THE PESSINUS GAZETTEER

AN OVERVIEW OF THE PESSINUS EXCAVATIONS BY GHENT UNIVERSITY

1967-73 (P. LAMBRECHTS) & 1986-2008 (J. DEVREKER)

Damjan Krsmanovic

2

CONTENTS 1. Key to the Sectors 3 3. Periodization 4 4. Year by Year Breakdown 5 5. Stratigraphy 8 6. Destruction/Abandonment Levels at Pessinus 10 7. Radiocarbon Dates 11 8. Iron Age Material 12 9. Sector D – a summary of Devreker & Waelkens 1984 14 10. Bibliography 23

3

Key to the Sectors A – East Cemetery (EC) 1. B – EROM-MROM temple area/stairway-theatre/‘bouleuterion’.1 C – North Cemetery (NC) 1, across the road from Sector I. D – EROM-MROM ‘canalization system’ and triumphal arch (north end, D2). E – LAnt buildings and cemetery (Turkish) adjacent to Roman arch. F – LAnt (?) walls running W of school/study centre. G – Roman theatre. H – LHEL colonnaded square/gymnasium. I – NC 1 and Late Antique compound/enclosure. J – so-called ‘Ottoman hill’, between modern cemetery (N side) and Sector I. LHEL/EROM graves (NC 2); LAnt walls; medieval/Turkish graves. K – multi-period housing (LHEL-EBYZ), south side of modern cemetery. L – LIA?-LROM/EBYZ, behind mosque (filled in). M – sounding c. 100m SW of Sector K – LAnt/Turkish (filled in). N – EROM-MROM Roman building/portico/so-called ‘second forum’, vacant lot in village.2 O – LROM/EBYZ walls (5th-6th century CE), S of Sector H (filled in and built over). P – EROM-LROM/EBYZ houses (1st-6th centuries CE), c. 200m east-south-east of temple (filled in). Q – multi-period housing (LHEL?-EBYZ), vacant lot in village. R* – terraced area south of the village on valley slope (LROM/EBYZ housing excavated so far), 350m SSW of temple area. S* – LROM walled enclosure in plateau above dig house (F132).

1 Earlier and later remains also present. 2 Possible LHEL levels. * Melbourne University period excavations 2010-13.

4

Periodization IA (Iron Age): 500/450? BCE – 300/250? BCE. EHEL (Early Hellenistic): 300/250 BCE – 200 BCE. LHEL (Late Hellenistic): 200 BCE – 25 BCE. EROM (Early Roman): 25 BCE – 100 CE. MROM (Middle Roman): 100 CE – 300 CE. LROM (Late Roman): 300 CE – 500 CE. EBYZ (Early Byzantine): 500 CE – 700 CE. This is a basic/incipient scheme for Pessinus that I have devised, not taking into account indirect evidence of other periods at/near the site – such as the Palaeolithic, Neolithic/Chalcolithic, Bronze Age – mainly because they are evinced by few out of context artefacts. Similarly, the beginnings of Turkish (Ottoman) occupation remain obscure, though it is supposed that Ballıhisar was settled in the 18th century.3 Certainly, by the time C. Texier visited in 1834, it seems to have been a fully fledged village, albeit small.4 The only way to be certain, however, is to consult Ottoman census records. Distinguishing certain periods and their chronological demarcation at Pessinus is still difficult, particularly the Iron Age and Hellenistic period, thus, the division put forward here is somewhat arbitrary. The only thing that can be said for certain at present is that Pessinus was settled by the early 4th century BCE (Iron Age village?) and that the 3rd century BCE was perhaps transitional, with the pottery evincing local traditions, Greek imports and mixed tradition variants co-existing.5 Some of the grey ware can be considered as Hellenistic in chronology, though stylistically Iron Age, demonstrating the extent of work necessary to arrive at a precise chronology and cultural periodization. Publication of Hellenistic period pottery from Gordion may further help to clarify the situation. The Attalid letter found in 2003 implies that Pessinus was of some significance by the first half of the 2nd century BCE. The case is similar for distinguishing the junction between LROM-EBYZ, which has not shown itself to be highly pronounced in the archaeological record to this stage. Ghent have used the term Byzantine as a synonym for period subsequent of the adoption of Christianity at Pessinus, but this is not sufficient, as the term ‘Byzantine’ contains a good deal of baggage and is suggestive of materialities not evident at Pessinus. As a result, I have been using the term ‘Late Antique’ (LAnt) for the 4th-7th/8th century as a provisionary term until such time as the two periods may be more clearly defined.

3 Claerhout & Devreker 2008: 58. 4 Called by G. Perrot ‘un hameau misérable’. Ballıhisar probably reached its maximum size during the Lambrechts period of excavation. Today it has some 200-300 inhabitants, and it is only fully inhabited during the summer months. This may have also been the case in the past when the population was smaller in the 19th and first half of the 20th century. According to the Ballıhisar website (http://ballihisar.webnode.com.tr/), the population of the village peaked in the 1980s. 5 Relationships with Tekören and Kepen Höyük may have been of significance during this reconfiguration.

5

Excavations – Year by Year Breakdown Lambrechts Period 1966: Preliminary survey; examination of Sector A – some grave monuments visible above ground. 1967: Soundings (Sector C and elsewhere (probably WC 1, EC 3 and SC 1 too) and surveys initiated to locate the various cemeteries; Sector A (50m x 10m trench); Sector B (southern part of temple uncovered, trench running in a WNW-ESE direction); section of mosaic pavement on the east bank of the river, near sector E. 1968: Sector A – final documentation; Sector B (remainder of temple uncovered).6 Monumental walls ‘near the mosque’ incorporated into modern construction, evidence of reuse of bouleuterion seats, apparently.7 ‘Remains of a “basilica”’ some 50m south of temple.8 1969: Sector B (Hellenistic area to the north (B6 under Devreker classification – Hellenistic walls 77, 78, 134 excavated by Lambrechts),9 north and south Roman temenos walls); Sector D (D2; DL 3-5; DR 3, 4); Sector E (LAnt/Turkish cemetery in layer above D2 west terrace wall; storage magazines with pithoi on east bank adjacent to arch); mystery trench 50m long ‘800m south of acropolis’. 1970: Sector B (monumental staircase begun – top 11 steps excavated); Sector D (D2; DL 3-5, 7, 9, 11; DR 3, 4, 7, 9-13);10 Sector E; Sector F;11 Sector G; Sector H; visit of sites in Mt. Dindymos vicinity (including Hamamtepe? Mention of sites close to Karacaören). 1971: Sector B (stairway-theatre); Sector D (D2; DL 3-5, 7, 11; DR 3, 4, 7, 12-21); Sector H. Expedition 10km south-east of Pessinus – tunnel in mountain side with a stair well leading to Roman cisterns. 1972: Sector B (stairway-theatre); Sector D (limited work);12 Sector H. 1973:13 Sector B (stairway-theatre (focus of season), part of bouleuterion uncovered); Sector H. Interlude 1976: study season in preparation for first monograph.

6 Lambrechts et al. 1971 has a fold-out plan of the temple, including an isometric drawing. 7 Lambrechts 1969c: 85, Pl. 17: ‘we dug a sounding there in the foundations; they contained the remains of buildings dating to the Hellenistic period’. Devreker & Waelkens 1984: 53, Figs. 41-42. Sector L. Seems to affirm Devreker & Vermeulen’s (1996a: 73) comments about parts of the LAnt church comprising walls of modern houses. 8 Devreker & Waelkens 1984: 53. Close to Sector O? Cf. Devreker & Vermeulen 1997b: 128, who noted a ‘gros mur’ and possible LAnt houses in this sector. This area is now built over. 9 Question of whether this area had overlying deposits and what they consisted of. 10 Lambrechts’ 1970 report published in the 1972 Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi (TAD) has a good fold-out plan of the ‘canalization system’, with isometric drawings etc. More detailed drawings and photos in Devreker & Waelkens 1984. 11 Supposedly the remains were photographed by MacPherson, who visited Ballıhisar in 1951. 12 Winter rains fill in all trenches except DL 3 and DL 5 (Lambrechts 1974: 79). 13 Reference to the ‘bouleuterion’: ‘new stairway, discovered in the last days of the 1973 campaign, covers the western extremity of the old “orchestra” [of the monumental stair]’ (Waelkens 1986: 43).

6

1983: cleaning of Sectors B and H; retrieval of spolia and inscriptions from Ballıhisar environs and Ertuğrul; survey of İstiklalbağı quarry. Devreker Period 1986:14 General survey of Ballıhisar environs 2.5km SW of village: Roman/Byzantine site, perhaps for some sort of production – pottery, stone cutting etc. Topographical measurements of Sector I in preparation for excavations. Documentation of inscriptions and door-stones in/around Dinek, Ertuğrul, and Eski Çaykoz. Recording of plundered LROM cist tomb 2km from Ballıhisar on the road to Dinek, cemetery – Philonikos door-stone (now in front of old depot) and Palaeolithic hand-axe recovered from vicinity (Devreker 1988b: 130). 1987: Sector I (trenches 1 & 2). 1988: Sector I (trenches 3 & 4). Visit to Zey village – documenting inscriptions.15 1989: Sector I (trenches 5 & 6). Visit to a site ‘some kilometres’ from Zey: fortification walls, church, pottery scatter.16 1990: Sector I (trenches 7-9); Sector J (sounding, excavated to natural); survey of Tekören and ‘trial trench’ near chamber tomb; geomorphological survey of Ballıhisar environs. 1991: Sector I (trenches 10 & 11, focus on late levels); Sector K; Sector L (Turkish and LAnt levels); survey south of Ballıhisar (Byzantine cistern below ‘south necropolis’); survey of Tekören; geomorphological survey of Ballıhisar environs (yielding prehistoric handmade pottery and later wheelmade west of Sector I). 1992: B1; Sector L (Roman to natural soil); Sector M; restoration of monumental stairway; survey of the Germa/Pessinus road; survey of the İstiklalbağı aqueduct. Survey collecting GIS/GPS data. 1993: B1-4; restoration of the monumental stairway; survey of Ballıhisar environs (3km radius) continuing on from 1986 work, some 40 sites, prehistoric to Turkish, supposed Hellenistic/Roman ‘watchtowers’ south of the village; survey on Dindymos slopes – 2 probable Bronze/Iron sites. Collection of data for GIS – lithology, geomorphology, land use, and vegetation. 1994: B4-6; restoration of monumental stairway; mapping/survey of İstiklalbağı aqueduct; survey of Sadıkbağı aqueduct; survey in valleys NW and NE of Ballıhisar (7 Roman sites, possible villas; 4 Roman cemeteries); Byzantine sites west of Pessinus; cemetery 3.5km west; coring south of Pessinus – Sakarya alluvial plain, vicinity of Ertuğrul. 1995: B6; EC 1 (1 roadside tomb exposed by erosion); Sector N; Sector O (sounding initiated based on electrical resistivity readings); restoration of monumental stairway; survey of Ballıhisar environs (collection of geomorphological and lithological data for petrographic analysis); aqueduct from İstiklalbağı surveyed; sections of Pessinus-Amorion-Germa road surveyed.

14 Devreker (1994: 105) informs the reader in his overview of the work at Pessinus that the permit was late therefore no excavation took place, which seems to have been the original intention. 15 Zey is 17km north of Sivrihisar, known for prominent Iron Age rock-cut monuments and tombs. 16 Devreker 1993: 183.

7

1996: B6-7; Sector P; restoration of the monumental stairway; survey in a valley west of Pessinus: 12 Roman sites, 5 Roman cemeteries, 10 Byzantine sites; survey in the vicinity of Tekören – mapping of Bronze Age and Iron Age sites, geomorphological and topographical plan of Tekören; oblique reference to a Roman villa; Roman and ‘proto-Byzantine’ dwellings. 1997: B6a-b, B7; EC 1 (1 tomb); NC 1 (1 tomb, exposed by erosion); restoration of monumental stairway. 1998: B6, B6a, B7; H1; restoration of monumental stairway; consolidation of walls and floors in B6-7, H1. 1999: B6, B6a, B7; H1-2; Sector N; restoration of monumental stairway; consolidation in B7 and H1-2; GPS mapping of İstiklalbağı aqueduct; magnetometry survey of Ballıhisar environs; commencent of coring between Ballıhisar and Ertuğrul. 2000: B6, B6a, B7-8; NC 1 (1 tomb); H1-2; restoration of monumental stairway; consolidation in H1-2; survey SW of Ballıhisar; coring in Ballıhisar-Ertuğrul zone, including the SW zone surveyed in 1986. 2001: EC 2 (tombs exposed by looting); B2, B5a, B6a, B8; Sector Q; North Cemetery 5 (1 pillaged tomb);17 restoration of monumental stairway; ‘villa’ site at Bağlar (LAnt pithos in situ found); renewed survey at SW zone surveyed in 1986 and sampled for cores in 2000. 2002: B2-4, B6a-c, B7-8; H3; EC 1 (pillaged tomb); Sector Q; restoration of the monumental stairway (conclusion); survey in valley near Ertuğrul. 2003: B4b, B6c-d; Sector Q; survey of a site and cemetery 6km east of Ballıhisar. 2004: B6c-d, B9; restoration of bouleuterion; survey of Hamamtepe. 2005: B6d, B7 north profile examination; restoration of bouleuterion; survey of Hamamtepe. 2006:18 B6, B6a-c; zone between B7-8 and H1-2 (so-called stoa); survey of Hamamtepe. 2007: Sector E; inscriptions recovered from Karacaören and Ertuğrul; survey on Dindymos yielding prehistoric (‘Chalcolithic’) to Byzantine sites. 2008: B3, B6b, B6d, B9; Sector E; H4; survey of Tekören environs (east and north-east).

17 The report first describes a robbed tomb west of Sector A (Devreker et al. 2003b: 141). Yet, the report later contradicts itself, stating this: ‘north of the ancient town, in a second necropolis (Sector R)…’ (p.156). This tomb was detected in the 2010 extensive survey and is situated on NC 5. 18 Excavation limited in this season, mostly enlarging existing trenches slightly to understand stratigraphy.

8

Stratigraphy19 Reference to general character of natural soil at Pessinus: Devreker et al. 2003b: 149. Sector A 86cm-2.25m of deposit from true ground level to level on which tombs sit (Lambrechts 1969a: 126). 4 stratigraphic levels recognized: 1) 35cm-40cm top soil; 2) 40cm-50cm layer of sand and limestone; 3) 35cm-40cm layer of whitish limestone; 4) dense greenish clay (Lambrechts 1969a: 127). Sector B B1: c. 6m (Devreker & Vermeulen 1995b: 115). B4, natural soil a marl layer (Devreker et al. 2005a: 151). B6: 5-6m, natural soil green/grey marl and a sandy/gravel layer that may be river sediment or terracing fill (Devreker et al. 2000a: 109; see also Devreker & Vermeulen 1997a: 500). B6a: over 6m, natural soil a marl layer (Devreker et al. 2002a: Fig.3; Devreker et al. 2003b: 146-47). B8: c.1m (Devreker et al. 2003b: Fig. 9). Temple: built on bedrock – limestone with marly layers (Lambrechts et al. 1971: 172), total depth of sediments from top of original mound to bedrock exceeds some 11m (Lambrechts 1967b: 119-20). Monumental stairway: natural soil grey/white marl (Verhaeghe 1994-95: 22). Northern Roman temenos wall built on marly natural soil (Devreker et al. 2005a: 151). Sector H c. 2m of river sediment in/on which the agora was built (Devreker et al. 2002a: 137), natural soil a mixture of stone and river sediment (sand and pebble mix) (Devreker et al. 2003b: 149); west profile of agora c.2m of cultural deposit, earliest being Late Hellenistic (Devreker et al. 2002a: 137-40). Natural not reached in H3 (Devreker et al. 2004a: 92). Lambrechts claims five phases of habitation (Lambrechts 1973b: 108). Evidence of a series colluvial deposits in Lambrechts’ excavation (Lambrechts 1974: plan 1). Sector I Variable owing to a natural depression sloping in a northerly direction: trench 1, 50cm, natural layer: white limestone bedrock (Devrker et al. 1991: 271); trench 3, up to 3m, natural layer: alternating limestone and marl layers to the south, white limestone to the north (Devreker 1989b: 275); trenches 5-6, 2-2.5m, natural layer: limestone and marly alternating layers (Devreker et al. 1991: 270-71).

19 Sector D document contains breakdown of stratigraphy of that sector.

9

Sector J – c. 1.2m, natural soil pale green marl (Devreker et al. 1992: 350). Sector K – c. 4m, natural not reached (Devreker & Vermeulen 1993: 265). Sector L – c. 6m, natural soil pale grey marl, Late Hellenistic house built on prepared marly colluvium base (Devreker & Vermeulen 1993: 265; 1996a: 67). Sector N – natural not reached (Devreker et al. 2001a: 65). Sector P – c. 2.5m, not fully excavated (Devreker & Vermeulen 1998: 253). Sector Q – Hellenistic layers reached in the west at c. 3.5m, Byzantine in the east at 1.15m, natural not reached (Devreker et al. 2005a: 152-57, Fig.12).

10

Destruction/Abandonment Levels at Pessinus

Due to the overall paucity of pan-site destruction episodes at Pessinus, it is most likely the result of isolated clearing episodes in the event of rebuilding. Nothing seems to be associated with the mid-3rd century invasions of the Goths, 7th-8th century incursions of the Arabs,20 or 11th century activity involving the Seljuk takeover of central Anatolia, contrary to views constantly opined in Ghent publications. Sector B Temple zone: artificial hill c. 7m above neighbouring ground level of gradual accumulation of sediments (Lambrechts 1967b: 119; 1969c: 84). There is no discussion of any overlying deposits, which leads to the assumption that once the temple was dismantled, there was no subsequent building activity on its site inside of the Roman temenos walls that originally encircled the temple. Historically, we would expect it to go out of use in the later 4th century as a pagan temple,21 though there seems to be no evidence of it having been converted into a church. In theory, it may have functioned as such until the presumed church of Sector L was built in the 6th century but no archaeological evidence suggests such a sequence of events. After abandonment, the temple zone was left open and used as ‘a stone quarry and a dump’ (Devreker & Vermeulen 1995a: 79). B1: occupation ending 7th-8th century (Devreker & Vermeulen 1997a: 77). Mention of destruction layers but no detailed explanation (Devreker & Vermeulen 1995a: 76). Sector D ‘Destruction layer’ visible in stratigraphy (Devreker & Waelkens 1984: 25). This possibly refers to a lens of charcoal separating two colluvial layers behind the quay wall in DR 13 (Devreker & Waelkens 1984: 134), though it is not labelled as a destruction layer in the discussion. No geomorphological study has been conducted on the river bed, which would help explain the nature/frequence of colluvial vs. alluvial episodes. Sector H 20-30cm thick destruction level (having resulted from a large fire) above the earlier Roman levels (Lambrechts 1973b: 108; 1974: 81).22 This later was re-examined under Devreker (Devreker et al. 2000a: 107-08), and dated to the late 4th-early 5th century based on coins and pottery (Devreker et al. 2001a: 64). Burnt layer visible in north profile of H3 (Devreker et al. 2004a: 92). The stratigraphy in this area is quite mixed up and can no longer be evaluated on sight.

20 There is little evidence of post-8th century anything at Pessinus. Evidently mostly abandoned by this point. 21 Historical texts suggest an attempt to revive the Kybele cult in the 360s, which had seemingly waned (Belke & Restle 1984; Strubbe 2005a: 254). Perhaps there was some politically expedient reason for its projected reinstatement by Julian. By the early 5th century, Pessinus is a bishopric (Strubbe 2005a: 255), so it may be assumed that official instatement of Christianity takes place in the period of 350-400. However, the 12th/13th century Greek inscription published in the 2010 issue of Epigraphica Anatolia suggests continued activity at the site, though perhaps it was mainly ecclesiastic. 22 Lambrechts associated this with Gothic invasions in the 3rd century but his conclusions were premature due to the limits of his excavations. It is all the more astonishing that this view continues to appear in print into the 1990s (Vermeulen et al. 1994: 425; Vermeulen et al. 1998: 787), by which time a number of other sectors with decent stratigraphy were excavated (B1, L, K), in which there is no such parallel evidence.

11

Sector K Destruction/demolition of a building dated to the 1st century (Devreker 1994: 109). Destruction/demolition of Roman building (A) in late 3rd-early 4th century (Devreker & Vermeulen 1993: 267; Devreker 1994: 110). Abandonment in later 4th century following destruction by fire of Building C (burnt walls, thick ash layer), and re-establishment of habitation in 6th century (Devreker & Vermeulen 1993: 268; Devreker 1994: 110). Abandonment of building B also in 4th century (Devreker 1994: 110). Period of abandonment in 4th-5th century of this area, period of renewed construction (Building D) (Devreker 1994: 110). Final abandonment 7th-8th century (Devreker & Vermeulen 1993: 269). Sector L Destruction layer sitting on top of EBYZ levels – 7th-8th century (Devreker & Vermeulen 1993: 269). Sector P Relatively minimal post-occupation activity resulting in minimal disturbance of the latest walls – latest level 6th century (Devreker & Vermeulen 1998: 253).

Radiocarbon Dates Very few radiocarbon dates have been sampled and published. As may be seen below, most are inconsistent and largely unreliable. Sector B ‘Area north of Roman sanctuary’ dated to 365, 275, 264 BCE. ‘Bottom layer of a pit and oven’: 199 BCE (Devreker et al. 1995: 136, note 30). B2: pit/oven 25 dated to 389 BCE (Devreker & Vermeulen 1996b: 85). B6a: ca. 1500 BCE (Devreker et al. 2003b: 146).23 Dates of the temple zone from the Lambrechts era (drawn from charcoal and carbonized grains) fluctuate a good deal, the earliest two being early 4th century BCE and the latest ranging from the 3rd to the 11th century CE (Devreker & Waelkens 1984: 168). Sector L 381BCE in ‘oldest traces of occupation’, no exact description of context and material drawn for dating (Devreker et al. 1995: 135, note 27).24

23 Could be erroneous/contaminated? How many samples were tested? 24 Seems to agree with dates from B2 and also the pottery evidence – e.g. LIA grey and other wares from Pit 91.

12

Iron Age Material Lambrechts 1968 Season – Lambrechts 1969c: 85. Iron Age grey ware and bronze fibula found on the in two refuse wells/pits some 4.5m deep, ‘côté sud du temple, à une distance très proche du mur qui l’entoure’. Lambrechts gives the find context on the plan of the 1968 season report. He dates the finds to the 5th century BCE.25 Devreker 1990 Season – Devreker et al. 1992: 351-52; Devreker & Vermeulen 1991: 112. Tekören survey (examination of monuments) and test trench (yielding nothing). Handmade Iron Age pottery and grey wares in field adjacent to monuments (Area I). Possible Iron Age pottery on the other side of the gully 1km downstream (red and grey wares) – artefact scatter up to 700m from gully (Area II).26 1991 Season – Devreker & Vermeulen 1993: 271. Survey of Area I at Tekören: 10ha settlement between monuments and river gully; remains of a road; remains of clay kilns; large amounts of pottery (date unspecified); ‘fragments of stone building materials’. 1992 Season – Devreker & Vermeulen 1996a: 70, 73. ‘Polished Late Phrygian pottery’ in pits dug into natural soil in Sector L; Iron Age/Hellenistic pottery in the bottom layers of B1. Ambiguous reference to ‘Hellenistic pottery…in a Phrygian tradition’ (Devreker & Vermeulen 1997a: 73). 1993 Season – Devreker & Vermeulen 1995a: 76, 78, 80; Devreker & Vermeulen 1995b: 115, 117-18, 119. Late Iron coarse and polished pottery in bottom-most layers of B1; traces of occupation (hearth and pebble paving) and ceramics in pits associated with the floor level (coarse, fine polished, fine animal style) in B2; Phrygian grey and polished wares in B3. Possible Iron Age site on Dindymos – presumed Iron Age pithoi. NB. The LBA pot verified by Genz comes from B2 (markings visible on sherds in guide book photo). No mention of this vessel in reports. 1994 Season – Devreker & Vermeulen 1996b: 85. Date of 389 BCE for hearth in B2; possible 6th century BCE Lydian imports; red painted and black polished Iron Age wares in B5a – found in Iron Age refuse pit. 1995 Season – Devreker & Vermeulen 1997a: 501; 1997: 127.

25 Cf. Radiocarbon date of early 4th century BCE for charcoal in B2 (Devreker & Vermeulen 1996b: 85). 26 Location of Area II erroneously reported as 1.2km SE of monuments. Probably SW downstream.

13

Phrygian grey and polished red ware found in spots of B6 (very oblique description). 1996 Season – Devreker & Vermeulen 1998: 253, fig.3. Iron Age grey wares found in a level beneath B6. It is not specified whether these finds were associated with walls 116, 239 and 240 (called ‘Phrygian’ in later reports) found underneath the LHEL level. Work at Tekören – mapping of site: monuments etc. 1997 Season – Devreker et al. 1999: 105, 108. Walls 116 and 239, and the ceramic evidence points to a LIA/EHEL phase. 1998 Season – Devreker et al. 2000a: 109, 111-12. Pre-Hellenistic wall foundations (271, 288) resting on natural marl. Different wall orientation to Hellenistic and Roman structures: NE-SW direction. Also a deposit of coarse sand and pebbles, uncertain whether it is natural or artificial. Possible that some terracing took place in the event of these buildings being constructed. Intense occupation layer, judging from the quantity of sherds recovered. IA grey pottery, not made on a wheel, found in foundation trenches of Walls 271 and 288. Similar pottery found in B2 in 1994, dated to the IA period. 2000 Season – Devreker et al. 2002a: 135. Wall 330 in B6a excavated, probably Iron Age and seemingly aligned with 271. 2001 Season – Devreker et al. 2003b: 147-46, 153. Bottom-most level of B6a radiocarbon dated to ca. 1500 BCE, courtesy of charcoal remains found in a pit dug into the marl, and later sealed. Foundations of Wall 209 run deep, to natural soil, it is stated. No mention of any pottery found in these levels. Patches of natural soil reached in this area though could not be investigated fully due to practical reasons. Iron Age pottery in Sector Q, found at a ‘great depth’. 2003 Season – Devreker et al. 2005a: 150. Fragments of a Iron Age plate imitating Hellenistic wares in B4, proximity to Wall 25. 2008 Season Iron Age pottery found in B6d/H4, but area filled in (Anderson, pers. comm.). Comments Grey pottery at Pessinus is somewhat problematic as much of it is Hellenistic in date and shape/ware is also not a firm indicator of chronology. This, however, supposes interesting cultural and social dynamics surrounding pottery production and the force of Hellenic ideas in central Anatolia.

14

Sector D – a summary of Devreker & Waelkens 1984 SUMMARY OF EXCAVATED FEATURES D2 – Roman Arch Stratigraphy of D2 partially complicated by continual erosion and pits sunk in late antiquity for retrieval of stone. Eastern foundation pile27 and culée28 robbed for stone at some point in antiquity – pits and a stair sunk into the colluvium on the north side of the culée. Interestingly, there do not appear to be northern piles opposite those excavated supporting the northern part of the arch; Waelkens does not discuss the possibilities as to why this is the case. Original quay walls prior to the construction of the arch were situated against the outer sides of the later piles (Devreker & Waelkens 1984: Fig. 97), the remains of which were visible in the excavation. In the event of increasing sedimentation, according to Waelkens, these walls were dismantled and reconstructed at a higher elevation. On the west side, the wall was constructed against the new culée; when these were covered by sediments, another wall of uncertain date (probably late) was constructed on the south side of the culée (Devreker & Waelkens 1984: Fig. 98). The east pile was constructed on a rubble base that also made up the foundation of the original quay wall (DR 3 and 4), which was partially demolished to make way for the construction of the arch. The situation on the east side is analogous to the west, where there is more substantial evidence of the original quay well manifested in the presence of a euthynteria.29 The original west quay wall also bears signs of some kind of superstructure, the remains of which are comprised of traces of mortar (opus caementicium) sitting on a layer of rubble. Stratigraphy between original and later quay walls undisturbed, denoting that the original quay wall supported the west bank. The later wall was constructed (subsequent of the arch), utilizing marble blocks from the original quay wall.30 Quay walls only conserved on west bank of river. Each culée would have been visible above ground level for 2-3 courses of stone. First east quay wall demolished perhaps at the same time as the first west wall, making way for construction of the arch. New wall was constructed presumably in the same style as the original wall. A portion of the DR 3 wall (early imperial) was demolished and reconstructed sometime before the arch was built, in the same style as the west quay wall in D2. Some 80 marble blocks comprising the superstructure of the arch found on the north side of the foundations (piles, culées). Arch dated to the first quarter of the 3rd century on the basis of style of architectural motifs. The arch would have been a monumental, two storey affair resembling extant Flavian and Antonine examples – with the central portal opening onto the river bed/street and the two smaller portals above the quay walls. These smaller archways would have provided passage above the quay walls, perhaps accessible via a staircase from the central passage-way. Fragments of cornice (Devreker & Waelkens 1984: Fig. 143-44) discovered south of Ballıhisar purportedly belong to another hypothetical arch downstream (Devreker & Waelkens 1984: 96). The cornice Fig. 143 currently sits in the dig-house garden, while that in Fig. 144 was encountered on 12.7.09 in the southern expanse outside the village.

27 Foundation/plinth in river bed supporting central part of the arch. 28 Monumental construction supporting the outer structure of the arch and the secondary portals on the east and west banks. 29 Section of foundations proper visible above ground level. 30 Also the case for the north part of le quai Byzantin.

15

Three broad construction phases can be summarized for D2 – phase 1: construction of the first western quay wall and original east quay wall in the 1st century; phase 2: dismantling of 1st century quay walls, reconstruction and augmentation of west culée in the wake of increasing sedimentation and construction of arch; phase 3: addition of a new quay wall to adjacent to the south part of the existing west culée still later – reuse of blocks from 1st century west quay wall. DL 3 - Le Quai Byzantin Excavated over a 31.6m length along the west bank, some 13.75m south of the late quay wall built against the 3rd century culée. Aligned with early Roman constructions in DL 4 and 5. A late cemetery on top of the wall at its northern end – 12 cist graves excavated (single and multiple burials); part of the wall in this section dismantled down to the socle to make way for the graves,31 some of which sit on top of the wall; in some cases blocks from the wall were used for construction of the graves themselves. Paucity of grave goods has made dating of the graves impossible. No apparent use of clamps to hold the masonry together, though there is a layer of mortar between the socle and the blocks resting on it. The small dimension blocks used in the foundation layer of the wall were also bound with some mortar. The construction of le quai Byzantin and the late wall abutting the west culée in D2 are more or less the same, suggesting contemporaneity. At the southern end, the wall bears more spolia and its construction is far more irregular, while the northern end resembles more the D2 late quay wall, which was constructed from spoila comprising the original 1st century wall; the northern portion of le quai Byzantin seems to follow this, having been constructed in the wake of a probable destruction of the 1st century wall. Similarly, the northern part was constructed behind where the original quay wall was.32 Part of the original west bank had remained, as foundations of the wall were sunk into it. 1st century material found in top clay/marl layer behind the wall – coins and pottery. Lowest alluvial layer: 4th-5th century coins; colluvial base: 6th-7th century coins; foundation trench: pottery from 2nd, 4th and 6th-7th centuries. The construction of the quay is likely to be in the 6th-7th century. DR 3-4, DL 4-5 – Les Quais Little remains of the eastern wall close to the arch (northern part of DR 3), as it was dismantled in the wake of the latter’s construction; some of the foundation elements were used in the east pile. It is clear that, excavations of DR 3-4 having taken place close to the middle of the current river bed, the river bed has shifted in an easterly direction since antiquity. The wall construction on either bank seems to be replaced somewhere between DL 5 and DL 7-DR 7 by les escaliers simples. DL 5 constructed subsequent of terracing of the natural slope that went down to the river, and some undisturbed layers were cut into making way for the foundations. The undisturbed character of these layers adjacent to DL 5 suggests that the actual

31 These graves are probably quite late, and it seems to suggest that the ‘canalization system’ had completely silted up and that the town had shrunk at this point. Perhaps compare with data from Sector J. 32 Possibility of two or more phases of construction of le quai Byzantin? E.g. northern part a good deal earlier – following the manner of the later wall in D2: dismantled 1st century wall re-erected further west, while the wall with more irregular placement of blocks and increased frequency of spolia was still later? Thus making construction activities.

16

river bed had not reached this point at the time of construction, but evidently did so not long afterwards, judging from the stratigraphy. The DL 5 wall, not being completely reinforced, was pushed inwards somewhat by the natural terrace. Foundations of DR 3 eroded by action of water; part of northern end of DR 3 replaced by better worked stone blocks, perhaps contemporary with the construction of the arch. Foundations in this part of the sector D are comprised of five courses of dendritic limestone blocks capped by a leveling layer of pebbles and rubble and a course of marble blocks. Use of mortar for foundations and clamps (not consistent) joining upper courses of DL 4-5/DR 3-4. Complete height of wall, 2-4 courses, preserved only in DL 4-5, with a possible fifth course. The dove-tail clamps used for linking the upper course marble blocks were either made of wood or lead. Dated to the mid-1st century on the basis of ‘well-stratified’ pottery – lamps, Eastern Sigillata, type of clamps used in construction. Some Late Hellenistic pottery (e.g. megarian bowls, Pergamese ware) in lowest layers (sandy limestone layer into which foundation trench was cut) dating to the 2nd-1st century BCE. DL 7, DR 7 – Les Escaliers Simples33 In this part of sector D, steps were constructed to facilitate crossing of the river bed. However, the steps on running along the east bank would have faced the west quay wall in the northern-most section. During dry times, the river bed would have functioned as a street, some 12m wide. This width would have shrunk when the arch was built in the 2nd century, and become wider when the Byzantine quays were built, modifying the action of the river. Stairs can be divided into roughly three types. The first (DL 7, DR 7) consists of stairs not supporting any kind of construction, running for 37m on the west bank and 87-161m on the east. Steps on west bank somewhat higher situated than on the east, following the natural slope of the land. When the steps were constructed, it is likely that the water did not reach this part of town at that stage. Foundations of DR 7-9 resting on a layer of sand, gravel, and pebbles deposited by the river. Foundations of DL 7 consist of a limestone rubble fill bound by mortar, on a base of alluvial sand and lime. There would have originally been six steps comprising les escaliers simples; reduced to two to three further south. The number of steps preserved on the west bank is five and on the east four. Construction of les escaliers simples constitutes a coarse stone base, set into the gravel/pebble and sandy alluvial layers. This was topped by with a mortared rubble core onto which the marble steps of the escalier proper were composited. The foundations facing the river bed were capped and/or faced with marble blocks (assise de réglage), which were held together by clamps. DR 5-6 represents a transitional zone: DR 6 bears a double course of marble blocks, which replace the arrangement of le quai Byzantin further north, while in DR 5, a layer of rubble, perhaps originally constituting the foundation of the steps that have been excavated to the south. Counstruction of les escaliers simples put to 1st-3rd century, on the basis of construction

33 So, when les escaliers simples were constructed (presumably later than the northern walls and southern colonnaded areas), was it part of some kind of change in urban planning in areas of Pessinus corresponding with this construction event?

17

(use of mortared rubble and type of clamps), but due to a lack of other evidence, such as pottery, a more precise date could not be ascertained. DL 8-11, DR 8-12 – Les Escaliers à Piédestaux Engagés Essentially, a continuation of les escaliers simples but with the addition of column pedestals to support a colonnade. Construction appears to follow the same pattern as les escaliers simples, though the foundations could not be examined. Modifications were undertaken at the northern end of the sector in later antiquity to control the river (ouvrage hydraulique). DR 8 appears to only have some foundations conserved of the fourth course of the steps. The elevation of the west bank is higher than the east bank in this part of Sector D, resulting in a sloping river bed (in an easterly direction) and a difference in height of the respective constructions. The construction bordering DL 9/DR 9 (northern end) was elevated in presumably late antiquity in concurrence with the construction of the ouvrage hydraulique. The stratigraphy in DR 8 has identified a pavement associated with later modifications below the bottom colluvial layer. Inconclusive stratigraphy of DL 8 and DR 10-12 – alternating alluvial layers, covering the upper steps. Though foundations of DR 10-12 could not be examined, it is likely that construction mirrors other sections, i.e. les escaliers simples. For DR 8-9 and DL 9-10, construction comprises of a bed of limestone rubble on which rest marble blocks of the euthynteria. The remainder of the structures was built up of a mortared rubble core capped by the marble steps and pedestals of the columns. Given that DL 10 stratigraphy parallels DR 7, contemporaneous construction of les escaliers simples and les escaliers à piédestaux engagés is likely. Slight elevation of construction in DL 10 judging by the disturbance of the colluvial layers. There is evidence of late (?) antique modification of DR 11-12 – the upper steps were partially demolished and a double layered wall was constructed on top. The function of colonnade may have been an aesthetic one – augmenting impression of height. 1st-2nd century date. DL 9, DR 9 – l’Ouvrage Hydraulique Constructed to control flow of water in late Imperial times – modification of steps to quay walls and paving of river bed. This is the only area in sector D in which the river bed was subject to any artificial reinforcement, in this case, paving, though it is not certain whether the paving encompasses the whole width of the river bed, since it was not completely excavated. Marble pavement laid on a bed of rubble; one paving stone appears to have been reused from a funerary monument, bearing libation cupules (Devreker & Waelkens 1984: Fig. 202). The pavement is accessible via marble steps coming from either bank. The banks of the river are reinforced by quay walls of three to four courses of marble blocks. It is possible that there was a fifth course – evidence of barely dressed limestone blocks bound by mortar from both walls and a column base on DR 9. It is possible that a part of the colonnade in this zone was destroyed or sedimented prior to the construction of the ouvrage hyrdraulique, which thus replaced a part of the original colonnade. DL 11 – La construction isolée à piédestaux engagés au sud Stepped area with a pedestal for column. Sedimentation led to the construction of second wall from limestone and spolia on top of the steps, possibly from the structure that originally stood there. Due to the technical problem of depth of archaeological features and small size of trench,

18

no excavation took place below the top step. Possibility of the colonnaded area to the west having been paved. Fragments of structure that originally stood in the area include two column drums, an architrave, and cornice. The architrave fragment resembles other fragments reused in Byzantine buildings of sector H; dates probably to the late 1st century. The cornice probably topped the architrave, based on dimensions; the later wall above the colonnade shows reuse of more fragments of the cornice; another piece in DL 8, seemingly reused in a later structure built near the colonnade in that part of sector D. Whole structure dated to the Augustan/Tiberian period. DR 13-17 – Le quai à colonnes34 Excavated mostly to the upper two stone courses of the quay; inability to excavate deep due to the level of the ground water. The fill behind the DR 13 quay is artificial, which was paved over subsequent of an inundation phase. The top-most colluvial layer was disturbed by reconstruction of the quay, that is, a raising level. Prior to construction of the quay, the deposit in the location was some 30cm thick, covering alternating layers of alluvium and colluvium, showing that the eventually river bed veered eastwards. The lower steps of the stair were most likely below ground level, which is supported by the presence of terracotta piping laid in front of the wall on the river bed. Fragments of pottery in from the fill behind the quay wall date the overall construction to the 1st century; a cornice fragment also confirms this. Difficult to tell whether the colonnade constituted a portico or basilica. At some point, the pavement running behind the colonnade was removed, and the inundation left behind a layer of alluvial sand. DR 18-21 – Le quai simple au sud Further south, the construction seems to take a westward turn, that it is almost parallel with the orientation of the temple/agora. Excavation limited as most of this part of Sector D falls within private property. Excavation of DR 22 suggests that the westward turn of the riverbed was the original situation at the time of construction, and the quay was built to reinforce the existing morphology of the east bank. Foundations in DR 18 are comprised of three to four courses of limestone blocks bound by mortar, though there is some difference between the arrangement under the pavement and under the quay wall. Construction of additional foundations in DR 18 to accommodate terracotta piping, which is of a later date, when the original pavement of a presumed street behind the quay wall and stair would have been sedimented. Of the quay wall itself in DR 18, only a single course of marble blocks remains. Features in DR 18-21 are difficult to date due to a lack of pottery sherds or decorated architectural fragments. The level of the pavement in DR 18-22 was some dozen centimetres from the river bed. Similarity of construction to features further north argues for contemporaneity (1st century) with them. Conclusions Sector D is a construction unique in the Roman world, according to Ghent.35 Its primary aim was to contain the intermittent flow of water through Pessinus and redirect the originally more

34 DR 13 is mostly discussed here as it was most thoroughly excavated. 35 Cf. Amastris on the Black Sea – Pliny the Younger to Trajan, who commissioned him to have such a street paved over in the event of it becoming a sewer.

19

meandering course of the river. During the dry season, it would have functioned as the main street of Pessinus. Monumental construction includes a possible portico or basilica in DL 11 under Augustus (probably the first construction in Sector D),36 complemented somewhat later by a corresponding structure on the opposide bank (DR 13-17). By the mid 1st century, quay walls were constructed at the northern end of Pessinus to prevent erosion of the banks. In the 2nd century, les escaliers à pièdestaux engagés was constructed. Later in the 2nd century, les escaliers simples were constructed, complementing the steps with column pedestals zone. Quay walls constructed in the 1st century were prolongued towards the north in the 3rd century, ending at a monumental arch constructed in the same period. These quay walls were completely reconstructed in the 6th-7th century, resulting in le quai Byzantin. Dismantling of structures and raising of the overall level due to sedimentation to the south (e.g. DL 11) cannot be dated. STRATİGRAPHY37 3-5m of fluvial sediment covering Roman structures across the sector (Lambrechts 1974: 79). D2 (arch): Arch constructed on an alluvial base containing pebbles and a bed of rosy coloured limestone. Disturbed stratigraphy of the arch zone due to erosion and late antique pits. Alternating layers of alluvium and colluvium visible in the stratigraphy of banks (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 78). Stratigraphy between original and newer quay walls undisturbed – layers of colluvium, alluvium, and gravel (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: Fig. 134). DL 3 (le quai Byzantin): (top-down) recent disturbed colluvial layers (thickness ?) > alluvial layer (thickness ?) > clay/marl layer filled with charcoal and marble chips/tiles (50-60cm) > alluvial layer (10-25cm) > clay/marl layer filled with charcoal and marble chips/tiles (40-60cm) > alluvial layer (50-70cm) > colluvial base into which trench for quay wall was dug (25cm) (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 97, Figs. 152, 153). DR 3: disturbed stratigraphy from top to foundations of wall due to action of the river in antiquity, resulting in the wall being ultimately engulfed in sand; absence of colluvial deposits (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 104, Fig. 153).38 DL 5: sand and limestone layers into which wall foundations were cut – no river action prior to wall construction – covered by a lime sand with charcoal and marble inclusions; following this was a layer of clayey sand that seemed to form subsequent of construction not long before the action of the river reached this area (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 104, Fig. 152).

36 Could there be a connection between this and the somewhat later monumental building in L, which was ultimately augmented into a Byzantine church. 37 One thing that puzzles me about the stratigraphy as presented in Devreker & Waelkens is that it gives the impression of a series of a few substantial alluvial episodes with alternating colluvial ones, as though there was less than a handful of inundation episodes in the first millennium CE and that was all. There is also the problem of colluviation with respect to the city on either side of the river bed – how would that have been affected by the presence of a large town, as opposed to a small, pre-Roman settlement. Are there in actual fact more sub-phases to all these various colluvial and alluvial episodes which were undetected by Lambrechts? Based on our excavation of the architrave opposite DL 8 in 2009, stratigraphy appears difficult to discern – uppermost layer is very stony, though further down, whereupon the architrave rested, gravel is finer and more sand/clayey elements. Yet, this could simply be resulting from the disturbance by the old excavations. 38 Interesting, as this does not seem to be the case for le quai Byzantin, where the stratigraphy has not been impacted in such a fashion. Perhaps it is indicative of the direction in which the torrent veered, i.e. more forceful on the east bank, which accounts for the gradual movement of the river bed in an eastern direction since antiquity.

20

DR 5 (north & south profiles): gravel and pebble layer on which foundations of wall was constructed, followed by a thin clay/marl layer and a thicker clayey sand layer, indicating displacement of river course; next – layers of alluvial sand, gravel and pebbles denoting ultimate course of river, maintained to this day (Devreker & Waelkens 1984: 112, Figs. 168-69). DR 7 (south profile): foundations of steps set into thick layer (50-80cm) of alluvium (sand and gravel), which covers an older colluvial deposit (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 112, Fig. 170); (north profile), artificial composition of colluvial sediments against foundations. Area behind the steps was filled with a mix of alluvial sand and gravel, possibly the remains of an older layer that was disturbed during construction and used as fill upon completion. (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 112, Fig. 171). DR 8: (top-down) thick layer of clayey colluvium (1.35-1.5m thick) > alluvial sand and gravel layer (30-35cm) > colluvial layer with charcoal and tile fragments (20-40cm) > stony alluvium (30-45cm) > clayey colluvium (c.10-20cm) (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 118, Fig. 184). DL 8, DR 10-12: inconclusive stratigraphy – alternating layers of undisturbed alluvium (sand and gravel) covering the steps (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 112). DL 9: pavement was intially covered by a 10cm colluvial layer > thick alluvial deposits > 1m of colluvium (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 118, 125). DL 10: alternating deposits of colluvium and alluvium demonstrating changes in the west bank. Just above the foundations, a layer of grey earth containing charcoal and bones (8-10cm) perhaps denoting a floor level. Stratigaphy parallels southern part of DR 7, arguing for contemporary construction of the edifices. (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 118, Fig. 12). DR 12: stratigraphy behind the wall comprised of grey clayey layer that appears to be artificial fill (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 118). DR 13: stratigraphy behind the quay wall comprised of a 1.5m grey clayey marl base containing sand, clay, fragments of tiles, pottery sherds, limestone rubble, fragments of buildings (thus, an artificial fill) topped by a 2cm layer of alluvial sand, incidating some inundation prior to the pavement being laid. The pavement was topped by a two colluvial layers separated by a charcoal lens. Top layer is alluvium (55-80cm) which finally buried the features. The stratigraphy of the river bed itself (top-down) is comprised of a 30cm deposit > 1.2m of alluvial and colluvial layers > clay layer (70cm) full of tiles and limestone > 10cm alluvial layer > grey matter that could not be fully excavated due to water table, though it is likely that the layer is artificial fill for the quay foundations. The small size of the overall trench prevented examination of the original bank surface, thus making it impossible to tell whether the grey clayey marl base originally fill for the trench or a raising level (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 134, Fig. 214). DR 18: foundations of the quay laid on alluvial layers (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 138) DR 19-20: constructed on a colluvial base (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 140). DR 21: mud layers covered by alluvial deposits (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 138-39). DR 22: foundations sunk into 4.5m of undisturbed colluvium (Devreker & Waelkens 1984a: 139).

21

Some Observations

The appellation of ‘canalization system’ is misguided in view of the fact that no part of the town directly adjacent to Sector D has been extensively excavated. Thus, he relationship between the variation in the constructions through Sector D and any adjacent structures is impossible to gauge. This is arguably an important point for consideration of future investigations and our ability to interpret Sector D in the context of the various urban sectors of Pessinus. In such a case, something could be gleaned from comparisons with Sector E (and nearby J) through a rumination on the diachronic morphology of this part of Pessinus, e.g. the change from urban sector to cemetery, leading to discussions on the character of LAnt Pessinus.39

This is also supported by the fact that not all the features of Sector D were constructed in the same time frame, which is suggestive of a number of things. Firstly, construction in Sector D may have depended on what took place in the urban areas immediately adjacent, as mentioned above. For example, the stepped area (DR 7-11; DL 7-11) arguably promotes access and circulation of movement to a greater extent than areas to the north, which bore retaining walls. It is therefore pertinent to ask what kind of infrastructure resided in this part of Pessinus that was related to the construction of the stairways.

The other point to make about the diachronic augmentation of construction in Sector D is the action of the river and morphology of the river bed. This seems to be one of the main premises of Waelkens – Sector D as an attenuating measure. The point is well made in view of the fact that the natural banks of the river originally had quite gentle slopes, making parts of the town susceptible to inundation in the event of flash flooding (e.g. as described in the life of St. Theodore of Sykeon). However, such a deterministic outlook does not allow for the variation in the types of construction.

Another issue worth commenting on is the term ‘quay’ as applied to walls – imparting a dam-like function upon them. The case for this is difficult to argue in view of the fact that such walls are not bound by mortar and are sometimes free standing. It is possible that some were in actual fact proper terrace walls (e.g. DR 3-5/DL 3-5), which returns us once again to the question of what kind of urban sectors were adjacent to these walls that required support of the banks. Further more, this question would need verification through examination of stratigraphy behind the walls, to determine the nature of the fill (e.g. composition of natural vs. artificial).

Le quai Byzantin, viewed on conjunction with the late west wall in D2, is one example which can be interpreted with some clarity vis-à-vis wall function. It is most likely a case of reinforcement of the original bank, which may have become denuded and the original walls put in a precarious situation. It is possible to deduce this through stratigraphy in D2, which is undisturbed between original wall and the existing late wall. Thus, in this part of the west bank, there is no evidence of artificial terracing, but it cannot be ruled out for other areas of Sector D. This is relevant to the interpretation of DR 13 – behind the wall and colonnade construction, a thick layer of fill was partially excavated that may be artificial. As it is certain that buildings existed in this area, terracing is a logical outcome of the construction process.

Consequently, while the treatment of sector D in the monograph is extensive, it has arguably contributed towards a misleading picture of the feature in the context of absence of other evidence, as evident in the descriptions of Sector D in Devreker & Claerhout 2008. In sum, Sector D has been afforded undue significance. I suggest therefore that in subsequent publication, the features discussed individually or as an ensemble comprising this

39 However, a complete lack of publication of Sector E prohibits detailed interpretation.

22

archaeological be classed under the appellation ‘Sector D’ to avoid purporting unsupportable interpretations that are entailed in specific appellations, such as ‘canalization system’. Indeed, Sector D has arguably been endowed with undue significance that needs to be tempered by investigations of adjacent urban areas and related to issues of town planning, accessibility, and control of movement in an urban space.

23

Bibliography Anderson, W. 2013, “Fortification and Landscape Transformation in Late Antique Pessinus”, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 26.1: 75-96.

2014, “From manufactured goods to significant possessions: theorising pottery consumption in Late Antique Anatolia”, in A. Bokern and C. Rowan (eds.), Embodying Value? The Transformation of Objects in and from the Ancient World, BAR International Series 2592, 131-44.

—, D. Krsmanovic and M. Negus-Cleary in press, “Ground survey in Pessinus in its periphery: first observations”, in G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Pessinus and its Regional Setting, BAR International Series, Oxford: Archaeopress.

Avram, A. 2012, “Some Remarks on Newly Published Inscriptions from Pessinus”, Ancient West and East 11: 271-76. Beladjal, L. and J. Mertens 2001, “Relations généalogiques et structures familiales des populations ancêtres de Pessinonte (Annexe II)”, Anatolia Antiqua 9: 85-87. Bittel, K. 1967, “Beobachtungen in Pessinus”, Archäologicher Anzeiger 82: 142-50. Brackman, P. and M. de Dapper 1995, “The Building of a Geographical Information System, Using Field Observations and Remotely Sensed Imagery, to Extract Geographical Information of the Area Around Ballıhisar (Pessinus) in Central Anatolia”, Anatolia Antiqua 3: 145-61.

—, M. de Dapper, J. Devreker, and F. Vermeulen 1995, “The Use of Geomorphology, Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques for Geoarchaeological Purposes in the Pessinus Area, Central Anatolia (Turkey)”, Natuurwetenschappelijk Tijdschrift 75.1: 3-34.

Claerhout, I. and L. Bauters 2006, “Pessinus”, Leven in Turkije 2: 152-57.

and J. Devreker 2008, Pessinous. Sacred City of the Anatolian Mother Goddess. Istanbul: Homer Kitabevi.

de Cupere, B. 1994, “Report on the faunal remains from trench K (Roman Pessinus. Central Anatolia)”, Archaeofauna 3: 63-75.

1995, “Report on the Faunal Remains from Trench K (Roman Pessinus, Central Anatolia)”, Anatolia Antiqua, Vol. 3, pp.161-65.

de Dapper, M. 2001, “Pessinus Geo-Archaeological Field Campaign 1999 (Annexe III)”, Anatolia Antiqua 9: 87. de Paepe, P. and F. Vermeulen 1998, “Étude du dégraissant de quelques pithoi de Pessinonte (Turquie) par analyse microscopique”, Anatolia Antiqua 6: 259-67.

and F. Vermeulen 1999, “Étude microscopique et chimique de pithoi, matériaux de construction et autres terres cuites antiques de Pessinonte (Turquie)”, Anatolia Antiqua 7: 115-27.

—, G. Devos and F. Vermeulen 2000, “Nouvelles données analytiques sur les pithoi du

24

site de pessinonte (anatolie centrale)”, Anatolia Antiqua 8: 117-26.

—, G. Devos and F. Vermeulen, 2001, “Les pithoi de Pessinonte (Anatolie centrale). Données analytiques complémentaires (Annexe IV)”, Anatolia Antiqua 9: 89-101.

—, J. de Donder and L. Moens 2003, “Carbon and Oxygen isotopic compositions of marbles from ancient and modern quarries in the neighbourhood of İstiklalbağı (Central Anatolia, Turkey)”, Anatolia Antiqua 11: 157-64.

—, J. de Donder, M. de Dapper and L. Moens 2004, “Petrographic and stable isotope data for marbles from the neighbourhood of Tekören, Dinek and Atlas (Central Anatolia, Turkey)”, Anatolia Antiqua 12: 97-104.

—, J. de Donder, and L. Moens 2005a, “Provenance assignment of archaeological marbles in the museum of Ballıhisar (Central Anatolia, Turkey)”, Anatolia Antiqua: 13: 161-70.

—, J. de Donder, M. de Dapper and L. Moens 2005b, “Stable isotope signatures of marbles from the Sivrihisar region (Central Anatolia, Turkey)”, Anatolia Antiqua 13: 131-42.

—, J. de Donder, M. de Dapper and L. Moens 2006, “Stable isotope signatures of marbles from the Sivrihisar region (Central Anatolia, Turkey)”, Anatolia Antiqua 14: 131-41.

Devos, G., P. de Paepe and F. Vermeulen 1999, “The pithoi from the ancient Anatolian city of Pessinus. An integrated archaeological and petrographical analysis”, BABesch 74: 79-110. Devreker, J. 1971, “Une inscription inédite de Caracalla à Pessinonte”, Latomus 30: 352-362.

1988a, “Nouveaux monuments et inscriptions de Pessinonte”, Epigraphica Anatolica 11: 35-50. 1988b, “Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1986”, AST 5.1: 127-35.

1989a, “Pessinonte: Histoire et Fouilles”, TAD 28: 165-75. 1989b, “Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1987”, KST 10.2: 319-37. 1990, “Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1988: Rapport Provisoire”, KST 11.2: 275-99.

1991, “Nouveaux monuments et inscriptions de Pessinonte et d’ailleurs (II)”, Anatolia Antiqua 1: 183-202. 1992, “Nouveaux monuments et inscriptions de Pessinonte et d’ailleurs (III)”, Epigraphica Anatolica 19: 25-32. 1994, “The new excavations at Pessinus”, in E. Schwertheim (ed.), Forschungen in Galatien (Asia Minor Studien), 12: 105-30. 1995a, “Nouveaux monuments et inscriptions de Pessinonte et d’ailleurs (IV)”, Epigraphica Anatolica 24: 73-84.

25

1995b, “Les monnaies de Pessinonte: un supplement”, Epigraphica Anatolica 24: 85-90. 1997, “Nouveaux monuments et inscriptions de Pessinonte et d'ailleurs (V)”, Epigraphica Anatolica 28: 97-100.

and M. Waelkens 1984, Les Fouilles de la Rijksuniversiteit te Gent à Pessinonte. Hommage à Pierre Lambrechts (Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 22), Brugge: De Tempel. and M. Waelkens 1985, “Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1983”, AST 2: 139-42.

and F. Vermeulen 1991, “Phrygians in the Neighbourhood of Pessinus (Turkey)”, Liber Amicorum Jacques A. E. Nenquin. Studia Archaeologica, Ghent, 109-17. —, Y. Hollevoet and H. Thoen 1991, “Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1989”, KST 12.2: 269-99.

—, H. Thoen and F. Vermeulen 1992, “Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1990: Rapport provisoire”, KST 13.2: 341-75. and F. Vermeulen 1993, “Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1991: preliminary report”, KST 14.2: 261-88. and F. Vermeulen 1994, Pessinonte (Turquie). La ville et son territoire; Pessinus (Turkije). Onderzoek van een antieke stad en haar territorium. Brussels. and F. Vermeulen 1995a, “Pessinus 1993: Preliminary report”, KST ?: 75-94.

and F. Vermeulen 1995b, “Archaeological Work at Pessinus in 1993”, Anatolia Antiqua 3: 113-26.

—, H. Thoen and F. Vermeulen 1995, “The imperial sanctuary at Pessinus and its predecessors: a revision”, Anatolia Antiqua 3: 127-44.

and J. H. M. Strubbe 1996, “Greek and Latin inscriptions from Pessinus”, Epigraphica Anatolica 26: 53-66.

and F. Vermeulen 1996a, “Pessinus (Pessinonte) 1992: preliminary report”, Anatolia Antiqua 4: 67-81.

and F. Vermeulen 1996b, “The eighth excavation campaign in Pessinus”, Anatolia Antiqua 4: 81-97. and F. Vermeulen 1997a, “Pessinonte (Pessinus) 1995: Rapport Provisoire”, KST 18.1: 499-512.

and F. Vermeulen 1997b, “Fouilles à Pessinonte en 1995”, Anatolia Antiqua 5: 123-33.

and F. Vermeulen 1998, “Fouilles et prospections à Pessinonte: campagne de 1996”, Anatolia Antiqua 6: 249-59.

—, K. Braeckman and D. Dutoo 1999, “Pessinonte 1997: rapport provisoire”, Anatolia Antiqua 7: 105-15.

26

—, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman, W. de Clercq, J. Deschieter and D. Dutoo 2000, “Fouilles archéologiques de pessinonte (Turquie): La campagne de 1998”, Anatolia Antiqua 8: 105-17.

—, G. Devos and L. Bauters 2000, “Pessinus. Epitaaf voor een antieke stad”, Monumentenzorg en Cultuurpatrimonium. Jaarverslag van de Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen, 12-27.

—, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman, W. de Clercq, G. Devos, D. Dutoo and P. Monsieur 2001a, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte (Turquie): la campagne de 1999”, Anatolia Antiqua 9: 61-72.

—, G. Devos, L. Bauters, “Pessinus 2001b: Vervolg van een opgraving”, Monumentenzorg en Cultuurpatrimonium. Jaarverslag van de Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen, 17-31.

and H. Verreth 2001, “New inscriptions from Pessinus and elsewhere (VI)”, Epigraphica Anatolica 33: 57-68.

—, G. Devos, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman and P. Monsieur 2002a, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2000”, Anatolia Antiqua 10: 131-144.

—, G. Devos, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman and P. Monsieur 2002b, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2000”, KST 23.2: 175-188.

—, G. Devos, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman, W. de Clercq, P. Monsieur 2002c, “Voor de 16e maal opgravingen in Pessinus”, Monumentenzorg en Cultuurpatrimonium. Jaarverslag van de Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen, 26-38.

—, H. Thoen and F. Vermeulen 2003a, Excavations in Pessinus: the so-called Acropolis. From Hellenistic and Roman cemetery to Byzantine castle, Ghent: Archaeological Reports Ghent University.

—, G. Devos, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman, A. Daems, W. de Clercq, J. Angenon and P. Monsieur 2003b, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2001”, Anatolia Antiqua 11: 141-156.

—, G. Devos, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman, P. Monsieur, A. Daems, W. de Clercq and J. Angenon 2003c, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2001”, KST 24.2: 171-84.

—, K. Braeckman, W. de Clercq, W. d'Haeze, N. Vanholme and A. van Petegem 2003d, “Pessinus verder onderzocht. De campagne 2003”, Monumentenzorg en Cultuurpatrimonium. Jaarverslag van de Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen, 29-41.

—, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman, W. de Clercq, P. Monsieur and A. van Peteghem 2004a, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2002”, Anatolia Antiqua 12: 83-95.

—, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman, W. de Clercq, M. Devoe, G. Soufreau and F. Vervaet 2004b, “Vondsten uit bergen en dalen”, Monumentenzorg en Cultuurpatrimonium. Jaarverslag van de Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen, 44-53.

27

—, G. Devos, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman, W. de Clercq, P. Monsieur and A. van Peteghem 2004c, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2002”, KST 25.1: 41-54.

—, L. Bauters, W. de Clercq, W. Dhaeze, K. Braeckman, P. Monsieur 2005a, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte : la campagne de 2003”, Anatolia Antiqua 13: 145-59.

—, L. Bauters, W. de Clercq, W. Dhaese, K. Braekman and P. Monsieur 2005b, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2003”, KST 26.1: 81-96.

— and H. Verreth 2006, “New inscriptions from Pessinous (VII)”, Anatolia Antiqua 14: 143-51.

—, L. Bauters, W. de Clercq, K. Braeckman 2006a, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2004”, Anatolia Antiqua 14: 117-29.

—, L. Bauters, W. de Clercq, K. Braeckman 2006b, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2004”, KST 26: 137-50.

—, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman and P. Monsieur 2007a, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2005”, Anatolia Antiqua 15: 165-81.

—, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman and P. Monsieur 2007b, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2005”, KST 28.1: 165-86.

—, L. Bauters, M. Devoe, D. Goderis and P. Monsieur 2007c, “Andermaal Pessinus (Turkije). De onderzoekscampagne 2005”, Monumentenzorg en Cultuurpatrimonium. Jaarverslag van de Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen, 76-93.

and K. Braeckman 2008, “Pessinus’ta (Ballıhisar, Eskişehir ili, Türkiye) 2007 Araştırma Kampanyası”, KST 30.1: 291-98.

—, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman, W. de Clercq and P. Monsieur 2008a, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2006”, KST 29.1: 279-94.

—, L. Bauters, K. Braeckman, W. de Clercq and P. Monsieur 2008b, “Fouilles archéologiques de Pessinonte: la campagne de 2006”, Anatolia Antiqua 16: 135-46.

—, A. Verlinde, L. Bauters, W. de Clercq and P. Monsieur 2009, “Archaeological Excavations in Pessinus (Turkey): the 2008 Campaign”, KST 31.1: 59-76. —, A. Verlinde, L. Bauters, W. de Clercq and P. Monsieur 2010a, “Archaeological Excavations in Pessinus (Turkey): the 2008 Campaign”, Anatolia Antiqua 18: 141-56 —, C. Laes and J. H. M. Strubbe 2010b, “New Inscriptions from Pessinous (VIII)”, Epigraphica Anatolica 43: 59-86.

Ervynck, A., B. de Cupere and W. van Neer 1993, “Consumption refuse from the Byzantine Castle at Pessinus, Central Anatolia, Turkey”, in H. Buitenhuis and A. T. Clason (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East. Proceedings of the first international symposium on the archaeology of Southwestern Asia and adjacent areas, Leiden: Universal Book Services, 119-27.

28

Gruwier, B. and A. Verlinde 2010, “Preliminary Archaeozoological Report on Sectors B6 and B6d in the Sanctuary Area (Pessinus, Ballıhisar, Turkey)”, Anatolia Antiqua 18: 157-62. Hamilton, W. J. 1842, Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia; with some account of their antiquities and geology, John Murray: London, 438-46. Humann, K. 1890, “Reise nach Angora und Boghaz-Köi”, in K. Humann and O. Puchstein, Reisen in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien, Berlin: Verlag von Dietrich Reimer, 26-31. Krsmanovic, D. in press, “The Excavations of Ghent University at Pessinus – a conspectus of the work by P. Lambrechts (1967-73) and J. Devreker (1986-2008)”, in G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Pessinus and Its Regional Setting, BAR International Series, Oxford: Archaeopress.

and W. Anderson 2012, “Paths of the Dead: interpreting funerary practice at Roman period Pessinus, central Anatolia”, Melbourne Historical Journal 40.2: 58-87.

Laken, L. 2007, “Pessinonte: les stucs peints”, Anatolia Antiqua 15: 183-86. Lambrechts, P. 1967a, “De opgravingen van de Gentse universiteit te Pessinus (Turkije)”, De Brug 11: 249-68.

1967b, “Rapport sur la première campagne de fouilles à Pessinus (Août-Septembre 1967)”, TAD 16.2: 113-31.

1968, “De tweede opgravingskampagne van de Gentse Universiteit te Pessinus (Turkije)”, De Brug 12: 280-91.

Lambrechts, P. 1969a, “Les Fouilles de Pessinonte: la nécropole”, l'Antiquité Classique 38: 121-46.

1969b, “De derde opgravingskampanje van de Gentse Universiteit te Pessinus (Turkije)", De Brug 13: 268-80.

1969c, “Rapport sur la 2e campagne de fouilles à Pessinonte (août-septembre 1968)”, TAD 18.1: 84-91.

1970, “De vierde opgravingskampanje van de gentse universiteit te Pessinus”, De Brug 14: 259-70.

1971, “De vijfde opgravingskampanje van de gentse universiteit te Pessinus”, De Brug 15: 253-64.

1972a, “De zesde opgravingskampanje van de gentse universiteit te Pessinus”, De Brug 16: 266-72.

1972b, “Rapport sur la quatrième campagne de fouilles à Pessinonte”, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 19: 133-42.

1973a, “De zevende opgravingskampanje van de gentse universiteit te Pessinus”, De Brug 17: 301-12.

1973b, “Rapport sur la cinquième campagne de fouilles à Pessinonte”, TAD 20.1: 107-15.

29

1974, “Rapport sur la sixième campagne de fouilles à Pessinonte”, TAD 21.2: 79-84. and R. Bogaert 1968, “Inscriptions inédites de Pessinonte”, l’Antiquité Classique 37: 540-50.

and R. Bogaert 1969a, “Nouvelles données sur l’histoire du christianisme à Pessinonte”, in R. Stiehl and H. E. Stier (eds.), Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben. Festschrift für Franz Altheim zum 6.10.1968, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 552-64. and R. Bogaert 1969b, “Asclépios, archigalle Pessinontien de Cybèle”, Hommages à Marcel Renard II, Latomus 102: 404-14.

and R. Duthoy 1970, “La famille des Lollii à Pessinonte”, Les Études Classiques 37: 302-07.

—, J. H. M. Strubbe, M. Waelkens and G. Stoops 1972, “Les Fouilles de Pessinonte: Le Temple”, Antiquité Classique 41: 156-73.

and M. Waelkens 1973, “Réflexions critiques sur un monument funéraire récemment découvert à Pessinonte”, Zetesis. Album Amicorum door vrienden en collega’s aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. E. De Strycker, Antwerp: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel, 602-17.

Moens, L., J. de Donder, P. de Paepe and J. van Hende 1998, “Analyse des isotopes stables du carbone et de l'oxygène appliquée à des marbres de Pessinonte (Anatolie Centrale)”, Anatolia Antiqua 6: 267-73. Monsieur, P. 2001, “Note préliminaire sur les amphores découvertes à Pessinonte (Annexe I)”, Anatolia Antiqua 9: 73-85. Monsieur, P. and P. de Paepe 2002, “Amphores de Cos et amphores italiques à Pessinonte: croiser les données archéologiques et pétrographiques”, Anatolia Antiqua 10: 155-77. Pensabene, M. G. 2004, “Non stele ma il sole. Il contributo della planirnetria e della decorazione architettonica alla definizione del santuario di Cibele a Pessinunte”, Archeologia Classica 55.5: 83-144. Perrot, G. 1872, “Les Tolistoboiens”, in G. Perrot, E. Guillaume and J. Deblet, Exploration Archéologique de la Galatie et de la Bithynie, d’une parte de la Mysie, de la Phrygie, de la Cappadoce et du Pont, Paris: Librarie de Firmin Didot Frères, Fils &c., 207-15. Schmidt, A., A. Parkyn and G. Tsetskhladze 2011, “Pessinus: a city without contrasts? geophysical challenges from Anatolian soils”, in M. G. Drahor and M. A. Berge (eds.), Archaeological Prospection, 9th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, September 19–24, Izmir, Turkey, Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari: Archaeology and Art Publications, 78-80.

and G. Tsetskhladze 2012, “They may all be dead but they still ain’t equal…”, Recent Work in Archaeological Geophysics, Conference of the Geological Society of Great Britain, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, 4.12.12, London: Lecture Abstracts, 16-17.

and G. Tsetskhladze 2013, “Raster was Yesterday: Using Vector Engines to Process

30

Geophysical Data”, Archaeological Prospection, . Strobel, K. 2007, “Ist das phrygische Kultzentrum der Matar mit dem hellenistischem und römischem Pessinus identisch? Zur Geographie des Tempelstaates von Pessinus”, Journal of Historical Geography of the Ancient World 9: 207-28. Strubbe, J. H. M. 1978-79, “Les noms indigènes à Pessinonte”, Talanta 10-11: 112-45.

1981, “Inscriptions inédites de la région du Mont Dindymos en Galatie”, Mnemosyne 34.1-2: 107-26.

1992, “Grave inscriptions from Pessinus, Galatia”, Epigraphica Anatolica 19: 33-44.

2005a, The Inscriptions of Pessinous, Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 66, Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

2005b, “The Imperial Cult in Pessinous”, in L. de Blois, P. Funke and J. Hahn (eds.), The Impact of Imperial Rome in Religions, Ritual and Religious Life in the Roman Empire. Amsterdam.

Texier, C. 1862, Asie mineure, Description géographique, histoire et archéologie des provinces et des villes de la Chersonnese d’Asie, Paris: Firmin Didot, 473-79. Thoen, H. 2002, “Pessinus 2000. Dating the Temple Area: The Evidence of the Finds. A Preliminary Report”, Anatolia Antiqua 10: 145-54. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2009, “Notes on Phrygian Pessinus”, in H. Sağlatimur, E. Abay, Z. Derin, A. Ü. Erdem, A. Batmaz, F. Dedeoğlu, M. Erdalkiran, M. B. Bastrük and E. Konakcı (eds.), Studies in Honour of Altan Çilingiroğlu: A Life Dedicated to Urartu on the Shores of the Upper Sea, Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 703-17.

2010, “Büyük Ana Tanrıça Kybele’nin Tapınak Kenti: Pessinus”, Eskiyeni (Eskisehir) 2.17: 86-89.

2011, “Pessinus: gorod-khram Velikoi Bogini Materi Kibeli”, ARISTEAS: Journal of Classical Philology and Ancient History 3: 65-77. 2013a, “Phrygian Pessinus”, in T. T. Sivas and H. Sivas (eds.), Phrygians: In the Land of Midas, In the Shadow of Monuments, Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 184-98. 2013b, “Pessinus in Central Anatolia: New Investigations”, in G. Labarre and H. Bru (eds.), L’Anatolie des peoples, cites et cultures (IIe millénaire av. J.-C. – Ve siècle ap. J.-C.), Paris/Besançon: Université de Franche-Comté. 2013c, “Kibele’nin Tapınak Kenti: Melbourne Üniversitesi’nin Pessinus’taki Yeni Araştırmaları”, in Ş. Dönmez (ed.), Lux Ex Ponto Euxino. Studies Presented in Honour of Sümer Atasoy, Ankara: Hel Yayıncılık, 415-60.

—, W. Anderson, L. Bauters, E. Dandrow, W. de Clercq, E. Mayer and A. Schmidt 2011, “Pessinus 2009”, KST 32.1: 341-66. —, W. Anderson, A. Avram, S. Avram, V. Clark, K. Flemming, E. Kortanoğlu, D. Krsmanovic, M. Negus-Cleary and A. Schmidt 2012a, “Pessinus 2010”, KST 33.1: 103-

31

44. —, W. Anderson, A. Avram, S. Avram, V. Clark, K. Flemming, E. Kortanoğlu, D. Krsmanovic, M. Negus-Cleary and A. Schmidt 2012b, “Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2010 Field Season”, in G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Phrygia in Antiquity: Aspects of Archaeology and Ancient History, BAR International Series 2432, Oxford: Archaeopress, 293-328.

—, J. Adams, A. Avram, S. Avram, E. Dandrow, A. Madden, P. Maranzana, L. Narseddin and A. Schmidt 2012c, “Pessinus in Phrygia: Brief Preliminary Report of the 2011 Field Season”, in G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Phrygia in Antiquity: Aspects of Archaeology and Ancient History, BAR International Series 2432, Oxford: Archaeopress, 329-35. —, J. Adams, A. Avram, S. Avram, E. Dandrow, A. Madden, P. Maranzana, L. Narseddin and A. Schmidt 2013, “Pessinus 2011”, KST 34.

Van Lennep, H. J. 1870, Travels in Little Known Parts of Asia Minor, London: John Murray, 207-14. Van Peteghem, A. 2005, “Recherche paléobotanique à Pessinonte: l'étude des grains et des fruits (2002-2003)”, Anatolia Antiqua 13: 171-76.

2008, “Resultats paléobotaniques et archéozoologiques de Pessinonte (secteur Q)”, Anatolia Antiqua 16: 147-52.

and K. Braeckman 2003, “Pessinonte 2001, recherche paléobotanique l'étude des grains et des fruits”, Anatolia Antiqua 11: 165-68.

Verlinde, A. 2010, “Monumental Architecture in Hellenistic and Julio-Claudian Pessinus”, BABesch 85: 111-39.

2014, The Roman Sanctuary Site at Pessinus. From Phrygian to Byzantine Times, Peeters: Leuven. In press, “Dynamic Design in the Sanctuary at Pessinus”, in G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Pessinus in Its Regional Setting, BAR International Series, Oxford: Archaeopress.

Vermeulen, F. 1995, “Beschermd wonen op het einde van de Oudheid. De burcht van Pessinus (Turkije)”, Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie 15: 21-30.

1999a, “Geoarchaeology and the Classical Landcape in Central Anatolia. New Methods of Investigation in Field Survey”, Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Classical Archaeology – Amsterdam, July 12-17, 1998, 438-41. 1999b, “A Computer-aided Geo-archaeological Survey of the Classical Landscape of Central Anatolia”, in J. A. Barcelo et al. (eds.), New Techniques for Old Timea CAA 98, Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 26th Confrence, Barcelona, March 1998, BAR International Series 757, Oxford: Archaeopress, 275-82.

—, M. de Dapper and P. Brackman 1994, “Archaeological and Geomorphological Approach to the Roman City: the Case of Pessinus”, La ciudad en el mundo romano.

32

Actas XIV Congrés Internacional de Arqueologia Clàsica. Tarragona, 5-11/9/1993 2: 425-29. —, M. de Dapper and P. Brackman 1996, “Geo-archeologie in een Anatolisch landschap”, Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie 17: 37-46.

—, M. de Dapper and P. Brackman 1998, “A GIS-based geo-archaeological approach to survey in a central Anatolian landscape”, in J. Peterson (ed.), The use of Geographic Information Systems in the study of ancient landscapes and features related to ancient land use. Workshop proceedings. Ljubljana, 27 April 1996, Luxembourg, 63-80. —, M. de Dapper and T. Wiedemann 1998, “Vers une approche géo-archéologique intégrée: le territoire antique de Pessinonte (Turquie)” in M. Clavel-Lévêque and A. Vignot, Cité et territoire II, 2ème colloque européen – Béziers 1997, 123-39.

—, J. Devreker and G. de Mulder 1998, “Urban Developments in Early Byzantine Pessinus (Asia Minor)”, Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae, Vol. 3, Rome: Pontifico Instituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 787-96.

Virgilio, B. 1981a, Il ‘tempio stato’ di Pessinunte fra Pergamo e Roma nel II-I secolo A. C., Pisa: Giardini Editori.

1981b, “Il tempio stato di Pessinunte”, Athens and Rome 26: 167-75. Waelkens, M. 1971, “Pessinonte et le Gallos”, Byzantion 41: 349-73.

1986, “The Imperial Sanctuary at Pessinus: Archaeological, Epigraphical and Numismatic Evidence for its Date and Identification”, Epigraphica Anatolica 7: 37-72.