Rough Cilicia: New Historical and Archaeological Approaches

By Oxbow Books

The region of Rough Cilicia (modern area the south-western coastal area of Turkey), known in antiquity as Cilicia Tracheia, constitutes the western part of the larger area of Cilicia. It is characterised by the ruggedness of its territory and the protection afforded by the high mountains combined with the rugged seacoast fostered the prolific piracy that developed in the late Hellenistic period, bringing much notoriety to the area. It was also known as a source of timber, primarily for shipbuilding.

The twenty-two papers presented here give a useful overview on current research on Rough Cilicia, from the Bronze Age to the Byzantine period, with a variety of methods, from surveys to excavations. The first two articles (Yağcı, Jasink and Bombardieri), deal with the Bronze and Iron Ages, and refer to the questions of colonisation, influences, and relations. The following four articles (Tempesta, de Souza, Tomaschitz, Rauh et al.) concern the pirates of Cilicia and Isauria who were a big problem, not only for the region but throughout the Mediterranean and Aegean during the late Hellenistic and especially Roman periods.

Approaching the subject of Roman Architecture, Borgia recalls Antiochus IV of Commagene, a king with good relations to Rome. Six papers (Spanu, Townsend, Giobbe, Hoff, Winterstein, and Wandsnider) publish work on Roman architecture: architectural decoration, council houses, Roman temples, bath architecture, cenotaph, and public buildings. Ceramics is not neglected and Lund provides a special emphasis on ceramics to demonstrate how pottery can be used as evidence for connections between Rough Cilicia and northwestern Cyprus.

Six contributions (Varinliog(lu, Ferrazzoli, Jackson, Elton, Canevello and Özy?ld?r?m, Honey) deal with the Early Christian and Byzantine periods and cover rural habitat, trade, the Kilise Tepe settlement, late Roman churches, Seleucia, and the miracles of Thekla. The final article (Huber) gives insight into methods applied to the study of architectural monuments.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: May 3, 2013
• ISBN: 9781782970606

Book preview

1.

Introductory Remarks

Serra Durugönül

The opinion that Cilician archaeology, with all its interdisciplinary branches, has long been neglected in comparison to the research of other ancient regions seems to have become an old observation and no longer has any validity. The symposia held on Cilician archaeology have contributed very much to this dynamic. The latest symposium on Cilicia was held in Lincoln, Nebraska in 2007 and focused on Rough Cilicia. The specialization on Rough Cilicia is an important indication of how detailed research has become in Cilicia. The results of this symposium, here published in this book, both draw attention to recent results of this research and give impetus to new ideas and research on Cilicia.

The establishment of the Department of Archaeology and of the Research Center for Cilician Archaeology in 1993 at the University of Mersin in Turkey has no doubt contributed to the increase of interest in Cilicia and has given a new start to Cilician archaeology. The surveys and excavations undertaken by this University and the four symposia organized on Cilician archaeology have been very fruitful. Scholars from many countries who are researching eastern Mediterranean archaeology (prehistory to the early Christian epoch), ancient history, epigraphy, philology, numismatics, and archeometry were invited to these symposia. The conclusions have been published in the second, seventh, eighth, 16th, and 17th volumes of the journal OLBA.¹

An additional very productive meeting was organized by the Institut Français d’Etudes Anatoliennes – Georges Dumézil in Istanbul in cooperation with Mersin University. The conclusions were published as La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux. Varia Anatolica 13 that was edited by E. Jean, A.M. Dinçol, and S. Durugönül.

The most recent important meeting, as mentioned already, is the conference on Rough Cilicia held at the University of Nebraska in 2007.

More than 100 years ago, long before this latest interest of archaeologists in Cilicia, epigraphists and travelers were on their way, travelling to Cilicia in much tougher circumstances, trying to collect as many inscriptions and record as many ruins as possible; and the number they published is simply extraordinary. The light they have shed on Cilician archaeology is splendid, and all later researchers owe much to these travelers for the understanding of Cilicia. Even if it is not possible to include the names of all the early travelers here, it may be enough to mention a few in order to provide some sense of these early contributions:

Hicks, E.L. 1890. Inscriptions from Eastern Cilicia. JHS 11:236–54.

Hicks, E.L. 1891. Inscriptions from Western Cilicia. JHS 12:225–73.

Herzfeld, E., and S. Guyer. 1930. Meriamlik und Korikos: Zwei christliche Ruinenstätten des Rauhen Kilikiens. MAMA 2. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Keil, J., and A. Wilhelm. 1931. Denkmäler aus dem rauhen Kilikien. MAMA 3. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

These, as well as the works of the following generation, still maintain their validity and form the foundation of the research of today:

Hellenkemper, H., and F. Hild. 1986. Neue Forschungen in Kilikien. DenkschrWien 186. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Tabula Imperii Byzantini 4. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Machatschek, A. 1967. Die Nekropolen und Grabmäler im Gebiet von Elaiussa Sebaste und Korykos im Rauhen Kilikien. DenkschrWien 96. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

During the 1930s and 1940s, the first surveys and excavations were begun in the region: Yumuktepe (Mersin) led by J. Garstang,² Gözlükule (Tarsus) conducted by H. Goldman,³ and Karatepe by H.T. Bossert and H. Çambel.⁴ After these excavations there was a hiatus until sites were explored once again. It was not until the 1960s that Rough Cilicia attracted interest among archaeologists. Among the early pioneers of Rough Cilician archaeology was Elizabeth Rosenbaum, who directed the first major exploration of sites in western Rough Cilicia;⁵ one of her collaborators in the project was Gerhard Huber, who contributes a paper in this publication. In the 1980s and 1990s a new generation of excavations began, which continue to broaden and deepen our understanding of Cilician archaeology: James Russell in Anemurium, Isabella Caneva in Yumuktepe, Aslı Özyar in Gözlükule, Levent Zoroğlu in Celenderis, Serra Durugönül in Nagidos, Eugenia Equini Schneider in Elaiussa Sebaste, Remzi Yağcı in Soloi Pompeiopolis, Detlev Wannagat in Diocaeserea, Emel Erten in Olba, Marie-Henriette Gates in Kinet Höyük, and Turgut Zeyrek in Hierapolis-Castabala.

Besides the excavations, which reveal the long buried remains of the Cilicians, a new generation of travelers, consisting mostly of archaeologists and ancient historians, have been surveying Cilicia since the beginning of the 1990s. We can group them roughly as the team from the United States of America, working in western Rough Cilicia (directed by Nicholas Rauh of Purdue University), and the group from the University of Mersin, surveying in eastern Rough Cilicia (Serra Durugönül working on the reliefs, defense system, and Corycus with its hinterland; Murat Durukan on the tombs; and Ümit Aydınoğlu on the agricultural systems). Mustafa Sayar is working on the inscriptions of Plain and Rough Cilicia, while surveying since the 1980s.

After recalling the previous and ongoing research on Cilicia, it is time to focus on the conference held at the University of Nebraska in 2007. First it will be of interest to give a brief summary of the research in western Rough Cilicia as the symposium in Nebraska was organized by scholars of this team. It will not be possible here to note all previous articles, but it seems logical to point out the fields of interest: N. Rauh, R. Townsend, M. Hoff, and E. Erdoğmuş have delivered articles on Antiochia ad Cragum and Lamus in Rough Cilicia as a conclusion to years of survey, now published (in preliminary form) with a brilliant overview of the region’s urban development. Bath and tomb architecture has been one of the team’s main areas of interest, as has the paleo-environmental aspect of the region, with a special focus on deforestation. These works have opened up a new framework to Cilician archaeology. Interpreting not only the archaeological finds but also the ecological environment brings us a step closer to an understanding of the living circumstances of the Cilicians. The team has also undertaken the application of archaeometrical/scientific methods and statistical approaches for ceramics in Cilicia.

The conference in Nebraska welcomed scholars working on a wide chronological range of subjects, from the Bronze Age to the Byzantine period, with a variety of methods, from surveys to excavations. The publication is well organized; while following a chronological sequence, it also groups papers according to subjects which complement each other. The first two articles (Yağcı, Jasink and Bombardieri), deal with the Bronze and Iron Ages, and refer to the questions of colonization, influences, and relations. The following four articles (Tempesta, de Souza, Tomaschitz, Rauh et al.) take up the very interesting subject of pirates. It is not surprising that this topic occupies many pages of the conference publication, since the pirates of Cilicia and Isauria were a big problem, not only for the region but throughout the Mediterranean and Aegean during the late Hellenistic and especially Roman periods. Approaching the subject of Roman Architecture, Borgia recalls Antiochus IV of Commagene, a king with good relations to Rome. Six researchers (Spanu, Townsend, Giobbe, Hoff, Winterstein, and Wandsnider) contributed to this conference and publication with their work on Roman architecture: architectural decoration, council houses, Roman temples, bath architecture, cenotaph, and public buildings. The subject of ceramics is certainly referred to in these contributions, and Lund provides a special emphasis on ceramics to demonstrate how pottery can be used as evidence for connections between Rough Cilicia and northwestern Cyprus.

Six contributions (Varinlioğlu, Ferrazzoli, Jackson, Elton, Canevello and Özyıldırım, Honey) deal with the Early Christian and Byzantine periods and cover rural habitat, trade, the Kilise Tepe settlement, late Roman churches, Seleucia, and the miracles of Thecla. The last article of the conference proceedings (Huber) gives insight into methods applied to the study of architectural monuments.

Next, we may summarize some of the major ideas presented in the papers from the conference:

The paper by Yağcı shows that excavation finds, such as architectural terracottas at Soli, can be used to examine the process of colonization. As the terracottas at Soli have both orientalizing motifs and pure Greek elements, they may show that the Greeks transmitted the practice of using terracotta roofs into the Cilician region by the sea route as an integral part of a colonization process. Jasink and Bombardieri have taken on a task that is one of the most difficult for Cilicia, because the Hittite, Bronze Age, Assyrian, and Neo-Babylonian periods deliver, as of yet, very scarce information on Cilicia. Their method, however, is very thorough and scientific, combining history with the archaeological evidence. Their conclusion linking the developments of the political situation in Cilicia to the system of external contributions is a very important step forward.

The four contributions of Tempesta, de Souza, Tomaschitz, and Rauh et al., deal with a subject which has attracted the attention of many scholars and will certainly keep us busy in the future: Pirates. The reason is surely, as Tempesta summarizes, that among the powers that ruled Cilicia in the Hellenistic period, piracy is the hardest to analyze, due both to the scanty historical evidence and to the lack of visible marks on the landscape. Tempesta gives an overview of the most important historical landmarks leading to the Roman Period in Rough Cilicia. De Souza analyzes the pirates by supporting his ideas with ancient sources and before focusing on Cilicia he looks to earlier periods and wider geographic regions. Dealing with Cilicia he delivers a definition and understanding of Cilician pirates again in the light of ancient sources, yet he also draws our attention to the fact that our knowledge of pirates has been delivered to us by the Romans which means we only have access to one side of this story. This is a very important warning to modern historians and archaeologists who must approach their material in a critical way. Tomaschitz recalls and analyzes the ancient and modern authors who have worked on the phenomenon of pirates. He discusses the relationship of philological, epigraphical, and archaeological evidence of piracy. This is a very important aspect, as he develops a critical analysis of the methods of researching such an obscure phenomenon, which we can also define as, I would say in many cases, an imaginary existence of pirates, except for the scarce archaeological and epigraphical evidence. Rauh, Dillon, and Rothaus in a joint paper approach the problem of Cilician pirates through archaeological evidence, such as anchors, amphoras, and ashlar masonry. First, they provide a long analysis of previous attempts regarding the dating and identification of fortifications. The concluding observation of this article, citing the need for caution, is of importance: Despite the numerous maritime finds in the West Harbor of Antiochia ad Cragum, including that of the ship’s ornament carbon-dated to ca. 125 BC, no smoking gun has emerged to confirm the presence of pirates at the Cragos or anywhere else along this coast. What the remains of wooden anchors, Italian amphoras, and ashlar-constructed defenses of western Rough Cilicia do demonstrate, however, is an equivalent, countervailing void in evidence to the contrary.

Borgia gives detailed information on Antiochus IV of Commagene in Cilicia through the study of a very well preserved inscription found in Elaiussa Sebaste that is ascribed to the period when this settlement, as part of a wider area of Cilicia, had been ruled by Antiochus IV of Commagene. Borgia not only refers to his political activities but also analyzes his relations with Cilicia and other areas, such as Chios. Finally, she gives the first clues about the monument in Elaiussa Sebaste to which this inscription once had belonged. Her contribution raises great interest and curiosity; hopefully, more architectural pieces can be revealed in excavation campaigns to come.

The following six contributions (Spanu, Townsend, Giobbe, Hoff, Winterstein, and Wandsnider) deal with specific building types of Roman architecture within the region. Spanu delivers a detailed work on architectural decoration in Roman Rough Cilicia. He not only compares the Cilician material but also refers to various influences, such as from Syria. This is the first attempt to provide a comparison of known architectural monuments in Rough Cilicia. Therefore it will be a starting point for researchers who work in this field. Townsend offers a reconstruction of the council house or bouleuterion at Asar Tepe. This is very important for Rough Cilicia where there is a marked lack of public buildings (except for theatres and baths); this study hopefully will lead to a greater awareness of this specific building type and perhaps the identification of other similar structures. Giobbe has given an overview of Roman temples in Rough Cilicia with all their known characteristics. Hoff is informative on bath architecture, which is the most commonly found but not yet satisfactorily handled material in Cilicia. He not only describes the baths, which are being published here for the first time, but he also deals with the types and origins of their builders. Winterstein has delivered very important conclusions on the alleged cenotaph of Trajan. She gives information on Selinus and then goes on with the difficult task of describing the cenotaph, which is completely encased in a Selçuk building. In spite of the scarce amount of architectural ornament, she provides some conclusions on the dating of the cenotaph even if its exact purpose remains obscure: The commonly accepted interpretation of it as a cenotaph to Trajan is conceivable but scientifically unverified.

Wandsnider fills a big hole in Cilician archaeology; the statement she gives right at the beginning of her paper must be asked and studied by many more scholars working in Cilicia: …both honorific inscriptions acknowledging civic benefactions and public building increase in frequency in the later first century after Christ and then decline in the later third century after Christ. So inscriptions and architecture go hand in hand in order to deal with the further point: Western Rough Cilicia departs from other parts of Asia Minor in the composition of its cityscapes, and she asks, why civic benefactions and public building should look different here compared with western Asia Minor. Wandsnider’s paper presents a successful combination of archaeological findings with anthropological theories.

In his paper Lund studies transport amphoras and table wares, comparing Rough Cilicia geographically with Cyprus. His approach puts into practice the relatively new but increasingly accepted method: …a study bas ed on the distribution of pottery and he believes that this can serve as a basis for establishing models that may stand the test of time as more diverse evidence becomes available. Especially at places where kilns are not revealed, this method will certainly be adopted more and more to explain trade contacts, which is the most important link to economy.

The following six contributions (Varinlioğlu, Ferrazzoli-Ricci, Jackson, Elton, Canevello-Özyıldırım, and Honey) concern settlements, trade, and churches or religious matters more generally in the Early Christian and Byzantine period. Varinlioğlu studies the rural habitat in the hinterlands of Seleucia ad Calycadnum by taking Işıkkale and Karakabaklı as samples. These settlements, like many others in the region, possess many presses and threshing floors, which are indicators of wine and olive oil production. The settlements of the region between the Calycadnus and Lamus Rivers as a whole show that especially during late antiquity they were involved in small-scale trade of these two products. Other scholars such as Ümit Aydınoğlu and Ina Eichner have also published important conclusions on the settlement patterns, houses, trade relations, production, and life styles of the inhabitants of this region during the same period. Ferrazzoli and Ricci address the very important ceramic finds of Elaiussa Sebaste that have taught us much about the production, import, and trade connections of Rough Cilicia. The authors have given a complete view from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Ages and point out the important fact that Elaiussa was not the only production center, but it was certainly one of the most active among the Cilician centers that made the vast majority of these (LR 1) amphorae. Jackson reports on Kilise Tepe which is not only important for the understanding of Cilicia in the early Bronze Age but also for its Byzantine settlement. Jackson offers deep insight into the church by studying its phases and by offering comparative material. We profit much from this paper’s methodological construction. The paper has not limited itself to a dry definition of the church but has also taken into consideration the site’s vernacular buildings and their associated contexts for a better understanding of Byzantine rural settlement and housing. The reason is well explained: ‘Vernacular’ structures are built from materials suited to local environments and often reflect local building techniques and cultural traditions." Elton is another participant who delivered an informative paper on late Roman churches in the Upper Göksu Valley, his survey adding to the 19 churches already known in this region. Elton acknowledges that "the interpretations of the material record are based on small amounts of evidence. However, by giving extensive information on the settlements rather than limiting himself to the churches per se, he demonstrates that, just like Jackson, this is the preferred method. Just describing the archaeological finds has long given way to broader interpretations. Canevello and Özyıldırım present a very important finding that will surely be of importance not only for archaeologists or epigraphists but also for theologians: Funerary inscriptions from Seleucia ad Calycadnum and Cilicia Isauria indicate that Jews not only demonstrated their identity and religious beliefs but also appear to have enjoyed harmonious co-existence with Christians and non-Christians in the region. These influences are reflected in the archaeological material of the region. Seleucia ad Calycadnum has been taken by the writers as a starting point because of its role in the councils and because St. Thecla settled here in the first century. Honey links to the previous paper through St. Thecla.

Huber covers a subject which links the methods of architecture and architectural documentation. One finds detailed information on the techniques of the researchers, rather than on archaeology or architectural surveying itself. This is not surprising because he publishes an informal memoir of fieldwork he conducted as an archaeological surveyor and architect in Rough Cilicia from the early 1960s to the present day. One can learn from the methodology.

Finally, it is a pleasure to thank all the contributors to these proceedings. Much has been added to our knowledge of Cilicia. But there are still gaps which continue to make Cilician archaeology obscure at some points. First of all, more excavations should be undertaken, especially in Plain Cilicia. Furthermore, inscriptions are waiting to be published and the published ones need interpretation. It is possible these inscriptions will not reveal so much information that the known history of Cilicia will need to be rewritten since decrees or donor inscriptions such as we know them from other regions seem to be lacking in Cilicia. However, there is still much to learn about the beliefs, population, and civil life of the Cilicians. Numismatics also needs more attention. Just as Wandsnider here, elsewhere Mustafa Sayar, Ruprecht Ziegler, and Oğuz Tekin have already delivered much in this direction and Cilician archaeology will owe them a great debt as they continue contributing in these fields. Also, Early Christian and Byzantine archaeology has revealed much in recent years, but there is still much more to do in Cilicia dealing with this period.

There is no doubt that this conference has advanced the field of Cilician archaeology. Publishing the results is the most important task in order to make the conference with all its new results unforgettable. At the same time, it provides the opportunity to create a bibliography of all the latest publications.

Kurt Tomaschitz who shared one more of his precious works here, died unexpectedly. His works will stay with us to be delivered to the following generations; we are so lucky to have known him.

It should be the task and aim for all who work in Cilicia to continue these fruitful conferences. We owe great thanks to the organizers and participants of this conference who have carried Cilicia to Nebraska.

Notes

2.

Problematizing Greek Colonization in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Seventh and Sixth Centuries BC: the case of Soli

Remzi Yağcı

Ancient Greek colonization in the East is a matter of controversial discussion. Although Greek presence in the Levant is an undeniable fact, many scholars have debated the nature of settlements and their positioning within the wider colonization process. In this paper, I will discuss Greek colonization in the eastern Mediterranean in the seventh and sixth centuries BC, focusing on the case of Soli where recent archaeological excavations have revealed new and promising finds. Written evidence, from both classical and Near Eastern sources, along with archaeological material, are the primary sources of information on East Greek colonization in Cilicia and especially in Soli. This paper examines the evidence in three parts: First, ancient sources and modern interpretations will be summarized and analyzed; second, a brief terminology on colonization will be provided; and last, the recent archaeological finds at Soli displaying the city’s remarkable position in Cilicia will be discussed.

The first traces of Greek presence in Cilicia are said to commence in the Heroic period when legendary figures such as Mopsus and Amphilocus lived.¹ Scholars consider the Karatepe bilingual epigraphic monument as confirmation of this presence due to the occurrence of the name Mopsus in this inscription that connects the lifespan of Azzatiwatas (the end of the eighth or early seventh century BC) to the legendary past.² The narrative described in this inscription may be seen in parallel with Homeric events.³ Finds of Mycenaean and Mycenaean-type pottery (LH IIIC) found extensively in Tarsus, Kilisetepe, and Soli, dated to the 12th century BC, are usually considered archaeological confirmation for what has been called the migrationist approach, which argues for the establishment of settlements from the west.⁴ This hypothesis receives some support from the literary testimonia, which also place Greeks in the area; Strabo, for instance, cites Soli as the place where Amphilocus, the son of Amphiaraus, the founder of Argos, was killed by Apollo.⁵

There are many older as well as more recent criticisms, however, which deconstruct this stance.⁶ According to these approaches, the wide distribution of Mycenaean pottery (either imported from Greece or made locally) provides clear evidence for the existence of broader and complex trade systems as well as agents and mechanisms.⁷ Both stances naturally agree to some extent that the period after the collapse of the great Mycenaean and Hittite empires was an era of new trade enterprises and migrations.⁸ All these activities may be thought to create diasporas where different cultures and people intermingled.⁹ How much of the intermingling was due to trade and how much due to migration is precisely the same question that forms the focus of this paper for the seventh and sixth centuries BC, the next important era for the presence of Greek settlements in Cilicia.¹⁰

Turning first to literary evidence to address this question, a number of authors may be cited in support of actual Greek settlement. Strabo claims that Soli was a ktisma of the Achaeans and of the Rhodians of Lindos.¹¹ Polybius, Livy, and Pomponius Mela assert that Soli was founded by the Rhodians, descendants from Argos.¹² Scylax cites Soli as one of the most important cities of Cilicia after the Greek colonization; others include Charadrus, Anemurium, Nagidus, Celenderis, Aphrodisias, Holmoi, Sarpedon, Soli, Zephyrium, and Mallus. Scylax adds that there are only two poleis, Holmoi and Soli, that show characteristics of Greek cities.¹³ Xenophon mentions the name of Soli as a maritime city in the Anabasis.¹⁴ In addition, Eusebius’ Chronica preserves Greek historical fragments describing a major battle in Cilicia between Greeks and Assyrians during the reign of Sennacherib.¹⁵ Eusebius makes use of Abydenos and Alexander Polyhistor who narrate two different versions.¹⁶ The Eusebian chronology sets the foundation of Phaselis in 691 and that of Soli is considered contemporary. These events are also included in the Neo-Assyrian sources that link the conflicts with the campaign against Kirua in which Sennacherib says that his army seized and plundered Ingira and Tarzi fighting against the Iamans (possibly Ionians).¹⁷

In the context of these classical and Near Eastern sources that reference Soli’s identity, it will be helpful to clarify certain terminology dealing with the nature of settlement and which clearly relates to our questioning. The leitmotif of this paper, the colony, is the first term to be defined in order to contextualize the map of the ancient world. The word colony has its etymological roots in the Latin word colonia, which indicates a place meant for agricultural activities and, by extension, means settlement. The Greek term for colonization, apoikia (ἀποικία), refers to the foundation of a new city or settlement, more often than not with nonviolent means.¹⁸ Colonists or immigrants usually transfer to the new homeland their religion and cult, their burial customs, their eating and drinking manners. The nature and structure of colonies are highly debatable and it is not easy to get one all-encompassing and holistic definition for the word colony.¹⁹ Scholars have distinguished different types of colonies. For Keith Branigan, a settlement colony corresponds to the Greek term apoikia – a settlement founded in a foreign country and populated by people resettled there from their homeland. A second type, a governed colony, is a settlement that has a foreign administration or government imposed upon it by force; there are no pre-Hellenistic Greek examples. Last, a community colony is an enoikismos, that is, a settlement in which a more or less significant element of the population is comprised of emigrants from a foreign place.²⁰

Within this framework, we may return to our central questions: What is the position of Soli in the seventh and sixth centuries BC? How can we define Greek presence at Soli? Was it a period of change? Were there any alterations in the economic and social life and in demographic structures? Could a new people have arrived with different dwelling habits? And finally, in brief, was Soli a colony as the written sources straightforwardly claimed?

Archaeological criteria for determining foreign presence include imported religion and cult, burial customs, settlement layout, architecture, and kitchenware.²¹ However, it is not always possible to provide archaeological evidence for each criterion. For instance, in the case of Soli, this period has been represented on the acropolis where traces of inscriptions and burial customs have not yet been found. However, the settlement layout, the architectural remains, and numerous ceramic wares are of highly representative value that aid in identifying the East Greek presence.

Soli is located near Mezitli, 11 km west of modern Mersin. According to Strabo, it is a border city between Cilicia Tracheia (lat. Aspera, Rough) and Cilicia Pedias (lat. Campestris, Plain).²² It is also possible that in the Neo-Babylonian period Soli was the border between Pirindu (Assyrian Hilakku) and Hume (Assyrian Que) and in the Hittite period between Kizzuwatna and Tarhuntassa. Excavations at Soli have uncovered abundant small finds and a remarkable amount of architectural material.

Pottery related to the LH IIIC period, contemporary with the Heroic period, is represented at Soli most reliably in Trench G8 within a thick ash layer. Other LH IIIC sherds datable to the first half of the 12th century were also found in trenches E9 and F9.²³ The architectural remains on the upper level began above the thick ash layer and started to appear in trenches E7 and E8 (Fig. 2.1). They continue through trenches G7, G8, and G9. This is the architectural context dated to the seventh and sixth century, and the finds in these trenches represent a Late Geometric pottery assemblage revealing the beginning of Greek presence at Soli (Fig. 2.2). The city was also in close contact with Cyprus during this period, as the pottery finds seem to demonstrate.

As revealed in archaeological stratigraphy, Soli had remarkable connections with central Anatolia, Cyprus, and the east Greek world in the seventh and sixth centuries BC. Soli’s pottery assemblages also include a wide range of locally produced wares. All these pottery finds are indicators of a cultural change that arrived with the newcomers. We may claim that Soli became a cosmopolitan trade center in the seventh and sixth centuries. Two examples especially are clear indicators of the close interactions with Cyprus and Anatolia. The first one is a Cypro-Archaic I cult amphora on which an Astarte-Wanassa prostitute smelling a lotus flower is depicted.²⁴ Another example that reveals maritime trade is a Cypriot Bichrome IV amphora on which garlands of lotuses are depicted. A Phrygian fibula, a unique find in Cilicia, illustrates the commercial and cultural relationships with central Anatolia.²⁵ This socio-cultural change is dated between 700–520 at Tarsus and is divided into two sub-periods or phases, the Assyrian period (700–600) and the sixth century.²⁶ The recent excavations more or less confirm this chronology for Soli.

Fig. 2.1. Soli. Trenches E7 and E8 dated to the seventh and sixth centuries BC.

Fig. 2.2. Soli. Late Geometric pottery sherds.

Fig. 2.3. Soli. Architectural terracottas.

The wide ceramic repertoire consisting of various finds and types illustrates the East Greek presence. Amphoras, kraters, skyphoi, lekythoi, and lebes (dinoi) as well as architectural terracottas (Fig. 2.3) have also been excavated at Soli. Bird bowls date to the seventh century. Wild Goat Style pottery dates to the late seventh and early sixth centuries, covering both a relatively broad span of time and multiple production centers. Most examples are from the latest stage of Milesian Wild Goat Style (Fig. 2.4).²⁷ Wave line (possibly Chian) amphoras, red glazed kraters, East Greek lebetes (Figs. 2.5–6), Ionian bowls (Fig. 2.7), and Samian lekythoi (Fig. 2.8) color the city’s pottery assemblage.²⁸ A lekythos of Phoenician type, thought to be a Rhodian imitation of Levantine wares, is also found. A Chian-type skyphos (Fig. 2.9), Middle Corinthian pottery sherds, along with the East Greek-type handles (Fig. 2.10), are noteworthy pieces that represent the diversity of Greek style pottery at Soli.

Fig. 2.4. Soli. Milesian Wild Goat Style pottery sherds.

However, it is widely known that these kinds of East Greek pottery are excavated in nearly all the east Mediterranean coastal cities where there are traces of Greek presence. This is one of the main reasons why recently many scholars have begun to rethink the assumption of the philhellenic migrationist approach and colonial discourse regarding these cities as colonies. In view of this new contextualization, a growing number of researchers have claimed that all these cities were rather emporia or trade ports.²⁹ They have further put forward the idea that these pottery finds alone cannot be considered as evidence of Greek presence unless some architectural remains were found together with other determinants such as tombs and inscriptions.³⁰

Fig. 2.5. Soli. East Greek lebes sherd and its context.

Fig. 2.6. Soli. East Greek lebetes sherds.

In the 2006 and 2007 seasons, important archaic architectural remains were excavated at Soli (Fig. 2.11).³¹ The architectural terracottas found scattered around these trenches are promising finds that reveal the existence of an East Greek building, possibly a temple (to Athena?) on the acropolis. These materials consist of simas, antefixes, and roof tiles (Figs. 2.3 and 2.12). Since architectural material is considered to be stronger evidence of presence, these architectural fragments are significant indicators of Greek activity at Soli, especially on the acropolis. We may, for the present, claim that Soli’s examples are unique in the east Mediterranean since architectural elements of similar kind have not been excavated at sites that are located to the east of Soli.³²

Fig. 2.7. Soli. Ionian bowl sherds.

Fig. 2.8. Soli. Samian (or Rhodian-type) lekythos and its context.

Fig. 2.9. Soli. Chian-type skyphos.

As is commonly known, architectural terracottas are a Greek invention of the seventh century BC.³³ Terracotta tiles were first used in Corinth to cover the early temple of Apollo after ca. 680 BC. Åkerström suggests two itineraries for the penetration of architectural terracottas into Anatolia. The first is south Ionia via Miletus and the Meander River Valley, and the second is north Ionia via Smyrna and the Hermus River valley (Fig. 2.13).³⁴ Architectural terracottas are extensively used in the regions of Lydia and Phrygia.³⁵ Penetration also took another route: from the cities on the coast, in the Black Sea region (at Akalan) as well as in the South.

Fig. 2.10. Soli. East Greek-type handles.

Fig. 2.11. Soli. Archaic architectural remains and finds.

The architectural terracottas at Soli may be considered to show that the Greeks – possibly Rhodians or Ionians – transmitted the practice of using terracotta roofs into the Cilician region by the sea route as an integral part of a colonization process. The architectural terracottas may be accepted as an architectural koiné, indicative of Greek presence. The itineraries illustrating the distribution of architectural terracottas and roof tiles (Fig. 2.12) in the western Mediterranean and in Anatolia reveals Soli’s intermediate location, which completely correlates with the historical events. Located on the border between Rough and Plain Cilicia, Soli might well have been an East Greek outpost with its obviously Greek elements such as wide range of pottery and architectural terracottas unique in Cilicia (Fig. 2.13).³⁶ Soli’s position as an East Greek outpost may be compared to the case of Phrygia where the direction of the distribution of architectural terracottas was presumably related to Croesus’ military dominance.³⁷ The terracottas at Soli have both orientalizing motifs and pure Greek elements. The antithetical sphinxes and rosettes are orientalizing themes. Pure Greek motifs include, for instance, mythological subjects such as Theseus slaying the Minotaur (Fig. 2.14 and 2.15). These figures might have a propagandist value for the expanding Greek power in the East. The Çineköy and Karatepe bilingual inscriptions and Neo-Assyrian sources provide strong evidence for this propagandist discourse. Soli, as a Greek outpost within this framework, seems to be located on the border of the conflicting power relations.

Fig. 2.12. Soli. Archaic roof tiles.

Fig. 2.13. kerström’s map of distribution of terracotta roof tiles (1978 Pl. 85 fig. 1).

Fig. 2.14. Soli. Archaic architectural terracotta with rosettes and leg of Minotaur.

To sum up, these architectural terracottas complement East Greek pottery finds. They may be labeled as the strongest evidence of East Greek presence. Unlike pottery finds that some scholars have suggested were acquired by local elites as luxury and exotic items, architectural remains point to a more permanent presence and a more settled population. The architectural elements on the acropolis that may be straightforwardly taken as evidence of a temple strengthen the arguments for Greek presence. Soli, within this context, may be seen as the eastern border of Greek expansion and the city may be labeled as a Greek enoikismos in the seventh and especially in the sixth century. In other terms, it was a Greek settlement in which a more or less significant element of the population is comprised of emigrants from a foreign place. This population may have consisted of pirates and/or traders and their relatives that are mentioned in ancient texts.³⁸

Fig. 2.15. Soli. Archaic architectural terracotta depicting Theseus slaying the minotaur.

Notes

3.

The Göksu River Valley from Late Bronze to Iron Age: local cultures, external influences, and relations with foreign peoples*

Anna Margherita Jasink and Luca Bombardieri

1. Introduction

The Göksu River valley serves as the shortest conduit across the Taurus Mountains between the Konya plateau and the Mediterranean Sea. In spite of belonging geographically to the western area of Cilicia – mainly to its mountainous part – the Göksu River valley has a distinctive role and shows different aspects of development with respect to the Çukurova plain and its eastern surroundings during both the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age periods, following the changes of the political context in the region (Fig. 3.1).

We consider it of much interest to analyze the reasons why external influences and relations with foreign peoples are rather different in this area than in Plain Cilicia, even though the local culture seems analogous, at least in its general traits, since we are dealing with an Anatolian culture in which the linguistic aspect is represented by the Luwian dialect and the archaeological one by a rather common Cilician material culture. We can also recognize in this area during the Bronze and Iron Ages the same external peoples that were interested in Plain Cilicia: from Mycenaeans and Cypriots to Greeks, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Babylonians, to finally the Persians. Probably two main elements contribute to the peculiarity of Rough Cilicia: the political situation and the characteristic geographical features that, in spite of the contiguous location of Rough and Plain Cilicia, are clearly distinguishable.

2. The Hittite/Late Bronze Age Period

2.1. The historical picture

During the Hittite Empire, the lower course of the Göksu seems to have been controlled by the Hittites, while the middle and upper river valley were possibly part of a Hittite vassal kingdom. This is one of the possible interpretations of the boundaries of Tarhuntašša, which allows us to recognize the harbor city of Ura outside the control of Tarhuntašša and somehow linked to the Hittites (Fig. 3.2).¹ Unfortunately the precise location of this important seaport is still an object of debate. We have previously argued in favor of its location at the mouth of the Göksu River,² and we defend this proposal on the basis of two different elements. First, the Göksu River is the main passage between the coast and the Konya plain in the area of Rough Cilicia and, to find an eastern passage linking the Anatolian plateau and the coast, one must arrive at the Çukurova plain, where it is possible that small harbors at the mouth of Lamas, Seyhan and Ceyhan rivers existed.³ In any case, the passage to the Cilician Gates was probably used mainly as a connection by land between Syria and Anatolia. The presence of a harbor at the mouth of the Göksu River is consequently well justified. Second, the location of Ura near the modern site of Silifke, ancient Seleucia, may also be suggested by an ancient tradition that, according to Stephanus of Byzantium, recalls its previous name: Hyria.⁴ Moreover, the location of the main town of the Pirindu kingdom, Ura’, in the Babylonian period, if not exactly in the same place – even if we agree with this location – but in the mountains along the eastern side of the lower course of the Göksu, near the Byzantine Olba, is further evidence of the same important place name in an adjacent area.

Fig. 3.1. The geographical areas of Cilicia.

Fig. 3.2. Possible boundaries of Tarhuntašša territory.

The role of Ura is fundamental in our analysis because in the textual sources it is represented as one of the main reference points for merchants ranging from western countries, sailing along the southern Anatolian coast and from Ura reaching directly – bypassing probably the Çukurova⁵ – the harbor of Ugarit in northern Syria, and from there spreading into the whole Near East. A presumed autonomy of Ura both as to the Hittite empire – even if with some limitation, as attested by the edict issued by Hattusili III, according to which the merchants of Ura trading with Ugarit were subjected in their economic activities to exact rules⁶ – and to the nearby Tarhuntašša state allows for this harbor a function that is partially disjointed from its position at the Göksu River mouth; not necessarily all the commodities transiting through this harbor were of interest to the local peoples. On the contrary, the presence of commercial trade along the southern coasts of Anatolia is well documented by the findings of the two famous shipwrecks along the Lycian coasts, near Uluburun (Kaş) and Cape Gelidonya, where the presence of objects coming from the whole area of the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean reveals wide contacts with various cultures during this period.⁷

Fig. 3.3. The most relevant maritime routes to and from the Göksu River mouth.

An alternative route bypassing Ura could have been chosen by western merchants. Their ships, either coming from Cape Gelidonya, and probably during this period out of the control of Hatti, or from the presumed seaports between Antalya and Anamur, which surely belonged to the Tarhuntašša kingdom, turned directly to Cyprus, spreading from that island in all other directions. In either case, such an itinerary is not in contrast with a route including Ura. Possibly they were both used, crossing each other, and surely Ura, given the importance testified by our literary sources, played a significant role (Fig. 3.3).

2.2. The archaeological evidence

As mentioned above, the peculiar role of the Göksu River valley as an easy natural connection route between the inner southern Anatolian area and the Mediterranean Sea takes on an even more important relevance within the political assessment of the territory during the Late Hittite period. The evidence of material culture can offer further elements to outline the complex range of relations of the region in this phase. Both field survey and systematic excavations indicate an interesting horizon of external connections that covers a wide area.⁸

In particular, within the local pottery assemblage of this period, two parallel yet distinct influences can be discerned: a short-range influence, which deeply links the Göksu River centers with the nearby Çukurova plain, and a long-range influence of foreign elements, coming from Mycenaean and – perhaps even more significantly – from Cypriot pottery production centers.

From the investigations of the Göksu River area the site of Kilise Tepe definitely offers the most interesting evidence for the analysis of the patterns of external influence in the region.⁹ The excavations on the mound in fact produced a well-stratified sequence of occupation for the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age periods, which can be considered the leading guide for a chronological serialisation of the ceramic production within the Göksu area. The LBA assemblage comes from the five phases of Level III, mainly excavated from Trenches H-I 19-20 on the top mound.¹⁰ The analysis of the pottery repertoire has revealed three main ware types: a common plain ware, a fineware and a very fine red-burnished ware.¹¹

The first type, plain ware, occurs in buff or reddish fabric. The most common open vessels are represented by a few standard plates or shallow bowls; the closed types are better represented by lentoid flasks. This latter form is also produced in white slip fineware, even if in a reduced percentage within the whole repertoire. The plain and fineware types from Kilise Tepe find the best parallels in pottery production of Tarsus LB II levels,¹² and from the contemporary assemblage of the Late Hittite period levels in Boğazköy.¹³

Particularly interesting is the diffusion of Red Burnished Ware from Kilise Tepe. A considerable amount of this pottery has been recorded from the surface collection and from the excavations on the top mound as well, consisting of fragmentary open vessels (shallow curved-wall bowls in particular), lentoid flasks, and arm-shaped vessels. All the examples are realized in a high quality technique, very fine depurated fabric in an orange or reddish color, fired at high temperature, and carefully burnished on the surface.

Both the technical features of this pottery production and the association with few specific morphological types (the lentoid flasks and the arm-shaped vessels) match with another well-known ware, the Red Lustrous Ware, whose wide diffusion in the eastern Mediterranean basin is well recorded from northern Syria to the southern Levant, and from Cyprus to the southeastern Anatolian coast.¹⁴ As to the place of origin of this ware, the possibility of a location in northern Syria, or alternatively in the Cilicia plain,¹⁵ has been extensively discussed. More recently a comprehensive analysis pointed to an identification of Cyprus as the center of origin for Red Lustrous Ware.¹⁶ This hypothesis is mainly based on two coincident aspects: one, statistically more than 50% of Red Lustrous wheel-made pottery comes from Cyprus and, second, it takes into account the evidence of the pot-marks on the vases, with Cypro-Minoan script signs incised before firing.¹⁷

Aside from these productions, the influence of foreign elements in the pottery assemblage from Kilise Tepe seems very scanty. Only seven sherds of a single Mycenaean painted vessel have been collected during the excavation of a large pit in K20, filled mainly with Iron Age material. This is a fragmentary squat stirrup jar of a type (FS178, FS180) whose date ranges from LH IIIA2 to LH IIIB1 period.¹⁸

The results of the survey investigations on the Göksu seem on the whole similar to the picture outlined here for the stratified material from Kilise Tepe. Red Lustrous Ware sherds have been recorded from most of the sites in the river valley (Çingantepe, Örentepe, Kozlubulak), in the coastal area of Silifke (Tekirköy), and eastward in the Rough Cilicia region (Tömukkale, Tirmil).¹⁹ The presence of Mycenaean pottery throughout this area is very scanty, as already documented at Kilise Tepe. In addition to the above discussed fragmentary stirrup jar, only one other painted Mycenaean sherd has been collected, coming from the 2004 surface investigation on the Upper Göksu valley.²⁰

Summing up, the peculiar pattern of influences within the pottery assemblage of the Göksu area shows a complex horizon of different relationships. This area seems to be involved both in a shorter-distance system of relations with the Çukurova plain and the North Anatolian plateau, and in a longer-distance system of relations with foreign regions, Cyprus in particular.

This preferred contact route between the Göksu valley and Cyprus, through the coastal harbor area of Silifke, must be considered significant. Both the large amount of the Red Lustrous Ware in all the sites of the river valley and its surprisingly scanty presence within the Cilician plain in the same period clearly point to a peculiarity of the Göksu area and at the same time demonstrate the relevant role of the costal region of Silifke in the maritime trade routes to and from Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age.²¹

3. The end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age

3.1. The historical picture

A lack of written information about our area during the period following the collapse of the Hittite Kingdom prevents the forming of even an outline of a historical picture of this area. It is important to underline, however, how the absence of a strong power controlling the area changes the situation dramatically and it is possible that, analogously to Plain Cilicia, a Neo-Hittite state developed from the Tarhuntašša cinders. It is possible that Rough Cilicia was divided in two parts: an eastern part, starting east of the Göksu valley, which formed the mountainous kingdom of Khilakku,²² so named in the later Assyrian sources, while more to the west another kingdom, extending toward the Konya plain, could have existed. However, there appears to be no attestation of such a kingdom. In fact, the well known Hartapu, who carved some rock reliefs in the Kizildağ-Karadağ-Burunkaya area, was not a descendent of the kings of Tarhuntašša but a contemporary king to Šuppiluliuma of Hatti, the last Hittite emperor.²³ It is also possible, although less likely, that Khilakku extended over the whole of Rough Cilicia, its boundaries not being circumscribed by the Assyrians, with the exception of Que, because of its inaccessible territory.

In this phase the few known foreign arrivals possibly come from westward areas; along the same route that brought Mopsus into Plain Cilicia, other groups of Mycenaeans or Ahhijawaeans could have stopped around the Göksu mouth.

The beginning of the Iron Age is marked by a change in the external relations system of the Göksu River area. Until the ninth–eighth centuries BC the material culture shows a local development, drawn from inside the Cilician tradition and mainly related to the Tarsus and Mersin contemporary production. This fact is important because it shows a connection between the eastern part of Cilicia and our area, which probably becomes a Neo-Hittite state as well even if there are no written sources. It is possible that during this period the port of Ura, if still existing, had lost its international role, and was used only for coastal traffic.

3.2. The archaeological evidence

The transition between the Late Bronze and Iron Age in the eastern plain of Cilicia is marked by a general decrease within the range of relations and the influences of foreign elements. A preferred system of connections with the northern inner area is evident (clear affinities in the pottery production between the Plain Cilicia centers of Tarsus and Mersin and the contemporary ceramic assemblage of Porsuk have been pointed out already).²⁴ A similar development is evidenced in the western area of the Göksu River valley.

At Kilise Tepe, during the excavations on the top of the mound, a gap within the architectural sequence of the settlement has been recorded between Level III and the following Level II, in which the architectural layout of the area and the artifactual repertoire changed radically.²⁵ At this moment an important square building, named the Stele Building for the stone stele found in the Phase IIc courtyard, was erected. Eight distinct architectural phases have been cleared here (Levels IIa–h) as proof of a steady use of this building from the early 12th century BC to the Hellenistic period at least, involving a series of changes in the organization of the space in order to key the complex to different uses.

Particularly interesting is the evidence of the IIc–IId levels of the Stele Building sequence. After a wide destruction of the building structures at the end of Phase IIc, the complex was rebuilt more or less on the same lines. As to this IId level phase, only few rooms on the southern wing of the building are preserved from the following Iron Age and especially Byzantine destructive operations. Nevertheless, excavations within one of these rooms (Room 8) recovered an interesting collection of sherds on the southeast corner of the floor.²⁶ Within the pottery assemblage of the room several fragments of Mycenaean painted pottery have been recorded, pertaining to a few open vessels (deep bowls and cups), whose decoration patterns hint at a LH IIIC date.²⁷

This evidence seems particularly useful to increase our knowledge about this last phase of the Late Bronze Age; the presence of LH IIIC Mycenaean-type pottery in the Göksu Valley, in this phase possibly coming from western Anatolia, outlines a peculiar system of relations already wider than that of the following Early Iron Age. In fact, the materials coming from the following IIe level phase of the Stele Building outline a different picture. A degree of continuity in the pottery production from LBA to EIA levels at Kilise Tepe can be evidenced only within the common plain wares assemblage, which significantly resembles the former Late Hittite Buff Plain Ware.²⁸

Nevertheless, the pottery repertoire is largely characterized by the typical Early Iron Age painted wares, belonging to a strictly Anatolian horizon.²⁹ At Kilise Tepe, as in the whole Göksu area,³⁰ the most common pattern of the painted decoration pottery is represented by decoration of orange-reddish red bands on a light background, realized by a cream wash or slip, mostly associated with closed vessels. This kind of painted pottery finds its best parallels in the contemporary assemblages of the plain Cilicia centers,³¹ in particular with the western sites, such as Tarsus³² and Mersin,³³ but also with the eastern centers of the Çukurova, as more recently documented by the ceramic evidence of Kinet Höyük.³⁴ Further similarities with the Early Iron Age painted pottery assemblage of the inner site of Porsuk, Level IV,³⁵ have also been noted.³⁶

Besides the evident local short-distance connections with the Plain Cilicia production, the influence of external elements within the Göksu River area seems rather ruled out. The features of the material culture hint at a reduced range of relations, definitely oriented towards the north to inner Anatolia.