Landscapes of Terror and Control: Imperial Impacts in Paphlagonia

Landscapes of Terror and Control: Imperial Impacts in PaphlagoniaAuthor(s): Roger MatthewsSource: Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 200-211Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132387 .

Accessed: 01/07/2014 17:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Near Eastern Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.75.179.136 on Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:24:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132387?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Imperial Impacts in Paphlagonia Roger Matthews

L andscapes retain memories, and the business of the landscape archaeologist is to access those memories and assemble them into a coherent form consistent with the available evidence. As human beings, our most prominent and persistent memories relate to episodes of extreme emotional stress or exuberance, and

I believe that the same applies to memories of landscape. Periods of stress and exuberance, terror and control, can lead people into purposive and creative communal activities that may impact their landscapes significantly for subsequent centuries and millennia. At the same time, episodes of calm and stability will leave their own subtle signatures in the memory of landscape, and again it is our task to detect and interpret such traces.

The focus here in geo- graphical terms is the area of north-central Turkey known in Roman times as Inner Paphlagonia, now largely the Turkish province of Cankiri, situated between Ankara and the southern reaches of the Black Sea.1 In this area, on behalf of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, I conducted a multi- period survey between 1997 and 2001, Project Paphlagonia, the results of which are currently being prepared for final publication.2 At this stage in the project, we have found that a particular type of site forms a significant proportion of all sites found during the survey. These are sites with evidence of defensive location and fortification. My argument is that such sites can be associated with episodes of severe stress and instability, and

that they constitute the materialization of extreme emotions, namely terror and a desire or need for control.

The Nature of the Evidence

Project Paphlagonia involved five seasons of fieldwork, of which three were devoted to extensive survey of a very large area, about 8,500 square kilometers. During extensive survey, we located 244 archaeological sites of all periods, from Middle Paleolithic to Ottoman. The final two seasons were devoted to intensive survey, involving walking of transects across ten by four kilometer blocks of terrain distributed throughout the survey region. A further 75 sites were identified in this manner. About twenty of the total of 319 sites show surviving traces of

The intensive survey techniques used in Project Paphlagonia require team members to cover evenly spaced transects in order to spot artifacts and architectural features. Here project members are walking across the hilly landscape of the survey region. All photos by the author.

200 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 67:4 (2004)



The modern houses of Paphlagonia are constructed of timber, stone and mudbrick, and are unlikely to leave much of an impact on the

archaeological record. Houses from ancient periods were probably constructed with the same materials, which makes them often difficult to detect as archaeological remains.

fortification walls or other features suggestive of a defensive function, and these sites are the focus here. The process of human settlement is never random, but interpreting the reasons behind choice of location for settlement can be difficult. Historical contingency and human agency, the collective and individual elements that go into decision- making about site locations, may largely be inaccessible to the modern scholar. Nevertheless, in the case of the sites studied here, judged by their location and, in many cases, surviving traces of fortifications, it is clear that a concern with defense was paramount.

Before examining the nature and interpretation of these sites, two caveats are necessary. First, sites in Paphlagonia are not overwhelmingly rich in surface materials. Many sites comprise little more than a scatter of roof tiles, lithic debris or shattered pots. Of the sites featured here, many were especially lacking in surface finds, and there is a strong correlation between inaccessibility of a site and a low quantity of surface material. It is probable that several of the fortified sites were not intended for permanent occupation but only as retreats to be climbed up to in times of danger. It is not surprising, then, that we would find little in the way of material remains on

their surfaces. For the archaeologist this often frustrating lack of material means that a major potential means of dating is not available. We therefore have to accept a degree of uncertainty

Periods of the North Anatolian Past Period Material culture Text Text source Palaeolithic Yes No Neolithic No? No Chalcolithic Yes No Early Bronze Age Yes No Middle Bronze Age Yes ? Assyrian Late Bronze Age - Hittite Yes Yes Hittite Late Bronze Age - KaSka ? Yes Hittite Phrygian Yes ? ?Phrygian Achaemenid ? Yes Persian Mithridatic ? Yes Roman Galatian ? Yes Roman Roman Yes Yes Roman Byzantine Yes Yes Byzantine Early Turkish Yes Yes Byzantine/Turkish Ottoman Turkish Yes Yes Ottoman Modern Turkish Yes Yes Turkish

This chart shows the significant archaeological and historical periods of Paphlagonia. Not all periods are attested in the often scant

archaeological evidence.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 67:4 (2004) 201



about precise dating, in terms of both construction and use. Moreover, several sites show evidence, however scant, for multiple periods of occupation, and in these cases it can be difficult to associate the architectural remains with any specific episode of the past.

Second, the architecture of this region can be extremely fleeting in terms of its impact on the archaeological record. A plentiful supply of timber, fieldstone and mud has ensured that these materials feature prominently in local architectural traditions. It may thus be that many sites displayed impressive defensive constructions of materials that have failed to survive into the archaeological record recoverable today.

In the case of Paphlagonia, as with all of Anatolia, we are blessed with a relative abundance of historical evidence during specific time periods within which we can attempt to situate the discovered sites and material remains. By combining the archaeological and historical evidence, plausible, coherent historical scenarios can be constructed as contexts within which ancient landscapes of terror and control may be situated. Three great empires, the Hittite, Roman and Byzantine, each had considerable impact on the region of Inner Paphlagonia. We begin with the Hittites of the Late Bronze Age.

A Landscape of Control: The Hittite Late Bronze Age, ca. 1650-1200 BCE

During the Late Bronze Age, the time of the Hittite kingdom, a distinctive settlement pattern emerges. Through the latter centuries of the period, this region of Anatolia hosted an ongoing conflict between two broad groups of people: the Hittites, with their capital at Hattusa little more than one hundred kilometers to the south within the bend of the Kizihrmak "Red River" (Hittite Marassantiya), and the Kaska, a loosely affiliated group of tribes whose settlements were located in the mountains and high valleys of the Pontic region. More or less incessant conflict between these two groups is attested in numerous Hittite documents.3 This conflict took the form of regular Kaska raids on Hittite towns and territory, followed by Hittite military expeditions, often led by the king, into the mountains in an attempt to engage the Kaska in open battle.

Other surveys conducted in regions such as Kastamonu, Sinop and Samsun, have suggested a collapse of settlement across north-central Anatolia in the centuries of the Late Bronze Age, after a long period of local development in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages.4 This settlement collapse appears to coincide with the arrival on the historical scene of the Kaska people. It thus seems that the Kaska employed modes

The Region of Paphlaqonla The prvince of Paphlagonia, as it was called in Roman

and Byzantine times, includes the modem Turkish provinces of gankrn and part of Karabak which form the region of the Poject Paphagonia Survney. Close to the Black Sea and to the north of Ankara, capital of Turkey, this region spans the transition between the Anatolian plateau to the south and the Pbntic mountains of the Black Sea to the north, and is thus truly a border zone. The great North Anatolian fault zone cuts across the region from east to west. This is a series of major faults, still highly active, caused by the northwards drift of the Arabian plate resulting in extremely destructive earthquakes in historic and modern times.

North of this zone are the mountains, reaching heights of over 2,400 meters,with the uplands and steppe of the plateau to the south. Major rivers running through this region include the Khnrmak and the Devrez. The region's topographical character as a transitional area extends to its human-environment relationships as well. Throughout its history, it has constituted a border zone between the settled farmers of the plateau and the more nomadic pastoralists of the hills. A difficult region in which to conduct an archaeological survey, Paphlgonia,

Project Paphisgomax Sresearch area Ortsak'V *

aa" 0HagttvA

- '

*(;ordion

iu k

This map shows the lcation of the Project Paphigona survey area, which spans the transitional zon between the Anatoan plateau to the south d the Black Sea coastal region to the north, and is traversed by major montain ranges.

does not exhibit a continuous pattern of settlement and, while evidence fromn the Hittite and Roman-Byzantine to Early Turkish periods is significant, there is scant material frm periods preceding the Late Brone Age.




of settlement and landscape interaction that fail to make a significant impact upon the archaeological record, at least as currently investigated.

From the existing texts we knew that our survey region was located precisely within the potential border zone between the Hittites and Kaska-indeed this was a major factor in selecting the survey region in the first place-and an important research issue was the question of how human settlement, its location, distribution and structure, might be shaped by the frontier-zone nature of the region in the Late Bronze Age. Results from the extensive and intensive program of survey provide a clear answer.

The whole of Inner Paphlagonia was clearly a disputed frontier zone through the Late Bronze Age. Of major significance in this frontier is the river Devrez, a tributary of the Kiziirmak. Some years ago, Massimo Forlanini identified this river with the Hittite

The site of Salman West, located at the foot of the Ilgaz mountains and controlling important routes of communication, is on a natural prominence whose summit has deliberately been leveled to receive buildings. A large access ramp would have enabled animals and carts to enter and exit the settlement.

~]1Obogkm

S e/

t HOyOk Tepeos

Major River * Late Bronze Age site

Land over 1500mn Fortiled Inandk ra

Muaf

Kaziltrmak

During the Late Bronze Age, a distinctive pattern of settlement developed in Paphlagonia. The fortified, strategically-located sites shown on the

map are not refuges or retreats but constitute a network of control, connected and reinforced by tracks and look-out posts, designed to facilitate movement, protection and provision of the Hittite army as it marched through into the dangerous enemy territory of the Pontic mountains.




A The site of Kanli G61, on a natural prominence shaped by human activity, has much evidence of stone fortifications, and an access ramp. There are also ancient tracks in the vicinity of the site.

- Dumanli, a site close to the Devrez-Dahara river, is fronted by a massive dry-stone wall, five meters high and eighty-five meters long, with

steps in its layout at twelve-meter intervals and distinct battering. These features are paralleled in the contemporary wall of Troy VI in western Anatolia.

A Incebogaz, located well to the northwest of the Devrez-Dahara frontier, was, like the other fortified sites, situated on a natural prominence that was leveled and walled, with excellent all- round visibility and a massive access ramp.

Dahara, known from texts to be a key frontier element in the Late Bronze Age, and our researches support such a view.5 To the south of the Devrez, between it and the Kizilrmak, we detected a network of evenly- spaced Hittite sites, strategically located at prominent points across the landscape, with a clear aim to control movement over the land. These sites are located with easy access to fresh water, in the form of streams or springs, and to sizeable tracts of arable land. To the north and west of the Devrez-Dahara very few Hittite sites were detected.

While generally on natural prominences, with good all-round visibility, such sites show evidence for substantial alteration in the form of massive leveling and ramp construction.




A Here we see a lookout post high above the Hittite settlement at Eldivan, which was strategically situated on a high ridge. The post, where bonfires may have been

lit, offered excellent visibility as protection against the Kaska, the hostile tribes that inhabited the region.

4 This series of tracks, crossing a natural pass in the landscape, represents both old and new transport routes. The right-most track is modern, but to the left can be seen two older tracks-the lower one older than the upper. Such tracks can be

impossible to date but some may belong, at least in part, to the Late Bronze Age.

Many have traces of fortification, in the form of remains of circumvallation at their summits. They are of medium to large size, by Paphlagonian standards, generally above one hectare. In terms of dating, as judged by surface ceramics, these frontier- zone settlements span the entire Hittite period, but they appear to increase in number during the latter centuries, when the textual evidence suggests an increasing intensity of conflict between the Hittites and Kaska.

When considered together, these Hittite frontier sites are clearly not refuges or retreats. We interpret them as strategically located elements in a sophisticated network of control. In addition to the sites themselves, other elements of that network must have included tracks suitable for regular use by the Hittite army, with its horses and chariots as well as large bodies of men. While we have not located any roads unquestionably of Hittite date, a difficult proposition in any case, we do have traces of tracks traversing the landscape that seem to pre-date the network of Roman and Byzantine roads, and are therefore good candidates for tracks of the Late Bronze Age.

Another frontier-zone element is that of lookout posts, well known from Hittite texts to have formed a key part of the routine defense of the frontier. Such sites are likely to be small and highly elusive in the archaeological record but in intensive survey we were fortunate enough to find such a site at a highly appropriate location. This site is formed of a collapsed heap of stones some ten meters across, perhaps the remains of a platform or lookout shelter, and yielded a few scraps of Hittite pottery, principally in the form of rims from storage vessels.

The lookout post is located on a high ridge above the large Hittite mound of Eldivan and affords expansive views over the approaches to that site from all directions. Use of fire at such a point could have provided early warning of enemy approach. A project underway at present, in collaboration with Claudia Glatz at University College London and J. David Hawkins at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, is an attempt to associate some of these sites with historically attested toponyms, as provided by a wealth of Hittite campaign texts. We shall in due course be publishing our final interpretation of the historical geography of this region in the Hittite period.

The Late Bronze Age picture in Inner Paphlagonia, then, is very much one of control or rather a systematic attempt at control. The fortified, strategically-located sites are not refuges or retreats but constitute a network of control, connected and reinforced by tracks and look-out posts, designed to facilitate movement, protection and provision of the Hittite army as it marched through the frontier into the dangerous enemy territory of the Pontic mountains. One of the most vivid landscape memories of this region is thus generated by the efforts of a great empire to impose its control over an unruly and troublesome neighbor on its northwestern frontier.

The First Millennium BCE: From Conflict to Pax Romana

Turning now to the first millennium BCE, there is no doubt that this region of Anatolia played an important role in the complex, shifting socio-politics of the time, but the precise




Who were the Kaska? The Kaska, as they are referred to in the Hittite-

language documents from the royal archives at Hattusha in central Anatolia, were a people made up of loosely-affiliated tribal groups who inhabited north central Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age. Although attested historically, the Kaska are virtually unknown archaeologically. Only the Hittite records of their depredations against the Empire and Hatti's subsequent invasions and struggles with them inform us about the threat that they represented throughout Hittite history.

We first encounter the Kaska in the reign of Hantili II (ca. 1450 BCE), when they captured the Hittite holy city of Nerik. Despite the fervent prayers of King Amnuwanda and his queen, Asmunikkal, the gods failed to restore the sacred city to Hittite control and, in the troubled reign of their son, Tudhalya III, the Kaska succeeded in sacking the Hittite capital.

The Hittites did not know how to deal with a people who had no leader and did not do battle in the traditional manner. Only once did the Kaska choose to unite under a single leader, Pihhuniya, who, to the Hittite's surprise,

"ruled in the manner of a king." Forced to keep one eye constantly on the north, the Hittite kings were severely impeded in their attempts to stabilize the Empire.

There were times when it seemed possible that a peaceful co-existence might be achieved. Hattusili, for example, who had been placed in charge of the northern territories, managed to harness Kaska support in the epic battle that his brother, Hittite King Muwatalli, fought at Kadesh against Ramesses II and the Egyptians. These same Kaska allies would prove invaluable in the civil war that a few years later would result in Hattusili's (III) usurpation of the throne of Hatti. Among Hattusili III's many achievements, his proudest may have been the restoration of the city of Nerik to Hittite control.

Such instances of cooperation were few and short- lived, however, and, weakened by internal political strife and years of widespread famine, the Hittites finally fell victim to the Kaska, who invaded the capital at Hattusha for the final time at the beginning of the twelfth century. Ultimately, all the precautions it had taken to ensure the security of the northern frontier did nothing to protect the Empire from its age-old nemesis.

Inscriptions in Greek and high-quality stone carving indicate the importance of this extensive hill-top site known

today as Asar Tepe, probably ancient Kimista, one of the few sites that attests the presence of the Mithridatic

kings of Paphlagonia, bitter enemies of Rome.

details of this role remain largely unclear. With the exception of certain enig- matic sites with Phrygian gray ware, often atop earlier Late Bronze Age sites, we lack significant quantities of identifiable Iron Age wares to enable us to associate fortified sites with this period. The region is too far north to participate in the Celtic Galatian world comprising sites and settlements in the Ankara region.6

There is one historical episode of the later first millennium BCE that was played out in this terrain, however, and that is a significant part of the interaction between the Pontic Mithridatic kings and the burgeoning power of Rome. Strabo (Geography 12.3.41) tells




In the early eighth century CE, Arab armies twice captured and sacked Gangra (modern (ankirn), and in the ensuing centuries, as north-central Anatolia became a highly contested and dangerous region, once more extensive fortifications were built at many places, as for example on the citadel at Gangra (green, forested area center-right of picture).

us about a place called "Cimiata, a strong fortress lying beneath the massif of Olgassys, which was used as a base by Mithridates the Founder when he became lord of Pontus," that is, in the late fourth century BCE. Previous studies of inscriptions had identified the location of Cimiata at a place now called Asar Tepe near the later Roman town of Caesarea-Hadrianopolis, modern Eskipazar, in the western reaches of our survey region.7 Asar Tepe is indeed an impressive site, sprawling over the summits of several adjacent peaks, with evidence for large-scale terracing and high-class stone carving. This is a site located and built for defense, difficult of access, but also able to control the major north-south and east-west routes that run below its wooded slopes.

The Mithridatic Wars ended with the death of Mithridates the Great in 63 BCE, after a period of some 250 years during which the Mithridatic kings had ruled in Paphlagonia and beyond.8 Apart from Asar Tepe, its archaeological traces are extremely elusive, but we may pause here to consider the impact on settlement of the process of Roman absorption of Asia Minor in subsequent centuries and the eventual imposition of a pax Romana. Where, a thousand years earlier, the Hittites had failed to subdue their own enemy in the mountains, the Romans succeeded with theirs. The impact was immense and, in archaeological terms, shows itself as a broad spread of human settlement across the entire landscape, even in remote areas not since settled, coupled with an increased hierarchy of settlement

characterized by a top level of a few small cities, including Gangra-Germanicopolis (modern Qankiri), Antoninopolis and Caesareia-Hadrianopolis. Below this level we find traces of towns, villages, hamlets and isolated farmsteads, all Roman. This pattern of widespread settlement across the landscape, reaching areas that were not previously settled, provides convincing evidence of a new era of peace and security during the Roman imperial period.

A Landscape of Terror: The Late Byzantine and Early Turkish Periods, ca. 700-1350 CE

Such a state of affairs could not last forever and with the transformation of the Roman into the Byzantine Empire and the increasing scope for conflict with neighbors to the east, major changes were underway. Maps showing the extent of the Byzantine Empire through time reveal the diminution of that empire and, at the same time, the increasing significance, once more, of Paphlagonia as a frontier zone of empire.9 Already in the early eighth century CE, Arab armies twice captured and sacked Gangra-Qankiri, and it is clear that it was during this period and for several centuries thereafter that the main episode of fortification building took place, as archaeologically attested today. During the last centuries of the Byzantine Empire, in particular, as early Turkish communities advanced steadily westwards, culminating in the fall of Constantinople in 1453 CE, the entire region of north-central Anatolia became




The largest of the low-lying fortified Byzantine sites is Kurgunlu, above the modern town of that name. This site has impressive, thick dry-stone walls in a rectangular plan with probably square bastions at intervals. There are many traces of collapsed buildings in the interior of this major Middle-Late Byzantine fortified site.

Bozo!lu is situated with a commanding view along the 4erkes valley, with significant quantities of Late Byzantine pottery and walls of

dry-stone construction.




The stone refuge at Yalakqukur6ren has been adapted for use as a sheep-pen in modern times, but its original plan is still visible.

The most remote of our hilltop refuge sites is that of Gavur Kale, sitting on a small but steep summit high above the Devrez river. There was almost no pottery in the interior but a single painted handle suggests a Late Byzantine date.




This Turkish shepherd stands against a backdrop of abandoned field systems. Like much of rural

Turkey, this area is undergoing massive depopulation at the moment as people move to the big cities of Turkey and beyond. Similar episodes of rural abandonment clearly occurred in the past as well.

a highly contested and dangerous region. An architecture of terror became the standard response, characterized by remote, fortified refuge sites that were built on hilltops and mountains throughout the land.

Given the brevity of their use as settlements, for they were not designed for long-term residence, these sites yield little

in the way of cultural material and are therefore difficult to date. Many of them, however, do have thin spreads of pottery of typical late Byzantine type. As to construction techniques, they comprise both rough dry-stone walling and stone walls fixed with mortar. Narrow gateways and bastions at regular intervals are common features of these sites, providing maximum defensive capability against an attacking army. Only a sample of these hilltop sites was investigated during Project Paphlagonia. Almost every remote summit in the region, as elsewhere in central Anatolia, hosts at least a small fortified refuge and often something rather grander.

All these refuge sites were clearly sited for good visibility along approach routes, but also for remoteness and difficulty of access. Some of them may never have been used for the purpose for which they were intended. But some do show traces of burning, in the form of extensive spreads of ash in and around them, and there are indications of deliberate slighting of fortification walls, not possible to date on current evidence of course. These sites would certainly not have been suitable for resisting a long-term siege by a determined army.

Landscape of Control, Landscape of Terror

With these three case studies, the fragile empire of the Hittites in the Late Bronze Age, the powerful Roman Empire, and the progressively collapsing empire of Byzantium, we see very different responses to a major threat in a frontier zone. Why should the responses be so different? The answer lies in the nature of power and the desire and ability to exercise power. The Hittites could not afford to abandon this region, close as it was to their capital at Hattusa 120 kilometers

away, for to do so would leave the capital wide open to attack from the north. An in-depth systematic defense of the northern frontier was thus a cornerstone in the very survival of the Hittite empire for the few centuries of its existence. All the evidence, historical and archaeological, argues for a major imperial input into the construction and maintenance of a landscape




of control in this region in the Late Bronze Age, involving a strategic network of sites, tracks, and lookout posts.

In the case of the Roman Empire, the situation is totally different. Unlike the Hittites, the Romans did succeed, through the Mithridatic Wars, in pacifying the mountain peoples of this region and thus were able to replace a military framework with a peaceful one, in the form of the foundation of new cities (Gangra- Germanicopolis, Antoninopolis, Caesareia- Hadrianopolis) and the dispersal of rural settlement. In these circumstances the locals bought into the Roman value system to everyone's benefit. The pax Romana survived for several centuries, until the arrival in the Byzantine period of new invaders, Arabs and Turks, upset the delicate settlement balance and the landscape reverted once more to an arena for conflict.

For Byzantium, the region of Paphlagonia never assumed the vital and strategic importance it held for the Hittites. Indeed many texts show how the elite of Constantinople and other urban areas regarded Paphlagonia as something of a backwater, a place suitable for the exile of religious dissidents, a source of good bacon and eunuchs. Once under threat from outside, there was little imperial interest in assisting with defense, apart from the occasional military campaign.1o The locals were on their own. Their response, over approximately half a millennium of recurrent terror, was to take to the hills and build their fortified retreats as best they could. After about 1350 CE, the landscape had changed once more, the victors settled in the plains and valleys, and many of the hilltop fortified sites found a new use as pens for flocks of sheep and cattle herded by their Turkish-speaking masters.

" 4 the elite of Constantinople and other urban areas regarded Paphlagonia as something of a backwater, a place suitable for the exile of religious dissidents, a source of good bacon and eunuchs. I

ABOSUTUGTHEIAUT[HOR

Roger Matthews is a lecturer in the archaeology of Western Asia at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. He was Director of the British Schools of Archaeogy in both Baghdad and Turkey and has directed excavations and surveys in Iraq, Turkey and Syria. His recent publications include The Early Prehistory of Mesopotamia and The Archaeology of Mesopotamia: Theories and Approaches. Roger Ma s

Notes 1. I gratefully acknowledge the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara for funding assistance throughout the duration of Project Paphlagonia. This article is an expanded version of a paper delivered at the annual

American Schools of Oriental Research meeting in San Antonio, Texas, November 17-20, 2004. I am grateful to Sharon Steadman for inviting me to that conference and to the Samuel H. Kress Foundation for covering travel costs. 2. Matthews (2000). 3. Bryce (1998: 49-50). 4. Di6nmez (2002: 244). 5. Forlanini (1977: 202-3). 6. Strobel (2002: 35-36). 7. Kaygusuz (1984: 69). 8. Mitchell (2002: 48) 9. Treadgold (1997: 635). 10. Crow (1996: 17).

References Bryce, T

1998 The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Oxford University. Crow, J.

1996 Alexios Komnenos and Kastamon: Castles and Settlement in Middle Byzantine Paphlagonia. Pp. 12-36 in Alexios I Komnenos I Papers, edited by M. Mullett and D. Smythe, Belfast: Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations.

Dinmez, S. 2002 The 2nd Millennium B.C.E. Settlements in Samsun and

Amasya Provinces, Central Black Sea Region, Turkey. Ancient West and East 1: 243-93.

Forlanini, M. 1977 EAnatolia Nordoccidentale Nell'Impero Eteo. Studi Micenei

ed Egeo-Anatolici 18: 197-225. Kaygusuz, I.

1984 Inscriptions of Kimistene (Paphlagonia). Epigraphica Anatolica 4: 69-72.

Matthews, R. 2000 Time With the Past in Paphlagonia. Pp. 1013-27 in Proceedings

of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Rome, May 18th-23rd 1998, edited by P. Matthiae, A. Enea, L. Peyronel and E Pinnock. Rome: Herder.

Mitchell, S. 2002 In Search of the Pontic Community in Antiquity. Proceedings

of the British Academy 114: 35-64. Strobel, K.

2002 State Formation by the Galatians of Asia Minor. Anatolica 28: 1-46.

Treadgold, W 1997 A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University.




Documents

Landscapes of Terror and Control: Imperial Impacts in Paphlagonia