Cities on the Periphery: Urbanization in Bithynia, Pontus, and Paphlagonia under the Roman Empire

This dissertation, entitled “Cities on the Periphery: Urbanization in Bithynia, Pontus, and Paphlagonia under the Roman Empire,” seeks to provide the first comprehensive urban history of the region during the period of Roman rule. Modern scholarship on this region has focused on cultural and political topics, including Greek reactions to Roman rule; provincial elites and euergetism; and urban life. This scholarship has ignored dramatic increases in the number of new settlements in north central Anatolia, urban and rural, as well as consistent vitality and even growth during the turbulent 3rd century CE. I address these lacunae and investigate the factors behind this growth and stability. I analyze the complexities of this development across four frameworks: the construction and finance of civic monuments, shifting settlement patterns, the extent of bulk and prestige goods networks, and integration into networks of administration, military affairs, and imperial ideology./nThe introductory first chapter documents the dramatic increases in the number of urban and rural settlements in the region and poses a set of key questions regarding urbanization, imperial intervention, and local stability. I then set out the methodology of my dissertation. I briefly review and critique previous scholarship on this region, which has focused mainly on cultural and political topics of urban and imperial life. I then indicate the advantages of shifting the focus to consider the diachronic nature of urbanization over the long term, the archaeological record, integration and connectivity, and interpretive questions that address the uniqueness of the region. My approach is highly interdisciplinary, making heavy use of evidence from archaeological surveys, epigraphic finds, and network theory, as well as ancient literary and historical accounts./nThe second chapter examines how local preferences and financial resources influenced the construction and use of civic monuments. The emphasis on Graeco-Roman cities as lived environments, not synchronic monumental landscapes, plays a critical role in this analysis. My discussion qualifies recent assertions that cities in the eastern empire expressed their Greek identity by building democratic monuments with public money. Monuments such as theaters and temples are clearly prioritized, yet cities also enthusiastically adopted monuments marked as Roman, such as baths, or used democratic structures for Roman entertainment. Though civic funds remained a consistent resource, the patronage of local elites and the emperor were essential in the 1st and later 3rd and 4th centuries, respectively./nThe third chapter synthesizes five decades of archaeological survey. I identify broad trends in expansion, size, and continuity from the Iron Age to the Late Roman period and assess the extent of Roman influence behind these fluctuations. Administrative, economic, and military priorities guided the efficient management of this region. This was achieved by the creation of a few new cites and by an extensive road network. Both constituted unique developments and indirectly encouraged the proliferation of small towns and villages, which benefitted from the demands of regional capitals and access to roads. This produced a balanced urban system that fashioned a robust administrative hierarchy, but that was relatively moderate in overall urban density./nThe fourth and fifth chapters discuss connectivity across a range of landscapes: city and hinterland, the Black Sea area, and the Mediterranean basin as a whole. The third chapter focuses on the circulation of staple goods and luxury items. This area was remarkably well integrated and even self-sufficient at the local and regional levels. Its position on the periphery of the Roman empire limited intensive contact with the broader Mediterranean, but encouraged intensive commercial relationships with the Black Sea, Armenia, and Syria. The fourth chapter also examines connectivity, but in the context of imperial administration, communication, and military activity./nThis project ultimately seeks to provide the first comprehensive synthesis of the urban history of north central Anatolia in the Roman period. Roman intervention and traditional urban ideals were early stimuli; as I argue, however, regional preferences, a geographical position on the Mediterranean periphery, and heightened imperial interests in the 3rd century were the most prominent influences on urban development and stability in north central Anatolia. The region occupied a unique geographical, political, and economic position within the Roman empire and it represents a compelling contrast to the urban character of other Roman provinces. I conclude by stressing the complexity of the urban development of this region as well as the strong role that local traditions and geographical position played in negotiating imperial interaction.

Advisor: Noreña, Carlos