Determinación del espesor de la estructura de pavimento

Most significantly, in order to construct a new framework for Paphlagonia during the Achaemenid period, I adopt a distinctive landscape perspective. At the center of my

43 _{This extension is more comprehensive to the east of the Kızılırmak because of the research conducted in} the coastal hills around Samsun, in the Havza and Vezirköprü Plains, and along the right bank of the Kızılırmak. The surveys conducted by Karauğuz to the west of the Bartın River have produced little evidence that dates before the Roman period (Karauğuz 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009).

44 _{The late Ottoman Kastamonu Vilayeti is coterminous with the region of Paphlagonia, with the exception} of additional counties in the west (Bolu, Ereğli, etc.), but no contemporary region corresponds to Paphlagonia (Cuinet 1894:404). The region is approximate primarily because of hesitation about connectivity and settlement pattern on the left bank of the Kızılırmak southeast of Çankırı (I.1-15), in

the V-shaped area on the right bank of the river between Osmancık (I.16) and Kargı Ambarkaya (I.17),

and on the Kızılırmak Delta (J.7-14). It does not seem probable that an empire that attempted to

administer the coast and the subregions north and south of the Ilgaz Massif would not have included the nexus between Safranbolu (E.2) and Deresemail Asar Tepe (E.5) as part of Paphlagonia (catalog entries

in bold). Secondarily, the region is approximate because of the administrative contingency of Achaemenid Anatolia and Paphlagonia as a potential configuration of the landscape, as discussed in the fourth chapter.

45 _{My mapping with geographical information systems software actually raises additional questions that} are both theoretical and ethical. The theoretical questions derive from a difference between contemporary mapping practices and their ability to represent the lived reality of the past (cf. Ingold 1993, Escobar 2008). The ethical responsibility of archaeologists operating in the globalized present to the local inhabitants raises a second set of questions (cf. Meskell 2009). Various fieldwork techniques where local inhabitants participate in the mapping process constitute a partial answer to the ethical questions.

perspective is a definition of landscape as “an anonymous sculptural form always already fashioned by human agency, never completed, and constantly being added to.”46

Landscapes are dependent on what has come before and is happening in a specific place. This definition brings the associated questions of temporal continuity and situated practices to the forefront of my discussion. Whereas my general objective is to study the impact of the Achaemenid Empire, my particular emphasis is on how Achaemenid

imperialism is situated in place and time. Accordingly, my objective is not to identify

the traces of Achaemenid imperialism but to come up with a more diverse analysis of the

society of Paphlagonia during the Achaemenid period.47

The contemporary social implications of the landscape perspective are also important. In archaeological interpretations influenced by European narratives of colonization and imperialism, Paphlagonia is displaced to a more primitive time before the European protagonists, and is viewed as a marginal place far from the narratives’ setting. The landscape perspective participates in a broader trend of decentralizing European modernity from these interpretations and disentangling archaeology from the narrative of

modernity.48 _{The emphasis of this trend is on multiplying local narratives by setting}

diverse narratives in places far from the center. Paphlagonia is such a place, and a landscape perspective should enable me to escape the predicament of Texier, Ainsworth, and later researchers who describe Paphlagonia as a wild and mountainous landscape.

46 _{Tilley 1994:23, italics added.} 47 _{Cf. Dökü 2008b.}

48 _{The landscape perspective is a response to the postcolonial critique of the narrative of European} modernity that displaces the narrative from its European setting to the dispersed margins (Massey 2005:62-4).

The emphasis on place and time in landscape archaeology is not an endorsement of the modernist one-to-one relationship of communities and their localities, or cultures and

their regions.49 _{Landscapes are constituted by spatial and temporal connections ranging}

in scale from the personal and everyday to the social and far-flung. The interpretation of the most everyday connections depends on archaeological survey and the analysis of the physical and social landscape. The second chapter is an introduction to the physical and social landscapes of the places and subregions within and around Paphlagonia. Although the physical landscape is introduced separately from the social, the features of the physical landscape were selected in response to the nexus of features around significant

places, particularly the settlement at Kalekapı in the middle Gökırmak Valley.

Kalekapı (C.7) is a fortified settlement resting on the summit and slopes of a

limestone ridge cut by a tributary of the Gökırmak River.50 _{The settlement derives its}

modern name from a rockcut tomb with columnar entryway surrounded by low relief

sculptures (fig. 6). The tomb is the most prominent Achaemenid landscape feature in

Paphlagonia, and I rely extensively on the nexus of features in the vicinity in my interpretation of the landscape of Achaemenid Paphlagonia. The physical landscape of fault zones, phreatic limestone features, and copper mining all are present at the

settlement at Kalekapı.

The most far-flung of Paphlagonian connections are partially mediated through connections embodied in the material culture, particularly in the relief sculptures of the

Kalekapı tomb. In the third and fifth chapters I touch on specific features of the

sculptures in my analyses of the Aegean and Achaemenid material connections of

49 _Ibid.:64-5.

Paphlagonian elites who must have occupied the tomb. Beforehand, however, I incorporate into the landscape perspective those far-flung connections mediated through discourses written during to the Achaemenid period. In a landscape imagined within colonial and imperial frameworks, locality and situated practices present only half the picture. The other half is the discursive colonial and imperial worlds. My landscape perspective emphasizes the effective qualities of these discourses on the imagination of the landscape and the recursive relationship between material and literary culture. Consequently, material connections are analyzed after a deconstruction of the literary discourses.

An annotated catalog of the most important archaeological sites appears at the end of the dissertation. Bold letter and number citations in the text and footnotes refer to the catalog entries. For the analysis of settlement patterns in the second chapter and in the catalog I divide the area into subregions that are compared with each other. References

to the catalog consist of a letter for each subregion (A-L) followed by a number for each

site (e.g. A.1).