Formation of the First Greek Settlements in the Pontos
According to Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, the word Pontos stands for the sea, especially the open sea. In time, the word Pontos became associated with the north-eastern portion of Asia Minor that borders the Black Sea (see Map 1).1 The Greeks first called the Black Sea, Aξεινος πóντος (inhospitable, unfriendly pontos), but later it was called Εϋξεινος πóντος (hospitable pontos) when they became aware of its wealth in the lands around it.2
The ancient name Πóντος Εϋξείνος, has the distinguishing characteristics of a hybrid name, part Greek and part Iranian. The Greeks took both parts to be Hellenic, but they also recognised an earlier form, which they took to mean its opposite, ‘inhospitable’ (äξεινος i.e. axenos). However, after studies in the early 20th century, it has become generally accepted that axenos was itself a borrowing into Greek from an Iranian root αχšαēnα meaning dark.3
The Greeks appear to have known about the Black Sea as early as the 13th century BC. This view is based on early Greek legends such as Jason and the Argonauts who set out to find the Golden Fleece in Colchis (modern Georgia, see Map 1). The earliest Greek trade with the lands around the Black Sea was reflected in the Greek legends about the origin of iron.4
Map 1: Miletos and its colonies on the Pontic coast (Hionides 1996, p. 35)
Also, the mythical Amazons were believed to have lived in northern Asia Minor, at the mouth of the Thermodon (Terme) river, although an alternative version states they lived on the Tanais (Don) river in southern Russia.5
Miletos colonising the Pontos
In the late 11th-10th century BC the Ionians (and subsequently the Dorians and Aeolians) migrated from mainland Greece and settled in the Aegean islands and the western coast of Asia Minor (Ionia), where they founded 12 cities.6 Ancient written sources seldom mention reasons for Greek colonisation, but where they do, the emphasis is always on forced emigration and conflict.7
An obvious example of forced migration is from Ionia, a very wealthy region where Miletos (see Map 1) was the main city. From the second half of the 7th century BC, its eastern neighbour, Lydia, expanded taking Ionian territory. At this time, Ionia began sending out its first colonies. In addition, from the middle of the 6th century BC, the Achaemenid Empire began to conquer Ionian territory and then, in the wake of the Ionian revolt in 449-494 BC, laid it waste. There was a shortage of land and food, but this was not from overpopulation, but from a loss of resources to a conquering foe and external difficulties provoked internal tension between different political groups, especially in Miletos.8
In the Natural History of Pliny the Elder, Miletos was supposed to have founded 90 colonies on the Pontos and the Propontis. This, is an exaggeration, but it proves the fame of Miletos as the pioneer of colonisation in the Black Sea.9 However, Miletos was the principal coloniser of the Black Sea, founding its first colonies there in the last third/end of the 7th century BC.10
The territory of Miletos was almost completely lacking in mineral ores. However, the south Pontic region was well endowed in these ores. In relation to commodities such as copper, gold and iron, there were alternative sources in the Mediterranean, yet it was the Black Sea that Miletos appeared to colonise so intensively. Likewise, grain could be sourced from a number of regions, of which the Black Sea was only one. Perhaps, like grain, in times of crisis, metals were too important to rely on a single supply source. Other commodities which the Black Sea region may have traded in, included timber (and charcoal), fish and slaves. However, all these items are archaeologically ‘invisible’.11
A slightly contrary view states the Black Sea was not rich in metals, as has been supposed, and that the Milesian colonies had access to plenty of natural resources close to home. Also, in the Pontos the Greeks did not plant crops known to the locals, instead they planted familiar crops, which they brought with them.7
Sinope to Amisos (Samsun)
In the written historical sources, it is unclear exactly when the Greeks appeared on the southern Black Sea coast. However, Greek pottery from the Halys valley (between Sinope and Amisos, see Map 1) proves the Greeks had contacts there long before the foundation of the coastal cities. Iron Age settlements testify to significant cultural exchange in the late Archaic period (Archaic period c. 750–550 BC). Sites along the Halys basin yielding Greek pottery and architectural terracottas apparently show that the Greeks paid special attention here. The reason was due to this valley’s abundant resources such as red pigments and other minerals.12
The Milesians drove out from Sinope the weakened Leukosyroi. Sinope then conquered land from the natives to the east for her colonists.13 The Greek settlers in Sinope and Amisos had to deal with the indigenous population from the beginning of their colonial activities, since their survival depended on access to the native territory to obtain agricultural products, valuable minerals and metals. The presence of local pottery in Sinope and Amisos suggests that the native Syrians and Cappadocians respectively formed a part of the populations there. These cities may have been founded over the already existing settlements or they could have received people from the surrounding area.12
According to Xenophon (c. 400 BC) Miletos founded Sinope. Sinope in turn founded Trapezous (Trabzon), Amisos (Samsun), Kotyora (Ordu) and Kerasous (Giresun) (see Map 1).14
The Pontic coastline provides very few natural harbours, with the notable exception of Sinope. Its harbour, and its rocky peninsula provided a naturally strong defensive site with a rolling hinterland stretching some 30 km to the south, which provided ample arable and pastoral land to support the city.15
There are inconsistencies between archaeological research of the Black Sea region and dates of its colonisation based on ancient literary sources. For example, archaeological excavation in Sinope has so far produced nothing earlier than the late 7th century BC.16 Sinope’s foundation date is quite confused in written sources. According to legend, it was founded in about 756 BC, but it was destroyed by the Cimmerians and refounded by Milesians in about 631 BC. (A critical re-evaluation of the written sources in the light of archaeological material is needed, as archaeologically researchers are not able to distinguish a Cimmerian culture.) Sinope had little access to trade links with central Anatolia. Its main orientation was towards the rest of the Black Sea.17
Little is known of Sinope after its colonisation until it was under a tyrant, Timesileos, who was driven out c. 436 BC by Athenian intervention under Pericles. A contingent of 600 men was sent there to consolidate Athenian influence and democracy.18
Amisos was founded around 564 BC on the site of modern Samsun. Ancient authors permit two interpretations: a purely Milesian foundation, or a joint foundation by Phocaea and Miletos. The archaeological evidence from Amisos just adds to the confusion. No proper excavation of the settlement has been conducted because of modern overbuilding.19 Amisos had intensive links with central Anatolia and looked more inland than across the Black Sea.20
The city of Amisos, constituted an emporium for the produce of the plateau. The low barrier of hills to the south of it rises only to a thousand metres. The hills come down to the sea for a short distance on either side of Amisos and then, on the eastern side, the coast opens up into a wide plain formed by the deltas of the Iris and the smaller river Thermodon (Terme).21
Amisos lies 165 km east of Sinope. It possessed no fine harbour; nor was it near the mouth of any major river. Its main assets were iron, probably traded from the Chalybes. Its lands produced olives, some local silver from the Pontic mountains, and the overland route across the so-called isthmus of Asia, which led to Tarsos.22
Kotyora is similar in pattern to the other Greek settlements. It stands at the head of an inland route with two wide deltas to the east, which provides ample food supplies, and its sheltered beaches are overlooked by an acropolis.23 Xenophon (c. 400 BC) stayed outside the walls of Kotyora for 45 days. Xenophon states Kotyora had a governor appointed by Sinope and was in the territory of the Tibareni.14
Kerasous’ great rocky peninsula provides with Sinope the best defensive site along the coast. As a harbour and anchorage, it has little to recommend it. The hinterland of Kerasous does not offer extensive arable and pastoral lands, which extend around the towns further westward. It seemed likely therefore, that defense was the prime consideration for the choice of Kerasous as a site. Possibly the historical importance of the town was largely due to it serving as the outlet for the alum exports from Koloneia (Şebinkarahisar)24 located 220 km to the southeast.
Xenophon (c. 400 BC) visited Kerasous for 10 days with his Greek army of 8,600 soldiers. Xenophon stated Sinope had taken away the land from its natives and given the land to their colonists for which Kerasous paid Sinope regular tribute. The food in the houses of the Mossynoeci, at Kerasous, consisted of loaves of bread, corn, pickled dolphin, dolphin fat, chestnuts and wine.14
The Armenian version of Eusebius (Eusebii Chronicorum Libri Duo, ed. A Schoene, Berlin, 1866) provides a date for the founding of Trapezous of 757/6 BC, which is wrong. Eusebius was actually referring to another city in the Propontis.25 (According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia Online 1999, Eusebius Pamphili was a Greek Christian writer born about 260 AD who became the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine.)
In 400 BC, Xenophon with his Greek Army of 10,000 soldiers visited Trapezous, an inhabited Greek city, for about 30 days and stated that it was a colony of Sinope. The people of Trapezous gave Xenophon’s army presents of oxen, barley and wine.14
From Xenophon’s text, The Persian Expedition, several indigenous peoples who lived near Trapezous in 400 BC can be identified. These indigenous peoples included the Taochi (north of Erzurum), the Chalybes (around Gumushane), the Scytheni (further west), the Macrones (behind Trapezous) and assorted Colchian tribes at the coast.26
The Archaic Greek colonies along the southern Black Sea coast were quite small and often situated on peninsulas. If these initial sites have not survived, the main reason could be due to the rise in sea level. Along the Black Sea coast the sea level has risen several times in antiquity, and it has risen by a further three to four metres since the first century CE.27
Our current knowledge about major Greek cities and local peoples, mainly in the Archaic period (c. 750–550 BC) along the southern coast of the Black Sea includes, not many Greek cities were established in this large area, due to the local geography and the unfriendliness of many local peoples. Also, archeologically, we do not know much about these Greek cities, primarily because they have been built over by modern towns and cities, modern road construction and reclamation works, which have destroyed what, had survived until now.28
1 Hionides, C 1996, 1 The Greek Pontians of the Black Sea, Boston, Massachusetts, p. 31.
2 Danov, CM 1979, ‘The ancient Greeks and the Black Sea’, 12th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, 18-20 March 1978, Archeion Pontou [Archives of Pontos], vol. 35, Athens, p. 156.
3 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, ‘The Black Sea area’, in An inventory of archaic and classical poleis: An investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, (eds MH Hansen, and TH Nielsen), Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 924.
4 Danov, CM 1979, p. 159.
5 King, C 2004, The Black Sea: a history, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 26.
6 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, ‘Revisiting ancient Greek colonisation’, in Greek,colonisation. An account of Greek colonies and other settlements overseas, (ed. GR Tsetskhladze), vol. 1, Leiden, Boston, p. xxiii.
7 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. xxix.
8 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. xxx.
9 Danov, CM 1979, p. 161.
10 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. lxvi.
11 Greaves, A 2007, ‘ 11 Milesians in the Black Sea: trade, settlement and religion’, in The Black Sea in antiquity: regional and interregional economic exchanges, Black Sea Studies, 6, The Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Black Sea Studies, (eds V Gabrielsen & J Lund), Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, p. 11.
12 Summerer, L 2007, ‘Greeks and natives on the southern Black Sea coast in antiquity’, in The Black Sea: past, present and future, Proceedings of the International, Interdisciplinary Conference, Istanbul, 14-16 October 2004, (eds G Erkut and S Mitchell), British Institute at Ankara Monograph 42, British Institute at Ankara, London, p. 35.
13 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 927.
14 Xenophon, 400 BC, The Persian Expedition, (translated by Rex Warner), Penguin Classics, London.
15 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, The Byzantine monuments and topography of the Pontos, vol. I, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library & Collection, Harvard University, Washington D.C., p. 7
16 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. xxxiii.
17 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, ‘Greeks and locals in the southern Black Sea, littoral: a re-examination’ in Greeks between east and west: essays in Greek literature and history in memory of David Asheri, (eds G. Herman and I. Shatzman), The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem, pp. 165-7.
18 Av ram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 961. 19 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, pp. 168-9. 20 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, p. 173. 21 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, p. 8. 22 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 954. 23 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, p. 120. 24 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, p. 9. 25 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 964. 26 Nişanyan, S & Nişanyan, M 2001, Black Sea: a traveller’s handbook for northern Turkey, 3rd edn, Infognomon, Athens, p. 11. 27 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, p. 177. 28 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, p. 194.
I wish to thank Professor Tsetskhladze for kindly sending me some of his archaeological papers on the Black Sea.
Crypto-Christians of the Trabzon Region of Pontos
Greek Colonies in the East
Ideology and archaeology in Turkey
Greek Penetration of the Black Sea
Iron Age Caucasia
The Incredible Odyssey of the Black Sea Greeks
Crypto-Christians of the Trabzon Region of Pontos
Who were the crypto-Christians?
The crypto-Christians (also called cryphi, klosti, Stavriotes, Kromledes) were Christian Greeks who due to the Muslim persecution against Christians publicly declared themselves Muslims. However, in secret, they upheld their Greek language, customs and Christian religious practices.1
Crypto-Christians were not polygamists and they were married in a Christian as well as a Muslim ceremony. The Christian marriage ceremony was often conducted in a rock-hewn house or one underground. When one of them died, a Christian funeral took place as well as the usual Muslim one. Up to the mid 19th century their Christian ceremonies were conducted with great care, but by the early 1900s as long as the men registered themselves as Muslims (thus available for military service), nobody asked whether they were Christian or Muslim at heart.2
Greek authors gave some curious details of the secret Christian rites of Greeks in the Trabzon district (see Map 1). Crypto-Christians followed the Orthodox fasts. Their children were baptised, and bore both a Christian and Muslim name for secret and public use respectively. They never allowed their daughters to marry Muslims, but the men did take Muslim wives. In the latter case, the Christian marriage was conducted in secret, in one of the monasteries. If pressure was required, the bridegroom threatened to leave his bride.3
Map 1: Map of Pontos (Bryer and Winfield 1985, p. 2)
The first reference to crypto-Christians in the Trabzon region comes from an American missionary in 1833, followed by W.J. Hamilton in 1836 and two French travellers in 1840. (Between 1796 and 1832, none of the 25 western travellers, who left a record and passed through this region, mentioned crypto-Christians.)4
During the century after 1461, Trabzon became a ‘Muslim’ town; partly by influx of Muslims, partly by deportation of Christians, but largely through conversion. (There were considerable financial benefits in converting to Islam.) According to Ottoman tax registers [tahrir defters] in 1520 (59 years after the fall of Trabzon to the Ottoman Turks), Trabzon was still 86% Christian. However, by 1583, it was 54% Muslim, with still 77% Greek speaking.5
Greek historians maintain that, like Of (a village 45 km east of Trabzon) and the Greek-speaking Muslim Oflus, the Greeks of Tonya (42 km south-west of Trabzon) converted to Islam in the late 17th century. However, in the case of Tonya there is no popular explanation of why this happened. The notion is plausible, for in the late 17th century, Christian Greeks in the Pontos experienced considerable pressure on their faith. In the case of Of, we now know there was no mass conversion and the Muslims may simply have overtaken the Christians by natural increase.6
Even after conversion to Islam, some people around Trabzon, as reported in the 1890s, did not forget their Christian roots. There were whole villages on this seaboard whose inhabitants were Muslim, and would resent being called anything else; yet their Greek origin was believed both by history and by some of their traditions. For example, Surmene and Of, two considerable villages (35 km and 45 km east of Trabzon respectively), hold to certain customs, which connect them with the Christian faith. Under the stress of illness, the image of Madonna is suspended above the sickbed; the sufferer sips the forbidden wine from the old cup of the Communion, which still remains a treasured object, much as they might be puzzled to tell you why.7
A little earlier, in 1879, it was estimated that out of 10-12,000 families from Of, 8-10,000 families spoke Greek but only 192 families were Christian.8
Map 2 *Click to enlarge: Map of Matsouka, south of Trabzon (Zerzilidis 1959, p. 160)16
Impact of the Tanzimat reforms and Hatt-i Humayun
The Tanzimat was a period of legislation and reform that modernised Ottoman state and society, and brought greater state participation in Ottoman society during 1839-76.9 In 1843, a new penal code was introduced, which recognised equality of Muslims and non-Muslims. One year later, the death penalty for renouncing Islam, a provision of the şeriat, [Muslim religious law] was abolished.10 This abolition was a crucial event.
On 18 February 1856, a new reform charter, the Imperial Rescript (Hatt-i Humayun), was promulgated by the Sultan. This Rescript; prepared under strong pressure from foreign powers, laid down the equality of all Ottoman subjects irrespective of religion.11 The Hatt-i Humayun allowed people to report their true religion in public without punishment. Not all crypto-Christians professed their faith after 1856. The revelation continued up to 1910.12
On 14 May 1856, Petros Sideropoulos, the first Kromniot [from the Kromni area, south of Trabzon] crypto-Christian declared his Orthodoxy in Trabzon. On 15 July 1857, the Kromni (KPOMNH at 39036′E 40034′N in Map 2) crypto-Christians presented a petition to the pasha and western consuls in Trabzon (appealing for protection) on behalf of 55,755 inhabitants of 58 settlements, of whom 52% were claimed to be open Christians, 31% [17,260] Kromniot (crypto-Christians) and 17% Muslims.4 Some crypto-Christians who declared for Orthodoxy after 1856 may have had Muslim ancestors and many were registered for military service.13
In relation to the military reforms under the Tanzimat, from 1845, conscription was officially introduced in most areas of the Ottoman Empire. Christians were now allowed to serve within the army, but as this was expected to create tensions, they were soon able to pay a special tax instead (in lieu of military service), which they largely preferred. Muslims, too, could evade conscription by payment, but this was very steep for most.14
After the Hatt-i-Humayun, in towns, districts and villages where the whole population was of the same religion, they could repair, according to their original plan, buildings of religious worship, schools, hospitals, and cemeteries. The plans of these buildings, in the case of new construction, would after approval by the Patriarchs or heads of communities, be able to be submitted to the Ottoman Government, which would decide if they could be constructed. Each sect, in localities where there were no other religious denominations was free to practice its religion in public. In towns, districts and villages where different sects were present, each community, inhabiting a distinct quarter, had equal right to repair and improve its churches, hospitals, schools, and cemeteries. Each sect was free to exercise its religion.15
Prior to the Hatt-i Humayun, old Christian churches were allowed to be repaired only in some areas, but no new churches were allowed to be built. However, after 1856, in areas where there were Ottoman Muslims, Christian celebrations were not allowed in public, nor were
bells allowed to be rung. Bells were allowed to be rung in areas where mostly Christians lived.17 Presumably where bells were not allowed to be rung, the churches may have hung a slab of wood horizontally and the priest would hit it with a piece of wood.
Impact of the economic conditions of Gumushane on the
Gumushane, about 65 km south of Trabzon, was established in the 1590s. Its Greek name of Argyropolis appears to have been derived around 1846. The silver mining economy of old Gumushane declined in 1829 (the silver mines were abandoned in the 1850s) and the emergence of the crypto-Christians of Kromni, Stavri (at 39030’E 40036’N in Map 2) and Santa (40 km SSE of Trabzon) after 1856 are related. In the case of Chaldia (covering Kromni, Stavri and villages further south) at least, the phenomenon of crypto-Christianity arose largely from the peculiar economic and administrative context of the period 1829-56.18
Pontic crypto-Christians only entered their ‘twilight’ world after 1829 and were reluctant to re-emerge in the ‘sunlight’ after 1856. This was to do with the silver-mining and smelting economy of Gumushane. From 1654-1841 both the mining concessionaries (archimetallourgoi) and a new metropolis of Chaldia were in Greek hands, principally the dynasty of Phytianos – which was to provide miners and bishops all over Anatolia and the Caucasus, and a patriarch of Antioch.4
The mines were the property of the Sultan and under state supervision with all precious metals supposed to be sent to Constantinople. (Without doubt, much precious metal was concealed or smuggled.) However, the mines around Gumushane were effectively controlled by the archimetallourgoi, who was invariably a Greek, with the skilled labour also monopolised by Greeks. This situation, by one probably unreliable tradition goes back to the patronage of Maria of Libera (Gülbahar), Pontic Greek wife of Sultan Bayazid II (1481-1512), gave the Greeks of the area a peculiar economic position and considerable tax privileges.19
From at least the mid-seventeenth century, the Greeks of Gumushane and the surrounding villages were exempt from normal taxes in return for working in the main branches of the industry; namely mining, smelting, and charcoal burning. Gumushane drew its charcoal from an area later to be identified with crypto-Christianity. These villages were excused the haraç, tribute which Christians paid in lieu of military service, thus losing a basic legal distinction as Christians. The crypto-Christians claimed their faith in 1856 only after the mines of Gumushane were abandoned. As they had never paid the haraç before they still demanded exemption, but mining service had ended and they were given the ‘privilege’ of military service instead. The argument dragged on into the 1860s.19
After 1829, it was a question whether the silver mines of Chaldia or the charcoal for smelting from Imera (Stavri /Kromni), were exhausted first. The most intensive crypto-Christian (and fewest Muslim living) areas in the petition presented in 1857 (by Kromniot crypto-Christians mentioned previously) had been economically dependent on silver-mining and charcoal burning for smelting. Smaller crypto-Christian elements were listed near alum mines to which the archimetallourgoi of Gumushane turned after 1829, when their own silver mines declined. Neither Professor Dawkins nor Hasluck (see ref 3) asked why crypto-Christians were keeping their identity secret in places where there were so few declared Muslims.4
The Orthodox church was more reluctant that the Ottoman state to recognise the situation after 1856. By 1863, the church’s solution was to combine the monastic exarchates of Sumela (ΣOYMEΛA 39039′E 40041′N in Map 2), Vazelon (BAZEΛΟN 39030′E 40045′N in Map 2) and Peristereota (ΠEPІΣΤEΡEOTA 39043′E 40047′N in Map 2) into its last Anatolian eparchy, Rhodopolis. According to the petition of 1857, the 14,525 inhabitants of the new diocese were 53% open Christian, 37% crypto-Christian and 10% Muslim. Here if their landlord was one of the three ruling abbots, from whom were the crypto-Christians keeping their identity secret?4
Palgrave (1826-88), the British consul in Trabzon, was first to observe that Ottoman mining and smelting service in the Pontos was in lieu of military service, so Kromniots carried arms (another obvious advantage) as Muslims but did not pay poll tax as Christians. With the decline of the mines after 1829, they clung to the best of both worlds.4
1 Hionides, C 1988, The Greek Pontos: mythology geography history civilization, Boston Massachusetts, p. 99.
2 Pears, E 1911, Turkey and its people, Methuen & Co Ltd, London, pp. 266-7.
3 Triantaphyllides, P 1866, People in Pontos, or Pontica, and some speeches by the same author, (in Greek), Athens, pp. 55-92, in Hasluck, FW 1929, Christianity and Islam under the Sultans, vol. II, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 472-3.
4 Bryer, A 2006, R.M. Dawkins, F.W. Hasluck and the ‘Crypto-Christians’ of Trebizond, Paper delivered to British School at Athens.
5 Lowry, H 1977, The Ottoman Tahrir Defters [tax registers] as a source for urban demographic history: the case study of Trabzon ca. 1486-1583, unpublished PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, excerpts used in Bryer, A 1991, ‘The Pontic Greeks before the diaspora’, Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 4 (4) p. 319.
6 Bryer, A & Winfield, D 1985, The Byzantine monuments and topography of the Pontos, vol. I, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library & Collection, Harvard University, Washington D.C., p. 156.
7 Lynch, HFB 1901, Armenia: travels and studies, vol. 1, reprinted in two volumes in 1967, Khayats, Beirut, pp. 11-2.
8 Parcharides, I 1879, Στατιστική τής έπαρχίας Оφεως του νομου Τραπεζουντος, Παρνασσός, iii, pp. 224-32, quoted in Bryer, A 1968, ‘Churches east of Trebizond (the Santa district), Archeion Pontou, vol. 29 (2), p. 110, in Bryer et al 2002.
9 Shaw, SJ & Shaw, EK 2002, History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, vol. II: reform, revolution, and republic: the rise of modern Turkey, 1808-1975, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 55.
10 Zurcher, EJ 2004, Turkey: a modern history, 3rd edition, I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, London, p. 61.
11 Lewis, B 2002, The emergence of modern Turkey, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, NY, p. 116.
12 Andreadis, G 1995, The Cryptochristians: klostoi: those who returned, tenesur: those who changed, Kyriakidis Brothers, Thessaloniki, Greece, p. 84.
13 Bryer, A 1970a, ‘The Tourkokratia in the Pontos: some problems and preliminary conclusions’, Neo-Hellenika, vol. 1, p. 40.
14 Zurcher, EJ 2004, p. 57.
15 Shaw, SJ and Shaw, EK 2002, pp. 124-5.
16 Zerzilidis, G 1959, ‘Τοπωνυμικó της Άνω Ματσούκας’, (in Greek), Archeion Pontou, vol. 23, p. 160.
17 Fotiadis, K 2001, A translation of, The forced Islamization in Asia Minor and the cryptochristians of the Pontos (in Greek), Kiriakidis Bros, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 369-70.
18 Bryer, A 2002, ‘Introduction’, in The post-Byzantine monuments of the Pontos: a source book, (eds A. Bryer, D. Winfield, S. Balance & J Isaac) Variorum Collected Studies Series, Ashgate, Aldershot, Hampshire GB, p. xvii.
19 Bryer, 1970b, ‘Churches south of Trebizond’ in Archeion Pontou vol. 30, pp. 326-8 (in Bryer et al 2002).
I warmly thank Anthony Bryer OBE, Emeritus Professor of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, for sending me a copy of his 2006 paper delivered to the British School at Athens, which I have quoted here. I also thank him for his cryptic reference to me in his paper. Bryer’s work is essential reading to those studying the history of the Pontos.
Formation of the First Greek Settlements in the Pontos
The cost of language, Pontiaka trebizond Greek
Maçka and Sumela monastery trave
Sumela Monastery (Panagia Sumela)