety of settlement types, though it does not account for smaller sites and other, archaeologically visible loci such as roads, farmland, or places of labour. While political and economic activities may be detected from a site’s structural remains and material culture, discerning such functions as civic and urban requires information that is not always available. We must therefore look to attributes

Project Paphlagonia identified 337 archaeological sites (261 from extensive survey and 76 from the intensive tracts), dating from the earliest to most recent times of human habitation. Some phases are better represented than others. There are few Palaeolithic sites and no sign of Neolithic occupation, with an upturn in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.14 In the Late Bronze Age, Paphlagonia lay at the northern fringe of the Hittite empire, and this frontier was typified by a network of strategically located forts.15 By far the largest number of sites have material from the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods: 167, almost half, are described as

6 Marek 1993; Mitchell 1980, 1055-56; Wilson 1960; Drakoulis, this volume. 7 For Roman roads and travel routes across north Anatolia, see Bryer and Winfield 1985, 17-65; Belke 1996, 117-35; Matthews et al. 2009, 187-89. 8 The concept of marginality in archaeology is discussed in Coles and Mills 1998. For the concept’s application in the context of Roman Britain, see Nevell 2001. 9 Haldon 1990, 99-102; 1999; Dagron 1979; Brandes 1989, 29-43; Hansen 1995. 10 Dunn 1994, 66-67.

11 Matthews 2009, 12. Recent fieldwork within the Project Paphlagonia survey region includes excavations at Hadrianopolis (Laflı and Zäh 2008); for museum-led excavations at a Roman necropolis in the Korgun district of Çankırı province, see Kiper 2000; and for surveys in the east of Çankırı province, see Yıldırım and Sipahi 2007. 12 Matthews et al. 1998; Matthews 2000; 2009. We are grateful to Roger Matthews for providing access to and information on the results of Project Paphlagonia. 13 Matthews 2009; Marsh et al. 2009. 14 Matthews 2007. 15 Matthews 2004, 202-05; Glatz and Matthews 2005.

Fig. 1: Map of Anatolia and surroundings showing the Project Paphlagonia survey region

14

W. ANDERSON AND A. ROBINSON: MARGINAL OR MAINSTREAM? THE CHARACTER OF SETTLEMENT IN LATE ROMAN PAPHLAGONIA

Fig. 2: Map of Roman/Byzantine sites recorded by Project Paphlagonia (courtesy Roger Matthews and Project Paphlagonia)

are known from written references alone, with their exact whereabouts uncertain, and five sites are known from multiple forms of evidence – architecture, artefacts and writing. Not surprisingly, these are larger and more prominent places. They include Kaisarea Hadrianopolis in the west of the survey area (PS098-105) and the nearby hilltop of Asar Tepe (PS096), identified as the Mithridatic stronghold of Kimiata that was described by Strabo (12. 3. 41).18 In the centre of the survey region is Kandara (Cendere, PS009) and Anadynata (Kurşunlu, PS051), a road station on the major east-west route from Amaseia to Klaudiopolis, and Antoninopolis (PS063067), also featured on the Peutinger Table.19 The southern provincial capital of Gangra – later called Germanikopolis, now the town of Çankırı – was perhaps the region’s most substantial city.20 A handful of other, large settlements have been located, though most sites are small villages and farmsteads, as well as cemeteries and fragments from church buildings.

‘Roman’, ‘Roman-Byzantine’ or ‘Byzantine’, and of these, many can be broadly classed as ‘Late Antique’. Several Roman and Byzantine sites lie in close proximity, within the same settlement area, for instance, features and artefact scatters recorded at larger settlements (Fig. 2).16 To more accurately reflect discrete settlements rather than archaeologically defined ‘sites’, our sample was condensed by grouping sites that fell within the same, basic settlement zone. Further sites were added from the Tabula Imperii Byzantinti volume on Paphlagonia and Honorias by Klaus Belke, which catalogues an additional 26 places not recorded by Project Paphlagonia.17 From these two sources and with reference to other literature, 134 sites with evidence of Late Roman-Byzantine activity were identified, of which 92 are Late Roman, 29 are Byzantine, and 13 have material from both phases. Some places are only Roman-Byzantine in date, but many feature evidence from other time periods (discussed below).

TEXT AND MATERIAL CULTURE

Antique sites are identified using a variety of evidence – in situ structures and earthworks, artefact scatters and isolated elements including pithoi, inscribed and carved stones and other spolia (Figs. 3-4). In addition, 11 places

It is important to clarify how sites are identified and categorised, and the evidence for their chronology and function. Literature and inscriptions record a handful of

16 At Hadrianopolis (Eskipazar), eight separate sites are recorded (PS098-105). Isolated stone features recorded in villages may derive from nearby settlements that are also recorded. 17 Belke 1996.

18

Matthews 2009, 174-77. Matthews et al. 2009, 186; Belke 1996, 117-24, 171-72, 224. 20 Matthews et al. 2009, 180-82; Belke 1996, 196-99. 19

15

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 3: Forms of evidence for Roman/Byzantine sites in Paphlagonia

Fig. 4: Roman/Byzantine site types recorded by Project Paphlagonia

place names, and occasionally detail historical events, the function of a site and the activities of its inhabitants. This is especially the case for ‘upper-level’ settlements – administrative centres, places that lay on important travel routes, which appear in provincial lists and are described in ancient sources. Attendance lists of bishops at church councils show that in Asia Minor, and particularly in Paphlagonia, there was continuity from Late Roman to Byzantine times: the same 14 bishoprics noted at councils of the 4th to 6th centuries also appear in the records of 680, 692 and 787.21 But as Wolfram Brandes notes, the endurance of a city’s name does not necessarily mean that the bishop resided there, that there was continuity in the urban structure, or that the city was even inhabited.22 Excavations at Pergamum, Aphrodisias and Amorium have shown that Roman cities may have continued to be inhabited while at the same time their layout and configuration were radically altered.23 Sometimes the city was no longer a single, coherent settlement, but became fragmented into several discrete loci – often upper and lower towns – within and outside the former city’s walls.

populations, and mentions 24 villages by name.26 Later Byzantine texts also contain information on social structure, the rural economy, and religious centres. Among them is the 9th-century beneficial tale of Metrios, a Paphlagonian farmer described as ‘living in selfsufficiency’, who visits the annual, local fair (panegyris) to sell and exchange goods.27 Several of the Miracles of St George are set in Paphlagonia, where evidently he was very popular.28 In one of these stories, probably dating from the 8th century or after,29 the protagonist, Manuel, collects money from his village of Didia in the territory of Gangra to take as an offering to the shrine of the archangel Michael at Chonai in Phrygia.30 He is targeted by a family of bandits who intend to rob and kill him, but appeals to St George, who smites his attackers and conveys him safely to his destination.31 These tales and other forms of writing provide windows on to people’s lives and experiences – the status of farmers and soldiers, the agricultural economy, village fairs, religious cults and customs, and the perils of crosscountry travel. Moreover, texts should be seen not only as historical signposts providing evidence about the past, but as having power and efficacy within it.32 But while written documents – be they administrative lists, histories, hagiographies or inscriptions – offer vivid glimpses of the past, the information they provide on the level, distribution and typology of settlements is fragmentary. A more consistent view is possible by combining archaeological approaches – critically considering the written record, the evidence of standing monuments, excavated remains and systematically recorded surface artefacts, and piecing these fragments together.33 Texts can be supplemented and challenged by

Smaller settlements are occasionally mentioned in writing. Byzantine hagiographies and beneficial tales are a rich source of information for the details of daily life and people’s worldview. Especially relevant for Paphlagonia is the Life of St Philaretos, an 8th-century, landowning farmer whose village of Amnia lay in the territory of Gangra.24 Based on descriptions of agricultural and social life – holdings of land, livestock and slaves – Amnia is frequently cited by historians as a model example of a provincial Byzantine village.25 The 7th-century Life of St Theodore of Sykeon, set in Galatia, contains dozens of anecdotes on rural life and 21 Ostrogorsky 1959, 57. Evidence for the continuity of bishoprics beyond the 8th century also comes in the form of lead seals. For seals from the metropolitan of Gangra, see Laurent 1963, 318-24, nos. 439446; McGreer et al. 2001, 48-49, nos. 17.1-17.3. For the metropolitan of Pompeiopolis, see Laurent 1963, 598-99, no. 780; McGreer et al. 2001, 51-53, nos. 20.1-20.4. 22 Brandes 1999, 42-3. 23 Rheidt 1998; Cormack 1990; Ivison 2007. 24 Rydén 2002. 25 Belke 1996, 170-71.

26

Dawes and Baynes 1977, 87-192; Mitchell 1993, 122-50. Delehaye 1902, coll. 721-724; Haldon 2002, 80-85. We are grateful to Roger Scott for his translation of this text. 28 Festugière 1971, 266. 29 Festugière 1971, 266. 30 Festugière 1971, 266; Belke 1996, 190. 31 Festugière 1971, 316-20. 32 Moreland 2006. 33 Bintliff 2000, 38. 27

16

W. ANDERSON AND A. ROBINSON: MARGINAL OR MAINSTREAM? THE CHARACTER OF SETTLEMENT IN LATE ROMAN PAPHLAGONIA

Table 1: Attributes of Roman/Byzantine sites recorded by Project Paphlagonia Number

Average area (ha)

Average elevation (m above sea level)

City

7

22.88

1049.43

Large village

5

5.06

1007.80

Village

12

2.23

1007.25

Farmstead

35

0.27

1066.63

Fort, fortifications

10

1.00

1184.80

Cemetery

25

0.29

1058.76

Church, monastery

5

0.14

1036.60

the material evidence and archaeology can initiate and inform new lines of investigation. Furthermore, archaeological survey and Byzantine hagiography complement each other especially well, due to their capacity to illuminate the lives of non-elite individuals and sectors of society and reveal the nature of the places where they lived.

be distinguished from a town simply by the difference in size, however, measuring site area can be problematic: features can be related but not physically connected with other features, and the edge of structures and walls or fall-offs in artefact scatters do not necessarily reflect inhabited areas.37 With these limitations in mind, it remains possible to discern a hierarchy of settlements and places that had specific functions.

CLASSIFYING AND CHARACTERISING SETTLEMENTS

CITIES AND TOWNS

The results of Project Paphlagonia allow for a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of the archaeological landscape of north-central Turkey. More can now be said about the settlement situation as a whole. One observation is that the region was found to be poor in artefacts and archaeological sites.34 The number of finds, including from intensively surveyed tracts, is low, usually less than a dozen diagnostic sherds per site, and overall site density (1 per 5.3 km² in the intensive tracts) is also meagre, when, for example, compared with site densities of approximately 1 per 0.25 km² from intensive surveys in central Greece.35 Meaningful, quantitative assessments of surface finds may therefore be hindered by the low artefact levels: hardly the ‘unbroken carpet’ of surface pottery encountered in Boeotia.36

Late Roman settlements may be detected from artefact scatters, earthworks, standing walls and architectural fragments. How these remains are classified and characterised, for instance, how a town is distinguished from a village or a village from a farm, can be intuitive rather than based on empirical traits, though some distinctions do stand out. One is the relationship between size and longevity. Larger settlements tend to be older, showing that cities formed in Hellenistic and Early Roman times continued to be inhabited into the 6th and 7th centuries. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that Early Roman cities were re-inhabited and remodelled, while other urban sites only emerged as such during late antiquity. These places display signs of affluence and complexity in their architecture and material culture.

There is a range of site functions that may be interpreted from the material remains – inhabited, agricultural, civic/administrative, infrastructure, military, ritual and funerary. Caution must be exercised when using these terms because of the paucity and problems of evidence and because sites could have multiple functions and meanings. A site’s character may be judged from structural and contextual attributes: its location, area, elevation, and surrounding topography – as well as evidence for chronology, function, prosperity and interor extra-regional connectivity (see Table). A village may

At Hadrianopolis, recent excavations have unearthed Late Roman buildings that formed a substantial regional centre, with political, economic and religious functions (Fig. 5).38 These are indicated in the excavated structures, which include two 6th-century churches, two bath houses, and a multi-roomed complex. Their architecture consists of mortared stones and tile and incorporate reused elements from Early Roman buildings as well as newlycarved features. The churches and the later bathhouse show alterations and embellishment that point to their construction and reworking over time. Floor mosaics, among them elaborate figural and geometric designs and inscriptions, have been found in each of these buildings.

34

Matthews 2004, 201-02; 2009. Düring 2008, 36; Bintliff et al. 1999, 142. 36 Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988, 506. The low artefact counts might therefore make a qualitative approach more desirable. This is not to downplay low artefact and site densities as a disappointing result, nor to discount the utility of quantitative results as evidence for settlement types and distribution. 35

37 Late Roman circuit walls are demonstrated by Kirilov (2007) to have not necessarily enclosed land that was all inhabited. 38 Laflı 2007; 2008; Laflı and Zäh 2008; Marek 1993, 116-22; Belke 1996, 155-57.

17

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 6: Ceramics from Antoninopolis, PS066 (courtesy Roger Matthews and Project Paphlagonia) decoration (Fig. 6).40 These show that, as at Hadrianopolis, an Early Roman settlement existed prior to the development of the later Roman town. On a plateau south of the Devrez valley, another longlived and sizeable town is found near Örenşehir in Orta ilçe (PS040).41 The outlines of walls and streets are visible on the hillside, with ash and artefact scatters covering some 20 ha. The line of rock-cut chamber tombs on the upper slopes presumably form an extra-mural necropolis. Surface finds include Early and Late Roman imported fine wares, ribbed jars, and a worn coin that dates from the late 3rd or early 4th century AD. The site’s antiquity and prosperity is seen in the presence of moulded sigillata and other fine wares. Close to Örenşehir is Karaağaç Köyü (PS039) where there are several Byzantine tombs and a possible church cut into the cliff face.42 Bronze Age sherds attest a much earlier occupation, and there is also late- and post-mediaeval material such as Ottoman glazed ceramics and tobacco pipes, suggesting that settlement transferred here permanently after Örenşehir was abandoned.

Fig. 5: Kaisareia Hadrianopolis, with excavated bath house in the foreground

Besides Gangra and Hadrianopolis, Project Paphlagonia recorded a number of possible ‘civic urban settlements’. To the north-west of Çerkeş, along the valley system that forms the main east-west corridor across the region, pottery scatters over an area of 28 ha and a concentration of spolia in the villages of Kızıllar and Bedil point to a city of substantial size and antiquity (PS063-067). The site has previously been identified as Antoninopolis, a hyparchy town associated with Hadrianopolis, which lies some 30 km to the west.39 Pottery from here includes imported sigillata, Phocaean red-slipped ware, storage and cooking jars, and tiles with finger-impressed 39

The transition of settlement during the Early Byzantine period from lowland to upland locations is seen elsewhere in Paphlagonia, though the chronology is not 40

Finger-impressed tiles were collected from over a dozen sites in the Project Paphlagonia survey region and are present in the multi-roomed complex at Hadrianopolis. They have been found in Early Byzantine deposits in Amorium (Witte-Orr 2007) and are widespread in Late Roman and Byzantine walls across Turkey and Greece. 41 Belke 1996, 256. 42 Belke 1996, 225.

Matthews et al. 2009, 186; Belke 1996, 172.

18

W. ANDERSON AND A. ROBINSON: MARGINAL OR MAINSTREAM? THE CHARACTER OF SETTLEMENT IN LATE ROMAN PAPHLAGONIA

always clear. At Gangra, the city’s core might have relocated from the valley floor to the citadel in the early mediaeval period, but the exact date that a distinctive ‘upper town’ emerged is unknown. North of the Ilgaz mountains, the polis to kastron shift is exemplified by the abandonment of Pompeiopolis, the region’s foremost urban centre throughout the Roman period.43 This city suffered destruction from earthquakes during late antiquity, and judging from the account of Manuel II Palaeologus in a letter of 1391, Pompeiopolis had, by then, long been ruinous and people had forgotten of its existence.44 Little is known of this city from the 7th to 9th century, when settlement and urban functions transferred to the nearby hilltop of Kız Kalesi, and thence to the castle stronghold of Kastamonu in around the 10th century.45

Çayı (Fig. 7).46 The valley forms a crossroads where two key routes intersect: the east-west route across north Anatolia and the north-south route through the Ilgaz pass from Gangra to Kastamonu. More than a dozen extensive sites were located on this plain and in the hills directly to the north. In the intensively walked transects, 20 separate sites were distinguished, most of them Late Roman farmsteads situated on the valley sides and on alluvial fans. Alongside locally produced tiles, storage, cooking and table wares in an orange fabric common across the survey region are occasional sherds of imported fine ware and amphora, demonstrating a well-connected district (Fig. 8).

The position and topography of Late Antique towns in contrast to their successors is noteworthy. Pompeiopolis lies on a low plateau on the broad Gökırmak (ancient Amnias) valley, while Kız Kalesi is on a strategically located hilltop. In the Project Paphlagonia survey region, Hadrianopolis, Gangra, Antoninopolis and the urban site at Örenşehir are all situated on gently sloping hillsides, beside waterways and at significant points along valleys that form passages of overland travel. These towns flourished in the 5th to early 7th centuries, but were abandoned, relocated or substantially altered in the mid7th to 9th centuries. This move, from extensive cities on valley floors to compact, upland settlements is seen across Anatolia and beyond. The pattern may be explained by a variety of natural and social circumstances that were both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ to the Roman empire. As well as resulting from disastrous events such as military invasions and earthquakes, the shift can be seen to represent long-term processes: changing social and political structures, and increasingly localised systems of governance and subsistence.

Fig. 7: The Devrez valley at Ilgaz, where many Late Roman sites are located

VILLAGES AND FARMSTEADS Villages and farmsteads make up the majority of identified Roman sites (Fig. 4). These often feature material culture dating from the 5th to 7th centuries, so appear to be new foundations. They are concentrated in certain districts of the survey region, on and beside river valleys and in the vicinity of larger settlements, perhaps as agricultural supply points. This trend might be partly explained by survey methodology and the time devoted to investigating particular areas, but findings from intensively walked tracts also support a situation whereby pockets of land attracted settlement throughout the Roman period.

Fig. 8: Pottery from intensive survey near Ilgaz, site ILG4-7 Concurrent with settlement intensification in fertile pockets, Late Antique villages and farms spread to occupy previously sparsely settled land. Similar trends in other parts of Anatolia have been seen to indicate stability, population upturn and associated investment and expansion in the level of farming, with increased demand on the countryside.47 Reviewing survey results

One district with high levels of rural settlement is in the fertile plain around Ilgaz, along the valley of the Devrez 43 Marek 1993, 63-73; Belke 1996, 260-2. Excavations have been ongoing at Pompeiopolis since the 1980s, see Çakır 1995; Baran 2002; Summerer 2007. 44 Dennis 1977, 44. 45 Crow 1996, 18-26; 2009, 30-31.

46

Marsh et al. 2009, 57-59. This is, of course, a generalisation of processes that were temporally and regionally variable. For a review of archaeological investigation of the Late Antique countryside, see Chavarría and Lewit 2004. 47

19

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

from the Konya plain, Douglas Baird suggested that the use of marginal land is also a sign of investment in irrigation and advances in water management techniques.48 Such advances are conceivably reflected or at least foreshadowed in Byzantine miracle stories where a saint changes the course of rivers to the benefit of farmers. St Theodore of Sykeon, whose biography locates him often in the milieu of farm and village life, is seen diverting the River Siberis, which ‘ran close by the cornfields and was undermining the arable land and little by little was carrying away much of the soil; so the Saint, trusting fully in God, came and ordered the river in the name of Christ to change its bed and no longer approach the cornfields’.49 He likewise tames the River Sangarius, so that it will never again be susceptible to damaging floods.50

relate specifically to exorcisms, as Stephen Mitchell observes,55 even in those cases the demons can take the shape of farm pests: ‘To some who saw them they looked like flying blue-bottles or hares or dormice.’56 The proliferation of rural settlement during late antiquity, and subsequent downturn from the 7th century seems to reflect changing political circumstances that, in turn, affected the level and type of agricultural practices. Climate change and land degradation might also have played a part, however, demarcating between natural and cultural factors is hazardous as the two are dialectically related.57 A recent case study from Cappadocia, which compares environmental indicators preserved in lake sediments with the record of events in near-contemporary texts, argues convincingly that human agency (related here primarily to the activities of Arab armies and responses to them) was paramount in shaping land use and settlement patterns.58

Roman villages and farms are located close to waterways, at the sides of valleys, while later, Byzantine sites tend to be at a higher elevation, on hillsides or hilltops and sometimes on tumuli; half of the mediaeval sites visited by Project Paphlagonia also feature Iron Age or Bronze Age material.51 Small, lowland sites display a strongly agricultural character, and we can assume that along alluvial valley floors, cereal cultivation, the mainstay of the Roman economy, was a central farming activity, with sheep farming on the higher pastures and pig-keeping in the locality of villages.52 Viticulture may also have been important, though evidence for this, and for olive cultivation, is inconclusive, while other products attested in written sources such as timber and fruit are less visible archaeologically.53

Lower numbers and agglomeration of settlements after the 7th century may also reflect population decline. The Late Antique boom in rural settlement occurs in tandem with prosperity in the larger towns. Whether this shows dependence of villages on cities or vice versa, or alternatively, competitiveness, and a rural challenge to the dominance of cities, is hard to say. Most pottery from rural sites has a limited range of fabrics, as seen at sites across the survey region. This homogeneity of material culture may indicate a stable, interconnected and selfreliant pattern of rural settlement that was not necessarily predicated on the demands of the larger, urban centres, nor was dependant on outside imports of foodstuffs or utilities.

These observations on agriculture are strongly supported by the documentary evidence. The centrality of farming and food production is illustrated in the Life of Theodore of Sykeon through the substance of the miracles the saint performs. Miracle stories in saints’ Lives arguably reflect the protagonists’ (and the audience’s) most heartfelt wishes and greatest concerns, and here many of them have a strong agricultural aspect. The saint is depicted controlling the natural environment to assist farmers, taming and curing sick farm animals, and ending plagues of locusts and vermin.54 While many of his other miracles

FORTS AND FORTIFIED PLACES The building of fortifications is commonly viewed as a defensive response to the threat or reality of military attack, which in Anatolia occurred with increasing frequency from the invasions of the Persian and Arab armies starting in the 7th century.59 On at least two occasions in the early 8th century, Arab forces laid siege to the citadel at Gangra.60 In the Early Byzantine period, the Paphlagonian landscape assumed an increasingly

48

Baird 2004. Dawes and Baynes 1977, chapter 45. 50 Dawes and Baynes 1977, chapter 141. 51 Reoccupation of tumuli that were abandoned in Hellenistic times but which were again settled in the Byzantine and Seljuk periods is seen at numerous sites across Anatolia. For the Byzantine settlement at Çadır Höyük, see Cassis 2009. 52 For the importance of pastoral farming in Roman Galatia, see Mitchell 1980. 53 For olive cultivation in the Pontic region, see Mitchell 2005, and for discussion of the region’s economy, see Wilson 1960, 25-45; Belke 1996, 138-51. Signs of wine production and trade, in the form of amphorae, are sparse, though some carved relief sculptures feature grape and vine motifs. See Mitchell 1993, 131, on the frequent references to viticulture in neighbouring Galatia in the Life of Theodore of Sykeon. 54 Dawes and Baynes 1977: for miracles related to controlling the natural environment, see, for example, chapters 14, 51 and 101 (the saint brings about much needed rain), 45, 53 and 141 (he changes the course of rivers for the sake of agriculture or to stop flooding), and 52 and 144 (he stops hailstorms); for farm animals, see, for example, 44 49

(the saint cures oxen of plague), and 98 and 99 (he tames wild animals for domestic use); for insect plagues, see, for example, chapters 36, 101 and 118. It is interesting also to note in chapter 35 how the saint postpones the exorcism of a woman’s demon to enable her to be home to get the summer crops in and secure the vintage. 55 Mitchell 1993, 139. 56 Dawes and Baynes 1977, chapter 43; see also chapter 131, where a ‘whole house… was filled with mice and snakes which terrified the inhabitants, [but after St Theodore] had blessed some water and sprinkled the whole house with it, he freed the owners from the demons’ malignity’. For references to pests and other ‘enemies of agriculture’ in Roman Asia Minor, see Nollé 2005. 57 Johnson 2007, 144. 58 England et al. 2008. 59 Haldon 1990, 102-14. 60 Belke 1996, 196; Matthews et al. 2009, 190. For the campaign of AD 712, see al-Tabarī 23, II 1236 (tr. M Hinds [Albany, NJ 1990]); and for the campaign of 727, al-Yaqūbī in Brooks 1898, 199.

20

W. ANDERSON AND A. ROBINSON: MARGINAL OR MAINSTREAM? THE CHARACTER OF SETTLEMENT IN LATE ROMAN PAPHLAGONIA

militarised nature, with building and occupation of strategically positioned and defendable sites and the appearance of short-lived refuges, high on remote hilltops.61 Refuges and strongholds are mentioned in Byzantine literature, for instance, in the Life, Education and Miracles of St Theodore the Recruit the people of Euchaita are described as fleeing to a stronghold (ochyrōma) above the main, lower town.62 There are frequent references in the literature to Arab raids and responses to them: another story about Theodore the Recruit describes a peasant who arrives at a fair to find the place empty since the people had taken flight from approaching enemies;63 and the Life of St Philaretos attributes its hero’s poverty in part to ‘the cattle-lifting of the Ishmaelites’.64

Fig. 9: Limestone outcrop in the east of Hadrianopolis

Developments from the 7th century and later do not, however, explain phases of fortification in the preceding period, which in the urban context include the construction or shoring up of circuit walls, the emergence of upper and lower towns, and the reduction of the enclosed, city area.65 For Inner Paphlagonia and Pontus there is little clear evidence of this process: at Euchaita, an inscription records the construction of a circuit wall by the emperor Anastasius in ca. 515, and development of the hilltop enclosure above the village of Beyözü as the town’s focal point probably dates from the 7th century or later;66 ancient Gangra is buried beneath the modern town of Çankırı and other urban sites are only superficially known.

insecurity and ‘security crackdowns’ in Paphlagonia came from closer to home in both this and the preceding period. We have heard how the pilgrim Manuel met with thieves while transporting his village’s offerings. Such perils must have been common and overland travel dangerous. In Late Antiquity, violence could take a ‘political’ as well as ‘criminal’ form, centring on factional, religious or territorial disputes.68 As well as Arab raids, Philaretos faced a local menace when local magnates took his impoverishment as an opportunity to grab his lands for their own: ‘All his farms were plundered by the neighbouring mighty and farmers,’ his biographer relates, ‘for, seeing that he was poor and unable to keep them and till his own soil, they divided his land among themselves, some using force, others entreating him’.69

Hadrianopolis offers some opportunity to learn about Late Antique fortification. Though there are few standing fortification walls, further work, especially geophysical prospection, may yield information. On a limestone outcrop above the necropolis at the eastern entrance to the city are vestiges of structures, and on one side a tall, dressed stone with rubble core wall, which may have served as the city’s defensive focus (PS100, Fig. 9). Hadrianopolis is, though, a low-lying exposed site, ill-suited to cope with military invasion, so it is unsurprising that it did not transform into a Byzantine kastron.67 Despite archaeological finds and written references that point to continued occupation into the 8th, 9th and later centuries, the city’s topography may have contributed to its contraction in the Byzantine period.

Neighbourly aggression takes on a wider, political aspect in a well-known 6th-century inscription from Kaisarea Hadrianopolis.70 It is an imperial edict, promulgated through the local bishop, with the aim of abolishing mobs of mounted club-bearers hired by local landowners.71 The edict demonstrates, according to Roger Matthews, ‘both a breakdown of civic order and a centralised attempt, doomed to failure, to conscript the church into the exercise of imperial policing and control’.72 The growing prominence of local magnates and their militias reflects a threat to orthodox forms of institutional power; the changing fabric of settlements and militarisation of the landscape may also be explained by emergent military and ecclesiastical elites.73

Outside invasions surely motivated the fortification of settlements from the 7th century, but it is arguable that

68

Liebeschuetz 2001, 249-83; Trombley 2001, 221-22. Rydén 2002, 63. 70 Feissel and Kaygusuz 1985. 71 Mitchell 1993, 121. 72 Matthews et al. 2009, 191. 73 This is seen in buildings with specific official functions, for example, the residences of Late Antique governors (Lavan 1999). The multiroomed building at Hadrianopolis might have housed an imperial or army officer, or perhaps a bishop or other notable. However, at Amorium, where there is plentiful historical evidence for the growing dominance of officials connected with the Anatolic theme, no structures directly related to the military administration have yet been identified, see Ivison 2007, 29-30. 69

61

Matthews 2004, 207-10; Matthews et al. 2009: 195-97; Crow 2009. Delehaye [1909] 1975, Miracle 9, 199-200; Zuckerman 1988, 198. Euchaita is identified as the village of Beyözü (formerly Avkat) in the east of Çorum province, now the subject of a survey and research project – the Avkat Archaeological Project. For the date and content of the anonymous enkomion, see also Trombley 1985; Crow 1996. 63 Delehaye [1909] 1975, Miracle 10, 201; Foss 2003, 145. 64 Rydén 2002, 63. 65 Kirilov 2007. 66 Mango and Ševčenko 1972. 67 Matthews et al. 2009, 182. 62

21

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Detecting material evidence for civil unrest in late antiquity is complicated by the fact that many fortifications date from the later mediaeval and postmediaeval period, sometimes overbuilt on Hellenistic, Iron and Bronze Age levels. Material remains should not be over-determined in an attempt to match them with singular, historical episodes. Naturally strategic sites were occupied intermittently over long spans of time. Possible Byzantine fortified sites are at the mounds of Salman Höyük in Ilgaz province (PS015-16) and a rocky outcrop at Kanlıgöl (PS218) where there are remains dating from the Bronze Age and Iron Age, as well as Roman and later times. While destruction levels, slighted walls and rapidly built fortifications may represent specific phases of conflict, a more gradual militarisation of settlements and the landscape as a whole was occurring before and after the Arab invasions of the 7th and 8th centuries.

Fig. 10: Bozoğlu Tepe, near Çerkeş

Ten or more fortified hilltops were recorded by Project Paphlagonia. These range from small, precarious enclosures with apparently short and/or temporary occupation spans to longer-lived castles in more prominent locations, suggesting their role as oppressive as well as defensive structures. The former sites date from the 7th to 12th centuries and constitute a network of defendable and strategically-placed reporting posts, which seemingly had a solely military function as their size suggests they could not have accommodated a large population (see Table above).74 However, at some upland sites there are signs of earlier occupation. Bozoğlu Tepe (PS074) is a volcanic plug that rises prominently over the Çerkeş valley plain (Figs. 10-11). The hilltop is encircled by a collapsed drystone wall with bastions along it, and within the enclosure are several rectangular structures. The castle design is mediaeval, though surface artefacts include Late Roman red-slipped ware among later storage jars and cooking pots that suggests occupation that predates the Arab incursions, perhaps from the later 6th century. Late Roman finds are also present at other fortified sites, though the difficulty of distinguishing Byzantine from later fortifications and often sparse material culture, may mean that these places were inhabited intermittently rather than continuously.

Fig. 11: View from the summit of Bozoğlu Tepe, with collapsed walls in the foreground

Rock-cut chamber tombs are another form of mortuary site, some of them first constructed in the Byzantine period, and others that are reoccupations and modifications of Iron Age, Hellenistic and Roman structures.75 At Hadrianopolis are both chamber tombs of Early Roman date and flat, horizontal graves hewn into a limestone outcrop in the city’s eastern necropolis (PS099, Fig. 12), as well as rock-cut niches with a probable cultic function.76 Both ridge-top cemeteries and rock-cut tombs on cliff faces were conspicuous landscape features that people would have seen and thought about daily.

CEMETERIES, CHURCHES AND RITUAL SITES Sites of funerary and ritual activity are especially visible to ground survey because these are places that were invested in, built with permanence and visibility in mind, often using stone. Cemeteries and tombs indicate nearby settled populations and can be used to investigate demographics and social practices. Burials are evident in the form of grave markers, stone or tile grave linings, and cists. Unfortunately many flat, inhumation graves are looted, their contents taken and their context destroyed. What evidence that remains – their landscape position, construction and alignment – is still valuable for determining the identity and actions of the deceased and the mourners. 74

Roman/Byzantine churches are today visible in the abundant fragments of architecture – columns, capitals, carved panels – displayed in parks and roadsides and incorporated into post-Roman structures. These represent a surge of church-building between the 5th and 7th centuries.77 Churches have been located close to and 75 Rock-cut features in Paphlagonia have been the subject of much scholarly interest, see von Gall 1966; Leonhard 1915, 242-87. 76 Laflı 2007. 77 On church-building during the life of St Theodore of Sykeon, see Mitchell 1993, 125-26.

Matthews et al. 2009, 195-97; Matthews 2004.

22

W. ANDERSON AND A. ROBINSON: MARGINAL OR MAINSTREAM? THE CHARACTER OF SETTLEMENT IN LATE ROMAN PAPHLAGONIA

Fig. 12: Flat, rock-cut graves near Hadrianopolis

Fig. 13: Carved capital outside Çankırı Museum

within Roman cities, and also in the countryside. The founding of monasteries likewise reflects the Church’s dominance in political and economic spheres. Project Paphlagonia located several churches, in urban settings such as Gangra and Hadrianopolis and in rural locations, as well as possible monastic sites.78 As the region’s main urban centre and a bishopric that hosted a synod probably in the 340s,79 Gangra most likely had several churches as well as a central basilica, which may have incorporated a martyrium for its bishop, Hypatios. This 4th-century bishop was, according to his Life, buried in Gangra’s ‘main church’ (earlier converted from a temple of Dionysus) after his murder at the hands of members of the Novatian sect.80 Episcopal lists and lead seals show that Gangra was a metropolitan see from the 4th to the 12th century.81 Because the ancient city is completely overbuilt by the modern town of Çankırı, it is impossible to know its former location, extent and layout. By chance, the Project Paphlagonia team witnessed road works near the foot of the kale that revealed what might have been the apse of a church (PS233). Other signs of ecclesiastical architecture include carved stones in the Çankırı Museum, including a capital with figural sculpture, a basalt font from a nearby looted church site (PS165) and reused columns and capitals built into the Sultan Süleyman Camii (or Büyük Camii), the 16th-century mosque in the city’s old town (Figs. 1314).82

Fig. 14: Reused columns and capitals in the Büyük Camii, Çankırı

in the 6th century and later based himself on the outskirts of the city, becoming so popular that it was soon necessary to build two monasteries in the vicinity of his pillar for his dedicated followers.83 Of the two excavated buildings, ‘Church A’ lies some 2.5 km from the city centre, beyond the eastern necropolis. This triple-apsed structure has a mosaic floor with geometric and animal decoration, elaborately carved capitals and marble panels and whose construction is dated to the first quarter of the 6th century, with artefacts found dating to the 8th century.84 In the town centre, ‘Church B’ is of a similar design, slightly larger, and incorporates reused Roman masonry including erased inscriptions, also with a mosaic decorated floor that features depictions of personified rivers.85 One mosaic in Church B has a dedicatory inscription from the scholarios Himerios, indicating a middle-ranking military official investing in the embellishment of the church.86

Two churches have been located and excavated at Hadrianopolis, and more could remain undiscovered. Hadrianopolis was a bishopric and perhaps also a pilgrimage centre: a stylite saint, Alypius, was born there 78

Matthews et al. 2009, 194. For a discussion of the date of the synod from the primary sources, see Mitchell 1993, 112, n. 20. 80 Belke 1996, 197. Hypatios’ miracles seem primarily to have involved providing fresh clean water, including from a spring which came up in the place where his blood was shed by his killers. For other references to the bishop’s water-related miracles, see Belke 1996, 146, 206, 238 and 249. 81 Honigmann 1942; and see n. 21 above. 82 Belke 1996, 198. 79

83

Delehaye 1923, 148, 154-55, 161-62. Laflı and Zäh 2008, 686-94. 85 Laflı and Zäh 2008, 694-97; Laflı 2007. 86 Laflı 2007, 51. 84

23

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

The location of many churches and chapels is separate from major urban centres. There is evidence of at least a dozen rural churches in the survey region, mostly in the form of architectural fragments, while rock-cut chapels such as the caves at İnköy (PS010) that overlook the Ilgaz valley and a newly discovered site at Salur (03S01) may have been monastic settlements.87 Other ecclesiastical sites are identified from surface artefacts as well as structural remains, such as Zırçalı Mevkii, a tumulus that lies in a remote location in the north-east of the survey region (PS196).88 Artefacts unearthed by illegal digging include glass, tiles with moulded crosses and architectural features, and brown-painted ceramic vessels, comparable with the class of 7th-century pottery known as Monastic Ware.89 This material shows aspects of specialised production in a vernacular style that suggests a moderately affluent, Early Byzantine monastery; the site’s location shows that it was set apart from urban sites and the road network.

Settlement downturn may be explained by political and social upheaval that fractured the symbiosis between town and countryside as it did across much of the Byzantine world. Paphlagonia certainly suffered as a result of the empire’s territorial losses and from the crises of war, plague and natural disasters, with decline in imperial and private investment as class structures were reconfigured. However, the fact that there were few large cities to begin with and that village networks were selfsufficient may have been advantageous. It meant that Paphlagonia was better able to cope with downturn than regions whose cities and territories depended on the cohesion of the empire, were inextricably bound to the empire-wide economy, and more reliant on long-distance imports. The findings of Project Paphlagonia leave us with a paradox. On one hand, the situation is much the same as elsewhere in Anatolia, with settlement levels peaking in the 6th or early 7th centuries, followed by site contraction and abandonment. At the same time, there are signs of gradual change rather than sudden collapse. This apparent contradiction should not be a cause for despair at the lack, or poor quality of evidence. Neither is it profitable to pursue the rigid dualism of change and continuity, especially as these categories are formed by preconceptions brought to the material. Instead, the situation could be regarded in its own right, as an indication that settlement patterns may be conditioned by external forces as well as local adaptation and accretion. Paphlagonia could benefit from its situation as being marginal and mainstream, on the fringe, yet in the heartlands of the Byzantine empire.

CONCLUSIONS This paper has sought to convey the character of settlements in Late Roman Paphlagonia, from the region’s few large towns to the numerous villages and farmsteads, and sites with specific functions such as churches, cemeteries and forts. The results of Project Paphlagonia show that there was settlement and population upturn during late antiquity, perhaps peaking in the second half of the 6th century. Long-established regional centres then underwent a period of rebuilding, probably led by both institutional agents (the state, the church) and by private benefactors. Dozens of new sites, mostly farms and villages, appeared across the countryside, clustered around larger settlements and along roadways, but also in previously unoccupied areas. These developments suggest intensified agriculture and expansion and diversification of land use that involved exploitation of the mixed topography for arable and pastoral farming, 90 and point to incipient ruralisation or villagisation and the operation of localised village networks.

We began by asking how Late Roman settlement in Paphlagonia, as an environmentally, economically and politically marginal region, accords with and differs from that in other parts of Anatolia and the Mediterranean. Its position made it strategically vital, connecting central Anatolia and the Black Sea, and a thoroughfare between east and west. However, its terrain meant it was quite isolated from neighbouring regions, making it difficult to govern from afar, and allowing localised settlement networks to prevail. We do not say that Paphlagonia was an insular place immune from external influence; it was very much part of the Byzantine empire, close to the imperial powerhouse of Constantinople, and it shared many features in common with neighbouring regions. But it also developed particular patterns of settlement that might have made it less susceptible to external circumstances. From the Arab raids in the 7th and 8th centuries and until the Turkish takeover of the region in the 12th century, Paphlagonia became a contested frontier, but at least in the initial post-Roman period, the region’s character and rural networks may have meant a degree of resilience to downturn and decline.

In the course of the 7th century settlement levels contracted as they did across Anatolia. But while there was undoubtedly shrinkage in the number and size of settlements, there was also a degree of continuity. Some Late Antique villages, particularly those in more fertile and defendable locations, were inhabited into mediaeval times, expanding into towns that developed specialised political and productive functions. At around a dozen sites, evidence points to habitation spanning the Late Roman and Byzantine centuries. It could be argued, then, that the mediaeval mode of agglomerated villages and towns evolved from intensified occupation of the countryside in late antiquity. 87

Matthews et al. 2009, 194. Matthews et al. 2009, 194. 89 Jackson 2007, 387, 397-99. The ware is also present at other sites including Mart 01S02, an early mediaeval town in the south of the survey region. 90 Geyer 2002.

Bibliography

88

Abbreviations CAH

24

Cambridge Ancient History.

W. ANDERSON AND A. ROBINSON: MARGINAL OR MAINSTREAM? THE CHARACTER OF SETTLEMENT IN LATE ROMAN PAPHLAGONIA

(eds.), Life on the Edge: Human Settlement and Marginality (Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeology 13) (Oxford), vii-xii.

BAIRD, D. 2004: ‘Settlement expansion on the Konya Plain, Anatolia: 5th-7th centuries A.D.’. In Bowden, W., Lavan, L. and Machado, C. (eds.), Recent Research on the Late Antique Countryside (Late Antique Archaeology 2) (Leiden), 219-46.

CORMACK, R. 1990: ‘Byzantine Aphrodisias: changing the symbolic map of a city’. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 216, n.s. 36, 127-55.

BARAN, A.K. 2002: ‘Paphlagonia daki Pompeiopolis antik kenti’. Belleten 66, 819-38.

CROW, J. 1996: ‘Alexios Komnenos and Kastamon: castles and settlement in Middle Byzantine Paphlagonia’. In Mullett, M. and Smythe, D. (eds.), Alexios I Komnenos (Papers of the second Belfast Byzantine International Colloquium, 14-16 April 1989) (Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations 4.1) (Belfast), 12-36.

BELKE, K. 1996: Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9: Paphlagonien und Honorias (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, Denkschriften 249) (Vienna). BINTLIFF, J.L. 2000: ‘Reconstructing the Byzantine countryside: New approaches from landscape archaeology’. In Belke, K. (ed.), Byzanz als Raum: zu Methoden und Inhalen der historischen Geographie des östlichen Mittelmeeraumes (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, Denkschriften 283) (Vienna), 3764.

CROW, J. 2009: ‘Byzantine castles or fortified places in Paphlagonia and Pontus’. In Vorderstrasse, T. and Roodenberg, J. (eds.), Archaeology of the Countryside in Medieval Anatolia (Leiden), 25-43. DAGRON, G. 1979: ‘Entre village et cité: La bourgade rurale des IVe-Vie siècles en Orient’. Koinōnia 3, 2952.

BINTLIFF, J.L., HOWARD, P. and SNODGRASS, A.M. 1999: ‘The hidden landscape of prehistoric Greece’. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12.2, 139-68.

DAWES, E. and BAYNES, N.H. 1977: Three Byzantine Saints: Contemporary Biographies Translated from the Greek, 2nd ed. (Oxford), 87-192.

BINTLIFF, J.L. and SNODGRASS, A.M. 1988: ‘Off-site pottery distributions: a regional and interregional perspective’. Current Anthropology 29, 506-13.

DELEHAYE, H. (ed.) 1902: Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris (Brussels), coll. 721-724.

BRANDES, W. 1989: Die Städte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert (Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten 56) (Berlin).

DELEHAYE, H. (ed.) [1909] 1975: Les légendes Grecques des saints militaries (New York).

BRANDES, W. 1999: ‘Byzantine cities in the seventh and eighth centuries: Different sources, different histories?’. In Brogiolo, G.P. and Ward-Perkins, B. (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Transformation of the Roman World 4) (Leiden), 25-57.

DELEHAYE, H. (ed.) 1923: Les saints stylites (Subsidia hagiographica 14) (Brussels/Paris). DENNIS, G.T. (ed. and trans.) 1977: The Letters of Manuel II Palaeologus (Dumbarton Oaks Texts 4; Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 8) (Washington, DC).

BROOKS, E.W. 1898: ‘The Arabs in Asia Minor (641750), from Arabic sources’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 18, 182-208.

DUNN, A. 1994: ‘The transformation from polis to kastron in the Balkans (III-VII cc): general and regional perspectives’. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 18, 60-80.

BRYER, A.A.M. and WINFIELD, D. 1985: The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 20) (Washington, DC).

DÜRING, B.S. 2008: ‘The Early Holocene occupation of north-central Anatolia between 10,000 and 6,000 BC cal: investigating an archaeological terra incognita’. Anatolian Studies 58, 15-46.

ÇAKIR, N. 1995: ‘Kastamonu İli Taşköprü İlçesi Pompeipolis (Zımbıllı Tepesi Höyüğü) 1993 Yılı Kurtarma Kazısı’. In III. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri (Ankara), 207-18.

ENGLAND, A., EASTWOOD, W.J., ROBERTS, C.N., TURNER, R. and HALDON, J.F. 2008: ‘Historical landscape change in Cappadocia (central Turkey): a palaeoecological investigation of annually laminated sediments from Nar lake’. The Holocene 18, 1229-45.

CASSIS, M. 2009: ‘Çadır Höyük: A rural settlement in Byzantine Anatolia’. In Vorderstrasse, T. and Roodenberg, J. (eds.), Archaeology of the Countryside in Medieval Anatolia (Leiden), 1-24.

FEISSEL, D. and KAYGUSUZ, I. 1985: ‘Un mandement impérial du VIe siècle dans une inscription d’Hadrianoupolis d’Honoriade’. Travaux et Mémoires 9, 397-419.

CHAVARRÍA, A. and LEWIT, T. 2004: ‘Archaeological research on the late antique countryside: a bibliographic essay’. In Bowden, W., Lavan, L. and Machado, C. (eds.), Recent Research on the Late Antique Countryside (Late Antique Archaeology 2) (Leiden), 3-51.

FESTUGIERE, A.-J. (ed.) 1971: Collections Grecques de Miracles: Sainte Thècle, Saints Côme et Damien, Saints Cyr et Jean (extracts), Saint Georges (Paris).

COLES, G. and MILLS, C.M. 1998: ‘Clinging on for grim life: an introduction to marginality as an archaeological issue’. In Mills, C.M. and Coles, G.

FOSS, C. 2003: ‘Pilgrimage in medieval Asia Minor’. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56, 129-51. 25

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

LAFLI, E. and ZÄH, A. 2008: ‘Archäologische Forschungen im byzantinischen Hadrianupolis in Paphlagonien’. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 101.2, 681712.

GALL, H. von 1966: Die Paphlagonischen Felsgräber: Eine studie zur kleinasiatischen Kunstgeschichte (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 1) (Tübingen). GEYER, B. 2002: ‘Physical factors in the evolution of the landscape and land use’. In Laiou, A.E. (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium from the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 39) (Washington, DC), 31-45.

LAURENT, V. 1963: Le Corpus des Sceaux de l’Empire Byzantin, vol.5: L’Église (Paris). LAVAN, L. 1999: ‘The residences of Late Antique governors: a gazetteer’. Antiquité Tardive 7, 135-64.

GLATZ, C. and MATTHEWS, R. 2005: ‘Anthropology of a frontier zone: Hittite-Kaska relations in Late Bronze Age north-central Anatolia’. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 339, 21-39.

LEONHARD, R. 1915: Paphlagonia. Reisen und Forschungen im nördlichen kleinasien (Berlin). LIEBESCHUETZ, J.H.W.G. 2001: The Decline and Fall of the Roman City (Oxford).

HALDON, J.F. 1990: Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge).

McGREER, E., NESBITT, J. and OIKONOMIDES, N. (eds.) 2001: Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, vol.4: The East (Washington, DC).

HALDON, J.F. 1999: ‘The idea of the town in the Byzantine empire’. In Brogiolo, G.P. and WardPerkins, B. (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Transformation of the Roman World 4) (Leiden), 123.

MAGDALINO, P. 1998: ‘Paphlagonians in Byzantine high society’. In Byzantine Asia Minor (6th-12th Centuries) (Institute for Byzantine Research International Symposium 6, Athens, 8-11 May 1997) (Speros Basil Vryonis Center for the Study of Hellenism 27) (Athens), 141-50.

HALDON, J.F. 2002: Byzantium at War: AD 600-1453 (Oxford). HANSEN, M.H. 1995: ‘Kome. A study in how the Greeks designated and classified settlements which were not poleis’. In Hansen, M.H. and Raaflaub, K. (eds.), Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 2) (Historia Einzelschriften 95) (Stuttgart).

MANGO, C. and ŠEVČENKO, I. 1972: ‘Three inscriptions of the reigns of Anastasius I and Constantine V’. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 65, 37993. MAREK, C. 1993: Stadt, Ära und Territorium in PontusBithynia und Nord-Galatia (Istanbuler Forschungen 39) (Tübingen). MARSH, B., ROBERTS, N., TOPRAK, V., MATTHEWS, R., EASTWOOD, W., CAROLAN, J., ARCASOY, A. and LÜTFI SÜZEN, M. 2009: ‘Chapter Two. Contexts of human interaction: Geology, geography, geomorphology and environment’. In Matthews, R. and Glatz, C. (eds.), At Empires’ Edge: Project Paphlagonia. Regional Survey in North-Central Turkey (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 44) (London), 2773.

HENNING, J. (ed.) 2007: Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium, vol. 2: Byzantium, Pliska and the Balkans (MillenniumStudien 5) (Berlin). HONIGMANN, E. 1942: ‘The original lists of the members of the Council of Nicaea, the Robber-Synod and the Council of Chalcedon’. Byzantion 16, 20-80. IVISON, E.A. 2007: ‘Amorium in the Byzantine Dark Ages (Seventh to Ninth centuries)’. In Henning 2007, 25-60. JACKSON, M.P.C. 2007: ‘Pottery from Level One’. In Postgate, N. and Thomas, D. (eds.), Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994-98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 30) (London), 387-427.

MATTHEWS, R. 2000: ‘Times with the past in Paphlagonia’. In Matthiae, P., Enea, A., Peyronel, L. and Pinnock, F. (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18-23, 1998, 2 vols. (Rome), 1013-27. MATTHEWS, R. 2004: ‘Landscapes of terror and control: Imperial impacts in Paphlagonia’. Near Eastern Archaeology 67.4, 200-11.

JOHNSON, M.H. 2007: Ideas of Landscape (Oxford). KIPER, Y. 2000: ‘Çankırı, Korgun, Absarı-alavı nekropolü kurtarma kazısı’. In X. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri (Ankara), 87-94. KIRILOV, C. 2007: ‘The reduction of the fortified city area in late antiquity: some reflections on the end of the ‘antique city’ in the lands of the East Roman Empire’. In Henning 2007, 3-24.

MATTHEWS, R. 2007: ‘An arena for cultural contact: Paphlagonia (north-central Turkey) through prehistory’. Anatolian Studies 57, 25-34. MATTHEWS, R. 2009: ‘Chapter One. Project Paphlagonia: Research issues, approaches and methods’. In Matthews, R. and Glatz, C. (eds.), At Empires’ Edge: Project Paphlagonia. Regional Survey in North-Central Turkey (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 44) (London), 125.

LAFLI, E. 2007: ‘A Roman rock-cut niche at Paphlagonia Hadrianoupolis’. In XXIV. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara), 43-66. LAFLI, E. 2008: ‘Terra Sigillatae from Hadrianoupolis in Paphlagonia’. In XXIX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 3 (Ankara), 285-98.

26

W. ANDERSON AND A. ROBINSON: MARGINAL OR MAINSTREAM? THE CHARACTER OF SETTLEMENT IN LATE ROMAN PAPHLAGONIA

MATTHEWS, R., METCALFE, M. and COTTICA, D. 2009: ‘Landscapes with Figures: Paphlagonia through the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods, 330 BC-AD 1453’. In Matthews, R. and Glatz, C. (eds.), At Empires’ Edge: Project Paphlagonia. Regional Survey in North-Central Turkey (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 44) (London), 173-226.

RHEIDT, K. 1998: ‘In the shadow of antiquity: Pergamon and the Byzantine millennium’. In Koester, H. (ed.), Pergamon, Citadel of the Gods: Archaeological Record, Literary Description and Religious Development (Harvard Theological Studies 46) (Harrisburg, PA), 395-413.

MATTHEWS, R., POLLARD, T. and RAMAGE, M. 1998: ‘Project Paphlagonia: Regional Survey in Northern Anatolia’. In Matthews, R. (ed.), Ancient Anatolia: Fifty Years’ Work by the British Institute at Ankara (London), 195-206.

RYDÉN, L. (ed.) 2002: The Life of St Philaretos the Merciful Written by his Grandson Niketas (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 8) (Uppsala).

ROUECHÉ, C. 2000: ‘Asia Minor and Cyprus’. CAH, 2nd ed., vol. 14, 570-87.

SUMMERER, L. 2008: ‘Pompeipolis (Paflagonya) 2006 yılı çalışmarı’. In XXIX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara), 243-64.

MITCHELL, S. 1980: ‘Population and the land in Roman Galatia’. Aufsteig und Niedergang der römischen Welt 7.2, 1053-81.

TROMBLEY, F.R. 1985: ‘The decline of the seventhcentury town: the exception of Euchaita’. In Vryonis, S. (ed.), Byzantine Studies in Honor of Milton V. Anastos (Byzantina kai Metabyzantina 4) (Malibu), 65-90.

MITCHELL, S. 1993: Anatolia. Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor, vol. 2: The Rise of the Church (Oxford). MITCHELL, S. 2002: ‘In search of the Pontic community in Antiquity’. In Bowman, A.K. (ed.), Representations of Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean World (Proceedings of the British Academy 144) (Oxford), 35-64.

TROMBLEY, F.R. 2001: ‘Town and territorium in Late Roman Anatolia’. In Lavan, L. (ed.), Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism (Journal of Roman Archaeology suppl. 42) (Portsmouth, RI), 217-32.

MITCHELL, S. 2005: ‘Olive cultivation in the economy of Roman Asia Minor’. In Mitchell, S. and Katsari, C. (eds.), Patterns in the Economy of Roman Asia Minor (Swansea), 83-113.

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, University of Oxford).

MORELAND, J. 2006: ‘Archaeology and texts: subservience or enlightenment’. Annual Review of Anthropology 35, 135-51.

WITTE-ORR, J. 2007: ‘Bricks and tiles from the Triangular Tower at Amorium’. In BöhlendorfArslan, B., Uysal, A.O. and Witte-Orr, J. (eds.), Çanak: Late Antique and Medieval Pottery and Tiles in Mediterranean Archaeological Contexts (Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Late Antique, Byzantine, Seljuk, and Ottoman Pottery and Tiles in Archaeological Context, Çanakkale, 1-3 June 2005) (Byzas 7) (Istanbul), 295-308.

NEVELL, M. 2001: ‘The edge of empire: late prehistoric and Romano-British settlement in north west England. A study in marginality’. In Higham, N.J. (ed.), Archaeology of the Roman Empire: A Tribute to the Life and Works of Professor Barri Jones (BAR International Series 940) (Oxford), 59-74. NOLLÉ, J. 2005: ‘Boars, bears and bugs. Farming in Asia Minor and the protection of men, animals and crops’. In Mitchell, S. and Katsari, C. (eds.), Patterns in the Economy of Roman Asia Minor (Swansea), 5282.

YILDIRIM, T. and SIPAHI, T. 2007: ‘2005 Çorum, Çankırı illeri yüzey araştirması’. In XXIV. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara), 335-50. ZUCKERMAN, C. 1988: ‘The reign of Constantine V in the miracles of St. Theodore the Recruit’. Revue des Études Byzantines 46, 191-205.

OSTROGORSKY, G. 1959: ‘Byzantine cities in the early Middle Ages’. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13, 45-66.

27

NEW EXPLORATION OF THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA COAST: FILYOS – TIOS* Sümer ATASOY Arkeoloji Bölümü, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Karabük Universitesi, Karabük, Turkey [email protected]

Abstract: The ancient city of Tios lies at the mouth of the River Billaios (Filyos), at the western end of the Turkish Black Sea coast, in the province of Zonguldak. Tios is one of the only ancient cities along this coastline not submerged under modern buildings or deep deposits. It therefore presents a unique opportunity for archaeological research to investigate the development, structure and character of a long-lived settlement on this coast. In the summers of 2006 and 2007, with the co-operation of the Museum of Karadeniz Ereğli and the Department of Archaeology, University of Trakya, excavations were started at Tios. The acropolis, city centre, theatre and necropolis were excavated, a surface survey made, and geomagnetic studies carried out. On the acropolis black- and red-figure pottery sherds were found. GÜNEY KARADENİZ KIYISINDA YENİ ARKEOLOJİK KEŞİFLER: FİLYOS-TIOS Özet: Tios antik kenti Billaios (Filyos) Nehri’nin ağzında, Türk Karadenizi’nin batı ucunda, Zonguldak Vilayeti’inde bulunmaktadır. Tios Karadeniz kıyısında günümüz binalarının ve inşai faaliyetlerin tahrip etmediği az sayıdaki kentlerden biridir. Bu yönüyle bize Karadeniz kıyısında gelişimi, yapıları ve uzun soluklu yerleşim potansiyelini yansıtabilecek potansiyele sahip ünik arkeolojik çalışma alanı imkanı sunmaktadır. 2006 ve 2005 yıllarının yaz aylarında Karadeniz Ereğli Müzesi ve Trakya Üniversitesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü işbirliğinde Tios’ta kazılara başlanmıştır. Kentin akropolisi, kentin merkezi, tiyatrosu ve nekropolisi kazılmış, bir yüzey araştırması tamamlanmış ve arkeolojeofizik çalışmalar sürdürülmüştür. Akropolis’te siyah ve kırmızı figür kap parçaları bulunmuştur.

INTRODUCTION‫٭‬

along this coastline that is not submerged under modern buildings or deep silt deposits, as at Heracleia Pontica (Karadeniz Ereğlisi) and Amastris (Amasra). It therefore presents a unique opportunity for archaeological research to investigate the development, structure and character of a long-lived settlement on this coast.

The south of the Black Sea, that is the northern coast of Turkey, extends for approximately 1340 km from the mouth of the Bosporus to the frontier of Georgia. No sailing ship or rowing boat with sails could possibly have reached its destination without stopping at the relatively sheltered spots where Greek settlers built their colonies and trading posts.

HISTORY

The whole of the north coast of Turkey still remains virgin archaeological territory. Many ancient Greek settlements and place-names are mentioned in written sources (about 85) but most of them are impossible to locate. Ancient sites along this coast have been overbuilt by modern towns and cities or within military bases. Recent construction works threaten to destroy what has survived since antiquity. None of the ancient sites on this coast has been systematically excavated. The available archaeological material comes from the poorly documented early excavations during the first half of the last century. In addition, there are also some chance finds and materials from rescue excavations and surveys.1

Available epigraphic, numismatic and literary evidence is limited and it does not allow us to retrace uninterruptedly the history of the city. We first come across the name of this ancient city after the 4th century BC. According to legend, the city was founded by a Milesian religious figure called Tios in the 7th century BC. Throughout history the city was known by many different names – Tieion, Tianos, Tium, Tieium.2 In the 7th century BC a group of Paphlagonian tribes known as the Caucones used to inhabit the region. Tios never attained the size or prominence of the neighbouring emporia of Heracleia Pontica to the east and Sesamus (Amastris) to the west, perhaps its anchorage was not as deep or well sheltered. Apart from a phase of independence in the late 4th century BC, the city was controlled by either Heracleia or Amastris throughout its early history.3

The ancient city of Tios (modern Filyos) lies near the mouth of the River Billaios (Filyos), at the western end of the southern Black Sea coast, in the province of Zonguldak (Fig. 1). Tios is one of the only ancient cities ‫٭‬

2 Strabo 12. 3. 5; Avram et al. 2004, 963-64; Wilson 1960, 152-55; Magie 1950, 1193. 3 Wilson 1960, 152; Erciyas 2006, 33-34.

I wish to thank to W. Anderson, a member of excavation team, for help in preparing this article. 1 Tsetskhladze 2007, 161.

29

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 1: Location of Tios

The city was also a bishopric, the earliest indication being the recorded attendance of a bishop Apragmonios at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, and references to bishops from Tios continue throughout the Byzantine period.7

Strabo described Tios as an insignificant town. Nevertheless, it had a role in the Roman road network, as a station on a branch of the route that linked the Bosporus and eastern Pontus. It was burnt and pillaged in 70 BC, but later rebuilt and continued to exist as a port and trading centre (Strabo 12. 5. 42-44).

During the Seljuk and Ottoman periods it gradually lost its importance and ended as a small fishing village.

In the 3rd century BC, Tios enjoyed a period of autonomy, when coins bearing its name were minted. Most of the well-known major deities of the Greeks such as Zeus, Dionysos, Hermes, the river god, Asclepius, Hygieia, Isis, Nemesis, Hades, etc. were worshipped and represented on the coins.4

FIELDWORK IN 2006 AND 2007 The first test excavation at Tios was conducted in 2006 by Kdz. Ereğli Museum in co-operation with the Department of Archaeology of Trakya University. A few test trenches were opened and a surface survey and georadar-geoelectric studies were made. The second excavation, in the summer of 2007 by the same museum and university, focused on five locations: Acropolis/Kale, city centre, sea walls, theatre and necropolis.

In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the Black Sea region was a well-known centre for the manufacture of trade amphorae. The production of wine and olive oil must have contributed to the economic development of the region and even permitted competition with Greek poleis in the Aegean such as Cnidus, Rhodes and Thasos. Tios had an economic role as a port that administered an agricultural hinterland in which vines and cereals were cultivated, and the city is also mentioned as a fishing port.5 Tios, like Heracleia, had little access to trade links with central Anatolia.6 So, its main orientation was towards the rest of the Black Sea.

THE ACROPOLIS The acropolis is a tall ridge that forms a promontory between the Billaios river delta on its eastern side, and the harbour, bay and ancient city to the west (Fig. 2). The rock rises sharply from the sea at its northern end, and the eastern side is also a sheer cliff that falls to the sea, while

4

Arslan 1997, 108. Wilson 1960, 153; Robert 1980, 176-83. 6 Tsetskhladze 2007, 165. 5

7

30

Belke 1996, 276-78.

S. ATASOY: NEW EXPLORATION OF THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA COAST: FILYOS – TIOS

period. The ceramics from the kale summit show a relatively short-lived occupation in the Late Byzantine period. The diversity of glazed wares shows that Tios continued to be well connected with the Black Sea world. Tios lay within Byzantine territory long after most of Paphlagonia had fallen to the Turks. A thin strip of land along the coast that included the cities of Heracleia Pontica, Tios, Amastris and as far east as Kytoros remained Byzantine up to, and perhaps beyond, the 1280s. The exact date when Byzantine control of Tios ended is uncertain, but when the Spanish envoy Gonzales de Clavijo passed by the city in 1403, it was occupied by Turks and the kale had been abandoned.

Fig. 2: The Acropolis the west is slightly less steep. From its seaward end the acropolis gradually rises to a summit of 75 m above sea level at the south in a series of three terraces which are buttressed by walls. On the middle terrace are the remains of several structures including a possible cistern and towers. On the western side of the acropolis are some remains of mediaeval fortifications which give the name Kale/Kule Tepe to this hill. An arched gateway has been incorporated into a modern folly: a tall line of walls was reconstructed in 2002-03.

Excavations on the summit of the kale indicate a late Byzantine fort that occupied the site’s most strategic position. This arrangement reflects the insecurity and militarised nature of the region at this time, and although the ceramics prove that maritime trade continued throughout the 13th and possibly into the 14th century, the city was isolated, and in a defensive mode.

A test trench was dug on the summit of the kale near the two Byzantine towers. This strategic position overlooks the south cliff of the kale and gives a vantage point across the entire bay to the west, and the Billaios delta to the east. It therefore seemed a likely place to find archaeological deposits and learn more about the site’s long-term settlement history. Different types of ceramics were found (Fig. 3); mostly burnished red wares, glazed and unglazed pottery sherds, dating to the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods. It was from below this point that black- and red-figured sherds of the Classical period were found. In view of early pottery sherds demonstrating that a Milesian settlement was established some time in the Archaic period, this pottery was most probably produced in Miletus.8

Tios may have successfully achieved the transition from polis to kastron in the Middle Byzantine period.

CITY CENTRE The ancient city centred on the sloping plain south-west of the acropolis and to the east of the modern town of Filyos (Fig. 4). Most standing monuments are dotted around this area, including the theatre, a defensive tower, an aqueduct, nymphaeum, a vaulted gallery, sea walls and a number of tombs, all dated to the Roman and Byzantine periods.

Fig. 3: Pottery from the Acropolis Fig. 4: The city centre

The finds show that the Tios acropolis was inhabited continuously from the Archaic to the Late Byzantine

In this area, 9 trenches were excavated during the 2007 season. The remains of a bath complex were found. The walls of the structures consist rectangular blocks of stone

8 I would like to thank to my colleague Dr İsmail Fazlıoğlu in the Department of Archeology at Trakya University for help with information on the pottery sherds.

31

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

arranged in the isodomic system. Three paved roads were partially uncovered; their width 3 m.

ANCIENT HARBOUR The ancient harbour of Tios lay on the west of the acropolis, getting what shelter it could from the cliffs (Fig. 5). It was nevertheless an exposed and shallow anchorage which could never compete with those of Heracleia Pontica and Amastris. Two submerged moles, 6 m broad and about 100 m long, constructed with Cyclopean blocks, one a thick, straight line, the other an L-shaped breakwater. Fig. 7: The aqueduct

THEATRE The theatre, once considered the most perfect in Asia Minor though of moderate size, was largely demolished at the time of the building of the Ankara-Zonguldak railway (Figs. 8-9). The seats had been removed and some blocks remained. The theatron and scene are uncovered. Fig. 5: The ancient harbour

SEA WALLS Only a 100 m long, 5 m high and 1 m wide sea wall is visible today (Fig. 6). The wall of the structure consists of rectangular stone blocks and suggests a date of Roman period.

Fig. 8: The theatre

Fig. 6: The sea walls

AQUEDUCT Four surviving arches of an aqueduct constructed of brick (Fig. 7).

Fig. 9: The theatre 32

S. ATASOY: NEW EXPLORATION OF THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA COAST: FILYOS – TIOS

Fig. 10: Finds from theatre

ERCIYAS, D.B. 2006: Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithridatids in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey (Colloquia Pontica 12) (Leiden/Boston).

SMALL FINDS Some Roman coins, pottery lamps, Roman pottery sherds, inscriptions, fragments of sculpture and many small finds were found and housed in the Karadeniz Ereğli Museum (Fig. 10).

MAGIE, D. 1950: Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century After Christ, 2 vols. (Princeton). ROBERT, L, 1980: A travers L’Asie Mineure: poètes et prosateurs, monnaies grecques, voyageurs et géographie (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 239) (Paris).

Bibliography ARSLAN, M. 1997: ‘Bithynia Bölgesi Şehir Sikkeleri’ Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi 1996 Yıllığı, 101-39.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2007: ‘Greeks and Locals in the Southern Black Sea Littoral: A Re-examination’. In Herman, G. and Shatzman, I. (eds.), Greeks Between East and West: Essays in Greek Literature and History in Memory of David Asheri (Jerusalem), 16095.

AVRAM, A., HIND, J. and TSETSKHLADZE, G. 2004: ‘The Black Sea Area’. In Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. (eds.), An İnventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation (Oxford), 924-73.

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, University of Oxford).

BELKE, K. 1996: Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9: Paphlagonien und Honorias (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, Denkschriften 249) (Vienna).

33

ANCIENT ANATOLIA: CULTURAL MOSAIC, NOT MELTING POT Eka AVALIANI Faculty of Humanities, Iv. Javakhishvili State University, Chavchavadze Avenue 1, 0128 Tbilisi, Georgia [email protected]

Abstract: The history of Biblical research is rife with attempts to identify the origins of Biblical people. In Biblical scholarship particular attention is paid to geographical areas inhabited by the Biblical peoples, toponyms and ethnonyms connected to these ethnic groups, the role of ‘kinship’, and comparison of historical texts with objects reflecting the same phenomena. In this paper I have limited my interest to the ethno-historical diversity of so-called ‘Biblical Anatolia’, or Asia Minor in the 1st millennium BC. We have no specific knowledge what main criteria were used by Biblical authors to identify ethnic groups as nations and to bond these nations into states. Some states mentioned in the Old Testament really existed in the past, as a cultural entity or ‘polity’, with clearly defined political borders and well-documented material cultures. Despite much effort, it is still not possible to identify definitely the material remains of some Biblical ethnic groups, such as the Tubal and Meshech from Anatolia, because any remaining material relating to their statehood or distinguishing their ethnicity is still doubtful. ESKİ ANADOLU: ÇOK ULUSLU OLMAYAN KÜLTÜREL BİR MOZAİK Özet: İncil araştırmaları İncil’de çok geçen şahsiyerleri araştırma konusunda oldukça ileridir. İncil araştırmalarında öncelikle coğrafik bölgelerde yaşamış İncil şahsiyetleri, toponomileri ve ethnomileri, bunların bağlı olduğu etnik gruplar, “hükümdarlık” kavramı ve bu durumu yansıtan tarihi metinlerin karşılaştırılması üzerinde durmaktadır. Bu bildiride ben “İncil’de geçen Anadolu”nun etnik tarihi durumu ya da “Küçük Asya’nın İ.Ö. 1. Bini” üzerine durdum. Bu konuda İncil yazarlarının etnik grupları tanımlarken bunları uluslar olarak ve bu ulusları devletlere bağlamak için hangi kriterleri kullandıklarını bilmiyoruz. Eski Ahit’in bahsettiği üzere daha önce kültürel “birim” ya da “devlet” olarak, kolayca belirlenen siyasi sınırlar ve iyi bilinen materyal kültürü ile varlıkları bellidir. Bu konudaki pek çok çabaya rağmen, bazı İncil’de geçen etnik grupların materyal kalıntılarını belirlemek tam anlamıyla mümkün olmamıştır; örneğin Anadolu’da Tubal ve Meshech gibi isimlerdeki bazı kavimleri, bunların devlet yapılarına ilişkin bir materyal bulunamadığından etnik olarak varlıkları şüpheye düşmüştür.

The history of Biblical research is ripe with attempts to identify the origins of Biblical people. In Biblical scholarship particular attention is paid to several criteria, of which the most significant are the geographical areas populated by the Biblical peoples, particular toponyms and ethnonyms connected to these ethnic groups, which help to differentiate these groups and link them to particular states, as well as the role of ‘kinship’, which can sometimes be recognised as a key point of identifying some related ethnic groups in the Near East and their connection to ancient Anatolian states in the 1st millennium BC. Lastly, one of the most interesting aspects of Biblical historical study is to compare historical texts with fine art objects reflecting the same phenomena. It must be stressed that some Western scholars use the term ‘kinship’ as the main criterion for differentiating ethnicity from ‘nations’ or political identities in ancient times, while some scholars might prefer to use the term ‘ethnic’.1 On some occasions it would be more appropriate to use the term ‘ethnic’ as the main designation for people in Iron Age Anatolia: the term ‘nation’ seems to be more ‘extensive’, permanent and conceptually different from the meaning of ‘ethnicity’ in Asia Minor.

In this paper, I have limited my interest to the ethnohistorical diversity of so-called ‘Biblical Anatolia’, or Asia Minor, in the 1st millennium BC. In Near Eastern sources of the Biblical period, different ethnic groups from Anatolia appear and disappear interchangeably without any clarification or commentaries. Besides textual evidence, we still have very incomplete knowledge about some of these tribes and we can hardly discuss the problem of a direct connection between these ethnic entities and particular material remains from ancient Anatolia. After the collapse of the Hittite empire in Anatolia, its material culture and traditions survived in the architecture and writings of the principalities of the south-eastern highlands. Soon after that, additional powers such as Urartu, Lydia and Phrygia, Tabal to the north of the Taurus and Que in the Cilician plain would emerge in the rest of Anatolia and fill the political and cultural vacuum left by the Hittites.2 The chapter of the Old Testament known as the ‘Table of the Nations’ (Genesis 10; 1 Chronicles 1) presents a classification of the various peoples known to Judah, and most of its close neighbours in the 1st millennium BC were states or kingdoms with well-defined political borders, while some other distant states were not so well defined in the Old Testament. All of the human family

1 In my opinion ‘Kinship’ as an ‘Ethnicity’ should be understand as the main criterion for identifying that some tribes lived in ancient Anatolia and Caucasus in the 1st millennium BC. I believe that the identity of some ancient Anatolian tribes was based on territorial expansion and relations rather than on a sense of shared descent. For comparative case studies of ancient Near Eastern ethnicity, see Sparks 1998, 344.

2

35

Cimok 2005, 11.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

was divided into three main groups, which surrounded Palestine: the sons of Shem to the east, the sons of Ham to the south, and the sons of Japheth to the north and west. In this general outline Japheth’s seven sons, the ancestors of the Indo-European and non-Indo-European nations, populated the area to the north of Canaan from the Taurus westward, including Greece and northwards as far as the Caucasus.3 The descendants of Japheth are Gomer, Magog, Madai, Tubal, Meshech, Javan and Tiras (Genesis 10:2; 1 Chronicles 1). In the listing of Noah’s sons, Japheth usually comes last (Genesis 10:2–5), but here he is first because the tribes descended from Japheth appeared across the remote lands of the north and therefore were less involved in Israel’s history.4 While some of the locations or peoples mentioned in the Table of the Nations, especially those which are included in Japheth’s progeny such as Tubal or Meshech, may be regarded as being indigenous to Anatolia, others, such as Aram or Assur, are closely related with Anatolia’s ancient history. In the Table of the Nations, Gomer is placed at the head of Japheth’s seven sons (Genesis 10:1; 1 Chronicles 1:5). Most scholars agree that Gomer, mentioned also in Ezekiel (38:6), represents the Cimmerians,5 who are thought to be of the same stock as the Scythians. In the records of the kings of Urartu and Assyria, those peoples frequently appeared with different names: Cimmerians are called Gimirrai/Gimmirraya and in Greek literature are listed as Kimmeroi (Odyssey 11. 14; Herodotus 1. 15, 103; 4. 1–142). According to some Christian writers Magog/Scythians could be related to Gog6 and a simpler version of this hypotheses is that Magog was miswritten for Gog.7 In the Amarna tablets (no. 1383), Amenhotep III mentions three countries – Gag, Hanigalbat and Ugarit. Hanigalbat is probably Melitene and Gag/Gog is likely to have been situated near Commagene.8 It is significant that in the days of Strabo there was a province of Gogarene immediately east of the territory occupied by the Moschi, the Colchians, the Tibarenes and the Chaldaeans (Strabo 11. 14).9 According to Ezekiel (38:2–3), ‘Gog is a prince of Meshech, Tubal and Rosh’. It could be that the Scythians/Magogs, at least since the beginning of the 7th century BC, occupied a territory named Gogarene/Gog10 and became rulers of the Tubal, Meshech and Rosh tribal units. In the Table of Nations, Magog is one of the sons of Japheth, as are Tubal, Meshech and Gomer. However, when it is

encountered elsewhere in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 38; 39), Magog is also coupled with the same nations and used with Gog interchangeably. Ezekiel, when he says turn towards the direction where Tubal, Meshech and Magog are located, probably had the actual ethnic groups in his mind in the same direction as Tubal and Meshech, which represent northern Anatolia.11 In Biblical scholarship, the most controversial opinions have sought to identify and localise the Biblical Meshech and Tubal as two Anatolian tribes, as well as their relations with statehood (or kingship) in ancient Anatolian scenery. Assyrian sources identify the Western Mushki with the Phrygians, while Greek sources clearly distinguish between the Phrygians and the Caucasian Moschoi. Elsewhere in the Bible Tubal and Meshch are coupled, but also well distinguished by their names. This coupling could be true for their geographical location and the chronology of these two states.12 They occupied the region later be known as Cappadocia, an area in the south-east of the Black Sea and the Commagene.13 In the Table of the Nations, Meshech is the sixth son of Japheth (Genesis 10:2; 1 Chronicles 1:5), who is everywhere coupled with Tubal (Tabal). According to the Bible, these people were traders and commercial partners of Tyre. They supplied the Tyrian markets with slaves and articles of bronze in exchange for goods (Ezekiel 27:13; 32; 38; 39). Assyrian texts confirm the existence of the Tabalu or Tubalin in central Anatolia. They were famous for their metalwork.14 Apparently the Tubals were the indigenous population of this region. Tubal-ki as a tribe is also mentioned in Hittite texts (Tubal-ka could be associated to biblical Tubal-Qayin). According to Wiseman, Hittite Tipal and Tibar were districts that the Babylonian king Naram Sin traversed around 2200 BC.15 Most scholars now agree in that the Tubals occupied territory somewhere in the Caucasus region.16 Josephus accepted that the descendants of Tubal were the Iberians and gave his comments on this matter: ‘Tobal gave rise to the Thobeles who are now called Ibers.’17 (It could be that ‘Tbilisi’, ‘Tbeli’, ‘Tbileli’: Thbl-TblS-Tbl, Tbll-Tuba derive from the term ‘Thobeles/Tubals’.) Ancient Iber(ian)s were inhabitants of a tract of country between the Caspian and the Black Sea, which nearly corresponds to modern Georgia.18

3

Genesis 10; 1 Chronicles 1:1-23; Aharoni 1979. Ross 1980, 22. The connection of Japheth and Iapetos of the Greek tradition is striking (see Neiman 1973, 124). 5 Encyclopaedia Biblica 1903, 4330; Ross 1980, 23; NIDB 1987, 395. 6 For Gog as a prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, see Ezekiel 38:2, 18. In the context of Revelation 20:8, ‘The Nations in the four corners of the earth – Gog and Magog’, Gog and Magog both stand for ‘nations’. 7 Encyclopaedia Biblica 1903, 4330. 8 Encyclopaedia Biblica 1903, 4330; see Izre'el 1997. 9 Encyclopaedia Biblica 1903, 4331. 10 According to Georgian scholar K. Kekelidze, by the 4th–3rd centuries BC some Kartvelian tribes occupied lands, which Greeks named Gogaren and the Armenians Gugarq (Kekelidze 1926, 13-14). In the earliest mediaeval times this territory corresponds to Qvemo Kartli: in the 5th century AD, the Georgian Pitiakhsh Ashusha was a governor of ‘Qvemo Kartli and Gugareti’ (see Movses Kalankatuatsi, Albaneli xalxis Istoria, translated from ancient Armenian by L. DavlianidzeTatishvili [Tbilisi 1985], 180, 176).

However, the historian Nennius stated another tradition: that Tubal was ancestor of not only the Caucasian

4

11

Cimak 2005, 73. Cimok 2005, 63. 13 Graves 1992, 151, 598. 14 Bernal 1991, 231. 15 Wiseman 1955, 18. Herodotus (3. 94) located the region in the North on the shore of the Black Sea; Josephus (1. 122-129) called them ‘Cappadocians’. 16 Nettleton 2002, 72. According to Nettleton, Tubal-Cain, archetypal artificer in metals and the master of all coppersmiths and blacksmiths comes from this region. 17 See Smith’s Bible Dictionary on-line version: http://www.studylight. org/dic/sbd/view.cgi/ NumbeT4372/ Tu’bal. 18 Smith’s Bible Dictionary on-line version: http://www.studylight.org/ dic/sbd/view.cgi/ NumbeT4372/ Tu’bal. 12

36

E. AVALIANI: ANCIENT ANATOLIA: CULTURAL MOSAIC, NOT MELTING POT

Iberians, but also those of Italy and Spain.19 The Georgian historian Javakhishvili has considered Tubal, Tabal and Jabal as ancient Georgian tribal designations.20 Some scholars have seen close links between the Biblical Tubal, the Greek Tibarenoi and the Latin Tibareni. Strabo gives detailed information on this matter: ‘Above Trapezus and Pharnacia are situated the Tibarani and Chaldaei and Sanni, in earlier times called Macrones, and Lesser Armenia’ (12. 3. 18); and later (12. 3. 29) that ‘the Tibareni and Chaldaei, extending as far as Colchis…’. The etymology of the term Tubal is still uncertain. The Biblical Tubal/Tabal seems to be derivate from the Assyrian Tabalu and the Hittite Tubal-ki (ki = land); though we have no evidence, what the Tubals called themselves.

needs more evidential verification. Further research in this direction seems to be affirmative,25 but we still have very limited knowledge of these ancient peoples and their tongues. We lack sufficient understanding of what exactly the old Colchian language was like and if it had any connection with the Megrelo-Lasian language. Josephus considered the Moschs as Iberians, who were related to an Anatolian setting, while Herodotus was always coupling the Moschi and Tibareni tribes, but never mentioning Iberians in this context (Herodotus 3. 94; 7. 78). The 5th-century BC author Hecataeus of Miletus defined the Moschs as Colchian tribes, situated next to the Matieni (Hurrians) (FHG 188, 228). The modern Georgian scholars Khazaradze and Kavtaradze proposed that the Moschs might have occupied the territory in the neighbourhood of the western Matieniens (Hurrians) in Cappadocia, the north-easternmost part of the peninsula.26 Strabo (11. 2. 18) also mentions the Moschike as a tribe, while Moschian land was included within Colchis.

The Mushki were inhabitants of Anatolia in the 1st millennium BC. Although they were known from Assyrian sources as Mushkaia/Muskaia, they do not appear in earlier Hittite records as a tribal designation in company with the Tubals. However, some scholars have seen direct connections between the Kashkas mentioned in Hittite texts and the Mushkis in north Anatolia, and this may explain why Hittite records lack information regarding the Mushki;21 though the real problem is that in Assyrian sources there were two different groups in Anatolia called Mushki – one from the 12th to the 9th centuries BC, located near the confluence of the Arsanis and the Euphrates (‘Eastern Mushki’), the other from the 8th to the 7th centuries BC, located in Cilicia (‘Western Mushki’). In fact, Assyrian sources identify the Western Mushki with the Phrygians,22 while Greek sources clearly distinguish between the Phrygians and the Moschoi. Diakonoff identifies the Mushki with Proto-Armenians, who carried their Indo-European language eastward across Anatolia. The Georgian scholar Giorgadze had a different opinion. According to him, the Kashka tribes in the 2nd millennium BC actually occupied the same region in Anatolia as the Mushki in the 1st millennium BC, i.e. northern Anatolia, the Pontic area and its neighbouring states. He thinks that the Kashkian toponyms, personal names and some words with -ia,shqa and -el suffixes system could have some analogies with the Megrelian language. Giorgadze is convinced that Kashkian ethno-toponyms and onomastic data indicate more a connection with the old Colchian or MegreloLasian languages than with Abkhazo-Adighean, Hittite, Hurrian, Luvian or Hattian.23

Meshech and Tubal are always mentioned together in the Old Testament, except in Isaiah 66:19, where Tubal and Javan are mentioned together as distant nations, in Psalms 120:5, where, strangely enough, Meshech is related to Kedar, the second in order of the sons of Ishmael,27 and in 1 Chronicles 1:17, where Meshech is introduced as last in order of the sons of Shem.28 In those contexts, the Meshech appears as a tribe linked to the Semites, who occupied lands far away from the Anatolian region. In that case, the Biblical information about the Meshech as a people of Anatolian origin implies some contradiction; on the one hand, the Meshech are offspring of Japheth, implying that he was ancestor of Anatolian people; on the other hand, that he had links to the Semitic group of people. Most of the ethnic groups of the Old Testament were easily identified with Anatolian tribes and sites of that period, but some of these have still not been properly investigated and associated with the peoples of the Old Testament. Many modern scholars see cultures as territorially and politically related,29 but we have no evidence that such issues and terms existed in the past. We have no specific knowledge of what main criteria were used by Biblical authors to identify ethnic groups as nations and to bond these nations into states. Some states mentioned in the Old Testament really existed in the past as a cultural entities or ‘polities’, with clearly defined political borders and well-documented material cultures. Despite much effort, it is still not possible to identify definitely the material remains of some Biblical ethnic groups, such as the Tubal and Meshech from Anatolia,

Generally, when languages share common features, they have either inherited them from a common origin or acquired them through borrowing.24 The issue of the identification of two ethnic groups, the Kashka/Kashkaia with the Mushki/Mushkaia, as well as their languages, 19

In modern scholarship there exists a theory of kinship between Kartvelian Iber(ian)s and Iberian Basques (see Graves 1961, 132; Nettleton 2002, 71). 20 Javakhishvili 1950, 130-35; see Khazaradze 1978, 3-139. 21 Diakonoff 1984, 116. 22 Wittker 2004. 23 Giorgadze 2002, 108-12. 24 Gordon and Rendsburg 1999, 25.

25

Giorgadze 2002, 108-13; see Encyclopaedia Biblica 1903, 4331. Khazaradze 2001, 256-59; Kavtaradze 1985, 9-10. 27 The tribes that descended from Kedar were nomads for the most part. They had a desert civilisation; their territory was in the northern part of the Arabian desert. See NIDB, 563. 28 NIDB, 563. 29 See Green and Perman 1985; Kletter 1999. 26

37

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

because any remaining material relating to their statehood or distinguishing their ethnicity is still doubtful. The explanation may lie elsewhere. First, even if Biblical nations really existed as tribal units or small states in the 1st millennium BC, during the main Biblical period some of them changed their location, designation and even their forms of statehood. Second, many Anatolian states of the early Biblical period collapsed and new states with new names took their place. The old tribes might have spread into these new states. In addition, it should be taken into account that the fertile land of Anatolia was the epicentre for new invaders, as well as the homeland of many colonists who, although they departed the area by sea, still left traditions about their presence in Anatolian history.

GRAVES, R. 1992: The Greek Myths (London).

Bibliography

KHAZARADZE, N. 2001: Drevnevostochnye Kartvelologicheskie Izyskaniya (Tbilisi).

GREEN, S. and PERMAN S. 1985: The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries (New York). IZRE'EL, S. 1997: The Amarna Scholarly Tablets, Cuneiform Monographs (Groningen). JAVAKHISHVILI, I. 1950: Saqartvelos istoriul etnologiuri problemebi, kavkasia da zveli agmosavleti (Tbilisi). KAVTARADZE G. 1985: Anatoliashi Qartvelur tomta gansaxlebis sakitxisatvis (Tbilisi). KEKELIDZE, K. 1926: ‘Qartvelta moktsevis mtavari istoriuli kronika’. Mimomxilveli I, 13-19 (Tbilisi). KHAZARADZE, N. 1978: Agmosavlet mtsire aziis etnikuri da politikuri gaertianebebi dzv. ts. I atastsleulis pirvel nakhevarshi (Tbilisi).

Abbreviations FHG

C. Müller, Fragmenta Historicum Graecorum.

NIDB

J. Douglas (ed.), New International Bible Dictionary (Michigan 1987).

KLETTER, R. 1999: ‘Pots and Polities: Material Remains of Late Iron Age Judah in Relation to its Political Borders’. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 314, 19-54. NEIMAN, D. 1973: ‘The Two Genealogies of Japheth’. Alten Orient and Alten Testament 22, 119-26.

AHARONI, Y. 1979: The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia).

NETTLETON, S. 2002: The Alchemy Key; Unravelling the Single Tangible Secret in All Mysteries (Sydney).

BERNAL, M. 1991: Black Athena: The Afro-Asiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, 2 vols. (New Brunswick, NJ).

PRICE, J. 1985: ‘Rosh: An Ancient Land Known to Ezekiel’. Grace Theological Journal 6.1, 67-89.

CIMOK, F. 2005: Biblical Anatolia: From Genesis to the Councils (Istanbul).

ROSS, A.P. 1980: ‘The Table of the Nations in Genesis 10 – Its Content: Part 3, Studies in the Book of Genesis’. Bibliotheca Sacra 138, 22-34.

DIAKONOFF, I. 1984: The Pre-History of the Armenian People (New York).

SPARKS, L. 1998: Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Isreal: Prologomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and their Expression in the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake, IN).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA 1903: Encyclopaedia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary of the Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archaeology, Geography and Natural History of the Bible, vol. 4 (London).

WISEMAN, D. 1955: ‘Genesis10: Some Archaeological Considerations’. Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 87, 13-24.

GIORGADZE, G. 2002: Udzvelesi Axloagmosavluri Etnosebi da Qartvelta Tsarmomavloba (Tbilisi).

WITTKER, A. 2004: Mušker und Phryger, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Anatoliens (Wiesbaden).

GORDON, C. and RENDSBURG, G. 1999: The Bible and the Ancient Near East (New York).

38

LES PONTOBITHYNIENS EN DACIE ROMAINE* Lucreţiu MIHAILESCU-BÎRLIBA Facultatea de Istorie, Universitatea ‘Al. I. Cuza’, Bd. Carol I, 11, 700506 Iasi, Romania [email protected]

Résumé: L’auteur fait une analyse prospographique des Pontobithyniens en Dacie romaine. Il essaye de de suivre les familles d’origine de ces personnes qui ce sont établies dans la province danubienne. On constate d’abord que les Pontobithyniens étaient arrivés en Dacie surtout menés par de buts commerciaux. Ils forment à Napoca un college de Pontobithyniens, ce qui suggère qu’au moins dans cette ville, leur présence n’était point négligeable et, en plus, leur besoin de solidarité (économique et religieuse) s’est matérialisé par une très bonne organisation. L. Bîrliba analyse le rôle économique des Pontobithyniens dans le contexte général de l’économie en Dacie. Sa démarche vise encore la structure de leurs familles, leur implication effective dans la vie municipale de Dacie et leur vie religieuse. ROMA DÖNEMİ DACIASI’NDAKİ PONTOS-BITHYNIALILAR Özet: Bu bildirinin yazarı Roma Dönemi Daciası’nda varolan Pontos-Bithynia kökenli topluluğu prosographik açıdan incelemiştir. Bu çalışmada Tuna’daki bu eyalette yaşayan bazı kişilerin ailevi kökenleri irdelenmiştir. Pontos-Bithynia Bölgesi’nden Dacia’ya gelenler büyük olasılıkla ticari sebeplerden dolayı buraya göçmüşlerdir. Napoca’da bulunan Pontos-Bithynialılar bir topluluk oluştururlar; bu bir kentin oluşumunda ekonomik ve dini bir bütünlüğe ve iyi organize edilmiş bir topluluğa mahal vermiştir. L. Bîrliba Pontos-Bithynialıların Dacia ekonomisinin genelinde rollerini incelemiştir. Bu çerçevede topluluğun ailevi yapıları, oluşturulan toplulukların yaşantıları ve dini yaşamları konu edilmiştir.

Depuis l’article de C.C. Petolescu sur les colons d’Asie Mineure en Dacie,1 les Pontobithyniens de cette province ont été mentionné sporadiquement et en tant que sujet secondaire. Je vais publier bientôt un ouvrage sur l’immigration en Dacie,2 où les immigrants de la province Pontus et Bithynie auront leur place, à côté des autres Orientaux, parmi les colons de Dacie.

l’onomastique des personnage peut être assez trompeuse sur le statut juridique des personnes, il semble que ce statut soit assez clair: Alexandrianus est un pérégrin. Son fils défunt est devenu citoyen, puisqu’il a le gentilice Tatius. Les autres fils, malgré des noms caractéristiques pour des gentilices, sont également des pérégrins; c’est la même situation en ce qui concerne leur mère.

Bien que dans son étude Petolescu ait réalisé le corpus intégral des Pontobithyniens en Dacie (sans commenter les inscriptions) et bien qu’aucune inscription n’ait pas été ajoutée (sauf une, qui est tout à fait discutable), cet auteur n’a pas donné d’explications très nettes à l’égard de leur présence dans cette province.

La deuxième inscription d’Ampelum a été lue de manières différentes par I.I. Russu et par Petolescu. Russu a restitué Asclepius (qui) et Asclepiades, cives Bithinum (sic) (IDR III/3, 342), tandis que Petolescu a lu Asclepius et Asclepiades, tout en considérant quíl s’agit de deux personnages qui ont vécu tous les deux 30 ans.3 Je préfère adopter la lecture de Russu: d’abord, puisque l’erreur grammaticale cives Bithinum au lieu de civis Bithinus me semble dans ce cas-là plus probable que l’erreur cives Bithinum au lieu des cives Bithini; en second lieu, parce qu’il me semble peu probable que ces deux personnages aient vécu tous les deux 30 ans; en troisième lieu, parce que le texte mentionne une seule femme et s’il s’agissait de deux personnages, il fallait préciser lequel est le mari. De toute façon, Asclepius et sa femme Affia sont des pérégrins; leur noms indiquent une région héllenophone, mais malheureusement, ils ne sont pas les seuls indices de leur origine.

*

Il faut réexaminer le petit catalogue des inscriptions afin d’essayer d’établir les raisons de la migration des Pontobithyniens dans la province trajane. D’abord, le matériel épigraphique doit être groupé par cités, et nous verrons que c’est un élément important de notre analyse. Ainsi, à Ampelum, il y a deux textes qui nous renseignent sur les huit personnes originaires de Pontus et Bithynie. La première inscription est une épitaphe d’Alexandrianus, civis Bithynus, selon le texte, et de Tatius Lucius, fils d’Alexandrianus (IDR III/3, 341). L’épitaphe a été érigée par Antonius, Iulius et Lucilianus, fils d’Alexandrianus et frères de Tatius Lucius, et par Lucia, femme d’Alexandrianus et mère de Tatius Lucius. Même si

Un autre texte mentionnant un Bithynien dans la zone minière de Dacie est celui trouvé à Abrud, où Myron fait ériger un autel à Jupiter Cimistenus. On sait assez peu sur cette divinité, mais depuis la publication de G. Mendel

*

Je remercie M. Olivier Weller pour la revision de la traduction en français. 1 Petolescu 1978. 2 Mihailescu-Bîrliba 2011.

3

39

Petolescu 1978, 200-01, 212.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

d’une inscription avec ce dieu en Bithynie, il est unanimément accepté que son pays originaire est en Bithynie.4 Dans notre cas, la mention de cette divinité particulière et le nom de dédicant nous font penser qu’il s’agit sûrement d’un Bithynien, dont le statut juridique est toujours celui de pérégrin.

notre inscription est très probablement un Bithynien, en sachant qu’il consacre le texte à Jupiter Cimistenus. Le dernier texte, qui a posé des problèmes, a été trouvé à Inlăceni, où il y avait un camp d’unité auxiliaire. Dans cette inscription un pérégrin, Eros, fils de Zoticus, dédie un autel à Jupiter le très bon et très grand (IDR III/4, 279). A la suite de nom et de son patronymique, suivent les lettres SIC ou SIG. Russu a restitué sig(illarius).8 K.B. Angyal a lu la dernière lettre C et a proposé la restitution s(acerdos) I(ovi) C(imisteni).9 Je rejette la lecture de Angyal pour trois raisons principales: primo, je vois plutôt un G qu’un C sur la pierre, même si la haste horizontale de G est à peine esquissée; secundo, une fois que Jupiter le très bon et grand est mentionné au début du texte sur la pierre, je ne vois aucun motif d’ajouter l’epithète Cimistenus à côté du nom du dieu; tertio, l’endroit de découverte indique un personnage qui a beaucoup affaire aux choses militaires; signifer pourrait être une autre restitution, mais cela ne correspond pas au statut pérégrin d’Eros. Il convient donc d’accepter la restitution et l’interprétation de Russu, qui voit Eros, fils de Zoticus, comme le chef d’un atelier qui fabriquait les estampilles pour l’unité stationnée dans le camp (IDR III/4, 279, sub numero). Russu ne date pas l’inscription, mais en vertu du statut juridique d’Eros, elle date certainement d’avant 212, plus probablement du IIe siècle ap. J.-C. Alors, malgré le nom qui trahit une région d’origine hellénophone, rien ne prouve qu’Eros est un Bithynien. J’ai inclus pourtant l’inscription dans l’Annexe no 1, mais je ne peux pas compter Eros parmi les Bithyniens de la Dacie romaine.

Il y a un autre groupe de textes qui provient d’Apulum, le chef-lieu de la province à partir de Marc Aurèle. Dans le premier, M. Iulius Quirinus, augure de la colonie d’Apulum, fait construire de nouveaux éléments au monument pour le salut des empereurs Septime Sévère et Caracalla (IDR III/5, 153). La mention de César dans la titulature de Caracalla date l’inscription entre 193 et 197. De notre point de vue, la chose la plus importante est la mention de Quirinus en tant que patron du collège des Pontobithyniens. Pour cette charge il accompli son voeu et effectue la munificence. L’existence à Apulum d’un tel collège indique que les gens provenant de Pontus et de Bithynie étaient assez nombreux et jouait un rôle assez important dans la cité. Je reviendrai sur les raisons de leur établissement en Dacie. Les deux autres textes d’Apulum sont consacrés à Jupiter Cimistenus, le premier par deux pérégrins, Primus et Primianus (IDR III/5, 209), le deuxième par un citoyen, Aurelius Iulianus, dont la nomenclature (le gentilice d’Aurelius sans prénom indique une datation après 212) (IDR III/5, 208). Malheureusement, ces noms sont assez répandus pour qu’on puisse déterminer l’origine de leurs porteurs (même si Primianus se rencontre chez des personnes originaires d’Orient ou d’Afrique),5 mais la mention de Jupiter Cimistenus constitue un argument pour l’origine bithynienne de ces personnages. Quant à Aurelius Iulianus, les premiers éditeurs de l’inscription6 l’avaient identifié avec un Aurelius Iulianus, décurion à Potaissa (CIL III 7688). En premier lieu, les auteurs se trompaient sur le statut juridique de Iulianus, en affirmant qu’il était peregrine.7 Il est possible qu’il ait été pérégrin et devenu citoyen après 212, mais lorsque notre inscription (ou l’inscription de Potaissa, peu importe) a été érigée, Aurelius Iulianus était déjà citoyen. Deuxièmement, identifier Aurelius Iulianus d’Apulum avec celui de Potaissa me semble aussi hasardeux, puisqu’en Dacie il y a plusieurs Aurelii Iuliani. Un Aurelius Iulianus est mentionné sur une liste de soldats à Apulum (IDR III/5, 451), un autre sur une liste de vétérans à Napoca (AE 2000, 1244), d’autres Aurelii Iuliani sont attestés à Călugăreni (IDR III/4, 216b), à Drobeta, en Dacie Inférieure (un militaire de la Ie cohorte des sagittaires) (IDR II. 107) et enfin en tant que décurion à Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (IDR III/3, 249.). Donc, si on essayait à tout prix d’identifier un personnage, il me semble plus probable que notre Aurelius Iulianus soit le soldat mentionné à Apulum, mais il reste difficile de tirer de telles conclusions, en tenant compte de la fréquence de ces noms en Dacie. En tout cas, l’Aurelius Iulianus de

En résumant les mentions de Bithyniens dans la province trajane, on constate que les six inscriptions sont réparties d’une mainère identique sur deux zones: trois dans la zone minière (plus précisément, dans la zone des mines d’or) et trois à Apulum, le chef-lieu de province après Marc Aurèle. J’arrive maintenant aux raisons de la présence pontobithynienne en Dacie. Tous les personnes mentionneés dans les textes (sauf Tatius Lucius et Aurelius Iulianus) sont des pérégrins et ont un statut civil (on peut seulement soupçonner le statut d’Aurelius Iulianus comme celui d’un soldat ou d’un ancien soldat). En plus, la mention d’un collège des Pontobithyniens dans la capitale de la Dacie romaine montre le nombre et l’importance de ces immigrés à Apulum. Cela prouve également que le nombre de textes n’est pas toujours représentatif d’un point de vue quantitatif pour une population ou pour une partie de la population dans une province.10 La présence des Bithyniens dans la zone minière de la Dacie et à Apulum ne doit pas surprendre. Dans la région des mines d’or, la présence des immigrés d’Asie Mineure et des zones hellénophones est massive. La population provenant des provinces hellénophones est juridiquement et socialement differenciée. Il s’agit tout d’abord d’esclaves: Apalaustus, enfant vendu pour 600 deniers, est natione Grecum (IDR I, 37), Theudote,

4

Mendel 1901, 24; RE XI.1, s.v. Kimistenos, 397. AE 1929, 49; RIU 5, 1197; CIL VIII 858 (ILS 5073), VIII 2403 (ILS 6122), VIII 2568, 2951; ILAlg II/1, 482; AE 2004, 1673. 6 Berciu et Popa 1963. 7 Berciu et Popa 1963, 71. 5

8

Russu 1964, 189. Angyal 1971, 17-19; AE 1975, 720. 10 Eck 2007. 9

40

L. MIHAILESCU-BÎRLIBA: LES PONTOBITHYNIENS EN DACIE ROMAINE

également achetée par un un soldat de la XIIIe légion Gemina avec 420 deniers, est originaire de Crète (IDR I, 38). Les textes mentionnent beaucoup de peregrini. L’ancien propriétaire d’Apalaustus était Bellicus, fils d’Alexander (IDR I, 37), tandis que l’acheteur de Theudote est un citoyen romain (Claudius Philetus, dont le cognomen indique son origine hellénophone) (IDR I, 38) ayant un garant appelé Alexander, fils d’Antipatros (IDR I, 38). Parmi les témoins du contrat de vente de Theudote, le vétéran de la XIIIe légion Gemina, Aelius Dionysios, a sans doute une origine dans un pays hellénophone (IDR I, 38). Une autre tablette cirée mentionne Ingenuus, fils de Callistus, un autre pérégrin avec des racines hellénophones (IDR I, 39), dont la maison se trouve dans le quartier des Pirustes à Alburnus Maior. Les autres peregrini mentionnés dans les contrats d’Alburnus Maior sont Socratio, fils de Socratio (IDR I, 40, 41), Adiutor, fils de Macarius (IDR I, 40), et Memmius, fils d’Asclepius (IDR I, 41). Le premier est un fermier des mines, le deuxième remplit la charge de notaire, tandis que le troisième est un ouvrier des mines. D’autres cognomina indiquent l’origine des personnages (Aurelius Asclepiades, très probablement un pérégrin qui a acquis la citoyenneté après 212 (IDR III/3, 346), Domitia Chlone (IDR III/3, 419), très probablement Demetrios, pérégrin ou esclave à Ampelum (IDR III/3, 426), ou Pyrra Trophima (IDR III/3, 432), dont l’épitaphe est trop laconique pour en apprendre plus). Demetrius Arzakei est, d’après son patronymique, d’origine perse (IDR III/3, 399; CIGD 4), mais il semble qu’il provient plutôt d’une province d’Asie Mineure. Il y avait également au moins deux associations fondées sur des critères religieux et peut-être ethniques, d’après les dédicaces à Deus Narenus11 et à Deus Sardendenus.12 Il semble que la plupart des personnes originaires des régions hellénophones soit établie en Dacie avec des affaires privées, comme le montrent les tablettes cirées d’Alburnus Maior. Je pense que les Pontobithyniens ne faisaient pas exception.

À Apulum, qui étaient également le camp de la XIIIe légion Gemina, la présence des militaires, y compris ceux provenant d’Asie Mineure, est plus importante. Pourtant, parmi les textes disponible, aucun des personnages mentionnés n’est militaire. L’existence du collegium Pontobithynorum suggère que la communauté de Pontus et Bithynie était assez nombreuse et comptait civils et militaires ou anciens militaires. La colonisation orientale est massive à Apulum après le règne de Marc Aurèle; elle est démontrée par des témoignages archéologiques et surtout épigraphiques. Ainsi, un sarcophage trouvé dans la cité est travailé à la manière des provinces orientales.13 La recherche de quelques amphores estampillées trouvées également dans la capitale de la province a mis en évidence les marques de quelques artisans provenant de provinces hellénophones (Dionysogenos, Protos),14 mais on ne sait pas qui a assuré le transport de ces amphores dans la cité. Les inscriptions mentionnent des personnages comme G. Herennius Hermes (IDR III/5, 45), Gorgias Posidonius (IDR III/5, 90), M. Arranius Epaphroditus (IDR III/5, 129), A. Tapetius Amethistus (IDR III/5, 167), Iulia Beronice (IDR III/5, 555) ou Pontia Asia (IDR III/5, 563), pour ne citer qu’une petite partie de ces immigrants.

11

13

12

En conclusion, je pense que les Pontobithyniens sont arrivés en Dacie surtout avec des affaires privées, dans des régions favorables pour developper leurs affaires. Une partie des Pontobithyniens ont migré d’abord à l’ouest de la Mer Noire, en s’établissant dans la province de Mésie Inférieure. Une autre partie a migré plus loin vers l’ouest, en Dacie; ces immigrants ont fait des affaires dans la zone des mines d’or (environ vers la moitié du IIe siècle ap. J.-C. et peu après) et dans la nouvelle capitale de la province (Apulum), où ils ont fondé un collège (vers la fin du IIe siècle et la première moitié du IIIe siècle).

Ardevan 1998, 294. Ardevan 1998, 294.

14

41

Berciu et Wolski 1971. Moga 1989.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Quirinus aug(ur) col(oniae) Apulensis ob honorem patronat(us) coll(egii) Pontobithynor(um) ianuas et valvas ad introitum templi fec(it). Pour le salut de l’empereur Septimius Severus Pertinax, l’Auguste, et d’Aurelius Antoninus César, Marcus Iulius Quirinus, augure de la colonie d’Apulum, pour la charge du patronat du collège des Pontobithyniens, a fait construire.

ANNEXE 1: Supplementum Epigraphicum Ampelum 1. Autel funéraire en grès. Dimensions: 129 x 103 x 77 cm. Lettres: 5-8 cm. Représentation d’Attis. IDR III/3, 341. D(is) M(anibus) / Al[e]xandrian(us) / civ[i]s Bithynus / v[i]xi(t) ann(is) LXV / Tatius Lucius vix(it) annis XXX / Antonius Iulius Lucilianus fratres patri et fratri et / Lucia mater / b(ene)m(erentibus) p(osuerunt). Aux Dieux Mânes. Alexandrianus, citoyen Bithynien, a vécu 65 ans, Tatius Lucius a vécu 30 ans. Antonius, Iulius, Lucilianus, ses frères, et Lucia, sa mère, ont fait ériger (le monument) à leur frère et à leur père, qui l’ont bien mérité.

5. Autel votif en grès. Dimensions: 79 x 51 x 38 cm. IDR III/5, 209. I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Cimisteno / Primus et / Primianus / ex v[ot]o pos(uerunt). Á Jupiter le très bon et très grand Cimistenus, Primus et Primianus ont fait érigé (le monument) à la suite d’un voeu. 6. Autel votif en grès. Dimensions: 82 x 35 x 37 cm. Lettres: 5-5.5 cm. IDR III/5, 208. I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Cimiste/[n]o pro sal/ute im/p(erii) po[s]u/it Aure/lius Iulianus. À Jupiter le très bon et très grand Cimistenus, pour le salut de l’Empire, Aurelius Iulianus a érigé (le monument). Incertaine Inlăceni

2. Autel funéraire. Disparu. IDR III/3, 342. I(nferis?) D(is) M(anibus). Asclepius (qui) et Asclep(iades) / cives Bithi/num (sic!) vix(erunt) ann(is) XXX / Affia coniunx / b(ene)m(erenti) p(osuit). Asclepius, dit aussi Aclepiades, citoyen Bithynien, a vécu 30 ans. Affia, sa femme, a fait ériger (le monument) à celui qui l’a bien mérité. Abrud 3. Μύρων Δεὶ Κιμ/ιστηνῷ εὐχήν. Myron a voué (le monument) à Deus Cimistenus. Apulum

7. AE 1975, 720; IDR III/4, 279. I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Eros / Zotici / s(acerdos) I(ovi) C(imisteni) v(otum) s(olvit). À Jupiter le très bon et très grand. Eros, fils de Zoticus, prêtre de Jupiter Cimistenus, a accompli son voeu.

4. IDR III/5, 153. Pro salute Imperatoris Septimi Severi Pertinacis Aug(usti) et Aurelii Antonini Caesaris M(arcus) Iul(ius)

ANNEXE 2: Les Pontobithyniens mentionnés dans les texte en Dacie romaine Personnages ou communautés

Lieu de découverte

Source

Mentions

1) Alexandrianus

Ampelum

IDR III/3, 341

civis Bithinus

2) Tatius Lucius

Ampelum

IDR III/3, 341

fils d’Alexandrianus

3) Antonius

Ampelum

IDR III/3, 341

fils d’Alexandrianus

4) Iulius

Ampelum

IDR III/3, 341

fils d’Alexandrianus

5) Lucilianus

Ampelum

IDR III/3, 341

fils d’Alexandrianus

6) Lucia

Ampelum

IDR III/3, 341

femme d’Alexandrianus

7) Asclepius qui et Asclepiades

Ampelum

IDR III/3, 342

cives Bithinum (sic)

8) Myron

Abrud

IDR III/3, 342

dédicace à Jupiter Cimistenus

9) Primus

Apulum

IDR III/5, 209

dédicace à Jupiter Cimistenus

10) Primianus

Apulum

IDR III/5, 209

dédicace à Jupiter Cimistenus

11) Aurelius Iulianus

Apulum

IDR III/5

dédicace à Jupiter Cimistenus

12) Collegium Pontobithynorum

Apulum

IDR III/5,

un augure comme patron

42

L. MIHAILESCU-BÎRLIBA: LES PONTOBITHYNIENS EN DACIE ROMAINE

Bibliographie

BERCIU, I. et WOLSKI, V. 1971: ῾Un nou tip de mormînt descoperit la Apulum şi problema sarcofagelor cu boltă din Imperiul roman'. Apulum 9, 375-433.

Abréviations AE

L’Année Epigraphique.

CIL

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.

CIGD

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum Daciae (Debrecen).

IDR

Inscripţiile Daciei romane (Bucarest).

ILAlg

Inscriptions latines d’Algérie (Paris).

ILS

Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae.

ECK, W. 2007: ῾Befund und Realität. Zur Repräsentativität unserer epigraphischen Quellen in der römischen Kaiserzeit'. Chiron 37, 49-64. MENDEL, G. 1901: ῾Inscriptions de Bithynie'. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 25, 5-92. MIHAILESCU-BÎRLIBA, L. 2011: Ex Toto Orbe Romano. Immigration into Roman Dacia – With Prosopographical Observations on the Population of Dacia (Colloquia Antiqua 5) (Louvain/Walpole, MA).

ANGYAL, K.B. 1971: ῾Epigraphica. Contribution à l’étude historique des religions orientales en Dacie'. Studium 2, 17-25.

MOGA, V. 1989: ῾Noi ştampile pe produse ceramice apulense'. Apulum 16, 201-06.

ARDEVAN, R. 1998: Viaţa municipală în Dacia romană (Timişoara).

PETOLESCU, C.C. 1978: ῾Les colons d’Asie Mineure en Dacie romaine'. Dacia n.s. 22, 199-213.

BERCIU, I. et POPA, A. 1963: ῾Jupiter Cimistenus à Apulum'. Latomus 22, 68-73.

RUSSU, I.I. 1964: ῾Materiale epigrafice din Dacia'. Acta Musei Napocensis 1, 181-95.

43

PAPHLAGONIA BETWEEN GOTHS, SASANIDS AND ARABS (3rd-8th centuries AD) Thomas BRÜGGEMANN Abteilung für Alte Geschichte, Seminar für Klassische Altertumswissenschaften, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Universitätsplatz 12, 06108 Halle (Saale), Germany [email protected]

Abstract: The southern shore of the Black Sea has been the scene of continuing struggles between the Roman-Byzantine central state and invaders penetrating imperial territories from the south-east since the 3rd century AD. The paper sketches the development of Greek Paphlagonia in late antiquity and early Byzantine times from the first raids of the Goths and Sasanids in the 3rd century up to those of the Arabs in the 7th century. This will be done not just by presenting the political and military incidents which caused the collapse of the Byzantine provincial defensive system in the 7th century, but by examining the crucial issue of the social and cultural changes triggered by the interaction of the endemic Greeks with each immigrant population. The contribution will be based mainly on literary tradition and sources. GOTLAR, SASANİLER VE ARAPLAR ARASINDA PAPHLAGONIA (İ.S. 3. VE 8. YY.’LAR) Özet: Karadeniz’in güney kıyısı İ.S. 3. yy.’dan itibaren Roma-Bizans merkezi devletleri ile imparatorluk sınırlarının güneydoğusundan içeri girenlerin arasındaki sonu gelmez mücadelelere sahne olmuştur. Bu bildiride Hellen Paphlagoniası’nın Got ve Sasanilerin ilk sefer düzenledikleri İ.S. 3. yy.’dan, Arapların geldiği İ.S. 7. yy.’a kadar Geç Antik-Erken Bizans dönemlerindeki gelişme süreci ele alınacaktır. Bu inceleme sadece Bizans eyalet savunma sisteminin İ.S. 7. yy.’da çökmesine sebep olan politik ve askeri olayları irdelemek şeklinde değil, aynı zamanda yerel Hellenlerle dışarıdan gelen nüfusun birbirlerinden karşılıklı etkileşiminden oluşan sosyal ve kültürel değişim süreci de ele alınarak gerçekleşecektir. Bildiri daha ziyade edebi gelenek ve kaynaklarla temellendirilecektir.

Minor will be considered. Thereafter, more detailed remarks will be addressed to Paphlagonia’s transition from late antiquity to the early Byzantine empire or the Proto-Byzantine period.1 To set the underlying geographical context, a sketch will be essayed of the decisive administrative developments of the whole area under Roman presence up to the invasions of the Goths during the second half of the 3rd century AD, whereas the volatile political and ethnic-cultural history of the region before the 3rd century will not be discussed.

INTRODUCTION (1st century BC-3rd century AD) The history of Roman and Byzantine Paphlagonia is characterised by an incomplete, imprecise and, in the end, a disparate tradition. The fact that this disillusioning finding remains unaltered, even in the phase of Gothic and Sasanid inroads between the 3rd and 7th centuries AD, might be explained by these invasions having been locally limited, for the most part, and therefore normally without any supraregional advertence. Although evidence becomes better with the Arabs from the late 7th century, the superficiality and the disinterest of the literary record, even in times of the significant threat to Byzantine rule in Asia Minor by extensive Arab military campaigns, has to be called astonishing.

With the establishment of the double province of Pontus et Bithynia by Pompey in 62 BC, the larger part of the Pontic heartland, belonging to the former empire of Mithradates VI Eupator, became formally included in the territory of the Roman province for the first time.2 Thus the new province covered besides Bithynia not only the shoreline of Paphlagonia and Pontus up the Halys and Amisos,3 but also the Pontic hinterland.4 On the other hand, the southern, interior Paphlagonia with the greater Gangra area and the later city of Hadrianopolis,5 which had not belonged to the Mithradatic empire, remained

The present contribution seeks to investigate the extent to which this distant consideration of Roman-Byzantine Paphlagonia in the literary record correlates with contemporaneous political actions. That the insufficient strategic potential of Paphlagonia could be the reason for the striking administrative ambivalence of the Roman and later Byzantine central power, and also for the meagre relevance of the region for contemporary historiography, seems hardly beside the point. In the following, this assumption should be set against the background of those tribal confederations which invaded Roman-Byzantine Asia Minor regularly but generally left Paphlagonia untouched, in contrast to its surrounding regions.

1 Refer for distances, topographical characteristics, place- and fieldnames to the map (insert) in Belke 1996. 2 For the underlying incidents and especially the Anatolian realignment of Pompey, see Ameling 1984; Marek 1985; Mitchell 1993, I, 61-69; Schwertheim 2005, 87-93. 3 See Summerer 1999, 22-29 with references; Rémy 1986, 1921. 4 The so-called ‘eleven city-states’ are not dealt with here. Cf. Strabo 13. 3. 1; Marek 1993, 26-39, 82-83 with map (insert) 1. For the city of Gangra, see Belke 1996, 196-99 with further references. 5 For Hadrianopolis see Belke 1996, 154-57 with literature.

First, however, the administrative developments that Paphlagonia underwent since Pompey’s activities in Asia 45

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

under the administration of local rulers, untouched for the moment by the Romans themselves.6 The death of the last of these dynasts, Deiotaros Philadelphos, in 6/5 BC (Strabo 13. 3. 6; Cassius Dio 50. 13. 5; Plutarch Antonius 63. 5) led to the final integration of inland Paphlagonia into Roman administration, i.e. the whole territory called Paphlagonia and not just Pompeiopolis in the east,7 which had been Roman since the time of Pompey. Paphlagonia became an eparchy of its own,8 connected to the south of the province of Galatia. As can be concluded from the identical city-eras,9 the eparchy of Paphlagonia now included the cities of Pompeiopolis, Gangra, KaisareaHadrianopolis and also Neapolis,10 which was situated outside the later Byzantine Paphlagonia. From this time no further indications can be found for ongoing reforms of the double province of Pontus et Bithynia until the reigns of the emperors Antoninus Pius (AD 138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (AD 161-180).11 Also Ptolemy reports that when he wrote his Geography during the 2nd century, Galatia began ‘beyond Kytōros’,12 i.e. beyond the territory of the city of Amastris.13

for the entire central shore of the Black Sea in the second half of the 3rd century also. The changeful political history of Paphlagonia and its ethno-cultural disposition before the 3rd century are not matters to be addressed here. GOTHS (3rd-5th Centuries AD) During imperial times, Roman Paphlagonia and northeast Bithynia remained unharmed by external enemies until the invasions of the Goths in the second half of the 3rd century. Due to the unfavourable situation of the written records, however, the chronology and extent of their migration are not clear at all. The first and the second invasion of the Goths into western Asia Minor, according to earlier suggestions datable to AD 257/8 and 262,17 seem not to have reached the area dealt with here. But the hasty construction of defensive walls composed largely from spolia in several cities, for example Prusias ad Hypium,18 should nevertheless be connected with these incidents.19 Chronologically linked to the second campaign against the Persians, which the Palmyrene ruler Septimius Odaenathus started in AD 267/8,20 the Goths invaded Roman territory and probably raided Heracleia Pontica in AD 267.21 Subsequently the Goths allegedly plundered Bithynia, Galatia and Cappadocia also. During this plundering, at least according to an inscription on a grave stone at Karza,22 the invaders came ‘from Pontus’, i.e. from the Black Sea,23 to the vicinity of Hadrianopolis24 where they are said to have raped young women.25 Odaenathus is said to have broken off his campaign against the Persians under Sapor I and marched across Cappadocia to Heracleia to fight against the Goths (SHA Gall. 11-12 [II 89-91 Hohl]; George Syncellus 716-717 [467 Mosshammer]).26

Thus, while Pontus et Bithynia ended with the territory of Amastris in the east, at least since the 2nd century, it is not clear to which province Paphlagonia belonged during the 3rd century. Although the size of the province of Pontus, which was established under Severus Alexander (AD 222-235), remains unknown, it was handed down that its territory had been separated from Cappadocia.14 The new province surely covered the interior Pontic heartland with Amaseia15 and supposedly Pontus Polemoniacus too, while Paphlagonia probably remained with Galatia at this time. There are even some hints that Pontus had been united with Galatia in the middle of the 3rd century for a short time. However, milestones from AD 279 prove that Pontus, probably already in the extent of the two later Byzantine provinces, Diospontus and Pontus Polemoniacus, had been separated from Galatia again – now even Paphlagonia could have belonged to this greater Pontus.16 Thus, on the eve of the first invasions of the Goths, neither an autonomous province of Paphlagonia existed nor could the overall administrative shape of the entire region be derived clearly from the sources. Unfortunately, this is the case

The great provincial reform begun by the emperor Diocletian, which affected the entire Imperium Romanum, separated military and civil command, diminished the territories of many provinces, and overall doubled their number. As an institution for grouping several provinces, Diocletian invented 12 dioceses, each of them under the control of a vicarius.27 During this reform Paphlagonia probably achieved the status of a province within the Pontic diocese. Ancyra presumably

6 The dynasty of the so-called Pylaimenids is not addressed in this paper. Cf. Strabo 13. 3. 1-6; see Marek 1993, 71-72, 116-22; Rémy 1986, 27; Strobel 1994 59-60. 7 For the city, see Belke 1996, 260-62 with further references; Marek 1993, 78. 8 This term could name parts of larger provinces also, quite similar to the latin provincia, see Belke 1992, 145-54; Rémy 1986, 27-36; Mitchell 1993, I, 33. 9 Marek 1993, 78-80.; Belke 1992; 1996, 63; Rémy 1986, 27-36. 10 It was called later Neocaesarea (see Brandes 1989, 135-37); for the other mentioned cities, see also, Marek 1993, 116-22; Strobel 1994, 5963. 11 See below; Marek 1993, 84-88; Rémy 1986, 87-92. 12 Ptolemy 5. 4. 1-2 (II 846-47 Müller [Paris 1901]). Further information on Kytoros in Belke 1996, 245-46 13 Marek 1985; 1989; Belke 1996, 161-70; Brandes 1989, 130-41. 14 For related references, see Rémy 1986, 101-08. 15 Amaseia in Brandes 1989, 132-37. 16 For the formation of Pontus Polemoniacus and Diospontus, which was later called Helenopontus, see Rémy 1986, 101-08; Marek 1993, 63-72; Brandes 1989, 136, 157-72.

17 Schwarcz 1992, 50-51, with further references and the discussion of the dating; Pohl 2005, 46-49, 129-31; Ameling 1984, 21; Wolfram 2001, 59-66 with map 2 p. 561; Mitchell 1993, II, 56, 69. 18 Belke 1996, 217-18, 264-66; Ameling 1983; 1985, passim. 19 See above n. 17. 20 Odaenathus was a Roman ally (see Sommer 2008). 21 Belke 1996, 208-16; Brandes 1989, 39. 22 The village was located in the vicinity of Hadrianopolis. For Karza in general, see Belke 1996, 227; Mitchell 1993, I, 236; Schwarcz 1992, 56. For the funerary inscription and its relevance for the Gothic raids, see Kaygusuz 1984a-b. 23 This could have meant the Goths only, see above n. 17. 24 Wolfram 2001, 124-42; Belke 1996, 155-57; Marek 1987. 25 See above n. 22. 26 Sommer 2008; Schwarcz 1992, 51-52. 27 For the provincial reform of Diocletian in general, see Jones 1964, I, 42-47; Demandt 1989, 54-55. The inauguration of the dioceses probably began around AD 297 (see exemplarily Chastagnol 1982, 246). Barnes (1982, 224-25) postulates an earlier beginning in AD 293.

46

T. BRÜGGEMANN: PAPHLAGONIA BETWEEN GOTHS, SASANIDS AND ARABS (3RD-8TH CENTURIES AD)

became the seat of the diocesan vicarius.28 The provincia Paphlagonia is mentioned for the first time in the socalled ‘Verona province-list’, the Laterculus Veronensis,29 which enumerates the provinces of the Eastern Empire between AD 314/15 and about 324.30 The closest source that mentions Paphlagonia, the record of the participants of the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, points to the size of the new province as well.31 This becomes evident because of the participation of the bishops of Pompeiopolis,32 Ionopolis33 and Amastris. Hitherto, Pompeiopolis had belonged to the interior Paphlagonia, which – except for a possible short-term connection with Pontus – had been continuously linked with Galatia. From the territory of the later province of Honorias, in effect western Paphlagonia, only the bishop of Plusias/Prusias participated in the Nicaean council.34 As we have seen already, the eastern part of Pontus et Bithynia, including Ionopolis, had already been connected to Galatia under Marcus Aurelius, while Amastris at this time still remained with Pontus et Bithynia. After the reform of Diocletian, Bithynia finally appears without the addition of ‘Pontus’ and became part of the Pontic diocese also.

polis (Hierocles 694. 3-696. 3).39 All these cities existed continuously until the end of Byzantine rule in Asia Minor. THE SASANIDS (6th-7th Centuries AD) As in several other provinces in the east, the emperor Justinian I, under the influence of the praefectus praetorio per Orientem, John of Cappadocia, carried out an administrative reform in Paphlagonia and Honorias in around AD 535.40 The central issue of this reorganisation, here as elsewhere, was to increase the reputation and competence of the provincial governors. Both provinces were connected to a new unit named Paphlagonia. As is noted explicitly, the cities of Prusias, Heracleia and Claudiopolis came to Paphlagonia with this reform – all had belonged to Bithynia before the foundation of Honorias. The separation of civil and military power, which had existed in the provinces since the time of Diocletian, was abolished, so that the praetor Justinianus of Paphlagonia became a spectabilis and had the supreme command over all troops within his province. Besides his general duties such as the administration of justice and taxation, he was enjoined to fight against criminality and banditry – problems which had obviously spread during the 5th century in Paphlagonia (Codex Justinianus Nov. 29).41

As John Malalas (365) informs us, Theodosius II (AD 408-450) founded a further province in the area at the beginning of the 5th century, taking a part of eastern Bithynia and naming it after his uncle Honorius: ‘Honorias’.35 According to Malalas, he made Heracleia Pontica its metropolis. The author’s description has at least one, if not two inaccuracies: Honorias was shaped not only from the eastern part of Bithynia, but also from the western part of Paphlagonia; and whether Heracleia was ever its capital seems doubtful, because by AD 451 at the latest there are clear hints that Claudiopolis was the metropolis.36 Nevertheless there is no reason to doubt the correctness of Malalas’ statement in principle, especially his assigning the foundation to Theodosius. The earliest confirmation of this foundation derives from the Notitia Dignitatum soon after AD 400 (Or. 1. 104; 25. 6. 18).

Justinian himself revised most of these actions in the years after the overthrow of John of Cappadocia. Until AD 548 not only did all provinces of the Pontic diocese again come under the administration of purely civil governors, but the vicariate was revived simultaneously.42 The new vicarius had to undertake fiscal, judicial and especially military duties in all provinces of his diocese. The relevant edict (Codex Justinianus Nov. 768-772) states that this had become necessary because gangs of bandits and criminals used to switch from one province to another within the diocese to avoid prosecution.43 Although there is no explicit information in the sources concerning corresponding regulations, unlike for other provinces in Asia Minor, the unification of the two provinces, Paphlagonia and Honorias, must presumably have been revised as well. A formal separation, at least the degradation in rank of the governor by AD 548 at the latest, has to be assumed, because it seems unlikely that the vicarius of the whole Pontic diocese had the same rank of spectabilis as the governor of the hierarchically lower-ranking province of Paphlagonia.

Since the middle of the 5th century at the latest, the area under investigation consisted of both provinces, the eparchy of Paphlagonia with its metropolis Gangra and larger cities such as Pompeiopolis, Sora,37 Amastris, Ionopolis or Dadybra,38 as well as the eparchy of Honorias with its capital Claudiopolis and the cities Prusias, Heracleia Pontica, Tios, Krateia and Hadriano28 For these incidents and the assumed status of Paphlagonia, see Barnes 1982, 202-06. For the city of Ankyra as provincial centre, see Brandes 1989, 104-05; Mitchell 1993, I, 69-70. 29 Barnes 1982, 202-06. 30 For the dating, see Jones 1954; and again Barnes 1982, 20305. 31 See Honigmann 1939, 46, nos. 105-107. 32 Belke 1996, 260-62.; Mitchell 1993, I, 88-93; II, 151-52. 33 Belke 1996, 219-21.; Brandes 1989, 157-72. 34 Honigmann 1939, 48, no. 182 (see above n. 18). 35 That the province was not founded by Theodosius I in AD 384 is now shown convincingly by Belke 1996, 66 esp. with n. 64. 36 Belke 1996, 66, 235-3t; Marek 1987; 1993, passim. 37 Belke 1996, 272-73. 38 Belke 1996, 186-87.

Twice, in AD 615/16 and 626, Sasanids marched right through Asia Minor as far as Chalcedon. Whereas in AD 615 they probably took the northern route via 39 For Tios, see Belke 1996, 276-79. For Krateia, Belke 1996, 239-40; Brandes 1989, 157-74; see above n. 18. 40 Greatrex 1995. 41 For Justinian’s reforms in northern Asia Minor, see Belke 1996, 6768; Brandes 1989, 92-136, 161-83; Feissel and Kaygusuz 1985, 414; Stein 1949, 463-67; Jones 1964, I, 280-83. 42 Galatia I was soon excluded, but also came under the rule of a civil governor shortly (see Belke 1984, 57). 43 Stein 1949, 748-49; Jones 1964, I, 294.

47

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Ancyra,44 on this occasion seemingly bypassing the city and not conquering it until 620, or more probably 622, because the Sasanid army spent the winter of AD 622/23 in the wider Pontus region,45 in 626 the Persians advanced again into the northern Pontus region: this time they approached Chalcedon probably from the south, i.e. from Cilicia.46

The first wave of Arab raids into Asia Minor, starting in the early AD 640s and lasting until the first siege of Constantinople in AD 674-678, seems not to have reached Paphlagonia and Honorias. The Arabs nevertheless came close to the area of our investigation, as they conquered Euchaita51 in AD 641 and Ancyra in AD 654. They had perhaps crossed parts of Bithynia already when raiding Ancyra, but they did so undoubtedly in AD 669 and again during their siege of Constantinople – however, the sources do not mention an Arab advance into Paphlagonia.52 The first proven Arab invasion of Paphlagonia led them in AD 712 to Gangra, the Arab Ganĝara.53 On the other hand, no evidence is known that the Arab army, which during the second siege of Constantinople (AD 716-718) not only operated in Bithynia but also plundered the entire region, could have been able to stretch its presence further to the east, reaching Honorias before being defeated by the Byzantines in AD 718 (AtTabarī 2. 1495;54 al-Tabarī History 25. 33).

The conquest of Paphlagonia by the Sasanids, however, is mentioned in the sources just once, namely in an alleged advance on Chalcedon, which should already have taken place before their invasions, i.e. in AD 608/9 or 610/11 (Theophanes Confessor 296; John Zonaras 3. 200; Michael the Syrian 2. 379).47 But a Persian push at this time is hardly credible, because it would surely have been noted in the vita of Theodore of Sykeon, who is said to have lived on the main route to the east, right between Nicaea and Ancyra.48 The possible explanation for Theophanes’ and Michael the Syrian’s accounts could be their dislike of the emperor Phocas (AD 602-610), which might have caused them to antedate to his reign a successful Sasanid campaign that actually occurred a couple of years later.

Mu‘āwiya b. Hišām, who threatened Nicaea in AD 727 in vain, did not choose one of the traditional diagonal routes through Asia Minor to get there, but marched further northward from east to west. On his way he conquered Tabia, the Arab Tība, and once more Gangra, which was razed to the ground this time (Michael the Syrian 2. 501; Bar Hebraeus Chron. 1. 110; the Chronicle of 1234 1. 241 [Anonymi auctoris Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens]).55 In AD 732 Mu‘āwiya again moved to Paphlagonia, where he burned Gangra for the third time and also captured many of its inhabitants (Theophanes Confessor 410; Agapius Kitab al-’Unvan 507). Hereon he finally reached Akroinos, the Arab Akrun, where he burned the suburbs (At-Tabarī 2. 1561;56 al-Tabarī History 25. 97). Returning to Syria, Mu‘āwiya seems to have passed through Asia Minor from north to south.57

Overall, we must conclude that arguably just small parts of Paphlagonia were harmed in the Sasanid wars, but not before the reign of the emperor Heraclius (AD 610-641). THE ARABS (7th-9th Centuries AD) As mentioned above, the written record regarding the Arabs and their invasions of Asia Minor is much more detailed than that bearing on the Goths and Sasanids. The favourable state of the sources allows emphasis to be shifted henceforth from a depiction focused on the administrative actions of the Roman hegemonic power in northern Asia Minor to Roman exposure to the invaders.

As the Byzantine representative, Artabasdos, rose up a revolt after the death of the emperor Leo III against his successor Constantine V, the troops of the Opsician theme became involved, because the usurper was comes of this theme during the reign of the deceased emperor.58 The fourth invasion of Paphlagonia by an Arab army (AD 741 or 742), which was led by the successor of Mu‘āwiya, Sulaimān b. Hišām, may have profited from these internal Byzantine frictions. It did not, however, provoke any damage.59 Once again, the Arabs came into

It is well known that the so-called Proto-Byzantine period, which was determined by a provincial administration of separated civil and military command, was superseded by the constitution of ‘Themes’ after the Byzantines had lost their eastern provinces to the Arabs. This administrative structure was shaped completely in the second half of the 8th century, when every provincial military commander, the strategos, also held the civil power in his theme. Along the way a formerly pure military district had developed into a totally new kind of province.49 At the beginning of this alteration in the Byzantine provincial system, the territory of the two provinces of Paphlagonia and Honorias seems to have belonged still to two of the originally four greater military districts, the so-called prototype themes of Asia Minor, the Opsician and Armeniac.50

51

Brandes 1989, 74-80, 138-58. See Lilie 1976, 61-87. In the same way we do not know whether some of the slaves resettled from Europe to Asia Minor by Justinian II after his successful campaign in the Balkans AD 688-689 came to Paphlagonia (see Theophanes Confessor 364; Nik. Patr. 92; Ostrogorsky 1963, 108-10; Lilie 1976, 107; Ditten 1993, 220-32; Brüggemann 2009b). 53 At-Tabarī 2. 1236, trans. Brooks 1898, 193; Ibn al-Atīr 3. 457; Brandes 1989, 53-59; Lilie 1976, 120. 54 Trans. Brooks 1898, 199. 55 Lilie 1976, 147. 56 Trans. Brooks 1898, 200. 57 See Lilie 1976, 149; Belke 1996, 71. 58 Brandes 1989, 53-59; Haldon 1984, 203; Speck 1981, 153-55. 59 For details of the ‘civil war’ between Constantine V and Artabasdos, see Speck 1981, 153-288; Agapius Kitab al-’Unvan 510; Lilie 1976, 154-55 with n. 50. 52

44

Foss 1975, 724-26; 1977, 70-71. Foss 1975, 726; Stratos 1979. Foss 1975, 727; Stratos 1968-80, I, 176. 47 Ostrogorsky 1963, 72; Stratos 1979, 64. 48 Foss 1975, 724 with n. 1; Brandes 1989, 49-50. 49 See Lilie 1984; 1977; 1976, esp. 287-338. 50 Haldon 1984, 142-82; Belke 1996, 69; above n. 50; Brandes 1989, 53-59. 45 46

48

T. BRÜGGEMANN: PAPHLAGONIA BETWEEN GOTHS, SASANIDS AND ARABS (3RD-8TH CENTURIES AD)

Paphlagonia up to the surroundings of Amastris at the end of the 8th century. They plundered rural villages and committed many cruelties among the resident population (George of Amastris 37-41).60 In AD 796 they came to Amorium, in 798 to Ancyra, in 799 even up to Ephesus, plundering Malagina in Bithynia and a causing major casualties among Byzantine troops throughout the Opsician theme (Theophanes Confessor 473).61

southward shift of the settlement areas of the Kievan Rus from the north of the Black Sea.67 In AD 863 an Arab army reached the eastern border of Paphlagonia for the last time. The emir of Melitene, ‘Amr b.‘Ubaidallāh al-Aqta‘, advanced with a larger detachment under the command of Ğa‘far b. Dīnār, who probably had been emir of Tarsus,68 into Byzantine territory. Still in Cappadocia, he met the emperor Michael III for ultimately unsuccessful negotiations near Marğ alUsquf.69 The following battle, which caused great losses for both sides, ended in a draw. However, this did not prevent ‘Amr from marching further to the north, plundering the Armeniac theme and finally conquering even Amisos (Samsun).70 After the city’s conquest had been reported, Michael III appointed the Strategos of the Thracesian theme, Petronas, supreme commander of a large army, which consisted of troops from the themes of Thrace, Macedonia and Thracesian, soon joined by more soldiers from the other eastern themes, Armeniac, Bucellarian, Koloneia, Paphlagonia, Anatolic, Opsician and Cappadocia. Against the advice of his council ‘Amr decided to approach from Sinope towards the Byzantine army.71 At Poson,72 near a stream named Lalakaon, north of the larger River Halys (Kızılırmak), which formed the boundary between the Paphlagonian and Armeniac themes, the Melitene emir fell into a Byzantine ambush and was encircled. During the following battle, ‘Amr and most of his people were killed. Therewith the period of Arab invasions and raids into Byzantine Asia Minor ended with the invader’s total defeat (Joseph Genesius 67-69; Theophanes Continuatus 179-183; John Skylitzes 99-101).73

It becomes clear, however, that Paphlagonia and Honorias were quite distant to the routes commonly used by the Arabs for their invasions of Byzantine Asia Minor. Obviously the invaders were unwilling to hazard the consequences of risky long distance marches to Paphlagonia, i.e. the Byzantine midlands far from the empire’s external borders, since neither Honorias nor Paphlagonia offered appropriate remunerative booty to justify incalculable danger. This is why the area was that part of Asia Minor least harmed by invaders. In particular, the Arabs seem to have reached the Black Sea shore of Paphlagonia and Honorias just once.62 The diminution of large themes into smaller units had already begun in the second half of the 8th century. A first step in this direction can be seen in the decision of the emperor Leo V, according to a letter of Theodore the Studite in AD 819 (Ep. 2. 391f [regest] and 2. 566 [text]), to put the existing five themes of Asia Minor, which were named Anatolic, Armeniac, Thracasian, Opsician and Bucellarian, under the supreme command of just one governor.63 During the first half of the 9th century, new themes called Paphlagonia and Chaldia were eventually formed from parts of the former Armeniac theme (Theophanes Confessor 463).64 In AD 824 at least Chaldia seems to have been an independent unit already, perhaps under a dux.65 One may assume that Paphlagonia, too, was separated simultaneously from the Armeniac theme by Leo V at the end of AD 819 or the beginning of 820 at the latest.66 After the foundation of the Paphlagonian theme the administration was little modified until the end of Byzantine rule. A reason for the establishment of such smaller independent commands, which in particular flanked the Byzantine shore of the southern Black Sea, may be seen in the increasing threat connected with the

CONCLUSION As the preceding remarks show, the pax Augusta in Paphlagonia continued largely until the Arab invasions of the 7th century. The sparse information that written records provide of the invasions of the Goths in the 3rd and of the Sasanids during the 5th and 6th centuries is striking proof for this assumption. Roman and Byzantine observers were obviously aware that both Goths and Sasanids used Paphlagonia as a route to regions of Asia Minor situated further west or south, which were more able to satisfy the invaders’ taste for booty and for securing their livelihood, not just because they were more densely urban.74 It seems advisable, therefore, rather than giving a summary, to carry out a comparison of our area of investigation with its neighbouring districts to demonstrate that Paphlagonia found itself the focus of

60

Markopoulos 1979. Lilie 1976, 177-78; Brandes 1989, 72. 62 Nevertheless, a hagiographic source of the 9th century allows us at least the observation that the damage in the countryside caused by this singular incident must have been considerable. The Life of St Philaretos (165) (Fourmy and Leroy 1934) mentions that he was impoverished because on several occasions the Arabs plundered and devastated the region where he owned land. On account of its novelistic provenance, the historical value of the Life of St Philaretos is doubtful (Lilie 1976, 316-18 with n. 65, 193; 1984, 245; Haldon 1984, 217; 1979, 67-76; Speck 1978, 204-08). 63 Treadgold 1988, 222. 64 Treadgold 1980, 286-87. 65 This becomes evident by a letter of the emperor Michael II to Ludwig the Pious (Mansi 1769, 14. 418 A; Treadgold 1988, 223; Lilie 1977). 66 The earliest explicit mentioning of the theme Paphlagonia, to be found in the Life of Theodore the Studite written by a monk named Michael, however, should not be used to date this theme. The text was hardly written before AD 855 and thus seems to be an anachronism (Beck 1959, 504). 61

67

Treadgold 1988, 223; Brüggemann 2009a. See Mitchell 1993, II, 154 with n. 74; Belke 1996, 76-77; Al-Tabarī History 35. 9; Brandes 1989, 75-77 (chart). 69 Hild 1981 for Marğ al-Usquf. 70 According to Joseph Genesius 67; Theophanes Continuatus 179; Huxley 1975, 448-49. 71 Brandes 1989, 38-40; Mitchell 1993, I, 81-91, 212; Belke 1996, 77. 72 Belke 1996, 262. 73 For details of the battle at the Lalakaon, see John Skylitzes 77 with nn. 148 and 247; Huxley 1975, 449. 74 Mitchell 1993, I, 72-85; Brandes 1989, 46-80, 167-73. 68

49

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

serious political and military events which roused the interest of contemporary authors at the earliest with the Arab invasion in the middle of the 7th century.

in documenting these incidents in detail. Anyway, Paphlagonia itself was not even involved in these serious struggles. This changed gradually when the emperor Heraclius decided to drive the Sasanids from Byzantine Asia Minor in AD 622/23. But even these incidents touched Paphlagonia but lightly and were limited mainly to the Pontic provinces situated further to the east of.79

From the 3rd century AD, Asia Minor became victim to a series of invasions by ‘barbarian’ tribes or hostile neighbouring empires. At about mid-century raids began, launched by the Goths together with other Germanic tribes or tribal confederations, for example the Heruli.75 These invaders devastated cities and entire districts of Asia Minor. However, mainly territories outwith Paphlagonia were affected, especially the provinces of Bithynia, Cappadocia, Galatia and Pamphylia. The Goths plundered and ravaged several cities such as Trebizond, Chalcedon, Pergamum, Nicomedia, Nicaea, Apameia, Prusa, Heracleia Pontica and Side. Although the economic consequences of the Gothic upheaval were always serious in the short term, they seldom brought an end to an affected city.76 This is because the Goths raided primarily to secure their subsistence at the expense of the more prosperous resident population; they were not striving after territorial conquest in Asia Minor. Hence, in the main, the rich and more easily approachable agricultural areas situated further west and south of the area of our investigation were the Goths’ destinations, i.e. mutatis mutandis Paphlagonia was merely marched though en route. Here the Gothic tribal confederacies confined themselves to ‘consuming’ the products and goods of the farms and villages lying in their path.

The Arab invasions in the middle of the 7th century, which at first aimed at taking booty, became a war that, for the first time, posed a serious threat to Byzantine rule in Asia Minor. In this respect the Arab incursions were not isolated raids as the attacks of the Goths and Sasanids had been. If the Goths and Sasanids were a problem of small-scale criminality for the government, the Arabs soon became a threat to Byzantine rule overall.80 The sources of this period, which illustrate an increased historiographical interest in these incidents, are able to demonstrate that the Byzantine court realised the menace, and the Arabs, who were able to pass dexterously through almost the entire peninsula of Asia Minor, rarely found their way to Paphlagonia.81 Examination of the struggles between the Byzantines and the Arabs in Asia Minor during the 7th and 8th centuries shows clearly that their duration differentiated them from the previous impact of the Goths and Sasanids. That the Arabs therefore found a much louder resonance in Byzantine sources is obvious, because they performed not only several spectacular attacks on Constantinople, but were again and again able to conquer important cities and fortresses in Asia Minor, such as Amorium, Ancyra and Dorylaeum.82 As the Byzantines knew very well, all these Arab campaigns aimed at conquering Constantinople. To achieve this it was not only necessary to control the main military roads in Asia Minor, but also to eliminate the Byzantine military infrastructure in the region – and there was none situated in Paphlagonia.

At the same time, while the Goths marauded in Paphlagonia, the territories further east, i.e. Pontus, Armenia and Cappadocia, had to suffer early Sasanid invasions in AD 252/3 and 259/60. Although these forays did not reach Paphlagonia until the 6th century, the political-military purpose that inspired them was quite obviously of a different order from the imperatives that drove the Goths. During the 4th and 5th centuries, Paphlagonia remained totally untroubled by the assaults of the Isaurians in southern Asia Minor,77 for their invasions concentrated on Lycia, Lycaonia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia and Pisidia. Likewise, the Huns, who came to Asia Minor in AD 515, raided Pontus, Armenia and Galatia, but not Paphlagonia.78

Paphlagonia, compared with its surrounding territories, was not ‘rich’ enough for the Goths and Sasanids. That Paphlagonia turned out to be to less important in its strategic dimension for the Arabs was caused directly by its minor importance to the Byzantines themselves: if they had installed a dense civil and military infrastructure, the external enemies would probably have devastated Paphlagonia as they did other regions of Asia Minor.

After Justinian II refused to pay tribute to the Sasanids, Persian attacks on the eastern provinces of Asia Minor started. These led during the 6th century to a two-year war, which, however, was restricted to Cappadocia and Armenia I and II. The very poor situation of the sources concerning the Byzantine-Sasanid wars in the first decades of the 7th century can be seen as an indication that north-eastern Asia Minor did not enjoy very high political importance within the Byzantine empire: clearly, no contemporary historiographer was seriously interested

Thus, Paphlagonia was of less interest to hostile invaders because it was strategically unimportant for Byzantine rulers. The fact that the sources in Roman Imperial and 79

Stratos 1979. The Romans and Byzantines differentiated a gamut of threats, which could be caused by either external or internal enemies on their territory; each of these entailed a specific sanction, depending on the level of menace that was stated by the central state in relation to the continuity of its authority (see Brüggemann 2007, 51-53 with further references). 81 This could be illustrated with the table that is given by Brandes (1989, 75-77). According to the chart the Arabs reached Paphlagonia three times at most and these incidents are not even clear in the literary record. 82 Brandes 1989, 74. 80

75 Brandes 1989, 45-47 with further references; Wolfram 2001, 266-77, 355-75 with n. 34. 76 For this phenomenon, see Brandes 1989, 124-41. 77 For the Isaurians of Asia Minor, see above n. 75. 78 Wolfram 2001, 19-20, 77-95, 138-48; Pohl 2005, 204-08.

50

T. BRÜGGEMANN: PAPHLAGONIA BETWEEN GOTHS, SASANIDS AND ARABS (3RD-8TH CENTURIES AD)

Proto-Byzantine times do not even allow us to make precise statements about the administrative and political penetration of Paphlagonia speaks for itself. In this respect, as to the military dimension, Paphlagonia’s peripheral nature would change at the latest during the Seljuk land-grab in the 11th-12th centuries.83

Jahrhundert’. In Franz, K. (ed.), Verwaltete Nomaden: Mobile Viehzüchter und Dienstleister zwischen Autonomie und staatlicher Anbindung (Halle Saale), 45-77. BRÜGGEMANN, T. 2009a: ‘From Money-Trade to Barter. Economic Transformations in Byzantine Crimea (10th-13th Centutry)’. In Wołoszyn, M. (ed.), Byzantine Coins in Central Europe between the 5th and 10th Century (Moravia Magna. Seria Polonia 3) (Cracow), 669-84.

Bibliography Abbreviations

BRÜGGEMANN, T. 2009b: ‘Territorium oder Lebensraum? Asia Minor zwischen Byzantinern und Selğūqen (10.-13. Jahrhundert n. Chr.)’. In Kath, R. et al. (eds.), Raum – Landschaft – Territorium. Zur Konstruktion physischer Räume als nomadischer und sesshafter Lebensraum (Nomaden und Sesshafte 11) (Wiesbaden), 173-203.

Notitia Dignitatum O. Seeck (ed. ), Notitia Dignitatum, accedunt Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae et Latercula Provinciarum (Berlin 1876; repr. Frankfurt 1962). SHA

E. Hohl (ed.), Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1971).

CHASTAGNOL, A. 1982: L’évolution politique, sociale et économique du monde romain: la mise en place du régime du Bas-Empire (284-363) (Paris).

AMELING, W. 1983: ‘Eine neue Inschrift aus Prusias ad Hypium’. Epigraphica Anatolica 1, 63-73. AMELING, W. 1984: ‘Das Archontat in Bithynien und die lex Provincia des Pompeius’. Epigraphica Anatolica 3, 19-31.

DEMANDT, A. 1989: Die Spätantike. Römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian 284-565 n. Chr. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft III.6) (Munich).

AMELING, W. 1985: Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 27) (Bonn).

DITTEN, H. 1993: Ethnische Verschiebungen zwischen der Balkanhalbinsel und Kleinasien vom Ende des 6. Bis zur zweiten Hälfte des 9. Jahrhunderts (Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten 59) (Berlin).

BARNES, T.D. 1982: The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, MA).

FEISSEL, D. and KAYGUSUZ, İ. 1985: ‘Un mandement impérial du VIe siècle’. Traveaux et Mémoires 9, 397419.

BECK, H.-G. 1959: Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft XII 2.1) (Munich).

FOSS, C. 1975: ‘The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity’. English Historical Review 90, 72147.

BELKE, K. 1984: Tabula Imperii Byzantini 4: Galatien und Lykaonien (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 172) (Vienna).

FOSS, C. 1977: ‘Late Antique and Byzantine Ankara’. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31, 27-87.

BELKE, K. 1992: ‘Untersuchungen an der paphlagonsichen Schwarzmeerküste’. In Pillinger, R., Pülz, A. and Vetters, H. (eds.), Die Schwarzmeerküste in der Spätantike und im frühen Mittelalter (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Schriften der Balkan-Kommission, Antiquarische Abteilung 18) (Vienna), 145-54.

FOURMY, M.-H. and LEROY, M. (eds.) 1934: ‘La vie de S. Philarète’. Byzantion 9, 85-170. GREATREX, G. 1995: ‘The Composition of Procopius’ Persian Wars and John the Cappadocian’. Prudentia 27, 1-13. HALDON, J.F. 1979: Recruitment and Conscription in the Byzantine Army, c. 550-950: A Study on the Origins of the Stratiotika Ktemata (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, Sitzungsbericht 357) (Vienna).

BELKE, K. 1996: Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9: Paphlagonien und Honorias (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, Denkschriften 249) (Vienna).

HALDON, J.F. 1984: Byzantine Praetorians. An Administrative, Institutional and Social Survey of the Opsikion and Tagmata, c. 580-900 (Poikila Byzantina 30) (Bonn).

BRANDES, W. 1989: Die Städte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert (Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten 56) (Berlin). BROOKS, E.W. 1898: ‘The Arabs in Asia Minor (641750), from Arabic Sources’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 18, 182-208.

HILD, F. and RESTLE, M. 1981: Tabula Imperii Byzantini 2: Kappadokien (Kappadokia, Charsianon, Sebasteia und Lykandos) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 149) (Vienna).

BRÜGGEMANN, T. 2007: ‘Römische Verwaltung im nomadischen Umfeld. Ethnarchen, Phylarchen und Strategen in der Provinz Arabia vom 1. bis ins 3. 83

HONIGMANN, E. 1939: ‘La liste originale des pères de Nicée’. Byzantion 14, 17-76.

Brüggemann 2009b.

51

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

REMY, B. 1986: L’évolution administrative de l‘Anatolie aux trois premiers siècles de notre ère (Collection du Centre d’études Romaines et Gallo-Romaines n.s. 5) (Lyons).

HUXLEY, G. 1975: ‘The Emperor Michael III and the Battle of Bishop’s Meadow (A.D. 863)’. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 16, 443-50. JONES, A.H.M. 1954: ‘The Date and Value of the Verona List’. Journal of Roman Studies 44, 21-29.

SCHWARCZ, A. 1992: ‘Die gotischen Seezüge des 3. Jahrhunderts’, in: R. Pillinger (Ed. et al.): Die Schwarzmeerküste in der Spätantike und im frühen Mittelalter (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Schriften der Balkan-Kommission, Antiquarische Abteilung 18) (Vienna), 47-57.

JONES, A.H.M. 1964: The Later Roman Empire, 284602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, 3 vols. (Oxford). KAYGUSUZ, I. 1984a: ‘Funerary Epigram of Karzene (Paphlagonia). A Girl Raped by the Goths?’. Epigraphica Anatolica 4, 61-63.

SCHWERTHEIM, E. 2005: Kleinasien in der Antike: Von den Hethitern bis Konstantin (Munich).

KAYGUSUZ, I. 1984b: ‘Inscriptions of Karzene’. Epigraphica Anatolica 4, 63-68.

SOMMER, M. 2008: ‘Der Löwe von Tadmor. Palmyra und der unwahrscheinliche Aufstieg des Septimius Odaenathus’. Historische Zeitschrift 287.2, 281318.

LILIE, R.-J. 1976: Die byzantinische Reaktion auf die Ausbreitung der Araber (Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 22) (Munich).

SPECK, P. 1978: Kaiser Konstantin VI. Die Legitimation einer fremden und der Versuch einer eigenen Herrschaft. Quellenkritische Darstellung von 25 Jahren byzantinischer Geschichte nach dem ersten Ikonoklasmus, 2 vols. (Munich).

LILIE, R.-J. 1977: ‘“Thrakien” und “Thrakesion”. Zur byzantinischen Provinzorganisation am Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts’. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 26, 7-47. LILIE, R.-J. 1984: ‘Die zweihundertjährige Reform. Zu den Anfängen der Themenorganisation im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert’. Byzantinoslavica 45, 27-39, 190-201.

SPECK, P. 1981: Artabasdos, der rechtgläubige Vorkämpfer der göttlichen Lehren: Untersuchungen zur Revolte des Artabasdos und ihrer Darstellung in der byzantinischen Historiographie (Poikila Byzantina 2) (Bonn).

MANSI, J.D. 1769: Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collection (Florence; repr. Graz 1961).

STEIN, E. 1949: Histoire du Bas-Empire 2: De la disparition de l’empire d’occident à la mort de Justinien (476-565) (Paris).

MAREK, C. 1985: ‘Katalog der Inschriften im Museum von Amasra. Mit Anhang: Die Inschriften von Amastris und die angebliche Pompeianische Ära der Stadt’. Epigraphica Anatolica 6, 133-54.

STRATOS, A.N. 1968-80: Byzantium in the Seventh Century, 4 vols. (Amsterdam).

MAREK, C. 1987: ‘Epigraphische Forschungen in Zentralpaphlagonien’. In IV. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 273-78.

STRATOS, A.N. 1979: ‘La première campagne de l’empereur Héraclius contre les Perses’. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 28, 63-74.

MAREK, C. 1989: ‘Amastris. Geschichte, Topographie, archäologische Reste’. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 39, 373-89.

STROBEL, K. 1994: ‘Galatien und seine Grenzregionen’. Asia Minor Studien 12, 29-65.

MAREK, C. 1993: Stadt, Ära und Territorium in PontusBithynia und Nord-Galatia (Istanbuler Forschungen 39) (Tübingen).

SUMMERER, L. 1999: Hellenistische Terrakotten aus Amisos. Ein Beitrag zur Kunstgeschichte des Pontosgebietes (Historica Geographica 13) (Stuttgart).

MARKOPOULOS, A. 1979: ‘La vie de Saint Georges d’Amastris et Photius’. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 28, 75-82.

TREADGOLD, W.T. 1980: ‘Notes on the Numbers and Organization of the Ninth-Century Byzantine Army’. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 21, 269-88.

MITCHELL, S. 1993: Anatolia. Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor 1: The Celts and the Impact of Roman Rule. II: The Rise of the Church (Oxford). OSTROGORSKY, G. 1963: Geschichte byzantinischen Staates (Handbuch Altertumswissenschaften XII 1.2) (Munich).

TREADGOLD, W.T. 1988: The Byzantine Revival, 780842 (Stanford).

des der

WOLFRAM, H. 2001: Die Goten: Von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des sechsen Jahrhunderts. Entwurf einer historischen Ethnogenese (Munich).

POHL, W. 2005: Die Völkerwanderung: Eroberung und Integration (Stuttgart).

52

THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN CERAMICS FROM FIELD SURVEYS AT DEVREK AND ITS ENVIRONS, WEST BLACK SEA REGION OF TURKEY Ertekin DOKSANALTI Arkeoloji Bölümü, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Selçuk Üniversitesi, Alaaddin Keykubat Kampusü, 42031 Konya, Turkey [email protected]

Güngör KARAUĞUZ Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenliği Bölümü, Eğitim Fakültesi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Meram Yerleşkesi, Meram Yeni Yol, Meram, 42090 Konya, Turkey [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract: Numerous ancient settlements of various sizes were discovered during our archaeological field survey in Devrek (Paphlagonia) and its environs in 2004. In some of these settlements Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age (EBA) pottery was collected. The majority of the sherds, however, belong to the Hellenistic, Roman and Late Roman periods. Ancient written sources provide plentiful evidence on the western part of the Turkish Black Sea, but far less on the hinterland. The pottery collected by this survey is therefore of significant help in establishing a chronology of this region. These local and imported wares can also demonstrate the area’s involvement in interregional exchange from the Hellenistic to the Late Roman period. DEVREK VE ÇEVRESİNDE (BATI KARADENİZ BÖLGESİ) GERÇEKLEŞTİRİLEN YÜZEY ARAŞTIRMALARINDA ELE GEÇEN HELLENİSTİK VE ROMA DÖNEMİ SERAMİĞİ Özet: Devrek (Paphlagonia) ve çevresinde 2004 yılında yapılan arkeolojik yüzey araştırmalarında birçok farklı büyüklükte eski yerleşimler saptanmıştır. Bazı yerleşimlerde Geç Kalkolitik ve Erken Bronz Çağı (İTÇ) seramikleri toplanmıştır. Buluntuların çoğu Hellenistik, Roma ve Geç Roma dönemlerine aittir. Antik yazar kaynaklar Anadolu’nun Batı Karadeniz Bölgesi hakkında çok bilgiler verseler de, hinterlant bölgesine fazla değinmezler. Bu yüzden bu yüzey araştırmaları sırasında derlenmiş olan seramik malzeme bölgede bir kronoloji oluşturmak için bir hayli önemlidir. Burada ele geçen yerel ve ithal mallar bölgenin Hellenistik devrinden, Geç Roma devrine kadarki bölgeler arası ticareti göz önüne sermektedir.

Although what has been undertaken in the western part of the Black Sea region of Turkey is still insufficient compared with the intensity of research in other regions of Anatolia, some projects to investigate the archaeological texture hereabouts can be mentioned. Among them are the field surveys examining the pottery of the coastal road stretching from Çerkeş via Katamonu, Taşköprü-Daday, Araç, Safranbolu and Zonguldak to Sinop,6 and research in relation to some archaeological settlements in the Paphlagonia region with Devrek, Ereğli, Filyos and Amasra7 which cover our survey region.8 In addition, there has been some other study into the Hittite-Roman period ceramics in the Bolu, Eflani and Kastamonu regions.9

INTRODUCTION The finds mentioned in this article are from an archaeological field survey conducted in Zonguldak (Devrek, Gökçebey/Tefen, Çaycuma, Ereğli) between 2004 and 2008. The pieces of pottery found in the context of the ‘Zonguldak Regional Field Survey from the 3rd millennium BC to the Roman Period’ project will contribute much to the understanding of the cultures in the region and the neighbouring ones. The northern part of the Black Sea region of Turkey has received less attention than the southern1 with regards to research archaeology and prehistory, and the prehistory and prehistoric cultures of the interior of the region, including Devrek, Gökçebey and Çaycuma, are quite unknown. The study that has taken place on the north Turkish coast has focused on the central part of the Black Sea region, causing the pottery culture thereabouts to be better known – the regions of Amasya-Merzifon,2 Tokat,3 Samsun4 and Sinop5 have been especially fortunate.

The Early Bronze Age, the inscriptions10 and the historical development11 of Ereğli/Heracleia Pontica, which is included in our survey region, have all been 5

Doonan et al. 1999; Dönmez 1999. Kökten 1948, 225. 7 Belke 1996. 8 Anderson 1900; Gökoğlu 1950. 9 Burney 1956; Yaman 1991; Çakır 1995; Özdoğan et al. 1996; Matthews 1988; 1999. 10 Jonnes 1994. 11 Dörner and Hoepfner 1962; Hoepfner 1966; Burstein 1976; Bittner 1998; Efe and Mercan 2001. 6

1

Hind 1984; 1993. Özsait 1988; 1989; 1996; 1998. 3 Durbin 1971; Özsait 1990; 1994. 4 Alkım 1981; Alkım et al. 1988; Bilgi 1990; 1994; Doonan et al. 1999; 2000; Bilgi et al. 2002; Bilgi et al. 2005. 2

53

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 1: Settlements and ceramics finds. (1). Türbe Tepe (hill); (2). Geriş; (3). Kadıköy Necropolis; (4). Pınarönü village; (5). Kozluçay; (6). Hışıroğlu village; (7). Kemerler village; (8). Kirse; (9) Belen; (10). Tepecikören; (11). Erenler; (12). Altuvaklar; (13). Peksimet; (14). Ahatlı; (15). Düztarla; (16). Kirenlik; (17). Emdüller; (18). Bodaç

examined. There have been publications of various sorts on the excavation/field surveys12 and history of Amasra,13 since 2006 on Filyos/Hisarönü Tios,14 and some works focused on Çaycuma and its environs.15

been performed. However, in recent years an attempt has been underway to uncover, at least in part, the region’s past through analysis of Hellenistic and Roman period ceramic finds, most of them housed in the regional museums along the Black Sea coast.16

A few years ago, a Roman period floor mosaic was found in the village of Kadıoğlu in Çaycuma county by a local digging his garden. The Ereğli Archaeology Museum started rescue excavations in the region and these continue.

The ceramics found in the ancient settlements discovered in the course of the investigation of the inner parts of Zonguldak by the Zonguldak Regional Field Survey project give us some idea of local and imported pottery types in the region.

As can be understood from these limited studies, no extensive analysis of the pottery of the region has yet

Settlements have been located in a mountainous region with dense vegetation (Fig. 1). These minor rural settlements are on a line along the Filyos river and are at short distances from each other. Based on field finds and

12

Hill 1990a-b; 1991; Hill and Crow 1992a-b; 1993. Eyice 1965. 14 Esen 2003; Sönmez and Öztürk 2008; Öztürk 2008; Atasoy 2008. 15 Marek 1988; 2003; French 1984, 54; 1988, 358-61. 13

16

54

Laflı 2006.

E. DOKSANALTI AND G. KARAUĞUZ: THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN CERAMICS FROM FIELD SURVEYS AT DEVREK…

the topography, these were rural settlements engaged in agriculture and were dependent on the larger centres of the Black Sea coast (such as Heracleia Pontica). The agricultural activity discovered within or around some settlements proves this. Some of the settlements along the Filyos present Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age ceramic finds. Evidence such as this shows that there was long-term settlement of the interior of the western Black Sea region of Turkey, 80-90 km from the coast, but also that these settlements were mostly inhabited during Late Hellenistic, Roman and Late Antique periods. It may be inferred from the finds that the character of these settlements barely changed during these periods.

Roman cooking ware discovered in these small settlements around Zonguldak. Cultural interaction between the regions clearly complemented their geographical proximity.

THE CERAMIC FINDS

No. 5: Düztarla. Light reddish-brown (5YR 7/6) clay with thin pebble and some mica (Fig. 2).

Cooking pot, with everted rim and curved wall. Slightly diagonal sloping rim and a globular body. Form has close similarities to cooking pots in Saraçhane17 dated to the 5th century AD. Nos. 1-2: Ahatlı. Light brown (2.5 YR 7/6) clay with thin pebble and some silver mica. Thin, light brown slip (Fig. 2). Nos. 3-4: Çolakpehlivan. Light reddish-brown (5YR 7/6) clay with thin pebble and some mica (Fig. 2).

Most of the ceramic finds made by our project from the survey of settlements in the inner parts of Zonguldak, especially those along the Filyos, are items of daily use and storage pots. It is natural that this type of pottery is common in settlements that are understood to have engaged in rural and agricultural production. Furthermore, based on their fabric features, most of the pieces found were local products.

Cooking pot, with thickened rim triangular in section, slightly flat or concave on top. Not common in Anatolia, but this type of cooking pot with globular body is found in Late Antique contexts such as Stobi, Carthage18 and Saraçhane.19 Similarity especially with pottery of Stobi and Saraçhane is significant as it shows relations of region with Thrace. No. 6: Ahatlı. Light brown (2.5 YR 7/6) clay with thin pebble and some silver mica. Thin, light brown slip Fig. 2).

The bulk of the material is of Roman and Late Roman date, though a lesser quantity is Late Hellenistic. In the light of these finds, it seems that the region was intensely populated through Roman times and late antiquity.

No. 7: Kirenlik. Light brown (2.5 YR 7/6) clay with thin pebble and some silver mica. Thin, light brown slip (Fig. 2).

The similarity in the fabric of most of the pieces found in different settlements of the region shows that they were produced of clay from the same or neighbouring beds. The clay is mostly rough and hard; that used in the daily use and storage pots is light brown (Munsell SCC 2.5 YR 7/6; 2.5 YR 7/8; 5YR 7/6), light reddish-brown (5 YR 6/4), red (2.5 YR 4/6) or dark grey (10 YR 4/1). There are some small thin pebbles, quartz and thick or thin lime particles in the clay. In a lesser number of samples, there are some thin mica particles. While thin slip applied with a dipping technique is seen in some daily use pottery, most of it does not have slip. A similar type of clay is used in the fine wares that form a smaller proportion of finds.

Casserole, with upwardly angled rim and wide sloping shallow body. Form has shallow and wide, upwardly sloping body and upwardly angled rim. At interior juncture of rim and wall often a slight rise, almost a flange. These types common mainly in Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods.20 Late Roman use of this type, which existed in Greece and western Anatolia through the Roman empire, is rare.21 Some casseroles dated to Hellenistic and Late Roman periods from Ephesus and Cnidus22 are significant as they point to the continuing ceramic trade and interaction between western Anatolia and the western Black Sea region of Turkey. Nos. 8-10: Ahatlı. Light brown (2.5 YR 7/6) clay with thin pebble and some silver mica. Thin, light brown slip (Fig. 3).

COARSE WARE

Nos. 11-12: Düztarla. Light brown (2.5 YR 7/6) clay with thin pebble and some silver mica. Thin, light brown slip (Fig. 3).

Cooking Ware In particular, the well-known types of western Anatolia were copied in the cooking ware for daily use that was produced in the region from the Hellenistic period to late antiquity. Significant are the exact local copies of the West Anatolian pottery known as the Aegean Type for the cooking pots and casseroles of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, most of them dated to the Roman (Imperial) and Late Antique periods. Other types of cooking ware produced through these periods are also seen in the region. Another significant point is the similarity between the finds at Saraçhane and the Late

No 13: Kirenlik. Light brown (2.5 YR 7/6) clay with thin pebble and some silver mica. Thin, light brown slip (Fig. 3). 17

Harrison and Fıratlı 1966, 238, fig. H.1-2. Anderson-Stajanović 1992, 139, form 8, nos. 1231-1236; Fulford and Peacock 1984, fig. 70, no. 31. 19 Hayes 1992, 11.13, 13.1-1, fig. 32. 20 Gassner 1997, nos. 368- 369, pl. 30. 21 Sackett 1992, 170, A2 78 pl. 134; Meriç 2002, 100, 105, K645, pl. 54. 22 Gassner 1997, 178, nos. 743-744. 18

55

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 2: Cooking pots. (1).-(2). Ahatlı; (3).-(4). Çolakpehlivan; (5). Düztarla; (6). Ahatlı; (7). Kirenlik

Aegean and Mediterranean regions.24 Though having a similarity with Aegean wares with regard to general formal features, the rim form of Black Sea ware is shorter and has a slighter flange.

Plain Ware Formed a great part of the pottery found in the settlement areas. This group has a parallel development with the cooking pots historically and are dated between the 2nd century BC and the 5th-6th centuries AD. All pieces are local products.

No. 14: Ahatlı. Light brown (2.5 YR 7/6) clay with thin pebble, lime and some silver mica. Thin, light brown slip (Fig. 3). No. 15: Kirenlik. Light brown (2.5 YR 7/6) clay with thin pebble, lime and some silver mica. Thin, light brown slip (Fig. 3).

Pot, upwardly rising rim, short neck, and globular body flanged in the interior juncture of the body. This type commonly used within Aegean cooking ware.23 Produced in 1st-3rd centuries AD and 5th-6th centuries AD in

24

23

Gassner 1997, 174-75, nos. 717-719, pl. 56; Meriç 2002, 112, K783785, pl. 69: Isler 1969, fig. 36; Riley 1979, 271, no. 550, fig. 106.

Meriç 2000, fig. 8.2.

56

E. DOKSANALTI AND G. KARAUĞUZ: THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN CERAMICS FROM FIELD SURVEYS AT DEVREK…

Fig. 3: Casseroles. (8).-(10). Ahatlı; (11).-(12). Düztarla; (13). Kirenlik. Pots. (14). Ahatlı; (15). Kirenlik

Pot, globular body with upwardly raised and outwardly extended edges. Edge that extends widely outwards is thickened at tip. Globular body. Is local imitation of Aegean-type vessels.

Large bowl, with knobbed rim and shallow conical body. This type with quite thick walls is seen in Late Antique. Bowls very similar to finds at Saraçhane and Ephesus.25 No 20: Ahatlı. Hard, light brown (2.5 YR 7/6) clay with thin lime and few mica. Thin reddish slip (Fig. 4).

Nos. 16-17: Ahatlı. Light reddish-brown (5 YR 6/4) clay with small lime and few mica particles (Fig. 4).

Large bowl, with outwardly sloping walls and knobbed rim. The rim of conical bowls widely sloping outwards is

Nos. 18-19: Düztarla. Light brown (2.5 YR 7/6) clay with thin pebble, lime and some silver mica. Thin, light brown slip (Fig. 4).

25

57

Hayes 1992, 50.38, fig. 77: Gassner 1997, no. 674.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 4: Pots. (16).-(17). Ahatlı; (18).-(19). Düztarla. Large bowls. (20).-(22) Ahatlı

Nos. 24-25: Düztarla. Hard, light brown (7.5 YR 6/4) clay with thin and small lime and few mica. Light reddish-brown slip (Fig. 5).

knobbed. Finds indicate this is one of the most common types among plain and coarse wares for daily use in region. This group and similar ones found in Late Roman contexts are dated between the 4th and 7th centuries AD.

Fine Ware

Nos. 21-22: Ahatlı. Hard, light brown (2.5 YR 7/6) clay with quartz particle, thin lime and few mica. Thin reddish-brown slip (Fig. 4).

The pieces of the small number of fine ware discovered in the settlements mentioned are mostly local products, although a few Late Hellenistic-Early Roman Eastern Sigillata A were find and some Late Roman C vessels. The local fine wares from the Late Hellenistic period

No. 23: Bodaç. Hard, light reddish-brown (5 YR 6/5) clay with thin and small lime and few mica. Light red slip (Fig. 5). 58

E. DOKSANALTI AND G. KARAUĞUZ: THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN CERAMICS FROM FIELD SURVEYS AT DEVREK…

Fig. 5: Large bowls. (23). Bodaç; (24).-(25). Düztarla. Türbe Tepe. (26). Cup or bowl with curving body and incurved rim; (27). Hemispherical cup with plain rim; (28). Cooking pot. Kadıköy. (29). Large, shallow bowl with curving body and incurved rim

mostly imitate Eastern Sigillata A forms. The local wares are dated from the Late Hellenistic and Late Roman periods.

Türbe Tepe: This is a 200 x 200 x 25 m hill (tell) near Müstakimler and Hatipoğlu villages in Devrek county, on the old Zonguldak road south of the Devrek industrial zone (Fig. 1).

The comments about the similarity in fabric made above apply in these cases as well. The clay is fine and hard. There are some small thin lime and few mica particles in the clay. The slip which was applied by dipping is mostly thin and some times imitates Eastern Sigillata A or other red-slipped wares.

No. 26: Cup or bowl with curving body and incurved rim. The shape and slip are purely Late Hellenistic. Light reddish-brown clay with small lime. Thin, brownish-red slip. Late Hellenistic (Fig. 5).

59

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 6: Tepecikören. (30). Conical bowl; (31). Cooking pot. Erenler. (32). Bowl with incurved rim; (33). Hemispherical bowl with slightly vertical and incurved rim; (34). Cooking pot. Emdüller. (35). Bowl with out turned rim

No. 27: Hemispherical cup with plain rim. Eastern Sigillata A: Hayes form 22. Fine, pale pinkish-buff clay with very small lime. Semi-lustrous reddishbrown slip (Fig. 5).

Geriş: Site. North-west of Mekekler village, Devrek county (Fig. 1). Kadıköy Necropolis: In the Güney site, 1 km north of old milk factory and 1 km south-west of Kadıköy village, Devrek county (Fig. 1).

No 28: Cooking pot, broad globular body with vertical short rim. Hard, reddish-yellow (5YR 6/6) clay with large lime and small mica. Dated to Roman period (Fig. 5).

No. 29: Large, shallow bowl with curving body and incurved rim. Hard, light reddish-brown (5YR 6/4) 60

E. DOKSANALTI AND G. KARAUĞUZ: THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN CERAMICS FROM FIELD SURVEYS AT DEVREK…

clay with small lime. Thin, semi-lustrous reddishbrown slip. Shape and slip are purely Late Hellenistic (Fig. 5).

Altuvaklar: Much Roman pottery observed in the field near the Altuvaklar district mosque in Osman Beyler village, Çaydeğirmeni (Fig. 1).

Pınarönü Village: Settlement in Yas Tarla, 1 km west of the Kevkeroğlu district of Pınarönü (Akpınar) village, Devrek county (Fig. 1).

Peksimet: Some Roman pottery pieces were observed 100 m west of the threshing field of the village and in the Örencik site north-east of Kozluçay fortress in the Peksimet district of Gerze town, Devrek county (Fig. 1).

Kozluçay: Fortress settlement in Kozluçay village, about 6 km from Gerze town (Fig. 1). Hışıroğlu Village: At the Kabali site in the Kamburoğlu district of Hışıroğlu village, Devrek county. There is now a building on this settlement (Fig. 1).

Ahatlı: Roman pottery pieces in large numbers observed in Ellezi cemetery 5 km from the Gemeçler district of Ahatlı village, Çaycuma county; and in field opposite Çaycuma industrial zone (Fig. 1).

Kemerler Village: At the Denizyeri site in the Karaahmetoğlu district of Kemerler village, Devrek county (Fig. 1).

Düztarla: Plenty of Roman-Late Roman pottery observed at the Düztarla site, Dursunlar village, Çaycuma county (Fig. 1).

Kirse: Kirse site in Yazıcıoğlu village, Devrek county (Fig. 1).

Kirenlik: Significant, large number of Roman-Late Roman pottery pieces about 600 m south-west of Düztarla settlement of Dursunlar village and at the Kirenlik site (Fig. 1).

Belen: 200 m south of Asar Hill in Belen site in the Belen district of Bılık village, Devrek county. Roman period pottery pieces observed in field (Fig. 1).

Emdüller: A lot of Roman period pottery was observed in the Tepekıran site between the Çürükçüler district of Dursunlar village and Emdüller District of Hacıbadi village, Çaycuma county (Fig. 1).

Tepecikören: Much Roman and Late Roman pottery observed on about 3 ha of the Tepecikören site 300 m east of the Çavuşoğlu district, Çaydeğirmeni (Fig. 1).

No. 35; Bowl with out turned rim. It has slightly conical and shallow body. Fine and hard, reddish-brown (5 YR 6/4) clay with small lime particles. Thin reddishbrown slip (Fig. 6).

No 30: Conical bowl. Fine and hard, reddish-brown clay with small lime. Thin reddish-brown slip. Imitated Eastern Sigillata A: Hayes form 27 and the other Late Hellenistic forms (Fig. 6).26

No. 36: Large bowl with out turned rim and conical body. Rough and hard, light brown clay with lime and pebble particles. Unslipped (Fig. 7).

No. 31: Cooking pot, upwardly rising rim, short neck, and globular body flanged in the interior juncture of the body. Fine and hard, light brown clay with lime and quartz particles (Fig. 6).

Bodaç: Large quantity of Roman pottery discovered in fortress set on hill now called Bodaç (measures 125 m east-west and 80 m north-south), 100 m south of Gaziler village and 3 km south of Gökçebey county (Fig. 1).

Erenler: Many Roman pottery pieces observed at the Erenler site of Çaydeğirmeni Çavuşoğlu village, 100 m north-west of this site and 200 m west, near north side of Erenler fountain (Fig. 1).

No. 37: Large dishes with incurved rim. Hard, fine cream clay with lime particles. Covered with lustrous dark red-brown slip. Eastern Sigillata A: Hayes form 2A. Late Hellenistic (Fig. 7).

No. 32: Bowl with incurved rim. Hard, light reddishbrown (5YR 6/4) clay with small lime. Thin, semilustrous reddish-brown slip. Well-known Late Hellenistic form.27 Dated to Late Hellenistic period (Fig. 6).

No. 38: Large dishes with incurved rim. Fine greyish brown clay with lime particles. It covered with thin and dull greyish-black slip. Local imitation of Eastern Sigillata A: Hayes form 2B. Late Hellenistic (Fig. 7).

No. 33: Hemispherical bowl with slightly vertical and incurved rim. Fine, hard, greyish-light brown clay with small lime and pebble particles. Thin, dull greyish-brown slip. Late Hellenistic (Fig. 6).

No. 39: Hemispherical bowl. Hard, Fine yellowish cream clay with lime particles. It covered with thick semi lustrous reddish-brown slip. Eastern Sigillata A: Hayes form 22B. Late Hellenistic (Fig. 7).

No. 34: Cooking pot, upwardly rising, short neck and globular body flanged in the interior juncture of the body. Fine and hard, light brown (7.5 YR 6/4) clay with lime and quartz particles (Fig. 6).

No. 40: Hemispherical large bowl. Fine greyish brown clay with lime particles. It covered with thin and dull greyish-black slip. Local imitation of Eastern Sigillata A: Hayes form 22B. Late Hellenistic (Fig. 7).

26 27

No. 41: Conical deep bowl. Fine greyish brown clay with lime particles. It covered with thin and dull greyish-

Hayes 1985, form 27; Gassner 1997, nos. 190-1 94, pl. 12. Gassner 1997, no. 80, pl. 5; Meriç 2002, K 1-12, pl. 1.

61

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 7: Emdüller. (36). Large bowl with out turned rim and conical body. Bodaç. (37). Large dishes with incurved rim; (38). Large dishes with incurved rim. (39). Hemispherical bowl; (40). Hemispherical large bowl

black slip. Local imitation of Eastern Sigillata A: Hayes form 16. Late Hellenistic (Fig. 8).

ALKIM, U.B. 1981: ‘İkiztepe 1980’. Anatolian Studies 31, 188-91.

Nos. 42-44: Large dishes. Middle hard, fine reddish brown (2.5 YR 6/8) clay with lime particles. Dull, thick reddish-brown slip. Two or three bands. Hayes form 3 (Fig. 8).28

ALKIM, U.B., ALKIM, H. and BILGI, Ö. 1988: İkiztepe I: Birinci ve İkinci Dönem Kazıları/The First and Second Seasons Excavations (1974-1975) (TTKY V.39) (Ankara). ANDERSON, J.G.C. 1900: ‘Pontica’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 20, 151-58.

Bibliography

ANDERSON-STAJANOVIĆ, V.R. 1992: Stobi: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Results of the Joint American-Yugoslav Archaeological Investigations, 1970-1981, vol. 1 (Princeton/Oxford).

Abbreviations TTKY Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları. 28

ATASOY, S. 2008: ‘Zonguldak-Filyos (Tios/Teion/Tion/ Tianos/Tieum) Kurtarma Kazısı’. In Delemen, İ. et al.

Hayes 1972, 329-38.

62

E. DOKSANALTI AND G. KARAUĞUZ: THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN CERAMICS FROM FIELD SURVEYS AT DEVREK…

Fig. 8: Bodaç. (41). Conical deep bowl; (42).-(44). Large dishes

(eds.), EUERGETES: Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasoğlu’na 65. Yaş Armağanı (Istanbul), 91-97.

In XXII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara), 115-24.

BELKE, K. 1996: Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9: Paphlagonien und Honorias (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 249) (Vienna).

BITTNER, A. 1998: Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in Herakleia Pontike: eine Polis zwischen Tyrannis und Selbstverwaltung (Asia Minor Studien 30) (Bonn). BURNEY, C.A. 1956: ‘Northern Anatolia Before Classical Times’. Anatolian Studies 6, 179-203.

BILGI, Ö. 1990: ‘1974 ile 1996 Kazı Dönemlerinde Bulunan Tunç Silahların Işığı Altında İkiztepe’nin Önasya’daki Yeri’. In X. Türk Tarih Kongresi, vol. 1 (TTKY IX.10) (Ankara), 71-77.

BURSTEIN, S.M. 1976: Outpost of Hellenism: The Emergence of Heraclea on the Black Sea (Berkeley). ÇAKIR, N. 1995: ‘Kastamonu İli Taşköprü İlçesi Pompeiopolis (Zımbıllı Tepesi Höyüğü) 1993’. In V. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 25-28 Nisan, 1994 (Ankara), 39-65.

BILGI, Ö. 1994: ‘Samsun Müzesi Protohistorik Çağ Silahları ve Orta Karadeniz Bölgesi Maden Sanatı Hakkında Yeni Gözlemler’. In XI. Türk Tarih Kongresi, vol. 1 (TTKY IX.11) (Ankara), 253-68.

DÖNMEZ, Ş. 1999: ‘Sinop-Samsun-Amasya İlleri Yüzey Araştırması 1997’. In XVI. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 513-23.

BILGI, Ö., ATASOY, S., DONMEZ, Ş. and SUMMERER, L. 2002: ‘Samsun (Amisos) Bölgesinin Kültürel Gelişimi Projesi İle İlgili Yüzey Araştırması2000’. In XIX. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara), 279-96.

DOONAN, O.P., GANTOS, A.J., HIEBERT, F.J., YAYCIOĞLU, A. and BESONEN, M. 2000: ‘Sinop Bölgesel Arkeoloji Araştırması 1998: Karasu Vadi Araştırması’. In XVII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara), 345-56.

BILGI, Ö., DÖNMEZ, Ş. and ULUGERGERLI, E.U. 2005: ‘Samsun İli 2003 Dönemi Yüzey Araştırması’. 63

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

HILL, S.J. and CROW, J. 1992a: ‘Amasra Yüzey Araştırması Ağustos 1990’. In IX. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 83-86.

DOONAN, O.P., GANTOS, A.J., SMART, D. and HIEBERT, F.J. 1999: ‘Sinop İli Yoğun Alan Araştırması’. In XVI. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 359-72. DÖRNER, F.K. and HOEPFNER, W. 1962: ‘Vorlaufiger Bericht Über Eine Reise in Bithynien 1961’, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 565-92. DURBIN, G.E.S. 1971: ‘Iron Age Pottery From the Provinces of Tokat and Sivas’. Anatolian Studies 21, 99-124. EFE, T. and MERCAN, A. 2001: ‘Yassıkaya: Karadeniz Ereğli (Heraclea Pontica) Yakınlarında Bir Tunç Çağı Yerleşmesi’. In XXIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 361-74. ESEN, İ. 2003: ‘Antik Tios/Tieion/Villaios (Filyos) Kenti’. Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi 2002 Yıllığı, 196-224. EYICE, S. 1965: Küçük Amasra Tarihi ve Eski Eserler Klavuzu (Ankara). FRENCH, D. 1984: ‘The Location of Cretia Flaviopolis in Bithynia’. Epigraphica Anatolica 3, 49-58. FRENCH, D 1988: Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor, Fasc. 2: An Interim Catalogue of Milestones, parts 1-2 (British School of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 9) (BAR International Series 392) (Oxford). FULFORD, M.G. and PEACOCK, D.P.S. 1984: Excavation at Carthage. The British Mission, vol. 1.2: The Pottery and Other Ceramic Objects from Site (Sheffield). GASSNER, V. 1997: Das Südtor der Tetragonos-Agora: Keramik und Kleinfunde (Forschungen in Ephesos XII.1.1) (Vienna).

HILL, S.J. and CROW, J. 1992b: ‘Survey at Amasra’. In IX. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 87-92. HILL, S.J. and CROW, J. 1993: ‘1991 Yılı Amasra Yüzey Araştırması’. In X. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 19-28. HIND, J.G.F. 1984: ‘Greek and Barbarian Peoples on the Shores of the Black Sea’. Archaeological Reports for 1983-1984, 71-97. HIND, J.G.F. 1993: ‘Archaeology of the Greeks and Barbarian Peoples around the Black Sea, 1982-1992’. Archaeological Reports for 1992-1993, 82-112. HOEPFNER, W. 1966: Herakleia Pontike-Ereğli: Eine baugeschichtliche Untersuchung (Forschungen an der Nordküste Kleinasiens. Ergänzungsbände zu den Tituli Asiae Minoris 2.1) (Graz/Vienna/Cologne). JONNES, L. 1994: The Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica (Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 47) (Bonn). KÖKTEN, I.K. 1948: ‘1947 Yılı Araştırmaları’. Belleten 12, 223-26.

Tarihöncesi

LAFLI, E. 2006: ‘Güney Karadeniz Kıyılarında Helenistik ve Roma Dönemleri Seramik Arkeolojisi: Araştırmaların Ulaştığı Nokta ve Genel Değerlendirmeler’. In Erciyas, D.B. and Koparal, E. (eds.) Karadeniz Araştırmaları Sempozyum Bildirileri, 1617 Nisan 2004, Ankara (Istanbul), 169-88. MAREK, C. 1988: ‘Forschungen im Zonguldak’. In V. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara), 40307. MAREK, C. 2003: Pontus et Bithynia: Die römischen Provinzen im Norden Kleinasiens (Mainz).

GÖKOĞLU, A. 1950: Paphlagonia (Kastamonu, Sinop, Çankırı, Safranbolu, Bartın, Bolu, Gerede, Mudurnu, İskilip, Bafra, Alaçam ve Civarı) (Kastomonu).

MATTHEWS, R. 1988: ‘Project Paphlagonia’. Anatolian Archaeology 4, 21-22. MATTHEWS, R. 1999: ‘Regional Survey in Paphlagonia’. Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Konferansları 1998, 66-75. MERIÇ, R. 2000: ‘Ein ephesischer Schachtbrunnen: Chronologie und ausgewählte Funde der späthellenistisch-römischen Zeit’. Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 36, 91-96.

HARRISON, R.M. and FIRATLI, N. 1966: ‘Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul: Second and Third Preliminary Reports’. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 20, 223-38. HAYES, J.W. 1972: Late Roman Pottery (London). HAYES, J.W. 1985: ‘Sigillate orientali’. In Enciclopedia dell'arte antica, classica e orientale. Atlante delle forme ceramiche, vol. 2: Ceramica fine romana nel Bacino mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo Impero) (Rome), 1-96. HAYES, J.W. 1992: Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, vol. 2: The Pottery (Princeton/Washington, DC). HILL, S.J. 1990a: ‘Preliminary Survey at Amasra, Zonguldak’. In VII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 81-86. HILL, S.J. 1990b: ‘Zonguldak Amasra’da Ön Araştırma’. In VII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 8792. HILL, S.J. 1991: ‘Survey Work at Amasra, 1989’. In VIII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 31132.

MERIÇ, R. 2002: Späthellenistisch-römische Keramik und Kleinfunde aus einem Schachtbrunnen am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos (Forschungen in Ephesos IX.3) (Vienna). ÖZDOĞAN, A., MARRO, C. and TIBET, A. 1996: ‘1995 Yılı Kastamonu Yüzey Araştırması’. In XIV. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara), 30330. ÖZSAIT, M. 1988: ‘1986 Yılı Amasya-Ladik Çevresi Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları’. In V. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara), 239-57. ÖZSAIT, M. 1989: ‘1987 Yılı Amasya- Suluova Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları’. In VI. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 287-301. 64

E. DOKSANALTI AND G. KARAUĞUZ: THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN CERAMICS FROM FIELD SURVEYS AT DEVREK…

RILEY J.A. 1979: Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice), vol. 2 (Tripoli).

ÖZSAIT, M. 1990: ‘1988 Yılı Tokat-Erbaa Çevresi tarihöncesi Araştırmaları’. In XI. Türk Tarih Kongresi, vol. 1 (TTKY IX.11) (Ankara), 113-17.

SACKETT L.H. 1992: Knossos from Greek City to Roman Colony: Excavations at the Unexplored Mansion II (British School at Athens suppl. 21) (Oxford).

ÖZSAIT, M. 1996: ‘1994 Yılı Amasya-Taşova Yüzey Araştırması’. In XIII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 273-92.

SÖNMEZ, İ.F. and ÖZTÜRK, B. 2008: ‘Batı Karadeniz’de Bir Antik Kent Kazısı: Tios (Filyos)’. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 127, 133-46.

ÖZSAIT, M. 1998: ‘1995 ve 1996 Yıllarında AmasyaMerzifon ve Gümüşhacıköy Yüzey Araştırmaları’. In XV. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara), 143-62.

YAMAN, Z. 1991: ‘Kastamonu İli Taşköprü İlçesi Pompeiopolis (Zımbıllı Tepesi Höyüğü) 1984’. In I. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 19-20 Nisan, 1990 (Ankara), 63-111.

ÖZTÜRK, B. 2008: ‘Kuruluşundan Bizans Devri Sonuna Kadar Tios Kenti’. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 128, 63-78.

65

A NEW EXCAVATION IN PONTIC CAPPADOCIA: AMASYA-OLUZ HÖYÜK. PRELIMINARY RESULTS FOR THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD AND IRON AGE LAYERS* Şevket DÖNMEZ Arkeoloji Bölümü, Protohistorya ve Önasya Arkeolojisi Anabilim Dalı, Edebiyat Fakültesi, İstanbul Üniversitesi, Ordu Cad. No. 196, Laleli, 34459 Istanbul, Turkey [email protected]

Abstract: Oluz Höyük, in Amasya province, lies in the landward part of Turkey’s Central Black Sea region, 27 km along the Çorum highway within the Gökhöyük agricultural establishment. It measures 280 x 260 m (overall 45,000 m²) and is 15 m higher than the ground level. The work carried out at Oluz Höyük in the 2007 season was in three phases: preparation of a topographical plan; geophysical research; and archaeological excavation (carried out in two spots: Trench A and Trench B). Trench A is at the highest point of the höyük and is located on the west side. Three architectural layers and 12 human skeletons were uncovered. Operations in Trench B on the east side of the höyük were stepped operations. In this section, six architectural layers were discovered. Overall, an area of 600 m² was investigated in two trenches for 31 days. Evaluation of coins and pottery indicated that the first layers of Trenches A and B were coeval. In this context the 0 layer of Oluz Höyük could be dated to the mediaeval period the first architectural layer to the Hellenistic period (end of the 2nd century BC and beginning of the 1st); the second to the Late Phase of the Late Iron Age (4th and 3rd centuries BC); the third and fourth, discovered in Trench B, to the Early Phase of the Late Iron Age (6th and 5th centuries BC); the fifth to the Middle Iron Age (7th century BC); and the sixth to either the Early Iron Age or Late Bronze Age, in other words to the Hittite Empire period.

PONTICA CAPPADOCIA'DA BÖLGESİNDE YENİ BİR KAZI: AMASYA OLUZ HÖYÜK HELLENİSTİK KATMANLARI İÇİN GEÇİCİ SONUÇLAR VE DEMİR ÇAĞ KATMANLARI Özet: Amasya İli’ndeki Oluz Höyük Orta Karadeniz Bölgesinin iç bölgesinde olup, Çorum karayolunun 27. Kilometresinde Gökhöyük tarım bölgesinde bulunmaktadır. 280 x 260 m’lik (yaklaşık 45.000 m²) hacimli ve yerden 15 m yükseklikte bir höyüktür. Oluz Höyük’te 2007’de gerçekleştirilen kazılarda üç konuda çalışılmıştır: topografik bir planın hazırlanması, arkeojeofizik araştırma ve (A ve B Açmalarında) arkeolojik kazı. A Açması höyüğün en yüksek noktasıdır ve höyüğün batı tarafında bulunur. Burada 3 mimari tabaka ve 12 insan iskeleti bulunmuştur. Höyüğün doğu tarafında bulunan B Açması’ndaki çalışmalar basamaklı olarak sürdürülmüştür. Bu alanda 6 adet mimari tabaka bulunmuştur. 2 açmada 31 günde toplam 600 m²’lik bir alan incelenmiştir. Bulunan sikke ve seramiklerin değerlendirilmesi sonucu A ve B açmalarının ilk katlarının çağdaş olduğu saptanmıştır. Oluz Höyük’ün 0 katmanı Ortaçağ’a tarihlenmektedir; ilk mimari tabaka ise Hellenistik Çağ’dandır (İ.Ö. 2. yy.’ın sonu ve 1. yy.’ın başı); ikinci tabaka Geç Demir Çağı’nın son seviyesidir (İ.Ö. 4. ve 3. yy.); üçüncü ve dördüncü tabakalar B Açması’nda bulunmuştur ve Geç Demir Çağı’nın erken evresine (İ.Ö. 6.-5. yy.) tarihlenir; beşinci tabaka Orta Demir Çağı’na (İ.Ö. 7. yy.) ve altıncı tabaka Erken Demir Çağı ya da Geç Bronz Çağı’na aittir, bir başka deyişle Hitit İmparatorluk Çağı’ndandır.

GENERAL INFORMATION ON OLUZ HÖYÜK*

99.2 On the other hand, H.H. von der Osten, who also surveyed around Amasya within the frame of his surveys to the west of and within the great bend of the River Halys before starting the excavations at Alişar Höyük, mentioned that he visited a largish höyük on the edge of the Olas plains3 but he fails to record anything else about it. This höyük is probably Oluz Höyük. Von der Osten also added that a German family which had lived on its own farm on the plain for the past 33 years helped him during his surveys.4 Today, the land of the Gökhöyük Agricultural Operation Management is also known as the

Amasya province is located in the interior part of the Central Black Sea region of Turkey and Oluz Höyük, also known as Yassı Höyük or Tepetarla Höyüğü, is found within the borders of the Gökhöyük Agricultural Operation Management at the 27-kilometre mark on the Amasya-Çorum road (see Fig. 1). Oluz Höyük (Fig. 2), which lies in the fertile Geldingen plains bordered by the River Çekerek (Zuliya1 of the Hittite texts or ancient Skylax), an important tributary of the Yeşilırmak (the ancient Iris), was identified during our surveys in 1997-

2

Dönmez 2000a, 234; 2000b, 331; 2001a, 303; 2002a, 270-71; 2002b, 885; 2005a, 472-73; 2005b, 67. 3 von der Osten 1927, 140. 4 von der Osten 1927, 139.

*

I would like to express my thanks to my student Gözde Dinarlı for her help. 1 Alp 1980, 48, 58.

67

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 1: Location of Oluz Höyük

Middle Bronze Age/Assyrian Trade Colonies period and Old Hittite period (2000-1450 BC), the Late Bronze Age/Hittite Imperial period (1450-1190 BC), the Middle Iron Age/Late Phrygian period (650-330 BC), and the Hellenistic period (330-30 BC), into the mediaeval period (10th-14th centuries AD). In addition, some flint tools and flakes as well as potsherds obtained during this campaign’s work suggested evidence for the Early (55004500 BC) and Late (4500-3500 BC) phases of the Chalcolithic period as well as the Late Neolithic (65005500 BC).

‘German farm’ among the locals. Oluz Höyük is 2 km north-west of Gözlek Village, about 5 km east of Toklucak (former Oluz) Village, and 3 km south of Amasya-Çorum carriage road (see Fig. 1). The mound itself is almost round and measures 280 x 260 m; it rises about 15 m above the plain level (478.78 m above the sea level); and thus covers an area of ca. 45,000 m2. Potsherds observed on its surface during our surveys have evinced a sequence of settlements starting from the Early Bronze Age (3500-2000 BC) and continuing through

68

Ş. DÖNMEZ: A NEW EXCAVATION IN PONTIC CAPPADOCIA: AMASYA-OLUZ HÖYÜK. PRELIMINARY RESULTS…

Sea region, incorporating results from excavations formerly carried out at Samsun-Dündartepe (Öksürüktepe), Tekkeköy and Kavak-Kaledoruğu as well as at Sinop-Kocagöz Höyük. In addition, the rescue excavation at Sinop-Boyabat Kovuklukaya in 2002 brought to light a building with stone foundations, the pottery finds from which have confirmed the reliability of the chronology presented by İkiztepe. The fact that handmade Early Bronze Age type pottery is found together with wheel-made Middle Bronze Age pottery with fine-strained paste is reminiscent of cultural Layer I of İkiztepe, labelled the Transitional period,6 which comprised six building layers and is dated to 2100-1750 BC, i.e. Middle Bronze Age I and II.7 This cultural layer had wheel-made pottery of the 2nd millennium BC together with handmade Early Bronze Age type pottery. This condition and the parallels between the pottery suggest that the settlements could be contemporaneous.

Fig. 2: General view from the north-east, Oluz Höyük

EXCAVATIONS IN 2007

2: Exploration of the 2nd-millennium BC cultures of Amasya province. Architectural remains, pottery and other small finds from the 2nd-millennium BC strata of Oluz Höyük, which we consider highly, will certainly shed significant light on the northern fringes of the cultures of the Assyrian Trade Colonies and Hittite Imperial periods. Potsherds collected during the surveys indicate a very strong Hittite presence at the largest 2ndmillennium BC settlement of Amasya. We are of the opinion that Oluz Höyük, with its 45,000 m2 surface area, was an important city of the Hittite period. The palace, temples and an archive of cuneiform tablets expected from a Hittite city are likely to emerge in future excavations. The recovery of seals, bullae and cuneiform clay tablets especially will make great contributions perhaps unveiling the Hittite and even the preceding Assyrian Trade Colonies period name of Oluz Höyük, the names of neighbouring towns (like Doğantepe) and mountains and rivers, and cast light on the historical geography 2nd-millennium BC Anatolia.

The first campaign of systematic archaeological excavations at Oluz Höyük lasted for 31 days from August 6th to September 5th.5 The state representative was Mehmet Ağırgöl from the Erzurum Regional Board for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage. The vice director of the excavations was Emine Dönmez of the Department of Art History, Turkish and Islamic Art of Istanbul University. The team comprised Ahmet Yüksel and research assistant Oya Tarhan Bal from the Department of Geophysical Engineering at Istanbul University, archaeologist-designer Burhan Gülkan, art historian Sultan Şahin, Gamze Çırtlık, a master’s student in anthropology from Hacettepe University, Istanbul University undergraduate students Ahmet Çakmak of the Art History Department and Elif Arslanhan of the Conservation and Restoration Department, and Dilek Çevik, Fatma Emre, Kasım Ulaşkın, Musa Bektaş and Hüseyin Aktürk, undergraduate students from the Archaeology Department of Adnan Menderes University. Farshid Iravani Ghadim, an expert on the Iron Age from Iran, also joined the team.

3: Exploration of the north-east fringes of the Phrygian cultural zone. In particular, the sherds of painted ware collected on the surface indicate that the Phrygian culture of Oluz Höyük contains the Iron Age pottery traditions of the Halys bend, to which it belongs, in spite of some

SCOPE We started excavation at Oluz Höyük with four main targets:

6 The Transitional period cultural layer covers the transition from the 3rd millennium BC to the 2nd millennium BC and the first quarter of the latter. 7 The great majority of the pottery of the 2nd millennium BC was wheel-made. This pottery has well-strained fine paste and contains very fine vegetal temper and fine mineral temper. Usually it is good or medium burnished and the surface colours vary from light orange to buff. The wheel-made pottery of İkiztepe from the 2nd millennium BC thus distinguishes itself from that of the Early Bronze Age. The most common vessel forms are bowls, beakers, goblets, pots, tea-pots and ewers. The triangular handles found on bowls and pots are especially characteristic of this period; the bead rims of bowls are also typical for the period. Jugs, tea-pots and ewers have elegant vertical handles. In addition, marks left while removing the pot from the wheel using a thread are also typical. Another important feature of İkiztepe’s 2nd millennium BC pottery is the absence of decoration (Alkım 1979, 153, figs. 5-15; 1983, 166-71, pls. I.1-5, II.1-3; 1984, 46-47, figs. 1-2; Alkım et al. 1988, 22-30, 89-91, pls. I-IX, XLIV-XLVII, LXVII.21-23, XCII.153-155a, XCIII.158, 161-162; Bilgi 1998, 64; 1999a, 143, Dwg. 3.A 1-3; 1999b, 172, Dwg. 2.A 1-2; Müller-Karpe 2001).

1: Excavating a site representing all periods would establish a strong reference chronology and cultural phases for the little-known interior part of the Central Black Sea region. Excavations at İkiztepe near SamsunBafra have been ongoing since 1974 and have established, to a great extent, the chronological frame and cultural phases of the coastal areas of the Central Black 5 This work was supported by the Research Fund of Istanbul University, project no. 559. I would like to thank the General Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Museums for issuing permission for the systematic archaeological excavation at Oluz Höyük. I would like to extend my thanks to the Directorate of Circulating Capital Centre (DÖSİMM) and to the Istanbul University Scientific Research Projects Unit for financial support.

69

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

differences. Located between the Central Black Sea and Central Anatolian regions, Oluz Höyük will, through its architecture, pottery and other small finds, help to answer queries about the Iron Age within the great arc of the Halys. Furthermore, it is possible that the site will reveal something of the Scythian, Median and Achaemenid presence in the region during the Late Iron Age, i.e. from the 7th to the 4th centuries BC inclusive.

activity and urbanisation in the Hittite and Iron Age (Phrygian) strata of Oluz Höyük. Excavation Excavations were carried out in two trenches, A and B. The first is at the highest point on top of the höyük and is located to the west. Trench A (Fig. 3) measured 30 x 10 m and we reached 1.80 m below the surface level – from 478.78 m down to 477.00 m altitude. We have identified three building layers and encountered 12 human skeletons. Trench B was located in the eastern part of the höyük and was excavated as a step trench.

4: Exploration of regional settlement architecture, pottery and other small finds in the Hellenistic period. Amasya was the centre of Pontic kingdom, but nothing is known about the settlements, architecture and stratigraphy of this period in Amasya province. The most important Hellenistic finds are pottery and coins acquired by the Museum in sundry ways. The strong presence of Hellenistic settlement at Oluz Höyük is inferred from the potsherds collected on the surface. The contribution of Oluz Höyük to the archaeology and history of Hellenistic period in the region constitutes an important element in the study.

METHODS AND FINDS The 2007 campaign at Oluz Höyük was conducted in three stages. Maps Topographical mapping was carried out in parallel with the excavations and, with the technical support of the State Water Works Corporation in Amasya, maps of the höyük were prepared to 1:1000 and 1:500 scales.8

Fig. 3: General view, Building Layer 2, Trench A, Oluz Höyük

The surface layer and the earth filling of the first architectural layer contained numerous glazed potsherds. We came to the conclusion that these potsherds, found only in the western half of the höyük and not connected with any architectural layer as far as could be observed, belonged probably to the latest settlement on the höyük; this had disappeared due to agricultural activity and erosion. These sherds did not point to a large settlement, rather to a group of just a few houses; therefore, we named the first stratum mixed with the surface earth as ‘Layer 0’. Preliminary observations of the sherds indicated a date of the 10th to 14th centuries AD. In addition to a variety of potsherds from various periods, a fragment of a clay bull-shaped rhyton from the Late Iron Age, one loom-weight datable to the Assyrian Trade Colonies or Hittite period, a flint blade and one scraper were uncovered in the surface earth.

Geophysics As building materials buried under the soil have different properties from the soil itself, geophysical surveying has found widespread use in archaeological exploration. In recent years geophysical methods have been used extensively to reveal information about remains buried at archaeological sites. Both equipment and software have advanced significantly of late in parallel with an increasing demand to obtain quick results for shallow depths. Thus, in order to prepare a strategic plan for this and future seasons, geo-electric, magnetic and ground penetrating radar were deployed to retrieve information about structures buried under the earth in an area of about 2000 m2 extending in an east-west direction in the middle part of the höyük. This work was undertaken by Fethi Ahmet Yüksel and Oya Tarhan Bal between August 6th and 9th. Evaluation of the geophysical surveys continues at the laboratory of the Department of Geophysical Engineering, Istanbul University. The results will facilitate the selection of areas to be excavated and, thus, will lead to optimal use of labour and financial sources. Data and results to be obtained from these surveys will shed light on cultural development, socio-economic

The first building layer contained fragments of clay roof tiles, which indicates that the buildings were roofed with tiles. The layer starting immediately below Layer 0 was called Building Layer 1. It is a filling layer, some 60 cm thick, between 478.78 m and 478.20 m. The architectural remains in Building Layer 1 are extremely damaged and scattered because of their proximity to the surface, hence to the consequences of agricultural activity, many illicit digs, and reuse as a cemetery after the settlement was

8

I would like to express my sincere thanks to DSİ Amasya Directorate for their technical support.

70

Ş. DÖNMEZ: A NEW EXCAVATION IN PONTIC CAPPADOCIA: AMASYA-OLUZ HÖYÜK. PRELIMINARY RESULTS…

Fig. 4a-b: Bronze coin, Building Layer 1, End of 2nd-beginning of 1st century BC, Trench A, Oluz Höyük

Fig. 6: Marble mortar, Building Layer 1, Trench A, Oluz Höyük

Fig. 5: Clay oil lamp, Building Layer 1, Trench A, Oluz Höyük

As we continued deeper into Building Layer 1, five human skeletons were uncovered in simple tombs (Sk.001004, 006). Sk.001 and Sk.003 belong to infants and have survived as skulls only; Sk.002 is just a tibia. Sk.004 and Sk.006 belong to adults and lie with their heads to the west and feet to the east; the heads face south with arms parallel to the body. From this arrangement it may be inferred that these burials belong to the Islamic period.

abandoned (possibly also by the inhabitants of Layer 0). The architectural remains uncovered in Building Layer 1 do not exhibit a clear layout and especially in the northern and eastern parts of the trench are fragments of foundations built with rubble and fragments of flooring. Some potsherds from this layer and a bronze coin of Apameia in Phrygia uncovered in the garbage dump named b.0078 (Fig. 4a-b) allowed us to date this layer to the late 2nd and early 1st century BC.9 In the deposit of Building Layer 1 the following items were found: clay – an oil lamp (Fig. 5), a bead, a loom-weight, one unidentified object and two pots; stone – a mortar (Fig. 6), a sling pellet, a grinding stone and a base; bone – one unidentified item as well as an animal toothpick, a glass bead, a bronze ingot and a handle fragment.

Remains between 478.20 m and 477.00 m form Building Layer 2. This layer also received significant damage from burials and illicit digs, although not as badly as Layer 1. Small finds include clay – a stamp, two spindle-whorls, two beads, a loom-weight, a vessel in the shape of a woman’s breast (Fig. 7), a bowl (Fig. 8), a pot fragment and a crater fragment (Fig. 9); stone – a pestle, a grinding stone, a stone weight, a bead, a marble pot rim, one unidentified object; and a bo-ne pin, one unidentified bone object and an iron plaque.

9 We would like to thank Oğuz Tekin and the Director of Amasya Museum, Celal Özdemir, for their help in dating and evaluating the coins uncovered.

71

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

A building (b.0031) in the northern part of the trench stands out as that best preserved in Layer 2 (Fig. 3). It comprises an 8.60 m long wall extending north-tosouth with another short wall, 2 m in length, joining it close to its southern end. These walls were built with un-worked stones of various sizes bound with mud mortar and have been preserved to a height of 0.50 m in places with a thickness of 0.75-0.80 m. It is thought that the southern and western parts of this building were heavily damaged and that its northern side lies in the unexcavated area. Adjoining the north-south wall on its east side is a fragment of flooring (b.0017) built with flat stones of regular contour. It is roughly rectangular, measuring 2.50 m north-south and 1.65 m east-west, and was possibly built as a sidewalk pavement; it was believed to adjoin the building from outside (Fig. 3). About 4.00 m to the south-east of this building are remains of another wall (b.0084), in a very good state of preservation extending along the eastern profile of the trench. Its extant length is 4.20 m and its 1.55 m corner section extends into the eastern profile; on average it is 0.80 m thick and 0.50 m high. The remaining part of the building to which this wall belongs will be excavated in 2008 with the trench extended eastward. The stones in the northern part are larger and mud mortar was used as a binder (Fig. 3).

Fig. 7: Vessel in the shape of a woman’s breast, Building Layer 2, Trench A, Oluz Höyük

In about the middle of Trench A there is a long stone pavement and a related wall foundation. The pavement (b.0051), 5.50 m in length and 1.80 m in width, lacks a regular contour because of damage to its south-east by burial b.0056, which contains a skeleton (Sk.013) placed below the pavement level in an east-west direction. The skeleton, with its face facing south, is understood to date from the Islamic period. A stone wall foundation organically connected with this pavement starts from its south-western corner and extends regularly westward. This foundation is 3.50 m long, 0.80 m thick and 0.30 m high. About 1.75 m to the south of this pavement another building was uncovered, rectangular in plan and with weak stone foundations. It was preserved in the west partially, and the north and east. That this building was organically connected with the stone pavement is inferred from the remains of a pavement that seem to form an extension to it. The west wall, which is 3.30 m long and 0.40 m wide, was damaged in its middle. The north wall, on the other hand, has thicker corners and a narrower middle part and measures 2.25 m in length with an average thickness of 0.90 m. The east wall is 1.50 m long and 0.60 m wide. A row of stones that probably belongs to a wall was noticed in the east profile and just next to the east wall of the former building; it may indicate a repair phase or may be the west wall of another building (Fig. 3).

Fig. 8: Bowl, Building Layer 2, Trench A, Oluz Höyük

In the southern part of Trench A and fragments of wall foundations are thought to be related to each not reveal any layout due to the incurred.

Fig. 9: Crater fragment, Building Layer 2, Trench A, Oluz Höyük 72

a stone pavement were found. They other but they do damage they have

Ş. DÖNMEZ: A NEW EXCAVATION IN PONTIC CAPPADOCIA: AMASYA-OLUZ HÖYÜK. PRELIMINARY RESULTS…

Sherds of a clay roof tile found in the deposit of Layer 2 indicate that the buildings in this layer were roofed with tiles as was the case in Layer 1.

shaped hearth (Fig. 10). This small room’s north wall is also that of the main room and there is a clay kiln (b.0014) adjoining it to the south. The kiln is 0.85 m long, 0.70 m wide, its mouth diameter is 0.50 m and its wall thickness is 0.15 m. The mouth faces south and its dome and upper parts were damaged. It has survived with its side walls and weak floor. A bowl, most of which is missing, was uncovered in situ inside ashy earth about 1.30 m west of the kiln. To the north of room b.0005 was understood to be another room, its floor paved with carefully laid flat stones damaged in at least at three spots by garbage pits. As a large part of the trench contained no architectural remains, it is thought that this had been a courtyard, and a wall of 1.50 m length, 1.00 m width and 0.40 m height extending westward to the west of the courtyard indicates that the complex also extended westward with other roofed rooms. Two poorly preserved coins of Pontic cities, uncovered in the north of b.0005, facilitated the dating of the structure. They date to the late 2nd/early 1st century BC, indicating a Hellenistic date for the complex. Small finds from Building Layer 1 include a clay item, one stone spindle-whorl, two stone beads, an animal toothpick, a bronze ingot, an iron spearhead and an iron nail.

As work continued deeper in Building Layer 2, seven more simple burials with skeletons were uncovered (Sk.005, 007-008, 011-014). Sk.005 was that of an infant and only the skull has been found. Sk.012 also belongs to an infant, all the rest to adults. The skeletons lie with their heads to the west and feet to the east, heads facing south with arms parallel to the body; no grave-goods were found with them. The style indicates that these too must belong to the Islamic period. Trench B of 30 x 10 m is located in the east of the höyük. Here we dug from 473.16 m down to 466.09 m. This trench was excavated as a step trench for the purpose of gathering data about the stratification of the höyük – a total of six building layers were identified (Fig. 10).

The numerous fragments of roof tiles uncovered in Building Layer 1 indicate their wide use. Trench B was extended 5 x 10 m eastward starting the stepping on the slope. In the first step, a deposit about 1 m thick between 472.00 m and 471.00 m belonged to Building Layer 2. This layer was badly damaged because of its proximity to the surface and architectural remains could be identified only in a very small area. The only architectural remain was floor pavement of 2.00 x 1.20m (b.0048) which extends into the west profile. Fig. 10: General view, Building Layer 1, Trench B, Oluz Höyük

Excavating deeper down to 468.70 m exposed Building Layer 3 (find-spots b.0006, 0008, 0041, 0045 and 0048). In the north of the trench were some stone wall foundations and a stone pavement. No layout could be discerned due to the damage caused by their proximity to the surface. Small finds include one clay loom-weight, a stone spindle-whorl, a stone pestle and an iron plaque.

Following the removal of the surface earth, in Building Layer 1 we excavated from 473.16 m down to 472.00 m and uncovered the remains of an architectural complex (b.0003: Fig. 10). This was seen to have several rooms, the largest of which could not be exposed entirely because it lay beyond the trench profiles. This large room has a northern foundation wall (8.50 m long, 0.80 m wide and 0.50 m high) built with un-worked or roughly worked rubble. The east wall branching off southward close to its eastern end is 3.75 m long, 1.20 m wide and, on average, 0.40 m high. Although the north wall extended further east, indicating the presence of more rooms belonging to this complex, it was seen that these were damaged as they were located very close to the surface. This room (b.0005) is damaged, especially its north-eastern and southern parts, but it was seen to have been paved with flat and regular stones. About the middle of the north wall is a room (b.0015) whose entire east wall and parts of its south and west walls are preserved. The room measures about 3.25 x 4.00 m and its walls have an average width of 0.60 m and height of 0.25 m. It contains a horseshoe

Trench B was extended 5 x 10 m further east again in excavating the third step. Excavating from 468.70 m down to 467.00 m the architectural remains uncovered (b.0043, 0044, 0046, 0062, 0063 and 0065) were seen to belong to Building Layer 4. The east part of the layer was damaged as it was close to the surface, and in the west part were some scattered rubble and remains of pebble pavements. Before the west profile was a garbage pit (b.0046) 1.40 m in diameter and 0.50 m in depth. Small finds from this building layer include a clay spindlewhorl, a bead, a pitcher (Fig. 11), one miniature vessel, a toothpick, a flint blade and an iron handle fragment. Trench B was further extended 5 x 10 m eastward again, excavating from 467.00 m down to 464.80 m and we seem to have uncovered the courtyard of a large house. In this building layer (5) are find-spots b.0061-0062 and

73

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

AD), Layer 1 to the Hellenistic (late 2nd-early 1st century BC), and Layer 2 to the late phase of the Late Iron Age (4hh-3rd centuries BC). Building Layers 3 and 4, identified in Trench B, can be dated to the early phase of the Late Iron Age (6th-5th centuries BC), Layer 5 to the Middle Iron Age (7th century BC), and Layer 6, although not yet with certainty, to the Early Iron Age or Late Bronze Age, i.e. the Hittite Imperial Period. As mentioned above, potsherds of Layer 0 can be roughly dated to the 10th-14th centuries AD. These dates indicate a mediaeval, in other words, a Late Byzantine settlement at Oluz Höyük. In the Tabula Peutingeriana, on the route from Amaseia to Euchaita (Çorum, Mecitözü, Beyözü – former Avkat – village), there is a settlement named Virasia located 16 Roman miles west of Amaseia,10 and this provides us with some basis for the Late Byzantine period at Oluz Höyük. On the other hand, in the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World,11 which is based on the Tabula Peutingeriana to a great extent, Virasia is shown to the south-west of Amaseia and matches better with Doğantepe (formerly Zara) located 5 km north of Oluz Höyük. Sixteen Roman miles is almost 24 km; Doğantepe is located about 27 km south-west of Amasya today. In addition, the presence of a Roman milestone at Doğantepe12 indicates that the road from Amaseia to Euchaita passed through; thus, Virasia should be identified with Doğantepe. Finally, the phonetic similarity, although slight, between Zara, the former name of Doğantepe, and Virasia supports this identification.

Fig. 11: Pitcher, Building Layer 4, Trench B, Oluz Höyük

b.0067-0068. In the north part of the courtyard, a waste water channel belonging to a structure still concealed beyond the western profile of the trench was uncovered. The channel was built partly with clay plaques and measures 0.40 m wide and 0.30 m deep. It first extends eastward for 1.50 m and then turns north and continues for about 2.00 m, as far as could be traced. In the course of excavating this step, the skeletons of four adults were found in a jumbled condition in two pits close to the slope. Skeletons Sk.009 and Sk.010 were uncovered very close to the surface and entirely dispersed. In a very narrow pit, very close to the west profile, two adult skeletons, Sk.015 and Sk.016, were found jumbled. These were not interred deliberately but rather dumped into the pit. Three glass beads were also found in this pit. About the middle of the courtyard were stones belonging to a wall foundation. One clay spindle-whorl was also found in Building Layer 5.

In this mediaeval period, it is plausible to claim that Oluz Höyük, located 5 km south of Doğantepe/Virasia, was a small settlement comprising a few farmstead-like houses, based on the potsherds of the 10th-14th centuries AD uncovered in Building Layer 0. Building Layer 1, dated to the Hellenistic period (late 2nd-early 1st century BC), is worth noting especially for the building with stone foundations and a kiln uncovered in Trench B, which is thought to belong to a complex (Fig. 10). Our preliminary observations on this building, which is not yet entirely exposed, indicate that it is reminiscent of the Ziyaret Suyu settlement at Sivas Akpınar village, excavated in connection with the Baku– Tbilisi–Ceyhan oil pipeline project in 2004.13 Based on the coins and small finds, Ziyaret Suyu was settled in the late 2nd century BC and comprises a single stratum which is contemporary with Building Layer 1 at Oluz Höyük. It is intended to expose the complex entirely by expanding the trench; then we shall be able properly to compare this complex with those at Ziyaret Suyu. Çadır Höyük at Sorgun, Yozgat, has building layers contemporary with Layer 1 of Oluz Höyük.14 Although it is known that many sites within the bend of the Halys, which also encompasses Ziyaret Suyu and Çadır Höyük

The fifth and the last step with Trench B was to extend it by 5 x 10 m again westward. In the cultural deposit of Building Layer 6 (find-spot b.0064) we found no architectural remains from 464.80 m down to 462.80 m. Small finds include a stone seal, a flint blade and an iron nail. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION The first campaign at Oluz Höyük lasted a month and a total area of 600 m2 was excavated. Six building layers were identified. The first two building layers of Trench A and B were contemporary, as inferred from the coins and potsherds uncovered. Thus, Building Layer 0 of Oluz Höyük dates to the mediaeval period (10th-14th centuries

10

Weber 1976, 63, segment VIII 4 m. Talbert 2000. 12 French 1988, I, 27; II, map 12 (066). 13 Ortaç 2006. 14 Gorny et al. 2002, 123; Paley 2006, 359. 11

74

Ş. DÖNMEZ: A NEW EXCAVATION IN PONTIC CAPPADOCIA: AMASYA-OLUZ HÖYÜK. PRELIMINARY RESULTS…

Table: Preliminary conclusions about the stratification at Oluz Höyük Building Layer

Dates

Trench

Remarks

Mediaeval

0

10th-14th centuries AD

A

Glazed pottery

Hellenistic period

1

Late 2nd-early 1st century BC

A&B

City coins of Apameia and Pontus; building complex

Late Iron Age, late phase (Late Phrygian 1 culture)

2

4th-3rd centuries BC

A&B

Painted wares

Late Iron Age, late phase (Late Phrygian 2 culture and Achaemenid)

3

6th-5th centuries BC

B

Painted wares

Middle Iron Age (Classical Phrygian culture)

4

8th-7th centuries BC

B

Painted wares

Middle Iron Age (Classical Phrygian culture)

5

9th century BC

B

Painted wares

Early Iron Age ? Late Bronze Age ?

6

12th century BC

B

Stone seal

Period

as well as Oluz Höyük, have a Hellenistic level (based on the pottery and coins held in regional museums), no satisfactory evaluations or publications, foreign or domestic, have yet been made on this period. The pottery of Building Layer 1 reflects somewhat the painted decorative tradition of the Iron Age, and we are of the opinion that it is more appropriate to label it ‘Local Painted Wares of the Central Anatolian Hellenistic period’.15

Oluz Höyük seems to be the only settlement in the region that can present us with a cultural picture of the whole of the 4th-1st centuries BC, generally known as the Hellenistic period, thanks to the two corresponding building layers, 1 and 2, and the smooth transition between them. A few years ago, when the author published an article on two important bowls with ivy motifs from the Amasya Museum, it was claimed that a new terminology was needed for the 4th-/3rd-century BC settlements within the bend of the Halys, hitherto labelled Hellenistic or Galatian, especially with regard to the pottery tradition.17 The pottery uncovered in Building Layer 2 of Oluz Höyük confirms this need. Apart from a few imported wares, the pottery of Building Layer 2 of Oluz Höyük continues the painting and technical traditions of Central Anatolian Late Iron Age pottery. Therefore, although Oluz Höyük fell politically within the Pontic kingdom, the time has come to start discussing the appropriateness of the term ‘Hellenistic period pottery’ for Oluz Höyük at an individual level and for the entire northern part of the Halys arc, or rather Yeşilırmak basin settlements, in general. This pottery is attested at Oluz Höyük18 and other settlements identified during the surveys,19 as well as at Kara Samsun/Amisos,20 Maşat Höyük,21 Boğazköy,22 Alaca Höyük,23 Eskiyapar,24 Hacı Bektaş Höyük,25 Kaman-Kalehöyük,26 Kırşehir Höyük,27 Alişar Höyük28 and Büyüknefesköy/Tavium’da,29 i.e.

A marble vessel (Fig. 6) uncovered in the Building Layer 1 deposit of Trench A is noteworthy. With its flaring straight rim and the body tapering toward the raised flat bottom, the vessel looks more like a shallow bowl. Placed symmetrically outside the rim are three rectangular lugs and a spout reminiscent of a stylised bull head. There is a hole connecting the interior of the vessel with the spout. Parallels to the mortar mentioned above are also found, especially in western Anatolia and in the Aegean world. The example from Oluz Höyük is, for the time being, the easternmost uncovered. A very similar example is found at the Halûk Perk Museum; this has both its pestle and its entire surface covered with traces of a thick red paint layer. Thus, it is possible that the marble vessel at Oluz Höyük could be a mortar. Moreover, such a claim has been made for the similar marble vessels and pestles housed at Çanakkale Museum.16 Another important point about the Oluz Höyük example is that it was uncovered in a stratigraphic context. As it came from Building Layer 1 (2nd-1st centuries BC), it may in the future facilitate the dating of similar examples acquired by museums from excavations. Furthermore, the fact that similar marble vessels are found across a very wide area of Anatolia indicates that they were not locally produced, rather that they were produced at particular workshops and traded.

17

Dönmez 2001b. Dönmez and Dönmez 2007, figs. 4, 14, 16-18. 19 Özsait and Özsait 2003. 20 Akarca 1960. 21 Özgüç 1982, pl. 72.5-6. 22 Bossert 1957, abb. 54a. 23 Koşay and Akok 1966, pls. 71-72. 24 Bayburtluoğlu 1979, pl. 181.31-33. 25 Balkan and Sümer 1968, fig.17, Çiz.12. 26 Mikami and Omura 1988, fig. 14.8; Mori and Omura 1990, fig. 10.5; Omura 1991, fig. 9.6. 27 U. Alkım 1956, figs.17a-b, 19, 2 a-b, 21-23. 28 von der Osten 1937, figs. 63.22, 64.4-5, 65, pl. V.3. 29 Bittel 1942, abb. 17a-d; Strobel and Gerber 1999, abb.14. 18

15

For the first proposal of this terminology and relevant discussion, see Dönmez 2001b, 94. 16 Tombul 2006.

75

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

through nearly the whole area within the arc of the Kızılırmak/Halys, has been named variously Galatian,30 so-called Galatian,31 painted wares/ceramics of the Halys basin in the Hellenistic period,32 painted local wares of the Kızılırmak/Halys basin in the Hellenistic period,33 Kızılırmak/Halys basin wares34 or local wares of Pontus.35 However, none of the terms proposed previously seems suitable to describe these painted wares that continue the traditional characteristics of Central Anatolian Iron Age painted wares of the 10th-9th centuries BC while welcoming outside influences, and which are certainly the products of local workshops. The term suggested here, ‘Central Anatolian Late Iron Age Late Phase Painted Wares’,36 suits better both the geography and the period. Within this context we are of the opinion that Building Layer 2 of Oluz Höyük, which we believe dates to the 4th-3rd centuries BC should be described as the late phase of the Late Iron Age.

probably were jumbled into the rubble deposit during illicit digs; they should belong to Building Layer 3, in other words, to the early phase of the Late Iron Age. One beak-spouted jug uncovered in Building Layer 4 of Oluz Höyük has a familiar form but its decorative arrangement is very different and it lacks the light coloured area or panel on its surface; concentric circle and swastika motifs in dark brown applied on a dark buff background are found on the body (Fig. 11). In addition to the items presented above, the hundreds of sherds of Iron Age painted wares were uncovered both in the surface soil and in Building Layers 2-5 may suggest that the settlement might have contained pottery workshops equal to, or even richer than, those at Alişar Höyük, known for its Iron Age pottery (and which has given its name to this culture, for example Alişar IV and Alişar V). Perhaps the most noteworthy find of the first campaign came from Building Layer 6: a button-like stone seal with a thread-hole reflecting Hittite features.41 A strong Hittite presence in the region has been well attested by a bronze deity figurine and seals42 found accidentally at Doğantepe about 5 km north of Oluz Höyük. One of the driving reasons for initiating excavation at Oluz Höyük was to shed light upon issues of archaeology and historical geography. Numerous Hittite potsherds identified already on the surface, a clay loom-weight, as well as the abovementioned seal, all point to the strong presence of a Hittite settlement at Oluz Höyük.

Some finds uncovered within the rubble deposit of Building Layer 2 bear important features. The first is a vessel shaped like a woman’s breast (Fig. 7); it has a hole and it possibly functioned as a nursing bottle. At this stage we suggest that it is related to the cult of the mother goddess, Cybele: a different example of the vessels of that cult37 known especially from Maşat Höyük, Boğazköy, Hacıbektaş Höyük, Alişar and Topraklı in the region. The entire surface of the nursing bottle is decorated with large triangles and lozenge motifs in shades of brown applied on a light background. These large and elongated triangle motifs are quite similar to the Late Iron Age painted wares known as Triangle wares which spread through eastern Anatolia,38 Azerbaijan39 and western Iran40 after the fall of the Urartu. Apart from these, some bowls with dark red slip noteworthy for their S-profiles (Fig. 8) are reminiscent in form of Achaemenid bowls.

Bibliography Abbreviations TTKY Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.

The other find is a fragment of the neck and body of a quite large crater (Fig. 9). On the neck are deer heads, inferred to be standing antithetically, with exaggerated horns, and a different execution as well as a cloud motif not known in the repertory of Central Anatolian Iron Age pottery. This crater is decorated in shades of brown on a light background. Although both finds came from the rubble deposit of Building Layer 2, their decorative features indicate the 6th and 5th centuries BC rather than the 4th-3rd centuries BC. They were not found in situ and

AKARCA, A. 1960: ‘Yerli Pontos Seramiği’. In V. Türk Tarih Kongresi (TTKY IX.5) (Ankara), 142-46. ALKIM, H. 1983: ‘İkiztepe Kazılarında Arkeometrik ve Arkeolojik Yöntemlerin Uygulanması ile Beliren Kronoloji Sorunları’. Arkeometri Ünitesi Bilimsel Toplantı Bildirileri III (Ankara), 163-99. ALKIM, U.B. 1956: ‘Kırşehir Hüyüğü ve Topraküstü Buluntuları’. Belleten 20, 61-77. ALKIM, U.B. 1979: ‘İkiztepe Kazısı: İlk Sonuçlar’. In VIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, vol. 1 (TTKY IX.8) (Ankara), 151-57.

30

Zahn 1907, 638. Maier 1963, 238; Bittel 1974, 227. 32 Zoroğlu 1979, 345, 354. 33 Zoroğlu 1981, 239; 1983, 135. 34 Zoroğlu 1986, 459. 35 Akarca 1960, 142. 36 For the first time this term was proposed and discussion, see Dönmez 2001b, 94. 37 For such vessels and bibliography, see Dönmez 2001c. 38 For typical examples from Karagündüz in eastern Anatolia, see Sevin 1998, pls. 3.1-5, 4.5-6. 39 For typical examples from the Hezerlu Fortress and Bukan region in Azerbaijan, see Dyson 1999, figs. 8a.e-f, 8b.a-e. 40 For typical examples from Hasanlu in western Iran, see Dyson 1999, fig. 3b. 31

ALKIM, U.B. 1984a: ‘İkiztepe Kazısının Arkeolojik Sonuçlarına Toplu Bir Bakış’. In Arkeometri Ünitesi Bilimsel Toplantı Bildirileri I (Ankara), 46-51. ALKIM, U.B., ALKIM, H. and BILGI, Ö 1988: İkiztepe I: Birinci ve İkinci Dönem Kazıları/The First and Second Seasons Excavations (1974-1975) (TTKY V.39) (Ankara). 41

This seal is currently being studied by Hittitologists Meltem DoğanAlparslan and Metin Alparslan. 42 Alp 1963.

76

Ş. DÖNMEZ: A NEW EXCAVATION IN PONTIC CAPPADOCIA: AMASYA-OLUZ HÖYÜK. PRELIMINARY RESULTS…

DÖNMEZ, Ş. 2005b: ‘Amasya Province in the Iron Age’. In Çiligiroğlu, A.and Darbyshire, G (eds.), In Çilingiroğlu, A. and Darbyshire, G. (eds.), Anatolian Iron Ages 5 (Proceedings of the Fifth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Van, 6-10 August 2001) (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 31) (London), 65-74.

ALP, S. 1963: ‘Amasya Civarında Zara Bucağında Bulunan Hitit Heykeli ile Diğer Hitit Eserleri’. Anadolu/Anatolia 6, 91-126. ALP, S. 1980: ‘Die Hethitischen Tontafelentdeckungen auf dem Maşat Höyük’. Belleten 44, 25-60. BALKAN, K. and SÜMER, O. 1968: ‘1967 Yılı Hacı Bektaş (Suluca Karahöyük) Kazısı Önraporu’. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 16.2, 15-19.

DÖNMEZ, Ş. and DÖNMEZ, E.E. 2007: ‘Amasya-Oluz Höyük Kazısı 2007 Dönemi Çalışmaları: İlk Sonuçlar’. Colloquium Anatolicum/Anadolu Sohbetleri 6, 49-74.

BAYBURTLUOĞLU, I. 1979: ‘Eskiyapar Phryg Çağı’. In VIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, vol. 1 (TTKY IX.8) (Ankara), 93-303.

DYSON, R.H. 1999: ‘Triangle-Festoon Reconsidered’. Iranica Antiqua 34, 115-44.

BILGI, Ö. 1998: ‘MÖ 2. Binyılda Orta Karadeniz Bölgesi’. In III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi (Ankara), 63-75.

Ware

FRENCH, D. 1988: Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor, Fasc. 2: An Interim Catalogue of Milestones, parts 1-2 (British School of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 9) (BAR International Series 392) (Oxford).

BILGI, Ö. 1999a: ‘Samsun-İkiztepe Arkeolojik Kazıları Tepe III Çalışmaları. 1993 ve 1994 Dönemi Sonuçları’. Anadolu Araştırmaları/Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschung 15, 137-65.

GORNY, R.L., MACMAHON, G., PALEY, S., STEADMAN, S. and VERHAAREN, B. 2002: ‘The 2000 and 2001 Seasons at Çadır Höyük in Central Turkey: A Preliminary Report’. Anatolica 28, 10936.

BILGI, Ö. 1999b: ‘Samsun-İkiztepe Arkeolojik Kazıları Tepe III Çalışmaları 1995 Dönemi Sonuçları’. Anadolu Araştırmaları/Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschung 15, 167-90. BITTEL, K. 1942: Kleinasiatische Studien (Istanbul).

KOŞAY, H.Z. and AKOK, M. 1966: Alaca Höyük Kazısı 1940-1948’deki Çalışmalara ve Keşiflere Ait İlk Rapor/Ausgrabungen von Alaca Höyük Vorbericht über die Forschungen und Entdeckungen von 19401948 (TTKY V.6) (Ankara).

BITTEL, K. 1974: ‘Bemerkungen zur sogenannten galatischen Keramik’. In Mansel’e Armağan I/Mélanges Mansel I (Ankara), 227-37. BOSSERT, E.M. 1957: ‘Funde nachhethitischer Zeit’. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 89, 58-67.

MAIER, F. 1963: ‘Bemerkungen zur sogenannten galatischen Keramik von Boğazköy’. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts 78, 218-55.

DÖNMEZ, Ş. 2000a: ‘Sinop-Samsun-Amasya İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, 1998’. In XVII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara), 229-44.

MIKAMI, T. and OMURA, S. 1988: ‘1986 Kırşehir İli Sınırları İçinde Yapılan Yüzey Araştırmaları’. In V. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara), 12356.

DÖNMEZ, Ş. 2000b: ‘Orta Karadeniz Bölgesi Yüzey Araştırması’. In Belli, O. (ed.), Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi (Ankara), 330-34.

MORI, M. and OMURA, S. 1990: ‘1988 KamanKalehöyük Kazıları’. In XI. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara), 335-55.

DÖNMEZ, Ş. 2001a: ‘The Central Black Sea Region Survey’. In Belli, O. (ed.), Istanbul University’s Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932-2000) (Istanbul), 302-07. DÖNMEZ, Ş. 2001b: ‘Amasya Müzesi’nden Boya Bezekli İki Çanak Işığında Kızılırmak Kavsi Geç Demir ve Helenistik Çağları Çanak-Çömleğine Yeni Bir Bakış’. TÜBA-AR 4, 89-99.

MÜLLER-KARPE, V. 2001: ‘Zur frühhethitischen Kultur im Mündungsgebiet des Maraššantija’. In Wilhelm, G. (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, Würzburg, 4.-8. Oktober 1999 (Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 45) (Wiesbaden), 430-42.

DÖNMEZ, Ş. 2001c: ‘Orta Anadolu İ.Ö. I. Bin Yılı Çanak-Çömleğinde Ana Tanrıça Kültü’. Belleten 54, 707-18.

OMURA, S. 1991: ‘1989 Yılı Kaman-Kalehöyük Kazıları’. In X. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara), 353-68.

DÖNMEZ, Ş. 2002a: ‘The 2nd Millennium BC Settlements in Samsun and Amasya Provinces, Central Black Sea Region, Turkey’. Ancient West & East 1.2, 243-93.

ORTAÇ, M. 2006: ‘BTC Ham Petrol Boru Hattı Projesi Sivas Akpınar Köyü Ziyaret Suyu Mevkii Kurtarma KAZISI, 2004’. In XXVII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara), 339-50.

DÖNMEZ, Ş. 2002b: ‘1997-1999 Yılları Yüzey Araştırmalarında İncelenen Samsun-Amasya İlleri İÖ 2. Binyılı Yerleşmeleri’. Belleten 55, 873-903.

von der OSTEN, H.H. 1927: ‘Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor’. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 43.2, 73-176.

DÖNMEZ, Ş. 2005a: ‘1997-1999 Yılları Yüzey Araştırmalarında İncelenen Amasya İli Demir Çağı Yerleşmeleri’. Belleten 59, 468-97.

von der OSTEN, H.H. 1937: The Alishar Hüyük: Seasons of 1930-32, part 3 (Oriental Institute Publications 30) (Chicago). 77

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Anadolu Arkeolojisine Katkılar. 65. Yaşında Abdullah Yaylalı’ya Sunulan Yazılar (Istanbul), 254-62.

ÖZGÜÇ, T. 1982: Maşat Höyük II. Boğazköy'ün Kuzeydoğusunda Bir Hitit Merkezi/A Hittite Center Northeast of Boğazköy (TTKY V.38a) (Ankara).

WEBER, E. (ed.) 1976: Tabula Peutingeriana. Codex Vindobonensis 324, vollständige Faksimile Ausgabe im Originalformat (Graz).

ÖZSAIT, M. and ÖZSAIT, N. 2003: ‘La Ceramique dite “Galate” du Bassin du Kızılırmak’. Anatolia Antiqua 11, 323-42.

ZAHN, R. 1907: ‘Die bei den Ausgrabungen in BoghazKöi gefundenen Tonscherben’. Wochenschrift für klassiche Philogie 24, 638-42.

PALEY, S.M. 2006: ‘The Excavations at Çadır Höyük, 2004’. In XXVII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara), 351-66.

ZOROĞLU, L. 1979: ‘Eskiyapar’da Bulunan Kızılırmak Havzası (Galat Denilen) Boyalı Seramikleri’. VIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, vol. 1 (TTKY IX.8) (Ankara), 345-54.

SEVIN, V. 1998: ‘Van/Karagündüz Kazılarının Işığında Doğu Anadolu Geç Demir Çağı Çanak Çömleği’. In Arsebük, G., Schrimer, W. and Mellink, M.J. (eds.), Light on Top of the Black Hill: Studies Presented to Halet Çambel/Karatepe’deki Işık: Halet Çambel’e Sunulan Yazılar (Istanbul), 715-26.

ZOROĞLU, L. 1981: ‘Kültepe’de Bulunan Hellenistik Çağ’a Ait Bir Amphora’. Selçuk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 1, 239-52.

STROBEL, K. and GERBER, C. 1999: ‘Tavium (Büyüknefes) Feldforschungen des Jahres 1997’. In XVI. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 1 (Ankara), 297-314.

ZOROĞLU, L. 1983: ‘İstanbul ve Bonn’da Bulunan İki Skyphos’. Selçuk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 3, 135-44. ZOROĞLU, L. 1986: ‘Kızılırmak Havzası Kaplarının Biçim ve Süs Gelişimine Örnekler’. IX. Türk Tarih Kongresi, vol. 1 (TTKY IX.9) (Ankara), 459-72.

TALBERT, J.A. (ed.) 2000: Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton/Oxford). TOMBUL, M. 2006: ‘Troas Bölgesi Helenistik ve Roma Dönem Mermer Kapları’. In Takaoğlu, T. (ed.),

78

REGIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT NETWORK OF THE COASTAL PONTIC PROVINCES IN THE EARLY BYZANTINE PERIOD Dimitris P. DRAKOULIS Research Unit of Urban Planning and History of the City, Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Development, School of Architecture, Faculty of Technology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, c/o Ag. Stefanou str. 85, Exohi, 57010 Thessaloniki, Greece [email protected] Abstract: The aim of the paper is to examine the settlement network in the coastal Pontic provinces (Honorias, Paphlagonia, Helenopontus and Pontus Polemoniacus) in the Early Byzantine period (4th-7th centuries AD). Three historical cross sections have been attempted in order to clarify the administrative transformations of the region: a) in the 4th century (Laterculus Veronensis); b) in the 5th century (Notitia Dignitatum); and c) in the 6th century (Synecdemus of Hierocles). A cartographic representation of the historical topography was created in order to describe and clarify the regional context. An accompanying database was also constructed in order to classify settlements according to historical and geographical criteria. The first set of criteria is related to parameters and variables such as the date of foundation, continuous habitation in five distinct historical periods, ancient and modern place names. The second set is related to the location of the settlement and uses parameters and variables such as geomorphology, water elements, communication networks and the presence of a nodal point or port. The final object of the paper is the enrichment of historical-geographical knowledge regarding the settlement network of the Pontic region, the correlation of this information with communication networks and cultural exchange. ERKEN BİZANS DÖNEMİNDE PONTOS’UN KIYI EYALETLERİNDE BÖLGESEL DEĞİŞİMLER VE YERLEŞİM AĞI Özet: Bu bildirinin amacı kıyısal Pontos eyaletlerinin (Honorias, Paphlagonia, Hellespontos ve Pontos Polemoniacus) Erken Bizans (İ.S. 4.-7. yy.) Dönemi’nde yerleşim ağını incelenecektir. Bu bölgenin yönetimsel değişimlerini anlamak için tarihi üç kesitte incelendi: a) İ.S. 4. yy.’da (Laterculus Veronensis); b) İ.S. 5. yy.’da (Notitia Dignitatum); ve c) İ.S. 6. yy.’da (Hierokles’ in Synecdemus’u). Bölgenin tarihi coğrafyasının kartografik temsili bölgesel konteks içinde tanımlanmak ve açıklanmak için oluşturuldu. Buna paralel olarak yerleşimleri tarihi ve coğrafik kriterlere göre tasnif etmek adına bir veri bankası oluşturuldu. Oluşturulan birinci tasnif bazı parametrelerin belirlenmesi ve kuruluşların tarihi, beş farklı tarihi devirde varolan yerleşim tarihi eski ve yeni yer isimleri gibi değişkenlere ilişkindir. İkinci tasnif ise yerleşimlerin yerleri ve kullanım parametreleri ile jeomorfoloji, su faktörü, iletişim ağı ve ulaşımda bir düğüm noktası ya da limanın varolmasına ilişkindir. Bu bildirinin son amacı Pontos bölgesinin tarihi coğrafya bilgilerinin zenginleştirilmesi, iletişim ağının ve kültürel değişiminin bu bilgilerle ilişkilendirilmesidir.

historical topography has been created to describe the regional context and clarify the provincial borders. A vector-based map has been designed to allow layer classification of geographical data, polygon construction of elevations and area calculations. Three sources of cartographic information have been investigated in order to register a corpus of 125 settlements in the Early Byzantine period: E. Honigmann,2 the Tabula Imperii Byzantini for Paphlagonia3 and the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World.4 These are accompanied by a database which classifies the settlements according to historical and geographical criteria. The first set of criteria is related to parameters and variables such as the date of foundation, continuous habitation over five historical periods, ancient and modern place names. The second set is related to the location of the settlement and uses parameters and variables such as geomorphology, water elements, communication networks and the presence of a nodal point or port. The information used to construct the database comes from two sources: first, a

METHODOLOGY The aim of this paper is to contribute to the study of the administrative transformations of the coastal Pontic regions and the examination of their settlement network in the Early Byzantine period (4th-7th centuries AD). The study area covers four provinces (Honorias, Paphlagonia, Helenopontus and Pontus Polemoniacus), with the intent of enriching our historical-geographical knowledge regarding the settlement network of the region and correlating this information with communication networks and cultural exchanges in the 6th century. A number of historical cross-sections have been attemptted in order to describe, clarify and understand the administrative and spatial transformations on the diachronic level.1 The spatial scales used in order to analyse space are: a) regional, i.e. the administrative provinces in the context of the Dioecesis Pontica (a larger administrative/ institutional unit) and b) provincial, i.e. the settlement network in the context of the four Early Byzantine coastal Pontic provinces. A cartographic representation of the

2

Honigmann 1939, map 1, Scale 1:4,000,000. TIB Paphlagonien, map 1, Scale 1:800,000. 4 Barrington Atlas, maps 62-64, Scale 1:500,000; and maps 86-87, Scale 1:1,000,000. Modern geographical features have been extracted from the MairDumont map ‘Turkey’, Scale 1:750,000 (2006). 3

1

Johnston et al. 1989, 85. A cross-section is a description of a society and its landscape at a particular point in time.

79

Fig. 1: The coastal Pontic provinces in the Early Byzantine period

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

80

D.P. DRAKOULIS: REGIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT NETWORK OF THE COASTAL PONTIC PROVINCES…

Fig. 2: The Eastern Roman Empire in the 6th century AD (after Barrington Atlas, map 102)

at the estuaries of the Sangarios river,7 and includes to the east the coasts as far as the estuaries of the rivers Adienos,8 Askouros,9 Kalos,10 Psychros11 and Ophis.12 The eastern border follows the course of the Adienos river and is oriented in a south-eastern direction towards the Skydises mountains.13 The southern border comprises the Paryadres, the eastern part of the Pontic mountain chain.14 It continues towards the west to the River Billaios,15 the mountain called Hypios,16 up to the valley of the Sangarios. The western border is formed by the course of the Sangarios to its estuary. The region has extensive

6th-century Greek text, a traveller’s guide called Synecdemus written by the geographer Hierocles. It contains a table of administrative divisions of the empire and lists of their cities and is dated AD 527-528, according to Ernest Honigmann.5 Second, the Barrington Atlas, as applied to towns and villages of the Early Byzantine period. DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS Geomorphology

7

RE s.v. Sangarius fl.: modern Sakarya. Bryer and Winfield 1985, 332, Adienos fl./Adineos fl.: Kıbledağı Dere. 9 Bryer and Winfield 1985, 332, Askouros fl.: Taşlı Dere. 10 Bryer and Winfield 1985, 11, 325, Kalos fl.: İyi Dere. 11 RE 2, s.v. Psychros fl.: Baltacı Dere. 12 Bryer and Winfield 1985, 323, Ophis fl.: Istala Dere. 13 RE, s.v. Skydises M.: Kaçkar Dağ. 14 RE, s.v. Paryadres M., 484-88. 15 TIB Paphlagonien, 178, Billaios fl.: Filyos Çay/Gerede Çayı/Yenice Irmağı. 16 TIB Paphlagonien, 217-18, Hypios M.: Kardüz Dağı.

The study area (Fig. 1) is located in the northern part of Asia Minor which borders on the Black Sea, the Pontus Euxeinus.6 The northern coastal border begins in the west

8

5

Honigmann 1939, 1. RE suppl. 9, s.v. Pontos Euxeinos: the Black Sea, in Tukish, Karadeniz. For a complete survey of the Black Sea area and the Archaic and Classical poleis, see Avram et al. 2004. For a survey of Hellenistic foundations, see Cohen 1995, 381-89. For the Roman period, see Marek 1993, 7-13. For the Byzantine period, see Bryer and Winfield 1985, 112. 6

81

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 3: The Roman provinces in Asia Minor in the 3rd century AD (after Barrington Atlas, map 100)

Pontus Polemoniacus.24 In the first quarter of the 4th century (Fig. 4), as part of the Diocletianic and Constantinian provincial reforms, the area was incorporated into the Dioecesis Pontica. The latter comprised seven provinces (Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Diospontus, Pontus Polemoniacus, Armenia Minor, Cappadocia and Galatia).25 The Laterculus Veronensis, a document in Latin also known as the Verona List, contains the lists of all the provinces of the Roman empire between AD 314 and 324. It also gives information about the official foundation of the provincia Paphlagonia.26

mountainous areas. The Pontic mountain chain dominates and the northern slopes rise close to the shores of the Black Sea. These slopes are segregated through valleys and rivers, such as the Sangarios in Honorias, the Halys17 in Helenopontus, the Iris18 and the Lykos19 in Pontus Polemoniacus. The vegetation of the area can be differentiated into three different zones from the north to the south. On the coast there is a zone of mixed forest of deciduous and evergreen species. The northern slope of the Pontic chain is characterised by a zone of deciduous oak, while at higher elevations we find a zone of beech forest.20 The area is not part of the olive vegetation zone, except for small areas on the north-eastern coasts between the estuaries of the rivers Halys and Iris.21 The substratum is rich in gold, silver, copper and iron deposits.22

At the beginning of the 5th century (Fig. 5), in the context of the reforms of Theodosius II (AD 408-450), the vicarius of the Dioecesis Pontica became the governor of eleven provinces (Bithynia, Honorias, Paphlagonia, Helenopontus, Pontus Polemoniacus, Armenia Prima and Secunda, Cappadocia Prima and Secunda, Galatia and Galatia Salutaris). The Notitia Dignitatum, a Latin reference book for the internal use of the Roman authorities and according to Gilbert Dagron dated before AD 430, gives information about the foundation of the new province of Honorias from parts of eastern Bithynia and western Paphlagonia.27 Of the four coastal provinces, Paphlagonia was governed by a corrector (middle rank) and Honorias, Helenopontus and Pontus Polemoniacus by a praeses (lower rank).28

Regional Transformations The study area forms the northern part of the Dioecesis Pontica (Fig. 2), one of the six higher administrative structures (along with Illyrikon, Thrakike, Asiane, Anatolike and Aigyptiake) that constituted the Eastern Roman Empire in the 6th century.23 In the 3rd century (Fig. 3) this area was shared between the two Roman provinces Bithynia et Pontus and Galatia et Cappadocia. The former was the result of the integration of Bithynia and Pontus by Pompey after his victory over Mithradates VI Eupator. The provincia was divided into several eparchies, which are smaller administrative sub-divisions and which included Paphlagonia, Pontus Galaticus and

For the beginning of the 6th century (Fig. 6), our source is the Synecdemus of Hierocles. It confirms the situation described above. The Dioecesis Pontica has the same eleven provinces and the four coastal provinces remain as

17

RE, s.v. Halys fl.: Kızıl Irmak. RE 3, s.v. Iris fl.: Yeşil Irmak. 19 RE 8, s.v. Lykos fl.: Kelkit Cay. 20 Birot 1964, 77, fig. 14. 21 Birot 1964, 68, fig. 9. 22 Koder 2001, 77, fig. 6. 23 Barrington Atlas, map 102. 18

24

Barrington Atlas, map 100. Jones 1964, 42-47. 26 Seeck 1876b, 246-47; Barnes 1982, 207. 27 Seeck 1876a, 54-55, XXV; Dagron 1984a, 75. 28 Jones 1964, 45, 48. 25

82

D.P. DRAKOULIS: REGIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT NETWORK OF THE COASTAL PONTIC PROVINCES…

Fig. 4: The provinces of the Dioecesis Pontica in the 4th century AD, according to the Laterculus Veroniensis (after Barrington Atlas, map 101)

Fig. 5: The provinces of the Dioecesis Pontica in the 6th century AD, according to the Synecdemus of Hierocles (after Barrington Atlas, map 102)

Fig. 6: The coastal Pontic provinces in the 5th century AD, according to the Notitia Dignitatum (after Jones 1964, map III)

83

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 7: The coastal Pontic provinces during the Justinianic reforms, Novellae XXI-XXIX, AD 535-548 (after Jones 1964, map VI) Table 1: Quantitative features of the study area AREA km2

POPULATION (at a density 15 inhabitants/km2)

LOWLAND (0-300 m) km2 %

MIDLANDS (300-600 m) km2 %

HIGHLANDS (over 600 m) km2 %

Honorias

8810

132150

960

10.9

1760

20.0

6090

69.1

Paphlagonia

33342

500130

868

2.6

149

0.4

32325

96.9

Helenopontus

23580

353700

1988

8.4

827

3.5

20765

88.1

Pontus Polemoniacus

27366

410490

1248

4.6

379

1.4

25739

94.1

TOTAL

93098

1396470

5064

5.4

3115

3.4

84919

91.2

PROVINCE

they were divided during the 5th century.29 A transformation occurs in the reign of Justinian, more precisely for the period between AD 535 and 548 (Fig. 7). The provinces of Paphlagonia and Honorias were merged into a single province, named Paphlagonia. The governor held the title of Praetor Paphlagoniae Justinianus, a spectabilis (senatorial rank) who had both civil and military authority. In the same manner Helenopontus and part of Pontus Polemoniacus were merged into one single province, named Helenopontus, while the other part of Pontus Polemoniacus was annexed to Armenia Prima.30 One possible reason for the temporary unification of political and military powers is banditry. The so called xylokaballarioi, literally men with wood weapons, were terrorising the hinterland. After AD 548 the administrative divisions returned to a situation such as that described before in the Synecdemus and continued so up to the establishment of the thematic administration in the 8th century.31

5th century there is a fourth segmentation of the area, a situation that remained stable up to the AD 530s. With the exception of the Justinianic reforms, the fourfold provincial division remained stable up to the 8th century, a situation that served political and military power and was amplified by a similar development at the level of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (see below). Productive Activities The area studied comprises about 93,000 km2. With an average density of 15 inhabitants per km2, as Johannes Koder has suggested, the probable population would amount to some 1.4 million inhabitants.32 Table 1 shows quantitative features of the individual provinces (area in km2, probable population and land area in relation to elevation). It can be observed that 91.2% of the study area is mountainous and only 8% is flat land. Concerning the primary sector of production, agriculture and cultivation were exercised in the large valleys of the rivers Amnias, Ladon, Halys, Hypios and Billaios. Wheat and wine were produced on the western coasts. Hazelnuts, nuts (ponticae nuces) and fruits were also produced (Pliny NH 15. 24.

We note that the two big provinces of the 3rd century were divided into three administrative units in the 4th century, probably for more effective tax collection. In the 29

Honigmann 1939. Codex Justinianus XXIX; TIB Paphlagonien, 67. 31 TIB Paphlagonien, 68. 30

32

84

Koder 2001, 206.

D.P. DRAKOULIS: REGIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT NETWORK OF THE COASTAL PONTIC PROVINCES…

Table 2: Historical and cultural criteria PROVINCE

TOTAL No. of TOWNS & ARCHAIC CLASS- HELLEEARLY CITIES ROMAN SETTLEMENTS VILLAGES foundation ICAL NISTIC BYZANTINE

HONORIAS

22

6

16

0

2

4

13

3

PAPHLAGONIA

29

6

23

5

1

3

13

7

HELENOPONTUS

29

7

22

1

5

5

14

4

PONTUS POLEMONIACUS

45

5

40

1

7

4

20

13

TOTAL

125

24

101

7

15

16

60

27

88). Livestock farming and pastoralism played an important role in the productive activities. Fishing was also practiced. But the most important activity was woodcutting and the export of timber, which served for ship construction and also for building purposes.33 Concerning the secondary sector of production, copper and mineral salt was extracted in Paphlagonia.34 Strabo (12. 3. 40) mentions the extraction of sandarake, an arsenic sulphide used as a pigment and extracted from mines located in Helenopontus. Concerning the tertiary sector of production, we note the general sea trade, the wheat trade between the Pontic coasts and Chersonesus, the exporting of hazelnut oil from Amastris, the port city of Paphlagonia, and the conservation and export of tuna fish in the Black Sea area.35 The anonymous 4th-century text Expositio totius mundi et gentium (44) refers to the inhabitants of Pontus and Paphlagonia as rich and intelligent and outstanding in learning. They worked at the imperial courts, were reliable in matters of debt and naturally good people, thus they are urged toward bigger and better things. Various professions are known, such as medical doctors, architects, painters, cloth and fur merchants, butchers, ship builders, etc.36

them, similar to the ‘secondary centres’ that were developing in the West during the same period.39 The fourth category is the village, chorion or fundus, a region with concrete boundaries and with a rural settlement. It constitutes an economic and legal unit inhabited by several owners (katochoi) and surrounded by individual farms (kteseis), by small collective ownerships (agridia) and by larger landholdings (proastia).40 The boundaries of the four provinces have been traced according to map 102 of the Barrington Atlas. The information regarding provincial capitals and cities is taken from the Synecdemus of Hierocles. Towns and villages have been identified and located following the Barrington Atlas. The administrative hierarchy is as follows: 1) Honorias (Table 4) was governed by a praeses with Claudiopolis as capital city, 5 cities/poleis (Prusias Heracleia, Tios, Krateia and Hadrianopolis) and 16 towns and villages – komai and choria (Psylla, Krenides, Sandarake, Oxinas, Aulia, a settlement in the modern location Kilisecik, Kales, Elaios, Lilaios, Diospolis, a settlement in the modern location Derekoy, a settlement in the modern location Kandamış, Mantineion, Mandris, a settlement in the modern location Cetikoren and a settlement in the modern location Ayman Yaylası).

Settlements of the Early Byzantine Period Four categories of settlements form the spatial hierarchy. At the top is the provincial capital, the seat of the provincial governor, responsible for political administration, taxation, financial management and legal matters. He was assisted by a dux, responsible for the management of the military legions garrisoned within the province.37 The second category is the provincial city, the polis, a compact settlement, often already fortified after the end of the Pax Romana, with a high density of buildings with political, economic, religious and cultural functions over a surrounding countryside of varying size.38 The third category is the town – the kome, metrokomia or komopolis in the Greek terminology of the Early Byzantine period. It had a market as a result of artisanal production, and small-scale trade and periodical fairs (panegyreis, nundinae) were held there. The komai represent the ‘satellite towns’, as Gilbert Dagron calls

2) Paphlagonia (Table 5) was governed by a corrector with Gangra-Germanicopolis as capital city, and has 5 cities (Pompeiopolis, Sora, Amastris, AbonouteichosIonopolis and Dadybra) and 23 towns and villages (Parthenia Kome, Eryth(r)inoi, Kromna, Kytoron, Aigialos, Klimax, Thymena, Timolaion, MarsyllaKallistratia, Zephyrion, Garios, Aiginetes, Kinolis, Antikinolis, Stephane, a settlement in the modern location Horma, Ziporea, a settlement in the modern location İlbarut, a settlement in the modern location Karakoyunlu, Potomia Cepora, Antoniopolis, Anadynata and Kobara). 3) Helenopontus (Table 6) was governed by a consulares with Amaseia as capital city, has 6 cities (Ibora, Zela, Salton Zaliches-Leontopolis, Andrapa, Amisos and Sinope) and 22 towns and villages (Potamoi, Armene, Kyptasia, Karousa-Polichnion, GarzoubanthonOrgibate, Zagora, a settlement probably named

33

TIB Paphlagonien, 139. TIB Paphlagonien, 145. 35 TIB Paphlagonien, 147-51. 36 TIB Paphlagonien, 146-47. 37 LMA s.v. Metropolis. 38 Koder 1986, 157. 34

39 40

85

Dagron 1984b, 49-52. Antoniadis-Bibicou 1996, 147-48.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Table 3: Geographical and spatial criteria

Table 4: Settlements of Honorias (cities according to the Synecdemus; towns and villages according to the Barrington Atlas)

Libiopolis, Kerasous, Hieron Oros, Kordyle, Hermyse, Kaine Parembole, Hyssos-Sousarmia, Ophis, Rhizaion, Mirones, Bartae, Seramisa, Gagonda, Syderos, Magabula, Sauronisena, Danae, Matuasco, Speluncis, Anniaca, Megalossos, Mesorome, Ad Vincesimum-Magnana, GizenenicaChaszanenica, Zigana, Bylae, Frigidarium, Patara, Thia, Medoci(n)a and a settlement with the probable name Schamalinichon). Overall there are 125 settlements, of which 4 (3.2%) are provincial capitals, 24 (19.2%) are cities and 101 (80.8%) towns and villages.

Helega or Gadilonitis, Naustathmos, Eusene, Chadisia, Ankon, Pteria, Thermai Phazemoniton, Cromen, Euchaita, Virasia, Palalce, C(h)oloe, Pida, Carissa, a settlement in the modern location Tekke and Pleuramis.). 4) Finally, the province of Pontus Polemoniacus (Table 7) was governed by a praeses with NeocaesareaSebaste (modern Niksar) as capital city, has four cities (Comana Pontica-Hierocaesarea, Polemonion, Kerasous and Trapezus) and 40 towns and villages (The-miskyra, Lamyron-Herakleion, Caena, Camila, Phadisane, Stamene, Boon, Kotyora, Tripolis, 86

Table 5: Settlements of Paphlagonia (cities according to the Synecdemus; towns and villages according to the Barrington Atlas)

D.P. DRAKOULIS: REGIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT NETWORK OF THE COASTAL PONTIC PROVINCES…

Regarding the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the area belongs to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and comprises four metropoleis. According to the first Notitia Episcopatuum, the four seats were located in the provincial capitals. There were also two autocephalous archdioceses, that is, bishoprics not belonging to the provincial ecclesiastical

authorities but reporting directly to the Patriarchate; these are Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia and Euchaita in Pontus Polemoniacus.41 There were also 22 bishoprics which correspond to the remaining urban centres of these 41

87

Gerland 1931, 8-9.

Table 6: Settlements of Helenopontus (cities according to the Synecdemus; towns and villages according to the Barrington Atlas)

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

provinces. The bishops supervised the surrounding countryside through the chorepiskopoi, a kind of itinerant bishop, with no constant official seat but probably

resident in the towns-komai.42 42

88

Troianos 1978, 274-75.

Table 7: Settlements of Pontus Polemoniacus (cities according to the Synecdemus; towns and villages according to the Barrington Atlas)

D.P. DRAKOULIS: REGIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT NETWORK OF THE COASTAL PONTIC PROVINCES…

regarding the modern name of the settlement, and in the fourth column are the references. The results of the historical and cultural criteria can be summarised in Table 2:

Historical and Geographical Criteria Tables 4-7 show the cities, towns and villages of the Early Byzantine period per province in relation to their foundation date. Every table has four columns. The first contains the settlement’s provincial registry number. The second column concerns the period of occupation and monitors the settlement’s presence in five historical subperiods (Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine). In the third column is contained information

We observe that the majority of the settlements, more than 50%, were founded during the Roman period, while more than 20% in the Early Byzantine period. The intensive urbanisation of the study area during the Roman period apparently continued in the Early Byzantine period.

89

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Tables 8-11 show the geographical and spatial features of the settlements within the four provinces. Each table has eight columns. These contain the settlement’s provincial registry number, the cities, towns and villages and the modern place names. In the fifth column is contained information regarding geomorphology, with three variables (lowlands 0-300 m, midlands 300-600 m and highlands more than 600 m above sea level). The sixth column concerns the water elements and has four variables (river, lake, maritime and inland locations). The seventh records the street network with three variables (interregional, main and secondary road axes). The last column contains information about communication features, such as nodal points or ports. The results are compiled in Table 3:

Ionopolis. It proceeds to Helenopontus through Sinope, Leontopolis and Amisos, then enters Pontus Polemoniacus, passes through Trapezus and ends outside the empire’s boundaries. A second horizontal road begins in Constantinople and passes through Nicomedeia in an easterly direction. It connects Claudiopolis with Krateia in Honorias, passes through Paphlagonia and Helenopontus, connects Amaseia with Neocaesarea and ends in Armenia Prima. A third horizontal road is found between the two mentioned previously. It connects Claudiopolis with Hadrianopolis, Sora and Pompeiopolis, then passes through Andrapa and ends in Neocaesarea. There are three transverse roads. The first has a southerly direction and connects Krateia with Ancyra. The second starts in Sinope and ends on the third horizontal axis at Claudiopolis-Neocaesarea. The third axis connects Neocaesarea with Sebasteia, capital city of Armenia Prima. Finally, the most eastern transverse road connects Trapezus with Satala in Armenia Prima. It can be observed that there is a topographical limitation on the development of transversal roads, due to the Pontic mountain chain which traverses the whole area. In reverse, the horizontal axes are considered more important for military purposes, as they reinforce the limes.

We observe that settlement location is distributed almost equally between lowlands and highlands, despite the fact that more than 90% of the study area is mountainous. This indicates a preference for, and a consequent density of, settlements in the lowlands. The majority of the settlements are related to water elements and 47% of them are located on the Black Sea. The majority are connected by interregional roads, a fact that indicates the importance of the region as a military transition axis in relation to the empire’s eastern borders. Finally, 73% of the maritime settlements are possible ports.

Articulation of the Settlements Network The settlements of the study area follow linear distribution models in relation to the coastline and the road networks.48 A first linear model is formed along the coast and is supported by the presence of the interregional axis Constantinople–Trapezus. A second is formed along the axis Constantinople–eastern borders. On this network are located three of the four provincial capitals (Claudiopolis, Amaseia and Neocaesarea). A third linear model is formed along the axis Claudiopolis–Pompeiopolis– Neocaesarea.

Road Network The primary source concerning the road network comes from the Tabula Peutingeriana. This diagrammatic map contains, among several natural elements, and also shows the network of main roads, settlements, mansiones and mutationes, overnight and horse-changing stations.43 At the end of the 19th century, Konrad Miller, in his Itineraria Romana, transcribed the Tabula in a more readable manner.44 At the end of the 20th century, Klaus Belke and the other collaborators of the Tabula Imperii Byzantini presented the road network of the region in a more systematic way.45 In the beginning of the 21st century, the compilers of the Barrington Atlas have furnished a more sophisticated representation of the road system.46 The data from the abovementioned sources have been combined for research purposes.

CONCLUSION Despite the geographical constraints, such as the Pontic mountain chain and the lack of lowland areas even near the seashore, the urbanisation of the area began in the Archaic period and continued in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. It became more intense in the Roman period and continues with normal rhythms in the Early Byzantine period. The majority of the foundations in the Roman and the Early Byzantine periods are towns and villages, a fact that can be seen as a possible trend to a more agrarian society. The settlements are connected through and supported by a well organised state road network, as well as a large number of ports.

The road network has been analysed in three categories: inter-regional axes, main and secondary regional roads.47 The road network of the study area in the Early Byzantine period (Fig. 1) can be described as two sets of horizontal and transversal inter-regional axes respectively. A first horizontal road begins from Constantinople and follows the coastline in an easterly direction. It passes along the coasts of Bithynia and Honorias, through Heracleia and Tios and then enters Paphlagonia through Amastris and

In conclusion, the study area flourished in the Early Byzantine period, but from the 7th century invaders arrived, first the Sasanids, then the Arabs. The territorial transformations of the provinces up to the constitution of the thematic organization grew out of military

43

Drakoulis 2007, 163-65; Podossinov, this volume. ItMiller, 629-84. 45 TIB Paphlagonien, 115-37. 46 Barrington Atlas, maps 62-64, 86-87. 47 Koder 2001, 99-101, fig. 7. 44

48

90

Chorley 1967, 65.

Table 8: Geographical and spatial features of Honorias

D.P. DRAKOULIS: REGIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT NETWORK OF THE COASTAL PONTIC PROVINCES…

91

Table 9: Geographical and spatial features of Paphlagonia

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

92

Table 10: Geographical and spatial features of Helenopontus

D.P. DRAKOULIS: REGIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT NETWORK OF THE COASTAL PONTIC PROVINCES…

93

Table 11: Geographical and spatial features of Pontus Polemoniacus

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

motives under the influence of the border wars in the East.

Bibliography

However, the urban principle of organisation proved to be stable. Dynamic accommodation to Graeco-Roman civilisation and considerable wealth are also evidenced by coins, inscriptions and architecture.49

Barrington Atlas

49

Abbreviations

ItMiller

Marek 1993, 128.

94

R.J.A. Talbert (ed.), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton/Oxford 2000). K. Miller, Itineraria Romana: Römische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana (Stuttgart 1916; repr. 1964).

D.P. DRAKOULIS: REGIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT NETWORK OF THE COASTAL PONTIC PROVINCES…

La romanité chrétienne en Orient: héritages et mutations (London), 29-52.

LMA

R. Auty et al. (eds.), Lexikon des Mittelalters (Munich/Zurich 1977-99; Stuttgart 1999).

PECS

R. Stillwell, W.L. MacDonald and M.H. McAllister (eds.), The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (Princeton 1976).

DRAKOULIS, D. 2007: ‘The Study of Late Antique Cartography through Web Based Sources’. ePerimetron 2.3, 160-72.

RE

A. Pauly and G. Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft.

GERLAND, Ε. 1931: Corpus Νοtitiarum Εpιscοpatuum Εcclesiae Οrientalis Graecae, 1: Die Genesis der Nοtitia Episcοpatuum (Bruges/Istanbul).

TIB Galatien

K. Belke, Tabula Imperii Byzantini 4: Galatien und Lykaonien (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 172) (Vienna 1984).

TIB Paphlagonien

HONIGMANN, E. (ed.) 1939: Le Synekdèmos d’ Hiéroklès et l’Opuscule géographique de Georges de Chypre (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae. Forma Imperii Byzantini 1) (Brussels).

K. Belke, Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9: Paphlagonien und Honorias (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, Denkschriften 249) (Vienna 1966).

JOHNSTON, R.J., GREGORY, D. and SMITH, D. (eds.) 1989: The Dictionary of Human Geography (Oxford). JONES, A.H.M. 1964: The Later Roman Empire, 284602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, 3 vols. (Oxford). JONES, A.H.M. 1971: The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, 2nd ed. (Oxford).

ANDERSON, J.G.C. 1903: A Journey of Exploration in Pontus (Studia Pontica 1) (Brussels).

KODER, J. 1986: ‘The Urban Character of the Early Byzantine Empire: Some Reflections on a Settlement Geographical Approach to the Topic’. In The 17th International Byzantine Congress: Major Papers (Dumbarton Oaks/Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., August 3-8, 1986) (New York), 155-87.

ANTONIADIS-BIBICOU, H. and ANTONIADOUBIBICOU, E. 1996: Problemata Istorias (Athens). 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), 924-73.

KODER, J. 2001: Der Lebensraum der Byzantiner: Historisch–geographischer Abriß ihres mittelalterlichen Staates im östlichen Mittelmeerraum (Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber. Ergänzungsband 1) (Graz).

BARNES, T.D. 1982: The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge). BELKE, K. 1992: ‘Untersuchungen an der paphlagonischen Schwarzmeerküste’. In Pillinger, R., Pülz, A. and Vetters, H. (eds.), Die Schwarzmeerküste in der Spätantike und im frühen Mittelalter (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Schriften der Balkan-Kommission, Antiquarische Abteilung 18) (Vienna), 145-54.

MAGIE, D. 1950: Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century After Christ, 2 vols. (Princeton). MAREK, C. 1993: Stadt, Ära und Territorium in PontusBithynia und Nord-Galatia (Istanbuler Forschungen 39) (Tübingen). OLSHAUSEN, E. and BILLER, J. 1984: Historischgeographische Aspekte der Geschichte des Pontischen und Armenischen Reiches, 1: Untersuchungen zur historischen Geographie von Pontos unter den Mithridatiden (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Geisteswissenschaften 29) (Wiesbaden).

BIROT, P. 1964: La méditerranée et le Moyen-Orient, 2nd ed. with the collaboration of P. Gabert (Paris). BRYER, A.A.M. and WINFIELD, D.C. 1985: The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 20) (Washington, DC). CHORLEY, R.J. 1967: ‘Models in Geomorphology’. In Chorley, R.J. and Haggett, P. (eds.), Models in Geography (London), 59-96.

SEECK, O. 1876a: ‘Notitia Dignitatum in Partibus Orientis’. In Notitia Dignitatum, accedunt Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae et Latercula provinciarum (Berlin; repr. Frankfurt 1962), 1-103.

COHEN, G.M. 1995: The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor (Hellenistic Culture and Society 17) (Berkeley/Oxford).

SEECK, O. 1876b: ‘Laterculus Veronensis’. In Notitia Dignitatum: accedunt Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae et Latercula provinciarum (Berlin; repr. Frankfurt 1962), 247-53.

DAGRON, G. 1984a: Naissance d'une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Bibliothèque Byzantine. Études 7) (Paris).

TROIANOS, S. 1978: ‘Ecclesiastical Institutions’. In Christopoulos, G.A. (ed.), Istoria tou ellinikou ethnous 7 (Athens), 274-77.

DAGRON, G. 1984b: ‘Entre village et cité: la bourgade rurale des IVe-VIIe siècles en Orient’. In Dagron, G.,

95

THE PONTIC ARMY: INTEGRATING PERSIAN AND MACEDONIAN TRADITIONS Cristian Emilian GHITA Department of Classics & Ancient History, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, Great Britain [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract: The present paper will attempt to analyse the data preserved in the ancient sources relating to Pontic armies in Hellenistic times with the purpose of identifying the way in which, in the wake of Alexander’s expedition, the deeply rooted Achaemenid tradition intermingled with the novelties introduced by Graeco-Macedonian influence. It will try to prove that the two were not mutually exclusive and that while the latter prevailed in the material aspects, like the equipment of the soldiers, royal control over training and manufacture of weapons or the divisions of the army, the former was still behind the mentality of the people in this area, most notably in the ‘philosophy of deployment’ or in the patterns of recruitment. It is important to note that the bulk of information relates to the tumultuous reign of Mithradates VI Eupator and thus any extrapolations must be performed with great caution. PONTOS ORDUSU: PERS VE MAKEDONIA GELENEKLERİNİN ENTEGRASYONU Özet: Bu bildiride Büyük İskender’in istilaları sırasında köklü Akhamenid geleneğine Greco-Makedon etkisiyle karışmış olan yeniliklerin nasıl geçtiğini anlamak amacıyla, Hellenistik Dönem Pontos ordusu ile ilgili antik kaynaklardan elde edilen veriler incelenecektir. Burada amaç bu iki unsurun ortak olarak varolmadıkları ve Makedon geleneğinin daha ziyade kendini asker teçhizatı, eğitimi, kraliyet kontrolü, silah üretimi ya da ordunun bölünmesi gibi materyale bağlı konularda hissettirirken, Pers geleneği daha çok “savaş düzeni alma felsefesi”nde ya da askere çağırma olgusunda olduğu gibi, bu bölgedeki insanların zihinlerinde yer aldığını ispat etmektir. Burada not düşmelidir ki, bu konudaki en fazla bilgi çalkantılı VI. Mithridates Eupator dönemine aittir ve konuyla ilgili tahmini karakterdeki bilgilere oldukça dikkatli yaklaşılmalıdır.

identify the residues of Achaemenid tradition intermingled with the novelties brought about by GraecoMacedonian influence. It will try to prove that the two were not mutually exclusive and that while the latter prevailed in the material aspects, like the equipment of the soldiers, royal control over training and manufacture of weapons or the divisions of the army, the former was still behind the mentality of the people in this area, most notably in the ‘philosophy of deployment’ or in the patterns of recruitment.

Scholars who spend time in the study of Asia Minor in Hellenistic times must be grateful to Mithradates VI Eupator and his indisputable skill which allowed him to remain at war with the Romans for a considerable number of years, thus attracting the attention of the ancient historians. Works dedicated to the military exploits of his Roman opponents, to whom he offered ample opportunities for glorious victories and spectacular comebacks, are treasure troves for modern historians, who find therein information relating to numerous aspects of his kingdom and its surroundings: dynastic situation, property issues, religious environment, but above all – not surprisingly – relating to military matters. It is, however, a mixed blessing. An extraordinary king in extraordinary circumstances, this monarch is the focus of attention, to the detriment of his ancestors who receive but summary treatment. Moreover, while continuing to a certain degree the policy of his ancestors, he managed in the course of his career to change the status and the external perception of his kingdom. It is not surprising, therefore, that he introduced (or is very likely to have introduced) a number of changes and reforms. This makes generalising statements and conclusions very risky, for what one may see as a trait defining the dynasty as a whole might be, in fact, a trait introduced by this man who dominated his age.

It is perhaps not unfair to describe Macedonian society as ‘militarised’. After all, one of the fundamental institutions, the one that sanctioned the accession to the throne of the new king, was the assembly of the people in arms. Also, even before the death of Alexander, the Macedonians were disposed to accept the rule of people who showed promising warlike qualities, even though not in the direct line of succession (one such example being Philip II himself). After the Argead line was brutally extinguished, the role of the army as legal authority became even more prominent. It is characteristic that the new generation of Macedonian kings, beginning with Antigonos Monophthalmos, establish their legitimacy primarily on the grounds of their military achievements,1 which overshadow their complete lack of dynastic legitimacy. The Macedonian king continued to be a soldier, even in times of peace and he expressed that

The present paper will attempt, with all the caution imposed by the above considerations, to pursue the data preserved in the ancient sources relating to Pontic armies in Hellenistic times – frustratingly little for the early days and almost overwhelmingly much for the last days – and

1

Billows 1990, 156; for a more general treatment of warfare and its connection to political power in Hellenistic times, cf. Baker 2003; Gehrke 1982, passim; and many other studies.

97

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

publicly in his outfit, which is military in nature: boots, chlamys and wide-brimmed hat: it is interesting to see in Plutarch a clear opposition between the outfit of the kings that followed Alexander’s tradition and those who followed the fashion of the ‘barbarians’:

military imagery that can be found on it (particularly, but not exclusively so, on the so-called ‘civic’ bronze issues, intended for mass circulation): the quiver, the sword in sheath, the aegis, Ares, Nike, etc. However, the interpretation of coin-types is notoriously difficult. For instance, an otherwise pacific portrait of Zeus could be considered to convey a military message, given Eupator’s particular reverence towards Zeus Stratios – ‘Zeus, Protector of Armies’ (Appian Mith. 276), but the club (or even the quiver) might not: it is not unreasonable to believe this representation is set in the wider context of Pontic interference in the Aegean, indicating the claim of the Mithradatids – or at least of Mithradates VI Eupator – to have blood ties with the Argead dynasty and with Alexander in particular, whose mythical ancestor was Hercules.

At the same time, he brought forth the children: Alexander was dressed in Median clothes, with a tiara and upright kitaris, while Ptolemaios wore boots, mantle and a wide-brimmed hat with the diadem; for the latter was the fashion of the kings that followed Alexander, while the former belonged to the Medians and Armenians (Plutarch Antonius 54. 8).2 As opposed to that, the Achaemenid kingship was anchored in the idea of legitimacy through descent and divine favour. The most important written document left behind by Darius I, the Behistun inscription, in which he strives to glorify his achievements and publicise his vision of legitimacy, the accent is always laid on bloodline and favour of Ahura Mazda. Certainly, the many victories are important, but they do not appear to be the foundation of his claim to rule: he is not a legitimate king due to his irreproachable string of victories, but rather, he enjoys a flawless military record due to him being the exponent of truth and order. Moreover, personal physical courage is not required of the Persian king: Xerxes is perfectly content to watch the battle of Salamis from a distance without thinking this would damage his authority or the morale of his troops – quite the opposite is true.

The interaction between the two traditions can be traced not only in the attitude of the monarch towards the army as a major pillar of power, but also in details such as army composition and recruitment or even equipment of land forces and the fleet. Land armies seem to be somewhat better documented and offer more ample opportunities of study. However, more information does not necessarily mean more accurate information and this is the major obstacle in drawing accurate conclusions. All too often our sources are merely reproducing topoi, most notably the one regarding the immense number of soldiers in the Oriental armies, and their equally immense incompetence. It is perfectly true that the outcome of the different wars would indeed suggest they were quite simply no match for the fewer, but more disciplined soldiers of the ‘civilised’ nations, Greeks, Macedonians and, when these have ‘gone native’, the Romans, but what histories often fail to mention is the difficulty with which they won: a campaign lasting a few years is sometimes reduced in the accounts to the final, decisive encounter.

The relationship between kingship and the military in Pontic Cappadocia is not easy to discern. For instance, we lack an important criterion, for we cannot determine with certainty the moment when Mithradates I declared himself king. Scholarly tradition (based mainly on George Syncellus 593. 7) suggests 281 as a possible year,3 associating the event with a military victory over Diodorus, a general of Seleucus (based on the Prologue of Justinus Epitome Book 17), but it is by no means certain that Mithradates, however much influenced by his friendship with Demetrius, would assume the royal title in Macedonian fashion. It is certain, nevertheless, that royal epithets with military resonance (like Soter – ‘Saviour’; Nikator – ‘Victorious’; or Kallinikos – ‘Beautifully Victorious’), widely used by contemporary dynasties to project an image of martial prowess or even invincibility, are inexistent within the Pontic House, whose kings prefer titles that reflect instead either nobility of descent and familial solidarity (like Philopator – ‘Father-lover’; Philadelphos – ‘Brother-lover’; or Eupator – ‘with a noble father’), benevolent attitude (like Euergetes – ‘Generous’), or respect towards the gods (like Dionysos – ‘Dionysius’).

The sources are unanimous in considering cavalry the most prestigious branch of the land army, and they appear to be telling the truth. We are assured of this by the parallels in nearly every other culture, from the Atlantic to India. No wonder: breeding, maintaining and training a warhorse demanded great expenses and therefore cavalry was almost entirely the domain of the aristocracy, at least in those regions of Europe, Africa and Asia where horses did not live in abundance, supported by vast expanses of grass-covered flat land. The prestige enjoyed by the East Anatolian cavalry during the Hellenistic times and beyond4 was based not only on their superior social status, but also on a record of effectiveness on the battlefield. On a number of occasions, we hear of their thunderous charges that manage to break even through the ranks of such disciplined troops as the legions of Rome: at the battle of Chaeronea under Archelaus (Appian Mith. 165; Plutarch

It is true that Pontic coinage seems to document an arduous martial ethos of the monarch by the copious 2 All translations by the author, unless otherwise mentioned. For a more detailed discussion of the outfit of the Seleucids in particular, see Bickerman 1938, 32-33. 3 Advocated (with caution), for example, by McGing 1986, 17.

4

See, for example, the eulogy of Cappadocian horses in Solinus 45. Although this late Roman author preserves little data of real historical interest, he nevertheless testifies to the fame enjoyed by these animals as extremely intelligent and supremely apt for war.

98

C.E. GHITA: THE PONTIC ARMY: INTEGRATING PERSIAN AND MACEDONIAN TRADITIONS

Sulla 19. 1), at the battle on the River Lycus under Mithradates VI (Plutarch Pompeius 32. 7) or at the battle of Nicopolis under Pharnaces II (Anon. Bellum Alexandrinum 40). They proved thus to be worthy descendants of the Cappadocian horseman that were more than a match for the Macedonian horse under the leadership of Eumenes (Plutarch Eumenes 5. 5; 7. 1-5) and who, before that, had served the Achaemenid kings with loyalty and distinction: at the battle of Gaugamela, a strong Cappadocian contingent was present (in spite of Alexander’s expedition into their country and his appointing Sabictas as satrap) and it fought well on the prestigious right flank, alongside the Armenian detachment, putting great pressure on the left flank of the phalanx (Arrian Anab. 3. 11. 7; 3. 14. 5).

are concerned: while the Persians used the palton, a versatile short spear, which may be used equally well as a missile and a hand-to-hand weapon, the Greeks and Macedonians preferred the long lance, xyston. In the hands of Alexander’s cavalrymen, the latter proved to be much superior and historians record attempts by Darius to accustom his own troops to its use (Diodorus 17. 53. 1). One may be led to suppose that the superiority of the Greek model, amply demonstrated on the battlefield, would convince all subsequent generals to adopt it. Indeed, elsewhere in Anatolia we find that the son of the Commagenian king Antiochos IV Epiphanes is helping Titus during the Judean War at the head of a body of cavalrymen nicknamed ‘the Macedonians’:

All these exploits belong to the heavy branch of the cavalry and were made possible by the special equipment they possessed, namely good protection for the rider and ideally also for the horse, coupled with powerful offensive weapons. In this respect, the Persian tradition differed markedly from the Greek. While the Greeks preferred to leave their horses unprotected except by occasional forehead plates, the Persians tended to provide their horses with both head and chest guards (Xenophon Anab. 1. 8. 7).5 As for the protection of the rider, while both traditions advised the use of helmet and breastplate, the shapes and materials differed. The Greeks and Macedonians preferred the Boeotian helmet, coupled with either solid bronze muscular plate or the more flexible linen corselet. The Persians, on the other hand, preferred a different type of helmet, round or conical (as the example dedicated at Olympia sometime during the Median Wars, now preserved in the Archaeological Museum of Olympia) and breastplates made of scales – bronze, iron or bronze plaited with gold. Interestingly enough, the Persian custom seems to have demanded that the armour be covered: Masistios, for example, the leader of the Persian cavalry at Plataia wears his gold-plaited armour beneath a purple tunic (Herodotus 9. 22. 2). In addition to these, the Persians also used thigh-protection in the form of leather blankets covered with metal scales attached to the saddle, which were then wrapped around the thighs – these are called by Xenophon parameridia (Anab. 1. 8. 7).6 The Greeks, however, used no such devices, in spite of Xenophon’s advice in Hippike 12. 10, probably inspired from his Persian adventures. The difference is clear also insofar as the offensive weapons

In the midst of these events it also happened that Antiochos Epiphanes arrived, having about himself a detachment called ‘the Macedonians’ – all young, tall, little over the age of adolescence, armed and educated in the Macedonian fashion, whence their nickname, in spite of the fact that most of them were not so by birth (Joseph. Bellum Judaicum 5. 460). That, however, is not always the case. We find, for example, that Mithradates VI’s mounted bodyguard is equipped in the Persian fashion.7 One is bound to wonder what exactly did ‘the clothes and horse “trappings” of a Persian man’ mean for Plutarch and if his view of Persian equipment concords with ours. It probably does, at least to a large extent, given that our own conception rests to a good degree on artistic depictions, such as the painting that served as model for the so-called Alexander Mosaic from Pompeii8 (confirmed here and there by the occasional piece of equipment discovered in archaeological excavations), and these were available to Plutarch as well. It must be noted, nevertheless, that Macedonian influence was not altogether absent. One of the most important changes brought about by Alexander’s successes was the adoption of the lance, which is demonstrated in the age of conflict that followed the Conqueror’s death: in the clash between Eumenes’ Cappadocians and Crateros’ Macedonians, the two forces both fight with long spears which break on impact (Plutarch Eumenes 7. 5). The other is the disappearance of the thigh-guards: when a Roman centurion manages to come near Eupator, it is at his exposed thighs that he chooses to strike, for want of a better target (Appian Mith. 89). It may be imagined that the relative rigidity of the parameridia, while not a major impediment in launching the javelin, would have prevented the solid grip imperative for the use of the lance as shock weapon – all the more so as the stirrup had not yet been invented – and

5 The available artistic representations do not support Xenophon, but this should not lead us to discard completely the evidence he provides: the representations on Greek pottery are too often marred by artistic convention (many examples also omitting, for instance, the saddle), while the representations on Persian stamp seals are incomplete, sketchy or depict light cavalry. There are many attempts in modern literature to reconstruct Achaemenid cavalry. The many details offered by Ashley (1998, 60) should be taken cum grano salis. More reliable is Nefedkin (2006), but his considerations must also be examined critically, given for example his belief that Xenophon’s Cyropaidia may be confidently used as a source for the tactical realities of the 6th century BC. Sekunda (1992) is a useful resource, although this contribution to Achaemenid studies fails to rise to the level of his later works, mainly due to his uncritical use of artistic depictions – mainly the Abdalonymos Sarcophagus – as substitute for archaeological evidence. 6 For additional information, see Sekunda 1992, 54-60.

7 Plutarch Vita Pompei 32. 8. The evidence refers directly to Hypsicrateia, the king’s concubine, but she is mentioned as part of the 800 riders that accompany Eupator, so it is not unreasonable to suppose this was the outfit of them all. 8 For a detailed discussion of the original painting, see Stewart 1993, 130-50.

99

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

led to the discarding of this cumbersome form of protection.

Bithynian infantry (Appian Mith. 65), which they could never hope to achieve had they been light troops.

Unfortunately, in the matter of the recruitment of heavy cavalry, we are reduced to reasonable guesses, as our sources are completely silent. It seems very likely that the majority (apart, that is, from the royal mounted guards and from mercenaries) were part of the corps offered by landed aristocrats who had the necessary wealth for their equipment and maintenance. The argument rests on many conjectures, but it may be fruitful to follow.

The picture that emerges from this perhaps contorted argument is that a good proportion of the heavy cavalry available to the kings in eastern Anatolia was formed by the corps of retainers in the service of noblemen, bound to serve the monarch in exchange for lands. Thus, the situation appears to bear more similarities with the Achaemenid system than with the Macedonian, for while the Western tradition emphasised the personal liability of the owner of a relatively small plot to serve as cavalryman, the Eastern tradition, often compared to the mediaeval feudal system, put greater pressure on the nobility, demanding that they arm and maintain a body of soldiers, while at the same time providing them with the revenue to do so by an offer of land. Perhaps a reflection of this system is to be found in the tablet of Gadal-iama from Nippur, who is hired by an aristocrat to serve as heavy cavalryman.9 One may notice, therefore, that while Graeco-Macedonian ideas were adopted, particularly in the practical field of equipment and tactics, the underlying tradition followed in eastern Anatolia remains the Achaemenid.

Plutarch (Crassus 17. 9), assures us that Crassus was able to call on the dynastai for military assistance and that they were legally bound to heed his call. Their military obligations were connected in all likelihood to the arrangements made by Roman generals such as Lucullus and Pompey in the wake of their victories in Anatolia, namely rewarding those who had fought on their side – states, polities or dynastai – with lands or even whole cities (Strabo 12. 3. 1, 33; Plutarch Pompeius 38. 2). Interestingly, they tended to offer such gifts on the periphery of the territory they had wrested from Mithradates, in Armenia Minor and Colchis, areas where the power of the dynastai was traditionally very well established. The pattern that seems to emerge is that the landed aristocrats would receive gifts of land in exchange for military service and that this military service was not limited to their own person, since they were on a par with large communities: ‘Crassus, who wrote letters both to nations and dynasts, gathering soldiers, then dismissed those who gave him bribes, acquired a bad reputation and earned despise’ (Plutarch Crassus 17. 9). We may quite safely assume, therefore, that the dynastai had both the obligation and the means to maintain bodies of retainers.

This is even more obvious when dealing with the other branches of the cavalry. It seems likely that the light cavalry had a good proportion of horse archers, a certain Eastern influence. This, however, is never clearly stated in the sources, unless one interprets as a hendiadys this phrase in Cassius Dio 36. 49. 6: ἱππῆς γὰρ καὶ τοξόται τὸ πλεῖστον ὄντες κτλ.10 Yet, the Armenian parallels mentioned above make it very plausible that a body of horse archers would complement the striking force of the heavy cavalry. We are far better informed about the situation of scythed chariots. These appear frequently in the armies of Pontus, both at the time of Mithradates Eupator and at the time of his son, Pharnaces II. These were used mainly as a terror weapon, similar to a certain extent to the use of elephants: by their irresistible charge, they were to smash through enemy formations, breaking their cohesion in order to allow other troops – cavalry and infantry – to exploit the gaps and achieve victory. They were, however, severely limited by a number of factors: they needed a fairly long space in order to gain the necessary momentum, they were quite fragile in rocky terrain, once engaged on a trajectory, they could not manoeuvre with ease, making them predictable and finally, driver and horses were very vulnerable to missiles. On the battlefield, their frightening presence sometimes brought about resounding victories, such as the one obtained by Archelaus against Nicomedes by the River Amnias (Appian Mith. 66-67), but rather more often they brought little but disappointment, such as at the battle of Chaeronea against Sulla or at Zela against Caesar (Anon. Bellum Alexandrinum 75. 2). Their prolonged career might perhaps be explained by their venerable Achaemenid roots. It is still rather unclear

In order to determine the type of troops preferred, we must go back in time a considerable number of years, to the period of the First Mithradatic War. Thus, on the list of Pontic forces, one finds a very strong contingent of cavalry from Armenia Minor, under the leadership of Arcathias (Appian Mith. 63). It is not unreasonable to suppose that these were mainly ‘nobiliary detachments’, given that Armenia Minor had always been in the hands of dynasts (Strabo 12. 3. 28) and that, if we put any trust in the precision of Appian’s language (which, however, is not always advisable), these were not part of the royal detachments: ‘Arcathias, Mithridates’ own son, brought him a detachment of allied troops from Lesser Armenia, consisting of ten thousand horsemen’ (Appian Mith. 63). Appian, however, does not provide a description of these troops, so the only way to determine their type is through analogies or deductions. The analogy with the situation in Greater Armenia is not decisive, for although one may notice a marked preference for heavy or even superheavy, cataphract cavalry, the Armenian forces also employ highly proficient mounted skirmishers (Cassius Dio 36. 5). The problem may be solved by a piece of information found in Appian, who notices that during the battle on the River Amnias, the cavalry of Arcathias is called on to maintain a defensive line against oncoming

9

Nefiodkin 2006, 10-12. ‘They were, in good proportion, horsemen and bowmen….’

10

100

C.E. GHITA: THE PONTIC ARMY: INTEGRATING PERSIAN AND MACEDONIAN TRADITIONS

when and where they first evolved, but ancient sources are unanimous that this was a Persian invention (Arrian Tactica 2. 5; Xenophon Cyr. 6. 1. 30). Nefedkin’s theory,11 namely that they appeared specifically to counter the solid hoplitic formation, based on the observation that historically it was vulnerable to skirmishers and therefore could not have been designed against them, fails to take into account that it fared no better against disciplined heavy infantry such as Alexander’s phalangites at Gaugamela or the Roman legionaries in the two battles just mentioned. Also, the geography of Anatolia, with its rugged terrain, was hardly inviting for a device that needed vast plains in order to function at its best. It would perhaps be more fruitful to search for the origin of the scythed chariot in Mesopotamia. Whatever its origins, however, the presence of these chariots in East Anatolian armies lent them an unmistakeable Persian appearance. Camels were another Eastern oddity present on the battlefields and reminding of long Achaemenid traditions, in spite of their obvious difficulties at coping with the rugged terrain. As such, they must have been relegated to a secondary role and we only hear of them incidentally, in two passages (Plutarch Lucullus 11. 3-4; Cassius Dio 36. 49. 3).

or He abandoned, therefore, the multitudes gathered from all corners of the world and the barbarian menaces cried in many languages, the pretty weapons covered with gold and precious stones – which were spoils for the victors rather than true protection for their owners – […] and gathered well-trained rather than beautifully adorned horses […]; moreover, equipping ships not with golden canopies, nor with baths for the concubines or rich apartments for women, but filling them with weapons, projectiles and provisions, he advanced towards Bithynia (Plutarch Lucullus 7. 5-6). This is certainly just an echo of the age-old beliefs that the East was a land of fabulous wealth and that Eastern men were prone to adorn themselves like women. From what one may discern in the sources, the light infantry continued to be an important segment of the infantry in Anatolian armies throughout the Hellenistic period, although one must wait until the First Mithradatic War for precise information on the subject. Thus, Appian describes the engagement between the vanguard of the Mithradatid army, consisting of a body of light infantry led jointly by Archelaos and Neoptolemos, and the entire Bithynian army under Nicomedes. The Pontic force is described as being outclassed and outnumbered (‘Nicomedes had at his disposal his entire army, while Neoptolemos and Archelaos only the euzonoi’: Appian Mith. 64; ‘the Bithynians, who were greatly superior in number…’: Appian Mith. 65), and yet it manages to win the battle at the River Amnias due in equal measure to the leadership of the two brothers in command and to the general quality of the troops, capable of performing delicate manoeuvres, like controlled retreat while engaged in combat and spirited enough not to lose heart although the initial stages of the engagement were far from successful.

If the cavalry of the East had the reputation of being formidable, the same could not be said about the infantry. The defeat of the invading Persian armies by the hoplite armies of Greece, greatly inferior in numbers, during the Median Wars created the legend of Eastern cowardice and effeminacy. Whatever the cause of the defeat (from bad generalship to lack of motivation on the part of the lower ranks), it is certain that the traditional light infantry of Persia was no match for the heavy Greek footmen in frontal encounter. The situation had not changed significantly by the time of Alexander: the only segment of the Persian infantry worth taking into account was represented by the Greek mercenaries. It is true, however, that the image emerging from Xenophon’s Anabasis is far more nuanced. Although the Greek hoplitic force emerges victorious from most encounters (or so the narrator wants us to believe), admiration for the effectiveness, valour and even discipline of Anatolian light infantrymen is often expressed (valiant Chalybes: Xenophon Anab. 4. 7. 15; disciplined Mossynoikoi: Xenophon Anab. 5. 4. 12).

Because of the dire lack of archaeological evidence, it is neigh impossible to determine with precision the equipment of these infantrymen. Therefore, one must be very cautious when using literary sources, particularly late, such as Appian. The fact that he uses in the above passage the technical term euzonoi invites many hypotheses. These had become in the Hellenistic times, particularly among the Aitolians, a specialised body, with distinctive equipment: large thyreos shield, but no other body armour, javelins which double as short spears for hand-to-hand combat and short sword as side-arm. As such, they were not very different from the mountaineers inhabiting the Paryadres that Xenophon describes in Anabasis 5. 4. 12-13. As Appian goes on to say that the troops of Mithradates did include some mountaineers from the area, the Chalybes (Appian Mith. 292), one might perhaps draw the conclusion that ancient traditions had been preserved and adapted to suit the requirements of Hellenistic warfare. Unfortunately, things are not so clear cut. First of all, Xenophon himself gives a description of the Chalybes (Xenophon Anab. 4. 7. 15) that bears no resemblance to the Hellenistic euzonoi.

An evaluation of the infantry in Pontus during Hellenistic times is made very difficult by the aridity of our sources, which are, moreover, heavily biased, highly rhetorical and not always careful to separate facts from clichés. For example, Plutarch seems to imply that in the First Mithradatic War the Pontic troops were all covered in silver and gold: Both the scintillation of the arms exquisitely decorated with silver and gold, and the colourful Median and Scythian clothing mixed with iron and bronze shining like a flame projected a frightening image in its incessant motion (Plutarch Sulla 16. 2-3) 11

Nefiodkin 2004.

101

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Secondly, Appian is rather careless in his use of technical military terms. To him, the word euzonoi meant quite simply light infantry or heavy infantry without baggage (the equivalent for the Latin expediti): ‘Sulla, allowing his army a short respite, proceeded with haste towards the Euripos to meet Archelaus, accompanied by a body of lightly burdened soldiers’ (Appian Mith. 176). One must therefore remain content to notice that the equipment of the East Anatolian light infantrymen allowed them to engage with a relative degree of success in hand-to-hand combat, whether this equipment followed the pattern of their ancestors from Achaemenid times or had evolved to match that current in the Greek states.

the face of the enemy (Plutarch Sulla 16. 6-7). Also, on the battlefield they are placed on the honorary right flank: at the battle of Chaeronea, they are placed under the command of Taxilas and meet Murena, who was stationed on the left flank of the Roman army (Plutarch Sulla 19). The term Chalkaspides is also used in the Antigonid (Polybios 2. 66. 5) and Seleucid (Polybios 30. 25. 5) armies. In Macedon, they simply represent one half of the phalanx (the other being represented by the Leucaspides),15 but in the Seleucid kingdom, they appear to have an elevated status. If the emendation of the Polybian text at 30. 25. 5 proposed by Kaibel is correct, as Bar-Kochva argues,16 the passage would read τούτοις ἐπέβαλλον Μακεδόνες δισμύριοι, καὶ χαλκάσπιδες πεντακισχίλιοι, ἄλλοι δὲ ἀργυράσπιδες, rendering thus the Chalkaspides equal in number to the elite Argyraspides, representing thus the middle tier in a threefold stratification. Given the apparent elevated status of the Pontic Brazen Shields and the general history of tight relations with the Seleucid court, it seems more likely that the Mithradatid kings had imported the Seleucid model and not the Antigonid. It is difficult to determine when the corps appears, but the shield of Pharnaces, which seems not to have been painted over but must have been subjected to intense polishing seems to fit exactly the equipment of Chalkaspides in other kingdoms, making it tempting to set the reign of Pharnaces as the terminus ante quem.

It is possible, nevertheless, to make better informed comments in the case of heavy infantry. In their case, sources copiously attest the Macedonian influence. Appian makes it clear, for example, that the main body of infantry is the phalanx (Mith. 65). This is confirmed by the status of it leader, Dorylaos, whose title of epi ton dynameon (a rough equivalent of today’s Minister of Defence) is attested epigraphically (ID 1572). Φάλαγξ, however, is a deceiving term. While it may be applied to the hoplitic formation or to the Macedonian formation introduced by Philip II, it is also used in relation to any body of heavy infantry, like the Roman legionaries,12 so it is necessary to find additional evidence for the character of North Anatolian heavy infantrymen. Luckily, the evidence is available and it points to their equipment being of standard Macedonian type. Archaeology has an important contribution in this respect, by the discovery of a shield inscribed with the name of Pharnaces.13 Judging by its shallow, rimless shape and its dimensions, it appears to have been designed for a Macedonian-style phalangite rather than for a traditional Greek hoplite.14 Further evidence for the equipment of the Pontic heavy infantry is provided by the literary sources. Thus, Plutarch mentions that they used the long Macedonian pike, the sarisa: ‘The barbarians, lowering their long pikes and closing ranks, maintained their phalanx formation in good order’ (Plutarch Sulla 18. 4). Not only do they have the equipment of phalangites, they also use specific formations and adopt specific tactics. Thus, as in the above passage, they form the synaspismos and strive to maintain at all cost a solid formation. This is by no means a singular occurrence: it is the same formation, described as ‘orderly phalanx, beautifully armed’ that carries the day in front of the barbarian Palacus in Crimea (Strabo 7. 3. 17).

The matter of the recruitment of the heavy infantry is shrouded to a good extent in mystery. On a number of occasions, we see local levies being integrated successfully in the Pontic battle array, be they citizen militias (as happened in the Crimea, under the leadership of Diophantos: IOSPE I2, 352, ll. 12, 19 and 39) or – shockingly for the Romans – even slaves liberated ad hoc (as in Greece, under the leadership of Archelaos: Plutarch Sulla 18. 5). However, this does not clarify the background of the detachment of Brazen Shields. Seleucid parallels demand that they be recruited from Macedonian settlers, but such settlements have not yet been traced in Pontus: the few new settlements that bear dynastic names seem rather to have been synoecisms and do not seem to present an essentially military character. It is interesting to note that the corps does not seem to exist as such during the lifetime of Alexander, being a Hellenistic innovation. This demonstrates that the armies of eastern Anatolia remained open to innovations throughout the Hellenistic times. Also, it demonstrates that whereas in so far as the cavalry was concerned, the Achaemenid model was perpetuated with slight alterations, in the case of infantry, the Macedonian model was embraced wholeheartedly.

The Pontic army seems to have adopted not only the equipment specific to the Macedonians, but also the honorific names for at least part of their detachments. Thus, there existed a detachment of the ‘Brazen Shields’, the Chalkaspides, who seem to be an elite detachment, given that they receive particularly important and dangerous missions, such as occupying key positions in

The military reform introduced by Mithradates Eupator, namely replacing either partially or wholly the

12

Heavy infantry in general: Appian Bellum Hannibalicum 87; Roman legions: Appian Bellum Celticum 1. 9; etc. 13 Bernard 1993. 14 Cf. Connoly 1998, 77-78; Peltz 2001, 336-41.

15 16

102

Hatzopoulos 2001, 73-84. Bar-Kochva 1976, 232, n. 8.

C.E. GHITA: THE PONTIC ARMY: INTEGRATING PERSIAN AND MACEDONIAN TRADITIONS

Macedonian phalanx with the Roman manipular system (Plutarch Lucullus 7. 5) is another instance of innovation and attempt to keep up with the times. It is interesting to note the importance of the king in the whole process and the degree of control he is capable of exerting on the weapon manufacture and training of the rank and file:

Bibliography Abbreviations ID

P. Rousell and M. Launey (eds.), Inscriptions de Délos, vol. 4 [6], nos. 1497-2219 (Paris 1937).

IOSPE I2 V. Latyshev (ed.), Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae 3 vols. (St Petersburg 1885-1901). Vol. 1, 2nd ed., Inscriptiones Tyriae, Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae (St Petersburg 1916).

Mithradates manufactured weapons in every city and enrolled almost every Armenian. Choosing the best among them, he dismissed the others. He divided the remaining soldiers in squadrons and maniples – following as closely as possible the Italian model – and put them under the command of Pontic officers for training (Appian Mith. 394).

ASHLEY, J.R. 1998: The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare Under Philip II and Alexander the Great, 359-323 BC (London).

This is in line with the Macedonian tradition, initiated by Philip II and continued by Alexander and the Diadochs, who were heavily involved in the training of their armies and constantly promoted innovation, constantly fiddling with the length of the sarissa or even to the point of partially retraining the phalangites to fight as legionaries when the superiority of the Roman style of fighting had become evident.17 This is in stark contrast with the position adopted by the Achaemenid kings, who are rarely recorded to interfere with the military traditions of their subjects. For example, the invention of the scythed chariot is attributed to Cyrus the Great, but the information (found in Xenophon’s highly mythologised Cyropaedia) is, as we have seen above, quite untrustworthy. At the other end of the dynasty, it is recorded that Darius III ordered the manufacture of longer swords and spears for his cavalry (Diodorus 17. 53. 1). This, however, was too little, too late.

BAKER, P. 2003: ‘Warfare’. In Erskine, A. (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World (London), 37389. BAR-KOCHVA, B. 1976: The Seleukid Army. Organisation and Tactics in the Great Campaigns (Cambridge). BERNARD, P. 1993: ‘Bouclier Inscrit du J. Paul Getty Museum au Nom de Pharnace I, Roi du Pont’. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 7, 11-19. BICKERMAN, E. 1938: Institutions des Seleucides (Paris). BILLOWS, R.A. 1990: Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State, (Los Angeles). CONNOLY, P. 1998: Greece and Rome at War (London). GEHRKE, H.-J. 1982: ‘Der siegreiche König’. Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 64, 247-77.

The general conclusion that emerges concerning the army in Pontus is, as outlined at the beginning of the chapter, that Macedonian influence was felt particularly with regard to the technical side of things – equipment and tactical use of different bodies of soldiers – while the Achaemenid tradition was maintained at the level of mentalities, particularly regarding the recruitment of troops and the philosophy of their strategic deployment, but most importantly in the relation between king and Army as a pillar of power.

HATZOPOULOS, M.B. 2001: L'organisation de l'armée macedonienne sous les Antigonides (Athens). McGING, B.C. 1986: The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI King of Pontus (Leiden). NEFIODKIN, A.K. 2004: ‘On the Origin of the Scythed Chariots’. In Historia 53.3, 369-78. NEFIODKIN [NEFEDKIN], A.K. 2006: ‘The Tactical Development of Achaemenid Cavalry’. Gladius 26, 518. PELTZ, U. 2001: ‘Der Makedonische Schild aus Pergamon der Antikensammlung Berlin’. Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 43, 331-43. SEKUNDA, N. 1992: The Persian Army. 560-330 BC (London). SEKUNDA, N. 2001: Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160s BC (Łodz). STEWART, A. 1993: Faces of Power: Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics (Los Angeles).

17

Polybios 30. 25. 3. See also Bar-Kochva 1976, 60; Sekunda 2001.

103

MILESIAN AND SINOPEAN TRADERS IN COLCHIS (GREEKS AT PHASIS AND THE RANSOMING OF SHIPWRECKED SAILORS) J.G.F. HIND(†)

Abstract: This paper analyses a brief extract from Heraclides on the constitution of Phasis, offering a new translation and interpretation. The fragment of Heraclides, taken from one of Aristotle’s Nomima barbarika, mentions Heniochi as well as Phasians because of their general proximity in the eastern Black Sea area; Aristotle speaks likewise of the Heniochi and their neighbours, the Achaioi, in his Politics. The Heniochi had a bad reputation as wreckers, pirates and slavers. The Milesians at Phasis were not colonists with an autonomous polis, but katoikoi – settlers in a host-community, among whom were agents of traders and shipowners/captains (emporoi, naukleroi). The Milesian Greeks at Phasis lived mainly in the coastal emporion, but some may have found their way to the presumed Phasian capital at Kutaisi or to other centres such as Vani. KOLKHIS’TEKİ MILETOS VE SINOPELİ TÜCCARLAR (PHASIS’TEKİ HELLENLER VE GEMİLERİ BATAN GEMİCİLERİN KEFARETLERİ) Özet: Bu bildiride Phasis’in oluşumuna dair Heraklides’den alınma kısa bir parçanın yeni çevirisi ve yorumu üzerine durulacaktır. Aristoteles’in Nomima barbarika’sından alınmış olan Heraklides’in parçasında Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesi’ndeki genel yoğunluklarından dolayı Heniochi ve Phasialılardan bahsedilmektedir; Aristoteles “Politika” adlı eserinde de Heniochi ve onların komşuları Achaioi’dan bahsetmektedir. Heniochi gemi batırıcılar, korsanlar ve köleler olarak kötü tanınırlardı. Phasis’teki Miletliler kolonist değillerdi. Daha çok dışarıdan gelip yerleşen katoikoi idiler. Aralarında tüccarlar ve gemi sahipleri (emporoi, naukleroi) vardı. Phasis’te yaşayan Miletoslu Hellenler daha çok kıyı emporionlarında yaşadılar. Fakat Phasis’in başkenti olarak düşünülen Kutaisi ya da Vani gibi merkezlerde de bulunabilirlerdi.

A brief extract from a series of studies of cityconstitutions (politeiai), compiled by a Heraclides, is to be found in Jacoby’s collection of fragments of otherwise lost Greek historical writers.1 The Heraclides in question may have been one surnamed Lembos, a native of Callatis on the Roumanian coast of the Black Sea (Mangalia) rather than the better known Heraclides Ponticus from Heracleia (Ereğli) on the present-day coast of Turkey.2 The extract exists in the form of two sentences, not very obviously connected to one another in syntax or logic. It has seemingly been subjected to a process of selection by an epitomator, who did not fully understand the process described or the complex geography of the coastal lands east of the Black Sea (the Heniochi and the Phasiani of modern Georgia).3 The original material may have been collected in Aristotle’s study of constitutions of Greek cities and of non-Greek communities (Nomima barbarika), but it has been subjected to a two-fold process of selection, causing obscurity and some lack of internal continuity.4

Classical period (5th and 4th centuries BC)5 and the other is that the extract is so disconnected and has gone through so unsatisfactory a double process of epitomisation that no trust can be put in it when attempting to build up a picture of the situation among the Phasians.6 My own approach to the question is less sceptical than the second, but leads to a different conclusion from the first. It arises from a close look at the sentences in the extract and from a translation which differs slightly from the traditional, but more radically from the recently revisionist one. The passage reads as follows:

Two opposed interpretations of this passage have been proposed, depending on the translation of the words and the syntax. One is that it provides support for the view that a Greek city called Phasis existed here in the

In the beginning the Heniochi settled Phasis, a cannibal tribe, and one that skinned human bodies;

Fasianw'n V Favsin wJ" to; ejx ajrch÷" @Hniocoi katw/vkoun, fu'lon ajnqrwpofavgon kai; ejkdeJron tou;" ajnqrwvpou"_ $ e[peita Milhvsioi, filovxenoi d! eijsin, wste tou;" nauagou;" ejfodiavzein kai; trevi" mna÷" didovnta" ajpoluvein (FGrHist 11. 218). Of the Phasians:

5 See most recently Lordkipanidze 2000, 42-45. Unfortunately, the translation given on p. 42, ‘and send them off’, does not answer to the text given on p. 42 n. 201, which is apoplein, the text of Kaukhchishvili. He seems to be adopting Braund’s apopempein. 6 Lomouri 1988, 133 n. 3. At the time Lomouri’s scepticism was useful in damping down the over-enthusiastic use of the Heraclides fragments as proof that a Greek city existed at Phasis, but it has had the unfortunate consequence of discouraging further study of it and of the details given in Airs, Waters, Places, as in Lordkipanidze 2000.

1

FHG II, 208-24; Latyshev 1900, 447; FGH II, 218. 18. Dilts 1971, 29 fr. 46; Gottschalk 1980, 157; Kaukhchishvili 1969, 27; 1979. Either of the two Heraclides would have known something of Phasis and the River Phasis, though one came from Callatis in modern Roumania and the other from Heracleia on the western half of the Black Sea coast of Turkey. 3 Dovatur 1965, 116-18; Lomouri 1988. 4 See especially Lomouri 1988, 126-27. 2

105

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

then Milesians, and they are so welcoming of people that they provide those who have been shipwrecked with supplies, freeing them [ransoming them] at the price of three minas.

devoted to a ‘constitution’ of the people inhabiting the Phasis (coastal) region, it is reasonable to supply these ‘missing’ people as the recipients of the ransom-money paid by the Milesians. The Heniochi are known to have lived on the Caucasus coast some distance north of the Colchians of the Phasis area, but there was nothing to prevent them also appearing in the port of the Phasians to trade their captives for cash, once they had realised that this was more lucrative than skinning and eating them.

The final word ajpoluvein (‘to arrange the freedom of’) has more recently been read as ajpoplei÷n (‘to sail away’), a variant suggested by Kaukhchishvili and followed by a number of colleagues in Georgia.7 This produced a translation in the following sense for the final sentence: ‘They are so welcoming of people that they provide those who have been shipwrecked with supplies and they [‘the shipwrecked] pay them [the Milesians] three minas and sail away.’ This version produces more difficulties than the first and it was already criticised soon after it was proposed.8 It supposed a change of subject within the last clause from ‘the Milesians’ to ‘the shipwrecked’, and also credits the Milesians with such ‘hospitality’ that the shipwrecked are made to pay 3 minas for the supplies before being able to sail away. The expression ‘beneficent to strangers’, ‘hospitable’, does not seem appropriate to the action, though it would undoubtedly be an improvement on the behaviour of the barbarian Heniochi, ‘flayers of flesh and cannibals’.

Having provided a translation which has internal logic and adds up to a reasonable social and economic scenario, we may now look at the other writers of the 5th and 4th century date (the Classical Greek period) to see whether they confirm this picture of settlement and commerce. In fact they do. Xenophon, who spent some time at Trapezus, and had a mind to lead a colony of his soldiers to Phasis in 400 BC, had heard that the region was ruled by a descendant of Aeetes, clearly a member of the non-Greek dynasty of the Colchian people (Anab. 5. 6. 36).11 His information came from the citizens of Trapezus and from captains of merchant-ships and traders sailing to and from the Phasis river. He shows no sign of knowing of a Greek city, or that there had ever been one there in the past. Plato too mentions Greeks living at both ends of the known world, the Pillars of Heracles and Phasis, but this does not imply the existence of Greek colonies at either extremity, though Greeks might well live in local coastal communities or among the Phoenicians (Phaedo 109b). Earlier, in the first half of the 5tth century, Pindar had sung the praises of Xenocrated of Acragas in Sicily, whose commercial activity reached the Phasis in summer and Egypt in winter (Isthmians 2. 41-42). Neither region held a Greek colony in the full autonomous sense, though Greeks were in Egypt in several locations as mercenaries and traders. Aristophanes also made reference to a Phasianos in a lost play, Holkades (‘Merchant-ships’), which suggests the interest of traders in the area, but not necessarily a colony (apoikia).12 Most striking, however, is the description of the barbarian people, the Phasiani, in their polis (‘city’) and emporion (port-of-trade) on the River Phasis (Ps.Hippocrates Airs, Waters, Places 15). The medical treatise mentions Phasiani, who were without doubt a native people of the Colchian lowlands, giving their physical characteristics, describing timber houses, logcanoes and can-routes around the buildings. The mention of the emporion, as well as their polis, implies the presence of Greek residents (katoikoi) and agents of merchants (emporoi).13 It complements the excerpts from Heraclides in not mentioning the Milesian residents by name, but in giving us our best account of the Phasian native people and the trading area frequented by emporoi; many of these must have been Milesians, especially men from the Milesian colony of Sinope. Both writers from

A second alternative was attempted, substituting the verb ‘to send them off’ (ajpopevmpein), returning to the traditionally accepted structure of the clause and its general sense,9 but it is hardly an improvement on ajpoluvein, which is the technical term for a ‘pay-off’, ‘ransom’, and appropriate to the situation, where money (3 minas) is specifically mentioned at a level suited to cash for freedom. At this point I wish to bring forward a third interpretation of the final clause, which, hopefully, resolved the problems of its continuity of structure and the resultant sense. This can be achieved by making no change to the traditional reading, while understanding the presence of another party to the transaction, not specifically mentioned at that point: ‘The Milesians are so hospitable that they provide those who have been shipwrecked with supplies paying [‘their captors’, i.e. the Phasiana and/or the Heniochi] three minas and securing their freedom.’ The unstated party is ‘the Phasians’, mentioned only in the rubric, the Colchoi of the Phasis region and perhaps also pirates from among the Heniochi. The latter were, by the late 4th century BC and the Hellenistic period, notorious pirates, shipwreckers and slavers (Aristotle Pol. 338 b; Strabo 11. 2. 12).10 As the extract as a whole is 7 Kaukhchishvili 1969; 1979. Kaukhchishvili herself was less certain in 1979. Lordkipanidze 1979; 1991; Tsetskhladze 1992; 1998, 9 (where he gives the text as apoplein ‘to sail away’ but attributes it to FGH; Koshelenko and Kuznetsov 1996). 8 Brashinskii 1979, 370-71; Vinogradov 1979, 379-80. 9 Braund 1994, 119-21 and especially 96. Tsetskhladze (1994. 211) attributes the version ‘and ransom them for three minas’ to Braund. But Braund, in his only published work on the matter (1994), gives the translation ‘give them three minas and send them on their way’. 10 Lomouri 1988, 129-32; Asheri 1998. For slaving activity on this coast, see also Braund and Tsetskhladze 1989, where the FGH version is given correctly as apoluein (‘to ransom’).

11

Hind 1996, 209-13; 2005, 13-14. Kassell and Austin 1984, 239. 13 Jones 1923, 112-14. Minimal attention (two lines) is given to Airs, Waters, Places 15 by Koshelenko and Kuznetsov 1996, 19. For the Heraclides passage they offer the translation ‘and upon their departure give them three minae’, which does not translate apoluein, apoplein or apopempein. 12

106

J.G.F. HIND: MILESIAN AND SINOPEAN TRADERS IN COLCHIS (GREEKS AT PHASIS AND THE RANSOMING OF SHIPWRECKED SAILORS)

different perspectives present the same general economic and social interaction of Greek and Phasians, which does not imply the existence of an autonomous Greek colony, but rather residents in a barbarian polis.

Severnogo i Vostochnogo Prichernomor’ya (= Tskhlatubo I, 1977) (Tbilisi), 370-71. BRAUND, D. 1994: Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia, 550 BC-AD 562 (Oxford). BRAUND, D. and TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 1989: ‘The Export of Slaves from Colchis’. Classical Quarterly 39, 113-25. DILTS, M. (ed. and transl.) 1971: Herclidi Lembi Excerpta Politiarum (Durham, NC). DOVATUR, A.N. 1965: Politika i Politii Aristotelya (Moscow). GOTTSCHALK, H.B. 1980: Heraclides of Pontus (Oxford). HIND, J.G.F. 1996: ‘The types on the earliest silver coins of the Phasians (Kolkhidki)’. In Lordkipanidzé, O. and Lévêque, P. (eds.), Sur les Traces des Argonautes (Actes du 6e symposium de Vani (Colchide), 22-29 septembre 1990) (Annales littéraires de l'Université de Besançon 613) (Besançon), 203-13.

In conclusion, the fragment of Heraclides, taken from one of Aristotle’s Nomima barbarika, mentions Heniochi as well as Phasians because of their general proximity in the eastern Black Sea area; Aristotle speaks likewise of the Heniochi and their neighbours, the Achaioi, in his Politics. The Heniochi had a bad reputation as wreckers, pirates and slavers. The Milesians at Phasis were not colonists with an autonomous polis, but katoikoi – settlers in a host-community, among whom were agents of traders and ship-owners/captains (emporoi, naukleroi). When the plight of shipwrecked men came to their notice these residents showed their hospitality, contrasting starkly with the barbarian (and barbarous) Heniochi, by giving them supplies after paying the ransom. This was paid to the Phasians, and perhaps via them, to piratical Heniochi, depending into whose hands they had passed. It is for this reason that the two native peoples are in juxtaposed sentences, though not logically connected. The Milesian Greeks at Phasis lived mainly in the coastal emporion, but some may have found their way to the presumed Phasian capital at Kutaisi or to other centres such as Vani. The writer of the environmental/medical treatise, Airs, Waters, Places, mentions the activities of the Phasians plying the waterways of their polis and portarea. The visiting Greek merchants probably came from Miletus itself, but increasingly others arrived from Byzantium and Heracleia on the Black Sea as well as Athens. But traders from Sinope, itself a Milesian colony, will have made up a significant number; that city sat squarely on the coastal route from the entrance to the Black Sea on the farthest route to Phasis, as Xenophon and his army discovered when marching from Trapezus via Kerasus and Cotyora towards Sinope, all of which were subordinate (daughter) colonies of Sinope.14

HIND, J.G.F. 2005: ‘The Types on the Phasian Silver Coins of the Fifth-Fourth Centuries BC (the 'Kolkhidki' of Western Georgia’. Numismatic Chronicle, 1-14. JONES, W.H.S. (ed. and transl.) 1923: Hippocrates, vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA). KASSELL, R. and AUSTIN, C. (eds.) 1984: Poetae Comici Graeci III.2 (Berlin). KAUKHCHISHVILI, T.S. 1969: ‘Heraklide da misi tsnobebi Saqartvelos shesakheb’. Agmosavluri Pilologia 1, 189-217. KAUKHCHISHVILI, T.S. 1979: ‘Pis’mennye istochniki po voprosu “kolonizatsii” Vostochnogo Prichernomor’ya’. In Lordkipanidze, O.D. (ed.), Problemy Grecheskoi Kolonizatsii Severnogo i Vostochnogo Prichernomor’ya (= Tskhlatubo I, 1977) (Tbilisi), 294-304. KOSHELENKO, G.A. and KUZNETSOV, V.D. 1996: ‘Colchis and Bosporus: Two Models of Colonisation?’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), New Studies on the Black Sea Littoral (Colloquia Pontica 1) (Oxford), 17-30. LATYSHEV, V.V. (ed.) 1900: Scythica et Caucasica. Izvestiya drevnikh avtorov o Skifii i Kavkaze I.2 (St Petersburg). LOMOURI, N.Y. 1988: ‘O “Politii Fasistsev” Geraklida’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3, 123-33. LORDKIPANIDZE, O.D. 1979: Drevnyaya Kolkida (Tbilisi). LORDKIPANIDZE, O.D. 1991: Archäologie in Georgien: von der Altsteinzeit zum Mittelalter (Weinheim). LORDKIPANIDZE, O.D. 2000: Phasis: The River and City in Colchis (Geographica Historica 15) (Stuttgart).

Bibliography Abbreviations FGH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. FHG K. Mueller, Fragmenta Historicum Graecarum. ASHERI, D. 1998: ‘The Achaeans and the Heniochi’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Historia Einzelschriften 121) (Stuttgart), 265-85. BRASHINSKII, J.B. 1973: ‘Sinopa i Kolkhida’. Voprosy Drevnei Istorii (Kavkazka-Blizhnevostochnyi Sbornik 4) (Tbilisi), 182-89. BRASHINSKII, J.B. 1979: ‘Vystupleniya’. In Lordkipanidze, O.D. (ed.), Problemy Grecheskoi Kolonizatsii 14

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 1992: ‘On the Numismatics of Colchis’. Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 199.1, 23356.

Brashinskii 1973; Hind 1996, 209-11; 2005.

107

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 1994: ‘The silver phiale mesomphalos from the Kuban’. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13.2, 211-13.

VINOGRADOV, Y.G. 1979: ‘Vystupleniya’. In Lordkipanidze, O.D. (ed.), Problemy Grecheskoi Kolonizatsii Severnogo i Vostochnogo Prichernomor’ya (= Tskhlatubo I, 1977) (Tbilisi), 37980.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 1998: Die Griechen in der Kolkis. Historische-Archäologische Abriss (Amsterdam).

108

THE AMISOS TREASURE: A HELLENISTIC TOMB FROM THE AGE OF MITHRADATES EUPATOR* Monica M. JACKSON Department of Archaeology, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia [email protected] Abstract: This paper will describe and discuss a family tomb complex in the necropolis of ancient Amisos, together with burial gifts that accompanied the tomb’s occupants. The jewellery, imported vessels and local objects have a chronological range from the late 4th century BC to the rule of Mithradates VI Eupator. Mithradates VI created and controlled a large trading empire that included nearly all the Black Sea region and parts of modern Syria and Iraq. Amisos was strategically situated at the start of the trading route into Cappadocia and on the sea trade route to the Mediterranean into the heart of the Roman empire. The aim of this paper is to assess the significance of the tomb and its contents and to place them in the wider context of Black Sea history and archaeology. AMISOS HAZİNESİ: MITHRADATES EUPATOR ZAMANINDAN HELLENİSTİK BİR MEZAR Özet: Bu bildiride Amisos nekropolisinde ele geçen bir aile mezarlığı kompleksi tanıtılacak ve irdelenecektir. Mezar sahiplerinin mezar hediyeleri ile beraber mücevherat, ithal kaplar ve yerel nesneler İ.Ö. 4. yy.’ın sonundan VI. Mithridates Eupator’un zamanına kadar değişmektedir. VI. Mithridates tüm Karadeniz ve modern Suriye ve Irak’ın bir kısmını içinde bulunduran büyük bir coğrafyada ticari imparatorluğu kontrol ediyordu. Stratejik olarak Amisos Kappadokia içlerinden başlayan ve Akdeniz’de Roma İmparatorluğu’nun kalbine giden deniz ticaret yolunun üzerinde bulunmaktaydı. Bu bildirinin amacı mezarın önemi üzerinde durup, mezarı daha geniş anlamda Karadeniz’in tarihi ve arkeolojisi içine oturtmaktır.

INTRODUCTION*

bedrock. The original entrance was cut into the eastern side of the roof. The Samsun Museum staff entered the underground tomb chamber through a hole made by the bulldozer. There were five graves – three used, and two vacant. The interior walls, floor and ceiling had been stuccoed with mortar made of brick dust and lime. There were no inscriptions, tomb paintings or weapons to help identify the occupants. These factors together with the lack of painted pottery would suggest that the family belonged to the local elite, whose knowledge of Greek culture tended towards an appreciation of its magnificent goldwork.2 The quality of the jewellery demonstrates that the owners possessed a high level of artistic knowledge. The excavation report noted that all of the jewellery was found in situ on the bodies – exactly as it had been worn in life.

On Tuesday, 28th November 1995, road workers discovered a sealed family tomb complex on the eastern slopes of the necropolis of ancient Amisos. The necropolis is located 3 km to the south-west of modern Samsun on a hill named ‘Kara Samsun’. It is one of the few intact sepulchres discovered in Turkey dating to the Hellenistic period, and the only one with a secure context. The graves contained a rich assortment of gold, glass, pottery, alabaster and metal objects which reflect both Greek and Persian influences. No coins were found. The tomb complex and its contents, consisting of 64 pieces in total, have been published by Deniz Burcu Erciyas.1 THE TOMB COMPLEX

GRAVE CONTENTS

The tomb complex (Fig. 1a-b) – measuring 5 x 5 m with curvilinear walls – was carved into the limestone

Grave 1 contained no skeletal remains. It occupied the north east corner of the complex where the bulldozer had caused a section of the roof to collapse. On the floor were three objects, a damaged alabastron, a terracotta double-handled amphoriskos3 and a broken terracotta plaque.

*

I would like to thank the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Ankara for permission to study and photograph the Amisos Treasure. For their generous help I thank Muhsin Endoğru (Director) and the staff at the Samsun Archaeological Museum. I am particularly grateful to Antonio Sagona (University of Melbourne) and Şevket Dönmez (University of Istanbul) for facilitating my studies in the museums of Turkey. I offer my sincere thanks also to Gocha Tsetskhladze (University of Melbourne) for proceeding with the publication. 1 Erciyas 2006.

2 3

109

Tsetskhladze 1998, 64. Erciyas 2006, 75, fig. 24.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 1: (a). Ground plan of tomb, W. 5-5.5 m x H. 2.30 m; (b). Cross-section of tomb (5 x 5 m) (after Tsetskhladze 2007, 172, fig. 6)

Grave 2 contained the badly degraded cremated remains of a male (?) and what may have been a wooden sarcophagus. The skeleton was covered with a thin gold sheet and the remnants of corroded bronze strings (possibly jewellery). Small gilded terracotta beads were scattered over the skeleton. Three alabastra were beside the head and body. On the head was a gold myrtle wreath (Fig. 2) partly crushed by a collapsed section of the tomb. The wreath consists of two curved tubular stems, with slender leaves of thinly beaten gold fixed directly to them. At the midpoint is a small vertical hollow tube terminating in a scalloped-edged disc, capped with a curved finial. Originally the disc may have been designed to support an ornate myrtle flower with delicate stamens, terminating in clusters of tiny closely set flowers, close in style to the myrtle wreath from Tomb D in Derveni. The Derveni wreath is dated to 330 BC by a gold coin of Alexander the Great.4

Grave 3 occupies the complete western side of the chamber. It contained a large quantity of fine jewellery. The cremated female skeletal remains were in very poor condition – similar to that in Grave 2. Near the head of the skeleton were four rectangular elements from a diadem decorated with filigree palmettes and floral motifs. Attached to the lower corner of one piece is a ring from which are suspended two chains, terminating in pomegranate buds.5

4

5

Fig. 2: Grave 2. Myrtle wreath. Inv. 1-48/1996

Despini 1996, 210, pls. 5-6.

110

Meriçboyu 2001, 185, pl. 2.

M.M. JACKSON: THE AMISOS TREASURE: A HELLENISTIC TOMB FROM THE AGE OF MITHRADATES EUPATOR

A glass skyphos (Fig. 5) was placed near the skull as well as two alabastra. A glass phiale (Fig. 6) was placed over the abdomen and a cylindrical metal pyxis by the right knee. Parallels for the glass objects will also be discussed further on.

Fig. 3: Grave 3. Hair pin. Inv. 1-22/1996. L. 13.3 cm. Tie-pendant. Inv. 1-49/1996

A hair pin with a gold collar and resin finial was found near the skull; close by was a tie-pendant (Fig. 3). The tie-pendant consists of two loop-in-loop chains, with a large circular attachment loop at the top. Each chain divides at mid-point into two shorter chains. The divisions are hidden by biconical tie-beads decorated with granulation and returning filigree spirals. The four short chains terminate in asphodel seeds. Similar tie-pendants come from Mytilene6 and Kyme in Asia Minor dated to the first quarter of the 3rd century BC.7 A tie-pendant attached to a Medusa disc, of unknown provenance provides another close parallel.8

Fig. 5: Grave 3. Glass skyphos. Inv. 5125

Close by the ears of the deceased was a pair of Erotes earrings cast as miniature three dimensional sculptures (Fig. 10 a-b), each with a curved hook rising up from the back of the head (Fig. 4). The Erotes have short spread wings and hold musical instruments, probably lyres. The features of the face are quite distinct, and the hair is worn in a top-knot. Hook style earrings are important chronologically and will be discussed further on.

Fig 6: Grave 3. Glass phiale. Inv. 5124

A large collection of gold beads and necklaces mostly dating to the second half of the 4th century BC, were found near the head and neck of the skeleton. There were two identical necklaces with alternating pomegranate seed and beech-nut pendants,9 and another with up of 441 biconical beads. A fourth necklace is made up of alternating plain biconical and granulated beads terminating in club-shaped granulated clasps (Fig. 7a). Examples of this type are not uncommon in Thrace. The first comes from a cist grave in Abdera, dated to the 4th century BC.10 Another comes from the Early Hellenistic Thracian necropolis of Galata, which was probably imported from Odessos (Varna), where a similar one was found.11 A six-sided bell-shaped necklace pendant from Grave 3 has a pyramid shaped counterpart from Odessos dated to the late 4th century BC.12

Fig. 4: Grave 3. Eros earring. Inv. 1-21/1996. H. 2 cm; W. 8 mm. Wt. 1.77 g. (after Erciyas 2006, 84, fig. 34) 6

9

7

10

Erciyas 2006, 95, fig. 48 Yalouris 1980, 132, cat. 59. 11 Toncheva 1951, 61, fig. 112a-b; Minchev 1990, 463; Tonkova 1997. 12 Minchev 1990, 463.

Williams and Ogden 1994, 118, cat. 69. Williams and Ogden 1994, 103, cat. 55; Williams 1996, 124-25, figs. 6-7; Deppert-Lippitz 1985, 173, pl. 121. 8 Hoffmann and Davidson 1965, 232, fig. 94.

111

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

The hair is dressed in the ‘melon’ hairstyle of the women sculpted by Praxiteles and the ears are adorned with discand-pendant earrings (Fig. 8a). A distinguishing feature of the profile is the straight line from top of the forehead to the end of the nose.19 A close parallel for the terminals is a late 4th-century BC bracelet from western Asia Minor (Fig. 8b). The heads have similar profiles, hairstyles, spiral-spool wire necklaces and wear disc-and pendant earrings.20 This facial type is typical also of 3rdcentury BC terracottas from Taranto.21 A single gold finger ring has a band made of three wires, two twisted and one plain.22 The plain wire in the centre was broken in antiquity and the inset stone is not preserved. A close parallel comes from an intact tomb in Patras, dated to the 2nd century BC.23

Fig. 7: (a). Grave 3. Biconical bead necklace. Inv. 161/1996; (b). Knuckle bone necklace. Inv. 1-54/1996

Two unusual necklaces with no published parallels were found around the neck of the skeleton.13 The first dated to the 4th century BC has 19 gold elements resembling knuckle bones (Fig. 7b). The second dating to the late 3rd century BC consists of 16 gold and nine rose-agate flowering pomegranate elements.14 Rose coloured agates were popular in Persian jewellery. Also in the grave were over 1040 plain tubular beads. Fig. 8: (a). Grave 3. Detail of finial from female head bracelet. Inv. 1-12/1996; (b) Female head bracelet finial. Private Collection (after Hoffmann and Davidson 1965, 153, fig. 54c)

Scattered over the chest were 13 concave shield-shaped appliqué discs, three of which are decorated with rosettes, inlaid with blue enamel, and 11 with repoussé Medusa faces, encircled by blue-grey enamelled ivy leaves.15 The face of the Medusa has the knitted brows and large eyes with relief eyelids of the naïve type, widespread in the Bosporan region during the 4th–3rd centuries BC. A central attachment ring is located on the back of each disc. There were also ten repoussé appliqué figures of Thetis riding a hippocampus, bearing arms for Achilles.16 Amisos was the centre for the cult of Achilles in antiquity.17 Near the arms were 40 square elements from a bracelet. Each square section rises to a pyramid-shape, topped with a ring. The four triangular sides of each pyramid are decorated with granulation.18

Grave 4 contained a pair of Nike earrings with hook ear attachments, placed on either side of the neck of the female skeleton.24 The Nikes are in mirror-image, but not identical. The slender figures are in flight – nude except for a wide himation which fans and billows out behind, and a broad scarf held aloft in either hand. The powerful outspread wings have finely chased feathers. Nike earrings were most popular in the period from the late 300s to early 200s BC. The hooks date the earrings to the end of the 3rd/early 2nd century BC. A good parallel is a bronze affix from a ritual vessel, found in a temple at Vani (Imereti) western Georgia, originally part of the Achaemenid empire.25 The vessel is dated to the second half of the 2nd century BC.

A magnificent pair of bracelets with finials in the form of female heads was found on each wrist. They were made of two thick gold wires twisted together to form a penannular hoop. In the channel between them is a row of beaded wire. The ends are socketed into ornamental collars decorated with filigree wire lozenges. Around the top of the collar is a double row of spiral-spool wire and a single row of beaded wire where the collar joins the hoop.

On the arms of the deceased were two pairs of bracelets. The first pair consists of double coiled snakes made from hammered sheet gold. Each terminates in a snake’s head

13

19

14

20

For illustration, see Meriçboyu 2001, 152, ill. Hoffmann and Davidson 1965, 152-54, fig. 54a-f. 21 Lippolis 1990, 291, fig. 223. 22 Erciyas 2006, fig. 63. 23 Papapostolou 1982, pl. 110. 24 Meriçboyu 2001, 164, ill. 25 Soltes 1999, 187, cat. 80

Erciyas 2006, 85 and 87, fig. 37. Erciyas 2006, 87, fig. 37. 15 Meriçboyu 2001, 190-91, pl 3; Erciyas, 2006, 88-89, fig. 38. 16 Erciyas 2006, 88-99, fig. 50. 17 Işik 2006, 166. And see generally other contributions to Erciyas and Koparal 2006. 18 Erciyas 2006, 112, fig. 62.

112

M.M. JACKSON: THE AMISOS TREASURE: A HELLENISTIC TOMB FROM THE AGE OF MITHRADATES EUPATOR

Fig. 9: (a)-(b). Grave 4. Lion’s head bracelets. Inv. 1-14, 1-15/1996

at one end and a tail that tapers and curves gradually into a figure of eight at the other.26

TRADE Neapolis is strategically situated on the Bay of Kavala – on one of the numerous sea trade routes that linked the Mediterranean, Aegean and Black Seas. The Neapolis burial chamber, excavated in 1958, contained an eclectic mix of rich offerings of gold, bronze, terracotta, colourless glass and faience now in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki.33 Neapolis and Amisos are linked by the similarity of their respective tomb deposits.

The second pair has lion’s head finials (Fig. 9a-b). Behind each lion’s head is a zone of openwork lozenge shaped wires representing the mane. This section terminates in an elliptical collar featuring three raised ribs. The head, mane and collar are flat on the underside and were cast as a single piece. A lion’s head bracelet from Susa also has a flat underside between the head and hoop.27 The finials slot into hollow tubular hoops. The flexible hoops are constructed of fine gold wire netting or mesh, created by working diagonal rows of thin wire to form circles. Beads of granulation are fixed over the solder points where the circles intersect. One of the bracelets was damaged and partially repaired in antiquity (Fig. 9b). A fine gold wire was used to rejoin a broken section of the tubular netting, but a crushed section of the lion’s mane remains unrepaired.

Amisos developed as a successful commercial centre because of its situation as a port city, in contact with the North and South shores of the Black Sea as well as Anatolia and Mesopotamia.34 Coin evidence indicates that from the beginning of the 4th century BC the economy flourished, reaching its zenith during the reign of Mithradates VI Eupator (ca. 120-63 BC).35 Mithradates gained control of almost the entire circuit of the Black Sea, partly through military strength and partly through diplomacy. He allied himself with the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt, which ensured a thriving sea trade between the two kingdoms.36

There is every reason to believe that these bracelets originated in a Persian goldsmith’s workshop since identical rounded netting was used to form the hoops of a pair of earrings from Pasagarde. The earrings, dated to the mid-4th century BC were found together with other pieces of gold jewellery in a pottery jar.28 By the 3rd century BC triangular netting became popular with jewellers throughout the Hellenistic world from Taranto29 to the Aegean.30 This type of triangular netting was also used to form small openwork cylinders which were linked together to make jewellery. For example a necklace from Panticapaeum31 and another from an intact cist tomb of a young girl at Neapolis – dated to 200-150 BC.32

Since both Amisos and Neapolis were sea ports, it is to be expected that imported objects would eventually find their way into the local tomb deposits. As mentioned above, Tomb 3 at Amisos contained two cast glass vessels, a skyphos (Fig. 5) and a phiale37 (Fig. 6) both with stylised lotus decoration. The Neapolis tomb contained a cast glass skyphos with incised ornamentation of stylised lotus flowers and leaves.38 It was published as a Classical heirloom by Despina Ignatiadou,39 who also dates both of the Amisos glass vessels to the Classical period. 40 Metal prototypes for

26

Erciyas 2006, 107-08, fig. 59. Pfrommer 1990, 336. TA 57, pl. 17, 1. 28 Stronach 1978, 168-69, no. 2, fig. 85/1, pl. 148; Meriçboyu 2001, 172-73, pl. 2; Curtis and Tallis 2005, 144, cat. 174. 29 A gold sceptre from Taranto: Williams and Ogden 1994, 202-03, cat. 134. Hair-net in Hoffmann and Davidson 1965, 266, pl. 7, no. 124. 30 For a collar from Asia Minor dated to the late 3rd-2nd century BC, see Deppert-Lippitz 1985, 267, fig. 200; Hoffmann and Davidson 1965, 147-51, cat. 55, pl. 4, no. 53. 31 Cylinder-style wire mesh necklace from a grave in the Quarantine Road, Kerch (Panticapaeum) is dated to the late 3rd century BC (see Deppert-Lippitz 1985, 219, fig. 155). 32 Vokotopoulou 1996, 55-57, cat. 2835.

33

Vokotopoulou 1996, 55-57, cat. 2829-11545. Atasoy 2007, 148-49. 35 de Callataÿ 2005; Davis and Kraay 1973. 36 McGing 1986; Reinach 1895. 37 A. Minchev (personal communication, 23 May 2008) drew my attention to two publications with close parallels for the Amisos phiale. See the phiale in Akat et al. 1984, pl. 30 and Davidson Weinberg et al. 1965, two Hellenistic cast glass vessels, possibly from Egypt, in the Antikythera shipwreck. 38 Vokotopoulou 1996, 56 cat. 11545. 39 Ignatiadou 2002, 15, fig. 5, n. 18. 40 Ignatiadou (personal communication, 13 November 2007).

27

34

113

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

vessels with the white lotus motif have been found in Achaemenid graves in Gezer and Ras Shamra.41 Small translucent glass bowls with engraved lobe or petal decoration, echoing Achaemenid metalware shapes,42 come from Turkey, Libya, Persia and Iraq, but their origin is unknown.43

the second Eros (Inv. 1-21/1996, Fig. 10b) has ‘a wire extending downwards resembling a tail’. 51 The socalled wire ‘tail’ soldered behind the Eros figure (Fig. 10b), is in fact the preserved section of a doubled wire – originally the same as the intact wire attached to the Eros (Fig. 10a). This wire was intended to be spread apart at the end for attachment to a mounted object.

Luxury glass was costly to produce and thus highly valued.44 It was traded widely from Italy to the Bosporus. A complete phiale from Cumae, Italy was found with other fragments in the fill of the rebuilt Artemision at Ephesus dated to the 4th century BC.45 A fine transparent glass phiale found in eastern Georgia, is thought to have been manufactured in the central region of the Achaemenid empire, possibly Mesopotamia.46 Another Late Hellenistic cast glass skyphos decorated with ten overlapping stylised fluted lotus petals is said to be from Cyprus and as such would have been part of the SyroPalestinian industry.47 Ignatiadou believes that no colourless glass was manufactured in Egypt and that possible production centres were Macedonia, Rhodes or Asia Minor.48 The Neapolis tomb also contained a green faience vase depicting concentric rows of hunting scenes on the exterior.49 Notwithstanding the fact that decoration is no indicator of provenance, it can be convincingly argued in this case that the Neapolis faience bowl was imported from Egypt. Evidence comes in the form of a close parallel from Tel Atrib (Athribis) discovered during Polish-Egyptian excavations there in 1991-93. Fragments of a faience bowl with linear cut splayed lotus decoration on the exterior and concentric rows of hunting scenes depicting fantastic animals on the interior, was discovered in the western sector of the workshop area in a sealed layer – dated to the reign of Ptolemy IV. Numbers of poorly fired wasters, prove the presence in Tel Atrib of workshops specialising in faience.50

Fig. 10: (a)-(b). Grave 3. Pair Erotes earrings. Inv. 1-20, 1-21/1996 (photograph: Samsun Museum)

(2) Erciyas describes the Erotes as having ‘relaxed legs’ which ‘give the impression that they are indeed flying’.52 The ‘relaxed’ position of the legs as described by Erciyas does not indicate Erotes in individual flight. As mentioned above, they were originally mounted on flying objects (not preserved) – possibly dolphins or birds similar to the earrings in Indiana (Fig. 11).53 Each Eros figure was held in place by passing the doubled wire vertically through the body of the object being ridden. The divided ends held the two elements together underneath.

THE AMISOS EROTES EARRINGS Before discussing the chronology of the Amisos tomb, it is necessary to clarify details regarding the description and typology of the Erotes earrings from Grave 3.

(3) The comparanda for the Amisos Erotes earrings cited by Erciyas consist of two pairs of disc-and-pendant earrings. The first pair is dated to the late 4th/early 3rd century BC in the Bastis Collection,54 and the second is from Madytos ca. 250 BC.55 Together with the Amisos earrings they form ‘a harmonious group of Erotes from the eastern Mediterranean’.56 It is indeed likely that the Amisos earrings originated from the eastern Mediterranean, but the disc-and-pendant comparanda cited by Erciyas bear little resemblance to the Amisos hook Erotes, which are late examples

(1) Ugur Terzioglu, a researcher at the Samsun Archaeological Museum, correctly describes the Erotes (Fig. 10 a-b; Inv. 1-20, 1-21/96) as being in a sitting position. He goes on to say that the Eros (Inv. 1-20/1996, Fig. 10a) has ‘two projections in the form of a wire, extending downwards from behind’; while 41

Shefton 2000, 277, figs. 4-6, 7. Shefton 2000, 280, fig. 7. 43 Tsetskhladze 1993-94, 21-22. 44 Gagoshidze 1996,127. 45 Allen 2005, 90, fig. 4.5-6. 46 Gagoshidze 1996, 127-28, fig. 1. 47 Tatton-Brown 2002, 95, fig. 12. 48 Ignatiadou (personal communication, 13 November 2007). 49 Vokotopoulou 1996, 55, cat. 2829. 50 Myśliwiec 1996, 35-36, ill.; Jackson 2006, 25-26, 69-70. 42

51 Terzioglu, 24/10/1996, Artefact Inventory List, Samsun Archaeological Museum. 52 Erciyas 2006, 81. 53 Rudolph 1995, 142-43, fig. 29B. 54 Oliver 1987, 304, cat. 181. 55 Rudolph 1995,145, fig. 30 a-b. 56 Erciyas 2006, 85-86.

114

M.M. JACKSON: THE AMISOS TREASURE: A HELLENISTIC TOMB FROM THE AGE OF MITHRADATES EUPATOR

was excavated in the necropolis of Phanagoria on the Taman Peninsula.63 On the basis of the evidence, the Eros earrings from Grave 3 in the Amisos necropolis are instrumental in lowering the date of the tomb to the Late Hellenistic period. CONCLUSION Because the Amisos tomb was undisturbed, we have an exact knowledge of the context and combination of the contents – the key to unlocking a code of signs that give an insight into the chronology, social institutions and trade in the Pontic kingdom. The tomb evidence indicates that the majority of the tomb contents were produced in the wake of Alexander’s conquests. There is a definite Achaemenid influence in the glass objects and a number of jewellery pieces dated from the mid 4th century BC. The jewellery originated from a wide range of possible manufacturing centres, Pasargadae (Persia), Odessos (Thrace), Kyme (Asia Minor), Taranto (South Italy), Panticapaeum and Phanagoria on the Black Sea.

Fig. 11: Pair Earrings, Erotes riding dolphins. Burton Y. Berry Collection, Indiana University Art Museum. Inv. 70.105.15.B-C (after Rudolph 1995, 142-43, fig. 29B)

The presence of imported glass, along with the rich assortment of gold jewellery – proves that the Amisos tomb – like that in Neapolis belonged to a family who were either local lords or landowners. In fact it is quite possible that the occupants of the Neapolis tomb belonged to the royal court of Mithradates Eupator.

of the typological group ‘Disc and Pendant/Hoop Earrings – Eros Riding’.57 CHRONOLOGY While the dating of a tomb must take into account the entire context, the Amisos tomb complex presents particular problems. Since no coins were found and there were no painted pots or inscriptions, the chronology of the deposits must rely primarily on the jewellery. Erciyas has published the Amisos tomb and its contents as a unique example of the Early Hellenistic period, on the basis of the jewellery iconography and workmanship.58 The dating of jewellery however, must involve a study of its technical aspects while at the same time taking into account type style and iconography.59 The Samsun Museum researcher dates the Eros earrings towards the end of the 4th century BC.60 However, the technique of welding an Eros figure directly to a simple hook, did not appear in the archaeological record until the end of the 3rd-beginning of the 2nd century BC.

Bibliography AKAT, Y., FIRATH, N. and KOCABA, H. 1984: Catalogue of Glass in the Hüseyin Kocabaş Collection (Istanbul). ALLEN, L. 2005: The Persian Empire (London). ATASOY, S. 2007: ‘Trade in Amisos during ancient times’. In Lazarenko, I. (ed.), Ancient Civilizations and the Sea (Proceedings of an International Conference Proceedings, a tribute to the 70th anniversary of Prof. Michail Lazarov, Varna 13th15th October, 2004) (Acta Musei Varnaensis 5) (Varna), 148-58. CURTIS, J. and TALLIS, N. (eds.), 2005: Forgotten Empire. The World of Ancient Persia (Exhibition Catalogue) (London).

Comparative chronological data is provided by a pair of hook-style Eros earrings found in situ on the skeleton of a young girl, in an intact tomb deposit at Patras in the Peloponnese. The tomb is firmly dated 150-125 BC.61 A single Eros hook earring from Tomb 2 in the necropolis of Taranto is dated by the terracottas to 175-100 BC.62 Another pair of similar date, attached directly to hooks

DAVIDSON WEINBERG, G.R. 1965: ‘Glass vessels’. In Davidson Weinberg, G.R., Grace, V.R., Edwards, P., Robinson, H.S., Throckmorton, P. and Ralph, E.K., The Antikythera Shipwreck Reconsidered (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society n.s. 55.3) (Philadelphia), 31-39. DAVIS, N. and KRAAY, C.M. 1973: The Hellenistic Kingdoms: Portrait Coins and History (London).

57

Jackson 2006, 180-82, pl. 19, nos. 1-13. Erciyas 2006, 111,113. 59 Jackson 2006, 3, 60. 60 Terzioglu 24/10/1996, Artefact Inventory List, Samsun Archaeological Museum. 61 Papapostolou 11982, 290- 93, pl. 106. 62 De Juliis 1984, 187, cat. 120; Graepler 1997, 82, 256-57; Jackson 2006, 183, pl. 20.4. 58

de CALLATAŸ, F. 2005: ‘Coins and Archaeology: the (Mis)use of Mithradatic Coins for Chronological Purposes in the Bosporan Area’. In Stolba, V.F. and 63

115

Tsetskhladze 1997, 7-8, fig. 2; Jackson 2006, 186, pl. 22.6.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

REINACH, T. 1895: Mithridates Eupator. König von Pontos (Leipzig).

Hannestad, L. (eds.), Chronologies of the Black Sea Area in the Period c. 400-100 BC (Black Sea Studies 3) (Aarhus), 119-36.

RUDOLPH, W.A. 1995: Golden Legacy: Ancient Jewelry from the Burton Y. Berry Collection (Exhibition Catalogue) (Bloomington, IN).

De JULIIS, E.M. (ed.) 1984: Gli Ori di Taranto in età ellenistica (Exhibition Catalogue, Milan) (Milan). DEPPERT-LIPPITZ, B. 1985: Griechische Goldschmuck (Mainz). DESPINI, A. 1996: Greek Art: Ancient Gold Jewellery (Athens). ERCIYAS, D.B. 2006: Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey (Colloquia Pontica 12) (Leiden/Boston).

SHEFTON, B.B. 2000: ‘The “Philistine” Graves at Gezer and the White Lotus Ornament’. 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), 27683.

ERCIYAS, D.B. and KOPARAL, E. (eds.) 2006: Black Sea Studies Symposium Proceedings 1, 16-17 April 2004, Ankara) (Istanbul). GAGOSHIDZE, J. 1996: ‘The Achaemenid influence in Iberia’. Boreas 19, 125-36.

STRONACH, D.B. 1978: Pasargadae: A Report on the Excavations Conducted by the British Institute of Persian Studies from 1961 to 1963 (Oxford).

SOLTES, O.Z. (ed.), 1999: National Treasures of Georgia (London).

TATTON-BROWN, V. 2002: ‘Hellenistic Glass in the British Museum’. In Kordas, G. (ed.), Hyalos = Vitrum = Glass: History, Technology and Conservation of Glass and Vitreous Materials in the Hellenic World (Athens), 91-99.

GRAEPLER, D. 1997: Tonfiguren im Grab: Fundkontexte Hellenistischer Terrakotten aus der Nekropole von Tarant (Munich).

TONCHEVA, G. 1951: ‘The excavations of the “Five Tumuli” by Galata’. Izvestiya na Varnenskoto arheologichesko druzhestovo 8, 58-65.

HOFFMANN, H. and DAVIDSON, P.F. 1965: Greek Gold. Jewelry from the Age of Alexander (Exhibition Catalogue, The Brooklyn Museum) (Mainz).

TONKOVA, M. 1997: ‘Hellenistic jewellery from colonies on the West Black Sea coast’. Archaeology in Bulgaria 1.1, 83-102.

IGNATIADOU, D. 2002: ‘Colorless glass in late Classical and Early Hellenistic Macedonia’, Journal of Glass Studies 44, 11-24. IŞIK, A. 2006: ‘Cults in the Black Sea region in antiquity’. In Erciyas and Koparal 2006 165-68.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 1993-94: ‘Colchis and the Persian Empire: The Problems of Their Relationship’. Silk Road Art and Archaeology 3, 11-49.

JACKSON, M.M. 2006: Hellenistic Gold Eros Jewellery: Technique, Style and Chronology (BAR International Series 1510) (Oxford). LIPPOLIS, E. (ed.) 1990: Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto, III.I: Taranto, La necropolis. Aspetti e problemi della documentazione archeologica tra VII e I sec. A.C. (Taranto).

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 1997: ‘Artistic taste in Phanagoria. Greek colonies on the Black Sea’. Apollo 425 (July), 7-9. TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 1998: ‘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 (Historia Einzelschriften 121) (Stuttgart), 9-68.

McGING, B.C. 1986: The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator King of Pontus (Leiden). MERIÇBOYU, Y.A. 2001: Antіçağ ’da Anadolu Takilari, (Istanbul). MINCHEV, A. 1990: ‘Early Hellenistic jewellery from Odessos (Varna)’. In Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988 (Mainz), 463-64.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2007: ‘Greeks and Locals in the Southern Black Sea Littoral: A Re-examination’. In Herman, G. and Shatzman, I. (eds.), Greeks Between East and West: Essays in Greek Literature and History in Memory of David Asheri (Jerusalem), 16095.

MYŚLIWIEC, K. 1996: ‘In the Ptolemaic workshops of Athribis’. Egyptian Archaeology: The Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society 9, 34-36.

VOKOTOPOULOU, J. 1996: Guide to the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki: from the Pre Historic to Christian Times (Athens).

OLIVER, A. jr 1987: ‘Jewelry’. In Hall, E.S. (ed.), Antiquities from the Collection of Christos G. Bastis (Mainz/New York), 298-312.

WILLIAMS, D. 1996: ‘The Kyme Treasure’. In Calinescu, A. (ed.), Ancient Jewelry and Archaeology (Indianapolis), 117-30.

PAPAPOSTOLOU, I. 1982: ‘Hellenistikoi taphoi tes Patras’. Archaiologikon Deltion 32 (for 1977), 281343. PFROMMER, M. 1990: Untersuchungen zur Chronologie früh-und hochhellenistischen Goldschmucks (Istanbuler Forschungen 37) (Tübingen).

WILLIAMS, D. and OGDEN, J. 1994: Greek Gold: Jewellery of the Classical World (Exhibition Catalogue) (London). YALOURIS, N. (ed.) 1980: The Search for Alexander (Exhibition Catalogue) (Boston).

116

A 3D DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MODEL OF A ROMAN ‘BIRDROCK MONUMENT’ IN THE NORTH-WEST REGION OF ANATOLIA Güngör KARAUĞUZ Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenliği Bölümü, Eğitim Fakültesi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Meram Yerleşkesi, Meram Yeni Yol, Meram, 42090 Konya, Turkey [email protected]; [email protected]

Özşen ÇORUMLUOĞLU and İbrahim KALAYCI Jeodezi ve Fotogrametri Mühendisliği Bölümü, Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Meram Yerleşkesi, Meram Yeni Yol, Meram, 42090 Konya, Turkey [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

İbrahim ASRI Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey [email protected]

Abstract: The Kuşkayası monument is an important and unique Roman sculpted road monument situated on the Bartın-Amasra highway, a secondary transport route from Nicomedia to Amastris over Crateria constructed by Gaius Julius Aquilla, about 4 km north of Amasra. It is in danger of human and natural destruction. Through developments in photogrammetric technology it is possible to provide more accurate data on archaeological monuments for future research. Thus we have attempted to create new 3D models and illustrations of this Roman monument in Paphlagonia. KUZEYBATI ANADOLU’DAKİ ROMA DÖNEMİ KUŞKAYASI ANITI’NIN ÜÇ BOYUTLU FOTOGEOMETRİK BİR MODELİ Özet: Kuşkayası anıtı, Nikomedia’dan Amastris’e Crateria üzerinden gelen ve Gaius Ilius Aquilla tarafından Amasra’nın 4 km kuzeyinde inşa ettirilmiş ikincil bir yol olan Bartın-Amasra anayolu üzerindeki önemli ve özgün bir Roma yol anıtıdır. Bu yol insani ve doğal tehlikeler altındadır. Fotogeometri teknolojisi sayesinde arkeolojik anıtlarla ilgili olarak daha kesin veriler toplanabilmektedir. Biz de Paphlagonia’daki bu Roma anıtının 3 boyutlu modellerini ve resimlerini yaratmaya çalıştık.

scanning methods,4 and these techniques become tools for the documentation, archiving, representation and, of course, conservation. It should be remembered that it is indispensably necessary that documentation occur without delay prior to destruction, transformation or any other intervention.

INTRODUCTION The ancient monuments in Anatolia are historical assets not only for the Turkish people but for others in the world because of their rich history, cultural heritage and the remembrance and memory of communities once settled there. Historical heritage must be protected by local, national or international authorities, in order to prevent its deterioration and destruction.1 Such protection is not always as efficient or effective as might be expected. In some cases it never happens, leaving sites to the destructiveness of time. How can this be prevented? There is plenty of documentation about applied conservation techniques available in the literature.2 These methods are capable of mapping cultural assets within a co-ordinates system.3 The means available for documenting and surveying monuments include traditional manual, topographical, photogrammetric and

In this study, digital photogrammetry was chosen as an archival technique to enable reconstruction if any demolition should occur in the future. The use of photogrammetry makes available 3D models in digital and virtual form, accessible through the internet, thus bringing them to the attention of far more people. This technique also guarantees scaled orthophotographs and plans etc. to meet technical requirements at the time of reconstruction. Over time, the progressive deterioration of monument materials, the exhaustion of some parts of the structure and the damage caused by successive rebuildings and restorations may lead to the

1

Pegon et al. 2001. Bohler and Heinz 1999. 3 Sienz et al. 2000. 2

4

117

Scherer 2002.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

destruction and loss of monuments. The 3D models, orthophotographs and plans can then be used to rebuild the monument as closely as possible to its appearance before destruction, even should a sudden partial collapse occur during the intervention. In such an event, some material is replaced and the restoration works is undertaken by engineers with respect to these plans, whose most significant criterion is accuracy. Some difficulties can be encountered in 3D modelling from digital images when modelling surfaces and complex archaeological structures. Other problems may arise at any time with respect to modelling terrain or man-made objects. We can even meet with problems related to the acquisition, integration and (automatic or semi-automatic) handling of data, or to new methods of data representation and interrogation. In spite of these problems, digital photogrammetry has been being used successfully and proved its potentiality for providing 3D models and documentation of historical monuments with successive studies of it. Anatolia is one of those special places found very rarely in the world that have acted as a cradle for many civilisations during human history. It abounds with historical assets, monuments, constructions, items and so on, above ground or just beneath it, remaining from the time of these various civilisations. All of these remains reflect the life-styles and carry traces of their owners or users from those distant times to the present. One of the great civilisations to leave behind its traces in Anatolia was the Romans. Several Roman remains survive, one of them is the ‘Birdrock Monument’ described below, and the subject for the creation of an historical 3D model study by photogrammetry.

Fig. 1: Birdrock Monument, Amasra Goods arriving at Amastris by sea were sent to the interior, while Strabo, in discussing the vegetation of the region, noted that the finest boxwood was grown in Amastris (Strabo 12. 3. 10) (although such trees also grew inland). We should not be wrong in writing that this road played an important role in the transporting of boxwood and other kinds of wood produced and felled in the interior region, not only to Amastris but to other parts of the interior such as Crateria and Claudiopolis.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ‘BIRDROCK MONUMENT’ A composition which consists of manuscripts, niches, Claudian or Aquilan embossments and the eagle symbol of the Roman legions is found on a stone rising from the ground at the 4-kilometre point on the Bartin-Amasra road (Fig. 1). An ancient stone paved road passes from north to south just next to the monument. Parts of the monument have incurred some damage. There is also an historical fountain, nowadays called ‘soldier water’, just down the side of the monument.

THE USE OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY FOR 3D MODELLING Archaeological digital photogrammetry focused on historical structures, which can also be called close-range digital photogrammetry, is capable of providing us with metrical information about a monument’s construction and spatial layout, starting from the three-dimensional structure and leading on to conservation, reconstruction and even documentation. Nowadays the results can be displayed in three different ways: handmade drawings, CAD drawings, and 3D visualisations and animations. Traditional methods of documentation have disadvantages, slowness and laboriousness in some cases and high cost in others, when acceptable results are required. Thus, they may not be appropriate in all

This feature, which has been known to scholars since the 18th century,5 is a road monument on a secondary route from Nicomedia to Amastris via Crateria, constructed by Gaius Julius Aquila who had been appointed governor of Bithynia et Pontus by the emperor Claudius in the second quarter of the 1st century AD. It is important and unique, although this kind of monument is very often found in Anatolia from the time of the Hittite empire, for example at Fasiller, Eflatunpinar6 and Yalburt.7 5 Lechevalier 1800; Boré 1840; Ainsworth 1842; Hommaire 1855; Ritter 1858; Nahmer 1904; Leonhard 1915; Eyice 1955. 6 Karauguz 2005a, 119.

7

118

Karauğuz 2005b.

G. KARAUĞUZ ET AL.: A 3D DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MODEL OF A ROMAN ‘BIRDROCK MONUMENT’…

circumstances.8 Close-range digital photogrammetry can solve these problems, because it provides reliable representations of historical structures documented in a fast, precise and inexpensive way.

beam adjustment. There are two types of results: numeric, for the quality control of the results, and graphic (formats DXF, 3D Studio, RAW, VRML 1.0 and 2.0, Direct 3D, Wavefront and Iges).

To apply close-range digital photogrammetry to a specific project, it is necessary, once the object to be modelled has been determined, to design control points distributed homogenously all over the façades of the monument. Control points must be seen clearly and visibly in images, and their co-ordinates (X, Y, Z) must be known in a reference co-ordinate system most probably measured by a traditional surveying technique. After determining the control points, images have to be taken from different positions. It is not necessary that all control points be visible in all images, but in each image at least six control points have to be visible to solve the orientation problem of each photograph with respect to the reference coordinate system, since a full camera calibration with 11 parameters is necessary in the case of non-metric camera use. In this process, unknown parameters such as camera orientation angles (Omega, Fi, Kapa), perspective centre co-ordinates and the focal length of each camera will be resolved. Then, if a real point in object space be visible in more than one image, object space co-ordinates of that point can be computed by the method of intersection. Finally, we have image co-ordinates of a specific point in all images, so it is possible to calculate co-ordinates of that point in the reference co-ordinate system by the intersection method using least square technique.

Field work: The control point co-ordinates (X, Y, Z), which enable the orientation, levelling and scaling processes, were determined with a reflectorless Topcon GPT 3007 total station. The control points were evenly distributed all over the site. Subsequently, the topographic equipment described above was used to measure the co-ordinates. Taking photographs: The photographs must be taken in accordance with the principles of photography and they are subject to the requirements of digital monoscopic photogrammetric systems.9 The calibrated Olympus camera mentioned above was used to take photographs from at least 20 stations covering the monument (Fig. 2). The digital camera was used mainly to generate the monument’s 3D model, as well as for capturing images intended to be used as a source for photo-realistic textures.

CASE STUDY In order to experiment with the potential of image-based methods for the metric documentation and 3D reconstruction of an important historical site such as the one studied in this project, a close-range digital photogrammetric survey of the monument and the surrounding details must be conducted. This was done in the Summer of 2007. The images were obtained using a digital camera, an Olympus C8080 (8 Mpixel), which had already been calibrated for previous work, so that it can directly be related to the realisation of accurate metric object restitution. Otherwise, it could end up with the problem of detailed object reconstruction.

Fig. 2: Distribution of photographic stations surrounding the façade of the monuments The photographs should be taken with consideration to the following points: each element depicted must be contained in a minimum of three photographs; the convergence between photographs taken from different positions must have optimum values of 90o (good values of 60o) to permit the beam adjustments to be carried out well; there must be at least a 50% overlap between the photographs.

A monoscopic digital photogrammetric station was used as the photogrammetric system in this project. Such an instrument, capable of determining the intersection of homologous rays, is called a stereoplotter. On the other hand, the photogrammetric system is based on a software package Photomodeler Pro 4.0, used for the digital orientation and restitution of photographs. It can be used with images obtained from digital and/or analogue cameras. The observation system employed was monoscopic. The mathematical model of the relation between image co-ordinates and reference co-ordinates relied on collinearity conditions. Orientation parameters and point co-ordinates were obtained by means of ray 8

Softcopy work: Photogrammetric data processing is undertaken until scaled-down models of the original structure are obtained. This is why we resort to stereoplotters (software package Photomodeler Pro 4.0). The processing is divided into the following stages: (1) Interior orientation: This operation entails the reconstruction of perspective beams in conditions similar to their formation within the photographic 9

Kraus 2000.

119

Arias 2003.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 3: Creation stage of 3D model by softcopy photogrammetric software

camera.10 It is done automatically by the digital photogrammetric station, which introduces subsequent data. In digital camera, this step involves the introduction of the data obtained in the calibration of the camera.

Construction of the model: The information contained in the photographs will be materialised manually marking all of the elements of interest on the photographs, so that they can be reflected in the following documents: digital plans (3D and 2D), lists of co-ordinates with information on the errors observed, etc. Several tools of restitution are available: points, lines, polylines (or other graphic entities such as cylinders, circumferences, etc.). The resulting models containing metric information and the 3D models are available to be exported in conventional formats (dxf, vrml, etc.) into other programs in order to be visualised, edited or processed. Another feature of the system is its capability to generate 3D models of surfaces and the subsequent projection of real textures, captured from photographs of the object, onto these models of surfaces (Figs. 3-4).

(2) Exterior orientation: In this stage, the beams generated in the interior orientation process are positioned in relation to the monument. The position adopted at the moment of exposure of the photographs must remain unchanged. With this in mind, at least three known co-ordinate points must be marked in each photograph, or six points coinciding with another photograph already oriented or to be oriented in the same process. If support points are available, they are marked during this process as well. Exterior orientation thus includes two operations arranged in sequence, which are performed automatically by the digital photogrammetic station. These are known as11

CONCLUSION

(3a) Relative orientation: Perspective beams are set in a perspective position. The simultaneous intersection of at least six pairs of homologous rays distributed through the model is enough for the remaining points to intersect as well.

The 3D model shown below was produced by the monoscopic digital photogrammetric system (up to a few years ago, only stereoscopic analytical systems were available). The proposed digital system works on all kinds of personal computers and with the most common operating systems. The low investment required to tune up the equipment makes a digital system the best option available.12

and (3b) Absolute orientation: Once the model has been established, it is necessary to adjust it to the reference co-ordinate system. Control point coordinates are introduced with that purpose. Thus a new adjustment is done which grants correct levelling, orientation and scaling of the 3D model. 10 11

Then 3D rendering of the monument was created with photo-realistic textures. These textures were implemented starting from the photographic shots of the object. The results obtained clearly show the advantages of the method. Information is continuous and homogenous for

Zhizhuo 1990. Fryer 2001.

12

120

Drap et al. 2002.

G. KARAUĞUZ ET AL.: A 3D DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MODEL OF A ROMAN ‘BIRDROCK MONUMENT’…

monoscopic vision system is the slowness observable in the building restitution process compared with stereoscopic vision systems. This drawback was overcome in the work described in this paper by carefully selecting beforehand the elements of the building to be restituted that would allow a thorough structural analysis. Bibliography AINSWORTH, W.F. 1842: Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Chaldaea and Armenia (London). ARIAS, P. 2003: Simple Methods for Close Range Photogrammetry. Application to the Study of Traditional Agroindustrial Constructions (Dissertation, University of Vigo, Pontevedra). BOHLER, W. and HEINZ, G. 1999: ‘Documentation, surveying, photogrammetry’. In Proceedings of the XVII CIPA Symposium, Recife [CD]. BORÉ, E. 1840: Corréspondance et mémoires d’un voyageur en Orient (Paris). DRAP, P., GRUSSENMEYER, P. and GAILLARD, G. 2002: ‘Simple photogrammetric methods with arpenteur 3-D plotting and orthoimage generation: the image process’. In Albert, J. (ed.), Proceedings of the XVIII. International Symposium of CIPA, Potsdam, Germany, September 18-21, 2001 (Stuttgart), 4754. EYICE, S. 1955: ‘Das Denkmal von Kuşkayası bei Amasra (Paphlagonien)’. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 6, 109-13. FRYER, J.G. 2001: ‘Camera calibration’. In Atkinson, K.B. (ed.), Close Range Photogrammetry and Machine Vision (Caithness), 156-79.

Fig. 4: The finished work of 3D models of the monument

the whole of the model analysed. There is another interesting advantage: what and how much information is to be extracted is a decision that can be made in the laboratory phase. Therefore in this phase tasks are adapted to each and every need. This implies greater flexibility, since these actions do not condition fieldwork. On the other hand, one can always go back to the photogrammetric digital files of the building in order to complete any information missing. Collecting data on a regular basis will enable us to trace the evolution of the pathologies being studied through time. Digital photogrammetric systems permit the use of conventional digital cameras, with consequent cost savings,13 which is a novelty compared with analytical photogrammetric systems and photogrammetric analogue cameras. The shots taken using the digital camera were directly transferred and processed. The calibration of the Olympus digital camera was carried out in order to improve the quality of the numeric and graphic results, determining its aberrations (focal length, principal point and lens radial distortion). The digital photogrammetric system used also allows non-calibrated cameras to be employed. In this case the system carries out selfcalibration for each of the pictures used.

GRUEN, A. 2001: ‘Development of digital methodology and systems’. In Atkinson, K.B. (ed.), Close Range Photogrammetry and Machine Vision (Caithness), 78105. HERRÁEZ, J., NAVARRO P., CABANES J.L. and JIMÉNEZ, M. 1999: ‘Digital stereo plotting without 3D vision: an effective way in the architectural photogrammetry’. In Proceedings of the XVII CIPA Symposium, Recife [CD]. HOMMAIRE de HELL, X. 1855: Voyage en Turquie et en Perse, vol. 1 (Paris). KARAUĞUZ, G. 2005a: Arkeolojik ve Filolojik Belgeler Isıgında M.Ö II. Binde Orta Anadolu’nun Guney Kesimi (Konya). KARAUĞUZ, G. 2005b: ‘Tuthaiia IV., Yalburt und Geographisch-Historische Relationen’. In Süel, A. (ed.), Acts of the Vth International Congress of Hittitology, Corum, September 2-8, 2002 (Ankara), 485-512. KRAUS, K. 2000: Photogrammetry. Fundamentals and Standard Processes, vol. 1 (Bonn).

Such are the ‘user-friendly’ characteristics of the Photomodeler Pro 4.0 monoscopic digital photogrammetric system that the work required to generate the 3D models was performed by people with very little training.14 The main disadvantage when using a 13 14

LECHEVALIER, J.B. von 1800: Voyage Propontide et du Pont-Euxin (Paris).

Gruen 2001. Herráez et al. 1999.

121

de

la

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Proceedings of the XVIII. International Symposium of CIPA, Potsdam, Germany, September 18-21, 2001 (Stuttgart), 423-29.

LEONHARD, R. 1915: Paphlagonia. Reisen und Forshungen im nördlichen Kleinasien (Berlin). NAHMER, E. von der 1904: Vom Mittelmeer zum Pontus (Berlin).

SIENZ, J., SZARVASY, I., HINTON, E. and ANDRADE, M.L. 2000: ‘Computational modelling of 3D objects by using fitting techniques and subsequent mesh generation’. Computers and Structures 78, 397-413.

PEGON, P., PINTO, A.V. and GÉRADIN, M. 2001: ‘Numerical modelling of stone-block monumental structures’. Computers and Structures 79, 2165-81. RITTER, C. 1858: Vergichende Erdkundes Hlisellande Kleinasien (Berlin).

ZHIZHUO, W. 1990: Principles of Photogrammetry (Peking).

SCHERER, M. 2002: ‘About the synthesis of different methods in surveying’. In Albert, J. (ed.),

122

SINOPEAN AMPHORAE IN APSARUS Merab KHALVASHI and Emzar KAKHIDZE Shota Rustaveli State University, 35 Ninoshvili Street, 6010 Batumi, Georgia [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract: Amphorae of the Roman Imperial and Early Byzantine periods discovered at the fort of Apsarus fall into five types: 1) Pseudo-Cosian amphorae are represented by a fragmentary handle, dated to the second half of the 1st century. 2) Amphorae with handles attached to the shoulder occur rarely in the Black Sea area, dated to the 2nd-3rd centuries AD. 3) Large, thick-walled amphorae. Almost identical in shape and size. Amphorae of this type are recorded at Apsarus in the cultural layers dated to the beginning of the 2nd century and the first half of the 3rd century AD. 4) Similar to Type 3, these specimens are characterised by the stability of forms and many other common features, but they are of smaller proportions. In our view, this type emerged by the imitation of the form of amphorae of Type 3 and both existed at one and the same period. 5) Medium-sized Early Byzantine period amphorae. According to the clay, their Sinopean origin is beyond doubt. Obviously, this form of amphora with a narrow neck emerged at the end of the 4th century AD and existed until the end of the 6th century AD. APSARAUS’TAKİ SINOPE AMPHORALARI Özet: Roma İmparatorluk ve Erken Bizans Devirlerinde Apsarus Kalesi’nde ele geçen amphoralar 5 tiptir: 1) İ.S. 1. yy.’ın ikinci yarısına tarihlenen ve bir kulp parçasıyla temsil edilen Pseudo-Kos amphoraları 2) İ.S. 2. ve 3. yy.’lara tarihlenen ve omuzlarından kulplu, Karadeniz’de az görülen amphoralar. 3) Formsal ve boyutsal olarak birbirlerine benzeyen büyük, kalın duvarlı amphoralar. Bu tip amphoralara Apsarus’ta İ.S. 2. yy.’ın başı ve birinci yarısı kültür tabakalarında rastlanmıştır. 4) Tip 3’e benzer amphoralar; bu parçalar daha ziyade formların değişkenliği ve birçok başka faktör ile ortak özellikler taşırlar, ama daha çok küçük boyutlardadırlar. Bu amphoralar bize göre Tip 3 amphoralarının kopyalamasından oluşturulmuş ve aynı devirde varolmuşlardır. 5) Orta boylu Erken Bizans amphoraları. Yapılan kil analizlerine göre bu amphoraların Sinope orijinli olup olmadıkları tartışmalıdır. İ.S. 4. yy.’ın sonunda görülen bu amphoralar dar boyunları ile tanınırlar ve 6. yy.’ın sonuna kadar varolmuşlardır.

From early antiquity Colchis had close connections with Sinope. Archaeological evidence from Apsarus, Sukhumi, Bichvinta and Nokalakevi testifies that these relations continued in Roman and Byzantine times as well. As well as amphorae, kitchen utensils, building materials, coins, etc. have been found in Apsarus and at other points of the eastern Black Sea area. Most likely, in contrast to the previous period, during Roman and Byzantine times relations between Colchis and Asia Minor were not intensive. In effect, they were limited to the coastal areas where Roman and Byzantine garrisons were billeted. Sinope was the main Roman military base in the region which provided the imperial troops located in the southern Caucasus and the northern parts of Asia Minor.1 Thus, the explanation for the presence of Sinopean pottery in Apsarus becomes clear.

Type 1. This type is found through nearly all the Mediterranean and the northern and eastern Black Sea. The prototype originated from Cos. Imitations were manufactured in the West, particularly in Pompeii, the southern part of France and Spain. Most probably, they were also manufactured in the southern Black Sea area as well.2 Sinopean imitations of this type of amphora are represented by a fragmentary handle in Apsarus, dated to the second half of the 1st century AD (Fig. 1). Type 2. Amphorae with handles attached to the shoulder (Fig. 2) occur rarely in the Black Sea area. They are not observed in the Aegean either. According to the shape of mouth and the colour of the clay, there are two variants.3 Almost no information is found in the specialist literature concerning their place of manufacture. The comparison of material discovered in the levels of the 2nd-3rd centuries AD and preserved in the Sinope Museum has led to the suggestion that Sinope was one of the centres of manufacture.

Amphorae of the Late Antique and Early Byzantine periods discovered at the fort of Apsarus fall into five types:

2 1

3

Maksimova 1956, 306-53.

123

Vnukov 1988, 198-202, fig. 3.1; 1993, 208; 1996, 107-08. Arsen’eva and Naumenko 1997, 148, fig. 27.1.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 2: Amphorae with handles attached to the shoulder

Type 3. Large, thick-walled amphorae. They are characterised by an everted rim, concave neck and eggshaped body (Fig. 3). Kilns for their manufacture have been found at Demirci, near Sinope.4 Parallels are known from Bichvinta,5 Sukhumi6 and Nokalakevi.7 They are all almost identical in shape and size. The surfaces of some fragments are covered with red paint. Amphorae of this type are recorded in large numbers at Apsarus. They were discovered in levels dated to the beginning of the 2nd century and the first half of the 3rd century AD. These amphorae, common in the Roman period, may be regarded as the successors to the Hellenistic period amphorae.8 Type 4. Similar to Type 3, these specimens are characterised by the stability of forms and many other common features; however, differences are evident too, for example the proportions are smaller (Fig. 4). S.Y. 4

Kassab Tezgör and Tatlican 1998, 424, fig. 56. Berdzenishvili and Puturidze 1975, 261-63, pls 53.4-5, 53.10, 55.2, 55.5-6, 55.8. 6 Trapsh 1963, 224, fig. 6.1-4; 1969, 324, pls 43.3, 44.8, 44.10, 44.1213. 7 Specimens from this site are housed in the Nokalakevi branch of the Georgian National Museum. 8 Khalvashi 2002, 39. 5

Fig. 1: Fragments of Pseudo-Cosian amphorae 124

M. KHALVASHI AND E. KAKHIDZE: SINOPEAN AMPHORAE IN APSARUS

Fig. 3: Thick-walled amphorae

Fig. 4: Thin-walled amphorae

125

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

known from other parts of Colchis12 and from the northern Black Sea area13 as well. These amphorae represent the final stage of development of the amphora with a narrow neck, popular in the 1st-4th centuries AD.14 Along with these amphorae, common in the 5th-6th centuries AD, two upper parts and quite numerous fragments of the body and bottom of similar amphorae have been discovered in amphora waste at the southern gate of the fort. Several fragments are recorded in Tower 2, where coins minted in the name of Justinian I have been found.15 Obviously, this form of amphora with a narrow neck emerged at the end of the 4th century AD and existed until the end of the 6th century AD, as the Sinope and Apsarus finds confirm The archaeological evidence found in Apsarus proves that Sinope, as well as Heracleia Pontica, joined in the course of creation of the general Roman-Eastern Mediterranean form of amphora (Type 1). Manufacture of the traditional form (Type 3) continued in parallel with the creation of absolutely new forms (Types 2 and 4). As to Early Byzantine amphorae, only and updated version of the traditional form (Type 5) is known in Apsarus.

Bibliography ARSEN’EVA, T.M. and NAUMENKO, S.A. 1997: Usadby Tanaisa (Moscow). BERDZENISHVILI, K. and PUTURIDZE, R. 1975: ‘Bichvintashi mopovebuli amforebi (katalogi)’. In Apakidze, A. (ed.), Didi pitiunti 1 (Tbilisi), 252-79. GAMKRELIDZE, G. 1987: ‘Tqalkvesha arkeologiuri ekspeditsiis kvleva-dzieba k. potis midamoebshi’. Matsne 1, 97-117. KASSAB TEZGÖR, D. 1998: ‘Prospection sous-marine pres de la cote Sinopeenne: transport d’ amphores depuis l’ atelier et navigation en mer Noire’. Anatolia Antiqua 6, 443-49.

Fig. 5: Amphorae of the Early Byzantine period

KASSAB TEZGÖR, D. and TATLICAN I. 1998: ‘Fouilles des ateliers d’amphores a Demirci pres de Sinop en 1996 et 1997’. Anatolia Antiqua 6, 423-42.

Vnukov distinguished these amphorae as a separate type.9 In our view, this type emerged by the imitation of the form of amphorae of Type 3 and both existed at one and the same time – the beginning of the 2nd century-first half of the 3rd century AD. Parallels are known from the northern Black Sea area, where manufacture continued into the first half of the 4th century AD.10

KASSAB TEZGÖR, D. and TOUMA, M. 2001: ‘Amphores exportes de mer Noire en Syrie du nord’. Anatolia Antiqua 9, 105-15. KHALVASHI, M. 2002: Keramikuli tara gonioapsarosidan (Batumi). MAKSIMOVA, M.M. 1956: Antichnye gorodaYugoVostochnogo Prichernomor’ya (Moscow/Leningrad).

Type 5. Medium-sized Early Byzantine period amphorae with a small, shafted rim, a long, narrow neck and an undulating surface (Fig. 5). They were foremost in quantity. One of them bears a graffito ‘N’, another the print of fingers. From analysis of the clay used, their Sinopean origin is beyond doubt. The kiln waste excavated at Demirci also confirms this.11 Parallels are

SHELOV, D.V. 1978: ‘Uzkogorlye svetloglinyannye amfory s profilirovannymi ruchkami. Klassifikatsiya i khrnologiya’. Kratkie Sooshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii Akademii Nauk SSSR 156, 16-20. 12

Gamkrelidze 1987, 111, fig. 10. Specimens from Nokalakevi are housed in local museum as well. 13 Yakobson 1951, 327, fig. 2.8; Shelov 1978, 19, fig. 9. 14 Shelov 1978, 19; Kassab Tezgör 1998, 447. 15 Khalvashi 2002, 52. A similar situation is found in Sinope (see Kassab Tezgör and Tatlican 1998, 423, fig. 20).

9

Vnukov 1993, 206. 10 Vnukov 1993, 207-08, figs 2.2, 3.1. 11 Kassab Tezgör 1998, 445; Kassab Tezgör and Tatlican 1998, 423-24; Tatlican et al. 1999, 335-38; Kassab Tezgör and Touma 2001.

126

M. KHALVASHI AND E. KAKHIDZE: SINOPEAN AMPHORAE IN APSARUS

VNUKOV, S.Y. 1993: ‘Novye tipy pozdesinopskoi tary’. Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya 3, 204-13.

TATLICAN, I., KASSAB TEZGÖR, D. and ÖZDAS, H. 1999: ‘Sinop’ta sualti çalişmalari’. In IX. Müze Kurtarma Kazilari Semineri, 27-29 Nısan 1998, Antalya (Ankara), 335-42.

TRAPSH, M.M. 1969: Drevnii Sukhumi (Sukhumi).

VNUKOV, S.Y. 1996: ‘Amfory s dvustvol’nymi ruchkami v Severnom Prichernomor’e’. In Kopylev, V.P., Fursenko, S.V., Vasilev, A.D. and Kuznetsov, V.V. (eds.), Tezisi dokladov VIII mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya v basseine Chernogo morya v drevnosti i srednie veka (Rostov-on-Don), 106-09.

VNUKOV, S.Y. 1988: ‘Shirokogorlye svetloglinyannye amfory Severo-Zapadnogo Kryma’. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 3, 198-206.

YAKOBSON, A.L. 1951: ‘Srednevekovye amfory Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Opyt khronologicheskoi klassifikatsii)’. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 15, 325-44.

TRAPSH, M.M. 1963: ‘Raskopki drevnego Sebastopolisa v raione Sukhumskoi kreposti v 1959 g.’. Trudy Abkhazskogo instituta istorii, yazyka i literatury im. R.I. Gulia 33-34, 212-30.

127

CHERSONESUS IN THE CRIMEA: EARLY BYZANTINE CAPITALS WITH FINE-TOOTHED ACANTHUS LEAVES Liudmila G. KHRUSHKOVA Russian State University for the Humanities, 6, Miusskaya Pl., 125047 Moscow, Russia [email protected]

Abstract: Tauric Chersonesus (Cherson in Byzantine sources) has been studied for over a hundred years. There are over 20 buildings of the Early Byzantine period (their chronology is approximate). Several hundred architectural details in Proconnesian marble date to the 5th and 6th centuries AD. The capitals found at Chersonesus include virtually all the types known in the Late Antique-Early Byzantine period. Those with fine-toothed acanthus decoration fall into distinct groups: Composite capitals, two-zone capitals and Ionic impost capitals. A group of Composite capitals is dated from the mid-5th century to the 470s-480s. Excavation at Chersonesus has yielded a series of two-zone capitals of the middle or second half of the 5th century. Ionic impost capitals from the Uvarov basilica date to the middle of the 5th century. Capitals with fine-toothed acanthus decoration are an important demonstration of the fact that basilicas were being constructed in Chersonesus in the second half of the 5th century. A significant number of the capitals date to the end of the 5th and the first half of the 6th century, including ‘normal’ Corinthian capitals and also ‘lyre’ and v-shaped ones. KIRIM’DAKİ KHERSONESSOS: İNCE İŞLENMİŞ AKHANTUS YAPRAKLI ERKEN BİZANS BAŞLIKLARI Özet: Eskiçağ bilimlerinde Khersonessos (Bizans kaynaklarında Kherson) 100 yıldır çalışılmaktadır. Burada 20’den fazla Erken Bizans binası bulunur (tarihleri yaklaşıktır). Yüzlerce Prokonnesos mermerinden yapılmış mimari öğe İ.S. 5. ve 6. yy.’lara tarihlenir. Khersonessos’ta bulunmuş başlıklar Geç Antik-Erken Bizans’ta bilinen tüm tipleri kapsamaktadır. İnce işlenmiş akhantus dekorasyonlular şu gruplara ayrılır: komposit başlıklar, iki bölümlü başlıklar ve impost Ionik başlıklar. Khersonessos’ta kazılar sırasında İ.S. 5. yy.’n ortasına ya da ikinci yarısına ait çift taraflı başlıklar ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Uvarov Bazilikası’nda bulunmuş impost Ionik başlıklar İ.S. 5. yy.’ın ortasına tarihlidir. İnce işlenmiş akhantus dekorasyonlu başlıklar Khersonessos’daki bazilikaların İ.S. 5. yy.’ın ikinci yarısında inşa edildiğini göstermektedir. 5. yy.’ın sonuna ve 6. yy.’ın başına tarihlenen çarpıcı miktarda başlık bulunur. Bunlar arasında “normal” Korinth başlıkları ve “lir” ya da v biçimli olanlar da vardır.

Chersonesus (Cherson in Byzantine sources, beginning with the 6th century) was the largest city in the Crimea. It existed from the 5th century BC until the 15th century AD. The levels best preserved are from the Byzantine period.1 There are over 20 buildings dating to the Early Byzantine period (Fig. 1). Their chronology is approximate; discussion continues. The study of early Christian monuments in the Crimea was not a priority of the Soviet era. In recent years, however, the situation has changed – the number of publications on the subject runs into many dozens. Written evidence and topography, basilicas and baptisteries, mosaics and crypt paintings are all actively studied.2 One exception is the marble architectural details from Byzantine workshops. The chapter on marbles in A.L. Yakobson’s monograph, published half a century ago, retains its significance.3 Some marble articles from Chersonesus have been included in studies of a more general character.4 Especially important is the study of C. Barsanti on the export of Byzantine marble to Pontic

Fig. 1: Chersonesus. Vew to the north-west (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

regions, with its excellent bibliography.5 Unfortunately, the port of Sevastopol, where ancient Chersonesus is situated, was at that time off limits to foreigners, and Barsanti was unable to visit the city and examine the collection of marbles. The study of A. Bortoli-Kazanski

1

Yakobson 1950; 1959; Romanchuk 2000; 2005; Sorochan 2005; Aibabin et al. 2003. 2 Zavadskaya 2003; 2007; Biernacki et al. 2004; Khrushkova 2004; 2005b; 2007a; 2008a; Romanchuk 2007, 305-453. 3 Yakobson 1959, 131-52. 4 Pülz 1998, 52-54, 62-63, 66-67, 70.

5

129

Barsanti 1989.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

contains evidence on the geography of the use of marbles in the Crimea.6

‘feingezahnte Akanthus’ (and its translations: ‘finely dentellated’, ‘finement dentelée’, ‘finemente dentellato’) became widely used thanks to Kautzsch’s pioneering study.8 The acanthus became the face of Byzantine innovation in the area of architectural sculptural style during late antiquity. The leaf itself became removed from the original Roman shape of the acanthus mollis and now exhibited fine sharp teeth. A typical part of the new technique was the use of the drill – this enabled the effect of a light filigree lace to be imparted, destroying the impression of stone mass and weight. This style of carving corresponded to the essential principles of Byzantine aesthetics.

In the 5th and 6th centuries Chersonesus became the destination for several hundred marble architectural details from the Proconnesian quarries of Constantinople: columns and capitals, ambos and chancel barriers, tiles for wall facings, floors and doorways. In terms of their variety and number, Chersonesus is exceptionally rich in the Pontic area and could be compared to Ravenna. Interesting in themselves as architectural decoration, they are also very important as an aid in clarifying the chronology of churches in Chersonesus and elsewhere in the Crimea. Many elements of marble decoration may have been moved, and establishing their original location is hardly possible. Still, the import of these marble details illustrates the chronology of the main phases of largescale construction in the city.

Capitals with fine-toothed acanthus leaves fall into distinct groups: the Composite capital, the two-zone capital, and also the Ionic impost capital. Examples of all three are found in Chersonesus. The Composite capital with fine-toothed acanthus was called at the time of Strzygowski ‘Theodosian’, pointing primarily to the characteristic type of acanthus. However, it has long been known that the prevalence of this type did not coincide with the reign of Theodosius II, which is why Kautzsch referred to it as ‘so-called Theodosian’.9 Attempts to clarify the term ‘Composite capital’ have not led to a terminological consensus. J.-P. Sodini insists on the term ‘Composite Ionic capital’ because there are different types of Composite capitals.10 Barsanti refers to the same type as ‘the Corinthian Composite capital’.11 J. Kramer is strongly opposed to this usage, because the very term ‘Composite’ unites both elements, Ionic and Corinthian.12 For my part, I prefer the traditional usage of ‘Composite capital with fine-toothed acanthus’.13

The capitals from Chersonesus represent virtually all known types of the Late Antique/Early Byzantine capital (Fig. 2). They include Composite capitals with finetoothed acanthus decoration; Corinthian capitals with two rows of acanthus leaves; variations on the Corinthian capital, ‘lyre-shaped’ (R. Kautzsch) and v-shaped capitals; two-zone capitals; Ionic impost capitals; imposts; and an example of an Ionic capital. The greater part of the capitals date to the middle and second half of the 5th century and the first half of the 6th. It was during this period that the larger basilicas, for which all these capitals were intended, were constructed.7

At the astragal of the Composite capital there is often a row of inclined acanthus leaves, with their tops pointing down; the body is decorated with two rows of acanthus leaves, with eight leaves in each row; the upper corners contain volutes; the space between the volutes may contain a row of palmettes or ovoli; the abacus is decorated with the chevron motif or ‘scales’. This type, created in the Byzantine capital, is found in all corners of the empire: Asia Minor and Greece, Palestine and Egypt, North Africa and Italy. It was especially popular in the eastern provinces. There are 369 known Composite capitals with fine-toothed acanthus decoration.14 In the two-zone capital the upper part features zoomorphic representations (the protomes of sheep or birds), while the lower one is covered with two rows of fine-toothed acanthus leaves (there are other variations which need not be examined here). These elegant capitals, usually placed for visibility, are rather rare.

Fig. 2: Chersonesus Museum. Lapidarium (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

I will examine the group of capitals decorated with finetoothed acanthus leaves. J. Strzygowski first described capitals of this type in the late 19th century. He related them to the time of Theodosius II (408-450). The term

8

Kautzsch 1936, 115; Peschlow 2001, 96-97. Kautzsch 1936, 37. 10 Sodini 1989, 175; 2000, 225. 11 Barsanti 1989, 141. 12 ‘Ein “composites korinthisches Kapitell” oder “korintisches Kompositkapitell”… ist als Begriff ein Nonsens’ (Kramer 1998, 44). 13 Khrushkova 2002, 361-62. 14 Sodini 1989, 175; 1984, 46-48; Sodini et al. 1998, 323-24. 9

6

Bortoli-Kazanski 1981. Khrushkova 2004, 188-90; 2007a, 116-18; 2008a, 1226-30; 2008b, 6062. I take this opportunity to thank Leonid Marchenko, the Director of Chersonesus Museum, for the kind assistance provided in the study of the materials, and for the permission to photograph them.

7

130

L.G. KHRUSHKOVA: CHERSONESUS IN THE CRIMEA: EARLY BYZANTINE CAPITALS WITH FINE-TOOTHED ACANTHUS LEAVES

The Ionic impost capital is a widely used type with several variations. Such a capital consists of two parts. These are sometimes independent, but more frequently they are made from a single block of marble. The lower part of the capital is composed of volutes, while the impost is frequently decorated with acanthus leaves of various shapes and other motifs. The variant with the impost covered with fine-toothed acanthus leaves is rare. It belongs to the beginning of the evolution of the Ionic impost capital – a type that has had a long existence and developed many variants. A group of Composite capitals with fine-toothed acanthus decoration was found in Chersonesus. Three of them were found by G. Belov during the excavation of a basilica (the so-called Basilica 1935) situated in the maritime zone, in the northern part of the city. It is one of the few basilicas excavated during Soviet rule. The capitals correspond fully to the type described by Strzygowski, and later by Kautzsch. The height of the Chersonesus capitals is 40-44 cm, which is a little less than the usual dimensions of the capitals of the columns which separated the aisles of a basilica. It may be assumed that the capitals were used in the tribune. Both examples from Chersonesus Museum are well preserved and distinguished by their high quality of workmanship, the precision of carving and the meticulous achievement of detail (Figs. 3-4).

Fig. 4: Chersonesus Museum. Composite capital 2 (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

Fig. 5: Chersonesus Museum. Composite capital 3 (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

Fakih Mosque in Istanbul and the Campanopetra basilica in Cyprus, dated by G. Roux to the last quarter of the 5th century.15 One of the capitals in Chersonesus Museum is especially notable for its artistic quality16 (Fig. 3). It has finer and sharper acanthi, its dentellated outline is set back from the background. The palmettes between the volutes form a sort of crown of openwork carving. It resembles the capital from the Panhagia Acheiropоiеtos basilica in Salonica/Thessaloniki (ca. 470).17 Another very similar capital is kept in storage in Chersonesus Museum. The curls of its volutes, however, are ordinary, without acanthi (Fig. 5).18 Another example from the museum is different in detailing (Fig. 4). The grooves of its lower row of leaves are highlighted with small holes, made with a drill. There is a small cross between the palmettes on the echinus.19

Fig. 3: Chersonesus Museum. Composite capital 1 (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

The leaves of the acanthus are strongly bent back. The abacus is decorated with a chevron motif; between the volutes are rows of palmettes. The volutes of both capitals are decorated with fine-toothed acanthus. This rare detail is only found in capitals of high artistic quality, for instance in those from the St Sophia’s and the Ali

15

Roux 1998, 242-43, figs. 232, 236, 238, 239, 297-300. Yakobson 1959, 133, fig. 45.1; Barsanti 1989, 146-47; Khrushkova 2008a, 1234, pl. III, 3; 2008b, 61, fig. 32. 17 Zollt 1994, 343, Taf. 49; Krautheimer 1975, 106. 18 Khrushkova 2008b, 61, fig. 31. 19 Pülz 52-53, Abb. 5. 16

131

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

For how long Composite capitals with fine-toothed acanthi were constructed is not yet certain. The opinion that they were common from the time of Theodosius II until that of Justinian dates back to Strzygowski.25 This view is shared by many scholars.26 It is based on the fact that some Composite capitals are found in churches dated to the time of Justinian, for instance the San Vitale in Ravenna27 or the Eufrasiana basilica in Poreč (Parenzo) in Croatia.28 It seems that F.W. Deichmann must have had his study of Ravenna in mind when he dated the series of Composite capitals decorating the façades of the San Marco in Venice to the very broad period of the 5th-6th centuries.29 Be that as it may, the chronology remains unsettled. We know that no capitals of this type are found in Constantinople in the main buildings of the time of Justinian. This is important to bear in mind in the context of Chersonesus, which had no workshops of its own and where the marbles were an import from the capital. Of late, it has been frequently stated that the use of the Composite capital with the ‘Theodosian’ acanthus is limited to the 5th century. The possibility of a capital of such peculiar shape being produced for an entire century, and with little variation, is doubtful.30

Fig. 6: Chersonesus Museum. Lapidarium: composite capital (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

Yet another example of the Composite type is in the Lapidarium, in the garden in front of Chersonesus Museum (Fig. 6). It has the same structure and the same fine-toothed acanthus decoration. The leaves of the lower row are worked with a drill, as with the capital described above. However, its open-air location has meant that it is not as well preserved as the ones inside the museum.20 On the eastern Black Sea coast, a similar capital was found in Khobi, in Samegrelo, to where it had been moved from Zikhia (Dzhigeti).21

The dating of the single Composite capital in the grand ensemble of marble decoration in the basilica at Poreč also poses a problem. Can it really be dated to the age of Justinian, as the basilica itself? A. Terry dates this ‘Theodosian composite’ to the 5th century, judging it a case of reuse, as in the churches of Ravenna.31 A. Megaw, in characterising the Campanopetra basilica in Cyprus, observes that the ‘Theodosian style’ existed until the end of the 5th century.32 Two capitals from Zeytinbaği (the monastery of Pelekete) and Mustafa Kemalpasha in Asia Minor, both stylistically close to the ones from Chersonesus, are dated to the middle or the second half of the 5th century.33

The chronology of the Composite capital with finetoothed acanthus leaves is peculiar in that the early stages of its evolution are much better known than the final. The first phase is usually set to between 450 and 470,22 or 450 and 480.23 This chronology is based on the dating of the churches in which capitals of this type are found in situ: the basilica of St John Studios in Constantinople, 453 (according to C. Mango), the Аcheiropoiеtos basilica in Saloniса, 470s, the basilica of St Leonidas in Lechaion near Corinth, of approximately the same date, and several others. Kautzsch’s old observation remains pertinent: since we have the capital with fine-toothed acanthus leaves in its perfectly developed form in the basilica of St John Studios, it follows that its formative phase must have taken part in the first half of the 5th century, i.e. precisely during the Theodosian era.24 However, no Constantinopolitan monuments of that date are extant.

The capitals from Chersonesus Museum are dated to between the middle of the 5th century and the 470s-480s on account of their close similarity to the capitals from Аcheiropoietos, St Demetrios in Salonica, and others. Kramer suggested that similar examples be grouped around a well-dated capital, so that their chronological sequence can be established. This is one of those cases 25

Kautzsch 1936, 115, Anm. 3. Sodini 1989, 175; 2000, 225; Barsanti 1989, 148; Zollt 1994, 214-15, 248-68, no. 617, Abb. 22. In Peschlow’s opinion, fine-toothed acanthus existed in the 6th century, but only as an ‘imitation’ (Peschlow 2001, 98, Abb 9). 27 Deichmann 1976, 99-100, 284, fig. 26. 28 Russso 1991, 38-39, fig. 14, 15. 29 Deichmann 1981, 32, 83, 87, nos. 13, 14, 329, 330, 345, 348351. 30 Kramer 1998, 57. 31 Terry 1988, 16, 22, fig. 25. This is a much-quoted capital. It may have been made earlier and taken to Poreč from Ravenna (Sodini 2000, 175). Other authors consider, however, that this capital actually dates to the time of the basilica construction by Bishop Eufrasius in the middle of the 6th century (Peschlow 2001, 98; Russo 1991, 39). 32 Megaw 2006, 396. 33 Ötüken 1996, 193-94, Taf. 35.4-5; Pralong 2003, 261. 26

20

Unpublished. Khrushkova 1980, 19-20, pl. IX, 2; 2006, 137, pl. 105b; 2007b, 202, fig. 8. 22 Sodini 1984, 45-50. The Acheiropoietos basilica has no precise dating; it is usually dated to the third quarter of the 5th century (Zollt 343, Anm. 331). 23 Kramer 1998, 56. 24 Kautzsch 1936, 124. 21

132

L.G. KHRUSHKOVA: CHERSONESUS IN THE CRIMEA: EARLY BYZANTINE CAPITALS WITH FINE-TOOTHED ACANTHUS LEAVES

Fig. 9: Chersonesus Museum. Composite capital 4 (photograph: L. Khrushkova) Fig. 7: Chersonesus. Basilica 1935: view to the south-east (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

Fig. 10: Chersonesus. Basilica 15: view to the north-east (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

unpublished capital in storage (Fig. 9). It is simpler and smaller. Still, it retains all the main features of the Composite capital: below a row of inclined leaves, two rows of ‘Theodosian’ acanthi, eight leaves to the row, however there are no palmettes or ovoli between the volutes. It is also dated to the second half of the 5th century.

Fig. 8: Chersonesus. Basilica 1935: Corinthian capital (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

Excavations in Chersonesus have yielded a series of twozone capitals. Examples of this type have a lower part covered with eight leaves of fine-toothed acanthus, while the corners of the upper zone, in lieu of volutes, feature protomes of animals and, less frequently, of birds. Capitals with sheep protomes were found in Basilica 15 (the so-called ‘basilica inside the basilica’) in the southern part of Chersonesus (Fig. 10). Two of these capitals are in the Hermitage Museum; one of them, superbly preserved and of an excellent quality, is in the Byzantine section of the exhibition (Fig. 11).36 Two other capitals are in the Mediaeval section of Chersonesus Museum. The better preserved of the two

where Kramer’s chronological method becomes useful.34 The capitals from Basilica 1935 date not the basilica itself (Fig. 7) – it was decorated with ‘normal’ Corinthian capitals of the first half of the 6th century (Fig. 8) – but another, earlier basilica. This latter building was discovered under the remains of Basilica 1935 and is poorly preserved. It is likely that it was built on the remains of a synagogue – the earliest building on the site. The convoluted history of the complex is still debated.35 A detailed examination of the capitals may shed light on the sequence of the building phases of this important site. Besides the well-preserved capitals representing the best examples of this type, Chersonesus Museum has an 34 35

36 Bank and Popova 1977, 89, no. 116а; Barsanti 1989, 151, fig. 76. Khrushkova 2008a 1235, fig. 21; 2008b, 62, fig. 33. Many thanks to Vera Zalesskaya at the Hermitage Museum for her kind assistance and permission to photograph the capitals.

Kramer 1998, 53. Sorochan 2005, 1012-14; Khrushkova 2008a, 1224-26; 2008b, 58-60.

133

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 11: Hermitage Museum. Two-zone capital (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

Fig. 13: Chersonesus Museum. Two-zone capital 2 (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

capital from Chersonesus Museum (Fig. 12). The other side of this capital has the common motif of cornucopia between protomes. The other capital from the museum has sitting birds with folded wings, their heads turned left. Some scholars give as broad a date range for this type of capital as for the entire group with fine-toothed acanthus leaves: between the second half of the 5th and the first half of the 6th century.40 On other hand, two-zone capitals can be divided into two subgroups, which differ morphologically and stylistically. All Chersonesian capitals correspond to subgroup 1, whose defining characteristic is the fine-toothed acanthus in the lower zone. Subgroup 1 capitals are dated to the middle or the second half of the 5th century (the latter dating is more accurate, according to U. Peschlow).41 The capital from the Hermitage is very similar to one from the Byzantine Museum in Athens, dated to the middle of the 5th century.42 The two-zone capitals from Basilica15 date the first phase of its existence.

Fig. 12: Chersonesus Museum. Two-zone capital 1 (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

has been published (Fig. 12);37 the other not (Fig. 13). These capitals are not high, just some 31-32 cm. Yet another capital from Chersonesus Museum was decorated with figures of birds, of which only the remains of the wings survive.38 These lost birds were mostly likely eagles, insofar as the well-preserved examples are a guide (e.g. the capital in the Great Kairouan Mosque in Tunis).39

In the case of two-zone capitals of subgroup 2, the round body either has the shape of a wicker basket or is covered with leaves of openwork carving of various shapes, laid out in some cases in regular rows. The upper and the lower zones of the capitals are separated by a listel, with animal- and bird-paws resting on it. The resulting impression is of a basket with animals inside looking out. Subgroup 2 is dated to the 6th century, mainly to the time of Justinian.43 A group of such capitals is found in the mid-6th-century Eufrasiana basilica in Poreč.44 The excellent example from the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts

The two-zone capitals from Chersonesus differ in style and artistic merit. The Hermitage example features elegant, well-executed acanthus leaves, while the capital with the birds is characterised by simplified design and poorer workmanship. The elements between the protomes in the upper zone also differ. The Hermitage capital has on one side a bird pecking grapes, on the other a massive figure of a sitting eagle with folded wings, among the protomes of sheep. A similar bird is on the published

40

Kautzsch 1936, 152-65; Deichmann 1981, 79, 82, nos. 315, 316, 325; Barsanti 1989, 154. 41 Peschlow 2001, 100-01, Abb. 12. 42 Sklavou Mauroeide 1999, 50, no. 52. 43 Peschlow 2001, 101. On several other variants of two-zoned capitals of subgroup 2, see Guiglia Guidobaldi 1988, 232-36, tav. II-IV. 44 Russo 1991, 39-41, 42-45, 53-54, 81-83, figs.16-18, 20-22, 34-36, 6670. Terry doubts that the two-zoned capitals date to the same time as the Basilica Eufrasiana (Terry 1988, 16-17, n. 15).

37 Yakobson 1959, 135, fig. 46.1; Chichurov 1991, 18, no. 2; Pülz 1998, 62, Abb. 12. This capital currently carries an impost which originally came from elsewhere. 38 Yakobson 1959, 135, fig. 46.2. 39 Barsanti 1990, 431, tav. CLVI, 12.

134

L.G. KHRUSHKOVA: CHERSONESUS IN THE CRIMEA: EARLY BYZANTINE CAPITALS WITH FINE-TOOTHED ACANTHUS LEAVES

Fig. 14: Chersonesus Museum. Corinthian capital 1 (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

Fig. 15: Chersonesus Museum. Corinthian capital 2 (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

in Moscow, with its protomes of sheep and eagles and rows of vertically placed geometrised palmettes, belongs to this type.45 A Corinthian capital from the early excavations is on display in Chersonesus Museum (Fig. 14). Its height being 28 cm, it may be supposed that it was used in a chancel barrier.46 Its body is decorated with two rows of slightly bent fine-toothed acanthus. The peculiarity of this capital is that every leaf consists of seven lobes and is surrounded by a listel. This style of acanthus is even more distant from the traditional naturalistic shape than the regular fine-toothed acanthus. The capital can be dated to the end of the 5th century. The acanthus leaves are very similar to those on a capital from the Topkapi Palace47 and to the capital of the pilaster from Yedikule.48 A similar acanthus decorates another capital from Chersonesus, but here a more simple variant is seen – completely flat and abstracted, unbent leaves become schematised triangles with little holes along the outline. This degraded acanthus can hardly be described as ‘feingezahnte’. The upper part of the capital is lost; it probably belonged to the impost type. The capital is dated to the first half of the 6th century.49

Fig. 16: Chersonesus Museum. Corinthian capital 3 (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

covered with two rows of fine-toothed acanthus leaves. In the lower row there are six leaves, worked with a drill; the upper row has only four leaves, strongly bent back. This capital can be dated to the late 5th-early 6th century. A small capital stored in the museum belongs to the Corinthian type (Fig. 16). It has a row of four finetoothed acanthus leaves and an abacus. The base of the capital received an interesting treatment: we find chevrons more frequently seen on the abacus, and between them a schematised ovolo. Another capital, in storage, has one row of fine acanthus leaves and a double abacus (Fig. 17, above). The corners are lost; it is unclear whether they had volutes. Both these capitals can be dated to the second half of the 5th-early 6th century. Finally, there are fragments in storage of several capitals with fine-toothed acanthus leaves. One of the fragments is a part of a large capital (Fig. 18). Two others formed parts of smaller capitals.

We can also mention small, unpublished capitals and fragments. One of the Corinthian capitals displayed (Fig. 15) in the museum features a marked disproportion in size between the upper and lower parts. The double abacus is very massive, while the Ionic element is strongly reduced. Instead of volutes we have simple scrolls with a through orifice. The narrowed body is 45 Bank and Popova 1977, 91, no. 120. This capital comes not from Chersonesus, as indicated by Barsanti (1989, 153, fig. 79), but from Prince Mikhail Vorontsov’s palace at Alupka. 46 Yakobson 1959, 136, fig. 47.1; Chichurov 1991, 17, no. 1; Khrushkova 2008a, 1235, fig. 22. 47 Barsanti 1989, 148, fig. 72. 48 Sodini 1984, 47-48, fig. 10. Zollt dates this ‘pseudo-capital’ from Yedikule to the second half of the 5th-first half of the 6th century, which is his dating for the entire group of capitals with fine-toothed acanthus (Zollt 1994, 236, Taf. 45 [no. 617]). 49 Yakobson 1959, 136, fig. 47.2; Barsanti 148, fig. 73.

Another type of capital featuring the fine-toothed acanthus is the Ionic impost capital. Capitals of this very large and heterogeneous group consist of two parts: the Ionic element and the impost in the shape of a truncated 135

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 19: Uvarov Basilica. View to the south-east (photograph: L. Khrushkova) Fig. 17: Chersonesus Museum. Capitals and fragments (above) (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

Fig. 20: Museum of History, Moscow. Ionic impost capital (after Bank and Popova 1977, fig. 121) Fig. 18: Chersonesus Museum. Fragment of capital (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

are also situated on the corners of the impost. There is a row of palmettes between the volutes, as on the Composite capitals. The abacus is decorated with a wavelike motif with scrolls in the bends. The fairly large volutes are cut regularly, precisely and deeply. The difference is in the central motif decorating the main side of the impost: on the Moscow capital it is a medallion surrounded with leaves,54 while the Chersonesus specimen has the ‘flowering’ cross with widening arms (the so-called croix longue). The balusters are also different: in one case it is decorated with acanthus leaves, in the other with geometric motifs.

pyramid.50 In Chersonesus, Ionic impost capitals form about 40% of the overall number. They differ significantly in terms of impost decoration and variation in the shape of the Ionic element. Four such capitals were found in the late 19th century during the excavations of the so-called Uvarov basilica, named after Count A.S. Uvarov, the first scholar of the monument (1853). It is the largest church in the city and served its bishop. It has received a great deal of attention; debates regarding the time of its construction continue (Fig. 19). 51

A number of well-dated Ionic impost capitals from the basilica of St John Studios have imposts decorated with a cross surrounded with acanthi.55 A reused capital from the church of St Irene in Constantinople, where the impost is decorated with a medallion and acanthus leaves, dates to the same time.56 V. Vemi insists on the importance of the proportional relationship between the height of the Ionic element and that of the impost. This

One of the better preserved capitals from the Uvarov basilica is in the State Museum of History in Moscow (Fig. 20),52 the others are in Chersonesus Museum.53 Theу have much in common. The fine-toothed acanthus on the impost is combined with sharp acanthi. Acanthus leaves 50

Kautzsch 1936, 165-82; Barsanti 1989, 156-70; Zollt 1994, 242-338; Peschlow 2001, 103-06. On typology especially, see Vemi 1989, 9-36. 51 Yakobson 1959, 152-60; Sorochan 2005, 761-787. 52 Yakobson 1959, fig. 50.3-4; Bank and Popova 1977, 91, no 121; Barsanti 1989, 156-57, fig. 83; Khrushkova 2008b, 60, fig. 30. 53 Yakobson 1959, fig. 50.1-2.

54 A very similar capital comes from Tomi-Constanza in Romania (Barsanti 1989, fig. 84). 55 Kautzsch 167, Taf. 33, no. 540a-b; Vemi 1989, 73. 56 Barsanti 157, fig. 85.

136

L.G. KHRUSHKOVA: CHERSONESUS IN THE CRIMEA: EARLY BYZANTINE CAPITALS WITH FINE-TOOTHED ACANTHUS LEAVES

Fig. 21: Chersonesus Museum. Lapidarium: lyre-shaped capital (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

Fig. 22: Chersonesus Museum. Lapidarium: v-shaped capital (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

characteristic may serve as one of the chronological tools: over time the impost became more massive while the Ionic element grew smaller and took on a subordinate function. The capital from the Moscow museum has an impost a little taller than one-third of the overall height, roughly the same proportion as with the capitals from the Studios basilica.57 Capitals from the Uvarov basilica are from the early phase in the development of this type and are dated to the middle of the 5th century.58 The Uvarov basilica itself is dated to the same time. Its architectural characteristics fully correspond to the so-called ‘Hellenistic’ type of basilica with atrium, narthex, exonarthex, an apse, and with wooden ceilings over the naves. Some scholars mistakenly date the Uvarov basilica to the late 6th century on the basis of a coin of Mauricius (582-602) found in the well under the narthex wall. However, the wall only partially covered the well, and the coin could have found its way there after the construction of the wall.59

v-shaped ones (Fig. 22) suggests significant building activity in the city in the late 5th-first half of the 6th century. At the same time it is quite possible that some of the ‘lyre’ capitals can be dated earlier. Capitals of this type had been used in the church of St Sophia in Constantinople built by Theodosius II in 415.61* Bibliography AIBABIN, A.I., ZASETSKAYA, I.P. and MAKAROVA, T.I. 2003: ‘Krym’. In Makarova, T.I. and Pletneva, S.A. (eds.), Krym, Severo-Vostochnoe Prichernomor’e i Zakavkaze v epokhu srednevekov’ya. IV-XIII veka (Moscow), 9-145. BANK, A.V. and POPOVA, O.S. (eds.) 1977: Iskusstvo Vizantii v sobraniyakh SSSR. 1. Katalog vystavki. Rannekhristianskoe iskusstvo II-IV vekov (Moscow). BARSANTI, C. 1989: ‘L’esportazione di marmi dal Proconesso nelle regione pontiche durante il IV-VI secolo’. Rivista dell’Istituto nazionale d’Archeologia e Storia del’Arte, serie 3, 12, 91-220.

To sum up, capitals with the fine-toothed acanthus are an important demonstration of the fact that basilicas were being constructed in Chersonesus between the middle and the end of the 5th century. Obviously, ecclesiastical building activity in the city starts earlier, since we know that Bishop Aetherius took part in the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381. Martyria and painted crypts in the city cemeteries of Chersonesus existed as early as the second half of the 4th century.60

BARSANTI, C. 1990: ‘Tunisia: indagine preliminare sulla diffusione dei manufatti di marmo proconnesio in epoca paleobizantina’. Milion 5, 429-31. BIERNACKI, A.B., KLENINA, E.Y. and RYZHOV, S.G. (eds.) 2004: Wczesnobizantyjskie budowle sakralne Chersonesu Taurydzkiego I (Poznań).

As for the churches intra muros, their dating requires a future, more detailed investigation, in which marble decorations will be an important source of evidence. That a significant number of the capitals date to the end of the 5th-first half of the 6th century, including the ‘normal’ Corinthian capitals, and also the ‘lyre’- (Fig. 21) and the

BORTOLI-KAZANSKI, A. 1981: ‘La repartition du marbre de Proconnèse en Crimée à l’époque paléochrétienne’. In Ahrweiler, H. (ed.), Geographica Byzantina (Paris), 55-65. CHICHUROV, I.S. (ed.) 1991: Vizantiiskii Cherson. Katalog vystavki (Moscow).

57

This characteristic must not be considered in isolation. For instance, we find the same proportion of heights in the capital from the island of Kos, dated to the age of Justinian (Vemi 1989, 186, no. 279). 58 Barsanti, 1989, 156. 59 Khrushkova 2008b, 60-61; Klenina 2004, 74. 60 Khrushkova 2005a; 2007c; 2008b, 45-58; 2008c; 2008d.

DEICHMANN, F.W. 1976: Ravenna. Hauptstadt des spätantiken Abendlandes II, vol. 2 (Wiesbaden). 61 *

137

Pralong 2005, 497-98. Translated from the Russian by Kesha Gelbak.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

KLENINA, E. 2004: ‘Uvarovskaia bazilika (n. 23)’. In Biernacki et al. 2004, 71-74.

DEICHMANN, F.W. 1981: Corpus der Capitelle der Kirche von San Marco zu Venedig (Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und Christlichen Archäologie 12) (Wiesbaden). GUIGLIA GUIDOBALDI, A. 1988: ‘Scultura costantinopolitana del VI secolo i capitelli reimpiegati nella medresa della moschea di Davit Pasha’. Milion 1, 232-36. KAUTZSCH, R. 1936: Kapitellstudien. Beiträge zu einer Geschichte des Spätantiken Kapitells im Osten vom vierten bis ins siebente Jahrhundert (Studien zur spätantiken Kunstgeschichte 9) (Berlin/Leipzig). KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 1980: Skul’ptura rannesrednevekovoi Abkhazii. V-X veka (Tbilisi). KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2002: Rannekhristianskie pamyatniki Vostochnogo Prichernomor’ya. 4-7 veka (Moscow). KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2004: ‘Khristianskie pamyatniki Kryma (sostoyanie izucheniya)’. Vizantiiskii Vremennik 63 (88), 167-94. KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2005a: ‘O nachale khristianskogo Khersonesa Tavricheskogo: krestovidnaya tserkov’ na glavnom kladbishche’. In Kukovalskaya, N.M. (ed.), Sugdeiskii Sbornik 2 (Kiev/Sudak), 393-420. KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2005b: Review of V.M. Zubar and A.I. Khvorostyanyi, Ot yazychestva k khristianstvu, Kiev, 2000. Ancient West & East 4.1, 223-27. KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2007a: ‘Krim’. Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 22, 75-125. KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2007b: ‘The Spread of Christianity in the Eastern Black Sea Littoral (written and archaeological sources)’. Ancient West & East 6, 177-219. KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2007c: ‘Krestovidnye martirii v Khersonese Tavricheskom i na khristianskom Vostoke: nachalo traditsii’. In Babinov, Y.A. (ed.), Sacrum et Profanum, vol. 3 (Sevastopol), 211-26. KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2008a: ‘Sovremennaya rannekhristianskaya i vizantiiskaya arkheologiya v Krymu: problemy i diskussii’. In Simonov, V.V. (ed.), Rannee khristianstvo v Severnom Prichernomor’e (Moscow), 1199-1250. KHRUSHKOVA [KHROUSHKOVA], L.G. 2008b: ‘Chersonesos in the Crimea, the First Christian Buildings (4th-5th Centuries)’. Antiquité Tardive 16, 45-62. KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2008c: ‘Сhersonesus in the Crimea: the Early Christian Cemetery Churches and the Urban Development’. In Lopez Quiroga, J., Martines Tejera, A.M., Garcia Perez, L. and Daza Pardo, E. (eds.), XV Congressus internationalis archaeologiae christianae, Toledo del 8 a 12 septiembre 2008: Pre-Actas (Toledo), 42. KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2008d: ‘O zhivopisi rannekhristianskikh sklepov v Krymu: sto let posle M.I. Rostovtseva’. Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 42, 121-32.

KRAMER, J. 1998: ‘Bemerkungen zu den Methoden der Klassifizierung und Datierung früchristlicher oströmischer Kapitelle’. In Peschlow, U. and Möllers, S. (eds.), Spätantike und byzantinische Bauskulptur. Beiträge eines Symposions in Mainz, Febr. 1994 (Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und christlichen Archäologie 19) (Stuttgart), 43-58. KRAUTHEIMER, R. 1975: Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Harmondsworth, Mx). MEGAW, A.H.S. 2006: ‘The Campanopetra reconsidered: the pilgrimage church of the Apostle Barnabas?’. In Jeffreys, E.M. (ed.), Byzantine Style, Religion and Civilization. In Honour of Sir S. Runciman (Cambridge), 394-404. ÖTÜKEN, Y. 1996: Forschungen im Nordwestlichen Kleinasien: antike und byzantinische Denkmäler in der Provinz Bursa (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 41) (Tübingen). PESCHLOW, U. 2001: ‘Kapitell’. Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 20, 58-123. PRALONG, A. 2003: ‘Matériel archéologique errant’. In Lefort, J. and Geyer, B. (eds.), La Bithynie au moyen âge (Réalités Byzantines 9) (Paris), 225-86. PRALONG, A. 2005: ‘Origine des chapiteaux-corbeille “à côtes de melon”’. Travaux et Mémoires 15, 487-98. PÜLZ, A. 1998: ‘Die frühchristlichen Kirchen des taurischen Chersonesos/Krim’. Mitteilungen zur Christlichen Archälogie 4, 45-78. ROMANCHUK, A.I. 2000: Ocherki istorii i arkheologii vizantiiskogo Khersona (Ekaterinburg). ROMANCHUK [ROMANČUK], A.I. 2005: Studien zur Geschichte und Archäologie des byzantinischen Cherson (Colloquia Pontica 11) (Leiden/Boston) [German translation of Romanchuk 2000]. ROMANCHUK, A.I. 2007: Issledovaniya KhersonesaKhersona. Raskopki, Gipotezy, Problemy. 2: Vizantiiskii gorod (Ekaterinburg). ROUX, G. 1998: Salamine de Chypre, 15: La basilique de la Campanopétra (Paris). RUSSO, E. 1991: Sculture del complesso eufrasiano di Parenzo (Naples). SKLAVOU MAUROEIDE, M. 1999: Glypta tou Byzantinou Mouseiou Athenon: Katalogos (Athens). SODINI, J.-P. 1984: ‘La sculpture architecturale à l’époque paléochrétienne en Illyricum’. In Actes du Xe Congrès international d'archéologie chrétienne. Thessalonique, 28 septembre-4 octobre 1980, vol. 1 (Thessaloniki/Vatican City), 31-119. SODINI, J.-P. 1989: ‘Le commerce des marbres à l’époque protobyzantine’. In Hommes et richesse dans l’Empire byzantin, 1: IVe-VIIe siècle (Paris), 163-86. SODINI, J.-P. 2000: Review of U. Peschlow, S. Möllers (hrsg.), Spätantike und byzantinische Bauskulptur. Beiträge eines Symposions in Mainz, Febr. 1994, 138

L.G. KHRUSHKOVA: CHERSONESUS IN THE CRIMEA: EARLY BYZANTINE CAPITALS WITH FINE-TOOTHED ACANTHUS LEAVES

Stuttgart, 1998. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 93.1, 22429.

YAKOBSON, A.L. 1950: Srednevekovyi Khersones, XIIXIV vv. (Moscow/Leningrad).

SODINI, J.-P., BARSANTI, C. and GUIGLIA GUIDOBALDI, A. 1998: ‘La sculpture architecturale en marbre au VIe siècle à Constantinople et dans les régions sous influence constantinopolitaine’. In Cambi, N. and Marin, E. (eds.), Acta XIII Congressus internationalis archaeologiae christianae, SplitPoreč, 1994 (Studi di antichità cristiana 54) (Split/Vatican), 301-76.

YAKOBSON, A.L. 1959: Rannesrednevekovyi Khersones (Moscow/Leningrad). ZAVADSKAYA, I.A. 2003: ‘Khristianizatsiya rannevizantiiskogo Khersonesa (IV-VI vv.)’. Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 10, 402-26. ZAVADSKAYA, I.A. 2007: ‘Kontseptsii istorii khristianizatsii naseleniya Chersonesa v otechestvennoi istoriografii’. Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 13, 430-67.

SOROCHAN, S.B. 2005: Vizantiiskii Kherson, vtoraya polovina VI-pervaya polovina X vv. Ocherki istorii i kul’tury, 2 vols. (Kharkov).

ZOLLT, T. 1994: Kapitellplastik Konstantinopels vom 4. bis 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Mit einem Beitrag zur Untersuchung des ionischen Kämpferkapitells (Asia Minor Studien 14) (Bonn).

TERRY, A. 1988: ‘The Sculpture at the Cathedral of Eufrasius in Poreč’. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42, 1364. VEMI, V. 1989: Les chapiteaux ioniques à imposte de Grèce à l’époque paléochrétienne (Paris).

139

BASILICA LESNOE-1 NEAR SOCHI IN THE NORTH-EASTERN BLACK SEA REGION* Liudmila G. KHRUSHKOVA Russian State University for the Humanities, 6, Miusskaya Pl., 125047 Moscow, Russia [email protected]

Dmitri E. VASILINENKO Glavnoe Upravlenie Kultury Krasnodarskogo kraya, 21, Festivalnaya, 350049 Krasnodar, Russia [email protected]

Abstract: The least studied region of the Black Sea is its north-east coast. The Museum of History in Sochi houses a number of objects of the Roman and Early Byzantine periods. These from persuasive evidence the church buildings must have existed around Sochi-Adler in the 6th century AD. One basilica, Lesnoe (or Lesnyanskya)-1 was discovered in 2003-04. It was medium-sized: 22.3 m long and 16.4 m wide. There were three prominent apses, all semi-circular both inside and out, and a well-developed western part. The central apse was enlarged somewhat because the barrier advanced into the nave. The south apse contained a square baptismal font. Eight burials were discovered in the aisles and the adjacent area to the north. A glass vessel from Tomb 8 of the second half of the 6th-7th century is important for dating the church. Another recent discovery is basilica Lesnyanskaya-2 (in 2007-08), with three prominent apses and a cruciform baptismal font in the southern one. The Sochi-Adler area must have fallen within the archbishopric of Abasgia, present in the first episcopal Notitia of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate (not later than 641). KUZEYDOĞU KARADENİZ’DE SOCHI YAKININDAKİ LESNOE 1 BAZİLİKASI Özet: Karadeniz’in en az çalışılmış kısmı kuzeydoğu köşesidir. Sochi’deki Tarih Müzesi Roma ve Erken Bizans devirlerine ait olan bir takım buluntular barındırmaktadır. Bunlar Sochi-Adler’de İ.S. 6. yy.’da varolan bazı kiliselerin varlığına ait inandırıcı delillerdir. Lesnoe 1 (ya da Lesnyanskaya 1) adı verilen bir bazilika 2003-2004’te keşfedilmiştir. Orta boylu bu bazilika 22.3 m uzunlukta ve 16.4 m genişliktedir. Üç adet içte ve dışta yarım dairevi belirgin biçimli apsisi ve batısında gelişmiş bir bitiş kısmı vardır. Ortadaki apsis ambonların nefe doğru genişletilmesi sonucunda büyütülmüştür. Güney apsis dörtgen bir baptisterion kuruluşu barındırır. Koridorlarda 8 adet gömü bulunmuştur ve kuzeyde de bitişik bir mekan bulunur. 8 no’lu mezardan çıkan İ.S. 6.7. yy.’a ait cam kap kilisenin tarihlenmesi açısından önemlidir. Bir başka yeni buluntu ise 2007-2008’de keşfedilen Lesnyanskaya2’dir. Bu da üç belirgin apsisli ve güney apsisinde haç planlı bir baptisterion barındıran bir kilisedir. Sochi-Adler Bölgesi Abasgia Piskoposluğu’na bağlı olarak, İstanbul Patrikliği’nin ilk piskoposluk Notitia’sında İ.S. 641’den daha geç olmamak kaydıyla kayıda geçmiştir.

The North-East Coast of the Black Sea is its least studied region. This applies to all periods: Classical, Roman, Late Antique and Mediaeval. This tradition probably dates back to antiquity. The lack of information about the region available to ancient authors is explained by its inaccessibility. The spurs of the mountains approach the coast and sometimes descend into the sea, especially near Gagra (the ancient Nitikè/Stennetikè).1 Beginning with Strabo and until the first half of the 19th century, various sources speak of the unusual barbarity of the indigenous populations: Theodoretus of Cyrrhus (Church History 5. 34. 8) (5th century),2 later the monk Epyphanios (late 8th century), the 12th-century Byzantine writer Eustathios, the 18th-century Georgian editors of the 11th-century historical composition Leonti Mroveli, the Georgian

historian Prince Vakhushti Bagrationi, and others.3 Piracy flourished around Pitsunda as late as the 1830s, documented by French4 and British5 authors. During that era, just as earlier in the times of the Notitia Dignitatum, Pitsunda was the final outpost of imperial power (in the 19th century the empire being Russia). The Swiss scholar F. Dubois de Monpéreux, who explored the coast in 1833, prudently chose a Russian warship as the safest mode of regional transport, and never ventured to the north-west of Pitsunda.6 More than 40 years ago V.A. Lekvinadze introduced the concept of the ‘Pontic limes’, which refers to the system of Roman fortifications along the entire east coast of the Black Sea, analogous to the other regions of the empire.7 This concept is absent in ancient sources and has been the

*

This work has been facilitated by the award of a ‘Mediaeval Christian Monuments of the North-East Black Sea Coast’ scholarship, under ‘The Genesis and Interaction of Social, Cultural and Linguistic Communities’ programme of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 1 RE 17.1, 769; Kacharava and Kvirkveliya 1991, 181. 2 Parmentier 1954, 335.

3

Khrushkova 2006, 93-94. Gamba 1826, 40. 5 Spencer 1838, 289. 6 Dubois de Monpéreux 1839; Khrushkova 2008, 234-49. 7 Lekvinadze 1969, 75-93. 4

141

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

subject of much debate, as has the location of particular geographical points. In this context, the north-east segment of the coast remains the least known.8 What is the location of the Mochore fortress, with an anonymous cohors mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum, a source from the turn of the 5th century AD? In the village of Mamai-kala near Sochi, as supposed by Lekvinadze, or in Lazica (on the grounds of its similarity to the Mocherisis of Procopius of Caesarea), or in Asia Minor, in modern Turkey? It is possible that another Roman fortress, kastron Baga, mentioned by the Anonymous Periplus (5th century), was situated between the modern townships of Makopse and Tuapse, 60-70 km to the north-west of Sochi. The usual localisation of Παλαια Λαζικη (or Νικοψις of the Anonymous Periplus) in modern Novaja Mikhailovka (the Adig township of Nechepsukho),9 proposed by Dubois de Monpéreux (1833), has lately been called into question.10

Fig. 1: Sochi Museum. Glass vessel (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

All these hypotheses and discussions can only be settled by archaeological excavation. In the meantime, many problems of regional historical geography, ethnic history and archaeology remain unresolved. The History Museum of Sochi has a number of objects dating to the Roman period. Were these imported artefacts related to the Roman population of the coastal settlements or did they appear as a result of trade with the local tribal elites? Two unpublished objects can be cited as an example: a bronze amphora and a greenish glass cup. Both are dated to the 1st century AD.11 A cup of pale-greenish glass, 5 cm high and 12.5 cm in diameter, is decorated with ribs in relief12 (Fig. 1). This type of hemispherical phiale is well known in the Roman world from the 1st until the beginning of the 2nd century AD. They are thought to be the product of Gallo-Rhenish workshops, and they are more commonly found in the western parts of the empire,13 but have also been found in Palestine.14

Fig. 2: Sochi Museum. Amphora (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

In the eastern Black Sea region, fragments of a similar cup were found during the excavations of the early Christian architectural complex of Sebastopolis in Abkhazia, in a stratigraphic context.15 A whole phiale of this type, now in the Hermitage, comes from the necropolis of Panticapaeum.16 Vessels of this type were found in Tanais, where they are dated to the late 1stearly 2nd century.17 Seventeen finds of Roman glass

vessels of the 2nd century BC-1st century AD are known in the Krasnodar region.18 A bronze Italic amphora (47 cm high, 26 cm in diameter) is damaged in the middle part of the body; one handle is lost.19 The handle is decorated with a palmette (at the top) and a mask of Medusa (at the bottom) in high relief at the points of attachment (Figs. 2-3). Such decorative reliefs are common in Roman bronze objects of the 1st-early 2nd century AD.20 The total number of Roman bronze vessels of the 2nd century BC-1st century AD found in the Krasnodar region is 26.21

8

Khrushkova 2002, 34-44; Khroushkova 2006, 17-20. Khrushkova 2006, 93-95, 101-02. 10 Gorst 1997. 11 L. Khrushkova is grateful to A.V. Guseva, Deputy Director of the History Museum of Sochi, for her kind assistance and permission to photograph the exhibits. 12 Inventory number OF 12553/11. 13 Göthert-Polatchek 1990, 19, 40, Abb. 1, Taf. 10, 29. 14 Jennings 1999, 112, 123, fig. 1, 2. 15 Khrushkova 2002, 223-24, fig. 87, I; 2006, 64, pl. 41d, f. 16 Kunina 1997, 258-59, no. 56. 17 Jacenko 2005, 279, Abb. 1 (2). 9

18

Kropotkin 1967, 86, pl. 17. Inventory number OF-12553/4. 20 Ilieva and Cholakov 2005, 52-53, fig. 2a. 21 Kropotkin 1967, 79, pl. 16. 19

142

L.G. KHRUSHKOVA AND D.E. VASILINENKO: BASILICA LESNOE-1 NEAR SOCHI IN THE NORTH-EASTERN BLACK SEA REGION

Fig. 3: Amphora, detail (photograph: L Khrushkova) Fig. 5: Sochi Museum. Marble capital (photograph: L. Khrushkova) simplified volutes. Small holes along the perimeter of the leaves were made with a drill, but their placement is irregular, and they do not create the openwork effect typical of the so-called ‘fine-toothed acanthus’. The capital is dated to the first half of the 6th century.24 It appears to have been part of a chancel barrier. The church from which it originates has not yet been found. These marble artefacts are persuasive evidence that church buildings must have existed around Adler during the Early Byzantine period. Other early evidence of the practice of Christianity in this region is a golden necklace with three medallions at the Hermitage. It was discovered in 1893 in the village of Michaelsfield (modern Dzhighinskoe) near Anapa and was a part of what must have been a rich burial. The reverse sides of the medallions carry depictions of the chrismon and crosses. This object of Constantinopolitan production has been dated thanks to the coin of Justin I and Justinian I (AD 526-527), attached to the clasp.25

Fig. 4: Sochi Museum. Marble slab (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

What little information is available on the Christian architecture of the north-eastern Black Sea region is limited and fragmentary.26 Until recently, only the church in the village of Loo, near Sochi, had undergone (incomplete) archaeological study. It belongs to the ‘inscribed cross’ type, well-known in the Byzantine world from the 10th century onwards.27 Nine monuments of Christian architecture are currently known in the valleys of the rivers Psou and Mzymta in the Sochi-Adler area. Their systematic study began only in the recent years as part of the national programme for the ‘Preservation of the Historical-Cultural Legacy’. The work grew in importance as part of the preparations of the city of Sochi to play host to the Winter Olympics in 2014.28

Several marble elements of interior decoration now in the Sochi Museum were imported from Byzantine workshops on the island of Proconnesus during the age of Justinian. Two slabs from a chancel barrier originate from a lost basilica in the vicinity of Adler. Both slabs carry the diamond motif on their fronts22 (Fig. 4). Slabs of this type are well known in many parts of the Mediterranean; they are particularly numerous in the church of St Sophia church in Constantinople.23 The capital in the Sochi Museum is of the Corinthian type (Fig. 5). It is not large, so there are only four acanthus leaves, in a single row. The upper part of the capital is damaged, but the ‘V-form’ motif in its upper part, between the leaves, suggests small and strongly

24 Khrushkova 1980, 23, pl. XV, 4; 2002, 370, fig. 140; 2006, 139, pl. 106f. 25 Zalesskaya 2006, 97-98, no. 133. 26 Khrushkova 2005b, 252. 27 Ovchinnikova 1997a; Khrushkova 2006, 101-02, pl. 67d, e. 28 Vasilinenko 2008a; 2008b; Armarchuk 2008, 11-12; Khrushkova and Vasilinenko 2008.

22 Khrushkova 1980, 10-14, pl. I, II, 1; 2002, 370-74, figs. 141-142, pl. LXXVI, 1; 2006, 139-40, pl. 108a-d. The dating of these marble slabs to the 8th or 11th centuries is erroneous: Armarchuk 2003, 212; Gavritukhin and Piankov 2003, 199. 23 Guiglia Guidobaldi and Barsanti 2004, 149-99.

143

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 6: Lesnoe (Lesnyanskaya)-1 basilica. Plan (A. Grekov, A. Kucher)

Archaeological study in the area had been occasioned by the impending construction of power-line supports and a connecting road. Unfortunately, the construction work has resulted in serious damage to the complex. The fortress walls were completely destroyed, and the central building survives as a segment of the semicircular foundation. This segment is 10.5 m long. The foundation combines sandstone facing and rubble filling. The facing was hewn sandstone blocks and mortar. The spaces between the facings were filled with rubble and mortar. The original dimensions of the structure were approximately 10 m in external diameter and 8.67 m in internal.

Especially interesting are the two basilicas of the Early Byzantine period. One of them was discovered in the Adler district of Sochi in 2003-04. It is situated on the right bank of the Psakho river, 2.2 km to the south-west of the village of Lesnoe.29 It is commonly referred to as Lesnoe or Lesnyanskaya-1, as there exists another basilica in the Psakho river basin, called Lesnyanskaya-2. In 1970 the area was investigated by L.N. Sitnikova and L.L. Sitnikov and identified as ‘the remains of the Lesnyanskaya Fortress’.30 They described an earth hill (10 m in height, 60 m in circumference) located in the middle of a small plateau. A wall, 7 m long and 0.5 m high, made of large hewn stone blocks, surrounded the west part of the hill. The fortress was defended by walls 1 m1.2 m thick made of two rows of dry stone, the space between the rows filled with rubble. The south-east section of the crest of the hill was found to have two parallel defensive walls.

The excavations led to a significant discovery. The architectural remains located in the south-eastern part of the hillcrest, previously defined as defensive walls, turned out to be a church of the basilica type. It was seriously damaged during construction of a road across the aisles, and further affected by the placement of a soil storage platform. Some sections of the foundation and the floor, and a small segment of the west wall of the nave and the south aisle survive.

29 Excavations were carried out by Dmitri Vasilinenko: Vasilinenko and Khrushkova 2008. 30 Sitnikov and Sitnikova 1970, 4203.

144

L.G. KHRUSHKOVA AND D.E. VASILINENKO: BASILICA LESNOE-1 NEAR SOCHI IN THE NORTH-EASTERN BLACK SEA REGION

Fig. 7: East part, view to the east (photograph: D. Vasilinenko)

Fig. 9: Doorway from the nave in the north aisle (photograph: D. Vasilinenko)

Fig. 8: West porch, view to the east (photograph: D. Vasilinenko)

Fig. 10: North wall, view to the south-east (photograph: D. Vasilinenko)

The particular characteristics of the plan include three prominent apses and a well-developed western part (Figs. 6-7). Symmetrical rooms join the narthex on the south and the north sides, and a small porch on the west (Fig. 8). Unlike the narthex, the width of the porch corresponds only to that of the nave. The basilica was of medium size: 22.3 m long, 16.4 m wide, including the narthex annexes. An unusual feature of the plan is the different lengths of the aisles. The south aisle is 8.1 m long and 2.6 m wide; the north aisle is 6.9 m long and 2 m wide. The nave is 4.4 m wide. The structure has a north-eastward orientation.

The nave floor consists of two layers. The lower is made of concrete. It is 3-5 cm wide. Its colour is a light pink, lighter than the aisle floors. Stone slabs measuring 70 x 50 x 5 cm cover the lower layer. No traces of fire are observed here. All three basilica apses were semi-circular inside as well as out. They were separated from the aisles and the nave by barriers, of which the foundations remain. The area of the central apse is somewhat enlarged because the barrier is advanced into the nave. In the middle of the north apse a deep circular hollow is found (Fig. 11). It is 10 cm deep and 80–90 cm in diameter. Its bottom has a thin coating (Fig. 12). There was a square baptismal font, its inside faced with a reddish hydrophobic solution, in the south apse (Figs. 13-14).

Another important peculiarity of the church is that the roof is supported not by separate pillars as in a standard basilica, but by the walls which separated the aisles from the nave. Each wall had one doorway (Fig. 9). A wellpreserved doorway connected the narthex to the nave.

The foundation of the narthex is separated from the basilica wall foundations by junctions. The narthex floor is paved with stone slabs (Fig. 15). Steps are found in the passage from the narthex to the nave. The longitudinal axis is emphasised by a porch (4 x 2 x 3.5 m). The side premises joining the narthex were completely destroyed by excavators. Only the foundation of the east wall survives. The lower row of stones in its northern part is laid in a herringbone pattern. The floor of this room is

Some wall sections and the foundations were laid of stone and mortar in the technique of combining stone facing and rubble filling (Fig. 10). The floors in the aisles are made of lime concrete with large amounts of crushed ceramics, which gave them a deep red colour. Traces of fire were observed in the aisles: a dark grey layer of soot, ash and fine coals covers the floors. It can be supposed that the fire affected the wooden roof. 145

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 14: South apse, baptismal font (photograph: D. Vasilinenko)

Fig. 11: North aisle, view to the west (photograph: D. Vasilinenko)

Fig. 15: Narthex, view to the north (photograph: D. Vasilinenko)

Eight burials were discovered in the aisles and in the adjacent area to the north. Seven of these have been excavated. All of them were inhumations. The skeletons were laid on their backs with their heads to the southwest, parallel to the aisle walls; their arms drawn along their bodies or crossed on their chests. One burial that was discovered by the north aisle was in a stone tomb, made of thin limestone slabs set on their edges. Several tombs contained iron rings (in very bad condition), and also an iron bracelet. An iron ring, which resembles the ring from the tombs of Lesnyanskaya-1, was found in the destruction layer of a basilica that formed a part of the early Christian octagonal church complex in Sebastopolis. Unfortunately, the ring from Lesnyanskaya1 is in a very bad condition, which makes accurate dating impossible.

Fig. 12: North apse, detail (photograph: D. Vasilinenko)

In the south nave two tombs were discovered (nos. 7 and 8). They were made of small stone slabs (Fig. 16). Tomb 8 is situated in the eastern part of the south nave, 0.46 m below the level of the pavement, in the clay layer which precedes the subsoil. The tomb is 2.84 x 1.15 m in size and adjoins the stone wall of Tomb 7 (Fig. 17). The floor of Tomb 8 is paved with stone slabs, also used in the roof. The south wall of Tomb 8 is laid in 5-6 rows of stone slabs, without mortar. The height of the wall is up

Fig. 13: South apse, view to the south (photograph: D. Vasilinenko)

paved with stone slabs. In the south room only the lower row of stones remain of the foundation. 146

L.G. KHRUSHKOVA AND D.E. VASILINENKO: BASILICA LESNOE-1 NEAR SOCHI IN THE NORTH-EASTERN BLACK SEA REGION

Fig. 16: Tombs 7 and 8, view to the south (photograph: D. Vasilinenko)

Fig. 17: Tomb 7 (photograph: D. Vasilinenko)

Fig. 18: Glass vessel from Tomb 7 (photograph: D. Vasilinenko; design R. Kononenko)

period from 587 (the year in which the church was built) up to and including the 8th century.32

to 50 cm; the average size of the slabs is 20 x 30 cm, with a thickness of 6-8 cm. Both tombs had been robbed. It has been possible to glue together the chaotically dispersed fragments of a glass vessel from Tomb 8: a small bottle (‘retort-shaped’) of transparent glass, 14.2 cm high, with a spheroid body (8.6 cm in diameter), a concave bottom and a slightly widening mouth (Fig. 18).

‘Retort-shaped’ vessels from the necropolis of Bospore (Panticapaeum) are most similar in shape to that from the Lesnyanskaya basilica. According to the chronology developed by I.P. Zasetskaya, vessels of this type belong to the third chronological group; they date from the second half of the 6th to the early 7th century.33 This Late Antique burial ground is well-studied; the date of its third group can be accepted for the vessel from Tomb 8. A number of glass vessels were also found in several tombs of the Tsandripsh basilica, which dates to the time of Justinian. This ‘burial glassware’, thought to have contained antiseptic or aromatic material, is typical in

This is a shape typical of mass-produced vessels. A bottle of a similar shape, dated to the 5th century, was found in Panticapaeum without archaeological context. Its larger dimensions set it apart from the Lesnoe vessel.31 A vessel similar in shape and size, but with a wider mouth, was found in the (un-robbed) tomb of Bishop Sergius in Umm-al-Rasas in Palestine. That complex is dated to the

32 31

33

Zalesskaya 2006, 267, no. 663.

147

Alliata 1994, 287, fig. 6. Zasetskaya 2003, 39, pl. 13 (36, 37).

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 19: Brick (photograph: D. Vasilinenko; design R. Kononenko)

Christian burials.34 The vessel from Tomb 8 is very important for the dating of the entire church, whose architectural characteristics also correspond to the 6th-7th centuries.

Several significant features of the Lesnyanskaya-1 plan correspond to the Tsandripsh basilica (17 km north-west of the city of Gagra, Abkhazia), dated to the age of Justinian.36 Both structures have two aisles and a nave, three prominent apses, a narthex with a small porch in front of it, and the baptismal font placed in one of the lateral apses. Moreover, both feature small rectangular fonts without a drain.

Archaeological material from the re-deposited layers and the layer contemporary with the basilica include fragments of building ceramics, mainly pieces of flat and curved tiles. The tiles are red and orange in colour, the paste is levigated and well-fired; they are up to 24 cm wide and 2–2.8 cm thick. The tile edges are diverse, most tapered. The inner surfaces of tiles of this kind are frequently hatched with fine tooth-comb. The lines are parallel, sometimes combined with semi-circles. There were also flat tiles with vertical edges. The curved tiles are of the same colour, texture and firing-type as the flat ones. The surface of several such tiles is hatched with fine tooth-comb. Not many bricks were found – three fragments and a whole brick, 40 x 23.8 x 3.6 cm, red in colour (Fig. 19). One of the fragments has a surface hatched with fine tooth-comb.

An installation found in the north apse of the Lesnyanskaya-1 basilica is difficult to classify. It is a wide hollow of a regular round shape. It might have contained a reliquary. It is obvious that the eastern extremities of the aisles had different liturgical functions, envisaged by the builders (or those for whom it was built) in the original design. This basilica provides fresh grounds for a discussion of liturgical functions of the tripartite sanctuary of the early Christian basilica in the eastern Black Sea and, more globally, in the Christian East (Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine).37 It is highly probable that the plan of the Tsandripsh basilica as well as the functions of its various parts formed the blueprint for the builders of Lesnyanskaya-1. The Tsandripsh basilica is identified with the church built by Justinian for the Abasgi in the early 540s, as reported by Procopius of Caesarea. Excavations of that basilica revealed several tombs, numerous pieces of marble decoration brought from Proconnesian workshops, and an

It is likely that the Lesnyanskaya-1 basilica had undergone a series of rebuildings and repairs before the 10th-11th centuries. This is indicated by some of the construction ceramics, which closely correspond to the archaeological material from the cultural layers of the construction period and of the first phase of the palace in the village of Lykhny (Abkhazia), also from the basilica in the village of Loo (Lazarevsky district, Sochi). The investigators of these latter sites date the ceramics to the 9th-11th centuries.35

36 From 1948 to 1992 this town was known as Gantiadi (Kvarchiya 2006, 168-69), which is why the monument is also known as the Gantiadi Basilica. The name Tsandripsh came back into use after the archeological study of the basilica in 1980. On the excavations, see Khrushkova 1985; 2002, 137-94; 2005a; 2006, 45-55; Plontke-Lüning 2007, 238-40. 37 Khrushkova 2002, 147-51; 2006, 47-48.

34

Philippe 1970, 59; Laskaris 2000, 325-26. Arist 1997, 36-37; Khrushkova 1998, 18, 22, 31, 35, 56, 79-81, fig. 20. 35

148

L.G. KHRUSHKOVA AND D.E. VASILINENKO: BASILICA LESNOE-1 NEAR SOCHI IN THE NORTH-EASTERN BLACK SEA REGION

To sum up, a group of three basilicas is currently known in the area spanning both banks of the River Psou, all distinguished by their uncommon design – three protruding apses, with one of the lateral apses containing a baptismal font. Of the three, the earliest is Tsandripsh, well-dated to the age of Justinian. Lesnyanskaya-1 may be dated to the 7th century. Its existence spanned several centuries. The similarity between Tsandripsh and Lesnyanskaya-1 is conditioned by territorial proximity and by the significance of the Tsandripsh basilica as the main church of the Abasgi in the 6th century. It is also important that the Sochi-Adler territory must have been included in the archbishopric of Abasgia, present in the first episcopal Notitia of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate (not later than the death of the emperor Heraclius in 641).39 Archaeological evidence regarding the early phase of the spread of Christianity in the north-eastern Black Sea region is extremely scarce (as is written evidence). In this context, these newly discovered churches of this period acquire the importance of an historical source.*

Fig. 20: Lesnyanskaya-2 basilica. Central apse (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

Bibliography Abbreviations RE A. Pauly and G. Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. ALLIATA, E. 1994: ‘Ceramica romana, bizantina, araba’. In Piccirillo, M. and Alliata, E., Umm AlRasas, Mayfa’ah I. Gli scavi del complesso di Santo Stefano (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 28) (Jerusalem), 278-89. ARIST, D.A. 1997: ‘Stroitel’nye osobennosti khrama v pos. Loo’. In Ovchinnikova 1997b, 34-38. ARMARCHUK, E.A. 2003: ‘Kamennye kreposti i khramy’. In Makarova, T.I. and Pletneva, S.A. (eds.), Krym, Severo-Vostochnoe Prichernomor’e i Zakavkaze v epokhu srednevekov’ya. IV-XIII veka (Moscow), 209-13.

Fig. 21: Lesnyanskaya-2 basilica. South apse, baptismal font (photograph: L. Khrushkova)

ARMARCHUK, E.A. 2008: ‘Raskopki khristianskogo khrama na g. Sakharnaya Golovka pod Adlerom’. In Tuallagov 2008, 11-12.

epitaph in Greek referring to someone called Abasgian. It was the first large church in the Black Sea region erected for a local population outside a Roman-Byzantine fortress. The narthex of the Tsandripsh basilica existed only during the original phase – until at least the 8th century. Thus the date of construction of Lesnyanskaya-1 correlates with the first stage of existence of the Tsandripsh basilica.

DARRUZES, J. 1981: Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae constantinopolitanae (Paris). DUBOIS de MONPEREUX, F. 1839, 1843: Voyage autour du Caucase chez les Tcherkesses et les Abkhazes en Colchide, en Géorgie et en Arménie et en Crimée, 2 vols. (Paris/Neuchâtel).

In this light, its role for the neighbouring territories was significant. Another recent discovery deserves mention here. This is the basilica that came to be known as Lesnyanskaya-2, with three prominent apses, located in the foothills several kilometres from Lesnyanskaya-1. A well-preserved cruciform baptismal font was found in its southern apse (Figs. 20-21).38

GAMBA, P. 1826: Voyage dans la Russie méridionale et particulièrement dans les provinces situées au-delà du Caucase, vol. 1 (Paris). GAVRITUKHIN, I.O. and PIANKOV, A.V. 2003: ‘Drevnosti i pamyatniki VIII-IX vekov’. In 39 Darruzès 1981, 7-15, 205-12; Khrushkova 2002, 34-66; 2006, 17-28, 89-97; 2007a, 191-192; 2007b. * Translated from the Russian by Kesha Gelbak.

38

Excavations carried out by D.E. Vasilinenko and V.V. Vereshchagin in 2007-08.

149

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

KHRUSHKOVA [KHROUSHKOVA], L.G. 2007b: ‘Quelques notes sur l’organisation ecclésiastique de l’Abkhazie et ses relations artistiques avec Constantinople à l’époque Paléologue’. Byzantinische Forschungen 29, 271-92.

Makarova, T.I. and Pletneva, S.A. (eds.), Krym, Severo-Vostochnoe Prichernomor’e i Zakavkaze v epokhu srednevekov’ya. IV-XIII veka (Moscow), 195200. GORST, A.P. 1997: ‘Eshche raz o Nikopsii’. In Ovchinnikova 1997b, 72-80.

KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2008: ‘Pityus (Pitsunda, Bitchvinta) – drevneishii khristianskii tsentr Kavkaza’. Vizantiiskii Vremennik 67, 234-49.

GÖTHERT-POLATCHEK, K. 1990: Katalog der römischen Gläser des Rheinischen Landesmuseum Trier (Trier Grabungen und Forschungen 9) (Mainz).

KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. and VASILINENKO, D.E. 2008: ‘Khristianskie pamyatniki Severo-Vostochnogo Prichernomor’ya: novye arkheologicheskie dannye’. Paper to the ‘Lomonosovskie Chteniya’, Moscow Lomonosov State University, 18 April 2008 (Moscow).

GUIGLIA GUIDOBALDI, A. and BARSANTI, C. 2004: Santa Sofia di Costantninopoli. L’arredo marmoreo della Grande Chiesa giustinianea (Studi di Antichità Cristiana 9) (Vatican City). ILIEVA, P. and CHOLAKOV, I.M. 2005: ‘A collective find from the early Byzantine Age found in Stara Zagora (South Bulgaria)’. Antiquité Tardive 13, 5163.

KROPOTKIN, V.V. 1967: Ekonomicheskie svyazi Vostochnoi Evropy v I tysyacheletii nashei ery (Moscow). KVARCHIYA, В.Е. 2006: Istoricheskaya i sovremennaya toponimiya Abkhazii (istorikoetimologicheskoe issledovanie) (Sukhum).

JACENKO, E.G. 2005: ‘Glasgefässe der Römerzeit und Spätantike aus Tanais. Funde aus Grabungsareal XIX der Kampanen 1993-2000’. Eurasia Antiqua 11, 277312.

KUNINA, N. 1997: Antichnoe steklo v sobranii Ermitazha (St Petersburg).

JENNINGS, S. 1999: ‘The Roman and Early Byzantine Glass from the Souks Excavations: An Interim Statement’. Berytu 43 (1997-1998), 112-23.

LASKARIS, N.G. 2000: Monuments funéraires paléochrétiens (et byzantins) de Grèce (Athens).

KACHARAVA, D.D. and KVIRKVELIYA, G.T. 1991: Goroda i poseleniya Prichernomor’ya antichnoi epokhi (malyi entsiklopedicheskii spravochnik) (Tbilisi).

LEKVINADZE, V.A. 1969: ‘“Pontiiskii limes”’. Vestnik drevnei istorii 2, 75-93. OVCHINNIKOVA, B.B. 1997a: ‘Itogi polevykh issledovanii Looskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii Uralskogo Gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. A.M. Gorkogo (1987-1996 гг.)’. In Ovchinnikova 1997b, 733.

KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 1980: Skul’ptura rannesrednevekovoi Abkhazii. V-X veka (Tbilisi). KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 1985: Tsandripsh. Materialy po rannekhristianskomu stritel’stvu v Abkhazii (Sukhumi).

OVCHINNIKOVA, B.B. (ed.) 1997b: Arkheologiya, arkhitektura i etnokul’turnye protsessy SeveroZapadnogo Kavkaza (Materialy konferentsii posvyashchennoi itogam issledovaniya Looskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii Uralskogo Gosudarstvennogo universiteta v Lazarevskom raione g. Sochi, Ekaterinburg, 14-16 febr. 1997) (Ekaterinburg).

KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 1998: Lykhny. Srednevekovyi dvortsovyi komleks v Abkhazii (Moscow). KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2002: Rannekhristianskie pamyatniki Vostochnogo Prichernomor’ya. 4-7 veka (Moscow). KHRUSHKOVA [KHROUCHKOVA], L.G. 2005a: ‘La propagation du christianisme dans une région pontique. La basilique de Candripš, “temple pour les Abasges”’. In Iwaszkiewicz-Wronikowska, B. and Próchniak, D. (eds.), Sympozja Kazimierskie V (Lublin), 405-45.

PARMENTIER, L. (ed. and transl.) 1954, Theodoretos. Kirchengeschichte, 2nd ed. (Berlin). PHILIPPE, J. 1970: Le monde byzantin dans l’histoire de la verrerie (V-XV siècles) (Bologna). PLONTKE-LÜNING, A. 2007: Frühchristliche Architektur in Kaukasien (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 13) (Vienna).

KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2005b: Review of T.I. Makarova and S.A. Pletneva (eds.), Krym, Severo-Vostochnoe Prichernomor’e i Zakavkaze v epokhu srednevekov’ya. IV-XIII veka, Moscow, 2003. Vestnik Rossiiskii gumanitarnyi nauchnyi fond 1, 250-55.

SITNIKOV, L.L. and SITNIKOVA, L.N. 1970: ‘Results of Archaeological Investigations around the city of Sochi in 1970’. In Records of the Archaeological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, P-1, 4203.

KHRUSHKOVA [KHROUSHKOVA], L.G. 2006: Les monuments chrétiens de la côte orientale de la mer Noire. Abkhazie, IVe-XIVe siècles (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive 9) (Turnhout).

SPENCER, E. 1838: Travels in Circassia, Krim Tartary, &c., 2nd ed., vol. 1 (London). TUALLAGOV, A. (ed.) 2008: Otrazhenie tsivilizatsionnykh protsessov v arkheologicheskikh kul’turakh Severnogo Kavkaza i sopredel’nykh territorii (yubileinye XXV “Krupnovskie Chteniya” po

KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2007a: ‘The Spread of Christianity in the Eastern Black Sea Littoral (Written and Archaeological Sources)’. Ancient West & East 6, 177-219.

150

L.G. KHRUSHKOVA AND D.E. VASILINENKO: BASILICA LESNOE-1 NEAR SOCHI IN THE NORTH-EASTERN BLACK SEA REGION

(Conference

mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, 27-31 oct. 2008) (Rostov-on-Don), 18-21.

VASILINENKO, D.E. 2008a: ‘Olimpiada 2014 g. i pamyatniki arkheologii epokhi srednevekov’ya mezhdurech’ya Psakho i Kudepsty (g. Sochi): issledovanie, konservatsiya, restavratsiya s tsel’yu ispol’zovaniya v kul’turnom turisme’. In Tuallagov 2008, 75-80.

VASILINENKO, D.E. and KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2008: ‘Novyi pamyatnik rannesrednevekovoi arkhitektury kavkazskogo Prichernomor’ya: bazilika bliz Adlera’. In Tuallagov 2008, 81-84.

arkheologii Severnogo Kavkaza) Summaries) (Vladikavkaz).

ZALESSKAYA, V.N. 2006: Pamyatniki vizantiiskogo prikladnogo iskusstva IV-VII vekov. Katalog kollektsii (St Petersburg).

VASILINENKO, D.E. 2008b: ’Issledovaniya srednevekovykh khristianskikh tserkvei SeveroVostochnogo Pricernomor’ya (Adlerskii raion g. Sochi)’. In Pishchulina, V.V. (ed.), Arkhitektura. Iskusstvo. Arkheologiya: problemy sokhraneniya i izucheniya kul’turnogo naslediya (Materialy I

ZASETSKAYA, I.P. 2003: ‘Bosporskii nekropol’ kak etalonnyi pamyatnik drevnostei IV-nachala VII veka’. In Makarova, T.I. and Pletneva, S.A. (eds.), Krym, Severo-Vostochnoe Prichernomor’e i Zakavkaze v epokhu srednevekov’ya. IV-XIII veka (Moscow), 3639.

151

THE HESTIATORION OF THE CHAIKA SETTLEMENT IN THE NORTH-WESTERN CRIMEA Sergei A. KOVALENKO Department of Coins & Medals, Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Volkhonka Str. 12, 121119 Moscow, Russia [email protected]

Abstract: Recent excavation on the Chersonesian Chaika settlement, situated near ancient Kerkinitis, uncovered a small building of square shape and ceremonial appearance. Peculiarities of architecture and layout enabled it to be interpreted as a hestiatorion, i.e. special building for sacral feasts or theoxenia. Until today theoxenia have been documented in various parts of the Greek world, but we know almost nothing about it with regard to the poleis of the northern Black Sea littoral. Only in Olbia can one find some mention of sacral feasts or meals organised for Apollo and the Dioscuri. Analysis of archaeological and historical data allows us to suggest that the hestiatorion at Chaika settlement was constructed to conduct theoxenia for Heracles. The cult of Heracles had official status in the Chersonesian state and worship of him as Soter, i.e. protector and saviour, was especially widespread among Chersonesian colonists living in the far chora. Theoxenia as a kind of cult practice were a very appropriate way to honour Heracles as his passion for eating and drinking was well known. So far, three limestone reliefs with the image of Heracles have been found at the Chaika settlement. It is noteworthy that one of these depicts Heracles reclining and feasting. One may suggest that such an image, symbolising the presence of the god, could have been used during sacral feasts held in the hestiatorion of the settlement. KUZEYBATI KIRIM’DA CHAIKA’DA BULUNAN HESTIATORION Özet: Khersonessos’da Kerkinitis’in yakınındaki Ckaika yerleşiminde yapılan son kazılarda dikdörtgen formlu ve törensel görüntülü küçük bir bina ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Buradaki mimarinin fakirliği ve planı burayı bir hestiatorion, yani theoxenia festivallerinin yapıldığı özel bir bina olarak yorumlanmasına sebep oldu. Günümüze kadar theoxenia Hellen dünyasının çeşitli coğrafyalarında belgelenmiştir. Fakat biz Kuzey Karadeniz kıyısındaki poleis’deki durum ile ilgili hiçbir şey bilmiyoruz. Sadece Olbia’da Apollon ve Dioskuroi için yapılan dini törenler ve yemeklerden bahsedilebilir. Arkeolojik ve tarihi verilerin analizi Chaika yerleşimindeki hestiatorion’un Herakles’in theoxeniasını gerçekleştirmek adına inşa edildiğini göstermektedir. Herakles’in kültünün Khersonessos devleti içinde resmi bir statüsü vardır ve bu kült Herakles’i Khersonessos’tan başka yerlere göçen kolonistler arasında bile yaygın olacak bir şekilde “Soter” yani koruyucu olarak kutsayan bir karakterdedir. Bir kült pratiği olarak theoxenia, yemeyi ve içmeyi çok sevmesi ile bilinen Herakles’i onurlandırmak için çok uygun bir yoldu. Şimdiye kadar Chaika yerleşiminde Herakles temsilli üç adet kireçtaşı kabartma bulunmuştur. Bunlardan bir tanesi Herakles’i uzanırken ve ziyafet yaparken gösterir. Tanrının varlığını gösteren bu şekildeki bir tasvir için hestiatorion’daki dini törenler sırasında kullanıldığı düşünülebilir.

During archaeological excavations of 1997-98 conducted by the Crimean Archaeological Expedition of the Moscow State University1 in the western part of the Graeco-Scythian Chaika settlement,2 a small building considerably distinguished by its appearance from the ordinary structures of the site was uncovered (Fig. 1-2). This contribution deals with interpretation of this interesting architectural monument.

the western fortification wall and was westward of the line of dwelling houses built later along the same wall (Fig. 2). The quality of the masonry, as well as the location of Room 111 within the layout of the settlement, testify that it had a special appearance designed to be seen from at least two sides. The building was square, with external dimensions of 5.00 x 5.00 m. Its walls were constructed on a foundation made of two rows of stone slabs which could have been considered as a simplified variant of a crepidoma (Figs. 3-4). The slabs were carefully cut and fitted together. Their thickness was 0.12-0.14 m; their length varied from 0.40 to 0.60 m. Slabs of the upper row were laid with a break of 0.14-0.16 m from the outer edge of the lower row. The upper row of slabs thus played the role of a stylobate. The outer surface of the walls was faced with carefully cut limestone slabs of standard height 0.30 m placed as orthostats on rectangular stone blocks. The best preserved part of this masonry was uncovered in the south-eastern corner of the building (Fig. 5). This section demonstrates quite clearly that the

The building in question (or Room 111 according to the through numeration of the Greek rooms at the settlement) was partly rebuilt, but its initial appearance could be restored with confidence thanks to the good preservation of the considerable sections of the earliest walls, which were used as socles for the later masonry. Construction of the building took place during the first period of the settlement’s history when the fortification system was being created as well. Room 111 was built directly onto 1

Field director: Elena A. Popova. On the settlement and its importance for the study of the ancient history of the north-western Crimea, see Popova and Kovalenko 2005, 96-100. 2

153

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 1: General plan of the Chaika settlement with location of Room 111

Fig. 2: Room 111. Architectural plan 154

S.A. KOVALENKO: THE HESTIATORION OF THE CHAIKA SETTLEMENT IN THE NORTH-WESTERN CRIMEA

The width of the western, southern and some part of the eastern wall, which were not rebuilt later and preserved in their initial state, is 0.70-0.75 m. The high quality of this early masonry and the standard dimensions suggest that these all were constructed in the same technique as the better-preserved south-eastern corner. The entrance to the building was situated in the eastern wall. Some evidence indicates that the building was surrounded on three sides with a pavement of 1.00 m width made of small, thoroughly tamped stone crumb. A section of this pavement was excavated near the south-western corner of the building, to the west of the common wall of the later block of dwelling houses. Unfortunately, during construction of these houses, other parts of the pavement were totally demolished.

Fig. 3: Room 111. View from the east

The initial level of the building is indicated with the pavement of small stone crumb partly preserved in its central and southern sections. The thickness of the pavement was 0.04-0.05 m and originally it would have covered the whole interior of the room, excluding some places where mud-bricks set horizontally could have acted as the floor. This rather unusual approach to the floor construction suggests that this room had neither a residential nor household character. Yellow sand lay under the crumb pavement as well as mud-bricks. A bronze coin found in this sand gives a terminus post quem for the construction of the building. It is Chersonesian, with the depiction of a quadriga on the obverse and a kneeling hoplite on the reverse.3 Coins of this series can be dated with confidence to the 350s BC.4 The archaeological material preserved at floor level was far from impressive, merely few ceramic finds: a sherd of a Chersonesian pithos, the handle of a Heracleian amphora, some fragments of tableware and black-glazed pottery, dated in general to the 4th century BC.

Fig. 4. Room 111. South-eastern corner. View from the south-east

A small rectangular room, almost completely demolished during later rebuilding, was added to Room 111 on the north (Fig. 2). Only the eastern wall of this outhouse is partly preserved (Fig. 6). Its length is 2.50 m and its width 0.35-0.40 m. Only the lowest row of stones remained. The stones lay on a bed of demolished mudbricks and ashy loam of 0.10 m thickness; beneath this was yellow sand. Obviously, these stones were part of the wall socle inserted into the trench. Some separate stones placed in an east-west direction were found at the same depth northwards of the abovementioned wall and might have belonged to the northern masonry of the room. The space to the east of the room was paved with stone crumb. Here, the mouth of a well framed with stone slabs was uncovered (Figs. 2, 6). The well was 1 m north of the north-eastern corner of Room 111. Two sub-oval pits, 0.30-0.40 m in diameter and 0.15-0.18 m deep, were found in the crumb to the east and south of the well.

Fig. 5: Room 111. South-eastern corner. Crepidoma. View from the south-east

masons were much concerned with the building’s appearance.

3 4

155

Anokhin 1977, nos. 36-56. Saprykin 1980, 56; Kovalenko 2004, 62.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

evidence of this sort of buildings dates to the 4th-2nd centuries BC.8 Although hestiatoria like prytaneia had no firm and invariable architectural form, they possessed some specific features which allow them to be identified. One such was a stone or pebbled floor (sometimes with mosaics), which facilitated clearing up the room after the end of the meal. Presence of wells, cisterns or other sources of water nearby was also a necessary precondition: water was used both in cooking and in the obligatory ritual ablutions of the participants in the feast.9 A small kitchen built directly onto the hestiatorion was one more peculiar feature.10 The size and shape of the hestiatorion were dictated largely by the number of couches placed inside.11 Stone or clay couches or the stone supports for them are not uncommonly preserved within such constructions, providing unambiguous testimony to their function.12 During the feast the participants would lie on the couches leaning on their left hand; nobody had to lie with his head to the room’s corner. Thus, the requisite placing of the necessary number of klinai along the walls of the hestiatorion generally required the door to be offset from the central axis of the room to give enough space on either side of the entry for the installation of the couch.13 A square shape was another characteristic feature of the hestiatorion, though rectangular or even round examples are known as well.14

Fig. 6: Kitchen and well to the north from hestiatorion. View from the north-east These were filled with burnt coal pits and could have been used for securing some wooden structure placed over the well. The high quality of the masonry of Room 111, the use of some sort of crepidoma as its foundation, the pavement framing the building, and its place within the layout of the settlement (proximity to the fortification wall and settlement entrance5), testify that this building initially had a special public function. It can not be considered as a temple or sanctuary for neither altar nor other implements for sacrifices (bomos or eskhara) inherent to such places have been found in it or nearby. One should note as well the absence of any constructions (fences etc.) marking borders of a hypothetical sacred area of which Building 111 formed the centre.6 Nor does the archaeological material obtained during excavation of the building support such a use: there is a total lack of finds of a votive character that could be expected for such a place. Moreover, in contrast with the normal practice for cult constructions, the building retained its initial appearance for a relatively short period of time and after reconstruction changed its function completely. Finally, its shape is quite unusual for a temple or shrine.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to say where on its eastern wall the initial doorway of Room 111 was located because of the considerable rebuilding of that wall during construction of the later dwelling houses along the western fortification wall. As a result, Room 111 became part of the new residential quarter and completely changed its function. I presume that it was the need to widen considerably the doorway to Room 111 that led to the dismantling of the upper parts of the northern section of the eastern wall and northern wall of the room. The new doorway was 1.50 m wide (Fig. 7). The kitchen to the north of the hestiatorion was completely demolished, and the well was filled up and covered with the wall of the new dwelling house. The location and initial width of the doorway of the hestiatorion can be restored based upon the number of klinai installed here. Based upon the external dimensions of the building (5.00 x 5.00 m) and the average width of the walls (0.70-0.75 m), the internal length of the walls would be 3.50-3.60 m and the area of the room

The building demonstrates some features to indicate that it might have been intended for sacral feasts and thus might be considered as a hestiatorion or special public building, where cult meals financed from public funds took place during religious festivals. The earliest mention of a hestiatorion as a special building is found on the bronze tablet from Sycion dated to the turn of the 6th/5th centuries BC.7 Later Herodotus (4. 35) mentions the hestiatorion of the citizens of Ceos, which was built near to a sanctuary of Artemis on Delos. The most widespread narrative and archaeological

8 Frickenhaus 1917; Tomlinson 1969a, 155, 169-70; 1969b, 108, 11117; 1980; Bergquist 1973, 37, 48; Bookidis 1993, 45-61; Börker 1983, 11, Anm. 18; Gebhard 2002. 9 Börker 1983, 12; Tomlinson 1969a, 171; Bookidis 1993, 52. 10 Bookidis 1993, fig. 3.2; Gebhard 2002, 69. 11 Börker 1983, 12. 12 Frickenhaus 1917, Abb. 3, 7; Tomlinson 1969a, fig. 4, pl. 49; Bookidis 1993, fig. 3.3; Gebhard 2002, 65. 13 Frickenhaus 1917, 115; Tomlinson 1969b, 108, 114; Börker 1983, 1213. 14 Börker 1983, Abb. 7, 14; Frickenhaus 1917, Abb. 1, 3, 5; Tomlinson 1980, 226; 1969a, 164; Pedley 2005, 75-76.

5

Room 111 was situated only 4 m southwards of the fighting platform, which flanked settlement entrance from the south. 6 Cf. Roscher 1886-90, 2494; Pedley 2005, 6. 7 Börker 1983, 11.

156

S.A. KOVALENKO: THE HESTIATORION OF THE CHAIKA SETTLEMENT IN THE NORTH-WESTERN CRIMEA

3rd centuries BC.15 There were 15 standard square rooms containing seven couches each in the so-called ‘Southern Stoa’, used from the end of the 5th century BC till the 2nd century BC in the Athenian Agora.16 Hestiatoria for seven klinai are known in Pompeion, dated to the end of the 5th century BC, and are found in the Athenian Kerameikos.17 Scholars who have studied the andronoi of private houses at Piraeus and Olinthos have also assumed that they accommodated seven couches.18 The suggested size of the klinai of the Chaika hestiatorion (1.40 x 0.70 m) allowed them to be considered as short couches; these had a length 1.35-1.65 m and were used quite often in such premises.19 Long klinai (1.80-2.00 m in length and 0.90-1.00 m in width), are known, possibly intended for two persons.20 The extra short couches (0.75-1.20 m long) found in the hestiatorion of the Demeter sanctuary in Corinth are rather exceptional.21 It should be noted, however, that the sizes of kline followed no strict regulation and may have varied considerably even in one room.22

Fig. 7: Hestiatorion. Doorway in the eastern wall. View from the east

The size of the Chaika hestiatorion (5.00 x 5.00 m) is quite typical as well. The hestiatorion belongs to the first ordinary group of such constructions. These comprised a complex of standard adjacent rooms with a common hall or one separate building.23 The other group was represented by a more complex structure of several rooms grouped around a peristyle court.24 Most rooms for ritual feasts found in the sanctuary of Demeter and Core in Corinth measured 4.50-5.00 x 5.00 m.25 The hestiatoria of the ‘Southern Stoa’ and Pompeion in Athens covered approximately the same space.26 As far as I am aware, special premises for cult feasts have not yet been distinguished in the public and cult architecture of the Greek settlements of the northern Black Sea littoral.27 Only the general characteristics of the functionally similar constructions of residential houses (andronoi) have been given.28 This does not mean that the hestiatorion of the Chaika settlement was exceptional. A thorough study of the temenoi and public buildings of the Greek poleis of the region from the same perspective as the Chaika hestiatorion would, I suggest, reveal other constructions of this sort, particularly in light of the

Fig. 8: Hestiatorion. Inside location of klinai. Reconstruction

some 12.25-12.96 m2. Calculations demonstrate that such an area could accommodate seven klinai of 1.40 m in length and 0.70 m in width. These might have been made of wood. One kline could have been placed to the right of the doorway along the northern section of the eastern wall, whose minimum length in this case would have been 2.10-2.15 m and maximum 2.30 m (Fig. 8). If we take into consideration that the length of the wholly preserved southern section of the eastern wall was 2.00 m, the width of the initial doorway in the building, offset northward of the room’s central axis, would have been 0.70-0.90 m.

15

Bergquist 1973, 37. Börker 1983, 13-14, Abb. 3. 17 Börker 1983, 17, Abb. 16, C. 18 Hoepfner and Schwandner 1986, 30, Abb. 20; 40-41, Abb. 6163. 19 Börker 1983, 13, Anm. 33; Frickenhaus 1917, 127, Anm. 2; 133; Bookidis 1993, 58-59, table 3.1; Gebhard 2002, 69, n. 31. 20 Frickenhaus 1917, 120, Anm. 2; Börker 1983, 13, Anm. 33; Tomlinson 1969a, 164; 1969b, 108. 21 Börker 1983, 13, Anm. 33. 22 Börker 1983, 13, Anm. 33; Frickenhaus 1917, 120. 23 Tomlinson 1969a, fig. 1.5; Bookidis 1993, fig. 3.1; Börker 1983, Abb. 7, 9. 24 Bergquist 1973, 48; Tomlinson 1969b, 111; Börker 1983, Abb. 12-13, 17, 19. 25 Bookidis 1993, 47, fig. 1.3. 26 Börker 1983, Abb. 3, 16, C. 27 Cf. Kryzhitskii 1993. 28 Kryzhitskii 1982, 77; Kutaisov 1990, 91, 109. 16

Hestiatoria for seven couches (heptaklinos oikos) (Fig. 9) were a quite common variety of such constructions. The building of one such on the territory of the sanctuary of Heracles is mentioned in a Thasian inscription of the 4th157

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 9: Hestiatorion. Reconstruction (after Börker 1983)

used not just for ritual feasts but for theoxenia – cult feasts at which the deity was invisibly present. The aim of theoxenia was to invite and to honour the god as a guest and participant in a sacral feast. There was a special couch prepared for the deity as well as a table furnished with food and drink. An image of the god, his attributes or other objects indicating his presence would have been placed on the kline.33 Actually, theoxenia were some sort of sacrifice accompanied, as were all sacrifices, by prayer.34 The symbolical meaning of theoxenia was the unification of the civil community which organised them with the deity ‘invited’ to the feast. Collective feasts were an important part of Greek religious ritual.35 Theoxenia often became an element of the religious festivals held in honour of various deities: those at Delphi held in honour of Apollo in the spring during a month which was called ‘Theoxenios’, are the best known.36 They were organised too for other gods such as Artemis, Demeter, Dionysos, the Dioscuri and Heracles.37 Greek theoxenia were adopted by the Romans, who called them lectisternia. They first took place in Rome in 399 BC and were devoted to Apollo and Leto, Hercules and Diana, Mercury and Neptune.38

performance of sacrificial feasts by the board of numeniastoi in Olbia, for which there is archaeological evidence from the 5th century BC.29 The possibility that such activity was organised in the sanctuary of Apollo Delphinios or in his temple does not, however, exclude the possibility that special rooms for such feasts existed, i.e. hestiatoria. Feasts in honour of the Dioscuri, which were conducted in Olbia as well, could, according to Rusyaeva, have taken place in prytaneia or shrines devoted to these deities.30 The hypothetical existence of hestiatoria in the Greek cities of the northern Black Sea littoral should not surprise us. However, the construction of one on the territory of a small fortress only 0.50 ha in extant needs some explanation. Just as the fortress built during the initial phase of the Chaika settlement was to a design worked out by highly qualified craftsmen in advance,31 the simultaneous construction of the hestiatorion, along with fortifications, storerooms etc., was caused no doubt by the special importance attached to this building by the whole body of Chersonesian colonists. It is noteworthy that it could not accommodate all the settlers and from the outset was intended for a small group of people, such as the higher civil and military magistrates as well as priests.32

It is natural to ask which deity could have been honoured with the theoxenia held in the Chaika hestiatorion. Some of the observations made above help to answer this question. The cult of this god, of which ritual feasts were

The erection of a hestiatorion as one of the first buildings at the settlement, its special appearance and its placement near the settlement’s gates testify to the highly important activity which took place in it. I would suggest that it was

33 On theoxenia, see Stengel 1898, 110; RE 5A2 (1934), coll. 2256-2258 s.v. theoxenia; Nillson 1957, 161-62; Visscher 1961, 97; FlückigerGuggenheim 1984, 24-27; Andersen et al. 1965, 3059; OCD 1506-07. 34 Nillson 1957, 162; Flückiger-Guggenheim 1984, 25. 35 Marinatos 1993, 228. 36 Anderson et al. 1965, 3059. 37 Nillson 1957, 161-62; Flückiger-Guggenheim 1984, 25. 38 RE XII/1 1924, col. 1108 s.v. lectisternium; Andersen et al. 1965, 1696-97; OCD 837.

29

Rusyaeva 1992, 50; Skrzhinskaya 2000, 56. Rusyaeva 1992, 119. 31 Popova and Kovalenko 2005, 99. 32 Cf. Bookidis 1993, 51; Cole 2004, 80. 30

158

S.A. KOVALENKO: THE HESTIATORION OF THE CHAIKA SETTLEMENT IN THE NORTH-WESTERN CRIMEA

an important feature, had a state character. Obviously, the deliberate location of the hestiatorion near the settlement’s gates suggests that the deity had a protective function. All of the foregoing points to Heracles.

protector of polis and chora and thus the location of his shrines, temples and statues near the city gates or on the borders of polis territory was quite natural.50 The image of Heracles pointing an arrow at a crowd of enemies decorated the main city-gates of Thasos. The southern gates had an inscription in which Heracles (along with Dionysos) was called the ‘protector (phylakos) of the city’.51

There is an extensive literature devoted to the study of various aspects of the worship of Heracles in the Chersonesian state, and it is not our task to make a detailed review of it here. But we should note that all conclusions about the character of this cult in Chersonesus are based on a vast number of sources, above all, on extensive archaeological material. Everything indicates that the cult had a state character in Chersonesus in the second half of the 4th-beginning of the 3rd century BC:39 images of Heracles’ attributes were placed on the city coins from their first issue,40 finds of monumental statues of him that might have been erected in the public places,41 the presence of the month of Heracleios in the Chersonesian calendar, celebration of the city festival of Heracleia,42 all support this suggestion. Not that the state character of the cult excluded its private worship in domestic shrines, as archaeological material from the excavation of ancient sites in the north-western Crimea shows.43

Analysis of the archaeological material accumulated during the excavations of Chersonesus and of settlements in the Chersonesian chora also allows us to conclude that worship of Heracles as protector or Soter had a very important role here in the 4th-3rd centuries BC.52 To explore the fertile lands of the north-western Crimea in the middle-second half of the 4th century BC, Chersonesus had to mobilise all its potential to face military conflict, thus the divine protection of such a deity as Heracles was very important for the Chersonesian colonists. Archaeological finds from the Chaika settlement confirm the great popularity of the cult of Heacles here. Three reliefs with his image were found. One of them depicts Heracles feasting after his deeds (Fig. 10),53 two others represent him carrying out his labours.54 Black-glazed kantharoi dated to the end of the 4th century BC with dedications to Heracles scratched on the neck are known as well.55

Many narrative and epigraphic sources point to sacral feasts as an important form of worship of Heracles. Born of mortal woman, the hero throughout his earthly life had a passion for good food, good drink and good company. So it was natural that the ritual reproduction of his favourite earthly activities became an important element of his cult.44 The best known were theoxenia in honour of Heracles held in the shrine of Cynosarges nearby Marathon. The 12 parasitoi, who were the extra-marital children of Heracles himself participated in them as his table-companions.45 In his native town of Thebes, a ritual feast for Heracles was organised in a special building located near the so-called ‘Gates of Electra’.46 In the city of Halasarna on Cos, the festival of Heracleia was accompanied with the organisation of theoxenia.47 Attic thiasos of mesogeioi held public theoxenia in honour of Heracles as inscriptions of the 3rd century BC testify.48 In the sanctuary of Heracles on Thasos ritual or sacred banquets along with military agones were two particular cult practices in the 5th-2nd centuries BC.49

Fig. 10: Relief with banqueting Heracles. Found at the Chaika settlement in 1965 (after Karasev 1966)

A protective or soteric function was another important feature of the cult. Heracles was considered as invisible 39

Shcheglov 1994, 136; Agrafonov 1998, 16; Zubar 2004, 131. Stolba 1989, 66-67. 41 Shcheglov 1994, 140-43; Agrafonov 1998, 16. 42 Saprykin 1978, 51; Agrafonov 1998, 44. 43 Stolba 1989, 60-61; Agrafonov 1998, 17; Popova and Kovalenko 2002, 107. 44 Visscher 1961, 98; Burkert 1979, 96; Parke 1977, 51; Roscher 188690, 2508; Bergquist 1973, 60; Ekroth 1999, 154, 156. 45 Robert 1920, 636; Deubner 1932, 226; Parke 1977, 51; FlückigerGuggenheim 1984, 72. 46 Nillson 1957, 447; Robert 1920, 633; Flückiger-Guggenheim 1984, 71. 47 Nillson 1957, 453; Flückiger-Guggenheim 1984, 71. 48 Flückiger-Guggenheim 1984, 71; Deubner 1966, 226. 49 Bergquist 1973, 32, 58. 40

In my opinion, these arguments confirm the conclusion that the theoxenia which could have been held in the Chaika hestiatorion were dedicated to Heracles. And it is 50

Kearns 1989, 54; Kron 1999, 73. Brackertz 1976, 96; Bergquist 1973, 29. 52 Saprykin 1978, 42; Solomonik 1984, 15-16; Stolba 1989, 64-65, 69; Shcheglov 1994, 137; Popova and Kovalenko 1997, 82; 2002, 107-08; Agrafonov 1998, 16-17; Zubar 2004, 134-35; Rusyaeva 2005, 449. 53 Karasev 1966. 54 Popova and Kovalenko 1997, fig. 2; 2002, fig. 1. 55 Popova and Kovalenko 1997, 82. 51

159

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

not unreasonable to suggest that the relief with the image of banqueting Heracles might have been placed on a kline in the hestiatorion, thereby corresponding quite well with the real sense of theoxenia; best of all, it would embody the symbolical presence of the god at such occasions.56 This suggestion is indirect testimony that in these cases Heracles was being honoured as god not hero, because depiction of the feasting Heracles symbolised his joining in immortality and reproduced his apotheosis closely connected with divinisation.57

DEUBNER, L. 1932: Attische Feste (Berlin; repr. Darmstadt 1966). EKROTH, G. 1999: ‘Pausanias and the Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults’. In Hägg, R. (ed.), Ancient Greek Hero Cult (Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organized by the Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, Göteborg University, 21-23 April 1995) (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, octavo ser. 16) (Stockholm), 145-58.

There seems to be no convincing alternative to interpreting Room 111 at Chaika settlement as a hestiatorion, thereby putting on a firmer foundation the possibility that such forms of cult practice as ritual feasts existed in the northern Black Sea littoral. The alleged connection of these feasts with the cult of Heracles Soter could be considered as one more confirmation of the popularity of this cult in the settlements of the far chora of Chersonesus as well as in the Chersonesian state as a whole.

FLÜCKIGER-GUGGENHEIM, D. 1984: Göttliche Gäste: Die Einkehr von Göttern und Heroen in der griechischen Mythologie (Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe III, Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften 237) (Berlin/New York). FRICKENHAUS, A. 1917: ‘Griechische Banketthäuser’. Jahrbuch des kaiserlichen Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 32, 114-32. GEBHARD, E.R. 2002: ‘Caves and Cults at the Isthmian Sanctuary of Poseidon’. In Hägg, R. (ed.), Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults (Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June 1994) (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, quarto ser. 48) (Stockholm), 63-74.

Bibliography Abbreviations OCD S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Oxford 1996). RE

HOEPFNER, W. and SCHWANDNER, E.-L. 1986: Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland (Wohnen in der klassischen Polis 1) (Munich).

A. Pauly and G. Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft.

KARASEV, A.N. 1966: ‘Raskopki u sanatoriya Chaika v Evpatorii’. Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1965 (Moscow), 115-17.

AGRAFONOV, P.G. 1998: Mifologiya antichnogo kul’ta. Kul’t Gerakla v Severnom Prichernomor’e (Yaroslavl).

KEARNS, E. 1989: The Heroes of Attica (London). KOVALENKO, S.A. 2004: ‘K khronologii dvukh grupp monet Khersonesa Tavricheskogo’. Monety i medali 2 (Moscow), 56-69.

ANDERSEN, C. et al. (eds.) 1965: Lexikon der alten Welt (Zurich). ANOKHIN, V.A. 1977: Monetnoe delo Khersonesa (Kiev).

KRON, U. 1999: ‘Patriotic Heroes’. In Hägg, R. (ed.), Ancient Greek Hero Cult (Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organized by the Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, Göteborg University, 21-23 April 1995) (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, octavo ser. 16) (Stockholm), 61-83.

BERGQUIST, B. 1973: Herakles on Thasos; the archaeological, literary and epigraphic evidence for his sanctuary, status and cult reconsidered (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Boreas 5) (Uppsala). BOOKIDIS, N. 1993: ‘Ritual Dining at Corinth’. In Marinatos, N. and Hägg, R. (eds.), Greek Sanctuaries. New Approaches (London/New York), 45-61.

KRYZHITSKII, S.D. 1982: Zhilye doma antichnykh gorodov Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Kiev).

BÖRKER, C. 1983: Festbankett und griechische Architektur (Xenia 4) (Konstanz).

KRYZHITSKII, S.D. 1993: Arkhitektura antichnykh gosudarstv Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Kiev).

BRACKERTZ, U. 1976: Zum Problem Schutzgottheiten griechischer Städte (Berlin).

der

KUTAISOV, V.A. 1990: Antichnyi gorod Kerkinitida (Kiev).

BURKERT, W. 1979: Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Sather Classical Lectures 47) (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London).

MARINATOS, N. 1993: ‘What were Greek Sanctuaries? A synthesis’. In Marinatos, N. and Hägg, R. (eds.), Greek Sanctuaries. New Approaches (London/New York), 228-33.

COLE, S.G. 2004: Landscape, Gender and Ritual Space: The Ancient Greek Experience (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London). 56 57

NILLSON, M.P. 1957: Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung (mit Ausschluss der attischen) (Stuttgart). PARKE, H.W. 1977: Festivals of the Athenians (London).

Cf. Agrafonov 1998, 45. Visscher 1961, 98, 111; Saprykin 1978, 49; Rusyaeva 2005, 450.

160

S.A. KOVALENKO: THE HESTIATORION OF THE CHAIKA SETTLEMENT IN THE NORTH-WESTERN CRIMEA

SHCHEGLOV, A.N. 1994: ‘Gerakl v statuarnoi skulpture Khersonesa’. Problemy arkheologii 3, 13648.

PEDLEY, J. 2005: Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World (Cambridge). POPOVA, E.A. and KOVALENKO, S.A. 1997: ‘O kul’te Gerakla v Severo-Zapadnom Krymu (po materialam gorodishcha Chaika)’. Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya 2, 78-84.

SKRZHINSKAYA, M.V. 2000: Budni i prazdniki Ol’vii v VI-I vv. do n.e. (St Petersburg). SOLOMONIK, E.I. 1984: Graffiti s khory Khersonesa (Kiev).

POPOVA, E.A. and KOVALENKO, S.A. 2002: ‘A New Relief with Heracles in the North-Western Crimea’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. and de Boer, J.G. (eds.), The Black Sea Region in the Greek, Roman and Byzantine Periods (= Talanta 32-33 for 2000-01) (Amsterdam), 103-08.

STENGEL, P. 1898: Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 3.5), 2nd ed. (Munich). STOLBA, V.F. 1989: ‘Novoe posvyashchenie iz SeveroZapadnogo Kryma i aspekty kul’ta Gerakla v Khersonesskom gosudarstve’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 4, 55-69.

POPOVA, E.A. and KOVALENKO, S.A. 2005: Istorikoarkheologicheskie ocherki grecheskoi i pozdneskifskoi kul’tur v Severo-Zapadnom Krymu (Moscow). ROBERT, C. 1920: Die griechische Heldensage, Buch 1: Landschaftliche Sagen, 4th ed (Berlin).

TOMLINSON, R.A. 1969a: ‘Perachora: the Remains outside the Two Sanctuaries’. Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 64, 155-258.

ROSCHER, W.H. 1886-90: Ausfürliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, vol. 1.2 (Leipzig).

TOMLINSON, R.A. 1969b: ‘The Buildings in Sanctuaries of Asklepios’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 89, 106-17.

RUSYAEVA, A.S. 1992: Religiya i kul’ty antichnoi Olvii (Kiev).

TOMLINSON, R.A. 1980: ‘Two notes on possible hestiatoria’. Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 75, 221-28.

RUSYAEVA, A.S. 2005: Religiya pontiiskikh ellinov v antichnuyu epokhu (Kiev).

VISSCHER, F. 1961: ‘Héraclès L’Antiquité Classique 30, 67-129.

SAPRYKIN, S.Y. 1978: ‘O kul’te Gerakla v Khersonese i Geraklee v epokhu ellinizma’. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 1, 38-52.

Epitrapezios’.

ZUBAR, V.M. 2004: ‘O kharaktere kul’ta Gerakla v Khersonesskom gosudarstve v ellinisticheskii period’. In Bosporskii fenomen 2: Problemy khronologii i datirovki pamyatnikov (St Petersburg), 131-35.

SAPRYKIN, S.Y. 1980: ‘K tipologii dvukh grupp monet Khersonesa’. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 3, 43-58.

161

DREI NEU ENTDECKTE PHALLOSSTEINE AUS DER CHORA VON HADRIANOPOLIS Ergün LAFLI Arkeoloji Bölümü, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Tınaztepe/Kaynaklar Yerleşkesi, Buca, 35160 Izmir, Turkey [email protected]

Eva CHRISTOF Institut für Archäologie der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Universitätsplatz 3/2, 8010 Graz, Austria [email protected]

Abstrakt: Das Ziel dieses Beitrages liegt in der Präsentation von drei kürzlich entdeckten sog. Phallossteinen aus der Chora von Hadrianopolis, im Südwesten Paphlagoniens, und vermittelt einen Überblick über das Spektrum eisenzeitlicher, hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher Grabformen in dieser Region. HADRIANOPOLIS’İN CHORASI’NDA YENİ BULUNMUŞ OLAN ÜÇ ADET PHALLOS TAŞI Özet: Bu bildiride 2005 yılından beri Güneybatı Paphlagonia Bölgesi’ndeki Hadrianopolis kenti ve chorası’nda yapılan yüzey araştırmaları ve kazıların sonucunda belirlenen mezar tipleri arasında özellikle üç adet daha önce yayımlanmamış phallos formlu mezar taşları üzerinde durulacaktır. Bu bildiri aynı zamanda bölgede Demir Çağı, Hellenistik ve Roma İmparatorluk devirlerinde kullanılan ve geniş bir repertuvara sahip olan mezar tipleri konusunda kısa bilgiler içermektedir.

Der vorliegende Beitrag stellt in erster Linie drei neu entdeckte sog. Phallossteine aus der Chora von Hadrianopolis im südwestlichen Paphlagonien vor und vermittelt einen Überblick über das Spektrum eisenzeitlicher, hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher Grabformen in dieser Region.1

Hadrianopolis in der Kaiserzeit entspricht eine hohe Anzahl an Siedlungen in ihrer Chora.4 Die frühesten Anfänge des Siedlungsraumes liegen jedoch schon weit zurück, erste Spuren führen in das 4. Jt. v. Chr.5 Dies ist aus dem häufigen Vorkommen von Höyüks abzuleiten. Allerdings enden die Höyüksiedlungen im Gebiet von Mermer, ca. fünf Kilometer östlich von Hadrianopolis. Über die vorhellenistische Zeit der Chora weiß man noch sehr wenig; erst ab hellenistischer Zeit scheint es Steinbauten gegeben zu haben.6 Wahrscheinlich spielte reichlich vorhandenes Holz als Baumaterial eine wichtigere Rolle als Stein. Die größte Siedlung in der näheren Chora von Hadrianopolis ist Kimistene, das sich ca. zehn Kilometer nordöstlich von Hadrianopolis, größtenteils auf dem Hügel Asartepe, etwa einen Kilometer östlich von dem

Die spätestens seit der frühen Kaiserzeit bestehende Stadt Hadrianopolis und ihre Chora befinden sich geographisch in einer Schwellenlage am Übergang vom anatolischen Plateau zur Schwarzmeerküste.2 Die verkehrsgünstige Lage und der Wasserreichtum bildeten günstige Rahmenbedingungen und waren letztlich ausschlaggebend dafür, dass sich Hadrianopolis in der Kaiserzeit zur größten Stadt im gesamten südwestlichen Paphlagonien entwickeln konnte.3 Der Prosperität von 1

Unter der Gesamtleitung von E. Laflı fanden 2005 im Umland von Hadrianopolis Feldforschungen und Surveys statt, von 2006 bis 2008 Grabungen im antiken Stadtgebiet von Hadrianopolis, das nahe dem heutigen Eskipazar in der Provinz Karabük, dem antiken südwestlichen Paphlagonien liegt. Zu den archäologischen Untersuchungen: Laflı 2007; 2009; im Vorbereitung; Laflı und Zäh 2008; 2009; sowie Laflı und Kan Şahin, 2010. 2 Erstmalige Beschreibung von Lage und Ausdehnung durch G. Mendel: Mendel 1901, 6. Manche Ortsbezeichnungen von Mendel konnten von späteren Forschern nicht mehr identifiziert werden. Die von Mendel gemeinte ‘acropole’ soll die byzantinische Befestigungsanlage im Osten von Hadrianopolis sein; ‘Adjumetlar’ das heutige Hacıahmetler (oder Hacımatlar); ‘Kurdjilar’ soll das Kürkçüler-Viertel bezeichnen; und ‘Bazar-bachi’ entspricht dem heutigen Pazarbaşı-Viertel, 1 km westlich des Stadtzentrums von Eskipazar. Ausführliche Beschreibung und Nachweis der geographischen Zugehörigkeit zu Paphlagonien durch Marek: Marek 1993, 118. 3 Eine eigenständige Münzprägung von Hadrianopolis fehlt jedoch völlig: Marek 2003, 169. Bei den in den letzten drei Grabungskampagnen zahlreich gefundenen Münzen bilden diejenigen

des 4. Jh. n. Chr. die größte Fundgruppe. Alle Münzfunde werden gemeinsam mit den Bleisiegeln und Bronzegewichten aus Hadrianopolis demnächst von E. Laflı publiziert. Die Inschriften auf Keramik werden ebenfalls von E. Laflı zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt und gemeinsam mit den anderen Keramikfunden veröffentlicht. 4 Marek 1993, 122. 5 Der Höyük bei Yazıboy ist eine frühbronzezeitliche Siedlung und damit eines der frühesten Zeugnisse für die Siedlungsgeschichte der Chora von Hadrianopolis. 6 In späthellenistischer Zeit soll Hadrianopolis noch Kaisereia geheissen haben. Bei den Grabungen in Hadrianopolis wurde nur wenig vorrömische Keramik des 2.-1. Jhs. v. Chr. gefunden. Frühhellenistische Keramik scheint völlig zu fehlen. Das späthellenistische Keramiksortiment aus Hadrianopolis umfasst hauptsächlich schwarz gefirnisste Keramik sowie graue Ware. Im nahe gelegenen Kimistene gibt es jedoch sowohl Funde, die weiter zurück datieren (späteisenzeitliche, sog. phrygische bemalte Keramik sowie graue Ware), als auch das gesamte Spektrum der im Hellenismus üblichen Keramik.

163

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Dorf Deresemail befindet.7 Von Kimistene, wo bisher noch nie gegraben wurde, sind auf der Akropolis die Reste einer byzantinischen Stadtmauer und einer vielleicht hellenistischen Zisterne bekannt, ein kaiserzeitlicher, stets als ländliches Bergheiligtum bezeichneter Tempel8 und desweiteren zwei Nekropolen. Die Hauptevidenz für Grabanlagen und Grabskulpturen aus Hadrianopolis und seinem Umland stammen meistens aus der Kaiserzeit, v. a. aus dem 2.-3. Jh. n. Chr. Die beiden Nekropolen bei Kimistene, wohl aus dem 3. Jh. n. Chr., sollten zu der noch nicht entdeckten Siedlung von Kimistene gehört haben.

Tumuli.13 Die Tumuli sind meistens beraubt, quasi nie wissenschaftlich ausgegraben, so dass man sie nur nach ihrer äußeren Gestalt und Größe beurteilen kann, beides Indizien, die jedoch keine genauere Datierung innerhalb des 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., d. h. auch keine sichere Zuweisung an Eisenzeit oder Hellenismus ergeben. Matthews und sein Team haben in ihrer Prospektionskampagne des Jahres 1998 mehrere Tumuli in der Chora von Hadrianopolis entdeckt. Das sind der Tumulus von Çeştepe (Abb. 1) in Eskipazar, der Tumulus im İstasyonViertel im Osten von Eskipazar, der bei dem gleichnamigen Dorf gelegene İnceboğaz-Tumulus, der Sadekaya-Tumulus, der Saraycık-Tumulus und der Bölükören-Tumulus. Die Zeitstellung all dieser Tumuli ist, wie gesagt, nicht gesichert; nach Ausweis der Oberflächenfunde sollten sie in die Eisenzeit (1. Jt. v. Chr. bis vor den Beginn des Hellenismus) datieren. Auch an weiteren Orten in Paphlagonien gibt es zahlreiche Befunde für Tumuli. Mehrere Tumuli unterschiedlicher Größe lassen sich auf dem Weg von Eskipazar über Karabük nach Safranbolu mit freiem Auge in der Landschaft erkennen, die bislang unpubliziert blieben. Der bemerkenswerteste von ihnen ist jener Hügel, auf dem das byzantinische Kastell von Safranbolu erbaut wurde (Abb. 2). In der Umgebung des ca. zehn Kilometer östlich von Safranbolu gelegenen, archäologisch weitgehend unerforschten Hacılarobası liegen Tumuli, die im Inneren gemauerte Grabkammern besitzen.

EISENZEITLICHE UND HELLENISTISCHE GRABTYPEN: FELSGRÄBER UND TUMULI Die vorherrschenden Grabtypen des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. in Pontus-Paphlagonien sind Felsgräber und Tumuli. Die Felsgräber sind aufgrund ihrer zumeist monumentalen Ausgestaltung, wie im Fall von Amasya, wo sie weithin sichtbare Denkmäler bilden, recht gut dokumentiert.9 Die in ihrer Ausführung wesentlich bescheideneren Felsgräber aus Hadrianopolis und seiner Chora waren bis vor kurzem kaum bekannt. Im Zuge mehrjähriger Surveys konnte R. Matthews in Hadrianopolis mehrere nebeneinander liegende in den Felsen eingearbeitete Gräber feststellen.10 Ebenfalls in den letzten Jahren entdeckte E. Laflı in dem 15 km südöstlich von Hadrianopolis gelegenen Kepez, zwei bis dahin unbekannte Felsgräber und einen Tiefbrunnen, der auch als Grab benutzt worden sein könnte. Der von Raubgräbern aufgehäufte Aushub enthielt zahlreiche Fragmente hellenistischer Keramik. Die Datierung dieser Felsgräber ist ansonsten nicht möglich. Die Grabkammern in Kepez könnten auch zu einem Tumulus gehört haben. Die üblicherweise in Hadrianopolis anzutreffenden Felsgräber stammen meist aus der römischen Kaiserzeit. In Hadrianopolis ist das Felsgrab mit architektonisch gegliederter Fassade und den drei Klinen längst allgemein bekannt.11 Die Erforschung der Tumuli profitierte von den Intensivsurveys verschiedener internationaler und türkischer Teams, die eine Kartierung dieser Landschaftsmarken vornahmen. So konnten einige Tumuli aus dem Umland von Kastamonu12 neu erfasst werden. Dank der Feld-forschungen von Matthews gibt es für Südwestpaphlagonien erstmals eine Liste von 52

Abb. 1: Der Tumulus von Çeştepe in Eskipazar, Ansicht von Osten (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2009)

7

Matthews, Metcalfe und Cottica 2009, 174-77 mit Abb. – Für die Inschriften aus Kimistene: Kaygusuz 1980. Außerdem finden sich in seinen Studien auch zahlreiche wertvolle topographische und archäologische Bemerkungen (u.a.): Kaygusuz 1983 und 1984; Matthews, Metcalfe und Cottica 2009, 200-16. Weitere 100 Inschriften sowie Steinmetzmarken, die in vier Feldkampagnen in Hadrianopolis und in seiner Chora von E. Laflı dokumentiert wurden, werden derzeit für die Veröffentlichung in einer Monographie vorbereitet: Laflı, in Vorbereitung. 8 Über das Heiligtum in Kimistene: Matthews, Metcalfe und Cottica 2009, 175, Abb. 6.1., 176, Abb. 6.2-5; Christof und Laflı in Vorbereitung. 9 Marek 2003, 30-43 mit zahlreichen Farbabbildungen; zahlreiche Neudokumentationen durch Matthews 2009, 157-58, 159 mit Abb. 5.8. 10 Matthews, Metcalfe und Cottica 2009, 183, Abb. 6.16. 11 Belke 1996, 156. 12 Marro et al. 1996, 279; Kuzucuoğlu et al. 1997, 275; Marro et al. 1998, 317; vgl. Matthews 2009, 156.

Abb. 2: Der Tumulus von Safranbolu, Ansicht von Westen (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2009) 13

Matthews 2009, 156-60 mit dem Hinweis auf die ursprünglich sicher weit höhere Anzahl an Tumuli.

164

E. LAFLI UND E. CHRISTOF: DREI NEU ENTDECKTE PHALLOSSTEINE AUS DER CHORA VON HADRIANOPOLIS

DIE DREI NEU ENTDECKTEN PHALLOSSTEINE In engem Zusammenhang mit den Tumuli zu sehen sind drei jüngst entdeckte Phallossteine, alle aus lokalem Kalkstein, die jedoch ohne erkennbare Zugehörigkeit einerseits in Kimistene im freien Gelände, andererseits am Friedhof von Ortaköy gefunden wurden. Der Phallosstein (Abb. 3)14 liegt am Nordabhang der Akropolis. Er ist langgestreckt, Standfläche und halbkugeliger Oberteil setzen sich nur wenig vom Schaft ab. Wie bei den anderen auch ist seine Oberfläche verwittert und von Flechten befallen. Von dem zweiten Phallosstein aus Kimistene (Abb. 4).15 ist nur der obere halbkugelige Teil erhalten. Der dritte Phallosstein dient als Grabstein am Friedhof in Ortaköy (Abb. 5). Er weist im Gegensatz zu den anderen beiden eine deutliche Formgebung auf: an eine mäßig hohe, teilweise zerstörte Standplatte schließt unmittelbar ein Torus an, der zum Schaft überleitet. Der pilzförmige Oberteil ist an einigen Stellen beschädigt, insgesamt jedoch noch gut erkennbar. Dadurch, dass die Typologie der Phallossteine noch nicht gesichert ist,16 kann bei derzeitigem Wissensstand aus der bloßen Formgebung der Steine keine sichere Datierung abgeleitet werden. Auf jeden Fall wird man für die drei Phallossteine aus der Chora von Hadrianopolis eine Zugehörigkeit zu den in der Region nachgewiesenen Tumuli sehen,17 auf deren Scheitelpunkt sie einst standen. Sie bilden auf jeden Fall eine wichtige Evidenz für die bisher zu wenig beachteten Bestattungssitten vorrömischer Zeit in der Chora von Hadrianopolis.

Abb. 4: Der zweite Phallosstein aus Kimistene (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2005)

Abb. 5: Phallosstein am Friedhof in Ortaköy (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2005)

In Paphlagonien ist die Anzahl der Phallos-Steine sehr groß. Aus dem nördlich von Karabük gelegenen Eflani gibt es drei unpublizierte Phallossteine in den Dörfern Çamyurt, Acıağaç sowie Çörekli in Eflani,18 die auf jeden Fall vorrömisch zu datieren sind. Indirekt verweisen Sie auf dortige Tumuli, von denen es tatsächlich Spuren gibt. Auch die Skulptur eines Löwen in Eflani (Abb. 6) sollte dereinst, wahrscheinlich mit einem entsprechenden Pendant, als Wächter an einem Tumulus aufgestellt gewesen sein.19

Abb. 3: Phallosstein vom Nordabhang der Akropolis von Kimistene (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2005) 14

Gesamt H 1,78 m; Schaft H 80 cm. Erh. H: 51 cm; max. Dm des halbkugeligen Abschnitts 58 cm, max. Dm des Schaftes 50 cm. 16 Christof 2008, Ebenda bes. 161, Kat. Nr. 71-78. 17 Marek 2003, 13: allgemeiner Hinweis auf die Zusammengehörigkeit von Tumuli und Grabphalloi, sowie von Tumuli mit Löwenskulpturen; Christof 2008 mit mehreren Beispielen für die schon immer bekannte und wohl zwischenzeitliche in der Forschung unbeachtete Verknüpfung von Phallossteinen und Tumuli in Kleinasien; Matthews 2009, übergeht die Phallossteine komplett; die Löwenskulpturen sieht er, wohl zu Recht, als typisches Indiz hellenistischer Tumuli (vgl. Abb. 6).

18

Zufällige Beobachtung durch E. Laflı anhand einer Populärpublikation bildlichen Inhalts. – Der Phallosstein aus Acıağaç weist einen leicht beschädigten pilzförmigen Oberteil, einen anschließenden Torus, einen mittelhohen Schaft und eine grob gearbeitete, annähernd rechteckige Standfläche auf; der Phallosstein aus Çörekli mit pilzförmigem Oberteil, daran ansetzendem, eher flachem Torus, dem sich nach unten verjüngenden Schaft und einer relativ kleinen, nur unwesentlich über den Schaft hinausragenden Basis ähnelt einem Phallosstein aus Bolu, s. Christof 2008, 167, Abb. 5, Kat. Nr. 70. 19 In Eflani sind weitere Löwen aus den Dörfern Göngören, Dendek und Ulugeçit bekannt.

15

165

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Durch die Datierung der Reliefdarstellungen ergibt sich für die Verwendung des Phallossteins auf einem Tumulus die Zeit vor dem 2. Jh. v. Chr. AUSBLICK AUF DIE VIELFALT KAISERZEITLICHER GRABFORMEN Die Sitte, Felsgräber und Tumuli anzulegen, ist in Kleinasien nicht auf Eisenzeit und Hellenismus beschränkt, sondern dauert bis in die Kaiserzeit an.21 In der römischen Kaiserzeit erfährt das Spektrum an Grabdenkmälern eine starke Erweiterung an unterschiedlichen Grabmalformen, die größtenteils auch anderswo in Kleinasien üblich sind. In Hadrianopolis und seiner Chora gibt es mehrere Nekropolen, aber keine davon wurde bislang in ihrer Gesamtheit erforscht. In Hadrianopolis gibt es mindestens vier Stellen, an denen sich verschiedene Arten von Gräbern häufen. Einige von diesen Gräbern könnte man als „monumental’ bezeichnen, insofern als es sich entweder um in vertikale Felsen geschlagene Grabkammern oder um aus dem felsigen Boden heraus geschlagene Gräber handelt. In der Chora von Hadrianopolis ist die bemerkenswerte und größte Siedlung Kimistene. Hier befinden sich die bereits weiter oben genannten zwei Nekropolen, die im Zuge der Geländebegehungen als ‘Nekropol I’ und ‘Nekropol II’ bezeichnet wurden. Die Nekropole I erstreckt sich in weitläufiger Ausdehnung über den Hügel gleich nordwestlich der Akropolis. Die Nekropole II erstreckt sich entlang des Tales von Deresemail in nordöstliche Richtung. Beide Nekropolen sind besser intakt als die in frühbyzantinischer Zeit zerstörten Nekropolen in Hadrianopolis. Die Nekropolen aus Kimistene sind auch von der Datierung her homogener als jene in Hadrianopolis, indem sie Charakteristika des 2. bis 4. Jh. n. Chr. aufweisen und sowohl frühere als auch spätere Gräber fehlen.

Abb. 6: Hellenistischer Phallosstein aus Daskyleion (Izmir, Museum für Geschichte und Kunst; Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2009)

Die in den beiden Nekropolen von Kimistene vorhandenen vier Hauptgrabtypen sind folgende: (a) horizontal oder vertikal angelegte Felsgräber bzw. Felsgrabkammern (Abb. 8), (b) Grabtempel (Abb. 9), (c) Erdbestattungen mit Grabstein und (d) Sarkophage (Abb. 10).22 Bei den Grabsteintypen kann man zwischen Grabsteinen mit Giebel (Abb. 11-12)23 und Grabstelen (Abb. 14-15) unterscheiden.24 Zu den Grabstelen kann Abb. 7: Römischer Löwe aus Adak-Sükrüşeyh bei Eflani. Lokaler Kalkstein (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2009)

21

Wichtige neue Daten und Forschungsergebnisse zu den Tumuli in Kleinasien sind durch die Publikation des von 1.-3. Juni 2009 am DAIIstanbul in Zusammenarbeit mit der Istanbuler Koç-Universität veranstalteten Tumulus-Kongresses zu erwarten. 22 Zwei gute Beispiele: das Fragment eines Erotensarkophags, Çavuşlar: Marek 2003, 132, Abb. 191; sowie der Girlandensarkophag mit Medusamasken bei Tasma: Ebd.: 132, Abb. 192a-b. 23 Z.B. die Grabstele des Heiodoros und seiner Frau Basilissa. Die Büsten des Paares werden von Löwen flankiert. Im Dorf Deveci: Ebd.: 138, Abb. 210. 24 Dieser in Kleinasien weitverbreitete Grabstelentypus ähnelt den von Marek klassifizierten Grabsteintypen aus dem Museum von Amasra: Marek 1993, Taf. 37; Zeichnung Nr. 5 (oben). Zu den Grabtypen in Paphlagonien allgemein: Marek 2003, 132-37.

Ein schon seit langem bekannter Phallosstein aus Daskyleion, heute im Museum von Izmir, zeigt sekundäre Reliefeinarbeitungen und die Umformung des ursprünglich unverzierten Grabmarkers zu einem bildgeschmückte Grabmonument einer Frau (Abb. 7).20 20

Pfuhl und Möbius 1977-79, Nr. 893, Taf. 133; zuletzt dazu: Christof 2008, 152, Kat. Nr. 36, Abb. 11 a-c.

166

E. LAFLI UND E. CHRISTOF: DREI NEU ENTDECKTE PHALLOSSTEINE AUS DER CHORA VON HADRIANOPOLIS

Abb. 11: Giebelstele im Belediye-Park von Eskipazar, wahrscheinlich aus der Chora; 2.-3. Jh. n. Chr.; max. H.: 154 cm; Länge: 230 cm; Dicke: 52 cm; Dm der Nische: 92 cm; Tiefe der Nische 25 cm (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2009)

Abb. 8: Eingang zu einer der römischen Felsgrabkammern in Hacılarobası (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2009)

Abb. 12: Römische Giebelstele verbaut in der Gartenmauer von Haus Nr. 79 im unteren Teil des Dorfzentrums von Hacılarobası bei Safranbolu; Länge: 99 cm; max. H. 36 cm; min. Dicke: 9 cm; Nische: 30 x 31 cm. Lokaler Kalkstein (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2009)

Abb. 9: Marmorbasis aus der Moschee von Hacıahmetler; 3. Jh. n. Chr. H.: 100 cm; Dm der Säulenbasis: 50 cm; Dicke des Steines: 60 cm (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2009)

Abb. 13: Säulenförmige Grabstele, sog. Columella, mit Inschrift aus dem Dorf Kızılcapınar, im Dorfzentrum, Dm: 84 cm; max. gesamte Höhe: 89 cm; Buchstabenhöhe: ca. 4 cm; 3. Jh. n. Chr. (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2009) Abb. 10: Römischer Sarkophagdeckel in Form eines Löwen; Im Bahçepınar-Viertel, Eskipazar-Stadtzentrum, im Garten des Wohnhauses Nr. 7 in der Fevzi-ÇakmakStraße, dorthin verschleppt aus einer nicht näher bekannten Stelle in der Chora von Hadrianopolis. Lokaler Kalkstein (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2009)

man auch die säulenförmigen Grabstelen, die sog. Columellae rechnen, die außerordentlich beliebt waren und zahlenmäßig die rechteckigen Grabstelen bei weitem übertreffen (Abb. 13).

167

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Abb. 15: Römische Grabstele aus dem Dorf Tamışlar, Emiroğlu-Viertel, im Garten der heute nicht mehr verwendeten Eski Camii (alten Moschee). Lokaler Marmor (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2005)

Abb. 14: Marmor-Grabstele mit Patera und Schlangen vor dem Rathaus von Eskipazar; gefunden in der Stadtmitte von Hadrianopolis; 3. Jh. n. Chr. H: 196 cm; Breite: 55 cm; Tiefe: 62.5 cm; (vgl. ein ornamentiertes Exemplar aus dem Museum von Bodrum und zwei weitere aus der von C. T. Newton ergrabenen HagiaMarina-Kirche in Türkkuyusu, in Halikarnassos/Karien) (Foto: Ergün Laflı, 2009)

hauptsächlich in das 2.-3. Jh. n. Chr. datierenden mehr als 20 Felsgräbern (Abb. 8), Kult-Nischen27 und einem Felsgrab mit Inschrift. In den Surveys wurde auch ein von Raubgräbern illegal ergrabener Tumulus mit runder Grabkammer dokumentiert. Es ist gut möglich, dass der Fundort Hacılarobası ausschließlich eine Gräberstätte war. Außerdem sind von dort Giebelstelen bekannt, die jenen in Phrygien ähneln (Abb. 12).

Gegenüber von Asartepe und östlich des Dorfes Yalıkavak im Tal von Deresemail, in Sandıkkaya, befindet sich eine tempelähnliche Grabanlage, ein prostyles Bauwerk, dessen sehr gut erhaltene Architekturteile in einer illegalen Grabung freigelegt wurden. Einer davon, ein massiver rechteckiger Block, zeigt in einem Medaillon die Reste einer bärtigen Männerbüste in Vorderansicht, wohl eine Darstellung des Zeus.25 Es ist gut vorstellbar, dass er ursprünglich zum Giebel dieses kleinen kaiserzeitlichen Grabgebäudes des 2.–3. Jh. n. Chr. gehörte, wie es sie in der Kaiserzeit zahlreich in ganz Kleinasien gibt.26 Dieses Grab ist ein gutes Beispiel für einen Grabtempel, von denen in dieser Region nicht viele bekannt sind.

Es ist bemerkenswert, dass die Chora von Hadrianopolis wenige antike Baureste besitzt, dafür jedoch die epigraphische Überlieferung in Form von Grabinschriften des 2.-4. Jh. n. Chr. umso reichhaltiger ausfällt. Besonders zahlreich sind die Grabinschriften im 3. Jh. n. Chr.28 Das Vorhandensein einiger Grabepigramme29 verdeutlicht uns das Bildungsbewusstsein und den kulturellen Anspruch dieser Menschen im südwestlichen Paphlagonien im 3. Jh. n. Chr. Die Chora von Hadrianopolis weist wesentlich mehr Grabinschriften als Hadrianopolis selbst auf. Die Gründe

In der Chora von Hadrianopolis lagen mehrere Siedlungen, deren Vorhandensein bisher ausschließlich durch das Vorhandensein der zugehörigen Grabanlagen bezeugt ist. Ein Beispiel dafür ist das ca. 30 km östlich von Safranbolu gelegene Hacılarobası mit seinen 25 26

27 Zu einer Kult-Nische in Hadrianopolis: Laflı 2007; Foto der Nische aus Hacılarobası: Laflı 2007, 66, Abb. 13. Hier gibt es auch eine Liste aller paphlagonischen Nischen: Ebd. 56-57. 28 Laflı in Vorbereitung. 29 U.a. Merkelbach und Stauber 2001, Nr. 10/02/12, 10/02/19 und 10/02/22 (mit dt. Übersetzung).

Laflı 2007, 64, Abb. 9. Cormack 2004.

168

E. LAFLI UND E. CHRISTOF: DREI NEU ENTDECKTE PHALLOSSTEINE AUS DER CHORA VON HADRIANOPOLIS

für die relativ geringe Anzahl von Grabinschriften in Hadrianopolis selbst, könnte in der späteren byzantinischen Nutzung und Überbauung liegen, oder mit der Annahme von römischen Friedhöfen außerhalb der Stadt zusammenhängen, wie es die Evidenz in Köyceğiz zeigt, das ca. 6 km nördlich von Hadrianopolis liegt und wichtige Grabsteine mit Inschriften besitzt.

CHRISTOF, E. und LAFLI, E. in Vorbereitung: ‘Der Zeus-Tempel von Kimistene’. CORMACK, S. 2004: S. The Space of Death in Roman Asia Minor (Wiener Forschungen zur Archäologie 6) (Vienna). KAYGUSUZ, İ. 1980: Gangra (Çankırı) Çevresinde Yeni Bulunmuş Grekçe Yazıtların Filolojik Değerlendirilmesi ve Bölgenin Eskiçağ Tarih ve Kültürüne Katkıları Yönünden İncelenmesi (Dissertation, Universität Istanbul).

Es ist bemerkenswert, dass sich die meisten Grabinschriften auf kleinen Grabsäulen, den sog. Columellae, befinden.30 Dieser Grabtypus ist der am meisten verwendete und beliebteste in Hadrianopolis und seiner Chora. Das vorherrschende Material ist ein weißer Kalkstein, der aus lokalen Vorkommen bezogen wurde, möglicherweise aus dem 5 km westlich von Hadrianopolis gelegenen Mermer.

KAYGUSUZ, İ. 1983: ‘Kimistene’den Yazıtlar’. Türk arkeoloji dergisi 26.2, 111-46. KAYGUSUZ, İ. 1984: ‘Inscriptions of Kimistene (Paphlagonia)’. Epigraphica Anatolica 4, 69-72. KUZUCUOĞLU, C. et al. 1997: ‘Prospection archéologique franco-turque dans la région de Kastamonu (Mer Noire). Deuxième rapport préliminaire’. Anatolia Antiqua 5, 275-306.

VORLÄUFIGE ÜBERLEGUNGEN Die Phallossteine im südwestlichen Paphlagonien stammen entweder aus der Eisenzeit (vermutlich 8. bis Ende 4. Jh. v. Chr.) oder dem Hellenismus und sie müssen unbedingt in Zusammenhang mit den Tumuli gesehen werden, bzw. umgekehrt. Über Lebensformen und Kultur im nordwestlichen Kleinasien sind wir aufgrund der bisher geringen, bzw. nicht ausreichend beobachteten archäologischen Funde nur rudimentär informiert. Eine Art Leitfossil für die Ausprägung der Eisenzeit in dieser Region bilden die sog. phrygische bemalte und graue Keramik, sowie Felsgräber und Tumuli. Großteils unklar ist jedoch, was ‘Hellenismus’ für Paphlagonien konkret bedeutet. Vorkaiserzeitliche Schriftzeugnisse sind hier nicht überliefert. Neben der ausführlichen Beschäftigung mit der Kaiserzeit in Hadrianopolis und seiner Chora, die durch dicht erforschtes archäologisches Vergleichsmaterial aller Gattungen aus dem übrigen Kleinasien betrieben werden kann, wird es notwendig sein, den eisenzeitlichen und hellenistischen Phasen in Zukunft verstärkte Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken, um eine Charakterisierung und eine Definition dessen zu erarbeiten, was Eisenzeit und Hellenismus für Hadrianopolis und sein Umland bedeuten.

LAFLI, E. 2007: ‘A Roman Rock-Cut Cult Niche at Paphlagonian Hadrianoupolis’. In XXIV. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Bd. 2 (Ankara), 43-66. LAFLI, E. 2009: ‘Paphlagonia Hadrianoupolis’i Arkeolojik Kazıları ve Onarım Çalışmaları 2008 Yılı Çalışma Raporu’. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 31, 39-62. LAFLI, E. und KAN ŞAHIN, G. 2010: ‘Hadrianoupolis ve Çevresinden Geç Ortaçağ Sırlı Seramik Örnekleri’. In XIII. Ortaçağ ve Türk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, Bildirileri (Istanbul), 427-32. LAFLI, E. und KAN ŞAHIN, G. in Vorbereitung: Hadrianopolis in Paphlagonien I: Inschriften und Steinmetzmarken aus den Kampagnen 2003 und 2005-2008 (Oxford). LAFLI, E. und ZÄH, A. 2008: ‘Archäologische Forschungen im byzantinischen Hadrianupolis in Paphlagonien’. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 101.2, 681712. LAFLI, E. und ZÄH, A. 2009: ‘Beiträge zur frühbyzantinischen Profanarchitektur aus Hadrianupolis-Blütezeit unter Kaiser Iustinian I.’. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 102.2, 49-68. MAREK, C. 1993: Stadt, Ära und Territorium in PontusBithynia und Nord-Galatia (Istanbuler Forschungen 39) (Tübingen).

Literaturverzeichnis BELKE, K. 1996: Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9: Paphlagonien und Honōrias (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, Denkschriften 249) (Vienna).

MAREK, C. 2003: Pontus et Bithynia. Die römischen Provinzen im Norden Kleinasiens (Mainz). MARRO, C., ÖZDOĞAN, A. und TIBET, A. 1996: ‘Prospection archéologique franco-turque dans la région de Kastamonu (Mer Noire). Premier rapport préliminaire’. Anatolia Antiqua 4, 273-90.

CHRISTOF, E. 2008: ‘Anikonische Grabmarker in Kleinasien: Die sog. “Phallossteine”’. Epigraphica Anatolica 41, 147-73.

MARRO, C., ÖZDOĞAN, A. und TIBET, A. 1998: ‘Prospection archéologique franco-turque dans la région de Kastamonu (Mer Noire). Troisième rapport préliminaire’. Anatolia Antiqua 6, 317−35.

30

Beschreibung und Definition des Grabmaltyps: Marek 1993, 101; Zum Verbreitungsgebiet v. a. in Hadrianopolis und seinem völligen Fehlen z. B. in und um Amastris: Marek 1993, 116; Zu einer Columella aus Hanköy bei Eskipazar Marek 2003, 136-137, Abb. 205 ebenda mit dem Hinweis auf das bithynischen Hochland und Westpaphlagonien als Kernverbreitungsgebiete; siehe auch Matthews, Metcalfe und Cottica 2009: 210 Abb. 6.85-6.86; 212 Abb. 6.91; 213 Abb. 6.92-6.94; 214 Abb. 6.95-6.96.

MATTHEWS, R. 2009: ‘A Dark Age, Grey Ware and Elusive Empires: Paphlagonia through the Iron Age, 1200-330 BC’. In Matthews und Glatz 2009, 149-71. 169

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

MENDEL, G. 1901: ‘Inscriptions de Bithynie’. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 25, 5-92.

MATTHEWS, R. und GLATZ, C. (Hrsg.) 2009: At Empires’ Edge: Project Paphlagonia. Regional Survey in North-Central Turkey (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 44) (London).

MERKELBACH, R. und STAUBER, J. (Hrsg.) 2001: Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, Bd. 2: Die Nordküste Kleinasiens. Marmarameer und Pontos (Munich/Leipzig).

MATTHEWS, R., METCALFE, M. und COTTICA, D. 2009: ‘Landscapes with Figures: Paphlagonia through the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods, 330 BC-AD 1453’. In Matthews und Glatz 2009, 173226.

PFUHL, E. und MÖBIUS, H. 1977-79: ostgriechischen Grabreliefs (Mainz).

170

Die

RED SLIP WARE IN CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE Boris MAGOMEDOV Institute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, pr. Geroev Stalingrada 12, 04210 Kiev, Ukraine [email protected]

Sergey DIDENKO National Museum of Ukrainian History, Volodimirska str. 2, 01023 Kiev, Ukraine

Abstract: The people of the Chernyakhov culture (middle third of the 3rd to the first third of the 5th century AD) were mainly Gothic tribes. Most finds of red slip ware on Chernyakhov sites come from the Black Sea coast and the Lower Danube. Red slip from the eastern zone of this territory has analogues mainly in the Crimea and form the ‘North Black Sea’ series; that from the western zone has most analogues from the provinces of the Lower Danube, where it was also produced (the ‘West Black Sea’ series). Thus, the Chernyakhov market for imported tableware was divided into two spheres of influence. This might be explained not only by geographical proximity to the different economic centres of the Roman empire but also by the division of the Gothic peoples into two branches (Terwingi-Visigoths and Greutungi-Ostrogoths). The sudden increase of imported wares arriving in Chernyakhov settlements in the middle third of the 4th century may well have been one outcome of the treaty between Constantine and the Goths in AD 332, which included a trade agreement. CHERNYAKHOV KÜLTÜRÜNDE KIRMIZI ASTARLI SERAMİKLER Özet: Chernyakhov kültürünün halkı İ.S. 3. yy. ortasından 5. yy.’ın ilk çeyreğine kadar Goth boylarından oluşmaktaydı. Chernyakhov yerleşimlerinde bulunan kırmızı astarlı seramiklerin büyük çoğunluğu Karadeniz kıyılarından ve Aşağı Tuna bölgesinden gelmekteydi. Bu bölgenin doğusundan gelen kırmızı astarlı seramikler Kırım Bölgesi ile karşılaştırılabilir ve “Karadeniz’in kuzeyi” serisini oluşturmaktadırlar. Bunlar batı böümünü oluştururlar ve “Batı Karadeniz” serisini oluşturan ve aynı zamanda üretim yeri olan bu Aşağı Tuna eyaletleri ile benzeşirler. Böylece ithal seramik ürünler için Chernyakhov pazarı eki alanı açısından iki ana kısma ayrılır. Bu sadece Roma İmparatorluğu’nun farklı coğrafya alanlarının birbirine yakınlığı ile açıklanamaz, aynı zamanda Got toplumunun Terwingi-Visigothlar ve Greutungi-Ostrogothlar şeklinde iki ana gruptan oluşmasından kaynaklanır. Chernyakhov yerleşimlerinde İ.S. 4. yy.’ın üçüncü çeyreğinin ortasındaki bir anda artan ithal seramik ürünü oranı İ.S. 332’de Konstantinus ile Gothların imzaladığı bir ticari anlaşmanın neticesi olabilir.

The Chernyakhov culture (or Sintana de MureshChernyakhov culture) existed from the second third of the 3rd century AD to the first third of the 5th century within what are now the Ukraine, Moldova and Romania (Fig. 1). Its main population was Gothic tribes, as well as groups of some other nations. Trade with the Roman empire was very important for the economy of the Chernyakhov population. Red slip ware forms part of the pottery imported from Roman territory.

has not survived (Fig. 2.1).2 The complex included a grey clay bowl with oval-faceted decoration, which is dated no earlier than to the middle of the 4th century AD.3 Oval body and the rounded rim bends inward. This is one of the most popular forms of red slip ware and it was produced in various manufacturing centres of the ancient world. In the classification of J.W. Hayes, it appears in the group Eastern Sigillata A (form 20) and Pontic Sigillata (form IV).4 Such bowls were used widely in the northern and western Black Sea littoral, mostly in the 1st3rd centuries AD. They are also known in the Crimea in complexes of the second half of the 3rd-first half of the 5th century AD, in particular in burials in the Inkerman, Chernaya Rechka and Druzhnoe cemeteries.5 Thus, this form of bowl has a very wide date-range – from the 1st century AD to the first half of the 5th; but the bowl from Voitenki can be limited to the second half of the 4th century AD.

There are bowls, plates, dishes, jugs, one goblet, a cup and a vase.1 Analogous material from Roman and adjoining territories allow us to date and to examine the geographical distribution of this type of ware. Only some of these types have generally accepted names. The rest we call after the names of the places where they were found on Chernyakhov sites. BOWLS

Bowls with a truncated cone-shaped body on a low ring foot, with vertical or inclined rims form a separate type.

Voitenki type. Voitenki cemetery, cremation grave 48. There are burnt fragments of a vessel; the surface coating

2

Schultze and Lyubichev forthcoming. Schultze and Strocen 2008. 4 Hayes 1985, tav. 3, 23. 5 Vеimarn 1963, 19-37, fig. 7.7; Babenchikov 1963, pl. 4.7; Khrapunov 2002, 58-59, fig. 198.8. 3

1 A considerable part of the ceramics was examined by the authors, and S. Didenko made some of the drawings (Figs. 2.3, 2.5, 3.4, 6.1, 7.1, 7.7). The rest of the drawings were copied from publications.

171

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 1: Locations of red slip ware on sites of the Chernyakhov culture. а – types of ‘North Black Sea’ series; b – types of ‘West Black Sea’ series; c – towns; d – the boundaries of the Chernyakhov culture in the middle of the 4th century; e – limes. 1 – Spantov; 2 – Alexandru Odobescu; 3 – Independenta; 4 – Birlad-Valea Seace; 5 – Bravicheni; 6 – Budeshti; 7 – Dancheni; 8 – Gotesti; 9 – Chealyk; 10 – Nagornoe ІІ; 11 – Kholmskoe; 12 – Furmanovka; 13 – Tyras; 14 – Belenkoe; 15 – Kiselovo; 16 – Ranzheve; 17 – Sychavka; 18 – Lugovoe; 19 – Koblevo; 20 – Mys; 21 – Viktorovka II; 22 – Kaborga IV; 23 – Kamenka-Anchekrak; 24 – Olbia; 25 – Stanislav; 26 – Gavrilovka; 27 – Chernyakhov; 28 – Voitenki

Later variants of this form were widespread through the Crimea. According to A. Aibabin, they are typical of Crimean cemeteries of the 4th-early 5th century AD.6 In contrast to the bowls of the 1st-first half of 3rd century AD, they have a slip coating of poor quality and comparatively thick walls; these are closest to the finds from Chernyakhov sites. The bowls of the same form were also produced in the north-eastern Aegean (Phocaea and its surroundings) during the second half of the 4ththird quarter of 5th century, and they were included by Hayes in the group of Late Roman C ware, form 1В.7 In K. Domżalski’s classification, they are form 1 A-C of Phocaean red slip ware.8

Kaborga, grave 5 variant. Kaborga IV cemetery, cremation grave 5 (Fig. 2.2).9 Complex dated, according to amphorae which imitate Shelov type F, variant 1, to the second quarter of the 4th century AD.10 The vertical board is about one-third of the whole height of the vessel, with the minor slope inside. The transition from the board to the body is smoothed, the rim is rounded. There are analogues in the Crimea from burials in the Druzhnoe cemetery of the second half of the 3rd4th century AD.11 Close parallels come from the Tas-Tepe cemetery, dated to the 4th century.12 Reliably dated 9

Magomedov 1979, pl. 7.6. Shelov 1978; Didenko forthcoming. 11 Khrapunov 2002, figs. 79.6, 154.3, 158.9. 12 Puzdrovskii, Zaitsev and Nenevolya 2001, 33, figs. 4.3, 7.2-3.

6

10

Aibabin 1984, 114-15, 117. 7 Hayes 1972, 325. 8 Arseneva and Domżalski 2002, 430.

172

B. MAGOMEDOV AND S. DIDENKO: RED SLIP WARE IN CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE

Fig. 2: Red slip ware from sites of the Chernyakhov culture (1-5, 9-11, 13-18) and comparanda (6-8, 12, 19). On all pictures the analogues are marked with the letter ‘A’. 1 – Voitenki; 2, 4, 9 – Kaborga IV; 3, 16 – Viktorovka II; 5 – Kiselovo; 6 – Cherson; 7, 8 – Druzhnoe; 10, 11, 14, 15 – Kamenka-Anchekrak; 12 –Suvorovo; 13 – Sychavka; 17 – Lugovoe; 18 – Nagornoe II; 19 – Troesmis

complexes with such bowls are crypt 1 of the Ozernoe III cemetery (first half-middle of the 4th century13) and grave 5 of the Kurskoe cemetery.14 Among the goods from this grave was a jug dated to the second half of the 4thbeginning of the 5th century (see also the Ranzheve type). Therefore, this variant should be dated between the second half of the 3rd and the end of 4th century AD, and

Belenkoe, grave 131 variant. Belenkoe cemetery, grave 131. It is dated to the last quarter of the 4tth-first quarter of the 5th century AD.15 There is also a fragment from the Kamenka-Anchekrak settlement, which is dated to the

13

15

14

the specimen from Kaborga more accurately to the second quarter of the 4th century.

Loboda 1977, fig. 5.11; Aibabin 1999, 259; Sazanov 1993, 18. Тrufanov and Kоltukhov 2003, 282, 284, fig. 6.

The excavations by A. Rosokhatski (Magomedov 1994, fig. 1.129).

173

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

second half of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century (Fig. 2.10).16

There is a fragment of the upper part of a bowl (Fig. 2.3).25

The board is less than one-third of the height of the vessel, with minor slope inside, slightly rounded. The transition from the board to the body is smoothed, the rim is rounded. There are analogous examples in the Crimea from a cistern in Cherson, which was filled in the 3rd-4th centuries AD.17 Exact analogues have been found in the Druzhnoe cemetery: grave 9 dated to the end of the 3rd4th century;18 and grave 78 F, dated, according to a glass goblet of Eggers type 230, to the second to third quarter of the 4th century.19 In crypt 1 of the Ozernoe III cemetery such a bowl was found together with the goods of the first half-middle of the 4th century AD.20 The interesting fact is that a bowl of the ‘Kaborga, grave 5 type’ came from the same complex. Therefore, it might be assumed that this variant appeared in the first half of the 4th century AD (closer to the middle) and existed until the end of the century.

The board is straight, with slope inward and with a distinctive transition to the body. The rim is rounded. Numerous analogues to this variant come from sites in the Crimea of the Late Roman and Early Byzantine periods. They are typical of the ceramic complex of Cherson26 and of a number of cemeteries: Inkerman, Skalistoe and Ozernoe III.27 Similar vessels are included in type VI red slip ware in the Druzhnoe cemetery (Fig. 2.8).28 The complexes with this variant are of the second half of the 4th century. In crypt 2 of the Ozernoe ІІІ cemetery a bowl of this variant was accompanied by a jug of the second half of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century (see the Ranzheve type below) and by amphorae of Shelov type F, variant 2 of the third quarter of the 4th century AD.29 Nagornoe, grave 18 type. Nagornoe II cemetery, grave 18.30 Complex dated to the third quarter of the 4th century AD (Fig. 2.18).

Kamenka-Anchekrak, stratum of the settlement variant. There is a fragmented bowl from the KamenkaAnchekrak settlement (Fig. 2.11).21 Settlement dated to the second half of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century AD.

A conical-truncated body on a low annular base with a slightly distinguished edge. A short rim is divided from the board by a groove. The red slip is of very poor quality. Bowls with the same profile are known in the cities of Scythia Minor, in particular in Troesmis (Fig. 2.19).31

Again, the vertical board is less than one-third of the height of the vessel. The transition from the board to the body is smoothed. The outward side of the rim is slightly sharpened; the inner side is rounded. The inside surface is decorated with red slip painting: radial lines on the walls and a trace of rosette on the bottom. Fragments of vessels of similar form and with the same decoration have been found in small numbers in levels of the second half of the 4th-first half of the 5th century BC in Tanais, Tyritake and Ilichevka (the winery).22 Similar decoration is found on a bowl from a crypt dated to the end of 4th-beginning of the 5th century in the Suvarovo cemetery in the southwestern Crimea (Fig. 2.12),23 though in a morphological sense this bowl is closer to the Belenkoe variant. Such ceramics were produced in the workshops of central Greece. Hayes has included them in the group ‘CentralGreek Painted Ware’ which he dated to the 6th century AD.24 Domżalski currently dates these vessels to the second half of 4th-beginning of the 5th century AD, based on new finds in Nikopolis (Greece).

PLATES Two plates from Chernyakhov sites can be classed as the same type because of their shape: deep, with a wide horizontal deflected rim and a conical-truncated body on a low annular base. Vessels with the same morphology occur from the 1st to 4th centuries AD, and evidently they demonstrate the development of the same type of plate. They are distributed around the northern and western Black Sea, in Pannonia, in Oltenia, and they can also be found in the Athenian Agora.32 They may be correlated with Hayes’s form III of Pontic Sigillata.33 In the complexes of Late Scythian cemeteries in the Crimea similar plates are accompanied, as a rule, by finds of the middle of the 2nd-first half of the 3rd century.34 In Olbia they come from the levels of the 1st-3rd centuries AD.35 Plates of the 4th century differ from the earlier specimens in their coarse manufacture, thicker walls, lack of ornamentation and the poor quality of the red slip.

Viktorovka variant. Viktorovka II settlement is dated approximately to the third quarter of the 4th century AD. 16

Magomedov 1991, fig. 19.7. Ryzhov 1986, 133. 18 Khrapunov 2002, 17, 67, fig. 79.7. 19 Khrapunov 2002, 33-34, 57, 71, fig. 179.3-4. 20 Loboda 1977, fig. 5.1. 21 Magomedov 1991, fig. 19.6. 22 The authors would like to thank Dr K. Domżalski for his kind consultation concerning bowls of the ‘Kamenka-Anchekrak, stratum of the settlement’ variant, dishes of types ‘ARS form 58A’ and ‘PRS form 1A’, jugs of types ‘Opaiţ III’ and ‘IV’, and the goblet of ‘Tyras’ type. 23 Zaitsev and Mordvintseva 2003, 113-14, fig. 2.12. 24 Hayes 1972, 412-13, pl. 23.b.

25

Symonovich and Yarovoi 1968, fig. 6.20. Kadeev 1970, 87, fig. 7.2. 27 Vеimarn 1963, fig. 7.20; Vеimarn and Aibabin 1993, 190, fig. 74.8; Loboda 1977, 242-45, fig. 6.9. 28 Khrapunov 2002, 58-59. 29 Didenko forthcoming. 30 Gudkova and Schultze forthcoming. 31 Opaiţ 1980, 358, pl. 15:3. 32 Krapivina 1993, 111. 33 Hayes 1972, 29-30, fig. 3; 1985, tav. 23.3. 34 Vysotskaya 1994, pl. 20.25; Zhuravlev 2007, 368-69, fig. 1.6. 35 Krapivina 1993, 111, fig. 50.4.

17

26

174

B. MAGOMEDOV AND S. DIDENKO: RED SLIP WARE IN CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE

Kaborga, grave 4 variant. Kaborga IV cemetery, cremation grave 4 contained the burnt fragments of a vessel (Fig. 2.4).36 The complex is dated to the second quarter of the 4th century AD, based on the presence of amphorae of Shelov type F, variant 1.37 The walls are straight, the board is not high, with the slope outside. The rim is slightly pulled down. Exact comparanda are not known to us.

to Hayes’s classification, they belong to form 58А of African red slip ware (ARS), which is dated to AD 290/300-375.47 Pontic Red Slip, form 1A type. Sychavka cemetery, dish with graffito on base (Fig. 2.13);48 Viktorovka II settlement (Fig. 2.16);49 Kamenka-Anchekrak, chamber VII, where there was one whole dish and the fragments of another, both with the graffito ‘alpha’ (Fig. 2.14-15);50 Lugovoe (Fig. 2.17).51 The impressive fragments of this form have been also found in the Chernyakhov levels of the Late Roman fortified settlements of Stanislav and Mys.52 They often occur in the latest stratum of Olbia,53 and they relate, in our opinion, to the Chernyakhov period of this site.54 All these archaeological complexes belong to the period between the middle of the 4th century AD and the beginning of the 5th.

Kiselovo variant. Kiselovo settlement (Fig. 2.5).38 Site dated to the second half of the 4th century AD. The walls are slightly rounded, the board is vertical and not high. The rim has a wide groove. The plate is a bit askew. The rough and careless manufacturing of this plate brings it close to vessels from Crimean complexes of the 3rd-4th centuries in Cherson and in cemeteries of the Ozernoe-Inkerman type. The forms found in Cherson are usually linked to the production of the workshops of Asia Minor.39 However, some defective specimens were found in a cistern (Fig. 2.6), which suggests that they might have been made locally in Cherson.40 Analogous vessels come from 4th-century complexes of the Inkerman41 and Druzhnoe cemeteries.42 The closest analogy (Fig. 2.7)43 was found together with amphorae of Shelov type F, variant 2А, which is dated to the AD 350s-360s.44

Wide, on an annular base, with a straight rim or one bent slightly inward. For a long time these dishes were erroneously included in African red slip ware (ARS 62B or Hayes 62В).55 However, they differ from the African specimens not only in the details of the profile, but, as it turned out, in the fabric and in the quality of the red slip. It has recently been established that they were produced in Pontic workshops. In Domżalski’s typology they are named Pontic red slip ware (PRS), form 1.56 This is the most popular form among Pontic Late Roman ceramics, and it was widely distributed in the northern, eastern and, to a lesser extent, western Black Sea littoral.57 In particular, it is often found in Crimean complexes of the 4th-5th centuries AD.58 In Tanais fragments of these dishes form the majority of red slip war finds in levels of the mid-4th to mid-5th century.59 According to the profile of the rim they can be divided into two variants. That which occurs on Chernyakhov sites (rim with growing narrow edge) is PRS form 1A, in the new typology by Domżalski,60 and ought to be dated to the second half of the 4th century AD.

The shape of this variant differs but slightly in the 4th century from that of the 2nd-3rd centuries AD, thus of decisive importance for dating is the fabric, the poor quality of the red slip, the lack of ornamentation, the rough manufacture and the thickness of walls. The specimen from Kiselovo might date to the second half of the 4th century, based on the dating of the whole settlement and the dating of the closest analogue from Druzhnoe.

DISHES African Red Slip, form 58A type. Kaborga IV cemetery, cremation grave 6. It contained the burnt fragments of a vessel (Fig. 2.9).45 Complex dated to the second quarter of the 4th century AD on the basis of feet of amphorae of Shelov type F, variant 1.46

JUGS

Wide, with annular base. The rounded walls gradually come to the bent rim. The clay is dense. Thin walls are smoothly polished. Such dishes were produced in the workshops of North Africa (modern Tunisia). According

47

Chernyakhov type. Cemetery near Chernyakhov village (Fig. 3.4).61 Cemetery dated to the end of the 3rd-third quarter of the 4th century AD. Hayes 1972, 92-96, fig. 14. Fedorov and Roshal 1979, figs. 2.5-6. 49 Symonovich and Yarovoi 1968, fig. 6.17. 50 Magomedov 1991, 17, fig. 19.8-9. 51 Magomedov and Gudim-Levkovich 2003, fig. 11.1. 52 Schultze et al. 2006, 314, 338. 53 Krapivina 1993, 110, fig. 48.21-22; Krapivina and Domżalski 2008, 79, fig. 2.1-2. 54 Magomedov 2007. 55 Hayes 1972. 56 Arseneva and Domżalski 2002, 425-26. 57 Domżalski 1996, 95-112; 1998, 23, n. 32; Opaiţ 2004, 75. 58 Aibabin 1990, 16; Sazanov 1989, 51-53; Yurochkin and Тrufanov 2007, 367, fig. 5.11-12. 59 Arseneva and Domżalski 2002, 425. 60 Krapivina and Domżalski 2008, 79. 61 Petrov 1964, fig. 10.5. 48

36

Magomedov 1979, pl. 5.4. Didenko forthcoming. 38 Raevskii 1955, fig. 4.3. 39 Kadeev and Sorochan 1989, 40-41. 40 Ushakov, 2005, 65, fig. 2.1 (type V.2). 41 Vеimarn 1963, 19, 32, fig. 7.13. 42 Khrapunov 2002, 29-30, 33, 70-71, figs. 154.4, 158.5, 175.1-2. 43 Khrapunov 2002, 15, fig. 69.12. 44 Didenko forthcoming. 45 Magomedov 1979, pl. 8.6. 46 Didenko forthcoming. 37

175

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 3: Red slip jugs from sites of the Chernyakhov culture (1, 2, 4, 7) and comparanda (3, 5, 6, 8). 1, 2 – Kaborga IV; 3 – Troesmis; 4 – Chernyakhov; 5, 8 – Chernaya Rechka; 6 – Scythian Neapolis; 7 – Gavrilovka

Low annular base, a globular body and a high cylindrical neck. The rim is rectangular in profile; the transition to the neck is ledged. The handle is flat.

type VII-4 of red slip ware of the 1st-3rd centuries AD;62 Sovchoz 10 necropolis, type VII variant 3, typical for the 2nd-the first quarter of 4th century;63 Chatyr-Dag cemetery, type 4 of red slip jugs dated to the 2nd-first half of the 3rd century.64 In the necropolis of Scythian Neapolis such jugs were found in graves of the 1st-2nd

This form is widely distributed on sites of the northern Black Sea littoral from the 1st century AD. It is known in the archaeological complexes of the 1st-2nd centuries in Histria, Pannonia and North Africa. It also appears in the classifications of various ceramics complexes of the 1st4th centuries AD from the Crimea: Ust’-Alma necropolis,

62

Vysotskaya 1994, 79. Strzheletskii et al. 2005, 98-100, pl. 21.1-7. 64 Sharov 2007, 52, fig. 13.10. 63

176

B. MAGOMEDOV AND S. DIDENKO: RED SLIP WARE IN CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE

centuries AD (Fig. 3.6).65 In Balaklava they (type 4) are dated to the 2nd-3rd centuries.66 Similar jugs became at that time one of the leading forms of red slip ware in Cherson, and they often occur in the adjoining territory.67 These jugs are rather rare on sites of the 4th century. One of them was found in crypt 20 of the Chernaya Rechka cemetery together with other objects of the first half of the 4th century,68 and it represents, in our opinion, a close parallel to the jug from the Chernyakhov cemetery (Fig. 3.5). Taking into account the additional morphological features, this form of jug has many variants, which enables a more accurate chronology to be established. For example, the publishers of the Sovchoz 10 necropolis noted that, in contrast to earlier vessels of this type, jugs of the 3rd-4th centuries have a small convexity or dent in the centre of the base, the handle becomes flatter, and the quality of the red slip worse.69 From the 3rd century AD the horizontal grooves on the neck disappear, which for vessels of the 1st-2nd centuries was a very important feature. The particulars of the jug from the Chernyakhov cemetery – its flat handle, slightly convex base and poor quality red slip – testify to its late date. Taking into account the dating of the whole cemetery and that of the latest analogue from the Chernaya Rechka cemetery, the ‘Chernyakhov type’ should be dated to the end of 3rdfirst half of the 4th century AD.

amphorae of Shelov type F, variant 1, of the second quarter of the 4th century AD.76 Fragmented jug on a low annular base; presumably had a globular body. The neck has a prominent ring just above the fastening of the handle. The rim is bent and it has a horizontal plane on the top. It is difficult to find exact analogues as the jug is fragmented. Gavrilovka type. Gavrilovka cemetery, grave 68 (Fig. 3.7).77 Complex dated to AD 330-375.78 A pear-shaped body on a low annular base; the neck is funnel-shaped, with a prominent ring on its lower part. The rim is smoothly bent outward, its edge sharpened. The handle is flat, decorated lengthwise with four grooves. Vessels with similar main features are widely distributed at Crimean sites of the Late Roman period. They occur at the Sovchoz 10 necropolis in complexes of the 3rd-4th centuries.79 Fragments of such jugs of the same period were found in the fill of a cistern in Cherson.80 However the type of jug closest to that from Gavrilovka is represented by a number of vessels from cemeteries of the Ozernoe-Inkerman type in the southwestern Crimea: Kilen-Balka cemetery in the neighbourhood of Cherson, jugs of type 2 from complexes of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century;81 Chernaya Rechka cemetery, a vessel from the grave of the second half of the 4th century (Fig. 3.8);82 Suvorovo cemetery, a jug from a grave of the second quarter of the 4th century.83 Taking into consideration the dating of Gavrilovka grave 68, this type of jug should be dated to the second or third quarters of the 4th century AD.

Kaborga, grave 5 type. Kaborga IV cemetery, cremation grave 5 (Fig. 3.2).70 Complex dated, according to amphorae imitative of Shelov type F, variant 1, to the second quarter of the 4th century AD.71 Pear-shaped jug on a low annular base; a narrow funnelshaped neck with a prominent ring in the middle. The handle is oval in profile, with riffling. There are dents where the handle was fastened to the rim and to the body. Jugs of this form were very popular in the Late Roman period throughout the empire (Fig. 3.3). Such a jug was found in an early 4th-century level in the Athenian Agora.72 These jugs were also made of metal and of glass.73 The unusual fastening of the handle on the Kaborga specimen probably imitates a glass item. Such glass jugs occur in graves of the end of 3rd-the beginning of the 4th century at Panticapaeum and in funeral complexes of the south-western Crimea dated to the first half-middle of 4th century.74 This type can be dated to the end of 3rd-first half of 4th century AD.

Viktorovka type. Viktorovka II cemetery, grave 5 (Fig. 4.4).84 Complex dated, according to amphorae of Shelov type F, variant 2В, to the third quarter of the 4th century AD.85

Kaborga, grave 6 type Kaborga IV cemetery, cremation grave 6 (Fig. 3.1).75 The complex includes bases of

A globular-biconical body, widest at the middle, and a low annular base. The neck is funnel-shaped, with a faceted prominent ring on the bottom of it. The rim has a rectangular profile. The handle is lost. There are parallels in the Crimea: the same globular body tending to the biconical, a similar rim and a prominent ring are features of a jug, dated 4th-beginning of the 5th century, found in a tomb at the Inkerman cemetery;86 the same form of vessel from a cistern filled with material of the 3rd-4th centuries in Cherson (Fig. 4.6).87 Other jugs which are morphologically similar to the Viktorovka example come

65

76

66

77

Didenko forthcoming. Symonovich 1960, pl. 9.15. 78 Petrauskas 2003, 291; Gorokhovskii 1988. 79 Strzheletskii et al. 2005, 103, pl. 23.11-13. 80 Ryzhov 1986, 132, fig. 3.5. 81 Nessel 2003, 117-18, figs. 5.5, 6.3. 82 Aibabin 1999, pl. 18.8. 83 Yurochkin and Тrufanov 2003, fig. 3.41. 84 Symonovich 1967, fig. 18.6. 85 Didenko forthcoming. 86 Vеimarn 1963, 22, 36, fig. 14.4. 87 Ryzhov 1986, 132, fig. 3.2.

Symonovich 1983, 83, pl. V.13, fig. 19.18. Nessel 2000, 153. 67 Strzheletskii et al. 2005, 98-100. 68 Aibabin 1999, pl. 15.1. 69 Strzheletskii et al. 2005, 98-100. 70 Magomedov 1979, pl. 6.2. 71 Didenko forthcoming. 72 Robinson 1959, pl. 27, M223. 73 Opaiţ 2004, 63 (Type II-A), pl. 46. 74 Kunina 1997, 310, cаt. No 280; Aibabin 1984, 113-14, figs. 2.13, 3.1, 3.14. 75 Magomedov 1979, pl. 8.8.

177

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 4: Red slip jugs from sites of the Chernyakhov culture (1, 4, 7) and comparanda (2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9). 1 – Koblevo; 2, 9 – Kilen-Balka; 3 – Luchistoe; 4 – Viktorovka II; 5, 8 – Druzhnoe; 6 – Cherson; 7 – Belenkoe

from crypt 47 of the Suvorovo cemetery88 and from grave no. 3A at Druzhnoe (Fig. 4.5).89 In the two last, as well as in the Chernyakhov grave in Viktorovka, the jugs are accompanied by amphorae of Shelov type F, variants 2А 88 89

and 2В, dated to the third quarter of the 4th century AD. Thus, the Viktorovka type dates to the same period. Koblevo type. Koblevo cemetery, grave 26 (Fig. 4.1).90 From a comb found in the grave91 and from the dating of

Puzdrovskii et al. 2001, 33, fig. 9.3. Khrapunov 2002, 15, fig. 69.11.

90

178

Symonovich 1967, fig.11.19; 1979, fig. 10.5.

B. MAGOMEDOV AND S. DIDENKO: RED SLIP WARE IN CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE

the whole site, this belongs to the middle-third quarter of the 4th century AD.

of the Ozernoe-Inkerman type. One of the finds came from a late 4th-century level in the Athenian Agora, which attests the form’s wide distribution.105 According to the complexes from the Ozernoe III, Chernaya Rechka, Suvorovo, Sovchoz 10 and Luchistoe cemeteries, these jugs date in the main to the second half of the 4thbeginning of the 5th century.106 Different variants of this type were found in the Kilen-Balka cemetery, which is dated generally to the 4th-beginning of the 5th century.107 Exact analogues are jugs from crypt 1(1991) of KilenBalka108 and from crypt 2 of Ozernoe III (Fig. 5.3-4).109 Among other goods in this tomb were amphorae of Shelov type F, variant 2С, which allow us to date this complex to AD 370-380.110 Without doubt, this type of jug was in use in the second half of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century AD.

Pear-shaped on a low annular base. Under the short funnel-shaped neck there is a stripe of dense riffling. The handle is flat, decorated lengthwise with grooves. The red slip is thin; it covers the surface unevenly and with stains. There are analogues in the Crimea. Closest to this type are jugs from the Kilen-Balka cemetery, crypt dated to the 4th-beginning of the 5th century (Fig. 4.2),92 and from the Luchistoe cemetery, grave 88 of the beginning of the 5th century (Fig. 4.3).93 The difference is only in the profile of the rim. This type dates from the second half of the 4th to the 5th century AD. Belenkoe, grave 131 type. Belenkoe cemetery, grave 131 (Fig. 4.7).94 Grave dated to the last quarter of the 4th-first quarter of the 5th century AD.

Kamenka-Anchekrak A type. Kamenka-Anchekrak settlement, chamber VII (Fig. 5.5).111 Site dated to the second half of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century AD.

Egg-shaped body, low annular base and short funnelshaped neck. The rim is rounded. The handle has two grooves lengthwise. One smaller jug of the similar shape, probably made in a local workshop, was found in Callatis in Scythia Minor.95 There are closer analogues in the Crimea, where several such jugs were found in the Druzhnoe cemetery. Two came from a grave that included amphorae of Shelov type F, variant 2А, dated to the second half of the AD 350s-360s;96 two others from graves of the second half or end of the 4th century;97 two more from a 4th-century grave (Fig. 4.8).98 Similar vessels were found in graves of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century in the Kilen-Balka cemetery (Fig. 4.9);99 and also in a grave of the second half of the 4th century at the Inkerman cemetery.100 Therefore, this type can be dated to the second half of the 4th century AD.

Spindle-shaped, on a high annular base. The lower part of the body has a decoration specific to this type but not universal for it: two wavy scratched lines which cross each other. The neck is narrow, with a prominent ring in the middle. The upper part of the neck is lost. Domżalski includes these jugs in the PRS group.112 Analogous items come from a 4th-century crypt in the Kilen-Balka cemetery (Fig. 5.6)113 and from the Late Roman stratum at Olbia.114 Similar but smaller jugs were found in the Crimean cemeteries of Tyritake,115 Krasnyi Mak (Fig. 5.7) and Sovchoz 10 (the neck of the last was made in the form for an oinochoe).116 T. Arseneva and K. Domżalski have found a fragment of this type at Tanais, in a level dated to the middle 4th-middle 5th century. They also mention three whole items kept in the museums of Ivanovo, St Petersburg and Warsaw.117 This type of jug probably copied specimens made from metal and glass, and one made of gilded silver, dated to the last quarter of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century, was found in Panticapaeum. There are analogues among glass vessels from contemporaneous Crimean sites.118 The products of Early Byzantine workshops became examples for Chernyakhov craftsmen too. They made their own ceramic and even golden imitations.119 Jugs of Kamenka-

Ranzheve type. Ranzheve cemetery, grave 2 (Fig. 5.1),101 Kiselovo and Lugovoe settlements.102 Fragments of a jug of the same type but without red slip were found on the Kamenka-Anchekrak settlement (Fig. 5.2).103 All these sites are dated to the second half of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century AD. Bottle-shaped on a flat base. The neck is short and funnel-shaped, the rim is profiled, with a sharpened edge. The handle is flat. The red slip is thin; it covers the surface unevenly and with stains. Such jugs were found in the Crimea in Cherson104 and, especially, in cemeteries

105

Robinson 1959, 109, pl. 29, M271. Aibabin 1990, 15, fig. 2.18; Zaitsev and Mordvintseva 2003, figs. 8.13, 10.15; Strzheletskii et al. 2005, 103-05, pl. 23.9-10. In Suvorovo one of the jugs is of grey colour. 107 Nessel 2003, 119-20, figs. 8.3-6, 9.3. 108 Nessel 2003, 119-20, fig. 8.6. 109 Loboda 1977, 244, fig. 6.2. 110 Didenko forthcoming. 111 Magomedov 1991, fig. 19.2. 112 Krapivina and Domżalski 2008, 79. 113 Nessel 2003, 116, fig. 5.1. 114 Krapivina and Domżalski 2008, 79, fig. 1.7. 115 Blavatskii 1941, 73, fig. 108. 116 Loboda 2005, 209, pl. II.18; Strzheletskii et al. 2005, 103-05, pl. 24.5. 117 Arseneva and Domżalski 2002, 428. 118 Zasetskaya 1993, 27, 70, pl. 5.3, 41. 119 Kropotkin 1973; Magomedov 2001, 51-53. 106

91

Shishkin 2002. Nessel 2003, 117-18, fig. 5.2. 93 Aibabin 1999, 306, pl. 22.1. 94 The excavations by A. Rosokhatski’s (Magomedov 1994, fig. 1.129). 95 Opaiţ 2004, 60 (Type II-B). 96 Khrapunov 2002, 15, fig. 69.4, 6; Didenko forthcoming. 97 Khrapunov 2002, 28, 69-70, fig. 136.1, 3. 98 Khrapunov 2002, 36, 71, figs. 194.1, 199.13. 99 Nessel 2003, 117-18, figs. 5.4, 6.5. 100 Vеimarn 1963, 22, 26, fig. 14.5; Aibabin 1999, pl. 16.3. 101 Symonovich 1979, fig. 21.17. 102 Raevskii 1955, fig. 4.1; Magomedov and Gudim-Levkovich 2003, 39. 103 Magomedov 1991, fig. 19.1. 104 Ryzhov 1986, 132-33, fig. 3. 92

179

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 5: Red slip jugs from sites of the Chernyakhov culture (1, 2, 5, 8) and comparanda (3, 4, 6, 7, 9). 1 – Ranzheve; 2, 5, 8 – Kamenka-Anchekrak; 3 – Ozernoe III; 4, 6, 9 – Kilen-Balka; 7 – Krasniy Mak

Anchekrak A type may be dated within the last quarter of 4th-beginning of the 5th century AD.

executed carelessly with a wide brush. A similar whole jug, with two handles and a narrow neck, was found in the Kilen-Balka cemetery in a crypt of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century AD (Fig. 5.9).121 The publisher of this cemetery considers vessels from the western Black Sea littoral provide the closest comparanda.122 Indeed they have a similar shape, but there is no information about

Kamenka-Anchekrak B type. Found in the same chamber as the previous (Fig. 5.8).120 Only part of the globular body remains. The base is flat. On the upper part of the body there is brown painting

121 120

122

Magomedov 1991, fig. 19.3.

180

Nessel 2003, 120, fig. 8.1. Opaiţ 1996, pl. 50.7.

B. MAGOMEDOV AND S. DIDENKO: RED SLIP WARE IN CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE

brown painting on them. From the accompanying goods, this type of jug dates to the last quarter of the 4thbeginning of the 5th century AD.

Thomas type ІІІ of the second half of the 4th century AD.136 Spindle-shaped body and a low base. A narrow neck with a prominent ring widens abruptly on the top. The rim is profiled. The upper part of the body is decorated with one or two stripes of scratched horizontal lines. The upper part of the handle is fastened to the rim. These jugs correspond to some specimens of Opaiţ ІІ-А type from Scythia Minor in the Lower Danube (Fig. 6.11).137 The jug from grave 17 of the Alexandru Odobescu cemetery can be considered a variant of this type (Fig. 6.7).138 It has a wider neck, and there is no scratched decoration.

Opaiţ III type. The finds come from cemeteries of the south-western parts of the Chernyakhov-Sintana culture: Furmanovka, accidental find, the neck is lost (Fig. 6.1);123 Nagornoe ІІ, graves 38 and 61 (Fig. 6.3), found together with goods of the second half of the 4th century;124 Kholmskoe, grave 42, fragment of neck;125 Goteshti;126 Bravicheni, grave 87 (Fig. 6.2), found together with fibulae of the last quarter of the 4th century;127 Spantov, grave 66; Alexandru Odobescu, grave 18, neck lost.128 Sometimes jugs of this type lack red slip: Nagornoe ІІ, grave 87; Bravicheni, grave 49; Birlad-Valea Seace, grave 336 (fragments).129

Birlad-Valea Seace type. Birlad-Valea Seace cemetery, graves 84 and 292 (Fig.6.5).139 From the accompanying goods the first complex is dated to the end of 4thbeginning of the 5th century AD, the second to the second half of the 4th century AD.

Pear-shaped body and a low annular base. The upper part of the body is decorated with a stripe of scratched lines. The narrow funnel-shaped neck has riffling and sometimes a prominent ring. This type corresponds to the single-handled jugs of Opaiţ III type (vessels for oil), which were distributed in provinces of the Lower Danube in the 4th century AD (Fig. 6.10).130 A brown slip jug of the same form was found in Panticapaeum together with material of the last quarter of the 4th-first half of the 5th century,131 but it has no decoration on the neck or the shoulders, which is representative of the Chernyakhov and Danubian items, and which, according to Domżalski, signifies the PRS group. Such jugs were made probably in the second half of 4th-beginning of the 5th century AD in different workshops.

Spindle-shaped body and a low base. The narrow neck widens abruptly at the top, making a sort of a cap. The upper part of the body is decorated with two stripes of scratched horizontal lines. Exact analogues are not known to us, but this form of a neck appears on two-handled jugs found in the provinces of the Lower Danube from the second half of the 5th century AD onward. 140 Opaiţ IV type. Nagornoe II cemetery, grave 5. Site dated to the second half of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century AD (Fig. 6.8).141 Aamphora-shaped single-handled jug; has a globular body with riffling and a narrow base. Such a form (often with a taller body) was widely distributed in the 4th century along the East Mediterranean littoral, as well as in western Pontic cities, where the Greek population was dominant (Fig. 6.9).142 Several such jugs have come from Crimean complexes of the 4th century: the Druzhnoe cemetery, grave 18; the out-of-town temple at Cherson, grave D; the necropolis of Panticapaeum (two items).143

Opaiţ III-A type. Budeshti settlement, building 2 (Fig. 6.4).132 A sword-dagger was found here, which helps to define the dating of the complex to within the second half of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century AD.133 Elongated body with widened upper part, and a low annular base. The neck and shoulders are decorated with riffling. It corresponds to jugs of the Opaiţ III-A type that was distributed in the Lower Danube in the 4th-6th centuries AD.134

JUGS/OINOCHOES Independenta type. Spantov cemetery, grave 35; Independenta cemetery, grave 4 (Fig. 6.6).135 The vessel from Independenta was found together with a comb of

On the sites of the Chernyakhov-Sintana culture to the west of the Danube there are many red slip jugs with a pinched mouth – oinochoes. To our regret, the presence of a surface coating on these vessels is not always mentioned in the publications. This might be explained by the low quality of the red slip and, as a result, its poor preservation. Many of the vessels lacked red slip on the surface from the very beginning, for example those from

123 The vessel is kept in the Odessa Archaeological Museum: inv. No 85986. 124 Gudkova and Schultze forthcoming. 125 Gudkova and Fokeev 1984, fig. 19.12. 126 Rikman 1975, fig. 30.31. 127 Grosu et al. 2006, 113-17, fig. 5.2 128 Mitrea and Preda 1966, figs. 92.6, 242.5. 129 Gudkova and Schultze forthcoming; Grosu et al. 2006, 113-17, fig. 3.2; Palade 2004, fig. 221.1. 130 Opaiţ 2004, 71, pl. 49.1-3. 131 Lysenko and Yurochkin 2004, 122, fig. 25.14. 132 Shcherbakova and Chebotarenko 1974, fig. 3.9; Vornic 2006, fig. 41.9. 133 Magomedov and Levada 1996, 306. 134 Opaiţ 2004, 64, pl. 49.6. 135 Mitrea and Preda 1966, figs. 56.2, 110.4.

136

Shishkin 2002. Opaiţ 2004, pl. 46.1-3. 138 Mitrea and Preda 1966, 100, fig. 241.1. 139 Palade 2004, 204, fig. 166.10. 140 Opaiţ 2004, 70, pl. 48.1, 5, 7-9. 141 Gudkova et al. 1997, 43, fig.1.5. 142 Opaiţ 2004, 64-65, pl. 49.10-12. 143 Khrapunov 2002, 68, fig. 88.6; Dombrovskii 1993, 313-15, fig. 19.2; Sorokina 1971, 94, fig. 5.1, 3. 137

181

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 6: Red slip jugs from sites of the Chernyakhov culture (1-8) and comparanda (9-11). 1 – Furmanovka; 2 – Bravicheni; 3,8 – Nagornoe ІІ; 4 – Budeshti; 5 – Birlad-Valea Seace; 6 – Independenta; 7 – Alexandru Odobescu; 9 – Histria; 10, 11 – Telita

the Baltsati, Chealyk and Mogosani cemeteries, etc.144 There is no doubt that oinochoes were produced in the provinces of the Lower Danube. Thus, the jug from Mogosani has an exact analogue in the pottery workshop

in Hotnitsa in Moesia Inferior.145 The first typology for such jugs, with or without red slip on the surface, from the sites of the Dniester-Prut interfluve was published recently.146 In this, oinochoes are divided into eight

144

145

Fedorov and Roshal 1981, fig. 2.2; Shcherbakova 1990, fig. 10.3; Diaconu 1969, Abb. 8.1-6.

146

182

Sultov 1976, 31. Vornic and Ciobanu 2005.

B. MAGOMEDOV AND S. DIDENKO: RED SLIP WARE IN CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE

Fig. 7: Red slip jug-oinochoes from sites of the Chernyakhov culture. 1 – Kholmskoe; 2, 5 – Chealyk; 3, 6 – Nagornoe ІІ; 4 – Dancheni; 7 – Furmanovka

variants, some of which coincide partly with our types; others are apparently represented by vessels without red slip (variants B, D, F and H).

know nothing about the presence of red slip) was found on the Dedulesti.152 The graves with identified dating belong to the second half of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century AD.

Kholmskoe type. Most of the items coincide with variant A in the typology of V. Vornic and L. Ciobanu: Kholmskoe cemetery grave 17 (Fig. 7.1);147 Furmanovka cemetery, grave 14, handle lost, red slip has almost disappeared;148 Nagornoe II cemetery, graves 18, 23 (Fig. 7.3) and 66;149 Chealyk cemetery, grave 22 (Fig. 7.2);150 and Budeshti cemetery, grave 228.151 A similar jug (we

Quite squat (the ratio of diameter to height is about 1:1.5 or less), on a low annular base; roundish-biconical body, sometimes just roundish, and a wide neck. Most are decorated with stripes of small grooves and with a prominent ring on the neck. The handle is oval in profile, with grooves.

147

Gudkova and Fokeev 1984, fig. 22.14. Symonovich 1988, fig. 8.14. 149 Gudkova and Schultze forthcoming. 150 Shcherbakova 1990, fig. 11.4; Vornic and Ciobanu 2005, fig. 2.1. 151 Vornic 2006, fig. 96.7.

Furmanovka type. The specimens fall under Vornic and Ciobanu’s variant C: Furmanovka cemetery, grave 8 (Fig.

148

152

183

Mitrea and Preda 1966, fig. 223.7.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

7.7);153 and Nagornoe II cemetery, graves 1 (the upper part of the body is lost), 30, 36 and 75 (Fig. 7.6).154 Graves with identified dating belong to the end of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century AD.

Nagornoe, grave 67 type. Cup. Nagornoe II cemetery, grave 67. Complex dated to the last third of the 4th century AD (Fig. 8.6).164 Semi-globular body and indiscernible edge under the rim. Wide horizontal rim decorated with round dents on the edge; a groove on the outside of the rim. Red slip ware of this form was produced in a pottery workshop in TeliţaValea Morilor in the Danube estuary dated to the second half of the 4th-first quarter of the 5th century (Fig. 8.89).165 Such decoration with round dents is more typical of cups of a similar shape made in Cnidus. They have a special shining coating and imitate the silver cups popular at that period. This Cnidian ware occurs in Scythia Minor in complexes of the end of the 4th-first half of the 5th century AD (Fig. 8.7).166 Probably the cup from Nagornoe was a local imitation of Cnidian import.

Tall (ratio of diameter to height is more than 1:1.5), on a low annular base and with a biconical body. Usually decorated in the same way as vessels of Kholmskoe type – with stripes of small grooves and with a prominent ring on the neck. In one case riffling covers the whole upper part of the body. The handles have grooves. Dancheni type. Falls under Vornic and Ciobanu’s variant E. Dancheni cemetery, grave 318 (Fig. 7.4).155 Tiny biconical jug on a low annular base; neck of middle width. Body and neck decorated with horizontal stripes. A jug of similar shape and size without red slip came from the Bravicheni cemetery. It was dated to the second half of the 4th century AD;156 the Dancheni jug may be dated to the same period.

Nagornoe, grave 60 type. Vase. Nagornoe II cemetery, grave 60. Site dated to the second half of the 4thbeginning of the 5th century AD (Fig. 8.4).167 Three-handled vase with a roundish body and cylindrical neck. Neck and shoulders decorated with horseshoeshaped stamps. We are unaware of any contemporaneous analogues. We assume that two-handled vessels of G. Popilian’ type 4 might be the initial form of this vase. These, with dark red paint, were distributed in the first half of the 3rd century in Roman Dacia and Moesia Inferior (Fig. 8.5).168 The same vessels with three handles were produced also in the Middle Danube in Pannonia and Moesia Superior (Fig. 8.3).169

Chealyk type. Vornic and Ciobanu’s variant G. Chealyk cemetery, grave 3 (Fig. 7.5). Site dated to the second half of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century AD.157 Large low jug with roundish body and a low annular base. The wide neck is decorated with horizontal riffling. A jug of the same shape but on a flat base came from Scythia Minor, and it is dated to the end of the 5thbeginning of the 6th century AD.158

***

RARE FORMS

Most of the Chernyakhov finds of red slip ware came from the Black Sea coast and from the Lower Danube, in other words from regions in which Roman-barbarian trade took place. By grouping certain types of wares we can divide this territory into two zones: the eastern zone (between the Lower Dnieper and the Lower Dniester, including the right bank of the Dniester estuary) and the western (between the Dniester and the Lower Danube) (Fig. 1).

Tyras type. Goblet. Dwelling house in the Chernyakhov level of Tyras, so-called ‘post-Gothic house’, dated to the second half of the 4th century AD (Fig. 8.1).159 Goblet with slightly convex body; has a board inclined slightly inward. Board separated from the body by sharpened edge. Base concave, on an annular foot. Different variants of such vessels were distributed in the Roman period in the northern Black Sea littoral.160 The prototype of it is Pontic Sigillata, Hayes’s form VI.161 There are many analogues to this type among finds from the south-western Crimea. The closest is a goblet from the Chernaya Rechka cemetery (Fig. 8.2).162 O. Sharov includes both goblets in the third group of late goblets (bowls) which he dates to the second half of the 4th century AD, possibly also to the first half of the 5th.163

The wares from the eastern zone are represented by bowls, plates, dishes, jugs and a goblet. They belong to two chronological groups. The early group (6 examples) came from graves of the Kaborga cemetery, dated to the first half of the 4th century, and from the Chernyakhov cemetery: the bowl of the ‘Kaborga, grave 5’ variant, the plate of the ‘Kaborga, grave 4’ variant, the dish of ‘ARS form 58A’ types, and jugs of ‘Chernyakhov’, ‘Kaborga, grave 5’ and ‘Kaborga grave 6’ types (Fig. 9A.1-3, 1012). The late group (more than 23 examples) was widely distributed, and it is dated in most cases to the second

153

Symonovich 1988, fig. 8.14. Gudkova and Schultze forthcoming. 155 Rafalovich 1986, 92; Vornic and Ciobanu 2005, fig. 5.1. 156 Grosu et al. 2006, 107, fig. 2.2. 157 Shcherbakova 1990, fig. 4.3; Vornic and Ciobanu 2005, fig. 4.6. 158 Opaiţ 2004, 62, pl. 45:6. 159 Kravchenko and Korpusova 1975, 36, fig. 8.6. 160 Sharov 2007, 74-77. 161 Hayes 1985, 94, tav. 23.7. 162 Aibabin 1990, fig. 5.13. 163 Sharov 2007, 96-99. 154

164

Gudkova and Schultze forthcoming. Baumann 1995, 409, pl. 4.5,7,10; Opaiţ 2004, 73, pl. 53.7,8. 166 Opaiţ 2004, 79, pl. 60.4. 167 Gudkova et al. 1997, fig.1.13; Gudkova and Schultze forthcoming. 168 Popilian 1976, 92, pl. 39.399-404. 169 Dautova-Ruševljan and Brukner 1992, 26, 31, tabl. 5.39. 165

184

B. MAGOMEDOV AND S. DIDENKO: RED SLIP WARE IN CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE

Fig. 8: Red slip goblet from the Chernyakhov stratum in Tyras (1), vase and cup from the cemetery in Nagornoe ІІ (4, 6) and comparanda (2, 3, 5, 7-9). 2 – Chernaya Rechka; 3 – Gomolava; 5 – Slaveni; 7 – Topraichioi; 8, 9 – Valea Morilor

jugs/oinochoes of all types, and also the rare forms – the vase and cup from the Nagornoe cemetery (Fig. 9B). There is another peculiarity of the western zone: considerable number of imported jugs without coating. For the eastern zone these are exceptional.

half of 4th-early 5th century. It contains mostly dishes of ‘PRS form 1A’; there are also bowls of type ‘Voitenki’ and of ‘Kamenka-Anchekrak, stratum of the settlement’, ‘Belenkoe, grave 131’ and ‘Viktorovka’ variants, plates of the ‘Kiselovo’ variant, jugs of ‘Koblevo’, ‘Gavrilovka’, ‘Viktorovka’, ‘Belenkoe, grave 131’, ‘Ranzheve’ and ‘Kamenka-Anchekrak’ types, and a goblet of ‘Tyras’ type (Fig. 9A.4-9, 13-20).

Such a difference in the structure of the red slip ware from Chernyakhov sites in two geographical zones is explained by the differences in the trading connections between these zones and economic centres. According to these connections all wares fall into two series.

The ware from the western zone (32 examples) is contemporary in general with the later group of the eastern zone, and it has fewer typological variants. Imported dishes and plates are not typical of this zone, and there is only one known bowl. Red slip ware is represented mostly by jugs of types unknown in the eastern zone, for example oinochoes, viz. jugs of ‘Opaiţ III’, ‘III-A’ and ‘IV’ and ‘Independenta’ types,

The vessels from the eastern zone have comparanda in the Crimea and also in Tanais. They form a ‘North Black Sea’ series, represented most impressively in the southwestern Crimea at the cemeteries of the OzernoeInkerman type, where some ceramics and other objects of

185

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 9: Types and variants of red slip ware from sites of the Chernyakhov culture. А – vessels from the eastern zone (‘North Black Sea’ series): 1 – bowl of variant ‘Kaborga, grave 5’; 2 – plate of variant ‘Kaborga, grave 4’; 3 – dish of type ‘ARS form 58A’; 4 – bowl of type ‘Voitenki’; 5 – bowl of variant ‘Belenkoe, grave 131’; 6 – bowl of variant ‘Viktorovka’; 7 – plate of variant ‘Kiselovo’; 8 – bowl of variant ‘Kamenka-Anchekrak, stratum of the settlement’; 9 – dish of type ‘PRS form 1A’; 10 – jug of type ‘Chernyakhov’; 11 – jug of type ‘Kaborga, grave 5’; 12 – jug of type ‘Kaborga, grave 6’; 13 – jug of type ‘Gavrilovka’; 14 – jug of type ‘Viktorovka’; 15 – jug of type ‘Koblevo’; 16 – jug of type ‘Belenkoe, grave 131’; 17 – jug of type ‘Ranzheve’; 18 – jug of type ‘Kamenka-Anchekrak A’; 19 – jug of type ‘KamenkaAnchekrak B’; 20 – goblet of type ‘Tyras’. В – vessels from the western zone (‘West Black Sea’ series): 21 – bowl of type ‘Nagornoe, grave 18’; 22 – jug of type ‘Opaiţ III’; 23 – jug of type ‘Opaiţ III-A’; 24 – jug of type ‘Independenta’; 25 – jug of type ‘Birlad-Valea Seace’; 26 – jug of type ‘Opaiţ IV’; 27 – jug-oinochoe of type ‘Dancheni’; 28 – jug-oinochoe of type ‘Kholmskoe’; 29 – jug-oinochoe of type ‘Furmanovka’; 30 – jug-oinochoe of type ‘Chealyk’; 31 – cup of type ‘Nagornoe, grave 67’; 32 – vase of type ‘Nagornoe, grave 60’

186

B. MAGOMEDOV AND S. DIDENKO: RED SLIP WARE IN CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE

the Chernyakhov culture were found.170 This fact demonstrates the connection between the populations of the two regions. The location of the production centres of the ‘North Black Sea’ series is not known yet. There were workshops of the Pontic region that produced the regional group of PRS in the 4th-5th centuries. Perhaps these were located on the northern Black Sea littoral. S. Ushakov has defined the variants of seven forms of red slip ware of local production, based on the finds of spoiled ceramics inside a cistern of the 3rd-4th centuries in Cherson. They were manufactured in accordance with ‘Eastern Mediterranean standards’.171

produced in North Africa and date to the 3rd-4th centuries.176 Unfortunately, the small size of the fragments does not permit the initial form of the dishes to be reconstructed, therefore they are not included in this summary. The active colonisation of this territory by barbarians took place in the second half of the 4th century. PRS, which also predominated in the Crimea and Tanais (types of the ‘North Black Sea’ series), reached the new sites of the eastern zone. The products of the Danubian workshops (types of the ‘West Black Sea’ series) came to the western zone, accompanied by amphorae from the workshops of the Lower Danube and by uncoated tableware. The sudden increase in imported goods in Chernyakhov settlements occurred in the second third of the 4th century, perhaps as one outcome of the treaty between Constantine and the Goths in AD 332, which also contained a trade agreement.

Analogues to vessels from the western zone come mostly from the provinces of the Lower Danube where they were made. They form the ‘West Black Sea’ series. Several large production centres (Butovo, Pavlikeni, Khotnitsa) were discovered in Moesia Inferior.172 They functioned in the early centuries AD and produced the Moesian group of Pontic Sigillata. Production here was brought to a halt by the Gothic wars. However, production of red slip ware developed near the Danube estuary (Scythia Minor).173 Some of the types of ware, which were also distributed in the Crimea (for example, type ‘Opaiţ IV’), could have come from the Eastern Mediterranean.

The orientation of the population of the two zones of Chernyakhov territory to different economic centres within the Roman empire might be explained not only by their geographical closeness but also by the division of the Gothic people into two branches: the Terwingi (Visigoths) and the Greutungi (Ostrogoths), each with their own political leaders and with a border along the Dniester (Jordanes 42; Ammianus 31. 3. 5). Scholars have assumed that the lower part of the river might have belonged entirley to the eastern Ostrogoths.177 We can draw the same conclusion from a message of Ammianus Marcellinus about the war of the emperor Valens against the Terwingi. In AD 369 he crossed the Danube with the help of a pontoon bridge ‘and, after a prolonged march, attacked the warlike Greutungi, which lived in remote places’ (27. 5. 6). Then the Romans met the Terwingi troops. We assume that ‘the remote places’ where the Greutungi lived, were the outskirts of Tyras. Just one road between the Danube and Dniester estuaries led to this place. Our material confirms that the west bank of the Dniester estuary (Tyras and the Belenkoe cemetery) was part of the eastern distribution zone of red slip ware (Fig. 1).

The map shows very clearly that the ‘West Black Sea’ series is located in the western zone, while ‘North Black Sea’ series in the eastern (Fig. 1). We have registered only one case when vessels of the two series were found on the same site. This is at the Belenkoe cemetery, where ware of the ‘North Black Sea’ prevails (the dish of ‘PRS form 1A’, the bowl of the ‘Belenkoe, grave 131’ variant, jugs of ‘Belenkoe, grave 131’ type, etc.), but two oinochoes of the ‘West Black Sea’ series have also been found.174 This can be explained by the site’s location on the border of the two zones. Therefore, the Chernyakhov market for imported tablewares was divided into two spheres of influence. Practically the same situation can be observed for another type of imported product – amphorae.175

The obvious difference in structure of the imported ware in the zones described justifies to some extent the division of a quite monolithic cultural area into two related cultures – Chernyakhov and Sintana de Muresh.178

The dynamic of the arrival of red slip ware in the area of the Chernyakhov culture reflects the historical situation. The first Chernyakhov sites appear on the north-western coast of the Black Sea at approximately the turn of 3rd/4th centuries AD. From the early 4th century southern Pontic amphorae as well as tableware (early group) arrived here from Pontic and Mediterranean workshops. Apart from the dish of type ‘ARS form 58A’ from Kaborga, there were also fragments of dishes of type ‘ARS form 50’ found in the same cemetery and in the settlement Kamenka-Anchekrak, which were

Bibliography Abbreviations

170

Yurochkin 1999. Ushakov 2005, 61-67. 172 Sultov 1985; Zhuravlev 1998, 35. 173 Opaiţ, 2004, 86. 174 Unpublished material from A. Rosokhatski’s excavations. The vessels are kept in the Odessa Archaeological Museum and in the Belgorod-Dnestrovski History Museum. 175 Magomedov 2006; forthcoming.

MIA

Мaterialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR.

SA

Sovetskaya Arkheologiya.

AIBABIN, A.I. 1984: ‘Problemy Khronologii mogil’nikov Kryma pozdnerimskogo vremeni’. SA 1, 104-21.

171

176

Hayes 1972, 68-73, fig. 12. Wolfram 1990, 102. 178 Kokowski 2007, 200-01. 177

187

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

chernyakhovskoi kul’tury Nagornoe II v 1993 g.’. In Аrkheologichni doslidzhennya v Ukraini 1993 roku (Kiev), 42-43.

AIBABIN, A.I. 1990: ‘Khronologiya mogil’nikov Kryma pozdnerimskogo i rannesrednevekovogo vremeni’. Materialy pо arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tаvrii 1, 5-86. AIBABIN, A.I. 1999: Etnicheskaya rannevizantiiskogo Kryma (Simferopol).

GUDKOVA, A. and SCHULTZE, E. forthcoming: ‘Gräberfeld und Siedlung Nagornoe II. Ein Fundplatz der Cernjachov-Kultur an der Unteren Donau‘.

istoriya

HAYES, J.W. 1972: Late Roman Pottery (London).

ARSENEVA, T. and DOMŻALSKI, K. 2002: ‘Late Roman pottery from Tanais’. Eurasia Antiqua 8, 41591.

HAYES, J.W. 1985: ‘Sigillate orientali’. Enciclopedia dell'arte antica, classica e orientale. Atlante delle forme ceramiche, vol. 2: Ceramica fine romana nel Bacino mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo Impero) (Rome), 1-96.

BABENCHIKOV, V.P. 1963: ‘Chornorichens’kyi mogyl’nyk’. Arkheologichni pamyatky Ukrains’koi Radyans’koi Sotsialistychnoi Respubliky 13, 90-123.

KADEEV, V.I. 1970: Ocherki istorii Khersonesa v I-IV vv. n.e. (Kharkov).

BAUMANN, V.H. 1995: Aşezări rurale antice în zona gurilor Dunării. Contribuţii arheologice la cunoaşterea habitatului rural (sec. I-IV p.Chr.) (Tulcea). BLAVATSKII, V.D. 1941: Тiritaki’. MIA 4, 61-74.

‘Raskopki

ekonomiki

KADEEV, V.I. and SOROCHAN, S.B. 1989: Ekonomicheskie svyazi gorodov Severnogo Prichernomorya v I v. do n.e.-V v. n.e. (po materialam Khersonesa) (Kharkov).

nekropolya

DAUTOVA-RUŠEVLJAN, V. and BRUKNER, O. 1992: Gomolava. Rimski period (Gomolava 3) (Novi Sad).

KHRAPUNOV, I.N. 2002: Mogil’nik Druzhnoe (III-IV vv. nashei ery) (Lublin).

DIACONU, G. 1969: ‘Das Gräberfeld von Mogoşani (Kreis Dîmboviţa)’. Dacia 13, 367-402.

KOKOWSKI, A. 2007: Goci od Skandzy do Campi Gothorum (Warsaw).

DIDENKO, S.V. forthcoming: khronologiya amfor tipa Shelov F’.

KRAPIVINA, V.V. 1993: Оl’viya: kul’tura I-IV vv. n.e. (Kiev).

‘Тipologiya

i

material’naya

KRAPIVINA, V.V. and DOMZHALSKI, K. 2008: ‘Pozdneantichnaya Ol’viya v svete nakhodok krasnolakovoi keramiki’. In Bospor i Severnoe Prichernomor’e v antichnuyu epokhu (Materialy yubileinogo mezhdunarodnogo kruglogo stola, posvyashchennogo 10-letiyu konferentsii ‘Bosporskii fenomen’) (St Petersburg), 73-81.

DOMBROVSKII, O.I. 1993: ‘Аrkhitekturnoаrkheologicheskiе issledovaniya zagorodnogo krestoobraznogo khrama Khersonesa’. Materialy pо arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tаvrii 3, 289-319. DOMŻALSKI, K. 1996: ‘Terra sigillata from Nymphaion. Survey 1994‘. Archeologia 47 (Warsaw), 95-109.

KRAVCHENKO, N.M. and KORPUSOVA, V.M. 1975: ‘Deyaki rysy material’noi kul’tury pizn’oryms’koi Tiry’. Аrkheologiya 18 (Kiev), 20-42.

DOMŻALSKI, K. 1998: ‘Iz istorii issledovaniya krasnolakovoi keramiki vostochnogo proizvodstva’. In Ellinisticheskaya i rimskaya keramika v Severnom Prichernomor’e (Тrudy Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo Muzeia 102) (Moscow), 17-29.

KROPOTKIN, V.V. 1973: ‘О datirovke kuvshina iz Chistilovskogo mogil’nika (Теrnopolskaya obl.)’. SA 3, 240-43.

FEDOROV, G.B. and ROSHAL, M.G. 1979: ‘Pogrebenie IV v. n.e. u s. Sychavka’. SA 2, 265-70.

KUNINA, N. 1997: Antichnoe steklo v sobranii Ermitazha (St Petersburg).

FEDOROV, G.B. and ROSHAL, M.G. 1981: ‘Raskopki chernyakhovskogo mogil’nika u s. Baltsata’. In Аrkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii, 19741976 gg. (Kishinev-Chişinău), 89-106.

LOBODA, I.I. 1977: ‘Raskopki mogil’nika Оzernoe Ш v 1963-1965 gg.’. SA 4, 236-52. LOBODA, I.I. 2005: ‘Raskopki Krasnomakskogo mogil’nika v 1983-1984 gg.’. Materialy pо arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tаvrii 11, 192-251.

GOROKHOVSKII, Е.L. 1988: ‘Khronologiya chernyakhovskikh pamyatnikov Lesostepnoi Ukrainy’. In Baran, V.D. (ed.), Тrudy V Меzhdunarodnogo kоngressa аrkheologov-slavistov, vol. 4 (Kiev), 34-46.

LYSENKO, A.V. and YUROCHKIN, V.Y. 2004: ‘Nekropol Pantikapeya-Bospora (po materialam issledovanii 2000-2002 gg.)’. In О drevnostyakh Yuzhnogo berega i gor Tavricheskikh (Kiev), 94-166.

GROSU, V., VORNIC, V. and CIOBANU, L. 2006: ‘Ceramica romană din necropola de tip Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov de la Brăviceni (raionul Orhei, Moldova)’. Revista arheologică n.s. 2.1-2, 104-27.

MAGOMEDOV, B. 1979: ‘Kаborga IV (raskopki 19731974 gg.)’. In Symonovich, E.A. (ed.), Mogil’niki chernyakhovskoi kul’tury (Moscow), 24-62. MAGOMEDOV, B. 1991: Kamenka-Anchekrak. Poselenie chernyakhovskoi kul’tury (Kiev).

GUDKOVA, A.V. and FOKEEV, M.M. 1984: Zemledel’tsy i kochevniki v nizov’yakh Dunaya I-IV vv. n.e. (Kiev).

MAGOMEDOV, B. 1994: ‘Belenkoe, provincia di Belgorod-Dnestrovskij, regione di Odessa (Ucraina)’. In I Goti (Milan), 88-89.

GUDKOVA, A.V., ROSOKHATSKII, A.A. and FOKEEV, M.M. 1997: ‘Raboty na mogil’nike 188

B. MAGOMEDOV AND S. DIDENKO: RED SLIP WARE IN CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE

RIKMAN, E.A. 1975: Etnicheskaya istoriya naseleniya Podnestrov’ya i prilegayushchedo Podunav’ya v pervykh vekakh nashei ery (Moscow).

MAGOMEDOV, B. 2001: Chernyakhovskaia kultura. Problema etnosa (Lublin). MAGOMEDOV, B. 2006: ‘Rimskie amfory v chernyakhovskoi kul’ture’. In Goty i Rim (Kiev), 5259.

ROBINSON, H. 1959: Pottery of the Roman Period: Chronology (Athenian Agora 5) (Princeton).

MAGOMEDOV, B. 2007: ‘Оlviya і varvary v pizn’oantychnyi period’. Аrkheologiya 4 (Kiev), 4754.

RYZHOV, S.G. 1986: ‘Kеramicheskii kоmpleks III-IV v.v. n.e. iz severo-vostochnogo raiona Khersonesa’. In Antichnaya kul’tura Severnogo Prichernomorya v pervye veka nashei ery (Kiev), 130-39.

MAGOMEDOV, B. forthcoming: ‘Roman amphorae in the context of the Chernyakhov culture’.

SAZANOV, A.V. 1989: ‘О khrоnologii Bospora rannevizantiiskogo vremeni’. SA 4, 41-61.

MAGOMEDOV, B. and GUDIM-LEVKOVICH, A.N. 2003: ‘Poselenie IV-V vv. u s. Lugovoe v Nikolaevskoi oblasti’. In Gudim-Levkovich, O.M. and Serov, O.V. (eds.), Doslidzhennya z arkheologii, istorii, etnografii pamyati N.M. Kravchenko (Kiev), 32-44.

SAZANOV, A.V. 1993: ‘Pozdnie tipy uzkogorlykh svetloglinyanykh аmfor’. Materialy pо arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tаvrii 3, 16-19. SCHULTZE, E. and LYUBICHEV, M. forthcoming: ‘Kеramika iz mogil’nika i poseleniya Voitenki 1 (Vostochnaya Ukraina): sravnitel’nyi analiz’.

MAGOMEDOV, B. and LEVADA, M.E. 1996: ‘Оruzhie chernyakhovskoi kul’tury’. Materialy pо arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tаvrii 5, 304-23.

SCHULTZE, E., MAGOMEDOV, B.V. and BUJSKICH, S.B. 2006: ‘Grautonige Keramik des Unteren Buggebietes in römischer Zeit. Nach Materialien der Siedlungen in der Umgebung von Olbia’. Eurasia Antiqua 12, 289-352.

MITREA, B. and PREDA, C. 1966: Necropole din secolul al IV-lea în Muntenia (Bucharest). NESSEL, V.A. 2003: ‘Krasnolakovaya keramika iz mogil’nika Kilen-Balka’. Khersonesskii Sbornik 12, 107-23.

SCHULTZE, E. and STROCEN, B. 2008: ’Keramik mit ovalen Facetten – eine Untersuchung zur Chronologie der Černjachov-Kultur’. Eurasia Antiqua 14, 267-332.

OPAIŢ, A. 1980: ‘Consideraţii preliminare asupra ceramicii romane timpurii de la Troesmis’. Peuce 8, 328-66.

SHAROV, O.V. 2007: Kеramicheskii kомpleks nekropolya Chatyr-Dag. Khronologiya kомpleksov s rimskimi importami (St Petersburg).

OPAIŢ, A. 1996: Aspecte ale vieţii economice din provincia Scithia (secolele IV-VI). Producţia ceramicii locale şi de import (Bucharest).

SHCHERBAKOVA, T.A. 1990: ‘Mogil’nik chernyakhovskoi kul’tury u s. Chalyk’. In Аrkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii, 1985 g. (Kishinev-Chişinău), 141-62.

OPAIŢ, A. 2004: Local and Imported Ceramics in the Roman Province of Scythia (4th-6th centuries AD) (BAR International Series 1274) (Oxford).

SHCHERBAKOVA, T.A. and CHEBOTARENKO, G.F. 1974: ‘Usad’ba pervykh vekov n.e. u s. Budeshty’. In Аrkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii, 1973 g. (Kishinev-Chişinău), 93-104.

PALADE, V. 2004: Aşezarea şi necropola de la BârladValea Seacă (sfârşitul sec. al III-lea – a doua jumătate a sec. al V-lea) (Bucharest).

SHELOV, D.B. 1978: ‘Uzkogorlye svetloglinyanye amfory pervykh vekov nashei ery; klassifikatsiya i khronologiya’. Kratkie soobshcheniya instituta arkheologii Akademii Nauk SSSR 156, 16-21.

PETRAUSKAS, O.V. 2003: ‘Die Gräberfelder der Černjachov-Kultur von Kosanovo und Gavrilovka – eine vergleichende Studie zu Chronologie, Bestattungsitten und ethnokulturellen Besonderheiten’. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 84, 223-351.

SHISHKIN, R.G. 2002: ‘Khronologicheskie priznaki trekhsloinykh grebnei chernyakhovskoi kul’tury’. In Kryzhitskii, S.D. (ed.), Suchasni problemy arkheologii (Kiev), 244-46.

PETROV, V.P. 1964: ‘Maslovskii mogil’nik na r. Tovmach’. MIA 116, 118-67.

SOROKINA, N.P. 1971: ‘O steklyannykh sosudskh s kaplyami sinego stekla iz Prichernomor’ya’. SA 4, 85101. STRZHELETSKII, S.F., VYSOTSKAYA, T.N., RYZHOVA, L.A. and ZHESTKOVA, G.I. 2005: ‘Naselenie okrugi Khersonesa v pervoi polovine І tys. n.e. (po materialam nekropolya ‘Sovkhoz no. 10’)’. Stratum plus 4, 27-277. SULTOV, B. 1976: Ancient Pottery Centres in Moesia Inferior (Sofia). SULTOV, B. 1985: Ceramic Production on the Territory of Nicopolis ad Istrum (IInd-IVth Century) (Terra Antiqua Balcanica 1) (Sofia).

POPILIAN, G. 1976: Ceramica romana din Oltenia (Craiova). PUZDROVSKII, A.E., ZAITSEV, Y.P. and NENEVOLYA, I.I. 2001: ‘Novye pamyatniki III-IV vv. v Yugo-Zаpadnom Krymu’. Materialy pо arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tаvrii 7, 32-50. RAEVSKII, K.A. 1955: ‘Nazemnye sooruzheniya zemledel’tsev mezhdurech’ya Dnepra-Dnestra v I tysyacheletii n.e’. SA 23, 250-76. RAFALOVICH, I.A. 1986: Dancheny. Mogil’nik chernyachovskoi kul’tury III-IV vv. n.e. (KishinevChişinău). 189

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Asociaţiei Naţionale a Tinerilor Istorici din Moldova 6, 25-40.

SYMONOVICH, E.A. 1960: ‘Raskopki mogil’nika u ovcharni sovkhoza Pridneprovskogo na Nizhnem Dnepre’. MIA 82, 192-238.

VYSOTSKAYA, T.N. 1994: gorodishche i nekropol’ (Kiev).

SYMONOVICH, E.A. 1967: ‘Itogi issledovanii chernyakhovskikh pamyatnikov v Severnom Prichernomor’e’. MIA 139, 205-37.

Ust’-Al’minskoye

WOLFRAM, H. 1990: Die Goten: Von Anfangen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts (Munich).

SYMONOVICH, E.A. 1979: ‘Kоblevskii i Rаnzhevskii mogil’niki okolo g. Оdessy’. In Symonovich, E.A. (ed.), Mogil’niki chernyakhovskoi kul’tury (Moscow), 63-111.

YUROCHKIN, V.Y. 1999: ‘Chernyakhovskaya keramika yugo-zapadnogo Kryma’. Khersonesskii Sbornik 10, 257-74. YUROCHKIN, V.Y. and ТRUFANOV А.А. 2003: ‘Pozdneantichnyi pogrebal’nyi kompleks v nizov’yakh reki Kachi’. Khersonesskii Sbornik 12, 199-225.

SYMONOVICH, E.A. 1983: Naselenie stolitsy pozdneskifskogo gosudarstva (po materialam Vostochnogo mogil’nika Neapolya Skifskogo) (Kiev). SYMONOVICH, E.A. 1988: ‘Pridunaiskii mogil’nik Furmanovka’. In Kropotkin, V.V. (ed.), Mogil’niki chernyakhovskoi kul’tury (Moscow), 143-63.

YUROCHKIN, V.Y. and ТRUFANOV А.А. 2007. ‘Khronologiya mogil’nikov Tsentral’nogo i YugoZapadnofo Kryma 3-4 vv. n.e.’. In Zaitsev, Y.P. and Mordvintseva, V.I. (eds.), Drevnyaya Tavrika (Simferopol), 359-82.

SYMONOVICH, E.A. and YAROVOI, A.Z. 1968: ‘Poselenie Viktorovka II v Severnom Prichernomor’e (po materialam М.F. Bоltenko)’. SA 2, 169-83.

ZAITSEV, Y.P. and MORDVINTSEVA, V.I. 2003: ‘Issledovaniya mogil’nika u s. Suvorovo v 2001 g.’. Materialy pо arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tаvrii 10, 57-77.

ТRUFANOV, А.А. and Kоltukhov, S.G. 2003: ‘Issledovaniya pozdneantichnogo nekropolya u s. Kurskoe v yugo-vostochnom Krymu’. Stratum plus 4, 278-95.

ZASETSKAYA, I.P. 1993: ‘Materialy Bosporskogo nekropolya vtoroi poloviny IV – pervoi poloviny V vv. n.e’. Materialy pо arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tаvrii 3, 23-104.

USHAKOV, S.V. 2005: ‘Khersonesskaya krasnolakovaya keramika’. Bosporskie issledovaniya 8, 61-74. VЕIMARN, E.V. 1963: ‘Arkheologichni roboty v rayoni Inkermana’. Arkheologichni pamyatky Ukrains’koi Radyans’koi Sotsialistychnoi Respubliky 13, 15-89.

ZHURAVLEV, D.V. 1998: ‘Krasnolakovaya keramika Severnogo Prichernomor’ya rimskogo vremeni: оsnovnye itogi i perspektivy izucheniya (kratkii obzor otechestvennoi literatury)’. In Ellinisticheskaya i rimskaya keramika v Severnom Prichernomor’e (Тrudy Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo Muzeia 102) (Moscow), 31-51.

VЕIMARN, E.V. and AIBABIN, A.I. 1993: Skalistinskiy mogil’nik (Kiev). VORNIC, V. 2006: Aşezarea şi necropola de tip Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov de la Budeşti (ChişinăuKishinev).

ZHURAVLEV, D.V. 2007: ‘Pontiiskaya sigillata iz mogil’nikov Baal’bek III i Baal’bek IV v YugoZapadnom Krymu’. Bosporskie issledovaniya 16, 366-448.

VORNIC, V. and CIOBANU, L. 2005: ’Căni-oenochoe romane de lut în complexele culturii Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov din spaţiul pruto-nistrean’. Analele

190

STRABO ON THE PERSIAN ARTEMIS AND MÊN IN PONTUS AND LYDIA Iulian MOGA Facultatea de Istorie, Universitatea ‘Al. I. Cuza’, Bd. Carol I, 11, 700506 Iaşi, Romania [email protected]

Abstract: Starting primarily from Stabo’s literary testimonia and extending the field of research to the other evidence related to the cults of Artemis Anaitis and Mên, mainly numismatic, iconographic and epigraphic, the paper deals with the demanding problems related to the origin, identity and perception of these deities while insisting on their polymorphic and polyonymic features as well as on the cultural adaptations and interactions in the northern and western sides of Anatolia. PERS ARTEMIS’İ ÜZERİNE STRABON’UN YAZDIKLARI VE PONTOS İLE LYDIA BÖLGELERİNDE MEN KÜLTÜ Özet: Bu bildiride Strabon’un yazınsal mirasının analiz edilmesi, Artemis Araitis ile Men’in kültlerine ilişkin olarak nümizmatik, ikonografik ve epigrafik bilgilerin derlenmesi, Kuzey ve Batı Anadolu’daki kültürel adaptasyon ve ilişkiler çerçevesinde polymorfik ve polyonymik niteliklerin irdelenmesi ile bu ilahların kökenleri, kimlikleri ve algılanışı incelenmiştir.

by a range of epigraphical, literary and numismatic sources. Strabo’s account of Asia Minor is of particular interest because he was a native of the region and he knew the context exactly.1 Besides, he presented the indigenous cultural identities at the very beginning of the gradual major process of change caused by the impact of Roman authority, political stability and the regularised pattern of administration. He described the means of organisation, the legal rights and territories of the Anatolian sanctuaries (including the presence of Magi, of the sacred slaves and the sacred prostitutes, the cult possessions and the feasts dedicated to the goddess, etc.), and the permanent intrusion of the Roman authorities in their affairs. What is of interest for our argument is that he clearly attests two facts: first, the identity of the Armenian, Median, Persian and Anatolian types of the same goddess, whom he names Anaïtis for the Microasian area, a Hellenised form of the original name, Anahita; second, the persistence of Iranian religious and cultual traditions up to Roman times (Strabo 11. 4. 7; 11. 8. 4-5; 11. 14. 16; 12. 3. 36-37; 15. 3. 13-16; 16. 1. 4).2 Strabo’s testimony relating to the identity of the goddess can also be proved by her being addressed as ‘Artemis Persike’ or ‘Persian Diana’ (Tacitus Annals 3. 61-62; Diodorus 5. 77. 6-8),3 ‘Artemis Medeia’,4 Thea/Meter/ Artemis Anaïtis,5 or ‘Thea Megiste Anaeitidi Barzochara’.6

Anaïtis and Mên are two typical examples when we deal with polymorphism and cultural adaptation. A polymorphic deity is a god that possesses different typologies according to the ethnic and cultural environment he/she is evolving into. It is a well-known fact among historians of religion that the transgression of a god from one cultural environment to another automatically implies a change of features according to regional and local perceptions (starting with the physical appearance in iconography to the cultual ones) that ultimately leads to a gradual change of identity. It determines initially the appearance of a new type and subsequently the assumption of a different identity. In some respects, this intercultural contact could determine extreme syncretic phenomena as, for example, in numerous cases in the Roman period. During the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD these could have led to a complete change of identity by full syncretisation with another divinity, the resulting god bearing the polyonymic complex features of each of the constituent divinities (in Anatolia and the Orient such cases are related, for example, to Hypsistos, Helios, Apollo and Mithra: Zeus Helios Mithra hagios Hypsistos Thourmasgades at Doura in Syria; Helios Theos Hypsistos at Pergam; Apollo Lairbenos Theos Hypsistos at Hieropolis in Phrygia; Zeus Hypsistos Brontaios at Miletupolis in Mysia; or Theos Hypsistos epekoos Helios at Amastris in Paphlagonia). In Anatolia we do not have the total syncretic phenomena to involve Anaïtis and Mên, only evidence relating to the gradual adaptation of the deities from the original features to the cultural peculiarities of the environment of adoption.

The question of the identity of the deities Anaïtis and Mên is still a matter of debate for various reasons: either 1

Syme 1995, 12-23; Mitchell 2000, 117-22. Also confirmed by Herodotus 1. 131; Pausanias 3. 16, 5. 27; Tacitus Annals 3. 61-62; Clemens Alexandrinus Protrepticus 5. 65. 1-3. 3 Boyce and Grenet 1991, 211, 217. 4 Oikonomides 1982, 115-18; Sherwin-White 1982, 30. 5 IGSK 52. 39 (which indicates the initial character of the deity as a goddess of the waters); IGSK 52. 69. 6 At Ortaköy in Cappadocia (see Harper 1967, 192-93; Boyce and Grenet 1991, 271). 2

Strabo was not the first ancient author to describe Asia Minor, but he did so in a very minute and accurate way, showing exactly the ethnic and religious complexity of the entire landmass (Strabo 12-15), being by far the most important geographer of the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Principate. His testimony is confirmed 191

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

both are of Iranian origin,7 or Mên is an indigenous Phrygian god, as we are told by the ancient authors Lucian (Iupp. Trag. 8. 42), Athenaeus (1. 17 [43b]) and Strabo (12. 3. 31), with a possible line of Hittite ancestry or at least influence,8 and Anaïtis is a pure Greek goddess in a Persian guise. The latter opinion was expressed by Maria Brosius in her study of Artemis Persike and Artemis Anaïtis,9 stating that actually we may be dealing with an Iranisation of a Greek goddess, Ephesian Artemis.10 She starts from the premise that Artaxerxes II was not only the first to impose the anthropomorphic veneration of Anahita in several of the most important capital cities of the satrapies of the empire, including Sardis, while misinterpreting him as the first to impose the dynastic cult there, ‘limited to the Persian aristocracy’.11 Taking this initial viewpoint as a reference, she tried to prove that the identification of the Persian Anahita with the Anatolian Anaïtis, nowadays widely accepted, should be rejected, mainly on the grounds of the alleged lack of iconographical resemblance between the coinage of Hypaipa and Hierakome/Hierokaisareia, a view that I do not share.12 Some further basic literature would have been really helpful in this respect.13 The use in Anatolia of different denominations for the same type of deity was a common phenomenon throughout the Roman period.14 It simply proved the distinctive

perceptions of that divinity when equating him/her to another deity from a different ethnocultural environment, thus reinforcing specific attributes and functions pertaining to both of them. This is how the triple image goddess, ‘la déesse aux trois visages’ as Turcan calls her,15 came to be identified in the Greek-type cultural environment with a common Anatolian mother goddess (thus being named Thea/Meter Anaïtis) or with the best known of mother goddesses, Cybele.16 Iranian traditions and ethnic elements endured in Anatolia and persisted throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods (at least up to the time of St Basil the Great). This was also the case with Anahita and probably with Mên,17 venerated not only by a restrained elite of Persian origin, but by extended mixed communities composed of indigenous and foreign elements. This was due, I believe, to structural transformations that took place from the beginning of the Hellenistic period. The cults of Anahita and, most probably, of Mithra and Mên lost territorial contact with the main Persian area, thus becoming ‘diaspora cults’, which underwent some alteration to their initial religious and ethnic perspectives, enabling the communities to be more permissive of external influences while preserving their initial traditions, and allowing the transformation from an ethnic-based religious system to a universal system of beliefs marked by divine epiphanies,18 personal contact with the divinity and transcendental powers.19

7

Lane 1990, 2170-73; van Haeperen-Pourbaix 1983, 236-43. See Strabo 12. 3. 31 for Mên Pharnakou. 8 Erzen 1953, 4-5; Laroche 1955, 7-23. On Semitic lineage, see also Lloyd and Brice 1951, 88-90. 9 Brosius 1998; SEG 48, 1998, 2162. 10 Contra Oster 1990, 1726-28, who defines her as ‘Artemis Ephesus, a unique amalgam of indigenous, Persian, and Graeco-Roman elements’. 11 Brosius 1998, 227-28. As Jacobs (2006, 1-3), Boyce and Grenet (1991, 200-08) and Corsten (1991, 177-78) clearly showed, it is beyond any doubt that Artaxerxes II had introduced the veneration of the cult statues. But this does not mean that the idolatry concerning Anahita started with this king, that the veneration of Anahita in the Lydian territories began during his reign, or that the cult if Anahita penetrated all areas of the empire only as a dynastic cult, and if it did, that he had been the first to bring this about. Actually the cult of Anahita penetrated the Lydian area in what was most probably a very private and not a dynastic form prior to the reign of Artaxerxes II, a fact reinforced by Cumont’s observations (1905, 24) about the peculiarity of adopting the name of the goddess in Greek. The nature of the information supplied by Clemens Alexandrinus (Protrepticus 5. 66. 3) is in itself very questionable. 12 Rather than ‘a single depiction of a goddess in a biga’ (Brosius 1998, 231), the numismatic evidence includes Waddington et al. 1976, 159, no. 2; SNG Danish Museum Lydia nos. 191, 192, 194, 196-200, 202 and 204 from Hypaipa; the Hunterian Collection nos. 429, 452-454, 478 (MacDonald 1901); RPC 7.1, 19-23; BMC Lydia nos. 11-12, 21-23, 2630, 33-36, 38 (cult statue of Artemis Anaïtis from Hypaipa; as Artemis Huntress with bow, quiver and stag at no. 40, p. 115); BMC Lydia nos. 1-10, 12, 15, 20, 22-25, 27 (from Hierakome/Hierokaisareia as Artemis Huntress with bow, quiver and stag, but named ‘Persike’; as Artemis in a biga no. 27,); from the Phrygian Apamea BMC Phrygia nos. 32-36, 40-43, 48, 61, 63, 65, 67, 83, 84, 86-89, 96 (representing a cult statue of Artemis Anaïtis; but a turreted laureate Artemis at nos. 43, 49-50, 51, 62, 64). See also Fleischer 1984; 1973, 185-87; Horsley 1992, 139. We encounter the same type of problem, concerning the double iconography (Greek and indigenous) for Artemis Pergaia, a fact that does not justify the assumption of having two different goddesses. See MacKay 1990, 2059-66; Onurkan 1969-70; Fleischer 1973, 236-54; Inan et al. 2000, 333-35. 13 For example Turcan 1975, 95-103; Diakonoff 1979; Hanaway 1982, 291; Boyce and Grenet 1991, 197-308; Corsten 1991. 14 For example in the case of confession inscriptions (Petzl 1994): Thea/Meter Phileis, Thea/Meter Leto, etc.

In the case of Diodorus Siculus (5. 77), where Anahita is mentioned as the ‘Persian Artemis’, we cannot speak of a diffusionist pattern, simply because there was no case here of the Greek variants of Artemis and Apollo spreading through those regions (Lycia, the Tauric Pontic area, Crete, Persia) that were supposed to be venerated under different local traditions, but instead of a clear example of cultural adaptation by identifying the Greek deities with those that initially belonged to other peoples, according to the Greek perception. This was done in order to show the origins of the Greek traditions that came to be assimilated from, or have connections with, those specific areas. Therefore, what we have is a totally reversed perception. As for the adoption of foreign iconographical patterns to perceive the external appearance of the lunar or solar gods such as Anaïtis or Mên, this is a common and very normal phenomenon in Roman Anatolia. For example, we have Mên, Anaïtis and an indigenous Apollo represented in the very same manner as the Anatolian Dioscuri and the so-called ‘Pisidian goddess’, even if their cultural origins are actually different (Fig. 1a-b), or 15

Turcan 1975, 90-104. Corsten 1991, 165-78. See also the very interesting work by Rein (1993, especially 121-28). Note also the fact that during Achaemenid rule she was identified rather with Cybele and afterwards rather with Artemis, because of the reinforcement of her militant warrior qualities even in the Iranian world (Hanaway 1982, 291-92). 17 Lepelley 1998, 382; Sartre 1995, 318-19. 18 See also Boyce and Grenet 1991, 225-27 for the case of Anaïtis. 19 Smith 1971, 237-38: ‘It was a shift … from “birthright” to “convinced” religion.’ 16

192

I. MOGA: STRABO ON THE PERSIAN ARTEMIS AND MÊN IN PONTUS AND LYDIA

Fig. 3: (a). Mâ as a luni-solar goddess (after Debord 2005, 21, fig. 3); (b). Artemis Pergaia as a luni-solar goddess (after Onurkan 1969-70, pl. 57.4)

Mên and Mithra represented as horsemen on Pontic coinage.20 We also have typical solar or lunar gods represented commonly as luni-solar gods, in order to show that they are perceived as universal and omnipotent: in Fig. 2 (a-b) the typical lunar god, Mên, and the typical solar god, Helios Apollo Lairbenos, share the same iconographical features, as do the Anatolian Bellona-Mâ (Fig. 3a) and Artemis Pergaia (Fig. 3b). The same trend is also attested epigraphically by the so-called phenomenon of polyonymy, which consists of attributing multiple divine names to a divinity in order to increase his/her powers. In the case of Mên this had even led to the presence on the same inscription of the two or more isomorphic variants of the very same god: Mên Petraeites and Mên Labanes,21 or Mên (Mis) Labanas and Mên (Mis) Artemidorou,22 and Mên (Meis) Axi(o)ttenos and Mên (Meis) Tiamou.23 Therefore, the iconographical identification that sometimes occurs between Anaïtis and Ephesian Artemis or Cybele was a completely understandable phenomenon to increase the prestige of local cults by adopting the iconographical features of the most prominent deities.

Fig. 1: (a). The Motaleis: Anaïtis, Mên and Apollo of Hierapolis (after Ritti 2002, 58); (b). The Dioscuri and the Psidiam Goddess (after G.H.R. Horsley, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Burdur Archaeological Museum [British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Monograph 34] [London 2007], 31, no. 27, pl. 31)

Bibliography Abbreviations ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (Berlin/New York). BMC

British Museum Catalogue.

IGSK

Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien (Bonn).

LIMC

Lexikon iconographicum mythologiae classicae.

20 And so does Ephesian Artemis. See Robert 1983, 49-54; Bonnet 1977, 41-43, 51, 62, 162-63, 174 (figs. 43, 47, 48). 21 Petzl 1994, nos. 35, 37. 22 Petzl 1994, no. 36. 23 Petzl 1994, no. 67.

Fig. 2: (a). Mên Ploutodotes as a luni-solar god (after LIMC VI.1, 239, no. 1); (b). Helios Apollo Lairbenos represented as a luni-solar god (after Ritti 2002, 58)

193

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

RPC

M. Spoerri Butcher, Roman Provincial Coinage, vol. 7: De Gordien Ier à Gordien IIIe (238-244 après J.-C). I: Province d’Asie (Paris/London 2006).

LANE, E. 1990: ‘Men: A Neglected Cult of Roman Asia Minor’. ANRW 2.18.3, 2161-74. LAROCHE, E. 1955: ‘Divinités lunaires d’Anatolie’. Revue de l’histoire des religions 148, 1-24.

SEG

Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum.

SNG

Danish Museum Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals. Danish National Museum, vol. 5: Ionia, Caria and Lydia (West Milford, NJ 1982).

LEPELLEY, C. (ed.) 1998: Rome et l’integration de l’Empire, 44 av. J.-C.-260 apr. J.-C., vol. 2: Approches régionales du Haut-Empire romain (Paris). LLOYD, S. and BRICE, W. 1951: ‘Harran’. Anatolian Studies 1, 77-111.

BONNET, J. 1977: Artémis d’Éphèse et la légende des sept dormants (Paris).

MacDONALD, G. 1901: Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, University of Glasgow, vol. 2 (Glasgow). MacKAY, T.S. 1990: ‘The Major Sanctuaries of Pamphylia and Cilicia’. ANRW 2.18.3, 2045-2129.

BOYCE, M. and GRENET, F. 1991: A History of Zoroastrianism, vol. 3: Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 8, Religion; 1. Abschnitt, Religionsgeschichte des alten Orients) (Leiden/New York/Copenhagen/ Cologne).

MITCHELL, S. 2000: ‘Ethnicity, Acculturation and Empire in Roman and Late Roman Asia Minor’. In Mitchell, S. and Greatrex, G. (eds.), Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity (London/Swansea), 11750. OIKONOMIDES, A.N. 1982: ‘Artemis Medeia’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 45, 11518. ONURKAN, S. 1969-70: ‘Artemis Pergaia’. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 19-20, 289-98. OSTER, R.F. 1990: ‘Ephesus as a Religious Center under the Principate, I. Paganism before Constantine’. ANRW 2.18.3, 1661-1728.

BROSIUS, M. 1998: ‘Artemis Persike and Artemis Anaïtis’. In Brosius, M. and Kuhrt, A. (eds.), Studies in Persian History: Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis (Achaemenid History 11) (Leiden), 227-38. CORSTEN, T. 1991: ‘Herodot I 131 und die Einführung des Anahita-Kultes in Lydien’. Iranica Antiqua 26, 163-78. CUMONT, F. 1905: ‘Notes sur le culte d’Anaïtis’. Revue Archéologique, 24-31. DIAKONOFF, I. 1979: ‘Artemidi Anaeitidi anestesen. The Anaeitis-Dedications in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden at Leyden and Related Material from Eastern Lydia. A Reconsideration’. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 54, 139-88.

PETZL, G. 1994: ‘Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens’. Epigraphica Anatolica 22, 1-175. REIN, M.J. 1993: The Cult and Iconography of Lydian Kybele (Dissertation, Harvard University).

ERZEN, A. 1953: ‘Ay tanrısı Men’in adı ve Menşei hakkında/Sur le nom el l’origine de la divinité lunaire Men’. Belleten 17, 1-14.

RITTI, T. 2002: ‘Documenti epigrafici dalla regione di Hierapolis’. Epigraphica Anatolica 34, 41-70. ROBERT, L. 1983: ‘Les dieux des Motaleis en Phrygie’. Journal des Savants, 45-63.

FLEISCHER, R. 1973: Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien (Leiden).

SARTRE, M. 1995: L’Asie Mineure et l’Anatolie d’Alexandre à Diocletien (IVe s. av. J.-C. IIIe s. ap. J.-C.) (Paris).

FLEISCHER, R. 1984: ‘Artemis Anaitis (Hypaipa)’. LIMC II.1, 753-54.

SHERWIN-WHITE, S.M. 1982: ‘“Median” Artemis in an Early Hellenistic Funerary Inscription’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 49, 30.

HANAWAY, W.I. 1982: ‘Anahita and Alexander’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 102.2, 28595.

SMITH, J.S. 1971: ‘Native Cults in the Hellenistic Period’. History of Religions 11, 236-49.

HARPER, R. 1967: ‘A Dedication to the Goddess Anaïtis at Ortaköy, North of Aksaray (Nitalis?)’. Anatolian Studies 17, 192-93.

SYME, R. 1995: Anatolica: Studies in Strabo (ed. A. Birley) (Oxford).

HORSLEY, G.H.R. 1992: ‘The Mysteries of Artemis Ephesia in Pisidia: A New Inscribed Relief’. Anatolian Studies 42, 119-50.

TURCAN, R. 1975: Mithras Platonicus: Recherches sur l’hellénisation philosophique de Mithra (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'Empire romain 47) (Leiden). van HAEPEREN-POURBAIX, A. 1983: ‘Recherche sur les origins, la nature et les attributes du dieu Mên’. In Doncel, R. and Lebrun, R. (eds.), Archéologies et religions de l’Anatolie ancienne. Mélanges en l’honneur du professeur Paul Naster (Homo Religiosus 10) (Louvain-la-Neuve), 221-57.

INAN, J., ATIK, N., ŐZTÜRK, A., ALAYANLI, H.S. and ATEŞ, G. 2000: ‘Vorbericht über die Untersuchungen an der Fassade des Theaters von Perge’. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 285-340. JACOBS, B. 2006: ‘Anahita’. Iconography of Deities and Demons (consulted 14 November 2006).

194

I. MOGA: STRABO ON THE PERSIAN ARTEMIS AND MÊN IN PONTUS AND LYDIA

WADDINGTON, W.H., BABELON, E. and REINACH, T. 1976: Recueil général des monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure, vol. 1 (in 4 fasc.) (Paris; repr. Hildesheim/New York).

195

FINDS OF ROMAN COINS OF ASIA MINOR PROVINCIAL MINTAGE IN THE TERRITORY OF CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE Kyrylo MYZGIN Department of Russian History, History Faculty, V.N. Karazin Kharkov National University, Svobody Square, 4, 61045 Kharkov, Ukraine [email protected]

Abstract: This paper focuses on the finds of Roman coins of Asia Minor mintage in the territory of the Chernyakhov culture. The number of coins of provincial mintage is 175 (0.8% of all finds of Roman coins within this territory), including only 6 coins minted in the provinces of Asia Minor. These coins can be divided into three chronological groups. The penetration into Chernyakhov territory of coins of Groups 2 and 3 can be connected with Gothic participation in the naval campaigns in Asia Minor in AD 256-275. Our findings are consistent with other sources. Finds of coins minted in Asia Minor in particular localities of Chernyakohov territory are evidence of participants in the campaigns settling far inland after the conclusion of the wars. CHERNYAKHOV KÜLTÜRÜNDE ANADOLU KÖKENLİ ROMA SİKKELERİ Özet: Bu bildiri Chernyakhov kültürü sınırları içerisindeki Anadolu kökenli Roma sikkelerini konu edinmiştir. Yerel baskılı sikke sayısı 175’dir (Roma sikkelerinin % 0.8’i bu bölgedendir); bunlardan 6 tanesi Anadolu’daki eyaletlerde basılmıştır. Bu sikkeler üç kronolojik gruba ayrılır. Chernyakhov kültürü içine 2. ve 3. grup sikkeler Anadolu’da İ.S. 256-275 arasında varolan Goth istilası ile bağlantılı olabilirler. Buluntular diğer kaynaklarla da örtüşür. Chernyakhov kültürü sınırları içinde ele geçen Anadolu kökenli sikkeler savaşların sonunda iç bölgelere yerleşen askeri sefer katılımcılarla ilgili delilleridir.

The circulation of Roman coins in the Late Roman period in the Ukrainian forest-steppe regions and in Moldova is traditionally connected by scholars with the existence of the Chernyakhov culture here (3rd-beginning of the 5th century AD). Nowadays it is well known that more than 25,000 Roman coins have been found in the territory of this culture including about 3000 coins (12%) as single finds and about 22,000 (88%) as treasures/hoards (Fig. 1).1 Only 175 types (0.8%) of the coins above are of provincial Roman mintage; and only the six types of coins given below were actually minted in Asia Minor (Fig. 2).

5) About 1887 a silver denarius of Lucius Verus (AD 161-169) minted in one of the towns of Asia Minor was found near the town of Smela, Cherkassy region.6 6) About 2000 a copper coin of Gordian III (AD 238244) minted in Trapezus was found near the village Khrushchovaya Nikitovka of Kharkov region (Fig. 3).7 Little has been written about them. As a rule, scholars were not much concerned with the spread of provincial coins among the Chernyakhov population. B. Magomedov was the first to address this problem. He considered the finds of Roman coins minted in Asia Minor to be closely connected with the sources of obtaining Roman coins by the Goths.8

1) In 1960 a bronze coin of the town of Tium minted during the reign of the emperor Gordian III (AD 238244) was found near the village of Belyaevka, Odessa region.2

The abovementioned coins can be divided in three compact chronological groups:

2) In 1931 a bronze coin of Caracalla (AD 211-217) minted in the town of Cessarium was found near the village of Ponyatovka, Odessa region.3

Group 1: AD 161-169 (coin of Lucius Verus); Group 2: AD 211-218 (coins of Caracalla and Macrinus);

3) About 1980 a bronze coin of Macrinus (AD 217-218) minted in the town of Sinope was found near the village of Dumanov, Khmelnitskii region.4

Group 3: AD 238-268 (two coins of Gordian III and one coin of Gallienus).

4) In 1822 a bronze coin of Gallienus (AD 253-268) minted in the town of Ephesus was found near the village of Shimkovcy, Khmelnitskii region.5

The finds of silver denarii of the 2nd century AD, which includes the coin in Group 1, are typical of the territory of Chernyakhov culture. Denarii of early mintage predomi-

1

5

2

6

Myzgin 2008, 52. Kropotkin 2000, 32, no. 1874. 3 Kropotkin 1966, 90, no. 97; 2000, 33, no. 1902. 4 Kropotkin 2000, 55, no. 2334.

Kropotkin 2000, 38, no. 1994. Kropotkin 1961, 89, no. 1256. 7 Published for the first time. 8 Magomedov 2008, 173.

197

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 1: Finds of Roman coins in the territory of Chernyakhov culture. 1. Single finds; 2. Treasures

How coins minted in Asia Minor were obtained by the Chernyakhov population is connected with the second stage of the Scythian wars (AD 256-275), in which the Scythians’ main goal was to occupy the provinces of Asia Minor. The plunder of the Bosporus and Tanais was followed by that of the Asia Minor provinces, carried out by land and naval campaigns.13 The coastal cities of Asia Minor, such as Chalcidian, Nicomedia, Nicaea, Ephesus and Troy, were plundered;14 minor naval campaigns to the islands of Rhodes, Crete, Cyprus, on the south coast of Asia Minor were undertaken at this time (Fig. 4).15 If we assume that the coins of Groups 2 and 3 were in circulation in the Asia Minor provinces by the time of the second stage of the Scythian wars, we can explain how the Germanic population obtained them – by plunder of the provinces mentioned. This is shown by finds of coins from the cities of Ceasarea, Sinope, Ephesus, Trapezus and Tium that used to be plundered by the Goths. The coin from Group 1 could have been received in the first war stage as well as at the second one.

nate among numismatic finds in the Chernyakhov area, forming 52% of single finds and about 80% of coins found in hoards.9 Traditionally, scholars have explained this by the higher silver content of these coins than later emissions. Tacitus (Germania 5) draws our attention to the German tribes’ preference for coins of earlier mintage. The most active debasement of the coinage began under Septimius Severus (AD 193-211), under his rule the silver content of a coin was 57% compared with 36% under Trebonianus Galus (AD 251-253).10 Nevertheless, for Chernyakhov culture the silver denarius of Lucius Verus is a unique find: it was of provincial mintage whereas almost all coins were minted in Rome. The coins of Group 2 are the rarest in Chernyakhov territory. They constitute less than 1% among single finds and 0.3% of hoards. Their emission dates back to the period of distributing copper and bronze face values that is connected with the outbreak of economic and political crisis in the Roman empire.11 The coins of Group 3 are less rare but they form only 1.6% of single finds and 0.2% of hoards. Mostly these are copper and silver face values.12

On the basis of written sources describing the first (AD 238-254) and the second (AD 256-275) stages of the Scythian wars, we can assume that the scale of the

9

Myzgin 2008, 53. Kastan and Fuster 1996, 41. 11 Myzgin 2008, 53. 12 Myzgin 2008, 53-54.

13

Magomedov 2008, 173. Volfram 2003, 81-82. 15 Magomedov 2001, 136-37; 2008, 173.

10

14

198

K. MYZGIN: FINDS OF ROMAN COINS OF ASIA MINOR PROVINCIAL MINTAGE IN THE TERRITORY OF CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE

Fig. 2: Finds of Roman coins of Asia Minor provincial mintage in the territory of Chernyakhov culture. 1. Chronological group 1; Chronological group 2; 3. Chronological group 3

Fig. 3: Roman coin of Asia Minor provincial mintage (Gordian III) from the village Khrushchovaya Nikitovka (Kharkov region, Ukraine)

plunder of the Roman provinces was much greater in the latter than in the former. However, numismatic evidence rebuts this: while 17 Roman coins date back to the first stage of the wars, only 6 definitely belong to the second. The small number of bronze and copper coins of the Gothic war period could be explained by the Goths wishing to obtain high quality silver coins; they simply

did not want provincial bronze and copper money, and if they got some, they recycled it by melting it down to produce parts of clothes (buckles, fibulae) or weapons. Unfortunately, a comparative analysis of the metal of provincial coins and that of Chernyakhov manufactured articles that could elucidate the issue has yet to be undertaken. 199

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 4: The second stage of the Scythian wars (AD 256-275). 1. Campaign of 250-251; 2. Campaign of 257; 3. Campaign of 263; 4. Campaign of 264; 5. Campaign of 269-270; 6. Border of Roman empire; 7. Borders of Roman provinces

new finds of such coins can either confirm or reject these conclusions.

According to Zosimus (1. 33. 3), having completed the campaign its participants returned home rich with booty. Therefore, finds of coins minted in Asia Minor in the Odessa regions of the Dniester provide further confirmation that the initial localisation of the participants in the campaign was in the north-western Black Sea region. Finds of similar coins in other regions (Khmelnitskii and Kharkov) are evidence of campaigners settling far inland after the conclusion of the wars.

Bibliography KASTAN, K. and FUSTER, K. imperatorskie monety (Moscow).

1996:

Rimskie

KROPOTKIN, V.V. 1961: Klady rimskikh monet na territorii SSSR (Arkheologiya SSSR G 4-4) (Moscow).

Thus, although we possess a small number of Roman coins minted in Asia Minor, their detailed analysis allows us to draw some conclusions about how and when they penetrated into the territory of Chernyakhov culture. Only

KROPOTKIN, V.V. 1966: ‘Novye nakhodki rimskikh monet v SSSR’. Numismatika i Epigraphika 6, 74102. 200

K. MYZGIN: FINDS OF ROMAN COINS OF ASIA MINOR PROVINCIAL MINTAGE IN THE TERRITORY OF CHERNYAKHOV CULTURE

KROPOTKIN, V.V. 2000: ‘Dopolnenie k spisku nakhodok rimskikh monet’. Stratum plus 6, 20117.

the Empire: Ways and Phases, Contexts and Functions (Warsaw), 171-78. MYZGIN, K.V. 2008: ‘K voprosu o vremeni postupleniya rimskikh monet v sredu Chernyakhivskogo naseleniya’. Vesthik Kharkovskogo National’nogo Universiteta 816, 50-63.

MAGOMEDOV, B.V. 2001: Chernyakhivskaya kul’tura. Problema etnosa (Lublin). MAGOMEDOV, B.V. 2008: ‘Coins as a source of insight on Chernyakhiv tribes’. Roman Coins Outside

VOLFRAM, K. 2003: Goty (St Petersburg).

201

BITHYNIA, PAPHLAGONIA AND PONTUS ON THE TABULA PEUTINGERIANA Alexander V. PODOSSINOV Institute of General History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninskii Prospect 32A, 117334 Moscow, Russia [email protected]

Abstract: The Tabula Peutingeriana is the only ancient map which represents the territory of the Black Sea. It dates back to the first centuries AD and reflects the geographical, ethnographic and political situation of this period. On it, the Black Sea looks like a long belt stretched from the west to the east. On the southern shore many geographical subjects are depicted and indicated: three political unities (Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Pontus Polemoniacus) that have a southern boundary with, correspondingly, Phrygia, Galatia and Cappadocia; ten rivers flowing into the Black Sea; a route along the sea from the Thracian Bosporus up to Trapezus which has junctions with other routes at three points – Sinope, Polemonium and Trapezus; the citizens of the Pontus Polemoniacus (Pontici); and 34 cities or stations on the route, the majority of them known also from other sources (various peripli, Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemy, etc.). Two details of the representation of the territory of Paphlagonia and Pontus are of particular interest. The first is the inscription ‘Pontus Polemoniacus’ which is painted not on the mainland, but on the sea. Two explanations are possible: first, the cartographer had not enough room for this inscription and wrote the designation of the land on the neighboring sea; second, the word Pontus in this inscription could mislead him and he thought that it was a part of the Black Sea and not a land. The second peculiarity of the map is the location of Trapezus on the north-eastern shore of the Black Sea. Various interpretations will be discussed. TABULA PEUTINGERIANA’DA BITHYNIA, PAPHLAGONIA VE PONTOS Özet: Tabula Peutingeriana Karadeniz’in sınırlarını gösteren tek eski harita olup, İ.S. 1. yy.’a tarihlenir ve o dönemin coğrafi, etnografik ve politik durumunu gösterir. Bu harita üzerinde Karadeniz batıdan doğuya uzanan bir kemer gibidir. Güney kıyısında birçok coğrafi alanlar gösterilmiş ve belirtilmiştir: sınırları güneyde Phrygia, Galatia ve Kappadokia ile çakışan üç politik bölge (Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Pontos Polemonicous), Karadeniz’e dökülen 10 ırmak; Thrakia Bosporosu’ndan Trapezus’a uzanan ve Sinope, Polemonium ve Trapezus’ta üç noktada kesişen bir yol; Pontos Polemoniacus’un (Pontici) vatandaşları; bu yol üzerinde çoğu çeşitli peripli, Strabon, Plinius, Ptolemios gibi başka kaynaklardan bilinen 34 adet kent ya da istasyon. Paphlagonia ve Pontos’un sınırlarının gösterilmesi konusunda iki ayrıntı çok önemlidir. Birincisi karada değil de, denizde resmedilmiş olan “Pontos Polemoniacus” ibaresidir. Bu durum için iki açıklama geçerli olabilir. Birincisi haritacının bu yazıt için yeterince yeri olmamasıdır. Bu yüzden de komşu deniz kıyısına yazıyı yazmıştır. İkincisi ise yazıttaki Pontos ibaresi haritacıyı yanıltmıştır ve haritacı bu ibareyi bir kara parçası olarak değil de, Karadeniz’in bir parçası olarak algılamış olabilir. Haritadaki ikinci tuhaflık ise Trapezus’un yerinin Karadeniz’in kuzeydoğusunda göstermiş olmasıdır. Bildiride bu konuda farklı yorumlar tartışılacaktır.

The so-called Tabula Peutingeriana (or Peutinger’s map), a Latin map now held in the National Library in Vienna,1 is the only cartographical relic of antiquity that represents the territory of the Black Sea and its southern coast. It contains important information about the geography and history of this region.

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 map 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 commensurate compression on the vertical axis northsouth.

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 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 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 map 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 1

The most important and at the same time the most difficult question of the historical interpretation of the 2

For a facsimile edition, see Weber 1976.

203

Levi 1967.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

map 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.3

road are named with miles distances between many of them. The majority of stations (cities) are known also from other sources (various peripli, Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemy, Arrian, etc). They are from the west to the east:5 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 (Phigamus?) – 20 – Polemonio (Polemonium) – 8 – Melantum (Melanthius) – 36 – Carnasso (Cerasus) – 24 – Zepyrium (Zephyrium) – 11 – Philocalia – 30 – Cordile (Cordyle) – 16 – Trapezunte (Trapezus).6 Some of these ‘stations’ are in reality rivers (such as Philium-Psillis, Helega-Halys?, Caena-Oenoe or Melantum-Melanthius). The names of the rivers, mentioned above, were also depicted as names of the stations on this road.

The majority of historians believe that the Tabula Peutingeriana derives from an official itinerary of the roads of the Roman empire, destined for use by officials. One of the copies from such an itinerary could be the Tabula Peutingeriana.4 Here we will analyse the information on the map concerning the southern shore of the Black Sea, the coastal territory of Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Pontus (Segm. IX.1-X.3). On this map, 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. The coastline is indicated, as usual, by a wavy line, without any differentiation. On the southern shore, many political and geographical subjects are depicted and indicated.

The road has junctions with other roads 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 the inland roads. So, from the other sources we know that from Sinope a southern trade road crossed the mountains giving access to the valley of the River Amnias. From Polemonion a Roman road ran southward to the Lykos valley and joined the great Roman road which ran from Nikomedeia to Satala. Trapezus was also an important carrefour of the trade roads; indeed it was already so since the time of Xenophon, who used it during his famous march to the Black Sea. Amisos had such a junction too, but our map does not show it. The distances given on the map between stations are mostly not too precise.

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. It is strange that the inscription Pontus Polemoniacus is painted not on the mainland, but on the sea. Two explanations are possible: first, that the cartographer had insufficient space for this inscription and wrote the designation of the land on the neighbouring sea; second, that the word Pontus (‘Sea’) in this inscription could have misled him and he thought that it was a part of the Black Sea and not a land. In every case the inscription Pontus Polemoniacus testifies that the mapmaker knew this name of the province, which goes back to the first half of the 1st century AD.

5 For their identification with the ancient names (given in parentheses) and modern localities and names see in: Danoff 1911, 1036-46, 106265; Miller 1916b, 629-55. On Roman roads in the Asia Minor, see French 1980. Numerals between names indicate the distances in Roman miles. 6 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 – Kytoros – 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 – 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 – Apsaros (PPE 1-7; 12-16).

The map has here only two names of people: one of the citizens of Pontus Polemoniacus (Pontici) written on the shore of the Black Sea. It is interesting that Strabo also mentions that Cappadocians who live at the Pontus Euxinus had a name Pontici (11. 8. 4). The second name, Bechiricae, must be a name of the region, Bechirica, dwelt in by the people called Bechiri (in Greek Becheires). According to the ancient tradition, they occupied the coastal territory eastwards from Trapezus. 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 rivers are without names. Along the sea from the Thracian Bosporus up to Trapezus a road is depicted. Thirty-two cities or stations on the 3

Weber 1989, 113-17. See the study of the Tabula Peutingeriana in Podossinov 2002, 287378; Prontera 2003.

4

204

A.V. PODOSSINOV: BITHYNIA, PAPHLAGONIA AND PONTUS ON THE TABULA PEUTINGERIANA

One detail of the representation of the territory of Paphlagonia and Pontus is of particular interest. It is the 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 turns to the north and goes along the eastern coast and surprisingly from the east to the west on the northern coast of the Black Sea. For all this, the road after Trapezus continues to name the other stations and cities of the Pontic coast of the Black Sea up to Apsaros 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 (Apsaros).7 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.

Pontic Trapezus, erroneously depicted on the northern coast, and this error belonged to a certain Roman cartographical tradition. Already Franz Cumont, who discovered and first published the map from Dura-Europos, came to the conclusion that this map goes back to the same cartographical and itinerary-writing tradition as the Itinerarium Antonini, the Tabula Peutingeriana and the Cosmographia of Anonymous of Ravenna.13 That is why we can consider the location of Trapezus on the northern coast of the Black Sea as not accidental, but as an appropriate phenomenon, peculiar to the cartographical tradition. It is interesting that this tradition influenced other literary geographical descriptions of antiquity and the early Middle Ages which are closely connected with the maps. So, the Latin historian Jordanes in the 6th century AD gave in his Getica a description of the northern Black Sea coast and enumerated the following seaside cities: ‘Borysthenide, Olbia, Callipolida, Chersona, Theodosia, Careon, Myrmicion et Trapezunta’ (Getica 32). Trapezus, as we see, appears here among the cities of the northern part of the Pontus Euxinus.

The prominent expert on this map, Konrad Miller, thought that this aberration had been a result of the lack of space on the surface of the map for this part of the road belonging to the southern shore of the Black Sea,8 or of ‘the low level of his geographical knowledge’.9 It is quite possible. Nevertheless, I think it is not only the error of the mapmaker. I see the same error in some other maps and geographical descriptions.

Around the year 700, the unknown author from Ravenna wrote a cosmography, which, on the one hand, has many common features with the Tabula Peutingeriana, and on the other hand, 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).

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 Dura-Europos on the Euphrates in Syria in the 1920s.10 The fragment shows part of the Black Sea shore in a form of the lightly curved coastline. There are some names, written in Greek, of cities and rivers of the western and the northern coast of the Pontus Euxinus from Odessos in modern Bulgaria up to Trapezus and Artaxata. These are the names: Panysos potamos, Odessos, Bybona, Kallatis, Tomea, Istros potamos, Danubis potamos, Tyra, Borysthenes, Chersonesos, Trapezus, Artaxata.

These facts make it very probable that the erroneous location of Trapezus reflects a certain Roman cartographic traditional. What could be the origin of this aberration? As we saw, a prototype of the Tabula Peutingeriana dates back to the famous world map of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, who died in 12 BC. This map, in the opinion of most researchers, became a standard work and example for many following centuries.14 The map itself is not preserved, but we know the boundaries of the regions and provinces on it from the late Roman treatises Divisio orbis terrarum and Demensuratio provinciarum.15 So, Sarmatia and Scythia have as a southern boundary a certain provincia Pontica.16 This means the southern

Many historians see in Trape(zus) the name of the city in the south-eastern shore of the Black Sea (modern Trabzon), and in Arta(xata) the name of the Armenian capital.11 But the coastline is represented on the map as a slightly curved arch. This circumstance compelled some historians to locate these names elsewhere, more particularly in the Crimea.12 In my opinion, this is South

13 Cumont 1926, 336-37. Cf. the stemma that R. Rebuffat (1986, 99 and 102) created for ‘Bouclier’. 14 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). O. Dilke considers Agrippa’s map as ‘the most important map in Roman cartography’ (in Harley and Woodward 1987, 207). 15 See edition and study of both works in Schnabel 1935; Podossinov 2002, 62-76. 16 ‘Sarmatia, Scythia Taurica. Hae finiuntur ab oriente iugis montis Caucasi, ab occidente flumine Borysthene, a septentrione oceano, a meridie provincia Pontica’ (Div. 15; Demens. 9; vgl. Pliny NH 4. 91).

7

For Arrian’s data about these localities, see n. 6. 8 Miller 1916a, 11. 9 Miller 1916b, 632. 10 For editions and studies of this map, see Cumont 1925; 1926, 323-37; Uhden 1932; Elnitskii 1937; Mititelu 1943; Dilke 1985, 120-21; Dilke, in Harley and Woodward 1986, 85-105; Arnaud 1988; 1989; Podossinov 1999; 2002, 80-101. 11 Cumont 1925, 7-8; 1926, 329-31; Elnitskii 1937, 244-46; Rebuffat 1986, passim; Podossinov 2003. 12 Uhden 1932, 118-19; Dilke 1987; Arnaud 1988; 1989; Brodersen 1995; Salway 2004, 93-94.

205

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Pontus Polemoniacus, instead of the Bosporan kingdom. How could this be possible? What did Agrippa have in mind?

ELNITSKII, L.A. 1937: ‘Novyi istochnik geografii drevnego Severnogo Prichernomor’ya’. Vestnik drevnei istorii 1, 240-46. FRENCH, D.H. 1980: ‘The Roman Road-system of Asia Minor’. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.7.2 (Berlin/New York), 698-729.

It is important to remember that Agrippa was the man who made the Bosporan kingdom a part of the Pontic province. In 14 BC, the Pontic king, Polemon I, annexed the Bosporan kingdom to his realm and married the Bosporan queen, Dynamis. The whole action was planned and realised by Agrippa, who arrived in person at Sinope and himself ordered the operation (Dio Cassius 54. 24. 56). This means that the Bosporan and the Pontic kingdoms were for Agrippa one indivisible political entity – provincia Pontica. During the next two years before his death Agrippa worked on his Chorographia. The ‘United States of Pontus’ existed only until the year 8 BC,17 but by then Agrippa was already dead and did not see the disintegration of his creation. I suggest that the perception of the Bosporan kingdom as a part of the Pontic realm, where Trapezus was one of the most important cities, could cause the transference of this Pontic city on Agrippa’s map to the northern coast of the Black Sea.

HARLEY, J.B. and WOODWARD, D. (eds.) 1987: The History of Cartography, vol. 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). 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. 2. Ausg. (Stuttgart). MITITELU, I. 1943: ‘Itineraria Romana: Le Bouclier de Dura Europos’. Buletinul Societăţii Numismatice Romîne 37, 78–91.

Agrippa himself bears no responsibility for this geographical error. As we know from Pliny the Elder, the map was created and exposed in the Porticus Vipsania only after the death of Agrippa according to his commentarii (Pliny NH 3. 17). The mapmaker had to deal just with these commentarii, where instead of the Bosporan kingdom and in place of it, the Pontic province was marked. Thanks to the high authority of Agrippa's map this error could have been preserved in later geographical and cartographical works.18

OLSHAUSEN, E. 1980: ‘Pontos und Rom (63 v. Chr.–64 n. Chr.)’. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.7.2 (Berlin/New York), 903-12. PODOSSINOV, A.V. 1999: ‘Chernoe more v kartograficheskoi traditsii antichnosti i rannego srednevekov’ya’. Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy (for 1996-97), 237-52.

Bibliography

PODOSSINOV, A.V. 2002: Vostochnaya Evropa v rimskoi kartograficheskoi traditsii (Moscow).

ARNAUD, P. 1988: ‘Observations sur l'original du fragment de carte du pseudo-bouclier de DouraEuropos’. Revue des études anciennes 90, 151-62.

PODOSSINOV, A.V. 2003: ‘Das Schwarze Meer in der geokartographischen Tradition der Antike und des frühen Mittelalters. I. Lokalisation von Trapezus’. Ancient West & East 2.2, 308-24.

ARNAUD, P. 1989: ‘Une deuxième lecture du "bouclier" de Doura-Europos’. Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Comptes rendus des séances de l'année 1989, 373-89.

PRONTERA, F. (ed.) 2003: Tabula Peutingeriana: Le antiche vie del mondo (Florence).

BRODERSEN, K. 1995: Terra Cognita: Studien zur römischen Raumerfassung (Spudasmata 59) (Hildesheim).

SCHNABEL, P. 1935: ‘Die Weltkarte des Agrippa als wissenschaftliches Mittelglied zwischen Hipparch und Ptolemaeus’. Philologus 90, 405-40.

CUMONT, F. 1925: ‘Fragment de bouclier portant une liste d'étapes’. Syria 6.1, 1-15.

UHDEN, R. 1932: ‘Bemerkungen zu dem römischen Kartenfragment von Dura Europos’. Hermes 67, 11725.

REBUFFAT, R. 1986: ‘Le Bouclier de Doura’. Syria 63, 85-105.

CUMONT, F. 1926: Fouilles de Doura-Europos (19221923) (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 9) (Paris).

WEBER, E. (ed.) 1976: Tabula Peutingeriana. Codex Vindobonensis 324, vollständige Faksimile Ausgabe im Originalformat (Graz).

DANOFF, C.M. 1911: ‘Pontos Euxeinos’. Revue épigraphique suppl. 9, 866-1920.

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.

DILKE, O.A.W. 1985: Greek and Roman Maps (London). 17 18

Olshausen 1980, 910-11. For more detail, see Podossinov 2003.

206

CULTES ISIAQUES EN PONT ET PAPHLAGONIE Jean-Louis PODVIN Université du Littoral Côte d’Opale, 34, Grande Rue, BP 751, 62321 Boulogne-sur-Mer Cedex, France [email protected]

Résumé: Les cultes isiaques, consacrés à la déesse d’origine égyptienne Isis, à son compagnon Sérapis, et aux dieux associés Anubis, Harpocrate et Apis, se sont répandus, de la fin du IVe siècle avant notre ère à la fin du IVe siècle de notre ère, dans l’ensemble du bassin méditerranéen. L’Asie mineure n’est pas à l’écart de ce phénomène religieux que des témoignages épigraphiques, littéraires ou archéologiques permettent d’appréhender. On pense évidemment à Sinope, d’où est censée être venue la statue de Sérapis sous les premiers Ptolémées selon les auteurs anciens (Tacite, Plutarque, Clément d’Alexandrie). Pourtant, aucun élément isiaque d’époque hellénistique n’a été découvert à Sinope, et il faut attendre l’époque romaine pour y trouver des attestations épigraphiques et monétaires de ces cultes. D’autres sites ont également apporté des témoignages isiaques pour la période romaine. C’est le cas de Pompeiopolis, de Gölkoÿ, d’Abonuteichos-Ionopolis, Amastris, Gangra-Germanicopolis, Néoclaudiopolis, Trébizonde, Amaseia et Amisos. Plusieurs temples sont connus. Les émissions monétaires d’une part, la participation des élites de la cité à ces cultes d’autre part, montrent que ces divinités isiaques paraissent bien disposer d’un statut officiel à l’époque romaine, d’autant que c’est aussi probablement au début de l’époque impériale qu’il convient de dater la fixation de la légende concernant l’origine de la statue canonique de Sérapis. PONTOS VE PAPHLAGONIA’DA ISIS KÜLTLERİ Özet: Mısır kökenli Isis, Serapis ile buna bağlı Anubis, Harpokrates ve Apis kültleri İ.Ö. 4. yy.’ın sonundan İ.S. 4. yy.’a kadar tüm Akdeniz havzasında yayılıp, saygı görmüştür. Küçük Asya da bu durumdan epigrafik, yazınsal ve arkeolojik olarak payını almıştır. Sinope’de antik yazarlardan Tacitus, Plutarkhos ve İskenderiyeli Klement’in belirttiği üzere Ptolemaioslar devrinde dikilen bir Serapis heykeli vardır. Bu kentte Hellenistik devirdeki Isis kültüne ilişkin bugün pek bir şey bulunmasa da, Roma devrinden Isis’e ilişkin epigrafik ve nümizmatik bazı öğeler mevcuttur. Bu kent dışında Karadeniz’deki başka yerleşimlerden de Isis ile ilgili Roma dönemine ilişkin bazı emareler mevcuttur. Bu tür emarelere Gölköy’deki Pompeiopolis, Abonuteikhos-Ionopolis, Amastris, Gangra-Germanikopolis, Neoklaudiopolis, Trapezond, Amaseia ve Amisos’da rastlanır. Birçok tapınağın yeri bilinmemektedir. Sikkelerin emisyonları ile kentlerin elitlerinin bu külte katılımları Roma devrinde Isis kültünün bölgede resmi bir statü kazandığını göstermektedir.

Les cultes isiaques, consacrés à la déesse d’origine égyptienne Isis, à son compagnon Sérapis, et aux dieux associés aux premiers rangs desquels il convient de classer Anubis, Harpocrate et Apis, se sont répandus, de la fin du IVe siècle avant notre ère à la fin du IVe siècle de notre ère, dans l’ensemble du bassin méditerranéen, que ce soit dans les espaces géographiques proches de l’Égypte ou dans d’autres, beaucoup plus éloignés. Transformés par leur passage à Alexandrie, ce ne sont plus des cultes égyptiens à proprement parler mais des cultes hellénisés. L’Asie mineure n’est pas à l’écart de ce phénomène religieux que des témoignages épigraphiques, littéraires et archéologiques permettent d’appréhender.

L’ARRIVEE DE LA STATUE DE SERAPIS DE SINOPE JUSQU’EN ÉGYPTE L’association du nom de Sérapis avec celui du royaume du Pont fait immanquablement penser à la fameuse statue canonique du dieu. Tacite et Plutarque rapportent que le premier Ptolémée a créé le dieu Sérapis suite à une apparition du dieu qui lui ordonnait d’aller chercher sa statue dans le royaume du Pont. D’après Tacite (Histoires 4. 83-84), Ptolémée, après avoir demandé aux prêtres qui cette statue représentait et où elle se trouvait, apprit qu’elle trônait dans un temple près de Sinope. Il aurait dans un premier temps oublié cet oracle et ce n’est qu’après une seconde apparition divine, qui le menaçait de sa perte s’il ne s’exécutait pas, qu’il fit quérir la statue. Il l’obtint avec difficulté au bout de trois ans – le roi du Pont hésitait à la laisser partir – non sans avoir couvert le souverain de cadeaux. Tacite ajoute que le retour vers l’Égypte se fit en deux jours seulement. La version de Plutarque (De Iside et Osiride 28) est très proche mais, selon lui, la statue aurait été dérobée par les envoyés de Ptolémée. Ce n’est qu’à son arrivée en Égypte qu’elle est interprétée comme une représentation de Sérapis par Timothée, prêtre des mystère à Eleusis, et Manéthon de

Les contacts entre l’Égypte et les espaces qui ont été sous la domination territoriale des Lagides ont pu être directs, et l’on discute encore aujourd’hui pour savoir si cela constitue une volonté délibérée des Ptolémées ou non. Cette interrogation ne saurait convenir pour le Pont et la Paphlagonie, deux espaces restés en dehors de la sphère de domination lagide, et il semble même qu’il faille plutôt attendre l’époque romaine pour voir ces cultes y apparaître véritablement sans jamais, cependant, y connaître un succès exceptionnel. 207

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Sébennytos, celui qui divisa l’histoire égyptienne en une trentaine de dynasties; à Sinope, on considérait cette statue ‘canonique’ du dieu trônant, Cerbère à ses pieds, comme une représentation de Hadès-Pluton.

concerne donc les hautes sphères de la société provinciale romaine, dans un cadre officiel, en accord avec l’empereur. La mention d’un navarque sur la stèle rédigée en latin de C. Numisius Primus6 demeure, en revanche, plus ambiguë: s’agit-il vraiment d’un prêtre isiaque qui officiait à l’occasion de la fête du Navigium Isidis, au moment de la fête de l’ouverture de la navigation du mois de mars, ou d’une tout autre fonction à caractère militaire, liée à la flotte?

D’autres auteurs anciens comme Clément d’Alexandrie (Protreptique 4. 48. 2). font se dérouler l’arrivée de la statue, envoyée par le peuple de Sinope pour remercier le roi lagide de lui avoir fourni du blé, sous le règne de Ptolémée II Philadelphe. L’auteur ne semble pas mettre en doute l’origine géographique de Sinope, mais il indique ensuite que d’autres y voient une idole du Pont (Clément d’Alexandrie Protreptique 4. 48. 3). Pourtant, il se pourrait que cette référence à Sinope soit à mettre en relation avec une des collines de Memphis du nom de Sinopion et non avec la ville des bords de la mer Noire,1 pour laquelle aucune attestation de culte de Sérapis n’existe pour la période hellénistique.

À côté de ces quelques témoignages épigraphiques, et d’une terre cuite fragmentaire d’Isis, relevée à l’endroit considéré comme le temple de Sérapis,7 c’est surtout le monnayage en l’honneur de Sérapis qui est particulièrement riche à Sinope, puisque pas moins d’une soixantaine d’émissions différentes y sont connues,8 qui s’étalent sur deux siècles, de Vespasien à Gallien: le dieu est présenté dans diverses positions, qu’il soit couché sur un lit (Fig. 1), debout comme sur une monnaie de Diaduménien (Fig. 2), ou par sa tête seule, aisément reconnaissable au calathos qui le coiffe, tête à droite sur une monnaie de Geta (Fig. 3), tête à gauche sur une autre de Maximin le Thrace (Fig. 4). Isis n’est, pour sa part, attestée que sur le monnayage de Titus et Marc Aurèle. C’est encore Apis à droite qui se tient debout, à corps humain et tête de taureau, devant un autel sur une émission d’Antonin le Pieux (Fig. 5) ou sur une autre de Sévère Alexandre.9

SINOPE, CENTRE ISIAQUE A L’EPOQUE ROMAINE En dépit de ces éléments, il est incontestable que Sinope a été un centre isiaque, mais plus tardivement, à l’époque romaine. C’est d’ailleurs à ce moment-là que la ‘légende’ concernant la statue de Sérapis semble avoir été établie, car elle a probablement été forgée a posteriori. Plusieurs inscriptions ont été relevées à Sinope, qui attestent la présence du culte de Sérapis. Elles sont rédigées en grec et datées du IIe siècle ap. J.-C., ce qui correspond d’ailleurs au moment où écrivent Tacite et Plutarque.

AUTRES SITES DE PONT ET PAPHLAGONIE

La première inscription,2 sur un autel en calcaire, remercie Zeus Hélios Sarapis et Isis myrionyme d’avoir exaucé un vœu. Elle est le fait d’un citoyen de Tios3 et de Tomi, un certain Stratoneikos, fils d’Evarestos. Sur un autre document épigraphique,4 c’est Aouitos Phoraris qui adresse une prière au dieu Héliosarapis.

À Pompeiopolis, un préfet de la 1ère cohorte des Thraces, Katonios Maker, adresse une dédicace (RICIS 309/0401) à la bonne Tykhè, à Zeus Hélios Sarapis, à Isis et aux sunnaoi theoi, leurs compagnons Anubis, Harpocrate et Apis. De son côté, un autre personnage (RICIS 309/0402), Asklépiadès d’Ancyre, omet Isis et les dieux sunnaoi mais associe Tykhè et Zeus Hélios Sarapis. On peut donc en déduire qu’un temple à Sérapis se dressait en ce lieu aux IIe-IIIe siècles, associé à Tykhè et aux dieux sunnaoi, mais ces derniers étaient sans doute présents dans des chapelles secondaires.

Une inscription sur une base en pierre malheureusement disparue mentionne une statue placée près du ‘pur Sérapis’: il s’agit ici probablement d’une allusion à la statue du dieu Sérapis, ce qui laisse à penser qu’un temple était dressé à cet endroit. L’évocation du Conseil (Boulè) paraît donner au culte un caractère officiel, au moins au niveau municipal, d’autant que la personne mentionnée est issue d’une importante famille de Sinope, honorée par les empereurs.5 L’hypothèse est d’ailleurs renforcée par une autre dédicace qui remercie un certain Klaudios […], président de l’assemblée provinciale du Pont, descendant de Klaudios Potélios et frère de la clarissime Klaudia Paulè, prêtresse de la déesse Isis (RICIS 309/0104). Cela

À Gölkoÿ, une dédicace fragmentaire sur un autel mentionne Zeus Sérapis, mais sans information supplémentaire (RICIS 309/0501). Les autres sites ne sont connus que par le monnayage isiaque qui y est frappé. A Abonuteichos-Ionopolis, c’est 6 RICIS 309/0101. Le personnage en question, C. Numisius Primus, exerce des fonctions municipales (édile, duumvir) et il est prêtre de l’empereur Auguste. Cette stèle rédigée en latin date de l’époque augustéenne. 7 Summerer 1999, 149. Il s’agit de B II 6, p. 180, conservée au musée archéologique de Sinope. 8 Waddington 1904, 202, 204-08, 210, n° 113, 115-117, 128-130, 136138, 143, 145-147, 152, 154-158, 160, 169, pl. XXVII-XXVIII; Bricault et al. 2008; RICIS p. 474 n.1. 9 Waddington 1904, 206, n° 145 et pl. XXVIII.13 prend la représentation du taureau momifié pour une jambe surmontée d’une tête de taureau, sans identifier Apis.

1

Mise au point claire dans Malaise 2005, 130-31. Nous renvoyons au RICIS pour les traductions de ces inscriptions: RICIS 309/0102. 3 Dans la cité de Tios en Bithynie, un monnayage d’Antonin et Marc Aurèle représente Isis debout avec sistre et sceptre. 4 RICIS 309/0105. Le nom d’Héliosarapis ou d’Héliosérapis est assez rare. On le retrouve pourtant sur des lampes naviformes à Pouzzoles et Néa Paphos. 5 Dunand 1973, 114-15; RICIS 309/0103. La mention des empereurs fait peut-être allusion au règne conjoint de Marc Aurèle et Lucius Verus. 2

208

J.-L. PODVIN: CULTES ISIAQUES EN PONT ET PAPHLAGONIE

Fig. 1: Sérapis sur la klinè sur une monnaie de Caracalla (Sinope)

Fig. 4: Buste de Sérapis à gauche sur une monnaie de Maximin le Thrace (Sinope)

Fig. 2: Sérapis debout à gauche sur une monnaie de Diaduménien (Sinope)

Fig. 5: Apis à droite sur une monnaie d’Antonin le Pieux (Sinope)

Fig. 3: Buste de Sérapis à droite sur une monnaie de Géta (Sinope)

Fig. 6: Isis à la voile sur une monnaie de Faustine la jeune (Amastris)

jeune. La tête de Sarapis ou le dieu trônant, ainsi qu’Harpocrate ornent d’autres pièces d’Antonin et Marc Aurèle; Apis apparaît sur des pièces de Faustine, Lucius Verus et Géta (Fig. 8).10 À Gangra-Germanicopolis, ce sont à nouveau Apis et Sarapis – ce dernier debout ou trônant – sur des monnaies sévériennes11 et, à Néoclaudiopolis, le buste de Sérapis sur des monnaies d’Antonin et Commode.12 À Trébizonde, Sarapis apparaît sur des émissions des IIeIIIe siècles, que ce soit en buste13 ou debout.14 C’est le cas 10

Waddington 1904, 139, n° 40 et pl. XVIII.32 pour Sérapis trônant à droite; 143, n° 64 pour une tête de Sérapis à droite d’Antonin le Pieux; 143, n° 65 et pl. XIX.18 pour Sérapis trônant à gauche d’Antonin le Pieux; 147, n° 101 et pl. XX.14 pour Sérapis trônant de Marc Aurèle; 147, n° 102 pour Apis à droite de Marc Aurèle; 149, n° 119 et pl. XX.24 pour la tête d’Isis et le sistre de Faustine la jeune; 149, n° 120 et pl. XX.25 pour Isis Pharia de Faustine; 150, n° 134 et pl. XX.35 pour Apis à droite de Faustine; 152, n° 143 et pl. XX.40 pour Apis à droite de Lucius Verus; 154, n° 164 et 166, pl. XXI.11 et 13 pour Apis à droite de Géta; Dunand 1973, 113-14. 11 Pour Sérapis assis Waddington 1904, 162, n° 6, pl. XXII.5; pour le dieu debout, 162, n° 12 et pl. XXII.10; 166, n° 41; RICIS 309/0600. 12 Waddington 1904, 170, n° 6 et pl. XXIII.12; RICIS 309/0700. 13 Magie 1953, 180. 14 Waddington 1904, 110 et 112, n° 23 et 36, pl. XV.23 et XVI.3.

Fig. 7: Tête d’Isis sur une monnaie de Faustine la jeune (Amastris)

le buste d’Isis à droite qui figure sur une émission de Marc Aurèle, et celui de Sérapis à droite sur une autre de Lucius Verus. À Amastris, Isis Pélagia tenant la voile (Fig. 6), Isis en buste, un sistre à la main, ou encore la tête de la déesse (Fig. 7) sont représentées sur des monnaies de Faustine la 209

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 8: Apis marchant à droite sur une monnaie de Géta (Amastris)

Fig. 9: Sérapis debout à gauche sur une monnaie d’Orbiana (Trébizonde)

Fig. 10: Sérapis trônant à gauche sur une monnaie d’Antonin le Pieux (Amaseia)

personnages soient isiaques, il est en revanche probable que leurs parents l’étaient et qu’ils ont voulu, en leur attribuant ces noms, témoigner de leur ferveur à l’égard des divinités isiaques. En tout cas, ils attestent une ambiance isiaque qui paraît faire défaut ici.

sur une monnaie d’Orbiana, épouse de Sévère Alexandre, debout, à gauche, bras droit levé et sceptre du bras gauche (Fig. 9). Un temple à Sérapis est mentionné à Amaseia;15 Sérapis est également visible sur le monnayage local, d’Antonin le Pieux à Sévère Alexandre, en passant par Caracalla.16 Ainsi, sous Antonin le Pieux (Fig. 10), le dieu figure trônant à gauche, tenant le sceptre dans la main gauche levée alors que la dextre est baissée en direction de Cerbère, couché à ses pieds.

Les divinités isiaques, de par leur présence sur les monnaies de nombreuses cités littorales de Pont et Paphlagonie d’une part, et de la participation des élites de la cité à leurs cultes d’autre part, paraissent bien disposer d’un statut officiel à l’époque romaine. Ont-elles été favorisées par les autorités impériales, notamment dans la seconde moitié du IIe siècle? La chose est fort possible, d’une part puisque l’on voit mal comment les cités auraient pu agir en totale indépendance, et d’autre part parce que ce moment correspond au floruit des cultes isiaques dans d’autres espaces du monde romain. C’est aussi probablement au début de l’époque impériale qu’il convient de dater la fixation de la légende concernant l’origine de la statue « canonique » de Sérapis trônant, alors qu’il semble bien que d’autres statues aient été privilégiées auparavant. C’est peut-être l’influence de cette légende qui explique que Sérapis soit davantage honoré que sa compagne Isis, d’après les différents témoignages recueillis à ce jour en Pont et Paphlagonie.

Amisos a donné à la fois des monnaies et des terres cuites isiaques. Le monnayage concerne Sérapis trônant, ou encore Isis avec sistre et situle pour l’époque d’Hadrien,17 et Sarapis debout pour Caracalla (RICIS 310/0100). Les terres cuites montrent Isis sous la forme d’un buste ou d’une tête. Le basileion ne laisse aucun doute sur l’interprétation, et une couronne composée de feuilles et de rosettes encadre la tête, à l’arrière de ce basileion.18 Harpocrate paraît avoir été également représenté, en étroite relation avec Dionysos à qui il emprunte les grappes de raisin.19 On peut s’étonner aussi de la quasi-absence de noms théophores à connotation isiaque dans l’espace du Pont et de la Paphagonie, alors qu’à Héraclée du Pont, en Bithynie, plusieurs noms de ce type ont été repérés: Isias, Isidora, Isigénès et Sarapion.20 Notons toutefois une Isidora à Vezir Köpri.21 S’il n’est pas sûr du tout que ces

Bibliographie Abréviations

15

Olshausen 1990, 1869; RICIS 310/0200. Tous deux se fondent, pour l’attestation, sur Vita Basilisci 1.4 (non vidi). 16 Waddington 1904, 29-30, n° 13 bis et 15, pl. IV.15; 37, n° 69, pl. V.19; 42, n° 109, pl. VI.14. 17 Waddington 1904, 64, n° 97-98, pl. IX.16-17. 18 Summerer 1999, 60-61 et 180, pl. 18, B II 1-7. Elles sont conservées au Louvre, au British Museum, au musée de Berlin (disparue), ou ont été vendues sur le marché de l’art munichois. Pour une étude sur les terres cuites isiaques découvertes en Asie mineure, cf. Podvin à paraître. 19 Summerer 1999, 63, pl. 19, B IV 1, au musée du Louvre. 20 Dunand 1973, 113, d’après IG II², 8688, 8689, 8690, 8691, 8692 pour les noms théophores calqués sur Isis, IG II², 8609 pour celui calqué sur Sérapis. 21 Dunand 1973, 115, d’après CIG 4181.

CIG

Corpus inscriptionum Graecarum.

IG

Inscriptiones Graecae.

RICIS

L. Bricault, Recueil des inscriptions concernant les cultes isiaques (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 31), 3 vols. (Paris 2005).

BRICAULT, L., DELRIEUX, F. et LESCHHORN, W. 2008: ‘Troade, Mysie, Bithynie, Paphlagonie, Pont’. Dans Bricault, L. (éd.), Sylloge Nummorum Religionis Isiacae et Sarapiacae (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 38) (Paris), 97-111. 210

J.-L. PODVIN: CULTES ISIAQUES EN PONT ET PAPHLAGONIE

Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.18.3 (Berlin/New York), 1865-1906.

DUNAND, F. 1973: Le Culte d’Isis dans le bassin oriental de la Méditerranée, III: Le culte d’Isis en Asie mineure: clergé et rituel des sanctuaires isiaques (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'empire romain 26.3) (Leyde).

PODVIN, J.-L. à paraître: ‘Figurines isiaques en terre cuite d’Asie mineure’. Dans les Actes du Colloque Figurines en terre cuite dans l’Orient méditerranéen (Izmir, 2-6 juin 2007).

MAGIE, D. 1953: ‘Egyptian Deities in Asia Minor’. American Journal of Archaeology 57, 163-87.

SUMMERER, L. 1999: Hellenistische Terrakotten aus Amisos: ein Beitrag zur Kunstgeschichte des Pontogebiets (Geographica historica 13) (Stuttgart).

MALAISE, M. 2005: Pour une terminologie et une analyse des cultes isiaques (Mémoires de la Classe des lettres, Académie Royale de Belgique, collection in-8o, 3e sér., t. 35) (Bruxelles).

WADDINGTON, W.H. 1904: Recueil général des monnaies grecques d’Asie mineure, I, 1er fasc.: Pont et Paphlagonie (Paris).

OLSHAUSEN, E. 1990: ‘Götter, Heroen und ihre Kulte in Pontos – ein erster Bericht’. In Aufstieg und

211

INVESTIGATION OF THE LATE SCYTHIAN CINDER HEAP ON THE SITE OF CHAIKA NEAR EVPATORIA IN THE NORTH-WEST CRIMEA Elena A. POPOVA Department of Archaeology, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Vorobiovy Gory, 119992 Moscow, Russia

Tatiana V. EGOROVA Department of Archaeology, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Vorobiovy Gory, 119992 Moscow, Russia [email protected]

Abstract: During 2005-07 the Crimean Archaeological Expedition of Moscow State University examined a hillock 2.5-3 m high beyond the late Scythian settlement. As a result, its stratigraphy was determined, enabling the reasons for its appearance and the formation of the levels to be ascertained. The two earliest levels were formed while the site was in use as a sacred place for a cult of fire and hearth. This kind of monument is usually called a ‘cinder heap’. Three levels of it functioning as such were identified. Each is a horizontal layer intensively enriched with ashes and the remains of ruined clay hearths. The fragments of fireplaces were buried in small shallow pits. The cinder from the used hearths was thrown down into them also. The third level is composed of a number of horizontal streaks of cinder and charcoal with large amount of fireplace ruins spread about the whole area disorderedly. According to the finds of ‘Megarian’ bowls and amphora stamps the first two levels date to the late 2nd-middle 1st century BC; the third to the late 1st century BC-early 1st century AD. The sacred character of the heap is confirmed by the find of a terracotta altar decorated with female figures with joined hands in low relief (possibly ‘three dancing nymphs’). White priming partly preserved on its surface is evidence that the altar was made painted. The material of the third level of the heap reflects the performance of a cult of fertility and home: clay imitations of cereal seeds, olives and a loaf of bread were found. In the third period of its existence the cinder heap ceased to be used as a sacred place and was overbuilt with a farmhouse complex of dwellings and a granary. There were two rooms and deep (up to 1.5 m) pear-shaped grain pits. Some of them are fully preserved from the stone facing of the lip to the clay plastering of the bottoms and walls. The complex is dated to the middle-late 1st century BC. KUZEYBATI KIRIM’DA EVPATORIA KENTİNDEKİ CHAIKA YERLEŞİMİNDE BULUNAN GEÇ İSKİT CÜRUF YIĞINLARI ÜZERİNE ARAŞTIRMALAR Özet: 2005-2007 yılları arasında Moskova Üniversitesi’ndeki Kırım Arkeolojik araştırmalar ekibi 2.5-3 m yüksekliğindeki bir Geç İskit yükseltisini inceledi. Bu araştırmanın sonucu olarak bu yükseltinin stratigrafisi incelendi ve görüntüsü için sebepler açıklanarak katmanlaşması kesinleştirildi. İki en erken devir yerleşimi bir kutsal alan olarak ateşin ve ocağın kültü için kullanıldığı dönemde en erken iki tabakası oluşmuştur. Bu tür anıtlar “cüruf yığınları” olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Bu şekilde kullanılan üç adet seviye tespit edilmiştir. Bunlardan her biri küllerle ve toprak ocakların kalıntıları ile güçlendirilmiştir. Ocak yerlerinin parçaları küçük yayvan çukurlarda saklandı. Kullanılmış ocaklardaki küller de buralara atıldı. Üçüncü tabaka yatay cüruf damarlarından ve büyük oranlardaki ocak kalıntılarının her tarafına dağılmış kömürlerinden oluşur. Megara kaseleri ve amphora damgalarına bakarak ilk iki tabaka İ.Ö. 2. yy.’ın sonu ve 2. yy.’ın ortasına, üçüncü seviye ise İ.Ö. geç 1ç yy.’ ile İ.S. erken 1. yy.’a tarihlenir. Buradaki yığının kutsal karakteri alçak kabartma şeklinde yapılan ve elleri arkada birleşmiş şekilde tasvirlenmiş kadın figürlerinin bulunduğu terrakotta altar ile teyid edilmiştir (olasılıkla “dans eden üç güzel”). Yüzeyinde korunan renkler altarın boyanmış olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Yığıntının üçüncü tabakasında ele geçen buluntular bereket ve ev kültü ile ilgili bir aktiviteyi yansıtmaktadır: kilden tahıl gevreği, zeytin ve somun ekmek modelleri bulundu. Yığıntı üçüncü döneminde bir kutsal alan olarak kullanıldı ve üzerinde konut alanı ve tahıl ambarı bulunan bir çiftlik evi inşa edildi. Burada iki oda ve 1.5 m derinliğe kadar derinleşen armut biçimli tahıl çukurları vardır. Çukurların bir kısmının toprak tabanlarından taş dizilmiş ağızlarına kadarki kısımları ve duvarları korunmuşturlar. Bu bina kompleksi İ.Ö. 1. yy.’ın ortasına ya da sonuna tarihlenir.

In the last quarter of the 4th century BC-first half of the 1st century AD there was a Late Scythian settlement at Chaika in the north-western Crimea, near the city of Evpatoria/Eupatoria. In 2005-07, the Crimean Archaeological Expedition of the Department of Archaeology of M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University investigated a cinder heap in the western outskirts of the settlement.

According to the material found in the settlement and its stratigraphy, three main building periods may be distinguished. These are dated to: 1. last quarter of the 2nd century-early 1st century BC; 2. first half of the 1st century BC; 3. middle of the 1st century BC-first third of the 1st century AD. 213

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 1: Late Scythian cinder heap and rooms nos. CLIV and CLVII. 1. Loam and cinder; 2. Fragments of clay fireplaces; 3. Second fortification line; 4. Area of cinder heap

In the first period, the western fortification line existed; it was destroyed at the end of the period. At the beginning of the second period, the second fortification line was erected. In the middle of the second period the household complex (Rooms CLIV and CLVII) was built onto the western defensive wall of the second fortification line. The complex seems not to have been long lived. The cinder heap began forming after its destruction, promptly

after the demolition of the western wall of room CLIV (Fig. 1), at the end of the second/beginning of the third building period in the settlement. The cinder heap constituted a mound about 35 m in diameter and 2.5-3 m in height. It consisted of clay loam enriched with cinder, fragments of clay hearths (Fig. 2), ceramics and animal bones. A few small pits filled with 214

E.A. POPOVA AND T.V. EGOROVA: INVESTIGATION OF THE LATE SCYTHIAN CINDER HEAP ON THE SITE OF CHAIKA NEAR EVPATORIA…

Fig. 2: Stratigraphy of cinder heap. 1. First level; 2. Second level; 3. Loam; 4. Cinder; 5. Coal; 6. Clay fireplaces; 7. Sand; 8. Clay; 9. Stones; 10. Sandy loam

motif of three nymphs. The altar was 0.11 m high, 0.075 m in diameter in the upper part, and somewhat round in form. There was a declivity in the upper part of the altar that was separated from the body with several relief stripes. The back of it is broken and the lower part has not survived.

remains of hearths and pure cinders were situated rather tightly in the lower layer (Fig. 3). The pits were set in the sand that covered the ruined household complex. They were roughly circular, about 0.80 m in diameter on average and from 0.10 to 0.40 m deep. Some large fragments of clay hearths and cinders were carefully put into them. The fragments of a hearth which had kept its form were in one pit (Fig. 3 upper). All this testifies to the special importance of the remains of expired domestic hearths.

The premeditated set-up of the pits for burying the remains of hearths and cinders demonstrates the cult character of the cinder heap. Careful respect for the remains of hearths reflects the performance of the cult of the domestic hearth and fire in this period. Some finds express their cult character too. Such are the abovementioned altar and the clay imitations of grains, olives and bread (Fig. 6) found in the fill of one of the later grain pits. The similar model of grain was found in 1981 in barrow 30 in the necropolis near Zaozernoe that belonged to the Chaika settlement. Similar items concerned with the cult of fertility are known in many monuments of this time, for example in the settlements of the Lower Dnieper region, in cinder heaps in the settlements of Belozerckoe and Zolotaya Balka.1

One pit differed in its dimensions, form and finds (Fig. 4). It was 1.30 m in diameter and 0.10 m deep. The upper part was filled with the layers of cinder and coal that grew less concentrated towards the bottom. The bottom was a plane surface daubed with clay; on it was a flat stone. Near the pit was a gathering of hearth fragments measuring 1.20 x 1.25 m. The fragments of ceramics, remains of hearths and animal bones were found in the fill of the pit 32. Close to the bottom, by the western side of the pit, lay a fragmented terracotta altar (Fig. 5), decorated with figures made in low relief. Some white grounding remained in several places, evidence that originally the altar was painted. Enough of it survived to for the images to be identified: female figures with joined hands that are the common

The area under consideration was exploited as a cult place possibly some time later than the middle of the 1st 1

215

Bylkova 2007, 74, 99, fig. 64.12.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 5: Terracotta altar

imitations of Greek wheel-made kitchen and tableware furnish a significant part of the forms (Fig. 7). In the second half of the 1st century BC this area was still exploited for gathering cinders and the remains of hearths, but the cult character of material is not so evident. In the last third of the 1st century BC (the third building period), the north-western part of the heap was overbuilt after the surface had been levelled. A household and living complex with grain store was erected (Figs. 8-9). Of this, some ruins of walls and a drain gutter remained (room CLVI). The grain pits belong to the same level; one of them was discovered complete. It was pearshaped, nearly 1.5 m deep, with a diameter at the bottom of about 1 m. There was a stone cover on top and the walls and bottom were plastered with clay (Fig. 10). Part of the area was tamped with stone crumbs and a level of tight clay came close to the pit. These establish the ancient surface level of the complex with grain store. A further six pits were discovered. These were ruined in the upper part but had traces of clay plaster on their walls and bottom.

Fig. 3: Small pits filled with the remains of fireplaces and pure cinders

After the complex ceased to function, there was a dump in its place. Debris from the cleared territory and ruined buildings of the first and second Late Scythian periods was thrown there. Material that is of earlier date than the finds from cinder heap confirms tist. The material on the whole is dated to the end of the 2nd–middle of the 1st century BC. It contains fragment of Rhodian and Cnidian amphorae with stamps. The Rhodian amphorae stamps belong to Finkelstein’s groups V and VI groups, i.e. corresponding respectively to the middle to end of the 2nd century BC and the end of the 2nd-1st century BC. The fragments of red-glazed pottery are dated, including the fragment of filter-jug, giving a narrower date: the end of the 2nd century BC.2 The presence of pieces of

Fig. 4: The pit with the terracotta altar. View from the east

century BC. The finds of Megarian bowl fragments and the absence of light clay amphorae are evidence of this. The considerable quantity of handmade pottery, which contains forms typical of the Late Scythian ceramic complex, is worth mentioning. Further, handmade pottery

2

216

Rotroff 1997, 182.

E.A. POPOVA AND T.V. EGOROVA: INVESTIGATION OF THE LATE SCYTHIAN CINDER HEAP ON THE SITE OF CHAIKA NEAR EVPATORIA…

Fig. 6: Clay imitations of grains, olives (1) and bread (2)

Traces of clay coating were discovered inside. The other pits did not survive in full (their upper parts were lost in the later levelling of the area), but they certainly date to the same time, as the lower parts of the pits are on the same level. In some pits traces of clay coating and scorched grains were found as well. The pits were filled mostly with the layer of the dump of the 1st century BC: the soil and material barely differed from the adjacent layer. However, inclusions of later materials (fragments of light clay amphorae) enable the destruction of the dump to be dated to the beginning of the 1st century BC. Evidently the infilling was intended to level the surface for later building in the late 1st century BC-early 1st century AD, and the upper parts of the pits, possibly with stone covers, were destroyed at the same time as part of the same process.

Megarian bowls allows us to move the upper chronological limit to the 70s BC.3 According to the stratigraphy the dump had been formed gradually over a rather long period. This confirms the character of the attendant ceramics: very fragmented and not forming complete vessels. At the end of third period, after previous levelling of the surface of the dump, a stone dwelling was erected in this area (Fig. 9); the two lower rows of its walls survived. The outer face was built of large cut stones set in horizontal rows, the inside surface of small stones laid irregularly, and between them was an infilling of rubble. There was a grain store near this house, and a group of ten pits located along its western wall. The pits pass through the layers of the dump from the level of the house. One of the pits survived in its entirety; its depth is 2.20 m (Fig. 11). Its mouth was covered with stones (diameter of mouth about 0.50 m; of the bottom, 1.40 m). 3

The material examined allows us to draw conclusions about the sequence of formation of the cinder heap, the nature of the exploitation of this area at different times, and about the occupations, cults and rites of the

Kovalenko 1998, 15.

217

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 7: Handmade pottery 218

E.A. POPOVA AND T.V. EGOROVA: INVESTIGATION OF THE LATE SCYTHIAN CINDER HEAP ON THE SITE OF CHAIKA NEAR EVPATORIA…

inhabitants of the site between the end of the 2nd century BC and the beginning of the 1st century AD. First, the area was used as a cult place for ‘burying’ the defunct hearths that are evidence of the cult of fire and domestic hearth. The finds of clay imitations of grain, fruit and bread indicate that these rites were connected with the cult of fertility. Then, at a different time, living and household complexes with grain stores were erected here. These, and the traces of the rites of a cult of fertility, prove that the main occupation of the local population was agriculture. Possibly, they produced cereal crops and olives. It can be supposed that they grew crops for sale on account of the large capacity of the grain stores when the population was not significant.

Fig. 8: Room No. CLVI. View from the north

Fig. 9: Grain stores. Plan. 1. Grain pits, first level; 2. Grain pits, second level 219

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 10: Room No. CLVI. The grain pit

Why such cinder heaps were formed is the subject of current discussion. Many scholars recognise the cultic nature of the cinder heaps.4 In his time, E.I. Krupnov came out against this interpretation.5 Recently, A.M. Butyagin has expressed some doubts about the strict attachment of cinder heaps to sacred objects.6 Very interesting is I.P. Rusanova’s opinion that Late Scythian cinder heaps on the Lower Dnieper and in the Crimea are similar to Greek ones in construction, composition of finds and location.7 Nevertheless, much caution is needed when seeking to interpret the material. Examination of cinder heaps requires precise consideration of stratigraphy and a differentiated approach to the interpretation of materials. Investigation of the cinder heap of the Chaika site demonstrates that such objects can change their nature over time, in this instance gradually losing its clear sacred character and becoming simply a waste dump.

Bibliography BUTYAGIN, A.M. 2005: ‘K interpretatsii zol’nikov Mirmekiya (svidetel’stva Pavsaniya i bosporskaya kul’tovaya praktika)’. In Bosporskii fenomen: Problemi sootnosheniya pis’menn’ikh i arkheologicheskikh istochnikov (St Petersburg), 101-07. BYLKOVA, V.P. 2007: Nizhnee antichnuyu epokhu (Kherson).

Podneprove

v

4 Vysotskaya 1979, 65-66; Zaitsev 2003, 35; Maslennikov 2007, 408; Rusyaeva 2005, 160-177; Rusanova 1998, 160; Moleva 2002, 20-21. 5 Krupnov 1960, 168-71. 6 Butyagin 2005, 107. 7 Rusanova 1998, 162.

Fig. 11: Room No. CLI. The grain pit 220

E.A. POPOVA AND T.V. EGOROVA: INVESTIGATION OF THE LATE SCYTHIAN CINDER HEAP ON THE SITE OF CHAIKA NEAR EVPATORIA…

KOVALENKO, S.A. 1998: ‘K istorii izucheniya pozdneellinisticheskoi shtampovannoi relefnoi keramiki v Rossii’. In Ellinisticheskaya i rimskaya keramika v Severnom Prichernomor’e (Тrudy Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo Muzeya 102) (Moscow), 9-16.

ROTROFF, S.I. 1997: Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material (Athenian Agora 29) (Princeton).

KRUPNOV, E.I. 1960: Drevnaya istoriya Kavkaza (Moscow).

RUSYAEVA, A.S. 2005: Religiya pontiiskikh ellinov v antichnuyu epokhu (Mify. Svyatilishcha. Kulty olimpiiskikh bogov i geroev) (Kiev).

RUSANOVA, I.P. 1998: ‘Kultovye zol’niki skifskogo vremeni’. Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 6, 160-63.

MASLENNIKOV, A.A. 2007: Selskie svyatilishcha Evropeiskogo Bospora (Moscow).

VYSOTSKAYA, T.N. 1979: Neapol – stolitsa pozdnikh skifov (Kiev).

MOLEVA, N.V. 2002: Ocherki sakral’noi zhizni Bospora (Nizhnii Novgorod).

ZAITSEV, Y.P. 2003: Neapol Skifskii (2 v. do n.e.-3 v. n.e.) (Simferopol).

221

STRATEGIES OF CONTINUITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ETHNIC AND CULTURAL IDENTITY: THE LINEAGE AND ROLE OF ZEUS STRATIOS IN PONTUS AND PAPHLAGONIA Annette TEFFETELLER Classics, Modern Languages & Linguistics, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd West, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada [email protected] Abstract: In his discussion of the Greek cults of Zeus, R.L. Farnell observes that as ‘a war-god pure and simple Zeus scarcely appears at all’ (1896, 59). He goes on to record that it is only ‘in the semi-Hellenic cult of Caria that Zeus appears preeminently as a warlike god, as Zeus Stratios, “the god of hosts,” and as Zeus Labrandeus, armed with the double-headed axe’. On the attribute of the Labrandeus, Plutarch’s question is apposite: ‘Why has the statue of Zeus Labrandeus in Caria been fashioned holding up an axe and not a sceptre or a thunderbolt?’ His answer both reveals and conceals the provenance of the god. It is the labrys that confirms his Anatolian heritage. Herodotus called the god of Labraunda Zeus Stratios, Zeus ‘Lord of the Army’, and it is Anatolia where Zeus Stratios is at home, where there was a thousand-year tradition of honouring the ‘Lord of the Army’, the deity known to the Hittites as the ‘Stormgod of the Army’, a version of the chief male deity of the Hittite pantheon, the mighty Stormgod, whose son Šarruma carries the Hittite double-axe in the sacred rock-sculptures of Yazılıkaya. Textual and numismatic evidence attests to the prominence of the ‘Lord of the Army’ also in the areas of Pontus and Paphlagonia through the Hellenistic and well into the Roman period, confirming the continuity of Anatolian ethnic and cultural identity through two millennia. ETNİK VE KÜLTÜREL TANIMLAMANIN YAPILANDIRILMASINDA DEVAMLILIK STRATEJİSİ: ZEUS STRATIOS’UN PONTOS VE PAPHLAGONIA’DAKİ KÖKENİ VE ROLÜ Özet: Hellen dinlerindeki Zeus kültleri konusunda R. L. Farnell Zeus’u “katıksız bir savaş tanrısı ve temel olan Zeus her yerde vardır” diye tanımlamıştır (1896, 59). Kayıtlarla hareket eden Farnell “Zeus’un Zeus Stratios olarak “konukların tanrısı” ve Zeus Labrandeus olarak da çiftbaşlı balta ile silahlanmış olan yarı Hellenlik Karia kültünde savaş tanrısı olarak ön plana çıktığını” söylemektedir. Labrandeus konusunda ise Plutarkhos’un sorusu bu duruma tezat düşer: “Neden Karia’daki Zeus Labrandeus heykelinin elinde bir skepter ya da yıldırım demeti yerine bir balta taşır?”. Yanıtı ise tanrının kökenini hem gizlemekte, hem de aydınlatmaktadır. Onun Anadolu kökenli olduğunu kanıtlayan şey labrys’üdür. Herodotos Labraunda’nın tanrısı Zeus Stratios’u “ordunun efendisi” olarak adlandırmıştır. Zeus Stratios köken olarak 1000 yıllık bir süreçte “ordunun efendisi” tanrısının kutsal sayıldığı Anadolu coğrafyasındandır. Bu tanrı Hitit pantheonundaki baş erkek tanrının bir versiyonu olan, “ordunun şimşek tanrısı” olarak isimlendirilen ve Šarrum isimli oğlu Yazılıkaya’da Hitit çift ağızlı baltası taşıyan güçlü şimşek tanrısının karşılığıdır. Yazılı ve nümizmatik bilgiler Hellenistik devirden Roma döneminin içlerine kadar “ordunun efendisi”nin Pontos ve Paphlagonia’da varlığını teyid eder; bu durum da iki bin yıl boyu Anadolu’daki etnik ve kültürel devamlılığın bir kanıtıdır.

preeminently as a warlike god, as Zeus Stratios, “the god of hosts,” and as Zeus Labrandeus, armed with the double-headed axe’.3 Indeed it is Anatolia where Zeus Stratios is at home.4 And it is the labrys that confirms his Anatolian lineage. Herodotus (5. 119) is the first in our records to give the name of Zeus Stratios to the god of Labraunda, ‘Zeus Lord of the Army’,5 and in Anatolia

Why, Plutarch asks (Quaestiones Graecae 45), is the sacred image of Zeus Labrandeus in Caria made holding a double axe and not a sceptre or a thunderbolt?1 His answer both reveals and conceals the provenance of the god of Labraunda, Zeus Stratios, as the Greeks called him: the axe of the Amazon queen Hippolyte was given as spoil by Heracles to the Lydian queen Omphale and later was taken to Caria as booty from a slain Lydian king where it was made an attribute on a statue of Zeus, called ‘Labrandeus’ from the Lydian word for ‘axe’, labrys.2 In Greek lands, as Farnell observes in his discussion of the cults of Zeus, ‘as a war-god pure and simple Zeus scarcely appears at all’. Farnell goes on to record that it is only ‘in the semi-Hellenic cult of Caria that Zeus appears

3 The cult of Zeus Labrandeus eventually made its way to Athens, or at least to the Piraeus (Farnell 1896, 59) but apparently only as one of a number of ‘societies of foreigners gathered round a native god’ (Parker 1996, 338); in any case among the Greeks, as Robert Parker observes: ‘the only named worshipper of Zeus Labraundios of Caria is a Carian’ (Parker 1996, 338). 4 It is perhaps significant that, while Eumenes of Cardia appeals to the Macedonian army with a reference to Zeus Stratios, he does this on Asian soil and at the end of a 30-year Asian campaign (Plutarch Eumenes 17. 4). 5 The Carians, beset by the Persians at the river Marsyas and suffering heavy losses, fell back to the sanctuary of Zeus Stratios at Labraunda (5. 119). Herodotus adds the comment that the Carians are the only people known to him who offer sacrifices to Zeus Stratios. Cf. 1.171, the cult of Carian Zeus at Mylasa, an ancient shrine open only to ethnic Carians and those they considered close relations, Mysians and Lydians (interestingly, the specific point is made that speaking Carian did not suffice to gain entry for those of other ethnic groups). Cf. also 5. 66. Strabo also mentions the ancient shrine of Zeus Stratios at Labraunda (along with the Carian Zeus and Zeus Osogo at Mylasa) and refers to

1

Plutarch’s form of the name is Labradeus. On the many variants in spelling see Kretschmer 1896, 303; cf. Cook 1925, 585-86 (with notes), As Cook records, from the dozen variants of the name in Greek sources, Kretschmer drew ‘the obvious conclusion that Carian vocalisation was incommensurable with Greek spelling’ (Cook 1925, 586). 2 Plutarch’s detail about the axe being carried by a companion of the king (which is reported as a careless gesture on the king’s part) may in fact indicate an Anatolian ritual use which perhaps was carried to Italy by the Etruscans (assuming the truth of their claims of origin) and passed on to the Romans; see Drews 1972, with reference to Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates Romanae 3. 61. 2-3.

223

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

there was a thousand-year tradition of honouring the ‘Lord of the Army’, the deity known to the Hittites as the ‘Stormgod of the Army’ (dU KARAŠ), a version specifically dedicated to the military sector of Hittite society of the chief male deity of the Hittite pantheon, the mighty Stormgod, whose attribute, the double axe, is carried by his son Šarruma in the sacred rock-sculptures of Yazılıkaya.6 Textual and numismatic evidence attests to the prominence of the ‘Lord of the Army’ also in the areas of Pontus and Paphlagonia through the Hellenistic and well into the Roman period, confirming the continuity of Anatolian ethno-cultural identity through the better part of two millennia.

ornaments of the Ephesian goddess, Morris sees them as traditional cult ornaments:

The god of Labraunda appears to have been originally represented by a xoanon, an ancient statue of polished wood, decorated with adornments of the type so famously associated with the Ephesian Artemis; a Carian votive relief of the 4th century BC shows the god of Labraunda with double axe and chest ornaments of the Ephesian type.7 Long regarded as representations of ‘breasts’ on no better authority than the claims of the Christian apologists Minucius Felix and Jerome,8 these objects associated with the Ephesian goddess have now been shown to be part of the elements of adornment of the original cult statue of the deity, removable (as integrated parts of exchangeable sets of adornment) in the early period, later fashioned as part of the fabric of various statues.9 Of the many interpretations of these disputed objects, ranging from breasts to eggs to fruit to bulls’ scrota, the most compelling situates them within the context of Anatolian ritual. Sarah Morris, in her study of Potnia Aswiya of the Mycenaeans, has identified these objects as representations of the Hittite kurša, or ‘hunting bag’, the Hittite version of the cornucopia, a symbolic object represented in Hittite ritual and mythological texts as containing various kinds of good things, some tangible (wine, grain, sheep fat), some abstract (long years, progeny, manhood and battle-strength, eternity, ‘the Gentle Message of the Lamb’).10 Rejecting the more sensational interpretations of the much-discussed

The fact that the ‘kurša-inspired chest decorates not only Artemis at Ephesus but Aphrodite at Aphrodisias and Zeus at Labraunda’ indicates that this Hittite-inspired ‘cultic convention spread throughout the region once called Arzawa’ in the Hittite texts.12

The truth about this famous chest is far more mundane: like Ephesia’s crown and garments, it belongs to the traditional decoration or cult equipment of divine images in the Near East, especially Anatolia. The fact that male as well as female deities wear these bulbs—representations of Zeus of Labraunda, the ‘double-axe’ god of Caria, wear the same outfit—not only excludes them as ‘breasts’ or signs of female nurturing, but points to a common Anatolian ancestry and distribution.11

A.B. Cook, writing before the Hittite material was adequately known, had assumed a dichotomy between the divine roles of benefactor in war on the one hand and in agriculture on the other and he saw in the god of Labraunda a fertility god who was only secondarily made into a war god by the ‘warlike’ Carian mercenaries.13 But the Stormgod of the Hittites, the great god at the head of their thousand-god pantheon (along with the revered Sungoddess of Arinna) is at one and the same time fundamentally a weather god who fertilises the land with his nourishing rain (a beneficent role coupled with the more violent aspects of storm, thunder, lightning and flood) and a war god who protects the land through violence in warding off enemies, and augments the land 11

Morris 2001a, 430. Morris 2001a, 432; cf. Brown 2003, 253. The word kurša is ordinarily written in Hittite texts with the determinative KUŠ indicating ‘hide’ or ‘leather’ (KUŠkurša) and the typical representation is of goatskin or sheepskin but we also have references to kuršas made of cloth, wood and reed – and, most intriguingly, of beads (Güterbock 1997, 138-39). The recent (1987-88) find of hundreds of ‘teardrop’ amber beads at the Artemision at Ephesus, beads which are drilled for hanging (Bammer 1990; cf. Morris 2001a-b), has lent further plausibility to the interpretation of the larger bulbous shapes decorating the chest area of the goddess of Ephesus (and other deities of the region) as cultic ornamentation. Of particular interest in this regard are the Hittite texts which refer to ‘kuršas of beads’ (kunnanaš kuršaš) being carried in procession in the KI.LAM (or ‘Gate-House’) festival which involved the honouring of a number of deities and extended processions in which statues of the gods and various items of sacred regalia were carried (Güterbock 1997, 139). The ‘kuršas of beads’ followed the priest of the tutelary deity (dLAMMA) with which the kurša was in other contexts identified (Güterbock 1997, 139, n. 23; cf. McMahon 1991). The larger type of pectoral ornamentation may also have been carried in procession (if not actually included in the category of kunnanaš kuršaš as an extension of the ‘bead’ designation indicated by the Hittite term kuwanna(n)-, kunna(n)- (cognate with Greek kúanos and presumably indicating similarly a blue material); its later representation would clearly lend itself to such a designation). (For decoration of the cult statue carried in procession cf. the Panathenaic procession, carrying the new peplos to the goddess of Athens.) 13 Halliday (1928, 186-87) likewise assumed a dichotomy but he took the opposite view, rejecting thunder-god associations of the double axe (and consequently of the Labrandeus image and indeed of all similar images of ‘the divine male figure armed with an axe, whose worship appears to have been distributed all over Asia Minor’. For the contrary view, see Blinkenberg 1911. 12

the sacred image as a xoanon (14. 2. 23). (On the use of the old xoanonimage on Roman coins of Mylasa as attesting to ‘a revival of interest in local religious imagery which was encouraged in Roman times’ (Métraux 1971, 157), see Laumonier 1958, 45-101. 6 On Yazılıkaya, see Alexander 1986. 7 The relief, found at Tegea in Arcadia, shows the deity flanked by the figures of Idreus and Ada (brother and sister and man and wife) who ruled Caria in the mid-4th century BC (see Fleischer 1973, pl. 138; LiDonnici 1992, fig. 2; Morris 2001b, fig. 4). (Cf. Fleischer 1973, pl. 140; LiDonnici 1992, fig 3, for a bronze statue of Zeus similarly adorned). Unable to get past the designation of these adornments as ‘breasts’, Cook (1925, 594) denied a Carian origin for the monument, dismissing it as a ‘trumpery relief’. 8 LiDonnici (1992) points to Jerome’s transliterated citation of the Greek term polumaston as an indication that this characterisation of the goddess might have existed in a Greek source known to him. Building on this reference, she suggests (less compellingly) that while the original representation was not of ‘breasts’ it may have come to be popularly perceived as such by the ‘Greco-Roman people’ of the region. 9 See Fleischer 1973; 1978; LiDonnici 1992. 10 Watkins 2000, 2-3; cf. 2002. For visual representations of the kurša in Hittite iconography, see Güterbock 1997; Watkins 2000; Morris 2001ab.

224

A. TEFFETELLER: STRATEGIES OF CONTINUITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ETHNIC AND CULTURAL IDENTITY…

and its people’s wealth by leading them to military victory over their neighbours, resulting in the annexing of yet more land and the accumulation of yet more wealth (beneficence through violence once again).14

battle with him. And My Lady, the Sun-Goddess of Arinna, and My Lord, the mighty Storm God and Mezzulla and all the gods supported me. I defeated Piyama-Kurunta, son of Uhhaziti, together with his infantry and chariotry, and I struck him down. I pursued him again and went across into the Land of Arzawa, and went into Apasa, the city of Uhhaziti. Uhhaziti offered me no resistance, but fled before me and went across the sea to the islands; and there he remained. However the whole Land of Arzawa fled.20

The kurša, emblematic of all things desirable, is directly associated with the king and thereby with the Stormgod who provides the king (and through him the land and its people) with sundry benefits. In one of the versions of the Hittite vanishing god myth, Telepinu, son of the Stormgod, takes from the sacred eya-tree the kurša filled with long years, progeny, manhood and other equally desirable assets, lifts it up and gives to the king ‘all good things’.15

In return the Hittite king dedicates the spoils of war to the Stormgod – people, precious objects and arms, including the bronze sword recently discovered at the Hittite capital of Hattuša. The inscription on the sword reads: ‘As TudÌaliya the Great King shattered the Aššuwan country, he dedicated these swords to the Stormgod, his lord.’21

The Hittite king rules on behalf of and by the grace of the Stormgod: When the king bows to the gods, the ‘anointed’ (priest) recites as follows: ‘May the Tabarna, the king, be dear to the gods! The land belongs to the Storm God alone. Heaven, earth and the people belong to the Storm God alone. He has made the Labarna, the king, his administrator and given him the entire Land of Hatti.’16

The bull was sacred to the Stormgod; a Hittite ritual specifies the sacrifice of a bull to the Stormgod of the Army: When the king celebrates the Stormgod of the Army, he stands forward and consecrates a fat bull, four sheep (among them one lamb) and four goats (among them one kid). They slaughter them at the Ìuwaši …. (All this) in one day in the forest of Anziliya.22

The Stormgod leads his forces in battle. Muršili II records repeatedly in his annals that his father, the great Šuppiluliuma I, was championed in battle by an awesome quartet of deities: the Sungoddess of Arinna, the Stormgod of Ëatti, the Stormgod of the Army and Ištar of the Battlefield.17

This is the powerful Anatolian god who, in his manifestation as Lord of the Army, kept his distinctive attribute, the double axe, even when he was put in Greek dress (and pose) by the Hellenising Carians of the 4th century BC, Anatolians who spoke an Anatolian language but by the time of the Hecatomnids looked to the Ionian Greeks in cultural matters. On coins of Mausolus the god of Labraunda appears in Hellenised form, striding right but still shouldering his axe (see Fig. 1). This is now Zeus Stratios, the great god to whom Mithradates VI, king of Pontus, celebrating his victory over Murena, made his famous sacrifice in 82 BC in accordance with the ‘ancestral custom’, as recorded by Appian (Mithr. 66). And the great altar emphasised in Appian’s account is the focus of Roman representations of the deity in Eastern lands. Roman coins from Amasia (see Fig. 2) and other sites south of the Black Sea show the altar of Zeus Stratios, sometimes with additional motifs such as an eagle or a quadriga. Beside the altar stands a tree, recalling Herodotus’ emphasis on the sacred grove at Labraunda where the Carians met in deliberation of their

Muršili claims the favour of the Stormgod for himself as well, with a particularly spectacular intervention occurring during his Arzawan campaign: When I marched forth and when I reached Mount Lawasa, My Lord, the mighty Storm God, revealed to me his divine power. He unleashed a thunderbolt(?)[18] and my army saw the thunderbolt and the Land of Arzawa saw it. The thunderbolt proceeded and struck the Land of Arzawa and struck Apasa,[19] the city of Uhhaziti, and brought Uhhaziti to his knees, and he fell ill. Since Uhhaziti fell ill, he did not therefore come against me in battle. He sent forth his son Piyama-Kurunta along with infantry and chariotry against me. Piyama-Kurunta confronted me in battle at the river Astarpa in Walma, and I, My Sun, did 14 On the dual role of the deity, one face, as it were, turned in toward his people, the other outward toward their enemies, cf. the language of Hittite ritual: ‘The Throne says: “When you plaster a house inside, plaster long years, plaster wealth; but when you plaster it outside, plaster fear, plaster dominion’ (KUB 29.1 iii 29-34; Watkins 2000, 13). Watkins (2000, 14) comments: ‘the house is a microcosm of the Hittite world, the city and the kingdom, at once in peace and at war’. 15 KUB 33.12 iv 2 ff.; Watkins 2000, 2. The Stormgod of the Army and the kurša as tutelary deity (dLAMMA KUŠkurša) are associated in Muwatalli’s prayer; see Singer 1996, 11 (i 59), 34, 55. 16 Bryce 2005, 85: IBoT 1.30 (CTH 537.1), obv. 2-5, after Beckman 1995, 530. 17 See, for example, Frag. 14, 43’-5’ Güterbock 1956, 68. 18 Bryce 2005, 194, n. 13 (444) refers to Klengel 1999, 189, n. 225 for the interpretation of ‘this celestial phenomenon’, Hittite GIŠ kalmišana. 19 Ephesus.

20

Bryce 2005, 194: Ten-Year Annals of Mursili II: Goetze 1933, 46-53. Bryce 2005, 126-27 and n. 22 (425): Bryce’s translation after Ünal in Ünal et al. 1991. 22 CTH 681; Gurney 1977, 27-28, with reference to Dinçol and Darga 1969-70. On the worship of the Stormgod generally, cf. Haas 1994. Bull sacrifice recalls Poseidon in Greek tradition and while the Homeric Zeus hurls thunderbolts at armies and at individual warriors (for example Iliad 8. 75-77; 133-136), it is Poseidon who leads the army on the battlefield, with his sword ‘like lightning’ (Iliad 14. 135-152, 361391: sword 385-386). Poseidon’s trident, with which he brought forth the (almost certainly fresh-water) spring from the rock of Athens’ Acropolis (Nyman 1980), was long ago recognised as the late reflex of an original thunderbolt (Cook 1925, 186-98, with literature), like the vajra- with which the Vedic god Indra strikes boulders, releasing water or light (Nagy 1974; cf. Teffeteller 2001). 21

225

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

textual references) is illuminated by an understanding of the ancient lineage and ongoing role of the Lord of the Army in Anatolian lands.25

Bibliography Abbreviations CTH E. Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites (Paris 1971). IboT Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde Bulunan Boğazköy Tabletlerinden Seçme Metinler (Istanbul 1944, 1947, 1954; Ankara 1988).

Fig. 1: Zeus Labrandeus. Coin of Mausolus, Caria, 4th century BC

KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi (Berlin). ALEXANDER, R.L. 1986: The Sculpture and Sculptors of Yazılıkaya (Newark, DE/London). BAMMER, A. 1990: ‘A “Peripteros” of the Geometric Period in the Artemision of Ephesus’. Anatolian Studies 40, 137-60. BECKMAN, G. 1995: ‘Royal Ideology and State Administration in Hittite Anatolia’. In Sasson, J.M. (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 4 vols. (New York), 529-43. BLINKENBERG, C. 1911: The Thunderweapon in Religion and Folklore (Cambridge).

Fig. 2: Altar of Zeus Stratios. Coin of Commodus, Amasia, 2nd century AD

BROWN, E.L. 2003: ‘In Search of Anatolian Apollo’. In Chapin, A.P. (ed.), Charis: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr (Hesperia suppl. 33) (Athens), 243-57. BRYCE, T.R. 2005: The Kingdom of the Hittites, new ed. (Oxford).

course of action when overwhelmed by the Persians (and recalling too the importance in Hittite iconography of the sacred GIŠeya as depicted on the famous stag rhyton now in the Metropolitan Museum in New York).23

COOK, A.B. 1925: Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, vol. 2 (Cambridge). CUMONT, F. and CUMONT, E. 1901: ‘Le Zeus Stratios de Mithridate’. Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 43, 45-57.

But whether in Anatolian guise, Hellenised or Romanised, the great Lord of the Army never lost his status in Asian lands. True to his Anatolian roots, he continued to be revered in his original role even as he was depicted as a Greek god by the Hellenising Carians and later assimilated by the Anatolian Greeks, the Persian Pontic kings, or the Eastern Romans. In this capacity the Lord of the Army established – and represents – an unbroken line of continuity in the constructed ethnocultural identity of his worshippers in his ancient lands from the 2nd millennium BC well into the 1st millennium AD. Simon Price has recently emphasised the value of recognising ‘how local myths can situate a community in common narratives of the past’24 and has demonstrated that, while coins ‘may be seen as a major medium for the expression of local mythologies, … it is often only with the aid of epigraphic, literary, or sculptural evidence that we can approach an understanding of how such mythologies are being used.’ Zeus Stratios is a case in point; the iconography associated with this deity from the coins of 4th-century BC Caria to the coins of Pontic Amasia in the 2nd century AD and beyond (as well as in

DINÇOL, A.M. and DARGA, M. 1969-70: ‘Die Feste von KaraÌna’. Anatolica 3, 99-118. DREWS, R. 1972: ‘Light from Anatolia on the Roman Fasces’. The American Journal of Philology 93, 4051. FARNELL, R.L. 1896: Cults of the Greek States, vol. 1 (London). FLEISCHER, R. 1973: Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien. Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l'Empire Romain (Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l'Empire Romain 35) (Leiden). FLEISCHER, R. 1978: ‘Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien, Supplement’. In Sahin, S., Schwertheim, E. and Wagner, J. (eds.), Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner 25 My thanks to Robert Parker, whose comments on Zeus Stratios at the Anna Morpurgo Davies Symposium in the summer of 2007 led me to take a closer look at this uniquely Anatolian deity.

23

See Watkins 2000; Morris 2001a-b. 24 Price 2005, 116 (with reference to Sourvinou-Inwood 1978).

226

A. TEFFETELLER: STRATEGIES OF CONTINUITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ETHNIC AND CULTURAL IDENTITY…

zum 65. Geburtstag (Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l'Empire Romain 66), 2 vols. (Leiden), 324-58.

International Aegean Conference Göteborg, Gothenburg University, 12-15 April 2000) (Aegeum 22) (Liège/Austin, TX), 423-34.

FRENCH, D.H. 1996a: ‘Amasian Notes 3: Dated Inscriptions from Amasia and its Territory’. Epigraphica Anatolica 26, 71-86.

MORRIS, S. 2001b: ‘The Prehistoric Background of Artemis Ephesia: A Solution to the Enigma of Her “Breasts”?’. In Muss, U. (ed.), Der Kosmos der Artemis von Ephesos (Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut in Wien, Sonderschriften 37) (Vienna).

FRENCH, D.H. 1996b: ‘Amasian Notes 5: The Temenos of Zeus Stratios at Yassiçal’. Epigraphica Anatolica 27, 75-92.

NAGY, G. 1974. ‘Perkū%nas and Perunŭ’. In Mayrhofer, M., Meid, W., Schlerath, B. and Schmitt, R. (eds.), Antiquitates Indogermanicae: Studien zur indogerman. Altertumskunde und zur Sprach- u. Kulturgeschichte d. indogerman. Völker. Gedenkschrift f. Hermann Güntert zur 25. Wiederkehr seines Todestages am 23. April 1973 (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 12) (Innsbruck), 113-31.

GOETZE, A. 1933: Die Annalen des Muršiliš (Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft 38) (Leipzig). GURNEY, O.R. 1977: Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (Oxford). GÜTERBOCK, H.G. 1956: ‘The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by his Son, Mursili II’. The Journal of Cuneiform Studies 10, 41-68, 75-98, 101-30. GÜTERBOCK, H.G. 1997: ‘Hittite kursa “Hunting Bag”’. In Hoffner, H.A. jr and Diamond, I.L. (eds.), Perspectives on Hittite Civilization: Selected Writings of Hans Gustav Güterbock (Assyriological Studies 26) (Chicago), 137-45 (first published in Leonard, A. jr and Williams, B.B. (eds.), Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor [Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 47] [Chicago 1989], 113-19).

NYMAN, M. 1980: ‘A Pre-marine Vestige of thalassa: An Etymological Proposal’. Arctos 14, 51-78.

HAAS, V. 1994: Geschichte der Hethitischen Religion (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 15) (Leiden).

ROBERTSON, D.S. 1969: Architecture (Cambridge).

PARKER, R. 1996: Athenian Religion: A History (Oxford). PRICE, S. 2005: ‘Local Mythologies in the Greek East’. In Howgego, C., Heuchert, V. and Burnett, A. (eds.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces (Oxford), 115-24. Greek

and

Roman

SINGER, I. 1996: Muwatalli’s Prayer to the Assembly of Gods Through the Storm-God of Lightning (CTH 381) (Atlanta).

HALLIDAY, W.R. 1928: The Greek Questions of Plutarch (Oxford).

SOURVINOU-INWOOD, C. 1978: ‘Persephone and Aphrodite at Locri: A Model for Personality Definitions in Greek Religion’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 98, 101-21.

KLENGEL, H. 1999: Geschichte des Hethitischen Reiches (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 34) (Leiden). KRETSCHMER, P. 1896: Einleitung in die Geschichte der Griechischen Sprache (Göttingen).

TEFFETELLER, A. 2001: ‘Greek Athena and the Hittite Sungoddess of Arinna’. In Deacy, S. and Villing, A. (eds.), Athena in the Classical World (Leiden), 34965.

LAUMONIER, A. 1958: Les cultes indigenes en Carie (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 188) (Paris).

ÜNAL, A., ERTEKIN, A. and EDIZ, I. 1991: ‘The Hittite Sword from Boghazköy-Hattusa, found in 1991 and its Akkadian Inscription’. Museum 4, 46-52.

LiDONNICI, L.R. 1992: ‘The Images of Artemis Ephesia and Greco-Roman Worship: A Reconsideration’. The Harvard Theological Review 85, 389-415.

WATKINS, C. 2000: ‘A Distant Anatolian Echo in Pindar: The Origin of the Aegis Again’. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 1000, 1-14.

McMAHON, G. 1991: The Hittite State Cult of the Tutelary Deity (Chicago). MÉTRAUX, G.P.R. 1971: ‘A New Head of Zeus from Sardis’. American Journal of Archaeology 75, 155-59.

WATKINS, C. 2002: ‘Homer and Hittite Revisited II’. In Yener, K.A. and Hoffner, H.A. jr (eds.), Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History. Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock (Winona Lake, IN). 167-76.

MORRIS, S. 2001a: ‘Potnia Aswiya: Anatolian Contributions to Greek Religion’. In Laffineur, R. and Hägg, R. (eds.), Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age (Proceedings of the 8th

227

PAPHLAGONIAN HORSEMEN IN CUNAXA (Xenophon Anabasis 1. 8. 5) Bruno TRIPODI Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Polo Universitario Annunziata, Università di Messina, 98168 Messina, Italy [email protected]

Abstract: Xenophon’s Anabasis, a unique itinerant observatory of populations and territories, also allows us direct insight into Paphlagonia and the Paphlagonians in the late 5th and the early 4th century BC. Nevertheless, Xenophon’s evidence, which is different from what is known through other sources, raises questions which are to remain unanswered. This paper focuses on the information, provided by Xenophon and preserved also by Diodorus, concerning the presence of a contingent of 1000 Paphlagonian horsemen among the ranks of Cyrus’ army deployed in the battle of Cunaxa against his brother Artaxerxes. As opposed to the belief that these horsemen were conscripted as satrapal forces, this paper aims at identifying them as mistophoroi, coming from a region – such as Paphlagonia at that time – which was not subject to Achaemenid military and tributary control. CUNAXA SAVAŞINDA PAPHLAGONIALI ATLILAR (Xenophon Anabasis 1. 8. 5) Özet: Halklar ve ülkeler konusunda eşsiz bir gözlem kaynağı olan Xenophon’un Anabasis’i İ.Ö. Geç 5. yy. ve Erken 4. yy. Paphlagonia’sı ve Pontos’u ile ilgili olarak bazı direk gözlemler yapmamızı sağlar. Bununla beraber bu durum Xenophon’un diğer kaynaklardaki bilgilerden farklı olup, hala yayımlanmayan bazı soruları da beraberinde getirir. Bu bildiri Xenophon tarafından öne atılan ve Diodoros’ta yer alan Kyros’un ordusunun kardeşi Artaxerxes’e karşı Cunaxa savaşında kullandığı 1000 adet Paphlagonialı atlı süvarileri ile ilgili bilgiler üzerinde odaklanacaktır. Bildiride adı geçen atlılar Pers Satraplığı’na bağlı güçler oldukları bilgisine tezat bir şekilde “mistophoroi” olarak incelenecektir. Bunlar o dönemde Paphlagonia gibi Akhamenid askeri ve vergi kontrolünde olmayan bir bölgeden gelmişlerdi.

Recently it has rightly been argued that ‘Xenophon’s Parabasis is our best surviving source’ on the Greek cities of the southern coast of the Black Sea between the late 5th and the early 4th century BC.1 The contribution given by Xenophon’s Anabasis to our knowledge of the ethne which meet/clash with the Greek mercenaries in the Katabasis and Parabasis has not however been sufficiently emphasised.2

More precisely, it should be said that it is Paphlagonia, rather than the Paphlagonians, which is given emphasis in the Anabasis. It is the Paphlagonian chora, which in the spring of 400 BC becomes an insuperable ‘bastion’ on the path of the mercenaries, before the Paphlagonians themselves. Rather than actual military actions, the Greeks in fact mounted only foraging and plundering expeditions against the Paphlagonians, receiving in response raids at the edges of the Greek camp in Cotyora (Anab. 6. 1. 1).3

This paper focuses on one of these ethne, the Paphlagonians, and more precisely on a specific yet brief mention of them in Book 1 of the Anabasis, which may raise new issues in the analysis of the problematic status of Paphlagonia within the Achaemenid empire.

Nevertheless, about eight months earlier, Greek mercenaries had fought side by side with Paphlagonian horsemen in Cyrus’ army. When describing the deployment of Cyrus’ troops before the battle of Cunaxa, Xenophon writes that ‘approximately 1000 Paphlagonian horsemen of the barbaric contingent were deployed beside Clearchus on the right wing’ (Anab. 1. 8. 5).

The Paphlagonians come into the scene, although elusively, in Book 5 (Anab. 5. 5. 5-23) and are still present at the beginning of Book 6 (Anab. 6. 1. 1-14). They belong to a true ‘catalogue’ of ethne in which, after Cunaxa and up to Byzantium, they are preceded by Carduchi, Armenians, Mardians, Chaldaei, Chalybians, Taochians, Phasians, Scythenians, Macronians, Colchians, Drilae, Mossynoecians and Tibarenians, and are followed by Mariandynians and Bithynian Thracians.

One thousand of the 3000 Oriental horsemen led by Cyrus were positioned to the left under the command of 3

The contact between mercenaries and the Paphlagonians had positive results afterwards thanks to the legation sent by Corylas, the Paphlagonians’ archon, to the Greek camp to reach a non-aggression agreement (Anab. 6. 1. 1-2). This was achieved and celebrated with an invitation to a banquet to Paphlagonian presbeis and with war dances by the Greeks, which won the Paphlagonians’ admiration (Anab. 6. 1. 5-13, with commentary by Lendle 1995, 360-64). For an interpretation of this banquet between the Greeks and Paphlagonians, see Tripodi 1995, 5152.

1 Lane Fox 2004, 30. See Manfredi 1986, 229-31; Avram et al. 2004, 955 (Heracleia), 958 (Kerasus), 959 (Cotyora), 960 (Sinope), 964 (Trapezus). 2 For an analysis of ethne from a food and linguistic perspective, see Tripodi 1995; 1997; 1998.

229

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Ariaeus,4 between 600 and 1000 were deployed in the centre with Cyrus,5 and finally 1000 Paphlagonians were positioned to cover the right flank, composed of Greeks and therefore only infantry troops (hoplites and peltasts).6 Furthermore, given that among the whole of Cyrus’ cavalry forces the Paphlagonian contingent is the only one which has been identified ethnically and as a homogenous group, we cannot rule out the possibility that its commander was a Paphlagonian officer, whose name has not reached us for this very reason.7

Paphlagonians (Anab. 5. 5. 22), but are also ready to become allies of the Paphlagonians and support them against the Sinopeans, given that the mercenaries are aware that the Paphlagonians ‘have set their eyes on [their] city and fortresses along the coast’ (Anab. 5. 5. 23). The Sinopeans are persuaded to take a more moderate stand by Xenophon and, after promising hospitality to the mercenaries in Sinope, are invited to a banquet (Anab. 5. 5. 24-25).9 During the negotiations, Hecatonymus gives a wellargued speech aimed at advising the mercenaries against crossing Paphlagonia overland (Anab. 5. 6. 4-10). To this end, he traces a concise but convincing picture of the peculiarities of the region and of its inhabitants, given that he is very familiar with the Paphlagonians’ territory and their military power. He tells the Greeks that ‘the region has beautiful plains and incredibly high mountains’ (Anab. 5. 6. 6). The mountains make access to the area extremely difficult, while the plains facilitate a cavalry force, which ‘the barbarians regard as superior to the whole of the king’s cavalry’ (Anab. 5. 6. 7-8). The Paphlagonians’ army numbered more than 120,000 men between horsemen and infantrymen. Furthermore, the mercenaries would have had to cross four rivers to march across Paphlagonian territory (Anab. 5. 6. 9),10 making the mercenaries’ passage through Paphlagonia ‘rather than difficult, absolutely impossible’ (Anab. 5. 6. 10).

The mention of these horsemen, which, as seen, represented one third of Cyrus’ cavalry, and of whose fate we know nothing after the battle of Cunaxa, should be related to what Xenophon writes later, in Book 5, about the excellence of their art of warfare in general, and their cavalry in particular, as fundamental qualities of the Paphlagonian ethnos.8 In the late spring of 400 BC, when the mercenaries arrived in Cotyora, one of Sinope’s colonies, where they stopped for 45 days (Anab. 5. 5. 3-5), they did not receive xenia (cereals and wine) from the Cotyorites, nor were they given the opportunity of access to the market. For this reason they were forced to forage for food in the Cotyorites’ fields and in the neighbouring Paphlagonian chora. It was because of these raids that a legation was sent to the mercenaries’ camp by the Sinopeans, concerned for the destiny of their colony (Anab. 5. 5. 6). Hecatonymus, head of the delegation, defended the Cotyorites and threatened the Greeks that he would enter into an alliance with Corylas and the Paphlagonians against them (Anab. 5. 5. 7-12).

What Hecatonymus tells the Greeks about Paphlagonia and the Paphlagonians seems exaggerated to the point that the Sinopean is suspected to have spoken in those terms ‘because of his friendship for Corylas, who is a proxenos of his’ (Anab. 5. 6. 11). Despite their suspicions, the Greeks take the information about the Paphlagonians’ territory and their war skills seriously and decide to follow Hecatonymus’ advice.11 They do not attempt to walk across Paphlagonia, and from Cotyora they continue their journey by ship ‘keeping Paphlagonia on the left’, stopping at Sinope and Heracleia (Anab. 6. 1. 14-15; 6. 2. 1-3).

It is Xenophon who replies on behalf of the Greeks. After justifying the raids, he argues that the Greeks are ready to fight against the joint forces of the Sinopeans and the 4

This information is provided by Diodorus (14. 22. 5). The two different figures are given by Xenophon (Anab. 1. 8. 6) and Diodorus (14. 22. 6) respectively. 6 This number is also confirmed by Diodorus (14. 22. 5). For the positioning of Cyrus and Artaxerxes’ troops in Cunaxa, see Lendle 1995, 64-66 and fig. 12. 7 According to Diodorus (14. 19. 9), all the officers of Cyrus’ ‘barbaric’ troops were Persian. Diodorus argues elsewhere (17. 19. 4) that, during the battle of Granicus, the Persian army deployed against Alexander the Great also included a contingent of Paphlagonian cavalry led by the Persian Arsites, satrap of the Hellespontine Phrygia. It is not certain, however, that the conditions in 401 BC were the same as in 334 BC. 8 The Paphlagonians’ excellence in the art of warfare was not only related to cavalry but also to infantry equipment or, at least, to one of its items: the helmet. This is what we can presume from two brief and indirect references, by Xenophon in Book 5 of the Anabasis, complementing one another. When describing the weaponry of two more ethne, Drilae and Mossynoecians, for the first Xenophon refers to their ‘Paphlagonian helmets’ (Anab. 5. 2. 22: krane paphlagonika) and, similarly but with more details, in relation to the Mossynoecians, he writes: ‘leather helmets similar to the Paphlagonian ones, with a knob in the centre, very similar to a tiara in shape’ (Anab. 5. 4. 13). The description according to which the helmets of the Drilae and the Mossynoecians were similar to those by the Paphlagonians, both in terms of shape and material, indicates that the latter represented a benchmark of form and quality for the weapons of the region’s ethne. For a comment on these sections, see Dintsis 1986, I, 52-53; Lendle 1995, 306-07, 325. Even Herodotus (7. 72-73) describes the weaponry of some ethne enlisted in Xerxes’ army by making references to that of the Paphlagonians. 5

What is relevant for the purpose of this analysis is that the Paphlagonians and Paphlagonia in the Anabasis, even 9 It is worth noticing that these speeches are aimed at making the arguments of the mercenaries and Xenophon himself prevail, as when the latter manages to reverse Hecatonymus’ threat to form an alliance with the Paphlagonians at the cost of a hardly credible motivation. If we are to believe Xenophon, the Paphlagonians would have been ready to compromise their long time good relations with the Sinopeans, testified to also by the relationship of proxenia between Hecatonymus and Corylas, in favour of an army of mercenaries in transit (Anab. 5. 6. 11). In relation to another Greek, Timesitheus the Trapezuntian, proxenos of another ethnos, the Mossynoecians, who was an interpreter between the latter and the mercenaries, see Anab. 5. 4. 2-3; cf. Tripodi 1998, 103. On the ethnically mixed nature of the colonial societies of Pontus Euxinus ‘right from the start’, see Tsetskhladze 1998; 2004. 10 From east to west: Thermodon, Iris, Halys, Parthenius. Xenophon provides the respective width of these rivers. On the hydrography of Paphlagonia, see Robert 1980, 165-90; Lendle 1995, 342-43. On rivers in general in the Anabasis, see Baslez 1995. 11 Without hesitating, Hecatonymus defines himself as empeiros both of the country and the military power of the Paphlagonians (Anab. 5. 6. 6), and Xenophon had already specified, in the same terms, that the Sinopeans ‘knew Paphlagonia very well’ (Anab. 5. 6. 1).

230

B. TRIPODI: PAPHLAGONIAN HORSEMAN IN CUNAXA (XENOPHON ANABASIS 1. 8. 5)

though in brief and elusive terms, appear as being closely linked with warfare. The country is ideal for the practice of war and at the same time is hostile to any potential enemy. The ethnos does its best when fighting on horseback but its infantry is equally well equipped. And much more importantly, Xenophon, through Hecatonymus (Anab. 5. 6. 7-8), attributes to the Paphlagonians the awareness that their cavalry is superior to that of the king,12 adding that ‘even recently (kai nyn) they have failed to present themselves when the king summoned them’ (Anab. 5. 6. 8). More precisely, this last point, as will be shown later, might become particularly relevant if we relate it to the undoubtedly non-secondary presence of Paphlagonian horsemen in Cyrus’ army and on the battlefield of Cunaxa.

physical and ethnic geography (both in the Anabasis and in the Hellenica),17 but at the same time it cannot be ruled out that the Paphlagonians who responded to Cyrus and those who denied their services to the king occupied two different areas of the country and were led by two different rulers, perhaps even in conflict.18 The setup of Paphlagonia in those years, as it is documented by Xenophon, is rather difficult to pin down, particularly in terms of the definition and interrelation of the geographical, ethnic and political entities in themselves and in relation to Achaemenid imperial power.19 And in such an overall context Xenophon’s evidence, although providing precise information, raises questions which remain unanswered.20 This is even more so if we take into account that at specific periods in time and under certain rulers, whether local rulers or rulers of the entire ethnos,21 the Paphlagonians refused to satisfy the king’s requests – a fact that can hardly be denied – and much more importantly, they acted independently, creating military alliances with partners of their own choice.

Their presence can be interpreted as a duty by an ethnos subject to a high representative of imperial power, that is to say Cyrus in his double role as satrap of Lydia, Great Phrygia and Cappadocia, as well as ‘Karanos of the troops gathered in Castolus’.13 Elsewhere, in fact, Xenophon shows Cyrus, in 407 BC, gathering troops among the peoples of Asia Minor with an official letter signed by the king.14

Corylas was the first, if it was him, as previously shown, the archon of the horsemen who denied their services to the king, according to the well-informed Hecatonymus.22 Another one is Otys23 who, in 396/95 BC, ‘refuses the King’s invitation to go to him and prefers to reach Agesilaus, with whom he signs an alliance treaty’, and as a consequence of which he provides the Spartan king with ‘1000 horsemen and 2000 peltasts’.24 And Thuys, dynastes Paphlagoniae, who approximately a decade later, is defeated and caught by the satrap Datames for not obeying the king, is probably the same

Nevertheless, this fact, apparently taken for granted, becomes problematic if we look at it in relation to the previously mentioned passage in the Anabasis (5. 6. 8), where it is specified that the Paphlagonians have recently refused to provide the king with their cavalry. It is important to notice the unusual situation of subjects who deny their services to the king but offer them to a subordinate; a situation which is even more incomprehensible if we suppose that kai nyn might refer to the previous year (spring 401 BC) and to the gathering of troops for the royal army which would have to fight against Cyrus.15

17 Such an image, apart from the high figures involved, is reinforced by the high number of men who, according to Hecatonymus, form the Paphlagonian army (Anab. 5. 6. 9; see above n. 12). It is interesting to note the correspondence between the references to the Paphlagonian chora and dynamis, in both cases presented as an inseparable pair, in both the Anabasis (5. 6. 6) and the Hellenica (4. 1. 4). 18 According to Xenophon, the Mossynoecians were in a similar condition, since they were divided in two groups fighting for the metropolis (Anab. 5. 4. 3-15). On the possibility that Paphlagonia was divided into separate rival groups and that, due to the considerable extension of its territory, had more than one local ruler and, exceptionally, only one national ruler, see Briant 1996, 661; Tuplin 2004, 177-78; see also below n. 21. Strabo (12. 3. 9) distinguishes two different geographical areas in Paphlagonia, mesogaia and paralia, but in this case the distinction is based on physical geography. 19 See Briant 1996, 402 and 514; Debord 1999, 110-15; Tuplin 2004, 164-65 and n. 34, 177-78. 20 Among other things, the territory of Paphlagonia, as indicated in the Anabasis, is extended eastwards to the River Thermodon, and this information is not found in any other source, either prior or subsequent to Xenophon. On the Paphlagonian borders, see Ruge and Bittel 1949, cols. 2489-92; Lendle 1995, 334-36. 21 According to Tuplin (2004, 178), these were ‘regional, not national, rulers’. However, it is important to note that when Theopompus, quoted by Strabo (12. 3. 4), defined Paphlagonia as being ‘governed by several rulers’, he was referring to a mythistoric age, and Plutarch’s reference to ‘kings and dynasts’ (Pericles 20. 1-2) was not limited to Paphlagonia, but also referred to all ethne living near the Pontus. 22 See above n. 11. Cf. also Debord 1999, 112. 23 This figure is also found, with variants, in Xenophon’s Hellenica and Agesilaus (Cotys), and in the Hellenica of Oxyrhynchus (Gyes). 24 Xenophon (Hellenica 4. 1. 3); (Agesilaus 3. 4); Hell. Oxy. = FGH 66, F 1. It should be noted, for what it is worth, that the figure of 1000 horsemen provided first by Corylas and then by Otys, respectively, to Cyrus and to Agesilaus, is exactly the same.

We should here bear in mind that the expression kai nyn in the Anabasis is always present in direct speeches and indicates the historic present or an extremely recent time in relation to the historic present itself.16 Therefore the Paphlagonians’ denial to the king should be interpreted as referring to a past which is very close to the time of the mercenaries’ stay in Cotyora. In that period of time, as Xenophon argues (Anab. 6. 1. 2), the Paphlagonians’ archon was Corylas. The image of Paphlagonia given by Xenophon is certainly that of one undivided entity according to 12

It goes without saying that the superiority here refers to military performance (military skills and offensive efficiency), not in terms of numbers, with regard to which it should be specified that the overall amount of 120,000 men attributed to Paphlagonian forces appears very high (see also below n. 17). 13 Xenophon (Anab. 1. 9. 7; Hellenica 1. 4. 3) (see Briant 1996, 352, 639, 718-19; Tuplin 2004, 162, 77). 14 Xenophon (Hellenica 1. 4. 3-4). In relation to Cyrus’ Oriental infantry only, Diodorus (14. 22. 5) specifies that it was formed by troops from Phrygia and Lydia (see Briant 1996, 617). 15 According to Briant (1996, 648), Artaxerxes’ army was composed exclusively of soldiers from Babylonia, Susiana, Media and Persis. There are no references to Paphlagonian troops among the king’s ranks. 16 See, for example, Xenophon (Anab. 2. 4. 3; 5. 5. 14; 6. 1. 32).

231

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

person.25 In light of these indications – on the basis of which we should presume that Paphlagonian dynasts were free to move and to act outside Persian control26 – one might be lead to believe that the dynasts’ acts of ‘insubordination’ towards the king might not have been occasional.27 On the contrary, the Paphlagonians, at least those who occupied inland areas, share the same conditions as those ethne of central Asia Minor who were nominally part of Achaemenid empire, but in actual fact were not subject to military and tributary control.28

Orontes, satrap of Armenia (Anab. 4. 3. 4), whereas Tiribazus, hyparchos of Western Armenia, besides ‘his own army’, also had troops of Chalybian and Taochian misthophoroi (Anab. 4. 4. 18). Finally, Itamenes, in Mysia, also had, in addition to his own troops, Assyrian hoplites from Comania and 80 Hyrcanian horsemen, called ‘mercenaries in the service of the King’ (Anab. 7. 8. 15: basileos misthophoroi). These data, together with other factors, have been analysed in relation to the composition of imperial armies at various levels. The latter included troops defined by Greek sources as misthophoroi, from various peoples of the empire, but clearly different from the others forming the army, precisely because of the way they are named, showing them to be mercenaries. Scholars agree that these mercenaries should not be identified according to the Greek meaning of the term mistophoroi, but rather in the ‘Achaemenid sense’, given that they provided neither voluntary nor paid services. They were in fact subject to conscription and their misthos consisted only of receiving trophe.30

This is confirmed by the Persians’ strategic choice to let the Greek mercenaries, after the battle of Cunaxa, go further north towards the hinterland. Such choice was supported by the awareness that the territories where the Greeks were going were, as seen by the central power, an insurmountable and dangerous land controlled by indigenous ethne.29 If this was the case for the Paphlagonians – and we have reasons to believe that it was so given that their territory was off-limits for the Greek mercenaries – then we need to further question the abovementioned unusual situation, whereby an ethnos (or at least part of it) denies its services to the king but offers them to one of his subalterns, and we should presume that the reason for the presence of the Paphlagonian cavalry among the ranks of Cyrus’ army was other than a conscription in the satrapal forces.

If this were so, however, the difference between mercenaries and regular troops would be too small to justify the distinction made by Greek authors and their use of a strongly distinctive term in Greek. Another element which leads us to question the compulsory nature of these misthophoroi’s services is given by the fact that all Orientals defined as such belong to ‘minor’ ethne, also known as ‘rebels’, non-subjects, ready to refuse tributary and military requests of the king.31 The persistence of sources’ references to these ethne in those terms is so strong that it cannot be reduced to a topos, rather it should be considered as related to a real context. The contribution of these ethne to imperial armies included both their precious knowledge of territories otherwise impossible to cross, as well as different weapons and fighting techniques. The enlisting of mercenaries, both Greek and Oriental, should be therefore considered as a further way to control and use the various populations of the empire by the central power.32

A possible trace is provided by some references in the Anabasis to misthophoroi, who are not Greeks, but belonged to Asian ethne, and therefore to subjected populations. According to Xenophon, Armenian, Mardian and Chaldaean misthophoroi were also at the service of 25

Nepos (Dat. 2): is regi dicto audiens non erat. See also Theopompus (FGH 115, F 179) apud Athenaeus (4. 144f; 10. 415d); Aelian (VH 1. 27), with the variant of the name Thys. 26 See Lane Fox 2004, 30-31. According to Debord (1999, 113), between 400 and 380 BC, Paphlagonia was ‘en état de sécession de fait’. On the contrary, according to Briant (1996, 751), the entire Paphlagonian territory was not beyond satrapal surveillance. Tuplin (2004, 177) argues that Paphlagonia in those years was ‘technically subject to Persian authority’. Diodorus (14. 11. 3) wrongly writes about a ‘satrap of Paphlagonia’. 27 Without making the ‘généralisation abusive’, typical of Greek authors of the 4th century, of considering the region always independent from the Persians (see Briant 1996, 719). The Persian archaeological evidence found in Paphlagonia is considered to be convincing proof of Achaemenid control (bibliography in Tuplin 2004, 174, n. 75). 28 In relation to the alliance between Agesilaus and Cotys, Xenophon (Agesilaus 3. 4) specifies that the latter ‘did not give in to the king who was holding out his right hand’, being afraid, among other things, ‘that he had to pay a high sum’. This information might well refer to Cotys’ rebellion, also against phoros, and therefore to the payment of substantial overdue sums of it. 29 See Xenophon (Anab. 3. 5. 16) on the territory of the Carduchi who did not obey the king and who once had destroyed a royal army precisely thanks to the territory’s inaccessible nature. Tuplin (2004, 176) emphasises that ‘the Carduchi never appear in Persian service, even as mercenaries’. Diodorus is the only one who argues that, after Cunaxa, the Ten Thousand decided to go back ‘marching towards Paphlagonia’ (14. 25. 7 and 27. 2). In any case, it should be noted that the last two Persians whom the mercenaries dealt with are Tiribazus, governor of Armenia (Anab. 4. 4. 4-18), and Asidates, rich owner from Mysia (Anab. 7. 8. 9-22). In the middle, along the march of the Ten Thousand, there are only ethne and poleis, a world without Persians.

Therefore if, within the empire, there could be ethne (or part of them) whose territories were not accessible to royal armies, and that as a consequence did not pay phoros and were prepared to provide military services to 30 See Tuplin 1987, 195, 222-23. Briant 1966, 814-15 (but see also 78687 and 1062-63) defines ‘tout à fait caractéristique’ Xenophon’s expression basileos misthophoroi and derives from it a sort of institutional category of soldiers who, despite being defined as ‘mercenaries’, would not be such according to the Greek meaning of the term but ‘au sens achéménide’. However, in the Anabasis, Xenophon defines in similar terms the entire royal army. See basilikon strateuma (Anab. 2. 2. 16), basilike stratia (Anab. 3. 5. 16), but also basileos stratia (Anab. 1. 7. 12), basileos dynamis (Anab. 2. 1. 14) and basileos hippeias (Anab. 5. 6. 8). This means that the expression used for the mercenaries loses its peculiarity. 31 See, in the Anabasis (5. 5. 17), Carduchi, Taochians and Chaldaeans. Xenophon, in the Cyropaedia (3. 2. 7), argues that the latter fight for those who need them ‘because they are polemikotatoi and penetes’. Tuplin (2004, 176) defines Chalybians and Taochians ‘certainly nonsubject’. About Carduchi, see above n. 29. 32 Briant (1996, 815 and passim) rightly insists on these different forms of control without, however, believing in Oriental mercenaries. (see above n. 30).

232

B. TRIPODI: PAPHLAGONIAN HORSEMAN IN CUNAXA (XENOPHON ANABASIS 1. 8. 5)

the king only if paid, we should take into account the possibility that those 1000 Paphlagonian horsemen at Cunaxa were not conscripted by Cyrus, but rather deployed by him as mercenaries, independently of the territorial extension of Cyrus’ arche.

BRIANT, P. 1996: Histoire de l’Empire Perse de Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris).

It cannot be denied that such a hypothesis contrasts with the description, provided by literary sources, of Cyrus’ army as clearly divided into two ethnic groups. According to Xenophon (Anab. 1. 7. 14, 1. 8. 5), Diodorus (14. 19. 6)33 and Plutarch (Artaxerxes 6. 5), on the one hand there were the barbarians, who are not further identified, and therefore subject to conscription, and on the other the Greeks, the only ones identified as misthophoroi.34

DINTSIS, P. 1986: Hellenistische Helme (Archaeologica 43) (Rome).

DEBORD, P. 1999: L’Asie Mineure au IVème siècle (412-323 a.C.): pouvoirs et jeux politiques (Études Ausonius 3) (Paris).

LANE FOX, R. 2004: ‘Introduction’. In Lane Fox, R. (ed.), The Long March. Xenophon and the Ten Thousand (New Haven /London), 1-46. LENDLE, O. 1995: Kommentar zu Xenophons Anabasis (Bücher 1-7) (Darmstadt). MANFREDI, M. 1986: La strada dei Diecimila. Topografia e geografia dell’Oriente di Senofonte (Milan).

The undifferentiated image of Cyrus’ strateuma barbarikon is nevertheless the result of the Hellenocentric approach of the sources, mainly interested in focusing on the Greek troops. This does not allow us to know if Cyrus, like Tiribazus, had been forced to integrate his satrapal forces with contingents of mercenaries, recruited in the territories of the empire among the subjects who were such only by name.

ROBERT, L. 1980: A travers L’Asie Mineure: poètes et prosateurs, monnaies grecques, voyageurs et géographie (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 239) (Paris). RUGE, W. and BITTEL, K. 1949: ‘Paphlagonia’. Real Encyclopädie 18, cols. 2486-2550.

In any case, the previously mentioned military excellence of the Paphlagonian cavalry, which was against carrying out orders on behalf of a third party and submitting to obligations, was a relevant contribution for any Oriental army. And perhaps it is no coincidence that Cyrus had placed the two ethnic groups, the Paphlagonian and the Hellenic, side by side on the battlefield of Cunaxa, since they represented excellence in the art of warfare, cavalry and infantry respectively, and which he could deploy only by paying misthos.

TRIPODI, B. 1995: ‘Il cibo dell'altro: alimenti e codici alimentari nell'Anabasi di Senofonte’. In Briant, P. (ed.), Dans le pas des Dix-Mille. Peuples et pays du Proche-Orient vus par un grec (Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale, Toulouse, 3-4 février 1995) (Toulouse) (= Pallas 43), 41-58.

Bibliography

TRIPODI, B. 1998: ‘Parlare con l'altro. La comunicazione verbale e il ruolo dell'interprete nell'Anabasi di Senofonte’. In Arslan, E.A. et al. (eds.), La ‘parola’ delle immagini e delle forme di scrittura: modi e tecniche della comunicazione nel mondo antico (Pelorias 1) (Messina), 93-110.

TRIPODI, B. 1997: ‘Lessico dell'alimentazione in Senofonte: l'Anabasi tra realtà e rappresentazione’. In Radici Colace P. (ed.), Atti del II Seminario intern. di studi sui Lessici tecnici greci e latini, Messina, 14-16 dic. 1995 (Messina/Naples), 129-41.

Abbreviations FGH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 1998: ‘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 (Historia Einzelschriften 121) (Stuttgart), 9-68.

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), 924-73.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2004: ‘On the Earlier Colonial Architecture in the Pontus’. In Tuplin, C.J. (ed.), Pontus and the Outside World: Studies in Black Sea History, Historiography and Archaeology (Colloquia Pontica 9) (Leiden/Boston), 225-78.

BASLEZ, M.-F. 1995: ‘Fleuves et voies d’eau dans l’Anabase’. In Briant, P. (ed.), Dans le pas des DixMille. Peuples et pays du Proche-Orient vus par un grec (Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale, Toulouse, 3-4 février 1995) (Toulouse) (= Pallas 43), 79-88.

TUPLIN, C.J. 1987: ‘Xenophon and the Garrisons of the Achaemenid Empire’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 20, 167-245.

33

In relation to Paphlagonian horsemen, Diodorus (14. 22. 5) uses the verb synago which, like stratologeo, in the specific meaning of ‘enlist’, does not allow to define the exact type of enlistment. Xenophon (Hellenica 3. 1. 5), for example, uses the same verb to indicate enlistment of mercenaries. 34 But the approach of Greek sources, focusing mainly on Hellenic mercenaries and emphasising their military performances, has been rightly questioned by Briant (1996, 803-06) in particular.

TUPLIN, C.J. 2004: ‘The Persian Empire’. In Lane Fox, R. (ed.), The Long March: Xenophon and the Ten Thousand (New Haven/London), 154-83.

233

THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA COAST AND ITS HINTERLAND: AN ETHNO-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE Classics and Archaeology, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, Old Quad, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia [email protected]

Abstract: The southern Black Sea and its hinterland have, from earliest times, been an area of ethnic and cultural diversity. From the 7th century BC, the local population was joined by incomers such as Greeks and Achaemenids. Even before this it was a region of considerable interest to the Urartians, Phrygians, etc. Recently, in the light of new excavation and survey projects, the area has seen hitherto unparalleled interest. This paper makes use of the results of recent studies to demonstrate how different cultures, local and foreign, met, coexisted and enriched each other. GÜNEY KARADENİZ KIYISI VE HİNTERLANDI: BİR ETNİK-KÜLTÜREL PERSPEKTİF Özet: Güney Karadeniz kıyısı ve onun hinterlandı en erken zamanlardan beri etnik ve kültürel bir farklılaşma coğrafyası olma özelliğine sahiptir. İ.Ö. 7. yy.’dan beri yerel halka dışarıdan gelen Hellen ve Akhamenidler katılmıştır. Bundan önce bölge Urartular’ın, Phrygler’in vbg. ilgilerini çeken bir bölgeydi. Son zamanlardaki yeni kazı ve yüzey araştırmalarının ışığında bölge bugüne değin görülmeyen bir ilginin odağı olmuştur. Bu bildiride yeni çalışmaların sonuçlarının farklı kültürlerin, yerel ve dış kaynaklı kültürlerle nasıl bir araya geldiği, yaşadığı ve birbirini güçlendirdiği tartışılacaktır.

The aim of this short paper is to cast a brief glance over recent developments in the study of the Greeks and their relationship with locals along the southern shores of the Black Sea.1 Although I shall cover the whole of the Turkish Black Sea coast, my focus is chiefly upon its central part: this is the area most intensively studied of late and it has yielded new evidence. Several survey projects and some excavations have enriched our knowledge of both Greeks and locals.

kouros and stele are of Ionian type and that Üsküdar is the ancient Chrysopolis.4 All the places mentioned above plus Sirkeci5 also produce material of the Classical, Hellenistic and later periods. Moving on to the Turkish Black Sea coast, the excavation of Enez (Ainos) has yielded Thacian pottery of the 6th4th centuries BC and a carved stone relief of a Thracian horseman.6

As to the Greeks, there is welcome new evidence. To start with Byzantium, guardian of the passage to the Black Sea, from which a few fragments of Corinthian pottery dating from the end of the 7th century BC have long been known: the salvage excavations conducted in advance of the construction of the Marmaray Metro have furnished new material. Yenikapı (Theodosian Harbour) has yielded not only a complete Corinthian aryballos but fragments of East Greek pottery of the end of the 7th-6th centuries BC.2 Rescue excavations in Sultanahmet, unconnected with the Metro, have produced Wild Goat Style pottery of 625-600 BC, Athenian pottery of 550525 BC and a dinos of the 6th century BC, as well as a Phrygian bronze fibula.3 Excavations between 2004 and 2008, undertaken in Üsküdar as a result of the Marmaray project, have revealed not just Archaic pottery (East Greek and Attic) but a fragment of the lower part of a kouros. At the same time, the discovery of tiles and a fragment of a 6th-century marble stele demonstrate the existence of an Archaic cemetery on the slope descending behind modern-day Sultantepe. It is believed that the

Tios, between Heracleia Pontica and Amastris, is beneath modern Filyos but, unlike other ancient settlements along the Turkish Black Sea coast, it is not entirely inaccessible. In ancient times there were variant spellings of its name: Tios, Tion, Tieion and Teion (Latinised as Tium, Tieium and Teium).7 According to written tradition it had been a centre of one of the Paphlagonian tribes, the Caucones, before the establishment here of a Milesian colony in the 7th century BC (Strabo 12. 3. 5). Investigation commenced in 2006, under the direction of S. Atasoy. The site has a well-preserved ancient harbour, a nymphaeum, a theatre, etc. A prominent feature of the site is the kale/castle. The excavation has brought forth the remains of Late Roman/Early Byzantine structures and also a temple. Among the earliest material discovered so far is East Greek pottery, dated to the early 6th century BC onwards, and Late Archaic-Early Classical Attic pottery.8 4

Gün Işığında 2007, 32-37, 70-73; Karagöz 2010, 85-93. Gün Işığında 2007, 110-15. 6 Tsetskhladze 2007a, 180 (with bibliography). 7 Avram et al. 2004, 973-74; Anderson 2009, 275. 8 Atasoy 2008; Atasoy and Erugrul 2009; Anderson 2009. I am most grateful to S. Atasoy for showing me the site and the early Greek pottery in September 2009. 5

1

For a recent fuller overview, with exhaustive bibliography, see Tsetskhladze 2007a. 2 Gün Işığında 2007, 180-81, 248, 272; Asal 2010, 157. 3 Gün Işığında 2007, 144-45.

235

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

New evidence is also emerging from the vicinity of Amisos: at Kurupelit, 7 km west of the site, recent rescue excavation has unearthed the remains of buildings on stone foundations, bringing finds of fragments of East Greek and Attic pottery of the 6th century BC as well as terracotta figurines. Alongside are fragments of local Phrygian-type pottery.9 At this early stage of excavation it is very difficult to interpret this settlement, but it would seem that the archaeological evidence bolsters the written sources, which state that Amisos was established in the early 6th century BC,10 and that Greeks and locals were living alongside one another, as witnessed by excavations conducted in other regions around the Black Sea and in other areas of Ionian colonisation.11

more logical and acceptable.16 On the other hand, we cannot exclude the possibility that in the ‘Dark Age’ after the collapse of empires, people were displaced and moved around. Nor should we discard the view that these definitions are more anthropological than ethnic, which is the case with the Colchians – they were called Egyptians because they were just as dark (Herodotus 2. 103-105). Chaldia, mentioned by Herodotus (2. 104; 3. 94), Xenophon (Anabasis 4. 8. 9) and Strabo (12. 3. 18), offers more confusion. Many are of the opinion that the Chaldians were descendents of the Urartians.17 Thus, it is obvious that the ethnic situation was very complicated and confusing. One would hope that excavation could shed some light, but there is little of it being undertaken here. Surveys cannot answer many questions, including those about ethnicity. The only site extensively excavated is Ikiztepe, which reveals that there are no Early Iron Age occupation levels in the settlement, and little evidence of extensive occupation even in the Middle Iron Age. It is believed that the Kashka people, who were nomadic/semi-nomadic, occupied this territory up to 650 BC; hence they left no traces of their occupancy.18

In discussing the Greek colonies of the southern Black Sea, we are obliged over and again to rely on written sources. We are not able to extract much reliable information either about the dates of establishment of the Greek colonies or their relationship with the local population – this is especially so for the Archaic period. Nearly all written sources contain mythical elements and it is very often impossible to separate the myth from the reality.12

The Paphlagonia survey project19 identified about seven settlements from the Early Iron Age (1200-950 BC). Although the material is sparse, it suggests some element of continuity with the preceding Bronze Age. In the Middle Iron Age (950-550 BC), so-called Phrygian Grey Ware appeared in nine settlements – but pottery alone cannot testify to the expansion of Phrygia into this area. Material from the Late Iron Age (550-330 BC) may suggest an Achaemenid impact on the region – there is not just pottery but a single fragment of an architectural tile, possibly depicting part of the hind quarters and curled tail of a lion, showing traces of black paint. Several tumuli were recorded, although of uncertain date – they could have been reused; as well as six single rockcut tombs, all probably dating to the Late Iron Age.

Another important question is methodological. As classical archaeologists frequently ask: how do we excavate ethnicity?13 There is nothing new in underlining that it is seldom possible to identify peoples through archaeology. Some help might be expected from the written sources, but in multi-ethnic surroundings even ancient authors are confused. This is so for the southern Black Sea in general, but particularly for the central part of it. For the south-eastern Black Sea we have Xenophon, who gives quite extensive information about the local population.14 But we lack the archaeological evidence which would help us identify the material culture of the local peoples mentioned by him. According to Herodotus (1. 72), the Greeks called the Cappadocians ‘Syrians’. Strabo (12. 3. 9) believed that they were Paphlagonians, but in his day they were called ‘White Syrians’, whilst those outside the Taurus Mountains were still called Syrians. Herodotus (1. 72, 76) also mentions ‘White Syrians’ in this region. It is, however, very difficult to know why these people were called Syrians, white or otherwise. Does it mean that they looked like Syrians, only lighter? There has been some discussion about the origin of these ‘Syrians’ in the Black Sea area. Were they of Hittite or Phrygian origin, had they migrated to Anatolia from North Syria in the 8th century BC, etc., etc?15 It is very difficult to be certain one way or another. Some scholars think that the local people of the Central Black Sea region were just Paphlagonians, which seems

One of the important conclusions drawn from the results of recent surveys and by re-evaluating already known material, especially from Amisos and Sinope, is that, as in other parts of the Black Sea, locals formed part of the population of the Greek colonies right from the start. We have known since the 1950s about a number of fragments of local Anatolian Iron Age pottery from Sinope – it was excavated in the context of Greek pottery of the first half of the 6th century. We used to call it Phrygian pottery, but this kind of pottery – painted jugs with beak-spouted mouths are typical of it – is not Phrygian but characteristic of the whole of the Central Black Sea region. It was found together with other local pottery during excavations at Amisos in the early 20th century – though unfortunately it has still not been published.20

9

Dönmez 2010a, 522-23. Avram et al. 2004, 954-55. 11 Tsetskhladze 2002. 12 Avram et al. 2004, 924-28, 954-64. 13 See, for instance, Hall 1997; 2002; the discussion in Ancient West & East 4.2 (2005), 409-59; and Tsetskhladze 2006b, lix-lxii. See also Mitchell 2002. For the Near East, see Limet 2005; van Soldt et al. 2005. 14 For a discussion, see Tsetskhladze 2007a, 180-83. 15 For a summary, see Summerer 2007, 28-29. 10

16

Saprykin 1991. For a discussion, bibliography and Urartian objects in Trabzon Archaeological Museum, see Tsetskhladze 2007a, 183-84, nn. 51-52. 18 See, for example, Bilgi 2001, 40-45; Dönmez 2006. 19 Matthews and Glatz 2009, 149-71. 20 See the summary in Summerer 2007, 30. About new excavations in the vicinity of Amisos, see above. On Amisos and Sinope, see Avram et 17

236

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE: THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA COAST AND ITS HINTERLAND: AN ETHNO-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

Discoveries of a few kurgan-type tumuli in the hinterland of the Central Black Sea region, as well as horse burials, Scythian-type arrowheads, some weapons connected to nomadic tribes, etc., have raised very important questions about the possible presence of Scythians and perhaps Cimmerians in the region, even around Sinope.21 It has been concluded that the presence of these nomadic peoples delayed Greek colonisation of the area, especially at Sinope, until the end of the 7th-beginning of the 6th century BC. The finds and their publication are very important. Once again, they raise methodological problems: can we really connect them to Cimmerians or Scythians? I believe it is much easier to do so in view of the information given by ancient authors about the foundation of Sinope, but once again, we should not forget that their information carries with it an underlying or overlaying of myth, and it is impossible to be certain of its historicity.22 Even Strabo’s account (11. 8. 4) of the fight between the Achaemenids and Scythians hereabouts is too late a source to be relied upon. Furthermore, it has been underlined many times in the literature that we have no archaeological traces of the Cimmerians, either in their homeland of the northern Black Sea steppes or in Anatolia.23 Step by step, for the northern Black Sea steppe, the use of the term ‘Cimmerian culture’ has been displaced by ‘pre-Scythian culture’, to reflect that what has been found here from before the Scythians moved into the area has so much in common with Scythian material culture that it is impossible to single out any socalled Cimmerian culture.

from an archaeological point of view. They could quite easily have copied Scythian-type arrowheads and other types of objects. I do not want to say that this was definitely the case. I wish rather to use this suggestion in order to emphasise how difficult ethnic identification of objects can be. Kurgan-type burials were not just a feature of the Scythians but of many other nomads. They are known in Phrygia as well – but nobody seeks to connect the examples there to the Scythians or the Cimmerians. Let me return to the question of delayed colonisation. I do not think that we can use this argument for Sinope or for other places. Sinope fits in very well to with the overall picture of Black Sea colonisation, which started from the last third of the 7th century BC.26 It is true that we should look at local ethno-political conditions, but we should seek reasons primarily in the mother city, in this case Miletus. Ionian colonisation started much later than that of the cities of mainland Greece because it had no need to embark upon it.27 Taking a broader picture, Ionian colonisation in the West fits chronologically with that in the Black Sea.28 In the context of the southern Black Sea, another very important phenomenon – so-called secondary colonisation – has to be considered. This applies again to Sinope – we can extract information about Sinopean colonies from written sources, but we are still unable to confirm anything from archaeological evidence.29 Indeed, tracing nomads/semi-nomads and their movements archaeologically is very difficult. Recently, Ş. Dönmez agreed with me: rather than connecting the abovementioned evidence about kurgan-style tumuli, Scythian-type weaponry, etc. with either the Cimmerians or the Scythians, he now links it in general to ‘Eurasian horse-riding nomads’.30 I should mention here that excavation of Oluz Höyük, not far from Amasya, has yielded very important evidence, not least on the distribution of Scythian-type arrowheads but also of an Achaemenid presence here.31

For Anatolia itself, until recently we talked of a ‘Cimmerian Destruction Level’ at Gordion. Now, thanks to the new chronology that has been proposed, this destruction level cannot be connected to the Cimmerians.24 Thus, we are now in an even more confused position about the Cimmerians from an archaeological angle than we were before. The situation with the Scythians in Anatolia is also a matter of dispute.25 They too are not easy to trace here archaeologically. Scythian-type arrowheads are so widespread in Anatolia itself, they were copied by so many people and they were in existence for such a long that more and more scholars try not to connect them to the Scythians. Thus, one needs to be very careful when interpreting horse burials, Scythian-type arrowheads and other objects connected with nomads as belonging to the Scythians. In the circumstances, why should these finds not be connected to the Kashka people? They were nomads/semi-nomads, we know definitely that they were living in the region, and we know nothing about them

Much attention has been devoted recently to the study, publication and interpretation of Late Archaic Greekstyle architectural terracottas, some long known and others discovered recently, found in local settlements of the Halys bend:32 Akalan, Köyiçi Tepesi, Pazarlı, Boğazköy, Kaman-Kalehöyük and Paralı Tepe. The lastmentioned yielded roof tiles but no relief plaques, while Kaman-Kalehöyük provided some roof tiles and painted simas.33 The origin of this kind of architectural 26

See Tsetskhladze 1994; 1998; 2003. Tsetskhladze 1994. 28 Tsetskhladze 2002. 29 For the latest about secondary colonisation, see Tsetskhladze 2009. And for the latest on Sinope, see Barat 2009; Dan 2009. See also Manoledakis 2010. 30 Dönmez 2011. 31 Extensive annual preliminary reports have appeared in Belleten, Colloquium Anatolicum, etc. See now Dönmez 2010b. On Achaemenids around the Black Sea, see, for example, Tsetskhladze 2008. 32 Summerer 2005; 2007; 2008; 2009; Dönmez 2010a, 517-22. 33 Summerer 2007, 31-34. 27

al. 2004, 954-55, 962-63; Dönmez 2006; Atasoy 1997. L. Summerer is preparing a publication of the local pottery excavated at Amisos (Summerer 2009, 187, n. 3). 21 Over the last few years Ş. Dönmez has put a great deal of effort into collecting and publishing them. For the latest, see Dönmez 2011. 22 See, for instance, Ivantchik 1998. 23 For the latest, with bibliography, see Tsetskhladze 2011a, 115-20; 2011b. 24 For the latest on the new chronology for Central Anatolia, see Genz 2011; Matthews and Glatz 2009, 150-54; Summers 2009; Voigt 2009. 25 Dönmez 2011; Tsetskhladze 2011a, 115-20; 2011b.

237

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

terracottas, which indeed have a Greek-style appearance, is unclear. Some suggest the inspiration for the figures and paintings derived from East Greek vase-painting;34 others that it was Phrygian.35 This very problematic question remains hotly debated, including the origins of the examples found in Gordion – where it has been proposed that they are a direct reflection of the expansion of Lydian influence.36 As to terracottas from Akalan, which, according to L. Summerer, have been published only partly, the plaques with guilloche meander and lotus-palmette patterns which have been found there are identical to their counterparts in Amisos (the material from which is kept in Istanbul Archaeological Museum but remains unpublished).37 Thus, she concludes: ‘It is obvious that the moulds for these clay reliefs were introduced to Akalan by the neighbouring Greek city.’38

even if it were so, it does not explain why the two sites have nearly identical fortification systems. What type of buildings did they come from? The remains of such buildings have neither been found nor excavated. Recently, two suggestions have been advanced: that they were temples;43 or that the buildings were erected by the local elite, which had, to a degree varying from settlement to settlement, received this form of decoration and used it as a new means of distinguishing itself.44 The latter seems more plausible. The situation reminds me of another region of Ionian colonisation – Emporion and its surrounding territory in Spain. There, the Ullastret settlement, residence of the local chief, situated in the hinterland on a hill-top about 20 km from Emporion, has been very well excavated. The architecture, including the fortifications, looks very Greek. Emporion, again like nearly all the Greek Black Sea colonies, was dependent on the goodwill of the local people. Greek architects were used by the local chiefs to build and decorate their residences. Why might the situation along the Halys not be the same? – especially since we have parallels in other parts of the Black Sea: Thrace, Scythia and Colchis.45

This evidence is indeed very important and revealing. It is, however, very difficult to interpret these finds because the settlements at Akalan, Köyiçi Tepesi, Pazarlı and Paralı Tepe have either received little or no large-scale excavation or are poorly documented. Excavation is underway at Kaman-Kalehöyük, but it is too recent to have yielded large quantities of evidence or a reliable context. All of the aforementioned places were situated at fortified points and give indications of monumental buildings. This could suggest that they were residences of the local chiefs or elites, controlling the River Halys, which formed the only route inland from Amisos. Akalan settlement itself, only 10 km inland of the Black Sea as the crow flies, continues to be the subject of attention and dispute.39 Its fortifications bear a very close resemblance to those of Kerkenes Dağ,40 but the interpretation of Kerkenes Dağ is also a matter of dispute – was it a Median city or a Phrygian one? The latest excavations demonstrate that it was definitely under Phrygian control.41

Too often we assume that everything of Greek type or appearance found in a local context must come from Greek colonies and colonists. Five of the abovementioned settlements along the Halys give good grounds for supposing that Greek features could come from inland rather than from the Black Sea; the sixth, Akalan, can be connected with Amisos. As I have remarked, the kind of architectural terracottas that I have discussed are known not just from Gordion but from Boğazköy. Another interesting fact is that the earliest Greek pottery comes not from the colonies of the Central Black Sea region of Turkey46 but from inland settlements – examples are fragments of two Milesian jugs of Middle Wild Goat

Which of Akalan and Kerkenes Dağ is the Pteria mentioned by Herodotus (1. 76)?42 If we believe Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Pterion), there were two Pterias, one connected with the Sinopeans and the other with the Medians. This might have been the case, but

43 ‘It is an indisputable fact that in megaron façade reflection of Phrygian rock monuments, this kind of revetment plaques were used for the decoration of temple façades’ (Dönmez 2010a, 517). ‘Among the buildings with terracotta revetment plaques, considered as of a mutual fashion concept in Aegean World, Phrygia, Lydia and the Black Sea Basin during Iron Age, temples are thought to share the first place. Especially decorations on rock monuments representing the façades of megaron temples of mother goddess Kybele, in highlands of Phrygia which is located between Eskişehir and Afyon, give important hints as to how terracotta revetment plaques were used on temples for decoration purposes. In the light of these evaluations, the revetment plaques obtained indicate to a probable temple building or buildings at Ikizari/Köyiçi Tepesi. It can be said, judging by the architectural data revealed at Akalan, the building or buildings were built in megaron style and on rubble foundation with wooden superstructure. An acquired nailholed fragment shows us that revetment plaques were attached to the wall with nails’ (Dönmez 2010a, 522-23). 44 Summerer 2008, 277. 45 For Spain and other regions of Ionian colonisation including the Black Sea, see Tsetskhladze 1997; 2000; 2002; 2003; 2010a; 2011c; all with bibliographies. 46 As L. Summerer correctly notes, although there are occasional claims in the literature of the existence of 7th-century BC pottery in Sinope and Amisos, the earliest actually found dates to the first half of the 6th century BC (Summerer 2007, 30; 2009, 187-88). She is preparing for publication the Greek pottery of Amisos, and K. Görkay that of Sinope (Summerer 2009, 187, nn. 1, 3).

34

Summerer 2009. Dönmez 2010a, 517-22. 36 Summers 2006 (with discussion and literature). 37 Summerer 2009, 189. She cites here unpublished habilitation thesis (University of Munich, 2005). 38 Summerer 2009, 189. 39 For the latest, see Dönmez and Ulugergerli 2008; Dönmez 2010a, 519-20. 40 I am most grateful to G. Summers for acting as my guide to Kerkenes Dağ in September 2001, and to Ş. Dönmez and S. Atasoy for showing me Akalan in July 2003. 41 For the latest, see Draycott and Summers 2008. ‘Phrygian culture is manifestly evident at Kerkenes at the time of its destruction. The extent to which the original foundation of the city was culturally Phrygian is a central question of ongoing research at the site. There are, however, strong and significant differences between Kerkenes and Gordion. Of these it might be pertinent to point to an absence of pebble mosaics at Kerkenes and to not also that both the sandstone surround and the rows of “mason marks” on the “Ashlar building” are unparalleled at Gordion’ (Summers 2006, 686, n. 31). Architectural terracottas are also absent from Kerkenes Dağ (Summers 2006). 42 For the latest, see Rollinger 2003. 35

238

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE: THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA COAST AND ITS HINTERLAND: AN ETHNO-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

Style II, dated to the end of the 7th century BC (Akalan); a complete bird-bowl from a North Ionian workshop of the third quarter of the 7th century BC (from a village near Mecitözü; kept in Amasya Museum); a fragment of East Greek pottery (Alişar); and East Greek and Corinthian pottery of the mid-7th century (Boğazköy); a fragment of an Attic krater of the second half of the 6th century BC and, most importantly, a fragment of Protogeometric pottery of 1200-800 BC (both KamanKalehöyük).47 Perhaps all these finds demonstrate that not all Greek features or pottery, or even Greeks, came from the Black Sea colonies, but rather from inland. Indeed, why should they come only via Greeks?

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), 924-73. BARAT, C. 2009: ‘Sinope et ses relations avec la péninsule anatolienne: réseaux, échanges des biens et des hommes’. In Bru, H., Kirbihler, F. and Lebreton, S. (eds.), L’Asie Mineure dans l’Antiquité: échanges, populations et territoires (Actes du colloque de Tours, 21-22 octobre 2005) (Rennes), 351-75. BILGI, Ö. 2001: Protohistoric Age: Metallurgists of the Central Black Sea Region. A New Perspective on the Question of the Indo-Europeans’ Original Homeland (Istanbul). DAN, A. 2009: ‘Sinope, “capitale” pontique, dans la géographie antique’. In Bru, H., Kirbihler, F. and Lebreton, S. (eds.), L’Asie Mineure dans l’Antiquité: échanges, populations et territoires (Actes du colloque de Tours, 21-22 octobre 2005) (Rennes), 67131. DÖNMEZ, Ş. 2006: ‘Some Observations on the SocioEconomic Structure and Ethnic Make-up of the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey during the Iron Age in the Light of New Evidence’. Ancient West & East 5, 13-43. DÖNMEZ, Ş. 2010a: ‘Sacral Monuments of the NorthCentral Anatolia’. In Petropoulos, E.K. and Maslennikov, A.A. (eds.), Ancient Sacral Monuments in the Black Sea (Thessaloniki), 515-62.

Of course, it is very difficult to determine who transmitted these features and objects. But the point to make is that we often give too much credit to the Greeks and forget the so-called uncivilised locals and their elites.48 Moreover, this situation echoes the circumstances we encounter in other parts of the Black Sea, where Greek pottery contemporary with or predating the establishment of any Greek cities thereabouts is found in the hinterland in the course of excavation of sites interpreted as the residences of local chiefs and elites.49 As I mentioned at the beginning, this is just a reflection on some new developments. It is extremely welcome that, thanks mainly to our Turkish colleagues, we have more and more evidence about Greeks and locals. This new information is helpful in itself, but it also allows us to reevaluate old evidence and interpretations.

DÖNMEZ, Ş. (ed.) 2010b: Amasya-Oluz Höy, The Principal Site of Kasku Land: The Preliminary Reports of 2007 and 2008 Seasons. General Evaluations and Results (Ankara).

Bibliography ANDERSON, W. 2009: ‘Late Byzantine occupation of the castle of Tios’. Anatolia Antiqua 17, 26577.

DÖNMEZ, Ş. 2011: ‘New Evidences on the Existence of Eurasian Horse-riding Nomads in the Black Sea Region, Turkey’. In Öztan, A. and Dönmez, Ş. (eds.), Knowledge Production From the Black Sea to the Euphrates: Studies Presented in Honour of Önder Bilgi (Ankara), 135-46.

ASAL, R. 2010: ‘Theodosian Harbour and Sea Trade in Byzantine Istanbul’. In Istanbul Archaeological Museums: Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Marmaray-Metro Salvage Excavations, 5th-6th May 2008 (Istanbul), 153-60.

DÖNMEZ, Ş. and ULUGERGERLI, E.U. 2008: ‘Geophysical Research at Akalan’. Ancient West & East 7, 249-64.

ATASOY, S. 1997: Amisos: Karadeniz Kıyısındra Antik Bir Kent (Samsun).

DRAYCOTT, C.M. and SUMMERS, G.D. 2008: Sculpture and Inscriptions from the Monumental Entrance to the Palatial Complex at Kerkenes Dag, Turkey (Kerkenes Special Studies 1, Oriental Institute Publications 135) (Chicago).

ATASOY, S. 2008: ‘Zonguldak – Filyos (Tios/Tieion/Tion/Tianos/Tieum) Kurtarma Kazısı’. In Delemen, I., Çokay-Kepçe, S., Özdibay, A. and Turak, Ö. (eds.), Euergetes: Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasoğlu zum 65. Geburtstag, vol. 1 (Antalya), 91-97. ATASOY, S. and ERUGRUL, Ö. 2009: ‘Filyos – Tios Kazisi 2007’. In 30. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol. 4 (Ankara), 1-14.

GENZ, H. 2011: ‘The Iron Age in Central Anatolia’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First Millennium BC (Colloquia Antiqua 1) (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA), 331-68.

AVRAM, A., HIND, J. and TSETSKHLADZE, G. 2004: ‘The Black Sea Area’. In Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen,

GÜN IŞIĞINDA 2007: Gün Işığında. İstanbul’un 8000 yılı: Marmaray, Metro, Sultanahmet kazıları (Istanbul). HALL, J.M. 1997: Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge). HALL, J.M. 2002: Hellenicity. Between Ethnicity and Culture (Chicago/London).

47

For a survey with bibliography of the earliest Greek pottery from the Halys bend, see Summerer 2007, 30-31; 2009, 188. 48 Cf. Mitchell 2010; Tsetskhladze 2010a-b. 49 Tsetskhladze 2007b; 2006c. Cf. Tsetskhladze 2010a.

239

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

and Future (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 42) (London/Istanbul), 27-36.

IVANTCHIK, A.I. 1998: ‘Die Gründung von Sinope und die Probleme der Anfangsphase der griechischen Kolonisation des Schwarzmeergebietes’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Historia Einzelschrift 121) (Stuttgart), 297-330.

SUMMERER, L. 2008: ‘Indigenous Responses to Encounters with the Greeks in Northern Anatolia: The Reception of Architectural Terracottas in the Iron Age Settlements of the Halys Basin’. In Guldager Bilde, P. and Petersen, J.H. (eds.), Meetings of Cultures in the Black Sea Region: Between Conflicts and Coexistence (Black Sea Studies 8) (Aarhus), 263-86.

KARAGÖZ, S. 2010: ‘Archaeological Excavations at Üsküdar within Marmaray Project from 2004 to 2008’. In Istanbul Archaeological Museums: Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on MarmarayMetro Salvage Excavations, 5th-6th May 2008 (Istanbul), 85-109.

SUMMERER, L. 2009: ‘Influence of the Greek Pottery on the Late Archaic Archeitectural Terracottas from North Anatolia’. Il Mar Nero 6 (for 2004-06), 186202.

LIMET, H. 2005: ‘Ethnicity’. In Snell, D.C. (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Near East (Oxford/Malden, MA), 392-405.

SUMMERS, G.D. 2006: ‘Architectural Terracottas in Greater Phrygia: Problems of Chronology and Distribution’. In Studies in Honor of Hayat Erkanal: Cultural Reflections (Istanbul), 684-87.

MANNING, S.W. and BRUCE, M.J. (eds.) 2009: TreeRings, Kings, and Old World Archaeology and Environment: Papers Presented in Honor of Peter Ian Kuniholm (Oxford/Oakville CT).

SUMMERS, G.D. 2009: ‘The End of Chronology: New Directions in the Archaeology of the Central Anatolian Iron Age’. In Manning and Bruce 2009, 239-52.

MANOLEDAKIS, M. 2010: ‘Choirades, Kerasous, Pharnakeia: Observations on Three Ancient Placenames in the Southern Black Sea’. Ancient West & East 9, 135-53.

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.

MATTHEWS, R. and GLATZ, C. (eds.) 2009: At Empires’ Edge: Project Paphlagonia. Regional Survey in North-Central Turkey (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 44) (London).

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 1997: ‘A Survey of the Major Urban Settlements in the Kimmerian Bosporos (with a Discussion of their Status as Poleis)’. In Nielsen, T.H. (ed.), Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Historia Einzelschrift 117) (Stuttgart), 39-81.

MITCHELL, S. 2002: ‘In search of the Pontic community in antiquity’. In Bowman, A.K., Cotton, H.M., Goodman, M. and Price, S. (eds.), Representations of Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean World (Proceedings of the British Academy 114) (Oxford), 35-64.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 1998: ‘Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Stages, Models, Native Populations’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Historia Einzelschrift 121) (Stuttgart), 9-68.

MITCHELL, S. 2010: ‘The Ionians of Paphlagonia’. In Whitmarsh, T. (ed.), Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World: Greek Culture in the Roman World (Cambridge), 86-110.

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 Domaradzka, L. et al. (eds.), Structures économiques dans la péninsule balkanique VIIe-IIe siècle avant J.-C. (Opole), 235-46.

ROLLINGER, R. 2003: ‘Kerkenes Dağ and Median “empire”’. In Lanfranchi, G., Roaf, M. and Rollinger, R. (eds.), Continuity of Empire(?): Assyria, Media, Persia (History of the Ancient Near East 5) (Padua), 321-26.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2002: ‘Ionians Abroad’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Snodgrass, A.M. (eds.), Greek Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea (BAR International Series 1062) (Oxford), 81-96.

SAPRIKIN, S. 1991: ‘ΠΑΦΛΑΓΟΝΙΚΑ’. In Lazarov, M. et al. (eds.), Thracia Pontica IV: Les thèmes, les agglomérations côtières de la Thrace avant la colonisation grecque, les sites submergés – méthodes des recherches. Sozopol, 6-12 octobre 1988 (Sofia), 241-54.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2003: ‘Greeks beyond the Bosporus’. In Karageorghis, V. (ed.), The Greeks beyond the Aegean: from Marseilles to Bactria (New York), 129-66.

SUMMERER, L. 2005: ‘Griechische Tondächer im kappadokischen Kontext: Die Architekturterrakotten aus Akalan’. In Flesse, F. and Treister, M. (eds.), Bilder und Objekte als Träger kultureller Identität und interkultureller Kommunikation im Schwarzmeergebiet (Rahden), 125-39.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2006a: ‘Revisiting Ancient Greek Colonisation’. In Tsetskhladze 2006b, xxiiilxxxiii. TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. (ed.) 2006b: Greek Colonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and other Settlements Overseas, vol. 1 (Leiden/Boston).

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 240

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE: THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA COAST AND ITS HINTERLAND: AN ETHNO-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2010a: ‘“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 (Philippika 34) (Wiesbaden), 41-61.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2006c: ‘More Finds of Early Greek Pottery in the Pontic Hinterland’. In Herring, E., Lemos, I., Lo Schiavo, F., Vagnetti, L., Whitehouse, R. and Wilkins, J. (eds.), Across Frontiers: Etruscans, Greeks, Phoenicians and Cypriots. Studies in Honour of David Ridgway and Francesca Romana Serra Ridgway (Accordia Specialist Studies on the Mediterranean 6) (London), 103-09.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2010b ‘Black Sea Trade: Some Further General Observations’. Anadolu Arastirmalari/Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschung (Istanbul University) 19.1 (for 2006), 187212.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2007a: ‘Greeks and Locals in the Southern Black Sea Littoral: A Re-Examination’. In Herman, G. and Shatzman, I. (eds.), Greeks between East and West: Essays in Greek Literature and History in Memory of David Asheri (Jerusalem), 160-95.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2011a: ‘The Scythians: Three Essays’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First Millennium BC (Colloquia Antiqua 1) (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA), 95-139.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2007b: ‘Pots and Pandemonium: the Earliest East Greek Pottery from North Pontic Native Settlements’. Pontica 40, 37-70.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2011b: ‘Scythians in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey?’. In Öztan, A. and Dönmez, Ş. (eds.), Knowledge Production From the Black Sea to the Euphrates: Studies Presented in Honour of Önder Bilgi (Ankara), 429-35.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2008: ‘The Pontic poleis and the Achaemenid empire: Some thoughts on their experiences’. In Lombardo, M. and Frisone, F. (eds.), Forme Sovrapoleiche e Interpoleiche di Organizzazione nel Mondo Greco Antico (Lecce/Taranto), 438-46.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2011c: ‘Pistiros Revisited’. Eirene 47, 14-25.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2009: ‘Secondary Colonisers in the Black Sea: Sinope and Panticapaeum’. In Lombardo, M. and Frisone, F. (eds.), Colonie di colonie: le fondazioni sub-coloniali greche tra colonizzazione e colonialismo (Atti del Convegno Lecce, 22-24 Giugno 2006) (Lecce/Taranto), 22954.

van SOLDT, W.H., KALVELAGEN, R. and KATZ, D. (eds.) 2005: Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia (Papers of the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, 1-4 July 2002) (Leiden). VOIGT, M.M. 2009: ‘The Chronology of Phrygian Gordion’. In Manning and Bruce 2009, 219-37.

241

THE ROCK-CUT MONUMENTS OF PHRYGIA, PAPHLAGONIA AND THRACE: A COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW Maya VASSILEVA Department of Meditarranean and Eastern Studies, New Bulgarian University, 1618 Sofia, Bulgaria [email protected]

Abstract: Paphlagonian rock-cut tombs have been known for more than a century now. Their relation with Phrygian rock-cut monuments has long been acknowledged. However, the region remains understudied for pre-Hellenistic times. Thrace has never been brought into the picture. This paper argues in favour of an interaction between Anatolia and Thrace that can be followed in the tombs, both rock-cut and stone-built. Thrace offers compelling examples of interrelations between rock-cut architecture and stone-built tombs. When earlier Phrygian parallels are included, the picture of the cultural exchange between the Balkans and Anatolia becomes more varied and insightful. It may be further elaborated once the Achaemenid contribution is also taken into consideration. Paphlagonian rock-cut tombs present an excellent example of a survival of Phrygian rock-cut architecture. This fact poses questions of cultural tradition, adoption and adaptation that are equally vivid for Phrygia, Thrace and Paphlagonia. PHRYGIA, PAPHLAGONIA VE THRAKIA’DAKİ KAYAYA OYULMUŞ ANITLAR – KARŞILAŞTIRMALI BİR BAKIŞ Özet: Paphlagonia’nın kayaya oyulmuş anıtları bir yüzyıldan beri bilinmektedir. Bu anıtların Phrygia ile bağlantısı da uzun zaman önce anlaşılmıştır. Bununla beraber bölge Hellenistik öncesi devirleriyle birlikte incelenmemiştir. Thrakia bu konteksin içine hiçbir zaman dahil edilmemiştir. Bu bildiri Anadolu ile Thrakia arasındaki ilişkileri hem kayaya oyulmuş, hem de yekpare olarak inşa edilmiş mezarları inceleyecektir. Thrakia kayaya oyulmuş ile taştan inşa edilmiş mezarlar arasındaki ilişkiyi anlamak için ilgi çekici örnekler sunmaktadır. Eğer erken dönem Phryg örnekleri işin içine katılırsa, Balkanlarla Anadolu arasındaki kültürel ilişkiler daha da netleşecektir. Akhamenid katkısı da dikkate alınırsa durum daha açıklığa kavuşacaktır. Paphlagonia’daki kaya mezarları Phrygia kaya mimarisinin mükemmel bir devamıdır. Bu durum Phrygia, Thrakia ve Paphlagonia için kültürel geleneğin, kabülünün ve uyumunun güzel bir göstergesidir.

Paphlagonian rock-cut tombs have long been known.1 However, the pre-Hellenistic antiquities of the region remain generally understudied. Field survey projects carried out in the last decade or so2 show a fresh insight into the archaeological and cultural context of these rockcut monuments. More Iron Age sites that have yielded Phrygian pottery, as well as additional rock-cut monuments of different date, have been discovered and registered.3

material from field surveys and excavations is, it points out to some north-western Anatolian and Balkan affinities, as well as to Central Anatolian traits. The Phrygians assuming they had come from the Balkans, reached the Paphlagonian territory on their way further east. Evidence has been produced on Paphlagonia bordering Phrygia and Bithynia in the 1st millennium BC. On the other side, ancient authors consider Phrygians and Paphlagonians very close regarding their customs (Herodotus 7. 72-73: similar clothing; Plutarch De Iside et Osiride 69). The Thracian background of the Bithynians has also been widely discussed, as well as Phrygian influence in the area.6 It is generally accepted that Paphlagonia experienced a strong Phrygian influence; some authors suggest a Phrygian or ThracoPhrygian background for the Paphlagonians.7 Field surveys registered a number of sites as potential Phrygian settlements. However, it becomes clear that in these lands people of various stock met, even before the arrival of the Greeks and the Persians.

After the Land of Pala and the fearsome Kashka who used to constantly trouble the Hittite lands in the 2nd millennium BC,4 very little is known about the population of the southern Black Sea coast and Paphlagonia. Various tribal names are mentioned in the historical writings about the area. Their ethnic attribution is often disputed.5 However scarce the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age 1

Hirschfeld 1885; Leonhard 1915; von Gall 1966. Those of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara and of ‘The 9th of September’ University in Izmir (Matthews 1997; 2000; 2004; Laflı 2007, 49). See also the Sinop field surveys (Işın 1998; Doonan 2004). 3 Matthews 2000, 20; 2004, 206. 4 Bryce 1998, 10-11; Melchert 2003, 10-11; Matthews 2004, 202-03, 206. 5 Such as the Bithynians, the Mariandini (Herodotus 1. 28; Xenophon Anab. 6. 2. 1; Strabo 7. 3. 2; Schol. Apollonius of Rhodes 2. 140), the Chalybes and Halizones (Homer Iliad, 2. 856-857; 5. 39; Strabo 12. 3. 20-22). 2

This paper aims at a comparative overview of the rockcut monuments in Phrygia and Paphlagonia. A number of Thracian parallels are brought to light among the stonebuilt sepulchral constructions. 6 7

243

Gabelko 2005, 55-92; Dimitrov 2005; Corsten 2007. Saprikin 1991, 249-50; Laflı 2007, 53.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Over the last decade Thracian studies has seen significant developments in the research of rock-cut monuments and of sepulchral architecture in general.8 Newly discovered Thracian monuments offer examples of interrelations between rock-cut architecture and stone-built tombs,9 which, on the other hand, might find close counterparts in Paphlagonia. With earlier Phrygian parallels, the picture of cultural exchange between the Balkans and Anatolia becomes varied and insightful. It may be further elaborated once the Persian contribution is also taken into consideration. The typological parallels between Thracian and Phrygian rock-cut monuments, perhaps suggestive of a similarity of ritual, have also been discussed.10 There are no architecturally elaborate rock-cut façades in Thrace. Niches are the most popular among the rock carvings in Thrace, usually trapezoidal in shape. They often accompany rock-cut tombs, sun discs or other megaliths. Although the interiors of Thracian rock-cut tombs are unlike Phrygian rock-cut chambers, the arrangement of the monuments in complexes, sanctuaries and sacred ‘cities’ parallels the situation in Phrygia.

Fig. 1: The rock-cut niche at Kastamonu (after von Gall 1966, Taf. 5, 4)

As is often the case with rock-cut monuments, Paphlagonian, Phrygian and Thracian monuments present similar difficulties in dating in view of the lack of archaeological context of material found in situ. And again, most of them were recurrently reused in later times. Despite the number of the rock-cut inscriptions, Phrygian monuments are equally difficult to date. A great number of them now seem to belong to the late 7th and the 6th century BC.11 So far, Paphlgonian sites and monuments of Hellenistic and Roman times prevail in number. The Phrygian affinities of the Paphlagonian rock-cut monuments have been acknowledged since their discovery.12 Rock-cut façades with a niche, so popular in Phrygia, are found only rarely in Paphlagonia. The closest parallel to Phrygian small façades with horned akroteria is to be found in Kastamonu (Figs. 1-2).13 Imitation of wooden architecture in the rock has been noticed for both areas. Many architectural details are carved in the living rock without any functional meaning.

Fig. 2: Phrygian rock-cut niche at Kümbet Asar Kale (photograph: D. Berndt)

The earlier Phrygian rock-cut tombs usually lack façade decoration or architectural embellishment. There are only few exceptions: the tomb at Yapıldak in the Kümbet valley (Fig. 3),14 Aslantaş and the Broken Lion Tomb/ Yılan Taş in the Köhnüş valley,15 the latter two being 8

Fol 2000; 2006; 2007 with bibliography. Kitov 2005; 2006. 10 Vassileva 1997; 2005; Fol, 2007. 11 See Berndt-Ersöz 2006, passim. 12 Hirschfeld 1885, 5, n. 2; Leonhard 1915, 257, 260-63. 13 von Gall 1966, Taf. 5.4; Laflı 2007, 57. Bittel and Naumann (1965, 79) and Berndt-Ersöz (2006, xx, n. 2) doubt its Phrygian origin. The closest Phrygian parallel seems to be the niche at Kümbet Asar Kale (Haspels 1971, fig. 99). 14 Haspels 1971, 115, figs. 110, 118-119. The façade of the tomb at Delikli Kaya in the same area points to reuse in Roman times. 15 Haspels 1971, 118, figs. 131-133; 129-33, figs. 141-156. 9

Fig. 3: Phrygian rock-cut tomb at Yapildak (after Haspels 1971, fig. 118) 244

M. VASSILEVA: THE ROCK-CUT MONUMENTS OF PHRYGIA, PAPHLAGONIA AND THRACE: A COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW

unique and still difficult to situate in Phrygian tradition.16 However, a pediment with a kingpost and rafters are often rendered in the interior of the Phrygian tombs, 17 as has also been executed in the interior of the Paphlagonian tomb at Iskilip.18 Sometimes the entrance has a receding door-frame, as on those façades whose central niche imitates a doorway. Tombs with an open porch and free-standing columns, like the Paphlagonian ones, do not appear in Phrygia until later times (most of the examples are dated to the Hellenistic period and later, see for example Gerdekkaya19). Doorframes continued to be carefully rendered behind the columns. Beams were imitated on the ceiling of the porch. Usually the Phrygian influence on Paphlagonian tombs is seen in the decoration of the gable: the kingpost and the relief images on both sides. Sometimes the kingpost takes the shape of a column or a ‘pillar’. The arrow-shaped kingpost resting on a short base on the Gerdek Boğazı tomb façade (at Karakoyunlu, Paphlagonia: Fig. 4)20 finds a parallel on the pediment of the tomb façade at Yapıldak, Phrygia, in the interior of Tomb no. 5 in the Köhnüş valley21, and in the painted version of the Balkaya façade, near Sivrihisar (Fig. 5).22 On both sides of the kingpost in Yapıldak there are relief representations of a horse and a bull.

Fig. 5: The painted façade at Balkaya, near Sivrihisar (photograph: the author)

Fig. 6: The façade of ‘Evkayisi’ tomb in Kastamonu (after von Gall 1966, Taf. 6.2)

The so-called ‘Evkayisi’ tomb in Kastamonu displays an anthropomorphic kingpost flanked by two antithetic sphinxes and is dated to the second half of the 4th century BC (Fig. 6).23 The sphinxes have been compared with those on the 6th-century BC Phrygian façade Arslankaya (Fig. 7).24 The image in the middle of the pediment resembles strongly some of the Matar images in the Phrygian niches. It seems closer to the Phrygian representations of the goddess than the female figure with a polos above one of the columns on the Terelik kaya tomb.25 Both the columnar kingposts, pointed or not, and

Fig. 4: Drawing of the Gerdek Boğazı tomb façade at Karakoyunlu (after von Gall 1966, Abb. 8) 16

Haspels 1971, 137-38. Haspels 1971, 112. 18 von Gall 1966, 95, Abb. 17. This tomb and the one at Süleymanköy (Abb. 18) resemble closely the plan and interior of Phrygian rock-cut tombs. 19 Haspels 1971, 159-60, figs. 85-87. 20 von Gall 1966, 74, Abb. 8. 21 Haspels 1971, 115, fig. 118; 120, fig. 535.1-3. See above Fig. 3. 22 Sivas 2005, 219, fig. 4; Berndt-Ersöz 2006, no. 41. All three monuments are discussed by Berndt-Ersöy 2006, 32, 154, who cites the Paphlagonian parallels and associates this peculiar kingpost with Matar. 17

23

von Gall 1966, 67-73, 80, Abb. 7, Taf. 6.2. Haspels 1971, 88, fig. 186. According to Simpson (2010, 94, n. 193), the sphinxes do not need to be compared with Greek Archaic images as there are earlier Near Eastern parallels; thus, the façade is earlier. 25 von Gall 1966, 83, Abb. 11a-b. 24

245

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

pediment of Paphlagonian tombs. If such symbolism is to be accepted, then Paphlagonian monuments would provide further proof of the funerary functions of the Phrygian Mother Goddess. So far the evidence from Phrygia on funerary context of the goddess’s images is scarce and scholars can only hypothesise about the role of Cybele in burial rites.32 The same interrelation (or interchangeability) of features and symbolism is also characteristic of Thracian monuments. The rock-cut tombs with opening on the top are considered as places for mystery rites.33 Some of the stone-built chamber tombs are supposed to have been used as temples/sanctuaries.34 Further parallels could be discussed in relation to other architectural elements of Paphlagonian rock-cut tombs. Von Gall discussed the columns of the Paphlagonian tombs. The short, heavy columns with bull protomes as capitals have evoked parallels with Persian architecture.35 The thick, torus-like column bases were assigned to the same architectural tradition. However, their similarity with those of the Broken Lion Tomb in Phrygia, in the Köhnuş valley, has been known since R. Leonhard’s study.36 Actual stone bases of similar shape were found in Gordion (unpublished, from a Middle Phrygian context, thus again probably from Persian times) and more recently in Kerkenes Dağ.37 So, we cannot rule out a Phrygian influence in this element as well.

Fig. 7: Phrygian rock-cut façade Arslankaya (after E. Simpson and K. Spirydowicz, Gordion. Wooden Furniture, Ankara 1999, fig. 32)

the female images were probably related to the symbolism of the Mother Goddess.26

The abovementioned Gerdek Boğazı tomb in Karakoyunlu displays a unique feature: the lantern (or corbelled or diagonal) roofing38 of one of its side chambers (Fig. 8).39 This type of vaulting is characteristic of stone-built tomb chambers and has wrongly been called the ‘Galatian vault’ for some time.40 As it is popular in Thrace, it was assumed that the Galatians picked it up on their way from the Balkans to Asia Minor.41 Ethnic labelling of this type of sepulchral construction is inappropriate as shown in a recent study.42 There are a number of chambers roofed in this way in Thrace, most of them dated to the 4th century, or late 4thearly 3rd century BC.43 Those from Kurt-Kale at Mezek (Fig. 9),44 from Plovdiv (ancient Philippopolis),45 and

H. von Gall did not fail to notice the hybrid nature of the Paphlagonian tombs: they were designed to look from outside like temples but functioned as tombs. Archaeological research of Thracian tumuli and stonebuilt chambers suggested that some of them functioned as sanctuaries before having been used as tombs.27 The socalled ‘Horizon’ tomb near Starosel (south central Bulgaria) is shaped as a Greek temple with a colonnade and a front porch; however, it is buried under an earthen mound.28 The relationship between Phrygian rock-cut façades and tombs, both wooden and carved in the rock, has also been discussed.29 Formally, it can easily be detected in the imitation of wooden construction elements in the rock (beams, pediments, etc.) or in the frame of a pitchedroofed façade that is carved around the entrance of some the tombs.30 The two standing lions, their forelegs on both sides of the frame of the entrance of the Arslantaş tomb, can be compared with the ones flanking the image of the goddess on the Arslankaya façade.31 It might be suggested that the goddess from the central niche on the Phrygian façades was later lifted to a central position on the

32 The geometrical symbolism of the grave-goods in the Gordion wooden tombs points to the goddess (Simpson 1998; Vassileva 2001), but is still very cautiously considered (Roller 1999, 74, 223); more positively evaluated by Buluç 1988, 19-21. 33 Fol 1998, 25-26. 34 Kitov 2007. 35 von Gall 1966, 119-20. 36 Leonhard 1915, 275. 37 Summers et al. 2004, 30-31, figs. 23-25. 38 Fedak 1990, 170-71. 39 von Gall 1966, 76-77, Abb. 9. 40 Mellink 1967, 173: ‘Galatian corbelled roof”. The term still appears in some recent works: Ginouvès and Guimier-Sorbets 1994; Hellmann 2002. 41 Young 1956, 252; Fedak 1990, 171. 42 Theodossiev 2007. 43 All examples discussed and illustrated in Theodossiev 2007. 44 Filov 1937, 79-83. 45 Rousseva 2000, 113-18.

26

As noted by von Gall (1966, 68-73) and Berndt-Ersöy (2006, 154). Kitov 2007. 28 Kitov 2005, 36, fig. 37. 29 Vassileva 1994. 30 Such as the Pişmiş Kale tomb (Haspels 1971, 128, fig. 541.6-10). 31 Haspels 1971, 118-19, figs. 131-132; 88-89, fig. 187. 27

246

M. VASSILEVA: THE ROCK-CUT MONUMENTS OF PHRYGIA, PAPHLAGONIA AND THRACE: A COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW

Fig. 8: Plan of Gredek Boğazı tomb (after von Gall 1966, Abb. 9)

similar to a rock-cut room) in the Ostrousha tumulus, south central Bulgaria (dated to the mid-4th century BC) (Figs. 10-11),49 as well as in the 2nd-century AD Mylasa tomb near Ephesus.50 The ceiling of the Ostrousha tomb combines coffers with a central ‘lantern’, but less high than the original lantern vaults.51 So the ceiling would appear almost flat. The excavator of the Ostrousha tomb suggests that it was initially used as a temple and then as a tomb-mausoleum.52 The paintings in the coffers are defined as Late Classical in style.53 Coffers hewn on a flat ceiling are also known from Paphlagonian rock-cut tombs (at Araç, of Hellenistic date).54 A rock-cut tomb of Hellenistic date at Zahren Deresi, south of Kütahya, displays an unfinished façade in the Phrygian tradition: gable roof, geometrical design around the entrance, which occupies the place of the central niche on the façades. Two ‘windows’/’shutters’ are carved on the gable. Coffers with traces of blue and red paint are cut out on the sloping ceiling.55

Fig. 9: Drawing of the interior of the Kurt-Kale antechamber, Mezek (after Filov 1937, Abb. 95)

Strelcha46 rank among the most famous examples. They also occur in Anatolia – in Mysia, Bithynia, and Phrygia.47 The earliest example seems to be the chamber of the Belevi tumulus where the pottery found ranged between the 6th and 4th centuries BC.48 It is situated on a hill and part of the crepis is embedded in the rock; the place for the stone blocks of the chambers is also cut out of the rock. The excavator suggests that the larger room, that with the lantern roof, was used for ceremonies, while the next, smaller one was the actual burial chamber.

The Gerdek Boğazı rock-cut lantern roof displays again a connection between rock-cut and stone-built tombs. It is worth noting that the lantern roof was used mainly for side or antechambers of the stone-built tombs in Thrace, as is the case with the Paphlagonian monument under consideration, while more often than not the Anatolian examples offer diagonal roofing of the main burial

Somewhat different offshoots of this architectural detail can also be observed in the monolithic chamber (i.e.

49

Kitov and Krasteva 1994-95. Fedak 1990, 171, fig. 254. 51 Kitov and Krasteva 1994-95, 17-18. 52 Kitov and Krasteva 1994-95, 23, 25. Theodossiev (2007, 606) calls it a heroon. Kasper also terms the Belevi tomb a heroon (Kasper 1975, 230). 53 Valeva 2005, 157-63. 54 von Gall 1966, 104, Abb. 24. 55 Haspels 1971, 161, pls. 131-134, figs. 550 and 551.1-2. 50

46

Kitov 1977; Rousseva 2000, 47, 116. Tumulus O at Gordion (Young 1956); one at Daskyleion; an exhaustive list of the Anatolian monuments in Theodossiev 2007. Against the Galatian attribution of Tumulus O at Gordion: Winter 1988, 64. 48 Kasper 1975, 227-28, 230; 1976-77, 142, 154, Abb. 8. 47

247

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 10: General view of the Ostrousha cult complex (courtesy TEMP)

Fig. 12: The rock-carved wheel on the ceiling of the Direklikaya tomb in Salarköy (after von Gall 1966, 57-61, Taf. 5.3 and Abb. 4)

Fig. 11: The coffer ceiling of the Ostrousha tomb (courtesy TEMP) chamber.56 The actual burial chamber at Belevi had no entrance and the small opening was blocked, so the dead must have been placed here during construction of the chamber, or have been lowered down before the roof was built.57 The same situation is observed in Phrygian wooden chambers at Gordion.58 Thus, it is possible to assume that lantern-roofed rooms were meant for special ceremonies, as proposed for the Belevi tomb (see above).

Fig. 13: Plan of the Direklikaya tomb (after von Gall 1966, 57-61, Taf. 5.3 and Abb. 4)

solar symbol? Bearing in mind the interpretations offered of the symbolism of Thracian tombs, this is a possibility. Again, a few parallels can be found in Thracian stonebuilt chambers: 15 ‘rays’ (trapezoidal thicker stone slabs) ‘radiate’ from the key-stone of the domed ceiling of the main round chamber of the Shoushmanets tomb, near the city of Kazanluk (Fig. 14).60 This tomb is the only example showing a central column both at the entrance and in the main room.61 The central part of the floor of the main round chamber of the tomb in the ‘Big Arsenalka’ tumulus is occupied by another circular construction, resembling a solar disc with a ‘cup-mark’ in the middle (Fig. 15); a similar arrangement of the floor paving is to be found in the burial chamber of the ‘Griffins Tomb’.62 The Thracian examples are placed in domed, circular chambers, while the wheel in the Paphlagonian tomb is carved on a square, flat roof. The latter resembles more a

One cannot be definite about the origin of this architectural element. The distribution of the stone-built chambers suggests a common Thraco-Anatolian phenomenon, especially popular in the 4th century BC. Their spread predates the Galation invasion. The zone of interaction was probably around the Propontis. Another curious element is presented by the wheel carved in relief on the ceiling of the Direklikaya tomb in Salarköy (Figs. 12-13).59 Should it be interpreted as a 56 The exception among the Thracian tombs is that in Philippopolis, while two Anatolian examples (later, 2nd and 1st centuries BC) show lantern roof of both antechamber and main room: those at Gordion and Karalar (see Theodossiev 2007, fig. 7.22-24). 57 Kaspar 1975, 229. 58 Young 1981, 263-64. 59 von Gall 1966, 57-61, Abb. 3-5, Taf. 5.3.

60

Kitov and Dimitrova 1998-99, 49. Kitov and Dimitrova 1998-99, figs. 13-14, plan on fig. 15. 62 Kitov and Dimitrova 1998-99, 38, 47. 61

248

M. VASSILEVA: THE ROCK-CUT MONUMENTS OF PHRYGIA, PAPHLAGONIA AND THRACE: A COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW

griffins on the Paphlagonian tomb façades have been sought in Assyrian and Persian art. Leonhard assigned them to the ‘Graeco-Persian’ art of the 5th-4th centuries BC.66 The somewhat clumsy imitations of Greek temple architecture in Paphlagonian rock-cut tombs are well known. Ionic and Aeolic capitals cut from the rock in Phrygia are also considered as an imitation of Greek order (the interior of the Yapildak tomb;67 cf. the abovementioned columns in the Shoushmanets tomb). The sphinxes on the Arslankaya gable were compared with representations on Archaic Greek stelae.68 Similar peculiar use of these elements can be observed in Thracian stone-built tombs. Attached columns, pilasters and antis, designed for rectangular free-standing buildings, were applied in Thracian round chambers. An instructive example is the one in the Chetinyova Mogila tumulus at Starosel, south central Bulgaria, dated to the 4th century BC. The main circular chamber is embellished with ten attached semi-columns, topped by a frieze of metopes and triglyphs, still bearing colour decoration (Fig. 16).69 In addition to the free-standing columns in the Shoushmanets tomb, the round chamber displays two rows of architectural elements: the first consists of seven attached columns and the second of seven pilaster-like features.70

Fig. 14: The main chamber of the Shoushmanets tomb, near Kazanluk (photograph: G. Dimov, VIFOR, courtesy TEMP)

Fig. 15: The floor of the main round chamber of the ‘Big Arsenalka’ tomb near Kazanluk (courtesy TEMP)

Fig. 16: Detail from the round chamber of the Starosel complex (photograph: the author, with the permission of TEMP)

chariot-wheel than a ‘sun’. Von Gall has already noted that this wheel is more appropriate for a round chamber, but his seeking prototypes in the round house architecture in Old Smyrna seems to me less persuasive.63

A stone slab with a lion looking backwards in painted relief was found in the Zhaba Mogila tumulus (the one with the lantern vault) (Fig. 17).71 It has been suggested that two antithetic lions crowned the entrance of, or stood on both sides of, a niche on the second construction

The animal reliefs on the façades of Paphlagonian tombs have long been interpreted in terms of Greek art. Especially strong views on the Greek character of the lions were expressed by E. Akurgal,64 followed more recently by C. Marek.65 Parallels for the lions and

66

Leonhard 1915, 257; again recently Dönmez 2007, 108. The term ‘Graeco-Persian’ has lately been much criticised. See most recently Miller 2006. 67 Haspels 1971, fig. 119; Berndt-Ersöy 2006, 25, n. 85. 68 Berndt-Ersöy 2006, 115. 69 Kitov 2007, 309. 70 Kitov and Dimitrova 1998-99, 47-49, fig. 14. 71 Kitov 2007, 308-09.

63

von Gall 1966, 64. Akurgal 1955, 64-65. 65 Marek 2003. 64

249

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

AKURGAL, E. 1955: Phrygische Kunst (Arkeoloji enstitüsü 5) (Ankara). BERNDT-ERSÖZ, S. 2006: Phrygian Rock-Cut Shrines: Structure, Function, and Cult Practice (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 25) (Leiden/Boston). BITTEL, K. and NAUMANN, R. 1965: ‘Notizen über einige paphlagonische Felsgräber’. Anadolu Araştırmaları II.1, 71-84. BRYCE, T. 1998: The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford). BULUÇ, S. 1988: ‘The Architectural Use of Animal and Kybele Reliefs Found in Ankara and Its Vicinity’. Source 7.3/4, 16-23. CORSTEN, T. 2007: ‘Thracian Personal Names and Military Settlements in Hellenistic Bithynia’. In Matthews, E. (ed.), Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics (Proceedings of the British Academy 148) (London/Oxford). DIMITROV, P. 2005: ‘The Thracians and Their Neighbors’. Thracia 16, 59-65.

Fig. 17: The lion relief from the Zhaba Mogila Tumulus near Strelcha (courtesy TEMP)

DÖNMEZ, Ş. 2007: ‘The Achaemenid Impact on the Central Black Sea Region’. In Delemen, I. (ed.), The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Cultures in Anatolia (Sixth-Fourth Centuries B.C.) (Papers presented at the International Workshop, Istanbul, 20-21 May 2005) (Istanbul), 107-16.

found in the tumulus. A similar arrangement (of sphinxes) is to be found on some of the Lycian tombs and recently reconstructed for a free-standing tomb at Daskyleion.72 Those monuments are considered examples of ‘Graeco-Persian’ art. Some Achaemenid affinities have been recognised in both Thracian sepulchral architecture and wall paintings.73 Thus, both the Paphlagonian tombs and the Thracian buildings might have been similar local reflections of Greek, or more particularly ‘GraecoPersian’ art and architecture.

DOONAN, O.P. 2004: Sinop Landscapes: Exploring Connection in a Black Sea Hinterland. (Philadelphia). FEDAK, J. 1990: Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age: A Study of Selected Tombs from the PreClassical to the Early Imperial Era (Phoenix suppl. 27) (Toronto/London). FILOV, B. 1937: ‘Kupolnite grobnitsi pri Mezek’. Izvestiya na Bulgarskiya Arheologicheskiya Institut 11, 1-116.

To conclude, Paphlagonian rock-cut tombs display a blend of multifaceted influences and traditions. In some aspects they can be considered as survivals of Phrygian rock-cut architecture. Phrygian features are related to the worship of the Phrygian Mother Goddess, Cybele. I would suggest that Paphlagonian rock-cut tombs and Phrygian monuments reflect a similar rituality. On the other hand, Greek and Persian affinities are obvious in Phrygia, Paphlagonia and Thrace. A ‘Graeco-Persian’ stylistic interpretation, especially for the 5th-/4th-century BC and later monuments, seems plausible. The parallels offered by Thracian stone-built tombs support the already observed interrelations between rock-cut cult monuments and sepulchral architecture. They suggest long-term Balkan-Anatolian cultural interactions that culminated in the 4th century BC in similar features.

FOL, V. 1998: ‘Megaliths in Thrace and Phrygia’. In Tuna, N., Akture, Z. and Lynch, M. (eds.), Thracians and Phrygians: Problems of Parallelism (Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Archaeology, History and Ancient Languages of Thrace and Phrygia, Ankara, 3-4 June, 1995) (Ankara), 1927. FOL, V. 2000: ‘The Rock and the Fire’. In Fol, A. (ed.), Ancient Thrace (Sofia), 171-92. FOL, V. (ed.) 2006: The Thracian Cosmos – The Sacred Realm of Kings (Sofia). FOL, V. 2007: Skalni toposi na vyarata v Iztochnoto Sredizemnomorie i v Mala Azia prez drevnostta (Sofia).

Bibliography

GABELKO, O.L. 2005: Istoriya Vifinskogo tsarstva (St Petersburg).

Abbreviations

GALL, H. von 1966: Die paphlagonischen Felsgräber: Eine Studie zur kleinasiatischen Kunstgeschichte (Istanbuler Mitteilungen Beiheft 1) (Tübingen).

TEMP Thracological Expedition for Exploration of Tumuli.

GINOUVES, R. and GUIMIER-SORBETS, A.M. 1994: ‘Voûte “galate” et charpente macédonienne’. Revue Archéologique, 311-21.

72

Karagöz 2007, 202-03, Abb. 16. 73 Most recently Vassileva 2010.

250

M. VASSILEVA: THE ROCK-CUT MONUMENTS OF PHRYGIA, PAPHLAGONIA AND THRACE: A COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW

HASPELS, C.H.E. 1971: The Highlands of Phrygia. Sites and Monuments, 2 vols. (Princeton).

MELLINK, M.J. 1967: ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’. American Journal of Archaeology 71, 155-74.

HELLMANN, M.-C. 2002: L’architecture grecque, 1: Les principes de la construction (Paris).

MILLER, M.C. 2006. ‘Betwixt and Between: Western Anatolia in the Persian Period’. In Mattusch, C.C., Donohue, A.A.and Brauer, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Boston, August 23-26, 2003: Common Ground. Archaeology, Art, Science, and Humanities (Oxford), 225-27.

HIRSCHFELD, G. 1885: Paphlagonische Felsengräber: Ein Beitrag zur Kunstgeschichte Kleinasiens (Berlin). IŞIN, M.A. 1998: ‘Sinop Regional Field Survey’. Anatolia Antiqua 6, 95-139. KARAGÖZ, Ş. 2007. ‘Neue Ansichten zu einem freistehenden Grabbau aus Daskyleion’. In Delemen, I. (ed.), The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Cultures in Anatolia (Sixth-Fourth Centuries B.C.) (Istanbul), 195-214.

ROLLER, L.E. 1999: In Search of God the Mother: The Cult of Anatolian Cybele (Berkeley/Los Angeles/ London).

KASPER, S. 1975: ‘Der Tumulus von Belevi’. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 223-32.

SAPRIKIN, S. 1991: ‘ΠΑΦΛΑΓΟΝΙΚΑ’. In Lazarov, M. et al. (eds.), Thracia Pontica IV: Les thèmes, les agglomérations côtières de la Thrace avant la colonisation grecque, les sites submergés – méthodes des recherches. Sozopol, 6-12 octobre 1988 (Sofia), 241-54.

ROUSSEVA, M. 2000: Thracian Cult Architecture (Jambol).

KASPER, S. 1976-77: ‘Der Tumulus von Belevi (Grabungsbericht)’. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen archäologischen Instituts in Wien 51, 129-79. KITOV, G. 1977: ‘Trakiiska grobnitsa-mavzoley kray grad Strelcha’. Vekove 1, 12-21.

SIMPSON, E. 1998: ‘Symbols on the Gordion Screens’. In XXXIV. International Assyriology Congress, 610.VII.1987, Istanbul (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları XXVI. 3) (Ankara), 629-39.

KITOV, G. 2005: The Valley of the Thracian Rulers (Varna). KITOV, G. 2006: ‘The Valley of the Thracian Kings’. In Fol 2006, 40-95.

SIMPSON, E. 2010: The Gordion Wooden Objects I: The Furniture from Tumulus MM (Leiden/Boston).

KITOV, G. 2007: ‘Thracian Tumular Temples’. In Iakovidou, A. (ed.), Thrace in the Graeco-Roman World (Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology, Komotini-Alexandroupolis, 18-23 October 2005) (Athens), 308-14.

SIVAS, T.T. 2005: ‘Phrygian rock-cut monuments from Western Phrygia, with observations on their cult functions’. In Çilingiroğlu, A. and Darbyshire, G. (eds.), Anatolian Iron Ages 5 (Proceedings of the Fifth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Van, 6-10 August 2001) (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 31) (London), 217-26.

KITOV, G. and DIMITROVA, D. 1998-99: ‘New Discoveries in the Thracian Valley of the Kings in the Region of Kazanluk. Excavations by a Thracian Expedition for Tumuli Investigations “TEMP” in the Region of Kazanluk from 1995 till 1997’. Talanta 3031, 31-54.

SUMMERS, G.D., SUMMERS, F. and BRANTING, S. 2004: ‘Megarons and associated structures at Kerkenes Dağ: an interim report’. Anatolia Antiqua 12, 7-41.

KITOV, G. and KRASTEVA, M. 1994-95: ‘The Thracian Grave and Cult Complex in the Ostrousha Tumulus near Shipka’. Talanta 26-27, 7-28.

LEONHARD, R. 1915: Paphlagonia: Reisen und Forchungen im nördlichen Kleinasien (Berlin).

THEODOSSIEV, N. 2007: ‘The Lantern-Roofed Tombs in Thrace and in Anatolia: Some Evidence About Cultural Relations and Interactions in the Eastern Mediterranean’. In Iakovidou, A. (ed.), Thrace in the Graeco-Roman World (Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology, KomotiniAlexandroupolis, 18-23 October 2005) (Athens), 60213.

MAREK, C. 2003: Pontus et Bithynia: Die römischen Provinzen im Norden Kleinasiens (Mainz).

VALEVA, J. 2005: The Painted Coffers of the Ostrusha Tomb (Sofia).

MATTHEWS, R. 1997: ‘Project Paphlagonia’. Anatolian Achaeology 3, 20-21.

VASSILEVA, M. 1994: ‘Phrygian tumuli – an argument for a Thracian-Phrygian kinship?’. In First International Symposium “Seuthopolis”: Burial Tumuli in the South East of Europe, Kazanluk, June 4-8, 1993 (Veliko Turnovo), 63-67.

LAFLI, E. 2007: ‘A Roman-Cut Cult Niche at Paphlagonian Hadrianopolis’. In XXIV. Araştırma Sonuıları Toplantısı, vol. 2 (Ankara), 43-66.

MATTHEWS, R. 2000: ‘A Long Walk in the Park: Project Paphlagonia’. Anatolian Archaeology 6, 1920.

VASSILEVA, M. 1997: ‘Thrace and Phrygia. Some problems of the megalithic culture.’ In Actes 2e Symposium International des études thraciennes: Thrace ancienne. Epoque archaique, classique, hellenistique, romaine, Komotini, 20-27 septembre 1992 (Komotini), 193-98.

MATTHEWS, R. 2004: ‘Landscapes of Terror and Control. Imperial Impacts in Paphlagonia’. Near Eastern Archaeology 64.4, 200-11. MELCHERT, H.C. 2003: ‘Prehistory’. In Melchert, H.C. (ed.), The Luwians (Leiden/Boston), 8-26. 251

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

VASSILEVA, M. 2001: ‘Further considerations on the cult of Kybele’. Anatolian Studies 51, 51-63.

WINTER, F. 1988: ‘Phrygian Gordion in the Hellenistic Period’. Source 7.3/4, 60-71.

VASSILEVA, M. 2005: Tsar Midas mejdu Evropa i Azia (Sofia).

YOUNG, R.S. 1956: ‘The Campaign of 1955 at Gordion: Preliminary Report’. American Journal of Archaeology 60, 249-66.

VASSILEVA, M. 2010: ‘Achaemenid Interfaces: Thracian and Anatolian Representations of Elite Status’. Bollettino do Archaeologia On Line: Volume special: Roma 2008 – International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Meetings between Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean, G1.4.

YOUNG, R.S. 1981: Three Great Early Tumuli (Gordion Excavations Final Reports 1) (University Museum Monograph 43) (Philadelphia).

252

STASIS AND POLEMOS AT PONTUS IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 4TH CENTURY BC ACCORDING TO AENEAS TACTICUS: THE DATAMES’ SIEGE OF SINOPE* José VELA TEJADA Área de Filología Griega, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract: The Poliorcetica of Aeneas Tacticus is very important first-hand evidence for our knowledge of the Greek world in the first half of the 4th century BC. Since this author followed the historiographical tradition of Thucydides and probably served as a mercenary officer – he is usually identified with the Arcadian general Aeneas of Stymphalus quoted by Xenophon (Hellenica 7. 3. 1) – we can verify the crisis which shook the Greek poleis as a consequence of an unresolved fight for hegemony after the Peloponnesian War and the political struggles between oligarchic and democratic groups. This information involves the whole Greek world from Sicily to Asia, but the Hellespont and the Greek colonies of the Black Sea area seem particularly troubled regions. In the same historical context we are informed by Aeneas about the war between the city of Sinope and Datamas (40. 4-5), the Carian satrap of Cappadocia who became independent of the Persian king Artaxerxes and conquered Paphlagonia. Thus, the general setting of Greece in the first half of the 4th century BC, thanks to historical information given by Aeneas Tacticus, is providing valuable evidence on stasis and polemos in the poleis of Pontus. AENEAS TACITUS’A GÖRE PONTOS’TA İ.Ö. 4. YY.’IN İLK YARISINDA STASIS VE POLEMOS: SİNOPLU DATAMES’İN ZAFERİ Özet: Aeneas Tacitus’un Poliorketika’sı İ.Ö. 4. yy.’ın ilk yarısındaki Hellen dünyası ile ilgili bilgilerimize kaynak olan birinci elden, çok önemli bir eserdir. Bu yazar Thukydides’in tarihi geleneğini takip ettiği ve belki de tüccar memur olarak hizmet ettiği için – sıklıkla Xenophon tarafından (Hellenica 7. 3. 1) atıfta bulunulan Arkadialı General Stymphalos Aeneas ile bir tutulur – Hellen kentlerindeki Peloponnesos Savaşı’ndan sonra hegemonyaları için sonuçlanmamış bir savaşın neticesinde çalkalanan ve oligarşik ile demokratik gruplar arasındaki politik mücadelelerle bağlantılı siyasi bir krizi doğrulamaktadır. Sicilya’dan Batı Anadolu’ya tüm Hellen dünyası bu duruma ilintilidir. Hellespontos ve Karadeniz’deki Hellen kolonileri özellikle sıkıntı içerisindedirler. Aynı tarihi bütüncüllük içinde biz Aeneas’tan Sinope kenti ile Artaxerxes’den bağımsız olup, Paphlagonia’yı fetheden Pers Kralı ve Kappadokia’nın Satrapı Datames (40. 4-5) arasındaki savaş ile ilgili bilgiler elde ediyoruz. Böylece İ.Ö. 4. yy.’ın ilk yarısında Yunanistan’ın genel durumu Aeneas Tacitus tarafından verilen tarihi bilgilerle Pontos kentlerindeki stasis ve polemoslar hakkında değerli bilgiler toparlamıştır.

The Poliorcetica of Aeneas Tacticus, although traditionally ignored by scholars, is first-hand evidence for our knowledge of the Greek world in this period. Since this author continued the historiographical tradition of Thucydides and probably served as a mercenary officer – he is usually identified with the Arcadian general Aeneas of Stymphalus who (according to Xenophon Hell. 7. 3. 1) conquered the acropolis of Sicyon in 367 BC (see Pol. 29. 12) – we have immediate noteworthy historical information.1 From the events he used to illustrate this military ‘handbook’2 we know of the crisis that shook the

Greek poleis3 as a consequence of an unresolved struggle for hegemony after the Peloponnesian War, similar to the political struggles between oligarchic and democratic groups.4 These events involved the whole Greek world, from Sicily to Asia, but the Hellespont and the Greek colonies of the Black Sea seem to have been particularly troubled. In his work Aeneas provides us with a short account of the war between the city of Sinope and Datames, the Carian satrap of Cappadocia (40. 4-5).

*

The siege of Sinope (Aeneas Tacticus Poliorcetica 40. 45):5

*

This study has been carried out within the framework of the research team FFI2011-27501 of the Spanish DGI (Ministerio de Educación). 1 In this work most of the historical examples of sieges are not taken from literary sources. On the contrary, noting the care with which these incidents are related suggests that Aeneas himself took part in many of them or, at least, obtained first-hand information. Therefore, the accuracy in the use of autopsía and the information orally transmitted to him, which connect with the historical method of Thucydides (1. 2122), would justify us in considering Aeneas ‘the first military historian’ (cf. Vela 2004, 143). 2 See Vela 2004, 146: ‘His works – in which his professional knowledge and personal experiences are collected, and therefore could relate to the specialisation that the art of war had reached – could have been addressed to any polis in a critical situation and to anybody with special responsibility: officers with civil and military responsibilities; magistrates temporarily invested with military functions; a general given unrestricted powers (στρατηγòς αủτοκράτωρ); or even a military expert hired from outside the community.’

3 The Poliorcetica ‘uns geht es hier weniger im die Maßnahmen zur Verhinderung eines inneren Umsturzes als vielmehr um jene Nachrichten die Außagen über die Struktur und über die innere Lage der griechischen Polis machen’ (Bengtson 1962, 462). 4 With regard to this, Gehrke (1985, 355) underlines that ‘Die schon einleitend angedeutete Relevanz des Phänomens von Stasis und Bürgerkrieg innerhalb der griechischen Geschichte ist für den Zeitraum des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts … Häufigkeit wie Intensität der Auseinandersetzungen lassen den eindeutigen Schluß zu, daß die Stasis ein ganz wesentliches Element der griechischen Geschichte.’ 5 Whitehead 1990, 97: ‘When the people of Sinope found themselves dangerously short of men during their war against Datames, they disguised and equipped the most physically suitable of their women to make them look as much as possible like men, giving them jugs and similar bronze utensils in place of shields and helmets, and promenading them on the side of the wall where they were in fullest view of the enemy. They were not allowed to throw anything, however:

253

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Sinwpei÷" de; pro;" Datama÷n polemou÷nte" ejpei; ejn kinduvnz h\san kai; spavnei ajndrw÷n, tw÷n gunaikw÷n ta; ejpieˇkevstata swvmata morfwvsante" kai; $ oJplivsante" wJ" ej" a[ndra" mavlista, ajnti; oplwn kai; perikefalaivwn touv" te kavdou" kai; ta; oJmovtropa touvtoi" dovnte" calkwvmata, perih÷gon tou÷ teivcou" h|/ mavlista oiJ polemivoi o[yesqai e[mellon. Bavllein oujk ei[wn aujtav" povrrwqen ga;r katavdhlo" bavllousa gunhv poiou÷nte" de; tau÷ta tau;" aujtomovlou" ejfuvlasson mh; diaggelqh÷.

or tactical suggestions and more with a study of how to avoid situations of stasis, internal danger and treason which appear in parallel with the war in Greek poleis. This is the well-known consequence of the Peloponnesian War, after which, in spite of the defeat of Athens, no city or alliance was able to impose its hegemony or its model of government, democratic or oligarchic. Ultimately, this permanent atmosphere of in-fighting and division would cause the collapse of the Greek polis. In this context, the Greek cities of the Black Sea experienced a similar crisis (Fig. 1):7

Aeneas reports on how the people of Sinope, because of the shortage of men (spavnei ajndrw÷n) during their war against Datames (pro;" Datama÷n polemou÷nte"), equipped the most physically suitable of their women to make them look, as much as possible, like men (morfwvsante" kai; oJplivsante" wJ" ej" a[ndra"). They also gave them jugs and similar bronze utensils in place of shields and helmets and promenaded them on the side of the wall where they were in fullest view of the enemy. Likewise, they took care to prevent the enemy from discovering what was happening and the women were prohibited to throw anything (Bavllein oujk ei[wn aujtav").

— Sinope (40. 4) is our starting point. Aeneas mentions the city’s defence against Datames, the Carian Satrap of Cappadocia (ca. 370 BC).8 — The Cimmerian Bosporus (5. 2). Leucon9 ruled here; Aeneas refers to him as ‘tyrant’ not as ‘king’10 (ca. 389/8349/8 BC). See further Diodorus 15. 93. 1. — Heracleia Pontica (11. 10a-11). An oligarchic plot was discovered and finally (12. 5) Clearchus established a tyranny (364 BC).11 See Aristotle Politica 1304b-1305b. — Apollonia Pontica (20. 4). Measures to prevent sabotage of the gates (date unknown). See Aristotle Politica 1306a.12

To be truthful, the description of this stratagem does not provide broad historical information but it is more precise in comparison with the excesses or falsehoods with which this affair has been transmitted to us by other sources (especially Polyaenus).6 Anyway, it is a direct report of an area not well known in the first half of the 4th century BC (actually, Demosthenes is our main source and this fact compels us to be cautious about its content) and, together with the other references in this work, we can seek to draw a more complete portrait of the historical context of Greek colonies at the Black Sea.

7 It is surprising that older studies, such as Beloch (1923, 132-40) or Struve (1981, 469-509), offer wider and more detailed study than more recent bibliography on the situation around the Black Sea, a strategic area for Greek metropoleis. See, for example, the information given by Demosthenes in his discourse Against Leptines, especially 20. 31-33. 8 Bettalli 1990, 336; Whitehead 1990, 205-06; Vela 1991, 256, n. 4. On other Greek sources see below nn. 36 and 37. 9 According to Diodorus (12. 31), it was governed from 480 to 438 BC by the Archaeanactidae, probably, a ruling family, which gave place to a tyrant, Spartocus (438-431 BC), apparently a Thracian. He founded a dynasty, which it seems to have endured until ca. 110 BC – Isocrates (Trapezitic 17. 47. 4) quotes king Satyrus, and Polyaenus also refers to Leucon (6. 9) and his son Paerisades (7. 37). The Spartocids have left many inscriptions which indicate that the earlier members of the house ruled as archons of the Greek cities and as kings of various native tribes (in the inscriptions CIRB 6, 8, 1037, 1038, the standard formula appears: ‘Leucon, archon of the Bosporus and Theodosia, king of the Sindoi, Toretai, etc.’). See also Tod 1948, 115 A, 115 B, 115 C, 163, 167, and the references in Archibald 2004, 7. For further information, see Struve 1981, 492-509; Hind 1994, especially section iv, ‘The early Spartocids: archons or barbarian tyrants?’, 495-502; Mossé in Will et al. 1998, 70-72; Avram et al. 2004, 946-47; Tsetskhladze forthcoming. 10 In the context of ‘La réflexion politique du IVe siècle. Discussions sur la royauté’, Carlier comments that ‘L’opposition entre royauté et la tyrannie est un lieu commun au IVe siècle: la royauté est la forme correcte de la monarchie, la tyrannie la forme dégénérée’ (Carlier 1996, 256). 11 The oligarchic party called the mercenary army of Clearchus but, as soon as he arrived, he betrayed them and established a tyranny (cf. Vela 1991, 113, 118; also Gehrke 1985, 71-72). Mossé (1969, 121-23) regards Clearchus, together with Jason of Pherae and Euphron of Sicyon, as ‘épigones’ of the Classical tyranny (Whitehead 1990, 132, speaks of a tyrant-dynasty). From this precise report on Heracleia – and the Hellespontine region as a whole – Bettalli (1990, 250) supposes that Aeneas knew this area personally. On Heracleia in general, see Avram et al. 2004, 955-58. 12 Aristotle alludes to this city in the context of oligarchic plots, because of which we could consider a 4th-century date (cf. Vela 1991, 153-54). In contrast, Gehrke (1985, 24) assigns a pre-5th-century date. See also Bettalli 1990, 280; Whitehead 1990, 153. According to Avram et al (2004, 931-32) Aeneas provides information attested only in the Hellenistic period.

CRISES AND STRUGGLES IN GREEK POLEIS IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 4TH CENTURY BC ACCORDING TO AENEAS TACTICUS’ POLIORCETICA The information and examples in the Poliorcetica provide us less with detailed descriptions of military techniques a woman is recognisable a long way off by the way she throws. And care was taken, meanwhile, to prevent deserters from disclosing what was happening.’ 6 Polyaenus (7. 21. 2) also relates Datames’ attack on Sinope but we do not find the same version. On the contrary, we can read that, as this city had a very strong fleet, while Datames had none, nor any carpenters to build one for him, he entered into an alliance with Sinope and promised to lay siege to Sesamos (the manuscript says Sestus, a city settled at the Hellespont, too far from Sinope, while Sesamos, or Amastris, lies on the Black Sea, next to Sinope) which was most hostile to them. The inhabitants of Sinope were delighted with the proposal and offered to assist him in the enterprise in whatever way he might want. They immediately provided him with all the builders and carpenters that they had and Datames employed these men in building ships, as well as siege engines; and in this way he created a fleet, with which he attacked Sinope instead of Sesamos. I agree with Struve, who views Polyaenus’ narration as ‘adorned with imaginary inventions’ (1981, 476). On the history of Sinope, see Avram et al. 2004, 960-63; Tsetskhladze 2007, 165-68; 2009.

254

J. VELA TEJADA: STASIS AND POLEMOS AT PONTUS IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 4TH CENTURY BC ACCORDING TO AENEAS TACTICUS…

Fig. 1: Map of the Black Sea showing Greek colonies

Fig. 2: Map of the Aegean The Hellespontine area is logically in a similar situation of insecurity (Fig. 2):13

Phocion 18; Polyaenus 3. 14, 5. 21. Afterwards (31. 24), Aeneas relates the sending of Locrian virgins to Ilion in atonement for the rape of Cassandra, a tradition ended in 346 BC, which provides therefore the terminus ante quem to date our treatise. See Timaeus FGH 566 F 146.

— Ilion (24. 3-14). Aeneas reports in detail the conquest of Ilion by the mercenary general Charidemos with the support of another mercenary captain, Athenodorus (360 BC).14 See Demosthenes 23. 154; Isocrates 8. 24; Plutarch

— Abydus (28. 6). Iphiades, tyrant of Abydus, seized Parion (362-359 BC).15 See Aristotle Politica 1306a 2631; Demosthenes 23. 176-177.

13

Hammond (1967, 514) remarks that ‘more pressing still was the situation in the Bosporus and the Hellespont’. For example, in 362 BC Byzantium, Chalcedon and Cyzicus raided grain-ships proceeding from the Black Sea, six Athenian generals failed in the Chersonese, and Iphicrates, Athenodorus and Charidemos were employed by Thracian princes. See also Hornblower 1994b, though he pays more attention to Persian hegemony and Anatolian kingdoms. 14 Whitehead 1990, 166-68; Bettalli 1990, 286-89. Otherwise, we have to put this episode in relation to the events of the 360s, when Charidemos helped Artabazus with his army in the arrest of Autophra-

dates (cf. Vela 1991, 177). Hammond (1967, 514) points out that these mercenary commanders in serving Thracian princes committed acts of brigandage and sacked cities in the Bosporus and the Hellespont. 15 Iphiades was another example of faction-leader turned tyrant (Whitehead 1990, 180). For an approximate dating of this episode we should think to the period in which the Second Athenian League was dissolved (cf. Vela 1991, 198). See also Bettalli 1990, 296.

255

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

— Lampsacus (31. 33). The only existing reference to Astyanax, tyrant of Lampsacus, murdered in a conspiracy (unknown date).16

— Ephesus (31. 6). How to pass a secret message (it looks to be Aeneas’ own information, 4th century BC?).

— Parion (28. 6-7). City conquered by Iphiades (see above).

— Mytilene (31. 34). Another instance (see Lampsacus and Thebes) of messages transmitted by secret letters (again it looks to be his own information).

— Chalcedon (12. 3). Dfficulties under siege17 with their allies from Cyzicus (363-360 BC). Cf. Demosthenes 50. 5-6.

— Chios (11. 3-6). Betrayal of a magistrate in the context of the prelude to the Social War (before 357 BC), most probably the last historical reference by Aeneas and another tool for dating Poliorcetica’s terminus ante quem.22 See Diodorus 16. 7. 3.

North-west of the region on which we are focused, Aeneas also gives us information about conflicts in Thrace:

— Naxos (22. 20). The battle of Naxos, where the Athenian fleet under Chabrias defeated the Spartans. Aeneas quotes Nicocles, a Spartan garrison commander (376 BC).23 See Xenophon Hellenica 5. 4. 61; Diodorus 15. 34; Plutarch Phocion. 6; Polyaenus 3. 11. 2-11.

— Abdera (15. 8-10). Triballians invaded the territory of Abdera and defeated the Abderites in an ambush (376/5 BC).18 Diodorus (15. 36) attributes defeat to treason by Thracian allies. — Thrace (27. 7). Euphratas19 is located as Spartan harmost in Thrace (before 371 BC). Nevertheless, Greek sources (Xenophon Hellenica 5. 2. 24; Diodorus 15. 2122) mention only Eudamidas, brother of Phoibidas.

The only reference to Persia is linked as well to this area:24 — Glous or Glos (31. 35), son of Tamos of Memphis – a lieutenant of Tissaphernes at Ionia – was the navarchos (admiral) of the Persian fleet (387-379 BC) in the war against Evagoras, king of Cyprus. Aeneas mentions that he had to report with a secret message to the Great King, Artaxerxes II. See Polyaenus 7. 20; Diodorus 15. 3. 2; and especially Xenophon Anab., particularly books I-II, where Glous is a member of the headquarters of Cyrus the Younger.

We are also informed about the Anatolian coast and the nearby Aegean islands, a core area20 for understanding these critical decades: — Clazomenae (28. 5). Python21 seized the city with the help of accomplices and established a tyranny (after 387/6 BC). Cf. Demosthenes 23. 119.

For completeness, before closing this summary I cannot overlook allusions to other important theatres of war:25

— Teos (18. 13). Fell into the hands of Temenos the Rhodian, a mercenary commander (unknown date but most probably in the 4th century BC than earlier).

— Sicily’s affairs (between 367 and 357 BC) in relation to the tyrannies of Dionysius I (10. 21, 40. 2) and Dionysius II (31. 31) appear well detailed:26 for example

16

We do not have enough information to date it in a contemporary context. See Bettalli 1990, 311; Whitehead 1990, 192; Vela 1991, 217. Xenophon refers to Lampsacus but in the context of the last years of the Peloponnesian War (1. 2. 13-15, 2.1-2) and Cyrus’ expedition (3. 2. 6). 17 As in other references to the region, we acknowledge the privileged information of Aeneas, so that it is feasible to propose contemporary dates, when Athens helped confederates against the Thracian tribes of Cotys but later had troubles with allies in the Propontis (see Vela 1991, 118; Bettalli 1990, 252). For Whitehead (1990, 134), Demosthenes’ report is circumstantial. 18 The Triballians were rejected by the Athenian commander Chabrias, who gained a decisive victory over the Spartan fleet at Naxos in the same year (cf. Vela 1991, 130). On the other hand, Bettalli (1990, 26364) underlines that Aeneas’ narrative does not seem precise, a fact that he attributes to oral transmission. See also Whitehead 1990, 140. 19 Spartan harmosts, a sort of military governor, were withdrawn after the Spartan defeat at Leuctra (371 BC) (see Bettalli 1990, 294-95; Whitehead 1990, 175-76; Vela 1991, 193). 20 Eastern and Asian Greeks had powerful neighbours and they learned that it was difficult to maintain in practice the ideal of the selfgoverning city. In the 5th century, freed from Persian control, they ended up as Athenian subjects and, after the Athenian defeat, they became members of the new Spartan empire. Nevertheless, as Ruzicka suggests (1997, 107), ‘the death of Cyrus at Cunaxa in 401 opened a door to a century-long series of liberators, defenders, protectors, and mere occupiers’. See also Hornblower 1994b. 21 He may be identified with the Thracian Python of Aenus, a student of Plato’s Academy, who assassinated Cotys in 359 and received Athenian citizenship as a reward (see Whitehead 1990, 179; Bettalli 1990, 296; Vela 1991, 198). As far as this plot is concerned, Gehrke (1985, 79) considers Python ‘der Exponent einer exklusiven Oligarchie’.

22

I agree with a dating in the context of the Chian revolt against Athens (Vela 1991, 113). Whitehead (1990, 128-29, with Gehrke 1985, 46-47) proposes a date shortly after the Peace of 355 BC. According to Aristotle Pol. 1306b, in this period Chios lived a history of continuous struggle between the partisans of democratic and oligarchic government. Finally, Bettalli (1990, 247-48), from the wide and detailed description of Aeneas, thinks that he was among the mercenary troops remaining in the island and knew this episode first hand. 23 Bearing in mind the historical context, I follow Casaubon’s traditional emendation proposing Naxos (Vela 1991, 165; see also Whitehead 1990, 157-58), though we have no information about this Spartan garrison commander whose name simply coincides with that of the well-known Cypriot dynast. Bettalli (1990, 283) does not reject an alternative: Kition. 24 Since a Greek point of view predominates in Aeneas’ account, as it does in the other historiographical sources, we find only one mention to Persian influence. With reference to Persia and Asia Minor, see Hornblower 1994b. On the Cypriot war and the Spartan policy towards Persia, see Beloch 1923, 99; Hammond 1967, 466. 25 Talbert (1997, 137) accurately regrets that the Western Greeks of this period receive ‘little more than a glance in many history courses today’. Cf. Lewis 1994. 26 Dionysius I, alias Dionysius the Elder, took advantage of the panic caused by the conquest of Acragas by the Carthaginians to be elected supreme military commander (στρατηγὸς αὐτοκράτωρ) in 406 BC; in the following year he seized total power and became tyrant until his death in 367 (cf. Diodorus Books 12, 14 and 15). His son, Dionysius the

256

J. VELA TEJADA: STASIS AND POLEMOS AT PONTUS IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 4TH CENTURY BC ACCORDING TO AENEAS TACTICUS…

the plot of Heraclidas or the mention of Leptines, brother and commander-in-chief of Dionysius I.

357 BC and we can assume that Aeneas, as a mercenary officer, experienced some of them in person29 or knew about them from first-hand witnesses. Moreover, his historiographical method, inspired by Thucydides,30 allows us to postulate a more accurate use of sources.

The Greek mainland:27 to conclude, the leaders of Greek rivalry are also found in Aeneas’ handbook. — Athens. Surprisingly, only one mention to Iphicrates (before 353 BC), the most celebrated and innovative general of the moment, here giving passwords to patrols (24. 16). In contrast, we have more information about the presence of the Athenian general, Chares, in Corcyra (361 BC), taking part in an oligarchic plot (11. 13-14). See Diodorus 15. 95. 3.

REASONS FOR CRISIS Balance and Hegemony If we focus on the Black Sea, it becomes clear that with the siege of Sinope in 370 BC a period of uncertainty opened, which soon afterwards affected neighbouring cities, notably Heracleia in 364 BC. This makes evident that the Greek colonies of the Black Sea reflected the situation of their metropoleis. However, looking at the map, it is likely that there were more concrete causes of these conflicts. Thus, in the neighbouring Hellespontine area, Chalcedon, Cyzicus, Parion, Abydus and Ilion were directly affected from 363 BC by the troubles of the Second Athenian League in securing a new maritime hegemony. The Social War, known also as the War of the Allies (357-355 BC),31 started when Athens faced an alliance of Chios, Rhodes and Cos, which had overthrown their democratic governments and revolted from the Athenian alliance with the support of Byzantium – declared independent after Epaminondas’ expedition – and Mausolus of Caria. The defeat and destruction of the fleet commanded by Chares (who appears in our treatise at Corcyra in 360 BC: 11. 13) in the battle of Embata (356 BC) brought Athenian influence in this area to an end. In the Poliorcetica (11. 3-6) we are told of the betrayal of a magistrate in the context of the prelude to the Social War.

— The Peloponnese is better documented. Aeneas mentions (2. 2) the defence of Laconia against the invasion of Epaminondas (362 BC) before Mantinea (cf. Xenophon Hellenica 7. 5. 9-10; Diodorus 15. 83. 3; Justinus 6. 7). We can read about an incident in an unknown city of Achaea ca. 360 BC (18. 8). 28 Aeneas refers to panic in army and the Arcadian cult of the god Pan in his mother-country (27. 1). The strategic port of Sicyon is captured by a Theban force under Pammenes in 369 BC (29. 12). — Thebes. Together with the invasion of Laconia, Aeneas stresses the emergent power of Thebes in relation to the liberation of the Cadmea, the Theban acropolis (379 BC) in two further passages, 24. 18 and 31. 34. Cf. Xenophon Hellenica 5. 4. 10. — Other Regions. Epirus and Thessaly appear briefly with reference to the transmission of secret messages (31. 31-32). Nevertheless, no allusions are made to kings Jason or Alexander of Pherae. In spite of its being a handbook on military matters, the historical information given by the Poliorcetica provides us with a complete picture of the atmosphere of stasis and polemos in which the Greek poleis existed in the first half of the 4th century BC. Most of the practical illustrations are based on historical events occurring between 376 and

29 We have already underlined that Aeneas seems to have lived very close the events of the Hellespontine area. In fact he provides us with the sole testimony on some events and unknown personages. Perhaps he gave up the profession of arms after the Peace of 355 BC, devoting his retirement to the composition of an encyclopaedic work on the art of war (see Vela 1991, 142-43). Aeneas appears close to akribeia and the military experience of Thucydides, in opposition to the rhetorical composition inaugurated by Ephorus. 30 In relation to this, see Vela 2004, 143: ‘the impact of Thucydides' work had determined that historiography continued to be dominated by the history of war and the account of events axióloga (worthy of mention), and the need of studying in depth specialised matters of warfare is followed. Likewise in the fourth century the principle of historical mímesis predominates, and because of this the moments of conflict, above all with regard to the ‘capture of a city’, stand out in relief. This is exactly the main theme of Aeneas' treatise.’ 31 First, in the middle of the summer of 357 BC, the Athenian fleet commanded by Chabrias was defeated in an attack on the island of Chios, in which he died. Next, in the autumn of 356 BC, a fleet of 120 ships under the command of Chares, Timotheus and Iphicrates faced the rebels at Embata, in the straits between the island of Chios and the mainland. Timotheus and Iphicrates refused to engage due to stormy weather; Chares attacked alone and lost many of his ships. As a consequence, Timotheus and Iphicrates were accused by Chares and put on trial; nevertheless only Timotheus was condemned and he escaped. Finally, in the summer of 355 BC, Athens complied and withdrew, recognising the independence of the confederate allies. Chares' war party was replaced by a peaceful one under Eubulus. The financial surplus raised for the war was put into a fund to be used for public entertainment. For further information, see Hammond 1967, 515-16; and in general Seager 1994b.

Younger/Dionysius II, ruled Syracuse from 367 to 357 BC. He really did not follow the path of the archetypal philosopher-king taught to him by his uncle the philosopher Dion, disciple of Plato, who also visited Syracuse. Together, they attempted to restructure the government (most probably the encrypted message reproduced by Aeneas in 31. 31 is in relation to their plot). After banishing Dion and taking complete control in 366, Dionysius' rule became incompetent and he was removed by Apollocrates. In 346 he regained power due to great political instability in Syracuse but finally, in 344, Timoleon sent him to exile to Corinth where he died the next year in a miserable state. See, in detail, Talbert 1997, 142-51. 27 On the Spartan hegemony, see Hamilton 1997; Seager 1994a-b. On Thebes and Central Greece, see Munn1997; Roy 1994. 28 Tuplin (1976, 128-9) suggested for this lacunam the name of the city of Pellene and a date in the 360s (see discussion in Whitehead 1990, 148-49). Anyway, Achaea was a strategic area in the disputes between Thebes and Sparta in the Peloponnese (for example, in 369 BC Sycion was captured and garrisoned by the Thebans in their successful attack upon the Peloponnesian League) and our author could, hypothetically, be the strategos Aeneas of Stymphalus who helped to overthrow tyranny of Euphron in 367 BC (cf. Bettalli 1990, 5; Vela 1991, 21). With regard to political instability in the Peloponnese, see Roy 1994, 203-06.

257

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Undoubtedly, the changes in power relations between the Greek poleis were transmitted overseas. First, Sparta established harmostai (27. 7): Euphratas was harmost in Thrace in 371 BC. After the disaster of Leuctra (371 BC), Thebes tried to follow Sparta and, with this aim, incited Athenian allies to defect. To achieve this, in 364 BC, a large number of war ships were constructed at the insistence of Epaminondas and sailed for the Hellespont with a view to winning over Rhodes, Chios and Byzantium.32 This would have given Thebes’ allies at major strategic points. The Theban general succeeded with Byzantium, but financial difficulties, as well as lack of experience in navigation, put an end to Theban ambitions.

controlled all the Greek cities of the Aegean and Pontic coasts of Asia Minor, and Sparta became the guardian of the peace, with the power to enforce its clauses. Nevertheless, Greek sources36 tell us that the satrap of Cappadocia (mentioned above), took part in the so-called Satraps’ Revolt37 against Artaxerxes II. Traditionally, the account of Pompeius Trogus has been accepted.38 In the Prologue to book 10 (‘Persicae res’) of the Historiae Philippicae, he narrates that Artaxerxes II went after his rebellious officials: first of all Datames, satrap of Paphlagonia, then Ariobarzanes, satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, and next in Syria the satrap of Mysia (Armenia), Orontes: Ut Artaxerxes Mnemon pacificatus cum Evagora rege Cyprio bellum Aegyptium in urbe Ace conpararit, ipse in Cadusis victus, defectores in Asia purpuratos suos persecutus, primum Dotamen praefectum – Paphlagonon origo repetita – deinde praefectum Hellesponti Ariobarzanen, deinde in Syria praefectum Armeniae Oronten, omnibusque victis decesserit filio successore Ocho. Is deinde occisis optimatibus Sidon accepit. Aegypto bellum ter intulit. Ut post mortem Ochi regnarit Arses, deinde Darius, qui cum Alexandro Macedonum rege bello conflixit.

PERSIAN WEAKNESS?33 The failure of the three Greek powers – the Battle of Mantinea in 362 BC confirms the unresolved disputes and their own decadence34 – gave Persia a chance to strengthen its influence, which it is unquestionable after the King’s Peace of 387 BC:35 Thanks to this treaty Persia 32 Roy 1994, 201. In the words of Carlier, his goal was ‘d’inciter Byzance, Chios et Rhodes à quitter la Confédération athénienne. Les flottes combinées de ces trois grandes cités maritimes et de Thèbes pourraient faire contrepoids à la marine athénienne; en outre Rhodes et Byzance sont idéalement situées pour intercepter les convois de blé venant d’Égypte et de la mer Noire, et donc pour compromettre le ravitaillement d’Athènes. … La défection de Byzance ainsi que la révolte de Naxos et de Céos en ces années 364-362 révèlent l’impopularité croissante de la seconde Confédération athénienne. … Il semble que la politique navale d’Épaminondas ait été un échec. L’effort entrepris n’est pas poursuivi, et les mentions de trières thébaines se font fort rares à partir de 363’ (1996, 67-68). In contrast, Hammond (1967, 506) thinks that after this expedition ‘Epaminondas returned unscathed, having shaken the confidence and the prestige of Athens.’ 33 Mossé (in Will et al. 1998, 61-67) follows the traditional Greek point of view and speaks of the ‘mediocrity’ of the kings of Persia in the 4th century BC. Hornblower (1994a, 49), though he agrees in weakness in some departments, considers that Persian ‘decadence’ in the first half of the 4th century ‘is something of a myth’. The decadent and effeminate 4th-century Persia is to some extent a Greek literary construct from the historiography (Ctesias, Heraclides of Cyme, Dinon of Colophon; so Xenophon [Cyr. 8. 8. 9] censures the contemporary Persian life style in contrast with the time of Cyrus the Elder) and the oratory of Isocrates too (cf. Panegyric 120, 150-152). See Starr 1975, 41 and 53. 34 Xenophon (Hell. 7. 5. 27) emphasises the result of uncertainty and confusion in Greece after an unresolved hegemony. Actually, ‘the Collapse of the Leading Powers’, in the words of Hammond (1967, 50120), is symbolised by the disintegration of the Boeotian Coalition and the Athenian League, which was less disastrous than that of Dionysius’ empire in the West. 35 The outcome of the Peloponnesian War had left many of the victors discontented and Athens, after overthrowing the Thirty, tried to avoid Spartan control. Thus a coalition of four allied states arose: Thebes, Athens, Corinth and Argos, initially supported by Persia. Alarmed by Athenian successes, however, the Persians withdrew their backing and began to support Sparta. This defection forced the allies to seek peace, the Peace of Antalcidas, the name of the commander of the Spartan fleet, commonly known as the King's Peace: Argos and Corinth were forced to cancel their union (sympoliteia), the Thebans were required to disband their Boeotian League, and the Athenians, mindful of their disastrous defeat in 404 BC, when the Spartans gained control of the Hellespont, agreed to negotiate under the threat of 90 Spartan ships in the Hellespont. The effects of the war, therefore, were to establish Persia's ability to interfere successfully in Greek politics and to affirm Sparta's hegemonic position in the Greek political system. Starr 1(975, 65) speaks of decades of the unrelieved display of Persian domination. On the Corinthian War, see Seager 1994a (especially 117-19 on the King’s Peace).

Though Mausolus of Caria strangely remained loyal, the satraps rebelled with the initial support of Athens and Sparta – even the Pharaoh Teos would have joined to them – and proclaimed independence of Persian rule. Anyway, the elevation of Datames in the 370s marks the beginning of this unrest.39 Whether this revolt really happened in the way that it is recounted in Greek sources,40 or whether it is another 36

Ancient sources for Datames: Cornelius Nepos Life of Datames; Polyaenus 7. 21. For a study in depth, see Sekunda 1988; Schmitt 1996. 37 Nevertheless, in spite of having some information from Greek sources (Diodorus 15. 90-91; Nepos Datames 8, 10-11; and ‘stratagems’ by Polyaenus concerning Datames [7. 21. 1-7; 7. 29. 1], Orontes [7. 14. 24] and Ariobarzanes [7. 26], and including Autophradates [7. 27. 1-3], the satrap of Lydia – Plutarch does not find the affair interesting enough to include it in his Life of Artaxerxes) we receive a confusing and incomplete account. As Hornblower explains (1994a, 64), our knowledge of the Persian empire is not only poor but too often derives from the Greek side. 38 A 1st-century BC Galo-Roman historian who flourished during the age of Augustus, nearly contemporary with Livy. His work was based upon the writings of Greek historians of Philippicae (to the time when Greece and the East came into contact with Rome), such as Theopompus, Ephorus, Timaeus and Polybius, though not directly but from a previous compilation into a single book, very probably by Timagenes of Alexandria. Unfortunately his work (less rhetorical and an important authority for Eastern ancient history) is lost and only an epitome and a series of prologi or summaries of the books, written by Justin, remain (see Starr 1975, 68). 39 According to Hornblower (1994a, 84), it is possible to recognise four periods of the Revolt (or revolts) over nearly 20 years: that of Datames which began in the 370s, of Ariobarzanes in the mid-360s, the general insurrection in the second half of the 360s, and Artabazus' revolt in the next decade. 40 Ruzicka 1997, 116: these satrapal revolts in western Anatolia evidently grew out of court rivalries and shifting alignments connected with expectations of the death of the ageing Artaxerxes II and an ensuing succession crisis. A reading of Diodorus (15. 90. 1-92. 1) gives the impression that this revolt, coinciding with the Egyptian king’s

258

J. VELA TEJADA: STASIS AND POLEMOS AT PONTUS IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 4TH CENTURY BC ACCORDING TO AENEAS TACTICUS…

example of Greek historical propaganda,41 the fact is that it reveals the weakness of Persian control over this area of influence.42 By seizing on the situation, named by Hammond ‘the Collapse of the Leading Powers’43 (and in addition to the general presence of mercenary armies,44 not just seizing the opportunity for power but also because greater economic resources were available to hire them), new dynasties or new forms of tyranny were established in the Greek cities of the Hellespont and the Black Sea. According to Aeneas (5. 2) Leucon ruled in the Cimmerian Bosporus (from 389 to 349 BC) following the dynasty of the Spartocids inaugurated by Spartocus in 438 BC, and in Heracleia (11. 10-11) Clearchus, a commander of mercenary troops, founded his own dynasty-tyranny. And what about Datames? Our satrap finally conquered Sinope and its coinage reflects the change:45 the name of the city being replaced by that of its tyrant-king (Fig. 3). 46

Did Datames leave Cappadocia to attack Sinope because his instincts and ambitions had understood the opportunity in the context of Persian weakness? More likely he perceived the weakness of the leading Greek powers in the Black Sea and occupied Sinope, a rich city47 free of foreign control, as a Persian satrap.48 Only later, perhaps when he considered himself stronger, did he revolt. In the 4th century BC the situation in the Greek colonies was very similar to that of their former metropoleis, one of the decadence of the polis. The second half of the century announced to the Greeks a new political age in which monarchy put an end to the city-state as a political system: ‘Ironically, by grounding the relationship between city and monarch (between beneficiary and benefactor), “autonomy” provided the means by which kingdom or empire could absorb city-state.’49

plans for an offensive campaign, nearly crippled the Persian empire. Nevertheless, Diodorus followed Ephorus and, because he lived after the collapse of hegemonies, he focused on empires with the ability to exert/achieve hegemony. Thus recent scholarship depicts the Revolt as a matter of conflicts and rivalries, not as a massive insurgency against the king (see, for example, Weiskopf 1989, 45-68). Starr too (1975, 71) shares the opinion that other revolts took place earlier, and that the conventional picture of a state in serious decline and riven by dissent does not accord with historical reality. 41 'Regional instability' of this sort definitely does not prove Persia to have been basically weak, nor can it be proved that the revolts were planned or co-ordinated. But it is not likely that Ephorus (Diodorus' source) was merely transmitting the panhellenist wishful thinking of his teacher Isocrates. In the words of Hornblower (1994a, 84): ‘things are not so simple’. In the opinion of Starr (1975, 60), the Greek picture of Persian weakness and wealth conjoined has a serious logical incoherence and shows a persistence of hostile ethnotypes. 42 Enlightenment on this question could come from a Persian tablet of an astronomical diary (BM 36742 [= 80-6-17, 475] + 37478 [= 80-6-17, 1235]), which refers to people encamped around the city of Sippar in November 363 BC (cf. Hunger and van der Spek 2006, 8). They took the city but afterwards a son of king Artaxerxes II inflicted a defeat on the attackers. The authors conclude (Hunger and van der Spek 2006, 13) that the diary may report an insurrection by some sons or officials of the king. The ‘son of the king’ mentioned, the designated crown prince, is able to re-capture the city. In relation to this hypothesis, Ruzicka (1997, 118) stresses that only in the late 340s, after Artaxerxes III finally conquered Egypt (in 343/2), was direct imperial authority restored everywhere in the region. On the same lines, see Hornblower 1994a, 84; and, as evidence of its importance, it is not surprising that it was not until the late 350s that Persia had the energy or resources to resume the struggle for Egypt, the major Persian preoccupation. 43 Hammond 1967, 499-520; see above n. 34. 44 Thus Starr (1977, 102) underlines how far more numerous were the anonymous masses of Greek mercenaries: ‘sailors under Conon, infantry hoplites under many commanders’. Nonetheless, Garlan (1975, 92) emphasises that the increased use of mercenaries had the effect of separating political from military power. Even so, the soldiers still wished to set themselves up as a political power: ‘this large-scale employment of mercenaries marks the emergence of the “mercenary system”, which implies that the mercenaries had become sufficiently numerous to have an appreciable, and sometimes determining, influence on the military life and, more widely, on the life of a society in general’ (1975, 94). In conclusion, their appearance reveals a social pathology in the Greek poleis. 45 Starr (1977, 87). In 4th-century Asia Minor the volume of coinage and the number of mints increased markedly: for instance, the abundance of coinage found at Tarsus, which includes the Datames silver stater, a piece from 378–372 BC. Furthermore, Starr (1977, 96) emphasises that after Pharnabazus Datames struck an equally large coinage, and classifies this coin in a third type consisting of: on the

obverse the God Baaltars on a throne, seated left, torso facing, holding grapes, grain ear, and eagle in right hand, sceptre in left hand, surrounded by the city walls; on the reverse the God Ana, naked, and Datames, face-to-face, within rectangular enclosure. 46 See Struve 1981, 477. 47 Starr (1975, 87) points out that the cities of Asia Minor flourished in the 4th century and that Persian rule did not seriously impede the great progress which is evident in the coinage and physical remains of the era. 48 Hornblower (1994a, 79) suggests that we should not think of the satrapies of Asia Minor as covering the map of Anatolia completely. In fact, at times there were areas and peoples that it would be hard or positively wrong to attribute to any satrap, just like Pisidia, Mysia, parts of Cappadocia, Lycia (subsumed under Hecatomnid Caria), or Pamphylia. Otherwise, according to Tsetskhladze (2007, 194), we should bear in mind that the Greeks who settled at the Black Sea had to deal not only with hostile local people but with Kashka, Phrygians and Achaemenids. 49 Ruzicka 1997, 134. Indeed, in literary sources of the 4th century we see discussion of the best political system: Xenophon in Lac. Pol. defends the traditional Spartan constitution of Lycurgos; Aristotle in Ath. Pol. inaugurates the concept of a ‘medium constitution’; Plato proposes a Republic of wise men and tried to apply it in Syracuse with his disciple Dion (see above n. 26); and Isocrates, from an initial Panathenaic defence, evolves towards an opinion that recognises the advantages of monarchy (cf. Nicocles 3. 15-22).

259

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 3: Sinopean coins of Datames

Bibliography

HIND, J.G.F. 1994: ‘The Bosporan Kingdom’. In CAH, 2nd ed., vol. 6, 476-511.

Abbreviations CAH

Cambridge Ancient History.

HORNBLOWER, S. 1994a: ‘Persia’. In CAH, 2nd ed., vol. 6, 45-96.

FGH

F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker.

HORNBLOWER, S. 1994b: ‘Asia Minor’. In CAH, 2nd ed., vol. 6, 209-33.

LIMC

Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae.

HUNGER, H. and van der SPEK, R.J. 2006: ‘An astronomical diary concerning Artaxerxes II (year 42 = 363-2 BC): Military Operations in Babylonia’. Arta 2, 1-16.

ARCHIBALD, Z.H. 2004: ‘In-groups and out-groups in the Pontic Cities’. In Tuplin, C.J. (ed.), Pontus and the Outside World. Studies in Black Sea History, Historiography and Archaeology (Colloquia Pontica 9) (Leiden/Boston), 1-16.

LEWIS, D.M. 1994: ‘Sicily, 413-368 B.C.’. In CAH, 2nd ed., vol. 6, 120-55. MOSSE, C. 1969: La tyrannie dans la Grèce Antique (Paris).

AVRAM, A., HIND, J.G.F. 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), 924-73.

MUNN, M. 1997: ‘Thebes and Central Greece’. In Tritle 1997, 66-106. ROY, J. 1994: ‘Thebes in the 360s B.C.’. In CAH, 2nd ed., vol. 6, 187-208.

BELOCH, K.J. 1923: Griechische Geschichte, vol. 3.1 (Berlin/Leipzig).

RUZICKA, S. 1997: ‘The Eastern Greek World’. In Tritle 1997, 107-36.

BENGTSON, H. 1962: ‘Die griechische Polis bei Aeneas Tacticus’. Historia 11, 458-68.

SCHMITT, R. 1996: ‘Datames’. In Yarhsater, E. (ed.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 7 (New York), 116.

BETTALLI, M. (ed. and transl.) 1990: La difesa di una città assediata: Poliorketika/ Enea Tattico (Studi e testi di storia antica 2) (Pisa).

SEAGER, R. 1994a: ‘The Corinthian War’. In CAH, 2nd ed., vol. 6, 97-119. SEAGER, R. 1994b: ‘The King’s Peace and the Second Athenian Confederacy’. In CAH, 2nd ed., vol. 6, 15686.

CARLIER, P. 1996: Le IVe siècle grec jusqu’à la mort d’Alexandre (Nouvelle histoire de l'Antiquité 3) (Paris).

SEKUNDA, N.V. 1988: ‘Some Notes on the Life of Datames’. Iran 26, 35-53.

GARLAN, Y. 1975: War in the Ancient World: A Social History (London). GEHRKE H.-J. 1985: Stasis. Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Vestigia 35) (Munich).

STARR, C.G. 1975: ‘Greeks and Persians in the fourth century BC. A study in cultural contacts before Alexander (part 1)’. Iranica Antiqua 11, 39-99. STARR, C.G. 1977: ‘Greeks and Persians in the fourth century BC. A study of cultural contacts before Alexander (part 2)’. Iranica Antiqua 12, 49-115.

HAMILTON, C.D. 1997: ‘Sparta’. In Tritle 1997, 4165. HAMMOND, N.G.L. 1967: A History of Greece to 322 BC, 2nd ed. (Oxford).

STRUVE, V.V. 1981: Historia de la Grecia antigua, 4th ed. (Madrid). 260

J. VELA TEJADA: STASIS AND POLEMOS AT PONTUS IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 4TH CENTURY BC ACCORDING TO AENEAS TACTICUS…

TALBERT, R.J.A. 1997: ‘The Greeks in Sicily and South Italy’. In Tritle 1997, 137-65.

TUPLIN, C.J. 1976: ‘Aeneas Tacticus: Poliorketika 18.8’. Liverpool Classical Monthly 1, 127-31.

TOD, M.N. 1948: A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, vol. 2 (Oxford).

VELA [TEJADA], J. 1991: Eneas el Táctico, Poliorcética: La Estrategia Militar Griega en el Siglo IV a.C. (Madrid).

TRITLE, L.A. (ed.) 1997: The Greek World in the Fourth Century: From the Fall of the Athenian Empire to the Succesors of Alexander (London/New York).

VELA [TEJADA], J. 2004: ‘Warfare, History and Literature in the Archaic and Classical Periods: the Development of Greek Military Treatises’. Historia 53.2, 129-46.

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2007: ‘Greeks and Locals in the Southern Black Sea Littoral’. In Herman, G. and Shatzman, I. (eds.), Greeks between East and West: Essays in Greek Literature and History in Memory of David Asheri (Jerusalem), 160-95.

WEISKOPF, M. 1989: The So-Called ‘Great Satraps' Revolt,’ 366-360 BC: Concerning Local Instability in the Achaemenid Far West (Historia Einzelschriften 63) (Stuttgart).

TSETSKHLADZE, G.R. 2009: ‘Secondary Colonisers in the Black Sea: Sinope and Panticapaeum’. In Lombardo, M. and Frisone, F. (eds.), Colonie di colonie: le fondazioni sub-coloniali greche tra colonizzazione e colonialismo (Atti del Convegno Lecce, 22-24 Giugno 2006) (Lecce/Taranto), 229-54.

WHITEHEAD, D. (ed. and transl.) 1990: Aineias the Tactician: How to Survive under Siege (Oxford). WILL, E., MOSSÉ, C. and GOUKOWSKY. P. 1998: Le monde Grec et l'Orient, 2: Le IVe siècle et l'époque hellénistique (Peuples et civilisations 2) (Paris).

261

THE SAGA OF THE ARGONAUTS: A REFLEX OF THRACO-PHRYGIAN MARITIME ENCROACHMENT ON THE SOUTHERN PONTIC LITTORAL* Fred C. WOUDHUIZEN Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society, c/o Het Hoekstuk 69, 1852 KX Heiloo, The Netherlands [email protected]

Abstract: The saga of the Argonauts is generally assumed to be a reflex of Greek maritime activity in the Black Sea region, either during the Early Iron Age or even during the Late Bronze Age. In accordance with this assumption, the presence or absence of Greek or Mycenaean archaeological material is used as a criterion for verification or falsification of the historical validity of the myth. This approach, however, disregards the fact that the saga in question is embedded in the ‘Minyische Schicht’ of the royal house of Iolkos, in which qualification Minyan refers to the original inhabitants of Greece encountered by the first Greeks at the time of their arrival in this country, dateable to the period of the shaft graves (ca. 1600 BC). In this paper, then, I will argue that among the pre-Greek population groups a dominant position was taken by Phrygian and Thracian tribes, which, if they refused to submit to the rule of their new overlords, were driven from their homeland by the Greek conquerors and forced to take refuge in the North Aegean and southern Pontic region. Such a population drift would go a long way to explain, for example, why the Kaskans posed an ever growing threat to Hittite control of their northern provinces from the later phase of the Old Kingdom period, i.e. the 16th century BC, onwards, whereas before this even the coastal town of Zalpa formed an integral part of the Hittite realm and relations with it were only disturbed by dynastic troubles. If the saga of the Argonauts is indeed a reflex to this particular population drift, or of maritime contacts between Greece and the southern Pontic region anterior to this, its historical nucleus is not only much more ancient than commonly assumed, but generations of scholars have also been looking for the wrong set of archaeological data to either substantiate or dismiss it. ARGONAUTLAR SÖYLENCESİ: GÜNEY PONTOS KIYISINDA THRAKIA-PHRYGIA DENİZCİLİK YAKINLAŞMASI Özet: Argonautlar söylencesi ya Erken Demir Çağı’nda, ya da Geç Bronz Çağı’nda Karadeniz’de vuku bulmuş Hellen denizcilik faaliyetlerinin bir yankısı olarak düşünülür. Bu görüşe paralel olarak Karadeniz’de Hellen ya da Myken arkeolojik materyallerinin varlığı ya da yokluğu bu söylencenin tarihsel geçerliliğinin doğrulanması ya da yanlışlanması için kullanılır. Bununla beraber, bu bakış açısı söz konusu söylencenin silindir şeklindeki mezarların tarihi olan yaklaşık İ.Ö. 1600’lerde Yunanistan’tan Karadeniz’e ilk gelenleri anlandırmak için kullanılan “Minyan” teriminin geçtiği Iolkos’un kraliyet evinin “Minyan tabakası”nda saklı olduğu gerçeğini göz ardı eder. Bu bildiride bölgede Hellen öncesi toplumlar arasında Hellenler tarafından yurtlarından edilip, Kuzey Ege ve Güney Pontos bölgesine göç ettirilen Phryg ve Thrakialı kavimlerin baskın olan konumlarını tartışacağım. Bu tür bir nüfus sapması aslında birçok sebeplerden dolayı vuku bulmuş olabilir. Örneğin Kaşkalılar, Hititler’in kuzey eyaletlerini kontrolü için Eski Krallık devrinden, yani İ.Ö. 16. yy.’dan itibaren bir tehdit olmaya başlamıştır. Bununla beraber bu olaydan önce bir kıyı kenti olan Zalpa Hitit hakimiyet ve etki alanı ile bütünleşmiştir. Eğer Argonautlar söylencesi bu nüfus sapmasını ya da Yunanistan ile Güney Pontos Bölgesi’nin denizsel ilişkilerini yansıtıyorsa, söylencenin tarihi özü belki de inanılandan çok daha eskidir. Bu da o takdirde çok uzun zamandan beri bilim adamlarının arkeolojik verileri yanlış kullandıklarını gösterir.

INTRODUCTION*

early 7th century BC onwards whereas the saga of the Argonauts already features in 8th century BC Greek sources like the epics of Homer (Iliad 7. 467-71; Odyssey 12. 70) and the work of Hesiod (frgg. 37-42). More recently, the Austrian scholar Stefan Hiller has suggested that the Argonauts’ saga may have Late Bronze Age roots as the names of many of its heroes can be traced in Linear B documents.1 Again, however, a problem is posed by the fact that, as most recently pointed out by Jan de Boer, not a sherd of Mycenaean pottery has been found along the shores of the Black Sea and it therefore is unlikely that Mycenaean Greeks already sailed through the Bosporus and prospected the sea lanes beyond it.2

The saga of the Argonauts tells us the story of how Jason and his companions from all over Greece travelled by sea in their ship called the Argo from Jason’s hometown Iolkos in Thessaly to the land of king Aeetes, Colchis (present-day Georgia), situated at the eastern shore of the Black Sea, in pursuit of the Golden Fleece, and how, with the help of the daughter of king Aeetes, Medea, they managed to bring this fleece back to their homeland Greece (cf. Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica). Now, it has been suggested in the past that this saga might be a reflection of Greek colonisation of the Black Sea region. A problem is posed, however, by the fact that this colonisation, apart from the faint memory to a preCimmerian settlement at Sinope, only took place from the

In the face of these problems, are we not simply forced to give up the idea that the saga of the Argonauts might be a 1

*

My thanks are due to Willemijn Waal and Jan de Boer for sharing with me their expertise on Hittite and maritime affairs, respectively.

2

263

Hiller 1991. de Boer 2006-07.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 1: Frieze of the Schimmel vase (after Watkins 2002, 170, fig. 1)

reflection of an historical reality altogether? Against such a conclusion militates the fact that the motif of the Golden Fleece, as observed by Victor Haas, although faintly traceable in Greek myth (viz. in the competition for the kingship of Mycenae between the sons of Pelops, Atreus and Thyestes), strikingly recalls the Hittite KUŠ kurša, a royal symbol of prosperity, which was hung in a certain species of tree in the neighbourhood of an altar, and the disappearance and recovery of which symbolised the change from the winter to the summer season or the recovery of natural abundance to the kingdom.3 This Hittite symbol of prosperity, then, is depicted on the socalled Schimmel vase next to a tree and in association with a quiver and the head and hoofs of a stag (see Fig. 1), and, as stipulated by Calvert Watkins, actually consists of a hunting bag, in which the hunter gathers his trophies.4 It seems unlikely to assume that the Greeks preserved the memory of such a specific Hittite religious item as the KUŠkurša in such astonishing detail without intimate contacts, in whatever form, actually having taken place in the period in question, which means the Late Bronze Age.5

On the other hand, it is worth noting that the general setting of the Argonauts’ sage is situated in the reign of king Pelias over Iolkos, who belongs to the ‘Minyische Schicht’ in the royal house in question, and hence is datable in archaeological terms to the earlier phase of the Late Bronze Age, say Late Helladic I-IIB (ca. 1600-1400 BC), which is still characterised by Minyan ware and cist graves typical of the Middle Helladic period.7 As a consequence, if we take this setting seriously, we should not be looking to Mycenaean Greek contacts with Anatolia in general and the southern Black Sea region in specific, but those of the original Middle Helladic population groups, usually grouped together in the literary sources under the blanket terms Minyans or Pelasgians.

In this connection, it deserves our attention that the contacts between the Mycenaean Greeks and the Hittites, though directly attested in the form of, for example, the correspondence between the Hittite king Muwatallis II and the king of AÌÌiyawa, were of a superficial nature, and, as most recently shown by Jorrit Kelder, Mycenaean influence in Anatolia as reflected in the distribution of Mycenaean pottery was confined to the margins of the western coastal zone.6 At any rate, in later Greek literary sources the memory to the Hittites is almost negligible, being largely confined to the mythical Amazons upon which those penetrating into the Anatolian heartland, like Bellerophon going from Lycia to the interior or the Phrygians under Otreus and Mygdon along the Sangarios, are reported to have stumbled.

Working from an Anatolian perspective, there are three questions of relevance to our topic:

In order to determine the validity of this entirely new corner of incidence, I will in the following survey the relevant data, first from an Anatolian viewpoint and then from a Greek.

ANATOLIAN PERSPECTIVE

(1) Why did Palaic die out already during the Old Hittite period, presumably sometime in the 16th century BC?8 (2) Where did all the Kashkans come from, who troubled the Hittites in the northern parts of their realm from an advanced stage of the Old Hittite period (from Ëantilis I onwards) only, whereas formerly for example the northern coastal town of Zalpa had formed an integral part of the Hittite realm, endangered only by dynastic troubles?9 (3) How can we explain for the fact that Mita of PaÌÌuwa, a ruler of the region to the northeast of the Hittite heartland at the time of TudÌaliyas II and Arnuwandas I in the late 15th and beginning of the 14th century BC bears a Phrygian royal name, namely Midas?10

3

Haas 1978. Watkins 2002. 5 Note that the appointment of a wasÌaī kursà ‘lord of the fleece’ by the Phrygian king Midas according to a Luwian hieroglyphic inscription from Babylon of the late 8th century BC indicates that the religious practice continued into the Early Iron Age among the Phrygians, so that the possibility of a transfer to Greece in the latter period, though less likely, cannot be entirely excluded (see Woudhuizen 2004, 10506). 6 Kelder 2004-05. 4

7

Woudhuizen 2006a, 62. Melchert 1994, 10. 9 Bryce 1998, 74, 90. 10 Bryce 1998, 155-56. 8

264

F.C. WOUDHUIZEN: THE SAGA OF THE ARGONAUTS: A REFLEX OF THRACO-PHRYGIAN MARITIME ENCROACHMENT…

In order to answer these questions, we will have to address the problem of the Hittite northern frontier, often left as a blank zone in the maps, in general and that of the ethnic make-up of the Kashkans more in particular.

Within the frame of this reconstruction of the northern limits of the Hittite empire, it is noteworthy that, for example, the Hittite king Ëattusilis III was so proud of his recovery of Nerik, just a little south of Zalpa along the Halys river, that he named his son Nerikkailis after it. And yet, even this king who put the greatest effort of all to integrate the Kashkans within the empire, was not able to reconquer Zalpa along the coast just a few kilometres north of Nerik. If we add to this that the Hittite kings for a long period exercised a strategy of depopulation in the territory in control of the Kashkans and these still were eager to encroach on Hittite lands, one cannot but conclude that in the course of time there just happened to arrive more and more of them, probably by sea.

In his 1965 work on the Kashkans, Einar von Schuler distinguished a group to the west of the mouth of the Halys and one to the east of it. The western Kashkans are recorded to have taken possession of the province of Tumana in the reign of Suppiluliumas I. This latter province is associated with the River DaÌara and the mountain Kassu, which, against the backdrop of Tumana corresponding to classical Domanitis, can positively be identified with respectively the River Amnias (presentday Gök Irmak) and Mount Olgassys (present-day Ilgaz Dağları). As specified by von Schuler,11 there are no Kashkans recorded west of the river called Parthenios in the classical sources (present-day Filyos). The eastern Kashkans feature prominently in the texts from Tapika or Maşat Höyük,12 dated to the reign of Suppiluliumas I’s father TudÌaliyas III, and are located along the KummesmaÌa river, positively identified with the classical Lykos (present-day Kelkit Irmak). The source of this river lies a little south of classical Trapezus (present-day Trapzon), to the east of which the bordering kingdom and later Hittite province of Azzi-Ëayasa must be situated, where in Urartian and classical sources QulÌa13 or the Kolkhoi and Makrones are located. Although the border with the eastern Kashkans, like the one in the west, shifted in time, von Schuler places it along the line of Osmancık–Gümuş (north of Amasya) –Turhal–Kelkit Irmak.14

This brings us to the ethnic make-up of the Kashkans. In line with the observations of von Schuler, it cannot be denied that the majority of the place and personal names of the Kashkans are just straightforwardly Anatolian, if not IE Anatolian. Nevertheless, there can be distinguished among them a category which is definitely not Anatolian, but either Thracian or Phrygian. Among the first category I would classify the personal names Pittagatallis, Pittaparas, Pendumlis, and the place names PittalaÌsa, Zagapura, ËuÌazalma, Aripša, among which we can determine the Thracian onomastic or toponymic elements Pitta-, Bend-, -para, -poris, -zelmis, and the Homeric Trojan place name Arisbē, sometimes in combination with IE Anatolian elements, like the formation of agent nouns in -talli- and -ÌuÌa- ‘grandfather’.17 To the second category, on the other hand, belong the personal names AsÌapalas, Kurijallis, Taskuwalis,18 and the place names Midduwa,19 Duma or Tumma (from which Tumana is derived), Kurtalisa, Pargalla, ZidaparÌa, Taskulija, bearing testimony of the onomastic or toponymic elements Aska-, Kurija-, Dasky-, Mida-, Gord-, and Briga-,20 etc., sometimes in combination with IE Anatolian elements, again, like adjectival -ali- and zida‘man’, and the vocabulary word duma- for some sort of social organisation.21 In view of this evidence, it stands to reason to assume that the Kashkans consisted of ThracoPhrygian population groups, who infiltrated the Anatolian heartland from the European continent already before their kinsmen from the Early Iron Age did so. This Thraco-Phrygian population drift from the European continent, then, helps us to explain why Palaic died out, as its speakers were probably ousted by the newcomers who, in contrast to their kinsmen to the north, subsequently integrated into the Hittite empire.

If we realise that the entry to the province of Pala is formed by mountains west of Mount Kassu, it lies at hand to assume that it was situated south of the cluster of mountains to be found here (present-day Isik Dağ, Yıldırum Dağ, Külüklü Dağ and Benli Dağ) and hence is not to be identified with classical Blaende along the upper Amnias. At any rate, it is clear from the relevant sources that Pala formed an integral part of the Hittite empire, whereas the region north of the aforesaid cluster of mountains, stretching out to west of the Parthenios river, certainly did not. Accordingly, Gordion along the upper Sangarios, to be identified with Hittite SaÌiriya (presentday Sakariya), may well have belonged to the province of Pala, which coincides with the fact that its Late Bronze Age levels are characterised by Hittite pottery and Luwian hieroglyphic sealings.15 In fact, the northern limit of the distribution zone of Luwian hieroglyphic seals and sealings may give us a fair idea of the northern border of the province of Pala or the northern limits of Hittite influence in this region more in general (see Fig. 2).16

17

Woudhuizen 1993b; cf. Detschew 1976. Mora 1987, group VIb 1.22. 19 If we realise that the current toponymic element -nuwa ‘new’ can be represented by syncopated -nwa, or perhaps even by the reversal of its middle vowel as -unwa, in Sakkadunwa, it may reasonably be argued that Mudduwa originates from *Middunwa by apokope of syllable-final [n] and hence belongs to this rather common group of IE Anatolian place names indicating one time new foundations. 20 Note that the different forms of the Phrygian ethnonym, like Briges or Brugoi or Phruges or Phrugoi, epichoric vrekun-, and the related personal name (W)rakios or Awarkus (see Forlanini 1996), just like the toponymic element parga- or parÌa- all seem to be derived from PIE *bhṛĝh(i)- ‘high’ as a reference to dwellers of heights comparable to Celtic Brigantes. 21 Cf. Woudhuizen 2008-09. 18

11

von Schuler 1965, 62. Alp 1991. 13 Salvini 1995, maps. 14 von Schuler 1965, 52. 15 Güterbock 1980; Henrickson and Voigt 1998. 16 Marazzi 1986 and 1990, Tav. XXI: no. 17 Gordion; no. 60 Yağri; no. 7 Bıtık; no. 15 Eskiyapar; no. 14 Doğantepe. Marazzi 1986 and 1990, Tav. XXI also include a Luwian hieroglyphic inscription on an orthostat from İnandık, which, however, I could not trace in the sources referred to and therefore have omitted from my Fig. 2. 12

265

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 2: Map of Anatolia with distribution of findspots of (a) Hittite cuneiform texts and (b) Luwian hieroglyphic Late Bronze Age inscriptions (b1) on rock and stone monuments, (b2) on seals and sealings, and (b3) on a bronze bowl, and the extent of the Hittite empire based hereon (after F. Starke, In Die Hethiter und ihr Reich, Das Volk der 1000 Götter [Bonn 2002], 55)

Against this backdrop, then, it is highly relevant to observe that, as pointed out by James Mellaart,23 Troy and its immediate surroundings in northwest Anatolia up to the Sangarios river are characterised during the Middle and Late Bronze Age by Minyan ware (see Fig. 3), which, as we have already noted in the above, also typifies (after ca. 1600 BC only those districts initially unaffected by the process of Mycenaeanisation of) mainland Greece during this period. Although I am aware of the fact that pots do not necessarily equal people, it cannot be denied that sometimes this happens to be the case and in the case of Minyan ware we may well be dealing with such an exception as the Greek literary sources about the pre- or non-Greek population groups, as we have seen usually grouped together here under the blanket term Minyans or Pelasgians, inform us, if they are more specific, about Thracians (Eumolpos in Eleusis, Tereus in Daulis) and Phrygians (Pelops after whom the Peloponnese is named, Mopsos after whom Attika is named Mopsopia) in middle and southern Greece. This can be sustained by evidence from Linear B, according to which, for example, a stirrup jar from the ‘House of Kadmos’ in Thebes of Cretan manufacture and to all probability destined for the Theban hinterland is inscribed with the ethnic o-du-ru-wijo ‘Odrysian’ (note that Tereus is an Odrysian royal name).

GREEK PERSPECTIVE If we turn to the Greek side of the evidence, it immediately strikes us that, provided some amount of overlapping, this happens to be largely complementary to that of the Anatolian side. Starting with the most prominent overlap, it needs to be observed that the famous city along the Dardanelles, Homeric Troy or (W)ilion, is known from Hittite sources as well in form of Tarwisa or Wilusa. Now, owing to the merit of the Russian scholar Leonid Gindin it has been established that—if the Homeric data may be assumed to have a bearing on the Late Bronze Age—the Trojans can safely be grouped with the populations of a ThracoPhrygian ethnic identity. Particularly instrumental in this respect are names like the Skaiaí gates, Kebriónēs, Laomédōn ho Phrúks and his wife Strumō, Páris, the Phrygian descent of Priamos’ wife Hekábē, and the correspondence of the first element of Príamos to that of the place names Príapos, Priēnē, and Phrygian Prietas (cf. the Phrygian vocabulary word prieis ‘carae’ < PIE *priyá- ‘(be)love(d)’).22 22 Gindin 1999: 57-58, 62-64, 263; cf. Woudhuizen 2006a, 108, n. 520. Note that the Luwian hieroglyphic seal discovered at Troy (cf. Latacz 2001, 67-95) in a disturbed layer from the 12th century BC may plausibly be attributed to an official of the kingdom of Mira under which the Troad fell away in the final stage of the Bronze Age, as indicated in our Fig. 2.

23

266

In Palmer 1965, 326-27.

F.C. WOUDHUIZEN: THE SAGA OF THE ARGONAUTS: A REFLEX OF THRACO-PHRYGIAN MARITIME ENCROACHMENT…

Fig. 3: Map of Anatolia with distribution zones of (a) Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions and (b) Minyan ware (after Palmer 1965, 326, fig. 46)

further attested by the place name Phrixopolis (Ideëssa) to the north of the River Phasis (Strabo 11. 2. 18) and the ethnonym Moskhoi (a variant spelling of Muski),25 in between Colchis and Armenia, after whom Moskhike, the Moskhian mountains, and Moschorum tractus are named (DNP s.v. Moschoi). Next, the origin of the Armenian tribe of the Makrōnes, inhabiting the coastal zone to the east of the later Greek colony Trapezus, is according to a scholium to Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica 1. 1024 traced back to Pelasgians from Euboia, which in the given context appears to coincide reasonably well with Herodotus’ view (7. 73) that the Armenians are a[poikoi of the Phrygians.26 Against the backdrop of these eastern Phrygians, then, the identification of the name of Mita of PaÌÌuwa, whose realm shared a number of places with that of Azzi-Ëayasa,27 located, as we have seen, to the south-east of the source of the present-day Kelkit Irmak, in the habitat of the Kolkhoi and the Makrōnes, as a Phrygian royal name needs no special pleading.

If we next continue with the Greek evidence concerning the region behind Troy, about which the Hittite sources appear to be silent, we are confronted with ThracoPhrygians, again. In the first place, there is Merops of Perkote, the father of the leader of the Trojan contingent from the district of Adresteia, Pityeia, and Tereia (Homer Iliad 2. 828-834), whose name is of the same type as that of Pelops, Mopsops, and Phainops, whereas the place names are of Phrygian (Adrāstos) or Thracian (gloss pitúē ‘treasure’, Tērēs) type. Secondly, we are informed that Priamos when still able to fight himself, which means about a generation before the Trojan war of ca. 1280 BC, had come to the aid of the Phrygians under Otreus and Mygdon who had mustered their forces along the banks of the Sangarios in order to ward off the threat by the Amazons (Homer Iliad 3. 184-187). Finally, the Kaukones, who are stated by Herodotus (4. 148) to ultimately originate from Triphylia in the Peloponnese, especially the region where later places like Lepreon, Makistos, Phrixai, and Pyrgos are found, and who are identified by Paul Kretschmer24 as Phrygians, probably had already taken their historic position in the region across the lower Sangarios up to the Parthenios river in classical Paphlagonia (see Strabo 12. 3. 5) at the time of the Trojan War (cf. Homer Iliad 10. 429; 20. 329). It should be noted, however, that this latter possibly Phrygian population group originating from southern Greece penetrated into a region which apparently falls outside the distribution zone of the Minyan ware.

25 Pace Wittke 2004, who maintains that the ethnonym Muski does not refer to Phrygians; note, however, that the presence of Muski in the neighbourhood of the realm of TarÌuntassa is documented already by a Luwian hieroglyphic inscription of king Ëartapus dated to the 12th century BC, bearing testimony of the country name Masàkana- (see Woudhuizen 2004, 36). The ultimately western origin of the ethnonym Muski and related country name Masakana, moreover, can further be underlined by the fact that both are derivatives from the ethnonym or country name Masa or Mysia (cf. Luwian hieroglyphic Muśaī‘Mysian’), the former in -k- and N(m/f) pl. in -i (cf. Phoini-k-es, Cretan hieroglyphic Payaki ‘Phaiakians’ of seal no. 296 and Etrus-c-i ‘Etruscans’, etc.) and the latter in -kana- < PIE *ĝenh1- (for comparative evidence of ethnonyms showing a reflex of PIE *ĝenh1-, cf. Etruscan Tursikina- and Avhircina- as attested for Rix 1991, Cl 2.3 and AT 3.2, respectively). 26 Note in this connection that within the Indo-European group of languages Phrygian, Armenian, possibly Thracian, and Illyrian are most closely related to Greek (see Woudhuizen 2006a, 65-67; 2006b, 13940); and that Phrygian for its close relation to Mycenaean must have split off from Greek during the Late Bronze Age (see Woudhuizen 1993a; 2008-09). 27 del Monte and Tischler 1978, s.v. Azi.

On the analogy of the Kashkans being divided into a western and an eastern group, the Greek literary sources also inform us, alongside the Phrygians in the west just mentioned, about Phrygians in the east. Thus, the one who preceded Jason in his voyage to Colchis and left the Golden Fleece there, Phrixos, is nothing but a heroe’s eponym of the Phrygians, whose presence in the region is 24

Kretschmer 1896, 207.

267

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 4: Map of the Mediterranean with distribution of (a) Linear A inscriptions found outside Crete and (b) places referred to by Linear B forms related to toponyms located outside Crete and the Greek mainland (including Euboea); note that the remaining legends refer to locations with tin deposits presumably mined already during antiquity

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX

From the preceding survey it may safely be concluded that the relevant Hittite and Greek sources are largely complementary about a Thraco-Phrygian population drift from the southern Balkans if not altogether middle and southern Greece to northwest Anatolia and the southern shores of the Black Sea from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1600 BC) onwards. Evidently, this population drift had been set in motion by the conquest of southern Greece by a Hyksos-like gang of chariot fighters, some of whose leaders were buried in the shaft graves at Mycenae.28 Although it cannot be strictly proven, it seems, on the basis of the prominent position of the Argo in the saga of the Argonauts, that shipping played a role in the given population drift (note that the inability of the Hittites to reconquer Zalpa along the shore of the Black Sea serves as a hint to Thraco-Phrygian maritime supremacy in this region). In any case, such a scenario may well receive further emphasis from the fact that the Minoans from Crete and after them the Mycenaean Greeks can, on the basis of the distribution of Linear A inscriptions (including Amisos or Eski Samsun) and reflexes of toponyms in onomastics (i.c. papa-ra-ko ‘Paphlagon’ and ko-ki-da ‘Kolkhidas’ or ko-kide-ja ‘Kolkhideios’) be shown to have been at least indirectly (probably through the intermediary of ThracoPhrygian inhabitants of the north Aegean region) in contact with the southern littoral of the Black Sea (see Fig. 4).29

(a) Distribution of Linear A inscriptions found outside Crete 1. Monte Morrone, Sulmona (Facchetti and Negri 2003, tav. I) 2. Ayos Stephanos (HS Zg 1) 3. Kythera (KY Zg 1; Za 2) 4. Kea (KE 1; Wc 2; Zb 3-5) 5. Melos (MI Zb 1; 2) 6. Thera (THE Zb 1-4) 7. Samothrace (SA Wc 1) 8. Drama (DRA Zg 1) 9. Troy (TRO Zg 1-2) 10. Miletos (MIL Zb 1) 11. Lycia (Meriggi)30 12. Amisos (Bossert 1942, Abb. 6) 13. Tel Haror (Oren 1996, 99, fig. 1a) Sources: Godart and Olivier 1976-85; Niemeier 1996 (Miletos), 99, fig. 3 (overview); Godart 1994 and Faure 1996 (Troy); Oren 1996, 99, fig. 1a (Tel Haror); Facchetti 2002, 138 (Samothrace); Facchetti and Negri 2003, 18891, tav. I (Monte Morrone); Bossert 1942, Abb. 6 (Eski Samsun = Amisos); Meriggi (Lycia); cf. Woudhuizen 2006b, 35, fig. 8. 30 The Lycian evidence, referred to in a note by Meriggi which unfortunately I cannot trace back, consists of the attestation of only one sign in form of a spoked wheel, which in terms of Cretan Linear A means L 29 ka. Admittedly, this particular sign may alternatively come into consideration as an instance of Luwian hieroglyphic *290 Ìa+r(a/i) without the ‘thorn’ *383 +r(a/i), 2. Notwithstanding this fact, its Cretan Linear antecedents appear to receive further emphasis from the fact that signs of Cretan Linear origin like, for instance, the double-axe L 52 a, can be found in the later Lycian alphabet, in the given case for secondary e (= ẽ), whereas such an observation does not apply to the possible Luwian hieroglyphic option.

28

Woudhuizen 2006a, 59-67. The given Minoan contacts may be assumed to have culminated in a dynastic marriage, as the owner of the Cretan hieroglyphic royal seals nos. 255 and 300 bears the Kashkan name Pittaparas (see Woudhuizen 2006b, 80-81).

29

268

F.C. WOUDHUIZEN: THE SAGA OF THE ARGONAUTS: A REFLEX OF THRACO-PHRYGIAN MARITIME ENCROACHMENT…

(b) Linear B forms related to toponyms located outside Crete and the Greek mainland (including Euboia) Linear B form 1. za-ku-si-ja za-ku-si-jo 2. qe-ra-jo 3. ra-mi-ni-ja ra-mi-ni-jo 4. i-mi-ri-jo 5. ku-pa-si-ja 6. ki-si-wi-ja ki-si-wi-jo 7. to-ro to-ro-ja 8. si-mi-te-u 9. ra-pa-sa-ko 10. pe-ri-te-u 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

ka-pa-ti-ja ma-sa (-de) a-pa-si-jo mi-ra-ti-ja mi-ra-ti-jo ze-pu2-ra3 ze-pu2-ro ki-ni-di-ja wo-di-jo ru-ki-jo a-si-wi-ja or a-swi-ja a-si-wi-jo or a-swi-jo mi-ra pa-pa-ra-ko ai-ku-pi-ti-jo a-ra-si-jo ku-pi-ri-jo su-ri-jo a-ra-da-jo po-ni-ke-ja po-ni-ki-jo tu-ri-jo ki-nu-qa ko-ki-da ko-ki-de-jo

tablet PY Sa 787 MY Oe 122 KN Vc 5523 PY Ab 186 PY An 209, etc. KN Db 1186 KN V 1043 PY Aa 770 KN V 60 KN Dc 5687 PY Ep 705 KN Am 827, etc. PY Cn 131 KN B 5025, C 954, PY An 654 PY Eb 338, etc. KN X 744 PY As 767 PY Aa 798, etc. TH Fq 177, etc. PY Aa 61 PY Ea 56 PY Aa 792, etc. KN V 60, etc. PY Gn 720, etc. PY Fr 1206, etc. KN Df 1469, etc. PY Eb 905, etc. PY Jn 845 KN Db 1105 KN Df 1229, etc. KN Fh 347, etc. KN X 5962 KN As 1516 KN Ln 1568 KN Ga 418 KN Nc 4473, etc. KN Ap 618 KN Sd 4403, etc. KN Fh 5465

‘Zakynthian (f)’ ‘Zakunsios’ ‘Thēraios’ ‘Lāmniai (< Lamnos = Lemnos)’ ‘Lāmnios’ ‘Imbrian’ ‘Kupasian (f)’ ‘Khian (f)’ ‘Khian’ ‘Trōs (cf. Hit. Tarwiša)’ ‘Trōjā (f)’ ‘Smintheus’ ‘Lampsakōi’ ‘Perintheus’ ‘Karpathiā (f)’ ‘(from) Masa (= Mysia)’ ‘Ephesian (< Hit. Apaša = Ephesus)’ ‘Milātiai (cf. Hit. Milawanda)’ ‘Milesian’ ‘Zephurai (< Zephuriā = Halikarnassos)’ ‘Zephuros’ ‘Knidiai’ ‘Wordios (< *Wordos = Rhodos)’ ‘Lycian’ ‘Aswiāi (Asians (f) ≈ Lydians, cf. Hit. Aššuwa and Eg. ’Isy)’ 31 ‘Aswios (> Asios, see remarks to the previous forms)’ ‘Mira (≈ Lydia)’ ‘Paphlagōn (< Paphlagonia ≈ Hit. Pala)’ ‘Aiguptios (< ˙wt-k-Pt˙ ‘soul-house of Ptah [= Memphis]’)’ ‘Alasian (< Hit. Alašiya = Cyprus)’ ‘Kuprios’ ‘Syrian’ ‘Arwadian’ ‘Phoinikeiāi’ ‘Phoenician’ ‘Tyrian’ ‘KinaÌÌi or KinaÌna (= Canaan)’ ‘Kolkhidas (< Colchis, cf. Urartian QulÌa)’ ‘Kolkhideios’

Sources: Ventris and Chawick 1973, glossary, s.v.; Smit 1986-87, 50, n. 14 (mi-ra, ma-sa-de); Palaima 1991, 280, n. 37 (pa-pa-ra-ko), 307 (ku-pa-si-ja); Hiller 1991, 214 (ko-ki-da, ko-ki-de-jo); Plath 1994, 403 (pe-ri-te-u); Parker 1999 (kini-di-ja, mi-ra-ti-ja, ra-mi-ni-ja, ki-si-wi-ja, a-swi-ja, to-ro, pa-pa-ra-ko, wo-di-jo, i-mi-ri-jo, ru-ki-jo); Morris 2001 (apa-si-jo); Aravantinos et al. 2001 (mi-ra-ti-jo); cf. Woudhuizen 2004-05.

31 Mira is the name for the remainder of the kingdom of Arzawa after its defeat by Mursilis II in 1319 BC, whereas Aššuwa or Asia refers to a shortlived coalition of forces from Wiluša or Troy in the north to Lycia in the south headed by the royal house of Arzawa, which dissolved after its defeat by the Hittite king TudÌaliyas II sometime during the final decades of the 15th century BC or the beginning of the 14th.

269

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

May, 1975) (University (Philadelphia), 51-63.

Bibliography Abbreviations DNP

Museum

Papers

1)

HAAS, V. 1978: ‘Medea und Jason im Lichte hethitischer Quellen’. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26, 241-53.

Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike.

ALP, S. 1991: Hethitische Briefe aus Maşat-Höyük (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinları VI.35) (Ankara).

HENRICKSON, R.C. and VOIGT, M.M. 1998: ‘The Early Iron Age at Gordion: The Evidence from the Yassihöyük Stratigraphic Sequence’. In Tuna, N., Aktüre, Z. and Lynch, M. (eds.), Thracians and Phrygians: Problems of Parallelism (Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Archaeology, History and Ancient Languages of Thrace and Phrygia, Ankara, 3-4 June 1995) (Ankara), 79-106.

ARAVANTINOS, V.L., GODART, L. and SACCONI, A. 2001: Thèbes, Fouilles de la Cadmée, 1: Les Tablettes en linéaire B de le odos Pelopidou, Édition et commentaire (Biblioteca di ‘Pasiphae’ 1) (Pisa). BOSSERT, H. 1942: Altanatolien: Kunst und Handwerk in Kleinasien von den Anfängen bis zum völligen Aufgehen in der griechischen Kultur (Die ältesten Kulturen des Mittelmeerkreises 2) (Berlin).

HILLER, S. 1991: ‘The Mycenaeans and the Black Sea’. In Laffineur, R. and Basch, L. (eds.), Thalassa: L’Egée prehistorique et la mer (Actes de la troisième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, Station de recherches sous-marines et océanographes (StaReSo), Calvi, Corse, 23-25 avril 1990) (Liège), 207-16.

BRYCE, T.R. 1998: The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford). de BOER, J.G. 2006-07: ‘Phantom-Mycenaeans in the Black Sea’. Talanta 38-39, 277-302. del MONTE, G.F. and TISCHLER, J. 1978: Die Ortsund Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte (Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 6) (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B [Geisteswissenschaften] 7/6) (Wiesbaden).

KELDER, J.M. 2004-05: ‘Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia’ (with an appendix by F.C. Woudhuizen, ‘Reflexes of Western Anatolian Toponyms in Linear B Texts’). Talanta 36-37, 49-87. KRETSCHMER, P. 1896: Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache (Göttingen).

DETSCHEW, D. 1976: Die Thrakischen Sprachreste, 2: Auflage mit Bibliographie 1955-1974 von Živka Velkova (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Schriften der Balkankommission, Linguistische Abteilung 14) (Vienna).

LATACZ, J. 2001: Troia und Homer: Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels (Munich). MARAZZI, M. 1986: ‘Testimonianze epigrafiche geroglifiche’. In Marazzi, M. (ed.), L’Anatolia hittita: Repertori archeologici ed epigrafichi (Quaderni di Geografia Storica 3) (Rome), 89-120.

FACCHETTI, G.M. 2002: Appunti di morfologia etrusca, con un’appendice sulla questione della affinità genetiche dell’etrusco (Biblioteca dell’ ‘Archivum Romanicum’, Serie II: Linguistica 54) (Florence).

MARAZZI, M. 1990: Il Geroglifico Anatolico: Problemi di analisis e prospettive di ricerca (Rome). MELCHERT, H.C. 1994: Anatolian Historical Phonology (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 3) (Amsterdam).

FACCHETTI, G.M., and NEGRI, M. 2003: Creta minoica: Sulle trace delle più antiche scritture d’Europa (Biblioteca dell’ ‘Archivum Romanicum’, Serie II: Linguistica 55) (Florence).

MERIGGI, P. 1975: Manuale di Eteo Geroglifico, 2: Testi-Tavole, 2a e 3a serie (Incunabula Graeca 15) (Rome).

FAURE, P. 1996: ‘Deux inscriptions en écriture Linéaire A découvertes à Troie par Schliemann’. Cretan Studies 5, 137-46. FORLANINI, M. 1996 ‘Awariku, un nom dynastique dans le mythe et l’histoire’. Hethitica 13, 13-15.

MORA, C. 1987: La glittica anatolica del II millennio A.C.: classificazione tipologica (Studi Mediterranea 6) (Pavia). MORRIS, S.P. 2001: ‘Potnia Aswiya: Anatolian Contributions to Greek Religion’. In Laffineur, R. and Hägg R. (eds.), Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age (Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Gothenburg University, 12-15 April 2000) (Aegeum 22) (Liège/Austin), 423-33.

GINDIN, L. 1999: Troja, Thrakien und die Völker Altkleinasiens: Versuch einer historischphilologischen Untersuchung (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft 104) (Innsbruck). GODART, L. 1994: ‘La scrittura di Troia’. Rendiconti dell’Academia dei Lincei, serie 9, vol. 5, 457-60.

NIEMEIER, W.-D. 1996: ‘A Linear A Inscription from Miletus’. Kadmos 35, 87-99.

GODART, L. and OLIVIER, J.-P. 1976-85: Recueil des inscriptions en linéaire A, 1: Tablettes éditées avant 1970 (Études crétoises 21), 5 vols. (Paris).

OREN, E.D. 1996: ‘A Minoan Graffito from Tel Haror (Negev, Israel)’. Cretan Studies 5, 91-118.

GÜTERBOCK, H.G. 1980: ‘Seals and Sealings in Hittite Lands’. In DeVries, K. (ed.), From Athens to Gordion (The Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young, Held at the University Museum, the third of

PALAIMA, T.G. 1991: ‘Maritime Matters in the Linear B Tablets’. In Laffineur, R. and Basch, L. (eds.), Thalassa, L’Egée prehistorique et la mer (Actes de la 270

F.C. WOUDHUIZEN: THE SAGA OF THE ARGONAUTS: A REFLEX OF THRACO-PHRYGIAN MARITIME ENCROACHMENT…

VENTRIS, M. and CHADWICK, J. 1973: Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge).

troisième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, Station de recherches sousmarines et océanographes (StaReSo), Calvi, Corse, 23-25 avril 1990) (Liège), 273-309.

WATKINS, C. 2002: ‘Homer and Hittite Revisited II’. In Yener, K.A. and Hoffner, H.A. (eds.), Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History. Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock (Winona Lake, IN), 167-76.

PALMER, L.R. 1965: Mycenaeans and Minoans: Aegean Prehistory in the Light of the Linear B Tablets, 2nd ed. (London). PARKER, V. 1999: ‘Die Aktivitäten der Mykenäer in der Ostägäis im Lichte der Linear B Tafeln’. In DegerJalkotzy, S., Hiller, S. and Panagl, O. (eds.), Floreant Studia Mycenaea (Akten des X. Internazionalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.-5. Mai 2005) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 274) (Mykenische Studien 18) (Vienna), 495-502.

WITTKE, A.-M. 2004: Mušker und Phryger: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Anatoliens vom 12. bis zum 7. Jh. v. Chr. Kommentar zur TAVO-Karte B IV 8 ‘Östlicher Mittelmeerraum und Mesopotamien um 700 v. Chr.’ (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B [Geisteswissenschaften] 99) (Wiesbaden).

PLATH, R. 1994: Die Streitwagen und seine Teile im frühen Griechischen: Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu den mykenischen Texten und zum homerischen Epos (Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprache, Literatur und Kunst 76) (Nuremberg).

WOUDHUIZEN, F.C. 1993b: ‘Historical Backgrounds to the Old Phrygian-Greek Linguistic Relationship’. In Fol, A. (ed.), Atti del IV Congresso Internazionale di Tracologia, Palma de Mallorca 24-28 March 1992 (Rome), 377-94.

RIX, H. (ed.) 1991: Etruskische Texte, Editio minor (Script Oralia 23-24, Reihe A: Altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe 6-7), 2 vols. (Tübingen).

WOUDHUIZEN, F.C. 2004: Selected Luwian Hieroglyphic Texts (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft 120) (Innsbruck).

WOUDHUIZEN, F.C. 1993a: ‘Old Phrygian: Some Texts and Relations’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 21, 1-25.

SALVINI, M. 1995: Geschichte und Kultur der Urartäer (Darmstadt).

WOUDHUIZEN, F.C. 2004-05: ‘Reflexes of Western Anatolian Toponyms in the Linear B Texts’. Appendix to Kelder 2004-05.

SCHULER, E. von 1965: Die Kaškäer: Ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie des Alten Kleinasien (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3) (Berlin).

WOUDHUIZEN, F.C. 2006a: The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples/De Etniciteit van de Zeevolken (Dissertation, Erasmus University, Rotterdam). WOUDHUIZEN, F.C. 2006b: The Earliest Cretan Scripts (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft 125) (Innsbruck).

SMIT, D.W. 1986-87: ‘Backgrounds to Hittite History, Some historical remarks on the proposed Luwian translations of the Phaistos Disc’. Talanta 18-19, 4962.

WOUDHUIZEN, F.C. 2008-09: ‘Phrygian and Greek’. Talanta 40-41, 181-215.

271

AMASTRIS (PAPHLAGONIA): A STUDY IN BYZANTINE URBAN HISTORY BETWEEN LATE ANTIQUITY AND THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES Luca ZAVAGNO Department of History, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus, Via Mersin 10, Turkey [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract: Amastris (today Amasra in Turkey) is located on the isthmus of a peninsula projecting from the Paphlagonian coast into the Black Sea; the isthmus leads to a rocky promontory defended by a Byzantine fortification which protects the east harbour. The city, strategically linked to the Black Sea, maintained its central role in the political and economic history of the Paphlagonian region even between late antiquity and the early middle ages. Indeed, its massive fortifications (built in the late 7th century) point to the fact that during the 7th and the 8th centuries Amastris became an administrative and military focus of the Byzantine government. In this respect, Amastris could be considered as a model for urban development along the whole Black Sea coast. AMASTRIS (PAPHLAGONIA): GEÇ ANTIK DÖNEM ILE ERKEN ORTAÇAĞ ARASINDAKI BIZANS DÖNEMI KENT TARIHI ILE ILGILI BIR INCELEME Özet: Amastris (bugünkü Türkiye’de Amasra) Paphlagonia’nın Karadeniz kıyısındaki korunaklı bir yarımadada kurulmuştur. Yarımadayı karaya bağlayan kısım Doğu Limanı’nı da koruyan bir Bizans savunma sistemi tarafından tahkim edilen yüksek bir buruna çıkmaktadır. Kent stratejik olarak Karadeniz’e bağlanmakta ve Geç Antik ve Erken Ortaçağ devirleri arasında Paphlagonia’nın politik ve ekonomik tarihinde merkezi bir rol üstlenmeye devam etmiştir. İ.S. 7. yy.’ın sonunda inşa edilen devasa savunma yapıları şüphesiz Amasra’nın 7. ve 8. yy.’larda Bizans devletinin idari ve askeri odak noktası gösterir. Bu bağlamda Amastris tüm Karadeniz kıyısı boyunca bir kentsel gelişme modeli olarak düşünülebilir.

Tracing the historical trajectories of a city is always difficult, even when one focuses on a polity such as the Byzantine empire, ‘where the urban network inherited from the Roman period included – at least in the 6th century – the most populous cities in the world at that time (like Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Thessalonike) and numerous middle-sized cities (like Apameia, Ephesus and Caesarea or Jerusalem)’.1 Even more difficulties arise when one analyses the development of this same network during a period of transition, such as the passage between late antiquity and the early middle ages, during which the very concept of the city,2 together with its social fabric, architectural and monumental framework, general layout, infrastructure, public and private areas and functions (economic, political, cultural and religious) underwent a phase of profound change and transformation. Indeed, the causes and consequences which brought about this change have been at the core of a long-lasting and polemical historiographical debate. This debate is best characterised in the works of two of its earlier protagonists, A. Kazdhan and G. Ostrogorsky,3 who, in the 1950s and 1960s,4 initiated the strong characterrisation of the historiographical outline in two opposite factions of ‘continuitists’ (who stressed that cities did survive physically; that they retained their role as centres of commercial activity, petty commodity production and

administration5) and ‘discontinuitists’ (who argued for a total collapse of ancient urban organisation, and of social and economic life).6 An echo of this polemical debate is still perceptible today, demonstrating that it has proved very difficult for scholars to move on from this kind of historiographical impasse.7 In light of this, we can see the value of the important contributions to the problem of the cities in the ‘transitional phase’ represented by the books and articles of Clive Foss,8 who was able to introduce a new point of view focused on the results of archaeological excavations in the cities of Asia Minor and, more recently, on Syria.9 Foss’s contributions have been revolutionary because of the relevance of the archaeological evidence and the novel way in which it was used (that is, side by side with literary sources) and of the enhancement of some methodological inferences.10 There is no space here to discuss 5

Haldon 1990, 93. Haldon 1990, 93. 7 On this, see Zavagno 2008; 2009. 8 Foss 1975; 1977a-b; 1979; 2002. 9 Foss 1997. 10 ‘One of the main methodological problems encountered in researching and interpreting the fate of Byzantine urbanism, as when researching the history of individual towns, is the necessity of combining pieces of evidences from the most varied types of sources.... Yet experience shows that data are often received and accepted too hastily, and without critical appraisal of what superficially looks like clear evidence. ... For historians who concentrate principally on written sources, the result of archaeological work led to a need to reappraise data, and providing means for assessing the credibility of ... historical sources; by the same token, the results of a more intensive analysis of these written sources suggest reappraisals to the archaeologist, who will often have recourse to these sources when dating discoveries’ (Brandes 1999, 34-35). 6

1

Laiou and Morrisson 2007, 26. Zanini 2003. 3 Ostrogorsky 1959; Kazdhan 1954. 4 In this perspective it seems to me essential to remember the papers of the 1961 International Byzantine congress in Ochrida and also Kirsten 1958. 2

273

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 1: Map of Amastris

gated as part of the debates over Foss’s model, could be extremely useful. First of all, Amastris is important from the methodological point of view, since it represents a city where archaeological research, although in an incomplete manner, has been able to fill a gap in the documentary sources, allowing us to draw a reasonable picture of urban development between the 6th and the 9th century. Secondly, Amastris countermands the ‘Fossian’ quest for catastrophic events, presenting us with the possibility that a fortified centre could also be a carefully considered response on the part of the imperial government to a changing strategic situation, due to Byzantine military and administrative response to the ruinous Arab invasions which cut off the richest regions of the empire and brought about the (thematic) repositioning focussed on the Anatolian peninsula.12 Indeed, although barely threatened by the Arab incursions in the 7th and 8th centuries, Amastris retained an essential role as a commercial hub, a military safe-haven for the Byzantine fleet patrolling the Black Sea, and, also, an important administrative and ecclesiastical centre. As a result, the city showed a high degree of continuity between the 5th and the 9th century, based upon its

the criticisms of Foss’s conclusions made in the last three decades.11 It is, however, important to consider that if, on the one hand, Foss reveals his ability in proposing a new approach to analyse the fate of the city in the so-called Dark Ages, on the other hand, he exposes his continued addiction to the deceptive perspective of continuity and discontinuity. This addiction is underpinned by the use of catastrophic events (invasions, insecurity, earthquakes), which influenced urban settlement patterns and life-style in different areas. To Foss, the early 7th century (especially the 620s) can be regarded as the focus of diverse regional turning points which brought the essence of urbanism (interpreted in its classical forms) to an end. What Foss forgets is that the classical idea of urbanism is not the only possible frame for the social fabric and the urban landscape, and that fortified, walled settlements are only one of the different types of urban transformation which characterises the passage from late antiquity to the early middle ages in the Byzantine empire. In this sense, studying the evolution of a city like Amastris (Fig. 1), which has not hitherto been investi11

On this, see mainly Brandes 1989; Dunn 1994; Haldon 1990, 94 and n. 4, with exhaustive bibliography.

12

274

Whittow 1996, 165-93. See also below.

L. ZAVAGNO: AMASTRIS (PAPHLAGONIA): A STUDY IN BYZANTINE URBAN HISTORY…

Fig. 2: Aerial photograph of the Black Sea with the main cities mentioned in the text

exceptional strategic and economic role.13 This vitality, as will be seen, is mainly due to the fact that the coastal urban fortification and the shrinking of the city must be interpreted not as a mere response to security,14 but as a commitment through imperial patronage.15 Indeed, during the 7th and 8th centuries Amastris became an administrative and military focus of the imperial government. It was one of the main ports for the Byzantine fleet patrolling the Black Sea, and, later, the seat of its main officer (the katepano). So, apart from its strategic importance and its central role in the trade routes along the Black Sea, Amastris must also be regarded as an imperial naval fortress.16

of view, Amastris could be regarded as a prototype of a sort of hypothetical history: what could have been the fate of a Byzantine provincial city, in the 7th and 8th centuries, had it realised the benefits of a strategic location along important maritime trade-routes? Would this particular location have allowed a city to thrive even in a rugged and economically poor landscape (as is the Paphlagonian one)? More than a possible answer to these questions, as will be seen, Amastris allows us to propose a detailed, archaeologically informed analysis of a single urban settlement in its regional context which is, in my opinion, essential in order to explain the fate of the Byzantine city: a fate which should be followed through the different forms it assumes in different regions of the empire. One of these regional outcomes was indeed Amastris: a fortress city, where walls should be regarded, less as a sign of abandonment of formerly urban sites (polis) in favour of hilltop fortified sites (kastra), than as a deliberate and strategic remodelling of urban functions in response to a different military and administrative scenario.

Thirdly, despite this apparently exceptional role, Amastris can be considered as a model for urban development along the whole Black Sea coast. Indeed, other cities of this area, such as Sinope and Cherson (and probably Trabzon too) (Fig. 2), showed a similar degree of continuity of urban life within a walled context, albeit without such direct imperial intervention. From this point 13 Amastris benefited both from its location as a port on the Black Sea, half way from Constantinople and Trebizond/Trabzon, and as a terminus of one of the ‘side land-roads’ (linking the city to the regional capital, Gangra and then with Ankara). So, it effectively linked the Anatolian plateau and the eastern regions with the northern outposts of the Byzantine empire, such as Cherson and the Crimean region. 14 Brandes (1989, 124-30) mentions the famous Arab raid against Amastris (possibly in AD 797), but he curiously ignores its implications: if the Saint summoned people from neighbourhood into the fortified walls to save them from the Arabs, this implies, as will be seen, that part of the local population could live outside the enceinte or in the hinterland of the city. 15 Ivison 2000, 2-4. 16 Crow and Hill 1995, 265.

THE CITY Amastris is located on the isthmus of a peninsula projecting from the Paphlagonian coast into the Black Sea; the isthmus leads to a dominant promontory rock, defended by the Byzantine fortification, which protects the east harbour. The whole site is further protected by the closely adjacent island of Boz Tepe, enclosing the northern side of the west harbour.17 Another island, 17

275

Crow and Hill 1995, 251.

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Tavçan Adasi (Büyük Ada), stands out in front of Boz Tepe; this topographical configuration did not change since antiquity.18 It is, indeed, clear from the documentary evidence19 that in Roman times, Amastris was a ‘typical’ urban centre, endowed with amenities (such as the theatre), public spaces (like the colonnaded street mentioned by Pliny), residential quarters and temples.20 Amastris continued to flourish in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, as it was included by Hierocles in his 6thcentury ‘handbook for state officials’ called the Synekdemos.21 Three important Christian basilicas,22 decorated with fine Proconnesian marble capitals and other early Christian stonework,23 were also built in this period. During the 7th century Amastris did not experience serious effects from the Persian and Arab raids.24 In consequence the city remains almost unmentioned by the literary sources until the late 8th-early 9th century, when a katepano was seated in what had probably become an imperial naval fortress. However, recent archaeological research by James Crow and Stephen Hill,25 focusing on the urban fortifications, can help to fill the gap of the literary sources.26 18

Ruggeri 1995, 62. Lucian of Samosata 67 (ed. E. Steindl [Leipzig 1970]); Crow and Hill 1995, 252: ‘He refers to men of the Bosporus voyaging along the coast and stopping at Amastris, and, in the Toxaris, Amastris is described as a port of call for people sailing from Scythia. ... Toxaris and his friend Sisinnes took lodgings near the harbour and suffered from having their belongings robbed from their room. In order to restore their fortunes, Sisinnes entered a gladiatorial contest which was being held in the theatre. This is an interesting reference to gladiatorial contests being held in a Greek theatre rather than a dedicated amphitheatre.’ See also the correspondence between Pliny (appointed as a governor of the city in AD 110) and the emperor Trajan (Pliny 10. 96). 20 One of the urban temples is described by a French traveller, Eugene Boré, in the late 18th century: ‘un temple en marbre blanc, dont le temps et le main des hommes n’ont point effacé les derniers festons, qu’y avait prodigués le sculpture’ (quoted in Marek 1989, 382). For a more detailed account on Amastris in the Classical period, see Robert 1980, 147-63; Marek 1989; Eyice 1965; 1969; Sakaoğlu 1987; Belke 1996, 166. 21 Hierocles Synekdemos 34, n. 696 (ed. and commentary, E. Honigmann [Brussels 1939]). ‘An official document, an handbook for State officials detached to the provinces dating to the first years of Justinian’s reign but using earlier sources‘(Tsougarakis 1988, 115). 22 Crow and Hill 1990, 6. They avoid mentioning any further details concerning the walls and their locations and path. I suspect that their opinion was influenced by a large panel at the Museum of Amastris, depicting the city in Roman times, where the turreted walls protecting the northern part of promontory are visible. Indeed, in their later publication (Crow and Hill 1995, 255), they only refer to the Hellenistic enceinte, traces of which are still visible in various places as incorporated in the Byzantine walls. 23 Crow and Hill 1990, 6. 24 The Persian invasions before the Arab raids, which ravaged and sacked the whole Anatolian peninsula, mostly spared the Paphlagonian region. Only five incursions into it are recorded by literary sources. See Brandes 1989 44-81; Belke 1996, 71. 25 Hill 1990; 1991; Crow and Hill 1990; 1995; Hill and Crow 1992, Hill and Waddington 1994. 26 The only literary reference to Amastris is contained in both the Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor and Nikephoros’ Short History. These sources, both written in the early 9th century, reported that when Justinian II seized the throne of Constantinople for the second time (AD 706), he ‘elevated to the Patriarchate one Kyros, who had been a hermit 19

Figs. 3-4: The walls of Amastris (from the east) (photographs: author)

The surviving Byzantine walls (Figs. 3-4) protected the rock at the northern side of the promontory and the island of Boz Tepe, which was connected to the mainland by a fortified bridge (Fig. 5). They dominated the two harbours and overlooked the large area of the classical city to the south.27 The strongest part of the circuit was the landward-facing southern section of the walls, running between the two harbours. This section was equipped with closely spaced towers and had a double line (Fig. 4). Unlike the new Anatolian fortresses of the 7th and 8th centuries,28 Amastris was not located on a hilltop, so it needed additional works (like this double enceinte) which29 are rarely attested anywhere else during on the “island” of Amastris’, for having predicted his restoration to a second reign. In all probability, Kyros lived at Tavçan Adasi, where recent archaeological surveys have brought to light three churches, along with the traces of a monastic enclosure on the southern end of the island. 27 Crow and Hill 1995, 255; 1990, 5. 28 Like Ankara and Amorium. 29 Foss and Winfield 1986, 131-33.

276

L. ZAVAGNO: AMASTRIS (PAPHLAGONIA): A STUDY IN BYZANTINE URBAN HISTORY…

Fig. 5: Fortified bridge (photograph: author)

Figs. 7-8: Byzantine churches at modern Mesçidi and Fatih Çami (photographs: author)

Fig. 6: Projecting barbican (photograph: author)

This double system of walls should be regarded not only as a practical and functional response to defensive needs, but also as recognition of status. This conclusion does not only derive from the fact that the triple defensive line (ditch–outer–inner walls) occurred also in Constantinople,36 but also from stylistic and structural evidence. The overall plan of the fortress can be compared with other Byzantine fortifications in the 7th and 8th centuries, such as Amaseia and Ankara, and, furthermore Nicaea, where details of an early 8th-century second phase blockwork has been documented.37 Moreover, the projecting barbican on the island of Boz Tepe is also relevant (Fig. 6). It is possible to draw a comparison with the projecting inner gate of the fortress at Ankara built by Heraclius (or Constans II [AD 641668])38 and, on stylistic grounds, by the match between the reused moulded cornice on its façade, with towers 70 and 93 of the walls of Nicaea belonging to the restoration works of Leo III which were carried out in AD 730.39 So, it would be possible to propose a similar date (early 8th century) for the construction of the Amastris barbican,

this period.30 The outer line of defence, preceded by a ditch, had towers, too, positioned in the intervals between those of the inner enceinte.31 It was built over and embedded parts of a Late Roman bathhouse, with a cistern.32 The outer and slighter enceinte protected the massive inner walls (still standing today and rising to 9 m in height33), which included an area of 400 m x 100 m (without considering the attached Boz Tepe island). The inner and the outer walls have been proved to be contemporary; in fact, the inner circuit has some postern gates, which opened into the space between the two lines.34 The double enceinte reinforced the weakest and most approachable section of the walls, whereas, on the seaward-facing sides, the walls appeared to be less complicated because of the sloping rocky cliffs which offered a natural defence.35 30

Crow and Hill 1995, 262. Crow and Hill 1990, 9. 32 I myself have visited another Roman and later Ottoman Bath, lying in ruins astride the isthmus. Any further information concerning this and the Late Roman bathhouse (including dating) is at present unavailable. 33 Including a parapet, which is still today partially preserved. 34 Crow and Hill 1995, 255. 35 Hill 1991b, 315. 31

36

Mango 1977, 27-34 with further bibliography. Crow and Hill 1995, 257. 38 Although I tend to agree with Dunn when he thinks that the emperor Heraclius built the wall (see Dunn 1998; see also Foss and Winfield 1986, 133-35). 39 Crow and Hill 1995, 258. 37

277

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 9: Map of Amorium

7-8), which can be interpreted as a sign of civic activity. These two churches too, (modern Mesçidi Çamii and Fatih Çamii)45 are extremely useful to understand the fate of the city in the 7th-8th centuries. At least one of them was built on the remains of a former and larger basilica functioning as the episcopal complex and was completely restored in the Middle Byzantine period (9th-10th centuries).46 However, both churches contain spolia of the Early Byzantine period (like marble jambs and lintels decorating the main door of the Mesçidi Çamii which match those on the East gate of the city walls). Moreover, the masonry and the mortar type used on the lower courses of the two buildings are comparable to those on the walls. So, one could point out that in both the churches and the walls, after an earlier blockwork phase, there followed a secondary stage of rebuilding. In this later phase, the reused courses of squared blocks are

which, as a secondary addition, came later in the Byzantine building sequence in the city, and perhaps a mid-7th-century date for the walls as a whole. Moreover, both cornices in Amastris and in Nicaea40 seem to recall the marble decorations of the Constantinopolitan Golden Gate (late 4th century),41 indicating a deliberate imitation of an earlier imperial model and hinting at a specific imperial role of the urban defences.42 At Amastris, indeed, one could also easily argue that the island of Boz Tepe was fortified for military reasons (mainly to control the western harbour for the Byzantine fleet), whilst the inland walls included what was left of the ancient city.43 Even without any trace of residential buildings,44 the inland walls included two churches (Figs. 40

Foss 1977; Foss and Winfield 1986. Concina 2002, 12-13, 30-43, 99. 42 Hill and Crow 1992, 89-90. 43 One could be tempted to assert that the ecclesiastical and military elites resided in the Kale of Amastris, but any evidence is lacking. 44 If, as in Amorium, these residential buildings were made of cobblestone, mud-brick and spolia (a building technique which was very commonly found in the Anatolian plateau [see Ivison forthcoming]), they would be virtually invisible to any survey and traceable only by proper excavations. On Amorium, see Lightfoot and Lightfoot 2007; Ivison, 2007. On the poor building technique used in the construction of domestic structures, see also La Rocca 2006, with reference to the Italian peninsula. 41

45 For a detailed account of the two churches, see Eyice 1965; Ruggeri 1995. As Ivison has suggested, it could be possible that the larger one (the Fatih Çamii, which is now the principal mosque of the city) acted as the local cathedral. I am particularly grateful to Prof. Ivison for these observations, which, however, lack any substantial evidence. 46 Ruggeri (1995, 61-62) asserts that both the churches were built on a former basilica, but I have not found any traces of foundations at the Mesçidi Çamii. I have found traces of the ruins of a basilica(?) beneath the Fatih Çamii. Unfortunately, it is impossible to propose any date for this building as there has been neither survey nor excavation.

278

L. ZAVAGNO: AMASTRIS (PAPHLAGONIA): A STUDY IN BYZANTINE URBAN HISTORY…

Figs. 10-11: Plan of Cherson and aerial view of Sinope

there was an imperial commitment to enhance a new role for Amastris as an imperial naval stronghold for the Black Sea fleet, evidenced by the (re)building of the military fortress, the city wall and the episcopal complex. So, 7th- and 8th-century Amastris was not the result of a simple contraction of a classical city.

smaller, recurring together with a more extensive use of brickwork. Therefore, it is likely that there is a close and precise relationship between the building of the fortifications and churches in Byzantine Amastris: ‘the primary phase of the churches was contemporary with the building of the fortress, and it may will be the case that, as they survive, the churches reflect the period of substantial middle Byzantine improvements to the fortification system.’47

Besides, its vitality was not merely symbolised by its imperial fortifications. Amastris had commercial facilities and a narrow fertile agrarian hinterland. In all probability, the population of Amastris took advantage of the fertility of the Amastrianè (as the chora of Amastris was referred to), living in villages outside the walls or in the area of the classical city. It could be argued that the urban

The conclusion we can draw from this array of buildings is important. It means, in my view, that in all probability 47

Crow and Hill 1990, 11.

279

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

landscape of Amastris developed in several settlements, evoking the idea of a ‘city of islands’ (in Italian, ‘città a isole’)48 or simply of areas of relatively dense settlement outside the walls.

his staff together with other imperial administrators,57 and the residential lower city whose walls – built in the later 5th or early 6th century and restored some time between the late 6th and the early 9th58 – included foci of settlement which preserved the ‘late antique framework of public buildings, streets and public and private spaces forming the grid within which the Dark Age city developed’.59 So, it is possible to hypothesise for Amorium some kind of zoning, mainly as a response to the administrative needs of the imperial government,60 which determined the compartmentalisation of the city in two – functionally specialised – areas. A similar picture could therefore be proposed for Amastris, although within the framework of a less dense built-up environment than in Amorium. Indeed, in Amastris the fortifications on the island of Boz Tepe could possibly have acted as a walled stronghold, enhanced by the restricted access through the barbican and the fortified bridge, whereas the massive enceinte included a ‘lower city’ with ecclesiastical, and, perhaps, residential quarters; then, although we have no direct archaeological evidence, we could easily postulate outside the walls a fertile and agriculturally exploited landscape, dotted by farms and villages which would have resembled the one emerging from a recent extensive survey made in Sinope.

This role allows us to propose some similarities with Amorium (Fig. 9), which lies in a fertile Phrygian district of the Anatolian plateau to the south-west of Ankara.49 During the course of the 5th and 6th centuries Amorium developed from a small and fairly insignificant Roman city lying ‘on the main highway that linked the cities of Ionia and Pamphylia with central Anatolia and Pontus’,50 until in the middle 7th century it had become a major, impressively walled, military base and capital of the Anatolic theme.51 Excavations in Amorium have also shed light on the economic vitality of the city during the so-called Dark Ages. In particular, the coin finds from the excavated areas ‘constitute a unique body of evidence for the patterns of economic life in central Anatolia between the 7th and the 11th centuries’;52 indeed, although of very poor quality, the several copper coins – dated between the reign of Heraclius and Theophilus – yielded by the excavations point to ‘the city’s continued wealth and vitality as a reflection of conditions in the surrounding countryside’53 and, in all evidence, to a good level of petty-commodity exchange and monetisation of the local economy. In fact, a comparison with the coin collection from Amastris museum (where a similar chronological pattern of coin circulation has been recognised54), allows us to assert that exceptions to the ‘general collapse in eight and early-ninth century level of monetisation’55 were not only limited to some better favoured coastal regions, but also to some inland areas.

CONCLUSIONS It would be possible to approach Amastris through Foss’s traditional typological approach to the cities of Asia Minor.61 According to this approach, Anatolian urbanism was almost entirely wiped out by the Persian and Arab invasions. ‘Once urban life was virtually come to an end, the fortifications became the greatest necessity of the day.’62 In this sense, Foss’s argument is useful for dating the first phase of Amastris’s fortification back to the late 7th or early 8th century, through a comparison between the building technique and the typological structure of the walls of the Paphlagonian city and those of the fortifications at Ankara, Miletus, Ephesus and Sardis.63 However, it is this very date which undermines Foss’s conclusion. If Amastris was endowed with strong and massive walls, it did not owe this to the Arab raids, which remained rare along the entire coastal strip. On the contrary, these fortifications resulted from a deliberate imperial plan, focused on enhancing the strategic role of the Paphlagonian city. Its walls dealt more with its political and naval significance rather than defensive needs. Military, civic and commercial functions were mixed together and spread across the intra- and extramural areas of Amastris. In this sense, one cannot avoid noticing some striking similarities with Amorium. Here, indeed, the military and political importance of the city as thematic capital and administrative centre from the mid-

As for the urban layout, in Amorium, the strategic advantages of the landscape, the administrative and fiscal needs of the government and the raising of the urban centre to the status of thematic capital of the Anatolic theme in the mid-7th century,56 led to the partition of the urban landscape into two different zones: the upper fortified mound, possibly including the secure headquarters of the strategos (the military commander), 48

Wickham 2005, 630-56. For further details on Amorium, see also Ivison 2000; 2007; Lightfoot and Lightfoot 2007. 50 Lightfoot and Lightfoot 2007, 42. 51 During the course of the 7th century important changes characterised the administrative and military structure of the Byzantine empire. ‘Essentially these involved the replacement of the system of many small provinces, characteristic of the period since the time of Diocletian, with a number of larger units called themes’ (Gregory 2005, 178). It is clear that in front of the pressure resulting from the early Islamic conquest and the ‘loss of tax revenues and resources from the eastern province between 634 and 642 A.D., the government responded withdrawing the various field armies into Western and Central Anatolia. … The field forces themselves were gradually transformed into provincialised militias and … the group of provinces evolved into military regions or themata each commanded by a strategos, who had eventually – by the later ninth century – also a supervisory activity over the civil and fiscal officials in his districts’ (Haldon 2002, 86). 52 C. Lightfoot 2002, 235. 53 C. Lightfoot 2002, 237. 54 C. Lightfoot 2002, 229-39. 55 Laiou and Morrison 2007, 87. 56 Ivison 2007, 12. 49

57

Lightfoot and Lightfoot 2007, 144-49. Lightfoot and Lightfoot 2007, 104-10. See also Ivison 2007, 13. 59 Ivison 2007, 15. 60 Ivison 2007, 28. See also Ivison 2000. 61 Foss 1975; 1979; 1980. 62 Foss and Winfield 1986, 131. 63 Foss and Winfield 131-39. 58

280

L. ZAVAGNO: AMASTRIS (PAPHLAGONIA): A STUDY IN BYZANTINE URBAN HISTORY…

7th to the early 9th century64 sustained a good level of sophistication of the structure(s) of production and demand, the persistence of discriminating buyers65 (including the local landowners and ecclesiastical elites benefiting from imperial service and benevolence66) and the existence of some social differentiation which was mirrored by a duplication of the city in two highly functionalised, spatially coherent and fortified foci of settlement, relying on the fertile surrounding countryside.67

them (Sinope and Amastris) had a similar geomorphological configuration, straddling a narrow causeway that links what is, in all other respects, an island to the mainland. The three cities were also linked to their inland through land roads, which remained, however, of secondary significance, especially in mountainous Paphlagonia and Pontus. Second, their hinterland satisfied their immediate needs,70 allowing them also to exploit a highly profitable surplus, which was channelled to Cherson or Constantinople itself. Apart from their role in trading around and across the Black Sea, a good degree of prosperity was also assured by the shipbuilding industries and fishing, allowing us to state that all these cities played a dominant role in the economic life of their region. Third, they maintained an essential civic and military role as foci of the local Byzantine administration and the ecclesiastical bureaucracy. In fact, it is clear from the numerous lead seals belonging to Justinian I, Phocas, Heraclius and Justinian II that Cherson was of much importance for the central Constantinopolitan court, while its role as an outpost for the conversion of the Khazars and the Rus’ attracted the interest of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.71 On the other hand, Amastris and Sinope,72 although they were not the capitals of their thematic provinces, were regarded as essential naval strongholds along the southern coast of the Black Sea.

Like Amorium, Amastris benefited from a narrow strip of land (the so-called Amastrianè), which was arguably fertile and rich enough to nourish the local population. Merchants and villagers from the whole Paphlagonian region will have been attracted by the importance of the city as a trading post along the Black Sea, possibly stimulating some market trade and small-scale commodity production, although unfortunately any evidence for these activities is lacking. The city functioned as centre for imperial officers as well as for the Church. Churches were built inside and outside the walled enceinte, which remained the main feature of the city together with the military stronghold of the island of Boz Tepe. Indeed, Amastris took advantage of its topography and its strategic location, which, thanks to imperial patronage, became the reason why the city could survive and thrive during the passage between late antiquity and the early middle ages, enhancing its military relevance and its civic significance.

As for the urban form and town planning, the three cities (Amastris, Sinope and Cherson) were laid out on a classical plan (although Amastris ‘lost’ this when the massive naval fortress was built), even where, as in Sinope, the geomorphological conformation stood against a proper regular grid.73 All the cities were fortified by walls which sometimes must be regarded also as a recognition of their status (Amastris), preserving peculiar similarities in the construction technique and in the outline.

To sum up, the urban vitality of Amastris came about from its multifunctional roles: political, even though it never became the seat of a thematic strategos (a role further enhanced and celebrated by its massive enceinte which was less a response to raids and incursion than an architectural/visual symbol of the State in its military function as the naval base for the Byzantine fleet of the Black Sea); administrative, as focus for the imperial bureaucracy; religious, as an episcopal centre; and, last but not least, economic, as the strategic hub along the commercial shipping routes crisscrossing the Black Sea as far as Constantinople. The economic relevance of Amastris, indeed, was also underpinned by the presence of urban-oriented (mainly military and administrative) elites, which, in all probability, bolstered the local level of the demand for artisanal and agricultural goods.

Of course, all these inferences must be regarded mainly as hints and faint traces of a possible urban model: more archaeological excavation and research are, indeed, needed to implement this hypothesis. However, it could be said that the real and main feature, which allows us to think of a possible existence of this model, is the unlimited but finite distances of the Black Sea.74

To conclude, it is worth stressing that Amastris could be regarded also as an example of a ‘Black Sea urbanism model’. In fact, other cities along the so called Pontic Sea, like Trabzon, Sinope68 and Cherson69 (Figs. 10-11), reflected historical and functional similarities with Amastris, holding the same set of urban priorities. First of all, Sinope, Cherson and Amastris were important ports on the Black Sea and close to Constantinople; two of

Bibliography ALEKSEENKO, N. 2003: ‘Les Relations entre Cherson et l’Empire d’après le témoignage des sceaux des 70 Doonan 2004; Brier and Winfield 1985, 70; Bortoli and Kazanski 2002, 660-62. Although Cherson’s agricultural surroundings have not been sufficiently analysed, the archaeological evidence from parcels of farmland around towns shows that a few agricultural units continued to be worked during Roman times and to the 10th century. 71 Alekseenko 2003, 75-76. The seal bearing the inscriptions of one Bosporan bishop, Peter (6th-7th century), seems particularly relevant to me. 72 Bryer and Winfield 1985, 71. 73 Doonan 2004, 76-77. 74 Ascherson 1998, 235.

64

Lightfoot and Lightfoot 2007, 81-153. Laiou and Morrisson 2007, 119-21. 66 Ivison 2000, 28. 67 Ivison 2000, 28. 68 Bryer and Winfield 1985, 69-88. See also Doonan 2004, passim. 69 Bortoli and Kazanski 2002. 65

281

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

archives de Cherson’. Sigillography 8, 75-83.

Studies

in

FOSS, C. 1979: Ephesus after Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine and Turkish city (Cambridge).

Byzantine

FOSS, C. 1980: Byzantine and Turkish Sardis (Archaeological Exploration of Sardis 4) (Cambridge, MA/London).

ASCHERSON, N. 1998: Black Sea (London). BELKE, K. 1996: Paphlagonien und Honorias (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 249) (Vienna).

FOSS, C. 1996: ‘Dead cities of the Syrian hill country’. Archaeology 5, 34-46. FOSS, C. 1997: ‘Syria in transition A.D. 550-750: An Archaeological approach’. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 51, 190-268.

BORTOLI, A. and KAZANSKI, M. 2002: ‘Kherson and its Region’. In Laiou, A.E. (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium from the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, vol. 2 (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 39) (Washington, DC), 659-65.

FOSS, C. 2002: ‘Life in City and Country’. In Mango, C.A. (ed.), The Oxford History of Byzantium (Oxford), 71-95.

BRANDES, W. 1989: Die Städte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert (Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten 56) (Berlin).

FOSS, C. and WINFIELD, D. 1986: Byzantine Fortifications: An Introduction, (Pretoria).

BRANDES, W. 1999: ‘Byzantine Cities in the Seventh and Eight Centuries – Different sources, Different Histories?’. In Brogiolo, G.P. and Ward-Perkins, B. (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Transformation of the Roman World 4) (Leiden), 25-57.

GREGORY, T.E. 2005: A History of Byzantium (Oxford/Malden, MA). HALDON, J.F. 1990: Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge). HALDON, J.F. 2002: Byzantium: A History (Charleston, NC/Stroud).

BRYER, A.A.M. and WINFIELD, D. 1985: The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 20) (Washington, DC).

HILL, S.J. 1990: ‘Preliminary Survey at Amasra, Zonguldalk’. In VII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 81-86.

CONCINA, E. 2002: Le Arti di Bisanzio (Milan).

HILL, S.J. 1991a: ‘Survey at Amasra’. Anatolian Studies 41, 20-21.

CROW, J. and HILL, S.J. 1990: ‘Amasra, a Byzantine and Genoese Fortress on the Black Sea’. Fortress 5.3, 3-13.

HILL, S.J. 1991b: ‘Survey Work at Amasra, 1989’. VIII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 311-21.

CROW, J. and HILL, S.J. 1995: ‘The Byzantine fortifications of Amastris in Paphlagonia’. Anatolian Studies 45, 251-65.

HILL, S.J. and CROW, J. 1992: ‘Survey at Amasra’. In IX. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara), 87-92.

DOONAN, O.P. 2004: Sinop Landscapes: Exploring Connection in a Black Sea Hinterland (Philadelphia).

HILL, S.J. and WADDINGTON, C. 1994: ‘Amasra Survey 1993’. Anatolian Studies 44, 5-8.

DUNN, A. 1994: ‘The transition from polis to kastron in the Balkans (III-VII cc.): general and regional perspectives’. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 18, 60-80.

IVISON, E. 2000: ‘Urban Renewal and Imperial Revival in Byzantium (730-1025 A.D.)’. Byzantinische Forschungen 26, 1-46. IVISON, E. 2007: ‘Amorium in the Byzantine Dark Ages (Seventh to Ninth Centuries)’. In Henning, J. (ed.), Post-Roman Towns and Trade in Europe, Byzantium and the Near East, vol. 2: Byzantium, Pliska and Balkans (Millennium-Studien 5) (Berlin), 25-60.

DUNN, A. 1998: ‘Heraclius “reconstruction of cities” and their sixth century Balkan antecedents’. In Cambi, N. and Marin, E. (eds.), Acta XIII Congressus internationalis archaeologiae christianae, SplitPoreč, 1994 (Studi di antichità Cristiana 54) (Split/Vatican City), 795-806.

IVISON, E. forthcoming: ‘Excavations at the lower city enclosure 1996-2006’.

EYICE, S. 1965: Kukuk Amasra Tarihi ve Eski Eserleri Kilavuzu (Ankara).

KAZDHAN A.P. 1954: ‘Vizantiiskie goroda v VII-IX vv.’. Sovetskaya Archeologiya 21, 164-88.

EYICE, S. 1969: ‘Deux anciennes églises byzantines de la citadelle d’Amasra (Paphlagonie)’. Cahiers Archéologiques 19, 1-27.

KIRSTEN, E. 1958: ‘Die Byzantinische Stadt’. In Berichte zum XI International ByzantinischeKongress, München, 1958 (Munich), V.3, 1-48.

FOSS, C. 1975: ‘The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity’. The English Historical Review 90, 72147. FOSS, C. 1977a: ‘Archaeology and the “twenty cities of Asia”’. American Journey of Archaeology 81, 46986.

La ROCCA, C. 2006: ‘Residenze urbane ed élites urbane tra VIII e X secolo in Italia Settentrionale’. In Augenti, A. (ed.), Le citta’ Italiane tra la tarda Antichità e l’Alto Medioevo (Atti del Convegno, Ravenna, 26-28 febbraio 2004) (Biblioteca di archeologia medievale 20) (Florence), 55-66.

FOSS, C. 1977b: ‘Late Antique and Byzantine Ankara’. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31, 29-87.

LAIOU, A.E. and MORRISSON, C. 2007: The Byzantine Economy (Cambridge). 282

L. ZAVAGNO: AMASTRIS (PAPHLAGONIA): A STUDY IN BYZANTINE URBAN HISTORY…

LIGHTFOOT, C.S. 2002: ‘Byzantine Anatolia: reassessing the numismatic evidence’. Revue Numismatique 158, 229-39.

TSOUGARAKIS, D. 1988: Byzantine Crete: From the 5th Century to the Venetian Conquest (Historikes monographies 4) (Athens).

LIGHTFOOT, C.S and LIGHTFOOT, M. 2007: Amorium: An Archaeological Guide (Istanbul).

WHITTOW, M. 1996: The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600-1205 (London/Berkeley).

MANGO, C.A. 1977: Architettura Bizantina (Milan).

WICKHAM, C. 2005: Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800 (Oxford).

MAREK, C. 1989: ‘Amastris. Geschiste, Topographie, archaeologische Reste’. Instanbuler Mitteilungen 39, 373-89.

ZANINI, E. 2003: ‘The Urban ideal and Urban Planning in Byzantine New Cities of the Sixth Century A.D.’. In Lavan, L. and Bowden, W. (eds.), Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology (Late Antique Archaeology 1) (Leiden/Boston), 196-223.

OSTROGORSKY, G. 1959: ‘Byzantine cities in the early Middle Ages’. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13, 45-66. ROBERT, L. 1980: A travers L’Asie Mineure: poètes et prosateurs, monnaies grecques, voyageurs et géographie (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 239) (Paris).

ZAVAGNO, L. 2008: ‘La città bizantina tra il V e il IX secolo: le prospettive storiografiche’. Reti MedievaliRivista 9: http://www.storia.unifi.it/_RM/rivista/saggi/ Zavagno_08_1.htm

RUGGERI, V. 1995: L’Architettura Religiosa nell’Impero Bizantino (fine VI-IX secolo (Saggi, studi, testi 2) (Soveria Mannelli).

ZAVAGNO, L. 2009: Cities in Transition: Urbanism in Byzantium between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (500-900 A.D.) (BAR International Series 2030) (Oxford).

SAKAOĞLU, N. 1987: Amasra’nin Uç Bin Yili (Istanbul).

283

PECULIARITIES OF THE PAINTINGS OF BOSPORAN CRYPTS OF THE 3RD-6TH CENTURIES AD Elena A. ZINKO Demetra Foundation, Post Box 4, 98300 Kerch, Ukraine [email protected]

Abstract: The necropolis at Panticapaeum, the capital of the Bosporan kingdom, located on the northern side of Mt Mithradates, has a clearly planned structure. Only a few crypts were plastered and painted. The painting in the crypts became simplified from the second half of the 3rd century AD to a primitive geometrical style. By now, the majority of painted crypts of the 3rd-6th centuries AD, which were discovered in the 19th and 20th centuries, have either been completely destroyed or their locations lost. Only nine of them were described and published by M.I. Rostovtsev. During excavations between 1997 and 2007 this deficiency was partially made up. Four new painted crypts were found and researched. Plans and drawings of over 300 crypts have been made. The painting technique in all crypts is the same: figures and ornaments were executed using one paint, very occasionally two. The main features of the ornamentation are the underlining of architectural lines with ornamental stripes on the one hand, and the covering of big spaces with ornament on the other. In the first case, stripes divided into triangles or stylised vegetable ornament are used; in the second, stylised vine shoots, figures of animals and humans, and dot ornament. The decorative style of Christian crypts of the 3rd-6th centuries was gradually simplified, with a cross becoming the main, sometimes the only, Christian symbol from the 5th century AD. A new system with Christian painted motifs and symbols found at the Panticapaeum necropolis yields fresh evidence of the process of Christianisation of Bosporus and widens sources for research of early Christian dogmas and art. The chronology of a particular underground crypt’s existence can be determined thanks to new research, and the religious symbolism in the painted crypts of the Early Byzantine period can be considered in a new fashion. BOSPOROS’DAKİ İ.S. 3.-6. YY.’LARA AİT YERALTI MEZAR ODALARINDA BULUNAN RESİMLERDEKİ TUHAFLIKLAR Özet: Mithradates Dağı’nın kuzeyinde bulunan Bosporos Krallığı’nın başkenti Pantikapaion’un nekropolis alanı belirli bir plana ve düzene sahiptir. Bu nekropoliste sadece az sayıdaki mezar odası sıvanmış ve boyanmıştır. İ.S. 3. yy.’dan sonra mezar odalarındaki resimler basitleşmiş ve ilkel geometrik stile dönüşmüştür. İ.S. 3.-6. yy.’lar arasında dekore edilmiş ve 19. ile 20. yy.’larda keşfedilmiş olan bu mezarların çoğu şu an ya tahrip edilmiştir ya da kaybolmuştur. Bunlardan sadece dokuz tanesi M. I. Rostovtsev tarafından tanıtılmış ve yayımlanmıştır. Yöredeki 1997 ve 2007 yılları arasındaki kazılar sırasında bu eksiklik tamamlanmıştır. Dört yeni dekore edilmiş mezar odası bulunmuş ve incelenmiştir. Bunun yanında 300’ün üzerinde mezar odasının planları ve çizimleri yapılmıştır. Tüm mezar odalarının boyama teknikleri aynıdır: figürler ve süslemeler tek bir boya ya da arada sırada çift renk boya ile yapılmıştır. Süsleme tekniğinin başlıca özelliği bir tarafta süsleme çizgileri ile belirtilmiş mimari çizgilerin varlığı, diğer tarafta ise büyük alanların süslenmesidir. İlk durumda üçgenlere ya da stilize sebzelerden oluşan süslü çizgiler kullanılmıştır; ikincisinde ise stilize asma filizlerine, hayvan ve insan figürlerine ile noktalara yer verilmiştir. İ.S. 3.-6. yy.’lardaki Hristiyan yer altı mezar odalarının dekorasyon stili zamanla basitleşmiş, haç motifi İ.S. 5. yy.’dan itibaren başlıca ve çoğunlukla tek Hristiyan sembolü olarak kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. Pantikapaion nekropolisinde bulunan ve dekoratif Hristiyanlık motif ve sembolleriyle oluşturulmuş bu yeni süsleme sistemi Bosporos’un Hristiyanlaşma süreci için yeni bir kanıttır ve Erken Hristiyanlık dönemi doğmatizmi ve sanatının incelenmesi için elimizdeki kaynak sayısını arttırır. Yeraltı mezarlarının tarihlendirilmesi yeni araştırmalar ışığında gerçekleştirilmektedir. Erken Bizans devrine ait dekore edilmiş yeraltı mezarlarındaki dini sembolizm döneminin yeni bir modası olarak algılanabilir.

Deep entrance pits with steps and spacious sub-rectangular burial chambers are characteristic of them. Niches and small shelves for lamps and offerings are among their other distinctive features. The crypts served for multiple use by one family group for a long time. Such burial constructions are known at the necropolis of Panticapaeum,1 Kytaia necropolis,2 and crypts excavated near rural settlements of the Sea of Azov area of the Crimea.3

Scholars have discussed extensively the penetration of Christianity into the territories of the Bosporan kingdom without agreement. They have rarely analysed known and recently discovered painted crypts from Panticapaeum (the Bosporan necropolis situated on the northern slope of Mt Mithradates), despite representations from these crypts serving as one of the most important and significant sources for the establishment of Christianity in the Bosporus.

1 Y. Kulakovskii 1891; V. Kulakovskii 1896; Shkorpil 1904; 1907; Rostovtsev 1914; Zinko 1997; 2000; 2001a-b; 2002a-b; 2003a-b; 2006; 2008. 2 Marti 1935; Gaidukevich 1959. 3 Maslennikov 1997.

From the first centuries AD monumental underground vaults appeared in the necropoleis of the Bosporus. They became numerous between the 3rd and 6th centuries. 285

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

The development of the new Christian doctrine in the Bosporus took place against a background of prohibiting the worship of pagan gods and the ruin of the valuesystem of Late Antique society. Old Greek cults still had a national character, and royal power was used to support them and to care for some of the most respected sanctuaries. There was a degree of decay of the state institutions of the Bosporan kingdom after the barbarian invasions of the middle-third quarter of the 3rd century AD.4 At this time various ideological prerequisites appeared, above all the tendency to monotheism, which caused the dissemination of Christianity through the Bosporus.5

Rostovtsev drew the first general conclusions about the style and technique of the frescoes at Panticapaeum on the basis of nine known crypts.12 The painting technique in all crypts was the same: figures and ornaments were drawn with one, rarely two paints on clay walls without preliminary plastering. Red and black paints prevail; yellow and blue can be found occasionally. Figures and ornaments were drawn in lines in the majority of cases, the background to each being left unpainted or painted with a colour similar to the contour. Ornamental motifs were very simple, repeated regularly in all crypts. The main principle of ornamentation is, by Rostovtsev’s definition, the underlining of architectural lines with ornamental stripes on the one hand, and filling entirely large continuous spaces with an ornament on the other.13

The intensive contacts of the Bosporus with Asia Minor, whence the new religious tendencies penetrated, certainly influenced the spread of Christianity.6 In the second half of the 3rd century small groups of Christians arrived in the Bosporus together with other captives. There might also have been representatives of the clergy, which also contributed to the rapid dissemination of Christianity.7

But this conclusion is not absolutely correct. The drawings and so-called ornaments are practically always located in strictly defined parts of the burial chamber and carry definite meaning, rather than underlining architectural lines. The pier between the central shelf, located opposite the entrance, and the niche to the right of the shelf are always the centre of the composition. In the majority of cases the central shelf has a stylised ornament of triangles or vines, and sometimes there is a combination of these two motifs. And when the shelf is decorated with an ornament from below and on each side, niches are girdled only on each side and from above in the majority of cases. In the crypt of 1901 the niches are decorated all around. Drawings are rarely found near the side shelves, and they repeat compositional aspects of the painting of the central shelf. Only on the piers to their left and right may there be separate figures and inscriptions. The entrance doorway is decorated with a stylised ornament only in the crypt of 1901.14

Burial monuments of the necropolis of Panticapaeum from the end of the 3rd century to the 6th century AD depict changes in the social and cultural life of the Bosporan kingdom quite vividly. Our ten-year study of the Late Antique crypts of Panticapaeum aims not only to map more than 300 subsoil crypts8 and discover and make full excavations of several, five new painted crypts among them,9 but also to establish the definite chronological stages in the development of the various types of underground vault and to take a new look at the worship symbolism of painted crypts. The technique and execution of paintings in the necropoleis of Panticapaeum in this period can provide important examples of the development of an original, local Bosporan artistic school, which appeared under the influence of political and cultural changes and reflected the tastes of a certain part of society. The absence of any local examples of monumental art in the Early Byzantine period in contrast to previous times should be remarked.

Rostovtsev noticed accurately that ornamental stripes with triangles are a usual form of stylised ornamentation in the painted crypts of an earlier time in Kerch (Sorak’s crypt, the crypt of 1873, etc.).15 In his opinion, the fringe, repeated regularly at the ends of these ornamental stripes, points to this origin and can be explained only this way.16

In the crypts of our period in the Panticapaeum necropolis, religious and symbolic representations combine with representations reflecting the real life of the deceased. Unfortunately, the stories told by the paintings on the walls of burial chambers of the Bosporan crypts of Early Byzantine times are difficult to discern. They do not have single meanings because of their schematic character. Hitherto, they have been known by the blackand-white publications of M.I. Rostovtsev.10 Research on these paintings now yields new opportunities to interpret them.11

A.S. Uvarov has shown convincingly that the use of a geometrical design in the shape of a triangle belongs to the earliest Christian times.17 In this period Christians used conventional words and expressions to convey the main dogmas of their religion, but even these were not considered sufficient to keep their dogmatic meaning from the uninitiated. In consequence, geometrical signs and symbols were brought into use. The triangle became the main symbolic sign designating the Trinity, and its gist in this sense is indisputable.18

4

Gaidukevich 1949, 454; Aibabin 1999, 44. Gaidukevich 1949, 466. 6 Diatroptov 1999. 7 Gaidukevich 1949, 466. 8 Zinko 2003a. 9 Zinko 2001a; 2002a; 2006; 2007. 10 Rostovtsev 1913; 1914. 11 Zinko 1994; 2001a; 2002a; 2003a; 2007; 2008. 5

12

Rostovtsev 1914, 424-34. Rostovtsev 1914, 424. 14 Rostovtsev 1913, tab. XCVII, XCVIII. 15 Rostovtsev 1913, tab. LXV.4, LXIII, LXIV.1-3. 16 Rostovtsev 1914, 424. 17 Uvarov 2001, 77. 18 Uvarov 2001, 80. 13

286

E.A. ZINKO: PECULIARITIES OF THE PAINTINGS OF BOSPORAN CRYPTS OF THE 3RD-6TH CENTURIES AD

The doctrine of the Trinity, an essential dogma, became the reason for the appearance of more complex symbolic formulae than those belonging to other postulates of Christianity. This is why all inscriptions of first three centuries of Christianity, with the exception of the Trinity, are expressed by means of geometrical forms, more useful for depicting the secret sense of the inscription.19 It is necessary to pay attention to one more peculiarity, known from inscriptions of the early Christian period: the drawing of a triangle with three dots. Very often dots were painted in Bosporan crypts, and usually there is one dot or three. For example in crypt 11 (of the 2000 system) there are from one to three dots inside the triangles; in the crypt of 1897 there are three yellow dots in each red triangle.20 In general, without denying Rostovtsev’s hypothesis about the merely ornamental use of bands formed of triangles in the paintings of Late Antique crypts, it is possible to suggest a certain connection of this symbol with the doctrine of the early Christians, especially, as S. Byier correctly observed, these Christian artists were often trained in pagan studios, and this accounted for turning some pagan subjects and ornamental motifs to Christian use due to their bearing a secret sense.21

Fig. 1: Crypt 46, 2003 system (photograph: author)

A vine plays a special role in the symbolism of this period of early Christianity, first of all in the words of Christ: ‘I am the true vine’ (John 15:1). The main meaning of the vine for Christians was its symbolic connection with Holy Communion, which is why they conveyed the vine in harvest gatherings, or feeding numerous birds with bunches of grapes.29 In this meaning the vine belongs to the symbols which can take a central place in the composition, or even appear in the role of an independent original sign. But more often bunches serve as compositional elements of the ornament, including other symbols.30

Quite often one can meet pictures of vines, vine leaves, bunches of grapes and vine bushes. In the crypt of 1901 there is one more ornamental band of circular segments below the usual ornament of triangles around the shelves of the western and eastern walls: large and small bunches of grapes which overhang from the second band from left to right are set off with a red stripe.22 On the right, on the wall below the western shelf, there is a picture of a vine with interlacing branches, leaves and bunches of grapes. On the central wall, at the bottom part of the pier between the shelf and the niche, there is a picture of a big vessel with handles, with a vine bush growing out of it.23

The image of the vine, vine leaves and bunches of grapes holds one of the most important places in the frescoes of Chersonesian crypts of the early Christian period back to the 4th century AD (the crypts of 1904 (1853), 1905 and 1909).31

An analogous vessel with two handles and two growing vine branches is painted in crypt 46 of the 2003 system (Fig. 1).24 The usual setting of the central burial bench in the crypt of 1904 is added to with the picture of stylised bunches of grapes coloured black on red branches.25

Paintings where these Christian symbols are used decorate the niches and walls of Early Byzantine crypts in other provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire. Thus, there is a representation of an amphora depicted on the entrance wall among vines in the crypt of Kibbutz Hanita in the Upper Galilee, Israel.32 It dates to the 3rd century AD; and in the Christian crypt of the 4th-beginning of the 5th century at Kibbutz Lochamey ha-Getaoth, the central wall of the eastern niche is decorated with the image of an amphora. Two vines with bunches and leaves grow from its neck. Birds are set along the edges of the branches.33

In crypt 11 the drawing of the vine bush with stylised bunches of grapes is placed below the right burial bench.26 The depiction of a stylised vine, filling the space and treated in a dull geometrical manner, can be found in ornamentation of Syrian and Palestinian tombs 27 and in the Christian painting of Egypt.28 19

Uvarov 2001, 76-77. Zinko 2008. 21 Byier 1904, 77. 22 Rostovtsev 1913, tab. XCVII, XCVIII. 23 Rostovtsev 1914, 414-16. 24 Zinko 2008. 25 Zinko 2008. 26 Zinko 2002a. 27 Rostovtsev 1914, 425. 28 Bok-Smirnov 1901, 31.

The image of trees is also found among symbolic paintings. In the crypt of 1873, on the pier between the central shelf and the niche, there is a fragment of a branch

20

29

Uvarov 2001, 211. Trufanov 2002, 64. 31 Zubar and Khvorostyanny 2000, 78. 32 Michaeli 2001, fig. 1. 33 Michaeli 2001, fig. 6. 30

287

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

with leaves at the level of the niche.34 On the right flanking wall of the crypt of 1894, along both sides of the niche there are representations of trees with roots pulled out of the ground.35 The drawing is schematic, in lines only. In the crypt of 1901, below the niche on the right of the entrance, between the birds on palm branches, there is the outlined tree with eight branches and roots. On the left, on the wall below the central burial bench, a branching tree with triangular leaves is drawn.36 In crypt 11, on the western wall a picture of a tree with roots is situated below the shelf to the left of the vine bush (Fig. 2).37 The sketchy character of these representations in crypts does not provide an opportunity for identifying the types of tree. The main notion of the symbol is probably the same throughout: for Christians the image of a tree was the symbol of the Garden of Eden reached by the deceased after death.38

Rostovtsev’s definition of these crypts as the crypts of followers of the cult of Sabazios. Rostovtsev pointed out that the explanation of all pictures from the Panticapaeum necropolis raises difficulties, mainly because of the superficial and barbarous character of all representations and the almost complete absence of details and attributes of the figures. This is why he did not consider his interpretation of the subject of the frescoes to be the only one possible.41 He pointed out the obviousness of the representation of ‘the entire necropolis of people being interrelated by something’.42 In his assumptions Rostovtsev proceeded from the idea that the picture of human figures, large or small, played the leading role in all the crypts and that these pictures have a religious-sacred character. Comparing the pictures of the crypt of 1905 with those of the crypts of 1874 and 1912(1) gave him the reason to say that in all three cases the pictures show ecstatic dances to the accompaniment of tambourines, or arms, performed by the followers of Sabazios.43

Fig. 2: Crypt 11, 2000 system (photograph: author)

However, regarding the representations of trees and their roots in the Panticapaeum crypts as a ‘curious motif’ and supporting the explanation of this symbol as one of ‘a blessed place and Eden’, L.G. Khrushkova gives only one analogy (paintings from the crypt of the 3rd century AD near the settlement of Kavak in Cappadocia) and connects these pictures with the Asia Minor god Mên.39

Fig. 3: Crypt of 1912(1), system in Zhelyabov Street 27 (photograph: author) In the process of researching these monuments and of the detailed analysis of the remaining paintings in the crypts, which were previously described by Rostovtsev, new details in the depiction of the figures have been found. These make possible a more accurate interpretation of their attributes. Thus, two figures are painted in red and black above the niche of a central wall in the crypt of 1912 (Fig. 3).44 Rostovtsev depicted them as ‘common bell-shaped pedestrian figures’. He does not describe any objects in their hands.45 One can see that that in the left hand is most probably a red shield with a black umbo in the centre, not just a simple ‘disk’ or ‘round object’, or even a ‘tambourine’ in Rostvtsev’s opinion.46 Moreover,

Rostovtsev considered that the representations of vines and trees (in the leaves of which he saw cones of a stonepine) in Bosporan crypts of geometrical style should be connected with the cult of Sabazios.40 He drew on the well-known ancient religious link of the Dionysiac cult with the vine on Sabazios, not drawing a great distinction between the Thracian and Asia Minor cults of Dionysos and Sabazios. At the same time, he gave no examples of representations of Sabazios with a vine. Thus, before starting to scrutinise the figural part of the composition, it is necessary to concentrate on the question of 34

Rostovtsev 1913, tab. XCIX.2. Rostovtsev 1914, 408-09. 36 Rostovtsev 1913, tab. XCVII, XCVIII. 37 Zinko 2002a. 38 Uvarov 2001, 230. 39 Khrushkova 2008, 121-32. 40 Rostovtsev 1914, 429 35

41

Rostovtsev 1914, 426. Rostovtsev 1914, 405. 43 Rostovtsev 1914, 425-33. 44 Rostovtsev 1913, tab. C.1, 3. 45 Rostovtsev 1914, 423. 46 Rostovtsev 1914, 427-28. 42

288

E.A. ZINKO: PECULIARITIES OF THE PAINTINGS OF BOSPORAN CRYPTS OF THE 3RD-6TH CENTURIES AD

this object cannot be a musical instrument – ‘tambourine’ – because the detail in its centre precludes its sounding. Rostovtsev gave the general characteristics of the crypts containing representations of the figures with analogous attributes. He supposed that the interpretation as ‘a spear and a shield’ could be possible. He did not call the figures ‘warriors’.47

peculiar to Near Eastern not Christian deities, but there are evident symbols of the arising Christian religion. Christians paid great attention to the image of a sailing ship – a symbol of the voyage through life to the eternal life and resurrection after death.51 In the crypt of 1894 (crypt 41 of the 2000 system, excavated repeatedly) there is the image of a ship on the southern wall to the left of the shelf. The picture is schematic; it is drawn in red colour only. The ship is depicted with a flat prow pointing to the right and a high stern. In the middle of the ship there is one high mast with a yard, fastened with two ropes at the top.52 The cruciform representation of the mast and the yard of the ship was important for Christians and included the evident indication of the Crucifixion.53 Unfortunately, this part of the painting in the crypt is now lost. There remains only the representation of the Tree of Life placed near the niche next to the central shelf.

Thus, a warrior holds a red shield with a black umbo in its centre with his left hand. There is either a sword or a spear in his right hand. His clothes are drawn in red alone. There are no details but preliminary markings can be seen even now. The representation of this warrior is peculiar because he wears a particular head-dress looking like the head of an animal with ears. The cap-mask is painted with a long nose, big almond-shaped white eye and a black pupil. One can suppose it is a scene representing a fight between two warriors. Each of them has a shield in the left hand and a sword in the right raised above the head. The warrior on the right is shown half-turned, moving to the right as if in retreat. He almost shows his back. The second warrior holds a red shield with a black umbo in its centre. He has either a sword or a spear in his right hand. He wears a red undershirt and black fairy mail armour. It is clear that the artist creating the crypt paintings did not use a single colour to depict warriors’ clothes, and he had a purpose: to show even schematically two details of the costume. Rostovtsev describes this figure as ‘coloured in black’.48 Taking into account the schematic character of the drawing, it is still difficult to see the representation of either dancing or praying people. However, the ritual character of the paintings should not be objected taking into consideration the function of the monument for which they were drawn.

In the crypt of 1901 there is a detailed picture of a ship and crew on the pier between the niche and the western wall, to the left of the entrance.54 The painting was executed in red colour straight onto the clay wall. The ship under sail is painted moving to the right. The stern has two rudders; two anchors lie in the forepart of the ship. At the left of the eastern wall, below the burial bench, there is one more picture of a large ship without masts, her prow to the right and her hull decorated with wavy parallel lines. The side of the ship is formed with a band of triangles. There are two rudders on the stern.55 Rostovtsev relates these representations to the symbolic parts of the painting but does not find any notional explanation for them within the religious perspective of the followers of Sabazios, though he points out that there was the idea of a country of the blessed situated across the ocean and about voyages there by ship.56

The birds in flight that accompany the representations of the figures in the crypts are explained as the symbol of ecstasy, the embodiment of souls of believers in ecstasy. Rostovtsev determined that the god in whose honour the mysterious action took place was Sabazioss, based on the picture of a human figure with a beard and a Phrygian cap in the crypt of 1901.49 But it is clear stylistically that the human figure in the crypt of 1901 has but a minor role in the whole composition of frescoes around the central shelf.50

In crypt 25 (2000 system) there is a graphic picture of two single-masted ships on the wall against the entrance, near the main shelf. In crypt 2 at Kytaia (3rd century AD) a representation of a ship with a mast and a yard, and a man sailing in her drawn in red colour, was found in the niche on the left of the entrance. An encircled cross is painted above the ship, the letter ‘A’ is under the circle, and incomprehensible signs are on the right. Y.Y. Marti supposed that a distorted omega was drawn next to alpha.57

It is quite evident that the pictures discussed carry intricate allegorical notions and serve as symbols for the expressing of a certain religious idea. From the first centuries AD there was an intensified process of syncretism of different gods, which can be explained by churchmen’s desire to create an image of God taken from the cults of equally respected Greek and Roman, Near Eastern and Christian deities, the ritual practice of which was a mystery and secret for the uninitiated. However, it is absolutely clear that in the crypts with paintings of socalled ‘geometrical style’ the artists applied a set of signs

Uvarov gives his explanation of the circle formula by St Clement of Alexandria (2nd century AD), where God ‘is a circle in which all forces are moving and are gathered (united) by Him. That is why Logos is called Alpha and Omega.’58 Christian formulae are known on which the 51

Uvarov 2001, 197. Rostovtsev 1914, 408. 53 Uvarov 2001, 196. 54 Rostovtsev 1913, tab. XCVII, XCVIII. 55 Rostovtsev 1914, 415. 56 Rostovtsev 1914, 434. 57 Gaidukevich 1959, 229, fig. 99. 58 Uvarov 2001, 77. 52

47

Rostovtsev 1914, 427. Rostovtsev 1914, 423. 49 Rostovtsev 1914, 428. 50 Rostovtsev 1913, tab. XCVII, XCVIII. 48

289

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

monogram of Christ is between the letters alpha and omega.59 It may well be the Jewish letter ‘tav’ (similar to one of the written variants of the Greek letter tau), which looked like two crossed lines and, on account of its finishing the old Jewish alphabet, served as the symbol of Christ.60

victory. Christians adapted this to express triumph over the death by means of resurrection.65 The palm tree was also a symbol of Eden, the place of eternal bliss.66 In crypt 11 (2000 system), below the niche on the southern wall, there is a picture of a sitting bird with another larger bird perched lower.67 Analogous pictures of birds on branches have remained intact in several crypts of the ‘System in Zhelyabov Street 27’. In the crypt of 1890(1), on the pier between the central shelf and the niche, there is a representation of a bird on a palm branch above the small ritual garland.68

A monogram of Christ sometimes took the form of an anchor (hope, hopes upon Christ) with a fish twined around it instead of the name of Christ.61 During excavations of Kytaia62 a signet ring was found carrying the design of the tau cross and two fish. It was dated to the second half of the 3rd century AD. The formulation means hope placed in Christ from the beginning of life until its end. The letters alpha and omega are written under the horizontal cross-beam of the cross with the symbol of Christ in the crypt of 1890 of the Panticapaeum necropolis.63

In the crypt of 1901, to the right of the entrance, below the niche there is the representation of two peacocks on a palm branch. To the right of them there is a picture of another peacock on a big palm branch looking to the left. Above it are two smaller birds of different proportions sitting opposite each other as in armorial bearings. To the right of them is another large peacock on a palm branch of the same height looking to the left.69 The image of the peacock is traditional in ancient art. Pictures of peacocks are known in Bosporan painted crypts of the 2nd-1st centuries BC. The Greeks considered the peacock as the symbol of the starry sky. Romans believed the souls of died empresses were raised up to the sky by a peacock. The image of the peacock in Christian symbolism meant the immortality of the human soul and Resurrection after death.70 The central shelf in the crypt of 1904 is fringed with a broken red line. At each corner of the setting there is the representation of a bunch of black grapes on red stems. A black bird on the bunch of grapes sits above the centre of the shelf. Along the right board of the shelf there are pictures of eight black birds one above the other. Three birds of the same type are arranged along the left board of the western shelf.71 In the crypt of 1897 there is the representation of a bird on a palm branch.72 In the crypt of 1912, Rostovtsev calls it ‘the Christian tomb’, there is an equilateral cross with enlarged ends, boldly carved in solid marl above the entrance. There is the representation of a bird on its horizontal crossbeam; two bigger birds are painted at the base, one on each side of the cross.73

Fig. 4: Crypt 2, 2000 system (photograph: author)

In crypt 2 (2000 system) there is the image of a twomasted ship above the arch of the niche in the southern wall (Fig. 4). To the left of the ship there is a drawing of a warrior with a sword. The general meaning of the composition is connected with the idea of resurrection. The foot warrior is painted with the sword in a sheath on his left side, walking; he is on the brink of the next world. In our case the two-master continues the image of the way to eternity. The warrior rises from the dead, sailing to the beyond, overcoming death to find immortality. A picture of a bird, possibly a pigeon, on a palm branch, typical of the necropolis of Panticapaeum, is set near the ship.64

The influence of Christianity is clearly reflected in the crypt paintings. The representation of a bird, a bird sitting on a palm branch or a bird on a bunch of grapes has an important place in the pictorial composition of painted crypts: the bird is a symbol of the soul, freed from the body, reaching bliss in the eternal next world.74 The 65

Friken 1872, 50. Uvarov 2001, 193. 67 Zinko 2002a. 68 Rostovtsev 1913, tab. C.2, 4; 1914, 406. 69 Rostovtsev 1914, 413. 70 Uvarov 2001, 238. 71 Rostovtsev 1914, 417. 72 Zinko 2008. 73 Rostovtsev 1914, 435. 74 Elnitskii 1946, 108.

The palm branch is found widely in the cult imagery of Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and Jews as a symbol of

66

59

Uvarov 2001, 79. Danielou 1961. 61 Uvarov 2001, 154, 203. 62 Khrshanovskii 1994, 264-65. 63 Y. Kulakovskii 1891, 2-4. 64 Zinko 2001b. 60

290

E.A. ZINKO: PECULIARITIES OF THE PAINTINGS OF BOSPORAN CRYPTS OF THE 3RD-6TH CENTURIES AD

picture of a bird biting grapes expresses a symbolic idea about the fruit of God’s doctrine and points at the sacrament of Holy Communion.75

Unfortunately, Rostovtsev could date neither the crypts with geometrical paintings nor those with crosses. Furthermore, he preferred not to touch the question of the influence of Judaism and Christianity on the ornamentation (ships, birds, branches, trees) of paintings in these crypts. However, he noted that Christian crypts did not represent a development of the architectural motifs of the crypts of the followers of the Sabazios cult, rather they formed an ensemble with Christian crypts discovered in Kerch.85 Nowadays, when thanks to recent archaeological research the crypts with geometrical paintings are dated exactly enough – 3rd-4th/5th centuries AD86 – and their typology is known, it is possible to approach the question of the religious-sacral notions underlying the paintings. Examining this question in recent articles, we have ascertained the dual paganChristian character of these paintings, with a predominance of Christian motifs.87 Now that investigation of the typological classification, chronology and topographical connections of all the underground vaults of the Panticapaeum necropolis,88 both those with geometrical decoration and those with Christian symbols and psalms (crypt 491 and the crypt of 1895), has been concluded, the Christian trend of this painting is apparent. The painted crypts of the Panticapaeum necropolis of the 3rd-6th centuries AD show a change in the trend of painting towards simplification, better to say asceticism, and finally to one main symbol: the cross.

In the painted compositions of several crypts, as well as pictures of birds there are representations of a horse near the human figure, and sometimes of a horseman. Thus, in the crypts of 1890(2), 1901 and 1912 there are representations of horsemen. In the crypt of 1901 the figure of a horseman is painted in straight cruciform lines in the form of the monogram of Christ76 In the crypt of 190577 and in crypt 11 horses are painted without horsemen but with the bridles.78 The image of the horse in Christian art is similar to that of the ship. It symbolised a past course of life. The representation of a horse was often placed on early Christian gravestones; sometimes only the bridle was drawn instead of a full symbolic picture.79 The representation of a deer is found in crypt 11 and in the crypt of 1901. The deer is known in Christian symbolism (Psalm 41:2). It might have symbolised a worshipper striving for salvation through the sacrament of baptism.80 Among the paintings from the Panticapaeum crypts are pictures of circles divided into four or eight segments. Two circles with a cross are located in the first crypt of 1890 – on the wall opposite the entrance, under the niche, near the main shelf.81 Crosses were painted with widen ends. The picture is drawn in red. Under the right side shelf in the crypt of 1901, in the centre of the wall, there is a representation of a circle divided into eight segments by two straight lines, crossing at rightangles, and two wavy lines.82 Below the central shelf in the same crypt there are pictures of two circles. It is interesting that there is a picture of another circle within each circle, and two straight lines divide the central circle into four segments, with a dot put in each segment. A picture of a circle divided into eight segments by straight lines adorns the left side wall of the crypt of 1901, above the image of a ship. A dot is placed in each segment. In crypt 2 at Kytaia, on the side wall of the niche to the right of the entrance, there is a picture of a red circle with crossed lines inside it.83

Bibliography AIBABIN, A.I 1999: Etnicheskaya istoriya rannevizantiiskogo Kryma (Simferopol). BOK, V.G. 1901: Materiali po khristianskoi arkheologii Egipta (St Petersburg). BYIER, S. 1904: Ocherk istorii iskusstv (St Petersburg). DANIELOU, J. 1961: Les symboles chretiens primitifs (Paris), 143-52. DIATROPTOV, P.D. 1999: ‘The Speared of Christianity in the Bosporus in the 3rd–6th centuries’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 5.3, 215-44. ELNITSKII, L.A. 1946: ‘Iz istorii ellinisticheskikh kultov v Pricheromor’e’. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 8, 97-112.

Romans had a tradition of cutting bread slightly in a cruciform way to ease its breaking. Christians used such figures for depicting ‘the bread of life’ as the symbol of Holy Communion. This symbol is based on the words of Christ: ‘I am the bread of life…’ (John 6:48-50). Christians drew a circle divided into four, six or eight segments. They linked this cruciform division of bread with the idea of the cross of Calvary.84

FRIKEN, A. 1872: Rimskie katakomby i pamyatniki pervonachalnogo khristianskogo iskusstva (Moscow). GAIDUKEVICH, V.F 1949: (Moscow/Leningrad).

Bosporskoe

Tsarstvo

GAIDUKEVICH, V.F 1959: ‘Nekropoli nekotorikh bosporskikh gorodov’. Materiali i issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 69, 154-238.

75

Uvarov 2001, 211. Rostovtsev 1913, tab. CI.2, XCVII, XCVIII, C.1, 3. 77 Rostovtsev 1913, tab. XCIX.1. 78 Zinko 2002a. 79 Uvarov, 2001, 156. 80 Uvarov 2001, 244. 81 Rostovtsev 1913, tab. C.2, 4. 82 Rostovtsev 1913, tab. XCVII, XCVIII. 83 Gaidukevich 1959, 229, fig. 99. 84 Uvarov 2001, 217. 76

KHRSHANOVSKII, V.A. 1994: ‘Raskopki necropolya Kiteya’. In Kutaisov, V.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Krymu v 1993 (Simferopol), 262-66. 85

Rostovtsev 1914, 434. Zinko 2001a. 87 Zinko 2002b. 88 Zinko 2003a. 86

291

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

KHRUSHKOVA, L.G. 2008: ‘O zhivopisi rannechristianskikh sklepov v Krymu’. Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 42, 121-33.

ZINKO, Е.А. 1997: ‘Issledovaniya bosporskikh sklepov na severnom sklone gory Mitridat’. In Aibabin, A.I. (ed.), Vizantiya i Krim (Simferopol), 43-44.

KULAKOVSKII, V.A. 1896: ‘Dve kerchenskie katakomby s freskami’. Materialy po Arkheologii Rossii 19, 1-67.

ZINKO, Е.А. 2000: ‘Bosporskie sklepi na severnom sklone gory Mitridat’. Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 7, 69-76.

KULAKOVSKII, Y. 1891: ‘Kerchenskaya khristianskaya katakomba 491 g.’. Materialy po Arkheologii Rossii 6, 2-4.

ZINKO, Е.А. 2001a: ‘Problemi issledovaniya pozdneantichnikh bosporskikh raspisnikh sklepov’. Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 8, 67-73.

MASLENNIKOV, А.А. 1997: Semeinye sklepi sel’skogo naseleniya pozdneantichnogo Bospora (Мoscow).

ZINKO, Е.А. 2001b: ‘Novyi raspisnoi sklep Pantikapeiskogo nekropolya’. Bosporskie Chteniya 2, 42-46.

MARTI, Y.Y. 1935: ‘Novie epigraficheskie pamyatniki Bospora’. Izvestiya Gosudarstvennoi Akademii Istorii Material’noi Kul’tury 104, 57-89.

ZINKO, Е.А. 2002a: ‘Issledovaniya nekropolya Pantikapeya v 2001 g.’. Bosporskie Chteniya 3, 100-05.

MICHAELI, T. 2001: ‘The Vine Scrolls Motif in Antique and Early Christian Funerary Art – Content and Meaning’. In Kenaan-Kedar, N. and Ovadiah, A. (eds.), The Metamorphosis of Marginal Images: From Antiquity to Present Time (Tel Aviv), 11-21.

ZINKO, Е.А. 2002b: ‘Kultovaya simvolika v rospisi novogo sklepa pantikapeiskogo nekropolya’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 2, 249-58.

ROSTOVTSEV, M.I. 1913: Antichnaya dekorativnaya zhivopis’ na yuge Rossii: Atlas (St Petersburg).

ZINKO, Е.А. 2003a: ‘O topografii pozdneantichnogo nekropolya Pantikapeya’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 3, 49-61.

ROSTOVTSEV, M.I. 1914: Antichnaya dekorativnaya zhivopis’ na yuge Rossii: Text (St Petersburg).

ZINKO, Е.А. 2003b: ‘Nekropol Pantikapeya – novye otkritiya’. Bosporskie Chteniya 4, 113-16.

SHKORPIL, V.V. 1904: ‘Otchet o raskopkakh v g. Kerchi i ego okrestnostyakh v 1902 g.’. Izvestiya Imperatorskoi Arkheologicheskoi Komissii 9, 73-177.

ZINKO, Е.А. 2006: ‘Izobrazheniya ptits v pantikapeiskikh sklepakh IV-V vv. n.e.’. Bosporskie Chteniya 7, 144-47.

SHKORPIL, V.V. 1907: ‘Otchet o raskopkakh v g. Kerchi v 1904 g.’. Izvestiya Imperatorskoi Arkheologicheskoi Komissii 25, 1-66.

ZINKO, Е.А. 2007: ‘Izobrazhenie krestov v rannevizantiiskikh sklepakh Bospora’. Bosporskie Chteniya 8, 141-47.

TRUFANOV, A.A. 2002: ‘Simvol v rannekhristianskom izobrazhitel’nom iskusstve’. In Yurochkin, Y.N. (ed.), Pravoslavnye drevnosti Tavriki (Kiev), 62-65.

ZINKO, Е.А. 2008: ‘Novyi (?) sklep nekropolya Bospora rannevizantiiskogo vremeni’. Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 42, 112-21.

UVAROV, A.S. 2001: Khristianskaya (Moscow/St Petersburg).

ZUBAR, V.M. and Khvorostyanyi, А.I. 2000: Ot yazichestva k khristianstvu (Kiev).

simvolika

292

Appendix 1 PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE Classics and Archaeology, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, Old Quad, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia [email protected]

William ANDERSON Classics and Archaeology, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, Old Quad, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia [email protected]

Alexandru AVRAM Université du Maine, Faculté des Lettres, Langues et Sciences humaines, Avenue Olivier Messiaen, 72000 Le Mans, France [email protected]

Suzana AVRAM 4, rue de la Corderie, 72000 Le Mans, France [email protected]

Vincent CLARK Dr Vincent Clark & Associates Pty Ltd, 11/240 Sydney Road, Coburg, Victoria 3058, Australia [email protected]

Kristal FLEMMING Classics and Archaeology, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, Old Quad, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia [email protected]

Eser KORTANOĞLU Anadolu Üniversitesi, Yunus Emre Kampusu, Edebiyat Fakültesi Arkeoloji Bölümü, 26470 Eskişehir, Turkey [email protected]

Damjan KRSMANOVIC Classics and Archaeology, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, Old Quad, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia [email protected]

Michelle NEGUS CLEARY Department of Archaeology, School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia [email protected]

Armin SCHMIDT GeodataWIZ, 2 Oak Ghyll, Gill Bank Road, Ilkley LS29 0AU, UK [email protected]

Robert WEILAND Alte Geschichte, Universität Leipzig, 04109 Leipzig, Germany [email protected] 293

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY Abstract: The 2010 field season at Pessinus resulted, first of all, in the creation of a new topographical map of site. A trial trench was opened in Sector R, excavation of which showed that this area was occupied in the Early Byzantine period and the occupation was largely domestic in nature. This small trench yielded a total 15,334 potsherds as well as fragments of glass vessels, coins, etc. The team also conducted ground surveys in Pessinus and its surroundings, at Tekören and of a Roman road. Geophysical investigations covered Pessinus itself (promontory and watchtower) and Tekören (Fields B and C). Several new inscriptions were studied. FRİGYA’DAKİ PESSİNUS: 2010 KAZI SEZONUNUN ÖZET HAZIRLIK RAPORU Özet: Pessinus’taki 2010 kazı sezonu öncelikle alanın yeni bir topoğrafya haritasının üretilmesiyle sonuçlanmıştır. Sektör R’de açılan bir deneme çukurunun kazılması sonucunda bu alanın Erken Bizans dönemi bir yerleşime sahip olduğu ve bunun büyük ölçüde bir konut yerleşimi olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Bu küçük çukurda toplamda 15.334 adet çömlek kırığı ve aynı zamanda cam kaplar, madeni paralar vs parçaları bulunmuştur. Ekip aynı zamanda Pessinus ve çevresinde Tekören ve Roma yolunda zemin etütleri de gerçekleştirmiştir. Jeofizik araştırmaları Pessinus’un kendisini (burun ve gözlem kulesi) ve Tekören’i içermektedir (Alan B ve C). Birtakım yeni yazıtlar incelenmiştir.

Fig. 1: Location of Pessinus It had become obvious that an up-to-date topographical plan of the site was needed to replace that made in the late 1960s/early 1970s. The project purchased satellite images of the modern village to assist the creation of a new plan. Mr Z. Kiliç, of Eksenel in Eskişehir, supplied topographical data, supplemented with a digital copy of the cadastral map of the village compiled in ca. 1950-60 and a preliminary version of the new cadastral map currently under compilation by the Turkish authorities. The team created a new plan (Figs. 2-5). This will be updated and more details added to it as we proceed.

Pessinus is situated in the eastern part of Central Phrygia some 150 km south-west of Ankara, 100 km north-east of Eskişehir and 13 km south-east of Sivrihisar, at the modern village of Ballıhisar (Fig. 1). Excavation began in 1967 under the auspices of the University of Ghent, led by Pieter Lambrechts, and continued until his death in 1974. Ghent resumed activity in 1987 under John Devreker and continued in the field until 2008,1 to be succeeded by a team from the University of Melbourne.2 The main aim of the Melbourne team’s second field season at Pessinus, described here, was to acquire as much new information as possible about the site and its surrounding territories by means of surveys, geophysical work, excavating a trial trench, etc.3

conducted according to permit no. 129272 issued by T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü dated 18th June 2010. For logistical reasons the Pessinus team was in the field only from July 1st until August 4th 2010. Forty-two boxes of material from the excavation and surveys were deposited in the Pessinus site depot. Principal finance was provided by the Australian Research Council (Grant DP1097119: Australian Research at Pessinus, Sacral City of Cybele, the Great Mother Goddess: Myth and Reality). The Director would like to express his sincere thanks to the T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanliği, Kültür Varhklari ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü; the Turkish Consulate in Melbourne; the Australian Embassy in Ankara; the staff of Eskişehir Archaeological Museum; University of Melbourne; Anadolu University; Sivrihisar Ilçe Kaymakam Vekili; Sivrihisar Ilçe Belediye Başkani; Sivrihisar Ilçe Jandarma Karakol Komutani; Eskişehir Vali Vekili Vali Yardimcisi; Eskişehir Il Kültür ve Turizm Müdürü; and the villagers of Ballıhisar. I would also like to thank Prof. T. Sivas and Dr H. Sivas, Anadolu University; Prof. S. Atasoy, Karabük University; Dr Ş. Dönmez, Istanbul University; Mr M. Dervis, Tachda Tours; Mr Z. Kiliç, Eksenel, Eskişehir; and PM Prestu Engineering, Istanbul.

1 For a summary of Ghent’s work at Pessinus, see Claerhout and Devreker 2008. 2 For a report on Melbourne’s first season (2009), see Tsetskhladze et al. 2011. 3 The 2010 team comprised: Gocha Tsetskhladze (Director, University of Melbourne), Eser Kortanoğlu (Assistant Director, Anadolu University, Eskişehir), William Anderson (University of Melbourne), Alexandru Avram (University of Maine, Le Mans), Suzana Avram (Le Mans, France), Vincent Clark (Melbourne), Michelle Negus Cleary (University of Sydney), Kristal Flemming (University of Melbourne), Defne Selma Kantarelli (Ankara), Damjan Krsmanovic (University of Melbourne), Andrew Parkyn (University of Bradford), Germain Payen (University of Rouen), Armin Schmidt (University of Bradford), Hazal van het Hof (Ankara) and Robert Weiland (University of Leipzig). The Turkish government representative was Mr Erdal Yiğit, Museum of Anatolian Civilisations, Ankara. The Pessinus 2010 field season was

294

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

Fig. 2: New site map, Pessinus 295

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 3: New topographical plan, Pessinus

296

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

Fig. 4: New topographical plan, Pessinus 297

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 5: New topographical plan, Pessinus

298

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

disturbance in the immediate vicinity that has brought to the surface large amounts of early ceramics, ranging in date from the Late Iron Age to the Early Byzantine period, with significant amounts of Hellenistic and Roman material.

EXCAVATION IN SECTOR R, TRENCH R1 Vincent CLARK In the 2010 season a trial trench was opened in Sector R, which is situated near the southern boundary of the site (Figs. 2-6). This trench, designated Trench R1, measured 5 m north to south and 3 m east to west. It was located on an elevated area where the 2009 survey and geophysical investigations had suggested that stratified deposits may exist covering a range of occupational periods from Early Byzantine to possibly Hellenistic or Late Iron Age.4 The aim of the excavation was to establish the archaeological stratigraphy and occupational history in this area of Pessinus, which has not been subjected previously to detailed archaeological investigation.

It would appear that this phase is to be associated with a large-scale disturbance of the ground that probably included the removal of stones from walls of the Early Byzantine period. At least one wall appears to have been completely removed (see discussion of Context 27, below). Early Byzantine Immediately below these disturbed deposits two surfaces were encountered that appear to be contemporary with each other, although, as they were separated by an area of disturbance, a stratigraphic connection between them could not be established.

The most significant problem encountered was the confused and disrupted soil stratigraphy in the upper 11.5 m of the trench, disruption probably caused by digging hereabouts after the area went out of use in/after the Early Byzantine period. The sediments encountered were difficult to excavate on a stratigraphic basis because of the extent of the disturbance and the fact that the sediments encountered were frequently very similar in terms of compaction, colour, composition and inclusions, making them difficult to differentiate one from another. Adding to this was the problem that the upper 5 cm (approximately) of any exposed deposits of fill or accumulated sediments dried out, became bleached to a uniform pale grey colour and lost all compaction within hours of being exposed to the sun and the air during excavation.

In the southern part of the trench, extending the full width of the trench (3 m) and continuing into the south baulk, was Context 5. This was a very hard surface of compacted soil and mortar, with many small stone and fragments of broken roof tiles embedded both in the surface and through the soil matrix. This surface was the latest of a series of re-surfacings in this location, of which Contexts 15 and 21 were earlier manifestations. The nature and depth of these surfaces and the extremely compact nature of the underlying Context 28, which appears to be a foundation for these surfaces, suggests that they may have been surfaces in a public area, rather than in a domestic context. The northern edge of these surfaces, and of the underlying Context 28, ended abruptly along a line that ran across the trench on a slight diagonal from the east to the west baulks. A clearly visible alignment of soil containing mortar and small rocks (Context 27) was found to exist at a lower level in the trench, precisely on the line at which the surface Contexts 5, 15 and 21 terminated. This alignment was approximately 0.7 m in width and is almost certainly the traces of a wall that has been completely removed, leaving only a few stones in the very bottom of the foundations and a discolouration of the soil to mark its location. Surfaces 5, 15 and 21 were probably contemporary with this wall.

OUTLINE OF RESULTS A total of 47 contexts (numbered 1-47) were identified. Not all were fully investigated before excavations ceased. These contexts have been analysed with regard to their stratigraphy, the ceramics and other finds recovered from them and their relationships to one another. As a result a number of phases of occupation, disturbance and deposition have been identified. Late Phase – Post-Occupational Deposition Contexts 1-4, 6, 8 and 9 are all late soil deposits, exhibiting mixed soils with clear evidence of significant ground disturbance. Contexts 1 and 2 contained modern material (plastic and un-decomposed dung) and were clearly very recent. Below these, Contexts 3 and 4 contained large quantities of mixed ceramics; the soils of these contexts varied considerably across the trench, with patches of very hard soil mixed in a loose matrix with poorly sorted inclusions of small stones and ceramics. Contexts 6, 8 and 9 were similar but with a more uniform, loose soil. The ceramics found in these contexts support the theory that there has been 4

In the northern part of the trench was a similar surface, identified as Context 7. This was fragmentary but ran across the trench from the east to the west baulks and ran into the north baulk in the north-west corner of the trench (Fig. 7). A ceramic loom weight was recovered from this context but its date is unknown. Disturbance Phase – Early Byzantine Although this phase, which may have had several periods of activity, must be dated to the Early Byzantine

Tsetskhladze et al. 2011, 347-48, 354.

299

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 6: Location of Sector R, Trench R1

300

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

Fig. 7: Remains of surface Context 7 (under north arrow), looking west

Fig. 8: Looking north. Wall Context 13 on top of earlier wall Context 37, with surface Context 19 to right. To the left are flat stones that formed part of surface Context 30 (to right of unexcavated step)

period, very little pottery of this period was found. Instead large amounts of Roman and Hellenistic material was present, suggesting that large-scale digging may have occurred in this area, resulting in the bringing up of earlier ceramics from underlying pre-Byzantine deposits. This phase is probably contemporary with the removal of the wall that was associated with surface Contexts 5, 15 and 21. During this phase a pit was dug (Contexts 24, 31 and 35) and soil deposits containing large amounts of pottery from the Roman period were created.

Early Byzantine Occupation (7th Century) The earliest phase of occupation that was identified consisted of a series of floor levels associated with two parallel walls (Contexts 37 and 39) that form a narrow corridor approximately 0.9 m wide. The remnants of two beaten earth and lime surfaces (Contexts 41 and 42) were excavated here, cut to the north by a pit (Context 35, associated with the earlier phase of disturbance), to the west by robbing of stones from wall Context 39 (robber pit Context 38) and to the south by ground disturbance caused by the presumed removal of the wall, discussed above. A coin (probably 4th century in date) and ceramic fragments were found embedded in the surface of Context 41 and ceramics were also found embedded into the surface of Context 42. The ceramics provide a possible date of the early 7th century (Early Byzantine) for these surfaces. An earlier surface (Context 45) was not excavated (Fig. 9).

During this phase, the removal of the wall mentioned above may also have led to the destruction of the southern ends of two earlier walls (Contexts 37 and 39), both of which may have originally joined with the wall that appears to have been removed. Unfortunately, the removal of this wall, and the digging that appears to have occurred through the centre of the trench at this time, has destroyed any stratigraphic connection that may have existed between the southern and northern parts of the trench. It is not known if remains of these walls may continue at a deeper level; disturbed soils overlying the projected lines of these walls were excavated as Contexts 44 (south of wall Context 37) and 43 (south of wall Context 39).

To the east of wall Context 37 was a series of earthen surfaces with some patches of lime mortar and cement. Context 26 was the latest of these and covered Context 29. Ceramics from both indicate a 7th-century date. An earlier phase surface (Context 32) was not excavated (Fig. 10). All of these surfaces are truncated at the same point, approximately 2.1 m south of the north baulk. They all turn up slightly where they have been truncated, suggesting that they all ran up to a wall that no longer exists. The location of this presumed wall is marked by Context 27, discussed earlier, that runs parallel to the truncated surfaces 5, 15 and 21 that are at a higher level. It is likely that this wall continued in use through this phase and up to the latest phase of occupation represented by the surfaces of Contexts 5 and 7.

Possibly associated with this disturbance, in the northern part of the trench, were the remains of what may have been a surface in the north-west corner of the trench (Context 30), constructed using large, flat stones and cement mortar, and a late addition to an earlier wall in the north-east corner (Context 13). One of the stones used in Context 13 has a smooth, circular depression and a shallow channel cut into it and has clearly been reused in this context. These stones have been placed on top of the line of wall Context 37 and have been underpinned by small stones and pieces of broken tile and brick (Fig. 8). Two beaten earth surfaces (Contexts 19 and 20) were associated with the stones of Context 13. Ceramics found in these indicate a date in the Early Byzantine period.

The two walls associated with this phase, wall Contexts 37 and 39, run parallel to each other and appear to be

301

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

contemporary; however, they are constructed differently one from the other. The eastern wall, Context 37, is approximately 0.7 m in width and extends into the trench approximately 1.8 m from the north baulk; the southern end of the wall has been destroyed. Four courses of stone are visible on its west side, in the cut created by the later pit Context 35. There are three courses preserved above surface Context 42, which runs up against its west face. The stones used in its construction are undressed field stones, small in size, most being about 17-20 cm in length, 10-14 cm in depth and 20 cm in width. The core of the wall is formed by rubble and cement mortar. The western wall, Context 39, which is 0.7 m in width, is constructed of limestone rocks, larger than those used in wall Context 37; these stones may have been reused from earlier walls. A pit or robber trench has removed a part of this wall, which like wall Context 37 has been cut at about 1.8 m from the north baulk, although lower courses have been preserved that were not investigated due to time constraints. The core of this wall is of rubble and cement mortar has been used between courses and to bond together the individual stones. This wall appears to be set into a narrow foundation trench, 2-4 cm in width and filled with a very dark, loose soil, which has not been investigated.

Fig. 9: View north showing wall Contexts 37 (to right) and 39 (to left), with remnants of earthen floor in narrow passageway between these walls. Floor Context 45 is in foreground and floor Context 40 is beyond pit Context 35, which separates the two remnants of surface. Beneath the north arrow is pit Context 38, associated with the robbing of stones from wall 39. Note the tool marks along the western edge (left of photograph) of floor Context 45

CONCLUSION The evidence found for occupation suggests that the area was occupied in the Early Byzantine period and that the occupation was largely domestic in nature (Fig. 11). It is likely that associated domestic occupation in Sector R extends up the hill to the north of the trench, as well as to its east and west; it is possible that a public space is situated to the south. A series of floor or surface levels associated with roughly constructed stone walls, provides the most secure evidence of this occupation, which was in several phases, all within what was probably a relatively short time span (possibly 100-200 years). This Early Byzantine occupation, which seems to have ended in a period of wall removal and disturbance, has caused large quantities of ceramics from the preceding Roman and Hellenistic periods to be brought to the surface, suggesting that any occupational deposits from these earlier periods will have been subject to significant disturbance from the removal of earlier walls and the digging of pits.

Fig. 10: Surface Context 32, with associated wall Context 37 to left

302

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

Fig. 11: Final top plan of Sector R, Trench R1

303

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

high. The nature of this deposit suggests an area where there has been substantial occupation, modification and disturbance which explain the varied chronology, type and condition of the ceramic finds.

CERAMICS FROM EXCAVATION IN SECTOR R, TRENCH R1 William ANDERSON FINDS FROM SECTOR R

CHRONOLOGY

All ceramics excavated from the trench, as well as other finds including bone, glass (Figs. 12-13), metal and coins,5 were collected and stored according to context. Fragments of tile were recorded at the trench-side, and intact or representative examples were kept.

Soil deposits that display significant disturbance are present across the upper levels of the trench, up to 1m below the surface. Most pottery finds come from these levels, including Contexts 1-4, which contain 61.4% of total collected sherds, or 54.1% of total sherd weight. The date of these is very mixed, and features Late Iron Age, Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine material that dates from approximately the 6th century BC to the 8th century AD. The mixture of Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine finds – in almost equal quantities – occurs in almost all lower contexts as well. This reflects a major disturbance to underlying deposits that brought up material from a greater depth. This disturbance can be dated to after the latest ceramics present, which are Early Byzantine. The lack of later material shows that this disturbance, which involved the excavation of a deep cutting, perhaps in order to remove a wall, was probably the last major human impact to occur at this place. Though there is no certain date for this disturbance, there is good reason to believe that it occurred in the early mediaeval period.

Fig. 12: Fragment of glass vessel from Sector R, Trench R1

The full spectrum of antique ceramic chronology at Pessinus is displayed in the collections from Sector R (see Table 1). The trench is situated in a place where there have been long-lived occupation phases and these levels have been significantly disrupted. Though there is interest in the chronological and typological variety of the material, little of it can be said to have contextual value because it mostly pre-dates the period at which the disturbance occurred. Even in contexts which might once have been sealed, beneath floor levels and in pits, the mixed chronology of the material indicates that these have also undergone disturbance. The situation is illustrated by the presence of parts of the same vessel in seemingly unrelated contexts, for instance, a handle from Context 7 belongs with a large fragment of amphora neck from Context 3: Pess10/R/1/3/80 and Pess10/R/1/7/1 (Fig. 14). Fig. 13: Fragment of glass vessel from Sector R, Trench R1

The chronology of ceramics from Pessinus spans the Middle or Late Iron Age until the Early Byzantine period. The small number of Iron Age sherds (from Contexts 2-4) consist of coarse, grey ware jars. There is a substantial increase in the amount and range of Hellenistic material: also grey storage jars and basins and several varieties of tableware including black gloss and ‘imitation’ black gloss and imported sigillata (mostly ESC), continuing into the first two centuries AD. The number and diversity of finds increases in the Early Roman period, consisting of locally produced red tableware in micaceous fabric as well as plentiful imports, especially from around Pergamon (ESC, Pergamese, Çandarlı). Exotic wares include moulded and appliqué sigillata (Fig. 15) and

Excavations in Sector R yielded a total of 15,334 potsherds, of which 1327 (8.65%) are diagnostic fragments. The total weight of all ceramics is approximately 78.5 kg. In addition, 515 tile/pithos fragments were recorded with a total weight of 125 kg. Considering the small exposure and the fact that excavations reached a maximum depth of only slightly over 1 m, the number of ceramic finds can be regarded as 5

For a catalogue of the coins, see below.

304

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

Table 1: Simplified chronology of ceramics from the trench in Sector R Period Late Iron Age/Early Hellenistic Hellenistic

Date range

Identified sherds

550 BC-151 BC

43

Percent 03.37

330 BC-51 BC

214

16.76

Late Hellenistic/Early Roman

150 BC-AD 199

117

09.16

Early Roman

50 BC-AD 199

162

12.69

Early/Middle Roman

50 BC-AD 399

185

14.49

Middle Roman

AD 200-AD 399

115

09.00

Late Roman

AD 400-AD 599

176

13.78

Late Roman/Early Byzantine

AD 400-AD 899

94

07.36

Early Byzantine

AD 600-AD 899

171

13.39

1277

100

TOTAL

Fig. 16: Part of mould-made lamp, 3rd century AD

Fig. 14: Parts of Late Roman (5th-6th centuries AD) amphora from Contexts 3 and 7

Fig. 17: Lamp from Context 18, late 6th/7th century AD

including at least four rim fragments of a single type in a light pink ware. Middle and Late Roman red-slipped pottery includes local and imported products, especially Phocaean. Noteworthy Late Roman finds include stamped and moulded ceramics, among them a complete lamp of probably the late 6th/early 7th century (Fig. 17). Early Byzantine ceramics are dominated by a coarse, brittle brown ware which appears in closed form cooking

Fig. 15: Fragment of moulded sigillata with floral decoration, part of a platter handle

lamps (Fig. 16), including part of a fine, 3rd-century example. Early/Mid-Roman amphorae are present,

305

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 18: Early Byzantine brown ware

Fig. 20: Early Roman Sigillata fragments from Context 35

Fig. 19: A bone playing die from Sector R, Trench R1

pots and basins with thin, strap handles (Fig. 18). There are also a small number of painted and burnished brown and grey vessels of Early Byzantine date, and other ‘small finds’ – a bone playing die (Fig. 19),6 a clay loom weight,7 coins, might also be from this period. It is proposed that the latest material dates from approximately the later 7th or 8th century AD.

Fig. 21: Small amphora (6th or early 7th century AD) from floor surface 42

Context 21 are 824 sherds weighing 4.4 kg. In another pit (Context 35) which is dug into Contexts 41 and 42 there are lots of Early Roman finewares, though no reason to believe that this is an intact, Early Roman deposit (Fig. 20). From these floor and pit contexts there is also the mixture of Hellenistic to Late Roman sherds, though Context 42, through which the ‘late cut’ runs, has some embedded ceramics, including a small, double-handled amphora (amphoriskos) in the Ephesian LRA 3 tradition, which I shall date provisionally to the late 6th/early 7th century AD (Fig. 21). This suggests a late occupation and that overlaying floor surfaces post-date the amphora. It is therefore proposed that the area was being used and the floors re-surfaced and paved and walls adapted up until close to the time of the disturbance event.

FLOOR SURFACES AND PITS Floor surfaces in different parts of the trench can be dated to the later occupation levels prior to the disturbance event. Vincent Clark draws attention to three series of floor surfaces – Contexts 5, 15 and 21, present in the south/west side of the trench. These consist of compacted earth and mortar, incorporating broken pottery and stone as a core. From these contexts the pottery is highly fragmented and ranges in date from Hellenistic to Early Byzantine. It might be that this area represents a public, outdoors area, perhaps the cobbled paving of an alleyway. In the northern part of the trench, the surfaces suggest more of an indoors context. Two beaten earth and mortared floor surfaces (Contexts 41 and 42) are associated with two parallel walls (Contexts 37 and 39). From a pit (Context 38) which cuts through the west edge of these surfaces and is associated with the robbing of wall Context 39, the ceramics are larger, more intact: 124 sherds weighing slightly over 2 kg, while in the ‘floor fill’ contexts there are numerous fragmentary sherds, in

CONCLUSION The very mixed ceramic chronology within the trench has been caused by a major disturbance which has brought up and re-deposited large quantities of Hellenistic and Roman material. This has little archaeological value as it is found above levels that substantially post-date the material. It is difficult of impossible to separate the intrusive material and that which belongs to the excavated floor level contexts. The Hellenistic and Roman material includes a high proportion of tableware,

6 Pess10/R/1/4. Deposited in Eskişehir Archaeological Museum, 27 July 2010, as inventory no. PESS 10-03. 7 Pess10/R/1/22. Deposited in Eskişehir Archaeological Museum, 27 July 2010, as inventory no. PESS 10-04.

306

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

though there are also some cooking and storage vessels. Finewares, mostly imports, account for 35% of vessel types of all ceramic finds, and adding plainware open and closed vessels, the figure for all tablewares is 70%. Cooking wares are 16% and storage vessels, including amphorae, are 8% of the assemblage. The Late Roman ceramics are mostly tablewares, but the Early Byzantine material is predominantly closed vessels including storage and cooking pots. In the later occupation levels there is evidence for frequent modification of walls and surfaces, and the utilitarian wares suggest intensive habitation and a high rate of ceramic disposal. The excavation proves intensive occupation of the southern part of Pessinus in the Early Byzantine period and the ‘late cut’ could be contemporary with the population downturn that occurred in Pessinus probably in the later 7th or 8th century.

THE ROMAN ROAD The ancient roadway that runs in a north to south direction through Pessinus was a major component of the city in its local and broader context. Sections of this road have been previously surveyed, near İstiklalbağı and north of Ballıhisar/Pessinus,9 but no detailed observations or maps have been published. During the 2010 season, approximately 2.2 km of the actual embanked and cobbled road surface was documented, with a total of 7.2 km of the route mapped between Pessinus and Tekören (Fig. 22). The ancient roadway follows an approximate north-south route, keeping to higher ground where possible and gradually descending from the Sivrihisar uplands down towards the dry valleys around Ballıhisar. The northern sections, near İstiklalbağı, are very well preserved and often clearly visible across the landscape, partially due to the pale coloured stone used in the embankment and road surfacing. The surfacing cobbles here are of mixed stones, mainly local marble, quartz, limestone, schist, granite and conglomerates, as well as unusual reddish brown stones that may be ferrous slag (only in Section 1, immediately west of the İstiklalbağı Roman quarry).

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND SURROUNDINGS William ANDERSON, Damjan KRSMANOVIC and Michelle NEGUS CLEARY

In many locations the embankment and stones form the edges of modern fields where the embedded carriageway was too difficult to plough out or remove. The ancient road can also be discerned from satellite imagery as a linear feature running along the edges of some of the modern field boundaries.

A series of ground surveys was carried out during the 2010 season. These investigated Ballıhisar village and its surroundings, the Roman road to the north, and the district around Tekören village, approximately 8.5 km north-east of Ballıhisar. Site visits were also made to the Roman marble quarry north-west of İstiklalbağı village (7 km north of Pessinus), and the peak known as Hamamtepe, next to Karacaören village, 10 km south-east of Pessinus.

Four sections of ancient road were mapped (Fig. 22): Section 1, to the west of the İstiklalbağı Roman marble quarry; Section 2, near modern Ballıhisar-İstiklalbağıSivrihisar road junction (Fig. 23); Section 3, alongside the modern north-south Ballıhisar road, 3 km north of Ballıhisar (Fig. 24); Section 4, in fields 1.8 km north of Ballıhisar.

Both extensive and intensive field methods were used to record archaeological remains and environmental features. Information was collected using digital cameras, field notes and hand-held Garmin GPSmap60CX units. The GPS data were downloaded and mapped in ArcMap 9.2 GIS software. Some of the ground surveys were coordinated with geophysical prospection, an approach trialed during the 2009 field season.8 This included a combined magnetometer and surface artefact survey to the east of Tekören.

PESSINUS AND ITS SURROUNDINGS The main purpose of extensive surveys in the surroundings of Pessinus was to record the location and attributes of archaeological features – both previously documented and undocumented or unpublished. There was a particular focus on cemeteries and fortifications that would assist understanding of the ancient city’s size and layout. Another part of the investigation was to record recent illegal excavations and other damage, and to assess its extent and impact. A total of 189 archaeological features were recorded across an area of ca. 450 ha (Fig. 25).

The surveys addressed a number of issues regarding settlement history and the archaeological landscape. The topography and spatial extent of Pessinus over time, the location of cemeteries and fortified places in the city’s surroundings, phases of occupation in the preclassical and post-classical periods, are some such questions. More specific historical and environmental questions were also investigated: the course of the Roman road and its route of entry into Pessinus; the impact of geomorphology on the survival and visibility of archaeological remains; and the extent and nature of illegal excavations that continually take place around the ancient site. 8

Cemeteries Considerable attention has been paid to the cemeteries of Pessinus by the archaeology teams from Ghent 9 Devreker and Waelkens 1984, 51, fig. 29; Devreker and Vermeulen 1996, 77; 1997, 132.

Tsetskhladze et al. 2011, 346-55.

307

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 22: Survey map of Roman road

308

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

unreported excavations) and scattered material associated with graves – marble tomb fragments, fine pottery, and human remains. One stone-lined grave on a spur north of North Cemetery 4 (F083) was previously documented in 2001,10 and another cemetery arguably lies on this plateau (North Cemetery 5). Two other previously studied cemeteries fall into the northern category. A portion of North Cemetery 2 – on the north side of the modern Turkish cemetery – was excavated in 1990 as part of sector J, yielding some Late Hellenistic/Early Roman graves.11 North Cemetery 3 was partially unearthed in 1969-70 during the course of excavations in sectors D and E on the west bank of the river bed, yielding some stone sarcophagi of possible Early Byzantine date.12

Fig. 23: Roman road preserved in Section 2, showing remains of embankment with stone infill and cobbling

Some 400 m west of North Cemetery 4 is a hill previously called the ‘Western Necropolis’; we suggest calling it West Cemetery 1. One grave stele here that bears a wreath motif carved in high relief (F117), has been published and is dated AD 175-200 by Devreker.13 In the southern reaches of Pessinus is a substantial hill that is consistently labelled as the ‘Southern Necropolis’ on previous published plans. No graves were detected here, but there were fallen stones at the southern end, perhaps a fortification (F173), and coarse pottery, tile, and a fragment of red painted plaster (F160). The categorisation of this hilltop as a cemetery is doubtful.

Fig. 24: The Roman road at the southern end of Section 3, showing stone cobbles, embankment and camber of road

At the lowest slopes on the north-western edge of this south hill, facing the modern road, is a previously unpublished cemetery (South Cemetery 1).14

University over the past 30 years. According to published information, there are five necropoleis on the plateaus and hilltops surrounding the ancient city (we shall use the term ‘cemetery’ below rather than ‘necropolis’). These do not, however, reflect the totality of areas where funerary remains are present.

On a ridge to the eastern side of the south hill, east of Sector R, is more funerary evidence – finely worked marble blocks, looting pits, tile, and fragments of terracotta sarcophagus with moulded relief lines and bosses (F164) that appear to have eroded out of the hillside. This ridge is named as South Cemetery 2.

Documentation of funerary evidence was a major concern of the 2010 surveys. This sought accurately to record places of burial and also to institute a new naming protocol for cemeteries and other archaeological features. The cemeteries are classified according to a scheme of number and cardinal points of the compass (Figs. 2-3).

Turning to the eastern zone, on the edge of the plateau, about 200 m from the ancient theatre/Sector B is the old trench (A II) excavated by Lambrechts in 1967 (F057) which unearthed tombs from the Late Hellenistic to the Late Roman period. There has been recent disturbance here from the installation of telegraph poles and perhaps also recent looting. This whole area constitutes East Cemetery 1.

In the past, the most thoroughly investigated cemeteries have been North Cemetery 1 (Sector I, 1987-91) and East Cemetery 1 (Sector A, 1967). Most of the other cemeteries, however, are inadequately documented. There has been sporadic recording of select tombs in other areas, but never a synthesis of the evidence from different areas at different stages in the Pessinus’ history.

Another separate zone of the plateau is located further to the east (East Cemetery 2). Recent looting has brought up monumental marble blocks strewn over the ground. One set of tombs consisting of in situ monumental blocks 10

Devreker et al. 2003, 156. Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 1991, 350-51. 12 Devreker and Waelkens 1984, 98. 13 Devreker 1991, 198-99. 14 Possibly represented in the plan in Devreker and Vermeulen 1995. 11

On a hilltop south-west of North Cemetery 1 was noted a previously unrecorded cemetery (North Cemetery 4), comprised of a concentration of pits (old looting and/or

309

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 25: Map of extensive archaeological features, Pessinus

310

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

forming a cist lining and two sarcophagi (F067) was originally investigated in 2001.15 These tombs were exposed initially by looting and have been looted again since.

TEKÖREN The district around Tekören village, adjacent to a stream gully on the western slopes of the Sivrihisar mountain range, was the subject of continued study in 2010 (Fig. 27). Previous research by Ghent has established occupation here spanning the Bronze Age, Iron Age and other periods. This year’s work sought to document accurately the location of archaeological features and to expand on a combined, systematic artefact and magnetometer survey that was begun during the 2009 season.17

To the north of East Cemeteries 1 and 2, the plateau previously known as the ‘eastern necropolis’ also contains remnants of some graves (East Cemetery 3). These especially line the edge of the plateau, facing Pessinus. This area too has signs of non-funerary activity, such as possible fortification walls which were investigated in 2010 through geophysical (Ground Penetrating Radar) survey.

Phrygian rock-cut monuments – a chamber tomb, wine press and step monument – have been the focus of past investigations at Tekören.18 Another carved monument consisting of a vertical shaft cut into a granite outcrop was recorded on the banks of the river to the south-east of the three monuments (TEK10-F014).

Fortifications The lack of circuit walls around Pessinus might be regarded as unusual for a city with major Hellenistic and Late Roman occupation phases. Instead, a defensive system may have been formed by a series of hilltop forts and watchtowers. Investigating the position and nature of these fortifications was an objective of surveys in 200916 and 2010 (see A. Schmidt’s report below), including ground survey and geophysical prospection. This has identified at least nine areas of fortification in the immediate Pessinus area.

Previously unrecorded is a substantial enclosed area that consists of large embankments and dense scatters of unmortared fieldstone to the south of Tekören (TEK10F007). The embankments run for over 120 m along one side and form a rectilinear enclosure. Surface pottery and traces of earthworks and wall constructions suggest a mediaeval settlement of perhaps Early or Middle Byzantine date (8th-11th centuries).

Prehistoric Pessinus Four flaked stone implements were found to the south of the temple area/Sector B, near the village’s southern spring. The lithics were on the surface of a heavily eroded section of track that leads southwards towards Sector R, and the find spots are all within an area of no more than 40 m². Two of the flakes are black obsidian; the other two are a fine, white stone (chalcedony?), one of which is a notched, denticular tool (Fig. 26). The proximity of these finds to each other, their materials and morphology and the lack of knapped stone tools across the Pessinus area suggests a discrete deposit. The finds are provisionally dated from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age.

The 2009 intensive survey was continued in an adjacent field (Field B) in 2010, and also in an area further to the north (Field C) (Fig. 28). The fields were gridded into 20 m x 20 m squares which were each systematically investigated by five, evenly spaced field-walkers, collecting all cultural material from the ground surface. The investigations demonstrate the complexity and richness of the archaeological landscape around Tekören. Differences in the quantity and composition of finds from two nearby areas include higher counts (including many tiles) from Field C, which date from the Iron Age/Early Hellenistic, Late Roman/Early Byzantine periods, and mostly Bronze Age, Iron Age and Ottoman ceramics from Field B.

Fig. 26: Notched stone tool 17

Tsetskhladze et al. 2011, 348-50, 354. For example: Devreker and Vermeulen 1991; Berndt-Ersöz 2007; Sivas 2003; Tsetskhladze 2009.

15

Devreker et al. 2001, 352. 16 Tsetskhladze et al. 2011, 352.

18

311

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 27: Extensive survey map, Tekören

312

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

Fig. 28: Location of surveyed fields, Tekören (Field A investigated in 2009; Fields B and C in 2010)

313

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

2 clearly shows its original structure, consisting of linear sections of a 1.3 m wide wall with internal buttresses at intervals of 4.5 m. The two main linear sections are connected by an angular stretch that is extended outwards by a tower or bastion at the north-east corner. Slices 3 and 4 show less solid sections or gaps at greater depth. These gaps are approximately 2 m wide and occur at intervals of ca. 9 m. If the foundations for the main wall were built with such gaps at greater depth, it is likely that they corresponded to a weaker superstructure in these locations, possibly in the form of gates or portals. Based on the shape of these results and the tile fragments found outside, an identification as an Early Byzantine fortification or hideout is likely.

GEOPHYSICS Armin SCHMIDT Geophysical surveys were undertaken with a fluxgate gradiometer (Geoscan Research FM36 with sample trigger ST1) and a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) system (Zond 12e GPR with 900 MHz antenna; markers were set every 1m and data subsequently rubberbanded to 0.05 m). Table 2 summarises the survey areas and survey parameters used. Nearly all sites were in Ballıhisar (Fig. 29), only sites P16 and P18 were in Tekören. Only sites with significant geophysical findings are discussed below.

The data clearly demonstrate the much enhanced definition that can be obtained with a 0.25 m line spacing (western and eastern parts of the survey). The 0.50 m line spacing (middle part) still shows the presence of the feature clearly but does not allow a detailed analysis of its geometry.

BALLIHISAR – PESSINUS Promontory (P13, F132) The site was identified during a walkover as a collapsed wall that formed the northern and eastern enclosure of a promontory of ca. 0.5 ha on the plateau to the east of Ballıhisar. The western and southern aspects of this promontory are formed by the very steep slopes of the plateau. Considerable numbers of tile fragments were found outside (i.e. east) of the collapsed structure but hardly any remains were visible inside. A magnetometer survey showed the line of the northern wall-remains but otherwise no specific archaeological interpretation could be derived and therefore a GPR survey was undertaken. The collected 3D data were processed by bandpass filtering and Fig. 30 shows 0.1 m thick timeslices that were calculated for increasing depths. Slice 1 mainly shows the debris created by the destruction of the feature which now forms the visible heap along its outline. Slice

Watchtower (P17, F047) This partly excavated feature in Sector A is referred to as ‘Watchtower’ in reports from previous investigations and the circular shape of its main feature makes such interpretation indeed likely. It was mapped in this season with an earthwork investigation (Fig. 31) and a magnetometer survey. The latter was greatly affected by an electricity pylon that is situated directly next to it; it produced a ‘halo’ of negative data that screens a 10 m wide area. Although relatively weak, the majority of still visible positive magnetic anomalies follow the topographic changes indicated in the earthwork survey. No additional anomalies of possible archaeological origin can easily be identified.

Table 2: Parameters of geophysical survey Geoph. Site Code

Descr.

Date [July 2010]

Technique

Grid Size [m x m]

Line Spacing [m]

Sample Resolution [m]

Line Sequence

Number of Grids

P01

Ploughed field

11

GPR

10 x 10

0.25

0.05

Parallel

3

P10

Sector R excavation

14

GPR

15 x 10

0.25

0.05

Parallel

2

P13

Promontory

09

Mag

20 x 5

0.50

0.25

Parallel

28

P13

Promontory

13

GPR

15 x 10

0.50

0.05

Parallel

5

P13

Promontory

16 & 17

GPR

15 x 10

0.25

0.05

Parallel

6

P14

South-west of temple

12

GPR

5 x 10

0.25

0.05

Parallel

3

P15

South-east of temple

15

GPR

15 x 3.5

0.50

0.05

Parallel

2

P16

Field C

18 & 19

Mag

20 x 5

0.50

0.25

Parallel (1-12) and zigzag (13-54)

54

P17

Watchtower

20

Mag

15 x 5

0.50

0.25

Parallel

6

P18

Field B

15 & 16

Mag

20 x 5

0.50

0.25

Parallel

32

314

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

Fig. 29: Surveyed sites in Ballıhisar 315

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 30: Promontory (P13, F132), 0.1 m thick GPR time slices at approximate depths of 0.3 m (Slice 1), 0.6 m (Slice 2), 1.1 m (Slice 3) and 1.3 m (Slice 4)

316

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

Fig. 31: Watchtower, earthwork survey

There are only few bipolar anomalies that are probably caused by modern ferrous debris ([21]: 7 nT, [22]: 48 nT) indicating that the survey mainly represent soil variations. To the west of [22] a string of small bipolar anomalies ([30]) has the appearance of a pipe made from short sections of ferrous metal or fired clay (section length approximately 1.5 m), and the anomalies to the east of [22] could possibly be an extension of this.

TEKÖREN Two fields near the village of Tekören were investigated with magnetometer surveys. Field B and Field C lie in close vicinity to Field A, which had been covered in 200919 (Fig. 28). Field B (P18)

There are three relatively large unipolar positive anomalies ([23]-[25]), with [24] having a diameter of 3.6 m. Although it is possible that these anomalies were caused by recent surface fires, an interpretation as prehistoric settlement features is also feasible. Considerably weaker are some sinusoidal anomalies, especially in the eastern part of the survey area ([26], [27]: 0.5 nT). These appear similar to the soil marks visible in the satellite data just south of this survey area.

Similar to the adjacent Field A the magnetic contrast between detected anomalies and natural soil variations was very low, with typical gradiometer amplitudes between -1.4 to +1.6 nT. The instrument’s noise level and minor operator errors are visible in the data plots. Nevertheless, several anomalies can be identified (Fig. 32). 19

Tsetskhladze et al. 2011, 348-50, 354.

317

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Fig. 32: Tekören, Field B (P18), magnetic anomalies

that it forms part of a modern drainage network, albeit made from different materials ([29] is a single long unipolar anomaly, [30] is a string of short bipolar anomalies). Overall, despite the very weak anomalies, there is indication of human activity in this field.

It is conceivable that they are caused by superficial drainage channels that may form after heavy rain. A linear band of negative values ([28]) runs diagonally through the survey area starting in the north-east corner, but no particular interpretation can be associated with it. To the south-west of the survey area lies a positive linear anomaly ([29]: 2 nT, 28 m long). It could represent a narrow ditch or gully, possibly associated with prehistoric settlements. It appears to lead into the string of bipolar anomalies ([30]), which might instead indicate

Field C (P16) Several very strong magnetic anomalies are found in Field C, necessitating an overall display range of 3.4 nT 318

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

Fig. 33: Tekören, Field C (P16), magnetic anomalies

(Fig. 33). Anomaly [41] saturated the magnetometer when walking over it leading to ‘drawn out’ anomalies that manifest themselves as striped data over the anomaly that could not be eliminated. Compared with Field B some of the archaeologically relevant anomalies were slightly stronger, allowing us to display the data with a suppressed background noise level.

Anomaly [41] is most likely caused by a substantial ferrous pipeline running diagonally through the southeastern part of the survey area. The pipe segments have a length of ca. 7 m. Anomaly [42] is also a ferrous pipe, although it appears to be made of one single section of at least 22 m. It was reported that a concrete trough in the field to the north of Field C appeared to have an iron 319

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

supply pipe and anomaly [42] is hence interpreted as a relatively modern water pipe supplying a now defunct water trough. The magnetic orientation of these anomalies is aligned with the axis of the features confirming their ferrous nature.

CONCLUSION The sites related to this project continue to be challenging for the use of geophysical techniques. They main obstacle appears to be the very low contrast between the physical properties of archaeological features and their surrounding soil and sediment matrix, both in terms of their magnetic susceptibility that affects the magnetometer readings and also in terms of dielectric permittivity that affects GPR readings.

Anomaly [46] is instead fairly accurately aligned north-south (i.e. the main positive anomaly lies to the south with a negative ‘halo’ to the north). This is typical for magnetic anomalies created by features with relatively weak induced magnetisation or with thermoremanent magnetisation. It is hence likely that it is caused by the remains of a kiln (ca. 2.3 m x 2.8 m).

Nevertheless, this season provided some useful insights that would not have been possible without geophysical means. The clear imaging of the structural remains forming the land-side enclosure of a promontory on the eastern plateau (P13) added a so-far unknown feature to the range of structures that are now believed to form a chain of instalments around the perimeter of the city. The imaging is so clear that excavations may not be necessary, or may be restricted to a very small sondage trench. In Field C in Tekören the magnetic signature of a likely kiln lent further weight to the interpretation of a habitation area on the high grounds with a production area on the lower slopes. Such spatial division would be indicative of a specialised and highly developed settlement. A second anomaly ([44]) might turn out to also be of archaeological origin despite some geophysical concerns (see above) and should be targeted with a trial trench excavation.

Anomaly [43] is also spatially confined (estimated feature length along the east-west axis is 4 m), but is much stronger (-50 to +200 nT), similar to the pipeline [41]. In addition, the negative halo surrounds the positive centre on all sides and the underlying feature is therefore probably an elongated ferrous object, positioned vertically in the ground; possibly a vertical section of an iron pipe. The anomaly is surrounded by a pile of large rocks in a field that has otherwise no rocks at all and it is possible that these rocks were deposited around this large buried ferrous feature. Anomaly [44] lies in its characteristics between these previous two anomalies. It is not strong (only ca. 8 nT) but has the negative part of the bipolar anomaly to the south, not the north. Despite the weak anomaly strength an in situ thermoremanent or induced magnetic origin is therefore very unlikely. Although an interpretation as another kiln is tempting, it is more likely that it is caused by a thin sheet of ferrous metal (ca. 3 m x 4 m), or by a large piece of strongly fired ceramics.

THE COIN FINDS Robert WEILAND (revised by Edward Dandrow in 2011) 1. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description:

Justin or Justinian AE 12.5 mm/1.9 g DNIVS[ ] Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right Reverse Inscription: none Reverse Description: Chi-Rho Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/3 Date of Find: 11 July 2010 Bag Number: 11 Reference: Uncertain Notes: Exergue [ ]T[ ]

To the north of this feature, [45] is an assemblage of relatively strong anomalies (16 nT). They may be caused by a scatter of fired ceramic pieces. Anomaly [47] is located in a similar assembly of magnetic anomalies but forms a distinct linear feature of approximately 5 m length. To the south of it further linear sections of magnetic anomalies are found ([48]), which could be caused by buried structural remains. It was observed during the magnetometer survey that this area was characterised by a large concentration of ceramic fragments. These pieces formed a useful indicator for targeting this area with a geophysical survey. A band of weakly positive magnetic readings crosses the survey area north-south ([49]) and might also be caused by a settlement feature, possibly a shallow ditch. Some other areas show a spread of magnetic anomalies ([50]-[52]) that are probably caused by spreads of ceramic fragments.

2. Identification:

Uncertain (likely Justin I, AD 518-527) Metal: AE Size/Weight: 12.9 mm/1.7 g. Obverse Inscription: Inscription illegible Obverse Description: Uncertain Reverse Inscription: – Reverse Description: Monogram Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/3 Date of Find: 11 July 2010 Bag Number: 11

It therefore appears that the western part of this field (on the higher slopes) is dominated by settlement related structures, while the eastern part may be linked to one or more kilns, forming a production area with spreads of ceramic pieces around it.

320

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

Reference: Uncertain Notes: Monogram on reverse looks like the N portion of Justin’s monogram

Reference: SB 231; MIB I 155 Notes: Exergue: uncertain; issued in 561/62; most likely Antioch mint

3. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description: Reverse Inscription: Reverse Description:

7. Identification:

Uncertain (Constantinian Dynasty to Theodosius I) Metal: AE Size/Weight: 16.1 mm/2.6 g Obverse Inscription: [ ]AVG Obverse Description: Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right Reverse Inscription: Inscription illegible Reverse Description: Uncertain Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/7 Date of Find: 15 July 2010 Bag Number: 24 Reference: Uncertain Notes: –

Philip I (AD 244-249) AE 27.1 mm/8.5 g IMPMIVLPHILIPVSA Draped and cuirassed bust right ANTIO[ ] Vexillum with eagle on top between two signa Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/3 Date of Find: 11 July 2010 Bag Number: 12 Reference: Krzyzanowska IX/24; SNG France 1259 Notes: SR in exergue. Provincial issue from Antioch in Pisidia

8. Identification: Uncertain Metal: AE pentanummium Size/Weight: 14 mm/1.4 g Obverse Inscription: Inscription illegible Obverse Description: Uncertain Reverse Inscription: -Reverse Description: E (epsilon) Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/8 Date of Find: 15 July 2010 Bag Number: 25 Reference: Uncertain Notes: Unadorned reverse possibly indicates an issue during the reigns of Anastasius or Justin I

4. Identification: Uncertain Metal: AE Size/Weight: 8.75 mm/0.7 g Obverse Inscription: Inscription illegible Obverse Description: Uncertain Reverse Inscription: Inscription illegible Reverse Description: Uncertain Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/5 Date of Find: 13 July 2010 Bag Number: 16 Reference: Uncertain Notes: Coin is broken in two pieces. Likely to have been minted in 5th century AD

9. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description: Reverse Inscription: Reverse Description:

Arcadius AE 14 mm/less than 1 g [DNARC]ADIVSPFAVG Diademed bust right. SECVRITASREIPUBLICAE Victory advancing left, head right, carrying trophy on shoulder, dragging captive Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/12 Date of Find: 15 July 2010 Bag Number: 26 Reference: RIC IX 26(c) Notes: Coin taken to the Eskişehir Archaeological Museum; information taken from R. Weiland’s description (E.D.)20

5. Identification:

Tiberius Constantine (AD 57882) Metal: AE pentanummium Size/Weight: 12.25 mm/2.4 g Obverse Inscription: [DNCON[ ] Obverse Description: Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right Reverse Inscription: Ε (epsilon) illegible letter in field Reverse Description: -Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/7 Date of Find: 15 July 2010 Bag Number: 24 Reference: – Notes: Image unavailable

10. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description:

6. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description:

Justinian I (AD 527-565) AE Half Follis 24.25 mm/7.7 g DNIVSTINIANSPP Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust facing Reverse Inscription: – Reverse Description: K (20 nummi) ANNO-XXXV in field Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/7 Date of Find: 15 July 2010 Bag Number: 24

Reverse Inscription: Reverse Description:

20

Justin I (AD 518-527) AE (20 nummi) Half Follis 26.8 mm/9.3 g DNIVSTINVSPPAVG Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right – K with cross in field to left, A in field to right; star above and below

Deposited in Eskişehir Archaeological Museum, 27 July 2010, inventory no. PESS 10-02.

321

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

Notes: Exergue: CON

Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/14 Date of Find: 16 July 2010 Bag Number: 30 Reference: SB 126A; MIB I 5 Notes: Issued during the joint reign of Justin I and Justinian I in AD 527

15. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description:

Constantius II (AD 337-361) AE 21.5 mm/4.9 g DNCONSTANTIVSPFAVG Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right Reverse Inscription: Emperor standing facing, holding standard between two captives Reverse Description: FELTEMPREPARATIO Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/25 Date of Find: 19 July 2010 Bag Number: 49 Reference: RIC VIII 125ff. Notes: Exergue illegible; issued between AD 348 and 354

11. Identification:

Constantine I (AD 307-337) Posthumous Commemorative Issue Metal: AE Size/Weight: 14 mm/2.0 g Obverse Inscription: [ ]SPFAVG Obverse Description: Veiled bust right Reverse Inscription: Inscription illegible Reverse Description: Veiled Pietas standing right Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/15 Date of Find: 16 July 2010 Bag Number: 31 Reference: RIC VII 32 Notes: –

16. Identification: Uncertain Metal: AE Size/Weight: 10 mm/0.8 g Obverse Inscription: Bust right Obverse Description: [ ]TI[ ] Reverse Inscription: Cross in wreath Reverse Description: – Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/26 Date of Find: 19 July 2010 Bag Number: 50 Reference: Uncertain Notes: Exergue: CON. Possibly Valentinian III

12. Identification:

Uncertain (Roman – late 4th or 5th century AD) Metal: AE Size/Weight: 10 mm/0.3 g Obverse Inscription: Inscription illegible Obverse Description: Uncertain Reverse Inscription: Inscription illegible Reverse Description: Uncertain Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/21 Date of Find: 18 July 2010 Bag Number: 42 Reference: Uncertain Notes: –

17. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description: Reverse Inscription: Reverse Description:

Constans (AD 337-350) AE 15.2 mm/less than 3 g [DNCONS]TANSFAVG Diademed bust right [GLORIAEXERC]ITVS Two soldiers standing with standard between them Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/27 Date of Find: 20 July 2010 Bag Number: 58 Reference: RIC VIII 29 Notes: Coin taken to the Eskişehir Archaeological Museum; information taken from R. Weiland’s description (E.D.)21

13. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description:

Constans or Constantius AE 14 mm/1.4 g DNCONS[ ] Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right Reverse Inscription: Inscription illegible Reverse Description: Emperor or soldier standing facing holding standard Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/21 Date of Find: 18 July 2010 Bag Number: 46 Reference: Uncertain Notes: Exergue: CON 14. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description: Reverse Inscription: Reverse Description: Field Number/Context: Date of Find: Bag Number: Reference:

18. Identification: Uncertain Metal: AE Size/Weight: 11.5 mm/1.2 g Obverse Inscription: Inscription illegible Obverse Description: Diademed bust right Reverse Inscription: – Reverse Description: Monogram (likely with E) Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/34 Date of Find: 20 July 2010 Bag Number: 61 Reference: Uncertain Notes: Emperor uncertain (possibly Zeno)

Leo I (AD 474-491) AE 10 mm/1.3 g [LEO AVG] Diademed bust right Inscription illegible Lion facing left. Pess10/R/1/25 18 July 2010 48 RIC X 668; LRBC 2258

21

Deposited in Eskişehir Archaeological Museum, 27 July 2010, inventory no. PESS 10-01.

322

G.R. TSETSKHLADZE ET AL.: PESSINUS IN PHRYGIA: BRIEF PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2010 FIELD SEASON

Bag Number: 82 Reference: Uncertain Notes: Possibly Zeno (AD 457-474)

19. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description: Reverse Inscription: Reverse Description:

Greek Imperial Civic Issue AE 17 mm/2.9 g Inscription illegible Helmeted bust right Inscription illegible Uncertain (Vase, Amphora or Telesphoros) Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/25 and 34 Date of Find: 22 July 2010 Bag Number: 63 Reference: Uncertain Notes: Possibly bust of Athena on obverse. 20. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description: Reverse Inscription: Reverse Description: Field Number/Context: Date of Find: Bag Number: Reference: Notes:

Uncertain AE 21.25 mm/4.4 g Inscription illegible Uncertain Inscription illegible Uncertain Pess10/R/1/35 22 July 2010 76 Uncertain –

21. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description: Reverse Inscription: Reverse Description: Field Number/Context: Date of Find: Bag Number: Reference: Notes:

Uncertain AE 9.5 mm/0.8 g Inscription illegible Uncertain Inscription illegible Uncertain Pess10/R/1/38 22 July 2010 77 Uncertain –

24. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description:

Uncertain AE 12 mm/1.8 g Inscription illegible Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right Reverse Inscription: Inscription illegible Reverse Description: Emperor or soldier walking left, looking right with arm reaching backwards Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/43 Date of Find: 24 July 2010 Bag Number: 83 Reference: Uncertain Notes: Likely Constantinian Dynasty. 25. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description: Reverse Inscription: Reverse Description: Field Number/Context: Date of Find: Bag Number: Reference: Notes: 26. Identification:

Tiberius Constantine (AD 578582) Metal: AE pentanummium Size/Weight: 15.8mm/2.0g. Obverse Inscription: [D]MCONSTANSPP Obverse Description: Diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right Reverse Inscription: V Reverse Description: – Field Number/Context: Tekö10/28/E – surface survey Date of Find: – Bag Number: – Reference: DOC 22; BMC 55-58; Hahn 332A; BNP 29 Notes: Stylised V on reverse

22. Identification: Uncertain Metal: AE Size/Weight: 25 mm/4.2 g Obverse Inscription: Inscription illegible Obverse Description: Uncertain Reverse Inscription: Inscription illegible Reverse Description: Uncertain Field Number/Context: Pess10/R/1/41 Date of Find: 23 July 2010 Bag Number: 74 Reference: Uncertain Notes: Very worn AE2 of Constantinian dynasty. 23. Identification: Metal: Size/Weight: Obverse Inscription: Obverse Description: Reverse Inscription: Reverse Description: Field Number/Context: Date of Find:

Unknown AE 11 mm/1.2 g Inscription illegible Uncertain Inscription illegible Uncertain Pess10/R/1/43 24 July 2010 83 Uncertain –

27. Identification: Septimius Severus (AD 193-211) Metal: AE Size/Weight: 17.25 mm/4.3 g Obverse Inscription: [ ]CE[ ] Obverse Description: Bust right Reverse Inscription: [ ]EΩ[ ] Reverse Description: uncertain Field Number/Context: From S. of Sector B, on surface Date of Find: 9 July 2010 Bag Number: – Reference: Uncertain Notes: Provincial issue from uncertain city in Asia Minor

Uncertain AE 10 mm/1.2 g Inscription illegible Uncertain – Monogram Pess10/R/1/43 24 July 2010 323

THE BLACK SEA, PAPHLAGONIA, PONTUS AND PHRYGIA IN ANTIQUITY: ASPECTS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY

2. Pess10.6 (Figs. 36-37) Stele with fronton and acroteria of yellowish marble; initially standing in the garden of a military base in the village of Günyüzü and brought in 2010 by the police to the Pessinus dig-house.26 Two pilasters with capitals support the fronton. Below the fronton, whose central acroterion is completely preserved while the lateral acroteria are damaged, there is a frieze with astragals. The relief between the pilasters represents the bust of the deceased dressed in a himation. The head is damaged; only its outline is preserved.

NEW INSCRIPTIONS Alexandru AVRAM Four new inscriptions were studied in 2010, all funerary.22 1. Pess10.3 (Figs. 34-35) Stele with fronton and acroteria of yellowish marble; discovered by chance in the village of Memik and brought in 2010 by the police to the Pessinus dig-house. The stele is almost completely preserved. Only the upper part of the central acroterion is missing, while the left acroterion is damaged above. The under part finishes with a raised moulding and a tenon (h. 0.090 m; w. 0.260 m; th. 0.080 m) for fixing the stele to a base.

H. 1.550 m; w. 0.485 m; th. 0.200 m (fronton) to 0.210 m (on the base). The inscription has been incised under the relief. Deeply incised lettering with thick characters, partially apices and réglages: h. 0.023-0.026 m.

H. 1.050 m; w. 0.350 m (above); 0.395 m (fronton); 0.420 m (below); th. 0.090 m (stele) to 0.105 m (fronton).

Date: 2nd century AD.

Above the inscription incised on the under part of the stele there are traces of red painting. Profoundly and carefully incised letters but with variable dimensions. h. 0.023-0.028 m (except for the bar of phi, 0.040 m).

4

Mevmnwn Zwvh/ ajdel< fh'/ gluku< tavth/ mnhv< mh" c n. av< nv. rin hedera

Translation: Memnon (raised this tombstone) to Zoe, (his) very sweet sister, in memory.

Date: 2nd/1st century BC. vac. Maifavth" A j nopteivou" cai're

Both names are unattested in Pessinus but very common everywhere.

Translation: Maiphates, son of Anoptes, greetings.

3. Pess10.4 (Figs. 38-39) Stele with relief of yellowish marble; initially standing in the garden of a military base in the village of Günyüzü and brought in 2010 by the police to the Pessinus dighouse. The upper and under parts are missing. The preserved pilasters show that the stele originally had a fronton with acroteria. Between the pilasters, the relief represents a large funerary wreath with a basket in the middle, a comb to left, a mirror to right, and below two spindles of different shapes.

This is one of the few Hellenistic funerary inscriptions ever found in the area of Pessinus. It is interesting to note that Maifavth" is the name of a Galatian in a manumissio Delphica:23 Maifavta" to; gevno" Galavta".24 Therefore, our inscription reveals the second occurrence of this name in Galatia.25 22 All inscriptions except no. 2 are kept in the garden of the Pessinus dig-house. 23 SGDI II 1854, ca. 170-157/6 BC. 24 Cf. Masson 1972, 19 = Masson 1990, 157. 25 The name is obviously Iranian, Māhpāta (Justi 1895, 188; Marquart 1907, 122; Zgusta 1964, 280, § 846, who also comments the ‘Sippe’ of the root Māh, ‘moon’, Gr. Mai