Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2018, The Assyrians: Kingdom of the God Aššur from Tigris to Taurus.
The nature of the relationship between the Assyrian state and the Syro-Hittite states is often represented in the writings of archaeologists and ancient historians under the rubric of imperialism, Assyrian sovereignty, and the Syro-Hittite resistance, an unchanging formula largely based on center-periphery models. This structuralist model of fixed relationships is thus characterized as a firmly-set trajectory of power relations and a teleological narrative of conquest, ending without exception with the eventual and complete submission and subjugation of Syro-Hittite states to Assyrian military power. While Syro-Hittite states are represented as vulnerable and politically weak entities, the Assyrian state is referred as an “expansionistic imperial power” or “superior invading force”. Had they escaped direct Assyrian sovereignty, these peripheral communities were at least deemed “Assyrianizing” in their material culture. This a priori qualification of Syro-Hittite-Assyrian relationships as an imbalanced power distribution is an outcome of the preponderance of studies of Assyrian sovereignty with an obsession with the (cosmic) image of the sovereign in his visual and verbal manifestations. Secondly it is often assumed that the study of Assyrian imperialism has always operated through coercion and military violence. Alternative forms of engagement between the Neo-Assyrian state and the Syro-Hittite kingdoms such as diplomacy, political negotiation, trade, exchange of ideas, politics of settlement, land management, taxation or traveling craftsmen and circulation of technology and knowledge are much more rarely discussed. In this paper, I suggest that historical perspectives on the unchallenged Assyrian imperialism are often driven by the alluring, yet biased perspectives offered by the sumptuous, if not excessive corpus of Assyrian annalistic accounts, state sponsored texts, and imperial monuments. Therefore such perspectives prioritize short-term political histories of conquest and domination over other longer term and more horizontally distributed aspects of the past such as cultural practices, ecological histories, political landscapes, socialization, or material worlds. The historicist accounts of the Near Eastern past can be challenged and perhaps balanced by evidence offered by archaeological, material, and environmental research, which present alternative and often contrasting perspectives on these particular histories. Prioritizing textual evidence often leaves out the material flows, delicate negotiations of power, dynamics of trade and exchange and the politics of resource extraction. Attending to other forms of evidence allows us to reflect on the complexity of the relationships between Assyria and the Syro-Hittite states. In this article, I pay particular attention to such interactions and encounters that are other than military in nature, and give priority to material evidence that challenge standard imperialist narratives of Assyrian textual accounts.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
2018, in: Köroğlu, K. – Adalı, S.F., eds., The Assyrians. Kingdom of the God Aššur from Tigris to Taurus – Assurlular Dicle’den Toroslar’a Tanrı Assur’un Krallıği, Istanbul, 128-161
2018
CAPPADOCIA
Özet Demir Çağı (M.Ö. 1200-334) Anadolu coğrafyasını derinden etkileyen göçlerin yaşandığı bir dönemdir. Bu göçler içerisinde, Suriye üzerinden Anadolu'ya Aramiler tarafından gerçekleştirilen göçler, Anadolu kültürü üzerinde baskın bir yapı sergilemiştir. Arami göçleri, Anadolu'da kurulmuş ilk büyük imparatorluk olan Hititler'in merkezi yapısını yitirdiği ve Anadolu'daki halkın güneydoğu ve güneye doğru yönelerek, çoğunlukla Luwi'li halkın yaşadığı coğrafyalarda, irili ufaklı krallıklar kurmaya başladıkları dönemde gerçekleşmiştir. Aramiler'in sistemli bir politika güderek; başlangıçta gruplar halinde Anadolu'ya sızmaya başladıkları düşünülmektedir. Aramiler'in Anadolu topraklarında yerleşmeye başlamalarının ardından, nüfuz edinmeye çalıştıkları ve krallıklar kurdukları bilinmektedir. Aramiler tarafından kurulan bu krallıkların zaman zaman Asur'un vassali olarak varlıklarını sürdürdükleri, ancak yaklaşık olarak M.Ö. 7. yüzyıldan itibaren tamamen Asur'a bağlandıkları görülmüştür. Bu dönemi aydınlatmada yerli halka ya da Arami halkına ait yazılı kaynaklar yetersiz kalırken, Asur krallarına ait yıllıklar Anadolu'da yaşanan bu dönemi yazılı kaynaklar açısından ayrıntılı bir biçimde sunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, öncelikle, Aramiler'in kökenlerinin ve yaşadıkları coğrafyanın aydınlatılması, ardından Asur krallarına ait yıllıklar doğrultusunda, Aramiler'in Anadolu'ya geliş süreçleri, hangi bölgelerde varlıklarını sürdürdükleri ve ele geçen verilerde, hangi krallar/valiler tarafından yönetildiklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Abstract Iron Age (1200-334 B.C.) is a period in which migrations deeply affecting the Anatolian geography were experienced. Among these migrations, the migration of Arameans to Anatolia over Syria had a dominant structure over the Anatolian culture. Aramean migrations occurred in a period in which the Hittites, the first great empire established in Anatolia, lost its central structure, and the people of Anatolia started to establish large and small kingdoms, especially on the geographies where the Luwians live, by heading towards the southeast and south. It is thought that the Arameans initially started to infiltrate into Anatolia in groups, by following a systematic policy. It is known that the Arameans tried to gain prestige and established kingdoms after they started to settle on the Anatolian land. It was observed that these kingdoms established by the Arameans subsisted from time to time as vassal states of Assyria, however, approximately as of 7 th century B.C., they became part of
2019, Yüksek Lisans Tezi
At the end of the B.C. two millennium, the destructive movements of the sea tribes in the Near East led to major changes in the economic, political and social structure of the region. After the collapse of the Hittite Kingdom, which is also known as the Dark Age, new ethnic groups, especially from Anatolia and Northern Syria, are emerging in the region. After the collapse of the Hittite Kingdom, the Hittite dynasty and people migrated to safer regions of Anatolia. In the region, Neo-Hittite / Late-Hittite / Northern Syria / Syria Hittite, Luwi established with different names such as the city-states and many sculptural products were created. The king depictions of our study were classified as rock reliefs, votive steles, orthostats and statues. The depictions of the king found in the Neo-Hittite city states were placed in the style groups created and evaluated. A total of 54 artifacts of Neo-Hittite Art, 21 of which were orthostat, 10 of which were stele, 13 of which were sculpture, 5 of which were head of sculpture and 5 of which were rock reliefs, were examined. In the Neo-Hittite city states evaluated in our study, 17 artifacts were found in the “Neo-Hittite Style showing the Assyrian influence” 12 artifacts in the “Traditional Hittite Style” 10 artifacts in the “Assyrian Neo-Hittite Style” 11 artifacts “Aramized, Phenomenized Neo-Hitite Style”. It is seen that 4 artifacts are not placed in any style group. It is understood that the sculptural artifacts identified in all these style groups were mainly settled in “Neo-Hittite Style with Assyrian Effect”.
2018, Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırmaları 2018
,
Özet M.Ö. 839 yılında Asur yayılımının içerisinde yer aldığı belgelenmiş Yukarı Fırat Bölgesi, ilerleyen yıllarda bazı kısa süreli dönemler haricinde Argišti oğlu Rusa Dönemi'nin sonuna kadar Urartu Krallığı'nın egemenliğinde kalmış görünmektedir. Bölgedeki Urartu hâkimiyetinin başlangıcını kral Išpuini ya da Išpuini ve oğlu Minua'nın ortak krallığı dönemine tarihlemek mümkündür. Urartu egemenliği boyunca Yukarı Fırat Bölgesi, krallığa bağlı bir eyalet kapsamında yönetilmiştir. Urartu ve Asur kaynaklarında farklı dönemlerde yaşamış, bölgeyi yöneten dört Urartu eyalet valisinin ismi belgelenmiştir. Bu çalışmada Urartu krallarının kronolojik problemlerine ilişkin son zamanlarda yapılan araştırmalar ve bulgular göz önünde tutularak söz konusu eyalet valilerinin senkronik kronolojisi yeniden düzenlenmiştir. Bunun yanı sıra ortalama 125 yıldan daha fazla sürdüğü anlaşılan Urartu egemenliğinin bölgede kesintiye uğradığı dönemler irdelenmiş ve II. Sarduri'nin saltanatının başı ve sonundaki politik koşullar ile M.Ö. 714 ve 709 yılındaki Kimmer istilalarının Urartu Krallığı'nın batı sınırındaki etkileri sorgulanmıştır. Sonuç olarak kale yerleşimleri, yol şebekesi, konaklama istasyonları ve yerel seramik geleneğiyle somutlaşan arkeolojik kalıntılar ve ilgili yazılı kaynaklar vasıtasıyla Yukarı Fırat Bölgesi'ndeki Urartu Krallığı'nın tarihsel gelişimi yeniden kurgulanmaya çalışılmıştır. Abstract Upper Euphrates Region, that have been provided evidence to be involved in Assyrian spread in 839 B.C.E. seems to be under the sway of the Urartu Kingdom until the end of the period of Rusa, son of the Argišti, except for some brief periods afterward. It is possible to date the beginning of the dominance of Urartians to the period of King Išpuini or to the joint kingdom of King Išpuini and his son Minua. During Urartian reign Upper Euphrates region was ruled as a state depended on kingdom. Names of the four Urartian governors who lived in different times has been documented in Urartian and Assyrian sources. In this study synchronic chronology of the mentioned governors has been rearranged according to the recent researches and findings about the chronologic problems of Urartian kings. In addition to this, periods in which Urartian dominance, which has been understood to continue more than about 125 years, interrupted are scrutinized and political conjuncture at the beginning and at the end of the reign of II. Sarduri, and the impact of the Kimmerian invasions in 714 and 709 B.C.E. on the aftermath of the west territories of Urartian Kingdom has been questioned. In conclusion, by means of fortress settlements, road network, stopover destinations, local archaeological ceramic remains and related written sources, the historical evolution of Urartian Kingdom in Upper Euphrates region has been reproduced.
2018, Anadolu Araştırmaları
In the Middle Iron Age, two kingdoms came into prominence in Eastern Anatolia and Mesopotamia respectively. The Urartian Kingdom had militaristic characteristics and performed advanced economic activities, including mining. The Assyrian Kingdom on the other hand had developed a statecraft tradition and capacities in mobilization and campaigning. The boundaries between the domination areas of the two kingdoms were set by the chain of mountains formed the boundaries between the areas under the domination of these two kingdoms. The kingdoms overcame these boundaries when they established direct contact. Furthermore, the two kingdoms managed their political relations through buffer states and nomadic tribes. The records as to these relations are partially inferred from texts on the tablets and annals that give information about the campaigns carried out by Urartian and Assyrian kings. However, the records are mostly propaganda. It is difficult to carry out an evaluation exclusively based on written documents. Consequently, the current study evaluates the political relations by taking into consideration the reliefs and stelae erected by the kingdoms during campaigns, archaeological finds and topography in addition to the written documents. Orta Demir çağında, Doğu Anadolu ve Mezopotamya'da iki krallık ön plana çıkmaktadır. Bunlar savaşçı ve madenci karakterlere sahip Urartu Krallığı ile devlet geleneği, seferberlik ve fetih kapasitesine sahip Assur Krallığı'dır. İki krallığın hâkimiyet alanlarını yüksek dağ sıralarından oluşan doğal sınırlar ayırmaktadır. Krallıklar güçlü oldukları dönemlerde bu sınırları aşarak birbirleriyle direk temas kurmuşlardır. Ayrıca tampon devletler ve göçebe aşiretler üzerinden dolaylı siyasi ilişkiler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu ilişkilere dair kayıtlar kralların başarılı geçen seferlerinin sonuçlarından bahsettiği annallarda ve kısmen tabletlerde görülmektedir. Fakat kayıtlar daha çok propaganda amacı taşımaktır. Dolayısıyla siyasi ilişkiler hakkında sadece yazılı belgeler üzerinden değerlendirme yapmak zordur. Bu nedenle bu çalışmada siyasi ilişkiler yazılı kayıtların yanında kralların sefer sırasında diktirdikleri stel ve rölyeflerin dağılımı, arkeolojik maddi buluntular, topografya göz önüne alınarak değerlendirilmiştir.
2018
2017, KOUSBAD
During the first half of the Iron Age (ca.1000-620 BC), south-east and east Turkey witnessed the expansion of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in a number of regions. The initial interest of the Assyrians in some regions of Turkey was political. It was to regain the lost territories once under the rule of their Middle Assyrian predecessors. Through time, Turkey’s strategic position, economic potential, rich mineral and natural sources, and its fertile lands drew the attention of the Neo-Assyrian kings. In order to obtain these resources and the strategic advantage, these regions of Turkey must have been brought under control. The Neo-Assyrian kings carried out military campaigns and political offensives against contemporary local political powers primarily against the Neo-Hittite and the Aramaean states in the west, and the Kingdom of Urartu. Indeed, the expansion of the Neo-Assyrian Empire is evident in the Upper Tigris, Euphrates regions, Cilicia, and the eastern highlands. The Neo-Assyrian kings’ perspective on these regions seems to have evolved from notions associated with the heritage of the Middle Assyrian kingdom; however, this became an imperialistic and expansionistic outlook. Thus, in time, these preliminary peripheral regions became the provinces of the NeoAssyrian Empire.
Urartian Kingdom and Assyria reigned over different territories in the same time period for nearly 200 hundred years. South eastern Taurus, Hakkari Mountains and Zagros mountains were a natural border between these two kingdoms. Urartians and Assyrians crossed this border whenever they saw it possible and established political relations with each other. In the 9 th century with the beginning of King Menua’s reign Urartian Kingdom seems to be successful agaist Assyria. This period beginning with the last years of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III was not just rising and progression period of Urartian Kingdom but it was also a blooming period of Neo Hittite kingdoms. Urartian Kingdom had expanded its borders as far as Melitian Kingdom in the west and went of campaigns as far as Kummuh territory located in west of euphrates. Urartian armies managed to pillage Assyrian land in the South Eastern Anatolia (Upper Tigris). This process kept going on until 743. In the east, Urartian Kingdom settled down in Urmiye plain and got into connection with powers in Northern Iran such as Manna and Parsua. Urartian Kingdoms activity in this territory came to an end with 8. campaign of Assyrian King Sargon II. In 7 th century during the reign of Rusa II Urartian Kingdom showed some effort in order to increase its activity in the west and that was partly successful. In this period depiction of Urartian ambassadors in Assyrian inscriptions and reliefs shows how important Urartians were to Assyrians even in 7. century during Urartians period of demise. Urartu Krallığı ile Assur Arasındaki Siyasi İlişkiler Urartu Krallığı ile Assur, yaklaşık 200 yılı aşkın bir süre aynı zaman diliminde, farklı coğrafyalarda egemenlik kurmuştur. Güneydoğu Toroslar, Hakkari masifi ve Zağroslar bu iki krallık arasındaki doğal sınırı oluşturur. Urartu ve Assur güçlü oldukları dönemde bu sınırları aşarak birbirleriyle siyasi ilişkilerde bulunmuşlardır. 9. yy.’da Menua döneminden itibaren Urartu Krallığı, Assur’a karşı başarılı görünmektedir. Assur kralı III. Şalmaneser’in son yıllarından başlayan bu dönem, sadece Urartu’nun değil Geç Hitit krallıklarının da gelişme ve yükselme dönemidir. Urartu Krallığı sınırlarını batıda Melid Krallığı’na kadar genişletmiş, Fırat Nehri’nin batısında bulunan Kummuh topraklarına kadar uzanan seferlere çıkmıştır. Urartu orduları Torosların güneyinde, Assur Ülkesi’ni (Yukarı Dicle bölgesi) yağmalayabilmiştir. Bu süreç, 743 yılına kadar devam etmiştir. Urartu Krallığı doğuda ise Urmiye havzasına yerleşmiş, Manna ve Parsua gibi kuzeybatı İran’da bulunan güçlerle temas kurmuştur. Bu bölgedeki etkinliği ise Assur Kralı II. Sargon’un 714 yılındaki 8. seferi ile son bulmuştur. 7 yy.’da Urartu Krallığı, II. Rusa döneminde, batıdaki etkinliğini artırmak için çaba harcamış bunda kısmen başarılı olmuştur. Bu dönemde Assur’a yollanan Urartu heyetinin, Assur yazıt ve kabartmalarında belirtilmesi Urartu’nun yıkılış evresine girdiği 7 yy.’da bile Assur için ne kadar önemli olduğunu göstermektedir. "
Sophene region may be as geographically localized Upper Euphrates Basin covers the provinces of Tunceli and Elazig today. Due to the geographical structure of mountainous, region has been quite difficult to seizure and retention throughout the history. The region has been named as "Išuwa", "Pahhuw", and "Zuppa" in Hittite nail in the written text, "Supa(ni)" in Urartu source and "Sophene" or " Sophenene " at works of the ancient writers'. The authors of antiquity gave information about the region that has unique geographic characteristics. In particular, Strabon gave information about the location of the region but he was not inform enough information of the people living in the region have culture and life style on. The Region has gained importance in the struggle between Seleucid, Pontic, Armenia kingdoms and Rome. During his struggle with Rome, King of Selevkos Antiochus III affiliated with Artaxias and Zariadres of Sophene governor has declared its independence. Sophene remained independent for nearly a hundred years. Roman general Pompey which regulates the eastern Anatolian to end the fight with The King of Pontus Mithridates, conquered the region Sophene with the Kingdom of Armenia. Sophene, was given to eldest son of Tigranes of Tigranes III but it was taken back to him because of he's relations with the Kingdom of Parthia, were attached to the province of Cappadocia. Sophene, turned into a province of Rome, became outpost in the struggle Roman-Parthian in later periods. The region has been part of Rome for long period, then it entered the Turkish-Islamic administration.
Urartu Krallığı'nın Tarihi Coğrafyası Hakkında Yeni Öneriler
2018, Sosyal Bilimler Elektronik Dergisi
ABSTRACT Gurgum is one of the Neo-Hittite city states established after the Hittites in Anatolia. Same time, Marqasti is the capital of the kingdom established in the land of Maras city center. This name is also the origin of Maraş name.In the city, around sixty sculptures have been unear th eddaily. A very large part of the mare burial stele or Tarhunzas reliefs. Unlike these, studied Works are two heads and two torsos in this articles. Our studies on the statues have shown that they are probably belongs to the Gurgum kings. Furthermore, as a result of stylistic comparisons, It is understood that tree of them must belong to the 9th century and the beginning of the 8th century. There is an intense Assyrianin fulence over the Maraş specimens of this period. Other than these examples, the Hasancıklı Sculpture must belong to a very earlier period. The sculpture may be the earliest example, not only Gurgum's, but also for all the Neo-Hittite in known examples.
2018, Bingöl Üniversitesi Bingöl Araştırmaları Dergisi
2018, Bingöl University Journal of Social Sciences Institute
Büyük bir yer altı ve yer üstü zenginliğine sahip olan Yukarı Dicle Bölgesi bu çalışmanın coğrafi sınırlarını oluşturmaktadır. MÖ 11. yy. ile birlikte bölgede söz sahibi olmaya başlayan Asur Devleti, profesyonel devlet bilinci anlamında bir takım uygulamaların öncüsü olmuştur. MÖ 9. yy. ile birlikte parlak bir yükselme yaşayan Yeni Asur Devleti bölgede barınırken mükemmel bir idari yapılanmayı benimsemiş ve bir takım maddi kültür öğelerini de geride bırakmıştır. Mevcut malzemelerin yorumlanması, bölgedeki Asur varlığının hangi amaçlarla ortaya çıktığına katkı sağlayacaktır. Bunun ipuçları seramik gelenekleri, kaya kabartmaları, steller, kil tabletler, ölü gömme adetleri ve yazılı kaynakların yorumlanmasında yatmaktadır. Çalışmamızın kronolojik sınırlarını ise Yeni Asur dönemi oluşturmaktadır. Yeni Asur Devleti'nin bölgede konuşlanması neticesinde Nairi, Arami ve Şubria toplumları ile olan ilişkilerinin irdelenmesi, yayılım politikası hakkında bize önemli bilgiler sunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada bahsedilen coğrafya ve kronolojik sınırlar içerisinde öne sürülen bir takım yorumlar arkeolojik ve filolojik kaynakların birlikte değerlendirilmesi ile ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. The Upper Tigris Region, which has a large underground and overground richness, forms the geographical boundaries of this research. 11th century BC, The Assyrian State, which began to reign in the region, became the pioneer of a number of applications in the sense of professional state awareness. 9th century BC, the Neo Assyrian State has adopted a perfect administrative structure and has left behind a number of material cultural items while residing in the region. Interpretation of existing materials will contribute to what purpose Assyrian presence in the region emerges. The clues lie in the interpretation of ceramic traditions, rock reliefs, stellar, clay tablets, burial customs and philological sources. The chronological boundary of the our work includes the Neo Assyrian period. As a result of the deployment of the new Assyrian state in the region, the examination of its relations with the Nairi, Arami and Şubria societies provides us with important information about the propagation policy. A number of interpretations put forward within the geography and chronological boundaries mentioned in this study have been tried to be put forward together with archaeological and philological sources.
2014
ÖZ Siyasi tarih alanında uluslararası aktörler arasında diplomatik faaliyetlerin doğuşunu 15. Yüzyıl İtalya'sından başlatmak yaygın bir gelenek ise de, bu yaklaşım diplomasiyi Batı merkezli ve indirgeyici bir düzleme taşımaktadır. Gerçekte diplomasi tarihi ne 15. Yüzyıl İtalya'sı ile başlamış, ne de sadece Batı tarihi ile paralel gelişim göstermiştir. Nitekim tarihsel veriler, güç asimetrisinin çok belirgin olmadığı İlk Çağ uygarlıklarının çoğunda da, şaşırtıcı bir biçimde yoğun diplomatik faaliyetlerin yaşandığını göstermektedir. Dolayısıyla bu makalenin amacı, diplomasi tarihi alanında eksik bilgiden kaynaklanan boşluğu doldurmak, tarihte bilinen en eski diplomatik faaliyetler hakkında okuyucu bilgilendirmek, bu suretle diplomasi tarihinin daha objektif ve doğru bir tarihsel temele oturtulmasına katkı sunabilmektir. ABSTRACT A common tendency within the field of political history is that the history of diplomacy starts with the 15. Century Italian city-states. This tendency is not only wrong, but also reductionist and Western-centric. In fact, historic research reveals that there were intense diplomatic relations among international actors in the First Era where power asymmetry was also not as vivid as we tend to believe. Thus, by providing the reader with the First-Age diplomatic relations and activities, the purpose of this article is to fill the gap resulting from lack of information about the history of diplomacy so that diplomacy could be more correctly analyzed and understood within its historic roots.
1999, Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the …
Two Semitic Cults in Aphrodisias: In this paper I have tried to explain the existance and the origin of two semitic cults in the westernmost point of its expansion area in Asia Minor in the case of Aphrodisias. As a Carian city, Aphrodisiasitself, was in close connection with its neighboring kingdom Lydia. This was proven by the discovery of a Lydian Incription and the Lydian Style sherds in the city. Almost all of the Lydian kings, during their trouble with the invading Cimmerians, asked the military help of The Super Power of their time Assyria. We know from the Literary sources that Assyrian kings sent an enourmous number of soldiers to Lydia to help them against the Cimmerians. None of the Sources mention the return of these Mesopotamian solders back to their homeland. They must have stayed in Lydia and joined the Carian and Ionian expeditions of their Lydian Rulers in later years. Our opinion is that those Assyrians must have brought these two semitic cults to this part of Asia Minor and this was proven with some Archaeological discoveries mentioned in this paper.
e- dergi