Spojrzenie na Wschodnią Anatolię w okresie achemenidzkim

Abstrakt

W schodnia Anatolia jako teren słabo poznany daje bardzo szerokie możliwości badawcze. Pozostaje kwestią otwartą, jak wyglądało osadnictwo w okresie panowania dynastii Achemenidów, których władza rozciągała się również na tereny Wschodniej Anatolii. Nim jednak zostanie zaprezentowana sytuacja na tym obszarze, należy wyjaśnić, jaki region będzie traktowany jako Wschodnia Anatolia. Jego granice bowiem bardzo trudno jest określić. Przyjmijmy na potrzeby niniejszego artykułu, że granicami, a zarazem ramami geograficznymi będą: linia Eufratu od zachodu, dolina Araksu od północnego wschodu, południowe stoki Gór Pontyjskich od północy, Góry Tauru Armeńskiego od południa. Granicą wschodnią z kolei będą zachodnie brzegi jeziora Urmia.<br>EASTERN ANATOLIA IN THE ACHAEMENIAN PERIOD. The article published above describes the current level of knowledge about the structure of the settlement network in Eastern Anatolia during the Median and Achaemenid periods. Archaeological sites settled in the Urartian period are mainly described. These sites and the new ones which were foundations at the time of Persian domination and control over this region together form a new settlement structure. The situation during that time underwent a major change in the Median-Achaemenid period in comparison to the Urartian times. In the Urartian period, when the independent Urartian state existed in the area of Eastern Anatolia, 162 fortifications were to be found in this region, 45 open settlements, such as villages or small towns and 11 necropolises. In opposition to this period, in the Median-Achaemenid times we know only 18 fortified sites and 5 villages or small towns in Eastern Anatolia. As for necropolises, there is no evidence that such a kind of site existed in this area. This evidence makes it possible to draw a conclusion that after the fall of Urartu, this area became a part of a much bigger state, such as the Achaemenid Empire, so it was not necessary to keep such a great number of defensive sites. Especially as Eastern Anatolia was not located near the borders of the Empire. During the Achaemenid period the defensive system was based on a few big fortified sites, which could take a strong strike and endure a siege of enemies. The solution is in a strong opposition to the earlier period, when the defensive system was supported by a network of small forts and fortresses which slowed the march of enemies by disturbing them with frequent attacks. The small number of villages or small towns can be interpreted as the effect of a depopulation of Eastern Anatolia. One of the proofs is a historical fact of the Scythian campaign against Assyria, when the region was heavily devastated by Scythian warriors. There is another reason why such a small number of the villages remained. A part of rural society could be displaced to other parts of Achaemenid Empire. The fact that no necropolises from this period are known can be interpreted as the evidence of a typical Iranian burial, where bodies were exposed to the open air up to the moment when only skeletons remained. If this interpretation is right, it would be a signal that in a short time a strong Iranian influence prevailed in this region. Another interpretation is much more probable and can be described in few words: we have no data regarding necropolises from that time.