'Temple States' of Pontus: Comana Pontica and Zela A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
‘TEMPLE STATES’ OF PONTUS: COMANA PONTICA AND ZELA A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY EM İNE SÖKMEN IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SETTLEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY APRIL 2005 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Sencer Ayata Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science. Prof. Numan Tuna Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science. Asist. Prof. Dr .Deniz Burcu Erciyas Supervisor Examining Committee Members (first name belongs to the chairperson of the jury and the second name belongs to supervisor) Prof. Dr. Suna Güven (METU,AH) Asist. Prof. Dr. Deniz Burcu Erciyas (METU, SA) Asist. Prof. Dr. Jan Krzysztof Bertram (METU, SA) I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name : Emine Sökmen Signature : iii ABSTRACT ‘TEMPLE STATES’ OF PONTUS: COMANA PONTICA AND ZELA Sökmen, Emine M.S., Department of Settlement Archaeology Supervisor : Asist. Prof. Dr. Deniz Burcu Erciyas April 2005, 68 pages Before the Roman rule in Asia Minor, under the Hellenistic kings, small communities lived independently within areas surrounding temples with local powers. The temple held together and ruled these communities. Under the Romans these communities were brought and united to form cities in order to govern them by a central power and to take advantage of their unified work force. These communities served the Temple providing it necessary resources to function and provided themselves protection under sacred power. Some scholars have identified term as “temple state”, a term originated from the Sumerian communal structure. This study examines the validity of the use of the term “temple state” in defining Comana Pontica and Zela in the Black Sea region in Pontic region through a comparison with similar examples found in Anatolia. This study also aims to provide a revision to iv the meaning of independently structured temples by observing their transformation in time and by examining changes of the properties of their location. Keywords: Temple state, Comana Pontica, Zela, Black Sea, Pontus, Ma, Anaitis. v ÖZ PONTUS BÖLGES İ’NİN ‘TAPINAK DEVLETLER İ’: KOMANA PONTIKA VE ZELA Sökmen, Emine Yüksek Lisans, Yerle şim Arkeolojisi Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi : Yard. Doç. Dr. Deniz Burcu Erciyas Nisan 2005, 68 sayfa Anadolu’da Roma hakimiyetinden önce, Hellenistik dönemde küçük topluluklar, yerel bir güç olarak tanımlayabilece ğimiz tapınak etrafında ba ğımsız olarak ya şamaktaydılar. Bu toplulukları bir araya getiren ve yön veren güç, tapınak, bir ba şka deyi şle rahiplerdi. Roma döneminde bu topluluklar merkezi bir yönetim altına almak ve güçlerinden faydalanmak amacıyla biraraya getirilerek şehir haline dönü ştürülmü şlerdir. Bu i şlem Romalılar tarafından da sürdürülmü ştür. Kutsal bir yapı etrafında toplanan bu topluluklar tapına ğa hizmet verip hem tapına ğın devamlılı ğını sa ğlıyorlardı hem de kendilerini bu kutsal güç altında güvenceye alıyorlardı. Literatürde bu tür yapılar için bazı bilimadamları Sümer toplum yapısına özgü bir terim olan “tapınak devleti” tanımını kullanmı ştır. Bu çalı şmada Pontus bölgesinde bulunan ve “tapınak devleti” olarak adlandırılan Comana Pontika ve Zela’nın bu tanıma ne kadar uydu ğunu, Anadolu’daki di ğer benzer örnekler ve onları olu şturan unsurlar ı şığı altında açıklanmaya çalı şılmı ştır. Ayrıca bu vi çalı şma, ba ğımsız yapıdaki tapınakların zamansal ve mekansal de ğişimlerini ortaya koyarak yeniden anlamlandırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Tapınak devleti, Komana Pontika , Zela, Pontus, Karadeniz, Ma, Anaitis. vi To Fago vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I cannot thank to my supervisor Asist. Prof. Dr. Deniz Burcu Erciyas enough for her endless patience and support so my work could become a thesis. She provided constant motivation whenever I lost my enthusiasm about working on the subject and she shared my excitement while contributing greatly to this study. I am grateful to Prof. Stephen Mitchell for helping me shape and enhance my ideas. In addition, I am grateful to Prof. Suna Güven and Prof. Numan Tuna for expanding my intellectual horizon and for providing me different perspectives and approaches to the subject. I also thank to Asist. Prof. Dr. Jan K. Bertram and Elif Koparal for their patience and support. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM..................................................................................................................iii ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... iv ÖZ .............................................................................................................................. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................... viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ ix APPENDICES.............................................................................................................. x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 2. DEFINITION OF THE STUDY AREA ................................................................... 3 2.1. Geography of the Pontic Region ....................................................................... 3 2.2. Historical Backround of the Study Area ........................................................... 5 2.3. Surveys and Excavations in Subject Area ......................................................... 8 3. DEFINITION OF THE TEMPLE STATES IN ANATOLIA ................................. 10 3.1 Temple States .................................................................................................. 10 3.2 Temple Revenues ............................................................................................ 13 3.3 Priesthood ....................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Sacred Slaves ( hierodouloi ) ............................................................................. 18 3.5 Temple Prostitutes ........................................................................................... 19 4. TEMPLE STATES OF PONTUS ........................................................................... 22 4.1 Comana Pontica .............................................................................................. 22 4.2 Zela ................................................................................................................. 30 ix 4.3. The Importance of Comana Pontica and Zela in the Roman Road Network .... 38 4.4 Reduction of ‘Temple-States’........................................................................... 41 5. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 45 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 49 ANCIENT SOURCES ........................................................................................... 54 APPENDICES........................................................................................................ 55 A. Figure 1 Topographical Map of Northern Turkey ............................................. 55 B. Figure.2 Distribution of the Temples and the Sacred Population ....................... 56 C. Figure 3 A North-West View of Hamamtepe .................................................... 57 D. Figure 4 Location of Comana Pontica ............................................................... 58 E. Figure 5 A View of Iris Valley .......................................................................... 59 F. Figure.6 The Roman Bridge existed previously at Comana Pontica ................... 59 G. Figure 7 Reused civic inscriptions at the base of the Roman Bridge .................. 60 H. Figure 8 The civic inscription located at the base of the Roman Bridge ............ 60 I. Figure 9 Comana Pontica coin representing Temple of Ma ................................ 61 J. Figure 10 Comana Pontica coin representing Temple of Ma .............................. 61 K.Figure 11Comana Pontica coin representing goddess Ma (Enyo) ....................... 61 L. Figure 12 Detail from Hamamtepe .................................................................... 62 M.Figure 13 Aerial View of Hamamtepe ............................................................... 62 N. Figure 14 Zela .................................................................................................. 63 O. Figure 15 The coin representing the altar of Temple of Anaitis at Zela under the reign of Caracalla ....................................................................................................... 64 x P. Figure 16 The coin representing the temple of Anaitis at Zela under the reign of Caracalla .................................................................................................................... 64 Q. Figure