PEUCE, Serie Nouă XVIII, 2020, p. 333 - 355
A GROUP OF HERACLEA PONTICA AMPHORAE FROM THE LATE ANTIQUE BONE WORKSHOP IN PRUSIAS AD HYPIUM THEATRE1
Emre Okan, Ahmet Bilir
Abstract: The main issue of this paper is the study of a group of amphorae of Heraclea Pontica origin which have been found during the late antique workshop excavations in the ancient theatre of Prusias ad Hypium. According to Memnon of Heraclea, the ancient city of Prusias ad Hypium was established by the Greek immigrants who were founders of the ancient city of Heraclea Pontica. Although the city joined the Bithynian Kingdom during the reign of King Prusias I, the most brilliant and powerful age of the city was during the Roman Empire period. The ancient theatre is the best preserved ancient architectural ruin in the city, although today most of the ancient city remains are under the modern town of Konuralp. It seems to be a Greek theatre due to its location on the slope but the use of vaults and its semi-circular plan and dramatic multi-stores stage building reflect its Roman character. In this context, this theatre is a Greco-Roman building and thus, it can be accepted as a transitional form between Hellenistic and Roman theatres. The archaeological excavations which have been conducted in the theatre since 2013 brought to light several archaeological structures belonging to the period when the theatre was abandoned. Among these remains, a structure belonging to a late antiquity workshop (specialised in bone tools production) is important. The commercial amphoras, found among other ceramic categories inside the workshop, represent a group of finds that should be evaluated and constitute the subject of the present paper.
Rezumat: Subiectul prezentului articol este studierea unui grup de amfore produse de Heraclea Pontica, care au fost găsite în timpul cercetărilor efectuate în atelierul roman târziu din teatrul antic al orașului Prusias ad Hypium. Potrivit lui Memnon din Heraclea, orașul antic Prusias ad Hypium a fost înființat de coloniști din Heraclea Pontica. Deși orașul a fost inclus în Regatul Bithynian în timpul domniei regelui Prusias I, cea mai strălucitoare și puternică epocă a orașului a fost în perioada Imperiului Roman. Teatrul antic este cea mai bine păstrată ruină arhitecturală din oraș, deși astăzi cea mai mare parte a orașului antic se află sub orașul modern Konuralp. Pare a fi un teatru grecesc datorită amplasării sale pe versant, dar utilizarea bolților și a planului său semicircular și a clădirii dramatice cu mai multe etaje reflectă caracterul
1 The excavations of Prusias ad Hypium Theatre have been conducted since 2013 with the permissions of Ministry of Culture and Tourism, General Directorate of Cultural Heritages and Museums, under the directorate of Konuralp Museum and scientific advisory of Düzce University, Department of Archaeology. Besides, the excavations are supported by Düzce Municipality, Düzce University Rectorate and Turkish Historical Association.
Assoc. Prof., Düzce University, Faculty of Science and Letters, Department of Archaeology, and Düzce University, The Application and Research Centre of the Bithynian Archaeology, Duzce/TURKEY; [email protected].
Assist. Prof., Düzce University, Faculty of Science and Letters, Department of Archaeology;
său roman. În acest context, acest teatru poate fi considerat o clădire greco-romană și, astfel, poate fi acceptat ca o formă de tranziție între teatrele elenistice și cele romane. Săpăturile arheologice care au avut loc în teatru încă din 2013 au avut ca rezultat și descoperirea unor structuri din perioada abandonării teatrului.
Printre acestea important este și un atelier destinat confecționării obiectelor din os. Acest articol este dedicat amforelor comerciale descoperite în acest context.
Keywords: Prusias ad Hypium; Theatre; Amphora; Heraclea Pontica; Western Black Sea; Trade; Late Antiquity; Workshop.
Cuvinte cheie: Prusias ad Hypium; teatru; amforă; Heraclea Pontica; Marea Neagră; comerț; antichitate târzie; atelier.
INTRODUCTION
The main issue of this paper is a group of amphorae produced in Heraclea Pontica which have been found during the excavations of a late antique workshop in the ancient theatre of Prusias ad Hypium in the modern Düzce province. Düzce province is located in the northwestern part of Anatolia within the borders of the Western Black Sea Region and adjacent to the Eastern Marmara Region, and thus was situated on one of the busiest trade routes from the west to the east. Present day Düzce is situated in the middle of a basin surrounded by mountains, with the Black Sea to the north, Mudurnu to the south, the Bolu Mountains to the east and the Melen River to the west and lies within the boundaries of the modern Konuralp District located to the north of the city (Figs. 1-2).
According to Memnon of Heraclea, the city of Prusias ad Hypium was founded by the Greek immigrants who founded the city of Heraclea Pontica in the 6th century BC2. When the city was first established, it was probably named Kieros.3 According to Stephenus of Byzantium, this region was called Mariandynia (Steph.
Byz. Ethnika, Mariandynia). Scylax of Caryanda pointed out that the Hypios River
2 For the Turkish translation of Memnon's History of Heraclea (Peri Herakleia). The fact that the names of the districts in the inscriptions found in the ancient city of Prusias ad Hypium are linked with Megara also proves this theory (Aslan 2007, 49).
3 According to some researchers the name Kieros had been brought here earlier from Heraclea by those coming from Megara and Thebai who played a role in the foundation of the city. See:
Jones 1987, 348, 349; on the other hand, G. Perrot said that the name of Kieros had been brought from a stream flowing near the city “C’est bien de cette même ville qu’il est question au fragment 47, où Memnon nous apprend qu’elle devait son nom au fleuve Κιερός qui coulait auprès d’elle; plusieurs courants d’eau traversent la plaine, et il est difficile de dire auquel s’appliquait plus partiqulièrement ce nom. Étimologiquement, il a l’aspect d’un ancien adjective tiré d’une racine exprimant l’idée de movement, qui se trouve dans le grec χίω, aller, et dans le latin cieo, mouvoir: il signifierait done mobile, rapide, épithète qui convient très-bien à un fleuve. See Perrot 1872, 21.
formed a boundary between the Mariandynia and Bithynia Regions.4 According to Memnon, King Prusias I of Bithynia (218-182 BC), with his successful campaigns in 186 BC, took Heraclea Pontica together with the city of Tios from the Heraclean hegemony and incorporated them within the borders of the Kingdom of Bithynia, its name being changed to Prusias pros Hypios.5 At the end of the Hellenistic Period, when the Roman sovereignty of Anatolia came into being, in 64-63 BC, Gnaeus Pompeus Magnus designated it as a city of the province Bithynia et Pontus. When the Roman Empire was divided into two parts in 395 AD, it came under the Eastern Roman Empire domination. The city was taken into Ottoman sovereignty during the 13th century by Konuralp Gazi, who was one of the frontier lords (uç beyler) of Osman Gazi. The settlement, which went by the name ‘Üskübü’6 during the Ottoman Period, is now known as Konuralp.
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of the ancient city of Prusias ad Hypium.
4 Aslan 2012, 249.
5 Karakuş 2017, 242; Ameling 1985, 1-3.
6 Perrot stated that this name came from Eskibağ which indicated that the importance of viticulture in the city (Uskub est un bourg de prés de cent cinquante maisons, toutes mahométans: le nom qu’on lui donne aussi parfois dans le pays, Eski Bagh, “la vieille Vigne”, semble faire allusion à son ancienne importance, aux belles plantations de vignes que possédait, sur ces côteaux si bien exposés, la population grecque qu’ont remplacée depuis longtemps les conquerant unmuslumans (Perrot 1872, 20)).
Fig. 2. The location of Prusias ad Hypium in the modern Konuralp district.
Fig. 3. Ancient theatre of Prusias ad Hypium (Photo: H. Binay).
The Theatre, which is the most important ruin of the city, was built over the last 10 years of the 1st century BC on the south slope of the hill where the ancient city was located (Fig. 3). Ferrero, in his book about ancient theatres in Western Anatolia, mentioned this building as a transitional form between the Hellenistic period and Early Roman Empire.7 An inscription on the blocks at the top of the stage building honors Emperor Hadrian.8
During the archaeological excavations which have been conducted by the Directorate of Konuralp Museum since 2013, a late antique building was uncovered in the western parodos of the theatre during the 2017 campaign (Fig. 4). The workshop is located between the stage building and the outer wall of the vaulted passage. The western wall of this building is well preserved (Fig. 5). This wall is constructed by using local stones and some architectural fragments of the theatre. It has 3.59 m length, 1.20 m height and 0.70-0.71 m width. This building had been excavated during the 2017-2018 seasons and thanks to the numerous raw bones and several processed bone fragments uncovered near the western wall, it was understood that this was used as a workshop, producing bone tools. This workshop is dated by a coin that belongs to the period of the emperor Arcadius (395-408 AD) (Fig. 6). On this account, the workshop must have been built at the earliest around this date. Most likely the workshop initiated its activity after the abandoning of the theater. Even the structure of the wall illustrated in Fig. 5 suggests a late adding to the preexisting structures.
The aim of this article is to determine the regions and cities which were in a commercial relationship with Prusias ad Hypium with the help of the trade amphorae which are discovered in the workshop. After the amphoras mentioned in this paper were documented and catalogued, detailed images were taken from clay samples of the amphoras using Celestron Handheld Digital Microscope Pro in an effort to identify the composition of the clay fabric. The amphoras have been compared, both morphologically and chronologically, with similar examples from various other places. Despite their small number, the amphoras of the Heraclean origin indicate that the ancient city of Prusias ad Hypium had been under the influence of Heraclea Pontica from the date it was first established by the Heracleans until the period of Late Antiquity.
7 Ferrero 1990, 178.
8 After the Theatre had been damaged during the big earthquakes in AD 123-124, probably, the stage building was restored by Emperor Hadrian.
Fig. 4. The late antique workshop situated between the stage building and the outer wall of the vaulted passage of the theatre (Photo: H. Binay).
Fig. 5. The western wall of the workshop. All of the raw bones and the processed bone fragments were found in the red square area. (Photo: E. Okan).
Fig. 6. The coin of Emperor Arcadius (395-408 AD). This coin was found at the base and out of the western wall of the workshop. It is an important dating criterion for the workshop (Photo: E. Okan).
TRANSPORT AMPHORAE OF HERACLEA PONTICA
In 2017, sherds of rim-neck, handle, body and a small number of bottom fragments which belong to the light clay and narrow neck amphorae were found during the excavations in the western parodos (west side of the workshop’s wall) and in the bone workshop.
When the amphorae were examined in detail, two different forms were determined. As a matter of fact, some researchers including Andrei Opaiț agree that these amphorae with light fabric and narrow neck were produced along the southern Black Sea coast (especially Heraclea Pontica).9
However, the unique character of these amphorae, including the narrow rim, the widening neck, the grooved outer face of the handles, the body with grooves and the pale yellow or beige coated fabric was first defined by Zeest10, while Šelov11 and Vnukov12 conducted the first detailed research on the development of the form. Šelov stated that these amphorae had a light yellowish-brown or greenish-yellow fabric with black particle inclusions, and that they had special importance not only in terms of adding new information to the economic relations between the centers in the Black Sea during the fourth and fifth centuries AD, but also because they were found in well-dated archaeological complexes13. Krapivina examined amphorae found in the NGS sector in Lower Olbia which were similar to the Prusias amphora examples.14
9 Opaiț 2014.
10 Зеест 1960, fig. 94-104.
11 Šelov 1986, 395-401.
12 Внуков 1993; Внуков 2000; Внуков 2003.
13 Šelov1986, 395-396.
14 Krapivina 2010a, 409, pl. 305-306, no: L388-392.
However, the complete and fragmented examples found in Troy15 and Athens16 in particular show that the use of these amphoras was not limited only to the Black Sea trade but that they also carried Pontic wine to the Aegean.
In the light of the data mentioned above, the Heraclea Pontica amphorae found in the ancient theatre of Prusias ad Hypium were classified as follows below.
FORM 1 (Šelov F/Opaiț E-VI/Zeest 105)
This form is one of the amphora groups of South Black Sea production defined by Šelov as Type F.17 This narrow-necked type with prominently widening shoulders and tapering body is considered as part of the traditional South Black Sea light-coloured fabric amphora group. Heraclea Pontica has been suggested as a production site of this type, which has been discovered in many centres of the Black Sea region, especially in the layers of the late 3rd century AD.18 Grooves on the body appear immediately after the sloping shoulders and generally terminate at the tall ring- shaped foot (Fig. 7).19
The most prominent feature of this amphora is its fabric colour and content. As the Prusias ad Hypium examples show, the fabric colour of the Form 1 amphorae is usually either completely pale yellow-beige or light orange-coloured. There is usually a pale yellow-beige coating on the outside. Some researchers state that amphora production with light-coloured fabric in the Black Sea region dates from the Late Hellenistic Period20. Vnukov divides the Form 1 amphorae classified as S IV into three subgroups in terms of size and form.21 Opaiţ stated that these amphorae of South Black Sea (Heraclea and Sinop) origin are the remnants of a sub-type dated to the 3rd
15 These amphora samples have been published as a part of public draft of work in progress on Greek, Roman and Byzantine Pottery at Ilion. See in Heath-Tekkök 2008, 100-101, fig. 16-19.
16 Opaiţ 2010, 108-130.
17 Šelov 1986,396-398, fig. 1.
18 Šelov 1986, 398; Smokotina 2016, 715.
19 Opaiţ 2004, 32.
20 Opaiţ considers that the Pseudo-Kos amphorae, which were dominant in the Late Hellenistic- Early Roman Periods in the Black Sea region, had a fabric structure similar to the Form 1 amphorae; see Opaiț 2004, 31. In addition, it is known that imitation Pseudo-Kos amphorae were produced in the Black Sea region, especially Sinop and Heraclea and in another center which is not precisely known; see Vnukov 2004, 408-409. This indicates that the traditions of amphora production of both Sinop and Heraclea Pontica cities continued until the Late Roman Period.
21 This form, classified as Type S IV A-C, developed from the S III amphorae with grooved handles of Heraclea production, was determined to have been produced from the 1st century AD until Late Antiquity (Vnukov 2004, 414-415, fig. 7/7-9).
century AD. Although initially Opaiț assigned an olive oil content for this type22, recently he reconsidered his opinion, considering a wine content as more probable.23
Fig. 7. Complete Form 1 (Selov E) amphora found in the Athenian Agora of Athens (Opaiț 2010, Fig. 4).
A complete example found in the Agora of Athens24 had a capacity of about 3.3 l, i.e., one chous of wine weighing 10 litrai. However, Opaiț considers that by calculating the gas field as the wine was being fermented, this amphora held 9 litrai of wine.25 Among the amphorae found in the bone workshop excavations in the theatre area, this type is represented by a total of four specimens. When the rim and neck of the two specimens are compared (Cat. Nos. 1-2, Fig. 8 A/B), it can be seen that the rim forms are quite similar. The rim is convex and, despite this convexity, its interior exhibits a concave structure. The handles, as can be seen from the complete items, extend downward and are attached at a point close to the shoulder-body transition.26
22 Opaiţ 2004, 32.
23 Opaiţ 2017, 593.
24 Inv. No. P 12841.
25 Opaiț 2010, 111.
26 Opaiț 2004, 32, Pl. 19/2.
Fig. 8. Prusias ad Hypium Form 1 Amphora specimens (Drawing: Z. Gülaçar-R. Keser).
Cat. Nos. 1 and 2 amphorae have grooved handles. The fabric of both samples contains distinctive black (pyroxene?) particles. The similarity of the compositions with inclusions of different density suggests that they may have been produced in the same region but in different workshops (Fig. 9 A/B).
Form 1 (Šelov F) amphorae, unlike the successors of the round-bottomed Type E, have a tubular ring-shaped base. Two having this base type were found in the Prusias ad Hypium Theatre (Cat. No. 3-4, Fig. 10 A/B). The bottom, seen in Fig. 10 A (Cat. No. 3) has a slightly outward curved ring foot with a shallow hollow space. In the case of Fig. 10 B (Cat. No. 4), the outer edge of the specimen is flat. The hollow foot is deeper than that of the first item, but the central bottom slopes downward. Examples similar to both bases
were found in Olbia Pontica.27 The fabric structures are quite similar to the rim-neck specimens. Large amounts of black inclusions (pyroxene?) and clay particles other than stones are also observed in the light coloured fabrics (Fig. 11 A-B).
Fig. 9. Fabrics of Prusias ad Hypium Form 1 amphorae.
Fig. 10. Foot specimens of Prusias ad Hypium Form 1 amphoras (Drawing: Z. Gülaçar-R. Keser).
27 Krapivina 2010b, 73, pl. 38/6; pl. 39/6-7.
Fig. 11. The fabrics of the foot specimens of Prusias ad Hypium Form 1 Amphorae.
There are different views on the dating of Form 1 (Šelov F) amphorae. In describing the Form 1 (Type F) amphorae, Šelov states that the form was taken from Type D and that it was of a slightly later date. He considers that it was produced from the end of the 3rd century to the end of the 4th century AD.28 Some researchers place them in an extensive period of time, suggesting that this form was used from the beginning of the 1st century AD to Late Antiquity.29 The most important evidence that these amphorae were produced in Heraclea Pontica was found in the ruins of a workshop discovered during construction work in the Alaplı District to the south of the city of (Black Sea) Ereğli (Heraclea Pontica)30. The excavations in this area yielded a large number of amphorae with grooved handles and light-coloured fabric. Base specimens obtained from this area were dated from the second quarter of the 1st century to the middle of the 2nd century AD and likely belonged to the early variations of Form 1. Opaiț stated that Form 1 specimens were found extensively in the rural areas outside city centers such as Teliţa–Amza, Slava Rusă–Coșari, Caugagia, Topraichioi and Mihai Bravu (Romania), and that in general, this group dates between the second half of the 3rd century and the early 5th century AD.31 Ušakov reported that Form 1 amphoras found in the ‘Basileides Farmstead’ excavations at Tauric Chersonesos dated from the second
28 Šelov1986, 398.
29 Vnukov 2004, 415.
30 Arsen’eva et alii 1997, 188, fig. 12.
31 For the settlements mentioned in the text, see Telița–Amza. Baumann 1995, pl. LVII/8;
LVIII/2-4; LXIX/4-6; for Topraichioi, see Opaiț 1991, 221, pl. 27/3; also, for examples of this form found in Sinop, see Tezgör-Tatlıcan 1998, fig. 20; Krapivina added that Opaiț collected the Šelov Type E and F amphoras in a single group called Type E-VI which he considers to be dated to the 3rd-6th centuries AD. See Krapivina 2010b, 73; also see Opaiț 1996, 218, pl.
21/1-2; Opaiț 2004, 32.
half of the 4th century to the beginning of the 5th century AD.32 Form 1 specimens were recovered during the Tanaïs excavations from the layers dated to the middle of the 3rd century AD after the destruction of the city, and were frequently found in the layers dated to the middle of the 4th century AD after the city was reconstructed.33 On the northern shores of the Black Sea, Šelov Type F-D (Form 1) amphorae are generally documented from the layers of the 4th to the first half of the 5th century AD.34 Form 1 (Type F) amphorae are the most frequently encountered group among the remnants of the Chernyakhov culture in the forest-steppe region of Ukraine. Researchers have speculated that over twenty thousand amphorae might have been produced during the 4th century AD35. Indeed, the Form 1 amphorae that Zeest classified as Type 105 date back to the 4th century AD.36 The Form 1 amphorae in the excavations of the Tyritake settlement in the Crimea included a bottom fragment very similar to Cat. No.
3, which was identified as production of Heraclea Pontica.37 The context of the specimens found during the excavations of the Agora of Athens helped in dating it to the 3rd quarter of the 4th century AD.38
The stratigraphical context of the excavations in the Prusias ad Hypium Theatre has also a contribution to the dating of this amphora type. Form 1 amphorae were unearthed during the excavations of the Late Roman-Early Byzantine structure uncovered near the western parodos of the Theatre. A coin of the Eastern Roman Emperor Arcadius (AD 395-408) was also recovered from the lowest level of the western wall of this structure, which was built of recycled material (Fig. 6).
Cat. No. 1/Fig. 8A
Prusias ad Hypium Ancient Theatre C8/B Trench Amphora Rim-Neck Part
AR: 3.3 cm -Max. H: 15.1 cm
Fabric: Stones, black particles, sand inclusions, 10 YR 8/3 very pale brown Cat. No. 2 /Fig. 8B
Prusias ad Hypium Ancient Theatre C8/D Trench Amphora Rim-Neck Part
AR: 4.4 cm- Max. H: 12.6 cm
Fabric: Sand, black particles (pyroxene), brown particles, stone inclusions, 10 YR 8/3 very pale brown
32 Yшakoв 2015, 1-6, fig. 12.
33 Krapivina 2010b, 73; Böttger-Ulrich 2000, 282-299.
34 Krapivina 2010b, 73.
35 Magomedov 2010, 75, pl. 40/7-11.
36 Зеест 1960, 136, Taf. XLI, 105.
37 Smokotina 2016, 715, 718, fig. 2/1-3
38 Opaiț 2010, 111, fig. 4/a-c.
Cat. No. 3 /Fig. 10A
Prusias ad Hypium Ancient Theatre C8/A Trench Base Part
KR: 3.8 cm- Max. H: 4.9 cm
Fabric: Mica, chamotte (fired clay), black particles (pyroxene), stone inclusions, 7.5 YR 8/4 pink Cat. No. 4/Fig. 10B
Prusias ad Hypium Ancient Theatre C8/D Trench Base Part
KR: 4.9 cm- Max. H: 5.5 cm
Fabric: Sand, chamotte (fired clay), stone, brown granular inclusions, 7.5 YR 8/4 pink, 5 Y 8/3 pale yellow-coloured coating on the outer surface
FORM 2 (Šelov E/Opait E-IV/Zeest 104)
These amphorae were first described by Zeest and dated to the 4th century AD39. Šelov40 classified these amphorae as Type E. These amphorae, also known as Abramov 7.6-7.741 and Krapivina 642, like their Form 1 predecessors, are considered to be of South Black Sea43 and to have been used for transporting Heraclean wine.44
Although similar to Form 1 due to their fabric structure and colour and the grooves on their handles, Form 2 amphorae also exhibit distinct differences in the characteristics of their general form. As a result of petrographic analyses of this form (Form 2 / Šelov E), Šelov states that it evolved from the Type A-D forms.45 Klenina also expresses this situation with these words, “Later, type D evolved into type E in Shelov’s typology and was produced up to the end of the 4th century AD.”46
Smokotina stated that Form 1 (Šelov Type F) amphorae evolved to round-bottomed Form 2 (Šelov Type E) amphorae between the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th century AD47. Form 2 amphorae are thicker than Form 1 amphorae and have a rounded exterior. The grooved body up to the shoulders is more oval-shaped than Form 1, and has massive handles with grooves on the outer sides. A complete Heraclean amphora found in the city of Tanais is important in terms of revealing the general form characteristics of
39 Зеест 1960, 136: taf. 41.
40 Šelov 1986, 398, fig. 1e.
41 Abramov 1993, pl. 62.
42 Krapivina 1993, fig. 29, 9-11.
43 Krapivina 2010b, 73; Arsen’eva et alii 1997, 187, 189-190.
44 Klenina 2010, 1006.
45 Šelov1986, 398.
46 Klenina 2010, 1006.
47 Smokotina 2016, 7115, fig. 2, 4-7.
this type (Fig. 12)48. Four rim-neck specimens unearthed during the excavations of the Prusias ad Hypium Theatre which can be included in the Form 2 group are presented in this paper (Cat. No. 5-8 / Figs. 13-14).
Fig. 12. Complete Form 2 amphora found in the city of Tanais (Arsen’eva et alii 1997, 189, fig. 19-20).
Form 1 and Form 2 amphorae are of the same family with light-coloured fabrics but differ from each other in terms of rim, neck and body structure. The examples uncovered in the Prusias excavations show that Form 2 amphorae have two different rim forms. Group 1 amphorae display a thick rim profile (Fig. 13), while the Group 2 standard covers amphorae having an almond-shaped rim with no profile and a rounded exterior (Fig. 14).
The complete examples reveal that, unlike Form 1, Form 2 amphorae terminated in a round bottom.
49The Form 2 amphorae, like those of Form 1, were produced in Heraclea Pontica and were used for transporting Heraclean wine.
50The colours of the fabric of the amphorae belonging to this group also vary. The amphorae have fabrics with different colours of clay compared to Form 1, and are generally found in shades of beige, pale yellow, pink, reddish- yellow and so on. It is possible to see this variety in amphorae numbered Cat.
48 Arsen’eva et alii 1997, 189, fig. 19-20.
49 Arsen’eva et alii 1997, 189, 196, fig. 17-20.
50 Klenina 2010, 1006.
No. 5 and Cat. No. 6. In the case of Cat. No. 5, the fabric and the exterior coating are pale yellow (5 Y 8/3), while Cat. No. 6 has a reddish-yellow (5 YR 6/6) fabric and a pinkish-white coating (5 YR 8/2). When the fabric contents are examined, the common characteristic found in all specimens are the dense black granules (pyroxene?). It is possible to see the density of these inclusions in Fig. 15.
Fig. 13. Prusias ad Hypium Form 2 amphorae. Group 1 rim/neck specimens. (Drawing: Z.
Gülaçar-R. Keser).
In addition, among the commercial amphorae from the excavations at Troy, a rim- neck specimen was found belonging to Form 2 which is dated to a wide time interval between the 2nd and 4th centuries AD. This range is wider than Smokotina’s recommendation. Two different variants of the Form 2 amphora found in the Agora of Athens were dated between the second half of the 3rd century and the first half of the
4th century AD51. According to these datings and Prusias ad Hypium samples, Form 2 amphorae must be dated between 3rd – beginning of the 5th centuries AD.
Cat. No. 5/Fig. 13 A
Prusias ad Hypium Ancient Theatre C8/A Trench Rim-Neck-Handle Part
AR: 4.5 cm- Max. H: 14.2 cm
Fabric: Sand, lime, stone, pyroxene (black) inclusions, 5 Y 8/3 pale yellow, 5 Y 8/3 pale yellow coating on the outer surface.
Fig. 14. Prusias ad Hypium Form 2 amphorae. Group 2 rim-neck specimens. (Drawing: Z.
Gülaçar-R. Keser).
Cat. No. 6/Fig. 13 B
Prusias ad Hypium Ancient Theatre C8/A Trench Rim-Neck-Handle
AR: 6.2 cm- Max. H: 10.7cm
Fabric: Lime, stone, black and brown granular inclusions, 5 YR 6/6 reddish-yellow, 5 YR 8/2 pinkish-white coating on the outer surface
Cat. No. 7/Fig. 14 A
51 Opaiț 2010, 112, fig. 5-6.
Prusias ad Hypium Ancient Theatre C8/D Trench Rim-Neck
AR: 5.2 cm- Max. H: 5.3 cm
Fabric: Stone, lime, sand, black granular inclusions, 5 YR 8/4 pink, 10 YR 8/2 very pale brown coating on the outer surface
Cat. No. 8/Fig. 14 B
Prusias ad Hypium Ancient Theatre C8/A Trench Rim-Neck
AR: 5.4 cm- Max. H: 10.2 cm
Fabric: Stone, large brown granular inclusions, sand, small amount of lime, 2.5 YR 7/6 light red, 7.5 YR 8/6 reddish-yellow-coloured coating on the outer surface.
Fig. 15. The fabrics of Prusias ad Hypium Form 2 amphorae. (A-B Group1/C-D Group 2).
CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION
It was understood from the excavations carried out in the ancient theatre of Prusias ad Hypium in 2017, that a structure dated to the Late Roman-Early Byzantine Period uncovered in the western parodos overturned all the earlier context of the area where it was built. This structure probably was built at a moment when the theatre was not in use
anymore, at the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th centuries AD. Until this date, the city had faced many important problems. One of these was an economic crisis that took place in the 3rd century AD. The other one was the Gothic invasion that affected the whole of Bithynia region. Although there is no archaeologic or epigraphic evidence of Gothic invasions, it is known that a strong fortification wall was built around the city of Prusias ad Hypium in the middle of the 3rd century.52 However, this situation should not have affected the social life of Prusias ad Hypium much. In fact, Sear states that the sacenae frons of the theatre was renovated in the 3rd century AD, thus showing us that the theatre was in use at that time.53 It is understood that in the 4th century AD, the city had not lost its importance54 and Prusias ad Hypium was among the important cities of the Honorias Region during the 4th and 5th centuries AD. Although the source of its prosperity is not clear, it was likely the trade in agricultural products.
It should be noted that the commercial amphorae have a special importance among the ceramic finds. Among the amphorae included in the paper, the small, light- coloured amphoras with narrow rims and necks (Šelov E-F), in particular those considered to be of Heraclea Pontica production, have survived as important evidence of the regional trade. The areas where these amphorae have been found are not limited to the Black Sea, or even to the western Black Sea, but specimens of these amphorae found in the Aegean centers indicate that they were used in a wide trade network in the Late Antiquity period. These amphorae, which have light buff clay, also show that the connection between Heraclea Pontica and Prusias ad Hypium continued even during Late Antiquity.
Although Prusias ad Hypium is located inland, both archaeological and epigraphical documents have proved that it was not far from the aforementioned trade network by sea. At the beginning of the 3rd century AD, Prusias ad Hypium played an active role in the Western Black Sea trade. That two emporoi (merchants) from Prusias, Stratokles and Metrodotos of Gaius, had established intense trade agreements with the western part of the Black Sea was confirmed by an inscription found in the city of Tomis.55 The trade route between the two cities shaped the trade between Anatolia, the Danubian area, and the western Black Sea.56 In addition, Prusias
52 This wall can be seen today on the southern slope of the modern Konuralp district near the modern Akçakoca main road. As understood from the architectural remains and inscription fragments in this wall, we can say that it had been built quickly against a possible Gothic invasion.
53 Sear 2006, 359.
54 Grant 2000, 2.
55 ISM II, 248; Robert 1980, 76-80; Bounegru 2014, 12.
56 Bounegru 2014, 15.
had also engaged in robust commercial activities in the Aegean Sea and carried out major trade with Pontus.57
Robert points out that there was a strong link between Prusias ad Hypium and the emporium city of Diapolis (Akçakoca). The key to the wealth of Prusias was this strong bond with the commercial activities conducted on the north and west coasts of Pontos Euxeinos. As understood from the tomb inscriptions of its merchants, the city of Prusias strengthened its commercial ties with Tomis, Olbia and the Kingdom of the Bosphorus.58 The scarcity of grain, which is often seen from the inscriptions59, was only solved by the exchange of the endless expanse of forest resources. Again according to Robert, grain was imported from the Russian steppes to the Bithynia region to be traded for forest products.60 The amphorae representing the subject of this paper can also be interpreted as evidence that the need for wine in the city of Prusias ad Hypium was augmented from outside. However, the French traveler Perrot provided interesting information about Prusias.61 He stated that when he came to the city in the late 1800s, there was a huge production of grapes, grape juice and grape molasses. The question is:
does this observation in the 1870's show us the production of grapes and wine in Antiquity? In fact, it is difficult to give convincing evidence in order to answer to this question. The fact that Tyche was one of the main goddesses of the city, representing the fertile agricultural production in this area, shows us that there were grapes among these agricultural products. Today, the small black grapes with a distinctive aroma are still to be found growing in the gardens of a few houses. In addition, the depictions of the grape leaf, panther and amphora related to the cult of Dionysus embellishing recently uncovered Ionic column heads strongly support the evidence of viticulture in the city.
These facts suggest that it might have been a local wine production for mass consumption while the elite increased their social status by importing vintage wine. One of the most important results of this article is that it shows that the connection between Prusias ad Hypium and its founder of Prusias ad Hypium, Heraclea Pontica, continued even during the late antiquity.
57 Vinogradov 1984, 460.
58 Robert 1980, 76-77.
59 Ameling 1985, 6, 9, 13, 17, 19, 48.
60 Robert 1980, 82-85.
61 Perrot-Guillaume 1872.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abramov, A.P. 1993, Antićnje amfory. Periodizacija i khronologija, Bosporskij Sbornik 3, 4-135.
Ameling, W. 1985, Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium, Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 27, Rudolf Habelt, Bonn.
Arsen’eva, T., Kassab-Tezgör, D., Naumenko, S. 1997, Un dépotoir d’atelier d’amphores a pâte claire. Commerce entre Héreaclée du Pont et Tanais a l’époque romaine, Anatolia Antiqua 5, 187-198.
Arslan, M. 2007, Memnon Herakleia Pontike Tarihi (Peri Herkleias), Odin Yayıncılık.
Arslan, M. 2012, Karyanda'lı Pseudo-Skylaks'ın İskan edilmiş Avrupa, Asya ve Afrika Denizi'nin Çevresindeki Seyrü Seferi, Mediterranean Journal of Humanities II (1), 239-257.
Ayengin, N. 2015, Prusias ad Hypium Tiyatro Kazısı 2014 Yılı Çalışmaları, 37, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 2. Cilt, Erzurum, 287-300.
Baumann, V.H. 1995, Aşezări rurale antice în zona Gurilor Dunării, Biblioteca Istro- Ppontica. Seria Arheologie 1, Tulcea.
Böttger, B., Ulrich, M. 2000, Late antique settlement in Tanais (the results of excavations on sector XIX), in Sarmaty i ih sosedi na Donu, Rostov-on-Don, 282-299.
Bounegru, O. 2014, The Black Sea Area in the Trade System of the Roman Empire.
Euxeinos. Culture and Governance in the Black Sea Region 14, 8-16.
Ferrero, Daria de B. 1990, Batı Anadolu’nun Eski Çağ Tiyatroları, Ankara.
Grace, V. 1961, Amphoras and the ancient wine trade, Princeton.
Grant, M. 2000, Roma’dan Bizans’a, İstanbul.
Heat, S.-Tekkök, B. 2008, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Pottery at Ilion (Troia), Project Troia (Draft), https://www.google.com.tr/search?q=potas+feldispat&oq=potas+feldispat&a qs=chrome..69i57j0.3696j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Jones, N.F. 1987, Public Organization in Ancient Greece: A Documentary Study, American Philosophical Society 176, Philadelphia.
Karakuş, O.S. 2017, Roma İmparatorluk Dönemi’nde Prusias ad Hypium, (Unpublished Master’s thesis), Eskişehir.
Kassab-Tezgör, D, Tatlıcan, İ. 1998, Fouilles des ateliers d’amphores a Demirci pres de Sinope en 1996 et 1997, Anatolia Antiqua 6, 423-442.
Klenina, E. 2010, Trade Relations between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea Region in the 3rd-6th centuries A.D. in the light of Ceramic Artifacts, in Menchelli, S., Santoro, S., Pasquinucci, M., Guiducci, G. (eds.), LRCW 3. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean:
Archaeology and Archaeometry. Comparison between western and eastern Mediterranean. Volume II. BAR S2185 (II), 1005-1014.
Krapivina, V.V. 2010a, Amphorae of the 3rd-4th Centuries A.D. in Olbia Pontica, in Tezgör, D.K., Inaishvili, N. (eds.), PATABS I. Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale de Batoumi et Trabzon, 27-29 Avril 2006, Varia Anatolica 21, Istanbul, 69-73.
Krapivina, V.V. 2010b, Transport Amphoras, Roman Period, in Lejpunskaja, N.A., Guldager Bilde, P., Højte, J.M., Krapivina, V.V., Kryžickij, S.D. (eds.), The Lower City of Olbia (Sector NGS) in the 6th Century BC to the 4th Century AD, Black Sea Studies 13, Aarhus, 388-392.
Krapivina, V.V. 2010a, Amphorae of the 3rd-4th centuries A.D. in Olbia Pontica, in Kassab Tezgör, D., Inaishvili, N. (eds.) PATABS I. Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale de Batoumi et Trabzon, 27-29 Avril 2006, Varia Anatolica 21, 69-73.
Magomedov, B. 2010, Roman Amphorae in the Context of the Chernyakhov Culture, in Kassab Tezgör, D., Inaishvili, N. (eds.) PATABS I. Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale de Batoumi et Trabzon, 27-29 Avril 2006, Varia Anatolica 21, 75-79.
Oates, D., Oates, J. 1959, Ain Sinu, Iraq 21, 207-242.
Okan, E., Bulut, H. 2019, Prusias ad Hypium Antik Tiyatrosunde Bir Geç Antik Çağ Kemik Atölyesi, in Çaylı-Işıl, P., Demirtaş-Barış E. (eds.), Half a Century Dedicated to Archaeology: A Festschrift in Honor for Sevil Gülçur, Ankara, 165-188.
Opaiț, A. 1991, Ceramica, in Opaiț, A., Zahariade, M., Poenaru-Bordea, Gh., Opaiț, C., Fortificația şi aşezarea romana târzie de la Babadag-Topraichioi, Peuce 10, 211-260.
Opaiț, A. 1996, Aspecte ale vieții economice din provincia Scythia (secolele IV-VI p. Ch.).
Producția ceramicii locale şi de import, Bibliotheca Thracologica 16, București.
Opait, A. 2004, Local and imported ceramics in the Roman Province of Scythia (4th-6th Centuries AD), BAR International Series 1274, Oxford.
Opaiț, A. 2010, Pontic Wine in the Athenian Market, ΚΕΡΑΜΙΚΗ ΤΗΣ ΥΣΤΕΡΗΣ ΑΡΧΑΙΟΤΗΤΑΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΙΚΟ ΧΩΡΟ (3ος-7ος αι. μ.Χ.), Επιστημονική Συναντηση, Θεσσαλονίκη, 12-16 Νοεμβρίου 2006:
ΠΡΑΚΤΙΚΑ, 108-130.
Opaiţ, A. 2017, On the local production and imports of wine in the Pontic and Lower Danube regions (1st century BC to 7th century AD). An overview, in Dixneuf, D.
(ed.), LRCW 5. Late Roman coarse wares, cooking wares and amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and archaeometry, Centre d’Études Alexandrines, 579-612.
Peacock, D.P.S. 1977, Late Roman amphorae from Chalk near Gravesend, Kent, in Dore, J., Greene, K. (eds.), Roman Pottery Studies in Britain and Beyond, British Archaeological Reports. International Series 30, Oxford, 295-300.
Peacock, D.P.S., Williams, D.F. 1986, Amphorae and the Roman Economy, New York.
Perrot, G.-Guillaume, E. 1872, Exploration Archéologique de La Galatie et de Bithynie, d’une partie de la Mysie, de la Phrygie, de la Cappadoice et du Pont, Paris.
Robert, L. 1980, À travers l'Asie Mineure, Poètes et prosateurs, monnaies grecques, voyageurset géographie, Paris.
Sear, F. 2006, Roman Theatres. An Architectural Study, Oxford.
Šelov, D.B. 1986, Les amphores d’argile claire des premiers siecle de notre ere en Mer Noire, Bullettin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplementum 13, 395-400.
Smokotina, A. 2016, Late Roman Amphorae from Tyritake, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta 44, 715-724.
Vinogradov, J.G. 1984, Olbia und Prusias am Hypios zur Severerzeit, in Giuffrè, G.V.
(ed.), Sodalitas: Scritti In onore di Antonio Napoli, 457-467.
Vnukov, S.Yu. 2004, Pan Roman Amphora types Produced in the Black Sea Region, in Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institiute at Athens, Sept. 26-29, 2002, Aarhus University Press, 407-415.
Zeyrek, T., Baran-Çelik, G. 2005, Prusias ad Hypium (Kieros) Anadolu’nun Kuzeybatısında antik bir kent, Ege Publishing, İstanbul.
***
Ильяшенko, C.M. 2012, Надписи Типа «Α/Π» На Позднеантичных Амфорах Из Танаиса, in 1000 Pokıв Bıзaнтıѝcьkoї Topгıвлı (V-XV cтoлiття), Kиïв, 83-94.
Крапивина, В.В. 1993. Ольвия. Материальная культура I-IV вв. н.э., Наукова думка Киев.
Yшakoв, C.B. 2015, Об амфоре с «виллы Басилида» на хоре Херсонеса, Stratum Plus 4, 1-6.
Внуков. С.Ю. 1993, Новые типы позднесинопской амфорной тары, Pоссийская Aрхеология 3, 204-213.
Внуков, С.Ю. 2000, Псевдокосские амфоры Причерноморья, Pоссийская Aрхеология 4, 54-63.
Внуков, С.Ю. 2003, Пpичepнoморские амфоры I в. до н.з.–II в. н.з. (морфологя), Mocква.
Зеест, И.Б. 1960, Керамическая тара Боспора, Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР 83, Mocква.
