|
THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE CITY It is argued below that the city on Kerkenes Dag was an imperial foundation. This conclusion raises the question of who would have had reason to found a huge, new, skillfully designed and heavily fortified city on a mountain top close to the center of Anatolia towards the end of the pre-Hellenistic Iron Age. Clearly the city was unfinished and occupied but briefly. The founder chose the site for its naturally defensive position and the architect used the features of the site to the best possible advantage. The particular location was chosen for a number of reasons: its situation close to important east-west and north-south routes connecting the Black Sea with the Mediterranean and Iran with the west, the relative abundance of water which is peculiar to the granitic geology of the chosen site, its domination of the northern part of the Cappadocian plain. The city was founded out of necessity and displays an extraordinary vision on the part of the founder. There can be no doubt that it was an "ideal city" laid out according to preconceived concepts of a plan which was to contain all the elements thought necessary for a new imperial center: (in no particular order), royal, administrative, religious, military and residential. But it does not, on the other hand, display the repetitive conformation to a standard plan that may be seen, for instance, in Imperial Hittite Gates or the rectilinear rigidity of orthogonally planned Hellenistic cities. The obvious lack of any system of internal defenses, such as a citadel wall, suggests that the intended population was not perceived as posing any threat and it may thus be concluded that occupants were loyal supporters of the governing regime, not forcibly settled subject peoples. It is certainly clear, from the grandeur of the public buildings within the city and the extra mural temple at Karabas, that the foundation was intended to be permanent, not a temporary expedient. The date, based on the test excavations conducted by Erich Schmidt in 19282, is within the rather loose period known as Alishar V, i.e. somewhere between the seventh and the fourth centuries B.C. It seems inconceivable, however, that it could be a Persian foundation for three reasons: one, it is totally unlike any other known Achaemenid city; two, if it were Persian it would surely have been the seat of a satrap given its size, strength and strategic position, but it is not in the correct place for one of the satrapies according to any of the much debated reconstructions of Achaemenid geography; three, none of the finds are indicative of the Persian period. An eighth century date would seem to be ruled out by the pottery. A date in the seventh century, while it cannot be disproved on the evidence currently available, would have no historical context. If an argument ex silentio is permissible, the likelihood is that construction and abandonment took place within the sixth century B.C. It is perhaps reasonable to assume that so great a city founded and abandoned or destroyed somewhere within this time range, or indeed earlier, would have found mention in the ancient texts. The more so since, whatever the exact date, there is nothing of comparable stature known elsewhere on the Anatolian Plateau. From amongst the extant sources there is only a single candidate and that is the city of Pteria mentioned by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus of Halicarnassus, "the father of history". The testimony of Herodotus (I.76) is worth quoting in full:
It will be helpful to recount the well-known historical background that lead up to the Battle of Pteria before examining the implications of this passage from Herodotus in detail. The most convenient starting point is perhaps the fall of the Neo-Assyrian capital Nimrud in 612 B.C. to the allied forces of the Medes and the Babylonians. In 605 B.C. the Babylonian king Nabopolasser defeated the remnants of the Assyrian army and their Egyptian allies at Carchemish and Hamath (modern Hama). The Neo-Assyrian empire, together with the wider spheres of interest that included much of Anatolia, were divided between the Medes and the Babylonians: the Mesopotamian part of the empire went to the Babylonians and the northern arena, from Harran to the Anatolian plateau, to the Medes. In the space of ten years the power of Assyria was broken and, after military defeat, the empire vanished from the face of history. The unlikely alliance between the Medes, newly emerging from east of the Zagros Mountains as a major power in the Near East, and the Neo-Babylonians, at the end of a three thousand year tradition of urban civilization, fell into abeyance in the absence of a common enemy. Median strength was of sufficient magnitude for the Babylonians to have taken extensive defensive measures including the construction of a huge wall, impressively faced with baked brick, to keep out the highly mobile and destructive menace. Sources for the following period of Median expansion are shadowy and much debated, the sources being Greek and Babylonian rather than Median, and mostly somewhat later than events themselves . By 590/589 B.C. the Medes were fighting the Lydians in central Anatolia. The power of Urartu in the highlands of eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus must therefore have been reduced to insignificance and may have been completely under Median domination, for Cyaxares could hardly have campaigned towards the Halys river without being sure of security in the rear. The Medio-Lydian war, perhaps best understood as a series of annual campaigns with both protagonists fighting towards the practical limits imposed by distance from their respective home bases, lasted into a sixth year when, on the afternoon of May 28, 585 B.C. it seemingly came to an end.
There have been numerous attempts to reconcile this and other passages from Herodotus with the Neo-Babylonian sources but the date of the war and the terms of the treaty have not been questioned . The problem of the reconciling the date of the treaty with the death of Cyaxares and the accession of Astyages is not insurmountable if it could be assumed that Astyages was leading the Median forces in the west while his father was still on the throne in Ecbatana (the Median capital), a situation that has many parallels in the ancient world . That the Halys river formed the border between the empires of the Lydians and the Medes is well attested . Whatever the nature and intensity of the war itself there are two points worth making: firstly that the Medes were capable of challenging Lydian power in Central Anatolia to such an extent that both Cilicia and far flung Babylon saw it as being in their own interests to secure peace between the warring factions and, secondly, the Medes could campaign on the Halys river without fear of serious attack from the rear. Leaving aside the question of later hostilities between Astyages and Alyattes, the next series of events relevant to the story begins with the overthrow of Astyages and the establishment of the Achaemenid empire by Cyrus the Great. By this time Alyattes was dead and his son Croesus, brother-in-law of Astyages, was on the Lydian throne. Croesus saw the turmoil in the Iranian court as a time of dynastic weakness which provided him with an opportunity. Using the convenient, if not genuine, excuse of the murder of his brother-in-law, and having sent envoys to various oracular temples from which he received what he could only interpret as a favorable answer, he took his forces across the Halys river and sacked Pteria as recounted in the passage from Herodotus quoted above. The story was one of the most famous in the Greek world. After the inconclusive battle between Croesus and Cyrus, Croesus retreated to Sardis for the winter from where he summoned his Spartan and Egyptian allies in the natural expectation that Cyrus too would withdraw for the winter and that the confrontation would be renewed in the following spring. Cyrus, however, had superior forces and, being a man of action and not about to let victory elude him he went in immediate pursuit. The oracle at Delphi had been correct. An empire was destroyed as a consequence of Croesus' action: not, as he had so confidently expected, that of the Persians but rather his own. It is the contention here that Pteria was the city on the Kerkenes Dag and that this identification fits remarkably well with what little can be gleaned from both the ancient sources and the observable archaeological evidence. The location of the site fits well with that given by Herodotus, as has long been realized . It lies to the east of the Halys river and within Cappadocia. It is more or less due south of Sinope and this is clearly what Herodotus intended the reader to understand. The position of Sinope on the Black Sea would have been known to Herodotus himself and familiar to his readers, unlike the geography of the interior. The city, as has been argued above, was a new imperial foundation. Who better to have had the need of a strong base in such a position than Astyages after the Battle of the Eclipse and the ensuing treaty, with a grand palace in which he could play host to his new Lydian bride? The brief period of occupation would fit with the historical record: founded soon after 585 B.C. and destroyed by Croesus some forty years later (see below for discussion of the exact date). The site would be consistent with the need of Astyages for a strong base east of the Halys river, and the lack of later occupation can easily be understood because once Cyrus had exerted control over Lydia the very reason for a strong base east of the Halys river no longer existed. The argument is, admittedly, circumstantial and lacks the proof of inscriptions that would clinch the proposed identification. But there are additional arguments that, while not proof in themselves, combine to make a strong case. Firstly, there is no good parallel for the city in Anatolia and no obvious precursor for its genesis. Secondly, the complexes are very spacious, hardly intended to contain a large and crowded population such as might be expected if it had been conceived and constructed as a refuge and haven for a local population; rather it gives the impression of having been designed for a relatively small elite population. In other words, it was founded for a foreign, colonial, imperial community. Some hint of the correctness of this interpretation may be extracted from the testimony of Herodotus quoted above. It is striking that Croesus treated the inhabitants of Pteria differently from the "Syrians" in the surrounding villages who, in contrast to the Pterians, had done no wrong. It can thus be argued that the phraseology of Herodotus implies that the inhabitants of Pteria were not the same as the rural population, an implication that can easily be understood if the occupants of the city were Medes (and their allies): a foreign occupying power. The design and construction techniques of the defenses, the "palace" and the extra mural temple at Karabas, have no exact parallel known in Anatolia, and neither do the enclosures and other architectural features. If it is correct to assume that the elements of the city plan and the architecture were the culmination of a well established and long-standing tradition, an assumption that might be reinforced by the skill evident in the layout and execution, then Ecbatana with its seven city walls might be expected to have provided the model and inspiration. Some elements of the site, such as the "palace" terrace and the skillful regulation of the water supply might be further hints of an eastern tradition. All this is, of course, speculation and our knowledge of other sixth century cities in Anatolia is currently so sparse that it may be unwise to place overmuch weight on negative evidence: although the arguments adduced above hardly amount to proof, they should not be ignored or dismissed for that reason alone. One further aspect of the ancient city may, with special pleading, be suggestive of an eastern connection. The altitude, c. 1400m., is such that winters are both long and extremely cold and the site is very exposed (unlike modern Anatolian cities at similar altitudes such as the nearby provincial center of Yozgat). It is difficult to imagine the whole city populationliving through the winter from choice and, incidentally, it is easy to see why the site did not attract later urban dwellers. The idea of a seasonal city brings to mind the Achaemenid tradition of seasonal migration between summer and winter cities. If the population was indeed foreign, as has been argued above, it might be wondered where the winter residence was. Of this there is no evidence, but from Kerkenes frequent views of snow-capped Erciyes Dag rising above the summer heat haze over the Cappadocian plain are a constant reminder of the relative proximity of Kayseri. Other possible candidates exist however, to the north or even to the south of the Taurus mountains. Seasonal occupation, if it could be demonstrated, would not amount to proof of an eastern origin and there is a danger of circularity of argument, but the point is worthy of serious consideration. Although the arguments set out above do not amount to proof, they culminate in a strong case. If the identification of the city on Kerkenes Dag as Pteria does not hold, the problem of who did build it remains. Further, the date would surely need to be revised, for it is most unlikely that Medes would have allowed such a position of strength to have been established during the period when they were fighting the Lydians. If it had been constructed by some local power attempting to assert independence, and destroyed rather than built by the Medes, the ambitiousness of the scheme is surprising and the failure of the Medes to take over rather than desert the site would need some explanation. The location of a major center so far to the north deserves comment, particularly if the Persian Royal Road is further to the south, as suggested to us by David French. From the Median point of view they would have wanted to keep as far north of the Babylonian threat as possible and it can be thus surmised that their forces, and those of Cyrus the Great on his march to Pteria, would have crossed the Zagros by one of the more northerly passes and following the modern route rather than risking confrontation with Babylonian forces in northern Mesopotamia. The Persian Royal Road, on the other hand, post-dates the capture of Sardis and perhaps the incorporation of Babylonia into the Achaemenid Empire. It may also be that the foothills of the Pontic mountains were perceived as being more desirable than the hot dry plains of the plateau, and logistically easier in terms of water and supplies. Under the Achaemenids the cities of the southern Pontus became Iranianized to the extent that eastern cults remained strong until overtaken by Christianity. In the seventh century A.D. the Sassanian Persians showed interest in the same area and followed similar routes as far westwards as Ankara. It has been argued, admittedly on rather thin evidence, that the effect of these Persian raids was felt in the countryside around Kerkenes Dag . It is likely that the attractions of the northerly route were the same in the Sassanian period as they were some 1,300 years earlier.
|
