TRADE, STRATEGY AND COMMUNICATION ON THE ROMAN NORTH-EAST FRONTIER

Yıl 2016, , 31 - 46, 01.06.2016

Tønnes Bekker-nıelsen

https://doi.org/10.13113/CEDRUS/201603

Öz

The reorganisation of Pontos that Pompey carried out after defeating Mithradates VI Eupator has traditionally been seen as an example of enlightened Ro­man policy towards the provincials, which included the introduction of civic self-government and the pro­motion of commercial life. These goals Pompey at­tempted to achieve by establishing five urban com­muni­ties along an existing east-west artery known as the “Pontic road”. A closer examination of the textual evidence and the actual remains of the “Pontic Road”, however, indicate that the road had not been a trade route of any significance before the Roman conquest and that the motives behind Pompey’s dispositions were of a strategic, rather than of a commercial nature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Pontos • Roman Policy • Pompey • Routes • Urbanization

ROMA’NIN KUZEY DOĞU SINIRINDA TİCARET, STRATEJİ VE ULAŞIM

Öz

Mithradates VI Eupator’un yenilgiye uğratılması­nın ardından Pompeius tarafından Pontos’un yeniden düzenlenmesi, eyaletlerdeki kent otonomluğuna mü­dahale ve ticari yaşamın tesisi hususundaki Roma Po­li­tikasını aydınlatması bakımından örnek teşkil et­mek­tedir. Pompeius, “Pontos yolu” olarak bilinen ve doğu-batı istikametinde hâlihazırda bulunan anayol üzerine beş kent kurarak söz konusu amaçları hayata geçirmeye çalışmıştır. Daha detaylı bakıldığında yazılı kaynaklar ve “Pontos yolu”nun kalıntıları söz konusu yolun Roma işgalinden önce ticari bir güzergâh olma­dığını ve Pompeius’un düzenlemelerinin de ticari ol­maktan ziyade stratejik olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Pontos • Roma Politikası • Pompeius • Rotalar • Kentleşme

Kaynakça

• App. Mithr. (= Appian, Mithridateios) Appian, The Mithradatic Wars. Trans. H. White. Cambridge, Massachusetts 1912 (The Loeb Classical Library).
• Cass. Dio (= Cassius Dio, Rhomaika) Roman History. Trans. E. H. Cary – H. B. Forster. Cambridge, Massachusetts 1914-1916 (The Loeb Classical Library).
• Plut. Luc. (= Plutarch, Lucullus) Plutarch, Lives, vol. 2. Trans. B. Perrin. Cambridge, Massachusetts 1914 (The Loeb Classical Library). Plut. Pomp. (Plutarch, Pompey) Plutarch, Lives, vol. 5. Trans. B. Perrin. Cambridge, Massachusetts 1917 (The Loeb Classical Library).
• Strab. (= Strabon, Geographika) Strabons Geographika. Übersetzt & Komment. S. Radt. Göttingen 2004- 2011.
• Xen. Anab. (= Xenophon, Anabasis) Xenophon: Anabasis, der Zug der Zehntausend. Heraus. W. Müri – B. Zimmermann. Düsseldorf 2002.
• Arslan 2007 M. Arslan, Roma’nın Büyük Düşmanı: Mithradates VI Eupator. İstanbul 2007.
• Bekker-Nielsen 2013 T. Bekker-Nielsen, “350 Years of Research on Neoklaudiopolis (Vezirköprü)”. Orbis Terrarum XI (2013) 3-31.
• Bekker-Nielsen – Winther-Jacobsen 2013 T. Bekker-Nielsen – K. Winther-Jacobsen, Vezirköprü ve Havza ili Yüzey Araştırma, Ekim 2013: Rapor/Vezirköprü and Havza District Archaeological Survey, October 2013: Report. Odense 2013.
• Bekker-Nielsen – Czichon 2015 T. Bekker-Nielsen – R. Czichon, “Roads and Bridges of the Phazemonitis”. Eds. K. Winther-Jacobsen – L. Summerer, Landscape Dynamics and Settlement Patterns in northern Anatolia during the Roman and Byzantine Period (Geographica Historica 32). Stuttgart (2015) 295-305.
• Broughton 1938 T. R. S. Broughton, “Roman Asia”. Ed. T. Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. IV. Baltimore (1938) 499-919.
• Christ 2004 K. Christ, Pompeius: Der Feldherr Roms. Munich 2004.
• Dan 2013 A. Dan, “ Ἔναν καιρόν κι ἔναν ζαμάν: Remarques sur l’antiquité de l’identité grecque pontique, appuyée sur l’inventaire des noms”. Il Mar Nero VII (2013) 9-66.
• Dreizehnter 1975 A. Dreizehnter, “Pompeius als Städtegründer”. Chiron V (1975) 213-245
• Erciyas 2006 D. B. Erciyas, “Hellenistik Dönem’de Karadeniz: Yerleşimler, Anıtlar ve Sikkeler Işığında Pontos Krallığı/The Black Sea Region in the Hellenistic Period: The Pontic Kingdom, its Settlements, Monuments and Coins”. Eds. D. B. Erciyas – E. Koparal, Karadeniz Araştırmaları Sempozyum Bildileri/Black Sea Studies Symposium Proceedings. İstanbul (2006) 203- 217/219-230.
• Esch 2011 T. Esch, “Zur kommunalen Neuordnung Kleinasiens durch Pompeius: Kilikia Pedias und Pontos: ein Vergleich”. Ed. E. Schwertheim, Studien zum Antiken Kleinasien, vol. VII. Bonn (2011) 35-96.
• French 2013 D. M. French, Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor, vols. III.4: Pontus et Bithynia (with Northern Galatia). Ankara 2013.
• Gelzer 1949 M. Gelzer, Pompeius, Lebensbild eines Römers. Munich 1949.
• Halaçoğlu 1981 Y. Halaçoğlu, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Menzil Teşkilâtı Hakkında Bazı Mülâhazalar”. Osmanlı Araştırmaları/The Journal of Ottoman Studies II (1981) 123-132.
• Halfmann 1986 H. Halfmann, Itinera principum: Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich. Stuttgart 1986.
• Magie 1950 D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, vols. I-II. Princeton 1950.
• Melikoff 1960 I. Melikoff, La geste de Melik Dānişmend: étude critique du Danişmendnāme, vols. I-II. Paris 1960.
• Mitchell 1993 S. Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, vols. I-II. Oxford 1993.
• Mitchell 2002 S. Mitchell, “In Search of the Pontic Community in Antiquity”. Eds. A. K. Bowman et al., Representations of Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean World. Oxford (2002) 35-64.
• Munro 1901 J. A. R. Munro, “Roads in Pontus, Royal and Roman”. Journal of Hellenic Studies 21 (1901) 52-66.
• Olshausen 1980 E. Olshausen, “Pontos und Rom (63 v. Chr. - 64 n. Chr.)”. Eds. H. Temporini – W. Haase, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II. 7. 2. Berlin (1980) 903-912.
• Olshausen 1991 E. Olshausen, “Zum Organisationskonzept des Pompeius in Pontos – ein historisch-geographisches Argument”. Ed. E. Olshausen, Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 2, 1984 und 3, 1987. Bonn (1991) 443-55.
• Olshausen – Biller 1984 E. Olshausen – J. Biller, Historisch-Geographische Aspekte der Geschichte des Pontischen und Armenischen Reiches, 1. Untersuchungen zur historischen Geographie von Pontos unter den Mithradatiden. Wiesbaden 1984.
• Primo 2010 A. Primo, “The Client Kingdom of Pontus between Mithradatism and Philoromanism”. Eds. T. Kaizer – M. Facella, Kingdoms and Principalities in the Roman Near East. Stuttgart (2010) 159-179.
• Rostovtzeff 1941 M. I. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, vols. I-II. Oxford 1941.
• Sökmen 2006 E. Sökmen, “Komana Pontika ve Zela: Pontos Bölgesi’ndeki Tapınak Devletleri/ComanaPontica and Zela: Temple States in Pontus”. Eds. D. B. Erciyas – E. Koparal, Karadeniz Araştırmaları Sempozyum Bildileri/Black Sea Studies Symposium Proceedings. İstanbul (2015) 119-128/129- 137.
• Sørensen 2016 E. Sørensen, Between Kingdom and “Koinon”: Neapolis/Neoklaudiopolis and the Pontic Cities (Geographica Historica 33) Stuttgart 2016.
• Wellesley 1953 K. Wellesley, “The Extent of the Territory Added to Bithynia by Pompey”. RMP 96 (1953) 293-318.
• Wesch-Klein 2001 G. Wesch-Klein, “Bithynia, Pontus et Bithynia, Bithynia et Pontus – ein Provinzname im Wandel der Zeit”, ZPE 136 (2001), 251-256.
• Winfield 1977 D. Winfield, “The Northern Routes across Anatolia”. Anatolian Studies 27 (1977) 151-166