{"scope":"Bounded online and local source audit, 18 October 2026. Existing paper citations are distinguished from additions; absence of a name search hit is not proof that a work was never consulted.","sources":[{"id":"avram","citation":"Alexandru Avram, Prosopographia Ponti Euxini externa, supplied November 2009 author typescript; final publication 2013.","locator":"Amaseia: typescript pp. 35–45, nos. 34–146; Amastris: pp. 46–57, nos. 147–243; Sinope: pp. 315–351, nos. 2813–3056; suffix entries retained.","access":"Audited local register dependence; final 2013 edition not newly collated.","prior_engagement":"Foundation of the existing paper and registers.","url":"","contribution":"Provides explicitly delimited external prosopographic source frames. These are neither population samples nor exhaustive ancient movement registers."},{"id":"ireland1996","citation":"Stanley Ireland and S. Atesogullari, 1996, The Ancient Coins in Amasra Museum, in R. Ashton (ed.), Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey, 115–137.","locator":"Numbered main catalogue, nos. 1–369; row-specific pages in the coin ledger.","access":"Inherited complete catalogue audit; original factual fields retained.","prior_engagement":"Already engaged in the paper.","url":"","contribution":"Amasra collection composition is a published custody frame. Identified issuing city and imperial authority are different classifications."},{"id":"casey2010","citation":"John Casey, 2010, Sinope: A Catalogue of the Greek, Roman and Byzantine Coins in Sinop Museum (Turkey) and Related Historical and Numismatic Studies. Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 44.","locator":"Main catalogue and separately registered hoard sections; record-specific page and catalogue references accompany each row.","access":"Inherited complete source-section audit; main and hoard frames remain separate.","prior_engagement":"Already incorporated in the comparative paper.","url":"","contribution":"The catalogue includes quantities, uncertain attributions and distinct acquisition frames. These cannot be pooled as independent evidence for a single circulation system."},{"id":"ireland2000","citation":"Stanley Ireland, 2000, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Coins in the Museum at Amasya (Ancient Amaseia), Turkey. Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 33.","locator":"Main Greek, Roman and Byzantine catalogue sections; row-specific locators in the coin ledger.","access":"Inherited complete catalogue audit, with exclusions retained.","prior_engagement":"Already incorporated in the comparative paper.","url":"","contribution":"A large museum custody frame requires period, metal, regime and acquisition controls before comparison with the smaller Amasra frame."},{"id":"exeter","citation":"Mapping Migration in Roman Iberia, Understanding the data, University of Exeter research project, accessed 18 October 2026.","locator":"Sections Denoting origin; The limitations of epigraphic data; The Limitations of Mapping; Unmappable data.","access":"Full methodological web page inspected.","prior_engagement":"No Exeter or project-title reference found in the current paper text/footnotes search; introduced here as a methodological comparator.","url":"https://mappingromanmigration.exeter.ac.uk/understanding.html","contribution":"Ethnics and geographical cognomina require separate treatment. Publication, commemorative selection, uncertain geography and dating condition the apparent network. A funerary association need not demonstrate permanent settlement.","challenge":"This atlas is stricter than the project's general description of funerary evidence: a cenotaph can also prevent inference of death or bodily presence at the monument's location. Unresolved places receive no invented point."},{"id":"kemmers","citation":"Fleur Kemmers and Nanouschka Myrberg, 2011, Rethinking numismatics. The archaeology of coins, Archaeological Dialogues 18.1, 87–108.","locator":"Especially pp. 89–91, Coins and contexts.","access":"Local full article inspected at the relevant pages; metadata checked at publisher.","prior_engagement":"Already cited in the paper; operationalized in the atlas.","url":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203811000146","contribution":"Production, use, deposition and later retrieval or study are distinct contexts. This supports retaining collection custody separately from ancient findspot and avoiding transport claims based solely on mint attribution."},{"id":"stolba","citation":"Vladimir F. Stolba, 2003, Some Reflections on the Amphora Stamps with the Name of Amastris, in The Cauldron of Ariantas, 279–301.","locator":"pp. 286–291, Problem of attribution and Chronology; pp. 291–293 stamp list.","access":"Local full chapter and Aarhus open chapter inspected.","prior_engagement":"Already present in the paper bibliography; the challenge is made explicit here.","url":"https://antikmuseet.au.dk/fileadmin/www.antikmuseet.au.dk/Pontosfiler/BSS_1/BSS1_23_Stolba.pdf","contribution":"The name on a stamp is not a secure city-of-production label. Stolba argues for a workshop associated with the person Amastris and a Herakleian location, suggesting about 305–300 BCE. This is an argued attribution and chronology, not a settled replacement gazetteer identification.","challenge":"Do not map these stamps as secure exports from the city of Amastris. Keep competing production hypotheses and their dating outside the early imperial person–coin comparison."},{"id":"akkas","citation":"İsmail Akkaş and Erkan Alkaç, 2022, Bartın İli ve İlçeleri Yüzey Araştırmaları: Paphlagonia Bölgesi Amastris Çevresinde Bulunan Amphoralara Dair İlk Gözlemler, in F. Bağdatlı Çam (ed.), Bartın İli ve İlçeleri Yüzey Araştırması, 233–252.","locator":"p. 234 English abstract; p. 240 conclusions; pp. 241–243 catalogue; figures pp. 250–252.","access":"Local chapter inspected, including catalogue and rendered p. 240. Printed pagination corrects the 241–260 metadata encountered during discovery.","prior_engagement":"No Akkaş name found in the current paper text/footnotes search; added as a separate later-period comparison.","url":"https://karaman.academia.edu/ismailakkas/Papers","contribution":"The small surface assemblage includes LRA 3, LRA 1 and Ganos Type 1. The authors assign different groups by parallels to the fifth–sixth, fifth–seventh and tenth–eleventh centuries CE, with proposed western Anatolian, Cilician and Propontic production connections.","challenge":"No stratified deposits establish these dates; sparse surface evidence cannot supply traffic volumes or verify an early imperial pattern. Exact findspots and quantified recovery coverage must be established before adding a new map layer."},{"id":"ozturk","citation":"Bülent Öztürk, 2022, Amastris Üzerine Yapılan Epigrafik Çalışmalar ve 2017–2019 Yılları Arasında Bartın İli Yüzey Araştırması’nda Bulunan Amastris Yazıtları, in F. Bağdatlı Çam (ed.), Bartın İli ve İlçeleri Yüzey Araştırması, 171–213.","locator":"pp. 174–176 English abstract; p. 175 reused inscriptions; entries B6–B9.","access":"Local chapter inspected; p. 175 rendered; author publication listing checked online.","prior_engagement":"Already engaged in the current paper.","url":"https://mimarsinan.academia.edu/B%C3%BClent%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk","contribution":"Inscriptions reused at the South Entrance Gate and Kemere Bridge distinguish modern observation location from original monument setting. New discoveries alter the known dossier without retrospectively making earlier samples complete.","challenge":"Separate original setting, findspot, reuse and modern custody; similarity of personal names alone cannot add an external civic affiliation."},{"id":"turoglu","citation":"Hüseyin Turoğlu, 2022, Bartın İli ve Yakın Çevresi İçin Arkeo-Coğrafya Değerlendirmesi, in F. Bağdatlı Çam (ed.), Bartın İli ve İlçeleri Yüzey Araştırması, 113–148.","locator":"pp. 115–117 English abstract and method: topographic 1:25,000, soil 1:100,000 and geological 1:500,000 inputs; 10 m analytical database.","access":"Local chapter inspected at the stated methodological pages.","prior_engagement":"Checked here for the Ancient Ecology interpretation; no claim of complete prior bibliography absence.","url":"","contribution":"Offers a regional framework for relief, water, soils, vegetation and settlement survey. Different source-map scales constrain what an apparently fine raster can resolve.","challenge":"Modern terrain and a 10 m analysis grid do not independently date an ancient corridor or recover ancient river navigability. Treat landscape affordances as hypotheses requiring dated geomorphological and archaeological tests, rather than sufficient causes of the observed epigraphic distribution."},{"id":"wu2025","citation":"Ching-yuan Wu, 2025, Aquila’s Roads: Connecting Paphlagonian Spaces, Gephyra 29, 63–91.","locator":"Publisher abstract and existing Magalia roadwork case: CIL III 6983; Claudian 45–54 CE envelope.","access":"Publisher page/abstract checked; existing source-critical Magalia case reused. No new blanket verification of all modeled routes claimed.","prior_engagement":"Author's existing research; connected here without adding inferred journeys to the registers.","url":"https://doi.org/10.37095/gephyra.1590099","contribution":"A coastal–inland infrastructure question can be connected to the documented Aquila roadwork. Preserved roadcut, inscription, modeled alignment and claimed territorial consequences require different evidence grades."},{"id":"orbis","citation":"Walter Scheidel, Elijah Meeks and Martin Weiland, 2012, ORBIS: The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World, version 1 paper.","locator":"p. 16, sailing simulations, optimal paths and additional port costs.","access":"Stanford primary paper methodological section checked online.","prior_engagement":"Transport models already inform the paper; used here to define a future sensitivity study.","url":"https://orbis.stanford.edu/orbis2012/ORBIS_v1paper_20120501.pdf","contribution":"Optimized simulated paths omit some delays and local constraints. Seasonal cost scenarios test possibilities; they cannot reconstruct the itinerary or duration of an individually attested journey."}],"questions":[{"question":"Does Amaseia's westward concentration survive changing the unit or removing Claros?","status":"Implemented descriptive test","test":"Compare person-place with document-locality counts, supported presence, direct affiliation, and leave-one-locality-out profiles.","limit":"Claros is an institutional recording centre; fewer remaining observations do not estimate movement not recorded there.","sources":["avram","exeter"]},{"question":"Does a three-part coin composition persist within the same period and reported metal?","status":"Implemented descriptive test","test":"Display all six regime categories, then a clearly conditional L/E/I denominator; retain uncertain quantities, cross-boundary dates and separate hoards.","limit":"A chosen one-third benchmark is not an expected ancient distribution or a test of independent random draws.","sources":["ireland1996","casey2010","ireland2000","kemmers"]},{"question":"Are directional conclusions an artefact of sector boundaries?","status":"Implemented descriptive test","test":"Recompute eight-sector summaries with boundaries shifted by −11.25° and +11.25°; retain geographic endpoints.","limit":"Sensitivity of a compass sector label is not uncertainty in an ancient travel route.","sources":["exeter"]},{"question":"Can coastal and inland access explain the contrasts after institutional recording is controlled?","status":"Research design; causal claim not established","test":"Compare dated road/harbour evidence, alternative transport costs and regional survey coverage. Inspect results within matched genres, periods and acquisition frames.","limit":"There are three unequal documentary and collection frames, not a controlled sample of equivalent cities. Relief alone cannot explain the contrasts.","sources":["turoglu","wu2025","orbis"]},{"question":"Do later amphora imports show continuity or a changed economic geography?","status":"Separate extension; not added to the early imperial counts","test":"Build a sherd-level register with type/date range, findspot precision, context, attribution alternatives, and recovery coverage; compare only overlapping chronological groups.","limit":"Surface typology and sparse finds cannot show uninterrupted exchange or measure trade volume.","sources":["akkas","stolba"]},{"question":"What would demonstrate residence, recognition or group belonging?","status":"Common criteria already applied; evidence remains uneven","test":"Seek explicit duration/domicile, repeated independent attestations, household ties and wording of grants separately; retain reasons and unknowns on each axis.","limit":"An ethnic, commemoration, citizenship or association does not alone reveal a person's subjective aims or integration.","sources":["avram","exeter","ozturk"]}],"decisions":["Preserve all 490 original person-register rows; revised public projections do not recode the frozen audit without new record-specific evidence.","Use the common finite-contained 27 BCE–235 CE frame as default; all-period views are explicitly cumulative and unequal.","Keep the legacy 50-entry Amastris radial chart outside current comparative denominators.","Attribute the atlas to the Ancient Ecology collection as research on human–landscape relations, institutions and material circulation; this classification is not proof of environmental causation.","Do not represent affiliations or museum mint origins as observed migration streams, transport routes, traffic intensity, or subjective belonging."]}