...

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, integrating 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 Sapiens onwards, the development of civi!ization has been on a continuous 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 fo und 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 from the whole. Every single root as well as all the roots combined together 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 process of Cvilization in Europe. But, i think 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 individual thrcad of development, s a meaningless and absurd endeayour. Furthermore, given the historically unifying effects of eertain geographic areas, the historian is at a loss in determi-

1977]

THE PROCESS

OF CIYILlZATION

89

ning the exact and'concrete contributions of individua] races to the entire process of civilization in one of these regions. Thus, civilization cannot be in the monopoly of a race or nation, but develops thanks to the contributions of different human groups. Dr. Yaman rs apparently concurs with this line ofthought when he states that " ... no society couldJave been bom or de'eloped if it had not com e under tle influence of older, and especially neighbouring contemporaneous communities and civmzations." The Anatolian Peninsula, together with its geo]ogical-geographic extensions (i.e. the Aegean Islands) is a region where this statement holds particularly true. Dr. rs remarks more specifically that " ... witlout the ancient Greek sodety tlzere could have been no western civilization as we know it today ... The andent Greek 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 than in 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 impossipility of finding the exact origins of human products and of rigidcategorization of individual civiHzations are nowhere more c1early witnessed than n the Mediterranenan region which comprises the lands and peoples around the Mediterranean Sea: Southern Europe, North Africa, the South-Western part of Asia and Asia Mnor. In ths geographc-historical region, Asa Minor or Anatolia occupies a unique position in that it is perhaps the only principal peninsula on carth which stretehes in the cast-west directian. This feature mu st be primarily res ponsible for the age. old cliches that the Anatolian Peninsule has been a "passage-way" for numerous migration waves from and into Europe, andthat it is the westernmost elongation/ of the Asian Continent. Like all other cliches, they revcalonly half of the turth. The Anatolian Peninsula, an integral part of the Mcditerranean, c1early shows the integrating effects of the region. As a result of this and despite the existcnce of different cultures that found access into Anatolia, we observe the cmergencc of a remarkable unity. This is why Anatolia should not be considered only as the westernmost part of Asia and as a "beaten track",

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 Mediterranean rather 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 region even to the Aegean shores of AnatoIia. Same of the tribes found a new home and settIed here on the fertile soil of the Peninsula, 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 Mediterranean and Anatolia, integrating various and sametimes contradictory eultures. (Akurgal, 1971: 30) -This feature has transformed Anatolia into a land where different eultures, religions 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. Tt thus seems safe to say that Anatalia 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 i would 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 the seventh 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 exeavations showed no traces of open violcnee and destmetion in the settlement, an.d in other Neolithie settlements in Anatolia. Thcre was seemingIy little class distinetion between rich and po or wth no evidence of a hierarehieal organization and no traee of mas,

** *

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 essentially unaggressive and peaeeful society. The reason for this lies in 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 i shall discuss later, the Hittites, an originally 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 coincidence 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 IL This 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 behaviour to 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 shores of the Marmara Sea down to the gulf of. skenderun (Alexandretta). 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 Anatolian people of its prosperity for at least a hundred years. Only the cen.tral and northem Anatolia managed to escape from this

92

THE TURKISH

YEARBOOK

[VOL. XVII

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 north Syrian 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, historical 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 fo und themselves in a eultural "vacuum" when they settled in AnatoJia. On the eontrary, they were greatly influenced by highly developed city communities with their prominent Anatolian eharacteristies and deeprooted traditions. The most important aspect of Kltepe is, in the 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 influenced by or adapted themselves to the prevailing conditions of the r<:Egion. The "international" language of the time in Anatolia was Akkadian (Babylonian). But more loeally there was Hattian, the indigenous language of central AnatoJia. (Lloyd, 1967 :54) The HatJian language, which was entirely different from the Asian, Near Eastern and Indo-European ones, distinguishes itself by numerous prefixes (Akurgal, 1971: 14) and those people speaking the language are generay called the Proto-Hittites. The Hittites were first seen in Anatolia in the second millenium. Their origin is not quite c1ear. Same claim that they came from the North-East, while others from the North-West. There is, howcver, unanimity in that when they vcntured into Anatolia from smewhere nrth f the Peninsula, they were barbarian

** *

i~
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 worship the 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 assimilatory effect of Anatolia once more had the upper hand of the newcomer 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 ereation, 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 military 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 Anatolia 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 Babyllonians 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 diffc 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)

94

THE TURKISH YEARBOOK

[VOL. XVII

Hittite,' a language of the Indo-European family; (ii) Hattia(,' a language neither Indo-European nor Sernitic, but peculiar to the 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 related to the language of the Kingdom of Urartu established in eastern Anatolia in the first milleniuIn B.C.; (vi) the Aryan Language of the Rulers of Mitanni, who lived in south-eastern Anatolia; (vii) Akkadian: the Semitic language of Babylonia and Assyria 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 Mesopotamia 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 numerous the Anatolian peopIes might have been, they nevertheless identified themselves with the natiye Hatti eulture and perpetuated their Anatolian heritage. As amatter of faet, the word "Hittite" was derived or modernized from "Hatti". Thus, it must be safe to state that the Hittite eivilization came into being as a 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 af ter the eollapse of the Trojan Kingdom and, in addition, of the Hittite Kingdm by the Phrygial1 invasion Thus, in 1200

* . * *

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 a long time before the the Dorian irvasion of the Greek Peninsula which, 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 inierming]ing , between the natiye peoples of the Greek Peninsula from the third miIlenium and those tribes which ventured into the area from the North in the second millenium. Ther eulture had witnessed sporadic alterations until 1600 Re. af ter whieh they came under the Cretan influence. (Mansel, 1963: 57) The Aehaeans eeased to be a political entity because of the Dorian invasion in the eleventh centuryand thus their eivilization in the Greek Peninsula was destroyed. Those who stayed intermingled 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 established a high civilization in their new home until 500 B.e. Even after this date and although superiority in the field of arts was transfered to Athens, Icnia sti maintained its preponderence in science. (Mansel, 1963: 85-87). At the ceginning of the sixth century B.e. Anatolia was dominated by the Persians but the lonian eities retained their autonomy. Thus, it is safe to state that the lonian cities in Anatolia and the Dorians of the Greek Peninsula were two different entities. But the Wcstern opinion which has a strong tendeney ~o consider as "Grcek" everything civilized and humane in Ancient Western Anatolia, evaIuates the Dorian and loniari eivilizations as parts of a single entity. This mistaken view apparently stems from two sources: Firsl .the Wc stern inteectual trits to find the origins of "W~stcrn civilizatic" and everything noteworthy in it only in the Aneient Greek soeicty whieh; i think, is a futile endeavour 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 language as Greeks despite the fact that language itself is not a reliable eriteria in finding the idcntit.y of a raee. Dr. rs adds clarity to

96

THE TURKISH

YEARBOOK

[VOL. XVII

the-subject with the following evaiuation: "Arabic was the offidal, religious, scientific, in short, generallanguage of the lslamic world. 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 find the 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? Greek was mainly the mythological, literary, philosophical and scientific language 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, ventured into Anatalia in 1200 B.C. and settled in the central re!;ion with Gordion as their famous capitaL. Most of the Phrygian cities were destroyed 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 Lydians and 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 lived between the Mcander and Hermos rivers and were ruled by the Hittites. 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 under Persian rule n 546 B.c. According to Heredotus, the Heracles Dynasty of Micaean origir came to the Lydian capital of Sardes in 1200 B.c. it s possble that these were the Achaeans venturing into westem Anatolia n search of new terrtories af ter destroying Troy. But the fad remans that the Lydians spokc a language closely related to Hittite. (Menderes, 1977: 34) According to anothcr thcory, Lydians were in fact relatcd to the H it-

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 inseriptions 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 Assyrians, the Urartians were later exposed to Cimmerian and Medes 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, af ter 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 clear record. (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 of C ( Metzger, 1969: 13---14) As stated previously, the language of the Un.rtia.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 ancient Greek sources the Carians originaBy Iived in the Aegcan islands from where they were forecd to nigrate to Anato!ia as a result of Dor,lil invasion. But modern archeologiccd findings

98

THE TURKISH

YEARBOOK
/

[VOL.

VXLI

have shown no evidence of Carian existence in these slands. Moreover, the early culture of the Aegean islands clearly reveals Cretan and Minoean characteristcs and no trace of Carian influence. 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 Carians, 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 resisting the invaders from the Greek Pcninsula as the Trojan coalition 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 Trojans, both for the obvious purpose of defending Anatolia agai!1st foreign invadc's. Their country lied hetween the gulfs of Antalya and Fethiye. According to archeological excavations the earliest 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, Macedoniands, Romans and then Byzantines. (Anday, 977: 28-29) There was a time when the Lycia nswcre considered ;s relatives of the Hittites and their language, Lycian, as related to Neshian. Nevertheless, based on a different version of the Greek alphabet,

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 Luwian language. (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-histo ic times. There are sites such as K!tepe dating from the stone age. As understood from the coalition formed against the Assyrian King Naramsin, there was at 1east seventeen smail kingdoms in 2300 Re. (Andalfata and Zucchi, 1971 :67) There is very iitt le information about Cappadoc(a after the collapse of the Hitittes and up to the sixth sentury Re. when the region merged into the Lydian Kingdom. it fall in 350 Re. to the Persi(l.ns and then to 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, i97 i : 68) Until the end of the fourth century A.D., t revealed natiye, Persian and Semitic influenees on the one hand, and Greco-Roman on the other. (Thierry, 1971: 129). The Maeedonian King Alexander the. Great initiated a series of campaigns for the purpose of creating a world -state by uniting 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 indisputably great. (Akrgal, 1971: 29). In 197 B.e., af ter settling aceounts with Carthage in the West and getting increasingly stronger, the Roman Empire came into contact with Anatolia. Tn 133 B.e. the Romans annexed Pergamll/1 upon the will of its last king Atta/os lll. As a reaction against this Western enlargement in Anatolia, Mitradates Evpator 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 Hellenistic Kingdam of Egypt was conquered by Octal'ian/ls, Rome enlarged its territory to wover ncarly a the eastem Mcditerra.ncan.

100

THE TURKISH

YEARBOOK

[VOL. XVJI

The Pontus state \Vas established in 298 B.C. and ceased to existafter two centuries as a result of Roman occupation of Anatolia. Despite the fact that Alexander the Geat had- never entered 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 Dynasty, while others cJaim that they were natiye princes. Gololu, refering to Alfred Duggan, states that the Pontus kings "had no conncetion whatsoever with the Greeks. "They considered thcmselves as Anatolians, strove for Anatolian integ ity and independence, 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 Christianity by announcing in 313 A. D. that the new religion was not restrietcd. Teodisius aec\:pted Christianity as the officia! religion 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 the Peninsula 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<tolians" (Eybo/f'u,9) rather than An:.tolia beeoming anything else "but itself. A study of A~at('ia's long history revecds, ,tpart from ohers, t\\'o outstanding features: First, Nuncrous peoples v,'hieh lived in Anatolia have ncarly always <dapted thcir p,~tt{'m of L'Chaviour to the pr.:;vailing eonditioDs of the Peninsl'la and tlns crcated a cultural history with such richncss and complcxity that it is nearly impos:;iblc to dctermne the exact and conerek ontributons of

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 prosperity. 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.