STUDIES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF HELLENISTIC PONTUS: THE SETTLEMENTS, MONUMENTS, AND COINAGE OF MITHRADATES VI AND HIS PREDECESSORS A dissertation submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D.) In the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences 2001 by D. Burcu Arıkan Erciyas B.A. Bilkent University, 1994 M.A. University of Cincinnati, 1997 Committee Chair: Prof. Brian Rose ABSTRACT This dissertation is the first comprehensive study of the central Black Sea region in Turkey (ancient Pontus) during the Hellenistic period. It examines the environmental, archaeological, literary, and numismatic data in individual chapters. The focus of this examination is the central area of Pontus, with the goal of clarifying the Hellenistic kingdom's relationship to other parts of Asia Minor and to the east. I have concentrated on the reign of Mithradates VI (120-63 B.C.), but the archaeological and literary evidence for his royal predecessors, beginning in the third century B.C., has also been included. Pontic settlement patterns from the Chalcolithic through the Roman period have also been investigated in order to place Hellenistic occupation here in the broadest possible diachronic perspective. The examination of the coinage, in particular, has revealed a significant amount about royal propaganda during the reign of Mithradates, especially his claims to both eastern and western ancestry. One chapter deals with a newly discovered tomb at Amisos that was indicative of the aristocratic attitudes toward death. The tomb finds indicate a high level of commercial activity in the region as early as the late fourth/early third century B.C., as well as the significant role of Amisos in connecting the interior with the coast. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The preparation of this dissertation has been possible with the help of numerous wonderful people both in Cincinnati, USA and Ankara, Turkey. I would like to extend my gratitude to my advisor Prof. C. Brian Rose at the University of Cincinnati. He has been incredibly patient with all my inexperience, mistakes, and my impatience towards the end of this study. He has always been very kind, attentive, encouraging, supportive, and most of all knowledgeable in an area not necessarily within his own research interests. I believe that he deserves every prize for advisorship, and he will always be an inspiration to me in the future. My thanks also go to Dr. Barbara Burrell, who shared the difficult task of organizing the dissertation and reading through numerous copies with great devotion. She has always been present at our weekly meetings and has been inspirational. I would also like to thank Prof. Jack L. Davis and Prof. Getzel M. Cohen for reading and commenting on the manuscript; without their help this study could not have been completed. The staff of the Classics library and the head librarian Jean Wellington at Cincinnati, and especially Yiğit Erbil at the library of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara helped me find obscure sources and allowed me to use the library to its full extent. I would like to acknowledge the helps of the museum staff at the Samsun, Çorum and Tokat Museums, and especially Mr. Mustafa Akkaya, the director of the Samsun Museum, for providing not only assistance but also slides and illustrations. His generosity will always be remembered. I would like to thank Aaron Wolpert, Kathleen Quinn and Tara for proof- reading the manuscript. Gayle McGarrahan deserves special thanks for taking care of all my business while I was away and answering my endless questions. The support of other friends at Cincinnati and Ankara will always be remembered. But most of all I would like to thank my family, who strongly believed that I was capable of successfully completing yet another part of my academic career and proceed to the next step. Among them, my husband Murat Erciyas deserves a special acknowledgement, because he provided endless support while also helping me to create the figures of the dissertation and to computerize the drawings; he has worked with me in every respect regarding the format of the thesis. I would like to thank him and everyone else whom I may have forgotten to acknowledge. Writing a dissertation is a difficult task but not as difficult as it may seem when surrounded by so many wonderful people. Copyright © 2001, by Deniz Burcu Arıkan Erciyas TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and Methods of Analysis 10 II. Environmental Setting and Settlement Patterns in the Black Sea Region through the Centuries 21 a. Environmental History of the Black Sea Region 23 b. Landscape in the Black Sea Region 32 c. Climate and Vegetation 37 d. Settlement Patterns in the Central Black Sea Region from the Chalcolithic through the Roman Period 43 e. Conclusion 70 III. The Late Hellenistic Period in the Central Black Sea Region 73 a. The Origins of Mithradates VI 73 b. The Life and Policy of Mithradates VI 83 IV. Mithradates VI, the Hellenistic King 97 a. Dedicatory Inscriptions 98 b. The Monument for Mithradates VI on Delos 104 c. Portraits of Mithradates VI 115 V. Settlement Patterns in the Hellenistic Period: A Closer Look at Hellenistic Towns and Their Hinterlands 128 a. Hellenistic Cities 129 i. Amaseia 129 ii. Cabeira/Diospolis/Sebaste/Neocaesareia 133 iii. Eupatoria/Magnopolis 137 iv. Phazemon/Neapolis/Neoclaudiopolis 138 v. Comana and Zela 140 vi. Amisos 145 vii. Other Settlements of Inland Pontus 151 b. Site Distribution in the Hellenistic Period 152 VI. Coinage in Pontus from the Fifth through the First Centuries B.C. 157 a. The Emergence of Cities on the Southern Coast of the Black Sea, and the City Mints from the Fifth century B.C. until the Reign of Mithradates VI 157 b. The Royal Coins of the Pontic Kings 165 c. City Mints in Pontus under Mithradates VI 177 d. The Monetary Policy of Mithradates VI around the Black Sea: Coins of the Bosporan Kingdom during the Reign of Mithradates VI 182 e. Coin Hoards of Pontus 187 VII. Wealthy Aristocracy? A Tomb from Amisos 195 VIII. Conclusion 220 IX. Bibliography 231 X. Appendix 257 XI. Figures and Charts 262 1 LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1 Vegetation cover of Turkey. Fig. 2 The sea level of the Black Sea in 7,500 B.C. Fig. 3 The sea level curve based on radiocarbon-dated acropora palmata (after van Andel 1990, fig. 1). Fig. 4 Changes in the level of the Black Sea over the past 6,000 years (after Shilik 1997, 127). Fig. 5 Topographical map of northern Turkey. Fig. 6 Distribution of vegetation in Turkey (after Atalay 1983, 80). Fig. 7 Number of settlements in the central Black Sea region from the Chalcolithic through the Byzantine period (after survey projects in the region). Fig. 8 Number of settlements in Amasya province through the ages (after survey projects in the region). Fig. 9 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in the Chalcolithic period (after survey projects in the region). Fig. 10 Number of settlements in Tokat province through the ages (after survey projects in the region). Fig. 11 Number of settlements in Samsun province through the ages (after survey projects in the region). Fig. 12 Number of settlements in Sivas province through the ages (after survey projects in the region). Fig. 13 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in the Early Bronze Age (after survey projects in the region). Fig. 14 Number of settlements in Çorum province through the ages (after survey projects in the region). Fig. 15 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in the second millennium B.C (after survey projects in the region). Fig. 16 Greek colonization in the Black Sea (after Tsetskhladze 1998, 23). Fig. 17 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in the Iron Age (after survey projects in the region). Fig. 18 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in the Classical and Hellenistic periods (after survey projects in the region). Fig. 19 Site continuity in the central Black Sea region from the Iron Age through the Byzantine period (after survey projects in the region). Fig. 20 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in the Roman period (after survey projects in the region). Fig. 21 Site distribution map of the central Black Sea region in Late Antiquity. Fig. 22 Genealogical chart of the Pontic royal house (after Bosworth and Wheatley 1998, 160). Fig. 23 Situation plan of the Sanctuary of the Great Gods of Samothrace (after Chapouthier 1935, fig. 1). Fig. 24 Plan of the Sanctuary of the Great Gods of Samothrace (after Chapouthier 1935, fig. 11). Fig. 25 Ground plan of the monument for Mithradates VI on Delos (after Chapouthier 1935, fig. 55). 2 Fig. 26 A reconstruction drawing of the monument for Mithradates VI on Delos (after Chapouthier 1935, fig. 56). Fig. 27 A drawing of the portrait of Diophantus (after Chapouthier 1935, 30 fig. 38). Fig. 28 Ground plan of the Heroon at Kalydon (after Dyggve et al. 1934, taf. I,II ). Fig. 29 A reconstruction drawing of the Heroon at Kalydon (after Dyggve 1934, fig.100). Fig. 30 Coin portraits of Mithradates VI (after SNG-BM 1034, 1040). Fig. 31 Portrait of Mithradates VI in the Louvre (after Smith 1988, pl. 51 and 52, 1-2). Fig. 32 A gem portrait (after Richter 1968, cat.no. 650). Fig. 33 A gem portrait (after Richter 1968, cat.no. 652). Fig. 34 The Ostia Mithradates (after Smith 1988, Pl. 52, 3-4). Fig.