Ancİent Anatolia

7/28/2019 Ancent Anatolia

1/14

. . . -

THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROCESS OF CIVILlZATlON

Ancent Anatolia as a Case in Point

Oral SANDER

Civilization is a complex whole. This is more so if we un~derstand it as "an ideal statc of human culture characterized

by complete absence of barbarsm and arational, optimum uti-

!ization of physical, cuHural, spiritual and human resourees, and

perfect adjustment of the individual within the social framework.'

(Websters-Third International Dictionary). Despite the vehemeit

daim s of racists, there is neither such a thing as a unique, integ-

rating and superior civilization , nor s it possiblc to find the

exact origins ofman 's material and spiritual products in the depths

of history. From the frst appearancc of the Homo Sapi-

ens onwards, the development of civi!ization has been on a con-tinuous line.

If wc compare this process to a tree, we cannot say wi!h

eertainty whether a given branch has grown from a particular

root, nor wouId it be possibIe to daim that a certain root has found

its way into the Soil due to the growth of a particular

branch. In other word s, in a highly complex structure such as

cvilization, the ndividual parts cannot easily be extracted fromthe whole. Every single root as well as all the roots combined to-

gether are responsible for the growth of each branch and of the

whole tree. This is, of course, not to say that the Aztec civilization

of Ame~ca had necessarily any direct connection with the pro-

cess of Cvilization in Europe. But, ithink that in the case of

geographic regions where contact betwecn numcrous peoples

has been shown to have ceurcd, to trace the exaet origins of

human products and to attempt at a clarification of every indi-

vidual thrcad of development, s a meaningless and absurd en-deayour. Furthermore, given the historically unifying effects

of eertain geographic areas, the historian is at a loss in determi-


2/14

1977] THE PROCESS OF CIYILlZATION 89

ning the exact and'concrete contributions of individua] races tothe entire process of civilization in one of these regions. Thus,

civilization cannot be in the monopoly of a race or nation, butdevelops thanks to the contributions of different human groups.

Dr. Yaman rs apparently concurs with this line ofthoughtwhen he states that " ... no society couldJave been bom or de'e-loped if it had not come under tle influence of older, and especiallyneighbouring contemporaneous communities and civmzations."

The Anatolian Peninsula, together with its geo]ogical-geog-raphic extensions (i.e. the Aegean Islands) is a region where this

statement holds particularly true. Dr. rs remarks more specifi-cally that " ... witlout the ancient Greek sodety tlzere could havebeen no western civilization as we know it today ... The andentGreek society (in turn,) developed under the influence of Minoan(Cretan), Egyptian and Mesopotamian dvilizations... (Besides)the beginning of the historical process called Greek civilization

was in Western Anatolia and the neighbouring islands rather thanin the Greek Peninsula and archipelago." (rs, 1974:101-3)

This statement must be considered within a broader context.

The continuous line of the development of civ;lization,the im-possipility of finding the exact origins of human products andof rigidcategorization of individual civiHzations are nowheremore c1early witnessed than n the Mediterranenan region whichcomprises the lands and peoples around the MediterraneanSea: Southern Europe, North Africa, the South-Western partof Asia and Asia Mnor. In ths geographc-historical region,Asa Minor or Anatolia occupies a unique position in that itis perhaps the only principal peninsula on carth which stretehes

in the cast-west directian. This feature mu st be primarily responsible for the age. old cliches that the Anatolian Peninsulehas been a "passage-way" for numerous migration waves fromand into Europe, andthat it is the westernmost elongation/ ofthe Asian Continent. Like all other cliches, they revcalonly halfof the turth. The Anatolian Peninsula, an integral part of the Mc-diterranean, c1early shows the integrating effects of the region.As a result of this and despite the existcnce of different culturesthat found access into Anatolia, we observe the cmergencc of

a remarkable unity. This is why Anatolia should not be conside-red only as the westernmost part of Asia and as a "beaten track",


3/14

90 THE TURKISH YEARBOOK [VOL. XVII

but alsa as an integral part of the Mediterranean. Besides, South

European eountries are alsa Mediterranean eountries, and Egypt,

Libya, Tunisia and ~AIgeria clearIy reveal more Mediterraneanrather than typical African eharaeteristies.

,The AnatoIian Peninsula is situated on the erossroads of

the eastem Mediterranean and has witnessed many invasions

- from nearly all directions sinee pre-historie times. The periodie

invasions from Mesopotamia earried many elements of the regi-

on even to the Aegean shores of AnatoIia. Same of the tribes

found a new home and settIed here on the fertile soil of the Pe-

ninsula, while others foreed their way into Europe through the

Aegean Sea and Thrace. But the fact remains that all those that

settled adapted themselves to the prevailing eonditions cf the

region. This was due to the assimilating eapaeity of the Medi-

terranean and Anatolia, integrating various and sametimes

contradictory eultures. (Akurgal, 1971: 30) -This feature has

transformed Anatolia into a land where different eultures, reli-

gions and raees have melted to form. a "mosae" rather than a

region where we can find an easily identifiable eivilization with

roots traeeable into speeifis origins. Ttthus seems safe to say thatAnatalia should not be considered onlyas a "bridge" between

Asia and Europe, but as a "inelting pot" where numerous peop-.

les with different cultures and experiences have merged together

to form what iwould call a "texture of interdependent civiIiza-

tions".

* **The main impact of Anatolia on the new settlers ean be found

in its general tendeney of peaeeful eo-existence. Between theseventh and second millenium, there were various settlements

in AnatoIia which showed regional eharaeteristies instead of a

homogeneous eulture comprising the whole of the Peninsula.

These settlements (atalhyk, Hacliar, Horoztepe, Alacahyk,

Tilkitepe to mention only a few) had a high levcl of eulture of

different types. Among them the most advaneed evilization of

the Neolithie period was that of atalhyk. A series of exeava-

tions showed no traces of open violcnee and destmetion in the

settlement, an.d in other Neolithie settlements in Anatolia. Thcrewas seemingIy little class distinetion between rich and po or wth

no evidence of a hierarehieal organization and no traee of mas-,


4/14

1977 THE PROCESS OF CJVJLlZATION 91

saere was established in the exeavations so far. Among the many

hundreds of skeletons unearthed, not a single one has been found

that showed signs of violent death. (Fr0111m, 1973: 212-3).

A series of exeavations further revealed that the Anatolian

peoplc had a matriarehal social structure, the woman having

apparently played a dominant though not domineering role until

the third millenium. Fromm has made this cvaluation: "The

faet that these Neolithie villages in Anatolia had a matdarchal

(natrieentrie) strueture, adds a_great deal more evidenee to the

Iypothesis that Neolitlie society, at least in Anatolia, was an essen-

tially unaggressive and peaeeful society. The reason for this liesin the spirit of affirmation of life and laek of destruetiveness

whieh ... was an essential trait of all matriarelal societies." (Fromm,

1973: 2 17) Thus, those tribes which arrived in AnatoJia after the

third millenium found themselves in such an environment and

were affected by it. As ishall discuss later, the Hittites, an ori-

ginally barbarian and patriarchal peoplc foreign to Anatolia,

invaded the territory of the Hattian people of Anatolian origii

and founded a high civilizafion much affected by the peaceful

culture aready cxisting there. It was perhaps not mere coinciden-ce that the Kadesh Treaty, the first written peace treaty in history,

was signed in 1286 B.C. between the Hittite King Hattuslis

III and Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses ILThis unprecedented event,

which began an era of eenturies-Iong peace in Anatolia, clear1y

reveals the peaceful influence of the Peninsula on such a warrior

people as the Hittites and, furthermore, marks its feature of

intergratin.g various and even contradictory cultures, as Akurgal

forcefully stresses. (Akurgal, 1971: 30) Thus. since their arrival

in Anatolia. the Hittitcs adapted their total pattem of behaviourto the dominant conditions of the Peninsula.

in 2300 B.C., that is three hundred years before the arrival

of the Hittites, an Ind-European people speaking the Luvian

dialect occupied the entire south-westem Anatolia from the sho-

res of the Marmara Sea down to the gulf of. skenderun (Alex-

andretta). This powerful thrust of the Luvians brought with

it an unprecedentcd destruction which the peaceful Anatolian

people had not witnessed before and which deprived the Anato-

lian people of its prosperity for at least a hundred years. Only

the cen.tral and northem Anatolia managed to escape from this

/

\


5/14


calamity. In about 2200 Re., when contacts were estabJishcd

between these. regions and the Lvian.dominated Southwest,

profitable trade relations were formed with rilicia and northSyrian markets which resulted in the recovery of Anatolia's

previous prosperity. Under these circumstances the focus of

attention moved once more to central Anatolia and particularly

to the site of Kltepe (Kanesi). This development was also

important due to the introduction of writing to the Peninsula

by the Iiterate Assyrian traders. (L1oyd, 1967: 38). Thus, histori-

cal periods started in AnatoIia with the sole exception of the wes.

tern shores of the Penincula bordering the Aegean.

When the Kltepe inseriptions were deeiphered it becane

c1ear that peoplcs both of the Asian and Indo-European- origins

lived in Anatolia and that the latter, including the Hittites, were

in a minority. (Alkim, 1969: 149) In other words, the Assyrians,

Hittites and other foreigners had not found themselves in a eul-

tural "vacuum" when they settled in AnatoJia. On the eontrary,

they were greatly influenced by highly developed city communi-

ties with their prominent Anatolian eharacteristies and deep-

rooted traditions. The most important aspect of Kltepe is, inthe words of L1oyd, that "it 011 ce more emphasizes the existence

of an authentic AnatoUan culture persisting through the vicissitudes

of migration and poUtical change." (Lloyd, 1967 :53) This is stili

more evidence that the new settlers of Anatolia had been influen-

ced by or adapted themselves to the prevailing conditions of the

r


6/14

1977 ] THE PROCESS OF CIVILlZATION 93

;

and patriarchaI. Only after the impact of the peaceful , civilized

and matriarehal culture of the region did they begin to worshipthe Anatalian mother goddess Kubaba, which' emphasizes the

matriarchal social structure of the region, and to penetrate into

the AnatoHan life without destruction, a very rare if not unique

event by the time and thereafter.

The native Anatolians (Hattians) intermingled with the

newcomers without much friction, and the more flexible Neshian

(Hittite) replaced the Hattian language. In short, the assimila-

tory effect of Anatolia once more had the upper hand of the new-

comer and the Hittites entered into the "texture of civilizations"of the region, inheriting an abundance of traditions. Seton LIoyd

has the following to say on the topic: "What we do in faet watel

is the assimilation by the Hittites of Anatolian traditions and

praetiees. We see in their art and arehiteeture, in their religion

and iconography, many elements which are not of their own erea-

tion, but vhich emphasize their loyalty to principles adopted before

their aniva!. If we seek for qualities and predileetions whieh may

specifieally be atfributed to their own national heredy, we shall

find them most obviously in their undoubted genilis for military

and political organization, in their talent for administration and

their pambitious imerialism." (Lloyd, 1967: 56) The last national

heredity must have been curbed down somevhat by their new

environment as the Kadesh Treaty demonstrates.

,The Hittites established such a strong political and mili-

tary unity in Anatolia that until 1200 B.c. ne migration wave

and no conquering army managed to pass through the Peninsula.

The Babylonians, Assyrians and Egyptians failed to conquer Ana-tolia from the East. During thcir rule the Hittite Kingdom was

surrounded by barbarian Europe (incIuding the Grcek Peninsula)

from the West, by primitive tribes from the North, by the Babyl-

lonians and Assyrians from the East and by Syria, Egypt and the

Minoeans fram the South. Thcse peo'plcs were a influenced by

the high Hittite civilization through periodic interactions.

The study of the Kltepe (Kanesh) inscriptions revcal that

when the Hittitcs founded thcir kingdom in Anatolia, eight dif-

fc ent lafi.guages were actuaUy spoken in the region, two of which-Hittite and Akkadian-were used by the Hittite Kings for thcir

officiid documents. Thcsc eight languages were as follows: (i)


7/14


Hittite,' a language of the Indo-European family; (ii) Hattia(,'

a language neither Indo-European nor Sernitic, but peculiar tothe natiye peaples of Anatolia; (iii) Luwian,' C10sely related to

Hittite, it was subdivided into several dialect s, of which one was

the "hieroglyphie language and another developed into the Lycian

of the classical period; (iv) Palaie,' Iike Hittite and Luwian it

belongs to the ndo-European familyand was spoken by the

Palaic people who are believed to have lived around Kastamonu

(Paphlagonia); (v) Hurrian: an agglomerative language which

has no cannection with the Indo- European family, but cIosely re-

lated to the language of the Kingdom of Urartu established ineastern Anatolia in the first milleniuIn B.C.; (vi) the Aryan Lan-

guage of the Rulers of Mitanni, who lived in south-eastern Ana-

tolia; (vii) Akkadian: the Semitic language of Babylonia and As-

syria which was widdy uscd for diplomatic correspondence and

documents of international character, a custom followed by the

Hitti~e king s in their dealings with their southern and eastern

neighbours; (viii) Sumerian: the oldest language of lower Meso-

potamia which was intensivcly studied in Boazky (Hattusas).

(Gurney, 1976: 117-26). -

it can be dedueed from this classification. and from previous

explanations that the Hittites were onlyone of several peoples

who Iived in Anatolia during this period. But however nume-

rous the Anatolian peopIes might have been, they nevertheless

identified themselves with the natiye Hatti eulture and perpetu-

ated their Anatolian heritage. As amatter of faet, the word "Hit-

tite" was derived or modernized from "Hatti". Thus, it must

be safe to state that the Hittite eivilization came into being asa result of Iong interaction between the natiye Hatti eivilization

on the one han d Indo-European on the other, with Anatolia

serving again as a decisive "melting-pot." (Akurgal, 1971: 19-20).

* .* *

The people ealled Aehaeans by Homeros established in the

western eoast of Anatolia a series of trade colonies in 1500 B.C.,

an~ tried to penctrate into the Pcninsula. Homeros's "!iada"

can be considered as a poetic deseription of the se f)artly successfn!

eampaigns. Anatolia was opcned to Achaean extcnsion only

after the eollapse of the Trojan Kingdom and, in addition, of

the Hittite Kingdm by the Phrygial1 invasion Thus, in 1200


8/14

1977] THE PROCESS OF CIVILlZATION 95

B.e. the Aehaeans foreed their way into the southem and south~

western eoasts of Anatolia and established strong colonies along time before the the Dorian irvasion of the Greek Peninsulawhich, in turn, forced further Achaean migrations to Anatolia.(Akurgal, 1971: 25; Mansel, 1963: 82-85).

The Achaeans first appear in history as a result of an inier-ming]ing between the natiye peoples of the Greek Peninsula

,

from the third miIlenium and those tribes which ventured intothe area from the North in the second millenium. Ther eulturehad witnessed sporadic alterations until 1600 Re. after whieh

they came under the Cretan influence. (Mansel, 1963: 57) TheAehaeans eeased to be a political entity because of the Dorianinvasion in the eleventh centuryand thus their eivilization inthe Greek Peninsula was destroyed. Those who stayed interming-led with the newcomers and the n;st s~t sail to the Anatolian eoast.(It is an interesting pint that the Dorians which ealled themselves"Helen" were the first people to use this word). (DeIlore, 1966:

95, 99).

The latter were caIled Ionians in Anatolia and establisheda high civilization in their new home until 500 B.e. Even afterthis date and although superiority in the field of arts was trans-fered to Athens, Icnia sti maintained its preponderence in sci-ence. (Mansel, 1963: 85-87). At the ceginning of the sixth cen-tury B.e. Anatolia was dominated by the Persians but the loni-an eities retained their autonomy.

Thus, it is safe to state that the lonian cities in Anatoliaand the Dorians of the Greek Peninsula were two different en-

tities. But the Wcstern opinion which has a strong tendeney ~oconsider as "Grcek" everything civilized and humane in AncientWestern Anatolia, evaIuates the Dorian and loniari eivilizationsas parts of a single entity. This mistaken view apparently stemsfrom two sources: Firsl .the Wcstern inteectual trits to find theorigins of "W~stcrn civilizatic" and everything noteworthyin it only in the Aneient Greek soeicty whieh; ithink, is a futileendeavour in view of the ccmplexity of the process of civilization.Secondly, he draws unbreakable links between language and

racc, and thus cnsiders the peoples speaking the Greek languageas Greeks despite the fact that language itself is not a reliableeriteria in finding the idcntit.y of a raee. Dr. rs adds clarity to


9/14


the-subject with the following evaiuation: "Arabic was the offi-

dal, religious, scientific, in short, generallanguage of the lslamicworld. NOIV, can we ca/l the lslamic soCety an Arabic civilization?There are lranians, Turks, Berbers and other peoples making the

social edifice of that soCety. Jews contributed to it, especia/ly in

the scientific fields. We are then quite unjustified when we cal! it

an Arabic civilization, a mistake made rather frequently. We findthe same atiitude in case of the ancient Greek sodety." Refering

to Arnold Toynbee, he goes on that "the andent Greeks were a

seafaring people, who, through thdr mariners, spread their own

language and "put it into currency" all around the Mediterranean.So? Were all the peoples speakig this /miguage Greeks? Greekwas mainly the mythological, literary, philosophical and scientificlanguage of an important part nf the Mediterranean area, but the

people who used it in these domains were not necessarily Greeks."(rs, 1974: 105).

The Phrygians, a people of indo-European origin, venturedinto Anatalia in 1200 B.C. and settled in the central re!;ion with

Gordion as their famous capitaL. Most of the Phrygian cities weredestroyed by the Cimmerian inveasion in the beginning of the

seventh century. The Cimmerians, who were Indo-European

nomads, did not settle on the Phrygian soiL. Towards the end

of the century. the westem Phiygia was occupied by the Lydiansand eventual1y the Phrygian independence was rut an end by the

Pcrsian occupation n 546 B.C. (Metzger, 1969:57; Menderes,1977: 41)

The Lydians occupying most of the Phrygian territory livedbetween the Mcander and Hermos rivers and were ruled by theHittites. They were not much affected by the invasions from

Thrace which destroyed the Hittite Kingdom in 1200 B.C. Later

they formed an independent kingdom under Giges but fe un-der Persian rule n 546 B.c. According to Heredotus, the Herac-les Dynasty of Micaean origir came to the Lydian capital of Sar-des in 1200 B.c. it s possble that these were the Achaeansventuring into westem Anatolia n search of new terrtories after

destroying Troy. But the fad remans that the Lydians spokc alanguage closely related to Hittite. (Menderes, 1977: 34) Accor-ding to anothcr thcory, Lydians were in fact relatcd to the H it-


10/14

1977] THE PROCESS OF CIVILIZA TION 97

/

tites and composed of several tribes which forced their way into

Anatolia from the Straits .. (Onsal, 1960).

** *in the east of the Anatolian Peninsula, in roughly the same

period lived the Urartians. The first mention of this peoplc

(who called themselves Bfaiili) is found in the Assyrian inserip-

tions of the i3th century B.C. They lived in the region of Lake

Van and apparcntly founded a loose federation comprising smaIl

princedoms in the 13 th and 12 th centuries. In 900 B.C. a strong

Urartu state was established. Continuously at war with the As-syrians, the Urartians were later exposed to Cimmerian and Me-

des invasions, and finally thcir state was destroyed by anather

namadie and nda-European people, the Scythians.

The principal Gad of the 1Jrartians was Haldi. As all their

inscriptions began with reference to their Gad, same scholars

were led to speak of a "HaIdi Civilization" and even to daim,

by drawing similarities with the Annenian word Haldik, that

they were the ancestors of Armenians. Same furtler believed- that Haldiye, a province mentioned in the Byzantian sources,had

corresponded to the Urartu territory. But it has bem shown that

the Haldiye province stretehed betwecn Trabzon and Batum

where Urartians had not lived. As amatter of fact, Urartian is

an agglomerative language wheareas Annenian is un.doubtedly

an nda-European one. (Balkan, 1978) Furthrmcre, after the

Scytlians and Medes had destroycd the Urartu Kingdam in

612 B.C., the latter was replaced geographically by the Armcnians,

an nda-European people of whose extraction there is no clearrecord. (Lloyd, 1967:109) Thus, with the fall of the Urartians

and the appearance of the Armcnians and alsa other tribes in

the region, the connection with the Urartians was eut ofC (Metz-ger, 1969: 13---14) As stated previously, the language of the Un.r-

tia.s was closely related to Jhat of the HUl'r;ons '.vho lived in the

a:'ea south of Lake Van after 2200 B.C.

Iktwccn the Mcandcr river and lake Kyceiz, that is, to

the south of the Lydi'1~, 'Ne see te Carians. Acccrding to an-

cient Greek sources the Carians originaBy Iived in the Aegcanislands from where they were forecd to nigrate to Anato!ia as

a result of Dor,lil invasion. But modern archeologiccd findings


11/14

98 THE TURKISH YEARBOOK [V OL . V XL I

/

have shown no evidence of Carian existence in these slands. Mo-

reover, the early culture of the Aegean islands clearly revealsCretan and Minoean characteristcs and no trace of Carian inf-

luence. In fact, it does not seem to be justifiable to state that the

Carians lived in any other place than Anatolia. The Carians

themselves had expressed, according to George Bean, that "they

had always lil'ed on the main/and and had a1vays heen called Ca-

rians, and they adl'anced their ovn evidence: there was at Mylasa

an ancient sanctuary of Carian Zeus, to vhich, besides Carians,

only Mysians and Lydians vere admitted; these, they daimed,

were historically akin to themselves, and had nel'er been other tlan

mainlanders. Sclo/ars today are much inclined to believe that in

this matta the Carians were in the right. " (Bean, 1971:7) In

Homer's Iliad, the Carians appear as allies of the Trojans against

the Aehaeans. Of the successive waves of migration from Greece

to Anatalia after the Trojan war, that of the Dorians was the Jast

and southernmost. But this Greek colonization tcuched only

the coast, and the interior remained Carian, The Cari an language

has not been deciphered so far and whethcr the language is

Indo-Eudopean or .not is yet disputed. (Bean, 1971 :20) Thus,

there is strong evidence that the Carians, together with Mysians,

Lydians and Lycians, were basically Anatolian peoples resis-

ting the invaders from the Greek Pcninsula as the Trojan coali-tion clearly suggests.

The Lycians as the seafaring peopIe of Anatolia fought

against the Egyptians in the war of Kadesh as an atly of the

Hittites. and later against the Achaeans side hy side with the Tro-

jans, both for the obvious purpose of defending Anatolia agai!1stforeign invadc's. Their country lied hetween the gulfs of Antal-

ya and Fethiye. According to archeological excavations the ear-

liest settlemcnt' in this region dates back to the second milleniun.

Philological studies, on the other hand, have revealed the name s

of certan. settlements with NO., NT ,and SS endings which is

peculiar to Anatolia and which belong to the third milleniun.

The Greek colonists witnessed strong resistence by the Lycians

who later lived under the sovereignty of the Persians, Macedoni-

ands, Romans and then Byzantines. (Anday,

977: 28-29) Therewas a time when the Lycia nswcre considered ;s relatives of the

Hittites and their language, Lycian, as related to Neshian. Ne-

vertheless, based on a different version of the Greek alphabet,


12/14

1977) THE PROCESS OF CIVILlZATION 99

Lycian has not yet been deciphered. The most eonsistent theory

is probably the one which emphasizes its relatian to the Luwianlanguage. (Anday, 1977: 29-30).

To the east of the Lycians, natiye AnataHan peop!cs lived

in independent smail states in Cappadocia ever sinee the pre-his-

to ic times. There are sites such as K!tepe dating from the stone

age. As understood from the coalition formed against the Assy-

rian King Naramsin, there was at 1east seventeen smail kingdoms

in 2300 Re. (Andalfata and Zucchi, 1971 :67) There is very iitt leinformation about Cappadoc(a after the collapse of the Hitittes

and up to the sixth sentury Re. when the region merged intothe Lydian Kingdom. it fall in 350 Re. to the Persi(l.ns and thento Alexander the Great. Although some form of autonomy was

maintained, the Capl?adocian states beeame a province of the

Roman Empire in 17 A.D. (Giovannini, i97i:68) Until the end

of the fourth century A.D., t revealed natiye, Persian and Se-

mitic influenees on the one hand, and Greco-Roman on the ot-her. (Thierry, 1971: 129).

The Maeedonian King Alexander the. Great initiated a se-

ries of campaigns for the purpose of creating a world -state byuniting the East and the West. In reality, even hefore Alexander

Anatolia had been in continuous conctact with the East. After

his campaigns a mixture of civilization of both Greek and Asian

origins emanated as a reeult of the intereaetion of eastem and

western eultures. it is for this reason that Anatolia's cultural

history has been so complex, ineredibly rich and indisputablygreat. (Akrgal, 1971: 29).

In 197 B.e., af ter settling aceounts with Carthage in the

West and getting increasingly stronger, the Roman Empire cameinto contact with Anatolia. Tn 133 B.e. the Romans annexedPergamll/1 upon the will of its last king Atta/os lll. As a reaction

against this Western enlargement in Anatolia, Mitradates Ev-

pator IV, the King of Pontus, attaeked western Anatolia and

put an end to Roman dominanee in 88 Re. Two years later,however, the rcbellion was suppressed and Anatolia onee again

was dominated by the Romans. Upon the wi of the last king

of Bytinia, Nikomedes , this territory was ~ified with that of

Pontus and, beeame a Roman provinee. When the last Hellenis-tic Kingdam of Egypt was conquered by Octal'ian/ls, Rome en-

larged its territory to wover ncarly a the eastem Mcditerra.ncan.


13/14

100 THE TURKISH YEARBOOK [VOL. X V JI

The Pontus state \Vas established in 298 B.C. and ceased to

existafter two centuries as a result of Roman occupation of Ana-tolia. Despite the fact that Alexander the Geat had- never ente-

red the Pontus territory (stretching betw('cn the Black Sea and

the Caueasian Mountain sin the north and east, and Cappadocia

and Paphlagonia in the south and west) during his eampaigns

n Anatolia, the Pontus Kings themsclves acceptcd the Roman

suzereignty, bu! maintained their autonomy. (Gololu, 973:

48, 74) There lived in the Pontus state a multitnde of peopks of

Asian and Anatolian origins. (Gololu, j 973 :78) According to

some historians the Pontus kings belonged to the Persian Dy-nasty, while others cJaim that they were natiye princes. Gololu,

refering to Alfred Duggan, states that the Pontus kings "had noconncetion whatsoever with the Greeks. "They considered thcm-

selves as Anatolians, strove for Anatolian integ ity and indepen-

dence, and formed a national army from the natiye peoples due

to their lack of confidence to Greck mercenaries. The Pontus

kings, however, admired the Greek cnlture and for this reason

opened the gates oftheir palaces to numerous Greek thinkers and

artists. Thus, Greek eultu:c, togethcr with its trade, expanded

in the area and eastem and westerl1 eu1tures intermingled once

again on the Anatolian soil . (Gololu, 973: 102-3)

Constantne was the first Roman Emperor to rccognizc Ch-ristianity by announcing in 313 A. D. that the new religion was

not restrietcd. Teodisius aec\:pted Christianity as the officia! reli-gion in 395 A.D. This had adetrimental effcct in Anatolia as

far as culture is ecncerned, because frol11 then on the Roman~

began to brcak down the idols in Anatolia ths depriving thePeninsula of the produets of a 2000 years old civilization.

Sabahattin Eyban states that "the Hittitt.s, Phrygians,

Greeks, Persians, Romans, and 8yzantines conqucred Anatolia

with the result that they had become An


14/14

1977 ] THE PROCESS OF CIVILlZATION 101

individuaI races to the entire process of civiIizntian of the region.

Secoclly, throughout its long history, Anatolia has experienced

periodie foreign dominatian with detrinenta! effeets on its pros-perity. ConsequentIy, those who Iivcd in Anatolia nearly aIways

united against foreign domination.

For the Iast thousand years the Turks have been living in

Anatolia. In the eourse afthis time we have interningled with the

Anatolan texture on interdependtnt civilizations and greatly

influeneed them. In return, AnatoJa imprinted an everIasting

impaet on us. This is the principaI reason why Anatolia, with

a its material as weeI as spirituaI riehness, is ours.

Documents

Ancİent Anatolia