Kilikya’da Yeni Asur Egemenliği ve Yerel Güçler

Year 2009, Issue: 21, 327 - 337, 01.02.2009

Mehmet Kurt

Abstract

Asur kaynakları, Kilikya ile ilişkili olarak iki bölgeden söz etmektedirler. Adana ve çevresi Que olarak adlandırılırken, batısındaki dağlık bölgenin en azından bir bölümü için Hilakku denilmiştir. Kilikya, jeopolitik konumu ve zengin doğal kaynaklarınedeniyle, Yeni Asur Devleti’nin Anadolu politikasında daima öncelikli bir yer tutmuştur. Asur Devleti’nin geleceğinin kuzey batıda olduğunu büyük bir ileri görüşlülükle fark eden III. Salmanassar, Que ile yakından ilgilenen ilk Asur kralıolmuştur. Kralın özellikle M.Ö. 833 yılında Que’ye düzenlemişolduğu sefer, bölgenin tarihî coğrafyasına ışık tuttuğu gibi, Asur yönetim tarzının esaslarınıgözler önüne sermesi açısından da anılmaya değer niteliktedir. Yeni Asur Devleti’ni M.Ö. VIII. yüzyılın ilk yarısında geçirdiği bunalımlardan kurtaran III. Tiglatpileser M.Ö. 745-727 , izlediği sistemli batıpolitikasıçerçevesinde bölgeyle yakından ilgilenen ikinci Asur kralıdır. III. Tiglatpileser dönemi belgelerinde, onun M.Ö. 738 yılında yendiği ve vergiye bağladığıkrallar arasında Que kralıUrikki’nin adıda geçmektedir. Sanherip döneminde, bölgenin yerel yöneticileri olan Azitawadda ve Kirua’nın Asur yönetimine karşıçıkarttıklarıisyanlar, bölgenin politik yapısıve yerel güçlerin bu politik teşkilâtlanmadaki etkisini bütün açıklığıyla gözler önüne sermiştir. Zira bölgede yapılan filolojik inceleme ve analizler, yerel güçlerle daha büyük güçler arasındaki politik ilişkiler konusunda önemli sonuçlar ortaya koymuşlardır. Öte yandan M.Ö. IX. yüzyıl ortalarında, Asur yayılmacılığına karşıUrartular’ın önderliğinde Muškiler, İyonyalılar ve Kilikyalılar’ın oluşturduklarıittifaklar sonucu, M.Ö. VIII. yüzyılın ortalarında Kilikya sahillerinde birçok koloni kurulmuştur. İşte bu makalenin amacı, Asur kaynaklarıve yerli hiyeroglif yazıtlar ışığında, Kilikya’nın politik durumu ve yerel güçlerin etkinliğini gözler önüne sermektir. Bu açıdan çalışma, bölgenin M.Ö. IX.-VII. yüzyıllar arasıtarihî coğrafyasıhakkında genel bir değerlendirmeyi de içermektedir.

Keywords

Kilikya, Yeni Asur Devleti, Que, Hilakku, Yeni Asur Egemenliği, Yerel Güçler.

Yrd. Doç. Dr., Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey Üniversitesi

Abstract

The Assyrian sources address to two regions in relation with Cilicia. While Adana and its vicinity was named as Que, at least some part of the mountainous region in the west was called Hilakku. This name, which was written as HLK/KLK in Aramaic langauge, is transformed into Cilicia in the Hellenic language and to refer to the region of Hilakku as it was called in the Iron Age. Besides its strategic and geopolitical position, Cilicia, had always been privileged in the Anatolia policies of New Assyrian State due to its rich natural sources. Shalmanassar III, noticing that the future of the Assyrian State lies in the North-west with a very far sight, was the first Assyrian king, who was interested in Que. Namely, our information about Que and Hilakku in the IX. Centry B. C. is based on a campaign in the first year of the said Assyrian king’s rule 858 B.C. . Moreover this first campaign shows that the Assyrian policy of expanding into central Anatolia was imlemented. On the other hand, the campaign of Shalmanassar III. in 833 B.C., not only shed a light on the historical geography of the region, but also it is very important in showing the accuracy of the Assyrian administration style. Shalmanassar’s various campaigns through Amanus and Que, betrays that he had big difficulties in establishing the Assyrian sovereignity in the region. In fact the Assyrians, despite their permeation into Que in the IX. Century B.C., could provide the Assyrian control over this region only after a century, when they gained the support of the local leaders. Tiglathpileser III. 745-727 B.C. , who could liberate the New Assyrian State from its depressions in the first half of the VIII. Century B.C., is the second Assyrian king who was closely interested in the region within the framework of the sytemized western policy, which he was conducting. In the documents of Tiglathpileser III. era, Urikki, the king of Que, whom he defeated in 738 B.C. and laid under contribution, is mentioned as well. This fact shows that Que continued to pay contributes to Assyrians approximately hundred years after Shalmanassar. In the times of Tiglathpileser III., the political and administrative structure in Central Anatolia, showed that the continuity of Assyrian sovereignity here could only be possible by holding Que. The region was also a place of Assur-Muški Phryg struggles. Sargon II., started a campaign against the Muški king Mita in 715 B.C. upon his anti Assyrian activities in the region and captured some of the Que cities which were under the Assyrians since Shalmanassar III. The Assyrian king, who gained the control of Que, captured by Mita, had probably seized the region up to the starting point of Göksu Kalykadnos . The Assyrian king achieved his goal over this region largely after this campaign. Because, besides cutting off the connection of Muški Kingdom to Mediterranian, the iron and lead mines in the Göksu Valley as well as forestry products consisting of mainly cedar were seized. Thus, it is to understood that the most decisive and lasting control over Cilicia Plane was warranted after 715 B.C. and 713 B.C. Sargon left Hilakku –probably due to the administrative difficulties – to Ambaris, King of Tabal, however the King of Tabal betrayed. Upon the unexpected betrayal of Ambaris, who relied on the King of Urartian, Sargon needed to revise his policy for the North-western states, and changed this policy radically. It is to be understood that this new policy, based on the eastern diplomacy and decreasing the number of the contributing principalities in the borders, was harshly imlemented boyunca the Assyrian king. The rebellions in Que and Hilakku at the end of Sargon’s rule and in the time of Sanherip, should be regarded as a sign showing that the Assyrians’ started loosing the control over the region. As to conclude from the Karatepe inscriptions, Azitawadda, rejecting to pay contributes to the Assyrians, was feeling himself strong enough to warrant the security of Cilicia, to remove the current fears and to unify various groups among the Cilician population. Therefore he started his propaganda activities to provide the trust of the population on himself and to each other. Azitawadda sought a wide range of popular support of Luwians, Phoenicians and Greeks and probably tried to get the support of the local Hilakku peoples in the mountainous areas in the North of the Cilicia Plane during the struggles he was planning against Assyrians. The main goal of Azitawadda was to implement the idea that the safety and prosperity of any kind of social, political and economical groups in Cilicia had been in his rule. However, beside of this fact, he must also aim to legalise his leadership over Cilicia. Therefore, he strongly avoided to use Que, which could remind the Assyrian sovereignity in Cilicia. Instead of this, it is to be understood that he preferred to use the name “Danuna”, going back till XIV. B.C. for all of the inhabitants of Adana Plan efor the sake of unification. The Kirua rebellion in 696 B.C., showed the difficulty in controlling the Cilician Gates once more. This can be explained through the economical affect of this rebellion over Assyrian. The Rebellion of Kirua, showed the military and strategical importance of Amanus for Assyrians once more. Besides being a main route in Cilicia, the Route of Que, which provides a passage from the Assyrian Sam’al’den to Que and has a strategical importance, it used to have many secondary connections at Cilician Gates and in the region up to Silifke. The rebels, who took over the control of all these routes, tried to slip their trade to Mediterranian. The success of the rebellion, could be a nearly unrecoverable impact on the Assyrian interest, whose final aim was to hold on the Mediterranian trade. Therefore, the reason of Sanherip’s concern that the rebel wold last longer, was more ecomocal besides of military and political. In fact, the Assyrians were satisfied with a purported control over the important regions in the far states as long as their overland route was not threatened. Howeveri the Rebellion of Kirua showed the deficient side of such a policy. The rebellions, started by the local kings Azitawadda and Kirua against the Assyrian ruler, had shown the strategical importance and socio-economical value of Cilicia for Assyrian State once more. The said rebellions had shown the political structure and the impact of the local powers on this political organisation clearly. Because the philological researches and analyses brought impportant conclusions about the political relations between the local powers and greater powers. On the other hand, the Assyrian campaign against the rebellions in 696 B.C., reminds that the struggles of the Assyrians and Greeks for Cilicia as well as the colonisation in the region to be closely related. In this respect, as a result of the alliances between Ionians and Cilicians in the leadership of Muškis against the Assyrian expansionism in the mids of IX. Century B.C., many colonies were established on the Cilicians coasts in the mids of VIII. Century B.C. The aim of this article is to show the political position of Cilicia and the impact of the local powers under the lights of the Assyrian sources and local hieroglyphic inscriptions. In this respect, this study includes a general evaluation of the historical geography of the region between IX.-VII. Centuries B.C. as well

Keywords

Cilicia, New Assyrian State, Que, Khilakku, New Assyrian Sovereignity, Local Powers

References

• Alkım, U. Bahadır (1959). “Güney-Batı Antitoros Bölgesi’nde Eski Bir Yol Şebekesi”, Belleten, XXIII/ 89-92, 1959, 59-77.
• Alkım, U. Bahadır (1965). “The Road from Sam’al to Asitawandawa, Contributions to the Historical Geography of the Amanus Region”, Anadolu Araştırmaları, II/1-2, 1965, 1-45.
• Aslan, N. (2001). “Kilikia Bölgesindeki Grek Kolonizasyonu”, Olba, IV, 2001, 1-17.
• Astour, Michael C. (1963). “Palace-Names from the Kingdom of Alalah in the North Syrian List of Tutmose III: A Study in Historical Topography”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, XXII, 1963, 220-241.
• Astour, Michael C. (1967). Hellenosemitica, An Ethnic and Cultural Study In West Semitic Impact On Mycenaean Greece, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
• Bahar, Hasan (1994), “M.Ö. II. Binyıl Başlarında Anadolu-Mezopotamya Arasındaki Ticaret Hayatı”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3, 307-311.
• Bahar, Hasan (1999). Demirçağında Konya ve Çevresi, Konya: S. Ü. Yaşatma ve Geliştirme Vakfı Yayınları.
• Bing, J. D. (1987). A History of Cilicia During the Assyrian Period, Michigan.
• Borgia, Emanuela; Casabonne, Olivier ve Egetmeyer, Marcus (2002). “Notes Ciliciennes”, Anatolia Antiqua, X, 2002, 177-195.
• Borgia, Emanuela ve Casabonne, Olivier (2004). “Notes Ciliciennes”, Anatolia Antiqua, XII, 2004, 43- 55.
• Casabonne, Olivier (1999a). “Local Powers and Persian Model In Achamenid Cilicia: A Reassesment”, Olba, II/1, (Özel Sayı), 1999, 57-66.
• Casabonne, Olivier (1999b). “Notes Ciliciennes”, Anatolia Antiqua, IX, 1999, 131-140.
• Casabonne, Olivier (2007). “Kilikia, Bağımsızlıktan Makedon Fethine”, Arkeoatlas, 6 , 2007, 54-61.
• Cavaignac, Eugène (1950). Les Hittites, Paris.
• Cavaignac, Eugène (1956). “A Propos Du Document Nouveau B.M. 25124 Les Deux Routes D’Asie Mineure”, Journal Asiatique, CCXLIV, 1956, 341-348.
• Çambel, Halet (1999). Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Volume II, Karatepe-Aslantaş, Berlin. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
• Çambel, Halet ve Özyar Aslı (2002). Karatepe-Aslantaş, Azatiwataya Die Bildwerke, Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
• Dalley, Stephane (1999). “Sennacherib and Tarsus”, Anatolian Studies, 49, 1999, 73-80.
• Desideri, Paolo ve Jasink, Anna M. (1990). Cilicia. Dall’eta di Kizzuwatna alla Conquista Macedona, Torino.
• Dinçol, Ali M. (1982). “Geç Hititler”, Anadolu Uygarlıkları Ansiklopedisi 1, İstanbul: Görsel Yayınlar, 122-131.
• Erzen, Afif (1940). Kilikien bis zum Ende der Perserrschaft, Leipzig: Spezialbetrieb für Dissertations von Robert Noske in Borna-Leipzig.
• Forlanini, Massimo (2001). “Quelques notes sur la géographie historique de la Cilicie”, in: É. Jean et al. (eds), La Cilicie: Espaces et Pouvoirs Locaux, Varia Anatolica XIII (Paris 2001), 2001, 553-564.
• Forrer, Emil (1920). Die Provinzeinteilung des Assyrischen Reiches, Leipzig.
• Garstang, John ve Gurney, Olivier R. (1959). The Geography of the Hittite Empire, London.
• Goetze, Albrecht (1940). Kizzuwatna and The Problem of Hittite Geography, New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Grayson, A. Kirk (1987). “Assyrian Expansion Into Anatolia In The Sargonid Age (c. 744-650 B.C)”, XXXIVème Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (XXXIV. Uluslar arası Assirioloji Kongresi, 6-10/VI/1987- İstanbul), Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1987, 131-135.
• Gurney, O. Robert (2001). Hititler (Çev. Pınar Arpaçay), Ankara: Dost Kitabevi.
• Hawkins, John David (2000), Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Volume I, Berlin.New York: Walter de Gruyter.
• Herodotos (1983), Herodot Tarihi, Çeviren: Mümtekin Ökmen, İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
• Hild, Friedrich ve Hellenkemper, Hansgerd (1990). Kilikien und Isaurien, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
• Houwink ten Cate, Philo H. J. (1961). The Luwian Population Gropus of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera During the Hellenistic Period, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
• İpek, İsmet, Tosun, A. Kâzım ve Tekoğlu, Recai (1999). “Adana Geç Hitit Kurtarma Kazısı 1997 Yılı Çalışma Sonuçları”, IX. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri (27-29 Nisan 1998), 1999, 173-188.
• Joannes, Francis (1991). “L’Asie Mineure Mèridionale d’apès La Documentation Cunéiforme D’Époque Néo-Babylonienne”, Anatolia Antiqua I, 1991, 262-266.
• Kınal, Füruzan (1973). “Hitit Devletleri İçin Kuzey Suriye’nin Önemi”, Atatürk Konferansları, IV, 1970’den Ayrıbasım, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1973, 1-13.
• King, Leonard William (1910). “Sennaherib and Ionians”, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXX, 1910, 327-335.
• Koşay, Hamit Zübeyir (1968). “Kilikya Tarihi (Bibliyografya)”, Belleten, XXXII/126, 1968, 297-299.
• Laroche, Emmanuel (1958). “Adana et Les Danouniens”, Syria, 35, 1958, 263-275.
• Laroche, Emmanuel (1985). “Toponymes Hittites ou Pré-Hittites Dans La Turquie Moderne”, Hethitica, VI, 83-102.
• Lemaire, André (1983). “L’inscription Phénicienne de Hassan-Beyli reconsidérée”, Rivista di Studi Fenici, 11, 1983, 9-19.
• Lemaire, André (1991). “Recherches De Topographie Historique sur Le Pays De Qué (IXe-VIIe siècle av. J. C.), Anatolia Antiqua, I, 1991, 265-275.
• Lemire, André (2001). “Les Langues Du Royaume De Sam’al aux IXe-VIIe s. av. J. C et Leurs Relations avec Le Royaume de Qué”, in: É. Jean et al. (eds), La Cilicie: Espaces et Pouvoirs Locaux, Varia Anatolica XIII (Paris 2001), 2001, 185-193.
• Lipinski, Edward (1985). “Phoenicians in Anatolia and Assyria, 9th-6th Centuries B. C.”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica,16, 1985, 81-90.
• Luckenbill, Daniel David (1968). Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, I-II, New York.
• Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R. (1974). “Assyrian Sources Iron, A Preliminary Survey of the Historical Geographical Evidence”, Iraq, XXXVI, (In Honour of Sir Max Mallowan), 1974, 139-154.
• Mellink, Machteld. J. (1965). “Mita, Mushki and Phrygians”, Anadolu Araştırmaları, II/1-2, 1965, 317- 325.
• Memiş, Ekrem (1999). “Asur Devletlerinin Anadolu Politikası”, XII. Türk Tarih Kongresi (Ankara:12-16 Eylül 1994). Kongeye Sunulan Bildiriler, I. Cilt. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 65-73.
• Memiş, Ekrem (2009), Eskiçağ Türkiye Tarihi (En Eski Devirlerden Pers İstilâsına Kadar), 8. Baskı, Konya: Çizgi Kitabevi.
• Mosca Paul G. ve Russel, James “A Phonician Inscription from Cebel Ires Dağı In Rough Cilicia”, Epigraphica Anatolica, 9, 1987, 1-28.
• Olmstead, A. T. (1923). “The Assyrians in Asia Minor”, Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir W. M. Ramsay (Edited by. W. H. Buckler, W. M. Calder), 1923, 283-296.
• Oppenheim, Leo (1969). “Essay On Overland Trade In The First Millennium B.C.”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21, 1969, 236-254.
• Özdemir, Hakkı F. (2007). “Batı Anadolu Demir Çağı Örneği Işığında, Göç Olgusunun Kilikia’daki Kolonizasyon Sürecine Olan Etkileri”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat, 216, 2007, 25-44.
• Özyar, Aslı (2005). “Geç Hitit Krallıkları”, Arkeoatlas, 4, 2005, 10-14.
• Postgate, J. Nicholas (1973). “Assyrian Texts and Fragments”, Iraq, 35, 1973, 13-36.
• Ramsay, William M. (2000). Tarsus (Aziz Pavlus’un Kenti), çev. Levent Zoroğlu, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
• Saggs, H. W. F. (1958). “The Nimrud Letters, 1952-Part IV”, Iraq, XX, 1958, 182-212.
• Savaş, Özkan S. (1998). Anadolu (Hitit-Luvi) Hiyeroglif Yazıtlarında Geçen Tanrı, Şahıs ve Coğrafya Adları, Divine, Personal and Geographical Names in the Anatolian (Hittite-Luwian) Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.
• Seton-Williams, M. V. (1954). “Cilician Survey”, Anatolian Studies, IV, 1954, 121-174.
• Sevin, Veli (1991), Yeni Assur Sanatı Mimarlık, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
• Shaw, Brent D. (1990). “Bandit Highlands and Lowland Peace: The Mountains of Isauria-Cilicia”, Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient, XXXIII/3, 1990, 238-270.
• Strabon (2000). Antik Anadolu Coğrafyası (Geographika XII, XIII, XIV), İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
• Tekoğlu, Recai ve Lemaire, André (2000). “La Bilingue Royale Louvito-Phénicienne De Çineköy”, Comptes Rendus De L’Académie Des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2000, 961-1006.
• Tırpan, Ahmet Adil (1994). “Kilikya Tracheia’da Poligonal Taş Örgülü Duvarlar”, XI. Türk Tarih Kongresi Bildirileri, 1994, 405-424.
• Trémouille, Marie-Claude (2001). “Kizzuwatna, tere de frontière”, in: É. Jean et al. (eds), La Cilicie: Espaces et Pouvoirs Locaux, Varia Anatolica XIII (Paris 2001), 2001, 57-78.
• Ussishkin, David (1969). “The Date of the Neo-Hittite Enclosure In Karatepe”, Anatolian Studies, XIX, 1969, 121-138.
• Ünal, Ahmet (2000). “Çukurova’nın Antik Devirde Taşıdığı İsimler İle Fiziki ve Tarihi Coğrafyası”, Efsaneden Tarihe, Tarihten Bugüne Adana: Köprü Başı (E. Artun-M. Sabri Koz), 2000, İstanbul.
• Ünal, Ahmet (2006). “Hitit İmparatorluğu’nun Yıkılışından Bizans Dönemi’nin Sonuna Kadar Adana ve Çukurova Tarihi”, ÇÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15/3, (Arkeoloji Özel Sayısı), 2006, 67-102.
• Vanschoonwinkel, Jacques (1990), “Mopsos: Légende et Réalité”, Hethitica, X, 1990, 185-211.
• Wäfler, Marcus (1983). “Zu Status und Lage von Tabāl”, Orientalia, 52, 1983, 181-193.
• Zoroğlu, Levent (1993), “Göksu Kültürleri”, Atlas Aylık Gezi Dergisi, Sayı 8, 1993, 80-82.
• Zoroğlu, Levent (1994a). “Cilicia Tracheia in the Iron Age: the Khilakku Problem”, Anatolian Iron Ages 3 BIA Monography 16 (The Proceeding of the Third Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Van, 6-12 August 1990), III. Anadolu Demir Çağları Sempozyumu Bildirileri Van 6-12 Ağustos 1990, Edited by A. Çilingiroğlu and D. H. French, Published by The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1994, 301-306.
• Zoroğlu, Levent (1994b). “Kelenderis’in İlkçağ Tarihine ait Notlar”, XI. Türk Tarih Kongresi Bildirileri, I. Cilt (5-9 Eylül 1990), 1994, 437-448.
• Zoroğlu, Levent (1994c), Kelenderis I, Kaynaklar, Kalıntılar, Buluntular, Ankara: Dönmez Ofset Basımevi.