STUDIES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF HELLENISTIC PONTUS: THE

SETTLEMENTS, MONUMENTS, AND COINAGE OF MITHRADATES VI AND

HIS
PREDECESSORS

A dissertation submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D.)

In the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences

2001

by

D. Burcu Arkan Erciyas

B.A. Bilkent University, 1994

M.A. University of Cincinnati, 1997

Committee Chair: Prof. Brian Rose

 ABSTRACT

This dissertation is the first comprehensive study of the central Black Sea region in

Turkey (ancient Pontus) during the Hellenistic period. It examines the environmental,

archaeological, literary, and numismatic data in individual chapters. The focus of this

examination is the central area of Pontus, with the goal of clarifying the Hellenistic kingdom's

relationship to other parts of Asia Minor and to the east. I have concentrated on the reign of

Mithradates VI (120-63 B.C.), but the archaeological and literary evidence for his royal

predecessors, beginning in the third century B.C., has also been included. Pontic settlement

patterns from the Chalcolithic through the Roman period have also been investigated in order to

place Hellenistic occupation here in the broadest possible diachronic perspective. The

examination of the coinage, in particular, has revealed a significant amount about royal

propaganda during the reign of Mithradates, especially his claims to both eastern and western

ancestry. One chapter deals with a newly discovered tomb at Amisos that was indicative of the

aristocratic attitudes toward death. The tomb finds indicate a high level of commercial activity in

the region as early as the late fourth/early third century B.C., as well as the significant role of

Amisos in connecting the interior with the coast.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The preparation of this dissertation has been possible with the help of numerous
wonderful people both in Cincinnati, USA and Ankara, Turkey. I would like to extend my
gratitude to my advisor Prof. C. Brian Rose at the University of Cincinnati. He has been
incredibly patient with all my inexperience, mistakes, and my impatience towards the end of this
study. He has always been very kind, attentive, encouraging, supportive, and most of all
knowledgeable in an area not necessarily within his own research interests. I believe that he
deserves every prize for advisorship, and he will always be an inspiration to me in the future. My
thanks also go to Dr. Barbara Burrell, who shared the difficult task of organizing the dissertation
and reading through numerous copies with great devotion. She has always been present at our
weekly meetings and has been inspirational. I would also like to thank Prof. Jack L. Davis and
Prof. Getzel M. Cohen for reading and commenting on the manuscript; without their help this
study could not have been completed. The staff of the Classics library and the head librarian
Jean Wellington at Cincinnati, and especially Yiit Erbil at the library of the British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara helped me find obscure sources and allowed me to use the library to its
full extent. I would like to acknowledge the helps of the museum staff at the Samsun, orum
and Tokat Museums, and especially Mr. Mustafa Akkaya, the director of the Samsun Museum,
for providing not only assistance but also slides and illustrations. His generosity will always be
remembered. I would like to thank Aaron Wolpert, Kathleen Quinn and Tara for proof-
reading the manuscript. Gayle McGarrahan deserves special thanks for taking care of all my
business while I was away and answering my endless questions. The support of other friends at
Cincinnati and Ankara will always be remembered. But most of all I would like to thank my
family, who strongly believed that I was capable of successfully completing yet another part of
my academic career and proceed to the next step. Among them, my husband Murat Erciyas
deserves a special acknowledgement, because he provided endless support while also helping me
to create the figures of the dissertation and to computerize the drawings; he has worked with me
in every respect regarding the format of the thesis. I would like to thank him and everyone else
whom I may have forgotten to acknowledge. Writing a dissertation is a difficult task but not as
difficult as it may seem when surrounded by so many wonderful people.
 Copyright 2001, by
Deniz Burcu Arkan Erciyas
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction and Methods of Analysis 10

II. Environmental Setting and Settlement Patterns in the Black Sea Region through
the Centuries 21
a. Environmental History of the Black Sea Region 23
b. Landscape in the Black Sea Region 32
c. Climate and Vegetation 37
d. Settlement Patterns in the Central Black Sea Region from the Chalcolithic
through the Roman Period 43
e. Conclusion 70
III. The Late Hellenistic Period in the Central Black Sea Region 73
a. The Origins of Mithradates VI 73
b. The Life and Policy of Mithradates VI 83
IV. Mithradates VI, the Hellenistic King 97
a. Dedicatory Inscriptions 98
b. The Monument for Mithradates VI on Delos 104
c. Portraits of Mithradates VI 115
V. Settlement Patterns in the Hellenistic Period: A Closer Look at Hellenistic
Towns and Their Hinterlands 128
a. Hellenistic Cities 129
i. Amaseia 129
ii. Cabeira/Diospolis/Sebaste/Neocaesareia 133
iii. Eupatoria/Magnopolis 137
iv. Phazemon/Neapolis/Neoclaudiopolis 138
v. Comana and Zela 140
vi. Amisos 145
vii. Other Settlements of Inland Pontus 151
b. Site Distribution in the Hellenistic Period 152
VI. Coinage in Pontus from the Fifth through the First Centuries B.C. 157
a. The Emergence of Cities on the Southern Coast of the Black Sea,
and the City Mints from the Fifth century B.C. until the Reign of
Mithradates VI 157
b. The Royal Coins of the Pontic Kings 165
c. City Mints in Pontus under Mithradates VI 177
d. The Monetary Policy of Mithradates VI around the Black Sea: Coins of the
Bosporan Kingdom during the Reign of Mithradates VI 182
e. Coin Hoards of Pontus 187
VII. Wealthy Aristocracy? A Tomb from Amisos 195
VIII. Conclusion 220
IX. Bibliography 231
X. Appendix 257
XI. Figures and Charts 262

1
LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1 Vegetation cover of Turkey.

Fig. 2 The sea level of the Black Sea in 7,500 B.C.
Fig. 3 The sea level curve based on radiocarbon-dated acropora palmata (after van Andel
1990, fig. 1).
Fig. 4 Changes in the level of the Black Sea over the past 6,000 years (after Shilik 1997,
127).
Fig. 5 Topographical map of northern Turkey.
Fig. 6 Distribution of vegetation in Turkey (after Atalay 1983, 80).
Fig. 7 Number of settlements in the central Black Sea region from the Chalcolithic through
the Byzantine period (after survey projects in the region).
Fig. 8 Number of settlements in Amasya province through the ages (after survey projects in
the region).
Fig. 9 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in the Chalcolithic period (after
survey projects in the region).
Fig. 10 Number of settlements in Tokat province through the ages (after survey projects in
the region).
Fig. 11 Number of settlements in Samsun province through the ages (after survey projects in
the region).
Fig. 12 Number of settlements in Sivas province through the ages (after survey projects in
the region).
Fig. 13 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in the Early Bronze Age (after
survey projects in the region).
Fig. 14 Number of settlements in orum province through the ages (after survey projects in
the region).
Fig. 15 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in the second millennium B.C
(after survey projects in the region).
Fig. 16 Greek colonization in the Black Sea (after Tsetskhladze 1998, 23).
Fig. 17 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in the Iron Age (after survey
projects in the region).
Fig. 18 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in the Classical and Hellenistic
periods (after survey projects in the region).
Fig. 19 Site continuity in the central Black Sea region from the Iron Age through the
Byzantine period (after survey projects in the region).
Fig. 20 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in the Roman period (after
survey projects in the region).
Fig. 21 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in Late Antiquity.
Fig. 22 Genealogical chart of the Pontic royal house (after Bosworth and Wheatley 1998,
160).
Fig. 23 Situation plan of the Sanctuary of the Great Gods of Samothrace (after Chapouthier
1935, fig. 1).
Fig. 24 Plan of the Sanctuary of the Great Gods of Samothrace (after Chapouthier 1935, fig.
11).
Fig. 25 Ground plan of the monument for Mithradates VI on Delos (after Chapouthier
1935, fig. 55).

2
Fig. 26 A reconstruction drawing of the monument for Mithradates VI on Delos (after
Chapouthier 1935, fig. 56).
Fig. 27 A drawing of the portrait of Diophantus (after Chapouthier 1935, 30 fig. 38).
Fig. 28 Ground plan of the Heroon at Kalydon (after Dyggve et al. 1934, taf. I,II ).
Fig. 29 A reconstruction drawing of the Heroon at Kalydon (after Dyggve 1934, fig.100).
Fig. 30 Coin portraits of Mithradates VI (after SNG-BM 1034, 1040).
Fig. 31 Portrait of Mithradates VI in the Louvre (after Smith 1988, pl. 51 and 52, 1-2).
Fig. 32 A gem portrait (after Richter 1968, cat.no. 650).
Fig. 33 A gem portrait (after Richter 1968, cat.no. 652).
Fig. 34 The Ostia Mithradates (after Smith 1988, Pl. 52, 3-4).
Fig. 35 The Athens Mithradates (after Smith 1988, Pl. 53, 1-2).
Fig. 36 Pergamon monument, Herakles (after Pollitt 1986, fig.30).
Fig. 37 Pergamon monument, detail of the head of Herakles (after Pollitt 1986, fig.30).
Fig. 38 The horned king from Delos A4184 (after Smith 1988, Pl. 55, 5-7).
Fig. 39 The king from Delos (after Smith 1988, Pl. 55, 1-3).
Fig. 40 The Inopus king from Delos (after Smith 1988, Pl. 54, 6-7).
Fig. 41 The Venice Helios (after Smith 1988, Pl. 53, 3-4).
Fig. 42 The Odessa Mithradates (after Smith 1988, Pl. 54, 4-5).
Fig. 43 The Pantikapaion Mithradates (after Smith 1988, Pl. 54, 1-3).
Fig. 44 A statue of Mithradates VI from Delos in military costume (after Chapouthier 1935,
fig. 50).
Fig. 45 A portrait of Mithradates VI on a gem (after Richter 1968, cat.no. 652).
Fig. 46 Rice fields around Kzlrmak river (Halys).
Fig. 47 Yeilrmak river (Iris).
Fig. 48 Modern Amasya.
Fig. 49 Rock-cut tombs in Amasya.
Fig. 50 Plan of the temenos of the Sanctuary of Zeus Stratios (after French 1995, 92).
Fig. 51 Fields around Comana.
Fig. 52 Hill on which the site of Comana once stood.
Fig. 53 Coin of Comana under Caligula with a representation of Ma (SNGvA 125).
Fig. 54 Coin of Comana under Septimius Severus with a representation of the temple to Ma
at Comana (SNGvA 126).
Fig. 55 Coin of Zela under Caracalla with a representation of the temple at Zela (SNGvA
143).
Fig. 56 Distribution map of coin hoards including Pontic coins.
Fig. 57 Amisos tomb, ground plan (after a drawing by the Samsun Museum staff).
Fig. 58 Amisos tomb, cross-section (after a drawing by the Samsun Museum staff).
Fig. 59 Alabastron from the Amisos tomb.
Fig. 60 Oil lamp from the Amisos tomb.
Fig. 61 Incense burners from the Amisos tomb.
Fig. 62 Unguentaria from the Amisos tomb.
Fig. 63 Amphoriskos from the Amisos tomb.
Fig. 64 Wreath from Grave No.2, Amisos tomb.
Fig. 65 Wreath from Kerch (fourth century B.C.) (after The State Hermitage. Masterpieces from
the Museums Collections 1994, 321, no.305).
Fig. 66 Wreath from Mogilanska Mogila, Vratsa Bulgaria (mid-fourth century B.C.) (after
Marazov 1998, 200, no.141).

3
Fig. 67 Wreath from Great Bliznitza, Taman Peninsula (330-300 B.C.) (after Williams and
Ogden 1994, 180-1).
Fig. 68 Tie-necklace from Grave No. 3, Amisos tomb.
Fig. 69 Tie-necklace from Kyme (late-fourth century B.C.) (after Williams 1996, 120-2).
Fig. 70 Tie-necklace from Mytilene (330-300 B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden 1994, 118).
Fig. 71 Tie-pendants from Kyme (first quarter of the third century B.C.) (after Williams
1996, 124-5).
Fig. 72 Bastis Herakles-knot necklace (late fourth-early third century B.C.) (after Bothmer
1987, no.180).
Fig. 73 Eros earring from Grave No.3, Amisos tomb.
Fig. 74 Earrings from Kyme (third century B.C.) (after Williams 1996, 119).
Fig. 75 Earrings from Madytos (after Rudolph 1995, cat.no. 30B).
Fig. 76 Necklace from Grave No.3, Amisos tomb.
Fig. 77 Gold discs from Grave No.3, Amisos tomb.
Fig. 78 Gold plaques from Scythian kurgan (ca. 350 B.C.) (after Reeder 1999, 119-20 cat.no.
16).
Fig. 79 Gold disc from Theodosia, Crimea (fourth-third century B.C.) (after Reeder 1999,
186 cat.no. 73).
Fig. 80 Gold strip from Kyme (330-300 B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden 1994, 93).
Fig. 81 Gold ear reels from Rhodes (400-350 B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden 1994, 89).
Fig. 82 Bracelets from Grave No.3, Amisos tomb.
Fig. 83 Earrings from the eastern Mediterranean (300-250 B.C.) (after Rudolph 1995, 119,
cat.no.24A).
Fig. 84 Necklace finial from Anatolia (325-250 B.C.) (after Rudolph 1995, 123-4).
Fig. 85 Earrings from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.
Fig. 86 Detail of an earring from Kul Oba (ca.350 B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden 1994,
149-50).
Fig. 87 Necklace from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.
Fig. 88 Necklace from Kyme (second half of third century B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden
1994, 149-50).
Fig. 89 Appliqus from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.
Fig. 90 Gold pendant from Great Bliznitza (330-300 B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden 1994,
186).
Fig. 91 Earring from Kul Oba (after 350 B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden 1994, 146).
Fig. 92 Ear reel from the eastern Mediterranean (early fourth century B.C.) (after Williams
and Ogden 1994, 89).
Fig. 93 Apulian red figure pelike (fourth century B.C.) (after Barringer 1998, Pl.51-2).
Fig. 94 Melian relief (470-450 B.C.) (after Barringer 1998, Pl.37).
Fig. 95 Terracotta gilt appliqu from Taranto (350-320 B.C.) (after Barringer 1998, Pl.58).
Fig. 96 Nereid from Formia (fourth or first century B.C.) (after Barringer 1998, Pl.47).
Fig. 97 Apulian red figure pelike with nereids (fifth century B.C.) (after Barringer 1998,
Pl.31-2).
Fig. 98 Bracelets from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.
Fig. 99 Bracelet from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.
Fig. 100 Detail of a bracelet from the eastern Mediterranean (325-250 B.C.) (after Rudolph
1995, 124-5 cat.no. 25B).
Fig. 101 Wristlet from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.
Fig. 102 Modern decorative plaque.

4
Fig. 103 Ring from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.

5
LIST OF PLATES

Pl. I. 1. Silver drachm (Sinope, sixth/fifth centuries B.C., eagle head/quadratum incusum)
(SNG-BM 1366).
2. Silver drachm (Gaziura, Baal of Gaziura/griffin, Waddington et al. 1904, 112 no.
1-4).
3. Silver sigloi (Amisos, fifth/fourth century B.C., Hera/owl standing on a shield
with a sword in a sheath) (SNG-BM 1055).
4. Silver drachm(Heraclea Pontica, late fifth-early fourth century, Herakles/quadratum
incusum) (SNG-BM 1569).
5. Silver drachm (Trapezus, fourth century B.C., young male head/coins piled on a
table) (Waddington et al. 1904, 148).
6. Bronze coin (Pharnaceia, mid-fourth century B.C., head of Zeus/Zebu) (SNG-BM
1274).
7. Silver didrachm of Amastris (third century B.C., Amastris portrait/Aphrodite)
(SNGvA 152).
8. Silver drachm (Sinope, end of fifth/early fourth century B.C., nymph Sinope/eagle
over a dolphin) (SNG-BM 1375).
9. Silver hemidrachm (Sinope, end of fifth/early fourth century B.C., nymph
Sinope/dolphin or a heraldic eagle) (SNG-BM 1495).
10. Silver drachm (Sinope, end of fifth/early fourth century B.C., nymph
Sinope/eagle over a dolphin and DATAMES inscribed) (SNG-BM 1447).
11. Silver drachm (Amisos, third century B.C., Hera/owl) (SNGvA 50).
12. Bronze coin (Amastris, third century B.C., Athena/thunderbolt) (SNG-BM 1306).
13. Silver didrachm (Amastris, third century B.C., young male portrait/Aphrodite)
(SNG-BM 1303).
14. Silver tetradrachm (Sinope, third century B.C., female head with a turreted
crown/Apollo and tripod) (SNGvA 220).
15. Silver tetradrachm (Sinope, third century B.C., female head with a turreted
crown/Apollo) (SNG-BM 1509).
16. Silver obol (Sinope, third century B.C., Apollo/tripod with grapes) (SNG-BM
1513).
17. Silver didrachm (Sinope, third century B.C., female head with a turreted
crown/Poseidon) (SNG-BM 1516).
18. Silver drachm (Sinope, third century B.C., Apollo/prow with lyre) (SNG-BM
1518).
19. Silver quarter drachm (Sinope, third century B.C., Apollo/eagle) (SNG-BM
1519).
20 Bronze coin (Sinope, 220-120 B.C., Artemis/tripod) (SNGvA 225).
21 Bronze coin (Sinope, 220-120 B.C., Apollo/tripod) (SNGvA 226).
22 Gold stater (Mithradates I Ctistes, 302-266 B.C., Athena/Nike) (SNGvA 1)
23 Silver tetradrachm (Mithradates III, 220-185 B.C., portrait of the king/Zeus)
(SNG-BM 1024).
24 An eastern king (after Simonetta 1977,12).
25 Silver tetradrachm (Pharnakes, 189/8-160 B.C., portrait of the king/young god)
(SNG-BM 1025).

6
 26 Silver tetradrachm (Pharnakes, 189/8-160 B.C., portrait of the king/young god)
(SNGvA
2).
27 Silver tetradrachm (Mithradates IV, 159-150 B.C., diademed
Mithradates/Perseus) (Waddington et al. 1904, 12 no. 6).
28 Silver tetradrachm (Mithradates IV and Laodice, 159-150 B.C., double portrait of
the king and the queen/Zeus and Hera) (Waddington et al. 1904, 13 no. 7).
29 Gold stater (Mithradates IV, 159-150 B.C., portrait of the king/Zeus and Hera)
(SNGvA 4).
30 Silver tetradrachm (Laodice, 159-150 B.C., portrait of the queen/Zeus and Hera)
(Waddington et al. 1904, 13 no. 8).
31 Silver tetradrachm (Alexander Balas, 150-145 B.C., portrait of the king and queen)
(after Pollitt 1986, 293).
32 Silver drachm (Ariarathes and Nysa, portrait of the king and queen/Athena)
(Simonetta 1977, Pl.3, 11).
33 Tetradrachm from a Seleucid hoard (Mithradates III or IV, 160-156 B.C.) (after
Mattingly 1998, Pl.56, 2).
34 Tetradrachms from an Amasya hoard (Mithradates III or IV, 185-170 B.C.) (after
Mattingly 1998, Pl. 56, 5).
35 Coin of Pharnakes (after Mattingly 1998, Pl. 56, 1,4).
36 Silver tetradrachm (Mithradates VI, 120-63 B.C., portrait of the king/Pegasus
grazing) (SNG-BM 1029).

pl II. 1 Gold stater (Mithradates VI, 120-63 B.C., portrait of the king/stag grazing) (SNG-
BM 1027).
2 Silver tetradrachm (Ariarathes IX, 101-87 B.C., portrait of the king/Pegasus
grazing) (Simonetta 1977, Pl. 4, 16).
3 Bronze coin (Amisos, 120-63 B.C., young male head/sword in sheath) (SNG-BM
1135).
4 Silver didrachm (Amastris, the third century B.C., head of Amastris/Aphrodite)
(SNGvA 152).
5 Bronze coin (Amastris, third century B.C., Athena/owl) (SNGvA 154).
6 Silver didrachm (Amastris, third century B.C., Athena/owl) (SNG-BM 1303).
7 Bronze coin (Amastris, third century B.C., Athena/owl) (SNG-BM 1310).
8 Bronze coin (Amisos, 120-63 B.C., Perseus/winged harp) (SNG-BM 1197).
9 Bronze coin (Amisos, 120-63 B.C., Artemis/tripod) (SNG-BM 1141).
10 Bronze coin (Amisos, 120-63 B.C., Zeus/eagle on thunderbolt) (SNG-Tb 2047).
11 Bronze coin (Amisos, 120-63 B.C., Perseus/Athena Parthenos holding the head
of Medusa) (SNG-BM 1261).
12 Bronze coin (Amisos, 120-63 B.C., Gorgon in aegis/Nike) (SNG-BM 1182).
13 Bronze coin (Amisos, 120-63 B.C., Perseus/Pegasus) (SNG-BM 1213).
14 Bronze coin (Amisos, 120-63 B.C., Dionysus/cista mystica) (SNG-Tb 2053).
15 Bronze coin (Amisos, 120-63 B.C., Dionysus/thyrsus) (SNG-BM 1200).
16 Bronze coin (Amisos, 120-63 B.C., Dionysus/cista mystica) (SNG-BM 1210).
17 Bronze coin (Chabakta, 120-63 B.C., panther/cista mystica) (SNG-BM 1252).
18 Bronze coin (Chabakta, 120-63 B.C., Ares/sword in sheath) (SNG-BM 1255).
19 Bronze coin (Chabakta, 120-63 B.C., Aegis/Nike) (SNG-BM 1251,2).

7
 20 Bronze coin (Amaseia, 120-63 B.C., Young male head/cornucopia) (SNG-BM
1047).
21 Gold stater (Pantikapaion, end of the second/beginning of the first century B.C.,
Pan/griffin) (SNG-BM 878).
22 Bronze coin (Pantikapaion, before end of the second and
beginning of the first
century B.C., Pan/ bow and arrow) (SNG-BM 894).
23 Bronze coin (Pantikapaion, end of the third century B.C., Apollo/dolphin) (SNG-
BM 909).
24 Bronze coin (Pantikapaion, end of the third century B.C., Poseidon/prow of a
ship) (SNG-BM 910).
25 Bronze coin (Phanagoria, end of the second/beginning of the first century B.C.,
Pan/ bow and arrow) (SNG-BM 994).
26 Bronze obol (Pantikapaion, 120-63 B.C., Poseidon/prow) (Zograph 1977,
XLIII,1).
27 Bronze coin (Amisos, 120-63 B.C., Zeus/eagle on thunderbolt) (SNG-BM 1231).
28 Bronze coin (Phanagoria, 120-63 B.C., Artemis/reclining stag) (SNG-BM 821).
29 Bronze coin (Amisos, 120-63 B.C., Artemis /standing stag) (SNG-BM 1134).
30 Bronze coin (Cabeira, 120-63 B.C., Athena/Perseus beheading the Gorgon)
(SNG-BM 1242).
31 Silver drachm (Chersonesus, 120-63 B.C., Artemis/standing stag) (SNG-BM 795).
32 Silver drachm (Chersonesus, 120-63 B.C., Artemis/standing stag) (SNG-BM 82).

Pl. III 1. Silver tetradrachm (Mithradates VI, 120-63 B.C., portrait of the king/Pegasus
grazing) (SNG-BM 1041).
2 Silver (Pantikapaion, 120-63 B.C., Dionysus/wreath) (SNG-BM 932).
3 Bronze obol (Pantikapaion, 120-63 B.C., Mn/Dionysus) (Zograph 1977, 13).
4 Bronze coin (Pantikapaion, 120-63 B.C., head of Apollo/tripod) (SNG-BM 939).
5 Bronze coin (Pantikapaion, 120-63 B.C., star/tripod) (SNG-BM 942).
6 Silver (Bosporan, 120-63 B.C., Dionysus/thyrsus) (SNG-BM 930).
7 Bronze coin (Phanagoria, 120-63 B.C., Dionysus/bowcase) (Zograph 1977, 1).
8 Bronze coin (Pantikapaion, late 70s/60s B.C., Apollo/thunderbolt) (SNG-BM
945).
9 Bronze coin (Tieum, third century B.C., female head/Eleutheria seated) (SNG-BM
1640).
10 Bronze coin (Tieum, third century B.C., Zeus/Eagle on thunderbolt) (SNG-BM
1642).
11 Silver coin (Cromna, fourth century B.C., Zeus/Hera) (SNG-BM 1328).
12 Bronze coin (Cromna, fourth/third century B.C., Hera/Amphora) (SNG-BM
1344).
13 Silver coin (Sesamus, late fourth century B.C., Zeus/Demeter) (SNG-BM 1356).

8
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

BMCJ The British Museum Collection of Jewellery

BWPr Winckelmannsprogramm der Archologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (1863- )
CRAI Comptes rendus des sances de lAcadmie des inscriptions et belles lettres (Paris)
CTH Catalogue des textes Hittites (1971)
FGrH Jacoby, F. Fragmente der griechischen historiker (1923- )
Idlos Drrbach, F. (ed.) Inscriptions de Dlos (1923-37)
IGR Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes (1906- )
IPE Inscriptiones orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini (1885)
KBO Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazki (1916- )
OGI Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae
SEG Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum (1923- )
SNG-BM Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. The British Museum. The Black Sea 1. (1993)
SNG-BMWS Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Volume XI. The William Stancomb Collection of Coins of
the Black Sea Region (2000)
SNG-Tb Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Tbingen
SNGvA Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Sammlung von Aulock, Deutschland. Pontus, Paphlagonien,
Bithynien (1957)

9
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND METHODS OF ANALYSIS

Introduction

The western and southwestern parts of Turkey have been extensively studied,

especially with regard to remains dating to the Classical and Roman periods. The Black Sea

region, on the other hand, has consistently been neglected by ancient historians and

archaeologists, and neither the prehistoric nor the historical periods have received the

attention they deserve.

The Black Sea region has been mentioned in passing in modern studies dealing with

two ancient empires: the first of these is the Hittite Empire, during which the Kaka people

of the northern mountains posed a constant threat to the empire. The second is the Roman

empire. The study of the relationship between the Black Sea region in Turkey and the

Roman empire has usually focused on Mithradates VI, specifically his expansion into Asia

beginning in the early 80s B.C., and Romes struggle to suppress and finally to control the

Pontic region. Scholars of both the Hittite and the Roman periods viewed Pontus as

background noise that caused a significant but manageable amount of distraction.

Consequently, modern scholarship regarded Pontus essentially as a peripheral region. At

times, these regions may have indeed been peripheral to the politics of the Hittite and

Roman Empires; nevertheless, they deserve to be examined as entities in their own right.

I decided to write my dissertation on Black Sea archaeology with these concerns in

mind. During my preliminary examination of the region, I discovered that one period in the

10
history of Pontus was especially rich in terms of documentary evidence -the Pontic kingdom

during the reign of Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysus, who ruled between 120-63 B.C. The

ancient literary sources and modern historical and numismatic studies of this period are

relatively abundant. Although the major aim of the dissertation was to compile all the

sources (historical, numismatic, archaeological, etc.) pertaining to the reign of Mithradates

VI, and to examine them thoroughly, I also intended to investigate the origins of the

kingdom and, to a certain extent, its aftermath. These, at least, were my initial objectives.

It is very rare that one remains faithful to a preliminary outline, especially in the long

process of writing a dissertation. I was not faithful to mine either. The Black Sea Region

is the official geographical term for one of the seven regions of Turkey, and it is subdivided

into Western, Central, and Eastern Black Sea Regions. I began with the whole Pontic

region, from Ereli to Trabzon, but soon decided to include only one coastal town

(Samsun/Amisos) as an outlet for the inland territory as well as the inland towns of the

kingdom at the very center of the region.1 I refer to this area as the central Black Sea

region.2 This choice was obviously not haphazard. The geographical boundaries created an

artificial separation of this central part from the rest of the kingdom, and it seems potentially

profitable to examine it as an area in its own right.

I then changed the focus of the chapters. In the early stages of the dissertation, I had the

usual sequence of chapters: the dissertation began with a description of the environmental

setting, followed by a definition of the kingdom of Pontus, the role of the hinterland in the

economy of Pontus, regional patterns in the socio-economic history of Pontus, etc. These

chapter titles were created assuming that I would be able to find the necessary evidence to be

1Amaseia, Cabeira/Diospolis/Sebaste/Neocaesareia, Eupatoria/Magnopolis,

Phazemon/Neapolis/Neoclaudiopolis, Comana, Zela, Amisos, Sebasteia, and Sebastapolis.
2 I find it safer to use this geographical term instead of the historical name for the region, Pontus, because this

name has been used for the full circumference of the Black Sea as well.

11
able to answer some of the questions posed. For a few of them the evidence was largely

available, but for the rest the nature of the evidence forced me either to incorporate these

topics into other chapters or to abandon them totally.

I had access to a very stimulating set of data, but not always as abundant as I expected, and I

had to reorganize my chapters. I made a list of the available evidence:

Literary sources and biographical work on Mithradates VI

Mithradatic portraits, dedications, monuments (Delos and Pergamon)

Travelers accounts

Numismatics

Gods, goddesses, and temples

Archaeological surveys

Archaeological material from museums

Other types of evidence such as milestones, inscriptions from the region, etc.

These various types of evidence forced me to reconsider my approach, and I became more

interested in the region itself than just in the historical period I had chosen at the beginning.

While trying to illuminate the Mithradatic period in the Pontic region, I decided also to use

that span of time to test some of the methods of analysis in archaeology. In doing this, I

tried to fill the gaps in the study of the Black Sea region in antiquity and to question the

viability of arriving at conclusions with such a limited amount of data. I reorganized the

evidence in order to satisfy this new strategy, and made a new concise list:

12
Historical evidence

Archaeological material

out of context (coins)

from excavation

Field work (regional surveys)

This general list was created so that these different types of evidence, which require varied

approaches and methods, could be tested individually.

The second chapter of the thesis, following the introduction and an analysis of methods, is

an introduction to the environmental setting of the central Black Sea region in Turkey as well

as an analysis of site distribution there from the Chalcolithic period through late antiquity.

This temporally broad regional study discusses the survey strategies and problems involved

in the assessment of survey material. The chapter also touches upon the importance of

environmental issues in archaeology, since the site distribution patterns are discussed in

connection with environmental factors. This chapter incorporates the types of evidence

listed in nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 in the list on page 2.

The third chapter of the dissertation incorporates nos. 1 and 2 of the same list: literary

sources and biographical work on Mithradates VI, Mithradatic portraits, dedications,

monuments (at Delos and Pergamon), and his political, social, and economic policies.

The fourth chapter consists of a description of the Hellenistic cities in the central Black Sea

region and their hinterland. A historical summary is followed by a description of visible

remains for each city, more or less following the format of earlier descriptions.3 Regional

site distribution patterns during the Hellenistic period are also discussed at the end of this

3 Wilson 1960.

13
chapter in an attempt to understand the relationship between these cities and the settlements

around them.

The fifth chapter focuses on numismatics. An investigation of the monetary policy of

Mithradates VI clarifies not only the role of the central Black Sea region within Mithradates

kingdom but also demonstrates the unification of most of the circumference of the Black

Sea.

The sixth and final chapter is designed to discuss wealth and burial practices in the Black Sea

region during the Hellenistic period. A tomb in Amisos excavated by the local museum of

Samsun is described, and its finds are discussed.

Methods of Analysis

In the process of writing these chapters I have encountered many difficulties, primarily

caused by the nature of the evidence. I would like to discuss these problems and my efforts

to reduce the dangers of misinterpretation.

A study of the settlement patterns in the Black Sea region requires an understanding of the

environment. This is why I found it necessary to begin with a description of the geological

formation, topography, climate, and vegetation in the region. I used Strabo for the ancient

periods, and a study by the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement of the Turkish Republic

in the 1970s for the present. The latter provided figures on crops and animal husbandry

that I think may shed light on past habits of production. Of course, I have tried to be

mindful of the possible differences in climate, fluctuations in river flows and changes in their

courses, and the development of machinery; all of these factors have an effect on

comparisons between the past and the modern period.

14
I expected the survey projects conducted in the region since the first half of the 20th century

to include studies of ecological evolution. Unfortunately, none of them did, nor was there

any drilling to determine the regions ancient vegetation, types of crops, and fauna in the

Black Sea region.

In the central Black Sea region the impact of the terrain on settlement patterns is perhaps

clearer than elsewhere, because the terrain in the Black Sea region is so rugged. Under such

conditions, rivers, river valleys, and plains confined between mountains have an even greater

significance in the continuation of human lives, and thus the spatial distribution of sites. In

ancient times, like today, the two large rivers (Kzlrmak and Yeilrmak) and their branches

provided water for subsistence and agriculture, and they created a corridor through the

mountains that connected the coast and the inland area. The fertile plains and the river

valleys that have been continuously settled throughout the regions history were, and still are,

perfect for agricultural activities, as indicated by Strabo.4

The gap in studies of ecology is a symptom of the lack of a holistic approach to the

region. This requires a critical approach to the data from regional survey projects.5 The

methods of collecting and dating, the choice of survey areas, and the criteria used to identify

sites and presentation methods vary from project to project. These different choices will be

explained at the beginning of Chapter 2 and are repeated within the discussion of the

settlement patterns throughout that chapter; thus it is not necessary to repeat them here.

In spite of this problematic situation, I believe it was extremely important to examine

the region within a broad chronological frame before studying the late Hellenistic period.

Following a summary of the theoretical approaches relevant to my discussion, I decided to

ignore the inconsistencies among the survey projects and to examine the data as if it were

4 See Chapter 2.
5 See Chapter 2 section d.

15
collected using the same methods. Such an approach proved to be more productive in

achieving objectivity, but the results could not diminish the problems involved in the

methodology of the surveys.

The discussion of the environment is followed by an overview of human settlement

in the central Black Sea region from the Chalcolithic period through Late Antiquity; this

forms the background to a more detailed study of the region during the late Hellenistic

period.

Several Hellenistic cities are documented in the central Black Sea region. Combining

this documentation with the survey data was very attractive, but also not without its

problems. Most of the survey projects had not adopted a systematic approach to the

material from the Classical/Hellenistic periods. They often did not have experts in Greek

and Roman material, and their temporal priorities, which were prehistoric, raise suspicion

that they sometimes ignored sites with Classical and Roman material.6 The data from the

post-Iron Age periods were not evaluated by any of the projects in the region, so it was

harder to understand the patterns of urbanization, subsistence and economic productivity,

demography, trade and exchange, spatial distribution, and environmental issues. Since an

examination of the relationship among the many variables involved in the function of a

society was not the primary goal of most of the surveys, the data proved incomplete for my

purposes. Instead of generating sound models for the Hellenistic period, I could only make

general statements. For example, the reason for a decrease in number of sites7 in the

Classical/Hellenistic period could have been identified, but the lack of site size records, an

essential indicator of changes in the population density and movements of populations,

6 Such as the surveys at orum by Sel (1990, 1991).

7 It is not yet possible to identify the sites listed by the survey projects as cities, towns, villages, farmsteads,
single unit settlements or even no settlement.

16
resulted in a limited treatment of this significant issue in this dissertation. A similar kind of

weakness is observed in the study of the exploitation of natural resources, the economic

relationships between urban and rural populations of the central Black Sea region, and the

identification of site functions and patterns in land use.

Fortunately there are abundant literary and epigraphic records of the Black Sea

region during the Hellenistic period. Therefore, the historical overview of the Hellenistic

Pontic kingdom, with a focus on Mithradates VI, has been assembled with the assistance of

ancient literary sources. The chapter is intended as a summary of the events of the period

and as a brief background for the reader.

The principal ancient authors who discuss the reign of Mithradates VI, and the war

between Mithradates VI and Rome, are Justin and Appian.8 Polybius, Memnon, Plutarch,

Diodorus, Sallust and Tacitus offer shorter accounts of the historical events and the origins

of the Pontic royal family.9 Strabos Geography has probably been the most useful, since it

not only provided the historical background but also describes the Pontic cities and their

administrative systems to a certain extent.10 In general, however, the ancient sources on

Mithradates VI and his family are insufficient, and the available ones are only indirect. Most

of the accounts are written by authors of the Roman Imperial period, and imperial bias is

occasionally apparent. Nevertheless, they are extremely valuable in the reconstruction of the

period.11

A more problematic part of this study was the section on the images of Mithradates

VI. Identifying the way in which Mithradates VI represented himself, or others represented

8 Pompeius Trogus Historiae Philippicae, Yardley 1994; Appian Mithridatica and one book in Romaica.
9Memnons History of Heracleia on the Black Sea, excerpted by Photius in the ninth century, is also
informative. Plutarchs biographies of Sulla, Lucullus and Pompey also contain information on the reign of
Mithradates VI. Sallusts Histories 2.85 are important but mostly lost. See also Tacituss Annales 12.18.2.
10 Strabos Commentaries would have been an important source if it had survived.
11 Justin criticizes Livy and Sallust for reporting Mithradates VIs speech in their own language (Epit. 38,3.).

17
him, is important because both the ancient sources and modern historians compared

Mithradates VI with Alexander the Great in many ways. The only image that could be

securely identified as Mithradates VI was the portrait on his royal coins, because a sculptural

image of Mithradates VI with an inscription has so far not been discovered. Scholars have,

however, identified several portraits in museums as Mithradates VI by comparing them to

his coin portraits.

A portrait on a coin is probably the best indication of how a monarch wanted to be

perceived, and fortunately several different types were produced during Mithradates VIs

reign. But unfortunately none of the sculpted portraits has an archaeological context. It is

therefore difficult to determine whether a portrait type influenced by that of Alexander was

used for him within his realm, or whether it was a type used elsewhere; whether his portraits

were included among those of other kings and rulers, as on Delos; and whether the portraits

were erected by the king, his people, or foreign allies. Some of these questions are partially

answered with the help of the inscriptions on Delos, but these represent only a part of the

honors Mithradates VI received during his lifetime. We do not have any idea of the honors

he received within his kingdom, especially in the southern Black Sea region. Neither a statue

nor a dedicatory inscription has been found so far which could help us understand the way

his people really perceived him as a ruler.12 It is rather unfortunate that there are no

Mithradatic statues from the Pontic region in any of the regional museums. His impact on

the Pontic cities, other than the devastation he caused at the end of his career, is thus

virtually unknown.

Numismatics is left to fill these gaps. I have not limited my analysis of Pontic

coinage to the late Hellenistic period; Chapter 4 deals with Pontic monetary policies from

12 A gilded colossal statue of Mithradates VI is mentioned by Appian give the reference and will be discussed
later in Chapter 3.

18
the sixth/fifth centuries B.C. through the late Hellenistic period, in order to enhance our

understanding of Pontus in its broader chronological frame. Almost all of the coins

included in this study are in western museums or private collections. Examples of nearly

every type listed in the large volumes of the Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, however, can also

be found in the local museums of the central Black Sea region. I have focused in particular

on the reverse types in an attempt to understand the religious and political priorities of the

inland cities that minted coins.

The coins have been surprisingly helpful in reconstructing an economic and socio-

political picture of the central Black Sea region under Mithradates VI. The beginning of

coinage in these cities coincides with the advent of Mithradates VI. This suggests that the

king deliberately included these rather isolated cities in the kingdom for economic profit and

possibly to foster a sense of unity.

There was a distinction between the royal coins and the city coins. The royal coins

were minted in gold and silver and had the portrait and the name of the king. The city coins,

on the other hand, were minted in bronze and had the citys name on the reverse. The

iconography on both royal and city coins from the late Hellenistic period clarifies the nature

of the popular myths and cults in Pontus; it also sheds light on Mithradates VIs approach to

coins as propaganda.

The analysis of coins from around the Black Sea under Mithradates VI is also

extremely useful in helping us comprehend the extent of Mithradatic rule. Fortunately, the

chronological sequence of the coins is securely established. The hoards containing late

Hellenistic Pontic coins are spread across the Mediterranean, which may be an indication of

the mobility of people and goods in this period. Pontic coins are found together with coins

of other Hellenistic kingdoms, especially in hoards discovered in the Near East and in

19
southeastern Anatolia. This suggests that Pontic coins gained wide acceptance in the eastern

Mediterranean world.

During my visit to the regional museums in the fall of 2000, I was rather

disappointed to find out that both the coins and other archaeological materials were brought

to the museums by the local residents and out of context. I photographed and recorded the

objects from these museums that could possibly date to the Hellenistic period. Although I

assembled a remarkable collection for this study, I realized I could safely use only the objects

from several tombs excavated by the local museums. All of them were excavated as rescue

efforts by the local museums at Samsun and orum in the region of ancient Pontus. One

aristocratic tomb, datable to the end of the fourth/beginning of the third century B.C.,

yielded a number of objects including gold jewelry in good contexts. The other tombs

proved less helpful because the reports on them were insufficient, the techniques of

excavation and collecting were unclear, and the finds were haphazardly stored. Therefore, I

decided to concentrate on the aristocratic tomb from Amisos. The finds from the Amisos

tomb indicate that the city enjoyed a long period of prosperity as a harbor town on the

southern Black Sea coast, and showed that it had been an anchor for the inland cities of the

central Black Sea region. The jewelry features a hybrid style and iconography, and suggests

that Pontus was part of a well-established network around the Black Sea and the

Mediterranean. I was able to use only the jewelry for dating, and both the architecture of the

tomb and its contents will require closer study in the future.

20
CHAPTER II

THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN

THE CENTRAL BLACK SEA REGION IN TURKEY

Introduction

The first three sections of Chapter 2 are designed to serve as the foundation for

further analysis of the region. A brief geological history of Turkey, a description of the

topographical features, the climate, and the vegetation of the Black Sea region will orient the

reader geographically and ecologically. A discussion of these aspects is necessary prior to a

presentation of the settlement patterns, which constitutes the last section of this chapter.

The distribution of sites across the central Black Sea region is studied in the light of survey

projects conducted here during the last few decades, and this exercise demonstrates the

potential value of further research in the region. The socio-economic structure,

urbanization, and environment need to be addressed before we examine the political control

here during the Hellenistic period.

Settlement patterns in ancient times, and to a certain extent today, are certainly

shaped by topographical features and changes in landscape, whether through natural causes

or as a result of human impact. Climate, tectonics, and human impact are in constant

interaction. During the last three decades the study of landscape has played an increasingly

important role in the reconstruction of an areas long term history. As a consequence, the

number of archaeological surveys has increased dramatically. Archaeologists have begun to

investigate places other than important sites, such as rural areas

21
that provide information concerning agricultural habits, land-use, and city-town/village

relationships. Significance has been attached to fluctuations in climate, since these influence

physical features, and thus, social behavior. More and more, archaeological projects have

come to include geomorphologists, zoologists, botanists and agricultural engineers in an

attempt to understand the relationship among climate, landscape, and the built and natural

environment.13

The investigation of the relationship between man and environment predates the

emergence of archaeological survey as an alternative to traditional excavations. This interest

began already in the first half of the twentieth century with scholars such as Graham Clark

of Cambridge University, who argued in his book Archaeology and Society that archaeology had

to focus on the study of the lives of human beings and their relationship to ecology.14 This

idea originated from the understanding that a societys first goal was to survive, and

environmental factors had a direct influence on models of survival. Clarks student Higgs,

together with Vita Finzi, followed him in his interdisciplinary approach to archaeology, and

further developed the study of natural resources available in the vicinity of a site.15 In the

United States, the ecological analysis of human behavior and cultural change was

acknowledged and advanced by Steward, who studied the southwestern United States.16

Stewards emphasis on subsistence economies, population size, and settlement patterns in

understanding human behavior also contributed to the development of settlement

archaeology.17 Willey conducted a settlement pattern survey in Peru, and although he

departed from Clarks one-dimensional understanding of the ecology-man relationship, he

13 The earliest echoes of this can be observed in two archaeological projects. The first one is the Iraq Jarmo
Project in the Near East (Braidwood 1974), and the other is the Tehuacan Archaeological-Botanical project
(MacNeish 1974, 1978).
14 Clark 1939.
15 Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970.
16 Steward 1937.
17 Trigger 1989, 282.

22
acknowledged the importance of the environmental setting among the many aspects that

shaped settlement patterns.18 These scholars, the prehistorians in particular, came to an

understanding that human lives and patterns of subsistence, settlement, and interaction were

multi-dimensional, and so ancient societies were more complex than had been assumed.19

These developments were later acknowledged (in the past ten years or so) in Classical

archaeology; Classical scholars began to deal with the multitude of factors involved in the

making of a society, whereas in the past their focus had been directed toward inscriptions,

literary sources, and monumental architecture. The possiblity of benefiting from this data as

well as regional surface surveys will be demonstrated in the course of this thesis, especially in

this chapter.

The Environmental History of the Black Sea Region

Boyd defines environmental archaeology as seeking to understand the relationship

between past human populations and their environments.20 In light of the data available,

this study will barely be able to apply information and technology from natural sciences to

the study of human past. It will, however, attempt to form the foundation for a future

study of the ancient environment in the Black Sea region. 21

The present-day climate began toward the end of the Early Holocene (12,000-7,000

B.P.) and the beginning of the Middle Holocene (7,000-4,000 B.P.), and changes in

18 Willey 1974.
19 Trigger 1989, 329.
20 Boyd 1990, 72-6.
21 There are hardly any geomorphological studies in connection with archaeological sites in the Black Sea region

in Turkey, but there are some from central Anatolia. The results of studies from Kaman-Kalehyk and
Boazky will be summarized below. The quotations are from Reitz et al. (1996, 3).

23
topography after that point were minor compared to the Pleistocene and Early Holocene

periods. I will therefore begin with a description of developments during the Pleistocene

and Early Holocene periods in Anatolia.

During the Pleistocene precipitation increased (mostly as snow-fall), glaciers on

mountains (over 2,200-2,500 m) formed, and the snowline dropped to 600-800 m below the

snow-line. During the final glacial period (Wrmian glacial epoch, 23,000-18,000 B.P.) the

climate became cold and dry, and the sea-level was levelled at 90-100 m below the present

level.22 The Anatolian plateaus began to be covered by dry steppic vegetation. While

coniferous forests were confined to the coast of the east Black Sea, cedars survived in karstic

areas, and broad-leaved trees appeared on the lower slopes of the north Anatolian

mountains. Mediterranean-type plants were sheltered within the tectonic depressions and

the southern slopes of the deep valleys, such as Kelkit and oruh. The lake levels were high,

the timber-line was 600-700 m lower, and the Bosphorus and Dardanelles were land-bridges

between the Mediterranean and the Black Seas.23

In the Early Holocene temperatures began to rise, and towards the end of the Early

Holocene and the beginning of the Middle Holocene the present-day climate dominated. As

a result of this climatic improvement, soil began to form, and forests at higher mountain

elevations and in central Anatolia began to regenerate. The vegetation cover became dense,

and its variety increased. Pinus sylvestris communities appeared on the Black Sea coast in the

Early Holocene. Today two types of vegetation on the northern mountains can be identified

(fig.1): on the southern slopes of mountains, in the tectonic depressions, and on the

southern slopes of valleys such as Kelkit and Erbaa-Niksar, there are Mediterranean-type

plants, and on the northern slopes of mountains there are Euro-Siberian plants. This

22 Atalay 1992, 3-5.

23 Erin 1978, 89.

24
mixture of vegetation indicates mixed phytogeographical regions.24 A similar mixture of

vegetation is also detected in the northern section of the area between nebolu and

Kastamonu. Here 33.9% of the plants are Euro-Siberian, 11.5% Euxine, 7.7% Irano-Turan,

10% Mediterranean, 7.7% endemic, 2.3% cosmopolite, 3.1% unknown, and 23.8%

polyfloristic. According to Atalay, the mixed nature of the vegetation resulted from climatic

fluctuations during the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs.25 This mixture is not limited to

the Black Sea but exists all over Anatolia.

Between 7,000 and 5,000 B.P. extremely dry conditions prevailed causing the forests

to shrink and change in character, and the steppes began to dominate. Following this so-

called post-Glacial Climatic Optimum, the forests regenerated, but not all recovered. At

Gordion, for example, the botanical evidence suggests that non-deciduous forests were

abundant just 2,500 years ago.26

Certainly the desiccation of Anatolia was not due to climatic changes alone. As Brice

suggested, it was more the result of human exploitation of the forests for different purposes.

Bryce identifies five stages in which the forest cover of Anatolia evolved;27

1. The Glacial period, when the forests were restricted to areas between steppes and

the snow-line.

2. The Late-Glacial and early Post-Glacial, when land convenient for farming was

generated, and the timber line extended below and above the previous zones.

24 These terms are linked to the geographical distribution of plants: Euro-Siberian is for plants commonly
found in an area extending from Europe through Siberia; Euxine, around the Black Sea; Irano-Turan, to
the southeast of Turkey in Iran and the surrounding regions toward the north; and Mediterranean, in the
areas bordering the Mediterranean sea. Endemic is a term used to identify plants exclusively found in one
region, in this case the Black Sea region in Turkey.
25 A typical example of this is the co-existence of pinus brutia forests and Phillyrea communities along the

Dikmen valley, 35 km southeast of Gerze-Sinop and the Gkrmak valley: Atalay 1992,10-1.
26 Erin 1978, 97.
27 Brice 1978,144-5.

25
 3. The arid conditions of the Early Holocene were followed by a moister period in the

Middle-Late Holocene. This period, during which the lakes rose, did not last long,

and the lakes receded around 4,000-3,000 B.P.; and this caused a decrease in

precipitation. Dry-steppe vegetation and camel-thorn-scrub replaced the thickets,

while forests adapted to dry conditions.

4. Wholesale exploitation of the forests began with the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

The forests began to disappear, the harbors were quickly silted as a result, and sand

dunes covered the parts of the plateau that had been denuded by human activity.28

5. The nomadic tribes of the 11th century caused many forested areas to disappear as a

result of slash-and-burn agriculture. Through the ages, violent methods of

turpentine collection accelerated the destruction of forests.29 Nomadism also

intensified pastoralism, which meant that the vegetation was once again destroyed by

grazing animals.

Today the climate in Turkey varies greatly as a result of its geographical position. It

is a country where oceanic, sub-tropical, and continental climates survive together. The

distribution is as follows: the oceanic climate is found at the north; the Mediterranean or

sub-tropical climate appears around the Marmara Sea, in the Aegean and the Mediterranean

regions; and the continental climate appears in the central, eastern, and southeastern parts of

Turkey. The rainiest part of Turkey is certainly the Black Sea region, where the winters are

mild and the humidity is high.

28Strabo speaks of the exploitation of forests in Cyprus (14, 6, 5).

29Theophrastus (9, 2, 7) explained the methods of turpentine collection on Mount Ida already in Classical
times, and Fellows noted similar destructive methods at the end of the nineteenth century during his travels to
Asia Minor and Lycia (1852, 191). Jameson et al. point to the human impact on the clearance of forests during
the mid-Late Holocene period (1994, 189).

26
 In the last 6,000 years, oscillations of the level of the Black Sea have had a major

impact on the shape of the coastline (fig.2). During the last Glacial period, the Black Sea

went through serious regression and desalinization which is called the New Euxine stage.30

In the Holocene period, the sea-level began to rise both in the Mediterranean and the Black

Sea, but it was interrupted by several stable periods. Between 7,000-3,000 B.C., during the

second phase of the New Euxine stage, the Black Sea reached to its highest level, 3-5 m

higher than it stands at present. This is proven by corrosion notches, well-established,

widespread terraces, coastal caves with prehistoric remains and marine sand, as well as old

beach rock formations.31 Also around 7,140 180 B.P., a date obtained from 14C analysis,

saline water began entering the Black Sea, thereby causing significant changes in the physical

and biological character of the sea.32 In a recent book on the Black Sea, the geological

evidence for the invasion of saline water into the Black Sea was introduced.33 The evidence

for this sudden event includes the formation of the Gibraltar waterfall, the sudden

replacement of the fauna, the cutting of deep canyons, and the rise and fall of the global sea

level. This change had a major impact on the populations around the Black Sea, and masses

of people were displaced as a result. W. Ryan and W. Pitman further suggested that the

population movements resulted in the spread of farming to Europe, and it is conceivable

that the flood inspired Sumerian and Akkadian flood myths. In my opinion, this theory still

awaits support from further archaeological investigations around the Black Sea, especially on

the coastline. Such evidence will allow for a more balanced discussion regarding the

probability of a flood and its possible connection to ancient myths.

30 Erin 1978, 95.

31 Erin 1978, 96.
32 Degens 1971.
33 Ryan and Pitman 1998.

27
 The oscillations of the Black Sea have been studied carefully on its northern shores.34

The evidence there should reflect changes in other parts of the Black Sea as well as the

Mediterranean, since eustatic changes happened at the same rate all around the world with

possible local fluctuations.35 In the last two million years over 20 Glacials, alternating with

warm Interglacials, were observed.36 During these periods substantial changes in sea-level

took place, sometimes flooding formerly inhabited areas and sometimes making large coastal

plains available for habitation. The Late Quaternary sea-level changes in the northern

hemisphere are demonstrated by van Andel on a chart (fig. 3), which is a simplified version

of the chart published by Fairbanks.37

The melting or freezing of the icecaps in the northern hemisphere was the result of

climatic changes, which were another factor in the movement of populations. One should

also consider the loss and gain of habitable land along the coasts, between highlands and

lowlands, as well as across the continents. The changes in the coast line and potential

human migration have been the focus of the study of eustatic changes in archaeology.38 This

study is not concerned with the coastal area of the Black Sea region, but I will provide a brief

introduction to the topic for two reasons: the processes on the coast had an impact on the

inland areas, and eustatic changes are one of the major indications of fluctuations in global

climate, and thus environmental conditions.

A regression, following the peak of the 9,000-5,000 B.P., continued until 3,000-2,900

B.P. According to a study conducted by K.K. Shilik, the sea-level was 11.5 m lower than

34 Shilik 1997; for additional sources see his bibliography on pages 127-9.
35 Jameson et al. 1994, 195.
36 For Glacial cycles see Fink and Kukla 1977; and for the Interglacials see Hays et al. 1976.
37 van Andel 1990, 151; Fairbanks 1989; for further discussion of sea levels see Chappell and Shackleton 1986.
38 van Andel 1989, 742.

28
today around 5,825215 BP.39 A transgression was observed 5,24090 BP which reached

its maximum peak at the end of the fourth millennium B.C. (fig.4).40 Herodotus mentioned

in his Histories that the whole of Lower Egypt was a swamp, and the entire Nile Delta,

upstream from the present-day Lake Karun, was flooded during the reign of the Pharaoh

Menos, who ruled in the late fourth-early third millennium B.C.41 During this period the

sea-level must have exceeded the present sea-level by only 0.5 m. In 3,000-2,900 B.C. a

regression began, as I mentioned earlier. In Bulgaria, Chalcolithic artifacts and a wooden

boat were found between two layers of peat at 8.5 m below sea level, which may indicate

that the sea-level was 9.5 m below the present sea-level.42 The regression was followed by a

transgression that formed the New Black Sea terrace, which is otherwise known as the

Flandrian. The altitude of this New Black Sea terrace was around 3-5 m above the

present-level, and the maximum was probably reached at around 1,800-1,700 B.C. The sea-

level continued falling and rising with 1,500-2,000 year intervals shifting c.10 m. When we

compare the cores taken from different sites on the northern Black Sea with the historians

accounts (Herodotus, Aristotle, and Polybius), it is possible to identify three full

transgression and regression cycles in the last 6,000 years, each of which lasted 1,250 years.

These resulted from climatic fluctuations that were relatively minor (compared to the

widespread eustatic changes in the nearly 15,000 years preceding this period). Today the rate

of the sea-level rise is very low, and this can be explained as the approaching end of the final

transgression.43

39 Point 1, taken at Colchis (Shilik 1997,116).

40 Points 2 and 3 taken off Pitsunda Cape and Pesochnoe on the northern shore of the Kerch peninsula (Shilik
1997,117).
41 Herodot. Hist. 2.4.
42 Shilik 1997,117. This could have been the result of a local tectonic movement, but in the Early Holocene,

the rates of sea-level rise were higher than the rates of tectonics(Jameson et al. 1994, 195). It is not clear
whether it was the same for this period, but such a proposition should be considered.
43 Shilik 1997, 127.

29
 The significance of the study of oscillations of the Black Sea lies in the possibility of

locating sites of different periods. For example, the lack of Paleolithic sites on the southern

and the northern coasts of the Black Sea may be the result of the low level of the sea, in

other words, its form before 7,000 BP. The areas that were above the sea-level at that time

remain below the sea today. I suspect that there were numerous Paleolithic sites along the

southern Black Sea coast including cave sites. The interest in underwater explorations in the

Black Sea in recent years may shed light on this problem to a certain extent.44

In light of the transgressions and regressions, a study of Bronze Age sites along the

coasts could be beneficial (between c.3,000 B.C. and c.1,500 B.C. two regressions and one

transgression were observed), but such a study goes beyond the intention of this

examination of settlement patterns. The regression between 3,100 B.C. and 2,000 B.C., in

particular, may have significantly affected settlement distribution along the coast of the Black

Sea.

The sea-level changes should not be regarded as an isolated process. The changes in

sea-level also affect the rivers; especially when the sea transgresses, the river deltas may

become flooded or swampy for hundreds of years, thereby making the land unsuitable for

habitation and agriculture. When regression takes place, the momentum of the rivers and

the height of the waterfalls increase, which results in more aggressive changes to the

shoreline. Sometimes earlier settlements, and significant archaeological data are destroyed.

The regressions and transgressions may have left marks on settlement patterns on the coast

and in the inland Black Sea region. Since the focus of this thesis is mainly on the inland

settlements, the possible effect of sea level changes on settlement patterns through the Early

44 The Black Sea Trade Project under the directorship of F. Hiebert of the University of Pennsylvania Museum
is one of such projects on the southern coast of the Black Sea (Hiebert 1997b).

30
Bronze Age and the following millennia will be discussed only briefly in the site distribution

section of this chapter.

Other changes in the physical environment of Turkey took place through exogenous

and endogenous processes. The exogenous forces included fluvial aggradations, coastal

development, karstification, mass movements, and deflation.45 The formation of the deltas

and deltaic fills of Turkey, as well as the coastline, were determined by the fluvial and marine

processes that have occurred since the sea reached its present level. Most parts of the

shoreline survived with very small changes until the present, while several large rivers

reshaped the coasts completely in some areas. Undoubtedly, two good examples of this are

the Yeilrmak and Kzlrmak deltas on the Black Sea shore, which were formed as a result

of heavy deposits brought by the two rivers. Another very rapidly changing coast is that of

the ukurova deltaic plain in southern Turkey. All over Turkey there are examples of deltas

forming at the mouths of rivers, thereby changing the shape of the shoreline.

In addition to alluvial deposition, winds, karst processes, and mass movements of

land have affected the physical environment of Turkey since the end of the last Glacial.

Especially in the northern part of Turkey, in the Black Sea region, landslides have brought

about changes to the topography and caused loss of life since prehistory. The high

precipitation in this region must have created a favorable condition for landslides.

Karstification and wind action are forces that are confined to the Mediterranean; therefore, I

will not discuss those here in detail.

The major endogenous process in Turkey is certainly tectonic movements. Turkey is

situated on a tectonically active belt and has been struck by powerful earthquakes

throughout its history. However, tectonic movements also take place without being felt.

45 Erin 1978, 99.

31
For example, the mountains in Turkey continue to rise as a result of tectonic movements,

which may also explain the unexpectedly high snow line during the Last Glacial period.46

The interior of the Black Sea region, especially ankr, orum, and the area north of Tokat

and Amasya are on the North Anatolian Fault Line, which is one of the longest and most

destructive fault zones of Turkey.

Volcanic activity is another form of endogenous processes. Today there are no

active volcanoes in Turkey, but most of the volcanic formations such as lava-fields and

obsidian were the result of volcanic activities that took place during the Pleistocene period.

Volcanic activity continued during the post-Glacial period with decreased intensity.

The Landscape in the Black Sea Region

The Black Sea region is the most mountainous area of Turkey (fig.5, where only the

central part is shown). The Black Sea mountains, oriented east-west, are an extension of the

Alps. Between the mountains are valleys perpendicular to the Black Sea coast and fertile

plains on the coast formed by rivers discharging into the sea.

The altitudes and the density of the Black Sea region mountains increase from the

west to the east. Eighty percent of the province of Sinop is covered by mountains, although

none is higher than 1,500 m. There are no large valleys in Sinop, and the annual rain fall

there is 669.3 mm. In Samsun, the mountains are even less dominant than in Sinop, and

Samsun has the most fertile plains in all of the Black Sea. The two alluvial plains of Bafra

46The morphologically determined snow-line was at 2600m, whereas the climatically expected snow-line was
400m below this level (Erin 1978, 106).

32
and aramba provide 166,000 hectares of arable land.47 A smaller plain along the coast

towards Ordu, the Perembe plain, is not as well-watered as aramba.48 The mountains

gradually rise towards Ordu.49 The separation between the coast and inland territory

becomes more prominent as a result of the altitude of the mountains, which reach more than

3,000 m. The average annual rainfall also increases towards the east. Fewer alluvial plains in

this part of the Black Sea are the result of steep mountains situated very close to the

shoreline. The landscape, however, and the climatic conditions allow hazelnut production.

In some places hazelnut trees survive up to 1,000 m. The high plateaus (over 2,000 m)

provide perfect grazing land. On the eastern part of the Black Sea there are short streams

forming small plains on the coast. The easternmost town in the Black Sea region in Turkey,

Artvin, is also in the most mountainous part of the region. Artvin province is the richest in

forests: 35.8% of the land is forested. There is almost no flat land in Artvin which could

serve as an agricultural plain.

The interior of the Black Sea region has a different landscape and climate than the

coasts as a result of the high mountains separating the two regions. The interior Black Sea

region, especially towards the central part of the Anatolian peninsula, has wide fertile plains.

Amasya is certainly the agricultural center of the whole region. The plains within the

territory of Amasya, such as Suluova, Geldiklan plain, Merzifon, Gm and Taova, are

47 Strabo used the word Gadilonitis (12,3,13) to describe the Bafra plain, and suggested that it was a very fertile
area during his time which had abundant fruit, and had afforded pasture for sheep with very soft rare wool. It
also had deer, which were, again according to him, rare elsewhere. The aramba plain has been a productive
part of the Black Sea since ancient times, as proven by the description of Strabo (12,3,15). aramba was called
Themisycra then, and both Iris and Thermodon (Terme ay) transversed the plain. The largest crops in
Themisycra were panic and millet, and according to Strabo, people who lived there never experienced famine.
At the foot of the mountains, wild fruits (vine, pear, apple, hazel) and wild animals of all kinds could be found.
The plain fed herds of cattle and horses and sheltered all sorts of wild animals.
48 Strabo 12,3,16.
49 Paryadres should be the general name for the eastern Black Sea mountains in ancient times. These

mountains extended from Sidene and Themisycra to Lesser Armenia. Other mountains mentioned by Strabo
(12,3,18)are the Scydises, and the Moschic.

33
known to have been fertile plains in ancient times as well.50 The second largest inland town,

Tokat, is surrounded by high mountains separated from each other by fertile plains. At

higher elevations there are wide plateaus. Tokat is under the influence of the central

Anatolian climate, and it therefore occupies a transitional position between the Black Sea

coast and central Anatolia. This province is in the first degree earthquake zone. In fact,

most of the inland towns are situated in the northwestern Anatolian fault zone.

There are only a couple of lakes with economic significance in the Black Sea region.

One of these is the Liman lake in Samsun. From this lake, 150 tons of gray mullet and carp

are today caught annually. The Ladik lake is one which is mentioned in ancient sources and

called Stiphane. The lake had fish, and the pasture around it was used for grazing.51 Other

lakes of interest are the moren, crater, and glacial lakes, which are spread across the region

but mostly concentrated in the east.

The rivers of the Black Sea region are among the most significant in Turkey and

most were described by Strabo. The major river in the west is the Sakarya river which,

according to Strabo, was navigable during his time or a little earlier.52 The next river is Filyos

or Parthenius (the virgin river).53

Kzlrmak, Yeilrmak, ekerek, Kelkit, and oruh are the major rivers in the region

with which I am dealing. The Yeilrmak passes through Samsun, Amasya, and Tokat, and it

50 Strabo 12,3,38-40; The valley that extended to the west of Amasya was called Chiliocomon (The Thousand
Villages). Next to it was Diacopene, and further to the west was Pimolisene, the fertile province that extended
to the Halys. To the northeast there was Phanaroeia, which is named Taova today.
51 Strabo (12,3,38) actually suggests that the size of the lake was analogous to that of the sea, which may be an

indication that Lake Stiphane had a more significant role in the economy of the region than it has today.
52 Strabo (12,3,7) also mentions three other rivers: Gallus (with a source in Hellespontine Phrygia) which joins

Sangarius, and the Psillis and Calpas, which should be smaller rivers in the region. One of these rivers may be
todays Melen ay.
53 Strabo 12,3,8. The source of this river is in Paphlagonia.

34
is joined by the ekerek river in the Geldingen plain of Amasya.54 The Kelkit is the other

big river that joins Yeilrmak north of Erzincan. The Yeilrmak discharges itself at Cva

burnu (peninsula) within the borders of Samsun. The two other rivers that join Yeilrmak

before it reaches the Cva peninsula are Ezine and Tersakan. Only 40 km of the Yeilrmak

river is suitable for transportation, which is usually done on a flat bottom boat called a limbo.

The Kzlrmak river begins its journey in Cappadocia and ends in the waters of the

Black Sea two km to the north of Bafra.55 This very long river passes through Boyabat and

Vezirkpr, towns of Sinop, and provides transportation for wood from these places to

Bafra on the coast. Gkrmak is a branch of the Kzlrmak river which also passes through

Boyabat.

The oruh river-basin includes three rivers; the oruh, Harit and Kelkit rivers. The

source of the oruh is in Erzurum, and the river is 376 km long, 354 km of which is within

the borders of Turkey. Unlike the Yeilrmak and Kzlrmak rivers, it runs parallel to the

Black Sea, thereby creating a completely different geographical setting. It passes through

Artvin and Gmhane. The Kelkit is very similar to the oruh river, and it runs parallel to

the coast. These two rivers provide protected valleys to the south of the Black Sea

mountains and also passageways in the east-west direction. In the eastern Black Sea region

most of the rivers are short but strong, and they frequently cause floods following seasons of

heavy rain. The longest of these rivers are the Karadere and Deirmendere.

54 Strabo (12,3,15), impressed by the Yeilrmak and Kzlrmak alike, describes the course of Yeilrmak or Iris

in detail. He writes that it had its source in Pontus, flowed through Pontic Comana (Gmenek), Dazimonitis
(Kaova) beside Gaziura (Turhal, then deserted), and then united with the Scylax (ekerek) and others. It
flowed beside the walls of Amaseia, where it was joined by the Lycus (Kelkit) at Phanaroea (Taova). It then
became the Iris.
55 The Kzlrmak was called Halys in the ancient world, after the hales or the salt mines near which it flowed. It

had been an important physical barrier in the ancient world. At the east was Paphlagonia, at the south, the
Phrygians and Galatians, and at the west, the Bithynians and the Mariandyni: Strabo 12,3,9; 12,3,12.

35
 The strongest and most well-established geological foundation of the Black Sea

region is the metamorphic series primarily composed of schists, marblized limestone, and

marbles. However, because these rocks are found at the highest altitudes of the region, there

is no easy access to them, and they could not be used as solid ground for habitation or as

construction material. The fleisch formation in the region, which includes sandstone and

conglomerate, does not provide suitable material for building either. Volcanic formations

cover the largest area in the region, however, and the andesites as well as the basalts are

convenient both as strong foundations and as building material. Copper and lead are

commonly found in these volcanic regions. The Kelkit valley has copper, silver, lead and

zinc sulphate. Gmhacky also has silver, hence the name (Gm means silver in

Turkish). Sedimentary rocks (conglomerate, calceric rocks, etc.) form the medium elevations

in the region. Alluvial formations are commonly found in the Black Sea region, especially on

the coasts and in the river basins. These are a mixture of sand, gravel, silt, and clay, and they

are therefore suitable for mortar and brick production. The southern part of the Black Sea

region is situated on the northern Anatolian earthquake zone, within which the most active

belt passes underneath Havza-Ladik-Takpr. Many of the most fertile lands of the region,

and the historically significant areas included in this study, are situated within the second

degree earthquake zone.56

56These settlements are: Merzifon, Suluova, Mecitz, Eskipazar, Zile, Tokat, Sulusaray, Artova, Glky,
Aybast, Mesudiye, ebinkarahisar. See Eastern Black Sea Region Provincial Development, Urbanization and Settlement
Patterns 1972.

36
Climate and Vegetation

The northern part of Turkey is considered to belong in the Euro-Siberian and

Paleoboreal European phytogeographical region (fig.6). The average annual rain-fall in the

region is between 1,000-2,500 mm, with the exception of the area between Sinop and

Samsun, the interior of Thrace, and the depressions. The annual average rainfall in the

Samsun-Sinop area is 700-1,000 mm; this average drops down to 400-500 mm in Amasya,

Tokat, and Gmhane, which are under the influence of the central Anatolian dry climate.

Once the climate began settling towards the end of the Early Holocene period, the

flora and fauna of Turkey also became more defined by minor climatic fluctuations and

human intervention. The regeneration of the steppic vegetation cover was completed in

around 4,000 B.C. The same is true for the forests of that millennium, which followed the

extremely dry conditions that occurred between 7,000-5,000 B.P. The pollen analysis in the

region indicates that the mountains that surrounded the central Anatolian plateaus were

covered with pine forests, the rivers were lined with trees, and the low hills and flat areas had

steppic flora between 3,000 and 800 B.C.57 Pollen analysis conducted in the lakes of

Tdrge and Hafik suggest that the upper Kzlrmak valley had a rich vegetational cover

around 2,000 B.P.58 The decrease in tree pollens and the increase in weed pollens should be

representative of the human impact of deforestation, mentioned above, beginning already in

the second millennium B.C.59

The Black Sea region is divided into two sub-flora regions: the area to the east of

Ordu is in the Colchic flora region, and the area to its west is in the Euxine. However, it is

57 Pine was used for construction at Boazky in the second millennium B.C.: Bottema et al. 1995, 103-4.
58 C14 dates are available for the Tdrge finds. The plants discovered during the study included pine, fir,
spruce, juniper, hornbeam, beech, hazelnut, oak, and various flowers and wheat types. See Bottema et al. 1995
for results.
59 Bottema et al. 1995, 59-62.

37
not possible to draw strict lines between these regions, since there have been floral groups

that survived within smaller, local ecological environments. In the Euxine area, for example,

dry forests can be found on the southern slopes of mountains, and xerophyte bushes and

even steppes appear together in the valleys and depressions.60 This is the result of the close

relationship between vegetation and climate in the Black Sea region.

I list here the varieties of trees that can be found in the Euxine flora region:61

60 Atalay 1983, 79-80. In addition to these, citrus trees, olive and tea are grown in micro-climates. See Eastern
Black Sea Region Provincial Development, Urbanization and Settlement Patterns 1972. Strabo also mentions that olive
cultivation began slightly above the sea level around Sinope (Sinop): Strabo 12,3,12.
61 List adopted from Atalay 1983, 81.

38
Abies nordmanniana (Caucasian or eastern Hypericum androsaemum (shrub)

Black Sea fir) Laurocerasus officinalis (cherry laurel)

Acer Campestre (plain maple) Mespilus germanica (medlar)

Acer trautvetteri (maple) Ostyra carpinifolia (hornbeam)

Alnus glutinosa (common juniper) Pinus silvestris (Scots pine)

Abies bornmlleriana (fir) Quercus petraea (kind of oak)

Buxus sempervirens (Anatolian boxwood) Quercus dschorochensis (oak from oruh)

Carpinus betulus (common hornbeam) Quercus hartwissiana (kind of oak)

Carpinus orientalis (eastern hornbeam) Quercus pedunculiflora (kind of oak)

Castanea sativa (European chestnut) Rhododendron luteum (yellow flowered forest

Cornus australis (wild cornel tree) rose)

Corylus avellana (a kind of nut) Rhododendron ponticum (purple flowered

Corylus colurna (a kind of nut) forest rose)

Crataegus microphylla (thorn) Smilax excelsa (climbing shrub)

Daphne pontica (Pontic daphne) Sorbus torminalis (maple leaf shrub?)

Fagus orientalis (eastern beech) Staphylea pinnata (thorn)

Fraxinus excelsior (common ash tree) Tilia rubra (Caucasian linden)

Hedera colchica (Caucasian forest vine)

39
 The species common in the Balkans and Central Europe, such as clematis viticella (vine), lilium

martagon (lily), tilia temontosa (a kind of linden), and quercus frainetto (a kind of oak), are found in the

western and central Black Sea region. Plants from the Irano-Turanian and Euro-Mediterranean

areas can be found within and around the mountains.

The area between the eastern shore of the Sakarya river and Ordu is one of the richest

regions in Turkey in terms of vegetation cover. Beech and fir trees dominate in the forests.

On a narrow strip on the coast the vegetation consists mainly of scrubwood (see fig.1). This

only survives up to 200 m in the western Black Sea region and penetrates only a few kilometers into

the river valleys. The valley along the Gkrmak, one of the branches of the Kzlrmak, is covered

with steppic vegetation. On the lower parts of the slopes facing the Black Sea oak forests can be

found, while the northern side of these mountains is covered with beech forests.62 Above the beech

forests on the northern slopes are fir forests, whereas on the south pinus sylvestris (Scotch pine)

dominates. A general evaluation of the flora of the western Black Sea region, or the Euxine sub-

flora region, indicates that the hills are covered with a mixture of chestnut, linden, hornbeam, oak

and beech trees up to 500 m. Between 500 and 900 m the terrain is covered with pure faguetum

(beech) forests. Under these forests are rhododendron ponticum (purple flowered forest rose), prunus

laurocerasus (a kind of laurel), and ilex aquifolium (tea-like plant). The areas that remained free of

forests are usually covered with bushes called vaccinium arctostafilos. At 700m fir appears, and it mixes

with pure beech at around 900 m. This mixture of beech and fir continues up to 1,500 m. At 1,000

m rhododendron ponticum is replaced with rhododendron flaum (a kind of rose). Pure fir forests take over

at around 1,500 m and rise up to 2,200 m. Around Zonguldak the cover beneath the forests is buxus

sempervirens (Anatolian boxwood).

62 In ancient times the best boxwood seems to have been found around Amastris, as mentioned by Strabo (12,3,10).

40
 The percentage of arable land in the Black Sea region is very low; nevertheless, most of the

population is involved in agricultural activities today.63 Erosion is also very common in this region

because of steep land and heavy rain, which make agriculture even more difficult. About 35% of the

cultured land is used for agriculture, 42.58% of it is forests, and 22.57% is grazing land. 64 Within

the limited arable lands, the people of the Black Sea mostly cultivate grains, as is the case all over

Anatolia.65 The 60.47% of cultivated land in the Black Sea region is dedicated to grain production,

primarily wheat. Most of the wheat is produced in Tokat, followed by Amasya and Gmhane.

Corn is grown on 29.37% of the arable land. It is the most popular product of the narrow coastland

and the slopes but of course was not introduced from the New World until relatively recent times.

Barley is the third most common grain produced in the Black Sea region today. It is grown

especially in the inland regions where there is less rain.

Palynological studies in central Anatolia suggest that emmer wheat (also found at kiztepe),

einkorn, bread wheat, barley, lentils and peas were produced in central Anatolia during the third

millennium B.C.66 Emmer and einkorn wheats were replaced by bread wheat at kiztepe, Kaman-

Kalehyk and Boazky from the second millennium B.C. onwards. The production of maize had

also spread during this period through the Near East, the Caucasus, and mainland Greece.67 The

popularity of barley and maize may be regarded as an indication of a cooler climate during this

period. Further studies in cooperation with excavations are necessary, and the central Anatolian

palynological record may be used to understand the crops of the central Black Sea region only to a

certain extent.

63 The figures are compiled from a publication of the mar ve skan Bakanl. See Eastern Black Sea Region Provincial
Development, Urbanization and Settlement Patterns 1972.
64 Statistics between 1964 and 1968 indicate that the cultivated land in the Black Sea region, from Sinop to the east, was

1,615,572 hectars in total: Eastern Black Sea Region Provincial Development, Urbanization and Settlement Patterns 1972.
65 The grain of the plain of Phazemonitis and the millet and sorgnum of the Pontic coast are mentioned in Strabo

(12,3,38;15). He further suggests the Pontic people preferred millet (panicum).

66Boessneck and Driesch 1975, 232; Hopf 1992, 99, 104; Nesbitt 1993, 75, 79, 91, 95; Nesbitt and Samuel 1996, 76. The

results of these studies are summarized by kse 1998, 307.

67 kse 1998, 307.

41
 The second largest agricultural activity in the Black Sea region today is gardening and vine-

growing, which together have a 25.80% share. Among the products, hazelnuts are the most wide-

spread. Except in Amasya, hazelnuts are grown all over the Black Sea region.68 In the east, vine-

growing is not possible due to heavy rains; but in the central part, especially in Tokat, good quality

grapes suitable for wine production are grown.69 Other fruits are also abundant in the Black Sea

region, especially in the central plains and valleys. Amasya is famous for its apples today, and in

antiquity the region also acquired fame as a fruit center (apple, pear, cherry, etc.). Strabo mentions

gardens in its suburbs.70 Ancient sources also talk about liquorice, mastic, poisonous plants, aconite,

and wild nard of the Pontic region.71

Animal husbandry today is concentrated on sheep (41.03%), cow (32.68%), goat (18%),

water buffalo (4.13%) , donkey (2.11%), horse (1.65%), and mule (0.40%). Although today there is

less need for animals due to the development of technology, in antiquity the larger and stronger

draft animals must have had great importance. Their numbers should have been considerably higher

compared to the situation today. The overall percentage of sheep, for example, is low compared to

other parts of Turkey because there are less extensive grazing lands for sheep in the Black Sea

region. The mountainous terrain is perfect for goat raising, however, although goats harm the

forests while grazing, they are sufficient for domestic needs, such as milk and meat, which is another

source of income for the local people.

Nine cities of the Black Sea region are situated on the coast, which means that fishing is an

important part of the local economy. In all of Turkey, 64.22% of the sea-water fish are caught in the

68 Hazelnut was a common product during the early Roman period: Strabo 12,3,15. According to Pliny (N.H. 15,88),
Pontic nuts were grown in Sinope and Heracleia.
69 Pliny (N.H. 14,76) mentioned that Naspercene and absinthic wines came from Pontus.
70 Strabo 12,3,15; 12,3,11.
71 Pliny NH 22,24 (liquorice); NH 12,72 (mastic); NH 14,128 (mastic); NH 24,121 (mastic); NH 21,83 (poison), Pliny

mentions that these plants were grown in Pontus, but it is unclear whether he is speaking exclusively of the southern
coast of the Black Sea. Strabo 12,3,18 (poisonous honey); 12,3,7 (aconite); Verg. Ecl. 8,97 (poison), App. Mith., 111
(poison).

42
Black Sea, and 8.23% of the fresh-water fish are caught in the rivers and lakes of this region.

Especially the eastern towns on the coast, such as Ordu, Trabzon, Giresun and Rize, specialize in

this business. Around 85% of the fish caught in the region are sprats. Fishing is known to have

been a significant economic activity in ancient times, and Strabo mentions it several times in his

account of Pontus.72

Settlement Patterns in the Central Black Sea Region Through the Centuries

The earliest evidence for settlement in the Black Sea region comes from the Chalcolithic

period. One scholar mentions Neolithic material, including ceramics and weapons discovered

during the excavations at the mounds in Suluova and Amasya, but we do not hear about this

material anywhere else.73 The Chalcolithic period, on the other hand, is well represented by survey

material discovered in the region between the 1940s and 90s. These surveys, described below, were

carried out around the larger cities of the central Black Sea: Amasya, Tokat, Samsun and Sinop. I

also included data from surveys around two central Anatolian cities, Sivas and orum, since these

regions had a major role in the development of the central Black Sea region. These surveys manifest

different strategies and questions, but they all have provided invaluable data (fig.7).

The earliest archaeological work in the central Black Sea region is the survey conducted by

K. Kkten, N. zg, and T. zg in the Samsun province.74 The regional investigations resulted

in excavations at Kavak-Kaledoruu, Tekkeky and Dndartepe.75 Excavations at the Lerdge

Tumuli, also in Samsun province, were conducted by Koay and Akok in 1946.76 In 1955 Burney

72 Strabo (12,3,19) said that pelamydes were first caught around Trapezus (Trabzon). Dolphins were also commonly
caught in the waters of the Black Sea. He explained that dolphins were caught with a bait, then cut into pieces, and their
fat was used for many different purposes.
73 Men 1997, 76. He does not cite any sources for this information.
74 Kkten 1941; Kkten and zg 1941.
75 Kkten et al. 1945.
76 Akok 1948.

43
travelled to northern Anatolia and compiled information on the pottery of the region.77 The first

and more extensive survey was initiated by Alkm in 1971, also in Samsun province.78 Almost all of

the survey projects which will be discussed in this chapter are Turkish. When the survey projects

described a location at which pottery was discovered, they used a term corresponding to the English

word settlement. The term was often linked to a specific archaeological period and was used in

sentences such as Early Bronze Age and Roman settlements were detected at the mound. The

term was also used with the word flat when describing pottery distributions on a plane, instead of

a hill or a mound. I will use the term site when I refer to the locations identified by different

surveys because the more recent projects include not only settlements, but also cemeteries, forts,

and tumuli. I will make a distinction among these types of sites when necessary.

Alkm does not provide a definition for the settlements he detected, but I presume any

location with a high concentration of pottery was considered a settlement by the survey team. The

reports suggest that the surveys were extensive, by which I mean that the team members drove

and walked around the selected areas, and asked the villagers about archaeological material that had

been discovered. Following the contour of the land and the suggestions from the villagers, the

survey team identified a number of the largest mounds of Samsun province, such as kiztepe, and

Tilmen Hyk. At these mounds, Alkm and his team collected pottery that they neither described

in the survey reports nor published separately. The site sizes are often ignored, and environmental

descriptions are rare. In one of the publications, Alkm mentions that they used a grid system and

statistical methods in their surveys, but details are lacking.79 In 1973, Alkm and his team decided to

excavate at kiztepe, and the site was investigated between 1974 and the mid-1980s.80

77 Burney 1956.
78 For examples of his work see Alkm 1972a, 1973a, 1973b.
79 Alkm 1974b, 8.
80 Alkm 1975b, 8, 1975a, 1976, 1980.

44
 Alkms research efforts in the central Black Sea region were continued as excavations and

surveys, especially in Samsun province. kiztepe has been excavated by . Bilgi of stanbul

University, one of Alkms students, since Alkms death in the mid 1980s.81 A survey project in

Samsun province has been carried on by M. zsait, also of stanbul University, since 1986.82 zsait

conducted surveys also in Amasya province, between 1986-9, and 1994-6, and in Tokat province in

1988, 1990-3, and 1997.83 A large amount of data for the present study was assembled from zsaits

survey reports. The survey reports consist of distribution maps and lists of settlements discovered

during the surveys. They provide the geographical location, distance from the nearest and largest

modern settlement, sometimes the dimensions of the settlements, the dates for the pottery collected

from the location, and sometimes their description. The actual survey methods are not described in

any of the reports. I presume that the survey team walked the fields in selected areas, within the

aforementioned provinces, but not necessarily in an organized fashion. Pottery was collected from

sites, but the distribution patterns of the pottery within these sites were not recorded. The size of

sites, when mentioned by zsait, is often only the size of the mound or the hill, rather than the

extent of the materials distribution. The areas around sites have not been investigated, nor do the

survey reports include any information on geomorphological or geological work, if such

interdisciplinary work was done. The pottery is classified only under periods, and descriptions or

drawings were not provided. Only a few photographs were included in the survey reports. Studies

of the individual periods have not yet been published.

Bilgis student . Dnmez conducted surveys in Sinop, Samsun and Amasya in 1997, in

order to relocate and reinvestigate sites mentioned by Alkm, Kkten, T. and N. zg and zsait.84

Dnmez similarly listed these sites, provided site size (limited to the surface of the mound or the

81 His excavation reports have been annually published in Kaz Sonular Toplants between 1982, and 1999.
82 For the most recent report on surveys in Samsun-Ladik see zsait 1999b.
83 For the most recent survey report of Samsun province see zsait 1998; for Tokat see zsait 1996, 1999.
84 Dnmez 1999.

45
hill), and listed the periods indicated by the pottery. He included the mounds, hills and the tumuli in

his study.

In addition to Samsun, Amasya, and Tokat, I have included survey results from the orum

and Sivas provinces. Surveys in orum were carried out by two separate teams. A. Sel and her

team travelled from the Hittite capital Boazky (Hattusa) to the Hittite frontier Maat (Tapigga) in

the east, using the reconstructed ancient routes.85 The discovery of Roman milestones along the way

suggested to the surveyors that these roads were in use for centuries after the Hittite period. The

survey was limited to the recording of only mounds along the roads between the two Hittite centers.

In this survey settlements and mounds were equated. Like the rest of the surveys in the central

Black Sea region, Sel provided the exact location for each mound, its size, and dates for the pottery

discovered on its surface, but no additional information or evaluation of the data.

Since 1996 another survey project has been conducted by T. Sipahi and T. Yldrm aoft

Ankara University.86 The survey has two objectives: locating natural routes, mounds, flat

settlements, and cemeteries in the selected regions, and understanding settlement patterns in the

third and the second millennia B.C.87 The investigations were based on information from the

villagers and an examination of the available maps. The presentation of these survey results are

similar to the earlier ones. Other than the location of site, their size, and dates for the pottery, no

additional information was included in the reports.

The final survey project, the results of which were used here, is the one around Sivas that

has been conducted by T. kse of Hacettepe University since 1992.88 The plains and peripheries of

the plateaus to the north of the Kzlrmak river were surveyed intensively, and by 1997 328 sites

85 Sel 1990, 1991.

86 Sipahi and Yldrm 1998, Yldrm and Sipahi 1999.
87 Sipahi and Yldrm 1998 and Yldrm and Sipahi 1999, 20-1.
88 kse 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999a.

46
including mounds, forts, flat settlements, tombs, cemeteries, and tumuli were identified.89 kse

discussed the results of the survey in an article in Belleten, and she investigated the Bronze and Iron

Age settlement history of the upper Kzlrmak basin.90 Her work is unique in the region because of

her synthesis of the survey results, and thus it has provided invaluable information for this study.

The results of the survey projects described above were combined for the purposes of this

study. In order to obtain a regional picture of settlement patterns through the centuries, the sites

identified by different surveys were classified together under the rubric of historical periods. These

sites were then positioned on maps of the central Black Sea region, period by period. The maps

were used to analyze site distribution both in individual provinces and in the region as a whole.

Charts were prepared in accordance with the number of sites. While they have only limited use

because of their one dimensional character, they were still useful in comparing provinces with each

other. The introductory sections of the chapter were integrated into the site distribution patterns as

much as the evidence allowed. The changes in the climate and vegetation could be only

hypothetically applied to the site distribution patterns because the goal of most of the surveys was

limited to an identification of sites and not an understanding of their larger context. Landscape was

simply ignored, as was the relationship between man and the landscape. Natural resources were

similarly overlooked. Some of these gaps may be filled by studies such as mine, but the gaps are

embedded in the project strategies and even the results of the most comprehensive approach,

embracing every possible piece of evidence, must remain hypothetical.

The site distribution study of the central Black Sea region will begin with the Chalcolithic,

the earliest period of habitation attested in the region. The Chalcolithic period is best represented in

the province of Amasya (Figs.7, 8).91 There are 17 sites at which Chalcolithic pottery was discovered

89 Intensive is the term used by kse to describe the survey (kse 1999b, 467).
90 kse 1998.
91 zsait 1988, 1989, 1996, zsait and Dndar 1997, zsait 1998.

47
(fig.9). The material was mostly found on mounds (nine) and on natural hills (six); the types of two

of these sites were not described. The occupation at Koapnar, and Apnar was exclusively

Chalcolithic. The evidence suggests that settlements were dispersed throughout the region during

the Chalcolithic period. While most of the sites were found in the Iris and Scylax river valleys, two

were located in the fertile plain to the northwest of Amasya. The Chalcolithic pottery in Amasya

was made of grayish-black clay. The pots had a fine shiny slip of light brown. Only a few had black

slip on the outside and red slip on the inside. All the pottery was well fired. At some of the sites

(e.g., Actepe and Atepe) zsait found flintstone flakes. At Atepe zsaits survey team also

discovered a flintstone field. The large number of stone tools discovered at the site and the

flintstone field suggested to the surveyors that Atepe might have been a production and

distribution center.

Around Tokat six Chalcolithic mounds were investigated (fig. 9,10). All six sites continued

to be occupied at least through the Bronze Age. Like Amasya, these sites were located in the valleys

of major rivers, in this case the Yeilrmak (Iris) and Kelkit (Lycus) rivers. Durbin described one of

the Chalcolithic sites, Kayapnar, as having a naturally defensive location because it was situated on a

rocky spur, overlooking a valley.92 The other sites investigated by zsait are mostly mounds that

rise only a few meters above the ground.93 The exception to this is Ali Tepesi or gzen as named

by Durbin. This mound, which resembles a tumulus, is 35 m high and has a diameter of 125 m.

In general, the Chalcolithic mounds in Tokat are not very large; the average site size is 0.8 ha.

Here the pottery has been studied a little more closely.94 According to zsaits description, the

pottery has inverted rims. The clay inclusions are sand, lime, and straw, and the pots were usually

medium fired. They have a camel, gray, or black colored slip, and the sherds belong to medium size

92 Durbin studied the Iron Age pottery of Tokat and Sivas: Durbin 1971.
93 zsait 1996.
94 zsait 1996, 116. Durbin studied the pottery from Tokat as well, however he concentrated his studies on the Iron

Age. I will therefore refer to his work in that section.

48
pots. While they have flat bases, some have thin and others have thicker incised linear decoration.

zsait also added that the pottery from the mounds of Erbaa-Tokat resembled that from Amasya.

This resemblance may suggest that there was a uniform culture in the valleys south of the Black Sea

mountains during the Chalcolithic period. Such a proposition is supported by the evidence from

later periods.

In the province of Samsun 10 Late Chalcolithic sites were identified (fig.11). All of these

settlements are mounds, except one that is not described. Occupation continued at these sites

during the Early, Middle, and the Late Iron Ages. Dndartepe and irlektepe were excavated in

1940-41 by .K. Kkten, N. zg, and T. zg.95 During their investigation around Samsun, they

also excavated Tekeky and Kavak-Kaledoruu and surveyed the Bafra-Alaam region, which

yielded mostly Bronze Age and later material. The kiztepe excavations also yielded Late

Chalcolithic artefacts. Within the seven architectural phases at kiztepe dating to the Late

Chalcolithic, well-fired blackish-grey and reddish-brown pottery was found. The Chalcolithic layers

included a small number of bronze objects such as pins and fish hooks.96

Samsun (especially Bafra) has always been one of the most visited and studied provinces in

the region. It was also one of the more densely settled areas in the central Black Sea region in

antiquity. The relatively easier access to the coast through the mountains south of Samsun, together

with the plains watered by the Yeilrmak, must have made this fertile area especially attractive for

settlement.

In my investigation of the province of Sivas, I have only included the northern province,

Yldzeli, and the central province, Merkez, because the Pontic region had the closest relations with

these two provinces. The Mithridatic kingdom did not expand beyond this area, and therefore I

maintained this geographical frame for the earlier periods as well. Among the 134 sites only four

95 Kkten et al. 1945.

96 Yakar 1981, 96.

49
Chalcolithic sites were recognized in these two provinces, three in Yldzeli and one in Merkez (fig.

12).97 Only one of these sites is a mound; the other three are settlements on natural hills or slopes.

In order to compare the Chalcolithic settlement in the Sivas province to the other regions

mentioned in this study, an investigation of all of the provinces of Sivas would be necessary.

orum does not provide any information for the Chalcolithic period. More intensive

fieldwork may shed light on the absence of Chalcolithic period sites.

In conclusion, there was a small number of Chalcolithic settlements mostly situated near

major rivers or their branches in the central Black Sea region (fig.9). The material collected at these

sites was relatively homogenous, and suggests a cultural uniformity. The late Chalcolithic period,

however, was also a period of international contacts. The extent and nature of the contacts between

north and central Anatolia, Bulgaria and the region of Anza, northern Greece and the Aegean, is

evident in the shapes, temper, and decoration of pottery.98 According to Thissen, northern Anatolia

had an important role in the relationship between the Karanovo VI-Varna and Mesopotamian-Uruk

complexes because of its geographical location. Certain types of pottery and the presence of copper

finds allowed Thissen to insert Dndartepe, Tekeky, and Kavak into the Karanovo VI trade

network.99 The inland sites in this scenario are considered to have acted as market places for the

goods coming from the coast (both north and west), and the south beginning in the late Chalcolithic

period. However, the evidence from the southern Black Sea is too scarce to apply such a

generalized model of exchange where there are two major interacting centers and intermediary

towns benefitting from the transactions. The local relations and micro-economical models need

further examination before the area could be connected with the suggested model. The Chalcolithic

97 The survey was conducted by Tuba kse between 1992-97, and during these surveys a total of 328 settlements were
recorded.
98 For types of pottery excavated at Dndartepe, Tekeky, Kavak, and Ikiztepe see the analysis of Thissen in his article

on Balkan-Anatolian connections (1993, 207-237), and his chronological table.

99 Thissen 1993, 222.

50
pottery and its distribution in the Black Sea region is vaguely understood and therefore provides

incomplete pictures of trade and production.

The only evidence for Chalcolithic settlement on the coast comes from the Bafra-Samsun

area, which is one of the few easy passages to the coast from the interior. Although Sinope is rather

isolated from the area I am discussing in this chapter, I still would like to mention that 10

Chalcolithic sites were discovered there.100 At two of these sites (Maltepe and imbektepe), stone

bracelets that resembled each other were discovered.

In contrast to the low density settlement during the Chalcolithic period, there is a large

number of Early Bronze Age (EBA) sites in the central Black Sea region (fig. 13, fig. 7 for site

distribution). Among the five provinces discussed here, Amasya seems to be the most densely

settled area during EBA. Of the 109 sites in Amasya, 77 supplied EBA pottery, and 36 of these

were single occupation sites.101 The establishment of new sites in Amasya reached its peak at this

time (fig. 8). During EBA 62 sites were newly established, which constitutes 80.5% of the total

number of EBA sites in Amasya. A similar increase in the other four provinces can be observed,

which suggests a growing interest in this area. The EBA sites in Amasya occupied different

landscapes. Twenty-one of the 77 were mounds, 33 were situated on natural hills, 3 were flat

settlements, and there were 2 tumuli. The types of 18 EBA sites were not described in the survey

reports. Once again, during EBA most sites were situated on the Iris, Lycus, and Scylax rivers, and

the plains were flooded by these rivers. There were more settlements north of Amasya, near Havza

and Merzifon, where there is plenty of arable land and good water sources. These sites must have

been on routes connecting the coast with the interior. Even today the modern road connecting

Ankara, orum, and Amasya with Samsun passes through Havza and Merzifon, which helps the

towns maintain their size and significance. The northern part of Amasya continued to be densely

100 Doonan, O. Sinop Regional Archaeological Survey 1998-99: Karasu Valley Survey (forthcoming); In 1997, 95-139.
101 zsait 1988, 239-57; 1989, 287-301; 1990, 367-81; 1991, 45-55; 1996, 273- ; 1997, 171 ; 1998, 143; Dnmez 1999,513.

51
settled, although there was a break during the Hellenistic period which will be discussed later in this

chapter.

EBA pottery in Amasya mostly had a grayish black exterior slip and brown or red interior

slip. Some of the pottery was red inside and outside, and others were black all over. The clay

included fine stones, mica, chaff, and some very fine lime. Firing varied from site to site as did the

quality of the pottery. The decoration included incised lines and sometimes fluting. Some of the

types had protrusions below the mouth.

In Tokat 30 EBA sites were surveyed by zsait in 1988 and 1997.102 With the addition of

the sites located by Durbin during his study of the Iron Age pottery in Tokat and Sivas, the total

number of sites discovered in the Tokat region reached 56 (fig. 10).103 Of the 30 EBA sites, 24 of

them were first occupied during this period. Eight of these were sites occupied only during EBA, so

it is clear that 42.8% of the sites in the province of Tokat were established during this period. If the

percentage of the Chalcolithic sites (10.7%) is added to this number, then we can say that half of the

settlements were already in use before the establishment of the Hittite Kingdom.

In Tokat most of the EBA sites were mounds (19), five were on natural hills, and three were

flat settlements. We will observe a higher number of mounds in Tokat during the following periods

as well. The EBA sites of Tokat were concentrated at the west and north of the modern town;

during the Classical period they appeared along the Iris and Lycus rivers and in the fertile plains

known as the Daximonitis and Phanaroia. More of these northern EBA sites were located south of

the Lycus. The EBA pottery found in the province of Tokat resemble the EBA pottery from

Amasya, and white painted decoration also appeared on the pottery from the EBA sites in Tokat.

102zsait 1994 1999.

103Durbin 1971.

52
On the surface of the mounds of Tokat, stone tools made of a local volcanic stone were discovered.

Some of these tools were leaf shaped and some were bifacial scrapers.104

In the province of Samsun there was a sudden increase in the number of EBA sites, as in the

rest of the inland region (fig. 11). During the two surveys conducted 24 years apart, 69 EBA sites

were recorded.105 The shapes of only a few of these sites were described, among which are 22

mounds, one site on a natural hill, three flat settlements, one fort, and one tumulus. From this data,

it seems as if there must have been an explosion of sites in Samsun during the EBA. Around 54%

of all sites in the province of Samsun that were investigated had their beginnings in the third

millennium B.C., but these conclusions should be regarded as preliminary since there seems to be a

discrepancy among the survey results. While Alkms survey results do not mention any Chalcolithic

material, Dnmez recorded Late Chalcolithic and EBA material at eight sites that were previously

identified by Alkm. Other sites that were identified by Alkm but not revisited by Dnmez may

have also been used in the Chalcolithic period. There is unfortunately no description of the

ceramics in either of the survey reports.

Excavations have continued at kiztepe since 1974, and they have shed light on the EBA as

well as later periods. The excavation data should be regarded as an invaluable source of comparanda

for the rest of the Samsun area and perhaps the central Black Sea region. Based on the examination

of this data, Yakar observed a significant change in culture during the EB I (3,000-2,700 B.C.) and

II (2,700-2,400 B.C.).106 According to him, the techniques of pottery production, their decorative

elements, and representations of deities pointed to a connection between north central Anatolia and

southeast Europe in EBA. Another connection was observed by Thissen, this time between north-

central Anatolia and the west, specifically, the islands of the Aegean such as Samos, Chios, Rhodes,

104 At Kyii and Kmarmudu more such tools were found. One source of the stone was also recorded on top of the
site: zsait 1999a, 93.
105 Alkm 1970s, Kzltan 1992, Dnmez 1999.
106 Yakar 1981, 94-112.

53
and possibly Kalimnos.107 The kiztepe, Tekeky and Kavak excavations demonstrated that the

burials in EB III (were more frequently separated from the domestic areas, just as at orum,

Amasya, and Tokat, as well as some of the sites situated further inland such as Alacahyk and

Kltepe. Although extramural burial became customary in the EBA III, it co-existed with

intramural cemeteries, as is proven by the Kalnkaya burials near orum.108 At kiztepe the majority

of the burials contained adult men, next to whom weapons had been deposited. The emergence of

monumental tombs in Alacahyk, Kltepe, Alacahan, and Gedikli is not paralleled in the north.

At Gller and Oymaaa near orum two cemeteries of EBA III were found. The bodies,

buried in jars and pithoi, were accompanied by pins, metal vessels, weapons, deity representations,

small bronze bull figurines, mace heads, and sun disks.109 The variety of burial gifts is worth

investigating, especially considering the fact that only weapons had been deposited.

orum followed its neighbors with regard to the high number of EBA sites (fig. 14). This is

also the earliest occupation recorded for this area.110 Mound sites were more common in orum, an

observation that may be the result of a biased site-type survey strategy.111 Thirty-three EBA sites

were marked on the survey maps, 26 of which were mounds. Around 56% of the sites in orum

were occupied before the Assyrian Colony/Hittite Old Kingdom period. Only eight sites (two of

which are cemeteries) had single occupation, which indicates that site continuity in orum following

the EBA was high, and thus similar to the rest of the region.

Excavations at Alaca Hyk, south of orum, yielded a significant amount of data from the

second millennium B.C. and established the site as one of the important centers of the period. The

107 Thissen 1993, 207-237.

108 Mellink 1972, 169.
109 zg 1978, 89.
110 Sel 1990, 1991; Sipahi and Yldrm 1998; Yldrm and Sipahi 1999. Once again I am only investigating the south,

north, and northeastern sides of the province. I am therefore not including the widely excavated Hittite sites of
Boazky and Aliar.
111 As mentioned above, the purpose of the survey project directed by Aygl Sel was to identify the road network

between the two Hittite centers of Hattusas and Tapigga, and the settlements along these roads. This involved an area
and site-type specific research.

54
13 tombs containing wealthy finds of gold and other metals are considered an indication of this

significance. The precious metal objects found elsewhere in the central Black Sea region, such as at

Mahmatlar near Amasya, and Horoztepe near Tokat, can be compared to the finds in the Alaca

tombs, and they should be considered objects of art created by the same culture.112

Sivas seems to present slightly different results since EBA marks the beginning of dense

occupation throughout its history (fig. 12). In other words, EBA does not stand out as an especially

crowded period for this province. The Sivas province seems to have been more intensively

surveyed, as suggested by kse herself, which possibly resulted in the discovery of more sites of

every period.

In EBA 45 settlements (22 mounds, 20 natural hills, 1 flat, 2 forts) were in use. At 43 of

these 45 sites, settlement began in the EBA. Sixty percent of the EBA settlements were smaller

mounds, and 40% were large mounds.113 Two-thirds of the EBA settlements were on plateaus, and

one-third were on flat ground along the valleys. One-third of the large mounds and two-fifths of

the smaller mounds were situated in the valleys.

Sixty percent of the pottery discovered during the survey was the handmade, reddish-brown,

black or red-glazed monochrome pottery commonly found in central Anatolia.114 In addition to the

central Anatolian monochrome, two other types of pottery were discovered in Merkez and

Yldzeli.115 These include an eastern Anatolian type called Karaz and the so-called Intermediate.116

Karaz pottery takes its name from the excavation site of Karaz near Erzurum, and it is a distinctive

type within eastern Anatolia.117 It is grayish-black with reddish-brown glaze and a burnished surface.

112 Alkm 1970,125.

113 kse 1998, 312.
114 kse 1998, 313.
115 For central Anatolian monochrome pottery see Orthmann 1963, 68-8.
116 Intermediate pottery in Early Bronze Age Anatolia has been extensively studied by kt 1973 in his dissertation, Die

Intermediate-Kermaik in Kleinasien (1973).

117 For Karaz excavations and pottery, see Koay and Turfan 1959, 349-413; Orthmann 1963, 80; and Burney 1958, 157-

209.

55
It is handmade, and has incised or relief decoration, mostly lines. The Karaz type of pottery was

found mainly to the east of the surveyed area, which suggested to the surveyor that this was a

transitional region between the eastern and central Anatolian cultures.118 The Intermediate type of

ceramics was primarily found at sites to the west of the upper Kzlrmak area. The Karaz,

Intermediate and Aliar III types were interchangebly used in the other provinces of Sivas as well.

In all of the provinces of the central Black Sea region, EBA is a period of dense settlement.

This may partially be the result of a relative ease in identifying EBA pottery and biased survey

strategies, but the results were surely not influenced by these factors alone. 119

Climatic changes may have affected patterns of settlement during the third millennium B.C.

At that time, the climate became gradually colder and caused the sea-level to fall almost 10 m below

the present sea-level.120 Following the Climatic Maximum, the steppes of central Anatolia became

dry, thereby promoting migration to the river valleys. The central Black Sea region must have had

favorable habitation conditions during this period, because of its large rivers and their valleys. The

coastal plains must also have become even wider as a result of the decline of the sea-level. These

favorable conditions may have resulted in dense settlement in the central Black Sea region during the

EBA.

The density of settlement may have resulted from political conditions as well. The greater

number of smaller sites in the upper Kzlrmak valley may indicate that there was no central

authority. An absence of central authority and large central towns may have in turn permitted the

formation of smaller, independent settlements. According to kse, the small mounds of the upper

Kzlrmak were probably small villages and temporary sites, suggestive of semi-sedentary life, as was

118 kse 1998, 314.

119 Most surveys had a prehistoric focus.
120 See fig 4.

56
the case in the upper Euphrates.121 This model cannot be extended to other provinces in the central

Black Sea region until more information on site types and sizes is gathered.

When the excavation results from northern (kiztepe, Dndartepe, etc.) and western

Anatolia (Yazr Hyk, Demirci Hyk IV, Beik Tepe, and Hanay Tepe) are compared, it becomes

clear that the EBA I culture was widespread and homogeneous across Anatolia.122 Northwestern

Anatolia is recognized as having adopted a new culture (an observation based solely on pottery) by

EBA II, and this separation continued into EBA III. The external relations are even harder to

establish, although a certain amount of exchange between northern Anatolia and southwestern

Europe has been suggested by scholars.123 Its extent and effect on settlement patterns in the central

Black Sea require further investigation. These conclusions are rather general, but in the future
14
advanced surveys and excavations providing C dates, the results of pollen and bone analysis,

geomorphological data, and detailed descriptions of sites and other structures should permit a more

sophisticated analysis of EBA in northern Anatolia.

In the second millennium B.C. there are written sources that attest to habitation in the

northern part of Anatolia. The Hittite texts found at such centers as Hattusa and Maathyk refer

to a group of people called Kaka/Gaska/Gasga. Their first recorded appearance dates to the reign

of Hantili, the son of Alluwamna (1590-1560 B.C.). They captured a place called Nerik in the

Pontic vicinity and took Tiliura after it was abandoned by the Hittites.124 Following this appearance

they were only mentioned in Hittite texts in regard to the problems they caused. The Kaka lived in

the mountains without an organized political system. They threatened the Hittites constantly, and

although they never in fact managed to destroy the Hittites, they slowed down the expansion of this

121 kse 1998, 311. For a comparison between the upper Kzlrmak valley and the Upper Euphrates, Caucasus, Early
Neolithic Near East,and Don river valley see kse 1998, 314. Settlement patterns in the Upper Euphrates are discussed
by Lupton (1996, 82).
122 Bittel and Otto 1939, 24; Koay and Sperling 1936, 24; Furness 1956, 204-6; Yakar 1975, 139.
123 Burney 1956.
124 Gurney 1990, 24-5.

57
powerful kingdom. Although Tudhaliya I drove the Kaka people away when they attacked, and

managed to conquer some of the Kaka land, the problem continued.125 The Hittite texts suggest

that Kaka people spoke a language very similar to Hatti.

The other group of people mentioned in the Hittite texts who are associated with northern

Anatolia are the Pala. These tribes probably lived around the area of the modern town of

Kastamonu, an area which is later known as Paphlagonia.126

Some of the Hittite place names have been associated with cities in the Black Sea region by

scholars. Zalpa, for example, was considered a Hittite center in the region of the Black Sea, based

on Hittite texts.127 Bryce suggested that Zalpa could have been somewhere near Samsun and that it

may have become an independent kingdom during the Assyrian Colony period.

Hakmi/Hakpi/Hakpissa, often placed near Amasya, became the capital of the

northeastern principality during the reign of Muwattalis (1315-1296 B.C.).128 This principality was

ruled by Hattusilis III (1289-1265 B.C.), who was assigned to the position by Muwattalis.

Nerik/Nerikka must have been a city also in the vicinity of modern-day Amasya. Nerik was an

important worship center of the weather-god Nerik. According to some scholars, the northern

Hittite city Knrustamma, situated on the Black Sea coast to the left of the Halys, could have been a

settlement preceding Sesamos/Amastris.129 Tapigga was identified as Maat Hyk, and Alp

associated the Hellenistic and Roman sanctuary of Zela with the Hittite cultic city Anziliya.130

Goetze located another site, Sanahuitta, between Mecitz and Amasya, whereas Cornelius placed it

125 Bryce 1998, 137.

126 Umar 2000, 9. Ertem (1980) proposed that the Kaka people lived between Sinop and Bafra, and the Pala people
lived to the southwest of Pontus around Osmanck-Vezirkpr.
127 Anitta inscriptions mention that Nesa was attacked by Uhna, the ruler of the kingdom of Zalpa, CTH 1; Bryce 1998,

34. Zalpa was destroyed by Hattusili (Bryce 1998, 74). Another inscription testifies that there had been a rebellion in
Zalpa, CTH 3.1.
128 Apol. 8, II, 56-60.
129 Sakaoullar 1999, 3.
130 He refers to a letter to the Hittite king from Maat Hyk: Alp 1977a, 638-40; 642-3.

58
between Sivas and Malatya, and Kempinski and Koak between Aliar and orum.131 The scholarly

controversy regarding the location of the northern cities results from the unclear political structure

of the people in the north as well as the scarce number of studies conducted in the region.

Bryce wrote that the Kaka people may have played an important role in the destruction of

the Hittite Kingdom, and he believed that they occupied a large part of the Hittite territory

afterwards. The fact that the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser was confronted by the Kaka people

around the upper Euphrates has been used as evidence in favor of this theory.132

In the second millennium B.C., we mainly see continuity in site occupation rather than new

establishments. The number of Middle and Late Bronze Age (MBA-LBA) sites are fewer than sites

of EBA in most of the provinces (fig. 15). In Amasya, only 26 second millennium sites were

recorded, among which only one was a new site of single occupation (fig. 8). As was the case in

EBA, the number of sites on natural hills was higher than the number of mounds occupied in the

region. While there were 13 sites on natural hills, there were eight mound sites, and six unidentified.

In Tokat the number of second millennium sites is 26, which is very close to the number of

EBA sites in the province (fig. 10). Here only 10 sites began to be occupied in the second

millennium. Twenty-one mounds, three sites on natural hills, and three on flat land were

documented.

Samsun had a higher number of occupied sites during the Hittite period. Surveys here

located 53 sites with second millennium B.C. ceramics (fig. 11). Only one of these sites was newly

established during this period. However, the high number of sites in Samsun, following the

explosion of sites in EBA, suggests that most of the newly established EBA sites continued to be

occupied during the Hittite period. This is in contrast to the situation in Amasya, where there were

131 Goetze 1957, 98; Cornelius 1979, 102-3; Kempinski and Koak 1982, 108.
132 Bryce 1998, 388.

59
77 EBA sites versus 29 in the second millennium. Alkm was able to identify Hittite pottery among

the second millennium material at a number of sites.133

In the northern part of Sivas we see a decline in site occupation similar to the situation in

Amasya (fig. 12). There only about half of the EBA sites continued to be settled (28 second

millennium sites). Two MBA and two LBA sites were new foundations in northern and central

Sivas. Along with 16 mounds, surveys have identified nine settlements on natural hills, one flat

settlement, one fort, and one castle. In MBA the number of larger settlements was twice the

number of smaller ones and most of these larger settlements were situated on plateaus, as opposed

to the situation in EBA.134 The smaller sites, on the other hand, were concentrated along the valleys.

Another difference is that MBA settlements were mostly to the west of the Upper Kzlrmak

valley.135 The wheelmade, red-glazed, burnished pottery of central Anatolia has been discovered in

the western upper Kzlrmak valley.136 Aliar III types were also discovered to the west of the valley

and in the southern plateaus.137 The spread of MBA pottery across the valley suggested to the

surveyor that a road originally connected the west of the upper Kzlrmak valley and Malatya plain

with the upper Euphrates region during the Assyrian Colony and the Old Hittite Kingdom

periods.138 Such a road would of course have promoted wider regional contacts.

orum probably has the most consistent site representation among the provinces included

in this study. Thirty of the original 32 EBA sites continued to be occupied during the M-LBA, while

133 Alkm 1973a, 1974.

134 kse 1998, 317, graph 2.
135 kse 1998, 317. kse created diagrams demonstrating possible communication routes between the MBA sites (1998,

diagram 2). The diagram indicates that most of the settlements communicated with one another. Some of the
settlements do not have any direct roads between them, and the reason for this is not explained. The reconstruction
seems hypothetical, but it is not possible to propose an alternative with such a small amount of information available
from the survey results.
136 Orthmann 1963, 31.
137 For more information on Aliar III pottery, Orthmann is once again our best source (1963, 19-21).
138 kse 1998, 318.

60
one new site was founded (fig. 14). Twenty-nine of these sites were mounds. Two MBA cemeteries

in Kazankaya and Bget near orum were excavated by zg.139

In general, there was continuity in occupation at EBA sites, and no attempt to establish sites

at new locations during this period (fig. 7, 15). The continuation of intramural and extramural burial

traditions identified at excavated cemeteries suggests that the population groups remained stable at

the transition between the EBA and MBA.140 While in the central and southeastern parts of the

inland Black Sea area the site numbers declined (considerably in Amasya, and slightly in Sivas), in

other parts to the south, west, and north the number of sites remained more or less the same. The

site numbers and surface finds alone, however, are not sufficient to enable us to reach conclusions

regarding these significant transitional periods. Many excavated sites in central Anatolia for example

have revealed that EBA ended with destruction, and second millennium sites were not rebuilt over

the EBA sites.141 A similar situation was also observed in eastern Anatolia.142 It is not often possible

to observe traces of destruction when dealing with surface material, and surface pottery can tell us

little about the actual conditions of habitation. However, the MBA pottery found together with

EBA pottery at surveyed sites in the central Black Sea region suggests that EBA sites were occupied

during MBA, with a possible interruption that is not visible in the survey data. Investigations

regarding site size, pottery density, and the nature of the hinterland of large sites are lacking in

survey reports from the Black Sea region, and these may not have been considered during the

surveys.

Information concerning the relative sizes of sites occupied during MBA is provided only by

the Sivas province survey. According to the Sivas survey results, larger settlements had become

more common than smaller ones in the MBA. The surveyor believed that the warm climate

139 zg 1978, 71-78.

140 Yakar 1981, 105-106.
141 Mellaart 1958, 9-10; Yakar 1992, 510.
142 Mellaart 1958, 9.

61
provided very favorable conditions that may have led to population growth.143 The rise in

population necessitated central control at a local level and resulted in social hierarchy. As a result,

some settlements became larger, and the smaller settlements surrounded these larger settlements.

The stronger fortifications of the central Anatolian towns suggested that defense had become more

vital than before.144 The destructions mentioned by the Anitta tablet indicated political and

economic strife among the petty chiefdoms.145 These are widely generalized conclusions derived

from excavation and studies in neighboring regions, and they may not represent the situation north

of the central Black Sea region, especially if the more isolated character of this area throughout its

history is considered.

The historical sources are not helpful in understanding the situation in the central Black Sea

region either. It is, in fact, rather difficult to see in the north the impact of the establishment of the

Hittite kingdom, because it had been a problematic area that the Hittites were never able to conquer.

Hittite sites in the north are mentioned in texts, but none has yet been securely identified. This

makes it harder to understand how far Hittite hegemony reached in the north. A relatively denser

site distribution around Samsun in the second millennium may be an indication of Hittite access to

the coast, at least around Samsun. This would, however, have been dangerous for the Kaka people,

who would become vulnerable to attacks from the north as well as the south, and they probably

would not have allowed such a deep penetration. On the other hand, we do not know whether the

Kaka had any interest in the coast, or if they limited their activities to the mountainous zone. It is

also difficult to know which resources were more important to them, and whether their fight against

the Hittites represented a desire to protect their existing territory rather than adding new territories

to it. The coasts could have prospered independently, having become part of a trade network along

143 kse 1998, 320.

144 Naumann 1975, 262.
145 CHT 1.

62
the coast, and continued their relations with the inland settlements, and possibly even with the

Hittite sites. There is no archaeological evidence associated with the Kaka people, and it remains

one of the problems in Hittite history and archaeology yet to be solved. Until then, however, the

unresolved nature of this problem limits further analysis of possible relations among the Hittites, the

Kaka, and other groups.

Already in the first quarter of the first millennium B.C. the Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians

began founding colonies on the western shores of Anatolia, where they had benefited from the lack

of an organized political system following the collapse of the Hittite Empire.146 The colonies on the

southern shores of the Black Sea date to the second quarter of the first millennium. Between 750

and 550 B.C., and especially after the Lydian kingdom flourished and controlled the eastern trade

routes, the Greeks on the western coast of Anatolia began searching for new ports to enlarge their

trade network. Therefore, the Ionians, especially Milesians, and some Dorians, possibly Boetians

and Megarians, sailed to the Black Sea. These groups established colonies at Herakleia (the

identification of the colonizing city is disputed), Amisos (by Milesians), Tieum (by Milesians), and

Sinope; then the settlers of Sinope established colonies such as Cotyora, Cerasus, and Trapezus in

the late eighth and seventh centuries B.C. (fig. 16).147 We do not have satisfactory information

regarding the inland towns of the Black Sea during this period. All the information we have on the

inland towns comes from survey projects.

The reasons for Greek colonization in general have been discussed by J. Boardman and

other scholars, and I will therefore not go into the details of that topic here. Instead I would like to

consider the reasons for Greek or Ionian interest in the Black Sea and to pinpoint the assumptions

146 There was a lack of political organization between the collapse of the Hittite Empire and the rise of the individual
Anatolian kingdoms such as the Phrygians, Lydians, Lycians, Carians and the Urartians, and this period was referred to
as the Dark Ages of Anatolia (Akurgal 1987, 134-41).
147 For the foundation of Amisos see Scymnus 956 f., Arr. Perip. 15; App. Mithr. 8; Plut. Luc. 19,7; for Herakleia, Strabo

12, 542; for Sinope, Eusebius Chron. 2, 80; for Tieum, Scylax Perip. 90; for the colonies of Sinope, Arrian Anab. 6, i, 15;
Umar 2000, 16-7.

63
that have been made. Scholars have suggested a variety of reasons for Black Sea colonization,

including political strife at home, a thirst for habitable land, a desire for increased trade, especially in

metals of the east, and the abundance of fish products.148 The Propontis and the areas west and

north of the Black Sea had good arable lands that provided grain for the Aegean. The southern part

and most of the rest of the Black Sea was rich in fish, and fish were also abundant in the rivers of

the surrounding regions. The southern and eastern parts were famous for their metal resources.149

We cannot be certain as to whether a desire for all of these resources prompted Greek settlement,

but it seems likely that the settlers of the eighth century B.C. were aware of at least some of the

resources available in the Black Sea area.

The study of the relationship between the Greeks and natives in colonized areas is limited to

Italy and Sicily, where Greeks ejected most of the Sicels from their settlements, and to Scythia.150

Moreover, a belief in the superiority of the Greeks has dominated the scholarship, and the

colonization movement has usually been examined with this attitude. Preliminary studies clear of

biases have been conducted elsewhere, such as in Albania and Croatia, and these are likely to shed

more light on the Greek-native relationships especially during the colonization period.151

The situation in and around the Black Sea was not necessarily similar to the examples of Italy

and Scythia. What might in fact have happened on the southern coast of the Black Sea is that the

Greeks mingled with the natives who lived on the coast and got involved in trading activities. There

148 For example, Hind (1998, 135) argued that the foundation of Heraclia Pontica was due to pressure from Athens over
the Megarans and a possible plague, as indicated by the ancient sources (Paus. Desc.Graec. and Just. Epith. 16.3).
Tsetskhladze 1998a, 9) finds trade and political strife at home as reasons for colonization too simplistic, and prefers to
see more complex patterns regarding the interest of the Greeks in the Black Sea. On trade and colonization in the Black
Sea see Irimia 1973, 7-71; Lazarov 1979, 61-68; Archibald 1983, 304-321; Archibald 1995, 85-100; Treister 1993, 377-
389. There were metal ores in Asia Minor, Thrace, and Scythia, as well as in Kerch, the Caucasian mountains and
Chalybes in the southern Black Sea: Tsetskhladze 1998a, 66-7, Shelov 1979, 1-6, Rozanova and Terekhova 1997, 92-94.
149 It is now considered unlikely that the Black Sea provided grain to the Aegean, especially in the Archaic period.

(Tsetskhladze 1998a, 66).

150 On Greeks in south Italy and Sicily see Boardman 1980, 189-192; on Greeks and Scythians see Boardman 1980, 256-

264 and more recently Masslenikov 1981, 15-65; Melyukova 1985, 8-27; Marchenko 1988, 107-130, Saprykin 1979b, 9-
22; Frolov 1979, 22-33.
151 See Wilkes 1992 and Chapman 1996.

64
is no evidence of any destruction in this part of the Black Sea, and no evidence for a carefully

organized colonization scheme with planned towns.152 The Greeks may have introduced the coastal

towns of the southern Black Sea to international trade and improved the flow of goods among the

more distant areas. There is no abundance of arable land on the southern Black Sea shore, however;

except for parts of Samsun and Sinop, most of the region is mountainous. The location of well-

protected harbors seems more likely to have attracted foreigners.

The time at which the Greeks settled has been discussed at length, and there seems to be an

attempt to push it earlier and earlier.153 The eighth century B.C. is the date generally accepted for

the first journeys of the Greeks to the Black Sea, but there is no archaeological evidence to support

this on the southern shores. There is literary evidence that Sinope, her colony Trapezus, near

Trabzon, and Cyzicus were established in the mid-eighth century B.C.154 Yet the earliest East Greek

pottery to have been found at Sinope dates to ca. 600 B.C., which is also the case in Trapezus.155

Although Amisos (Samsun) is usually considered to be a later colony, the Eastern Greek pottery

found there is nearly contemporary with the Sinope material.156 One should, however, be as

cautious about the study of pottery as one is about the study of coins. While some sort of Greek

presence as early as 600 B.C. is indicated by the eastern Greek pots, we await more detailed

information from intensive surveys.

In terms of this study, it is not essential to determine whether the Greeks settled in the

eighth or the seventh century B.C. It is enough to know that there were Greeks involved in the

152 Evidence may be lacking as a result of the scarcity of archaeological work in the region.
153 The state of scholarship is very well summarized by Tsetskhladze (1998a, 10-15) with detailed bibliography in
footnotes: 6-39. He also recognized the speculative nature of the evidence.
154 Eusebius dates the foundation of Trapezus to 756 B.C. (Chron.II, 80). Wilson 1960) also believed in this date, and

cited the poetry of Eumelus of Corinth (Schol.Ap.Rhod.ii 946a) that mentions Sinope. While Sinopes presence in this
poetry indicates that the Greeks were aware of the town, it does not necessarily mean that Greeks already lived there.
155 Akurgal and Budde carried out investigations in and around Sinope between 1951-3 and could not find any remains

from an earlier date (Akurgal and Budde 1956). In addition to the East Greek pottery, some Corinthian has also been
found in the graves excavated in Sinope, and the latter dates a little later than the former (Boysal 1959).
156 Cook 1946.

65
social, economic, and cultural life of the Black Sea. If the presence of Greeks shaped the

development of towns of the Black Sea, which they most likely did, then this role should be

examined in a more detailed way.

In most of the provinces, the number of Iron Age (IA) sites was close to the number of the

second millennium sites, and in Sivas and Tokat this number was even slightly higher.157 Only in

Amasya did the decrease in site occupation continue during the first millennium B.C. Sixteen sites

provided IA material there. There may have been several reasons for this decline in site occupation

in Amasya, but one seems to be the most likely: in the EBA a great number of independent sites

flourished as a result of a lack of political organization in the region in the Hittite period, after

Amasya became the principality of the province, there was most likely a movement from rural sites

to the city. The growing reputation of Amasya might have attracted people from the surrounding

areas, since the city may have become a center for trade once officially linked to the Hittite realm.

Nucleation in settlement patterns may have taken place in the province of Amasya. Such a theory

would also explain the low number of sites during the Hellenistic period. The Amasya province may

have received people from the surrounding regions during the Hellenistic period, since it remained

the capital of the Pontic kingdom for several hundred years. Intensive surveys will be necessary to

prove this theory. The site types during IA in Amasya follow the pattern of the preceding periods,

with a greater number of natural hills (eight), five mounds, one grave, and two unidentified sites

(figs. 8, 17).

In Tokat, the number of IA sites exceeded the number of second millennium sites (fig. 10).

Of the 35 IA sites in Tokat, 25 were mounds, 5 were on natural hills, and 2 were flat settlements.

None of the surveys provides site sizes for individual periods, nor exact dates for what they call Iron Age. The
157

approximate date for the Iron Age in Anatolia is 1200-700 B.C.

66
Two IA tumuli were also examined. The IA pottery from Tokat as well as Sivas was closely

examined by Durbin.158

In Samsun 37 IA sites have been located but very few of them have been described; 29 of

them were unidentified, and other than 7 mounds, only 1 fortress was mentioned (fig. 11). In Sivas,

as in Tokat, there were more IA than second millennium sites (fig. 12). The IA sites in Sivas

province number 36 (12 mounds, 21 on natural hills, 1 flat settlement and 2 fortresses), which is

close to the number of EBA sites. Sixty percent of the mounds were large, and most were on

plateaus. Wheelmade pottery with geometric designs, usually found in central Anatolia from the

ninth to the seventh centuries B.C., has been discovered in particular to the west of the upper

Kzlrmak valley.159 In orum 31 IA sites represent the consistency in occupation mentioned above

(fig. 14). As has been the case through the centuries here, the majority of the sites were mounds

(28); there were also one flat and two unidentified sites.

The common feature of the last four provinces is site continuity. 160 Other than the two new

sites in Tokat and one in Sivas, no new settlements were established in either of the provinces.

Some sites occupied in IA had not been inhabited since the third millennium, which may indicate

abandonment. Although we may consider such sites as new IA settlements, I prefer to call a site new

when that site was occupied for the first time in one period or another. Among IA pottery from

Tokat, Samsun, Sivas, and orum, there is also Phrygian pottery. Only one site in Amasya

(Toklutepe) yielded Phrygian ceramics.

The next periods, especially the Classical and Hellenistic, blur in the investigation reports

(fig. 18). While some survey reports label the period as Hellenistic, without exact chronological

parameters, others use the term Classical to describe the material that falls between IA and the

158 Durbin 1971.

159 kse 1998, 328.
160 Continuity at sites refers to the discovery of pottery from successive periods at most sites; whether the continuity

was smooth or with interruptions cannot be recognized at this stage.

67
Roman period. Therefore, it is never clear whether the surveys included material from the Greek

colony period, or what exactly is Classical in the Black Sea region. The criteria that are used to

identify Hellenistic pottery also require further investigation, or at least more detailed descriptions.

At first I separated the sites identified as Classical and Hellenistic by the survey teams, but the

period one survey team called Classical was the same period the others called Hellenistic.

According to the surveys, while some provinces only had what is called Classical and no

Hellenistic sites, others reportedly had Hellenistic and no Classical.161 I gathered from these

results that there is a significant disagreement among the scholars regarding the labelling of the

period between IA and the Roman period. I then brought the Hellenistic and Classical period

sites back together in order to examine the region during a longer span of time extending from the

end of IA to the Roman period (ca. sixth century-30 B.C.).

The most densely inhabited region during the Classical/Hellenistic period was Sivas (figs. 12,

18). Here another explosion of new sites was observed (fig. 19). Fifty percent of the sites continued

to be occupied, while 50% new sites were founded. In total, 69 sites yielded Hellenistic pottery.

This increase marked a new prosperous period in the Sivas region that continued into the Roman

and Byzantine periods. There were very few mounds among the 69 sites (only ten). The Hellenistic

population instead seems to have preferred to settle on natural hills (50 sites): all of the new

Hellenistic settlements, except the four flat ones, were on natural hills. A more careful study of the

geographical features surrounding these natural hills would no doubt be informative. Other than the

site types listed above, there are two tumuli, one grave, one fort, and one castle that can be dated to

the Hellenistic period in northern and central Sivas. Sivas itself was the site of one of the large

settlements of the Hellenistic period. Megalopolis, which then became Sebasteia, must have been

somewhere near the modern-day Sivas. Taulara, probably a forerunner of Megalopolis, was

No dates were assigned to either groups by the survey teams and thus it would not be appropriate for this study to
161

apply terms to these dates.

68
Mithradates treasury, and he took his treasure with him in his flight from Comana to the

Euphrates.162 Reinach placed the treasury at Taurla (Tavara) above Kundur Bridge, on the right

bank of the Lycus. However, the plausibility of this placement has been disputed by scholars.

There was a fortress 29 km southeast of Sivas named Halkkalesi, which may have been this

treasury.

None of the other provinces that fall into our study area has yielded such high numbers for

the Classical/Hellenistic period. Samsun has only 14, orum 23 (most identified as Classical), Tokat

14 (all Classical), and Amasya only 5 Hellenistic sites. The interpretation of such a collection of data

is rather difficult. Surveys may have failed to record or recognize post-Iron Age sites since the

primary focus of most of them dealt with the prehistoric periods; or Sivas may have been more

densely inhabited while other sites in the region were spread across the landscape. The reason for a

smaller number of sites in the rest of the region may have also resulted from the presence of large

Hellenistic cities and the concentration of the population in these centers. Habitation here during

the Hellenistic period is further discussed in Chapter 4; but it is clear that the survey results are not

especially reliable due to different survey strategies, varying specialization and level of expertise, a

lack of sound chronologies and a lack of interest in a chronologically broad understanding of the

region.

Continuity is the rule for the Roman period as well, except for Amasya (fig. 7, 20). Sivas has

68 sites recorded for the Roman period, with 97% continuity from the Hellenistic period (fig. 19).163

orum has only 4 Roman sites, Tokat 10 (63.6% continuity) (fig. 19), and Samsun 18. During the

Roman period in Amasya, 17 new Roman sites, all with single occupation, have been recorded. The

total number of Roman sites in Amasya is 24.

162 App. Mith. 82, 115; Plut. Luc. XIX, 1.

163 A detailed table can be found at the end of the dissertation.

69
 In the Late Antique and Byzantine periods there is a decline in every province compared

with the number of sites recorded in the previous period (fig.7, 21). The later periods, including

Seljuk, Ottoman and Turkish, are extremely under-represented.

Conclusions

The survey evidence suggests that the earliest visible remains of any site in the central Black

Sea region date to the Chalcolithic period. No Palaeolithic or Neolithic material was recognized

among the finds, and this is more or less consistent with the rest of the northern Anatolia: a survey

conducted by Roger Matthews in Paphlagonia recorded only a few Palaeolithic and no Neolithic

sites.164 The lack of systematic surveys and excavations in the region could be responsible for the

lack of Neolithic sites in northern Anatolia, but the fact that neither the Pontic nor the Paphlagonian

surveys came across any evidence of settlement during the Neolithic period suggests that there was

no settlement in the region then. This may be due to the mountainous character of the north and its

relatively harsher climatic conditions.

The Early Bronze Age is a distinctive period because of the sudden increase in material. In

all of the provinces surveyed many sites yielded EBA pottery. The possible reasons for this

explosion of sites have been discussed above, and the strongest seems to be the favorable climatic

conditions in the river valleys of the central Black Sea region during the third millennium B.C.,

which must have encouraged semi-sedentary life at independent sites.

In most of the provinces the number of sites gradually declined in the second and first

millennia. Only in Sivas, where site numbers had declined slightly during the transition from the

third, into the second and then into the first millennia, was there a significant increase in settlement

figures during the Hellenistic and Roman times. This is a trend that continued into the Byzantine

164 Personal correspondence.

70
period. In Amasya, the relatively livelier Roman period was followed by a complete silence until the

Seluk occupation. No sites dating to the late Antique and Byzantine periods were found.

The general trend of continuous habitation at sites in the central Black Sea region after the

EBA period hinders an evaluation of the relationship between site size and site distribution,

although this could have indicated a great deal about socio-political and economic conditions in

different periods. Unlike the Paphlagonian sites, which represent single periods, Pontic sites yielded

material sometimes spanning over 4,000 years.165 While this is unfortunate for the reasons explained

above, it is in itself an indication of the favorable conditions which enabled long-term habitation.

Indeed, the sites of all periods crowded the fertile valleys of the major rivers, the Yeilrmak,

Kzlrmak, Kelkit, and ekerek. The plains associated with these rivers are still the heartland of the

regions economy, and they form natural crossings through the mountains leading to the coast.

Later, during the Roman period, the sites were concentrated along the major trade routes which

must be an indication of a substantial dependence on commerce then.

The number of sites may have fluctuated through these 4,000 years, but the habitation of

areas with good resources, mainly arable lands, and the control of communication routes remained

unchanged within the central Black Sea region. However simplistic this conclusion may seem, the

maps created based on the surveys illustrated again and again that the distribution of sites were

dictated by these factors. The next step should be to take sample areas, conduct intensive surveys,

and identify the characteristic factors for specific periods.

The results presented in this chapter, based on surveys conducted in the central Black Sea

region (at Amasya, Tokat, Samsun, orum and Sivas), must be regarded as preliminary due to the

incomplete nature of the information. Although the survey data has raised many significant

questions, most have to remain unanswered. Yet this exercise demonstrates that archaeological

165 Personal communication with Dr. R. Matthews.

71
surveys are exceptionally valuable, and new techniques are being developed that enable scholars to

further their investigations regarding single and multiple periods. The surveys used in this study

satisfy these objectives only to a certain extent. What is necessary are intensive surveys,

archaeological and geological sampling, a closer study of the topography and a discussion of its

relation to individual sites, the assessment of site sizes where possible, and, most importantly, an

evaluation and publication of the data before they are forgotten.

72
CHAPTER III

The Late Hellenistic Period in the Central Black Sea Region

The Origins of Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysus (120-63 B.C.)

Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysus ruled the Pontic kingdom from 120 B.C. until 63 B.C. He

expanded the territory of the kingdom from the northern coast of the Black Sea to the southern

coast of Asia Minor. Although his efforts to rule all of Asia Minor and Greece were not ultimately

successful, he managed to challenge the Roman Republic for several decades. The life and policy of

Mithradates Eupator have been extensively studied, first by Meyer in 1879,166 then in 1890 by

Reinach,167 which remained the standard work until very recently, and finally by McGing in 1986.168

These studies concentrated on the historical sequence of events during the reign of Mithradates, and

they illustrated this period with additional information on his personal life based on literary sources.

Archaeology has more to offer to the study of the Mithradatic kingdom. If we can understand the

past of Mithradates, his family and his cultural background, we can also better understand his

kingdom, his relations with Pontic peoples, and the reasons for his ambitions.

Asia Minor has always been a crossroads for many civilizations. This itself makes it

impossible to assign ethnic groups to regions. Anatolia has witnessed many immigrations and raids,

and it fell under the rule of various kingdoms and empires, during which time different ethnic

groups lived. The non-royal inhabitants of Asia Minor have consistently been treated as a mute

element in this process. While we know more about the kings, emperors, wars, conquests, and their

monumental commemoration, we have less information about the people who formed the

kingdoms and empires. The purpose of this study is to look at one kingdom in its entirety.
166 Meyer 1968.
167 Reinach 1890.
168 McGing 1986.

73
 Before his first war with the Romans, Mithradates told his troops that he was descended on

his mothers side from Alexander the Great and Seleucus I, and on his fathers side from Cyrus and

Darius, thereby relating himself to both the Macedonian empire and Persian royalty. 169 Was there

truth in this? It is probably not important if it is true or not. What is more important is that he used

this image to appeal to two different groups of people with whom he dealt. On the one hand, there

were the Greek colonies that controlled the traffic in the Black Sea, and on the other hand there

were the local people in the hinterland and perhaps on the coastline who maintained the sanctuaries

and populated some of the major cities in Pontus (such as Amaseia). To which of these people did

he actually belong? Answering this question requires a certain amount of discussion regarding the

origins and development of the family of Mithradates VI Eupator. For the reconstruction of

Mithradates family there are a few major sources: Justins Epitome of Trogus, Polybius, Memnon,

Plutarch, Diodorus, Appian, and several that briefly speak of the origins of the family, such as Sallust

and Tacitus.170 Strabos Geography also gives important historical details.171

Polybius wrote that the founder of the Pontic royal house, Mithradates I Ctistes, son of

Ariobarzanes, came from the Seven Families of the Persian dynasty, and that the land was a gift

from king Darius I.172 We hear of a Mithradates for the first time from Diodorus. During the battle

of Ipsus, Mithradates, a subject of Antigonus, was killed because he was suspected of siding with

Cassander.173 Diodorus says that Mithradates was killed in the vicinity of Cius in Mysia, having

ruled over it and Arrhine, and that his successor Mithradates ruled his dunasteia, extending this rule

169 Just. Epith. 38.7.1.

170 Pompeius Trogus Historiae Philippicae. On Pompeius Trogus see Yardley 1994. Memnons History of Heracleia on Black
Sea excerpted by Photius in the 9th century is also informative. Plutarchs biographies of Sulla, Lucullus and Pompey
contain information on the reign of Mithradates VI. Appians Mithridatica and one book in Romaica, Sallusts Histories
2.85 although mostly lost, and Tacituss Annales, especially 12.18.2 are some of the other useful sources.
171 Strabo Commentaries would have been an important source if it had survived.
172 Polyb. 5.43.2; Diod. Sic. 19.43.2.
173 Diod. 20.111.4.

74
to Cappadocia and Paphlagonia. Bosworth and Wheatley suggested that Arrhine could be Myrleia.174

In that case, Mithradates must have ruled over a very limited region.

Bosworth and Wheatley drew attention to two important problems with Diodorus

statement. First of all, Diodorus used the word dunasteia for Mithradates realm just as he used it for

that of the Hecatomnids of Caria, or of Taxiles and Porus of India.175 Cius was a very small

community which gave only 1,000 drachms as tribute to the Athenian Empire, and therefore does

not seem comparable to the two realms mentioned here.176 The city also seems to have had Greek

magistrates: prytanes, archons, and strategoi. Two honorary decrees from the fourth century B.C. do

not mention a Persian satrap who ordinarily would have confirmed a vote in a subject city. 177 All of

these factors make Diodorus mention of a dunasteia limited to Cius rather weak. Therefore,

Bosworth and Wheatley proposed that Diodorus meant Mysia, rather than Cius, when he said ruled

over it.178 In this case, Ariobarzanes, the predecessor of Mithradates of Cius, must have taken the

area after the death of Orontes, who controlled Mysia in the second half of the fourth century B.C.

Mithradates also controlled the region Arrhine, which was earlier identified as Myrleia. This

coastal town was also a very small settlement. Bosworth and Wheatley, uncomfortable with the

term dunasteia and the association of Arrhine with Myrleia, argued that Diodorus meant Mariandynia

when he mentioned Arrhine.179 They further suggested that Mithradates received Mariandynia (in

the hinterland of Heracleia Pontica) as a gift from Darius I, and expanded the territory into Mysia.

A Mithradates is mentioned by Justin in a passage concerning the political problems in Heracleia

Pontica: after unsuccessful attempts to receive assistance from Timotheus of Athens and

Epameinondas of Thebes, Heracleia Pontica invited Clearchus, a mercenary under Mithradates, to

174 Bosworth and Wheatley 1998, 155.

175 Diodorus 16.36.2, 69.2; 17.93.1, 102.5; 18.6.2.
176 Bosworth and Wheatley 1998, 156.
177 Corsten 1985, 75-8 cat.no. 1,2.
178 Bosworth and Wheatley 1998, 156.
179 Bosworth and Wheatley 1998, 158.

75
rule the city as Mithradates praefectus.180 This Mithradates may have been an ancestor of the Pontic

royal house and the one mentioned in Diodorus, but the evidence is limited, and there has not been

scholarly consensus on this.181 Some have identified this Mithradates as Mithradates, the son of

Ariobarzanes, the satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia. Reinach believed he was the son of

Orontobates.182 Since the name was a common one, it is difficult to propose that one solution is

more likely than the others. I will investigate both possibilities below.

Mariandynia was under the command of Gobryas, a son of Darius I and his wife Artystone,

until 480 B.C.183 Gobryas might have received Mariandynia as a gift from his father Darius I. If so,

then Gobryas, descended from Persian royalty, might have been one of the predecessors of

Mithradates mentioned by Diodorus. This succession may help explain the distant relationship,

often put forward, between the Persian royalty and the Mithradatic family which ruled Mariandynia

later in the fourth century B.C.; it would also clarify the assertion of Polybius that Darius I gave

Pontic land as a gift to Mithradates I Ctistes. Here is the most likely progression of events:

Artabazus, the son of Pharnakes or Parnakka,184 commanded the Parthian and Chorasmian

contingents of Xerxes army, and received Hellespontine Phrygia as a gift. He might have acquired

the area of Mariandynia as well through marriage (maybe to a daughter of Gobryas) after Gobryas

death.185 If this Artabazus is indeed the Artabazes, who founded the Pontic family according to

Sallust and Florus,186 then his descendants would have ruled two areas: Mariandynia (as hereditary

kingdom) and Hellespontine Phrygia and Daskyleion (as satrapies). Depending on the marriage of

Artabazus, the Pontic family could have been Persian, and perhaps even royal.

180 Just. Epith. 16.4.7.

181 McGing 1986, 14; Burstein 1976, n.35.
182 Reinach 1890, 4-5.
183 Herodotus 7.72.1.
184 Parnakka, the son of Arsames and uncle of Darius I, was a high official in charge of operations in the palace. (Lewis

1985, 101-17). He is mentioned in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets.

185 Bosworth and Wheatley 1998, 160.
186 Sall.Hist. 2.85, Flor.1.40.1.

76
The following genealogy was adopted from Bosworth and Wheatley, and it should not be considered

final: 187

Fig. 22 Genealogical chart of the Pontic royalty (after Bosworth and Wheatley 1998, 160).

We can now return to Mithradates, the dynast of Mysia and Mariandynia. In 363/2

Mithradates was succeeded by Ariobarzanes, who ruled until 337/6 B.C.188 This Ariobarzanes

should not be mistaken for Ariobarzanes, the satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, who initiated the

Great Satrapal Revolt.189 Ariobarzanes, the successor of Mithradates, might also have been involved

in the Great Satrapal revolt, but he probably was able to make peace with the King. Another

Mithradates succeeded Ariobarzanes and survived the Macedonian conquest. His luck might have

resulted from the fact that Barsine, the daughter of Artabazus and mistress of Alexander, was in

187 Bosworth and Wheatley 1998, 160.

188 Diod. 16.90.2.
189 Diod. 15.90.3.

77
residence with her child in Pergamon, which Mithradates controlled.190 This situation may have

solidified his connection with both the Persian empire and Alexander. In 302 B.C., as discussed

above, Mithradates was killed near Cius because he was suspected of conspiring against

Antigonus.191

The third Mithradates in this line of sucession was the so-called Mithradates I Ctistes of

Pontus, who fought with Eumenes forces in Iran and then joined Antigonus after Gabiene. He

became friends with Demetrius, Antigonus son, who warned him of the danger from Antigonus.192

Mithradates fled to Paphlagonia, and ruled there between 302-266 B.C., proclaiming himself the

founder of the Pontic kingdom.193 Appian mistakenly tells us that he occupied a fortified base in

Cappadocia.194 The fact that it was a fortress is corroborated by Plutarch, who states that

Mithradates settled in Cimiata, a strong fortress lying beneath the massif of Olgassys, and therefore

in Paphlagonia.195 Mithradates I Ctistes was the first to issue royal coins, perhaps after a victory over

Diodorus, a general of Seleucus I, in 281, or after the death of Lysimachus or Seleucus.196 After one

of these events he was able to proclaim himself king, and he minted coins that copied Alexanders

staters. These first Pontic gold staters had Athena on the obverse, and a standing Nike with the

legend of Mithradates King on the reverse.197 At this very early phase of the kingdom,

Mithradates used Hellenic images on his coinage, thereby following the trends in coinage in the

Hellenistic world. Minting of gold coins was a sign of power, and this may have been disturbing for

the neighboring kingdoms as well as the Macedonians.

190 Just. Epit. 13.2.7; Diod. 20.20.1.

191 McGing 1986,15.
192 Plut. Demetr. 4; Mor. 183A; App. Mith. 9.27-8.
193 His flight is dated to 314 by Bosworth and Wheatley 1998,163.
194 App. (Mith. 9.28.) mistakenly places Cimiata in Cappadocia, though it is in Paphlagonia.
195 Cimiata may be identified with Cimista near Hadrianapolis: Kaygusuz 1984, 69-73; Strabo 12.3.41 (562). See also

Marek (1993, 122-4) for further discussion.

196 Pomp. Trog. Prol.17. Whether it was a battle fought for the cause of the Northern League, which consisted of

Byzantium, Chalcedon, Heracleia, Tieium, Cierus and Mithradates VI, or was the result of personal conflict is not
certain.
197 SNGvA 1; Waddington et al. 1904, 10 no.1.

78
 We know very little about his successor Ariobarzanes, but his son Mithradates II (250-220

B.C.) followed Mithradates I in allying himself with the Seleucids by marrying the daughter of

Antiochus II Theos, the sister of the current king Seleucus II Callinicus (in 245 B.C., before the

battle of Ancyra). This alliance was significant for both sides: while the Pontic king allied himself

with another extremely powerful king, the Seleucids guaranteed support from Anatolia in their battle

against the Ptolemies and their more immediate problems with Antiochus Hierax. Mithradates II

received an additional advantage from this alliance. By marrying Antiochus IIs daughter,

Mithradates II was able to appeal to the Hellenistic world. I would like to suggest that during this

time the Persian background of Mithradates line was somewhat concealed for political reasons,

since Asia Minor was being ruled by the successors of Alexander the Great, and the Persians had

recently been defeated. This may not have been a conscious decision, but rather the result of

assuming the traditional role of Hellenistic king.

According to Reinach, the marriage alliances took place after the battle at Ancyra, which had

been fought between Seleucus II and his brother Antiochus Hierax.198 Seleucus lost and wanted to

win over Mithradates II, who took Hieraxs side during the battle, by giving him the hand of his

sister in marriage. In the meantime, Mithradates gave one of his daughters, Laodice, to Hierax,

either as a bride or a hostage in order to strengthen their relations.199 Mithradates IIs strategy

during the struggle between Hierax and Seleucus is not very clear. Since he is not mentioned among

Hieraxs supporters during the attack of Attalus I of Pergamon, McGing thought that Mithradates

might have withdrawn his support.200 This however, conflicts with the fact that Mithradates II gave

Laodice to Hierax. It is quite likely that Mithradates was trying to keep both sides content.

198 Reinach 1890, 32.

199 Polyb. 5.74.5.
200 McGing 1986, 22.

79
 The Seleucid alliances continued with Antiochus III, who married Laodice, another daughter

of Mithradates II,201 while Achaeus, one of Antiochus ministers, married the Laodice who had

earlier been handed over to Hierax.202 All of this meant that Mithradates Pontic kingdom was

recognized by a strong Hellenistic kingdom. The marriage of Antiochus III to a minor non-

Macedonian princess was unprecedented. The efforts of Mithradates II to build good and close

relations with the Seleucids are clear.

Mithradates III reigned between about 220 and 189/188 B.C.203 Whether it was this

Mithradates who threatened to seize Sinope is not clear.204 This period is assigned to him because it

is another silent period in the history of the Pontic kingdom, and the only possible candidate for the

throne is Mithradates III. On his coins Mithradates III was represented as an aged man with

cropped hair and a diadem. The depiction of the hair and the veristic treatment of the face are

unlike other representations of Hellenistic kings. On the obverse was a star and a crescent, which

later became the standard royal symbol on coinage. The unusual royal portrait and the use of a royal

symbol may suggest that the Pontic king felt more confident with his control over his kingdom, and

consequently did not feel compelled to adopt a standard Greek format for his numismatic image.

The use of an individualized portrait on the coins of Mithradates III also agrees with the tradition of

numismatic representations of the satraps of Lycia and Phrygia that began to develop in the fourth

century B.C.205

The next Pontic king, Pharnakes (189/8-160 B.C.), was a very aggressive, expansionist king.

He was the first Pontic king to send envoys to Rome, over a dispute with Eumenes II of Pergamon,

201 Polyb. 5.43.1-4.

202 Polyb. 5.74.5; 8.19.7; 8.20.11.
203 McGing 1986, 23.
204 Polyb. 4.56.
205 For examples dynastic portraiture on Lycian and Phrygian coinage see Zahle 1982, pl. 16,5, 7, 8, 11, and Kraay 1976,

272-5.

80
and this marked the first diplomatic contact between Pontus and Rome.206 He allied himself with

Chersonesus in 155 B.C., and probably as a result of his capture of Sinope, he obtained an active

harbor on the southern coast of Black Sea, as well as friendly contacts with other cities on the

northern Black Sea coast.207 He also established good relations with Athens and Delos. But the

disputes with Pergamon continued, probably because of his ambitious program of expansion.

Ariarathes of Cappadocia also got involved in 181 B.C.208 At this time Pharnakes invaded Galatia

and prepared to invade Cappadocia. The war ended in 179 B.C., and by then Pontus extended from

Amastris to Cerasus. 209

Pharnakes subsequently married Nysa, of the Seleucid royal family.210 His alliances clearly

illustrate the central position of the Pontic kingdom and the ease with which the Pontic king could

now operate. Pharnakes minted silver drachms and tetradrachms with his diademed portrait on the

obverse, and a young god (yet unidentified) wearing a chiton, chlamys, sandals, and a flat cap over

his head on the reverse.211 In Pharnakes court we come across Greek names: Metrodorus, for

instance, who was the phrourarchos of Amaseia, and Leocritus, a general of Pharnakes, who was

probably a Greek mercenary officer.212 Officals with Greek names became more common as the

kingdom grew and began to embrace larger groups of people.

206 After the defeat of Antiochus, Rome gave some land to Eumenes II that was previously occupied by Prusias I of
Bithynia. This resulted in war between the two kings after 188 B.C., which lasted until 183 B.C.
207 For his alliance with Chersonesus see IPE 1 402; SEG XXX, 962. For the capture of Sinope, see Polyb. 23.9.2

Strabo 12.3.11, Livy 40.2.6.

208 Polyb. 24.1.1; Livy 40.20.1.
209 Polyb. 25. 2.
210 An inscription on Delos honours Pharnaces and his wife Nysa: OGI 771; IDelos 1497. For a possible gem portrait of

Nysa see Boardman & Vollenmeider 1978, 148-50.

211 Sometimes called a goddess and identified as Ma: SNG-BM 1025,6.
212 He made a dedication on behalf of Pharnaces, OGI 365. For Leocritus see McGing 1986, 39. Olshausen suggested

that both Metrodorus and Leocritus were Persians who assumed Greek names: Olshausen 1974, 159-60.

81
 Pharnakes successor Mithradates IV Philopator Philadelphus (ca.160-150 B.C.) chose to ally

himself with Rome and her allies.213 We have very little evidence from his reign. His four different

types of coins, however, suggest that he shared the rule with his sister/wife Laodice, since one of

them has jugate portraits of the king and the queen, and another issue has Laodice represented on

her own. The Hellenic style of the coins of Mithradates IV is probably tied to his efforts to befriend

the Romans and their allies. Instead of Pharnakes aggressive strategies he adopted a more peaceful

approach, and this alliance perhaps called for the repression of his Persian side.

The policy of Mithradates V Euergetes (ca. 150-120 B.C.) had a stronger influence on that

of Mithradates VI Eupator. Mithradates V continued the friendly relationship with Rome and even

received Phrygia Maior as a gift from the Romans.214 He invaded Cappadocia and married his

daughter Laodice to the king of Cappadocia, Ariarathes VI.215 McGing wrote that Hellenization of

the royal court intensified during the reign of Mithradates Euergetes -Euergetes was the first to

recruit Greek mercenaries in the Aegean.216 His friends and courtiers included one Dorylaus,

Dionysus the Athenian, and Alcimus. The monarchy in Pontus must have been aware of the diverse

nature of the people under its sway. They were not regarded as alien and were probably embraced

in order to ensure that there would be a unified force available for future battles.217 This

extraordinary situation could have been the result of the general character of the Hellenistic period,

during which the kingdoms ruled very ethnically diverse populations spread across large masses of

land. While suppression could have been one solution, the competitive atmosphere of the period

213 He made a dedication to the people of Rome (originally from 167 B.C., Reinach 1902, 128), reinscribed during Sullas
reign (Mellor 1978, 319-30). Fifteen other kings and dynasts also had dedications possibly belonging to the same
monument, OGI 375.
214 He received the land in return for sending troops to help the Romans in the war against Aristonicus. Strabo 14.1.38

c.646, Just. Epit. 37.1.2, Eutr. 4.20, Oros. 5.10.2.

215 For his invasion of Cappadocia, see App. Mith. 10; for the marriage, see Just. Epit. 38.1.1, Memnon 22.1.
216 McGing 1986, 39.
217 Especially during the reign of Mithradates VI, this attitude resulted in stronger armies.

82
might have necessitated inclusion of people of different origins into the administration, and more

importantly into the armies.

Mithradates V was the first Pontic king to put a relatively idealized portrait on his coins. The

associations with the other kingdoms were certainly achieved through the marriages, and this was

occasionally reciprocal: a Seleucid king, Antiochus III, married the daughter of a Pontic king. The

royal activities, unfortunately, do not illuminate the population nor the organization of the smaller

communities. While the kings were moving between Hellenic and Persian identities, the political

organization in Pontus and the ways in which the people defined themselves are far from clear.

The Life and Policy of Mithradates VI

Mithradates VI Eupator was the son of Mithradates V Euergetes. When his father was

assassinated in 120 B.C., he was around 13 years old.218 According to Justin, Euergetes wife Laodice

took over the kingdom, and she even tried to murder her own son. Justin wrote that the guardians

of the boy made him ride dangerous horses and throw javelins in order to get him killed, but when

he survived they tried to poison him. He took antidotes and immunized himself against the

poison.219

The ancient sources state that Mithradates Eupator spent seven years in the forests in order

to avoid attempts on his life and to become a stronger man.220 He is known to have been an

excellent rider until the very end of his life, and the stories in Justin may illustrate the training he

received to become a good rider and archer. McGing wrote that Justin or Pompeius Trogus might

have misunderstood the nature of Mithradates education, and interpreted it as attempts to murder

218 Strabo (10.4.10 c.477) says he was 11 when he succeeded to the throne. Memnon (22.2) says he was 13. Appian
(Mith. 112; Plin. HN 25.6) says he ruled for 57 years, living until the age of 68 or 69 and dying in the consulship of
Cicero in 63 (Dio.Cass. 37.10, Oros. 6.6.1).
219 Just. Epit.37.2.9.
220 Just. Epit. 37.2

83
him. Spending time secluded from the kingdom was also a tradition in the eastern world; it was not

uncommon in Iranian royal legends for a king to spend his youth away from his country.221 Two

other Iranian traditions in the life of Eupator have been recorded. The first is that during the year

of his birth and during the year he ascended the throne, a comet burned brightly for 70 days,

outshining the sun.222 Eupator was struck by a lightning when he was still a baby, which supposedly

explains his surname Dionysus.223 These romantic stories about the birth and the childhood of

Mithradates were most likely created after he became a powerful king. While these stories

proclaimed the extraordinary nature of this king, they also related the king to Alexander the Great,

about whom similar stories were told.224 Later, fantastic stories were also told of Roman emperors.

The most famous of all are the extraordinary events that took place before the birth and during the

life of Augustus, as preserved by Suetonius.225

Eupator must have assumed control of his kingdom by 116/5 B.C., since Dionysius, the

gymnasiarch at Delos, erected statues honoring him and his brother Mithradates Chrestus in

116/5.226 Shortly after he had become king, he conquered Crimea and the Bosporan Kingdom. He

was invited by the people of the Tauric Chersonesus to become their protector from the

neighboring barbaric people.227 In fact, the people of the Tauric Chersonessos had long been

221 {McGing 1986 #2900}, 44; {Widengren 1960 #1650}, 230-1.

222 Just, Epit. 37.2
223 Dionysus mother Semele was struck by lightning when she was pregnant with him (Plut. Mor. 624B). McGing

emphasized the significance of these elements in understanding the importance the Mithridatic family gave to Persian
traditions, and the comparability between Mithradates VI and Alexander the Great. The use of gods names as epithets
began only in the late Hellenistic period.
224 Alexander the Greats mother Olympias dreamt that her womb was struck by lightning: Plut. De Alex. fort. 2.2.
225 Part of a wall was hit by lightning, which meant that a citizen of that town would one day rule the world. Augustus

was also considered Apollos son because his mother was allegedly impregnated by a serpent while asleep in the temple
of Apollo. Similar fantastic stories related to different stages in his life and his military successes as well: Suetonius
Augustus, 44-5.
226 {McGing 1986 #2900}, 43-4; IDelos 1560,1561 and SEG XXXVIII, 668.
227 The best evidence for the relationship between the Chersonitans and Mithradates VI Eupator is an inscription

honoring Diophantus, son of Asclepiodorus, a general of Mithradates VI (IPE 1 352; SEG XXX, 963). Another
inscription honours an ambassador of Mithradates by the Chersonitans (IPE 1 349).

84
threatened by their neighbors, such as the Scythians during the reign of Pharnakes I.228 Toward the

end of the second century B.C. the pressure had become unbearable, and Chersonesus was besieged

by the Scythians. They then invited Mithradates VI, who was happy to send troops for two

reasons. First of all, he was extending his influence to the north, and secondly, it allowed him the

opportunity to defeat the Scythians who, as Justin wrote, had wiped out Zopyrion, general of

Alexander the Great, and his 30,000 soldiers; had massacred the Persian king Cyrus and 20,000 men;

and had put to flight Philip, the king of Macedon.229

In the meantime, Mithradates managed to add the Bosporan kingdom to his realm. The

king of Bosporus, Paerisades, tired of the increasing number of tributes to be paid to the Scythians,

and he willingly gave his kingdom to Mithradates.230 Mithradates thereby extended his influence as

far as Olbia.231 He already possessed the complete coastline from the east of Trapezus up to Colchis

when Antipater gave him Armenia Minor.232 As a result, Mithradates VI controlled almost all the

coastal area of the Black Sea basin either directly or indirectly by the early first century B.C. Yet he

did not gain control the Bithynian coast and parts of the northeast coast. His conquests and

expansion around the Black Sea were completed as a result of the so-called First Mithradatic War.

McGing wrote that Mithradates became the champion of Greeks against barbarians by saving the

Greek colonies on the northern coast of the Black Sea from the pressure of the Scythians.233

After his expeditions in the north, Mithradates traveled all around Asia in order to plan his

conquest. There is a serious debate concerning the role of planning in Mithradates campaign in

Asia. While some scholars believe he planned from the very beginning to conquer Asia and Greece,

and maybe even extend his influence to Italy, others think that his actions were shaped by the events

228 The threat is clearly documented by two inscriptions from Chersonesus; IPE 1 401; IPE 1 343. For the threat from
Scilurus, the leader of the Scythians, see Strabo 7,4,7.
229 Translation by {Yardley 1994 #3780}, 234; Just. Epit. 37.3.
230 Strabo 7.4.4.
231 The presence of Pontic municipal coinage in Olbia indicate growing relations with the Pontic kingdom.
232 Strabo 12.3.1; 12.3.28.
233 McGing 1986, 64. This will be discussed below in the section on the dedications honoring Mithradates.

85
that took place. 234 According to Justin, he familiarized himself with the location of the cities and the

general geography of the area.235 Back at home, his sister and wife, Laodice, had a son. Believing he

had disappeared, she had love affairs with his friends. When he returned, Laodice attempted to

poison him in order to save her life, but she was caught and was killed as a punishment for her

unfaithfulness.236 After his return Mithradates spent most of his time in training or tournaments

with his friends. He trained his army as well as himself.

In alliance with the Bithynian king, Nicomedes III Euergetes, Mithradates VI conquered

Paphlagonia in 108/7. Paphlagonia was a small kingdom about which we have limited knowledge.

Strabo wrote that before his time Paphlagonia was ruled by several kings.237 Once it has been

conquered, Mithradates and Nicomedes divided it between themselves. In the meantime, Rome was

busy with Jugurtha; so, although the Senate was worried about this alliance, they could not react with

force. Instead, Rome sent an ambassador asking the two kings to return Paphlagonia, but both

kings ignored the order.

Later Mithradates also occupied Galatia, which was divided into three tribes: Tolistoagii in

the west, Tectosages around Ancyra, and Trocmi in the east.238 Each tribe was divided into four

tetrarchies with a tetrarch ruling each one. Galatia had become an easy target for Mithradates VI

because the dispersed nature of the political organization made it vulnerable to attacks, just as it

made the kingdom strong at other times. It is not clear how much of it he occupied, but he

definitely held the parts close to Pontus.239 Reinach suggested that Nicomedes, who needed a

234 Glew (1977, 390) believed he did not have a master plan to build an empire when he travelled to Asia.
235 Just. Epit. 37.3.
236 Just. Epit. 37.3.
237 Strabo 12.3.41.
238 McGing 1986, 70.
239 Strabo (12.5.2 c.567) mentioned a fortress, Mithridatium, built by Mithradates in this area.

86
frontier with Cappadocia for future conquest, helped Mithradates seize Galatia; but McGing felt that

Galatia would not have been a constraint for Nicomedes if he decided to enter Cappadocia.240

By the end of the second century B.C., Rome was no longer distracted by Jugurtha and the

problems in the north. Mithradates must have been aware of this since he sent envoys to Rome

sometime between 103 and 101 B.C. to bribe the Senate.241 This was probably because his next

target was to be Cappadocia. Cappadocia was previously invaded by Mithradates V Euergetes after

the death of Ariarathes V in 130 B.C. Mithradates VI married his sister to Ariarathes VI, who was

still very young and open to manipulation. Justin reported that Ariarathes VI was killed by Gordius,

a Cappadocian noble, in ca. 116 B.C., having been incited by Mithradates VI.242 After the death of

Ariarathes VI, Cappadocia was invaded by Nicomedes III of Bithynia (103/102 B.C.). Mithradates

immediately responded to this attack but soon realized that his sister had married Nicomedes. As a

result, Mithradates removed Nicomedes and Laodice from the Cappadocian throne and gave it to

his nephew, Ariarathes VII.243 Ariarathes did not remain on the throne for long: Mithradates had

his nephew killed because he did not allow Gordius, Mithradates associate, to take part in the rule

of Cappadocia. In 100/99 B.C. Mithradates young son was brought to power, with Gordius

assisting. He was named Ariarathes IX, the Cappadocian royal name.

Nicomedes III, who was afraid that Mithradates would next occupy his own realm of

Bithynia, appealed to the Romans. In 99/8 B.C. Marius was sent to investigate the situation in Asia

Minor but did not interfere. In 96 B.C., Nicomedes made an unsuccessful attempt to install

Ariarathes VIII as king of Cappadocia, and then introduced a pretender to the throne, supposedly a

third son of Ariarathes VI, and sent Laodice to Rome to argue their case. Ariarathes VIII was

240 Reinach 1890, 88; McGing 1986, 71.

241 Diod. 36.15.1. Regarding the visit of the Pontic envoys, Diodorus also mentioned a related episode in which
Saturninus offended the Pontic envoys and was therefore brought to trial. For a discussion on the exact date see
McGing 1986, 71-72.
242 Just. Epit. 38.1.1.
243 Just. Epit. 38.1.1.

87
another son of Ariarathes VI. Mithradates chased Ariarathes VIII away from the kingdom and he

died soon afterward. Mithradates immediately sent his own envoy to Rome, but both parties were

turned down and ordered to evacuate Cappadocia and Paphlagonia.244 Although those two

kingdoms were granted their freedom, the Cappadocians requested a king, so a Cappadocian named

Ariobarzanes was appointed by the Senate upon the recommendation of the people of

Cappadocia.245

Thus Mithradates VI had lost Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and his alliance with Nicomedes of

Bithynia. He then turned to Armenia for a new alliance. Armenia, an eastern neighbor of Pontus,

had been ruled by the Medes, Achaemenids, Macedonians, and finally by the Seleucids.246 The

Armenians first sided with Antiochus in the war against the Romans, but towards the end changed

sides and received their autonomy. In 96/95 Tigranes I came to power and united Armenia.247

Mithradates married his daughter Cleopatra to Tigranes and persuaded the Armenian king to occupy

Cappadocia. Sulla, who was assigned to Cilicia, was on his way to deal with the pirates there when

Tigranes moved into Cappadocia. Sulla led the first Roman armed expedition changed with settling

dynastic problems in Anatolia since 188 B.C., and he restored the throne to Ariobarzanes.248

In the following years, Mithradates sent Socrates Chrestus to take over Bithynia and

removed Ariobarzanes from the Cappadocian throne, replacing him with his son Ariarathes IX.249

In 90 B.C. Manlius Aquillius was sent to restore Nicomedes and Ariobarzanes to their thrones. He

achieved that, and also forced Nicomedes and Ariobarzanes to attack Mithradates VI.250

Ariobarzanes refused, but Nicomedes marched into Pontus and returned home with a large booty.251

244 Just. Epit. 38.2.1.

245 Just. Epit. 38.2.8; 38.5.9; Strabo 12.2.11.
246 Strabo 11.14.15.
247 McGing 1986, 78.
248 Sherwin-White 1977, 72.
249 Just. Epit. 38.3.4.
250 App. Mith. 11.
251 McGing (1986, 80) suggested he that was heavily in debt to the commissioners.

88
Mithradates sent an envoy, Pelopidas, to Rome to complain about Nicomedes. Pelopidas delivered

a very powerful speech in which he declared that Egypt, Syria, provinces of Asia, Greece, Africa, and

even Italy would help them if a war broke out.252 Nevertheless, the Romans were not willing to

support Mithradates. Having been rejected by the Romans, Mithradates went back into Cappadocia

to bring Ariarathes IX to the throne probably in 89 B.C., and this marked the beginning of the war

between Rome and Mithradates.253

Immediately before the war, Mithradates gathered his men and gave a speech reported by

Justin. In this speech, admittedly of questionable credibility, Mithradates represented the Romans

as a group of people suckled by a she-wolf, who once had kings chosen from shepherds,

soothsayers, exiles, and slaves, and who were hostile to him and other monarchs. He also argued

that they were weak as a result of internal strife and civil war, and therefore that the opportunity

should be seized.254

Nicomedes of Bithynia began by invading Asia, while the Roman commanders Aquillius,

Oppius, and Cassius occupied the main roads into Pontus. On the Pontic side, Neoptolemus and

Archelaus served as generals who overwhelmed Nicomedes and defeated Aquillius. Mithradates

invaded Bithynia in 89 B.C. By 88 B.C. the Roman generals had all retired to different parts of Asia:

Aquillius first to Pergamon, then to Rhodes; Cassius into Phrygia, then to Apameia; and Oppius to

Laodicea on the Lycus.255 Apameia and Tralles welcomed Mithradates, while Laodicea on the Lycus

resisted and asked for help from Aphrodisias; soon, however, they complied with Mithradates

request and handed over Oppius. Aphrodisias must have gone over to the Pontic side around this

time as well. Among the cities that resisted Mithradates were Telmessus (which, together with other

cities of Pamphylia, helped Rhodes to supply ships to Lucullus), Termessus, Stratonicea (later

252 For the speech by Pelopidas, see App. Mith. 16.

253 Badian 1968, 56,7; McGing 1986, 81.
254 Just. Epit. 38.4-5.
255 App. Mith. 19.

89
captured), Tabae, and especially, Magnesia on the Meander. Ilium and Cos were given their freedom

by Sulla at the end of the war, which indicates that they remained loyal to Rome. Some of the Asian

cities minted coins following the Mithradatic occupation: at Pergamon the New Style silver

tetradrachms showed the new Pergamene era.256 Gold staters were minted at Ephesus, Erythrae,

Miletus, Smyrna, and Tralles.257 By 88 B.C. Mithradates had most of southern Asia under his

control.

In 88 B.C. the Samnites asked for help from Mithradates VI, following the defeat of the

Italian Allies against the Romans.258 A gold coin was issued in Rome to commemorate this event.

The iconographical similarities of the gold coin to the bronze coins of Amisos are significant and

will be discussed further under the chapter on coinage of the Pontic kingdom. A silver coin with the

bust of Italia on the obverse and two people in military dress was also associated with this historical

event and will similarly be discussed further.

In the middle of 88 B.C., possibly as a respond to Samnites demands, Mithradates ordered

the cities of Asia to kill all the Romans and Italians there.259 The estimated number of people killed

in ancient sources varies between 80,000 and 150,000.260 This was an extraordinary event in

antiquity, and until today very few events have surpassed this level of genocide. The terrifying

memories of this must have been present for a long time in Anatolia and among the Italians, and it

is rather disappointing that discusion of it by ancient scholars has not been preserved. Modern

historians have not shown as much interest in the topic as it deserves. The genocide by Mithradates

VI demonstrates his ambition to win over lands in Anatolia and to kill any Roman or Italian,

256 Reinach 1888, 93.

257 Smyrna also minted bronze coins with a portrait of Mithradates on the obverse (BMCIonia 247 no.118). The staters
mentioned above did not necessarily have Mithradatic imagery but McGing (1986, 112) proposed that they were minted
as a sign of their independence from Rome with the help of Mithradates.
258 Grueber 1910, 334; on the historical account see Mrime 1844 Etudes sur lHist.rom., vol.i.m p.205.
259 Appian (Mith. 22, 23) briefly describes the atrocities that the Romans and the Italians suffered from the citizens of

Asia; Badian 1976, 110-1.

260 McGing 1986, 113.

90
regardless of the consequences. Because we do not have any detailed accounts of this event,

scholars tend to mention it only in passing; however, the magnitude of the genocide is a significant

indication of the general approach of Mithradates VI to region expansion.

Mithradates promised to give freedom to Asian cities, cancel the debts of debtors who killed

their Roman and Italian creditors, and offer freedom, and citizenship to all slaves, thereby

attempting to ensure that cities would feel secure only under his rule.261 He may also have offered

these privileges in an attempt even to increase support from lower classes, although it seems unlikely

that all would have rallied to his side at this time.

In the meantime Mithradates general Archelaus seized Delos and sent 2,000 men under

Aristion, and the Delian treasures to Athens. Mithradates won Athens to his side, and Archelaus

continued his campaigns to win over the rest of Greece. By the end of 88 B.C. Mithradates had

most of Asia and Greece under his control. He was not able to achieve full control of Rhodes,

however, and he failed to take Patara in Lycia. Another defeat came in Macedonia: the legate of the

governor, Q. Braetius Sura, managed to fight successfully against the Pontic general Metrophanes.

He also held off Archelaus and Aristion at Chaeronea until the Spartans and the Achaeans arrived

with help. When Sulla arrived, Braetius was told to turn over the operation to him,262 and Sulla

emerged victorious in Greece around 87/6 B.C.263 He defeated the Pontic army under Dorylaus at

Orchomenus in Boeotia, which marked the final efforts of the Pontic troops on mainland Greece.264

After this loss in Greece, Mithradates began losing his popularity in Asia, and he took strong

counter-measures. He invited sixty Galatian nobles to Pergamon, supposedly as guests, but in fact

as hostages. He treated them badly, which caused the Galatians to conspire against him, but they

were all killed when Mithradates learned of their plans. Following this event, Mithradates executed

261 App. Mith. 47.

262 App. Mith. 29.
263 Paus. 1.20.5; Memn. 22.11.
264 App. Mith. 49.

91
all the Galatian tetrarchs and their families, except for three who escaped, fearing they would side

with Sulla. Subsequently, he fined the Chians 2,000 talents because they refused to share their

resources with him, and he finally deported them to the Black Sea region so that he could distribute

their land among his Pontic settlers.265

Ephesus began a revolt against Mithradates VI, which soon spread to other cities, including

Tralles, Hypaepa, Mesopolis, Sardis, Smyrna and Colophon.266 Mithradates was forced to declare the

Greek cities free. He was losing his support both in the cities and among his friends in the upper

classes. The Pontic army once again lost a battle, this time to Fimbria. Mithradates general

Archelaus met with Sulla, who offered to let Mithradates keep his kingdom, as an ally of Rome, on

the condition that Mithradates would give up all the areas he had conquered, including Bithynia and

Cappadocia, pay 2,000 talents, and give away his ships to Rome. Although Archelaus agreed,

Mithradates turned down the offer, but the defeat of his squadron under Neoptolemus led

Mithradates to accept the terms of the peace agreement. Sulla and Mithradates met at Dardanus to

discuss the terms in 85 B.C.267 Mithradates officially lost the first war he waged against Rome,

primarily as a result of the instability within the areas he conquered, and some serious mistakes he

made in his approach to maintaining his rule.

The second war between Mithradates and the Roman troops that had remained in Asia to

settle further disputes was the result of a misunderstanding, as well as ambition on the Roman

commander Murenas side. Immediately after Mithradates returned from Dardanus, the Colchians

revolted and asked Mithradates VI to appoint his son Mithradates as king. This was done and the

Colchians were pleased. But Mithradates VI soon got suspicious of his son and had him murdered.

He then sent another governor (uparchos) to the region. We do not have information about how the

265 App. Mith. 47.

266 App. Mith. 48.
267 For a discussion on the exact date see McGing 1986, 130 n.187.

92
Colchians reacted to this. The Bosporans were also restless during this period, so Mithradates

strengthened his fleet and army just in case. This alarmed Murena, who was also persuaded to attack

by Archelaus, who was himself alienated from Mithradates.268 Murena attacked Comana, an

important sanctuary site, in 83 B.C., but Mithradates resisted, citing the treaty. Murena denied the

treaty because it was not yet in written form, and he plundered Pontus. While Mithradates VI tried

to stop him by diplomacy, sending envoys to Rome, Murena plundered Pontus two more times,

pillaging many villages and ultimately retiring his troops to Galatia and Phrygia. In the meantime,

the Roman Senate sent Calidius to order Murena to stop, but Murena did not respond. Mithradates

attacked and won a victory. His famous sacrifice to Zeus Stratios dates to this period.269 Sulla sent

another envoy, Aulus Gabinius, to stop Murena. Mithradates was determined to keep the land he

had just won in Cappadocia, and Gabinius had to accept it, although it violated the Peace of

Dardanus. Surprisingly, Murena was awarded a triumph in 81, probably to justify his waging war

against Mithradates in the first place.270

Mithradates, victorious over the Roman troops, settled the rebellions in Bosporus and

probably brought to the throne his other son Machares (he certainly ruled Bosporus later).

Mithradates was eager to establish his position with Rome, so he sent an embassy there to ask for a

written confirmation of the Peace of Dardanus.271 Sulla asked Mithradates to evacuate Cappadocia,

as was demanded by Ariobarzanes, and Mithradates agreed. In 78 the second Pontic embassy that

arrived in Rome hoping to sign the treaty found that Sulla was dead and that the Senate was too

busy; or, as Mithradates might have perceived, Rome was hostile to him.272

268 According to Appian (Mith. 64) Mithradates was suspicious of Archelaus as well after the agreement with Sulla. He
believed Archelaus gave him far too many provisions.
269 App. Mith. 66. For the sanctuary of Zeus Stratios see Chapter 5, section on Amaseia.
270 McGing 1986, 135.
271 The exact date has been discussed by many scholars. The most probable date seems to be around 80 B.C. while Sulla

was still in power, as Appian (Mith. 67) suggested. See McGing 1986,136 n.17; Reinach 1890,300; Magie 1950,321.
272 McGing 1986, 137.

93
 A significant aspect of Mithradatic policy from this period concerns his alliance with

Sertorius, a Roman rebel in Spain. Mithradates sent embassies to Sertorius, offered 3,000 talents and

forty ships, and proposed to take over Asia, Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia and Galatia. This

initiated his third and final war with Rome.273 In preparation, Mithradates had built closer relations

with the Egyptians and the Cilician pirates during this period. He had 140,000 infantry, 16,000

cavalry, and 400 ships.274 In the spring of 74 B.C. Mithradates made two sacrifices: one to Zeus

Stratios and another to Poseidon. He then moved into Paphlagonia with his two generals, Taxiles

and Hermocrates, and gave another speech to his troops similar to the one he delivered at the very

beginning of the dispute with the Romans.275 This time he also emphasized the bad faith of the

Romans for not writing down the treaty of Dardanus, claiming that they could change it whenever

they wanted. The two speeches (the earlier one reported by Pompeius Trogus and this one by

Appian) resemble one another. In both speeches Mithradates VI spoke of his ancestors and the

greatness of his people. He also accused the Romans of not being a pure race, of the boundless

greed by which they enslaved Italy and their own fatherland.276 Although Appian does not

provide the full speech, he gives the impression that this is a speech full of motivation, self-

determination, and assaults to the Romans. Therefore, the two speeches complement one another.

The credibility of both texts is questionable, but the fact that they are in harmony with one another

suggests that Mithradates VI had a certain format for his speeches in which he repeated some critical

sentences that helped to justify his actions. At this stage of the wars with Rome, in particular, it

would have been even more crucial for him to convince his troops of the reasons for his attacks; by

this point, he had lost two wars, men, support, and the faith of his people.

273 App. Mith. 38.

274 App. Mith. 69, 119.
275 App. Mith. 70.
276 App. Mith. 70.

94
 There were other reasons for the third war. According to McGing, the death of Nicomedes

IV and his bequest of Bithynia to the Romans made it necessary for Mithradates to fight.277 He

could not allow the Romans to gain control of the entrance to the Black Sea, nor could he accept

that Roman power would come so dangerously close to him. In the meantime, the Roman Senate

received the news of the treaty between Mithradates and Sertorius, and the consuls Lucullus and

Cotta were sent to the east. Mithradates first seized Bithynia, then moved towards Asia and

captured Cyzicus. Mithradates general Eumachus overran Phrygia and Pisidia, but was soon

defeated by Deiotarus, one of the tetrarchs of Galatia.278 At Cyzicus he first lost his land troops, and

then bad weather claimed his fleet of over 100 ships. He asked for assistance from his son

Machares, the King of Bosporus, and from his son-in-law Tigranes, King of Armenia. Neither king

responded to his request. Lucullus invaded Pontus, leaving Murena in charge of Amisos, and then

pursued Mithradates to Cabeira. The Romans defeated Mithradates, who then escaped from Pontus

and found refuge in Armenia. Rome asked Tigranes to hand him over, but Tigranes, although

reluctant to be engaged in war with the Romans, refused. Lucullus defeated both Tigranes and

Mithradates once again.

Mithradates now turned to Parthia for help. Sallusts letter of Mithradates is an indication of

this effort, but the authenticity of the letter has been disputed by many historians.279 Bikerman and

Earl agreed that the letter was not authentic, while Bchner and Stier thought Sallust had an

authentic source.280 Raditsa believed there was indeed a letter written by Mithradates.281 Whether

the letter was indeed written by Mithradates or was composed by Sallust, we know that the Parthians

did not help Mithradates. Mithradates was once again defeated by Lucullus, and the king came back

277 McGing 1986, 144.

278 App. Mith. 75.
279 Sallust Hist. 4.69.
280 Bikerman 1946; Earl 1961; Bchner 1960, Stier 1969.
281 Raditsa 1969.

95
to Pontus in 68 B.C. After the Manlian law (66 B.C.) gave Pompey power in the east, Mithradates

was forced to flee east into Colchis. After forcing his son Machares to commit suicide, he

established a base in the Bosporan kingdom and sent envoys to Pompey offering to become a

subject of Rome. Pompey asked him to give himself up, but Mithradates refused. The Bosporans,

who were dissatisfied with Mithradates and his methods, proclaimed Mithradates son Pharnakes II

the king. This event marked the end of Mithradates reign as well as his life.282 It is generally

accepted that Mithradates VI drank poison in order to end his life, but was not successful, so he

asked one of his Gallic bodyguards to kill him. Pompey announced the death of Mithradates VI to

the Roman army and told his troops that the Pontic ruler was killed at his own request.283 Dio

Cassius is the only source to report that Mithradates VI was killed by the soldiers he sent against his

son Pharnakes. The stories of Mithradates suicide, and the Gallic bodyguard appointed to kill him

may have been made up, as suggested by Magie, in order take the blame off Pharnakes.284

Considering the failures of the last 20 years of his life, and his final refusal by the Bosporans, he may

have decided to commit suicide. On the other hand, Pharnakes may have felt insecure in the

presence of Mithradates VI and gave the order for him to be killed. There are many issues

concerning the end of Mithradates VIs life that are unknown to us. We have, for example, no idea

about the status of his health at this time, and his relationship with his son. We do not know

whether he still had ambitions that could have threatened Pharnakes future, or whether he still had

supporters among the Bosporans. If that was in fact the case, Pharnakes would have had good

reasons considering the stat of his familys relationships to have had his father killed.

282 For this version of his death see Plut. Pomp. 41,2; Livy Per. 52; Justin 37,1,9; App. Mith. 102, 107; Dio Cass. 36,50,2;
37,2; 37.13.3.
283 Plut. Pomp. 41,5.
284 Magie 1950, 1229 n.25.

96
CHAPTER IV

Mithradates VI, the Hellenistic King

Gruen has argued that there is no single model that can be assigned to Hellenistic

kingship.285 The Pontus kingdom is unique, and it has scarcely been mentioned by scholars studying

the characteristics of royalty in the Hellenistic period. This may be due to a lack of archaeological

evidence from the Pontic kingdom itself, or a lack of interest in what Mithradates and his family

meant for the people under their suzerainty; but when the Pontic kingdom has been studied, it has

been through the lens of Roman expansion into the east. Mithradates VI Eupator was perceived as

a close follower of Alexander the Great, both in his use of imagery on coinage and sculpture, and in

his ambitious goals of conquest. Mithradates VI was in fact vastly different from Alexander and his

Antigonid, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid successors. Better parallels could be found in Bithynia, the

Bosporus, or even Armenia, but it is best to view Mithradates VI and his kingdom as a unique entity.

As I have already discussed, Mithradates VI stressed his eastern ancestry. He came from a

ruling family whose roots went back to the powerful Persians, once the rulers of an enormous

empire. This was an advantage for him when dealing with his people, especially those in the inland

regions, but it might have become a disadvantage in his relations with the Greek cities on the Black

Sea and Ionian coasts, as well as with the islands and mainland Greece itself. For this reason he

emphasized his familiarity with the Greeks, but not necessarily his Greekness, by having his city

mints use gods and goddesses who appear to be a combination of Greek and native; by using

Sinope, a Greek city, as his capital; and by portraying himself on regal coins in a style well-known to

the Hellenistic world.

285 Gruen 1996.

97
 Shortly after he came to the throne, at the death of his father in 120 B.C., he conquered

most of the circumference of the Black Sea and traveled throughout Asia Minor. This enabled him

to introduce himself to the regions he was intent on conquering and probably to plan his campaign.

Soon he was a popular figure in the northern Black Sea as well.

Dedicatory Inscriptions

I will discuss only briefly the dedications to the Pontic family that date prior to the reign of

Mithradates VI Eupator. The first Pontic king to receive a dedication on Delos was Pharnakes I, the

grandfather of Mithradates Eupator.286 Several honors were bestowed on the Pontic family either

directly or through their associates: a dedication by the gymnasiarch Seleucus in honor of

Mithradates V Euergetes, a dedication by Hermogenes of Amisos in honour of the Athenian

Dionysios, son of Boethos, who was a friend of Mithradates V, another bilingual dedication to

Mithradates Euergetes, now in the Capitoline museum, a decree of Athens in honor of Pharnakes,

the king of Pontus, and his wife Nysa, and a dedication in honor of Laodice, princess of Pontus,

who was the sister of Pharnakes and Mithradates IV Philopator Philadelphus.287

Dedications to and on behalf of Mithradates VI were made on Delos long before his

campaign in 88 B.C., and his statues were erected in various parts of Asia Minor and the Aegean.

Since 166 B.C. Delos had been under the control of the Athenians.288 Between then and 88 B.C. 125

public portraits were erected, of which 50 were royal portraits. Sixteen of these royal portraits

belonged to the Ptolemies, 11 to the Seleucids, and 10 to the Pontic kings. The Ptolemies, the

Antigonids, and to a certain extent, the Seleucids had a strong presence in the sanctuary beginning in

the third century B.C., whereas the Pontic kings were introduced to the sanctuary only under

286 IDlos 1555.

287 Durrbach 1921, 99; Reinach 1890, 456 no.2, 74, 100, 73.
288 Smith 1988, 21.

98
Pharnakes (189/8-160 B.C.).289 Although they were comparatively later additions to the sanctuary,

the Pontic kings soon managed to rival the Ptolemies and Seleucids in number of dedications.

The earliest inscriptions honoring Mithradates VI Eupator on Delos date to 115 B.C. The

first of these is a cylindrical base made of white marble, which was found in the gymnasium.290

Dionysius Neonus Athenaius, the gymnasiarch in 116/5 B.C.,291 set up a statue on Delos of

Mithradates Eupator and his brother Mithradates Chrestus, both of which are now missing;

The second inscription from 115 B.C. is a dedication to Zeus Ourius on behalf of

Mithradates VI Eupator and Mithradates Chrestus.292 This inscription on a white marble plaque was

discovered with a base at Sarapeion C on Delos. According to Roussel and Lawney, Zeus Ourius

was associated with the gods of Egypt and Syria and was worshipped in Italy as Iuppiter

Secundanus, the god of favorable winds: 293

Another individual who made dedications on Delos on behalf of Mithradates VI Eupator

was Dicaeus, priest of Sarapis, during the archonship of Kallias in 94/3 B.C. or 92/1 B.C.294 The

first of two inscriptions concerns the dedication of an aedicula to Sarapis and other Egyptian gods

289 Smith 1988, 21.

290 IDlos 1560.
291 List of Phocion n.2589, 1.61.
292 IDlos 1561.
293 Roussel and M. Lawney 1937, n.1561.
294 IDlos 2039, 2040.

99
on behalf of the Athenian people, the Roman people, Mithradates Eupator Dionysus, and his own

father and mother:

His mother is once again associated with Mithradates on the second inscription, which is

also a dedication to Sarapis:

The connection between Mithradates and the priest is hard to explain. Both Dicaeus and the

gymnasiarch Dionysus could have been personal friends of the Pontic royal court. The inscription is

somewhat unusual in that the dedicators family is linked to a king and two other regions. Both of

these cases concern individuals, rather than cities, who set up statues on Delos or make dedications

on behalf of the king. This was not uncommon on Delos. Other kings received honors from

priests and gymnasiarchs of Delos as well. A gymnasiarch named Dioscurides erected a statue in

honor of the Bithynian king Nicomedes III, and a priest named Sosion made a dedication for the

100
Athenian people and Nicomedes III.295 There were also Romans who made dedications to eastern

kings, such as a dedication by Roman merchants in honor of Lochos, the father of Ptolemy VIII

Euergetes II.296 Dedications to other Hellenistic kings at Sarapeion C have also been discovered.297

Mithradates name appears on several other inscriptions from Delos, but these are mostly

fragmentary. One was found at Mt Cynthus:298

Another was found at the Asklepieion on Delos:299

295 Durrbach 1921, 101, 102.

296 Durrbach 1921, 105.
297 For example, see a dedication by Marcos of Eleusis for Ptolemy X: Durrbach 1921, 125.
298 IDlos 1566.
299 IDlos1568.

101
 This inscription is among the six inscriptions discovered at the Asklepieion, none of which

mentions another Hellenistic king or a ruler from any period.300 The single appearance of

Mithradates VI may imply a special kind of relationship between Mithradates and the healing god, or

an interest in the cult in Pontus in general. A sanctuary for Asklepeios is in fact known from

inscriptions to Asklepios-Soter at Phazemon, in the baths of Phazemonitis.301 There is an another

altar from Sulusaray inscribed with the name of the same god. Phazemon and the area around

Sulusaray have naturally warm water sources, and hence would have been a proper place for a cult to

the healing god Asklepios. Inscriptions suggest that Asklepios Soter and Hygeia were worshipped at

Sinope in the first and third centuries A.D.302 Three cities have Asklepios on their coinage: Amaseia

(with Hygieia), Amisos (featuring a temple), and Cerasus (struck later under Antoninus Pius).303

In addition to these honorary inscriptions on Delos, two inscriptions, predating the first

Mithradatic War, attest equestrian victories of Mithradates on Chios and Rhodes.304 While it is not

clear whether the king actually participated in these events, Mithradates background suggests that he

might actually have competed. Whether he did or not, these two inscriptions indicate that

Mithradates Eupator was able to establish good relations with these islands just as he did with Delos

before he sacked it. It is ironic that he was honored by all of these inscriptions and monuments

dedicated by people who would soon become his victims.

Two inscriptions from the northern Black Sea illustrate the popularity of Mithradates

Eupator and the acceptance he gained in that part of his kingdom following his successful

campaigns against the Scythians at the end of the second century B.C. The first inscription, which

was discovered at Chersonesus in 1878, honors Diophantus, a general of Mithradates, who led the

300 For a description of the finds from the Asklepeion on Delos see Robert 1952, 51-109.
301 Olshausen 1990, 1865-1906.
302 French 1994, 99-112.
303 Waddington et al. 1904, 239 no.35 and 35a; 45 no.72,73; 49 no. 100, 287 no. 113.
304 Segre 1932; Robert 1960.

102
victorious campaigns at both Chersonesus and the Bosporus.305 The second inscription was on a

statue base discovered at the Nymphaeum.306 This inscription has interested scholars because

Mithradates is described here as the king of kings, which is an ancient Near Eastern title. Only

one king could bear this title in the Near East at the time of Mithradates Eupator. Scholars have

suggested that Mithradates was able to use this because the Parthian king, Mithradates II, did not

transfer the title immediately to his successor Tigranes the Great. Mithradates usurped the title in

89/88 B.C. while the title was free, although he later surrendered it at the Peace of Dardanus in 85

B.C. On this inscription Mithradates Eupator is once again described as a benefactor who resolved

the instabilities in Bosporus and saved the Greeks from the barbarians. This was a profitable period

for Mithradates VI: Parthia was in serious political chaos, Rome was in the middle of a civil war, and

the northern Black Sea was under pressure from the northern tribes. So Mithradates VI sent his

troops to Crimea, won a victory, titled himself the king of kings, and became the savior of the

Greeks. It is noteworthy that he simultaneously identified himself as Greek and non-Greek

depending on the group with which he was dealing.

A final fragmentary of inscription was found on a vase which was discovered at Antium and

bears Mithradates Eupators name. It is now at the Capitoline Museum.307 On this bronze crater the

following inscription has been engraved;

Basileu;~ Miqradavth~ Eujpavtwr toi`~ ajpo; tou` gumnasivou Eujpatorivstai~

also on its neck was written Su`fa, diavswze. It could have been a piece brought back as booty

but the context of this item is not known, and therefore further discussion is impossible.308

305 IPE 1 352.

306Vinogradov et al. 1982,725-7.
307 IDlos 1567.
308 An examination of the crater at the museum could be beneficial for further discussion.

103
The Monument for Mithradates VI on Delos

Benefactions were the major reason for the establishment of the Hellenistic ruler cult and its

associated honors, but other features were also involved. Cities established ruler cults in order to

deal with a new power imposed on them, and their models were primarily the cults of their gods

who constituted the other major influence on a city and its people.309 The Seleucids, the Ptolemies,

the Attalids, and the kings of Commagene all received honors and cults in their geographical spheres

of influence. Iasos, for example, established a cult for Antiochus in 197 B.C. after he liberated the

city from the control of Philip of Macedon. His wife Laodice was given a new cult in return for her

benefactions to the same city. Teos similarly set up a cult for Antiochus and Laodice in response to

freedom from tribute and other benefits.310 The Ptolemies received cults in the area from Thrace to

Lycia as a result of conquests, and cults for the Attalids, especially after 188 B.C., were similarly set

up in the coastal towns of Asia Minor as well as the inland areas.311

In this period of granting of honors, Mithradates VI seems to have benefitted as well. In

various inscriptions he bears the name of Dionysus, among his other names, which clearly connects

him to this god. There are no inscriptions that attest a cult for Mithradates in the cities of western

Asia Minor, but he must have gained significant political influence in western Asia Minor and the

Aegean by 88 B.C. Especially after his visit to the area it seems likely that dedications of some sort

would have been made to him in a number of cities.

The best example of these is certainly the dedication of a marble monument to Mithradates

VI in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods of Samothrace on Delos. The inscription found in the

309Price 1984, 30.

310For the cult of Antiochus and Laodice at Iasos see Price 1984, 30, n.26; for Antiochus and Laodice at Teos see Price
1984, 31, Herrmann 1965.
311Ptolemaic kings had cults in Rhodes, Naxos, Kalymnos, Miletus, and Byzantium. See IG XII Supp. 122, SEG IX, 5,

and Robert 1966, Habicht 1956, 109-123. Some of the Attalid kings who received cults were Philetairos I in Kyzikos,
Eumenes I in Pergamon, and Eumenes in Kos: see Habicht 1956, 124-6.

104
complex is complete; the Athenian Helianax, the priest of Poseidon Aisios and Dioscuri-Cabiri,

dedicated the temple, cult statues, and equipment to his gods and to Mithradates Eupator Dionysus

on behalf of the Greek and the Roman people:312

The dedication of Helianax Asklepiodorus Athenaios on behalf of the Athenian people is

also inscribed on two statue bases.313 A cuirassed torso, which will be discussed in the section on

portraits in this chapter, belonged to Mithradates VI, as indicated by the inscribed base. It is unclear

to which statue the other base belonged.

Foundations belonging to the monument were found on the northwest side of the temenos

of the sanctuary, by the great staircase leading to the highest terrace (figs. 23, 24). The monument

was built around 102/1 B.C., and it was part of a larger and older complex.314 The original

enclosure, which dates back to the fourth century B.C., was consecrated to the Dioscuri and Cabiri

under the common name Great Gods in the second century B.C. With the arrival of the

Athenians in 166 B.C., the sanctuary was dedicated to the gods of Samothrace and was enlarged

before 132/1 B.C.; later the monument for Mithradates VI was added.

The monument was a small rectangular structure measuring 5.20m by 3.90m on the outside

and 3.88m by 1.95m on the inside.

312 For the inscription see IDlos1562.

313 On a second statue base which was found at the heroon, Helianax is identified as the priest of Poseidon Aisios, the
Great Gods of Samothrace, and the Dioscuri Cabiri during the archonship of Ekekratus. IDlos 1563.
314 On the general aspects of the sanctuary see Chapouthier 1935.

105
 Fig. 25 The ground plan of the monument for Mithradates VI on Delos (after Chapouthier 1935,

fig. 55).

The height of the building was estimated as 3.345m, reckoned from the height of the antae,

the epistyle, and the frieze. It was built against the southeast corner of the sanctuary, and its back

wall was aligned with the sanctuarys back wall. The south side of the structure was open, with two

Ionic columns, 2.90m high, supporting a gabled roof between the two antae. The column base had

an Attic profile; the volutes of the Ionic capitals were a common type.315

315 Chapouthier 1935, 22.

106
Fig. 26 A reconstruction drawing of the monument for Mithradates VI on Delos (after Chapouthier

1935, fig. 56).

There is no evidence for cultic activitiy in connection with this monument, but its location

within the sanctuary to the Dioscuri-Cabiri must have had a special significance. The Dioscuri-

Cabiri functioned as symbols of military success during the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods,

and the iconography related to them was therefore used by and for kings and emperors.316 It is

noteworthy that the caps of the Dioscuri are on the reverse of one of the types of Pontic city coins

minted during the reign of Mithradates VI. These bronze coins have a young winged head on the

reverse as well as a cornucopia between the caps of the Dioscuri, above which are eight-rayed

stars.317 This is the only representation of the Dioscuri in the Pontic kingdom, and there is no other

evidence for an association between the Dioscuri and the Mithradatic royal family. Mithradates VI

may have followed the other Hellenistic kings in utilizing the symbolism as an expression of military

success.
316 The connection between the Dioscuri and ruler ideology is discussed by Poulsen 1991.
317 See the Amaseia coin (120-100 B.C.) with the caps of the Dioscuri in SNG-BMWS 655.

107
 The Delos monument was situated in the northeast section of the sanctuary, and it was

among the largest monuments built on Delos for a Hellenistic king.318 The personal relationship

between the king and Helianax, the priest of Poseidon Aisios/the Dioscuri-Cabiri, may have been

one of the reason why this monument was erected in this particular sanctuary. A connection

between Mithradates and the gods worshipped in the sanctuary may become evident in the future if

the religious life of Pontus is examined in greater detail.

The most original feature of the monument was probably the shield frieze and pediment. In

addition to one large shield at the center of the pediment, there were 12 more inside, three on each

side wall and six on the back wall. These shields had busts, most of which are lost or badly

damaged. Each of these busts was enframed by a double corona. The exterior corona is flat and the

interior concave. The shoulders and the upper chest were carved out of the shield block while the

portraits were made separately and attached by iron rods. The fact that all the busts were knocked

off and all but one are missing suggests that they were deliberately destroyed. The only surviving

portrait that belonged to Diophantus (discussed below) is likewise in very bad condition as a result

of blows of a hammer or a similar tool.319 The mutilation of Diophantus facial features confirms

the theory that the monument suffered from damnatio memoriae. There are few examples of

iconoclasm in the Hellenistic period, but literary sources mention several cases. Livy informs us that

the Athenians passed a decree ordering the removal of the monuments, festivals, sanctuaries, etc. of

Philip V of Macedon.320 His ancestors names were also to be erased from inscriptions, and their

monuments were to be destroyed. The war between Mithradates VI and the Romans caused

widespread destruction in the Greek cities, and much of Delos was destroyed in 88 B.C. by

318 Antigonos Gonatas built a monument on the north side of the Sanctuary of Apollo on Delos. This monument
consisted of a 21m long narrow base and statues of Antigonos forebears which would have adorned the base, Smith
1988, 24.
319 McGing 1986, 90; Bruneau and Ducat 1968, 673-4; Webb 1996, 142.
320 Livy 31,44, 4-8; for the erasure of names see Pritchett 1946, 150-1.

108
Mithradates own troops. It is not surprising that the Delians wanted to destroy anything that

reminded them of Mithradates VI. It should be emphasized that this was a very uncommon thing to

do at the time, and the destruction of Mithradates monument constituted a major statement

regarding the islands hostile feelings towards the king.

The inscriptions that accompanied the busts identified them as friends, courtiers, foreign

allies, and associates of Mithradates.321 This kind of iconography on architectural reliefs is

unprecedented in the Hellenistic period. It reminds one of the Roman tradition of displaying the

images of ancestors in the houses of patricians, as familial propaganda. The idea may have come

from this tradition, but the application, especially in a public context, certainly differs from the

Roman practice. The images here are not of Mithradates VIs ancestors, but of his so-called friends

and courtiers.

These men were, on the west wall,

1. the suntrophos of Eupator, Gaius son of Hermaeus,322

2. Mithradates private secretary, the son of Antipater, whose name is lost,323

3. Dorylaus son of Philetaerus,324

321 IDlos1552, 1570-4 ,1576, 1581-2.

322 One of Mithrdataes generals was also called Hermaios. This Hermaios could have been the son of Gaius who is
mentioned in this inscription: IDlos 1570, Plut. Pomp. 42; Chapouthier 1935, 32 n.1.
323 IDlos 1571; Chapouthier 1935, 32 n.2.
324 IDlos 1572; Chapouthier 1935, 32 n.3.

109
4. the nephew of Dorylaus Tacticus, the Aegean recruiting agent of Mithradates Euergetes.

On the back wall were,

5. the bust of Diophantus son of Mithares (fig. 27),325

6. Ariarathes VII of Cappadocia, also the nephew of Eupator,326

7. Antiochus VIII Grypus of Syria,327

8. Asclepiodorus, Helianaxs father,328

325 IDlos 1574; Chapouthier 1935, 32 n.4. The name Diophantus was restored by Reinach 1890(321,337,339,340)
based on Memnon 27.2 It is therefore not certain. This could be the Diophantus who went on an expedition in
Cappadocia in 73 B.C., and was defeated by Lucullus in 71 B.C. (Durrbach 1921, 219).
326 IDlos 1576; Chapouthier 1935, 33 n.5.
327 IDlos 1552; Chapouthier 1935, 33 n.6.
328 Durrbach Choix 215; Chapouthier 1935, 33 n.7.

110
9. an Arcasid official.329

One bust on this wall cannot be identified because the inscription does not survive.

On the east wall the busts belonged to:

10. Mithradates II, a king from the Arcasid court,330

12. Papias, son of Menophilus, Mithradates VIs chief doctor 331

The third figure is unidentifiable because there is no inscription associated with the bust.

The shield in the middle of the pediment had the bust of Mithradates VI and was carved out

of the tympanum. The portrait of Mithradates VI, which was made separately, is unfortunately lost,

but he clearly wore a mantle over both of his shoulders. In addition to the busts, a statue which is

329 IDlos 1582.

330 IDlos 1581; Chapouthier 1935, 33 n.10.
331 IDlos 1573; Chapouthier 1935, 34 n.11.

111
identified as Mithradates VI, with the help of an inscription, was found in the Samothrakeion in the

vicinity of this Heroon.332

McGing suggested that the two busts belonging to officials from the Arcasid court may

suggest some kind of a relationship between the Pontic and the Arcasid kingdoms, or that they were

arranged in order to give the impression that there was friendship between the two courts.333

Among the identified people, there are Greeks, men from Pontic cities bearing Greek names, and

men from eastern kingdoms. The range of personalities on the Delos monument is therefore

representative of the diverse nature of the Pontic kingdom, east and west, as well as the geographical

limits of the influence of the kingdom. The appearance of Greeks and Parthians/Persians on the

same monument is unique because these two groups had not been depicted together in a public

monument since the Alexander sarcophagus, where they appeared simultaneously as friends and

foes.334 Their conjunction here made this monument vastly different from the other monuments on

Delos, and in fact vastly different from any other in the Greek world. The virtue in embracing both

Greek and Persian sides within the context of a monument to Mithradates VI must have been

recognized by Helianax, who undertook the project. The use of Greek and Persian elements also

effectively alluded to Mithradates VIs dual background, although not in the same overt way as the

hierothesion of Antiochus I of Commagene, where the kings Greek and Persian ancestors were

prominently featured.335

The similarities in costumes worn by men featured here would, however, have visually

moderated the effect of this diverse assemblage.

332 The statue is in Delos Museum and will be discussed in the portraits section of this chapter.
333 McGing 1986, 91.
334 The Alexander sarcophagus is in Istanbul Archaeological Museum. For a description of the sarcophagus Pasinli 1999,

85-101.
335 Kleiner 1983.

112
Four types of military costumes can be recognized on these shields:336

a. A cuirass with an epaulet on the right shoulder and a paludamentum on the left

shoulder.

b. A cuirass without epaulets, but with a paludamentum on the left shoulder.

c. A cuirass with epaulets on both shoulders.

d. A mantle draped over both shoulders.

The same costumes are worn by both Greeks and easterners on the monument. Ariarathes VII

wears costume type a., Antiochus VIII Grypus of Syria wears costume type b., and Mithradates II

wears costume type c.; the Greeks wear costumes of all types listed above.

The Hellenistic kings were presented with statues and portraits in marble, bronze, and gold

by cities in gratitude for their benefactions. Beginning in the second century B.C., gilded shields

with the kings portrait had also become a common type of dedication for the king. The

representations of these painted shields are very rare, but they are often mentioned in inscriptions.337

The shields with busts on the Delos monument must have derived from this tradition, but they were

presented on a monumental scale and represented friends of the king.338 The near-total

disappearance of such shields in the archaeological record makes the Delos monument unique. The

marble shields contain no residue of paint, but they may originally have been painted like the gilded

examples mentioned in inscriptions.

336 Webb 1996, 142.

337 For a detailed study of the gilded shileds with busts see Blanck 1968, 1-12. Shields with portraits were painted on a
sarcophagus discovered at Panticapeum (Rostovtseff 1914, fig.92 I); for inscriptions mentioning imagines clipeatae, see
Blanck 1968, 11; Rose 1997, 211 n.3. Some Hellenistic examples from Asia Minor are: Pergamon (Altertumer von
Pergamon 15.1 1986, 115-7), Priene (I.Priene 109, 120 B.C., and 112, 84 B.C.); and Sardis (I.Sardis 27, ca.75-50 B.C.).
338 For the erection of statues of the friends of Hellenistic kings, see Konstan 1997. Friends of the kings were given

honors in order to please the king himself. It was a way of demonstrating friendship and respect toward the king.

113
 The only comparandum for these imagines clipeatae is the Heroon at Kalydon, where shields

such as these were used in a divine context.339 The Heroon at Kalydon is a much larger and

complex structure than the monument on Delos. Seven rooms with one exedra were arranged

around a peristyle (fig. 28, 29). The cult room was accessible from one of the central rooms at the

north. In the cult room is a grave presumably belonging to the hero. The Heroon has been

variously dated, primarily by style, between the late Hellenistic period and the second century A.D.

The busts in the shields discovered at Kalydon belong either to gods, goddesses or heroes. Some of

the busts can be identified, such as that of Herakles, Eros, Zeus, Meleager, and Aphrodite, while

others cannot be identified because of their generic features. The shields surrounding the

monument and the busts on those shields are formally comparable to the Delian monument, but the

heroon at Kalydon most certainly has a religious context, as confirmed by the presence of gods and

goddesses.340

Architecturally, the monument built for Mithradates on Delos was simple. It had a single

room and basic architectural features such as a pedimented roof with a shield in the middle

(probably bearing the portrait of Mithradates VI), columns in antis, and shields with busts of

Mithradates VIs associates. It was placed within a sacred precinct, situated in the Sanctuary of the

Great Gods of Samothrace, but not in a sacred precinct designed specifically for him. The

geographical location of the monument is especially significant. It lay outside the immediate borders

of the Pontic kingdom, and its international political significance and its visibility could not have

been greater. It was built on one of the most frequently visited islands, Delos, and in the Sanctuary

of Apollo. Although a painted portrait on a gilded shield was a relatively common gift for a

339 The busts on the monument of Mithradates are referred to as imagines clipeatae by Webb (1996, 33). For imagines

clipeatae see Winkes 1969. For the Heroon at Kalydon see Dyggve et al. 1934. The busts from Kalydon have been
studied by Bol 1988.
340 Whether this use of shields for gods was inspired by the dedications to rulers is difficult to know, because so few

portrait shields have been found.

114
benefactor during the Hellenistic period, never before had the format been used so extensively in a

royal monument. With this monument Mithradates received honors in three media: the monument

itself, the statue in the monument (discussed in the portraits section of this chapter) and the imagines

clipeatae.341

The monument on Delos is the only example of a monument built for Mithradates VI,

inside or outside his kingdom. Obviously it was not planned to be used by the Pontic people to

worship Mithradates, but the construction of such a monument was a sign of his prominence in the

Aegean among the Greeks and the other Hellenistic monarchies. Many of the associates of

Mithradates VI were Greeks, or at least had Greek names, which must have made Mithradates VI

seem distinctly Greek. Studies concerning the ethnicity of the Pontic administration suggest that

there was a considerable number of Greeks in the highest levels of his court.342 The representation

of his associates from the Arcasid kingdom, together with his Greek friends, is certainly a reference

to his dual background, which was clearly perceived by Helianax.

Portraits of Mithradates VI

With the establishment of the Hellenistic monarchies, cities became more dependent on

different sources of power, and the number of honorific dedications to kings, their families, and

their friends increased. Portrait statues were used to demonstrate allegiance to the kings and to

encourage the king to serve as benefactor toward the cities. The changing political atmosphere

caused the erection of new statues and sometimes necessitated the removal of older ones.

The erection of statues was a very well organized operation. It was usually supervised by a

small committee. The decree honoring the king was written on the base of the statue, and an

embassy was usually sent to announce to the king that a statue or a monument was to be dedicated

341 Rose 1997, 3. On the choices of location for different dedications see Rose 1997, 212 n.5.
342 Olshausen 1974.

115
to him.343 Mithradates VI certainly received statues in several areas of the Mediterranean, but there

are only a few portraits that can be assigned to him. None of these portraits has an archaeological

context, and therefore it is impossible to determine their geographical distribution.

Silver coins supply our only sound evidence for Mithradates appearance. On these coins he

is represented as a young man with long flowing hair and long sideburns, a prominent nose, a

narrow forehead, and a diadem. Most scholars believe his portrait was modelled on that of

Alexander, and that Mithradates intended to project a stronger Hellenic image to the Greek world.

Mithradates familial relation to Alexander was presented by Pompeius Trogus, and his coins show

him as a reincarnated Alexander proclaiming his role as the Hellenistic worlds champion against

Rome.344 Even if Mithradates VI did use some of Alexanders features, such as the numinous

appearance achieved by the twist of the head and the deeply drilled locks of his hair, he was still

differentiated from Alexander by his long sideburns, the nose, and the eyes. So while Mithradates

VI used Alexanders image as a model, he ensured that his portraits would not constitute a carbon

copy of the Macedonian general. Mithradates VI is perhaps the only Hellenistic ruler who used

Alexanders image so extensively. This may also indicate that he perceived himself as a second

Alexander, ready to conquer the world.

Fortunately the entire corpus of Mithradatic portraiture appears on his silver coins. Below I

discuss the portraits believed to have represented Mithradates VI. I first compared them with his

images on the silver coins, and then with one another. Even the portraits that did not necessarily

resemble the coin portraits have been included in this corpus if they bear any resemblance to other

sculptural portraits previously identified as Mithradates VI. Nevertheless, some portraits can be

dismissed from consideration since it is clear that they have been associated with the king only

because they resembled gods or heroes closely related to Mithradates VI, such as Herakles,

343 Just. Epit. 38.7; Smith 1988, 17.

344 Stewart 1993, 337.

116
Dionysus, and Helios. In the process of identifying Mithradates portraits, the literary evidence on

his character, habits, treatment of his people, and his background have been closely studied.

As I have already mentioned, Mithradates coins are the main source for identifying his

portraits, and they can be divided into two types.345 The earlier and more individualized type appears

on tetradrachms with a Pegasus figure on the reverse (96-88 B.C.). On the second and later type, he

is represented in a younger and more idealized fashion.346 The reverses of these coins have the stag

instead of Pegasus; the change in iconography is often recognized as a shift in policy following the

campaigns to western Turkey.347 Some scholars believe that Mithradates began to use the stag

because it was one of the chief attributes of Artemis, the goddess of Ephesus.348 He also began

using an image similar to that of Alexander on these coins. The new coin types may therefore have

been designed to appeal more strongly to the cities of Asia Minor.

On the earlier coins Smith believes that Mithradates is shown as a younger man, but I think

the misconception is the result of the individualized nature of the first portrait. He is represented as

slimmer, and has shorter hair in which the diadem is easily visible. He has a long thin nose, a small

mouth, and a pointed chin, and those are carried over to the next type without much change. The

second type, however, features a heavier Mithradates. His cheeks are fuller, as are his chin and

forehead. His hair is longer, nearly hiding the diadem, and it is rendered in a more dramatic way, as

if the locks were in motion.

345 For example, Smith 1988, 99.

346 See Chapter 6.
347 For the historical background see Chapter 4.
348 See Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion.

117
 Fig.30 Coin portraits of Mithradates VI (after SNG-BM 1034, 1040).

The first of these portrait types was used for the most well-known and securely identified

statue of Mithradates, which is in the Louvre Museum today.349 This fine marble head depicts

Mithradates as a young and dynamic man with curly hair and long sideburns. He has a slightly long

nose, finely shaped face, and a small Adams apple. The lion scalp he is wearing is considered the

strongest evidence for the imitation of Alexander by Mithradates VI, although of course it actually

refers to Herakles.350 According to Smith, the Louvre portrait resembles the first of these coin types,

which dates to around 96-88 B.C. I also think that the Louvre portrait is closer to the first coin type

because his characteristic facial features have clearly been emphasized. The only difference between

this portrait and the first coin type is the long sideburns, which are very prominent on the Louvre

head but hardly identifiable on the coins.

349MA 2321, h:35 cm.

350The marble head in the Louvre was first identified as Mithradates VI by Winter in 1894, and this has been accepted
by most scholars. See Toynbee 1978, 115; Smith 1988, 99; Bieber 1961, 122; Stewart 1990, 223.

118
 fig.31 Portrait of Mithradates VI in Louvre (after Smith 1988, Pl. 51 and 52, 1-2).

Two gem portraits are also similar to Mithradatic coin portraits, and they can therefore be

identified with some certainty (fig. 32, 33).351 An amethyst ringstone which is now in Florence bears

the portrait of a young man with long, flowing hair.352 The tassels of his diadem are visible on his

neck. The diadem was the main symbol of kingship during the Hellenistic period, and it was

commonly depicted on portraits of kings.353 The rendering of the face is surprisingly similar to the

second portrait type. The fuller cheeks and distinctive nose are easily recognizable. The second gem

is made of yellowish-green glass and has a very similar portrait of a young man.354 He also wears a

351The other gem portraits that were tentatively identified as Mithradates VI are very different from the kings portrait
types,and I have therefore excluded them from this discussion. Richter 1968, cat.no. 651, 657; Boardman and
Vollenmeider 1978, cat.no. 317.
352 Richter 1968, cat.no. 649.
353 For more detail on the Hellenistic diadem, its origins, and significance see Smith 1988, 37. For a discussion of the

association of Hellenistic kings, diadems, and the conquering Dionysus, see Goukowsky 1981.
354 Richter 1968, cat.no. 650.

119
diadem and has flowing hair. The eyes, the nose, the cheeks, and the lips all resemble the portrait on

the other gem and the second coin type.

Two heads from Ostia and Athens, also bear the characteristics of the Louvre head and the

coin portraits of Mithradates VI.355 The hair style, the shape of the face, and the position of the

head in both portraits resemble one another. The Ostia head should certainly be included in the

portrait corpus of Mithradates VI. Both the Ostia (fig. 34) and Athens heads (fig. 35) resemble the

second, more idealistic coin type of Mithradates VI, which dates after 90 B.C. The Athens head,

however, is somewhat problematic. It is sometimes identified as a son of Mithradates VI, Ariarathes

IX of Cappadocia, whose portrait strongly resembled that of his father.

A sculptural group involving three figures -Prometheus, Heracles, and the personification of

Mount Caucasus- was erected at Pergamon in the latter part of the Hellenistic period.356 The group

was found in the North Stoa of the Athena sanctuary and was probably dowelled to the wall, judging

by the cuttings on their backs. The statues were of Parian marble and ranged between 0.41-0.73 m

in height. Of the three, one is a standing nude male with arms in an upright position, and his right

leg pulled up and bent. The musculature indicates he is in motion. The second nude male wears a

lion scalp, carries a mantle over his shoulders, and is shooting an arrow. He would have originally

had his back to the audience, judging by his pose. A diadem is visible between the lion skin and the

hair (fig. 37). The third is a reclining figure, most likely a personification. This composition may

have involved other figures, as indicated by statue fragments discovered in the area of the Stoa.357

The identification of one of the three figures as Herakles, indicated by the lion skin

headdress, enables us to link the scene with the myth of Prometheus. In this tale, Heracles saved

355 The Ostia head is now in Frascati at the Villa Aldobrandini (h:40 cm), and the Athens head is in the Athens National
Museum (3556, h:27.5 cm).
356 Bieber 1961, figs. 485-7; Winter 1908, VII.2, No.168; Robertson 1975, 547-8; Pollitt 1986, 36-7, fig.30; Smith 1988,

123. The event was also celebrated by New Style tetradrachms with the new Pergamene era.
357 Brogan 1998, 45.

120
Prometheus from the rocks to which he was tied by killing the eagle that preyed on him. The

second nude figure with a raised leg should then be Prometheus, and the third figure would be the

personification of the Caucasus mountain.

The date and significance of this group have been argued for over a hundred years.

Milchhoefers preliminary work was followed by Winters examination, which resulted in the

identification of Herakles as one of the Attalid kings.358 Winter connected an inscription found in

the temenos of Athena with the Herakles monument and assigned its erection to Attalos II.359

Krahmer, on the other hand, introduced the idea that the monument may have celebrated the

liberation of Pergamon from Rome by Mithradates VI in 88 B.C., and he believed that the Herakles

portrait was in fact a representation of Mithradates VI.360

When compared to Mithradates coin portraits, the profile of the Herakles head is indeed

similar to the second type. Especially comparable are the shape of the nose, the narrow forehead,

the projection of the upper lip, and the small but pointed chin.

More recently T. Brogan has argued that the monument represents neither Mithradates nor

one of the Attalids.361 According to him, the problem lies in the fact that our stylistic chronology for

Pergamene sculpture is still in need of refinement, and the group can therefore not be dated to a

specific period. Brogan prefers to consider the Herakles as a generalized symbol of Hellenistic

kingship due to the diadem on his head. In my opinion, the similarity of the Herakles head to

Mithradates VI makes Winters theory the most attractive one. In order to receive such a prominent

monument, Mithradates appeal to the Greeks must have been enormous. Indeed, there is no

evidence that any Attalid portraits were conflated with those of gods or heroes at Pergamon. The

358 Milchhoefer 1882; Winter 1908, 179.

359 Winter 1908, 176-7.
360 Krahmer 1925, 203.
361 Brogan 1998, 43. Krahmer compares the Pergamon group to three relief plaques also from Pergamon which are now

associated with the Propylon of the Sanctuary of Athena. They can therefore be dated to 197-159 B.C.: Brogan 1998,
43.

121
Prometheus group, in fact, is the only example in the Hellenistic world in which mythology and

royal iconography have been so completely blended. By the time of Augustus, the monument must

have lost its original meaning which explains why it survived till today. This indicates that the

features of the person represented in guise of Herakles was not distinctly recognizable by the people

of Pergamon.

There are seven other statues tentatively identified as Mithradates. Four of these have been

found on Delos, where the Mithradatic presence is well attested. As mentioned earlier, between 166

and 50 B.C. a significant change can be seen in the dedication of statues on Delos. During this

period the number of royal statues decreased, while the dedication of statues of Romans and local

Greeks increased significantly. There was a shift in the proportion of statues dedicated to

Hellenistic monarchs as well. The Pontic and the Seleucid kings received an increased number of

statues on the island, and the Ptolemies continued to receive more or less the same number of

statues. Another fundamental difference in monuments set up after 166 B.C. was in the nature of

the dedications. Before 166 B.C. royal portraits of kings were commissioned by cities, whereas after

166 B.C. the kings and their friends became the dedicants more often.362 The kings and their circle

probably set up their own statues (the kings and their friends) to ensure recognition even if they

were not internationally popular.

Of the 50 royal portraits set up on Delos between 166 and 50 B.C., three have been

associated with Mithradates, and all are in poor condition. Delos A4184 was found in the

Dodekatheon, which was built around 300 B.C. (fig. 38).363 The portrait once had horns that were

made separately. They were set close to each other, which suggests that they were goat horns.

Antigonos Gonatas is known to have had a close association with Pan, but Smith believes other

362 Smith 1988, 22.

363 Ridgway 1990, 127-9. Fragments of a similar portrait were also found there and identified as Antigonos Gonatas.

122
Hellenistic kings could also have worn horns.364 Mithradates VI is not represented with horns on his

coins, and no portrait with horns have been securely identified as Mithradates VI, so the

identification of this portrait as Mithradates is questionable.

Portraits of a Hellenistic king and queen were found in the sanctuary of Apollo on Delos

(fig. 39).365 Both portraits are badly worn, and they cannot be safely identified as Mithradates and

Laodice, his sister/wife. The thick, long hair of the king resembles Mithradates, as depicted on his

gold coins. The position of the diadem and the organization of the hair around it also resemble the

early royal coins of Mithradates VI. Among the six kings who received honors on Delos in the

second half of the second century B.C.,366 Michalowski considers Mithradates VI the most

appropriate identification for this portrait. He bases his discussion on the comparison between the

coins of these kings and the portrait found on Delos.

The third statue was found in the Inopus spring which flows below the Samothrakeion,

where the monument of Mithradates VI was situated.367 This over life-size statue, of which only the

upper part has survived, has long, full hair and a diadem (fig. 40). Although it is badly damaged, the

proximity of the monument and the general features of the head suggest that it was a statue of

Mithradates. The portrait should therefore be associated with the second coin type of Mithradates.

Some scholars have identified a bust of Helios in the Venice Museum as Mithradates VI.368

The Thasian marble head represents an idealized god wearing a diadem and a chiton (fig. 41). The

portrait features of this bust closely resemble the second type of Mithradates coin portraits. The

profile and the sideburns, in particular, can be compared easily. Here the king has apparently been

shown as Helios.

364 Smith 1988, 100. For the use of bull and goat horns by the Antigonids see Smith 1988, 44 pls. 74.8; 75.1-2; 70.5.
365 Now in the Athens National Museum. Marble, h:55 cm.
366 Antiochos IV Epiphanus (166-164 B.C.), Mithradates V Euergetes (129 B.C.), Nicomedes III (127-126 B.C.),

Antiochus VIII Epiphanus (133-125 B.C.), Ptolemy X Soter II (116-81 B.C.), and Mithradates VI (115 B.C.); inscriptions
related to these dedications can be seen in Durrbach 1921, 87, 99, 101, 120, 126, 113, respectively.
367 This marble statue is in the Louvre (MA 855), h:95 cm.
368 There is no provenance for this statue. Krug 1969, 189-95; Toynbee 1978, 116.

123
 A somewhat different example is the bronze statuette in the British Museum. According to

Oikonomides, this statuette, which was excavated in a Roman wall either at Northumberland or at

Naworth in Cumberland, represents Mithradates as Heracles.369 Heracles here is wearing a Thracian

short tunic, an Iranian belt or a wrestling belt, and he has long sideburns. Oikonomides suggested

that the combination of the lion scalp and the Iranian belt summarizes the background of

Mithradates VI: the lion scalp represents the Macedonian royalty, and the wrestling belt symbolizes

his Iranian background as well as his physical strength, which was often emphasized in ancient

accounts. He considered the short tunic appropriate because Thracian knights were the strongest

division in the Mithradatic cavalry.370 The portrait features of the statuette are not specific enough

to cement its identification with Mithradates.

Portraits from Odessa and Pantikapeion have also been identified as Mithradates VI.371

Mithradates efforts to suppress the Scythians and the revolts in Bosporus and in the western Crimea

are well attested. The erection of honorific statues of him would have been appropriate since the

peace he achieved was prized by the people of the northern Black Sea.372 Both of these heads bear

the features of Alexander portraits, with an upward twist of the head. The Odessa head has an

emphasized anastole, and his cheeks are full and bulging (fig. 42). The Pantikapaion head, on the

other hand, is a slender and elegant representation (fig. 43). The pose of the head and the

emphasized anastole seem to be different than the other portraits of Mithradates, and this calls for a

more cautious evaluation of the portraits. They compare well with Mithradates second portrait type

(post-88 B.C.), but they may also belong to later rulers of Bosporus who imitated this type.

A final example of a Mithradatic statue is the marble torso identified by an inscription that

was discovered in the vicinity of his monument on Delos. This statue is missing its head and depicts

369 Oikonomides 1962, 13-5.

370 Oikonomides 1962, 15.
371 Smith 1988, 100.
372 See the section on inscriptions, page 28.

124
Mithradates VI in military costume with a cuirass and a paludamentum. Chapouthier calculated the

original height of this statue as approximately 2.15 m, including the base.373

Fig. 44 A statue of Mithradates VI from Delos in military costume (after Chapouthier 1935, fig. 50).

Eleven Hellenistic period cuirassed statues have been found on Delos, Rhodes, Pergamon,

and Halikarnassos.374 The most securely identified of these is the cuirassed statue of Mithradates VI.

The Delos statue has a plain field cuirass with triple banded cingulum. He has two rows of straps, the

longer of which is tasseled.

Inscriptions, literary sources, depictions on gems, and a few examples of unidentified statues

inform us that Hellenistic kings were depicted in a cuirass.375 For example, it is known from a

decree that the city of Eleia ordered the erection of a cuirassed statue of Attalos III in the temple of
376
Asklepios. Golden cuirassed statues of the Ptolemaic kings are mentioned in the ancient

373 Chapouthier 1935, 38-9.

374 Vermeule 1959, 32-4.
375 For the types of royal statues see Smith 1988, 32-4; Smith 1993, 206-8.
376 OGIS I, 514 no. 332.

125
sources,377 and representations of the Ptolemies and Seleucids in a cuirass are found on gems.378

Cuirassed statues of the Seleucid kings were also featured on two reliefs discovered in Dura

Europas.379 Finally, on the western terrace of Nemrud Da, one of the Seleucid ancestors of

Antiochus I of Commagene (69-34 B.C.) was depicted in a cuirass.380 The meaning of a royal

cuirassed statue was rather straightforward: it identified the ruler as a soldier and victorious

general.381 Statues of Hellenistic kings in armor became customary after Alexander the Great, and

these statues were mostly set up in royal or court contexts rather than civic contexts. The

advertisement of military power within cities seems to have been avoided.382

There are Hellenistic examples of both plain and decorated cingula similar to that of

Mithradates. The statue of Billienus found on Delos, dating to c. 100 B.C., similarly has a plain

cuirass with two rows of narrow straps.383 The only other statue that may be identified as a

Hellenistic king specifically one of the Attalids, is a fragmentary image discovered at Pergamon.384

But the head does not survive, and certainty is impossible.

Statues were the most important media in the benefactions-honors system during the

Hellenistic period, and the cuirassed statue of Mithradates VI is unique because it is identified by

inscription and also one of the few to have been discovered in its original context. Honors

presented to Mithradates in different cities varied in size and grandeur, as I have illustrated in this

377 Athenaios V, 202e; Flor.epit. II, 13, 60; Eutr. VI, 22.
378 Richter 1968, 279. For dynastic imagery in the Seleucid kingdom see Fleischer 1991. A sardonyx ringstone with a
cuirassed male was identified as Mithradates VI by Furtwngler (fig. 45) (1900, pl. XXXII, 17) (Richter 1968, cat.no.
652). The man on the gem has a taenia in his curly hair, and wears a cuirass and a chlamys. There are brooches with
stars on each of his shoulders, below which are thunderbolts. Only a few of the facial features are similar to the coin
portraits of Mithradates VI. The stars above the shoulders of this man may have contributed to Furtwnglers
identification of it as Mithradates, since the star was used on both royal and civic coins during the reign of Mithradates,
but it is unlikely that the person depicted on this gem is Mithradates VI.
379 Stemmer 1978, 138.
380 Stemmer 1978, 138; Mellink 1958, 100.
381 Smith 1988, 33.
382 There are only a few examples of cuirassed statues in civic contexts, among which are the fragmentary statues from

Pergamon, the Athenian Agora, and Delos. See Smith 1988, 34; App. VIII, no. I.
383 Vermeule 1959, 32.
384 Vermeule 1959, 33.

126
chapter. Unfortunately, the benefactions of Mithradates are not as well-known. The ancient sources

mention cancellation of debts, freedom for slaves, debtors and metics, but we have no information

as to whether Mithradates sponsored the construction of any building, or dedicated a temple to any

god inside or outside the Pontic kingdom. Statues of him have not been discovered within the

Pontic area in Turkey either. The only evidence for images of Mithradates from the Pontic kingdom

come from the ancient literary sources. Plutarch mentions a six feet high gold statue of Mithradates

that was carried during the triumphal procession of Lucullus in 63 B.C.385 Later, during the

triumphal procession of Pompey in 61 B.C. Appian notes that a gold portrait statue that measured

eight cubits from the base (nearly ten feet high) was carried.386 Pliny also mentions silver statues of

Pharnakes I and Mithradates VI Eupator that were carried during the same procession. It therefore

seems safe to say that within Pontus there were originally colossal silver and gilded images of

Mithradates VI and his ancestors.387 Statues of the Pontic kings in other media have not yet been

discovered in the Black Sea region in Turkey.

385 Plut. Luc. 37.

386 App. Mith. 116-7. The other object of interest in the procession was the couch of Darius, which Mithradates may
have kept in his palace as a way of emphasizing his connection to the old Persian royal court.
387 For gilded images of Hellenistic kings see Smith 1988, 15, 19.

127
CHAPTER V

Settlement Patterns in the Hellenistic Period: a Closer Look at Hellenistic Towns and their
Hinterland

The information on Pontic cities in the Hellenistic and Roman periods is limited to the

historical accounts of Strabo, Appian, and several other ancient sources. These historical accounts

have been used by modern historians to establish the political history of the cities.388 A combination

of primary and secondary sources are used here to summarize the development of Pontic cities. The

aim of this chapter is to present the historical background and the archaeological remains of Pontic

cities, and then to combine the literary references with the archaeological evidence produced by

Pontic survey projects conducted since the 1970s.389

There is little information about the appearance of the major Pontic cities during the

Hellenistic period or, indeed, any period in antiquity. The Black Sea region in Turkey was visited by

several travelers and scholars who described the monuments and the inscriptions visible to them,

and these early visitors complained about the discouraging number of ruins in both Pontus and

Paphlagonia. 390 I will not give a description of each monument that has been recorded by other

scholars, since a thesis and several books on the ruins of Pontus already exist.391 Following a brief

summary of the history and the ruins of each town, I will examine the site distribution in the central

Black Sea in light of the information accumulated by survey projects regarding large and small

Hellenistic sites.392

388 See Chapter 4.

389 See Chapter 3.
390 Hamilton 1842; Gregoire 1909.
391 Anderson 1903; Anderson et al. 1910; Wilson 1960; Umar 2000.
392 For the survey projects in the central Black Sea region in Turkey see Chapter 3.

128
Hellenistic Cities

Amaseia

Every description of Amaseia (modern Amasya) begins with the magnificent landscape that

dominates the town. The transitional character of the area between the coastal Black Sea and

Central Anatolia is clearly visible when travelling inland from the coast and vice versa. Once the flat

wheat fields of the inland are bypassed, the landscape becomes much hillier. The changes in

vegetation from steppic plants of the central Anatolian plateau to dense forests defines this change

in the landscape. One of the largest rivers of the Black Sea region, the Yeilrmak (ancient Iris),

must have played a major role in forming the vigorous character of the landscape and its foliage.

When arriving from the north, today one sees deep gorges and rice fields along both the

Kzlrmak (ancient Halys) (fig. 46) and the Yeilrmak (fig. 47). The city has an extremely well-

protected location, with mountain ridges on both sides that have been cut by the Tusanlusu branch

of the Yeilrmak (fig. 48). Strabo, a native of Amaseia, described the city as follows;393

My native city, Amaseia, lies in a deep and extensive valley, through

which runs the river Iris. It is indebted to nature and art for its
admirable position and construction. It answers the double purpose
of a city and a fortress. It is a high rock, precipitous on all sides,
descending rapidly down to the river: on the margin of the river,
where the city stands, is a wall, and a wall also which ascends on each
side of the city to the peaks, of which there are two, united by nature,
and completely fortified with towers. In this circuit of the wall are
the palace and the monuments of the king.

393 Strabo 12,3,39.

129
 The city lay on the ancient trade route sometimes referred to as the Badat Road, which

connected Amisos with Cappadocia in antiquity (fig. 18). It was also at the junction of routes from

the northeast, northwest, southwest, and east, and thus had a strategic position in the middle of

fertile plains.

Amaseia controlled most of these plains. The plain immediately around Amaseia was called

Gazacene (modern Taova). This fertile plain has always been one of the major providers of

abundant fruit to Amaseia and the rest of Anatolia. Even today, Amasya is famous for the apples

grown in this plain.

The fertile valley along the Iris to the northwest of the city was called Chiliocomon (the

thousand villages). This valley is around 50 km long, 10 to 15 km wide; parts of it are called Suluova

today. Cumont found both architectural remains and inscriptions in the valley.394 Wilson suggested

that the valley was densely populated in ancient times, though the number of finds recorded by

Cumont seemed to him too little to support the pattern of settlement he had in mind.395

To the northwest of Chiliocomon was another smaller plain called Diacopene. This plain

may have included Gmhacky, a fairly large modern town northwest of Amaseia. Wilson

proposed that it also included the Hamamz valley.396 Strabo does not mention the silver mines,

which gave Gmhacky its modern name.397

The western plain, Pimolisene, which extended on both sides of the Halys, was also within

the borders of Amaseia. Its people were largely Paphlagonians, being situated in the western

extremity of the Pontic kingdom. An ancient town named Pimolisa, which gave its name to the

plain, was situated somewhere here, possibly at the Turkish town of Osmanck. 398

394 Cumont and Cumont 1906, 143.

395 Wilson 1960, 207.
396 Wilson 1960, 208.
397 Wilson 1960, 208.
398 Anderson 1903, 102.

130
 To the west of Amaseia there were two other plains, Babanomous and Ximene (west of

Kseda, along the Halys). The latter is in the district of orum, but did not include the southern

plains of that district. If Amaseia included Ximene, then it had a massive area under its control, not

directly comparable to the current boundaries of the town. Babanomous must have been the region

of Avkat (Euchaita), including the plain of Geldingen. Geldingen is the fertile plain where the

ekerek (Scylax) joins the Yeilrmak.

The economically and politically strategic position of Amaseia was well-established before

Pharnakes I transferred the capital from Amaseia to Sinope, following his capture of Sinope in 183

B.C.399 Amaseia remained an important place, however, both as a civic center and because of its

shrine to Zeus Stratios.400 Mithradates VI also kept a garrison in the fortress of Amaseia.401

Amaseia was taken by Lucullus in 70 B.C., and the city was assigned to the kings by

Antony following the extension of its territory by Pompey.402 The city must have been incorporated

into the Roman province in 3/2 B.C., a date which marks the first era of the city on its coins. Until

then, Amaseia might have been under the control of one petty dynast who died in 3/2 B.C. During

this period, the city spread across the river and included a suburb on the right bank of the Iris,

where the modern city of Amasya is situated.

When Amaseia was annexed in 3/2 B.C,. it formed part of Pontus Galaticus, a large territory

assigned to the Roman province of Galatia, along with Sebastopolis and later Comana. At the same

time Dareius posessions were given to Polemon, a client king, and the territory was united under

the name Pontus Polemoniacus. The Hadrianic coinage from Amaseia suggests that Amaseia had

become the metropolis of Pontus Galaticus.403 On coinage beginning under Antoninus Pius, she used

399 Strabo 12,3,39-40.

400 French 1996c.
401 OGI 365.
402 Kings is the term used by Strabo (12,3,39).
403 Waddington et al. 1904, 35.

131
the title used.404 With the formation of Pontus Mediterraneus in 64 A.D., which

constituted a merger of Pontus Galaticus and Pontus Polemoniacus (during the reign of Nero or more

likely Vespasian), a koinon along the Pontic coast was formed.405 The Metropolis of Pontus

Mediterraneus became Neocaesareia, but Amaseia kept the honorary title.406 The partition of the

kingdom of Mithradates VI and the role of Amaseia and Neocaesareia had been discussed widely

recently; it has been suggested that Neocaesareia was placed under the administration of

Cappadocia during the establishment of Pontus Polemoniacus and not Amaseia since Neocaesareia

gained the status of metropolis itself.407

During the time of Strabo there were two bridges in Amaseia, one from the city to the

suburbs, the other from the suburbs to the country beyond.408 Strabo also mentioned two water

channels, one of which was cut in the direction of the river and the other in the direction of the

ridge. Parts of the fortifications, huge rock-cut tombs (fig. 49), subterranean staircases, and the

remains of the castle are among the visible ruins today. The remains of the walls that belonged to

the citadel were originally built in Hellenistic isodomic masonry, but the walls went through many

repairs in antiquity.

Forts were located at various places around Amaseia: at Kaleky, Gkeli near Gyncek,

and Krtler, which overlooks the plain of the orum stream. The presence of smaller settlements

around Amaseia is also well-known: Etonia (Evliyaelebi), Euchaita (Avkat), Pimolisa, Diacopa, and

Chagonda are among these.

404 Waddington et al. 1904, 35.

405 Wilson 1960, 206.
406 IGRom. III; Waddington et al. 1904, 40; 120.
407 Burrell (forthcoming), Marek 1993, 62 n.421, Remy 1986, 43. For further examination of the koinon of Pontus see

Burrell (forthcoming), Deininger 1965,64-6, and Marek 1993, 73-82 who challanged the traditional view on this topic..
408 The Alak Kpr today still has remains from the Hellenistic structure in its foundations.

132
 The sanctuary of Zeus Stratios mentioned above was situated in the mountains 10 km to the

east of Amaseia.409 At the temple site of Ebimi, or Yassal as it is called today, there was probably

an altar without an associated temple, just as at Gelgiras (fig. 50).410 The hill on which the temple

stood is called kale today, and it is visible from a distance. The only remains from the site are the

temenos markers, dated to the Roman period.411 District names from the territory of Amaseia are

mentioned on the temenos markers, and at least 12 names can be deduced from them.412 If indeed

the names are only from the Amaseian territory, then the temple may have been the place of a

ceremonial assembly as described by French.413 The altar of Zeus Stratios seems to have been

depicted on Imperial coins of Amaseia.414

Salvage excavations by the Amasya Museum in an old Turkish graveyard in the city center of

Amasya revealed important information regarding both the Ottoman and the Roman periods.415 In

this graveyard, which is in the middle of modern construction, 15 burials of the Islamic period and

21 Roman tombs were discovered. The 13 excavated Roman tombs were built of stones, tiles, and

mortar. Eleven of these were vaulted, and two had flat roofs. In the Roman graves the bones of 20

individuals were recovered, and they were accompanied by pottery and jewelry.

Cabeira/ Diospolis/ Sebaste/ Neocaesareia

Cabeira was among the larger and more significant sites of inland Pontus, primarily because

of its geographical position. It was situated on the trunk road that reached Pontus by way of the

409 Inscriptions to Zeus Stratios have been recorded by scholars: Hirschfeld 1888, 892 no.72; Anderson et al. 1910, 140-4;
French 1988b, 273; French 1996c, 73, 79; 1997, 91 n.11-14.
410 Olshausen catalogued the site (1984, 240); French described the temple site and discussed its significance and possible

function. He also drew a site plan (1996, 75-92).

411 French 1996c, 81.
412 French provided a map with the possible location of these regions.
413 French 1996c, 81.
414 For examples of these coins see SNG-BM 424 no.26; Pl.65 no.17, 18; SNGvA 1. 18, 21; 15. 6701; 4. 108; 15, 6706;

1.28; 15. 6703; 1. 32; 4.112; 4.111; 4. 117; 1. 34.

415 Yce 1995, 1-16.

133
Euphrates and Amnias valleys; the road then continued towards the west (fig. 18). The fertile

Phanaroea valley must have provided enough food for the city and its surrounding villages and

towns. Strabo described the city as situated in the foothills of the Paryadres range (the Canik

mountains). His description indicates a location close to the modern town of Niksar. At Niksar

there is a castle projecting from the foothills of the northern mountains. The remains of the castle

date to the Byzantine and Turkish periods, but there are also earlier elements in the fortifications.

These earlier remains indicate that the location was inhabited at least by IA and may have continued

in use during the Roman period.416

There are no remains from either the Hellenistic or the Roman city at Niksar. This is

unfortunately a common characteristic of most of the Pontic sites; scanty remains in the Black Sea

region in Turkey make identification of Hellenistic and Roman cities extremely difficult. We have to

take Strabos word concerning the presence of Mithradates VIs palace, hunting lodge, a park for

wild animals, a water-mill, and the mines at Cabeira.417 According to Strabo, Mithradates also kept

his treasury on the peak of a rocky hill only 200 stadia from Cabeira. The site was Caenum

Chorium, and it was probably selected as the treasury repository due to its remote location in this

rugged area of Pontus. De Jerphanion has associated Caenum Chorium with the fortifications at

Mahalakalesi, 24 km north-northwest of Niksar.418 The subterranean staircases at Mahalakalesi,

typical of the late Hellenistic period citadels in Pontus, suggest that the site functioned as one of the

strongholds of the Pontic kings, and it may be Caeunum Chorium.

416 Wilson 1960, 239.

417 Strabo 12,3,30.
418 Mlanges de la Facult Orientale de lUniversit St. Josph Beyrouth V 1912 ,135.

134
 There are no remains yet known of an ancient hunting lodge or a park for wild animals in

this area, but during late antiquity the area was famous for its game.419 Today the area is still suitable

for hunting.

In contrast to these harsh conditions in the foothills of the Paryadres mountains, in the

Phanaroea valley the Lycus river enabled the growth of vegetables and fruits, especially of grapes

and apples.420 The trunk road that connected east with west was not the only link between this city

and its surroundings. There was an easy road to Comana, the major sanctuary of Pontus, and from

there to Sebasteia in the south. The connection to the north, toward the Black Sea, was made

possible by another winding road that proceeded through the Paryadres mountains to the emporium

of Oinoe (nye) on the Black Sea coast. There was an alternative road to the coast between Cabeira

and Polemonium that was used during the late first century B.C. and the first half of the first century

A.D. With the decline of Polemonium, however, this road lost its prominence, and the road

between Cabeira and Oinoe once again became the major road to the coast.

During the rule of the Pontic royal court, Cabeira was also significant as the cultic center for

the god Mn, whose sanctuary was founded by Pharnakes at Ameria near Cabeira. Strabo is once

again our only source for the presence of a sanctuary of Mn at Cabeira,421 and Cumont associated it

with a site near Ardl or Auslu, because he discovered bronze bulls heads there.422 Strabo notes

that the sanctuary had sacred servants and sacred land, the produce of which was enjoyed by the

priest. The sanctuary at Cabeira was the site of the royal oath taken by the fortune of the king, and

by Mn of Pharnakes.423

419 Acta Sancta Bollandiana 1643; Wilson 1960, 239.

420 See Chapter 2, section on Climate and Vegetation.
421 Strabo 12,3,31.
422 Cumont and Cumont 1906, 270.
423 Strabo 12,3,31.

135
 The borders of Cabeira are known from the period of the reorganization of Pontus by

Pompey. Cabeira, which at that time was raised to the rank of a city and called Diospolis, had land

on both sides of the Lycus river that extended to the Iris river in the south.424 It reached as far north

as the mountains north of the Lycus river. In the west it extended to the watershed between east

and west Phanaroea, and in the east as far as the eastern border of Koyulhisar. Smaller sites within

the territory of Diospolis were Megalula, Mirones, west of Neocaesareia (a road station), Dana, and

Sabalia. Sebaste (Diospolis) was in the Pontus Polemoniacus, a subdivision in Pontus that was formed

after Antony gave Dareius possesions to Polemon. At this time Pythodoris, wife of Polemon,

changed the citys name to Sebaste, improved its appearance and considered it a royal city.425

The Polemonian kingdom including Sebaste (Neocaesareia) was annexed in A.D. 64/5.

Wilson wrote that the city obtained its new name at the time of Neros annexation of the area.426

Pontus Polemoniacus and Galaticus were merged under Pontus Mediterraneus, and Sebaste, which was the

metropolis of Pontus Polemoniacus, became the metropolis of Pontus Mediterraneus.427 The division may

have caused competition between Amaseia and Diospolis/Sebaste/Neocaesareia before they were

merged.

Wilson suggested that Magnopolis was added to Sebaste at the time of its annexation to

Rome, although this territory was given to Comana earlier when the area was divided into two.

The presence of on the coins of Neocaesareia, during the reigns of Verus and Commodus, may

imply that the citys name was changed once again to Hadrianopolis.428 The city was neocorate

424 Strabo 12,3,30.

425 Strabo 12,3,31.
426 Wilson 1960, 240.
427 CIL V 8660, X 7583-4; IGR III 115; Waddington et al. 1904, 119 .
428 Waddington et al. 1904, 119.

136
twice, once by Verus in 161/2 and again by Severus Alexander in 226/7.429 Under Diocletian

Neocaesareia became the metropolis of the new Polemoniacus.430

Eupatoria/Magnopolis

Eupatoria was probably the shortest-lived city of those in inland Pontus. The city was

founded by Mithradates VI Eupator at the junction of the Iris and Lycus rivers. It was located in

the fertile western Phanaroea and probably on at least one major road. This would normally have

been an ideal location for a city, but Eupatoria vanished from the historical sources very quickly. It

may, of course, have survived as a small town that was not mentioned by Roman authors. Even

under Mithradates VI, Eupatoria was not among the cities minting coins, so it may very well be that

Mithradates gave his name to a minor town and raised it to the status of a city in order to promote

civic life in Pontus.

During his reorganization, Pompey renamed the city Magnopolis and enlarged its territory.431

This territory included the plain of western Phanaroea, which was limited by the hills to the east, the

watershed to the west, the trunk road 20 km to the north, and the southern edge of the plain at the

south.

When Strabo visited the city in 64 B.C., he had the impression that it was unfinished. The

city probably disappeared during Antonys reorganization. Today there are no remains that can be

associated with either Hellenistic Eupatoria, Roman Magnopolis, or even late Roman Ibora, which is

the assumed successor of Magnopolis.432 The hilltop at modern day Erbaa may have been the site of

Magnopolis. The late antique bridge in the town could be a renovation of Hellenistic/Roman

429 Barbara Burrell, personal correspondence.

430 Hierocl. 702; Not.Episc. tabulated in Jones 1971, 526.
431 Strabo 12, 3, 30.
432 Wilson 1960, 237.

137
bridge. The towns of Palalce at Barakl, Choloe at Darma, Pida at Fidi, and another one at Kalekale

were all mentioned as being in the territory of or around Eupatoria.

Phazemon/Neapolis/Neoclaudiopolis

Moving west from Cabeira and Eupatoria, there was another small city named Phazemon.

There is no sound archaeological evidence for this town, but certain ruins have been associated with

it. Phazemonitis, a fertile valley to the south of Vezirkpr, was named after Phazemon, and the

town has been associated with both Merzifon and Vezirkpr (fig. 18).433 Since Merzifon is closer

to the valley named Chiliocomum rather than Phazemonitis, I think Vezirkpr remains a stronger

candidate for the location of Phazemon. The only ancient remnant of Vezirkpr is a tomb on the

south side of the town.434 Also around Vezirkpr, near Lerdge, are five tumuli, one of which

contains bronze furnishings and wall paintings.435

In the same area, a city called Neapolis was founded by Pompey. Whether it was the

continuation of Phazemon or a newly established city somewhere near the Hellenistic town is not

clear. The territory of Neapolis included land as far as the Halys to the west, and hot springs and

Ladik lake (or Lake Stiphane) to the east. Stiphane was one of the few lakes in Pontus. Neapolis

southern limit could only have extended as far as the hills separating the Phazemonitis and

Chiliocomum plains, because Chiliocomum belonged to Amaseia. The northern limits are harder to

define. Hamilton included parts of the east-west trunk road in Phazemons borders as well.436

433 For an identification of the site at Merzifon, see Kiepert 8, 15; for an identification of the city at Vezirkpr, see
Wilson 1960, 187.
434 Cumont and Cumont 1906, 131.
435 Akok 1948, 835.
436 Wilson 1960, 189.

138
 Neapolis was handed over to Deiotarus Philadelphus of Paphlagonia, and was annexed to

Galatia after his death. In an oath to Augustus, the citizens of Neapolis were described as:437

Fazimonei`tai oiJ th;n nu`n Neapovlin legomevnhn katoikou`n[te~]

which led scholars to believe that Neapolis did not have a civic constitution under the

Paphlagonians in 3 B.C.438 The identification of Vezirkpr as Neapolis was strengthened by the

discovery of this oath there. The city must have been called Neoclaudiopolis later, 439 because an

honorary decree of Neoclaudiopolis was also found at Vezirkpr. Coins of Claudiopolis with the

Paphlagonian era were minted from Trajan onward.440

A fourth name for the city is mentioned in the writings of Ptolemy.441 During the Byzantine

period the city may have been called Andrapa. An inscription discovered near Vezirkpr has been

dated to the episcopacy of Paralius, a bishop of Andrapa. It is not clear whether these different

names belonged to one town that was continuously inhabitated, or to different towns established in

different periods at different locations; nevertheless, the continuous habitation in and around

Vezirkpr indicates that this was a commercially strategic and agriculturally convenient place for

settlement.

Near Lake Stiphane there was a small city named after Laodice, the wife of Mithradates VI.

The exact location of Laodiceia is not known, but it was among the cities minting coins under

Mithradates VI.442 Strabo mentioned two other sites: Cizari, a fortress and royal seat near Lake

Stiphane, and Sagylium, a stronghold near the healing hot-springs of Phazemonitis.443 It is clear that

these hot springs had significance in ancient times. There are dedications to Asclepius and the

437 IGR III, 137.

438 Jones 1971, 168.
439 IGR III, 139.
440 Waddington et al. 1904, 190.
441 Ptol. 24, 4.
442 SNGvA 129; SNG-BM 1270-1; Waddington et al. 1904, p.114.
443 Strabo 12,3,38.

139
nymphs,444 an inscription concerning the repairing of the baths, and the rebuilding of an aqueduct,

probably in the second century A.D. by an astynomos in Thermae (Havza).445

Comana and Zela:

In inland Pontus there were two cities which functioned as temple-states. The larger of the

two, Comana, was a Cappadocian-type temple-domain for the mother goddess Ma.446 The land

around the sanctuary belonged to the temple, and was tilled by ca. 6,000 serfs.447 The city was a very

busy place with visitors from the surrounding area as well as from Armenia. During the festivals

sacred prostitution was performed by women residing at Comana.448

The worship and celebrations at Comana resembled those at the sanctuary of Ma in

Cappadocia. Strabo, in fact, considered the Pontic temple to Ma a copy of the temple in

Cappadocia:449

..and nearly the same course of religious rites is practiced there; the
mode of delivering the oracles is the same; the same respect is paid to
the priests as was more particularly the case in the time of the first
kings, when twice a year, at what is called the Exodi of the goddess
(when her image is carried in procession), the priest wore the diadem
of the goddess and received the chief honors after the king.

The land that belonged to the temple domain expanded throughout its history: when

Pompey made Comana a principality, he added two schoeni or 60 stades, approximately two and a

444 Anderson et al. 1910, 37 n.24-27.

445 CRAI 1925, 35.
446 Wilson 1960, 228.
447 Strabo 12,3,34.
448 Strabo compares Comana to Corinth, where the life style has ruined the lives of soldiers visiting the town: 12,3,35.
449 Strabo 12,3,32.

140
half miles in diameter (fig. 51).450 Either Caesar or Antony gave another four schoeni of land to the

priests of Comana.451 The new land must have been added to the east, south, and west,

corresponding to the lands of Zelitis and Megalopolitis. The northern extent must have been

limited, since the two large cities of Magnopolis and Neocaesareia were situated very close to

Comana. Comanas territory became as large as the civitates of the province under Octavian. When

Comana was annexed to Pontus Galaticus in 34/35,452 Magnopolitis may also have been added to

Comana. According to Munro, the western side of Comana consisted of a temple-estate that was

taken by the Pontic kings to surround their royal castle at Gaziura. After the fall of the Pontic

kingdom, following the flight of Mithradates VI, the temple state became a principality, and it was

assigned to Archelaus by Pompey in the mid-first century B.C.453 Archelaus was succeeded by his

son, who was subsequently removed by Caesar in 47 B.C. Lycomedes, a Bithynian of Cappadocian

descent, was appointed to the priesthood of Comana.454 Medeius, Cleon, and Dyteutus were

appointed by Octavian in succession.455 The annexation of Comana corresponds to the death of the

last of these priests. By this time the priests had lost some of their power, although the temple

remained active. The area finally became an imperial domain during the reign of Maurice Tiberius

(582-602 A.D.). At some point between the Pontic kings and the emperor Maurice, this area

functioned as an ager publicus.456

The city became known as both Hierocaesareia and Comana by the reign of Titus, and

possibly even earlier.457 Christianity quickened the decline of the temple at Comana. The

450 Wilson 1960, 229. Wilson followed Magie (1950, 371) in the definition of this unit.
451 Wilson 1960, 229.
452 The era is recorded in IGR III, 105 and coins in Waddington et al. 1904, 109.
453 Wilson 1960, 228. A royal title was included in the priests nomenclature from early on, and this title was retained

under Roman rule: App. Mithr. 115.

454 Bell.Alex. 66, 3, where Archelaus is wrongly named as priest of Cappadocian Comana.
455 Cass.Dio 51, 2, 3; Strabo 12, 558, 574.
456 RGS Supp.Pap. III 1893, 736.
457 IGR III, 105, 106.

141
surrounding land was assigned to Daximon, a smaller but more centrally located town in the plain of

Daximonitis.

The site of the temple-state is a large, high hill overlooking fertile plains on all sides at

Gmenek (10 km northeast of Tokat).458 On the side of this hill there are scanty remains of walls

(fig. 52).459 These walls are made of small unshaped stones, resembling the inner fill of a thicker

wall, and they could have formed part of the foundations for the temenos walls. On the surface of

the hill are weathered pieces of ceramics and tiles. A bridge, now destroyed, connected the temple

site with the other bank of the Iris. The fertile surrounding land was undoubtedly connected to the

economy of the temple-state.460

Representation of Ma on coins already began during the reign of Caligula (fig. 53). Coins of

Caracalla and Septimius Severus, and later of Trajan, are our only clues regarding the appearance of

her temple (fig. 54). The coins show a tetrastyle temple, and the eight grey columns built in the Ali

Paa Mosque in Tokat may once have belonged to it.461 The construction of the modern irrigation

channel and the more recent road on the side of the hill have played a significant role in the

destruction of the site.

The minor settlements so far recorded in the territory of Comana consisted of Verisa at or

near Bolus, Sermusa at Omala at the mouth of the Iris gorge, and Gagonda at Almus. These were

all road stations.

The second temple-state in Pontus was located at Zela, and it focused on the Persian deities

Anaitis, Omanus, and Anadatus. Anaitis, the Persian goddess of fertilizing waters, was accompanied

by Omanos and Anadatos, two other Persian gods. Omanos could have been the guardian of the

458 Procopius (Pers. I 17, 14) called it a mountain. It does in fact cover a large area, but it certainly cannot be called a
mountain.
459 Inscriptions found at Gmenek clarified the identification of the site: IGR III, 105-107. Wilson found another

inscription, one part of which is on site, and the other two parts are in the Tokat Museum.
460Strabo suggested that the land was planted with vines: Strabo 12,3,34.
461 Waddington et al. 1904, 109.

142
animals, and Anadatos may have been related to both gods. In Zela the festival was called Sakaia; it

was celebrated for one day and one night in Scythian costume, and the participants reportedly

became quite intoxicated.462

Land administration and cultic activities at Zela were similar to those at Comana. The priest

was the owner of the land around the city, and the serfs cultivating the land were under his

command. Under the Pontic kings there was probably no civic organization at Zela, although coins

bearing the name of the temple-state were minted during the reign of Mithradates VI. Strabo called

Zela a .463

Pompey granted territory to Zela just as he did to many other cities of Pontus. He

synoecized the inhabitants into a city around the temple.464 This new territory must have included

Daximonitis (the Tokat and Kazova plains) as well as the land bordered on the west by Scylax and

on the south by Deveci Da, thereby merging Zelitis with Culupene and Camisene.465 Either the

gorge of Iris or the Amaseia-Comana road may have been the limit in the north.

Caesar visited Zela after he defeated Pharnakes II, and he left his lieutenant Domitius

Calvinus in the area. An inscription discovered there reveals that Calvinus was divinized and was

given a cult.466 During the reorganization under Caesar or Antony, Zela lost parts of its land and

probably became a temple-state again. In this arrangement, Comana was given Daximonitis as well

as the mountains to the north of Zela.

The temple-state was once again secularized, but exactly when and how this happened is not

clear. It may have coincided with the annexation of Pontus Galaticus by Rome in 32 B.C., when most

462 Strabo 11,512. For gods and goddesses of Pontus see Olshausen 1990.
463 Strabo 12, 3,37.
464 Strabo 12,3,37.
465 Wilson 1960, 212-3.
466 IGR III, 108.

143
of the Scylax valley was included in this province.467 Zela remained in the Pontic kingdom until the

death of Polemon II in A.D. 64. After his death it was annexed to Pontus Polemoniacus.468

The remains from the temple site and the city are scarce. The hill on which the temple

stood was called Semiramis by Strabo.469 The remains of rock-cut seats of a theatre were visible

when Wilson visited the site. The hill of the temple was surrounded by walls of Byzantine and

Ottoman date, which convinced Wilson that there were defensive walls here under Mithradates VI

as well, although there are no visible remains from that period.470 Some architectural fragments,

including columns, have been recorded at the site along with a rock-cut tomb.471

Gaziura, to the northwest of the town of Zela, seems to have been the largest city within the

territory under the control of Zela. Gaziura was a fortress at which coins were struck as early as the

fourth century B.C. under Ariarathes I.472 Later, municipal coins bearing the name of the city were

struck under Mithradates VI. According to Strabo, Gaziura was a royal residence that was deserted

at the time of Strabos visit. The modern town of Turhal may have been the site of this ancient

fortress, although the archaeological material from Turhal is limited to some IA pottery.

The ancient sites of Sarim and Chadutha were also presumably within the district of Zela.

The site of these settlements cannot be established, although an attempt to locate Sarim at Krklar

Tekkesi, 8 km east of Zile, was made by Anderson and his colleagues.473

A hexastyle temple is attested on coins of Zela under Trajan, and under Caracalla: a female

deity, Anaitis, is shown holding ears of corn, thereby signalling her association with agriculture (fig.

467 Strabo often attributed the secularization of Zela to Pythodoris, but the time at which this happened is unclear
(12,3,37).
468 Wilson 1960, 214.
469 Strabo 12,3,37.
470 Wilson 1960, 215.
471 Wilson 1960, 215.
472 For the coins of Gaziura see Chapter 5.
473 Anderson et al. 1910, 243.

144
55).474 The cult of Anaitis continued under Trajan as did another cult for Zeus Epikarpios at Zela.475

In the Roman period, Zela and Gaziura may have gained significance as a result of their position on

a road from Amisos southwards, which crossed the Tavium-Neocaesareia road. An inscription

mentions an M. Sedatius Severianus, the legate of Cappadocia, who was awarded the titles of

euergetes and ktistes by the citizens in gratitude for his benefactions.476

Amisos:

Amisos is the only ancient town on the Black Sea coast that I will be examining. It is located

in the center of the Black Sea region and is the most easily accessible town along the central and

eastern coast of the southern Black Sea (fig. 18). Amisos gradually became one of the largest cities

and busiest markets of the Pontic kingdom as a result of this strategic position. It is also the only

city included in this study whose foundation stories is documented by ancient historians. Scymnus

assigned its foundation to the Phocaeans, and placed it four years before the establishment of

Heracleia by the Megarians and the Boeotians.477 Theopompus, however, thought it was founded by

the Milesians,478 and it was assigned to the Athenians by Arrian, Appian, and Plutarch.479

The coins minted at Amisos in the fifth century feature Hera wearing a stephane on the

obverse, and reverse types of an owl with spread wings standing on a shield, with the name of the

city as . This iconography has suggested to scholars that there may have been an Athenian

cleruchy at Amisos in the fifth century B.C. The presence of an Athenian cleruchy may also have

been the reason why certain ancient authors assigned the foundation of Amisos to the Athenians.

474 Waddington et al. 1904, p.159.

475 Anderson et al. 1910, 189, n. 189.
476 He was a legate under Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus: Anderson et al. 1910.
477 Scymnus 956. The earliest archaeological material, however, was discovered at Akalan, 20 km southwest of Amisos.

This was published by Macridy (1907) and includes one Rhodian sherd that can be dated to the last quarter of the
seventh century B.C. It would be dangerous to use one sherd to date the foundation of the city.
478 FGrH IIB p.614.
479 Arr. Perip. XV; Appian Mithr. 8; Plut. Luc. XIX 7.

145
Before the Athenian cleruchy, however, there is evidence that Amisos was taken by Datames, a

Cappadocian prince who revolted from the Persians.480 The city was again subject to Persians in the

fourth century B.C., was freed by Alexander,481 and subsequently took the name Amisos.

Mithradates II could have been the one who incorporated Amisos into the Pontic kingdom.

During the reign of Mithradates VI, the citys commerce flourished; coins minted at Amisos

circulated all around the Black Sea as well as in the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia.482 Mithradates

added a suburb to Amisos and named it Eupatoria.483

It is difficult to estimate how large the citys territory was (fig. 18). It probably controlled the

fertile valley named Gazelonitis to its west, which was watered by the Halys. According to Arrian,

the boundary between Amisos and Sinope was the Halys river. 484 At least the eastern section of the

valley, east of the Halys, must have provided agricultural products and grazing land for Amisos.

Although parts of Gazelonitis changed hands between Deiotarus and Polemon for brief periods,

Arrians statement suggests that Amisos included the eastern part of the valley later in its history.

Amisos benefited from another fertile valley mostly to the east of the city. The Iris delta was

called Themiscyra, and it was watered by both the Iris and Thermodon rivers. Another valley,

further east, also possibly under the control of Amisos was the Sidene valley. This valley did not

have fields as substantial as the other two, because it did not extend inland, but it did have a suitable

terrain for forts.

Wilson proposed that Amisos included the sanctuary of Apollo Didymeis at ataltepesi near

Kavak. He based this assertion on a dedication made by a citizen of Amisos to the god.485 A citizen

of Amisos might easily have travelled to a far away sanctuary just as he could have visited a

480 Polyaenus 12, 21, 1.

481 Appian Mithr. 8,83.
482 City coins in hoards from Dura Europas (third c. B.C.) indicate long distance trade with the south: Noe 1937,

nos.350, 353, 355.

483 Strabo 12,3,14; Appian Mithr. 78.
484 Appian Peripl. 15,1.
485 IGR III, 98; Anderson et al. 1910, 16 n.7e.

146
sanctuary within the territory of his own city; therefore, one inscription cannot prove Wilsons

suggestion that the sanctuary of Apollo Didymeis was necessarily located in the territory of Amisos.

We can only have an approximate idea when speaking of boundaries in the ancient world, even

when there are certain types of evidence such as milestones and inscriptions. It is useful to try to

reconstruct the size of sites and the land controlled by settlements, because this kind of information

clarifies questions regarding population and administrative organization. But one must be careful

not to magnify nor to underestimate administration and control in the ancient world.

Amisos was taken by Lucullus in 71 B.C. together with the adjoining Eupatoria.486 The

collapsed structures of Amisos were restored by Lucullus, and new land of 120 stades was added to

its territory.487 The city was once again devastated by Pharnakes II in 48 B.C. Amisos was finally

freed by Caesar, and Roman settlers may have been brought there then, but that freedom did not

last long.488 Antony gave it to one of the kings, either to Strato, Polemon, Lycomedes, or Deiotarus

Philadelphus. In 31 it was under the control of Strato, but Strabo is not certain whether he was the

only king or if there were others who controlled the city. The next period of freedom lasted longer.

Octavian granted freedom to the city, and a free Amisos is mentioned by the Elder and the Younger

Pliny. An inscription of 132 AD from Claros supports the statements of these ancient authors.489

The city was also free under Trajan.490

There were several medium to small towns within the territory of Amisos. Side, Phabda, and

Chabakta were situated in Sidene. Among the three, Chabakta must have been the largest and most

significant; during the reign of Mithradates VI this city struck coins with its name on the reverse.

486 The identification of this Eupatoria has been discussed by Wilson 1960,195. He suggested that the Eupatoria taken
by Lucullus must have been the suburb of Amisos, instead of the Eupatoria later known as Magnopolis. He argued that
although the inland Eupatoria surrendered, Eupatoria near Amisos was destroyed, as explained by Memnon; Memnon
30,3; FGrH IIIB p.359 f.
487 App. Mithr. 115; Plut. Luc. xix 2 f.
488 IGR IV, 314 ( ).
489 Pliny NH vi 7; Pliny Ep. x92; an inscription which was discovered at the Temple of Apollo in Claros suggests the

presence of Roman settlers at Amisos during the second century ( ), IGR IV, 1586.
490 Coins illustrate this: Waddington et al. 1904, 79.

147
Kaleky seems to have been the site of this ancient fortress. A certain amount of land within Sidene

must have belonged to Chabakta, at least under Mithradates VI. Side, near Sidenus (the Bulaman

stream), was the forerunner of Polemonion, which had been established by Polemon.491 The other

fort, Phabda, was probably situated at Cngrt hill (near the Kahve stream). The boundaries between

these smaller sites and Amisos are hard to reconstruct, but some geographical features must have

played an important role. These included the Thermodon river, which separated the lands of

Amisos and Polemonion, and Cape Jasonium, which separated Amisos from Pharnaceia. The

significance of the geographical features is illustrated by the coins representing the Thermodon

river.492 The Thermodon could also have been the boundary between Pontus Polemoniacus and Pontus

Galaticus.

Some of the other ancient settlements in the region were Gazelon at Bafra, Cnadisius at

Asaraa, the harbor town Ancon at the mouth of the Iris, and another harbor near Heracleium in

Semenlik Gl.493 The town of Themiscyra at Terme occupied both sides of the river.494

The remains from Amisos and the surrounding sites are poor, as is the case for many of the

southern Black Sea sites. Amisos is believed to have been on a hill (Toraman Tepe) to the

northwest of the modern town of Samsun. This surrounding region is currently the site of a

residential quarter as well as a military base, once a NATO installation. Therefore, there has been a

great amount of destruction at the site. Several visitors to Samsun reported fortification walls on the

east, west, and south sides of Toraman Hill,495 and parts of these are still visible today. On the east

side of the hill there are remains of a terrace wall known as Kalem Kaya among the locals. Atasoy

saw fragments of fortification walls of the military zone that he attributed to the eastern

491 Wilson 1960, 199.

492The Thermodon appears on coins under Septimius Severus: Waddington et al. 1904, 87.
493 For Bafra see Cumont and Cumont 1906, 119.
494 Wilson 1960,199-200. Ptolemy puts Thermodon in Polemoniacus: Anon.Peripl.Pont.Eux. 29.
495 Hamilton 1842, 291; Cumont and Cumont 1906, 112.

148
fortifications.496 He suggested that these ran along the eastern end of the military area. The western

part of the fortification lies within the military area as well.497 There is a 50 m long wall, possibly

with towers placed along it. Although Hamilton and Ritter mentioned remains belonging to the

southern fortifications,498 today there are no remains that can be associated with these. According to

Atasoy, the southern fortifications should have been on the flat land below what is today a school

for the deaf, located next to the military area.499 Atasoy calculated the area of the Amisos citadel,

based on the location of the fortifications, as 44 hectares, running 1.5 km north-south and 400 m

east-west.

There are no visible remains other than a number of rock-cut tombs in the small valley

behind the hill.500 Wilson reported the existence of two or three underground cisterns,501 and Cuinet

mentioned walls and semicircular towers at the site, as well as remains of a temple two km from the

sea. 502 Both Hamilton and Cumont described two moles built of conglomerate: one was 300 m

long, running southeast from northeast along the promontory, and the second was located to its

north, running east and northeast and joining a natural reef.503 These moles are not visible today due

to modern harbor construction. Both the archaeological finds around the harbor and some

architectural fragments, such as the remains of walls, support the idea that there was a lower city by

the harbor.504

496 Atasoy 1996, 46.

497 Atasoy 1996, 47.
498 Hamilton 1842, 291.
499 Atasoy 1996, 47.
500 Cumont and Cumont 1906, 113.
501 Wilson 1960, 196.
502 These must be the western fortifications identified by Atasoy: Cuinet (no date) V. La Turquie dAsie: Gographie

Administrative, 102.
503 Hamilton 1842, 290; Cumont and Cumont 1906, plan 20.
504 Atasoy compares Amisos with Olbia and Pantikapaion, both of which have an upper and lower city: Atasoy 1996, 48,

50.

149
 More recent investigations and salvage excavations here demonstrated that the site would

reveal significant information if it were examined in greater detail.505 Within the military area, (Sahra

Shhye School and Central Training Command), mosaics, architectural elements and a cistern were

reported by the museum team who excavated there for one season.506 The cistern is 11.5 m x 11.5

m, and it is 2.90 m high. It is a vaulted structure supported by marble columns. This Late Roman-

Early Byzantine cistern must have gone through several reconstructions, since some parts are

missing, and others have clearly been modified.

In 1996 another excavation project took place within the same military zone. Mosaics found

in-situ were rescued and transported to the museum, and excavations continued beneath the mosaics.

Trenches were also dug around the cistern, which had been uncovered earlier by the museum team.

The pottery, unguentaria, fresco pieces, marble architectural fragments, tiles, glass, terracotta lamp

fragments, and coins were loosely dated from the Hellenistic through the Late Roman periods. A

mosaic representing Achilles and Thetis, found here in the 1960s during NATO radar construction,

is now on display in the Samsun Museum. The mosaic has been dated to the reign of Septimius

Severus (A.D. 193-211).507 The central emblema featured a nude Achilles holding his mantle and a

spear in his left arm. His name is inscribed above his head. Behind Achilles is a seated Thetis, also

identified by inscription with her right hand under her chin and her left hand supporting her right

elbow. Achilles helmet lies at the base on which she is sitting. At the four corners of the mosaic

are personifications of the four seasons. There is also a scene of tritons and nereids in battle and a

sacrifice scene that has been destroyed. The rest of the mosaic is decorated with floral and

geometric designs.

505 Akkaya 1993, 207.

506 This cistern was previously mentioned by several scholars: Hamilton 1842, 290; Cumont and Cumont 1906, 115;
Bryer and Winfield 1985, 95. It was later described again by Atasoy 1996, 48 n.49.
507 Personal correspondence with Uur Bey of the Samsun Museum. I did not have a chance to examine the mosaic and

there are no good pictures available. The description and dating therefore depend on the information I received from
the museum staff.

150
 The discovery of a tomb in Samsun, with rich archaeological material, reveals how ground-

breaking new discoveries in the Black Sea region can be. The tomb was discovered during road

work at Cedit in Samsun and was immediately investigated by a Samsun Museum team. The tomb

contained the skeletal remains of one male and two females. The burial gifts included glass, marble,

metal, and terracotta objects, as well as gold jewelry of superb craftsmanship. The tomb structure

and the burial goods are discussed in Chapter 8.

Other rescue excavations have revealed the necropolis of the city on the western slopes of

the acropolis. Some of the 13 excavated graves contained jewelry as burial gifts.508 A study of the

skeletal remains has been undertaken by a team from Ankara University. But the stratigraphy at

Amisos has been heavily disturbed by the continuous construction on the hill.

Other Settlements of Inland Pontus

The other major sites of the central Black Sea region, Sebastapolis and Sebasteia, were

not discussed in depth by Strabo or any other ancient author. Therefore, our knowledge of them

is limited. Recent salvage excavations at Sebastapolis (Sulusaray) have demonstrated that there

was a settlement at that site from the Early Bronze Age period onward.509 Material from the

Hittite, IA, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods has been recovered in test trenches. The

remains of a bath building and a church have also been discovered at Sulusaray. Unfortunately,

the archaeological material was never properly published, and the salvage excavations were

terminated in anticipation of a long-term excavation project by a university. Unfortunately, such

a project has not yet been initiated.

508 Akkaya 1993, 208.

509 zcan 1992, 167-200.

151
Site Distribution in the Hellenistic Period

The new survey data from Pontus has not yet clarified patterns of site distribution in the

Hellenistic period (fig. 18). The difficulty begins with the use by different survey teams of the terms

Classical and Hellenistic.510 None of the surveys provides a time bracket for these periods, and

they do not define the character of the material which led to this classification. The same material

can be labelled either Classical or Hellenistic by different scholars. The period of Persian

domination in Anatolia is also poorly understood, especially in the Black Sea region. Although

historical sources and numismatic evidence suggest that Achaemenid influence reached as far as the

Black Sea, none of the surveys mentions the presence or absence of this material. The inconsistency

in the use of the terms Classical and Hellenistic, and the difficulty in identifying Achaemenid

material, if present, has resulted from the lack of a well-established pottery chronology for the Black

Sea region in Turkey, especially during the post-Iron Age periods.

A site size analysis would inform us about the relationship between the urban and the rural

populations of Pontus, as well as the fluctuations in settlement patterns through time. But for the

Classical/Hellenistic periods this is impossible due to the rarity of other single period sites in the

region. Two sites in the central Black Sea region in Turkey were in use exclusively in the

Classical/Hellenistic period: one in Sivas and the other in Amasya.511 Depiklo Tepesi in Sivas is a

tumulus, and Yukar Barakl Tepesi in Amasya is a small mound measuring 50 x 30 m. It is possible,

however, to look at the continuity percentages from IA through the Classical/Hellenistic periods.

In Sivas 50% of the Hellenistic sites continued in use from the previous period. The total number

510 The problem is discussed in detail, in Chapter 2, pg. 66.

511 For Depiklo see kse 1999a, 468; zsait 1998.

152
of Classical/Hellenistic sites in Sivas was 69, as opposed to 37 during the IA, and only 8 sites were

abandoned after IA (ca. 1,200-700 B.C.).512

In Amasya, Samsun, Tokat, and orum, the percentage of continuity was a lot higher: 80%,

78.5%, 92.3%, and 95.6% of the IA sites were in use in the Classical/Hellenistic periods, respectively

(fig. 19). In addition to a tendency to inhabit already existing settlements, a sharp drop in the

number of sites from IA to the Hellenistic period in Amasya can be observed (fig. 8). Ten of the 17

IA sites were abandoned by the Hellenistic period, and 5 Hellenistic sites were recorded, only one of

which was new. Of the 37 IA sites in Samsun, 8 were totally abandoned (fig. 11). In the Hellenistic

period, in the Samsun district, only 14 sites were in use, and 3 of those were new.

In Tokat, almost half of the IA sites (16 out of 35) were abandoned, the number of sites

yielding Hellenistic material was 14 (fig. 10). ayky was the only new and single period site of the

Classical/Hellenistic period.513 Finally, in orum, there are 23 Classical sites as compared to 31 IA

sites (fig. 14). Seventeen IA sites remained in use in the following periods, and at 14 of these,

habitation continued into the Classical/Hellenistic period. Three sites were inhabited in the Roman

and Late Antique periods following a period of abandonment during the Classical/Hellenistic

period.

These figures suggest that although almost half of the IA sites were abandoned in all of the

provinces, not many new Classical/Hellenistic sites were established. There is continuity in site

occupation, as suggested by the collected material, but also a significant decline in the number of

settlements operating in this period. The map I assembled of Hellenistic cities and the

Classical/Hellenistic sites recorded by surveys is not very impressive (fig. 18). The large Hellenistic

cities occupied prominent positions in the landscape, and all but one were located on the banks of

one of the major rivers in the region. The cities were most likely situated on major roads that

512 No survey team has included their dates for the IA, so I will be using the dates generally accepted for Anatolia.
513 The term Classical was used here by the survey team.

153
connected the Black Sea with the Mediterranean and the east with the west. The roads indicated by

dotted lines on the Classical/Hellenistic map are drawn based on the Roman milestones discovered

by Cumont, Hamilton, and French;514 nevertheless, since the terrain is very rugged it seems likely

that similar roads existed in the same spots during the Hellenistic period, and probably even earlier.

The cities all had good access to arable lands or were surrounded by them. Almost all had roads

linking them to the religious centers at Comana and Zela to the south.

To draw exact borders between these cities is very difficult. Our knowledge about the

territory of each city comes from the descriptions of Strabo and from the milestones discovered in

the region. It is also difficult to assign smaller sites to the territories of these cities. Within the

region defined in this study, it is clear that larger towns or cities were occupied rather than smaller

towns or villages, at least during the Classical/Hellenistic period. The small sites of the period were

also located along the rivers and trunk roads. Except for a group of four sites situated on the plain

between Eupatoria and Phazemon, there are no sites separate from rivers and roads.

There is a concentration of smaller sites in two distinct regions, but these areas are relatively

distant from the core of the inland Black Sea region. The first of these is the collection of sites

around the modern town of Alaca, where Alacahyk is located. There are about 12 sites in a

cluster here. The second cluster is to the northwest of Sebasteia, and many of the sites are on the

road from Sebasteia to Sebastopolis. The area around Alaca may have remained outside the control

of any of the Pontic cities, and Sebasteia and Sebastopolis could have been smaller sites with limited

territories prior to the Roman period. These smaller sites may have shared the arable land.

The presence of areas with a higher density of sites, far away from the Classical/Hellenistic

cities of Pontus, is significant, and it may indicate that the population tends to gather in the cities

where available, and spread across the landscape establishing small settlements when situated away

514 Cumont and Cumont 1906; Anderson et al. 1910; Hamilton 1842; French 1981, 1988b.

154
from the territory of any city. A smaller number of sites may sometimes be interpreted to indicate a

decline in population, but other theories, such as nucleation at centers of commerce, should also be

considered. The limited evidence available here permits only very general conclusions, but further

investigation is likely to shed light on the organization of Mithradates VIs kingdom.

Understanding land management, local administration, and the distribution of resources

under Mithradates VI was the major purpose of this chapter, and a further step would be to

compare the settlement distribution map of the Roman period (fig. 20) with the map of the

Classical/Hellenistic period (fig. 18). When we look at the data from the Roman period, there is a

visible increase in the number of smaller sites in Pontus. Some cities lost the prestige they formerly

possessed during the reign of Mithradates VI as a result of the reorganization of the cities into

provinces (Pontus Polemoniacus and Galaticus). They may also have lost some of their population to

rural areas. There is a distinct concentration of sites to the northwest and southwest of Amisos

during the Roman period. The road from Amisos to the heartland of Anatolia and to the west is

dotted by a number of sites. Other Roman settlements are similarly located along the rivers and

along the roads connecting the larger cities. The density in habitation between Sebasteia and

Sebastopolis continued into the Roman period as well. The conditions that created such dense

settlements in one specific area could be many: good communication with the surrounding areas,

fertile arable lands, minerals, natural resources such as timber, the flow of goods through the region,

and generally peaceful conditions. The density of sites between Sebasteia and Sebastopolis (similar

to the Classical/Hellenistic period) may have resulted from a number of these factors. The data may

also have resulted from varying methods of intensive survey, which could have caused an imbalance

in the number of sites recorded by different survey teams. Unfortunately, most survey projects do

not explain their methodologies in their reports.

155
 In conclusion, the central Black Sea region in Turkey is full of archaeological resources from

the Chalcolithic through the historical periods that are waiting to be discovered. This preliminary

survey of the historical and archaeological material, derived from the accounts of travellers and

historians, as well as several archaeological projects. But the study of the Hellenistic settlement

patterns in the central Black Sea region in Turkey is far from complete, and more intensive research

needs to be initiated.

156
CHAPTER VI

COINAGE IN PONTUS FROM THE FIFTH THROUGH THE FIRST CENTURY B.C.

The Emergence of Cities on the Southern Coast of the Black Sea, and the City Mints from
the Fifth century B.C. until the Reign of Mithradates VI

Numismatic evidence is most useful if it comes from dated contexts. Unfortunately, coins

are often snatched from their archaeological contexts and grouped together in museums or private

collections regardless of their origins. Combined with other types of data, however, coins provide

abundant information for archaeologists and historians alike. The numismatic evidence from the

Pontic kingdom provides invaluable data for the reign of Mithradates VI.

On the southern coast of the Black Sea, coins are especially important since there has been

limited archaeological exploration in this region. Only in the last 10 years have archaeologists begun

to show interest in the region, and scholarly cooperation around the Black Sea basin has improved.

The number of Pontic coins in various museums and collections throughout the world indicates the

extent to which this part of Turkey has been looted.

It was only during the reign of the Mithradatic family that Pontus became a political unity,

but this should not to be confused with the modern idea of political unity. Even under the Romans,

Pontus was not a region where a centralized administration controlled all parts of the kingdom.

Before the rise of this family of Mithradates, the cities, mainly the coastal towns, were autonomous.

These relatively large settlements were mostly Greek colonies.515 The adventures of the Greeks

sailing to foreign places from the eighth century B.C. on is a familiar topic.516 The purpose, dates,

and patterns of Greek colonization in the north, beginning in the Marmara Sea (Propontis) and

515 No evidence can be brought forward to support the supposition that there were already local people living at some of
the future colony sites. But we should not exclude the possibility since coastal areas, especially those with protected
harbors, have always been suitable places for habitation.
516 Boardman 1980.

157
continuing in the Black Sea (Pontos Euxenios) have been discussed by many scholars (fig. 16).

Discussions still continue regarding the seventh century B.C. Greek pottery found mainly in the

northern Black Sea area, in an attempt to identify a date at which the Greeks arrived.517 There is

now an extensive bibliography concerning pottery, trade relations, Greek institutions, Greek terms

and their meaning for the locals, imports, exports, imitations, workshops, transfer of craftsmen,

historical sources, landscapes, production, exchange, ethnicity, architectural trends, social

complexity, and migrations.

The cities that minted coins in the southern Black Sea region were almost exclusively

those identified as Greek colonies in the written sources. The earliest of these coins come from

Sinope, which began minting already in the sixth/fifth centuries B.C. These silver drachms have

obverses with an eagles head and reverses with a four part incuse square, some quarters of which

were filled (Pl.I,1). On one coin there was a pellet in addition to the square, and a dolphin on

another.518 This use of types follows the tradition in place during the Archaic period at many Asia

Minor mints, especially those, like Miletus, that were major colonizing forces in the Black Sea. The

obverses usually featured the head of an animal or mythologcal figure (such as a goats head,

Gorgons head, horse, pegasus, etc.) and reverses an incuse square. Over time, this incuse was filled

with a figure and later it disappeared completely.519 The only neighbor of Pontus that minted coins

this early was Bithynia, and there the coins resembled those from Sinope and the western Anatolian

cities.520 Amisos began minting coins in the fifth/fourth centuries B.C., and Trapezus, Gaziura, and

Cerasus (later Pharnaceia) followed in the fourth century B.C. In general the coin types of the Black

Sea continued to resemble those from western Asia Minor mints until the reign of Mithradates VI.

517 Over 55 fragments of pottery, Tsetskhladze 1998a.

518 SNGvA 196,197 (6th century B.C.); SNG-BM 1359-66, 1373, 1367-72; SNG-Tub. 2081.
519 At Miletus it was the lions head that constituted the obverse type beginning in the late sixth century B.C.
520 Apameia Myrleia, Chalcedon, and Kios minted silver and copper coins, on the obverse of which were Athena,

Apollo, a bull, and Mithra. The reverses of these coins had incuse square, prow, club, etc.

158
 The fourth century may be regarded as the date when several towns of Pontus began taking

part in wider economic activities, although their previous silence might have been the result of non-

monetary exchange until this time. The number of towns that produced coins, however, was still

not great. Three of these were on the coast, while one, Gaziura, was situated in the inland region, to

the south of Amaseia. The emergence of Gaziura is a unique phenomenon which requires some

discussion. First of all, Gaziura was isolated from the cities mentioned above, and there were no

other inland cities minting coins. The iconography of Gaziura coins was also distinct from these

struck by coastal towns. The obverses of these silver drachms feature the god Baal of Gaziura

(BAL-GZOUR is inscribed in Aramaic), who is represented nude and enthroned. On the reverse is

a griffin accompanied by the legend ARIOURAT written in Aramaic (Pl.I,2). Gaziura was closely

allied with Cappadocia, and these coins were actually on the Persian standard minted by Ariarathes I

(330-322 B.C.), the first king of the Cappadocians.521 The fact that these coins were Persian drachms

should be considered another indication of Gaziuras association with the inland and eastern cities,

more than with those on the Black Sea coast, where silver drachms on the Attic standard were

minted.

Another Persian drachm of Ariarathes I was minted in Sinope.522 On the obverse of this

issue was the head of the nymph Sinope wearing a sphendone; and in front of her is an aplustre. On

the reverse is an eagle above a dolphin, and the name ARIOURAT is inscribed in Aramaic just as on

the Gaziura coin. This is a very rare issue, but its presence suggests that Ariarathes control

extended from the coast toward the southeast.

During this period it is usually believed that Sinope had a thriving role in trade in the region.

In spite of the much easier routes from Amisos to the inland cities, Sinope was used more

521 Waddington et al. 1904112, Nos. 1-4.

522 Simonetta 1977, 15.

159
extensively by the Greeks in the Black Sea area, as indicated by the large numbers of Sinopean coins

found from the sixth/fifth century B.C. onward.

Amisos produced one type in the fifth/fourth century B.C. with an obverse of Hera and a

reverse of an owl on a shield with a sheathed sword beside it (Pl.I,3). These silver coins were

produced in different weights: there are examples of drachms, sigloi, and half sigloi.523 This variation

in weights in the Amisos coins is indicative of the citys trade both with the Greeks and with inland

and eastern cities, and Amisos connections with these regions would become more prominent in

the following centuries. The owl on these coins and the new name Peira have been linked to an

Athenian cleruchy that arrived here in the mid-fifth century B.C.524 The earliest secure evidence for

a settlement here dates to the fifth century B.C., and Arrian, Appian, and Plutarch all write of an

Athenian colony at Amisos.525 It seems likely that the coins are the product of the new Athenian

colony, and the presence of the owl is therefore perfectly understandable. Wilson expressed surprise

that Sinope did not establish a colony at Amisos, but such a colony would not have been essential in

Sinopes trade network.526 The Sinopean colony of Trapezus was founded to cover the eastern part

of the Black Sea, and Sinope herself covered the western and central realm of Pontus. Between

Sinope and Trapezus there were two additional colonies at Cotyora and Cerasus. Another colony at

Amisos would have been superfluous. The Athenians, however, were undoubtedly quick to realize

the opportunities at Amisos, and the Athenian owl would continue to be the principal reverse type

on the coins of Amisos until the reign of Mithradates VI.

523 SNGvA 45-54; SNG-BM 1053-1113; SNG-Tub 2044,5.

524 Wilson 1960, 194. This name is inscribed in several different ways on the coins: , ,
, , , and another name for the town is not found on the coins until the reign of Mithradates
VI.
525 Arr. Peripl. xv Roos; App. Mithr. 8; Plut. Luc. xix 7.
526 Wilson 1960, 193.

160
 Heracleia Pontica is among the earliest minting towns. It was established in 558 B.C.,

flourished in 400 B.C., and dominated the southwestern Black Sea.527 The late fifth-early fourth

century silver drachms of this coastal town typically had Herakles on the obverse and reverses

featuring a incuse square, a bull, Hera, a bowcase, clubs, a lion head, or Dionysus (Pl.I,4).528 Hera

and Dionysus also sometimes adorned the obverses of these early coins. In general, the iconography

of these coins is similar to contemporary types struck at Sinope.

Trapezus began minting coins later than Sinope did. We find coins minted in Trapezus in

the fourth century B.C., and this is the earliest archaeological evidence we have for Trapezus.529

There is a young male head on the obverse of Trapezus coins that cannot be securely identified, but

it is more eastern looking than Greek (Pl.I,5). The god is identified as Apollo by Waddington, but it

is difficult to be certain. There are several reverse types on the silver drachms and quarter drachms.

Some show a table with a pile of coins, and others feature the same table but with grapes. Between

the legs of the table on the latter example is the legend .530

The only coin from Pharnaceia dating to the mid-fourth century B.C. is a bronze with the

head of Zeus on the obverse and Zebu, the humped bull, on the reverse (Pl.I,6).531 The name of the

city is inscribed on the reverse as well.532

Amastris was founded in the fourth century B.C. by queen Amastris, who merged four

existing communities: Tieum, Sesamus, Cromna, and Cytorus.533 Cromna and Sesamus minted their

own coins in the fourth century B.C., and in both cases these were silver drachms with a laureate

527 Hind 1998, 136.

528 SNG-BM 1566-1639 (from the fifth century through the first century B.C.).
529 Eusebius Chron.II, pp.80. This date is far later than the citys traditional foundation date in the eighth century B.C.
530 For the table with coins and grapes see Waddington et al. 1904, 148.
531 SNG-BM 1274.
532 -.
533 Tieum (Waddington et al. 1904, 156), Sesamus, and Cromna had their own coins by the fourth century B.C., and

Strabo (12,5,44) claimed that Cytorus had been an emporium of Sinope, unlike the other Milesian establishments
(Wilson 1960, 162).

161
head of Zeus on the obverse.534 On the reverse of the coins of Cromna was Hera wearing a

decorated stephane (Pl.III,11), whereas the Sesamus coins had a head of Demeter (Pl.III,13).535 The

names of the cities were inscribed on the reverse of these coins. Cromna continued minting coins

into the third century B.C., this time in bronze, with Hera again on the obverse and an amphora

above a bunch of grapes on the reverse (Pl.III,12). In the third century B.C. Tieum also began

minting coins, but only in bronze.536 The types included Zeus/eagle on thunderbolt and a female

head, seated Eleutheria (Pl.III,9,10)537. The fact that two of the cities combined by Amastris

continued to mint coins indicates that these cities maintained their independent status even during

her reign. No coins have been associated with Cytorus, which may suggest that it was a smaller

town. Why Tieum did not mint coins in the fourth century like its neighbors is not clear. The city

revived its coinage in the third century B.C., although only in bronze.

Following Amastris declaration of her sovereignty and the merger of these four cities, silver

didrachms on a local standard began to be minted. Some featured an obverse portrait of Amastris

wearing a mitra and a laurel crown with a star in the field (Pl.I,7).538 The other main obverse type

shows a youthful laureate male head wearing a leather cap and with a star in the field. The most

popular reverse type in both instances featured a veiled and enthroned Aphrodite holding Eros or

Nike in one hand.539 All of these silver coins had AMASTRIS BASILISES as the reverse legend.

Sinope, which was actively minting coins, introduced a new type at the end of fifth or early

fourth century B.C. On this type, which was to continue until the third century B.C., there was a

nymph, usually identified as Sinope, and an eagle over a dolphin on the reverse (Pl.I,8).540 On some

534 SNG-BM 1322-43; 1355-8.

535 The late fourth century coins of Sesamus were minted both in silver and bronze.
536 SNG-BM 1640-2.
537 The slash has been used to separate the obverse from the reverse.
538 SNGvA 152.
539 A bowcase sometimes replaced Aphrodite.
540 SNGvA 198-210; SNG-BM 1374-1447. These silver drachms have on their reverse; SNGvA 210 has ,

referring to Datames. Datames, the satrap of Artaxerxes II, rebelled against the king in 362 B.C. and minted the first

162
of these silver drachms, the eagle over dolphin was replaced with a dolphin alone or a heraldic eagle

(Pl.I,9).541

The mints and the types remained mostly unchanged during the third century B.C., with only

a few additions to the corpus. Amisos continued to use the silver drachms with Hera on the

obverse and owl on the reverse (Pl.I,11), 542 while Amastris minted bronze coins with Athena/the

owl over a thunderbolt, Athena/thunderbolt (Pl.I,12), and silver didrachms with a young male

portrait wearing a leather cap/Aphrodite (Pl.I,13). All three types were continued from the previous

century.543

Sinope had the richest selection of types, and during the third century she added several

more: a female head with a turreted crown/Apollo, tripod, and head of Athena (Pl.I,14); a female

head with a turreted crown/Apollo (Pl.I,15); Apollo/tripod with grapes (Pl.I,16); female head with a

turreted crown/Poseidon (Pl.I,17); Apollo/prow and a lyre (Pl.I,18); Apollo/eagle (Pl.I,19).544 The

third century B.C. silver coins of Sinope were minted in various units such as tetradrachms,

didrachms, drachms, quarter drachms, and obols on the Attic standard. However, with the

exception of the tetradrachms, the coins had irregular weights. These may have resulted from the

political instabilities in the third century, which were caused by the growing power of the Pontic

kings. At this time the fortifications at Sinope were either built or strengthened and thus were

coins of Cappadocia. The drachms minted at Sinope are attributed to Datames by (Simonetta 1977, 13). Cappadocian
mints were at Sinope and Gaziura during the reign of Ariarathes I, but 50 years later Ariamnes transferred the mint to
Tyana. Another mint may have been at Comana, since it was conquered by Arairathes III, and Athena/Ma started
appearing on the last of his coins. Datames died in 362 B.C. SNG-BM 1446,7 has ; SNG-BM 1441-5 are
contemporary imitations; 1448-58 have Aramaic inscriptions and some have an aplustre on the reverse; 1459 belongs to
the reign of Ariarathes I (325 B.C.). SNG-BM 1460-91 are the same as SNG-BM 1374, but they have additional Greek
names on their reverses.
541 The nymph with heraldic eagle type has two variations. On one the nymph is seen in profile, like the rest of the

coins mentioned above, and on the other, the nymph is facing. The former are half drachms while the latter are quarter
drachms; SNG-BM 1492-7, SNG-BM 1492-7. All of the variations of the nymph coins are silver. The coins with
dolphin also feature the name of Datames: SNG-BM 1447 (Pl.I,10).
542 SNGvA 50; SNGvA 48 has inscribed on reverse.
543 SNGvA 153,4, SNG-BM 1306-8, SNG-Tub. 2078; SNG-BM 1309,10; SNG-BM 1302-5.
544 SNGvA 220; SNG-BM 1509; SNG-BM 1513; SNG-BM 1515-7; SNG-BM 1518; SNG-BM 1519.

163
represented on the coins: the female head that appeared as the nymph Sinope in the fifth and fourth

centuries B.C. now wore a turreted crown.

During the third century B.C., the worship of Apollo and Poseidon seems to have gained in

significance; Sinopean coins began to bear images of these two gods in this century. Poseidon

Heliconius was the divine patron of the Ionian League, and Apollo had an extraordinary significance

for Miletus as attested by the sanctuary at Didyma. Considering the geographical position of Sinope,

it is not surprising to find Poseidon/a ships prow on her coins. In addition, the popularity of

Poseidon and especially Apollo on Sinopean coins may be considered a reflection of the close

relationship between Sinope and Miletus, even though they were struck several hundred years after

the supposed foundation date.545

Between 220 and 120 B.C. the image of Artemis was added to Sinopean coins (Pl.I,20). This

type was issued at the same time as the Apollo/tripod types (Pl.I, 21). Until this time the city coins

had been silver; but with the reign of Mithradates III, the coins became more limited in variety,

while at the same time they also began to be minted in bronze. The minting of city coins in bronze

continued throughout the rule of the Mithradatids. Amisos continued to produce the Hera/owl

coins; Pharnaceia once again minted coins that had Zeus/Zebu; and Trapezus continued with its

Apollo/dolphin types.

The coins attributed to this era are limited in both type and number. This decline parallels

the rise of the Mithradatic family towards the late third/early second century B.C. Although the

reign of Mithradates III is considered somewhat quieter than his predecessors,546 the reign of

Pharnakes marks a complete shift in the history of the region. This was the time when the Pontic

kingdom changed from being small and isolated to expansive and well-connected with other regions.

This is also when Sinope was added to the Pontic kingdom. The expansionist policy of Pharnakes I

545 Waddington et al. 1904, 202; Wilson 1960, 180.

546 See Chapter 1.

164
enabled the kingdom to stretch from Amastris to Cerasus. One could therefore not expect the

Pontic cities to continue minting coins at the same rate as they had before. Having been included

within the borders of a vastly expanded kingdom, the cities probably went through a transitional

period from freedom to at least partial dependence on the central administration.

The Royal Coins of the Pontic Kings

The earliest Pontic royal coin has been dated to the reign of Mithradates I Ctistes, who ruled

between 302-266 B.C. The first Pontic gold staters, in imitation of those of Alexander, had Athena

on the obverse and a standing Nike with the vertical legend of King Mithradates in Greek on the

reverse (Pl.I,22).547 Mithradates I Ctistes may have issued these coins following his victory in 281

B.C. over Diodorus, a general of Seleucus I, or after the death of Lysimachus or Seleucus, when

Mithradates may have been able to proclaim himself king.548 At this very early phase of the

kingdom, Mithradates used Hellenic images on his coinage. By copying the Alexander type, he may

have been attempting to present himself as a successor of Alexander, or he may simply have been

following the basic trends in Hellenistic coinage. The minting of gold coins was a sign of power,

and this may have been designed to disturb the rival neighboring kingdoms as well as the

Macedonians. This gold stater is unique in the Pontic series because it lacks a royal portrait, and it is

the only gold stater struck until the reign of Mithradates IV. Unlike most of the royal coins, it does

not have a crescent and star, which would emerge as the primary symbol of Pontic rule.

We do not have any information on Ariobarzanes, and there are no coins attributed to him.

His successor, Mithradates II (250-220 B.C.), either did not issue coins in his name, or if he did, we

547SNGvA 1; Waddington et al. 1904, 10 no.1.

548Pomp. Trog. Prol. 17. It is unclear whether the battle was fought for the sake of the Northern League (at this point
the league consisted of Byzantium, Chalcedon, Heracleia, Tieium, Cierus) or if it resulted from a personal conflict
between Mithradates I and Seleucus I.

165
have not yet found any examples. It is rather surprising if he did not, considering his eventful

political life, which involved the Seleucids heavily.549

The first royal coinage with the image of the king on the obverse (as well as a star and a

crescent on the reverse) was minted during the reign of Mithradates III. On the reverse of this gold

stater there is Zeus seated on a throne holding an eagle, the famous Alexander type; but on the

obverse there is a very realistic and non-idealized portrait of the king (Pl.I,23).550 This bearded old

man with short cropped hair wears a diadem. The king seems to have preferred a more realistic

portrait type, as was customary in the east, instead of an image based on Alexanders (Pl.I,24). 551

Pharnakes, who ruled between 189/8-160 B.C., is known to have been a very ambitious

king, famed for capturing Sinope and thereby establishing connections between his kingdom and the

Black Sea ports. On the obverse of his silver tetradrachms and drachms, he is represented as a

middle-aged man with short, cropped hair. The diadem on his head is clearly visible, and he either

has long sideburns or a beard, just like Mithradates III. On the reverse, there is a young god wearing

a chiton, chlamys, stringed shoes, and a flat cap (Pl.I, 25).552 He is holding a caduceus and a

cornucopia in his left hand and is feeding a doe on a vine branch in his right hand. A star and

crescent are visible along with the name of the king in the genitive (Pl.I,26).553 This god/goddess

has not been satisfactorily identified.554 Mn Pharnakou was considered an attractive candidate, but

both Wroth (1889) and McGing abandoned that possibility since the figure does not carry the gods

standard attributes. This supposition has been challenged by Summerer in her article of 1995.

Summerer strongly believed that the star and crescent on royal coins were symbols of Mn, and

asserted that similar attributes can be seen on a gem from the Mnchener Staatlichen Mnzsammlung

549 See Chapter 1.

550 SNG-BM 1024.
551 See, for example, the Cappadocian royal portraits: Simonetta 1977.
552 This is sometimes called a goddess and questionably identified as Ma, SNG-BM 1025,6.
553 SNGvA 2,3.
554 McGing 1986, 33.

166
dating to second/first century B.C., where Mn and Tyche were illustrated as a double-image.555 The

figure on the reverse of Pharnakes coins could also have been Ma because the figure carries a

cornucopia and feeds a branch to a doe, thereby suggesting her maternal associations.

The second type from Pharnakes reign is a tetradrachm with the kings portrait on the

obverse, and a thunderbolt over a Pantheistic figure on the reverse. This type is considered a later

one by Mattingly.556

There are four major types of royal coins from Mithradates IVs reign. The first one, which

is a silver tetradrachm, features a diademed Mithradates on the obverse and Perseus on the reverse

(Pl.I,27).557 This is the first time Perseus appears on Pontic coins, but mythological scenes related to

him occupied a prominent place during the reign of Mithradates VI Eupator. On this type, Perseus

is wearing a chlamys, winged boots, and a curved pointed helmet.558 And his image is facing,

holding the harpe in his left hand, and in the other the head of Medusa. The star and crescent

accompany the name of the king. Perseus is a very appropriate mythological figure for the Pontic

kingdom; he is definitely Greek, and was also considered the founder of the Persians through his

son Perses.559 This coin was probably minted before Mithradates IV married his sister Laodice.

After their marriage, a silver tetradrachm commemorating their possible joint rule was

minted.560 On the obverse of this coin there is a double portrait of the king and the queen in veristic

style, and on the reverse, Zeus and Hera, both standing and holding a sceptre, stressing their unity

(Pl.I,28). Zeus and Hera also emphasize the Hellenic connection. The same Hera appears on the

reverse of two other types. The obverse of a gold stater features a portrait of Mithradates,561

555 Summerer 1995, 311-2.

556 Mattingly 1998, 255; Reinach 1888 48 no.9.
557 This is also the type attributed by Mattingly to Mithradates IV: Mattingly 1998, 255.
558 Waddington et al. 1904, 12 No.6.
559 Herod. 6.54; 7.150, see below.
560 SNGvA 4; Waddington et al. 1904, 13 No.7.
561 SNGvA 4.

167
(Pl.I,29) and on a gold stater and a silver tetradrachm there is a veiled portrait of Laodice (Pl.I,30),

identical to the one with the joint images of Mithradates and Laodice.562

The coins representing the marriage of Mithradates IV and his sister/wife resemble

Ptolemaic coins: after Ptolemy II (285-246 B.C.), each Ptolemaic king and queen was deified, and

they were depicted as jugate busts on coins.563 It was not only the Pontic king who was influenced

by this trend. The Seleucid king Alexander Balas (150-145 B.C.) minted a silver tetradrachm

representing himself and his wife in jugate form (Pl.I,31).564 In this case, there was a political motive

for the imitation of the coin type. Alexander Balas was put on the throne by Ptolemy VI, and

Alexanders wife Cleopatra was the daughter of Ptolemy. The Cappadocian king Ariarathes and his

wife Nysa also appeared together, in order to stress their unity (Pl.I,32).565 Whether Mithradates IV

and Laodice were deified is not known, but the jugate format had become a significant component

of Hellenistic royal iconography.

In general, the coins of Mithradates IV have a more Hellenic cast than the coins of his

predecessors. Although the portrait of the king remained rather realistic, the themes chosen for the

reverse, the gods and goddesses, were Greek. This is not surprising, considering his efforts to

befriend the Romans and their allies. Instead of Pharnakes aggressive stance he adopted a more

peaceful one, and this alliance perhaps necessitated less of an emphasis on his Persian side and more

on the Greek.

Three tetradrachms from a Seleucid hoard (Pl.I,33) (160-156 B.C.) and a few other

tetradrachms from an Amasya hoard (185-170 B.C.)566 (Pl.I,34) have been attributed to both

Mithradates III and to Mithradates IV. The attribution of these coins to Mithradates III has been

562 Waddington et al. 1904, 13 No.8.

563 Mrkholm 1997, 101-112.
564 Pollitt 1986, 274, pl.293c.
565 Simonetta 1977, 29.
566 The hoards are in the British Museum: IGCH 1536 and 1774; IGCH 1372.

168
controversial for several reasons: first of all, the tetradrachms have no marks of wear, although it is

noteworthy that the coins of Pharnakes in the same hoard are in equally good shape (Pl.I,35).567

Mattingly suggested that if they were of Mithradates III, they should have been used to a certain

extant before they were collected in the hoard. Secondly, the same mint marks appear on the

tetradrachms and Pharnakes coins in the Amasya hoard, which suggests contemporaneity. Thirdly,

the thunderbolt over the pantheistic figure on Pharnakes coins is considered a later image, and

finally, silver drachms of Amisos from the same hoard contain the legend BA LA on their reverse,

which may associate them with a Laodice. Considering that the tetradrachms and Pharnakes coins

are both in good condition, and they bear the same mint marks, then the tetradrachms can safely be

dated to the latter part of Pharnakes reign. In this case, the Laodice mentioned on the Amisos

drachms could have been the wife of Mithradates IV Philopator Philadelphus, the successor of

Pharnakes.568 Therefore it seems more likely that the tetradrachms belong to Mithradates IV, rather

than Mithradates III.

Mithradates V is the first Pontic king to have a relatively idealized portrait on the obverse of

his coins, a trend that would be refined by his son. On the reverse of his tetradrachms there is a

standing male figure holding a bow in his left hand and a female figure (with two miniature figures)

on his right arm. Robert identified this figure as Apollo, to whom Mithradates V made donations at

his shrine on Delos.569 The idealized portrait of the king and the choice of a Greek god for the

obverse, may indicate that he wanted to stress his Greek side. The use of a familiar Hellenistic

portrait and Greek mythological figures on royal coins were certainly more customary than the use

567 Doubts were expressed by Boehringer (1972, 70), and this same topic was again discussed by Mattingly (1998, 255-8).
568 Mattingly 1998, 255. McGing (1986, 24 n.56) suggested that the coins belonged either to Mithradates II or
Mithradates III, but in my opinion, having listed the factors above, it is impossible to date these coins any earlier.
569 Robert 1978, 151-163. Aeschylus, the son of Zopryus (IDlos 1557), and the gymnasiarch Seleucus (OGI 266)

dedicated statues in honor of Mithradates Euergetes in recognition of Mithradates Vs benefactions.

169
of an eastern portrait and deities, and thus kings such as Pharnakes may have made a stronger

statement by stressing their eastern/Persian origins.

The idealized style became standard during the reign of Mithradates VI Eupator.570 On his

gold and silver coins, Mithradates VI is represented as a young man with long flowing hair bound by

a diadem and long sideburns, a prominent nose, and narrow forehead (Pl.I,36). His hair and eyes

especially resemble Alexander closely. This idealized portrait style conforms closely to the most

common royal types in use during the Hellenistic period, and the new coins may have been meant to

place the Pontic king on the level of other Hellenistic kings.

The most frequent image on the reverse of his tetradrachms, drachms, and staters was an

animal grazing accompanied by a star and a crescent. This composition is encircled by a wreath of

ivy leaves and bunches of grapes. The dating of this type is controversial. Price argued that the

reverses of the two types were politically motivated.571 On the reverse of the first type, which bears

a relatively individualized portrait of Mithradates, there is Pegasus (fig. 30). On the reverse of the

second type, which bears a portrait of Mithradates closer to that of Alexander, there is a stag

(Pl.II,1). Price suggested that Mithradates used the stag instead of Pegasus after 89/88 B.C., that is,

after Mithradates conquered Asia, because Pegasus was too Persian.572 Pegasus originated from

the slain neck of Medusa and was therefore linked to Perseus, the mythical ancestor of the Persians,

who was sometimes considered an indirect ancestor of the Pontic family as well. Price also argued

that the stag would have appealed to the newly conquered people of Mithradates, since it was closely

associated with the Ephesian Artemis.573 However, deer were not new in the iconography of the

Pontic kingdom: Pharnakes had already used a doe on the reverse of his coins, and Pontic cities

570 McGing suggested that the royal coins were the works of Greek artists, following Jenkins 1990, 138).
571 Price 1968, 4.
572 The portrait type on the gold and silver coins also changed when the stag was introduced on the reverse.
573 Price 1968, 3.

170
minted coins with Artemis on the obverse and a stag on the reverse.574 McGing suggested that

Mithradates used a more idealistic portrait type in order to show people that he was the next

Alexander who would liberate Asia.575

Price proposed that the striking of the coins was linked to political events in the kingdom of

of Mithradates.576 The first two wars were preceded by a heavy minting of coins (in 93/2, 92/1 B.C.,

and 90/89 B.C., as well as 76/5 and 75/4 B.C.), which indicates preparations for battle. During the

first war, minting continued at the same rate at three different mints, but between the two wars there

was a decline in minting. 577 Following the end of the second war, which ended in defeat, all minting

ceased. The minting activity before and during the wars indicates that Mithradates was preparing to

pay a large army drawn from areas in and around his kingdom. During the wars the coins travelled

with the soldiers through Asia and even Greece, as proven by hoards containing both royal and civic

coins from Pontus.578

574 Amisos and Amaseia both have examples of this type.

575 McGing 1986, 101.
576 Price 1968, 4-5.
577 This table shows the proposed three mints: (Price 1968, 4, fig. 1)

578 The hoards will be discussed later in this chapter.

171
 On his second coin type there is an obvious shift in emphasis. The Perseus scenes have

been interpreted as a reflection of Mithradates cultivation of his Persian and Greek background.579

According to Appian, Perseus was the ancestor of Alexander the Great, and according to

Herodotus, of the Persians.580 He was therefore an appropriate mythological character for

Mithradates to use on his coinage. By utilizing the Perseus story on his coins, according to McGing,

Mithradates emphasized his dual ancestry, thus appealing to a larger group of people living and

fighting for him in Pontus.

A bronze city coin was minted in 125-100 B.C that featured a young male head, possibly of

Mithradates, wearing a leather helmet, or an Iranian Kyrbasia, commonly worn by Persian royalty

(Pl.II,3).581 If the figure indeed is Mithradates, then this type is the only example that emphasizes his

Persian background. While it is difficult to know what kind of a political agenda Mithradates had

before and during the Mithradatic wars, one should not ignore the wide variety of people who lived

in the area and the necessity to appeal to all for some kind of unity.

The significance of the star and crescent on royal coins has also been frequently debated.

Many scholars have identified the star and the crescent as royal symbols of the Pontic kingdom.

Their appearance on every royal issue suggests that they were indeed important symbols, and the

connection of this symbol to the royal family is definite. The nature of that connection, however is

still uncertain. Kleiner believed they were the symbols of an indigenous god and had their origins in

Persia.582 He associated the star and crescent with the god Mn and saw them as representations of

night and day (the star may be considered the sun here). Ritter, on the other hand, suggested that

the star and crescent symbols derived from Perseus, just as the star symbol of the Macedonians

579McGing 1986, 94. Mithradates told his troops before the first Mithradatic war that he was descended from Alexander
the Great and Seleucus on his mothers side and from Cyrus and Darius on his fathers side (Just. Epit. 38.7.1).
580 Arr. Anab. 3.3.1-2. The dependability of this source is highly questionable; it is possible that Arrian completely

inverted the speech. Herod. 7,16.150, Schol.Dion.Per. 1053.

581 McGing 1986, 95.
582 Kleiner 1953, 73-95; Kleiner 1955, 1-20.

172
did.583 References to the Perseus myth were used on both royal and civic issues. As I have already

mentioned, the representation of this hero was considered very appropriate for the Pontic kings,

since he represented both east and west.

Ma and Mithras are two other deities with whom the star and crescent symbol are

associated.584 Olshausen believed that the star and crescent could be related to a syncretism of

Pontic and Iranian iconography: the crescent for Mn and the star for Ahura Mazda.585 Recently,

Summerer has convincingly suggested that Mn alone was the inspiration for the symbol on the

royal coins of the Pontic kingdom. Mn Pharnakou was worshipped in Ameria, where the royal

oath was taken, which is understood to signify a strong connection between the deity and royalty. 586

Star and crescent on royal coins possibly symbolized the worship of Mn Pharnakou. He also

adorned the reverse of the coins of Pharnakes, stressing his significance for the royal house.587

One aspect all scholars have so far failed to notice is the presence of a star on one of the

issues of Amastris as early as the third century B.C. This coin has Amastris on the obverse wearing

a mitra and a laurel crown/wreath, and on the reverse, a depiction of Aphrodite (Pl.II,4). Aphrodite

is accompanied by an eight-pointed star identical to the Mithradatic star.588 Following the rule of

Queen Amastris, still in the third century B.C., two more types were minted in Amastris that had the

same star on their obverses (Pl.II,5-7).589 On one, a helmeted Athena was depicted on the obverse,

and an owl on the reverse; on another, a young male head wearing a leather cap and a laurel wreath

appeared on the obverse, with Aphrodite on the reverse. It is therefore clear that the star had been

associated with the Pontic royal house since the third century B.C.

583 Ritter 1981, 177-8.

584 The association of the star and the crescent with Ma has been suggested by Price (1968, 3). See also Oikonomides
1975, 71.
585 Olshausen 1990, 1905.
586 Strabo 12,3,31.
587 See supra n. 39; Summerer 1995, 311.
588 SNGvA 152.
589 SNGvA 153,4; SNG-BM 1302-5; SNG-BM 1309-10.

173
 Two coins (one gold and one silver) that date to ca. 88 B.C. require further examination.

Both of these coins, which were recovered in Italy, have been associated with the assistance the

Samnites requested from Mithradates VI against the Romans. The silver coin has the bust of Italia

on its obverse and two male figures in military dress on the reverse.590 The figure on the right stands

next to the prow of a ship, and a fillet has been tied to the sceptre placed above it. In his left hand

he holds a round object, most likely a globe. The two man are shaking hands. The identification of

the two figures is not certain, but the globe makes it possible to identify the figure on the right as a

king, most probably Mithradates VI. If this coin indeed tells the story of the political interaction

between the Italian allies and Mithradates VI, as suggested by many scholars, it can only be

anticipatory, as Sydenham phrases it, since no accounts of such help from Mithradates are recorded.

According to Diodorus Siculus, Mithradates told the Italians he would help only after he subdued

his Asiatic provinces, but he was never able to provide help to Italy.591

A gold coin that was also found in Italy resembles the city issues of Pontus, and may also be

associated with this interaction with the Italian allies. On the obverse of this issue there is the head

of young Dionysus, and on the reverse a cista mystica at the side of which is a thyrsus tied with a

fillet. Several features of the coin suggest that this was a special issue: the representation of

Dionysus, alluding to the kings name, its weight standard (the same as that of Mithradates VIs own

tetradrachms), the reproduction of a type common in the city mints of Pontus, and the fact that this

is the only gold issue minted in Rome or in Italy from this period. The date of the coin depends on

whether it was a gift for the king or a momento following his visit. There is no strong evidence for

either of these suppositions. The mint where the coin was struck is also uncertain. Judging frbyom

the quality of its fabric and design, Bompois believed that the coin was minted at Amisos.592 The

590 Sydenham 1952, 93, no.632.

591 Reliquiae, 37.2.
592 Bompois 1873, pl.iii, no.1.

174
legend on the obverse was read as MINIUS IEIUS MINII [FILIUS], a person identified as the

moneyer of this coin and the leader of the Italians embassy to Mithradates according to Garrucci.593

Although he was not a Pontic king, one should mention the coins of Ariarathes IX (101-87

B.C.), the son of Mithradates VI, who was appointed to the (contested) throne of Cappadocia during

his fathers reign.594 His minting policy, or rather the minting policy forced upon him, reflected his

volatile position in Cappadocia. In addition to drachms minted at Amphipolis and Macedonia,

where he joined his fathers army and died in 87 B.C., he minted coins during the second, fourth,

fifth, twelfth, thirteenth, and fifteenth years of his reign.595 There are two types attributed to him.

Both of these issues contain a diademed portrait of Ariarathes IX on the obverse. The first portrait

type is very similar to that of Mithradates VI, as is the type of Pegasus grazing with a star and a

crescent on the reverse (Pl.II,2). Both the portrait, the subject matter, and the star and crescent on

this issue were a strong reminder of Ariarathes IXs Mithradatic family. The portrait type on the

second issue, which may have been later than the first, was more eastern, or rather Cappadocian in

appearance; it must have been chosen to suggest that there was in fact continuity within the

Cappadocian kingdom, just as his name had been changed to Ariarathes in order to fit into the

Cappadocian royal family. 596 Imhoof-Blumer explained the different physical features of these two

portrait types by arguing that the former one was a portrait of Mithradates VI rather than his son,

while the second was of Ariarathes IX. Price endorsed this suggestion in his discussion.597

593Garrucci 1885,107.
594 For the historical discussion see Chapter 2, pp.14-5. The Roman Senate chose Ariobarzanes for the throne of
Cappadocia. He spent his life being driven away from the throne and being restored to it. He was overthrown by
Tigranes and Gordios in 93, and was restored by Sulla in 92. He was driven away from the throne once again and this
time was restored by Aquilius in 91, but Mithridates enforced him to flee in 90-89. Curio on Sullas behalf, put him back
in 84, but in 82 he was obliged to flee again. Murena restored him in 81 and Mithridates overthrew him in 74. Lucullus
brought him back to the Cappadocian throne. When he was once more driven away by Mithridates and Tigranes,
Pompey restored him at the beginning of 66. Finally, Ariobarzanes abdicated in favor of his son in 63 (Simonetta 1977,
39).
595 Simonetta 1977, 36.
596 SNG-Cop. 144-7; Imhoof-Blumer 1885, pl.23-24.
597 Price 1968, 6.

175
Mrkholm, on the other hand, took an opposing position and argued that the differences result

from two different mints and two different die-cutters. Simonetta shared this view.598 His

suggestion also seems viable to me, especially if the first one was produced in Pontus and the second

in Cappadocia. On the reverse he used the image of Athena holding Nike, the customary reverse of

Cappadocian tetradrachms since Ariarathes III (230-220 B.C.).

598 Simonetta 1977, 37.

176
City Mints In Pontus Under Mithradates VI Eupator

During the second century B.C. Amisos, Pharnaceia, Trapezus, and Sinope continued to

mint coins, but there was a decline in the quality and quantity of the civic issues. Most of the cities

lost their autonomy, and thus control of their coinage especially after Pharnakes I came to the

throne

The civic coinage resumed, however, when Mithradates VI came to power. He advertised

his new authority on both gold and silver coins, and he also fostered local pride by allowing the

cities to mint their own coins. Nevertheless, he maintained an overall control that is evident in the

somewhat standardized types of city coins.

Under Mithradates VI Eupator the number of cities minting coins suddenly increased. Cities

such as Amaseia, Abonutheichos, Cabeira, Chabakta, Comana, Gaziura (except the coins of

Ariarathes), Laodikeia and Taulara had produced no coins before this period, and they now began

minting at least a few of the most common types. Identical types were produced at different cities

of Pontus, which suggests a Pontic koine. The city coins that were minted during the reign of

Mithradates VI had the name of the city on the reverse, never the name of the king. It is clear that

Pontic cities were allowed to mint coins, but that they were under some sort of official control since

they had exactly the same types. The most common types during the reign of Mithradates Eupator

included;

1. Aegis with Gorgon /Nike.

2. Zeus/eagle with spread wings over thunderbolt.

3. Ares wearing a helmet/sword in a sheath.

4. Athena Parthenos/Perseus holding Medusas head with Medusas body lying at his feet.

5. Dionysus/thyrsus.

177
 The majority of the cities mentioned above, as well as Amisos, Amastris and Sinope, minted

these five types.599 A classification of Pontic bronze coins was first done by Imhoof-Blumer. He

divided the types into seven typological, and five chronological groups:600

1. 120-111 B.C.

a. winged head of youth/cornucopiae between pilei

b. head of Apollo/tripod

c. head of Artemis/stag

d. head of male wearing leather cap/quiver

e. head of Artemis/tripod

f. head of Eros/quiver

2. 111-105 B.C.

a. head of Zeus/eagle on thunderbolt (large)

b. head of Ares/sword in sheath

3. 105-90 B.C.

a. head of Athena/Perseus

b. aegis/Nike

c. head of Ares/sword in sheath with crescent and star

d. head of Dionysus/thyrsus

e. head of Perseus/harpa

4. 90-80 B.C.

a. head of young Dionysus/cista mystica

b. panther/cista mystica

599 Other types were also struck: Among the types on bronzes of Amaseia, Amisos and Sinope a young male
head/cornucopia between the Dioscurian pilei which are surmounted by stars (Pl.II,20). Amaseia: SNGvA 15,16, SNG-
BM 1046,7; Amisos: SNGvA 69,70, SNG-BM 1129,33; Sinope: SNGvA 230,1, SNG-Tub 2088,9.
600 Imhoof-Blumer 1912, 169-192.

178
 5. 80-70 B.C.

a. head of Perseus (in guise of Mithradates VI?)/Pegasus

b. female bust in wolf skin (Amazon)/Nike

c. head of young Herakles/club; bust/Herakles standing

d. head of Zeus/eagle on thunderbolt (small)

e. head of Helios/lion

f. female head/cult statue of Apollo

According to this classification, which largely coincides with the chronological divisions of

the SNG-BM catalogue,601 four of the cities (Amisos, Amaseia, Cabeira, and Sinope) began minting

Mithradatic types in the 120s B.C.602 Between 105 and 90 B.C. there was an increase in the number

of mints. Two of the most common types listed above were minted between 111-105 B.C. and the

remaining three between 105 and 90 B.C. Most cities minted coins until 70 B.C.

Amisos produced the largest variety of coins during the reign of Mithradates VI. Perseus

(Pl.II, 8), Artemis (Pl.II,9), and Zeus with eagle (Pl.II,10) were the most repeated images on Amisos

coins. Amisos must also have minted a large amount of coins, a fact clearly indicated by the

frequency of the coins of Amisos in private collections, in regional museums, and in hoards from

the eastern Mediterrnean and the Black Sea regions.603

Amisos was the most central town on the southern Black Sea coast and served as an outlet

for the inland territory. During the reign of Mithradates VI, Amisos must have gained a prominent

position on the southern Black Sea coast. Although Sinope had and still has a more convenient and

well-protected harbor, Amisos may have superceded Sinope in commerce at this time. Its

accessibility from the interior and its location at the end of the only road connecting the Black Sea

601 The coinage under Mithradates VI is divided into three chronological groups: 125-100 BC., 100-85 B.C., and 85-65
B.C.
602 According to the SNG-BM, ca. 125 B.C., and according to Imhoof-Blumer (1912), ca. 120 B.C.
603 See the next section dealing with hoards.

179
with Cappadocia must have made Amisos the final destination of inland merchants. Wilson is not

convinced that the merchants ended their trips at Amisos, because if had they done so then Sinope

would have made Amisos her emporium.604 He suggested that the competition for trade routes to

Cappadocia and beyond took place in central Anatolia, but I would like to propose that it was a two-

stage competiton. The merchants competed first in central Anatolia for control of the western and

northern routes, and then along the coast of the Black Sea. Therefore both Amisos and Sinope

must have benefited from the commercial activities directed toward the Black Sea coast, but clearly

in varying degrees.

The repeated use of standardized types by Pontic cities suggests control over mints by a

central authority with an organized political program intended to unify the region. Part of this

program involved the standardization of mythological themes that emphasized the origins of the

Pontic royal house. The combinations of symbols and myths are unique to Pontus, but most

mythological figures are from the Greek pantheon. Perseus, for example, had a special significance

for the Mithradatic family, and thus instances from the Perseus story were used on both royal and

civic coins. Most commonly Perseus appeared on the reverse, with Athena Parthenos on the

obverse she gave Perseus a bronze shield to protect him from seeing Medusa (Pl.II,11). Other

allusions to the same myth include the Gorgons head set in an aegis/Nike (Pl.II,12), Perseus/harpa,

the head of a young male wearing a cap (a cap was given to Perseus by Hermes, in addition to

winged boots and a sword)/caps of the Dioscuri, and Perseus/Pegasus types (Pl.II,13).

The image of Dionysus assumed a prominent role on Pontic coins under Mithradates VI

Eupator (Pl.II,14). The king may have adopted Dionysus name as a tribute to his maternal ancestor

Antiochus VI Dionysus of Syria.605 Mithradates may have chosen to associate himself with

Dionysus because the gods eastern origins recalled his own. The occasion for this is not known,

604 Wilson 1960, 193. This issue has already been discussed in Chapter 6, pg.160.
605 App. Mith.10.

180
but on several inscriptions his name appeared as Mithradates Eupator Dionysus.606 Several types

were used on Pontic city coins in order to publicize this relationship, including Dionysus/thyrsus

(Pl.II,15), Dionysus/cista mystica (Pl.II,16) and panther/cista mystica (Pl.II,17).607

The use of Ares, the god of war, emphasized Mithradates aggressive political attitude

(Pl.II,18).608 The sheathed sword, an attribute of the god, could have symbolized the sword given by

Hermes to Perseus in order to kill Medusa, thereby relating this type to the Perseus myth as well.

The type of Zeus with eagle and thunderbolt had always been a popular theme on Greek

coins, and it probably had no special significance.

Every royal coin starting with Mithradates III (200-185 B.C.) had a star and crescent on it,

but these symbols were used on only six types of city coins: three from Amisos, two from Chabakta,

and one from Amastris. The two types from Chabakta, Aegis/Nike and Ares/sword types (Pl.II,18,

19), and the Aegis/Nike type from Amisos are among the most common types of city coins minted

under Mithradates VI.609 The Aegis/Nike type, as mentioned above, is an allusion to the Perseus

story, and so to the origins of Mithradates; the star and crescent were probably used to emphasize

the familial connections. Of the three types from Amisos, Dionysus/cista mystica is less common,

but the presence of Dionysus served as a reminder of the kings divine epithet, and the star and

crescent may have once again been used as the sign of the royal family610 but the relationship

between the star and crescent and the male head in wolf scalp/Nike, and Ares/sheathed sword, and

Artemis in stephanos/star and crescent types is uncertain.

606 From the Serapeum at Delos (no.7 in Reinach 1890); IDelos 1563 an inscription found on a statue base: Other
examples are IDelos 2039, 2040; OGI 370.
607 These Dionysus portraits are sometimes considered to be portraits of Mithradates as Dionysus.
608 An example from Amisos, SNG-BM 1213.
609 SNG-BM 1255,6; SNG-BM 1250-2; SNGvA 91,2.
610 SNG-BM 1199-1209.

181
The Monetary Policy of Mithradates VI around the Black Sea: Coins of the Bosporan
Kingdom during the Reign of Mithradates VI

The idea of political unity under the rule of Mithradates VI emphasized by the

standardization in coinage and images, was partially carried to Bosporus. When the pressure from

the Scythians and the other nomadic tribes became unbearable towards the end of the second

century B.C., and the revolt of Saumacus began, the cities in the northern coast of the Black Sea

appealed to Mithradates VI for help.611 The kings general Diophantus crushed the revolt and

stopped the Scythians, although in the process damage was caused to the cities and the chora of

Bosporus.612

Mithradates interference in the politics of the Northern Black Sea area was not purely

philanthropic. Although his help meant that the Bosporus cities were saved from destruction, it also

meant that the Pontic king consolidated his rule over the Kingdom of Bosporus, which he willingly

received from Paerisades.613 The unification of the southern coast and parts of the northern coast of

the Black Sea meant that the economies of the two regions could become interlinked. During the

rule of Mithradates VI, either directly or through his governors, we observe that a standardization in

coinage, similar to that of the south, is achieved in northern Black Sea city coins. The Bosporan

cities were either inspired by or directed toward the southern Pontic city coinages and created

standard types both among themselves and with the Pontic cities.

Zograph classified the coins of Bosporus minted under Mithradates chronologically into

three groups, according to their style and fabric.614 The minting of new and varied coin types

resembling Pontic coins began at the end of the second and beginning of the first century in

611 For problems in Bosporus see Chapter 3, pg 83.

612 Inscription honoring Diophantus: IPE 1 352. For the outcome of the revolt see Saprykin & Maslennikov 1995
#3480, 265-6.
613Paerisades willingly handed over his kingdom McGing 1986, 50.
614 Zograph 1977, 299-300.

182
Pantikapaion and Phanagoria. Before this period, Pantikapaion minted gold, silver, and bronze coins

with representations of Pan/a lion or a griffin (Pl.II,21), or bow/arrow (Pl.II,22). Towards the end

of the third century B.C., Apollo (Pl.II,23) and Poseidon (Pl.II,24) were added to the coin types of

Pantikapaion, and this parallels the increasing popularity of these two gods in Sinope. Phanagoria

minted coins with Pan in the late fourth and third centuries B.C. (Pl.II,25).

At the early stages of the Pontic kings involvement in Bosporus, large obols were minted

both in Phanagoria and Pantikapaion (Pl.II,28). These featured head of Poseidon/prow (Pl.II,26),

and small coins with Athena/trident that closely resembled the Pontic type of Zeus/eagle on

thunderbolt in style and fabric (Pl.II,27). Tetrachalcons with the head of Artemis/a standing stag

were also struck.615 Among all these, depictions of Artemis and the stag remind one of the

significance of Perseus, Pegasus, and the stag for the Pontic kingdom. Two Pontic coin types

essentially derived from the same mythical story Artemis/a standing stag (Pl.II,29) and

Athena/Perseus beheading the Gorgon (Pl.II,30). The Artemis/stag type was minted in

Chersonesus, as well as Pantikapaion and Phanagoria, with a slight variation in the pose of the stag

(Pl.II,31). A feeding or a reclining stag on the reverse of an Artemis coin is surely not surprising,

especially at Chersonesus, where the majority of the coins from the fourth century to the second

century B.C. had displayed Artemis and stag (Pl.II,32). The earlier version of this type in Pontus,

however, was Pegasus feeding on the reverse of the royal coins of Mithradates (Pl.III,1);616 this

suggests an allusion to Perseus image, through Pegasus, and thus to the dual background of the king,

since Perseus was both the father of the Persians and a Greek hero. This constructed ideology may

have had truth for the southern coast of the Black Sea region alone. Nevertheless, to suggest that it

traveled to the northern coast of the Black Sea as well and appeared on the coins of the Bosporan

615For Athena and trident see Zograph 1977, Pl. XLIII,1; Pl. XLIII,4.
616Thereis one example from Pantikapaion on the obverse of which was Apollo and on the reverse Pegasus feeding; find
in SNG-BM 955-956.

183
cities would be to ignore the presence of Artemis and stag already in the fourth century B.C. in

Chersonesus.617 The type may, however, have gained a new significance during the reign of

Mithradates VI in Bosporus.

The advantages to Mithradates VI in including the Bosporan Kingdom in his realm were

clearly tremendous. The Bosporus an agricultural-based society, paid tribute to Mithradates and

provided food for his troops and military support against the Romans. The ancient sources suggest

that during Mithradates struggle with the Romans, the Bosporan chora provided 180,000 medimnoi

of grain to the troops of Mithradates.618 Whether this was a large part of the total yield of Bosporus

or whether it was only a part coming from a few cities is hard to know.

It is clear from the archaeological data that the end of the second century B.C. and the very

beginning of the first century B.C. was not the most flourishing time for the Bosporan kingdom.

Many rural settlements in the European part of Bosporus vanished, probably as a result of the

barbarian threats and the advance of Mithradates general Diophantus, who attempted to suppress

Saumacus. Following assistance from the Pontic king, the variety of coins increased in the first

quarter of the first century B.C. Pantikapaion, Phanagoria, and Gorgippia minted silver coins with

Dionysus (Pl.III,2), Artemis, and Apollo. The bronze collection included Mn/Dionysus with

patera (Pl.III,3), the head of Apollo (Pl.III,4), and two small denominations with star/tripod and

wing/tripod (these were minted only in Pantikapaion) (Pl.III,5).619 The same monogram on both

the silver and the large bronze coins indicates that these groups were contemporary, and the

monogram is sometimes interpreted as the name of Mithradates.620

During this period Dionysus assumed a prominent place on coins, as had been the case on

the southern coast of the Black Sea. The god had never before appeared on Bosporan coins. The

617 SNG-BM 819-23, 824-6, 827-9; SNG-Cop. 1.

618 Strabo 12.4.6; Memnon 19; 54.
619 Zograph 1977, pl. XLIII,5-7; 8-11; 10,12; 13,14; 15-17; 18,19.
620 Zograph 1977, 299; Giel (no date), 104.

184
association between Mithradates and Dionysus, through the use of the gods name, was no doubt

recognized by the Bosporans (Pl.III,6). One of the Dionysus types listed by Zograph resembled

Mithradates VI closely (Pl.III,7).621 The silver coins with Dionysus from Pantikapaion, Phanagoria,

and Chersonesus may represent the king in the guise of Dionysus, since no coins with a portrait of

the king were minted in Bosporus.

In Zographs third category copper coins dating to the the last decade of Mithradates reign

dominated, as was the case in the first category. The Bosporan cities were devastated by war and

their chorae had become wastelands. They therefore failed to maintain their wealth. Fewer coins

were minted, and they were limited in type. Mithradates suffered severe losses in Asia and Greece

and was unable to contribute to the improvement of the region. At this point there was a change in

policy. Instead of bringing wealth through peace, Mithradates decided to create his own wealth by

using the available resources. He established estates on royal land instead of supporting the chorae

of individual cities. According to Saprykin and Masslenikov, Mithradates made a greater effort to

improve agricultural production by building estates and fortresses to protect the arable land in the

Taman Peninsula.622 Agricultural estates were organized around Pantikapaion and Nymphaeum, as

well as between Gorgippia and Bata. The archaeological finds point to a stronger economic

relationship between Pontus and Bosporus, and show that Mithradatic soldiers were present in the

region: Polyanka on the coast of Lake Maeotis was one of the agricultural-military establishments

characteristic of the era. During the excavations on these estates, bronze coins of Pontic cities were

recovered. For example, in a hoard discovered at Polyanka, coins of the Mithradatic era of Amisos,

Sinope, and Amastris were found, along with anonymous obols of Machares and obols of

621 Zograph 1977, pl. XLIV, 1.

622 Saprykin and Maslennikov 1995, 271.

185
Pantikapaion, Gorgippia (90-80 B.C.), and Chersonesus (70-63 B.C.); an Aegis/Nike coin of

Comana Pontica (105-90 B.C.) was also discovered there.623

This change of policy does not indicate a specific intention to keep Bosporus unified and

wealthy; instead it was probably an effort on Mithradates part to make the best of his refuge.

Bosporus, after all, was a remote and therefore safe area in which he could settle while he searched

for a new plan, and he could position his soldiers in protected estates. As McGing remarked, it is

rather surprising that he survived there, considering the amount of tribute he collected for years and

the suffering he caused.624 Once he had lost his popularity throughout Asia and the Black Sea

coasts, the Dionysus coins that supposedly advertised him were no longer minted in Bosporus.

Only one type of coin, the Apollo/thunderbolt, was minted in Pantikapaion in the late 70s and 60s

B.C. (Pl.III,8). The cities, which neither received support from Mithradates nor pressure from his

officials anymore, must have abandoned certain types. But other factors probably contributed to

this decline in minting. As a result of several decades of instability, in addition to a dispersed army,

the kingdom must have run out of resources. Under these conditions the Bosporan territory was

less likely to need as many coins.

The relationship between Mithradates VI and Bosporus should not be seen as a purely

mechanical one. The northern part of the Black Sea was no more isolated than the rest of the Black

Sea, and although a strong figure, Mithradates arrival in Bosporus should not necessarily be

considered a turning point in the history of the region. Among the many fluctuations in the history

of Bosporus, this was one of the more influential and widespread events. It did bring life to its

markets but also exhausted its resources to a great extent.

623 Saprykin and Maslennikov 1995, 271.

624 McGing 1986.

186
Coin Hoards of Pontus

A purely iconographical examination of coins cannot fully illuminate the genuine economic

and political character of a period. An examination of coin hoards to shed light on commercial

activities and international contacts is also necessary.

A significant number of hoards containing Pontic royal and civic coins have been discovered

in Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and around the Black Sea (fig.56). In order to examine

these hoards in an organized fashion, I have divided them into two categories: hoards discovered in

Asia Minor, and hoards found outside Asia Minor. I have subdivided each group into royal and city

mints.

I have also included hoards assembled earlier or slightly later than the reign of Mithradates

VI, in order to have a better idea of the distribution of Pontic coins in the Mediterranean through

time.

Forty-two of the 71 Pontic hoards were buried before, at the end of, or shortly after the

reign of Mithradates VI. These were found both outside and within Asia Minor. The earliest hoards

containing Pontic civic coins were discovered in northern Asia Minor and date to the fifth century

B.C. These two hoards, not surprisingly, contained silver drachms of Sinope alone (500 in one and

21+ in the other)625 because Sinope was the only mint at this date in the Black Sea region in Asia

Minor. Another hoard of the fifth century B.C. discovered at Bubatis in Egypt also contained a

single Sinope coin along with coins from all over the Mediterranean.626

Until the third century B.C., Amisos coins joined Sinopes as the only civic coinage from the

southern Black Sea that appeared in hoards of Asia Minor. The distribution of hoards containing

IGCH No.1236, 1235.

625

IGCH No. 1645 Buried in 470 B.C., with coins of Zancle, Acanthus, Derrones, Dicea Macedonica, Mende, Potidaea,
626

Terone, Thraco-Macedonia, Thasos, Delphi, Athens, Aegina, Corinth, Paros, Sinope(1), Teos, Chios, Samos, Poseidium
Carp, Camirus, Phaselis, Salamis, and Cyrene. A smaller hoard is IGCH No.1650 from Delta in Egypt.

187
Black Sea coins in Asia Minor in the fourth century B.C. was not wide. Most were found in the

north,627 several in central Anatolia,628 and a few in the south and southeast.629 The contents of the

fourth century hoards were various. Some contained only Pontic city coins, and others coins from

Greece, the islands, Ionia, Pamphylia, Cilicia, and Syria in addition to Pontus. The coins from

Cilician mints had the greatest diversity of mints.

Similarly, in the third century B.C. the five hoards that contained Sinopean and Amastrian

coins were discovered within Pontus or in the vicinity: at Sinope, northern Asia Minor (exact

location unknown), Kzakl, and two at Gordion.630 The Kzakl and Gordion hoards were extremely

rich in variety (coins of Alexander III, Philip II, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Lysimachus, Attalus I,

Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Seleucus II, Perge, Sinope, Chalcedon, as well as the coins of

cities minting under these kings). All three hoards (the Kzakl hoard and the two Gordion hoards)

were buried in the second half of the third century B.C. The variety of coins in these hoards

suggests that the Pontic coins travelled, although in small quantities, in Asia Minor, and that Pontic

cities were visited by merchants or mercenaries from Asia Minor.

The contents of the hoards from the first half of the second century B.C. resembled those

from the second half of the third century B.C. One second century B.C. hoard, the provenance of

which is unknown, contained only 10 silver Amisos diobols.631 The rest of the hoards found in

Afyon, Urfa, and the Propontis contained between 170 and 200 silver coins, and the Mektepini

hoard had 752+ silver coins.632 These coins were from various cities of Asia Minor and were minted

during the reign of various rulers. Although similar in content, the second century hoards had even

more variety; for example, IGCH 1413 (the hoard from Urfa) contained coins of Alexander III,

627 Sinop and Asia Minor North: IGCH No. 1240, 1242, 1237.
628 Karaman, ancient Laranda, and Ayaz in Afyon: IGCH no. 1244, 1413.
629 Cilicia, Urfa; IGCH no.1259, 1772.
630 IGCH no. 1371, 1366, 1369, 1405, 1406.
631 IGCH no. 1375.
632 For Afyon see Seyrig 1963, 26, 42, 58, 61; IGCH no. 1413, 1772, 888.

188
imitation Alexander III, Sinope under Alexander III, Antigonus Doson, Antiochus I, Antiochus

Hierax, Side, Alabanda as Antiocheia, and Antiochus III. Amisos, Sinope, and Heracleia Pontica

each had a single coin in the various second century hoards.

Outside Asia Minor, coins of Sinope and Amisos have been found in the Ukraine, Egypt,

China, Afghanistan, Samaria, Georgia, Russia, Saida, and Euboea, in hoards of the fifth, fourth, and

third centuries B.C. (fig. 63) The Egyptian633 and the Afghani634 hoards contained coins from

Greece, Macedonia, the Greek islands, Syria, and Asia Minor. The hoards from the northern Black

Sea, such as the Ukraine and Georgia, on the other hand, had smaller contents limited to coins from

the northern and southern Black Sea, and a single example from Macedonia.635 A very rich third

century hoard from Ukraine contained 1200 gold coins from the reigns of Philip II and Alexander

III (Macedonia, Lampsacus, Abydos, Alexandria Troas, Sardis, Teos, Colophon, Ephesus, Magnesia,

Miletus, Side, Tarsus, Cyprus, Carrhae, Damascus, Aradus, Byblus, Sidon, Tyre, Ace, Babylon,

Ecbatana, Susa, Alexandria, Cyrene, Callatis, Istros, Messana, Odessa, Tomis, Sinope, and an

uncertain Euxine mint). This hoard resembles the hoards found at Gordion, Afyon, Kzakl,

Mektepini, Urfa, and the Propontis of the third and early second centuries B.C.

During the mid-second century B.C., the international character of the hoards discovered

outside Asia Minor continued. Two of these had Pontic civic coins: the hoards of Euboea and

Sitichoro.636 One Amaseian coin was found in the Euboean hoard (170-65 B.C.) together with coins

from Amphipolis, Locri Opuntii, Chalcis, Euboean League, Eretria, Athens, and Clazomenai. The

inclusion of a Pontic coin into this regionally restricted hoard is significant. The Sitichoro hoard

633 See supra n. 98; a second hoard from Egypt was found in the Delta. This hoard (IGCH 1650) contained 12 silver

coins of Aegina, Aradus, Sidon, and an uncertain Syrian mint, along with one Sinope coin. The hoard was dated to
between 375-350 B.C.
634 IGCH no. 1790 buried in 375 B.C. This contained coins of Messana, Syracuse, Alexander I Macedonia, Bisaltae,

Acanthus, Terone, Corcyra, Leucas, Thebes, Athens, Aegina, Melos, Sinope, Clazomenae, Chios, Samos, Caunus,
Cnidus, Carpathus, Lindus, Lycia, an uncertain Persian satrap, Citium, Salamis, Sidon, Tyre, Persia, and Barce.
635 IGCH nos.818, 1022.
636 IGCH nos. 240, 237.

189
contained 2,500-3,000 silver coins of the rulers and cities of the late third century B.C., from

Alexander III to Ptolemy III, including one coin from Amisos. This hoard was buried in 168-167

B.C. and contained coins of the Aetolian League.

During the first century B.C., the character of hoards that contained Pontic city coins seems

to have completely changed. The contents of the hoards with Pontic coins and the circulation of

Pontic coins themselves became markedly reduced. At this time, Pontic coins were hoarded only

within the Black Sea basin. They appeared almost exclusively in the hoards from the southern Black

Sea region, and when they were found outside Asia Minor, they were limited to Crimea and the

Taman peninsula in the northern Black Sea region. It is possible to observe a direct relationship

between the burial dates of the Bosporan hoards and the political events of Mithradates VIs reign.637

The hoards found on the northern Black Sea coast (six in total) mostly had Bosporan coins

from Pantikapaion, Phanagoria, and Gorgippia, plus coins of Sinope and Amisos, though in small

numbers.638 The largest variety and quantity of Pontic coins were found in a hoard from Kerch.639

Among the collection of 5 silver and 468+ bronze coins, there were 62 bronze coins from Amisos, 1

from Comana, 1 from Amastris, and 2 from Sinope. One small hoard from Khortitsa contained

bronze coins from only the southern Black Sea region, and one of Pergamon.640 Three of the hoards

were buried no earlier than 90 B.C. and no later than 75 B.C., which coincides with the first war

fought against the Romans. The other two were buried no later than 63 B.C., which may reflect the

unease in the Bosporan kingdom after Mithradates VI flight to Bosporus. The Khortitsa hoard is

dated to the late 2nd century B.C.

637 See Chapter 2 for an historical account and the section entitled Coins of the Bosporan Kingdom during the Reign of
Mithradates VI in this chapter.
638 IGCH nos. 1136, 1141, 1142, 1144, 1146, 1147.
639 IGCH no.1144.
640 IGCH no. 1136; Amasea 2, Amisus 5, Gaziura 1, Taulara 1.

190
 The hoards of the first century B.C. from Asia Minor that are of interest to us were mostly a

collection of only Pontic civic coins, and all were discovered in the central part of the Black Sea

region in Turkey. Some of these were very large, such as the Kabadz hoard (Ordu), the Asia

Minor North hoard, and the Baky (Ordu) hoard.641

The burial dates of these hoards fall into three chronological groups:

1. Hoards buried around 85 B.C.

2. Hoards buried around 75 B.C.

3. Hoards buried around 65 B.C. or shortly thereafter.

While the first two groups coincide with the two wars of Mithradates, the third group possibly

echoed the Roman intervention and the Pompeian re-organization of the region.

Fifty percent of the rest of the first century hoards that were discovered in Asia Minor

included Pontic coins, and contained at least a hundred coins. Most had a great variety of coins

from almost all of the cities of Pontus. Two of the hoards, the Yldzeli (Sivas) and Merzifon

(Amasya), had coins from Phanagoria and Pantikapaion, each represented with a single coin. Other

than the two Bosporan coins these hoards did not contain any issues from any other kingdom or

city, which is rather surprising. This indicates monetary circulation within the kingdom, but their

commercial relationship with the rest of the Hellenistic world during the first century B.C. is unclear.

Amisos once again emerged as the most heavily represented town in the coin hoards of the second

half of the first century B.C.

The royal coins of Mithradates VI also had a remarkable circulation in the Mediterranean

world and the east. The 10 hoards containing tetradrachms and staters of Mithradates VI were

discovered at Piraeus, the Dipylon in Athens, Poggio Picenze in Italy, Limani Chersonisou on Crete,

Kabadz, Ordu hoard contained 2003 bronze coins, Asia Minor North (IGCH no. 1393) 5,000 bronze coins of
641

Amisos, and Baky, Ordu hoard 2003 bronze coins.

191
eme (near Clazmonenae), Delos, Thessaloniki, Northern Greece, Granica in Bulgaria, Khinisly in

Azerbeycan, and Sarnakunk in Armenia.

The common trend in six of ten hoards (except those from Thessaloniki, Granica Armenia

and Sarnakunk), is the coexistence of tetradrachms of Mithradates VI and New Style Athenian

tetradrachms. Lysimachan tetradrachms are the next most common coins in these hoards. From

the numbers of coins in the hoards, we can suggest that most were little more than small savings

hoard with the most common coins in use during that time. The coins are dated closely, and most

are from hoards buried during the unrest caused by the Mithradatic army. The hoards also function

as good indications of Mithradatic soldiers travelling in northern Greece, the islands (e.g., Delos),

and Athens.

Many of the hoards contain coins of the Bityhnian kings (Nicomedes II-IV) and a few from

the Cappadocian kingdom, mostly coins of Ariarathes IX. In one of the hoards there were coins of

Ariarathes VI and Ariobarzanes I (Giresun), which indicates that the coins in this hoard had been

collected over a longer period.642 The presence of Ariarathes IXs coins together with Sullan

tetradrachms and Roman Republican denarii in a hoard recovered in Italy (Poggio Picenze) suggests

that Ariarathes IX Eusebes (101-87 B.C.) and his army were actively involved in his fathers field of

operations.

Some of the hoards also contain coins from cities of Greece and the islands: the Cretan

hoard has tetradrachms from Arcadia, Knossus, Lyttus, and Tenedos. The two later hoards from

Khinisly at Azerbeycan and Sarnakunk in Armenia present an even more international picture, since

they have Lysimachan, Pergamene, Athenian, Pontic, Bithynian, Seleucid, Armenian, and Parthian

coins. Both of these hoards are quite large: Khinisly had 330+ silver coins found together with

silver objects and ingots, and Sarnakunk has 178+ silver coins that were recovered in a pot. It is

642 The two hoards with coins of Ariarathes IX are Poggio Picenze in Italy and Giresun.

192
surprising that there are no hoards from the west coast of Asia Minor containing Black Sea coins

dating to the reign of Mithradates VI.

The hoards from Asia Minor that contained Pontic royal coins have a particular significance

in understanding the circulation of money among the Hellenistic kingdoms of Asia Minor. Such

hoards were found in Amasya, Dalyan (Alexandria Troas), Giresun, eme, Samsun, Keban,

Amasya, Asia Minor (exact location unknown), and Bithynia. The Amasya hoard is an early

example, buried around 185-170 B.C., and it has coins of the early kings of Pontus (Mithradates III),

Bithynia, and the Seleucid Kingdom.643 The Samsun hoard is also an early hoard and it contains 3

tetradrachms of Mithradates IV and Laodice (150 B.C.)644 The Dalyan hoard dates to the beginning

of the Mithridatic Wars (90 B.C.) and has tetradrachms of Lysimachus (certainly posthumous),

Mithradates VI, and his son Ariarathes IX.645 The Bithynian hoard, buried around 75 B.C., has a

collection of Lysimachan, Bithynian, and Pontic tetradrachms. Once again New Style Athenian

tetradrachms are frequently represented in these hoards as are the tetradrachms of Lysimachus. The

Keban hoard is an interesting example because it contains tetradrachms of Ariobarzanes I

Philoromaios and Ariarathes IX Eusebes, who were fierce rivals.646 Some hoards contain coins of

the cities of the western coast of Asia Minor and Chios: for example, the eme hoard has

cistophoroi from Pergamon and drachms from Chios, and the Giresun hoard has cistophoroi from

Pergamon, Ephesus, and Apameia.

A study of the hoards that contained Pontic civic and royal coins demonstrates that cities of

the central Black Sea region were in touch economically with the cities of Asia Minor and the east

well before the reign of Mithradates VI. During the fifth, fourth, third, and part of the second

century B.C. the cities minted silver coins that penetrated international markets. During these

643 IGCH no.1372.

644 IGCH no.1374.
645 IGCH no. 1356.
646 McNicoll 1973.

193
centuries the coins of Sinope, Amisos, and Amastris, in particular, were found in hoards both in

Asia Minor and in areas as remote as Egypt, China, Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine and Greece in

hoards assembled during these centuries. The reign of Mithradates VI had an impact on the

occurence of Pontic coins in hoards just as it did on the coinage policies of the central Black Sea

region. Pontic cities minted only bronze coins during his reign and these coins appear primarily in

hoards discovered along the circumference of the Black Sea. The coins reached as far as Ukraine

and the Taman peninsula only because the northern Black Sea region had become part of the

Mithradatic kingdom in the early first century B.C. The distribution of the royal coins, however, was

wider than the civic issues. The silver tetradrachms of Mithradates VI were discovered in hoards

throughout the Mediterranean, including Italy, and were included together with the coins of other

Hellenistic kings. In other words, silver royal coins replaced the silver civic issues in international

business. The frequent presence of bronze coins in Pontic hoards and the standardization of types

during the reign of Mithradates VI suggest that the cities of the kingdom were involved in lively

commercial activities with each other.

194
CHAPTER VII

Wealthy Aristocracy: A Tomb from Amisos

This chapter presents a tomb, which was discovered at Amisos, modern Samsun, on the

south coast of the Black Sea. The tomb is one of the few archaeological discoveries in the central

Black Sea region in Turkey that dates to the Hellenistic period. The significance of the study of this

tomb, which contains various grave gifts, including gold jewelry, lies in the information it provides

regarding the contacts of the southern Black Sea region with the north coast of the Black Sea and

Anatolia. The tomb may have belonged to an aristocrat living at Amisos, and it is representative of

the wealth that the people of Amisos acquired during the early Hellenistic period. The Amisos tomb

is also considered a valuable example of the emerging role of the cities of the central Black Sea

region almost two centuries prior to the reign of Mithradates VI.

The lkadm Municipality of Samsun discovered a cavity in the ground during road widening

work in November of 1995. The Samsun Museum was immediately notified of the discovery, and

the museum staff, which arrived in the area with the Samsun Police Department, began investigating

this hollow space. The museum staff entered it through the hole made by the bulldozer and

discovered that there was a underground tomb chamber. Immediately after the discovery salvage

excavations began, and the tomb chamber was cleared of its contents the same day so that no

further damage would occur.

The tomb chamber is cut in the limestone bedrock and consists of a square room with

curvilinear corners measuring 5 x 5 m (fig. 57). The entrance into the tomb chamber is, and was at

the time of its construction, possible through the hole cut into the bedrock on the east side of the

roof. Outside the tomb chamber, at the level of the modern road, 2.10 m above the ground level of

the chamber, there is a wall of cut blocks of limestone running along the east side (fig. 58). This wall

195
incorporates the door into the chamber. The door lintel is 2.20 m high. The entrance into the

chamber was blocked by three cut limestone blocks. The northeastern and southeastern corners of

the tomb structure extend beyond the width of the chamber and are filled with earth.

There are five graves along the three walls of the tomb chamber, one on the western end and

four on the north and south. The graves are rectangular and are also cut out of the bedrock. They

are reached by a 0.15 m high, 0.20 m wide step from the ground level. There is another level of

stones above this step around each of the graves, which separates them from one another. This

level is 0.60 m higher than the first step and is 0.75 m above the floor level. The graves are

approximately 0.30 m below the floor level in the middle of the chamber, and therefore 0.95 m

below the top of the stones lining the graves. On the opposite side of the single grave, on the

eastern side of the chamber, there is a wall of 1.80 m rising from the ground level of the chamber,

the purpose of which is unclear. On either side of this wall there are two square areas with round

corners facing the interior of the chamber. The purpose of these areas is also not clear since they

are neither represented on the cross-section drawing nor described in the museum reports. All the

walls of the chamber, the ceiling, and the interior surfaces of the graves are plastered with mud.

Grave No. 1, the first grave on the northeast corner of the chamber, measures 110 x 192 cm,

and is 0.85 m deep. No skeletal remains were found in this grave, but there were some grave goods

within it. On the floor of the grave there was one alabastron (badly damaged because of collapsed

stones and humidity), one terracotta double-handled goblet, and one broken terracotta plaque. This

grave was filled with collapsed stones from the ceiling as a result of the bulldozing.

The second grave, Grave No. 2, is larger than the first one. It measures 1.22 x 2.50 m and is

0.92 m deep. Some skeletal remains were recognized on the base of the grave, but they were in very

bad condition. It is not possible to identify the gender of the buried person from the skeletal

remains. The wooden pieces and nails suggested to the excavators that there could have been a

196
wooden sarcophagus for the body. The remains of corroded bronze strings over the skeleton were

barely visible, and they could have been some kind of jewelry. Also over the skeleton were a

number of small terracotta balls dipped in gold. The person in this grave was wearing a golden

wreath, and there were alabastra on each side of the head as well as one by the left hip. This is one

of the most ruined graves as a result of the collapse caused by the bulldozer.

The third grave, which occupies the complete western side of the chamber, is 0.95 x 2.77 m

and was 0.95 m deep. The skeletal remains were in very bad condition and similar to the skeleton in

Grave No. 2. Wooden pieces and nails were also discovered in this grave, which suggests that the

sarcophagus had been wooden. Near the skull there were a glass bowl and two alabastra, one placed

horizontally and the other vertically. In addition to these, there was a golden hair attachment, and

by the neck a pair of gold earrings featuring Eros. The gold and carnelian beads found around the

neck area probably came from a necklace. Over the chest were 11 garment attachments, each of

which was decorated with a female head; there were also a glass plate over the abdomen, a bracelet

with female head terminals on each arm, one alabastron on the side of each knee (both mostly

disintegrated), a cylindrical metal box by the right knee, another alabastron below the feet, and one

final alabastron on the right corner of the grave by the feet.

Grave No. 4 measures 1.09 x 2.52 m and is 0.95 m deep. Just as in the Grave Nos. 2 and 3,

the skeleton here was probably enclosed in a wooden chest, since there were badly damaged pieces

of wood and nails discovered in the grave. There was an alabastron behind the skull of the skeleton.

The deceased was accompanied by several burial gifts, as was the case in the former burials. There

were a terracotta unguentarium on the right side of the skull, a pair of gold earrings in the shape of

Nike, ten gold appliqus with Thetis riding a hippocamp, and various pieces of gold possibly

belonging to several necklaces. The arms were adorned with a pair of snake bracelets and bracelets

with lion head terminals. Twenty small gold plaques with rosettes, possibly belonging to a bracelet,

197
were also found by the arms. Discovered by the skeleton were one gold ring, the stone of which

was missing, and two gold buttons with inlaid enamel floral decoration. There was a terracotta

double handled flask by the right knee, and one alabastron by the left foot. A certain amount of

destruction by the collapsed ceiling was visible in this grave as well.

The fifth and final grave was never used. It measures 1.89 x 1.18 and is 1.30 m. The depth

of this grave is 0.93 m. No skeletal remains or grave goods were discovered in this grave.

The objects found in these graves are extraordinary in their variety and superb workmanship.

The three skeletons were all adorned with gold jewelry and surrounded by other objects such as

alabaster alabastrons. Unfortunately, many alabaster and terracotta objects were badly ruined. The

moisture in the tomb chamber and the collapse of parts of the ceiling effectively destroyed these

objects. All but three alabastra were smashed into pieces. These three alabastra were also badly

damaged, but relatively recognizable, and were brought to the museum (fig. 59).647

The glass objects are limited to one bowl and one phiale from the same grave, Grave No. 3.

The glass bowl has a diameter of 9.5 cm and is 7.2 cm high. The diameter of the glass phiale is 16

cm. It is only 4 cm high.

One oil lamp (fig. 60), two incense burners (fig. 61), three unguentaria (fig. 62), and two

amphoriskoi (fig. 63) are among the terracotta objects discovered in the graves. Except for one

amphoriskos, which was found in Grave No. 1, the rest of the terracotta objects were distributed

between Grave No. 3 and Grave No. 4.648 The lamp and one of the incense burners were found in

Grave No. 3.649 The other incense burner, which is almost identical in size to the first one, the two

647 Only one of them is recorded in the inventory books. The measurement of that alabastron are: rim diam. 4.6 cm and
h. 16 cm.
648 The measurements of the amphoriskos are: rim diam. 5.4 cm, base diam. 6.5 cm, and h. 29 cm.
649 The measurement of the lamp are: l. 10.2 cm, w. 7.1 cm, and h. 4.1 cm; incense burner: rim diam. 6.2 cm, body diam.

8.1 cm, and h. 10 cm.

198
unguentaria, and the second amphoriskos were all in Grave No.4.650 A lead box is the only metal

object discovered in the graves other than the gold jewelry.651

In terms of jewelry, the most modest grave among the three is certainly Grave No.2. If the

bronze strings on the skeleton are not considered jewelry, the only adornment on this skeleton is the

gold wreath (fig. 64). The wreath is made of a single rod of gold imitating an olive, or in this case

more likely a laurel branch. The ends of the rod are tied together with gold wire.652 Leaves are

attached to the main rod and they do not branch out. They are made of golden sheets with the main

vein depicted realistically in the middle of each leaf. Unlike other examples of wreaths, such as the

fourth century B.C. wreath from Kerch (fig. 65),653 it does not have fruits attached. This suggests a

laurel wreath more than an olive. Wreaths are very common in the late Classical and Hellenistic

periods. A very similar wreath was discovered in Mogilanska Mogila, Vratsa in Bulgaria (mid-fourth

century B.C.) (fig. 66).654 On this wreath the leaves are both individually attached to the rod and are

grouped on separate branches stemming from the main branch. The Bulgarian example is made of

two rods wired only on one side. The front ends of the wreath would have remained separate when

placed on the head. The Amisos wreath has a disc as a center-piece, which differs from the two

wreaths compared here. The edges of the disc are cut to look like petals, preserving the perfectly

round shape, and there is a knob in the middle of the disc. It therefore resembles a stylized flower.

One example resembling the Amisos wreath very closely is the wreath from the Third Womans

Grave from Great Bliznitza near Phanagoria on the Taman Peninsula (330-300 B.C.) (fig. 67).655

This wreath is also made of tapering gold tubes attached with gold wire at one end and subtly

650 The measurements of the incense burner are: rim diam. 6.2 cm, body diam. 8.4 cm, and h. 10.3 cm; of the two
unguentaria: rim diam. 6.8 cm, base diam. 3.4 cm, and h. 13.2 cm rim diam. 6.3 cm, base diam. 2.9 cm, and h. 12.5 cm; of
the second amphoriskos: rim diam. 5.3 cm, base diam. 6.4 cm, and h. 75.5 cm.
651 The lead box measured: rim diam. 3.7 cm, h. 4.3cm.
652 For jewelry manufacturing techniques see Hoffman and Davidson 1965, Hoffman and von Claer 1968, and Ogden

1992.
653 The State Hermitage Masterpieces from the Museum's Collections 1994, 321, no.305.
654 Marazov 1998, 200, no.141.
655 Williams and Ogden 1994, 180-1.

199
connected to each other at the other end; the connection is skillfully hidden behind leaves with

central spines.

Wreaths were common funerary offerings in antiquity, but they rarely survive. Most of the

surviving examples are from the Hellenistic period, and they were found in southern Russia.

Wreaths were worn by distinguished warriors and in festival processions, or they were presented as

awards to contest winners in ancient Greece.656 They were also probably dedicated in temples,657 as

well as in tombs.658 Wreaths were also common grave gifts in the Thracian kingdom and were

possibly symbols of the aristocracy. They were found in graves (i.e., the wreath from Mogilanska

Mogila and the Kazanlak tomb) and were depicted on objects and wall paintings (i.e., the greave with

the depiction of a goddess wearing a wreath from Mogilanska, and the rider wearing a wreath on a

wall painting from the Sveshtari tomb).659 An inscription from Thrace informs us that a wreath was

presented to Sedalas, a Thracian king, by the Greek colony of Messembria.660

The closest examples to the Amisos wreath come from the area to the north and west of

Pontus; two from the northern Black Sea (Kerch, Great Bliznitza), and the other from Thrace

(Mogilanska Mogila). The northern influences on the Amisos jewelry will become apparent as we

analyze the rest of the jewelry from the graves.

The excavators suggested that the occupant of Grave No. 2 was male because none of the

other types of jewelry usually associated with women were discovered in this grave, and a wreath

656 Williams and Ogden 1994, 37. A wreath was made for Demosthenes by an Athenian goldsmith, to be worn during a
procession (Contra Meidiam 252).
657 The temple inventories from Delos (279 B.C.) and the Parthenon treasury lists of the fifth and the fourth centuries

B.C. mention wreaths as dedications. Wreaths could be dedicated by individuals, men and women, foreigners, officials
at the end of their terms, and by kings: Higgins 1980, 121; Williams and Ogden 1994, 37.
658 Olynthus X, 158 n. 318; BMCJ xxxif; Alexanders funeral wreath is mentioned by Diodorus Siculus (18, 27,5).
659 Marazov 1983, 200.
660 Marazov 1998.

200
was normally a male adornment, unless the occupant was royalty. The social status of this person is

hard to determine, but he was probably from an aristocratic family.661

Grave No. 3 contained several pieces of gold jewelry. I will describe each one, beginning

with the head and going down to the arms.

Parts of a hair tie or a tie-necklace were discovered by the skull (fig. 68). It consists of two

loop-in-loop chains (total l. 13.4 cm), one spreading out into three and the other into two thinner

and shorter loop-in-loop chains.662 These small chains end in asphodel seeds. The two thicker

chains are tied together with a large biconical tie-bead decorated with filigree tendrils running around

the upper and lower bands on the bead. The two bands are separated by two tiny rows of

granulations. The top and the bottom of the bead are similarly lined with granulation. The two thick

chains end in tubular beads at the top and are similarly bordered by granulated lines on both ends.

The upper end of the tubular beads have a large loop that must have been used to attach the jewelry

to something else, probably another chain. The thinner chains are grouped in three and two by

smaller tie-beads which have the same decoration as the large tie-bead. The asphodel seeds are

attached to the ends of these chains with simple loops.

There are three parallels for this type of jewelry. Two similar sets of chains are said to come

from Kyme, and they are twice the length of the Amisos example (fig. 69).663 The tie-beads on the

Kyme example are decorated with double spirals in filigree and filigree palmettes. The late-fourth

century B.C. Kyme tie-necklaces are a little more complicated than the Amisos chains. On one of

the Kyme examples, the thick loop-in-loop chains divide into four chains that end in myrtle flowers,

661 The excavator suggested that he could have belonged to the Pontic royal house, but there is no sound evidence for
this. Wreaths could be worn by aristocrats as well as royalty.
662 One broken chain is visible on the ends of both groups, which indicates that both might have been originally divided

into four.
663 Williams 1996, 120-2, fig. 4; for the second set see Deppert-Lippitz 1985, 172-4, pl. 121.

201
and on the other, two double loop-in-loop chains divide into four and end in pomegranates or

myrtle flower seeds. The second set includes one large, two medium, and four small tie-beads.

The other two sets that resemble the Amisos chains are said to come from Sardis and

Mytilene.664 The Sardis tie-necklace has two chains dividing into six. They end in myrtle flowers

similar to the Kyme chains. The Mytilene jewelry is made of straps instead of chains which divide

into four; each of the four changes separate into two again (fig. 70). This has asphodel seed heads

just like the Amisos piece. Asphodel seeds are not totally uncommon and can also be found at the

ends of seven tie-pendants from Kyme (fig. 71).665 The Kyme tie-pendants have rosettes from

which chains hang, and the chains then separate into smaller chains in various numbers to end in

asphodel seeds. The tie-pendants from Kyme are dated to the first quarter of the third century B.C.

Asphodel seeds dating to the late fourth to early third centuries B.C. are used on the Bastis

Herakles-knot necklace as well (fig. 72).666

Both the Sardis and Mytilene tie-necklaces have tie-beads, (heart-shaped for Sardis and

biconical for Mytilene), and both have filigree decoration. Williams suggested that the similarity

among the three examples, Kyme, Sardis, and Mytilene, is suggestive of a style that developed in

western Asia Minor around the late fourth to early third centuries B.C.667 With the addition of the

Amisos example, the geographical distribution of this form may be extended. There is insufficient

evidence to indicate that the Amisos piece was made in the same workshop as those from Kyme,

Sardis, and Mytilene, but closer examination may clarify the connection among the four tie-

necklaces.

664 Pforzheim 1959, 92c; Williams and Ogden 1994, 118, cat.no. 69.
665 Williams 1996, 124-5, fig. 6,7.
666 Bothmer 1987, no.180.
667 Williams 1996, 122.

202
 One of the two pairs of earrings from the tomb was found in Grave No.3. This pair is in

the shape of tiny winged Erotes holding lyres (fig. 73).668 The hook for the earring stems from the

head of Eros and thus was not made separately. The relaxed legs of the Erotes give the impression

that they are indeed flying.

Eros was a favorite character in art especially in the middle Hellenistic period. He is

represented either with Aphrodite or alone, possibly substituting for the goddess.669 When doubled,

such as on ear-rings, the Erotes may represent Himeros and Pothos concepts, both of which mean

desire.670 Representations of Eros are popular in Hellenistic jewelry. Children in the guise of Erotes

playing or performing adult activities were popular subjects for Hellenistic artists.671 There are

examples of Erotes on earrings from northwestern Turkey, specifically Kyme (third century B.C.)

and Madytos.672 The Kyme Erotes are also winged creatures, and they hold inyxes and a doll or a

beechnut (fig. 74). The wings of the Erotes from the Kyme treasure are very large and the figures

themselves represent adolescents, unlike the Amisos Erotes who are portrayed as children. The

wings of the Amisos Erotes are also smaller and more three-dimensional.

The style of the two examples of Erotes from Kyme and Amisos are completely different.

The Erotes from Amisos are depicted far more realistically, which distinguishes them from the

Kyme Erotes. The Kyme examples are two dimensional, while the Amisos Erotes are like miniature

sculptures.673

The Madytos Erotes are more like the Amisos Erotes (fig. 75) especially in their realistic and

three-dimensional appearance. Along with another pair in the Bastis Collection, dating to the late

668 The measurements of the earrings are: w. 0.8 cm, h. 2 cm; w. 0.9,5 cm, h. 1.7 cm.
669 Williams and Ogden 1994, 38.
670 Williams and Ogden 1994, 38.
671 An example of children in the guise of Erotes is the Sleeping Eros (150-100 B.C.) in Pollitt 1986, 129, fig.135. Erotes

are seen hunting in the mosaic from Alexandria (third/early second century B.C.): Pollitt 1986, 130, fig.136.
672 For Kyme examples, see Williams 1996, 119 fig. 2; for Madytos examples see Rudolph 1995, cat.no. 30B, 31B.
673 For miniature sculpture in precious metals during the Hellenistic period see Vermeule 1974.

203
fourth to early third century B.C., these three constitute a harmonious group of Erotes from the

eastern Mediterranean.

Pieces from a necklace were discovered around the neck area of the skeleton in Grave No.3,

(fig. 76). The necklace included 16 gold and 9 carnelian flower-shaped beads in addition to 14

tubular, striped beads.674

Eleven garment attachments or buttons were found over the chest of the skeleton (fig.

77).675 Each attachment is in the shape of a slightly convex circular disc, and they have a diameter of

2.3 cm. There is a human face surrounded by teardrop-shaped filigree decoration in the middle of

the disc. The teardrops are filled with alternating pale blue stone and obsidian, and their pointed

edges touch the encircling twisted wire.

The face in the middle can be identified as Medusa, which could have been used for its

amuletic character.676 Medusa on the breastplate of Athena has such a quality, and the garment

attachments over the chest of the dead may have had a similar purpose. The head of Medusa was

used on clothing and military equipment by the Scythians as well as the Greeks, primarily because of

its apotropaic power. Similar plaques decorated with the head of Medusa were discovered in

Scythian kurgans. Among the 243 plaques from a womans headdress discovered in one kurgan (ca.

350 B.C.) (fig. 78), there are ten plaques decorated with Medusas head.677 The style of these plaques

is comparable to those from Amisos. They are both in high relief, and the mouth of Medusa is

closed on both. Another plaque from Theodosia in the Crimea shows her with tongue extended

674 Gold beads: l. 1-1.2 cm, carnelian beads; l. 1.1-1.2 cm; tubular, striped beads: 1 cm.
675 For buttons see Higgins 1980, 168-9.
676 The lack of snakes on the head, the rather serene representation of the face, and the teardrops around the face give

the impression of the rays of the sun, which would be appropriate for the sun god Helios. A pair of gold ear reels said
to be from Rhodes (400-350 B.C.) feature Helios in high relief on one of their sides (fig. 81) (Williams and Ogden 1994,
89, cat.no. 41). The Helios figures, however, are more like idealized male portraits rather than the stout faced Medusa
with dazed eyes that we see on the Amisos garment attachment. This identification is therefore unlikely.
677 Reeder 1999, 119-20 cat.no. 16.

204
(fig. 79).678 The coils of snakes which constitute Medusas hair in most of her depictions are hard to

distinguish on the Amisos plaques. The Theodosia plaque also does not have coils of snakes for her

hair. Gorgoneia appear on a gold strip from Kyme (fig. 80).679

Medusa was also significant for the Pontic kingdom during the late Hellenistic period. The

city mints during the reign of Mithradates VI included a type with Gorgon in aegis on the obverse

and Nike on the reverse (Pl.II,12). This very common type is believed to have derived from the

popularity of Perseus, the slayer of Medusa, among Pontic royalty. Mithradates VI claimed in one of

his speeches that he was descended from both Persian and Macedonian royalty.680 Perseus himself is

often depicted on other types of coins (Pl.II,8). Although such a relationship between the Pontic

kings and Perseus is not mentioned by ancient authors, it seems likely that there was a connection,

and the iconography on the garment attachments would therefore be explained. This would also fit

with the excavators theory that the burial was royal, but surely Medusa appeared on the jewelry of

Pontic aristocrats as well.

The final pieces of jewelry from Grave No. 3 are a pair of gold bracelets found on each arm

(fig. 82). Each bracelet is spirally fluted, and the valleys between the plain wires are adorned with

beaded wires, imitating rods twisted together. The finials of the bracelet are female heads facing

upward. The faces are beautifully rendered. All four faces are identical, and the two bracelets were

clearly manufactured as a pair. The cheeks are full and rounded, and the eye brows are strongly

arched. The hair is twisted in locks and pulled together in a bun at the back of the head.

The transition between the loop of the bracelet and the female heads on the Amisos

bracelets is achieved by the use of a beaded wire between two plain wires. Above this register there

678 Reeder 1999, 186 cat.no. 73.

679 Williams and Ogden 1994, 93, cat. no. 45.
680 For a fuller discussion of the origins of Mithradates VI see Chapter 3. App. Anab. 3.3.1-2.

205
is a band of filigree egg decoration. The transitional section ends in double-twisted wire in a

herringbone pattern.

Female heads were sometimes used as finials on necklaces in antiquity, and they appear as

earrings in the Hellenistic period, but they were not common on bracelets. The closest examples of

necklaces with female heads come from the eastern Mediterranean. A pair of maenads adorn the

ends of a necklace and earrings dating to 300-250 B.C. (fig. 83).681 They each wear a 12-leaf ivy

wreath. The hair style and the presence of the wreath as well as the rendering of the face separate

these female heads from the Amisos examples. A closer comparandum may be another necklace

with maenad head finials from Anatolia (325-250 B.C.) (fig. 84).682 The hairstyle is vaguely similar to

the Amisos heads; the Anatolian example has similar locks of hair collected at the back of the head,

though not in a bun. The Bastis Herakles necklace has two female heads at the connection between

the chain and the knot-pendant in the middle (fig. 72).

The workmanship of these bracelets is superb. The details on both the loop of the bracelet

and the female heads are carefully worked. They were not in use for long since there are no wear

marks on them.

In terms of finds, the richest grave is certainly Grave No. 4. The jewelry is in good shape

and is rich in iconography. A pair of Nike earrings were discovered by the neck of the skeleton (fig.

85). These earrings are tiny; the distance between the edges of the wings is only 3.8 cm. The

distance between the flowing edges of the drapery is 2.1 cm; the height of the Nike is 3.8 cm; and

the height of the earring including the hook is 4.4 cm. Here Nike is represented in flight with long,

attenuated wings. Her torso is partially covered by her billowing mantle, and she holds the drapery

by its edges. Her breasts are concealed under the drapery, but her abdomen and the pubic area as

well as her legs are visible. Her hair is pulled back in the same manner as the female head finials of

681 Rudolph 1995, 119, cat.no.24A.

682 Rudolph 1995, 123-4, cat.no. 25A.

206
the necklace in Grave No. 3. The twisted locks are more loosely arranged on her head. Nike is

wearing a diadem made of two rows of beaded wire. Her head is slightly twisted to the left, and she

is looking down to the right. She has a graceful expression on her face. The feathers on her wings

are carefully incised.

Nike, like Eros, was a popular figure in art during the Hellenistic period. Nikai are

sometimes depicted together with Erotes, such as on the Kyme earrings and on the earrings from

Kul Oba (fig. 86), which are quite similar to the Amisos Nikai.683 Although the two pairs of earrings

(Erotes and Nikai) are from different graves at Amisos, they are certainly in iconographic harmony.

Another comparable pair of gold earrings, from the mid-fourth century, come from the Pavlovsky

kurgan.684 The flowing mantle of the Nikai on the Amisos earrings may be compared to an earring

(early third century B.C.) found in Izmit.685 The Nike on this earring is depicted also in flight and

has a large rosette above her attaching the figure to the ear loop.

There were many beads of various shapes around the head and the neck area of the skeleton

in Grave No. 4: among those were 58 spherical beads (0.3 cm), 26 long tubular beads(l. 0.5-1.4 cm),

approximately 1026 short tubular beads (0.3-0.9 cm), 23 globular beads (l. 0.6 cm), 24 biconical

beads (l. 0.5 cm), 9 short cylindrical beads (l. 0.2,5 cm), and 2 long cylindrical beads (l. 0.3,5 cm).

One necklace reassembled in the museum has 26 beechnut pendants (l. 1.5 cm)686, 12

teardrop shaped beads (l. 1.1 cm), 4 pomegranate beads (l. 0.9 cm), and 52 thin tubular beads (l. 0.5-

1.7 cm) (fig. 87). Beechnut pendants were popular in necklaces during the Hellenistic period, and

there are several comparable examples. Beechnut pendants decorate three strap necklaces from

683 Deppert-Lippitz 1985, 185, fig. 131; Williams and Ogden 1994, 149-50 cat.nos. 89, 50.
684 Deppert-Lippitz 1985, 226, fig. 162; Williams and Ogden 1994, 170, cat.no. 107.
685 Deppert-Lippitz 1985, 229, fig. 165.
686 Only 17 of the beechnut pendants were used in the reconstruction.

207
Kyme (fig. 88). The Kyme necklaces are dated to the second half of the third century B.C. by the

style of the clasp types, but unfortunately the Amisos necklace does not have a clasp.687

Another more elaborate beechnut pendant necklace was found in a kurgan in Great Bliznitza

on the Taman peninsula.688 This pendant has two rows of beechnut pendants: a smaller-sized

beechnut row closer to the chain of the necklace and a larger beechnut row below that. The

necklace is dated to the second half of the fourth century B.C.

Around the neck area were found ten gold appliqus (fig. 89). These pieces, which vary

between 3-3.7 cm in width and 2.2-2.4 cm in height, have the most compelling iconography of all

the finds from the Amisos tomb. The figures are hammered on a sheet of gold, and the appliqus

are cut around the edges of the figures. The appliqus represent a female riding a hippocamp. She

holds a helmet and a sword in her hands and is seen in profile. She wears a chiton, and her entire

body is covered by thick drapery. The eroticism we have seen in the Nike figure from Grave No. 4

is not present in this depiction. She has robust facial features: a narrow forehead, large eyes, and

protruding eyebrows. She has bulging lips, and a round chin. Her hair is in a bun at the back of her

head, and the front part is arranged in two bands forming a herringbone pattern.

The hippocamp is depicted in a realistic way. His mane, the strings of his harness, and some

decorative elements above his legs are carefully incised. The facial features of the galloping horse

are also carefully molded. The scales on the fish tail are depicted in detail. The movement of the

horse head and the fish tail give the impression that the hippocamp is in motion.

687 Williams compared the Kyme necklaces to similar examples from Greece, Italy, and northern coast of the Black Sea:
Williams 1996, 123.
688 The State Hermitage Masterpieces from the Museum's Collections 1994, 321, cat.no. 306.

208
 The composition can be identified as one of the Nereids, most probably Thetis, riding a

hippocamp and bearing the arms of Achilles.689 This scene had been used extensively in vase

painting from the Classical period onward.

First, I will discuss three similar examples of Nereids riding hippocamps on jewelry and then

consider the significance of Achilles for the Black Sea region. Two of these examples come from

the northern Black Sea region, and the provenance of the third is unknown. The first one is a gold

disc pendant, with repouss decoration, found in Great Bliznitza (fig. 90) and dating to 330-300

B.C.690 The motif of a Nereid reclining on a hippocamp was placed in the middle of a round shield-

like disc. The Nereid is frontal, and she wears a chiton, chlamys, and a polos with a veil over it. She

holds a breastplate in her right hand while her left hand grasps the neck of the hippocamp. This

iconography is similar to that of the Nereid on the Amisos plaques. She likewise wears thick drapery

that covers her from neck to feet. The Nereid on the Great Bliznitza pendant is in a more relaxed

pose than the Amisos Nereid.

The realistic depiction of the hippocamp on the Great Bliznitza pendant is similar to the

Amisos plaques. On the Great Bliznitza pendant, the realism of the scene is emphasized by the

presence of the dolphins accompanying the hippocamp. The pendant is elaborately decorated with

filigree wires, chains, shield bosses, rosettes, heart-shaped and feathered seed-shaped pendants.

A similarly elaborate pendant in the Hermitage Museum was discovered in Kul Oba (fig.

91).691 The piece is dated after 350 B.C. On this earring the Nereid scene is not the primary

decoration. The earring is made up of a disc connected by rosettes to a boat-shaped pendant.

There is a large rosette in the middle of the disc that is surrounded by smaller rosettes, four Nereids,

689 For the transport of the arms of Achilles and its representations in Greek art see Barringer 1998, and Icard-Gianolio
and Szabados 1992.
690 Williams and Ogden 1994, 186, cat.no. 120.
691 Deppert-Lippitz 1985, 181-3, Pl. 129; Williams and Ogden 1994, 146, cat.no.88. An earring from a grave in

Tarentum has similar gold workmanship and figures of Nike (second half of the fourth century B.C.); Deppert-Lippitz
1985, Table XVII. Similar type of earrings were also found in Grave Z at Derveni, Trapezus (350-325 B.C.): Deppert-
Lippitz 1985, fig. 130.

209
and filigree tendrils. There are more rosettes at the bottom of the boat-shaped pendant from which

chains emerge. The chains carry feathered, seed-shaped pendants and more rosettes. The four

Nereids riding dolphins border the central rosette of the disc pendant. They are positioned between

the four smaller rosettes encircling the center piece. These minuscule figures of Nereids carry four

different pieces of armor: a helmet, greaves, a shield, and a cuirass. The picture available is too small

to allow a more detailed analysis of the depiction of the Nereids, but the use of the same subject

matter on yet another piece of jewelry makes it worth mentioning.

The third example of a Nereid riding a sea creature is on a rather plain ear reel from the early

fourth century B.C. (fig. 92).692 On the front there is a Nereid riding a dolphin with cast decoration.

The head of the Nereid is in profile whereas her body is frontal. In her right hand she carries a

helmet for Achilles. As I have already mentioned, the exact provenance of this piece is not known,

but it is classified under the East Greek Cities section of the book by Williams and Ogden.693

Achilles, Thetis, and arm-bearing Nereids were very popular subjects on vase painting

especially in South Italy from the fifth century B.C. onward (fig. 93).694 The story was usually

depicted with all of the relevant characters; representations of Thetis or Nereids alone bringing arms

were more rare. In addition to vase painting, the story appeared in other media: Melian reliefs (fig.

94), Tarantine reliefs (fig. 95), the marble Nereids from Formia (fig. 96), a mosaic from Olynthus,

and a sculpted pier from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus.695

A connection between death and the arm-bearing Nereids is suggested by the renderings on

the Apulian vases (fig. 97). This type of vase was made to be placed in graves, and they routinely

692 Williams and Ogden 1994, 89, cat.no.42.

693 Williams and Ogden 1994.
694 Other examples of vases depicting Nereid riders alone are a Boeotian black-figure stamnos-pyxis from Thebes (Paris

CA 4502, app.no.38, pls.40-4), two Apulian vases (J.425, app.no. 43), and an Apulian dinos (J. 1496, app. no. 42).
695 Riding Nereids in sculpture are examined by Lattimore (1976, 51-5). Among the examples of statues which took

their subject matter from the arming of Achilles are a Nereid statue in the Venice Archaeological Museum, and another
statue discovered at Hierapetra on Crete ( ca. 390) (Lattimore 1976, 51). For the Formia Nereid, and for the sculptured
pier from Ephesus, see Lattimore 1976, 51, 52.

210
featured people standing in naiskoi regarded as representations of the heroized dead.696 The

Melian and Tarantine reliefs were made to decorate sarcophagi, once again relating the scene closely

to the dead. The Nereids are considered to have initiated death for Achilles by bringing the arms,

and they imposed a heroic end on the short life of Achilles. This heroic connotation in the arms-

bearing scene may have been deemed especially appropriate for the deceased man here.697 Jewelry

constitutes another group of tomb goods with depictions of Nereids bringing arms for Achilles, was

jewelry. All three examples, from Amisos, Great Bliznitza, and Kul Oba, are from funerary

contexts.

Whether made to elevate the status of the dead or not, the Nereid composition had a special

significance within the Black Sea region because Achilles was worshipped there. The worship of

Achilles in the northern Black Sea region began in the sixth century B.C. and continued into the

third century A.D. The existence of a cult at Olbia, on the island of Leuke, and a third place in

southeastern Olbia is attested in the ancient sources. These include Herodotus, the dedicatory stelae

to Achilles Pontarches (second and third centuries A.D.), clay disks with graffiti (as early as the sixth

century B.C), and other graffiti from the area.698 Ancient sources mention other sanctuaries or

centers of worship of Achilles in the Troad, in south Italy, in the Peloponnese, in the Cyclades, and

in other parts of Asia Minor such as Erythrai.699

Why was the cult of Achilles so important for the Greeks in the northern Black Sea region?

The easiest and most likely answer to this question lies in the fact that the ancient sources identified

696 Sichtermann 1966, 48-9, 52.

697 Barringer 1998, 44-8.
698 To the southeast of Olbia, the narrow band of land called Tendra was known in antiquity as the race course of

Achilles because of the earth and ash, and because of the inscriptions dedicated to Achilles that have been discovered at
the site: Herodotus 4, 55 and 76; Strabo 7, 3, 19; Anonymous Peripl. 58; Lykophron Alex. 192 and 200; and Pliny HN 4,
83. See also Hedreen 1991, 314-9.
699 Hedreen 1991, 314; Escher 1894, 221-45, 222-3.

211
the final destination of Achilles as the white (Leuke) island in the Black Sea.700 After his death he

was brought to the island by his mother, Thetis, and was immortalized there. An inscribed statue

base of Achilles was found on an island 50 km southeast of the Istros River delta, in which he was

called the lord of Leuke. Another inscription from the same island mentioning Achilles significance

there confirms the descriptions of ancient authors of the white island as the location of the cult.701

Hedreen posed an important question in his article of 1991, in which he discussed the cult of

Achilles in the Euxine.702 He wanted to know why the cult of Achilles was limited to the northern

shore of the Black Sea and was not seen in the south or the west. One possible reason for the lack

of evidence for a cult of Achilles in these parts of the Black Sea may be the lack of systematic

archaeological work. Cult practices in the southern Black Sea are still poorly understood, and a lack

of evidence does not necessarily explain the absence of a cult for Achilles. On the contrary, the ten

appliqus discovered in a tomb in Amisos, one of the busiest trading towns of the southern Black

Sea region, may imply an interest in this cult. It would still be dangerous to conclude from a single

piece of evidence that Achilles was worshipped there, when that evidence may have had a larger

significance for its aesthetic beauty than its iconography. The use of Nereids bringing arms on these

garment attachments could simply have been intended to signify immortal heroism as suggested

by Barringer. It may at some point be possible to identify the workshop in which they were made

and specifically to determine whether they were made in the northern Black Sea region and then

transported to the south, or were manufactured in Asia Minor.

The next pieces of jewelry from this grave are the two pairs of bracelets. The first is a snake

bracelet (diam. 5.1 cm, thickness 0.2 cm; diam. 5.2 cm, thickness 0.2 cm) (fig. 98). One end of the

700 It is the lost epic Aithiopis, summarized by Proklos, which first speaks of the final dwelling of Achilles: Proklos Chrest.
2.
701 For the inscriptions see Latyschev nos. 326 and 325, respectively, and for the account of ancient authors see Arrians,
Peripl. M. Eux. 21-3; Pindar, Nem. 4.79; Dionysus Periegeta 541-5.
702 Hedreen 1991, 323.

212
bracelet is in the shape of the snakes head, and the other end represents its tail. They are made of

one band of hammered gold. The neck of the snake twists to the right on one, and to the left on the

other, and their heads face upwards to lie flat over the arm. The tail is twisted twice in order to

create a figure eight. The two ends of the bracelets do not overlap, but they do cross one another in

order to have the head and the tail on the same level when worn. The anatomical features of the

snakes were carefully added. The eyes and the mouth, the lines on the cheeks, and the skin pattern

(the scales), both below the head and by the tail, are engraved on the band of gold. The lively

depiction is typical for snake bracelets.

Snake bracelets were very common beginning in the Archaic period. They were made

throughout the Mediterranean and were probably used for their amuletic character.

Experimentation in snake depictions continued throughout the production history of snake

bracelets.703 The use of snakes on bracelets begins in the late sixth to early fifth centuries B.C., but

the most splendid examples were produced during the Hellenistic period.704 This widespread

popularity of snake bracelets is indicated by their widespread distribution throughout the

Mediterranean. Examples have been found in Spata in Greece, Kravelo in Bulgaria, Karamus and

Balamun in Egypt, Cumae in Italy, Seville in Spain, Eretria, and in Anatolia.705

The arms of the deceased in Grave No. 4 were adorned with bracelets with lion head

terminals as well as a pair of snake bracelets (fig. 99). Lion heads remained among the most popular

finials for bracelets into the Hellenistic period. The Amisos lion-head bracelets are among the best

representatives of this type of jewelry. The lion heads on each terminal are connected to the hoop

of the bracelet with one semicircular band divided into three by three high angular wires (diam. 6.1

703 A pair of serpent bracelets was found in Egypt (275-225 B.C.): Rudolph 1995, 177, cat. no. 39.
704 Deppert-Lippitz 1985, 91-92.
705 For the Karamus bracelet see Deppert-Lippitz 1985, 91; Pfrommer 1990, 247 fk. 19 and sr. 41; 128 n. 877, pl. 21,4.

For the Balamun example see Pfrommer 1990, 348 ff., sr.1; for the bracelet from Spain see BMCJ 2774, pl. 52; and for
the Eretria example see Deppert-Lippitz 1985, Pl. XXIV. In the Istanbul Archaeological Museum there is an early third
century B.C. snake bracelet from Gelibolu Akyay Meriboyu 2001, 176; Pfrommer 1990, 206.

213
cm, thickness 0.9 cm; diam. 7 cm, thickness 0.9 cm). While the first two bands and the three lines

are used as decorative transitions to the lion head, the remaining section is inserted into the hoop of

the bracelet. The lion head is rounded and bulging. The facial features are carefully done, and the

mane of the lion is used as another decorative transition between its head and the band. Examples

of similar lion heads are present in a group of jewelry from the eastern Mediterranean, most

probably Anatolia (fig. 100).706 A bracelet with lion head terminals now in the Metropolitan

Museum also resembles the Amisos bracelet closely in terms of the depiction of the lion heads.707

Such representation of lion heads and the details of the transition between the heads and the hoop

are also found on a bracelet from Susa that is dated to the fourth century B.C.708 This late Classical-

Hellenistic (325-250 B.C.) bracelet has similar rounded-faced lions, and the mane is also similarly

flat. This bracelet from Anatolia is also comparable to one from Karamus in Egypt (late

fourth/early third century B.C.).709

The more unique feature of the bracelet is the shape of its hoop. It is made of six rows of

small round loops welded to one another along the length of the hoop. Each loop is welded to

neighboring horizontal and vertical loops, and the welding marks are fashioned in little decorative

dots. Each loop has four of these dots except the top line at each end; those have only three. I have

come across very few examples of such a hoop in the sources I have consulted, and those come

from the east and Anatolia. An earring from Pasargadae dated to the third quarter of the fourth

century B.C. has a similar hoop made of small loops welded to one another.710 Similar workmanship

was used on an Anatolian bracelet with antilope and vasak terminals dating to the first half of the

second century B.C. The similarity between the craftsmanship of this bracelet and the Amisos

706 Rudolph 1995, 124-5 cat.no. 25B.

707 Deppert-Lippitz 1985, fig. 140.
708 The Amisos bracelet is described by Akyay Meriboyu 2001, 172). For the Susa example see Pfrommer 1990, Tf. 17.
709 Pfrommer 1990, 299 hk. 3, pl. 8.1-2.
710 Akyay Meriboyu 2001, 172; Stronach 1978, 201, Pl. 148. For Achaemenid jewelry in general see Musche 1992.

214
bracelet demonstrates that artistic trends of the east or the Persians also had an affect on the Amisos

jewelry, and the bracelet may even have been manufactured by a Persian goldsmith.

The arms of the deceased were decorated with another wristlet. Twenty small gold plaques

with a four-petalled rosette were found by each arm (each piece: w. 0.9 cm, l. 0.6 cm, thickness 0.4

cm) (fig. 101). The flower pattern is embossed on the plaques, which are made of two sheets of

gold, and the spaces between the petals are decorated with granulation. The backs of the plaques are

plain, and the center of the flower is marked by a circular pattern. Floral patterns are very common

on jewelry throughout classical antiquity, and similar examples of such plaques are even found today

in much cruder form (fig. 102). Granulation is likewise a common decorative device in jewelry

throughout the Mediterranean.

The other jewelry that accompanied the skeleton included one gold ring (fig. 103) and two

gold buttons with inlaid enamel floral decoration. The ring band is made up of two twisted wires

separate from one another. The wires end in round solid gold pieces which are used to attach the

wires to the body of the ring. The gem had been placed in the oval depression in the middle, but is

now lost. The border of the area in which the gem would sit is decorated with one row of medium-

sized granules. Various beads found around the arms of the skeleton suggest that there was at least

one other beaded bracelet.

The graves in the Amisos tomb contain a variety of precious, splendidly crafted jewelry. The

discovery of such a tomb in Anatolia is remarkable, especially considering the high rate of looting in

Turkey. The recently discovered late Archaic/early Classical period tombs in the Troad are equally

extraordinary discoveries.711 Lydian tumuli have provided examples of wealthy Archaic and Classical

burials as well.712

711 Sevin et al. 1999; Sevin et al. 2001.

712 zgen and ztrk 1996.

215
 The Amisos tomb is a unique example from the early Hellenistic period and certainly from

the central Black Sea region in Turkey. In the construction of the Amisos tomb, natural resources

were utilized to the greatest extent. The tomb was carved into the bedrock, and the few walls inside

and outside of the tomb were built with the limestone blocks probably quarried from the same spot.

It is unfortunate that we do not have any information on the construction of the cover for the tomb.

The tomb structure must have been destroyed long ago, since it was located in the middle of the

modern city of Samsun. The plain interior of the tomb does not provide any clues as to the

occupants of the burial.

The grave gifts are numerous, but little other than the gold jewelry has survived. The type of

gold jewelry in the tomb is suggestive of the wealth of the people buried in this tomb. The three

people were probably buried around the same time, since the jewelry dates to approximately the

same period, and they were undoubtedly from the same family. The type of jewelry enables one to

conclude that two of the burials belonged to females and one possibly to a male. A date for the

tomb must depend on the iconography and the workmanship of the gold jewelry. The best

comparanda for each category of jewelry date between the second half of the fourth century B.C.

and the early third century B.C. This relates to the time of manufacture of the jewelry, and the

burials undoubtedly date somewhat later especially if the pieces were heirlooms. Wear marks on the

jewelry should be studied closely.

The history of Pontus during the second half of the fourth and the early third centuries B.C.

is not so clear. We have the names of a succession of kings but unfortunately we know very little of

their deeds or the social structure of their kingdoms. One Mithradates followed Ariobarzanes

(363/2-337/6 B.C.) and reigned between 337/6-302 B.C. He was the ruler in Pontus during the

Macedonian conquest of Anatolia, and he seems to have survived it as a result of his personal

216
relationship with Alexander and his family.713 His successor was Mithradates I Ctistes of Pontus,

who claimed to have founded the Pontic kingdom. He ruled between 302 and 266 B.C., and he was

also the first to issue royal coins.714

It is conceivable that the Amisos tomb may have belonged to members of the Pontic ruling

family who settled in the region around this time, but it seems unlikely that they would be buried in

Amisos when their headquarters lay in the central Black Sea region, most probably in Amaseia.

Amisos might not even have been part of the Pontic kingdom at that time, since Mithradates II has

been suggested as the king who incorporated Amisos into the Pontic kingdom.715 The wealth in the

tomb seems extraordinary, but such wealth was not acquired only by royalty. I would suggest that

the people buried in this tomb were among the wealthy aristocrats of Amisos.

There were probably several different workshops that produced the Amisos jewelry, and in

any event, the location of the workshops is not necessarily indicative of the ethnic identity of the

deceased. While some pieces point to workshops in western Anatolia that supplied luxury items to

the eastern Mediterranean,716 others suggest a northern location for their production. The subject

matter is also representative of a mixture of tastes. Eros and Nike, for example, are very popular

figures in Hellenistic jewelry throughout the eastern Mediterranean. The cults of Achilles in the

northern Black Sea region undoubtedly made his myth especially popular there. The relations

among the Black Sea, Anatolia, the Aegean, and the east appear to have become stronger in the

fourth/third centuries B.C. The jewelry discovered in the Amisos tomb, in my view, is a good

indication of this international atmosphere during the later Classical and Hellenistic periods.

713 See chapter 3, 75.

714 Polyb. 5.43.2; Diod. 19.43.2.; SNGvA 1; Waddington et al. 1904, 10 no.1.
715 There is no clue as to when Amisos was incorporated into the Pontic kingdom, but Wilson (1960, 194) suggested the

reign of Mithradates II.

716 Note the similarities between the Kyme treasures and the Amisos jewelry.

217
 The discovery of this tomb has two major points of significance for archaeological studies in

the Black Sea region in general and for this dissertation. The first is chronological and the second

regional. If the early Hellenistic date of the tomb proves to be correct, following closer studies of

similar contexts, then it is an extremely good indication of the role of the southern Black Sea region

in international trade nearly two centuries prior to the reign of Mithradates VI.717

The regional significance of this discovery is connected to the specific find spot of this

tomb, in Amisos itself. As explained in the Introduction and Methods of Analysis, the geographical

boundaries of this study have been drawn to include the inland cities of the central Black Sea region

in Turkey, with Amisos as the outlet for these cities. The flourishing position of the city in the late

Hellenistic period can be proven with the help of the coins, but the earlier role of Amisos has always

been unclear.

In the Hellenistic period and earlier, Sinope was considered to have played a major role in

establishing relations within the Black Sea basin while founding satellite towns along its shores.

Numerous studies have concentrated on the role of Sinope in the Black Sea trade network and

ignored the other towns of the southern shore. The 20,000 Sinopean amphora stamps discovered

around the Black Sea testify to the active role of Sinope as an amphora producer and probable

exporter of olive oil between 370 and 183 B.C.718 The amphora workshops and kilns, together with

the Chian, Rhodian, Coan, Samian, and Georgian amphorae in the Sinope museum demonstrate the

pivotal role of this harbor in contacts around the Black Sea region and the Aegean.719 Close

relations between Sinope and Chersonesus have been recognized by scholars of ancient Black Sea

archaeology, but such an emphasis on one town has somewhat blinded the scholarly community.720

717See Chapter 5. The amphorae produced at Sinope and Heraclea also indicate the growing significance of the
southern Black Sea in commerce.
718Garlan and Tatlcan 1997a, 335-41; Fedoseev 1993, 104; Monachov 1993, 107-32; Kassab Tezgr 1998, 443-9.
719Tatlcan 1996, 335-41.
720Kassab Tezgr 1998, 449.

218
Only Heraclea Pontica has received some scholarly attention because of its role in amphora

production.721

While Sinope and Heraclea were involved in busy trading activities from the second half of

the fourth century B.C. onward, what was going on at Amisos? Amisos became subject to Persians

in the fourth century B.C., like its neighbor Sinope; it was then freed by Alexander and took the

name Amisos.722 After the mid fourth century B.C. there was a great deal of activity taking place in

Anatolia and in the Pontic region. In this rather complicated political picture it is difficult to identify

the connections and the settlers of Amisos, but the discovery of the aristocratic tomb may indicate

that there was social complexity in other towns of the southern Black Sea coast, and that these

towns were involved in international trade. While Sinope provided a lively picture of trade and

contacts with the rest of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, Amisos was rather quiet. This silence

in the archaeological material is often taken to mean that it was a small place with a small harbor,

rarely visited. However, the discovery of this tomb at Amisos demonstrates that Amisos was not as

quiet as one might have thought. The harbor may not have been safe for ships, but the citys

location was perfect for connections to the inland cities. While Sinope controlled the sea trade in

the Black Sea, I propose that Amisos had a good handle on the trading activities with the rest of

Anatolia, and possibly the east. More evidence will be necessary to prove this early date for the

important role of Amisos in trading networks, but this tomb, I think, is a good representative of

what might still be there to discover.

721 On amphora production in Heraclea during the Hellenistic period, see Arseneva et al. 1997, 190.
722 App. Mithr. 8,83.

219
CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSION

This dissertation combines the ancient histories of the Pontic kingdom of Mithradates VI

and his predecessors with the archaeological data from the central Black Sea region in an attempt to

understand the socio-economic and political structure of the region in the late Hellenistic period.

The limited amount of archaeological material from the late Hellenistic period has resulted in a

consideration of the region in its wider chronological context. The examination of the available

data, both historical and archaeological, has shed new light on the reign of Mithradates VI in the

Black Sea region and in the surrounding areas, especially the northern Black Sea region and western

Asia Minor. The results of this study have been significant, especially in underlining the future

research potential of the region.

Habitation in the central Black Sea region began during the Chalcolithic period, and the area

was densely inhabited especially during the Early Bronze Age. The greater number of sites during

this period was most likely the result of the relatively favorable climatic conditions of the central

Black Sea region. The large rivers, their expanded valleys, and the coastal plains became more

suitable for habitation because of the cold climate and the decline in the sea-level during this period.

These factors, coupled with the absence of a central authority, encouraged the establishment of

small, self-supporting communities.

In most of the central Black Sea region, the number of sites gradually declined in the

following millennia. In the upper Kzlrmak valley larger settlements replaced smaller ones during

the Middle Bronze Age. This shift, as well as a decline in the number of sites, might have been the

result of a warmer climate in the Middle and early Late Bronze Age. The favorable conditions for

220
agriculture resulted in population growth that necessitated central control at a local level, and thus

led to a concentration of the population in larger settlements.

The second millennium sites of the central Black Sea region continued to be occupied during

the Iron Age, and very few new sites were founded. In the Classical and Hellenistic periods,

however, almost half of the previously occupied sites were abandoned, and only a small number of

new and relatively large Classical/Hellenistic sites were established. The central authority imposed

by the Pontic kings certainly promoted urban life and concentrated both the agricultural and

commercial activities into a few large settlements. The decline in the overall number of settlements

must have been related to the emergence of large cities (such as Amaseia, Cabeira, and Amisos) as

centers of production and commerce. Under Roman rule the number of settlements in fertile plains

and especially along the major caravan routes increased. This suggests a peaceful period of smaller

communities primarily involved in commerce.

The origin of the Pontic family is not very well understood, but Mithradates I, the first

Pontic king, probably came from the upper classes of Pontus, and was possibly related to the

Persian dynasts. Mithradates I Ctistes (302-266 B.C.) proclaimed himself the founder of the Pontic

kingdom, and a succession of kings from the same family ruled over the area from Heracleia to

Trapezus for over 150 years until the reign of Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysus (120-63 B.C.).723

During these years, the Pontic kings maintained balanced and mostly peaceful relations with the

neighboring Anatolian kingdoms and larger Hellenistic kingdoms of the east, such as that ruled by

the Seleucids, through both political and marital alliances. The relationship between Rome and

Pontus was less stable, but most of the Pontic kings, especially Pharnakes (ca. 150-120 B.C.) and

Mithradates V Euergetes (ca. 150-120 B.C.), managed to establish alliances with Rome.

723 His flight is dated to 314: Bosworth and Wheatley 1998,163.

221
 The final Pontic king, Mithradates VI Eupator , failed to continue the peaceful relationship

with Rome, primarily because of his ambitious goals of expansion that clashed with Romes own

interest in Asia Minor. Mithradates expanded the borders of his kingdom from the northern coast

of the Black Sea to the southern coast of Asia Minor, the Aegean islands, and Greece by 88 B.C. In

doing so, he fought the Romans three times, mostly with little success. His benefactions and the

social reforms were welcomed by the cities of western Asia Minor and the Aegean in the

beginning, but his strategic mistakes involving the maintainance of his power in the conquered

regions ultimately resulted in severe defeat. Instead of providing freedom from Roman rule, as he

had promised, he inflicted heavy damage on the Ionian cities and the Greek islands. He reportedly

caused the deaths of 80,000 people when he ordered the Asian cities to kill all the Romans and

Italians living there. Following this drastic event and heavy reversals in Greece, Mithradates lost his

support in Asia and began assaulting the upper classes of the cities of Asia Minor. This resulted in

his subjects total loss of faith in his abilities to rule. Finally, he was chased away from Asia Minor

by Pompey and died in the Bosporan kingdom around 63 B.C.

Scholars often consider Mithradates VI Eupator a close follower of Alexander the Great,

both in his use of imagery on coinage and sculpture, and in his ambitious goal of conquest. He

came from a ruling family whose roots went back to the Persians, once the rulers of an empire larger

than any other. This was an advantage for him when dealing with his people, especially those living

inland, but it might have been a disadvantage in his relations with the Greek cities of the Black Sea,

the Ionian coast, the islands, and Greece. For this reason, Mithradates VI emphasized his familiarity

with the Greeks, but not necessarily his Greekness, in the following ways: by having his city mints

generate numismatic images of gods and goddesses who combined Greek and native attributes; by

using Sinope, a Greek city, as his capital; and by portraying himself on royal coins in a style well-

known to the Hellenistic world. He used imagery similar to that of Alexander in order to appeal to

222
the Greek colonies in the Black Sea. Mithradates VI ensured that dedications to and on behalf of

him were made at the international sanctuary on Delos, and that his statues were erected throughout

Asia Minor, the Aegean, and Pontus. That he gained wide recognition in the Aegean is indicated by

the dedication of a monument in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods of Samothrace on Delos. This

monument was one of the largest monuments on Delos dedicated to a Hellenistic king. The

decorative shields on the monument depicted Mithradates VIs Greek and Arcasid (Parthian)

associates as well as his courtiers from the Pontic cities. The men represented on the Delos

monument were carefully selected in order to emphasize the diverse nature of the Pontic king, the

geographical limits of his kingdoms influence, his associations with Greeks, and his good relations

with his neighbors. The triumphal nature of the monument was reinforced by the erection of a

statue of Mithradates VI in military costume.

Mithradates VI also contributed to the growth of Pontic cities. All of the Hellenistic cities in

Pontus were situated along the major rivers (such as the Kzlmak, Yeilrmak, ekerek and Kelkit

rivers), and were also on the principal roads that connected the Black Sea with the Mediterranean,

the east with the west. Although our information on roads is based on Roman milestones, it is quite

likely that these Roman routes followed roads used in Hellenistic and earlier periods. The cities all

had good access to arable lands, and almost all had direct roads reaching to the major religious

centers of Comana and Zela to the south.

Comana and Zela were both temple-states. Comana was a sanctuary for the mother goddess

Ma, while Zela was known for its sanctuary for the Persian goddess Anaitis. These independent

sanctuaries managed their own lands, and were visited by a large variety of people both from Pontus

and the neighboring regions during the festivals organized there. Although the temple-states acted

independently, they minted the same types of civic coins as the rest of the Pontic cities during the

reign of Mithradates VI.

223
 Throughout most of the Hellenistic period the capital of the Pontic kingdom was Amaseia.

Amaseia lay on the ancient trade route sometimes referred to as the Badat Road, which connected

Amisos with Cappadocia in antiquity. It was also at the junction of routes from the northeast,

northwest, southwest, and east, and thus held a strategic position in the middle of fertile plains.

After Mithradates VI moved the capital to Sinope, Amaseia retained its significance as a civic center,

partly due to its shrine to Zeus Stratios, who was an important god to Mithridates VI.

Caberia was one of the other larger and more significant sites of inland Pontus. It was

situated on the trunk road that reached Pontus by way of the Euphrates and Amnias valleys; the

road then continued towards the west. According to Strabo Mithradates VIs palace, hunting lodge,

a park for wild animals, a water-mill, and mines were all located at Cabeira, and Mithradates kept his

treasury on the peak of a rocky hill only 200 stadia from the city.724 Cabeira was also the cultic center

for the god Mn, whose sanctuary was founded by Pharnakes at Ameria. The sanctuary had become

the place where the royal oath was taken.

Amisos is the only ancient town on the Black Sea coast which was examined in this study,

because it was located in the center of the Black Sea region and was the most easily accessible town

along the central and eastern coast of the southern Black Sea from the interior. Amisos gradually

became one of the largest cities of the Pontic kingdom as a result of this strategic position, and it

boasted one of the busiest markets. Among the other larger cities of the central Black Sea region

were Phazemon, Eupatoria, Sebasteia, and Sebastopolis.

To draw exact borders between the cities of Pontus and to recognize a pattern of settlement

during the Hellenistic period is a difficult task; our knowledge about the territory of each city comes

primarily from the descriptions of Strabo and from the milestones discovered in the region.

Assigning smaller sites recognized during surveys to the territories of these cities is also difficult.

724 Strabo 12,3,30.

224
Within the region defined in this study, it is clear that larger towns or cities were preferred to smaller

towns or villages during the Classical/Hellenistic period. Mirroring the placement of the large cities,

the few small sites of this period were located along the rivers and trunk roads. Except for a group

of four sites situated on the plain between Eupatoria and Phazemon, no sites separate from rivers

and roads existed. There was a concentration of smaller sites in two distinct regions (the first cluster

around Alaca near orum, and the second to the northwest of Sebasteia, on the road from Sebasteia

to Sebastopolis), but these areas were relatively distant from the core of the inland Black Sea region.

That there were areas with a higher density of sites far away from the Classical/Hellenistic cities of

Pontus indicates that nucleation at larger cities was preferred in the center of the Pontic region.

Mithradates VI promoted civic pride in the Pontic cities by allowing them to mint their own

coins. While royal coins were minted in gold and silver, many of the Pontic cities, which previously

had not produced coins, began minting bronze civic coins. Royal coins already had been minted

during the reign of Mithradates I, but it was during the reign of Mithradates III that the portrait of

the king was struck on the obverse for the first time. The earliest Pontic kings preferred a more

veristic portrait on their coins, but this veristic style was replaced by a more idealized representation

of the king, especially during the reign of Mithradates V, as part of the general trend toward

idealized royal portraiture in Hellenistic coinage. The idealized style for the portrait of the king

became standard during the reign of Mithradates VI Eupator. On his gold and silver coins,

Mithradates VI appeared as a young man with long, flowing hair bound by a diadem, long sideburns,

a prominent nose, and a narrow forehead. In particular, his hair and eyes closely resembled coin

types of Alexander, and the new coins conferred a certain amount of legitimacy on Mithradates

reign.

Most of the new types of civic coins that were introduced during the reign of Mithradates VI

celebrated the origins of the Pontic family and became part of Mithradates VIs political propaganda.

225
The standardization in the types of civic coinage, distinguished from one another by the name of

each city on the reverse, indicated a semi-autonomous organization and possibly a Pontic koine. The

coins unified the region in commerce and played an important role in transmitting Mithradatic

ideology. For example, the Perseus myth was used on civic coins to allude to Mithradates

combined Persian and Greek background, because Perseus was the ancestor of Alexander the Great,

as well as the Persians; therefore, Perseus was an appropriate mythological figure for Mithradates to

use on royal and civic coins celebrating his ethnic diversity. The Dionysus coins undoubtedly

reminded the Pontic people of Mithradates maternal ancestor Antiochus VI Dionysus of Syria.725

The idea of political unity, emphasized by the standardization in the types of coinage, was

partially carried to the Bosporus. The unification of the south coast and parts of the northern coast

of the Black Sea caused the economies of the two regions to become linked. Under the rule of

Mithradates VI, either directly or through his governors, standardization in coinage, similar to that

employed in the south, took place in the northern Black Sea region. The first century B.C. hoards

that have been discovered in the north contained civic coins of the southern Black Sea cities

together with coins of northern cities like Pantikapaion, Phanagoria, and Gorgippia; this suggests

close contacts between the two areas.

The hoards from the Black Sea, Anatolia, and the Mediterranean suggested that the

circulation of Pontic coins had become restricted in contrast to the increasing number of mints and

the prestige Mithradates gained outside his kingdom. The Pontic city coins appeared almost

exclusively in the southern Black Sea region, and when found outside Asia Minor they were limited

to the Crimea and the Taman peninsula in the northern Black Sea region. This indicated that the

use of the Pontic city coins was limited to the borders of the Pontic kingdom, and these borders

included the northern half of the Black Sea area as well. This observation is a very strong indicator

725 App. Mith.10. He also used Dionysus name as an epithet: OGI 370.

226
of the economic unity that was achieved within the kingdom of Mithradates VI and should be

understood to have a greater significance than it connotes.

Apart from the coinage, our knowledge of economic activities within Pontus especially

during the Hellenistic period is very limited. It is clear, however, that amphora production incresed,

and the large number of shipwrecks that have been discovered suggest a high level of maritime

traffic. It would not be wrong, however, to suggest that the economy was primarily based on

agriculture. The central part of the kingdom and the northern Black Sea area were suitable for grain

production as well as for vineyards and orchards, as frequently indicated by ancient writers, and a

large part of the population could have been engaged in agricultural production. Nevertheless, one

should not assume that Pontus had a pure subsistence economy. Polybius draws our attention to

the role of Pontus as a provider of cattle, slaves, honey, wax, and preserved fish in excahnge of wine

and olive oil which suggets a fairly sophisticated system of production and distribution to the rest of

the Hellenistic world.726 This system has also been elucidated to a certain extent by the Sinopean and

Heracleian amphorae discovered around the Black Sea. It is peculiar, however, that Black Sea

amphorae have not been discovered in large numbers in the. Although most of our knowledge of

these amphorae predates the reign of Mithradates VI, when the northern and southern Black Sea

regions were not politically unified, the evidence indicates a stronger relationship between the

southern and northern Black Sea coasts rather than between Pontus and the Aegean/Mediterranean.

The problems inherent in amphora studies will not be discussed here at length, but the reader

should be aware that scholarship has focused on vessels with stamps, and it is the unstamped vessels

that may have constituted a greater part of the total number of amphorae.727

726 Polybius 9.47.

727 For a comprehensive and critical examination of Pontic amphora studies see Garlan 1983.

227
 Understanding land management and distribution in Hellenistic Pontus is similarly

problematic. Citizenship and military organization in Pontus have not been investigated, which

hinders any discussion of land use. The common scholarly belief that there were wealthy ruling

families who dominated the Pontic economy has not yet been proven. Clearest land division in

Pontus can be observed in the temple-states where the land was owned and tilled by the priest and

the temple-slaves. It is also evident in Bosporus that Mithradates VI possesed a considerable

amount of land which he exploited during the war with the Romans.

The coinage of the late second and early first century B.C. has been helpful in understanding

the role of the Pontic cities during the reign of Mithradates VI; nevertheless, it has been difficult to

identify the connections and the settlers of the Pontic cities because of the rather complicated

political circumstances of the centuries prior to Mithradates VIs rule. Sinope was the only southern

Black Sea town recognized by scholars to have had good contacts with the rest of the Black Sea and

the Mediterranean, primarily because of its amphora production and export. The silence of the

archaeological record in other parts of the region was often taken as a sign that the Pontic cities and

especially Amisos, which later became a major commercial center, were small and rarely visited

places. However, the recent discovery of an aristocratic tomb at Amisos indicated that there was

social complexity in the towns of the Black Sea region in Turkey. The tomb finds also indicate that

these towns were involved in the international trade that included the Black Sea, Anatolia, the

Aegean, and the east in the fourth/third centuries B.C. The hybrid iconography and craftsmanship

of the jewelry discovered in the Amisos tomb suggest that Amisos was actively involved in trading

activities with the northern coast of the Black Sea, Anatolia, and further east. The tomb, which

most likely belonged to an aristocrat living at Amisos, revealed the kind of wealth the people of

Amisos had access to during the early Hellenistic period. Ultimately, the tomb provides valuable

228
evidence for the emerging role of the cities of the central Black Sea region almost two centuries

prior to the reign of Mithradates VI.

The reigns of Mithradates VI and his predecessors resulted in a period characterized by royal

ambition, extensive political propaganda, and urban organization. It was also unusual in that the

entire Black Sea region was unified for the first time. The most significant observations of this

dissertation pertain to the remarkable changes in settlement patterns through the centuries, the

ethnically diverse nature of the Black Sea region in Turkey during the late Classical and Hellenistic

periods, the efforts of Mithradates VI in establishing a large and powerful kingdom in the first

century B.C., and the means by which he promoted his political image. These efforts include the

emphasis on urban life indicated by the patterns of settlement distribution during the Hellenistic

period and the promotion of coinage; the increasing number of cities minting standardized bronze

coins; the trade relations with the northern Black Sea and Anatolia, suggested primarily by coins and

literary sources; and the political unification of the Pontic cities as demonstrated best by the

resistance they gave to the Bithynians and the Romans. I began this project with the hope that I

might remove some of the biases against the study of peripheral regions and ordinary people.

While additional archaeological projects in the region are necessary in order to improve our

understanding of the lives of the people of Pontus during the Hellenistic period and early Roman

Empire, I hope I have provided the building blocks for future research on this peripheral area in

its own right, and not solely as a problematic region for the Roman Empire.

229
230
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The bibliographical format of the American Journal of Archaeology was used in this dissertation. For
certain series, ancient authors and their works Oxford Classical Dictionary abbreviations were used.

Ailenko, V. P. Y. 1985. (in Russian) "New Epigraphic Evidence on Mithradates Eupator and
Pharnaces." IIIrd Vsesoiuzni simpozium po drevnei istorii Prichernomoria Tskhaltubo, Georgian S. S. R.: 727
(summary).

Akkaya, M. 1993. "Amisos Antik Kenti Kurtarma Kazs." III. Mze Kurtarma Kazlar Semineri:207-18.

Akkaya, T. 1994. Herakleia Pontike (Karadeniz Erelisi)'nin Tarihi Geliimi. stanbul.

Akok, M. 1948. "Samsun li Havza lesi Lerdge Kynde Bulunan Tmlsler." Belleten XII:835-
54.

Akurgal, E., and Budde, L. 1956. Vorlufiger Bericht ber die Ausgrabungen in Sinope. Ankara.

Akyay Meriboyu, Y. 2001. Antika'da Anadolu Taklar. Akbank Kltr ve Sanat Kitaplar 69.
stanbul.

Alabe, F. 1986. "Les timbres amphoriques de Sinope trouvs en dehors du domaine pontique." In
Recherches sur les amphores grecques. BCH Supplement 13, edited by J.-Y Empereur and Y. Garlan, 375-89.

Alcock, S. E. 1993. "Surveying the Peripheries of the Hellenistic World." In Centre and Periphery in the
Hellenistic World, edited by P. Bilde, 162-75. Aarhus.

Alkm, B. 1972a. "slahiye ve Samsun Blgesinde 1971 almalar." Belleten XXXVI:422-6.

_____. 1972b. "Samsun Blgesinde 1973 almalar." Belleten XXXVIII:553-6.

_____. 1973a. "slahiye ve Samsun Blgesinde 1971 Dnemi almalar." Belleten XXXVII:433-8.

_____. 1973b. "Tilmen Hyk ve Samsun Blgesi almalar (1971)." Trk Arkeoloji Dergisi XX:5-
16.

_____. 1974a. "Tilmen Hyk Kazs ve Samsun Blgesi Aratrmalar." Trk Arkeoloji Dergisi
XXI:23-30.

_____. 1974b. "Tilmenhyk ve Samsun Blges almalar (1971)." Trk Arkeoloji Dergisi XX:5-16.

_____. 1975a. "kiztepe 1974." Anatolian Studies 25:27-30.

_____. 1975b. "Samsun Blgesi almalar (1973)." Trk Arkeoloji Dergisi XXII:5-12.

_____. 1976. "1975 Samsun Blges Aratrmalar ve kinci Dnem kiztepe Kazs." Belleten XL:717-
9.

_____. 1980. "kiztepe 1980." Anatolian Studies 31:188-91.

231
Alp, S. 1977a. "Maathykte Kefedilen Hitit Tabletlerinin Corafyas Hakknda." Belleten XLI:637-
52.

_____. 1977b. "Remarques sur la gographie de la rgion du haut Yeilrmak daprs les tablettes
Hittites de Maat Hyk." Florilegium Anatolicum:29-35.

Amandry M., le Guen Pollet B., zcan B., and Remy B. 1991. "Le trsor de Binbaolu (Tokat,
Turquie)- Monnaies de bronze des villes du Pont frappes sous Mithridate VI Eupator." In Pontica I
Recherches sur lhistoire du Pont dans lantiquite, edited by B. Remy, 61-76. Paris.

Amandry M., and Remy B. 1998. Pontica II. Les monnaies de latelier de Sebastopilis du Pont. stanbul.

Amandry M., Remy B., and zcan B. 1994. "La circulation montaire dans le Pont lpoque
impriale travers les collections numismatiques du muse de Tokat." In Trsor et circulation montaire
en Anatolie antique, edited by M. Amandry, and Rider, l. G., 119-33. Paris.

Anderson, J. G. C. 1903. Studia Pontica I. A Journey of Exploration in Pontus. Brussels.

_____. 1913. "Festivals of Men Askaenos in the Roman Colonia at Antioch Pisidia." Journal of Roman
Studies 3:267-300.

Anderson, J. G. C., Cumont, F., and Gregoire, H. 1910. Studia Pontica III. Recueil des inscriptions grecques
et latines du Pont et de lArmenie. Brussels.

Anokhin, B. A. 1986. Bosporan Coins. Kiev.

Archibald, Z. H. 1983. "Greek Import:Some Aspects of the Hellenistic Impact on Thrace." In

Ancient Bulgaria Part 1, edited by A.G. Polter, 304-21. Oxford.

_____. 1995. (in Russian) "The Western Black Sea Coast:Modelling Relations Between the
Indigenous and Greek Populations." Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 1:85-100.

Arram, A., and Bounegru, O. 1997. "Mithridate VI Eupator et la cte ouest du Pont-Euxin. Autour
dun dcret indit dIstros." Pontica XXX:155-65.

Arseneva, T., Kassab Tezgr, D., and Naumenko, S. 1997. "Un depotoir datelier damphores a pate
claire. Commerce entre Heracle du Pont et Tanais a lepoque romaine." Anatolia Antiqua V:187-98.

Arslan, M. 1992. "Pontus Blgesi ehir Sikkeleri ve Zela Definesi." Anadolu Medeniyetleri Mzesi 1991
Yll:121-42.

_____. 1992. "Roma Dnemi Pontus-Paphlagonia Blgesi ehir Sikkeleri." Anadolu Medeniyetleri
Mzesi 1990 Yll:76-97.

Atalay, . 1983. Trkiye Vejetasyon Corafyasna Giri. Ege niversitesi Edebiyat Fakltesi Yaynlar 19.
zmir.

_____. 1992. The Paleogeography of the Near East and Human Impact. zmir.

232
Atasoy, S. 1996. Amisos. stanbul.

Ateoullar, S., and imek, . 1995. "Bartn, Amasra lesi Kksanayi Sitesi naasnda Bulunan
Roma Dnemi Heykellerini Kurtarma Kazs." V. Mze Kurtarma Kazlar Semineri:93-111.

Badian, E. 1968. Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic. Oxford.

_____. 1976. "Rome, Athens and Mithridates." American Journal of Ancient History 1:105.

Baeck, L. 1994. The Mediterranean Tradition in Economic Thought. London.

Baldwin, A. 1913. "Les monnaies de bronze dites incertaines du Pont ou du royaume de Mithridate
Eupator." Revue Numismatique:285-313.

Barringer, J. M. 1998. Divine Escorts. Nereids in Archaic and Classical Greek Art. Ann Arbor.

Bauer, N., and Mayer, J. W. 1998. "Pontische Mnzen aus der Zeit Mithridates VI Eupator." Orbis
Terrarum 4:27-48.

Bean, G. 1953. "Inscriptions from Pontus." Belleten XVII:167-78.

Belin be Ballu, E. 1965. Lhistoire des colonies grecques du littoral nord de la Mer Noire. Leiden.

_____. 1972. Olbia. Cit antique du littoral nord de la Mer Noire. Leiden.

Bieber, M. 1961. Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age. New York.

Bikerman, E. 1946. "La lettre de Mithridate dans les Histoires de Sallust." Revue des tudes Latines
24:131-51.

Bilde, P.ed. 1996. Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World. Aarhus.

Bilgi, . 1996. "kiztepe Kazlarnn 1994 Dnemi Sonular." XVII. Kaz Sonular Toplants I:157-
68.

_____. 1997. " kiztepe Kazlarnn 1995 Dnemi Sonular." XVIII. Kaz Sonular Toplants:145-62.

_____. 1998. "kiztepe Kazs 1996 Dnemi Sonular." XIX. Kaz Sonular Toplants I:323-56.

_____. 1999. "Ikiztepe Kazs 1997 Dnemi Sonular." XX. Kaz Sonular Toplants I:485-503.

Bingl, I. F. R. 1999. Antik Taklar. Anadolu Medeniyetleri Mzesi Ankara.

Bintliff, J. 1991. The Annales School and Archaeology. London.

Bittel, K., and Otto, H. 1939. Demirci-Hyk : eine vorgeschichtliche Siedlung an der phrygisch-bithynischen
Grenze. Bericht ber die Ergebnisse der Grabung von 1937. Berlin.

Blanck, H. 1968. "Portrt-Gemlde als Ehrendenkmler." Bonner Jahrbcher des Rheinischen

Landesmuseums in Bonn 68:1-12.

233
Boardman, J. 1980. Greeks Overseas. Their Early Colonies and Trade. London.

_____. 1996. "The Archaeology of Jewelry." In Ancient Jewelry and Archaeology, edited by A. Calinescu,
3-14. Indianapolis.

Boardman, J., and Vollenmeider, M.-L. 1978. Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Finger Rings I. Greek
and Etruscan. Oxford.

Boehringer, Ch. 1972. Zur Chronologie mittelhellenistischer Mnzserien 220-160 B.C. v.Chr. Berlin.

Boessneck, J., and Driesch, v. d. A. 1975. "Tierknochenfunde von Korucutepe bei Elaz-
Ostanatolien." In Korucutepe Vol. 1, Final Report on the Excavations 1968-70, edited by M. van Loon, 1-
220. Amsterdam/California.

Bol, P. C. 1988. "Die Marmorbusten aus dem Heroon von Kalydon in Agrinion Archaeologisches
Museum. Inv. n. 23-26." Antike Plastik:35-46.

Boompois, H. F. 1873 Les types montaires de la guerre sociale, tude numismatique. Paris.

Bosworth, A. B., and Wheatley, P. V. 1998. "The Origins of the Pontic House." Journal of Hellenic
Studies 118:155-64.

Bothmer, B. V. 1987. Antiquities from the Collection of Christos G. Bastis. New York.

Bottema, S., Woldring, H., and Aytu, B. 1995. "Late Quarternary Vegetation History of Northern
Turkey, Palaeohistoria." Acta et Communicationes Instituti Bio-Archaeologici 35/36:13-72.

Boyd, W. E. 1990. "Towards a Conceptual Framework for Environmental Archaeology:

Environmental Archaeology as a Key to Past Environments." Circea 7:63-79.

Boysal, Y. 1959. "ber die lteren Fnde von Sinope und die Kolonizationsfrage." Archologischer
Anzeiger:8-20.

Braidwood, R. J. 1974. "The Iraq Jarmo Project." In Archaeological Researches in Retrospect, edited by G.
R. Willey, 59-83. Cambridge.

Braund, D. 1997 Greeks and Barbarians: The Black Sea Region and Hellenism under the Early
Empire." In The Early Roman Empire in the East, edited by S. E. Alcock, 121-37. Exeter.

Brice, W. C. 1978. "The Dessication of Anatolia." In The Environmental History of the Near and Middle
East Since the Last Ice Age, edited by W.C.Brice, 141-7. Great Britain.

_____. 1978. The Environmental History of the Near and Middle East Since the Last Ice Age. Great Britain.

Briscoe, J. 1967. "Rome and Class Struggle in the Greek States 200-146 B.C." Past and Present 3:36-.

Brogan, T. 1998. "The Prometheus Group in Context." In Stephanos. Studies in Honor of Brunilde
Sismondo Ridgway, edited by K. J. Hartswick, and M. C. Sturgeon, 39-53. Philadelphia.

Broughton, T. R. S. 1938. "Roman Asia Minor." In An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, edited by T.

234
Frank, 499-919. Baltimore.

Bruneau, P., and Ducat, J. 1966. Guide de Dlos.

_____. 1968. "Contribution a lhistoire urbaine de Dlos lpoque hellnistique et lpoque

impriale." Bulletin de correspondence hellnique 92:633-709.

_____. 1970. Recherches sur le cultes de Dlos a lpoque hellnistique et a lpoque impriale. Paris.

_____. 1973. tudes dliennes. BCH Supplement 1. Paris.

Bryce, T. 1998. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford.

Bryer, A., and Winfield, D. 1985. The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos. Washington.

Bchner, K. 1960. Sallust. Heidelberg.

Bulloch, A., Gruen, E. S., Long, A. A., and Stewart, A. 1993. Images and Ideologies. Self Definition in the
Hellenistic World. Berkeley.

Burney, C. A. 1956. "Northern Anatolia Before Classical Times." Anatolian Studies 6:179-203.

_____. 1958. "Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age." Anatolian Studies
8:157-209.

Burrell, B. (forthcoming) Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors. Leiden.

Burstein, S. 1976. Outpost of Hellenism. The Emergence of Heraclea on the Black Sea. Berkeley.

Buzoianu, L. 1986. "Les prmier importations damphores timbres dans les cits grecques de Tomis
et de Callatis." In Recherches sur les amphores grecques, edited by J.-Y. Empereur, and Y. Garlan, 407-15.

Callatay de, F. 1997. Lhistoire des guerres mithridatiques vue par les monnaies. Louvain-le-Neuve.

Chapman, J. 1996. The Changing Face of Dalmatia: Archaeological and Ecological Studies in a Mediterranean
Landscape. London.

Chapouthier, F. 1935. Le sanctuaire des dieux de Samothrace. Exploration Archeologique de Delos 16. Paris.

Chappell, J., and Shackleton, N. J. 1986. "Oxygen Isotopes and Sea Level." Nature 324:137-40.

Chrzanovski, L., and Zhuravlev, D. 1998. Lamps from Chersonesos in the Historical Museum- Moscow.
Rome.

Clark, J. G. D. 1939. Archaeology and Society. London.

Coja, M. 1986. "Les Centres de Production Amphorique Identifis Istros Pontique." In Recherches
sur les Amphores Grecques, edited by J.-Y. Empereur, and Y. Garlan, 417-50.

Conovici, N. 1997. "Problemes de la chronologie des timbres Sinopeens." Pontica XXX:117-54.

235
Cook, R. M. 1946. "Ionia and Greece in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C." Journal of Hellenic
Studies:67-98.

Cornelius, F. 1979. Geschichte der Hethiter. Darmstadt.

Corsten, T. 1985. Die Inschriften von Kios. Bonn.

Cumont, F., and Cumont, E. 1901. "Le Zeus Stratios de Mithridate." Revue de l'Histoire des Religions
43:45-57.

_____. 1905. "Le Perse dAmisos." Revue archeologique:180-9.

_____. 1906. Studia Pontica II. Voyage dexploration archologique dans le Pont et la Petite Armnie. Brussels.

Curtis, V. S., Hillenbrand, R., and Rogers, J. M. 1998. The Art and Archaeology of Ancient Persia. New
Light on the Parthian and Sasanian Empires. London.

Danov, C. M. 1936. "Eine neue Inschrift aus Apollonia Pontica." Jahreshefte des sterreichischen
Archaologischen Institutes in Wien 30 :87-95.

Davies, J. K. Cultural, Social and Economic Features of the Hellenistic World. In The Hellenistic
World. Cambridge Ancient History 7.1, 257-320. Cambridge.

Davis, J. L. 1998. Sandy Pylos. An Archaeological History from Nestor to Navarino. Austin, Texas.

Davis N., and Kraay, C. M. 1973. The Hellenistic Kingdoms. Portrait Coins and History. London.

Degens, E. T. 1971. "Sedimentological History of the Black Sea over the Last 25,000 Years." In
Geology and History of Turkey, edited by A.S. Campbell, 407-29. Libya.

Deininger, J. 1965. Die Provinziallandtage der rmischen Kaiserzeit. Munich.

Dengate, J. 1973. "A Site Survey along the South Shore of the Black Sea." In Proceedings of the Xth
International Congress in Classical Archaeology, edited by Akurgal E., 245-58. Ankara/Izmir.

Deppert-Lippitz, B. 1985. Griechischer Goldschmuck. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt Band 27.
Mainz am Rhein.

_____. 1998. "Greek Bracelets of the Classical Period." In The Art of the Greek Goldsmith, edited by D.
Williams, 91-95. London.

Dereli, F., and Garlan, Y. 1997. "Quelques nouvelles amphores timbres de Sinope." Anatolia
Antiqua V:199-209.

Diest, W. V. 1889. Pergamon ber den Dindymos zum Pontus. Gotha, J. Perthes.

Dnmez 1999. "Sinop-Samsun-Amasya lleri Yzey Aratrmas, 1997." XVI. Aratrma Sonular
Toplants:513-23.

Doonan, O., Gantos, A., Smart, D., and Hiebert, F. I. 1999. "Sinop li Youn Alan Aratrmas,

236
1997." XVI. Aratrma Sonular Toplants:359-72.

Doonan, O. et. al. 1998. "Survey of Sinop Province, Turkey, 1997." American Journal of Archaeology
102:367.

Drews, R. 1976. "The Earliest Greek Settlements on the Black Sea." Journal of Hellenic Studies 96:18-
31.

Duliere, C. 1979. Lupa Romana. Recherches diconographie et essai dinterpretation . Brussels.

Dundua, G. F., and Lordkipanidze, G. A. 1985. (in Russian) "Mithridates and Georgia." IIIrd
Vsesoiuzni simpozium po drevnei istorii Prichernomoria Tskhaltubo, Georgian S. S. R.:723 (summary).

Durbin, G. F. S. 1971. "Iron Age Pottery from the Provinces of Tokat and Sivas." Anatolian Studies
XXI:99-125.

Durrbach, F. 1921. Choix dinscriptions de Delos. Paris.

Durugnl, S. 1992. "Zwei Grabstelen einer Familie aus Amisos (Samsun)." Epigraphica Anatolica
19:61-70.

Dyggve, E., Poulsen, F., and Rhomaios, K. 1934. Das Heroon von Kalydon. Copenhagen.

Earl, D. C. 1961. The Political Thought of Sallust. Cambridge.

Eddy, S. K. 1961. The King is Dead. Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism 334-1 B.C.
Nebraska.

Empereur, J.-Y., and Garlan, Y. 1992. "Bulletin Archeologique: Amphores et Timbres Amphorique
(1987-1991)." Revue detudes grecque 1992/1:176-220.

Erin, S. 1978. "Changes in the Physical Environment in Turkey Since the End of the Last Glacial."
In The Environmental History of the Near and Middle East Since the Last Ice Age, edited by W.C.Brice, 87-
110. Great Britain.

Erler, A. et. al. 1995. Geology of the Black Sea Region. Ankara.

Erturul, ., and Atasoy, S. 1998. "1996 Amisos Kazs." XIX. Kaz Sonular Toplants II:521-30.

Erzen, A. 1956. "Sinop Kazs 1953 Yl almalar." Trk Arkeoloji Dergisi VI:69-72.

Escher, J. 1894. "Achilleus." Pauly-Wissowa I:

Evans, G. 1971. "The Recent Sedimentation of Turkey and the Adjacent Mediterranean and the
Black Sea Areas: A Review." In Geology and History of Turkey, edited by A. S. Campbell, Libya.

Fairbanks, R. G. 1989. "A 17,000 Year Glacio-eustatic Sea Level Record: Influence of Glacial
Melting Rates on the Younger Dryas Event and Deep Ocean Circulation." Nature 343:637-42.

Fedoseev, N. F. 1993. (in Russian) "More Precise List of the Magistrates Controlling the

237
Manufacture of Ceramics in Sinope." Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 1: 91-104.

Fink, J., and Kukla, G. J. 1977. "Pleistocene Climates in Central Europe: At Least 17 Interglacials
after the Olduvai Event." Quarternary Research 7:363-71.

Fleischer, R. 1973. Artemis von Ephesus und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrian (Artemis Anaitis
von Hypaipa). Leiden.

_____. 1991. Studien zur Seleukidischen Kunst. Band I. Herrscherbildnisse. Mainz.

_____. 1996. "Hellenistic Royal Iconography on Coins." In Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, edited by
P.Bilde et.al. 29-40. Aarhus.

Fossey, J. M.ed. 1997. Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology and History of the
Black Sea. 22-24 Nov. 1994. McGill University. Amsterdam.

Fraser, P. M. 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford.

French, D. H. 1981. "Milestones of Pontus, Galatia, Phrygia and Lycia." Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und
Epigrafhik 43:149-74.

_____. 1981. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor I. BAR International Series 392 Oxford.

_____. 1984. "Classis Pontica." Epigraphica Anatolica 4:53-60.

_____. 1985. "Roma Yollari ve Miltaslari: 1984." III. Aratrma Sonular Toplants:143-54.

_____. 1986. "Recent Epigraphic Research in Pontus." Epigraphica Anatolica 8:71-82.

_____. 1986. "Sinopean Amphoras." In Recherches sur les amphores grecques, edited by J.-Y. Empereur,
and Y. Garlan, 391-3.

_____. 1986. "Stephane." Anadolu Aratrmalar X:483-502.

_____. 1988a. "Non-Greek Names at Sinope." In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Ancient
Balkan Studies, edited by I. A. Kaluzhskaya, Moscow.

_____. 1988b. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. BAR International Series 392 Oxford.

_____. 1989. "Sinop: The So-called Ceneviz Yolu." In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies in
Honor of Tahsin zg, edited by K. Emre et. al., 143-9. Ankara.

_____. 1990a. "Amasian Notes." Epigraphica Anatolica 15:135-8.

_____. 1990b. "Sinopean Notes 1." Epigraphica Anatolica 16:45-64.

_____. 1991a. "Sinopean Notes 2." Epigraphica Anatolica 18:141-56.

_____. 1991b. "Dated Inscriptions at Amasia." In Erol Atalay Memorial, edited by H. Malay, 65-70.
zmir.

238
_____. 1991c. "The Iron Age in the Black Sea." Thracia Pontica IV:237-40.

_____. 1992a. "Amasian Notes 2." Epigraphica Anatolica 19:63-8.

_____. 1992b. "Sinopean Notes 3." Epigraphica Anatolica 19:45-59.

_____. 1992c. "Sinopean Notes 5." Epigraphica Anatolica 23:109-11.

_____. 1994. "Sinopean Notes 4. Cults and Divinities: The Epigraphic Evidence." Epigraphica
Anatolica 23:99-112.

_____. 1996a. "Amasian Notes 3. Dated Inscriptions from Amasia and its Territory." Epigraphica
Anatolica 26:71-86.

_____. 1996b. "Amasian Notes 4. Cults and Divinities: The Epigraphic Evidence." Epigraphica
Anatolica 26: 87-98.

_____. 1996c. "Amasian Notes 5. The Temenos of Zeus Stratios at Yassical." Epigraphica Anatolica
27:75-92.

_____. 1997. "Sinope: Amphora-Stamps, Coins and Inscriptions." Anadolu XIII, 1984-1997:225-32.

Frolov, E. D. 1979. (in Russian) "The Herakleot Mariandyni- Towards the Problem of the
Interrelations Between the Greek Colonists and the Local Peoples in the Dorian Area of
Settlement." IInd Vsesoiuzni simpozium po drevnei istorii Prichernomoria Tskhaltubo, Georgian S. S. R.:22-33.

Frolova, N. 1995. Essays on the Northern Black Sea Numismatics. Ukraine.

_____. 1999. "Towards a Chronology of the Coinage of the Bosporan Kingdom in the Time of
Mithradates VI." Antiquities of Bosporus 2:232-65.

Furness, A. 1956. "Some Early Pottery of Samos, Kalimnos and Chios." Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 22:173-212.

Furtwngler, A. 1900. Beschreibung der Glyptothek Knig Ludwig's I zu Mnchen. Munich.

Gajdukevic, V. V. 1971. Das bosporanische Reich. Berlin.

Garlan, Y. 1983. "Greek Amphorae and Trade." In Trade in Ancient Economy, edited by P. Garnsey, K.
Hopkins, and C. R. Whittaker, 27-35. Berkeley.

_____. 1990. "Linterpretation du timbrage amphorique grec." Revue Archeologique 1:211-14.

Garlan, Y., and Kassab Tezgr, D. 1996. "Prospection dateliers damphores et de ceramiques de
Sinope." Anatolia Antiqua IV:325-34.

Garlan, Y., and Tatlcan, . 1995. "Sinope, ville reine de Mer Noire." Archeologia 308:32-9.

_____. 1997a. "1994 ve 1995 Yllar Zeytinlik (Sinop) Amphora Atlyeleri Kazs." XVIII Kaz
Sonular Toplants:337-51.

239
_____. 1997b. "Fouilles dateliers amphoriques a Nisiky et a Zeytinlik (Sinop) en 1996 et 1997."
Anatolia Antiqua VI:407-22.

Garnsey, P. 1988. Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge.

Garrucci, R. 1885. Le monete dellItalia antica. Rome.

Giel (no date). Concerning Bosporus Coins with the Monograms and Proceedings of the VIth Archaeological
Congress at Odessa Vol.II.

Gilevich A.M. 1985. (in Russian) "Chersonese and the Pontic Kingdom of Mithridates according to
Numismatic Data." IIIrd Vsesoiuzni simpozium po drevnei istorii Prichernomoria Tskhaltubo, Georgian S. S.
R.Tskhaltubo:728-9 (summary).

Glew, D. 1971. The Outbreak of the First Mithridatic War. Ph.D. diss., Princeton University.

_____. 1977. "Mithridates Eupator and Rome: a Study of the Background of the First Mithridatic
War." Athenaeum 55:380.

_____. 1977. " The Selling of the Selling of the King: a Note on Mithridates Eupators Propaganda
in 88 B.C." Hermes 105:253.

_____. 1981. "Between the Wars: Mithridates Eupator and Rome 85-73 B.C." Chiron 11:109.

Goetze, A. 1957. "The Roads of Northern Cappadocia in Hittite Times." RHA 15:91-102.

Gktrk-Cebesoy M.T. 1994. "Kabadz Definesi." Anadolu Medeniyetleri Mzesi 1993 Yll:54-82.

Golenko, K. V. 1964. "Bronze City Coins of Pontus and Paphlagonia from the Time of Mithradates
VI Eupator found in Bosporus." Palestinskii(brev) Sbornik 11:58-73.

_____. 1965. "Coins of the Pontic and Paphlagonian Cities in Bosporus under Mithradates VI." Klio
46:307-22.

_____. 1966. (in Russian) "The Imitations of the Bronze Coins of the Cities of Pontus and
Paphlagonia during the time of Mithradates VI Eupator." Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3:142-9.

_____. 1969. (in Russian) "Anonymous Bronze Coins of Pontus." Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 1969:130-54.

Goukowsky, P. 1981. Alexandre et Dionysos. Moscow.

Grace, V. 1985. "The Middle Stoa Dated by Amphora Stamps." Hesperia 54:1-55.

Greene, K. 1986. The Archaeology of the Roman Economy. London.

Gregoire, H. 1909. Rapport sur un voyage d'exploration dans le Pont et en Cappadoce. BCH Supplement 1.

Griffith, G. T. 1935. The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World.

Grueber, H. A. 1910. Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum II. London.

240
Guen-Pollet, B. l. 1989. "Sebastopolis du Pont (Sulusaray). Documents littraires et inscriptions dj
publies de la cit ." Epigraphica Anatolica 13:51-86.

_____. 1991. "Documents numismatiques et pigraphiques du Musee de Tokat. Rapport de

mission:Juillet 1988." De Anatolia Antiqua I:55-7.

Gurney, O. R. 1990. The Hittites. London.

Habicht, C. 1956. Gottmenschentum und Griechische Stdte. Munich.

Halperin, R. 1994. Cultural Economies. Past and Present. Austin, Texas.

Hamilton, W. J. 1842. Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, Armenia I/II. New York.

Hannestad, L. 1996. "This Contributes in No Small Way to Ones Reputation: The Bithynian Kings
and Greek Culture." In Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, edited by P. Bilde, 116-26. Aarhus.

Hansen, E. V. 1971. The Attalids of Pergamon. Ithaca.

Hardie, M. D. 1912. "The Shrine of Men Askaenos at Pisidian Antioch." Journal of Hellenic Studies
32:111-51.

Harris, W. V. 1993. The Inscribed Economy. Production and Distribution in the Roman Empire in the Light of
Instrumentum Domesticum. JRA Supplement 6 Ann Arbor.

Hartswick, K. J., and Sturgeon, M. C. 1998. Stephanos. Studies in Honor of Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway.
University Museum Monograph 100 Philadelphia.

Hassal, M., Crawford, M., and Reynolds J. 1974. "Rome and the Eastern Provinces at the End of the
Second Century B.C." Journal of Roman Studies 64:195-220.

Hays, J. D., Imbrie, J., and Shackleton, N. J. 1976. "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the
Ice Ages." Science 194:121-32.

Head, B. V. 1892. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Ionia. London.

_____. 1911. Historia Numorum.

Hedreen, G. 1991. "The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine." Hesperia 60:313-30.

Herrmann, P. 1965. "Antiochos der Grosse und Teos." Anadolu 9:29.

Hiebert, F. 1997a. "Black Sea Trade Project." American Journal of Archaeology 101:377.

_____. 1997b. "From Mountaintop to Ocean Bottom: A Holistic Approach to Archaeological

Survey along the Turkish Black Sea Coast." In Ocean Pulse, edited by J. Tancredi, 93-108. New York.

Higgins, R. 1980. Greek and Roman Jewellery. London.

Hill, S. 1995. " The first season of rescue excavations at iftlik (Sinop)." Anatolian Studies 45:219-32.

241
_____. 1998. "Rescue Excavations at iftlik (Sinop)." In Ancient Anatolia. Fifty Years Work by the
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, edited by R. J. Matthews, 285-301. London.

Hind, J. C. F. 1964. "Monuments of the ancient cities of South Pontus." Sov.Arch. 3:172-87.

_____. 1969. Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea 1,2. Dunedin.

_____. 1995-1996. "Traders and Ports-of-Trade (Emporoi and Emporia) in the Black Sea in
Antiquity." Il Mar Nero II:113-26.

_____. 1998. "Megarian Colonisation in the Western Half of the Black Sea." In The Greek Colonisation
of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeological History, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze, 131-
53. Stuttgart.

Hirschfeld, O. 1888. Zur Geschichte des rmischen Kaisercultus. Berlin.

Hoepfner, W. 1966. Herakleia Pontike-Eregli: Eine baugeschichtliche Untersuchung. Graz.

Hoffman, H., and Davidson, P. F. 1965. Greek Gold: Jewelery from the Age of Alexander. The Brooklyn
Museum Exhibition Catalogue. New York.

Hoffman, H., and von Claer, V. 1968. Antiker Gold und Silberschmuck. Museum fur Kunst und Gewerbe
Hamburg. Mainz.

Hopf, M. 1992. "Plant Remains from Boazky, Turkey." In Festschrift for Professor Van Zeist, edited
by J. P. Pals, J. Buurman, and M. van der Veen, 99-104. Amsterdam.

Hopkins, C. 1972. Topography and Architecture of Seleucia on the Tigris. Ann Arbor.

Horn, H. G., and Rger, C. B. 1979. Die Numider. Kln.

Icard-Gianolio, N., and Szabados, A.-V. 1992. Nereides. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae
(LIMC) 6.1:785-824.

Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1885. Portrtkopfe auf Antiken Mnzen hellenischer und hellenisierter Vlker. Mit
Zeittafeln der dynastien des Altertums nach ihren Mnzen. Leipzig.

_____. 1890. "Griechische Mnzen. Neue Beitrge und Untersuchungen." Abhandlungen der
philosophisch-philologischen Classe der kniglich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 18:579-82.

_____. 1902. Kleinasiatischen Mnzen. Vienna.

_____. 1912. "Die Kupferprgung des Mithridatischen Reiches und andere Mnzen des Pontos und
Paphlagoniens." Numismatische Zeitschrift:169-84.

Ireland, S. 2000. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Coins in the Museum at Amasya (ancient Amaseia), Turkey.
London.

Ireland, S., and Ireland, H. 1994. "Ancient Coins in the Amasya Museum." Research Reports. British
Institute of Archaeology at Ankara :26-7.

242
_____. 1996. "Ancient Coins in Amasra Museum." In Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey, edited by
R. Ashton, 115-37. London.

Irimia, M. 1973. "Descoperiri noi privind populatia autohtona a Dobrogei si legaturile ei cu coloniile
grecesti." Pontica VI:7-71.

In, M. A. 1990. "Sinop Blgesi Yzey Aratrmas." In kinci Tarih Boyunca Karadeniz Kongresi
Bildirileri, edited by M. Salam, 241-76. Samsun.

_____. 1997. "Sinop Region Field Survey." Anatolia Antiqua VI:95-139.

Jameson, M. H., Runnels, C. N., and van Andel, J. H. 1994. A Greek Countryside. The Southern Argolid
from Prehistory to the Present Day. Stanford.

Jenkins, G. K. 1990. Coins in History. Ancient Greek Coins. London.

Jones, A. H. M. 1971. The Cities of the Eastern Provinces. Oxford.

Jones, C. P. 1988. "A Monument from Sinope." Journal of Hellenic Studies 108:193-4.

Karyshkovski, P. O. 1985. (in Russian) "Concerning the Title of Mithridates VI Eupator. (Towards
the Iranian and Hellenic Traditions in the Pontic Kingdom)." IIIrd Vsesoiuzni simpozium po drevnei
istorii Prichernomoria Tskhaltubo, Georgian S. S. R.:724-5 (summary).

Kassab Tezgr, D. 1995. "Sinopta Seramik ve Anfora Atlyelerinin ncelenmesi." XII. Aratrma
Sonular Toplants:177-91.

_____. 1996. "Fouilles des ateliers damphores a Demirci pres de Sinope en 1994 et 1995." Anatolia
Antiqua IV:335-54.

_____. 1998. "Prospection sous-marine pres de la Cote Sinopeenne: Transport damphores depuis
latelier et navigation en Mer Noire." Anatolia Antiqua VI:443-9.

Kassab Tezgr, D., and Tatlcan, I. 1997a. "Sinop-Demirci Anfora Atlyerinin 1995 Kazs." XVIII.
Kaz Sonular Toplants: 353-65.

_____. 1997b. "Fouilles des ateliers damphores a Demirci." Anatolia Antiqua VI:423-42.

Kaygusuz, I. 1984. "Inscriptions from Kimistene." Epigraphica Anatolica 4:69-73.

Kazanski, M., and Soupault, V. 2000. Les sites archeologiques en Crime et au Caucase durant l'antiquit
tardive et le haut Moyen-Age. Colloquia Pontica 5 Leiden.

Kempinski, A., and Koak, S. 1982. "The Extensive Annuals of Hattusili I." Tel Aviv 9:87-116.

Kiepert, H., and Kiepert, R. Formae Orbis Antiqui 8:15.

Klein U. 1969 . "Zum Aigis-Nike Typ der Pontisch-Paphlagonischen Bronzepragung aus der Zeit
des Mithridates Eupator." GNS 19:24-33.

243
Kleiner, D. 1983. The Monument of Philipappos in Athens. Rome.

Kleiner, F. S. The Giresun Hoard." American Numismatic Society Mueum Notes 19:3-25.

Kleiner, G. 1953. "Bildnis und Gestalt des Mithridates." Jahsbuch des deutsches Archaologischen Instituts
68:73-95.

_____. 1955. "Pontische Reichsmnzen." Istanbuler Mitteilungen 6:1-20.

Koehler, C. G. 1992. "A Brief Typology and Chronology of Corinthian Transport Amphoras." In
Greek Amphoras , edited by V. I. Kats, and S. Y. Monakhov, Saratov.

Konstan, D. 1997. Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge.

Koshelenko G.A., and Kuznetsov V.D. 1998. "Greek Colonisation of the Bosporus." In The Greek
Colonisation of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeological History, edited by
G.R.Tsetskhladze, 249-63. Stuttgart.

Koay, H., and Turfan 1959. "Erzurum Karaz Kazs." Belleten XXIII:349-413.

Kraay, C. M. 1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins. London.

Krahmer, G. 1925. "Eine Ehrung von Mithridates VI Eupator in Pergamon." Jahrbuch des deutsches
Archologischen Instituts 40:183-205.

Krug, A. 1969. "Ein Bildnis Mithradates VI von Pontus." Archologischer Anzeiger:189-95.

Kryzhitskii, S. D. 1997. "The Landscape of the North Pontic City-States- a Case Study from Olbia."
In Landscapes in Flux: Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity, edited by J. Chapman, and P.
Dolukhanov, 101-13. Oxford.

Kkten, K. 1941. "Samsun Vilayeti Tekkeky Civarnda Prehistorik Aratrmalar." lk XVIII:121-

4.

Kkten, K., and zg, T. 1941. "Samsun'da Prehitorik Aratrmalar (1)." lk XV:413-9.

Kkten, K., zg, T., and zg, N. 1945. "1940 ve 1941 Ylnda Trk Tarih Kurumu Adna
Yaplan Samsun Blgesi Kazlar Hakknda lk Ksa Rapor." Belleten IX:361-400.

Kzltan, Z. 1992. "Samsun Blgesi Yzey Aratrmalar, 1971-1977." Belleten LVI:213-42.

Lattimore, S. 1976. The Marine Thiasos in Greek Sculpture. Los Angeles.

Lazarov, M. 1979. (in Russian) "On Some Characteristics of Archaic Ceramic Import in Pontic
Thrace." IInd Vsesoiuzni simpozium po drevnei istorii Prichernomoria Tskhaltubo, Georgian S. S. R.:61-8.

Leaf, W. 1916. "The Commerce of Sinope." Journal of Hellenic Studies 36:1-15.

Lewis, D. M. 1962. "The Chronology of the Athenian New Style Coinage ." Numismatics Chronicle
2:275-301.

244
_____. 1985. "Persians in Herodotus." In The Greek Historians:Literature and History, edited by M.
Jameson, 101-17. Saratoga.

Liebmann-Frankfort, T. 1969. La frontire orientale dans la politique extrieure de la rpublique romaine depuis
la trait dApame jusqu la fin des conqutes asiatiques de Pompe (189/8-63). Brussels.

Lindgren H.C., and Kovacs F.L. 1985. Ancient Bronze Coins of Asia Minor and the Levant from the
Lindgren Collection. California.

1990. "Le Pont-Euxin vu par les Grecs. Sources crites et archeologie." In Le Pont-Euxin vu par les
Grecs. Sources crites et archeologie, edited by O. Lordkipanidz and P. Lvque, Paris.

Love, J. R. 1991. Antiquity and Capitalism. London.

Lupton, A. 1996. Stability and Change. Socio-Political Development in North Mesopotamia and South-East
Anatolia 4000-2700 B.C. BAR International Series 627. Oxford.

MacNeish, R. S. 1974. "Reflections on my Search for the Beginnings of Agriculture in Mexico." In

Archaeological Researches in Retrospect, edited by G. R. Willey, 205-34. Cambridge.

_____. 1978. The Science of Archaeology? North Scituate, Massachusetts.

Macridy, T. 1907. Une citadelle archaique du Pont. Fouilles du Musee imperial ottoman par Th. Macridy-Bey.
Berlin.

Macurdy, G. H. 1937. Vassal-Queens and Some Contemporary Women in the Roman Empire. Baltimore.

Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ. Princeton.

Malloy, A. G. 1970. The Coinage of Amisus. New York.

Marazov, I. 1983. "A Newly Discovered Thracian Tomb near Sveshtari, Bulgaria." Bulletin of the
Ancient Orient Museum Tokyo 5:65-82.

_____. 1998. Ancient Gold: The Wealth of the Thracians. Treasures from the Republic of Bulgaria. Hong
Kong.

Marchenko, K. K. 1988. Barbarians in the Population of Berezan and Olbia. Leningrad.

Marek, Ch. 1985. "Katalog der Inschriften im Museum von Amasra." Epigraphica Anatolica 6:133-56.

_____. 1993. Stadt, ra und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia. Tbingen.

Marrow, C., zdoan, A., and Tibet, A. 1996. "Prospection archeologique Franco-Turque dans la
region de Kastamonu (Mer Noire). Premier rapport preliminaire ." Anatolia Antiqua IV:273-90.

Masslenikov, A. A. 1981. Population of the Bosporan State in the 6th-2nd Centuries B.C. Moscow.

Matthews, R. J. 1997. "Project Paphlagonia." Anatolian Archaeology 3:20-1.

245
_____. 1998. "Project Paphlagonia." Anatolian Archaeology 4:21-2.

_____. 1998. "Project Paphlagonia: Regional Survey in Northern Anatolia." In Ancient Anatolia. Fifty
Years Work by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, edited by R. J. Matthews, 195-206. London.

_____. 1999. "Project Paphlagonia: Regional Survey in ankr province, 1997." Aratrma Sonular
Toplants 16:245-54.

_____. 1999. "Regional Survey in Paphlagonia." Anadolu Medeniyetleri Mzesi Konferanslari 1998:66-75.

Mattingly, H. B. 1998. " The Coinage of Mithradates III, Pharnakes and Mithradates IV of Pontos."
In Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price, edited by R.Ashton and S.Hurter, 255-
9. London.

McGing, B. C. 1986. The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden.

McNicoll, A. 1973. "The Avan Hoard: Coins of Two Cappadocian Monarchs ." Anatolian Studies
23:181-90.

Mellaart, J. 1958. "The End of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Aegean." American Journal of
Archaeology 62:9-33.

Mellink, M. 1958. "Archaeology in Asia Minor." American Journal of Archaeology 62:91-104.

_____. 1972. "Archaeology in Asia Minor." American Journal of Archaeology 76:169-70.

Mellor, R. 1978. "The Dedications on the Capitoline Hill." Chiron 8:319-30.

Melyukova, A. I. 1985. (in Russian) "Peoples of the Northern Black Sea Littoral Before and During
Greek Colonisation." IIIrd Vsesoiuzni simpozium po drevnei istorii Prichernomoria Tskhaltubo, Georgian S. S.
R.:8-27.

Men, H. 1997. Amasya. Samsun.

Meyer, E. 1968. Geschichte des Koenigreichs Pontos. Chicago.

Michalowski, C. 1932. Les portraits hellenistiques et romains. Exploration archeologique de Dlos 13.
Paris.

Milchhoefer, A. 1882. "Die Befreiung des Prometheus." BWPr 42:1-43.

Miller, S. G. 1986. "Eros and the Arms of Achilles." American Journal of Archaeology 90:159-70.

Minns, E. H. 1912. Scythians and Greeks. A Survey of Ancient History and Archaeology on the North Coast of
the Euxine from the Danube to the Caucasus. Cambridge.

Mitford, T. B. 1966. "The God Pylon in Eastern Pontus." Byzantion 36:471-90.

Molev, E. A. 1985. (in Russian) "Mithridates Ctistes-Ruler of Pontus." IIIrd Vsesoiuzni simpozium po
drevnei istorii Prichernomoria Tskhaltubo, Georgian S. S. R.:724 (summary).

246
Monachov, S. J. 1993. "Les amphores de Sinope." Anatolia Antiqua II:107-32.

Mordtmann, J. H. 1880-1987. "Epigraphy of the Province of Pontus." Hell.Phil.Syllogos 15:44-9.

Mrkholm, O. 1968. "The Coinage of Ariarathes VII and Ariarathes IX of Cappadocia." In Essays in
Greek Coinage presented to Stanley Robinson, edited by C.M. Kraay and G.K. Jenkins, 241-58. Oxford:

_____. 1997. Early Hellenistic Coinage. From the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336-188
B.C.). Cambridge.

Munro, J. 1900. "Some Pontic Milestones." Journal of Hellenic Studies 20:159-66.

_____. 1901. "Roads in Pontus, Royal and Roman." Journal of Hellenic Studies 21:52-67.

Musche, B. 1992. Vorderasiatischer Schmuck von den Anfangen bis zur Zeit der Achaemeniden (ca. 10,000-
330 B.C.). Leiden.

Naumann, R. 1975. Eski Anadolu Mimarl. Ankara.

Nesbitt, M. 1993. "Ancient Crop Husbandry at Kaman-Kalehyk: 1991 Archaeobotanical Report."

In Essays on Anatolian Archaeology, edited by T. Mikasa, Wiesbaden.

Nesbitt, M. and D. Samuel 1996. "From Staple Crop to Extinction? The Archaeology and History of
the Hulled Wheats." In Hulled Wheats. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Hulled Wheats.
Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected Crops, edited by S. Padulosi, K. Hammer,
and J. Heller, Rome.

Neverov, O. J. 1969. (in Russian) "Gold Ring with a Portrait of a Hellenistic King." Vestnik Drevnej
Historii 107:172.

_____. 1972. "On the Iconography of Mithridates VI." Trudy Gosudarstvennogo E(hidot)rmitaza 13:110.

_____. 1973. "Mithridates as Dionysus." SGE 37:41.

_____. 1976. "Portrait Gems and Finger Rings from the North Black Sea Coast." SGE 17:166.

Newell, E. T. 1937. Royal Greek Portrait Coins.

Nicholson, O., and Nicholson C. 1993. "The Aqueduct at Amasya in Pontus." Anatolian Studies
43:143-46.

Noe, S. P. 1937. A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards. New York.

O'Connor, T. P. 1998. "Environmental Archaeology: A Matter of Definitions." Environmental

Archaeology 2:1-6.

Ogden, J. 1992. Ancient Jewellery: Interpreting the Past. London.

Oikonomides, A. N. 1958. "Mithridates VI." Archeion Pontou 22:219.

247
_____. 1962. "A Statuette of Mithridates the Great." Archaeology 15:13-5.

_____. 1975. Mithraic Art. A Search for Unpublished and Unidentified Monuments. Chicago.

kse, T. 1994. "Sivas li 1992 Yzey Aratrmas." XI. Aratrma Sonular Toplants:243-59.

_____. 1995. "Sivas li 1993 Yzey Aratrmas." XII. Aratrma Sonular Toplants:317-31.

_____. 1996. "Sivas li 1994 Yzey Aratrmas." XIII. Aratrma Sonular Toplants:205-29.

_____. 1998. "Yukar Kzlrmak Havzas Tun alar ve Demira Yerleim Tarihi." Belleten
LXII:299-394.

_____. 1999a. "Sivas li 1997 Yzey Aratrmas." XVI. Aratrma Sonular Toplants:467-525.

_____. 1999b. "Orta Anadolunun Dousunun Demira Kltr ve Yerleim Dokusu." 1998 Yl
Anadolu Medeniyetleri Mzesi Konferanslar:85-116.

Oliver, A. 1998. "Aspects of Hellenistic Jewellery from Italy." In The Art of the Greek Goldsmith, edited
by D. Williams, 85-91. London.

Olshausen, E. 1974. "Zum Hellenisierungsprozess am pontischen Knigshof." Ancient Society 5:153-

70.

_____. 1978. "Pontos." Paulys-Wissowa Realencyclopaedie 15:396-442.

_____. 1989. "Zwei unedierte Inschriften aus dem Museum von Samsun." VI. Aratrma Sonular
Toplants:271-3.

_____. 1990. "Gtter, Heroen und ihre Kulte in Pontos- ein erster Bericht." In ANRW II.18.3,
edited by W. Haase, and H. Temporini, 1865-906.

Olshausen, E., and Biller, J. 1984. Historisch-geographische Aspekte der Geschichte des Pontischen und
Armenischen Reiches 1. Untersuchungen zur historischen Geographie von Pontus unter den Mithridaten.
Wiesbaden.

Orthmann, W. 1963. Die Keramik der frhen Bronzezeit aus Inneranatolien. Berlin.

zcan, B. 1992. "Sulusaray-1990 Kurtarma Kazs." II. Mze Kurtarma Kazlar Semineri:167-200.

zsait, M. 1988. "1986 Yl Amasya-Ladik evresi Tarihncesi Aratrmalar." V. Aratrma Sonular

Toplants:239-57.

_____. 1989. "1987 Yl Amasya-Suluova Tarihncesi Aratrmalar." VI. Aratrma Sonular

Toplants:287-301.

_____. 1990. "1988 Yl Gmhacky evresi Tarihncesi Aratrmalar." VII. Aratrma Sonular
Toplants:367-81.

_____. 1990. "1988 Yl Tokat-Erbaa evresi Tarihncesi Aratrmalar." XI. Trk Tarih Kongresi

248
1:113-7.

_____. 1991. "1989 Yl Gyncek evresi Tarihncesi Aratrmalar." VIII. Aratrma Sonular
Toplants:45-55.

_____. 1996. "1994 Yl Amasya-Taova Yzey Aratrmalar." XIII. Aratrma Sonular

Toplants:273-92.

_____. 1998. "1995 ve 1996 Yllarnda Amasya- Merzifon ve Gmhacky Yzey Aratrmalar."
XV. Aratrma Sonular Toplants II:143-62.

_____. 1999a. "Tokat ve evresi Yzey Aratrmalar." XVI. Aratrma Sonular Toplants II: 89-108.

_____. 1999b. "1986-1993 Yllar Arasnda Samsun-Ladik evresi Yzey Aratrmalar." XII. Trk
Tarih Kongresi I:35-40.

zsait, M., and Dndar, A. 1997. "1995 Yl Amasya-Gmhacky ve Hamamz Yzey

Aratrmalar." XIV. Aratrma Sonular Toplants II:171-92.

Pasinli, A. 1999. stanbul Archaeological Museum. stanbul.

Pastor, L. B. 1996. Mitridates Eupator, Rey del Ponto. Granada.

Pfeiler, H. 1968. "Die frhesten Portrts des Mithridates Eupator und die Bronzeprgung seiner
Vorgnger." GNS 18:75-80.

Pfrommer, M. 1990. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie Frh-und Hochhellenistischen Goldschmucks. Istanbuler

Forschungen Band 37. Tbingen.

Pichikyan, I. R. 1984. Asia Minor and the Region North of the Black Sea. Classical Tradition and Influences.
Moscow.

Pollack, P. 1970. "A Bithynian Hoard of the 1st century B.C." American Numismatic Society Museum
Notes 16:45-57.

Pollitt, J. J. 1986. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge.

Poulsen, B. 1991. "The Dioscuri and Ruler Ideology." Symbolae Osloenses 66:119-46.

Price, B. B. 1997. Ancient Economic Thought. London.

Price, M. J. 1968. "Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysus and the Coinages of the Black Sea." Numismatic
Chronicle 8:1-12.

Price, M. J., and Trell, B. L. 1977. Coins and Their Cities. Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome,
and Palestine. London.

Price, S. R. F. 1984. Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge.

Pritchett, K. 1946. "Greek Inscriptions." Hesperia 15:138-68.

249
Raditsa, L. 1969. A Historical Commentary to Sallusts Letter of Mithridates. Ph.D. diss., Columbia
University.

Rakob, F. 1979. "Numidische Knigsarchitektur in Nordafrika." In Die Numider, edited by H. G.

Horn, and C. B. Rger, 119-73. Kln.

Ramsay, W. M. 1890. The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. London.

Reeder, E. D. 1999. Scythian Gold. Treasures from Ancient Ukraine. Japan.

Reinach, T. 1888. Numismatique ancienne. Trois royaumes de lAsie Mineure, Cappadoce, Bithynie, Pont. Paris.

_____. 1890. Mithridate Eupator - Roi de Pont. Paris.

_____. 1902. Lhistoire par les monnaies. Paris.

Reitz, E. J., Newsom, L. A., and Scudder, S. J. 1996. Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology
(Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology). New York.

Remy, B., le Guen-Pollet, B., zcan, B., and Amandry, M. 1990. "Rapport de travaux epiqraphiques
et numismatiques au Musee de Tokat en Juillet 1988." VII. Aratrma Sonular Toplants:515-31.

Reynolds, J. 1982. Aphrodisias and Rome. London.

Richter, G. M. A. 1968. Engraved Gems of the Greeks and Etruscans. London.

Ridgway, B. S. 1990. Hellenistic Sculpture I: The Styles of ca. 331-200 B.C. Wisconsin.

Ritter, H. W. 1981. "Archaiognosia:177.

Robert, F. 1952. Trois sanctuaires sur le rivage occidental. Exploration archologique de Dlos 20. Paris.

Robert, L. 1937. tudes anatoliennes. Recherches sur les inscriptions dAsie Mineure. Paris.

_____. 1960. "Recherches epigraphiques." Revue des tudes anciennes 62:342-6.

_____. 1978. "Monnaies et textes grecques. Deux ttradrachmes de Mithridate V vergte, roi du
Pont." JS July/Sept.:151-.

_____. 1983. "Document dAsie Mineure 23-23." Bulletin de correspondence hellenique 107:506-8.

Robertson, A. 1975. A History of Greek Art. Cambridge.

Robinson, D. M. 1927. "A Graeco-Parthian Portrait Head of Mithridates I." American Journal of
Archaeology 31:338-44.

Ropel H. 1965. "A Coin Portrait of Mithridates VI Dionysus." North American Journal of Numismatics
4:167-8.

Rose, C. B. 1997. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period. Cambridge.

250
Rostovtseff, M. I. 1914. Antike Dekorative Malerei in Sdrussland. St.Petersburg.

_____. 1916-1918. "Pontus, Bithynia, and the Bosporus." Annuals of the British School at Athens 22:1.

Roussel, P., and Lawney, M. 1937. Inscriptiones de Dlos. Paris.

Roux, G. 1980. Ancient Iraq. Great Britain.

Rozanova, L. S., and Terekhova, N. N. 1997. "Ironworking in the Ancient Centers of the Northern
Black Sea Littoral." In Essays on Ancient Ironworking in Eastern Europe, edited by E. N. Chernykh, 92-4.
Moscow.

Rudolph, W. 1995. A Golden Legacy. Ancient Jewelry from the Burton Y. Berry Collection at the Indiana
University Art Museum. Bloomington.

Ryan, W., and Pitman, W. 1998. Noah's Flood. The New Scientific Discoveries about the Event that Changed
History. New York.

Sakaoullar, N. 1999. emi Cihan Amasra. stanbul.

Salomone Gaggero, E. 1978. "Relations politiques et militaires de Mithridate VI Eupator avec les
populations et les cits de la Thrace et avec les colonies grecques de la Mer Noire occidentale."
Puldeva 2:294.

Sanders, D. H. 1996. Nemrud Dag. The Hierothesion of Antiochus I Commagene. WinonaLake, Indiana.

Saprykin, S. Y. 1979a. (in Russian) "Heraclea, Chersonesus and Pharnaces I of Pontus." Vestnik
Drevnei Istorii 149:59.

_____. 1979b. (in Russian) "Poleis and the Local Population of the Southern Black Sea Littoral in
the Archaic and Classical Periods: Herakleia and the Mariandyni." IInd Vsesoiuzni simpozium po drevnei
istorii Prichernomoria Tskhaltubo, Georgian S. S. R.:9-22.

_____. 1997. "On the Meaning of Some Stamps on the Tile from the Northern Black Sea Coast
Region." Rossiyskaya Arkheologiya:194-203.

Saprykin, S. Y., and Maslennikov, A. A. 1995. "Bosporan Chora in the Reign of Mithridates VI
Eupator and his Immediate Successors." Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 2:261-82.

_____. 1996. "Bosporan Chora in the Reign of Mithridates VI Eupator and his Immediate
Successors." Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 3:1-14.

Sceglov, A. N. 1986. "Les amphores timbres dAmastris." In Recherches sur les amphores grecques, edited
by J.-Y. Empereur, and Y. Garlan, 365-73.

Segre, R. 1932. "Note epigrafice I. Mithridate e Chio." Il Mondo Classico 2:1-4.

Sestini, G. 1971. "The Relations Between Flysch and Serpentinites in North-Central Turkey." In
Geology and History of Turkey, edited by A. S. Campbell, Tripoli.

251
Sevin, N., Krpe, R., Tombul, M., Rose, C. B., Strahan, D., Kiesewetter, H., and Wallrodt, J. 2001.
"A New Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from an." Studia Troica XI (forthcoming).

Sevin, N., Rose, C. B., and Strahan, D. 1999. "A Child's Sarcophagus from the Salvage Excavations
at Gmay." Studia Troica 9:489-509.

Seyrig, H. 1963. "Monnaies hellnistiques." Revue Numismatique 6,5:7-64.

Shelov, D. B. 1962. (in Russian) "Tyras and Mithridates Eupator." Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 80:95.

_____. 1979. "Ironworking in the Ancient Centres of the Northern Black Sea Littoral." Kratkie
Soobsheniia Instituta Arkheologii 159:1-6.

_____. 1980. (in Russian) "Colchis in the Pontic Empire of Mithridates VI." Vestnik Drevnei Istorii
153:28.

_____. 1985. (in Russian) "The Pontic Kingdom of Mithridates IIIrd Vsesoiuzni simpozium po drevnei
istorii Prichernomoria Tskhaltubo, Georgian S. S. R.:721-3 (summary).

_____. 1986. "Les amphores dargile claire des premiers sicles de notre re en Mer Noire." In
Recherches sur les amphores grecques, edited by J.-Y. Empereur, and Y. Garlan, 398-400.

Sherwin-White, A. N. 1977. "Ariobarzanes Mithridates and Sulla." Classical Quarterly 27:173-83.

_____. 1977. "Roman Involvement in Anatolia 167-88 B.C." Journal of Roman Studies 67:62-75.

_____. 1984. Roman Foreign Policy in the East 168 B.C- A.D. 1. London.

Sherwin-White, S., and Kuhrt, A. 1993. From Samarkand to Sardis. A New Approach to the Seleucid
Empire. London.

Shilik, K. K. 1997. "Oscillations of the Black Sea and Ancient Landscapes." In Landscapes in Flux:
Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity, edited by J. Chapman and P. Dolukhanov, 115-29. Oxford.

Sichtermann, H. 1966. Griechische Vasen in Unteritalien aus der Sammlung Jatta in Ruvo. Tbingen.

Simonetta, B. 1977. The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings. Fribourg.

Sipahi, T., and Yldrm, T. 1998. "1996 Yl orum Blgesi Yzey Aratrmalar." XV. Aratrma
Sonular Toplants:19-40.

Smith, R. R. R. 1988. Hellenistic Royal Portraits. London.

_____. 1993. "Kings and Philosophers ." In Images and Ideologies. Self Definition in the Hellenistic World,
edited by A. Bulloch, E. S. Gruen, A. A. Long, and A. Stewart, 202-11. Berkeley.

Stambaugh, J. E. 1988. The Ancient Roman City. Baltimore.

Stemmer, K. 1978. Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Chronologie un Ikonographie der Panzerstatuen.

Archeologische Forschungen Band 4. Berlin.

252
Steward, J. H. 1937. Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region. Washington.

Stewart, A. 1990. Greek Sculpture. New Haven.

_____. 1993. Faces of Power. Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics. Berkeley.

Stier, H. E. 1969. "Der Mithridatesbrief aus Sallusts Historien als Geschichtsquelle." In Beitrage zur
alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben. Fesschrift fr Franz Altheim zum 6.10.1968, edited by R. Stiehl and
H.E. Stier Berlin.

Strobel, K. 1996. "Mithridates VI. Eupator von Pontus." Orbis Terrarum 2:145-90.

Stronach, D. 1978. Pasargadae. A Report on the Excavations Conducted by the British Institute of Persian
Studies from 1961 to 1963. Oxford.

Sel, A. 1990. "1988 Yl orum li Yzey Aratrmalar." VII. Aratrma Sonular Toplants:341-61.

_____. 1991. "1989 orum li Yzey Aratmalar ." VIII. Aratrma Sonular Toplants:91-111.

Sullivan, R. D. 1990. Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100-30 B.C. Toronto.

Summerer, L. 1995. "Das pontische Wappen. Zur Aastralsymbolic auf den pontischen Mnzen."
Chiron 25:304-14.

Sydenham E.A. 1952. The Coinage of the Roman Republic. London.

Tatlcan, I. 1996. "Sinop, 1994 Zeytinlik Amphora Atlyesi Kurtarma Kazs." VI. Mze Kurtarma
Kazlar Semineri. 24-26 Nisan. Didim:335-41.

Tatlcan, ., Kassab-Tezgr, D., and Dereli, F. 1998. "Demirci-Sinop Amphora Atlyelerinin 1996
Kazs." XIX. Kaz Sonular Toplants II:465-82.

_____. 1999. "Demirci-Sinop Amphora Atlyelerinin 1997 Kazs." XX. Kaz Sonular Toplants
II:447-56.

Tcherikover, V. 1959. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia.

Tekin, O. 1999. The Sivas Hoard. Bronze Coins of Pontos and Paphlagonia from the Reign of Mithradates VI .
stanbul.

Thissen, L. 1993. "New Insights in Balkan-Anatolian Connections in the Late Chalcolithic: Old
Evidence from the Turkish Black Sea Littoral." Anatolian Studies 43:207-37.

Thompson, M., Mrkholm, O., and Kraay, C. M. 1973. An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York.

Toynbee, J. M. C. 1978. Roman Historical Portraits. London.

Travaglini, A. 1997. "Samsun (Amisos) 1989." In Museo di Izmir I. Ripostigli di Monete Greche, edited by
A. Travaglini, 147-63. Milano.

253
Treister, M. I. 1993. "Notes on International Trade in the 6th-4th Centuries B.C." Acta Hyperborea
5:377-89.

Treister, M. J., and Vinogradov, J. G. 1993. "Archaeology on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea."
American Journal of Archaeology 97:521-63.

Treister, M. 1996. The Role of Metals in Ancient Greek History. Leiden.

Trigger, B. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge.

Tsekhmistrenko, V. I. 1958. "On the Question of the Periodization of Sinopean Ceramic Stamps."
Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 1:56-70.

Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1996. New Studies on the Black Sea Littoral. Colloquia Pontica 1 Oxford.

_____. 1998a. "Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area." In The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea
Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeological History, edited by G. R. Tsetskhladze, 9-68. Stuttgart.

_____. 1998b. The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeological
History. Historia Einzelschriften 121. Stuttgart.

Umar, B. 2000. Karadeniz Kappadokia's. stanbul.

Ustinova, Y. 1999. The Supreme Gods of the Bosporan Kingdom. Leiden.

van Andel, T. H. 1989. "Late Quarternary Sea-level Changes and Archaeology." Antiquity 63:733-45.

_____. 1990. "Addendum to "Late Quarternary Sea-level Changes and Archaeology"." Antiquity
64:151-2.

van der Leeuw, S. E., and McGlade, J. 1997. Time, Process and Structured Transformation in Archaeology.
London.

Vermeule, C. C. 1959. "Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues." Berytus 13:1-82.

_____. 1974. Greek and Roman Sculpture in Gold and Silver. Boston.

Vinogradov, J., Molev, E. A., and Tolstikov, V. P. 1985. (in Russian) "New Epigraphic Sources on
the History of the Period of Mithridates." IIIrd Vsesoiuzni simpozium po drevnei istorii Prichernomoria
Tskhaltubo, Georgian S. S. R.:725-7 (summary).

Vinokurov, N. I., and Nikonov, A.A. 1998. (in Russian) "Traces of Ancient Time Earthquakes in the
West of the European Bosporus." Rossiyskaya Arkheologiya 4:114.

Vita-Finzi, C., and Higgs, E. S. 1970. "Prehistoric Economy in the Mount Carmel Area of Palestine:
Site Catchment Analysis." Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36:

Vnukov, S. Y. 1993. (in Russian) "New Types of the Late Synop Amphorae." Rossiyskaya Arkheologiya
3:204-13.

254
Waddington, W. H., Babelon, E., and Reinach, T. 1904. Recueil gnral des monnaies grecques dAsie
Mineure. I, 1. Pont et Paphlagonie. Paris.

_____. 1925. Recueil gnral des monnaies grecques dAsie Mineure. I, 1. Pont et Paphlagonie. Paris.

Wasowicz, A. 1975. Olbia pontique et son trritoire. Lamnagement de lespace. Paris.

Webb, P. A. 1996. Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture. Figural Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean
Islands. Wisconsin.

Whitbread, I. K. 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae. A Petrological and Archaeological Study. Athens.

Widengren, G. 1960. "La lgende royal de l'Iran antique." In Hommages Georges Dumzil. Collection
Latomus, edited by 225-37.

Wilhelm, A. 1936. "Knig Mithridates und Olbia." Klio 29:50-9.

Wilkes, J. J. 1992. The Illyrians. Oxford.

Willey, G. R. 1974. "The Viru Valley Settlement Pattern Study." In Archaeological Researches in
Retrospect, edited by G. R. Willey, 147-76. Cambridge.

Williams, D. 1996. "The Kyme Treasure." In Ancient Jewelry and Archaeology, edited by A. Calinescu,
117-30. Indianapolis.

Williams, D., and Ogden, J. 1994. Greek Gold Jewellery of the Classical World. London.

Wilson, D.R. 1960. The Historical Geography of Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Pontos in the Greek and Roman
Periods. Ph.D. diss., Oxford University.

Winkes, R. 1969. Clipeata Imago. Studien zur einer rmischer Bildnisform. Bonn.

Winter, F. 1908. Die Skulpturen mit Ausnahme der Altarreliefs. Altertmer von Pergamon Band VII. 2.
Berlin.

Wroth W. 1889. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Pontus, Paphlagonia, Bithynia and the
Kingdom of Bosporus. London.

Yakar, J. 1975. "Northern Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age." Tel Aviv 2:133-45.

_____. 1981. "The Indo-Europeans and their Impact on Anatolian Cultural Development." Journal of
Indo-European Studies 9:93-112.

_____. 1992. "Beyond the Eastern Borders of the Hittite Empire: An Archaeological Assessment."
In Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, edited by H. Otten, 507-
20. Ankara.

_____. 2000. Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv
University 17. Tel Aviv.

255
Yardley, J. C. 1994. Justins Epitome of the Phillipic History of Pompeius Trogus. Atlanta.

Yce, A. 1995. "Amasya Merkez Eski amlar Mezarl 1993 Yl Kurtarma Kazs." V. Mze
Kurtarma Kazlar Semineri:1-16.

Yldrm, T., and Sipahi, T. 1999. "1997 Yl orum Blgesi Yzey Aratrmalar." XVI. Aratrma
Sonular Toplants:433-50.

Zahle, J. 1982. "Persian Satraps and Lycian Dynasts. The Evidence of the Diadems." In Proceedings of
the 9th International Congress of Numismatics, edited by T. Hackens, and R. Weiller, 101-12. Louvain-la-
Neuve.

Zaphiropolou, P. 1983. Delos Monuments and Museums. Athens.

Zograph, A. N. 1977. Ancient Coinage. Part II: The Ancient Coins of the Northern Black Sea Littoral. BAR
Supplement Series 33(ii). Oxford.

Zwicker U. 1996. Griechische Mnzen (Griechenland, Agais, Pontus, Paphlagonien und Bithynien). Sammlung
Teil 2. Erlangen.

akir, N. 1995. "Kastamonu li Takpr lesi Pompeiopolis (Zmbll Tepesi Hy) 1993 Yl
Kurtarma Kazs." V. Mze Kurtarma Kazlar Semineri:39-65.

kt, A. 1973. Die Intermediate-Keramik in Kleinasien. Ph.D. diss., Universitt Berlin.

zgen, ., and ztrk, J. 1996. Heritage Recovered. The Lydian Treasure. Republic of Turkey, Ministry of
Culture General Directorate of Monuments and Museums, Istanbul.

zg, T. 1978. Excavation at Maathyk and Investigations in its Vicinity. Ankara.

256
APPENDIX 1

This is a list of sites shown on the site distribution maps of Chapter 2. They are compiled from the
survey reports conducted in the central Black Sea region. Numbers may repeat themselves on maps
of different periods depending on the representation of that site during a specific period.

AMASYA 40. Ansar Kalesi

1. Koapnar 41. Yenipnar
2. Sarmee 42. Ktklk
3. Somtepe-Gkhyk 43. Budak
4. Actepe 44. Korama Pnar
5. Kanatpnar Devret 45. ambk
6. Dereal 46. Kaletepe
7. Atepe 47. mleklik
8. Hacpnar 48. smail Pnar
9. Niyazbaba 49. Kabalakderesi
10. Asarck altepe 50. Akkaya
11. Hamamz 51. At Al
12. Kartalkaya 52. Susuz Tarla
13. Kavanayr 53. Fatma Pnar
14. Ayvalpnar 1 54. Gaffar Dede 1
15. Akyaz Tepesi 55. Gaffar Dede 2
16. Karacaren 56. Kzlarkayas
17. Kaletepe 57. Kayaba 1
18. Dkmetepe 58. Kayaba 2
19. Gllbalar 59. Sultanayr
20. Erektepe 60. Tekke Tepesi
21. Sarkaya 61. Yeniky
22. Kurban 62. ittirin Bayr
23. Dolmatepe 63. Paral Tepe 1
24. Sargazel 64. Paral Tepe 2
25. Oulba 65. Doantepe
26. Yourtcubaba 66. Karata Tepe 1
27. Trkmenlik 67. Karata Tepe 2
28. Bekitepesi 68. Beki Tepesi
29. Kadimpnar 69. mezler
30. Seluk 70. Sarkabn Klas
31. Kocamantepe 71. Tereba
32. Toplutepe 72. Ekinalan
33. aylakdeirmeni 73. Onhoroz
34. Yalnztepe 74. Byk Kllk Tepe
35. Cinlitepe 75. Kk Kllk Tepe
36. Ayvalpnar 2 76. Yeniky Etraf
37. Mlkbk 77. Gevenli
38. Ekiztepe 78. Hacpnar
39. Kutepesi 79. Hamamkayas

257
 80. Soluk Yeri 127. Burga
81. Karmaatlk 128. Zile Hyk
82. Dikmen 129. Maat
83. Ardil 130. Uky
84. Cllk Deresi 131. Hamamtepe
85. Etlik Tepe 132. Kunduz
86. Hacpnar 133. Talhyk
87. Dere Mahallesi 134. Arapren
88. Orta Mahallesi 135. Bolos
89. Sivrikaya 136. eri
90. Karakaya 137. avundur Hyk
91. Maden 138. Tanoba
92. Grenler 139. Zamair
93. Kizirolu 140. lice
94. Yankhayat 141. Sulusaray
95. ayralt 142. ayky
96. Dereky SAMSUN
TOKAT 143. kiztepe
97. Engren Hyk 144. Aa Tepe
98. Ali Tepesi 145. Katrdam Tepecik
99. ernik 146. Gavurun Yeri
100. Teveri 147. Zahna
101. Kabatepe 148. Bakrdere
102. Hseyingazi 149. Cevizlik
103. Komutepesi 150. Kocalp
104. asak 151. Crklar
105. Tilkitepe 152. Tepecik
106. Dolmatepe 153. Kayal Tepe
107. Kyii 154. Garco Tepe
108. Kmarmudu 155. rentepe
109. Delikta 156. Cetepesi
110. Katmerkaya 157. Patlangu
111. Kalehy 158. amtepe
112. Karayaka 159. Sleyman Mevkii
113. Kmlk 160. Bacaztepe
114. ayn 161. Kayaba
115. Tula F. Hyk 162. Doan Tepe
116. Horoztepe 163. Kurudere
117. Kzlubuk 164. Keltepe
118. Kale 165. Ada Tepe
119. Untepe 166. Oymaaa
120. Asar 167. Dedealt
121. Kat 168. Deverkaya
122. llobalar 169. Tombul Tepe
123. Mahmutlutepe 170. Kilise Tepe
124. Kayapnar 171. nkaya
125. tepeler 172. Kmbettepe
126. Turhal Kale 173. aklaras

258
174. Yktepe 222. Sazak
175. Aytepe 223. Tmb tepe
176. Danabasan 224. Dedetepe / Vezirkpr
177. Kaleyeri 225. Kzlcaren
178. Kavak 226. ren Tepe
179. amlk 227. renyeri
180. Tepesidelik 228. Anttepe
181. Hacbaba Tepesi 229. Sivrikise
182. Gney Tepesi 230. Dingilkalecik Tepe
183. Asarkale ORUM
184. Dedest 231. rkkaya
185. Gk Tepe 232. pl
186. irlektepe 233. Bozdoan
187. Kelebetepe 234. Zindankuyu
188. Elmack Tepe 235. Bolatck
189. Tepetarla 236. Tombultepe
190. Azaytepe 237. Mercantepe
191. Tdn 238. Kplanpnar
192. Dedetepe 239. Bayndrhyk
193. Gkeboaz 240. Dedepnar
194. Sivritepe 241. Hr
195. Yrkler 242. Kzll
196. ksrk Tepe 243. Akhyk
197. Btepe 244. Akpnar
198. Akalan 245. Kzlhamza
199. Kaletepe 246. Hamamtepe
200. Kaledoruu 247. Koyuncu
201. Tepecik 248. M. Hamamtepe
202. Karaeyh 249. Kurbantepe
203. merusta / Evrenua 250. Deirmen Mevkii
204. Paaeyh 251. Dedelik Mevkii
205. Manevra Tepe 252. Serehyk
206. Hakim Tepe 1 253. Toptepe
207. Hakim Tepe 2 SVAS
208. Takaracaren 254. Karakale
209. Cintepe 2 255. Ziyarettepe
210. Dkmetepe 1 256. Delikta
211. Hyktepe 257. Depiklo
212. Cintepe 1 258. Acakale
213. eyhsafi 259. Ortakale
214. rlentepe 260. Kalada
215. Terelik 261. ukursarayl
216. altcak 262. renn
217. Yaknta 263. Gavurren
218. Derbent 264. Kayalpnar
219. Diklimtepe 265. Maltepesi
220. Tekkeky 266. Untepe
221. Amsos 267. Kale 1

259
268. Kale 2 316. Maran
269. Ziyarettepesi 317. Kalenin Boynu
270. Deirmen Tepe 318. Uyuzsuyu
271. K. Topluktepe 319. ataltepe
272. Akcakale 320. Kapakkaya
273. Ziyarettepe 321. Gerdekkaya
274. Kevlu 322. Kamburburun
275. renler 323. Kora
276. Delikkaya 324. Ekecik
277. Kzlkaya 325. Sarn
278. Kktepe 326. Alkaya
279. Kiremitli 327. Yunusreni
280. Kiremitlidz 328. Gavurua
281. Konakz 329. Kala
282. Gdere 330. Beiktepe
283. Aytepesi 331. Tatlpnar
284. Hrkkaya 332. Maatlk Mevkii
285. Kayalktepe 333. all Kllk
286. yktepe 334. Kll Tepe
287. Kilisetepe 335. Apa
288. Kale Tepesi 336. vik
289. Tekke 337. Merkez Hyk
290. Yatak Yeri 338. Mal Tepesi
291. Souk Pnar 339. Algney
292. ksz Tepe 340. Pulur
293. Kktepe 341. Hamzaeyh
294. renyeri 342. zmevkii
295. Kala 343. Hyk
296. Deirmenyeri 344. Yasshyk
297. Danaavla Tepesi 345. Kilise tepe
298. Kalatepe 346. Ciritbaba
299. Uucek Tepe 347. Kmbet
300. Kazanpnar 348. Esmeba
301. Seslan Tepe 349. rentepe
302. Kmbet K. 350. Uyuzsuyu
303. Ycebaca K. 351. Pulur
304. Boztepe 352. Krolu Mevkii
305. Baytar M. 353. Korudere
306. Kvak Kaletepe 354. Taldere
307. Kayalpnar Hyk 355. ongar
308. Deirmentepesi 356. Dolmatepe
309. Aapnar M. 357. Tek Hyk
310. Mezarldere Mevkii 358. Harabe Mevkii
311. Maatlk 359. Hanl
312. Tulolu 360. Kavlak
313. Kalkankaya 361. Erek Tepe
314. inboynu 362. Hyk
315. Katranl 363. Kolluca

260
364. Karaaanlk 368. Kayan
365. Sinek 369. Karayn
366. Maltepe 370. Alkaya
367. Tatlsu

261
FIGURES

Fig. 1 Vegetation cover of Turkey.

Fig. 2 The sea level of the Black sea in 7500 B.P.

262
Fig. 3 The sea level curve based on radiocarbon-dated acropora palmata. (after van Andel 1990, fig.
1).

Fig. 4 Changes in the level of the Black Sea over the past 6000 years (after Shilik 1997, 127).

263
Fig. 5 Topographical map of northern Turkey.

264
 Fig. 6 Distribution of vegetation in Turkey (after Atalay 1983, 80)

Fig. 7 Number of settlements in central Black Sea region from the Chalcolithic through the
Byzantine period (after survey projects in the region).

265
Fig. 8 Number of settlements in Amasya province through the ages (after survey projects in the
region).

266
Fig. 9 Site distribution map of central Black Sea region in the Chalcolithic period (after survey
projects in the region).

267
 Fig. 10 Number of settlements in Tokat province through the ages (after survey projects in the
region).

Fig. 11 Number of settlements in Samsun province through the ages (after survey projects in the
region).

268
Fig. 12 Number of settlements in Sivas province through the ages (after survey projects in the
region).

269
Fig. 13 Site distribution map of central Black Sea region in the Early Bronze Age (after survey
projects in the region).

270
Fig. 14 Number of settlements in orum province through the ages (after survey projects in the
region).

271
Fig. 15 Site distribution map of central Black Sea region in the second millenium B.C (after survey
projects in the region).

272
Fig. 16 Greek colonization in the Black Sea (after Tsetskhladze 1998, 23).

273
Fig. 17 Site distribution map of central Black Sea region in the Iron Age (after survey projects in the
region).

274
Fig. 18 Site distribution map of central Black Sea region in the Classical and Hellenistic periods (after
survey projects in the region).

275
Fig. 19 Site continuity in central Black Sea region from the Iron Age through the Byzantine period
(after survey projects in the region).

276
Fig. 20 Site distribution map of central Black Sea region in the Roman period (after survey projects
in the region).

277
Fig. 21 Site distribution map of central Black Sea region in Late Antiquity.

278
Fig. 22 Genealogical chart of the Pontic royalty (after Bosworth and Wheatley 1998, 160).

279
Fig. 23 Situation plan of the sanctuary of the Great Gods of Samothrace (after Chapouthier 1935,
fig. 1).

280
Fig. 24 Plan of the Sanctuary of the Great Gods of Samothrace (after Chapouthier 1935, fig. 11).

281
Fig. 27 A drawing of the portrait of Diophantus (after Chapouthier 1935, 30 fig. 38).

Fig. 28 Ground plan of the Heroon at Kalydon (after Dyggve et al. 1934, Tafel I,II ).

282
Fig. 29 A reconstruction drawing of the Heroon at Kalydon (after Dyggve 1934, fig.100).

283
Fig. 32 A gem portrait (after Richter 1968, cat.no. 650).

Fig. 33 A gem portrait (after Richter 1968, cat.no. 652).

284
Fig. 34 The Ostia Mithradates (after Smith 1988, Pl. 52, 3-4).

Fig. 35 The Athens Mithradates (after Smith 1988, Pl. 53, 1-2).

285
 Fig. 36 Pergamon monument Herakles (after Pollitt 1986, fig.30).

Fig. 37 Pergamon monument detail of the head of Herakles (after Pollitt 1986, fig.30).

286
Fig. 38 The horned king from Delos A4184 (after Smith 1988, Pl. 55, 5-7).

Fig. 39 The horned king from Delos A4184 (after Smith 1988, Pl. 55, 5-7).

Fig. 40 The Inopus king from Delos (after Smith 1988, Pl. 54, 6-7).

287
 Fig. 41 The Venice Helios (after Smith 1988, Pl. 53, 3-4).

Fig. 42 The Odessa Mithradates (after Smith 1988, Pl. 54, 4-5).

288
 Fig. 43 The Panticapeum Mithradates (after Smith 1988, Pl. 54, 1-3).

Fig. 45 A portrait of Mithradates VI on a gem (after Richter 1968, cat.no. 652).

289
Fig. 46 Rice fields around the Halys river.

Fig. 47 The Iris river.

290
 Fig. 48 Modern Amasya.

Fig. 49 Rock-cut tombs in Amasya.

291
Fig. 50 Plan of the temenos of the sanctury of Zeus Stratios plan (after French 1995, 92).

292
 Fig. 51 Fields around Comana.

Fig. 52 Hill on which the site of Comana once stood.

293
Fig. 53, 54, 55 Coins of Caligula, Septimius Severus with a representation of Ma; of Caracala with a
representation of the temple at Zela (SNGvA 125, 126, 143).

Fig. 56 Distribution map of coin hoards including Pontic coins.

294
Fig. 57 Amisos tomb, ground plan (after a drawing by the Samsun Museum staff).

295
Fig. 58 Amisos tomb, cross-section (after a drawing by the Samsun Museum staff).

296
Fig. 59 Alabastron from the Amisos tomb.

Fig. 60 Oillamp from the Amisos tomb.

297
Fig. 61 Incense burners from the Amisos tomb.

Fig. 62 Unguentaria from the Amisos tomb.

298
 Fig. 63 Amphoriskos from the Amisos tomb.

Fig. 64 Wreath from Grave No.2, Amisos tomb.

299
 Fig. 65 Wreath from Kerch (fourth century B.C.) (after The State Hermitage. Masterpieces from the
Museums Collections 1994, 321, no.305).

Fig. 66 Wreath from Mogilanska Mogila, Vratsa Bulgaria (mid-fourth century B.C.) (after Marazov
1998, 200, no.141).

Fig. 67 Wreath from Great Bliznitza, Taman Peninsula (330-300 B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden
1994, 180-1).

300
 Fig. 68 Tie-necklace from Grave No. 3, Amisos tomb.

Fig. 69 Tie-necklace from Kyme (late-fourth century B.C.) (after Williams 1996, 120-2).

301
 Fig. 70 Tie-necklace from Mytilene (330-300 B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden 1994, 118).

Fig. 71 Tie-pendants from Kyme (first quarter of the third century B.C.)(after Williams 1996, 124-5).

Fig. 72 Bastis Herakles-knot necklace (late fourth-early third century B.C.) (after Bothmer 1987,
no.180).

302
 Fig. 73 Eros earring from Grave No.3, Amisos tomb.

Fig. 74 Earrings from Kyme (third century B.C.) (after Williams 1996, 119).

Fig. 75 Earrings from Madytos (after Rudolph 1995, cat.no. 30B).

303
 Fig. 76 Necklace from Grave No.3, Amisos tomb.

Fig. 77 Gold discs from Grave No.3, Amisos tomb.

Fig. 78 Gold plaques from Scythian kurgan (ca. 350 B.C.) (after Reeder 1999, 119-20 cat.no. 16).

304
Fig. 79 Gold disc from Theodosia, Crimea (fourth-third century B.C.) (after Reeder 1999, 186 cat.no.
73).

Fig. 80 Gold strip from Kyme (330-300 B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden 1994, 93).

Fig. 81 Gold ear reels from Rhodes (400-350 B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden 1994, 89).

305
 Fig. 82 Bracelets from Grave No.3, Amisos tomb.

Fig. 83 Earrings from the eastern Mediterranean (300-250 B.C.) (after Rudolph 1995, 119,
cat.no.24A).

Fig. 84 Necklace finial from the Anatolia (325-250 B.C.) (after Rudolph 1995, 123-4).

306
 Fig. 85 Earrings from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.

Fig. 86 Detail of an earring from Kul Oba (ca.350 B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden 1994, 149-50).

307
 Fig. 87 Necklace from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.

Fig. 88 Necklace from Kyme (second half of third century B.C.) (after Williams Williams and Ogden
1994, 149-50).

308
 Fig. 89 Appliqus from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.

Fig. 90 Gold pendant from Great Bliznitza (330-300 B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden 1994, 186).

Fig. 91 Earring from Kul Oba (after 350 B.C.) (after Williams and Ogden 1994, 146).

309
Fig. 92 Ear reel from eastern Mediterranean (early fourth century B.C.) (after Williams and
Ogden 1994, 89).

Fig. 93 Apulian red figure pelike (fourth century B.C.) (after Barringer 1998, Pl.51-2).

Fig. 94 Melian relief (470-450 B.C.) (after Barringer 1998, Pl.37).

310
 Fig. 95 Terracotta gilt appliqu from Taranto (350-320 B.C.) (after Barringer 1998, Pl.58).

Fig. 96 Nereid from Formia (fourth or first century B.C.) (after Barringer 1998, Pl.47).

Fig. 97 Apulian red figure pelike with Nereid (fifth century B.C.) (after Barringer 1998, Pl.31-2).

311
Fig. 98 Bracelets from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.

Fig. 99 Bracelet from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.

312
Fig. 100 Detail of a bracelet from eastern Mediterranean (325-250 B.C.) (after Rudolph 1995, 124-5
cat.no. 25B).

Fig. 101 Wristlet from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.

Fig. 102 Plague from 20th century.

313
Fig. 103 Ring from Grave No.4, Amisos tomb.

314
PLATE I

315
PLATE II

316
PLATE III

317