Chiliocomum: the ''Plain of a Thousand

CHILIOCOMUM: THE ‘’PLAIN OF A THOUSAND VILLAGES’’ EXAMINING THE RURAL SETTLEMENTS IN NW OF AMASYA DURING THE HELLENISTIC AND THE ROMAN PERIODS BY USING GIS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

COŞKU KOCABIYIK

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SETTLEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY

JUNE 2009

Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences

______Prof. Dr. Sencer Ayata Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.

______Prof. Dr. 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.

______Assoc. Prof. Dr. D. Burcu Erciyas Supervisor

Examining Committee Members

Assoc. Prof. Dr. D. Burcu Erciyas (METU, SA) ______

Assist. Prof. Dr. Lale Özgenel (METU, ARCH) ______

Assist. Prof. Dr. Evangelia Piskin (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: Coşku, KOCABIYIK

Signature:

iii

ABSTRACT

CHILIOCOMUM, THE ‘’PLAIN OF A THOUSAND VILLAGES’’: INVESTIGATION OF THE RURAL SETTLEMENTS IN NW OF AMASYA DURING THE HELLENISTIC AND THE ROMAN PERIODS BY USING GIS

Kocabıyık, Coşku M. Sc., Department Of Settlement Archaeology Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. D. Burcu Erciyas

June 2009, 97 Pages

The territory of Pontus once occupied by the Mithridatic Kingdom in the Hellenistic Period and fell under the Roman Empire in the first century B.C., layed between the Pontus Euxine (Black Sea) and the northern edge of the Anatolian plateau. In his Geography Strabo describes Pontus with a detailed account of the settlements. In his description of his hometown Amaseia (Amasya today), he mentions a plain with 1000 villages called Chiliocomum. Indeed, the archaeological survey data indicates that there were a large number of settlements dating to the Hellenistic and the Roman period in this region. The aim of this thesis is to quantify the settlement - environment relationship and to investigate and compare settlement patterns in the Hellenistic and Roman periods by using Geographical Information Systems (GIS).

Data sets are used in the study includes a settlement database, topography, road network, soil and current landuse which were spatially analysed in GIS. Raster analyses, proximity analyses and density analyses are conducted in order to understand and compare site distribution and landuse. The results of the GIS analyses revealed that settlements were located in particular areas of the landscape. Some of these areas continued to be settled from the Hellenistic through the Roman period, while others were abandoned and alternative

iv landscapes have replaced them. The results of the various analyses were utilized to discuss issues related to the shift in the political power and the socio-political structure in the region from the Hellenistic and to the Roman period.

Keywords: Settlement Archaeology, Pontus, Mithradates, Hellenistic, Roman, GIS in Archaeology

ÖZ

CHILIOCOMUM,BİN KÖYLÜ OVA:AMASYANIN KUZEY BATISINDA, HELENİSTİK VE ROMA DÖNEMİ YERLEŞİM DÜZENİNDE MEYDANA GELEN DEĞİŞİKLİKLER

Kocabıyık, Coşku Yüksek Lisans: Yerleşim Arkeolojisi Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. D. Burcu Erciyas

Haziran 2009, 97 pages

Mithridat Krallığı, Karadeniz ve Kuzey Anadolu platosunun arasında yer almaktadır. Hellenistik Dönemdeki Mithridat Krallığı, M.Ö. 1. Yüzyılda Roma İmparatorluğunun egemenliği altına girmiştir. Strabo bölgedeki yerleşimlerle ilgili detaylı bilgi vermektedir. Mithridat Krallığı’na bir dönem başkentlik yapan ve Roma dönemi önemli yerleşimlerinden biri olan Amasya’yı anlatırken, ‘’Chilliocomum’’ adı altında ‘’bin köylü bir ova’’tasvir etmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı bahsi geçen ovadaki Helenistik ve Roma dönemi yerleşim dağılımlarını incelemek ve de yerleşimlerin topoğrafya ile ilişkisinin Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemi (CİS) kullanarak saptamaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, yerleşim, Roma yolları, topoğrafya, toprak ve bugünkü arazi kullanım veri kümeleri oluşturulmuştur. Bu veri tabanları kullanılarak, raster, yoğunluk ve uzaklık analizleri yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar, Helenistik ve Roma dönemindeki yerleşimlerin, bazı yerlerde süreklilik gösterdiği, bazı bölgelern terk edildiği ve alternatif alanlar seçildiğini ortaya koymuştur. Bu analizler doğrultusunda, bahsi geçen dönemler arasında siyasal iktidarın değişimi ve sosyopolitik düzenle bağlantılı olarak tartışılmış ve öneriler sunulmuştur. Anahtar kelimeler: Yerleşim Arkeolojisi, Pontus, Mithridat, Helenistik, Roma, CBS

To my beloved parents, Tülay and İbrahim Kocabıyık

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my gratitude,

To my advisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. D. Burcu Erciyas who supported me endlessly throughout my graduate studies in archaeology by giving me perspective as well as initiative. I am thankful to her for accommodating me throughout my elongated writing process. I was lost most of the times, poking her at last minutes. Incredibly she tolerated me and never gave up on me. It has been my good fortune to be able to study with her.

To my committee members, Assist. Prof. Dr. Evangelia Pişkin and Assist Prof Dr. Lale Özgenel; for their understanding, support and valuable contributions.

To Prof Dr. Vedat Toprak; for giving me his valuable time and for sharing his valuable comments during this thesis.

To my dear friend Mert Burnaz; for the technical aid and giving me his precious time and teaching me a lot of things. If he was not there, GIS would be a big problem for me.

To Aydın Babacan and Erkan Öksüz from Yeşilırmak Basin Development Union; for their assistance in finding and comprehending the information I gathered for this study.

To my friend Emine Sökmen for her efforts to help me, trying to find something that she can do for me and sharing all her valuable archaeological knowledge with me.

To İlknur Urkun and Derya Silibolatlaz; for always being there for me, whenever and wherever I needed it. I am thankful to them for their friendship and caring about my stressful mood and always putting a smile on my face.

viii

To Sezen Kayhan for her arrivals to Ankara and being a movie guru. She has created sweet breaks and pulling me out of the reality of thesis by her discussion topics and stories.

To my angels, Bilge Ar, Enise Burcu, Evrim Pekyavuz and Dijana Omeragic for being always online for me. They have always encouraged me to finish my thesis. You were far away but too close.

To Özgecan Yarma and Arda Aydın for their magical skills who always make me feel like home in Ankara and parenting me throughout my nightmares and daydreams.

To Burçin Türkmenoğlu, for his endless support while also being a computer wizard and helping me in every step of my thesis with his computer skills. He has absorbed all my stressful moments, guarding me in the sleepless nights. He has tried to make it fun, happy and less stressful in every respect.

I owe all my accomplishments to the best family one can have, my mother Tülay, my father İbrahim, my sister Özgün and my very special grandparents Ali Rıza and Seher. They are always the greatest support ever in every step of my life, I cannot imagine doing this without them. I am fully aware of how fortunate I am to have them. They have always given me opportunity for everything I ever wanted to do

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAGIARISM ...... iii

ABSTRACT ...... iv

ÖZ ...... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... x

LIST OF TABLES ...... xiii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xiv

LIST OF MAPS ...... xvi

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.Purpose and Scope ...... 1

II. GEOGRAPHY and ECOLOGY ...... 3

2.1. Location of the Study Area ...... 3

2.2. Topography of the Study Area ...... 4

2.3. Geology and Mineral Sources ...... 5

2.4. Climate and Vegetation ...... 7

2.5. Agricultural Productivity ...... 7

2.6. Historical Geography ...... 8

2.6.1 Historical Geography of Pontus Kingdom ...... 8

2.6.2 Historical Geography of Ameseia and Chiliocomum ...... 18

2.6.3 Rural Settlement in the Territory of Chiliocomum ...... 22

III. METHODOLOGY ...... 25

3.1 Settlement Pattern Analysis: Archaeology and GIS ...... 25 x

3.2. Short Review: Survey Projects in Archaeology ...... 31

3.3. Spatial Questions ...... 32

3.4. Archaeological Surveys in the Study Area ...... 32

IV. PRESENTATION OF DATA ...... 35

4.1 Settlement Data ...... 35

4.2 Topographic Data ...... 38

4.2.1 Elevation ...... 38

4.2.2. Slope ...... 40

4.2.3 Aspect ...... 40

4.3 Settlement and Topography ...... 43

4.4 Current Landuse ...... 51

4.5 Soil ...... 54

4.6. Hydrology ...... 57

4.7. Road Network Data ...... 57

V. ANALYSES AND RESULTS ...... 58

5.1 Raster Analysis ...... 58

5.3 Point Pattern Analysis: Density Estimation ...... 63

5.3.1 Density Estimation for Hellenistic Period Sites ...... 64

5.3.2 Density Estimation for Roman Period Sites...... 64

5.4 Road Proximity Analysis ...... 67

5.4.1 Road Proximity of Hellenistic Settlements ...... 67

5.4.2 Road Proximity for Roman Settlements ...... 68

5.5 Spatial Model ...... 71

5.6 Discussion ...... 76

VI. CONCLUSION ...... 82 xi

REFERENCES ...... 87

APPENDICES ...... 96

APPENDIX A: Tables ...... 96

xii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLES

Table 4.1 Reclassification of Aspect values ...... 40 Table 5.1 Topographic parameters for the Hellenistic settlements ...... 61 Table 5.2 Table of topographic parameters for the Roman settlements ...... 61

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES

Figure 4.1 Pie Charts represent the percentage of the settlements in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods...... 36 Figure 4.2 Elevation map of the study area ...... 39 Figure 4.3 Histogram of the elevation values of the study...... 39 Figure 4.4 Slope map of the study area ...... 41 Figure 4.5 Histogram of the slope values of the study area...... 41 Figure 4.6 Aspect map of the study area ...... 42 Figure 4.7 Histogram of the aspect values of the study area...... 42 Figure 4.8 Map of the elevation values with Hellenistic settlements ...... 44 Figure 4.9 Map of elevation values with Roman settlements ...... 44 Figure 4.10 Histogram of the elevation values of the Hellenistic settlements .. 45 Figure 4.11 Histogram of the elevation values of the Roman settlements...... 45 Figure 4.12 Slope map of the study area with Hellenistic settlements ...... 46 Figure 4.13 Slope map of the study area with Roman settlements ...... 46 Figure 4.14 Histogram of the slope values for the Hellenistic settlements ...... 47 Figure 4.15 Histogram of the slope values for the Roman settlements ...... 47 Figure 4.16 Aspect map of the study area with Hellenistic settlements ...... 48 Figure 4.17 Aspect map of the study area with Roman settlements ...... 48 Figure 4.18 Histogram of the aspect values of the Hellenistic settlement ...... 49 Figure 4.19 Histogram of the aspect values Roman Settlements ...... 49 Figure 4.20 Topography and Distribution of the Hellenistic settlements...... 50 Figure 4.21 Topography and Distribution of the Roman settlements...... 50 Figure 4.22 Histogram of Hellenistic settlements current landuse values ...... 52 Figure 4.23 Histogram of Roman settlements current land use values ...... 52 Figure 4.24 Current Landuse map and Hellenistic settlements ...... 53 Figure 4.25 Current Landuse map and Roman settlements ...... 53 Figure 4.26 Histogram of the a.c.c. values of the Hellenistic settlements...... 55 xiv

Figure 4.27 Histogram of the a.c. c. values of the Roman settlements...... 55 Figure 4.28 Agriculture carrying capacity and Hellenistic settlements ...... 56 Figure 4.29 Agriculture carrying capacity and Roman settlements ...... 56 Figure 5.2 The topography percentages for elevation, slope and aspect ...... 60 Figure 5.3 Threshold Map of Hellenistic settlements ...... 62 Figure 5.4 Threshold Map of Roman settlements ...... 62 Figure 5.5 Density Map of Hellenistic settlements...... 66 Figure 5.6 Density Map of Roman settlements ...... 66 Figure 5.7 Density Minus Map of Hellenistic and Roman settlements ...... 66 Figure 5.8 Model of the topography with the Hellenistic Settlements ...... 69 Figure 5.9 Model of the topography with the Roman Settlements ...... 69 Figure 5.10 Proximity of the Hellenistic settlements to roads ...... 70 Figure 5.11 Proximity of the Roman settlements to roads ...... 70 Figure 5.12 Thiessien Polygon Map of Hellenistic settlements ...... 74 Figure 5.13 Thiessien Polygon Map of Roman settlements ...... 74

LIST OF MAPS

MAPS

Map 2.1 Location of study area ...... 3 Map 2.2 The territory of the Pontus Kingdom ...... 10 Map 2.3 Major settlements of Mithradatic Kingdom ...... 14 Map 2.4 Settlements after reorganization of Pompey in Pontus ...... 16 Map 2.5 Location of Chiliocomum ...... 22 Map 4.1 Distribution map of the Hellenistic Settlements ...... 37 Map 4.2 Distribution map of the Roman Settlements...... 37

xvi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1. Purpose and Scope

The shift in the political control of the territory of Pontus from the Kingdom of the Mithradatids to the Roman Empire must have had a significant impact on the political, economic and administrative structure of the region. Amaseia among other cities, was the only example of an urban center in inland Pontus and it remained one of the largest under the Roman rule Pontus (Hojte, 2001:12)

French suggested (1996:78) that there may have been as many as 500 villages in the territory of Amaseia. French’s observation together with Strabo’s claim may indeed indicate that the Merzifon plain in Amasya was the so called Chiliocomum. These evidence and the survey results suggested a densely populated rural landscape in the valley during the pre-Roman period. Evidently it was from all these scattered villages that the inhabitants of the Roman foundations were drawn.

The purpose of this study is to examine the rural settlement pattern of Chiliocomum dated to Hellenistic and Roman period. The special emphasis is paid to the environment’s effect on society and to compare Hellenistic and Roman settlement patterns.

In order to examine spatial distribution of settlements and to find whether there exist a relationship between socio political structure and physical structure and its strength, published result of archaeological surveys are used in creating settlement database to used for spatial analysis together with digitized data of environmental variables mainly depend on Geographic Information System (GIS).

CHAPTER II

GEOGRAPHY and ECOLOGY

2.1. Location of the Study Area

The study area is located on the northern and northwestern extents of Amasya province in Central Black Sea region of Turkey (Map 2.1). The province which is in the transition zone between the Central Black Sea coast of Turkey and central Anatolian peninsula has fascinating landscape composed of various landforms and wide fertile plains, enriched by Yeşilırmak River and its branches. (Erciyas, 2006:36)

Map 2.1: Location of study area Source: (http://maps.google.com/)

Today, the main economic activity in Amasya is agriculture and the industry is based on agriculture (Amasya Environmental Status Report 2007). Furthermore, Amasya is the center of agricultural activities for the whole region (Erciyas, 3

200:86). The territory which is comprised of fertile plains of Suluova, Merzifon and Gümüşhacıköy is the focus of the study area and was also known as “the plain with thousand villages” (Chiliocomum) in antiquity Amaseia was also the capital of the Mithradatic Kingdom in the Hellenistic Period (Strabo12, 3, 38-40) Determination of the limits of the study area is of great importance as determinants of settlement patterns can be profoundly affected from the choice. The study area was determined according to the accounts of Strabo (13.3.39) as well as an examination of the descriptions by Wilson (1960) and Cumont (1901). In light of Strabo’s description of the landscape and archaeological remains which were determined by travelers the limits of the study area decides as the total area of modern Gümüşhacıköy, Merzifon and Suluova districts of Amasya.

2.2. Topography of the Study Area

The study area covers Gümüşhacıköy, Merzifon and Suluova situated on the north and west of Amasya. Yeşilırmak river (ancient Iris) passes through Amasya and the study area begins from the north bank of the river reaches up to the border of the Samsun Province.

The area presents a varied topography and vegetation because of the variety of land forms and elevations it contains. Altitude of the study area varies between 310 m and 2060 m. The northernmost part of the area enclosed by the Tavşandağ Mountain to the east of the area is bordered by the Akdağ Mountain which also represents the highest elevation of the study area with an altitude of 2060 m. The western boundary of the study area is the Gümüşhacıköy district. The Gümüşsuyu stream emerges from here and adjoins the Tersakan River where the lower slopes of the study area exist. In the study area, there appears generally to be mountain ranges embracing the lower slopes which form the fertile plains (Amasya Environmental Status Report 2007).

The two mountain ranges of Amasya, Tavşandağ to the north and Akdağ to the east dominate the landscape. There are also two rivers that have prominent position in the study area. The Tersakan River passes through the nucleus of the area, while it’s tributary, the Gümüşsuyu stream, flows in the southern margins of the study area.

The Tersakan River which start from the Akdağ Mountain east of Samsun’s Ladik District irrigates the plains taking the runoff from Lake Ladik, it flows through the study area where Merzifon and Suluova connect to each other and join the Yeşilırmak River in Amasya Province. The Southern parts of Merzifon are irrigated by the Gümüşsuyu River which emerges from the mountains of Gümüşhacıköy district (Amasya Environmental Status Report 2007). Moreover, there are several other streams in the study area emerging from the mountains. Most of them leave their load in alluvial fans (Rojay, 1993:166).

Today, there are 105 villages existing in the study area. Each village contains a population of up to 300 or 400. The foothills of mountains or medium slopes are among the most common locations for these villages which are also surrounded by alluvial, agricultural lands or gardens (Amasya Environmental Status Report 2007)

2.3. Geology and Mineral Sources

The study area is bounded by the Northern Anatolian Fault to the north and Ezinepınarı Fault to the south which is inherited from the earlier tectonic regime and is geologically very complicated (Rojay, 1993: 150). The geological structure of the study area mostly consists of calcareous rocks which precipitate on the paleosoic old basic rocks. Volcanic formations cover the largest area while sedimentary rocks form the medium elevations in the study area. Alluvial formations are also found in the study area especially in the Tersakan basin around Suluova (Rojay, 1993: 155).

These are a mixture of sand, gravel, silt, and clay. There are five large soil groups in the study area: brown forest soil, chestnut color soil, brown soil, alluvial and colluvial soil (Amasya Environmental Status Report 2007). Almost all of these soil groups are suitable for agriculture and are used as agricultural land in the study area. These fertile lands are in the second degree earthquake zone. The tectonic movements in the study area caused the topographic slopes and elevation differences of the margins. The eastern and southern margin reveals a step-like morphology. The result of retreat of fault scarps and triangular facets are exposed as gentle slopes and alluvial plain interactions (Rojay, 1993: 164).

Archeological data show that earliest lead mining in Anatolia was carried out in Gümüşhacıköy, during the Hittite era (1750-1200 B.C.) Another mining source was the Bakırçay copper prospect, about 15 km north of the town of Merzifon. Isotopic data for the Bakırçay granodiorite porphyry, give a Late Eocene age for the development of the porphyry copper system (Taylor, 1981:2). According to Kaptan and Taylor in the Bakırçay area mining was done right on the banks of the stream, this area being relatively abundant in copper ores (Kaptan, Taylor; 1981:4). Some tunneling was seen at İnkaya in the bank of the Bakırçay. A large workshop was reported in this area dated to the 4th-6th centuries AD.

Slag deposits line the banks of the Bakırçay and indicate copper smelting over a long period. The ancient geographer, Strabo, mentions some Roman mines in the area of Pimolisa, now Osmancık (Kaptan, 1983:118). He adds that the Romans acquired slaves locally to work at these mines. The high content of as in the slag from Gümüş has allowed identifying Osmancık with the Roman mines of Strabo's time (64 B.C. - 21 A.D). According to Taylor (1981:5), this identification is supported not only by the analyses but also by the physical features of the area that Strabo describes. He mentions that under Mt. Sandaracurgium the mining took place in the form of «great caveties» (Taylor, 1981:5).

The present-day İnegöldağ overlooks the town of Gümüş and the ancient mining activity, just as Strabo's Mt. Sandaracurgium would have and in which today mine tunnels may be it is not certain that arsenic was in fact the metal that the Romans were exploiting.

In another study, Jesus dated this site and others that produced tuyeres to around 530 B.C. - 70 A.D (Jesus, 1999:60). However, there is no pottery or artifact evidence to attribute the site to the period between Late Phrygian and Late Hellenistic periods. Hence, he tended to place the smelting complex in and around the Bakırçay in the Roman - Early Byzantine period. (Jesus, 1990:60)

2.4. Climate and Vegetation

The study area is in the transitional zone between Central Anatolia steppes and Northern Anatolia. The dominant climate is characterized as semi-arid Mediterranean climate. It is experienced by hot and dry summers followed by cold and wet winters. Rainfall is lower from the north to the south of the valley. Heavy rainfall is received in November to April and the dry period extends from the beginning of June until the end of October. (Celep & Doğan, 2007:3)

This situation is clearly reflected in the vegetation of the study area. For example dry forests can be found on the southern slopes of mountains, and xerophytes bushes and even steppes appear together in the valleys and depressions (Amasya Environmental Status Report 2007).

2.5. Agricultural Productivity

The study area is the most productive agricultural area in the mid-northern part of Turkey. About 40% of the cultured land is used for agriculture, 16% of it is forests and 16% is grazing land. Grain production covers 70% of cultivated land.

The most popular products are wheat and barley (Amasya Environmental Status Report 2007). Fruit cultivation is important in the area since antiquity. Strabo speaks about the fame of Amasya as a fruit production center and gardens in its environs (Strabo 12, 3, 13). Today apple and cherry are still produced in the area but the percentage is very low in comparison to grain production.

For Hellenistic and Roman periods, the local population in the study area could have been self-sufficient or capable of producing an agricultural surplus for exchange. It is known from the ancient sources (Strabo, 13.3.39) that the study area has played a major role in production of foodstuffs. Wild fruits require different soil conditions from cereals and pulses and are harvested later than these crops. Thus, an area of mixed land can produce two extra harvests with the same amount of labor which may have been the case here (Greene 1990, 72).

The study area was fertile and well watered and was located in close proximity to trade routes and ports in Sinop and Samsun (Amasya Environmental Status Report 2007).

The environmental variables will be helpful in understanding the potential agricultural carrying capacity of the study area and each of the settlement’s hinterland to conceive the connections of the local population in the study area with networks of commodity trade (Cunningham 2004, 103).

2.6. Historical Geography

2.6.1. Historical Geography of Pontus Kingdom

The territory of Pontus once occupied by the Mithridatic Kingdom in the Hellenistic Period layed between the Pontus Euxine (Black Sea) and the northern edge of the Anatolian plateau. On the west, it was bordered by the river Halys,

8 on the east by the Colchis region, on the southeast by Armenia Minor and on the southwest by Cappadocia. (Marek, 1993:11) (Map 2.2)

The land of Pontus has two main parts. The first is the ridge of the Pontic Mountains, which run parallel and close to the shore of the Pontus Euxine (Black Sea). Lower slopes of the land are thickly wooded and coastal parts have a humid and rainy climate.

The second part of Pontus is mountainous inland region, consisting of fertile inland plains, in the river system of the Iris (Yeşilırmak) and the lower Halys (Kızılırmak). Because of these natural conditions, the Black Sea coastal area was rather isolated from the Anatolian plateau: the paths – connecting the shore with the inland must have been blocked by snow for most of the year and must have been treacherous where the numerous valleys turn into gorges. Inland Pontus had little cultural contact with the Greek or Roman worlds until the campaigns of Lucullus and Pompey against Mithradates in the 70s and 60s B.C. (Marek, 1993:12).

The main rivers in the region are the Iris (Yeşilırmak), Scylax (Çekerek), Lycus (Kelkit), Halys (Kızılırmak) and Apsar (Çoruh). The Iris River passed through Samsun, Amasya and Tokat adjoining with the Scylax and Lycus - and discharged at Cape Civa in Samsun. The Lycus River has its source within Cappadocia and finishes pouring into the Black Sea 2 km to the north of Bafra (Strabo 12.3.15).

Our knowledge is limited on the economic activities within Pontus (Erciyas, 2006:115) However, the increased amphora production and the shipwrecks that have been discovered, recommends great standards of maritime activities in Hellenistic period (Doonan, 2004:74), Still would not be wrong to suggest that the economy was mostly based on agriculture.

Pontus was also provider of cattle, slaves, honey, wax and fish in exchange of wine and olive oil which suggest sophisticated system of production and distribution to the rest of the Hellenistic world (Magie, 1950:186).The economy of inland Pontus depended upon the property of the temples to Ma at Comana and Anaitis at Zela (Erciyas, 2006:48). Furthermore, Eastern Pontus was important for its iron, silver and copper resources (Strabo 12.3.30). Hence, the Greek colonization of the south coast of the Black Sea had begun in around the 8th century B.C. after Greeks discovered the advantage of the Black Sea routes 11 over the metal resources (Rostovtzeff, 572). As a result of this, inhospitable relation between Greeks and native people had changed, being friendly in the laterperiods due to subsequent developments of commercial contacts (Summerer, 2007:27).

Pontus became a ''political entity'' when it began to be reigned over by the Mithradatic family however, the idea of unification should not be taken to resemble modern political unity. Besides, Pontus was never controlled by a centralized political system even under the Roman domination (Erciyas, 2006:29).

Numismatic evidence from the study area has been useful to comprehend the history of the cities (Erciyas, 2006:31). The earliest of the coin minting cities was Sinop in the 6th/5th centuries B.C. Later on, Amisos began minting coins in the 5th/4th centuries B.C., followed by Trapezus, Gaziura and Cerasus in the 4th century B.C. Generally, until the reign of Mithradates VI, the coin types of the Black Sea were in the style of mints of the western Asia Minor (Erciyas, 2006:31).

Inland cities of the region became part of the political organization of the Pontic kingdom during the reign of Mithradates VI and began minting coins only under his realm (Erciyas, 2006:31).

Amaseia is one of these inland cities and was also the capital of the Mithradatic Kingdom until Pharnakes I carried the capital to Sinop following his conquest of it (Erciyas, 2006:36). Amaseia was situated in a strategic position on the fertile plains between northern and southern major routes of Northern Anatolia. (Amaesia is discussed in detail in the next section)

Another important site of the inland Pontus was Cabeira, which lay on the trunk road that reached Pontus by way of the Euphrates and Amnias valleys (Erciyas 2006:44). Mithradates VI' palace, hunting lodge, a park for wild animals, a water 12 mill and mines were situated in Cabeira (Wilson, 1960:239) In addition to this, Cabeira was a cult centre for the god Men whose sanctuary, established by Pharnaces, was located at Ameria nearby Cabeira (Strabo.12.3.31).

The only known city foundation in Pontus under Mithradates VI was Eupatoria (Erciyas, 2006:45), which is situated just south of the confluence of the rivers Lycus and Iris at the crossing point of the major roads going east-west through Pontus and the route going to the coast through the narrow valley cut by the Iris river. (Erciyas, 2006:45) Eupatoria was the shortest lived city of the Mithradatic Kingdom. Even during the realm of Mithradates VI, the city was not one of the minting cities. According to Erciyas, Eupatoria was transformed to a city from a minor town by Mithradates VI in order to advance civic life in Pontus (Erciyas, 2006:46). During the reorganization of Pompey, the city was renamed as Magnopolis and its territory was enlarged (Strabo, 12.3.39).

Phazemon was another small city on the west side of Cabeira and Eupatoria. There is lack of archaeological evidence for this city but certain ruins have been connected to it. A fertile valley on the south of Vezirköprü was named Phazemonitis after the city Phazemon. Pompey founded a city named Neapolis in the same area. It is not certain whether it was the continuation of Phazemon or a newly founded city (Erciyas, 2006:47).

Amisos was situated on the coastal part of the Pontic Kingdom. The land of Amisos presented no good harbors like Sinope however, the location of the town provided easy access to the interior in the direction of the central and eastern parts of the southern Black Sea (Summerer, 2007:29). Because of the convenient location of the city, Amisos flourished as one of the largest cities of the Pontic Kingdom. Among the other important cities of the central Black Sea region such as Phazemon, Eupatoria, Sebasteia and Sebastopolis, Amisos was prominent as it was a busy market place in the region (Erciyas, 2006: 63).

There were two temple states in inland Pontus. Comana was larger one of the two temple state which was Cappadocian-type temple for god Ma. The 13 surrounding land was owned by the temple. The territory of the temple state was cultivated by 6000 serfs (Erciyas, 2006: 49).

The other temple state, Zela, was dedicated to the Persian deity Anaitis. The organization of the land governance in Zela was similar to Comana (Erciyas, 2006:51). The land around the temple state was owned by the priest. The serfs that were charged with the cultivation of the land were under his control.

During the Hellenistic period few new large sites were founded. The ruling Mithradatic family contributed to the growth of urban life and gathered agricultural and commercial activities into these large settlements (Erciyas, 2006:61) (Map 2.3)

Map 2.3: Major settlements of Mithradatic Kingdom

After the fall of the Mithridatic Kingdom, it was not easy for Pompey to re- organize the former dominion of Mithradates by unifying a manageable portion of Pontus and Bithynia to form a new province. Pompey created an integrated urban network, which later was supported by neither Caesar, nor Marcus Antonius (Hotje, 2001:83).

Marek (2003, 182) argues like Mitchell (Mitchell 1993, 31) that Pompey's province included the core of the conquered Pontic kingdom. Pompey was faced with an area only partially urbanized and was forced to create new towns (Mitchell, 1993:32). This new province was formed by the territories of eleven cities, three Greek colonial settlements; port of Amisos, Sinope and also the ancient capital Amaseia were included into Pompey's organization while various neighboring regions were given to the native rulers who had supported Pompey during the Mithridatic war (Mitchell 1993, 32).

Pompey selected significant strategic places for his new organization of Pontus. Nicopolis, Diospolis, Magnopolis, Neapolis and Pompeiopolis were founded on the great trade route extending across Asia Minor from Bithynia to Armenia. (Mitchell, 1993:91) (Map 2.4) Moreover, Comana, Zela and Megapolis were lying on the route from the Black Sea coast through Amaseia to the valley of the upper Halys.

Map 2.4: Settlements after reorganization of Pompey in Pontus

These communities were providing trade for the region from east to west and from north to south (Magie 1950, 370). Most of the inland cities lay on the main routes of Pontic territory which had become familiar to the Romans during the campaigns of the Mithradatic wars. (Mitchell, 1993:31) The valleys run mainly from west to east not north to south and the lines of communication follow them. Pompeiopolis, Neapolis, Magnopolis, Diospolis and Nicopolis all lay along the northern route which was the main artery of Pontus (Magie, 1950:1083-6) Megalopolis was on the southern route connecting Nicopolis and Armenia Minor with Galatia, while Amaseia and Zela in the basin of the river Iris, were both situated in fertile areas of central Pontus between the two routes (Mitchell, 1993:32).

Pontus and Bithynia rarely witnessed wars and major political events under the Roman control. The land routes of Bithynia and Pontus had significant role 16 linking Balkans with the eastern Roman frontier and military relations with them (Marek 2003, 56-61)

Pompey caused stability in political and economic conditions of the province (Mitchell, 1993:91). Inland Pontus continued the old Asianic system of domain- land, royal and sacred rural communities with village centres against cities of coastal strip of the Black Sea (Euxine) that preserved the Hellenistic practice of self government (Mitchell, 1993:32). Thus, this firmly settled system lost at Sinope and Amisos under the realm of Mithradates VI was restored to them by Lucullus. Communities of the newly organized provinces of Bithynia-Pontus adopted local administration based on the usual Hellenic model but including the characteristically Roman method of the regulation known as the Lex Pompeia (Hotje, 2001:14). In this process, the castles were abandoned and cities on the model of the Greek polis were founded in order to provide standard form of government under Pompey's reorganization of the new province (Magie 1955, 369).

According to Marek, Hellenism was regional culture, with individual elements commonly found in most of the eastern Roman Empire. (Marek 2003, 179) Economic life, based on agriculture, fisheries, forestry, quarries and mining, steadily grew through the Roman period. Due to the increased standards of life, investments were made in buildings and festivals (Marek 2003, 179).

In light of the epigraphic evidence, Marek claims that regional religious clusters had great importance in Pontus where most of the population was collected in the villages far from the civic centers (Marek 2003, 80-83).

Unlike the mainland Greece or south and west Anatolian city states, which in general are less than one day journey from each other, urbanization in Pontus occurred in small scale cities in rural territories. Marek (2003, 78-80) suggests that the territory of Pompeiopolis covered three quarters of the entire land area of ancient Lycia. There is wide cultural and political disparity between country and city, and these points out the reason beyond the distinction in the early empire 17 between citizens and country-dwellers. Many isolated and small scaled Pontic cities also help to explain why idea of Pontic citizenship could not be established after Pompey's Lex provinciae of 63 B.C (Hojte, 2001:17).

In Hellenistic Period, kings had found poleis often with dynastic names, throughout their territory. On the other hand in the Roman Era, the foundations were often on the site of pre-existing settlements (Mitchell, 1993:72). Pompey's Magnopolis on the site of Mithradates' Eupatoria represent clearly intelligible statement for this evidence (Mitchell, 1993:74). A more significant example was the parallel expansion of the polis institutions. The model employed here was Pompey's settlement of Bithynia by which the defeated kingdom was divided up into territories and each were attributed to an urban centre (Hotje, 2001:20).

Pontus had provided the most dangerous challenge to the Roman Empire in the 1st century B.C. which was not finally overcome until Caesar's victory at Zela in 47 B.C. The Roman Empire was incapable of establishing built up loyal provinces based on an ideological consensus. (Marek, 2003:111)

No uniform model was imposed on the east, but Rome did promote polis type institutions at the expense of kingdoms, temple-states, tribes, villages and all other administrative systems (Levick 1967; Millar 1990).

2.6.2. Historical Geography of Ameseia and Chiliocomum

Amaseia is one of the inland cities of Pontus with a magnificent landscape surrounding the city. There is a clear distinction in geographical characteristics between the coastal Black Sea and Central Anatolia as explained above, topography changes from flat wheat fields to hilly landscape from south to north as the city lies between the steppes of central Anatolian plateau and dense forested hills (Erciyas, 2006:37).

The sheltered location of the city formed by mountain ridges on both sides was bordered by the branches of one of the largest river of the Black Sea region (ancient Iris) which has also immense importance in forming the strong character of the landscape and its flora (Erciyas, 2006: 37).

Strabo, a native of Amaesia, gives us valuable information about the city as follows (Strabo 12.3.39)

“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.”

Amaseia was the capital of the Mithradatic Kingdom. The economic and political situation of the city flourished before Pharnaces I transferred the capital to Sinope after he conquered it in 183 BC (Strabo 12.3.39-40). Amaseia remained an important civic center, with its shrine to Zeus Stratios (French 1996). According to Magie, Amaseia was probably the place for King Mithradates's draft of the army with which he carried out his first invasion of western Asia Minor (Magie 1955:178).

Amaseia contained a dense population and was the only example of an urban centre in inland Pontus; it was also one of the royal strongholds. (Hotje, 2001:12) Strabo, in his description of his hometown (12.3.39), mentions the memorials of the kings. There are five rock cut tombs set high above the city on the right bank of the Iris, which are also represented on early third century AD coins of Amaseia. (Hojte, 2004:15) The tombs are arranged in two groups of two and three. The type of tomb unique to Pontus as the tomb chambers are cut free of the rock all around (Hojte, 2004:18).

Amaseia was conquered by Lucullus in 70 B.C. and the city was dedicated to the 'kings' by Antony subsequent to the extension of its territory by Pompey (Strabo, 12.2.29) According to Erciyas (2006:40), coins of Amaseia indicates that the city was included into the Roman province in 33 B.C. Previously, the city might have been controlled by a 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. (Erciyas, 2006:40).

Strabo mentions two bridges in Amaseia; one of the bridges connected the city to the suburbs while other bridge was from the suburbs to the country outside which is still visible today in the Hellenistic type of fortification (Erciyas, 2006:41).

Olshausen catalogued the location of forts at various places in Amaseia. (Olshausen 1984) These are Kaleköy, Gökçeli and Kürtler which controlled the plain of the Çorum stream (Erciyas, 2006:41). There are also well known settlements in the territory of Amaseia such as Etonia, Euchatia, Pimolisa, Diacopa and Chagonda (Erciyas, 2006:41). The sanctuary of Zeus Stratios was founded in the mountains 10 km to the east of Amaseia. Inscriptions to Zeus Stratios were recorded and studied by Anderson (1910:144) and French (1988:273); (1996:73, 79). Today, the location of the temple is called Yassıçal. The only remains from the site are the temenos markers dated to the Roman period (French, 1996:81) Text discovered at the sanctuary of Zeus Stratios records dedications made to the god by delegates from the whole Pontic area (French, 1985:9). According to French, examples mention communities from Pimolisene and Babanomitis which were names of the regions familiar from Strabo’s description. According to Mitchell, this evidence showing regional divisions of the 1st century B.C. survived a long time before they ceased to function as the primary administrative units (Mitchell, 1993: 91).

Amaseia was surrounded by fertile plains as it is today. The fertile valley along the Iris to the northwest of the city was called Chiliocomum which designated

20 the limits of this study.. Strabo describes Chiliocomum as a valley developing from the river at Ameseia, initially narrow, but later widening out to form the plain called Chiliocomum; the plain of a ten thousand villages (12.3.39).

In light of the accounts of Strabo (13.3.39), and publication of travelers such as Cumont (1906) and Wilson (1960), the valley is interpreted as the whole area of modern Gümüşhacıköy, Merzifon and Suluova districts. In his publication Cumont tells us about both architectural remains and inscriptions in the valley. (Cumont and Cumont, 1960:143) According to Wilson (1960:207), the valley had dense population in ancient times, although the number of finds recorded by Cumont does not coincide with Wilson’s (Erciyas, 2006: 40).

The plain is situated at a strategic location. It was bounded by the trade route from Sinope to Cappadocia on the south and other major routes in Anatolian network (Mitchell, 1993:127) which brought Amisos, Amaseia, Zela and Comana into the same system (Wilson, 1960:133; Mitchell, 1993:119). This route also had great commercial importance in antiquity. Today, more or less the same road connects coastal and inland regions to each other. According to Munro, this route which connected Amisos to Cappadocia was the only great road in Pontus from north to south and connected Amaseia the capital of the kingdom, with the sea. In addition to this, it was the one northern outlet for the whole of eastern Asia Minor (Munro, 1901:53).

While Amaseia contained dense population and was the only example of an urban center in inland Pontus, most of the other settlements in the inland Pontus were villages (McGing, 1996:3). According to McGing, Chiliocomum was the best example of rural landscape in Pontus.

This fertile plain at the northern part of the Amaesia ‘like terraces one above another’ continued till Halys which are nourished by branches of Iris bear the economic life of the land (Magie, 1955:178). The advantage of the mild climate and fertile soil had returned as rich harvests of grain and fruit (Magie, 1955:178).

2.6.3. Rural Settlement in the Territory of Amaseia: Chiliocomum

Chiliocomum was called a plain with ten thousand villages (Strabo, 13.3.39) in NW Amaseia (Fig 2.5). McGing also suggested that Chiliocomum was the best example of the rural settlement system in Pontus. Unfortunately, there is lack of evidence to completely understand the rural settlement system of the study area. Thus, we may use other examples of rural settlement organization from other parts of Anatolia. There is certain amount of evidence indicating how potential for village organization could have developed under appropriate conditions. For example, inscriptions suggested that, complex village organization was in existence at Nicomedia in Bithynia, which might have had a comparable political environment to the study area (Mitchell, 1993:181). These regions were integrated into wealthy market economies willingly accessible to and influenced by civic culture and politics. However, even for the well developed villages there is very little evidence concerning their administration system (Mitchell, 1993:183).

Map 2.5: Location of Chiliocomum Source: (Talbert, RJA; Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World) 22

Public accounting, controlling markets, creation of public buildings such as fountains, bath houses and shops were not activities to be found in most villages and less well developed areas of Anatolia but this level of urbanization existed in the communities of the hinterland of Nicomedia (Magie, 1950: 1026). Since Amaseia was the capital of the Mithradatic Kingdom in the Hellenistic Period and was one of the politically and economically important centers of the region, we may suggest that communities in the hinterland of Amaseia may have contained similar services and spaces.

There were too few common standards of tradition and culture to understand of relationships between town and country. Hellenized city dwellers and native villagers lived in world apart. According to Mitchell (1993:197), the Roman period inscriptions, which tend to restrain proper distinctions between urban and rural inhabitants, may suggest otherwise, but the rest of the evidence confirms that the divide between the citizens and the perioikoi of the Hellenistic period remained as marked as ever.

The appearance of Anatolia changed basically between the 2nd century B.C. and the 2nd century AD (Mitchell, 1993:241). Cities took the place of fortified refuges; settled village population was replaced with seasonal groups; cereal agriculture spread to areas previously devoted to pasture and stock-raising and thus supported a growing population (Mitchell, 1993:242). Roman rule brought a network of all-weather roads, which transformed overland communications. The cultural interaction had also been enlarged. Greek had become the common language of education and of political and commercial life in the cities while the native languages of Anatolia continued in the country regions. Cities were organized on a Greco-Roman model and thus produced a new form of society, which was already adopted by the native population and which enabled them to join a cultural and political system (Mitchell, 1993:243).

These political and social transformations implied or entailed fundamental economic development (Mitchell, 1993:245). It remains extremely difficult to characterize these economic changes in detail (Greene, 1986:72).

Specific archaeological or numismatic evidence can valuably be enhanced by using detailed observation of conditions in the present day to build a picture of a regional economy which can validly be transferred to antiquity (Mitchell, 1993:247).

According to Mitchell, in many parts of Anatolia there is good reason to believe that patterns of settlement and methods of rural development were broadly similar in Roman and late Ottoman times and the observation of European travelers provide vibrant image of conditions that are likely to have succeeded in Antiquity (Mitchell, 1993:243).

In many cases local knowledge of modern conditions provides a basis for understanding the nature, and sometimes even the scale of ancient economic activity (Greene, 1986:118). The essential elements that made for rural prosperity were the soil and climate. The soil variation of study area and fertility is high and can produce good crops. The climatic conditions take are shaped by topographic features and allows long periods during the year for agricultural production and variety of agricultural products (Amasya Environmental Status Report 2007).

CHAPTER III

Methodology

3.1 Settlement Pattern Analysis: Archaeology and GIS

By the late 1960’s settlement analysis became a key component of archaeological investigation within broader research issues of human adaptation to environmental variability in the landscape. These approaches marked the development of “New Archaeology” which promoted emphasis on a scientific explanation of the past which focused on quantitative methods and, in particular, hypothetic-deductive reasoning (Binford 1962; 1968, see also Wheatley and Gillings 2002:7 for discussion). As a result of “New Archaeology” researchers began to explore other disciplines (e.g. geography, economics) for methods and ideas regarding spatial analysis. From the ideas and methods provided by other areas of research such as cultural geography, in conjunction with developments in archaeology, spatial thinking became strengthened in archaeological thought (Aldenderfer 1996:7)

By the mid-1970’s archaeology adopted quantitative spatial analysis (Clarke 1977; Flannery 1976; Hodder and Orton 1976). The use of these techniques focused on establishing the statistical relationships between cultural features or artifacts and the environment. Related with these advances in spatial thinking within the discipline were technological advances in computing and GIS technologies. By the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, spatial analysis software, first began to be used for archaeological analysis (Wheatley and Gillings 2002:18).

Early archaeological spatial analysis in GIS environment initially began with the study of the distribution of the density of materials over a given surface in which Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) were sometimes used to visually represent the outcome model of distributions (Kavmme 1983; Wheatley and Gillings 2002:18).

Until the 1970’s, spatial analysis was limited to quantitative analysis in which statistical relationships were represented mathematically and often without a visual map representation. At this time was generated by hand and primarily used for descriptive purposes. Yet despite academic advances in spatial analysis within archaeology, initial uses of computer based GIS in archaeology were initiated by Cultural Resource Management (CRM) needs in the United States (see Wheatley and Gillings 2002 for further discussion).

Especially in reference to geography, ideas such as Weber’s model of industrial location (Weber 1929) and Christaller’s central place theory (1966) became connected to ecological and settlement pattern perspectives by the late 1960’s. Also during this time, researchers began quantifying past human relationships to the environment based on potentialities of resource exploitation (Viti-Finzi- Higgs 1970). As these spatial concepts developed within archaeology, more archaeologists began to explore the application of spatial data and techniques in spatial analysis for answering questions about the past. Further elements of environmental modeling in GIS included catchment analysis developed in the 1970’s (Viti-Finzi and Higgs 1970). The concept is based on the assumption that resource use around a settlement is distance dependant and that sites will be located to maximize resource exploitation (Maschner 1996a). Typically, the area associated with the settlement was calculated through Euclidian boundary techniques. Yet Euclidian distance measures do not take into account aspects of the topography in consideration of distance. Today, more advanced models utilize cost distance to establish distance in the development of catchment areas (Hunt 1992; Wheatly and Gillings 2002).

Other improvements in spatial analysis can also be seen in settlement pattern analysis. Through the use of GIS, archaeologists are now able to explore and analyze multiple variables across a given landscape such as distance between archaeological site locations and particular types of architecture and/or artifacts. These variables can be used to discuss issues related to, for instance, mobility

26 and socio-political development through time (Liu et al. 2002; Varien 1999; Torres 2005). GIS has been engaged in many ways to explore cognitive and experiential landscapes. In particular, line of sight analysis has been useful in many cases (Wheatley and Gillings 2002). Within this context, line of site and view sheds have been used for exploring aspects related to social landscapes and astronomy (Ruggles and Scott 1996). GIS in archaeology has many different applications supported by many methodological approaches based on software capability and the suitable to perform specific functions to address specific questions.

The development of settlement pattern studies are descended from the 1950’s with Gordon Willey’s survey of the Valley of Viru in highland Peru (1953). Willey’s project was unique in that instead of focusing on individual settlement sites, which was the traditional practice at the time, he examined the entire valley as a single analytical unit—or settlement system (Willey 1953). Willey showed that settlement locations reflected their relationship with the environmental landscape as the positioning of neighboring settlements within the system. Importantly, the project emphasized the importance of viewing sites as part of a larger complex system in which economic, environmental, social and political factors were critical for understanding the relationship between human beings at distinct settlements within the broader context of environmental and social systems. Willey changed the way archaeologists examine landscapes and provided a framework within which to understand social systems as well as promoting a regional perspective in archaeology at a time when space was not a primary focus of archaeological inquiry. During the 1970’s the utilization of a variety of quantitative spatial analysis for settlement patterns were used. The basis for the analysis of settlement systems is determination of patterns in the spatial distribution of archaeological sites either in relation to one another and/or in relation to their natural environments. The primary assumption associated with such analysis comes from the idea that human behavior is not random and settlement systems will conform to a logical and meaningful utilization of the

27 landscape (Hodder and Orton 1976). This non-random use of space is manifested as a result of human behavior, influenced by social and environmental factors through time, whose mark is left on a landscape in the form of material culture. For instance, environmental considerations of site locations and types may be the result of food resources, topography, fresh water supply, ease of movement, transportation, and the availability of other natural resources. Factors that are culturally based may include defensibility of an area, proximity to other members of the society, and the cultural perceptions of the landscape (Hodder and Orton 1976).

Investigations at the regional level have typically been characterized by macro- structural approaches to settlement pattern analysis (see Chang 1968:6-7 for discussion) emphasizing ecological or socio-political perspectives in the interpretation of spatial patterning. Ecological approaches to settlement pattern analyses have been utilized to examine variation in the locational frequencies of sites and site types relative to ecological settings. In contrast, socio-political approaches have focused on the distribution of monumental architecture to clarify the temporal and spatial distribution of socio-political units. Both emphasize the importance of social phenomena at a regional level, and how behavioral actors create and negotiate their social realities within the geographic locations they occupy (Chang; 1968:7).

Therefore, there is no one set way for developing settlement pattern models. The nature of the model (e.g. environmental or social) will depend on the questions asked by researchers. At the very basis, settlement pattern analysis within a GIS requires archaeological site locations, basic information regarding archaeological sites and, some type of topographic and environmental data (Varien 1999:33; Torres 2005:43).

One type of ecological approach to settlement studies is based on catchment analysis as discussed previously. Other, settlement and resource-based relationships focus on particular parts of the landscape to determine the potential

28 for settlements to utilize particular areas (e.g. Maschner 1996b; Varien 1999; Torres 2005). Within the contexts of socio-political research of past settlement systems, central place models (based on Christaller 1966) represent one way to examine and visually represent the spatial organization of sites through an identification of hierarchical networks between settlements. The expectation is that major centers will be equally spaced from one another and surrounded by a hierarchy of smaller sites. Rank size analysis, which is derived from central- place theory, evaluates the centralization in a settlement system by assuming that the degree to which a site is dominant is reflected in its size, architecture and or some other important attribute relative to sites of the same region and time (Flannery 1976:27; Johnson 1977:32).

Traditionally the determination of interaction areas on the physical landscape is generated through the two-dimensional modeling of site boundaries using. Thiessien polygons or overlapping site catchments based on a fixed radius from the site (Renfrew 1986; Ruggles and Church 1996; Wheatley and Gillings 2002). Although suitable for discovering general spatial relationships over a uniform surface, this method of determining site territories is problematic in that these models do not account for peculiarities in topography and the physical costs for individuals traveling it from one place to another (Varien 1999).

In some cases this statistic has been used to indicate the level of centralization of political authority based on regular, random and clustered distributions (Earle 1976). Nearest neighbor analysis assumes a level two-dimensional plane within which the settlements exist. As such it does not take into account the topography for settlement locations (Earle 1976). More complex models regarding settlement pattering have been developing over the past ten years involving multiple dimensions of modeling and analysis. For instance, recent work conducted by McMahon (2005) has used settlement locations and Kernel Density Estimate Analysis to explore the interaction between Pueblo communities in southwestern Colorado. In his study McMahon uses natural topography, cost modeling and Kernel density estimates to discuss relationships 29 between population centers and lower population communities. Maschner’s (1996b) study of settlement patterning in northwestern North America takes into account resource based variables that set the stage for socio-political factors for later cognitive choices for the location of settlement patterning. As archaeologists have had a long interest in the distribution and abandonment of settlements, Kohler and colleagues (2000:52) used a model to determine the causal factors related to observed changes in the archaeological record. Traditional approaches to these questions have assumed one-dimensional environmental determinants and have been addressed using catchment analysis (Kohler 2000). However, these analyses do not take into account changing environments through time due climatic variables or human impact. In their study Kohler and colleagues’ by using climatologically, archaeological and environmental data from the region, they were able to develop models using SWARM agent based modeling software for simulation and graphical representation through GIS (Kohler et al. 2000).

To conclude, there is no one way to conduct settlement pattern research. The approach however, at a fundamental level, involves the spatial dynamics of human settlement across a given landscape. Settlement pattern approaches in archaeology are typically at a macro or regional scale. Creation of such models may be as simple as isolating sites through time and generating Thiessien polygons to indicate socio-political units of like sized settlements. On the other hand, these models can also be complex, involving multiple models related to environmental resource distributions, cost distance analysis, and line of sight as potential variables related to settlement locations. Basically these analyses require, archaeological site locations, information regarding the sites, topographic information and, some types of environmental data. Settlement patterns in archaeological research contexts continue to be a critical issue for understanding the spatial relationships in human settlement systems. The utilization of GIS has facilitated this endeavor by providing a way in which to store, manage, analyze and visually represent these models. Further, GIS has

30 provided a platform to perform tentative data analysis that was previously unavailable to archaeologists until the past 10 or 15 years.

3.2. Short Review: Survey Projects in Archaeology

The result of these new ways of archaeology was an interest in the rural components of settlement patterns. However these intensive and systematic surveys are still limited to Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean (Alcock, 1994; Alcock, Cherry and Davis 1994; Barker and Lloyd 1991; Bintliff and Snodgrass 1985; Bintliff, 1997; Cherry, 1982, 1983, 1994; Dyson, 1982; Gregory, 1986). Methodologically, Mediterranean regional studies are interdisciplinary and focus on the region as a fundamental unit of interaction. Systematic survey, complemented by geomorphological and geophysical studies is the primary means for locating temporally artifacts and sites (Wandsnider, 2004: 51).

When we compared with Mediterranean surveys, most surveys conducted in the Black Sea seem extensive and unsystematic (Erciyas 2006, 4). The objective of most of the surveys was limited to recognition of sites instead of an understanding of their contexts within the environment. The natural resources were not taken into account and landscape was unobserved (Erciyas, 2001:72). Hence these archaeological surveys are not significantly valuable for spatial analysis. In the recent years, development of new techniques and new approaches in archaeology enable scholars to broaden their investigations within the frame of theoretical and methodological advancement, designed according to related research questions, concerning all-period intensive surface survey with geological sampling and discussion of site and landscape relations in the Black Sea region as well (Sinop Regional Archaeological Project, The Avkat Archaeological Project, Komana Archaeological Research Project).

3.3. Spatial Questions

In this thesis mainly the basic topographical parameters will be used to explain human progress. The fundamental point is that physical structure has different characteristic in different locations. Such differences lead to fact that the environment sometimes obstacle sometimes opportunity Also its known that some certain types land are easier to utilize, while some others are more troublesome for the development of society. To discuss issues related with these issues, the questions that may be asked;

1. What is the topographical preference of the Hellenistic and the Roman settlements in terms of elevation, slope and aspect values? 2. Is there a prominence soil type for the settlements? 3. What can be discusses on the settlements in comparisons with the current landuse? 4. Are there any visible differences in site selection criteria between the Hellenistic and the Roman settlements? 5. What could be the reason beyond site selection preference for both periods in terms of socio-political aspects?

3.4. Archaeological Surveys in the Study Area

In order to examine settlement patterns in the Hellenistic and Roman periods and their environmental context a settlement data base constructed from the published results of available and related survey project will be used.

Between 1986 and 2004 a survey project in the Amasya province was conducted by M. Özsait of the İstanbul University. This survey covered the contemporary territory of the Amasya province. The initial aim of the survey project was to investigate settlements in the territory and register the pottery from the surface according to cultural context (Özsait, 1990:64). The archaeological data for this 32 thesis derives from this survey project. Here, only the survey data is used since there have been no excavation projects carried out in the study area until recently under the direction of Ş. Dönmez of the İstanbul University, excavation project was started in 2007 in Oluz Höyük. According to first year report, site occupation covers the time period from the Early Bronze Age to the Hellenistic Period (Dönmez; 2007:49).

The survey project used in this study meets the objectives of this study only to a certain extent. In the reports the sites have been described according to their distance to modern settlements or environmental features such as hills or rivers therefore, the exact locations were unclear. Unfortunately, GPS recordings were unavailable. The duration of occupation at each site was estimated according to the date of the pottery collected from each site. Only sometimes description and photographs of the diagnostic pottery were included in the reports.

45 sites which were dated to the Hellenistic and Roman periods in Özsait's survey publications have been included here. According to the reports, there are 20 sites dated to Hellenistic period. 12 of them had disappeared in the Roman period, 8 Hellenistic sites continued into the Roman period while 31 new sites were established in the Roman period.

The fundamental problem with the survey project is that the accessible data obtained is not coherent and is limited to be used in quantitive analysis. The project also does not have a database which is available to scholars. The geographical coordinates of the sites, dimensions of the settlements and environmental descriptions are mostly missing because the project was not interested in assembling information concerning the settlement distribution, hierarchy or communication between sites. Pottery studies are also deficient. Density analysis and typological study are missing, there was no decision made to carry out interest on the offsite field survey. The survey project used in this thesis was conducted primarily by prehistorians, which resulted in certain limitations in the data collection and presentation. For our purposes, a survey

33 conducted by a team of experts in Hellenistic and Roman periods could have been more productive since the questions we are posing here deal with generating coherent reconstructions of human interaction with the landscape in the Classical times.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION OF DATA

This chapter comprises of the data sets used in this study. A total of six data sets were used during the study. These are: the settlement data (Table 4.1), the topographic data, the vegetation data, the hydrology data, the Roman road network data and the soil data. This chapter is an introduction of the data and their sources and it also presents some basic statistics for a better understanding.

Settlement location data covers certain variables that are obtained from the archaeological survey project which was conducted in the Amasya province by Mehmet Özsait between 1986 and 2004. Environmental variables yield an idea about the recent topography and land use for each settlement and were processed in Geographical Information Systems as the final set to be used in the analysis.

4.1 Settlement Data

The total number of settlements in the Hellenistic and Roman periods which have been used in the study are, 43. Of these, 20 of them were identified as Hellenistic settlements while 33 of them were occupied in the Roman period. In total, 8 of the settlements were identified as occupied in both periods.

A settlement database is created as an Excel file that contains following information:

• Identification number • Name of the settlement • Coordinates • Elevation value

• Slope value • Aspect value • Soil class value • Geological formation value All settlements were identified using topographic maps of 1984-1997 at 1:100.000 scales. Identified settlements were compared with settlement names listed in the published survey reports. Following criteria were applied:

No classification was made away the settlements considering their size and height. They were all considered as a single settlement.

Each settlement was considered to be represented by a definite point on the map which is, most probably, the initial location of the settlement.

First, the coordinates of the settlements were read from the topographic map and the transferred to the database. Using these coordinates the topographic attributes (elevation, slope and aspect) were extracted from Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the area. Lastly, the soil and the geological formation class are read from the digitize maps.

Hellenistic Settlements Pie Chart Roman Settlements Pie Chart

HR HR 24% 40% H 60% R 76%

Figure 4.1: Pie Charts represent the percentage of the settlements in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. The red color shows percentages of settlements that were occupied in single periods.

Map 4.1: Distribution map of the Hellenistic Settlements The black color represents the digitized Roman routes, rivers and streams are illustrated in the green color.

Map 4.2: Distribution map of the Roman Settlements The black color represents the digitized Roman routes, rivers and streams are illustrated in the green color. 37

4.2 Topographic Data

In general the study of the topography involves the recording of relief or terrain, the three-dimensional quality of the surface, and the identification of specific landforms like mountains, plains, canyons and plateaus. In this study, SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) topographic data has been used to identify elevation, slope and aspect values of the study area and to locate ancient settlements. SRTM is an international project pioneered by NGA and NASA used to obtain elevation data on a near-global scale to generate the most complete high-resolution digital topographic database of the earth (http://srtm.usgs.gov/). The SRTM data is used for making DEM which is a three dimensional model of the topography created in raster form, will be used in the GIS analysis.

4.2.1 Elevation

The elevation ranges from 400 m to 1900m in the study area (Fig 4.4). The lowest elevations are dominant around the Merzifon plain. The highest elevations, on the other hand, can be observed further towards the north around the Tavşandağ and Akdağ Mountains. The mean elevation value is 998.85 and has a standard deviation of 671.84. The histogram of the area is divided into 100 m intervals starting from 0 m to 1600 m. The maximum percentage (12 %) is observed between 500 m to 600 m in the central part of the Merzifon plain which gradually decreases to 0.1 % at an elevation of 1900 m (Fig 4.2).

Figure 4.2: Elevation map of the study area

Figure 4.3: Histogram of the elevation values of the study.

4.2.2. Slope

Slope map refers to a map that shows the amount of surface inclination at any point. The darker regions in the map correspond to milder slopes, and the lighter ones to steeper slopes. The slope in the area ranges from 0 to 60 degrees. (Fig 4.4) The histogram suggests two maximum concentrations at 0-6 degrees (21 %) and 20-40 degrees (32 %) (Fig 4.4) Milder slopes range from 1-12 degrees which may suggest that the relatively flat areas are concentrated in the central part of the Merzifon plain. The degree of slope increases gradually on all sides of the plain. The steeper slopes are more frequent in the north and west parts of the study area.

4.2.3 Aspect

Aspect map is a map that shows the direction of the slope in degrees. Here, simply 0 and 360 degrees refer to north, 90 to east, 180 to south and 270 to west. To avoid complexity, this range is divided into 8 intervals of 45 degrees. The flat areas where slope is zero have no aspect value and are therefore assigned a value of -1. When the flat areas were considered as separate intervals, the number of intervals increased to nine. Lower and upper units of each interval are shown in the calculation of these limits. -22.5 and +22.5 degrees are added to eight principal directions. Slope values less than two degrees are considered flat. As a result, the nine intervals that will be used in the analysis are; north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west, northwest and flat. (Fig 4.6) Table 4.2: Reclassification of aspect values

DIRECTION INTERVAL of DEGREES FLAT Slope=0 NORTH 337.5-22.5 NORTHEAST 22.5-67.5 EAST 67.5-112.5 SOUTHEAST 112.5-157.5 SOUTH 157.5-202.5 SOUTHWEST 202.5-247.5 WEST 247.5-292.5 NORTHWEST 292.5-337.5 40

Figure 4.4: Slope map of the study area

Figure 4.5: Histogram of the slope values of the study area

Figure 4.6: Aspect map of the study area

Aspect of Area 35,00% 30,03% 30,00% 25,00% 20,00% 15,00% 10,59% 10,49% 10,21% 8,35% 8,14% 8,46% 7,82% 10,00% 5,91% 5,00% 0,00%

Figure 4.7: Histogram of the aspect values of the study area

4.3 Settlement and Topography

The elevation of pixels with values between 500 m to 700 m dominates the elevation of the Hellenistic settlements which is %75 of total sites pixels higher than 1200 m were avoided. There is a concentration of settlements at 500m- 700m ranges in the Merzifon plain. There are only 2 settlements at elevations higher than 1000 m which are around the Tavşandağı Mountain in the Hellenistic Period. In the Roman period, sites have concentrated at elevations between 600- 700m (%30). Similar to the Hellenistic Period, settlements are situated at the Merzifon plain which is characterized by lower elevation values. Values above 1200 m were also avoided and elevation of pixels having site values gradually decrease after 1000m ranges in the Roman period.(Fig 4.8 and Fig 4.9)

The slopes values of the Hellenistic sites vary between 0-20 degree values. Settlements were distributed equally according to slope ranges at the edges of the relatively flat Merzifon plain and the mountainous regions on the west and south parts of the study area. Different than the Hellenistic settlements, the slopes with Roman sites were concentrated on slopes with values between 6 degrees to 10 degrees. It can be suggested that the settlements are seen mostly on more gentle slopes of the Merzifon plain in the Roman period. (Fig 4.10 and Fig 4.11)

Aspect of settlements are shown on 8 major directions with 45 degree intervals and for the flat areas that do not have any slope (-1 score in the table). Aspect values of settlements of both periods are similar to each other. Flat areas are mostly preferred while east and south facing settlements are relatively more common than other directions. North and northwest directions were avoided by both Hellenistic and Roman settlements. (Fig 4.12 and 4.13)

Figure 4.8: Map of the elevation values with Hellenistic settlements

Figure 4.9: Map of elevation values with Roman settlements

Figure 4.10: Histogram of the elevation values of the Hellenistic settlements

Figure 4.11: Histogram of the elevation values of the Roman settlements.

Figure 4.12: Slope map of the study area with Hellenistic settlements

Figure 4.13: Slope map of the study area with Roman settlements

Figure 4.14: Histogram of the slope values for the Hellenistic settlements

Figure 4.15: Histogram of the slope values for the Roman settlements

Figure 4.16: Aspect map of the study area with Hellenistic settlements

Figure 4.17: Aspect map of the study area with Roman settlements 48

Figure 4.18: Histogram of the aspect values of the Hellenistic settlement

Figure 4.19: Histogram of the aspect values Roman Settlements

Figure 4.20: Model of Topography and Distribution of Hellenistic settlements. Grey lines showing Roman roads and blue ones are representing major streams in the area.

Figure 4.21: Model of Topography and Distribution of Roman settlements. Grey lines show the Roman roads and blue lines represent major streams in the area.

4.4 Current Landuse

The GIS data on vegetation was obtained from the Yeşilırmak Development Project Database (www.yesilirmak.org.tr). The data reflects ‘current’ land use rather than the ancient land use. There are seven vegetation classes; forest, corrupted forest, marshland, corrupted marshland, abundant marshland pasture, cliffs, agricultural land. Distributions of these classes are shown in the figure. The study area is dominated by agricultural land. Immediate observation of the distribution of sites reflects a potential of selection of (modern) agricultural fields, which is also evident in the histogram. This kind of distribution is expected when the agriculture potential of the study area since antiquity is considered. 90% of the settlements both in the Hellenistic and Roman periods were located in the modern agricultural fields. Remaining 10% of the current land use is shared equally between forest and marshland types. (Fig 4.24 and Fig 4.25)

Figure 4.22: Histogram of Hellenistic settlements current Landuse values

Figure 4.23: Histogram of Roman settlements current Land use values

Figure 4.24: Current Landuse map and Hellenistic settlements

Figure 4.25: Current Landuse map and Roman settlements

4.5 Soil

The digitized soil map of the area is obtained from the Yeşilırmak Development Project Database. The Database consisted of soil information on polygon base with an attribute table describing various features of the polygons. Soil data does not demonstrate credible information on the study area because this data represents the current layout of the soil instead of the time in concern. Soil data is composed of many sub datasets although only one of them has been taken into consideration. Due to the aim of this study, soil types were categorized in eight degrees from 1 to 8 according to agriculture carrying capacity. Capacity of the soil decreases from the first degree to the eighth. In other words, first four degrees of soil are suitable for agricultural production. According to the classification, 60% of the soils are suitable for agricultural production. These soil groups are equally distributed in the study area. 55% of the Hellenistic settlements hold suitable soil for agriculture at mostly on the west and south western part of the study area. 65% of the Roman settlements at the core area of the Merzifon plain and north and northeastern parts of the study area also have fertile soil according to this classification. The deforestation in the region might have caused changes in soil classes. Therefore the use of the soil data as a layer in the analysis is questionable. (Fig 4.28 and Fig 4.29)

Figure 4.26: Histogram of the agriculture carrying capacity values of the Hellenistic settlements.

Figure 4.27: Histogram of the agriculture carrying capacity values of the Roman settlements.

Figure 4.28: Degree of agriculture carrying capacity and Hellenistic settlements

Figure 4.29: Degree of agriculture carrying capacity and Roman settlements 56

4.6. Hydrology

Yeşilırmak Development Project Database was taken into consideration while digitizing the possible ancient and modern courses of major rivers and streams. In the study area water sources have different characteristics in terms of water abundance and quality. The observation of the hydrology data reflected that there is no great water deficiency in the study area, assuming those sources can be used for domestic purposes. There are some sites which could not have benefitted from any water resource, but still survived. This can be explained with the presence of springs, similar to modern day villages.

4.7. Road Network Data

Significant ancient trade routes which provided transportation of goods in the Pontus region passed through the study area. For both periods, Roman pathways were taken in consideration since these roads are natural pathways, same routes might have also been used in Hellenistic period. The data obtained from the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Talbert 2000) was compared to the publications of Munro (1901) and French (1991). The roads were digitized from the georeferenced 1/1000.000 scale scanned maps of the Barrington Atlas. Road network data was used in proximity analysis in order to make a correlation between the road network and the settlements.

CHAPTER V

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

This chapter was designed to give a brief description of each analysis which was carried out, together with the results which are presented in the form of histograms and maps. The archaeological material and physical attributions (digital environment) were archived in arcgis 9 GIS software which was used both to create the settlement database, the data layers that were explain in the second chapter and for further analyses and query building operations.

In my analysis, I wanted to address primarily two issues. Firstly, to reveal site densities in each period and compare them. Secondly, to understand whether there is a change in the settlement patterns and if so the reasons behind it. The other question I posed to my data was whether the factors limited or intensified human occupation.

5.1 Raster Analysis

In order to understand topographical preferences of people for settlement, threshold maps were prepared which were created from the subtraction of settlement and topography histograms for each topographic parameter. Histograms of these percentages were extracted to find the final score for the preference. The positive numbers imply that the people settled in this topography more than the percentage provided by the nature. The negative number, on the other hand, suggests that although the topography was available, people did not prefer to settle there.

Elevation 15%

10%

0% 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000+ ------500 600 700 800 900 1000 ------

-5% 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000

-10%

30%

20%

10%

0% 0-6 6-12 12-20 20-40 40-60 60< -10%

-20%

-30%

-40%

Slope

20%

15%

10%

-5%

-10%

-15%

Aspect Figure 5.1 Histograms obtained by subtracting settlement percentages from the topography percentages for elevation, slope and aspect. Blue intervals indicate positive (preferred) and red intervals indicate negative (avoided) attributes. (Hellenistic settlements)

25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1000-1100 1100-1200 1200-1300 1300-1400 1400-1500 1500-1600 1600-1700 1800-1900 1900-2000 1700 400-500 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 2000+ 500 -5% - 600 - -10% 1800

Elevation (meter) 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% 0-6 6-12 12-20 20-40 40-60 60< -20% -30% -40%

Slope (degree) 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15%

Aspect

Figure 5.2: Histograms obtained by subtracting settlement percentages from the topography percentages for elevation, slope and aspect Blue intervals indicate positive (preferred) and red intervals indicate negative (avoided) attributes. (Roman Settlements)

Table 5.1: Table of topographic parameters that were preferred or avoided by Hellenistic settlements

Topographic Parameter Preferred Intervals Avoided Intervals Elevation <500 m and >=700m and >900m and 800 m and> 1300m <=1300m Slope 1-20 degrees >20 degrees Aspect F, E, S N, NE, NW, W, SE

Table 5.2: Table of topographic parameters that were preferred or avoided by Roman settlements

Topographic Parameter Preferred Intervals Avoided Intervals Elevation 600-900m 800m and >900m Slope 1-20 degrees >20 degrees Aspect F, E, S, SE N, NE, NW, W

The three topographic parameters used in this study (elevation, slope and aspect) are independent from each other. For different purposes people might have preferred or avoided to settle in areas that provided intervals of all topographic parameters or two or one of them. For example, surface could be within the threshold values for elevation but out of range for aspect and slope.

The whole area is processed for the four classes explained in Table 5.1 and 5.2 and maps were prepared that showed the distribution of these classes. For Hellenistic map, the red color shows the areas that are suitable for all topographic parameters (score: +3). Score +1 areas are indicated by brown For Hellenistic map yellow color shows the areas that are suitable for all parameters. Score +1 is red color which means that the area is suitable at least one parameter. A careful analysis of the figure suggest that (+3) and (+1) areas are spatially close to each others. These areas cover three distinct regions in the area. Other two groups minus classes are indicated by green and black

. Figure: 5.3: Threshold Map of the Hellenistic settlements

Figure 5.4: Threshold Map of the Roman settlements

According to the threshold maps, sites of the Hellenistic period had wide range of elevation preference. According to the minus histogram, the frequency of preferred elevation values are between 500m-700m while there is a dramatic concentration at 600m-700m in the Roman period. Areas with mild slopes, south and east facings, have attracted people in both periods. On the other hand, frequency of settlements with the slope degree at 12-20 degree is high in the Hellenistic period. In general, the accumulation of clusters of settlements in the study area has occurred in places with potential for agriculture and easy communication

5.3 Point Pattern Analysis: Density Estimation

Many human related point phenomena are distributed over a space that is usually not homogenous and that depend on surface pattern of networks (Coolly and Lake 2006: 170). The aim of the density analysis is the identification of network spaces and peak areas corresponding to higher concentration of nodes.

The procedure can be organized in three steps:

1. A fine grid is placed over the study region and the point distribution,

2. A moving three-dimensional function visits each cell and calculates weights for each point within the function’s radius,

3. Grid cell values are calculated by summing the values of all circle surfaces for each location.

Density estimation allows finding out clusters in point pattern distributions over a study area, particularly highlighting ‘circular’ clusters. Density maps have been created for both the Hellenistic and Roman settlements to define and compare diverse variables between two periods.

In this study, the search radius was set to 10 km which drew a circle from the point distribution in order to obtain valid value for each cluster. The grid node spacing was set to 1000 m for each cluster. The results of this analysis were discussed below together with the presentation of the density maps of both periods.

5.3.1 Density Estimation for Hellenistic Period Sites

Dense settlement during the Hellenistic period was observed in two different areas, one, in the SW margins of Merzifon plain, and the other in the region of Suluova which forms the eastern margins of the study area. Both clusters are concentrated around the ancient trade routes. The first cluster in the southern margins encompasses the trade route which connects Sinope with central Anatolia. The cluster in the Suluova region, on the other hand, is attached to the major trade route linking Amisos to Cappadocia. A darker color was preferred in the high density area which contains six settlements for the Hellenistic period. Environmental variables are similar in both clusters due to milder slopes and fertile soils. Although the cluster with a lower density on the eastern margins is distant to the streams, the high density cluster is relatively close to the streams.

5.3.2 Density Estimation for Roman Period Sites

The same method was used for the Roman period. Results show a very high concentration of Roman settlements covering western margin of the plain between the Tavşandağı Mountain and the Hamamözü district. This part of the region has good agricultural lands and is also where the Roman trade route crosses the southern margins of the study area. Streams are relatively close to the cluster. The increase in the settlement number is observed on the density maps. The measured value is 12. This value is double the value of the Hellenistic

64 density values. Although the settlement number considerably increased, the location of the eastern cluster did not change in the Roman period.

The general outcome of the density analysis demonstrates that the site accumulation is observed on the south west part of the study area. This might be the result of the presence of fertile arable land conveniently situated between the possible Roman trade routes. This argument is supported by the Distribution Minus Map. This minus density map was prepared to demonstrate the differences between the Roman and Hellenistic density maps in order to clarify the spatial distribution of settlements in the area.

Density analysis does not show significant change in settlement pattern from the Hellenistic to the Roman periods. However, it might not be wrong to suggest that while the high density Hellenistic cluster is encompassing the trade route and is observed more to the southern margins of the Merzifon plain, the high density cluster in the Roman period shifts to the north and comprises of the lower ranges of the Tavşandağı Mountain which has a tectonic characteristic containing fault lines. The possible hot springs and soils with rich minerals may have been a reason for the exploitation of this area during the Roman period.

Figure 5.5: Density Map of the Hellenistic settlements

Figure 5.6: Density Map of the Roman settlements

Figure 5.7: Density Minus Map of Hellenistic and Roman settlements

5.4 Road Proximity Analysis

Proximity analysis determines both the maximum and the minimum distance values between selected variables. The distance raster is a software term given by arcgis.9 which is utilized to run this analysis. The distance raster process creates a table which includes the nearest distance between given values. With the calculated distances between variables, the point distribution maps are prepared. (Coolly and Lake 2006: 210). This analysis should reveal any possible regularity in spacing between settlements by comparing the observed pattern with a hypothetical one.

Road proximity analysis was conducted separately for the Hellenistic and the Roman period settlements. The results were categorized in two ways: distance between settlements and the trade routes and the distances between the settlements in order to find out whether or not there is a meaningful relationship between settlement patterns and trade routes. Correlations between the variables were hoped to be determined.

5.4.1 Road Proximity of Hellenistic Settlements

The detected mean range is 5 km indicating that, 63% of the Hellenistic settlements are thought to have been within the 5 km of a trade route. The maximum distance was calculated as 20 km. As it was discussed in density estimation section, settlements within 5 km were observed at mostly around the trade route that connects Sinope with inland Pontus. There is only one settlement situated within a 5 km distance to the Amisos-Cappadocia trade route. The flood plain of the Tersakan river and the alluvial soils running parallel to the trade route most have created unsuitable environment for habitation. The most distant settlement from the trade routes is 15 km which is situated on the eastern outskirts of the Tavşandağı Mountain. Other settlements are within 10 km (30%) distance to the roads. 67

In general, it might be suggested that the Hellenistic settlements were situated in the fertile plains within a suitable location that provides control over the trade routes.

5.4.2 Road Proximity for Roman Settlements

The average distance was determined as 12 km.; out of 34 sites, 53% were within 5 km of a trade route. Since the number of settlements increased in the Roman period, settlements within 10 km were observed more frequently (42%). Moreover, the new settlements mostly preferred to be within 10 km between the trade road in the southern ranges of Merzifon plain and the Tavşandağı Mountain.

Hellenistic settlements within 5 km of the trade routes continued their existence while settlements within the 10 km had disappeared. It appears that in the Roman period, the increase was based on an emphasis on agricultural production where people inhabiting the land benefited from natural resources.

60% 53,00% 50% 42,00% 40%

30%

20%

10% 5,00%

0% 5 km 10 km 15 km

Figure 5.8: Road Proximity for the Hellenistic settlements

70% 63,00% 60%

50%

40% 30,00% 30%

20%

10% 7,00%

0% 5 km 10 km 15 km

Figure 5.9: Road Proximity for the Roman settlements

Figure 5.10: Proximity of the Hellenistic settlements to roads

Figure 5.11: Proximity of the Roman settlements to roads

5.4.3 Spatial Model

The majority of regional analysis in archaeology is concerned with reconstructing economic behavior. Although some are particularly applicable for understanding socio-political interactions in a regional scale (Butzer 1982: 213), generally, the modeling techniques employed did not directly discover political relationships. These geographic techniques determine hierarchies of spatial relationships based on economic principles that are profoundly influenced by power or believed to be involved in the organization of the political hierarchies; they are used by archaeologist as proxies for reconstructing regional political behavior (Banning 2002: 157).

The settlement data used here and obtained from survey publications is not adequate to adopt a spatial model considering size and possible central places. Thus, the hierarchical relations of settlements may only possibly be demonstrated in the region, with the help of historical records which illustrate political organization, urbanization and economy of the Hellenistic and Roman periods basically through coinage. (See sections 2.2. and 2.2.1. in Chapter II)

Still, in order to contribute to transformation of settlements that occurred in the study area from the Hellenistic to the Roman periods, Thiessien polygon technique based on Christaller’s Central Place Theory was applied (ref) This technique was used to determine the settlement patterns and is based on estimated polygons constructed around a series of distributed points by taking the calculated mid-line between each pair of adjacent points to form a network (Hodder and Orton 1979: 59). The polygons provide a general approximation of the extent, shape, and orientation of the area of influence or territory around recorded settlements in the settlement pattern. (Butzer 1982: 219)

Assumptions

In order to apply this model certain assumptions must be made:

1. The land surface is flat and there are no boundaries. 2. There is uniform distribution of the rural population, and people have the same behavior and purchasing power. 3. There is a uniform transport surface allowing ease of movement. 4. All subsequent evolution is related to the growth of cities as service centres.

Four key concepts

Christaller used four key concepts to develop his theory (Christaller; 1960)

1. The central place, an urban centre, evolves in response to rural demands for functions. 2. The range is the maximum distance that people are prepared to travel to obtain a good or service. 3. The threshold is a measure of the minimum number of people required to support a function. 4. Spatial competition is the concept that central places compete with each other for customers.

Hexagons

To completely cover a market area without any overlaps, the hexagon is the ideal shape: a triangular lattice represents the most economical use of space.

To apply the model to our study are, a hypothetical hierarchical order of settlements was established as large, medium and small according to the political and economic evidence, primarily through our knowledge on the cities. The subject area was encircled by three major cities, Amaseia, Laodekia and

Phazemon which were taken into consideration in the model in order to determine territorial divisions. Amaseia is known to have been the largest city of both periods since it was the capital of Mithridatic Kingdom and the only example of urbanized settlement in the inland Pontus (Erciyas, 2006:34). In the Roman period the city remained an economic and political center (discussed in the section 2.3 of Chapter II) the other two settlements, Phazemon and Laodekiea, were ranked as medium size since they were not as significant as Amaseia but were among the cities of the region during the Hellenistic period. In the Roman period, Laodicea disappeared while Phazemon was renamed as Neapolis according to Pompey’s reorganization (for detailed discussion see Erciyas, 2006). Since the study area was presented as ‘’a valley with ten thousand villages’’ (Strabo; 13.3.39) (discussed in the section 2.3.1. of Chapter II) all the other sites were accepted as rural settlements and were ranked as small sites.

Of course, the settlement hierarchy of the Hellenistic and Roman Period sites in the study area could have been truly achieved if the size of each settlement was given by the relevant survey. However for our purposes, differentiation was possible through the Thiessien Polygon thematic maps created are illustrated and described in the section below.

The tendency towards settlement nucleation display itself with the new sites in the Roman period. Map of the Roman period shows a distinct pattern of nucleated villages. Such pattern is not observed in the Hellenistic period. This may suggest a change in the landownership and agricultural activity for benefit.

Figure 5.12: Thiessien Polygon Map of Hellenistic settlements

Figure 5.13: Thiessien Polygon Map of Roman settlements

From a social perspective, settlement nucleation retained advantages that cannot be recovered archaeologically (Roberts, 1996:35-37). Communities have been more of an aggregated nature, rather than dispersed into the fields. Many reasons for nucleation or clustering including the human need to communicate with others through social and religious activities may be listed (Wilkinson, 2004:180). The nature of land holding may also have influenced against settlement dispersal; cultivated land has traditionally been held according to system under which the agricultural land is held not by individuals but by community (Granott, 1952:213).

There were permanent bonds of economic requirements that bound the cities of Asia Minor to their hinterland (Mitchell, 1993:197) but no partnership emerged.

The close proximity of the sites and their assembling in areas where there might be possibility of having economic relations among them. Thus, it can be said that despite the potentialities and limitations of the environment, modes of living and economy might have had certain role. At the same time, sites of Hellenistic period dispersed mostly in areas approximate to roads and areas with average heights. It appears that in Roman period, the increase in water control management together with optimization of food production systems and surplus of agricultural production possibly based on grain made it achievable to benefit from the land more effective.

Another relevant point here is that the accumulation of clustering settlement in this area has occurred in places with potentiality for subsistence and vulnerable sources for a reasonable population. Alluvial landscapes in the plain are arable areas for agriculture. Suitable mineral soil-centers that are almost close to each other-have provide clustering settlements. Besides sites on the northern margins of the study area, there are patterns with similar subsistence relationship which can be seen in the rest of the sites.

5.5 Discussion

In general for the Hellenistic settlements the following can be said: 1. East facing low uplands was preferred because of their elevations which provide improved drainage and they were enclosed with fertile lands. Still, the masking analysis indicated that the Hellenistic settlements had a wider range of elevation preference. There are only two settlements at elevations higher than 1000 m which are around the Tavşandağı Mountain. Settlements were distributed equally according to slope ranges at the edges of the relatively flat Merzifon plain and the mountainous regions on the west and south parts of the study area.Flat areas are mostly preferred while east and south facing settlements are relatively more common than other directions. North and northwest directions were avoided by Hellenistic settlers.

2. Frequently single period Hellenistic settlements in the study area were associated with roads. Dense settlement during the Hellenistic period was observed in two different areas, one, in the SW margins of the Merzifon plain, and the other in the region of Suluova which forms the eastern margins of the study area. Both clusters are concentrated around the ancient trade routes. The first cluster in the southern margins encompasses the trade route which connects Sinope with central Anatolia. The cluster in the Suluova region, on the other hand, is attached to the major trade route linking Amisos to Cappadocia. Environmental variables are similar in both clusters due to milder slopes and fertile soils. Although the cluster with a lower density on the eastern margins is distant to the streams, the high density cluster is relatively close to the streams.

3. 63% of the Hellenistic settlements are close to roads which is a big number but there is another 38% not close to roads so the primary criteria do not seem to be roads. The detected mean range is 5 km indicating that, 63% of the Hellenistic settlements are thought to have been within the 5 km of a trade route and the maximum distance is 20 km. Settlements within 5 km are observed at mostly around the trade route that connects Sinope with inland Pontus. There is only one settlement situated within 5 km distance to the Amisos-Cappadocia trade route. The most distant settlement is 15 km from the trade routes which is situated on the eastern outskirts of the Tavşandağı Mountain. Other settlements are within 10 km (30%) distance to the roads. Hellenistic settlements within 5 km of the trade routes continued their existence while settlements within the 10 km had declined.

4. Thiessen polygon model for Hellenistic settlement does not show nucleated settlement pattern apart from six settlements in close relation with each other encompassing the trade route on the south west margins of the study area. Since the settlements were ranked as large, medium and small, instead of their actual sizes, the model does not show complex hierarchical order of settlements.

5. The observation of the distribution of sites reflects a potential of selection of (modern) agricultural fields, which is also evident in the histogram. This kind of distribution is expected when the agriculture potential of the study area since antiquity is considered. 90% of the settlements both in the Hellenistic and Roman periods were located in the modern agricultural fields. Remaining 10% is spread equally between the forests and marshlands.

The hydrology data indicates that there is no great water deficiency in the study area, assuming those sources could be used for domestic purposes.

These places are also sandstone beds often forming highly visible cliffs and other topographic features. Some sandstone are resistant to weathering, yet are easy to work with. This makes sandstone a common building and paving material (Robertson, 2006:307). Because of the consistency of grain size and brittleness of their structure, some types of sandstone are excellent materials from which to make grindstones for sharpening blades and other implements. Non-brittle sandstone can be used to make grindstones for grinding grain

In general for the Roman settlements the following can be said:

1. The Roman settlements were mostly observed in lowlands in the flat areas that were irrigated with watersheds. The nearby south facing margins of low uplands are good places for settlement. Roman settlements have a tendency to be located in faulted areas on the lower uplands of the Tavşandağı Mountain and the southern margins of the study area, which may have been a result of abundant hot springs as usual with fault zone. There is no archaeological evidence for water channels or water storage systems to support this idea.

Different than the Hellenistic settlements, the Roman sites were concentrated on slopes with values between 6 degrees to 10 degrees. It can be suggested that the Roman period settlements are mostly observed on more gentle slopes of the Merzifon plain. Flat areas are mostly preferred while east and south facing settlements are relatively more common than other directions. North and northwest directions were avoided by both Hellenistic and Roman settlements.

2. Statistics on site density analysis demonstrated that the scatter of 35 sites of the Roman period was in valley floors and low upland watersheds where most of them are new foundations. There was observed a very high concentration of Roman settlements covering the western margin of the plain between the Tavşandağı Mountain and the Hamamözü district. This part of the region has good agricultural lands and is also where the Roman trade route crossed the southern margins of the study area. Streams are relatively close to the cluster. The increase in the settlement number is observed on the density maps. Although the settlement number considerably increased, the location of the eastern cluster did not change in the Roman period.

3. Since the number of settlements increased in the Roman period, settlements within 10 km of main roads were observed more frequently (42%). Moreover, the new settlements mostly preferred to be within the 10 km between the trade road in the southern ranges of Merzifon plain and the Tavşandağı Mountain. It appears that in the Roman period, the increase was based on agricultural production where people inhabiting the land benefited from natural resources.

4. The tendency towards settlement nucleation display itself with the new sites in the Roman period. Map of the Roman period shows a distinct pattern of nucleated villages. Such a pattern was not observed in the Hellenistic period. This may suggest a change in the landownership and agricultural activity for benefit.

5. Most of the Roman settlements were distributed on tuff bedded formations which have been excavated for storage of wine barrels in ancient times elsewhere and could provide high capacity and good quality agricultural products. Since these volcanic rocks do not hold 79

viruses and bacteria, nowadays in Europe, tuff rocks are used for agriculture activities (Topçuoğlu and Arat, 2006). Alluvial and colluvial soils are also preferable areas in the lowlands. Currently, these lowlands consist of hectares of agricultural fields and scattered villages.

This shift in settlement distribution appears to represent a change from a political organization promoting urban concentration in Mithradatic Kingdom in the Hellenistic period towards a settlement pattern controlling large arable lands under the Roman Empire (Mitchell, 2005:85). The changes in the structure of the ancient economy as well as to a shift in the implementation of power and population contributed to the increase in the lowland settlements in the Roman period (Mitchell, 1993:144). In the system of land occupancy and the commercialization of agricultural production, Roman rule fostered intensive agriculture in order to support larger urban markets (Bintliff, 1998). Particularly grain production resulted in an expansion of rural settlements in the Roman Period (Ward-Perkins 2000). During the first two centuries of AD, substantial agricultural mechanism, villae, dominated the economy of the plains surrounding the city. (Bintliff, 1998) Occupied by the Romans or by Romanized natives these villae cultivated intensively to produce a variety of crops. By the integration of the Mithradatic Kingdom into the Roman Empire, the change of power might have also showed itself in the distribution of the settlements and more intensive use of the land than practiced by the native groups inhabiting the region which was mainly the case in the Hellenistic Period in the study area.

It may also be suggested that since Amaseia was a provider of surplus for the military troops during the Roma period since it was the location for the troops of Mithradates VI (Maggie, 1955:180; Munro, 1901).

It could also be speculated that oil production in the region adjacent to study area (Mitchell, 2005:84) could have had a certain significance and could have been a product exchanged for grain, forest and animal products at least in the local market.

This non-random use of space is manifested as a result of human behavior, influenced by social and environmental factors through time, whose mark is left on a landscape in the form of material culture. For instance, environmental considerations of site locations and types may be the result of food resources, topography, fresh water supply, ease of movement, transportation, and the availability of other natural resources. Factors that are culturally based may include defensibility of an area, proximity to other members of the society, and the cultural perceptions of the landscape

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS

This study on settlement history in Chiliocomum had intended to examine the theory that the impact of the shifting administrative policy between Hellenistic and Roman periods can be seen also in changes in settlement pattern in the rural territories. Mitchell (1993:241) claimed that a dramatic change in the appearance of Anatolia between the 2nd century B.C. and the 2nd century A.D. took place. This evidence is supported by inscriptions from neighboring province Bithynia which suggested complex village organization in Nicomedia and widespread grain production in Galatia in Roman period

There is a lack of archaeological evidence regarding the study area except numismatic evidence and a few archaeological remains which provide information regarding the Mithradatic Kingdom, apart from the tombs in Amaseia (Ireland, 2005:251). However, it was observed that the central Black Sea region had a significant political geography during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. This was accomplished by an examination of the related survey reports, the topographic and environmental maps and publications on the Hellenistic and the Roman periods of the central Black Sea Region from which a database of settlements was prepared. The created database was processed in GIS for spatial analysis.

Through the use of GIS, it was possible to explore and analyze multiple variables across the landscape. In this study, GIS analysis suffered from a number of limitations. First of all, the analysis was heavily influenced from the existing archaeological inventory. The surveyors prejudice during data collection, mistakes in the existing coordinates or mistakes regarding the dating of the sites were among some of these problems. Secondly, the projection of the current data on geography, climate, vegetation and the like to the past cannot be considered to 82 be completely trustable. For example, modern land use can actually hardly be in order to understand ancient land use, undetermined settlement size and lack of material culture made it impossible to create a more complex model and any reconstruction to do this is beyond the scope of this study.

In this study, GIS was engaged in masking analysis, density analysis and proximity analysis in order to determine the spatial distribution of the sites either in relation to one another or in relation to their natural environments and to explore aspects related to social landscape. Within this context, Thiessien polygons were generated to further understand the spatial organization of the sites.

An important step in analyzing settlement patterns was to show that the characteristics of site locations significantly differed from those of other locations across the landscape. The first step in variable selection was based both on previous studies and empirical measurement of data. Therefore, the initial data set incorporated six variables; elevation, slope, aspect, quality of soil, land use, distance from the rivers and proximity to roads.

Finally, four variables were accepted as the possible predictors for settlement locations: elevation, slope, aspect and proximity to road. Others were used as promoter data for the discussion of the result of the analysis. Promising variables were subjected to masking analysis, density analysis and proximity analysis.

There are two major outcomes of the GIS analyses. First, individual environmental variable and site location relations were revealed via graphs and descriptive statistics. Second, these relations could be discussed in the light of historical background.

To begin with, in terms of topography it can be claimed that sites in both periods tend to be located around 600 m. After making an adjustment with respect to roads, it had been found that sites tend to gather around roads especially in the Hellenistic period. In some cases of Roman settlements they are located far away

83 from roads. Also, most of the sites are located on flat areas in the Roman period or to explicitly define, at areas having less than 6 degrees of slope. On the other hand, most of the Hellenistic sites are located on low uplands with around 10 degrees.

There is an interesting observation on aspect variable. Although sites are expected to be located on the south face, in the study area the Hellenistic sites are located on the eastern faces in contrast to the Roman settlements which are located on southern faces.

In terms of lithology, Roman settlers really favored quaternary alluvium or volcanic class while Hellenistic settlers preferred clay, sandstone locations.

Modern agricultural fields contain many of the existing settlement. This is another indicator of relation of locations of sites with areas where modern agriculture is practiced.

Density analysis does not show a significant change in settlement pattern between the Hellenistic and Roman periods. However, it might not be wrong to suggest that while the high density Hellenistic cluster is encompassing the trade route and is observed more to the southern margins of the Merzifon plain, the high density cluster in the Roman period shifts to the north and comprises of the lower ranges of the Tavşandağı Mountain which has a tectonic characteristic containing fault lines. The possible hot springs and soils with rich minerals may have been a reason for the exploitation of this area during the Roman period.

The common feature which is also supported by the outcomes of ‘Trade Route Proximity’ and ‘Density’ analyses is that the concentration of settlements is in close proximity to trade routes. These clustered settlements could have controlled the transportation and market economy in the region.

The tendency towards settlement nucleation display itself with the new sites in the Thiessien Polygon Map of the Roman period. It shows a distinct pattern of nucleated villages. Such pattern is not observed in the Hellenistic period.

Another relevant point here is that the accumulation of clustering settlements in this area has occurred in places with potential for subsistence and vulnerable sources for a reasonable population. Alluvial landscapes in the plain are arable areas for agriculture. Suitable mineral soil seems tohave resulte in clusters of settlements.

At the same time, the sites of the Hellenistic period were mostly dispersed in areas approximate to roads and areas with average altitudes. It appears that in the Roman period, the increase in water control management together with optimization of food production systems and surplus of agricultural production, possibly based on grain, made it possible to benefit from the land more effectively.

In conclusion, our study suggest that, the rule of the Mithradatic family contributed to the growth of urban life and gathered agricultural and commercial activities into these large settlements in the Hellenistic Period while Roman rule fostered intensive agriculture in order to support larger urban markets. This system of agriculture involved more intensive use of the land. This may have caused a change in the landownership and agricultural activities for profit. This evidence emphasizes the importance of social phenomena at a regional level, and how behavioral actors create and negotiate their social realities within the geographic locations they occupy.

The road network, fertile soils of the area coupled with abundance of water sources may have resulted in dense and growing population. This shows that even though there are not valid sources of archaeological records in the area, settlement distribution within this area might have been related to socio- economical and political factors together with environment.

If the result of GIS analyses which demonstrates visible differences in the pattern of distribution between two periods are combined with the theory of shift in the political control over the region and changes in economic structure, it would be possible to conclude that there is indeed a significant difference between the Hellenistic and Roman settlement patterns.

REFERENCES

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.

Anderson, J. G. C. 1903. Studia Pontica I. A Journey of Exploration in Pontus. Brussels.

Anderson, J. G. C., Cumont, F., and Gregoire, H. 1910. Studia Pontica III. Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines du Pont et de l’Armenie. Brussels.

.Aston, M. and T. Rowley, 1974, Landscape Archaeology: An Introduction to Fieldwork Techniques on Post-Roman Landscapes, David and Charles, London

Atalay, İ . 1983. Türkiye Vejetasyon Coğrafyasına Giriş. Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları 19. İzmir.

Bilgi, Ö. 1996. "İkiztepe Kazılarının 1994 Dönemi Sonuçları." XVII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I:157-68.

_____. 1997. " İkiztepe Kazılarının 1995 Dönemi Sonuçları." XVIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı:145-62.

_____. 1998. "İkiztepe Kazısı 1996 Dönemi Sonuçları." XIX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I:323-56.

_____. 1999. "Ikiztepe Kazısı 1997 Dönemi Sonuçları." XX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I:485-503.

Bintliff, J. 1991. The Annales School and Archaeology. London.

Boardman, J. 1980. Greeks Overseas. Their Early Colonies and Trade. London.

Bosworth, A. B., and Wheatley, P. V. 1998. "The Origins of the Pontic House." Journal of Hellenic Studies 118:155-64. 87

Boyd, W. E. 1990. "Towards a Conceptual Framework for Environmental Archaeology: Environmental Archaeology as a Key to Past Environments." Circea 7:63-79.

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.

Broughton, T. R. S. 1938. "Roman Asia Minor." In An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, edited by T.Frank, 499-919. Baltimore.

Bryer, A., and Winfield, D. 1985. The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontus. Washington.

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.

Butzer, K. W., 1980, “Context in Archaeology: an Alternative Perspective”, Journal of Field Archaeology 7, 417-422.

Clark, J. G. D. 1939. Archaeology and Society. London.

Cumont, F., and Cumont, E. 1906. Studia Pontica II. Voyage d’exploration archéologique dans le Pont et la Petite Arménie. Brussels.

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, B. E., 2001, GIS: A Visual Approach: Second Edition, Onword Press, New York.

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.

Dönmez 1999. "Sinop-Samsun-Amasya İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, 1997." XVI. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı: 513-23.

Doonan, O., Gantos, A., Smart, D., and Hiebert, F. I. 1999. "Sinop İli Yoğun Alan Araştırması, 1997." XVI. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı: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.

Erciyas, B. 2001. Studies in the Archaeology Of Hellenistic Pontus: The Settlements, Monuments, And Coinage Of Mithradates VI and His Predecessors. Ph.D.diss., University of Cincinnati.

_____. 2006.Weakth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids in the Central Black Sea Region. BAR International Series 392 Oxford.

Erler, A. et. al. 1995. Geology of the Black Sea Region. Ankara.

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.

French, D. H. 1981. "Milestones of Pontus, Galatia, Phrygia and Lycia." Zeitschrift für 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. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı:143-54.

_____. 1986. "Recent Epigraphic Research in Pontus." Epigraphica Anatolica 8:71-82.

_____. 1988b. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. BAR International Series 392 Oxford.

_____. 1990a. "Amasian Notes." Epigraphica Anatolica 15:135-8.

_____. 1991b. "Dated Inscriptions at Amasia." In Erol Atalay Memorial, edited by H. Malay, 65-70. İzmir.

_____. 1992a. "Amasian Notes 2." Epigraphica Anatolica 19:63-8.

_____. 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.

Garnsey, P. 1988. Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge.

Gaffney, V., Z. Stancic and H. Watson, 1996, “Moving from Catchments to Cognition: Tentative Steps toward a Larger Archaeological Context for GIS”, in M. Aldenderfer and H. D. G. Maschner (eds), Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, Oxford University Press, New York,132-154.

Gillings, D. Mattingly and J. V. Dalen (eds), The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes 3, GIS and Landscape Archaeology, 133-137.

Hamilton, W. J. 1842. Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, Armenia I/II. New York.

Hageman, J. B. and D. A. Bennett, 2000, “Construction of Digital Elevation Models for Archaeological Applications”, in K. L. Wescott and R. J. Brandon (eds), Practical Applications of GIS For Archaeologists-A Predictive Modeling Kit, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, 113-125.

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.

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.

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.

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

Işın, M. A. 1990. "Sinop Bölgesi Yüzey Araştırması." In İkinci Tarih Boyunca Karadeniz Kongresi Bildirileri, edited by M. Sağlam, 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.

Kökten, K., and Özgüç, T. 1941. "Samsun'da Prehitorik Araştırmalar (1)." Ülkü XV:413-9.

Kökten, K., Özgüç, T., and Özgüç, N. 1945. "1940 ve 1941 Yılında Türk Tarih Kurumu Adına Yapılan Samsun Bölgesi Kazıları Hakkında İlk Kısa Rapor." Belleten IX:361-400.

Kwamme, K. L., 1990, “One Sample Tests in Regional Archaeological Analysis: New Possibilities through Computer Technology” American Antiquity 55, 367- 381.

Leaf, W. 1916. "The Commerce of Sinope." Journal of Hellenic Studies 36:1-15.

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 Amisos. New York.

Marek, C. 1993. Stadt. Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord- Galatia. Tübingen.

Matthews, R. J. 1997. "Project Paphlagonia." Anatolian Archaeology 3:20-1.246

_____. 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 Çankırı province, 1997." Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 16:245-54.

_____. 1999. "Regional Survey in Paphlagonia." Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Konferanslari 1998:66-75.

McGing, B. C. 1986. The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden.

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.

O'Connor, T. P. 1998. "Environmental Archaeology: A Matter of Definitions." Environmental Archaeology 2:1-6.

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.

Özsait, M. 1988. "1986 Yılı Amasya-Ladik Çevresi Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları." V. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı:239-57.

_____. 1989. "1987 Yılı Amasya-Suluova Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları." VI. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı:287-301.

_____. 1990. "1988 Yılı Gümüşhacıköy Çevresi Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları." VII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı:367-81.

_____. 1990. "1988 Yılı Tokat-Erbaa Çevresi Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları." XI. Türk Tarih Kongresi 1:113-7.

_____. 1991. "1989 Yılı Göynücek Çevresi Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları." VIII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı:45-55.

_____. 1996. "1994 Yılı Amasya-Taşova Yüzey Araştırmaları." XIII. Araştırma Sonuçları

Toplantısı:273-92.

_____. 1998. "1995 ve 1996 Yıllarında Amasya- Merzifon ve Gümüşhacıköy Yüzey Araş tırmaları." XV. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı II:143-62.

_____. 1999a. "Tokat ve Çevresi Yüzey Araştırmaları." XVI. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı II: 89-108.

_____. 1999b. "1986-1993 Yılları Arasında Samsun-Ladik Çevresi Yüzey Araş tırmaları." XII. Türk Tarih Kongresi I:35-40.

Özsait, M., and Dündar, A. 1997. "1995 Yılı Amasya-Gümüşhacıköy ve Hamamözü Yüzey

Araş tırmaları." XIV. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı II:171-92.

______2003. “2001 Yılı Samsun ve Amasya Yüzey Arastırmaları”. XX. Arastırma

Sonuçları Toplantısı.2. Cilt. p.127-140.

Preysler, J. V., C. Blasco, J. Espiago and A. Rio, “Geographic Information Systems and Archaeology: Methodological Aspects of the Presentation and Display Results”, in M.

Price, B. B. 1997. Ancient Economic Thought. London.

Price, S. R. F. 1984. Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge.

Ramsay, W. M. 1890. The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. London.

Rostovtseff, M. I. 1914. Antike Dekorative Malerei in Südrussland. St.Petersburg.

_____. 1916-1918. "Pontus, Bithynia, and the Bosporus." Annuals of the British School at Athens 22:1.

Sürmeli, B. G., 2003, Relationship between Settlement Location and Morphological

Landform: A GIS Method Applied to Çankırı Province, MS Thesis, METU.

Trigger, B. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge.

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.

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:

Wilson, D.R. 1960. The Historical Geography of Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Pontus in the Greek and Roman Periods. Ph.D. diss., Oxford University.

Wheatley, D. and M. Gillings, 2002, Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS, Taylor and Francis, London.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Tables

Table 4.1: Table showing the settlement database

NAME PERIOD elevation slope aspect current vegetation or landuse soil degree agriculture in the territory ortaovahoy HR 500-600 0-6 flat agricultural land 6 grain-dry agriculture karakaya roman 600-700 6-12 flat agricultural land 7 gumushaci HR 800-900 0-6 flat agricultural land 7 kiziroglu roman 900-1000 6-12 south agricultural land 2 karakoy roman 1100-1200 6-12 south agricultural land 4 pinarbasi roman 400-500 0-6 flat agricultural land 2 grain-fruit doluca roman 600-700 0-6 flat agricultural land 7 grain kilisecukr HR 900-1000 6-12 east agricultural land 1 cekilecek HR 900-1000 12-20 south agricultural land 4 artikabak HR 800-900 0-6 flat agricultural land 1 hacipinari roman 800-900 12-20 south agricultural land 2 hamamkayas roman 800-900 0-6 flat agricultural land 2 karacaoren roman 800-900 20-40 south agricultural land 2 demircite2 roman 600-700 0-6 flat agricultural land 7 grain cikrikci roman 600-700 6-12 west agricultural land 3 grain aytepe HR 100-1200 12-20 southwest marshland 3 seyhsafi roman 1100-1200 6-12 southwest agricultural land 7 grain kizilcakor roman 1600-1700 6-12 east forest 4 orenler roman 800-900 12-20 southeast agricultural land 4 grain cayiralti roman 500-600 0-6 flat agricultural land 6 grain-dry agriculture isitmasu roman 1600-1700 12-20 east forest 4 bakacaklar roman 600-700 6-12 south agricultural land 1 grain cataltepe roman 700-800 6-12 south agricultural land 4 grain-dry agriculture orendere HR 700-800 6-12 south agricultural land 6 grain-dry agriculture baglar roman 800-900 12-20 southwest agricultural land 4 grain aksungur roman 700-800 6-12 flat agricultural land 4 grain-dry agriculture

Kucuktepe roman 500-600 0-6 flat agricultural land 3

Tavuk tepesi roman 600-700 12-20 southeast agricultural land 1 grain

Coraklık HR 600-700 6-12 flat agricultural land 4 grain

Körceviz roman 600-700 6-12 flat agricultural land 8 grain

Catalarak roman 500-600 0-6 flat agricultural land 7 grain-dry agriculture

Köyaltı roman 600-700 0-6 southeast agricultural land 7 grain

Hacıbayram roman 600-700 6-12 flat agricultural land 3 grain sırtmevkii hellenistic 1000-1100 12-20 south forest 7 grain sivritepe hellenistic 800-900 12-20 soutwest agricultural land 4 grain kilikarası hellenistic 600-700 12-20 east agricultural land 3 grain karakoy hellenistic 1100-1200 12-20 south agricultural land 4

buyukcay hellenistic 1000-1100 12-20 southeast agricultural land 1 grain demircitepe1 hellenistic 600-700 0-6 east agricultural land 4 grain-dry agrculture onhoroz hellenistic 500-600 0-6 flat agricultural land 6 grain-dry agrculture akkaya hellenistic 1000-1100 12-20 east agricultural land 7 kıdımpınar hellenistic 500-600 0-6 flat agricultural land 7 grain cetmi hellenistic 600-700 6-12 east agricultural land 4