Kilikya’da Yeni Asur Egemenliği ve Yerel Güçler

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.

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