Rough Cilicia

New Historical and Archaeological Approaches

Michael C. Hoff, Rhys F. Townsend, Rhys F. Townsend

• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781782970606
• Topic: Geschichte
• Subtopic: Altertum

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 (Ya?c?, 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.

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 pap...