Karia and the Hekatomnids: The creation of a dynasty 9781407304236, 9781407334585

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PREFACE
CHAPTER ONE: KARIA
CHAPTER TWO: KARIA AND ITS ANATOLIAN ROOTS
CHAPTER THREE: RULER CULT AND TOMB CULT — A REASSESSMENT OF THE MAUSSOLLEION AT HALIKARNAS-SOS
CHAPTER FOUR: KING, PRIEST, AND GOD — THE SANCTUARY OF ZEUS LABRAUN-DOS REVISITED
CHAPTER FIVE: THE HEKATOMNID DYNASTY: AN ICONOGRAPHY OF IDEOLOGY?
CHAPTER SIX: HELLENIZATION, PERSIANIZATION, KARIANIZATION, CREOLIZATION
APPENDIX A: A CATALOGUE OF KARIAN SETTLEMENT SITES FROM THE ARCHAICTO ROMAN PERIOD
TABLES
ABBREVIATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Citation preview

BAR S1943 2009

Karia and the Hekatomnids The creation of a dynasty CARSTENS

Anne Marie Carstens KARIA AND THE HEKATOMNIDS

BAR International Series 1943 2009 B A R

Karia and the Hekatomnids The creation of a dynasty

Anne Marie Carstens

BAR International Series 1943 2009

ISBN 9781407304236 paperback ISBN 9781407334585 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407304236 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Preface ................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Chapter one. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 11 Karia...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 — and the Hekatomnids ................................................................................................................................. 12 Sources and methods........................................................................................................................................... 12 Style ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Style and identity ........................................................................................................................................... 13 Style and choices — the force of habit............................................................................................................ 13 Style and change ............................................................................................................................................. 14 A recreation of creation .................................................................................................................................. 14 Acculturation ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 Material culture and identity ......................................................................................................................... 15 Cultural change .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Colonialism and the Archaeology of Empire ...................................................................................................... 16 Desirable things...............................................................................................................................................17 Invention of tradition and enacting of empire .............................................................................................. 18 Questioning the Graeco-Persian .................................................................................................................... 19 Thoughts and things....................................................................................................................................... 20 Newton’s empire .................................................................................................................................................. 20 The Classical Tradition ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 22

Chapter two. Karia and its Anatolian roots ............................................................... 23 A Bronze Age koiné and sacred stone cult…… .................................................................................................... 23 The Anatolian storm god ..................................................................................................................................... 24 The places of the storm god ........................................................................................................................... 24 Zeus and Artemis............................................................................................................................................ 27 Sacred rocks and stone cult ............................................................................................................................ 27 Sacred bulls .................................................................................................................................................... 30 Hebat, Mater Kybeleia, and Artemis Efesia ................................................................................................... 31 Zeus Labraundos and Artemis Efesia ............................................................................................................ 32 Joint sanctuaries ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Identity and historical reference ......................................................................................................................... 36

Chapter three. Ruler cult and tomb cult — a reassessment of the Maussolleion in Halikarnassos ............................................................................................. 37 Aristocracy and ancestors — creating a dynasty ................................................................................................. 37 Divine kingship I — Hittite traditions for ruler cult and tomb cult.................................................................... 39 Tuthaliya IV — the self-assertion of a Great King ......................................................................................... 40 3

Divine kingship II — Persian traditions for ruler cult and tomb cult................................................................. 42 The royal tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam and Kuh-e Rahmat .............................................................................. 43 Subjugation and annexation .......................................................................................................................... 44 Sources of inspiration for the rock-cut tombs at Persepolis ....................................................................................................................................................... 47 Dynastic tombs in western Anatolia ................................................................................................................... 48 Phrygian tumuli .............................................................................................................................................. 48 Lydian tumuli ................................................................................................................................................. 49 Pergamene tumuli .......................................................................................................................................... 51 Achaemenid impact in the far western Empire .................................................................................................. 52 Achaemenid blend .......................................................................................................................................... 55 Dynastic tombs in Lykia ...................................................................................................................................... 58 The Nereid monument ................................................................................................................................... 58 The heroon at Limyra ..................................................................................................................................... 59 The Phellos heroon and the heroon at Trysa .................................................................................................60 Hybridity and eclecticism .................................................................................................................................... 61 Dynastic tombs in Karia ...................................................................................................................................... 63 The Maussolleion in Halikarnassos .................................................................................................................... 65 Topographic positions and viewpoints .......................................................................................................... 65 The city as Gesamtkunstwerk ........................................................................................................................ 66 Earlier activites — an earlier tomb cult? ........................................................................................................ 66 The Maussolleion ........................................................................................................................................... 69 The sculptural decoration .............................................................................................................................. 70 The quadriga and the baityloi ........................................................................................................................ 70 Ancestral portraits...........................................................................................................................................71 The Maussolleion as temple ........................................................................................................................... 74 Contextualizing the Maussolleion ....................................................................................................................... 74

Chapter four. King, priest, and god — the sanctuary of Zeus Labraundos revisited .................................................................................................. 75 The sacred Hittite kingdom ................................................................................................................................. 75 Achaemenid perceptions of royalty ..................................................................................................................... 75 The royal gardens / paradeisoi ...................................................................................................................... 76 Priest and king — on the sanctity of the Karian koinon ..................................................................................... 78 On the nature and organisation of the sanctuary at Labraunda ........................................................................80 Pilgrimage and processions ...........................................................................................................................80 Hekatomnid buildings at Labraunda .............................................................................................................80 A building programme ................................................................................................................................... 81 The built tomb ................................................................................................................................................ 82 The stations of the procession........................................................................................................................ 84 The ears and the oracle .................................................................................................................................. 84 Ceremonial banquets ........................................................................................................................................... 85 Near Eastern banqueting ............................................................................................................................... 86 Dining in paradise? ........................................................................................................................................88 Dining in Labraunda — the androns ...................................................................................................................88 Dining in Labraunda — guarded by the sphinxes.......................................................................................... 89 The cult statues .................................................................................................................................................... 91 The Tegea relief .............................................................................................................................................. 93 Dining in the sanctuary — questions and reflections ......................................................................................... 94 The blessed king — a sanctuary for a dynasty ................................................................................................... 100 4

Chapter five. The Hekatomnid Dynasty — an iconography of ideology? ...........................................................................................101 Karian infrastructure and organization .............................................................................................................101 The Classical Tradition and Karia ............................................................................................................... 102 Koinon and polis — Karians and Greeks?.................................................................................................... 103 An archaeological overview of Karian settlements ........................................................................................... 105 Karian palaces .............................................................................................................................................. 105 An organisation focused on common sanctuaries? .......................................................................................... 107 Artemis at Amyzon ....................................................................................................................................... 107 The sanctuary at Sinuri ............................................................................................................................... 108 Hemithea at Kastabos .................................................................................................................................. 109 Hekatomnid patronage in Karia......................................................................................................................... 111 Hekatomnid benefactions in Karia — and beyond ....................................................................................... 112 Hekatomnid patronage abroad ..................................................................................................................... 115 Patronage as strategy.......................................................................................................................................... 116 Hekatomnid coinage — mass media iconography? ........................................................................................... 117 Karian satrapal coinage? ...............................................................................................................................118 Branding a dynasty ............................................................................................................................................. 119

Chapter six. Hellenization, Karianization, Persianization, Creolization .................................................................................................................................................................. 121 Creolization as political strategy? ..................................................................................................................... 122 Hekatomnid iconography as Hellenization? ............................................................................................... 122 Hekatomnid iconography as Persianization? .............................................................................................. 122 Hekatomnid iconography as Karianization? ............................................................................................... 123 Hekatomnid iconography as Creolization ................................................................................................... 124 Legacy ................................................................................................................................................................ 124

Appendix Catalogue ........................................................................................................................................................... 127 Tables .................................................................................................................................................................. 141 List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... 147 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................................... 147 List of Illustrations ............................................................................................................................................ 163

5

6

There is an Indian story ⎯ at least I heard it as an Indian story ⎯ about an Englishman who, having been told that the world rested on a platform which rested on the back of an elephant which rested in turn on the back of a turtle, asked (perhaps he was an ethnographer, it is the way they behave), what did the turtle rest on? Another turtle. And that turtle? "Ah, Sahib, after that it is turtles all the way down." Such, indeed, is the connection of things… Cultural analysis is intrinsically incomplete. (Geertz 1973, 29) 7

8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The present work does indeed rest on turtles, numerous turtles. Its main conclusions were reached on the basis of a thorough study of the enlightening analyses of many scholars on various aspects of Karian archaeology and history. First and foremost I am eternally grateful to Poul Pedersen, not merely for his brilliant work on Hekatomnid architecture and planning, but also for our years of collaboration on the Danish Halikarnassos Project, for his intransigence, the hard work, and our many Turkish experiences, for showing me a land that has earned a special place in my heart. Many colleagues have contributed with discussions, references, and good ideas. I owe my Karian friend Winfried Held a great deal. I am very grateful for all the comments, ideas, and perspectives that he has shared with me. My main ancient Near Eastern hotline Stephen Lumsden deserves a heartfelt thank you for all the unstructured emails he has answered with enthusiasm, sometimes guiding me on unexpected grand tours. Signe Isager has generously acted as philological sparring partner whenever needed. Paavo Roos has kindly recounted tales of old days in Labraunda and has allowed me the use of his manuscript on the built tomb at Labraunda for my studies. Pernille Carstens has answered many an unspoken question within the field of divine kingship, and Anatolian and North Syrian ritual practice. I am indebted to Helle Winge Horsnæs for always lending an ear or a sharpened pencil to my ideas. Almut Schülke should be mentioned for her friendship and for our good conversations, for which I am truly grateful. Mikkel Venborg Pedersen has generously shared his always illuminating and thought-provoking views on aristocratic culture with me. The Danish Institute in Athens generously hosted me for two important weeks in the summer of 2005. Here I also received the hospitality and services of the Nordic Library for which I am grateful. My colleagues at the University of Copenhagen should not be left unmentioned. I would especially

like to thank Tine Damsholt, Signe Mellemgaard, and Søren Christensen, European Ethnology, Erik Brinch Petersen, and Per Ole Rindel, Prehistoric Archaeology, and Annette Rathje, Classical Archaeology, for their encouragement and support. Marie Louise Nosch, Anders Holm Rasmussen and Vincent Gabrielsen, Ancient History, and Thomas Heine Nielsen, Greek and Latin, have in many ways been my closest local colleagues and I am indebted to them for their kind interest, intriguing questions and care. It would not have been possible to carry out this work based in Copenhagen without The Royal Library. The professional and forthcoming staff here has been able to locate and loan numerous books and articles from foreign and remote university libraries, on my behalf. The services provided have been invaluable. The SAXO Institute, University of Copenhagen has offered me shelter and accommodation. The Carlsberg Foundation generously sponsored my work by granting me a three-year scholarship, from 2003-2006. I am grateful to the board of the foundation for their support. The Danish Research Council for the Humanities has generously covered the expenses for the revision of my English, a task undertaken with great competence by Cherine Munkholt. I am grateful to the council for their grant and to Cherine Munkholt for her work. Finally, my deepest heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to my husband Lars for his never failing support and concern during times of troublesome work, and for running 'the business' smoothly, and to our children, Søren, Rasmus, and Astrid for adding a certain touch of real life, pragmatic viewpoints and good spirits. I dedicate this work to them, in the optimistic hope that they may actually read it some day.

Anne Marie

9

PREFACE The present study is written in the context of what some would call the Copenhagen model; it operates on at least two levels, both the general and the specific. On the general level, this is a study of divine kingship, on the creation of a national or shared identity, on acculturation and colonialism: thereby also on globalization. On the specific level, it is an enquiry into Karia and the Hekatomnids in the 4th century BC, a Persian satrapy and its political strategies expressed in its state monuments. The result may be characterized as an ethnological dissertation on a topic of ancient history elucidated through archaeological analyses. Thus it is an interdisciplinary work, although the main perspective is archaeological. Some may see it as a tribute to the new organization of the university into larger departments encompassing several disciplines. It is however, unintended in that it has always been my preferred mode of study, one which I intend to continue. Classical archaeology constitutes, in my view, cultural history.

10

CHAPTER ONE to leave inland Anatolia to the Persians. Yet, Athens broke the treaty with an attack on Samos in 439 BC and, consequently, the Persians were annoyed. Also internally, the Persian administration was hit by controversy: In Sardis, the satrap of Lydia, Pissuthnes revolted against the Great King c. 423414 BC with the aid of Lykon, an Athenian, and other Greeks, according to Ktesias.6 Pissuthnes was replaced by another of the King's own men, Tissaphernes. Perhaps as a consequence of this, a renewal of the Kallias peace was negotiated soon after Darius II's accession to the throne in 424/423 BC. In order to prevent the Persians from supporting the Spartans during the Peloponnesian War, Athens seems to have promised, once more, not to interfere in western Anatolia. Yet only a few years later, in 411 BC, the Athenians supported the revolt of Amorgos, who was, however, soon defeated at Iasos, by joint Spartan-Persian forces.7 This incident marked the complete loss of Karia for Athens. Furthermore, according to Simon Hornblower, it may very well have marked the beginning of Karia as a satrapy in its own right:

KARIA1 In 480 BC, Karian ships under the command of Artemisia fought against the Greeks with Xerxes' navy at Salamis.2 This is the earliest known political collaboration between the Karians and the Persians. Yet, as Karia was under the control of the Lydian kings from the early sixth century BC onwards, they experienced, directly or indirectly, the Persian sack of Sardis in 546 BC and they learned from it.3 Thus Karia was voluntarily included in the satrapy of Sparda, and as far as may be ascertained, the Persian domination did not represent any dramatic change in everyday life. Persian cavalrymen were settled in Karia, on land hitherto belonging to local landowners, but it seems that the Persian presence was somewhat modest and it did not include a garrison or any other massive collective presence.4 Nevertheless, Karia joined the Ionian revolt after the successful Ionian attack on Sardis in 498 BC. Immediately afterwards, the Persian army made the strength of its presence known, consequently the revolt collapsed and — as mentioned, by 480 BC, five Karian ships were included in the Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis. After the defeat of the Persians, coastal cities of Karia joined the Delian League, headed by Athens.5 This apparent zigzagging course may seem opportunistic, yet, it serves to illustrate one of the chief skills of Karian foreign policy — perhaps honed by sheer experience with hegemonic overlords: to use the path of political pragmatism rather than settle for an ideological crusade. The Kallias peace of 450/449 BC between the Persian Empire and the Delian league, the conclusion of the Persian Wars, brought about stability in its wake. The Persians agreed to stay out of the Aegean littoral, and in return the Athenians agreed

Ambitious Iranian proconsuls (like Pissouthnes or Kyros) in hellenophone satrapies had both the motive and the opportunity for revolt from the central authority: the motive was the Persian throne, to which none but an Iranian might decently aspire; the opportunity was Greek manpower like Lykon's Athenians or Xenophon's Spartans, who helped Kyros. Local men like the Hekatomnids might nibble at the borders of a neighbouring dynast, satrap, or city-state: they could hardly entertain designs on the Persian Empire itself.8 Personal rivalry between Tissaphernes, the satrap at Sardis, and Pharnabazus, satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia in Daskyleion prevented the Persian Empire from fully harvesting the fruit of the defeated Athenian Empire. In 407 BC, Kyros the Younger was sent as satrap of Lydia, Greater Phrygia and Kappadokia. It is most likely that Karia was not separated from the satrapy of Lydia until the 390s BC, when the local Hekatomnid family were appointed to that position, hand-picked — possibly

1

Ancient names are spelled as transliterations of the original Greek spelling, thus Karia, Hekatomnid, Mausollos, Herodotos, and so forth. This is, however, not quite consistently applied, thus Phrygia and not Frygia, but Lykia and not Lycia. 2 Herodotos 7.99; 8.68-69; 8.88. 3 Hornblower 1982, 16-19. 4 Ruzicka 1992, 6-7. On the basis of onomastic evidence, Sekunda has suggested that Tralles was a garrison town, Sekunda 1991, 91-95.

Hornblower 1892, 25-29. Briant 2002, 591-593. 7 Briant 2002, 591. 5

6

11

Both the dynasty and indeed the Karians themselves were deeply rooted in their Anatolian setting and past. Karia, the Hekatomnids and their common history in the 4th century BC are better described and explained with this insight as guidance: the threads to the Anatolian hinterland both geographically, chronologically, and culturally were strongly experienced, felt, and reacted upon even in the Late Classical period. In other words: Karia is founded on ancient Anatolian roots: often expressed and wrapped in Greek artistic style and Ionian/Karian workmanship, yet concealing Anatolian perceptions. These two characteristics of Karia and the Hekatomnids as both constructing a past and a common identity, and being rooted in tradition may perhaps sound a discordant note. Yet, it is my hypothesis that it is exactly this dichotomy, which their political strategy straddles.

because of their local Karian roots, which may have included the office as chair of the Karian federations.9 On the periphery of Persia and Greece, they managed to govern Karia successfully, making good use of its geographical location, its independent nature, and, its adjustable people. The Hekatomnids formed a truly prosperous dynasty that worked as chief mediators between east and west, and they changed the views of kingship in the Hellenic world as forerunners of the Hellenistic monarchies. The tactics and the actions they employed to meet this aspiration are the basic objects of enquiry in this study.

— AND THE HEKATOMNIDS… Thus, this monograph examines how the Hekatomnids created a successful and prosperous dynasty, providing a lesson on how to enact, stage, and maintain power, by an active use of style and cultural affiliations: by inventing traditions.10 It is a study of the formation of an iconography of royal ideology (in its broadest sense) in the Hekatomnid dynasty of the 4th century BC. Inspired by the original work of Margaret Cool Root on the Achaemenid dynasty,11 the present study explores the nature of power, ethnicity, and acculturation, living the present by using or constructing a past, the power of style, and the political potential of imagery. It is, in other words, an enquiry into the stylistic setting of ideology.

Thus, it is my intention that this study above all narrates the story from the perspective of Karia as Karian — a landscape and people like other landscapes and peoples formed by its geographical, geopolitical, and cultural position. A characteristic feature of Karia, and of many other regions and landscapes of the eastern Mediterranean and Near East is the fusion of politics and religion. The enacting of an aristocratic house, its past and ancestry was staged with the Maussolleion. Moreover, the Karian sanctuary at Labraunda was used as the arena for the dynast's position as blessed, as the favourite of Zeus Karios Labraundos.12 However, in Karia, this synthetic perception of royalty as blessed or divine also lent importance to or perhaps even penetrated its political organisation, geopolitics and infrastructure.

Hornblower 1982, 32. Below, chapter four. 10 Hobsbawm & Ranger 1983, 1: "'Invented traditions' is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past. In fact, where possible, they normally attempt to establish continuity with a suitably historic past." This quotation, taken from the introduction to the seminal work, The Invention of Tradition, which deals with the theme in a more recent context, namely that of Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries, Welsh and Scottish nationalism after the Union, and the British Empire in India and Africa, quite precisely covers also the Hekatomnid enactment of power. Indeed, the conscious use of a past, perhaps constructed for the occasion is one of the characteristics of aristocracy. See Helms 1998; Carstens 2005. 11 Root 1979. 8 9

SOURCES AND METHODS The main source material derives from archaeology, that is material culture, and the views and methods are those fostered in the world of archaeologists and cultural historians. Yet, investigating relations of power and culture include the consideration and analysis of literary and epigraphic sources, and traditional history writings on the basis of these sources. However, since the field of investigation is that of power expressed in iconography, and, not least, since the researcher carrying

12

12

Zeus in Karia: Debord 2001; Schwabl 1993.

optimal solution, the best way of acting seems to be embedded in our social and cultural context. We act according to a set of rules and standards automatically inculcated within ourselves.17 In order to gain insight into human activity in the past and to reconstruct societies and their interrelations, it is necessary to understand some, if not all, of their rules and conventions. We have to deduce from the thing to the act, and the elements that guide the act. From things to thoughts. It is here that we may find the moves of the society from which the artefact originated.18 Style is important, both as the tool of the archaeologist and as the remnants of past expressions. Thus, style may be defined as communication, and what style communicates is identity.

out these investigations is an archaeologist, the key to the work is the archaeological investigation. The present study deals with aristocratic culture. Unlike conventional cultures studied in archaeology, aristocratic culture is neither fixed within a specific geographical unit, nor belong to a certain epoch. Aristocratic culture exists like the parallel universes of fantasy literature as diachronic and universal entities, and thus, aristocratic culture requires other methods of analysis and interpretation in addition to the traditional classical archaeological methods that spring from stylistic analysis. The particular case is illuminated by using allusions and analogies to other examples of similar phenomena occurring in other periods in other places as an analytical tool.13

'Fine feathers make fine birds' as the old adage goes.19 Most of us know the ritual séances in front of the mirror while packing a suitcase for an important conference, or in order to survive a job interview, or oral examination: to find the appropriate attire to suit the occasion. It is a matter of creating a relationship between the narrative you wish to place yourself in, and the circumstances where you narrate it. The dottoressa suit may do wonders for your self-esteem, as if the padded shoulders and the lined jacket starch your personality, while the classical elegance of a pretty scarf or shawl may obtain the correct effect giving an impression of clarity, calmness and overview. One moves and feels quite different in the heat and dust of the excavation site in the traditional outfit of bermuda shorts and hiking boots, than in an elegant skirt and high heels. Yet, in fact, it has less to do with the shoes as comfortable footwear, than with the circumstances. The point is that the shoes and the skirt contribute to creating these circumstances.

STYLE Style is a fundamental feature of all human activity — style denotes the way we act in the world.14 We say that if someone has style, they succeed with apparent ease. Yet style covers not only the successful deeds, but also encompasses all human acts. Thus style constitutes the most fundamental notion of our dealings with the past. Style is what is left us of the acts of past eras.

STYLE AND IDENTITY In Classical Archaeology, the stylistic analysis forms the basic element of any research process. It is the method by which we organize the archaeological material, create seriations and typologies, and thereby structure the evidence.15 The reason why stylistic analyses are qualified in these matters is that style is related to time and space. Thus, when we identify the style, we find the context in which the artefact is situated.16 Only a few of our acts are rooted in conscious choice. Often we act without thinking, through reflex, automatically, guided by a certain sense of the appropriate reaction in a given situation. The

STYLE AND CHOICES — THE FORCE OF HABIT Some stylistic choices are carefully weighed, while the majority of choices appear to rest on impulse. All choices share, however, the fact that there seems to exist a certain amount of possibilities to choose from, we know, so to speak, from which shelves to pick the right reaction. Thus any stylistic

This phenomenological approach is quite rare in traditional Classical Archaeological studies. Pearson 2001, 21-44. 14 In Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn's handbook Archaeology the concept of style is defined as "how you do something" (1993, 369). 15 See for instance Borbein 2000. 16 This is unfolded in the article Style and Context, Carstens 2004. 13

Meyer 1987, 27-28. In this lies a reference to the culture history of Erwin Panofsky, see below, 14-15. 19 Vestis virum reddit, Quintilian Institutiones Oratoriae 8.5. 17

18

13

we do not wish to find it in our own lives, it is very clear when we observe the choices of our children. Yet we know, however, that change is a fundamental component of life. The question then is: how does change occur?

choice is accompanied by its context. The difficulty lies in discovering this context, if all that is left is the outcome or result of a stylistic choice. The art historian Erwin Panofsky (1892-1968), especially known in archaeology for his hermeneutic iconology, was concerned with this intimate relationship between an artistic expression and the age in which it arose. In 1951, he published a book on Gothic architecture. More than a work on architecture, it was a book on the Gothic spirit, a series of internal analogies that spun architecture and scholastics together.20 Gothic style and scholasticism is not only an expression of an age, and its cultural context. Rather, the scholastic way of thought or training is quite similar to the Gothic way of building, the connection between the two is concrete and not merely a reflection of mutual influences. Panofsky described this set of relations as provoked by a mental habit, in its scholastic sense as the principle that regulates the act, principium importans ordinem ad actum.21 In 1967, the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) translated and commented on Panofsky's text, Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism.22 Not least, his use of the term "mental habit" as the driving force in thought and creation, had a strong appeal. Bourdieu operated with three important tools of thought: the concepts of praxis, habitus, and field.23 Praxis, the way humans do things, knowing without knowing the right thing to do, is possible due to the habitus. And the power of the habitus is created by the mindlessness of habits and adjustments, rather than by deliberate thoughts, rules, and regulations. The field is the arena, a system of social positions, internally structured by power relations.24 Central for the acts of man is the habitus, first and foremost constructed of habits.

STYLE AND CHANGE The repertoire of the stylistic choices are confined to a set of constraints. James Sackett has described the situation as isochrestic variations, as a spectre of equivalent alternatives.26 The choice between these alternatives is then stylistic behaviour. The set of such equivalent, isochrestic variations is constructed by the cultural context, or habitus. Yet, what does in fact shape our mental habits? How does this system work in reality? The reason why the system is at all established, and constantly changed, is that it is created and used by incalculable human beings. Fredrik Barth has suggested that, instead of focusing on the possible reasons why specific social changes occur, we should turn our attention to the process of change itself.27 What is kept and what is changed, and who is changing? Barth focuses on the individual, the entrepreneur that often in an unconscious way reaches beyond the expected and thereby widens the borders between otherwise separated spheres, provoking changes in the shared set of values. The ultimate issue is that society does NOT exist through its institutions and structures, but through its acting individuals. Man creates his world, man creates, conserves and changes culture by his choices as an individual and as a part of social agencies. The archaeologist's question must then be: is it possible to deduce what lies behind stylistic choices, i.e., the visible results of the conditions of life?

And the force of habit is immense.25 It springs from the sense of order, the human urge to overview its possibilities. Habit is nursed by our reluctance to change and our longing for coherence. Habit creates a stable and known image of the world, and gives change a framework to lean against. It is an image, which we immediately recognize — and if

A RECREATION OF CREATION In his article, "The History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline", Panofsky outlined the way in which the humanist carries out investigations.28 He emphasized that the ultimate object for the humanities should be the presentation of a cosmos of culture. In order to do so, the investigator needs to dive into the context, the mental habit of the time:

Panofsky 1970 [1951]. Panofsky 1970 [1951], 20-21. 22 Bourdieu 1967. 23 Jenkins 2001, chapter 4. 24 Jenkins 2001, 85. 25 Gombrich 1979, 171. 20 21

Sackett 1990. Barth 1981, 105-118. 28 Panofsky 1939. 26 27

14

cept, understand, and thereby explain the relationships between things and thoughts.

To grasp these principles [which underlines the choice and presentation of motifs, production and interpretation] we need a mental faculty comparable to that of a diagnostician, ⎯ a faculty which I cannot describe better than by the rather discredited term 'synthetic intuition', and which may be better developed in a talented layman than in an erudite scholar.29

MATERIAL CULTURE AND IDENTITY The traditional concept of archaeological culture — the operational concept of material culture groups, which is used to organise objects into typological units, cannot be separated from metaphysics. The things and their age are not merely interrelated, they in fact constitute each other. Ian Hodder says that "material culture has a central role to play in what it means to be human"; Michael Shanks maintains that "our identities are not something inherited or acquired, as essential qualities or our character of life, but are perpetually reconstructed in relations with others and with cultural artefacts".32 And this is precisely what we ourselves encounter in daily life: for instance, our homes expose our identity, and the objects that fill up our kitchens and closets reveal our acclaimed individuality. However, we all know, if provided only a small insight into the local context, what kind of newspaper is most likely to be read in the home of an intellectual in one era or another, what car I ought to drive, whether or not I prefer ecolocigal products. All of these are in fact archaeological evidence, material culture, cultural artefacts, and they unveil me. Yet, my home represents not only my professional lifestyle, but rather a conglomerate of elements that derives from my husband and his family, as well as from myself and my family, things we have bought together, like the kilims that reveal a Turkish connection, items that the children love even perhaps for their ugliness, — and it is not a constant. New things come along, by chance or after months of saving, and the style is constantly negotiated and altered. Not least, as a reaction to other things in other homes.

The recreation of the creation should be challenged and rectified by what he labels an archaeological examination, a rational study. These two, the synthetic intuition in play with the rational study qualify and rectify each other. The ambition to react the act, and recreate creation demands faith in the hermeneutic project: the project that postulates that it is indeed possible, and even scientifically profitable, to allow the rational analysis and the intuitive recreation to permeate. It demands faith in the conviction that the subjective researcher is qualified by his subjectivity, rather than to be rectified by his lack of objectivity, a conviction that intuition is a scientific strength rather than a sign of weakness. Style is a medium of communication, but what is the message? Whose story is narrated by stylistic choices, who is choosing, and what is the agenda? Moreover, is it possible for archaeologists to answer these questions? We must attempt to describe the situations as we find them, work with the concept of context fresh in our minds, and devote our work to finding meaning and explanation. One excellent tool in this process of interpreting the archaeological evidence is Geertz’s so-called thick description, emphasizing the society, the settings, and the context of things.30 Each element is part of a bigger whole, and the way to offer explanations of both the parts and the whole is by creating reconstructions in a hermeneutic process of adjustments.

Identity — cultural, ethnic, personal — comes from within, identity is first and foremost something that is negotiated and established within our selves. It is a sentiment, a sense of belonging. And eventually, because of what goes on inside the mind of man, it is expressed with deeds and acts, — and things. Since we constantly interact with each other, it is constantly compromised and fluctuat-

ACCULTURATION31 The challenge for the archaeologist is not only to bridge the gap from things to thoughts, but to ac-

Panofsky 1939, 14-15. Geertz 1973, chapter 1. 31 See also Carstens 2006b.

29

30

32 Hodder

15

2002, 9; Shanks 2002, 293.

the parties, often resulting in integration and incorporation — closely related to the typical life of cultural fluctuation. Directed change is initiated by conquest or political control, and may result in anything from assimilation, the almost complete replacement of one culture by another, to cultural fusion, a new synthesis of cultural elements differing from both pre-contact cultures. Both free and directed acculturation are viewed as processes. Culture and thus these variations of cultural blend are considered as anything but constants, and they may result in assimilation or fusion, in dramatic changes or more calm and peaceful diffusions.

ing. Identity is produced by the way we identify others, and by how we establish our own histories.

CULTURAL CHANGE The constant fluctuation of culture is slow, lazy, guided by both our conservative nature — the force of habit — and our longing for the familiar. Rather than major changes, the consequences of cultural negotiations are at most minor alterations. And even when we feel that our choices are drastic and dramatic, they are often confined within the frame of the expected. By the term "cultural change" something more radical is anticipated. Often the change seems provoked by such agencies as political or military conquest, or mass displacement of people due to disasters. In archaeology, the meeting of cultures or acculturation studies have become a focal point concurrently with the expansion of the self perception of the classical disciplines from the study of the Greek heartlands and Rome in the early 1980s to the study of rural life in the hinterlands. The study of Magna Graecia, for instance, turned from Greek colonies into apoikia and slowly indigenous populations and their cultural force have gained foothold in archaeological research.33 In recent years colonial archaeology or historical archaeology (dealing with the cultural histories of the post-Columbian world) have formed another platform for archaeological research, inspired by, and in dialogue with anthropology and social science, focusing on acculturation.34

COLONIALISM AND THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF EMPIRE Another perspective on cultural contact and cultural change is offered by Chris Gosden's focus on the events of colonialism.36 Gosden concentrates on what he terms material things, and in particular on the power of material culture in colonialism, which he sees as "a relationship with material culture, which is spatially extensive and destabilising of older values".37 He sets up a tripartite typology of colonialism: terra nullius, the "I cleared the land and fenced it"38 form of colonialism that settled North America from the mid-eighteenth century; middle ground which for instance covers the hybrid form of Romanization or the early European contacts in North America; and colonialism within a shared cultural milieu which refers to controlling networks, about colonialism without colonies. It is governed by cultural power, transmitted first by the elite and referring to a symbolic centre of reference. The earliest Greek expansion in the Mediterranean is an example. The Achaemenid Empire another. The focus on colonialism as a correlation between material culture and human relations with the world, driven by a desire for things or wealth

The Encyclopædia Brittanica Online defines acculturation as: the processes of change in artifacts, customs, and beliefs that result from the contact of societies with different cultural traditions. The term is also used to refer to the results of such changes.35 It speaks of two classes of acculturation, a free and a directed one. The free form is characterised by borrowing, modification and interchange between Cf. Horsnæs 2002. Burke 1999. For the focus on archaeology and globalisation as an example of a new archaeological focus on colonial encounters, see e.g. Gosden 2004; Vandkilde 2007. 35 Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Online. (Accessed June 15, 2005). 33

34 Cf.

Gosden 2004. 2004, 4. 38 Henry Lawson, Reedy River (1896); Gosden 2004, 114. It is important to stress that in fact North America was indeed not terra nullius, land unsettled and empty, rather the idea of the early

36

37 Gosden

16

A separate sense of self and the importance of belonging to a group are ideas in tension with each other: to create oneself as an individual is to cut off some of the links to the group; to submerge oneself in the group makes it less possible to emerge as an individual.43

and seen as a source of creativity — colonial cultures were created by all who participated in them39 — leaves archaeology as the keeper of the keys in the study of colonialism. Not because pots are people, but because "material culture has a central role to play in what it means to be human."40

While objects and individuals belong together in a sort of de-contextualized manner, things and dividuals call upon each other — they are only fully appreciated as part of larger relationships. Yet, individuals are poorly represented in archaeological investigations. Not because they did not play a prominent role in life there and then — entrepreneurs have always existed — but, because they are hardly recognizable in the archaeological record. The traditional focus, inspired by art history, on the artist and his personal creations has suffered a change due to the contextual trend in archaeology with its focus on recognizing the artistic milieu, the context, and ethnic and social groups.44

Colonialism is a process by which things shape people, rather than the reverse. Colonialism exists where material culture moves people, both culturally and physically, leading them to expand geographically, to accept new material forms and to set up power structures around a desire for material culture.41 This desire creates a network between people and things, and by focusing on the material things the network becomes visible. Referring to the Orientalising and the early Greek apoikiai, Gosden suggests the proto-Corinthian aryballos with all its complexity of origin and stylistic mixture — symbolizing the processes of colonialism and its base in a shared cultural milieu, a colonialism of "minds and bodies through concepts of wealth, common practices and aesthetics".42 It is not who brought these things along that is of interest here, rather their distribution. For, distribution shows us that this was a world of relations, this world was united and interconnected, and the relations had things as their starting point. Thoughts unavoidably accompanied this process, yet it was a desire for things that began it.

A desirable thing is the alabaster vase from the Maussolleion [fig. 1]. During Newton's excavations of the Maussolleion in Halikarnassos, it was found at the landing close to the monumental staircase that led to the tomb chamber.45 It has from time to time been suggested as a sign of proxenia, a symbol of the relationship or alliance between the Persian hegemony, personified in Xerxes the Great, and the Halikarnassian Artemisia the Elder. As mentioned earlier, she participated with a minor fleet in Xerxes' war against the Greeks and accord-

DESIRABLE THINGS

43 Gosden

2004, 35. In a conference volume publishing a number of essays dedicated to the exploration of Polykleitos, Brunilde S. Ridgway concludes her contribution as follows: "The conclusion is inevitably absurd: if a piece is too close to the Doryphoros, we reject it as an adaptation of later times imitating Polykleitan forms; if a piece is too different, we exclude it because it does not conform to the schemata and proportions we believe were worked out by Polykleitos. Yet we should derive comfort from the fact that, even under these strictures, Polykleitos remains one of the best-known fifth-century masters, as contrasted with many great names." Ridgway 1995, 195. Defining and recognizing the individual style of one of the best-known sculptors is regarded quite impossible by one of the leading researchers in the field. Another example may be the search for Bauhütten in the Ionian renaissance; Pedersen 2002, 112121; Hellström & Thieme 1982, 54-55. 45 Newton 1862-1863, 91-94, and Appendix II.

Gosden distinguishes between things and objects, things being artefacts of value through their aesthetic or symbolic qualities; they are sensitive to context, social, and perhaps sacred relations. Objects are quantifiable and un-coded; they can be exchanged within broader contexts. He also focuses on the dichotomy between dividuals and individuals. Relations comprise the dividual, while the individual is self-governing, however, both dividual and individual aspects are found in everyone:

44

colonisers were that they settled and civilized land hitherto uncivilized. 39 Gosden 2004, 25. 40 Hodder 2002, 9. 41 Gosden 2004, 153. 42 Gosden 2004, 155. 17

almost a century later and as a symbol of its successful relations to Persian supremacy. Material culture, not least Gosden's things are signs and they bear with them references, contexts, relations, origins.

INVENTION OF TRADITION AND ENACTING OF EMPIRE

Archaeology of Empire is a trend in archaeological research that moves on the problematic, yet often profitable thin ice of letting general premises enlighten particular cases, and vice versa. Adding the perspective that cultural histories give; the background allows differences and changes to be more discernible. It is generally accepted that, territorial expansion is costly, not least when based on military conquest. Consolidating empire in such conquered territory is almost impossible without diplomacy and personal magnetism: The charisma of great leaders in empire formation is not incidental; the creation of personal loyalties and alliances between emperors and newly conquered elites may ameliorate costs of military domination, and the awesome or sacred name and reputation of the emperor may encourage conciliation and submission without the need for military activity or a permanent military presence.48

Figure 1. The alabaster/calcite vase with a cartouche of Xerxes the Great. The vase was found during C. T. Newton's excavations at the Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. © Trustees of the British Museum

ing to Herodotos, he was full of admiration for her bravery.46 The vase is inscribed with the words "Xerxes Great King" in Old Persian, Elamite, Babylonian and Egyptian. Was it a personal gift from a grateful Great King to a local aristocrat? An export item, maybe one of many vessels manufactured for such purposes, as tokens of political contracts embedded in elite networks?47 This precious item, this desirable thing, was kept in the court circles at Halikarnassos in one way or the other, as a token of the aristocratic roots that laid the foundation of the Hekatomnid dynasty

The Persian Empire comprised different peoples, speaking a wide range of languages, worshipping multiple deities, living in varied environments with different social customs. Within this cacophony of diversities, the Achaemenids practised a quite successful method of hegemony: flexible empire. Although it was created by conquests, it was preserved by "the creation of a consistently idealized vision of kingship and empire", in the words of Margaret Cool Root.49 It was kept together as a successful empire not least by the creation of an ideology of power that was spread via a deliberate use of a royal iconography resting on tradition. It adjusted itself to local power structures, allowed freedom of religion and ritual practices. The Great King had but a few formal demands: that he re-

46 Herodotos

8.68-69, 8.88; Carstens 1999, 112. In Halikarnassos it was not an isolated item. In the British Museum register, in all 17 alabaster jars or fragments are listed as deriving from Newton's excavations, yet this is the only one carrying an inscription. Jeppesen & Zahle 1975, 70; Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, 221-227. In the treasury of Persepolis, 53 similar alabaster vessels were found bearing the same inscription, "Xerxes Great King". Schmidt 1957, 81-93, pl. 47-65; Cahill 1985, 383. 47

48 Sinopoli 49 Root

18

1994, 163. 1979, 2.

ceived his taxes and that conquered land was protected.50

used by the local satrapal administration may very well have been the same [fig. 3].54

QUESTIONING THE GRAECO-PERSIAN

The term Graeco-Persian is problematic.55 Not so much the words describing a certain stylistic fusion between Greek and Persian art, rather, it is a loaded term and it was introduced as such in the field of research concerning Achaemenid Anatolia. It was based on the assumption that Achaemenid art needed Greek expertise in order to alter Persian sterility and artistic poverty. Thus, Graeco-Persian art was "an offshoot of Greek", Graeco-Persian was a reflection of Persian artistic weakness and cultural indebtedness to the west.56 A reversed, or at least edited version of the impact of Achaemenid art in the west — a version that matches both Gosden's creative colonialism and the various eclectic styles that occur and blossom in western Anatolia not least during the Achaemenid period, but also before, and certainly later — is closer to the case. Much of the creative force of art in the Achaemenid empire derives from the western satrapies, where the feeling of colonialism may have been the strongest, the tensions between powers most intense. It is indeed puzzling that the Graeco-Persian style seems prominent in the centres of the western satrapies at Daskyleion and Sardis, where the satraps were ethnic Persians and the landscapes and cultures more Anatolian (Phrygian and Lydian) than East Greek. Or, indeed, they already represented a cultural blend. This questions, on another level, the Classical tradition, the alleged urge for Greek culture, in the Late Archaic and Classical western Anatolia, and the Ionian Renaissance.

In Daskyleion, the residence of the satrapy of Greater Phrygia, the existence of a satrapal archive has been known since 1959, when Ekrem Akurgal excavated more than 400 bullae, clay seal impressions. Quite recently, in 2003, a full publication of the sealings appeared.51 The documents that were sealed with the little lumps of clay have not survived, — all we know is that the majority, at least 89% comprised rolls of papyrus, while 9% sealed leather or another smooth material.52 What was written on these documents is also unknown, but we do know that other Achaemenid archives contained documents dealing with matters such as local administration, payments, transportation of food commodities, private business. The Daskyleion sealings are quite innovative and lively [fig. 2]. One example is of a hunter on foot advancing on a bear. Further east, such a hunting scene would depict a boar or a lion.53 Above all, the seals testify to an artistic creativity, also found, for instance, in the coinage of nearby Kyzikos, — indeed the carvers of the coin stamps in this prosperous Greek harbour-town and the seals

Creative and experimental spirits are indeed characteristic features of the artistic production of the Kaptan 2000; 2001. Furtwängler 1900, opened his chapter on "Die griechischen Gennem des freien Stiles vor Alexander" (3. Band, 116) with the characterisation of the Persian-Greek relationship that came to form the discriminating view on Persian artistic weakness for generations: "Wir beginnen die Betrachtung dieser Epoche der Glyptik am besten mit einer sich deutlich abtrennenden Gruppe von Steinen, welcher wir die griechisch-persischen nennen, weil sie von Griechen für Perser gearbeitet scheinen. Sie bilden die östlichste Reihe griechischer Arbeiten und basieren ganz auf dem nahen Verkehre, der zwischen Persien und Hellas in der Zeit der Achämeniden im fünften und vierten Jahrhundert bestand." 56 Root 1991, 1 et passim; 1994, 18. 54 55

Figure 2. A sealing from Daskyleion, depicting a bear hunt. Kaptan 1996, Pl. 26:7

Cf. Dusinberre 2003, 1-4. Briant 2002 sets ouy discussing exactly the nature of the empire as either a quite loose federation or an organisation with a central authority and intense acculturation. 51 Kaptan 2003. 52 Kaptan 1996. 53 Kaptan 1996, 91-92. 50

19

fect, with coloniser and colonized alike being radically changed by the experience.58

THOUGHTS AND THINGS When Margaret Cool Root set out to write her thesis on Achaemenid art and empire in the late 1970s, she undertook an investigation of the construction and maintenance of the Achaemenid Empire as an ideology expressed in iconography. She laid the foundation for another understanding of empire, as not merely a form of governance, but as a totality of policies that rests and depends upon a conscious and calculated use of iconography, an image of power produced in order to underline the ideology that the Achaemenids wished to emphasise: The Persian kings waged brutal wars, exacted heavy taxes from reluctant subjects, and harboured fears of palace revolutions spawned by ambitious courtiers. But, for the imperial art with which they hoped to impress the world (and with which they themselves apparently wished to identify), …the Achaemenids commissioned the creation of a consistently idealized vision of kingship and empire — a vision which stressed images of piety, control and harmonious order.59

Figure 3. Daskyleion electron coin, depicting a kneeling silene pouring wine in a kantharos with a fish lying below. Thomsen 1994, fig. 19. The edge of one of the bullae of the Daskyleion administrative archive, depicting a hand (?) holding a fish. Kaptan 2000, pl. 35:5

Extraordinary skills, political flair, and personal magnetism and charisma must indeed have characterised Maussollos and his kin.

western Achaemenid empire, of its cultural milieu. Deniz Kaptan explains it thus: "The Daskyleion sealings contribute more evidence toward interpreting this art as a lively 'blend of ancient Near Eastern, Anatolian and East Greek elements.'"57 Chris Gosden describes the cultural changes that occur with the process of colonialism as a kind of positive energy, more a creator than a destroyer:

Newton’s empire In Charles Thomas Newton's report of his explorations and excavations in Halikarnassos in the 1850s he included some reflections on the Persian Empire and the dynasty:

Paradoxically perhaps, I see colonialism as often being a source of creativity and experiment, and while certainly not being without pain, colonial encounters cause the dissolution of values on all sides, creating new ways of doing things in a material and social sense. A stress on creativity takes us away from notions such as fatal impact, domination and resistance or core and periphery, emphasising that colonial cultures were created by all who participated in them, so that all had agency and social ef-

57

The history of the dynasty which terminates with Ada forms an instructive comment on the condition of the Persian empire in the last half-century of its existence. During the greater part of this period, Hekatomnus and the successive princes of this house, were allowed by the Great king to remain in undisturbed possession of their hereditary or usurped dominions, though they at no time yielded more than a doubtful recognition of his suzerainty, acting for the 58 Gosden

Kaptan 1996, 95.

59 Root

20

2004, 25. 1979, 2.

trary and irresponsible character of their rule.60

most part independently, and sometimes in defiance of this authority. The rapid growth of the power of those princes, and the length of time for which their dynasty maintained itself, may be accounted for by a number of favouring circumstances. The mountainous character of a great part of Caria, and the martial spirit of its indigenous population, render it difficult for an invading army to penetrate into the interior, as is shown by the obstinate resistance offered by the Carians to the troops of Darius Hystaspes; and it is probable that the recollection of former reverses deterred the neighbouring satraps from attempting an expedition of this kind. The coasts of Caria yielded a race of skilful mariners, and the decline of Athenian influence after the disaster of Syracuse gave Mausolus the opportunity of establishing a naval force at Halicarnassus, which placed the Greek maritime cities of Caria under his sway, and thus enabled him to consolidate his power by fusing into one nation the indigenous races and the Dorian settler who acknowledged his rule. In consequence of the weakness and internal dissensions of the Persian empire, these ambitious designs were not interfered with, and were still further carried out by Artemisia and Idrieus. Such were the external circumstances which favoured the ambition of the Carian princes; but it seems but just to add that much of their success must have been due to their personal character; to the boldness and adroitness with which they took advantage of every opportunity for the extension of their power. Ruling over a mixed people, and occupying a position which connected them with Hellenic politics more than with the interests of the empire of which they formed a part, they not unnaturally adopted the policy of siding alternately with Greek or barbarian, as best suited their own interests. This equivocal policy, neither Hellenic nor Persian, but rather Graeco-Barbaric, shows itself in the whole character of their administration. The care with which the princes of this house developed their naval power, and the munificent encouragement of art and literature which distinguishes the reign of Artemisia, may be regarded as evidence of a Hellenizing tendency, and of a certain natural capacity for Greek civilisation. On the other hand, the principles of their internal government seem, so far as we can judge from the scanty particulars recorded, to have been essentially Asiatic; their policy, being one of aggrandisement, was hostile to the independence of the neighbouring Greek states, and it is probable that their Hellenic sympathies did but little to temper the arbi-

The Classical Tradition… Although he described the house as Barbarian despots Newton saw "a certain natural capacity for Greek civilisation" in the rule of the amazing Hekatomnids, the family that transformed Karia from a backwater border area to a leading power in the proto-Hellenistic Aegean. Embedded in the meeting of early Historicism and the Romantic Movement, Winckelmann's Stilkritik and his definition of an organic development of growth, maturity, and decline in ancient art turned the Greek ideal into the central focus in the formation of the human sciences in the 19th century.61 Out of the aesthetic fascination of 5th century BC sculpture and Aristotelian wisdom, the Classical Tradition was born, and it rapidly matured into fostering the long lasting idea of a Happy Hellas. The tradition sprang from a mythological perception of ancient Greece as a representative of the highest and most sublime life-form, the cradle of perfection. According to this tradition, the historic and cultural transformations in the Mediterranean were explained as degrees of successful Hellenization. This basic perception divided the classical disciplines according to centres of civilisation (Athens and the Greek mainland, Rome and the Italic peninsula) and barbaric border areas. Degrees of Hellenization or Romanization, rather than cultural interchange and mutual developments were the objects of research. The Classical Tradition viewed Hellas as the centre whose mission it was to Hellenize the surrounding world. And this world, more than anything else, wished for this Hellenization to occur. The world and its possibilities may have looked quite different viewed from a Karian perspective. An exploration of this Karian world view forms an underlying ambition of this study. Although it is a work on power politics expressed in state art I hope it may also contribute to the investigation of being Karian/Karian identity.

60 Newton 61

21

1862-1863, 66-68. Carstens 2004, 9-10.

OVERVIEW

Chapter four: King, priest and god — the sanctuary of Zeus Labraundeus revisited

The book is organized in six chapters. An outline of an ancient Anatolian religious embedding brought into play in Classical and Hellenistic Karia is the central issue in chapter two. Chapters three and four contain a reinvestigation and reinterpretation of the two most important monuments in the enacting of the Hekatomnid dynasty, the Maussolleion in Halikarnassos, and the Zeus Labraundos sanctuary in the mountains above Mylasa. An analysis of the iconography of ideology inaugurated by the Hekatomnids in Karia and abroad, constitutes chapter five. The conseqeunces of the dynastic strategies are the basis of the concluding chapter six.

A reading of the sanctuary in Labraunda as the key monument of the Hekatomnid dynasty is offered in chapter three. It is my assertion that in the new, restaged, but ancient Anatolian sanctuary, the dynasty enacted all vital components that fostered the success of its rule. Thus, the sanctuary became a symbol of Hekatomnid Karia.

CHAPTER FIVE: THE HEKATOMNID DYNASTY — AN ICONOGRAPHY OF IDEOLOGY? Chapter five examines three themes, all related to the organisation of Karia. The inventory of Karian poleis collated by the Copenhagen Polis Centre forms the point of departure in an investigation of archaeological characteristics of Karian settlements sites and their hypothetical relationship to the political infrastructure. This leads to an investigation of a selection of Karian rural sanctuaries, and their Hekatomnid re-organizations. Also possible incidents of Hekatomnid patronage or euergetism outside Karia are discussed, and the chapter ends with a brief analysis of Hekatomnid coinage as an ideological iconographic engine.

CHAPTER TWO: KARIA AND ITS ANATOLIAN ROOTS

There is a particular root, a long history of tradition at stake in Karia. Even though the landscape was never included in the Hittite heartlands, it seems as if an ancient Anatolian perception of the world, a certain Anatolian cosmology prevailed even in the Late Classical and Hellenistic period. This chapter aims to form a common starting point, to level a point of departure for the investigations of the creation of the Hekatomnid dynasty by focusing on the active use of a past, by focusing on historic reception: where the past becomes an asset for the future.

CHAPTER SIX: HELLENIZATION, KARIANIZATION, PERSIANIZATION, CREOLIZATION? Chapter six concludes the investigation by questioning the ideological strategy of the Hekatomnid dynasty. A case is made for seeing the process as one similar to what modern anthropology labels creolization, a cultural process often found in postcolonial societies undergoing rapid changes. The consequences of the dynastic strategies of the Hekatomnids are suggested in the staging of the Macedonian kingdom.

CHAPTER THREE: RULER CULT AND TOMB CULT — A REASSESSMENT OF THE MAUSSOLLEION IN HALIKARNASSOS This chapter to discusses the context of the grand royal tomb of Maussollos, the Maussolleion in its multiple capacities, as being the royal tomb, a focal point in the layout of a new capital, a place for commemoration or even cult of the dead and deified ruler and thereby the dynasty, and as an expressive link between ideology, power structures and iconography of the Near East, ancient Anatolian tradition, Persian supremacy and the Hellenic world.

22

CHAPTER TWO Anatolia has been somewhat neglected.64 Yet, new excavations in western Anatolia during the last decade have increased information on interaction and coexistence between the Aegean and inland Anatolia.65 More gaps are being filled in the map illustrating sites, which confirms the familiarity suggested by earlier singular excavations. Previous interpretations of these mixed sites that operated with terms such as "adoption of habits" and "imitation of styles" have now proven inadequate, and a new image of close contact on many diverse levels between peoples of the eastern Mediterranean in the second half of the second millennium BC has emerged. The Late Bronze Age was — as we generally willingly accept for the Hellenistic period — an international era with many common perceptions and shared values, with much travel and a great knowledge of peoples and places. A very strong element in this koiné culture is ritual practice, e.g. the libation sacrifice, which formed basic ritual behaviour in both the Aegean, Anatolia, and northern Syria.66 The Hittite huwaši, Syrian sikkanum, and biblical massebe are other religious phenomena that spread within the framework of the Bronze Age koiné.67 Moreover, in the same international climate of the Late Bronze Age, natural stones, boulders, or rock-crops formed the focus of rituals in a wide series of representations on Late Minoan glyptic.68 These huwaši, sikkanum, massebe, or baityloi were set up in both temples and in the open country, in groves, near springs, or on mountains.69 They may have

KARIA AND ITS ANATOLIAN ROOTS There is a long history of tradition at play in Karia. Even though the landscape was never included in the Hittite heartlands, it seems as if an ancient Anatolian perception of the world, a certain Anatolian cosmology persisted even into the Late Classical and Hellenistic period. The ancient Anatolian storm god forms the point of departure in an experimental exploration of an ancient religious embedment. I think that this embedding holds the key to the success and prosperity of Hekatomnid rule in the 4th century BC, and that it was likewise recognized and exploited by both the Karians and their rulers. The aim of the chapter is to examine the context of the fundamental religious mechanisms that fostered a strong and sharply articulated sense of being Karian, a sense embedded in the landscape and its possibilities.62

A Bronze Age koiné and sacred stone cult The existence of a religious and cultural koiné in the eastern Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age has been debated in prehistoric Aegean archaeology since the 1980s.63 This koiné probably covered the Aegean area, Anatolia, northern Syria and the Canaanite city-states, all regions organised as palatial societies. It may best be characterised as a certain familiarity rather than a real unity, and the relationships between the protagonists in question are to a large degree unknown. Investigations in the eastern Mediterranean have until recently focused primarily on the relations between the Bronze Age Levant and the Minoan-Mycenaean areas, whilst the evidence from Anatolia and the Hurrian kingdom of Kizzuwatna between Syria and

Carstens 2001; 2008a; 2008b. Troy: notably the work on the Late Bronze Age pottery, Mountjoy 2006, 1999, 1997, and the Protogeometric pottery, Catling 1998. Miletos: Cobet et al. 2007. Around Izmir: The Izmir Region Excavations and Research Project, at: http://www.geocities.com/irerp_tr/frames.html (accessed 2007-09-07). Karia: Carstens 2008b. 66 Haas 1994, 640-641, 669-673; Hägg 1990; Carstens, P. 1998, 2003; Carstens 2001, 96-98, 2008b, 64-70. 67 Hutter 1993, 105-106: Haas 1994, 507-509. 68 Warren 1990. 69 Singer 1986, 245; Hutter 1993; Haas 1994, 508; Burkert 1985, 24-28. The use of the term baitylos as designation of the boulders or sacred stones in an Aegean Bronze Age context was first introduced by A. J. Evans in his "The Mycenaean tree and pillar cult and its Mediterranean relations", JHS 21,1901, 99-204. For its continued relevance, Warren 1990. See also Kron 1992; Reeder 1995, 9-16. 64 65

Carstens 2008a. Burkert 1985, 25; Bergquist 1993. General archaeological skepticism is to be found e.g. in Dickinson 1996, 257-258; Renfrew 1985. Wright 1995, on the contrary, offers an archaeological method of recognizing and working with religion and cult practice, which in turn opens a way of looking at cultural exchange in ritual acts. 62 63

23

Figure 4. Cylinder seal from Kültepe depicting the storm god, which stands on a mountain peak, indicated by the little triangles under his feet. He is holding a bull by its hind legs. Özgüç 1965, Pl. 19:58

companion, he encompasses the earthbound dependence on the celestial powers.75

represented both the cult object and the depiction of the god, they formed the focal point for pilgrimage, and they blessed the landscape in which they were placed.70

THE PLACES OF THE STORM GOD

The focus on similarities and coherence in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Aegean and Anatolia may seem an overt simplification of complex local or regional theologies. Yet, the recognition of a common religious koiné in Late Bronze Age societies provides a foundation for a syncretistic perspective.71

The storm god may be found on mountain peaks, in open-space rock-knolls, at places where he can reveal himself in all his might, where lighting often strike in the potent winter storms that bring along spring and growth in their wake. He is in the mountains, in the most inaccessible places, on the highest summits, near the sky.76 An ancient sacred place belonging to the Anatolian storm god is sited in the Latmos mountains in north-western Karia. A Byzantine vita from the 10th century AD relates that the holy mountain

The Anatolian storm god The storm god is known throughout the Ancient Near East in a number of different forms such as the Summerian Enlil, the Syrian Dagan, the Akkadian Adad, the Hattian Taru, the Canaanite Baal, and the Israelic Yahweh.72 He is the god of fertility and weather, the god of furious storms. He appears in Hittite ritual texts, on cylinder seals and bullae [fig. 4]. Often, he is depicted together with his female companion, the Great Goddess Inanna or Hebat, the queen of heaven, the sun goddess, and the Mother of the Mountains.73 Both appear together with the sun disc inscribed in a moon sickle, and with the wild, yet tamed bull.74 He is a celestial god, a storm god, the god of wind and weather; but he is also a water god. Together with his female Singer 1986, 245; Hutter 1993, 92-93. E.g. Burkert 1996, 2004. 72 Green 2003; Schwemer 2001, 443, 587; Haas 1994, 315-339; Mettinger 1995. 73 Haas 1994, 339-363, 383-392. Green 2003, 89152. 74 Haas 1994, 316-321; Schwemer 2001, 124-127, 477-489.

Figure 5. The ante temple at Dikilitaş. PeschlowBindokat 1996, Tafel 38:5

70 71

Haas 1994, 324-330, 340-342. Singer 1986, 245; Haas 1994, 329-330; Cook 1965, vol. 1, 117-186, especially (b) the Mountains as the Throne of Zeus, 124-148, fig. 101.

75

76

24

Figure 6. The architrave inscription. PeschlowBindokat 1996, Tafel 39:6

peak was still, at that time, visited in times of drought.77 The mountain referred to in the text is the highest peak on the range, Tekerlekdağ, which lies opposite the monastery of the Mother of God, Stylos. The peak forms a rounded, naked knoll. A paved pathway leads to the rock, and five steps are cut into its surface in order to facilitate the climbing of the naked rock.78 Anneliese Peschlow-Bindokat investigated this site in the early 1990s and discovered a small, fortified ancient settlement with the ruins of an antetemple below in the Dikilitaş valley [fig. 5]. The two antae still stand upright, hence the place-name dikilitaş, the upright stones. The architrave carries an inscription, dated to the Late Classical or Hellenistic period [fig. 6].79 The first letters are readable: ΔΙΙΑΚΡΑΙΩΙ. The temple was dedicated Zeus Akraios, Zeus of the mountain peak [fig. 7].80 The old sacred mountain peak, the Tekerlekdağ is visible from the ruins below. It is tempting to suggest that this peak was an ancient Anatolian sacred rock, a huwaši, a place for man to meet the divine, to meet the storm god.81 During the centuries that passed, the storm god turned into Zeus Akraios. Because the landscape carried the memory.

Figure 7. The temple of Zeus Akraios at Dikilitaş, reconstruction drawing. Peschlow-Bindokat 1996, Abb. 2

South of Sardis in Lydia, the grey mountains rise above the Kaystros river valley [fig. 8]. Strabo calls Tmolus a blessed place, he relates that the Persians built an exedra on top of the mountains, and he admires the magnificent view of the river valley below.82 According to the Lydian historian Xanthus, known to us via Stephanus of Byzantium, there was a mountain called Karios in the Tmolus range near the ancient site of Torrhebia.83 Torrhebia has been located at the Gölcük Lake, and Mount Karios may well be the so-called Kel Dağ.84 On Mount Karios there was a temple to Karios, the son of Zeus and Torrhebia. In a passage concerning the origin of the Karian people, Herodotos mentions Zeus Karios: "… they point to an ancient shrine of Carian Zeus at Mylasa, to which Mysians and Lydians, as brethren of the Carians (for Lydus and Mysos, they say, were brothers of Car), are admitted...".85 According to Pausanias, a cultic communion of brethren consisting of Lydians and Karians also included the Artemision at Efesos.86 Furthermore, the Karian Zeus Karios was worshipped in Lydia as well, in this open-air sanctuary on Mount Karios.

Laudatio S. Pauli junioris 18 (Wiegand 1913, 116); translation Peschlow-Bindokat 1996, 217. See also: http://www.doaks.org/typikaPDF/typ013.pdf (27-09-2007) 78 Peschlow-Bindokat 1996, 219-220. 79 Peschlow-Bindokat dates the temple and inscription to the Hellenistic period. Yet, on the basis of the published photos and drawings, the inscription itself, according to Signe Isager, may just as well belong to the Late Classical period. A comparison with the architrave inscriptions at Labraunda reveals certain similarities, concerning the omega. The architectural layout, with its wide and short proportions, as well as the dedication of a Zeus Akraios temple, which fits the ideology of the Hekatomnid rulers and their effort to establish links to the past and invent traditions, support a date in the 4th century BC and allows for some speculation about the dedicators. 80 Haas 1982, 115. 81 Haas 1994, 507-509; 1996, 165-166. 77

Strabo 13.4.5. Bengisu 1996. Mid 5th century BC, quoted by Stephanus of Byzantium, who lived in the 6th century AD; FGrH 11A, 90 fr. 15. 84 The Turkish name of the Hazzi mountain at Ugarit is also Kel Dağ, see below, 29. Haas 1982, 115. 85 Herodotos 1.171.5 (translated by A.D. Godley, see: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu). 86 Pausanias 7.2.8. 82 83

25

The Greek poet Eumelos of Korinth of the 8th century BC allegedly recounted the following on the Sardian Zeus: Eumelus the Corinthian says that Zeus was born in what today we call Lydia, and he is as reliable as anyone: for still today on the western side of the city of Sardis, on the mountain ridge of Tmolus, there is a place which used to be called the Birth of Rainbringing Zeus, and now with language altered by time is known as Deusion.87 On the crest of Kel Dağ, the naked mountain in the Tmolus range, huge marble ashlars lie scattered about [fig. 9]. They probably derive from walled terraces or walled sacred precincts. Below the southern summit of the crest, along the path that leads to the top, is a cave, today called Allah Evi, the house of God. Nearby a spring wells up framed in an ancient rubble walling [fig. 10]. The well is constructed in a similar fashion to Karian wells, as for instance those found flanking the procession

Figure 9. Ashlar blocks of white marble from the walled precincts and/or terraces on Mount Karios. Bengisu 1996, fig. 5

road that leads from Mylasa to the sanctuary at Labraunda.88 The rain-giving Zeus on the mountain peak, Zeus Karios, has to be closely related to Zeus Akraios of Latmos. They owe their ingrained presence to an ancient belief in the sacredness of the natural places of the Anatolian storm god. These natural places were sites where the god could choose to reveal himself, where he could be called upon, and where he could decide to come forward from his mountainous hideouts. His epiphanies and his blessings in the shape of rain and abundance were fundamentally rooted in the perception of a sacred, animated and blessed landscape. Both sanctuaries, the Tekerlekdağ in the Latmos and the Kel Dağ in the Tmolus, were sited far away from civilisation. They were remote meeting points between the gods and their devotees. People had to climb up to the sacred place in order to pray for their needs: water, crops, and blessings. As such, the use of the sacred

Figure 8. Map of the Tmolus mountains south of Sardis. Bengisu 1996, fig. 7

This passage is also found as a quote in a 6th century AD text, Joannes Lydus, De Mensibus 4.71. Pedley 1972, 9, no: 14.

Figure 10. The ancient well below Mount Karios. Bengisu 1996, fig. 20

87

88 Labraunda: Cousin 1900, 28; Held 2004, 86. See also Dorl-Klingenschmid 2001.

26

place needed an organised activity, a pilgrimage or a sacred procession. The ritual was staged, and the preparation brought people together in common endeavour. However, at some point a transformation took place; the sacredness of the mountaintop was brought down the slope. Sometime in the later part of the 4th century BC, a small ante temple was built to Zeus Akraios, below the Tekerlekdağ, near the village. The wild mountian god was being domesticated.

ZEUS AND ARTEMIS An ancient road leads from the sanctuary of Artemis in Sardis to Kel Dağ and further on to Hypaepa. Here the roads to Tire and Efesos met.89 At Hypaepa the Persian goddess Anahit had a sanctuary [fig. 11]. Anahit was a river goddess, quite closely related to the Assyro-Babylonian Istar, with a common origin within the ancient Near Eastern perception of the mother goddess, the personified fertility.90 Remains of a temple have been found above the ravine; its prominent position extolled Anahit, often referred to as the Persian Artemis of the Tmolus range.91 The sanctuary was probably built by Figure 11. Coin depicting Iranian migrants, the cult statue of Anahita that is, after the mid Aneitis at Hypaepa. Robert 6th century BC. At 1976, Pl. 1:1 Hypaepa, they discovered an appropriate location for their river goddess, in the midst of an old sacred mountain area.

Figure 12. Plan of the sanctuary of the baitylos at the agora in Kaunos. Diler 1995, Abb. 1

Figure 13. Arial view of the sanctuary of the baitylos in Kaunos.Diler 1995, Tafel 2:1

lates the incident of a group of young men who attacked the procession, polluted the sacred objects and the holy people, and who subsequently were all sentenced to death.92 The road across the Tmolos was the direct road from Efesos to Sardis and its dramatic route through the mountains with their slopes and ravines suited such a sacred procession. The sanctuary on Kel Dağ and the temple of Anahit at Hypaepa lay on the way, and they probably formed stations on the pilgrimage route.

The so-called sacrilege inscription from Efesos, dated to the end of the 4th century BC mentions the annual procession of Artemis worshippers. It began at the Artemision at Efesos and it ended at the sanctuary of Artemis in Sardis. The inscription re-

SACRED ROCKS AND STONE CULT A unique sanctuary was excavated during the 1980s in the city of Kaunos in the Lyko-Karian borderland. Its centre, cultic as well as architec-

Foss 1990. 90 Boyce 1987, 61. 91 Reinach 1896, 146-147; Boyce & Grenet 1991, 202. The classic reference to Hypaepa and the sanctuary is Pausanias on Olympia, 5.27.5-7; see also Robert 1976, 29. Ovid too refers to Hypaepa, Metamorphoses XI.150-152: 89

92 Dusinberre 2003, appendix 2, no: 54; Dusinberre 2003, 120-122.

27

(Artemis) and Malija (Athena) in Xanthos in the 5th century BC. The trilingual inscription from the Letoon calls him Khñtawata Khibedeññi, Lord of Kaunos. Yet, who is Basileus Kaunios? Is he also Zeus?98 Zeus as Zeus Akraios, as the ancient Anatolian storm god often depicted standing on top of a conical stone? Or is he Apollo, whom we know as a stone cult god in mainland Greece, Figure 15. Silver stater Apollo, who is depicted of Kaunos, from c. 430on Kaunian coins99 and 420 BC. Konuk 2003b, is widely known and worshipped in Karia? Some of the coins have the Karian letter ‘n’ that may be the initial of ‘natri’ the Karian and Lykian name of Apollo. If so, did he borrow his feathers from the iconography of the Anatolian storm god? Is his Apollo epithet nothing but another name for Zeus Akraios or Zeus Karios: the Zeus, who in so many ways is a later variant of the synchretized Anatolian storm god?100 Is there a link between King Kaunios, Zeus Akraios, Apollo, and the ancient Anatolian storm god standing on top of a conical stone? A link, which operates with notions of divine kingship and tutelary sacred deeds?

Figure 14. Silver stater of Kaunos, the so-called winged Karians, from c. 470-450 BC. Konuk 2003b, 97

tonic was a c. 4.5 m high conical limestone, set in the soil in a pit leaving c. 2.5 m of the stone above ground [fig. 12]. Found scattered around this stone were animal bones, ashes, shells and potsherds.93 The accumulation of the fill began in the late 5th century BC. Around that date a simple rubble wall was also build around the stone. Later, in the 3rd or 2nd century BC, a tholos building was constructed with the conical stone as its centre [fig. 13]. This, the inner, central area of the building formed a circular walled pit in an arrangement that is also known from Greek heroa.94 For many years a group of silver staters from the 4th century BC seemed difficult to identify. Neither the place of the mint nor the depiction on the reverse seemed decipherable [fig. 14-15]. The find of a bilingual inscription in Kaunos in the mid 1990s, however, revealed the Karian name of Kaunos, Khibide. 95 This initial appears on some of the coins suggesting that the mint was in Kaunos. Armed with this insight, the interpretation of the pyramidal figure on the reverse likewise seems clear – it is probably a depiction of the holy stone, the baitylos.96

A number of coins from Seleukia depict the sanctuary of Zeus Kasios in northern Syria [fig. 16]. The name of the mountain, Kasios or Hazzi, is of unknown origin. Textual fragments describing the mountain cult of the storm god maintained by the Hittite priests and including two songs, one to the ocean and one on the kingdom are known from the Hittite text corpus. It is possible that a visit including the performance of sacrifices was part of the enthronement ceremony.101 How Zeus came to take

Yet to whom was the sanctuary dedicated, and what did the stone symbolize? Was it built as a heroon, and if so, who was the hero? One suggestion may be the Basileus Kaunios, perhaps the mythological founder of the city, King Kaunos.97 The title is well known from several inscriptions. What is interesting in this connection is that he shared a sanctuary together with Ertemi Diler 1995. Ekroth 1999, 43-56. 95 Marek & Frei 1997. 96 Konuk 1998b. On the term baitylos, Diler 2000, 54-55. 97 Only known from Hellenistic mythography, Marek 2000, 197.

Marek argues in favour of a certain convergence from Basileus Kaunios to Apollo, the main god of the city in the Hellenistic period. Marek 2000. 99 Konuk 1998a, 50, no: 117-118. 100 Cook 1965, vol. II:1, The Delphic Omphallos and Zeus, 169-193; on Zeus at Delphi 231-233. 101 Haas 1982, 117.

93

98

94

28

Figure 16. Series of coins of Seleukia in northern Syria, depicting the sanctuary of Zeus Kasios. The sanctuary is illustrated as a holy rock inside a pavilion. Cook 1965, figs. 880-884

Figure 17. The god Sharrumma, wearing a horned crown, escorts the Great King Tuthaliya IV. From the open-air sanctuary at Yazılıkaya. Seeeher 1999, fig. 138

over the function of the storm god at the Kasios Mountain is unknown. However, the later cult of Zeus Kasios is well documented: Seleukos I Nikator performed sacrifices to Zeus Kasios on top of the mountain in connection with the foundation of Seleukia Pieria. Trajan and Hadrian made a votive offering of a silver bowl and a golden bull’s horn to Zeus Kasios in AD 113, a gift, which would also have been welcomed by Teššop the storm god. Moreover, in AD 129 Hadrian climbed the mountain in the middle of the night in order to see the sunrise, but the weather changed as he reached the top, thunder and lighting swept the peak killing both the priest and the animal, which he had brought with him, but left Hadrian unharmed.102 The earliest coins depicting the sanctuary, minted during the reign of Trajan and Antonius Pius, display a holy rock framed in a baldachin, a sort of pyramid roof resting on four pillars. An eagle has landed on the roof. The eagle may also be connected with Anatolian mountain gods or with tutelary deities.103 Later, during the reigns of Commodus and Septimius Severus, the temporary notion of the sanctuary was replaced by a more regular temple front with four prostyle columns. The earliest depictions of the holy stone show a rough, uneven surface. At one place there appears to be a shallow hollow in the stone, perhaps a way of depicting the stone as a bedrock knoll.104 It is possible that the picture refers to the sacred mountain as such, the stone or the rock knoll being a

Figure 18. The Luwian hieroglyph for Greak King is a slender pyramid crowned by a simple volute, LUGAL GAL. Here it is an element in the cartouche of Tuthaliya IV from the sanctuary at Yazılıkaya, relief no. 64. Seeher 1999, 135

metaphor for the entire mountain and its status as sacred marked by the frame in the baldachin.105 If so, is not the sanctuary of Zeus Kasios on these coins from Seleukia and the depictions of the baitylos on the Kaunian coins somewhat similar? Moreover, is it possible to deduce from such a parallel that Basileus Kaunios was a local variant of Zeus, the ruler of the mountain?

Cook 1965, 982. Haas 1994, 452-454. 104 It is possible that the hollows represent cut steps as those found cut into the rock knoll on Tekerlekdağ. 102 103

105

29

Cook 1965, 983.

King is a pyramid crowned by a simple volute, LUGAL GAL. When the Great King was depicted with the horned crown it was a sign of his divinity. The divinity was contained within the horns. When the conical stone in Kaunos was depicted with horns, was it then a sign of its divinity? Are the horns the epithet that marked the stone as sacred?

SACRED BULLS Figure 19. Two illustrations of the close connection between the storm god, the mountain and the bull. On the left a drawing of a rock relief from Hanyeri, on the right a seal from Kaniş, depicting the mother of the maountains riding a bull. Işık 2000, Abb. 2-3

In Hatti-land, the Anatolian storm god was known as Taru, while in the Hittite heartlands, he was worshipped as the Hurrian Teššop. He is often depicted balancing on a mountain peak, with flashes of lightning as a storm god ought to be, but he is also accompanied by a bull [fig. 19]. It is tempting to see an etymological connection between Taru and the Greek tauros, and furthermore a connection to the Anatolian mountain range, the Taurian mountains and the bull: bull, mountain, storm god.109 The horns on the Hittite horn-crown are bull’s horns. In his seminal work on Zeus, Arthur Bernard Cook offered a body of knowledge on the relationship between the bull and the cult of Zeus, which may be summarized, in his own words, as follows:

A closer look at the baitylos of the Kaunian coins is required: the conical stone is framed in an antithetic arrangement of bunches of grapes, an ancient Near Eastern symbol of fertility, also found on contemporary Kilikian coins struck by the satrap Dadames in the 4th century BC.106 Sometimes the grapes are replaced by birds, perhaps phoenixes, used here in their capacity as divine messengers and / or indicating a chthonic level of meaning. The Figure 20. Detail of cylstone itself has what inder seal from Kültepe. The enthroned god king is — at first glance — characterised by the douappears to be some ble axe carried on the left sort of handles or shoulder. Özgüç 1965, Plsickle-shaped objects 22:67 on each side.107 It is possible that they form an old Anatolian, Hittite feature. They bring to mind the Hittite horn-crown, a headdress only used by the gods or the divine (deceased) Great King [fig. 18].108 The Luwian hieroglyph for Great

We have gone the round of the Levant together, visiting successively Egypt, Crete, Syria, and Asia Minor. Everywhere we have found traces of the same religious history — a local worship of the bull, which drew its sanctity from immemorial usage and was associated in a variety of ways first with the principal god of the district and then with the Greek Zeus or the Roman Iupiter.110 Beyond other beasts the bull was charged with Zeugungskraft, gendering power and fertilising force… The bull as an embodiment of procreative power was naturally brought into connexion with the great fertilising agencies of sunshine and storm.111

According to Folke Josephson, personal communication, there is, however, no such etymological connection between Tarhunna- /Tarhunt and the word "bull". Yet, the iconographic relationship is clear, Taru is depicted as, or in the companionship of the bull, and the onomatopoeic relationship between the name of the Hittite bull god and the Greek word for bull is close. It may be a false etymology, but one with the capacity to invoke associations. 110 Cook 1965, 633. 111 Cook 1965, 634-635. 109

Diler 2000, 61. Diler 2000, 61. 108 Van den Hout 1995. 106 107

30

This is why he, Teššop, among the Hittites may be depicted both by the bull and by lightning. The story of the principal god and the bull has numerous of ramifications and it is difficult to distinguish between the general cognitive relationships and more regional and specific characteristics of the affinities. Deciphering which aspect of Zeus, which epithet to use and relate to which cult place in the Archaic and Classical period, become, with this insight into his Anatolian origin, somewhat Figure 21. Detail of rock superfluous. For, relief from Yazılıkaya. The god Sharrumma, son of the Anatolian Zeus Hebat and Teššop, stands encompasses every on the back of a wild cat. He facet of the princiholds his double axe on his pal tutelary deity, left shoulder. Seeher 1999, he who, at times fig. 132 furious and incalculably — so that we remember his divine powers — ensures prosperity, abundance, "gendering power and fertilizing force", in the words of A.B. Cook.112 Another ancient attribute of the Hittite god-king is the double axe, which we rediscover as the attribute of Zeus Labraundos [fig. 20]. The double axe and the bull’s horns are sacred symbols in MinoanMycenaean religion.113 I suggest that the double axe as a ceremonial object long deprived of its practical use became a reference to the complete sacrifice of the bull.

Figure 22. Rock relief from Yazılıkaya. The storm god stands on the shoulders of two personified mountain gods. Behind the god is a bull carrying the divine horned crown. Seeher 1999, fig. 131

be traced through the millennia. Often they are depicted together in Hittite art – as for instance in the rock-cut reliefs in the open-air sanctuary of Yazılıkaya, which depict the Late Hittite pantheon and glorifies the Great King Tuthaliya IV [fig. 22]. The storm god with his horned crown stands on the shoulders of two personified mountain gods. Behind the storm god is a bull, carrying the divine horned crown. The inscription says: the bull calf of Teššop. Opposite the storm god Hebat, the sun goddess, is depicted, wearing a polos and standing on a feline.114 There is both a ruler and a mother of the mountains.115 In Yazılıkaya, the divine couple Teššop and Hebat, the storm god and the queen of heaven, have as their son the bull and mountain god Šarrumma. He is depicted behind his parents armed with a double-axe.

HEBAT, MATER KYBELEIA, AND ARTEMIS EFFigure 24. Schematic reconstuction of the Artemision naiskos. Bammer & Muss 1996, Abb. 38

ESIA

The old close-knit couple, the principle male and female deity, an ancient and matured pair of brother and sister, husband and wife spring from the western Anatolian landscape. This original divine couple, heaven and earth, rain and fertility can

There is a strong and clear relationship between the sun goddess, the mother goddess, the queen of heaven and mother earth. The epithets are interwoven and difficult to separate. Kubaba was originally the city-goddess of Karkemiš, the name derives from the Akkadian Kù-babu and signifies the holy or pure gate.116 As an enthroned goddess she appears together with the bull

Haas 1994, 383-392. Işık 2000. 116 Haas 1994, 406-408; Rein 1996, 224. 114

Cook 1965, 635. 113 Burkert 1985, 34-39. 112

115

31

Figure 23. Remains of the earliest Artemision at Efesos, an unroofed small naiskos. Bammer & Muss 1996, Abb. 35

and weather god. Moreover, she is also depicted with the bull calf of the sun goddess.117 She is to be found on mountain peaks, and it is from her that the Phrygian Kybele derives, the Kybele whose main sanctuary was in Pessinus, where she was worshipped in the shape of the holy stone.118 The Phrygian Mater Kybeleia was a mountain mother, a goddess closely related to holy rocks and springs. Ancient literary sources relate that her name Kybele derived from a Phrygian mountain.119 And she was worshipped in the mountains, on rock crops, with rock-cut monuments like the famous so-called façade tomb of King Midas, and in naiskoi where her epiphania in the doorway is the central theme.120 The Kybele iconography emerges from stepped altars or throne monuments, places thought to suit the goddess if she were to reveal herself. They are always connected to the rocky landscape and epiphany is the central theme, both in the mountains or in the naiskoi.121

ZEUS LABRAUNDOS AND ARTEMIS EFESIA These antecedents are the reason why Zeus Labraundos and Artemis Efesia belong together. There is both a ruler and a mother of the mountains. Therefore, by the Late Classical period, they were both depicted with large pectoral decorations, which most probably represented or consisted of scrota from their sacrificial bulls.122 Moreover, there are other resemblances, and other relations. The earliest architectonic remains of the sanctuary of Artemis at Efesos, dated to the second quarter of the 7th century BC, consist of a small temple [fig. 23-24]. It was probably roofless. Soon after, in the third quarter of the 7th century BC, this building was changed and instead of further exploring the idea of the peripteral temple, the socalled Sekos-Anlage was established as the architectonic and religious principle of the sanctuary.123 It was both a building and a naikos, an enlarged niche, in an open room or a piece of subsequently — quite lavishly (!) — staged "nature".

Haas 1994, 407. Rein 1996, 233. 119 Virgil, Aenied 3.3; 11.768; Ovid, Fasti 4.249; 4.363; Strabo 12.5.1-3; 10.3.12; Roller 1999, 66-68; Rein 1993, chapter 1, 5-27. 120 Berndt-Ersöz 2003, 212-215; Rein 1996; Roller 1999, chapter 4, 63-115; Naumann 1983. 121 One amazing site of the Phrygian Mater Kybele is a rock monument at Germanos in Bithynia. Here 117

118

an empty triangular niche, a summarily cut entrance to the rock formed a cult place of the Mater. Rein 1996, 234-337. 122 Seiterle 1979; Fleischer 1999, 605. 123 Weissl 2002, 326-327. 32

Figure 25. The sun disc inscribed in a moon sickle often accompanies the depictions of the mother of the mountains and the storm god. Cylinder seals from Kültepe, Özgüç 1965, no. 58 and 71.

The epiphany of the great goddess Artemis stood at the core of her cult at Efesos.126 The three doors visible on many of the coin depictions of the gable façade of the Artemision in Efesos refer to the idea of the cult niche.127 Recently, Winfried Held gathered evidence for this phenomenon from 19 or 20 temples in all, 13 of these from Anatolia, six from Syria, and the Quirinus temple in Rome as the possible sole Italian example.128 Held links the gable doors to a sacral architectural programme reflecting the religious policy in the Seleucid Empire. The phenomenon is spread throughout the empire, and it is attested only in temple building of the very late 4th century

The cult probably grew from the abundance of natural water. From the very onset of the temple building in the Artemision, two stream beds disturbed construction works. A pipeline for water has been found south-west of the altar — and it has been interpreted as a sort of emergency supply to the sanctuary, should the natural spring from time to time fail.124 The sanctuary was centered on a natural resource, a spring, and it was kept as an open-air sanctuary, as a sort of tamed wilderness.125

Bammer & Muss 1996, 24. See also the springchambers at the Barbar temples on Bahrain, Helmuth Andersen & Højlund 2003. Seiterle 1979, 15 suggests that the pipeline was intended to drain blood from the altar. 125 Similar to the temple of Apollo at Didyma, the Artemision temple too remained an open-air sanctuary, with a central open courtyard, instead of a roofed cella, in the midst of the grove of columns. 124

Burkert 1999, 64. Fleischer 2002, 200-202; Picard 1954, 141-143; Bammer 1972, 7. 128 Held 2005a, 139-147. 126 127

33

was initiated at least during the major festivals.134 During the sacrificial rites, the bull’s head was decorated with woollen binds, as a sign of its consecration, its holiness. The woollen binds became an iconographical shortcut for the sacrificial bull, in a similar way to other iconographical references such as a cup for a libation, a horn for divinity, or a baldachin for shrine.135 Animal sacrificing was practised where the cult statue was depicted adorned with woollen binds, that is in the Artemis cult at Efesos and Magnesia, the cult of Zeus Labraundos and even of Athena of Pergamon. Or it is possible that, the symbolic reference to the bull’s sacrifice included in the decoration with the woollen binds might have sufficed as sacrificial promise from time to time. The woollen binds hanging from Figure 26. Hellenistic the horns of the round altar with woollen bucrania on e.g. Helbinds. Berges 1996, Tafel lenistic round altars 50:3 suggest such a turn from the bloody animal sacrifice to the more symbolic reference to it [fig. 26]. Another interpretation of the wollen binds is their connection to the asylum provided by the Artemision.136 The altar of the Classical Artemision at Efesos carries as a prominent part of its sculptural decoration a double maeander frieze. Inserted in rectangular frames are depictions of flowers, geese, fish, crabs and dolphins; symbolic references to the de-

BC for the Artemision in Efesos, and otherwise from the 3rd century BC onwards.129 Held convincingly suggests that these doors, while still embedded in the idea of the divine epiphania, were used in the performance of cult theatre on the gables. This interpretation that, the gable was used as the stage where ritual dramas were performed and the deity appeared in his or her niche(?) and various myths were illustrated, also explains the presence of figures in the gables of coins depicted the Artemision in Ephesos. Moreover, it explains the reason why the depictions vary. 130 The epihania of the goddess was essential. Pausanias recounts that a curtain was placed in front of the Artemis statue in Efesos, covering her magnificent presence — until the right moment.131 Her epiphany was a blessing! The celestial powers or capacity of the ancient Artemis cult should however not be forgotten. In many of the Hittite cylinder seals from Kültepe, the sun is included in the depictions. However, the sun disc is always inscribed in the sickle of the moon [fig. 25]. It is as if the cyclic dichotomy, day-night, sun-moon is omnipresent. The sun brings along the moon, the moon the sun. Reflecting a similar cyclic day-and-night relationship of the goddess is the ritual of disappearance and reappearance known from the festival of the Samian Hera. Hera of Samos is a goddess closely related to this Greek-Anatolian cult of Artemis Efesia, Magnesia and Sardiane, and the Phrygian Mater Kybeleia. She was worshipped in Samos in the shape of an only roughly cut cult image, on coins she is depicted wearing a polos, and wrapped in a tight garment.132 Hera disappeared from the temple during the night as a result of the nefarious activity of Karian pirates, she was found at daybreak eating breakfast at the beach, and was restored to the temple.133

Burkert 1985, 55-59. Seiterle 1999. 136 Fleischer 2002, 208-215. Seiterle 1999, 251, writes on the potency of the wool: "Die Griechen glaubten, dass der Wolle allgemein — ohne Zweifel wegen ihrer natürlichen, reinigen Kraft — einer kathartische, lustrierende, heilende (heiligende) und allgemein eine apotropäische Wirkkraft innewohnt: Mysten tragen in Elesis und andernarts einen wiessen Wollfaden and Hand- und Fussgelenk. Wolle wird bei der Geburt eines Mädschens an die Haustür geheftet. Wollfäden weden zur Abwehr böser Geister um Heiligtümer, Bäume und Quellen gespannt." Part of this bringing of unprepared wool to the sanctuary may be connected with the sanctuary as a centre of textile production. Gleba 2008. 134 135

At the centre of the Artemis cult was the animal sacrifice on the large altar. The sacrifice of bulls

Bammer 1972, 42; Rügler 1988, 128; Rumscheid 1994, 13-15. 130 Fleischer 2002, 200-208. 131 Paus. 5.12.4 132 The cult image of the Samian Hera is depicted on coins from the 1st century BC to the 3rd century AD; cf LIMC, Hera no: 154a, 155, 156, 160. 133 Burkert 1979, 129-130. 129

34

left hand he carries a long spear. He is bearded and wears a pectoral scrota decoration while the lower part of his body is wrapped in a himation. Normally, Zeus Labraundos is either depicted in a Late Classical contrapposto form, wearing a chiton with himation, no scrota, but a double axe in the right hand resting against the shoulder and a spear in his left. 142 Or as a somewhat xoanon-like figure, often with the lower part wrapped tightly in a netpatterned garment, while his abdomen is decorated with scrota. His arms are bent at the elbows and he keeps his double axe in his right hand, the spear in his left. Woollen binds hang to the ground from his wrists. The Zeus on the Tegea relief seems to be an in-between version of the two. Artemis Efesia is depicted in this achaistic xoanonlike appearance quite late, on coins from the 2nd century BC [fig. 28].143 The earliest sculptures may be dated to the 1st century BC. Therefore, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae suggests that Artemis borrowed her garment, or at least her "breasts" from Zeus Labraundos. However, perhaps it is more pertinent to emphasize the close relationship between the deities of western Anatolia that appear as each other’s reflections.144

Figure 27. The Hekatomnid relief from the Athena Alea sanctuary at Tegea. The relief depicts Zeus Labraundos flanked by Idrieus and Ada. Mid 4th century BC. © Trustees of the British Museum

ity.137 The motif of the double meander with such inserted references to the deity is also found in the frieze blocks discovered near the oikos building at Labraunda.138 Here the maeander is decorated with a double axe and ears. Double or multiple maeander-like patterns are frequently used in the frames of Phrygian shrines, as for instance on the Kybele throne Büyük Kapı Kaya, at Emre Gölü, or on the little naiskos stelai known from both the Phrygian heartlands and Miletos.139 These naiskoi frame the epiphany of the goddess. Epiphany is also the central theme on the famous Hekatomnid relief found in the Athena Alea sanctuary at Tegea [fig. 27].140 The relief, dated to around the middle of the 4th century BC, represents one of the earliest known depictions of Zeus Stratios Labraundos.141 Here Zeus is depicted as the god blessing the Hekatomnid ruling couple, Idrieus and Ada, his divinity is stressed by his size and by their adoration. He has a double axe in his right hand, resting its shaft against his shoulder. In his

JOINT SANCTUARIES In Sardis, there was a joint sanctuary of Zeus Polieus and Artemis.145 The peak sanctuary of Zeus Karios in the Tmolus was probably visited as a station on the annual procession from the Artemision in Efesos to the sanctuary of Artemis at Sardis. The cult images of Zeus Labraundos and Artemis Efesia were of the same kind, and their Anatolian origins followed similar or parallel paths.146 142 Below,

chapter four. Fleischer 1973, 1-137. 144 Burkert 1979, 130; Gunter 1995, 59-60. 145 Buckler & Robinson 1932, no. 8 , 12, lines 133134, (p. 19); Hanfmann & Ramaga 1978, 84: Gunter 1995, 60. 146 Riet van Bremen has suggested a double cult, a Zeus Hekate worship, at the Hekate sanctuary at Lagina. Zeus seems to play an important role in the mythological portion of the frieze from the sanctuary. Paper presented at the Hellenistic Karia Conference, Oxford 29 June – 2 July, 2006. At Loryma, the two oldest sanctuaries are the Apollo sanctuary at the western shores of the bay near a huwaši rock, and, probably, a Kybele shrine in the shape of a rock-cut niche with a terrace in front in a valley north of the settlement site. Paper presented at the Hellenistic Karia Conference, Oxford 143

Bammer & Muss 2002, 48-53. Gunter 1995, 49-51. 139 Berndt-Ersöz 2003, fig. 26; Haspel, 1971, fig. 522; Rein 1996, 230-232; Mellink 1983. 140 Waywell 1993; Gunter 1995, 57. 141 Fleischer 1973, 315-324; Gunter 1995, 57-60. 137

138

35

world, to embed it in Karian religious and political traditions. The key behind the success of the newcomers as dynasts was indeed the active use and establishment of a common ground.

In many ways it would be quite natural if there was also a cult of Artemis in Labraunda. The find of an Early Hellenistic gem, and a Late Classical or Hellenistic stele fragment with a depiction of Artemis as the hunting goddess, reaching for an arrow in her quiver, indicate an Artemis-Zeus connection here.147

The rest of this work is based on this assertion that, the Hekatomnid dynasts appointed themselves rulers of a Karia, which perhaps had never before regarded itself as a cultural or ethnic entity. They did so by referring to traditions, habits, ancient rituals and cosmological order. And in that they acted as aristocrats.

Above the terraces of the sanctuary at Labraunda, lies a huge rock knoll with niches and steps cut into its otherwise rough surface. The knoll is split as if by a stroke of lightning. Directly below Figure 28. Coin depiction this rock the sacred of the Efesian Artemis, spring wells up. Can minted under Claudius. The Zeus Labraundos woollen binds which are attached at the wrist of the have been the ruler statue seem somehow fasof the mountain? tened to the plinth. Before the HekaFleischer 1973, Tafel 54B tomnid re-staging of the sanctuary, he was worshipped in this rural setting, in a grove of plane trees, on the fertile, shadowy, yet dramatic mountainside. Here, he ruled via his epiphanies in furious thunderstorms, deeply rooted in the perception of a sacred, animated and blessed landscape.148

Identity and historic reference The shaping of a people, the formation of a national identity through the worship of a common religious tradition and practice, an already shared iconographic basis, this was the Hekatomnid strategy: To embed the dynasty and its powerful offices in line with general Karian perceptions of the

29 June – 2 July, 2006. Brody 2001, 105-107, relates of a double or interrelated cult of Zeus and Aphrodite in Aphrodisias. Also the xoanon cult image of an Anatolian Aphrodite in Aphrodisias and her general mother goddess epithets and attributes (lions, water) confirm a Karian origin, Fleischer 1973, 146-184; Brody 2001. 147 According to Gunter the stele fragment "offers evidence that Artemis was worshipped at the sanctuary of Zeus Labraundeus". Gunter 1995, 42-43. 148 Below, chapter four. 36

CHAPTER THREE building monumental royal tombs, that both work through the claims of territorial rights — the royal tomb overlooking the plain — and through claims of ancestry: the tomb by itself includes an eternal reference to the past, to a grand there-and-then, the tomb in the landscape underlines the presence of the aristocratic authority, and includes a reference to living in the here-and-now.151

RULER CULT AND TOMB CULT — A REASSESSMENT OF THE MAUSSOLLEION AT HALIKARNASSOS

In another dimension, aristocrats bridge the gap as mediators between this world and the divine, between men and gods. This relationship is fed by the link between aristocrats and cosmos, as a consequence of primogeniture and being first in rank. The archetypical Near Eastern nobleman or king functions — although the intensity and visibility may vary — as tutelary deity, securing prosperity, fertility, and good days in the land that he commands. Just as the gods secure — if properly treated — these good days. Or rather, the king acts on behalf of the god(s), in practice, he is the creator of cosmos, law and order. The chief instrument of the divine, legitimized by its past, its ancestry:

Aristocracy and ancestors — creating a dynasty Aristocracy is built on the notion of tradition.149 Aristocracy relies on ancestors, on origins, on heritage, on family, on continuity and stability. References to a long past — a historical legitimacy of perpetuity — create and conserve the hierarchy and closely knit together the relationship between ancestors and living peers in an intricate play with the chronological flow of time. Operating within a vacuum of past and present, any linear perception of time as something that passes, of history as sequences of past events, past lives, is severely challenged. The qualities of being first, of seniority, relate aristocrats to ancestral founders and creators of cosmos. It is this association with cosmological origins that legitimizes primacy and aristocratic position. Not only are aristocrats beings belonging to another category and capacity, they also live in other realms, they both bridge and maintain the gap between the here-and-now and the there-andthen.

It is no coincidence that both heaven and the emperor are high and far away, for at its heart the legitimacy and the activation of political authority rest on the manipulation of an awareness of Other worlds and of Other beings. Such Others are effective and essential, because they alone have direct access to origins, to that which is truly authentic, to that which sets the standards, to that which is, by definition, superior to anything that follows, since that which follows, including the life of the house or of the polity in the here-and-now, can be at best only an imperfect copy of the archetypical original.152

Ancient origin is vital for establishing the indisputable status of the aristocracy. A significant way of building tradition and origin is to establish dynastic tombs. These are the key monuments in the constitution of power and legitimizing primacy. They command territory as true landmarks, and they inspire obedience and respect. With its reference to the past, the monumental tomb serves as evidence of the dynasty's legitimacy.150 Origins and age are denoting legitimacy. A successful method of establishing a dynasty is by

149 150

In this environment, where being a nobleman or aristocrat is closely related to origin, to ancestry, the crucial state monument of superiority and political agenda is the ruler's tomb. It is (often) within this framework that the aristocratic aspects of being king or nobleman are most explicitly expressed. It is by a good death that the ruler is closest to the divine. The royal funeral forms an opportunity to communicate directly with Bradley 2000; Tilley 1994. Both discuss the creation of a sacred landscape. See also Colvin 1991 concerning the role of the dynast's tomb in territorial policy. 152 Helms 1998, 179. 151

Helms 1998, 3-13; Cannadine & Price 1987. Carstens 2002a, 402-406. 37

Figure 29. Standard of Ur, on top the so-called peace side, depicting the king as benefactor, en. Below the so-called war side, depicting the king as warrior, lugal. © Trustees of the British Museum

the gods, as if the gates between this world and another open in order to receive him. Likewise, the monumental royal tomb constitutes a platform for displaying royalty and political ideology, and it often borrows elements from the architecture and layout of sacred buildings and complexes.

Maussolleion in its multiple capacities, both as the royal tomb, as a focal point in the layout of a new capital, and as a place for commemoration or even the performance of the cult of the dead (and deified) ruler and thereby the dynasty, and as an expressive link between ideology, power structures and iconography of the Near East, ancient Anatolian traditions, Persian supremacy and the Hellenic world.

This chapter consists of a discussion of the contexts of the grand royal tomb of Maussollos, the 38

The chapter forms a survey of the royal and dynastic tombs that construct the ideological, as well as archaeological background and context of the ruler’s tomb at Halikarnassos. Firstly, the Hittite and Persian traditions and practices of ruler cult and tomb cult are analysed. Secondly, an overview of dynastic tombs in western Anatolia — the land of tumuli — is included. A series of quite individual perhaps heavily Persian related aristocratic tombs in western Anatolia is treated as a sort of collated yet differentiated phenomenon. Thirdly, the Lykian forerunners, the Lykian heroons are investigated. The chapter concludes with a contextual analysis of the Maussolleion.

Divine kingship I – Hittite traditions for tomb cult and ruler cult The ancient Mesopotamian perception of royalty seems to have included the king being entrusted a divine mandate to secure cosmos in his kingdom.153 By the end of the Akkadian period, this perception had developed into a kind of deification of the king, the king fulfilled the role as tutelary deity, securing the safety of the land.154 Kingship encompassed two key concepts, lugal, the ruler's role as warrior, as the mighty male protector of the kingdom, and en, the ruler's role as priest, as mediator between man and god, responsible for fertility of the land. This duality is illustrated on the so-called Standard of Ur, a wooden box decorated on two sides, an artistic masterpiece in inlaid shell, lapis lazuli and red limestone [fig. 29]. The standard was found in Tomb PG779 in the Royal Cemetery of Ur, and it can be dated to the end of the third millennium BC. While the function of the standard is questioned, its ideological message is evident: the one side of the panel is devoted to a depiction of a battle and its consequences in three registers, where the king is found in the central position in the upper register, illustrating his potential as the warrior. The other side depicts a cultic banquet where the fruits of the land are presented to the almighty king in gratitude.155

Figure 30. Plan of Hattuša. Seeher 1999

In the Old Hittite Kingdom, it is only after his death that the king is truly deified.156 Yet, the kingdom is sacred.157 At his enthronement, the king is transferred from the profane to the sacral sphere, resting on the lap of the throne-goddess.158 The king acts as high priest; through this office he is, if not divine, then godlike, mediating between god

ideological/political setting as images of the sovereignty of the king and fertility of the land. Stronach 1990. See below, 76. 156 P. Carstens (1999) argues that a deification not only takes place at the death of a king or queen, rather an investigation of the iconography of tomb stelai from Syria compared with other depictions of death cult display striking similarities between the adoration of the dead and the typical adoration scenes between man and god. She points to the fact that the cult of the dead shares its practice with the cult of the gods – the worshipper seeks the presence of the deceased / the god, and the sacrifices are performed in order to evoke this presence. Also Van den Hout (1995) has challenged this traditional view by pointing to evidence of a living yet deified Great King. 157 Van den Hout 1994. 37-38. Haas 1994, "Das Königtum", 181-219; Beckman 2002. 158 Haas 1994, 191.

Haas 1994, 181-182. See also Zettler 1998, 6. Van den Hout 1995, 546 with references. Tinney 1998, 26-28 155 Hansen 1998, 45-47. Hansen also points to a carved alabaster vase from the late 4th millennium BC, with a scene quite consonant with the banquet panel of the Standard of Ur. Neo-Assyrian royal gardens and Persian paradeisoi belong to a similar 153

154

39

rial character, possessing considerable property and personnel, and were or could be sacred places with special (economic) privileges." While the (Divine) Stone House can be translated as tomb, the hegur was not necessarily a memorial or funerary monument: "A hegur was in origin a mountain peak which within Anatolian religion often acquired divine status and may in some cases have been thought to be an appropriate or even favorite place for a funerary shrine."164

TUTHALIYA IV — THE SELF-ASSERTION OF A GREAT KING At Hattuša, two sites in particular have been claimed to possess funerary character, that is, Room B at Yazılıkaya, the open-air sanctuary east of the city, and the Nişantepe outcrop in the Upper City [fig. 30].165 Room B at Yazılıkaya, a trapezoid un-roofed rock-chamber richly adorned with reliefs depicting gods of the Underworld and the God Sharrumma escorting the Great King Tuthaliya IV (after his death?), is traditionally assumed to be a memorial to Tuthaliya IV (c. 1240-1210 BC), and erected by his son Suppiluliyama [fig. 31].166 However, van den Hout outlines alternative suggestions for the specific nature and identification of these complexes: Tuthaliya planned and constructed Room B at Yazılıkaya, while only a now lost statue and the caption for the statue, relief no. 83, was added by Suppiluliyama [fig. 32].167 Rectangular niches in the rock-walls (two in the western, and one in the eastern wall)168 could have served as ossuaria and indeed the reliefs depicting and referring to the netherworld fit with an interpretation of the complex as the Stone House or tomb of the Great King.169 The Nişantepe was a

Figure 31. Plan of the open-air sanctuary at Yazılıkaya. Seeher 1999, fig. 125

and man.159 His charismatic power derives from the close connection between the gods and the king; he acts on their behalf, and as the son of the weather god and sun goddess, he protects the land and secures cosmos.160 When the king dies, cosmos is threatened. The death of the king is referred to as "the king becomes god", and in order to secure a satisfying transition and avoid chaos among the survivors, a complicated royal funerary ritual, lasting 14 days structures the event.161 Archaeological evidence of royal Hittite burials is sparse, and securely identified royal tombs have not yet been found. However, the royal funerary rituals tell of a stone house — presumably a substantial monument of some size and therefore likely to have survived — where the cremated remains were placed on the sixth day of the funeral.162 Other textual fragments speak of two building types connected with the royal burials and the commemoration of the dead ruler, namely, the (Divine) Stone House and the hegur. In a recent article, Theo van den Hout discusses this evidence and its implications for the interpretation of the few archaeological remains.163 He concludes on the basis of the textual evidence that, both buildings "are or can be institutions of a funerary or memo-

Van den Hout 2002, 86-87. This definition follows the description of the hegur, initially investigated by F. Imperati (1977) 165 Neve 1992, 323-333. Based on a close reading of the funerary ritual, Börker-Klähn suggests that a royal necropolis was placed in the Lower City, in an area hitherto uninvestigated by archaeologists and therefore not found (1995, 86 et passim). 166 Neve 1989, 349; 1993, 62-63; Bittel et al. 1975, 256; Seeher 1999, 143-151; Van den Hout 2002, 77. 167 Neve 1989, 349-350. On the connection between statue and relief no: 83, Neve 1989, 353 and Pl. 65:2. 168 Bittel et al. 1975, 44-45. 169 Van den Hout 2002, 80. See also Bittel et al. 1975, 255-256; Neve 1989, 352 rejects the interpretation of these niches as ossuaria, mainly because the chamber was unroofed. 164

Haas 1994, 196. Haas 1994, 189. 161 Haas 1994, 219-229; Van den Hout 1994. 162 Haas 1994, 222. At the cemetery at Osmankayası, probably belonging to Hattuša, remains of animal sacrifices resembling the descriptions in the Royal funerary ritual were found, yet no monumental building structures accompany these finds. Bittel et al. 1958, 60-80. 163 Van den Hout 2002. 159

160

40

tles of Kadesh (c. 1299/1291BC), was by its position closely inspired by Near Eastern, Mesopotamian religious practices and rituals of royalty. The close relationship to Kizzuwatna was further sealed by the marriage between the Great King Hattusili III (c. 1265–1235 BC) and the daughter of a Hurrian priest, Puduhepa.171 Political bonds to Egypt were officially established in 1259 BC when a treaty was signed between Ramses II and Hattusili III, securing peace, prosperity and mutual protection against Assyria. Also this friendship was further sealed by marriage, this time between a daughter of Hattusili and Pudehepa and the Pharaoh himself 13 years later.172 Tuthalija IV, son of King Hattusili III and Puduhepa, strengthened close ties to Kizzuwatna by including the Hurrian pantheon in the open-air sanctuary at Yazılıkaya. Furthermore, it seems that Tuthalija was greatly inspired by the Egyptian and Mesopotamian perceptions of royalty.173 During his reign, a range of building activities took place at Hattuša, cults were reorganised, the Upper City was extended and new temples and shrines built. One contemporary source refers to Hattusa as the "Hattuša-Tuthalija city",174 and K. Bittel viewed the reorganisation of Hattusa as a new foundation of the city that included a close relationship between the residence of the Great King and that of the gods, the temples.175 One of the reorganised complexes initiated, if not completed by Tuthalija IV is the area at Temple 5, immediately inside the King's Gate [fig. 33]. North-east of the temple, three minor buildings, Houses A, B, and C were built inside a common precinct.176 A statue base and a relief depicting an armed warrior with the horned crown and the hieroglyphic inscription identifying him as Tuthalija IV were found in House A [fig. 34]. Peter Neve suggests that House A was built as a shrine for the divine king, whereas the two other houses were shrines for his grandfather Mursili II and his father Hattusili III respectively. The complex at Temple 5 was thus a place for ancestor cult.177

Figure 32. The base of the statue of Tuthaliya IV and its caption, Seeher 1999, figs. 136 & 140

hegur, a memorial built for Tuthaliya IV by Suppiluliyama, but probably envisaged and designated by Tuthaliya himself, as part of his vision for a new layout of the Upper City.170 That two monumental complexes can be attributed to Tuthaliya's death and deification, while we are left without a clue as to similar shrines for other Hittite Great Kings may not be surprising: Hittite religion was everything but unitary, just as the Hittite Empire comprised numerous states and peoples. Indeed, the multiplicity of divinities and practices, the policy of religious tolerance, was probably part of what we would call the tactics behind empire. In particular, the Hurrian religious life leaked into or infiltrated Hittite religion increasingly during the Hittite Empire. Kizzuwatna, the Hurrian kingdom of south-eastern Anatolia, already an ally of the Hittite Great King at the bat-

Klengel 2002, 72-73. Klengel 2002, 78. 173 Neve 1993, 5, 31; Van den Hout 1995, 573. 174 KUB 38.23, see Haas 1994, 621; Van den Hout 1995, 572-573. K. Bittel suggested the Friedrichstadt district in Berlin as an analogy (1984), 15. 175 Bittel 1984, 15, 26; inspired by Güterbock 1967, 80 note 12. 176 Neve 1993, 35-36. 177 Neve 1993, 35-36; Klengel 1999, 293-294 ; van den Hout 1995, 571-572; 2002, 89. 171

172

Van den Hout 2002, 78-79. Neve 1996, 51-52. On Tuthaliya IV's alternation of Hattusa into a metropolis and temple city, see Neve 1989, 345 with references; se also Van den Hout 1995, 572-573.

170

41

celebrating the (other) gods of the Hurrian-Hittite pantheon. He set the stage with himself as godking through the deliberate employment of a royal ideological iconography.

Divine kingship II — Persian traditions for ruler cult and tomb cult When Cyrus the Great died in 530 BC, he was buried in a unique, built tomb, placed in the outskirts of the royal gardens at the untypical palace precincts of Pasargadae, an unprotected and unfortified residence in the midst of the Persian heartland.179 The tomb stood c. 11 m high on a stepped podium lifted above the plain, framed in the fertile grove, clearly visible and majestic [fig. 35]. It was built in well-fitted isodomic ashlar masonry in a white limestone, with smooth and delicate carving.180 Raised on a rectangular stepped platform of six steps, the tomb proper formed a shrine, with a rectangular chamber and a minor vestibule immediately inside the double doors. The lintel above the door was decorated with a kyma reversa and a fascia with horn-like upturned finals, while the gable above the entrance was decorated with a rosette disc in the apex [fig. 36]. An almost solid gabled roof constructed rather inelegantly as regular masonry courses with diagonal outer faces constituted the roof of the tomb. In order to relieve the weight on the central part of the chamber's ceiling, the central area of the course above the ceiling slabs was left empty. Thus, seen from the inside of the chamber, the ceiling was flat while the outside was gabled.181 The monument constituted part of the new royal residence at Pasargadae, initiated and created according to Cyrus the Great's wishes for a monumentalization of the Persian Empire at its core. The palace structures and the gardens should be read in this light, and the tomb was intended to

Figure 33. Plan of the area inside the King's Gate. Seeher 1999, fig. 77

The horned crown indicated that Tuthalija was divine and therefore dead when the relief was placed in the shrine. Yet, van den Hout has recently challenged the traditional perception of Hittite royal iconography in a combined study of textual sources and iconography of Great Kings of the 13th century BC.178 His major conclusion is that the horned crown may have been used by a living king and that indeed not only (but in particular) Tuthalija IV behaved and was worshipped as a tutelary deity in Hattuša. In sum, Tuthalija IV reorganised the city of Hattuša, and he secured his own position in the layout of that city as living and being amongst and on peer level with the gods. He established Room B at Yazılıkaya as well as the Nisantepe complex for his own commemoration, and he further Figure 34. The relief deestablished an anpicting an armed warrior cestor cult complex with a horned crown, at Temple 5. AlTuthaliya IV, found inside though still alive, House A. Seeher 1999, fig. 78 the Great King was depicted with the epithets of the gods; his residence was amongst that of the gods, and his Divine Stone House was inside an open-air sanctuary 178

Pasargadae as a Gesamtkunstwerk, Stronach 1990, 174-176; Briant 2002, 85-86. 180 Stronach 1978, 24-43; Nylander 1970, 91-102; on the stone type, Nylander 1970, 29. 181 Contemporary more elegantly gabled roofed chamber tombs are known from Lydia, Karia, Lykia and Cyprus, either constructed by slabs on edge or as corbelled vaults. Lydia: Özgen & Öztürk 1996, 48-49. Karia: Carstens 1999, 82-89; Bean & Cook 1955, 112-115; Bean & Cook 1957, 93. Lykia: Mellink et al. 1998; Mellink 1971; 249-251; Mellink 1973, 296-297. Cyprus: Carstens 2006a.. 179

Van den Hout 1995. 42

be that of the founding father of a new ruling house, the Achaemenids. Pasargadae was more than a residence; rather it was a model of the empire, a metaphor of the Great King. The garden and the buildings within the garden were a political statement, operating within the old Mesopotamian notion of the king as tutelary deity. 182 Here the king wandered the fruitful pastures of his gardens, as he ruled his kingdom, he sat in the outdoor throne in a central vista of power; he resided peacefully within the perfect, not even walled precincts of his residence; a metaphor of the world with the almighty king at its centre. Placed in the midst of the here-and-now and the there-and-then, the Gesamt-kunstwerk at Pasargadae, the garden capital,183 was on the one hand rooted in the ancient Near Eastern tradition of empire, while on the other also pointed to the future potential of a new Achaemenid Empire, over the expansion of which Cyrus had presided.

Figure 35. The tomb of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae. Stronach 1978, Plate 21

By incorporating a wide range of different craftsmen and different styles and sources of inspiration in the construction of the Pasargadae cosmos, the capacity and the potential of this flexible Achaemenid Empire were expressed. The blend of different styles and techniques should not be read as the total lack of a unitary cultural expression. Rather, it should be seen as a deliberately eclectic style, consisting of a synthesis of Greek, Anatolian and Iranian elements – mirroring the Achaemenid dynasty as resting on Greek, Anatolian and Iranian traditions.184

Figure 36. The tomb of Cyrus the Great, drawing. Stronach 1978, fig. 13

The consolidator, Darius I, however, chose another expression, another platform for the establishment of a tradition of empire. With Darius, the royal burial was moved from the palace gardens to Naqsh-I Rustam, a rural and remote site 4.8 km north-west of Persepolis [fig. 37]. The site was not chosen at random, or on account of the rock-formations that allowed for a sequence of façade tombs to be cut [fig. 38]. Rather, the rocks at Naqsh-I Rustam were part of an ancient open-air sanctuary that may have grown around a spring or stream at the far western toe of the cliffs.187 A large Elamite relief (c. 2.5 m in height by c. 7 m in length) that was visible at the time of Darius depicted an adoration scene with seated deities and standing worshippers; however, preserved details are sparse. It may have been carved sometime during the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. 188 It was later obliterated by the cutting of a Sassanian relief of Bahram II. The tomb of Darius was the

THE ROYAL TOMBS AT NAQSH-I RUSTAM AND KUH-E RAHMAT The tomb of Cyrus was neither repeated, nor even referred to by his descendants in the Achaemenid dynasty.185 Pasargadae as a whole remained a unique monumental fingerprint of the great expander of the Achaemenid Empire.186 The site was kept as a memorial for the first great conqueror and as such the tomb was visited by Alexander the Great, to be admired by his heir in spirit. Stronach 1990; 1994. Stronach 1989, 483. 184 Stronach 1978, 39-43; see also Dusinberre 2003 on the new polyethnic elite of Achaemenid Sardis, expressed in an eclectic style. 185 On the relationship between Darius and his predecessors, see Waters 2004. 186 Stronach 1978, 295. 182 183

187 188

43

Schmidt 1970, 12. Schmidt 1970, 121.

Figure 38. Plan of the royal necropolis at Naqsh-I Rustam. Tomb I is the tomb of Darius, and while it is securely identified the attribution of the remaining three tombs have been disputed. Schmidt (1970) suggested Tomb IV as the tomb of Darius II (423404 BC), Tomb III as Artaxerxes I (465-423 BC) and tomb II as Xerxes I (486-465 BC). Calmeyer (1975) has suggested Tomb IV to be the tomb of Artaxerxes I, and Tomb III as the tomb of Darius II. Kleiss & Calmeyer 1975, Abb. 11.

divine mandate to rule the world.190 It appears as if this main scenery is taking place on a large platform, which is lifted high and carried by two tiers of men all carrying the platform high above their heads. The whole tableau is framed and overlooked by spear- bearers flanking the scenery. The middle register, cut as a façade of a large building, is interpreted as a representation of the Royal Palace at Persepolis. It has been suggested that the scenery of the top register may actually take place inside the palace. Whether this implies that the King on High carried by his subjects was a real action performed as a ritual of royalty at the Achaemenid court has been debated, yet, it seems quite irrelevant to me.191 If even a mere symbol, the scenery quite suffices to draw a picture of a tamed, subjugated, and loyal population.

Figure 37. Plan of Persepolis and environs. Schmidt 1970, fig. 1.

first to adorn the rock façades at Naqsh-I Rustam. Following a similar pattern — a standardized iconography of empire and the King on High, his rock cut tomb was to be repeated by his descendants for at least a century, perhaps until Alexander the Great conquered the empire. The Achaemenid house was united here, and kinship was celebrated as one of the bearing principles of the dynasty. Darius’ tomb is the only one of the royal tombs that carries an inscription, which identifies its owner [fig. 39]. The text gives a detailed account of Darius' achievements, featuring him as the Great King and complementing the ideological message of the reliefs adorning the tomb façade.189 The façade is organised in three panels or registers, laid out in a cruciform plan. The lower register is blank, the middle is decorated as an architectural façade of a building with four slender engaged columns and a central doorway leading to the tomb chambers cut into the rock-massive. The top register carries the main scenery, the Great King stands on a stepped platform before a fire altar [fig. 40]. Ahuramazda hovers above and between the king and the altar, bestowing his approval of the Great King's position. The inscription relates that the Great King was appointed by Ahuramazda with a

Subjugation and annexation The platform carriers draw a strong and clear picture of the subjects' voluntary support of the Great King. It relates the story of hordes of different peoples all united under the subjugation of the king, they support his position; indeed, they make it possible. They carry him. Without them there would be no King on High. Ahuramazda blesses him, the aristocracy guard him and the people carry him.

190A 189

detailed discussion of the religious meaning of the relief: Boyce 1982, 112-116. 191 Schmidt 1970, 81. Root 1979, 153-161.

Schmidt 1970, 81-83. 44

Figure 40. Detail of the upper relief panal of Darius' tomb.

they bore tribute to me; what was said to them by me, that they did; my law -- that held them firm; Media, Elam, Parthia, Aria, Bactria, Sogdiana, Chorasmia, Drangiana, Arachosia, Sattagydia, Gandara, Sind, Amyrgian Scythians, Scythians with pointed caps, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Sardis, Ionia, Scythians who are across the sea, Skudra, petasoswearing Ionians, Libyans, Ethiopians, men of Maka, Carians. Darius the King says: Ahuramazda, when he saw this earth in commotion, thereafter bestowed it upon me, made me king; I am king. By the favor of Ahuramazda I put it down in its place; what I said to them, that they did, as was my desire. If now you shall think that "How many are the countries which King Darius held?" look at the sculptures (of those) who bear the throne, then shall you know, then shall it become known to you: the spear of a Persian man has gone forth far; then shall it become known to you: a Persian man has delivered battle far indeed from Persia. Darius the King says: This which has been done, all that by the will of Ahuramazda I did. Ahuramazda bore me aid, until I did the work. May Ahuramazda protect me from harm, and my royal house, and this land: this I pray of Ahuramazda, this may Ahuramazda give to me! O man, that which is the command of Ahuramazda, let this not seem repugnant to you; do not leave the right path; do not rise in rebellion.193

Figure 39. The façade of the tomb of Darius

Margaret Cool Root speaks of an imperial vision, of a metaphor of royal power.192 This metaphor has the Great King as central figure; personifying all there is to say of the Achaemenid Empire, its roots in ancient Near Eastern traditions, its cultural and political heritage. It is crystallized in a political iconography, a series of metaphors and references shaped in the ideological iconography of Achaemenid state art. And the Great King is the emblem of the empire. The inscription on the tomb speaks of the people that constitute the empire: A great god is Ahuramazda, who created this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Darius king, one king of many, one lord of many. I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage. Darius the King says: By the favor of Ahuramazda these are the countries which I seized outside of Persia; I ruled over them; 192

http://www.caissoas.com/CAIS/Languages/aryan/inscription_of_ dariush_grt_rstm.htm (accessed 06-01-2009) 193

Root 1979, 161. 45

traditions, represented by the relief and the spring, and utilized them to form a link backwards into a mythological ancestry that served to emphasize the cosmological relationships of the Achaemenids themselves. Then follows a major change: the Royal tombs were drawn towards Persepolis to the rocky outcrops at Kuh-e Rhamat where three tombs were cut [fig. 41]. Or rather, one tomb was left unfinished, abandoned because of the poor quality of the rock. Here presumably Artaxerxes II (404-358 BC) and Artaxerxes III (359-338/7 BC) were buried.200 It has been suggested that the topographical position of the Maussolleion at Halikarnassos may be partly responsible for this change. In an article in 1989, Hubertus von Gall suggests that, in fact Maussollos inspired the moving of the royal burial place from distant Naqsh-I Rustam to Kuh-E Rhamat adjacent to the palace. It was during Artaxerxes II's reign that Maussollos' new residence city, Halikarnassos was planned and his royal tomb, the Maussolleion was constructed, in the midst of the city, overlooking the agora and towering over the other sanctuaries in the city. Yet, the distance from Persepolis to coastal Karia was large, and a remote satrap residing in the absolute western outskirts of the vast empire may not have inspired the Great King's ideological decisions.201 Rather, the close proximity between palace and dynastic tomb may be seen as the aristocratic need to position the living dynast in the frame of ancestry and tradition. Between or amidst a here-andnow and a there-and-then is where the aristocracy resides. The position of the house of the living visà-vis the house of the dead expresses this cohe-

Figure 41. Plan of the position of the tombs at KuhE Rhamat. Kleiss & Calmeyer 1975, Abb. 1

Probably the tomb was planned and executed quite early in Darius’ reign, certainly before 500 BC.194 It was one of the key monuments in the establishment of the Achaemenid iconography,195 and a series of five similar rock-cut façade tombs were to mark the Royal tombs of the dynasty. In contrast with Cyrus' tomb in Pasargadae, the tombs at Naqsh-I Rustam were not part of a palace architecture, rather they were placed in a confined space on their own — and as an addition to, or using the already established sanctity of the site. Four tombs were carved in the cliffs at Naqsh-I Rustam, all following the architectural and iconographic pattern established in Darius' tomb. There are no indicators as to which tomb belongs to which Great King, but it is generally agreed that apart from Darius, also Xerxes I (486-465 BC), Artaxerxes I (465-423 BC), and Darius II (423-404 BC) were buried here.196 Darius I most probably built the Achaemenid tower opposite the cliff as well, perhaps to contain the royal fire of the dynasty.197 And two fire altars were cut in the rock c. 150 m north-northwest of the end of the cliff, the one larger than the other, indicating a hierarchy between two deities.198 During the Achaemenid period, a cistern was built in a corner in the western part of the rock face, perhaps as an architectonic frame of the ancient Elamite sacred spring.199 The emergent Achaemenid dynasty may have included the ancient Elamite cultic

Calmeyer 1975. According to Schmidt 1970 and Gall 1989, 504, the southernmost tomb (Schmidt tomb V) was cut for Artaxerxes II. Gall 1989, 506 questions Calmeyer's identification of the unfinished tomb as a first attempt by Artaxerxes II. Rather, he supports Schmidt’s suggestion that the tomb was intended for Darius III, Calmeyer 1975, 110-110; Schmidt 1970, 107. 201 Gall also points to an ancient Anatolian tradition for positioning the tombs in very close proximity to the city, perhaps even overlooking it as e.g. the rock-cut necropolis at Kaunos or Myra, Gall 1989; 505, note 19. I would infer that such a position of the necropolis area was dictated by the landscape setting in general, and had perhaps, and as a consequence, less to do with an intended vision of the tombs and thereby the ancestors, overlooking and controlling the living. 200

Root 1979, 74-76. Together with the Behistun relief, Cool Root 1979, 182-226; Briant 2002, 171. 196 Calmeyer 1975; Kleiss & Calmeyer 1975; Gall 1989. 197 Schmidt 1970, 49. 198 Schmidt 1970, 11. 199 Schmidt 1970, 65. 194 195

46

Figure 43. Another of the rare examples of Phrygian tombs with relief decorated façade, the Arslan Taş. Haspel 1971, plate 132

monument at Yazılıkaya / Midas city [fig. 42].205 The earliest of these Phrygian rock-cut facades date back to at least the 7th century BC, yet other Phrygian rock-cut monuments, like the shafts, are known from the 8th century BC. Apart from these religious monuments, Phrygian rock-cut tombs occur frequently, from the 8th century BC onwards, yet only rarely are the façades of the tombs decorated [fig. 43].206 The interior of the rock-cut tombs are often decorated with imitations of wooden roof-constructions, tie-beams and rafters. The ceiling is either flat (with the rendering of beams), gabled, or vaulted. Sarcophagi are cut into the rock-floor, rarely in benches.

Figure 42. The so-called Midas monument at Yazılıkaya / Midas City in central Phygia. Haspel 1971 , plate 8.

sion.202 The move then, was an element in a carefully conceived political plan, providing back-up and support of the dynasty via the royal tombs.

Sources of inspiration for the rock-cut tombs at Persepolis The Persian royal rock-cut tombs may well lean on the lengthy and quite experimental tradition of rock-cut architecture amongst both Urartians and Phrygians that date back to at least the 8th century BC. Urartian rock-cut chamber tombs, open-air sanctuaries, as well as stepped tunnel systems linking subterranean springs, are evidence of skilled workmanship and confidence.203 Elements in the rock-cut sanctuaries, such as niches and cup-holes, hint at a cultic and architectonic tradition that may be rooted in the Hittite period.204 Phrygian rock-cut monuments undoubtedly formed another source of inspiration, especially the class of monuments that depict architectonic façades in low relief, often with details of the roof construction, such as the well-known Midas

In 1975, Peter Calmeyer suggested that the alleged Urartian close relationship was shown to be deeprooted by the use of certain phrases in the Achaemenid annals. Wordings such as 'king of kings' are indeed frequently used in the Achaemenid inscriptions as stereotype formulae, and they also occur in Urartian annals.207 However, such standard phrases are elements belonging to and originating within the general, and in fact quite comprehensive Near Eastern tradition. The formulaic nature of the annals follow patterns well known from numerous ancient Near Eastern narBerndt-Ersöz 2003. In general, continuity from the Hittites to the Phrygians is increasingly evidenced, both at central sites, like Gordion, where the chronological gap is diminishing, and e.g. in minor towns like Beyköy, north of Afyon. Gonnet 1994, 75: "However, new discoveries witness the survival of the Imperial Hittite dynasty, after the disappearance of the empire, as much to the east as to the west, and enlighten us about this period [the turn of the millennium]." 206 Haspels 1971, 112-138. 207 Calmeyer 1975, 105. 205

202 Such a position is also found e.g. at Xanthos where the heroa F, G, and H are placed adjacent to the palace. Borchhardt 1976, 19. 203 Salvini 1994, 143-158; Işık 1995, 1996. 204 Işık 1995, 55-59, 69-70; Neve 1996; Gonnet 1994, 77, for resemblances between Hittite and Phrygian rock-cut features.

47

DYNASTIC TOMBS IN WESTERN ANATOLIA PHRYGIAN TUMULI The large royal tumuli at Gordion made a lasting impression on the burial architecture of Anatolia (and beyond) for centuries. The majestic mounds were landmarks, evidence of grandeur and superiority, an ever-present reference to origin (ancestry) and the potential of the Phrygian kingdom. The tumulus tombs at Gordion consisted of a square burial chamber constructed of logs built inside a cavity. It was later surrounded and covered by a clay sealing and a rubble layer that formed the inner part of the tumulus [fig. 44]. The princely Phrygian tumuli served one burial only; no dromos led to the burial chamber, rather the deceased and his rich equipment were lowered down into the chamber from above. 209 After the funeral, the roof of the chamber was built, and the tumulus accumulated around it. The possibly earliest and largest (diameter c. 250 m, height c. 50 m) tumulus at Gordion, tumulus MM, was built after 740 BC, and tumuli continued to constitute a preferred tomb type at Gordion until at least the 1st century BC.210 The earliest tombs were placed in a row, flanking the ancient road that followed the so-called north-east ridge, opposite the city mound [fig. 45].211 It is clear from the rich finds in the Phrygian tumuli that the aristocracy of Gordion interacted with and were closely related to an ancient Near Eastern network, which had key emblems, common references that marked them as united: the Urartian cauldrons and richly decorated furniture are, for instance, also seen in the Royal Tombs at Salamis, as well as in princely Urartian chamber tombs.212 And the large tumulus as grave marker was also widely distributed: from Gordion to Kap-

Figure 44. The construction principle of the tomb chamber and inner part of tumulus MM. The Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, guide, no year, fig. 254

Figure 45. Plan of the position of the early tumuli at Gordion. Koehler 1995, fig. 2

ratives, for instance the Assyrian annals of TiglathPileser I and the annals of Assurnasirpal, or the Bible, where e.g. the phrase 'king of kings' appears numerous times.208 As is the case with other elements of the royal ideology of the Achaemenids, the entire concept draws on the traditional Near Eastern iconography of power and continuity. Its extreme eclecticism appears as a magnificent strategy that enabled recognition in the furthest corner of the empire. This hybridity worked as the glue that successfully held the enormous empire together.

See Simpson 1990 for a well argued vision of the funeral in tumulus MM. 210 Koehler 1995; Young 1981; http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/devries/devries.ht ml (accessed 22-02-2005). 211 Koehler 1995, 227. 212 Carstens 2005. Such prestigious objects, fabulous furniture and large cauldrons (and perhaps luxurious textiles) also formed the typical dynastic gifts to the sanctuary at Olympia, Cf. Herrmann 1966 and below, 118-119. 209

Wallis Budge & Kings 1902, 32-33; Rodwell 1901, 166-175; Eze 26.7; Da 2.37; 2 Macc 13.4; 1 Ti 6.15; Re 17.14 and 19.16.

208

48

and Tos or Ardys. As at Gordion, the tumuli were built on a plain, south of the Gygean Lake.216 The tomb of Alyattes was described (and admired) by Herodotos [fig. 46].217 In 1853, the German consul Ludwig Peter Spiegelthal first investigated the mound. By tunnelling into the mound, he found a system of tunnels and a marble tomb chamber.218 In 1962, the Sardis Expedition undertook a reexamination of the tomb. Alyattes' mound was built above a rectangular flat-roofed chamber tomb constructed in tightly fitting isodomic ashlar masonry of limestone blocks. It probably consisted of a dromos, stomion, antechamber and main chamber, yet only the latter was investigated and measured in 1962. The rubble inner layer of the mound was unstable (due to the earlier eager explorations) and prevented further investigations. Already by the time of Spiegelthal's excavation, the tomb was practically empty, and only a few finds were made, such as some pottery and an Egyptian alabastron.219 The construction of the chamber, especially the interior cornice immediately below the flat ceiling, is also seen in Cyrus' tomb at Pasargadae. Al-

Figure 46. Alyattes' mound at Sardis.

General description: Russin & Hanfmann 1983, 56-58. Ratté 1989, 6-17. A new registration of the Bin Tepe fields south of the Gygean Lake has been carried out by the American Sardis Expedition in 2004-2005 under the direction of Dr. Christopher Roosevelt. Paper presented at the 28th International Symposium of Excavations, Surveys, and Archaeometry, Çanakkale 29 May – 2 June 2006. 217 1. 93: There are not many marvellous things in Lydia to record, in comparison with other countries, except the gold dust that comes down from Tmolus. But there is one building to be seen there which is much the greatest of all, except those of Egypt and Babylon. In Lydia is the tomb of Alyattes, the father of Croesus, the base of which is made of great stones and the rest of it of mounded earth. It was built by the men of the market and the craftsmen and the prostitutes. There survived until my time five corner-stones set on the top of the tomb, and in these was cut the record of the work done by each group: and measurement showed that the prostitutes' share of the work was the greatest. All the daughters of the common people of Lydia ply the trade of prostitutes, to collect dowries, until they can get themselves husbands; and they themselves offer themselves in marriage. Now this tomb has a circumference of thirteen hundred and ninety yards, and its breadth is above four hundred and forty yards; and there is a great lake hard by the tomb, which, the Lydians say, is fed by ever-flowing springs; it is called the Gygaean lake. Such then is this tomb. www.perseus.tufts.edu 218 Hanfmann 1963, 51-57. 219 Perrot & Chipiez 1890, 293, figs. 194-199; Greenewalt et al. 1983, 26-27. 216

Figure 47. The krepis wall of the Karniyarik tumulus, the so-called Gyges mount. Dedeoğlu 2003, 56

padokia, Cyprus, Sardis, and the west coast of Anatolia.213 During the Early Iron Age, the large-scaled tumulus had been established as a widely accepted and recognized emblem of an aristocratic tomb. The tumulus was the standard marker of such tombs — the noble tomb par excellence was buried below a mound.214

LYDIAN TUMULI The royal Phrygian tumuli undoubtedly inspired the Lydian house.215 The three early mounds, the so-called Royal Mounds at Sardis, were by ancient traditions ascribed to the earliest Lydian kings, the builders of the Mermnad dynasty: Alyattes, Gyges Berges & Nollé 2000, 93-96, 469-471; Carstens 2006a; 2008b. 214 Carstens 2002a; 2005; 2008b. 215 For interrelations between Phrygian Gordion and Lydian Sardis, see Hanfmann 1980. 213

49

according to Herodotos died in a hunting accident.223 Yet, whoever was buried there, it was a princely burial. The third of the three royal mounds the Kir Mutaf Tepe (BT 63.4), the so-called mound of Ardys or Tos, has never been excavated.224

Figure 48. The large necropolis area Bin Tepe at the Gygean Lake.

yattes' tomb was probably built around 570-560 BC, a generation earlier than the tomb of Cyrus. By that time the Lydian masons had mastered the noble art of isodomic masonry, delicate details in the execution, and the precision such work required. When studying the masons' showpieces in the Lydian tomb architecture, it is obvious that these workmen were placed in charge of the works at Pasargadae.220 Within the empire, hardly anyone else could compete. The earliest tumulus, the Karniyarik Tepe (BT 63.1), was originally suggested to be the tomb of the founder of the Mermnad dynasty Gyges (c. 680-645 BC).221 The mound is around 50 m high and more than c. 220 m in diameter and quite dominated the plain south of the Gygean Lake [fig. 47]. The tomb chamber has never been found, but an impressive well-built krepis wall, c. 90 m in diameter and concentric to the tumulus, was found during Hanfmann's investigations in 1964. And while there is no evidence for its identification as Gyges' tomb, its date may be pinpointed rather accurately.222 The krepis wall found below and inside the tumulus corresponds with datable Lydian masonry at Sardis from the late 7th and early 6th centuries BC. This date is confirmed by pottery found during the investigations in the 1960s, — and while these sherds may postdate the krepis wall, a stemmed disk, dated to late 7th or early 6th century was found in 1991 in the stone packing behind the wall. The finds thus place the Karniyarik Tepe, both the hidden krepis wall and the extension in the early 6th century BC. Rather than being the tomb of Gyges, Ratté has suggested that it may have been constructed for the son of Kroisos, who,

Figure 49. The Yığma Tepe at Pergamon. Radt1999, Abb. 210

Undoubtedly, the Lydian kings emulated the Phrygian royal mounds at Gordion as the emblem of royal power and supremacy — and as a way of inter-royal communication. This little series of three royal tombs was, in the centuries to come followed by those of the local elite, also after the Achaemenid sack of Sardis and its infiltration of the local power structure, resulting in the field of Bin Tepe.225 Here, some 100 minor mounds mark the landscape [fig. 48]. They were constructed in a similar fashion to the tomb of Alyattes, with flatroofed tomb chambers, often preceded by an antechamber, a stomion and a dromos constructed in good quality ashlar masonry, and covered by a little mound.226 Tumuli became a Lydian emblem, although also rock-cut tombs are frequent. Again, the situation is close to the Phrygian. Clusters of tumuli are found in the fertile river valleys of the Lydian kingdom. It has been suggested that the distribution of these tombs may shed light on the extension of the kingdom, and settlement patterns, infrastructure and power structures within the Lydian kingdom.227 Herodotus 1.45. Ratté 1994a, 161. Hanfmann 1964, 53-54. Russin & Hanfmann 1983, 56-58. 225 Russin & Hanfmann 1983, 53-56; McLauchlin 1985, 11-112; Ratté 1989, 7-17. Dusinberre 2003, 128-157. Hanfmann 1964, 52-58; 1967, 38-52. 226 Roosevelt 2003; McLauchlin 1985, 3-22, 95. 227 Ramage & Hirschfeld Ramage 1971. 223

224

Nylander 1970. Hanfmann 1964, 52-55; 1967, 39. 222 Ratté 1994a. 220 221

50

mound, a dromos was not found by the early investigations in 1904-1906.230 Intensive tunnelling in 1909 neither revealed the dromos nor the tomb chamber. According to W. Radt, Yığma Tepe might belong to the Hellenistic period, and may be the first royal tomb at Pergamon.231 Two minor Hellenistic tumuli were also included in Dörpfeld's work from 1905 and 1906.232 Both tumuli were raised above a sarcophagus, and as the larger ones, the mound was kept in position by krepis walls.233 Remains of robbed and ruined tumuli are also found in the Ketios valley, Pergamon's potters' quarter, at the western and eastern slopes of the valley, and on the slopes of the city mound.234 A suggested reading of the Pergamene tumuli proposes that, the newly emergent dynasty found it important to stress its affiliations to a glorious past, both by e.g. the Telephos myth, representing its descent from the Trojan heroes and by including a reference to the ancient royal mounds at Sardis. And as at Sardis, the tumuli were spread in the hinterlands as a typical type of Pergamene tombs.235

Figure 50. A tumulus chamber tomb at Eleia. Radt 1999, Abb. 212

Yet, it is difficult to distinguish one tumulus from another, and thus to decide whether the one is Lydian or not… The sources of inspiration may, however, be indisputably Lydian.

However, another local tumulus forms a local horizon dated to the Classical period. The so-called Şeç Tepe lies in the southern cemetery at Eleia that became Pergamon's harbour town.236 It is c. 50 m in diameter, surrounded by a krepis wall. The mound covers a chamber tomb built in isodomic ashlar masonry with a dromos and two rectangular tomb chambers one behind the other [fig. 50]. Three plain sarcophagi with gabled lids furnish the inner chamber in a Π-shaped arrangement. Both

PERGAMENE TUMULI The tumuli at Pergamon have been excluded from this idea of a Lydian sphere, basically due to their suggested later date. Yet, only a few were ever investigated. In the southern outskirts of Pergamon, on the plain below the hillside city, remains of two large tumuli, the Mal Tepe and the Yığma Tepe, still dominate the landscape [fig. 49].228 Both tumuli were investigated in the early years of the Pergamon excavations in 1904-1909. A c. 500 m long krepis wall surrounded the c. 170 m diameter Mal Tepe, and a long walled dromos was found leading into a tripartite tomb chamber. Apparently both dromos and chambers were barrel-vaulted. Lime mortar was used for both the plain ashlar masonry and the construction of the vaults, and Dörpfeld suggested a date in the Roman period.229 The presumably earlier of the two is the Yığma Tepe (diameter c. 158 m). A well-built ashlar wall in large tufa blocks surrounded the tumulus, and although the wall was followed round the entire

228 229

230 Döprfeld 1907, 237-240; 1908, 366-369; 1910, 388-393. 231 Radt 1999, 23-25 on the early history of Pergamon. 232 Dörpfeld 1908, 365-366. Conze 1912-1913, 240. 233 Tumuli above sarcophagus burials are also known e.g. from Karaburun in northern Lykia, Mellink 1971, 250. 234 Radt 1999, 270. 235 A new research programme has been initiated at Pergamon, which includes a special focus on the landscape surrounding the city, and future investigations such as field surveys may hopefully contribute to a better understanding of the local context and historical background of the Hellenistic city centre. Felix Pirson, Paper presented at the 28th International Symposium of Excavations, Surveys, and Archaeometry, Çanakkale 29 May – 2 June 2006. 236 Radt 1985; Kasper 1966.

Radt 1999, 267-275; Conze 1912-1913, 239-245. Dörpfeld 1907, 232-237; Radt 1999, 268-270. 51

ence was much larger than its political territory — indicating that relations reached beyond core power politics. The tumulus became a typical tomb type in western Asia Minor, and beyond. However, the extremely large-scale and prominently positioned tumuli continued to be used as emblems of power, aristocratic ideology, and self-perception; in other words: dominance.

Achaemenid impact in the far western Empire

Figure 51. The pyramid tomb at Sardis. Ratté 1992, Tafel 21

Achaemenid impact on the west coast of Anatolia and at Sardis seems almost to disappear in the landscape of burial mounds. However, there are a few, rather ostentatious examples, the Pyramid tomb at Sardis, the Taş Kule at Phokaia, and perhaps the Berber İni tomb at Milas. In the north slope of a ridge running down the Acropolis of Sardis to the Pactolus stream and commanding a fine view over the Hermos river plain, a hollow was cut out, creating a large terrace. Here a peculiar, built tomb was constructed some time during the second half of the 6th century BC, the so-called Pyramid Tomb [fig. 51].240 The tomb chamber was placed on a stepped podium and probably formed a rectangular house with a saddle roof [fig. 52]. A fine-grained hard limestone was used for the construction of the tomb, the masonry of which was never completely finished, and the tomb provides a rich source of information on Lydian stonemasonry and construction techniques. The tomb seems to be modelled on the tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae from c. 530 BC, but its closest local parallel is the stepped altar in the Artemis sanctuary at Sardis.241 However, this has also been interpreted as perhaps a sign of an Achaemenid impact on Sardian architecture.242 A related tomb is found near Eski Foça [fig. 53]. Here, a peculiar monument cut in a rock-knoll stands out somewhat spontaneously in the valley.243 It is known as the Taş Kule and it was probably constructed as a chamber tomb that once flanked the road to ancient Phokaia [fig. 54]. This monument is an anomaly, yet again the stepped construction, not least the stepped altar-like con-

Figure 52. The pyramid tomb at Sardis, reconstruction. Ratté 1992, fig. 16

chambers are roofed with corbelled barrel vaults.237 Pottery found in connection with investigations in 1965 date the use of the tomb to a period from the late 5th century to sometime during the 2nd century BC.238 This date corresponds to the use of the cemetery in general. Inside one of the stone sarcophagi were found remains of a wooden coffin that has been dated by means of dendrochronology. According to P.I. Kuniholm, the single huge trunk from which the coffin was made was felled around 451 BC.239 A general trend towards tumuli emanating from the Phrygian court spread throughout Anatolia during the Early Iron Age. The distribution illustrates that the Phrygian cultural sphere of influAlthough the tomb was thoroughly investigated, test trenched excavated, the tomb itself measured and drawn in 1965, the results have never been published. See Radt 1985, 140. 238 Radt 1985, 141. 239 Kuniholm 1985; annual reports 1996, 2003 on http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro and personal communication. 237

Ratté 1989, 16-17, 206-215; 1992; Kleiss 1996. Ratté 1989, 17-18; Ratté 1992, 155; Dusinberre 2003, 60-64. 242 Most recently by Dusinberre 2003, 60-64. 243 Cahill 1988. 240 241

52

introduced.247 However, Christopher Ratté suggests a converse relationship between the two tombs: that the Pyramid Tomb was a local product of the amalgamated new aristocracy of Sardis, then copied in Cyrus' tomb. It is true that the creativity in the border areas of western Anatolia was strong. Furthermore, it is clear that the two tombs are related. Nicholas Cahill has suggested that the Taş Kule functioned as a sort of propagandistic monument; Phokaia was a problematic region of the Lydian satrapy, and the presence of empire needed particular emphasis here.248 The Pyramid Tomb at Sardis has been suggested as the tomb of the King of Susa, Abradates, who fell at the battle of Sardis. According to Xenophon, he was buried by his wife on a ridge beside the Pactolus river.249 While this remains unknown, it is evident that both the Taş Kule and the Pyramid Tomb are conspicious in their local context. The same is the case with the Berber İni tomb, sited south-west of Milas. It is cut into the almost vertical rock face of the Sodra Dağ, thus rising

Figure 53. Taş Kule at Phokaia. Dedeoğlu 2003, 82

struction on top of the tomb points in an Achaemenid direction.244 The moulding above the false door too, the hollowing for a libation bowl, and the

Figure 54. Taş Kule at Phokaia. Cahill 1988, fig. 4

false door itself are Persian Achaemenid features.245 The tomb at Phokaia was probably constructed for a noble Iranian civil servant or a highly Persianized local aristocrat. Yet it is puzzling that such a cultural manifesto is quite rare in western Anatolia.246 As mentioned above, the Pyramid Tomb at Sardis has been suggested to be a local copy of the tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae. This should imply that it was built after c. 530 BC, but before the late 6th century BC when the use of the claw chisel was

Figure 55. The Berber İni at Milas. Henry 2005, planche 256

Kleiss 1996. 1988, 493, 498 et passim. 246 Cahill 1988, 499-501.

Ratté 1992, 160. Cahill 1988, 500. 249 Xen. Cyr. 7.3.4-5

244

247

245 Cahill

248

53

above the valley below [fig. 55]. The tomb faced Beçin, perhaps the oldest settlement at Milas, and it overlooked the north-south, east-west crossroads on the Milas plain.250 The tomb consisted of a façade with engaged columns in antis, with neatly cut capitals and a two-fasciae architrave below a gable [fig. 56-57]. Between the columns is a niche, a false door. The tomb chamber is entered via an opening marked with a recess, originally closed by a stone slab below the façade to the right. The chamber consists of a quite spacious rectangular chamber with benches along the two side walls, and centrally in the rear wall is another plain rectangular opening to a much smaller back chamber. This opening too must have been closed by a door slab. Louis Robert suggested that the tomb may be an early tomb of the Hekatomnid dynasty, the tomb of Hekatomnos, and this is a view that Olivier Henry has argued in favour of in his dissertation from 2005.251 He has considered it as being related to other dynastic or aristocratic tombs in the region, such as the School Yard tomb in Milas, or even the Maussolleion, because of its two chambers in axis, and its antechamber plan.252 However, these tombs are of a quite different nature and style: they are first and foremost built structures, the axial plans and the antechamber–chamber theme differ, since the latter chamber is the larger. And, more importantly in my view, the tomb chamber proper is entered via a double marble door.253 The Berber İni tomb is of another kind. The engaged columns and the rendering of the

Figure 58. Paphlagonian façade tomb, Aşaği Güneyköy. Gall 1966, Tafel 13:4

Henry 2005, 274-283. Robert 1935, 338, fig. 5; 1955, 572, n. 3 252 Henry 2005, 274-283 and paper held at the Hellenistic Karia Conference, Oxford, 29 June – 2 July 2006; Carstens 2002a, 399-403; Carstens forthcoming a; Jeppesen 2000, 169-174. 253 Carstens forthcoming a. 250 251

Figure 56 & 57. Berber İni at Milas, plan and façade. Henry 2005, planche 257-258

54

model, namely that of always securing local Karian roots in its political monuments. Perhaps the Berber İni tomb too was a tomb of an Iranian civil servant — the question then, is whose? A stylistic date of the architecture of its façade suggests that it was carved in the early 4th century BC. Who may at that time have held such status as to suggest himself be buried in such a prominent place in such an untypical manner?

Achaemenid blend How were the other local elite of the western satrapies buried? In the sepulchral landscape of Sardis, only a few tombs stand out in such a way that it is possible to directly attribute an Achaemenid affiliation to them. Rather, the impression is that of a

Figure 59. Rock-cut chamber tomb at Dā u Dukhtar. Herzfeld 1941, plate 37

façade with its central, though false opening is reminiscent of the royal tombs at Naqsh-I Rustam, in spite of the lack of relief decorations. A Paphlagonian façade tomb with two rough engaged pillars in antis and a gabled roof and a central opening, Aşaği Güneyköy at Arac, is of a similar type [fig. 58], and at Dā u Dukhtar in the Persian heartland is another rock-cut tomb with a façade with four ionic engaged columns in antis, a central opening, yet also a secondary opening above the tomb face to the left [fig. 59].254 The plan with a smaller chamber to the back of the tomb may also be seen in Urartian rock-cut architecture, such as the Karakoyunlu rock tomb or the Pekeriç I tomb.255 Thus, there are also eastern traits in the tomb at Milas. Another such trait is the position of the tomb, on the naked almost vertical rock wall towering above an important crossroads. It is a favoured position of Achaemenid political monuments, such as the Behistun relief.256 These Iranian features of the tomb and its setting however, may not exclude its connection to the Hekatomnid dynasty. However, the quite considerable foreign elements of the Berber İni tomb set aside what became the Hekatomnid iconographic

Figure 60. Tomb 813 in the Pactolus valley cemetery at Sardis. Greenewalt, Cahill & Rautmann 1987, fig. 24

blend. One prominent example is Tomb 813 in the Pactolus valley cemetery [fig. 60].257 The tomb is a rock-cut chamber tomb, consisting of a stepped entrance, constructed in limestone, flanked by two anthemion stelai, an antechamber with a shallow rock-cut sarcophagus in the floor, a corridor, and the main chamber with a limestone sarcophagus along the back wall. The tomb was closed in the first Figure 61. The cylinder quarter of the 5th seal from Tomb 813. Dusincentury BC.258 It is berre 1997, fig. 3 conspicuous for two

Von Gall 1966, 103-104, Tafel 13:4; Herzfeld 1941, Plate 37. 255 Çevik 2000, Plate 53 c, 65a. 256 Cool Root 1979, 193-194.

Greenewalt, Cahill & Rautman 1987, 36-44. Dusinberre 1997; 2003, 158-171. Ratté 1989, 16, 204-206; 1994b. 258 Ratté 1994b.

254

257

55

Figure 62. Plan of Xanthos and the Nereid monument. Demargne & Coupel 1969

elements, its architectural front and the find of an Achaemenid cylinder seal and gold foil appliqués inside the sarcophagus [fig. 61].259 Anthemion stelai are only known in a limited number from Sardis.260 They were used as grave stelai in connection with rock-cut chamber tombs and they range in date from the mid 6th to the late 5th centuries BC. They follow the general East Greek styles and dates, and thereby they emphasize the position of the Sardian local elite within the west Anatolian and East Greek world. This coherence is then matched with the Persian inspired stepped front, the Persianized artefacts found inside the tomb, both the cylinder seal, the appliqués, and the alabastra. In an article from 1997, Elspeth R. M. Dusinberre uses this seal as the point of departure in an analysis of the so-called Graeco-Persian styles of western Anatolia.261 Her main argument is that Tomb 813 is loaded with stylistic expressions that characterise the Sardian elite as polyethnic or as positioned in a polyethnic

milieu. Her overall conclusion is that the Persian hegemony, the establishment of empire and the transformation of the Lydian kingdom into a Persian satrapy led to a new hybrid culture headed by a transformation and not a replacement of the local, Lydian elite. How it was felt or experienced is not easy to ascertain. It seems as if the transition ran smoothly, as if the acculturation was a success, resulting in a true meld, a new eclectic culture in a new context. However, living during these processes may not have been as easy as archaeological evidence suggests.262 Local estate holders had to relinquish territory to Iranian cavalrymen who formed the core of the standing army.263 The Achaemenid Empire came to Sardis with force, people died in the battle of Sardis, large portions of the city and its magnificent fortification walls were demolished; it began chaotically on the worst possible premises.264 The ground was levelled for forced assimilation and the hitherto prevailing order of things was neglected.

Dusinberre 1997. Hanfmann & Ramage 1978, 73-76 (cat.no. 4549) 261 Dusinberre 1997. 259

Gosden 2004, 25. Sekunda 1991, 8-84. 264 Dusinberre 2003, 46-59.

260

262 263

56

Figure 63. The site of the Neried monument. Demargne & Coupel 1969, pl. 10

Complications, however, would have served neither the Achaemenids nor the Lydians. First and foremost, it is evident that the Persians did not arrive terra nullius, land unsettled, towns emptied or non-existent. They took over a kingdom with an existing power structure and infrastructure, and made good use of it. Dusinberre speaks of the creation of a polyethnic elite, made visible through a new amalgamated style.265 This elite was responsible for a large proportion of the success of the satrapy: the transformed local elite worked as intermediaries between the Achaemenid rule and the local population. The local infrastructure of power was made to work for the mutual benefit of the Great King and the Sardians.

Figure 64. Reconstruction drawing of the monument including the tomb chamber inside the podium. Demargne & Coupel 1969, pl. 93

One group of monuments is crucial in the Achaemenid empire, namely personal seals. Together with other minor objects, such as jewellery and gold foil ornaments, they may be seen as tokens of the membership of the polyethnic elite that was the result of the Persianization of western Anatolia.266 Such an item is the cylinder seal from Tomb 813 [fig. 61]. 267 The seal depicts a crowned hero in right profile wearing Persian court robes. He grasps two rampant lion-griffins by their necks, as he stands Figure 65. The reconstruction of the Nereid monument in the British Museum. © Trustees of the British Museum

Dusinberre 2003, 29. Here, and in general, she makes a forceful argument against the alleged denial of both artistic creativity and ability to create an impact on local cultures in the empire. Dusinberre 2003, 8-9. See also Root 1979, 15 et passim. 266 Dusinberre 2003, 145-157. Sekunda 1991 discusses onomastic evidence of acculturation or intermarriage in the western satrapies. 267 Dusinberre 1997, 100. 265

on the heads of two couchant winged sphinxes that face each other, each raising a foreleg to touch paws at the centre. While the central motif is very common at Persepolis — the crowned hero seems

57

Figure 66. The podium frieze, south side façade. A city is sieged in the upper register, below battle scenes. Childs & Demargne 1989, pl. 77

Figure 67. Frieze from the cella, depicting a banquet. Childs & Demargne 1989, pl. 89

DYNASTIC TOMBS IN LYKIA

to encompass the ideal of a Persian man268 — it is not seen in Sardis except for this one instance. Moreover, the use of pedestal animals is otherwise reserved for the royal name seals, i.e. a smaller group of seals with the name of the Great King.269 The seal from Tomb 813 is carved in the socalled Graeco-Persian style that was never employed in the Iranian heartlands; rather it was confined to Anatolia. The man buried in the sarcophagus in Tomb 813 belonged to the local Sardian elite. Within the Persianized aristocracy he displayed his elitarian epithets: a prominent cylinder seal that was carried in a string around his neck, and golden appliqués attached to his undoubtedly luxurious garments. By his seal, he lived up to the metaphoric, iconographical language otherwise left to the upper echelon of the Iranian court. He was an important man in Sardis, and he played a game that may never have been tolerated in Persepolis, but which was interpreted clearly in this local context: he was one of the Great King's men. Yet he was buried in a typical Lydian rock-cut chamber tomb, furnished with a Persian stepped front, flanked by East Greek anthemion stelai. And we are left without any knowledge of his ethnic origin, which was perhaps Lydian, perhaps Iranian.

No other region in the ancient world built such lavish heroa as the Lykians. The heroa marked dynasts' tombs, the heroic status of a deceased ruler; they formed the key emblems of the division of Lykian political organisation into minor dynasties.270 Moreover, it is evident that they belong in an analysis of the manifold inceptions of the Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Not least since a second boom of heroa or dynasts' tombs, in the shape of small temples, shrines or open-air sanctuaries correspond with the construction of the Maussolleion, in the early 4th century BC.271

The Nereid monument The Nereid monument at Xanthos marks the beginning of this second wave. It was probably built in the 380s BC for the dynast Arbinas.272 With its origin in the house tomb tradition represented in Xanthos with the early Heroa F, G, and H, the Nereid monument presents a break: a new hybrid form, consisting of the core Lykian tomb building, the house tomb on high, within the framework of Greek sacred architecture, the peripteral Ionic temple.

On the nature of the Lykian political organisation in Classical and Hellenistic times, see Behrwald 2000, 9-88; Keen 1998, 34-60. 271 Borchhardt 1976, 19-20. 272 Childs & Demargne 1989, 404. 270

268 269

Root 1979, 303-306. Dusinberre 1997, 106. 58

Figure 69. Reconstruction of the south side of the heroon at Limyra. Borchhardt 1976, Abb. 24

Figure 68. Plan of Limyra. Borchhardt 1976, Abb. 1

While the early heroa were placed inside the walled acropolis, the Nereid monument was built inside a walled enclosure on its own, south-east of the acropolis on the next ridge [fig. 62]. It held a dominant position and commanded a perfect view of the river valley [fig. 63].273 The otherwise massive podium held a tomb chamber, entered via a ramp on the back of the building [fig. 64].274 On this podium, a small Ionic peripteral temple was built. The cella was furnished with four klinai placed along the sidewalls.275 The heroon was lavishly decorated with relief friezes as well as round sculptures [fig. 66]:276 two friezes circumscribed the top of the podium; the upper frieze depicted the siege and surrender of a city, the one below battle scenes [fig. 66]. The temple building was decorated with a frieze around the cella walls depicting a banquet and sacrifices that may be directly related to the cultic activities at the heroon itself [fig. 67]. The architrave of the peristyle carried various hunting scenes, the west pediment a battle scene involving both cavalry and infantry, the east an audience scene with the ruling couple depicted at the center, receiving adorants or

A closely related monument is the somewhat later heroon at Limyra, probably built for the Lykian king Perikles, who became ruler in the 370s BC and perished during the Satraps' revolt of 362-360 BC.279 Placed on a dramatic rocky terraced promontory immediately below the palace at Limyra, this heroon too commanded a great view and inspired respect by its mere topographical position that was further emphasized by a majestic rock-cut staircase leading to the shrine from the south [fig.

Demargne & Coupel 1969, 27. 274 Demargne & Coupel 1969, 69, Pl. XCII-XCIII. 275 Demargne & Coupel 1969, 133-135, Pl. LXXVIc. 276 Childs & Demargne 1989.

Fragments of two torsos, BM 940 and BM 942, have been suggested as depicting the dynastic couple, Childs & Demargne 1989, 183-185, 367-368. 278 Borchhardt 1976, 136-137. 279 Borchhardt 1976, 99-108.

worshippers. Nereids that bestowed immortality were placed between the columns in the front, perhaps guiding the ruling couple Arbinas and his wife to their afterlife.277 The dynast himself is thus depicted participating in various heroic encounters that describe him as legitimate peer or ruler, as a true Lykian man — just like the Great King embodies the virtues of a Persian man: he partakes in battle, he conquers the city, he is depicted receiving subjects in audience, at the banquet, with his family, and out hunting.278

The heroon at Limyra

277

273

59

while the back wall of Tomb 3 is still attached to the temenos rock-wall. A rather weathered inscription cut in the wall next to the tomb attests to a statue here dedicated by Xudalijĕ, son of Murãza.285 A large relief depicting a bull, probably led by priests in a sacrificial procession, was carved into the southern temenos wall [fig. 72]. The scenery may depict the annual sacrifice at the heroon.286 The heroon at Phellos is of the same type as the well-known heroon at Trysa /Gölbaşı, a sacrificial precinct with a Lykian house tomb.287 In both cases, it is the precinct and the rituals it framed that is the central focus of the complex, and not the tomb building itself that carried the importance and sanctity of the site. The prominent topographical position of the heroon at the end of the ridge immediately outside the walled town in sight of and with a view to the residence of the living dynast, transformed the monument into a central memory of heroic ancestry [fig. 73-74].288 The inner faces of the temenos walls at Gölbaşı were decorated with relief friezes in two registers, while only the outer face of the south wall, flanking the entrance, carried reliefs [fig. 75]. The subjects are battle scenes from Greek mythology, such as an Amazonomachy, a Centauromachy, the Seven against Thebes, the deeds of Perseus and Theseus, the Siege of Troy, the Slaying of the Suitors, Belerophon and the Chimera. Furthermore, a corner of the precinct the scenery depicts a banquet [fig. 76].289 Here, a wooden building or shed was built against the temenos wall, which probably provided shelter and shade at an annual (?) sacrificial meal, like the banquet scenery depicted on the reliefs, perhaps accompanied by dancers and musicians similar to those carved on the lintel above the entrance.

68]. It was constructed as an amphiprostyle podium temple within a temenos. Similar to the Nereid monument, a tomb chamber was constructed inside the podium, accessible via an opening in the south wall. 280 No remains of the interior furnishing of the cella have been found. Instead of columns, caryatides carried the entablature at the two short ends, reminiscent of the caryatid porch of the Erectheion at the Athenian acropolis, yet in an eclectic Greek-Lykian-Persian style [fig. 69].281 Two friezes adorned the west and east side of the cella, both depicting identical scenery: the dynast leaves for the battlefield, followed by his loyal cavalry and infantry [fig. 70]. In order to let the party move around the building, the scenery is mirrored, so that there would be a beginning of the departure in the northern end of both the west and the east side. Such an arrangement of processions is typical of Assyrian royal reliefs, e.g. the throne room of Salmanessar III in Nimrud, and it is also prominently used on Achaemenid royal reliefs as well e.g. at the Apadana at Persepolis.282 The roof carried figured acroteriae, depicting Perseus with the slain Medusa as well as Amazons, typical Greek motifs.283

Figure 70. The Heroon at Limyra. Frieze blocks from the west side, fragments 5, 6, 7 and 8. Borchhardt 1976, Abb. 12

The Phellos heroon and the heroon at Trysa A cultic complex including three Lykian house tombs, is situated at Phellos.284 Both the temenos boundary wall, as well as the tombs are rock-cut [fig. 71]. Tombs 1 and 2 are cut free of the rock

Borchhardt, Neumann & Schulz 1989, 92-94. A Xudalijĕ, son of Murãza, is known to have built a tomb at Kyaneia at a somewhat later date in the 4th century BC. Zahle 1979, 335. 286 Borchhardt, Neumann & Schulz 1989, 94-95. 287 Oberleitner 1994. 288 Oberleitner 1994, 54, Abb. 23. 289 Oberleitner 1994, Abb. 105-106. 285

280

Borchhardt 1976, 357. Borchhardt 1976, 45-48. 282 Borchhardt 1976, 66-80; Schmidt 1953, 70-78. 283 Borchhardt 1976, 91-97. 284 Borchhardt, Neumann & Schulz 1989. 281

60

Figure 71. Plan of the Phellos heroon. Borchhardt, Neumann & Schulz 1989, Abb.2

version of the tale of Early Hellenism in western Anatolia.290 Skilled craftsmen and artists were available on the market just when these East Greek or West Anatolian borderland kingdoms needed or desired to establish a monumental memory of their glories. It is, one may say, only natural that the Hellenization of western Anatolia grew rapidly in the early 4th century BC. It was not merely some poorer imitations of an idea of Greek sepulchral and sacred architecture that were employed; rather the Hellenization was expressed in high quality items. Not as a complete takeover of a Formsprache, rather, as a further development or growth, as if the new available compost enriched the perhaps somewhat exhausted local soil and allowed a new crop of hitherto unknown splendour to emerge.

Hybridity and eclecticism Not only East Greek architecture, but also Attic and Peloponnesian styles were incorporated in the Nereid monument and the heroon at Limyra. That the apotheosis of Athens, which ended with its defeat in the Peloponnesian War, led to the heyday of western Asia Minor is only the highly condensed

Figure 72. The bull relief of the Phellos heroon. Borchhardt, Neumann & Schulz 1989, Tafel 11:2

290

61

Borchhardt 1976, 22.

rather four different hybrid forms all playing not only on new strings, but on quite new instruments as well. The traditional old Lykian house tomb combined with traditional Greek temple architecture; the framing of nature in a precinct where rocks and scrub allude to nature (domesticated?) and the kingdom;291 the clear references to sacrifices (the bull at Phellos), to banquets and cultic feasts. By building on, or constructing in such hybrid or eclectic ways, the familiar, basic building structure was never entirely lost to view. A well-known strategy, one may say. Yet, a remarkably efficient one. It seems that those able to switch to (new) eclectic styles — to incorporate novelties without completely excluding traditions, and thereby recognition, are the true survivors throughout history. That flexibility is the strongest force

Figure 73. Reconstruction of the city at Trysa and the heroon. Oberleitner 1994, Abb. 117

Figure 74. The heroon at Trysa. Oberleitner 1994, Abb. 23

Figure 76. Relief blocks from the heroon at Trysa, banquet scenes. Oberleitner 1994, Abb. 105-106

Figure 75. Plan of the Trysa heroon. Oberleitner 1994, Abb. 24.

Stronach 1990, 171-172. The paradeisos as a metaphor of the king's territory will be treated exhaustively below, 76-78. 291

This remarkable series of 4th century Lykian heroa represent such a new crop. A hybrid, or 62

Figure 77. Gebe Kilisi.

DYNASTIC TOMBS IN KARIA

perfect view of the bay of Torba as well as of the fertile valleys to the south. The tomb is a circular building rather than a tumulus, consisting of a rubble dry-stone krepis wall, with an entrance, and a dromos, that leads to a rectangular tomb chamber. A tall and slender pyramid vault constituted the roof of the chamber, while the exterior of the tomb appeared as a rounded tumulus. Near the tomb, a building complex was constructed perhaps during the 5th or 4th century BC. Its close proximity to the tomb suggests that this building was associated with a tomb cult performed at the circular tomb.

In Karia too, dynastic tombs seem to blossom in the 4th century BC, as if in the wake of the Maussolleion. Yet, a few examples of earlier dynasts' tombs ought to be emphasized here. The most noteworthy are the so-called Lelegian tumuli tombs, of which especially the single tomb at Gebe Kilisi on the northern shore of the Halikarnassos peninsula is the outstanding example, being possibly a ruler's tomb [fig. 77]. The Gebe Kilisi tomb was most likely built in the 7th century BC, perhaps as the tomb of the local dynast at coastal Torba or at inland Gökçeler.292 Figure 78. The chamber It commanded a tomb at Geriş

Figure 79. The chamber tomb from Yokuşbaşi 292

Radt 1970, 219-223; Carstens 2002a, 404. 63

Figure 80. The city plan of ancient Halikarnassos. http://www.humaniora.sdu.dk/typo/index.php?id=523

As we have seen in the case of Gordion and Sardis, the stone tumulus tomb or circular building at Gebe Kilisi was repeated in multiple examples in the local cemeteries, in particular in the central and eastern part of the Halikarnassos peninsula. However, such rubble tumuli and circular tombs are also found frequently in Lykia, and in a somewhat altered form in the hinterlands of Miletos. The stone tumuli were in use at least the 6th century BC onwards.293 They are related to the early tombs found at the southern part of the Halikarnassos peninsula, at Assarlık, and to the chamber tomb at Dirmil on the north-western part of the peninsula. Both the Dirmil tomb and the Assarlık

tombs date back to the very Early Iron Age, or even the transitional Submycenaean phase.294 A similar coastal towering position is also the case with the chamber tomb at Geriş on the west coast of the Halikarnassos peninsula, a tumulus tomb of c. 50 m in diameter, placed in a precinct marked by a megalithic temenos wall [fig. 78].295 I have earlier suggested that this tomb may have been built in the 5th century BC, a date that gains further weight by the dendrochronological dating of the coffin in the Elaia sarcophagus to the 440s BC.296 The tomb was probably the local dynast's tomb and it was celebrated as a monument symCarstens 2008b, 71-83. Carstens 2002a. 296 Carstens 2002a, 405. Above, 51-52. 294 295

293

Carstens 2008b, 85-91. 64

bolising the dynasty, its power, and its success. It was positioned as a viewpoint towards a fortified settlement and a prosperous territory: it must have been clearly visible as a sign of the ancestral reference of the ruling dynast at Geriş. The plan of the Geriş chamber tomb is repeated in the Maussolleion tomb chamber, and it is also found in a 4th century BC tumulus chamber tomb at Yokuşbaşi near Halikarnassos [fig. 79].297 A dromos leads to the entrance, blocked by a door slab. Behind that slab is a minor antechamber, then a stomion with turning doors, a shallow niche at the door, and a larger tomb chamber in Geriş and Yokuşbaşi placed at an angle to the antechamber, in the Maussolleion in the axis to the entrance.

THE MAUSSOLLEION IN HALIKARNASSOS Figure 81. The pre-Maussollan complexes. The southern staircase leads to a cultic basin to the left, and in axis to a chamber, Chamber 1 (here marked a). Chamber 2 is here marked b, Chamber 3 marked c. Jeppesen 2000, fig. 24.1

Topographic positions and viewpoints The factor that links these Lykian and Karian dynastic tombs together is above all their topographic position. In most cases we do not know the names and dates of their builders, neither is their interpretation as dynasts’ tombs more than guesswork. It is hypotheses or interpretations that place them in these contexts. Yet, our imagination is nourished by their obvious significance as powerful monuments, buildings that rule or command a landscape, placed in a favourable position. Never do they question their own presence in this setting, rather, they make good use of natural, topographical resources, they take control over roughly staged nature. Like landmarks of civilization in the midst of nature, they mirror the capacity of the aristocracy. Landmarks of power and territorial rights may also have formed the basis for the large-scaled dynastic tumulus tombs of the Phrygians and Lydian kings. The great effort that was invested in the building projects, their position in the territory of the kingdom and its capital, and their size made them monuments of power and supremacy.

Figure 82. State plan of the southern staircae with its cupholes, the western wing of stairs leading to the water reservoir, and the outline of Chamber 1 as indicated in the pavement. Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, fig. 5.1.2

The topographical position and architectonic expression of the Maussolleion were different, yet in complete agreement with these premises: it was a

Carstens 2002a, 399-402; Jeppesen 2000, 169174.

297

65

premacy of the Hekatomnids. And above all, it was a hybrid monument, both in its layout and general design, and in its ideological position.

THE CITY AS GESAMTKUNSTWERK When Maussollos sometime in the 370s BC decided to move the residential centre of Karia from inland Mylasa to coastal Halikarnassos, the number of inhabitants was increased by means of a synoikism, where several minor towns in the hinterlands of Halikarnassos were abandoned and the people moved to the new capital [fig. 80].298 Here, there was an overwhelming need for a labour force to build the modern city, an impressive masterpiece of planning and engineering. Although there are only few and scattered remains of the Late Classical Halikarnassos left, city archaeology and intensive studies of the ancient remains in modern Bodrum houses and gardens, have enabled us to reconstruct what the re-founding of Halikarnassos implied.299 A city plan was laid out according to a grid, a magnificent city wall, a so-called Geländemauer was added, large temples and a satrapal palace was built — and the dynast's tomb. Everything was reorganised according to a masterplan that must have included or been based on political planning with ideological content. The Gesamtkunstwerk of the new city was part of an intentional Hekatomnid iconography that was designed to celebrate and commemorate the Karianess in the borderlands between Persia and the Hellenic world. The Maussolleion was built at the city centre, next to the agora. A 15 m wide procession street (the modern Turgutreis Çaddesi follows its main route) crossed the city from the eastern Mylasa Gate, to the western Myndos Gate, and flanked the Maussolleion terrace to the north.300

Figure 83. Plan of Chambers 2 and 3. Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, fig. 5.3.1

Figure 84. Watercolour of Chamber 2 by R. P. Pullan, January 1958. Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, plate 9

EARLIER ACTIVITIES — AN EARLIER TOMB CULT? Figure 85. Terracottas found during C. T. Newton's excavations at the Maussolleion. Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, fig. 7.3.2.1

Before Maussollos' synoikism and the re-founding of Halikarnassos, the area later occupied by the Quadrangle (the cutting for the foundations and tomb chamber of the Maussolleion) may have been used as a cemetery or as the meeting place for

landmark; a ruling, dominating monument: it towered over the temples of the city, it was staged as a sanctuary, with a precinct, a propylon, and temple features as its main architectonic characteristics; it was placed next to the city's square, it commanded the residential city of a wealthy dynasty. It was the key legitimizer of the continuity of power and su-

Flensted-Jensen & Carstens 2004, with further references. 299 Pedersen 2001/2002, 102-110. 300 Pedersen 1991, 95-96; 1994, 22-23. 298

66

deposited on the lower part of the steps [fig. 82]. Before the construction of the foundation of the Maussolleion, the offerings were collected and buried in a kind of bothros constructed at the lowest part of the staircase, thus closing off the staircase and making it impossible to reach the chamber that laid in axis of the stairs. The chambers to the east of the stairs, the so-called Chambers 2 and 3 were also levelled at some point of the construction of the Maussolleion [fig. 83]. Jan Zahle has indicated that Chamber 2 indeed shows much wear on the doorsteps and a number of other features, such as what may be window holes in the eastern wall of the chamber, make it less certain that the chamber was originally a sepulchre. Rather, it seems that some kind of ceremonial meals were celebrated here, and that the adjacent Chamber 3 was in fact an open, or semi-open courtyard, a kind of forecourt [fig. 84].302 This insight has led Jan Zahle to refute the notion of a cemetery-like nature of the entire site before the construction of the Maussolleion. Yet, there are still more remains suggesting such a use, although Chamber 2 certainly may not have been a tomb chamber. I suggest that the purpose of Chambers 2 and 3 were to serve as a meeting place for a club or koinon that perhaps among other things maintained the cult at the southern staircase, which presumably was connected to Chamber 1, the chamber to which the staircase led.303 Although evidence is meagre, to say the least, this might have been a tomb chamber, possibly the tomb of a prominent Halikarnassian ruler. A number of parallels may be drawn: Amongst the finds in this area of the quadrangle, the southern part, were various terracotta figurines, mostly riders in an alleged Cypriotic style and often found in both sanctuaries and tombs [fig. 85].304 At the eastern

some unknown ritual club or koinon.301 Three chambers on the southern edge of the quadrangle seem to have been interconnected via a corridor and a monumental staircase, the so-called southern stairs [fig. 81]. Near the foot of the stairs some kind of cultic installation consisting of a basin with water was accessible. Apparently libations were performed here, and vessels used for the rituals

Figure 86. Two sheep/goats from the raw meat sacrifice on the landing of the staircase leading to the tomb chamber. Højlund 1981. fig. 80

Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, 81-111. Such koina are e.g. known from epigraphic sources describing the tasks of the clubs in Hellenistic Rhodes: "..the annual coronation of the funerary monuments, and the annual performance of libations, presumably on the funerary altar, on the terrace above the hypogaeum. These commemorative reunions at the tomb were certainly not only calculated to keep alive the memory of the departed "friend" or "brother", but also in general to cement the bonds which linked the members of the koinon to each other." Fraser 1977, 58-70 (quotation 63); Gabrielsen 1997, 123-128. 304 Higgins 1969, 102-103, cat.no: 301-323. Terracotta horsemen often appear in sepulchral contexts, Østergaard 1986, note 19-20. Wolfgang Radt 1970, 265-270, published a group of Cypriot (?) 302 303

Figure 87. The capitals from Alazeytin. Radt 1970, Abb. 24

Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, 110-111; see also BMCR 2005.05.02 and 2005.09.72.

301

67

elitarian network was through the sepulchral architecture. The wear and tear of the southern stairs does not exclude such an interpretation of the remains. It may be explained by the cultic activities that were maintained at the basin, probably on a regular basis. It is clear that the offerings were considered important, not least from the precautions undertaken for a proper close of the cult at the southern staircase, the bothros.310 Zahle has also rejected the water cult as a form of tomb cult: "the unparalleled importance of water in the activities excludes a sepulchral use."311 However, water and the libation of water in connection with tomb cult are not unparalleled, but rather of a fundamental nature, reflecting a basic perception of life and death. The libation of water played a greater role in the ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian ritual practice than in Classical Greece.312 Karia was originally – and in a multitude of ways it continued to be — an Anatolian landscape, sharing a common past with the Phrygian and Lydian cultural sphere, even tracing its roots to a Hittite past.313 We cannot expect Classical Greek rituals and religious perceptions here. Furthermore, water installations at tombs are known from the Hellenistic peristyle tombs at Paphos, Cyprus, where each subterranean courtyard has its own well. At the Hellenistic cemetery at Megara Tepesi, Athienou, Cyprus, two large and very well built cisterns with stepped approaches to the water reservoir are placed in the midst of the rock-cut tombs.314 Also the numerous cup-holes

end, Newton found a sarcophagus, however not in situ, but it may not have been transported that far away. Also the finds from the bothros may very well be connected with libations poured or offered in order to maintain a tomb cult. The position of the offerings, perhaps placed on the stairs and otherwise performed at the landing of the staircase corresponds with the position of the enormous raw meat sacrifice at the landing of the Maussolleion staircase [fig. 86].305 A similar sacrifice has been found at the so-called Royal Tomb 4 at the Archaic cemetery at Tamassos in central Cyprus, dated to the early 6th century BC.306 At Tamassos, we find royal tombs approached by central monumental staircases, leading to a landing. The entrance to the tomb chamber is flanked and marked by antae decorated with proto-Aiolian capitals.307 The position of these antae corresponds nicely with the remains of antae in Chamber 1, only traceable in the pavement and at floor level.308 Proto-Aiolian capitals are known from near Halikarnassos, namely at the hilltop settlement at Alazeitin, where two capitals of the Palestinian type, similar to the Tamassos capitals, were found by Wolfgang Radt in the late 1960s [fig. 87].309 However, the problem remains of explaining how the alleged tomb chamber was closed — a central pillar seems to have been placed in the midst of the entrance, hardly contributing a solution of this riddle. Moreover, subterranean chamber tombs are unknown in the Halikarnassos region where also a stepped dromos is a foreign and otherwise unknown phenomenon. Yet, the upper echelon of Archaic Halikarnassos may have been more closely related to other aristocrats of the eastern Mediterranean than to their local hinterland. Some kind of dense aristocratic network may have functioned between the regions of southern Anatolia, Cyprus and the north-western part of the Levantines. A way of signalling membership of this

Figure 88. Schematic plan of the Maussolleion terrace. Pedersen 1991, fig. 92

terracottas, most of them horsemen, found east of Bodrum. They seem most likely to have come from rock-cut tombs in the area, Radt 1970, 267. The production may, in spite of their Cypriote features, be local, Işık 1980; 1990. See also Karageorghis 1995, 76-93. 305 Højlund 1981. 306 Buchholz 1978, 191-195. 307 Tamassos, Royal Tombs 5 and 11; Carstens 2006a, 145-146. 308 Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, 82-90. 309 Radt 1970, 39-55, 237-255. For the group of Palestine Proto-Aeolic capitals see Shiloh 1979, 2125, fig. 12-14; Wright 1992, 432-433.

Vaag et al. 2002, 168 states that the contents hardly can "be seen as the result of cleaning-up of grave furnishing." See also BMCR 2005.05.02 & 2005.09.72. 311 Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, 111. 312 RLA 7, 1-12 'Opfer'; LÄ 3, 1013-1015 'Libation'; Der Neue Pauly 12:1, 751-753 'Trankopfer'. 313 Phrygian ritual practice including libation of water has most recently been investigated by Berndt-Ersöz 2003, 229-242 et passim. 314 Carstens 2006a, 163-164. 310

68

that are found in connection with rock-cut tombs both on the Halikarnassos peninsula, but also at, for instance, Phrygian rock-cut tombs, and on Cyprus, at the Makronisos cemetery at Ayia Napa, probably served as libation pools.315 Certainly holy water may have been one of the libation liquids. Whether the activities performed at the site of the Quadrangle in pre-Maussollan times were of any importance for the position of the Maussolleion is impossible to ascertain. It would of course be of great interest and immense ideological value if Chamber 1 was the tomb of Artemisia the Elder, and that thereby the position of the Maussolleion on that same spot referred to a link with the old Karian dynast, Artemisia and her house, the queen with fabulous connections to the Persians. It will remain one of the many unsolved issues in Karian archaeology; yet, it is intriguing to see the famous Xerxes alabaster that constituted part of the huge burial sacrifice at the Maussolleion landing not only as a token of such a happy relationship, but also a token of the new Hekatomnid dynasty and the reign of Artemisia the Elder [fig. 1].316

Figure 89. Reconstruction drawing of the Maussolleion. Jeppesen 2002, fig. 6.3a

The Maussolleion The position of the dynast's tomb, first and foremost, respected the new grid plan. Any considerations of cult in the layout of the Maussolleion seem to have had second priority, if any. A propylon building probably led from the agora to the Maussolleion precinct, the large terrace. Visitors to the monument entered the area from the south-east and approached the tomb as they would approach a temple [fig. 88]. The Maussolleion was, at its core, a peristyle podium tomb, i.e. even in its unardorned architectonic language there was a strong Berndt-Ersöz 2003, 229-239; Hadjisavvas 1997. Cup holes can be seen at the rock-cut tombs on the Pamyalik promontory on the Halikarnassos peninsula. 316 Recently, Frank Rumscheid has suggested that the Uzun Yuva was a first attempt at the building of a dynastic tomb, a Maussolleion in Mylasa, an idea later abandoned when the new capital of the new dynasty moved to Halikarnassos. The argument is based on the proportions and the masonry styles used in the terrace walls of the monument, which seem to place the complex in the first half of the 4th century BC. Paper presented at the Hellenistic Karia Conference, Oxford, 29 June – 2 July 2006. For a plan of the complex, see Rumscheid 2004, Abb. 8:2. 315

Figure 90. Reconstruction drawing of the Maussolleion. Jeppesen 2002, fig. 6.3b

69

even stronger. The tomb stood as a temple inside its temenos. The massive podium contained the tomb chamber, which was accessible via a broad staircase. After the final internment, it was filled in and sealed. The tomb was decorated with several series of reliefs circumscribing the monument, as well as freestanding sculpture in three different scales and series. It must have been an impressive sight. Imagine the colossal monument, standing c. 50 m high, towering over the city, richly adorned with painted sculptures and figural ornaments. Not only are we informed that the finest sculptors of the Hellenic world undertook the task,317 moreover, the ideological programme of the decoration was chosen with care, designed to reflect Hekatomnid Karia, embodied by Maussollos and Artemisia, as a forceful, independent kingdom in its own right. It was designed both to inspire humble respect and admiration and perhaps also to narrate the story of the dynasty and its Karian roots and international inclinations. Figure 91. The lions and the baityloi. Jeppesen 2002, fig. 12.5 &12.7

THE SCULPTURAL DECORATION The reliefs depict various mythological battle scenes, an Amazonomachy and a Centauromachy, and the coffers perhaps the deeds of Theseus. All three elements are found, e.g., at the Heroon at Trysa, as parts of a standard repertoire. A chariot frieze is also preserved. The themes of the freestanding sculpture are more difficult to pinpoint. The position of the various sculptural elements has been the subject of much debate in the reconstruction of the monument [fig. 89-90].318 In 2002, Kristian Jeppesen presented his latest attempt at a reconstruction of the Maussolleion that in my view forms a very well argued study, based on the architectonic fragments and constructional details that have survived through the millennia. Jeppesen also includes a number of highly interesting and intriguing insights and hypotheses on the decoration.319

Figure 92. Maussolleion lion. © Trustees of the British Museum

reference to sacred architecture and the settings of sanctuaries: The tomb was built inside a temenos, approached via a gate-building. It alluded to a temple by its peristyle, and the King on High by its dimensions. Maussollos was buried in a sanctuary, inside a temple building. As with the Nereid monument and the heroon at Limyra the peristyle podium tomb was employed as a powerful sign of a godlike ruler. However, in the case of the Maussolleion the analogy with the sanctuary setting was

THE QUADRIGA AND THE BAITYLOI It is generally agreed that, the quadriga on top of the tomb held colossal statues of Maussollos and Pliny NH 36.30-31. Waywell 1978; 1989; Waywell & Jenkins 1997; Hoepfner 1996; Jeppesen 2002a, 11-18. 319 Jeppesen 2002a, chapter 11, chapter 18, chapter 22. 317

318

70

Figure 93. Relief adorning the western staircase of the façade of the Palace of Darius at Persepolis. Curtis & Tallis 2005, 78

Artemisia. These have not survived. The centaur frieze surrounded the quadriga platform and Kristian Jeppesen suggests that on the lower steps of the roof antithetic lions were positioned flanking conical 'baityloi'.320 The many fragments of lions, "no other category of statuary is represented by nearly as many fragments as the lions" suggest that there were a large number and that they fell the furthest, i.e., from the roof.321 Only three fragments of the alleged baityloi have been found and the reconstruction may be seen as hypothetical, yet not without good arguments [fig. 91].322 The anicon deity celebrated as a baitylos at Kaunos and labelled the King of Kaunos springs to mind. As mentioned earlier, at several places in Karia and Lydia Zeus Karios was celebrated at something best described as Hittite huwaši stones, sacred rock-crops. Lions flanking and guarding the baityloi on the roof of the Maussolleion may thus be a metaphor of the lions guarding the king of the Halikarnassians or even the King of the Karians [fig. 92]. Lions were used as royal epithets in Assyrian and Persian iconography and thus the motif played on an ancient Near Eastern relationship or genealogical origin. In Achaemenid iconography, the Great King is depicted as fighting and taming the lion, a motive also used in Neo-Assyrian art [fig. 93].323 The lion is used both in order to illustrate the potential of the King as the great hero, combating lions, but also as a royal beast. Noble, valiant and dangerous enough to challenge the King. The two-faced nature of the baitylos, as an image of Zeus and a reference to the king also presented the dichotomy of being king in an ancient Near Eastern context. Man and god. Divine.

Figure 94. Suggested reconstruction of the corner acroteriae. Jeppesen 2002, fig. 11.4a &11.4b

As corner acroteriae, Kristian Jeppesen suggests groups of statues depicting Apollo, Artemis and Leto shooting Niobe and her children, thus a Hellenic motif [fig. 94].324 To these scenarios, he attributes the head no: 30 of Waywells catalogue as Leto; no: 48 as a young Apollo, and no: 46 as one of Niobe's sons. Although it could be a possibility — nothing contradicts it — the position and identification of these fragments remain hypothetical.325

ANCESTRAL PORTRAITS The chariot frieze circumscribed the cella wall as an architrave-frieze, while the Amazon frieze ran

Jeppesen 2002a, 124. Jeppesen 2002a, 118-120. 322 Jeppesen 2002a, 120-121. 323 Root 1979, 303-305. 320 321

324 325

71

Jeppesen 2002a, 109-117. Waywell 1978.

around the podium just below the pteron. Jeppesen further suggests that free-standing statues were placed on an upper podium base, surrounding the cella. Corresponding with the intercollumniae, he maintains that these statues represented ancestral portraits of both the Hekatomnid family and the house of Lygdamis, Artemisia the Elder's father, as well as eponymous heroes of the local hinterlands.326 This hypothesis too, must remain unverified as such, but it makes good sense if we accept the overall idea of the Maussolleion as a monument built for the celebration of a new dynasty, as a key monument in the establishment

Figure 96. The so-called Artemisia. © Trustees of the British Museum

of a new empire. Such ancestral portraits would have contributed immensely to the creation of a past for the dynasty, advocating its legitimacy and supremacy. The idea of a family or dynastic monument is not new in western Anatolia. Already from the Archaic period, we know of the Geneleos group from the Heraion at Samos. Here, the scenery or the thematic frame is that of a banquet, where the father is depicted resting on his cushions, the mother sitting on a stool, and the children entertaining.327

Figure 95. The so-called Maussollos. © Trustees of the British Museum

326

Jeppesen 2002a, 170-182.

327 Walter-Karydi

72

1985.

We may speculate whether the depiction of symposia at the Lykian heroa might incorporate portraits of the dynasty, referring to the ritual meals celebrated by the aristocracy. From the Late Classical or Early Hellenistic period, two dynastic monuments are known, one is the Philippeion at Olympia, the other the Daochos group at Delphi.328 Kristian Jeppesen suggests that the north side held portrait statues of the Hekatomnid dynasty, beginning in the eastern end with the first dynastic couple who perhaps acted as Persian satraps, Aba and Hekatomnos and their children, thus: 1. Aba, wife and perhaps sister of 2. Hekatomnos; 3. Artemisia (II), daughter of Hekatomnos and Aba and wife of 4. Maussollos (II), son of Hekatomnos and Aba, 5. Ada, daughter of Hekatomnos and Aba and wife of 6. Idrieus, son of Hekatomnos and Aba 7. Aphneis, a Kappadokian woman, wife of Pixodaros 8. Pixodaros, son of Hekatomnos and Aba329

Figure 97. Colosssal enthroned male. © Trustees of the British Museum

Corresponding to this scheme, Jeppesen suggests that the house of Lygdamis was represented on the south side. Here the statues from east to west may have corresponded to those of the Hekatomnid house:

former anticipating those of the latter, as most conspicuously demonstrated by the obvious analogy between the two Artemisias and the two Maussolloi."331 Jeppesen suggests that the remaining two sides were decorated with personifications of the cities incorporated in the synoikism of Maussollos (on the north side) and the mythical hero founders of Halikarnassos (on the south side).332 Attributed to these sculptures surrounding the cella are, for example, the so-called Maussollos (no: 26) and Artemisia (no: 27), earlier thought to have been placed in the quadriga, a male torso (no: 29) and other fragments.333 The characteristic features of these sculptures are their archaistic and Oriental style. The male statue depicts a bearded man with shoulder-length hair, dressed in a tunic and wrapped in a long mantle [fig. 95]. Jeppesen emphasised the statue's look of powerful determination, and the almost static, imposing stature, which indeed adds to the impression of majesty.334 As does a certain touch of aloofness, perhaps most efficiently expressed via the archaistic traits. The

1. Kressa(?), the wife of Lygdamis I 2. Lygdamis I 3. Artemisia I, daughter of Lygdamis I and Kress, wife of Maussollos I 4. Maussollos I, son of Lygdamis I and Kressa, husband to Artemisia I 5. Unknown, wife of Pisindelis 6. Pisindelis, son of Artemisia I and Maussollos I 7. Unknown, wife of Lygdamis II 8. Lygdamis II, son of Pisindelis330 Thus, the sculptural decoration surrounding the cella of the tomb illustrated the genealogical sequences that once secured power and stability, and would do so again. The hypothetical position of the portraits is based on a correspondance between the two Karian dynasties so that "… the merits of the

Jeppesen 2002a, 180. Jeppesen 2002a, 181; 2002b, 43-44. 333 Jeppesen 2002a, 174-178. 334 Jeppesen 2002a, 175. 331

See below, chapter six. 329 Jeppesen 2002a, 178-179. 330 Jeppesen 2002a, 180. 328

332

73

The building of the Maussolleion was an important element in the inauguration of a new world order, a new Karian rule. It was by any means an unusual building, grandiose, lavishly decorated, planned and executed by the finest craftsmen in the best materials. It was staged on a large terrace as a sanctuary of the dynasty and it followed, or paid respect to — in its own ostentatious manner — well-established concepts of the dynast's tomb.

same is the case with the so-called Artemisia. The severe-styled face with its heavy features, the minute schematic curls on her forehead, the sekkos and the veil, and the rich drapery all together produce an impression of distance [fig. 96]. Jeppesen suggests that the colossal enthroned male sculpture (no:33) was placed on the lower podium base and perhaps appeared in a false doorway [fig. 97].335 As Geoffrey Waywell has indicated, the seated majestic male may have held a lance or sceptre in his left hand. 336 The enthroned male may have been a depiction of Maussollos himself, appearing in majesty in the doorway, just as a god would appear in the doorway of a Karian/Ionian temple. And then the sceptre may have been a double-axe.

In the Maussolleion, many facets of the new dynasty were incorporated: the local ancestry, the Persian dresses of the ancestral portraits, the Hellenic motifs, the inspiration from Lykian podium tombs. The grand burial chamber with its majestic staircase and the raw meat sacrifice seems to follow the style of dynastic tombs elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean. If the Maussolleion is only perceived as a piece of Greek architecture and sculpture it seems unredeemed. However, placed in a broader Anatolian perspective, it unfolds itself into numerous facets. It was not placed in the city centre because Maussollos was the founding father of the new capital; it was placed in the city centre because it was the foremost sanctuary of the new Karian dynasty, because the cult of Maussollos was intended to unite the Karians, and to confirm the Hekatomnids.

THE MAUSSOLLEION AS TEMPLE This interpretation of the sculptural theme of the Maussolleion cannot be verified, other than by its general coherence with the monument as a dynastic tomb. Its power potential would — admittedly — in this way have been ostentatiously displayed, but the suggestions do not contradict such a general reading of the Maussolleion. What is of importance here, is that even without an idea of the themes of the free-standing sculpture that once decorated the pteron, we may reach the same conclusion as they served to stress if Jeppesen's suggestions were proved valid. Namely, that the Maussolleion was built as a sanctuary of the Hekatomnid dynasty and its founders.

CONTEXTUALIZING THE MAUSSOLLEION The creation of a dynasty is the subtitle of this work. Crucial in the effort to produce a new dynastic house is the construction of a past, of a history, of dynastic traditions. It is by referring to this past that the dynasty obtains influence and indisputable political weight. History or historical references to a mythological past function as legitimizing power and supremacy. The living use the dead as resource, vision, and representation. The dynastic tomb is always a monument of power; it is a central focus for the conservation of aristocratic power, it is a political monument. 335 336

Jeppesen 2002a, 194-199. Waywell 1978, 109. 74

CHAPTER FOUR the gods, he receives a new name as king, a new identity; he is transferred from the profane to the sacred world.1 The royal couple, the king and queen are protected by the sun goddess Arinna, and as an individual, the king is protected by his own tutelary Figure 100. The deity. Tuthaliya IV is, for royal hero. Door instance, protected by the jamb from the mountain and bull-god palace of Darius in Persepolis. Curtis Sarrumma [fig. 17]. & Tallis 2005, The kingdom is divine, cat.no. 41 and the king holds the office of high priest. He performs sacrifices, he is the chief mediator between men and the gods; in this capacity lies his power. The king is inseperably both a political and a sacred/divine figure. The one depends on the other. At the enthronement feast, the king is dressed in ceremonial garments. Wearing the cloak of a shepherd he is often depicted with the crosier or pastoral staff, a ritual lance, and a ceremonial axe. These attributes characterise him as shepherd, as hunter, and as warrior. He protects the lands and he secures its prosperity; because he is blessed.

KING, PRIEST, AND GOD — THE SANCTUARY OF ZEUS LABRAUNDOS REVISITED In the ancient Near Eastern perception of royalty, where the king was entrusted a godlike mandate to secure cosmos in his kingdom, a fusion between his roles as king, priest/mediator and divine (or god) may be expected as inevitable. It is this synthesis, which is illustrated on the Standard of Ur: the king as tutelary deity. Yet, the king does not appoint himself godlike or divine, he is appointed to this position by the intervention of the god on high himself. He is blessed and therefore he has to accept the burden of divine dignity.

THE SACRED HITTITE KINGDOM In the Hittite enthronement ritual, the king rests on the lap of the throne goddess, he is blessed by

ACHAEMENID PERCEPTIONS OF ROYALTY The blessing of the Great King is the central motif in the depictions of the king before Ahuramazda and the fire altar, as occurs on the relief of Darius' tomb at Naqsh-I Rustam [fig. 40]. That the Great King operates through the favour of Ahuramazda is clearly stated in the beginning of the inscription accompanying the reliefs. It is the guarantor of the empire.2 Margarat Cool Root presented a brilliant reading of the theme in her great work on Achaemenid art from 1979.3 It is through the blessing and favour of Ahuramazda, that Darius became king, and just as Darius is king because of this blessing, the omnipotent presence of Ahuramazda is evident by Darius being king. There is a reciprocal relation-

Figure 98. Cylinder seal depicting the hunter king. Curtis & Tallis 2005, cat.no. 418

Figure 99. Cylinder seal depicting the warrior king. Curtis & Tallis 2005, cat.no. 413

Haas 1994, 181-229; Popko 1995, 78-79. Above, 45-46. 3 Root 1979, 162-181. see also Briant 2002, 204254. 1

2

75

From this recognition, the step to using the garden as an ideological metaphor seems small. Yet, it is not until the Neo-Assyrian gardens of Assurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) that the royal garden is used as an explicitly political platform.7 He planted trees and seeds, which he retrieved on his campaigns, illustrating the variety of his vast domain, in his garden at Nimrud [fig. 101]. He controlled the fruitfulness and the abundance of his royal garden, — it became a visual expression of his deeds as King in both his capacity as conqueror and his cosmic role as guarantor of prosperity and fertility. The Neo-Assyrian gardens included landscape settings such as rocks and woods, they represented staged nature, and the king’s pavilion would have been placed on the highest point in the garden, as a viewpoint with the King on high.8 Cyrus' royal gardens at Pasargadae were different: laid out in a straight rectilinear system, the palace buildings (Pavilions A and B, and Palaces P and S) were placed inside a series of irrigated garden spaces, the innermost defined by stone water channels [fig. 102]. The control of the water, the irrigation, also controlled the plan. More than any other ancient Near Eastern residence, Pasargadae in its gardens, the vistas and the layout embellished the outdoor throne placed in axis of Palace

Figure 101. The garden audience / ceremonial banquet of the Assyrian king Assurbaninap and his queen. Curtis & Reade 1997, 122

ship between the two, a mutual dependency; they owe each other their position. To worship Ahuramazda seems to have been, by obvious extension, to acknowledge the power and virtue of the king.4 This relationship, however, does not make the Great King a god, — but nor is he a man, like other men. He stands between the gods and men. He is the appointed intercessor, the chief mediator between this world and the divine; because he is blessed. The Achaemenid Great King may be depicted in various ways, illustrating his abilities as an ideal Persian man, the embodiment of all male virtues.5 With the bow in his hand, he is the hunter king [fig. 98], with the spear, he is the warrior king [fig. 99], commanding the beasts, he is the royal hero [fig. 100], residing in his paradeisos, his royal garden, he is the good gardener, securing prosperity.6 Indeed, the image of the Great King in his fertile groves may be the most forceful image of his power and richess.

THE ROYAL GARDENS / PARADEISOI The royal garden forms an image of the kingdom. The garden as a metaphor of fertility and tamed nature or wilderness has old roots in the Mesopotamian irrigated gardens that are known from at least 5000 BC. The irrigation technique gave control over natural forces, and thereby it further illustrated the divine powers of the kingdom and the king.

Figure 102. Sketch plan of the gardens at Pasargadae. Curtis & Tallis 2005, 30

Root 1979, 170-171. Root 1979, 303-305. 6 Briant 2002, 223-240. 4 5

7 8

76

Stronach 1990, 171. Stronach 1990, 173-174.

may be part of the function of the paradeisos, and which gave the satrap and the Great King on his tours a possibility to appear as the hunter king, but also as a frame for outdoor receptions.11 The royal garden served as a multi-faceted ideological metaphor; it was a model of the kingdom, the four quarters of the world, the vastness of its variety and greatness, it let the king appear as the master of cosmic order by controlling fertility, as the good gardener, and as the hunter king in the game parks. It allowed him to receive audiences in the heart of the imaginarily peaceful and perfect empire.12

Figure 103. The paved procession road to Labraunda. Westholm 1963, fig. 2

Both Kristian Jeppesen and Poul Pedersen have suggested that the Maussolleion terrace was staged as a royal garden. Poul Pedersen has posited the theory that "the poor occurrence of antique building stone in the western part of the terrace suggests that this sector was of a different nature, and a park or alsos would harmonize well with the picture the investigations have given."13 And it would indeed play on references to the Achaemenid house and the ancient Near Eastern traditions for the royal garden as a political institution, and perhaps even a direct reference to Cyrus's tomb at Pasargadae. Kristian Jeppesen has pondered on the possibility of the terrace having been intended to hold wild game as a hunting park.14 Yet, it seems quite unlikely to me that the Maussolleion precinct could have been a hunting ground. Its limited size would scarcely have allowed for hunting on horseback, and chasing of game would have been almost impossible to arrange.

Figure 104. View of the sanctuary at Labraunda

P. The gardens at the unwalled palace at Pasargadae were a metaphor of the Empire.9 Cambyses II (530-522 BC) laid out new gardens for his palace project at Dasht-I Gohar north-west of Persepolis, as an imitation of the palace and the strict geometrical irrigated gardens at Pasargadae. Also his tomb at Takht-I Rustam was intended to be framed by garden architecture.10 Darius changed garden architecture back to the Neo-Assyrian staged nature. And royal gardens or paradeisoi were to be found throughout the empire, as residential branches. The satrapal courts worked as minor versions of the Great King’s court and the royal gardens were highly important in court life. Not merely because of the hunting that

Stronach 1989, 483 quotes Sackville-West 1953, 287: "[the garden] is a place where he wants to sit and entertain his friends with conversation, music, philosophical discourse, and poetry; and if he can watch the spring rain pouring down, so much the better, for he knows it will not come again for months and months and months." Gardens, often with delicate flowers that requires frequent watering are often laid out at public monuments in Turkey, for instance around the restored Myndos Gate at Halikarnassos that was opened as an Open-air Museum in 1999, and at the Taş Kule at Phokaia, cleaned and framed in a park or garden-like setting in 2003. Traditional plants that enjoy the heat and the generous sun, such as the oleander, the bougainvillaea, the stone oak and other shrubbery, are often abandoned for more delicate species. It is a way to express control with natural forces, — and display wealth! 12 Stronach 1990; 1994. 13 Pedersen 1991, 85. 14 Jeppesen 2000, 59-60. 11

9 The layout and nature of Pasargadae is questioned by Boucharlat 2001. He also remarks that it was indeed Cyrus’ intention to build a fortress on the summit of nearby Tall-i Takht, Boucharlat 2001, 116. On the metaphor of empire, Stronach 1990, 176; Briant 2002, 232-240. Stronach 2001, 96-97. 10 Stronach 2001, 100-101.

77

Figure 105. Sketch plan of the sanctuary at Labraunda with indications of the suggested pre-Hekatomnid remains. Based on Hellström 1991, fig. 1

Rather, the image of the royal garden and the sacred grove may have given Maussollos the opportunity, once more, to play on several strings at once, alluding to both the staged landscape of the Lykian heroa, the royal gardens of the NeoAssyrians and the Persians, and the sacred grove also known and recognized as a holy place in a Hellenic context.

reference to koinon hieron, a common sanctuary,16 — that cult fellowships were at the core of the federations, that matters concerning the sanctuary and the cult were tied to political issues. Or indeed that such a distinction between a political and a religious organization is simply a completely biased assertion, nourished by modern political thought.17 The oldest and most important of the Karian koina, the Karians, met in the sanctuary of Zeus Karios in Mylasa. The head of the federal organization received the title King of the Karian federa-

Priest and king — on the sanctity of the Karian koinon The Karians were organized in political federations. Smaller towns met in fellowships, where common issues were handled in federal assemblies, in koina. Representatives from the participating towns and villages used common sanctuaries as gathering places for these meetings, adding sanctity to the decisions made:15 Mustafa Şahin has argued that the Greek word koinon may imply a

Şahin 1976, 23, note 76. See Bowden 2005, 1-11. Several modern constitutions invoke a benediction or the bestowal of divine grace upon the legislative assembly, the president or the monarch, Cf. The Danish Constitution (1953), § 6: "The King shall be a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church". The German constitution is introduced by this preamble, dated the 31 August 1990: "Conscious of their responsibility before God and Men, animated by the resolve to serve world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people have adopted, by virtue of their constituent power, this Basic Law."

16 17

Şahin 1976, 20 on the so-called hierokeruxoi, sacred heralds at Koranza, et passim.

15

78

Figure 106. Large egg-and-dart found north of the temple of Zeus, probably from the late 5th century BC. Hellström & Thieme 1982, fig. 14

tions. This office is known from the early 5th century BC.18 A Hellenistic inscription further stresses the cultic nature of the office and the religious aspects of the Karian koinon. Here, the leader is called priest and king of the Karian koina.19 It is worth emphasizing the order: priest and then king. It suggests the presupposition that the religious office was the most important one, securing the king his position, — that he was appointed king because of his position as high priest. The duality of the office as leader of the Karians was united in a single person, the roles as priest and king were interdependent, inseparable, the one securing the success of the other. The king was blessed as priest and therefore king. As the Achaemenid Great King was the mediator between gods and men, performing sacrifices in this capacity, protecting and securing the empire by his being blessed, so was the leader of the Karians a blessed king. A fundamental religious element in political organizations is of course neither foreign nor peculiar in a Greek context. The power of the priesthoods and the political organization behind federal or common sanctuaries like the amphiktyonos at Delphi is a classic example.20 Both the Panionion at Mykale, and the Dorian Triopion sanctuary at Knidos seem to have been organised in a similar way.21

Figure 107. A small Ionic capital of late Archaic date. Thieme 1993, fig. 1

Indeed these common or federal sanctuaries, and perhaps not least the oracular sanctuaries, possessed political power beyond any doubt. We do not know whether the office of King of the Karians was hereditary or a position the koina designated, yet it would seem quite impossible if the satraps of Karia did not hold the office.22 A fragmentary 4th century BC inscription that supports this view may be restored as to read King of the Karians and satrap.23 And a decree from Labraunda further underlines this: here Maussollos, in his capacity as King of the Karians determines that a festival be prolonged.24 Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude: Maussollos, and perhaps his father before him, led the Karians as King of the Karians and as high priest in the Zeus Karios sanctuary in Mylasa. From time to time the Karians also met in the rural sanctuary at Labraunda where the priest, king, and

22 In the 3rd century BC, it was hereditary, and the name Hekatomnos was frequently used by the family that held the office. Hereditary priestly offices seem to be the general case in the 3rd century BC. Crampa 1972, 198-201. 23 Hornblower 1982, 369, M15, 60. 24 Hornblower 1982, 60; Crampa 1972, cat. no. 54A, 81-87.

Hornblower 1982, 55; Ruzicka 1992, 6. Hornblower 1982, 55-56. 20 Tausend 1992; Morgan 1990, 148-190. Bowden 2005, 152-159. 21 Tausend 1992, 70-74; Berges & Tuna 2000; Berges 2006, 19-29. 18 19

79

satrap served and ruled under the protection of Zeus Labraundos in a magnificent setting.25

the sanctuary, the pilgrim drank the holy water that both cleansed or purified and made it possible to endure the journey.

On the nature and organisation of the sanctuary at Labraunda26

HEKATOMNID BUILDIINGS AT LABRAUNDA Herodotos relates that in the early 5th century BC the sanctuary consisted of a large grove of plane trees.31 And although it may not have contained many buildings at this time, there are some preHekatomnid remains on the site [fig. 105]. On the so-called east temple terrace, a polygonal terrace wall may date back to the 6th century BC. Apart from this wall, the East House and the Terrace House I predate Hekatomnid activities.32 However, an Ionic capital belonging to a small-scale building of the Late Archaic period, around 500 BC, and also Late Archaic egg-and-dart/bead-and-real profiles, and dentils have been identified [fig. 106107]. This evidence substantiates the theory of a Late Archaic temple, an ante temple, which later formed the core in the peristyle Hekatomnid building [fig. 110].33 Finds of black-figured pottery from the late 6th century indicate the importance of the sanctuary in this period, as does the battle of Labraunda in 496 BC, during the Ionic Revolt. The early political significance of the sanctuary is also

The sanctuary at Labraunda is ancient. Architecturally, and not least ideologically, it must have been the most important sanctuary for the Hekatomnids. Here, the satrap held a key position as religious and political leader.27

PILGRIMAGE AND PROCESSIONS The two sanctuaries, the Zeus Karios sanctuary in Mylasa and Zeus Labraundos sanctuary in the mountains north-east of the town were connected by a large paved procession road, wide and spectacular as it cut its way through the steep mountainsides [fig. 103]. This road made it possible for the satrap to arrive in grandeur, and the difficulties in transporting the court to the remote place undoubtedly added to its splendour. It was impractical, inconvenient, difficult to reach. And therefore important [fig. 104]. The position of the sanctuary made it a place for pilgrimage. It was visited in well-organised communal processions rather than by individual worshippers.28 This must have been the original nature of the sanctuary. The analogy to the Zeus Akraios sanctuary in the Latmos mountains, still visited in times of drought in the Early Middle Ages is worth remembering.29 Labraunda was a similar ancient Anatolian holy-rock sanctuary from its earliest times.30 The split rock and the spring were at the core of the site’s sanctity. Perhaps there lay a second function (apart from the mere pragmatic one of the pilgrims requiring water) in the well-houses which flanked the procession road: on approaching

Figure 108. State plan of the temple of Zeus. Hellström & Thieme 1982, plate 31

Hornblower 1982, 60-61. The overall interest here is the sanctuary during the Hekatomnid period, how it was originally planned and constructed, its initial structures and functions. 27 This assumption also lies behind Ann C. Gunter's reading of Labraunda, Gunter 1985. 28 The fragmentarily preserved decree includes the reference to a procession, yet, its nature is not evident from the surviving text. Crampa 1972, 84-85. 29 Above, 24-25. 30 Or it was modelled on this old scheme. Carstens 2008a. 25

26

Herodotos' description of the sanctuary is given en passant while describing the battle of Labraunda during the Ionic revolt in 496 BC, 5.119: "Those of them that escaped thence were driven into the precinct of Zeus of Armies at Labraunda, a great and a holy grove of plane trees." The description cannot be used to refute the presence of an actual temple building at this point. 32 Hellström 1991, 297. 33 Thieme 1993; Hellström & Thieme 1982, 41-42. 31

80

Figure 109. Sketch plan of the sanctuary at Labraunda indicating the buildings and constructions built by Maussollos (M) and Idrieus (I). Based on Hellström 1991, fig. 1

sanctuary in general in his potential capacity as King of the Karians.35 Maussollos, probably inspired by Achaemenid traditions, initiated the tradition of dedicating the buildings in the sanctuary. He did not have his name inscribed modestly in the left hand corner of the euthynteria, but with might and wealth centrally on the architraves leaving no one in doubt as to whom to thank. We therefore know that Maussollos dedicated two buildings in Labraunda, Andron B and a stoa. The position of the latter is un-

underlined by the meeting of the Karians at Labraunda on this occasion, although it seems to have been a hasty, urgent meeting.34 Late Archaic Labraunda was a rural sanctuary consisting of a holy rock, a spring, possibly a small, yet quite delicate ante temple, and a sacred grove. Dramatic changes occurred in the sanctuary during the Hekatomnid reign.

A building programme Apart from large terrace walls and other construction works, the list of buildings (and functions) added to the grove during the Hekatomnid period is considerable. Perhaps Hekatomnos initiated the first steps in an enlargement of the temple, and the

35 Gunter 1985, 116-117; 1995, 21. A statue base with a dedicatory inscription Hekatomnos, son of Hyssaldomos [made the dedication to Zeus Lambraundos] was found east of the temple, Crampa 1972, cat.no. 27, 27-28. Gunter suggests that the base may have carried a Hekatomnid family group, depicting the founders of the dynasty (Gunter 1995, 52). See below, chapter six, for a discussion of the Nachleben of such dedications.

Herodotos 5.119: "Being driven thither, they took counsel how best to save themselves." Hornblower 1982, 55, note 25. 34

81

known [fig. 109].36 His brother and successor Idrieus dedicated five buildings, the peripteral Temple of Zeus, the Oikos House west of the temple, Andron A, the South Propylaea, and a small Doric House east of the propylaea, probably a wellhouse. Pontus Hellström has argued that a series of minor terrace rooms and the East Stoa opposite the propylaea were constructed in the mid 4th century BC as well.37 Also the East Propylaea and the built chamber tomb above the sanctuary belong to the Hekatomnid period. 38

The built tomb The built chamber tomb causes more speculation [fig. 110-112]. For whom was it built, and why was it placed inside or above the sanctuary?39 The tomb consists of both an open courtyard,40 c. 5 x 3.5 m, accessed from the south via an opening in the wall, and an axial two-chambered building constructed in isodomic masonry of local gneiss. A low door with tapering sides was originally inserted in the opening into the courtyard. From the courtyard, a stomion led into the first rectangular chamber, c. 1.7 x 3.7 m, furnished with two plain sarcophagi built of large slabs, and placed along the sidewalls. A second stomion led to the main chamber, c. 4 x 3.7 m, where three sarcophagi were built against the walls in a typical Πshaped arrangement [fig. 112].41 A large stone block closed the outer opening of the tomb, whereas a pivoted door may have closed the inner stomion.42

Figure 110. The built tomb at Labraunda, exterior

On the dedicatory inscriptions and their Achaemenid counterparts, Crampa 1972, 5-8. 37 Hellström 1994, 44-45; 1993. 38 Hellström 1991 gives a brief overview of the Hekatomnid buildings at Labraunda. 39 Hellström & Karlsson (2005, 76) suggest that the temenos wall did not include the built tomb, while it should have climbed the split rock, where Lars Karlsson has identified beddings of a tower. Yet, we are still not certain of the date of this wall, neither does its presence and the possible omission of the tomb preclude the building from being closely related to, and even perceived a part of the sanctuary. Fedak 1990, 76, suggests that the tomb may have been that of Idrieus; Roos 1976, 45 suggested either Hyssaldomos or Hekatomnos as the builder of the tomb. Henry 2005, 290-300 also suggests Idrieus. 40 Westholm 1963, 104 suggested that the court was filled in with sand and earth between burials. Roos 1976, 29 seems to follow this assumption. 41 Carstens forthcoming a. 42 A typical way of closing chamber tombs, e.g. the Maussolleion tomb chamber and the chamber 36

Figure 111. The built tomb at Labraunda, interior

tomb at Yokuşbaşi. Carstens 2002a, 400. Roos 1976, 29-33. 82

The core of masonry surrounding the chambers is heavy and the walls thick. This huge mass of masonry was needed in order to ensure that the ratio of the corbelling of the vault was sufficient, and the massive walling served the purpose of keeping the weight and pressure of the vault from sliding the walls outwards. A shallow chamber was built on top of vault, c. l 6 x w 3.2 x h 1.3 m, perhaps added as a technical device, minimizing the weight pressure on the vault. This chamber was accessible through a trapezoid opening in the east wall, and, according to Paavo Roos, both pottery finds as well as some grooves in the floor indicate that this room

served as a kind of cult space where libations could be poured down into the tomb chambers.43 The superstructure of the building is not known. A section of a marble Doric frieze, depicted in the drawing of Le Bas, and a marble cornice suggest a Doric architectural superstructure.44 According to Roos, the cornice is "in no way typical of anything".45 The general features of the masonry indicate that the tomb belongs to the 4th century BC. This does not solve the problem of whose tomb it was. In order to approach a qualified suggestion, it is necessary to consider the position of the tomb in the sanctuary. Paavo Roos suggested that the tomb should be interpreted in combination with a processional area south-east of the tomb, partly circumscribing the split rock [fig 113]. Here, various cuttings, steps and niches indicate that rituals were performed — centred on a holy rock, a rock-crop or boulder west of the split rock.46 If the tomb and the rocks are connected by such cult activities sharing a common religious significance, then the tomb is indeed a crucial focal point in the sanctuary. If the courtyard of the tomb was filled up between burials, it would be fairly easy to access the upper (cult) chamber via these (holy) rocks. It has been speculated whether one of the Hekatomnids were buried here, or whether the tomb was built for the high priests at Labraunda. However, the same person, the high priest and King of the Karian federations, must have performed both roles. Was the tomb built by and for Hekatomnos in this, his double capacity?47

Figure 112. Plan and section of the built tomb at Labraunda. Roos 1976

Roos 1976, 7-8, 27-29. This interpretation was perhaps inspired by the finds at the Belevi tumulus, which was excavated at the time; Kaspar 1975. Here libation pipes were found, which led liquids from the top of the tumulus to the shallow basin at the prodomos of the tomb. In his reconstruction of the Maussolleion published in 1976, Jeppesen also included such a pipeline at the core of the Maussolleion; Jeppesen 1976, Abb. 4. 44 Westholm 1963, 104-105; Roos 1976, 13-16. 45 And thus, quite typical of Karia. Roos 1976, 39. 46 Similar steps and cup holes are found, for instance, at Hittite open-air sanctuaries, near Phrygian cult places etc. And they are also found in connection with the Zeus Akraios rock at Latmos, mentioned above, chapter two; Carstens 2008a. 47 On the possibility that Hekatomnos held the office as King of the Karians, and that it was or became hereditary, Hornblower 1982, 37-38, 6162. Pontus Hellström finds it more likely that the tomb post-dates the androns, as the ovolo moulding of the tomb in his view is a loan from the an43

Figure 113. Sketch plan of the procession area

southeast of the built tomb. Roos 1976

83

That Maussollos intended his satrapy to achieve the political influence of the former Athenian superpower, that he was familiar with the power and status of the organisation of the oracular sanctuary at Delphi, and that he held and organized a new sanctuary with political and religious power is indisputable in my view. Yet, why should Maussollos wish to allude to the layout of the Apollo sanctuary at Delphi? Labraunda was first and foremost a Karian sanctuary; its main users were Karians.51 And precisely because of its "Karianess", it was the most splendid platform for the satrapal court one could ever imagine. In Labraunda, the satrap was Karian.

The stations of the procession When the procession arrived at Labraunda, it passed through the sanctuary following a carefully planned route.48 From the propylaea, a wide staircase led to the first terrace, level 1 [fig. 114]. Here, the procession had to turn right ascending another staircase to reach the level of the Andron B, level 2. It would be approached frontally and perhaps the space in front of the Andron or the building itself formed a station for the procession. Originally a monumental staircase, parallel with the north wall of Andron B, led to an intermediate level 3 between the Andron B and that of the temple terrace. Here, the procession had to turn sharply to the east, continue along the back wall of the temple terrace wall, which might have formed the back wall of the stoa of Maussollos.49 In the eastern end of the well house terrace the procession turned west and ascended the temple terrace, level 4. Pontus Hellström has indicated that this zigzagging route through the sanctuary bears a strong resemblance to the Apollo sanctuary at Delphi.50 The hypothetical position of the stoa of Maussollos immediately below the temple terrace corresponds to the Athenian stoa in Delphi, offering a number of associa-

The ears and the oracle Many fragments of a probably Hellenistic or Early Roman double maeander relief with depictions of ears, double axes and shields inserted in rectangular squares in between the meaender, were found ex situ mainly in the Oikos building, near Andron B and also in front of the temple [fig. 115].52 It is evident that the elements depicted on the frieze refer to the deity, to Zeus Stratios (the shield) to Zeus Labraundos (the double axe), and to Zeus as a theos epekoos: a god, who listens. The closest parallel to the double maeander frieze derives from the Classical altar of Artemis at Efesos [fig. 116].53 In combination with remarks by both Aelian and Pliny on tame eels kept at a spring in the sanctuary at Labraunda, the ears seem to refer to an oracular function in Labraunda.54 It is of course a tempting Let me stress that with Karian I simply wish to emphasise that the core of the religious and political activities concerned Karian matters. I strongly believe, though, that the distinctions between Greeks or Karian in most instances had become blurred by the 4th century BC, that counting oneself the one or the other had only very little influence on one’s everyday life, even, or not least, the part of life that concerned what would be termed internal political affairs. 52 Gunter 1995, 44-51. In Gunter 1989, 94, 96 she suggested that the maeander belonged to the Oikos building and therefore a date in the fourth century BC, during the reign of Idrieus was considered most likely. In Gunter 1995 she seems to abandon this date for a generally Late Hellenistic or Roman date without providing further arguments. 53 Bammer & Muss 2002, 48-53; Gunter 1995, 4951. 54 Pliny NH 32.7: "At many of the country-seats belonging to the Emperor the fish eat from the hand: but the stories of this nature, told with such admiration by the ancients, bear reference to lakes 51

Figure 114. Sketch plan of the sanctuary at Labraunda, indicating the access way to the temple terrace and the androns. Hellström 1991, fig. 3

tions to be activated during the walk through the sanctuary. dron entablature. Hellström 1992, 156, and personal communication, October 2006. 48 Hellström 1991, 304, fig. 3. 49 Hellström 1991, 303-304. 50 Ann C. Gunter (Gunter 1985, 120) suggested that the Milesian dedication of statues of Idrieus and Ada at Delphi was related to a hypothetical "Hecatomnid subvention for rebuilding the sanctuary of Apollo following the Third Sacred War (356-346 BC). This has been taken by Hornblower 1990, 139 to be "a wild guess". See below, chapter five. 84

suggestion, not least since the surroundings were there, the rocks, the spring, the grove, the sanctuary, a place of pilgrimage, and the political apparatus, the Karians. The closest parallels for Labraunda as an oracular sanctuary are not found at Delphi, but rather at old Anatolian, especially Phrygian oracular holy places. Susanne BerndtErsöz has suggested that oracular functions were included at the Phrygian shaft monuments. They often appear nearby springs, and the libation of water may be included in the rituals. Another example of the long Anatolian oracular tradition, also celebrated by the Hittites, may be the Apollo sanctuary at Didyma that can be traced back to at least the 8th century BC.55 The Apollo sanctuary at Emecik, Knidos too may have had oracular services. Here, a peculiar subterranean built chamber, consisting of a rectangular main chamber, with a barrel vault roof, and a shallow angled side-chamber was built in the slope above the upper terrace of the sanctuary.56 It may have housed the oracle.

Figure 115. The double maeander frieze found ex situ in the Oikos building. Gunter 1995, fig. 23

CEREMONIAL BANQUETS "Banquets expressed the traditional virtues of the Roman emperor, as being victorious, generous, and affable." This quotation is found in Simon Malmberg's work on the role of the banquet in the Roman Empire with the brilliant title Dazzling Dining. Banquets as an Expression of Imperial Legitimacy.57 These basic elements or principles in the staging of banquets or ceremonial receptions are still maintained in modern court life, as may be attested by the protocols of the New Year's Court as formed by Nature, and not fish-preserves; that at Elorus, a fortified place in Sicily, for instance, not far from Syracuse. In the fountain, too, to Jupiter, at Labraunda, there are eels which eat from the hand, and wear ear-rings, it is said." (Loeb Classical Library). Aelian Hist.Anim. 12.30: "Tame fishes which answer to a call and gladly accept food are to be found and are kept in many places, in Epirus for instance, at the town… formerly called Stephanepolis, in the temple of Fortune in the cisterns on either side of the ascent; at Helorus too in Sicily which was once a Syracusan fortress; and at the shrine of Zeus of Labranda in a spring of transparent water. And there fish have golden necklaces and earrings also of gold." (Loeb Classical Library). See also Gunter 1995, 51, note 184; and Laumonier 1958, 59. 55 Berndt-Ersöz 1998, 96-98; 2003, 259 . 56 Berges & Tuna 2000, 189-191; Berges 2006, 55, 58. 57 Malmberg 2003.

Figure 116. The double maeander frieze from the Artemis altar at Efesos. Bammer & Muss 2001, Abb. 166

carried out at the Royal Danish Court, as well as the ceremonial protocols at the reception of foreign ambassadors at the Danish Court.58 The New

58 The Danish Court Marshal, C. Eugen Olsen has kindly provided me with a written protocol of the ceremonies, Ceremoniel. Modtagelse af fremmede staters Ambassadører ved Det Kongelige Danske Hof, Hofmarskallatet 2005, as well as Ceremoniel i forbindelse med Hendes Majestæt DRONNIN-

85

Year's Court is held as both a court and banquet on January 1st for members of the Danish government, the highest officials of the land and members of the Royal Court. A few days later, a smaller New Year's Court is held for the Supreme Court and officers of the Royal Guard. This is followed by the reception for foreign diplomats termed the Diplomats' Court. The next day the big New Year's Court for members of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd ranks,59 representatives for larger organizations and royal protection is held. It should be emphasized that the hierarchical ordering of the guests is otherwise seldom followed in Danish society. This further underlines the severity and archaic nature of the ceremonies. Only at the New Year's Court on the 1st January is the reception followed by a ceremonial banquet, a taffel. Here we find the description of the protocols of the Royal Epiphania:

Figure 117. The adoration scenes from the Ahiram sarcophagus. Dentzer 1982, plate 4:26

During the banquet Her Majesty the Queen salutes the government and others, who rise when saluted. Before the third course, and after the glasses have been filled Her Majesty the Queen rises and speaks out a toast: "God save Denmark!" All rise and repeat this, and thereafter the Danish national anthem, Kong Kristian, is played.60

Figure 118. Neo-Hittite relief from Karatepe in Kilikia. Dentzer 1982, plate 6:37

Near Eastern banqueting Banqueting and audiences played a central role in the ancient Near Eastern perception of royalty. The iconographic depictions of royal or divine audience or banquet are scarcely different, the king receiving guests, audience or worshippers is depicted in a similar fashion to a god receiving sacrifices.62 Things, gifts, or a libation is brought to the king or nobleman, the sacrifice is presented to him, and the audience may begin. We know of numerous iconographic depictions of such scenarios from the ancient Near East, imagery on cylinder seals,63 metal vessels, and reliefs like the adoration scenes from the so-called Ahiram sarcophagus [fig. 117]. Depictions of banquets or ceremonial dinners are likewise frequently found in Mesopotamian art.64 The depiction on the Standard of Ur mentioned earlier, and similar illustrations may be found in Neo-Hittite [fig. 118] and in Assyrian court art as well.65 Banquets are, however, seldom illustrated in Achaemenid art. Here the audiences,

Here, Her Majesty the Queen acts as mediator between god and men in a way that has characterized royalty since we first encounter it in world history. She blesses the nobility (the men and women who possess the highest offices of her country) by her presence — she appears to them in a similar fashion to when a god reveals himself — and she secures the land in the hands of the Almighty. Thus, the banquet is a key metaphor of the aristocracy, it often includes scenes of adoration and epiphania, it relates the story of the dynast as god, and it is closely related to the kingdom as prosperous, the king as generous as a tutelary deity. It was a metaphor easily adapted by all parties encountering it in the eastern Mediterranean.61

GENS og Hans Kongelige Højhed PRINSENS NYTÅRSKURE¸ Hofmarskallatet januar 2005. 59 The ranks are published in the Kongelig dansk hof- og statskalender (The Royal Danish Court and State Calender), København. 60 From Ceremoniel i forbindelse med Hendes Majestæt DRONNINGENS og Hans Kongelige Højhed PRINSENS NYTÅRSKURE¸ Hofmarskallatet januar 2005, 6. 61 Cf. Rathje 1990, 279; 2005.

Cf. Selz 1983, 457-473; Dentzer 1982, 21-50. E.g.Özgüç 1965, pl XI, 33b. 64 Reade 1995, 40-41 on the continuity from Summerian to Assyrian art. Dentzer 1982, pl. 1-2 Mesopotamian banqueting. 65 Postgate 1977, 131. 62 63

86

ascend a series of steps and ramps, in order to reach the king on high. The most exquisite example may be the Audience Hall at Persepolis, where the route towards the king was decorated with all his subjects bringing him tribute. Another general feature is that the way never directly leads towards the audience hall. There is a series of obstacles or stations on the way, quite similar to the liturgical stations in a religious procession. The route may zigzag its way past various guards or control posts. And all these hindrances serve to sacralize or solemnize the event.

Figure 119. People bearing gifts / tribute to the Great King. Reliefs from the north side of the audience hall, the Apadana at Persepolis. Curtis & Tallis 2005, 66

The function of the royal receptions, audiences, and banquets — both formal and ideologically intertwined — was to demonstrate the potential of the Great King in his capacity as the blessed one. He could produce the wealth and surplus that enabled him to hold the banquets, he ruled over fertile lands that supplied him with luxurious and exotic dishes. The walls leading to the banquet or reception hall were lavishly decorated with depictions of the king in action in all his glory as warrior, conqueror, and hunter, blessed by the gods and adored by his people.

with the subject peoples of the empire bringing gifts, are a leading motif in official art [fig. 119].66 This is in striking contrast to the many literary sources describing the luxury, thrype, of the Persian royal banquets, their ceremonial setting, their emphasis on hierarchy and their importance for the perception of the Great King as omnipotent and elevated:67 Die Trennung des Grosskönigs von den übrigen Teilnehmern reflektiert, wenn sie tatsächlich auch meist nur angedeutet war, dessen unbedingt zentrale Stellung. Der Ausstattungsluxus symbolisiert Wohlergehen und Fruchtbartkeit des ganzen Reiches. Die mangelnde Gleichbehandlung der Gäster weist auf die belohnende und strafende Funktion des Bankettes, bei dem jeder Teilnehmer durch seine individuelle Stellung zum König definiert ist. Die aus allen Teilen des Reiches zusammengebrachten Speisen und Getränke schliesslich machen deutlich, dass wir es auch mit einer Art Tributsystem zu tun haben, dessen ideeller Konvergenzpunkt die Tafel des Königs war.68

The androns at Labraunda served for ritual banquets or ceremonial meals. It is evident from the layout of the sanctuary that they were meant to attract as much attention as possible. By the time of Maussollos, his andron was the largest building, and it was the first building that a visitor to the sanctuary encountered. It was therefore an obligatory station on any visit to the site. The Andron of Idrieus, the Oikos House, the East Stoa and a building complex at the later West Stoa too were intended for banquets.69 The ceremonial meals celebrated here formed the core of the activities undertaken at the sanctuary. Moreover, they may, in my view, very well have been at the core of the intentions and purpose of the Hekatomnid building programme at Labraunda.70 A vital part of court-life was in this way transferred to the sanctuary, where the multifaceted capacities of high priest, King of the Karians, and satrap were omnipresent.

The royal receptions constituted a platform for the meeting between the ruler and his subordinates in a ceremonial, ritual sequence of actions. Gifts were given, attention or epiphany the reimbursement. The architectural setting of the reception halls was carefully planned. People seeking audience had to The large reception or audience hall Apadana at Persepolis, the building begun by Darius and finished by Xerxes, is framed with the well-known reliefs depicting the various peoples of the empire bringing tribute to the Great King. 67 Vössing 2004, 38-51 presents an excellent compilation of Greek written sources. 68 Vössing 2004, 51. 66

Hellström 1989; 1994, 44-46; 1996, 164. Hellström 1996, 165, on the palatial nature of the sanctuary at Labraunda: "I believe, anyhow, that the architectural setting of the Labraynda sanctuary had as one of its primary aims to glorify the Hecatomnid dynasty." 69 70

87

Dining in paradise? The sanctuary at Labraunda must originally have been perceived as a holy place because of its extraordinary natural setting, the rocky outcrop, the sloping hillside, the spring, and the magnificent view of the valley at Mylasa. It did not need much staging to benefit from nature. The primary feature of the sanctuary in the early 5th century BC was the grove of plane trees as described by Herodotos (5.119): "Those of them that escaped thence were driven into the precinct of Zeus Stratios at Labraunda, a great and a holy grove of plane trees." It is not possible to ascertain if this grove continued to form part of the site for some time even after the initiation of the Hekatomnid building programme. However, it seems fair to characterise the sanctuary and its 4th century BC layout as a piece of staged nature, the key element in the royal gardens of the ancient Near East.71 It may have been an added bonus to the banquets at Labraunda that the stage was that of a rural sanctuary, that a dramatic site was civilized by the dynast and that he was able to organize a court here. Dining in the royal garden, in paradise may have been part of the experience.

Figure 121. The Labraunda sphinx. Gunter 1995, fig. 4a-d

Dining in Labraunda — the androns ture. Two large windows framed the door in the wall between the cella and the pronaos. There were windows in the south wall, three in the cella, and one in the pronaos. Andron A also had corresponding windows in the north wall. The back wall of the cella had a rather wide niche on a higher level than the floor.72 Remains of a c. 1 m wide and 0.10 m high platform along the walls of Andron A may be interpreted as the normal raised floor level where couches were placed.73 The clear axial plan, with the central door opening, and the central niche implies a hierarchical arrangement of the banquet. The fronts of the androns are extraordinary since they combine Ionic and Doric styles creating a new expression. The columns are Ionic with Asiatic bases on a rectangular plinth, similar to the Maussolleion columns and the columns of the temple in Labraunda. The architrave and frieze are Doric.74

As mentioned above, Labraunda contained many facilities for ceremonial banquets. Yet, the two most prominent, Andron B and A, must have served a special purpose and audience [fig. 120].

Figure 120. Plan of Andron A. Hellström 1996, fig.

Both androns are built of the local gneiss, with marble fronts, two columns in antis, a deep pronaos and an almost square cella. The overall plan and appearance clearly referred to sacral architec-

Hellström & Thieme 1981, 59-63, 71. Hellström 1989, 101-102; 1994, 41. 74 Hellström & Thieme 1981, 68; Hellström 1994, 40-43. 72 73

Hellström 1994, 53 on Labraunda, the monumental staircase and domesticated landscape.

71

88

the banqueting hall of Maussollos. When it was inaugurated in the late 350's, it had no competitor among the other buildings at the site.76 Perhaps it is more germane to see the buildings as reception halls rather than dining rooms? Hellström has suggested that the use of the word andron on the architrave dedications may very well indicate another use. In general andron was the term used for private dining rooms while hestiaterion was used for designated banqueting buildings at sanctuaries.77 Normally, neither of the room types were very large, the usual number of klinai being either seven or eleven. In this respect too, the androns are peculiar. They were clearly not meant to house ordinary cult meals.

Dining in Labraunda — guarded by the sphinxes The closest78 reference to Achaemenid iconography in Labraunda is the two sphinxes found in 1953 in the cella of Andron C and in 1960 south-east of Andron B respectively. Originally, they served as corner acroteria on Andron B [fig. 121-123].79 As can be seen on the drawing of the restored façade of the andron, they add quite a prominent and seemingly foreign element to the ostensibly traditional Greek ante-style façade of the building. Only a portion of the head of one of the sphinxes was found, while the other is far better preserved so that, although it is heavily weathered, it is possible to explain its original posture and general appearance.

Figure 122. The Labraunda sphinx. Gunter 1995, fig. 4g

It is evident that the layout of the two androns is far from the normal layout of Greek androns, either in private houses or in public and sacral architecture.75 Such measures were better achieved with the Oikos Building and the East Stoa. Clearly, some other kind of celebration must have taken place here. Hellström has suggested that the androns served as cult buildings in a ruler's cult: The most prestigious banqueting at Labraynda apparently took place in the two androns. This is shown both by their external decoration and their interior. The size, the temple-like exterior, the axiality and the central niche for statues give the androns an architectural form seemingly intended to make them the central buildings of the site. The epigraphical evidence, indeed, proves that Andron B was the first major building to be completed at Labraynda within the Hecatomnid building project. At that time the temple of Zeus was only a small distyle-inantis-building, in size only 8.06 m by 11.26 m, and thus far smaller than the andron. This fact adds emphasis and importance to 75

Hellström 1996, 168. Hellström 1996, 168-169. See also Robinson 1946, 454 (andron) and 459 (hestiatorion). It is striking that an inscription mentioning Melas' andron was found built into the walls of the Castle of St. Peter in 1963 by Kristian Jeppesen. This suggests that the term andron was used as the designation of a common/public meeting place, the equivalent of a club. Strong & Jeppesen 1964, 195203. 78 And perhaps the only fairly clear example. Although Ann C. Gunter suggested that the relief depicting a Persian chariot may be an Iranian dedication, the style of that relief is quite in vogue with 4th century BC Greek sculpture, most prominently represented on the Maussolleion. Gunter 1995, 29, 38-41. 79 Gunter 1995, 21-30. 76 77

Bergquist 1990, see e.g. fig. 7. 89

on the shoulders. On the head the sphinx wears a polos and fillet. Likewise, the body and legs of the animal are quite summarily modelled and details on the wings are again indicated more by cutting than modelling. It is very impressive. Severe and powerful, the sphinxes guard the building adding symmetry and a certain amount of brutality. It is clear that the Labraunda sphinxes draw on Persian counterparts, known from court art, where antithetic male bearded sphinxes act as guards, for instance, at the Palace of Darius in Persepolis, and on stamp seals often centred around a winged sun disc symbolizing or referring to Ahuramazda [fig. 124].81 Of particular interest are a group of 5th century seals produced in the western empire. Here heraldic royal sphinxes are among the decorations on the seals. Some of the seals are inscribed with Lydian names, and they were probably produced and used in Lydia by the satrapal administration.82 This signifies that the motif was not unknown and the reference to the Achaemenid, satrapal administration was probably clearly understood.83 And that is exactly why Andron B was decorated with these Achaemenid-Karian sphinxes.84 For Persian court art is not the only analogy evoked by these guardians, they also represent an important reference to the sanctuary to which they belong. The Labraunda sphinxes both carry a polos and fillet, and they each have two long locks of slightly curly hair arranged symmetrically over each shoulder. There can be little doubt that these elements

Figure 124. Sphinx from the façade of Palace G in Persepolis. Curtis & Tallis 2005, cat.no. 46

It is a strange sphinx; peculiarly archaistic and severe.80 The long beard is depicted as a mass with regular grooves cut into it – and also the line between the beard and chest and neck is indicated by a groove. Quite a long moustache breaks the massive impression of the beard and emphasises the lips. The hair above the forehead is rolled up and frames the face in a semicircle, while two symmetrically arranged long locks of slightly curly hair fall

Gunter 1995, 24-29 provides a detailed interpretation of the sphinxes in Achaemenid and Western Anatolian contexts. 82 Boardman 1970; Dusinberre, 2003, 163-164, et passim chapter 7. 83 Stucky 1988, published fragments of three quite resembling male heads deriving from the Eschmun sanctuary at Sidon. He has persuasively suggested a reconstruction of these fragments as sphinxes in analogy with those of Labraunda. He has underlined the role of the sphinx as the guardian, both in the Achaemenid and Greek contexts. 84 Ann C. Gunter presented some thoughts on the significance of these Achaemenid references in the sanctuary at Labraunda, underlining evidence for the introduction of Iranian elements in the cults e.g. at Sardis, Ephesos and Amyzon. A dedicatory inscription from an otherwise unknown Ariarames is known from Labraunda, however dated to c. 300 BC (Crampa 1972, 28-29, cat.no. 28), and Gunter suggested that the relief depicting a Persian chariot, probably a piece from the second half of the 4th century BC, may have been an Iranian dedication. Gunter 1995, 28-29. 81

Figure 123. Reconstruction of Andron B. Gunter 1995, fig. 6

See Gunter 1995, 21-24 for a detailed description.

80

90

Figure 125. A relief decorated base from Stratonikeia. Fleischer 1973, Tafel 137 Figure 126. A relief from Mylasa. Fleischer 1973, Tafel 139

were meant to recall the ancient cult image of Zeus Labraundos. Thus, the seemingly highly Persian sphinxes all the same reveal their embedding in the ancient cult at Labraunda. When participating in one of the banquets in Labraunda one was under the protection and surveillance of the might of the Achaemenid Empire as well as that of Zeus Labraundos.

other spoils. He therefore constructed a statue of Zeus and placed the axe in its hand, and called the god Labraundeus; for the Lydians call the axe labrys.85 Aelian gives another explanation of his epithet: A sword is attached to the side of the statue, and the god is worshipped under the name of 'Zeus of Caria' and 'God of War' for the Carians were the first to think of making a trade of war and to serve as soldiers for pay, to fit arm-straps to their shields, and to fix plumes on their helmets. And they were called 'Carians' after Car the son of Creta and Zeus, and Zeus received the title of Labraundeus because he sent down furious (labros) and heavy rainstorms.86

THE CULT STATUES Plutarch recounts this tale of Zeus Labraundos and his axe: Why is it that the statue of the Labrandean Zeus in Caria is fashioned holding an axe, but not a sceptre or a thunderbolt? Because when Heracles had slain Hippolytê together with her other arms he took her axe and gave it as a present to Omphalê. The Lydian kings who succeeded Omphalê used to carry it as a part of the sacred regalia, handing it down one to the other until it came to Candaules. He deemed it of little worth and gave it to one of his Companions to carry. But when Gyges revolted and was at war with Candaules, Arselis came from Mylasa with an army as an ally for Gyges and slew both Candaules and his Companion and brought the axe to Caria together with the

Plutarch, Moralia 301F-302A, Loeb library. Aelian Hist. Anim. 12.30. However, Cook 1965, 591 related the fierce warlike nature of the Karians that also gave Zeus the Stratios epithet.

85

86

91

There are two general ways of rendering Zeus Labraundos: an Archaic Karian (?) type, closely related to Artemis Efesia, and perhaps the Samian Hera, and a typical 4th century BC draped contrapposto type. Although it is reasonable to imagine that the Archaic Zeus indeed depicts an ancient cult statue in the sanctuary, it only appears on reliefs and coins from the Hellenistic period onwards.87 I have argued for the ancient cult traditions of the sanctuary as expressed also in the iconography of the cult image.88 Here we shall focus on the characteristic features of the cult image and its incorporation within the iconography of the Hekatomnid dynasty. Robert Fleischer included a study of the Labraundean Zeus in his monograph on the Efesian Artemis and related cult statues.89 The most illustrative and detailed renderings are a weathered relief on a quadrangular basis in Stratonikeia [fig. 125], a now lost relief from Mylasa [fig. 126], a depiction on a Mylasan coin issued under Geta [fig.127],90 and the famous Tegea relief, where Zeus Labraundos is flanked by Idrieus and Ada [fig. 27].91 The main features of the Archaic Zeus is that the lower part of his body and his legs are wrapped either in a cloth bound with long strings, or in some kind of net, thus figs. 126 and 127. In some of the depictions it may look as if this wrapping continues all the way up to the chest. However, this remains unclear since the chest and abdomen is decorated with hanging ovoid objects, similar to those on the cult image of Artemis Efesia, thus figs. 125, 126, and 127. Traditionally, these were interpreted as breasts — the polymastic Artemis — and it was quite problematic to explain this female feature as a characteristic of the fierce Zeus Stratios / Labraundos.92 The interpretation offered by Gérard Seiterle in 1979 that these ovoid objects were scrota serve both Artemis Efesia and Zeus Labraundos much better.93 Way back in Anatolian religion, the bull represented fertility and it was one of the epithets (another was the double axe) of the Anatolian storm god as well as the sun goddess Hebat (who carries a polos). The Archaic cult statue of Zeus Labraundos is bearded (except on the Mylasa relief) and he wears a polos. Perhaps

Figure 127. A Mylasan coin issued under Geta. Fleischer 1973, Tafel 143:a

two long locks of slightly curly hair fall symmetrically over each shoulder on the Stratonikeia relief, and on a Hadrian cistophoric tetradrachm, long locks of hair may be rendered falling onto the shoulders of Zeus [fig. 128].94 In his right hand, Zeus lifts a double-axe, the labrys, either with his arm at a right angle [fig. 126 and 127], or as on the Tegea relief [fig. 27] lifted higher. Indeed the Tegea rendering differs a bit, and may in some ways form an intermediate variety between the Archaic and the contrapposto type: here the lower part of his body is draped in a himation, the end of which he carries over his left arm.95 This matches the Stratonikeia relief fig. 126 as well as the Hadrianic cistophoric tetradrachm, fig. 128. In his left hand, he carries a spear. In all the renderings of the Archaic cult statue, his right arm also forms a right angle, probably depicting the traditional Standmotiv of Archaic sculpture. On some of the depictions, the presumably woollen bands that also adorn Artemis Efesia are shown hanging from his wrists to his ankles. The significance of these bands may be related to a stone cult where the binding of woollen bands around the holy stone formed part of the initiation or worship of the stone.96 Or it may refer

Fleischer 1973, Taf. 142b Fleischer has suggested that the stylistic differences of the depictions of the cult image may reflect the changing style of the ropes that the deity received as gifts in the sanctuary and with which, by all likelihood, the xoanon was dressed. Fleischer 1973, 323. 96 Fleischer 1973, 110. 94

Fleischer 1973, 399. 88 Above, chapter two 89 Fleischer 1973, 310-324. 90 BMC Caria 38 / Laumonier 1958, 68 + Pl. IV:4 91 BM 1914.7-14.1 92 Cf. Laumonier 1958, 75-80. 93 Seiterle 1979. 87

95

92

the other [fig. 132].99 On these coins, the double axe constitutes part of the background decoration of the coin. Depictions of Zeus Labrandos are only known from the 4th century BC onwards. Thus, no images that can be dated from before the Hekatomnid reawakening of the sanctuary exist. We have no evidence of the existence of a cult statue before, yet, activities in the sanctuary are traceable back to the Early Archaic period in the form of a modest amount of subgeometric pottery.100 In the Late Archaic period, monumental architecture in the form of an ante-style (?) temple is possible. Would not this temple have contained a cult statue?

Figure 128. A Hadrian cistophoric tetradrachm. Fleischer 1973, Tafel 142b

THE TEGEA RELIEF

Figure 129. Zeus Labraundos on the reverse of a silver didrachm issued by Idrieus (351-344 BC). Konuk 2003, cat.no. 92

It has been suggested that the depiction on the relief from Tegea might illustrate the actual sculptural decoration of the central niche in the back wall of the andron of Idrieus, Andron A [fig. 27]. Only few fragments of freestanding sculpture have been found at Labraunda likely to belong to the Hekatomnid period. A foot was found in 1951 at the rear wall of the Andron B annex. Ann C. Gunter suggested, because of its close analogy with the Maussolleion sculpture,101 that it may be part of a statue of Maussollos, and was perhaps once placed in the central niche of Andron A, in analogy with the relief. Also scrap bronzes have been found in Andron B in connection with the excavation of the floor of the andron in the early 1990's. Hellström suggested that the scrap bronzes, belonging to a draped sculpture, as well as the foot, are the remains of a statue group that were once placed in the central niche of the andron.102 This is of course insufficient evidence on which to base any reconstruction of the sculptural decoration of the androns. It seems fair to suggest that indeed the large niches in the rear wall of both androns were intended for large-scaled sculptural

Figure 130. An enthroned Zeus Labraundos. Posthume Alexander drachm, Mylasa c. 300-280 BC. http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotI D=82951&AucID=89&Lot=694

to Zeus Labraundos as a deity welcoming refugees and granting them asylum in his sanctuary.97 The contrapposto Zeus deviates most strongly in his Standmotiv and in his garment. He is loosely wrapped in a himation, worn above a short-sleeved chiton. He carries a double-axe in one hand, while he leans against the spear [fig. 129]. On some of the coins, he is accompanied also by an eagle, an olive wreath or other objects, though never allusions to the scrota or other fertility symbols.98 The Hellenistic Zeus may also be rendered seated on a throne with the eagle on one hand and a lance in

97

99

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?Lo tID=52592&AucID=55&Lot=150 100 The nearest we come is Plutarch's story of Gyges making the statue and giving the god his attribute and epithet. This would of course provide us an Archaic cult image from the second quarter of the 7th century BC. In all, 23 sherds of subgeometric pottery are included in the publication of the Archaic pottery from Labraunda, Jully 1981, 9-10. 101 Gunter 1995, 20. 102 Hellström 1996, 168; Gunter 1995, 20-21.

Fleischer 2002, 208-215.

98

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?Lo tID=68557&AucID=73&Lot=265 & http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?Lo tID=84444&AucID=90&Lot=747 93

traditional organisation and roots for the survival and success of the Hekatomnid dynasty. It is the close bond between these rulers and the blessings of Zeus Labraundos that is the secret behind the successful Hekatomnid satrapy.

DINING IN THE SANCTUARY — QUESTIONS AND REFLECTIONS

Who were welcomed in the Hekatomnid reception halls, who dined there and on what occasions? Were they used for the meetings of the Karians or did they function solely as palace branches of the Hekatomnid high priest and king? Our actual knowledge of the power political structure of the satrap and the Karians is scanty. Yet, the close ties between the old sanctuary in Labraunda and the Hekatomnid house suggest that the sanctuary was important for the Hekatomnid ideology of power. It was important for Maussollos to create firm roots in Labraunda (invent a tradition) in order to show his dynasty's legitimate right to the office as King of the Karians, high priest of Zeus, and thereby his chief mediator, and as Persian satrap. The androns in the midst of the holy grove of Zeus Labraundos served these manifold purposes. Moreover, their architectural features reveal a splendid example of the navigational skills and the well-planned execution of this ideological iconography.

Figure 131. Gordion, restored plan of the Phrygian city. Young 1964, plate 85, fig. 15

Figure 132. Gordion. DeVries 1980, fig. 1

Satrapal palaces are still unknown in the western empire. Yet, if we accept the interpretation that the androns of Labraunda served as palace branches, as audience halls placed in the rural sanctuary, we may in fact be able to discern the contours of the palace architecture. The plan of the Labraunda androns is quite simply a megaron building, with a shallow anteroom and a larger rectangular main room behind it reachable via a central doorway. The megaron is a quite normal and frequently occurring room type, often incorporated in ordinary houses, as for instance, the so-called prostas houses of Priene, Kolophon, and Smyrna, from the Archaic and Classical periods and later. And the megaron house type was used as the main hall in the Helladic palaces as well as in the Bronze Age houses or residential quarters at, for instance, Troy.

decorations and it is tempting to suggest a group in Andron B consisting of portrait statues of Maussollos and Artemisia, and in Andron A, of Idrieus and Ada. The depiction of Zeus on the relief, however, may be an allusion to the sanctuary at Labraunda as such, underlining its political and religious importance for the Hekatomnid rulers. However, this is impossible to know for certain. Perhaps a statue of Zeus was once placed in the niche, and the ruling couple were omitted, since they were the natural centre of the high table below the niche? Zeus stands in the middle of the relief, as the great god on high, and both Ada and Idrieus salute him. They are there at his mercy. In my view this imagery clearly stresses the nature and overwhelming power-political weight of the sanctuary at Labraunda, and, not least, the significance of its

94

led into the city via an inner court [fig. 131-132]. In order to reach the palace and central administration of the Phrygian kingdom, the visitor had to pass through the imposing gateway and then turn sharply to the right. The main palace and the residential quarters were only reachable via a forecourt separated from the central palace by a strong wall with a propylon or doorway giving access to the terrace. Here, two free-standing megaron buildings were on the left side of the approaching visitor and the open square in front of these two buildings was framed on the right side by minor megaron-like buildings as well. Clearly, the so-called Megaron 3 was the largest and most elaborately equipped hall and it must have served as the finest reception hall, as the residential quarters of the Phrygian king, and as the centre of the royal palace in Gordion [fig. 133]. The Phrygian megarons had interior supports, wooden posts, for the roof, dividing the main room into three aisles, and in Megaron 3 also supporting a gallery on the three sides of the room [fig. 134]. Posts were also placed along the walls of the room, in order to carry the weight of both the wooden gallery and the roof.104 The architectural core of the Phrygian megaron was based on skilled carpentry, while the brick walls served merely as a shell of the building. The walls may have been decorated with orthostat reliefs carved by local craftsmen and the roof may have carried acroteriae in the shape of lion heads.105 At least three of the Phrygian megarons, 1, 2, and 9, had pebble mosaic floors in the characteristic geometric patterns presumably originating from textile designs [fig. 136-137]. And one must suppose that this was the standard floor type of the megarons in general, and no less of Megaron 3.106 At the excavation rich finds were recovered from the interior of the hall, revealing many aspects of the Phrygian aristocratic lifestyle that quite match the evidence from the rich burials in the great tumuli.107 At least five pieces of furniture decorated with inlays were recovered near the east wall [fig. 135]. They must have matched the furniture from tumulus MM and the luxurious furniture from the Salamis royal tombs in Cyprus. We know that such items were used as gifts among ancient Near Eastern aristocrats and they indeed charac-

Another parallel seems much closer both in respect to the actual layout, the proportions and the supposed function of the androns: the palatial quarters at Gordion.103 Gordion was well fortified with solid walls and a magnificent gateway, which

Figure 133. Plan of Megaron 3. Dyson 1980, fig. 1

Figure 134. Hypothetic reconstruction of the roof and balconies of Megaron 3. Dyson 1980, fig. 2

Young 1978, 14-15; 1962. Thus "living up to the style of Assyrian palace builders", Young 1978, 16. 106 Young 1965, 9. 107 Young 1960, 239-240. 104 105

Good concise descriptions of the palatial quarters and the architectural features of Phrygian Gordion: DeVries 1980; Young 1978; Young 1962.

103

95

When they were permitted to enter the hall, they met the king and his officials in a room lavishly decorated with textiles, prestigious furniture and tableware. They were served refreshments, either local beer or imported (?) wine, and exotic food.

Figure 136. Pebble mosaic floor of the so-called burnt building. Young 1965, 10

Figure 135. A wooden side table from tumulus MM at Gordion. The Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, guide, no year.

terised the settings of the Megaron as a palatial quarter.108 An extreme wealth of textiles were also recovered, both presumably wall hangings and furniture coverings. Carved ivory plaques both in Levantine or Neo-Assyrian style and local Phrygian work were found, as well as a gold pellet, probably intended as payment. For the reception and entertainment of the guests at the court both perforated spouted jugs for beer drinking as well as bronze phialae were part of the equipment. Cauldrons and a ladle were also recovered, and a large number of three-foiled jugs contained food. The Phrygian king served hazelnuts from the Black Sea area, and cornelian cherries from the Pontos Mountains.109 Astragals, an axe-adze, and iron hearth tools reveal information on the work and leisure pursuits undertaken here. In Megarons 1 and 4 many spindle whorls and loom weights indicate that textile production constituted part of the activities carried out at the Phrygian court. In the king's hall, Megaron 3, the king could receive his guests who had lined up outside, some — perhaps the less important ones — waiting patiently to be permitted in to the audience. They whiled away their waiting time by scratching graffiti on the outer walls of the building [fig. 138].110

Figure 137. Drawing of the pebble mosaic of the socalled burnt building. Young 1965, 11

The Phrygian capital at Gordion was overthrown and destroyed in a devastating attack from the north by the Kimmerians at the end of the 8th century BC. The city was burned down, but sometime during the first half of the 6th century BC, a largescale rebuilding took place.111 First the city mound was raised with a layer of clay between 2.5 and 4 m in height, probably as a means to prevent flooding from the Sangarius river. However, the new Gordion repeated the layout of the Phrygian capital to

Carstens 2005, 69-70. DeVries 1980, 36. 110 Young 1958, 143. 108 109

111

96

Young 1964, 284-285.

buildings for the Achaemenid officials and the satrap of Greater Phrygia.112 Gordion was known as a well-fortified stronghold, and it commanded a strategic position both in the heyday of the Phrygian kingdom and in the Achaemenid period, as a major station on the so-called royal road linking Anatolia together.113 The palace of Achaemenid Gordion had the shape of a Phrygian megaron. Not only do we see the megaron building type in use as palace buildings in Phrygian and Archaic Gordion, but also the proportions of these royal megarons correspond to a great extend with the Hekatomnid androns at Labraunda. The Megaron 3 proportions are 1:1.76, while Andron B at Labraunda are 1:1.66 (outer measurements). Both buildings have almost square main chambers; the Megaron 3 measured c. 14.20 x 18.60 m or 1:1.30,114 Andron B 9.91 x 11.32 m or 1:1.14.115 According to the plans of the Achaemenid Archaic megarons at Gordion, these overall proportions were also repeated.116 With the Phrygian parallel in mind, it is highly interesting that the excavators of Andron A revealed fragments of a pebble mosaic floor during the 1951 campaign [fig. 140].117 Regrettably, only a sketch exists of the floor fragment, and the cleaning of dron B in the early 1980s merely revealed that the original floor was lost. A clearing of a Figure 140. Sketch drawsmall part of the ing of remains of pebble floor of Andron A in mosaics from Andron A at 1985 revealed that Labraunda, found during there had been a the campaign of 1951. Hellstucco floor on two ström 1989, fig. 3 different levels, indicating a raised platform upto "a little more than a meter from the wall".118 This would of course correspond well with the usual arrangement of the dining rooms in Greek houses.

Figure 138. Two piers with doodles, West Phrygian house. Young 1958, plate 21, fig. 3

Figure 139. Restored plan of the Archaic, Persian level at Gordion. Young 1964, plate 85, fig. 10

such an extent that there must have been a master plan right from the beginning of the rebuilding project. A simple comparison of the two plans of the Phrygian and the Archaic city respectively indicates striking similarities [fig. 131 & 139]. One must imagine that some kind of central power lay behind the building programme, either perhaps the Lydian king Alyattes (c. 610-560 BC) or perhaps more likely Cyrus the Great (c. 590/580-529 BC). It is evident that local Phrygian craftsmen, working with their traditional methods rebuilt their city, according to old standards, proportions and techniques. Pebble mosaic floors too were applied in the megarons, and the courtyard in front of the inner palace megarons was cobbled with white pebbles. Whether built on Lydian or Achaemenid initiative, the Archaic palatial quarters served as court

From early on, there existed very close bonds between the regions of western Anatolia. Cultic colBriant 2002, 705-706. Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 21.6. Briant 2002, 705; Young 1978, 9-10. 114 Measurements from Dyson 1980, fig. 1. 115 Hellström & Thieme 1981, 61. 116 Young 1964, 284, Pl. 85, fig. 10 and 11. 117 Hellström 1989, 101. 112 113

97

and it remained so until the Persian invasion in the mid 6th century BC. The town was prosperous as, not least, rich imports of both Corinthian and Attic pottery demonstrate. The majority of the architectural remains excavated at Daskyleion belong to the 5th and first half of the 4th centuries BC. A temenos wall has been found. It was probably rebuilt in the 5th century BC, and it perhaps enclosed a Zorastrian sanctuary that partly overlaid the Phrygian Kybele sanctuary.122 Of high interest are the remains of one or more buildings from the Classical period, which have been investigated most recently by Suat Ateşlier.123 He claims that the remains might derive from an andron building, and he suggests a date in the Early Classical period. Regrettably, the architectural members are all that remains of this structure(s) and it is thus impossible to compare its plan and proportions with the Gordion megarons or the Labraundean androns.124 Daskyleion was greatly marked by its geographic position in the midst of an ancient Greek landscape, with the rich harbour town Kyzikos nearby. The sealings from the archive excavated by Akurgal in 1959 illustrate the rich blend of Greek and Achaemenid artistic traditions and styles.125 And the architectonic members follow East Greek traditions [fig. 141-142], just as an increase in the import of high quality Attic pottery suggests that it formed part of the tableware at the satrapal court.126 The evidence for a Daskyleian Achaemenid palace in the shape of an andron is very meagre. Yet, seen in combination with a long sequence of elements that clearly tie these western satrapies together,127 not least while referring to their collective past, it gains some substance. Thus, when the satrapal quarters of Daskyleion were built as an andron or megaron, it was not a particular copy of a certain Persian palatial architectonic tradition, rather it was a repetition of, and return to, the style of the palatial quarters of the central government of the Phrygian kingdom.

lectives between Phrygia, Lydia and Karia seem to have originated in a distant past, yet played a perhaps even increasing role in the Late Classical period. This is, for instance, visible in the similarities between the cult images of Artemis Efesia and Zeus Labraundos, but also in the blend of deities, their epithets and attributes.119 In the archaeological record, these close relationships are especially evident in the early sculpture,120 and in pottery shapes and decoration, where a certain similarity is observable between Phrygian and Karian vase production.121 The satrapal centre of Hellespontine Phrygia at Daskyleion was included in the Phrygian kingdom in the 8th and 7th centuries BC. A sanctuary to the Phrygian Kybele was built here, and rich votives of proto-Corinthian imports indicate the wealth and optimal position of the site. After the Kimmerian attacks, Daskyleion came under Lydian control,

Figure 141. Ionic capital, the Daskyleion andron. http://daskyleion.tripod.com

Bakir 1997, 236-237; 1995, 276-277. Ateşlier 2001. 124 Bakir 1995, 276; 1997, 236-237. A reconstruction of the façade is found on the Daskyleion homepage, where also the Ionic capital and basis are depicted: http://daskyleion.tripod.com/resim010_010.html, http://daskyleion.tripod.com/resim010_012.html, http://daskyleion.tripod.com/resim010_013.html. 125 Kaptan 2003. 126 Bakir 1997, 237. 127 Cf. Jacobs 1994. 122 123

Figure 142. Ionic base, the Daskyleion andron. http://daskyleion.tripod.com

Hellström 1989, 101. Popko 1995, 160-193; Fleischer 1973, 386-407. 120 Prayon 1987. 121 Carstens 2002b. 118 119

98

idea of the overall plan of the palace, other than that it probably consisted of several buildings on multi-levelled terraces [fig. 145].130 The peak of the natural hill of the Zephyrion was occupied by a temple dedicated to the tutelary deity of Maussollos at Halikarnassos, Apollo. Thus the palace at Halikarnassos lay in the shadow and protection of the god, Apollo, just as the reception hall at Labraunda lay in the shadow and protection of Zeus Labraundos. Apollo is, just as Zeus Labraundos, often depicted with a labrys and the hilltop position of the sanctuary at the palace may just as well refer to the ancient huwaši tradition of the Anatolian storm gods.131 According to Arrian, Alexander built a temple to Zeus on the acropolis of Sardis next to the old Lydian palace of Kroisos, after the god that raised a rain-storm on the occasion of his visit to the Sardian acropolis.132 With or without temple, also part of the acropolis at Sardis may have been regarded a kind of huwaši stone. At least we know that the Sardians worshipped Zeus as a storm god in the Tmolus mountains.133

FIgure 143. Sardis, acropolis north. Upper Slope with L-shaped block. Hanfmann 1977, Tafel 41.2

Figure 144. Sardis, acropolis north. Terrace walls perhaps belonging to the palatial quarters. Hanfmann 1977, Tafel 41.1

Very little is known of the satrapal palace of Sardis.128 It was probably situated on the Acropolis North where high quality limestone and sandstone terracing walls have been found revealing traces of an external staircase [fig. 143-144]. Much of the acropolis has eroded, and it is not possible to obtain an overview of the plan of the palace, other than that it consisted of several building units on multi-levelled terraces.129

Figure 145. Remains of a winged staircase probably part of the Hekatomnid palace on the Zephyrion peninsula in Halikarnassos.

I am convinced that the sanctuary at Labraunda was an ancient Anatolian cult place, that it had its roots in an ancient Anatolian perception of the place as a sacred one. Moreover, that it was constructed according to an ancient Anatolian religious and ritual tradition. Originally, the cult activities were centred around the split rock and in the area east of the built tomb. As Aelian relates,

If we accept the idea that the androns at Labraunda were reception halls, a palace branch, for the King of the Karians, then we may already have some idea of the architecture and layout of the main Hekatomnid palace at the Zephyrion peninsula in Halikarnassos. As in Sardis, recent excavations have revealed large terrace walls, various parts of foundation walls and staircases inside the Castle of St. Peter. It is difficult to obtain any

Pedersen forthcoming. Popko 1995, 178-179. Carstens 2008a. 132 Arrian, Anabasis 1.17. 3-6. 133 See above, chapter two, 26. 130 131

128 129

Hanfmann 1977; Hanfmann 1980, 103-105. Hanfmann 1977, 151-152. 99

perhaps even the fierce nature of the deity celebrated here gave him his name. It was a storm god's sanctuary, the source of mighty forces. The cult relations bring the sanctuary in Labraunda into a Phrygian/Lydian sphere, best illustrated by the xoanon cult image, the religious characteristics of the cult, and further underlined by many other cultural relations between Phrygia, Lydia and Karia.

cal imagery. This in turn raises the question: how could Maussollos be allowed to act like an old oriental king in the federal sanctuary of the Karians at Labraunda?134 The answer may be in the sphinxes: because Achaemenid presence meant an Achaemenid will to protect and preserve the Hekatomnids as satraps, the standing Persian army secured his outstanding position while Zeus Labraundos both accepted it and blessed him.135 In Labraunda the satrap was Karian.

The blessed king — a sanctuary for a dynasty

Yet, was it in this light a Karian or a satrapal sanctuary? Who visited the sanctuary — and why? Seeking audience with the satrap, asking the oracle for advice. Was membership of the Karian federation a necessity? Herodotos recounts that the Lydians had a share in the Zeus Karios sanctuary at Mylasa, an inscription from Sardis reveals that there was a common sanctuary for Artemis and Zeus Polieus, and it is known that Zeus Karios was worshipped on a mountain in the Tmolus range, a sanctuary that must have been one of the stations during the annual procession or pilgrimage between the Artemision at Efesos and the Artemis temple at Sardis. Moreover, according to Plutarch, Gyges gave the cult statue of Zeus Labraundos. Close relations. Thus, can we exclude that at some point the Lydians had some share in the political matters that were dealt with by the Karians? Was it, then, not only a Karian sanctuary, but via threads traceable way back in history, indeed, also a sanctuary and a common meeting place for Lydians as well as Karians? And did Labraunda then serve as a base for diplomatic relations to the satrapal court in Sardis?

Approaching the reception hall of Maussollos at Labraunda, one had to climb several staircases, zigzagging one's way to meet the King on High. He received his subjects or equals in the shadow and protection of the God on High, Zeus Labraundos who might even have overlooked the meetings inside the andron in the shape of a statue in the room’s central niche. Indeed the architectural packaging of these official, palatial quarters of Labraunda underlined the Hekatomnid's ideological iconography that played on a multitude of strings. It alluded and referred to a vast number of relationships that all pulled in the same direction embellishing the king as a blessed one. In this, the ideological iconography, deeply rooted in Anatolian tradition, yet oriented towards newer fields of interest politically as well as culturally, found its masterpiece in the Andron. It was built as a Greek antestyle temple, yet, following the plan of the old Phrygian and Lydian or Achaemenid palaces at Gordion, it was decorated with corner acroteriae which both referred to the Persian guardian sphinxes of the Persian heartland's palaces and to the ancient Anatolian cult image of Zeus Labraundos. The reception hall inside the sanctuary of the local Zeus was used by the Hekatomnid satrap and King of the Karians. I believe that Labraunda was the key sanctuary for the Hekatomnids, where they staged and used the rural site as an extended palace, suited for processions, audiences, and banquets in a magnificent setting. I further suggest that the meetings of the Karian federations were transferred from lowland Mylasa to Labraunda during the Hekatomnid period. Or at least, that when the leader, the King of the Karians needed to be consulted he was often to be found in Labraunda under the protection of an ancient deity, in the midst of well-staged ideologi-

As stated above, it is not known if the office as King of the Karians was a hereditary or appointed office that may have even circulated amongst the shifting members of the federation. It seems however, that the Karians from way back in history were organised in a rather loose or informal way. It is tempting to see the title King of the Karians as a means to meet standard political organisations elsewhere in western Anatolia, e.g. the Lydian Kingdom. 135 Sekunda 1991, 88-91. 134

100

CHAPTER FIVE Karia.472 Karia from the outside or rather, Karia in a Hellenic perspective. Consequently, Maussollos was described as a paradox: a Persian satrap, though philhellene. In his description of Karian infrastructure, Hornblower presented a simplistic hierarchical structure:

THE HEKATOMNID DYNASTY: AN ICONOGRAPHY OF IDEOLOGY? My reading of Karia and the Hekatomnids is based on the assumption that in the staging of the dynasty lay a carefully planned and executed ideology expressed in an official iconography. It rested on an ancient perception of the sanctity of the office of king, and on the organisation of the Karians as a people in federal assemblies, koina. It was expressed not only in the grandest state monuments of the dynasty, the Maussolleion and the sanctuary at Labraunda, but it also formed a sort of euthyntherion, a levelling course below the societies of the Karians. It was, or it became, a ritualized world order.

The social pattern of Karian settlements was distinctive: the simple, despotically ruled Lelegian sites which Mausolus synoikized are archaeologically identifiable; and it was remarked in antiquity that Karians as an έθνος were village- rather than polisdwellers (a judgement which may be specially true of the unassimilated Lelegian — that is, barbarian — serfs, who were perhaps dependent on the Greek poleis).473 Karia is described as a backwater, an isolated landscape without the sophistication of intellectual riches of other cultures until the Hekatomnids altered their world view.474 The ethnic groups were perceived as singular entities that lived sort of parallel lives with only vague and limited room for interaction. In such a climate, a Persian satrapy using Greek artistic expertise for its official hybrid state art is an anomaly.

The present chapter is divided into three main sections each examining themes relating to the organisation of Karia, to Karian infrastructure and to foreign relations within an Aegean protoHellenistic network. The first section is devoted to Karian infrastructure and/or organization. It takes up the discussion of the Karian koinon and its significance in the political settlement structures. A critique of earlier works rooted in the Classical Tradition is included, and the premises of the work of the Copenhagen Polis Centre and its results are discussed. Consequently, the second section explores the nature and impact of Hekatomnid patronage inside and outside Karia and its relation to both the state art iconography and the foreign policy of the dynasty. Thirdly, Hekatomnid coinage, its ideological setting as a mass-media of dynastic iconography is discussed.

The background for this model of Karian society is Greek literary sources, which mention either two or three groups of people living in Karia: Greeks, Karians, and the mysterious people, the Lelegians; they discuss their origin, and their possible territories in Karia.475 However, these sources present an equivocal description of the situation as it may have been in a remote past, or as it appeared to be during the writer’s time. First I will deal with the Lelegians. Here, Strabo is the main source. In three passages, he discusses the ethnic situation in Karia.476 First, he characterises the Karians as fellows or identical with the Lelegians, then as two different peoples. Or as one people that changed its name during a migration from the islands. The Lelegians led either a wan-

Karian infrastructure and organization

Hornblower 1982. This, the Hellenic perspective of Mausolus was among the critical remarks raised by Ann C. Gunter in an article later disputed by Simon Hornblower, Gunter 1985; Hornblower 1990. 473 Hornblower 1982, 9-10. 474 Hornblower 1982, in particular 10-12. 475 Flensted-Jensen & Carstens 2004. 476 Strabo 7.7.2, 13.1.58-59, 14.2.27. 472

Simon Hornblower’s monograph Mausolus was devoted to the story of the Hellenization of

101

and one-dimensional model of explanation is employed in Lohmann’s analysis of the acculturation processes:

dering life, they migrated from the Troas to the Halikarnassos peninsula and Pisidia, or they came from the islands to the mainland. In Karia, both the territory of Miletos, and elsewhere, either "in many places" or in "the whole of Karia", were tombs, forts and settlements of the Lelegians. This description of a certain Lelegian building type and Lelegian territories has had a huge impact on the archaeological investigation of Karia.477 That the Lelegian settlements of the Halikarnassos peninsula should thus be archaeologically identified, as Hornblower implies, is, however, still a question open to debate.478 Another author, Philip of Theangela is mentioned in Athenaios.479 He wrote a work "on the Karians and the Lelegians", and Athenaios recounts on the basis of Philip of Theangela that, the Karians used the Lelegians as slaves, both in the past, and in present times. Philip of Theangela must have been a local man, and may possibly have written his work in the 3rd century BC. It is interesting that he implies some kind of hierarchy between the ethnic groups. There are several problems, however, the first being that we have no idea of his actual work apart from the passage in Athenaios and two other works which mention it, the one by Strabo, in a discussion of the Karian language. He tells of Philip, "the one who wrote the history of the Karians".480 Philip of Theangela is also referred to in the scholia to Euripides’ Rhesos as the writer of "On the Karians and the Lelegians".481 Another, and major, problem is that it is impossible to confirm a distinction between these ethnic groups through archaeological material. We can infer many things about different lives and living conditions in various parts of Karia, on different lives lived in the cities and in the countryside. Yet, it is impossible to label these differences as being a result of different ethnic groups.

Auf einen regen wirtschaftlichen Austauch der karischen Hirtenpopulation des Berglandes mit der griechischen Bevölkerung der Milesischen Halbinsel verweist vor allem die rein griechischen Keramik in den Gräbern und Compounds. Indem hier genau wie auf der Bodrum-Halbinsel die orthogonalen Formen griechischer Gehöftarchitektur nach und nach die originär karischen Oval- und Rundbauten verdrängen, wird ein höchst bemerkenswerter Akkulturationsprozess augenfällig…482 The prior assumption is that Greeks preferred orthogonal farmsteads, while Karians preferred oval and round buildings. And, not least, that Greek pottery is evidence of Hellenization. With this point of departure, it is hardly surprising that the outcome of the study of the acculturation process is that, yes, the Karians lived in the hinterland — here we find the oval or round buildings, while the Greeks preferred civilized polis life, orthogonal buildings, and Greek styled pottery. Thus, we find Greeks or perhaps happily Hellenized Karians living in orthogonal buildings. The model, by and large, only explains its own construction.483 The analyses are based on a traditional archaeological concept of culture as formulated by V. Gordon Childe in the early 20th century.484 This operational concept of culture, based on well defined selections of objects typical of a given area or a given period or both is particularly problematic when dealing with the meetings of cultures. It is stable and inflexible, and therefore it lacks heuristic potential whenever movement, cultural, intellectual or physical, is involved.

THE CLASSICAL TRADITION AND KARIA These works, both Hornblower’s monograph, Lohmann’s survey, and general descriptions of, for instance, Karian Archaic pottery,485 are embedded

A clear distinction between Greek polis-dwellers and local Karians living in the hinterlands, however, also formed a prior assumption of the surveys on the Milesian hinterlands directed by H. Lohmann from 1990 to 1999. A somewhat categorical

Schol.Eur. Rhes.509. Lohmann 1999, 450. 483 The definition of the ethnic composition in Karia presented by E.A. Hemelrijk too rests on similar preconceptions, Hemelrijk 1987, 54. See Carstens 2002b, 137-139. 484 Childe 1929, v-vi. 485 For the pottery discussion, Cf. Lenz 1997; Hemelrijk 1987; Geercke 1981; Carstens 2002b. 481

482

477 Newton 1862-63, chapter 25; Paton & Myres 1896, 268-270; Bean & Cook 1955, 143-165; Radt 1970, 9; Hornblower 1982, 90; Varinlioğlu 1992. 478 Flensted-Jensen & Carstens 2004, 118-119; Rumscheid forthcoming. 479 FGrH 741 fr.2 480 Strabo 14.2.28.

102

turation studies carried out on the basis of an operational concept of archaeological cultures. Beyond the sphere of the Athenian Hellenes, the picture that emerges is rarely one of some α, β, or γ degree of Hellenicity, but rather one of multifaceted, intermingled, amalgamated, blended life forms. This is a natural consequence of being both subject and object of cultural contact and cultural change.491 Certainly there were Karians in Karia, and Greeks in Karia. However, the question is how Karian were the Karians and how Greek were the Greeks in Karia? And, how Greek were the Karians, and how Karian the Greeks in the 4th century BC?

in the idea of the Happy Hellas. They are based on 19th century antiquarian traditions. This Classical Tradition continues to stamp traditionalists' view of Classical antiquity and the ancient Mediterranean. This is also the case of the Copenhagen Polis Centre's (CPC) inventory of poleis in Archaic and Classical Hellas.486 The inventory is based on the unspoken assumption that it is possible to distinguish Greeks from non-Greeks in the Hellas that was formed somehow as a "national" ethnic identity by the Early Classical period.487 Throughout the Classical world included in the CPC inventory, a marking of the degree of Hellenicity, α, β, and γ is used in the classification of the poleis, from very Greek to less so. The distinction is applied in order not to provide "a grossly distorted picture of the Hellenic polis world".488 Included in this statement is of course the assumption that a Hellenic polis existed as a measurable political and physical entity. As such, it counts cultural issues, identities, and sentiments (of belonging) according to checklists and rigid definitions. Was the town ever called a polis? If not may it have been, if only the sources had been handed down? Was there a city-wall, a theatre, a bouleuterion?489

At least since the Late Bronze Age, Karia was closely related to the Aegean. The large necropolis at Müsgebi attests that Mycenaeans probably lived here in close interaction with (other) local peoples of Anatolian descent. This is what the archaeological sources suggest.492 These connections between the Aegean and Anatolia in Karia are traceable through the cult roots, and through material evidence, such as pottery and building techniques. And (perhaps) in the political organization. By the 4th century BC, ethnic Greeks and ethnic Karians had been living closely together for more than a millennium as cultural Karians. I suggest that by then these groups were hardly sharply divided, indeed if they ever had been.

The formation of a collective identity as Hellenes was a consequence of the Persian Wars in the early 5th century BC, first and foremost felt by the Athenians, and according to J. Hall, this "national" identity represented an Athenocentric conception of the world.490 A classical case of the Classical Tradition. The secret assumption of the Hellenocentric or Athenocentric world view is that all people in contact with the Hellenic wished to be part of this world; they all wanted to be Greek. Being Hellenic was a superior status — a higher life form — that was known and very much appreciated as such by the barbaroi.

KOINON AND POLIS — KARIANS AND GREEKS? In an article dealing with the Karian settlements of the Rhodian peraia in the Hellenistic period, V. Gabrielsen has described the polis-koinon issue as central for an understanding of the political systems in play in Karia. A koinon denotes a political community and in this it may correspond to the political significance of the polis. This, he says, seems to have been neglected or forgotten in the discussion of the political organization of Karia.493 Yet, on the basis of a close study of the settlements in the area usually labelled the "subject peraia", Gabrielsen is able to conclude that in the Hellenistic period the region:

When the degree of Greekness is measured according to a rule book, the analyses run the risk of becoming as two-dimensional and flat as the accul486 Hansen

& Nielsen 2004. 2002, 168-171. 488 Hansen & Nielsen 2004, 7. 489 The structure of the inventory is described and commented briefly in the introduction of the work, Hansen & Nielsen 2004, 6-10. Archaeologically attested evidence is generally listed under the heading “the urban center”, 9. 490 Hall 2002, 202. 487 Hall

491 Parallels from modern creole communities may both offer a better explanatory model of the situations in ancient border areas; as well as offer a qualified perspective to creolization studies. See below, chapter 6. 492 Carstens 2008b, 52-71; Simpson 2003; Hawkins 1998.

103

an α category polis, one (7%) is a β polis, a mixed community, while the remaining 13 poleis (93%) are barbarian. Five (36%) are called polis in at least one ancient written source, four (29%) are subsumed together with other poleis, two (14%) ought to have been called polis in an ancient source (thus evidenced ex silentio), while three (21%) are merely suggested as poleis. Hence, while the degree of Hellenicity of these settlements is questioned, the majority of the sites are regarded as poleis. Compared with the total number of poleis or settlements included in the CPC inventory of Karian poleis, the meagre prosopographic evidence may be thought to reveal considerable knowledge of the ethnic and non-Hellenic nature of those particular societies from where a Karian personal name is known [Appendix, table 2]. For all 72 poleis included in the inventory, 7% are Hellenic poleis, 32% belong to the mixed group, while 28% are barbarian societies. A rather large group 33% is subsumed as unknown or as having a disputed level of Hellenicity. Of the sites, 19% are called polis in at least one ancient written source, 7% are subsumed together with other poleis in the sources, 22% ought to have been called poleis if only our sources had survived, while 51% are merely suggested as poleis. On a rough estimate, the statistical data reveals that, in total, half of the poleis in the Karian inventory were only probably poleis, and of these, only 7% have revealed evidence of Karians living there. What remains is the central question of whether this data reveals anything at all of the actual ethnic composition or the political structure of Karia.

…contained a number of separate political communities which, even though they often call themselves koina, either are also called poleis, or are attested to possess the main attributes of a polis. Several of these poleis were also members of a larger political organization, the Chrysaorikon ethnos.494 This case of either a similar political meaning of both koinon and polis, or cases of a double denomination is also indicated by Winfried Held in his brief discussion of the Karian settlements in the Karian Chersonnesos: Zugleich sind die Orte der Chersones aber πολεις, eine Doppelung, die auch in Innerkarien belegt ist und, da häufig die ältere Quelle die Polis und die jüngere das κοινον überliefert, nicht als eine Entwicklung vom dörflichen Bund zur Stadt werden kann.495 This is indeed a refutation of the explanation Hornblower offered of the particular double denomination problem, namely that the koina turned into poleis over time as a result of a Hellenization process.496 Furthermore, in the brief introduction of the catalogue of poleis in Karia produced by the Copenhagen Polis Centre it is reiterated that: The communities of Karia constitute a mixture of Karian settlements (probably citystates) in the hinterland and Greek settlements, which were mainly situated on the coast. The majority of the Karian sites were probably not Hellenised until C4. […] Few places are specified as Karian or mixed in the sources, but in addition to the fact that several toponyms — such as Karyanda and Koranza — are Karian, Karian names of individuals are attested at Alabanda, Armelitai, Halikarnassos, Kyblisseis, Hydaieis, Kasolabeis, Kaunos, Keramos, Killareis, Koliyergeis, Koranza, Ouranion, Pladasa and Syangela.497

The inventory is based on ancient written sources, either literary texts or epigraphy. Only to a certain extent is archaeology included, first and foremost in the form of a rather complicated toponym bingo: in Karia, this discipline was founded by the early antiquarians who first set out to explore the hinterlands of Halikarnassos, and it is brilliantly illustrated in G.E. Bean and J.M. Cook’s lengthy article on the Halikarnassos peninsula from 1955, where much effort was expended in defining remains of ancient settlements with toponyms listed in the Athenian tribute lists.498

It is important to note the CPC definition of these places. Were they poleis, and if so, in what category? The simple table [Appendix, table 1] illustrates the problem. Here all attested poleis in Karia are listed together with their marking, α, β, γ, or disputed. None of the poleis where a Karian personal name has been attested are characterised as

497

Flensted-Jensen 2004.

Bean & Cook 1955. A more recent example is found in Varinlioğlu 1992, and indeed this antiquarian identification of settlements is currently being conducted by the French research teams situated at CNRS, Bordeaux, see e.g. Debord et. al. 2001.

498

Gabrielsen 2000, 133. Gabrielsen 2000, 178. 495 Held 1999, 161. 496 Hornblower 1982, 64-66. 493

494

104

settlement sites which, according to such criteria appear to have been inhabited during the Archaic to Roman periods, either continuously or for some time during this period. The sites are listed alphabetically and 46 of the 48 sites are included in the appendix with a plan drawing or a sketch. The appendix also contains a table summarizing the recorded data according to specific enquiries [Appendix, table 3].

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF KARIAN SETTLEMENTS

An alternative method of producing an overview of the settlement structure is to carry out an archaeological analysis. It is difficult, if not impossible, to produce an exhaustive catalogue of Karians sites. Sufficient archaeological fieldwork has only been carried out in minor regions and the level of information and its authenticity is quite heterogeneous. In spite of these quite typical, inconsistencies and the lack of straightforward comparability, I have been able to include, in all, 48 settlement sites in an archaeological analysis of their basic components in the Appendix. A settlement site is included here if sufficient evidence exists to enable a description of the main features of the site as well as (preferably) a plan drawing or a sketch plan of the perimeters. Naturally, such a register may reveal more of the state of the basic fieldwork than of an ancient situation, and therefore all results must be considered with such a general cavea in mind. The registration concentrates on eight entries, each selected for their descriptive and heuristic potential and for their recognition factor in the archaeological record. A site is marked as a city if it appears as a larger structured settlement with several public buildings and public space or squares. A settlement appears less structured with fewer or a single public building and public square(s). This definition is, of course, grossly subjective, yet it appears that a certain natural differentiation justifies the distinction. Thirdly, it is possible to mark a settlement as a potential Fluchtburg. This category is (also) quite problematic, and it is hardly possible to ascertain which kinds of fortified city or settlement did not also, in times of trouble, function as refuge for peasants and shepherds living their daily lives, at least in season, in the rural territory of the city. And the opposite case: which refuge may not also have housed one or two families as a permanent staff to take care of the beacons? The presence of a city wall, fortifying and defining the boundaries of either the settlement or the city, forms the fourth category. In addition, it may be noted if a special stronghold or a keep within the walls was implied. In some cases, a palace and public buildings as well as harbour complexes may be suggested. Finally a suggested date is included, often deduced from surface pottery, building techniques and other relative methods. I have included all

Of the archaeologically attested sites, 16 (33%) are cities, 30 (63%) settlements, and two sites (4%) are regarded merely as Fluchtburgen. In addition to their status as settlement sites or cities, 18 (38%) may also have functioned as refuges. Almost all of the sites were fortified, only two sites (4%), are not marked as such. This may very well have to do with the state of the evidence rather than of their actual status in ancient times. Nearly half of the sites (21 or 44%) contained a particular stronghold or keep, one quarter (12 or 24%) a palace structure, 19 (40%) testified positive remains of public buildings, and one fifth (10 or 20%) functioned as harbour sites. Yet, more interesting than these lists of numbers are their interconnections [Appendix, table 4]. Harbours are only associated with cities, and public buildings are found in four (25%) settlements sites, and in half of the cities. This should of course not come as a surprise as one of my city criteria is the nature and number of public buildings. Palaces are more equally distributed between cities and settlements, eight (27%) of the settlements, and three (19%) of the cities have attested/suggested palace buildings.499 Strongholds or keeps are found in almost half of the settlement sites and in 38% of the cities. A major obstacle in using these data is the distinctions between different political structures and interdependencies. The data are extremely heterogeneous and the very thoroughly explored regions like the settlements included in W. Radt’s survey in the late 1960s are over-represented in many ways. The data become incomparable and to a large degree meaningless in the larger picture.

Karian palaces Another method of circumscribing this constant difficulty of incompatibility may be to explore a single building type in its various contexts. The However, six of the palaces are only suggestive interpretations, see below.

499

105

considerably larger than the remaining ones and they seem isolated.505 However, it is impossible to conclude the exact position of the main entrance to the building complex, or the interrelation between the rooms. At Loryma too, a palace has been identified at the agora of the walled town.506 It consists of a bipartite building, entered via a small ante room, that either leads in axis to the main audience room, or to the right wing of the building, the residence. Less well documented are the following five settlements with supposed palatial features. At Gökçeler, there ought to have been a palace. Yet the fortified settlement site has hitherto only been investigated sporadically, and the best existing plan was primarily drawn freehand by Bean and Cook.507 At Göl, the situation is somewhat similar, where a palace is only assumed to have been, without any attestation. The palace at Myndos is likewise evidenced ex silentio, as is the case with Idyma and Kindya. Regarding the two remaining palace sites, Halikarnassos and Herakleia, the documentation is better. In recent years remains of the supposed palace of Maussollos have been investigated.508 Placed at the site of the crusaders' castle at the Zephyrion peninsula, a complete plan of the Hekatomnid palace cannot be determined; rather, elements of a larger monumental building complex including winged stairs and a quite complicated access to the royal quarters are what have been identified. At Latmos, the interior fort, a tetrapyrgon, constituted the palace.509 This, of course may lead to speculations regarding other keeps or strongholds in general, as well as the tetrapyrgon at Theangela in particular.510 Was this a keep, a stronghold of the fortification, or a palace as well?

palace seems quite suited for this purpose, not least since the palatial functions of the building may be of relevance for a general consideration of the political situation. Although the source material is quite scanty, a more detailed analysis may also reveal further information to obtain a general or broader picture.500 First, a definition of the term palace seems appropriate in this context. The palace is a building which both serves as a residence for the local king or political leader and as an audience hall for guests at the court. It should thus comprise both a private and a public function. 501 At Alazeytin, a palace complex may be formed by the rooms at the northern and eastern part of the inner keep of the settlement (rooms 53 to 65). The main courtyard, room 52a, led to an inner courtyard, room 54a. From here there was access to a smaller room on the left, room 53, and a room sequence consisting of an antechamber, room 55, and a main audience hall, room 56.502 Another of the settlements of the Halikarnassos peninsula, Çilek Kalesi, may also have had a smaller palace complex consisting of a courtyard, room 18a, and two rooms, one smaller, room 18, at the left side of the courtyard, immediately outside the main room, room 17, which may have constituted an audience hall.503 The palace complex at Girel Kalesi is situated in connection with an inner keep and it occupied rooms 3a, 3, 4, and 5. The entrance to the palace area was from a narrow opening in the east where a larger forecourt, room 7a, led to an inner courtyard, room 3a. From here there was access to three rooms all facing this courtyard, rooms 3 to 5. However, according to Radt, these rooms were merely part of an inner fortified keep and not in any particular way part of a palatial structure. He rather interpreted the building density and structure at Girel Kalesi as agglutinated with no particular monumentality or emphasis attached to any of the buildings.504 This is quite the opposite in the case of the settlement at Ören Avlusu. Here, rooms 17 to 19 are

It may be possible to conclude that whenever attested, palace structures are found in the inner part of a fortified settlement or city. Often the access to the premises is complicated and visitors are lead via forecourts to a main hall. The ancient distribution of the palaces, however, is practically unknown, and the pattern that emerges from the pre-

The sites mentioned in the following are included in the Appendix, with their bibliographic references and illustrations. 501 Nielsen 1994, 11. 502 Radt 1970, 25. 503 Radt 1970, 89. Also rooms 1a, 3 to 5, may form a sort of palace complex, yet it is less obvious, Radt 1970, 87. 504 Radt 1970, 78. 500

Radt 1970, 83. Held 2005. 507 Bean & Cook 1955, 123, note 161. 508 Pedersen forthcoming. 509 Peschlow-Bindokat 2005, 14-16; 1994, 158-159. 510 Bean & Cook 1957, 92-93. 505

506

106

of Artemis at Amyzon [fig. 146].511 It was always an isolated and almost inaccessible site, and ancient writers hardly mention the sanctuary. Yet, it was largely rebuilt and reorganised by the Hekatomnids, chosen as a suitable project for their patronage. The sanctuary at Amyzon was investigated by Louis and Jeanne Robert in 1949, but the publication of the excavation and archaeological examination of the site only appeared in 1983. The natural staging of the sanctuary seems to indicate that it had a long history, that the place was regarded as sacred, and that it was the object of pilgrimage like other natural places in Karia. However, almost nothing remains from the early history of the site. Only a few stray finds from the fill of the terraces attest to the sanctuary’s preHekatomnid life, and the architectural remains are either connected with the 4th century BC complex or a later period.512 The sanctuary site consists of two well-built terraces, the temple terrace and the long terrace connected at right angles. The temple terrace measures 62 by 76 m and it was built in rusticated ash-

sent small overview only reveals that some areas are more thoroughly investigated than others. It is still only possible to suggest an overall frame of interpretation regarding the structure and nature of Karian settlements. It seems that the first categorisation that I introduced, between settlement and city encapsulates the major distinctions between, on one hand almost exclusively coastal harbour cities, and on the other inland or even highland settlements. Any ethnic differentiation however, is not evident. Amongst the ten harbour cities (counting the succeeding cities Latmos and Herakleia as two, and Knidos/Burgaz and Knidos/Tekir as two) four are categorised as Hellenic, four are mixed, one is barbarian, and one (Loryma) is not included in the polis inventory [Appendix, table 4]. However, the vast majority are A poleis, that is attested directly in a written source as poleis. This may indeed reflect that these harbour cities were in quite close contact with the remaining Aegean world, and perhaps, not least, that the coastal cities had all the more reason to be active members of naval alliances.

AN ORGANISATION FOCUSED ON COMMON SANCTUARIES? The highest office in pre-Hekatomnid Karia may have been the position as King of the Karians. This office implied religious functions as well, and there is good reason to suggest that the major political meeting places in Karia were common sanctuaries. Many of them were rural or extra urban, as placed somehow in a no-man's-land, a shared territory, while others specifically were characterised as shared between various groups of people, such as the Zeus Karios sanctuary in Mylasa. In the following, an archaeological analysis of three of these Karian sanctuaries is presented. The analysis focuses on the location and topography of the sanctuary, the buildings and spaces incorporated, and the chronological development of the sanctuary. A description and characterization of the deities worshipped at the common sanctuaries are included as well.

Artemis at Amyzon

Figure 146. Plan of the sanctuary of Artemis at Amyzon. Robert & Robert 1983, fig. 36

A remote and wild mountainous setting in the inner Latmos constitutes the scenery of the sanctuary

Robert & Robert 1983, 57-60. Robert & Robert 1983, 63-84; Pedersen 1991, 100-101; Hellström forthcoming.

511

512

107

hillside, used for and equipped as a theatre. Of the cavea, four rows of seats were visible.515 A monumental well-house was built east of the theatre, perhaps as a part of the Hekatomnid reorganization of the complex.516 Yet, apart from this, no remains of other water installations, cisterns or natural springs were found at the site.517 Very little is known of the cult at Amyzon and of the use of the sanctuary. It was originally an Artemis sanctuary but later Apollo was also included in the cult.518 The earliest mention of the sanctuary as a double precinct for both Artemis and Apollo is an inscription from the time of Antiochos III, while coinage from the 1st century BC confirms a double cult here.519 I suggest that it had a long history as a sacred place, perhaps as a natural open-air sanctuary with a grove, but with only few architectonic installations. Many people may have gathered here at festivals, they were perhaps engaged in cult theatre in the natural cavea, which later was architecturally equipped.

Figure 147. Plan of the sanctuary at Sinuri. Devambez & Haspel 1959

The sanctuary at Sinuri The sanctuary at Sinuri is sited south-east of Milas, in the western fringes of Les Hautes Terres. A low slope contains the sanctuary, which in the Archaic period consisted of a walled temenos, entered from the south, and a rock-altar. The earliest remains derive from the 7th century BC, but Pierre Devambez, the excavator, suggested that the site may have had an even longer history [figs. 147-149]. The cult was centred on the rock altar, but also a small building belongs to the early sanctuary.520 Not even during the Classical period was a temple built at the site; rather its open-air nature was retained. Yet, also this sanctuary was altered and embellished in the 4th century BC, probably by a Hekatomnid initiative.521 A new terrace was constructed, built in ashlar masonry of the local hard limestone,

Figure 148. Sketch plan of the sanctuary at Sinuri, indicating the building phases: 1) Archaic, 2) possibly Archaic, 3) 4th century BC, 4) Graeco-Roman, 5) mostly Byzantine. Pedersen 1991, fig. 104

lar masonry with drafted corners. The stone is a veined bluish limestone, probably local. The precinct was entered from the east where a monumental staircase, 7.40 m wide with c. 20 steps led to an Ionic propylon, with two columns in antis on both fronts. A dedicatory inscription on the architrave of the propylon states that Idrieus dedicated this building.513 The Doric prostyle temple was situated in the northern part of the terrace.514 An altar was sited east of the temple. Very little remains of the architectural members. West of the temple terrace lay an adjacent terrace, c. 47.4 by 168 m, the socalled long terrace, on a slightly lower level. It was built in the same style and technique. Access to this terrace was via a ramp on the eastern side of it near the inner corner between the two terraces. Below the terraces, in the south-east corner between them is a natural cavity or hollow in the 513 514

Robert & Robert 1983, 84. Robert & Robert 1983, 86; Dorl-Klingenschmied 2001, 23, 169. 517 Indeed, the scarcity of water is frequently commented on by visitors to the site, such as Bean 1971, 200; McDonagh 1995, 280. 518 Laumonier 1958, 429-431. 519 Robert & Robert 1983, 138-141. 520 Devambez & Haspels 1959, 23-25. 521 Devambez & Haspels 1959, 27-31; Pedersen 1991, 103. Robert 1945, no. 75-76 underline the Hekatomnid interests in the sanctuary, as does the early statue base, Robert 1945, 100. 515

516

Robert & Robert 1983, 93-96. Robert & Robert 1983, 67-68, 76-86. 108

occupied a ridge of the Eren Dağı crest, a sort of detached spur to the north of the Köklü peak [fig. 149]. Apparently a paved way led up to the sanctuary on the south side of this spur. The pilgrims’ way passed by an old well, just below the saddle. Another paved way led up from the temple ridge to the Köklü peak where large cisterns ensured an adequate supply of water for pilgrims attending the festivals at Kastabos [fig. 150].527 The sanctuary was not marked by a wall; rather its boundaries were given by the natural size and layout of the rocky ridge. The sanctuary contained both a theatre and a temple, but minor buildings and terrace walls were also cleared. The theatre, sited in the south-western part of the sanctuary had an estimated diameter of c. 52 m, and it may have held more than 5000 people [fig. 153].528 A long terrace wall formed a procession road which ran from the north wing of the theatre to the temple terrace over a distance of some 60 m. Several minor buildings were sited inside the sanctuary, yet only one was investigated by Cook and Plommer, House e, south of the temple terrace.529 A small trial excavation provided evidence that the building was erected on top of a layer of sacred refuse. Many of these minor structures may have housed facilities for the pilgrims visiting the sanctuary in search of healing. The temple was constructed on a monumental terrace, c. 34 by 53 m. 530 It was built in ashlar to polygonal masonry of the local limestone in a semicoursed style. The north side of the platform was the highest, c. 4.5 m high originally. A well-fitted ramp, following the direction of the procession road, seems to have formed the main access to the

Figure 150. Sketch of the area at Bybassos — Kastabos. Cook & Plommer 1966, plate 1.4

with drafted corners and rusticated blocks. However, the new complex was connected to the old temenos walls, and instead of a regular rectangular terrace, as at Amyzon, the layout was more irregular. Two Hellenistic vaulted chamber tombs were found and excavated north and east of the sanctuary.522 Perhaps some of the original layout and installations of the sanctuary at Amyzon may be hinted at in Sinuri: In the Archaic period, the sanctuary here consisted of a walled precinct and a rock-altar. Before the temenos wall was built, it may perhaps have consisted of the rock-altar only. The cult at Sinuri was probably dedicated to a local deity, Sinuri.523

Hermithea at Kastabos John M. Cook and William Hugh Plommer investigated and excavated the sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos on the Karian Chersonese in 19591960.524 The rural sanctuary lay within the territory of Bybassos, in the mountainous hinterlands of the northern part of the Chersonese. A new survey was initiated at Bybassos by W. Held in 2005; otherwise the region has not been investigated since the early 1960s.525 During the investigations in 1959-1960, both a shortcut from the settlement at Bybassos to the Kastabos sanctuary as well as a more zigzagging pilgrim route were discovered.526 The sanctuary

Figure 150. Revetment of the procession road. Cool & Plommer 1966, plate 3:1

Devambez 1959, 31-32. Laumonier 1958, 725. 524 Cook & Plommer 1966. 525 A research history is found in Cook & Plommer 1966, 7-8. 526 Cook & Plommer 1966, 13-14. 522 523

Cook & Plommer 1966, 14-15. Cook & Plommer 1966, 15-16. 529 Cook & plommer 1966, 17-18 530 Cook & Plommer 1966, 19-23. 527

528

109

Stylistic traits of the architecture and layout of the temple, as well as two dedicatory inscriptions may suggest that craftsmen trained during the construction works of Hekatomnid Halikarnassos partook in the building project here.535 This would place the temple within the same generation of buildings as the temple of Athena at Priene, but also in an architectural school perhaps initiated with the Asklepios temple at Epidauros, via Halikarnassos and a growing Ionian renaissance. In the tradition of a Pythean Bauhütte.536 Figure 151. Sketch plan of the sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos. Cook & Plommer 1966, fig. 77

The cult at Kastabos is described by Diodorus Siculus.537 He relates what appears to have been the official cult legend of the healing goddess Hemithea. From being a local or regional sanctuary, Kastabos expanded greatly:

terrace on its south side. At the east end of the temple terrace, two buildings were constructed probably at the same time as the temple itself. Their purpose is unknown, yet they were entered from the temple terrace. The excavators suggested the larger one was perhaps a dining hall, the smaller one a deposit for cult objects, perhaps transferred from the original shrine when it was decided to replace it.531 Excavations inside the cella revealed that originally a smaller shrine (a naiskos) formed the core of the sanctuary. This building was probably erected during the Archaic period. Later, during the late 4th century BC, the sanctuary was reorganized and a peristyle Ionic temple was built at the site. Yet, the naiskos continued to form the heart of the temple, perhaps containing the cult statue. It would have been vaguely visible via the central doorway of the temple building. The temple terrace was probably enlarged, the paved procession road and the ramp were constructed, and perhaps the theatre too was first established at this time.532 Cook and Plommer suggested that the enlargement and rebuilding of the sanctuary was an act of Rhodian patronage. During this process, the sanctuary was transformed from a local rural sanctuary to a joint regional cult place and a central meeting point for the whole of the Karian chersonese.533 Thereby, Rhodian patronage also implied Rhodian political control over the Chersonese koinon. Yet, this control was not expressed or carried out in a straightforward or interventionist manner; rather it constituted and made use of the existing regional form of governance.534

In later times the temple of Hemithea enjoyed so great a development that not only was it held in special honour by the inhabitants of the place and of neighbouring regions, but even the peoples from afar came to it in their devotion and honoured it with costly sacrifices and notable dedications. And most important of all, when the Persians were the dominant power in Asia and were plundering all the temples of the Greeks, the precinct of Hemithea was the sole shrine on which they did not lay hands, and the robbers who were pillaging everything they met left this shrine alone entirely unplundered, and this they did despite the fact that it was unwalled and the pillaging of it would have entailed no danger. And the reason which men advance for its continued development is the benefactions which the goddess confers upon all mankind alike; for she appears in visible shape in their sleep to those who are in suffering and gives them healing and many who are in the grip of diseases for which no remedy is known are restored to health; furthermore, to woman who are suffering in childbirth the goddess gives relief from the agony and perils of travail. Consequently, since many have been saved in these ways from most ancient times, the sacred precinct is filled with votive offerings, nor are these protected by guards or by a strong wall, but by the habitual reverence of the people.538

Cook & Plommer 1965, 168; IK Rhod. Peraia 452. 536 Pedersen2002 , 119-121. 537 Diod. Sic. 5.62-63. 538 Diod. Sic. 5.63, Loeb edition. 535

Cook & Plommer 1966, 31-35. 532 Cook & Plommer 1966, 150, 167. 533 Held 1999; forthcomning. 534 Cook & Plommer 1965, 159-162. 531

110

Archaeologically, it is possible to trace the cult activities at the site back to the late 7th or early 6th centuries BC. Both the location of the sanctuary, the access routes, and the well below the peak, bring to mind the Zeus Karios sanctuary in the Tmolus Mountains. I have suggested that such sanctuaries, including Zeus Akraios at Latmos, had a long history as traditional sacred places, where the Anatolian storm god, or the Mater Kybelaia would choose to appear when called upon. A similar perception of the sacred site at Kastabos may lie at the roots of its sanctity.

massive cultural offensive. The aforementioned examples share a number of features marking their status in the landscape, and their status in a political sense as well. The Hemithea sanctuary at Kastabos was a rural sanctuary, located in a remote landscape. It was probably used as a meeting place in connection with religious festivals. When the sanctuary, whose early history we hardly know anything of, was reorganized in the late 4th century BC, the theatre, a place where many people could meet and perhaps also discuss issues of a political nature was incorporated in the new sanctuary. Probably this reorganization was undertaken by Rhodian patronage. Precisely this takeover of a costly re-embellishment of a local sanctuary and meeting place underlines its political importance. It was here the people of the Karian Chersonese met, and it was in the interest of the Rhodian supremacy to be fully informed of, and at best be incorporated in these meetings. Yet, whether or not an actual Rhodian delegate partook at the meetings of the Chersonese koinon, the place itself underlined the political realities. At the end of the day, Rhodes was the empire, and the Chersonese Koinon a subject. The Hekatomnid patronage at Amyzon and Sinuri indicate a similar tale. These sanctuaries must already have been important meeting places in order to attract such massive political interest. Here, the local or regional koina met during religious festivals in order to worship the deity, perform the appropriate rituals, and not least, in order to discuss and solve political problems. They were centres of local power structure. By reorganizing the sanctuaries, maintaining their uniformity to a certain level, and supporting the political institutions, partaking in the decisionmaking was open to the patron. The dynasty borrowed the political status and potency of the common federal sanctuaries. They took over the original authority of the common sacred place. In doing so, they never neglected the political power of the koina, rather they ensured that the decisions of the koina were taken in the shadows of a wellorganized sanctuary, in the grove, where practical installations had been improved significantly and where Hekatomnid presence was permanent, either via dedicatory inscriptions or merely by the very distinct dynastic iconography, its obvious hand, or by architectonic specialities. These were

Hekatomnid patronage in Karia For the Hekatomnids, patronage, massive benefaction or sponsoring, was a political tool; it was a vitally important bearing element of the building of the dynasty; it was a way of spreading the state art iconography of the dynasty in all or at least many directions and to many levels of Karian society as possible. It seems that important common sanctuaries were thought a suitable platform for a rather

Figure 152. Plan of the Hekatomnid (?) temple, perhaps dedicated Artemis Astias, near the Zeus Megistos sanctuary in Iasos. Masturzo 2004, fig. 5

111

with the typical Hekatomnid lewis cuttings. It was found at the agora of Iasos and it derives from a building most likely constructed sometime during the latter half of the 4th century BC.543 An inscription mentioning Zeus Idrieus and H[era Ada] too has been found in Iasos, clearly referring to the divine attributes of the ruling couple.544 A fine 4th century BC ante-temple near the sanctuary of Zeus Megistos, and perhaps dedicated to Artemis Astias too, shares many features with Hekatomnid architecture and may also be a cult building related to the dynasty [fig. 154].545

technically and visually collected by Poul Pedersen under the heading of the Ionian Renaissance.539 In his work on The Political and Religious Structure in the Territory of Stratonikeia in Caria from 1976, M. Çetin Şahin discussed the role of these common federal sanctuaries in the Hellenistic period. Here he distinguished between two kinds of federations, the city-federations, which consisted of a city composed of various districts (demes), and of several villages, and of village federations, which consisted of villages, with the league sanctuary, common to all members, as the meeting place.540 The mode of thinking of these common sanctuaries as a vital and fundamental element in the political system of Karia is a valid proposition. From this interpretation of the sanctuaries, their roles as bearers of the political infrastructure of Karia, and hence of the Hekatomnid dynasty, the Hekatomnid patronage in Karia seems well-planned, intentional, and rooted in an ancient understanding of Karia. It was part of a political programme and it was executed via a distinct iconography of ideology, a dynastic state art.

HEKATOMNID BENEFACTIONS IN KARIA — AND BEYOND

In her publication of the sculptures from Labraunda, Gunter included a brief overview of dedications of statues of the Hekatomnids.541 On the basis of her work, I have collated the known dedications in the Appendix, table 5, adding the new finds from Iasos and Kaunos. The majority of the dedicated statues derive from Karia and Ionia. They were given as a sign of gratitude towards the Hekatomnids as benefactors, euergetes, in general, and, in some cases, in return for direct involvement in the rebuilding of sanctuaries. Several Hekatomnid monuments seem to have been erected in the harbour town Iasos, west of Mylasa.542 A maussolleion is mentioned in a newly found inscription, carved on a fine marble block

Figure 153. Drawing of the Kaunos bases A and B, first publshed by G.E. Bean in 1953. Işık & Marek 2005, Abb. 2a-b

At Kaunos, the recent find of a Hekatomnid statue base near the sanctuary of the baitylos can been seen in connection with two earlier finds from the same area by Bean.546 All three bases are of the local violet-grey limestone, and the two older ones once carried bronze statues in a contraposto Standmotiv [fig. 153-155]. According to the inscriptions, one is of Hekatomnos, son of Hyssaldomos, the other of Maussollos, son of Hekatomnos. Both statues were dedicated by the Kaunians

Pedersen 2002 provides an excellent overview of the architectonic specialities of the Hekatomnid buildings, including the terrace sanctuaries, technical details as well as the execution of the masonry, the layout and proportions. 540 Şahin 1976; Bremen 2000. 541 Gunter 1995, 20-21. 542 Gianfranco Maddoli presented a paper on the epigraphic evidence including references to the Hekatomnids at the Hellenistic Karia Conference, Oxford, 29 June – 2 July 2006. 539

543 Berti 2001, 120-121. Pedersen 2001/2002, 116117. 544 Leurini 1999, 20-21; P. Debord forthcoming (Hellenistic Karia Conference, Oxford, 29 June – 2 July 2006). 545 Pedersen 2002, 116-117; Masturzo 2004. 546 Bean 1953, 20, no. 3 & 4; Işık & Marek 2005.

112

first constructed in the 3rd or 2nd century BC.548 However, during the 4th century BC, the baitylos occurs on the Kaunian coins.549 This suggests that the cult flourished at that time, and maybe Hekatomnos and Maussollos may have had something to do with that blossoming. In the late 1990s, a rural sanctuary was reinvestigated in the Latmos.550 Above the modern road between Latmos and Herakleia, a large enclosure flanks the road. Tombs surround it, while remains of other structures have not been found. The remains inside the enclosure are poorly preserved, but originally, the complex consisted of a courtyard with buildings on the north and east side and a smaller annex building to the south [fig. 156]. The courtyard seems to have been an open roughly levelled space. The entrance to the complex was probably in the southern wall. A stoa built upon a substructure and thus enlarging the natural levelled terrace, flanked the courtyard towards the east. It consisted of four rooms behind a portico, and the back wall of the stoa is very well preserved, Figure 154. Drawing of the newly found statue base, base C, in Kaunos. Işık & Marek 2005, Abb. 4a

as gifts to the god. Of these two slightly over lifesized statues, Hekatomnos is perhaps the larger of the two, and may have flanked a central colossal marble statue depicting the god, perhaps the deity known as the King of the Kaunians. What this central marble sculpture looked like is not known. Was it another baitylos as the one placed in the tholos or was it anthropomorphic?547 This tripartite monument once more underlined the divinity or the godly mandate of the Hekatomnids. By his presence, his epiphania, the god, the King of the Kaunians blessed the dynasty, a dynasty that recognized the sanctity of the old Kaunian tutelary deity. The reason for the dedication of this monument celebrating Hekatomnos and Maussollos, who in return celebrated the King of the Kaunians is not clear. Yet, the position of the statues near the sanctuary of the baitylos suggests that the occasion may have had to do with a rebuilding of its sanctuary. In the late 5th century BC, a rubble wall was built around the stone and finds from that period have accumulated in its pit. Yet the open-air tholos was

Figure 155. Photoes of the three Hekatomnid statue bases A, B, and C from Kaunos. Işık & Marek 2005, Abb. 2, 3, and 4

Reminiscent then of the lions framing the baityloi proposed as sculptural groups on the roof pyramid of the Maussolleion, Jeppesen 2002a, 120-121.

547

Diler 1995. Konuk 1998b. 550 Peschlow-Bindokat 2005a, 38-39. 548 549

113

sanctuary, seven stadia from the city of Latmos.551 These ritual services or cult banquets may have taken place in the androns or dining rooms of the stoa, recalling the minor banqueting rooms at the sanctuary at Labraunda. That the double statues of the ruling couple, the refounders of the sanctuary, who were perhaps even involved in the founding of Herakleia, were situated inside the precinct, does not automatically turn the complex into a sanctuary of the dynasty. However, it closely relates the cult performed there traditionally, and indeed celebrated by the constructed ancestor Artemisia the Elder, with the commemoration of the new dynasty. We may even conclude that the goddess of the sanctuary, the Mother of the Gods, served a special ideological purpose of the dynasty; the Mother of the Gods in many ways corresponded to the goddess known as Artemis, with whom Artemisia shared her name, and with whom the (other) key deity of the dynasty, Zeus Labraundos associated.

Figure 156. State plan of the sanctuary between Latmos and Herakleia. Peschlow-Bindokat 2005a, Tafel 96

constructed in regular rusticated ashlar masonry with protruding headers. The corner of another building was found in the northern part of the courtyard. Marble blocks are scattered around here, probably deriving from this building. Pottery finds from a cavity inside the northern chamber of the stoa, dated to the 6th and 5th centuries BC indicate that the area was in use already during the Archaic period. Most of the sherds derive from drinking vessels and may be seen in connection with a cult use, e.g. for libations. Together with the general temenos-like structure of the site, they add to the interpretation of the complex as an open-air sanctuary. Furthermore, immediately below the southeastern corner of the enclosure, a marble fragment of a statue base was found. On the upper surface of the base, the remains of the footprints of a lifesized bronze statue were identified. And on the front, remains of the dedicatory inscription were identified, including an A and the name Hekatomnos in genitive. From the position of the feet and the inscriptions, it can be deduced that the base originally continued to the left and that it most probably carried double portrait statues of one of the Hekatomnid ruling couples, either Maussollos and Artemisia, or Idrieus and Ada. It is possible that the statue was placed inside the precinct in connection with the enlargement of the sanctuary that included the building of the stoa and probably the marble building as well. The Hekatomnids, most likely Maussollos and Artemisia probably undertook it. The rural or extra urban sanctuary between Latmos and Herakleia might be the sanctuary of the Mother of the Gods. Polyaenos says that Artemisia the Elder celebrated the goddess in the

Sven Schipporeit has argued for Hekatomnid involvement also in the re-founding of Priene in the 4th century BC.552 The find of an over life-sized female head of a Hekatomnid type, with the characteristic archaistic rendering of the eyelids, the hair and the sekkos, was suggested already by Joseph C. Carter as a sign of considerable Hekatomnid donations in connection with the 4th century BC temple project [fig. 157].553 The technical and stylistic workmanship too is directly linked with the Halikarnassian programme, and the concept of an Ionian renaissance, an archaistic return to the former grandeur of the Ionian sanctuaries and their artistic expressions.554 Two additional fragments of Hekatomnid sculpture from the sanctuary of Athene, as well as two marble heads of young girls from the sanctuary of Demeter at Priene have been suggested by Schipporeit as evidence of a considerable Hekatomnid interest in the new Priene.555 He explains the supposed effort to bring Priene into the sphere of the dynastic family with the city's control over the Panionion sanctuary and its wider political potential. Indeed if the Hekatomnids too were involved in the re-founding of the Knidos at Tekir with its similar control over the Dodekanese Triopion sanctuary, the Hekatomnids Polyaenus 8.53.4 Schipporeit 1998. 553 Carter 1983, 271-276. 554 Pedersen 1994; 2002, 111. 555 Schipporeit 1998, 224-225. 551

552

114

was once placed inside the sanctuary [fig. 27]. The subject matter of the pictorial decoration is clear, and underlined by the captions above the relief, which identify the depicted as Zeus worshipped by the satrapal couple Ada and Idrieus. They were joint rulers of the Karian satrapy between 351 and 344 BC. The relief documents the close relationship between Karia, and in particular Halikarnassos, and Tegea, otherwise linked together by the sculptor and architect Skopas’ engagement in both building programmes. Often the relief has been suggested as a dedication to the sanctuary by several sculptors who first worked at the Halikarnassian building programme and then followed Skopas to Tegea. Yet, as G. Waywell has indicated, the shape of the relief and its proportions may rather suggest that it was in fact the upper part of a decree relief.558 It could easily be an official Tegean monument made in gratitude for a considerable donation in relation to the reorganisation of the internationally important sanctuary of Athena Alea, a receipt for a considerable Hekatomnid benefaction abroad. The sculptural decoration of Zeus blessing the donors not only clearly demonstrates the context of the sender, but it also reiterates the nature of the text applied on the lower, missing part of the stele. If it had been a decree, it would have been bestowed under the inspiration of the god. The god is invoked, as the gods are always invoked at the beginning of a decree or a law text.

would, by means of patronage have been in at least partial control over the most important regional common sanctuaries, framing the old institution of the Dorion Hexapolis and the twelve Ionian cities.556 They would have been in control of the western border of the Persian Empire, not by means of military force, although such an eventuality was surely ever present in the minds of many of the locals, but by the force of the reciprocity of benefactions.

Of particular interest and somewhat puzzling nature is the dedication by the Milesians at Delphi. In an article in 1985 Gunter suggested that "the statues of Idrieus and Ada dedicated at Delphi by the Milesians could reflect Hecatomnid subvention for rebuilding the sanctuary of Apollo following the Third Sacred War (356-346 BC)."559 This, however, does not explain why the Milesians should be involved.560 If the dedications at Delphi were somewhat a parallel case to Waywell’s suggested interpretation of the Tegea relief, one would have two cases of Hekatomnid donations at important sanctuaries by the middle of the 4th century BC. Waywell elegantly suggests that the Milesians were involved in the thanksgiving as holders of the territory of the other large oracular sanctuary of Apollo at Didyma. The close relationship is not so much between the Hekatomnids and Miletos as between

Figure 157. The so-called Ada from Priene. © Trustees of the British Museum

The dedications at Erythrai of both a bronze statue of Maussollos on the agora, and a marble statue of Artemisia in the Athena sanctuary, too should perhaps be perceived from the perspective of a political power play, this in connection with the Social War (357-355 BC), during which Erythrai as well as Chios sought a strong ally against the Athenians.557

HEKATOMNID PATRONAGE ABROAD Although its precise context remains unknown, there is no doubt that the famous Tegea relief belonged to the sanctuary of Athena Alea, and that it Schipporeit 1998, 230-237. Tod 1948, 164; Hornblower 1982, 45-46; Schipporeit 1998, 218, 223.

Waywell 1993, 80. Gunter 1985, 120. 560 Hornblower 1990, 139.

556

558

557

559

115

tions, — it is about acting as a protector and welldoer, in the tradition of the Good King acting on behalf of, or as, the tutelary deity.

Didyma and Delphi. He concludes this part of his investigation thus: A case can be made out (and is being made out now, by me) for large-scale architectural patronage by Ada and Idrieus not only close to home at Priene, but probably also at Tegea and perhaps even at Delphi, at sites therefore of three of the greatest temples to be built or rebuilt during the mid-fourth century B.C.561

Bestowing gifts establishes a reciprocal relationship between people.566 Barbara Schmidt-Dounas has recently treated the vast topic from an archaeological perspective in a monograph entitled Geschenke erhalten die Freundschaft. Politik und Selbstdarstellung im Spiegel der Monumente.567 On a dynastic level, benefactions, sponsorships, or patronage become a political act, it is a way of promoting or branding oneself and the dynasty, and it is a way of finding allies and partners. Yet, it is also a part of aristocratic culture, it is an expression of rank and status, of capacity and potency.568 Although such gift giving increased during the Hellenistic period, this aristocratic practice of donating impressive items, especially to the large Pan-Hellenic sanctuaries is an ancient and widespread one. Donations from Anatolian kings to the oracular sanctuary at Delphi were a well-known practice, as Herodotos often relates in his stories where he reveals their political ramifications. One is a tale of the Lydian king Gyges and his path to the throne that was cleared by the mediation of the Delphic oracle.569 In his gratitude of Delphic support:

New investigations at Olympia have borne interesting results. Now three monuments with the typical Karian lewis cutting have been found. The lewis cutting has been identified by Poul Pedersen as a fairly certain sign of Karian craftsmanship.562 This, of course, does not provide direct evidence of Hekatomnid patronage abroad. However, in combination with a new interpretation of the Philipeion, Karian or Hekatomnid impact on (other) proto-Hellenistic dynasties may seem quite considerable.563

PATRONAGE AS STRATEGY A voluminous scholarly literature exists on patronage, in particular in Roman society. Here, one finds a definition of the term closely related to the Roman patronus/cliens relationship. Patronage is described as an asymmetrical social relationship, involving exchange of services between two parties and it is tied to personal relationships.564 As it should already be clear from my analyses of Hekatomnid patronage inside and outside Karia, I have adopted a broader use of the term, borrowed from the scholars, who have been working with the above mentioned monuments. Both Bean and Plommer used the term patronage in their publication of the excavations of the sanctuary at Kastabos, and likewise Waywell applied the term to both the supposed financial support of the building of the Athena Alea temple at Tegea, and its possible Delphian counterpart.565 It can, of course, be discussed whether this is a very precise or correct use of the term. Yet, it remains indisputable that we are operating with a fundamentally sociological phenomenon, as well as a bearing principle of aristocratic behaviour in ancient societies in general: it is about gifts, and it is about euergetism, benefac-

… Gyges sent many offerings to Delphi: there are very many silver offerings of his there; and besides the silver, he dedicated a hoard of gold, among which six golden bowls are the offerings especially worthy of mention. These weigh thirty talents and stand in the treasury of the Corinthians. […] This Gyges then was the first foreigner whom we know who placed offerings at Delphi after the king of Phrygia, Midas son of Gordias. For Midas too made an offering: namely, the royal seat on which he sat to give judgment, and a marvellous seat it is. It is set in the same place as the bowls of Gyges. This gold and the silver offered by Gyges is called by the Delphians “Gygian” after its dedicator.570 Both the Phrygian king Midas, the heir to a kingdom, and Gyges the new builder of the Lydian dynasty entered the international political scene, and dedicated splendid offerings at the sanctuary at Mauss 2002. Schmidt-Dounas 2000; Bringmann & Steuben 1995-2000. 568 See e.g. Lyon 2004. 569 Herodotos 1.6-12. 570 Herodotos 1.14, from www. perseus.tufts.edu 566

Waywell 1993, 83. 562 Pedersen 2002, 118; 2004, 161-162. 563 See below, chapter six. 564 Wallace-Hadrill 1989, 3. 565 Cook & Plommer 1966, 167; Waywell 1993, 85. 561

567

116

be represented, and what image did this convey of the dynasty?

Delphi. Kroisos followed this practice of presenting large and spectacular gifts to the sanctuary in gratitude for the blessing of the god and his priests.571 Yet, he also sponsored parts of large-scale building projects and he bestowed gifts to other sanctuaries:

Koray Konuk presented a comprehensive work on the Hekatomnid coinage in his Ph.D. dissertation from 1998, and he has continued working on Karian mints.575 He characterises the Hekatomnid coinage as a dynastic, rather than a satrapal one, even though there are particular issues of a satrapal character, making use of an established Persian iconography related to the image of the Great King. What became the standard Karian coinage iconography during the 4th century BC and continued to be so during the Hellenistic period was already introduced early in the century by Hekatomnos,576 and it came to resent the strength of the dynasty by referring to its central places and to its central divine relations. Hekatomnos was the first to depict Zeus Labraundos on some issues, perhaps reflecting his position as holding the office of King of the Karians. The coin type closely links him to the sanctuary, and it supports the hypothesis that the Figure 158. Hekatomnos office of King of the silver tetradrachm, Mylasa, a) Zeus Labraundos, b) Karians became a roaring lion. Konuk 2003, dynastic and hecat.no. 89 reditary office already with Hekatomnos, and that the first new building of the re-staging of the sanctuary was the tomb of the founding father, the high priest and king, Hekatomnos [fig. 158]. The depiction of Zeus Labraundos remained unaltered during the Hellenistic period: laureate and bearded, standing to the right in a contraposto position, with his loosely wrapped himation worn above a short-sleeved chiton, leaning on his spear with the double axe in the other hand. During the reign of Maussollos this Zeus Labraundos was the

There are many offerings of Croesus' in Hellas, and not only those of which I have spoken. There is a golden tripod at Thebes in Boeotia, which he dedicated to Apollo of Ismenus; at Ephesus there are the oxen of gold and the greater part of the pillars; and in the temple of Proneia at Delphi, a golden shield. All these survived to my lifetime; but other of the offerings were destroyed. And the offerings of Croesus at Branchidae of the Milesians, as I learn by inquiry, are equal in weight and like those at Delphi.572 The Karian presence in the two very important sanctuaries on the Greek mainland at that time, the sanctuary of Athena at Tegea, an old PanPeloponnesian sanctuary,573 and the oracular Apollo sanctuary at Delphi was not unsurpassed. It was in keeping with an ancient Anatolian kingly tradition.

Hekatomnid dynastic coinage ⎯ mass media iconography? The Hekatomnids struck coins, and they did it with a consistency and strength that it makes sense to speak of Hekatomnid coinage as expressing the official iconography of the dynasty. Thus, Hekatomnid coinage was a political statement. A statement of the potency of the dynasty. The reason for issuing coins in the first place had to do with dynastic politics, with the payment for the large-scale building programme, and with military expenses, such as, keeping the permanent fleet, and provisions to mercenaries.574 Coinage was an issue of immense political power, and therefore, the iconographic expressions were carefully loaded with information on the dynastic and satrapal ideology. What is of interest here are the iconographic depictions on the Hekatomnid coinage: which elements or combinations of elements were chosen to Herodotos 1. 51. Herodotos 1.92, www.perseus.tufts.edu 573 Østby 2002; Nordquist 2002; Voyatzis 1990. 574 The historical background of the Hekatomnid issues, their relation to the building programmes, the military campaigns and costs, Konuk 1998a, 188-199. 571

572

Konuk 1998a, 1998b, 2000a, 2000b, 2003, 2005, 576 Konuk 1998a, 52. 575

117

[fig. 160.580 The reserve has the Milesian rosette, and the coin is struck to the Milesian weight standard. Another type is the Royal Hero as archer. This is a well-known coin type known from satrapal issues, and they formed a vital element of the ideological iconography of the Achaemenids.581 A Karian coin type with the Royal Archer on the obverse combined with the Hekatomnid traditional reverse of Zeus Labraundos, has been suggested as a Maussollan issue [fig.161].582

standard reverse, while a threequarter profile to frontal head of Apollo, a loan from the civic mint of Halikarnassos, constituted the obverse.577 The laureate Apollo is depicted with his fleshy chins and shoulder-length curly hair [fig. 159]. The dynastic coinage is thus decorated with the image of Zeus Labraundos and Figure 159. Maussollos silver with a head of tetradrachm, Halikarnassos, Apollo, and thus a) laureate head of Apollo, b) Zeus Labraundos. Konuk thereby connected 2003, cat.no. 90 with both an ancient and traditional centre of power and the new style of government from a dynamic newly built, recently established capital. Apollo had a temple on top of a summit in the Zephyrion peninsula in Halikarnassos, immediately above the Hekatomnid palace. In Halikarnassos, the new capital and residence of the dynasty, it was Apollo, who blessed and inspired the dynasty. As mentioned earlier, there were close bonds between the two deities in Karia.578

Were there political motives behind these issues? The Achaemenid depiction of the Royal Hero represented a Figure 162. Hekatomnid strong ideological satrapal coinage. Triobol, message, which Hekatomnos, a) royal hero, must have been b) Milesian rosette. Konuk easily decoded. 2000, pl. 30:5 Achaemenid iconographic schemes were well known and widely distributed, not least via seals. A Karian coin Figure 163. Hekatomnid with a depiction of satrapal coinage. the Royal Hero Tetradrachm, Maussollos, must have been a) royal archer, b) Zeus read as a political Labraundos. Konuk 2000, statement, that pl. 30:2 Karia was in the hands of the Achaemenid Great King, or at least that the mint was subject to his approval.583

KARIAN SATRAPAL COINAGE?

BRANDING A DYNASTY?

There exist a few Hekatomnid coin types which blend the Achaemenid iconography of the Great King as the Royal Hero with either the well-known Zeus Labraundos reverse, or the Milesian rosette. Hekatomnos issued a Griffin-slayer series, with the Persian king slaying a winged griffin facing him.579 He holds either a dagger or some other weapon in his right hand. This depiction of the Great King was a well-established iconographic type, subsumed under the general heading, the Royal Hero

The success of the Hekatomnids rested on a visible presence as protectors and benefactors. Politically and religiously important sanctuaries in Karia were Root 1979, 164-165; Garrison & Root 2001, 5660. 581 Dusinberre 2002, 164-166. 582 Konuk 1998a, 92-93. 583 Konuk 1998, 47-48, 91-94. Another dynastic issue, depicting the Karian dynastic couple Maussollos and Artemisia on Koan coins of the 4th century BC has been completely abandoned in favour of an identification of the two coin types as either depicting Heracles or Demeter, Ingvaldsen 2002, 66-71. 580

Konuk 1998a, 99. Above, chapter 4. 579 Konuk 1998a; 2000b, 177. 577

578

118

re-embellished via Hekatomnid donations and, moreover, in a distinct Hekatomnid style. Not only did this strategy impose a certain — perhaps indirectly — underlying, yet permanent Hekatomnid control of the political meetings at the sanctuaries, it also emphasized the divine connections of the rulers, the close bonds between the ancient cults of Karia and the dynastic family. Benefactions were also used as a political tool in the external relations of the dynasty, as the possible patronage in both Priene, Erythrai, Tegea, Delphi, and perhaps even also Olympia. Another obvious way of maintaining an iconographic presence as a House was dynastic coinage. Already with the coinage of Hekatomnos, close ties between the dynasty and Zeus Labraundos were emphasized. In establishing this reference to Zeus Labraundos, a larger political message may have been implied, which was understood and perceived by the simple reference to the image of Zeus, namely that the dynasty was not only blessed and protected by the Zeus, who protected the whole of Karia, but also by the Zeus that was most closely related to the oldest political office of Karia. This office as King of the Karians may very well have been the key to the success of the entire dynasty. The dynasty was branded as a Karian dynasty, with local roots but not without a considerable flair for the stylistic trends of their time, and with an extraordinary ability to attract the finest craftsmen to the court, and to maintain its independency even in a world of hybridization.

119

120

CHAPTER SIX colonial Nigeria and Proto-Hellenistic Karia seem to resemble one another. Creolization signifies that there is something that gets mixed with something else and produces a third entity. At such an abstract level, it is only yet another concept for the hybrid society and eclectic artistic expression. What is of interest is the kind of transformation that takes place, and why this change occurs in the first place. Yet, in order to deal with these concrete, pragmatic transformation processes, a broad all encompassing metaphor is needed. This is what Hannerz aims at.

HELLENIZATION, PERSIANIZATION, KARIANIZATION, CREOLIZATION I have now, for some years, during my work with Karian archaeology worked on a comprehensive description of the characteristic features of Karia and the sense of being Karian. Archaeology provides various tools and methods of enquiry. Many of them are, however, preoccupied with defining an either-or kind or sort of homogenous cultural categorization, which harmonizes only slightly with heterogenous peoples living and interacting with each other.583 As the previous chapters have demonstrated, I find it of little value to discuss the level of Hellenization or Persianization as a matter of categorical markings of the multi-faceted societies of the Karians. Some other element is necessary in this discussion of how Greek, how indigenous, how Persian, Karia and the Karians were. I have indicated the eclectic art of the Karians, I have spoken of hybridism, of stylistic blend as a result of a multiethnic, melting pot society. All of these terms, somehow lack an explanatory strength, they lack heuristic potential:

The concept of creolization was originally used for the linguistic phenomenon of the creation of a common pidgin language: … the new language is distinct from the languages that have shaped it, yet has retained sufficient features of them, that their origin can sometimes be traced and identified… scholars agree that the characteristics of pidgin and creole languages include the speed with which they form and develop; the sociological conditions that have shaped them, most typically, colonization; and an almost instantaneous creativity.585 In this, creolization is the mechanism that Chris Gosden subsumes as the spirit of colonialism, calling upon creativity and engagement from all implied in the process in producing the new: The creolist view… suggests that the different cultural streams engaging one another in creolisation may all be actively involved in shaping the resultant forms; and that the merger of quite different streams can create a particular intensity in cultural processes. The active handling of meanings of various local and foreign derivations can allow them to work as commentaries on one another, through never-ending intermingling and counterpoint.586

…we may speak piously of living in an interconnected world or even a global village, or we may lapse (with or without embarrassment) into the simple rhetoric of denouncing cultural imperialism, or we come up with one more improvisation on the 'between two cultures' theme; all of which, we probably realise, are rather limited intellectual resources for actually making much sense of these things.584 This is a quotation from the seminal article "The world in creolisation" (1987) by the Swedish anthropologist Ulf Hannerz. The article, as well as Hannerz' work on creolization in general uses modern Nigerian society as the point of departure. It may seem far away from 4th century BC Karia, yet in many ways the cultural situation of post-

Replace creolisation with colonialism and we are on common ground. It may be inferred that we are now in the process of finding various complex ways of describing a composite culture by using and referring to various buzzwords in current anthropological and archaeological theoretical debates.

Carstens 1999; 2002b; forthcoming a; forthcomning b. 584 Hannerz 1987, 547.

Jourdan, IESBS, "Creolization: Sociocultural Aspects", 2903-2906. 586 Hannerz 1987, 555-556.

583

585

121

counterpart or an opponent to Hellenization or Persianization?

Yet — and that would be the main point of such a criticism — without narrowing in on a specific definition of creole or hybrid culture. And rightly so. What is of importance is that the conceptualization required is indeed a metaphor for the inbetween, for the spontaneous, the contingent, the imprecise, the inspired eclecticism. This is exactly what Hannerz finds in the creole view, the opposition to a traditional "current of cultural thought, which emphasizes the purity, homogeneity, and boundedness of cultures."587 Furthermore, creolization functions not as traditional centre-periphery relations, where stronger cultures dominate the weaker, but rather as larger transformations and circulations, as "creative interplay"588 where various cultural meanings may "work as commentaries on one another through never-ending intermingling and counterpoint."

HEKATOMNID ICONOGRAPHY AS HELLENIZATION? When Maussollos planned his new residential city and his own tomb, his memorial, he imitated the Greek city, the polis, in the layout of a modern grid plan, in adding the proper and important institutions to the city, in placing his tomb at the city centre alluding to the tombs or heroons of Greek founding fathers and eponymous heroes. He engaged the finest Greek craftsmen and artists to work for him. Moreover, he utilized the best materials for the various stages of the buildings, a sign of the intentionally well-planned building project. He built the city and the dynasty a series of Greek sanctuaries and temples. The Maussolleion itself was in the shape of a Greek peristyle temple, its precinct was entered via a propylon building probably binding together the agora of the city with its architectonic masterpiece. Perhaps it stood inside an alsos, a sacred groove. It was richly decorated with sculpture, many of these representing ancient Greek myths and standard repertoire such as battle scenes. The sanctuary of Zeus Labraundos was restaged and Hellenized by Hekatomnid intervention. It became a fully terraced sanctuary on a hillside, and organised by artificial terraces, like, for instance, the oracular sanctuary at Delphi. It operated with an interesting and provocative mixture of Ionic and Doric architectonic elements. As a rural sanctuary, it housed facilities for the accommodation of pilgrims in the shape of dining halls and water, installations know from other pilgrimage sanctuaries in the Hellenic world. Before the Hekatomnid building programme, Labraunda was perhaps nothing more than a sacred place in a mountainous landscape with only a small ante temple as its architectural installation. It was transformed by the Hekatomnids into a well-equipped Hellenic sanctuary.

Creolization as political strategy? This sub-heading may seem nonsensical when creolization is defined as a cultural process or the result of a sudden intense merging of cultural values. Creolization is presupposed to reflect an organic process of self-growth, which is somehow fed by rapid changes in living conditions as a result of various ethnic and cultural groups suddenly living together. It is a result of human interaction. It cannot be forced, it cannot be imposed upon a people from above. Even if the criticism were valid, I neverthelesss wish to make a case for the use of creolization as a political strategy in the creation of the Hekatomnid dynasty, that is in the iconography of the dynasty, reflected in its state art. In the preceding chapters, I focused on the monuments, which played a major role in the iconographic establishment of the Hekatomnid dynasty: the dynast's tomb (the Maussolleion), the sanctuary of the dynasty (Labraunda), and Hekatomnid patronage. What occurred in 4th century BC Karia in the process of creating a new forceful political centre on the peripheries of both the Persian Empire and that of Hellas? Was Karia heavily Hellenized? Were the Persian wefts markedly stronger than ever before in Karian culture? Were the Karians evoked as a

587 588

HEKATOMNID ICONOGRAPHY AS PERSIANIZATION? Persian wefts are discrete if at all visible in the layout of Halikarnassos and in the building of the Maussolleion. It is evident that the ruler’s tomb played a crucial role in the iconography of the Achaemenids, but it is likewise clear that the relationship between the Maussolleion and typical

Hannerz 1996, 66. Hannerz 1996, 68. 122

nid dynasts was that they in a way re-created and emphasised a Karianess.

Persian elements is vague. The stepped pyramid roof may be interpreted as an Iranian element, as the stepped fire-altars, the stepped elements of the Taş Kule tomb or the pyramid tomb at Sardis. Yet, this is not obvious. The costumes of the male sculpture, in trousers and a large cloak, and the enthroned Maussollos(?) wearing boots may also be interpreted as Iranian features. However, the clearest references to Persian supremacy are to be found in the minor artefacts included in the burials that took place in the Maussolleion; the Xerxes vase and the remains of other calcite vases, the golden appliqués, glass vessels and ivory fragments found in the robber’s trench inside the tomb chamber.589 These are indications that place the burials and thereby the house in the sphere of the western Anatolian aristocracies, rather than as Persian satraps. Likewise Iranian elements are hard to locate in Labraunda, except for the sphinxes that crowned the roof of Andron B. However, the sphinxes were prominently placed and referred to the unforgettable fact that although the Hekatomnids were local, they were also universal in that they had the power of the Persian army to call upon if needed. Only a small group of satrapal coin issues have been identified as minted in Karia. It seems that the Persianization that may have been employed at the Karian court was — apart from the hybrid sphinxes — discreet and modest. Yet, the rule was undoubtedly also in accordance with Iranian concepts of divine kingship, of the Great King, or the vassal as divinely blessed and protected by the god and protector via the god.

The position of the Maussolleion at an older cult installation, a place for sacrifice and assembly, may be construed as a deliberate link to ancient religious life in Halikarnassos. Yet, what occurred in the chambers on the southern side of the quadrangle remains unknown. Neither do we know if the position of the tomb and temple of the dynasty merely coincided with these installations in order to fit the general master plan of the new capital or whether the sanctuary was taken into consideration in the placing of the tomb. The Maussolleion displayed the ancestry of the dynasty and its local embedding, and it is evident that a large part of its sculptural decoration linked the monument to its Karianess. The lions and the baityloi as well as the archaistic and oriental style of the male colossal statues, with trousers and long cloaks, and the full-bearded Maussollos are all confined within the frame of something Anatolian. The seated statue, perhaps Maussollos himself, appeared in a doorway, just as Kybele or Artemis would or should or were hoped to appear in the niches in the rock-sanctuaries. This motif of epiphany is central for Karian — and Anatolian religion. Labraunda was probably an ancient natural sanctuary, centred around the split rock and the spring. It was a meeting place of religious and political importance before the Hekatomnids reshaped it. And it was precisely because of its local Karian political and religious importance that it was chosen to hold essential functions of the dynasty. The audience rooms in the sanctuary perhaps followed an ancient Anatolian, KarianPhrygian tradition, and they were shaped and perhaps furnished in a similar manner to the Gordion megarons with mosaic floors, luxurious furniture, and – possibly – wall hangings. The ancient symbols of the sanctuary and its protector, the male god with his labrys became the symbol of the Hekatomnids; Zeus Labraundos already appears on coins issued under Hekatomnos and he remains the symbol of the dynasty. In that the dynasts linked themselves closely to the divine, they acted and ruled under divine blessing. Ancient sanctuaries became issues of Hekatomnid patronage in a combined branding of the dynasty and a celebration of its Karian roots and the Hekatomnids’ respect for their shared ancestry.

HEKATOMNID ICONOGRAPHY AS KARIANIZATION? A question that springs to mind is whether there existed a Karian unity, a political and geographic unity, before the Hekatomnids? And of what this Karianess consisted? I have argued in favour of a distinct style with quite characteristic features appearing most visibly in the painted pottery from the Early Archaic period or perhaps even earlier.590 A characteristic style, consisting of both inland, mostly Phrygian motifs and shapes and East Greek and Dodekanesian schemes of decoration; an eclectic Karian style. However, it seems that a major part of the local political effort of the HekatomJeppesen 2000, 119-140; Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, 181-207, 221-227.

589

590

123

Carstens 2002b; forthcoming a; forthcoming c.

The clear Hekatomnid restaging of sanctuaries that already functioned as important (political) meeting places, was a restaging of the Karian in Karia.

Legacy The active creation of a past, referring to Archaic icons may be connected with the movement — or inscribed in the idea — especially investigated in the fields of monumental architecture and planning, that of the Ionian Renaissance.592 Both the dedication by the Milesians at Delphi, the supposed patronage at Tegea, and the possible engagement in Olympia should be construed as part of the same movement that re-introduced the Karians-Ionians in the Pan-Hellenic world that once more marked the east coast of the Aegean as a vital component in the construction of a Hellas. There is a well-known aristocratic strategy in its positioning of the dynasty between a here-and-now and a there-and-then, in this case the Archaic heyday of the Ionians. Thus, the dynasty created links to an ancestry which placed them in another untouchable category. This archaism, the Ionian Renaissance stood at the core of the Hekatomnid ideological iconography, as aristocrats are in constant need of a past, of expressing tradition and perpetuity. The statue group at the agora of Kaunos, with the god in the middle blessing the father of the dynasty, Hekatomnos (son of Hyssaldomos), and his son again is a monument celebrating both the divine connections of the dynasts, and their capacity as such, — they have ancestry! Other Hekatomnid statues were set up as pairs — the ruling couples — such as the group at the Artemis sanctuary at Latmos, Idrieus and Ada at Delphi, and the Tegea relief. Should they be interpreted as family monuments?

HEKATOMNID ICONOGRAPHY AS CREOLIZATION? Now, perhaps the Hekatomnid iconographic project was above all a revival of all things Karian, a search for and an emphasis on Anatolian Karian elements. Yet, it is not wholly the case. In their effort to establish a dynasty, to create a kingdom, dependent and independent at one and the same time, the best craftsmen were hired to build the new capital, the sanctuaries and the iconographic markers. They were trained in Greek architectural and sculptural tradition, had participated in the greatest building projects of their time, e.g. the building of the sanctuary complex at Epidauros, and after their Karian constructions were completed, they went on to large-scale building projects in other parts of Greece. For: although Karia was not Greek, it was nevertheless Greek. Yet, it was always also something else, something in addition or even basically different. What is incorrect with such assumptions is that it leads us to form grossly distorted images; it indicates the fatal weaknesses of any cultural categorization that "emphasizes the purity, homogeneity, and boundedness of cultures."591 Hekatomnid official monuments are hybrid products; they are based on the interplay of different cultural expressions or styles. Hekatomnid iconography is thus Hellenized, Karianized, and Persianized. This is the creole of Karian culture that allows for an overt display of a unified multiculturalism, a creolization. Out of these various ingredients thrown into the melting pot, a new Karianess — resting on a historic consciousness, expressed, not least, via an intentional play with archaistic traits — was cast. Not that the Hekatomnids initiated the creolization, but they made extremely good use of an already ongoing process. Perhaps this more than anything became the Hekatomnid heritage to the Hellenistic era.

It has generally been the view that the Hekatomnid dynasty in many ways acted as forerunners of the Hellenistic kingdoms, that they, indeed, presented a proto-Hellenistic kingdom. However, the straightforward relations between the creative and above all active artistic climate in 4th century BC Karia and Ionia and the succeeding empires, the Macedonians, the Attalids and the Seleucids, should perhaps impel us to take a more revisionist view of the role of Hekatomnid state art and the shaping of these new dynasties. Concerning the Macedonians (and indeed Philip II), there are quite a few areas of imitation Pedersen 1994, 2002, 2004. This conscious archaism "bewusster Archaismus" has been described as a sort of iconographic strategy by Schipporeit 1998, 233-234. 592

591 Hannerz 1996, 66.

124

It is evident that by building the Philippeion, Philip placed himself in a building inside the temenos of the most important Pan-Hellenic sanctuary, in the midst of temples, and in axis of, and perhaps with a direct view to the Zeus altar. He alluded to his own divinity (Philip as Zeus), and he presented himself and his house in a dynastic monument including his ancestors and his heir. With the Philippeion, he built himself a monument of his capacities, as king and god. In this he acted in a similar fashion to the Hekatomnids, like Maussollos and Idrieus in the layout of the sanctuary of Labraunda, like Maussollos and the Maussolleion with its many allusions to a temple.

and links. Not the only, but the most obvious was Ada's adoption of Alexander in 334/3 BC and his reinstallation of her on the Karian throne, an event marking his, if also only technical, inclusion in the dynasty.593 This family bond between Ada and Alexander is the end of the beginning of a new world order, where divine kingship, hybridity and eclecticism became a binding force of the Hellenistic kingdoms and their Roman successors. A new meticulous study and re-interpretation of the Philippeion in Olympia by Peter Schultz encapsulates this Karian heritage, the Macedonian self perception and the Hellenistic turn.594 By a combination of archaeological and historic arguments, including an investigation of the bases belonging to the monument as well as the other remains of the tholos building, Schultz convincingly argues in favour of the monument not only having been initiated, but also completed by Philip himself. The tholos was built inside the temenos, in the northwestern part of the Altis, west of the Heraion and with its opening in axis of the Zeus altar / Pelopion.595 Five portrait statues of the family monument had as their central figure Philip himself, on his left his father Amyntas and his mother Eurydike, on his right Alexander and Olympias, the mother of Alexander. The statues, including two ruling couples, Amyntos and Euridike, Philip and Olympias, and their young son, were set on a semicircular base in a tholos building. Already during the 4th century BC, the tholos was used as a building type especially suited for the display of statues in the round, as for instance the tholos in Knidos with the Aphrodite of Praxiteles.596 The artistic context of the Olympian monument comprised the school of craftsmen and artists involved in the large-scale building activities of the 4th century BC, originating above all from the Athenian acropolis and the Erechteion, Halikarnassos and Karia (Knidos and Priene), Tegea and Olympia. However, perhaps it was not only the artistic expression of the monument that was placed within this tradition.

For the time being, all that can be said with certainty is that the overall impact of Leochares' Argead portraits in the Philippeion depended not on some revolutionary quality of the monument or images but rather on a series of well-known (and retrospective) formal, iconographic and architectural traditions. These traditions, when joined, directly communicated the nature of Philip's rule and his status as the most powerful man of the Greek world.597 Part of these traditions — a grander part of them were related to dynastic Karia. Ann C. Gunter has suggested that an inscribed block at Labraunda carrying the inscription Hekatomnos, son of Hyssaldomos, found east of the temple of Zeus, was part of a larger base of a family group.598 While this is as yet unconfirmed by further analyses of what might otherwise belong to this base, the idea of the sanctuary at Labraunda as celebrating the dynasty as a blessed one is — as I have demonstrated in chapter four — clear. Adding to this interpretation is a newly found inscription, possibly referring to an altar for Maussollos somewhere in the sanctuary. The inscription, an honorary decree was found south of Andron C, and a provisional date, both on the basis of the letter forms and the context of the text is the late 3rd century BC.599 Who would have consecrated an altar for Maussollos in Labraunda if not he himself or his heirs?

If the suggestion of Schipporeit (1998) is followed, that the re-shaping of Priene in the 4th century BC was largely an act of Hekatomnid patronage, then the dedicatory inscription of Alexander on the ante of the Athena temple at Priene may be seen as a further positioning of Alexander as part of the Hekatomnid dynasty. 594 Schultz 2007. Löhr 2000, 115-117 includes a considerable bibliography. 595 Kyrielies 2002; Ramback 2002; Schultz 2007. 596 Ajootian 1996, 101-103. 593

Schultz 2007. Gunter 1995, 20; Crampa 1972, no. 27. 599 Isager forthcomning. This inscription found in 2002 matches the fragment earlier published by Crampa (1972) no. 49. 597

598

125

The Zweisäulenmonument from Olympia currently being investigated by Poul Pedersen and Klaus Hermann stood next to the Philippeion.600 On stylistic grounds, Pedersen dates it to the late 4th century BC, its Ionic capitals are of a type similar to the so-called Türkkuyusu temple in Halikarnassos — the work is of good quality, and it shares architectonic and technical details with Karian architecture of the Ionian Renaissance. Pedersen has suggested that it was a dedication created by craftsmen from Asia Minor in an analogy with the traditional interpretation of the Tegea relief. It is tempting to see it as a Hekatomnid monument, a parallel to the Delphic dedication, a sign of Hekatomnid patronage also in Olympia. However, this is pure speculation. It remains, however, a possibility that the Zweisäulenmonument may have been constructed closer in time to its neighbouring dynastic celebration of the Philippeion, and it remains a fact that both owe their presence to the Hekatomnids and their building programme. It may be argued — as has just been — that the Phillippeion in Olympia too sprang from Hekatomnid inspiration; that not only an Ionian renaissance in planning and architecture, but also in ideology were transferred from the Karian satraps to the Hellenistic rulers. Or perhaps the inspiration lies embedded in the aristocratic culture and its need for ancestry. Thus, is the Phillippeion a part of the grander tale, a general imperial policy, a manual for hegemonic leadership, and a way of governance?

600

Pedersen 2004, 161; 2002, 118. 126

APPENDIX A Alazeytin/Syangela? Bibl.: Bean & Cook 1955, 125-127; Radt 1970, 17-74 Plan: Radt 1970, Beilage 1 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fortified settlement, with keep. Agglutinated, open spaces and singular public buildings. Palace and dynastic keep. Date: Radt 1970, 273-274: late 8th to 4th century BC.

A CATALOGUE OF KARIAN SETTLEMENT SITES FROM THE ARCHAIC TO ROMAN PERIOD Unless the ancient toponym is securely associated, the modern site name is stated first, followed by the associated ancient toponym. All dates are tentative, provided via stray finds of pottery, tiles and lamps, or suggested by masonry and building styles. The catalogue corresponds to and enhances the information found in Table 1. This and the other tables referred to in chapter five are included at the back of the appendix.

Alabanda Bibl.: Bean 1971, 180-189 Plan: Bean 1971, fig. 26 Position: Northern Karia, west of Çine Çay Description: Fortified city with public buildings and squares Date: Archaic to Roman

Aldıran Asarı Bibl.: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, 26-29 Plan: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, fig. 22 Position: Muğla Description: Fortified settlement. Date: Archaic to Roman?

127

Algılı

Alinda

Bibl.: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, 71-72 Plan: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, fig. 117 Position: Milas-Ören Description: Fortified settlement and/or Fluchtburg? Date: Classical toHellenistic?

Bibl.: Bean 1971, 190-198 Plan: Bean 1971, fig. 29 Position: Northern Karia, west of Çine Çay Description: Fortified city with public buildings, squares etc. Date: Archaic to Roman

Assarlık/Termera Bibl.: Carstens 2008b; Bean & Cook 1955, 116-118 Plan: Bean & Cook 1955, fig. 5 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fortified settlement and/or Fluchtburg, with a keep. Date: Submycenaean to 4th century BC

128

Assesos/Mengerevtepe

Büyük Kemeli Tepe

Bibl.: Lohmann 1995, 314-322 Plan: Lohmann 1995, Abb. 95 Position: Milesian peninsula Description: Fortified settlement with public buildings; Æ Athena temple Date: 5th century BC?

Bibl.: Radt 1970, 98-103 Plan: Radt 1970, Beilage 6 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fortified settlement, in between farmstead and larger agglutinated settlement with open spaces. Date: Radt 1970, 274: late 8th to 7th century BC.

Bağyaka Bibl.: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, 50-51 Plan: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, fig. 68 Position: Çiftlik Description: Fortified settlement? Date: Archaic to Hellenistic?

Bargylia Bibl.: Bean & Cook 1957, 96-97; Bean 1971, 82-87 Plan: Bean 1971, fig. 9 Position: Iasian Golf Description: Fortified city with public buildings and squares. Harbour Date: Archaic to Roman

Çetibeli Bibl.: Descat 1994, 207-209 Plan: Descat 1994, fig. 3 Position: Knidian peninsula Description: Fortified settlement and Fluchtburg, with a keep. Date: Classical?

129

Çilek kalesi

Gerga

Bibl.: Radt 1970, 86-91 Plan: Radt 1970, Beilage 4 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fortified settlement, agglutinated, with open spaces. Dynastic palace (16-18)? Date: Radt 1970, 274: late 8th to 4th century BC / Hellenistic.

Bibl.: Bean 1971, 201-207; Held 2004 Plan: Bean 1971, fig. 31 Position: Northern Karia, east of Çine Çay Description: Fortified city with public buildings and squares. Date: Archaic to Roman

Euromos Bibl.: Bean 1971, 45 Plan: Önen 1989, 14 Position: Milas-Milet Description: Fortified city with public buildings and squares. Extra urban sanctuary Date: Archaic to Roman

Geriş/Burgaz/Ouranion? Bibl.: Bean & Cook 1955, 118-120; Carstens 2002 Plan: Carstens 2002, fig. 3 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fortified settlement and/or Fluchtburg, with a dynastic keep? Date: Archaic to Hellenistic

130

Girel Kalesi

Gökçeler/Pedasa

Bibl.: Radt 1970, 76-81 Plan: Radt 1970, Beilage 2 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fortified settlement, with keep. Agglutinated settlement with open spaces. Palace? Date: Acc. Radt 1970, 274 (interpretation of stray finds on the surface) late 8th to 6th centuries BC.

Bibl.: Bean & Cook 1955, 123-125; Radt 1970, 215225 (the necropoleis) Plan: Bean & Cook 1955, fig. 10 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fortified settlement and/or Fluchtburg, with a dynastic keep. Date: Archaic to Classical

Göl Bibl.: Bean & Cook 1955, 121-122 Plan: Bean & Cook 1955, fig. 9 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fortified settlement and/or Fluchtburg, with a dynastic keep. Date: Archaic to Roman

131

Gölcük

Herakleia Bibl.: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, 30-32 Plan: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, fig. 27 Position: Muğla Description: Fortified settlement. Date: Classical to Hellenistic?

Bibl.: Peschlow-Bindokat 2005a+b Plan: Peschlow-Bindokat 2005b, 94-95; Position: Latmos Description: Fortified city with public buildings and squares . Harbour Date: Archaic to Roman

Gürice Bibl.: Bean & Cook 1955, 120-121 Plan: Bean & Cook 1955, fig. 7 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fortified settlement and/or Fluchtburg, with a dynastic keep? Date: Archaic? Classical to Hellenistic

Halikarnassos/Bodrum Iasos

Bibl.: Pedersen 2001/2002 Plan: Pedersen 1999, fig. 4 (here, fig. 80) Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fortified city with public buildings, squares etc. Harbour Date: Mycenaean to modern

Bibl.: Berti & Graziano Plan: Berti & Graziano 29, McNicoll 1997 Position: Iasian Golf Description: fortified city with public buildings and squares. Harbour Date: Middle Bronze Age to Medieval

132

Idyma

Kaunos

Bibl.: Bean & Cook 1957, 68-72 Plan: Bean & Cook 1957, fig. 3 Position: Golf of Keramos Description: Fortified settlement and/or Fluchtburg with a dynastic keep. Date: Classical?

Bibl.: Önen 1989, 135-146 Plan: Mc Nicoll 1997; Önen 1989, 136 Position: Eastern coastal border zone Description: Fortified city with public buildings, squares, harbour etc. Date: Archaic to Roman

Keramos/Ören Kaplan Dağ

Bibl.: Spanu 1997 Plan: Spanu 1997, Pl. 25 Position: Keramos Golf Description: fortified city with public buildings, squares etc. Date: Archaic to Roman

Bibl.: Radt 1970, 107 Plan: Radt 1970, Abb. 12:2 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Two fortified settlements/Fluchtburg e, including tumuli. Agglutinated, with open spaces and public buildings(?) Date: Archaic

Karyanda/Salihadası Bibl.: Bean 1971, 126-127 Plan: Position: Iasian Golf Description: Fortified settlement Date: Classical

133

Kindya/Sığırtmaç Kalesı

Koca Dağ

Bibl.: Bean & Cook 1957, 97-99 Plan: Bean & Cook 1957, fig. 9 Position: Iasian golf Description: Fortified settlement and/or Fluchtburg with a dynastic keep. Date: Archaic-Classical

Bibl.: Radt 1970, 104-106 Plan: Radt 1970, Beilage 7 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fluchtburg (fortified settlement?), with keep. Date: Radt 1970, 275: late 8th to 4th century BC.

Knidos/Burgaz Bibl.: Berges 1994; 2006, 30 Plan: Berges 2006, Abb. 5 Position: Knidian peninsula Description: City, with harbour Date: Archaic to Hellenistic

Knidos/Tekir Bibl.: Berges 1994; 2006, 30-34 Plan: Önen 1989, 116 Position: Knidian peninsula Description: Fortified city with public buildings, squares etc. Harbour Date: Hellenistic to Roman

134

Kovuk Çal

Kömüradası/Teichiussa (I)

Bibl.: Radt 1970, 91-94 Plan: Radt 1970, Beilage 5 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: fortified settlement, agglutinated with open spaces. In between a farmstead and a larger settlement. Date: Radt 1970, 274: late 8th to 7th century BC.

Bibl.: Voigtländer 1986, 617-624; 2005; Lohmann 1997, 288-290 Plan: Voigtländer 1986, Abb. 4; Lohmann 1997, Abb. 3 Position: Milesian peninsula Description: settlement, poss. Agglutinated Date: Late Bronze Age to early Iron Age

Kumyer Bibl.: Bean & Cook 1952, 181-183 Plan: Bean & Cook 1952, fig. 5b Position: Knidian peninsula Description: Fortified settlement and/or Fluchtburg. Date: Classical? Hellenistic-Roman pottery, lamps and tiles

135

Latmos

Loryma

Bibl.: Peschlow-Bindokat 2005a+b Plan: Peschlow-Bindokat 2005b, 94-95; PeschlowBindokat 1994 Position: Latmos Description: Fortified city with dynastic keep and palace, public buildings, squares etc. Harbour Date: Archaic to Classical

Bibl.: Held 1999; Held 2005 Plan: Held 2005, fig. 3-4 Position: Karian Chersonese Description: Fortified city with public buildings, keep, palace, squares. Harbour Date: Archaic to Hellenistic

Muğla Bibl.: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, 23-25 Plan: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, fig. 14 Position: Muğla Description: Fortified settlement and/or Fluchtburg with a dynastic keep. Date: Archaic-Classical-Hellenistic-Roman?

136

Myndos/Gümüslük Saplıadası/Teichiussa (II)

Bibl.: Bean & Cook 1955, 108-112; Bean 1971, 116119 Plan: Bean & Cook 1955, fig. 3 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fortified city with public buildings, squares etc. Harbour Date: Mycenaean(?) to modern

Bibl.: Voigtländer 1986, 624-630; 2005 Plan: Voigtländer 1986, Abb. 7 Position: Milesian peninsula Description: Settlement, poss. agglutinated Date: Geometric to 5th century BC

Saranda Bibl.: Bean & Cook 1952, 181 Plan: Bean & Cook 1952, fig. 5a Position: Knidian peninsula Description: Lookout post Date: Hellenistic-Roman tiles

Ören Avlusu Bibl.: Radt 1970, 82-86 Plan: Radt 1970, Beilage 3 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fortified settlement, with keep and dynastic palace(?). Agglutinated(?) settlement with open spaces. Public buildings (17-19)? Date: Radt 1970, 274: late 8th to mid 6th century BC.

137

Sarnıç

Stratonikeia

Bibl. Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, 57-64 Plan: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, fig. 83 Position: Golf of Keramos Description: Fortified settlement and/or Fluchtburg with a dynastic keep, and a sanctuary? Date: Archaic to Hellenistic?

Bibl.: Bean 1971, 88-93 Plan: Bean 1971, fig. 10 Position: Central Karia Description: fortified city with public buildings, squares etc. Date: Hellenistic to Roman

Sekköy Bibl.: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, 68-70 Plan: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, fig. 105 Position: Milas-Ören Description: Fortifiedsettlement and/or Fluchtburg. Date: Archaic to Hellenistic?

Theangela Bibl.: Bean & Cook 1955, 112-116; 1957, 89-96 Plan: Bean & Cook 1957, fig. 6 Position: Halikarnassos peninsula Description: Fortified settlement and/or Fluchtbrug with a dynastic keep, public buildings, open spaces Date: Archaic to Hellenistic

138

Turlas

Yerkesik

Bibl.: Lohmann 1995, 319-320 Plan: Lohmann 1999. Abb. 13 Position: Milesian peninsula Description: Fluchtburg with keep Date: 5th-4th centuries BC

Bibl.: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, 32-36 Plan: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, fig. 31 Position: Yerkesik Description: Fortified settlement or Fluchtburg, tripyrgon. Date: Classical to Hellenistic?

Yeniköy Bibl.: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, 46-48 Plan: Debord & Varinlioğlu 2001, fig. 60 Position: Çiftlik Description: Fortified settlement and/or Fluchtburg? Tetrapyrgon. Date: Classical

139

140

TABLES TABLE 1. CPC POLEIS CATEGORIES If no toponym is attested the heading is the city-ethnic in parentheses A toponym marked with an asterisk is reconstructed e.g. a Latin form Type of polis: A: a community called polis in at least one source of the Archaic and/or Classical period [A]: a community subsumed under the heading polis alongside a number of other communities B: a community probably a polis and only due to lack of sources not explicitly attested as such C: a community less certain a polis, a possibility only Degree of Hellenicity: α: a Hellenic polis, in which elements of non-Greek civilisation are small or even insignificant β: a mixed community or a not fully Hellenized community with a fair number of Hellenic institutions though γ: a predominantly barbarian community Place name

α

β

Alabanda

γ

Alinda

[A]

1

Amyzon

1

1 1 1

1

(Armelitai)

1

Aulai

1 1 1

Bargasa

1

1

Bargylia

1

1

1

Bolbai

1

Chalketor

1

1 1

1

Chios

1 1

1

(Erineis)

1

Euromos

1

Halikarnassos

1

1 1 1

(Hybliseis)

1

(Hydaieis)

1

Hydisos

1 1 1

(Hymisseis)

1

1

1

1

1

Idrias

1

Idyma

1

Kalynda

1

*Karbasyanda

1 1 1 1

Karyanda

1

Kasolaba

1 1

1

Kaunos

1

Kedreai

1

1 1 1

Keramos

1

1

(Killareis)

1

1

Kindye

1 1

C

1

Arlissos

Knidos

B

1

1

(Amynandeis)

Iasos

A

1

Amos

Chersonesos

?

1

1 1

141

Place name

α

β

γ

(Kodapeis)

?

A

[A]

B

1

(Koliyergeis)

1

Koranza

1

C 1 1

1

Krya

1

1

Kyllandos

1

1

Kyrbissos

1

Latmos / Herakleia

1

Lepsimandos

1

Medmasos

1

Mylasa

1

Myndos

1 1 1 1 1

1

1

(Narisbareis)

1

Naryandos

1

1

1

Naxia

1

1

(Olaieis)

1

1

Olymos

1

Ouranion

1 1

(Parpariotai)

1 1

Passanda Pedasa

1

1

1

(Peleiatai)

1

Pidasa

1

Pladasa Pyrindos

1

1

1

1 1 1

1

1

Pyrnos

1

1

Salmakis

1

1

(Siloi)

1

Syangela / Theangela

1

1 1

(Talagreis)

1

1

Taramptos

1

1

(Tarbaneis)

1

1

Telandros

1

Telemessos

1

Termera

1

(Terssogasseis)

1 1 1

1

1

(Thasthareis)

1

1

Thydonos

1

1

Tralleis Total, places Total, percent

1

1

5

23

20

7%

32%

28%

24

14

5

16

33% 19% 7% 22%

142

37 51%

TABLE 2. CPC SITES WITH KARIAN PERSONAL NAMES ATTESTED Type of polis: A: a community called polis [A]: a community subsumed under the heading polis B: a community probably a polis C: a community less certain a polis, a possibility only Degree of Hellenicity: α: a Hellenic polis, in which elements of non-Greek civilisation are small β: a mixed community or a not fully Hellenized community γ: a predominantly barbarian community Place name

α

β

Alabanda

γ

?

A

[A] B

1

(Armelitai)

1

Halikarnassos

1

C

Karians

1

1

1

1

1

1

(Hybliseis)

1

(Hydaieis)

1

1

Kasolaba

1

Kaunos

1

Keramos

1

1

(Killareis)

1

1

(Koliyergeis)

1

Koranza

1

Ouranion

1

Pladasa

1

1

Syangela / Theangela

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1 1 1 1

1

1

1 1

Total, places

0

1

13

0

5

Total, percent

0

7

93

0

36

1 1 1

4

2

3

29 14 21

14 100

143

TABLE 3. ARCHAEOLOGICALLY ATTESTED SITES A settlement site is included if sufficient evidence exists enabling a description of the main features of the site as well as (preferably) a plan drawing or a sketch plan of the perimeters. 41% (20 sites) included in CPC; 6% (3 sites) suggested CPC site, marked by ? Legend: C: city; S: settlement; Fb: Fluchtburg; F: fortification; K: keep; P: palace; PB: public buildings; H: harbour Place name

CPC Position

C

Alabanda

870 N Karia, west of Çine Çay

1

Alazeytin

931 Halikarnassos peninsula

S

Fb

F

K

P

1 1

1

1

1

PB

H Date

1

Archaic to Roman

1

Late 8th to 4th c BC

Aldıran Asarı

Muğla

1

1

Archaic to Roman

Algılı

Mila-Ören

1

1

1

Classical to Hellenistic?

1

1

Alinda

871 N Karia, west of Çine Çay

Assarlık

937? Halikarnassos peninsula

1

Assesos

Milesian peninsula

1

1

Bağyaka

Çiftlik

1

1

Bargylia

879 Iasian Golf

Büyük Kemeli Tepe

1

1

1 1

Çetibeli

Knidian peninsula

1

Çilek Kalesi

Halikarnassos peninsula

1

885 Milas-Milet

1

Archaic to Hellenistic 1

1

1

1

1

Classical? 1

Archaic to Roman

1

1

Archaic to Roman

1

Halikarnassos peninsula

1

1

1

1

1

1

Archaic to Hellenistic 1?

Late 8th to 6th c. BC Archaic to Classical

Gökçeler

923 Halikarnassos peninsula

1

1

1

1

1?

Göl

912? Halikarnassos peninsula

1

1

1

1

1?

Muğla

1

Halikarnassos peninsula

1

1

1

886 Halikarnassos peninsula

1

1

Herakleia

910 Latmos

1

1

Hydae/Damliboğaz

888 Milas-Ören

Iasos

891 Iasian Golf

Idyma

893 Keramos Golf

1

Karyanda/Salihadası 896 Iasian Golf

1

1

1

1

1

1

Keramos

900 Keramos Golf

1

1

Kindya

902 Iasian Golf

Knidos, Tekir

903 Knidian peninsula

1

Knidos, Burgaz

903 Knidian peninsula

1

Halikarnassos peninsula

1

Kumuyer

Knidian peninsula

1 1 1

Muğla

Muğla

Myndos

914 Halikarnassos peninsula

Ören Avlusu

1

1

1

1

1

1

Archaic to Classical 1

1

1

1

1

1 1

Classical to Roman Archaic to Hellenistic?

1

1 1

1

1

1

Stratonikeia

Central Karia

Teichiussa

Milesian peninsula

1

Theangela

931 Halikarnassos peninsula

1

1

1

1

Late 8th to 4th c. BC

1

1

Archaic to Classical

1

1

1

Archaic to Roman

1?

1

1

Mycenaean to modern

Archaic to Roman 1

Late 8th to mid 6th c. BC

1

Hellenistic to Roman

1

Archaic to Hellenistic Archaic to Hellenistic

1

1

Hellenistic to Roman

1

Archaic to Hellenistic

Mycenaean to 5th c. BC 1

1

16

Archaic to Roman Archaic to Roman

1? 1

1

Milas-Ören

41%

1 1

1

Sekköy

Percent

Classical 1

1

1

Yerkesik

Classical? Archaic

Late 8th to 7th c. BC

1

Totals

1?

Middle Bronze Age to Medieval

Classical? Hellenistic to Roman

1

Yerkesik

1

1

Knidian peninsula

Milesian peninsula

Classical to Roman Early Iron Age to Hellenistic

1

Keramos Golf

Çiftlik

1

Mycenaean to modern

1

Sarniç

Yeniköy

1

1

Saranda

Turlas

1

1

1 1

Halikarnassos peninsula

1

1

Kovuk Çal

Loryma

1

1 1

910 Latmos

1

1

1

Loryma

Archaic? Classical to Hellenistic 1

1 1

1

898 E coastal border zone

Latmos

1 1

Kaunos

Halikarnassos peninsula

1

1 1

1

Classical to Hellenistic?

1

1

Halikarnassos peninsula

Archaic to Roman

1

Halikarnassos

Koca Dağ

Late 8th to 4th c. BC / Hellenistic

1

920? Halikarnassos peninsula

Kaplan Dağ

Archaic to Roman Late 8th to 7th c. BC

1

Geriş

Gürice

1

1

1

N Karia, east of Çine Çay

Gölcük

5th c. BC?

1

Gerga Girel Kalesi

Archaic to Roman Submycenaean to 4th c. BC

1

Halikarnassos peninsula

Euromos

1 1

1 1

5th to 4th c. BC

1

1

1

1

31

21

45

Classical Classical to Hellenistic? 21

12

19

10

33% 63% 43% 92% 43% 24% 39% 20%

144

TABLE 4. HARBOUR CITIES If no toponym is attested the heading is the city-ethnic in parentheses A toponym marked witn an asterisk is reconstructed e.g. a Latin form Type of polis: A: a community called polis in at least one source of the Archaic and/or Classical period [A]: a community subsumed under the heading polis alongside a number of other communities B: a community probably a polis and only due to lack of sources not explicitly attested as such C: a community less certain a polis, a possibility only Degree of Hellenicity: α: a Hellenic polis, in which elements of non-Greek civilisation are small or even insignificant β: a mixed community or a not fully Hellenized community with a fair number of Hellenic institutions though γ: a predominantly barbarian community

α β γ ? A [A] B C

Place name

CPC

Bargylia

879

1

Halikarnassos

886

1

1

910

1

1

Herakleia Iasos

891

Kaunos

898

1

1 1

Knidos, Tekir

903

1

Knidos, Burgaz

903

1

Latmos

1

1 1 1

910

1

1

Loryma Myndos Total

914

1

1

4 4 1

8

1

145

TABLE 5. HETAMONID PATRONAGE: STATUES OF MEMBERS OF THE DYNASTY Halikarnassos, Ares temple Dedicators: The Hekatomnids Work: Statue of Artemisia (and Maussollos?) Description: Artemisia (and Maussollos), only known from Vitruvius Reference: Vitruvius 2.8.11, reading sugg. Jeppesen 1986, 112

Kaunos Dedicators: The Kaunians Work: Statue of Hekatomnos, son of Hyssaldomos Description: Plain rectangular base, 0.41 m high, o.99 m wide, o.68 m thick two footholes on the top Reference: Bean 1953, 20, no. 3; Işık & Marek 2005, base B

Mylasa Dedicators: The Mylasians? Work: Statue of Hekatomnos Description: Mentioned in decree Reference: Blümel 1987, no. 2; (Tod 1948, 138 l. 21-22)

Kaunos Dedicators: The Kaunians Work: Statue of Maussollos, son of Hekatomnos Description: Plain rectangular base, o.46 m high, 0.99 m. wide, o.685 m thick two footholes on top Reference: Bean 1953, 20, no. 4; Işık & Marek 2005, base A

Labraunda Dedicators: Hekatomnos, son of Hyssaldomos Work: Family portrait group? Description: Gunter suggests the inscribed block as part of a base for a family group Reference: Crampa 1972, no. 27; Gunter 1005, 20

Priene, Athena temple Dedicators: ? Work: Statue of Ada Description: Over life-sized female head Reference: Carter 1983, 271-276, no. 85; Schipporeit 1998, 221222

Labraunda Dedicators: ? Work: Altar of Maussollos? Description: Mentioned in a honorary decree Reference: Isager forthcoming

Rhodes Dedicators: Artemisia Work: Statue of Artemisia Description: Statue of Artemisia, only known fromVitruvius Reference: Vitruvius 2.8.15

Sinuri, sanctuary Dedicators: The sanctuary? Work: Statue of Ada, daughter of Hyssaldomos Description: Basis Reference: Robert 1945, 100

Erythrai, the Agora and the Athena temple Dedicators: ? Work: Statues of Maussollos and Artemisia Description: Stele of dark limestone , now lost. Inscription indicate that a bronze statue of Maussollos is to be ercected in the Agora, and a marble statue of Artemisia in the temple of Athena, each was to be honoured by a golden crown Reference: Tod 1948, no. 155; Engelmann & Merkelbach 1972 (ISK 1-2), no. 8

Latmos, Artemis sanctuary Dedicators: The sanctuary? Work: Statues of Maussollos and Artemisia or Idrieus and Ada Description: Basis with two footholes for a bronze statue. The position of the inscription supposes a double basis. Reference: Peschlow-Bindokat 2005, 38

Tegea, the Athena Alea sanctuary Dedicators: The sanctuary Work: Decree relief? Description: Upper part of the stele, including relief and caption of Ada, Zeus, and Idrieus Reference: Waywell 1993

Iasos Dedicators: ? Work: Maussolleion Description: Part of inscription, which refers to a building called the Maussolleion, probably placed on the edge of the Hellenistic agora in Iasos Reference: Berti 2001, 121 (22. KST); Pedersen 2001/2002, 116117

Delphi, the Apollo sanctuary Dedicators: The Milesians Work: Statues of Idrieus and Ada Description: Massive limestone base which supported two bronze statues, found at the western corner of the polygonal wall at Delphi. The Milesians dedicated this to Apollo Pytheos, Idrieus son of Hekatomnos, Ada daughter of Hekatomnos, made by Satyros son of Isotimos from Paros. Reference: Tod 1948, no. 161B

Iasos Dedicators: ? Work: ? Description: Zeus Idrieus and Hera Ada Reference: Leurini 1999, 20-21; Pedersen 2001/2002, 117 Kaunos Dedicators: Maussollos Work: Statue of the god Description: Rectangular base with foot and top profile for a colossal marble statue. Part of inscription preserved revealing that Maussollos dedicated the statue of the god or the king Reference: Işık & Marek 2005, base C

146

ABBREVIATIONS Bean, G.E. & Cook, J.M. 1957 The Carian Coast III, BSA 52, 117-138

Der Neue Pauly Cancik, H. & Schneider, H. (eds.), Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, Stuttgart 1996-2003 IESBS Smelser, N.J. & Baltes, P.B. (eds.), International encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Science, Elsevier websites 2004

Beckman, G. 2002 The Religion of the Hittites, in D.C. Hopkins (ed.) Across the Anatolian Plateau, Readings in the archaeology of ancient Turkey, Boston MA, 133143

KST Kazı sonuçları toplantısı, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Ankara

Behrwald, R. 2000 Der lykische Bund. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Verfassung, Bonn Bengisu, R.L. 1996 Lydian Mount Karios, in E.N. Lane 1996, 1-36

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berges, D. 1996 Hellenistische Rundaltäre Kleinasiens Berlin

Ajootian, A. 1996 Praxiteles, in Palagia, O. & Pollitt, J.J. (eds.), Personal styles in Greek sculpture, Cambridge, 91-129

Berges, D. 2006 Knidos. Beiträge zur Geschichte der archaischen Stadt, Mainz

Ateşlier, S. 2001 Observation on an Early Classical Building of the Satrapal Period at Daskyleion, in Bakır, T. (ed.) Achaemenid Anatolia, Prooceedings of the First International Symposium on Anatolia in the Achaemenid Period, Leiden, 147-168

Berges, D. & Nollé, J. 2000 Tyana: archäologisch-historische Untersuchungen zum südwestlichen Kappadokien, Bonn Berges, D. & Tuna, N. 2000 Das Apollonheiligtum von Emecik, IstMitt 50, 171214

Bakir, T. 1995 Archäologische Betrachtungen über die Residenz in Daskyleion, Pallas 43, 269-285

Bergquist, B. 1990 Sympotic Space: A Functional Aspect of Greek Dining-Rooms, in O. Murray (ed.) Sympotica. A symposion on the symposion, Oxford 1990, 37-65

Bakir, T. 1997 Phryger in Daskyleion, in G. Gusmani, M. Salvini & P. Vannicelli (eds), Frigi et Frigia, Rom, 229-238 Bammer, A. 1972 Die Architektur des jüngeren Artemision von Ephesos, Wiesbaden

Bergquist, B. 1993 Bronze Age sacrificial koine in the Eastern Mediterranean?, in Quaegebeur, E. (ed.), Ritual and sacrifice in the ancient Near East. Proceedings of the International conference organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991, Leuven, 11-43

Bammer, A. & Muss, U. 1996 Das Artemision von Ephesos, Mainz am Rhein Bammer, A. & Muss, U. 2002 Der Altar des Artemisions von Ephesos, Wien

Berndt- Ersöz, S. 1998 Phrygian rock-cut cult facades: a study of the function of the so-called shaft monuments, AnaSt 48, 87-112

Barth, F. 1981 Process and form in social life. Selected essays, vol. 1, London

Berndt-Ersöz, S. 2003 Phrygian rock-cut shrines and other religious monuments, a study of structure, function and cult practice, Stockholm

Bean, G.E. 1953 Notes and inscriptions from Caunus, JHS 73, 10-35 Bean, G.E. 1971 Turkey beyond the Maeander, London

Berti, F. 2001 The work of the Italian archaeological mission at Iasos, 1999, in KST 22:1, 119-126

Bean, G.E. & Cook, J.M. 1955 The Halicarnassus Peninsula, BSA 50, 85-171

147

Boucharlat, R. 2001 The Palace and the Royal Achaemenid City: two Case Studies — Pasargadae and Susa, in I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC. Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 4), 113123

Bingöl, O. 1999 Epiphanie an den Artemistempeln von Ephesos und Magnesia am Mäander, in H. Friesinger & F. Krinzinger (eds.), 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, Wien, 233-240 Bittel, K. et al. 1958 Die hethitischen Grabfunde von Osmankayası, (Boğazköy- Hattusa. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 2), Berlin

Bourdieu, P. 1967 Postface –Architecture gothique et pensée scholastique (Erwin Panofsky), Paris

Bittel, K. et al. 1975 Das hethitische Felsheiligtum Yazilikaya, (Bogazköy-Hattusa. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 9), Berlin

Boyce, M. 1982 A History of Zoroastrianism II, Leiden

Bittel, K. 1984 Denkmäler eines hethitischen Grosskönigs des 13. Jahrhunderts vor Christus, Opladen

Boyce, M. 1987 Zoroastrians. Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, London

Boardman, J. 1970 Pyramidal stamp seals in the Persian empire, Iran 8, 19-45

Boyce, M. & Grenet, F. 1991 A History of Zoroastrianism, volume three. Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule, Leiden

Borbein, A. H., Zanker, P. & Hölscher, T. 2000 Klassische Archäologie: eine Einführung, Berlin

Bowden, H. 2005 Classical Athens and the Delphic Oracle: Divination and Democracy, Cambridge

Borchhardt, J. 1970 Das Heroon von Limyra. Grabmal des lykischen Königs Perikles, AA, 353-390

Bradley, R. 2000 An archaeology of Natural Places, London

Borchhardt, J. 1976 Die Bauskulptur des Heroons von Limyra. Das Grabmal des lykischen Königs Perikles (Istanbuler Forschungen 32), Frankfurt

Bremen, R. van 2000 The demes and phylai of Stratonikeia in Karia, Chiron 30, 389-401

Borchhardt, J. 1993 Lykische Heroa und die Pyra des Hephaistion in Babylon, in J. Borchhardt & G. Dobesch (eds.), Akten des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, Wien, 6.-12. Mai 1990, Wien, vol. 1, 253-259

Briant, P. 2002 From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire, Winona Lake Bringmann, K. & Steuben, H. von (eds.) 1995-2000 Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer, Berlin

Borchhardt, J.; Neumann, G. & Schulz, K. 1989 Das Heroon von Phellos und TL. 54 mit der Weihung einer Statie des Xudalijĕ, Sohn des Murãza, IstMitt 39, 89-96

Brody, L.R. 2001 The cult of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias in Caria, Kernos 14, 93-109

Borchhardt, J. & Borchharldt-Birbaumer, B. 1992 Zum Kult der Heroen, Herrscher und Kaiser in Lykien, AW 23, 99-116

Bryce, T. R. 1986 The Lycians in Literary and Epigraphic Sources, Copenhagen

Börker-Klähn, J. 1994 Ahnengalerie und letzte Dienste derer von Hattusa, in H. Gasche (ed.), Cinquante-deux reflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancient: offertes en hommage à Léon de Meyer (Mesopotamian History and Environment. Occasional Publications 2) Leuven, 355367

Buchholz, H.G. 1978 Tamassos, Zypern, 1974 - 1976. 3. Bericht, AA, 155230 Buckler, W.H. & Robinson, D.M. 1932 Greek and Latin Inscriptions Part I (Sardis vol. VII), Leiden

Börker-Klähn, J. 1995 Auf der Suche nach einer Nekropole: Hattusa, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, 35, 69-91

Burke, H. 1999 Meaning and Ideology in Historical Archaeology. Style, Social Identity, and Capitalism in an Australian Town, New York 148

Carstens, A.M. 2004 Style and Context, Hephaistos 21/22, 7-28

Burkert, W. 1979 Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual, Berkeley

Carstens, A.M. 2005 To bury a ruler — the meaning of the horse in aristocratic burials, in Karageorghis, V.; Matthäus, H. & Rogge, S. (eds.), Cyprus: Religion and Society from the Late Bronze Age to the End of the Archaic Period, Möhnesee-Wamel, 57-76

Burkert, W. 1985 Greek religion, Harvard Burkert, W. 1996 Creation of the sacred: tracks of biology in early religions, Cambridge Mass.

Carstens, A.M. 2006a Cypriot chamber tombs, in Wriedt Sørensen, L. & Winther Jacobsen, K. (eds.): Panayia Amathoussa II. Political, cultural, ethnic and social relations in Cyprus, Approaches to Regional Studies (Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 6:2, 2006) 125-179

Burkert, W. 1999 Die Artemis der Epheser. Wirkungsmacht und Gestalt einer grossen Göttin, in H. Friesinger & F. Krinzinger (eds.), 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, Wien, 59-70 Burkert, W. 2004 Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: eastern contexts of Greek culture, Cambridge Mass.

Carstens, A.M. 2006b Cultural contact and cultural change — colonialism and empire, in T. Bekker Nielsen (ed.): Rome and the Black Sea Region (Black Sea Studies 7), Aarhus, 119-132

Cahill, N. 1985 The Treasury of Persepolis: Gift-giving at the City of the Persians, AJA 89, 373-389

Carstens, A.M. 2008a Huwasi rocks, baityloi, and open air sanctuaries in Karia, Kilikia and Cyprus, OLBA (Mersin University Research Center for Cilician archaeology) 13, 2008, 73-93

Cahill, N. 1988 Taş Kule: a Persian-period tomb near Phokaia, AJA 92, 481-501 Calmeyer, P. 1975 Zur Genese altiranischer Motive III. Felsgräber, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 8, 99-113

Carstens, A.M. 2008b Tombs of the Halikarnassos Peninsula — the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, in Pedersen, P. (ed.), Halicarnassian Studies 5, 2008, 52-118

Cannadine, D. 1990 The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy, Yale

Carstens, A.M. forthcoming a Tomb cult and tomb architecture in Karia from the late Archaic to the Hellenistic period, in F. Rumscheid (ed.): Die Karer und die Anderen, Berlin (in press)

Cannadine, D. & Price, S. (eds.) 1987 Rituals of Royalty. Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, Cambridge Carstens, A.M. 1999 Death Matters. Funerary Architecture on the Halikarnassos Peninsula, Ph.D.-thesis, University of Copenhagen

Carstens, A.M. forthcoming b The sepulchral landscape of the Halikarnassos peninsula in Hellenistic times, in J.-M. Carbon & R. van Bremen (eds.): Hellenistic Karia, Bordeaux (in press)

Carstens, A.M. 2001 Drinking vessels in tombs - a cultic connection? in C. Scheffer (ed.): Ceramics in Contexts, Proceedings of the Internordic colloquium on ancient pottery held at Stockholm , 13-15 June 1997 (Stockholm Studies in Classical Archaeology), Stockholm 2001, 89-102

Carstens, P. 1998 Why does the God have a cup in his hand? : an examination on the Ahiram sarcophagus and the drinking vessels at the table of display in the Hebrew Bible from a ritualistic point of view, Scandinavian journal of the old testament 12:2, 214-232

Carstens, A.M. 2002a Tomb cult on the Halikarnassos peninsula, AJA 106, 391-409

Carstens, P. 1999 Det fønikiske agatsegl, dødekult og dødsforestillinger i Den Nære Orient med særligt henblik på det syro-hittitiske område, Collegium Biblicum Årsskrift, 9-24

Carstens, A.M. 2002b Archaic Karian Pottery - Investigating Culture? in A. Rathje, M. Nielsen & B. Bundgaard Rasmussen (eds.): Pots for the Living, Pots for the Dead (Acta Hyberborea 9, 2002), Copenhagen, 127-143 149

Debord, P. & Varinlioğlu, E. (eds.) 2001 Les hautes terres de Carie, Bordeaux

Carstens, P. 2003 The golden vessels and the song to God: drinkoffering and libation in temple and on altar Scandinavian journal of the old testament 17:1, 110-140

Dedeoğlu, H. 2003 The Lydians and Sardis, Istanbul

Carter, J.C. 1983 The sculpture of the sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene, London

Demargne, P. & Coupel, P. 1969 Fouilles de Xanthos, 3. Le monument des Néréides. L'architecture, Paris.

Catling, R.W.V. 1998 The typology of the protogeometric and subprotogeometric pottery from Troia and its Aegean context, Studia Troica 8, 151-187

Dentzer, J.M. 1982 Le motif du banquet couche dans le proche-orient et le monde Grec du VIIe au IVe siecle avant J.-C., Roma 1092

Çevik, N. 2000 Urartu Kaya Mezarları ve Ölü Gömme Gelenekleri, Ankara

Descat, R. 1994 Les forteresses de Théra et de Kallipolis de Carie, REA 96, 205-214

Childe, V.G. 1929 The Danube in Prehistory, Oxford

Devambez, P. & Haspels, E. 1959 Le sanctuaire de Sinuri près de Mylasa, 2. Architecture et céramique, Paris

Childs, W.A.P. & Demargne, P. 1989 Fouilles de Xanthos, 8. Le monument des Néréides. Le decor sculpté, Paris.

DeVries , K. 1980 Greeks and Phrygians in the early iron age, in: K. DeVries (ed.) From Athens to Gordion. The papers of a memorial symposion for Rodney S. Young, Philadelphia, 33-49

Cobet, J. 2007 Frühes Ionien: eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion-Symposium Güzelçamli, 26. September - 1. Oktober 1999, Mainz am Rhein

Dickinson, O. 1996 The Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge

Colvin, H. 1991 Architecture and the After-Life. London

Diler, A. 1995 Account of the sanctuary exposed at Caunus City, in Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 3 (Asia Minor Studien 16), Bonn, 9-22

Conze, A. 1912-1913 Altertümer von Pergamon. Stadt und Landschaft, vol. I, 2, Berlin Cook, A.B. 1965 Zeus. A study in ancient religion, New York

Diler, A. 2000 Sacred Stone Cult in Caria, in C. Işık (ed.), Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens und des ägäischen Bereiches, (Asia Minor Studien 39), Bonn, 51-77

Cook, J.M. & Plommer, W.H. 1966 The Sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos, Cambridge

Dorl-Klingenschmid, C. 2001 Prunkbrunnen in kleinasiatischen Städten, München

Cousin, G. 1900 Voyage en Carie, BCH 24, 24-31 Crampa, J. 1969 Labraunda. Swedish Excavations and Researches III:1. The Greek Inscriptions. Part I:1-12 (Period of Olympichus), Lund

Dörpfeld, W. 1907 Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1904-1905, AthMitt 32, 163-469 Dörpfeld, W. 1908 Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1906-1907, AthMitt 33, 327-441

Crampa, J. 1972 Labraunda. Swedish Excavations and Researches III:2. The Greek Inscriptions. Part II: 13-133, Stockholm

Dörpfeld, W. 1910 Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1908-1909, AthMitt 35, 345-526

Curtis, J. & Tallis, N. (eds.) 2005 Forgotten Empire. The world of Ancient Persia, London

Dusinberre, E.R.M. 1997 Imperial style and constructed identity: a "GraecoPersian" cylinder seal from Sardis, Ars Orientalis 27, 99-129

Debord, P. 2001 Sur quelques Zeus Cariens: Religion et Politique, Studi Ellenistici 13, 19-37 150

Furtwängler, A. 1900 Die antiken Gemmen : Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst im klassischen Altertum, Leipzig Gabrielsen, V. 1997 The naval aristocracy of hellenistic Rhodes, Aarhus

Dusinberre, E.R.M. 2000 King or god? Imperial iconography and the tiarate head coins of Achaemenid Anatolia, AASOR 57, 157-171 Dusinberre, E.R.M. 2003 Aspects of empire in Achaemenid Sardis, Cambridge

Gabrielsen, V. 2000 The Rhodian Peraia in the Third and Second Centuries BC, Classica et Mediaevalia 51, 1-57

Dyson, R.H. Jr. 1980 The question of balconies at Hasanlu, in K. DeVries (ed.), From Athens to Gordion. The papers of a memorial symposium for Rodney S. Young held at the University Museum the Third of May 1975, Philadelphia, 149-152

Gall, H. von 1966 Die paphlagonischen Felsgräber, (IstMitt Beiheft 1), Tübingen Gall, H. von 1989 Das achämenidische Königsgrab. Neue Überlegungen und Beobachtungen, in L. de Meyer & E. Haerinck (eds.), Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellania in honorem Louise vanden Berghe, Gent, 503-523

Ekroth, G. 1999 Altars in Greek hero-cults. A review of the archaeological evidence, in xx (eds.), Ancient Greek cult practice from the archaeological evidence, Jonsered, 117-131 Ekroth, G. 2002 The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults, (Kernos suppl. 12), Liege

Garrison, M.B. & Root, M.C. 2001 Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Volume I: Images of Heroic Encounter, Chicago

Fedak, J. 1990 Monumental tombs of the hellenistic age. A study of selected tombs from the pre-classical to the early imperial era, Toronto

Geercke, P. 1981 Funde aus der Antike. Sammlung Paul Dierichs Kassel, Kassel

Fleischer, R. 1973 Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien, Leiden

Geertz, C. 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures, New York Gleba, M. 2008 Textile Tools in Ancient Italian Votive Contexts: Evidence of Dedication or Production?, in M. Gleba & J. MacIntosh Turfa (eds.), Votives, Places, Rituals in Etruscan Religion, Leiden, 69-84

Fleischer, R. 1999 Neues zum Kultbild der Artemis von Ephesos, in H. Friesinger & F. Krinzinger (eds.), 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, Wien, 605-609

Gombrich, E.H. 1979 The sense of order. A study in the psychology of decorative art, Oxford

Fleischer, R. 2002 Die Amazonen und das Asyl des Artemisions von Ephesos, JdI 117, 2002, 185-216

Gonnet, H. 1994 The cemetery and rock-cut tombs at Beyköy in Phrygia, in A. Çilingiroğlu, D.H. French (eds.), Anatolian Iron Ages III, Proceedings of the III Anatolian Iron Ages colloquim, Van, 6-12 august 1990, British Institute of Archaeology, Ankara, Monography n°16, 75-90

Flensted-Jensen, P. 2004 Karia, in Hansen & Nielsen 2004, 1108- 1137 Flensted-Jensen, P. & Carstens, A.M. 2004 Halikarnassos and the Lelegians, in S. Isager & P. Pedersen (eds.), The Salmakis and Hellenistic Halikarnassos (Halicarnassian Studies 4), Odense, 109-123

Gosden, C. 2004 Archaeology and Colonialism. Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present, Cambridge

Foss, C. 1990 History and Archaeology of Byzantine Asia Minor, Hampshire

Green, A.R.W. 2003 The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East, Wynona Lake

Fraser, P.M. 1977 Rhodian funerary monuments, Oxford

Greenewalt, C.H. jr.; Ramage, A. and Sullivan, D.G. 1983 The Sardis Campaigns of 1979 and 1980, BASOR 249, 1-44 151

Greenewalt, C. H. jr.; Cahill, N.D. & Rautman, M. L. 1987 The Sardis campaign of 1984, BASOR supplement 25, 13-54

Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1980 On Lydian Sardis, in K. DeVries (ed.), From Athens to Gordion. The Papers of a Memorial symposion for Rodney S. Young, Pennsylvania, 99-131

Gunter, A.C. 1985 Looking at Hecatomnid patronage from Labraunda, REA 87, 113-124

Hanfmann, G.M.A. & Ramage, N.H. 1978 Sculpture from Sardis: the finds through 1975 (Archaeological exploration of Sardis: reports 2), Cambridge Mass 1978

Gunter, A.C. 1989 Sculptural dedications at Labraunda, in Linders, T. & Hellström, P. (eds), Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria, Proceedigns of the Uppsala Symposium 1987, Uppsala, 91-98

Hannerz, U. 1987 The world in creolisation, Africa 57:4, 546-559 Hannerz, U. 1996 Transnational Connections: Culture, Peoples, Places, Routledge

Gunter, A.C. 1995 Marble Sculpture, (Labraunda. Swedish excavations and researches II:5), Stockholm

Hansen, D.P. 1998 Art of the Royal Tombs of Ur: A Brief Interpretation, in R.L. Zettler & L. Horne (eds.), Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur, Philadelphia, 43-50

Güterbock, H.G. 1967 The Hittite conquest of Cyprus reconsidered, JNES 26:2, 73-81

Hansen, M.H. & Nielsen, T.H. 2004 An inventory of archaic and classical poleis : an investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, Oxford

Haas, V. 1982 Hethitische Berggötter und hurritische Steindämonen. Riten, Kulte und Mythen, Mainz Haas, V. 1994 Geschichte der hethitischen Religion, Leiden

Haspels, C.H.E. 1971 The Highlands of Phrygia: sites and monuments, Princeton

Hadjisavvas, S. 1997 Agia Napa. Excavations at Makronisos and the archaeology of the region, Nicosia

Hawkins, J.D. 1998 Tarkasnawa King of Mira, AnaSt 48, 1-31

Hägg, R. 1990 The role of libation in Mycenaean ceremony and cult, in Hägg, R., Nordquist, G., & A.W. Persson (eds.), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June, 1988, Athen, 177-184

Held, W. 1999 Loryma in Karien. Vorbericht über die Kampagnen 1995 und 1998, IstMitt 49, 159-196 Held, W. 2004 Gergakome. Ein ‘alterwürdiges’ Heiligtum im kaiserzeitlichen Karien (Habilitationsschirft vorgelegt bei der Philosophischen Fakultät I der JulisMaximians-Universität Wurzburg), Wurzburg

Hall, J.M. 2002 Hellenicity. Between ethnicity and Culture, Chigaco Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1963 The fifth campaign at Sardis (1962), BASOR 170, 165

Held, W. 2005a Kult auf dem Dach. Eine Deutung der Tempel mit Treppenhäusern und Giebeltüren als Zeugnis seleukidischer Sakralarchitektur, IstMit 55, 119-160

Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1964 The sixth campaign at Sardis (1963), BASOR 174, 3-58

Held, W. 2005b Loryma ve Karia Chersonesos'unun yerleşim sistemi, Olba 12, 85-100

Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1967 The ninth campaign at Sardis (1966), BASOR 186, 17-52

Hellmuth Andersen, H. & Højlund, F. 2003 The Barbar Temples, volume 1. (The Carlsberg Foundation's Gulf Project), Højbjerg

Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1977 On the Palace of Croesus, in U. Höckmann & A. Krug (eds.), Festschrift für Frank Brommer, Mainz 145-154

Hellström, P. 1989 Formal banqueting in Labraunda, in Linders, T. & Hellström, P. (eds.), Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria, Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1987, Uppsala 99-104 152

Hellström, P. 1991 The architectural layout of Hecatomnid Labraunda, RA, 297-308

Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities. British Museum, London

Hellström, P. 1992 Labraunda 1990, in KST 13:2, 155-159

Hobsbawm, E. & Ranger, T. 1983 The invention of tradition, Cambridge

Hellström, P. 1993 Labraunda 1991, in KST 14:2, 123-131

Hodder, I. (ed.) 2002 Archaeological Theory Today, Cambridge

Hellström, P. 1994 Architecture. Characteristic building-types and particularities of style and technique. Possible implications for Helenistic architecture, in J. Isager (ed.), Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance (Halicarnassian Studies 1), Odense, 36-57

Hoepfner, W. 1996 Zum Maussolleion von Halikarnassos, AA 95-114 Hornblower, S. 1982 Mausolus, Oxford Hornblower, S. 1990 A reaction to Gunter's look at Hekatmonid patronage from Labraunda, REA 92, 137-139

Hellström, P. 1996 The andrones at Labraynda. Dining halls for protohellenistic kings, in W. Hoepfner & G. Brands (eds.), Basileia. Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige, Mainz, 164-169

Horsnæs, H. 2002 The Cultural Development in North Western Lucania c. 600-273 BC, Rome

Hellström, P. forthcoming Sacred architecture and Karian identity, in F. Rumscheid (ed.), Die Karer und die anderen, Berlin

Huff, D. 1968 Das Felsgrab von Eski Doğubayazit, IstMitt 18, 5886

Hellström, P. & Karlsson, K. 2005 Labraunda 2003, in KST 26:1, 75-80

Hutter, M. 1993 Kultstelen und Baityloi. Die Ausstrahlung eines syrischen religiösen Phänomens nach Kleinasien und Israel, in Janowski, B., Koch, K. & Wilhelm (eds), Freiburg, 87-108

Hellström, P. & Thieme, T. 1981 The Androns at Labraunda. A Preliminary Account of their Architecture, Medelhavsmuseet Bulletin 16, 58-74

Hylland Eriksen, T. 2004 What is Anthropology? London

Hellström, P. & Thieme, T. 1982 Labraunda. Swedish excavations and researches,1, 3. The temple of Zeus, Stockholm

Højlund, F. 1981 The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Reports of the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Bodrum 1, The Sacrificial Deposit, Højbjerg

Helms, M.W. 1998 Access to Origins. Affines, Ancestros and Aristocrats, Austin

Imperati, F. 1977 Le istituzioni cultuali del hegur e il potere centrale ittita, Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 18, 19-63

Hemelrijk , E.A. 1987 A Group of Provincial East-Greek Vases from South Western Asia Minor, BAbesch 62, 33-55

Ingvaldsen, H. 2002 COS — Coinage and Society. The chronology and function of a city-state in the Classical and Hellenistic period, c. 390 – c. 170 BC, Faculty of Arts, University of Oslo (Acta Humaniora 149)

Henry, O. 2005 Tombes de Carie — Tombes carienne. Contribution de l'architecture funeraire a l'histoire de la Carie auz periodes classique et hellenistique, Ph.D.-dissertation, Universite Michel de Montaigne, Bordeaux

Isager, S. forthcoming Labraunda 134 + 49, Epigraphica Anatolica

Herrmann, H.-V. 1966 Die Kessel der orientalisierenden Zeit (Olympische Forschungen 6), Berlin

Işık, F. 1980 Die Koroplastik von Theangela in Karien und ihre Beziehungen zu Ostionien zwischen 560 und 270 v. Chr. (IstMitt Beiheft 21), Tübingen

Herzfeld, E.E. 1941 Iran in the ancient east, Oxford Higgins, R.A. 1969

Işık, F. 1990 Frühe Funde aus Theangela und die Gründung der Stadt, IstMitt 40, 17-36 153

Jully, J.J. 1981 Labraunda, Swedish Excavations and Researches II:3. Archaic Pottery, Stockholm

Işık, F. 1995 Die offenen Felsheiligtümer Urartus und ihre Beziehungen zu denen der hethiter und phryger (Documenta Asia 2), Rome

Kaptan, D. 1996 Some remarks about the Hunting Scenes on the Seal Impressions of Daskyleion, BCH suppl. 29, 85-100

Işık, F. 1996 Das Felsgrab con Köseoğlu und Totemtempel Urartus, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 28, 211234.

Kaptan, D. 2000 Common Traits on Seals and Coins of the Achaemenid Period in an Anatolian Context, in: O. Casabonne (ed.), Mécanismes et innovations monétaires dans l'Anatolie achéménide. Numismatique et historie (Varia Anatolica 12), Istanbul, 213-233

Işık, F. 2000 Der karische Bergherrscher und sein heiliger Stein in Kbide, in C. Işık (ed.),Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens und des ägäischen Bereiches, (Asia Minor Studien 39), Bonn, 117-129 Işık, F. & Marek, C. 2005 Die Basen der Hekatomniden in Kaunos-Kbid, in B. Brandt; V. Gassner & S. Ladstätter (eds.), Synergia. Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger, Wien, 239-247

Kaptan, D. 2001 On the Satrapal Center in Northwestern Asia Minor: some evidence from the seal impressions of Ergili/Daskyleion, in: T. Bakir (ed.), Achaemenid Anatolia, Leiden, 57-64

Jacobs, B. 1994 Die Satrapienverwaltung im Perserreich zur Zeit Darius III, Tübingen

Kaptan, D. 2003 The Daskyleion Bullae. Seal Images from the Western Achaemenid Empire, (AchHist XII), Leiden

Jenkins, R. 2001 Pierre Bourdieu, Routledge

Karageorghis, V. 1995 The Coroplastic Arts of Ancient Cyprus IV. The Cypro-Archaic period small figurines, Nicosia

Jeppesen, K. 1976 Neue Ergebnisse zur Wiederherstellung des Maussolleions von Halikarnass, IstMitt 26, 47-99

Kaspar, S. 1966 Der Grabtumulus Şeç-Tepe bei Eleia, AA, 477-479

Jeppesen, K. 1994 Founder Cult and Maussolleion, in J. Isager (ed.), Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance (Halicarnassian Studies I), Odense, 73-84

Kaspar, S. 1975 Der Tumulus von Belevi, AA, 223-232 Keen, A. 1998 Dynastic Lycia. A political history of the Lycians and their relations with foreing powers c. 545-362 BC, Leiden

Jeppesen, K. 2000 The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Reports of the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Bodrum 4, The Quadrangle: The Foundations of the Maussolleion and Its Sepulchral Compartments, Højbjerg

Kleiss, W. 1996 Bemerkungen zum "Pyramid Tomb" in Sardes, IstMitt 46, 135-140

Jeppesen, K. 2002a The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Reports of the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Bodrum 5, The Superstructure: A Comparative Analysis of the Architectural, Sculptural, and Literary Evidence, Højbjerg

Kleiss, W. & Calmeyer, P. 1975 Das unvollendete Achaemenidische Felsgrab bei Persepolis, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 8, 81-98 Klengel, H. 1999 Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1, 34), Leiden

Jeppesen, K. 2002b Were images of ancestors represented in the Maussolleion at Halikarnassos?, in J.M. Højte (ed.), Images of Ancestors, Aarhus, 43-48

Klengel, H. 2002 Hattuschili und Ramses. Hethiter und Ägypter — ihr langer Weg zum Frieden, Mainz am Rhein

Jeppesen, K. & Zahle, J. 1975 Excavations on the site of the Mausoleum 1970/1973, AJA 79, 67-79

Koehler, E. L. 1995 The Lesser Phrygian Tumuli: The Inhumations, (The Gordion Excavations (1950-1973) Final Reports, Vol. II Part 1), Philadelphia

Jordan, P. 2003 Material Culture and Sacred Landscape. The Anthropology of the Siberian Khanty, Oxford 154

Konuk, K. 1998a The Coinage of the Hekatomnids of Caria, Ph.d.dissertation, Oxford University

Leurini, L. 1999 Osservazioni sullo Zeus Idrieus di Iasos, Bollettino dell’Associazione Iasos di Caria 5, 20-21

Konuk, K. 1998b The early coinage of Kaunos, in Ashton, R. & Hurler, S. (eds.), Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price, London, 197-223

Löhr, C. 2000 Griechische Familienweihungen: Untersuchungen einer Repräsentationsform von ihren Anfängen bis zum Ende des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. Leidorf

Konuk, K. 2000a Coin evidence for the Carian name of Keramos, Kadmos 39, 159-164

Lohmann, H. 1999 Survey in der Chora von Milet. Vorbericht über die Kampagnen der Jahre 1996 und 1997, AA, 349-473

Konuk, K. 2000b Influences et element achéménides dans le monnayage de la Carie, in O. Casabonne (ed.), Mécanismes et innovations monétaires dans l'Anatolie achéménide. Numismatique et histoire, Istanbul, 171-183

Lumsden, S. 2002 Gavurkalesi: Investigations at a Hittite Sacred Place, in K.A. Yener & H.A. Hoffner jr. (eds.), Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History, Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock, Winona Lake, 111-125

Konuk, K. 2003a L'Asie Mineure aux époques archaïque et classique, in C. Alfara; A. Burnett et al. (eds.) A Survey of Numismatic Research (1996-2001), Madrid

Lumsden, S. forthcoming Four Seasons at Gavurkalesi, in I. Thuesen (ed.) Proceedings og the 2nd International Congress of the Archaeology of The Ancient Near East, Copenhagen

Konuk, K. 2003b From Kroisos to Karia. Early Anatolian Coins from the Muharrem Kayhan Collection, Istanbul

Lyon, S.M. 2004 An Anthropological Analysis of Local Politics and Patronage in a Pakistani Village, Lewiston

Konuk, K. 2005 The coinage of Latmos, in A. Peschlow-Bindokat 2005, 55-58

Malmberg, S. 2003 Dazzling Dining. Banquets as an Expression of Imperial Legitimacy, Uppsala

Kron, U. 2002 Heilige Steine, in Froning, H., Hölscher, T. & Mielsch, H. (eds.), Kotinos. Festschrift für Erika Simon, Mainz am Rhein, 56-70

Marek, C. 2000 Wer war der Basileus Kaunios?, in C. Işık (ed.),Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens und des ägäischen Bereiches, (Asia Minor Studien 39), Bonn, 195-199

Kuniholm, P. I. 1985 Ein hölzener hellenistischer Sarkophag aus Elaia bei Pergamon. Dendrochronological Analysis of the Elaia Sarcophagus, IstMitt 35, 168-172

Marek, C. & Frei, P. 1997 Die karisch-griechische Bilingue von Kaunos. Eine Zweisprachige Staatsurkunde des 4. Jh. V. Chr. , Kadmos 36, 1-89

Kyrielies, H. 2002 Olympia 1875-2000. 125 Jahre deutsche Ausgrabungen, Internationales Symposion, Berlin 9.-11. November 2000, Berlin

Masturzo, N. 2004 Alcune osservazioni sul tempio in antis nel ‘santuario’ dell’agora di Iasos, in Iasos tra Vi e Iv sec. a.C. Miscellanea storico-archeologica, Ferrara, 141-157

Lane, E. (ed.) 1996 Cybele, Attis and related cults. Essays in Memory of M. J. Vermaseren, Leiden Laroche, E. 1960 Les Hiéroglyphes Hittites, Paris

Mauss, M. 2002 The gift: form and reason for exchange in archaic societies, London

Laumonier, A. 1958 Les cultes indigènes en Carie, Paris

McDonagh, B. 1995 Blue Guide Turkey, London

Lenz, D. 1997 Karische Keramik im Martin von WagnerMuseum, Würzburg, ÖJh 66, 29-61

McLauchlin, B.K. 1985 Lydian Graves and Burial Customs, Ph.D.dissertation, University of California, Berkeley

155

Mellink, M.J. 1971 Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı, AJA 75, 245-255

Newton, C.T. 1862-1863 A History of Discoveries at Halicarnassos, Cnidus and Branchidæ, London

Mellink, M.J. 1973 Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia 1972, AJA 77, 293-307

Nielsen, I. 1994 Hellenistic palaces. Tradition and renewal, Aarhus

Mellink, M.J. 1983 Comments on a Cult Relief of Kybele from Gordion, in R.M. Boehmer & H. Hauptmann (eds.), Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, Mainz am Rhein, 349-360

Nordquist, G.C. 2002 Evidence for pre-classical cult activity beneath the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea, in R. Hägg (ed.), Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults, Stockholm, 149-158

Mellink, M.J. 1998 Kızıbel: an Archaic Painted Tomb Chamber in Northern Lycia, Philadelphia

Nylander, C. 1970 Ionians at Pasargadae, Studies in Old Persian Architecture (Boreas 1), Uppsala

Mettinger, T.N.D. 1995 No graven images? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, Stockholm

Oberleitner, W. 1993a Vergangenheit und Zukunft des Heroons von Trysa, in Borchhardt, J. & Dobesch, G. (eds.), Akten des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, Wien, 6.-12. Mai 1990, Wien, vol. 2, 211-219

Meyer, L.B. 1987 Toward a Theory of Style, in Lang, B. (ed.), The concept of style, Ithaca 21-71 Morgan, C. 1990 Athletes and oracles, Cambridge

Oberleitner, W. 1993b Die Neuaufstellung des Heroons von Trysa. Geschichte in Wien und Wiener Geshichte, AW 24, 133-147

Mountjoy, P.A. 1997 Local Mycenanean Pottery at Troia, Studia Troica 7, 259-267

Oberleitner, W. 1994 Das Heroon von Trysa. Ein lykisches Fürstengrab des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. AW 25, 1-68

Mountjoy, P.A. 1999 The destruction of Troia VI, and, Troia VII Reconsidered, Studia Troica 9, 253-346

Østby, E. 2002 Recent excavations in the sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea: results and problems, in R. Hägg (ed.), Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults, Stockholm, 139-147

Mountjoy, P.A. 2006 A Neutron Activation Analysis of Mycenaean Pottery from Troia (1998-2003 Excavations), Studia Troica 19,97-124

Østergard, J.S. 1986 Heste fra den Boiotiske stald, Meddelelser fra Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 81-108

Naumann, F. 1983 Die Ikonographie der Kybele in der phrygischen und der griechischen Kunst (IstMitt Beiheft 28), Tübingen

Özgen, İ. & Öztürk, J. 1996 Heritage recovered. The Lydian treasure, Istanbul Özgüç, N. 1965 Kültepe Muhar Baskılarında Anadolu Grubu / The Anatolian Group of Cylinder Seal Impressions from Kültepe, Ankara

Neve, P. 1989 Einige Bemerkungen zu der Kammer B in Yazilikaya, in M.J. Mellink, E. Porada & T. Özguc (eds.) Aspects of art and iconography, Studies in honor of Nimet Özgüc, Ankara, 345-355

Özgüç, N. 1979 Gods and goddesses with identical attributes during the period of old Assyrian trade colonies, in Florilegium Anatolicum. Mélanges offerts à Emmanuel Laroche, Paris, 277-289

Neve, P. 1992 Die Ausgrabungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa 1991, AA, 307-338 Neve, P. 1993 Hattusa — Stadt der Götter und Tempel, Zaberns Bildbänder zur Archäologie 8, Mainz am Rhein

Panofsky, E. 1939 Studies in iconology, Oxford Panofsky, E. 1970 [1951] Gothic abrchitecture and Scholastiscism, Cleveland

Neve, P. 1996 Schalensteine und Schalenfelsen in BogazköyHattusa (2. Teil), IstMitt 46, 41-56 156

Prayon, F. 1987 Phrygische Plastik. Die früheisenzeitliche Bildkunst Zentral-Anatoliens und ihre Beziehungen zu Griechenland und zum Alten Orient, Tübingen

Paton, W.R. & Myres, J.L. 1896 Karian Sites and Inscriptions, JHS 16, 188-271 Pedersen, P. 1991 The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Reports of the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Bodrum 3. The Maussolleion Terrace, Højbjerg

Radt, W. 1970 Siedlungen und Bauten auf der Halbinsel von Halikarnassos unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archaischen Epoche (IstMitt Beiheft 3), Tübingen

Pedersen, P. 1994 The Ionian Renaissance and some Aspects of its Origin within the Field of Architecture and Planning, in J. Isager (ed.), Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance (Halicarnassian Studies I), Odense, 11-35

Radt, W. 1985 Ein hölzener hellenistischer Sarkophag aus Elaia bei Pergamon. Herkunft, Fundomstände, Beifunde und Datierung, IstMitt, 35, 139-142

Pedersen, P. 2002 Reflections on the Ionian Remaissance in Greek Architecture and its Historical Background, Hephaistos 19-20, 97-130

Radt, W. 1999 Pergamon. Geschichte und Bauten einer antiken Metropole, Darmstadt

Pedersen, P. 2004 Halikarnassos and the Ptolemies II. The Architecture of Hellenistic Halikarnassos, in S. Isager & P. Pedersen (eds.), The Salmakis Inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassos (Halicarnassian Studies 4), Odense, 145-164

Ramage, A. & Hirschland Ramage, N. 1971 The siting of Lydian burial mounds, in D.G. Mitten, P.J. Griffiths & J.A. Scott (eds.), Studies presented to Georga M. A. Hanfmann, Mainz am Rhein Rambach, J. 2002 Olympia. 2500 Jahre Vorgeschichte vor der Gründung des eisenzeitlichen griechischen Heiligtums, in Kyrieleis, H. (ed.), Olympia 1875-2000. 125 Jahre Deutsche Ausgrabungen. Internationales Symposion, Berlin 9.-11. November 2000, Mainz am Rhein, 177-212

Pedersen, P. forthcomning The Palace of Maussollos, in F. Rumscheid (ed.), Die Karer und die Anderen, Berlin Pedley, J. G. 1972 Ancient literary sources on Sardis. (Sardis M2), Cambridge Mass.

Rathje, A. 1990 The Adoption of the Homeric Banquet in Central Italy in the Orientalizing Period, in O. Murray (ed.) Sympotica. A symposion on the symposion, Oxford, 279-288

Perrot, G. and Chipiez, C. 1890 Histoire de l’Art dans l’antiquité, tombe 5: Perse, Phrygie, Lydie, et Carie-Lycie, Paris Peschlow-Bindokat, A. 1994 Die Befestigungen von Latmos, REA 96, 155-172

Rathje, A. 2005 Fabulous feasts, in Karageorghis, V.; Matthäus, H. & Rogge, S. (eds.), Cyprus: Religion and Society from the Late Bronze Age to the End of the Archaic Period, Möhnesee-Wamel, 215-223

Peschlow-Bindokat, A. 1996 Der Kult des anatolischen Regen- und Wettergottes auf dem Gipfel des Latmos und das Heiligtum des Zeus Akraios im Tal von Dikilitaş, IstMitt 46, 217225

Ratté , C. 1989 Lydian masonry and monumental architecture at Sardis, Dissertation Berkeley (University Microfilms International 9006483)

Peschlow-Bindokat, A. 2005a Feldforschungen im Latmos. Die karische Stadt Latmos (Milet III:6), Berlin

Ratté, C. 1992 The "Pyramid Tomb" at Sardis, IstMitt 42, 135-161

Peschlow-Bindokat, A. 2005b Herakleia am Latmos, Stadt und Umgebung. Eine karische Gebirglandschaft, Istanbul

Ratté , C. 1994a Not the Tomb of Gyges, JHS 114, 157-161

Popko, M. 1995 Religions of Asia Minor, Warsaw

Ratté, C. 1994b Anthemion stelae from Sardis, AJA 98, 593-607

Postgate, N. 1977 The First Empires (The Making of the Past) Phaidon

Reade, J.E. 1995 The symposion in ancient Mesopotamia. Archaeological evidence, in O. Murray & M. Tecuşan (eds.), In vino veritas, London, 35-56 157

Rein, M.J. 1993 The cult and iconography of Lydian Kybele, Ph.D.- dissertation, Harvard University

Root, M.C. 1991 From the Heart: Powerful Persianisms in the Art of the Western Empire, AchHist VI, Leiden, 1-19

Rein, M. J. 1996, Phrygian Matar: Emergence of an Iconographic Type, in E. Lane (ed.), Cybele, Attis and Related Cults: Essays in memory of M.J. Vermaseren, Leiden, 223-237

Root, M.C. 1994 Lifting the veil: artistic transmission beyond boundaries of historical periodisation, AchHist VIII, Leiden, 9-37

Reinach, S. 1896 Chroniques d'Orient. Documents sur les fouilles et découvertes dans l'Orient Hellénique de 1883 a 1890, Paris

Rudolph, C. 2003 Das "Harpyien-Monument" von Xanthos, seine Bedeutung innerhalb der spätarchaischen Plastik, Oxford

Renfrew, C. 1985 The archaeology of cult: the sanctuary at Phylakopi, London

Rügler, A. 1988 Die Columnae Caelatae des jüngeren Artemisions von Ephesos (IstMitt Beiheft 34), Tübingen

Ridgway, B. S. 1995 Paene ad exemplum: Polykleitos' Other Works, in: Fowler, B. H. & Moon, W. G. (eds.), Polykleitos, the Doryphoros, and Tradition, Madison, 177-199

Rumscheid, F. 1994 Untersuchungen zurkKleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus, Mainz am Rhein Rumscheid, F. forthcoming Die Leleger: Karer oder Andere?, in F. Rumscheid (ed.), Die Karer und die Anderen, Berlin

Robert, L. 1935 Rapport summaire sur un premier voyage en Carie, AJA 39, 1935, 331-340

Russin, R.U. & Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1983 Lydian Graves and Cemeteries, in G.M.A. Hanfmann & W.E. Mierse (eds.), Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Results of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis 1958-1975, Harvard, 53-66

Robert, L. 1945 Le sanctuaire de Sinuri près de Mylasa I, Paris Robert, L. 1976 Monnais grecques de l'époque impériale, Revue Numismastique, 25-56

Ruzicka, S. 1992 Politics of a Persian Dynasty: the Hecatomnids in the Fourth Century BC, Oklahoma

Robert, L & Robert, J. La Carie: historie et geographie historique avec le recueil des inscriptions antiques, Paris

Sackett, J.R. 1990 Style and ethnicity in archaeology: the case for isochretism, in Conkey, M.W. & Hastorf, C. (eds.), The uses of style in archaeology, Cambridge, 3243

Robert, L. & Robert, J. 1983 Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie, Paris Robinson, D.M. 1946 Excavations at Olynthus. Part XII. Domestic and Public Architecture, Baltimore

Sackville-West, V. 1953 Persian gardens, in A.J. Arberry (ed.), The legacy of Persia, Oxford, 259-291

Rodwell, J.M. 1901 Annals of Assur-Nasir-Pal, New York

Şahin, M. Ç. 1976 The Political and Religious Structure in the territory of Stratonikeia in Caria, Ankara

Roller, L.E. 1999 In Search of God the Mother, Berkeley Roos, P. 1976 Unpublished manuscript on the built tomb at Labraunda, Lund

Salvini, M. 1995 Geschichte und Kultur der Urartäer, Darmstadt Schipporeit, S.T. 1998 Das alte und das neue Priene. Das Heiligtum der Demeter und die Gründungen Prienes, IstMitt, 48, 193-236

Roosevelt, C. 2003 Lydian and Persian period settlement in Lydia, Ph.d.-dissertation, Cornell University Root, M. C. 1979 The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art. Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire, Leiden

Schmidt, E.F. 1953 Persepolis I. Structures, reliefs, inscriptions, Chicago

158

Schmidt, E.F. 1957 Persepolis II. Content of treasury and other discoveries, Chicago

Shiloh, Y. 1979 The Proto-Aeolic capital and Israelite ashlar masonry, Jerusalem 1979

Schmidt, E.F. 1970 Persepolis III. The Royal Tombs and other monuments, Chigaco

Simpson, E. 1990 Midas’ bed and a royal Phrygian funeral, Journal of Field Archaeology 17, 69-87

Schmidt-Dounas, B. 2000 Geschenke erhalten die Freundschaft. Politik und Selbstdarstellung im Spiegel der Monumente, (K. Birngmann & H. von Steuben (eds.), Schenkungen hellisnistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte, vol.2), Berlin

Simpson, R.H. 2003 The Dodecanese and the Ahhijawa question, BSA 98, 203-237 Singer, I. 1986 The huwasi of the Storm god in Hattusa, IX Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 21-25 Eylül 1981, Ankara 245-252

Schultz, P. 2007 Leochares' Argead portraits in the Philippeion, in R. von den Hoff & P. Schultz (eds.), Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context, Cambridge 2007, 205-233

Sinopoli, C. M. 1994 The Archaeology of Empires, Annual Review of Anthropology 23, 159-180

Schwabl, H. 1993 Zum Kult des Zeus in Kleinasien, in G. Dobesch & G. Rehrenböck (eds.), Die epigraphische und altertumskundige Erforschung Kleinasiens: Hundert Jahre kleinasiatische Kommision der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Akten des Symposiums vom 23. bis 25. Oktober 1990, Wien, 329-338

Spanu, M. 1997 Keramos di Caria, storia e monumenti, Roma 1997 Steuben, H. von 1999 Zur Komposition des Daochos-Monumentes, in H. von Steuben (ed.), Antike Porträts. Zum Gedächtnis von Helga von Heintze, Möhnesee, 35-38 Stronach, D. 1978 Pasargadae, Oxford

Schwemer, D. 2001 Die Wettergotgestaltne Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen: Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen, Wiesbaden

Stronach, D. 1989 The royal garden at Pasargadae: evolution and legacy, in de Meyer, L. / Haerinch, E. (eds.), Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellania in honorem Louise van den Berghe, Gent, 475-501

Seeher, J. 1999 Hattuscha-Führer. Ein Tag in der hethitischen Hauptstadt, Istanbul

Stronach, D. 1990 The garden as political statement: some case studies from the Near East in the first millennium B.C., Bulletin of the Asia Institute 4, 171-180

Seiterle, G. 1979 Artemis – Die Grosse Göttin von Ephesos, AW 10, 3-16

Stronach, D. 1994 Parterres and stone watercourses at Pasargadae: notes on the Achaemenid contribution to garden design, Journal of garden history: an international quarterly 14, 3-12

Seiterle , G. 1999 Ephesische Wollbinden. Attribut der Göttin, Zeichen des Stieropfers, in H. Friesinger & F. Krinzinger (eds.), 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, Wien, 251-254

Stronach, D. 2001 From Cyrus to Darius: Notes on Art and Architecture in Early Achaemenid Palaces, in I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC. Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 4), 95-111

Sekunda, N. 1991 Achaemenid settlement in Caria, Lycia and Greater Phrygia, AchHist 6, Leiden, 83-143 Selz, G. 1983 Die Bankettszene. Entwicklung eines "überzeitlichen" Bildmotivs in Mesopotamien von der frühdynastischen bis zur Akkad-zeit, Wiesbaden 1983

Strong, D. & Jeppesen, K. 1964 Discoveries at Halicarnassos, Acta Archaeologica 35, 195-203

Shanks, M. 2002 Culture/Archaeology — the dispersion of a discipline and its objects, in I. Hodder (ed.) 2002, 284305 159

Vandkilde, H. 2007, Archaeology, Anthropology and Globalisation, in H. Vandkilde (ed.)Globalisation, Battlefields, and Economics. Three inaugural lectures in archaeology, Aarhus 2007, 7-27

Stucky, R.A. 1988 Sidon — Labraunda — Halikarnassos, in M. Schmidt (ed.), Kanon, Festschrift Ernst Berger, Basel, 119-126 Stucky, R.A. 1993 Lykien — Karien — Phönizien. Kulturelle Kontakte zwischen Kleinasien und der Levante während der Perserherrschaft, in J. Borchhardt & G. Dobesch (eds.), Akten des II. Internationalen LykienSymposions, Wien, 6.-12. Mai 1990, Wien, vol. 1, 261-268

Varinlioğlu, E. 1992 Lelegian Cities on the Halicarnassian Peninsula in the Athenian Tribute Lists, in A. Schütte (ed.), Studien zum Antiken Kleinasien 2, (Asia Minor Studien 8), Bonn, 17-22 Voyatzis, M.E. 1990 The early sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea and other Archaic sanctuaries in Arcadia, Göteborg

Tausend, K. 1992 Amphiktyonie und Symmachie: Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen im archaischen Griechenland, Stuttgart

Vössing, K. 2004 Mensa Regia. Das Bankett beim hellenistischen König und beim Römischen Kaiser, Leipzig 2004

Thieme, T. 1993 The architectural remains of archaic Labraynda, in J. de Courtils & J.-C. Moretti (eds.) Les grands ateliers d'architecture dans le monde Egeen du Vie siecle av. J.-C. (Varia Anatolica 3), Paris, 47-55

Wallace-Hadrill, A. (ed.) 1989 Patronage in ancient society, Routledge Wallis Budge, E.A. & King, L.W. 1902 Annals of the Kings of Assyria. The cuneiform texts with translations, transliterations, etc. , from the original documents in the British Museum, London

Thomsen, R. 1994 Oldtidens penge, Århus Tilley, C. 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape, London

Walter-Karydi, E. 1985

Geneleos, AM 100, 91-104

Tinney, S. 1998 Death and Burial in Early Mesopotamia: The View from the Texts, in Zettler & Horne 1998, 26-28

Warren, P. 1990 Of baytyls , OpAth 18:14, 194-206

Tod, N.M. 1948 Greek Historical Inscriptions, Oxford

Waters, M. 2004 Cyrus and the Achaemenids, Iran 42, 91-102

Vaag, L.-E.; Nørskov, V. & Lund, J. 2002 The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Reports of the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Bodrum 7, The Pottery: Ceramic material and other finds from selected contexts, Højbjerg

Waywell, G.B. 1978 The free-standing sculptures of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus in the British Museum: a catalogue, London

Van den Hout, Th. 1994 Death as a Privilege. The Hittite Royal Funerary Ritual, in J.M. Bremer: Th.P.J. van den Hout & R. Peters (eds.), Hidden Futures. Death and Immortality in Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, the Classical, Biblical and Arabic-Islamic World, Amsterdam, 37-75

Waywell, G.B. 1989 Further thoughts on the placing and interpretation of the free-standing sculptures from the Mausoleum, in T. Linders & P. Hellström (eds.), Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria, Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1987, Uppsala, 23-30

Van den Hout, Th. 1995 Tuthalija IV und die Ikonographie hethitischer Grosskönige des 13. Jhs, Biblioheca Orientalis 52, 545-573

Waywell, G.B. 1993 The Ada, Zeus and Idrieus relief from Tegea in the British Museum, in O. Palagia & W. Coulson (eds.), Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia, Oxford, 79-86

Van den Hout, T. 2002 Tombs and Memorials: The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered, in K. A. Yener & H. A. Hoffner jr. (eds), Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History, Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock, Winona Lake, 73-91

Waywell, G.B. & Jenkins, I. (eds.) 1997 Sculptors and sculpture of Caria and the Dodecanese, London Weissl, M. 2002 Grundzüge der Bau- und Schichtenfolge im Artemision von Ephesos, ÖJh 71, 2002, 313-346 160

Westholm, A. 1963 Labraunda, Swedish Excavations and Researches 1:2. The Architecture of the Hieron, Lund Wiegand, Th. 1913 Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899, Bd. 3:1, Der Latmos, Berlin Wright , G.R.H. 1992 Ancient Buildings in Cyprus, (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 7. Abteilung), Leiden Wright, J.C. 1995 The archaeological correlates of religion: case studies in the Aegean, in Laffineur, R. & Niemeier, W.D. (eds.), Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut 10-13 April 1994 (Aegeum 12), Eupen, 341-348 Young, R. S. 1958 The Gordion campaign of 1957: preliminary report, AJA 62, 139-154 Young, R. S. 1960 The Gordion campaign of 1959: preliminary report, AJA 64, 227-244 Young, R. S. 1962 Phrygian construction and architecture II, Expedition 4, 2-12 Young, R. S. 1964 The 1963 campaign at Gordion, AJA 68, 279-292 Young, R. S. 1965 Early mosaics at Gordion, Expedition 7, 4-13 Young, R. S. 1978 The Phrygian contribution, in: E. Akurgal (ed.) The Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology Ankaara-Izmir 2330/IX/1973, Ankara, 9-24 Young, R. S. 1981 Three Great Early Tumuli, (Gordion Excavation Reports, Vol. I), Philadelphia Zahle, J. 1979 Lykische Felsgräber mit Reliefs aus dem 4. Jh. v.Chr., JdI 94, 245-346 Zahle, J. & Kjeldsen, K. 2004 The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos volume 6. Subterranean and pre-Maussollan structures on the site of the Maussolleion, Aarhus Zettler, R.L. 1998 Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, in R.L. Zettler & L. Horne (eds.) Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur, Pennsylvania 161

162

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 14 Silver stater of Kaunos, the so-called winged Karians, from c. 470-450 BC. Konuk 2003b, 97

Fig. 1 The alabaster / calcite vase with a cartouche of Xerxes the Great. The vase was found during C. T. Newton’s excavations at the Maussolleion in Halikarnassos. © Trustees of the British Museum

Fig. 15 Silver stater of Kaunos, from c. 430-420 BC. Konuk 2003b, 98

Fig. 2 A sealing from Daskyleion, depicting a bear hunt. Kaptan 1996, pl. 26:7

Fig. 16 Series of coins of Seleukia in northern Syria, depicting the sanctuary of Zeus Kasios. The sanctuary is illustrated as a holy rock inside a pavilion. Cook 1965, figs. 880-884

Fig. 3 Daskyleion electron coin, depicting a kneeling silene pouring wine in a kantharos with a fish lying below. Thomsen, 1994, fig. 19. The edge of one of the bullae of the Daskkyleion administrative archive, depicting a hand(?) holding a fish. Kaptan 2000, pl 35:5

Fig. 17 The god Sharrumma, wearing a horned crown, escorts the Great King Tuthaliya IV. From the open-air sanctuary at Yazılıkaya. Seeher 1999, fig. 138

Fig. 4 Cylinder seal from Kültepe depicting the storm god, which stands on a mountain peak, indicated by the little triangles under his feet. He is holding a bull by its hind legs. Özgüç 1965, Pl. 19:58

Fig. 18 The Luwian hieroglyph for Great King is a slender pyramid crowned by a simple volute, LUGAL GAL. Here it is an element in the cartouche of Tuthaliya IV from the sanctuary at Yazılıkaya, relief no. 64. Seeher 1999, 135

Fig. 5 The ante temple at Dikilitaş. Peschlow-Bindokat 1996, Tafel 38:5

Fig. 19 Two illustrations of the close connection between the Storm god, the mountain and the bull. On the left a drawing of a rock relief from Hanyeri, on the right a seal from Kaniş, depicting the mother of the mountains riding a bull. Işık 2000, Abb. 2-3

Fig. 6 The architrave inscription. Peschlow-Bindokat 1996, Tafel 39:6 Fig. 7 The temple of Zeus Akraios at Dikilitaş, reconstruction drawing. Peschlow-Bindokat 1996, Abb. 2

Fig. 20 Detail of cylinder seal from Kültepe. The enthroned god-king is characterised by the double-axe carried on the left shoulder. Özgüç 1965, Pl. 22:67

Fig. 8 Map of the Tmolus mountains south of Sardis. Bengisu 1996, fig. 7

Fig. 21 Detail of rock relief from Yazılıkaya. The god Sharrumma, son of Hebat and Teššop, stands of the back of a wild cat. He holds his double axe on his left shoulder. Seeher 1999, fig. 132, relief no. 44

Fig. 9 Ashlar blocks of white marble from the walled precincts and/or terraces on Mount Karios. Bengisu 1996, fig. 5 Fig. 10 The ancient well below Mount Karios. Bengisu 1996, fig. 20

Fig. 22 Rock relief from Yazılıkaya. The storm god stands on the shoulders of two personified mountain gods. Behind the god is a bull carrying the divine corned crown. Seeher 1999, fig. 131

Fig. 11 Coin depicting the cult statue of Anahita Aneitis at Hypaepa. Robert 1976, Pl. 1:1

Fig. 23 Remains of the earliest Artemision at Efesos, an unroofed small naiskos. Bammer & Muss 1996, Abb. 35

Fig. 12 Plan of the sanctuary of the baitylos at the agora in Kaunos. Diler 1995, Abb. 1.

Fig. 24 Schematic reconstruction of the Artemision naiskos. Bammer & Muss 1996, Abb. 38

Fig. 13 Arial view of the sanctuary of the baitylos at Kaunos. Diler 1995, Tafel 2:1 163

three tombs have been disputed. Schmidt (1970) suggested Tomb IV as the tomb of Darius II (423404 BC), Tomb III as Artaxerxes I (465-423 BC) and tomb II as Xerxes I (486-465 BC). Calmeyer (1975) has suggested Tomb IV to be the tomb of Artaxerxes I, and Tomb III as the tomb of Darius II. Kleiss & Calmeyer 1975, Abb. 11

Fig. 25 The sun disc inscribed in a moon sickle often accompanies the depictions of the mother of the mountains and the storm god. Cylinder seals from Kültepe, Özgüç 1965, no. 58 and 71 Fig. 26 Hellenistic round altar with woollen binds. Berges 1996, Tafel 50:3

Fig. 39 The façade of the tomb of Darius.

Fig. 27 The Hekatomnid relief from the Athena Alea sanctuary at Tegea. The relief depicts Zeus Labraundos flanked by Idrieus and Ada. Mid 4th century BC. © Trustees of the British Museum

Fig. 40. Detail of the upper relief panel of Darius' tomb. Fig. 41 Plan of the position of the tombs at Kuh-E Rhamat. Kleiss & Calmeyer 1975, Abb. 1

Fig. 28 Coin depictions of the Efesian Artemis, minted under Claudius. The woollen binds which are attached at the wrist of the statue seem somehow fastened to the plinth. Fleischer 1973, Tafel 54B

Fig. 42 The so-called Midas monument at Yazılıkaya / Midas City in central Phrygia. Haspel 1971 , plate 8 Fig. 43 Another of the rare examples of Phrygian tombs with relief decorated façade, the Arslan Taş. Haspel 1971, plate 132

Fig. 29 Standard of Ur, on top the so-called peace side, depicting the king as benefactor, en. Below the socalled war-side, depicting the king as warrior, lugal. © Trustees of the British Museum

Fig. 44 The construction principle of the tomb chamber and inner part of tumulus MM. The Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, no year, fig. 254

Fig. 30 Plan of Hattuša. Seeher 1999 Fig. 31 Plan of the open-air sanctuary at Yazılıkaya. Seeher 1999, fig. 125

Fig. 45 Plan of the position of the early tumuli at Gordion. Koehler 1995, fig. 2

Fig. 32 The base of the statue of Tuthaliya IV and its caption. Seeher 1999, fig. 136 & 140

Fig. 46 Alyattes' mound at Sardis

Fig. 33 Plan of the area inside the King's Gate. Seeher 1999, fig. 77

Fig. 47 The krepis wall of the Karniyarik tumulus, the socalled Gyges mount. Dedeoğlu 2003, 56

Fig. 34 The relief depicting an armed warrior with a horned crown, Tuthaliya IV, found inside House A. Seeher 1999, fig. 78

Fig. 48 The large necropolis area Bin Tepe at the Gygean Lake Fig. 49 The Yığma Tepe tumulus at Pergamon. Radt 1999, Abb. 210

Fig. 35 The tomb of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae. Stronach 1978, Pl. 21

Fig. 50 A tumulus chamber tomb at Elaia. Radt 1999, Abb. 212

Fig. 36 The tomb of Cyrus the Great, drawing. Stronach 1978, fig. 13

Fig. 51 The Pyramid tomb at Sardis. Ratté 1992, Tafel 21

Fig. 37 Plan of Persepolis and environs. Schmidt 1970, fig. 1

Fig. 52 The pyramid tomb at Sardis, reconstruction. Ratté 1992, fig. 16

Fig. 38 Plan of the royal necropolis at Naqsh-I Rustam. Tomb I is the tomb of Darius, and while it is securely identified the attribution of the remaining

Fig. 53 Taş Kule at Phokaia. Dedeoğlu 2003, 82 164

Fig. 70 The heroon at Limyra, Frieze blocks form the west side, fragments 5, 6, 7 and 8. Borcchardt 1976, Abb. 12

Fig. 54 Taş Kule at Phokaia. Cahill 1988, fig. 4 Fig. 55 The Berber İni at Milas. Henry 2005, pl. 256

Fig. 71 Plan of the Phellos heroon. Borchhardt, Neumann & Schulz 1989, Abb. 2

Fig. 56 The Berber İni at Milas, plan and façade. Henry 2005, pl. 257

Fig. 72 The bull relief of the Phellos heroon. Borchhardt, Neumann & Schulz 1989, Tafel 11:2

Fig. 57 The Berber İni at Milas, sections. Henry 2005, pl. 258

Fig. 73 Reconstruction of the city at Trysa and the heroon. Oberleitner 1994, Abb. 117

Fig. 58 Paphlagonian façade tomb, Aşaği Güneyköy. Gall 1966, Tafel 13:4

Fig. 74 The heroon at Trysa. Oberleitner 1994, Abb. 23

Fig. 59 Rock-cut chamber tomb at Dā u Dukhtar . Herzfeld 1941, pl. 37

Fig. 75 Plan of the Trysa heroon. Oberleitner 1994, Abb. 24

Fig. 60 Tomb 813 in the Pactolus valley cemetery at Sardis. Greenewalt, Cahill & Rautmann 1987, fig. 24

Fig. 76 Relief blocks from the heroon at Trysa, banquet scenes. Oberleitner 1994, Abb. 105-106.

Fig. 61 The cylinder seal from Tomb 813. Dusinberre 1997, fig. 3

Fig. 77 Gebe Kilisi

Fig. 62 Plan of Xanthos and the Nereid monument. Demargne & Coupel 1969

Fig. 78 The chamber tomb at Geriş Fig. 79 The chamber tomb from Yokuşbaşi

Fig. 63 The site of the Neried monument. Demargne & Coupel 1969, pl. 10

Fig. 80 The city plan of ancient Halikarnassos. http://www.humaniora.sdu.dk/typo/index.php?id =523

Fig. 64 Reconstruction drawing of the monument including the tomb chamber inside the podium. Demargne & Coupel 1969, pl. 93

Fig. 81 The pre-Maussollan complexes. The southern staircase leads to a cultic basin to the left, and in axis to a chamber, Chamber 1 (here marked a). Chamber 2 is here marked b, Chamber 3 marked c. Jeppesen 2000, fig. 24.1

Fig. 65 The reconstruction of the Nereid monument in the British Museum. © Trustees of the British Museum Fig. 66 The podium frieze, south side façade. A city is sieged in the upper register, below battle scenes. Childs & Demargne 1989, pl. 77

Fig. 82 State plan of the southern staircae with its cupholes, the western wing of stairs leading to the water reservoir, and the outline of Chamber 1 as indicated in the pavement. Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, fig. 5.1.2

Fig. 67 Frieze from the cella,, depicting banquet. Childs & Demargne 1989, pl. 89 Fig. 68 Plan of Limyra. Borchhardt 1976, Abb. 1

Fig. 83 Plan of Chambers 2 and 3. Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, fig. 5.3.1

Fig. 69 Reconstruction of the south side of the heroon at Limyra. Borchhardt 1976, Abb. 24

Fig. 84 Watercolour of Chamber 2 by R. P. Pullan, January 1858. Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, pl. 9 165

Fig. 85 Terracottas found during C. T. Newton’s excavations at the Maussolleion. Zahle & Kjeldsen 2004, fig. 7.3.2.1

Fig. 100 The royal hero. Door jamb from the palace of Darius in Persepolis. Curtis & Tallis 2005, cat.no. 41

Fig. 86 Two sheep/goats from the raw meat sacrifice on the landing of the staircase leading to the tomb chamber. Højlund 1981. fig. 80

Fig. 101 The garden audience / ceremonial banquet of the Assyrian king Assurbanipal and his queen. Curtis & Reade 1997, 122

Fig. 87 The capitals from Alazeytin. Radt 1970, Abb. 24

Fig. 102 Sketch plan of the gardens at Pasargadae. Curtis & Tallis 2005, 30

Fig. 88 Schematic plan of the Maussolleion terrace. Pedersen 1991, fig. 92

Fig. 103 The paved procession road to Labraunda. Westholm 1963, fig. 2

Fig. 89 Reconstruction drawing of the Maussolleion. Jeppesen 2002, fig. 6.3a

Fig. 104 View of the sanctuary at Labraunda Fig. 105 Sketch plan of the sanctuary at Labraunda with indications of the suggested pre-Hekatomnid remains. Based on Hellström 1991, fig. 1

Fig. 90 Reconstruction drawing of the Maussolleion, Jeppesen 2002, fig. 6.3b Fig. 91 The lions and the baityloi. Jeppesen 2002, fig. 12.5 & 12.7

Fig. 106 Large egg-and-dart found north of the temple of Zeus, probably from the late 5th century BC. Hellström & Thieme 1982, fig. 14

Fig. 92 Maussolleion lion. © Trustees of the British Museum

Fig. 107 A small Ionic capital of late Archaic date. Thieme 1993, fig. 1

Fig. 93 Relief adorning the western staircase of the façade of the Palace of Darius at Persepolis. Curtis & Tallis 2005, 78

Fig. 108 State plan of the temple of Zeus. Hellström & Thieme 1982, plate 31

Fig. 94 Suggested reconstruction of the corner acroteriae. Jeppesen 2002, fig. 11.4a & 11.4b

Fig. 109 Sketch plan of the sanctuary at Labraunda indicating the buildings and constructions built by Maussollos(M) and Idrieus(I). Based on Hellström 1991, fig. 1

Fig. 95 The so-called Maussollos. © Trustees of the British Museum

Fig. 110 The built tomb at Labraunda, exterior

Fig. 96 The so-called Artemisia. © Trustees of the British Museum

Fig. 111 The built tomb at Labraunda, interior

Fig. 97 Colosssal enthroned male. © Trustees of the British Museum

Fig. 112 Plan and section of the built tomb at Labraunda. Roos 1976

Fig. 98 Cylinder seal depicting the hunter king. Curtis & Tallis 2005, cat.no. 418

Fig. 113 Sketch plan of the procession area south-east of the built tomb. Roos 1976

Fig. 99 Cylinder seal depicting the warrior king. Curtis & Tallis 2005, cat.no. 413

Fig. 114 Sketch plan of the sanctuary at Labraunda, indicating the access way to the temple terrace and the androns. Hellström 1991, fig. 3 166

Fig. 115 The double maeander frieze found ex situ in the Oikos building. Gunter 1995, fig. 23

Fig. 131 Gordion, restored plan of the Phrygian city. Young 1964, plate 85, fig. 15

Fig. 116 The double maeander frieze from the Artemis altar at Efesos. Bammer & Muss 2001, Abb. 166

Fig. 132 Gordion. DeVries 1980, fig. 1 Fig. 133 Plan of Megaron 3. Dyson 1980, fig. 1

Fig. 117 The adoration scenes from the Ahiram sarcophagus. Dentzer 1982, pl. 4:26

Fig. 134 Hypothetic reconstruction of the roof and balconies of Megaron 3. Dyson 1980, fig. 2

Fig. 118 Neo-Hittite relief from Karatepe in Kilikia. Dentzer 1982, pl. 6:37

Fig. 135 A wooden side table from tumulus MM at Gordion. The Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, no year

Fig. 119 People bearing gifts / tribute to the Great King. Reliefs from the north side of the audience hall, the Apadana at Persepolis. Curtis & Tallis 2005, 66

Fig. 136 Pebble mosaic floor of the so-called burnt building. Young 1965, 10

Fig. 120 Plan of Andron A. Hellström 1996, fig. 3

Fig. 137 Drawing of the pebble mosaic of the so-called burnt building. Young 1965, 11

Fig. 121 The Labraunda sphinx. Gunter 1995, fig.4a-d

Fig. 138 Two piers with doodles, West Phrygian house. Young 1958, plate 21, fig. 3.

Fig. 122 The Labraunda sphinx. Gunter 1995, fig. 4g Fig. 123 Reconstruction of Andron B. Gunter 1995, fig. 6

Fig. 139 Restored plan of the Archaic, Persian level at Gordion. Young 1964, plate 85, fig. 10

Fig. 124 Sphinx from the façade of Palace G in Persepolis. Curtis & Tallis 2005, cat.no. 46

Fig. 140 Sketch drawing of remains of pebble mosaics from Andron A at Labraunda, found during the campaign of 1951. Hellström 1989, fig. 3

Fig. 125 A relief decorated base from Stratonikeia. Fleischer 1973, Tafel 137 Fig. 126 A relief from Mylasa. Fleischer 1973, Tafel 139

Fig. 141 Ionic capital, the Daskyleion andron. http://daskyleion.tripod.com

Fig. 127 A Mylasan coin issued under Geta. Fleischer 1973, Tafel 143:a

Fig. 142 Ionic base, the Daskyleion andron. http://daskyleion.tripod.com

Fig. 128 A Hadrian cistophoric tetradrachm. Fleischer 1973, Tafel 142b

Fig. 143 Sardis, acropolis north. Upper Slope with L-shaped block. Hanfmann 1977, Tafel 41.2

Fig. 129 Zeus Labraundos on the reverse of a silver didrachm issued by Idrieus (351-344 BC). Konuk 2003, cat.no. 92

Fig. 144 Sardis, acropolis north. Terrace walls perhaps belonging to the palatial quarters. Hanfmann 1977, Tafel 41.1

Fig. 130 An enthroned Zeus Labraundos. Posthume Alexander drachm, Mylasa c. 300-280 BC. http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?Lo tID=82951&AucID=89&Lot=694

Fig. 145 Remains of a winged staircase probably part of the Hekatomnid palace on the Zephyrion peninsula in Halikarnassos.

167

Fig. 160 Hekatomnid satrapal coinage. Triobol, Hekatomnos, a) royal hero, b) Milesian rosette. Konuk 2000, pl. 30:5.

Fig. 146 Plan of the sanctuary of Artemis at Amyzon. Robert & Robert 1983, fig. 36 Fig. 147 Plan of the sanctuary at Sinuri. Devambez & Haspel 1959

Fig. 161 Hekatomnid satrapal coinage.Tetradrachm, Maussollos, a) royal archer, b) Zeus Labraundos. Konuk 2000, pl. 30:2.

Fig. 148 Sketch plan of the sanctuary at Sinuri, indicating the building phases: 1) Archaic, 2) possibly Archaic, 3) 4th century BC, 4) Graeco-Roman, 5) mostly Byzantine. Pedersen 1991, fig. 104 Fig. 149 Sketch of the area at Bybassos — Kastabos. Cook & Plommer 1966, pl. 1.4 Fig. 150 Revetment of the procession road. Cook & Plommer 1966, pl. 3:1 Fig. 151 Sketch plan of the sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos. Cook & Plommer 1966, fig. 77 Fig. 152 Plan of a Hekatomnid (?) temple, perhaps dedicated Artemis Astias near the Zeus Megistos sanctuary in Iasos. Masturzo 2004, fig. 5 Fig. 153 Drawing of the Kaunos bases A and B, first publshed by G. E. Bean in 1953. Işık & Marek 2005, Abb. 2a-b Fig. 154 Drawing of the newly found statue base, base C, in Kaunos. Işık & Marek 2005, Abb. 4a Fig. 155 Photoes of the three Hekatomnid statue bases A, B, and C from Kaunos. Işık & Marek 2005, Abb. 2, 3, and 4 Fig. 156 State plan of the sanctuary between Latmos and Herakleia. Peschlow-Bindokat 2005, Tafel 96 Fig. 157 The so-called Ada from Priene. © Trustees of the British Museum Fig. 158 Hekatomnos silver tetradrachm, Mylasa, a) Zeus Labraundos, b) roaring lion. Konuk 2003, cat.no. 89 Fig. 159 Maussollos silver tetradrachm, Halikarnassos, a) laureate head of Apollo, b) Zeus Labraundos. Konuk 2003, cat.no. 90

168