Pessinus and Its Regional Setting. Volume 2: Work in 2009-2013 (Colloquia Antiqua) 9042936665, 9789042936669

Citation preview

Pessinus and Its Regional Setting Volume 2 Work in 2009–2013

Edited by Gocha R. Tsetskhladze

PEETERS

PESSINUS AND ITS REGIONAL SETTING VOLUME

2

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA SupplementstotheJournalANCIENTWEST&EAST

SERIES EDITOR

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE (UK) EDITORIAL BOARD

A. Avram (Romania/France), Sir John Boardman (UK), J. Hargrave (UK), M. Kazanski (France), A. Mehl (Germany), A. Podossinov (Russia), N. Theodossiev (Bulgaria), J. Wiesehöfer (Germany) ADVISORY BOARD

S. Atasoy (Turkey), L. Ballesteros Pastor (Spain), J. Bouzek (Czech Rep.), S. Burstein (USA), J. Carter (USA), B. d’Agostino (Italy), J. de Boer (The Netherlands), A. Domínguez (Spain), A. Kuhrt (UK), Sir Fergus Millar (UK), J.-P. Morel (France), M. Pearce (UK), D. Potts (USA), A. Rathje (Denmark), R. Rollinger (Austria), A. Snodgrass (UK), M. Sommer (Germany), D. Stronach (USA), M. Tiverios (Greece), C. Ulf (Austria), J. Vela Tejada (Spain)

ColloquiaAntiquais a refereed publication

For proposals and editorial and other matters, please contact the Series Editor: Gocha R. Tsetskhladze The Gallery Spa Road Llandrindod Wells Powys LD1 5ER UK E-mail: [email protected]

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA ————— 22 —————

PESSINUS AND ITS REGIONAL SETTING Volume 2 Work in 2009–2013

Edited by

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2019

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-3666-9 eISBN 978-90-429-3852-6 D/2019/0602/25 © 2019, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval devices or systems, without prior written permission from the publisher, except the quotation of brief passages for review purposes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface – GochaR.Tsetskhladze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XXXV

CHAPTER 1 

The Melbourne Project at Pessinus (2009–2013): An Overview GochaR.Tsetskhladze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

CHAPTER 2 

On Pessinus in Pre-Hellenistic Times GochaR.Tsetskhladze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

CHAPTER 3

Fortifications at Pessinus: A Window on the Creation of a Late Roman City PaoloMaranzana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

Ground Survey in Pessinus and its Periphery: First Observations WilliamAnderson,DamjanKrsmanovicand MichelleNegusCleary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

131

Pessinus – Advanced GPR Processing 2010–2011. Geophysical Survey Report ArminSchmidt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

171

Pottery from the Pessinus Excavations (2013) CristinaMondin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

223

The Coins of Pessinus (2009–2011 EdwardDandrow (with JasonAdams and RobertWeiland) . . . . . . . . . . . .

277

The ‘Wool Basket’ Stelai from Pessinus: Relics of a Lost Landscape JaneMasséglia and SimonYoung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

293

CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER 8

VI

CHAPTER 9

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Church Architectural Stones at Pessinus AndrewMadden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

321

New Inscriptions from Pessinus and the Neighbouring Area AlexandruAvram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

351

New Doorstones from Pessinus AlexandruAvram and SuzanaAvram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

383

Pessinus: 2013 Field Season Report GochaR.Tsetskhladze and team members . . . . . . . . . . .

411

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

687

CHAPTER 10

CHAPTER 11

CHAPTER 12

PREFACE

This is the second of the two-volume publication of PessinusandItsRegional Setting. While the first volume focused in the main on the archaeology and ancient history of the region surrounding Pessinus and the background to the cult of Cybele, this one (as foreshadowed there) concentrates on the work and main results of the Melbourne project at Pessinus between 2009 and 2013, concluding with a detailed final report of the 2013 season (hitherto unpublished). The same illustrations are repeated on a number of occasions (as in the field report), and the chapter headings may also echo those in the field report. The report was written in the two months following the 2013 season for submission to the Turkish authorities and has here been updated and edited for publication. It demonstrates our primary thoughts on what we had achieved. The other chapters stand back and embody further research. As in volume I, illustrations are grouped at the end of each chapter. The repetition of particular images, just as in volume 1, is for ease of reference: everything referred to is together; there is no need to hunt from chapter to chapter. This volume contains a list of abbreviations for both volumes and a combined index. It is hoped that the two volumes give a clearer idea of Pessinus than we had before. From the outset the questions posed by the Melbourne team differed from Ghent’s. We were more interested in the extent of the city – opening up new trenches to see what was happening on the outskirts, deploying intensive geophysical studies and surveys (not only in Pessinus but in Tekören as well), investigating the Late Roman/Early Byzantine fortification system, etc. It is all but impossible to excavate Pessinus because it lies beneath the modern village of Ballıhisar. Hence the concentration by the Melbourne team on the outskirts (where land is in public ownership). Finally, my thanks go to the authors and to all team members who participated between 2009 and 2013, to the Ghent team for introducing me to Pessinus, to Peeters our publishers, and to James Hargrave for his help with copy-editing and indexing this volume. Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE Series Editor

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Illustrations without attribution come from the Pessinus excavation archive. CHAPTER 1 (Tsetskhladze 1) Fig. 1.

Location of Pessinus (map: W. Anderson).

Fig. 2. Map of Pessinus showing sectors excavated by Ghent University (courtesy, Ghent team). Fig. 3.

Aerial view of the temple and sectors B and H (courtesy, Ghent team).

Fig. 4.

General plan of Pessinus (A. Schmidt).

Fig. 5.

Map showing location of Bağlar in relation to Pessinus (A. Schmidt).

Fig. 6.

Drawing of entablature block (S. Avram).

Fig. 7. Map showing locations of Tekören and Hamamtepe in relation to Pessinus (A. Schmidt). Fig. 8.

Division of surveyed fields in Tekören (A. Schmidt).

Fig. 9.

Pessinus’s defensive system (A. Schmidt).

Fig. 10. Plan of sector S (A. Schmidt). Fig. 11. Map showing locations of Gediközü and Sarıkuş in relation to Pessinus (S.J. Young). Fig. 12. Plan of Hamamtepe (A. Schmidt). CHAPTER 2 (Tsetskhladze 2) Fig. 1.

Map of Pessinus. Trenches indicated by capital letters (A. Schmidt).

Fig. 2.

Prehistoric chert blade, sector P (after Krsmanovic 2018, fig. 92).

Fig. 3. Prehistoric lithics from the spring area, south of the temple (after Krsmanovic 2018, fig. 93). Fig. 4.

Fragment of neck of Hittite jug (courtesy, Ghent team).

Fig. 5.

Drawing of fragment of neck of Hittite jug (drawing by C. Mondin).

Fig. 6.

Map of Hittite Lower Lands (courtesy, M. Bilge Baştürk).

Fig. 7.

Plan of sectors B and H (courtesy, A. Verlinde).

Fig. 8.

Phrygian fibula (courtesy, Ghent team).

X

Fig. 9.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Pottery from pit 25 (courtesy, Ghent team).

Fig. 10. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 11. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 12. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 13. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 14. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 15. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 16. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 17. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 18. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 19. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 20. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 21. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 22. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 23. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 24. Iron Age polychrome style pottery, pit/hearth 24, trench B2 (after Krsmanovic 2018, fig. 15). Fig. 25. Drawing of Iron Age polychrome style pottery, pit/hearth 24, trench B2 (drawing by C. Mondin). Fig. 26. Phrygian wall in sector H4 (photograph by author). Fig. 27. Sectors B and H citadel ‘phase 1’ and Phrygian features (after Verlinde 2010, 115, fig. 6). Fig. 28. Map of Pessinus. Approximate extent of Late Phrygian settlement coloured red (drawing by M. Negus Cleary). Fig. 29. Map of Pessinus. Area of Roman Pessinus coloured blue (drawing by M. Negus Cleary). Fig. 30. Map indicating location of Tekören and Hamamtepe in relation to Pessinus (A. Schmidt). Fig. 31. Tekören. Surveyed fields (A. Schmidt). Fig. 32. Tekören. Geophysical study showing remains of buildings buried in field C (A. Schmidt). Fig. 33. Plan of Hamemtepe. Rock-cut feature in centre of settlement coloured blue (A. Schmidt).

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XI

Fig. 34. Hamamtepe. Remains of fortification wall (photograph by author). Fig. 35. Tekören. Altar (photograph by author). Fig. 36. Tekören. Tomb (photograph by author). Fig. 37. Tekören. Basin (photograph by author). Fig. 38. Hamamtepe. Rock-cut feature in centre of settlement (photograph by author). Fig. 39. Hamamtepe. Pottery from looted tomb (photograph by author). Table 1. Prehistoric Pessinus. Table 2. Hittite occupation evidence. Table 3. Phrygian occupation evidence. Table 4. Phrygian monuments and settlements in the vicinity of Ballıhisar/Pessinus. CHAPTER 3 (Maranzana) Fig. 1.

Map of excavated sectors at Pessinus (after Tsetskhladze 2013, 45, fig. 5).

Fig. 2.

Sector B. Hellenistic citadel (after Tsetskhladze 2013, 47, fig. 7).

Fig. 3. fig. 5).

Sector I. Late Roman/Early Byzantine citadel (after Tsetskhladze 2013, 45,

Fig. 4.

Map of Anatolia (after Dally and Ratté 2011, 1, fig. 1).

Fig. 5.

Map of region around Pessinus (after Young 2017, 513, fig. 75).

Fig. 6. The church is located in F084, on the western fringes of the city (after Tsetskhladze 2013, 45, fig. 5). Fig. 7.

Plan of Pessinus in the eyes of Texier.

Fig. 8.

Photograph of plateau of church F084 (photograph by author).

Fig. 9.

Map of possible watchtowers (after Tsetskhladze 2013, 52, fig. 8).

Fig. 10. Map of Mylasa and its territory (after Rumscheid 1999, 209, fig. 3). Fig. 11. F085. Geophysical prospection (after Tsetskhladze 2013, 54, fig. 12). Fig. 12. Sector S. Geophysical prospection (after Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2012, 333, fig. 3). Fig. 13. Photograph of Sivrihisar Mountains to the east (photograph by author). Fig. 14. Photograph of the plateau, etc. Sector S showing the crest (photograph by author). Fig. 15. Sector S. Excavated trenches. Fig. 16. Sector S. Plan of the tower (drawing by J. Adams, G. Cranenburgh and S.J. Young).

XII

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 17. Sector S. Wall no. 2 (photograph by author). Fig. 18. Sector S. Wall no. 4 (photograph by author). Fig. 19. Section S. Wall no. 4, details of the masonry (photograph by author). Fig. 20. Sector S. Stone feature no. 3 (photograph by author). Fig. 21. Sector S. Detail of the joints between wall no. 2 and stone feature no. 3 (photograph by author). Fig. 22. Sector S. Stone feature no. 1 (photograph by author). Fig. 23. Sector S. Stone feature no. 4 (photograph by author). Fig. 24. Resafa. Plan of the defensive wall (after Hof 2010 243, fig. 9). Fig. 25. Resafa. Detail of the masonry (after Hof 2009, 815, fig. 2). Fig. 26. Sector S. Stone feature no. 5 (photograph by author). Fig. 27. Sector S. Sondage 4 (photograph by author). Fig. 28. Sector S. Sondage 4. Detail of the masonry (photograph by author). Fig. 29. Sector S. Wall no. 1 (photograph by author). Fig. 30. Sector S. Wall no. 3 (photograph by author). Fig. 31. Sector S. Wall no. 1. Heavily robbed section of the wall (photograph by author). Fig. 32. Sector S. Wall no. 1. Details of the masonry (photograph by author). Fig. 33. Sector S. Context 23 (photograph by author). Fig. 34. Sector S. Context 9 (photograph by author). Fig. 35. Sector S. Context 24 (photograph by author). Fig. 36. Sector S. Remains of the southern wall of the tower (photograph by author). Fig. 37. Sector S. Late Roman plate. Fig. 38. Sector S. Ruts left on the floor surface (photograph by author). Fig. 39. Sector S. Trench 2 (photograph by author). Fig. 40. Sector S. Sondage 3 (photograph by author). Fig. 41. Sector S. Sondage 3. Context 7 (photograph by author). Fig. 42. Sector S. Sondage 3. Context 11 (photograph by author). Fig. 43. Sector S. Sondage 3. Context 11, detail of the mortar (photograph by author). Fig. 44. Sector S. Sondage 1. Grave-goods from a cremation burial (after Tsetskhladze etal. 2015, 116, fig. 5). Fig. 45. Sector S. General photograph of grave in sondage 4 (photograph by author).

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XIII

Fig. 46. Pessinus. Map of the cemeteries around the city. F132 (sector S) and East Necropolis 3 (after Tsetskhladze 2013 50, fig. 9). Fig. 47. Gordion. Bustum-type grave (after Goldman 2016, 159, fig. 9.8). Fig. 48. Sector S. Late Roman jug. Fig. 49. Sector S. Fragments of Seljuk pottery. Fig. 50. Sector S. Late Roman rim. Fig. 51. Sector S. Dish with Christian subject. Fig. 52. Sector S. Plate with relief decoration. Fig. 53. Sector S. Coin of Constantius II (AD 337–361) (after Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2012, 347, fig. 38). Fig. 54. Sector S. Follis of Justin II (AD 565–578) (after Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2012, 347, fig. 39). Fig. 55. Byzantine houses (photograph by author). Fig. 56. Sector D. Plan of the main thoroughfare (after Young 2017, 512, fig. 75). CHAPTER 4 (Anderson, Krsmanovic and NegusCleary) Fig. 1.

Map of the Pessinus region.

Fig. 2.

Map of Pessinus showing recorded features.

Fig. 3.

Map of Roman road recorded north of Pessinus.

Fig. 4. Well-preserved stretch of Roman road north of Pessinus, with Sivrihisar in the distance. Fig. 5. Ridge and valley north of Ballıhisar (F001), possible entry route of Roman road into Pessinus. Fig. 6. Map of Pessinus showing excavation trenches, recorded cemeteries, fortifications and hypothetical extent of the Roman city. Fig. 7.

North side of Ballıhisar village, facing north-west, with labelled features.

Fig. 8.

Ballıhisar village, facing south along the Gallos channel (sector D).

Fig. 9. north.

Gallos valley north of Pessinus, route of the city’s main water supply, facing

Fig. 10. Fields in open valley south of Pessinus, facing north. Fig. 11. Finely carved marble block beside road south of Pessinus (F154). Fig. 12. Iron spear tip from valley south-west of Ballıhisar (F039); photograph of the find-spot (above) and drawing (below). Fig. 13. Terracotta sarcophagus fragments on slope south-west of Ballıhisar (F164).

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XIV

Fig. 14. Recently vandalised feature on East Cemetery 2 (F124). Fig. 15. Earthworks and artefacts on hill north-east of Pessinus, possible fortification (F084, Fort D’melle). CHAPTER 5 (Schmidt) (all illustrations by author) Fig. 1.

Sector S, depth slice at 0.4 m.

Fig. 2.

Sector S, depth slice at 1.1 m.

Fig. 3.

Sector S, depth slice at 1.4 m.

Fig. 4.

Sector S, depth slice at 1.7 m.

Fig. 5.

Sector S, showing the location of gaps and blocks in the 3D data.

Fig. 6.

Sector S, gap in eastern wall [P13d].

Fig. 7. Sector S, first two weaker sections in the eastern wall, at its northern end. The gap (see above) is visible to the south (i.e. left) of them. Fig. 8. Sector S, all three weaker sections of the eastern wall. Two to the north (right), then the gap, and one more to the south (left). Fig. 9.

Sector S, opening in eastern side of north-east bastion [P13e].

Fig. 10. Sector S, rectangular heap, north-west of the north-east bastion. Fig. 11. South of temple, depth slice at 0.2 m. Fig. 12. South of temple, depth slice at 0.6 m. Fig. 13. South of temple, depth slice at 0.8 m. Fig. 14. South of temple, depth slice at 1.0 m. Fig. 15. South of temple, major anomalies. Fig. 16. South of temple, all anomalies. North-western anomalies to the left, southeastern to the right. Fig. 17. South of temple, north-western anomalies. Fig. 18. South of temple, south-eastern anomalies. Fig. 19. East Cemetery 2, overview with illicit excavations and GPR survey area. Fig. 20. East Cemetery 2, overview with illicit excavations (including the assigned survey labels) and GPR survey area. Fig. 21. East Cemetery 2, depth slice at 0.4 m. Fig. 22. East Cemetery 2, depth slice at 0.6 m. Fig. 23. East Cemetery 2, depth slice at 0.8 m. Fig. 24. East Cemetery 2, depth slice at 1.0 m.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XV

Fig. 25. East Cemetery 2, depth slice at 1.5 m. Fig. 26. East Cemetery 2, three types of anomalies in map-view. Fig. 27. East Cemetery 2, three types of anomalies, view from north. Fig. 28. East Cemetery 2, view from west. Fig. 29. East Cemetery 2, view from west of feature P18a with depth slices showing from Levels 1–5 downwards (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.5 m), demonstrating the variation of the feature’s shape with depth. Fig. 30. East Cemetery 2, anomalies of different types. Fig. 31. East Cemetery 2, schematic visualisation of the depth ranges of anomalies of the three different types (red A, green B, yellow C). Fig. 32. East Cemetery 2, anomalies of different types and structural remains of illicit excavations with 0.1 m contour lines. Fig. 33. Bağlar, depth slice at 0.6 m. Fig. 34. Bağlar, depth slice at 0.7 m. Fig. 35. Bağlar, depth slice at 0.8 m. Fig. 36. Bağlar, depth slice at 1.0 m. Fig. 37. Bağlar, anomalies of different types. Fig. 38. Bağlar, view from east. Fig. 39. Bağlar, view from south. Fig. 40. Tekören. Field C, view from south. Fig. 41. Tekören. Field C, depth slice at 0.5 m. Fig. 42. Tekören. Field C, depth slice at 0.8 m. Fig. 43. Tekören. Field C, depth slice at 0.9 m. Fig. 44. Tekören. Field C, depth slice at 1.2 m. Fig. 45. Tekören. Field C, interpretation of anomalies. Fig. 46. Tekören. Field C, hypothetical structural units. Fig. 47. Tekören. Field C, GPR results and ceramics counts (2010). Table 1. Description of advanced processing parameters. Table 2. Advanced processing parameters for all sites. CHAPTER 6 (Mondin) Fig. 1.

Typology of materials collected during the 2013 sector S excavation.

Fig. 2.

Hypothetical chronology of the Pessinus diagnostic pottery sherds.

Fig. 3.

Brick fabrics.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XVI

Fig. 4. Late Roman/Early Byzantine sherds from sector S, trench 1A (drawings by author). Fig. 5. Late Roman/Early Byzantine sherds from sector S, trench 1A (drawings by author). Fig. 6. Late Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine pottery from sector S, trench 1A (drawings by C. Mondin and L. Hysi). Fig. 7.

Sondage 1: pottery from grave (drawings by S.M. Stewart).

Fig. 8.

Sarıkuş Mevkiinde: objects from grave (drawings by author).

Fig. 9.

Sarıkuş Mevkiinde: pottery from grave (drawings by author).

Fig. 10. Sarıkuş Mevkiinde: pottery from grave (drawings by author). Fig. 11. Gediközü Sarıkuş: pottery from grave (drawings by author). Fig. 12. Pottery from 2010 and 2011 excavations (drawings by author). Fig. 13. Lamp from Early Byzantine houses: sector R, 2010 excavation (drawings by author). Appendix 1. Late Roman/Early Byzantine contexts. CHAPTER 7 (Dandrow) Fig. 1.

Cat. 2009/1: obverse and reverse.

Fig. 2.

Cat. 2010/1: obverse and reverse.

Fig. 3.

Cat. 2010/2: obverse and reverse.

Fig. 4.

Cat. 2010/3: obverse and reverse.

Fig. 5.

Cat. 2010/4: obverse and reverse.

Fig. 6.

Cat. 2010/6: obverse and reverse.

Fig. 7.

Cat. 2010/7: obverse and reverse.

Fig. 8.

Cat. 2010/8: obverse and reverse.

Fig. 9.

Cat. 2010/10: obverse and reverse.

Fig. 10. Cat. 2010/11: obverse and reverse. Fig. 11. Cat. 2010/12. Fig. 12. Cat. 2010/13: obverse and reverse. Fig. 13. Cat. 2010/14: obverse and reverse. Fig. 14. Cat. 2010/15: obverse and reverse. Fig. 15. Cat. 2010/16: obverse and reverse.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XVII

Fig. 16. Cat. 2010/18: obverse and reverse. Fig. 17. Cat. 2010/19: obverse and reverse. Fig. 18. Cat. 2010/20: obverse and reverse. Fig. 19. Cat. 2010/21: obverse and reverse. Fig. 20. Cat. 2010/22: obverse and reverse. Fig. 21. Cat. 2010/23: obverse and reverse. Fig. 22. Cat. 2010/24: obverse and reverse. Fig. 23. Cat. 2010/25. Fig. 24. Cat. 2010/26: obverse and reverse. Fig. 25. Cat. 2010/27: obverse and reverse. Fig. 26. Cat. 2011/1: obverse and reverse. Fig. 27. Cat. 2011/2: obverse and reverse. Fig. 28. Cat. 2011/3: obverse and reverse. Fig. 29. Cat. 2011/4: obverse and reverse. CHAPTER 8 (Masséglia and Young) Fig. 1. Stele for the daughter of Markos Antonios Ioustos and Preima Iou[s]tē. Unwreathed basket type. First half of the 2nd century AD. Pessinus, inv. no. 88.8 (after Strubbe 2005, no. 94; Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 2003, 123, 203–04, figs. 5.1 and 106). Fig. 2. Stele for Magia Prokle. Unwreathed basket type. First half of 2nd century AD. Pessinus, inv. no. 96.3 (after Strubbe 2005, no. 104). Fig. 3. Stele for Tertia. Short, unwreathed basket type. 3rd century AD. Pessinus, inv. no. 13.2 (after Tsetskhladze etal. 2015, 110, no. 2). Fig. 4. Doorstone relief in Dig House garden, surrounded by biographical props, including wool basket (left), mirror and spindle (right). Second half of 2nd/3rd century AD. Pessinus, inv. no. 98.7 (after Waelkens 1986, no. 775). Fig. 5. Doorstone in Dig House garden with wool basket and comb in lower panels. Pessinus, inv. no. A60 (after Tsetskhladze etal. 2012, 326, figs. 38–39). Fig. 6. Tall naiskos stele from Rhodes. Marble. 0.116 m × 0.555 m × 0.405 m. 3rd century AD. Rhodes Archaeological Museum (after E. Pfuhl and H. Möbius, Die ostgriechischenGrabreliefs[Mainz 1977], inv. no. 2318). Fig. 7. Stele for Ailia. Wreathed basket with comb, spindles and mirror. 2nd century AD. Pessinus, inv. no. 10.4 (after Tsetskhladze etal. 2012, 326, figs. 38–39).

XVIII

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 8. Variant of wreathed basket type, with fleur-de-lys pediment. Pessinus, inv. no. 97.15. Fig. 9. Upper section of naiskos stele, with scroll-pattern frieze. Pessinus, inv. nos. 73.72 and A72. Fig. 10. Wreathed basket stele, with addition of arched pediment with badly worn chest bust. Height 0.84 m, width 0.54 m, depth 0.24 m. Unlabelled. North-east corner of Dig House garden. Fig. 11. Fragment of the architrave of a monumental building exhibiting a scrollpattern frieze and a poorly preserved inscription. Ca. 1st century AD. Length 0.25 m, height 0.63 m. Pessinus, inv. no. 09.1 (after Tsetskhladze et al. 2011, 344–46; Tsetskhladze 2013, 417, fig. 19). Fig. 12. Fragment of the architrave and frieze monumental building with a loose flowing scroll-pattern. Strongly reminiscent of dateable late 1st century BC/early 1st century AD parallels. Fig. 13. Fragment of Hadrianic monumental architecture from the orchestra of the theatre. Although badly worn, this frieze is clearly well organised, with a high relief treatment of the scroll pattern, and with an egg and dart moulding below. AD 117–138. Pessinus, inv. nos. A119 and 70.2 (after Strubbe 2005, no. 31). Fig. 14. Fragment of the architrave and frieze of a monumental building. It is similar to Fig. 11 in its regular treatment of the scroll-pattern frieze and high relief, emphasising light and shadow. Ca. 2nd century AD. Pessinus, inv. no. A134. Fig. 15. Early Imperial temple, tomb, sarcophagus and stelai. These drawings clearly demonstrate both the real comparative scale of these structures and objects, as well as the influence of temple architecture on funerary monuments. 1. Pessinus, narrow naiskos stele from a grave. Pessinus, inv. No. 88.8 (also see Fig. 1) (drawing by S. Young); 2. Balboura, sarcophagus from the East Tomb (after Cormack 2004, fig. 54); 3. Aizanoi, intramural temple-tomb (after Cormack 2004, fig. 20); 4. Aizanoi, temple of Artemis (after Jes 2002, fig. 5). Fig. 16. Smaller sarcophagi with a pitched roof. Pessinus, inv. no. A11a–b. Fig. 17. Smaller sarcophagi with a pitched roof. Pessinus, inv. no. A105. Fig. 18. Smaller sarcophagi with mock tiles and bevelled cornice. Pessinus, inv. no. 002. Fig. 19. The lion-topped doorstone to Asklepios Gallus and Menophanes. Pessinus, inv. no. A87 (after Waelkens 1986, 753). Fig. 20. Elaborate double doorstone of Philomela and her husband. Pessinus, inv. no. A88 (after Waelkens 1986, 768). Table 1. The corpus of ‘Wool-basket’ stelai in the Pessinus Dig House garden collection. Appendix 1. A sample of wool basket motifs from funerary reliefs in Pessinus and Eskişehir.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

CHAPTER 9 (Madden) (all illustrations by author) Fig. 1.

Architrave.

Fig. 2.

Architrave, detail of the decoration.

Fig. 3.

Architrave.

Fig. 4.

Closure panel.

Fig. 5.

Closure panel.

Fig. 6.

Baptismal font.

Fig. 7.

Baptismal font.

Fig. 8.

Dosseret.

Fig. 9.

Dosseret.

Fig. 10. Dosseret. Fig. 11. Dosseret. Fig. 12. Pilaster capital. Fig. 13. Pilaster capital. Fig. 14. Pilaster capital. Fig. 15. Column capital. Fig. 16. Column capital. Fig. 17. Column capital. Fig. 18. Column capital. Fig. 19. Lintel. Fig. 20. Lintel. Fig. 21. Lintel. Fig. 22. Lintel. Fig. 23. Lintel. CHAPTER 10 (A.Avram) (unless otherwise credited: all photographs by author; all drawings by S. Avram) Fig. 1.

No. 1. Stele of Maiphates, son of Anoptes.

Fig. 2.

No. 1. Detail of the inscription.

Fig. 3.

No. 1. Drawing.

XIX

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XX

Fig. 4.

No. 2. Stele of Zoe.

Fig. 5.

No. 2. Detail of the relief and the inscription.

Fig. 6.

No. 2. Stele of Zoe. Front and side views.

Fig. 7.

No. 3. Stele of Aelia Phil[ - ].

Fig. 8.

No. 3. Detail of the relief.

Fig. 9.

No. 3. Detail of the inscription.

Fig. 10. No. 3. Front, side and top views. Fig. 11. No. 4. Fragmentary funerary tombstone. Fig. 12. No. 4. Drawing. Fig. 13. No. 5. Stele of Tertia, Markos’s wife. Fig. 14. No. 5. Drawing. Fig. 15. No. 6. Fragmentary funerary tombstone in the wall of a modern house (Sivrihisar) (photograph by Simon Young). Fig. 16. No. 7. Christian inscription. Fig. 17. No. 7. Detail. Fig. 18. No. 8. Architrave. Fig. 19. No. 8. Drawing, inscribed side. Fig. 20. No. 8. Drawing, near side. Fig. 21. No. 8. Drawing, details (by S. Avram). Fig. 22. No. 9. Basin. Fig. 23. No. 9. Basin. Fig. 24. No. 9. Detail of the inscription. Fig. 25. Axonometric projection, side and top views. Fig. 26. No. 9. Section and side views. CHAPTER 11 (A.AvramandS.Avram) (all photographs by A. Avram; all drawings by S. Avram) Fig. 1.

Doorstone no. 1.

Fig. 2.

Doorstone no. 1. Detail of the inscription.

Fig. 3.

Doorstone no. 1.

Fig. 4.

Doorstone no. 2. Front view of the inscribed side.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 5.

Doorstone no. 2. View of the left side.

Fig. 6.

Doorstone no. 2. View of the right side.

Fig. 7.

Doorstone no. 2. Detail of the inscription.

Fig. 8.

Doorstone no. 2. Front (with inscription) and left views.

Fig. 9.

Doorstone no. 2. Axonometric projections.

Fig. 10. Doorstone no. 3. Fig. 11. Doorstone no. 3. Fig. 12. Doorstone no. 4. Fig. 13. Doorstone no. 4. Fig. 14. Doorstone no. 5. Fig. 15. Doorstone no. 6. Fig. 16. Doorstone no. 7. Fig. 17. Doorstone no. 8. Fig. 18. Doorstone no. 8. Fig. 19. Doorstone no. 9. Fig. 20. Doorstone no. 9. Fig. 21. Doorstone no. 10. Fig. 22. Doorstone no. 11. Fig. 23. Doorstone no. 12. Fig. 24. Doorstone no. 13. Fig. 25. Doorstone no. 14. CHAPTER 12 (Tsetskhladze 3) Fig. 1.

Team photograph, Pessinus 2013.

Fig. 2.

View of exposed wall.

Fig. 3.

Drawing of exposed wall.

Fig. 4.

View of the ditch.

Fig. 5.

Looting in the Eastern Necropolis.

Fig. 6.

Looting tomb in Hamamtepe.

Fig. 7.

Pottery from looted tomb at Hamamtepe.

Fig. 8.

Map indicating looted site not far from Tekören.

XXI

XXII

Fig. 9.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Piece of marble from looted site not far from Tekören.

Fig. 10. Piece of marble from looted site not far from Tekören. Fig. 11. Tomb inscription from looted site not far from Tekören. Fig. 12. Looters’ pit not far from Tekören. Fig. 13. Geophysical studies of 2010 revealing fortification system in sector S. Fig. 14. Sector S. Plan with trench 1A and sondages 1–4, 2013. Fig. 15. Sector S. Plan with trench 1A and sondages 1–4, 2013. Fig. 16. Sector S. Plan with trench 1A and sondages 1–4, 2013. Fig. 17. Sector S. Trenches 1 and 2 started in 2011. Fig. 18. Trench 1A before starting excavation in 2013. The area covered in stones is sector 1 of the 2011 excavations. Fig. 19. Drawing of architecture, trench 1A, sector S. Fig. 20. 3D drawing of balks, south-west (a) and north-east (b) views, trench 1A, sector S. Fig. 21. Drawing of the east balk (south side (a) and north side (b)), trench 1A, sector S. Fig. 22. Drawing of the south balk (south side (a) and north side (b)), trench 1A, sector S. Fig. 23. Drawing of the west balk (a) and north balk (b), trench 1A, sector S. Fig. 24. Drawing of wall 2 facing east (a) and west profile (b), trench 1A, sector S. Fig. 25. Drawing of top of wall 2, trench 1A, sector S. Fig. 26. Drawing of wall 3 south profile (a) and north profile (b), trench 1A, sector S. Fig. 27. Drawing of top of wall 3, trench 1A, sector S. Fig. 28. Drawing of wall 4 east profile (a) and north-east profile (b), trench 1A, sector S. Fig. 29. Drawing of wall 4 west profile, trench 1A, sector S. Fig. 30. Drawing of top of wall 4, trench 1A, sector S. Fig. 31. Wall no. 4, facing north. Fig. 32. Wall no. 4, facing east. Fig. 33. Wall no. 2, facing south. Fig. 34. Wall no. 3, facing south. Fig. 35. Wall no. 1 (trench 1 of 2011 excavations). Fig. 36. Wall no. 1 (trench 1 of 2011 excavations). Fig. 37. Wall no. 1 (trench 1 of 2011 excavations).

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 38. Stone feature no. 1, facing south. Fig. 39. Stone feature no. 2, facing west. Fig. 40. Stone feature no. 3, facing south. Fig. 41. Stone feature no. 4, facing west. Fig. 42. Stone feature no. 5, facing north-west. Fig. 43. Context 24 (floor), facing west. Fig. 44. Ruts on context 24, facing west. Fig. 45. Context 23 (floor), facing south. Fig. 46. Sondage 1, before excavation. Fig. 47. Sondage 1, at end of excavation. Fig. 48. Drawing of the east balk (a) and west balk (b), sondage 1, sector S. Fig. 49. Drawing of the south balk (a) and north balk (b), sondage 1, sector S. Fig. 50. Sondage 1 (grave-goods), facing east. Fig. 51. Sondage 1 (grave-goods and bones), facing south-east. Fig. 52. Plan of context 5, sector S, sondage 1. Fig. 53. Plan of context 6, sector S, sondage 1. Fig. 54. Sondage 2, before excavation. Fig. 55. Drawing of the east balk (a) and west balk (b), sondage 2, sector S. Fig. 56. Drawing of the south balk (a) and north balk (b), sondage 2, sector S. Fig. 57. Sondage 2 (deposit pit), facing north. Fig. 58. Sondage 3, before excavation. Fig. 59. Drawing of the east balk (a) and west balk (b), sondage 3, sector S. Fig. 60. Drawing of the south balk (a) and north balk (b), sondage 3, sector S. Fig. 61. Sondage 3, context 5, facing south-west. Fig. 62. Sondage 3, plan of contexts 3, 4 and 5. Fig. 63. Sondage 3, plan of context 4. Fig. 64. Sondage 3, contexts 7–11. Fig. 65. Sondage 3, context 7 and cross section of it. Fig. 66. Sondage 3, context 11 and cross section of it. Fig. 67. Sondage 3, context 23 (line of mortar), facing south-east.

XXIII

XXIV

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 68. Sondage 3, close up, context 11, facing north. Fig. 69. Sondage 4, before excavation. Fig. 70. Sondage 4, context 1. Fig. 71. Sondage 4, context 2. Fig. 72. Sondage 4, context 3. Fig. 73. Sondage 4, context 4. Fig. 74. Sondage 4, context 5. Fig. 75. Sondage 4, context 7. Fig. 76. Drawing of the east balk (a) and west balk (b), sondage 4, sector S. Fig. 77. Drawing of the south balk (a) and north balk (b), sondage 4, sector S. Fig. 78. Sondage 4, wall, facing east. Fig. 79. Sondage 4, brink collapse, facing west. Fig. 80. Location map of the Sarıkuş tomb and Gediközü. Fig. 81. Location map of the Sarıkuş tomb and Gediközü. Fig. 82. Location map of the Sarıkuş tomb. Fig. 83. Location map of the Sarıkuş tomb. Fig. 84. View to the hill where the Sarıkuş tomb is situated. Fig. 85. View to the hill where the Sarıkuş tomb is situated. Fig. 86. Plundered Sarıkuş tomb before excavation. Fig. 87. Plundered Sarıkuş tomb before excavation. Fig. 88. Plundered Sarıkuş tomb before excavation. Fig. 89. Plundered Sarıkuş tomb before excavation. Fig. 90. Plundered Sarıkuş tomb before excavation. Fig. 91. Plundered Sarıkuş tomb before excavation. Fig. 92. Process of excavating the tomb. Fig. 93. Process of excavating the tomb. Fig. 94. Process of excavating the tomb. Fig. 95. Process of excavating the tomb. Fig. 96. The exposed tomb, looking north. Fig. 97. The exposed tomb, looking south.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 98.

The exposed tomb, looking west.

Fig. 99.

Plan of the tomb.

XXV

Fig. 100. Drawing of the east balk. Fig. 101. Drawing of the west balk. Fig. 102. Drawing of the south balk. Fig. 103. Drawing of the north balk. Fig. 104. Slab no. 5 with two carved cupulae with handles. Fig. 105. Slab no. 5 with two carved cupulae with handles. Fig. 106. Drawing of slab no. 5 with two carved cupulae with handles. Fig. 107. Human bones in the tomb during excavation. Fig. 108. Human bones in the tomb during excavation. Fig. 109. Human bones in the tomb during excavation. Fig. 110. Human bones in the tomb during excavation. Fig. 111. Pottery from the tomb. Fig. 112. Bronze ring from the tomb. Fig. 113. Bronze ring from the tomb. Fig. 114. Iron ring from the tomb. Fig. 115. Location of Gediközü. Fig. 116. General view of the hill with looted graves at Gediközü from the looters’ pit. Fig. 117. Concentration of looted tombs. Fig. 118. Concentration of looted tombs. Fig. 119. Concentration of looted tombs. Fig. 120. The relation of looted tombs to each other. Fig. 121. The relation of looted tombs to each other. Fig. 122. Plan of graves at Gediközü. Fig. 123. Situation map of graves at Gediközü. Fig. 124. Grave 1, before excavation. Fig. 125. Grave 1, after excavation. Fig. 126. Grave 1, after excavation. Fig. 127. Grave 1.

XXVI

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 128. Grave 1, east wall. Fig. 129. Grave 1, west wall. Fig. 130. Grave 1, north wall. Fig. 131. Grave 1, south wall. Fig. 132. Grave 1, marble chips. Fig. 133. Grave 2. Fig. 134. Grave 2. Fig. 135. Grave 3, before excavation. Fig. 136. Grave 3, before excavation. Fig. 137. Grave 3, before excavation. Fig. 138. Grave 3, after excavation. Fig. 139. Grave 3. Fig. 140. Grave 3, east wall. Fig. 141. Grave 3, west wall. Fig. 142. Grave 3, north wall. Fig. 143. Grave 3, south wall. Fig. 144. Grave 4, before excavation. Fig. 145. Grave 4, after start of excavation. Fig. 146. Grave 4, after excavation. Fig. 147. Grave 4, after excavation. Fig. 148. Grave 4. Fig. 149. Grave 4, east wall. Fig. 150. Grave 4, west wall. Fig. 151. Grave 4, north wall. Fig. 152. Grave 4, south wall. Fig. 153. Grave 4, burnt inclusions. Fig. 154. Grave 4, some human skeletal remains. Fig. 155. Grave 4, some human skeletal remains. Fig. 156. Grave 5. Fig. 157. Grave 6.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXVII

Fig. 158. Looters’ pit. Fig. 159. Looters’ pit. Fig. 160. Location of surveyed area FO84 in relation to the modern village and Pessinus excavated areas. Fig. 161. Location of surveyed area FO84 in relation to the modern village and Pessinus excavated areas. FO84 is marked by points 101, 102 and 104. Fig. 162. FO84 survey units. Colours indicate quantity of pottery found in individual units. Fig. 163. FO84. Fragment of glass from survey. Fig. 164. FO84. Fragment of pottery from survey. Fig. 165. FO84. Fragment of pottery from survey. Fig. 166. FO84. Fragment of pottery from survey. Fig. 167. FO84. Fragment of pottery from survey. Fig. 168. FO84. Fragment of pottery from survey. Fig. 169. FO84. Fragment of pottery from survey. Fig. 170. FO84. Fragment of pottery from survey. Fig. 171. FO84. Fragment of pottery from survey. Fig. 172. FO84. Fragment of pottery from survey. Fig. 173. Scattered pottery sherds from F084. Fig. 174. Partially exposed aligned stones from F084. Fig. 175. Large marble pieces at F084. Fig. 176. Exposed cut marble from F084. Fig. 177. Exposed marble block from F084. Fig. 178. Scattered marble and pottery from F084. Fig. 179. Scattered marble and pottery from F084. Fig. 180. Tekören. Location of surveyed field D in relation to other fields surveyed in previous years. Fig. 181. Location of field D, showing the area surveyed. Fig. 182. Tekören field D survey units. Colours indicate quantity of pottery found in individual units. Fig. 183. Tekören field D. Fragment of glass. Fig. 184. Tekören field D. Fragment of pottery.

XXVIII

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 185. Tekören field D. Fragment of pottery. Fig. 186. Tekören field D. Fragment of pottery. Fig. 187. Tekören field D. Fragment of pottery. Fig. 188. Tekören field D. Fragment of pottery. Fig. 189. Tekören field D. Fragment of pottery. Fig. 190. Tekören field D. Fragment of pottery. Fig. 191. Map of Öz river and its valley, showing features surveyed. Fig. 192. Map of Öz river and its valley, showing features surveyed. Fig. 193. Map of Öz river and its valley, showing features surveyed. Fig. 194. Map of Öz river and its valley, showing features surveyed. Fig. 195. Map of Tekören and surrounding territories, showing extensive survey conducted in 2010 (with features). Fig. 196. Cemetery on northern slope of Mt Çal looking from edge of front terrace to south-east. Fig. 197. Stone markers on surface of cemetery. Fig. 198. Aligned stone markers facing south-west. Fig. 199. Stone markers on surface of cemetery. Fig. 200. Collapsed marble stones marking northern edge of terraced cemetery. Fig. 201. Marble collapse of northern edge facing south. Fig. 202. Marble collapse along north-east edge with stone markers below. Fig. 203. Carved embankment of Öz river. Fig. 204. Carved embankment of Öz river. Fig. 205. Terracing along north bank of Öz river. Fig. 206. Partly buried terrace wall on north bank of Öz river. Fig. 207. Reconstructed terrace wall with buried wall above on south bank. Fig. 208. Three terrace walls on south bank. Fig. 209. Partly exposed terrace wall in Öz river. Fig. 210. Buried terrace walls on south bank. Fig. 211. Terrace wall along south bank facing east. Fig. 212. Terrace wall along south bank facing west. Fig. 213. Modern reuse of terracing. Fig. 214. Looted tomb near farmstead.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXIX

Fig. 215. Looted tomb near farmstead. Fig. 216. Looted tomb with reused marble near farmstead. Fig. 217. Looted tomb with reused marble near farmstead. Fig. 218. Looted grave near farmstead. Fig. 219. Looted tomb with marble slabs. Fig. 220. Looted grave. Fig. 221. Looted tomb with large marble slab. Fig. 222. Boundary wall of possible second farmstead facing north-west. Fig. 223. Boundary wall of possible second farmstead facing west. Fig. 224. Boundary wall of possible second farmstead facing east. Fig. 225. Sector S – areas of GPR survey (data from Level 2) and excavation trenches shown over satellite image. Fig. 226. Sector S – areas of GPR survey (data from Level 2) and excavation trenches. Fig. 227. Sector S – GPR survey Level 1 (0.4 m). Fig. 228. Sector S – GPR survey Level 2 (0.6 m). Fig. 229. Sector S – GPR survey Level 3 (0.8 m). Fig. 230. Sector S – GPR survey Level 4 (1.0 m). Fig. 231. Sector S – GPR survey Level 5 (1.7 m). Fig. 232. Sector S – detailed view of Pes13h: (a) data; (b) interpretation of circular anomaly. Fig. 233. East Cemetery 2 – plateau with survey area and interpreted GPR anomalies. Fig. 234. East Cemetery 2 – survey area with interpreted GPR anomalies and location of looted tombs recorded during the extensive surveys of 2010 and 2011. Fig. 235. East Cemetery 2 – GPR survey Level 1 (0.4 m). Fig. 236. East Cemetery 2 – GPR survey Level 2 (0.6 m). Fig. 237. East Cemetery 2 – GPR survey Level 3 (0.8 m). Fig. 238. East Cemetery 2 – GPR survey Level 4 (1.0 m). Fig. 239. East Cemetery 2 – GPR survey Level 5 (1.5 m). Fig. 240. East Cemetery 2 – interpreted GPR anomalies and Level 4 data. Fig. 241. East Cemetery 2 – interpreted GPR anomalies. Fig. 242. East Cemetery 2 – interpreted GPR anomalies with labels. Fig. 243. Western platform – location of geophysical survey area in relation to Ballıhisar.

XXX

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 244. Western platform – earthwork survey and topographical data. Fig. 245. Western platform – earthwork survey, GPR data (Level 3) and topographical data. Fig. 246. Western platform – GPR survey Level 1 (0.5 m). Fig. 247. Western platform – GPR survey Level 2 (0.7 m). Fig. 248. Western platform – GPR survey Level 3 (1.2 m). Fig. 249. Western platform – GPR survey Level 4 (1.6 m). Fig. 250. Western platform – interpretation of GPR data. Fig. 251. Western platform – linear alignment of small patches of soil. Fig. 252. Tekören field C – location of total geophysical survey area within field C. Fig. 253. Tekören field C – GPR survey Level 1 (0.5 m). Fig. 254. Tekören field C – GPR survey Level 2 (0.7 m). Fig. 255. Tekören field C – GPR survey Level 3 (0.9 m). Fig. 256. Tekören field C – GPR survey Level 4 (1.2 m). Fig. 257. Tekören field C – overlap between (a) 2013 and (b) 2011 GPR data Level 2. Fig. 258. Tekören field C – Worldview satellite image of the GPR survey area. Fig. 259. Late Roman red slip ware (Pess09.R.F.4). Fig. 260. Ottoman storage vessel from context 36 (Pess.10.R.1.36.7). Fig. 261. Late Roman amphora from context 42 (Pess.10.R.1.42.7-12). Fig. 262. Red painted small jug. Fragments have been found in many contexts (2011– 2013). Fig. 263. Red slip ware dish. Fragments have been found in many contexts (2011–2013). Fig. 264. Red slip dish with rouletting decoration. Fig. 265. Coarse ware pan from the tomb context. Fig. 266. Late Hellenistic–Early Roman bowl. Fig. 267. Late Hellenistic–Early Roman bowl. Fig. 268. Brown painted oinochoe. Fig. 269. Lamp from the tomb context. Fig. 270. Iron weapon(?). Fig. 271. Brick with finger grooves. Fig. 272. Byzantine and/or Ottoman pottery. Fig. 273. Byzantine and/or Ottoman pottery.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXXI

Fig. 274. Red slip dish rim. Fig. 275. Mould-made dish base. Fig. 276. Mould-made sherd. Fig. 277. Cooking pot. Fig. 278. Red slip bowl. Fig. 279. ‘Megarian’ bowl. Fig. 280. Sigillata base with stamp. Fig. 281. Marble fragment from tombstone. Fig. 282. Marble fragment from tombstone. Fig. 283. Marble fragments from tombstones. Fig. 284. Hellenistic unguentarium with mortar. Fig. 285. Lamp. Gediközü, grave 4. Fig. 286. Lamp. Gediközü, grave 4. Fig. 287. Base of a Late Roman unguentarium(?). Gediközü, grave 4. Fig. 288. Metal ring. Sarıkuş tomb. Fig. 289. Metal ring. Sarıkuş tomb. Fig. 290. Late Roman/Early Byzantine red slip ware. Sarıkuş tomb. Fig. 291. Late Roman/Early Byzantine red slip ware. Sarıkuş tomb. Fig. 292. Late Roman/Early Byzantine red slip ware. Sarıkuş tomb. Fig. 293. Grey ware. Sarıkuş tomb. Fig. 294. Grey ware. Sarıkuş tomb. Fig. 295. Grey ware. Sarıkuş tomb. Fig. 296. Grey ware. Sarıkuş tomb. Fig. 297. Grey ware, coil made. Sarıkuş tomb. Fig. 298. Lower thoracic vertebrae with abnormal bone along anterior longitudinal ligament suggestive of DISH (diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis). Fig. 299. Radius showing the healed fracture line across the anterior portion of the distal articular surface. Fig. 300. Distal ulna with healed fracture to the radial articular surface and styloid process. Fig. 301. Proximal ulna with extensive arthritic lipping surrounding trochlear and radial notch surfaces.

XXXII

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 302. Right innominate with a well-healed fracture across the mid-section of the ischiopubic ramus; inset shows close view of healed fracture across anterior surface of ramus. Fig. 303. Eburnation grooves and arthritic lipping on the plantar surface of the distal first metatarsal. Fig. 304. Adult maxillary dentition with interproximal and CEJ caries, abscess of M1–M2 molars. Fig. 305. Examples of wear on adult molars: left, minimal wear on enamel; centre, wear to dentin; and right, wear through dentin to root of tooth. Fig. 306. Adult upper canine developmentally embedded in palate. Fig. 307. Occlusal and lingual surfaces of M1 molar from juvenile with ameliogenesis imperfecta, possibly indicative of osteogenesis imperfecta. Fig. 308. C2 vertebra with slight eburnation on anterior of dens shown on the left; on the right, C3 vertebra with osteoarthritic lipping and wear on superior articular facet. Fig. 309. Lower thoracic vertebra with abnormal bone growth under anterior longitudinal ligament, suggesting possible case of DISH. Fig. 310. C2 vertebra with severe lytic lesion formation that has completely remodelled the left superior articular facet. Fig. 311. Completely collapsed T3 vertebra with osteophyte formation. Fig. 312. Well-healed fracture of the lateral clavicle at the trapezius and deltoideus muscles attachment sites. Fig. 313. Osteoarthritic lipping in ‘mushroom’ form around the entire radial head of the right radius. Fig. 314. Distal radial articular surface with eburnation and arthritic lipping around the site of the healed fracture on the posterior surface. Fig. 315. Grooved eburnation on left distal ulna; detail of eburnation and healed fracture of styloid process on distal ulna shown on the right. Fig. 316. Scaphoid with eburnation on radial articular surface shown on the left; on the right, a trapezium with eburnation on MC2 articular surface. Fig. 317. Proximal phalanges of the hands shown in the centre exhibit the scooped appearance on the proximal ends and the related metacarpals, at the bottom, were embedded into the ends. The intermediate phalanx, shown at the top, also shares these same traits suggesting extensive rheumatoid arthritis in the hands of the individual. Fig. 318. Dorsal view of the left and right proximal phalanges of the MC1, with the right MC1 in anatomical position. The healed, bilateral angled ends of the proximal phalanges suggest that the distal phalanges were amputated. Fig. 319. Healed fracture to lower third of the fibula shaft and osteophyte bridging’ causing partial fusion to distal tibia; on the right is the detailed view of the healed fracture to the fibula.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXXIII

Fig. 320. Distal femur with grooved eburnation on the medial condyle surface and the posterior articular surface of the patella showing grooved eburnation from contact with the medial condyle of the femur. Fig. 321. Calcaneus with defined attachment site for extensor digitorum brevis. Fig. 322. MT1s with proximal and distal phalanges that exhibit evidence of rheumatoid arthritis; on right is the proximal foot phalanx with ‘scooped’ distal end. Fig. 323. Healed fracture of the base of the MT2 in the foot; fracture site formed an artificial joint, possibly due to the level of associated infection and movement during repair process. Fig. 324. Layer of new bone formation across the surface of the tibia in a 3–6-monthold child. Fig. 325. The funerary altar of Proklos. Fig. 326. The funerary altar of Proklos. Fig. 327. Bucrania altar in the garden of the Dig House garden (inv. A86). Fig. 328. Anegraphic doorstone. Fig. 329. Anegraphic doorstone. Fig. 330. Fragment of Armenian capital with angel. Fig. 331. Side of Armenian capital with floral or solar design. Fig. 332. Fragment of top of Armenian capital with angel and Armenian inscription. Fig. 333. Drawing of the church architrave (catalogue no. 1). Fig. 334. Detail of church architrave. Fig. 335. Drawing of the closure panel (catalogue no. 2). Fig. 336. The closure panel. Fig. 337. The quatrefoil baptismal font. Fig. 338. Drawing of the dosseret (catalogue no. 4). Fig. 339. The dosseret (catalogue no. 4). Fig. 340. The dosseret (catalogue no. 5). Fig. 341. Drawing of the pilaster capital (catalogue no. 6). Fig. 342. The pilaster capital. Fig. 343. Column capital (catalogue no. 7). Fig. 344. Column capital (catalogue no. 8). Fig. 345. Column capital (catalogue no. 9). Fig. 346. Drawing of the lintel (catalogue no. 10).

XXXIV

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 347. Lintel (catalogue no. 10). Fig. 348. Drawing of the lintel (catalogue no. 11). Fig. 349. Lintel (catalogue no. 11). Fig. 350. Catalogue no. 1. Fig. 351. Catalogue no. 1. Fig. 352. Catalogue no. 1. Fig. 353. Catalogue no. 2. Fig. 354. Catalogue no. 2. Fig. 355. Catalogue no. 3. Fig. 356. Catalogue no. 3. Fig. 357. Catalogue no. 3. Fig. 358. Catalogue no. 3. Fig. 359. Catalogue no. 3. Fig. 360. Catalogue no. 3. Fig. 361. Catalogue no. 4. Fig. 362. Catalogue no. 4. Fig. 363. Catalogue no. 5. Fig. 364. Catalogue no. 5. Fig. 365. Catalogue no. 6. Fig. 366. Catalogue no. 6. Fig. 367. Catalogue no. 7. Fig. 368. Catalogue no. 8. Fig. 369. Catalogue no. 9. Fig. 370. Catalogue no. 10. Fig. 371. Catalogue no. 11. Fig. 372. Catalogue no. 12. Fig. 373. Catalogue no. 13. Fig. 374. Catalogue no. 14. Fig. 375. Catalogue no. 15. Fig. 376. Catalogue no. 16.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (volumes 1 and 2) AA AMNG AS AWE BMC Byz BMC Galatia BMC Phrygia BNJ BNP CAH CCCA CIG CIL CIRB DOC EA FGH I.Ephesos IG IGBulg IV IGR JHS Krzyżanowska

AnatoliaAntiqua. F. Imhoof-Blumer et al. (eds.), Die Antiken Münzen Nord- Griechenlands (Berlin 1898–1935). AnatolianStudies. AncientWestandEast. W.W. Wroth, Imperial Byzantine Coins in the British Museum, 2 vols. (London 1908). W. Wroth (ed.), A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum.Galatia,CappadociaandSyria, vol. XX (London 1899). B. Head (ed.), A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum.Phrygia, vol. XXV (London 1906). Brill’s New Jacoby . C. Morrisson, CataloguedesMonnaiesByzantinesdelaBibliothèquenationale, 2 vols. (Paris 1970). CambridgeAncientHistory. M.J. Vermaseren, Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque (Etudes Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain 50), 7 vols. (Leiden 1977–89). A. Boeckh, J. Franz, E. Curtius and A. Kirchhoff, Corpus InscriptionumGraecarum (Berlin 1828–77). CorpusInscriptionumLatinarum (Berlin 1863– ). V.V. Struve et al., Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporani (Moscow/Leningrad 1965). A. Bellinger, Catalogue of Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and the Whittemore Collection 1: AnastasiusI toMaurice,491–602 (Washington, DC 1966). EpigraphicaAnatolica. F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Leiden 1940–99). H. Engelmann, D. Knibbe and R. Merkelbach, Die Inschriften von Ephesos, part 4 (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 14) (Bonn 1980). InscriptionesGraecae (Berlin 1903– ). G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae IV (Sofia 1966). R. Cagnat et al., Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes (Paris 1906–27). JournalofHellenicStudies. A. Krzyżanowska, Monnaies colonials d’Antioche de Pisidie (Warsaw 1970).

XXXVI

KST LGPN III.A LGPN III.B LGPN IV LGPN V.A LRBC LSJ MAMA MIB

RE RECAM II RIC VII RIC VIII RIC IX RIC X RLass RPC I RPC II RPC Online SB SEG SGDI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

KazıSonçularıToplantısı (Ankara). P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds.), ALexiconofGreekPersonal Names III.A: The Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily and MagnaGraecia (Oxford 1997). P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds.), ALexiconofGreekPersonal Names III.B: Central Greece from the Megarid to Thessaly (Oxford 2000). P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds.), ALexiconofGreekPersonal Names IV: Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Regions of the Black Sea (Oxford 2005). T. Corsten (ed.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names V.A: CoastalAsiaMinor:PontustoIonia (Oxford 2010). R.A.G. Carson, J.P.C. Kent and P.V. Hill, Late Roman Bronze Coinage (London 1978). H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. (Oxford 1940). MonumentaAsiaeMinorisAntiqua (Manchester 1928– ). W. Hahn, Moneta Imperii Byzantani 1: Von Anastasius I. bis Justinianus I., einschliesslich der ostgotischen und valdalischen Prägungen (Veröffentlichungen der Numismatischen Kommission 1) (Vienna 1973). A. Pauly and G. Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart 1894–1980). S. Mitchell, Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor II: The Ankara District. The Inscriptions of North Galatia (Oxford 1982). P.M. Bruun, RomanImperialCoinage7:ConstantineandLicinius, AD313–337 (London 1966). J.P.C. Kent, RomanImperialCoinage8:TheFamilyofConstantine,AD337–364 (London 1981). J.W.E. Pearce, Roman Imperial Coinage 9: Valentinian I– TheodosiusI (London 1951). J.P.C. Kent, Roman Imperial Coinage 10: The Divided Empire andtheFalloftheWesternParts,AD395–491 (London 1994). ReallexikonderAssyriologieundVorderasiatischenArchäologie. A. Burnett, M. Amandry and P.P. Ripollès (eds.), RomanProvincialCoinage.FromtheDeathofCaesartotheDeathofVitellius (44BC–AD69) (London 1998). A. Burnett, M. Amandry and I. Carradice (eds.), RomanProvincialCoinage.FromVespasiantoDomitian(AD69–96)(London 1999). RomanProvincialCoinage Online (rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/) D.R. Sear with S. Bendall and M.D. O’Hara, Byzantine Coins andTheirValues, 2nd ed. (London 1987). SupplementumEpigraphicumGraecum (Leiden 1923– ). H. Collitz, F. Bechtel etal., SammlungdergriechischenDialektInschriften I–V (Göttingen 1884–1915).

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SGI SGO II SNGCopenhagen SNGFitzwilliam SNGFrance SNGHunterian SNGMünchen SNGSchweizII SNGvonAulock TAD ZPE

XXXVII

D. Sear, GreekImperialCoinsandTheirValues (London 1982). R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber, Steinepigrammeausdemgriechischen Osten II: Die Nordküste Kleinasiens (Marmarameer und Pontus) (Berlin 2001). SyllogeNummorumGraecorum,Copenhagen.TheRoyalCollection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum, 43 vols. (Copenhagen 1942–79). SyllogeNummorumGraecorum,BritainIV,FitzwilliamMuseum, LeakeandGeneralCollections, 8 vols. (London 1940–58). SyllogeNummorumGraecorum,France:BibliothèqueNationale, CabinetdesMédailles(Paris 1983– ). SyllogeNummorumGraecorum,BritainXII,HunterianMuseum, UniversityofGlasgow, 2 vols. (London 2008). Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland: München StaatlischeMünzsammlung (Berlin 1968– ). SyllogeNummorumGraecorum,Schweiz,II.MünzenderAntiken: KatalogderSammlungJean-PierreRighetti (Bern 1993). Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland: Sammlung von Aulock, 19 vols. (Berlin 1957–81). TürkArkeolojiDergisi. ZeitschriftfürPapyrologieundEpigraphik.

THE MELBOURNE PROJECT AT PESSINUS (2009–2013): AN OVERVIEW Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE

Abstract This chapter contains a brief account of each field season and contains acknowledgment of supporters and of team members (listed for each season).

All contributions to this volume have been written by team members. During each field season individual team members were assigned particular tasks and responsibilities. The final chapter provides an exhaustive report of the 2013 field season.1 FINANCE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The principal financial support has been provided by the Australian Research Council, which awarded me a Discovery Project grant (DP1097119: Australian research at Pessinus, sacral city of Cybele, the great mother goddess: myth and reality) to conduct the project. I thank the Australian Research Council for its generous funding, made available after a first season that relied entirely on private donations, though its application procedures are Byzantine and overwrought. Receiving the grant was almost more trouble than it was worth thanks to the many intrusions into already complex matters by administrators in Melbourne. In light of developments, the Australian Research Council had what might be a unique experience: a grant recipient seeking to return a large quantity of the grant monies. It was quite unprepared for this. First of all, my thanks go to my colleagues who wrote letters to the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism in support of my application for the directorship of Pessinus: Sir John Boardman, Sümer Atasoy, Altan Çilingiroğlu, Şevket Dönmez, Amélie Kuhrt, Roger Matthews and Anthony Snodgrass. 1

For a shorter report, see Tsetskhladze, Avram etal. 2015.

2

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

I am deeply grateful to many donors: the Michael and Andrew Buxton Foundation, the exors and beneficiaries of the late Peter Worsdale of Morden, Surrey (Mr and Mrs John Wilfred Hargrave and Peggy Timmis, all since deceased, and James Flanders Hargrave), Clarke and Whitney Bullock and Mrs Vincent de Roulet, Mrs Susan Paul, and William and Judith Stancomb; to the universities of Bradford, Chicago and Ghent; and to the members and committee of the Sorrento Golf Club. Without them there would have been no 2009 season and no project for the Australian Research Council to fund (which it did for an exceptional five years and to the extent of over a million Australian dollars). My good friend James Hargrave has put up with much, especially in 2011 and 2013–2014, not least in mobilising at short notice extensive funds of his own for emergency use, if required, on the various occasions when it appeared that Melbourne would find yet more ways to delay the timely transfer of monies to Turkey despite months of negotiation and preparation. At one point he feared that he and I might temporarily have to finance an entire excavation season ourselves. The Melbourne excavation at Pessinus, like all archaeological projects, is the result of the work of many dedicated people. Above all, I am deeply grateful to those who participated in some or all of the field seasons. They are named below, year by year. I wish to thank Frederik Vervaet, recently a colleague in Melbourne but formerly of Ghent, for effecting an introduction to the then Director of the excavations at Pessinus, John Devreker. In 2008, I briefly joined the Ghent team at Pessinus to become acquainted with the site. May I take this opportunity to thank the Ghent team for their hospitality. In Ghent I am also grateful to Jean Bourgeois and the late Ernie Haerinck (a great believer that excavations must publish) for their support and help in making the transfer of engagements more orderly than it might have been. I should like to thank the Turkish Cabinet for approving my appointment as Director and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism for granting me the excavation permits. I am grateful to the staff of Eskişehir Archaeological Museum, especially the then Director, the late M. Dursun Çağlar, and his deputy, Emel Özçelik, who was also the Turkish government representative at Pessinus for the 2009 and 2011 seasons, in which role her help and understanding were invaluable. Nearly all Turkish officials, despite the constraints of the massively bureaucratised system in which they are trapped, have been extremely helpful and extremely courteous (the two exceptions are known to many of my team). In the General Directorate of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in Ankara I must single out Nihal Metin for her close and helpful involvement and attention over most of the time that I have been directing excavations at Pessinus.

THE MELBOURNE PROJECT AT PESSINUS (2009–2013): AN OVERVIEW

3

I have received help and benefited from the advice and assistance of the late Taciser T. Sivas, Hakan Sivas and Mahmut Bilge Baştürk, latterly my Assistant Director (all of Anadolu University, Eskişehir), Sümer Atasoy (then of Karabük University), Şevket Dönmez (Istanbul University), and the late Mehmet Derviş (Tachda Tours, Istanbul). I wish to thank my doctors, particularly Karin Jandeleit-Dahm, Jonathan Shaw and Hanan Al-Ali, for keeping me fit to conduct the field seasons and the arduous preparations for them. The successive Australian ambassadors to Turkey, Peter Doyle, Ian Biggs and James Larsen, and their staff, particularly Dr Oytun Deliktas, have shown great interest in the project and have helped guide me in my dealings with the Turkish authorities. There have been formal and informal visits to the site by the ambassadors, their families and embassy staff in 2011, 2013 and 2014. I offer them my sincere thanks for an interest that has far exceeded the obligations of duty. The Turkish Consulate in Melbourne has shown great tolerance of the burdens imposed upon it by the running of this project and good humour in processing all the paperwork. I thank the contributors to the two volumes for their interesting and important chapters. In one case, however, due to his ill will and erosion of the trust I placed in him (repeated breaches of my rights as Director over the publication of excavation material, as some of the bibliographies reveal), this is impossible. (Indeed, my predecessor, who participated in the 2009 season, transgressed by publishing without permission an inscription on an architrave.) I am also disappointed that Dig House gossip found its way on to ‘blogs’ and the like. Another modern misery, be it when producing edited volumes, issues of journals or simply conducting excavations, is the leakage of material in often-unauthorised draft on to various web-sites, creating a nightmare for directors, editors, publishers and bibliographers alike. I should also like to be able to thank Melbourne university, but I cannot. It provided no financial support and showed a complete failure to understand the prestige and responsibilities that flowed to it from ‘having’ an excavation, especially one in a foreign country, and ignored the excellent opportunity that this afforded for training students. At the coal face there were some extremely helpful individuals amongst those I dealt with. All of their good work was vitiated, however, by others much keener to create problems than to solve them. It has been an honour to be Director of the excavations at Pessinus; I much regret that my time there has been so short and that matters terminated so abruptly. Preparation was well advanced for the 2014 season, indeed the Turkish authorities had already issued the permit (earlier than usual thanks to my successful visit to the General Directorate, accompanied by the then Australian

4

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

ambassador in January of that year). The rug was pulled from beneath us by an edict of a senior academic ‘line manager’ in Melbourne that I could not be given leave during term time to go to Turkey. He may still not have realised that nothing can proceed without the Director’s presence; his suggestion that the project be pursued by other means – i.e. not going to Turkey and not excavating – was manifestly absurd (and incompatible with the grant, which contained monies specifically to buy-out parts of my teaching). The cumulation of difficulties and annoyances over the course of this successful project persuaded me to depart Melbourne. Final thanks to Richard Lambert and Rob Jackson for their assistance. OVERVIEW OF THE MELBOURNE PROJECT2 As has been mentioned several times in volume 1, Pessinus is situated in the village of Ballıhisar, about 100 km north-east of Eskişehir, 150 km south-west of Ankara and about 13 km from Sivrihisar. Excavation of the site was undertaken by the University of Ghent between 1967 and 2008 with a principal focus on the ‘temple area’ (sectors B and H) (Figs. 1–4). 2009 Season3 For a variety of reasons this, the first Melbourne season at Pessinus, was short, and the team was in the field from July 6th to 22nd. The Director and the government representative spent the first week overseeing the replacement of the defective main water supply pipe to the village of Ballıhisar for a length of 1.5 km from Bağlar (Fig. 5), outside the modern village, to the water fountain in the village centre, with a trench approximately 1 m wide and 50–60 cm deep, occasionally more. The village is still using the Roman water supply system of Pessinus. The pipe had been replaced thrice since the 1950s, occasioning damage to the Roman-era pipeline, as shown by the many broken Roman pipes found during the latest works. Without the permission of either the Director or the government representative, a crane was used to remove a huge stone slab covering a rectangular stone-lined pit still filled with running water. Two exit holes are visible in the south-west side of the pit; the leftward one had a new plastic pipe inserted and 2 For a general account, see the Introduction to vol. 1 (= Tsetskhladze 2018); and Tsetskhladze 2013a–b (for the 2008–2011 seasons). 3 For a short report, see Tsetskhladze, Anderson etal. 2011.

THE MELBOURNE PROJECT AT PESSINUS (2009–2013): AN OVERVIEW

5

integrated into it, through which the water supply to the village passed. From examination and dating of the masonry technique of its stonework, it is obvious that water from this pit was distributed across different parts of RomanByzantine Pessinus. The purpose of the pit is difficult to determine: it might have functioned, as it does today, as a control pit, or it could have served as a dispersion point from one canal to two pipelines. During the laying of the modern pipeline a marble holy water stoup/font was found in secondary use. A clay water pipe fed into it and a depression allowed water to escape. The purpose of this stone feature is unclear. It might have served to filter water.4 Rescue excavation was conducted on the dried-out bed of the Gallos river at a point 53 m north of the modern bridge in the centre of the village. Part of an entablature block (height: 0.62 m; length: 2.51 m; width: 0.50 m) was found. It presented a very well-executed inscription: [‐ ‐ ‐ ἄρχοντ]ος τοῦ λανπροτάτ[ου (name of the archon)]5 (Fig. 6).

This part of an architrave demonstrates that there were large imposing buildings in Pessinus. Three areas were covered by surface artefact surveys. The first was sector R (continuing Ghent’s labelling practice) (Fig. 1), located south of the Roman temple complex on the grassy lower slopes of the western hillside of the eastern necropolis. Study of the ceramics scattered here revealed them to date to the Hellenistic to Roman periods. Geophysical investigation demonstrated that there were buried structure here and examination of them formed part of the programme for the next field season. Surveys in the village of Tekören, approximately 7.5 km north of Pessinus (Fig. 7), took place in a field next to three rock-cut monuments (a step altar, a chamber tomb and a wine press). The field was divided into areas A and B (Fig. 8), both yielding ceramics from the Bronze Age to the Roman period. Geophysical study of area B also demonstrated some anomalies. İstiklalbağı, approximately 6 km north of Pessinus, is the site of a marble quarry, in use during the Roman period as also in modern times, not far from a Roman road (part of which is still visible). Two substantial artefact scatters were noticed, study of which shows the use of the quarry here from the mid1st century BC to the 1st–2nd centuries AD.6

4

See Madden’s chapter below in the present volume. See A. Avram’s chapter below in the present volume. 6 In modern times the quarry has been used illegally. There are unfinished architectural details on the surface (columns and capitals). 5

6

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Pessinus surprisingly lacks city walls. Geophysical studies were undertaken to investigate this and possibly locate the walls; none was found. In area C, an area of scattered rough stones on one of the ridges around the steep valley in which Pessinus lies, investigation revealed tower-type features. Looting has been a continuing problem. It was documented in the eastern necropolis. The plateau behind the Dig House, revealed many architectural features, not least broken tombstones. Complete cleaning of the ‘temple area’ and other trenches excavated by Ghent was undertaken. 2009 team: Gocha Tsetskhladze (Director, Melbourne); William Anderson (Melbourne); Luc Bauters (University of Ghent); Jeremy Brightbill (University of Chicago); Inge Claerhout (University of Ghent); Edward Dandrow (University of Chicago); Wim De Clercq (University of Ghent); John Devreker (University of Ghent); Defne Selma Kantarelli (Bilkent University, Ankara); Damjan Krsmanovic (Melbourne); Emanuel Mayer (University of Chicago); Andrew Parkyn (University of Bradford); Armin Schmidt (University of Bradford); Hazel van het Hof (Bilkent University, Ankara); and Angelo Verlinde (University of Ghent). The Turkish government representative was Emel Özçelik (Eskişehir Archaeological Museum). 2010 Season7 The team was in the field from July 1st to August 4th. As planned in 2009, a trial trench was opened in sector R (trench R1) to test the situation in the peripheral part of the city; 47 contexts were identified. Excavation revealed that this part of Pessinus had been residential. Remains of walls and floors were found. The building had been reconfigured on several occasions. Many fragments of pottery were discovered, 12,777 of them diagnostic. A small amount dated from the Archaic and Classical periods (3.37%); many more from the Hellenistic period (16.76%). The quantity of Early Byzantine pottery demonstrates that the building was of that period. The very mixed ceramic chronology in the trench from Archaic to Roman material is the result of disturbance and re-deposition. 7 For a short report, see Tsetskhladze, Anderson etal. 2012a; for a detailed report, Tsetskhladze, Anderson etal. 2012b.

THE MELBOURNE PROJECT AT PESSINUS (2009–2013): AN OVERVIEW

7

Altogether, 26 coins were found in varying degrees of preservation, predominantly from trench R1, others during surveys.8 Surveys formed a large part of the programme for the season. These concentrated on the village of Ballıhisar and its surroundings and around the village of Tekören, where many archaeological features were recorded and mapped. Another aim was to investigate the Roman road from İstiklalbağı to Pessinus. The extensive surveys in Pessinus and surrounding territories, over about 450 ha, sought to identify both previously documents and undocumented (or unpublished) archaeological features: 189 archaeological features were recorded and mapped. The surveys of 2009 and 2010, in conjunction with geophysical prospection, identified several watchtowers (Fig. 9). Geophysical study on the plateau to the east of Ballıhisar, on a promontory of ca. 0.5 ha that revealed varied walls and other features, showed a very well-preserved part of the fortifications – a tower and buttressed walls – and excavation here was scheduled for the next season. In Tekören, study of field B, near that studied in 2009, identified some buried features were, but these were probably caused by modern ferrous debris. Field C nearby (Fig. 8) produced several very strong magnetic anomalies and these showed the existence of very well-preserved rectangular buildings. Clear imaging also revealed here the existence of pottery kilns. Four new unpublished inscriptions were studied, all funerary dating from the 2nd/1st century BC to the 3rd century AD. Three of them had been brought to the Dig House from the villages of Memik and Günyüzü by the local police.9 2010 team: Gocha Tsetskhladze (Director, Melbourne); Eser Kortanoğlu (Assistant Director, Anadolu University, Eskişehir); William Anderson (Melbourne); Alexandru Avram (University of Maine, Le Mans); Suzana Avram (Le Mans); Vincent Clark (Melbourne); Michelle Negus Cleary (University of Sydney); Kristal Flemming (Melbourne); Defne Selma Kantarelli (Bilkent University, Ankara); Damjan Krsmanovic (Melbourne); Andrew Parkyn (University of Bradford); Germain Payen (University of Rouen); Armin Schmidt (University of Bradford); Hazal van het Hof (Bilkent University, Ankara); and Robert Weiland (University of Leipzig). The Turkish government representative was Erdal Yiğit (Museum of Anatolian Civilisations, Ankara). 8 9

See Dandrow’s chapter below in the present volume. See A. Avram’s chapter below in the present volume.

8

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

2011 Season10 The field season ran from July 5th to August 16th. As mentioned above, on the promontory behind the Dig House on the plateau to the east of Ballıhisar, geophysical studies had identified a very well-preserved remains of a fortress, though a large part of the promontory and fortress had been eroded. Trenches were opened here (sector S) to confirm the geophysical results (Fig. 4).11 Trench 1 was on part of the tower identified by Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) (Fig. 10). Excavation highlighted seven contexts, three of which (contexts 2, 6 and 7) were within the tower. Context 7 covered a curving stone wall that ran from north-east to south-west and which was part of the tower. This wall, which runs in the middle of the excavation trench, has been exposed for only ca. 0.70 m of its height; this shows the presence of cut stones with mortar. The upper part of the wall is broken at quite regular intervals, forming a structure that resembles merlons and crenels (the crenels are filled by the collapse, and there was insufficient time to remove this). The curving wall was most probably built or restored after the 3rd/4th century AD, as a coin found in the collapse demonstrates. The structure was probably abandoned after the 6th century AD, as shown by a second coin found in the context abutting the curved wall.12 The material collected from trench 1 is: topsoil, 9 pottery, 9 tiles/bricks, 16 bones and 8 pieces of mortar. Context 1 yielded 73 pottery, 107 tiles/bricks, 11 glass fragments and a coin. Context 2: 43 pottery, 24 tiles/bricks, 5 glass fragments and 10 bone 10. Context 3: a tile/brick and 11 pieces of mortar. Context 4: 29 pottery, 25 tiles/bricks, a glass fragment, and a coin from the sieve. Context 5: 112 pottery, 4 tiles/bricks, 61 bones and 3 animal teeth. Context 6: 55 pottery, 43 tiles/bricks and 71 bones. Context 7: 183 pottery, 25 tiles/ bricks, 142 bones and a glass fragment.13 GPR investigation inside the fortress found nothing except a natural geological feature with clear edges, possibly a large rock. A trial trench (trench 2) was opened up inside the fortress (Fig. 5). At the end of the excavation two large unworked blocks of white limestone were discovered. Three contexts were identified besides the topsoil. A large quantity of pottery was unearthed, 10 For a short report, see Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2013; for a detailed report, see Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2012. 11 See Maranzana’s chapter below in the present volume. 12 See Dandrow’s chapter below in the present volume. 13 Pottery from trench 1 has been studied by C. Mondin. See her chapter below in the present volume; see also her report in the final chapter of the present volume.

THE MELBOURNE PROJECT AT PESSINUS (2009–2013): AN OVERVIEW

9

mainly Late Roman/Early Byzantine but also some Hellenistic, once again demonstrating disturbance and re-deposition. Trench 2 yielded: topsoil, 20 pottery and a tile; context 1, 323 pottery and 4 tiles; context 2, 3 pottery; context 3, 559 pottery, 32 tiles/bricks, a piece of mortar and 3 pieces of charcoal. Various surveys were carried out, first at Bağlar, 1.5 km north-east of the modern village, on a narrow plateau (Fig. 5). Geophysical prospection had indicated the existence of very well-preserved architectural features. These have been identified as storage facilities. The material collected was large in quantity but contained very few diagnostic pottery pieces. The majority of it belonged to storage vessels (pithoi) and tiles. The pottery dated from the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period. There was also a number of stone architectural details – local marble, limestone, quartz and granite. These were situated on the eastern and western sides of the plateau. The pieces were taken to the Dig House.14 The survey area was divided into four and the material collected was 431 pottery (including pithoi), 124 tiles/bricks, 3 bones, 2 glass fragments, 7 pieces of mortar, a piece of marble, 2 lithics and a clay pithos-lid. In Tekören, the survey covered an area of 1600 m2 on the slopes of Mt Çal, located south of the Öz river, in a landscape containing numerous large outcrops of sedimentary stone formations. It yielded features and material from the Early Iron Age to the Early Byzantine period. The material collected comprised 17 pottery (including pithoi), 3 tiles and 4 pieces of marble. A survey of the Öz valley revealed many architectural details and marble blocks, showing that this area had been the site of important monumental buildings in the Roman period. Around the perimeter of field C at Tekören a sizeable quantity of marble architectural details and blocks was recorded. These again demonstrate that the field was an important site in the Roman period: the 2010 geophysical investigation (mentioned above) had demonstrated well-preserved stone architectural features. In 1988, Pessinus was designated a Category 1 archaeological site by the Turkish authorities. Thus, consideration had been given to moving the modern village. Two possible new sites were identified by the villagers: Harman yerleri and Tütücünün Ağılın Tepe. Both are within 3.5 km of the existing village to its south-west. At the request of Eskişehir Archaeological Museum, a brief survey was undertaken at these locations. It revealed Roman pottery as well as marble fine architectural details lying across both sites, indication that each was of archaeological importance.

14

See Dandrow’s report in the final chapter of the present volume.

10

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Four coins were found: two in sector S and two that were chance finds.15 Geophysical investigation commenced to the south of the ‘temple area’, on the modern road not far from the temple enclosure, and resulted in the discovery of two distinct areas with stone features. East Cemetery 2 revealed a multitude of large features which could be tombs of several types. I have already mentioned Bağlar, where substantial rectangular buildings were found. Work continued in field C at Tekören. Epigraphic study commenced with checking the inscriptions from the catalogue published in 2005 by J. Strubbe (which has few illustrations). New photographs were taken of all inscriptions (on exhibition in the Dig House garden and those in store). Some unpublished inscriptions were identified.16 Three new inscriptions, brought in by villagers or from village houses, were studied. Earlier in 2011 heavy machinery had been used by the villagers to extract sand from the west bank of the dry Gallos, not far from the site of a Roman marble arch and sector D. During the 2011 field season, the damage done was recorded. A trapezoidal marble capital with crosses was found on the wall of the riverbank and then removed to the Dig House garden.17 In the final days of the field season, the team was notified of a tomb on farmland at Gediközü, about 5 km west of Ballıhisar (Fig. 11), which had been plundered at some point in May–June 2011. All that could be done at short notice was to clean the tomb and conduct partial excavation. Pottery and human bones (weighing 22 kg) were recovered from around the tomb. The tomb itself was constructed of reused Roman marble architectural details and had been reused many times; it dates to the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period. The Australian ambassador, Mr Ian Biggs, accompanied by Dr Biggs, visited the site twice: first, on July 6th, making a private visit; then, on August 4th, with embassy staff, paying a formal visit. His keen interest in the project built on that of his predecessor. The embassy was also financing projects in Sivrihisar to help create opportunities for disadvantaged women. The mayor of Sivrihisar, Mr Fikret Aslan, held a luncheon for the ambassador and his suite, took them and the Pessinus team around Sivrihsar, and showed them what this scheme had achieved.18 15

See Dandrow’s chapter below in the present volume. The Avrams also studied unpublished doorstones (see their chapter below in the present volume). These, like others at Pessinus, belong to types G and K in M. Waelkens’s classification (see Waelkens 1986). 17 See Madden’s chapter below in the present volume. 18 For a general article based on the 2009–11 field seasons, see Tsetskhladze 2013a. 16

THE MELBOURNE PROJECT AT PESSINUS (2009–2013): AN OVERVIEW

11

2011 team: Gocha Tsetskhladze (Director, Melbourne); Jason Adams (Melbourne); Alexandru Avram (University of Maine, Le Mans); Suzana Avram (Le Mans); Edward Dandrow (University of Central Florida); Defne Selma Kantarelli (Bilkent University, Ankara); Andrew Madden (Melbourne); Paolo Maranzana (Piemonte Orientale University); Layal Naserdin (University of Central Florida); Fatma Burcu Onur (Anadolu University, Eskişehir); Muhsine Saritarla (Anadolu University, Eskişehir); Armin Schmidt (Universities of Bradford and Durham); Shannan Stewart (University of Illinois); and Hazal van het Hof (University of Leiden). The Turkish government representative was Emel Özçelik (Eskişehir Archaeological Museum). 2012 Season There was no field season but work continued on the study of the material. 2013 Season19 The last chapter of the present volumes contains a detailed account; here I give a very brief overview. The very busy season ran from June 23rd to August 17th. Work continued in sector S. To further investigation of the south-east side of the tower an L-shaped area was added to trench 1 (designated 1a) (Fig. 10): 25 contexts, three walls (nos. 2–4) and five buttresses (stone features 1–5) were unearthed. Excavation revealed a curved feature, which was a very wellpreserved part of the tower. Four sondages were opened up in order to acquire as much information as possible (Fig. 5). Sondage 1 was placed east if the line of the defensive wall that runs north to south in the eastern side of the plateau. Nine contexts were recorded. At the bottom of the sondage (nearly 2 m deep) a Late Hellenistic cremation burial was found: burnt fragments of a skull, charcoal remains and pottery offerings. Sondage 2 was placed to the east of sondage 1; no significant archaeological remains were found and only two context identified (containing pottery). Sondage 3 was laid out on the western edge of the plateau on which sector S sits. Eleven contexts were designated. A depression in the 19 For a short report, see Tsetskhladze, Avram etal. 2015. For a detailed report, see the last chapter of the present volume.

12

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

rock surface was found full of charcoal; a line of mortar was also discovered; animal bones were unearthed; and a large amount of pottery found of Late Hellenistic–Early Roman date. Sondage 4 was laid out in the fortification wall lying on the east side of sector S: there was much collapsed brickwork underneath which was a continuation of the fortification wall. The project was also busy with rescue excavations. The first was of a looted chamber tomb at Sarıkuş, situated 1 km west of Ballıhisar (Fig. 11), constructed with six marble stone features in secondary use. Here, 19,328 human bones were recorded from the fill of the tomb (i.e. more than 100 individuals),20 and 373 pottery sherds (73 of the diagnostic) of the 4th–6th centuries AD; the tomb was reused over a period of about 300 years. Looted graves were also studied in Gediközü, on the hill opposite the looted tomb cleaned in 2011 (Fig. 7). Six graves (dating to the Late Hellenistic–Early Roman period) had been looted: a few were completely empty; some contained fragmented human bones and fragmented pottery; and 143 human skeletal remains from three individuals were also discovered. Surveys were undertaken in Pessinus and Tekören, where field D was added, and extensive surveys were made of selected features based on satellite imagery and previous surveys of the Öz river valley. Pessinus site F084, 1600 m2 situated below the west necropolis (Fig. 4), was surveyed. It yielded 973 pieces of pottery, 42 of them diagnostic, of Later Roman/Early Byzantine date. Geophysical prospection (GPS) indicated that a large Byzantine church had existed here.21 GPR investigation was undertaken around Ballıhisar and in Tekören, and continued in sector S. The survey of the main wall structure was continued to the west, right up to the point at which the steep erosion slope intersects the modern road. The data showed that the wall structure continued with exactly the same design all the way into the slope. Hence it may be concluded that any initially erected end-structure (such as a northern tower similar to the bastion at the southern end) had been lost to erosion. In Tekören, study continued in field C. Three newly discovered doorstones and three new inscriptions were studied. Detailed study of the eighth Attalid letter, acquire by the Ghent team, was undertaken in preparation for publication.22 Serious looting of the Pessinus necropoleis continued. Erosion was evident on the north-west bank of the dried bed of the Gallos (where, in 2011, villagers 20 21 22

See Williams’s report in the last chapter of the present volume See Schmidt’s report in the last chapter of the present volume. Avram and Tsetskhladze 2014.

THE MELBOURNE PROJECT AT PESSINUS (2009–2013): AN OVERVIEW

13

had caused damage by taking away sand). In 2013, part of the upper area of a wall about 3 m in height was exposed. The wall was drawn and photographed but its unsoundness and incipient collapse precluded detailed investigation. Looting continued in Tekören, especially in the necropolis, while 4 km distant, the looted site of graves was recorded. Marble architectural details, among them tombstones, were discovered in a ditch on one side of the modern road: one marble block had a cross; another tombstone had a Greek inscription.23 On the Hamamtepe hillside, 1600 m above sea level, looting, especially of graves, was also recorded (Figs. 7, 12). Nihal Metin, accompanied by staff from Eskişehir Archaeological Museum, paid a visit on July 12th to inspect the Dig House, depots and excavations. On July 27th, the Australian ambassador, Mr Ian Biggs, his wife and embassy staff visited the excavations. 2013 team: Gocha Tsetskhladze (Director, Melbourne); Füsun Deniz Özden (Assistant Director, Istanbul University); Alexandru Avram (University of Maine, Le Mans); Suzana Avram (Le Mans); Geoffrey Cranenburgh (Melbourne); Edward Dandrow (University of Central Florida); Andrew Goldman (Gonzaga University, Spokane); Ledio Hysi (University of Central Florida); Andrew Madden (Melbourne); Paolo Maranzana (University of Michigan); Jane Masséglia (University of Oxford); Cristina Mondin (Milan); Armin Schmidt (Universities of Bradford and Durham); Elizabeth Anne Scholz (Hamilton College, Clinton, NY); Shannan Stewart (University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign); Hazal van het Hof (University of Leiden); Lana Williams (University of Central Florida); and Simon Young (Melbourne). The Turkish government representative was Nurettin Özkan (Konya Museum Directorate). 2014–2015 The 2014 season had to be abandoned at short notice for reasons given above. The Director had meanwhile given the new Australian ambassador, Mr James Larsen, a private tour of the site in May 2014. At the beginning of November 2015, Anadolu University, Eskişehir Archaeological Museum, the Australian embassy in Ankara and the Pessinus Project organised a conference at Anadolu University, Eskişehir: ‘The Phrygian Lands Over Time (from Prehistory to the Middle of the 1st Millennium AD)’. Mr Larsen and members of his staff attended. 23

See A. Avram’s chapter below in the present volume.

14

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

BIBLIOGRAPHY Avram, A. and Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2014: ‘A New Attalid Letter from Pessinus’. ZPE 191, 151–81. Strubbe, J.H.M. 2005: The Inscriptions of Pessinous (Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 66) (Bonn). Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.) 2012: The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Phrygia in Antiquity: Aspects of Archaeology and Ancient History (BAR International Series 2432) (Oxford). —. 2013a: ‘Pessinus in Central Anatolia. New Investigations’. In Bru, H. and Labarre, G. (eds.), L’Anatoliedespeuples,descitésetdescultures(IIemillénarireav.J.-C.– Ve siècleap.J.-C.),ColloqueinternationaldeBesançon,26–27novembre2010, vol.2:Approcheslocalesetrégionales (Besançon), 41–80. —. 2013b: ‘Kibele’nin Tapinak Kenti: Melbourne Üniversitesi’nin Pessinus‘taki Yeni Arastirmalari’. In Dönmez, Ş. (ed.), Lux ex Ponto Euxino: Studies Presented in HonourofSümerAtasoy (Ankara), 413–58. —. 2018: ‘Introduction’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), Pessinus and Its Regional Setting, vol. 1 (Colloquia Antiqua 21) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT), 1–24. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Adams, J., Avram, A., Avram, S., Dandrow, E., Madden, A., Maranzana, P., Naserdin, L. and Schmidt, A. 2012: ‘Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2011 Field Season’. In Tsetskhladze 2012, 329–56. —. 2013: ‘Pessinus, 2011’. KST 34.3, 253–76. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Anderson, W., Avram, A., Avram, S., Clark, V., Flemming, K., Kortanoğlu, E., Krsmanovic, D., Negus Cleary, M. and Schmidt, A. 2012a: ‘Pessinus 2010’. KST 33.1, 103–44. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Anderson, W., Avram, A., Avram, S., Clark, V., Flemming, K., Kortanoğlu, E., Krsmanovic, D., Negus Cleary, M., Schmidt, A. and Weiland, R. 2012b: ‘Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2010 Field Season’. In Tsetskhladze 2012, 293–327. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Anderson, W., Bauters, L., Dandrow, E., De Clercq, W., Mayer, E. and Schmidt, A. 2011: ‘Pessinus, 2009’. KST 32.1, 341–66. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A., Avram, S., Dandrow, E., Hysi, L., Madden, A., Maranzana, P., Masséglia, J., Mondin, C., Schmidt, A., Williams, L. and Young, S.J. 2015: ‘Pessinus, 2013’. KST 36.1, 73–122. Waelkens, M. 1986: Die kleinasiatischen Türsteine: typologische und epigraphische UntersuchungenderkleinasiatischenGrabreliefsmitScheintür (Mainz).

THE MELBOURNE PROJECT AT PESSINUS (2009–2013): AN OVERVIEW

Fig. 1. Location of Pessinus (map: W. Anderson).

Fig. 2. Map of Pessinus showing sectors excavated by Ghent University (courtesy, Ghent team).

15

16

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 3. Aerial view of the temple and sectors B and H (courtesy, Ghent team).

THE MELBOURNE PROJECT AT PESSINUS (2009–2013): AN OVERVIEW

Fig. 4. General plan of Pessinus (A. Schmidt).

17

18

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 5. Map showing location of Bağlar in relation to Pessinus (A. Schmidt).

THE MELBOURNE PROJECT AT PESSINUS (2009–2013): AN OVERVIEW

19

Fig. 6. Drawing of entablature block (S. Avram).

Fig. 7. Map showing locations of Tekören and Hamamtepe in relation to Pessinus (A. Schmidt).

20

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 8. Division of surveyed fields in Tekören (A. Schmidt).

Fig. 9. Pessinus’s defensive system (A. Schmidt).

THE MELBOURNE PROJECT AT PESSINUS (2009–2013): AN OVERVIEW

Fig. 10. Plan of sector S (A. Schmidt).

Fig. 11. Map showing locations of Gediközü and Sarıkuş in relation to Pessinus (S.J. Young).

21

22

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 12. Plan of Hamamtepe (A. Schmidt).

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE

Abstract This paper provides an overview of pre-Hellenistic Pessinus and its environs: what we know at present about the Prehistoric, Hittite and Phrygian periods. It touches upon the Achaemenids in Pessinus as well. It is based on the study of archaeological materials recovered by the Ghent and Melbourne excavations.

It has been a cliché that the pre-Hellenistic history of Pessinus (Fig. 1) is largely unknown. But, thanks to new excavation and studies and re-examination of the existing evidence, we can give more insights than hitherto thought possible. Sometimes there are unexpected discoveries that enrich our knowledge. This paper aims to revisit the evidence, old and new, and to ask questions, even if some must remain without a firm answer. PREHISTORIC PESSINUS Once, the only evidence was ‘a Mousterian point of 30,000 BC found in a field’.1 It is very difficult to know which field and what point, or whether the discovery was a chance find or had been brought to light by surveys. The only matter clear is that the field must have been situated not far from Pessinus (Table 1.1). Since then, other prehistoric finds have been made in Pessinus itself – four lithics and a chert blade (Table 1.2–3). Further evidence comes from Hamamtepe, situated 8 km south-east of Pessinus, in the form of a chipped flint tool found during surveys in 2008 (Table 1.4). The 2010 discovery of four flaked stone implements to the south of the ‘temple area’ (sector B) was made, near the village’s southern spring, on the surface of a heavily eroded section of track leading southwards towards sector R, within an area of 40 m2. Two of the flakes are black obsidian, the other two are a fine white stone (chalcedony?) – one of them is a notched, denticular tool. The

1

Claerhout and Devreker 2008, 28.

24

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

proximity of the find-spots, the materials and morphology of the finds and the absence of knapped stone tools in the Pessinus area suggest a discrete deposit. The four finds have been preliminarily dated to the Neolithic–Early Bronze Age.2 But to date these tools precisely is very difficult in the absence of any study of the broader region in prehistoric times: we simply have no context. It is also very difficult to know where these settlement(s) were situated – at future Pessinus itself or in the high hills of the surrounding territory. Hamamtepe is 1600 m above sea level, proof that settlement might take place at such altitudes. Table 1. Prehistoric Pessinus. No. Evidence

Place of discovery

Date

Comments/notes

Field

Mousterian No details are given. Neither (30,000 BC) field nor location specified.3 Most probably field not far from Pessinus.

1

Point(?)

2

Chert blade Sector P (Fig. 2)

Prehistoric

3

4 Lithics (Fig. 3)

Spring area south of temple

Prehistoric

Chance find.

4

Chipped flint tool

Hamamtepe, at Karacaören, 8 km south-east of Pessinus, beyond the foot of the slope, near a rocky outcrop to the right of the road

Prehistoric

2008 surveys.4

HITTITE PESSINUS A fragment of a narrow-necked jug of ca. 1600 BC (Table 2.1) has been known for quite a long time.5 Of course, finding just a single piece does not and cannot demonstrate the existence of a Hittite settlement at Pessinus – but a fireplace or furnace containing ash was found close by (Table 2.2), and this was radiocarbon dated to ca. 1500 BC.6 Were these isolated discoveries? Certainly, for Pessinus and its surrounding territory no other traces of a Hittite presence are known. Bronze Age pottery has been found in the surrounding area thanks to surveys, but none of it is Hittite. 2 3 4 5 6

Tsetskhladze, Anderson etal. 2012, 311; Tsetskhladze 2013, 50, n. 16. Claerhout and Devreker 2008, 28–29. Tsetskhladze 2009, 704. Claerhout and Devreker 2008, 29. Claerhout and Devreker 2008, 97.

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

25

Table 2. Hittite occupation evidence.7 No. Evidence

Place of discovery

Date

Comments/notes

1

Fragment of narrownecked jug (Figs. 4–5)

B6a around wall 363

ca. 1600 BC

Identification and date kindly confirmed by H. Genz (pers. comm.)

2

Feature containing ashes

B6a around wall 363

Radiocarbon date ca. 1500 BC

Interpreted by Ghent team as ‘Hittite Furnace’.

If we consider the broader region, at Şarhöyük/Dorylaion, situated in the suburbs of Eskişehir about 100 km from Pessinus, a substantial Hittite level was discovered.8 This includes the architectural remains of five building phases, pottery (paralleled by finds from the Hittite capital), small finds, inscribed bullae (in Luwian hieroglyphic) and other objects.9 One bulla (DUMU.LUGAL) mentions a personal name in relation to ‘a land’, the land most probably being Şarhöyük, plus a half-visible personal name which could be that of the ruler of Hittite Şarhöyük: literally, it means ‘son of the king’ or simply ‘the prince’.10 Although its Hittite name is unknown: Şarhöyük represents the first Hittite stronghold before the mountains of northwestern Anatolia, and it should be accepted that Hittite Şarhöyük is likely to have been one of the most important centres of the Lower Land, or at least its extension, holding the western border between the open plains and potential enemies dwelling in the mountains.11

The location of Šallapa, an important place in the Lower Land of the Hittite empire that is mentioned in Hittite inscriptions, is nowadays accepted as being somewhere near Sivrihisar, at the junction of the road from west to east with that from south to north (Fig. 6). Around Sivrihisar there is only one substantial location to have yielded some evidence of a Hittite presence: Pessinus. Thus, there is a high probability that Šallapa was the Hittite name of future Pessinus. Most scholars have accepted this suggestion, though not all.12 Therefore, in a wider regional context and despite the discovery of only two pieces of evidence, Pessinus seems to have been a place of some importance in the Hittite Lower Land, like Şarhöyük. 7

Claerhout and Devreker 2008, 29, 97. T. Sivas 2018, 107, figs. 29–32; Baştürk 2018. 9 Baştürk 2018. 10 Baştürk 2018, 137–38. 11 Baştürk 2018, 145. For the Hittite cemetry, see Bilgen 2005; 2015; Bilgen etal. 2011. 12 For details, with references, see Baştürk 2018, 138–45. 8

26

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

PHRYGIAN PESSINUS In the last decade the question of Phrygians in Pessinus has receive much attention.13 We had thought that there was not much evidence to discuss when formulating a general picture of the Phrygian/pre-Hellenistic site. But as Table 3 demonstrates, the evidence is more plentiful. To start from pottery, Phrygian grey ware has been found in ten places: sectors B, H, K, L, Q and R (sector B is subdivided into B1, B5, B5a, etc.). The Ghent team excavated 17 trenches and the Melbourne team added sectors R and S. To consider the sandstone walls identified as Phrygian: 18 of these are known from sectors B and H. Other places gave only pottery. We need to bear in mind that the site is multi-level and while it has been excavated to 6–11 m below the modern surface in sector B, other sectors have been dug to just 3–4 m or 6–7 m.14 It is very difficult, in the circumstances, to reach the earliest level(s); it takes time and a lot of resources. A bronze fibula was discovered 4–5 m from the modern surface. Another difficulty, especially but not exclusively in sectors B and H, is the presence of substantial Roman and Byzantine architectural remains (Fig. 7) (in a few places just Roman). This is why the trenches are so deep. Obviously, these problems affect our evidence for the Hittite and prehistoric period; nowhere have the trenches yet reached the virgin soil. Table 3. Phrygian occupation evidence.15 No. Evidence

Place of discovery/sector

1

Bronze fibula 1 or 2 (Fig. 8)

2

Complete pottery and fragments (Figs. 9–23)

B25a shallow pit no. 25

Date

Comments/notes

6th–4th centuries BC

P. Lambrechts’s excavation. One publication says no. 1; the other no. 2. No. 1 is the ‘Temple area’, depth ca.4–5 m (well or pit). No. 2 North of the Imperial temple.

Late Phrygian

More than 50 vessels, which could be ritual/deposit pit. Place identified by Ghent team as ‘Phrygian house’.

13 Tsetskhladze 2009; 2012; 2013, 48–53; Strobel 2010; Verlinde 2015a, 35–38; 2015b, 35–36; Devreker and Vermeulen 1991. 14 Tsetskhladze 2013, 48 15 Devreker, Bauters etal. 2000; 2006; 2007; Devreker, Braeckman and Dutoo 1999; Devreker, Devos etal. 2003; Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 1992; 1995; 2003; Devreker, Verlinde etal. 2008; Devreker and Vermeulen 1991; 1993; 1995a–b; 1996; Devreker and Waelkens 1984; Thoen 2002; Waelkens 1986; Claerhout and Devreker 2008; Tsetskhladze 2009; 2012; 2013; etc.

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

No. Evidence

Place of discovery/sector

Date

Comments/notes

3

Phrygian house

B2–B5a

Late Phrygian

Cobbled floor, hearth, loom-weights, skeleton of young horse, pottery.

4

Fragments of pottery

B2

Late Phrygian

‘Phrygian house’, black-, grey- and red-polished pottery.16

5

Fragments of pottery

L

Late Phrygian

Below Roman remains.

6

Fragments of pottery

Q

Late Phrygian

Possibly discovery of Late Phrygian pottery.

7

Fragments of pottery

K

Late Phrygian

8

Fragments of pottery

Pits around the temple Foundations in the east of the ‘temple area’.

Late Phrygian

Lambrechts’s 1969 excavations.

9

Fragments of pottery

With bronze fibula (see table 3,1)

Late Phrygian

Lambrechts’s excavations.

10

Fragments of pottery

11

Between wall B6-77 and Several fragments of temenos wall a red-slipped jar with white panels decorated with running animals painted in black silhouettestyle (Figs. 24–25)

27

Most probably some pottery was found during Lambrechts’s excavation, not recorded or mentioned.17 500–300 BC Similar pottery is known from Maşar Höyük (East Phrygian group of rounded-bodied jars)18 and Gordion (‘ground coat-panel style’).19 Previously it was thought that these fragments were of Lydian origin.20

16 Charcoal from hearth 24 (B2) in the same level has been radiocarbon dated to ca. 389 BC (Devreker and Vermeulen 1996, 85). 17 Devreker and Waelkens 1984. 18 Verlinde 2015, 35. 19 Sams 1994, 360. 20 For Lydian painted pottery, see, for instance, Gürtekin-Demir 2014. ‘… One might expect to find traces of Phrygian influences on the local Lydianizing products found in Gordion, where the artists could have easily observed both Phrygian pottery and metal vessels. However, the Phrygian influence on the relevant potters at Gordion is not as significant as the Phrygian influences observed on the local Lydian pottery excavated at Sardis’ (Gürtekin-Demir 2014, 235).

28

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

No. Evidence

Place of discovery/sector

Date

Comments/notes

12

Fragments of pottery

R

Late Phrygian

Melbourne excavations, trial trench 1. Recovered a total of 15,334 pottery, among them 1327 (8.65%) diagnostic. Of these, pottery of Late Iron Age/Early Hellenistic period: 43 (3.37%).21

13

Local limestone walls, nos. 271 and 33022

North-eastern corner B2

Late Phrygian

These limestone walls follow the slope of the hills. Orientation from north-east to south-west. Early Hellenistic walls also follow the natural slope (nos. 77. 316, 323, 378). Later walls follow terraced slopes.

14

Walls nos. 5, 39, 39/4023

B1, B3

Late Phrygian

As above.

15

Walls nos. 271–288

B1, B3

Late Phrygian

As above.

16

Wall (Fig. 26)

H4

Late Phrygian

As above.

17

Wall B6-239

B2, B5a, B6

Late Phrygian

Phrygian pottery is associated with this wall.

18

Hearth

B2-24

550–300 BC Pottery: black-, grey- and red-polished pottery. Charcoal from the hearth radiocarbon dated to ca. 382 BC.

Since most evidence for the Phrygians comes from sector B, we can suppose that the nucleus of the Phrygian settlement was there (and in sector H) (Fig. 27). To identify the extent of Phrygian Pessinus, the Melbourne team collated and mapped all the known evidence. It seemed to extend to 18 ha (Fig. 28). In comparison, Roman Pessinus covered 88 ha, and its cemeteries a further 18.5 ha, based on the extensive surveys conducted by the Melbourne team in Pessinus and its immediate environs during the 2010 field season: about 450 ha was surveyed, and 189 features (known, unknown and unpublished) were identified (Fig. 29).24 21

Tsetskhladze, Anderson etal. 2012, 304–05. Phrygian pottery is associated with these walls (also nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17). 23 Identification of Late Phrygian walls from the annual reports is very difficult and confusing. Thus, the number might be lower than I record in my table! 24 Tsetskhladze 2013, 53; Tsetskhladze, Anderson etal. 2012, 307–11. 22

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

29

So far, no Early or Middle Phrygian material is known from Pessinus. What we have is Late Phrygian (6th–4th centuries BC). Does this mean that there was a vacuum here from the end of Hittite occupation and the collapse of the Hittite empire until the 6th century? From our current evidence this seems more than possible. I must repeat, however, my stricture: many more metres need to be excavated beyond the 11 m of sector B to reach the Phrygian and Hittite levels. CYBELE’S SANCTUARY: MYTH

OR

REALITY?25

As I have remarked, no Early or Middle Phrygian materials has been found at Pessinus and it is quite possible that there was no Phrygian settlement in those times: that a gap in occupancy followed the Hittite collapse until a repopulation of Ballıhisar in the 6th century BC. In this case, how should we interpret the written sources?26 First of all, there is Theopompus of Chios, who survives via citation in Ammianus Marcellinus (22. 9. 6–7): But why the town was called by that name writers of history are not in agreement: for some have maintained that since the image of the goddess fell from heaven, the city was named from pesein, which is the Greek word meaning ‘to fall’. Others say that Ilus, son of Tros, king of Dardania, gave the place that name. But Theopompus asserts that it was not Ilus who did it, but Midas, the once mighty king of Phrygia.

Nearly the same information is given by Strabo:27 Pessinus is the greatest of the emporiums in that part of the world, containing a temple of the Mother of the gods, which is an object of great veneration. They call her Agdistis. The priests were in ancient times potentates, I might call them, who reaped the fruits of a great priesthood, but at present the prerogatives of these have been much reduced, although the emporium still endures. The sacred

25

On Cybele and matters relating to her, see Roller 1999; Munn 2006. An exhaustive collection of what ancient authors had to say about Pessinus can be found in the concluding part of Strubbe 2005. 27 See also Cicero: ‘But why should this excite my surprise, when I remember that you [Publius Clodius] were induced by a bribe actually to devastate Pessinus, the very seat and dwelling-place of the Mother of the gods; that to Brogitarus the Gallograecian, an impious and abandoned man, whose emissaries, when you were Tribune, used to distribute money to your gangs in the temple of Castor, you sold the whole region of Pessinus with its shrine; that you dragged its priest from the very altars and sacred couches; that you overthrew everything that had at all times been held in deep devotion by past generations, by Persians, by Syrians, and by all kings who have ever held rule in Europe and in Asia, and to which even our own ancestors attributed such sanctity that, though we had at our disposal the city and Italy, both rich in sacred places, our generals made vows to this goddess in their greatest and most perilous wars, vows which they discharged in Pessinus itself, laying their offerings before the principal altar of the shrine in that place. And though this shrine was devotedly watched over with characteristic piety by Deiotarus, whose unflinching loyalty to our empire and ardent attachment to our authority has been absolutely peerless, you adjudicated it and delivered it over to Brogitarus, as I have already mentioned, for a money payment’ (Har.Resp. 13. 28–29). 26

30

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

precinct has been built up by the Attalic kings in a manner befitting a holy place, with a sanctuary and also with porticoes of white marble. The Romans made the temple famous when, in accordance with oracles of Sibyl, they sent for the statue of the goddess there, just as they did in the case of that of Asclepius at Epidaurus. There is also a mountain situated above the city, Dindymum, after which the country Dindymene was named, just as Cybele was named after Cybela. Near by, also, flows the Sangarius river; and on this river are the ancient habitations of the Phrygians, of Midas, and of Gordius, who lived even before this time, and of certain others – habitations which preserve not even traces of cities, but are only villages slightly larger than the others, for instance, Gordium and Gorbeus, the royal residence of Castor the son of Saocondarius, where Deïotarus, Castor’s father-in-law, slew him and his own daughter. And he pulled down the fortress and ruined most of the settlement (12. 5. 3).

Written sources connect the establishment of Cybele’s sanctuary in Pessinus to Midas, king of Phrygia. Midas was an historical person, as we know from Assyrian sources of the late 8th century BC, but in Greece and Greek mythology he was considered as mythical or semi-mythical.28 Too many events are connected to Midas, not least the establishment of Ancyra (Pausanias 1. 4. 5).29 Hence, we should not be surprised, in these circumstances, that the foundation of Cybele’s shrine in Pessinus was also ascribed to him. This can be considered as myth – in particular, an aetiological one. It is very important for identifying when this myth was created to consider the date of the first of the two phases of the fortress built in the ‘temple area’:30 this was at the end of the 4th/beginning of the 3rd century BC.31 That is precisely the time at which Theopompus was writing.32 It is entirely possible that he was the begetter of the myth, in the same way that the Greeks invented the past of their colonies in order to justify establishing overseas settlements in the territory of local peoples.33 Furthermore, as Verlinde observed: ‘It will be argued that the Hellenistic temple may not be found in the village of Ballıhisar to begin with, and that the Early Phrygian roots of the sanctuary may have been a fabrication.’34 Indeed, he succeeds in doing so. The Phrygian Mother Goddess was worshipped mainly at open-air sanctuaries, mountains, springs, caves, stepped altars, etc.: Cybele/Cybelan means 28

Vassileva 2001; 2006; 2008; 2018, 66. For Near Eastern sources on Midas, see Grace 2018. See also Vassileva 2018, 69. 30 Who built the fortress? Is it possible that it was the Seleucids who, under Antiochus I, defeated the Celts in 275 or 268 BC, after which the Celts settled in north-central Anatolia in the region that became known as Galatia. 31 Verlinde 2015a, 40. 32 On Theopompus, see Flower 1997. 33 Hall 2008. 34 Verlinde 2015b, 35. 29

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

31

‘mountains’.35 In practice, any mountain can be considered a site of worship for Cybele. If we turn to Diodorus Siculus (3. 59. 8): As for Cybele, in ancient times they [the Phrygians] erected altars and performed sacrifices to her yearly; and later they built for her a costly temple in Pessinus of Phrygia, and established honours and sacrifices of the greatest magnificence, Midas their king taking part in all these works out of his devotion to beauty; and beside the statue of the goddess they set up panthers and lions, since it was the common opinion that she had first been nursed by these animals.

Near the summit of the highest mountain in the vicinity of Pessinus – Mt Dindymos, some 10 km distant – the Ghent team found a cave which they considered to be related to Cybele.36 No temples of Cybele are known in Phrygia before the Hellenistic period. The only exception of which I am aware is a temple of the Mother Goddess recently discovered on the Düver Peninsula of Yarışlı Lake near Burdur (Pisidia). Here, two rock-cut carved-stone temples of the 7th/6th century BC were found. They have stone steps, cella, and on the rear wall of the temples is a relief of the sitting Mother Goddess. Not far from these temples are two two-stepped altars.37 If a sanctuary dedicated to Cybele existed at all, could it have been at Pessinus? Pessinus is 950 m above sea level, situated in the narrow and claustrophobic valley of the Gallos river.38 It is not surrounded by high mountains but by hills, where, in later periods, necropoleis were laid out (there are about nine at Pessinus). There are no caves or grottos, and behind the hills the land slopes gently away. This brings us to the territory around Pessinus and what evidence we have there of either the worship of Cybele or of Phrygian occupation. First of all, Tekören (see Table 4. 1–5), which possesses the Phrygian trinity of rock-cut tombs, a three-stepped altar and a basin,39 all dated widely to the 8th–6th centuries BC; and there are granite outcrops and a high mountain (Fig. 30). As their annual excavation reports reveal, the Ghent team discovered a settlement covering about 10 ha, a potters’ quarter and, on the riverbank, a barely visible second rock-cut tomb (see Table 4). It is obvious that Tekören was a typical Phrygian settlement: Phrygian grey pottery was also discovered.40

35

Roller 1999, 66–68; Vassileva 2018, 72. Devreker 2018, 247. 37 Kahiya and Ekinci 2015. 38 For the geography and geomorphology of Pessinus and surrounding territories, see Brackman etal. 1995. 39 As I mention in the table, the purpose of this basin is unknown. 40 During surveys conducted by the late Taciser Sivas (to whom I express my gratitude for this information) and by the Melbourne team. 36

32

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Thus, we have a very good candidate for the location of a Phrygian sanctuary allegedly dedicated to Cybele. Tekören itself was an important centre, as revealed by the marble architectural details around the village. Geophysical study here by the Melbourne team has revealed that substantial buildings are buried41 (Figs. 31–32). There are other sites where worship of the Mother Goddess is revealed through rock-cut images of her (Table 4.8, 9, 11). These, like Tekören, are all situated north of Pessinus. These sites, like many shrines to Cybele, are situated in rural locations. One further site deserves attention: Hamamtepe, a hilltop settlement 1600 m above sea level (Table 4.10) (Figs. 30, 33). In the middle of the settlement is a large rectangular rock-cut basin and rock-cut features. Hamamtepe became a heavily defended site, probably in the Hellenistic period (Fig. 34); the existence of a sanctuary here is quite possible. How important was Pessinus with its temple of Cybele? As A. Coşkum puts it: It would thus seem that writers of historical, geographical or ethnographic accounts in the Late Republic and Augustan age had little interest in Pessinuntine history earlier than 205 BC, or perhaps rather they had simply no knowledge thereof. Apparently, given its remote location, Pessinus had neither been of interest to the periegetic authors who preferred coastal areas, nor is it mentioned in Herodotus’ Histories or Xenophon’s Anabasis. Since there is no record that the Gallos valley played a role in whichever of the several wars of the Early Hellenistic period, it is unlikely to have figured in any of the numerous now-lost historiographic accounts of the Classical and Early Hellenistic periods.42

Briefly, to consider the Attalid aspect:43 the Attalids were strong supporters of the cult of the Mother Goddess as in Pergamon itself and its surrounding territories.44 Strabo, in the passage I have cited above, writes that the Attalid kings established the temple dedicated to Cybele, not that they embellished what was already there. This took place during the reign of Attalos I, after 205/4 BC.45 If Pessisnus was not suited to housing a shrine of Cybele, nevertheless it was very well positioned for monumental building; and the Attalids made full use of the possibilities, terracing parts of the site and constructing grand public buildings.

41 42 43 44 45

Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2012, 352. Coşkum 2018, 211. For details, see Coşkum 2018, 219–23. Roller 1999, 90. Devreker 2018, 248.

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

33

Table 4. Phrygian monuments and settlements in the vicinity of Ballıhisar/Pessinus. No. Place

Evidence

Date

Comments/Notes

1

Tekören,46 7.5 km North of Pessinus

Three-step altar (Fig. 35)

8th–6th century BC

150 m from the centre of Tekören village. Orientation of altar: north-east.

2

Tekören

Chamber tomb (Fig. 36)

8th–6th century BC

Situated 55 m from altar.

3

Tekören

Chamber tomb

8th–6th century BC

1 km to the south, near the river. Today not visible.

4

Tekören

Two basins (Fig. 37)

8th–6th century BC

The basins are on different levels aligned in an east– west direction. The basins are connected to each other by a round hole. Different opinions exist about their purpose. While some consider them to have been for ritual purposes, others believe that they were wine presses and of a later date than the altar: post-Phrygian.

5

Tekören

settlement47

Phrygian

Size about 10 ha. Ghent team identified a ‘potters’ quarter’ from the reject and misfired pottery. Some stone buildings were also recorded and thousands of pieces of pottery.

6

İstiklalbağı, 7 km north-east of Pessinus

Barely visible rock-cut tomb48

Phrygian

Quarry from which marble was delivered to Pessinus.

7

Mt Dindymos to the north-east of the village of Karacaören

Open-air sanctuary and settlement49

Phrygian

On the slopes besides open-air sanctuary, settlement with stone houses was recorded. They are 1500–1600 m above sea level. It is said that the pottery found here dates to either the Bronze Age or the Iron Age.

46 On the monuments from Tekören, see Devreker and Vermeulen 1991; 1993, 271; Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 1995, 131; 1992, 351, T. Sivas 1999, 168; Claerhout and Devreker 2008, 149–50; Roller 1999, 79–80; Berndt-Ersöz 2006, 163–64 (gives detailed description and measurements); Tsetskhladze 2009, 705. 47 Not published; just mentioned in annual report. See also Claerhout and Devreker 2008, 149. 48 Not published; just mentioned in annual report. See also Claerhout and Devreker 2008, 151. 49 Not published; just mentioned in annual report. See also Claerhout and Devreker 2008, 150.

34

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

No. Place

Evidence

Date

Comments/Notes

8

Tavuk Pınarı, 1 km south-west of the village of Kuzören, some 14 km north-west of Pessinus

Rock façade

Second half Relief in a very poor state of repair, depicts the figure of of 6th century BC Mater wearing a polos and standing in a niche.

9

Balkaya, not far from Böğürtlen, 7 km from Sivrihisar

Façade monument

Phrygian

Traces of red paint on the pediment and above and at the door frames.

10

Hamamtepe. at Karacaören, 8 km south-east of Pessinus

Hill-top settlement 1600 m above sea level

Phrygian

In the centre, a rectangular cistern, which could be either for cultic purposes or for collecting rainwater (Fig. 38). Impressive very well visible walls and tower, probably from the Hellenistic period. Rock-cut features are visible on the side of the hill. Subjected to looting, especially graves (Fig. 39). Surveys by Ghent50 and by Melbourne51 revealed pottery from Early Iron Age to Ottoman period. Some of the Phrygian grey pottery carried on the handle marks in the form of arrows and the letter ‘A’, as well as incised geometric motif of horizontal chevrons.52

11

Zey, Sivrihisar mountain range53

Settlement, necropolis and ritual places

Phrygian

Survey resulted in discovery of 12 rock-cut tombs, rock-cut stepped altars, circular forms and wine-presses.

50 51 52 53

Claerhout and Devreker 2008, 152–55. Anderson 2008; Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2011, 355–56. Claerhout and Devreker 2008, 155. H. Sivas 2018.

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

35

THE ACHAEMENIDS IN PESSINUS The opinion has been expressed that thanks to its religious status, and like other sacred places, Pessinus was able to preserve its independence under the successive rulers of Asia Minor. Under the Lydians (mid-7th–mid-6th century BC) and the Persian Achaemenids (mid-6th– 4th century BC), as well as under the Greek Seleucids (late 4th–early 3rd century BC), the temple state retained its independence.54

This seems somewhat strange, first of all because Pessinus was not a temple state until the Attalid era, and secondly because it was part of the Phrygian kingdom and surely, like the whole of Phrygia, it came under Lydian and Achaemenid domination. (No Lydian material has been discovered so far at Pessinus but, as I noted above, the earliest levels are very deep and have not been reached.) In 2013, Andrew Goldman spent several days during the field season going through the pottery discovered by the Melbourne team. He noted that there were good examples of Achaemenid wares amongst the survey pottery.55 In general, it is very difficult to trace an Achaemenid presence archaeologically because, as M.C. Miller puts it: In Anatolia continuity is more readily visible than innovation: hence arose the early impression that the Achaemenid period was archaeologically invisible, and with it the sense that Achaemenid culture was recessive and that Persian control was weak. Greater experience and more understanding of excavated material puts us now into the position of recognising that historically attested invasions typically do not yield immediate or wide-ranging changes in the material record. Researchers must be attentive to detail as well as to emergent trends.56

This is a paradoxical consequence of the creation of Achaemenid court art and culture, which drew on those of all the regions and peoples they had subjected, and adopted and adapted so as to create something that became distinctive in its own right and was superimposed on the original culture of the Persians themselves (‘Persianising’ them?). Moreover, Persianisation, whatever it might be, is hard to identify, not least because it was deliberate Persian practice and ideology both to leave the cultural identity of subject peoples intact and to maintain their ethnic identity (the pax Persica). The objects we have

54

Claerhout and Devreker 2008, 30 Personal communication. It was intended that the Melbourne team examine all Phrygian, Achaemenid, etc. material during a study season (planned for 2015). The abrupt end to the project (see my previous chapter) precluded this. 56 Miller 2011, 337. 55

36

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

from the far reaches of the Achaemenid empire are mainly gold- and silverware, jewellery and arms, often not only hard to date but difficult to identify where they were produced. All can be identified as ‘Achaemenid international style’, but it tends to be problematic to apportion them into such more precise identifications as ‘Achaemenid court-style art’, ‘Achaemenidising satrapal art’, or ‘Perso-barbarian art’.57 CONCLUSION As this paper demonstrates, our knowledge of pre-Hellenistic Pessinus is growing. This has been made possible above all by the archaeological investigations of the Ghent and (later) Melbourne teams. The occupation of Ballıhisar began in prehistoric times, continuing through the Hittite and Phrygian periods. Much can be achieved through study of the large body of unpublished material accumulated by the Ghent excavation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, W. 2008: ‘Report on pottery from Pessinus’. Unpublished manuscript. Pessinus Archive. Baştürk, M.B. 2018: ‘The Hittite Presence at Şarhöyük/Dorylaion: An Overview’. In Tsetskhladze 2018, 129–62. Berndt-Ersöz, S. 2006: Phrygian Rock-Cut Shrines: Structure, Function, and Cult Practice (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 25) (Leiden/Boston). Bilgen, A.N. 2005: Çavlum:Eskişehir:Alpuovası’ndabirOrtaTunçÇağimezarlığı (Eskişehir). —. (ed.) 2015: SeyitömerHöyükI (Instanbul). Bilgen, A.N., von den Hoff, R., Sandalcı, S. and Silek, S. (eds.) 2011: Archaeological Research in Western Central Anatolia (Proceedings of the IIIrd International Symposium of Archaeology, Kütahya, 8th–9th March 2010) (Kütahya). Brackman, P., De Dapper, M., Devreker, J. and Vermeulen, F. 1995: ‘The Use of Geomorphology, Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques for Geoarchaeological Purposes in the Pessinus Area, Central Anatolia (Turkey)’. NatuurwetenschappelijkTijdschrift 75.1, 3–34. Claerhout, I. and Devreker, J. 2008: Pessinous,SacredCityoftheAnatolianMother Goddess:AnArchaeologicalGuide (Istanbul). Coşkum, A. 2018: ‘The Temple State of Cybele in Phrygian and Early Hellenistic Pessinus: a Phantom?’. In Tsetskhladze 2018, 205–43.

57

Tsetskhladze forthcoming, with literature.

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

37

Devreker, J., Bauters, L., Braeckman, K., De Clercq, W., Deschieter, J. and Dutoo, D. 2000: ‘Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte (Turquie): la campagne de 1998’. AA 8, 105–17. Devreker, J., Bauters, L., Braeckman, K. and Monsieur, P. 2007: ‘Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2005’. AA 15, 165–81. Devreker, J., Bauters, L., De Clercq, W. and Braeckman, K. 2006: ‘Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2004’. AA 14, 117–29. Devreker, J., Braeckman, K. and Dutoo, D. 1999: ‘Pessinonte 1997: Rapport Provisoire’. KST 20.2, 359–83. Devreker, J., Devos, G., Bauters, L., Braeckman, K., Daems, A., De Clercq, W., Angenon, J. and Monsieur, P. 2003: ‘Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2001’. AA 11, 141–56. Devreker, J., Thoen, H. and Vermeulen, F. 1992: ‘Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1990: Rapport Provisoire’. KST 13.2, 341–75. —. 1995: ‘The Imperial Sanctuary at Pessinus and its Predecessors: A Revision’. AA 3, 125–44. —. 2003: ExcavationsinPessinus:TheSo-calledAcropolis.FromHellenisticandRoman CemeterytoByzantineCastle (Archaeological Reports, Ghent University 1) (Ghent). —. 2018: ‘Pessinus and its Sacred Places’. In Tsetskhladze 2018, 245–61. Devreker, J., Verlinde, A., Bauters, L., De Clercq, W. and Monsieur, P. 2008: ‘Archeologische opgravingen in Pessinus (Turkije): de campagne van 2008’. Unpublished manuscript. Devreker, J. and Vermeulen, F. 1991: ‘Phrygians in the Neighbourhood of Pessinus (Turkey)’. In Thoen, H., Bourgeois, J., Vermeulen, F., Crombé, P. and Verlaeckt, K. (eds.), LiberAmicorumJacquesA.E.Nenquin (Studia Archaeologica) (Ghent), 109–17. —. 1993: ‘Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1991: Preliminary Report’. KST 14.2, 261–88. —. 1995a: ‘Archaeological work at Pessinus in 1993’. AA 3, 113–24. —. 1995b: ‘Pessinus 1993: Preliminary Report’. KST 16.2, 75–94. —. 1996: ‘The eighth excavation campaign in Pessinus’. AA 4, 81–97. Devreker, J. and Waelkens, M. (eds.) 1984: LesFouillesdelaRijksuniversiteitteGent àPessinonte,1967–1973:HommageàPierreLambrechts (Dissertations Archaeologicae Gandenses 22), 2 vols. (Bruges). Flower, M.A. 1997: TheopompusofChios:HistoryandRhetoricintheFourthCenturyBC (Oxford). Grace, C. 2018: ‘King Midas: Evidence from Assyria’. In Tsetskhladze 2018, 35–63. Gürtekin-Demir, R.G. 2014: ‘Phrygian Aspects of Lydian Painted Pottery from Sardis’. AJA 118.2, 223–39. Hall, J.M. 2008: ‘Foundation Stories’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), GreekColonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Overseas Settlements, vol. 2 (Leiden/Boston), 383–426. Haspels, C.E.H. 1971: The Highlands of Phrygia. Sites and Monuments, 2 vols. (Princeton). Kahiya, T. and Ekinci, H.A. 2015: ‘Temples to the Mother Goddess Discovered on the Düver Peninsula’. Adalya 18, 45–71. Krsmanovic, D. 2018: ‘The Excavations of Ghent University at Pessinus: A Conspectus of the Work by Pieter Lambrechts (1967–73) and John Devreker (1986–2008)’. In Tsetskhladze 2018, 465–567.

38

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Miller, M.C. 2011: ‘Town and Country in the Satrapies of Western Anatolia: The Archaeology of Exchange Diffusion’. In Summerer, L., Ivantchik, A. and von Kienlin, A. (eds.), Kelainai-Apameia-Kibotos: Développement urbain dans le contexteanatolien (Bordeaux). Munn, M.H. 2006: TheMotheroftheGods,Athens,andtheTyrannyofAsia:AStudy ofSovereigntyinAncientReligion (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London). Roller, L.E. 1999: InSearchofGodtheMother:TheCultofAnatolianCybele (Berkeley/ Los Angeles/London). —. 2018: ‘Pessinus and the Phrygian Mother: The Sanctuary and its Historical Context’. In Tsetskhladze 2018, 77–98. Sams, G.K. 1994: The Early Phrygian Pottery (Gordion Excavations 4/1–2; University Museum Monograph 79) (Philadelphia). Sivas, H. 2018: ‘Phrygian Occupation at the Village of Zey in the Sivrihisar Region, Eskişehir’. In Tsetskhladze 2018, 163–203. Sivas, T. Tüfekçi 1999: Eskişehir-Afyonkarahisar-Kütahya.İlSınırlarıİçindekiPhryg KayaAnıtları (Anadolu Universitesi Yayinları 1156) (Eskişehir). —. 2003: ‘Wine Presses of Western Phrygia’. AWE 2.1, 1–18. —. 2018: ‘Excavations at Dorylaion/Şarhöyük in Phrygia Epiktetos’. In Tsetskhladze 2018, 99–127. Strobel, K. 2010: ‘Ist das phrygische Kultzentrum der Matar mit dem hellenistischen und römischen Pessinus identisch? Zur Geographie des Tempelstaates von Pessinus’. OrbisTerrarum 9 (for 2003–07), 207–23. Strubbe, J.H.M. 2005: The Inscriptions of Pessinous (Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 66) (Bonn). Thoen, H. 2002: ‘Pessinus 2000. Dating the Temple Area: The Evidence of the Finds. A Preliminary Report’. AA 10, 145–54. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2009: ‘Notes on Phrygian Pessinus’. In Sağlamtimur, H., Abay, E., Derin, Z., Erdem, A.Ü., Batmaz, A., Dedeoğlu, F., Erdalkıran, M., Baştürk, M.B. and Konakçı, E. (eds.), AltanÇilingiroğlu’naArmağan.YukarıDenizinKıyısında UrartuKrallığı’naAdanmışBirHayat/StudiesinHonourofAltanÇilingiroğlu.A LifeDedicatedtoUrartuontheShoresoftheUpperSea (Istanbul), 703–17. —. 2012: ‘Phrygian Pessinus’. In Sivas, T. Tüfekçi and Sivas, H. (eds.), Frigler: Mida’inÜlkesinde,AntlarınGölgesinde/Phrygians:intheLandofMidas,inthe ShadowofMonuments (Istanbul), 184–99. —. 2013: ‘Pessinus in Central Anatolia: New Investigations’. In Bru, H. and Labarre, G. (eds.), L’Anatolie des peuples, des cités et des cultures (IIe millénaire av.J.-C.– Vesiècleap.J.-C.).ColloqueinternationaldeBesançon,26–27novembre2010, vol.2:Approcheslocalesetrégionales (Besançon), 41–80. —. (ed.) 2018: Pessinus and its Regional Setting 1 (Colloquia Antiqua 21) (Leuven/ Paris/Bristol, CT). —. forthcoming: ‘“The most marvellous of all seas”: the Great King and the Cimmerian Bosporus’. In Pavúk, P., Klnotza, V. and Harding, A. (eds.), ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ: Studies in Honour of Jan Bouzek (Opera Facultatis philosophicae Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis 23) (Prague), 465–88. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Adams, J., Avram, A., Avram, S., Dandrow, E., Madden, A., Maranzana, P., Naserdin, L. and Schmidt, A. 2012: ‘Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2011 Field Season’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

39

BlackSea,Paphlagonia,PontusandPhrygiainAntiquity:AspectsofArchaeology andAncientHistory (BAR International Series 2432) (Oxford), 329–56. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Anderson, W., Avram, A., Avram, S., Clark, V., Flemming, K., Kortanoğlu, E., Krsmanovic, D., Negus Cleary, M., Schmidt, A. and Weiland, R. 2012: ‘Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2010 Field Season’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), TheBlackSea,Paphlagonia,PontusandPhrygiain Antiquity:AspectsofArchaeologyandAncientHistory (BAR International Series 2432) (Oxford), 293–327. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Anderson, W., Bauters, L., Dandrow, E., De Clercq, W., Mayer, E. and Schmidt, A. 2011: ‘Pessinus, 2009’. KST 32.1, 341–66. Vassileva, M. 2001: ‘Further considerations on the cult of Kybele’. AS 51, 51–63. —. 2006: ‘King Midas: History and Archaeology’. In Mattusch, C.C., Donohue, A.A. and Brauer, A. (eds.), CommonGround:Archaeology,Art,Science,andHumanities (Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Boston, August 23–26, 2003) (Oxford), 15–17. —. 2008: ‘King Midas in Southeastern Asia’. In Collins, B.J., Bachvarova, M.R. and Rutherford, I.C. (eds.), Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbours (Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction, September 17–19, 2004, Emory University, Atlanta, GA) (Oxford), 165–72. —. 2018: ‘King Midas and Pessinus’. In Tsetskhladze 2018, 65–76. Verlinde, A. 2010: ‘Monumental Architecture in Hellenistic and Julio-Claudian Pessinus’. Babesch 85, 111–39. —. 2015a: The Roman Sanctuary at Pessinus from Phrygian to Byzantine Times (Monographs on Antiquity 7) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT). —. 2015b: ‘The Pessinuntine Sanctuary of the Mother of the Gods in light of the excavated Roman temple: fact, fiction and feasibility’. Latomus 74, 30–71. Vermeulen, F., Devreker, J. and Demulder, G. 1998: ‘Urban Developments in Early Byzantine Pessinus (Asia Minor)’. In Cambi, N. and Marin, E. (eds.), Radovi XIIImeđunarodnogkongresazastarokršćanskuarheoligiju/ActaXIIICongressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae (Split-Poreč, 25.9.–1.10.1994) (Studi di antichità cristiana 54; Vjesnik za archeologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 89), vol. 3 (Vatican City/Split), 787–96. Waelkens, M. 1986: ‘The Imperial Sanctuary at Pessinus: Archaeological, Epigraphical and Numismatic Evidence for its Date and Identification’. EA 7, 37–72.

40

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 1. Map of Pessinus. Trenches indicated by capital letters (A. Schmidt).

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

Fig. 2. Prehistoric chert blade, sector P (after Krsmanovic 2018, fig. 92).

41

42

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 3. Prehistoric lithics from the spring area, south of the temple (after Krsmanovic 2018, fig. 93).

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

Fig. 4. Fragment of neck of Hittite jug (courtesy, Ghent team).

Fig. 5. Drawing of fragment of neck of Hittite jug (drawing by C. Mondin).

43

44

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 6. Map of Hittite Lower Lands (courtesy, M. Bilge Baştürk).

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

Fig. 7. Plan of sectors B and H (courtesy, A. Verlinde).

45

46

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 8. Phrygian fibula (courtesy, Ghent team).

Fig. 9. Pottery from pit 25 (courtesy, Ghent team).

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

Fig. 10. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

Fig. 11. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

47

48

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 12. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

Fig. 13. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

Fig. 14. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

Fig. 15. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

Fig. 16. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

Fig. 17. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

49

50

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 18. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

Fig. 19. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

Fig. 20. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

Fig. 21. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

Fig. 22. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

Fig. 23. Drawing of pottery from sector B5a (drawing by C. Mondin).

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

51

Fig. 24. Iron Age polychrome style pottery, pit/hearth 24, trench B2 (after Krsmanovic 2018, fig. 15).

Fig. 25. Drawing of Iron Age polychrome style pottery, pit/hearth 24, trench B2 (drawing by C. Mondin).

52

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 26. Phrygian wall in sector H4 (photograph by author).

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

Fig. 27. Sectors B and H citadel ‘phase 1’ and Phrygian features (after Verlinde 2010, 115, fig. 6).

53

54

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 28. Map of Pessinus. Approximate extent of Late Phrygian settlement coloured red (drawing by M. Negus Cleary).

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

Fig. 29. Map of Pessinus. Area of Roman Pessinus coloured green (drawing by M. Negus Cleary).

55

Fig. 30. Map indicating location of Tekören and Hamamtepe in relation to Pessinus (A. Schmidt).

56 GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

Fig. 31. Tekören. Surveyed fields (A. Schmidt).

57

58

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 32. Tekören. Geophysical study showing remains of buildings buried in field C (A. Schmidt).

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

59

Fig. 33. Plan of Hamemtepe. Rock-cut feature in centre of settlement coloured blue (A. Schmidt).

60

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 34. Hamamtepe. Remains of fortification wall (photograph by author).

Fig. 35. Tekören. Altar (photograph by author).

ON PESSINUS IN PRE-HELLENISTIC TIMES

Fig. 36. Tekören. Tomb (photograph by author).

Fig. 37. Tekören. Basin (photograph by author).

61

62

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 38. Hamamtepe. Rock-cut feature in centre of settlement (photograph by author).

Fig. 39. Hamamtepe. Pottery from looted tomb (photograph by author).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS: A WINDOW ON THE CREATION OF A LATE ROMAN CITY* Paolo MARANZANA

Abstract The recent excavations at Pessinus have revealed new details about the making of a Late Roman provincial capital in the 4th–5th centuries AD. This process involved the construction of new defences, which protected the city in an increasing climate of insecurity. The peculiar topography of Pessinus, however, influenced the community’s choice of construction: no curtain wall has been identified around Pessinus; instead it is most likely that it was defended by a series of watchtowers located on the high plateaus around the city. This defensive system did not guarantee an effective protection against sieges, which were not a concern in this period; rather it allowed the defenders to spot the arrival of enemies. This paper presents the results the excavation of one of these watchtowers, sector S, located in the eastern fringes of the city and discusses its impact on the urban fabric of this Central Anatolian provincial capital.

INTRODUCTION Archaeological investigations at Pessinus have, in the past decades, shed new light on the history of this important site as well as its development over time. The city was renowned in antiquity as the main sanctuary of the Anatolian goddess Cybele, and archaeological investigations have revealed the presence of a sizeable urban centre.1 Very little is known, however, about one key element of its urban infrastructure: the defensive system. The lack of information about this feature, a very common element throughout all cities in antiquity, * I would like to thank Prof. Gocha Tsetskhladze for commissioning this article as well as supporting my research at Pessinus. I also would like to thank Jason Adams, Edward Dandrow, Ledio Hysi, Andrew Madden, Jane Massaglia and Elizabeth Schultz for their work in the field; Hazal van het Hof and Defne Kantarelli for liaising with our Turkish colleagues as well as working in the field and pottery laboratory; Armin Schmidt, Geoffrey Cranenburgh and Simon Young for their help with the visual material presented here; Cristina Mondin for providing insights into the finds collected during the excavation; and Andrew Goldman, Andrea De Giorgi, Emanuele Intagliata, Simon Young, Philipp Niewöhner and Christopher Ratté for their invaluable comments on my study of the excavation. I am particularly grateful to Christopher Ratté for his comments on this manuscript. 1 For an overview of the archaeological features discovered at Pessinus by the Ghent team, see Claerhout and Devreker 2008.

64

PAOLO MARANZANA

represents a striking gap in our understanding of the site. The Belgian teams, which explored the history and archaeology of Pessinus intermittently between the late 1960s and 2008,2 revealed the presence of two fortified citadels (sectors B and I) belonging to the Late Hellenistic and to the Late Roman/Early Byzantine periods respectively (Fig. 1).3 The former is a complex buried in the city centre underneath the Roman temple. This structure seems to be a key feature of a smaller Late Hellenistic settlement, which is still poorly understood (Fig. 2). The latter is a citadel erected on the northern fringes of the city sometime in the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period (Fig. 3). Similar structures are known to have appeared in other cities during this time, and they attest a profound reorganisation of the urban space, often marking a widespread abandonment of the rest of the city.4 So far, however, there is no trace of a larger defensive system which could guarantee security to a sizeable settlement such as Pessinus. From the 1st to the 6th–7th centuries AD, the city extended over an area of ca. 88 ha.5 The absence of a defensive wall is particularly striking for the Late Roman period, during which fortifications became widespread once again after centuries of the Pax Romana.6 This anomaly is further marked by two elements: 1) many cities in the Roman East and especially those located in the vicinity of Pessinus, such as Ancyra/Ankara and Amorion, were all defended by walls,7 making the lack of urban fortifications at Pessinus a striking regional peculiarity; 2) more importantly, most city walls built in Asia Minor are dated to the mid-/late 4th century AD, 8 the time in which Pessinus had become the capital of the newly established province of Galatia Secunda (or Salutaris). As already noted for the case of Aphrodisias,9 the creation of a new provincial capital was often followed by the construction of imposing defensive walls, which aimed not only to provide higher security, but also to play a key role in the development of urban identity of this period.10 This element would make the absence of fortifications at Pessinus an even more unique case. 2

Tsetskhladze 2013 contains a review of the history of the excavations at Pessinus. For the citadel in sector B, see Verlinde 2015, 30–65; for sector I, see Vermeulen 2003b. 4 For citadels in Anatolia, see Niewöhner 2007; and Maranzana forthcoming for the specific case of Late Roman Galatia. 5 Tsetskhladze 2013, 48–53. 6 Jacobs 2013, 23–29. 7 For a survey of city walls in the Late Roman East, see Jacobs 2013, 19–106. On Late Roman Galatia, see Maranzana forthcoming. For the specific case of Ancyra, see Peschlow 2015, 111–15; on Amorion, see Crow 2001, 100. 8 Jacobs 2013, 23–29. 9 De Staebler 2008. 10 Müth, Laufer and Brasse 2016. 3

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

65

In 2009, Gocha Tsetskhladze began a new project geared toward the investigation of the hitherto poorly known hinterlands of the town. Paramount of this new research enterprise was the question as to whether Pessinus was girded by fortifications throughout its history and how recent evidence may be harnessed to offer new interpretational frameworks. Thus, the project undertook a series of new archaeological explorations combining excavation, survey and geophysical prospection. Below is a review of previous evidence for fortifications at Pessinus as well as a presentation of newly acquired data from sector S, an area excavated at the eastern fringes of the city. PESSINUS THROUGH THE AGES The ancient city of Pessinus, located south-west of Ankara (Fig. 4) off the main road linking western Asia Minor to Ankara (Fig. 5), occupies the valley of a seasonal stream tributary of the Sakarya river (the ancient Sangarios), held by Marc Waelkens to be the ancient Gallos river (Fig. 1).11 Today, the river flows about 17 km south of the ancient city. The valley of the stream cuts through the landscape, and it is flanked by smaller ravines caused by seasonal runoff. In the main, the city straddled this valley, while the surrounding narrow plateaus were often used as large cemeteries.12 Even though archaeological evidence suggests that the site was occupied from the Hittite period onward,13 the first substantial traces of a settlement belong to the late 4th–early 3rd century BC, when the above cited citadel was built (Fig. 2).14 The 2nd century BC marks a time of renovation and expansion of this complex, as a second phase of this citadel was erected on the same site, albeit with different orientation and on a greater scale.15 Building momentum picked up at the time of Augustus, when Pessinus became part of the Roman province of Galatia. During the early Imperial period, several new buildings were added to the fabric of the city: for example, a monumental centre with a stairway leading into a temple and a paved thoroughfare crossing the city.16 The temple complex was the main focus of Belgian research, and its design

11 Waelkens 1971. The identification of the torrent as the Gallos is challenged by Emanuel Mayer (see Mayer 2018). 12 Tsetskhladze 2013. 13 See the immediately preceding chapter by Tsetskhladze. 14 Verlinde 2015, 20–24. 15 Verlinde 2015, 30–65. 16 Young 2018.

66

PAOLO MARANZANA

resembles Late Hellenistic sanctuaries located in Central Italy.17 Growth of community and urban fabric steadily continued up to the end of the 2nd century AD, when a large theatre was erected in the eastern part of the city, as well as during the Severan epoch, as a new basilica and a monumental arch were constructed. Just as for many other Roman cities of Anatolia, the Late Roman period witnessed substantial modifications to Pessinus’s built environment: new unidentified buildings, sheathed with marble were erected near the main road, while others were repurposed – i.e. the basilica was turned into a church – thus reshaping the image of the city. Archaeological investigations outside the monumental centre suggest that the city was extensively inhabited well into the 7th century AD (sectors K, Q and R in Fig. 1), confirming Pessinus’s continuity of settlement.18 FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS: A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE The contribution of literary sources to the issue of monumental defences at Pessinus is rather modest. The only ancient literary reference to the existence of a wall around Pessinus can be found in VitaSanctiTheodori, dated to the 7th century AD. In the passage on the city, Theodore supposedly met a procession heading into Pessinus from the church of the Holy Hosts of Angels, which is said to have been located outside the city walls: Είσελθόντος οδν αυτού εν τη πόλει, ύπήντησεν αύτφ ο μακαριώτατος Γεώργιος ό μητροπολίτης καὶ ύπεδέξατο αύτον χαίρων. Ό δέ θεράπων τού Χριστού Θεόδωρος προσέταξε λιτήν προκηρύξαι είς την αΰριον. Καί πρωίας γενομένης συνήχθη πδσα ή πόλις έν τη καθολική καί πρώτη εκκλησία τη αγία Σοφία (VitasanctiTheodori/ViedeThéodoredeSykéon 101).19 After offering up prayer the blessed Theodore and the metropolitan George with all the people marched in procession, singing a litany, to the venerable church of the Holy Hosts of Angels outside the walls. And there they read the Gospel and returned again in procession, singing a litany, to the church of the Holy Wisdom.20

This church may have been identified in 2013 on a plateau situated west of the city (Fig. 6).21 There is, however, no trace of any fortification in the vicinity.

17

Verlinde 2015, 256–64. See below for a brief discussion of the Late Roman city. For a fuller discussion of the topic, see Maranzana forthcoming. 19 Ed. A.-J. Festugiere (Brussels 1970). Strubbe 2005, 256. 20 Translation after Dawes and Baynes 1948, 155. 21 See Schmidt’s report in the final chapter of the present volume, and Maranzana forthcoming. 18

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

67

Nor do the travellers’ accounts of the 19th century provide any further hints about defences at Pessinus. Charles Texier, the first person to identify the site of Pessinus, noted the presence of two features in sector I (the Temple of Asclepius and a large structure that he recognises as a hippodrome (Fig. 7),22 which were already invisible a few decades later because of heavy robbing, when other explorers reached the city.23 One of Texier’s remarks is, in particular, of the absence of any church at Pessinus, which was interpreted as evidence of resistance of the local population to Christianity.24 The discovery of a church, perhaps the one mentioned in texts of the Holy Hosts of Angels, and several other features which had been dismantled almost to their foundations, suggests therefore that much more is lying under the sediment. Just as the church was completely invisible to the naked eye (Fig. 8), it is possible that many other structures remain underground. Given the absence of a recognisable defensive wall surrounding the city as well as the impossibility of relying on observations of the visible remains, a systematic ground survey was conducted in 2010 with a view toward investigating the cultural scatters on plateaus around Pessinus.25 The project drew on preliminary survey data collected by the Belgian team in the 1980s and 1990s.26 As for the presence of potential defensive systems,27 the Belgian team identified a series of possible watchtowers and strongholds which dotted the landscape and could have surrounded the inhabited space (Fig. 9).28 These features occupied the many plateaus scattered around the city and their intended goal may not have been to withstand extended sieges, but rather to keep watch over the access to the valley. Although not common, similar defensive systems are known in Asia Minor, as attested by Hellenistic Mylasa (Fig. 10).29 After the preliminary survey carried out in 2010, a selected number of these plateaus were explored in greater detail through geophysical prospection. In particular, where surveyors spotted large stones, tiles and limited earthwork, further investigations were carried out in order to probe the existence of watchtowers and strongholds. The geophysical data confirmed the probable presence of such features in F085 (Fig. 11), F047 and, perhaps, F086. It is therefore 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Texier 1862, 473–79. Hamilton 1842; Texier 1862; Van Lennep 1870; Perrot 1872; and Humann 1890. Texier 1862, 481. Anderson, Krsmanovic and Cleary in the present volume. Devreker and Vermeulen 1993. Tsetskhladze 2013, 53. Anderson 2013, 87–89, contains a discussion of the evidence for these features. Rumscheid 1999, 207–10.

68

PAOLO MARANZANA

possible that the valley was fortified by means of a number of isolated fortresses/watchtowers rather than by a curtain wall enclosing the whole city.30 To test this hypothesis further, excavations were planned in sector S (F132) (Fig. 9), a plateau located to the east of the city. SECTOR S Among the many plateaus surveyed, sector S (F132) was discovered and analysed through Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) in 2010.31 As with plateau F084, the geophysical results revealed the presence of a buried structure; it clearly features two stretches of a wall strengthened by internal buttresses (about 6 m apart) as well as by two circular towers (Fig. 12), located at the north-eastern and north-western extremities. The wall is about 60 m on the eastern side, while only ca. 30 m are visible in the northern section. Sector S sits on an area of about 0.5 ha and it is located on the western edge of a large plateau which carries on all the way up to the Sivrihisar Mountains (Fig. 13), situated 7.5 km north-east of Pessinus. The structure was completely invisible at a first glance, and only a shallow crest with a north–south orientation could be noticed (Fig. 14). The rest of the surface, which extended westward, is flat and covered with sparse small stones (0.1–0.2 m in diameter) scattered around. The north, west and south flanks of the plateau drop dramatically toward the valley of the torrent, offering an obvious vantage point in order to observe the surroundings of the city. Its edges have significantly changed through time, due to both human activities (herding) and erosion.32 Specifically, the western and southern borders of the plateau have fallen, reducing the area once occupied by the structure. The phenomenon is particularly clear when looking at the south-eastern tower, where the circular structure is only partially preserved also due to the collapse of the edges of the plateau (Fig. 15). Excavation commenced in 2011 and continued in 2013 with the aim of gaining more information about the development of this complex. For these reasons, two trenches (T1, T1A together encompassing an area of about 15 × 10 m) were placed on top the northern tower (the one clearer in the geophysical survey) in seasons 2011 and 2013 respectively (Fig. 15), in order to investigate further the chronology, building techniques and use of this feature. Moreover, 30 31 32

Tsetskhladze 2013, 53. Tsetskhladze, Anderson etal. 2012, 314. Stoops 1984.

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

69

another trench (T2) was opened in 2011 to explore the centre of the plateau, for which the geophysical survey had not highlighted any visible features. Finally, in 2013, four sondages (1–4) were dug with the aim of studying specific aspects of the complex.33 A discussion of the excavation results and their interpretation is offered below. It needs to be noted, however, that the sudden and unintended halting of the project after only two seasons of excavations (2011 and 2013) hinders our ability to discern fully the development of this complex. For example, the bottom of its foundations was never reached; this gap frustrates any attempt to establish a firm chronology for the establishment. The Late Roman period seems a viable, albeit general, horizon for the construction of the building. The walls were only cursorily investigated, leaving us with very little information about possible gates or roads that would link the structure to the rest of the city and its surroundings. The inside of the structure is just as poorly understood due to limited excavation and lack of geophysical data. More importantly, as for many buildings at Pessinus, the extensive robbing of walls and towers after abandonment inhibits our investigation. As for the materials, their examination lasted only one season; it appears that most of the material (both fine and coarse ware), especially in the Late Roman period, were produced locally. Local ceramic products, which are common throughout many regions of Asia Minor,34 are particularly understudied in Central Anatolia; their discussion in this paper, therefore, suffers from the lack of comparative studies, which requires substantial new research in order to fill the gap of knowledge. Thus, the analysis of the finds from sector S can hardly be expected to provide us with a refined chronology for the construction of the complex. Indeed, much needs to be done in order to glean a better understanding of the complex, but I hope that this report will offer a solid ground for future research. THE WALLS The 2013 season brought to light new data on the walls of the structure, which were revealed by geophysical prospection in 2010. Wall no. 2 runs east to west for about 30 m, while wall no. 4 is oriented north–south and extends for ca. 60 m (Fig. 16). The edge of wall no. 2 was never found, as the surface of the plateau most definitely shrank due to the collapse of its west side. A large amount of 33 For the reports of the excavations conducted in 2011 and 2013, see Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2012, 330–41, and the final chapter of the present volume. 34 Poblome etal. 2001.

70

PAOLO MARANZANA

material, probably belonging to the structure, is still visible on the western slope of sector S. The clear reduction of the south and west flanks of the plateau has obliterated any traces of possible remains of the walls on these sides. It appears then that the poor preservation of the structure would not allow us to determine whether the walls of sector S surrounded the plateau completely, creating an individual fortress/watchtower, or whether they connected in some fashion with other similar structures on other plateaus. Additionally, no structures indicating the use of the internal space were detected by the excavations. The absence of noticeable built structures within the area of sector S, however, suggests that the complex probably did not house a permanent contingent of defenders, and that sector S functioned as a part of a larger defensive system at Pessinus. If so, it would therefore be inappropriate to consider this structure as a self-contained entity. A larger research project, including excavations of the other areas such as F085 and F086 (Fig. 9)35 as well as further geophysical prospection and ground survey of other plateaus, will thus be essential for a full understanding of the urban defences at Pessinus. Wallno.2 (Fig. 17) Length: 5.6 m (the entire wall is about 30 m long) Height: ca. 1.7 m (bottom of the foundations was not reached) Width: 1.7 m Wallno.4 (Figs. 18–19) Length: 7.5 m (the entire wall is about 40 m long) Height: ca. 1.7 m (bottom of the foundations was not reached) Width: 1.7 m

Building techniques: roughly rectangular limestone blocks of inconsistent dimensions (from 0.20 × 0.14 m to 0.13 × 0.22 m) placed in semi-regular mortared courses. Courses are not very well defined, especially in the interior of the structure, and the use of mortar is also uneven (0.006–0.008 m) (visible in both Figs. 19 and 20). The top ca. 0.2–0.3 m (first two courses) of the wall were clearly smoothed (both internally and externally), and they most probably marked the bottom of the free-standing part. The foundations were built with the same technique (but with both surfaces left rough), and they rested on a layer of loose brown clayey sand with frequent inclusions, such as small rocks and crushed building material (0.03–0.08 m). The limit of the foundation trench was never identified, and it may lie outside the excavated area.

35

See above.

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

DESCRIPTION OF

THE

71

STRUCTURE

The two walls meet at a right angle where the tower now lies, but the joints between the walls are now covered by a floor within the tower (context 24) (Fig. 16).36 The joint of the walls seems to be strengthened by two buttresses (stone features nos. 3 and 1), which are located about 2.5 m apart. These stone features are, however, built with different techniques and do not belong to the same phase of construction. Stone feature no. 3 (Fig. 20) was exposed to a height of 1.7 m; it is designed on a square plan of about 1.2 m per side and it is situated ca. 0.5 m north of the joint between walls nos. 2 and 4 (Fig. 21). The buttress is built with techniques resembling those of wall no. 4: rectangular limestone blocks were kept together by mortar, while only the first two courses were smooth and the rest was left rough. The two structures (stone feature no. 3 and wall no. 4) were also clearly constructed at same time, as staggered joints bond them. On the other hand, stone feature no. 1 (Fig. 23), placed about 2.5 m north of stone feature no. 3, is constructed on a rectangular plan (ca. 0.70 × 1.2 m), with blocks which are only cut and smoothed in the exterior, and rest on a bed of mortar, gravel and pebbles (0.03–0.08 m). Stone feature no. 3 and wall no. 4 are also only linked through mortar, as still partially visible in Fig. 20. Stone feature no. 1 (Fig. 22) seems to have been built in line with wall no. 3 (the north-eastern segment of the tower), with which it shares also similar building techniques. Since also the tower was added later to the structure,37 it can be suggested that stone feature no. 1 may represent an attempt to provide further structural strength to wall no. 2, which was needed after the construction of the tower. Several other buttresses can be observed both in the results of the geophysical prospection and in the excavated stretches of the wall (Fig. 15). The buttress (stone feature no. 4) located in the middle of wall no. 4 is one of the many structures that strengthened the walls throughout their length (Fig. 23). Stone feature no. 4 was also substantially robbed and preserved only at the height of 0.63 m, while its length and width are 1.22 m and 1.08 m respectively. Buttresses such as stone feature no. 4, which are located at regular intervals (about 6 m apart), clearly belong to the time of the construction of wall no. 4, as demonstrated by the consistency of the building techniques as well as by the presence of staggered joints in the masonry. The employment of internal buttresses is rare in the Roman East, as reinforcements, such as small

36 37

For the discussion of the floor, see below next section. See below next section.

72

PAOLO MARANZANA

towers, are commonly located outside the structure.38 Internal pillars are, however, visible in cities such as Resafa in Syria,39 where the walls were abutted by arches sitting on such feature (Fig. 24). At Resafa, archaeological investigations revealed that the arches (roughly between 2 and 5 m apart) created a much wider walkway on top of the walls, which would allow the defenders to move freely around the walls. It is therefore possible that the buttresses at Pessinus were meant not only to reinforce the wall, but also to support a super structure to allow mobility around the walls. In all, the defences at Pessinus would be certainly less imposing and well-executed that those at Resafa. In particular, the walls at Resafa were built around the whole city (26 ha) and constructed with well-cut stones employing the so-called three-leaf design: a mortared rubble core faced on both sides by mortared ashlar masonry (Fig. 25).40 I suggest that the buttresses of sector S would be a much less impressive superstructure; yet it, created a good surface for the installation of wooden planks, rather than more permanent material. A further observation about the relation between wall and buttresses can be made by examining the widths of walls nos. 2 and 4: most urban defensive walls as well as citadels in the Roman East are about 3 m thick, as for the case of Amorion and Ancyra among many.41 For example, the above-mentioned citadel at Pessinus (sector I) (Fig. 1) presents also similar figures (3.1 m). Walls nos. 2 and 4 are instead only 1.7 m wide, which would represent a substantial reduction in the dimension of the wall in sector S if compared with the rest of the Roman East.42 If, however, we add the width of the buttresses to the one of the wall no. 4 we would reach a total figure of 3 m, which is consistent with the case studies just mentioned. The wall of Resafa, for example, is indeed between 2.8 and 3.1 m wide.43 There is very little information about the original height of the structure. Comparative studies carried out for fortresses from North Africa suggests a ratio of 1:3–4 between height and width, which would make the walls at Pessinus between 5 and 7 m tall, if we accept the width as 1.7 m.44 On the other hand, if we assume that the buttresses functioned as further support to 38

For Asia Minor, see Jacobs 2013. Hof 2015; 2010; 2009. 40 Hof 2010; von Karnapp 1976, 6–22. 41 See Maranzana’s report in the final chapter of the present volume. 42 Comparable thicknesses have been detected in 6th-century Africa (Pringle 1981, 135–52). However, there is no presence of internal buttresses. 43 Hof 2008, 815. 44 Gregory 1995, 107; Vermeulen 2003b, 351. Such a ratio is used at Pessinus for sector I, but it is based on well-preserved walls in North Africa. For further bibliography, see Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 2003, 405–15. 39

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

73

the wall, we could reach a height between 9 and 12 m, which is comparable to most city walls built in the Roman East. It is however unclear whether the combination of a thinner wall (1.7 m) and buttresses (1.2 m) could support the suggested ratio of 1:4, and, perhaps, we may imagine a different figure from 12 m. The wall of Resafa is, for example, 13 m high, so a higher ratio than 1:4.45 Another stone feature (no. 5) was found in the north-western section of the excavated trench. Stone feature no. 5 was built inside wall no. 2, as is visible in Fig. 26. It is built with limestone blocks of irregular dimensions bound together with mortar.46 Stone feature no. 5 is only partially preserved in height, and its length is about 0.9 m. Its full width is not available, as it continues under the baulk, outside the excavated area. The stratigraphic relationship with wall no. 2 as well as the function of stone feature no. 5 are not fully clear: the feature is certainly cut into the wall, but it seems that the lower courses of wall no. 2 are bonded with the structure, which would make it contemporary. Further investigation is, however, needed in order to clarify the relationship between them. As for the function, it is probable that stone feature no. 5 was simply constructed to add structural strength to the wall. Such a feature was not visible through geophysical prospection, and it is therefore uncertain whether more of them were placed at regular intervals for this purpose. It would also be important to examine whether the internal buttresses were somewhat counterbalanced by a series of these external reinforcements. Lastly, the absence of certain evidence about the ground level both inside and outside the walls, makes it unclear whether stone feature no. 5 was meant to be underground or visible above ground. The absence of identifiable smooth external surfaces, just as the ones for walls nos. 2 and 4, may suggest that stone feature no. 5 was indeed buried, but it is necessary to explore the two walls further to clarify this point. Finally, a small stretch of wall no. 2 was revealed in sondage 4 (3 × 2 m), which is located about 20 m south of trenches 1 and 1A (Fig. 15). Sondage 4 aimed to test the possibility that a gate was placed in this section of the wall, for the geophysical investigation had highlighted a possible gap in the structure. The sondage (Fig. 27), dug to a depth of 1.3 m, exposed a small and badly preserved segment (1.7 × 2 m) of the wall (built with the same technique as walls nos. 2 and 4 above) (Fig. 28), without any apparent traces of a gate. The issue needs to be left suspended given the project’s sudden halt.

45

Hof 2010, 236. Stone dimensions vary from length 0.58 m, width 0.3 m, height 0.22 m, to length 0.32 m, width 0.29 m, height 0.34 m. 46

74

PAOLO MARANZANA

THE TOWER Wallno.1 (Fig. 29) Length: 6 m. Height: ca. 0.7 m (bottom of the foundations was not reached and the wall has been robbed significantly). Width: 0.7–0.8 m (the structure is badly damaged). Wallno.3 (Fig. 30) Length: 7.5 m. Height: ca. 1.4 m (bottom of the foundations was not reached and the structure was robbed significantly). Width: 1.2 m.

Building Techniques: the tower was significantly robbed after its abandonment, and a full appreciation of its building techniques cannot be made. Wall no. 3 is better preserved and it allow further observation on the topic; it was erected with foundations made with a core of mortared rubble and irregular cut stones (height from 0.36 m to 0.28 m and length from 0.28 m to 0.12 m.) as facing. The upper part (only one course is left) was instead designed by courses of larger stones (length 0.5 m, width 0.5 m, height 0.35 m to length 0.97 m, width 0.6 m, height 0.35 m) also of irregular shape. DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURE The archaeological explorations of the northern part of trenches 1 and 1A revealed remains of a round tower, as highlighted by geophysical prospection (Fig. 15). The area was excavated to a depth of about 2 m without, however, ever uncovering the foundation of the complex. The reading of the stratigraphy and development of the structure proved to be difficult due to extensive robbing. The tower (Fig. 16), which occupies an area of about ca. 7 m in diameter, is a curvilinear feature erected with the intention of strengthening the northeastern corner of the walls. As stated above, a similar structure was also identified at the south-eastern corner at a distance of about 60 m.47 The segments of the tower excavated in 2011 and 2013 (walls nos. 1 and 3 respectively) do not seem, however, to sit on the same radius. Wall no. 1, the south-eastern stretch of the tower, is on smaller radius (north–south axis) than that of wall no. 3. 47 Distance between towers is not always standard, but it averages 30 m (Jacobs 2013, 48–49). Larger spaces between towers are, however, visible in places such as Dara (50 m) or in several towns in Africa (Pringle 1981, 146). Since the towers in sector S were added later to the structure, it is probably that towers were constructed wherever was possible or needed.

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

75

As visible in the plan, the two stretches of the walls join in the north-eastern corner, which, unfortunately, lies outside the excavated area. The tower is also not a full circle, but it covers only three-fourths of it (three-quarter plan), as it encloses only the area located outside the walls. While the connection between walls nos. 1 and 2 (the rectilinear wall running east–west) is unknown, as it is covered by a mortar floor, the joints between walls nos. 3 and 4 show that the two were not built at the same time, as the former (3) abuts against the latter (4). In addition, the building techniques employed (see below) for the tower vary substantially from those of walls nos. 2 and 4, confirming a different phase for their construction.48 The date for the erection of the tower, however, cannot be established at this stage, as the bottom of the foundations have not been reached through excavation. A clear understanding of the construction of the tower can be observed in the north-western section of the building (wall no. 3) (Fig. 30). Here, the wall is better preserved, as robbers left a stretch of about 0.7 m higher than in the south-eastern section; moreover, some of the courses of the free standing part are still visible (see the details of the masonry above). The south-eastern section of the tower (wall no. 1) was, on the other hand, almost entirely dismantled post abandonment (Figs. 31–32) and only a few damaged courses are visible today. As seen in Fig. 29, it is clear that the wall continues under the excavated area. The structure consists of cut limestone laid out on irregular courses facing a core of mortar and rubble, where only the external face of the stones is smooth. The courses were held together by mortar, which was employed unevenly in order to flatten the level and place a new course (Fig. 32). The layer of larger stones, which was placed on top of smaller ones, is barely visible in this illustration.49 Two large segments of this wall were also robbed, about 0.7–0.8 m each, leaving also the lower section incomplete. Traces of three floors have been detected inside the structure, providing us with more details about the articulation of the internal space (Fig. 16, contexts 9, 23 and 24). These features were only explored superficially, leaving us with little information about their chronology and stratigraphic relationship. The earlier of these layers is context 23 (Fig. 33), which is a badly preserved mortared surface located about 0.65 m south of wall no. 3 and located ca. 0.15 m below the other two surfaces. The floor is very thin, about 0.02–0.03 m with small pebbles (0.002–0.003 m), and less than 1 m2 remains of it. The thickness of this layer differs from most of the floors found at Pessinus so far. In particular, floors uncovered in the citadel located in sector I, which mark a clear 48 49

See above. The dimension of the stones is comparable to the features mentioned for wall no. 3.

76

PAOLO MARANZANA

ancient occupation layer, are instead ca. 0.1 m thick.50 They also often rest on a preparation layer, constructed with compact soil with small inclusions, which seems to be absent in the case of the tower. A similar thickness and construction process to that of sector I was also observed by the Belgians in the floors uncovered in domestic contexts, such as sector K, which were built from the Late Hellenistic through the Roman period.51 Context 23 instead lies on top of a layer of loose soil with medium-sized stones (0.05–0.08 m). The floor carries on under the southern balk of trench 1A, and it is unclear how it relates with the rest of the tower given the lack of excavation. This surface, most probably, belongs to an earlier phase of occupation of the tower, which is, unfortunately, undated and poorly understood. The tower was resurfaced in a later period with another floor whose traces are still visible in two areas: the south-eastern section of the tower (context 9, trench 1) (Fig. 34) and the central and western areas of it (context 24, trench 1A) (Fig. 35). The floor consists of a slightly thicker layer (0.05–0.06 m) of compact mortar with occasional inclusions (pebbles of 0.002–0.003 m). Context 9, in the south-eastern section of the tower, covers a surface of about 30 m2 (north of wall no. 1). The level of the floor matches the height of last remaining courses, with only a few stones still visible at a higher level (Fig. 36). It is most likely that the floor was therefore also used by robbers as surface in order to dismantle the structure after abandonment. A further confirmation of this is given by the retrieval of a fragment of a Late Roman plate (Pess11.S.1.6.2) (Fig. 37), decorated with a vertical band rim and with a rounded body with a low ring foot base, recovered in the north-eastern limit of the tower in 2011. The remaining parts of the same vessel were located on the opposite side of the structure, in areas which are situated outside the perimeter of the tower (Pess13.S.1A.TS.12-15.1-15.4). The elevations of the three pieces are also very telling, as the first fragment was found about 0.5–0.6 m lower than the other two fragments. It is therefore probable that the plate was broken and dispersed during or after the process of spoliation of the structure, rather than representing a find insitu, proving once more that the tower was severely disturbed after abandonment. Context 24 (Fig. 16) is located about 1.5 m north-west of Context 9. Although the two surfaces do not connect, it is very likely that they belong to the same phase, as both building techniques and heights are comparable (less than 0.1 m between the two of them). The floor, which is also a compact layer of mortar about 0.05–0.06 m thick with small inclusions (ca. 0.003–0.005 m), does not 50 51

Vermeulen 2003b, 357. Devreker and Vermeulen 1993, 265–69.

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

77

link with any particular structure, as the northern and southern limits of the floor are probably missing. A segment of it, however, extends over wall no. 3, and it seems likely that the floor connected the tower with area to its west. It is thus possible that an entrance giving access into the tower was located on this side, but any trace of the upper structure is now gone. If this were the case, it may have been possible that the frame of the entrance sat on stone features nos. 1 and 3, which are located only 2.5 m apart, although there are no detectable traces of such a structure. To the west, the floor instead carries on outside the excavation area, and it is therefore unclear how it links with the inside of the plateau. Finally, the analysis of the impressions left on the mortar shows the presence of some sort of square post, which was placed on the floor, close to the eastern edge of the excavated area (Fig. 38). The ruts are very shallow (0.01–0.02 m deep) and about 0.12 m long each side, but they suggest the presence of some feature was constructed with perishable material, which may have supported a structure, probably in wood. Once again, the extensive looting hinders our understanding of this section of the fortification and its relation with the rest of the structure. THE INTERNAL AREA

OF THE

FORTRESS

Very little information is available about the area surrounded by walls nos. 2 and 4. The walls enclose a section of about 60 × 40 m, only investigated through a 5 × 5 m trench (trench 2) in the middle of the plateau, and a 2 × 2 m sondage (sondage 3), which aimed to acquire more information on a disturbance highlighted by geophysical prospection in the western side of sector S (Fig. 15). More excavation is therefore essential in order to gain a better understanding of this area, as only a very limited area was investigated. Trench 2 was located 20 m west of the tower, and it was excavated for ca. 1 m in depth (Fig. 39): although a large quantity of pottery was recovered, no structures were identified in the area. The ceramics retrieved, ranging from the Hellenistic to the Late Roman period, are completely mixed in typology (from building material to fine ware),52 and do not therefore give much

52 See Mondin’s report in the final chapter of the present volume, and Mondin’s own chapter below. The pottery assemblage varies widely, from fine ware, Hellenistic moulded bowls, Roman and Late Roman sigillata and red slip to large bricks and tiles. Diagnostic pieces number 142: 19 Late Roman/Early Byzantine (13.38%), 43 Hellenistic (30.28%) and 46 sherds of Roman pottery (32.40%).

78

PAOLO MARANZANA

information about the kind of activities taking place on the plateau.53 It is, however, possible that, given the mixed nature of the deposit and the absence of identifiable structures, this area of the plateau was used as open yard both before and after the construction of the defensive wall. The chronological depth of the assemblage, as mentioned above, confirms that the plateau must have been extensively used throughout antiquity.54 More but still incomplete data was acquired from sondage 3, which was situated on a major disturbance detected by the GPR investigations. The disturbance was uncovered and recognised as a geological feature of some sort (Fig. 40), which needs to be explored further. Further GPR prospection seems to confirm that the feature expands towards the north-east for about 40 m and it is ca. 5 m in width; its perimeter is also not always visible in the results of the geophysical prospection (Fig. 15), but it seems to carry on towards the northern edge of the plateau, where it completely disappears about 15 m south of the border. The excavation of the trench reached a depth of 0.48 m and uncovered substantial traces of burning activities throughout the whole area: a large layer of ash (for an area of about 0.7 × 0.85 m) was found in between two cuts (contexts 7 and 11),55 located north and south of it (Figs. 41 and 42 respectively). In particular, context 11, which was filled by a large number of animal bones,56 was bordered, on the eastern side, by a badly preserved burnished mortar layer, whose function is still unknown (Fig. 43) (about 1 m long, 0.12 m high and 0.03–0.04 m thick). The limited excavation hinders the possibility to propose any interpretation about the purpose of this area, nor are suitable comparanda for this feature available, to my knowledge, at Pessinus or elsewhere. Finally, the preliminary examination of the pottery recovered in this feature has revealed that it was probably in use mostly during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman period, and it therefore precedes the construction of the walls.57 53 The pottery was only superficially analysed, and a thorough study of the material is yet to be carried out. 54 See Mondin’s report in the final chapter of the present volume, and Mondin’s own chapter below. 55 The cuts are of irregular shape. No. 7 is almost rectangular in plan (0.53 × 0.18 m), for a maximum depth of 0.29. No. 11 is instead an irregular circle, which has an average of 0.35 m in diameter and 0.13 m as maximum depth. 56 The bones are still unstudied, but preliminary observations indicate most of them to be ovine. 57 See Mondin’s report in the final chapter of the present volume, and Mondin’s own chapter below. Eighty-five sherds were retrieved, of which only 27 (31.76%) can possibly suggest a date for the feature. The majority are Hellenistic or Roman: Late Hellenistic/Early Roman (12 pieces, 44.44%); Roman (14 sherds, 51.85%). One Late Roman/Early Byzantine piece was found in the topsoil (3.70%).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

79

Although limited, the archaeological evidence suggests that the plateau was extensively used by the community living in the lower valley as early as late Hellenistic times. THE EXTRA-MURAL AREA Two sondages (1 and 2) (2 × 2 m) were opened in order to investigate areas east of wall no. 4 (Fig. 15), which extends beyond the area occupied by the fortress. Sondage 2 was placed about 20 m east of wall no. 4 where our knowledge of the plateau is limited. The excavation of this trench yielded almost no data, with only 25 sherds of pottery collected, ranging from the Hellenistic to the Late Roman periods. At a depth of 0.60 m a natural clay layer was reached, showing a dearth of human activities in the area. Sondage 1 brought to light a great deal of evidence in regard to the development of sector S (Fig. 15). The trench was located about 5 m east of sondage 4, in order to test the immediate area outside wall no. 2. The 2 × 2 m trench was explored down to a depth of 2.1 m and revealed the presence of a cremation burial at its bottom. The grave did not have a built structure, but the burnt body was buried with grave-goods: three almost intact pots, one lamp and one tile (Fig. 44). The human remains did not seem to be oriented in a particular direction, but a section of the clay bed (1.5 × 1 m) in which the body was buried, was cut on an east–west line (Fig. 45). Among the bones recovered, which are yet to be examined in detail,58 burnt fragments of the skull were identified. The remains of the body were found sitting into a bed of charcoal, which may represent the remains of the wood employed to burn the corpse. The stylistic analysis of the ceramics recovered points to a date within the Late Hellenistic/Early Roman period.59 Two bowls, an oinochoe and a lamp were found almost completely intact and covered by a tile. The two bowls were placed one inside the other, and positioned directly under the tile; the oinochoe and the lamp were retrieved under the pots, embedded, together with the bones, in a layer of ash and charcoal. This type of burial is known, but not very common in the archaeological record at Pessinus, as the data coming from two large excavated cemeteries (sectors A and I)60 58

See Williams’s report in the final chapter of the present volume. For a full description of the ceramic material recovered in sondage, see Mondin’s report in the final chapter of the present volume, and Mondin’s own chapter below. Only seven pieces were diagnostic (three Late Hellenistic/Early Roman – 42.86%; four Late Roman/Early Byzantine – 57.14%). 60 Although three securely identifiable bustum types were found in sector I (Vermeulen 2003a, 43). 59

80

PAOLO MARANZANA

point to a different typology: most cremation graves excavated at Pessinus so far presented a shallow pit lined with stones which created a surface for a cinerary urn.61 The tombs were then often covered with tiles or bricks: all features which were not found at the tomb in sector S. As argued by Krsmanovic and Anderson, the two cemeteries represent a small sample among the large body of potential evidence from burial grounds around the city, which have numbered at no fewer than 12, scattered on the surrounding plateaus (Fig. 46).62 In this respect, the two cemeteries excavated are also the two most visible in the landscape of Pessinus, and they may therefore have attracted larger and more opulent burials. It is thus likely that different burial types were present around Pessinus, and they may have looked different from those in sectors A and I. In particular, the tomb in sondage 1 seems to resemble a badly preserved bustum-type grave, a form well-known in neighbouring centres, such as Early Roman Gordion (1st century AD), but also seen at Pessinus (sector I) in small numbers (Fig. 1).63 Busta graves feature a small trench with curving sides where the dead was buried in association with ceramics and other grave-goods. The busta found at Gordion normally rest in shallow trenches, while the pottery and other objects are placed in a well-defined space next to the human remains (Fig. 47). The one at Pessinus is definitely in a less defined space and in badly preserved condition. The presence of a tomb in sector S may also suggest that the so-called Eastern Necropolis, identified about 100 m to the east of sector S but never mapped fully or investigated archaeologically, may have extended further west than previously thought. One might wonder whether the traces of burning and animal bones found in sondage 3, which are also dated to the Early Roman period, also represent a further indication of rituals taking place in this area before its conversion into a fortress. The repurposing of cemeteries into new urban spaces with different functions is well attested at Pessinus during the Late Roman period, as, for example, at sector I, on which the Late Roman/Early Byzantine fortress sits. As mentioned above, this plateau was initially occupied by a monumental cemetery abandoned after the 3rd century AD.64 It would therefore not be a surprise if a necropolis had occupied sector S during the Roman period.

61 62 63 64

Vermeulen 2003a. Krsmanovic and Anderson 2012, 63–66. Goldman 2016, 154–67; Vermuelen 2003a, 43. Vermeulen 2003a, 38–55.

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

81

CHRONOLOGY Although most of the material found in association with the fortification belongs to the Late Roman period, the date of the complex is a matter of dispute. The archaeological explorations of the foundations of the walls nos. 2 and 4 – the earliest features in the fortification of sector S – failed to identify undisturbed deposits related to their construction in both trenches 1 and 1A. As noted above, the tower was added to the complex at a later date, but, as in the case of the walls, its absolute chronology is yet to be determined. Even more problematic is the analysis of the assemblages collected, where only a small percentage of the ceramic evidence is diagnostic (mostly 4th–7th centuries AD). More importantly, some fragments were entirely locally produced, and accurate typo-chronological studies on such wares are not available at the present time. Only a few pieces can be dated through comparative analysis (imitation of known types such as Late Roman C/D, for example), but they are often scattered around several different contexts throughout the whole structure, as shown above for the case of the Late Roman dish and the Late Roman jug (Pess13.S.1A.5.1-12.3 and Pess11.S.1.7.2) (Fig. 48).65 Further analyses of the exposed features and relevant, however, finds afford insights into the dating for the development of sector S, which is presented below. The finds collected in seasons 2011 and 2013 were studied preliminarily by Cristina Mondin, and the following section is greatly indebted to her work.66 The ceramic evidence from trench 1A consists mostly of undated bricks (72%) and unstudied common ware (23%). Only 5% (123 pieces) of the total was composed by mixed diagnostic fragments, which belonged to a period stretching from the Hellenistic to the Seljuk occupation (two fragments) (Fig. 49) with almost no recognisable trace of Middle Byzantine material.67 Most of these sherds (58%) are Late Roman, but they cannot be dated more precisely. Trench 1 also yielded a similar collection of evidence, with 44 Late Roman pieces, most of which cannot be more securely dated, and they are scattered around different contexts.68 The Late Roman plate discussed above (Fig. 37) can be dated through comparative analysis: it is decorated with a 65

See above. For further details, see Mondin’s report in the final chapter of the present volume, and Mondin’s own chapter below. 67 Trench 1A yielded 14 Hellenistic/Early Roman sherds (11.38%), 35 Roman (28.46%), 72 Late Roman/Early Byzantine (58.54%) and only two Ottoman pieces (1.63%). 68 See Mondin’s report in the final chapter of the present volume, and Mondin’s own chapter below. Trench 1 yielded 106 diagnostic sherds: 20 Hellenistic (18.87%), 34 Roman (32.08%), 44 Late Roman (41.51%), one Byzantine (0.94%) and seven unidentified (6.6%). 66

82

PAOLO MARANZANA

vertical band rim, and it presents a rounded body with a low ring foot base. Examination of the fabric, which is fine and with significant traces of mica, seems to bear similarities to Late Roman D or Cypriot red slip ware form Meyza K5.2 dated to the 7th century AD.69 The dish collected at Pessinus is an imitation, rather than an import from Cyprus, and it matches the fabric of some vessels with Christian decorations found elsewhere at Pessinus (sector B), also dated to this period. Another local imitation perhaps is Pess13.S.1A.4.3 (Fig. 50), a poorly preserved rim, with red-brown slip and a soft-fired fabric (fine mica and some grit as inclusions). This piece, which is dated to the 6th–7th century AD as well, also resembles closely the Late Roman D or Cypriot red slip ware form, Hayes 9B/ Meyza K3B. Evidence for local production is also visible with Pess13.S.1A.5.2, a moulded red slip dish with micaceous red fabric, and geometric decorations with a Christian subject (the fragment of a cross is in the centre) (Fig. 51). These designs were also found in 2010 in sector R,70 where Late Roman/Early Byzantine houses were uncovered, and they seem to bear a close resemblance to patterns spotted at Hadrianopolis in Paphlagonia.71 Finally, another fragment Pess13.S.1A.10.9 (Fig. 52), mould-made, shows, in the relief decoration, a man with uplifted arms, while holding two objects. The man is surrounded by a geometric motif, while the outside is slipped with a mica coat. The design is still unclear and there is no available comparison for the decoration. It is therefore impossible to propose a precise date for this is object. The cumulative ceramic evidence shows once again that establishing a firm chronology for the setting up of the fortification is a complicated task. The stratigraphy is often disturbed by activities of looters and it almost impossible to reconstruct a reliable sequence of layers. As seen above, diagnostic sherds suggest a possible date of the 6th–7th century AD,72 which, however, provide us with a terminus post quem for the possible abandonment of the structure, rather than a date for its construction: in other words, given the fact that these fragments were found scattered throughout different layers and at different levels, this ceramic evidence suggests that sector S was still in use at least up to the 7th century AD. A better understanding of the locally produced pottery as well as excavation of undisturbed deposits tied to walls nos. 2 and 4 will be, therefore, essential to clarify this point.

69

Meyza 2007, 70–72. Tsetskhladze, Anderson etal. 2012, 304–07. 71 Laflı, Kan and Şahin 2012, 47, 60, 80. 72 For a more detailed discussion of the pottery, see Mondin’s report in the final chapter of the present volume, and Mondin’s own chapter below. 70

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

83

Little information can also be drawn from the scanty numismatic evidence available: only two coins, from the 4th and 6th centuries AD respectively (Figs. 53 and 54 respectively), were found in the southern section of the tower (trench 1), where extensive robbing had taken place. 73 These coins may provide a further terminus post quem for the occupation of the structure, which may have been built as early as the 4th century AD. As mentioned previously, the late 4th century was the time when a constellation of fortifications appeared in Anatolia; that our fortification coheres with this chronological span is a cogent possibility. The presence of scanty pieces of evidence, however, invites prudence. Equally inconclusive is the data from sondage 4, which, as discussed above, was excavated in context with the north–south stretch of the wall, about 20 m south of the tower. Here, ceramic assemblages are also mixed in terms of chronology and stratigraphy,74 spanning the Hellenistic, Roman and Late Roman periods. 74% of the material recovered are fragments of brick (72 pieces), which showed close similarities to the fabric of pithos sherds found in sector R. These pieces are, however, only generically dated to the Late Roman period. Stylistic comparisons for the building techniques employed in sector S are also very difficult to draw. The masonry described above is not particularly distinctive, as semi-regular mortared courses of roughly squared stone are often used in Roman architecture and, therefore, problematic to date securely.75 The absence of spolia, a very common feature of Late Roman construction which is well-known at Pessinus,76 is also surprising, but attested in the region. For example, the city walls of Amorion, located to the north-east only some 40 km distant, were also built without the employment of spolia, even though slightly different building techniques were adopted.77 The walls of Amorion are dated to the late 5th century AD,78 likewise those of Resafa, which were most likely erected around AD 500.79 It is, however, dangerous to stress comparisons among these sites based solely on vague similarities in the building design, 73

Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2012, 346–47. See the last chapter below in the present volume. See also Tsetskhladze, Avram etal. 2015, 83. Hellenistic, seven sherds (25%); Roman, 15 sherds (53.57%). These fragments are small and badly preserved. There are six (21.43%) Late Roman/Early Byzantine sherds. A Late Roman/ Early Byzantine lamp (Pess13.S.1A.2.1) was also recovered together with a metal object (Pess13.S.1A.2.4). 75 Jacobs 2013, 34–59. It contains a survey of the building techniques used for Late Roman fortifications. 76 For example, extensive use of spolia can be seen in sector I (Vermeulen 2003b). See Tsetskhladze 2013, 57 for further treatment of the topic. 77 Harrison 1991, 220–22. 78 Crow 2001, 100. 79 Hof 2010. 74

84

PAOLO MARANZANA

and such danger has been often reiterated in modern scholarship.80 It is, nevertheless, worth noting that both the 4th and 5th centuries AD marked the re-appearance of city walls after centuries of the PaxRomana, when walls had not been needed. Urban fortifications in most of the Late Roman East were built in times of relative peace, as in the case of the above-cited examples at Amorion and Resafa, to mention but two. Such features, therefore, were meant not only to provide a high degree of security, but also to create a powerful symbol on the landscape. These landmarks played a key role in the formation of urban identities during this period, and the extensive employment of fortifications in the self-representation of cities is widely attested throughout antiquity in both archaeological and literary sources.81 It is probable that sector S was the product of this new wave of urban development and thus may be roughly dated to the period (4th–5th centuries AD). As already argued by Anderson,82 the nature of the landscape of Pessinus, i.e. the presence of a deeply cut valley surrounded by plateaus, must have influenced the creation of this important urban feature, showing once more that standard urban facilities could be manipulated by the local communities in order to fit specific needs. This design still provided the urban community of Pessinus with higher security and a powerful landmark on the landscape. CONCLUSIONS: SECTOR S AND LATE ROMAN PESSINUS The development of sector S can only be understood within the broader context of the changes that occurred at Pessinus in the Late Roman period. Like most cities in the Roman East,83 the urban fabric of Pessinus was radically transformed by the new political, socio-economic and military order that emerged in this period. An elite often tied to the Christian Church was now responsible for the construction and renovation of the urban infrastructure,84 while the decline of paganism provided the city with much space and material, both of which were employed for new buildings as well as the repurposing of old ones. The increasing sense of insecurity led by the constant warfare on the 80

Ousterhout 1989. Müth, Laufer and Brasse 2016. 82 Anderson 2013, 89–92. 83 The literature on the topic is vast. See, among many, Dally and Ratté 2011; Dey 2014; Gruber etal. 2016; Jacobs 2013; Krause and Witschel 2006; Lavan 2001; Liebeschuetz 2001; Magdalino 2016; Saradi 2006. 84 Whittow 1990. 81

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

85

eastern border as well as throughout the Western empire made also defensive walls a key and essential feature of the urban infrastructure. Change in the Late Roman period not only affected the development of urban infrastructures, but also marked a time in which cities often declined in terms of size and investment in new building projects, as visible in many cases both in Asia Minor and the rest of the Roman East.85 The chronology and extent of the collapse of the Late Roman city has been extensively discussed in recent scholarship, and it is now clear that decline occurred over a long period of time and with significant regional differences within the Roman East.86 Central Anatolia has not received adequate scholarly attention, though recently a few pieces of evidence from Amorion and Ancyra have shed new light on the development of this important region.87 Pessinus can therefore certainly provide us with further valuable information about changes in this specific location. At first glance, the case of Pessinus confirms the trend discussed above:88 1) 2)

3)

At least two churches are now known archaeologically and through literary accounts, both inside and outside the city (Fig. 1, sector L and F084); Fortifications, such as sector S, were erected to defend Pessinus and to provide visible landmarks. The environmental/topographical setting played a key role in the design of the defences at Pessinus, as the high plateaus around the city provided the perfect locations for the creations of strongholds and watchtowers. It is still unclear how these structures effectively defended the city perimeter or whether other features, such a curtain wall, were present to create a unified defensive system. New research will be necessary in order to clarify this point, but the absence of any structure inside the walls of sector S suggests that defenders were not stationed within the complex, but were located elsewhere. Thus, even if sector S were one of many individual structures, its use cannot be understood without a better knowledge of other strongholds and watchtowers; During the Late Roman period, many sections of the city were maintained, renovated, or repurposed: the church in the city centre was built in the 6th century AD on top of a 3rd-century public structure (perhaps a basilica),89 as well as several houses (sectors H, P, Q and R) restored

85 A recent review of the study on the Late Roman decline after AD 400 can be found in Magdalino 2016. 86 Liebeschuetz 2006. 87 Peschlow 2015; Lightfoot and Lightfoot 2007. 88 Maranzana forthcoming. 89 Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 1992, 67–73.

86

PAOLO MARANZANA

with the same technique.90 Several new quarters (sector H, for example) emerged out of the abandonment of the Roman temple complex91 during the same period (Fig. 55), while reconstruction of an area by the northern section of the colonnaded road took place (sector DL3) (Fig. 56).92 Both sections of the city centre were in use until at least the 7th century. The extent of the urban area occupied by Pessinus has also been tested by recent archaeological excavation, yielding new data on the chronology of abandonment of the city. Explorations in various sectors (F, J, K, M, N, O, P, Q, R) (Fig. 1), all residential blocks scattered around the city, seem to confirm that after their establishment in the Early Roman period, occupation continued uninterrupted through the 6th and into the 7th century AD. In particular, sectors J and R, located respectively in the north-eastern and south-western peripheries of the city, seem to have been new foundations of the Late Roman period. Excavations in sector J, for example, revealed that a house was built on top of a Late Hellenistic/Early Roman cemetery,93 while in sector R another house was also built over the Late Hellenistic/Early Roman construction.94 Ceramic evidence from sectors K, Q and R also clarified that these areas were inhabited at least until the 7th century AD, showing that the city not only maintained its size during the Late Roman period, but also enlarged its peripheries. After the 7th century, the extent of Pessinus clearly declined rapidly, as revealed by the archaeological evidence: occupation of most of the residential blocks disappears and only sector I, where the 7th-century citadel was situated, and the Roman Imperial temple area (sectors H and B) showed clear proof of habitation at this point (until the 11th century). Further excavations conducted in sector H underlined an ongoing process of ruralisation, which was confirmed by the discovery of a wine/olive press constructed with spolia.95 Unfortunately, the stratigraphy of this find was not recorded, and there is not much indication for the chronology of this process, beside a generic post-7th-century AD date acquired through ceramic evidence.96

90 For sector P, see Devreker and Vermeulen 1998, 253–56. For sector Q, see Devreker, Devos etal. 2003, 153; Devreker, Bauters etal. 2004, 88–90; and 2005, 152–57. For sector R, see Tsetskhladze, Anderson etal. 2012, 299–302. 91 Verlinde 2015, 307. Archaeological evidence seems to indicate that the temple was out of use since the late 4th century AD. 92 Waelkens 1984. 93 Tsetskhladze, Anderson etal. 2012, 299–302. 94 See Goldman’s report in the final chapter of the present volume. 95 Verlinde 2015, 314. 96 Verlinde 2015, 314.

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

87

To conclude, the development of sector S, which was probably constructed in the 4th–5th centuries AD, enlarged at a later date with the addition of the tower, and abandoned after the 7th century AD, clearly underscores a general trend of urban growth and decline for the Late Roman period at Pessinus. Sector S must therefore be understood as one piece of a larger pattern of urban changes, which seems to confirm the model of urban development widespread throughout the Late Roman East. Such a trend presents marked regional and local variations, which are easy to detect in the peculiar design of the fortifications at Pessinus. Sector S, therefore, represents a perfect case of negotiation between supra-regional trends of urban development and local adaptation of such patterns, which underlines once more the role of local communities in shaping their urban spaces.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, W. 2013: ‘Fortification and Landscape Transformation in Late Antique Pessinus’. JournalofMediterraneanArchaeology 26.1, 75–96. Claerhout, I. and Devreker, J. 2008: Pessinous,SacredCityoftheAnatolianMother Goddess:AnArchaeologicalGuide (Istanbul). Crow, J. 2001: ‘Fortifications and urbanism in late antiquity: Thessaloniki and other eastern cities’. In Lavan 2001, 89–106. Dally, O. and Ratté, C. (eds.) 2011: ArchaeologyandtheCitiesofAsiaMinorinLate Antiquity (Kelsey Museum Publication 6) (Ann Arbor). Dawes, E. and Baynes, N.H. 1948: ThreeSaints:ContemporaryBiographies (Oxford). De Staebler, P.D. 2008: ‘The city wall and the making of a Late Antique capital’. In Smith, R.R.R., Ratté, C. and Bier, L. (eds.), AphrodisiasPapers4:NewResearch ontheCityanditsMonuments (JournalRomanofArchaeology Suppl. 70) (Portsmouth, RI), 284–318. Devreker, J., Bauters, L., Braeckman, K., De Clercq, W., Monsieur, P. and van Peteghem, A. 2004: ‘Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2002’. AA 12, 83–95. Devreker, J., Bauters, L., De Clercq, W., Dhaeze, W., Braeckman, K. and Monsieur, P. 2005: ‘Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2003’. AA 13, 145–59. Devreker, J., Devos, G., Bauters, L., Braeckman, K., Daems, A., De Clercq, W., Angenon, J. and Monsieur, P. 2003: ‘Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2001’. AA 11, 141–56. Devreker, J., Thoen, H. and Vermeulen, F. 1992: ‘Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1990: Rapport Provisoire’. KST 13.2, 341–75. —. 2003: Excavations in Pessinus: The So-called Acropolis. From Hellenistic and RomanCemeterytoByzantineCastle (Archaeological Reports, Ghent University 1) (Ghent). Devreker, J. and Vermeulen, F. 1993: ‘Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1991: Preliminary Report’. KST 14.2, 261–88.

88

PAOLO MARANZANA

—. 1998: ‘Fouilles et prospections à Pessinonte: campagne de 1996’. AA 6, 249–59. Devreker, J. and Waelkens, M. (eds.) 1984: LesFouillesdelaRijksuniversiteitteGent à Pessinonte, 1967–1973: Hommage à Pierre Lambrechts (Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 22), 2 vols. (Bruges) Dey, H.W. 2014. TheAfterlifeoftheRomanCity (Cambridge). Foss, C. 1975: ‘The archaeology and the twenty cities of Byzantine Asia’. American JournalofArchaeology 81.4, 469–86. —. 1977. ‘The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity’. The English HistoricalReview 90 (357), 721–47. Foss, C. and Winfield, D. 1986: ByzantineFortifications:AnIntroduction (Pretoria). Goldman, A.L. 2016: ‘New evidence for non-elite burial patterns in central Turkey’. In Brandt, R. (ed.), Life and Death in Asia Minor in Hellenistic, Roman and ByzantineTimes:StudiesinArchaeologyandBioarchaeology (Oxford), 149–76. Gregory, S. 1995: Roman Military Architecture on the Eastern Frontier, 3 vols. (Amsterdam). Gruber, E., Popović, M., Scheutz, M. and Weigl, H. (eds.) 2016: Städteimlateinischen Westen und im griechischen Osten zwischen Spätantike und Früher Neuzeit: Topographie, Recht, Religion (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 66) (Vienna). Hamilton, W.J. 1842: Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia; with Some AccountofTheirAntiquitiesandGeology (London). Harrison, R.M. 1991: ‘Amorium Excavations 1990: the third preliminary report’. AS 41, 215–29. Hof, C. 2009: ‘Masonry Techniques of the Early Sixth Century City Wall of Resafa, Syria’. In Kurrer, K.-E., Lorenz, W. and Wetzk, V. (eds.), ProceedingsoftheThird International Congress on Construction History, Cottbus, May 2009 (Cottbus), 813–20. —. 2010: ‘Die Stadtmauer von Resafa – Spuren früher Planänderung und deren Datierungsrelevanz’. In Tragbar K. (ed.), Berichtüberdie45.TagungfürAusgrabungswissenschaft und Bauforschung vom 30. April bis 4. Mai 2008 in Regensburg (Koldewey-Gesellschaft 45) (Dresden), 235–48. —. 2015: ‘Building conversion as demanding task in Late Roman construction – adding vaults to the towers of the sixth century city wall of Resafa (Syria)’. In Bowen, B., Friedman, D., Leslie, T. and Ochsendorf, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth InternationalCongressonConstructionHistoryinChicago,June3rd–7th2015, 3 vols. (Atlanta), 303–12. Humann, K. 1890: ‘Reise nach Angora und Boghaz-Köi’. In Humann, K. and Puchstein, O., ReiseninKleinasienundNordsyrien, 2 vols. (Berlin), 26–31 Izdebski, A. 2013: RuralEconomyinTransition:AsiaMinorfromLateAntiquityinto theEarlyMiddleAges (JournalofJuristicPapyrology Suppl. 18) (Warsaw). Jacobs, I. 2013: AestheticMaintenanceofCivicSpace:The“Classical”Cityfromthe 4thtothe7thC.AD (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 193) (Leuven). Karnapp, W. von 1976: Die Stadtmauer von Resafa in Syrien (Denkmäler antiker Architektur 11) (Berlin). Krause, J.U. and Witschel, C. (eds.) 2006. Die Stadt in der Spätantike: Niedergang oder Wandel? (Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums in München am 30. und 31. Mai 2003) (Historia Einzelschriften 190) (Stuttgart).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

89

Krsmanovic, D. and Anderson, W. 2012: ‘Paths Of The Dead – Interpreting Funerary Practice at Roman-Period Pessinus, Central Anatolia’. Melbourne Historical Journal 40.2, 58–87. Laflı, E. and Kan Șahın, G. 2012: ‘Terra sigillata and red-slipped ware from Hadrianopolis in southwestern Paphlagonia’. AS 62, 45–120. Lavan, L. (ed.) 2001: RecentResearchinLate-AntiqueUrbanism (JournalofRoman Archaeology Suppl. 42) (Portsmouth, RI). Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. 2001: TheDeclineandFalloftheRomanCity (Oxford). —. 2006: ‘Transformation and Decline: Are the Two Really Incompatible?’. In Krause and Witschel 2006, 463–83. Lightfoot, C.S. and Lightfoot, M. 2007: Amorium: A Byzantine City in Anatolia. An ArchaeologicalGuide (Istanbul). Magdalino, P. 2016: ‘Sixty Years of Research on the Byzantine City’. In Gruber etal. 2016, 45–62. Maranzana, P. 2018: Urban Trajectories and the Creation of a New Social Order in LateRomanCentralAnatolia (Dissertation, University of Michigan). Mayer, E. 2018: ‘The Plateia of Pessinus’. In Tsetskhladze 2018, 373–78. Meyza, H. 2007: Cpryjskaceramikaczerwonoangobowana:studianadpóźnorzymską ceramiką stołową Lewantu/Cypriot Red Slip Ware: Studies on a Late Roman LevantineFineWare (Nea Paphos 5) (Warsaw). Mitchell, S. 1993: Anatolia:Land,Men,andGodsinAsiaMinor (Oxford). Müth, S., Laufer, E. and Brasse, C. 2016: ‘Symbolische Funktionen’. In Müth, S., Schneider, P.I., Schnelle, M. and De Staebler, P.D. (eds.), AncientFortifications. ACompendiumofTheoryandPractice (Fokus Fortifikation Studies 1) (Oxford/ Philadelphia), 126–59. Niewöhner, P. 2007: ‘Archäologie und die Dunklen Jahrhunderte im Byzantinischen Anatolien’. In Henning, J. (ed.), Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium 2: Byzantium, Pliska, and the Balkans (Millennium Studien 5) (Berlin/New York), 119–57. Ousterhout, R.G. 1989: Review of Foss and Winfield 1986. JournaloftheSocietyof ArchitecturalStudies 48, 182–83. Parrish, D. and Abbasoğlu, H. (eds.) 2001: Urbanism in Western Asia Minor: New Studies on Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierapolis, Pergamon, Perge and Xanthos (JournalofRomanArchaeology Suppl. 45) (Portsmouth, RI). Perrot, G. 1862: ‘Les Tolistoboiens’. In Perrot, G., Guillaume, E. and Delbet, J., Exploration archéologique de la Galatie et de la Bithynie, d’une partie de la Mysie,delaPhrygie,delaCappadoceetduPont (Paris), 207–20. Peschlow, U. 2015. Ankara: die bauarchäologischen Hinterlassenschaften aus römischerundbyzantinischerZeit, 2 vols. (Vienna). Poblome, J., Degryse, P., Cottica, D. and Firat, N. 2001: ‘A new early Byzantine production centre in Western Asia Minor. A petrographical and geochemical study of red slip ware from Hierapolis, Perge and Sagalassos’. Rei Cretariae Romanae FautorumActa 37, 119–26. Pringle, D. 1981: TheDefenceofByzantineAfricafromJustiniantotheArabConquest: An Account of the Military History and Archaeology of the African provinces in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries (BAR International Series 99) (Oxford).

90

PAOLO MARANZANA

Radt, W. 2001: ‘The urban development of Pergamon’. In Parrish and Abbasoğlu 2001, 43–56. Ratté, C. 2001: ‘New research on the urban development at Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity’. In Parrish and Abbasoğlu 2001, 117–37. —. 2012: ‘Introduction’. In Ratté, C. and De Staebler, P. (eds.), The Aphrodisias RegionalSurvey (Aphrodisias 5) (Mainz/Darmstadt), 1–38. Rumscheid, F. 1999: ‘Mylasas Verteidigung: Burgen statt Stadtmauer?. In Schwandner, E.L. and Rheidt, K. (eds.), Stadt und Umland: neue Ergebnisse der archäologischen Bau-undSiedlungsforschung (Bauforschungskolloquium in Berlin vom 7. bis 10. Mai 1997 veranstaltet vom Architektur-Refereat des DAI) (Diskussionen zur archäologischen Bauforschung 7) (Mainz), 206–22. Saradi, H. 2006: The Byzantine City in the Sixth Century: Literary Images and HistoricalReality (Athens). Stoops, G. 1984: ‘The environment physiography of Pessinus in function of the study of the archaeological stratigraphy and the natural building material’. In Devreker and Waelkens 1984, 38–50. Strubbe, J.H.M. 2005: The Inscriptions of Pessinous (Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 66) (Bonn). Texier, C.F.M. 1862: Asiemineure:descriptiongéographique,histoireetarchéologie desprovincesetdesvillesdelaChersonnèsed’Asie (Paris). Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2013: ‘Pessinus in Central Anatolia. New Investigations’. In Bru, H. and Labarre, G. (eds.), L’Anatolie des peuples, des cités et des cultures (IIemillénaireav.J.-C.–Ve siècleap.J.-C.),ColloqueinternationaldeBesançon, 26–27novembre2010,vol.2:Approcheslocalesetrégionales (Besançon), 41–80. —. (ed.) 2018: PessinusandItsRegionalSetting, vol. 1 (Colloquia Antiqua 21) (Leuven/ Paris/Bristol, CT). Tsetskhladze, G.R., Adams, J., Avram, A., Avram, S., Dandrow, D., Madden, A., Naserdin, L., Krsmanovic, D. and Schmidt, A. 2012: ‘Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2011 Field Season’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The BlackSea,Paphlagonia,PontusandPhrygiainAntiquity:AspectsofArchaeologyandAncientHistory (BAR International Series 2432) (Oxford), 329–56. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Anderson, W., Avram, A., Avram, S., Clark, V., Flemming, K., Kortanoğlu, E., Krsmanovic, D., Negus Cleary, M., Schmidt, A. and Weiland, R. 2012: ‘Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2010 Field Season’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), TheBlackSea,Paphlagonia,PontusandPhrygiain Antiquity:AspectsofArchaeologyandAncientHistory (BAR International Series 2432) (Oxford), 293–327. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A., Avram, S., Dandrow, E., Hysi, L., Madden, A., Maranzana, P., Masséglia, J., Mondin, C., Schmidt, A., Williams, L. and Young, S.J. 2015: ‘Pessinus 2013’. KST 36.1, 73–122. Van Lennep, H.J. 1870: Travels to Little-Known parts of Asia Minor; with IllustrationsofBiblicalLiteratureandResearchesinArchaeology, vol. 2 (London). Verlinde, A. 2015: TheRomanSanctuarySiteatPessinusfromPhrygiantotheByzantineTimes (Monographs on Antiquity 7) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT). Vermeulen, F. 2003a: ‘Funerary and burial practice’. In Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 2003, 39–59. —. 2003b: ‘The Byzantine fortress’. In Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 2003, 347–82.

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

91

Waelkens, M. 1971: ‘Pessinonte et le Gallos’. Byzantion 41, 349–73. —. 1984: ‘Le système d’endiguement du torrent’. In Devreker and Waelkens 1984, 77–141. Whittow, M. 1990: ‘Ruling the Late Roman and Early Byzantine City: A Continuous History’. PastandPresent 129, 3–29. Young, S.J. 2017: PublicArchitecture,SpaceandIdentityinSixPoleisinAsiaMinor: theObserverthroughtime (Dissertation, University of Melbourne). —. 2018: ‘Pessinus in the 2nd century AD: A Monumental City with an Elusive City Plan’. In Tsetskhladze 2018, 379–427.

92

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 1. Map of excavated sectors at Pessinus (after Tsetskhladze 2013, 45, fig. 5).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 2. Sector B. Hellenistic citadel (after Tsetskhladze 2013, 47, fig. 7).

93

94

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 3. Sector I. Late Roman/Early Byzantine citadel (after Tsetskhladze 2013, 45, fig. 5).

Fig. 4. Map of Anatolia (after Dally and Ratté 2011, 1, fig. 1).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

95

96

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 5. Map of region around Pessinus (after Young 2017, 513, fig. 75).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 6. The church is located in F084, on the western fringes of the city (after Tsetskhladze 2013, 45, fig. 5).

97

98

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 7. Plan of Pessinus in the eyes of Texier.

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 8. Photograph of plateau of church F084 (photograph by author).

99

100

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 9. Map of possible watchtowers (after Tsetskhladze 2013, 52, fig. 8).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 10. Map of Mylasa and its territory (after Rumscheid 1999, 209, fig. 3).

101

102

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 11. F085. Geophysical prospection (after Tsetskhladze 2013, 54, fig. 12).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 12. Sector S. Geophysical prospection (after Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2012, 333, fig. 3).

103

104

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 13. Photograph of Sivrihisar Mountains to the east (photograph by author).

Fig. 14. Photograph of the plateau, etc. Sector S showing the crest (photograph by author).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 15. Sector S. Excavated trenches.

105

106

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 16. Sector S. Plan of the tower (drawing by J. Adams, G. Cranenburgh and S.J. Young).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 17. Sector S. Wall no. 2 (photograph by author).

107

108

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 18. Sector S. Wall no. 4 (photograph by author).

Fig. 19. Section S. Wall no. 4, details of the masonry (photograph by author).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 20. Sector S. Stone feature no. 3 (photograph by author).

109

110

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 21. Sector S. Detail of the joints between wall no. 2 and stone feature no. 3 (photograph by author).

Fig. 22. Sector S. Stone feature no. 1 (photograph by author).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 23. Sector S. Stone feature no. 4 (photograph by author).

Fig. 24. Resafa. Plan of the defensive wall (after Hof 2010 243, fig. 9).

111

Fig. 25. Resafa. Detail of the masonry (after Hof 2009, 815, fig. 2).

112 PAOLO MARANZANA

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 26. Sector S. Stone feature no. 5 (photograph by author).

113

114

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 27. Sector S. Sondage 4 (photograph by author).

Fig. 28. Sector S. Sondage 4. Detail of the masonry (photograph by author).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 29. Sector S. Wall no. 1 (photograph by author).

Fig. 30. Sector S. Wall no. 3 (photograph by author).

115

116

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 31. Sector S. Wall no. 1. Heavily robbed section of the wall (photograph by author).

Fig. 32. Sector S. Wall no. 1. Details of the masonry (photograph by author).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 33. Sector S. Context 23 (photograph by author).

Fig. 34. Sector S. Context 9 (photograph by author).

117

118

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 35. Sector S. Context 24 (photograph by author).

Fig. 36. Sector S. Remains of the southern wall of the tower (photograph by author).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 37. Sector S. Late Roman plate.

Fig. 38. Sector S. Ruts left on the floor surface (photograph by author).

119

120

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 39. Sector S. Trench 2 (photograph by author).

Fig. 40. Sector S. Sondage 3 (photograph by author).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 41. Sector S. Sondage 3. Context 7 (photograph by author).

Fig. 42. Sector S. Sondage 3. Context 11 (photograph by author).

121

122

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 43. Sector S. Sondage 3. Context 11, detail of the mortar (photograph by author).

Fig. 44. Sector S. Sondage 1. Grave-goods from a cremation burial (after Tsetskhladze, Avram etal. 2015, 116, fig. 5).

Fig. 45. Sector S. General photograph of grave in sondage 4 (photograph by author).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 46. Pessinus. Map of the cemeteries around the city. F132 (sector S) and East Necropolis 3 (after Tsetskhladze 2013 50, fig. 9).

123

124

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 47. Gordion. Bustum-type grave (after Goldman 2016, 159, fig. 9.8).

Fig. 48. Sector S. Late Roman jug.

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 49. Sector S. Fragments of Seljuk pottery.

Fig. 50. Sector S. Late Roman rim.

125

126

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 51. Sector S. Dish with Christian subject.

Fig. 52. Sector S. Plate with relief decoration.

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

Fig. 53. Sector S. Coin of Constantius II (AD 337–361) (after Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2012, 347, fig. 38).

Fig. 54. Sector S. Follis of Justin II (AD 565–578) (after Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2012, 347, fig. 39).

127

128

PAOLO MARANZANA

Fig. 55. Byzantine houses (photograph by author).

FORTIFICATIONS AT PESSINUS

129

Fig. 56. Sector D. Plan of the main thoroughfare (after Young 2017, 512, fig. 75).

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS* William ANDERSON, Damjan KRSMANOVIC and Michelle NEGUS CLEARY

Abstract Pessinus has been the subject of investigation since the 1960s but its immediate surroundings and broader region have received less attention. Detailed contexts known from the city are rarely related to the broader context of the city’s periphery, hinterland and region. The Melbourne team conducted a series of ground surveys in Pessinus and surrounding areas. This chapter presents some initial results and observations derived from extensive surveys. The surveys recorded several new features and sites as well as those which have been previously reported but not adequately documented. During the 2009 and 2010 seasons, a total of 189 features were recorded in the Pessinus area and a new standard of documentation was introduced which could be integrated with data gathered from past excavations in the city. Surveys addressed questions about the city’s extent and boundary zones (the maximum settled area is estimated to cover ca. 88 ha), the use and organisation of space, the Roman road that passed through Pessinus (documenting and mapping 7.2 km of the route between Tekören and Ballıhisar, its physical structure and landscape position, its place within the wider regional communications network), leading to a reinterpretation of its route of entry into Pessinus, axes of movement and vision (and distinctive changes during the course of the main Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine occupation phases), possible functionality of specific areas within and outwith the city, the location and chronology of cemeteries and fortified places.

INTRODUCTION The site of Pessinus is located in and around Ballıhisar village, 13 km south of Sivrihisar, 150 km south-west of Ankara. The village lies in a deeply incised valley, surrounded by steep slopes that lead to ridges and flat uplands across which there are extensive remains of ancient cemeteries. Pessinus was * We thank all those involved in the 2009 and 2010 field seasons at Pessinus, particularly Armin Schmidt and Andy Parkyn who conducted geophysical survey and generously shared their results and expertise; Vincent Clark and Kristal Flemming who led excavations in sector R; Defne Kantarelli and Hazal van het Hof who assisted in the field and with finds processing and illustration. We thank Gocha Tsetskhladze, Director of excavations, for giving us the opportunity to work at Pessinus.

132

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

identified by antiquarians in the 19th century,1 and archaeological research has been conducted there between 1967 and 2008 by the University of Ghent, whose excavations uncovered several portions of the ancient city. These include a temple dedicated to the emperor (Sebasteion); architectural features constituting an elaborate, so-called ‘canalisation system’ along the supposed course of the River Gallos; and more than a dozen other areas of housing and cemeteries.2 Since 2009, a new phase of research, conducted by a team from Melbourne, has given priority to ground survey (intensive and extensive) in Pessinus and surrounding areas. This paper presents the results and some preliminary thoughts arising from the data collected during the extensive survey. Our surveys addressed questions relating to the site’s larger spatial and temporal scale – in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods; the city’s extent and boundary zones; and use and organisation of space. More specific questions concern the Roman road north of Pessinus; possible agricultural, industrial and other functionality of different areas of the city; and the location and chronology of cemeteries and fortified places. PAST

AND

PRESENT RESEARCH

There has been no shortage of commentary on Pessinus, famed through a literary tradition as the cult centre of the goddess Cybele, who was worshipped prominently in the Iron Age of Central and Western Anatolia, and whose popularity was revived during the Roman Late Republic and Early Empire.3 While the Ghent excavations have produced a large body of data, published information is incomplete and the reports deal only with isolated parts of the site where excavations have occurred.4 Furthermore, past investigations have been strongly guided by culture-historical principles that look to ancient written sources for verification. Thus, investigations have been preoccupied with the city’s supposed Iron Age origins,5 the search for the fabled temple of Cybele,6 and the narrative construction of a seemingly idealised Graeco-Roman city.7 The reliance on textual history and the focus on the 1

Texier 1862. Devreker and Waelkens 1984; Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 2003; Claerhout and Devreker 2008; Krsmanovic 2018; Mayer 2018. 3 Vassileva 2001, 52–53. Strubbe 2005 for ancient testimonia on Pessinus. 4 See Krsmanovic 2018 on the past excavations of the site. 5 Claerhout and Devreker 2008, 5–6, 21–22, 30. 6 Lambrechts 1968; Devreker 1984; Devreker and Vermeulen 1993, 269; Claerhout and Devreker 2008; Strobel 2010. 7 Devreker and Vermeulen 1994; Claerhout and Devreker 2008. 2

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

133

city’s origins and religious function arguably stifle broader understandings of Pessinus. This paper therefore represents a bid to open the site to wider research agendas and methodologies. Though certain monuments have been intensively studied in the city itself (mainly high-status buildings and structures), the periphery and immediate surroundings of Pessinus have received less attention, and in the past only brief and intermittent reports have been made on ground surveys.8 As part of the field work led by Melbourne, a series of extensive surveys was undertaken in the city’s surroundings and the larger region. The surveys recorded several new sites as well as those which have been previously reported but not adequately documented. In total, we recorded 189 archaeological features across some 450 ha, and a new standard for recording and naming was implemented. PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL TERRAIN On a broad geographical scale, Pessinus is situated in the upland plateau of Central Anatolia, an environment characterised by flat plains, low hills and mountain ranges, with a dry climate and steppe vegetation.9 There is great diversity in the geology, ecology and climate of this huge area, and even within much smaller regions, including the Pessinus region itself. The land enclosed by the Sivrihisar mountain range to the north-east and the River Sangarios/Sakarya to the west and south, with Pessinus situated in the centre, forms a transitional, foothills zone between the massif and the plains (Fig. 1). This area comprises the territorium of Roman Pessinus, whose boundaries scholars have attempted to trace using literary and material evidence.10 The location of Pessinus within this region is notable for being at the point between the fertile uplands of the Sivrihisar range and the lower valleys that form tributaries of the Sangarios basin. The topography and drainage of the Pessinus region are configured in a north-east/south-west direction. Three basic geographical units span the area: the metamorphic, intrusive and volcanic massif; high plateaus formed by Neogene/Pliocene sediments from the massif; and dry river valleys formed during Quaternary erosive phases.11 Pessinus lies at the edge of the dry valleys, occupying a place that represents a marked change in terrain, climate and ecology. 8 For example, Devreker and Vermeulen 1995b, 119–24; 1998, 256–58; Devreker, Bauters etal. 2001, 67–68. 9 Todd 1980, 18; Stoops 1984a, 40–42; Sagona and Zimansky 2009, fig. 1.4. 10 Waelkens 1971; Strubbe 1984, 241–42, no. 143; Devreker 1984, 19; Mitchell 1982, 20–21; Strobel 2010. 11 Stoops 1984a; Devreker and Vermeulen 1993, 281–88 (M. De Dapper).

134

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

In the Pessinus valley, erosive and accretive processes are clearly visible in the breakdown of limestone and marly soils of the high plateau and the deposition of sediments in the valleys.12 Cliffs are heavily eroded, and thick, layered deposits along the banks of the dry stream bed demonstrate dramatic episodes of sedimentary build-up. These conditions present particular challenges to archaeological investigation, namely that surface artefacts are unevenly distributed according to the prevailing topography, and that structural remains, even of the city’s later Roman and Byzantine phases, are submerged beneath sediment sometimes several metres in depth.13 Changes in climate, vegetation, and the episode of sedimentation known as the Younger Fill that occurred in the post-Roman period, have significantly altered the physical and archaeological context of Central Anatolia over the long and short term.14 The status of Pessinus as the region’s eminent administrative, economic and population hub rose in the Late Hellenistic/Early Roman period, perhaps taking over the role from the Iron Age centre Gordion, 90 km to the north-east and, more locally, the settlement at Tekören, 7 km to the north.15 Though Pessinus remained a significant centre during late antiquity, the establishment of cities and bishoprics in the near vicinity such as Eudoxias (Hamamkarahisar) and Spaleia/Justinianopolis (Sivrihisar) from the 6th century AD might have diminished that position.16 Some 60 km south of Pessinus lies Amorion (Hisarköy), a prominent Early/Middle Byzantine centre. Amorion’s role as the military headquarters of the Anatolikon theme from the mid-7th century and increased significance in the 8th and 9th centuries coincides with the apparent abandonment of Pessinus in this period.17 The cultural geography of the Pessinus region was thus subject to gradual and rapid change, as human action impacted upon and was impacted by the physical landscape, not least in the location of settlements and the direction of movement and across the region. Indeed, there are many other sites dotting the landscape within a 30 km radius of Pessinus, dating from Prehistoric to Mediaeval times, but lack of general investigation means that knowledge about them is rudimentary.18 In this paper, we base our discussion on the findings of extensive surveys in the locality of Pessinus, making reference to a number of features documented during the 2009 and 2010 seasons (Fig. 2, Table 1). 12

Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 2003, 15–19. Devreker, Devos etal. 2002, 142–44. 14 Roberts 1990; Marsh 2005. 15 Bronze Age, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine remains in Tekören prove this to be a significant habitation locus over a long period of time. Devreker and Vermeulen 1991; BerndtErsöz 2006, 263–64; Sivas 2003, 117; Tsetskhladze etal. 2011, 348–50. 16 Belke 1994, 180–82; 1984b; Devreker 1984, 30; Ramsay 1890, 223–24. 17 Ivison 2007. 18 Devreker and Vermeulen 1995b, 119, 123–24; 1996b, 93; 1998, 256–57; Strobel 2010. 13

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

135

Table 1. Features discussed in the text, with location (UTM 36 North, datum WGS 94) and description – see Fig. 2. Feature

East

North

Description

F001

377740

4355725

Pottery scatter on ridge north-west of North Cemetery 1

F002

377785

4355595

Pottery scatter in valley west of North Cemetery 1

F004

377976

4357317

Illicit excavations north of Ballıhisar, west of the modern road

F005

377817

4355484

Pottery scatter in valley west of North Cemetery 1

F006

377992

4355069

Subsurface, in situ stone walls on North Cemetery 2 (Ottoman Hill), exposed by recent illicit excavations

F008

378098

4355413

Tomb, illegally excavated using machinery; fragments of sarcophagus, north of North Cemetery 1

F009

378066

4355383

Tomb, illegally excavated, north of North Cemetery 1

F039

377732

4354133

Iron spearhead eroding from gully near South Cemetery 2

F040

377821

4354233

Earthworks with artefact and stone scatter on spur west of East Cemetery 1

F041

377833

4354246

Limestone wall with artefacts around, on upper, east-facing slope of East Cemetery 1

F047

378050

4354230

Earthworks and stone scatter on west side of East Cemetery 1

F056

378144

4354321

Old excavation pits on west side of East Cemetery 1

F057

378143

4354327

Large, dressed and decorated marble block above theatre, on north-west side of East Cemetery 1

F062

378370

4354315

Marble and ashlar blocks in trench on north side of East Cemetery 1, excavated in the 1960s

F067

378571

4354127

Tomb, illegally excavated, on east side of East Cemetery 2

F074

377659

4355135

Tombs, illegally excavated, on North Cemetery 4

F081

377640

4355179

Fragments of marble sarcophagus, recently smashed, on slope north of North Cemetery 4

F083

377605

4355317

Stone-lined grave on North Cemetery 5

F084

377310

4355180

Earthworks and terraces with stone, artefact and tile scatter on hilltop north of West Cemetery 1

F085

377389

4354786

Earthworks and stone scatter; subsurface circular feature; on ridge west of Ballıhisar

F086

377447

4354588

Earthworks and stone scatter on ridge west of Ballıhisar

F088

376941

4354717

Stone and artefact scatter on ridge west of Ballıhisar

F089

376996

4354489

Tile with impressed markings, on ridge west of Ballıhisar

F117

377170

4354964

Carved marble grave marker on West Cemetery 1

F124

378477

4354108

Illicit excavations on East Cemetery 2, exposing large dressed marble blocks (tomb?)

F132

378269

4354647

Earthworks and tile scatter; subsurface wall and tower; on flat hilltop east of Ballıhisar

136

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

Feature

East

North

Description

F144

377722

4354204

Iron slag and tile wasters in small valley north of South Cemetery 1

F145

377870

4354441

Lithic scatter on track beside spring in south of Ballıhisar, south of the temple area (sector B)

F151

376607

4353801

Dressed marble block on hill south-west of Ballıhisar

F152

376592

4353799

Artefact and stone scatter on hillock south-west of Ballıhisar

F154

376892

4353466

Dressed marble block beside road in valley south-west of Ballıhisar

F155

376885

4353356

Earthwork features and artefact scatter on hill south-west of Ballıhisar

F156

377040

4353154

Marble blocks in valley south of Ballıhisar

F157

377312

4353573

Marble blocks in valley south of Ballıhisar

F158

377408

4353906

Tombs, illegally excavated, in South Cemetery 2

F160

377861

4353714

Plaster with red painted markings on north-east edge of large hill south of Ballıhisar

F164

377991

4353977

Terracotta moulded sarcophagus on west-facing slope of South Cemetery 2

F168

376557

4353510

Limestone blocks on hill south west of Ballıhisar

F169

376839

4353000

Iron slag on north-facing slope south of Ballıhisar

F170

376811

4352912

Pottery scatter on ridge south of Ballıhisar

F171

377373

4353715

Marble blocks near modern bridge on valley floor south of Ballıhisar

F172

377400

4353910

Cist graves and grave markers

F173

377719

4353669

Stone, tile and pottery scatter on south side of expansive plateau south of Ballıhisar

F179

378076

4355086

Disused cemetery with ancient stones re-used as grave markers

F180

378009

4354996

Current cemetery of Ballıhisar village

F181

378353

4355611

Earthworks, stone and pottery scatter on west side of valley north of Ballıhisar

F182

378337

4355648

Terracing and walls north of Ballıhisar

F183

378602

4355871

Water collection pit or sump, north of Ballıhisar

F184

378550

4356237

Dressed marble blocks, tile and artefact scatter on ridge north of Ballıhisar

F185

378636

4356259

Embankment between ridge and stream north of Ballıhisar

F187

378610

4356063

Walls in terraced fields north of Ballıhisar

F188

378573

4355969

Untended vineyard and orchard north of Ballıhisar

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

THE ROAD

INTO

137

PESSINUS

The Roman road that ran north to south by Pessinus formed an important link between the city and its hinterland that facilitated the movement of people, goods and ideas. Some sections are well preserved, especially to the north of site near İstiklalbağı and Tekören villages. Previous surveys have followed the road north of Ballıhisar but no detailed observations or maps have been published.19 During the 2010 season, approximately 2.2 km of the embanked and cobbled road surface was documented, with a total of 7.2 km of the route mapped between Ballıhisar and Tekören (Fig. 3). The aim of this recording was to address questions including the place where the north–south road through Pessinus to Amorion connected with the main east–west route between Ancyra and Dorylaion (Eskişehir); the continuation of the road eastwards past Tekören; the relationship of the road with the Roman marble quarry at İstiklalbağı;20 and the road’s entry into Pessinus. The physical qualities of the road, its landscape setting, its relation to the city and surroundings of Pessinus, were also investigated. The location of Pessinus does not appear at first to be significant at the larger, regional scale. It is set apart from the modern east–west highway from Ankara to Eskişehir, and there are indications that the main Roman road between Ancyra and Dorylaion followed a similar path. These include travel itineraries and a milestone of Domitian (AD 81–96), said to come from Sivrihisar.21 At Germa (Babadat), some 20 km north of Pessinus, there was a southbound branch that ran through Pessinus and continued on to Amorion. Two milestones from Ballıhisar and Ertuğrul villages (both of uncertain provenance), dating to the mid-3rd and early-4th century AD, might have been situated along this route.22 Though the junction of the Pessinus–Amorion road with the Ancyra and Dorylaion roads is identified as being at Germa,23 this might instead have been further to the south, as illustrated in the Tabula ImperiiByzantini volume’s map of the region, which depicts the roads forking at a point much closer to Pessinus.24 Shown this way, the southbound route to Amorion is not merely a branch road, but rather dictated the direction 19

Waelkens 1984a, 51, fig. 29; Devreker and Vermeulen 1996a, 77; 1997, 132. Much of the marble used to construct Roman Pessinus came from this quarry, where there is still visible evidence of ancient stone cutting. Moens etal. 1998; De Paepe etal. 2003. The quarry was investigated in 2009 and briefly in 2010 (Tsetskhladze etal. 2011, 350–51). 21 French 1988, 143, no. 375. 22 Strubbe 1984, 224, no. 36; French 1988, 140–41, nos. 368, 369. 23 Belke 1984a, 106; Waelkens 1979, 450–52. 24 Belke 1984a. 20

138

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

of the east- and westbound routes. Stretches of ancient road in the Tekören area suggest a possible east–west pass going over the mountains that might have linked Pessinus with Eudoxias and Germia (Gümüşkonak),25 a route that is described in the 8th-century AD Vita Sancti Theodori.26 In the light of these interpretations, Pessinus was located on a major north-south transportation route, with close access to the main east–west route. From the west of Tekören, the road follows an approximate north–south direction, keeping to higher ground where possible and gradually descending from the Sivrihisar uplands down towards the valleys around Ballıhisar. Sections passing the west side of the Roman marble quarry at İstiklalbağı are especially well preserved and clearly visible across the landscape, partially due to the pale coloured stone used in the embankment and road surfacing. The surfacing cobbles here are of mixed stones, mainly local marble, quartz, limestone, schist, granite and conglomerates, and there is also a reddish-brown stone that may be ferrous slag. In some parts, the road’s form – with a central spine, edging stones and cobbling – can be clearly discerned, and is similar to the construction of other documented roads in Galatia (Fig. 4).27 It sits above ground level with a pronounced camber, and its width – an average of 6–7 m – can be considered to exceed the expected width of the cursuspublicus,28 especially if the road was wider than the cobbled central carriageway. The road’s construction certainly predates the Late Antique milestones from around Ballıhisar, and there is also likely to have been a pre-Roman route through the Ballıhisar valley. Crucial to the antiquity of this north–south corridor is the relationship between Pessinus and Tekören, whose longevity as an occupation site points to a regional significance. The road is first traceable at a point 1 km south of Tekören, which we suggest may be a junction between the east–west and north–south routes. At this point the road passes close to the quarry at İstiklalbağı. Near it, the road curves southwards, following higher ground on its approach into Pessinus, running alongside and then veering west of the modern road before its descent into the Ballıhisar valley. This location is on a ridge parallel with North Cemetery 1 (Fig. 5). Along the crest and the valley below, where there has been extensive erosion, there are artefact scatters that include fine Hellenistic and Roman imports (F001, F002, F005). The road’s entry into Pessinus was therefore to the west of the modern road and the Gallos valley.29 Owing to the geomorphology 25 26 27 28 29

Belke 1984b. Waelkens 1979, 460–63. French 1981, 19–22. Laurence 1999, 59–62. Cf. Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 2003, 34.

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

139

and modern agricultural practices, it has not been possible to determine the precise character of the road upon its entry into Pessinus. It may have continued into the city, or made a bypass in a southward veering bend en route to Amorion, while access to the city itself was via a slip road. On entering Pessinus from the north, travellers would have been aware that they were approaching a city of substantial size and importance. Expansive hilltop cemeteries would have been visible from some distance, and upon descending into the valley, houses and monuments would come into view, the sight of closely spaced buildings contrasting with the open plain of the plateau. THE CITY’S EXTENT AND LAYOUT In the past, the study of Roman urban sites has focused on the city centre by documenting street plans, monumental buildings, civic spaces and other structural aspects.30 New methods and approaches in classical archaeology, especially ground survey, have caused a shift in the object of study, including greater interest in suburbs and hinterlands and the relationship between urban and rural domains.31 Urban peripheries at the edge and outside of settlements were recognised in antiquity as distinctive spaces, neither fully urban nor rural.32 Studying these areas challenges the strict town vs country opposition and brings into question how boundary zones were formed and evolved. The edges of Roman cities were often demarcated by physical boundaries which can be traced archaeologically, for example circuit walls, but in Pessinus such walls are lacking (see below). In order to appraise the spatial extent of Pessinus and chart its core and peripheral areas it is necessary to discern where boundaries and marginal zones were situated. The location of cemeteries aids in the demarcation of city boundaries, as they were, for much of the Roman period, located outside of urban zones. The position of cemeteries around Sagalassos in Pisidia, for example, has been used to gauge the inhabited area that they enclosed, though Hellenistic and Late Roman circuit walls also define this city’s extent.33 In Sagalassos, Pessinus and cities across the eastern Mediterranean, the prohibition against burial within inhabited areas – though never as strongly adhered to in Anatolia as in the Western Provinces of the empire – broke down during 30 31 32 33

Willis 2007. Morris 2004, 262–63; Dyson 2004; Goodman 2007; Willis 2007. Goodman 2007. Martens 2005, 241–42; Vanhaverbeke etal. 2007, 628–29.

140

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

late antiquity, and by the 5th century AD, most burials were situated within the urban centre.34 The north of Pessinus has been more thoroughly investigated than the south, which allows for the parameters of the inhabited area to be deduced in some detail. The most northerly place where excavations have taken place is the hilltop cemetery known variously as the Northern Necropolis, sector I and the Acropolis. This hill, which we term North Cemetery 1 according to the new system of nomenclature, is at the top of a long plateau spur continuing north of Pessinus (Fig. 6). Today, the spur is bisected by the modern road, giving the steeper, western side an even more prominent appearance (Fig. 7). Excavations on North Cemetery 1 revealed burials dating from the Late Hellenistic period (1st century BC) to the late 5th/early 6th century AD, after which time the area was converted into a compound encircled by substantial walls, which has been described as a ‘Byzantine castle’ or ‘fortress’ in the Ghent literature.35 Though the hill was known to early antiquarians as an acropolis there has been no evidence found for activities other than burial until late antiquity.36 Indeed, the label ‘castle’ is also problematic to describe a place whose usage appears to encompass residential, productive and administrative as well as martial activities (see below). The hill was clearly outside Pessinus proper, but was not an ‘upper town’, at least not until after the major alterations of late antiquity.37 Below North Cemetery 1, on a small eminence known as the Ottoman Hill, an excavation trench (sector J) revealed three functionally different horizons: Early Roman cremation and inhumation burials, followed by Late Roman dwellings, themselves overlain by later, Turkish burials.38 A further 100 m south, on the south side of the modern village cemetery, the trench sector K revealed a long-lived housing quarter, which has been classified as the northernmost area of habitation in Pessinus.39 Housing in sector J was probably at the far northern fringe of Late Roman Pessinus, and this area – which we term North Cemetery 2 – might have been mainly used for non-habitation purposes. It was perhaps from here that water was piped along the aqueduct feeding Pessinus from the north and distributed to the southern area of the town. This was suspected following finds of terracotta piping in sector K coming from

34 35 36 37 38 39

Cormack 2004; 1997; Mitchell 1993, 120. Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 2003. The view that the area was an acropolis was discounted by Bittel (1967). Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 2003, 383–86. Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 1992, 350–51. Devreker 1994, 109.

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

141

a northerly direction.40 Further clues came from vandalism that occurred in late 2009, which involved two marble blocks on the summit of the hill being moved to reveal a cavity beneath (F006). This may be part of a drainage structure, supporting earlier suggestions of the putative presence of a ‘reservoir or settling tank’ in the area.41 Column shafts and other dressed stone blocks span the east slope of the hill, acting as grave markers of a presumed Ottoman-period cemetery (F179). This cemetery seems to have reached as down as far as the edge of the west bank of the Gallos,42 and may have been in use in Late Antique and Early Mediaeval times. East of the North Cemetery 2 hill, the terrain slopes down to the Gallos, where excavations in the 1960s and 1970s traced a series of monumental constructions forming a channel through the centre of Pessinus (Fig. 8).43 At the northernmost part of the excavation trenches comprising sector D was found a monumental arch that dates from the Severan period.44 The arch’s position makes it a contender as a formal marker between the outer and inner urban zone of the Roman city. The possibility of an equivalent archway to the south of the city has been raised,45 and large quantities of dressed marble along the river bed some 1.5 km south of the northern arch conceivably belong to such a structure (F171).46 The south limit of Pessinus is more difficult to define. In our surveys we detected marble blocks some 1.5 km from the centre of Ballıhisar (F154, F156, F157, F171). Though the presence of marble blocks is not a reliable indicator of architecture, owing to the practice of spoliation from the Roman period (3rd century AD onwards) and into the modern day, concentrations of worked stones in the city’s north and south do suggest these points as being significant, whether or not the agglomeration of blocks relates to the positions in which they were originally placed. The hillsides that flank the east and west of the valley define the inhabited area during the city’s peak. These hills rise some 40–60 m above the valley floor and have steeply inclined slopes. Housing spread some way up the slopes, as the excavation of Roman domestic contexts in sector P on the valley’s eastern side show.47 In the south-east of the city, there are visible subsurface structures 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Devreker and Vermeulen 1993, 268. Vermeulen etal. 1994, 428. Lambrechts 1969, 273. Waelkens 1984c. Waelkens 1984c, 77–80, 91–93. Waelkens 1984c, 96; Vermeulen etal. 1994, 427. Devreker and Waelkens 1984, figs. 142–144. Devreker and Vermeulen 1998, 255–56.

142

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

and concentrated ceramic and tile scatters on middle and some upper slopes, suggesting the presence of housing at a fairly high elevation (F041). The theatre (sector G), cut into a north-facing hillside on the eastern side of the valley, is one of the more certain boundary points, theatres being often located at the margins of Roman cities.48 The structure takes full advantage of an incised gully with steep sides, running perpendicular to the main north– south valley. Substantial and recent erosion along this gully suggests that there might once have been more level ground near the theatre and not such a pronounced valley, which would have enclosed this part of the city’s eastern side. The zone west of the Gallos is largely unknown due to lack of previous investigation. The limited excavations in trenches K and M suggest long-lived domestic habitation,49 but the areas to the south offer little clue as to their past use due to paucity of remains in the open areas and overlying modern buildings. It is possible to delimit the area of the city however by taking into account the immediate hills on which funerary remains (North Cemetery 4) and possible fortifications (F084, F085, F086) have been detected (see below). We can therefore define with some clarity the maximum spatial extent of the city, based on topography, surface and excavated features, as spanning an area of some 88 hectares during the Roman period (Fig. 6).50 The occupation of the western side of the town and much of the north-eastern and southern areas remain largely unknown as there has been very little archaeological investigation of these locales, though recent investigations in the south of the valley (sector R) have proved the continuation of structures and apparent habitation from Hellenistic to Early Byzantine times in an area that before was only assumed to be within the city.51 Indeed, our knowledge of the functional compartmentalisation of the whole town is rudimentary – key public structures typical of Roman towns have not yet been located, including fora, other temples, basilicas, bathhouses and main circulation thoroughfares. Thus, in terms of its spatial organisation, Pessinus offers much for further investigation.

48

Goodman 2007, 139–49. Devreker and Vermeulen 1996a, 67; 1992, 265–69; Devreker 1994, 109–11. 50 This figure relates to the maximum settled area, including places of habitation, workplaces and civic spaces, and does not necessarily relate to the city’s entirety at any single point in time. At this stage in the research, it is not possible to pinpoint precisely when Pessinus achieved its maximum size. 51 Tsetskhladze etal. 2011, 347–48. 49

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

143

LINES OF MOVEMENT AND VISION The chief north–south conduit of Pessinus ran through what is called sector D, the river bed that is punctuated by a series of architectural features (Fig. 8). The main excavations carried out by Pieter Lambrechts in 1969–71 consisted of linear trenches that extended over 500 m along the channel, unearthing a sequence of retaining walls, stairways and colonnades. The earliest parts of sector D were constructed in the 1st century AD, though other components were added and existing ones modified in the ensuing centuries. Ghent researchers have identified the features as comprising a canal system (système d’endiguement du torrent), though its function remains disputed owing to lack of parallels in the Roman world.52 The constructions were deemed by Marc Waelkens as forming the route of the Gallos through Pessinus, whose centrality to the idea and image of the city is attested in written texts and coinage.53 Today, the channel is dry for much of the year – only occasional torrents come down after heavy rain, which is a less than annual occurrence.54 It is hardly imaginable that this was the route of the vaunted Gallos, though climate change, re-routing of drainage and major depositional episodes would certainly have affected the river’s flow. There is some uncertainty over the nature of the Gallos, ever since Waelkens identified this with the conduit through Pessinus.55 Was it really a major watercourse? Or were the writers and coin designers implicitly aggrandising the status of an intermittent stream, whose significance was stressed as part of the Roman ideal of major cities boasting a ‘signature’ river? The structures of sector D form a main artery that emphasises the valley’s configuration and focuses attention on public buildings and spaces which were probably adjacent to the channel.56 Whether the Gallos was a river to speak of or little more than an ornamental channel or even a storm drain built as a precaution against flooding, the buildings were a major intervention on the landscape that greatly impact the city’s overall structure in earlier Roman times. It is possible that the Gallos was the visible face of an extensive water supply network for the city: cisterns, springs and water installations such as the aforementioned feature on North Cemetery 2 have, to date, only received cursory

52 53 54 55 56

Krsmanovic 2018; Mayer 2018. Waelkens 1971; Strubbe 2005. Stoops 1984a, 42. Waelkens 1971. Vermeulen etal. 1998, 789.

144

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

investigation.57 The antiquity of settlement near the spring that lies south of the temple area – still used by inhabitants of Ballıhisar – is suggested by a surface scatter of possible Neolithic to Early Bronze Age lithics recorded in 2010 (F145). The city’s major lines of communication were configured along the valley’s alignment, and the stream bed was an important line of sight and movement, but it was by no means the only one. Nor was this arrangement static through time. The Late Hellenistic building complex and the Roman Imperial temple and its temenos were aligned closer to a right angle to the main monumentalised section of the river, while earlier underlying features – Late Iron Age walls and pits containing Late Iron Age pottery – follow the natural topography of the valley slope.58 The Early Roman temple, following the earlier Late Hellenistic complex, represents a new spatial order that overlaid and supplanted pre-existing buildings. This new orthogonal alignment is also evident in the structures of sector D that appear to have formed a monumentalised core for the town. The new axis might have also had wider application across the site (including domestic quarters, for example), excavated buildings in sectors F, K, N, P and Q also conform to a similar, approximately east–west configuration.59 In contrast, those from sector L seem to continue favouring the alignment dictated by the topography, until the redevelopment of the area around the 4th century AD, when a building was constructed at a right angle with the sector D colonnades.60 Thus, excavations of domestic contexts have shown that there was continuity in the structure of housing from the 1st until approximately the 4th century AD, at which point there was a massive reconfiguration of public and domestic space including the encroachment of dwellings on to formerly open civic areas and extensive rebuilding. The temple area went out of use, becoming an industrial area, a dump and a source of building stone;61 Sector H was overlain with dense housing;62 and various parts of the Gallos channel were dismantled and modified, as well as subject to encroaching buildings and burial grounds (see above).

57 Devreker and Vermeulen 1993, 283–84 (M. De Dapper); Devreker, Braeckman etal. 2000, 113–15. 58 Verlinde 2010, 116. 59 Whether sector F comprised a domestic zone is unknown due to lack of detail in publications. 60 Devreker and Vermeulen 1996a, 70, fig. 3. 61 Devreker and Vermeulen 1995a, 79. 62 Lambrechts 1974, 81.

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

145

LIFE AT THE PERIPHERY Cultural remains on the hills and in valleys around Pessinus point to distinctive uses – especially as cemeteries, fortifications and dwelling areas – at different points in the past. Hilltops and ridges were both highly visible from the city and provided views over the city. Just as the spatial distinction between inhabited and uninhabited, centre and fringe, evolved within the city, areas at the fringe and outside of the settlement were liable to change in correspondence with the central settlement. Funerary practice, habitation and other activities took place also in a broader landscape setting, and the introduction of structural forms such as tomb monuments, housing and fortifications related to the larger scale geography. Workplaces The north of Pessinus was an important communications point and the city’s main water source, and also a place of agricultural production. We have established that the Roman road entered the city from the north–west, not directly north as the modern road does. This corridor, besides its importance for the city’s communication and infrastructure, was probably an important economic zone whose privileged position and access to water marked it out from other productive lands around city’s inner hinterland (Fig. 9). Several areas in the north can be distinguished as places of labour, on the basis of surviving material remains. One example is an excavated building at the northern end of the canal system, on the channel’s east bank (sector E), which was found to contain insitu amphorae and storage jars (pithoi) and might be a Late Antique shop or storage depot for produce arriving from the north.63 In the earlier Roman period, this area was perhaps just beyond the urban confines, though the fine marble wall excavated in 2007–2008 implies additional infrastructure.64 Fields at the northern fringe of Ballıhisar are today used as vegetable and fruit gardens, and further upstream there are untended orchards and vineyards (F188). At points where a series of gullies converge, there are ridges with evidence of terracing and relict field boundaries (F187). Many of the walls are no doubt modern, dating from when Ballıhisar’s population was larger and farming livelier, though there are also older earthworks and walls (F181, F182). These areas might have been used as vineyards and orchards in the past, and would probably have been an intensively cultivated and managed area. 63 64

Lambrechts 1969b, 279–80. Devreker, Verlinde etal. 2010, 152.

146

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

On a wide ridge 1.5 km north of Ballıhisar’s centre, a field boasting ceramic and tile scatters, marble blocks and intact features such as a complete pithos and a marble capital was encountered by the Ghent team, leading to their interpretation of the locus as a ‘villa’ (F184).65 On the east slope extending from the ridge into a small valley, an earthwork terrace and marble blocks were detected above the river bank (F185). The presence of monumental architecture and evidence of production do suggest that the label is probably justified. Today, the villa site and surrounding fields are under cultivation, and the area was arguably a key agricultural point in the past.66 This fertile pocket, adjacent to the aqueduct coming from İstiklalbağı,67 and in reach of the main road, would have been an important agricultural area for Pessinus. It is likely that other such sites existed in the vicinity of Pessinus, playing the role of distribution points for produce going in and out of the city, as well as production zone sustaining it. In contrast to the narrow gullies to the north of Pessinus, at an equivalent distance to the south of the city the landscape consists of low, rolling hills, where the valley opens out to a wide flood plain in the direction of Ertuğrul village (Fig. 10). The ancient road continues on towards Amorion, and some sections to the south of Pessinus have been documented.68 As in the north, much of this area is today cultivated, and likewise may have been in antiquity. Indeed, evidence of industry and craft production has been found in the south. About 2.5 km south-west of the ancient city, surface artefact scatters – including wasters of architectural ceramics – point to a settlement that incorporated a major pottery workshop.69 The production of tiles and bricks often occurred outside settlements, apart from regular potteries,70 and it might be that this site constitutes an industrial hinterland village that catered for Pessinus and perhaps other surrounding settlements. During survey in this locality a sample of ferrous slag was located on a hillside (F169) where there are concentrations of worked marble blocks (F156, F168, F170) and a finely carved architectural fragment nearby (F154: Fig. 11). Despite the lack of defining spatial markers to the south of Pessinus, there are indications that housing and industrial areas extended at least to the ‘southern hill’ (Akbayir Tepe) and probably beyond. Excavations in 2010 in sector R 65

Devreker, Devos etal. 2003, 154–55. Ottoman-era grain seeds found in a Late Roman pithos hint at long-term continuity in the agricultural use of this area (Van Peteghem and Braeckman 2003, 166–67). 67 Stoops 1984b; Tsetskhladze etal. 2011, 348. 68 Devreker and Vermeulen 1995b, fig. 11. 69 Devreker 1988, 128; Devreker, Devos etal. 2002, 144. 70 Peacock 1979. 66

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

147

revealed domestic contexts that were probably occupied from the Late Hellenistic period and underwent significant change in prior to the end of occupation. South-east of sector R, there are signs of dense occupation and productive activity in the eroded gullies to the east, where surface finds include pottery, iron slag and a tile waster (F144), and an iron spear head (F039: Fig. 12). In the city’s southern reaches there might have been areas where domestic, productive and funerary areas merged. As noted above, cemetery locations do give some definition between inhabited and uninhabited areas, and the situation of fortified places is likewise indicative of difference in the use of space, whereby uplands had strategic and symbolic importance to the city’s structure. Cemeteries There are abundant remains of graves and funerary monuments in Pessinus and its surroundings, indicative of funerary activity spanning several centuries. Assessing the age of visible remains is difficult owing to reuse of stone for graves from Roman times into the modern day. Nevertheless, the chronology of cemeteries can be appraised from the excavated and aboveground remains, which display a variety of burial and commemorative techniques in the ancient, mediaeval and modern periods. There was almost continual construction and dismantling of graves in the Roman era, and instances of ambiguity of separation between ‘domestic’ and ‘funerary’ contexts. The most expansive cemeteries, belonging to the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods, are situated outside the city’s inhabited area, on the flat hilltops and plateau spurs that surround the valley. Burials within the urban area began during late antiquity, as occurred in many cities across Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean.71 The move from extramural to intramural burial is bound up with the changes in urban structure which accompanied social and economic shifts from the 4th century AD onwards. One aspect of these changes is the appearance of burial grounds in public open spaces and buildings, which in the case of Pessinus includes the northern end of the ‘canal’ system.72 Cemeteries have been the focus of much attention by previous researchers. Ghent undertook excavations of two major cemeteries (sectors A and I), and excavated graves in other areas within the city (sectors D and J). According to published information, there are five necropoleis on the plateaus and hilltops surrounding the ancient city. These do not, however, reflect the totality of 71 72

For example Corinth (see Ivison 1996). In trench D 3 on the west bank (Lambrechts 1969, 273–74; Waelkens 1984c, 98).

148

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

areas where funerary remains are present. Though additional cemeteries have been found, for example five cemeteries located north-west of the site in 1996,73 only short reports have been published. Moreover, there has not been an attempt to consider the overall distribution of funerary remains within the Pessinus area and how these relate to the city’s diachronic history. Illicit excavations and vandalism in the past and present have particularly targeted cemeteries which has made the task of recording funerary remains all the more urgent. The cemeteries were a focal point of the new surveys, which sought to accurately record the location and type of funerary remains and to institute a new naming protocol for them (Fig. 6). The position of upland cemeteries generally accords with the location of hills that line the valley around Pessinus, and are more prevalent in the hilly north-west and south-east parts of the site. Indeed, there was a marked preference for the location of burials in the natural limestone outcrops surrounding the town.74 As indicated above, North Cemetery 1 holds particular interest because excavations here have provided detailed information on the chronology and types of burial practices.75 The earliest graves date from the Late Hellenistic or Early Roman era (1st century BC) and the hill continued to be used for burials up until the 5th/6th century AD. Characteristically, many of the later Roman burials incorporate reused funerary monuments such as doorstones into new cist graves. On the east side of the modern road that cuts through the hill, an area of graves briefly excavated in the 1960s has been designated as a separate cemetery (sector C), however, this is probably a component of North Cemetery 1, which was divided by the construction of the modern road. Graves are present on this eastern side some distance to the north, including two locations where recent looting using a mechanical excavator has occurred, unearthing and shattering a sarcophagus and cist grave remains (F008, F009). Previous surveys have recorded graves and monuments at some distance to the north,76 and recently excavated looters’ pits near to the Roman road might have targeted tombs (F004). There are two other large cemeteries to the north of the valley: North Cemetery 4, consisting of a concentration of pits (old looting and/or unreported excavations), marble tomb fragments, fine pottery and human remains. Recent looting was also recorded in the form of a pit dug on the western side of the 73 74 75 76

Devreker and Vermeulen 1998, 257. Analogous to the preferred location for cemeteries at Sagalassos (Martens 2005, 242). Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 2003; Devreker 1994. Bittel 1967, 148; Devreker, Braeckman and Dutoo 1999, 109–10.

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

149

hill (F074) and a smashed marble sarcophagus lid at the bottom of the slope (F081). One stone-lined grave on a spur north of North Cemetery 4 (F083) was previously documented in 2001,77 raising the possibility that another cemetery lies on this plateau spur (North Cemetery 5). Two further cemeteries in the north of the site are closer to the ancient city centre: North Cemetery 2 is the above-mentioned Ottoman Hill, where excavations in sector J revealed some Late Hellenistic/Early Roman and Ottoman graves;78 North Cemetery 3 was partially unearthed in 1969–70 during the course of excavations in sectors D and E on the west bank of the river bed, yielding stone sarcophagi of possible Early Byzantine date.79 Between these two antique cemeteries are the remains of an old Turkish cemetery (F179) and the current cemetery of Ballıhisar (F180). The western side of the Pessinus valley is formed by a ridge that was probably the location of fortified positions (discussed below), and there might also have been graves along this hilltop, though the ridge is thin and not a flat hilltop. Such a hill is located on the parallel ridge to the west, which has previously been called the Western Necropolis, now West Cemetery 1. One grave stele was found in this location, bearing a wreath motif carved in high relief (F117). Though dated AD 175–200 by John Devreker,80 many stelai, door-stones and carved blocks, it most probably represents secondary use. Numerous pits indicate past looting and there are also some more recent pits as well scattered marble blocks. Displaced stones, artefacts and looting pits on another ridge to the south-west might also be the remains of a cemetery, though in general, funerary remains are confined to the northern part of the valley where there are larger areas of open uplands compared with the south. The evidence for cemeteries to the south of Pessinus is less clear than the north and east, though some places can be postulated as the location of tombs. One conspicuous landform is an isolated hillock about 1.5 km south-west of the centre of Ballıhisar, on top of which are finely worked marble blocks and a scatter of Early Roman ceramics (F151, F152). This would be a prominent site to erect a tomb, though the ceramic scatter features not only fine ware but also coarse pottery, which might suggest that the artefacts derive from utilitarian use rather than from graves.

77 78 79 80

Devreker, Devos etal. 2003, 156. Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 1992, 350–51. Waelkens 1984c, 98. Devreker 1991, 198–99.

150

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

On the opposite side of the valley is a large hill that runs in a north–south direction that has been labelled as the Southern Necropolis on previous published plans. A fragment of a funerary inscription and an altar were found near this hill, but the precise location is not specified.81 No grave evidence is present on the hill itself, though fallen stones at the southern end might have formed a fortification (F173), and coarse pottery, tile and a fragment of red painted plaster (F160) suggest a domestic zone. The categorisation of this hilltop as a cemetery is therefore apparently without foundation. At the lowest slopes on the north-west edge of the south hill, facing the modern road, is a previously unpublished cemetery (South Cemetery 1). One old looting pit (F158) was documented and several spolia noted (F172), probably used as grave markers in the manner of the old Turkish cemetery discussed above. South Cemetery 1 appears to have east–west aligned graves, suggesting its possible use in the Christian era (Late Roman/Early Byzantine), though the site might also be an Islamic cemetery. One small area of funerary remains was located on a ridge adjoining the south hill, east of sector R (South Cemetery 2). Remains consist of finely worked marble blocks, looting pits, tile and fragments of a terracotta sarcophagus with moulded relief lines and bosses (F164) that appear to have eroded out of the hillside (Fig. 13). The sarcophagus, probably of Early Roman date, is the first example of this mode of burial to be documented at Pessinus, and is not found in cemeteries of comparable date in the region, for example at Gordion.82 The cemeteries on the east side of the valley are far more expansive than those on the west, owing perhaps to larger areas of flat plateau that are not intersected by gullies. The main cemetery area (East Cemetery 1, previously sector A), which was investigated first by Lambrechts and has since been the target of extensive looting and some authorised excavations, spans a large plateau to the south-east of Ballıhisar. On the edge of the plateau, about 200 m from the Roman theatre is the old trench (A II) excavated in 1967 (F057), which yielded tombs from the Late Hellenistic to the Late Roman period.83 There has been recent disturbance here from the installation of telegraph poles and perhaps also looting. Across the whole plateau are numerous looters’ pits and depressions left by unreported (legal) excavations, the latter demonstrated by a north-east–south-west aligned transect of evenly spaced pits near the western edge of the plateau. 81 82 83

Devreker 1995, 77. Goldman 2007. Lambrechts 1969a; Waelkens 1984b.

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

151

Another zone of the same plateau is located further to the east (East Cemetery 2), where erosion has caused the plateau to become almost separated in two. Recent looting has brought up monumental marble blocks strewn over the ground (Fig. 14). One set of tombs – originally exposed by looting – consisting of insitu monumental blocks forming a cist lining and two sarcophagi (F067) previously investigated in 2001.84 There is a good deal of coarse pottery scattered across the surface of East Cemetery 2, which suggests that the area was a place of habitation as well as funerary activity. Whether East Cemetery 2’s domestic use precedes or postdates the cemetery is uncertain, though recognition of this area as part of the urban area would expand substantially the previously known dimensions of the ancient city. Further ceramic scatters found in adjacent gullies to the north and south of East Cemetery 2 might partly derive from erosion of the hill, though there were probably also discrete areas of habitation on the smaller valleys east of Pessinus, raising the possibility of dispersed and non-contiguous settlement areas around the central city. The plateau north of East Cemeteries 1 and 2 – previously known as the Eastern Necropolis (now East Cemetery 3) – is an extensive ploughed field also containing remnants of some graves. These especially line the edge of the plateau, facing Pessinus, and demonstrate how funerary remains were positioned in order to be seen from the settlement below. This area too has signs of non-funerary activity – the possible fortification walls (F132, discussed below) and scatters of tile and coarse pottery being suggestive of habitation. Fortifications For a city with major Hellenistic to Late Roman occupation phases, the lack of circuit walls around Pessinus is unusual. More than 60% of pre-Hellenistic poleis in Anatolia are known to have had circuit walls, and the figure for the Hellenistic period is higher still;85 during the Late Roman period, city walls became an integral part of the urban structure in both long-lived and newly founded settlements.86 However, not all Roman towns were fortified, and during the Early Empire the provision of circuit walls was largely abandoned, only revived again from the late 2nd–3rd centuries.87 Importantly, city walls

84 85 86 87

Devreker, Devos etal. 2003, 156. Hansen 2004. Kirilov 2007; Crow 2001. Perring 1991, 283.

152

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

were not always built for defensive purposes but also to engender civic confidence, status and security as well as for customs control.88 The topography of Pessinus would make fortifying the city with an effective circuit wall quite difficult. Although walls could be built along the plateau edges, the city would be at a strategic disadvantage because of its low lying position. It has been postulated that a defensive system in Pessinus was formed by a series of watchtowers and strongholds that occupied uplands at the city’s edges.89 Investigating the location and nature of these fortifications was an objective of surveys in 2009 and 2010, including ground survey and geophysical prospection,90 which resulted in the identification of at least nine such loci in the immediate Pessinus area (Fig. 6). On North Cemetery 1, excavations uncovered a substantial occupation that postdates the area’s funerary use. As outlined above, the Ghent team’s characterisation of this as a ‘Byzantine castle’ or ‘fortress’ is problematic,91 however, partly as the abandonment and conversion of the cemetery occurs in probably the later 5th or early 6th century, and because there is sparse evidence for the later (Middle) Byzantine period, which consists of merely a handful of coins, seals, glazed sherds and inscriptions.92 The designation is also problematic because this was a place for habitation, further burial and, of course, other social and economic activity, and not simply a fort. Krsmanovic has called the 5th–6th-century development a ‘Late Antique compound’,93 which avoids the more deterministic designation of a castle and the labels that the Ghent scholars assigned to ancillary structures such as ‘dungeon/donjon’.94 Nevertheless, the architecture implanted onto the former cemetery has an undoubtedly martial character, consisting of a tall and thick circuit wall interspersed with square plan bastions. Other hilltop fortifications have been mentioned in previous published reports,95 though their chronology is not well known and they have not been treated as forming an overall fortification system. Our surveys identified hilltop fortified places in all directions from Pessinus, and notably a series of small fortifications, possibly watchtowers, spanning the east and west ridges of the valley (F084, F085, F086 and F040, F047, F132). Substantial remains on 88

Perring 1991, 283–84. Vermeulen etal. 1998, 790. 90 Schmidt 2009; 2010. 91 Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 2003, 347–87. 92 Devreker 1988, 127–28; Devreker, Hollevoet and Thoen 1991, 282; Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 1992, 349; Devreker, Laes and Strubbe 2010, 59–62. 93 Krsmanovic 2018. 94 Devreker, Thoen and Vermeulen 2003, 354. 95 Devreker and Vermeulen 1995a, 82. 89

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

153

a flattened upland to the north of West Cemetery 1 (F084) consist of earthworks and plentiful tiles, where surface pottery in the vicinity includes Hellenistic and Early Roman material (Fig. 15). This site might have had significance regarding the northern approach route to the city, which passes directly below this point. The site is also intervisible with the cliffs rising above Sivrihisar, the location of a substantial Byzantine and Turkish castle, one of the few such positions in Pessinus, and which might also have provided a strategic advantage. On a ridge to the west of Ballıhisar are two areas of possible fortifications, at the northern and southern end: F085 and F086 respectively. The former was investigated using magnetometer during the 2009 season, which revealed a circular plan feature, perhaps a watchtower.96 The feature is represented on the surface by toppled boulders and a rectangular shaped depression, however, the geophysics revealed the ground plan to be circular, and the feature might have been a stand-alone tower rather than being connected to a larger fortified structure. A presumed fortification (F086) at the southern end of the same ridge covers a larger area, though its nature is uncertain, and little can be deduced from the scatter of stones and visible earthworks. Two areas of possible fortification to the south of Ballıhisar are a hillock some 1.5 km south-west of the village centre (F155) and an extensive area of fallen stones towards the southern end of the southern hill (F173). Both of these positions afford fine views to the south and are within reach of Pessinus, taking advantage of the few upland positions in this part of the site. Possible areas of fortification on the eastern side of the valley include remains overlooking sector R, which might have a fortified or perhaps residential aspect (F040). On the plateau above (East Cemetery 1) is another possible fortified place, on the ridge side, which was briefly investigated using magnetometer in 2010 (F047), though the ground here has been substantially disturbed. To the north of East Cemetery 1, on the plateau facing the theatre, tumbled stone and sub-surface linear features (F132) were investigated in 2010 using Ground Penetrating Radar.97 The geophysical survey identified two 1.3 m thick, buttressed walls at right angles incorporating a round bastion at the corner, which might be identifiable as an Early Byzantine fortification (F132). This fortification enclosed a protected space of approximately 0.5 ha up against the edge of the plateau. The position of the fortification is notable in that it appears to defend the eastern side of the city, which is not known to have been a major entry point. 96 97

Schmidt 2009; Tsetskhladze etal. 2011, 353–54. Schmidt 2010.

154

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

The walled compound constructed on top of North Cemetery 1 can be viewed in the context of wall-building and fortification activity that occurred across Anatolia and the Eastern Roman Empire during the 5th–7th centuries.98 These works cannot always be related to specific conflicts or threats of invasion. Despite the textually attested invasion of Pessinus by the Goths in the 3rd century and probable attacks on the city by Persian and Arab armies from the 7th century, it is rarely possible to link material remains with historic events. Indeed, no horizon of Pessinus shows any kind of extensive destructive action that may be attributed to such invasions. Moreover, the building of fortifications was not always intended for defence or offence – it may be better viewed as a form that was prominent in the overall make-up of urban sites in late antiquity. CONCLUDING REMARKS As may be seen from this overview, Pessinus offers a rich archaeological landscape whose potential has hardly begun to be realised. Such data as is presented in this paper may contribute towards revealing complexities in the use of urban and peri-urban space that enhance the information gained from excavations in the city centre. One result of the recent surveys has been to define the spatial extent of Pessinus, establishing a hypothetical settled area (places of habitation, labour and civic spaces) during the Roman period in relation to the position and extent of cemeteries. The surveys have also contributed to defining the possible functionality and use of space – for agriculture, industry, military and other activities – and how these changed in the long and short term. In reference to the latter point, a key question to investigate would be the use of areas at the margins and outside the city, and the manner in which they assumed functional and cultural meaning in relation to the main settlement and the wider hinterland. The northern villa site has the potential to provide significant information relating to this in terms of economic and power relationships. Similarly, the area south of Pessinus holds particular interest, as it likely formed an extended transitional zone between the urban and the periphery, a place of industry, agricultural and craft production. The mapping of the Roman road raises further questions about Pessinus’s connections with other districts and settlements in the region, something that has not been examined previously, which would complement micro-scale interpretations of the site with regional ones. Thus, the surveys conducted over 2009 and 2010 are demonstrative of the potential for a regional, multi-period approach to elucidate various aspects of landscape history. 98

Kirilov 2007.

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

155

BIBLIOGRAPHY Belke, K. 1984a: TabulaImperiiByzantini4:GalatienundLykaonien (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 172) (Vienna). —. 1984b: ‘Germia und Eudoxias. Ein problem der historischen Geographie Galatians’. In Hörandner, W., Koder, J., Kresten, O. and Trapp, E. (eds.), Byzantios. FestschriftfürHerbertHungerzum70.Geburtstag (Vienna), 1–11. —. 1994: ‘Galatien in der Spätantike’. In Schwertheim, E. (ed.), Forschungen in Galatien (Asia Minor Studien 12) (Bonn), 171–88. Berndt-Ersöz, S. 2006: Phrygian Rock-cut Shrines: Structure, Function and Cult Practice (Leiden/Boston). Bittel, K. 1967: ‘Beobachtungen in Pessinus’. ArchäologicherAnzeiger 82, 142–50. Claerhout, I. and Devreker, J. 2008: Pessinous,SacredCityoftheAnatolianMother Goddess:AnArchaeologicalGuide (Istanbul). Cormack, S.H. 1997: ‘Funerary monuments and mortuary practice in Roman Asia Minor’. In Alcock, S.E. (ed.), The Early Roman Empire in the East (Oxford), 137–56. —. 2004: The Space of Death in Roman Asia Minor (Wiener Forschungen zur Archäologie 6) (Vienna). Crow, J.G. 2001: ‘Fortifications and urbanism in late antiquity. Thessaloniki and other eastern cities’. In Lavan, L. (ed.), Recent Research in Late Antique Urbanism (JournalofRomanArchaeology Suppl. 42) (Portsmouth, RI), 89–105. De Paepe, P., De Donder, J. and Moens, L. 2003: ‘Carbon and oxygen isotopic compositions of marbles from ancient and modern quarries in the neighbourhood of İstiklâlbağı (central Anatolia, Turkey)’. AA 11, 15–64. Devreker, J. 1984: ‘L’histoire de Pessinonte’. In Devreker and Waelkens 1984 I, 13–37. —. 1988: ‘Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1986’. 5.AraştırmaSonçularıToplantısı, vol. 1, 127–34. —. 1991: ‘Nouveaux monuments et inscriptions de Pessinonte et d’ailleurs (II)’. AA 1, 183–202. —. 1994: ‘The new excavations at Pessinus’. In Schwertheim, E. (ed.), Forschungen inGalatien (Asia Minor Studien 12) (Bonn), 10–30. —. 1995: ‘Nouveaux monuments et inscriptions de Pessinonte (IV)’. EA 24, 73–83. Devreker, J., Bauters, L., Braeckman, K., De Clercq, W., Devos, G., Dutoo, D. and Monsieur, P. 2001: ‘Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte (Turquie): la campagne de 1999’. AA 9, 61–72. Devreker, J., Braeckman, K., De Clercq, W., Deschiester, J. and Dutoo, D. 2000: ‘Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte (Turquie): la campagne de 1998’. AA 8, 105–17. Devreker, J., Braeckman, K. and Dutoo, D. 1999: ‘Pessinonte 1997: Rapport Provisoire’. AA 7, 105–15. Devreker, J., Devos, G., Bauters, L., Braeckman, K., Daems, A., De Clercq, W., Angenon, J. and Monsieur, P. 2003: ‘Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2001’. AA11, 141–56. Devreker, J., Devos, G., Bauters, L., Braeckman, K. and Monsieur, P. 2002: ‘Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2000’. AA 10, 131–44. Devreker, J., Hollevoet, Y. and Thoen, H. 1991: ‘Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1989’. KST 12.2, 269–99.

156

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

Devreker, J., Laes, C. and Strubbe, J.H.M. 2010: ‘New Inscriptions from Pessinous (VIII)’. EA 43, 59–86. Devreker, J., Thoen, H. and Vermeulen, F. 1992: ‘Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1990: Rapport Provisoire’. KST 13.2, 341–75. —. 2003: Excavations in Pessinus: The So-called Acropolis. From Hellenistic and RomanCemeterytoByzantineCastle (Archaeological Reports, Ghent University 1) (Ghent). Devreker, J., Verlinde, A., Bauters, L., De Clercq, W. and Monsieur, P. 2010: ‘Archaeological Excavations in Pessinus (Turkey): the 2008 Campaign’. AA 18, 141–56. Devreker, J. and Vermeulen, F. 1991: ‘Phrygians in the neighbourhood of Pessinus (Turkey)’. In Thoen, H., Bourgeois, J., Vermeulen, F., Crombé, P. and Verlaeckt, K. (eds.), LiberAmicorumA.E.Nenquin (Studia Archaeologica) (Ghent), 109–17. —. 1993: ‘Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1991: Preliminary Report’. KST 14.2, 261–88. —. 1994: Pessinonte(Turquie).Lavilleetsonterritoire;Pessinus(Turkije).Onderzoekvaneenantiekestadenhaarterritorium (Brussels). —. 1995a: ‘Pessinus 1993: Preliminary Report’. KST 16.2, 75–94. —. 1995b: ‘Archaeological Work at Pessinus in 1993’. AA 3, 113–26. —. 1996a: ‘Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1992: Preliminary Report’. AA 4, 67–81. —. 1996b: ‘The eighth excavation campaign in Pessinus’. AA 4, 81–97. —. 1997: ‘Fouilles à Pessinonte en 1995’. AA 5, 123–33. —. 1998: ‘Fouilles et prospections à Pessinonte: campagne de 1996’. AA 6, 249–59. Devreker, J. and Waelkens, M. (eds.) 1984: Les Fouilles de la Rijksuniversiteit te Gentà Pessinonte,1967–1973:Hommageà PierreLambrechts (Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 22), 2 vols. (Bruges). Dyson, S.L. 2003: TheRomanCountryside (London). Ervynck, A., De Cupere, B. and Van Neer, W. 1993: ‘Consumption refuse from the Byzantine castle at Pessinus, central Anatolia, Turkey’. In Buitenhuis, H. and Clason, A.T. (eds.), ArchaeolozoologyoftheNearEast (Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas) (Leiden), 119–27. French, D.H. 1980: ‘The Roman road-system of Asia Minor’. Aufsteig und NiedergangderrömischenWelt 7, 698–729. —. 1981: RomanRoadsandMilestonesofAsiaMinor1:ThePilgrim’sRoad(BAR International Series 105) (Oxford). —. 1988: Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor 2: An Interim Catalogue of Milestones,Part1 (BAR International Series 392i) (Oxford). Goldman, A.L. 2007: ‘The Roman-period cemeteries at Gordion in Galatia’. Journal ofRomanArchaeology 20, 299–320. Goodman, P.J. 2007: TheRomanCityanditsPeriphery:FromRometoGaul (London/ New York). Hansen, M.H. 2004: ‘City walls as evidence for polis identity’. In Hansen, M.H. and Neilsen, T.H. (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford), 135–37. Henning, J. (ed.) 2007: Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium (Millennium-Studien 5), vol. 2 (Berlin/New York). Ivison, E.A. 1996: ‘Burial and urbanism at Late Antique and Early Byzantine Corinth (c. AD 400–700)’. In Christie, N. and Loseby, S.T. (eds.), TownsinTransition:

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

157

Urban Evolution in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Aldershot), 99–125. —. 2007: ‘Amorium in the Byzantine Dark Age (seventh to ninth centuries)’. In Henning 2007, 25–59. Johnson, M. 2007: IdeasofLandscape (Oxford). Kirilov, C. 2007: ‘The reduction of the fortified city area in late antiquity: some reflections on the end of the “antique city” in the lands of the Eastern Roman Empire’. In Henning 2007, 3–24. Krsmanovic, D. 2018 : ‘The Excavations of Ghent University at Pessinus – A Conspectus of the Work of Pieter Lambrechts (1967–73) and John Devrker (1986–2008)’. In Tsetskhladze 2018, 465–567. Lambrechts, P. 1968: ‘Rapport sur la première campagne de fouilles à Pessinus (AoûtSeptembre 1967)’. TAD 16.2, 113–31. —. 1969a: ‘Les Fouilles de Pessinonte: la nécropole’. L’AntiquitéClassique 38, 121–46. —. 1969b: ‘De derde opgravingskampanje van de Gentse Universiteit te Pessinus (Turkije)’. DeBrug 13, 268–80. —. 1973: ‘Rapport sur la cinquième campagne de fouilles à Pessinonte’. TAD 20.1, 107–15. Laurence, R. 1999: TheRoadsofRomanItaly:MobilityandCulturalChange (London/ New York). Marsh, B. 2005: ‘Physical geography, land use and human impact at Gordion’. In Kealhofer, L. (ed.), TheArchaeologyofMidasandthePhrygians:RecentWork atGordion (Philadelphia), 161–71. Martens, F. 2005: ‘The archaeological urban survey of Sagalassos (south-west Turkey): the possibilities and limitations of surveying a ‘non-typical’ classical site’. Oxford JournalofArchaeology 24, 229–54. Mayer, E.E. 2018: ‘The Plateia of Pessinus’. In Tsetskhladze 2018, 373–78. Mitchell, S. 1980: ‘Population and land in Roman Galatia’. AufsteigundNiedergang derrömischenWelt 7, 1053–81. —. 1982: RegionalEpigraphicCataloguesofAsiaMinorII:TheAnkaraDistrict.The InscriptionsofNorthGalatia (BAR International Series 135) (Oxford). —. 1993: Anatolia: Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor 2: The Rise of the Church (Oxford). Moens, L., De Donder, J., De Paepe, P. and Von Hende, J. 1998: ‘Analyses des isotopes stables du carbone et de l’oxygène appliqués à des marbres de Pessinonte (Anatolie centrale)’. AA 6, 267–71. Morris, I. 2004: ‘Classical archaeology’. In Bintliff, J.L. (ed.), A Companion to Archaeology (Oxford), 253–71. Peacock, D.P.S. 1979: ‘An ethnoarchaeological approach to the study of Roman bricks and tiles’. In McWhirr, A. (ed.), RomanBrickandTile.StudiesinManufacture, Distribution and Use in the Western Empire (BAR International Series 68) (Oxford), 5–10. Perring, D. 1991: ‘Spatial organization and social change in Roman towns’. In Rich, J. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds.), CityandCountryintheAncientWorld (London/ New York), 273–93. Ramsay, W.M. 1890: TheHistoricalGeographyofAsiaMinor (London). Roberts, N. 1990: ‘Human-induced landscape change in South and Southwest Turkey during the later Holocene’. In Bottema, S., Entjes-Nieborg, G. and Van Zeist, W.

158

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

(eds.), Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape (Rotterdam), 53–67. Sagona, A.G. and Zimansky, P. 2009: AncientTurkey (London/New York). Schmidt, A. 2009: ‘Geophysical survey report, Pessinus 2009’. Unpublished report. —. 2010: ‘Geophysics and geomatics 2010’. Unpublished report. Sivas, T. Tüfekçi 2003: ‘Wine Presses of Western Phrygia’. AWE 2.1, 1–18. Stoops, G. 1984a: ‘The environmental physiography of Pessinus in function of the study of the archaeological stratigraphy and the natural building materials’. In Devreker and Waelkens 1984 I, 38–50. —. 1984b: ‘Observations on remnants of a Roman aqueduct near Pessinus’. In Devreker and Waelkens 1984 I, 171–72. Strobel, K. 2010: ‘Ist das Phrygiasche Kultzentrum der Matar mit dem hellenistischen und römischen Pessinus identisch? Zur Geographie des Tempelstaates von Pessinus’. OrbisTerrarum 9 (for 2003–07), 207–28. Strubbe, J.H.M. 1984: ‘Descriptive catalogue and bibliography of the inscribed monuments of Pessinus’. In Devreker and Waelkens 1984 I, 216–44. —. 2005: The Inscriptions of Pessinous (Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 66) (Bonn). Texier, C.F.R. 1862: Asiemineure,Descriptiongéographique,histoireetarchéologie desprovincesetdesvillesdelaChersonnèsed’Asie (Paris). Todd, I.A. 1980: ThePrehistoryofCentralAnatoliaI:TheNeolithicPeriod (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 60) (Gothenburg). Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.) 2018: Pessinus and Its Regional Setting, vol. 1 (Colloquia Antiqua 21) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT). Tsetskhladze, G.R., Anderson, W., Bauters, L., Dandrow, E., De Clercq, W., Mayer, E. and Schmidt, A. 2011: ‘Pessinus, 2009’. KST 32.1, 341–66. Van Peteghem, A.K. and Braeckman, K. 2003: ‘Pessinonte 2001, recherche paléobotanique: étude des grains et des fruits’. AA 11, 165–68. Vanhaverbeke, F., Martens, F. and Waelkens, W. 2007: ‘Another view on late antiquity: Sagalassos (SW Anatolia), its suburbium and its countryside in late antiquity’. In Poulter, A.G. (ed.), TheTransitiontoLateAntiquityontheDanubeand Beyond (Proceedings of the British Academy 141) (Oxford), 611–48. Vassileva, M. 2001: ‘Further considerations on the cult of Kybele’. AS 51, 51–63. Verlinde, A. 2010: ‘Monumental Architecture in Hellenistic and Julio-Claudian Pessinus’. Babesch85, 111–39. Vermeulen, F., De Dapper, M. and Brackman, P. 1994: ‘Archaeological and Geomorphological Approach to the Roman City: the Case of Pessinus’. In Dupré i Raventós, X. (ed.), La ciudad en el mundo romano (Actas XIV Congrés Internacional de Arqueologia Clàsica. Tarragona, 5–11/9/1993), vol. 2 (Tarragona), 425–29. Vermeulen, F., Devreker, J. and Demulder, G. 1998: ‘Urban Developments in Early Byzantine Pessinus (Asia Minor)’. In Cambi, N. and Marin, E. (eds.), Radovi XIIImeđunarodnog kongresa za starokršćansku arheoligiju, Split-Poreč, 25.9.– 1.10.1994/ActaXIIICongressusInternationalisArchaeologiaeChristianae (Studi di antichità cristiana 54; Vjesnik za archeologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 89), vol. 3 (Vatican City/Split), 787–96. Waelkens, M. 1971: ‘Pessinonte et le Gallos’. Byzantion 41, 349–73. —. 1979: ‘Germa, Germokoloneia et Germia’. Byzantion49, 447–64.

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

159

—. 1984a: ‘Archéologie/Description générale du site’. In Devreker and Waelkens 1984 I, 51–54. —. 1984b: ‘La nécropole de l’est (nécropole A)’. In Devreker and Waelkens 1984 I, 55–76. —. 1984c: ‘Le système d’endiguement du torrent’. In Devreker and Waelkens 1984 I, 77–141. Willis, S. 2007: ‘Roman towns, Roman landscapes: the cultural terrain of town and country in the Roman period’. In Fleming, A. and Hingley, R. (eds.), Prehistoric andRomanLandscapes (Macclesfield), 143–64.

160

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

Fig. 1. Map of the Pessinus region.

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

Fig. 2. Map of Pessinus showing recorded features.

161

162

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

Fig. 3. Map of Roman road recorded north of Pessinus.

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

Fig. 4. Well-preserved stretch of Roman road north of Pessinus, with Sivrihisar in the distance.

Fig. 5. Ridge and valley north of Ballıhisar (F001), possible entry route of Roman road into Pessinus.

163

164

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

Fig. 6. Map of Pessinus showing excavation trenches, recorded cemeteries, fortifications and hypothetical extent of the Roman city.

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

165

Fig. 7. North side of Ballıhisar village, facing north-west, with labelled features.

Fig. 8. Ballıhisar village, facing south along the Gallos channel (sector D).

166

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

Fig. 9. Gallos valley north of Pessinus, route of the city’s main water supply, facing north.

Fig. 10. Fields in open valley south of Pessinus, facing north.

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

Fig. 11. Finely carved marble block beside road south of Pessinus (F154).

167

168

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

Fig. 12. Iron spear tip from valley south-west of Ballıhisar (F039); photograph of the find-spot (above) and drawing (below).

GROUND SURVEY IN PESSINUS AND ITS PERIPHERY: FIRST OBSERVATIONS

169

Fig. 13. Terracotta sarcophagus fragments on slope south-west of Ballıhisar (F164).

Fig. 14. Recently vandalised feature on East Cemetery 2 (F124).

170

W. ANDERSON – D. KRSMANOVIC – M. NEGUS CLEARY

Fig. 15. Earthworks and artefacts on hill north-east of Pessinus, possible fortification (F084, Fort D’melle).

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011. GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY REPORT* Armin SCHMIDT

Abstract This report uses advanced 3D processing of GPR data to gain further archaeological interpretation of the measurements.

INTRODUCTION A novel advanced data processing algorithm was developed to deal with the particular challenges of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) data, especially from the surveys undertaken in Pessinus in the field seasons of 2010 and 2011. Details of this new processing paradigm can be found elsewhere.1 After conventional pre-processing of the data (bandpass filtering and creation of 0.1 m thick depth slices) the algorithm allows to select a single, characteristic GPR depth slice from which to tune six parameters so as to create the ‘best’ polygon representation of the anomalies form this depth slice. These parameters can then be applied to all depth slices of the 3D GPR data cube to extract automatically anomalies at every depth. These polygonal anomalies are representative of the causative features and can also be used for their 3D representation. The resulting 3D images are superior to the conventional iso-surface rendering due to suppression of noise. The advanced processing parameters are described in Table 1.

* For the 2013 season, see Schmidt’s report in the final chapter of the present volume. The 2009 report will be found in Tsetskhladze, Anderson etal. 2011, 351–55. 1 Schmidt and Tsetskhladze 2013.

172

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Table 1. Description of advanced processing parameters. Parameter

Description

Units

1

Threshold of GPR energy to be extracted as initial Standard deviations of a anomalies (e.g. 1.7). depth slice

2

Size threshold 1, to remove small noise spikes in the m2 data (e.g. 0.05 m2).

3

Neighbourhood merge radius, to combine adjacent m small anomalies in larger ones (e.g. 0.2 m).

4

Size threshold 2, to remove anomalies that even m2 after merging are not big enough (e.g. 1.8 m2).

5

Fringe around merged anomalies to produce m smoother surfaces (e.g. 0.15 m).

6

Simplification of feature polygons with a Douglas– Peucker algorithm (e.g. 0.2).

-

SITES Details of the sites and the preliminary interpretation of collected GPR data can be found in the annual project reports.2 Table 2 contains an overview of all advanced processing parameters for the sites reported here. Table 2. Advanced processing parameters for all sites. Parameter number Parameter name

1

2

3

4

5

6

Clip threshold [StdDevs]

Size threshold 1 [m2]

Neighbourhood radius [m]

Size threshold 2 [m2]

Fringe [m]

Simplification

Sector S - promontory

Pes13

0.5

0.8

2.0

0.1

0.03

0.15

South of temple

Pes15

1.2

0.17

0.5

0.55

0.01

0.02

Tekören, field C

Pes16

0.8

0.1

2.0

0.5

0.01

0.1

East Cemetery 2

Pes18

1.7

0.05

1.8

0.2

0.15

0.2

Bağlar

Pes19

1.8

0.02

1.2

0.35

0.1

0.05

2

Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2012; Tsetskhladze, Anderson etal. 2012.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

173

SectorS-Promontory (Pes13) The site was identified during a walkover as linear earthworks, thought to be remains of collapsed walls, which formed the northern and eastern enclosure of a promontory of ca. 0.5 ha on the plateau to the east of Ballıhisar. The western and southern aspects of this promontory are formed by the very steep slopes of the plateau. In 2011, this area was added to the project’s inventory of investigated sites as ‘sector S’. Level 1 (0.4 m, Fig. 1) mainly shows the debris created by the destruction of the features which now forms the visible earthworks along their outline. Level 2 (1.1 m, Fig. 2) shows clearly the original structure, consisting of linear sections of a 1.3 m wide wall with internal buttresses at intervals of 4.5 m. The two main linear sections (northern and eastern) are connected by an angled stretch that is extended outwards by a round tower or bastion at the north-east corner. A similar structure is seen at the southern end of the survey area. The latter one only extends over the depth range of 1.0–1.4 m, due to the considerable erosion at this end of the linear earthwork. Its southernmost parts are already destroyed due to the gradual collapse of the platform’s edges down the steep slopes. Given the promontory’s layout with two apparent bastions, it is conceivable that there was a third bastion at the north-western end of the northern stretch of the wall, which would appear to be lost due to erosion of the platform along its edges. A detailed investigation at this location, where the modern track intersects the earthworks, would be beneficial. Levels 3 and 4 (1.4 m and 1.7 m, respectively, Figs. 3 and 4) highlight a trend already seen in the shallower slices, namely that there appear to be less solid sections or gaps at greater depth. This is easier to see in a 3D representation of the data and a YouTube video has been prepared to visualise these results: http://youtu.be/_-YkCS0LBHc. Fig. 5 shows the location of these particular features on the map. Gap: There is a 6.4 m long gap in the eastern wall [P13d] up to a depth of ca. 1.1 m (Fig. 6a–b). The gap is filled over a narrow depth range (ca. 1.2– 1.5 m) and opens up again below (Fig. 6c). The gap in the wall is located where the linear earthwork is lowest or nearly non-existent; however it is unclear what is cause and effect: it is possible that the lower earthwork is due to damage resulting from recent farming, maybe to create easy vehicular access to the centre of the structure. These activities may then also have damaged the buried wall. Alternatively, the wall may have already been constructed with a gap there, possibly for an entrance portal. When it later collapsed there was less building material to spread out and form the earthwork. This latter explanation

174

ARMIN SCHMIDT

is more plausible, as there is also a weaker section of the wall underneath the gap, which indicates that this position was already built differently when the structure was erected. The gap is slightly to the north of the middle between the two bastions, thereby not constituting an obvious geometric position for a particular feature. Weakersections: There are three weaker sections of the wall at greater depth [P13a-c]. Fig. 7 shows the first two weaker sections ([P13a-b], both 2.4 m wide) between the northern bastion and the aforementioned gap [P13d] and Fig. 8 also shows the third weaker section, further south (1.9 m wide). The gap in the upper parts of the wall [P13d] shows a weakened lower part similar to the other weaker sections (see Fig. 7b) and it can hence be argued that there are at least four such weaker sections along the eastern wall. One can only speculate why the foundation of the wall is weaker, or less deep, in these places. It may be a design feature whereby it was known that these locations would not have to support quite so substantial a wall, possibly due to openings for doors above these sections. However, a definitive reason for these weaker sections cannot be deduced from the data. Opening: The data show an interruption (or ‘opening’) [P13e] in the eastern side of the north-eastern bastion (Fig. 9). This opening shows clearly down to a depth of 1.2 m, after which it narrows and then disappears with the rest of the bastion at a depth of 1.8 m. Although the 3D visualisation makes this look like a door, such interpretation seems unlikely, as a door would not have required such substantial weakening of the bastion’s foundation. Careful inspection of the data shows that this opening is not a data processing artefact and should therefore have a physical manifestation in this foundation segment. Careful examination of the excavation results in this position is therefore required to identify possible small changes in the stone fabric that may have led to such an opening showing in the GPR data. Heap: To the north-west of the north-eastern bastion, and outside the structure, is a heap of material [P13f] of ca. 2.0 m × 2.7 m rectangular dimension (Fig. 10). At its northern edge it has a depth range of 1.0–1.8 m and is wider at greater depth. Given that a large stone block was found in Trench 2 in the structure’s interior and another, probably even larger, block was intersected by the GPR survey south of Trench 2 (see the 2011 geophysics report), it is likely that this anomaly north-west of the bastion is also caused by a large buried stone block. Whether these blocks were placed there deliberately or were part of the plateau’s formation processes is unclear.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

175

SouthofTemple(Pes15) To the south of the temple area the Belgian team had opened trench B9, which revealed the remains of a substantial multi-phased wall, labelled as Late Hellenistic, Early Roman, Middle Roman and Late Antique on their phased diagram. It is considered to be the southern part of the western section of the Early Roman temenos wall but cannot be linked orthogonally to the southern section of the temenos wall, which runs higher up on the temple platform. It was hence considered that it may lead to a lower platform of the temenos, south of the main temple area, approximately at the location of the GPR investigation. Several stone blocks are visible to both sides of the road and form an apparent line across the survey area. The GPR data were investigated as four characteristic depth slices, where the depth is measured from the road surface downwards (0.2 m, Level 1, Fig. 11; 0.6 m, Level 2, Fig. 12; 0.8 m, Level 3, Fig. 13; and 1.0 m, Level 4, Fig. 14). In the data there is no clear continuation of the wall, or its turn, discernible. However, various distinct anomalies are visible (Fig. 15), although stacked in a complicated 3D manner and hence difficult to describe and visualise. The 3D visualisation of the processed data is shown in Fig. 16. In the north-western part of the data (Fig. 17) an area bordering the south-western edge of the road of 4 m × 2 m is seen over a depth range of 0.3–0.6 m [P15a], nearly aligned with the blocks on the surface (the latter [P15b] show best in Levels 3 and 4, due to the lack of other signals there). From a depth of 0.6–1.0 m only a small block [P15c] of 1.0 m × 0.5 m can be seen bordering the north-eastern edge of the road. In the south-eastern part of the data (Fig. 18) two areas can be distinguished, one further to the north than the other. In the northern part a block, perpendicular to the edge of the road, with a size of 1.5 m × 0.7 m and a depth extent of 0.1–0.6 m [P15d] joins a perpendicular block (i.e. aligned with the road) of 2.2 m × 0.8 m and depth extent 0.4–1.1 m [P15e]. In addition, a narrow feature of 0.4 m width runs diagonally in and out of these two blocks at a depth range of 0.6–1.2 m [P15f]. The anomalies in the southern area become more distinct at 0.8 m depth (see Level 4) resembling two blocks, one of 1.4 m width and at least 1.2 m length [P15g] and one to its south of 0.7 m × 0.5 m [P15h]. Overall, this area shows several distinct but disjoint large blocks, probably similar to those found elsewhere in the excavated temple (sector B). It is likely that structural remains in this area were disturbed when the road was cut, leading to their disjoint appearance. None of the detected blocks can easily be linked to the structural remains from the temple. However, the survival of these buried remains suggests that a further investigation of the area between

176

ARMIN SCHMIDT

the excavated temple and the road might reveal other structures. The terrain in this area is steep and overgrown and hence difficult for GPR surveys, but with sufficient planning, temporary closure of the road and enough time, this could be done. EastCemetery2(Pes18) East Cemetery 2 is located 130 m east of the easternmost part of the East Cemetery, just across a dry valley separating these two platforms. East Cemetery 2 is characterised by widespread illicit excavations, which are clearly visible on aerial photographs (Fig. 19) and were recorded in the field seasons of 2010 and 2011 (Fig. 20). An area of 40 m × 60 m was investigated with a GPR survey that was characterised by abundant surface finds, mostly consisting of roof tiles, coarse ware and few pieces of Roman fine ware. As the plateau is heavily eroded by sever spring rains and the survey area lies on a slight slope the actual location of these surface finds was not deemed to be directly correlated to subsurface structures. The annual erosion processes will have reshaped the plateau considerably since classical times, which is demonstrated by the large stones and limestone blocks that are deposited on the steep slopes that lead into the dry valleys. The data are best represented in five characteristic depth slices (0.4 m, Level 1, Fig. 21; 0.6 m, Level 2, Fig. 22; 0.8 m, Level 3, Fig. 23; 1.0 m, Level 4, Fig. 24; 1.5 m, Level 5, Fig. 25). In the area chosen for this survey the data show three distinct types of anomalies (Figs. 26–32). The strong linear anomaly running north-south through the whole height of the survey area is the utilities trench dug to bury either an electric cable or a water pipe. Given the relatively modest reflection hyperbolas of the feature an electric cable seems more likely. TypeA: an elaborate grave monument built of stone blocks (probably marble) with a structural layout that changes considerably with depth, in the shape of a miniature house (Fig. 26a, anomalies [P18a, P18b and P18h]). TypeB: a sarcophagus-like rectangular block that extends over a limited depth range, where it shows as a distinct isolated feature (Fig. 26b, anomalies [P18d, P18e, P18i, P18j, P18k, P18l, P18m and P18n], Fig. 29). TypeC: a cut into the limestone geology, which manifests itself as a persistent low-reflection GPR anomaly that does not vary with depth, while the geological features around it do (Fig. 26c, anomalies [P18c, P18f and P18g]). There is no firm GPR evidence for a feature inside every cut and it could hence be

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

177

either an excavation for a simple grave or a rectangular quarry pit for the extraction of building materials. Fig. 32 shows the GPR anomalies and the recorded surface structures that were exposed by illicit excavations together with the plateau’s contour lines. The anomalies cut into the geology (Type C) lie towards the eastern edge of the area, but show no obvious alignment with the contour lines. The blockanomalies of Type B cluster mainly in the north-western part of the GPR survey area and seem mostly perpendicular to the contour lines i.e. aligned with the direction of slope. The three elaborate anomalies of Type A similarly show alignment with the contour lines but due to their small number a clear trend cannot be determined. However, it is clear that Type A and Type B anomalies are not differentiated by their vicinity to the plateau’s edge or to the city of Pessinus. The fact that alignment with contour lines has been detected has to be interpreted with caution as the topography of the plateau may have changed significantly since antiquity. It will be essential to cover a larger area of this necropolis in subsequent field seasons to test whether this pattern of alignment is more widespread. Bağlar(Pes19) An area of 20 m × 23 m was investigated to determine the preservation of buried features in this ploughed field and to examine their contrast for GPR surveys. Data are best represented by four characteristic depth slices (0.6 m, Level 1, Fig. 33; 0.7 m, Level 2, Fig. 34; 0.8 m, Level 3, Fig. 35; 1.0 m, Level 4, Fig. 36). Anomalies in these depth slices are fairly clear, but extend only over a limited depth range of approximately 0.5–1.2 m. There are several linear anomalies that can be identified as wall foundations and they outline clearly a substantial building with several rooms (Fig. 37). Wall anomalies [P19a] and [P19b] reach deepest, to approximately 1.2 m (Fig. 38c), the others to only about 0.9 m. Anomaly [P19c], to the right of the deep wall [P19a] seems to be a layer of collapse or possibly a not well articulated floor (Fig. 38c). It extends over the depth range of 0.6–0.9 m. Two anomalies of 0.5 m diameter are probably pillar foundations [P19d and e]. The eastern one [P19e] has a fairly extended depth range of 0.5–1.0 m, which can be seen clearly in the 3D visualisation of the data (Fig. 39d). A further small singular anomaly further east [P19f] could also be a pillar foundation (Fig. 39d), or a very short wall fragment. From the layout of these structures alone an archaeological interpretation of this building is not possible and several explanations can be considered, including a high-status Roman agricultural complex or a monastic, possibly Byzantine, structure.

178

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Tekören,FieldC(Pes16) An area of 70 m × 20 m was investigated to cover the two main magnetic anomalies found in the magnetometer survey in 2010 (then interpreted as possible kilns). The GPR data show several closely packed rectangular structures, ca. 10 m × 5 m each, that are at slight angles to each other. In some of them, individual floor levels are visible. This is easier to see in a 3D representation of the data (Fig. 40) and a YouTube video has been prepared to visualise these results: http://youtu.be/zamkOWONVC0. The GPR data are presented for four characteristic depth levels (0.5 m, Level 1, Fig. 41; 0.8 m, Level 2, Fig. 42; 0.9 m, Level 3, Fig. 43; 1.2 m, Level 4, Fig. 44). Up to a depth of 0.4 m only plough lines are visible in the data. The major structural features extend over a depth range of 0.4–1.2 m. It has to be assumed that the top 0.4 m of these features has been destroyed by ploughing and it is hence important that deeper ploughing of the field is prevented to protect the remnants of these structures. The anomalies can broadly be categorised as walls (narrow) and rectangular floors (wide) (Figs. 40, 45) and most of the walls have at least a 0.2 m depth extent. The floors, on the other hand, are generally confined to a 0.1 m depth range. Anomaly [P16a] extends from 0.6 to 1.2 m, changing its shape over this depth range, and is maybe not a simple floor but some other feature. Anomaly [P16b] is visible from 0.5 to 1.4 m and its shape varies considerably with depth; it could be a large rock (ca. 3 m in size), against which a wall was later built. Anomaly [P16c] and two neighbouring anomalies already show in the uppermost layers as plough lines in exactly the same position and are hence seen as an artefact of the data and not as real features at that depth. It is exactly in this location that the magnetometer survey identified a major bipolar anomaly (interpreted as a kiln), but no GPR anomalies are visible in this place. Quite different from the other anomalies is the curvilinear anomaly [P16d]. It only shows in the plough layer (0.2–0.5 m) and is hence thought to be a more recent soil feature. It is in the same location as the second magnetic bipolar anomaly. While there are many rectilinear GPR anomalies throughout the survey area, there are none in the location of the magnetic anomalies. It is possible that these magnetic features are deeper than the reach of the GPR device, created by digging through the rectilinear structures that existed shallowly at the time when the magnetic features were created. Although the linear wall sections are too fragmented to identify overall building outlines, it is possible to hypothesize their connection into individual units (Fig. 46). The floors occupy only small parts of each unit (albeit always the full width) and may hence indicate a specific internal ‘room’ function.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

179

It would be rewarding to extend this survey area and collect further information about the apparent settlement. Its dating is not possible based on the shape of the features alone. However, combining it with results from field-walking (Fig. 47) and ceramic analysis may prove beneficial, given the shallow nature of these structural remains CONCLUSIONS The advanced processing of the GPR data from the 2010 and 2011 seasons broadly confirmed the previous interpretations that were made immediately after data acquisition. Those were derived using conventional, albeit elaborate, data processing techniques and careful inspection of resulting depth slices. Such a corroboration creates confidence that data analysis during the field season, by an experienced operator, can produce correct and valuable results. However, the advanced processing allowed a more detailed insight into some of the anomalies, their three-dimensional shapes and relative arrangements. The generated 3D visualisation diagrams are probably easier to understand by archaeologists wishing to work further with these results. SectorS-Promontory (Pes13): The gap and weakened sections in the eastern wall of the promontory structure were particularly intriguing and their interpretation as possibly supporting openings seems plausible. South of temple (Pes15): Several blocks are clearly discernible in the data. Although their shape was easier to see in the depth slices, the advanced processing allowed a better evaluation of the spatial layout. East Cemetery 2 (Pes18): It became possible to differentiate three types of anomalies, possibly linked to different burial monuments. The archaeological insight gained is therefore far greater than the mere location of the features. Bağlar(Pes19): The walls, rooms and pillar bases of this structure were clearly visualised and it is hence expected that a full GPR survey of this structure may allow an archaeological assessment even without excavation. Tekören,FieldC (Pes16): The advanced processing of the GPR data of these habitation units allowed further insight into their internal layout, including rectangular floors that covered only parts of each building.

180

ARMIN SCHMIDT

BIBLIOGRAPHY Schmidt, A. and Tsetskhladze, G. 2013: ‘Raster was Yesterday: Using Vector Engines to Process Geophysical Data’. ArchaeologicalProspection 20.1, 59–65. Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.) 2012: The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Phrygia in Antiquity:AspectsofArchaeologyandAncientHistory (BAR International Series 2432) (Oxford). Tsetskhladze, G.R., Adams, J., Avram, A., Avram, S., Dandrow, E., Madden, A., Maranzana, P., Naserdin, L. and Schmidt, A. 2012: ‘Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2011 Field Season’. In Tsetskhladze 2012, 329–56. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Anderson, W., Avram, A., Avram, S., Clark, V., Flemming, K., Kortanoğlu, E., Krsmanovic, D., Cleary, M.N., Schmidt, A. and Weiland, R. 2012: ‘Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2010 Field Season’. In Tsetskhladze 2012, 293–327. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Anderson, W., Bauters, L., Dandrow, E., De Clercq, W., Mayer, E. and Schmidt, A. 2011: ‘Pessinus, 2009’. KST 32.1, 341–66.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 1. Sector S, depth slice at 0.4 m.

181

182

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 2. Sector S, depth slice at 1.1 m.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 3. Sector S, depth slice at 1.4 m.

183

184

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 4. Sector S, depth slice at 1.7 m.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 5. Sector S, showing the location of gaps and blocks in the 3D data.

185

186

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 6. Sector S, gap in eastern wall [P13d].

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

187

Fig. 7. Sector S, first two weaker sections in the eastern wall, at its northern end. The gap (see above) is visible to the south (i.e. left) of them.

Fig. 8. Sector S, all three weaker sections of the eastern wall. Two to the north (right), then the gap, and one more to the south (left).

188

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 9. Sector S, opening in eastern side of north-east bastion [P13e].

Fig. 10. Sector S, rectangular heap, north-west of the north-east bastion.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 11. South of temple, depth slice at 0.2 m.

189

190

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 12. South of temple, depth slice at 0.6 m.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 13. South of temple, depth slice at 0.8 m.

191

192

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 14. South of temple, depth slice at 1.0 m.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 15. South of temple, major anomalies.

193

194

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 1 6. South of temple, all anomalies. North-western anomalies to the left, south-eastern to the right.

Fig. 17. South of temple, north-western anomalies.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 18. South of temple, south-eastern anomalies.

195

196

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 19. East Cemetery 2, overview with illicit excavations and GPR survey area.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 20. East Cemetery 2, overview with illicit excavations (including the assigned survey labels) and GPR survey area.

197

198

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 21. East Cemetery 2, depth slice at 0.4 m.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 22. East Cemetery 2, depth slice at 0.6 m.

199

200

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 23. East Cemetery 2, depth slice at 0.8 m.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 24. East Cemetery 2, depth slice at 1.0 m.

201

202

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 25. East Cemetery 2, depth slice at 1.5 m.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 26. East Cemetery 2, three types of anomalies in map-view.

Fig. 27. East Cemetery 2, three types of anomalies, view from north.

203

204

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 28. East Cemetery 2, view from west.

Fig. 29. East Cemetery 2, view from west of feature P18a with depth slices showing from Levels 1–5 downwards (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.5 m), demonstrating the variation of the feature’s shape with depth.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 30. East Cemetery 2, anomalies of different types.

205

206

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 31. East Cemetery 2, schematic visualisation of the depth ranges of anomalies of the three different types (red A, green B, yellow C).

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 32. East Cemetery 2, anomalies of different types and structural remains of illicit excavations with 0.1 m contour lines.

207

208

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 33. Bağlar, depth slice at 0.6 m.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 34. Bağlar, depth slice at 0.7 m.

209

210

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 35. Bağlar, depth slice at 0.8 m.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 36. Bağlar, depth slice at 1.0 m.

211

212

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 37. Bağlar, anomalies of different types.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 38. Bağlar, view from east.

213

214

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 39. Bağlar, view from south.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 40. Tekören. Field C, view from south.

215

216

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 41. Tekören. Field C, depth slice at 0.5 m.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 42. Tekören. Field C, depth slice at 0.8 m.

217

218

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 43. Tekören. Field C, depth slice at 0.9 m.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 44. Tekören. Field C, depth slice at 1.2 m.

219

220

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 45. Tekören. Field C, interpretation of anomalies.

PESSINUS – ADVANCED GPR PROCESSING 2010–2011

Fig. 46. Tekören. Field C, hypothetical structural units.

221

222

ARMIN SCHMIDT

Fig. 47. Tekören. Field C, GPR results and ceramics counts (2010).

POTTERY FROM THE PESSINUS EXCAVATIONS (2013)* Cristina MONDIN

Abstract During 2013 several areas were investigated, primarily in the fortification building, sector S. From trench 1A the best preserved pottery dates from the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period. Despite this site’s long life (presumably 4th–7th centuries AD), little pottery was found. Also in sector S, four sondages were dug. In sondage 1, half the pottey dates from the Late Hellenistic/Early Roman period; the remaining identified pieces are Roman and Late Roman/Early Byzantine. The Late Roman/Early Byzantine fragments were collected in the higher contexts; the Roman and Hellenistic were found mostly in the lower. A tomb, probably from the end of the Hellenistic period and/or Early Roman times was excavated. Several robbed graves were investigated: in that from Sarıkuş, pottery of various periods was recovered from the most devastated part, while the lower part of the burial seems not to have been compromised and contained the best preserved material; a second tomb was excavated in Gediközü. From Late Roman/Early Byzantine contexts, two red-slipped types with fairly homogeneous fabric characteristics were found: one a fabric like coarse ware, reddish yellow/pink in colour, inner surface and part of the outer coated with a red slip; the second is a micaeous fabric, colour is between red and light red. The pottery is often very badly preserved, crumbled and sometimes has a dark core. The inner surface is smoothed and coated with a red slip often poorly preserved and sometimes with Christian decorations; commonly the outer surface near the base has no treatment. Study of the 2013 Late Roman/Early Byzantine contexts identified a group of pottery with a distinctive coarse fabric: reddish-brown to red in colour, rough surface coated with a dark red slip applied by brush. The coarse ware and red slip ware type 1 suggest a link between Pessinus and the Mediterranean coast.

During the 2013 excavations, several areas were investigated with a primary focus on the fortified building in sector S. In the context of this excavation, 2914 objects were collected. As can be seen from the graph (Fig. 1), the majority are bricks and tiles (66.75% – 1945 sherds). Although the pottery tended to be badly preserved and mixed, in collaboration with Gocha Tsetskhladze, Andrew Goldman1 and Shannan Stewart it was possible to suggest a chronology based on pottery features and fabrics (Fig. 2). * For an overview of pottery discovered in 2009–13, see the final chapter of the present volume. 1 See Goldman’s report in the final chapter of the present volume.

224

CRISTINA MONDIN

With regard to the bricks, only 290 sherds (representing 14.91% of bricks) preserved their thickness. None of the bricks has stamps, but several pieces have finger grooves – impressed lines made on the wet clay at the top surface of the bricks and tiles. The majority of the bricks came from sondage 4. From the study of the brick fabric, three different types are recognisable (Fig. 3). The most common fabric is red, coarse, hard fired and with a great deal of mica and large inclusions (up to 2 cm) added to the clay; 58% (158 sherds) of the well-preserved bricks display this fabric. The average thickness of these is 5.5 cm. Only five bricks preserve an intact edge, and the dimensions are between 29.4 and 29.7 cm. The second most common fabric (25%) is less coarse than the first. It is soft fired, of a light red colour, and with a thickness on average of 4.7 cm. The only brick with a preserved edge is 29.2 cm long. The third type (20%) has the same fabric as most pithossherds found in Pessinus, in particular in the survey areas. The fabric is red, coarse, with large inclusions and less mica than the first fabric, and it is soft fired. The third type has an average thickness of 4.9 cm. In a Byzantine house, in sector R excavated in 2010,2 the same characteristics and typology of bricks were found. We are, of course, only at a preliminary stage of the excavation, but we can nevertheless hypothesise that the bricks used during the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period were pedales. In the fortification building found in sector S, the bricks were not used very extensively in the defensive walls, which in fact were built of stone, but were mostly used for internal structures such as the possible soldier accommodation areas and depots. After brick, pottery is the next most common object: 905 sherds were found. Among these, only 211 pieces are diagnostic. Based on the study of the structures and the discovery of two coins during the 2011 excavation,3 it is possible to propose that the fortified building was in use from the 4th century until the 6th, or perhaps the 7th century AD. At the present stage of research, there is little evidence on which dating of the 2013 materials might be based. SECTOR S, TRENCH 1A4 From trench 1A in the fortification building area 2465 sherds were collected. However, from these, it has been possible to suggest a chronology only 2

Tsetskhladze, Anderson etal. 2012, 299–307. The first is a small bronze coin of Constantius II, issued between AD 347 and 355. The second is a worn follis of Justin II (AD 565–578) (Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2012, 346–48). 4 On sector S, see Maranzana’s chapter above in the present volume. 3

POTTERY FROM THE PESSINUS EXCAVATIONS (2013)

225

for 123 (5%) (Fig. 3).5 The pottery best preserved dates from the Late Roman/ Early Byzantine period. For the chronological study, we might add to this corpus the data obtained from the excavation carried out in 2011 in the same complex.6 During the excavation of the fortification conducted in 2011, 217 diagnostic sherds were identified, 63 of which date from the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period. This is equal to 29%, and 61 of the 63 sherds are recognisable. In view of the long life of the site, presumably from the 4th to the 7th century AD, little pottery was found.7 The types most attested are cooking ware and red slip ware, which represent 65% of the total diagnostic pottery identified in 2013 and 90% of that excavated in 2011.8 Due to the proximity of the contexts excavated in 2011 and 2013 and careful work collecting pottery fragments, it was possible to join several fragments and to reconstruct the complete profile of two vessels. The first is a small jug (Fig. 4.1),9 with a thickened rim, rounded body with regular ribbings, and a ring foot base. This vessel was coated with a mottled slip, coloured red to reddish-brown, and the fabric (RS 1) is red, quite hard fired and rather fine, containing mica and a great deal of grit. The shape is common, mainly in coarse ware, and was in use for many centuries.10 The matching sherds were collected from fortification system contexts. This ribbing surface was quite common during the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period. The second vessel is a dish (Fig. 4.2).11 The band rim is coated with a badly preserved slip, and the base is a low ring foot; the slip is matt, thin and light red to pale red; and the inner surface is smoothed. The fabric (RS 2) is soft fired and quite fine, containing a great deal of mica and some grit. In shape it is similar to Late Roman D (LR D) or Cypriot red slip ware form Meyza K5.2, dated to the 7th century.12 But the dish found in trench 1 and 1A is not a LR D production, perhaps rather an imitation produced in the northern region of Turkey. The chronology is further confirmed by the fabric and the surface treatment: this shape, in fact, has the same fabric as the Late Roman/Early 5 1644 sherds are bricks (66%); 16 are tiles; one is a pipe and six are pithoi; 710 sherds are pottery (28%); 19 are glass; five are metal objects and 28 are marble decorations and stones. Among the 710 sherds of pottery: 75 are rims; 38 are bases; 24 are handles; 569 are body sherds and four are lamps. 6 Tsetskhladze, Adams etal. 2012, 330–37. 7 The collection of artefacts was systematic and the whole earth was sifted. 8 Here, we present a general overview of the most significant pottery from Late Roman/Early Byzantine contexts. For the chronology of the contexts, refer to Appendix 1. 9 Pess11.S.1.7.2, 15, 16, 18–23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 41, 49; Pess13.S.1A.5.1, 12.3–19.2. 10 For example similar shapes found in Istanbul are dated tenuously to the 8th century AD (Hayes 1992, 108–09, fig. 53.23). 11 Pess13.S.1A.TS.12, 15.1–15.4 which complete the dish Pess11.S.1.6.2. 12 Meyza 2007, 70–72.

226

CRISTINA MONDIN

Byzantine red slip ware with Christian decorations found in the Early Byzantine houses (Fig. 12.39–40). The contexts also confirm this chronology, given that some fragments were found inside the fortification building. Red slip ware is quite common in the fort. A dish (Fig. 4.3)13 was found in context 4.14 The sherd is badly preserved and has a band thickness rim, the surface is red-brown slipped and the fabric (RS 1) is quite soft fired, fine, and contains mica and some grit. Like the dish mentioned above, this type of profile is similar to the LR D form Hayes 9B/Meyza K3B,15 but the fabric and surface treatment are different. The shape suggests that this could be a derivate of the most important red slip production. These dishes are common not only in southern Turkey, but also in the north.16 They are usually found in 6th–7th-century AD contexts.17 A sherd (Fig. 4.4)18 was collected from contexts 4, 5 and 20. It is a wide dish-rim with curved thick walls. The thick rim has two grooves on the upper surface and the fabric (RS 1) is coarse, containing mica and grit. It is coated with a light red slip, matt. On the outer surface, the slip finishes just below the rim. The fabric is coarse, but the shape is typical of red slip ware. Similar shapes are common in LR D form Hayes 8/Meyza H8A, which dates to the 5th century AD, although variants of the form continued during the 6th century.19 The open profile bowl (Fig. 4.5)20 also exhibits quite fine fabric and it is partially coated with red slip. It has a band vertical rim with curved walls, and the inner surface has a light red slip which finishes on the rim. This piece is mottled because of flame-ups, whereas the outer surface has no treatment. The fabric (RS 1) holds mica and rare lime and grit. As in the case of the forms seen before, the production is probably regional. The shape was inspired by the red slip wares that were most common in the Mediterranean coastal areas. From the context and the fabric, it can be assumed that the production was of the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period. This form could therefore be compared with African Red Slip form Hayes 99 (late) or with Bonifay 86, which was in use from the end of the 6th century AD until the first half of the 7th century. 13

Pess13.S.1A.4.3. The same vessel type has been identified in other Pessinus contexts: Pess09.R.G.01 and Pess10.R.1.42.1. 15 Hayes 1972, 379–82; Meyza 2007, 67–68. 16 For example at Troy (Bieg etal. 2006, 159–62, n. 39) and Istanbul (Hayes 1992, 5–8, fig. 1.8; 105–06, fig. 50.15). 17 Hayes 1972, 379–82; 1992, 105; Meyza 2007, 64–68. 18 Pess13.S.1A.4.16, 5.10, 20.1. 19 Hayes 1972, 379; Meyza 2007, 60–61; Jackson etal. 2012, figs. 13–14. 20 Pess13.S.1A.12.1. 14

POTTERY FROM THE PESSINUS EXCAVATIONS (2013)

227

A sherd (Fig. 4.6)21 was collected from contexts 10 and 18. The red slip is a bowl with a rounded rim. The shape is simple, and was in use for many centuries. The fabric (RS 1) is light red, quite hard fired and rather coarse, containing a lot of mica and grit; the dark core is weak red. The inner surface is red slip and the outer surface is dropped. The recovery context allows us to assume that this form could be dated to the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period. The fabric has a lot of inclusions and is probably local or regional, but the surface treatment is like the red slip production. This form is quite common among the best-known Roman and Late Roman products, being similar to Sagalassos production form Poblome 1B110, which is dated from the 1st until the 4th century AD,22 or African Red Slip ware form Hayes 81/Bonifay 72, dated to the 5th century AD.23 It is also comparable with the LR C and D forms, and particularly to the LR C form Hayes 1, dated to the 5th century AD, and also with the LR D form Hayes 1/Meyza H1B which was used between the second half of the 4th century AD and the middle of the 5th century AD.24 The shape is extremely basic and of a form in use for many centuries, thus it is not possible to propose a chronology. Context 5 yielded a decorated red slip dish (Fig. 5.7).25 Its base is of a type manufactured with a mould on a wheel, whilst the upper surface has geometric raised decorations comprised of squares and triangles between ribbings. The fabric (RS 2) is red, fine, with a lot of mica and rare lime, and it was quite hard fired. The decoration and the fabric can be compared with the Christian dishes found in sector R during the 2010 season (Fig. 12.39–40), on which usually the main decoration was formed in the central part of the dish and geometrical patterns surrounded it. The central decorations are usually Christian motifs. The same geometrical patterns were also found in a Late Roman/Early Byzantine context at Hadrianopolis in Paphlagonia.26 Another sherd (Fig. 5.8)27 was also mould made. In the raised decoration is a man with uplifted arms and two elongated tools gripped in his hands, the whole figure surrounded by a geometric motif. The human figure is stylised and the clothes are not represented. The outer surface is coated with a shining golden mica film. The fabric is fine, contains mica flakes and rare grit, is hard fired and light red. The form of the vessel is not completely clear, although it 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Pess13.S.1A.10.3, 18.1, 18.9. Poblome 1999, 52–53, 305, fig. 20.2. Hayes 1972, 128; Bonifay 2004, 201. Hayes 1972, 325–27, 372–73; Meyza 2007, 46–48. Pess13.S.1A.5.2. Laflı and Kan Şahin 2012, 47, 60, 80. Pess13.S.1A.10.9.

228

CRISTINA MONDIN

could be a flask. At the present state of our research, we lack comparisons for the shape and the decoration. However, in some Christian decorations found elsewhere there are examples of stylised human figures similar to the one represented on this tentative flask. A Christian bread stamp is among the items in the Archaeological Museum in Amsterdam.28 The raised image is a female figure with a triangular body, a circle for her face, arms lifted with branched tools gripped in her hands. To the side of the figure are representations of two crosses. In the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul, a graffito of a male figure is carved into a small jug, the square body and the face are stylised, and the hands are similarly uplifted. The vessel is dated to the 6th century AD. The history of St Simeon is represented on an Early Byzantine stele found in Syria and now in the Louvre Museum in Paris. In this image, St Simeon’s column, a flying bird, a ladder and a snake are portrayed. Near the ladder is carved a stylised monk with a square body and uplifted arms.29 The painted stylised human figures on some dishes from Gerasa in Jordan are variously referred to as pagan, Christian or of indeterminate iconography. These dishes are dated between the end of the 6th and the 7th century AD.30 The decorated sherd found in Pessinus displays no Christian symbols, but the iconography seems to indicate this period. In particular, the representation of a man with uplifted arms fits in well with the iconography of saints, especially those illustrated on pilgrim flasks, or on coins and medals. However, in most of these images originating from a mould, the human figure and the clothes are represented in greater detail. A sherd from a lamp body was found in context 10.31 Only the lower part of the nozzle, which displays a trace of blackening from use, was collected. The fabric is pink, fine with rare grit, is hard fired and has clean breaks that correspond to the contact point between the margins of the upper and lower disk parts. The upper part of the outer nozzle is coated with red and matt slip. Even though the fragment is small, it is from a type of lamp usually known as ‘biconical’, which was widely used in Turkey and the Pontic area. It is common in the Chersonesos region, where it was found in contexts from the 3rd century AD, but also in contexts with coins of Justinian I.32 At Amorion, lamps with the same characteristics are called Amorion Type 8, and a great 28

The bread stamp has the inventory number 7462. Vikan 1982, 36–37; thanks to Jane Masséglia for this information. 30 Uscatescu 1996, 68, fig. 27. 31 Pess13.S.1A.10.4. Several sherds of biconical lamps have been collected from other Pessinus areas. For example in the Early Byzantine houses: sector R. Pess10.1.21.41 – 13.44. 32 Chrzanovski and Zhuravlev 1998, 141–43. See also Zhuravlev 2012, fig. 11.3. In this context, the lamp is dated to the 4th century AD. 29

POTTERY FROM THE PESSINUS EXCAVATIONS (2013)

229

number of these were collected from a late 6th-century AD context.33 Probably, a nozzle sherd (no. 38) from Hadrianopolis also belongs to a lamp of this type.34 This lamp comes from the Late Roman/Early Byzantine layers. In southern Turkey the form is known in Late Roman/Early Byzantine contexts, such as the ecclesiastical complex at Tyana (Cappadocia – unpublished),35 and Kilise Tepe in Cilicia.36 Such type of lamp was in use for many centuries: the first examples are already known in contexts of the 3rd century AD. It was still attested in late 6th-century AD layers, such as in the site of Amorion, approximately 60 km south-west of Pessinus. Cooking ware is also common. In context 10, the same as that of the flask, the well-preserved rim of a cooking pot (Fig. 5.9) was found.37 The rim is folded up towards the outside; under the rim a ribbon handle is attached which finishes on the shoulder, the latter being decorated with a groove. The fabric is hard fired and coarse, containing mica and a great deal of grit. The surface is coated with a reddish-brown painted slip. The outer surface is polished, the inner surface rough, and blackened from firing. The profile is also quite common in the Gordion Roman contexts,38 but the fabric, which is common in Late Roman/Early Byzantine Pessinus contexts, suggests that the form remained in use even after the Roman period. Shapes like this, with mica in the fabric, are common in Istanbul (ware 4) in contexts from the 7th to the 9th century AD.39 This same fabric characterises other sherds found in the fortification building, as is the case with a cooking pot (Fig. 5.10).40 The rim is flat and folds up towards the inside, and the ribbon handle is attached under the rim between the neck and the shoulder. The walls are thin, and the hard-fired fabric is coarse, containing mica and a lot of grit. The surface is rough and painted reddish-brown. The surface colour was spread with a brush. Sherds with the same pattern are common, for example, in the excavation of Saraçhane in Istanbul. These forms were found in deposits dating from the 6th and the 8th centuries AD.41 At Hierapolis, shapes like this were discovered in 6th– early 7th-century AD contexts.42 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Schoolman 2012, 198–201, nn. 51–55. Laflı and Kan Şahin 2013, 368. As regards the ancient town, see Rosada and Lachin 2010. Postgate and Thomas 2007, 384, nn. 992–993. Pess13.S.1A.10.8. I am grateful to Andrew Goldman for this information. Hayes 1992, 55–57. Pess13.S.1A.TS.8. Hayes 1992, dep. 14, 21, 25 bis, 30, 31 and 34. Daszkiewicz etal. 2010, 765, fig. 1.2.

230

CRISTINA MONDIN

Among the sherds of pottery with coarse fabric collected during the 2013 excavation is a casserole shape in a poor state of preservation (Fig. 6.11).43 It is a cut rim with a globular body. On the outer wall is an attachment for a fragmentary horizontal ribbon handle. The fabric is red, hard, coarse, and with a lot of mica and grit; the surface is painted brown. It is a type of casserole that seems to have been inspired by Palestinian production (form Fulford 38). These casserole dishes are dated from at least the 5th to the 7th century AD, and are well known along all Mediterranean coasts.44 Late Hellenistic/Early Roman pottery is common in trench 1A contexts, but the fragments are typically badly preserved. However, the Hellenistic and Roman pottery collected is fine, and the examples are often decorated. Some marble decorations are also dated to this period, for example a small fragment of a ‘Megarian’ bowl,45 and a stamped sigillata base (Fig. 6.12).46 The sigillata is type Pontic A. The sherd is fine and has thin light red walls. The inner surface is coated with a red shiny slip, and the outer surface has no slip. The fragment is very small, but the stamped motif seems to be a planta pedis inscribed within a circle. This stamp is typical for these both dishes and the open forms of the 1st and early 2nd century AD.47 Most of the Late Hellenistic/ Early Roman pottery probably came from funerary contexts, examples being some marble decorations and a Late Hellenistic/Early Roman unguentarium base (Fig. 6.13).48 This fusiform unguentarium has a distinct foot and does not have the common form of Hellenistic or Roman unguentaria. It is a high hollow conical base; the body widens in the central part and becomes conical again near the rim. In the trench 1A excavation only one base was found, but in the older excavations numerous intact examples were discovered. The height of these unguentaria can reach up to 30–40 cm. The fabric is buff, fine and hard fired. This sherd is coated with mortar, as it was reused and incorporated in the fortification wall.

43

Pess13.S.1A.4.8, 5.11. For example in Turkey: Elaiussa Sebaste in Cilicia (Ferrazzoli and Ricci 2007, 8.27); Kelenderis in Rough Cilica (Tekocak 2010, fig. 4.49–50). On the Mediterranean coast: Marseilles in France (Reynolds 1995, fig. 124); Butrint in Albania (Reynolds 2004, fig. 13.216); Paphos in Cyprus (Gabrielli etal. 2007, fig. 7.11); Damas in Syria (Tréglia and Berthier 2010, fig. 6); Baalbek/Heliopolis in Lebanon (Hamel 2010, figs. 21–26); Petra in Jordan (Gerber 2010, fig. 2.10); Egypt (Egloff 1977, pl. 47; Konstantinidou 2010, fig. 9.36); Carthage (Fulford and Peacock 1984, fig. 70.38). 45 Pess13.S.1A.14.1. 46 Pess13.S.1A.18.4. 47 Hayes 1985, 92–93; Zhuravlev 2010, pl. 70. 48 Pess13.S.1A.4.6. 44

POTTERY FROM THE PESSINUS EXCAVATIONS (2013)

231

In the same sector S excavation area, four sondages were opened (Fig. 3). In sondage 1, 108 sherds were collected,49 but of these it was possible to suggest a chronology for only 42 (38.89%). From sondage 2, 25 pottery/terracotta sherds were collected.50 The sherds are small and badly preserved, and among these a chronology could be suggested for only seven (28%). Sondage 3 yielded only seven contexts with materials,51 from which 85 pieces were collected, and of these a chronology for only 27 sherds (31.76%) could be suggested. Finally, from sondage 4, as indicated above, 84.31% of the sherds are brick and only 9.15% of the pottery (28 sherds) could be dated.52 SECTOR S, SONDAGE 1 As noted, 108 pottery/terracotta sherds were collected from sondage 1. Among the 42 for which a chronology could be suggested, half (21 sherds) date from the Hellenistic to the Early Roman period: the other half are Roman (nine – 21.43%) and Late Roman/Early Byzantine (a dozen – 28.57%). Sondage 1 is the source offering the most interesting data about the period of occupation of sector S at Pessinus. The Late Roman/Early Byzantine pottery fragments were collected in the higher contexts (1, 2 and 4); the Roman and Hellenistic sherds were mostly found in the lower levels, in particular, in contexts 5 and 6 where a tomb was excavated. The sondage is located on the southern area of the rounded tower that is part of the fortification structure, and the burial was found 1.5–2 m below the top soil. In the grave there were two bowls, an oinochoe, a lamp and a cover tile. A rounded cover tile was found in context 5 (Fig. 7.14).53 This was mould made and fragmentary (thickness 1.5–1.9 cm; preserved length 19 cm). The fabric is coarse, contains mica and grit, and has a darkened core. The outer surface was smoothed and light reddish-brown slipped, although the slip is badly preserved.

49 Seven sherds are brick, three are tile, 77 are pottery (71%) and 21 are bone. Among the 77 pottery: 13 are rims, two are bases, two are handles, 59 are body sherds and one is a lamp. 50 Nine sherds are brick, two are tile and 14 are pottery. Among the 14 pottery: four are rims, one is a base, one a handle and eight are body sherds. 51 One brick, one tile, 66 sherds are pottery (78%) and 17 are bone. Among the 66 pottery: seven are rims, two are bases, 56 are body sherds and one is a lamp. 52 258 sherds are brick, three are tile, one is a pithos, 38 are pottery (12%), two are glass; one is a metal object, one is a bone and two are stones. Among the 38 pottery: nine sherds are rims, two are bases, one is a handle and 26 are body sherds. 53 Pess13.S.S1.5.5.

232

CRISTINA MONDIN

The two bowls were placed one inside the other. The first (Fig. 7.15)54 was broken and burned after breaking. The shape is complete. The rim, which is rounded and curved towards the interior and with thin walls and a ring foot smoothed base, is coated with a thin reddish-yellow slip that is spread by dipping; the slip is better preserved on the outer surface, where the slip is mottled and the surface is smoothed. The fabric – fine, with rare mica and lime, soft fired and of a reddish-yellow colour – is unusual for Pessinus sherds, so this vessel could be an import. The shape is slightly biconical with thin walls. It has no comparison in the Middle Hellenistic pottery known in Gordion,55 although it seems to have comparisons in subsequent products. For example, in Metropolis in Ionia, where the forms D1 and D2 are comparable with these in both shape and slip. The Metropolitan sherds are dated to the 1st century BC.56 The second bowl (Fig. 7.16),57 in which the first was placed, does not have burn marks. The form is similar to the bowl described above, although it is coarser and its walls are thicker. The inner surface is painted red, but only the rim is painted on the outer surface. The inner surface is smoothed and the outer is without treatment. The fabric is coarse, with a lot of mica and grit, and was soft fired. It is light red in colour and has a dark core. Both bowls have a very common form, and for this reason we can compare these shapes with numerous others of varied production. However, at the moment, it is not possible to propose a precise chronology. An oinochoe (Fig. 7.17)58 and a lamp were found intact in context 6. The small jug has a trefoil rim, and there is a ribbon handle with a groove attached just below the rim, which ends on the shoulder. The body is globular and is finished with a smoothed ring foot base. The outer surface is smoothed and dip slipped, and there are two finger prints on the slip. The slip is a shiny metallic reddish-brown. The outer surface is slipped to 3 cm from the base, and the inner surface is slipped only near the rim. The fabric is fine, light brown and soft fired. The outer surface near the handle is blackened due to flames; indeed, the flames may have come into contact with the vessel during the burial rites. The lamp (Fig. 7.18)59 was damaged by fire, but it is intact. It has a rounded body with a central filling-hole. A lengthened nozzle, with an oval wick-hole, 54 55 56 57 58 59

Pess13.S.S1.5.3. I am grateful to Shannan Stewart for this information. Gürler 2003, 15, pl. XVI. Pess13.S.S1.5.4. Pess13.S.S1.6.1. Pess13.S.S1.6.2.

POTTERY FROM THE PESSINUS EXCAVATIONS (2013)

233

is attached on the upper part of the body. Opposite to the nozzle there is a ‘horns handle’. The base is flat with a groove which runs just below the edge. The lamp is brown slipped. The fabric is soft fired, quite fine, with mica and grit; the burnished surface has flaked breaks. The colour is very pale brown, with darkening towards the burnt surfaces. Because the form is intact, it is not clear whether the lamp is wheel- or mould made. The sharp angle on the body could suggest that this lamp was mould made, with the handle and the nozzle attached at a later stage in the process, and this would indicate it is wheel made. The fabric is presumably local or regional. Knob handles were common during the Late Roman period, but not the wheel-made shapes. There are, in the Pontic region, Late Hellenistic wheel-made products with conical handles, dated to the 2nd century BC.60 The shape and fabric of the Pessinus lamp are, of course, different, but this parallel nevertheless indicates that in the Black Sea region, at the end of the Hellenistic period, full handles were in use. The grave itself probably dates from the end of the Hellenistic period and/ or Early Roman times. OTHER CONTEXTS NEAR PESSINUS In 2013, in addition to the excavation of sector S, several disturbed graves were investigated, but of these only two still contained grave-goods. Both had been robbed and much material looted or ransacked. The graves contain no coins or other dating elements, but some of the pottery was in good condition. In the tomb from Sarıkuş Mevkiinde, pottery dated in various periods was recovered from the most devastated part. The lower part of the burial seems not to have been robbed, and this contained the best-preserved material, including the examples that are presented here. This tomb has yielded a large amount of material: 373 sherds, of which 73 (20%) are diagnostic. The second tomb was excavated in Gediközü Sarıkuş. A few fragments of pottery (32 pottery, two glass, two unidentifiable pieces of iron and one bone) came from robbed Tomb 4.

60 Chrzanovski and Zhuravlev 1998, 45; Zhuravlev etal. 2010, 328, Bosporan jug-shaped lamps 5.

234

CRISTINA MONDIN

SARIKUŞ MEVKIINDE TOMB61 The material found in the robbed tomb dates from between the Hellenistic and the Late Roman/Early Byzantine periods. The context was disturbed on the surface, so in the upper layer a mix of badly preserved pottery was found. In particular, roof tiles and a lot of small painted ware sherds that date from the Hellenistic to the Roman period were collected. Two parts of the same mould-made lamp62 were also found. This lamp is probably a biconical painted lamp, similar to the type found in Pessinus in sector S, context 10, described above (see also 13.44 from 2010 context). The form was quite common in Anatolia and was used over a long period: from at least the 4th until the 6th century AD. The metal and pottery sherds best preserved were found in the undamaged part of the tomb. Two rings were found with the bones: the first is a fragmentary iron ring (Fig. 8.19, diam. 2.1 cm), and the second is in bronze (Fig. 8.20, diam. 2.5 cm). Both were badly preserved. A small iron nail (Fig. 8.21) with a cone head was also found. Nails with this type of well-finished head were commonly used for jewellery boxes and cases.63 The pottery was placed near the corner of the grave. No one form is complete, and in many cases the sherds are blackened from exposure to fire. Best preserved of the pottery sherds are open forms: in particular red slip ware bowls and grey ware sherds. The majority of vessels were closed forms: jars, cooking pots and a storage vessel. In the undamaged context, only one closed form rim was found. Part of the closed forms include also the 277 body sherds found with the bones (Hellenistic – 10.61%; Roman – 17.42%; Late Roman/ Early Byzantine – 48.49%; unknown – 23.48%). As stated above, all the forms are incomplete. They were probably broken during the deposition, or before. The almost complete absence of closed form rims enables us to assume that the vessels were broken before deposition, perhaps in a different area of the burial site. This hypothesis could be confirmed by the absence of fire marks in the grave, whereas a lot of fine and common wares were blackened because of flames.64 At least 100 individuals were buried in the tomb and the deposition was widely disorganised in ancient times.65 Because the best-preserved materials were collected in the lower part of the

61 62 63 64 65

See the excavation report in the final chapter of the present volume. Sar13.Tomb.32-56. Salvo 2007, 213, fig. 5.17. Sar13.Tomb.1, 4, 6, 8, 45–47, 58. See Williams’s report in the final chapter of the present volume.

POTTERY FROM THE PESSINUS EXCAVATIONS (2013)

235

burial site, it is probable that this pottery was deposited during the first period of common grave use. As in the case of sector S, no coins have been found in this context. This was a rescue excavation undertaken because the tomb had been damaged by modern robbers, so it has not been investigated according to the same criteria as other contexts. It is therefore not possible to propose a chronology of the funerary area. Some red slip ware was found in the lower levels of the tomb context. The fabrics have the same characteristics as those found in sector S. A bowl (Fig. 8.22)66 has a distinct flat base and a groove on the inner surface, and the slip on the outer surface is dripped. A break has damaged the rim, but the profile is almost complete. The pottery was exposed to fire after it was broken. The fabric (RS 1) is quite fine, with mica flakes and rare lime, soft, with irregular breaks. The slip is red and matt on the inner surface. On the outer surface, near the base, the slip is dripped. The fabric features are similar to those of numerous sherds found in the fortified structure which have already been described. These are probably of local or regional derivation, being examples of the most familiar Mediterranean red slip wares. The chipping of the rim does not permit comparison with other pottery, although the low ring foot and the large body shape recall some Late Roman and Early Byzantine productions. Two vessels with micaceous fabric (RS 2) are included in the red slip ware. The first is a bowl (Fig. 8.23).67 The shape is very common. During the second half of the 1st century AD, this form had already appeared in Eastern Sigillata B production.68 The extremely common shape ensured that production continued in the following centuries.69 The bowl found in the tomb has a low ring foot base. The slip covers only the inner surface. On the outer surface the slip is dripped and well spread only in the area near the rim; in the other areas the surface is untreated. The fabric characteristics and the roughly stretched slip are common in the Late Roman/Early Byzantine production. The second shape with micaceous fabric (RS 2) is a dish (Fig. 8.24).70 The profile is complete, although the form, which was found at the base of the tomb, is broken. It has a short out-turned rim with a small flange on the top, 66

Sar13.Tomb.4. Sar13.Tomb.1. 68 Hayes 1985, 62. 69 For example, form Hayes LR C 1 dated to the late 4th century until the 5th century AD (Hayes 1972, 325–27); form LR D Meyza K6 dated to 6th–7th centuries AD (Meyza 2007, 77–79). 70 Sar13.Tomb.46. 67

236

CRISTINA MONDIN

along the inner edge. The base is a low squared ring foot and the slip on the outer surface is dripped. The fabric is quite fine, with mica flakes and rare grit, soft, and with flaked breaks. The slip is light red, thin, matt and badly preserved on the rim. With reference to the red slip fabric, the coarse fabric found in the grave also has many parallels with the excavation of sector S. In particular, a very fragmented piece (Fig. 8.25)71 is the same type of cooking pot (Fig. 5.10). The sherd is the upper attachment of the ribbon handle of a pot. The fabric is coarse, with mica and a lot of grit, hard, with flaked breaks, and reddishbrown. All the surfaces are smoothed and irregularly brush painted. As stated above, comparisons for this form are among coarse ware found in Istanbul and Hierapolis that date from the 6th to the 8th century AD. Of the other closed vessels found, a pot (Fig. 8.26)72 is a very small sherd, so the diameter is uncertain. It has a rim folded outwards. This form could not be dated specifically in this disturbed context. The fabric and the painted surfaces are clearly the same as numerous coarse ware found in Late Roman/ Early Byzantine Pessinus contexts. One sherd (Fig. 8.27)73 displays an unusual profile for coarse ware. It is a ring foot base of an open form, perhaps a dish. The fabric is the same as the pots described above. The entire surface is smoothed and coated with weak red brush paint. In this context, a nucleus of grey ware vessels were found with the red slip and the coarse ware sherds. Among these, a complete profile was reconstructed for only one vessel. It was reconstructed from several fragments collected in different parts of the tomb, and also from the top in the shattered area. Another fragment (Fig. 9.28)74 is a basin with a flat rim, cylindrical body and flat base. The form is a reconstruction from numerous sherds. The body has a regular inner surface, but the outer is ribbed and not so well finished. The fabric is quite fine, with mica and rare large stone inclusions, hard fired with facet breaks, elongated holes and a sandwich core. The inner surface is smoothed and coated with a thin brown slip. The outer surface has no alternate treatment to the burnish bands near the base. This was the only form with a rim: of the other grey ware vessels only the base and/or the walls were preserved. An open form (Fig. 9.29)75 has a squared ring foot base with at least two concentric circles stamped on the centre of the inner base. The inner surface 71 72 73 74 75

Sar13.Tomb.29. Sar13.Tomb.31. Sar13.Tomb.54. Sar13.Tomb.13-14-15. Sar13.Tomb.2.

POTTERY FROM THE PESSINUS EXCAVATIONS (2013)

237

is smoothed and coated with a thin dark grey slip. The outer surface has no treatment. The fabric is similar to those seen before: quite fine, containing a lot of mica and grit, and quite hard fired, with irregular breaks, elongated holes and a sandwich core. The same fabric is a feature of a basin (Fig. 9.30).76 It has a flat base, with the inner surface smoothed and coated with a painted matt dark grey slip. The outer surface is smoothed. The fabric is quite fine, with mica and grit, quite hard fired, with clear breaks, and has a dark core. A flat base (Fig. 9.31)77 is similar, but in this case it is a closed form and both the surfaces were blackened by fire after breaking. These were the only fine wares with grey fabric found in the grave. The other grey ware was badly preserved closed forms with coarse fabric. A body piece (Fig. 10.32),78 for example, is ribbed on the outer surface. The fabric is coarse, containing mica and a lot of stone inclusions, hard fired, and with irregular breaks. The outer surface is coated with a dark grey matt slip. From the same context, on the base of the tomb, a closed form vessel (Fig. 10.33)79 was found. The fabric is coarse, grey, very hard fired and coated with a grey-black slip on the outer surface. The inner surface is mottled because of flame. Handmade traces are visible on the inner surface. This is the only example of pottery made with the coiling technique found in the 2013 contexts; the other forms were in fact wheel-made. As is evident from the bone studies of Lana Williams,80 some children had been buried in the grave. A spout-bottle (Fig. 10.34)81 found among the bones was probably part of the grave-goods of a child. It has a conical spout. The pinkish grey fabric is quite fine, contains a lot of mica and grit, and it was soft fired. It was perhaps exposed to fire after the breakage. The shapes are common and so, in the present state of research, it is difficult to propose comparisons for the pottery found in this tomb. However, the red slip ware fabrics have clear comparisons with pottery found in sector-S contexts. With regard to the grey ware, it could be dated to the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period. As a matter of fact, the production of grey ware after the 4th century AD is quite well attested along the Aegean coast and in central Turkey.82 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

Sar13.Tomb.18. Sar13.Tomb.8. Sar13.Tomb.11. Sar13.Tomb.7. See Williams’s report in the final chapter of the present volume. Sar13.Tomb.47. Hayes 1972, 405–07; Böhlendorf-Arslan 2007, 275–77.

238

CRISTINA MONDIN

GEDIKÖZÜ SARIKUŞ GRAVES83 Robbed graves were also investigated in the Gediközü area, although pottery objects were found only in Grave 4. The only recognisable and datable pieces are two lamps and the base of an unguentarium. A lamp (Fig. 11.35)84 is badly preserved, and only the upper part was found. The rounded disk has a groove running just around the filling-hole. A ribbon handle with three central grooves is applied on the shoulder; opposite the handle an elongated nozzle was applied. The nozzle is rounded, flattened, and the lip has been blackened through use. The surface is red slip, but the slip is badly preserved. The fabric is soft fired, reddish-yellow, quite fine, containing mica, grit and lime, and the surface is rough, probably due to weathering. The breaks are flaked. This type of fabric is quite common in Pessinus pottery. The poor state of the lamp does not allow us to determine whether it is a wheel- or a mould-made form. However, the sharp angle on the body could suggest that this lamp was mould made. The elongated nozzle, the rounded body and the ribbon handle can be compared with certain Bosporan mould-made lamps found in 3rd century AD contexts.85 As is the case for all of the Pessinus items described in this paper, the comparison is not precise. However, the lamp is perhaps a local or regional interpretation of types which were widespread in the same period. A second lamp (Fig. 11.36),86 is more fragmented than the lamp just described. Only the handle, part of the shoulder and the base were recovered. A double-groove ring handle is affixed to the rear shoulder – it is deformed because of the manufacturing process. The body is rounded with a broad filling-hole and the base is flat, and it is mould made. The outer surface up to the base is coated with a thick and matt red slip. The fabric is hard fired and quite fine with small sand and a dark core. However, traces of a large grit are visible on the surface. The shape would suggest that the lamp is Roman, but the small sherd does not allow for a specific comparison to be proposed. From the same disturbed context, the base of a small closed vessel was recovered.87 The base is flat and the body is broken at a point near this. The surfaces are smoothed and coated with a thin slip. The fabric is hard fired, fine with rare grit, and is grey inside. The form and shape are comparable to Late Roman unguentaria.88 The other material found in this disturbed context is 83 84 85 86 87 88

See the excavation report in the final chapter of the present volume. Gedik13.Gr4.1–3. Zhuravlev etal. 2010, 333–35, Bosporan mould-made lamps 28 or 36. Gedik13.Gr4.2. Gedik13.Gr4.5. Hayes 2008, 116.

POTTERY FROM THE PESSINUS EXCAVATIONS (2013)

239

both common and fine ware. The fine ware could be dated from the Late Hellenistic to the Roman era. In the present state of research, the common ware cannot be dated. The few examples of ceramic evidence collected from the tomb allow us to assume that the site was frequented from the Late Hellenistic until the Late Roman period. In the cemeteries, unguentaria were common during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, but as grave-goods they were less frequent during the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period. As described by Simon Young,89 the graves were devastated by looters, and it is therefore not surprising that in an environment which logic suggests should be uniform, there were in fact objects belonging to several centuries. RED SLIP WARE It is worth making some preliminary remarks concerning the red slip ware found in Pessinus. From the Late Roman/Early Byzantine contexts, numerous red slip ware pieces with fairly homogeneous fabric characteristics were found. In particular, after macroscopic observation, two main types of fabric can be distinguished. The first (RS 1) has a fabric like coarse ware; it is quite fine, soft fired and contains mica flakes (< 0.5 mm), rare lime and grit (