University Press Scholarship Online The Urban System of ......The Urban System of Roman Asia Minor...

The Urban System of Roman Asia Minor and Wider Urban Connectivity

Page 1 of 40

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: University ofOxford; date: 26 August 2015

UniversityPressScholarshipOnline

OxfordScholarshipOnline

Settlement,Urbanization,andPopulationAlanBowmanandAndrewWilson

Printpublicationdate:2011PrintISBN-13:9780199602353PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:May2012DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602353.001.0001

TheUrbanSystemofRomanAsiaMinorandWiderUrbanConnectivity

J.W.Hanson

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602353.003.0009

AbstractandKeywords

ThischapterexaminestheurbansystemofRomanAsia.ThedistributionofurbansitesindicatesthatalargeproportionofRomanAsiawassurveyedandcontrolledbyurbancentres,fairlyevenlydistributedacrossrelief,butnotacrossspace,becomingsparserinthecentralplateauandeast.Thedenseclusteringofcitiesseemstoreducethespanofcontrolofindividualcitieswithintheregionconsiderably,resultinginanaverageintercitydistanceof24.5km.Supportingthisisafardensernetworkofagriculturalsites.Thisarrangementseemstotallyreasonablypreciselywithcentralplacetheory,sincesitesseemtohavefunctionedasnodesofcontrol(militaryandpolitical)andascentresofadministrationandjustice,aswellasservicecentres.

Keywords:RomanAsia,urbanization,urbansites,centralplacetheory

Introduction


Page 2 of 40


Whenwerethereeversomanycitiesbothinlandandonthecoast,orwhenhavetheyeverbeensobeautifullyequippedwitheverything?Dideveramanwholivedthentravelacrosscountryaswedo,countingthecitiesbydays,andsometimesridingonthesamedaythroughtwooreventhreecities,asifhewaspassingthroughoneonly?…NowalltheGreekcitiesriseupunderyourleadership,andthemonumentswhicharededicatedinthemandalltheirestablishmentsandcomfortsredoundtoyourhonourlikebeautifulsuburbs.Thecoastsandinteriorhavebeenfilledwithcities,somenewlyfounded,othersincreasedunderandbyyou.

AeliusAristides,ToRome:93–4.

InAristides’ToRome,thereisacertainsenseofexcitement,realorrhetorical,abouttheapparentlyconsiderablechangesbroughtaboutintheurbansystemofRomanAsiasincethecomingofRomanruleintheLateRepublic.TheimpressiongivennotonlybyAeliusAristides,butalsobyarangeofotherauthorsincludingStrabo,Ptolemy,Pliny,andDioChrysostom,1isofadramaticincreaseinthenumberofcitieswithinAsiaandanincreasedlevelofurbanlife.Scholarly(p.230) interpretationofthishasaddedthatwhilstoldsitescontinuedtoflourish,asignificantnumberofnewtownsandcitieswerefounded,alongwiththeimpositionofmilitarycolonies,anetworkofnewroads,andanewpoliticalandadministrativesystem.2Itisclaimedthatanumberofthesecitiesrosetonew-foundprominence,developingpopulationsofasmanyas225,000.3Thesettlementpatternoftheregionalsoseemstohavebecomeincreasinglynucleated,movingawayfromasystemgearedlargelytowardssubsistenceagricultureandbasedaroundascatterofhamletsandsmallvillages,toamoreheavilyurbanizedsystem,concentratedaroundasmallernumberoflargetownsandcities.Alongsidethis,poleis,withtheiremphasisonlocalself-sufficiencyandfocusedontheirownterritories,ceasedtoexistasseparatepoliticalentities.Intandem,andpartially,ifnotentirely,asaresultofthesechanges,theregionalsoseemstohavecomebyanewprosperity.ThischangingurbansystemisexplainedbothbyAristidesandhiscontemporaries,andbymodernscholars,asadirectresultofRomanruleandasadirectresultofbeingconnectedtothewidersystemoftheRomanempire.4WhiletheprocessofRomanizationseemsslow,itisalsoclearthatbythethirdcenturytheculturalandpoliticalmilieuoftheregionhadbecome‘indivisiblyboundup’withthatofRomeandentangledinherpoliticalandeconomicfortunes.5

ThispictureofAsia’surbansystemhasnotreceivedadequatetreatment,however,despitethefactthatanexaminationoftheurbansystemhasgreatpotentialtoinformusabouttheimpactofRomeontheregionandtheeffectsofwiderconnectionsofferedbyintegrationintotheRomanempire.NorecentsystematicstudyoftheurbansystemofRomanAsiahasbeenundertaken,basedonacomprehensivecatalogueanddistributionmapofsites.Pounds’sdistributionmapisaparticularlystrikingexample,sinceithasoftenbeendeployedasthefulleststudyoftheurbansystemoftheRomanempire,despiteneglectingthewholeofAsia,Syria,Arabia,andNorthAfrica(Fig.9.1).6WhileScheidelsupplementsPounds’smapwithamoredetailedmapoftheeasternprovinces,his


Page 3 of 40


Source:(Pounds1973,fig.3.6).

illustrationisessentiallyanadaptationofJones’sstudyof1937(Fig.9.2).7Inthiscontext,ourunderstandingofthephenomenonofurbanismwithinAsiaisgenerallypoor.Lackingamorerecent(p.231)

Fig.9.1. ThedistributionofRomantownsandcitiesinEurope.

archaeologicalstudyoftheregion,ourunderstandingisbasedontravellers’accountsfromtheearlynineteenthcenturytoaslateasthe1980s,ahandfulof‘biographies’ofindividualcities,afewsurveysofsmallareas,andanumberoflargelyout-of-datehistoricalaccounts,looselyintegratingarchaeologicalmaterial.8OurpictureoftheurbansystemofAsiaasawholehasalsotendedtobedrawntoalargeextentfromprimarysources,suchasthosedetailedabove,andtheextrapolationoftrendsperceivedinthewiderRomanempire.9TheimpressionoftheurbansystemofAsiaderivedfromthesesourceshasbeenaccepteduncriticallyandhasattractedverylittleexaminationorexplanation,makingre-evaluationessential.10

(p.232)


Page 4 of 40


Source:(Scheidel2007,map.3.3(basedonJones1937,mapsII–IV)).

Fig.9.2. ThedistributionofsitesintheeasternMediterranean.

Aninvestigationofthedensityandnatureofanurbansystemcanbeextremelyinformativesincethereisastrongcorrelationbetweenratesofurbanismontheonehandandtheperformanceandlevelofdevelopmentoftheeconomyontheother.11Inacitybeyondacertainsize,thebulkofthepopulationwillbeengagedinnon-agriculturalactivity,andwillthereforedependonasurplusproducedbytheagrariansector.Thehighertheratesofurbanizationandthepopulationsofcitieswithinaregion,thegreaterthesurplusthatmustbegeneratedandsupplied,andthereforethegreaterthepercapita(p.233) productionimplied,andthusthegreatertheprosperityoftheregion.Largecitiesareparticularlyeconomicallysignificant,sincetheywillexertastrainontheeconomybydrawingindividualsfromthecountrysideandplacingtheminapositionwheretheyrelyonthesurplusofothers(althoughinturnenablinggreaterdivisionoflabourandgreaterproductivity).AnextrafacetoftheRomanurbansystemisthatsuchurbancentreswillalsodisplayhigh‘monumentaloverheads’,whichwillalsoneedtobefunded.12Furthermore,adenseurbansystem,withlargecities,requiresarelativelycomplexeconomy,includingtheorganizationandtappingofalargeandproductivehinterland,theextractionofresourcesfromawideregion,andeffectivetransport.Thecharacteristicsofanurbansystemanditslevelsofconnectivitywillthereforehavefar-reachingimplicationsforourunderstandingofthesocietyandeconomyoftheregion.

ThisstudyadoptsthemethodologicalstanceputforwardbytheOxfordRomanEconomyProject(OXREP)anditsattempttoadvancetheoreticaldebatesbyworkingfrombodiesofquantifiabledatathatcanthenbeinterpretedandanalysedasindicatorsoftheperformanceoftheRomaneconomy.Thischapterthusstartsfromfirstprinciplesto


Page 5 of 40


collatedatathatcanbeanalysedbyreferencetoaseriesofmodels,manyofwhichhaveonlyseldombeenappliedtoarchaeologicalmaterial.Bylookingattheentireurbansystemofaregionandwhatthesystemmighttellusaboutitswiderconnectivity,especiallytowardsRome,thisstudyalsorespondstoanincreasingappreciationofthelevelatwhichtheancientworldenjoyedconnectivityandintegration—anapproachderivedfromBraudel,butwhichhasmostrecentlybeenchampionedbyHordenandPurcellandemphasizedbyWilson.13ThischapterisalsoapreliminarypartofanongoinginvestigationbytheauthorintothewaysinwhichtheurbansystemoftheRomanempiremightfunctionasasingleentity.

ThischapterfocusesontheperiodfromtheestablishmentofRomanruleinAsiaintheLateRepublicuntilthebeginningofthethird-century‘crisis’,andparticularlyonthehighimperialperiod,although,ofcourse,thepriorurbanismofmanysitesandtheconsiderabledevelopmentsinthethirdandfourthcenturiesmustbetakenintoaccount.Thischapterwilldemandabroadchronologicalframework,sincetheaimofthe(p.234)studyistoexaminetheurbansystemofAsiaasawhole.Evenwheredesirable,thesubjectoftendoesnotallowforasharperchronologicalresolution.ThegeographicalscopeisthatpartofmodernTurkeyfromtheAegeancoasttoaroughlatitudinallinedrawnfromjusteastofancientSinopetojusteastofancientTarsus.TheregionisdescribedasAsia,AsiaMinor,Anatolia,asalistofregions,includingIonia,Caria,Lycia,Pamphylia,Cilicia,Cappadocia,Paphlagonia,andBithynia,orasalistofRomanprovinces,includingAsia,Bithynia-Pontus,Galatia,andCappadocia(Fig.9.3).14TheproblemofdefinitionisencapsulatedbythefactthatStrabousestheterm‘Asia’todescribeboththeprovincespecificallyandtheregionmorebroadly.Here‘Asia’willbeusedtorefertothegeographicalunitdefinedabove.Theprovincesfurthereastandsouth,includingSyria,Pontus,andArmenia,havebeenexcludedtokeepthescopemanageable,followingboundariesofthenaturalgeographyoftheregionandthelinesofRomanruleandadministration.

Despiteaconcentrationonareasthatarebetterarchaeologicallyunderstood,thepoolofarchaeologicalandhistoricalinformationisstilllimited,andlackofdatameansthatmanyofthequestionsonewouldliketoposesimplycannotbeanswered.Manysitesremainunexplored,suchasCyzicus,wherewerelyonpatchyevidencefromtheearlytwentiethcentury.15Althoughanumberofimportantsitesare

Fig.9.3. TheregionsofRomanAsia,AD14.


Page 6 of 40


Source:(Lloyd1989:Fig.3).

(p.235) nowbeingmorefullyunderstood(forexampleAphrodisias,wheregeophysicalprospectionhasrevealedtheplanofgreatswathesofthesite),theeffectsofthisprogresshaveonlyjustbeguntofilterthroughandhavenotyetformedasubstantialbodyofinformation.Partialaccesstoplans,asweshallsee,alsoprovestobeamajorproblem,asaresultoflimitedandsometimesunevenpublicationofarchaeologicalwork.

Whilethereismuchdebateoverwhatwecandefineas‘towns’,‘cities’,andeven‘settlement’,inthisstudyaworkingdefinitionofurbancentremustbeaccepted,definedassitesdisplayingnucleatedsettlement,centralfunctionsandservices,andaminimumsize(10haasaminimumseemsreasonable).Inthisinvestigationmoreemphasiswillalsobeplacedontheupperendofthesettlementhierarchyforseveralreasons.Thischapterfocusesonlargerurbancentresastheywillbemoreinformativeabouttheurban(ratherthanagricultural)systemandurbanconnectivity.Sincesmallfarmsandagriculturalestablishmentsaretiedtotheland,wewouldexpectthemtoconformtoanevenscatteraroundproductiveland;thedistributionoflargersites,however,mightdependonanumberofotherfactors,includingwiderconnections.Thetopofanurbanhierarchyalsodefinesthelimitsandrangeofthesystem,andbyexaminingthetopofahierarchywemaybeabletoextrapolateforthewidersystem,sincethelargestcitiesoftencollateandintensifytheeconomicfunctionsoftheothertownsinthesystem.Finally,largersitesaremorelikelytobepreserved,found,andrecorded,andafocusonlargerurbancentreswillavoidapartialandthusanomaloussetofdataatthelowerendsofthesettlementhierarchy.ThisshouldavoidtheproblemsdetectedbyMarzanoinherstudyofBritainandSpain,inwhichthehierarchyseemedtoconformtotheParetoeffect,wherethefewlargestsitesprovidedvitaldataandthemanysmallestsitesprovedultimatelymoretrivialandtendedtodistorttheanalysis.16

ThecharacteristicsoftheurbansystemofRomanAsia:sitedistributionandanalysisPrimaryandsecondarysourcesofferaninitialimpressionoftheurbansystemofRomanAsia.TheopeningquotationfromAristideshighlightsthenumberofcitiesandthedensenucleationof(p.236) settlement.AccordingtothegeographerPtolemy,Asiacontainedsome140cities,17whilstJosephusandPhilostratusarebothinagreementoveramuchhigherfigureof500.18Plinyoffersnoregionaltotal,butexplicitlymentionssome176citiesintheregionshecallsAsia,Cilicia,Lycia,Lydia,Caria,andPhrygia.19BroughtonandMagierepeatanumberoftheseestimates,althoughMitchellarrivesatatotalof130citiesinAsia.20Unfortunately,however,thesefiguresmustbetreatedwithextremecaution.Thefiguresusedbyprimarysourcesarenotbasedonaccuratecensusorcartographicdata,butarealmostcertainlyderivedfromroughestimates(thefigure500isparticularlysuspect)andarepronetohyperboleandinfluencedbytheconcernsofpanegyric(particularlyAristides).Furthermore,whatconstitutesacityisneverclearlydefined,noristheareabeingdescribed.Theuseofthetermpolisalsoraisesproblems,sincelargevillagesorsmalltownsmightwellbeincludedwithintheselistsduetotheirtraditionalorhistoricstatus.Thesesitesmight,however,havebeenrelatively


Page 7 of 40


insignificant,indecline,ormighthavebeensynoikizedpriortoRome’scoming.ColophonandLebedusmightwellcountastwopoleis,whilsttheywereinfactsynoikizedintoEphesus.Furthermore,a‘polis’isnotsynonymouswithaRomanoppidum,civitas,orcolonia,andraisesissuespertainingtoourowntranslationandinterpretationoftheterm.Secondarysourceshaveoftenfollowedtheseestimatestoofaithfully.

AmoreempiricallygroundedlistofsitescanbedrawnupusingtheBarringtonAtlaswithThePrincetonEncyclopediaofClassicalSites,21thefirstofwhichoffersthemostcomprehensiveandup-to-datecatalogueofsites.TheBarringtonAtlasclassessitesintofiveranksdefinedbycriteriasuchassize,physicalremains,literaryreferences,andcivicstatus(historicalimportancehasonlybeenusedtoalimitedextent).22Rank5representsisolatedvillas,farms,baths,orhamlets,rank4smallvillages,ranks2and3townsandcities,andrank1extremelylargecities(ofwhichnoneexistsinAsia),givingatotalof(p.237) 1,381sitesofranks2–5inAsia.ThesitelistderivedfromtheBarringtonAtlascancomfortablybeusedasthebackboneofthisstudy,sincewhencheckedagainstanumberofalternativeatlasesandthePrincetonEncyclopedia,itwasclearthattheBarringtonAtlaswasbyfarthemostcomplete.23

Inthisstudy,onlyranks2and3,whichconstitutemajorurbancentres,willbeconsidered,givingalistof176urbansites(seeAppendix).Thesecanbeplottedoverrelief,topography,riversystems,androadnetworks,andthenatureoftheirhinterlandscanalsothenbeexamined(Figs9.4–9.6).24Thesimplestmethodistodrawaradiusofagivendistancearoundeachsite.Bekker-Nielsen,drawingonbothRomanliteraryreferencesandcomparativestudiesoftransportintheeighteenthcentury,givesamaximumfigureof37kmforaday’stravel,eitherbyfoot,orbypackanimal.25GiventhedifficultiesoftheterrainofAsia,itmightbemoreappropriatetoreducethisfigurebyasmuchashalf.Accordingly,radiiofboth18.5kmand37kmhavebeenplotted(Figs9.4and9.5).ThetotalareacoveredbythesecirclescanbeexaminedtoapproximatetheamountofterritoryinAsiasurveyedbyanurbancentreofsomekind.Alternatively,aVoronoidiagram,bisectingthedistancebetweeneachcitytoproduceapatternofpolygons,canbeproducedtoshowthetheoreticalhinterlandsofeachcity(Fig.9.6).26Therelationshipsbetweenthesecanthenbeexamined.

(p.238)

Fig.9.4. Thedistributionofsiteswithaggregatedradiiof18.5km.


Page 8 of 40


(p.239)

Fig.9.5. Thedistributionofsiteswithaggregatedradiiof37km.

(p.240)

Fig.9.6. ThedistributionofsiteswithaVoronoidiagramoverlaidtosuggestpossiblecityterritoriesorhinterlands.

(p.241) Inanalysingthesedistributions,weshouldnoteanumberofimportantapproachesandmodels.Arecurrentstartingpointistheobservationthatthereareasmallnumberoflargecities,alargenumberofsmallcities,andsomecitiesthatsitinthemiddle.Sincethisinitialobservation,madebyAuerbachin1913,27wecanseethatanumberofinterpretivemodelshavebeendevelopedtoexplainthesizeanddistributionofurbancentres.Thoserelevanttothisstudycanbedividedintotwomainconcepts:centralplacedistributionandprimate-citydistribution.

Inthefirstofthesemodels,itisarguedthat,onanisotropic,homogeneous,andunboundedplain,withanevendistributionofresources,anevendistributionofsettlementwillresult.Therewillbeasmallnumberoflargecities,offeringhigh-ordergoodstoalargeregionandspacedatlargedistancesfromoneanother,andunderlyingthiswillbeagreaternumberofsmallsites,offeringlow-ordergoodstoasmallregion,andspacedmorecloselytogether.Bothorderswillbeevenlydistributedacrosstheterritorytoservethewholeregion,creatingalatticeofhexagonsortriangleswhenaVoronoidiagramiscreated.Thisdistributionresultsfromthetrade-offbetweendistanceandtheprofitfromsale.Low-ordergoodswillonlyoffersufficientreturnovershortdistances,resultinginalargenumberofsitesovertheregion,whereashigher-ordergoodswillofferreturnoverlongerdistances,creatingasmallnumberofsitesfortheirmarketing.Bothproductsandservicescanbeincludedamongthesegoods.Thisisthe


Page 9 of 40


centralplacemodelelaboratedbyChristallerin1933andcorroboratedbyLöschinthe1940s.28

Theprimate-citymodelassumesthesameconditionsandthesameconsequencesasmuchofcentralplacetheory,butitisarguedthatonecitywillbeasignificantorderofmagnitudegreaterthantherestofthesettlementhierarchy,thelargestcitybeingtwoorthreetimesthesizeofthesecond-largestcityinthehierarchy.Therewillbealargenumberofsmallcities,dominatedbythelargestcity,andadeficiencyinthenumberofcitiesofintermediatesize.SuchisthemodelproposedbyM.Jeffersonin1939.29Thismodelisparticularly(p.242) importantgivenitsinfluenceonFrenchscholarship,whichidentifiedaphenomenonof‘hypercephalie’,orthegrowthofasinglelargecityinseveralpre-industrialanddevelopingcountries,withthevirtualimpoverishmentoftheremainingregion.30IncontrasttoJefferson’sreasonablypositivemodel,theconceptof‘hypercephalie’impliesa‘polarisedeconomy’,31wherebybybeingpluggedintowidersystems,onecityreachesanextremelevelofgrowth,whereasthecountrysideremainsatasubsistencelevelorevenbecomesincreasinglyimpoverished.Thisisseenasaresultofcolonialruleorintervention.Giventheexistenceofallegedlyverylargecities(withupto225,000inhabitants)andacolonialbackdrop,themodelof‘hypercephalie’mightappeartobeparticularlyimportantforRomanAsia.

FromthedistributionmapsinFigs9.4–9.7,itisclearthatthedistributionofsitesisheavilyweightedtothewestandtowardstheMediterraneanandRome.Sitesoccupythelowlandregionsofthewesternandsouthernshores,thehigherregionsofthecentralplateau,andevenuptoanaltitudeof1,500mabovesealevel.Althoughthenumberofsitesatthisaltitudefallsoffslightly,reliefaloneseemstohavehadarelativelynegligibleinfluence.Thedistribution,however,startstofalloffheavilyinthenorthernandeasternpartsoftheregion,towardsPaphlagoniaandCappadocia,wherealtitude,infertileland,and,crucially,lackofaccessibilityanddistancefromtheMediterraneanbecomesignificantfactors.ThisindicatesageneraloverallpulltowardstheMediterraneanandtowardsRome.

ThemapsalsoindicatethatahighproportionofAsiaissurveyedandcontrolledbyanurbancentreofsomekind.Thesheernumberofsitesrelativetotheareaoftheregionisinteresting.Dividingtheareaoftheregion(c.310,000km2)bythenumberofsitesgivesanestimateofonecityper1,760km2andatheoreticalaverageradiusof23.7km.32OnthebasisofBekker-Nielsen’sfigures,evenwithalowerestimatetakenfordifficultorstrenuousreliefandterrain,thisimpliesthatmanysiteswereeasilywithinaday’stravelandthattheycouldhaveactedasmarketcentres,servicecentres,andcentresofadministrationandpolitics.AeliusAristides’commentaboutthesheerdensityofsites,33whilerhetoricalandnotnecessarilyimplying(p.243)


Page 10 of 40


Fig.9.7. Thedistributionofsitesoverrelief,riversystems,androadnetworks.

(p.244) contiguousurbanism(asreadbyMitchell34),doesalsosuggestthescaletowhichAsiamighthavebeenurbanizedinthisperiodandthenoveltyofthehugeincreaseinurbanismintheregion.

Thefiguresarrivedatbyimposingradiiof18.5and37kmseemtosupportthispicture(Figs9.4and9.5).Heretheareaincludedbythecirclescoverssome40.5percentofthelandinthefirstcaseandsome83.7percentinthesecond(c.126,000km2andc.260,000km2).Thelimitedincreasebetweenapplyingthefirstandsecondradiiitselfimpliesadenseandwell-distributedsettlementpattern—doublingtheradiusshouldnearlyquadruplethearea(amultiplicationby3.98),unlessthenumberofcirclesthatarecontiguouswith18.5kmradiusisalreadyhighandthedistributionofsitesisalreadydense.Theregionsnotincludedwithintheseradiilieatmorethan2,000mabovesealeveloraresituatedwithinPaphlagoniaandCappadocia—theleastaccessibleandleastexploitedregions.Theirinclusiondoesofcoursedistortthefiguresgivenabove,reducingtheproportionoflandsurveyedbyanurbancentre,althoughtoalimitedextent.Theaverageintercitydistancesalsosupportapictureofhighlevelsofcontrol,withamediandistanceof24.5km.Despitethefragmentednatureoftheregionandthelimitedlinesofvisibility(Fig.9.8),mostoftheregionmightnotbewithinalineofsightbutiswithinalineofcommunicationfromanurbancentre.Thisimpliesahighlycontrolledandheavilyexploitedlandscape,althoughagainthereisasignificantMediterraneanbiasandafallingofftowardstheeast.

Thedistributionalsodemonstratestheimportanceofconnectivity,sincealargenumberofsiteslieonpointsofaccess(Fig.9.7),andmany(perhapsone-third)lietowardstheMediterraneancoast,especiallyinIonia,Caria,andLycia.ThecomparativelackofsitesontheBlackSeaisintriguing,suggestingthattheurbandistributionisnotinfluencedsimplybyproximitytothesea,butspecificallytotheMediterranean,andperhapsRome.Agreatnumberofsitesalsoseemtobepositionedonriverineroutes,whichformthemainconduitsofaccessinland,followingtheCaicus,Hermus,Cayster,andMaeanderandtheirtributariesintotheeast.FurtherconcentrationsareseenonRomanroads,asisclearfromFig.9.7,whichshowsthreemainlinesofroadsalongthenorth,centre,andsouth.35Newcolonieswereclearlyfoundedalongwiththisnetworkofroads,(p.245)


Page 11 of 40


Source:(Blanton2000:Fig.2.1).

Fig.9.8. TheoverallreliefofAsia,showingthelimitednumberoflinesofvisibilityandfragmentedrelief.

althoughwecanalsoseealargenumberofoldersitespositionedalongtheseroutes,suggestingtheentwinedgrowthofurbancentresandroadnetworks.Onlysomethirtyofthe176sitesexaminedarenotonmajorroadroutes,althoughitmustbestatedthatourknowledgeofroadnetworksisfarfromcomplete.Thecumulativeevidenceindicatesthatastrongpremiumwasplacedoncommunicationandaccess,withroadandriversystemscomplementingeachother.

Thesesystemsshouldbeseenasbeingattachedtowidertraderoutesoverlandandsea(Fig.9.7).AsBroughtonputit,natureseemstohaveputthewesterncoastofAsiainlinewithalmostallmajortradeandcommunicationroutes.36Literarysourcesalsoattestthehighleveloftrafficinthisperiod,bothwithintheMediterraneanandwithinAsia.Inparticular,aninscriptionfromHierapolisrecordsamerchant’sclaimtohaveroundedCapeMaleainGreece72timesonjourneystoItaly(perhaps72singlejourneystwiceayear,ormore(p.246) likely36roundtripsannually),althoughthereisnoevidenceforhowexceptionalthismighthavebeen.37

Theregionitselfformsanavenueofcommunication(ofpeople,goods,information,andideas)betweeneastandwest,connectingtowiderMediterraneannetworks.FollowingRamsay’smetaphor,wecanseethepeninsulaasahighsuspensionbridge,runningeast–west,withhighparapetsandaroughroadsurface.38Connectionsaredifficultnorth–south,duetotheterrain,lackofriverineroutes,andtheroadsystem,whichfollowstheformertwoconditions.East–westlinesofaccessarefareasier,creatingakindoftunnel,orconduitbetweentheeastandthewest.ThissystemseemstohaveactedasafurtherextensionoftheconduitidentifiedbyHordenandPurcellintheMediterranean.39Certainly,theiron-filingdistributionofsitesseemstoconfirmtheideathatRomecanbeviewedasacentralmagnet,pullingsitestowardstheMediterraneanandcreatingdendriticnetworksofcommunicationtowardstheeast.TheTabulaPeutingerianamightleaveuswithastrikingvisualimpressionofAsiaasaconduitbetweeneastandwest,withRomeatthecentre,pointingtohighlevelsofinternalandexternalconnectivity.


Page 12 of 40


TheVoronoidiagrams(Fig.9.6)suggestawell-distributednetworkofsites,withalargenumberofevenlysizedhinterlandsandasmallrangebetweenthesmallestandthebiggesthinterlandsinthecentreofthesystem(Fig.9.9).LargehinterlandsarefoundonlyinthelessdenselyurbanisedregionsofPaphlagoniaandCappadocia,reflectingoncemoretheMediterraneanpullofthesystem.Whileincludingtheseregionsgivesabroadrangeofhinterlandsizesfrom211km2to25,800km2,thelargehinterlandofTabiaandahandfulofotherlargehinterlandsdistortthepicture;themeanisafarlowerfigureof2,310km2,andthemedian1,460km2.Whenrepresentedgraphically,thisinformationalsoindicatesawell-organizedcontroloftheland,correspondingtoarelativelyevenhierarchy,althoughfairlysmallhinterlandsaremostcommon(Figs9.9and9.10).Wemightwellexpectthisofahighlyorganizedandintensivelyexploitedlandscape.

Underlyingthissystemweshouldpositadensernetworkofsmallsites.Thechancesofreconstructingafullhierarchydowntothesmallestancientsitesarelimited,butbotharoughcalculationandsupportingevidenceseemtoindicatearelativelydenselyinhabited(p.247)

Fig.9.9. Thearea(km2)oftheoreticalhinterlandswhenranked,displayingarelativelynarrowinter-quartilerange.

Fig.9.10. Thearea(km2)oftheoreticalhinterlandsofranks9–177,removinghinterlandsof5,000km2plus(i.e.thoseofPaphlagoniaandCappadocia).Rank9hasbecomerank1.Theresultdisplaysarelativelyevenhierarchy.

lowerordersupportingtheupperorder.Atheoreticalcalculation(subtractingthe173largestsitesfromthe1,381knownsitesintheBarringtonAtlastogivesmallandmediumsites)givesanaveragevillageorhamletper221km2,witharadiusof8km,andsurveysofSagalassosandCiliciasupportthisfigureorimplydenserhabitation.40Systematicfield


Page 13 of 40


surveymightbeexpectedtoincreasethisfigure.

(p.248) ThesedataillustratethatRomanAsiawasbothinternallyandexternallywellconnected.Ontheonehand,theregionisinternallywellconnectedsincewemightimaginethatmostfarmersdidnottravelfarbeyondtheirlandordidsoonlytothenearesturbancentre.41Thisisperhapsreflectedinthesheerdensityofsitesinthearchaeologicalrecord.Ontheotherhand,wecanalsointerpretthesystemasawholeaswellorganizedforthecontrol,administration,andexploitationoftheregionfortheprofitoftheregionandofRome.ItisclearthatRomancitiesfunctionedasmorethanmarketandservicecentresandactedascentresfortheextractionoftaxes,bothinkindandincash,andascentresfortheorganizationandextractionofseveralformsofwealth.42Aseldom-cited,buttelling,commentofGalenalsopointstotheroleofcitiesaspointsofextractionofgrain,inthiscaseleadingtoimpoverishmentandmalnutritioninthecountryside:

Thecitydwellers,asitwastheircustomtocollectandstoreenoughcornforthewholeofthenextyearimmediatelyaftertheharvest,carriedoffallthewheat,barley,beans,andlentils,andlefttothepeasantsvariouskindsofpulse—aftertakingquitealargeproportionofthesetothecity.Afterconsumingwhatwasleftinthecourseofthewinter,thecountrypeoplehadtoresorttounhealthyfoodsinthespring;theyatetwigsandshootsoftreesandbushesandbulbsandrootsofinedibleplants…43

Inthis,Galenappearstobedescribinganunusuallydireconsequenceofaregularpractice.

ItseemsclearthattherewasagriculturalsurpluswiththepotentialforextractionwithinAsia.Indeed,asCicerodescribesAsia,‘intherichnessofitssoils,inthevarietyofitsproducts,intheextentofitspastures,andinthenumberofitsexports,itsurpassesallotherlands’.44AsMitchellnotes,itisintheRomanperiodthatweseethechangingofagriculturalpatternsfromroughpastureandgrazingtosettledarablefarming,andtheincreasingexploitationofthisland,potentiallyinparallelwithtechnologicalchange.45Fromliterarysources,wecanalsonotethetradingofolivesandoliveoil,figsandotherdriedfruits,wine,woolandtextiles(includingdyedwool),hides,timber,metals(especially(p.249) copper),marbles,pigments,andfish.46Finally,asMitchellnotes,wecanalsonotetheimportanceofgrainsupply(andespeciallythesupplyofgraintothearmy)atleastinthethirdcenturyfromawealthofepigraphicandnumismaticevidence,andinparticularthedisplayingofearsofcornoncoins.47Furtherresearchwillnodoubtemphasizethispicture.Inthislight,theconcentrationofsitesintheMediterraneanclimateofthewestandsouthandtheNorthernEuropeanclimateofthenorth,butnotintheariddesertclimateofthecentralplateau,seemstoimplyasystemestablishedforathoroughgoingexploitationofthelandandextractionofagricultural,amongother,resources.ThismightbeseenastheeffectsofRomancolonialexploitation,orequally,ifweaccepttheessentiallyfractalnatureoftheMediterranean,wecouldseesuchaphenomenonasachosenstrategyforsurvival,giventhenecessityofexchangeandredistribution,aswellasachoiceforbasicprofit.48


Page 14 of 40


Theimplicationsofthisareimportant.Ratherthanseeingaregionthatisunder-populatedandunder-exploited,saveforanumberoflargecities,whichmightimply‘hypercephalie’,alongsideruraldestitution,wecanseethatthesitesarestructuredinsuchawayastocorrespondtoacentralplacedistribution,implyingwell-distributedcontrolandevenexploitation.Comparedtootherregionsoftheempire,plottedbyPounds(Fig.9.1andFig.9.11),thenumberanddistributionofsitesisclosesttoItaly,ratherthanthelessheavilyurbanizedregionsofSpainandGaul.Thisimpliesahighdegreeofurbanismandamoreevendistributionofsitesrelativetootherregionsoftheempire.Althoughmoreevidenceisrequired,thismightindicateahighlyexploitedlandscapemorecomparabletotheeconomicexperienceofNorthAfrica.ItcertainlyseemsclearthatAsiadidnotfollowthedownturnexperiencedinGreeceinthefirstcenturiesofRomanrule.49Ifweaccepttheuseofurbanismasaproxyfortheeconomy,suchapicturealsoseemstoindicatesubstantialeconomicprosperity.(p.250)

Fig.9.11. ThedistributionofsitesinAsiaoverlaidonPounds’map.

Sitepopulationsizes,distribution,andanalysisThesizeofcitiesisimportantinexaminingthelevelofurbanconnectivity,sinceaboveacertainpopulationthresholdacitywillrelyoncontactsforitssustenanceandprosperity.Previousestimateshavegaugedahandfulofcitiesatabove200,000andpostulatedanaveragecitysizeof5,000.50Ifacorrelationcanbedetectedbetweenlargecities(wherescaleisusedasameasureofprosperity)andsituationonpointsofconnectivity,thiswouldindicatetheimportanceofconnectivityandlinkstotheRomanempirewithinthesettlementsystemofAsia.

Thereisasubstantialcorpusofscholarship,fromBelochonwards,aimedatcalculatingancientpopulationsandawiderangeofmethodsfordoingthis.However,asWilsonnotesinChapter7ofthisvolume,themostproductiveestimatesoriginatefromadefinitionoftheareainvolvedandthentheapplicationofsensiblepopulationdensities(Beloch’soriginalmethod,infact).Ancientsourcesarenotoriouslydifficulttointerpret,especiallysincechildren,women,andslavesarenotcounted(indeed,theveryeconomicallydependentpopulationthatweareinterestedin).Suchsourceshaveavariable,alien,andnotfullyunderstooddefinitionofacitylimit,andoftenfailtodefine(p.251) areas,ordefinethemveryloosely.Rhetoricaland‘patriotic’considerationsmayalsoaffectsuchfigures.AsWilsonnotesinthisvolume,therearesimilarproblemswiththeuseofcivic


Page 15 of 40


facilities,watersupply,andsoon.51Despitetheinherentproblems,theapplicationofestimatesofpopulationdensityrangestocityareasseemstheleastinaccurateavailablemethod.

Theareaofacitycanbeworkedoutwithrelativeease,beingcalculatedbycomputerprogramfromascannedplan.52Althoughalowthresholdoferrorisintroducedbytheuserinselectingthescale,themaindifficultyliesinthedefinitionofthearea.Inthefollowing,variousestimateswerearrivedatusingtheareacircuitedbywalls,theareaonwhichastreetgridhadbeenimposed,andarchaeologicalremains(particularlywhereasurveyhasbeenexecuted).Itisclear,however,thatwallcircuitsdonotalwaysreflectthetrueinhabitedarea,eithertakingabroadcircumference(asatEphesus)orexcludingfurtherinhabitedspace(aswiththeAurelianwallsofRome).Gridsarenotalwaysfullyinhabitedandarchaeologicalremainsdonotreflectthesumofwhatwasthere.Theextentofexcavationorsurveyalsohasseriousimplications,particularlywitholderexcavations.However,tombs,amphitheatres,andstadia,aswellastopography,cangiveareasonablemaximumextentfromwhichtoextrapolate,althoughitiswisetonotethecaseofOstia,whichclearlyoutgrewitsextramuralcemeteries.Acalculationofareaderivedfromthearchaeologyitself,asopposedtoestimatesbasedonliterarysources,does,however,giveaconcretefigurewhosebasiscanbeestablishedandwhichcanbecheckedorsubmittedtolaterscrutiny.

Sincescaledandaccurateplansarerequiredforthismethod,theareacouldnotbecalculatedforallthesites,andthereforeapopulationcouldnotbeestimatedforallthesitesunderconsideration.Althoughanumberofsourcesgiveplans,foracalculationofareaascaleis(p.252) required,whichislackinginmanypublications.Giventhisflaw,mostarchaeologicalguidescouldnotbeusedasasourceforplans,mostnotablyAkurgal’sAncientCivilisationsandRuinsofTurkey.53

Abroadpopulationdensityrangeof100to400peopleperhectarewillbeused,witharefinedrangeof150to250.Theformerrangerepresentstheabsolutelikelyminimumandmaximum,andthelattertheprobablerangeofpopulationdensity.Thebroaderrangecanbesaidtoincorporatearealisticabsolutemarginwhencomparedtootherpre-industrialsocietieswithsimilarscalesofeconomicandsocialdevelopment,andisidenticaltotherangearrivedatbyMolsinhisinvestigationofpopulationinEuropebetweenthefourteenthandeighteenthcenturies.54Basicfactorsofhumangeographyandanthropologyalsosupportthisrange.ThenarrowerrangecorrespondsmorepreciselytoestimatesofthepopulationdensityofRomancities.ThisisbasedontheworkoftheOxfordRomanEconomyProjectandisderivedfromestimatesoftheareas,densities,andpopulationsofseveralRomancities,includingPompeiiandseveralNorthAfricancitiesandtheworkofEngelsonCorinth.55Theserangesareapplicabletoanentirecity,includinguninhabitablespacesuchasroadsandpublicandcivicspace(whichgenerallycanbeestimatedatroughly12.5percent),andtakeaccountoftheverticalaxisofthecityintermsofpotentialmultiplestoreys.Theadvantageoftheserangesisthattheyshouldgiveamorerealisticestimationofthepopulation,whilealsodisplayingpotentialerrorandmargins.Usingthismethod,theareaofsiteswithavailableaccurateandscaledplanscan


Page 16 of 40


becalculatedtogivethepopulationrangesinTable9.1andFigs9.13and9.14.Thelargestsites(above50ha)canthenbeplottedonadistributionmapoverrelief,riversystems,androadnetworks(Fig.9.12).

Thesearea-basedestimatescallanumberoflong-heldviewsintheexistingliteratureintoquestionregardingthepopulationofthelargercitiesinAsia(andinparticularthefiguresgivenintheEconomicSurvey).56ThepopulationofPergamumhasbeenestimatedonthebasisofaremarkbyGalentotheeffectthat‘if…ourcitizensamounttoasmanyas40,000,likewiseifyouaddtheirwivesandslaves,youwillfindyourselfadmittingthatyouarericherthan(p.253) 120,000people’.57IfwefollowBroughtonandassume‘anaverageoftwochildrenperadultcitizen’,wewouldreachatotalpopulationof‘about200,000’.58Radt,however,preferstoestimateapopulationofaround160,000,growingfrom25,000–40,000intheAttalidperiod.59BroughtonstatesthatCyzicuscanbeestimatedatsomethinglike200,000,butthisisbasedonlyonthespeculationthatitwasnotfarbehindPergamuminsize.60ThepopulationofEphesushasbeenestimatedat225,000;however,thisfigureisbasedpredominantlyonBeloch’scomparisonoftheareasofAlexandriaandEphesus,usingthe‘known’populationofAlexandriatosuggestanestimateforEphesus.61Interestingly,BroughtonnotesthatthisfigurecouldbeexpandedfurthergiventhelargeextentofEphesianterritory.Thefigureof225,000issupposedlysupportedbytheepigraphicevidencethatAureliusBarenusentertained40,000adultmalecitizens,sinceifwomen,slaves,andchildrenweretobefactoredinwemightarriveatasimilarorderofmagnitude.62Thisfigureis,however,amistranslationoftheinscriptionhonouringBarenuswhich,asWardenandBagnallpointout,referstoonly1,040citizens,not40,000.63Moreover,thetheatreisestimatedtocontainbarely25,000.WiegandestimatedMiletustohavecontainedsome100,000people,basedongrainallowances(afoundationof30talentsisthoughttohavesupplied9,000portionsofgrainatsixhemihectiperperson;heextrapolatesfromthismakingallowancesforfamilies,slaves,etc.).64Finally,thepopulationsofSideandSmyrnahavebeenestimatedat12,000and200,000respectively,65basedonthesizesoftheirtheatres,althoughthepopulationofSmyrnaisscaledupartificiallybasedoncomparisonwithPergamum.Noestimatesforthepopulationoftheothersitescouldbefound.

(p.254)

Table9.1.Theareasandestimatedpopulationsofthesitesthathavepublishedcityplans.City Area

(ha.)Populationat100/ha.

Populationat150/ha.

Populationat250/ha.

Populationat400/ha.

Sardis 356 35,600 53,400 89,000 142,400(Col.Augusta)AlexandriaTroas/Antigoneia

278 27,800 41,700 69,500 111,200

Ephesus 224 22,400 33,600 56,000 89,600Pergamum 219 21,900 32,850 54,750 87,600


Page 17 of 40


Halicarnassus 174 17,400 26,100 43,500 69,600Cyzicus 168 16,800 25,200 42,000 67,200Nicaea 159 15,900 23,850 39,750 63,600Clazomenae 117 11,700 17,550 29,250 46,800HeracleaadLatmum/Pleistarcheia

99 9,900 14,850 24,750 39,600

Miletus 97 9,700 14,550 24,250 38,800Cnidus 93 9,300 13,950 23,250 37,200Aphrodisias/Ninoe 90 9,000 13,500 22,500 36,000LaodiceiaadLycum/Dispolis/Roas

89 8,900 13,350 22,250 35,600

Heraclea(Pontica) 78 7,800 11,700 19,500 31,200Amorium 63 6,300 9,450 15,750 25,200Selge 59 5,900 8,850 14,750 23,600Nysa/Athymbra 56 5,600 8,400 14,000 22,400Hierapolis 49 4,900 7,350 12,250 19,600SeleuciaadCalycadnum/Tracheia

43 4,300 6,450 10,750 17,200

Col.Caesarea/Antiochia

42 4,200 6,300 10,500 16,800

Aspendus/Primoupolis

40 4,000 6,000 10,000 16,000

Cremna/Col.IuliaAugustaFelix

39 3,900 5,850 9,750 15,600

Side 39 3,900 5,850 9,750 15,600Iasos 34 3,400 5,100 8,500 13,600Alinda/AlexandriaadLatmum

26 2,600 3,900 6,500 10,400

Elaiussa/Sebaste 26 2,600 3,900 6,500 10,400Perge 26 2,600 3,900 6,500 10,400Pinara 22 2,200 3,300 5,500 8,800Sillyum 21 2,100 3,150 5,250 8,400Sagalassus 20 2,000 3,000 5,000 8,000Termessus 19 1,900 2,850 4,750 7,600Xanthos 18 1,800 2,700 4,500 7,200Oenoanda/TermessusMikra

17 1,700 2,550 4,250 6,800

Tlos 16 1,600 2,400 4,000 6,400


Page 18 of 40


Diocaesareia 14 1,400 2,100 3,500 5,600Ariassos 11 1,100 1,650 2,750 4,400Metropolis 8 800 1,200 2,000 3,200Cyme 8 800 1,200 2,000 3,200Arycanda 7 700 1,050 1,750 2,800

(p.255) (p.256)

Fig.9.12. Thedistributionoflargersitesoverreliefandcommunicationroutessuchasriversystemsandroadnetworks.Sitesof50hectaresormorearemarkedwithalargerdot.

(p.257)

Fig.9.13. Theestimatedareasoftheselectedcities.

(p.258)

Fig.9.14. Alineargraphtoshowrankofselectedcitiesagainstarea.


Page 19 of 40


Thearea-basedestimatesreducethesefigurestosmallerbutmorerealisticscales.Farfromseeingpopulationsofupto225,000inthecaseofPergamum,Ephesus,andSmyrna,wecaninfactreducethesefigurestoaprobablerangewithaminimumof50,000andamaximumof90,000.66AtPergamum,previousestimateswouldcallforover900peopleperhectarewithinthecity(adensityonlyknowninmoderncities),orwouldrequirereallyquitesubstantialextramuralhabitation.AtEphesus,suchestimatesareclearlynotpossible,sincethescopeforextramuralsettlementislimitedbytheinlandmountainrange,theancientcoastline,andtheregion’squarries;evenallowingforsomesuburbansettlement,thetotalpopulationfigurecouldnotbeincreasedtoanythinglikeestimatesof225,000.

Nevertheless,thescaleevenofthesefiguresindicatesquitecertainlythatsuchcitieswouldhavetolookbeyondtheirimmediatehinterlandsandmusthavereliedonwidercontacts,sinceafarmerwillonaveragetravelonly4–6kmbetweenhislandandacity.Thisgivesamaximumareaoflandconnectedtothecitythatcouldsimplynotsupportsitesofthisscale.Moreover,thelargestsitesofthishierarchy(50haormore)lieonnodalpointsandlinesofaccess(Fig.9.12).Oftheseventeensitesplotted,sixlieonthecoastandfourwithinimmediate(p.259) proximity,andafurthertwolieonrivernetworksclosetothecoast.All(baronesite)aresituatedonmajorroadnetworks.ThisismostofallevidencedbySardis,Ephesus,andAlexandriaTroas,allofwhichactasnodalpointsbetweenroadsystemsfromtheeastandmaritimeroutestothesouthandwest.ThepicturewouldalmostcertainlybereinforcedbyfurtherstudyofsitessuchasNicomedia,Ancyra,andSinope,forwhichplanscouldnotbeaccessed.Basedonliteraryandsecondarydescriptionsofthesites,itismostlikelythatthesesiteswouldhavehadlargepopulations.Thepositionandsizeofallofthesesites,asportsormajornodesonroadnetworks,thusalsoindicatestheimportanceofconnectivity,bothtosustainlargesitesandaspotentialreasonsfortheirprosperity.

Thesettlementhierarchyandarank-sizeanalysisArank-sizeanalysisofthehierarchyofsites,usingtheirareaasaproxyforpopulation,canalsobeusedtoexplorethelevelofintegrationofthehierarchyandtoidentifythepoolingorpartitioningofsystems.ThisstudyrespondsdirectlytotheuseofthemethodbyMarzano(Chapter8inthisvolume)forcitiesinBritainandSpain,andlargelyfollowshermethodology.

AccordingtoZipf’slaw,otherwiseknownastherank-sizerule,‘whenranksofcities,arrangedindescendingorder,areplottedagainsttheirpopulations(rank1beinggiventothelargest,andsoon)inadoublylogarithmicgraph,arank-sizedistributionresults’.67Thiswillintheorygiveastraightline,indicatingthatthesizeorpopulationofcitieswhenrankedisinverselyproportionaltotheirrank,andthattheproductoftheirsizeorpopulationandrankisconstant.Byexaminingdeviationfromthisline,variousinferencescanbedrawnaboutthenatureoftheurbanismoftheregion.

Whiletheexistingliteratureonthesubjectiscomplexandinterpretationsareoftenatvariancedespitebeingderivedfromthesamedata,ingeneralthefollowinginterpretationsareaccepted.Astraightline(log-normality)isinterpretedas‘normal’—an


Page 20 of 40


evensettlement(p.260) hierarchy,withasmallnumberoflargecitiesandalargenumberofsmallcities,withafairnumberofintermediatecitiesinbetween.68Zipfinterpretsthisasreflectinganevenbalancebetweentheforcesofunificationanddiversification.If,however,aconcavedeviationisdisplayed,thehierarchyissaidtobeprimate.69Herethereismoreemphasisontheforcesofunification,leadingtoapoolingofresourcesinonecity.Thiswouldindicateacompletesettlementsystemwithaleadingcentralcity,dominantovertherestoftheterritory.70Thiscanberelatedtotheideasof‘hypercephalie’notedabove.Ifaconvexdistributionisdisplayed,thismaybeseenastheforcesofdiversificationactingonthesystem,pointingtolowlevelsofsystemintegration.However,ithasalsobeennotedthatsuchadistributioncanalsobetheresultofexcludingtheprimatecentrefromthedistribution,ortheresultofsystempartitioning,whereonlyonepartofawidersystem,andinparticulartheperipheryofasystem,isexamined.Ontheotherhandsuchasystemcanalsobeinterpretedastheresultofsystempooling,whereseveralurbansystemsaremistakenlygroupedasone.71

TheavailabledatasetforAsiarepresentsalimitednumberofsitesandwillnotformacompletehierarchy,since(asstated),wearelimitedbytheavailabilityofaccurateandscaledplansfromwhichareafigurescanbederived.Agreaternumberofplanswouldresultingreateraccuracy,butcurrentlythisissimplynotpossible.Withoutafullhierarchywecanonlymakethebestofmattersandsoallavailableplanshavebeenused.ThischapteralsofollowsMarzanoinassumingthatareacanbetakenasaproxyforpopulation.72Giventhatourpopulationshavebeenderivedasaproductofourarea,tousepopulationestimatesforrank-sizeanalysiswouldproducethesamespread,onlymultipliedandatahigherrange.Thequestionis,ofcourse,whetherastablepopulationdensitycanbeassumedthroughoutthehierarchy.

Whenrankedandplottedagainsttheirsize,thesitesbeingstudiedseemtorepresentaconvexdeviationfromthelinegivenbyZipf’slaw(Fig.9.15).Theresultantdistributionmightbeaconsequenceofapplyingafixedpopulationdensitytoasetofsitesthatmighthavevarying(p.261)


Page 21 of 40


Fig.9.15. Adoublylogarithmicgraphtoshowrankofselectedcitiesagainstarea,withlinearandpowertrend-lines.

populationdensities.Inthiscase,itisimportanttoexplorethepossibilitiesofdifferingdensitiesacrossthehierarchy.Largersitesmightwellbegivengreaterdensities(theyshouldbelargerthanweexpect),mediumsitessmallerdensities(theinverse),oracombinationofthetwo.ThismightaffectthedistributionsufficientlytoreturnittothetheoreticallinegivenbyZipf’slaw.Totestthis,thedatawerere-plottedwithvaryingranges,includingtheprobablerangeof100–400peopleperhectareandahighlyimprobablerangeof100–1,000peopleperhectare.Fig.9.16showsadecreasingscalefromlargesttosmallestcityof1,000to100peopleperhectare,Fig.9.17theinverse(fromlargesttosmallest,of100to1,000peopleperhectare),andFigs9.18and9.19theconsequenceofusingfirstthemeanandsecondthemedianandassigningtobothapopulationdensityof1,000peopleperhectare,decreasingtowards100atthelargestandsmallestsites.Thesefiguresindicatethatadjustingtherangedoesnotaccountforthenatureoftheoriginaldistribution,sinceasimilarconcavedistributionisdetectedevenwhenapplyinghighlyimprobableranges,althoughtheeffectislessened.Itmustbestressedthat,sincetheplotislogarithmic,increasinglylarge(p.262)


Page 22 of 40


Fig.9.16. Adoublylogarithmicgraphtoshowrankofselectedcitiesagainstestimatedpopulation,applyingaslidingpopulationdensityfrom1,000to100/hafromgreatesttosmallest,withlinearandpowertrend-lines.

populationdensitiesattheupperendofthehierarchywouldneedtobepostulatedtoreturnthelinetoZipf’slaw,particularlywiththelargestsites,whichwewouldexpecttobesemi-primate.Sinceitisclearthathigherfigurescannotbeacceptedonapurelyintuitivelevel,letalonetakingintoaccounttheanthropologicalandarchaeologicalreasonsfortherangesgivenabove,theconcavityofthedistributionmustbeareality,ratherthanafactorofdifferingpopulationrangesacrossthedataset.Whatismore,thepeculiardistributionsseeninFigs9.18and9.19seemtoindicatethatrelativelydiscreteandfixedpopulationdensityrangesaremoreprobable.Althoughareacannotbetakenasadirectproxyforpopulation,thesubstitutioncanbesaidtohavearelativelynegligibleeffect.Theconcavenatureofthedistributioncanthusbeacceptedasgenuine.

(p.263)


Page 23 of 40


Fig.9.17. Adoublylogarithmicgraphtoshowrankofselectedcitiesagainstestimatedpopulation,applyingaslidingpopulationdensityfrom100to1,000/hafromgreatesttosmallest,withlinearandpowertrend-lines.

Acceptingthis,suchadistributioncouldbeinterpretedeitherassystempooling(iftheintermediatesitesarelargerthanwewouldassume),orsystempartitioning(ifthelargestsiteisnotofthescalethatwewouldassume).Thefavouredhypothesisisthatsuchadistributionistheresultofsystempartitioning.TheprecedinganalysishasshownthestrongbiasofsitestowardstheMediterraneanandthedistributionofsitesonnodalpointsandpointsofaccess.ThisseemstoindicatethattheurbansystemofRomanAsialookstowardsthewiderRomanempireandshouldbeseenaspartofapan-Mediterraneansystem,partofthehighlyintegratedandhighlyconnectedadministrativeandpoliticalsystemcreatedbytheRomanempire.Itwouldalsobeextremelyunlikelythatsuchadistributionweretheresultofseveralindependentsystemsbeingpooled,sincecentralplacetheorydictatesthatitisunlikelyforsitestobegroupedtogetherinthewayfound(andparticularlywiththeobservedcoastal(p.264)


Page 24 of 40


Fig.9.18. Adoublylogarithmicgraphtoshowrankofselectedcitiesagainstestimatedpopulation,applyingaslidingpopulationdensityfrom100atthemeanto1,000/haatthegreatestandsmallest,withlinearandpowertrend-lines.

bias),unlesstheyarepartofasinglesystem.SuchaninterpretationisalsoinlinewithMarzano’sinterpretationforBritainandSpain,basedontworegionsandalargerdataset.Thehierarchyisalsocertainlyfarfromprimate,consonantwiththeexclusionofacapital(i.e.Rome)fromthedataset.Interestingly,thisrefutesthepossibilityof‘hypercephalie’andruraldestitution,andpointstoarelativelyhealthysettlementhierarchy,butlackingaprimatecentre.Inconclusion,then,thenatureofthehierarchyshouldbestbeinterpretedastheeffectofsystempartitioning.(p.265)

Fig.9.19. Adoublylogarithmicgraphtoshowrankofselectedcitiesagainstestimatedpopulation,applyingaslidingpopulationdensityfrom100atthemedianto1,000/haatthegreatestandsmallest,withlinearandpowertrend-lines.


Page 25 of 40


Conclusion:theurbansystemandurbanconnectivityThedistributionofurbansitesindicatesthatalargeproportionofRomanAsiawassurveyedandcontrolledbyurbancentres,fairlyevenlydistributedacrossrelief,butnotacrossspace,becomingsparserinthecentralplateauandeast.Thedenseclusteringofcitiesseemstoreducethespanofcontrolofindividualcitieswithintheregionconsiderably,resultinginanaverageintercitydistanceof24.5km.Supportingthisisafardensernetworkofagriculturalsites.Thisarrangementseemstotallyreasonablypreciselywithcentralplacetheory,sincesitesseemtohavefunctionedasnodesofcontrol(militaryandpolitical)andascentresofadministrationandjustice,aswellasservicecentres.Inaddition,whilemostoftheagricultural(p.266) wealthoftheregionmusthaveremainedlocal,wecanalsopostulateathoroughgoingsystemfortheexploitationofagriculturalwealthintheformoftaxesinmoniesorkindorintheformofagriculturalsurplus,andtheextractionofanumberofotherresources.Roadandriverinenetworksintegratethissystemallthemorefullyandallowforextraction.Thisrevealsagooddegreeofbasicurbanconnectivityandintegration,emphasizedbyhigherurbandensitieslocatedinareaswithgoodroadandriveraccess.

ThissystemofexploitationwithinAsiaseemstohavebeenextremelywellconnectedtotherestoftheRomanempire.ThereisabasicweightingofsitestowardsRome,withalargernumberofsitesalongthewesternandsouthernshorescomparedtoCappadocia.Thenaturalpositioningofsitesisdistorted,pullingthemawayfromaclassical,even,centralplacetheorydistributiontowardsadistributionfocusedtowardsRome.Inadditiontothis,thepositionofsitesonaccessroutes,whichtendtoleadeast–westtowardstheMediterranean,alsoseemstoconfirmhighlevelsofconnectivityandintegrationwithRome.Ingeneral,theregionfunctionsasaconduitrunningeast–west.Whileanalysisofthepopulationsizeanddistributionofsiteshasreducedtheestimatedpopulationofanumberofthelargersitesfromestimatesofashighas225,000tomorerealisticfigures,neverthelessthepopulationestimatesforthesesites(upto40,000–90,000)stillindicatetheirrelianceonwidercontacts.Indeed,thepositionoflargesitesonlinesofcommunicationformedbyriversandbyroads,oralongthecoast,seemstoindicatethattheyflourishedasaresultofthenewopportunitiesprovidedbyRomeandreliedontheconnectionsprovidedbyherempire.

Finally,ananalysisofthesettlementhierarchyanditsrank-sizerelationshipalsoindicatesthatthesystemshouldnotbeviewedasanisolatedentityandthatthesampleisonlyonepartofalargerpan-MediterraneansystemheadedbyRome.Althoughconflictingviewsarepresentastowhetherconvexdeviationsrepresentsystempoolingorpartitioning,itseemsunlikelythatmorethanoneurbansystemcouldhavebeeninoperationwithinAsiaduringtheRomanempire,discountingsystempooling.Theevidencepresentedabove,andtheanalogywithMarzano’sstudyofBritainandSpain,alsoseemstosuggesttheintegrationofAsiawithwidernetworks.73Thedeviationofthehierarchyfromlog-normalityisthustakenasanindicationofsystem(p.267) partitioning,withtheexclusionofaprimatecentre,andthusasanindicationofthehighlevelofintegrationandconnectivitybetweenAsiaandthewiderRomanempire.Inthiscontext,therecent


Page 26 of 40


evidenceoftheEphesusCustomsLawmightwellbebroughttobearasafurtherpieceofevidenceforthesocial,political,andlegalconnectionsbetweenAsiaandRome,andforAsia’sownlevelofintegration.74

Inthislight,AristidesseemstohavebeenquitecorrectinascribingtoRomethechangesbeingmadetotheurbansystemofAsia.WiththecomingofRome,asystembasedonthe(largely)self-sufficientpolisappearstohavebrokendowninfavourofnewconnectionsofferedbyRomeandherempire,leadingtosettlementnucleation,urbangrowth,andtheriseofanumberoffairlylargesites.AsRostovtzeffnotedlongago,withthecomingofRomecamenewopportunities,basedontheunification,peace,safetyontheseas,roads,andnewmarketsRomeoffered.75Recentscholarshiphasreturnedtosupportmanyofthesestatements,pointinginadditiontotheavailabilityoftravel,thedistributionofceramics,andtheintegrativeforcesofmoneyandtaxation.76Teminhasalsomadeaclaimforanintegratedmarketeconomy.77Setinthiscontext,thechangingnatureoftheurbansystemofAsiaappearstobeafavourableresponsetotheopportunitiesofferedbyRome.Whileitisnotclear(withoutfurtherresearch)towhatextentAsiaproducedfortheRomanmarket,andwhileitisunlikelythatAsiaeverproducedthequantitiesofgrainoroilforexportproducedbyEgyptorAfrica,theevidencedoesseemstoindicatetheimportanceofanumberofimportantproductsthatmighthavebeencirculatedwithintheRomaneconomy(seeabove)—perhapsmostnotablyagriculturalproduceandrawmaterialsandminerals.ItiscertainlyclearthatAsiamanagedtoescapetherelativedeclineexperiencedinGreeceasaresultofRomanruleandseemsonthecontrarytohavereachedhighlevelsofprosperity,especiallyiflevelsofurbanismcanbetakenasaproxyforeconomicprosperity.Theprecedinganalysisofsitedistribution,populationestimates,andhierarchyanalysisthusindicatesquiteclearlythatRomanAsiawasnotonlywellconnectedwithandintegratedintotheRomanempire,her‘suburb’,asAristideshasit;(p.268) butthattheregionalsorespondedfavourablytotheopportunitiesofferedbyRome,leadingtosubstantialurbangrowthandeconomicprosperity,emphasizedbythesheernumbersandsizesofhercities.

AcknowledgementsThischapterwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthehelpofagreatmanypeople.InparticularIwouldliketoexpressmygratitudetoProfessorAndrewWilsonforhissupervisionofthedissertationfromwhichthisstudyarises,toDrAnnalisaMarzanoforherhelpwithrank-sizeanalysis,andtoNigelJamesandthestaffoftheBodleianMapRoomfortheirpatienthelpwithmapping.Amoregeneralnoteofgratitudeisalsoowedtomyparentsandfriends.

Appendix:CatalogueofurbansitesinRomanAsiaMinorAlistofsitesinAsiaMinorofranks2and3intheBarringtonAtlas(rank2isshowninbold),totalling176sites.Coordinatesaregivenindegrees:minutes:seconds,toanaccuracyof±30seconds.MoredetaileddataarecurrentlybeingcompiledbytheauthorandtheOXREP.

Site Eastings Northings


Page 27 of 40


(Col.Augusta)AlexandriaTroas/Antigoneia 26:09:00E 39:46:00N(Col.IuliaAugustaFelix)Germa 31:37:00E 39:31:00NAcmonia 29:47:00E 38:39:30NAdada 31:00:00E 37:35:30NAdana 35:20:00E 36:59:00NAdramyttium 26:56:00E 39:30:00NAegae 27:10:30E 38:49:30NAezanis 29:37:00E 39:12:00NAlabanda/AntiocheiaChrysaoron 27:57:00E 37:36:00NAlinda/AlexandriaadLatmum 27:50:00E 37:34:00NAmastris 32:22:00E 41:45:00NAmblada 31:45:00E 37:30:00NAmorium 31:19:30E 39:02:00NAncyra 32:52:00E 39:56:30NAncyra 28:52:00E 39:10:00NAnemourium 32:49:00E 36:01:00NAntiocheiaadMaeandrum 28:34:00E 37:52:00NApameia/Kelainai/Kibotos 30:10:00E 38:04:00NApameia/Myrleia/Col.IuliaConcordia/Brylleion 28:54:00E 40:22:00NAphrodisias/Ninoe 28:44:00E 37:43:00NApollonia/Mordiaion/Sozopolis 30:29:00E 38:04:00NApolloniaadRhyndacum 28:41:00E 40:10:00NApolloniaSalbakes 29:01:30E 37:30:20NAppia 29:59:30E 39:02:00NAriassos 30:29:00E 37:14:00NArycanda 30:02:00E 36:31:00NAspendus/Primoupolis 31:10:30E 36:56:30NAssus 26:20:30E 39:29:30NAttaleia 30:42:00E 36:54:00NAttuda 28:48:30E 37:49:30NBagis 29:40:00E 38:40:00NBalbura 29:38:00E 36:58:00NBargylia 27:35:00E 37:12:00NBlaundus 29:13:00E 38:21:00NBruzus 30:10:30E 38:32:00N


Page 28 of 40


Bubon 29:25:00E 36:58:30N

Cadi 29:25:00E 39:03:00NCaesareaGermanice/Helge 28:55:00E 40:11:00NCaunus 28:37:00E 36:50:00NCelenderis 33:19:00E 36:08:30NChalcedon 29:01:30E 41:00:30NCibyra 29:30:00E 37:09:30NClaudiocaesarea/Mistea 31:44:00E 37:41:00NClaudiopolis/Bithynion 31:36:00E 40:44:00NClaudiopolis/Col.IuliaAugustaFelix/Ninica 33:27:00E 36:39:00NClazomenae 26:47:00E 38:22:30NCnidus 27:23:00E 36:41:30NCnidus 27:41:00E 36:44:00NCol.Caesarea/Antiochia 31:11:00E 38:18:00NCol.ClaudiaArchelais/Koloneia/Garsaura 34:02:30E 38:23:00NColophon 27:09:00E 38:07:00NColophon/ColophonadMare/Notium 27:12:00E 38:00:00NColossae 29:14:00E 37:47:00NComama/Col.IuliaAugustaPrimaFida 30:20:00E 37:19:00NConana/Iustinianopolis? 30:31:00E 37:57:30NCoracesium 31:59:30E 36:33:00NCorycus 34:09:00E 36:28:00NCotiaeum 29:59:00E 39:25:00NCremna/Col.IuliaAugustaFelix 30:43:00E 37:30:00NCyme 26:56:30E 38:46:00NCyzicus 27:53:00E 40:23:00NDaskyleion 28:04:00E 40:08:00NDerbe/Claudioderbe 33:23:00E 37:21:00NDiocaesareia 33:55:00E 36:35:00NDocimeium 30:45:00E 38:52:00NDorylaeum 30:31:30E 39:48:30NElaea 27:03:00E 38:57:00NElaiussa/Sebaste 34:11:00E 36:30:00NEphesus 27:20:30E 37:57:00NErythrae 26:29:00E 38:23:00N


Page 29 of 40


Etenna 31:28:00E 37:00:30NEucarpia 30:06:00E 38:29:30N

Eumenea/Fulvia 29:51:30E 38:19:00NGagai/PalaionTeichos 30:21:00E 36:17:30NGangra-Germanicopolis 33:36:00E 40:36:00NGermanicopolis 32:37:00E 36:38:00NHadrianeia 28:38:00E 39:35:00NHadrianoi 28:59:30E 39:55:00NHadrianoupolis 31:38:00E 38:44:00NHalicarnassus 27:26:00E 37:02:00NHeraclea(Pontica) 31:25:00E 41:17:00NHeracleaadLatmum/Pleistarcheia 27:31:30E 37:30:00NHerakleiaSalbakes 28:59:00E 37:37:00NHierapolis 29:09:00E 37:55:00NIasos 27:35:00E 37:17:00NIconomium/Claudiconium 32:30:00E 37:52:00NIlium/Troia 26:16:00E 39:57:00NIsaura(Nova)/Leontopolis 32:19:00E 37:11:00NKebren 26:34:00E 39:45:00NKidrama 29:08:00E 37:21:00NKyaneai 29:50:00E 36:14:30NLampsacus/Pityoussa 26:42:00E 40:21:00NLancare/Priene 27:19:00E 37:40:00NLaodiceia(Katakekaumene)/Claudiolaodicaea 32:22:30E 38:12:00NLaodiceiaadLycum/Dispolis/Roas 29:07:00E 37:50:30NLimyra 30:11:00E 36:20:00NLystra/Col.IuliaFelixGemina 32:21:00E 37:35:00NMagnesiaadMaeandrum/Leukophrys 27:31:30E 37:51:30NMagnesiaadSipylum 27:26:00E 38:37:00NMallus/AntiochiaadPyramum 35:29:30E 36:45:00NMetropolis 30:38:30E 39:12:30NMetropolis 30:31:30E 38:15:00NMidaeum 30:51:30E 39:48:00NMiletopolis 28:21:00E 40:04:30NMiletus 27:18:00E 37:30:00N


Page 30 of 40


Mylasa 27:42:00E 37:19:00NMyra 30:00:00E 36:14:30NNacoleia 30:42:30E 39:27:00NNeapolis 31:30:00E 37:56:00NNicaea 29:43:00E 40:27:00NNicomedia 29:55:00E 40:46:00NNysa/Athymbra 28:08:30E 37:54:00NOenoanda/TermessusMikra 29:30:30E 36:48:00NOlbasa/Col.IuliaAugusta 30:00:00E 37:18:00NOlympus/Hadrianopolis 30:29:00E 36:24:00NOuasada 31:56:30E 37:30:00NPappa/Tiberiopolis 31:55:00E 37:55:00NParium/Col.GemellaIulia*Hadriana 27:04:00E 40:26:00NParlais/Col.IuliaAugustaHadriana 30:48:00E 38:01:00NPatara/Arsinoe 29:20:00E 36:16:00NPednellisos 30:55:30E 37:13:00NPergamum 27:10:00E 39:08:00NPerge 30:52:30E 36:58:00NPessinus/Iustinianoupolis 31:34:00E 39:21:00NPhaselis 30:33:00E 36:31:00NPhellos 29:40:00E 36:14:00NPhiladelphia 28:30:30E 38:21:00NPhilomelium 31:56:30E 38:21:30NPhocaea 26:45:00E 38:40:30NPinara 29:15:00E 36:30:00NPogla 30:16:00E 37:17:30NPoimanenon 27:54:00E 40:04:00NPompeiopolis 34:13:00E 41:30:00NPrusa 29:03:30E 40:11:00NPrusiasadHypium 31:08:00E 40:55:00NPrusiasadMare/Kios 29:07:30E 40:25:00NPrymnessus 30:35:00E 38:42:30NSagalassus 30:32:00E 37:41:00NSaittai 28:36:00E 38:45:00NSardis 28:02:00E 38:28:00N


Page 31 of 40


Sebaste 29:38:00E 38:29:30NSebastopolis 29:10:00E 37:29:00NSeleucia/Claudioseleucia/SeleuciaSidera 30:38:00E 37:54:00NSeleuciaadCalycadnum/Tracheia 33:53:30E 36:23:00NSelge 31:08:00E 37:13:30NSide 31:24:00E 36:46:00NSidyma 29:13:00E 36:25:00NSilandos 28:50:00E 38:45:00NSillyum 30:59:30E 36:59:30NSinope 35:09:00E 42:02:00NSmyrna 27:08:00E 38:26:00NSoloi/Pompeiopolis 34:32:00E 36:43:30NStektorion 30:09:00E 38:20:00NStratonicea 28:03:00E 37:19:00NStratonicea/Hadrianopolis 27:47:00E 39:10:00NSyedra 32:11:00E 36:24:00NSynada 30:33:00E 38:33:00NSynaos 28:58:00E 39:05:30NTabae 28:51:00E 37:26:00NTabala 28:48:00E 38:37:00NTabia/Taouion 34:32:00E 39:51:00NTarsus/AntiocheiaadCydnum 34:54:00E 36:35:00NTelmessos 29:07:00E 36:42:30NTemenothyrae-Flaviopolis 29:25:00E 38:41:00NTeos 26:48:00E 38:10:30NTermessus 30:28:45E 36:59:00NThyateira 27:50:00E 38:55:00NTius/Teos/Tieion 32:02:00E 41:34:00NTlos 29:26:00E 36:33:00NTraianoupolis 29:34:00E 38:41:30NTralles/Dia/SeleuciaadMaeandrum/Kaisereia 27:50:00E 37:52:00NTripolisadMaeandrum/ApolloniaadMaeandrum/Antoniopolis

28:57:00E 38:03:00N

Tyana 34:36:30E 37:50:00NTyriaion 31:54:00E 38:17:00NXanthos 29:20:00E 36:22:00N


Page 32 of 40


Zeleia 27:36:00E 40:12:30N

(p.269) (p.270) (p.271) (p.272)

Bibliography

Bibliographyreferences:

AKURGAL,E.(2002).AncientCivilizationsandRuinsofTurkey:fromprehistorictimesuntiltheendoftheRomanEmpire.Istanbul.

ALCOCK,S.E.(1993).GraeciaCapta:thelandscapesofRomanGreece.Cambridge.

BAIROCH,P.(1988).Citiesandeconomicdevelopment:fromthedawnofhistorytothepresent.London.

BEAN,G.E.(1984a).AegeanTurkey.London.

—— (1984b).Turkey’sSouthernShore.London.

—— (1989a).LycianTurkey.London.

—— (1989b).TurkeyBeyondtheMaeander.London.

BEKKER-NIELSEN,T.(1989).Thegeographyofpower:studiesintheurbanizationofRomanNorth-WestEurope(BARInternationalSeries477).Oxford.

BERRY,B.J.L.(1961).‘Citysizedistributionandeconomicdevelopment’,EconomicDevelopmentandCulturalChange.9.4.1:573–88.

BLANTON,R.E.(2000).Hellenistic,Roman,andByzantineSettlementPatternsoftheCoastLandsofWesternRoughCilicia(BARInternationalSeries879).Oxford.

BOSIO,L.(1983).LaTabulaPeutingeriana:unadescrizionepittoricadelmondoantico.Rimini.

BRAUDEL,F.(trans.SReynolds)(2001).TheMediterraneanintheAncientWorld.London.

BROUGHTON,T.R.S.(1938).‘RomanAsia’,inT.E.Frank(ed.),AnEconomicSurveyofAncientRome,IV:RomanAfrica,RomanSyria,RomanGreece,RomanAsia.Baltimore,499–918.

CALDER,W.M.,andBEAN,G.E.(1957).‘AClassicalMapofAsiaMinor’.(AnatolianStudies7).London.

CASSON,L.(1974).TravelintheAncientWorld.London.

CHARLESWORTH,M.P.(1924).TheTrade-RoutesandCommerceoftheRomanEmpire.


Page 33 of 40


Cambridge.

CHRISTALLER,W.(1933).DiezentralenOrteinSüddeutschland.Jena.

COTTIER,M.,CRAWFORD,M.H.,CROWTHER,C.V.,FERRARY,J.-L.,LEVICK,B.M.,SALOMIES,O.,andWORRLE,M.(eds.)(2008).TheCustomsLawofAsia(OxfordStudiesinAncientDocuments).Oxford.

DROYSER,B.(1886).AltgeimeinerHistorischerHandatlas.Bielefeld.

DZIEWONSKI,K.(1972).‘Generaltheoryofrank-sizedistributionsinregionalsettlementsystems:Reappraisalandreformulationoftherank-sizerule’,PapersinRegionalScience29.1:73–86.

ELSNER,J.(1987).Sitesantiquesdusud-ouestdel’Anatolie.Bodrum.

ELTON,H.(1996).TheFrontiersoftheRomanEmpire.London.

ENGELS,D.W.(1990).RomanCorinth:analternativemodelfortheclassicalcity.Chicago.

ERDKAMP,P.(2005).TheGrainMarketintheRomanEmpire.Cambridge.

FINLEY,M.I.(1973).TheAncientEconomy.London.

FRENCH,D.H.(1974).‘AStudyofRomanRoadsinAnatolia’,AS24:143–9.

—— (1981).RomanRoadsandMilestonesofAsiaMinorI:thePilgrim’sRoad(BARInternationalSeries105).Ankara.

GEORGACAS,D.J.(1971).TheNamesfortheAsiaMinorPeninsulaandaRegisterofSurvivingAnatolianPre-TurkishPlacenames.Heidelberg.

GREENE,K.(1986).TheArchaeologyoftheRomanEconomy.BerkeleyandLosAngeles.

GRUNDY,G.B.(1904).Murray’sSmallClassicalAtlas.London.

HAMMOND,N.G.L.(1992).AtlasoftheGreekandRomanWorldinAntiquity.Bristol.

HASLUCK,F.W.(1910).Cyzicus,beingsomeaccountofthehistoryandantiquitiesofthatcity,andofthedistrictadjacenttoit.Cambridge.

HOPKINS,K.(1980).‘TaxesandtradeintheRomanEmpire(200B.C.–A.D.400)’,JRS70:101–25.

HORDEN,P.P.N.(2000).TheCorruptingSea:aStudyinMediterraneanHistory.Oxford.

JEFFERSON,M.(1939).‘Thelawoftheprimatecity,I’,TheGeographicalReview29:226–32.


Page 34 of 40


DEJESUS,P.S.(1978).‘MetalResourcesinAncientAnatolia’,AS28:97–102.

JOHNSON,E.A.J.(1970).TheOrganisationofSpaceinDevelopingCountries.Cambridge,Mass.

JONES,A.H.M.(1937).TheCitiesoftheEasternRomanProvinces.Oxford.

—— (1974).TheRomanEconomy:studiesinancienteconomicandadministrativehistory.Oxford.

JONES,C.P.(1978).TheRomanWorldofDioChrysostom.Cambridge.

KIEPART,H.(undateda).AtlasAntiquus:Twelvemapsoftheancientworldforschoolsandcolleges.Berlin.

—— (undatedb).FormaeOrbisAntiqui:36KartenmitkritischemTextundQuellenangabezujederKarte.Berlin.

LAURENCE,R.(1998).‘LandtransportinRomanItaly:costs,practice,andtheeconomy’,inH.ParkinsandSmith,C.(eds.),Trade,Traders,andtheAncientCity.London,129–48.

LINSKY,A.S.(1965).‘Somegeneralizationsconcerningprimatecities’,AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers55.3:506–13.

LLOYD,S.(1989).AncientTurkey:atravellers’historyofAnatolia.London.

LÖSCH,A.(1967).TheEconomicsofLocation,2ndedn.NewYork.

MAGIE,D.(1950).RomanRuleinAsiaMinor:totheendofthethirdcenturyafterChrist.Princeton.

MARGUÉRAT,Y.(1982).‘LesréseauxurbainsenAfriqueNoire:delapyramideàlamacrocephalie’,BulletindelaSociétéLanguedociennedeGéographie:19–28.

MILLAR,F.(1981).TheRomanEmpireanditsNeighbours.London.

MITCHELL,S.(1993).Anatolia:land,men,andGodsinAsiaMinor,2vols.Oxford.

—— (1999).‘Greekepigraphyandsocialchange.AstudyofRomanisationinsouth-westAsiaMinorinthethirdcenturyAD’,inXICongressoInternazionalediEpigrafiaGrecaeLatina,AttiII.Rome,419–33.

MITCHELL,S.andKATSARI,C.(eds.)(2005).PatternsintheEconomyofRomanAsiaMinor.Swansea.

MOLS,R.(1954–6).IntroductionàlaDémographieHistoriquedesVillesd’EuropeduXIVeauXVIIIesiècle,3vols.Gembloux.


Page 35 of 40


MORLEY,N.(1996).MetropolisandHinterland:thecityofRomeandtheItalianeconomy,200B.C.–A.D.200.Cambridge.

OLIVER,J.H.(1953).TheRulingPower.AstudyoftheRomanEmpireinthesecondcenturyafterChristthroughtheRomanOrationofAeliusAristides(TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilosophicalSociety43.4).Philadelphia.

PARRISH,D.(ed.)(2001).UrbanisminWesternAsiaMinor:newstudiesonAphrodisias,Ephesos,Hierapolis,Pergamon,Perge,andXanthos(JRASuppl.45).Portsmouth,RI.

PASCIUTI,D.,andCHASE-DUNN,C.(undated).‘Estimatingthepopulationsizesofcities’,.

PATERSON,J.(1998).‘TradeandtradersintheRomanworld:scale,structure,andorganisation’,inH.ParkinsandC.Smith(eds.),Trade,TradersandtheAncientCity.London,149–67.

PEACOCK,D.P.S.,andWILLIAMS,D.F.(1986).AmphoraeandtheRomanEconomy:anintroductoryguide.London.

POUNDS,N.J.G.(1973).AHistoricalGeographyofEurope,450B.C.–A.D.1330.Cambridge.

—— (1969).‘Theurbanizationoftheclassicalworld’,AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers59.1:135–57.

PUTZGERS,F.W.(1910).HistorischerSchul-AtlaszurAltenMittelerenundNeuenGeschichte.Bielefeld.

RADT,W.(1999).Pergamon:GeschichteundBauteneinerantikenMetropole.Darmstadt.

RAMSAY,W.M.(1890).TheHistoricalGeographyofAsiaMinor.London.

ROSTOVTZEFF,M.(1957).TheSocialandEconomicHistoryoftheRomanEmpire.Oxford.

SAVAGE,S.H.(1997).‘Assessingdeparturesfromlog-normalityintherank-sizerule’,JAS24:233–44.

SCHEIDEL,W.(2007).‘Demography’,inScheidel,W.,Morris,I.,andSaller,R.(eds.),TheCambridgeEconomicHistoryoftheGreco-RomanWorld.Cambridge,38–86.

—— ,MORRIS,I.,andSALLER,R.(eds.)(2007).TheCambridgeEconomicHistoryoftheGreco-RomanWorld.Cambridge.

SJOBERG,G.(1965).ThePreindustrialCity:pastandpresent.NewYork.

STIER,H.E.,etal.(1978).GrosserAtlaszurWeltgeschischte.Braunschweig.


Page 36 of 40


STILLWELL,R.(ed.)(1976).ThePrincetonEncyclopediaofClassicalSites.Princeton.

TALBERT,R.J.A.(2000).TheBarringtonAtlasoftheGreekandRomanWorld.Princeton.

TEMIN,P.(2001).‘AmarketeconomyintheearlyRomanEmpire’,JRS91:169–81.

VANHAVERBEKE,H.,andWAELKENS,M.(2003).TheChoraofSagalassos:theevolutionofthesettlementpatternfromprehistoricuntilrecenttimes(StudiesinEasternMediterraneanArchaeology5).Turnhout.

WARDEN,P.D.andBAGNALL,R.S.(1988).‘TheFortyThousandCitizensofEphesus’,ClassicalPhilology83.3:220–3.

WILSON,A.I.(2002).‘UrbanProductionintheRomanWorld:theviewfromNorthAfrica’,PBSR70:231–73.

WINFIELD,D.(1977).‘TheNorthernRoutesAcrossAnatolia’,AS27:151–66.

WOLOCH,G.M.(1983).RomanCities.Madison.

WOOLF,G.(1997).‘TheRomanurbanizationoftheEast’,inS.Alcock(ed.)TheEarlyRomanEmpireintheEast.Oxford,1–14.

YEGÜL,F.K.(2000).‘Memory,metaphor,andmeaninginthecitiesofAsiaMinor’,inE.Fentress(ed.)RomanizationandtheCity:creation,transformations,andfailures(JRASuppl.38).Portsmouth,RI,133–53.

Notes:

(1)AeliusAristides,ToRome,passim;Strabo,Geography,esp.BookXII;Ptolemy,Geography,BookV;Pliny,NaturalHistory,BookIV;DioChrysostom,TheThirty-third,orFirstTarsicDiscourseandTheThirty-fourth,orSecondTarsic,Discourse;cf.Broughton1938;Magie1950;Mitchell1993(esp.241).

(2)E.g.Mitchell1993.

(3)Broughton1938:812;Magie1950:585;Mitchell1993:244.

(4)Mitchell1993:69.

(5)Mitchell1999:433.

(6)Pounds1973;e.g.Scheidel2007.

(7)Scheidel2007;Jones1937.

(8)Radt1999;Blanton2000;andBean1984a,1984b,1989aand1989baregoodexamplesofthese.


Page 37 of 40


(9)OurmaintravellersareTextier,Hamilton,Humann,Ramsay,Hogarth,Chante,Keil,Wilhelm,Buckler,Bean,Calder,Cuthrie,CoxandCameron,andLloyd(formoredetail:Lloyd1989:199).Forexamplesofanapproachbasedonliterarysourcesandthesetravellers,seeMagie1950andMitchell1993.

(10)Forexample,Mitchell1993reliespredominantlyonliterarysourcesandepigraphyforhisimpressionofurbanismwithinAsia,butdoesnothaveaccesstoacatalogueordistributionmapofsites,leadingtotheacceptanceofanumberofunreliableestimates.

(11)Wilson,Chapter7inthisvolume.

(12)Wilson,Chapter7inthisvolume.

(13)Braudel2001(originalideasandinterpretations1968,butunpublisheduntil2001);HordenandPurcell2000;Wilson2002.

(14)Georgacas1971;HordenandPurcell2000.

(15)Hasluck1910.

(16)Marzano,Chapter8inthisvolume.

(17)Mitchell1993:243.

(18)Josephus,TheJewishWar:II.xvi.4.366,τίδαἵπεντακόσιαιτηςἈσιαςπόλεις;Philostratus,LivesoftheSophists:ii.1.548,πεντακοσίωνπόλεων.

(19)Pliny,NaturalHistory,BooksIVandV,passim.

(20)Mitchell1993:243,Bithynia13,Pontus11,Paphlagonia6,GalatiaandLycaonia20,Phryiaabout45,Mysia11,Lycia20.

(21)Talbert2000:maps51,52,56,61,62,63,65,66,and86;Stillwell1976.

(22)Talbert2000:xxv.

(23)CalderandBean1957;Droyser1886;Grundy1904;Hammond1992;Kiepartundatedaandb;Putzgers1910;Stieretal.1978.

(24)CoordinateswerecalculatedusingtheGettyThesaurusofGeographicNamesformajorsites,andmanuallyfromtheBarringtonAtlasfortheremainingsites.TheGettyThesaurusgivesaccuratecoordinates;coordinatesfromtheBarringtonAtlasareaccurateto±30seconds.TopographywasgeneratedinMapInfo,withRomanroadsplottedbythecreationofaschematicdiagramusingcoordinatesfromtheBarringtonAtlasandusingreliefasaguide,withsignificantreferencetoRamsay1890(preferredoverFrench1974,1981simplybecauseMapInfotoleratesasingleplanbetter).

(25)Bekker-Nielsen1989:30.Thisgives37kminonedayofeighthours(19kminahalf-


Page 38 of 40


dayoffourhours)fromcomparanda,comparedtothe20–30Romanmilesor30–45kmcoveredinliterarysources,making37kmareasonableestimate.

(26)Thereisasubstantialcorpusofarchaeologicalliteraturedealingwiththeanalysisofspatialpatternsthathasdevelopedanumberofsophisticatedmethodologies.Inthisstudy,buffersandVoronoidiagramsareusedtogiveanimmediateimpressionofthespatiallocationandterritoryofsites,andtooffersomepreliminaryconsiderationsinthecontextofthebroaderstudy.FurtherworktorefinethispicturewillclearlybeprofitableandisthesubjectofongoingworkbytheauthorinamoredetailedstudyoftheRomanurbansystemasasingleentity.

(27)Marzano,Chapter8inthisvolume.

(28)Christaller1933;Lösch1967(firstedn1946).WhilecommentatorshavequestionedtheempiricalexistenceofChristaller’smodelontheground,itisnonethelessclearthatthemodelisanextremelyusefulandinformativeheuristictool.

(29)Jefferson1939.

(30)Marguérat1982andJohnson1970.

(31)Johnson1970.

(32)Numbersaregiventothreesignificantfiguresthroughout.

(33)AeliusAristides,ToRome:93–4(citedatthestartofthischapter).

(34)Mitchell1993:80.

(35)Charlesworth1924;French1974,1981;Winfield1977.

(36)Broughton1938:857.

(37)Casson1974:128.

(38)Ramsay,quotedbyBroughton1938:599.

(39)HordenandPurcell2000.

(40)Blanton2000;VanhaverbekeandWaelkens2003.

(41)Erdkamp2005.

(42)Mitchell1993:256.

(43)Galen,Ongoodandbaddiet,quotedinMillar1981:208.

(44)Cicero,OnGn.Pompey’sCommand:14.


Page 39 of 40


(45)Mitchell1993:245.

(46)ThislistisderivedinessencefromBroughton1938,Magie1950,andMitchell1993,workingonStraboandCicero.ComparandawithOttomanTurkeyseemtosupportthis.FormetalsseeDeJesus1978.

(47)Mitchell1999:42

University Press Scholarship Online The Urban System of ......The Urban System of Roman Asia Minor...

Documents

Transcript of University Press Scholarship Online The Urban System of ......The Urban System of Roman Asia Minor...