As recent trends in comparing the Han and Roman empires from primarily the point of view of literary evidence has brought forth new frameworks and opportunities of research, one asks how these developments could contribute to the comparison of governance behaviors, such as the administration of the iron industry. The paper first surveys the Han and the Roman literary sources regarding the iron industry governance, with which to establish parameters of the modus operandi in the respective imperial domains, and, when possible, identifies problems articulated by ancient authors. An interesting contrast is how Han sources showed particular concern for the impact of the iron industry on agricultural performance, while the primary concerns of Roman administrators were performances in leasing and taxation. Among the items known are mines, nails, and recycled iron. Both imperial administrations took a spatially oriented approach, establishing offices and bureaus across their respective domains to address their different concerns. Mapping iron production and administration sites in the Han and the Roman empires spatially further illustrate the governance behaviors identified above. Focused discussions on new excavations in the Martys (80km NW of Narbo) and Taicheng (90km W of Chang'an) further provide local frames of reference to interrogate the priorities and challenges highlighted. The preliminary results suggest that while concerns may differ between the two imperial governments, there are similarities in governance behaviors that are not technologically related, as some scholars suggest. Both imperial governments seemed to have been capitalizing on existing iron industry communities through managerial posts, at times bureaucratizing them. While the Han empire, in particular, attempted to bureaucratize iron production and distribution wholesale, the eventual scaling back of such mobilization marks the shared limitations of imperial control on the traditional culture of production and distribution of this basic commodity.

This paper explores why Sinope may have shifted from its initial commemorative epoch of 45 BCE, suggesting that the city’s adoption of a new era might have been a modification rather than a complete overhaul, influenced by traditions or challenges related to Achaemenid-Seleucid periods. The analysis extends to the impact of regional externalities on Sinope’s decision-making processes, particularly whether the Lucullan era was adopted for better regional integration with northern Paphlagonia. This regional alignment, evident in cities like Amastris and Abonuteichos and facilitated through the “Koinon of the Cities in Pontus,” implies Amastris’s significant influence due to its long-standing use of the Lucullan era and its political stature. The paper attempts to advance two arguments. First, Sinope's era system alignment could be voluntary, aimed at regional conformity. Second, the intent to conform to regional norms may have been due to broader regional dynamics and potential gubernatorial pressures, and hence a decision informed by both local and global factors.

This paper explores the socio-political evolution of Amastris, a city in northern Anatolia founded by the Achaemenid princess Amastris in the early 3rd century BCE, with a particular focus on its territorial scope—the Amastriane—during Roman and Hellenistic times. Based on Christian Marek’s reconstruction, the Roman Amastriane stretched far beyond its coastal nucleus, reaching deep into the Paphlagonian interior. This paper investigates whether this expansive territory was a Roman creation or if it echoed earlier Hellenistic configurations, possibly dating back to Amastris or the Mithridatid kings. Section one reviews Marek’s methodological framework, emphasizing the diverse, geographically challenging territory governed by Amastris in Roman times, which required transcending typical coastal-urban dynamics. In section two, epigraphic and archaeological evidence from the Eflani-Pınarbaşı region sheds light on the integration of rural inland communities, highlighting a deep continuity of Macedonian, Achaemenid, and local traditions into the Roman period. Finally, the paper explores whether Amastris’ Hellenistic chora could have reached similar extents, potentially through dowry lands or political marriages rather than military conquest, as suggested by Memnon-in-Photios. The long-lasting cultural ties between coastal and inland Paphlagonia, preserved in cult practices and social structures, point toward a cohesive region predating Roman intervention, raising critical questions about the nature of territorial governance in both Hellenistic and Roman Amastris.