University of Southern Denmark

The corners of a Pontic world An essay in the history of spaces Bekker-Nielsen, Tønnes

Published in: Orbis Terrarum

Publication date: 2018

Document version: Final published version

Citation for pulished version (APA): Bekker-Nielsen, T. (2018). The corners of a Pontic world: An essay in the history of spaces. Orbis Terrarum, 15 (2017), 23-69. http://www.steiner-verlag.de/titel/61524.html

Go to publication entry in University of Southern Denmark's Research Portal

Terms of use This work is brought to you by the University of Southern Denmark. Unless otherwise specified it has been shared according to the terms for self-archiving. If no other license is stated, these terms apply:

• You may download this work for personal use only. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying this open access version If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details and we will investigate your claim. Please direct all enquiries to [email protected]

Download date: 04. Oct. 2021 shares its name 'iron,65 Gangetic Jangetic cloth,66

na. 67 Thina was THE CORNERS OF A PONTIC WORLD: oth were can·ied AN ESSAY IN THE HISTORY OF SPACES the Ganges Riv­ :ath Ursa Minor, to reach, and it Tt)nnes Bekker-Nielsen

!en. We may in­ Abstract India when the y termed an em­ The Iris-Lykos basin is often treated as a single historical space called 'Pontos'. tors such as the The frequent revisions of political boundaries during the early centuries of Roman >ve all, the vari­ dominance suggest, however, that the Iris-Lykos basin contained several 'soft' or ade so as to en- 'functional' spaces. This hypothesis finds support in the writings of the church 1ow of in detail fathers of the third to sixth centuries AD which seem to reflect a difference in out­ strongly related look between western and eastern 'Pontos', between Amaseia and Neokaisareia. various Indian ough the taxes, Keywords: Pontos, Roman Empire, soft space, epigraphy, hagiography. t the ports each )ducts traded in the commercial Where nature hath made the bounds of Countries, they remain always the same; ... But where limits are arbitrary, and depend only upon the agreement of men, they are frequently changed: and a Country may still retain the same name, though the limits have been often altered. 1 The main hindrance to the movements of people and goods by land has usually been social rather than physical. 2 Manuel Albaladejo e Historia Antigua :rsidad de Valencia a Blasco Ibanez 28 l. Introduction3 E-46010 Valencia [email protected] At an idyllic spot in the verdant north Anatolian plain known to ancient writers as the Phanaroia, the Lykos and the bis rivers meet (fig. 1). The Lykos river (mod. 4 cinnamon tree. L. Kelkit 9ay1) flows on a more or less direct course from east to west along the 've Per�pectives on , Nat. XII, 129 and MAURICE 1691, 410. 2 HORDEN & PURCELL 2001, 132. :h unified China in 3 The present study was made possible by a fellowship from the Fondation Maison des Scienc­ , although in other es de !'Homme in the spring semester of 2016. The author is grateful to the FMSH for their 1ari I y used to refer generosity, to the Ecole Normale Superieure, to UMR 8546 CNRS/ENS-AOROC Archeolo­ oceanus Sericus in gie & Philologie d'Orient et d'Occident, the Universite Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne and the I, 6, 14; 6, 67. Maison des Sciences de !'Homme, as well as to Prof. ALEXANDRU AVRAM, Dr. ANCA DAN, Prof. FRANCOIS QUEYREL and Prof. STEPHANE VERGER for their hospitality; and to Dr. KHERJEE, "Routes, JESPER MAJBOM MADSEN (Odense), Dr. VERA SAUER (Rangendingen) and Dr. S0REN LUND J.-FR. SALLES - J.­ S0RENSEN (Berlin) for constructive criticism of a draft version of this paper. . 330--2. 4 Like the Greek Lykos, Kelkit, derived from Armenian, means 'wolf . 24 Tfi)nnesBekker-Nielsen southern flank of the great range lmown as the 'Pontic Alps' which separates in­ land Anatolia from the Black Sea coast. In its upper reaches, the Lykos is a turbu­ lent mountain stream, but for the last forty to fifty kilometres before the conflu­ ence, its waters flow slowly along its wide, shallow river bed meandering through the Phanaroia. The Iris (mod. Ye�ihrmak) follows a much longer and more circuitous route. At first, its waters flow from east to west on a course more or less parallel to that of the Lykos, which at this point is less than fifteen kilometres distant. The river then diverges towards the south-west, threading its way between the mountains of the Lithros massif to reach the plain of Amaseia (mod. Amasya) where it is joined by the Skylax (mod. yekerek). Having passed the city of Amaseia it turns east, tracking a second course through the mountains, and returns to the Phanaroia where it finally meets the Lykos. Immediately after their confluence, the waters enter a narrow gorge leading through the Pontic Alps and into the plain of Themiskyra (mod. <;ar�amba), legendary home of the Amazons,5 before they eventually reach the Black Sea (map fig. 2). To historians of the Hellenistic era, the Iris-Lykos basin is known as the core region of 'Pontos' or 'the Pontic kingdom',6 the tenitory ruled by the Mithradatic dynasty from c. 301 to c. 66 BC. According to STEPHEN MITCHELL, however, 'what we now call the Pontic kingdom never described itself in terms of any geo­ graphical designation or limitation - Lineage, not territory, was the key to the ti­ tle'. 7 The realm of the Mithradatids was a dynastic state held together by the per­ son of the king, his 'ancestral dominion'.8 Not until the Roman period does 'Pon­ tos' emerge as a clearly defined space - or rather, spaces: for the province Pontus created by Pompey after the defeat of Mithradates was soon broken up, and in the centuries that followed, it underwent a succession of territorial redivisions.

2. History and space

This raises the question whether it is possible, or indeed meaningful, to write the history of spaces without 'any geographical designation or limitation'. Most stud­ ies of history view the world as composed either of teITitories delimited by politi­ cal borders or of spaces definedby the natural features of the landscape. The founding fathers who established the historical geography of the ancient world as a separate academic discipline - HENRICH KIEPERT,9 WILLIAM M. RAM-

5 Hdt. 4.110; Strab. 12.3.15; ApoU. Rhod. 2.964-1000; BEKKER-NIELSEN & JENSEN 2016, 232-3. 6 E.g., 'noyau central' (REINACH 1890, 9); 'Herzstiick des Landschaft Pontos' (OLSHAUSEN 1980, 903); 'the Pontic heartland' (BOYCE & GRENET 1991, 3:293). 7 MITCHELL2002, 51; see also DAN 2013, 27-8. 8 App. Mithr. 15: 1t6:rprotO\; lipx;T]. 9 It is instructive to compare KIEPERT (1878) to the latest monograph on ancient geography by ROLLER (2015). Whereas ROLLER'S book is mainly concerned with ancient geographical ex- The Corners of a Pontic World 25

1ich separates in­ SAY10 and HEINRICH NISSEN,1 1 to name only three - saw the task of the historian­ Lykos is a turbu­ geographer as analogous to that of geographers describing the contemporary •efore the conflu­ world. Starting from the features of the physical landscape and mining ancient andering through texts - narratives, inscriptions, itineraries, geographical descriptions and in RAM­ SAY'S case, the Bible - for data, they strove to establish the locations of ancient circuitous route. cities, the boundaries of tenitories and provinces, the correct names of natural ss parallel to that features such as rivers and mountains, just as historians, through critical examina­ jistant. The river tion of their texts, strove to establish reliable chronologies of ruling dynasties and the mountains of historical events. where it is joined The interwar generation of French scholars which came to be known as the ;eia it turns east, Ann.ales school (from the title of the journal which they established in 1929) re­ to the Phanaroia jected the positivism of their predecessors as well as their preoccupation with po­ tence, the waters litical history. One of the stated aims of the Ann.ales was to break down the divi­ nto the plain of sions between disciplines and serve as an 'agent de liaison' between geographers, ns, 5 before they economists, historians and sociologists. 12 Their approach inspired researchers in 3 many other countries, not least in the UK, t to explore the interplay between his­ 1own as the core tory, archaeology and geography in the ancient world. The Annales school priori­ , the Mithradatic tized the study of economic relations, agricultural regimes, inherited traditions and ::HELL, however, mentalities, none of which were bound by the shifting political borders of medie­ !rms of any geo­ val and early modern Europe. Its emphasis on the physical environment as 'ena­ :he key to the ti­ bling and constraining' human choice and action did, however, carry the risk of ether by the per­ lapsing into geographical determinism, a danger of which the Annales scholars eriod does 'Pon­ themselves were well aware. t4 province Pon.tus By contrast, another important new paradigm of the interwar period, Central '!n up, and in the Place Theory, almost entirely ignored the physical environment. In his ground­ ivisions. breaking study Die zentralen Orte in Siiddeutschland (1933), the German eco­ nomic geographer WALTER CHRISTALLER analyzed the emergence and develop­ ment of urban settlement networks as the product of human behaviour and the inherent complementarity of 'central' (urban) and 'dispersed' (rural) economic systems. 15 The Hinterland of a city is defined by space-time distances - not by ;ful, to write the administrative boundaries, nor by geographical features - and though the region ion'. Most stud­ chosen by CHRISTALLER for his case study, southern Germany, is marked by imited by politi­ mountain ridges and river valleys, these found no place within his analysis. :cape. CHRISTALLER'S theory of central places met with a cool reception in the y of the ancient homeland of the Ann.ales school but inspired many studies in the UK and especial- LLIAM M. RAM-

ploration and theorization, KIEPERT devotes no more than 14 pages (out of 544) to these top­ '1 & JENSEN 2016, ics beforemoving on to the 'facts'. 10 RAMSAY1890. otos' (OLSHAUSEN ll NISSEN I 883-1902. 12 Letter from LUCIEN FEBVRE, quoted by LEUILLOT 1973, 321. 13 BINTI.IFF 1981,5. 14 Both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Annales approach are brought out clearly in :ient geography by BRATIANU1969, a now classic study of the Black Sea in the longue d11ree. tl geographical ex- 15 CHRISTALLER I 933, 23-30; BEKKER-NIELSEN 1989, 4-8. 26 Ti:!!nnes Bekker-Nielsen

ly in the United States, demonstrating the analytical potential of CPT for the study of pre-industrial societies 16 but also revealing its inherent risk of excessive ab­ straction degenerating into scholastic formalism. Central Place Theory enjoyed considerable popularity among archaeologists in the 1970s and early 1980s 17 but eventually went out of fashion. Instead, historical geographers and archaeologists turned to large-scale surface surveys, in a certain sense representing a return to the positivistic paradigm of the pre-1914 era with its implicit assumption that more data located in space ('more dots on the map') will lead to deeper insights. 18 The most recent trend in ancient historical geography and archaeology is network the­ 19 ory. Like graph theo-ry (to which it is closely related ) and Central Place Theory, network theory largely ignores the physical environment; and like CPT and graph theory, it carries with it the 1isk of lapsing into fo1malism, merely providing new r names for familia phenomena.20 The last decades have seen an increase in interdisciplinary applications com­ bining geography and social sciences, geography and history, geography and liter­ ature, etc., a trend known as the 'spatial turn'.21 Some see the 'spatial turn' as a means of restoring geography to its rightful position of parity with history, from which it was toppled by nineteenth-century evolutionism;22 others, to expose the ways in which space is manipulated in order to reinforce existing structures of domination and exploitation;23 others again, finding ways to exploit the potential of new, powerful digital tools such as GIS in the humanities. 24 The 'spatial tum' has had a profound impa-ct on the humanities, but in the oth­ er direction, it has also extended the concept of 'space' itself. 1n classical geome­ try or geography, any space is defined by clear borders, and any point can be ob­ jectively located in one space: this tree grows either within the municipal territory of Scafati or that of Boscoreale; the water in that brook drains into either the Po or the Adige. Such spaces in turn take their place within a hierarchically organized 'Westphalian' 25 system of spaces ranked by ascending size: province, region, na­ tion, European Union; watershed of the Po, Adriatic Sea, Mediterranean Basin.

16 E.g., SKINNER 1964-5. 17 E.g., HODDER & HASSALL 1971; GRANT (ed.) 1986. 18 BINTLIFF 2000. 19 BRUGHMANS 2013, 628-32. 20 On some of the conceptual problems of applying CHR!STALLER'S model in historical con­ texts, WIBGELS 2006, esp. 25-7. For network theory, see the insightful critiques of SINDBA:K 20 IS, 111-3 and LEONARD 20 IS. 21 TORRE 2008; BACHMANN-MEDICK 2016, 211-5. 22 HARVEY 1998, 725; SCHL0GEL2003, 38-40; SOJA 20 l I. I 0-6. 23 SOJA 2010. 24 For an incisive critique of the 'spatial tum', see HARD 2008. 25 The term was coined by WATERHOUT (20 I 0), by analogy with the division of Europe into a hierarchical system of clearly defined territories by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. ------7

The Cornersof a Pontic World 27

'PT for the study These categories - physical and political space - continue to infonn many con­ ::if excessive ab­ temporary studies of ancient historical geography.26 Theory enjoyed Within the humanities, however, the 'spatial turn' has generated new interest arly 198Os 17 but in other concepts of spaces: 'subjective' (as against 'objective') spaces, 'human­ .d archaeologists space'27 or 'spaces of belonging'. 28 These are what geographers would term 'soft 1g a return to the spaces': 'functional' spaces defined by boundaries which are 'fuzzy', 'penumbra!' 1ption that more and permeable;29 'activity spaces' which reflect 'real geographies of problems and :r insights. 18 The opportunities' as experienced by their inhabitants:30 their 'lifecourse geography',31 1 is network the­ Compared to the 'hard' spaces of physical or political geography, 'soft' spaces are ·al Place Theory, less easy to locate within a taxonomy of 'top-bottom' or 'centre-periphery'; like : CPT and graph the communities that constitute !RAD MALKIN's 'small Greek world', they are y providing new connected within a complex relational network without any implicit hierarchy. When trying to identify and delimit 'soft spaces', contemporary geographers pplications com­ can draw on a wealth of statistical data: age, household size, household income, graphy and liter­ occupation, marital status et cetera, and if need be, supplement their data by ;patial turn' as a means of questionnaire surveys or house-to-house interviews.32 A historical geog­ ith history, from rapher has far fewer data to start fromand supplementary surveys are not possible. rs, to expose the Interaction between humans can only be traced through proxy data. At present, ing strnctures of these mainly take the form of texts and artefacts, though DNA analysis may open loit the potential new perspectives for futureresearch. A recent study of ceramics circulation in Hellenistic and Roman Cyprus high­ :s, but in the oth­ lights the localized nature of pottery production and consumption, often within a classical geome­ radius of only 10 or 20 km, and reveals that the edges of a 'ceramic region' are point can be ob­ fuzzy, with pottery often spilling over into neighbouring ceramic regions. 33 Pros­ unicipal territory opography combined with network analysis can uncover the ways in which a re­ ) either the Po or gion is connected to the outside world by relations of kinship, trade and patron­ 1ically organized age. Stylistic and iconographic studies can reveal the routes along which 'innova­ ·ince, region, na­ tion waves'34 travel. ten-anean Basin. At present, none of these methods hold much promise for students of the Iris­ Lykos basin: the ceramic material is sparse, too often unprovenanced and, for lack of reliable ceramic chronologies, difficult to date, while the epigraphic dossier is limited. The most important attempts along these lines have been those of KON­ RAD KRAFT (1972), tracing the movements of itinerant moneyers by means of die

26 E.g., KOSMIN 2014 (with an emphasis on political 'production of territory' and 'space- making practices') as against THONEMANN 2011 (taking the natural featuresof the landscape el in historical con­ as the point of departure). ritiques of SINDBIEK 27 KELLY 2015, 9. 28 PEARCE2002; JONES 2007. 29 Cf. the distinction of AYDOGAN 2016, 30, between 'borders' and 'frontiers'. 30 ALLMENDINGER & HAUGHTON 2009, 619; 2010; BEKKER-NIELSEN2014a. 31 ALLEN & WILES 2014, 119. 32 E.g., ALLEN & WILES 2014, 122-3. ion of Europe into a 33 LUND 2015, 217. lia in 1648. 34 For the concept, HAGERSTRAND 1952. 28 T121nnesBekker-Nielsen linkages and iconographic analysis of the local coinage and of HENRI-LOUlS �RNOUX (2004) on elite relationships in Bithynia, but extending into Pontus. Other approaches hold greater promisefor our region. Literary texts, especial­ ly autobiographical, 35 biographical or hagiographical narratives36 can provide in­ sights into the 'spaces of belonging' of their authors and/or their audience. In this category, we have a very large body of texts from the hands of Christian third­ and fourth-century authors (forming the basis for two brilliant studies of late Ro­ 37 man Cappadocia by RAYMOND VAN DAM ) and a significant proportion of this material relates directly or indirectly to the Iris-Lykos basin. Furthermore, it needs to be remembered that 'hard' and 'soft' spaces do not merely coexist; they interact with, and impact on, each other. Thus, the shifting limits of 'hard' spaces may reflect the underlying dynamics of invisible 'soft' spaces in the same way that earthquakes reveal the tensions under the face of the earth. Where 'hard' and 'soft' spaces are congruent, tensions are unlikely to oc­ cur; where the ruling power attempts to impose a spatial logic which is at odds with the 'activity spaces' of the inhabitants, conflicts arise38 and may eventually lead to revision of the 'hard' borders. In this respect, it is significant that whereas the administrative districts in some other parts of the empire remained stable over centuries, the borders of the central and northern Anatolian provinces were fre­ quently redrawn.39 This paper will attempt to explore the spatial organisation of the lris-Lykos basin from the third century BC to the seventh century AD in order to test the as­ sumption that it was not only divided into 'hard' spaces but also contained 'soft' spaces whose borders were fuzzy and negotiable, just as the external borders of 'Pontos' were shifting, permeable and 'fuzzy'40 and the 'Pontic heartland' in the Iris-Lykos basin can be seen to be oriented in different directions at different peri­ ods in history.

3. Third to first centuries BC: the Mithradatids

1n the turbulent decades following the breakup of Alexander's empire, a series of minor kingdoms emerged in Anatolia. One of these was Armenia, which straddled the isthmus between the Black and the Caspian Seas. Ancient geographers distin­ guished between Armenia major, comprising the territories east of the Euphrates,

35 JONES 2007. 36 KELLY 2015. 37 VAN DAM 2002; 2003. 38 E.g., in the Agricola, Tacitus relates the complaints of the Britons at being forced to deliver their taxes in kind to far-off collecting points instead of to their local army camp: Tac. Agr. 19. 39 DALAISON 2016, 191; also MAREK 2003, 44-7; 2010, 453-62 40 For the 'fuzzy' nature of the border between Paphlagonia and 'Pontos', see BEKKER-NIELSEN 2014a, 139--42;2014b. The Corners of a Pontic World 29

Df HENRI-LOUIS and Armenia minor to the west and north of the great river. The textual sources mto Pontus. for the internal history of Annenia are scarce until its conquest by Antiochus illin y texts, especial­ 212 BC, but from this point in time, if not already before, Armenia was de facto a , can provide in­ client state of the Seleucids who c. 190 BC divided its territory and established audience. In this Armenia minor as a separate kingdom.41 Taking advantage of the opportunities Christian third- offered by the defeat of the Seleucids at the hands of the Romans and the peace of 1dies of late Ro­ Apameia (188 BC), the kings of Armenia major not only succeeded in re­ roportion of this establishing the independence of their kingdom but extended their dominion southward to include parts of the erstwhile Seleucid empire. Their territories 't' spaces do not reached their greatest extent in 70 BC under king Tigranes II ('the Great'). 42 hus, the shifting Sources for the early history of the Mithradatic kingdom are as sparse as those f invisible 'soft' for Armenia. The kings themselves later claimed to be descended from the Persian :r the face of the royal house and that their ancestors 'had been given a kingdom on the Black Sea 43 ! unlikely to oc- by Dareios'. Most scholars since REINACH (1890) have rejected this genealogy 11/hich is at odds as fictitious and assumed that the Mithradatids were descended from a minor dyn­ I may eventually ast who around 301 BC succeeded his father as ruler of Kios, a city on the Sea of ant that whereas Marmara (mod. Gernlik). Later, according to Diodoros, he extended his domains 1ined stable over into Cappadocia where he ruled for 36 years44 and was remembered as Mithrada­ vinces were fre- tes I Ktistes, founder of the Mithradatic kingdom. There are, however, various problems in this reconstruction, both in terms of chronology45 and geography.46 ,f the Iris-Lykos BOSWORTH and WHEATLEY (1998) have proposed to rehabilitate the Persian gene­ ler to test the as- alogy of Mithradates I and to identify his ancestral domain not with the compara­ contained 'soft' tively insignificant city of Kios on the Sea of Marmara, but as a far larger territory :ernal borders of which included Mysia and the region inland from Herakleia Pontike (mod. heartland' in the Eregli).47 at different peri- Whichever of the three origins proposed for the Mithradatic dynasty we choose to accept - that Dareios had granted them a territory on the Black Sea (their own version), that they hailed from the Marmaran port of Kios (the older r communis npinio) or f om the hinterland of Herakleia (BOSWORTH, WHEATLEY and most contemporary scholars) - we are talking about a location on the coast. It is equally significant that among the dynasty's earliest acquisitions we find npire, a series of Amastris (mod. Amasra): in 279 BC, this city and its port - one of the best natural which straddled ports on the southern Black Sea coast and the main entrep6t for imports from the ographers distin­ )f the Euphrates,

41 S!·IERWIN-WHITE & KUHRT 1993, 16-7; 190-7; MAHE & MAHE 2012, 38-9; PLISCHKE 2014, 265-6. 42 MAHE & MAHE 2012, 46-57. ng forced to deliver 43 Pol. 5.43.2. my camp: Tac. Agr. 44 Diod. 20.111.4. 45 MCGING 1986, 250-1. 46 BOSWORTH & WHEATLEY1998, 155-6; cf. BURSTEIN 1976, 230. :e BEKKER-NIELSEN 47 BOSWORTH & WHEATLEY 1998, 158, cf. MITCHELL 2002, 52-3; ERCIYAS 2006, 10-2. For a summary of the main points of the discussion, MAYOR 2011, 388 n. 19. 30 T1cmnes Bekker-Nielsen

48 Aegean - came under the control of Ariobarzanes, who in 266 succeeded Mith­ radates I Ktistes on the throne.49 Among the Hellenistic monarchs, a navy was not merely an instrnment, but also a symbol of power - witness the naval 'arms race' in the Eastern Medite1Ta­ nean during the third century BC, when Antigonids, Seleucids and Ptolemies tried to outdo each other in building ever larger warships.50 Even a minor ruler without ambitions on such a scale would still need access to the sea for trade and for main­ taining contact with other rulers and states in the Hellenistic of which the Mithra­ datic kingdom fmmed a part. It would in fact have been more surprising if the Mithradatids, in control of an area with long shipbuilding traditions and vast timber resources, had not looked to the sea. The point is stressed here because it runs counter to a scholarly opinion that would see the Mithradatic kingdom as orienting itself towards the sea only from the reign of king Phamakes (c. 185-159 BC) onwards.51 But by the time of Phamakes, Amastiis had been under Mithradatic control for a century, while his predecessor had seized control of Amisos in 200 BC. 52 Pharnakes himself cap­ tured Sinope (mod. Sinop) in 183 BC and founded or re-founded the city of Phar­ nakeia (mod. Giresun) on the coast between Amisos and Trapezous. His actions represent the logical consequences, not the beginnings, of a maritime policy of the Mithradatids who now conti·olled the three best harbours on the southern shore of the Black Sea. Under Phamakes' successors, their domain was extended to the northern coast where the last king, Mithradates VI Eupator, sought refuge after his defeat at the hands of Pompey. To contemporary observers, the sea was a defining element of the Mithradatic kingdom. Polybius, writing in the second century BC, describes the Mithradatic territory as 'Cappadocia by the Euxine'.53 By the first century BC, the te1m 'Pon­ tos', originally used to designate the Black Sea as a whole, was being used for the territories bordering its southern shore. 54 The early Mithraclatids had their tombs and (presumably, though secure evi­ dence is lacking) their royal residence in Amaseia, which lies in the narrow valley of the Iris astride the north-south route from the coast to Zela (mod. Zile). Later,

48 MEHL 1987, 117. 49 MITCHELL 2002, 54; Mernnon FGrH 434 F9.4. 50 MURRAY 2012, 193-207. 51 E.g., most recently MITCHELL 2002, 55. 52 Pol. 4.56. 53 Pol. 5.43.1. 54 E.g., Strab. 13.2.10. According to MITCHELL 2002, 50 'Neither the geographical term Pontus nor the quasi-ethnic Ponticus was ever used in contemporary documents in relation to the kingdom ofMithradates Eupator or his predecessors': a bold statement, given that most doc­ uments of the period have not been preserved for posterity. Strabo's reference (11.8.4) to 'the Cappadocians living by the Euxine who are now [vuv] called pontikoi ', does, however, imply that this sense of the term was recent. There is epigraphic evidence for the use of pontikos as an ethnikon as early as the second century BC (DAN 2013, 39-40) but this may refer to the western Black Sea. See also OLSHAUSEN 2014, 39-41 . The Corners of a Pontic World 31

6 succeeded Mith- they moved their residence to Sinope, strategicaJly located for control of the Eux­ ine but only tenuously connected to the Mithradatid lands in the lris-Lykos basin. an instrument, but Two routes led from Sinope to Amaseia, both difficult in winter. One went by sea Eastern Mediterra­ as far as Amisos, then by road; the other entirely by land over the Dranaz pass md Ptolemies tried (fig. 3) across the Pontic range, then along the valleys of the Amnias (mod. Gok 1inor ruler without 1rmak) and Halys (mod. K1z1hrmak) to reach the plain of the Phazemonitis and the rade and formain­ Havza gap, where it linked up with the road fromAmisos to Amaseia. which the Mithra- As far as we know, the Mithradatids never tried to present themselves as au­ tochthonous to the Iris-Lykos basin. On the contrary, they consistently under­ fa, in control of an scored their position as outsiders by identifying themselves as Persians: claiming . had not looked to to be descended from the highest levels of the Persian aristocracy, performing scholarly opinion Persian 1ituals55 and using Persian names for their sons.56 The linguistic skills of ,ards the sea only Mithradates VI (according to Pliny the Elder,57 he spoke twenty-two languages) But by the time of did not place the monarch wiiliin a Hellenistic tradition (where speaking Greek century, while his well was the defining characteristic of the ruling class) but identified him as heir akes himself cap­ to the polyglot empire of the Achaemenids.58 j the city of Phar­ The cult of Persian deities was another way to highlight the dynasty's �zous. His actions Achaemenid he1itage, and the Mithradatic kings presented themselves as the pa­ itime policy of the trons of two, later three semi-independent 'temple states' within the Iris-Lykos southern shore of basin.59 To the souiliwest, on a tributary of the Iris, lay the sanctuary at Zela. It 1s extended to the was dedicated to three Persian deities - Anaitis, Omanes and Anadatos - and said ;ht refugeafter his to have been founded by the generals of Kyros t0 celebrate a victory over a local tribe, the Sakai. 60 of the Mithradatic Komana, the largest of the 'temple-states', was located in the valley of the Iris !S the Mithradatic and was the region's most important quasi-urban settlement before the Roman IC, the term 'Pon­ conquest. The origins of Komana are not known; it may have been a cult site as being used for the early as the Hittite period.61 At the end of ilie last century BC, Komana was an important market centre, especially popular with traders from Armenia,62 while hough secure evi­ the narrow valley mod. Zile). Later,

55 This is best attested in the case of Mithradates VI Eupator, but already in the second century BC, Polybius was aware of the kings' claims to Persian descent and to have received their kingdom 'fromDareios' (note 43 above); also BOYCE & GRENET 1991, 3:285-6, 303-4. For fire as an element in Persian rituals, Strab. I 5.3.15 where the author claims to have visited a fire-sanctuary 'in Cappadocia', presumably at Zela. 56 MCGlNG 2013, 25--6. 57 Plin. nat. 7.24. Aur. Viet. 76.2 gives the number as fifty. �raphical term Pontus 58 H0JTE 2006, 23. nts in relation to the 59 For a map of all cultic sites in Pontos, see 01..SHAUSEN 1990. On the nature of the so-called given that most doc­ 'temple states', 0LSHAUSEN 1987, 196-7; SOKMEN 2009, 277-9. :rence (11.8.4) to 'the 60 Strab. 11.8.4; cf. BOYCE & GRENET 1991, 3:287-91; MITCHELL 2002, 56; S6KMEN 2009, does, however, imply 280; AMANDRY 2009; ERCIYAS 2009, 292; MCGING 2013, 25. :he use of pontikos as 61 AMANDRY & REMY 1998, 14; S6KMEN2009, 278. this may refer to the 62 Strab. 12.3.36. It is not clear whether Armenia minor or Greater Armenia beyond the Euphra­ tes is meant, probably the former. 32 T!l!nnesBekker-Nielsen

the income from its extensive estates supported a large number of temple func­ 63 tionaries and slaves. The scholarly consensus is that the sanctuary of Men Pharnakou at Ameria near Kabeira derived its name from king Pharnakes (] 89-160 BC),64 which would make this the most recent foundation of the three 'temple states'. The establish­ ment of a major inland sanctuary near Kabeira and the (re)foundation of Phar­ nakeia on the coast were coru1ected elements of Pharnakes' geopolitical strategy: Kabeira controlled the easiest passage from the Phanaroia across the Pontic range 65 to reach the sea at Oinoe (mod. Unye). An especially spectacular expression of the dynasty's Persian traditions - be they inherited or invented - was the sacrificeperf01med by Mithradates VI Eupa­ tor after his victory over the Roman commander Murena in 82 BC: an enormous pyre on a mountain peak 'in the same way as the sacrifices conducted by the Per­ 66 67 sian kings at Pasargadai' that could be seen from far out to sea.

4. The first century BC: looking west

Fifteen years after Mithradates' splendid victory bonfire, his kingdom came to a sad end at the hands of another Roman commander, Pompey. Defeated in battle in the upper Lykes valley, the king himself managed to escape with a small force and made his way to the Crimea, where he met-his death a few years later. Unable to apprehend Mithradates, Pompey turned his attention to A1menia major, where King Tigranes was recognized as an ally of the Roman people but forced to re­ 68 nounce his claims to his lost territories in Syria, Galatia, Phoenicia and Cilicia. With Mithradates disposed of and the eastern border secured by the Armenian settlement, Pompey turned bis attention to the organization of the former Mithra­ datic kingdom under Roman rule. Some outlying parts of Mithradates' eastern dominions were assigned Lu native rulers; the major part was absorbed into the Roman Empire and combined with the existing province of Bithynia. The new territo1ies included the valleys of the Lykos and Iris (with the former royal capital

63 Strab. 12.3.34-6; S◊KMEN 2009, 282-3; ERCIYAS 2009, 290-1; ERCIYAS 2014, 217. 64 OLSHAUSEN 1987, 195; OLSHAUSEN 1990, 1887-8; ERCIYAS 2006, 15; MOGA 2012. McGING 2014, 27 considers it 'highly likely' that the sanctuary was established by king Pharnakes, although 'it can scarcely be ruled out' that it was founded by another Phamakes, the husband ofKyros' aunt Atossa; for this hypothesis, see LANE 1990, 2170-1, followed by S◊KMEN 2009, 283. 65 The choice ofKerasous instead of Oinoe for Pharnakes' refoundation was no doubt motivat­ ed by the former's location on a peninsula with a sheltered harbour and an easily defended acropolis, in contrast to the exposed site of Oinoe. 66 App. Mithr. 67. 67 Jt is not known where the victory bonfire took place. To be visible from the sea, as claimed by Appian, it would have to be on one of the peaks of the Pontic range, but see also WIL­ LIAMSON 2014. On the Persian elements of the ritual, BOYCE & GRENET 1991, 3:293-9. 68 Plut. Pompeius 33.5. The Corners of a Pontic World 33

:r of temple func­ of Amaseia) as well as the Paphlagonian seaboard and the valley of the Amnias. The inland rump of Paphlagonia became a client kingdom on terms similar to rnakou at Ameria those of Armenia.69 :),64 whichwould As a complement to the few existing urban communities, Pompey founded :s'. The establish­ seven new poleis, five of which lay on an east-west line south of the Pontic range: undation of Phar­ Nikopolis (mod. Yel?ilyayla) at the border of Armenia minor; Diospolis at the site 70 >political strategy: of Kabeira; Magnopolis (formerly Eupatoria, mod. <;evresu ); Neapolis (mod. s the Pontic range Vezirkoprii) and Pompeiopolis (mod. Ta�koprii). To connect them, the road lead­ ing from the Armenian border to the centre of the Phanaroia was extended west­ an traditions - be wards through the K1lt9arslan pass and across the Halys into the valley of the hradates VI Eupa­ Amnias, where it linked up with the road from Bithynia and the road across the r BC: an enormous Dranaz pass fom Sinope.71 Together, the Roman territmies in northern Anatolia focted by the Per- now formed a land corridor stretching from the Bosporus to the Armenian border, 67 with Pompeiopolis at its mid-point. According to one view, Pompey created a 'double' province, Pontus et Bi­ 7 thynia, under a single governor. 2 An alternative hypothesis is that the new tenito­ ries were absorbed into the existing province Bithynia which was later divided 3 into two sub-provinces, Pontus and Bithynia.7 The textual sources will support ingdom came to a either interpretation. From a Pontic point of view, it would not make a great deal !feated in battle in of difference since in any case, the provincial governor had his residence in the >1ith a small force Bithynian part of the province, hundreds of Roman miles to the west. rears later. Unable Pompey created three poleis along the course of the Lykos river. Nikopolis, enia major, where the 'city of victory' in the upper Lykos valley,74 not far from the site of Pompey's : but forced to re­ final victory over Mitbradates, was settled with veterans from his campaign. Di­ :ia and Cilicia. 68 ospolis, the 'city of Zeus' took the place of Kabeira75 near the important road i by the Armenian junction where the east-west road along the right bank of the Lykos met the roads he former Mithra­ coming fromKomana and Oinoe.76 Eupatoria was a Mithradatic foundation which ithradates' eastern Pompey refounded as Magnopolis (from his epithet Magnus).77 Henceforth, ac­ absorbed into the cess to the Phanaroia from all directions was controlled by loyal cities: from the lithynia. The new west (Magnopolis), the north (Diospolis), the east (Nikopolis) and from the south >rmer royal capital (Komana).

"-S 2014, 217. 16, 15; MOGA 2012. s established by king 69 MAGIE 1950, 370-2, 1232---4; 01.SHAUSEN 1991; MITCHELL 1993, 31-2. For a critical dis­ by another Pharnakes, cussion of the alternative theory of WELLESLEY (1953, 305) that the lands east of the Halys , 2170-1, followed by were not Roman provincial territory, see MITCHELL1993, 41; MAREK 1993, 27-32. 70 For the history of Magnopolis, see now S0RENSEN 2016a, I 53-62. l\'as no doubt motivat­ 7 I BEKKER-NIELSEN& CZICHON 2015; BEKKER-NIELSEN 2016b; BEKKER-NIELSEN 2018. nd an easily defended 72 E.g., MAREK 1993, 26---46; 2003, 36---41; MITCHELL 2002, 50. 73 E.g., WELLESLEY 1953, 294 n. l; WESCH-KLEIN 2001; DAN 2014, 49 n. 17. 74 Strab. 12.3.28; cf. Cass. Dio 36.50; App. Mithr. 105. m the sea, as claimed 75 Strab. 12.3.31. 1ge, but see also WJL­ 76 For an overview of the 'Pontic' road network, see OLSHAUSEN 1999; for east-west routes, . 1991, 3:293-9. DRAKOULIS 2012, 80 . 77 Strab. 12.3.30; App. Mithr. 115. 34 T�nnes Bekker-Nielsen

As it turned out, the structure of administration created by Pompey remained in place for no more than twenty-odd years before his work was undone by Mark Anlony, who assumed control of the eastern provinces after the battle of Philippi (42 BC).78 The two western Pompeian cities, Neapolis and Pompeiopolis, were given to Kastor, the mler of Galatia and Paphlagonia; the cities of the Phanaroia were assigned to Dareios, a grandson of Mithradates VI Eupator. A few years lat­ er, the te1Titories were reassigned: Kastor's son Deiotaros Philadelphos succeeded his father as ruler of Paphlagonia and the Neapolitis, while Dareios' place as lord of the Phanaroia was taken by Polemon, a Phrygian who had proved himself as a loyal military leader and administrator.79 Jn 35 BC Polemon was also given con­ trol of lesser Armenia.80 Antony's dispositions in regard to Amaseia and the coastal regions are not clear from the sources; probably these were joined to the territory of Polemon. 81 Of the vast provincial tenitories added to the Empire by Pompey, only the coastal strip north of the Pontic mountains from Amastris as far as the estuary of the Halys remained under direct Roman rule. 82 Why did Antony dismantle the provincial structure created by Pompey? Three possible explanations present themselves. According to the tradition preserved for posterity by Plutarch, short-term decisions and inordinate rewards to personal friends and cronies were typical of Antony, and the partition of Pompey's con­ quests between Dareios, Kastor and Polemon would fit well enough into this por­ trait;83 but Plutarcb had his own agenda when writing the Life of the triumvir and we should be wary of taking his judgments, which to a large extent reflect Augus­ tan propaganda, at face value. 84 Another possible explanation is that Pompey's urban organisation of the east had been premature: Pontus was not ready, not sufficiently developed, to become a Roman province. Realizing this, Antony reversed the dispositions of bis prede­ cessor and divided the territory up among native rulers. 85 This interpretation seems to reflect the evolutionistic ideas of nineteenth-century colonialism rather than the realities of the first cenlury BC. It would in any case have been difficult for Antony to judge the success of Pompey's urban policy at a time when the new cities had existed for little more than twenty years.86 Worse, the analysis fails to

78 For an overview of Antony's dispositions, see MAGIE 1950, 434-6; SULLIVAN 1980; MAREK 1993, 50-9; S0RENSEN 2016a, 122-6. 79 S0RENSEN 2016a, 125. 80 Cass. Dio 49.33.2; 49.44.3. 81 MAREK 1993, 50. The coastal town of Side, which was renamed Polemonion, must have been part of the territory of Polemon I - if not from the outset, then added to the king's dominions before his death in 8n BC. 82 MAREK 2003, 41 and map p. 182. 83 Cf. Plut. Antonius 21.3, where the author compares Antony - unfavourably - to Pompey. 84 Plut. A11to11ius92-3. 85 BUClffiEIM1960, 49-50; BENGTSON 1977, 271; 01...SHAUSEN 1980, 9 IO. 86 MAREK 1993, 49. Roman foundations - even colonies - were often slow starters; see, e.g., DE GIORGI 2011, 145-7 on Augustan colonies in Pisidia. r

The Corners of a Pontic World 35

)mpey remained in distinguish between the local and the regional level. According to HERMANN 1s undone by Mark BENGTSON, the 'feudal lords' of the old regime successfully obstructed the im­ 1e battle of Philippi plementation of Pompey's reform and the organisation of the territory into cities. >ompeiopolis, were Had that in fact been case, the consequence would have been a loss of status for �s of the Phanaroia Pompey's cities. Yet there is no indication in our sources that the cities went into :>r. A few years lat- decline. On the contrary, Kabeira became a royal residence under Pythodmis, Ne­ 1delphos succeeded apolis possessed a temple to the emperor (aE�acrn:iov) in 3 BC, Komana was a reios' place as lord flourishing market and Nikopolis a populous city in Strabo's time.87 Indeed, for Jroved himself as a administrative purposes, there was no alternative to the cities: the castle strong­ vas also given con­ holds, which had been nodal points in the 'feudal' power structure of the Mithra­ > Amaseia and the datids, were no longer functional, having been destroyed or made uninhabitable were joined to the by Pompey.88 d to the Empire by If the Romans had reason to be disappointed with the pe1formanceof the new :om Amastris as far urban entities, a more likely cause for concern was that tax revenues failed to match the cost of administering the far-flung provincial territory. Certainly Anto­ by Pompey? Three ny, with his experience as an army commander, cannot have failed to appreciate faion preserved for that the line of communication from Nikopolis to the provincial capital in Bithyn­ �wards to personal ia was extremely long - c. 600 Roman miles (900km), a whole month's journey , of Pompey's con- for an average traveller. 89 For the cities, communications with the provincial capi­ 10ugh into this por­ tal were difficult, just as they were for the provincial governor making his circuit of the triumvir and of the province. (tent reflect Augus- Under Pompey's scheme, inland Paphlagonia provided the link between Fon­ tus and Bithynia. According to Strabo, there was a 'soft' zone of contact between 1nisation of the east the Iris basin and eastern Paphlagonia90 and the Amnias valley offered easy access veloped, to become to Pompeiopolis. We have no evidence for a similar contact zone stretching across :itions of his prede­ the rough uplands of western Paphlagonia into Bithynia. To judge from the am­ This interpretation phora finds, the primary trade route from Pompeiopolis to the coast had its termi­ , colonialism rather nus not on the Marmaran shore, but in Amastris.91 The 'hard', linear east-west have been difficult axis that Pompey attempted to impose on Pontus was not congruent with the 'soft' time when the new realities of the inhabitants' lives, nor with the routes of trade and exchange. The the analysis fails to western connection failed, and although the dynastic kingdoms were eventually reincorporated into the empire, the administrative union of the lris-Lykos basin with Bithynia was not re-established. ULLNAN 1980; MAREK

87 Kabeira: Strab. 12.3.31. Neapolis: SP 3:1 no. 66 (the 'Neapolis oath'). Komana: Strab. 12.3.36. Nikopolis: 12.3.28. MAREK (I 993, 49-52) assumes that the urban communities lost nonion, must have been their city status (politeia) as a consequence of Antony's reforms, and that the cities were re­ to the king's dominions stored later; but royal rule at the regional level is not incompatible with polis autonomy at the local level, witness, e.g., the case of Bithynia. 88 Strab. 12.3.38. rably - to Pompey. 89 The point will not have been lost on Pompey either. Did he intend to relocate the provincial capital to Pompeiopolis at the mid-point of the new province? r ). 90 Stab. 12.3.25. slow starters; see, e.g., 91 Personal communication from ANDREI OPAIT,who is studying the ceramic assemblages from Pompeiopolis. 36 T(llnnes Bekker-Nielsen

In fact, Antony's redistribution of the eastern territories was a classic example of the Roman doctrine divide et impera: with the fo1mer Mithradatic possessions divided into no less than seven parts (three client kingdoms, two temple states, the free city of Amisos and the rump of Pompey's Pontus), no single ruler could hope to rally the former Mithradatic subjects against the Romans (as Pharnakes, the son of Mithradates VI, had attempted in 48-47 BC). The best testimony to the soundness of Antony's a1,-angements is that of his 92 enemy, Augustus. Though he had Antony's statues pulled down and his birthday 93 declared a day of ill omen, Augustus upheld Antony's tenitorial arrangements in northeastem Anatolia. Even Polemon, who had remained a loyal supporter of An­ tony until the battle of Actium, was confirmed as client ruler of the Phanaroia94 though not of Nikopolis, which was transferred to Armenia minor. Perhaps by way of compensation, Polemon was later entrusted with the conquest of the Bosporan kingdom in the Crimea, where he died in 8 or 7 BC. The Phanaroia passed to his widow, Pythodoris, then to their son who reigned as Polemon II until 95 he was forced to abdicate c. AD 64. Shortly afterwards, in the reign of Vespasi­ an, Armenia minor ceased to exist as an independent kingdom and was attached to Cappadocia. Strabo relates that during the reign of Mithradates VI Eupator, Kabeira had been home to a royal palace, hunting-grounds and a park for wild animals, as well as mines and a water mill. Pompey 'furnished the place with what was required to make it a city' (crKi::uucravroc:; €le:; n6:\.tv) and nflmed it Diospolis. Later, queen Py­ thodoris improved the city further, renamed it Sebaste in honour of the imperial house96 and made it a royal residence (�am:\.dov)97 The decision to develop Kabeira into a proper city was no doubt strategic: the site was well placed on the southern slopes of the Pontic range and possessed an 98 easily defensiblecitadel; it also controlled access to the nearby sanctuary of Men Pharnakes at Ameria and the route across the mountains to Oinoe. Under the pax Romana, defense became less important and the city seems to have expanded downhill in the direction of the river and the east-west road.99 Remains of a sub­ stantial structure, probably a cryptoporticus of the second or third century AD, have been found in the lower town (fig. 4). Eupatoria did not enjoy an easily defensible position but was located 'in the mid­ dle of the plain' (tv µfoq> •ii'> 1tEoicp 100). Like Kabeira/Diospolis, it was close to the

92 Plut. Antonius 86.9. 93 Cass. Dio 51.19.3. 94 Strab. 12.8.16; Dio 53.25.1. 95 SULLIVAN 1990, 930; S0RENSEN 2016a, 138-9; 163. 96 Of Augustus, but no doubt also of Pythodoris' patron, Livia, cf. SEG 39, 695. 97 Strab. 12.2.30-31; ERCIYAS 2006, 44. 98 Strab. 12.3.30;0LSHAUSEN&BILLER 1978, 169-70. 99 A similar phenomenon can be observed in Neoklaudiopolis, where the late Roman city spreads downhill towards the road: BEKKER-NIELSEN 2018. 100 Strab. 12.3.30. The Corners of a Puntic World 37

:lassie example of east-west road which crossed the Iris and the Lykos at their confluence a few kil­ 1datic possessions ometres north of the city. Strabo tells us that Eupatoria took its name from 'its , temple states, the founder' (in other words, Mithradates VI Eupator) but was only 'half finished' by e ruler could hope the time of the Roman conquest; Pompey 'assigned it land and inhabitants and :>harnakes, the son called it Magnopolis' 101. Until recently, no inscriptions had been recorded from Eupatoria-Magnopolis, and the site of the city itself at <;evresu was not identified tents is that of his until 2014. 102 This led most researchers to conclude that the city was a failed 3 n and his birthday foundationand abandoned at an early date. 10 Since it is included among the cities al airnngements in named in Pliny's Natural History1°4 it will, however, still have been a functioning I supporter of An­ polis at the mid-first century AD. The site continued to be inhabited but Mag­ )f the Phanaroia94 nopolis had lost its civic autonomy by the end of the second century at the latest, ninor. Perhaps by possibly already by the end of the first. 105 : conquest of the Outside the Phanaroia, the city of Sebastopolis (mod. Sulusaray) was presum­ C. The Phanaroia ably created by elevating the village of Karana to polis status, possibly in 3/2 BC 1s Polemon II until and certainly before the death of Augustus in 14 AD. 106 According to Strabo, : reign of Vespasi­ Mega-lopolis had been granted its polis status by Pompey 107 and the change of nd was attached to name to Sebasteia (whence its modem name, Sivas) must have taken place by AD 14 at the latest. ,ator, Kabeira had Id animals, as well 1at was required to 5. First and second centuries AD: looking inwards . Later, queen Py­ ,ur of the imperial The integration of the northeastern client territories (the kingdom of Deiotaros, the kingdom of Polemon II, the temple states and the kingdom of Armenia minor) loubt strategic: the into the lmperium Romanum was a protracted process taking place over several and possessed an stages, all of which are not equally well documented in the sources. It commenced , sanctuary of Men with the death of the Paphlagonian client-king Deiotaros II Philadelphos in 6 BC. ,oe. Under the pax The core territory of his kingdom was absorbed into the Imperium Romanum, but to have expanded Neapolis and its territory apparently not: Strabo is emphatic that in his time, the Remains of a sub­ third century AD,

>cated 'in the mid­ 101 Strab. 12.2.30. 102 S0RENSEN 2016a, 159 against the earlier view of Bli.LER & OLSHAUSEN 1978, 169. it was close to the 103 S0RENSEN 2016a, 153-4. 104 Plin. nat. 6.8. Pace MAREK(1993, 52) there is no reason to think that Pliny's information was out of date; at 6.23 he states that he has obtained information from participants in Corbulo's eastern campaigns.

105 A milestone ofNerva's reign (FRENCH, RRMAM 3, F2 149(B)) found at Ulukiiy to the west of <;evresu bears the number I;, which FRENCH restored to 71.1; = 37 miles (55km), slightly more than the distance by road to Neokaisareia (50km). Seven Roman miles (10km) would, ,, 695. however, match the distance by road from <;:evresu to Ulukiiy via the bridge at the conflu­ ence, thus Neo-kaisareia and Magnopolis are both potential capita viae. Another milestone from Ulukiiy is dated to 197/198 (FRENCH, RRMAM 3, F2 149(A)) and carries the distance the late Roman city XXXVI = 53.5km: in this case, Neokaisareia is clearly the caput viae. 106 LE GUEN-POLLET & REMY 2010, 100, based on the era of the city. I 07 Strab. 12.3.37. 38 T�nnes Bekker-Nielsen

Halys formed the eastern boundary of Paphlagonia. 108 Of the city's status in the following half century, virtually nothing is known save that the Neapolitans swore an oath of loyalty to Augustus (3 BC) and changed the name of their city to Ne­ oklaudiopolis (between 41 and 68 AD). One possibility is that Neapolis and its territory had been re-integrated into the imperium Romanum by 3 BC, 109 another that they were added to the domain of Pythodoris and passed on to her son, Pole­ mon rr. 110 When Polemon was forced from the throne in 64 AD or shortly afterwards, his kingdom was broken up. The coastal territories were assigned to the governor of Galatia while the remainder of Polemon's kingdom became the province Fon­ tus Polemonianus, which included the Phanaroia as well as the upper Halys valley around the city of Sebasteia, the former Megalopolis. On its eastern border, Ar­ menia Minor became a separate province with Nikopolis as its metropolis. 1n Ptolemy's Geography, which reflects the situation in the late first or early second centuries AD, we find north-eastern Anatolia divided into Paphlagonia (roughly equivalent to the fo1mer kingdom of Deiotaros, with Pompeiopolis and 111 Neoklaudiopolis ); Pontos Galatikos (Pontus Galaticus, with Amaseia and 112 Zela); Pontos Polemoniakos (= Pontus Polemonianus, the former kingdom of 113 Polemon II, with Neokaisareia); Pontos Kappadokikos (the eastern coast, with Kerasous, Pharnakeia and Trapezous); 114 and Mikre Armenia (the former client kingdom of Armenia Minor, with Nikopolis).115 Though provinces in name, these units-were de facto sub-provinces adminis­ tered by the governors of the two large central Anatolian provinces, Galatia and Cappadocia. A sub-province was, however, more than a bureaucratic cipher. It 1 had its own capital, in Greek terminology metropolis, 1 6 which was also the meet­ ing place of the koinon or provincial council. One of the koinon's responsibilities was the cult of the emperor, which had been introduced to Anatolia during the reign of Augustus.117 In addition, the meetings of the council served as a venue for the provincial 61.ite to display their individual wealth and paideia. On the collec­ tive level, the koinon demonstrated the loyalty of the community to Rome and the

108 Strab. 12.3.9; BEKKER-NIELSEN 2014b, 65. 109 MAREK 2010, 405. 110 S0RENSEN 2016a, 144-8. 111 Ptol. 5.4.6. Both these cities have been misplaced by Ptolemy, and Neoklaudiopolis probably formed part of Po11tus Pole111011ia11us: BEKKER-NIELSEN 2014b, 65-6; S0RENSEN 2016a, 164-5. See also note 113. 112 Ptol. 5.6.3; 5.6.9. 113 Ptol. 5.6.4; 5.6.10. 114 Ptol. 5.6.5; 5.6.11. J 15 Ptol. 5.7.3. Unfortunately, Ptolemy's information about north-eastern Anatolia is not of the highest quality. Not only is it outdated by several decades, but cities have been misplaced or confused with others: for instance, Zela is located where Komana should have been and vice versa, similarly Gangra-Germanikopolis and Pompeiopolis. 116 On the title metropolis and its semantic evolution, ARNAUD 2004; PUECH 2004. 117 MADSEN2016, 24-6. The Corners of a Pontic World 39

:ity's status in the rnling dynasty through the medium of the imperial cult, of which its leading citi­ 'l"eapolitans swore zens served as priests. 118 f their city to Ne­ At some time in the early second century AD, the inland tenit01ies of Pontus l Neapolis and its Polemonianus were combined with Pontus Galaticus to form the province of , 3 BC, 109 another 'inland Pontos', Pontus Mediterraneus or Pon.tos Mesogeios, with Neokaisareia as 1 to her son, Pole- its capital. 119 Thus instead of being divided between east and west (Neokaisareia and Amaseia) the Pontic provinces were now divided between coast and inland. hortly afterwards, What consequences, if any, this had for the koinon organisation is not known, id to the governor since we have no evidence for the presence of the koinon or the imperial cult pre­ the province Pon- dating the reign of Trajan.120 Assuming that the boundaries of koinon and prov­ 1pper Halys valley ince were normally congruent, 121 then one possibility is that the koinon organiza­ astern border, Ar­ tion was established after, or in connection with, the redrafting of the provincial tetropolis. boundaries. Another view is that pre-existing koina (for which we possess no evi­ late first or early dence 122) were split up and their limits redrawn in the same way as the provincial into Paphlagonia boundaiies.123 Pompeiopolis and The exact date of the reorganization is difficult to establish. The old provin­ ith Amaseia and cial arrangement was still in force in the second decade of the new century: an )rmer kingdom of inscription set up in Pisidian Antioch honours the fonner governor . . . Paph­ :astern coast, with lag(oniae), Ponti Galat(ici), Ponti Polemoniani, L. Caesennius Sospes, whose (the former client term of offo;:e began no earlier than AD 111. 124 The earliest epigraphic evidence for the new province is an inscription from Ikonion (mod. Konya) honouring M. rovinces adminis­ inces, Galatia and aucratic cipher. It 118 On koina in Asia Minor generally, BURRELL2004; VITALE 2012; EDELMANN-SJNGER 2015; .vasalso the meet­ BEKKER-NIELSEN 2016a; in n01thern Anatolia, VITALE 2013; DALAISON 2016; S0RENSEN i's responsibilities 2016b. 119 For the date, VITALE 2012, 202. <;::1ZMELI (2006, 96) would place the reorganisation in the last natolia during the year of Trajan's reign. For the discussion or the number of provinces and koina, see DA­ ved as a venue for LAISON 2014, 126-8, with further references. ia. On the collec­ 120 As an alternative hypothesis, DALAISON (2014, 127) proposes that the cities in the koinon of V to Rome and the Neokaisareia could be identified as Polemonion, Kerasous, Trapezous, Zela and Sebasteia, i.e. that it was congruent with the former sub-province of Pontos Polemoniakos as described by Ptolemy (5.6.10). This fails, however, to account for Sebastopolis, which according to Ptolemy (5.6.9) was in Pontos Galatikos (not Polemoniakos) but on the evidence of IGR 3.115 = OGIS 529 was a member of the Neokaisareian koino11 by the mid-second century. 121 BURRELL 2004, 206: 'a single would generally not overstep the bounds of a Roman prov­ klaudiopolis probably ince'. The practical problem highlighted by BURRELL - a koinon referring to more than one fi; S0RENSEN 2016a, provincial governor - would not present itself in the case of the two Pontic koina, both of which were subordinate to the governor of Cappadocia. 122 BURRELL cites a coin legend identifying Neokaisareia as neokoros as evidence that the city was 'koinon center of the reorganized Pontus' c. I 00 AD, but the coin in question is a for­ gery: DALAJSON 2016, 209 n. 73. MITCHELL (2002, 50) theorizes that all the 'Pontic' prov­ Anatolia is not of the inces in northern Anatolia were part of a single koinon with its roots in the Pompeian reor­ ,ve been misplaced or ganization. See also MAREK 2015, 311-2. Id have been and vice 123 Thus VITALE 2012, 202: 'Die administrative Umverteilung ... hat zugleich die bestehende Konstellalion der Landtage grundsatzlich verandert'. H 2004. 124 CIL 3.6818. For the career of Caesennius Sospes, see REMY 1988 no. 108, where his term of office as governor of Galatia is dated to c. 111-114; Mitchell 1993 2: 155 has c. 112-114. 40 Tl,lnnesBekker-Nielsen

Arruntius Frugi who had been imperial procurator prov(in.ciae) ... Ponti Mediter­ rani, probably at some time in the late 120's AD. 125 There is no doubt that the Phanaroia was included within the sub-province and the koinon centred on Neokaisareia. The precise extent of the koinon is, how­ ever, a matter of debate. In the year 205/6, two series of bronze coins were minted at Neo-kaisareia beating the reverse legend koin(ou) Pon(tou) Neokai(sareia) met­ ro(polis) and depicting a seated female figure, sun-ounded by five similar standing figures(fig. 5).126 CHRISTIAN MAREK and MARCO VITALE identify these as person­ ifications of the six cities constituting the koinon. 121 BARBARA BURRELL and XA­ VIER LORTOT, on the other hand, point out that since the limited space on a coin would only accommodate so many figures, six tychai may be a visual abbrevia­ tion for a higher number of cities, including communities on the Black Sea coast. 128 According to the theory of exactly six cities, these ai·e Amaseia, Neokaisareia (formerly Diospolis), Zela, Komana, Sebastopolis and Sebasteia (formerly Mega­ lopolis). That Sebastopolis belonged to the Neokaisareian koinon is attested by an inscription honouring M. Antonius Rufus, 'Pontarch in the metropolis of Pontos, Neokaisareia'. 129 There is no comparable evidence for Sebasteia but according to Ptolemy, it belonged to Pon.tus Polemoniakos, not to Pontos Galatikos. 130 By the early fourth century, it had been reassigned to the province of Armenia Minor. Nikopolis is not included, since it was now located in the sub-province of Arme­ nia minor; similarly, Neoklaudiopolis and Pompeiopolis are excluded as belong­ ing to Paphlagonia 131 while by this time, Magnopolis (formerly Eupatoria) was no longer an independent polis. 132

5.1 One province, two cities: Amaseia and Neokaisareia

When the new province Pontus Mediterraneus was created in the early second century, Neokaisarcia became the provincial capital while Amaseia, which had

125 !LS 3.2.9013; for Arruntius' career, PFLAUM 1960 1:373-5 (no. 157) and 1982, 44-5 and 129: 'vers 127-130', based on KENNEDY 1977, 524-5. 126 VITALE 2014, 57, fig. 3; for another version, DALAJSON 2014, 144 fig. 38 (without mural crowns). 127 VITALE 2012, 175, following MAREK 1993. See also S0RENSEN 2016a, 76; 82-3; 86-8. 128 BURRELL 2004, 206: 'there were at least six cities in the Koinon to which Neokaisareia be­ longed, but does not rule out that there were more'. We can, however, rule out that there were seven: one extra figure would have made the design symmetrical, with Neokaisareia at its centre. See also LORIOT 2006, 531; �IZMELI 2006, 97; DALAISON 2013, 127. 129 LEGUEN-POLLET 1989, 65-6 no. JO= IGR 3, no. I 15 = OGIS 529. 130 Ptol. 5.6.9. 131 On the sources for Neoklaudiopolis, see BEKKER-NIELSEN2014b. By the late second century, the city was under the authority of the governor of Galatia, hence Paphlagonia, L. Petronius Verus (REMY 1988 tab. 36, no. 122) who is on record as repairing roads in the territory of Pompeiopolis (RRMAM 3:4, no. 39) as well as Neoldaudiopolis (RRMAM 3:4, no. 46(B)). 132 Above, note 103. The Corners of a Pontic World 41

... Ponti Mediter- once been a royal residence, was henceforth no more than an ordinary polis. Giv­ en the Greeks' reputation for petty inter-urban rivalries, 133 one might well have the sub-province expected the grouping of Amaseia with Neokaisareia to create resentment among 1e koinon is, how­ the A.maseiansand unleash a war of titles and coin images comparable to that be­ :oins were minted tween contemporary Nikomedia and Nikaia, which is the subject of a classic arti­ iokai(sareia) met­ cle by LOUIS ROBERT (1977). 134 Indeed, MARCO VITALE has claimed that a late e similar standing date - in the reign of Hadrian - for the creation of the new province is supported y these as person- by an 'explosionsartigen Mitteilen von Ehrentiteln seitens der betreffenden 3URRELL and XA­ Metropoleis auflnschriften und Munzen'.135 i space on a coin In the sources where we should expect to find the echoes of such an explosion t visual abbrevia­ there is, however, nothing but silence. Neokaisareia is not known to have struck n the Black Sea any coins at all in the first half of the second century and when a new series final­ ly appeared in AD 161/2, it carried, as a matter of course, the title metropolis. Ra­ eia, Neokaisareia ther more self-assertive were the two third-century series, already mentioned, (formerly Mega­ struck in 204/5 and 205/6 respectively and showing six tychai. In the earlier ver­ i is attested by an sion, the six figures are standing; later, five tychai are standing but the figure at 136 ·opolis of Pontos, the centre, representing the metropolis of the koinon, is seated. To sit while but according to others must stand was a mark of precedence and the image of the five tychai - one latikos. 130 By the of them representing A.maseia- standing around the seated figure of Neokaisareia Armenia Minor. was a visualization of the city's primate status within the koinon. rovince of Arme­ The Amaseians were more active than the Neokaisareians, yet there is no evi­ 137 :Juded as belong­ dence from their coinage that they employed the title metropolis for themselves �upatoria) was no before the mid- I 30's, by which time it was being freely used by provincial cities 138 without capital status. The more general, less exclusive tenn protos, 'fust (of the province)' is first found on an Amaseian coin series of 153/54. 139 In 161/62, 1reia the same year that the Neokaisareians resumed minting, the Amaseians added

the early second aseia, which had 133 The best documented case is that of Nikaia and Nikomedia: Dion Cbrys. 38.21-30; Herodian 3.2.7----9; ROBERT 1977; BEKKER-NIELSEN 2008, 47-8. On 'Greek failings' in general, HEL­ md 1982, 44-5 and LER 2004, 13-21 . 134 ROBERT 1977; cf. DALAISON 2014, 130 . . 38 (without mural 135 VITALE 2012,202. 136 <;:IZMELI2006, nos 112 (AD 204/5), DOS 52, 53,215,216 (AD 205/6). 5; 82-3; 86-8. 137 VITALE (2012, 202 n. 1204) cites a coin of Plotina as evidence that Amaseia claimed the title eh Neokaisareia be­ metropolis before AD 123. This is based on the publication by FOY-VAILLANT (1700, 31) of e out that there were a coin bearing the portrait of Plotina and the reverse legend AMACJAC MHTPOII 1 Neokaisareia at its OONTOY. As there is no other record of such a coin from Amaseia, whereas Amastris is 27. known to have struck coins bearing Plotina's portrait and the title metropolis (ROMO 1:1, 173 no. 54; RPC 3, no. 1208) FOY-VAILLANT or his source probably misread the legend AMAC[ ...] on a worn Amastrian coin. On FoY-VAILLANT's contribution to the history of late second century, Pontos and his reliability in general, see BEKKER-NIELSEN 2013, 5. agorria, L. Petronius 138 PUECH 2004, esp. 358-{i0; HELLER 2004, 283-341 on the evolntion in the use of the titles Is in the terri to1y of metropolis and protos. \t1 3:4,no. 46(8)). 139 Dalaison 2008, no. 49. According to Dio Chrysostom, protos was an empty title: Or. 38.29; 38.38 42 T!ilnnes Bekker-Nielsen neo-koros, a title which they continued to use on their coins down to the reign of SevernsAlexander. 140 The epigraphic evidence for the use of metropolis by the Amaseians is meagre and dates from the late l 3O's onwards.1 41 One inscription, found at Sebastopolis, names both Neokaisareia and Amaseia as metropoleis, suggesting amity rather than rivalry.142 In general, the Amaseians appear to have been Jess concerned with their status vis-a-vis Neokaisareia and the Phanaroian cities than with asserting their traditional p1imacy within the country between the Iris and the Halys. This they attempted to achieve by means of a remarkable 'Persian revival' evoking the memory of the Mithradatid kings - the earliest of which of course lay buried in Amaseia. Mention has previously been made of the spectacular fire sacrifice offered by Mithradates VI to celebrate his victory over the Romans in 82 BC. On a mountain top near the village of Yassical some ten kilometres from Amasya, the remains of a large sacrificial compound have been identified. At its centre is a large monu­ mental altar, c. 4Ox4Om; around it were found stone blocks inscribed with names of villages and rural distticts of the region.143 It is tempting to interpret the mountain altar at Yassical as the site of Mithra­ dates' victory sacrifice to Zeus Stratios, but this comes up against several objec­ tions. According to Appian, the pyre was visible from the Black Sea, which the summit at Yassical is not. 144 There is no secure archaeological evidence for a pre­ Roman cult at Yassical and though located no more than ten kilometres from Amaseia, the sanctuary is never mentioned by Strabo. The cult site at Yassical was, however, in use by the end of the first century AD: an inscription found at the site names a priest of Zeus Stratios and canies the date 10 I of the Amaseian civic era, corresponding to AD 98/99. It seems, then, that the cult site at Yassical came into existence in the course of the firstcentury AD145 as a common sanctuary for a large territory. Which terri­ tory? CUMONT146 noted that in northern Anatolia, the cult of Zeus Stratios was foundin Nikomedia (mod. izmit)147 and Gangra (mod. <;ankm),148 both provincial

140 DALAlSON 2014, 136; BURRELL 2004, 210-11. 141 SEG 1987, 306-7 no. 963 = EA 9, 63 no. 7 (AD 137/138); SEG 1987, 307 no. 964 = EA 9, 63 no. 7 (AD 138/[39), both from Klaros; also SP 3:1, 119-20 no. 97 (AD 177-180), but Amaseias in I. 5 is restored. 142 IGR 3:43-4 no. 115. Since the honorand was priest for life of the deified Hadrian, the in- scription can be no earlier than AD 138. 143 CUMONT. SP 2:173-84; FRENCH 1996, 75-83; WILLIAMSON2014. 144 App. Mithr. 66; WILLIAMSON2014, 179. 145 A possible context for Amaseia's 'Mithradatic renaissance' might be the re-integration of Pole-mon 's territories into Po11tus Galaticus in the sixties AD (S0RENSEN 2016a, 16) but this remains speculative. 146 CUMONT, SP 2:18l. 147 Eust. Commentary on Dionysios Periegetes 793. 148 CIA 3.141, but the reading is conjectural. The Corners of a Pontic World 43

.vn to the reign of capitals, as well as in the formerly independent city of Herakleia Pontike. 149 In the first century AD, a cult to Zeus Strategos is attested in Amastris, the capital of a 1aseians is meagre koinon. 150 This supports the theory that the cult of Zeus Stratios encompassed the d at Sebastopolis, province as a whole, i.e. Pontus Galaticus. DAVID FRENCH, on the other hand, has :ting amity rather pointed out that none of the inscriptions found at the site can be related to loca­ ss concerned with tions outside the chora of Amaseia, and proposed that the site functioned as 'a an with asserting communal centre of the city of Amaseia and its territory'.151 In a recent study, d the Halys. This CHRISTINA WILLlAMSON has analysed the extent of the viewshed, i.e. the area rival' evoking the from which the fire and the smoke column of a mountaintop bonfire at Yassical use lay buried in would be visible. They could be seen from many parts of Amaseia's chora, but also from some of the districts further west. 152 Though WILLIAMSON'S results are .crifice offered by not incompatible with CUMONT's theory of Yassical as a common sanctuary for C. On a mountain Pontus Galaticus, she prefers to follow FRENCH and interpret the sanctuary as a ya, the remains of focal point for the Amaseian chora. is a large monu- The hilltop sanctuary was also depicted on the coinage of Amaseia. The city 1ibed with names struck coins as early as the reign of Tiberius, but the image of a pyre flanked by a tree appears for the first time on a coin series of AD 112/113. 153 It is absent from he site of Mithra­ coins struck during the 130's but reappears in 153/54, 154 was not used during the nst several objec­ reign of Marcus Aurelius but taken up again under Commodus. 155 The theme was :k Sea, which the extremely popular under the Severans, when some coin images also depict a light­ vidence fora pre- ed pyre. 156 A few late issues show a bird's eye view of the city with the pyre in r 157 kilometres fom the background (in actual fact Yassical is not visible from Arnasya ). Jn total, It site at Yassical the various representations of a pyre account for 17 out of 57 reverse types among ,cription found at the city's coins, more than any other subject. of the Amaseian It is tempting to link the introduction of the coin images showing the pyre at Yassical with the reorganisation of the 'Pontic' provinces: a reaction to Arnaseia's mce in the course loss of metropolitan status. As we have seen, however, the cult site was already in tory. Which teni- use during the first century AD and its earliest appearance on a coin image took 1'.:eus Stratios was place before the amalgamation of Pontus Galaticus and Pontus Polemonianus, 158 48 both provincial the next at least three decades later. However, the hilltop cult site was clearly an important identity marker for the Amaseians, who used the visual image of the

149 Plin. nat. 16.89.1 (239). 307 no. 964 = EA 9, 150 IGR 3.89 (AD 69). On the similarity between Zeus Strategos and Zeus Stratios, see CUMONT, 7 (AD 177-180), but SP 2:180; BOYCE & GRENET 1991, 3:298; TEFFETELLER2012. 151 FRENCH 1996, 83. tied Hadrian, the in- 152 WILLIAMSON2014, 187. 153 DALAISON 2008, 67 nos 23-4; on the motif, DALAISON 2008, 136-7, 174-7. 154 DALAISON 2008, nos 50--1, 59-63, 65. 155 DALAISON 2008, nos 158-62. the re-integration of 156 DALAISON 2008, nos 240-55. iN 2016a, 16) but this 157 SAUER 2014, 116-7. 158 The first issue showing a pyre is dated to AD 112/113, but the two provinces are listed sepa­ rately in the cursus of L. Caesennius Sospes (JLS 1017) who held office until 113/114. Un­ less the reorganisation took place during the tenure of Caesennius Sospes, Amaseia and Neo­ kaisareia would both have been provincial capitals in AD 113. 44 T�nnes Bekker-Nielsen pyre to stress the city's Mithradatid heritage, a link that was further reinforced by the royal tombs, prominently visible above the city and occasionally depicted on the city's coinage. 159

6. Third century AD: looking across the Halys

Roman milestones, which make their appearance in the Iris-Lykos basin during the first century AD, are an impmiant source for the 'hard' administrative geogra­ phy of the region. Mileages were normally reckoned from the city to the limits of its ten-itory, while road construction and repair were carried out by the poleis un­ der the authority of the provincial governor, who is often named on the stone. Thus milestones can provide important inf01mation not only on territorial limits between poleis but between provinces, and on the governors' provinces to which sub-provinces such as Pontus Polemonianus and Pontus Mediterraneus were at­ tached. Given the large number of preserved stones, it is possible to make some judgments based on quantity, though the limitations of conclusions e silentio need to be kept in mind. Major maintenance work on a road was often commemorated by erecting new milestones or re-inscribing existing ones; thus the chronological and spatial distribution of milestone inscriptions may provide a rough impression of the frequency with which specific sections of road were repaired, hence the amount of traffic, and of the degree of interest taken in the road network of the region under different emperors and governors. In the Phanaroia, milestones are generally rare. Stones of the first and second centuries have been recorded on the right bank of the Lykos, evidently belonging to the road Neokaisareia-Magnopolis-Neoklaudiopolis. The first generation of milestones along this highway is represented only by traces of an inscription on the twenty-third milestone from Neokaisareia, lost when the stone was re­ inscribed with the name of Pomponius Bassus, legate of Nerva. The same legate is named on a stone found at Ulukoy west of Magnopolis. Ulukoy has also produced a stone bearing the name of C. Iulius Flaccus, legate of Septimius Severns, dated to AD 197/198. Only one other pre-Diocletianic milestone has been recorded from the territory of Neokaisareia.160 A milestone of Carus has been found on the teni­ tory of Amaseia, along the road leading from the city and along the southern flank 161 of the Lithros massif into the Phanaroia. From the Tetrarchy onwards, mile­ stones abound along the Neokaisareia-Amaseia road, whereas none are found

159 Coin reverses showing a perspective view of the city, minted in the reign of Domitian and again in that of Alexander Severns, include a single tomb, 'probably ... a sort of symbolic shorthand for all the tombs' of the city: DALAISON 2014, 138.

160 RRMAM 3:3 no. 012 from Akc;:a (Erbaa district, Tokat province) had been inscribed once before being re-inscribed under Diocletian. 161 RRMAM3:3 no. 016 from Yerkozlu, Ta$ova district, Amasya province. The stone was found some distance east of its original location, where it marked the thirteenth mile from Amaseia. The Cornersof a Pontic World 45

rther reinforced by along the more northerly road from Neokaisareia to Magnopolis and the anally depicted on K.iliyarslanpass. Around the year 230, a change took place in the administration of north­ eastern Anatolia. Instead of a senatorial governor in the Cappadocian capital at 162 Kaisareia, the lris-Lykos basin now had its own governor of equestrian status, identified on milestone inscriptions as the praeses provinciae Ponti; the qualifier Mediterraneus is not used. Two different interpretations of this phenomenon have ,ykos basin during been put forward. 1inistrative geogra­ According to one interpretation, recently restated by XAVIER LORIOT, Pontus ;ity to the limits of was a newly created province encompassing the cities formerly belonging to Pon­ t by the poleis un­ tus Mediterraneus, as well as others; over time, it was extended to include Sinope, 163 med on the stone. Gangra and inland Paphlagonia. According to another view, Pontus (sc. Medi­ m ten-itorial limits terraneus) and Paphlagonia remained separate provinces but were now adminis­ 164 ,rovinces to which tered by a common governor. The milestone inscriptions are not very helpful, terraneus were at- since in most cases we encounter heavily abbreviated formulae such as PR PR P, where the last letters could stand for provinciae Ponti as well as provinciae Paph­ ,le to make some lagoniae. ons e silentio need To complicate matters further, a milestone found within the territory of Gan­ en commemorated gra in central Paphlagonia bears the text praes(es) pro(vinciae) [P]ont(i)165 while the chronological another from the territory of Pontic Amaseia records a praes(es) prov(inciae) 166 rough impression Paflag(oniae). This last inscription, along with several so far unpublished mile­ !paired, hence the stones from Paphlagonia, 167 attests to the existence of a provincia Paphlagonia, ad network of the separate from the provincia Pontus, in the first years of the fourth century. While this does not in itself invalidate the first theory - Paphlagonia could have been Le first and second subsumed into a provincia Pontus in the 230's, then re-established as a separate ridently belonging province in 306 - the second and simpler interpretation seems preferable: in the irst generation of 230's, Pontus Mediterraneus and Paphlagonia were detached from Cappadocia · an inscription on and Galatia, respectively, to be administered by their own praesides. They re­ 1e stone was re­ mained separate provinces until 306 but were frequently administered hy a single fhe same legate is praeses: milestones of every known governor from Aelius Quintianus (AD 279- has also produced 280) to Aurelius Hierax (305-306) can be found in both Pontus and Paphlago- ius Severus, dated een recorded from found on the ten-i­ the southern flank 162 An otherwise unknown Claudianus is attested on a milestone from 235-236; he cannot be the LY onwards, mile­ governor of Cappadocia, who at that time was Licinius Serenianus: REMY 1988, 123 no. 187. s none are found P. Aelius Vibianus is identified as pr(aeses) provinc(iae) Pont(i) on a milestone dated to 236-238: RRMAM 3:3 no. 029; 043; MAREK 2015, 321-2. 163 'Vers 230 fut cree, pour l'essentiel au depens de la Cappadoce, une province de Pontus cen­ :ign of Domitian and tree autour d' Amasia et qui, peut-etre, comprenait deja des cites autrefois appartenues au .. a sort of symbolic Pont-Bithynie, en particulier Amisos'. LORIOT 2011, 284.See also AMANDRY & REMY 1999, 16. been inscribed once 164 <;:IZMELI 2006, l02; MAREK 2015, 316-7. 165 RRMAM 3:2 no. 28. The stone was found 166 RRMAM 3:3 no. 146. 1 mile from Amaseia. 167 MAREK2015, 316-7. 46 T\'lnnes Bekker-Nielsen nia.168 A joint governor for the two provinces would also explain why Amaseia rather than Neokaisareia was apparently selected as administrative capital. 169 At the end of the century, the provincial map of northern Anatolia was once again redrawn as part of Diocletian's administrative reform, which was apparently not implemented in northeastern Anatolia until after the emperor's abdication. In 305-306 the old provinces were still in place, since Aurelius Hierax is described as praes(es) ... r Ron.ti Paflaugon. (sic) on a milestone from Amaseia. 170 In 308- 311, FI. Severns is recorded as praeses of Diospontus, which was later renamed Helenopontus in honour of Constantine's mother.171 Our best source for the distJibution of provinces and cities after the Diocle­ tianic reform is the Synekdemos compiled by an otherwise unknown Hierokles and reflecting the secular structure before Justinian 's reorganisation of the prov­ inces in Ap1il 535. According to Hierokles, Sebasteia and Sebastopolis belonged to Armenia prima which also included Nikopolis.172 The cities of Neokaisareia and Komana were joined with those on the coast: Polemonion, Kerasous and Trapezous, into a separate province carrying the historical name Pontos Pole­ mon{akos. 173 Helenopontu.s included the western cities of the former Pontus Medi­ terraneus (Amaseia and Zela) as well as Neoklaudiopolis (now known as An­ drapa), Sinope and Amisos, all of which lay west of the Lithros massif, but also the Phanaroian city of Thora (mod. Erbaa), which had not previously enjoyed polis status.174 Diocletian also introduced a new level into the hierarchy of control, the di­ oikesis, or group of provinces. Diospontos/Helenopontos and Pontos Polemonia­ kos were grouped with five other new provinces to form the dioecesis Pontica, which included the southern Black Sea coast along with Cappadocia and Galatia. For the western cities, the information of Hierokles is confirmed by milestone inscriptions of the fourth century, the latest of which dates from363, 175 but east of

168 Aelius Quintianus: Amaseia, Komana and Sinope; Claudius Longinus: Amaseia, Neoklaudio­ polis and Sinope; Aurelius Priscianus: Neokaisareia, Amaseia, Zela, Sinope, Pompeiopolis and Neoklaudiopolis; Aurelius Hierax: Amaseia, Sinope and Neoklaudiopolis. 169 The earliest known governor of the province is Q. Falton(ius) Restitutianus, proc(urator) et praes(es) prov(inciae) Pont(i) who set up an inscription (FRENCH 1986 no. 2 = AE 1986, 632 = MAREK 2015, 321) honouring Severns Alexander and Iulia Mamaea in Amaseia at some time between 230 and 235. This suggests - though it does not prove - that Amaseia was the governor'sresidence: so also �NSCH 1997, 281. 170 RRMAM 4, no. 2l(C); MAREK 2015, 326. Redrawing provincial boundaries could be a pro­ tracted process, as evidenced by the correspondence of Basil the Great concerning a planned division of Cappadocia, Basil. ep. 74�5; see also VAN DAM 2002, 28-31. 171 RRMAM 4, no. 29(C}, text 2; MAREK 2015, 327. 172 Hierokles, Synekdemos 703 173 Hierokles, Synekdemos 702. 174 Hierokles, Synekdemos 701; JERPHANION 1911. 175 Amaseia: RRMAM 3:3 nos 025, text 2; 029(B); 029(C); 031, text 3; 033(A), text 2; 033(B), text 3. Zela: RRMAM 3:3 no. 057, text 2; 142. Neoklaudiopolis/Andrapa: RRMAM 3:4 nos 45(A); 49(D), text 2; Sinope: 08(A), text 2; 08(B), text 2-3; 08(C), text 2-3; 12(A), text l; The Corners of a Pontic World 47

the Litbros massif, no post-Diocletianic milestones have been found. For the fifth >lain why Amaseia 169 century, the information of Hierokles is supported by an attendance list from the ive capital. sixth session of the council of Chalcedon (AD 451), prese1ved by Dionysius Exi­ Anatolia was once 6 signatories are grouped by province and 17 .ich was apparently guus, where the bishopric. ·or's abdication. In -lierax is described 1 0 7. From hard to soft spaces maseia. 7 In 308- was later renamed By necessity, our study has so far dealt with the 'hard' spaces of northern Anato­ lia, since these are the ones documented in the textual sources. As mentioned in s after the Diocle­ r the introduction, the f equency with which the boundaries of hard spaces were nknown Hierokles ;ation of the prov- revised during the first century AD may reflect difficulties in matching adminis­ trative territories to the underlying tectonics of 'functional spaces'. By the end of 1stopolis belonged the century, the Iris-Lykos basin had come to be divided between the large, :s of Neokaisareia somewhat amorphous province of Pontus Polemonianus stretching from Sebasteia on, Kerasous and lme Pontos Pole­ across the mountains to Kerasous and Trapezous on the Black Sea coast, and a much smaller Pontus Galaticus with Amaseia as the leading city. ·mer Pontus Medi­ At some time after 111 AD, the littoral beyond the mountains became a sepa­ >w known as An­ rate province, the Ora Ponti Polemoniani, while the rest of Polemonianus was ,s massif, but also combined with Ga/aticus to form Pontus Mediterraneus. Amaseia, which had usly enjoyed polis once been a royal residence, later a provincial capital, now found itself subordi­ metropolis koinon. Jf control, the di­ nated to Neokaisareia, and meeting place of the Given the ·ontos Polemonia­ Greek reputation for inter-city rivaliies, one might well expect this to spark a war iioecesis Pontica, of titles between the two cities. As with Sherlock Holmes' dog in the night-time, the significant fact is that the Amaseians did nothing: or in so far as they did, there >cia and Galatia. is no chronological link between their actions and the creation of Pontus Mediter­ med by milestone 175 raneus. The bonfire cult at Yassical predates the amalgamation of the provinces 363, but east of by at least fifteen years; the most self-assertive coin images of the two cities (the six tychai ofNeokaisareia and the bird's eye view of Amaseia) do not come into .maseia, Neoklaudio­ use until the third century. inope, Pompeiopolis Why did Amaseia and Neokaisareia - unlike the classic examples, Nikaia and polis. Nikomedia - not resent sharing a 'hard' space? Perhaps because it mattered less mus, proc(urator) et than their 'soft' spaces, which did not overlap. Whereas Nikaia and Nikomedia 10. 2 = AE I 986, 632 were two days' travel from one another on a main route frequently travelled by in Amaseia at some couriers and merchants, the journey between Amaseia and Neokaisareia required hat Amaseia was the at least tbree. The working hypothesis of the second part of this study will be that iries could be a pro­ the two cities occupied separate 'functional' or 'soft' spaces which did not im­ oncerning a planned pinge on each other.

18(A), text 4; 18(B), text 2; 2l(A), text 4; 2l(C), text 6; 2l(F), text l; see also MAREK 2015, l(A), text 2; 033(B), 327-8. a: RRMAM 3:4 nos 176 PRICE & GADDIS, Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, session VI, 9.D.177-93 (page 2:237). 2-3; 12(A), text I; 48 TjjnnesBekker-Nielsen

7.1. Secular and ecclesiastical spaces

From the beginning of the third century and the advent of Chtistianity, new cate­ gories of textual sources become available: biographies of saints and martyrs; at­ tendance lists of church councils; letters to or from eminent churchmen whose correspondence was preserved for posterity by the faithful. As narrative sources, hagiographies and martyrologies need to be treated with extreme caution: much of their content is the stuff of legend, not of historical tra­ i dition. Documentary texts such as letters and homlies present fewer problems, though it still needs to be remembered that ancient epistolography was a literary genre with its own conventions and that, furthermore, the collections which have been preserved may have undergone several stages of editing at the hands of their authors, or of later compilers. In the third century, the organisational structure of the Christian community was still 'flat' with each city's church headed by its bishop, and the bishops in council constituting the supreme authority in doctrinal matters. In practice, the bishop of a provincial capital - a 'metropolitan' bishop - took precedence over, and was looked to for advice by, the other bishops of his province; 177 When, as part of the Diocletianic reforms of the ealyr fourth century, the secular provinces were grouped into dioikeses, the bishop of the city functioning as administrative capital of the dioikesis likewise came to enjoy a superior position in relation to the metropolitan bishops of other provinces within the dioikesis_ t7s Eventually, the internalhierarchy of the church came to reflect the structure of the secular admin­ istration to such a degree that it is sometimes difficult to determine whether late antique compilations of cities and districts are lists of secular provinces or lists of bishoprics. If a city lost its position within the secular structure of administration, the status of its bishop was endangered as well. 179 The earliest Christian author from our region whose writings have been pre­ served is Gregory, who was born between 210 and 2n tso into an affluent pagan family in Neokaisareia, where he and his brother Athenodoros studied rhetoric and Jaw. 181 When their sister left Neokaisareia to join her husband, who had been

177 The authority of the metropolitan bishop vis-a-vis his colleagues was formalized by the Council of Nikaia, then extended further by the council of Antioch in 341: VOGEL 1979, 274-5. 178 VOGEL 1979, 282. 179 In 371, Basil of Kaisareia unsuccesfully tried to exploit his connections at the imperial court to prevent the partition of Cappadocia into two provinces and the consequent loss of status for his city: Basil. ep. 74-6; BEKKER-NIELSEN 2008, 46. 180 The main points of Gregory Thaurnatourgos' biography are summarized by CROUZEL in his introduction to Gregory's Canonical Letter (1969, 14-27). For his early life, we have the fust-hand account by Gregory himself in the Leiter of Thanksgiving to Origenes 5.48-72, written after 238. For his later years, we have only the lives of the saint - five in all - of which only that by Gregory of Nyssa is trustworthy. 181 Letter of Thanksgiving, 60. The Corners of a Pontic World 49

182 appointed legal advisor to the governor of Palestine, the brothers went along for the journey. They had planned to continue their legal studies in Beirut, but had a ianity, new cate­ change of mind after encountering the Christian philosopher Origines who at that and martyrs; at­ time was teaching in Caesarea, the provincial capital of Palestine. The brothers mrchmen whose studied with Origines for at least five years, then returned to their homeland in the 183 Iris-Lykos basin where Gregory was consecrated bishop of Neokaisareia and in 184 be treated with his turn, at the request of its citizens, consecrated the first bishop of Komana. of historical tra­ After his ordination, Gregory is said to have performed a number of miracles fewer problems, which earned him the epithet thaumatourgos, 'wonderworker': he cleansed one of 185 186 hy was a literary Neokaisareia's temples of its pagan demons, caused a lake to dry out and 187 lions which have forced the 'wild waters' of the Lykos into their channel. During the persecution 188 he hands of their of Decius, Gregory left his city and went into hiding in the mountains. Accord­ ing to Eusebius, Gregory's brother Athenodoros was also a bishop 'in Pontos', stian community and both attended the church council at Antioch which in 263 condemned the d the bishops in city's bishop, Paul of Samosata, as a heretic. This was followed by another coun­ In practice, the cil in 268 or 269, where neither Gregory nor his brother a.re mentioned among the 189 precedence over, signatories; they may have been dead by then, or too infom to travel. □ce; 177 When, as Among the wonderworker's followers was a woman by the name of Macrina :ecuiar provinces ('the Elder') whose son, Basil ('the Elder') became a leading figure in Ne­ is administrative okaisareia. Emmelia, his wife, bore Basil at least ten children, of which four rose in relation to the to important positions withinthe church: Macrina the younger founded a monastic : Eventually, the community on the family estate and built a chapel to the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste 190 e secular admin­ (Sebasteia), whose principal shrine was by this time established at Kaisareia. Li ne whether late Three of her brothers left the Phanaroia and travelled south, eventually ending up vinces or lists of as bishops: Peter in Sebasteia, Basil in Kaisareia and Gregory in Nyssa. Basil and f administration, Gregory were prolific writers and have left a large literary production. The writ­ ings of another Gregory, bishop of Nazianzos and a family friend, have also been 191 s have been pre­ preserved. So have a series of fourteen homilies by Asterios, bishop of the met­ 192 n affluent pagan ropolitan see of Amaseia c. 390-420. studied rhetoric Basil, the oldest brother, studied in Constantinople and Athens, where he es­ d, who had been tablished a life-long friendship with Gregory of Nazianzos. Shortly after his return

182 Letter of Thanksgiving, 65. formalized by the 183 Greg. Nyss. Life of Gregory Thaumatourgos, 26-27 SLUSSER= 909B MIGNE. 341: VOGEL 1979, 184 Greg. Nyss. Life of Gregory 11iaumatourgos, 62-70 SLUSSER= 933B-937B MIONE. 185 Greg. Nyss. Life of Gregory Thaumatourgos, 35 SLUSSER= 916A MIONE. 186 Greg. Nyss. Life of Gregory Thaumatourgos, 52 SLUSSER= 925D MIGNE. LANE Fox 1986, tt the imperial court 531-2, no doubt co1Tectly, reads the story of the dried-out lake as an aetiology. quent loss of status 187 Greg. Nyss. Life of Gregory Thaumatourgos, 56 SLUSSER= 929A-B MIONE. 188 Greg. Nyss. Life of Gregory Thaumatourgos, 84-87 SLUSSER= 948A-D MIGNE. by CROUZEL in his 189 Eus. HE 7.28-30; on Eusebius' source, see RIEDMATTEN 1952, 19. A late and unreliable y life, we have the tradition, cited by LE QUIEN 1740, 1 :524C, names Athenodoros as bishop of Amaseia. Origenes 5.48-72, 190 WALIBR2003, 172. 1t - five in all - of 191 For the personal relations within the group, see the detailed study by VAN DAM (2004). On Gregory, MCGUCKIN2001. 192 For the date, DATEMA, introduction xxiv; for the author, KINZIG 1990. 50 T�nnes Bekker-Nielsen to Neokaisareia, Basil gave up his secular career and embraced a life of poverty and simplicity, following the examples set by his sister Macrina and another fa­ mous ascetic of the region, bishop Eustathios of Sebasteia. According to his own account, he also sought inspiration from the lifestyle of ascetics which he encoun­ tered 'in Alexandria, in the rest of Egypt, in Palestine, in Koi le-Syria and in Mes­ opotamia '193 as well as 'in the homeland'.194 After a few years, however, Basil abandoned the anchoritic lifestyle and engaged himself actively in the life of the church. He was ordained deacon by the bishop of Antioch and a few years later became a presbyter at Kaisareia. In 370 or 371 he was elected to the see of Kai­ sareia, which he held until his death in the late 370's. Basil was an energetic networker as well as a prolific letter-writer, 195 and more than 350 letters have been preserved under his name. Of these, by far the largest part - more than 300 - date from his time as metropolitan bishop of Kai­ sareia. Pait of the correspondence, concerning questions of church policy or doc­ trine, is addressed to recipients in Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Thessalo­ nike or the west, while another group of letters is addressed to individual bishops within his province. While Basil may have had little contact with his family in the north, 196 he visited Nikopolis and Satala in 373197 and Neokaisareia a few years afterwards.198 The preserved collection of his Letters includes a dozen missives to the bishops or the citizens of Sebasteia, Neokaisru·eia, Nikopolis and Satala 199 (all of which belonged to the dioecesis Pontica) and in 375, Basil engaged himself 200 directly in the battle for the succession to the see of Nikopolis. On the other hand, Amaseia (also within the dioecesis Pontica) is never mentioned in his pre­ served letters, nor in those by his brother Gregory of Nyssa. Although his see at Nyssa was farther from home than Basil's or Peter's, Gregory maintained contact with his elder sister Macrina until the end of her life. He, too, spent some time at her retreat near Anissa before travelling to Kaisareia in 364 and becoming bishop of Nyssa in 371. Despite the challenges facing him at Nyssa, which led to his being temporarily deposed from his see, Gregory found time to visit his sister at Anissa in 371 or 372. Around 379 he made a second visit 201 to Macrina, who was now dying. Not long afterwards, he made a third journey

193 Basil. ep. 223.2. 194 tm 'tijc; nap,iooc;,Basil. ep. 223.3: probably a veiled reference to Eusthatius, the recipient of the letter. 195 POUCHET1992. 196 VAN DAM 2003,68-9, 14Q-4, an argumentwn e silentio mainly based on lhe absence of the family from the preserved collection of Basil's Leners. 197 Basil. ep. 99; ROUSSEAU 1994,240-1; 280-5. 198 ROUSSEAU 1994,273. 199 Sebasteia: ep. 79, 119, 223; Neokaisareia: 63,204,207,210; Nikopolis: 121, 130, 227-30; Satala: 102-3, 122. 200 Basil. ep. 227-30; for the context, ROUSSEAU 1994,286-7. 20 I The chronology of Gregory's life and travels in the 370's is a matter of scholarly coatroversy but of limited importance for the present discussion. For a summary of the debate, see SIL- The Corners of a Pontic World 51

aced a life of poverty to the Iris valley, where the Iborans had solicited his assistance in choosing their 1crina and another fa­ 202 new b1s. h op. According to his own ties which he encoun­ 7 .2 The changing borders of 'Pontos' ►ile-Syria and in Mes­ years, however, Basil In his Canonical Letter addressed to a fellow bishop of his province203 in the af­ vely in the life of the termath of a Gothic raid in the mid-250s, Gregory Thaumatourgos deplores the and a few years later behaviour of those among the faithful who seized the opportunity to enrich them­ ted to the see of Kai- selves in the chaos created by the Goths, in some cases even making common cause with the marauders: � letter-writer, 195 and . Of these, by far the As for those who have been enrolled among the Barbarians and followedafter them as pris­ oners, forgetting that they were men of Pontus, and Christians, and have become so thorough­ ►olitan bishop of Kai­ ly barbarized as even to put to death men of their own race by the gibbet or the noose, and to church policy or doc­ point out roads and houses to the Barbarians, who were ignorant of them; you must debar ,tantinople, Thessalo­ them even from the ranks of Hearers, until a common decision is reached about them by the to individual bishops assembly of Saints, with the guidance of the Holy Spi1·it. 204 with his family in the The contraposition of uncivilized 'Barbarians' and civilized Greeks is a well-worn kaisareia a few years topos of classical literature; here, however the distinction is drawn between bar­ :s a dozen missives to 199 baroi and pontikoi. The renegade Pontics are condemned for taking the side of the 1olis and Satala (all invaders against their homophyloi, 'those of their own race', 'forgetting that they :asil engaged himself 200 are men of Pontus, and Christians' (IlovttKoi Kai Xptmtavoi). Since being Chris­ JOlis. On the other tian cannot be defined racially, homophyloi must refer to the Pontikoi as an ethnic mentioned in his pre- community whose members are expected to display a measure of civilisation (i.e. non-barbarism) but also, it is implied, of solidarity towards other Pontics.205 Un­ m Basil's or Peter's, fortunately, Gregory the Wonderworker provides no clues to the spatial bounda­ til the end of her life. ries of 'Pontos' as he understands it. :avelling to Kaisareia A century later, Gregory of Nyssa describes the monastery that his sister, Ma­ 11lenges facing him at crina the younger had established at Annisa in the Iris valley a little distance up- s see, Gregory foun

2 stream fromits confluencewith the Lykos 06 with a shrine to the Forty Martyrs of 7 Sebasteia nearby.20 In one of his Letters, Gregory writes that Macrina 's retreat is located 'in the farthest parts of Pontos'. 208 To a reader of the Hellenistic or early Roman period, ·mu □6vwu 1:0. fox.o.w. would have been understood to mean the 209 remotest part of the Black Sea: Colchis, the goal of Jason's epic voyage, or the Crimea, where Dio Chrysostom travelled after Apollo told him to 'go to the far­ thest ends of the earth'.210 But Gregory's 6 TI6vwc; is not the sea, not even on the sea: it is an inland space. Similarly, when Gregory's brother Basil of Kaisareia writes to all the bishops of his dioikesis, Basil of Kaisareia uses the adjective Pontikos;211 when addressing the 'Pontic' bishops (in the original sense of the word: those living by the Black Sea), he calls them 'Bishops on the coast' .212 In the Life of his sister, Gregory describes Sebastopolis as a 'small town in the 213 land by Pontos', noAiX.Vn nvl 1:&v Ko.'ta. 1:ov TI6vwv. Once, Ko.'tO. 1:ov Il6vwv might have been understood to mean 'by the Black Sea' but Sebastopolis is more than a hundred kilometres from the coast. It formed part of the province Armenia Prima and lay within the jmisdiction of the metropolitan bishop of Sebasteia (who at this time was Gregory's younger brother Peter); in that sense, being outside, but close to the borders of Pontos Polemoniakos, its position could well be described as Kata 1:ovIl6vcov. In another letter, Gregory writes that his sister's monastery is 'close to the small town called Thora' which is 'located on the borders of Pontos'. (Thora, as we know from the Synekdemos of Hierokles, formed part of the prov­ ince Helenopontos). Thus Gregory's 'Pontos' has lost its maritime connotations: it is now a 'soft' space more or less, but not quite, contiguous with the 'hard' province of Pontos Polemoniakos; apart from the region around Thora, it does not include the prov­ ince of Helenopontos nor its capital, Amaseia. Indeed, Amaseia is almost entirely

206 According to the Life of Macrina 34.15---{i, Macrina's retreat was located less than eight stades ( 1.5 km) from the chapel of the forty martyrs, which in its turn, was 'adjacent to (-yi:hcov)the small town called lbora' (Greg. Nyss. Homily 011 the forty martyrs, PG 46.784B.) For the location of Ibora, MARAVAL 197 l, 39-40; OLSHAUSEN & BILLER 1984, 137; MARA­ VAL 1988b, 24-5. 207 For the traditions surrounding the Forty Martyrs, who were exposed on a lake and froze to death during the persecution of Diocletian, see WALTER 2003, 17o-6;. VAN DAM 2002,14-5; also the sermons by Basil (PG 31, 508-26) and Gregory of Nyssa (PG 46, 749-88). 208 Greg. Nyss. ep. 19.6; 19.12. It is not clear from the context whether 'farthest'is to be under­ stood fromthe perspective of Nyssa or from that of Neokaisareia; in practice it makes no di f­ ference, since the route from Nyssa to Macrina's retreat passed close by Neokaisareia. 209 Cf. Strabo's careful distinction, in the Introduction to his Geography (1.3.15), between 6 II6vto<; (the Black Sea) on the one hand, 61 Km:il. t6v II6vtov T07tot / 61 Kata i:6v Il6vtov µ£pot (the places/ the parts by the Black Sea) on the other. 210 BEKKER-NlELSEN & HTNGE 2015, 754. 21 I Basil. ep. 252, 'To the bishops of the Pontic diocese'. 212 Basil. ep. 203. 213 Greg. Nyss. Life of Macrina 36. The Corners of a Pontic World 53

the Forty Martyrs of absent fromthe works of the 'Cappadocian fathers' (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Macrina's retreat is Gregory of Nazianzus), an absence that is all the more remarkable considering Hellenistic or early that Macrina's retreat in the Iris valley, where Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus erstood to mean the also spent time together, was within ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the bishop of : epic voyage, or the Amaseia.214 The bishop himself is only mentioned on a single occasion, when ,m to 'go to the far­ Gregory of Nyssa relates how bishop Phaidimos consecrated Gregory Thau­ sea, not even on the matourgos as bishop of Neokaisareia by a sort of divine remote control. The only reasonably clear fact to emerge from the nan-ative is that the Amaseian bishop did es to al I the bishops not go to Neokaisareia to performthe orilination, nor did Gregory Thaumatourgos ;211 when addressing come to Amaseia: living by the Black For this reason, Phaidimos, overcome by some divine impulse concerning the task he was facing, disregarding the intervening distance by which he was separated from Gregory (he a 'small town in the was three days' journey away), but looking to God and saying that both of them at that mo­ e, Ka,u ,ov I16vwv ment were equally present to the sight of God, laid on Gregory his word in place of his hand, ,ebastopolis is more consecrating to God one who was not present bodily.215 1e province Armenia For their part, there is no evidence that the bishops of Amaseia showed much in­ >p of Sebasteia (who terest in the affairs of their eastern neighbours.216 Although Asterios of Amaseia e, being outside, but was evidently acquainted with, and drew on, the writings of the Cappadocian fa­ Id well be described thers (to such an extent that several of his homilies were later wrongly ascribed to sister's monastery is Gregory of Nyssa), there are no traces of of direct personal contact: neither they, : borders of Pontos'. nor their episcopal cities, are mentioned in the extant writings of Asterios.217 ed part of the prov- There is, on the other hand, some local Amaseian colour in Asterios' Homily 4 'Against the festival of the Kalendae', while his Homily 9, 'Enkomion on 11s: it is now a 'soft' Phokas' is devoted to this saint, a native of Sinope. The story of the saint's life is province of Pontos preserved both in the original and in a slightly shorter version by Symeon Meta­ ot include the prov­ phrastes. Phokas, we are told, is a patron of sailors, not only on the Black Sea but :ia is almost entirely in the Adriatic and the Aegean. In chapter 12, the people who revere him are enumerated; they include both 'the Romans' and the 'Barbarians' living around the northern and eastern Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.218 located Jess than eight The world-view that emerges from the preserved works of Asterios faces to­ ; turn, was 'adjacent to wards the sea and even includes its northern shores (the place-names in Homily 9 y martyrs, PG 46.784B.) LLER 1984, 137; MARA- include Scythia, Maiotis, Tanais and the Cimmerian Bosporos (the strait of Kerch)).219 Other bishoprics of Helenopontus may have had contacts across the j on a lake and froze to Euxine as well. At some time in the early fifth century, a martyrion was erected in 5; VANDAM2002,14-5; J 46, 749-88). 'farthest' is to be under­ 214 According to Gregory, Life of Macrina 5, their mother Emmelia owned land in three provinc­ practice it makes no dif­ es, probably to be identified as Helenopontus, Pontus Polemoniacu.,· and Cappadocia. by Neokaisareia. 215 Greg. Nyss. Life ofGrego,y Thaumatourgos, 27 SLUSSER= 909B MIGNE; SLUSSER'S transla­ phy (1.3.15), between 6 tion. )1 / 61 KO:Ca ,ov I16vrnv 216 A Latin collection of canons attributed to Isidore of Seville preserves attendance lists of the synod of Ancyra in 314 and that held in Neokaisareia shortly afterwards. Basilius, bishop of Amaseia was recorded as present in Ancyra but notin Neokaisareia: PL 84, 105C-112A. 217 DATEMA, introduction xxviii-xxxii. 218 Asterios, Homily 9.11 (DATEMA) = PG 40, 309B. 219 Asterios, Homily 9.12.2 (DATEMA) = PG 40, 313A-B. 54 Tl'!nnesBekker-Nielsen

Andrapa, the former Neoklaudiopolis. Its ground plan in the shape of a Greek cross (fig. 6) is unusual fornorthern Anatolia, but has parallels in the Crimea.220 Equally clearly, the world-view of the Neokaisareian w1iters is oriented to­ wards the south. Gregory the Wonderworker and his brother went to the Levant to study; in the 260's, they again travelled to Syria to participate in the first council of Antioch. Among his friends, Gregory Thaumatourgos counted Firmilianos, bishop of Kaisareia in south-central Cappadocia.221 Later, three of Macrina's brothers travelled south to become bishops. Among the works attributed to Gregory of Nyssa is a homily in praise of Theo-dore, who had been martyred at Amaseia in the early years of the fourth century. The homily was evidently delivered at the martyr's tomb in Euchai"ta; if the attribution to Gregory is correct, as is now generally accepted,222 he made at least one further visit to Pontos before being summoned to Constantinople, where he spent the final years of his life. Theodore, we are told, was a soldier who refused to perform the mandatory sacrifice to the pagan gods and was summoned before a t1ibunal. After the prelim­ inary heating, he was allowed to go free until his case would be resumed. During this interval, the 'temple to the mythical mother of the gods standing by the river bank in the metropolis of Amaseia'223 burned down. Theodore was held responsi­ ble for the disaster and sentenced to be burned alive.224 His remains were taken to Euchai:ta, where a shrine was erected over his tomb.225 We are told that Theodore had recently been transferred to 'our region' (npo<; ri)v11µ1>1:epav ou��TJ xropav),226 but Gregory's use of the first person plw-al may be no more than a rhetorical de­ vice intended to establish a sense of community between speaker and audience. The narrative of Theodore's martyrdom was embellished by fifth- and sixth­ century hagiographers who added circumstantial detail such as the name of Theo­ dore's company commander and dialogues in oratio recta between Theodore and his judges, A list of Theodore's miracles was also compiled:227 in one version, the martyr kills a dragon which has been infesting the region around Euchruta. The dragon spews fire, but when Theodore makes the sign of the cross, the flames are extinguished.228 The martyr's cult soon spread outside Pontos,229 and the second-

220 WINTI-IER-JACOBSEN & BEKKER-NIELSEN 2017, 49. 221 For Firmilianos' biography and dates, cf. MARAVAL's edition of Gregory of Nyssa's life of Grego,y the Wondenvorker, introduction 27-8 and 121 n. 2 ad loc. 222 WALTER 2003, 45 n. 7; $[,VAS 2006, 46. 223 Homily in praise of Theodore, PG 46, 744A; presumably Kybele is meant. 224 Homily in praise of Theodore, PG 46, 745C. 225 Homily in praise of Theodore, PG 46, 7370. 226 Homily in praise of Theodore, PG 46, 741A. Since the homily was evidently held at the mar­ tyr's tomb, the region ofEuchai"tamust be meant. 227 ABRAHAMSE 1967, 23: for the texts, see Acta Sanctorwn Novembris 4, Bruxelles 1925, 29- 89. For a critical discussion, WALTER 2003, 46-9. 228 DELEHAYE 1909, 26-8. 229 By tl1e mid-fifth century, there was a church of St. Theodore in Constantinople: DELEHAYE 1909, 13. For other early sanctuaries to St Theodore, see WALTER 2003, 49. The Corners of a Pontic World 55

! shape of a Greek ary versions of Theodore's L(fe were clearly composed elsewhere, perhaps in in the Crimea.220 Constantinople, since their authors find it necessary to explain that Amaseia is iters is oriented to­ located 'in Helenopontos' 230 or 'by the Pontos'.231 By the ninth century, Theodore ent to the Levant to had evolved into two entirely separate holy men with different military ranks, : in the first council Theodore the Recruit (-rftpffiv, from, latin tiro) and Theodore the Commander )Unted Firmilianos, (o-cpa-c1f>,aTI7i:;)232 while his role as holy dragon-slayer was later taken over by St three of Macrina's George. B1ief glimpses of Amaseian life in the sixth century are offered by the Life of 1omily in praise of saint Eutychios, patriarch of Constantinople, who in 565 was deposed and exiled years of the fourth to Amaseia, but reinstated as patriarch by Justin 11 in 577. Eutychios' biography omb in Euchatta; if was written shortly after his death by one of his friends and disciples, Eustratios, pted, 222 he made at and includes a section on the activities - mainly of a miraculous nature - of Eu­ nstantinople, where tychios during his twelve-year sojourn in Amaseia.233 We are told how rumours of the holy man's powers spread through the region and attracted supplicants not ·orm the mandatory only from the territory of Amaseia itself234 but from towns as far away as Koma­ 11. After the prelim­ na23s and Zela. 236 )e resumed. During Thanks to the Synekdemos of Hierokles and Justinian's Novellae, we can fol­ :anding by the river low the evolution of the administrative structure up to and beyond the sixth­ • was held responsi­ century reorganization under Justinian, who combined Helenopontus and Pontus nains were taken to Polemoniacus into a single province retaining the name Helenopontus and com­ : told that Theodore prising thirteen cities.237 The Acts of ecumenical church councils (Council of av ou�P11 xcopav),226 Ephesos, 431; Council of Chalkedon, 451; second Council of Constantinople, b.an a rhetorical de­ 551) shed some light on the ecclesiastical organization, which was apparently not er and audience. affected by Justinian's reform in the short term,238 and on the continuity of city by fifth- and sixth­ life despite the ravages of invaders. The bishoprics of Amaseia and Andrapa were : the name of Theo­ able to mobilize the resources required239 to send delegates to the third council of ween Theodore and Constantinople in 680-681, to the Council of 'the Dome', likewise in Constanti­ ' in one version, the nople, in 691-692, and to the second council of Nikaia in 787. The bishop of Ne- mnd Euchaita. The ross, the flames are 229 , and the second-

230 Acta Sanctorum, passio prima 1 = DELEHAYE 1909, app. I, I. gory of Nyssa's Life of 231 Kmu ,ov TT6vwv 016.youcm, Acta Sanctorum, passio secu11da 2 = DELEHAYE 1909, app. II, 2. 232 WALTER 2003, 59. 233 Life of St Eutychios, 44-

8. Pontes, a tale of two spaces

From the preceding survey, two 'Pontic' spaces have emerged, divided by a 'fuzzy' border running approximately north to south through the Lithros massif. From the writings of the Neokaisareian church fathers, it is evident that their world east of the Lithros had little contact with Amaseia but opened towards the south, to the upper Halys valley, the central Anatolian plain and ultimately, the Levant. (In this connection, it may be worth noting that ancient geographical writ­ ers consistently underestimate the distance across Anatolia from Pontes to Cili­ cia.) As for the western space, this was traversed by the trade route leading from Zela through Amaseia and over the Pontic range to Amisos and the coast. The decision of the early Mithradatids to place their residence in Amaseia, where the road passes through a narrow defile and is easily controlled, shows that they were well aware of its importance; later, they transferred their residence to Sinope on the coast. If we are to judge fromthe - admittedly sparse - preserved writings by bishop Asterios of Amaseia, it seems that his world-view, too, extended not to­ wards the south but northwards, to Si.nope, the Black Sea and the Crimea. The history of Raumordnung in Rome's northeastem Anatolian provinces re­ flects the interplay between the dynamics of everyday life and the 'hard' spaces that the conquerors attempted to impose. For Pompey, recently arrived and with little detailed knowledge of the country beyond the areas of his own campaigns, organizing the former Mithradatic territories along an east-west road seemed an obvious solution.244 He may well have been inspired by the example of other Ro­ man generals: M. Aemilius Lepidus, who in the I 8O's BC constructed the via Aemilia as the backbone of Roman control in the newly conquered territories be-

240 OHME 1990, 253. For the attendance lists as sources, DARROUZES 1975; BRANDES 1999, 41- 4. 241 RRMAM 3:3, no. 015. r 242 For the origins of the theme organisation and possible continuity fom the late Roman struc­ ture of administration, HALDON 1990, 191-215. 243 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De thematibus, 21. 244 BEKKER-NIELSEN 2016b, 42-3. The Cornersof a Pontic World 57

but represented at yond the Apennines, and Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, builder of the via Domitia through southern Gaul. � of the milestones Unlike the via Aemilia, which eventually gave its name to the whole region, cribed in the early Pompey's road failed to impress a lasting sense of unity on the 'Pontic' world. incial organization Had the settlement imposed by Pompey been maintained by Mark Antony and new set of 'hard' Augustus, things might have turned out differently, but this remains speculative. f the eighth centu­ As it was, the Pompeian province was soon dismantled and when the territories of a were assigned to the native kinglets were re-integrated in the first century AD, the result was an Lpa.243 administrative patchwork which the provincial reorganization of the early second century simplified into a new set of 'hard' spaces with Pontus Mediterraneus as the core territory. The inclusion of two former metropoleis, Arnaseia and Neokaisareia, within a single province might have been expected to provoke a struggle for precedence, ged, divided by a but there is no evidence to that effect: evidently, the ruling elite of one city did not :he Lithros massif. take much interest in the affairs of the other. With the provincial reorganization of evident that their Diocletian, the eastern and western parts of the Iris-Lykos basin became distinct ,pened towards the 'hard' spaces, Pontos Polemoniakos and Helenopontos. Compared to its predeces­ md ultimately, the sors, this reorganisation was surprisingly resilient, lasting into the late sixth centu­ geographical writ­ ry, suggesting that these 'hard' spaces may have been more congruent with the >m Pontos to Cili- 'soft' spaces of their inhabitants (witness, for instance, that Gregory of Nyssa more or less equals Pontos with Pontos Polemoniakos). The sources unfortunately route leading from do not permit us to trace the further evolution of Pontic spaces through the break­ md the coast. The down of the Byzantine provincial administration and the creation of the themata. unaseia, where the Was the 'personality of Pontos' ingrained in its physical landscape? Hardly. cJWS thatthey were Though the Lithros massif separates eastern and western Pontos, it is easily trav­ ence to Sinope on ersed along the valleys of the Iris: 245 the road from Amaseia to Magnopolis runs at served writings by less than 500 metres a.s.l., far lower than any of the passes over the Pontic range ►, extended not to­ or the 890 metres of the Giivenbeli pass between Amaseia and Neoklaudiopolis. e Crimea. Nor are the traditional categories of 'Kulturraum' or 'historical lanciscape' olian provinces re­ helpful. Pontos east and west of the Lithros shared a common Hellenised culture; I the 'hard' spaces their cities had the same civic institutions; they worshipped the same gods. Lan­ y arrived and with guage, an important cultura,l marker, unified them: the literate elite of both regions is own campaigns, used Greek as the language of their inscriptions - both private and public - and st road seemed an their coinage.246 If anything, instead of a cultural divergence, there are signs of a lmple of other Ro­ cultural convergence as the importance of the temple-states dwindles and the cults onstructed the via of the Persian deities decline. First, their places are taken by the gods of the Greek ered territories be- pantheon and the patron deities of the individual cities, then by Christianity in the third and fourth century. Yet even in the fourth century, when Christianity has i; BRANDES 1999, 41- unified 'Pontos' as a religious space we can, in the writings of the Cappadocian fathers, clearly trace a division into two distinct 'soft'spaces.

the late Roman struc- 245 Cf. that in late antiquity, Helenopon.tos extended along the Iris and into the Phanaroia as far as Ibora. 246 H0JTE 2006, 23-9. 58 T!ilnnes Bekker-Nielsen

In that case, where should we look for defining factors? Since the time of Christaller, contemporary geographers have seen movement as a key component in the creation of socio-geographic units. Movement creates contacts, facilitates the formation of friendships, kinship ties and business partnerships. In antiquity, movement (i.e. travel) across longer distances - which involved time, expense and insecurity - was rarely undertaken for its own sake, but for specific motives (e.g., trade, health or studies) and when it took place, followed roads and major trade routes where inns, post-stations and fellow-travellers were to be found. The central concept in CHRISTALLER's analysis was complementarity - in his case, between the economies of town and country. Complementarity, or lack thereof, may also provide the key to understanding why Pompey's Pontic road fileda to create the kind of unified space found along the via Aemilia. The Aemilia connected two complementary economic systems, that of the Adriatic coast and that of the upper Po valley, ensuring a constant movement of traders to and fro along its route. Pompey's road connected a series of fertile river valleys and plat­ eaux capable of producing more or less the same products. The inhabitants east and west of the Lithros had the same resources at their disposal and little incentive for trade with one another, but they constituted a ready market for goods imported overland fromcentral Anatolia or by sea through Amisos.247 At the present state of the evidence, our inquiry will take us no further, and key questions remain unsolved. Three possible future avenues of exploration do, however, present themselves: First, new finds of moveable artefacts (pottery and coins), provided they are reliably provenanced and dated, may enable us to trace networks of trade and ex­ change. Second, non-economic factors such as kinship and elite networks need to be taken into account. Network analysis is a discipline undergoing rapid, almost explosive growth and within a few years we may hope to see studies of better docu-mented regions in Asia Minor (e.g., Lycia or Asia), whose results might provide a framework for interpreting the sparse Pontic material. Finally, the pos­ sibility of using parallels from the early modern period, or even from contempo­ rary society, to better understand the ways in which 'soft' spaces are created and maintained, while offe1ing no simple answers, might help us towards a more nu­ anced understanding of this elusive aspect of ancient human geography.

Bibliography A.BRAHAMSE, D. ZANI DE FERRANTI 1967. Hagiographic sources for Byzantine ciries, 500-900 A.O. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. ALLEN, R. & J. WILES 2014. The Uncertain Spaces of Great-Gra11dpare11thood, in M. Rocirn, J. MANSVELT, R. PRINCE & A. GALLAGHER (eds.) 2014. Engaging Geographies: Landscapes, Lifecoursesand Mobilities. Newcastle, 117-36.

247 MEHL 1987, !08-23 lists the known imports and exports through the ports of the Pontic shore. For amphorae as evidence for maritime trade, LUND & GABRIELSEN 2005; Rizzo 2014, 559-65. The Corners of a Pontic World 59

;ince the time of ALLMENDINGER, P. & G. HAUGHTON 2009. SoftSpaces, Fuzzy Boundaries, and Metagovernance: a key component The New Spatial Planning in the Thame�· Gateway, Environment and Planning A 41, 617-33. ontacts, facilitates ALLMENDINGER, P. & G. HAUGHTON 20 I 0. Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spac­ es. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 28, 803-18. :hips. In antiquity, AMANDRY,M. 2009. Zeta sous /'empire romain. Bordeaux. time, expense and AMANDRY, M. & B. REMY 1998. Comana du Pont sous /'empire romain: etude historique et cor­ :ific motives (e.g., pus ,nonetaire (Glaux, 14). Milan. Is and major trade ARNAUD, P. 2004. Titulatures municipales et reseaux urbains: le titre de metropole dans /es pro­ found. vinces romaines d'Orient, Cahiers de la Mediterrannee 64, 39-47. Z. :mentarity - in his AYDOGAN, 2016. Changing Perceptions along the Frontiers: The Moving Frontier with Rum in Late Medieval Anatolian Frontier Narratives, in C. lSOM-VERHAUEN and K.F. SCHULL, Liv­ nentarity, or lack ing in the Ottoman Realm: Empire and Identity, 13th.to 20th. centuries. Bloomington, 29-41. pey's Pontic road BACHMANN-MEDICK, D. 2016. Cultural Turns: New Orientations in the Study of Culture. Berlin. rnilia. The Aemilia BEKKER-NIELSEN, T. 1989. The Geography of Power: Studies in the Urbanization of Roman Adriatic coast and North-West Europe (BAR International Series, 477). Oxford. traders to and fro BEKKER-NIELSEN, T. 2008. Urban Life and Local Politics in Roman Bithynia: The Small World of 8). r valleys and plat- Dion Cluystostomos (Black Sea Studies, Aarhus. BEKKER-NIELSEN, T. 2013. 350 years of research on Neoklaudiopolis (Vezirkoprii), Orbis Ter­ 1e inhabitants east rarum 11, 3-32. and little incentive BEKKER-NIELSEN, T. 2014a. Hard and soji spaces in the ancient world, INK. GEUS & M. THIER­ 'or goods imported ING (eds.) 2014. Features of Common Sense Geography: Implicit Knowledge Strnctures in Ancient Geographical Texts (Antike Kultur und Geschichte, 16). Berlin, 131-46. us no further, and BEKKER-NIELSEN, T. 2014b. To be or nor to be Paphlagonian? A question of identity, in T. BEK­ of exploration do, KER-NIELSEN (ed.), Space, Place and Identity in northern Anatolia (Geographica Historica, 29). Stuttgart, 63-74. BEKKER-NIELSEN, T. 2016a. Leading men, in M. VITALE & A. KOLB (ed.) Kaiserkult in den Pro­ provided they are vinzen des Romisch.en Reiches: Organisation, Kommu11ikation und Repriisenta.tio11. Berlin, cs of trade and ex­ 357-76. ! networks need to BEKKER-NIELSEN, T. 20l6b. Trade, strategy and cm11111unicatio11s on the Roman north-east fron­ oing rapid, almost tier, Cedrus 4, 31-46. e studies of better BEKKER-NIELSEN, T. 2018. The city and the road: The tramport connections of Pompeiopolis in the Light of recent discoveries in the Pompeian cities, IN L. SUMMERER & P. JOHNSON (eds.), 1ose results might Contextualizing Pompeiopolis: Urban Development in Roman. Anatolia from a Comparative l. Finally, the pos­ Perspective (forthcoming). r :n f om contempo­ BEKKER-NIELSEN, T. & R. CZICHON 2015. Roads and Bridges of the Phazemonitis, in K. :es are created and WINTHER-JACOBSEN & L. SUMMERER (eds.), Landscape Dynamics and Settlement Pa/ferns )wards a more nu­ in northern Anatolia during the Roman and Byzantine Period (Geographica Historica, 31). >graphy. Stuttgart, 295-306. BEKKER-NIELSEN, T. & G. HINGE 2015. Dio Chrysostom in Exile: Or. 36. l and the Date of the Scythian Journey, CQ 65, 747-55. BEKKER-NIELSEN, T. & M. JENSEN 2015: Two Pontic rivers, Cedrus 3, 231-42. BENGTSON, H. 1977. Marcus Antonius: Ii·iumvir und Herrscher des Orients. Munich. mtine cities, 500-900 BILLER,J. & E. OLSHAUSEN 1978. Notizen zur historischen Geograph.ie vonPontos, in S. �AHIN, E. SCHWERTHEIM & J. WAGNER, Studien Zttr Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschrift fiir 100d, in M. ROCHE, J. Friedrich Karl Dorner zum 65. Geburtstag am 28 . Febrnar 1976. Leiden, 163-77 and pls. graphies: Landscapes, liv-lxviii. BINTLIFF, J. 1981. The contribution of an Annalistelstructuralhisro,y approach to archaeology, in J. BINTLIFF (ed.), The Annales School and Archaeology. New York, 1-33. BINTLIFF, J. 2000. Beyond dots on the map: the future of artefact survey in Greece, in J. BINTLIFF, he ports of the Pontic M. KUNA & N. YENCLOVA (eds.), The Future of Archaeological Field Survey in Europe, SEN 2005; Rizzo 2014, Sheffield, 3-20. 60 T�nnes Bekker-Nielsen

BOSWORTH, A.B. & P.V. WHEATLEY 1998. The origins of the Pontic house. The Journal of 1-lel­ lenic Studies J 18, 155-64. BOYCE, M. & F. GRENET 1991, A Histo,y of Zoroastrianism, 3: Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1.8.1.2.2) Leiden. BRANDES, W. 1989. Die Stiidte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert. Berlin. BRANDES, W. 1999. Byzantine Cities in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries: Different Sources, DifferentHistories? in G.P. BROGJOLO & B. WARD-PERKINS (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden, 25-58. BRATIANU, G. 1969. La Mer Noire: des origines a la conquete ottomane (Societas Academica Dacoromana, Acta historica, 9). Munich. BRUGHMANS T., 2013. Thinking Through Networks: A Review of Fonnal Network Methods in Archaeology, Journalof Archaeological Method and Theory 20, 623-62. BUCHHEIM, H. 1960. Die Orientpolitik des Triumvirn M. Antonius: lhre Voraussetzungen, Ent­ wick-lung und Zusammenhang mit den politischen Ereignissen in ltalien. (Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse I 960:8). Hei­ delberg: Winter. BURRELL, B. 2004. Neokoroi: Greek cities and Roman emperors (Cincinnati Classical Studies, n.s. 9). Leiden. BURSTEIN, S.M. 1976. Outpost of Hellenism: the Emergence of Heraclea on the Black Sea (Uni­ versity of California Publications, Classical Studies, 14). Berkeley. CHRTSTALLER, W. 1933. Die zentralen Orte in Siiddeutschland: Eine okonomisch-geographische Untersuchung iiber die Gesetzmdj]igkeitder Verbreitung und Entwicklung der Siedlungen. mit stiidtischen Funktionen. Jena. <;1zMELI, Z. 2006. Le monnayage de Neocesaree et du koinon du Pont (Glaux, 17). Milan. Costantino Porfirogenitode Thematibus, ed. A. PERTUSI (Studie e testi, 160). Vatican city, 1952. CROUZEL, H. Gregoire le thaumaturge: Remerciement a Origene suivie de La Lettre d'Origene a Gregoire, texte grec, introduction, traduction et notes par H. CROUZEL (Sources Chretiennes, 148). Paris 1969. DALAISON, J. 2008. L'atelier d'Amaseia du Pont: Recherches historiques et numismatiques (Nu­ mismatica Anatolica, 2). Bordeaux. DALAISON, J. 2014. Civic pride and local identities: the Pontic cities and their coinage in the Roman period, in T. BEKKER-NIELSEN (ed.), Space, Place and Identity in northern Anatolia (Geographica Historica, 29). Stuttgart, 125-56. DALATS0N, J. 2016. Neocorie et koinon: Les attestations et representations du culte imperial fede­ ral sur les monnaies provinciales romaines du nord de /'Asie mineure (Pont, Paphlagonie et Armenie mineure) in M. VITALE & A. KOLB (eds.) Kaiserkult in den Provi11ze11 des Romischen Reiches: Organisation, Kommunika1io11 und Repriisentation. Berlin, 189-228. DAN, A. 2013. "Evav Kaip6v Kl evav (aµa.v: Remarques sur l'antiquite de l'identite grecque pon­ tique, appuyee sw· l'inventaire des noms, II Mar Nero 7, 9-66. DAN, A. 2014. Pontische Mehrdeutigkeiten, eTopoi: Journalfor Ancient Studies 3, 43-66. DARR0UZES, J. 1975. Lisles episcopales du Concile de Nicee, Revue des eludes Byzantines 33, 5- 76. DATEMA, C. Asterius of Amaseia: Homilies /-XIV. Text, introduction and notes. Leiden: Brill 1970. DE GIORGI, A. 2011. Colonial Space and the City: Augustus' Geopolitics in Pisidia, in R. SWEET­ MAN (ed.), Roman colonies in the first century of their.foundation. Oxford, 135-49. DELEHAYE, H. 1909. Les legendes grecques des saints militaires. Paris. DRAKOULIS, D.P. 2012. Regional Tran�formations and the Settlement Network of the Coastal Pontic Provinces in the Early Byzantine Period, in G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Ph1ygia in Antiquity (BAR International Series, 2432). Oxford, 79- 95. The Corners of a Pon tic World 61

:. The Journal of Hel- EDELMANN-SINGER, B. 2015. Koina und Concilia: Genese, Organisation und soziookonomische Funktion der Provinziallandtage im riimischen Reich (Heidelberger althistorische Beil.rage, sm under Macedonian 57). Stuttgart. ERCIYAS, D.B. 2006. Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey (Colloquia Pontica 12). Lei­ �s: Different Sources, den. ? Idea and Ideal of the ERCIYAS, D.B. 2009. Komana Pontike: A City or a Sanctuaty? in J.M. H0JTE (ed.), Mithridates VI �- and the Pontic Kingdom (Black Sea Studies, 9). Aarhus, 289-312. (Societas Academica ERCIYAS, D.B. 2014. A Middle Byzantine citadel at Komana, in T. BEKKER-NIELSEN (ed.), Space, Place and Identity in northem Anatolia (Geographica Historica, 29). Stuttgart, 215-25. ' Network Methods in FOY-V AILLANT, J. 1700. Numismata imperatorum, Augustarum, et Caesarum, a populis, Romanae 2. ditionis, Graece loquentibus, ex omni modulo percussa. Amsterdam. Voraussetwngen, Ent­ FRENCH, D. 1986. Recent epigraphic research in Pontus, Epigraphica Anatolica 8, 71-84. m. (Abhandlungen der FRENCH, D. 1996. Amasian Notes 5: The Temenos of Zeus Stratios at Yass1r,:al, Epigraphica Ana­ : Klasse 1960:8). Hei- tolica 27, 75-92. GRANT, E. (ed.) 1986. Ce111ral Places, Archaeology and History. Sheffield. Classical Studies, n.s. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, Three poems; Concerning himself and the bishops; Concerning his own life, translated by DENIS MOLAISE MEEHAN with supplementary notes by THOMAS P. HAL­ ,n the Black Sea (Uni- TON. Washington 1987. GREGOR VON NAZIANZ, De vita sua, Herausgegeben, eingeleitet und erklart von C. JUNGCK. Hei­ omisch-geographische delberg 1974. mg der Siedlungen mit GREGORY OF NYSSA, Homily in praise of the great martyr Theodore, in G. HEIL, J.P. CAV AROS & 0. LENDLE (eds.) Gregorii Nysseni Sermones, II (Gregorii Nysseni Opera, X.l). Leiden 1990, x, 17). Milan. 61-71. ). Vatican city, 1952. GREGORY OF NYSSA, Homily in praise of the forty holy martyrs, in G. HEIL, J.P. CAVAROS & 0. La Lettre d'Origene a LENDLE (eds.) Gregorii Nysseni Sermones, II (Gregorii Nysseni Opera, X. l ). Leiden 1990, (Sources Chretiennes, 137-69. GUYOT, P. Gregor der Wundertiiter: Oratio prosphonetica ac panegyrica in Origenem/Dankrede �I numismatiques (Nu­ an Origenes, iibersetzt von PETER GUYOT, eingeleitet von RICHARD KLEIN. (Fontes Christia­ ni, 24). Freiburg 1996. d their coinage in the HAENSCH, R. 1997. Capita Provinciarnm: Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in der rdmi­ y in northern Anatolia schen Kaiserzeit (Koiner Forschungen, 7). Mainz. HAGERSTRAND, T. 1952. The propagation of innovation waves. Lund. du culte imperial fede­ HARD, G. 2008. Der Spatial Tum, von der Geographie her beobachtet in J. DORING & T. THIE­ ( Pont, Paphlagonie et DEMANN (eds.), Spatial Tum: Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. 'n den Provinzen des Bielefeld, 263-316. 1. Berlin, 189-228. HEATHER, P. & J. MATTHEWS (eds.) 1991. The Goths in the Fourth Centu1y. (Translated Texts for l 'idenlite grecque pon- Historians, 11). Liverpool. HALDON, J.F. 1990. Byzantium in the Seventh CentUI)'· Cambridge. 1dies 3, 43-66. HARVEY, D. 1998. The Humboldt Connection, Annals of the Association of American Geogra­ ides B yzantines 33, 5- phers 88, 723-30. HELLER, A. 2006. 'Les betises des Grecs ': conjlits et rivalites entre cites d'Asie et de Bithynie a id notes. Leiden: Brill l'epoque romaine, 129 a. C. - 235 p. C. (Scripta Antigua, 17). Bordeaux. HODDER, I.R., & M.W.C. HASSALL 1971. The non-random spacing of Romano- British walled •i Pisidia, in R. SWEET­ towns, Man 6, 391-407. ord, 135-49. H0JTE, J.M. 2006. From kingdom to province: Reshaping Pontos after the fall of Mithridates VI, in T. BEKKER-NIELSEN (ed.), Rome and the Black Sea Region: Domination, Romanisation, Re­ 'etwork of the Coastal sistance (Black Sea Studies, 5). Aarhus, 15-30. :E (ed.), The Black Sea, HORDEN, P. & N. PURCELL 2001. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean Histmy. Lon­ ies, 2432). Oxford, 79- don. JERPHANION,G. DE 1911. !bora-Gazioura? Etude de geographie pontique. Melanges de la Faculte Orientate, Universite Saint-Joseph, Beyrouth 5, 333-54. 62 T�nnes Bekker-Nielsen

JONES, E.H. 2007. Spaces of Belonging: Home, C11lture and Identity in 20th Century French A11to­ biography. Amsterdam. KA<;:AR, T. 2005. Church councils and their impact on !he economy of !he cities in Roman Asia Minor, in S. MITCHELL & C. KATSARI (eds.), Pal/ems in the Economy of Roman Asia Minor, Swansea, 305-18. KNAPPETT, C. 2013. 'Why Networks?', in C. KNAPPETT (ed.), Ne/1Vork Analyses in Archaeology: New Approaches to Regional Interaction. Oxford, 3-15. KELLY, M.R. 2015. The Hero's Place: Medieval Litermy Traditions of Space and Belonging. Washington. KENNEDY, D. 1977. Parthian Regiments in the Roman Army, in J. FITZ (ed.), Limes: Akten des XI. Intemationalen Limeskongresses. Budapest. KIEPERT, H. 1878. Lehrbuch der alien Geographie. Berlin. KINZIG, W. I 990. In Search of Aste,ius: Studies on the Au1/wrship of the Homilies on the Psalms. Giittingen. KOSMIN, P.J. 2014. The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territo,y, and Ideology in the Seleu­ cid Empire, Cambridge, MA. KRAFT, K. 1972. Das System der kaiserzeitlichen Miinzprdgung in Kleinasien: Materialien und Entwii1fe. Berlin. LAGA, C. (ed.) Eustratii Presbyteri vita Elltychii patriarchae Constanlinopolitani (Corpus Clui- stianornm, Series Graeca 25). Turnhout 1992. LANE, E.N. 1990. Men: A Neglected Cult of Roman Asia Minor, ANRWIl.18.3, 2161-74. LANE Fox, R. 1986. Pagans and Christians. London. LE GUEN-POLLET, B. 1989. Sebastopolis du Pont (Sulusaray): documen.ts litteraires et inscriptions deja pllbliees de la cite, EA 13, 51-86. LE GUEN-POLLET, B. & B. REMY 2010. La cite de Sebastopolis du Pollf, Anatolia Antigua 18, 97- 107. LE QurEN, M. 1740. Oriens christianus in qua/Uor patriarchatus digestus q!l{J exhibentur eccle­ siae, patriarchae caeterique praesules totius orientis. Paris. LEONARD, J. 2015. [Review of] J. PREISER-KAPELLER AND F. DAIM, Harbours and Maritime Net­ works as Complex Adaptive Systems (Mainz 2015), Orbis Terrarum I 3, 293-6. LEUILLOT, P. 1973. Aux origines des 'Annales d'histoire economique el sociale ': Contribution a /'historiographie fi'anraise, in Melanges en l'honneur de Fernancl Braudel, 2: Methodologie de l'histoire et des sciences humaines. Toulouse, 317-24. LORIOT, X. 2006. Le culte imperial dans le Pont sous le Haut-Empire, in A. V!GOURT, X. LORIOT, A. BERENGER-BADEL & B. KLEIN (eds.) Pouvoir et religion clans le monde romain: en hom­ mage iiJean-Pierre Martin. Paris, 521-40. LORIOT, X. 2011. 'La province de Pont-Bilhy11ie sous le Haut-Empire: assise territoriale et admi­ nistration' in S. BENOIST, A. DAGUET-GAGEY & C. HOET-VAN CAUWBNBBRGHB (eds.) Frag­ ments d 'empire, fragments de memo ire: Pouvoirs et identites dans le monde romain imperial II' s. av. n. e. - VI' s. de n e. Lille, 257-86. LUND, J. 2015. A Sllldy of the Circulation of Ceramics in Cyprus from the 3rd Centul)' BC to the 3rd Century AD (GiistaEnbom Monographs, 5). Aarhus. LUND, J. & GABRIELSEN, V. 2005. A Fishy Business: Transport Amphorae of the Black Sea Region as a Source for the Trade in Fish and Fish Products in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods, in T. BEKKER-NIELSEN (ed.), Ancient Fishing and Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region (Black Sea Studies, 2). Aarhus, 161-9. MCGING, B.C. 1986. The foreign policy of Mirhridates VI Eupator, king of Pontus (Mnemosyne Supplement, 89). Leiden. MCGING, B.C. 2014. Iranian kings in Creek dress? Cultural identify in the Mithradatid kingdom of Pontos, in T. BEKKER-NIELSEN (ed.), Space, Place and Identity in northern. Anatolia (Geo­ graphica Historica, 29). Stuttgart, 21-38. MCGUCKIN, J.A. 200 I. St Grego1y of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography. Crestwood, NY. The Corners of a Pontic World 63

Cenll11y French Alllo- MADSEN, J.M. 2016. Who Introduced the Imperial Cult in Asia and Bithynia? The Koinon's Role in the Early Worship of Augustus, in M. VITALE & A. KOLB (ed.) Kaiserkult in den Provinzen i cities in Roman Asia des Romischen Reiches: Organisation, Kommunikation und Reprasentation. Berlin, 21-36. of Roman Asia Minor, MAGIE, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Centu,y after Christ, 1-2. Princeton. :ilyses in Archaeology: MALKIN, I. 2011. A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean. Oxford. MAHE, A. & J.-P. 2012. Histoire de l'Armenie des origines a nosjours. Paris. Space and Belonging. MARA VAL, P. 1988a. la date de la mart de Basile de Cesaree, Revue des etudes augustiniennes 34, 25-38. ), Limes: Akten des XI. MARAv AL, P. 1988b. Un correspondant de Gregoire de Nazianze identifie: Pansophios d'lbora, Vigiliae Christianae 42, 24-7. MARAVA L, P. (ed.). Gregoire de Nysse. Vie de sainte Macrine (Sources Chretiennes, 178). 1971. amities on the Psalms. MARA VAL, P. (ed.), Gregoire de Nysse. Lettres. (Sources Clu·etiennes, 363). Paris 1990. MARAVAL, P. (ed.). Gregoire de Nysse, £loge de Gregoire le thaumaturge; £loge de Basile Ideology in the Seleu- (Sources Chretiennes, 573). Paris 2014. MAREK, C. 1993. Stadt, Ara und Territorium in. Pon.tus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia (lstanbuler rsien: Materialien und Forschungen 39). Tlibingen. MAREK, C. 2003. Pontus et Bithynia: Die riimischen Provinzen im Norden Kleinasiens (Orbis oolitani (Corpus Chri- Provinciarum). Mainz. MAREK, C. 2010. Geschichte Kleinasiens in der Antike. Munich: Beck. 8.3, 2161-74. MAREK, C. 2015. Epigraphy and the provincial organization of Paphlagonian cities in the Ro111a1t Empire, in K. WINTHER-JACOBSEN & L. SUMMERER (eds.), Landscape Dynamics and Settle­ teraires et inscriptions ment Patterns in Northern Anatolia during the Roman and Byzantine Period (Geographica Historica, 32). Stuttgart, 307-28. atolia Antigua 18, 97- MAURICE, H. 1691. A Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy in Answer to a Book of Mr. David Clark­ son, Lately Published, entituled Primitive Episcopacy. London. quo exhibentur eccle- MAYOR, A. 2011. The Poison King: The Life and Legend ofMithradates, Rome's Deadliest Ene­ my. Princeton. urs and Maritime Net- MEHL, A. 1987. Der Oberseehandel von Pollfos, Stutlgarter Kolloquium z11r historischen. Geogra­ 293-6. phie des Altertums 1, 1980 (Geographica Historica, 4). Bonn, 103-86. ciale ': Contribution a MOSSAY, J. 2009. Nazianze et les Gregoire: rejlexions d'un helleniste retraite. (Langues et cul­ udel, 2: Methodologie tures anciennes, I 5). Bruxelles; Safran. MITCHELL, S. 1993. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor 1-2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. VIOOURT, X. LORJOT, MITCHELL, S. 2002. Jn search of the Po11tic community in.Antiquity, in A.K. BOWMAN et al. (eds.), onde romain: en hom- Representations of Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean World (Proceedings of the British Academy, 144). Oxford, 35-64 . .e territoriale et admi­ MOGA, I. 2012. Strabo on the Persian Artemis and Men in Pontus and Lydia, in G.R. NBERGHE (eds.) Frag­ TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pon.tus and Ph,ygia in Antiquity (BAR ronde romain imperial International Series, 2432). Oxford, 191-5. MURRAY, W. 2012. The age of titans: the rise and fall of the great Hellenistic navies. Oxford. frd Centwy BC to the NISSEN, H. 1883-1902. ltalische Landeskunde 1-2. Berlin. OHME, H. 1990. Das Concilium Quinisextum und seine Bischof�liste: Studien zum Konstantinope­ "the Black Sea Region ler Konzil von 692 (Arbeiten zur Kircbengeschichte, 56). Berlin. rd Hellenistic Periods, OLSHAUSEN, E. 1980. Pontos und Rom (63 v. Chr. - 64 11. Chr.), ANRW ll.7.2, 903-12. the Black Sea Region OLSHAUSEN, E. 1987. Der Kiinig 11nd die Priester: die Mithradatiden im Kampf um die Anerken­ nung ihrer Herrschaft in Pontos, Stullgarter Kolloquiwn ziir historischen Geographie des Al­ r Pon/us (Mnemosyne tertums I, 1980 (Geographica Historica, 4). Bonn, 187-212. OLSHAUSEN, E. 1990. Giiller, Heroen und ihre Kulte in Po1ttos: ein erster Bericllf, ANRW 11.18.3, Mithradatid kingdom 1865-906. ,rthernAnatolia (Geo- OLSHAUSEN, E. 1991. Zum Organisationskonzepl des Pompeius in Pontos - ein historisch­ geographisches Argument, Stutlgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertum.1· Crestwood, NY. 2, 1984 und 3, 1987 (Geographica Historica, 5). Bonn, 443-55, pls. lvii-lix. 64 T9lnnesBekker-Nielsen

O1..SHAUSEN, E. 1999. Pontica 4. Das romische Strassennetz in Ponto.1·: Bila11z 1111d Ausblick, Orbis Terra rum 5, I 999, 93-113. OLSHAUSEN, E. 2014. Pontos: Profile of a landscape, in T. BEKKER-NIELSEN (ed.), Space, Place and Identity in northern Anatolia (Geographica Historica, 29). Stuttgart, 39-48. O1..SHAUSEN, E. & J. BILLER 1984. Historisch-Geographische Aspekte der Geschichte des Po11ti­ sche11 und Armenischen Reiches, 1: Untersuchu11ge11 z1tr historischen Geographie von Pontos unter den Mithradatiden, Wiesbaden (TAYO Beiheft B, 29/1 ). PEARCE, L. 2002. The place of literature in the spaces of belonging, European Joumal of Cultural Studies 5:3, 275-91. PFLAUM, H.-G. 1960. Les carrieres proc11ratorie1111es equestres sous le Haut-Empire romain: I (ln-stitut frans;ais d'archeologie de Beyrouth, Bibliotbeque archeologique et histo1ique, 57). Paris. PFLAUM, H.-G. 1982. Les carrieres procuratorien11es equestres sous le Haut-Empire romain: supplement (Institut fram,:ais d'archeologie de Beyrouth, Bibliotheque archeologique et histo­ rique, I 12). Paris. PLISCHJSardis: A new approach to the Se­ leucid empire (Hellenistic Culture and Society, 13). Berkeley. SILVAS, A.M. 2006. Grego,y of Nyssa, The Letters: Introduction, Translation and Commenta,y (Vigiliae Chrisliaaae, Supplements, Volume 83). Leiden 2006. SINDBJEK, S. 2015. Northem Emporia and Maritime Networks: Modelling Past Communication 11sing Archaeological Network Analysis, in J. PRESIER-KAPELLER & F. DNM (eds.), Harbours and Maritime Networks as Complex Adaptive Systems (RGZM Tagungen, 23). Mainz, 105- 18. The Cornersof a Pon tic Wurld 65

1z und Ausblick, Orbis SKINNER,G.W. 1964-65. Marketing and Social Structure in Rural China, Joumal of Asian Studies 24,3-452; 195-228;363-99. JN (ed.), Space, Place SLUSSER, M. 1998. St. Gregm)' Thaumaturgus: Life and Works. (Fathers of the Church: A new 39-48. translation, 98). Washington. Geschichte des Ponti­ SOJA, E. 201 I. Postm.odern geographies: the reassertion of space in critical social theo1y. 2nd ePhiladelphia. :hen Konzils (680/81) VITALE, M. 2012. Eparchie u11d Koinon in Kleinasien von der ausgehenden Republik bis ins 3. lh. m, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, n. Chr. (Asia Minor Studien, 67). Bonn. VITALE, M. 2014. 'Pontic' communities under Roman rule: polis self-representation, provinciali­ sur la christologie du sation and the koina 'of Pontus ', in T. BEKKER-NIELSEN (ed.), Space, Place and Identity in northernAnatolia (Geographica Historica,29). Stuttgart, 49-62. :ARU, A. Co�KUN and VOGEL, C. 1979. 'Circonscriptions ecc/esiastiques et ressorts administratifs civils duranl la pre­ /u ring the Hellenistic miere moitie du /Ve siecle [du Concile de Nicee (325) au Concile d'Antioche (341)}, La gco­ graphie administrative et politique d'Alexandre a Mahomel (Travaux du Centre de recberche e, Harvard Studies in sur le proche-Orient et Ja Grece antiques, 6). Leiden, 273-92. WALTER, C. 2003. The warrior saints in Byzantine art and tradition. Aldershot. Classical Greece and WATERHOUT, B. 20 I 0. Soft .1paces and governance: the transformation of planning. Paper given at 24th AESOP Annual Conference, Finland, 7-10 July 2010. WELLESLEY, K. 1953. The Extent of the Territo1y Added to Bithynia by Pompey, Rheinisches Mu­ iN (ed.), Space, Place se111n, n.s. 96, 293-318. 109-24. WESCH-KLEIN, G. 2001. Bithynia, Pontus et Bithynia, Bithynia et Pontus: ein Provinvwme im ichte und Geopo/itik. Wandel der Zeit, ZPE 136,251-6. WIEGELS, R. 2006. Zentralitiit� Kulturraum � Landschaft: Zur Tauglichkeitvon Begriffen und v approach to the Se- Ordn.ungskriterien bei der Erfassung religidser Phiinomene im Imperium Romanwn, in H. CANCIK, A. SCHAFER & W. SPICKERMANN, Zentraliliit und Religion: Zur Formiertmg urba­ ion and Commentwy ner Zenlren im lmperium Romanwn (Studien zu Antike und Christentum, 39). Tlibingen,21- 46. Past Communication WILLIAMSON, C. 2014. Power, politics and panoramas: viewing the sacred landscape of Zeus )AIM (eds.), Harbours Stratios near Amaseia, in T. BEKKER-NIELSEN (ed.), Space, Place and Identity in northern en, 23). Mainz, 105- Anatolia (Geographica Historica, 29). Stuttgart, 175-88. 66 T9)nnes Bekker-Nielsen

WTNTHER-JACOBSEN, K. & T. BEKKER-NIELSEN 2017. A Lale Roman building complex in !he Pa­ paz Tarlas1, Vezirkoprii (ancient Neoklaudiopolis, nor!hern Asia Mino,), with an Appendlt: Two Byzantine Coins from the Papaz Tarlas1, by V. SAUER, Proceedings of the Danish Insti­ tute at Athens 8, 25-58.

Abbreviations BAR = British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. RGMG = Recueil general des monnaies grecques d'Asie 111ineure, T. 4, fasc. 1-4. Paris I 904- 1912. RRMAM = DAVID FRENCH, Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. Ankara 2012-2016, http://biaa.ac.uk/publications/item/name/electronic-monographs SP=StudiaPontica 1-3. Bruxelles 1903-1910.

Prof. Dr. TS>lnnes Bekker-Nielsen Department of History, University of Southern Denmark Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M [email protected]

Fig. 1. The confluence of the Iris and Lykos rivers in the Phanaroia, north of Magnopolis. In the middle of the stream, remains of a Roman bridge. (Author's photo, October 2014). The Corners of a Pontic World 67 i complex in the Pa­ ', with an Appendix: : of the Danish lnsti-

\ Pompeiopolis r10 c. 1-4. Paris 1904-

Ankara 20 l 2-20 I 6,

Nikopolis 6

, Sebastopoli� nnes Bekker-Nielsen y.•'!• f Southern Denmark 50 100km "°Sebasteia DK-5230 Odense M [email protected] o 200 500 1000 2000 3000m

Fig. 2. Pontos in the second cenfluy AD (Map by Richard Szydlak).

. •:;. ·--:·_ ��\:_i .... , .r--�,.,;.,11•... ..__..... - .-

Mag11opolis. In the )ctober 2014). Fig. 3. The gateway to inland Paphlagonia: the Roman road over the Dranazpass. (Author's photo, April 2012) 68 T0nnes Bekker-Nielsen

Fig. 4. This massive underground structure in the lower city, probably a c1yptoportirns, testifies to the continued prosperity of Neokaisareia under the later Empire. (Author's photo, April 2013).

Fig. 5. Neokaisareian bronze coin of AD 205/206). The reverse image depicts a seated personification of Neokaisareia with a river-god at her feet, surrounded by five standing female figures. The legend reads KOJN llON - NEOKAI- MHTPO. (Photo: Gorny & Mosch, Munich). The Corners of a Pon tic World 69

Fig. 6. The ground plan of a cruciform Christian martyrion 011 the outskirts of Neo-k/audiopolis as revealed by a georesistivity survey underlaken by the :1 c1yptoporticus, Oymaagar;-Nerik projec/ in 20 I O ( Harald von der Osten-Wolden.burg, 20 I 0). later Empire.

1ge depicts a et, surrounded -NEOKAI-