CC BY
0
АКАДЕМИЯ НАУК РЕСПУБЛИКИ ТАТАРСТАН МАРИЙСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ
ПОВОЛЖСКАЯ АРХЕОЛОГИЯ
№ 3 (49) 2024
ПОВОЛЖСКАЯ АРХЕОЛОГИЯ
е-ISSN 2500-2856 № 3 (49) 2024
Главный редактор
академик АН РТ, доктор исторических наук А.Г. Ситдиков
Заместители главного редактора:
член-корреспондент АН РТ, доктор исторических наук Ф.Ш. Хузин доктор исторических наук Ю.А. Зеленеев Ответственный секретарь - кандидат ветеринарных наук Г.Ш. Асылгараева
Редакционный совет: Б.А. Байтанаев - академик НАН РК, доктор исторических наук (Алматы, Казахстан) (председатель), Х.А. Амирханов - академик РАН, доктор исторических наук, профессор (Москва, Россия), С.Г. Бочаров - кандидат исторических наук (Севастополь, Россия), П. Георгиев - доктор наук, доцент (Шумен, Болгария), Е.П. Казаков - доктор исторических наук (Казань, Россия), Н.Н. Крадин - член-корреспондент РАН, доктор исторических наук, профессор (Владивосток, Россия), А. Тюрк - Ph.D. (Будапешт, Венгрия), А.А. Тишкин - доктор исторических наук профессор (Барнаул, Россия), В.С. Синика -доктор исторических наук (Тирасполь, Молдова), Б.В. Базаров - академик РАН, доктор исторических наук, профессор (Улан-Удэ, Россия), Д.С. Коробов - доктор исторических наук, профессор РАН (Москва, Россия), О.В. Кузьмина - кандидат исторических наук (Самара, Россия), П. Дегри - профессор (Лёвен, Бельгия), Вэй Джан - Ph.D, профессор (Пекин, Китай), А.С. Сагдуллаев - академик АН РУз, доктор исторических наук, профессор (Ташкент, Узбекистан), Р.Х. Сулейманов - доктор исторических наук, профессор (Ташкент, Узбекистан), М.М. Саидов - доктор исторических наук, профессор (Самарканд, Узбекистан), Ш.Б. Шайдуллаев - доктор исторических наук, профессор (Термез, Узбекистан)
Редакционная коллегия:
А.А. Выборном - доктор исторических наук, профессор (Самара, Россия) М.Ш. Галимова - кандидат исторических наук (Казань, Россия) Р.Д Голдина - доктор исторических наук, профессор (Ижевск, Россия) С.В. Кузьминых - кандидат исторических наук (Москва, Россия) А.Е. Леонтьев - доктор исторических наук (Москва, Россия) Т.Б. Никитина - доктор исторических наук (Йошкар-Ола, Россия) А.А. Чижевский - кандидат исторических наук (Казань, Россия)
Ответственный за выпуск: М.Ш. Галимова - кандидат исторических наук
Адрес редакции:
420012 Республика Татарстан, г. Казань, ул. Бутлерова, 30 Телефон: (843) 236-55-42 E-mail: [email protected] http://archaeologie.pro
Индекс ПП753, электронный Каталог печатных изданий "ПОЧТА РОССИИ" Выходит 4 раза в год
> ГНБУ «Академия наук Республики Татарстан», 2024
> ФГБОУ ВО «Марийский государственный университет», 2024
> Журнал «Поволжская археология», 2024
Издательство «Фэн»
Казань, Республика Татарстан
POVOLZHSKAYA ARKHEOLOGIYA THE VOLGA RIVER REGION ARCHAEOLOGY
e-ISSN 2500-2856 № 3 (49) 2024
Editor-in-Chief:
Academician of the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences A. G. Sitdikov
Deputy Chief Editors:
Corresponding Member of the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences F. Sh. Khuzin Doctor of Historical Sciences Yu. A. Zeleneev Executive Secretary - Candidate of Veterinary Sciences G. Sh. Asylgaraeva
B. A. Baitanayev - of the Nacional Academy of the RK, Doctor of Historical Sciences (Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan) (chairman), Kh. A. Amirkhanov - Academician of RAS, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Moscow, Russian Federation), S. G. Bocharov - Candidate of Historical Sciences (Sevastopol, Russian Federation), P. Georgiev - Doctor of Historical Sciences (Shumen, Bulgaria), E. P. Kazakov - Doctor of Historical Sciences (Kazan, Russian Federation), N. N. Kradin - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Vladivostok, Russian Federation), А. Türk - Ph.D. (Budapest, Hungary), A.A. Tishkin - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Barnaul, Russian Federation), V. S. Sinika - Doctor of Historical Sciences (Tiraspol, Moldova), B. V. Bazarov - Academician of RAS, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Ulan-Ude, Russian Federation), D. S. Korobov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Moscow, Russian Federation), O. V. Kuzmina - Candidate of Historical Sciences (Samara, Russian Federation), P. De-gryse - Professor (Leuven, Belgium), Wei Jian - Ph.D, Professor (Beijing, China), A. S. Sagdullaev - Academician of the National Academy of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Tashkent, Republic of Uzbekistan), R. Kh. Suleymanov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Tashkent, Republic of Uzbekistan), M.M. Saidov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Samarkand, Republic of Uzbekistan), Sh.B. Shaidullaev - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Republic of Professor (Termez, Uzbekistan)
A.A. Vybornov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Samara State Academy of Social Sciences and Humanities, Samara, Russian Federation)
M. Sh. Galimova - Candidate of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology named after A. Kh. Khalikov, Kazan, Russian Federation)
R. D. Goldina - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Udmurt State University, Izhevsk, Russian Federation) S. V. Kuzminykh - Candidate of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation)
А. Е. Leont'ev - Doctor of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation)
^ B. Nikitina - Doctor of Historical Sciences (Mari Research Institute of Language, Literature and History named after V. M. Vasilyev, Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation)
A.A. Chizhevsky - Candidate of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology named after A. Kh. Khalikov, Kazan, Russian Federation)
Executive Editors:
Editorial Board:
Responsible for Issue M. Sh. Galimova - Candidate of Historical Sciences
Editorial Office Address:
Butlerov St., 30, Kazan, 420012, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation
Telephone: (843) 236-55-42 E-mail: [email protected] http://archaeologie.pro
© Tatarstan Academy of Sciences (TAS), 2024 © Mari State University, 2024 © "Povolzhskaya Arkheologiya" Journal, 2024
Publishing House "Fän
ПОВОЛЖСКАЯ АРХЕОЛОГИЯ № 3 (49) 2024
СОДЕРЖАНИЕ Эпоха камня и раннего металла Северной Евразии
Голованова Л.В., Дороничев В.Б., Дороничева Е.В. (Санкт-Петербург, Россия), Ревина Е.И. (Ростов-на-Дону, Россия), Поплевко Г.Н. (Санкт-Петербург, Россия)
Функциональная вариабельность орудий
на эпипалеолитических стоянках Приэльбрусья ...........................................8
Галимова М.Ш., Оруджов Э.И. (Казань, Россия) Стоянка-мастерская Сюкеевский взвоз в правобережье Волги:
работы 2021-2022 гг. и предшествующие исследования..............................26
Зах В.А. (Тюмень, Россия)
О структуре ранненеолитических обществ лесного Тоболо-Ишимья:
по морфологии и орнаментации посуды........................................................41
Дога Н.С., Выборнов А.А. (Самара, Россия), КульковаМ.А. (Санкт-Петербург, Россия), Васильева И.Н., Рослякова Н.В. (Самара, Россия), Гречкина Т.Ю. (Астрахань, Россия) Стоянка Таскудук в северном Прикаспии
(предварительные итоги исследования) ........................................................59
Аськеев И.В. (Казань, Россия), Жульников А.М. (Петрозаводск, Россия), Аськеев А. О., Аськеев О.В. (Казань, Россия), Тарасов А.Ю. (Петрозаводск, Россия)
Морская охота на ластоногих (Pinnipedia)
на побережье Белого моря в энеолите............................................................73
Карманов В.Н. (Сыктывкар, Россия), Лычагина Е.Л. (Пермь, Россия), Зарецкая Н.Е. (Москва, Россия)
Энеолит и эпоха бронзы лесной зоны Восточной Европы:
дисгармония археологической периодизации ...............................................94
Усманова Э.Р. (Караганда, Казахстан), Мерц И.В. (Барнаул, Россия), Мерц В.К. (Павлодар, Казахстан), Ержанова А.Е. (Алматы, Казахстан), Фомин В.Н. (Караганда, Казахстан)
Новые находки металлических орудий позднего бронзового века
из Верхнего Притоболья ...............................................................................114
Ранний железный век и эпоха Великого переселения народов
Черных Е.М. (Ижевск, Россия)
Буйское городище на Вятке в полевой биографии Л.И. Ашихминой
(памяти археолога)..........................................................................................128
Чижевский А.А. (Казань, Россия), Новиков А.В. (Кострома, Россия) Зооморфная фигурка из Одоевского городища................................................138
Онгарулы А. (Алматы, Казахстан), Тажекеев А.А. (Астана, Казахстан), Султанжанов Ж. К. (Кызылорда, Казахстан), Дарменов Р. Т. (Астана, Казахстан), ЖанузакР.Ж., ШагирбаевМ.С. (Алматы, Казахстан) Предварительные итоги исследования некрополя Курайлы-Асар .................152
Temur Akin (Samsun, Turkey)
Hellenistic Period Watchtowers and Hillside Settlements Identified
in "Vezirkopru" Surveys...................................................................................169
Ярыгин С.А., Сакенов С.К., Ильдеряков Н.Н. (Астана, Казахстан) Тамги и петроглифы в горах Кайракколь и Каракунгей
(по материалам исследований 2022-2023 годов) ........................................186
Савельев Н.С. (Уфа, Россия), Куфтерин В.В. (Москва, Россия),
Сулейманов Р.Р. (Уфа, Россия), Сатаев Р.М.
Усадьба эпохи Великого переселения народов
на поселении Акбердино-3 в лесостепи Южного Приуралья .................202
Ядерно-физические методы в археологии
Васидов А., Сайдуллаев Б.Дж. (Ташкент, Узбекистан) Новая методика для оценки возраста древних костей
с помощью трекового детектора Сг-39 .........................................................222
Середавина Т.А. (Алматы, Казахстан), Мерц И.В. (Барнаул, Россия), Данько И.В., Нуртазин Е.Р. (Алматы, Казахстан) Исследование физических характеристик проб карбонатов с археологических артефактов для датирования методом
электронного парамагнитного резонанса ....................................................230
Список сокращений.............................................................................................247
Правила для авторов............................................................................................250
nOBOA^CKAfl APXEOAOrafl 3 (49) 2024
CONTENT
The Age of Stone and Early Metal in Northern Eurasia
Golovanova L.V., Doronichev V.B., Doronicheva E.V (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation), Revina E.I. (Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation), Poplevko G.N. (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation)
Functional Variability of Tools at Epipaleolithic Sites of the Elbrus Region ...........8
Galimova M.Sh., Orudzhov E.I. (Kazan, Russian Federation)
The Syukeyevsky Vzvoz Flint-Working Site on the Right Bank of the Volga:
Works of 2021-2022 and Previous Studies........................................................26
Zakh V.A. (Tyumen, Russian Federation)
On the Structure of Early Neolithic Societies of the Forest Tobol-Ishim Area:
morphology and ornamentation of the pottery...................................................41
Doga N.S., Vybornov A.A. (Samara, Russian Federation), Kulkova M.A. (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation), Vasilieva I.N., Roslyakova N.V.
(Samara, Russian Federation), Grechkina T.Y. (Astrakhan, Russian Federation) The Taskuduk Camp Site in the Northern Caspian Sea
(preliminary results of the study)........................................................................59
AskeyevI.V. (Kazan, Russian Federation), Zhul'nikovA.M. (Petrozavodsk, Russian Federation), Askeyev A.O., Askeyev O.V. (Kazan, Russian Federation),
TarasovA.Yu. (Petrozavodsk, Russian Federation)
Marine Hunting of Pinnipeds (Pinnipedia) on the Coats of the White Sea
in the Eneolithic..................................................................................................73
Karmanov V.N. (Syktyvkar, Russian Federation), Lychagina E.L.
(Perm, Russian Federation), Zaretskaya N.E. (Moscow, Russian Federation)
Eneolithic and Bronze Age of the Forest Zone of Eastern Europe:
disharmony of archaeological periodization.......................................................94
Usmanova E.R. (Karaganda, Kazakhstan), Merts I.V. (Barnaul, Russian Federation), Merts V.K. (Pavlodar, Kazakhstan), Erzhanova A.E. (Almaty, Kazakhstan), Fomin V.N. (Karaganda, Kazakhstan) New Finds of Metal Tools of the Late Bronze Age
in the Upper Tobol Region................................................................................114
The Early Iron Age and the Great Migration Period of Peoples
Chernykh E.M. (Izhevsk, Russian Federation)
Buyskoye Hillfort on Vyatka River in the Research Biography
of L.I. Ashikhmina (in memoriam of the archaeologist)..................................128
Chizhevsky A.A. (Kazan, Russian Federation), NovikovA.V. (Kostroma, Russian Federation)
Zoomorphic Figurine from the Odoevsky Hillfort................................................138
Ongaruli A. (Almaty, Kazakhstan), Tazhekeev A.A. (Astana, Kazakhstan), Sultanzhanov Zh.K. (Kyzylorda, Kazakhstan), Darmenov R.T. (Astana, Kazakhstan), ZhanuzakR.J., ShagirbayevM.S. (Almaty, Kazakhstan) Preliminary Results of the Study of Kuraily-Asar Necropolis..............................152
Temür Akin (Samsun, Turkey)
Hellenistic Period Watchtowers and Hillside Settlements Identified
in "Vezirköprü" Surveys...................................................................................169
Yarygin S.A., Sakenov S.K., Ilderyakov N.N. (Astana, Kazakhstan) Tamgas and Petroglyphs in the Kayrakkol and Karakungey Mountains
(based on research materials 2022-2023).........................................................186
Savelev N.S. (Ufa, Russian Federation), Kufterin V.V. (Moscow, Russian
Federation), Suleymanov R.R. (Ufa, Russian Federation),]Sataev R.M. Akberdino-3 - the Great Migration Period Manor
in the Forest-Steppe Zone of Southern Pre-Urals.............................................202
Nuclear Physics Methods in Archaeology
Vasidov A., Saidullaev B.J. (Tashkent, Uzbekistan) A New Technique for Age Assessment of Ancient Bones
by Using Cr-39 Track Detector.........................................................................222
Seredavina T.A. (Almaty, Kazakhstan), Merts I.V. (Barnaul, Russian Federation),
Danko I.V., Nurtazin E.R. (Almaty, Kazakhstan)
Study of the Physical Characteristics of Carbonate Samples
from Archaeological Artifacts for EPR Dating.................................................230
List of abbreviations..............................................................................................247
Rules for authors....................................................................................................250
УДК 902/903
https://doi.org/10.24852/pa2024.3.49.169.185
HELLENISTIC PERIOD WATCHTOWERS AND HILLSIDE SETTLEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN "VEZIRKOPRU" SURVEYS
© 2024 Akin Temtir
Vezirkopru, one of the largest districts of Samsun (Amisos), an important port city of the Black Sea, has been the scene of continuous settlement from the Eneolithic Period to the present day thanks to its fertile soils, rivers and its location on an important road. The district, which first appears as a village settlement under the name Phazemon in Strabo. became a city in the Roman Period and was named Neoklaudiopolis. The city called Andrapa in the Byzantine Period took the name Vezirkopru in the Turkish Period and has survived to the present day. The city has witnessed many struggles in this process, including the struggle of the Pontic Kingdom and the Roman Empire. The greatest witnesses of these events were undoubtedly castles and watchtowers. The most famous of these is the Sagylion Castle, localized to Buyukkale in Vezirkopru, which is also mentioned in Strabo. Located on the foothills of Tav§an Mountain, the castle appears to be a typical Mithradates castle due to its location and structures. Although these fortresses built in the region were one of the greatest weapons used by Mithradates Eupator VI against the expansionist policies of the Romans, it is understood that these fortresses were not used on their own but supported by watchtowers selected at the dominant points of the land. Although many fortresses in the Pontos Region have been researched, and some have been excavated, watchtowers have not been sufficiently investigated. This study aimed to shed light on the Hellenistic Period of Vezirkopru by introducing the watchtowers identified during the surveys and the hillside settlements built around them.
Keywords: archaeology, Black Sea Studies, Samsun, Vezirkopru, Kingdom of Pontus, Hellenistic Period.
1. Introduction
Vezirkopru is a district of Samsun Province in the Central Black Sea Region. The rugged topography of the district and the plains favourable for settlement and agriculture created a varied ecosystem, leading to a continuous settlement history from the Eneolithic Age to the present day.
K. Kokten and his team who worked in the Samsun region in 1940-1941 conducted the first research on the district (Kokten et al, 1945, p. 361), followed by surveys by Dengate in 1970 (Dengate, 1978, p. 245-258) and Alkim and his team between 1971 and 1977 (Alkim, 1973, p. 435-438; Alkim, 1974a, p. 5-16; Alkim, 1974b, p. 553556; Alkim, 1975a, p. 23-28; Alkim, 1975b, p. 5-12; Alkim, 1976, p. 717719; Alkim, 1978, p. 542-547; Kiziltan, 1992, p. 213-241), which drew attention to the district. Especially the excavations conducted by Rainer M. Czichon at Oymaaga? Mound since 2007 (Czichon-
Yilmaz, 2014, p. 340) revealed that the mound witnessed continuous settlement from the Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period. French (French, 1988), Kahl and Olshausen (Olshausen, 1991, p. 612613) provide the earliest data from the Hellenistic and Roman periods. These studies in the 80s and 90s focused on the inscriptions and coins of the ancient city of Neoklaudiopolis (see Bekker-Nielsen, 2013b, p. 39-59). These studies were followed by a survey conducted by a team led by T. Bekker-Nielsen between 2010 and 2013 to identify Roman roads (Bekker-Nielsen, 2010, p. 87-91; Bekker-Nielsen-Hogel, 2012, p. 153-160; Bekker-Nielsen, 2013c, p. 203-213; Bekker-Nielsen et al., 2015, p. 1-96). Subsequently, a survey was initiated by A. Temur in 2018 to determine the boundaries of the ancient city of Neoklaudiopolis and to reveal its relations with its surroundings.
2. Hellenistic and Roman Periods of the City
The Kingdom of Pontos was one of the new kingdoms that emerged in the north of Anatolia in the process that began with Alexander's death and resulted in the disintegration of the empire he founded (Bekker-Nielsen, 2013b, p. 41). Founded in 281 BC, the kingdom's most brilliant period was the reign of Mithradates Eupator VI, famous for his struggle with Rome. The king, who ascended the throne in 120 BC, embarked on great conquests and spent his life fighting against the expansionist policies of the Romans (see Arslan, 2007). Mithradates, who defeated the Romans in many battles, confronted the Roman commander Pompeius in 66 BC, and his army was defeated. With the end of the Pontic Kingdom, Roman rule began in the region. While organizing the Roman conquests in northern Anatolia, Pompeius united the Kingdom of Pontos with the former "Kingdom of Bithynia" and established the "Province of Pontos and Bithynia" (Arslan, 2007, p. 490). Many new cities were founded during this period, including Neoklaudiopolis (Neapolitis) (Bekker-Nielsen, 2013a, p. 3).
The earliest information about Neoklaudiopolis comes from Strabo (Strabo, XII. III.38). Strabo describes the city as follows: "After the land of the Amisians comes Phazemonitis, which extends to the Halys River. Pompeius declared the settlement in the village of Phazemon here as a city and named it Neapolitis". The Phazemonitis Region takes its name from a village called Phazemon (Vezirkopru), which is surrounded by Gazelonitis (Bafra), Saramene and Amisos (Samsun) to the north, Amaseia (Amasya) to the south, Iris (Kizilirmak) to the east, Halys (Ye§ilirmak) rivers and Phanaroia (Ta§ova) to the west (Arslan, 2007, p. 18; Dalaison-Delrieux, 2014, p. 163, C. 1).
The name of the city later changed to Neoklaudiopolis (the city of Claudius)
in honour of the emperor Claudius (Anderson, 1900, p. 151; Waddington-Babelon, 1904, p. 169; Bekker-Nielsen et al., 2015, p. 16). This change is traceable in the coins minted in the city under the name Neoklaudiopolis from the 2nd to the early 3rd century AD (Waddington-Babelon, 1904, p. 169171, Pl. XXIII/8-15; Dalaison-Delrieux, 2014, p. 159-198). Neoklaudiopolis maintained its importance during this period as it was located on a road junction leading to Thermai (Samsun/Havza) in the south, Pompeiopolis (Kastamonu/ Ta§kopru) in the west, Neokaisareia (Tokat/Niksar) and Amisos (Samsun) in the east. After the division of the Roman Empire into two, the city became known as "Andrapa" (Ptolemy, V.4. 6; Magie. 1950, p. 1067-1068; Arslan, 2007, p. 18). In the 12th century, Samsun and its surroundings came under Turkish rule. After this date, the district has survived to the present day under the name of Vezirkopru.
3. Watchtowers and Layouts
The greatest weapon used by Pontus King Mithradates Eupator VI against the expansionist policies of the Romans was undoubtedly the fortresses built in the region. In this context, many fortresses were built, especially in the coastal part of the Black Sea. Today, the excavated Kurul (§enyurt et al., 2017, p. 133-146; §enyurt et al., 2019, p. 691-712; §enyurt et al., 2020, p. 505-524; §enyurt et al, 2022, p. 461-474) and Cingirt (Erol, 2013b, p. 1069-1077; Erol, 2014, p. 383400; Erol, 2018, p. 102-109) fortresses provide us with essential data on the subject. Unfortunately, our knowledge is insufficient since there is insufficient research and excavation work in the inner parts of the region. Considering that the Sagylion Castle mentioned in Strabo's work (Strabo, XII. III.38) is localized to Vezirkopru (Buyukkale) (Hamilton, 1842, p. 332-334; Anderson, 1903, p. 83; Waddington-Babelon, 1904, p. 7, 27; Arslan, 2007, p. 19-20; Hajte, 2009,
Fig. 1. 1 - Kocakaya watchtower and hillside settlement; 2 - Kocakaya watchtower rock steps. Рис. 1. 1 - сторожевая башня Коджакая и поселение на склоне холма; 2 - скальные ступени сторожевой башни Коджакая.
p. 103; §enyurt-Ak?ay, 2017, p. 182; Bekker-Nielsen, 2021, p. 252; Temur, 2023, p. 123-125), it is understood that Vezirkopru was on an important transit route. Surveys conducted in the district show that these forts were not used on their own but supported by watchtowers on the dominant hills of the area. However, the watchtowers that constitute the subject of this study are not man-made. Instead, they are natural cliffs located in a hillside settlement at a point dominating the terrain and used for surveillance purposes. Although generally referred to as castles in the region, it is incorrect to define them as castles since they lack areas suitable for settlement.
The first one is located at Koyalti Mevkii, 300 m south of ^ekalan Quarter, next to the Acisu Stream (Fig. 1.1). It appears that a rocky area on the upper part of the settlement called "Kocakaya Hillside Settlement" was used as a watchtower. There are 23 rock steps measuring 0.30-0.50 m on the side to ascend the rock with flattened areas in places (Fig. 1.2). The upper parts of the steps are better preserved than the lower ones.
The examination on the terrain where the cliff is located, currently used as agricultural land, revealed many ceramic
finds dating from the Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period, indicating that the settlement continued uninterruptedly for five thousand years.
The second watchtower is located in a rocky area called Bedesten Mevkii in Kaplancik Canyon (Fig. 2.1). After the completion of the Altinkaya Dam, the watchtower can only be accessed by boat, as the 72 m wide space between the two cliffs was filled with water about 50 m deep.
Villagers stated that the watchtower, located in a natural rocky area measuring 30x20 m, was accessed by steps carved into the rock, but most were flooded after the dam's construction. A 30 m long retaining wall extending in the north-south direction was identified during the survey in the rocky area (Fig. 2.2).
Another watchtower is located in Esen (Esenkoy) Neighbourhood (Fig. 3.1). The watchtower is located at Zindankaya Mevkii, 500 m southeast of Evkaya Rock Tomb on a rocky area extending in the east-west direction, measuring approximately 100x65 m, 27 m high and dominating the terrain and is reached by 21 partially preserved rock steps (Fig. 3.2). The upper terraced rocky area houses a 3.70 m deep, 2.90 m in diameter cistern carved into the rocks (Fig. 3.3). While no architectural
Fig. 2. 1 - Kaplancik Canyon and its location; 2 - Kaplancik watchtower; retaining wall. Рис. 2. 1 - каньон Капланчик и его местоположение; 2 - сторожевая башня Капланчик; подпорная стена.
remains were found on the rocky area, the Evkaya Rock Tomb, Zindankaya Open Air Sanctuary, Sandikkaya Rock Carved Tomb, Ziraat Tepesi Tumulus and the numerous Hellenistic, Roman and Late Antiquity ceramics found around them within a 500 m2 area reveal that the region housed a very dense settlement.
A hillside settlement and a watchtower on a rock mass called "Buyuk Kaya" extending east-west in the middle of the settlement were detected at Kaya Mevkii, 1 km northwest of Ovacik Neighbourhood, 9.5 km west of the centre of Vezirkopru (Fig. 4.1).
There are flattened areas, roof tile fragments, a destroyed cistern and many illicit digging pits on the rocky area. On the eastern slope of the rocky area, there is a rock tomb 6 m above the ground (Fig. 4.2). The entrance of the grave is 1.60 m wide and 1.10 m high. The interior of the grave measures 4.00x2.50 m in dimensions and 1.10 m in height. Since the interior was completely destroyed, it is impossible to say anything about the klinai (Fig. 4.3). There is a second rock mass called "Ku^uk Kaya" 30 m ahead of this rocky area. A small amount of Hellenistic and a large amount of Roman ceramics and roof tiles were found during the investigations around both rocky areas.
Another watchtower was found at Asarkaya Mevkii, 5 km north of Susuz
Neighbourhood, 40 km northwest of Vezirkopru (Fig. 5.1). The tower is located on the side of the Boyabat Dam, on a steep rocky area extending in the east-west direction, at a point dominating the terrain. The discovery of a jar containing 3329 Hellenistic bronze Amisos coins in situ during illicit diggings in 2020 at the top of the rocky area is highly significant. The coins, which may have been buried by the soldiers serving in the tower, reveal how critical such watchtowers were for defence. On the rocky area, flattened areas (Fig. 5.2), a large number of roof tiles, ceramics from the Hellenistic-Roman Period and many illicit digging pits were found.
On the slope of the rocky area, the remains of a 30 m long and 1.50-2.00 m wide rubble stone masonry wall are observed (Fig. 5.3). This wall is believed to have been built for terracing. A large number of rubble stones starting just below this wall flowed down the slope.
A Hellenistic Period watchtower and a hillside settlement were identified at incirli Mevkii, 1.3 km northeast of Ye§iltepe Neighborhood, 11 km northeast of the centre of Vezirkopru (Fig. 6.1). This rocky area, called " Kudret Castle" by the villagers, is surrounded by cliffs on three sides and access is only possible from the lower western side, by steps carved into the rock (Fig. 6.2).
Fig. 3. 1 - Zindankaya watchtower and hillside settlement; 2 - Zindankaya watchtower;
rock steps; 3 - Zindankaya watchtower; cistern. Рис. 3. 1 - сторожевая башня Зинданкая и поселение на склоне холма; 2 - сторожевая башня Зинданкая; каменные ступени; 3 - сторожевая башня Зинданкая; цистерна.
Nine of the steps with an average width of 0.70 m, height of 0.30 m and depth of 0.20 m are largely preserved, while the remaining are damaged. The façade with the steps has a square niche carved into the rock about 5 m high at ground level (Fig. 6.3). The villager state that the niche, containing a female figure in relief, was later destroyed and that there was on this side of the rock a 30 m long tunnel built of stone with a well at the end, which was later closed. The height of the watchtower from the roadside is 33 m, and its height exceeds 100 m from the canyon side (Fig. 7.1).
On top of the rocky area, flattened areas can be seen on the southern slope to place fortification walls, but no fortification wall was found. A large number of ceramics, pithos, and tile fragments dating to the Hellenistic, Roman, and Late Roman periods were found during the investigation of the rocky area (Fig. 7.2). The necropolis of the settlement is located 50 m west of the watchtower, at the foot of the rocky slope by the road. The investigation revealed many stone cist graves extending in the east-west direction (Figs. 8.1-2). Only two of these graves could be measured,
Fig. 4. 1 - Buyuk Kaya watchtower; 2 - Buyuk Kaya watchtower; rock tomb (exterior view); 3 - Buyuk Kaya watchtower; rock tomb (interior view). Рис. 4. 1 - сторожевая башня Бююк-Кая; 2 - сторожевая башня Бююк-Кая; скальная гробница (вид снаружи); 3 - сторожевая башня Бююк-Кая; скальная гробница (вид изнутри).
which are 180-190 cm long, 0.70-0.80 m wide and 0.80-1.00 m deep.
A rubble stone-built temenos wall is visible about 20 m west of the rocky area (Fig. 8.3). 7 m ofthe 0.70 m wide temenos wall, which surrounds the necropolis area in an "L" shape, is preserved. The road leading to the canyon passes over the temenos wall.
A single-apse and single-nave Byzantine church is situated further along the road, 100 m east of the rocky area (Fig. 9.1). The wall thickness of the apse facing east is 0.80 m, its length is
0.13 m, and its width is 6 m. Some of the wall courses and the door lintel of the church's foundations made of rough-worked rubble stones are visible (Fig. 9.2).
Numerous green-glazed Byzantine ceramics were found inside the church and surrounding area. The mortarium of a trapetum was found in the stream bed to the north of the church (Fig. 9.3), while its orbes rolled further down the church (Fig. 9.4). A baptismal font divided into two was found in the same place (Fig. 9.5). In the area from the church to the
Fig. 5. 1 - Asarkaya watchtower; 2 - Asarkaya watchtower; flattened areas; 3 - Asarkaya watchtower; terrace wall on the cliff.
Рис. 5. 1 - сторожевая башня Асаркайя; 2 - сторожевая башня Асаркайя; выровненные участки; 3 - сторожевая башня Асаркайя; стена террасы на скале.
dam, pottery and wall remains traced from the Roman period to the Middle Ages reveal that the area witnessed a continuous occupation.
A watchtower and a hillside settlement were identified at Terekkaya Mevkii, 18 km north of Vezirkopru, 3.5 km northwest of Turkmen Neighbourhood (Fig. 10.1). The watchtower is located on a rocky area about 20-25 m above the walking ground at a point dominating the terrain at the continuation of the settlement. Spread over an area of 200 m in diameter, the settlement includes
a cistern, wall remains, graves and numerous illicit digging pits. The cistern measures 2.30 m in diameter and 2.10 m in depth (Fig. 10.2). The length of the rubble stone masonry wall remains is up to 27 m (Fig. 10.3). A large amount of Hellenistic and Roman ceramics are observed in the area.
There is a rock tunnel in a rocky area called Domuzdami Mevkii, 100 m east of the castle (Fig. 10.4). The entrance of the tunnel is shaped like a horseshoe and faces south. The entrance is 2 m wide and 2.50 m high (Fig. 10.5). After an 8
Fig. 6. 1 - Yesiltepe watchtower and hillside settlement; 2 - Ye§iltepe watchtower; rock
steps; 3 - Ye§iltepe watchtower; Cybele niche. Рис. 6.J - сторожевая башня Йешилтепе и поселение на склоне холма; 2 - сторожевая башня Йешилтепе; скальные ступени; 3 - сторожевая башня Йешилтепе; ниша Кибелы.
m long curving entrance, one reaches a 12 m long and 6 m wide space with a ventilation hole (Fig. 10.6). Since the tunnel is filled with soil, no findings were made (Fig. 10.7).
4. Evaluation and Conclusion
The Vezirkopru district of Samsun, one of the largest cities of the Black Sea Region, is one of the important cities that witnessed the struggle between the Pontic Kingdom and the Roman Empire. The greatest witness of this struggle is
undoubtedly the Sagylion Castle, which is localized to Buyukkale in Vezirkopru. Castles both on the Black Sea coast and inland (Sokmen-Adali, 2023, p. 159167), such as especially Asarkale and Tependeligi in Samsun, Kurul (§enyurt-Ak?ay, 2016, p. 221-248; §enyurt et al., 2017, p. 133-146; §enyurt-Ak?ay, 2017, p. 182, fig. 3; §enyurt et al., 2019, p. 691-712; §enyurt et al., 2020, p. 505524; §enyurt et al, 2022, p. 461-474), Cingirt (Erol, 2013a, 183-196; Erol,
Fig. 7. 1 - Ye§iltepe watchtower (canyon view); 2 - Ye§iltepe hillside settlement (canyon view).
Рис. 7. 1 - сторожевая башня Йшилтепе (вид на каньон); 2 - поселение на склоне холма Йешилтепе (вид на каньон).
2013b, p. 1069-1077; Erol, 2014, p. 383400; Erol, 2016, p. 559-572; Erol, 2018, p. 102-109) Unye in Ordu, Har§enai in Amasya (Belck, 1901, p. 473; Doganba§, 2008, p. 11-28; Doganba§, 2010, p. 6578; Donmez, 2014, p. 29-49), Zile and Turhal in Tokat (Belck, 1901, p. 473; de Jerphanion, 1928, p. 37-39), Kaledere (Kaymakfi, 2020, p. 569-586) and §ebinkarahisar castles (von Gall, 1967, p. 507; Kaymakfi, 2020, p. 574, fig. 10) in Giresun, were one of Mithradates Eupator VI's greatest weapons against the expansionist policies of the Romans. However, it is observed that these castles were not used on their own but supported by the use of rocky outcrops selected at points dominating the terrain as watchtowers. Although many are called castles by the local people, it is impossible to define these watchtowers as castles as they are mostly located in the settlement area, dominating the terrain, on high rocky areas with no flat areas suitable for settlement. Although there are flattened areas for fortification walls on the towers detected, no intact fortification walls or remains were found. The watchtower in Kaplancik Canyon (Fig. 2.1) differs from the others as it is built into a rocky area with rooms inside. This watchtower, believed to have been built to control the trade route along the Kizilirmak River, is reachable
by steps as in the other examples. However, since these steps were flooded after the completion of the Altinkaya Dam, we lack any data. It is impossible to give a precise measurement of these rock steps, which can also be observed in the watchtowers at Kocakaya (Fig. 1.2), Zindankaya (Fig. 3.2) and Ye§iltepe (Fig. 6.2), as many of them have been destroyed. However, in light of the preserved examples, it is understood that they have a width not exceeding 0.50-1.00 m, allowing a person to climb up and down. These rock steps found during the surveys are one of the most characteristic features of the Hellenistic architecture of the Pontic region, not only in watchtowers but also in structures described as "stepped tunnels". These tunnels, formed by carving a rock elevation with a slope of 25°-45° (de Jerphanion, 1928, p. 24; von Gall, 1967, p. 504; Koroglu-Dani§maz, 2018, p. 107; §enyurt-Bulut, 2020, p. 228; Tekin-Ful-Uyanik, 2022, p. 405;), are generally considered to have been used for different functions such as water supply, military or cult purposes (§enyurt-Bulut, 2020, p. 229) and found in many of the Pontic fortresses. In the provinces of Samsun, Ordu, Amasya, Tokat, Sivas and Yozgat, 39 stepped tunnels were reported to exist in 30 different locations (§enyurt-Bulut 2020, p. 228; Bulut, 2020, p. 47-48).
3
Fig. 8. 1 - Ye§iltepe necropolis area; stone cist graves; 2 - Ye§iltepe necropolis area; stone cist graves; 3 - Ye§iltepe necropolis; temenos wall.
Рис. 8. 1 - территория некрополя Йешилтепе; каменные могилы-цистерны; 2 - территория некрополя Йешилтепе; каменные могилы-цистерны; 3 - некрополь Йешилтепе; стена теменос.
While §enyurt (§enyurt-Bulut, 2020, p. 233, pl. 8), one of the researchers who considered these stepped tunnels to have been used for cult purposes, based their opinion on the niches for the possible placement of statuettes
at the entrance of the stepped tunnel at Kurul Castle, Leonhard (Leonhard, 1915, p. 238-239) stated that some of the tunnels were too large to be used as water reservoirs and that these tunnels may have been built for a representative purpose, associating them with the cult of the mother goddess. The square niche which formerly housed a female figurine in relief in the watchtower in Ye§iltepe Neighbourhood (Fig. 6.1), and the 30 m long tunnel in the same place with a well at the end, now buried under the soil strengthen the opinion that these stepped tunnels, leading nowhere and accepted to have been used as cisterns as in Ordu Kurul and Cingirt Castles, Amasya Har§ena Castle, Giresun Kaledere, §ebinkarahisar Castles and Tokat Castle in the Pontos region, may also have had cultic functions.
Apart from their actual use, rock steps are also known to have been used as a means to reach the gods. These steps, encountered especially in open-air worship areas, are characteristic structures for Phrygian and Urartian castles. However, it is very difficult to distinguish between the steps that actually serve as stairs and those built for cult purposes. Cultic staircases are often blind and end either on a rock wall or a mountain slope (Naumann, 1991, p. 43). Sometimes, as a reflection of epiphanic thought, a statuette of Cybele is placed in a niche or a portable form at the end of these steps (Tufek?i-Sivas, 2002, p. 337; §enyurt-Atakan, 2017, p. 179-199), while at other times they end with a niche believed to hold god and often inscribed (£evik, 2003, p. 234). Examples such as the Cybele figurines in niches built at the entrance of rock tunnels or on the rocky area, as in the Ye§iltepe watchtower, and the Cybele statue found in the Kurul Castle (§enyurt-Durugonul, 2018, p. 305-344) are significant in terms of revealing that the cult of Cybele/Mother Goddess continued intensively in the Pontus Region during the Hellenistic
Fig. 9. 1 - Byzantine Church of Ye§iltepe; 2 - Byzantine Church of Ye§iltepe; lintel stone; 3 - Ye§iltepe hillside settlement; trapetum fragments; 4 - Ye§iltepe hillside settlement; trapetum fragments; 5 - Ye§iltepe hillside settlement; fragment of a baptismal font.
Рис. 9. 1 - византийская церковь Йешилтепе; 2 - византийская церковь Йешилтепе; облицовочный камень; 3и- поселение на склоне горы Йешилтепе; фрагменты трапеции; 4 - поселение на склоне горы Йешилтепе; фрагменты трапеции; 5 - поселение на склоне горы Йешилтепе;
фрагмент купели для крещения.
Period. The large number of terracotta Cybele figurines found during the rescue excavations at ^akalca Karadogan Mound (see §irin-Kolagasioglu, 2016;
Kanca, 2023) in the Atakum District of Samsun, located on the Black Sea coast, reveals that the cult of Cybele dates back to the 6th century BC.
Fig. 10. 1 - Turkmen watchtower and hillside settlement; 2 - Turkmen hillside settlement; cistern; 3 - Turkmen hillside settlement; wall remains; 4 - Turkmen rock tunnel; the area where the tunnel is located; 5 - Turkmen rock tunnel; entranc; 6 - Turkmen rock tunnel; corridor; 7 - Turkmen rock tunnel; space with ventilation hole.
Рис. 10. 1 - туркменская сторожевая башня и поселение на склоне холма; 2 - туркменское поселение на склоне холма; цистерна; 3 - туркменское поселение на склоне холма; остатки стены;
4 - туркменский скальный туннель; район, где расположен туннель; 5 - туркменский скальный туннель; вход; 6 - туркменский скальный туннель; коридор; 7 - туркменский скальный туннель; помещение с вентиляционным отверстием
Another structure encountered in the watchtowers are rock tombs. During the surveys, a rock tomb was encountered on the northern slope of the rocky area in
the Büyük Kaya watchtower (Figs. 4.23). The rock tomb has a semi-circular form, rough craftmanship, an arched entrance and a vaulted ceiling. Since the
grave was severely damaged by illicit diggings, information about the burial chamber is lacking. As there are no finds to date the grave, it is impossible to give a precise date at this stage. Similar rock tombs on the watchtowers are also found in Kufukkale and Ozyoruk castles in the region. At Kufukkale (Temur, 2023, fig. 30, p. 122-127), a rock tomb with an arched entrance and a vaulted ceiling was observed, whereas at Ozyoruk Castle (Temur, 2024, fig. 17-21, p. 7) a rock tomb of the so-called "Paphlagonia" type (see Leonhard, 1907; von Gall, 1966) was found. The origin of this type of rock tombs, which is accepted to be the reflection of the local wooden dwelling architecture on the rock with the interaction of Achaemenid and Greek art (Forbes, 1983, p. 93; Er-Sogut, 1999; Tufekfi-Sivas, 1999; Tamsu, 2004, p. 93; Er-Sogut, 2005, p. 106; Doku, 2008, p. 17; Vassileva, 2012, p. 250; Tekin, 2020, p. 134), can be traced back to the rock monuments of Phrygia (Ramsay, 1882, p. 256-263; Ramsay, 1888, p. 350382; Ramsay, 1889, p. 147-189; von Reber, 1897, p. 531-598; Koerte, 1899, p. 80-153; Haspels, 1971, p. 73; I§ik. 1987, p. 163-178; Tufekfi-Sivas, 1999; Tamsu, 2004, p. 32; Kortanoglu, 2006, p. 29; Kortanoglu, 2007, p. 417-431; Tamsu-Polat, 2010, p. 203-222; Tufekfi-Sivas, 2012, p. 112-159). They appear as a part of the rock tomb tradition of the Hellenistic Period in the Pontus Region and are found in Samsun (Unan, 2010, 45) as well as Ordu (Kumanda§, 2004, p. 36-37), Sinop (Doku, 2008, 44) and Kastamonu (Hirschfeld, 1885, p. 5-8; Doku, 2008, Fig. 43). The fact that these rock tombs encountered on watchtowers and forts are not preferred much despite the suitable terrain of the region supports the opinion that they may have been built for important people with high-income levels. The significant number of simple earth and tile graves identified during the surveys in the settlements further supports this idea.
The settlements built around the watchtowers are mainly village-type settlements built on a slope and close to a water source. The most obvious characteristic of these settlements is the uninterrupted occupation from the Bronze Age until the Middle Ages. The large number of amorphous ceramic finds on the surface is the most significant proof of this. A small number of the remains of architectural structures on the settlements have survived to this day. The architectural texture of the wall remains found in the watchtowers of Kaplancik (Fig. 2.2), Turkmen (Figs. 10.3), Ye§iltepe (Fig. 8.3) and Asarkaya (Fig. 5.3) reveals that semi-worked stone blocks with rubble stone masonry were used in wall construction rather than the Hellenistic Period's cut stone blocks with high-quality craftmanship also observed in Sagylion Castle (Temur, 2023, fig. 1719, p. 123). The most striking feature of these settlements is the tunnel on the rocky area above the Turkmen hillside settlement. It is difficult to determine the exact function of the tunnel, which has a horseshoe-shaped entrance. Along with Samsun, Ordu, Amasya, Tokat, Sivas and Yozgat provinces are known to have numerous recorded stepped tunnels (§enyurt-Bulut, 2020, p. 228; Bulut, 2020, p. 47-48). However, the common feature of these tunnels, believed to have been used for water supply, military or cult purposes, is that they have steps descending downwards. The closest example in the region is the stepped tunnel at Kufukkale (Temur, 2023, fig. 32-39, p. 125-127).
Another example with a rock tomb nearby is the Zindankaya watchtower and settlement. Here, the rock tomb is not located on the rocky area used as a watchtower but on a 15 m high rocky area 500 m southeast of the settlement (Temur, 2024, fig. 29-36, p. 7). With a three-columned entrance in the form of a temple facade and two burial chambers behind it, the rock tomb is an example
of the Paphlagonia-type rock tomb, frequently encountered in the region during the Hellenistic Period. Numerous sherds of Hellenistic, Roman and Late Antique pottery and roof tiles, a tumulus, an open-air sanctuary and chamosorion tombs (for chamosorion tombs in the
region, see Temur, 2024, fig. 37-42, p. 11) found on a 500 m2 area between the watchtower and the rock tomb, currently used as agricultural land, reveal that the settlement was in use for an extended period of time.
REFERENCES
1. Alkim, U. B. 1975. Samsun Bölgesi Çaliçmalari (1973). Türk ArkeolojiDergisi XXII-1, 5-12.
2. Alkim, U. B. 1974. Tilmen Höyük ve Samsun Bölgesi Çali^malari 1971. TürkArkeolojiDergisi 20-2, 5-16.
3. Alkim, U. B. 1974. Samsun Bölgesinde 1973 Çaliçmalari, Belleten XXXVIII-151, 553-556.
4. Alkim, U. B. 1975a. Tilmen Höyük ve Samsun Bölgesi Çali^malari 1972, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 21-2, 23-28.
5. Alkim, U. B. 1975b. Samsun Bölgesi Çali^malari (1973). Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 22-2, 5-12.
6. Alkim, U. B. 1976. Samsun Bölgesi Ara^tirmalari ve ikinci Dönem ikiztepe Kazisi. Belleten XL-160, 717-719.
7. Alkim, U. B. 1978. 1977 Dönemi ikiztepe Kazisi ve Samsun Bölgesi Ara^tirmalari. Belleten XLII-167, 542-547.
8. Amouretti, M.C. 1997. Zeytinyagi Üretimi, Teknolojinin Orijinal Tarihi. Dünya Zeytinyagt Ansiklopedisi, 26-29.
9. Anderson, J. G. C. 1900. Pontica. JHS 20, 159-166.
10. Anderson, J. G. C. 1903. Studia Pontica I: A Journey of Exploration in Pontos. Bruxelles.
11. Arslan, M. 2007. Mithradates VIEupator: Roma'nin BüyükDü^mant. Istanbul.
12. Ba^oglu, M.A. 2009. Antik Çagda Kilikya Bölgesinde Zeytinyagi Üretimi, MA Thesis. Adana.
13. Bekker-Nielsen, T. 2010. New milestones from Neoklaudiopolis. Epigraphica Anatolica 43. 87-91.
14. Bekker-Nielsen, T., Högel, C. 2012. Three Epitaphs from the Vezirköprü Region. Epigraphica Anatolica 45, 153-160.
15. Bekker-Nielsen, T. 2013a. 350 Years Of Research On Neoklaudiopolis (Vezirköprü), Orbis Terrarum 11, 3-31.
16. Bekker-Nielsen, T. 2013b. Neoklaudiopolis'in Ara^tirma Tarihi Üzerine Notlar (Vezirköprü, Samsun ili). Höyük 6, 39-59.
17. Bekker-Nielsen, T. 2013c. Neapolis-Neoklaudiopolis: A Roman City in Northern Anatolia, Yalçin Ü. (ed.). Anatolian Metal VI. Bochum. 203-213.
18. Bekker-Nielsen, T., Czichon, R. M., Högel, C., Kivrak, B., Madsen, J. M., Sauer, V., Sorensen, S. L., Winther-Jacobsen, K. 2015. NeoklaudioplisAntikKenti (Vezirköprü-Samsun) Tarihsel ve Arkeolojik Rehber. translation by Ö. Acar. Istanbul.
19. Bekker-Nielsen, T. 2021. An Ancient Route Through the Tav^an Mountains. OANNES 3/2, 249-266.
20. Belck, W. 1901. Forschungsreise in Kleinasien. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 33, 452-522.
21. Bulut, A. E. 2017. Pontos Bölgesi Basamaklt Tünelleri, MA Thesis. Ankara. 2017.
22. Bulut, A. E. 2020. A General Overview on the Stepped Tunnels in Pontos Region. Mors Immatura, Amanoslartn Gölgesinde Hayriye Aktl Ant Kitabi, Girginer K. S. et al., (eds.). Istanbul. 47-62.
23. Czichon, R. M., Yilmaz, M. A. 2014. Vezirköprü/Oymaa^ Höyük-Nerik (?) Projesi. Anadolu'nun Zirvesinde TürkArkeolojisinin 40 Ytlt. Ankara.
24. Çevik, N. 2003. Anadolu'daki Kaya Mimarligi Örneklerinin Kar§ila§tirilmasi ve Kültürlerarasi Etkileçim Olgusunun Yeniden irdelenmesi. Olba VIII, 213-246.
25. Dalaison, J., Delrieux, F. 2014. La cité de Néapolis-Néoclaudiopolis: histoire et pratiques monétaires. Anatolia Antiqua XXII, 159-198.
26. De Jerphanion, G. 1928. Mélanges D'Archéologie Anatolienne: Monuments Préhelléniques, Gréco-Romains, Byzantins Et Musulmans De Pont, De Cappadoce Et De Galatie, Tome XIII, Fasc. I, Mélanges de L'Université Saint Joseph. Beyrouth.
27. Dengate, J. A. 1978. A Site Survey Along the South Shore of Black Sea. The Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, 23 September 1973, Vol. 1, 245-258.
28. Doganba§, M. 2008. Amasya Merkez Har^ena Kalesi 2008 Yili Kurtarma Kazisi. 17. Müze Kurtarma Kaztlart Sempozyumu, 11-28.
29. Doganba§, M. 2010. Amasya Merkez Har^ena Kalesi Cilanbolu Tüneli 2008 Yili Kazi ve Temizlik Çali^malari. 18. Müze Çaltçmalart ve Kurtarma Kaztlart Sempozyumu, 65-78.
30. Dökü, E. 2008. Paphlagonia Bölgesi KayaMezarlart ve Kaya Taptnaklart, PhD Thesis. Antalya.
31. Dönmez, E. 2014. Amasya-Har^ena Kalesi ve Kizlar Sarayi Kazilari. Amasya, Yar ile Gezdigim Daglar, Özdem F. (ed.). Istanbul. 29-49.
32. Er, Y., Sögüt, B. 2005. Daglik Kilikya'da Olba-Diocaesarea Nekropollerindeki Kaya Mezarlan, TürkArkeoloji ve Etnografya Dergisi 5, 97-110.
33. Erol, A. F. 2013a. Ordu Ili, Fatsa Ilfesi Arkeolojik Yüzey Ara^tirmasi 2011. Aragtirma Sonuqlari Toplantisi 30/2, 183-196.
34. Erol, A. F. 2013b. Archaeological Survey in Fatsa Cingirt Kayasi: New Findings for the Archaeology of the Eastern Black Sea Region, SOMA 2012, BAR International Series 2581 (II), 10691077.
35. Erol, A. F. 2014. Ordu Ili Fatsa Ilfesi Cingirt Kayasi Kazisi 2013. 36. KaziSonuqlari Toplantisi, Cilt 1, Ankara. 383-400.
36. Erol, A. F. 2016. Fatsa Ilfesi Cingirt Kayasi Kazisi 2014. 37. Kazi Sonuqlari Toplantisi, Cilt 2, 559-572.
37. Erol, A. F. 2018. An Archaeological Assessment of the Turkish Eastern Black Sea Region in the Light of Fatsa Surveys and Cingirt Kayasi Excavations. Black Sea Archaeology Studies Recent Developments, Yigitpa^a, D., Öniz, H., Temür, A. (eds.). Istanbul. 102-109.
38. Forbes, T. B. 1983. Urartian Architecture, BARlnternational Series 170, Oxford.
39. French, D. 1988. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor, Fasc. 2: An Interim Catalogue of Milestones Part 1, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Ankara.
40. Hamilton, W. J. 1842. Researches in Asia Minor, Pontos, and Armenia; With some Account of their Antiquities and Geology, Vol. 1. London.
41. Haspels, C. H. E. 1971. The Highlands ofPhrygia. Sites and Monuments. Princeton.
42. Hirschfeld, G. 1885. Paphlagonisehe Felsengräber. Ein Beitrag zur Kunstgeschichte Kleinasiens. Berlin.
43. H0jte, J. M. 2009. The Administrative Organization of the Pontic Kingdom,Mithradates VIand Pontic Kingdom, Hojte, J. M. (ed.). Aarhus University Press, 95-108.
44. Kahl, G., Olshausen, E. 1991. Bericht über die Epigraphische und Numismatische Landesaufname im Samsun Ili 1990, 9. Aragtirma Sonuqlari Toplantisi, 611-616.
45. Kanca, S. 2023. Qakalca Karadogan Höyük Kazisinda Bulunan Terrakotta Figürinler, MA Thesis, Samsun.
46. Kaymakfi, S. 2020. Dogu Pontos Bölgesi Kaleleri ve Basamakli Tünellerine Bir Örnek: Kaledere Kalesi-Yeni Bulgular I^iginda Arkeolojik Bir Degerlendirme. Karadeniz incelemeleri Dergisi 28, 569-586.
47. Kiziltan, Z. 1992. Samsun Bölgesi Yüzey Ara^tirmalari 1971-1977. Belleten LVI/ 215, 213241.
48. Koerte, A. 1898. Kleinasiatische Studien III. Die phrygischen Felsendenkmäler. AM XXIII, 80-153.
49. Kortanoglu, R. E. 2006. Hellenistik ve Roma Dönemlerinde Daglik Phrygia Bölgesi Kaya Mezarlari. PhD Thesis. Istanbul.
50. Kortanoglu, R. E. 2007. Daglik Phrygia'da Aslan Kabartmali Roma Imparatorluk Dönemi Kaya Mezarlari, Belkis Dinqol ve Ali Dinqol'a Armagan. Alparslan M., Dogan-Alpraslan M., Peker H. (eds.). Istanbul. 417-431.
51. Kökten, K. et al. 1945. 1940 ve 1941 Yilinda Türk Tarih Kurumu Adina Yapilan Samsun Bölgesi Kazilari Hakkinda Ilk Kisa Rapor. Belleten IX/35, 361-400.
52. Köroglu, K., Dani^maz, H. 2018. The Origin of Stepped Rock-Cut Tunnels in Eastern Anatolia. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 55, 107-124.
53. Kumanda§ H. 2004. Ordu ili Kaya Mezarlari, MA Thesis. Erzurum.
54. Leonhard, R. 1915. Paphlagonia: Reisen und Forschungen im Nördlichen Kleinasien, Berlin.
55. Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, Vol. II, Princeton.
56. Naumann, R. 1991. Eski Anadolu Mimarligi, translation by B. Madra. Ankara.
57. Ptolemaios, Claudios, Geographika Hyphegegis.
58. Ramsay, W.M. 1882. Some Phrygian Monuments, JHS III, 256-263.
59. Ramsay, W.M. 1888. A Study of Phrygian Art I, JHS IX, 350-382.
60. Ramsay, W.M. 1889. A Study of Phrygian Art II, JHS X, 147-189.
61. Sökmen-Adali, E. 2023. Revisiting the Rock-Cut Tunnels in the Black Sea Region of Turkey. Tios/Tieion on the Southern Black Sea in the Broader Context of Pontic Archaeology. Tsetskhladze G. R., Yildirim §. (eds). Oxford. 159-167.
62. Strabo, Geographika
63. §enyurt, S. Y., Akfay, A. 2016. Kurul Kalesi (Ordu) VI. Mithradates Dönemi Yerle^imi Üzerine Ön Degerlendirmeler. Seleucia VI, 221-248.
64. §enyurt, S. Y., Akfay, A. 2017. The Kurul Fortress (Ordu) and the Cult of Cybele as a City Protector. Colloquium Anatolicum 16, 179-199.
65. §enyurt, S. Y., et al. 2017. Kurul Kalesi 2016 Yili Kazi Qali^malari. 39. Kazi Sonuqlari Toplantisi, Cilt 3, Bursa. 133-146.
66. §enyurt, S. Y., Durugönül, S. 2018. Kurul (Ordu) Kalesi'nde Bir Kybele Heykeli. OLBA XXVI, 305-344.
67. Çenyurt, S. Y., et al. 2019. Kurul Kalesi 2017 Yili Kazi Çali^malari. 40. Kazi Sonuçlari Toplantisi, Cilt 3, Ankara. 691-712.
68. Çenyurt, S. Y., et al. 2020. Kurul Kalesi 2018 Yili Kazi Çaliçmalan, 41. Kazi Sonuçlari Toplantisi, Cilt 4, Ankara. 505-524.
69. Çenyurt, S. Y., Bulut, A. E. 2020. Pontos Bölgesi Basamakli Tünellerinin Köken ve I^levleri Üzerine Bazi Öneriler. Seleucia X, 221-248.
70. Çenyurt, S. Y, et al. 2022. Kurul Kalesi 2019-2020 Yili Kazi Çaliçmalari, 2019-2020 Yili Kazi Çaliçmalari, Cilt 4, Özme A. (ed.). Ankara. 461-474.
71. Çirin, O. A., Kolagasioglu, M. 2016. Çakalca-Karadogan Höyügü, Arkaik Dönemde Amisos ve Kybele Kültü. Samsun.
72. Tamsü, R. 2004. Phryg Kaya Altarlari, MA Thesis. Eskiçehir.
73. Tamsü-Polat, R. 2010. Yeni Buluntular I^iginda Phryg Kaya Altarlari ve bir Tipoloji Önerisi, Anadolu Üniversitesi SosyalBilimlerDergisi 10/1, 203-1222.
74. Tekin, M. 2020. Pontos Bölgesi'nin Iç Kesimindeki Kaya Mezar Gelenegi Üzerine Bir Degerlendirme (Gaziura ve Zela Örnekleri Üzerinden). TÜBA-AR 26, 131-147.
75. Tekin, M., Ful, Ç. D., Uyanik, H. 2022. Kazova'da (Dazimonitis) Yeni Kefedilen Basamakli Tünelli Bir Pontos Kralligi Kalesi: Dereköy Kalesi. Belleten 86/306, 399-426.
76. Temür, A. 2023. Two Pontos Castles from Samsun Vezirköprü: Büyükkale (Sagylion) and K^ükkale. Proceedings in Archaeology and History of Ancient and Medieval Black Sea Region (MAISAP) 15, 121-141.
77. Temür, A. 2024. Necropolis Areas and Grave Types Unearthed in the Surface Surveys Conducted in and Around the Ancient City of Neoklaudiopolis. ARCHAEOLOGIA BULGARICA XXVin,1, 2024, 1-25.
78. Torun, S., Temür, A. 2021. Vezirköprü'de (Neoklaudiopolis) Antik Çag'dan Günümüze Pres Denge ve Soku Taçlari. Anadolu'da Etnoarkeoloji Ara^tirmalari (Prehistorik Dönemlerden Günümüze Kadar), Akka§ 1., Karakoç M. (eds.). Istanbul. 506-525.
79. Tüfekçi-Sivas, T. 1999. Eski^ehir-Afyonkarahisar-Kütahya il Sinirlari içindeki Kaya Anitlari. Eski^ehir.
80. Tüfe^i-Sivas, T. 2002. Ana Tanriça/Matar Kubileya Kültü Ile Baglantili Phryg (Frig) Kaya Altarlari Üzerine Yeni Gözlemler. Anadolu ÜniversitesiEdebiyatFakültesiDergisi 1/3, 335-355.
81. TOfekçi-Sivas, T. 2012. Frig Vadileri ve Kutsal Yazilikaya-Midas Kenti. Frigler. Midas'in Ülkesinde, Anitlarin Gölgesinde. Tüfe^i-Sivas T., Sivas H. (eds). Istanbul. 112-159..
82. Ünan, S. 2010. Samsun ve ÇevresiMezar Tipleri ve Ölü Gömme Adetleri (MÖ. III. Bin-MS. IV. yy), MA Thesis. Kütahya.
83. Ünsal, A. 2011. Ölmez Agacin Pe^inde, Türkiye'de Zeytin ve Zeytinyagi. Istanbul.
84. Vassileva, M. 2012. The Rock-cut monuments of Phrygia, Paphlagonia and Thrace: A Comparative Overview. The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontos and Phrygia in Antiquity Aspects of Archaeology and ancient history, Tsetskhladze G. R. (ed.), BAR International Series 2432, 243-252.
85. Von Gall, H. 1967. Zu den Kleinasiatischen Treppentunneln. Archäologischer Anzeiger 82, 504-527.
86. Von Reber, F. 1897. Die phrygischen Felsendenkmäler: Untersuchungen über Stil und Entstehungszeit, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften XXI/III, 531-598.
87. Waddington, W. H., Babelon, E. 1904. Recueil général des monnaies grecques d'Asie Mineure, et Theodore Reinach. Paris.
About the Author:
Temür Akin, Doctor of Archaeology, Associate Professor. Ondokuz Mayis University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Archaeology, Samsun, 55200, Turkey, [email protected]
СТОРОЖЕВЫЕ БАШНИ ЭЛЛИНИСТИЧЕСКОГО ПЕРИОДА И ПОСЕЛЕНИЯ НА СКЛОНАХ, ОБНАРУЖЕННЫЕ В ХОДЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ В ВЕЗИРКЁПРЮ Акин Темур
Везиркёпрю, один из крупнейших районов Самсуна (Амисос), важного портового города на Черном море, был местом непрерывного заселения с эпохи энеолита до наших дней благодаря плодородным почвам, рекам и расположению на важной дороге. Район, который впервые упоминается как сельское поселение под названием Фаземон у Страбона, обрел статус города в римский период и был назван Неоклаудиополис. Город, который в византийский период назывался Андрапа, дошел до наших дней, получив в турецкий период название Везиркёпрю. Город, переживший за это время множество сражений, был также свидетелем борьбы Понтийского царства и Римской империи. Величайшими свидетелями этого свидетельства, несомненно, являются замки
и сторожевые башни. Самая известная из этих крепостей - замок Сагилион, расположенный в Бююккале в Везиркёпрю, о котором также упоминает Страбон. Расположенная у подножия Кроличьей горы, крепость выглядит как типичный замок Митрадата благодаря своему расположению и строениям, которые она содержит. Хотя крепости, построенные в этом регионе, были одним из величайших оружий, использованных Митрадатом Евпатором VI против экспансионистской политики римлян, понятно, что эти крепости не использовались в одиночку, а поддерживались сторожевыми башнями, выбранными в доминирующих точках местности. Хотя многие крепости были исследованы и некоторые из них были раскопаны в Понтийском регионе, сторожевые башни изучены недостаточно. Цель данного исследования - пролить свет на эллинистический период Везиркёпрю, представив сторожевые башни, выявленные в ходе исследований, и поселения на склонах, построенные вокруг них.
Ключевые слова: археология, Черноморские исследования, Самсун, Везиркёпрю, Понтийское царство, эллинистический период.
Информация об авторе:
Темур Акын, доктор археологии, доцент, факультет гуманитарных и социальных наук, кафедра археологии. Университет Ондокуз Майис (г. Самсун, Турция); [email protected]
Статья принята в номер 01.09.2024 г
