Abstract:

Being one of oldest cities of Cilicia, Mallos’ location is still saving its mystery today. Furthermore, the city of Mallos is in an intricate relationship with the settlements Magarsos and Antiokheia ad Pyramos. The river Pyramos (Ceyhan) being the leading power within this geography, was the cause of both the embedding of the settlements and the changes in topography antique writers mention in their scripts. Accordingly, determinations and interpretations regarding the localization of Mallos show differences. Bossert who was investigating the area in 1949 made a suggestion on localization. In this suggestion, it is mentioned that the antique city Mallos should be looked for around Kızıltahta village. However, the distance of Kızıltahta village to Athena Magarsia temple and the harbor is approximately 25 km. This case has been compared with the relationship between Atina and Eleusis holy place (31 km) or Milet and Didim holy place (17 km). If the matter was only the distance between the city center and the holy place, this comparison could have been accepted. However, the distance between the city center and the harbor 25 km is a case be able to lead to various different problems. Moreover, according to information given by Ps. Skylaks, it is possible to reach Mallos by boat over the river. Hence the distance between Kızıltahta village and the sea is 25 km as the crow flies. Through Pyramos being a meandering current, this distance increases to around 40 km. That is why Ps. Skylaks’ words “a sea way through the river” for Kızıltahta village seems to be quite impossible. Based on this data, it does not seem to be possible to accept Bossert’s findings as enough evidence in order to localize Mallos. In order to explain the relationship between Mallos city and the harbor, it will be significant to take other important harbour cities around Cilicia region into consideration. In this context, especially around the 5th and 4th centuries BC, Cilician cities where Persians produced coins can be shown as reference. Hence these cities are at the same time harbours actively used as bases by Persians and they are also able to explain what harbour-city relationships represent in Cilicia. Other Cilician harbours besides Mallos used by Persians: Issos, Tarsus, Ingira, Soli, Holmi, Aphrodisias, Kelenderis and Nagidos. It immediately attracts notice that the cities except Tarsus are placed along the coast. Today it is also known that the distance between Tarsus city center and the harbour was only about 2-3 km in ancient period. This supports the idea that Mallos city center should not be looked for around Kızıltahta village, but at a point much closer to the coast. Based on this assumption, during the observations in the villages Küçük Karataş, Gölkaya and Çakırören located close to the coast, valuable archeological artifacts have been determined. Among those, it is possible to mention strong architectural elements, inscriptions, ceramics and figurines. These findings are strong clues for Mallos’ possible location. Another important issue to be focused on in order to find out the location of Mollos is geomorphological changes. There have been important surprises and significant determinations regarding this topic. As it is known, before Akyatan Iagün came into existence, there was a shallow bay at the same place. The west border of this bay is the delta which approaches at the point where Seyhan (Saros) river meets into the sea. At the east border of the bay Magarsos hill is located and it is visible that the coast line of the ancient epoch leans on Magarsos hill. It is obvious that this coast line stretches out to Küçük Karataş, and from there reaches Çakırören. At the east side of the lagoon, archeological findings approve the track of the coast line and give clues related to the possible location of Mallos city. As mentioned above the archaeological materials were also found on the Küçük Karataş-Çakırören line. Thus, it can be said that Mallos used to be a city by the coast before the lagoon appeared. However, another important issue is the possibility that a harbor existed right here at the bay right before Akyatan lagoon appeared. That is, when taking the coast line of the ancient period into consideration, it can be assumed that Mallos city used to have more than one harbor. When the bay started to be filled and the lagoon appeared, this harbor started to become useless. It can be suggested that this was the reason why the other harbor at the Karataş (Magarsos) promontory became a single harbor. As the consequence of these processes, it is clear that it had been decided on a change in the location of Mallos. Karataş promontory, where Athena Magarsia temple and the other harbor were located, was determined as the new city center. That a change in the location of Mallos was determined has also provided contribution to the understanding of the big city at the promontory of Karataş. As a matter of fact, although there are significant structural findings at this promontory, there are still question marks regarding which city they belong to. There are some researchers who believe that Magarsos used to be a private city and that the findings at the Karataş promontory also belong to this city. Though, when considering the present data, it does not seem to be quite possible to talk about a city called Magarsos. One of the most important evidences for this is that there has never been a coin produced for a city called Magarsos. Besides, the fact that Athena Magarsia temple, which is the most important feature of Magarsos, was printed on “Mallos coins only” supports the same idea. Accordingly, there are quite many reasons to believe that Magarsos was not a private city, but that the findings at the Karataş promontory actually belong to Mallos. Architectural and ceramic articrafts show that that there were significant actions at the top of Magarsos between the end of the 3rd century BC and the first half of the 2nd century. It can be assumed that the move had been realized within this period and Mallos and Magarsos were unified. It should also be accepted that the city Antiokheia ad Pyramos was actually Mallos. The most important parameter to support this view is the fact that in 2 BC king of Seleukos IV. Antiokhos used to change the names of a lot of cities and under these circumstances named Mallos “Antiokheia”

Keywords: