The Archaeology of Lydia: from Gyges to Alexander 052151987X, 9780521519878

Citation preview

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF LYDIA: FROM GYGES TO ALEXANDER

In The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander, Christopher H. Roosevelt provides the first overview of the regional archaeology of Lydia in western Turkey, including much previously unpublished evidence and a fresh synthesis of the archaeology of Sardis, the ancient capital of the region. Combining data from regional surveys, stylistic analyses of artifacts in local museums, ancient texts, and environmental studies, he presents a new perspective on the archaeology of this area. To assess the importance of Lydian landscapes under Lydian and Achaemenid rule, roughly between the seventh and fourth centuries BCE, Roosevelt situates the archaeological evidence within frameworks established by evidence for ancient geography, environmental conditions, and resource availability and exploitation. Drawing on detailed and copiously illustrated evidence presented in a regionally organized catalogue, this book considers the significance of evidence of settlement and burial at Sardis and beyond for understanding Lydian society as a whole and the continuity of cultural traditions across the transition from Lydian to Achaemenid hegemony. Christopher H. Roosevelt is an Assistant Professor of Archaeology at Boston University. A member of the Archaeological Institute of America, the American Research Institute in Turkey, the British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara, and the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, he is the recipient of a National Science Foundation grant for a project titled “Environmental and Cultural Dynamics in Central Lydia, Western Turkey.” He has contributed to the American Journal of Archaeology, the Journal of Field Archaeology, and other journals and edited volumes.

T HE A R C H A E O LOGY O F L YDI A: FR O M G Y G E S TO AL E XAN DE R

CHRISTOPHER H. ROOSEVELT Boston University, Department of Archaeology

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, S˜ao Paulo, Delhi Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473, USA www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521519878 © Christopher H. Roosevelt 2009 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2009 Printed in the United States of America A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication data Roosevelt, Christopher H., 1972– The archaeology of Lydia, from Gyges to Alexander / Christopher H. Roosevelt. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-521-51987-8 (hbk.) 1. Lydia (Kingdom) – Antiquities. 2. Excavations (Archaeology) – Lydia (Kingdom) 3. Lydia (Kingdom) – History. 4. Landscape – Lydia (Kingdom) 5. Land settlement – Lydia (Kingdom) 6. Sardis (Extinct city) – Antiquities. 7. Excavations (Archaeology) – Turkey – Sardis (Extinct city) 8. Sardis (Extinct city) – History. 9. Turkey – Antiquities. 10. Excavations (Archaeology) – Turkey. I. Title. DS156.L9R66 2009 939 .22–dc22 2009012409 ISBN 978-0-521-51987-8 hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Information regarding prices, travel timetables, and other factual information given in this work are correct at the time of first printing, but Cambridge University Press does not guarantee the accuracy of such information thereafter.

Contents

List of Figures

page ix

List of Tables

xiii

Preface 1

2

xv

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Regional Archaeology Material Culture and Cultural Change Overview of this Study

4 7 9

The Cultural and Historical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Lydian Origins, Language, and the Early Lydian Period (Through the Late Eighth Century) Biological, Linguistic, and Historical Evidence Classical Sources for the Early Lydian Period Archaeological Evidence The Middle Lydian Period (Early Seventh through Mid-Sixth Century) The Late Lydian (or Achaemenid) Period (Mid-Sixth through Late Fourth Century)

3

13 13 19 20 22 26

Lydian Geography and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 The Natural Landscapes of Lydia Central Lydia: The Heartland of the Mermnad Kingdom The Boundary Zones of Greater Lydia Mountains Rivers and Plains Lakes v

34 34 36 41 41 44

Contents

Areas of Interest for Subsequent Discussion Geology Climate and Vegetation Resources Agriculture and Animal Husbandry FIELD CROPS, VITICULTURE, AND TREE FRUITS LIVESTOCK AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS

Area-Specific Resources The Richness and Diversity of Lydian Landscapes 4

Settlement and Society at Sardis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 The Geography and Development of Sardis Major Excavation Sectors Historical Development Lydian Houses and Domestic Economy Small-Scale Craft Production and Exchange Large-Scale Craft Production and Exchange Royal, Administrative, and Public Buildings Cults and Cult Places Sardis and Lydian Society

5

60 61 64 66 70 73 77 80 85

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia . . . . . . . 91 Central Lydia, the Immediate Hinterland of Sardis Evidence for Settlement and Other Activities in Central Lydia Bin Tepe, Tumulus Groups, and Settlement Areas in Central Lydia Diachronic Changes in the Settlement Patterns of Central Lydia Greater Lydia, the Distant Hinterland of Sardis Evidence for Settlement and Other Activities in Greater Lydia Tumulus Groups in Greater Lydia Diachronic Changes in the Settlement Patterns of Greater Lydia Settlement Structure and Estates Settlement Concerns Subsistence and Communication Territorial Control Resource Control and Procurement Sacred Landscapes and Cult Places Lydian Settlement Patterns and Regional Interaction

6

45 46 47 49 49 50 53 54 58

93 93 99 101 102 103 109 110 112 115 115 117 121 123 129

Burial and Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Regional Burial Types

136 vi

Contents

Pits Sarcophagi Chamber Tombs Graveside Markers and Funerary Imagery Phallic Markers Symbolic Door Stelae Anthemion Stelae (With and Without Inscriptions) Figural Stelae BANQUETS SEATED FEMALES STANDING FIGURES MOUNTED RIDERS, HUNTS, ANIMAL FRIEZES, AND A BATTLE

Freestanding Statues (Lions and a Lion-Griffin) Other Funerary Imagery Overview Grave Assemblages and Funeral Ceremonies Burial and Lydian Society 7

136 137 139 151 153 153 155 156 157 158 160 161 165 172 173 176 183

Conclusions: Continuity and Change at Sardis and Beyond . . . 185 Developments in the Material Record Material and Historical Synthesis: Continuity and Change The Early and Middle Lydian Periods The Late Lydian Period Persians and Persianisms at Sardis and Beyond Some Final Conclusions and Prescriptions for the Future

186 191 191 194 198 201

CATALOGUE OF SITES AND FINDS IN CENTRAL AND GREATER LYDIA

205

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

207 214 218 219 222 223 225 228 230 233 234 236

Central Lydia Middle Hermus River Valley (West of Central Lydia) Nymphaeum Valley ˘ Mt. Sipylus (Manisa Dag) Middle Hermus River Valley (North of Mt. Sipylus) Hyrcanian Plain Middle Phrygius River Valley Lycus Valley Upper Caicus Valley Middle Hermus River Valley (East of Central Lydia) Lower Cogamus River Valley Middle Cogamus River Valley vii

Contents

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Upper Cogamus River Valley Northern Lydia Northeastern Lydia Eastern Lydia Tmolus Range Cilbian Plains Cayster Valley Southeastern Lydia ˙ Bergama Museum (Izmir) ˙ Izmir Archaeological Museum Manisa Museum ¨ ˙ Odemis ¸ Museum (Izmir) ˙ Tire Museum Directorate (Izmir)

240 240 243 244 249 250 252 255 255 255 255 256 256

Notes

259

Works Cited

279

Index

299

viii

List of Figures

1.1. 1.2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8. 4.9. 4.10. 4.11. 4.12. 4.13.

The Acropolis of Sardis. The middle Hermus River valley in central Lydia. Stele with Lydian inscriptions found at Sardis. Simplified diagram of Lydian and other Anatolian dialects. Late Bronze Age western Anatolia. The Lydian Kingdom and Empire. Map of central Lydia showing its main topographical features. The Pactolus River valley. Modern geography of greater Lydia. Ancient geography of greater Lydia. The western middle Hermus River valley and Mt. Sipylus. The Castolus Plain in eastern Lydia. Greater Lydian areas for discussion. Averaged monthly temperature and precipitation values. Plan of Sardis. Reconstruction drawing of Sardis acropolis. Reconstruction drawing of Lydian fortifications at Sardis. Reconstruction of a Middle Lydian house at Sardis. Comparative plans of Lydian houses at Sardis. Melon-shaped glass bead from Sardis. Rock-crystal lion figurine from Sardis. Common forms and decorations of Lydian ceramics. Reconstruction drawing of the metal refinery at Sardis. Archaic statue from Sardis. Ashlar masonry at Sardis sector ByzFort. Marble stylobate at Sardis sector ByzFort. Plan of the Lydian Altar (LA) in the Artemis Precinct at Sardis. 4.14. Reconstruction drawings of the Altar of Cybele at Sardis sector PN. ix

3 5 14 15 15 25 35 36 37 39 42 43 45 49 61 63 65 67 67 71 71 73 75 76 77 79 81 83

List of Figures

4.15. 4.16. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 5.8. 5.9. 5.10. 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. 6.7. 6.8. 6.9. 6.10. 6.11. 6.12. 6.13. 6.14. 6.15. 6.16. 6.17. 6.18. 6.19. 6.20. 6.21. 6.22. 6.23. 6.24. 6.25. 6.26. 6.27. 6.28.

The so-called Cybele Naiskos from Sardis. A ritual “puppy dinner” assemblage from Sardis. Map of central Lydia and site types. Map of central Lydia and site dates. Plan of the partially excavated house at Ahlatlı Tepecik. Map of greater Lydia and site types. Map of greater Lydia and site dates. The east face of S¸ahankaya. Plan of S¸ahankaya. The Persian-style fire altar at S¸ahankaya. The Gygaean Lake and Bin Tepe. ¨ The double-lion statue from Hypaepa in the Odemis ¸ Museum. Two stone-lined pit graves at Sardis. Lydian bathtub sarcophagi at Sardis. Rock-cut chamber tombs at Sardis. The so-called Pyramid Tomb at Sardis. The sculpted pediment of a freestanding tomb at Sardis. Rock-cut tomb in the Kahraman neighborhood of Gelenbe. The landscape of Bin Tepe from Sardis. The tumulus of Alyattes (Kocamutaf Tepe). Drawings of the tomb chamber of the tumulus of Alyattes. Drawings of the tomb chamber of the BT 63.2 tumulus. Drawings of the tomb chamber of the Kızılbel tumulus in Elmalı. Map of Bin Tepe and its tumuli. A tumulus in the middle Phrygius River valley. Graph of the construction dates of Lydian tumuli. Diagram of chamber-tomb complex types in Lydia. Phallic markers at Sardis. Drawing of the marker on top of the tumulus of Alyattes. ˙ ˘ Symbolic door stelae from Ikiztepe, Sardis, and Ertugrul. ¨ Anthemion stele in the Odemis¸ Museum. ¨ Funerary relief from Odemis ¸ in the Cayster River valley. Funerary relief from Hayallı in eastern Lydia. Funerary relief in the Manisa Museum. ˙ Funerary relief with inscription from Incesu. Funerary relief from Haliller in the Cayster River valley. ¨ ¸ eler (near S¸ahankaya) in Funerary relief from Gokc northern Lydia. Funerary relief from Musacalı. Funerary relief in the Manisa Museum. Funerary relief from Manisa in the Bergama Museum. x

84 85 94 95 99 108 109 118 119 121 123 127 137 138 139 141 141 142 143 143 144 145 147 148 149 151 152 153 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 159 161 161 162 163

List of Figures

6.29. 6.30. 6.31. 6.32. 6.33. 6.34. 6.35. 6.36. 6.37. 6.38. 6.39. 6.40. 6.41. 6.42. 6.43. 6.44. 6.45. 6.46. C.1. C.2. C.3. C.4. C.5. C.6. C.7. C.8. C.9. C.10. C.11. C.12. C.13. C.14. C.15. C.16. C.17. C.18.

Funerary relief in the Tire Museum. Funerary relief in the Manisa Museum. Recumbent lion statue from Kula in eastern Lydia. Recumbent lion statue from Birgi in the Cayster River valley. Seated lion statue from the middle Phrygius River valley. Small lion statue from Soma. Small lion statue from Turgutlu. Small lion statue from Sivrice. Small lion statue from Beyoba. Lion-griffin statue from Kula in eastern Lydia. Unfinished small lion statue from the Lale Tepe tumulus. Stylized lion heads from northern Lydia. ¨ Drawing of the kline in the Aktepe tumulus in Gure. Drawing of the wall paintings in the Aktepe tumulus ¨ in Gure. Wall-painting fragments from the Harta tumulus. The painted walls and ceiling of the Lale Tepe tumulus. Benches within a rock-cut chamber tomb at Sardis. Freestanding kline within the BT 05.58 tumulus tomb chamber. Appliqu´es and jewelry from a sarcophagus burial in Kendirlik. ¨ ukbelen ¨ Grave goods from a sarcophagus burial in the Buy Valley. Small lion statue from Temrek. View of the “Tomb of St. Charalambos” or the “Tomb of Tantalus.” Small lion statue from Manisa. Small lion statue from Manisa. Partial grave assemblage from a sarcophagus burial in Tekeliler. ¨ Assorted finds recovered from Golmarmara. Frontal view of the small lion statue from Beyoba. Small lion statue from Akhisar. Small lion statue from Selc¸ikli. Monuments in the Kahraman neighborhood of Gelenbe. Bronze fibula and orange stone bead from Altınlı, Soma. Selection of Middle Lydian pottery from Yes¸ilkavak. Stele with Aramaic inscription from Kemaliye. Small lion statue from Alas¸ehir. A (fake?) Croesid half-stater and a Type III siglos from the Girelli Hoard. Selection of Middle and Late Lydian pottery from ¨ uk. ¨ Tilki Hoy xi

164 164 165 166 167 167 168 168 169 170 171 171 172 173 174 175 177 179 210 211 217 220 221 221 223 225 226 228 229 232 232 235 236 237 238 239

List of Figures

C.19. Gold jewelry from a sarcophagus burial in the Tilkitepe tumulus. ¨ ¸ eler, below S¸ahankaya. C.20. Partial grave assemblage(s) from Gokc C.21. Sling bullet of Tissaphernes recovered from Kayacık. C.22. Stele with Aramaic inscription from Kenger. C.23. Small lion statue from Kula. ¨ ¨ C.24. Selection of sigloi from the “Treasure of Korez” from Ortakoy.

xii

239 241 242 245 246 248

List of Tables

2.1. 3.1. 3.2. 4.1. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4.

Chronological phases in Lydia. ˙ Areas devoted to cultivation in Izmir, Manisa, and Us¸ak. Geographic distribution of area-specific resources in Lydia. Lydian chronological phases correlated to Sardis. Dates and types of sites in central Lydia, excluding Sardis. Chronological phasing of narrowly dated sites in central Lydia. Dates and types of sites in greater Lydia. Chronological phasing of narrowly dated sites in greater Lydia.

xiii

12 51 55 62 96 101 104 110

Preface

After twenty years of excavations at Sardis, G. M. A. Hanfmann, the founder of the Sardis Expedition, wrote: The most urgent need is for more information about Lydia as a region. Through the work of the present Harvard-Cornell expedition and the previous American effort, something has become known about Sardis, capital of Lydia; yet we need excavations at other key sites – both those cited by ancient authors and inscriptions such as Hypaepa and Karoura; and those as yet nameless but known from preliminary archaeological explorations. . . . (Hanfmann 1978, 24)

With the excavations at Sardis now just past their fiftieth year, regional understanding of the archaeology of Lydia is, only recently, gaining clarity. Dispersed excavations of the type Hanfmann advocated remain an ideal to which we can and should aspire. In their absence, however, evidence stemming primarily from surface investigations can tell us quite a lot, especially when juxtaposed with data recovered from the long-term excavations at Sardis. This book has grown from regional research conducted for my doctoral dissertation at Cornell University (2003) on the subject of settlement in greater Lydia. That research is supplemented by the results of an ongoing project called the Central Lydia Archaeological Survey (CLAS), which, since its first season in 2005, has aimed to elucidate the archaeology of the immediate environs of Sardis surrounding the Gygaean Lake. It is my continuing hope that additional surveys and, perhaps, excavations will be initiated soon to address Hanfmann’s thirty-year-old yet still urgent call for archaeological work outside Sardis; such work has great potential to broaden in scope and detail, if not to correct, the introduction that this book aims to provide to the vastly rich archaeology of Lydia. My introduction to and interest in the archaeology of Lydia came from my studies at Cornell University and was happily perpetuated during xv

Preface

fieldwork at Sardis. To past graduate mentors at Cornell (especially A. and N. Ramage, P. I. Kuniholm, and K. Clinton) and to Sardis teams past and present (especially former and current field directors C. H. Greenewalt, jr. and N. D. Cahill, as well as C. S. Alexander, E. Gombosi, K. Keifer, ¨ P. T. Stinson, C. S¸enturk, and T. Yalc¸ınkaya), many profuse thanks for your stimulating intellectual encouragement and often heroic help. For permissions to conduct fieldwork and museum research in Turkey and to publish the same, and for assistance in acquiring permissions and in conducting research, I am extremely grateful to the following institutions and individuals: the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums of Turkey’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism (especially M. Ayaz, T. Selc¸uk, and A. Usta); the U.S. Embassy in Ankara (E. McKay, Z. Sınkıl, S. Tas¸kın, and A. Turgay); the Turkish Embassy in Washington, DC (O. Ersoy and Z. Yavuzkan); the American Research Institute in Turkey (N. Leinwand, G. K. Sams, and B. Yıldırım); the British Institute at Ankara (R. Matthews and L. Vandeput); the Manisa and Us¸ak Museums (M. Tosunbas¸, S. Atukeren, ˘ and E. Torunlar, as well as K. Akbıyıkoglu, S. Alpaslan-Arc¸a, H. Arc¸a, ¨ ˘ S. Dogan, ˘ ¨ B. Aydın, H. Dedeoglu, U. Hos¸goren, and M. and N. Onder, ˘ and S. formerly of these museums); the Bergama Museum (M. A. Sarıoglu ¨ Soyaker); the Odemis¸ Museum (S. C¸etin and, formerly, Y. Akkan); and ¨ ¸ baylar). For additional assistance with illustrations the Tire Museum (E. Uc and publication permissions, I thank the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis (especially N. D. Cahill, E. Gombosi, and K. Keifer); the Austrian ˙ Ozgen; ¨ Archaeological Institute (R. Risy); R. A. Bridges, Jr.; H. Malay; I. F. ¨ Unal; and the Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University (S. T. Kenfield). Research for this book was by no means a sole effort. I would like to acknowledge and thank the many generous sponsors of my research in central and greater Lydia, including the National Science Foundation (grant number 0649981), the American Research Institute in Turkey, the Archaeological Institute of America, the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, the Marion and Jasper Whiting Foundation, the Humanities Foundation and the Special Program for Research Initiation Grants at Boston University, a Graduate Summer Research Fellowship and the Wilde, William, and Mary Fellowship at Cornell University, and many anonymous donors. For their hard work and enumerable contributions, I am indebted also to the participants of and consultants for the 2001 tumulus survey and the 2005–2008 Central Lydia Archaeological Survey seasons (C. Luke, H. Alkan, E. P. Baughan, M. R. Besonen, M. T. Boulanger, N. D. Cahill, K. C. ˘ M. Glascock, C. H. Greenewalt, jr., S. T. Karacik, Cooney, C¸. C¸ilingiroglu, xvi

Preface

¨ uner, ¨ N. P. Ozg A. Ramage, M. L. Rautman, N. Y. Rifkind, C. Runnels, M. N. Sneeringer, D. Sullivan, B. R. Vining, C. A. Wait, and N. P. Wolff), as well as to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism representatives for the ˙ ¸ ci, E. Yılmaz, E. Ozc ¨ ¸ elik, and F. Unal ¨ ˘ same (J. Dedeoglu, N. Is of the ˙ Aya Sofya, Isparta, Samsun, Eskis¸ehir, and Bursa Museums, respectively). Although never listed as formal participants in most research projects, I thank also the many local villagers, farmers, and shepherds whom we encountered in areas spread throughout Lydia; to those strangers who often wander across their paths, they have always shown most congenial hospitality in offering access to land and in sharing local perspectives on the history and archaeology of the region. Additionally, for encouragement and support on the wide range of research topics that inform this book and/or for other research and logisti˘ H. Aksakal, T. Asena, cal assistance, I am thankful to T. Bakır-Akbas¸oglu, ˘ R. Dinc¸, E. Doger, ˘ S. Ates¸lier, R. L. and U. Bengisu, A. C¸iligiroglu, C. ˙ ¨ Draycott, E. Erlat, A. Goldman, R. G. Gurtekin-Demir, I. Kayan, F. S. Kleiner, E. Kohler, T. Kor, O. Muscarella, G. Polat, D. Stronach, T. S¸are, ˘ C. Tanrıver, and R. Tekoglu. This book has benefited greatly from the instructive and essential comments of readers of earlier drafts. I extend a very special thanks to these readers (including N. D. Cahill, E. R. M. Dusinberre, P. I. and E. Kuniholm, and C. Luke), as well as to the reviewers solicited by Cambridge University Press, and to the readers of earlier drafts of particular sections or chapters (including S. Aro, R. L. Bengisu, A. E. Crawford, K. Januszkiewicz, D. A. ¨ uner). ¨ Nieciecki, and N. P. Ozg Although their suggestions have done much to improve the book, I take full responsibility for any errors of fact or problems of interpretation that may remain. Finally, I am extremely grateful for the strong support, encouragement, and understanding patience of my family – both extended and nuclear. Heartfelt thanks to all, especially to Christina and the boys, without whom this book would have been far less enjoyable to research or write.

xvii

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

The region of Lydia in central western Anatolia (modern Turkey) has always been known for richly embroidered tales about its kings and its capital, Sardis (Figure 1.1). Some of these tales are contemporary historical accounts, providing the details of both personal and state activities and events, whereas others can be called only mytho-historical or pseudohistorical – they probably contain grains of historical truth but were exaggerated, embellished, or distorted in certain details already in antiquity. So, although we cannot yet be certain of their precise origin and emergence to power, we know that Lydian kings established Sardis as the capital of a powerful, independent kingdom by the late eighth or early seventh century BCE,1 if not much earlier, and that they were able to do so, at least in part, because Sardis was fabulously rich, with mineral, agricultural, and other resources. Control of such resources allowed the kings of Sardis to lead sumptuously opulent lives and to commandeer supportive forces, attracting both covetous and reverent notice from foreign individuals and states alike. The power of these kings, and especially that of its last five kings, who comprised the Mermnad Dynasty, was such that they were able to maintain diplomatic ties with Assyrian, Median, and Egyptian kings and Greek tyrants, and to wage repeated military campaigns against the archaic Greek city-states of the east Aegean coast. By the early sixth century, the Mermnad kings were even able to transform their kingdom into a vast territorial empire, demanding tribute from almost all peoples dwelling within western Anatolia, thereby further increasing their wealth and power. The wealth and power of the Lydian kings have been illustrated evocatively by the archaeological excavations at Sardis, for which Lydia is also well known. Archaeological work at the site has been conducted by two separate expeditions over a combined total of more than fifty-five years 1

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

and continues to this day. The early twentieth-century expedition directed by H. C. Butler of Princeton University and the ongoing Archaeological Exploration of Sardis sponsored by Harvard and Cornell Universities have not only verified the rise of Sardis and the power of its kings, but also provided otherwise unknowable details about life and death at the Lydian capital. The archaeology of Sardis has confirmed historical accounts not only of the rise of Sardis, but also of the eclipse of Lydian power in the mid-sixth century when the last of the Mermnad kings, the famously rich Croesus, fell to Persian forces under Cyrus the Great – when the city was taken by force its monumental fortification wall was burned and partially destroyed. In addition, the subsequent reconstruction of the same wall corroborates historical testimony that Sardis remained an important cosmopolitan center in later times as the capital of the Achaemenid Persian imperial province, or satrapy, of Sparda, as it was called in Old Persian. Sardis continued to be an important regional center throughout the long period of Achaemenid hegemony until the arrival of Alexander the Great in the late fourth century and also into the Hellenistic and Roman eras thereafter. Lydia is best known, then, for Sardis and the ancient accounts and modern excavations of that one site. Indeed, given the long-term focus on Sardis, some might be tempted to think that the site contained all there was to know about the archaeology and history of Lydia. To be sure, just as Sardis is the focus of modern research, it was the focus of ancient activities in the region; for this reason alone, it deserves the attention it has been and continues to be given. But what of the people and places of greater Lydia that supported and interacted with Sardis? The territory of the historical Lydia of the Mermnad Kingdom comprises diverse landscapes spread over more than 22,000 square kilometers in the interior areas of modern western Turkey, which is more than half of the size of Switzerland and roughly six times the size of Attica, the territory of ancient Athens. It was populated by people of different origins, standings, and means of life, including high-status landowners with connections to Sardis, of course, but also farmers, herders, and various craftspeople, some of whom probably rarely, if ever, even visited Sardis. Exploration of greater Lydia, its people and their activities, adds to our understanding of the region of Lydia as a whole and of the interactions between Sardis and its hinterland – interactions necessary for the functioning of the city and imperial development and administration. Lydia is much broader than Sardis, and the importance of Sardis and Lydia extends beyond the periods of Mermnad and Achaemenid 2

Introduction

Figure 1.1. The Acropolis of Sardis, to ESE (C. H. Roosevelt).

hegemony. Sardis was likely an important center already in the Early Iron Age, if not earlier in the Bronze Age, and its importance in Hellenistic, Roman, and Late Roman times is chronicled in both ancient texts and in archaeological field reports.2 This study, however, will focus only on evidence from the Lydian period and from the subsequent time of Achaemenid rule, roughly between the early seventh and the late fourth centuries. In these eras, Lydian kings came to power and ruled during times of vast cultural change in neighboring eastern Mediterranean spheres, including the rise of city-state systems in nearby Greece to the west, and the effervescence and then collapse of the Assyrian Empire to the east. Lydian kings frequently entered into these spheres for military, diplomatic, and other reasons, and Lydian material culture bears identifiable and eclectic Eastern and Western features resulting from such interactions. Following its conquest, Lydia became the Achaemenid Persian frontier with Greece, and its buffer status contributed to its importance as a seat of high-ranking Persian satraps, or governors, and as a repeated target of Greek military activities. These periods, then, are of great interest because they represent times of continuous cultural contact and change associated 3

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

with the growth of an independent kingdom and with later imperial conquest and control, and territorial traditions – both regional boundaries and capital – appear to have remained constant throughout. This book presents current understandings of the archaeology of Sardis and Lydia in these times, with complementary and interrelated approaches, or foci of interest, informing interpretation. One approach is regional archaeology: the investigation of Lydia as a whole (not just of the capital city), aimed at understanding the configuration, constraints, and enabling resources of its diverse landscapes, the constellation of activities practiced across those landscapes, and evidence for regional interaction between the seventh and the fourth centuries (Figure 1.2). As we will see, this regional approach allows for the identification of regional interactions and activities that bespeak long-enduring cultural traditions, only some of which changed over our approximately 350-year-long period of investigation. Another focus of interest is the evaluation of cultural change from material evidence, especially that resulting from the abrupt shift from Lydian to Achaemenid political hegemony in the mid-sixth century. How the Lydian inhabitants of both Sardis and greater Lydia – administrative and religious officials, craft producers, rural farmers, and landowners alike – may or may not have been affected by Achaemenid rule is explored here. By combining these approaches, the study aims to investigate evidence for personal and political changes in regional interaction over time and to examine specific historical and cultural phenomena to which such changes might be attributable.

REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGY

Recent trends in Mediterranean archaeology have resulted in the proliferation of regional studies throughout the Mediterranean basin.3 These trends are related to broad transformations in the field that have occurred over the last few generations and stress the value of systematic methods in the recovery of data on ancient cultures. For regional archaeology, these methods invariably include surveys that attempt to understand archaeological patterns in whole regions by traversing areas as thoroughly as is appropriate to the research question(s) at hand and by systematically documenting the location and nature of material evidence encountered along the way. Regional surveys of this type are able to contextualize data recovered from the excavations of urban centers, long the focus of archaeological traditions in the Classical world, shedding light on urban– countryside interactions as well as entirely rural interactions. At the same 4

Introduction

Figure 1.2. The middle Hermus River valley in central Lydia, stretching beyond the Acropolis of Sardis, to WNW (C. H. Roosevelt).

time, they avoid privileging the fine arts at the exclusion of everyday products by documenting all types of material evidence, from the mundane to the monumental. In this way, surveys have become the method of choice in regional archaeology for providing data that enable holistic and regionally representative sociopolitical, economic, religious, and other interpretations of ancient cultural phenomena.4 With its focus on whole countrysides as well as the major sites within them, survey archaeology has engendered a view of landscapes as culturally reifying entities, stressing their importance as physical constraints, sources of subsistence, and manipulable media. The exploitation and modification of landscapes over time, especially, is now generally seen as formative and confirmative of cultural traditions, so that one can speak not only of natural landscapes, but also of political, economic, religious, mortuary, and many other landscapes in which populations lived, labored, prayed, and died.5 Although the term “landscape” is often overused and frustratingly nebulous in recent archaeological literature, in this book, it will refer to the distribution across a region of various features or phenomena that 5

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

were experienced by people. “Landscape,” when used alone, then, denotes the distribution across a region of natural features and phenomena, and, likewise, “cultural landscape” and “political landscape” refer, respectively, to the distribution across a region of cultural and political features and phenomena.6 Within Lydia, these relatively recent trends in regional archaeology were first manifested in surveys of prehistoric landscapes searching for signs of activity contemporary with developments in better-known areas of Anatolia.7 More recent regional surveys have cast wider chronological nets and have recovered abundant evidence of sites ranging in date from early prehistory through Byzantine times, but with little focus on the periods of Lydian and Achaemenid rule.8 A separate but parallel tradition of regional archaeology in Lydia predates recent trends and continues to this day. Classical scholars have conducted epigraphic surveys in search of inscriptions nearly continuously over the last one hundred years. These surveys have recovered numerous Greek and Latin inscriptions from Hellenistic through Byzantine times and have helped to establish the classical topography of the area through studies of city names and other toponyms; they have also recovered Lydian and Aramaic inscriptions in smaller numbers that are of even more direct relevance to the periods of interest here.9 Such classically oriented regional work has origins in even earlier studies that often blended epigraphical interests, historical topography, and environmental commentary into grand syntheses that are still valuable resources for the history, topography, and environment of the region.10 The evidence presented in this book draws from the long history of work at Sardis, from all such previous regional studies, and from ongoing archaeological fieldwork that follows in the footsteps of the earlier regional studies, while taking advantage of recent methodological advances. In order to answer questions about how people lived in greater Lydia, regional interaction between hinterland and capital, and how representative Sardis was of all Lydia on multiple levels, a multiscalar and multipronged approach was adopted to identify the location, date, and nature of seventh through fourth-century sites and materials spread throughout Lydia and to place such data in the context of their natural landscapes. The approach includes analysis and synthesis of data pertaining to ancient Lydian geography and environment, survey work with multiple strategies on macroregional and micro-subregional scales, and research of provenienced museum collections and archives. The specific methods and results of this varied approach are presented in the chapters below, especially Chapters 4, 5, and 6. 6

Introduction

MATERIAL CULTURE AND CULTURAL CHANGE

A primary concern of this study, given the period of investigation, is the degree to which we can identify broad cultural transformations associated with hegemonic change – especially from Lydian to Achaemenid – through the evidence of material culture. An additional interest is the possibility of identifying the presence of specific ethnicities in Lydia – Lydian, Persian, Greek, and so forth – through their material record. This record in periods both predating and postdating Persian conquest, however, is marked not by monolithic and unchanging assemblages that can be compared and contrasted with ease, but, rather, by a pronounced eclecticism of Eastern and Western features and traditions that are sometimes imported intact, yet sometimes amalgamated locally into wholly indigenous compilations. This material eclecticism was recognized already in the nineteenth century and has been commented on extensively in more recent analyses.11 Today it might be considered best in the light of recent scholarship relating to culture contact that highlights a level of “untidiness,” “messiness,” or even “murkiness” in the cultural intermixing that takes place in geographical or cultural borderlands and that precludes simple equations between cultural symbols and ethnic identities.12 Although Lydia was a discrete territory with its own history of cultural developments, it was always situated between prominent Eastern and Western cultures: the Hittites and the Minoans and Mycenaeans in earlier times; and the Archaic and Classical Greeks and the Assyrians, Phrygians, Medes, and other Near Easterners in the Iron Age. Eventually, Lydia fell within the territorial control of the Achaemenid Empire and thereby became the satrapy of Sparda. Even as it was part of the Empire, however, it was its westernmost frontier, serving as intermediary between Achaemenid-controlled areas and Greek territories. Given the extensive, and at times intensive, relationships Lydians shared with others, it is only natural that cultural traditions and materials from abroad found their way into Lydia, and there is good evidence of this both at Sardis and in its hinterland throughout the period of investigation. With its high degree of “cultural entanglement” – another term now common in culture contact studies13 – Lydian material culture can be interpreted to reveal only general conceptions of identity, especially high-status identity, rather than specific ethnic identity.14 Yet, it does show a long-term pattern of combining local innovations with traditions from neighboring cultures that must have been selected with purpose.15 Intertwined with the issue of material eclecticism and attempts to identify cultural change are the issues of comparing material culture at Sardis 7

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

with that in its hinterland and of seeing the interaction of people, materials, and ideas between Sardis and its hinterland as a unidirectional flow from Sardis. As the only urban center in Lydia, as we will see, Sardis had an undoubtedly more cosmopolitan character than communities in the rural countryside. Thus, even if the archaeology of Sardis appears to reveal predominantly Western, or Greek, rather than Eastern influence in the time of the Lydian kings,16 and increased Persian influence in the time of Achaemenid hegemony,17 it does not necessarily follow that these trends penetrated into the countryside simultaneously, with the same manifestations, or to the same extent throughout Lydia. Yet, the regional trend does speak to some degree of uniformity across Lydia, even if this uniformity is marked most conspicuously by the monuments of rural landowners of such high status that they must also have been members of the community at Sardis. The difficulty of these assessments is exacerbated by issues of material continuity and the extent and nature of archaeological exposures. First, a general continuity in the production and consumption of material culture in Lydia, especially in the sixth to fifth centuries, confounds most attempts to identify to which side of Cyrus’ sack of Sardis many contexts of the mid-sixth century belong.18 Domestic and defensive architecture, the production and use of ceramics and architectural terracottas, regional settlement concerns, and other material traditions continue relatively unbroken across the mid-sixth century. Lydian material culture, in general, may have changed very little, if at all, before the early fifth century, and even then many Lydian traditions endured later. For these reasons, I adopt the term “Late Lydian” for the period of Achaemenid hegemony in Lydia,19 even if current conclusions should be tempered with understanding of the limitations of the evidence. For the Lydian period, several excavation areas at Sardis have exposed habitation levels, whereas only one excavation outside Sardis has revealed similar contexts for interpreting the activities of the living. For the period of Achaemenid hegemony, the excavations at Sardis have provided relatively little evidence from living contexts; the vast majority of evidence from Sardis and greater Lydia is funerary in nature, and most of it has been disturbed by later reuse and/or looting. Furthermore, most evidence from greater Lydia comes from high-status contexts, and these contexts may not accurately represent the larger rural Lydian population. We must grapple with these limitations in the available evidence for now, however, as they can be overcome fully only with the acquisition of new data from Sardis and new archaeological research in greater Lydia. 8

Introduction

OVERVIEW OF THIS STUDY

Regionally dispersed excavations like those urged by Hanfmann, as quoted in the preface to this book, have yet to be undertaken outside Sardis, and so evidence from surface survey – usually compared and contrasted with that from Sardis – remains the primary source for regional understandings of Lydian archaeology. An abbreviated catalogue of this evidence is included in this book. This book begins by providing a cultural and historical framework for such understandings (Chapter 2), derived primarily from ancient records relating to Sardis, and then continues with a review of the geographical, environmental, and resource conditions of the area under investigation (Chapter 3). To situate the history and the landscape in the context of its people, an examination of Sardis explores evidence for the development of the city, discussing contexts that range from domestic to royal (Chapter 4). The richness of the archaeological, historical, and epigraphical records at Sardis is unparalleled elsewhere in Lydia. The features of this one major excavated site thus serve as comparative debarkation points for investigations of archaeological remains located elsewhere in Lydia. Reaching beyond Sardis, both central Lydia – the immediate environs of Sardis and the core of the region – and the further hinterland of greater Lydia complement our knowledge of the capital and are explored fully for the first time in this book (Chapter 5). This division of landscape, necessitated by the different scales and intensities of archaeological research in Lydia discussed above, proves useful to highlight differences between Sardis, its immediate hinterland, and its distant hinterland. The inhabitants of central Lydia, by their mere proximity to Sardis, had close ties to the capital, and interaction with more distant regions most likely involved broader linkages from the core to the boundary zones of the region. The monumental scale of burial remains spread throughout Lydia, especially in the form of tumuli, or burial mounds, makes them among the most identifiable indicators of regional settlement, and thus burial remains are significant for understanding Lydian society in the periods of investigation (Chapter 6). Data from occupational contexts complements burial evidence, and, when juxtaposed with historical, environmental, and resource data, archaeological evidence of all types reflects aspects of Lydian society at Sardis and beyond, in times of both Lydian and Achaemenid hegemony. Conclusions about regional interactions, especially between hinterland and capital, and the extent and pace of cultural change in Lydia can be inferred from the eclecticism, continuity, discontinuity, and geographic 9

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

distribution of the material record in Lydia. Although much of the archaeological evidence dating to the period of Achaemenid hegemony can be read as reflective of Lydian society and cultural traditions, with roots stretching back before the conquest of Cyrus, discontinuities in Lydian traditions are equally clear and can be explained by evidence provided in historical sources. Most significantly, a regional network of estates in place already in Lydian times continued to flourish in the first few generations of Achaemenid hegemony, when the satraps at Sardis took advantage of and expanded the previously existing mode of regional organization. The landowning families of such estates marked their high status especially in funerary contexts comprised of monumental burial mounds, or tumuli, ornamented and filled with eclectic imagery and artifacts drawing from the cultural traditions and features of neighboring lands in addition to those of Lydia. This material eclecticism is characteristic of Lydian material culture both before and after the Persian conquest, and reflects the cosmopolitanism of high-status Lydians who participated in the community of Sardis. In the mid-fifth century and later, when the satrapy of Sardis fell prey to the intrigues of overly ambitious rulers and the Lydian countryside was more frequently overrun by Greek armies, significant changes appear in the regional evidence. The earlier Lydian organization involving high-status landowning families must have been deemed insufficient to the task of protecting and managing rural agricultural production and the collection of tribute. From this time on, such tasks became the responsibility of garrisons spread throughout an otherwise unsecure countryside. These garrisons were manned in part by Persians, and their presence explains the contemporary appearance throughout Lydia of Aramaic grave epitaphs and cults of Persian deities. Alongside these clear effects of Achaemenid hegemony in the later fifth and fourth centuries, the Lydian language and Lydian cults remained popular as well, as did many forms of material culture. The long-term continuity of Lydian material culture throughout the period of Achaemenid rule, in fact, reflects a certain endurance of Lydian cultural traditions, which never quite disappeared under Achaemenid hegemony, and, despite other significant cultural changes, lived on into even later periods.

10

CHAPTER TWO

The Cultural and Historical Framework

The written history of Lydia revolves largely around Sardis and its rulers. Central and greater Lydia beyond Sardis form the ultimate emphasis of this book, yet the timeline of cultural and, mostly, political developments associated with Sardis given here provides a framework to be fleshed out with geographical, environmental, and, of course, regional archaeological evidence presented in the following chapters. This framework of written testimony is built on sources ranging from Hittite archives, Near Eastern annals, and Achaemenid royal inscriptions to poetic, historical, and pseudohistorical narratives from the classical world. Here “pseudohistorical” is used to denote sources that contain kernels of historical facts but that have been distorted in some way, perhaps owing to mythological or other agendas. Such sources more commonly relate to developments of the earlier periods of Lydian history, for which independent corroboration from contemporary or more traditional historical sources is lacking. Before discussing the various periods of Lydian history, a brief note on the chronological periodization of Lydia adopted here is necessary. I have attempted to adopt a consistent usage that avoids privileging historical or archaeological evidence at the expense of the other. I have attempted also to avoid the association of chronological periods with particular dynasties, some of which may be more mythological (e.g., Heraclid) than historical (e.g., Mermnad), or with particular ethnicities (e.g., Persian). As mentioned in Chapter 1, it has been found useful to refer to the material remains of Sardis dating between the mid-sixth century and the late fourth century as “Late Lydian” rather than “Achaemenid” because of certain continuities in material traditions,1 and thus I have simply extended that system backwards in time to include Middle and Early Lydian periods, as well, based on a combination of archaeological and historical data and general correlation with other neighboring regional chronologies (Table 2.1). 11

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander Table 2.1. Chronological phases in Lydia, with reference to major rulers (e.g., kings and satraps) and selected events or phenomena Dates (BCE)

PERIOD

Local rulers /Events

300

HELLENISTIC

Capture of Sardis by Alexander the Great (334)

500 600 700

Autophradates, Rhosakes, Spithridates Tissaphernes, Cyrus the Younger Artaphernes II, Pissouthnes Oroetes, Bagaeus, Artaphernes I Alyattes (ca. 610), Croesus (ca. 560) Gyges (ca. 680), Ardys, Sadyattes MIDDLE LYDIAN Mermnad Kings LATE LYDIAN/ ACHAEMENID

800 900

EARLY LYDIAN/ 1000 EARLY IRON AGE 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

LATE BRONZE AGE

PSEUDO-HISTORICAL

400

“Great Satraps’ Revolt” Cyrus’ Revolt Ionian Revolt Lydian Revolt Lydian-Median Interactions Assyrian Interactions Cimmerian Incursions

Agron to Candaules (twenty-two generations) Heraclid Kings

Atyad Kings: Atys, Lydus, and others Descendant of Muwawalwi Masturi, Tarhunaradu Manapatarhunda Muwawali Seha River Land Kings

1600

Tudhaliya IV–Suppiluliuma II Muwatalli II, Hatusili III Mursili II Suppiluliuma I Hittite Kings

Following the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, then, roughly the third through the middle of the second millennium BCE, the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1600–1200 BCE) is the first period for which we have some historical evidence from Hittite archives for the region known later as Lydia. When, exactly, the Lydians entered the area is a matter of continuing debate (see below), so these periods might be called “Bronze Age Early Lydian” just as they could be “pre-Lydian.” The Early Lydian period, proper, begins around 1200 BCE at a time when the consensus of pseudohistorical accounts records that the first dynasties of Lydian kings ruled the area, in the very end of the Late Bronze Age or in the Early Iron Age. Distinctively new settlement patterns and material culture appear in this period also, as known best from central Lydia and Sardis. The Middle and Late Lydian periods (roughly the seventh through the late fourth century BCE), the focus of this book, include the historically attested reigns of the kings of the Mermnad Dynasty and the period of Achaemenid hegemony, respectively, ending with the arrival of Alexander the Great in 334 and the beginning of the Hellenistic period. 12

The Cultural and Historical Framework

The Middle Lydian period begins roughly with the ascension of Gyges at Sardis and is marked by increased settlement throughout Lydia and across the site of Sardis. The Late Lydian period begins with the fall of Sardis to Cyrus, and, although known for continuity in certain classes of material culture, it is marked also by a continuing increase in settlement throughout Lydia, whereas developments at Sardis are not so easily characterized. Archaeological evidence contemporary with and informing these last historical periods is presented in this book. Attention will be given also to periods leading up to the florescence of historical Lydia in order to give the reader some background information on the prehistory and early history of the region and on the Lydians themselves – what they spoke and from where they might have come. Although the historical periods covered in this chapter are firmly rooted in traditions associated with Sardis alone, the brief discussion of Lydian origins and language should provide a framework for seeing beyond and before Sardis, as known from its history and archaeology, into the hinterland of Lydian prehistory.

LYDIAN ORIGINS, LANGUAGE, AND THE EARLY LYDIAN PERIOD (THROUGH THE LATE EIGHTH CENTURY)

By the early first millennium BCE, the people known to us and their contemporaries as Lydians were living in central western Anatolia and speaking Lydian. Exactly when and from where they came are questions still not fully answered, and the following exploration of the various evidence that has been brought to bear on the problem is meant to illustrate the difficulties of the subject and to provide a backdrop to the written accounts of early Lydian dynasties, helping to put into context later Lydian developments that might specifically hark back to earlier periods. Biological, linguistic, historical, pseudohistorical, and archaeological evidence have been invoked in approaches to these problems, but with only rare consensus in results.

Biological, Linguistic, and Historical Evidence An obvious approach to assessing the origin and arrival of the Lydians in Lydia would be to work with diachronic and comparative collections of skeletal material from Lydia and surrounding regions. Unfortunately, skeletal material from the relevant periods at Sardis and elsewhere in historical Lydia is scarce. Yet, the one study of excavated skeletal remains 13

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

from central Lydia known to me reported a high degree of biological continuity from the third millennium BCE to the third century CE, suggesting that Lydians lived in central western Anatolia for a few millennia before the rise of the Mermnads in historical Lydia.2 In order to be more confident about such an early arrival of Lydians, we will need to await confirmation from investigations of more robust skeletal datasets, perhaps including genetic analyses, from stratigraphic excavations of Early Bronze Age and earlier sites that might reveal changes in material cultural traditions associated with the arrival of a new people. Linguistic research on Lydian and other Anatolian languages speaks directly to the question of the origins of the Lydians and has been Figure 2.1. Stele with Lydian inscriptions found in taken by some to corroborate their a reused context in the main necropolis at Sardis. long-term past in western Anatolia. Note that the pedimental capital of the stele is The Lydian language is known from cropped from this photograph (after Buckler 1924: plate IV, cat. no. 10) (Department of Art and around 115 inscriptions carved in Archaeology, Princeton University). stone and ceramics; the majority of these were found at Sardis, but several come from other areas of historical Lydia and a small number from outside Lydia altogether (Figure 2.1).3 Although spoken much earlier, as determined from linguistic analyses, Lydian first appeared in short inscriptions on ceramics by the seventh century, was used in longer inscriptions by the fifth century, and went out of written use by the late first millennium when Greek became the lingua franca of the region. Most Lydian inscriptions are short and fragmentary, yet a few offer longer examples of funerary or dedicatory content. These longer inscriptions provide a large enough glimpse of the language to understand its structure and probable relation to other Anatolian languages, if not its entire vocabulary. At this time there is no widespread consensus as to the exact geographic and chronological origin of its development, yet current linguistic research 14

The Cultural and Historical Framework

indicates that Lydian was a dialectical Common Anatolian descendant of Common or Proto-Anatolian, Lydian Luwian Hittite a large Indo-European language family the Lycian Palaic dialects of which, including Lydian, first Figure 2.2. Diagram showing simplified entered Anatolia probably by or in the relationships between Lydian and other third millennium (Figure 2.2).4 The central Anatolian dialects (C. H. Roosevelt). Anatolian dialects of this language family include Palaic and Hittite (or Nesite), and the latter language became that most associated with the powerful Late Bronze Age kingdom and empire of ˘ oy) ¨ (Figure 2.3). Among the Hittites centered at Hattusa (modern Bogazk western Anatolian sister dialects descendant from Common Anatolian, such as Luwian and Lycian, Lydian may have separated from Common Anatolian the earliest, explaining some of the vast differences between it and even its closest Anatolian relatives.5 At first glance the linguistic data appear to support the biological evidence: both linguistic and skeletal research coincide in establishing the arrival of Lydians in central western Anatolia by some time in the third millennium.

LATE BRONZE AGE WESTERN ANATOLIA 0

100

Sinop

Black Sea

N

KASKA

200 km

Lydian Kingdom (Iron Age)

Modern City ANCIENT SITE (LBA NAME)

LBA REGION Sea of Marmara HATTUSA Ankara

HAT TI

WILUSA (?)

zı (Kı

A SARDIS

MILETUS (MILLAWANDA)

MIR A

erm

SEHA RIVER LAND (?)

Z

EPHESUS (APASA)

lırm ak)

HAPALLA (?)

R

LAZPA

Aegean Sea

Sa ngarius (Sakarya ) Rive r

s Ha ly

TROY (TARUISA?)

MASA (?)

Rive r

iz) R. (Ged us

H

MAEONIA M

A

res) R. Mende Maeander (B.

LOWER LAND

KUWALIYA (?)

W A

Konya

KIZZUWATNA

K ARKISA (?) Antalya

TARHUNTASSA

LUKKA Mediterranean Sea

Figure 2.3. Late Bronze Age (LBA) western Anatolia, with major areas of importance located following Stark 1997 and Hawkins 1998. The area of historical Lydia is outlined for reference (C. H. Roosevelt).

15

Antioch

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Problems in assessing the origins of the Lydians arise from the linguistic evidence also, however, with respect to Lydian’s sister tongue Luwian, which most linguists consider to be the primary spoken language of western Anatolia, including the area of historical Lydia, until the end of the Late Bronze Age around 1200.6 If Luwian speakers dwelt in the area of later Lydia, then where did Lydian speakers live from the time of their arrival in Anatolia until the Iron Age, when their language was written down at Sardis? Here the matter is further complicated by our limited knowledge of the composition of western Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age. Our understanding of its historical geography and linguistics is informed by records preserved at the Hittite capital in central Anatolia and by Hittite-inspired, if not Hittite-commissioned, rock-cut monuments scattered throughout the central and western parts of Anatolia.7 Such monuments dating to the Hittite Empire period of the thirteenth century are located within the western bounds of historical Lydia, on the northern foothills of Mt. Sipylus, and at the Karabel Pass (Figure 2.3); they are accompanied by rock-cut inscriptions in hieroglyphic Luwian and are now usually interpreted as the monuments of pre-Lydian, western Anatolian rulers.8 Recent scholarship on the Karabel monument, especially, sheds new light on the secondmillennium historical geography of the region, with the identification of its location near the border between two vassal states of the Hittite Empire: Mira to the south, encompassing the Cayster (K. Menderes) and Maeander (B. Menderes) River valleys, and the Seha River Land to the north, very likely encompassing at least the Hermus (Gediz) River valley, the heartland of later Lydia, if not also territories further north.9 Before the late fourteenth century, Mira comprised part of Arzawa, a contender to the growing power of the Hittites in western Anatolia with a capital at Apasa (later Ephesus). The Seha River Land, too, was part of Arzawa, yet it also comprised part of Assuwa, a less well-defined, central western and northwestern Anatolian regional confederation of twenty-two regions mentioned in early fourteenth-century archives from Hattusa.10 Mira and the Seha River Land appear in Hittite archives primarily in relation to conflicts in western Anatolia that threatened Hittite sovereignty, including the growing influence of Ahhiyawa, commonly identified with a Mycenaean kingdom, perhaps of the east Aegean.11 Although much has been reconstructed from Hittite records about Mira and its capital Apasa, only very little is known about the Seha River Land, its boundaries and inhabitants. We have the name of only one town, perhaps its capital – Maddunassa – and the names of only the last five kings reigning from the 16

The Cultural and Historical Framework

mid-fourteenth through the late thirteenth century: Muwawalwi; Manapatarhunda; Masturi; a usurper named Tarhunaradu; and an unnamed descendant of Muwawalwi.12 Beginning with Manapatarhunda in the late fourteenth century, the kings of the Seha River Land were vassals to the Great Kings of the Hittite Empire throughout the remainder of its supremacy, until the end of the Late Bronze Age around 1200. So it appears that historical Lydia was inhabited during the Late Bronze Age by Luwian speaking peoples of the Seha River Land, primarily, and Mira. Arguments for the prevalence of Luwian in this area derive in part from the general acknowledgment that the Arzawa group was Luwian speaking.13 These arguments stem also from the presence of hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions at Mt. Sipylus and Karabel, and the relevance of hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions can be questioned. The use of hieroglyphic Luwian in public inscriptions, however, provides only debatable evidence for what language was predominantly spoken in the Hittite capital as in its hinterland and vassal territories.14 The language of the public inscriptions of an imperial power does not necessarily equate to the language that was predominantly spoken in the areas in which the inscriptions were erected. Thus the presence of hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions in central western Anatolia need not exclude the possibility that a non-Luwian language (Lydian or proto-Lydian) was spoken there simultaneously, and even primarily, in a partially bilingual environment.15 By the thirteenth century, hieroglyphic Luwian had become the lingua franca of Hittite public inscriptions throughout areas of Hittite interaction, and its use within the realm of historical Lydia may simply reflect the reality that Mira and the Seha River Land had become Hittite vassal states by this time, with political elites adopting the use of a diplomatic language for their monumental inscriptions. Despite these problems and possible counterarguments, it is generally accepted that Luwian was the Bronze Age language of, and Luwiya a general regional toponym for, central western and southwestern Anatolia.16 The probable linguistic equation of the Greek word Lydia (or Luddi in Assyrian archives) with Luwiya, as recently argued in independent lines of research,17 only strengthens the idea that historical Lydia was the realm of Luwian speakers in the Bronze Age, whether or not Lydian speakers were present as well. If they had been elsewhere previously, upon their arrival the Lydians would have identified themselves by the traditional name of the area they inhabited, Luwiya, which became Lydia by a linguistic phenomenon occurring between Luwian and Lydian that replaced Luwian -iwith Lydian -d-. A similar phenomenon occurred with the Hittites, who 17

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

referred to themselves as the people of Hatti, the traditional name associated with the people and land in central Anatolia they came to dominate in the early second millennium.18 In the light of the probable Luwian presence in the area during the Late Bronze Age and because of the perceived need to find a homeland for pre-Iron Age Lydian speakers elsewhere in western Anatolia, linguists search for other possible areas of Bronze Age Lydian inhabitation using a combination of linguistic evidence and a process of elimination with relation to previously assigned language regions. Based on such circumstantial evidence, they usually set this homeland either in northwestern Anatolia, near the Sea of Marmara, or in historical Mysia, frequently equated with the Luwian Masa.19 If Lydian speakers had been living in northwestern Anatolia, on the one hand, they would have migrated to historical Lydia some time during the transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages shortly after 1200, perhaps pressured by the arrival of Phrygians in northwestern Anatolia and displacing Luwian speakers from historical Lydia.20 The migration of Lydian speakers to Sardis and its greater environs, then, would be seen as part and parcel of the broad phenomenon of migrations that swept most of the eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Late Bronze Age.21 If Lydian speakers had been living in historical Mysia, on the other hand, then their spread throughout historical Lydia could have arisen from similar factors relating to the upheavals of the Late Bronze Age and subsequent migrations. Evidence from numerous Greek texts, however, suggests that early Lydian speakers dwelt in a part of historical Lydia known as Maeonia, and a few possibilities exist for its location.22 Homer, Herodotus, and other authors suggest that Greeks originally knew Lydian speakers as Maeonians, and, interestingly, the Greek word Maeonia may, in fact, equate linguistically with Luwian Maddunassa, the one place name of the Seha River Land known from Hittite archives.23 Homer’s association of the Maeonians with Mt. Tmolus, the Gygaean Lake, and the Hermus and Hyllus Rivers, natural landmarks firmly identified in the heartland of historical Lydia (see Chapter 3), suggests this location for Maeonia and that Lydian speakers (whether they were called Maeonian or Lydian) were indeed living there by the late eighth century. In addition, Hellenistic and Roman inscriptions found in the eastern part of historical Lydia in and ¨ ¸ eoren ¨ around modern Gokc (formerly Menye) identify an ancient town called Maeonia. This may have been the location of the earlier Maeonia, too, if the name is not just the result of local inhabitants adopting a historically important place name for one of many towns newly founded in 18

The Cultural and Historical Framework

and after the Hellenistic period.24 Proponents of the theory of a Lydian migration at the end of the Late Bronze Age even suggest that part of northwestern Anatolia was known as Maeonia at that time.25 Classical Sources for the Early Lydian Period Whether they arrived in the area of historical Lydia in the Early Bronze or the Early Iron Age, Lydian-speaking populations appear to have been living there shortly after 1200. Instead of the historical archives and inscriptions of the Hittites, here we rely primarily on pseudohistorical or mythological chronicles to reconstruct a general timeline of political events commonly associated with Sardis. According to the sources Herodotus employed, the kings of the first dynasty of Lydia, the Atyads, were all descendants of a son of Atys named Lydus – this is probably an aetiological invention created at a relatively late date to explain the name of Lydia.26 The second dynasty of Lydia lasted twenty-two generations, Herodotus reports, or some 505 years. According to him the kings of this dynasty were known as the Heraclids, and, if one wishes to reconcile parallel versions of the story, these Heraclids are probably to be identified with the Tylonids, a Lydian dynasty named by Nicholas of Damascus; both the Heraclids and Tylonids might be generally associated with the Maeonians (of the land of Maeonia), those early Lydians known to Homer, Herodotus, and Strabo, among others.27 The first king of the Heraclids was Agron, and, following twenty generations of kings with names including Meles and Myrsus, the last king was Candaules, a name of apparent Maeonian origin; he was known to the Greeks also as Myrsilus, son of Myrsus.28 The names of many other early Lydian kings are known to us from Greek sources – Dascylus, Gyges, Sadyattes, Moxos or Mopsus, Cadys and Ardys, for example. The historicity of such kings is even less well established than that of the Heraclids, and thus attempts to reconcile them into a continuous historical narrative may be futile.29 Confusing the matter is the likelihood that many attested early king names may have been compound names or titles reused over time: thus, Gyges may simply mean “the old one” or “ancestor,” and Ardys “the son” or “descendant.”30 The most famous “ancestor” king named Gyges, of course, was the first of the Mermnad kings of Sardis, the one who overthrew Candaules, the last of the Heraclids, and for him we have an historical link in Assyrian archives that, together with the evidence of Herodotus and later historians, places the usurpation at some time around 680 (see below).31 If Herodotus’ calculations are to be trusted, in general, the Heraclids (or Tylonids or 19

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Maeonians), the second dynasty in Lydia, came to power around 1185, or 505 years before the death of Candaules around 680, immediately following the general upheavals of the eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Late Bronze Age, and only a generation or so later than the reign of the last king of the Seha River Land attested in Hittite archives, the descendant of Muwawalwi. At this point, we can summarize the evidence for pre- and/or early Lydians. According to biological and linguistic evidence Lydian speakers appear to have entered Anatolia by the third millennium. Where they originally settled is not firmly established, but the possibilities include Maeonia (in historical Lydia), elsewhere in historical Lydia, historical Mysia, and northwest Anatolia. Drawing evidence from the archives and hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions from the Hittite Empire period, most linguists argue that the area of historical Lydia, then composed of the Hittite vassal states of Mira and the Seha River Land, was Luwian speaking. They have Lydian speakers in Anatolia by the third millennium but entering the area of historical Lydia only after the collapse of Hittite power around 1200. Whether newly arrived or long entrenched, Lydian speaking kings of dynasties associated with Maeonia came to power shortly after 1200, according to pseudohistorical accounts, and remained in power for some five centuries until the rise of the Mermnads.

Archaeological Evidence The archaeological evidence for these pre- and/or early Lydians neither confirms nor contradicts the linguistic, historical, and pseudohistorical evidence. Archaeology may support the idea of a cultural rupture at the end of the Late Bronze Age, but the available data are extremely limited and conclusions must remain preliminary until more evidence can be gathered. Excavations at Sardis show that it was occupied in the mid- to late second millennium, but the extent of that occupation has yet to be determined. The majority of the material assemblage remains firmly western Anatolian in character across the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age, although increasing exchange with the Aegean world may be indicated by the occurrence of Mycenaean ceramics of fourteenth- through twelfth-century BCE dates found at Sardis and elsewhere in Lydia.32 These are clear material correlates for the increasing frequency of Aegean, and perhaps Ahhiyawan, activities in western Anatolia during these times. For the circumstances at the end of the Bronze Age, only small exposures at Sardis have reached relevant levels, and they show some evidence of burning around this time. 20

The Cultural and Historical Framework

The extent and nature of the burning has not been determined, however, and we have no strong archaeological evidence either supporting or denying the legend of an invasion of Heraclids at Sardis.33 Rather, the legend of the accession of a new dynasty of kings around 1200 may reflect a local tradition or memory that dramatic occurrences led to the eventual establishment of new rule at the end of the Bronze Age. Recent work in central Lydia around the Gygaean Lake provides additional evidence of pre- and/or early Lydians. In addition to the discovery of several occupation mounds dating to Early Bronze Age and earlier times, the Central Lydia Archaeological Survey has identified a network of second-millennium fortified citadels that rings the Gygaean Lake and reflects the presence of a complex and powerful society that would certainly have had far-reaching contacts.34 Kaymakc¸ı, the largest and most complex of these sites, consists of lower settlement and cemetery areas that surround a well-fortified 8.6-hectare citadel. Within the fortification circuit, there are several terraced enclosures containing the remains of monumental buildings. Surface finds date the primary period of occupation at the site between the seventeenth and thirteenth centuries. The complexity and size of the fortified citadel at Kaymakc¸ı – more than four times as large as the contemporary Troy VI-VII citadel and larger than any other contemporary citadel in western Anatolia – suggest that it must have been a regional capital, and perhaps that of the Seha River Land. Whether Kaymakc¸ı and its second-millennium associates in central Lydia belonged to Luwian speaking pre-Lydians or to Lydian speakers is not known, of course, but these sites may be a reflection of the significance of the Seha River Land known to us from Hittite archives, even if none of them can be securely identified as Maddunassa, that one known toponym of the Seha River Land. As at Sardis, the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age in central Lydia is unclear, but a notable change in Iron Age settlement patterns, including the abandonment of the earlier citadels,35 might suggest to some the arrival of new (Lydian speaking?) populations during this time. Such an old-fashioned interpretation might be overly simplistic, however, and, if Lydian speakers had been present in the area throughout the Bronze Age, this Iron Age change in settlement patterns would bespeak structural transformations in early Lydian society resulting in the replacement of long-held seats of power around the Gygaean Lake by the rising power of Sardis. Like that of their forebears and descendants, the material culture of early Lydians in the Iron Age had relations in many directions, exhibiting 21

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

an “ebb and flow between inland and coastal influences.”36 Assemblages of ceramics, our best indicators for foreign contacts during this time, consist of local western Anatolian wares, along with late and Sub-Mycenaean and Attic-Greek-like Protogeometric wares through the eleventh and tenth centuries at the latest; a limited variety of local Anatolian, black-on-red wares in the tenth through roughly the eighth century; and more distinctive local Lydian wares mixed with increasing quantities of imports from east Greek island and coastal centers in the time leading up to the Middle Lydian period, by the late eighth century.37 Such foreign contacts are much more easily established for the Middle Lydian period, owing to their documentation in numerous historical texts. THE MIDDLE LYDIAN PERIOD (EARLY SEVENTH THROUGH MID-SIXTH CENTURY)

The third and final dynasty of Lydian kings, the Mermnad dynasty, is the only Lydian dynasty attested in contemporary and later texts of a historically accurate nature. Aside from a handful of important records in Assyrian archives, the fullest history of the Mermnads is that derived from classical sources. Although we know of a Lydian historian named Xanthus, he wrote in Greek for a Greek audience, and thus we have no internal, Lydian perspective on Lydia, and only those from outsiders, which are focused mostly on Sardis and the political history of its ruling elite. Despite such drawbacks, much can be reconstructed of the well-known Mermnad dynasty of five kings, beginning with Gyges in the early seventh century, perhaps ca. 680, and ending with Croesus in the mid-sixth century, with intervening kings Ardys, Sadyattes, and Alyattes.38 We know only a bare minimum about Ardys and Sadyattes but have fuller evidence for the reigns of Gyges, Alyattes, and Croesus. Throughout the Mermnad period Lydian kings maintained regular diplomatic, military, and economic interactions with their neighbors in Anatolia, Near Eastern powers to the east, and Greek city-states and sanctuaries to the west, and these interactions help explain the cosmopolitan and international aura that came to permeate Sardis. Several popular and murky myths enshroud the circumstances of Gyges’ ascent to the throne, and all involve cuckoldry and usurpation. Herodotus, Plato, Nicholas of Damascus (presumably reporting the work of Xanthus), and Plutarch all agree on the basic tenets of the story: whether through a strange sort of royal hubris, open revolt, or the powers of a magical ring, Gyges, son of the Lydian Dascylus and a Phrygian woman, killed 22

The Cultural and Historical Framework

Candaules, the last Heraclid king, and took as his own Candaules’ possibly complicit wife, a Mysian named Toudo.39 More prosaic perspectives on these pseudohistorical tales interpret the transfer of power from Heraclid to Mermnad dynasties as a reflection of a historical revolt, perhaps deriving from territorial and economic pressures, perhaps resulting from long-standing feudal strife.40 Regardless of the means of his coronation, Gyges took the throne and consolidated his initially weak rule by means of military alliances and foreign oracular endorsement: a Carian force led by Arselis of Mylasa may have taken part in the murder of Candaules and helped Gyges quell opposition; and, having received rich dedications from the new king, the oracle at Delphi in Greece sanctioned his rule, promising retribution for the usurpation in the fifth generation.41 That Gyges ruled for several decades at least (thirty-eight years according to Herodotus) is firmly substantiated by the Assyrian archives of Assurbanipal.42 Around the year 664, Assyrian scribes recorded that Gyges (Gugu of Luddi) had sent diplomatic emissaries to Assurbanipal at Nineveh, introducing himself to an Assyrian king who had heard neither of him nor his land, and who could, at first, find no one to translate his language. The scribes noted that Gyges’ mission was inspired by the Assyrian god Assu’s appearance in a dream, advising the Lydian king to make the acquaintance of and send tribute to Assurbanipal. Gyges’ real inspiration must have been different. A horde of Cimmerian raiders had begun to cause serious troubles throughout Anatolia around this time, and Gyges may have intended to strengthen the local defense with an Assyrian alliance. There is little evidence that such an alliance was concluded, but, soon after initial contact, Gyges did send gifts to the king, including Cimmerian prisoners from recent battles. He seems to have abstained from making tribute, however, never ceding Lydian independence to Assyrian rule.43 The Assyrian scribes recorded another Lydian–Cimmerian battle of ca. 657, and another in ca. 644 in which Sardis was taken and Gyges killed by Cimmerian troops under the control of Lygdamis, known to the Near East as Tugdammi, who himself perished in battle around 640, perhaps in Cilicia.44 At the death of Gyges, his son Ardys assumed the throne only to continue the Anatolian defense against Cimmerian raids, renewing contacts with Assurbanipal and probably paying tribute to him as well.45 In the seventh year of Ardys’ reign, around 637, a Cimmerian tribe known as the Treres, in league with Lycians, captured all but the citadel of Sardis.46 Perhaps because of Ardys’ subsequent accomplishments, perhaps because of Lygdamis’ earlier death, little more is heard of the Cimmerians in western Anatolia, although Herodotus and others claim that they remained present 23

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

until the reign of Alyattes. It was perhaps for this reason that around 575 Alyattes stationed his son Croesus at Adramyttium on the Plain of Thebe, close to Antandrus, where these Cimmerians are said to have lived.47 Despite their prominence in seventh century accounts relating to Lydia, Cimmerian affairs did not completely or even mostly occupy Gyges and his immediate successors. Between 662 and 658, that is, between the first two Lydian–Cimmerian battles attested in Assyrian archives, Gyges sent mercenaries, presumably Lydians in addition to the Carians and Ionians mentioned in Greek sources, to the Egyptian Psammetichus I, who needed assistance in quelling local uprisings after his recent assumption of the throne in Sais.48 Closer to home, Gyges attacked but never held several east Greek city states, including Magnesia, Miletus, Colophon, and, unsuccessfully, Smyrna. Ardys and Sadyattes continued these campaigns, attacking Miletus and now Priene, too. Whether Gyges and his immediate descendants established the realm of the Lydian kingdom for the first time or only built on the territorial control of a pre-Mermnad kingdom is impossible to know for certain (Figure 2.4). Given the more frequent documentation of Phrygian and Neo-Hittite kings and events in Near Eastern archives, it seems unlikely that pre-Mermnad Lydia amounted to much of a power at all: the lack of contemporary historical links for the pseudohistorical kings of the Early Lydian period is conspicuous. It may even be the case that the Mermnad consolidation and strengthening of the Lydian Kingdom resulted from nearly contemporary processes of state formation in East Greece and the growth of Phrygian power in the eighth century;49 early East Greek poleis were neither territorial nor the same size as Lydia, however, and the recently revised chronology of Gordion begs the revision of any interpretation of Lydian growth relating to the vicissitudes of Phrygian power.50 Exactly how Lydian power expanded eastward into areas of previous Phrygian and Neo-Hittite control in central and south-central Anatolia is completely unknown because of a lack of local or Near Eastern historical sources. Whatever the case, however, by the late seventh century, Mermnad Lydia came to dominate most of western Anatolia, even if its rule was not permanent at the peripheries, along the Aegean coast and around the Sea of Marmara to the northwest. How these mainly Sardian political developments affected the region of greater Lydia on the whole will be addressed in subsequent chapters. It was primarily when the control of these broad Anatolian regions was consolidated in the reigns of Alyattes and Croesus that Lydia emerged as a territorial empire. This transformation came about as a result of a 24

The Cultural and Historical Framework LYDIAN TERRITORIES 0

100

N

Modern City

Lydian Kingdom

ANCIENT SITE

Lydian Empire

Sinop

Black Sea

200 km

Sea of Marmara

Sa ngarius (Sakarya ) Rive r

Ankara s Haly zı (Kı

erm

lırm ak)

Rive r

iz) R. (Ged us

H

SARDIS Aegean Sea Maeander (B.

Konya

res) R. Mende

Antalya Antioch

Mediterranean Sea

Figure 2.4. Lydian territories in western Anatolia, showing the probable boundary zones of the Lydian Kingdom and Empire (C. H. Roosevelt).

continuation and intensification of long-standing Lydian foreign policies involving, especially, the repeated plundering of East Greek city-state hinterlands, which we know about thanks to Greek historical sources. In addition to prolonged campaigns in Milesian territory, Alyattes reduced Smyrna around 600 and waged wars later both in Ionia, against Colophon and Clazomenae, and in Caria.51 Following the death of Alyattes around 560 Croesus continued the tradition with campaigns against Ephesus and most other city-states of the Aegean coast, as well as Sidene in the Troad, attacking each on trumped-up charges invented so that he could exact tribute from them. In such a way, the Lydian Empire came to control most of western Anatolia, with the exception of Lycia and Cilicia, from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and from the Aegean coast to the Halys (Kızılırmak) River.52 The establishment of the eastern border of the Lydian Empire at the Halys ensued from earlier struggles that brought together the great powers of western and eastern Anatolia: the Lydians under Alyattes and the Medes under Cyaxares. Following the collapse of Assyrian power with the sack of Nineveh in 612, Lydian and Median attempts to fill the power void in central and eastern Anatolia resulted in a ruinous five-year war ending 25

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

˘ during an eclipse of the sun, near Pteria (probably modern Kerkenes Dag) perhaps in 585.53 The peace treaty, witnessed by kings of Cilicia and Babylon, set the border between Lydia and Media at the Halys River.54 In addition, the peace treaty bound Lydian and Median royalty with ties of kinship: the treaty was consecrated with the marriage of Alyattes’ daughter Aryenis to Astyages, Cyaxares’ son, and perhaps by a reciprocal marriage of Cyaxares’ daughter to Alyattes or another Mermnad.55 It was perhaps these very bonds that pressured Croesus to cross the Halys River much later, if not just the desire to increase Lydian territories, after an upstart Persian king named Cyrus overthrew the Median king, Croesus’ brother-in-law Astyages, in the late 550s. The growth of the power of Cyrus made the Lydian king uneasy enough, according to the Greek sources, to send a battery of messengers to numerous Greek oracles in order to learn his best plan of action. Impressed most by the accuracy of the oracles at Delphi and Amphiaraus, we are told, Croesus then fatefully misinterpreted the prediction that he would “destroy a mighty empire” should he attack Cyrus, thereby precipitating the end of his own rule and an independent Lydia.56 In the mid-540s, probably between 547 and 545, after a stalemate of battles east of the Halys at Pteria, Croesus returned to Sardis for the winter and disbanded his army of Ionian and other mercenaries, intending to recall them, as well as other mercenaries from Sparta, Egypt, and Babylon, for the following spring campaign.57 Cyrus followed close behind the Lydians, however, attacked a much-diminished Lydian force in the Hermus River plain, and laid siege to the city. The Persian forces soon captured Sardis in its entirety, and thereafter it became the capital of the new Achaemenid Persian satrapy of Sparda.

THE LATE LYDIAN (OR ACHAEMENID) PERIOD (MID-SIXTH THROUGH LATE FOURTH CENTURY)

Following Cyrus’ conquest, the status of Sardis and Lydia is not clear until the time of Darius in the late sixth century. Exactly how and when Sardis came to be the capital of the satrapy of Sparda remains unknown, but the territory of the earlier Mermnad kingdom of Lydia appears to have been its core from its establishment until the arrival of Alexander the Great. This satrapal territory varied only slightly in its territorial consistency with the ambitions of neighboring satraps, like those of Dascylium in northwestern Anatolia, and with the eventual establishment of new satrapies like that of Caria south of Sparda. 26

The Cultural and Historical Framework

That Sparda was the most important satrapy on the western frontier of the Achaemenid Empire is manifest in the accounts of contemporary Greek authors and in Achaemenid Persian royal inscriptions that rarely fail to mention Sparda among the most significant conquered and/or pacified imperial territories.58 Other Achaemenid sources in Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian mention Sparda and its people in both royal inscriptions and tablets recording food disbursements at Persepolis.59 Thus we hear of fast messengers dispatched between Persepolis and Sparda,60 gold, stonecutters, and woodworkers brought from Sparda for the construction and decoration of Susa,61 and nine blacksmiths and two makers of halapzi (perhaps a vegetable product) from Sparda living near Persepolis.62 For more detailed accounts of the political and military history of Sparda during this period, we must rely on the classical sources, which document nearly continuous Graeco-Persian interactions within its bounds, and which record the appointment of satraps who were often members of, if not closely related to, the Persian royal family.63 In addition to the numerous mentions of Sparda in the Achaemenid royal inscriptions, the significance of the region is shown by the relative transience of its ambitious satraps: their successes provided them great power and wealth, just as their failures and revolts cost them their lives. Throughout the period, Sardis appears to have remained the cosmopolitan center it had become under the Mermnads, with local Lydian political and social elites holding important positions alongside Persians in the satrapal administration. As we will see in Chapters 4–7, archaeological correlates of these conditions at Sardis and in greater Lydia under Achaemenid hegemony are evident. When Cyrus left Sardis for Babylon to consolidate and expand his incipient empire, he left the control of a garrison in the hands of Tabalus, a Persian, and the collection of tribute in those of Pactyes, a Lydian who may have had the same responsibilities earlier.64 These two primary concerns – military control and the collection of tribute – would endure and intensify throughout the period, as would the cultivation of the local landowning nobles for assistance in their management. The only historical evidence we have for Lydian resistance to the new hegemony is a short-lived revolt of Lydians and Ionians led by Pactyes that was quickly put down with the help of forces under a Median commander named Mazares sent by Cyrus.65 From then on, Lydians appear to have bristled little at Achaemenid rule, and subsequent interruptions in the normal workings of the satrapy all derive from external pressure and/or the ambitions and failures of the satraps themselves. 27

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Oroetes, called a hyparch by the Greeks, was appointed to the command of Sparda soon after the revolt of Pactyes and remained in office until the reign of Darius. Whether or not he was a satrap and Sparda a formal satrapy by this time cannot be determined from the surviving sources, yet that he had residences at both Sardis and Magnesia on the Maeander may suggest some fluidity in the situation at this time.66 In the later years of Cambyses’ reign, Oroetes plotted successfully the murders of Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos, and Mitrobates, the satrap at Dascylium, and his son Cranaspes. Finally, soon after the succession of Darius I to the Persian throne in 522, Oroetes killed a messenger of the new king in an act of open rebellion. Fearing the growing power and independence of Oroetes, the king had him killed immediately thereafter but appears not to have appointed an official replacement for him until after his Scythian campaign, some time in the 510s. Although it is likely that, in the interim, Sparda remained under the control of Bagaeus (the noble whom Darius had sent to dispatch Oroetes), the lack of royal attention to the area may reflect its relative freedom from conflict and smooth running during this time.67 The continuity of these internal conditions was maintained through the mid-fifth century by the strong satrapal leadership of Artaphernes, halfbrother of Darius I, and by his son Artaphernes II.68 During these times, however, Sardis became the focus of intense military activities with origins outside the satrapy. At the beginning of the fifth century, Herodotus tells us, political tensions in Ionia led Aristagoras, tyrant of Miletus, to invite Achaemenid involvement in eastern Aegean skirmishing.69 Displeased with the unsuccessful result of these activities, Aristagoras, with Athenian and Eretrian support, organized the attack of Sardis around 499, burning the lower city and its monuments but failing to take the citadel. This action, ostensibly aimed at throwing off Achaemenid overlordship, set off the Ionian Revolt, a five-year period of war that spread beyond Ionia to all western Anatolia and Cyprus, and ended in 494 at the Battle of Lade with Achaemenid resumption of control. In the aftermath of the Ionian Revolt, Artaphernes reestablished rule not with an iron fist but with a judiciousness characteristic of his beneficent reign as satrap.70 He remained in control through the reign of Darius I and was succeeded by his son, Artaphernes II, perhaps by 480, when Sardis was the mustering point for Xerxes’ entire army on the eve of the campaign in Greece.71 After his disastrous defeat at Salamis, Xerxes himself spent the better part of 479 at Sardis, remaining there even after the defeats at Plataia and Mycale, and left a garrison force in the city when he eventually did return to the east.72 28

The Cultural and Historical Framework

The strength and loyalty that defined the satrapal office at Sardis in the last decades of the sixth century and the first half of the fifth century diminished and even disappeared at times in the late fifth and fourth centuries. Questions of succession in the Achaemenid court and delusions of semi-autonomous power in the west led to satrapal revolts in almost every generation following Artaphernes II. At the same time, nearly continuous diplomatic interaction and/or military conflict with Greek city-states and long-standing rivalries with other satrapies made for a time of instability in leadership and general insecurity in the countryside. Again, in Chapters 4–6, we will see the physical effects of these political circumstances in the archaeology not just of Sardis, but throughout greater Lydia. Pissouthnes, probably a grandson of Darius I, was the longest reigning satrap of Sparda in these times, having been appointed in the mid-fifth century and maintaining control of the satrapy until around 415 or 414. He is best known for aiding the opponents of Athens in the lead up to the Peloponnesian War – Samos in 440 and Colophon in 43073 – and probably instigated a revolt against the newly crowned usurper Darius II beginning in early 423.74 Pissouthnes was eventually captured by the Persian general Tissaphernes, and this capture and the suppression of the continuing rebellion of Amorges, Pissouthnes’ son, led Darius II to award Tissaphernes the satrapy thereafter. Tissaphernes held the satrapy until 395 but was replaced temporarily between 407 and 401 by Cyrus the Younger, the king’s younger son, who used Sardis as the mustering point for his failed revolt against the rule of his brother Artaxerxes II.75 After the battle at Cunaxa in 401, in which this Cyrus was killed and his revolt decisively put down, Tissaphernes led Achaemenid efforts to reclaim control of and tribute from the Ionian citystates that had supported Cyrus. As the Persian king’s negotiator earlier, he had somewhat indelicately juggled support of Sparta and Athens in the final segment of the Peloponnesian War and now faced the opposition of Greek forces led by Spartan generals aiming to break the grip of Achaemenid rule over Ionia. Tissaphernes ultimately failed to safeguard the satrapy, unable to keep the Spartan Agesilaos from burning Sardis in 395, and this failure led to his assassination and replacement by Artaxerxes II’s trusted advisor and chiliarch, or commander of 10,000 troops, Tithraustes.76 In the period between 395 and the 370s, historians and inscriptions name three administrators and generals in charge of large forces in western Anatolia who used Sardis as a base – Tithraustes, the chiliarch who ousted Tissaphernes, Tiribazus, a trusted advisor to the king and friend of the royal family, and, finally, Struthas – but no source makes explicit that 29

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

these figures held the position of satrap of Sparda.77 Although they held sway over this and other areas of western Anatolia, whether satraps or not, they were concerned primarily with military campaigns throughout the eastern Mediterranean and brokering treaties with Greek city-states. The most famous of such treaties was the so-called King’s Peace (or Peace of Antalcidas, as known to the Greeks), signed at Sardis under Tiribazus in 386, that intended (with ultimate failure) to provide for Ionian pseudoautonomy, upon the payment of regular tribute, and to end mainland Greek interference in the area. The remaining satrapal history of Sparda is equally patchily known. We have it that an Autophradates was satrap in the 360s, at which time he was thoroughly occupied with intersatrapal warring in western Anatolia known collectively, and probably misleadingly, as the “Great Satraps’ Revolt,” and that Rhosakes (I) succeeded him in office by 343.78 That this Rhosakes was in place as satrap by 343/342 has been confirmed by the recent discovery of a Lydian inscription carved on a relief stele in the Cayster Valley (cat. no. 18.1B; see Chapter 6, Figure 6.23). The inscription is dated to “Year 17 of King Artaxerxes” (or 343/2) and mentions the s´ atraba´s rasaka´s, or the “satrap Rasakas,” thereby providing the first attestation in Lydian of both the word for satrap and the name of this particular satrap.79 By the time of Alexander the Great’s arrival in Anatolia in 334, Spithridates, son of Rhosakes I, was satrap of both Lydia and Ionia, and he and his brother, Rhosakes II, appear to have been killed at the famous battle in the Granicus Valley.80 When Alexander came to Sardis a few weeks after Granicus, he was met with open arms by both a Lydian contingent, who turned over the city to him, and the phrourarch, or garrison commander, Mithrenes, whose peaceful surrender of the citadel garrison and treasury marked the end of Achaemenid rule in Lydia.81 Aside from Pactyes’ short-lived revolt in the immediate aftermath of Cyrus’ conquest, the Lydians appear to have accepted Achaemenid hegemony with little discomfort almost from the start. Despite numerous opportunities for revolt, we hear instead of Lydians remaining loyal to local satraps, holding important diplomatic and military positions, and remaining in general control of the workings of Sardis. Thus, the Lydian Myrsus, son of Gyges, was an important bureaucrat at Sardis during the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses and a top advisor to Oroetes during the reign of Darius.82 He played an important role in luring Polycrates to his death, and hence in Oroetes’ greatest, if underhanded, diplomatic triumph, and he died fighting for Achaemenid causes in Caria during the Ionian Revolt.83 30

The Cultural and Historical Framework

In the Ionian Revolt and all of the many subsequent conflicts between the Achaemenid Empire and Greece occurring along the frontier in western Anatolia throughout the later fifth and fourth centuries, there is no record of any Lydian cooperation with Greeks against the Empire; and Lydians, in fact, fought in great numbers under Artaphernes II in Xerxes’ campaigns in Greece and later provided traveling markets for the provisioning of Cyrus the Younger’s rebellious army.84 Finally, when Alexander came to Sardis in 334, it was the local Lydian aristocracy who submitted the city to him, revealing their still active roles in the social and economic organization of the region. Recognizing the strength and continuity of Lydian traditions at the city after more than two hundred years of Achaemenid rule, Alexander is said to have returned to the Lydians the right to observe their ancestral customs, allowing them to live freely once more.85 The political history of Sardis continues well past the arrival of Alexander the Great, of course, as do some enduring traditions in Lydian material culture.86 Yet, despite such admitted continuities, the Hellenistic and later periods fall outside the scope of this book. Our focus here remains on the period between the Mermnad Gyges and Alexander and on the archaeology not just of Sardis but also of the diverse landscapes that make up other areas of central and greater Lydia.

31

CHAPTER THREE

Lydian Geography and Environment

What is perhaps most striking about the archaeology of Lydia is its wide distribution over a variety of landscapes, each one with its own, slightly differing environment. In today’s climate of politicized environmentalism, and with consensus on global warming and concern about the effects of settlement location on societal endurance (witness the aftermath of recent tsunamis and hurricanes), it should surprise us little to find increased interest in the effects of environment on ancient cultures. This interest is actually already several generations old in archaeology, where regional and landscape studies often focus on communities that were ultimately dependent on subsistence economies – such economies were externally dictated by environment. By this I do not imply that the success or failure of a community was predetermined by its choice of settlement area and subsistence activities. Rather, I want only to underline the very real physical constraints that environment imposes on communities, and the reality that it was within these constraints that important decisions – including those relating to subsistence – must have been made. The agricultural richness of most of Lydia supports settlement today and must have done so in antiquity, even without the road systems, industrial farming equipment, and intensified exchange networks that characterize modern rural life in the region. Some areas are naturally more productive of certain types of goods than others, though. In agriculturally poor areas where ancient settlement is attested, we must explain settlement location through other factors, such as nearby nonsubsistence attractions like stone, mineral, or other resources. Particularities of natural and cultural landscapes also may help explain settlement in certain rural areas. Rivers and mountains physically impede communications between some regions, while facilitating communications between others, and may have defined discrete cultural ecosystems in antiquity. Areas with visible settlement remains from earlier 33

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

periods and other ideologically significant points or areas in the landscape may have influenced the location of settlements, too. Extraordinarily large or powerful sites usually attract outliers, creating areas of high settlement density. These sites may also dictate strategic settlement distributions in defensible places or along routes of communication. For these and other reasons, in the regional archaeology of diverse landscapes we need to evaluate geography and environment – topography and landmarks, geology, climate, vegetation, and natural resources – alongside regional archaeological evidence to help understand sociopolitical, economic, and other ancient cultural phenomena. I intend this chapter to provide an understanding of the physical framework within which the Lydians lived and made decisions. That understanding should then form a foundation from which a broader understanding of Lydian culture can be achieved.

THE NATURAL LANDSCAPES OF LYDIA

Central Lydia: The Heartland of the Mermnad Kingdom For all of its recorded early history, the focus of Lydia was Sardis and its immediate environs in central Lydia (see Figure 1.2). This territory is bounded by hills to the north and mountains to the south, respectively, of the broad alluvial plain of the Hermus (modern Gediz) River in the modern province of Manisa, the Republic of Turkey (Figure 3.1). Defining the southern edge of this territory, Sardis, the capital city of the Mermnad Kingdom, and later of the Lydian Empire and the Achaemenid satrapy of Sparda, is perched on and spread below a spur of conglomerate bedrock in ˘ Mountain range; the lower foothills of the lofty Tmolus (modern Boz Dag) these foothills provided water and other resources to the city. In several periods, fortification walls artificially defined the core occupational area of the city, but rivers on either side had always naturally served this purpose. The Tabak River flows just east of the acropolis of Sardis and the Pactolus (Sart) River flows just west, famously laden with the placer electrum that enriched the kings of Sardis (Figure 3.2). Both rivers continue past Sardis through the broad alluvial plain before meeting the Hermus River. Immediately north of the Hermus River rises a rolling, hillocky landscape defined most conspicuously today by 116 tumuli (burial mounds) that are commonly associated with Mermnad kings and other political and social elites and that give the approximately 72-square-kilometer area the modern name of Bin Tepe, meaning “The Thousand Mounds” in Turkish; at least 34

Lydian Geography and Environment

CENTRAL LYDIA

Gölmarmara Beyler

0

Kayaaltı

Modern Town/City Rivers and lakes Mountains Tumulus CLAS Study Area SITES/AREAS

Gü

r

(K a ra )

Kılcanlar

Da

Buyukbelen Çullugörece

N

5 km

Yeniköy Hacıveliler Kemerdamları Gygaean Lake (Marmara Gölü )

Ça l

Da

Poyrazdamları

Mandallı Derici

Kargın

Pazarköy

La ke Ca na l

Kestelli Dibekdere Kendirlik He rm

Eldelek

us (G diz) River e

Ahmetli

Matdere Köy Mersindere

Alahıdır

Sart

Hermus (G

Co gam us

k River Taba

Gökkaya

Pac tolus (Sar t) River

Çökelek

Yılmaz

)R ediz

iver

(Ala eh ir) River

Salihli

S AR D I S Tm o l u

s (B oz Da ) Range

Figure 3.1. Map of central Lydia and its main topographical features, including mountains, rivers, and lakes (C. H. Roosevelt).

130 tumuli existed in antiquity – 14 have succumbed to recent destruction. Although commonly referred to as the royal cemetery of Sardis, Bin Tepe served as a burial ground for more than just kings and was not limited to funerary activities alone. Fertile soils deriving from limestone and other sedimentary rocks underlying the area must have made it as agriculturally rich in antiquity as it is today, and the remains of several small settlements that presumably relied on such qualities have been located throughout the area. ¨ u) ¨ lies along Beyond Bin Tepe, the Gygaean Lake (modern Marmara Gol the northern edge of the plain and was a magnet for cultural activity long before the rise of Sardis in the Iron Age. As in earlier periods, settlements of the Lydian and Achaemenid periods surround the lake on all sides, stretching from the lakeshore into the foothills and uplands that define the western and northern limits of central Lydia. 35

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 3.2. The Pactolus River valley, to SSW (C. H. Roosevelt).

The Boundary Zones of Greater Lydia Although the heartland of Lydia may be relatively easy to describe, the boundaries of greater Lydia provide no exception to the general rule that ancient territorial borders are very difficult to define with geographic precision. This inland region of western Anatolia grew from a kingdom into a vast territorial empire in the Middle Lydian period, was diminished in size to the satrapy of Sparda in the Late Lydian period (although it was still large), and witnessed numerous shifts in political allegiance and definition in later periods from which most historical information pertaining to boundaries comes. Already in antiquity the definition of Lydia was problematic: Strabo, the famous geographer who wrote in the first century CE, complained that his sources on Lydia were sometimes contradictory and explained that the Lydia of his day corresponded inexactly to that of the original kingdom.1 In addition, ancient borders were rarely as linear as modern ones, and a growing body of comparative data suggests that we should think rather of “border zones” in which a certain degree of cultural mixing occurred.2 36

Lydian Geography and Environment MODERN GEOGRAPHY N Sındırgı

0

? ?

? ?

Soma

50 km

PROVINCE

ANCIENT SITE

Lydia

Simav

Demirci

Bergama

10

Modern City

KÜTAHYA

Gördes

?

Akhisar

Selendi

Borlu

?

Saruhanlı Gölmarmara Güre Manisa Ahmetli Turgutlu

Kula SARDIS Salihli Gölcük Sarıgöl

Bayındır

Kiraz

Güney

Tire

AYDIN Selçuk

Sultanhisar

?

Aydın

?

?

?

?

?

?

Sarayköy Denizli

Figure 3.3. The modern geography of greater Lydia, with province boundaries and cities (C. H. Roosevelt).

This type of borderland appears to have existed in southernmost Lydia, where, according to Strabo, people from different cultures speaking different languages co-inhabited the same villages.3 Given such circumstances, we are forced to rely on a collage of information from various ancient authors, archaeological and epigraphical data, and topographical circumstances to define the bounds of Lydia. Any proposed boundary must be taken, in actuality, as a “fuzzy line” or a “frontier zone” – its definition is convenient for discussion, but, in antiquity, it may have carried few of the modern associations with borders. The “Lydia” I define here, then, approximates the territory of the Mermnad Kingdom of the seventh through the mid-sixth centuries, drawing much from previous attempts to delineate the borders of the region.4 In addition to Manisa, this ancient region com˙ prises parts of the modern Turkish provinces of Izmir, Aydın, Denizli, Us¸ak, Kutahya, and Balıkesir (Figure 3.3). The difficulty of defining Lydia is best illustrated by evidence for the southern and southeastern limits of the region – the fullest and most precise evidence we have. Herodotus, Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus, and Strabo all 37

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

¨ uk ¨ Menderes) River separated Lydia, agree that the Maeander (modern Buy to the north, from Caria, to the south, and that the ancient town of Cydrara, where Croesus set up a boundary stone, marked the conjunction of Lydia, Caria, and Phrygia, to the east (Figure 3.4).5 Xenophon shows further that the western stretches of the Maeander River separated Caria, to the south, not from Lydia, but from Ionia, indicating that Lydia and Ionia must have shared a border somewhere in the western Maeander River valley. Ptolemy confounds this relatively clear picture, however, by setting the boundary between Lydia and Caria along the peaks of the Mesogis Range (modern ˘ Aydın Dagları), the string of mountains that define the northern edge of the Maeander River valley.6 That Lydians dwelt in this valley in the fourth century, however, is made clear in the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia.7 Although ancient evidence for the border town of Cydrara is less contradictory, the modern location of the town has yet to be confirmed securely; a settlement ¨ is the best possibility.8 In any case, the territory of mound near Saraykoy Lydia extended southward over Tmolus and into the Maeander Valley. Moving in the counterclockwise direction from these relatively fixed southern and southeastern limits, one next encounters the eastern border zone between Lydia and Phrygia, which probably followed the course of the Maeander River and its progressively smaller tributaries to the north¨ umenli), ¨ east. Included in this zone were ancient Blaundus (modern Sul Temenothyrae (Us¸ak), and the Berecynthian Field mentioned by Callimachus.9 Highlighting yet another example of cultural mixing along Lydian border zones, L. Robert, the famous epigrapher, called the inhabitants of this eastern area “Lydo-Phrygians” owing to the local mixture of Lydian and Phrygian traditions found in textual and archaeological evidence.10 Perhaps after taking in the headwaters of the Hermus River on Mt. ˘ the northern limit of Lydia probably aligned with Dindymus (Murat Dag), 11 ˘ the peaks and ridges of the Temnus Range (modern Simav Dagları). Further west, the position of the border zone is more speculative but returns in the south–southwest direction to separate Lydia from Mysia along either the Caicus (modern Bakır) River or the mountain chain that defines the southeastern edge of its alluvial valley.12 Continuing to the south, the border zone was most likely defined by the eastern extent of Ionian Greek coastal territories, despite a seventh-century Assyrian text that loosely suggests Lydia had an Aegean seashore – an idea supported also by Xenophon.13 The Assyrian source was sufficiently removed from Lydia as to render its geographical precision questionable, and Xenophon 38

Lydian Geography and Environment ANCIENT GEOGRAPHY N 0

Riv er

Mt. Dindymus

ed (G us m r e H Güre R.

yR .

a

R.

? ?

?

?

?

C ARI A

Figure 3.4. The ancient geography of greater Lydia, with mountains, rivers, and lakes (C. H. Roosevelt).

may have been influenced by the moving nature of this border zone during a time of frequent Achaemenid Persian and Greek military interactions. A string of forts dating to Late Lydian times, located along a line of strategic peaks and passes at the edge of the inland plateau,14 further suggests that a border zone separated Lydia from the Ionian coast, and historical evidence of repeated Lydian attacks on Ionian cities shows the independence of these cities at least until the time of Croesus and the zenith of Lydian imperial power. The maritime inexperience of the Lydians, at any rate, was well known in the time of Croesus, according to Herodotus.15 The exact location of the border zone between Lydia and Ionia further south is, again, indeterminable but can be reconstructed from historical circumstances and prominent topographic features to have followed strategic ¨ ¸ uk ¨ Menderes) ridges and passes to and across the Cayster (modern Kuc River valley, and then further south, where it returned to the southern border zone separating Lydia from Caria. 39

z

P H RYG I A

Mes og is (Ayd ın Da l ar ı) R ang e r deres) Rive? (B. Men Maeander ?

Ban a

R.

ndi R. S el e

H (Ka ippuriu zan cı) R s iver

ive

s (Boz Da ) Ra n ge C ( Ka ilbis dın) Cayster (K. Menderes) Rive r

.

R.

Sö ü tç

Cogam us ( A la e hir )R

Tm o l u

Fetrek R

ge

Lydia

r ive

I ON I A

v) R an

M o untains

iz)

Ilke

SARDIS

Crius (Nif ) R

s (Sim a

rci-Dümrek) Riv er

k

ör

Phr y la (Gör gius G des) R. Gygaean Lake Pidasus (Marmara Gölü) (Öz) R. Hermus (Gediz) River r

Mt. Sipylus

a ay

) cık

R.

Hyllus (Demi

?

Te m n o

)R

ucu s (K

n

dü

Ph (G ö r yg i u rde s) R s iver

K adı

?

Yamanlar

ive r

r

Ly cu s (G

icu Ca

Rive

Çamlıca

ı ı R. yık De irme Bah r R. adı

?

) akır s (B

?

50 km

Rivers and other toponyms ANCIENT SITE

?

M YSI A

?

10

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

The territory within these flexible border zones, then, comprises the kingdom of Lydia, or simply Lydia as I have and will continue to refer to it, and a vast area it was. At roughly 22,400 square kilometers in area (about 8,650 square miles), Lydia would have measured between the sizes of Massachusetts (21,200 square kilometers or 8,200 square miles) and New Hampshire (24,000 square kilometers or 9,300 square miles) in the United States, and would have been just over half the size of Switzerland or Denmark. In ancient terms, it was roughly six times larger than the territory of Athens (modern Attica covers some 3,800 square kilometers or 1,450 square miles), yet was probably somewhat smaller than the central Anatolian kingdom of Phrygia. The region of Lydia defined here is not to be confused with the territory of the Lydian Empire at the peak of its growth in the early to mid-sixth century. The Lydian Empire covered most of western Anatolia except for Lycia, from the Aegean Sea east to the Halys (modern Kızılırmak) River, and from the Black Sea south to the Mediterranean at Attaleia (modern Antalya) (see Figure 2.4). With territorial control of some 276,300 square kilometers (about 106,700 square miles), the Lydian Empire would have been slightly smaller than modern Italy but more than twice the size of modern Greece. In ancient terms, the Lydian Empire was small fare in comparison to some roughly contemporary territorial empires at their greatest extents, including the Achaemenid Persian Empire (probably larger than 6.2 million square kilometers or 2.4 million square miles) and the NeoAssyrian Empire (about 1.4 million square kilometers or 540,500 square miles).16 Numerous ancient authors and Lydian material culture attest to Lydian interests and activities in most parts of this imperial territory. For example, early Lydian kings are said to have dwelt at times in Cyme on the Aegean coast, in Hellespontine Phrygia, and in the Pontus region along the Black Sea, and Lydian pottery is known from Phrygia, the Konya Plain, and the Lake District of southwestern Turkey.17 Yet, evidence of Lydian activities in these imperial territories falls outside the scope of this study, which focuses primarily on the area of Lydia proper, the area of the Mermnad Kingdom defined above. This area contains a diverse alternation of mountain ranges and river valleys. The mountains bear high-altitude pastures, or yaylas, good for the rearing of horses and certain fruits, and the valleys, bound by broad foothills, were famously rich in both agricultural foodstuffs and grazing potential. Ancient names can be tied to many, but not all, of the prominent topographical features in the area including mountains, rivers, plains, and lakes. 40

Lydian Geography and Environment

Mountains In addition to the mountain ranges already mentioned as the probable boundaries of Lydia to the north and northwest, the most prominent ranges extend east to west across most of the central and southern parts of the region. The southern range is the same Mesogis Ptolemy would have us take as the southern limit of Lydia. We have already seen the northern of the two ranges, on the lower foothills of which lies Sardis: the Tmolus ˘ itself known alternaRange, with its highest peak at modern Boz Dag, tively by the ancient names Tymolus and Timolus.18 To the west, the ˘ Mt. Dracon (modrange continues across Mt. Karios (modern Kel Dag), ˘ and the Karabel Pass to Mt. Olympus (modern Nif Dag) ˘ ern Mahmut Dag), and the western border zone of Lydia; to the east, the range terminates near the headwaters of the Cogamus (modern Alas¸ehir) River.19 Jutting up from the broad Hermus River valley north of the Tmolus are three ˘ towers over distinct peaks. The westernmost, Mt. Sipylus (Manisa Dag), ancient Magnesia ad Sipylum (at Sipylus; modern Manisa), among other smaller settlements on its foothills, and continues to the west into ancient Aeolis under the modern name of Yamanlar Dag˘ (Figure 3.5). Although ¨ (or Kara) Dag, ˘ the ancient names remain unknown for C¸al Dag˘ and Gur two mountains that rise from the Hermus River valley east–northeast of Mt. Sipylus and west of the Gygaean Lake, they may have defined part of the ancient Hyrcanian Plain, to their west, and they bear numerous signs of settlement along their slopes. The remainder of smaller peaks, ridges, and rolling foothills of upland northern, northeastern, and eastern Lydia are separated from central Lydia by a line of ridges that mirrors the eastern Tmolus to its north and northeast.

Rivers and Plains Lydia was centered roughly on the Hermus River, with its eddying course flowing from Mt. Dindymus through eastern Lydia in its upper reaches and across the broad alluvial plain of central Lydia and further west along its middle reaches, before plunging toward the Aegean. The mouth of the great river once opened nearer ancient Phocaea (modern Foc¸a) but today is further south near Menemen. Several tributaries of unknown ancient names drain valleys of varying archaeological significance along its upper reaches. ¨ ¸ ay River, on the left bank, may have drained the Castolus The So¨ g˘ utc Plain, an important Achaemenid mustering place of western Asia Minor ˙ (Figure 3.6).20 Between the So¨ g˘ utc ¨ ¸ ay and the right-bank Selendi and Ilke 41

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 3.5. The western end of the middle Hermus River valley, with Mt. Sipylus looming in the distance, to SE (C. H. Roosevelt).

Rivers lies the “very burned land” of the Catacecaumene – a landscape of cratered volcanic mounts and seas of basalt lava that is as impressive and surreal today as it was in antiquity.21 As the Hermus drops from hilly ¨ upland to the valley floor of its middle reaches, the Demirci-Dumrek River joins it from the north. This river is best identified with the ancient Hyllus, said to be “rich in fish” and near the Gygaean Lake.22 Close by its junction with the Hermus, Persian forces under Cyrus delivered a crushing blow to the Lydians.23 Along its middle reaches, the Hermus collects first the Cogamus (Alas¸ehir) River, which is a large effluent in a broad and agriculturally rich valley.24 Continuing west, many smaller tributaries flow down Tmolus’ northern foothills. Common among them in size but surpassing all in fame is the previously mentioned electrum-rich Pactolus. After winding its way between Mt. Sipylus and C¸al Dag˘ and before beginning the descent out of Lydia and through its lower reaches to the Aegean, the Hermus gains the waters of two more rivers: the Phrygius and the Crius. The latter, the modern Nif C¸ay, is the river of cold water, as implied by its ancient name, that wraps around, and thereby defines, the lower, eastern 42

Lydian Geography and Environment

Figure 3.6. The Castolus Plain in eastern Lydia, to W (C. H. Roosevelt).

foothills of Mt. Sipylus after draining the valley of Nymphaeum (modern ¨ Kemalpas¸a).25 The Phrygius (Gordes-Kum) River is actually the terminus of a system of rivers that flows through most of northern Lydia. It is the longest river in this system and has headwaters in the Temnus Range, an upper reach through upland northern Lydia, and middle and lower reaches through alluvial plains, before meeting the Hermus.26 Five tributaries join its course, all but the last on its right bank, and all but two identifiable with ancient names: the Kayacık is perhaps the ancient Glaucus; the ancient ¨ uk) ¨ flows past the ancient sites of Attaleia (Selc¸ikli), Gord ¨ uk ¨ Lycus (Gord ˘ ˘ flows by the ancient site Kale, and Thyateira (Akhisar); the Degirmenyıkı gı ¨ Deresi, the ancient Pidasus, drain of Apollonis; and the Bahadır and Oz the ancient Hyrcanian Plain.27 Two other large river systems define the southern territories of greater ¨ ¸ uk ¨ Lydia, and both are clearly identified in ancient sources: the Cayster (Kuc ¨ uk ¨ Menderes). The Cayster is located Menderes) and Maeander (Buy between the Tmolus and Mesogis ranges and is quite short compared to the Hermus and Maeander.28 Its headwaters are in the upper Cilbian (Kiraz) Plain, with its primary tributary the Cilbis (or Cilbus; modern 43

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Kadınderesi).29 From there it flows south and then west, passing Hypaepa ¨ uce) ¨ (Gunl on the slopes of Tmolus and then Thyeira (or Thyaira, modern Tire) and gaining several small tributaries from both banks. Then it is joined by the small tributary of the Fetrek Valley, fed from springs near the ˘ Karabel Pass, before making its way between Mt. Gallesion (Alaman Dagı) and the Mesogis and finally to the sea west of Ephesus (modern Selc¸uk). Lydian interest in the Maeander may have begun with its loop north into the lower Banaz River valley before winding down past Tripolis ¨ 30 West of Cydrara and among the (Yenicekent) to Cydrara (Saraykoy). southern foothills of the Mesogis were several ancient cities including Brioulla (near Kurtulus¸), Mastaura (near Bozyurt), Nysa (at Sultanhisar), and Tralles (Aydın). Whether any of these places should really be considered Lydian is in question, as Lydian- and Achaemenid-period levels have been exposed at none, and ancient testimonies remain ambiguous on their inclusion in the region.

Lakes Only four natural, perennial lakes are known in Lydia, in contrast to the many manmade reservoirs that today accommodate the irrigation and electrical needs of increasingly urban and industrial agricultural life.31 The ¨ u) ¨ in central Lydia is the largest and both the Gygaean Lake (Marmara Gol earliest and best historically documented of these lakes. Homer was first to call it “Gygaean,” and Herodotus was told that it never dries up.32 Thought by some in antiquity to be an artificial reservoir of the Hermus and known alternatively as Colo¨e in later times,33 the lake appears to be entirely natural. Before it was dammed in 1944, it was fed not by the Hermus but by underwater springs and, perhaps, by a stream from the northwest. Despite these water sources, lake levels must have fluctuated seasonally in antiquity more significantly than they do today, providing nearly annual replenishment of rich agricultural soils along lakeshores. It is perhaps for this reason that the lake attracted some of the earliest settlement in the region. Ancient Lake Torrhebia has been identified confidently with the moun¨ uk ¨ and located between Sardis and Hypaepa tain lake today called Golc in one of the richer yaylas of the Tmolus Range.34 Like the Gygaean Lake, it appears to have been an attraction for ancient settlers attested by archaeological remains found nearby in the upland valley. Two other small lakes have been documented in and around Mt. Sipylus. ¨ ukl ¨ u¨ Gol ¨ u¨ lies in the northeastern foothills of the mountain and remains Sul full but thoroughly uninviting: its modern name means “leechy.” It may 44

Lydian Geography and Environment

GREATER LYDIAN AREASN 0

?

? Ca

s icu

Ri

ve

rV

l al

ey

Upper Cai cus R iver Valley

?

?

Hy

(Sub-area)

ANCIENT SITE

Nor thern Lyd ia

Lyc u s Va lley

?

50 km

Area

Lydia

Nor theastern Lydia

M i d d le Phr ygius R iver Va lley

ca

nia Mi d nP ( W dle H lai est e n ern rmu ) sR i ve ( C e r Va l l ntr ey Mt. Sipylus al)

Cata ceca ume . s ne M mu rn) r e e t C og H as am (E us SARDIS Ri ve rV all Tmo lu s R an g e e

Nymphaeum Valley

Ca s Pla tolus in

MYSI A

?

10

Central Lydia

I ONI A

Cays ter R i ve r Valley

Cilbian Plains

Sout

Maeander R iver Valley

? ?

?

?

?

heas

?

Eastern Lydia

P H RYG I A

y

tern

Ly d i

a

?

CARIA

Figure 3.7. Greater Lydia, with definitions of areas for discussion (C. H. Roosevelt).

not have been so in antiquity, because some archaeological remains are known from its vicinity. The other lake lay close to the northeastern foot of Mt. Sipylus near other ancient monuments before it was drained in the nineteenth century.35 One of these two lakes might be identified with lake names associated with Mt. Sipylus in antiquity – Saloe (or Sala) and Tantalus – but which is which remains unknown.36 Areas of Interest for Subsequent Discussion All of these landmarks help define discrete areas of greater Lydia for convenient reference in the following discussion (Figure 3.7). In some cases, the geographic terms are logical and need little if any definition (e.g., the Cayster River valley). In other cases, they have already been described (e.g., central Lydia). Other areas are best defined here to avoid future confusion. The middle Hermus River valley refers to that segment of the Hermus River valley between Satala (Karatas¸-Adala) and just west and north of Magnesia ad Sipylum. The Nymphaeum Valley refers to the valley between Mounts Sipylus, Olympus, and Dracon in which Nymphaeum (Kemalpas¸a) is situated. 45

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

The Hyrcanian Plain includes the Bahadır and the ancient Pidasus River ¨ valleys. The valley stretching north and west from Golmarmara toward Thyateira (Akhisar) will be called the plain or valley of the middle Phrygius River. The area west and north of Thyateira (Akhisar) is generally referred to as the Lycus Plain or Valley. The upper Caicus River valley encompasses ˘ ¸ . Northern Lydia here the broad area located northeast of modern Kırkagac refers to the mountainous area beginning just north of the Gygaean Lake and stretching from the ridges just east of Thyateira to the ridges forming the divide between the watersheds of the upper Phrygius and Hyllus ¨ (Demirci-Dumrek) Rivers. From this divide to the east, northeastern Lydia, then, stretches to the ridges that form the divide between the watersheds of the Selendi and Hermus Rivers. Eastern Lydia comprises the large area of the upper Hermus River valley and its smaller tributaries and also those areas of the Banaz and upper Maeander River valleys that fall within the bounds of Lydia. All other areas for discussion, usually comprising previously named mountain ranges and river valleys, are self-explanatory. Among these various areas of interest, regions of special focus in this book include central Lydia and other areas in and around the valleys of the Hermus River and its tributaries within the modern province of Manisa, where past and current archaeological investigations have been most active to date. In addition, data gathered from previously existing sources illuminate those parts of Lydia that fall outside the modern province of Manisa. Primarily omitted from discussion here will be those areas that may not have been included in the area of Mermnad Lydia at all, including most of the Maeander River valley in the south and the Caicus River valley to the northwest.37

GEOLOGY

Underlying most of western Anatolia and all of Lydia are two main groups ˙ of basement rocks: those of the Menderes Massif and those of the IzmirAnkara Zone. The Menderes Massif appears in central, southern, and eastern parts of Lydia and consists of gneisses, schists, phyllites, quartzites, and marbles that underwent varying degrees of metamorphism some time in Precambrian or late Paleozoic times.38 Northern and northwestern Lydia is underlain by mostly Mesozoic but some Cenozoic formations of volcanic, ultramafic (ophiolite), turbidite and other deep-marine rocks of the ˙ Izmir-Ankara Zone that formed later in the Cretaceous or early Tertiary 39 period. Both of these groups of rocks were subjected to massive Neogene faulting that began sometime in the Miocene epoch as a result of 46

Lydian Geography and Environment

crustal extension and produced a system of fault-dropped graben and halfgraben river valleys separated by horst uplands and mountain ranges.40 This faulting created the basic topography with which we are familiar today, with the alternation of the generally east–west-oriented Caicus, Hermus, Cayster, and Maeander River valleys with upland areas and the Tmolus and Mesogis Ranges, and the alternation of generally northeast–southwestoriented river valleys and ridges in northern and northeastern Lydia. Alluvial and lacustrine sedimentation continuing into the Pliocene covered all of the graben and half-graben valleys as they formed, resulting in Neogene sedimentary formations characterized by conglomerates, sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, and limestones.41 Quaternary formations include the Kula volcanics that define the ancient Catacecaumene: basaltic cones and lava flows stemming from a mantle plume or “hot spot.”42 Active magma chambers lying deep beneath the Menderes Massif still drive geothermal activity in the area: several hot springs ring the edges of the middle Hermus River valley.43 Holocene alluvial deposition continues to cover much of the main river valleys with fertile soils, and active regional faulting and strong seismicity resulting in frequent earthquakes produce some degree of colluvial deposition as well.44 The soils produced from long-term decomposition of bedrock geology in conjunction with erosional, alluvial, vegetational, and other processes are of primary importance in assessing the potential fertility of particular areas in Lydia. The availability and accuracy of soil maps, however, precludes a discussion of soils at this point, and, relying on modern agricultural data (see below), one can stress only that the alluvium of the major river valleys appears to have been significantly fertile with periodic nutrient invigoration from seasonal flooding. The middle Hermus River valley, in particular, may have been made extremely fertile by nutrients collected upstream, where the river passes through the Kula volcanics.45

CLIMATE AND VEGETATION

Like most parts of Aegean Turkey, Lydia falls into a broad zone of Mediterranean macroclimate with warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters.46 Modern temperature and precipitation patterns in Lydia appear to have been established by around 3,000 years ago,47 and this long-term climatic continuity allows us to understand ancient climate conditions through modern temperature and precipitation data collected from seventy-four weather recording stations located within and immediately surrounding the boundaries of Lydia.48 The typically Mediterranean climate is marked 47

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

by warm summers of average temperature 21.9–25.7◦ C, mild winters of average temperature 3.4–8.6◦ C, and winter precipitation in the wettest month greater than three times the level in the driest month (Figure 3.8).49 Around 53 percent of annual precipitation in Lydia, in fact, occurs in the winter months of December, January, and February, while only 6 percent falls in summer during June, July, and August. Average temperatures vary among the lowland river valleys in the west, the central mountain ranges, and the uplands between northern and eastern Lydia, with the latter two areas cooler in winter and milder in summer. The lack of long-term data sets from diversely positioned weather recording stations, however, vitiates rigorous efforts to quantify such differences.50 Although the Aegean coast of Anatolia gets more rainfall than most areas of Lydia, at least the western parts of the Hermus and Cayster River valleys receive annual precipitation in excess of 700 millimeters (e.g., 727 millimeters in Manisa; 756 millimeters in Tire). Precipitation in these valleys generally decreases with increasing distance from the coast (e.g., 594 millimeteters in Akhisar; 489 millimeters in Salihli; 606 millimeters in ¨ Odemis ¸ ), and it decreases markedly to the north and east in the uplands between northern and eastern Lydia.51 With these temperature and rainfall patterns, the majority of Lydia falls into the Mediterranean woodlandclimax vegetation zone. With increasing dryness and elevation to the east and in the uplands, parts of eastern Lydia and the southern slopes of the major mountain ranges, especially the Tmolus, are in the Xero-Euxinian steppe-forest vegetation zone dominated by deciduous varieties of Quercus (oak) and many elements of steppic grasslands.52 The tree line in Lydia is near 2,000 meters above sea level, and grasses typical of the Alpine zone characterize the highest elevations in the Temnus, Tmolus, and Mesogis Ranges.53 Those areas at 1,000–2,000-meter elevations fall into the Oro-Mediterranean zone where Quercus, Pinus (pine), and Juniperus (juniper) forests thrive in alternation with grassland and certain fruit trees, among other rarer species including varieties of Fagus (beech) and Cedrus (cedar).54 Western Lydian landscapes below an elevation of around 1,000 meters generally fall into the Eu-Mediterranean zone, with the upper ranges covered by maquis and other sclerophyllous shrubs, including species of Quercus and Pinus, whereas the lower foothills and valley floors are dominated by grasslands and croplands.55 These modern patterns of climate and vegetation appear to have been established by around 3,000 years ago and thus obtained at least in the Lydian period of the mid-first millennium. Although general types and zones of vegetation in Lydia may have remained consistent until today, 48

Lydian Geography and Environment TEMPERATURE (°C)

30

Manisa

25

PRECIPITATION (mm)

150

Manisa

120

20

90

15 60

10

30

5 0

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

0

J

F

Month

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

Month

Figure 3.8. Averaged monthly temperature and precipitation values for the modern ˙ provinces of Izmir, Manisa, and Us¸ak (C. H. Roosevelt).

the abundance and exact distributions of Lydian flora must have changed markedly since antiquity, in no small part because of evolving patterns of tree-crop and cereal cultivation and grazing in combination with other human activities that have dramatically altered Lydian landscapes (e.g., large-scale timbering for smelting and fuel).56 There is less evidence for long-term, human-induced climate change in Lydia, although local myths and historical records indicate the short-term volatility of local climate patterns with anecdotes and accounts of at least four or five catastrophic droughts that may have had significant effects on local populations by drastically reducing the subsistence resource base.57

RESOURCES

Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Ancient authors praised Lydia with celebrations of its good land and fertile river valleys, rich in wine, figs, and olive oil.58 Its fruitful croplands attracted comment in times of Graeco-Persian strife as victims of strategic ravaging.59 Today such cropland is located mostly on the floors of the major river valleys and on the alluvial fans and foothills that flank them. Ancient distributions of cropland were probably similar but of far less cultivable area given the recent construction of numerous dams that control seasonal flooding of large tracts of valley floor previously unfit for farming because of their marshy nature.60 High mountain pastures, too, were cultivated in antiquity as they are today, primarily with nut and fruit trees but also with the hardier strains of some cereals.61 More commonly, however, upland areas were used for grazing herds of sheep, goats, and even cattle, animals for which Asia Minor and Lydia in particular were acclaimed.62 Lydian horses and horsemanship, also, were both celebrated and feared in 49

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

antiquity, and wild fish, game, and fowl featured in Lydian myths and export trade. Lydian partridges may have been known already in the seventh century and were later exported to Egypt.63 ¨ uk, ¨ 64 the ancient Lake Analyses of a long-term pollen record from Golc Torrhebia in the Tmolus Range, corroborate the agricultural richness of Lydia attested by ancient authors. Agriculture and tree-crop cultivation appear to have increased markedly by the early first millennium. Around that time some degree of deforestation was accompanied by increases in cereal, olive, nut, and grape cultivation. In Lydian times, cereal and grape production continued at earlier levels, whereas increases in olive and walnut cultivation and a concomitant decrease in chestnut production may indicate changes in tree-cropping practices around the fourth century BCE. Given some degree of continuity in rural subsistence practices through the ages,65 recent data for the modern provinces of Manisa, Us¸ak, and ˙ Izmir compiled by Turkey’s State Institute of Statistics shed further light on both subsistence agriculture and animal husbandry in ancient Lydia (Table 3.1).66 Although many wild and cultivated plants were used in antiquity as flavorful spices, bulk additives, and even for medicinal purposes,67 these data speak best to the types of field agriculture (accounting for approximately 85 percent of all cultivated land in modern Lydia), viticulture, tree-fruit cultivation, and animal husbandry that would have formed the basis of the ancient subsistence economy. FIELD CROPS, VITICULTURE, AND TREE FRUITS

Cereal crops, primarily wheat and barley, account for approximately 66 percent of the area given to field crops in modern Lydia (Table 3.1). Average yields show they can be grown in all areas of the region, and some areas are particularly productive: the middle Hermus River valley, the upper Cogamus River valley, and parts of the Cayster Valley, especially the Cilbian Plains and around Tire. As cereals were perhaps the most important staple of the ancient diet, we can expect these areas to have been dedicated primarily to cereal production in antiquity. Northern and northeastern areas of Lydia have lower cereal yields than other areas, yet they still produce a significant tonnage each year. These upland areas and those of eastern Lydia, too, have a relatively larger area given over to leguminous pulses (e.g., chickpeas, beans, and lentils). Vegetables grown in Lydian antiquity include a squash known from the Maeander Valley, a white onion called “Sardian” by Pliny, and garlic, among other possible vegetables probably grown in garden plots.68 Today vegetables account for approximately 19 percent of cultivated areas in Lydia, but regional 50

51 92,359 69.6 74.9

Us¸ak Area (ha) % Total % Total (No Ind. Crop) 65.5

188,997 51.3 67.9

Manisa Area (ha) % Total % Total (No Ind. Crop)

Average % Total (No Ind. Crop)

81,964 34.4 53.7

˙ Izmir Area (ha) % Total % Total (No Ind. Crop)

Cereals

12.6

6,211 4.7 5.0

45,467 12.3 16.3

25,230 10.6 16.5

Grapes

9.5

3,967 3.0 3.2

23,582 6.4 8.5

25,569 10.7 16.7

Vegetables (general)

7.2

15,968 12.0 13.0

12,734 3.5 4.6

6,060 2.5 4.0

Pulses

2.5

872 0.7 0.7

2,534 0.7 0.9

8,877 3.7 5.8

Tubers

1.4

1,448 1.1 1.2

4,044 1.1 1.4

2,704 1.2 1.8

Oil seeds

1.3

2,436 1.8 2.0

1,052 0.3 0.4

2,357 1.0 1.5

Fodder

–

9,391 7.1 –

89,615 24.4 –

85,468 35.9 –

Industrial crops

˙ Table 3.1. Areas devoted to cultivation in Izmir, Manisa, and Us¸ak, averaged from the six-year period between 1979 and 1984, with ˙ ¨ u) ¨ percentage of total cultivated areas omitting industrial crops (Devlet Istatistik Enstitus

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

variations are distinct. Only provincial data are available for squash cultivation, and they show that it, among other fruit-bearing vegetables, is grown in greatest abundance in Manisa, whereas onions, garlic, and other vegetables of the root, bulb, or tuber varieties are grown most productively in the Cilbian Plains and the upper Cayster Valley. Viticulture thrives in modern Lydia and accounts for approximately 13 percent of cultivated areas (Table 3.1). Modern production is geared toward grapes that are dried into raisins and exported widely. Areas of Lydia most productive of grapes today include the Cogamus and middle Hermus River valleys and the Hyrcanian Plain, but most areas of Lydia, except for the uplands between northern and eastern Lydia, produce large quantities. The ancient viticulture of Lydia was geared instead to wine, and its wine was so renowned that Lydia became associated with Dionysus.69 Ancient areas of wine production do not correspond with today’s areas of high grape production, but this is unimportant in this case as wines gain their distinctiveness not from the quantity but from the quality of their grapes. Strabo praises wines grown on the Mesogis and Tmolus Ranges and in the Catacecaumene, with those from the latter apparently the finest.70 Other ancient authors enjoyed the wines of the Tmolus and Mt. Olympus.71 Grapes can be cultivated only up to elevations around 800 meters, so one can presume that it was the lower slopes of these mountain ranges that were put to such famous use. Olives (Olea europaea), chestnuts (Castanea sp.), and walnuts (Juglans sp.) ¨ uk ¨ throughout our period of are represented in the pollen record from Golc interest and indicate a long history of tree-fruit cultivation.72 As indicated by recent olive production, olives are most important in the western river valleys of Lydia, with highest values in the Cayster Valley and the area around Thyateira, modern Akhisar. Olive production is negligible at the slightly higher elevations and in the cooler and drier climate between northern and eastern Lydia. Walnuts and chestnuts, too, are far more abundant today in the western areas of Lydia than in the east and may derive entirely from mountain and foothill orchards. The Lydian chestnut was a popular export in antiquity and was probably known in Greece as ¨ uk ¨ record, the figs (Ficus the “Sardis acorn.”73 Although absent in the Golc carica) of Lydia attracted comment in antiquity, as did its pomegranates and apples.74 Like other tree fruits, figs, pomegranates, and apples are generally not cultivated in eastern Lydian areas but are found further west nearer the coast and in the Cayster Valley. Perhaps it was from here that reddish “Lydian figs” were exported to Italy.75 52

Lydian Geography and Environment LIVESTOCK AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS

Field- and tree-crop cultivation must have provided the mainstay of the regular Lydian diet, but other activities supplemented such rural subsistence practices. Hunting was one of these activities, but it was probably more an elite sport than a regular provider of sustenance.76 The modern aquaculture of the Gygaean Lake provides carp, pikeperch, crayfish, and eel for regional consumption, and fish populate the Hermus and Hyllus rivers, too.77 Animal husbandry, however, was probably the next most important means of subsistence after cultivation and would have provided not only regular supplies of milk and protein-rich meat, but also other animal products consumed in the production of various arts and crafts. The archaic Greek poet Archilochus of Paros referred to a Lydian king, probably Gyges, as “powerful over sheep-rearing Asia,” yet he was not the first to document the good supply of sheep in the region: this had been memorialized since the mid-second millennium in accounts of Hittite raids.78 Of goats less was recorded in history, but fine cashmere-like goatwool textiles found at Sardis attest the presence of their secondary products in the area, and the popularity of the animals is perhaps also attested by their abundant presence on ceramic vessels decorated with local versions of a “Wild Goat” style common in East Greece.79 Cattle accompanied the sheep in early Hittite raids, and their provision of field labor and secondary products made them one of the most valuable animals in antiquity. Like goats and sheep, they could be pastured at high elevations, even, as seen recently, at the highest peak of the Tmolus Range.80 Next to sheep, horses were the most famed animals of Lydia, where horse breeding, horsemanship, and the cavalry of the Lydians were much celebrated.81 Flat lands are best for raising horses, but some Lydian horses may have been summered in high mountain pastures, as they are today. Little can be said regarding other domesticated livestock in ancient Lydia – pigs were likely used for their meat and hides, and poultry for eggs and meat. Lydian hens were said to be small and their cocks feisty.82 Ancient livestock must have been sustained primarily on grazing, just as it is today: little more than 1 percent of cultivated areas in the region is dedicated to fodder production (Table 3.1). Abundant grassland was ideal for such grazing grounds, yet harvested agricultural fields and maquis probably served as ready pasturage as well. Areas relatively dependent on husbandry in antiquity might have been those with the least cultivable area or the least agricultural productivity: the uplands between northern and eastern Lydia. This hypothesis may be confirmed by the location of 53

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

¨ primary weaving centers in these areas of modern Lydia at Gordes, Kula, and Us¸ak.83

Area-Specific Resources Cultivable resources and livestock appear to have been sustainable across Lydia, with some areas perhaps better suited than others to particular crops and animals. As most areas of Lydia could have supported a rural subsistence economy, such factors may have had only general influence on ancient selections of settlement sites. Other area-specific resources may have had more direct influences. Such resources in Lydia include timber, good stone for building and other uses, precious stones and metals, other useful minerals and plants, and hydrothermal springs, all documented by modern and/or ancient physical evidence and accounts (Table 3.2). Timber used as fuel and building material must have been a primary ¨ uk ¨ pollen core attests resource in our period of interest, and the Golc widespread forestation in the Tmolus Range. Ancient accounts for timber and its exploitation elsewhere in Lydia are few. The forest timber of Tmolus was a valued commodity in the Hellenistic period, and that on Mt. Olympus was being harvested by the fourth century.84 Although material evidence for ancient timbering usually perishes over time, the opposite is true for the exploitation of another building material: ancient stone, especially marble. Numerous exposures of marble, especially in the Menderes Massif, bear evidence of working at some point in the ancient period, although the exact dating of quarry evidence is problematic. Quarries for marbles invariably white to gray in color and sometimes with grayish blue veins are located throughout the ancient region: in central Lydia, just south of Sardis and both west and northwest of the Gygaean Lake;85 along the eastern and northern edges of the middle Phrygius River valley;86 in the Cogamus River valley just southeast of Philadelphia at Badınca;87 in several places in eastern Lydia;88 and in numerous areas of the lower Cayster River valley.89 One other ancient quarry of pink-veined white marble located northwest ˘ of the Gygaean Lake at Degnekler appears to have escaped modern notice 90 until recently. Today we know of many more marble sources in Lydia, but most of these bear evidence only of modern exploitation.91 Limestone was just as available as marble in antiquity, given the numerous outcrops of Neogene sedimentary formations ringing the valleys in the region. In central Lydia alone five quarries in Bin Tepe and one just east of Sardis were used in the construction of local ancient monuments.92 A honey-colored travertine, a translucent and banded limestone, 54

55

Demirci, Selendi

Kula, Us¸ak (central), Ulubey, Es¸me ˙ Manisa–Izmir

NE Lydia

Eastern Lydia

Cayster Valley

Cilbian Plains

¨ Kiraz, Odemis ¸ ¨ Odemis¸, Tire, Bayındır

¨ Akhisar, Gordes

Northern Lydia

Tmolus Range

Salihli

¨ Alas¸ehir, Sarıgol

Cogamus Valley

Akhisar

Lycus Valley

M. Hermus Valley (E)

Akhisar

Manisa (central)

Mt. Sipylus and M. Hermus Valley (W)

Middle Phrygius Valley

Kemalpas¸a

Nympaheum Valley

Saruhanlı

Turgutlu

M. Hermus Valley (Central)

Hyrcanian Plain

Salihli, Ahmetli, ¨ Golmarmara, Saruhanlı

Modern provincial districts

Central Lydia

Geographical region

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Other Cultivable subsistence Other Other Hydrothermal resources resources Timber Marble Limestone stones Gold Silver minerals springs

Resources

Table 3.2. Geographic distribution of area-specific resources in Lydia. A check mark indicates evidence for the presence of the resource in the corresponding region (except in the first three resource columns, where a check mark indicates specific historical testimony for that resource)

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

was recently identified at Harmandalı in the middle Phrygius River valley, and its exploitation in Lydian times is suggested by ancient workings and the similarity of the stone to that used in the manufacture of alabastra, a popular ancient unguent container.93 Ancient workings have yet to be identified at the many other limestone and travertine sources in the area.94 Other stones important in antiquity but not for use in construction have only a few known sources in Lydia. Colored varieties of chalcedony have been found in deposits located between Salihli and Us¸ak, and both raw and finished examples of jasper and onyx are known from archaeological contexts.95 At present it cannot be determined whether this or another type of onyx is the “sardonyx” mentioned by Pliny.96 Green serpentine deposits are known from areas around and to the north of Thyateira, and emery – an abrasive important for ancient stone cutting – is found today in northern and eastern Lydia as well as in the Cilbian Plains of the Cayster River valley.97 Good touchstones used for the assaying of gold were known from the rivers of the Tmolus Range and were called basanos or coticula stones as ¨ in eastern Lydian exports.98 Other touchstones have been found near Gure Lydia. Of all its resources Lydia was most famous for its metals, both precious and common, and many of their ancient procurement zones have been identified. Disdained by Archilochus of Paros and mentioned by numerous other ancient authors, the gold of Sardis was renowned.99 The gold was not native, in fact, but occurred along with silver in a natural alloy called electrum that was dispersed throughout local sedimentary units in placer deposits. Rivers flowing down the Tmolus and through these deposits – most famously the Pactolus – picked up the electrum and deposited it further downstream.100 Discoveries of veins and ancient mines in the lower Tmolus foothills south of Sardis have been claimed, but none have been substantiated in recent times.101 Although silver has been found also in trace amounts in deposits east of Sardis and in a large reserve near Sarıyurt in the western Tmolus Range, its ancient extraction is not proven outside Sardis.102 Gold was procured from beyond Sardis, however, and ancient evidence has been noted for a few key sources. Mines on Mt. Sipylus are said to have provided the wealth of Tantalus and his descendants, and early twentieth-century investigations claimed to have found them.103 Other early twentieth-century investigations noted workings in eastern Lydia, ¨ 104 In addition to these sources, several others north and east of Gure. may have been exploited in antiquity, although this exploitation has not been demonstrated. These include sources near Es¸me in eastern Lydia, on 56

Lydian Geography and Environment

¨ in the Cilbian Plains Mt. Olympus,105 and in the Cayster Valley near Kure and further west near Tire.106 Other popular metals extracted in ancient times include copper and iron. Copper has been found in the area around Thyateira, and a guild of copper workers there was prosperous in later antiquity.107 Insignificant deposits are located also in the middle Hermus River valley west of Sardis and in the Tmolus, but again, their use in antiquity has yet to be shown.108 The sources for ancient Lydian iron have yet to be located, too, although its use was widespread and several rich deposits are known from eastern Lydia and the Cilbian Plains.109 One possible ancient source was Mt. Sipylus, where iron in the form of magnetite was seen in antiquity, leading some to see in its presence there an explanation for the name of Magnesia ad Sipylum.110 Many other metals, minerals, and plants were put to important uses in Lydian antiquity – too many, in fact, to describe here in full. A sampling of such items and their uses includes sulfur, used as a wool softener, found in deposits usually associated with hot springs like those just east of Sardis and elsewhere in northern and eastern Lydia,111 and woad (Isatis tinctoria), a plant used as a textile-dyeing agent that grows on Mt. Sipylus.112 Numerous other organic and inorganic materials were used as pigments for textiles, decorative arts, and architecture. Yellow pigment was derived primarily from yellow ochre, a limonitic iron oxide found near Sardis in antiquity.113 It could also be made from orpiment, an arsenic sulfide found associated with hot springs near Sardis. Realgar, another arsenic sulfide, occurs with orpiment, and grinding it produces a reddish-orange pigment.114 Reds were derived more commonly from mineral hematite, red ochre (a hematiterich clay found in the Cilbian Plains), and cinnabar (a mercury sulfide), ancient mines of which have been found in the Cayster Valley.115 Black and purplish- or brownish-black pigments were derived from manganese, but although sources of this mineral have been found north of Mt. Sipylus and in eastern Lydia, no ancient workings have been attested.116 Lead, usually found as the lead sulfide galena, was used to craft figurines and sling bullets and may have been used also to make black pigment for cosmetic use. Lead ore has been found all over Lydia but nowhere with clear evidence of ancient exploitation.117 Black cosmetics may have been derived more commonly from an antimony sulfide called stibnite, sources of which are known in the Tmolus, the Cogamus Valley, the Cayster Valley, and Mt. Olympus, the latter two areas producing evidence of ancient working.118 Finally, hydrothermal springs – the producers of many utilized minerals – may have been considered highly valued resources in antiquity. 57

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Ancient activities have been attested archaeologically at hot springs just southeast of Sardis, both west and east of Magnesia ad Sipylum, and along the Hermus River in the Catacecaumene.119 A hot spring in northeastern Lydia has even been described as Croesus’ “rural retreat and spa,” although neither historical nor archaeological evidence supporting this claim has been presented.120 These, and many other hot springs in Lydia, must have held special importance for ancient Lydians, and undoubtedly served as resources in religious if not material ways.121

THE RICHNESS AND DIVERSITY OF LYDIAN LANDSCAPES

The region of ancient Lydia in western Anatolia was blessed with geologic and climatic conditions and rich resources that allowed diverse economic strategies in addition to basic subsistence. Environmental and agricultural data show that almost all areas of Lydia can support settlement, and some are better suited than others to the cultivation of particular crops and the husbandry of certain animals. With the exception of fine white marble, which may have been exchanged over long distances, quarried stone was most probably used for local consumption because of the prohibitive costs of overland transport. Precious metals, other minerals, and valuable plants, agricultural goods, and animal products, however, were probably compact and light enough for regional exchange both in raw or unfinished and in processed or finished forms. We will see examples of such production and exchange activities at Sardis in Chapter 4. Because of the beneficial geography and resources of Lydia, such activities, in varying degrees of intensity, were probably commonplace throughout the region and can help us understand the significance of settlement distributions across greater Lydian landscapes.

58

CHAPTER FOUR

Settlement and Society at Sardis

As richly suited to settlement as many of the landscapes of Lydia were, only one locus of habitation in the Lydian period attained urban status – Sardis. The archaeology of Sardis over the century since H. C. Butler first opened formal excavations at the site in 1910 provides us much information, ranging from small and domestic to monumental and public contexts. The Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, the second expedition at the site, cosponsored by Harvard and Cornell Universities and continuously active since 1958, has produced the bulk of the evidence, shedding light on houses and household economies, small and large-scale craft production and exchange, royal, administrative, and public building projects, cults and cult places, and Lydian society, in general. Before examining the evidence for such things, we will explore the geography and development of Sardis from the Early through the Late Lydian periods, with introductions to the main excavation sectors of the site. Burial contexts from Sardis and their significance for aspects of Lydian society in the Middle and Late Lydian periods are not to be found here but rather are collected in Chapter 6 along with data from central and greater Lydia. In what follows, interpretations and conclusions are drawn from currently available data. Only a small percentage of Lydian Sardis has actually been excavated – less than 1 percent1 – and thus it is certain that the synthetic and sometimes speculative conclusions drawn here will have to be updated by finds from ongoing and future fieldwork. Nevertheless, the development of Sardis and the character of its Middle and Late Lydian society emerge from what is presently known.

59

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

THE GEOGRAPHY AND DEVELOPMENT OF SARDIS

Recent work shows that Sardis was just one of many sites scattered across central Lydian landscapes in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, with evidence indicating no extraordinary status. When compared to the remains of hut dwellings in second-millennium Sardis, in fact, several contemporary sites with monumental stone architecture located in the foothills surrounding the Gygaean Lake indicate that this area held equal or greater importance in regional organization during these times, and perhaps also in earlier periods of prehistory.2 By the late eighth or early seventh century, however, Sardis emerged from a constellation of Early Iron Age settlements as the primary population center of the region, eventually attaining an unprecedented scale and urban status. Historical references suggest that the rise of Sardis by this time may have resulted from some sort of internal revolt.3 Whether or not we believe fully the romantic stories of Herodotus and Plato or the more sober reports of Plutarch and purportedly of Xanthus (as related by Nicholas of Damascus) about how Gyges cuckolded the last Heraclid king and usurped the Lydian throne, the Mermnad Dynasty of Gyges and his successors is the first Lydian dynasty for which we have external historical evidence of international power and interaction. Less clear are the structures of early political institutions, social organization, and economic networks that eventually precipitated, setting the stage for the imperial growth of Sardis. Greek authors do suggest the prominence of long and early Lydian dynasties, but such testimony, for the most part, was teleologically intended to provide an ancestral pedigree for Sardis and is based in conflicting chronicles of dynastic lineages that may relate to and incorporate Late Bronze and Early Iron Age events in western Anatolia that were not necessarily centered on or even related to Sardis.4 Nevertheless, by the late eighth or early seventh century, Sardis commenced an increasingly urban trajectory, surpassing the development of all other presently known settlements in the area, and continued to grow through the first half of the sixth century, when it shone as the capital of an internationally influential territorial empire. The rise in power at Sardis was related probably to its strategic location along a major route of communication and to its naturally defensible situation. Furthermore, its location in central Lydia would have allowed for the exploitation of rich resources in its immediate hinterland, including, most famously, the electrum of the Pactolus River, and the richly fertile plains flanking the Hermus River and surrounding the Gygaean Lake. 60

Settlement and Society at Sardis W 004

W 002

N 200

4 Sector HoB 10 Sector PN 13 Sector PC 14 Pyramid Tomb 15 Excavation House 16 Northeast Wadi 17 Temple of Artemis 19 Kagırlık Tepe 20.1 Sector AcT 23 Sector ByzFort

N

0 26 46 51 52

100

E 200

o Pa c t l us R iv er

N 400

Contour interval 10 m except Mounds 1-4: contour interval 2 m. Elevations in m ASL.

0

200 m

Theater Pre-Hellenistic Walls AcN Walls AcS Walls

E 400

E 600

E 800

E 1000

E 1200

E 1400

Mound 4 Mound 3

N 400

W 006

Mound 2

64?

Mound 1

64 Lydian Fortification (& Sector CW) 64a Sector MMS 68 Field 49 Wall 74 Sector Mound 2 80 Field 77 Terrace

N 200

W 800

SARDIS URBAN PLAN

0

0

M-131 PTS, NDC 1999-2008

Former Izmir-Anka ra Highway

64a S 200

S 200

4

10

S 400

64

23

S 600

S 400 S 600

80

26

68

64

S 800

54

lus

cto

14

S 1000

Pa

46 S 1000

S 800

River

13

51 19

200 m W 008

52

17

150 m W 006

S 1200

S 1200

Main Necropolis

20.1

16

15

150 m W 004

W 002

0

E 200

E 400

E 600

E 800

E 1000

E 1200

E 1400

Figure 4.1. Urban plan of Sardis, showing excavation sectors and major features of the Middle and Late Lydian periods (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

In the immediate vicinity of Sardis, the Pactolus may also have been important early on, because it appears to have separated areas of the city meant for the living from those reserved for the dead. Although the urban cemeteries lie west of the Pactolus, all traces of Middle Lydian occupation lie on and in the foothills surrounding an acropolis of great defensibility east of the river, where excavations have discovered their presence (Figure 4.1). Major excavation sectors at the site are described here in the chronological sequence of their primary remains in order to introduce the reader to the geography of Sardis. A synthesis of the significance of the development of the site with reference to historically documented events follows.

Major Excavation Sectors The earliest levels at Sardis are found in the foothills north and northwest of the acropolis, especially in the excavation sector called “House of Bronzes” (HoB) after a Late Roman house containing several bronze objects, which was found to overlie earlier levels that date back to the 61

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander Table 4.1. Lydian chronological phases correlated to archaeological sectors and phases at Sardis General period name Late Lydian/Achaemenid

Middle Lydian

Sardis sector abbreviation (Phase)

Tentative dates (BCE)

HoB (Achaemenid); AcS; LA; MMS; NEW; PN

Mid/Late 6th C.–Late 4th C.

HoB (Lydian I); AcN; MMS; Late 7th C.–Mid/Late NEW; PN; PC 6th C. HoB (Lydian II); AcT; MMS; Early–Mid-7th C. NEW; PN; PC HoB (Lydian III); PC

Mid–Late 8th C.

Early Lydian

HoB (Early Iron Age, Lydian IV)

c. 1100 (?)–Mid-8th C.

Late Bronze Age

HoB (Late Bronze Age)

c. 1400–1200

Late Bronze Age, and possibly earlier.5 Between the Late Bronze Age and Late Roman levels, the excavations at HoB provide the longest continuous sequence of levels at Sardis spanning all Lydian phases (Table 4.1). By the Middle Lydian period, architectural units in HoB formed what appear to have been domestic workshop complexes, the first phase of which (Lydian II) was larger and more coherently organized than later phases, suggesting an early importance of this area that may have declined over time. Other areas of settlement showing similar levels of complexity were located along the east bank of the Pactolus itself. Excavations in sector “Pactolus Cliff” (PC) uncovered levels of the Early and Middle Lydian periods (≈HoB phases Lydian III–I), and those at “Pactolus North” (PN) revealed levels of the Middle and Late Lydian periods (≈HoB phases Lydian II–I and Achaemenid).6 The size of the architecture and nature of finds at PC suggest some public function in addition to domestic activities, and the area of PN saw multipurpose use, too, including domestic, religious, and industrial activities. Industrial activities at PN were likely under centralized control and reflect the consolidated political organization of Sardis by this time. The earliest evidence for settlement on the acropolis of Sardis, a possible center of such political control, dates to the Middle Lydian period (≈HoB phase Lydian II) and consists of relatively modest stratified remains on its top (“Acropolis Top”; AcT). By the mid-sixth century (≈HoB phase Lydian I), however, the north-facing slopes of the peak (“Acropolis North”; AcN) appear to have been revetted with fine ashlar terrace walls made of limestone that provided a level area for buildings and/or activities of 62

Settlement and Society at Sardis

Figure 4.2. Reconstruction drawing of acropolis spur revetments at Sardis sectors Field 49 (left) and ByzFort (right), to S (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

presumably great significance but of which very few archaeological traces survive.7 Lower north-facing spurs of the acropolis were similarly revetted around the same time, and excavations at sectors “Field 49” and especially “Byzantine Fort” (ByzFort) have revealed remains of probably public or royal function, and perhaps even associated industrial activities dating to this and earlier times (Figure 4.2).8 Similar terrace walls may have revetted western acropolis spurs, too, at “Wall 46,”9 for example, and on a spur above the “North East Wadi” (NEW),10 a sector where excavations uncovered a complex of presumably private structures dating to the Middle and Late Lydian periods (≈HoB phases Lydian II–I and Achaemenid). The early history of terracing and fortification at Sardis is quite obscure and almost totally unexcavated, yet the construction of a monumental fortification wall encircling a ca. 108-hectare area immediately north of and encompassing the northern foothills of the acropolis probably predates the architectural revetment of natural spurs that transformed the Sardian landscape (Figures 4.1, 4.3). As exposed in the descriptively named excavation sectors “Monumental Mudbrick Structure” (MMS), “Mound 2” (MD2), and “City Wall” (CW), the fortification wall was built primarily in the very late seventh or early sixth century, with an additional slightly earlier phase and with various modifications occurring into the mid-sixth century (≈HoB phase Lydian I).11 Work in the primary excavation sector associated with the fortification, sector MMS, revealed also domestic/workshop complexes 63

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

dating to the same period, presumably closely postdating the fortification itself,12 and similar contexts have recently been recovered from the Theater sector, as well, just within the eastern limit of the fortification wall.13

Historical Development As revealed over several decades of excavations in these various sectors of the site, Sardis was probably a thriving Lydian town already by the end of the eighth century, the end of the Early Lydian period, with settlement at least along the banks of the Pactolus River and on the lower acropolis foothills, as shown at PC and HoB, the only sectors in which deep excavations were made to reveal such early levels. By the early to mid-seventh century, in the first phase of the Middle Lydian period under the Mermnads (≈HoB phase Lydian II), a sprawl of settlement covered the site with activities now focused on the acropolis, on and around its northern foothill spurs from east to west, and again along the Pactolus River. The evidence of this period is consistent with the gradual development of cities on the Anatolian model of agricultural villages surrounding fortified citadels.14 Furthermore, some of the remains, a large stone foundation and pithos-storage facility at ByzFort, for example, suggest the beginnings of monumentalization that presumably reflects increasing consolidation of the Lydian kingdom and, perhaps, foreshadows later imperial developments. With the rise of Lydia to the status of empire under Alyattes and Croesus, lower Sardis was fortified with a monumental wall in the late seventh or early sixth century (≈HoB phase Lydian I). By the mid-sixth century its acropolis and foothill spurs were revetted with monumental terrace walls to support important buildings and activities. Although “central Sardis” within the fortification was already inhabited in the seventh century and perhaps earlier, this area probably became the primary focus of settlement in the sixth century, perhaps to the detriment of areas outside the wall, as is suggested by the relative diminution in size and organization of Lydian I complexes at HoB. This may not have applied universally, however, as domestic activities at PC and industrial activities at PN continued at least until the mid-sixth century and perhaps thereafter. By the mid-sixth century, then, an urban area of Sardis had fully developed and was populated not only by an extended royal family, but also by other political and social elites, religious officials, craft specialists, and undoubtedly many others. How many people lived at Sardis in this period is difficult to ascertain because of the small percentage of Sardis actually excavated and our still relatively poor understanding of Lydian use 64

Settlement and Society at Sardis

Figure 4.3. Reconstruction drawing of the Lydian fortification wall and gate at Sardis, to NE (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

of domestic and public space. Population estimates have ranged from the low tens of thousands, to 20,000, to as many as 50,000 inhabitants,15 and somewhere probably in the lower end of this range lies the safest estimate. In the fifth generation of Mermnad kings, in the mid-540s, Cyrus the Great and his Persian forces sacked Sardis and left scattered throughout the city impressive remains of destruction.16 The strategic strength and administrative legacy of Sardis ensured its continued importance in the subsequent period of Achaemenid hegemony, as attested by the reconstruction of the fortification wall. Historical testimony and the construction of additional fortifications on the southern slope of the acropolis (“Acropolis South,” AcS) show the continued importance of the acropolis as a strong citadel and probably as an administrative center as well.17 The residents of Sardis in the Late Lydian period may have rebuilt their dwellings just as their defenses were refortified, but surprisingly few archaeological exposures at the city attest to such reconstructions over more than two hundred years of Achaemenid Persian control, and this is perhaps to be interpreted as evidence of a relative abandonment of the northern foothills of the Acropolis.18 In light of the absence of a rich record of occupation at Sardis in these times, Lydian society at Sardis in the Achaemenid period has been reconstructed best from textual evidence in addition to significant funerary remains at the city. Nevertheless, scattered refuse pits and occupational deposits bespeak some inhabitation at the site, and a few monuments were built anew or refashioned in the Achaemenid period. These include 65

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

the “Lydian Altar” of Artemis next to the later Temple of Artemis and a few presumably domestic buildings and wells, and a small altar at PN. A shift in settlement out of some areas of the Pactolus, which were at least partly given over to funerary use after the Persian conquest,19 and new additions to ceramic assemblages and architectural forms, appearing by the early fifth century, reflect some changes in settlement and life subsequent to Persian conquest. Much of the archaeology of Late Lydian Sardis, however, suggests at least an equal degree of continuity in traditions from the period of Lydian independence, and this can be seen in a variety of material evidence ranging from small-scale and private to large-scale and public contexts.

LYDIAN HOUSES AND DOMESTIC ECONOMY

Domestic architecture at Sardis has been revealed across almost the entire site, indicating dense inhabitation by the mid-sixth century. Eighth-century remains in HoB and PC unfortunately allow no broad synthesis because of their restricted exposures and poor preservation, but more can be said about seventh and sixth century houses of the Middle Lydian period.20 It is in this period that we can begin to understand something about Lydian households at Sardis. Almost all of the houses of these times were built following the age-old tradition of laying sun-baked mudbricks atop stone foundations. Foundation stones vary in size and type but usually fall into the general categories of “river stones” or “fieldstones” the size of small cobbles; they were typically packed together with a muddy mortar. Lydian mudbricks likely consisted of muds and clays from local sources and used little or no straw or chaff tempering, bucking long-standing Anatolian tradition. Archaeological finds have substantiated Herodotus’ claim that Lydian houses were roofed with thatch, but fine architectural terracottas of essentially Greek form with linear and figural decoration have been recovered as well (Figure 4.4).21 Whether these fine tiles were reserved for specific classes of buildings or for the buildings of specific classes of people cannot yet be determined, but their distribution is fairly wide across the site. The main constructional units of the Lydian house, then, included stone foundations, walls made of mudbrick, and thatch or tiled roofs, probably gabled, supported above the walls with the help of posts. With these units, Lydian builders created a variety of house plans. Not one house at Sardis has been completely excavated, but the parts of several houses that have been exposed show that houses most usually comprised an agglomeration of single and multiroom structures connected by a party wall 66

Settlement and Society at Sardis

Figure 4.4. Reconstruction of a Middle Lydian house at Sardis, showing stone foundation, mudbrick superstructure, and terracotta revetments and roof tiles (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

at their rear that unified them around an enclosed courtyard (Figure 4.5). As we will see below, both the structures and the courtyards served a variety of functions. The seventh-century example of such a complex at HoB is much larger than later examples known from MMS, NEW, and PN, but

O

L

J B

K

Drain

D A

Pit G

E

Well

F

Pit SECTOR MMS

SECTOR HoB H

HoB & MMS PLANS N

0

5

10 m

Phase:

Lydian I Lydian I–II Lydian II Reconstructed Wall

Figure 4.5. Comparative plans of Lydian houses at Sardis sectors HoB and MMS, with shading keyed to phases (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

67

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

too few examples have been fully uncovered to show a consistent pattern of size reduction over time. Of the various structures, so-called kitchen spaces appear to have served most domestic functions associated with food production. Each kitchen had a low bench for grinding grain on querns, at least one stone-lined hearth, and storage facilities of some sort. These facilities were permanent features like bins built into interior corners and wooden cupboards or shelves affixed to walls, or movable items like baskets and ceramic jars.22 They stored foodstuffs in addition to sets of ceramic wares for cooking, serving, and table use. Some kitchen units in HoB appear to have had spaces reserved for other activities, as well, separated by wooden or reed (wattle-and-daub) partitions. Perhaps these are what Herodotus envisioned when he noted that Lydian houses were built of reeds.23 Other activities were conducted in associated structures or in courtyards, some of which were cobbled, as discovered at NEW.24 Clusters of two domestic complexes in PN may even have been focused around wells within courtyards. Other subterranean features included refuse or storage pits, or bothroi, covered by wooden planks, as found in the courtyard of a house in MMS, and finished basements or cellars probably used for storage, as found in a seventh-century context at ByzFort and a sixthcentury context at NEW.25 The construction of subterranean cellars is an interesting phenomenon and, if related to overcrowding and not just good storage conditions, may suggest a high density of settlement at Sardis already at this time. Such is the picture we get of housing at Sardis, and houses configured like these continued to be built at least through the sixth century in HoB and PN, where several structures may have been converted from earlier industrial use.26 House density probably continued to be high at least until the early fifth century, when Herodotus describes fires jumping from house to house during the Ionian Revolt.27 The composition and size of Lydian households in general are topics of great interest, and continued excavation will further expose critical details, allowing us more vivid glimpses of Lydian life. Household size at Sardis and in all Lydia must have depended on a variety of social issues in addition to the nature and intensity of domestic activities, and these were not limited to subsistence alone. It is likely that a variety of household sizes with a range of domestic economic activities existed, from single-family or nuclear arrangements, with only basic subsistence production activities geared toward internal consumption, to extended households including larger numbers of relatives and slaves involved with industries focused on external consumption, including 68

Settlement and Society at Sardis

production and processing of surplus agricultural and pastoral goods and small-scale craft production.28 The primary productive activities in any Lydian household were most likely related to the preparation of food. Such activities have been identified in the excavated houses of Sardis, where evidence indicates a range of rural production and agricultural and pastoral activities. The remains at Sardis speak most directly to the richness of the Lydian diet based in the products of both field agriculture and tree-fruit cultivation. Most abundant of the agricultural products were cereals, such as barley (Hordeum distichum/vulgare) and bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), modern variants of both of which are still grown in Lydia today.29 Barley has been found at Sardis both hulled and dehulled, indicating the domestic processing of “pearl barley,” known also from excavations at the Phrygian capital at Gordion; if Lydians shared Greek recipes, then this type of barley was probably used in a barley meal or porridge-like concoction.30 Other cereal-processing and related food-production activities at Sardis are indicated by saddle querns and so-called breadtrays. Querns found associated with kitchens and in situ on a low bench in a house at MMS were used for grinding grains into flour; breadtrays were used for baking flour mashes over open hearths. Most common among other food plants preserved in the archaeological record at Sardis are leguminous pulses including lentils (Lens culinaris) and chickpeas (Cicer arietinum), and these were likely used in a variety of stew-like and other dishes.31 More rarely attested but still important foodstuffs included garlic (Allium sativum), carbonized cloves of which were recovered whole at MMS, and grapes (Vitis vinifera), indicative of a thriving viticulture suggested also by contemporary drinking assemblages and historical sources.32 Tree fruits consumed in Lydian antiquity were abundant also and were used in a variety of concoctions attested at Sardis and by ancient authors. Olives (Olea europaea), chestnuts (Castanea sp.), and walnuts (Juglans sp.), as ¨ uk ¨ from described in Chapter 3, are present in the pollen record from Golc the end of the second millennium through the Late Lydian period and show the popularity of tree-cropping practices from early times, as evidenced also from the remains at Sardis.33 Lydian hazelnuts, apples, and pomegranates – all praised by Theophrastus – were also found in the pollen record from ¨ uk. ¨ 34 As mentioned in Chapter 3, the chestnut, or “Sardis acorn,” was Golc a popular Lydian export.35 In addition to these nuts, pine nuts are known from excavations at Sardis and can still be collected from any number of pine forests scattered throughout the region, but especially among the higher elevations of the main mountain ranges and in the uplands between northern and eastern Lydia. 69

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

In addition to cultivation, animal husbandry, too, must have been a common subsistence activity, and bones of ovicaprids (sheep and goat), cattle, buffalo, horses, donkey, pig, camel, and poultry have been recovered from excavations at Sardis; the presence of most of these animals in ancient Lydia is attested also by historical sources.36 A quantity of 0.3–0.4 cubic meters of bones belonging probably to sheep, goats, pig, poultry, and bovines were recovered from just one of the Lydian houses at Sardis alone and may show the importance of meat in Sardian diets.37 Interestingly, however, excavations have yet to uncover evidence of stables, pens, or other features commonly associated with animal husbandry – at Sardis or in its hinterland. The courtyards of houses show no evidence of having been used for penning animals, and no other stable-like features have been identified. This is particularly surprising given ancient references to the strength of the Lydian cavalry, which would suggest the presence of a large number of horses, at least, both at Sardis and in its hinterland. Although the attachment of stables to houses remains undocumented, the lack of other husbandry-related features is not entirely surprising. Horse stables, sheepfolds, other animal pens, milking and shearing facilities, and other pastoral features may have been located in a particular neighborhood of the ancient city that has yet to be excavated, or the same could have been located entirely outside the city where they are unlikely to be discovered. Also, husbandry constructions may have followed present-day patterns of ephemeral and temporary constructions built of thistle and thorny brush and thus would be very difficult to identify without proof from soil or other chemical analyses, which have not yet been employed on a large scale in recent excavations.

SMALL-SCALE CRAFT PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE

Domestic contexts at Sardis indicate not only processing and production of foodstuffs, but also small-scale craft production or “cottage industry” organized on the household level. As a natural corollary of animal husbandry, Lydians engaged actively in the production of nondietary, secondary animal products including textiles and leatherwork. Lydian textiles were so fine, in fact, that legend celebrated them with the tale of the weaving contest between Athena and Arachne. Arachne was later transformed into a spider because of her weaving expertise.38 Loom weights abound in excavated contexts at Sardis, and enough were found in the courtyard of one house at MMS to outfit at least three looms for weaves of differing gauges.39 70

Settlement and Society at Sardis

Lydians were famed not just for weaving textiles, but for dyeing them as well, and for the manufacture of colorful (embroidered?) headbands and footwear.40 The latter probably also employed the acclaimed Lydian leather work, and later in history several Lydian cities had guilds of leather workers in addition to guilds of wool workers, dyers, and dealers.41 In addition to wool, flax was woven into famous linens at Sardis, and it has been recovered in Lydian contexts.42 Figure 4.6. Melon-shaped glass bead from a doThe dyeing of ivory, not just textiles, mestic workshop in Sardis sector MMS (Sardis cat. was a specialty of the Lydians, too, no. G86.6:9299) (© Archaeological Exploration of according to Homer, and the pres- Sardis/Harvard University). ence of ivory workshops at Sardis is suggested by the discovery in a tomb of a small ivory head, perhaps representing a priestess (?), as well as possibly Sardian ivories found in other areas of Lydian influence.43 Production of crafts using rare resources must have been prominent in their specific resource procurement zones in greater Lydia and/or elsewhere, and it occurred at Sardis also, where we can expect a higher number of craft producers to have lived. Evidence for production of small crafts from rare materials has been identified in many areas of Sardis and appears to have occurred in workshop structures incorporated into house complexes, alongside other forms of domestic production. For example, immediately next to a kitchen in a Lydian house at MMS was a structure dedicated to glass working (Figure 4.6), and in other domestic contexts at PN rockcrystal cutters and jewelers may have worked side-by-side (Figure 4.7).44 Ornamental stone working in colorful varieties of chalcedony is attested at least by the mid-sixth century at Sardis, and seal and gem-cutting traditions using other fine stones and employing a variety of local, Greek, Figure 4.7. Rock-crystal lion figurine from a workshop in Sardis sector PN (Sardis cat. no. and Persian styles continued well into G64.2:6339) (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University). the fifth century.45 71

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Of all of the small-scale crafts at Sardis, we have the most evidence, both materially and chronologically, for ceramics – both their production and exchange. Although we can discount an early suggestion that a structure in HoB was a Lydian pot shop,46 we can say only that most classes of Lydian pottery found at Sardis were probably produced in workshop complexes, perhaps attached to domestic spaces. One hopes that future discoveries of kilns will clarify the question of the locations of ceramic production, but, for the time being, interpretations of ceramic production and exchange must rely on ceramics discovered in other contexts. From the eighth century on, Lydian ceramics owe much in form and decoration to examples imported from both east and west. In addition to ceramic imports and influences from Phrygia and elsewhere in Anatolia, examples from mainland and East Greece were increasingly imported throughout the seventh century, with the influx of Corinthian, Attic, and Laconian wares reaching a peak in the reign of Alyattes in the early sixth century.47 Production of Lydian plain and decorated ceramics ran parallel to foreign imports, with some local products imitating imports in form and/or finish, such as the Lydian skyphos and column crater, which were both popular vessels associated with drinking and derivative of originally Corinthian shapes. Middle Lydian ceramic traditions continue into the Late Lydian period at Sardis and in central Lydia, although a thinning of ceramic vessels is evident in some tablewares, cooking pots, and so-called breadtrays.48 The overall character of Lydian ceramic assemblages remains relatively unchanged, however, with utilitarian and tablewares in plain and ornamented varieties, including the distinctive form of the lydion and the decorative treatments known as marbling and streaky glaze, still popular in the fifth century at Sardis and throughout Lydia (Figure 4.8).49 The importation of Greek pottery continued in the second half of the sixth century, with the stream of Attic wares, in particular, increasing in the first half of the fifth century and again in the fourth century.50 Greek wares outnumber ceramics imported from elsewhere and local imitations of the same. Yet, despite these clear links to Greek exchange networks, these assemblages make up but a small fraction of the total ceramic assemblage. The strength of local ceramic traditions reflects an emphasis on Lydian aesthetics and continued modes of production and consumption throughout the Late Lydian period. At the same time, however, production included local imitations of originally foreign shapes, attesting admiration of and increased local demand for new products. 72

Settlement and Society at Sardis

Figure 4.8. Common forms and decorations of Lydian ceramics (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

The “Achaemenid bowl” is one such imitated shape. Appearing in Sardian contexts by the early fifth century and still popular in the fourth century and later in domestic and funerary contexts, the ceramic version of this drinking cup appears to have overcome the skyphos in popularity.51 Locally produced and widespread ceramic examples of Achaemenid bowls imitated rarer bronze and precious metal versions of the same shape known from especially rich funerary contexts in central and greater Lydia.52 Some examples of such Persian metalwares were imported into Lydia, yet others were produced locally, presumably at Sardis.53 Because of the restricted nature of their material, however, the production of such vessels was likely more tightly controlled than that of ceramics, along with some classes of larger-scale craft production. LARGE-SCALE CRAFT PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE

Some items of small-scale production at Sardis saw widespread and foreign consumption – jewelry, textiles, various foodstuffs, perfumes and unguents in distinctively named lydion vessels, and so forth – and they reached their markets probably via down-the-line types of trade perhaps initiated by Lydian kapeloi (peddlers) and agoraioi (merchants).54 For royal consumption at Sardis a certain amount of foodstuffs and other fine household goods and decorations were probably produced in more specialized workshops like those found at the Phrygian capital of Gordion.55 Procurement and longdistance exchange of other materials and crafts in Anatolia and elsewhere during the Lydian and Achaemenid periods is attested clearly by ancient authors and inscriptions. Xenophon mentions the quarrying of millstones 73

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

sold in Babylon and Herodotus the mining of salt from a lake near Anaua ¨ u) ¨ in Phrygia, east of Colossai.56 Royal inscriptions at (modern Acı Gol Susa show that Darius had exotic goods procured from far and wide for the construction and embellishment of his new capital.57 Who practiced and controlled the procurement and production of such goods in Lydia is unattested, but it is likely that at least initially the procurement and production of some types of goods were under the control of political and social elites at Sardis and/or were practiced as royal ventures. Included in this class of goods were the products of the mining of metals and metalworking and the quarrying of stones and stone working. Evidence for royally controlled procurement and production of precious metals probably includes the Mermnad Gyges’ activities in Abydos, where Milesians needed Gyges’ consent to settle. Gyges’ likely interest in the area results from its strategic situation near the gold mines of Astyra.58 Royal Lydian interest in the gold mines located between Atarneus and Pergamum, for which no Lydian period exploitation has yet been demonstrated, may have been Alyattes’ reason for assigning Croesus to the post of governor at Adramyttium, if this was not just a strategic decision related to the Cimmerian contingent living nearby at Antandrus.59 That not only kings, but also others with the means to do so could participate in the procurement and production of precious metals in the Achaemenid period is demonstrated by the story of the very rich Lydian Pythius, who controlled the mining of gold just southeast of Lydia proper.60 Pythius may have been a special case, though, as he may have been related to the Lydian royal family.61 During the initial periods of procurement and production, anyway, it is difficult to imagine anyone but the very rich making investments of time and resources in activities like mining or quarrying. The risks, labor, and time involved would have discouraged most others from involvement. The best example of an industry at Sardis that was probably under at least some degree of royal sponsorship and control is the refinery at PN that specialized in the two-stage process of separating gold from Pactolus electrum and separating silver from the byproduct of the gold-separation process (Figure 4.9).62 Royal involvement with this area at Sardis is debatable given the lack of evidence for controlled access, the use of ordinary objects in the specialized process (everyday cooking pots), and the combined domestic and industrial nature of the area. The precious nature of the materials involved, however, and their original extraction from the placer deposits of the Pactolus, not to mention the esoteric knowledge of the technological process, strongly suggest that the refinery was not a private but a royally sponsored enterprise. Although 74

Settlement and Society at Sardis

Figure 4.9. Reconstruction drawing of activities at the precious metal refinery at Sardis sector PN (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

the specific purposes to which products of the PN refinery were put remains speculative, the earliest known use of Sardian electrum was for the production of Lydian coins in the mid- to late seventh century, perhaps under Alyattes; it is easy to imagine that the most important end product of the refined gold and silver produced at refineries like that uncovered at PN would have been the bimetallic coinage allegedly invented by Croesus. That the raw materials for Lydian coinage – electrum and its byproducts of gold and silver – could have been controlled by anyone but Lydian royalty is difficult to accept. For the same reasons – the perceived value of the material, the basic importance of the coinage, and the knowledge and amount of labor required for acquisition and processing – later refining and coin minting at Sardis must have been under Achaemenid governmental control, and the same has been suggested for the production of vessels in metal plate.63 Control of other early metal technologies by political or social elites at Sardis is probable, too, where tin bronze and other copper alloys were produced by the third millennium and iron objects by the early first millennium.64 As already suggested, the production of Late Lydian metalwares at Sardis was probably under similar control. Architectural and sculptural stone working, too, might initially have been royal, if not just elite-sponsored crafts. Like metallurgy, stone quarrying, 75

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

transporting, and finishing required not only substantial amounts of labor but also specialized technological expertise, and here again it is difficult to imagine early large-scale operations under anything but elite or royal control.65 Lydian monumental stone architecture may date as early as the time of Alyattes, and historical sources indicate Alyattes’ involvement with temple construction at Assessos early in his reign.66 Lydian interactions with East Greek poleis and sanctuaries were probably quite influential in the appearance of monumental stone architecture in Lydia, just as they appear to have been for large-scale sculpture.67 Archaic sculpture at Sardis dating to the time Figure 4.10. Archaic statue from Sardis sector of Alyattes is derivative of Samian PN (MM325) (© Archaeological Exploration of and other East Greek predecessors, in Sardis/Harvard University). form as well as in funerary and dedicatory function (Figure 4.10). Later sculptural works show similar influences, and the Greek flavor of Lydian work may be evidenced by Croesus’ dedications of architectural sculpture at the Artemiseum at Ephesus, following earlier dedications of Lydian coins and probably ivories at the same sanctuary, perhaps given by Alyattes.68 Ashlar walls at Sardis of the sixth century were built using technology shared by East Greek masons for moving blocks as well as for both rough and fine finishing. In its initial use in Lydia, ashlar masonry appears to have been dedicated only to public or royal projects – we have already seen its use in the revetment of the Sardian landscape (Figure 4.11), and we will see it again in the construction of monumental royal tombs, discussed in Chapter 6. In a short time, however, by the middle of the sixth century, the technology and tradition of monumental ashlar masonry proliferated, and its previously exclusive use for public or royal purposes at Sardis became widespread for tomb construction throughout Lydia. Sculptural works appear to have followed a similar pattern, with wider spread production of gravestones reflecting the development of different local workshops by the mid-sixth century, and these patterns probably reflect an increase 76

Settlement and Society at Sardis

Figure 4.11. Ashlar masonry of the corner of the terrace wall at Sardis sector ByzFort. Note man crouching on stepped foundation for scale (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

in the number of high-status people throughout the region, as we will see in Chapter 7. This trend of the proliferation of architectural and sculptural works continued into the fifth and fourth centuries in the Lydian countryside and presumably at Sardis, too, even though only a few monumental constructions of this Late Lydian period have been identified at Sardis.

ROYAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS

The majority of buildings for elite, royal, and/or public function at Sardis remain better known from texts than from archaeology. Croesus’ palace, Mermnad and satrapal administrative buildings and military strongholds, the market place, and Achaemenid Persian paradeisoi (enclosed parks) were once well-known landmarks of the urban site, but archaeological evidence has yet to revive their appearance or identify their locations. Historical sources hint at locations and construction techniques: Herodotus has the Pactolus flowing through the market place, for example, and others attest the mudbrick construction of Croesus’ palace (presumably only 77

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

superstructures are meant), which apparently survived into Roman times;69 only a little more can be surmised from historical circumstances and the character of the urban landscape. The palace and administrative center of the Mermnad kings and the Persian satraps, for example, would likely have sat on one of the terraces below the acropolis.70 The large-scale urban landscaping project that effected the limestone ashlar revetment of the lower acropolis spurs must have been undertaken for royal or public use. It is noteworthy that the only presently known, nonfunerary building of the Lydian period at Sardis that was built with marble sat atop the revetted terrace at ByzFort – it was a porched structure of some sort, but only a short section of its stylobate survives (Figure 4.12).71 Perhaps the fine ashlar terrace walls and staircases of limestone on the north slopes of the acropolis – possible mid-sixth century predecessors to similar monumental constructions in the Persian heartland – were associated with related features and may have supported the residences, treasuries, and archives of an upper citadel to be used primarily during times of need as a refuge.72 A structure underlying the marble stylobate at ByzFort included a very large pier or wall associated with numerous pithoi of the late seventh or early sixth century; and richly decorated architectural terracottas and tiles found in the construction fill of the later terrace wall suggest that at least four smaller buildings of the early sixth century stood nearby.73 The importance of these earlier buildings for royal or public activities may actually have led to the eventual monumentalization of the immediate area. Another hint of seventh and sixth century public building comes from PC, where one building with large fieldstone foundations measuring around 9.5 meters long has been considered public because of its large dimensions. Probably predating the spur revetments on the acropolis and its foothills, the construction of the fortification wall of lower Sardis is our best evidence for Sardian royal or public works. The fortification of Sardis served to define the urban core of the city, protecting inhabitants and, perhaps, industry alike, while at the same time externally expressing the power and control of the nascent empire through its monumental construction, taking advantage of and improving on the natural defensibility of the site. The wall is 20 meters wide on average and its original height is estimated at around 15 meters. Its construction follows the basic model of domestic architecture but on a monumental scale, with a primarily mudbrick superstructure above a solid stone foundation. Deviations from this model include a diversity of building techniques and features, suggesting that many different labor crews were active at the same time during the construction.74 A sampling of 78

Settlement and Society at Sardis

Figure 4.12. Marble stylobate at Sardis sector ByzFort, with square foundations for two columns preserved (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

these techniques includes the following: wall sections with wooden saplings and possibly reed matting used as leveling between intervals of mudbrick courses and perhaps meant also to increase internal bonding; wall sections constructed by dumping mixed sandy and muddy fill between internal retaining walls; wall sections containing interior passages; wall sections with semibaked mudbrick and others with stone facing rising more than 4 meters high; and wall sections that appear to be further protected by an exterior glacis of an additional 20-meter thickness.75 All in all, the approximately 3.5 kilometer circuit would have had a volume of around 730,000 cubic meters and, if it had been made of solid mudbrick, would have necessitated the manufacture of between thirty-seven million and seventy-four million mudbricks, depending on the size of the bricks.76 The construction of the ashlar terrace walls on the acropolis and acropolis spurs would have required similarly substantial amounts of labor, especially when considering the quarrying, transporting, and finishing of the limestone blocks that compose their facades. Each of these monumental construction projects was conducted between the late seventh and mid-sixth century, during the reigns of Alyattes and Croesus, and together they represent an extraordinary transformation of the Sardian cityscape over a relatively short time. At no other time in the Lydian and Achaemenid periods did Sardis see the same flurry of urban building projects. It can be no coincidence that it was during this time that the Lydian kings Alyattes and Croesus consolidated their hold on other 79

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

western Anatolian polities, demanding tribute and enforcing its collection through military might. Following the conquest of the city by Cyrus, as has been described already, the fortification wall of the lower city was reconstructed on a smaller scale, sealing off a major gateway of the earlier structure, and new fortifications were built to protect the acropolis at AcS, perhaps near the area where the Persians themselves had gained access to the Lydian citadel. The precise dates of these construction activities are not known, but some time in the late sixth or early fifth century is likely.77 Other than these fortifications, however, wells and the rebuilding of a possible “fountain house” at PN are the only archaeological evidence of public works during the Achaemenid period, but even these are not clearly identified as public.78 Otherwise, next to nothing is known archaeologically about satrapal or public buildings at Sardis during the Achaemenid period.

CULTS AND CULT PLACES

Numerous cult activities at Sardis are attested both archaeologically and textually.79 The Temple of Artemis at Sardis, the most famous building at the site today, dates to the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and no predecessor temple has been identified in the area despite much looking. However, the altar physically associated with this temple – the “Lydian Altar” (LA) – was constructed in the late sixth century and was remodeled in several phases into the fourth century (Figure 4.13). It is the only monumental religious building of the Achaemenid period the plan and construction of which have been established archaeologically; yet its original appearance, once thought to be stepped, remains unclear.80 Given its later accompaniment by a temple of Artemis, it was probably originally dedicated to the same goddess. An archaic sanctuary of Artemis Sardiane (or s´ fardak in Lydian) is attested in numerous inscriptions and historical sources, and it likely encompassed the known monumental altar. A Persian Artemis was worshiped at Sardis, too, however, and an Artemis of Ephesus (or ib´simsis in Lydian) is also attested by inscriptions and historical sources ranging from the second half of the sixth century through the fourth century and later. It is unclear whether these Artemises shared the same sanctuary and altar as the Sardian Artemis. The Artemises at Sardis are honored with dedications and invoked to protect the resting places of the dead, and they show a strong connection between Sardis and the Artemiseum at Ephesus, confirmed by earlier Mermnad dedications. The so-called Sacrilege Inscription of around 340 even suggests that a sacred way connected the sanctuaries of Artemis at the two cities.81 80

Settlement and Society at Sardis

LYDIAN ALTAR COMPLEX N

0

5

10 m

Phase: LA 2 L-shaped wall LA 1

FR 2008

SECTION A - A

SECTION B - B

PLAN

SECTION C - C

Figure 4.13. Plan of the Lydian Altar (LA) in the Artemis Precinct at Sardis, with shading keyed to phases (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

Another Lydian inscription found at Sardis recorded a dedication of the priest Mitridastas to both Artemis and Qλdan´ ˜ s and indicates that the two shared a temple in a sanctuary at the city. The location of this temple and sanctuary remains unknown, and the identification of the Lydian god Qλdan´ ˜ s is still uncertain. Because of his association with Artemis in the Mitridastas inscription and in a Lydian grave inscription, and because no Lydian equivalent of the Greek Apollo has been identified, Apollo is one possible identification for Qλdan´ ˜ s.82 On linguistic and iconographical grounds, however, Qλdan´ ˜ s has been identified also as the Lydian moon god, an earlier version of Mˆen, the latter a probable Phrygian or Persian introduction into Lydia.83 Whether an equivalent of the Greek sun god Apollo or the Persian moon god Mˆen, Qλdan´ ˜ s had a temple at Sardis, but unfortunately it has yet to be revealed archaeologically. Other Lydian gods were direct adoptions of Greek deities and, in addition to cultic connections with Ephesus through Artemis, show links with sacred aspects of contemporary Greek culture witnessed also in secular material forms. Dedications to Lev´s, the Lydian Zeus, were painted on 81

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

pottery by the mid-sixth century, and continued dedications show that his worship lasted until the end of the Achaemenid period.84 By the midfourth century, Zeus appears to have been equated with Ahura Mazda, as shown in the so-called Droaphernes Inscription discussing the cult of Zeus Baradates.85 Inscriptions, relief sculpture, and historical sources from slightly later periods refer also to Greek cults of Apollo, Hera, Demeter, and possibly Aphrodite. Contemporary with the worship of Greek gods were Anatolian and/or Lydian cults of S´ anda´ ˜ s, a Luwian warrior god associated with Heracles by Greeks and perhaps depicted on the earlier eighth ˙ century relief at Ivriz, Baki, probably the Lydian Dionysus, and Agdistis, Ma, and Sabazius, named in the Droaphernes Inscription.86 The physical establishments of such cults remain unknown. Along with Artemis, Cybele was perhaps the most important goddess at Sardis, and she was celebrated with written and sculptural dedications, including lion statues, and constructions of the Lydian and Achaemenid periods. Her Lydian name was probably Kuvava, and a dedication inscribed with the same aided the identification of an altar at Sardis (Figure 4.14). Much smaller than the “Lydian Altar,” the altar of Kuvava at PN consisted of a waist-high platform on the four corners of which sat statuettes of lions, Cybele’s feline companions. The altar was built in the refinery area at PN in the first half of the sixth century, suggesting that Lydian Kuvava may have been a matron of metallurgical technologies practiced there. Following the Persian conquest, the lions were covered up in a renovation perhaps intended to transform the structure into a Persian-style fire altar.87 In this form, it appears to have been used for at least several decades more, indicating the continued importance of the area and that it was probably under centralized political and religious control. Cybele was a protector of kings, and perhaps also the dead, in addition to her watching over the refinery. Her temple at Sardis is known through mention of its fiery destruction in accounts of the sack of Sardis during the Ionian Revolt in 499.88 Its essentially Ionic Greek form is suggested by an intricately worked limestone naiskos dated stylistically to the mid-sixth century (Figure 4.15). Standing in the door of her model temple, Cybele is flanked by snakes and holds what appears to be a lion. Between the columns on the sides and back of the model are low bas-relief depictions of presumably mythological events.89 The naiskos was discovered in a reused context during the excavations of the Synagogue at Sardis, and from another reused context in the same area came more evidence of Cybele in another of her guises: the Mother. Blocks from a Hellenistic 82

Settlement and Society at Sardis

Figure 4.14. Reconstruction drawings of the two phases of the so-called Altar of Cybele in Sardis sector PN (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

building inscribed with their own identification indicate their use in the Metr¨oon of Sardis, the Temple of the Mother.90 Not all religious establishments or activities at Sardis need have been monumentalized by temple constructions or even substantial sanctuary boundaries. The two known altars and the enticing historical and epigraphical evidence of various formalized cults and temples at Sardis is complemented by a series of excavated cultic deposits of so-called ritual 83

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 4.15. The so-called Cybele Naiskos found in a reused context at Sardis (Sardis cat. no. S63.51:5677) (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

dinners (Figure 4.16). Each of these deposits consists of a puppy skeleton, a set of ceramics, and a knife, and each appears to be dedicated to an Anatolian deity, Carian or Lydian.91 How many other deities – almost invisible to the archaeologist – received worship like this at Sardis cannot be estimated. Presumably many gods and goddesses, major and minor, received worship on informal and domestic levels both at Sardis and in the Lydian countryside. Their associations with the deities of other cultures in western Anatolia and in areas to east and west are likely, given the associations of the deities for which we have rich information, and, thus, they bespeak a cosmopolitanism of cultic activities that is reflected throughout Lydian society in both the Middle and Late Lydian periods. 84

Settlement and Society at Sardis

Figure 4.16. A ritual “puppy dinner” assemblage from Sardis, with pitcher, skyphos, and plate, cooking pot, knife, and puppy skeleton (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/ Harvard University).

SARDIS AND LYDIAN SOCIETY

Reconstructing the flavor of Lydian society from the archaeological remains at Sardis is a delicate matter, especially when so few full contexts have been excavated. When combined with evidence from textual and epigraphical sources and mortuary practices, however, some consensus about the structure and nature of Lydian society can be reached. Such evidence shows that a variety of social groups were present in Middle and Late Lydian Sardis, diverse in status as well as in ethnicity. Although the political and social structures of pre-Mermnad Lydians have been seen generally as equivalent to those of Dark Age Greek populations, more can be said of the Mermnad period, especially in the first half of the sixth century.92 By the time of Croesus, and probably much earlier, Lydian society consisted of royalty, nobles, and priests, kapeloi, agoraioi, and cheironaktes, or craftsmen, and other groups attested in historical and epigraphical sources and/or by circumstantial evidence. Although some degree of flexibility should be maintained, these group entities fall into five broad social strata: royalty; high-status or elite groups (nobles, priests and other religious 85

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

officials, etc.); members of a broad middle class (kapeloi, agoraioi, cheironaktes, etc.); commoners (free or perhaps serf-like and tied to elite-owned land); and slaves.93 The royal court was populated by the king, his family (and perhaps extended family), their servants and administrative assistants,94 and noble landowners who probably spent some of their time at court as well, following feudal patterns, and at their residences in the city. For substantial parts of their time, however, landowners were probably occupied with the affairs of their rural estates and their own families, dependents, commoner sharecroppers, and slaves. Members of this noble class may have gained their status through heredity and may have been linked to other elites and members of the royal family by distant kinship, if not by direct intermarriage, gift exchange, and oaths of loyalty.95 The vast majority of inhabitants at Sardis, presumably, comprised members of the broad middle class and commoners, in addition to a smaller population of resident aliens who are discussed below. Clear status distinctions in domestic constructions and configurations at Sardis have yet to be determined, although fine roof tiles and terracotta revetment plaques may be clues, and it may be that Lydians signaled their statuses more regularly with portable goods and in funerary arrangements than they did with everyday material from their daily lives. How Lydian society was further structured according to lineage, gender, wealth, and occupation remains inexactly known. Lydian names associated with later tribes at Sardis – Mermnas, Asias, Tmolis, Pelopis, and Masnes, to name a few – suggest the earlier division of the Lydian populace along similar tribal lines.96 Differentiation along gender lines was likely, too, but the archaeological evidence at Sardis adds little to understandings derived from texts. An activity apparently relegated to Lydian women alone – prostitution – was attested by Herodotus, and this may have specifically related to a form of temple prostitution.97 Men appear to have been alone in pursuing military agendas, but otherwise men and women might have shared many responsibilities, with both achieving significant positions in both political and social hierarchies. Ethnographic examples might suggest that rural men were out in the fields more often than not and that women were occupied more than men with food processing, weaving, and perhaps some types of small-scale production,98 but little more can be said about the structuring of ancient Lydian society with certainty. What else we know about the Lydians from texts comes to us primarily from a Greek perspective, and thus we are told that, although they spoke their own Anatolian language, their cultural traditions differed little from those of the Greeks. As already mentioned, Herodotus claims that the 86

Settlement and Society at Sardis

most glaring departure from Greek culture was the prostitution of Lydian girls to raise their dowries.99 In most other aspects of life, however, Lydians resembled Greeks; in dress and personal ornament, judging from depictions in painting and sculpture, Lydians differed from Greeks only in that Lydian men may have worn earrings in their pierced ears.100 The close connection between Greeks, especially East Greeks, and Lydians is only natural given the interactions and alliances between Lydian kings and Greek poleis and sanctuaries, and interactions on lower levels, too. Greek graffiti and later inscriptions reveal the presence of some Greek inhabitants at Sardis during the Lydian period, perhaps mercenaries hired by the Lydian kings, and Sappho, among others, shows a strong Greek appreciation for Sardis and things Lydian.101 Alyattes even took a Greek wife, the mother of Croesus’ half-brother Pantalion, and Greek lineages and culture thus penetrated the royal house. A series of visits to Sardis from important Greek statesmen and philosophers also show that Greeks were probably a common presence in the city. Anatolian cultural traditions and peoples, too, were integral to the Lydian societal collage at Sardis. Before the collapse of Phrygian power and the rise of the Mermnads in the Middle Lydian period, in fact, material remains suggest that much of Lydia was probably affected by Phrygian traditions.102 Phrygian-style bowls in metal and ceramic forms have been found in graves in Bin Tepe, at Sardis, and at Manisa (cat. nos. 1.3B, 1.21, and 22.1); Phrygian-style fibulae have been recovered at Sardis, Manisa (cat. no. 23.1), and Altınlı, near Soma (cat. no. 9.5B); and a Phrygian name was inscribed using a Phrygian script on a spindle whorl from Kara¨ uk, ¨ just north of Thyateira (modern Akhisar) (cat. no. 8.2).103 sonya Hoy Furthermore, a number of Phrygian-style drinking vessels have been recovered at Sardis.104 In addition to material remains, broad social and religious links to Phrygia are revealed in the textual record. As conveyed by the story of the Phrygian Adrastus, son of Gordias, who sought asylum at Sardis under Croesus, Lydians may have shared common purification rites with Phrygians, as they may have with Greeks.105 Yet, these strong connections do not indicate Phrygian political dominance in Lydia in pre-Mermnad times but rather only the presence in Lydia of strong Anatolian traditions and probably also some people of Phrygian descent. Influences from other Anatolian cultures can be surmised also. Toudo, the wife of Gyges (earlier of Candaules), was said to be a Mysian princess, and Croesus’ mother a Carian.106 Lydian-Carian connections may have been especially strong. Carian Zeus probably had a major temple in the mountains behind Sardis, and, even though names are fickle indicators of 87

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

ethnicity, the personal name “Caros,” quite common at Sardis, suggests at least some interest in things Carian there. Such interest is suggested also by Plutarch’s story of Carian assistance in Gyges’ usurpation, and it is confirmed by the presence of Carians in Lydian Sardis identified by seventh and sixth century Carian inscriptions found associated with a building at HoB.107 These Carians may have been resident mercenaries or merchants, and some have associated with them the deposits of ritual dinners mentioned above.108 Another Anatolian cultural presence at Sardis is indicated by a monumental inscription found reused in the Synagogue.109 The Synagogue Inscription, as it is called, probably dates to the Achaemenid period, and its very presence at Sardis indicates the importance of this yet to be established cultural entity in the city. The picture we see of Lydian society at Sardis so far, then, is one of a richly cosmopolitan nature, with people of diverse backgrounds and traditions coming together at the city, at least by the reigns of Alyattes and Croesus. During this time, Sardis was probably the richest trading hub of western Anatolia and in its diverse composition appears similar to Smyrna of the eighteenth through early twentieth centuries CE, where people of diverse ethnicities and languages interacted in a flourishing artistic and commercial environment. The florescence of Sardis in the first half of the sixth century may have been related to the activities of the kapeloi and agoraioi, whose transactions would have been greatly facilitated by the invention of bimetallic coinage under Croesus. This commercial importance may have produced the few traces of materials at Sardis coming from even farther afield, such as Phoenician-style glass beads and Assyrian-style glazed pottery; at least four bone roundels (probably chapes), an ivory deer appliqu´e, and metal ibex and boar attachments – all produced in an expressive Animal Style – may illustrate the Scythian enclave at the site documented by Herodotus, and perhaps even a local workshop.110 Long-distance political ties, too, may have contributed to the cosmopolitan nature of Lydian Sardis, and these are evidenced by Alyattes’ probable marriage to a Median princess, and Croesus’ alliances with Egypt and Babylon.111 When the cosmopolitan city of Croesus came under Achaemenid control in the mid-sixth century, only the uppermost echelon of the Sardian social hierarchy was replaced with Persians in the immediate aftermath of the conquest. This replacement resulted in the installation of a Persian satrap in the seat of the previous Lydian king and, with the protection of a garrison, some high-status Persians in the court, presumably some Persian servants and attendants like the royal secretary of Oroetes and a satrapal 88

Settlement and Society at Sardis

bodyguard, and perhaps others. Otherwise, the hierarchy of bureaucratic officials and social elites appears to have been left in place and peopled primarily by Lydians. To be sure, the Persian population at Sardis and in greater Lydia probably increased gradually over time, and this may be evidenced in the appearance of Lydian–Aramaic bilingual inscriptions by the mid- to late fifth century, but at first Lydians appear to have retained important positions. Thus, under the satrap Tabalus the Lydian Pactyes was left in charge of the treasury and perhaps the collection of tribute, at least until he spearheaded a revolt. Later, under the satrap Oroetes, the Lydian Myrsus was a trusted advisor and diplomatic ambassador. Other Lydian landowners likely held on to their wealth and rural estates, as did Pythius still in the early fifth century, at least until the mid-fifth century, when some significant changes begin to appear, as we shall see in Chapter 7. Although it was controlled by the Persians, Sardis remained the cosmopolitan city it was under Croesus, with Persians now joining the multicultural population of Lydians, Greeks, Carians, and others, with an admixture of such peoples involved in the activities of the city from the lowest to the highest levels.112 Through this exploration of domestic contexts, craft production, building projects, religious activities, and textual sources, we now have an understanding of what defined Lydian settlement and society at Sardis in the Middle and Late Lydian periods. Yet, how representative was Sardis of the large territory it controlled, and was society in the area it controlled uniformly defined? In Chapter 5, we will explore the nature of settlement and society in the immediate and distant hinterland of Sardis in the Middle and Late Lydian periods, investigating also evidence for ancient interactions between hinterland and capital.

89

CHAPTER FIVE

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

In Chapter 4, we saw evidence for the development and character of settlement at Sardis and for the accompanying society that both created and lived within the capital city. The landscapes of Lydia beyond its capital at Sardis were populated by numerous sites of varying sizes and diverse activities, and it is our purpose here to explore evidence for such sites and activities in order to complement our understanding of settlement and society in Lydia deriving solely from knowledge of Sardis. Settlement and rural activities outside Sardis may have been related to regional control, resource exploitation for local and Sardian needs, and religious practice, as well as basic subsistence, which must have been the most common activity, as suggested by rich textual sources similar to those discussed in Chapter 4. Most such activities leave little evidence on the surface for the archaeologist, however, and are discovered and explored only rarely. In addition, long-term excavations in Lydia have produced fine-grained evidence of the extent, nature, and development of settlement nowhere except at Sardis. Our understanding of the archaeology of Lydia outside Sardis, then, is almost entirely reliant on the results of regional surveys, and these have been conducted for some time, although with varying scopes and goals. Some surveys have focused on epigraphic remains belonging mainly to periods later than those of primary importance here, whereas others have intended to locate sites belonging only to prehistoric eras.1 In modern archaeological parlance, these types of surveys are generally described as “extensive.” Extensive surveys usually cover large areas and aim to discover archaeological remains of a particular period or of a particular type. “Intensive” surveys, in contrast, usually cover smaller areas and record all archaeological remains encountered, indiscriminate of period or type. In intensive surveys, teams of ground-inspecting surveyors usually traverse 91

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

fields or other defined survey units at fixed intervals, in what is commonly referred to as pedestrian field survey, recording what cultural remains they see to identify both sites (areas with high densities of archaeological materials) and “off-site” activities (areas with low densities of archaeological materials). Both types of survey have benefits for answering differing scales of regional research questions, and both have been applied recently in Lydia. Because of their exponentially greater cost in time and other resources, systematic intensive survey approaches have been applied to Lydia – a roughly 22,400-square-kilometer area – in only the relatively small, approximately 350-square-kilometer area of central Lydia surrounding the Gygaean Lake, the study area of the Central Lydia Archaeological Survey. This survey project is intensive in its long-term goals and systematic approach, documenting remains of all periods and types, yet, since its inception in 2005, it has employed a variety of investigative approaches including extensive survey, as well as review of previous archaeological work, ethnographic documentation, geophysical prospection, and use of aerial and satellite imagery.2 Because of the small size of the study area and both previous and ongoing field research within it, we have relatively robust data on the nature and distribution of settlement in central Lydia. For the much larger area of rural, greater Lydia, where intensive survey approaches have been seen as unsuitable because of its great size, we must rely on extensive survey – the documentation of conspicuous archaeological remains of specific periods and types throughout the region – in addition to methods that are sometimes indirect but that can help reconstruct patterns of rural settlement and other activities. These alternative research avenues include review of early travelers’ accounts, historical, epigraphical, and archaeological literature, and archival and collection-based research at local museums.3 In each of these complementary approaches, our evidence for activities in Lydia outside Sardis dating to the Middle and Late Lydian periods is sometimes chronologically generalized so that Middle and Late Lydian are treated together as one long period, referred to here as Middle/Late Lydian. This temporal generalization makes identification of cultural changes difficult, but it is necessitated in many cases by several factors: the nature of archaeological survey work, in which materials from different periods are found mixed together on the surface and are often too worn to be identified precisely; museum collections that rarely have detailed stratigraphic data; and the previously mentioned understanding of Lydian material culture that has revealed few if any immediate changes from the Middle to the 92

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

Late Lydian period. In some cases, well-identified ceramic wares, especially imported wares, can help by providing narrower ranges of dates for discrete assemblages. Additionally, Late Lydian assemblages can be identified also by the presence of certain diagnostic wares clearly derivative of Persian traditions: Achaemenid bowls and “late,” thin-walled column craters, for example, suggest a date following the Persian conquest. Despite these limitations in the evidence, many sites can be separated chronologically into the Middle or Late Lydian period, as we will see below, and a slightly larger number of sites remain more broadly dated to the Middle/Late Lydian period. We have archaeological evidence for Lydia outside Sardis, then, for the Middle and Late Lydian periods on two overlapping scales of regional extent and detail: the more intensively surveyed and studied but smaller region of central Lydia; and the extensively surveyed and indirectly studied but larger area of rural, greater Lydia. It is in the combination of these two scales of data that we have an opportunity to learn more about settlement and society in Lydia on the whole and to explore the nature and extent of political, social, and religious interaction and economic exchange between Sardis and its hinterland, both proximal and distant.

CENTRAL LYDIA, THE IMMEDIATE HINTERLAND OF SARDIS

Our current understanding of settlement and rural activities in central Lydia is one of dispersed estates and hamlet-like communities that together can be referred to as settlement areas. This understanding is explored more fully below. The primary concerns of such settlement areas included subsistence via agricultural and probably pastoral activities. Initial interpretations saw the only excavated site in the area as a prosperous country house or farmstead,4 and, although these identifications may be correct, it should be emphasized that it was part of a larger agglomeration of complexes hosting a population probably larger than a single extended family (see below). Aside from this one site, other sites in central Lydia represented by occupation evidence may also have been parts of agricultural hamlets and were perhaps part of or tied to the estates of wealthy landowners.

Evidence for Settlement and Other Activities in Central Lydia The results of the first three years of the Central Lydia Archaeological Survey, the latest results available for this study, combined with previous 93

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

CENTRAL LYDIA: SITE TYPES N

1.32

7.1

0

5 km Tumulus Gp. Larger Tumulus Gp.

1.31

1.33

Tumulus

High-Density Site (e.g., settlement)

CLAS Study Area

1.30

1.34 1.35

1.25

1.36

Gygaean Lake (Marmara Gölü )

1.29

1.26

1.28 1.27

1.6

1.23

1.5 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.13 1.1 1.10 1.12 1.8 1.11 1.14 1.15 1.18 1.16 1.20 1.17 1.19

1.22

La ke Ca na l

rm u

r s (Gediz) Rive

Hermus (G

River

He

2.3

1.4

1.7 1.8 1.9

1.21 2.7

1.37

2.2

2.1

2.4

SARDIS R

Co k River Taba

Pac tolus (Sar t)

1.24

Low-Density Site (e.g., isolated find)

gam us

(Ala ehir) River

10.1

Figure 5.1. Map of central Lydia, showing the location of tumuli and tumulus groups, and sites from Table 5.1 (with catalogue numbers and symbols indicating density of evidence: high (settlements, et al.) and low (scatters and/or isolated grave(s) and/or find(s)) (C. H. Roosevelt).

work in the area, have identified a total of twenty sites of Middle and/or Late Lydian activity. Twelve of these sites are settlement sites, while the remaining eight sites are characterized by low-density surface scatters of pottery, perhaps indicative of less intensive occupation or other minimal off-site activities, or by isolated graves and other finds (Figures 5.1– 5.2; Table 5.1).5 Five of the twelve occupation sites are located along the southern shore of the Gygaean Lake, two along north–south oriented valleys in central Bin Tepe, two in foothills immediately west– northwest of the lake, and three on or near the edge of the foothills north of the lake. The sites are distributed throughout central Lydia and its 94

er ) Riv ediz

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

CENTRAL LYDIA: SITE DATES N

1.32

7.1

14.6

0

1.31

1.33

1.30

5 km Tumulus Gp.

Middle/Late Lydian

Larger Tumulus Gp.

Late Lydian

Tumulus

Middle Lydian

CLAS Study Area

Early Lydian

1.34 1.35

1.25

1.36

Gygaean Lake (Marmara Gölü )

1.29

1.26

1.24

1.28 1.27

1.6

1.23

1.37

1.4

1.5 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.13 1.1 1.10 1.12 1.8 1.11 1.14 1.15 1.18 1.16 1.20 1.17 1.19

1.7 1.8 1.9 1.22

2.7

2.2

e Hermus (G

2.1

2.4

SARDIS

Co g am k River Taba

Pac tolus (Sar t)

2.3

rm us (G diz) River e

River

He

La ke Ca n

al

1.21

iver

us (Ala ehir) R iver

10.1

Figure 5.2. Map of central Lydia, showing the location of tumuli and tumulus groups, and sites from Table 5.1 (with catalogue numbers and symbols indicating period(s) of occupation) (C. H. Roosevelt).

varying landscapes, and their specific locations suggest the importance of the lake as a resource, while both good agricultural land and upland areas having visual communication with Sardis were important as well. Sites located west and north of the lake may also indicate the presence of communication routes running through these areas, as may the sites in central Bin Tepe. Of the twelve occupation sites, five were identified by dense scatters of ceramics and other small finds, and seven by both small finds and poorly preserved architectural remains including fieldstone foundations and roof tiles but never painted architectural terracottas. None show any evidence of monumental or public building; we know only of unfortified 95

R diz)

96

Duman Tepe TG

Hacırasim (SU05.032, 037)

Kus¸ Tepe (POI05.09)

Eski Balıkhane (POI05.13)

Cambaz Tepe TG

Ahlatlı Tepecik (POI05.40, SU05.112) ˘ TG Tekelioglu

Royal TG ˙ Intepe TG

Bas¸tepe TG

Yavs¸anlı C¸es¸mesi TG

SU05.087

Tavs¸anlı Tepe TG

Delikli TG

South of Alyattes TG

1.01

1.02

1.03

1.04

1.05

1.06

1.08

1.10

1.11

1.12

1.13

1.14

1.15

1.09

1.07

Name

Cat. no.

✓

Early Lydian

✓

✓

Middle Lydian

✓

✓

✓

+ indicates

✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓

√

Isolated Isolated Low-density Tumulus grave find scatter group

✓

✓

Settlement

Type of evidence

✓

Late Middle/Late Lydian Lydian

Date

Table 5.1. Sites and tumulus groups in central Lydia, excluding Sardis, with indication of date and type of evidence represented. A more than one example of such evidence

97

Arslantas¸ (Tas¸lıtarla, POI05.41)

Kaymakc¸ı Lakeshore (POI06.27) Kızılcayar (POI06.13)

1.28

1.29

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

¨ uk ¨ (POI81.03) Kılcanlar Hoy

¨ Yenikoy

Tınaztepe (POI81.02)

Kemerdamları TG

Poyrazdamları TG

1.33

1.34

1.35

1.36

1.37

1.32

1.31

˘ C¸es¸mesi Yandımoglu (POI06.18, 21) ˘ Bugdaylık (POI06.22)

1.30

Cow Patch (POI81.04)

1.27 ✓

˘ Kanbogaz

1.26 ✓

✓

¨ C¸ullugorece

1.25

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

¨ ukbelen ¨ Buy TG

1.24

✓

✓

✓

1.23

Dibekdere Road Site (POI05.29) Belenovası TG

1.22

✓

✓ ✓

Kestelli-Dibekdere TG

1.21

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓+

Tas¸lı Tepe TG

✓+

1.20

✓

Kendirlik (SU05.097, 105, 108)

✓

1.19

✓

Rotary Quern Site (POI05.19)

✓

1.18

✓

Karayahs¸i TG

✓

1.17

✓

Bozyer (POI05.43)

1.16

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

and nonmonumental constructions that might be identified best as small hamlets consisting of agglomerated house complexes. Only one of these twelve settlements has been subjected to the trowel: Ahlatlı Tepecik on the southern shore of the Gygaean Lake (cat. no. 1.6). During the course of Sardis Expedition excavations between 1966 and 1968, the hamlet-like agglomeration of Lydian structures at Ahlatlı Tepecik was only partly exposed, and it lies both partly inundated by the lake and beneath agricultural fields today.6 As excavated, at least five complexes of structures were revealed spreading over an area of approximately 60 meters by 35 meters (0.2 hectares). The most coherent individual complex consisted of at least four rooms, two apparently large and two small, belonging to at least three structures built in the same fashion as those at Sardis (Figure 5.3). Also like house complexes at Sardis, the exterior walls of the structures formed a corner of what was probably an enclosed courtyard the full extent of which was not determined. Whereas the smaller, corridor-like room in the one two-room structure that was excavated might have been a storage closet or magazine, another small structure seems to have been a kitchen of the same type as those found at Sardis and was found containing a similar abundance of cooking, serving, and tablewares. The short-term excavations revealed no activities other than food production, and new excavations will have to be undertaken to establish fully the nature of the site and others like it in central Lydia. The typical domestic assemblage of ceramics found at Ahlatlı Tepecik – cooking, serving, and tablewares – is representative of the types of ceramics found throughout central Lydia. Most examples are faithful renderings of Lydian forms and decorations best known from excavations at Sardis, although a few examples with non-Sardian ceramic fabrics might suggest local production outside Sardis.7 Fine wares imported from Greece and East Greece are less fully represented, although examples from the excavations at Ahlatlı Tepecik and from the surfaces of a few other sites make clear that these types of imports were reaching central Lydia. Similar assemblages of ceramics, although usually devoid of imports, are found also in the off-site scatters of material spread throughout central Lydia. The eight other sites in central Lydia include five sites of lower-density surface finds and three sites represented by isolated finds or graves; they have a distribution similar to the twelve occupation sites and, other than the graves, may represent a range of different rural activities. The diversity and well-worn nature of the off-site ceramic scatters would most likely exclude funerary interpretations, and the activities they represent remain 98

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

HOUSE PLAN 0

5

N

Wall Reconstructed Wall

10 m

Figure 5.3. Plan of the partially excavated house at Ahlatlı Tepecik. Other less wellpreserved domestic remains not shown were discovered ca. 20 m to the north and ca. 30 m to the south (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

little evidenced. Elsewhere in the Mediterranean sites represented by similar densities of material have been interpreted to represent impermanent activities that are most likely productive in nature, perhaps associated with field agriculture.8 Assemblages like those discovered in central Lydia might have been produced by temporary sites for animal penning, or perhaps even by shelters for shepherds or goatherds, too. If not pastoral, sites of this nature in upland areas might reflect the activities of tree-fruit farmers, and sites in the lowlands may represent the activities of field-crop farmers during planting, weeding, or harvest seasons. Our understanding of other rural activities occurring in central and greater Lydia that left little or no trace on the ground for survey archaeologists can be filled out from texts. These activities include hunting and fishing, the latter of which is attested by fish bones found in excavated levels at Sardis.9 Hunting, more sport than subsistence activity, as suggested earlier, left little record on the landscape.10

Bin Tepe, Tumulus Groups, and Settlement Areas in Central Lydia Most interesting about this new data from central Lydia is its possible refinement of long-standing understandings of Bin Tepe, the tumulus cemetery south of the Gygaean Lake that has traditionally been associated with royalty and nobles living at Sardis. We will have the opportunity to return to the tumuli of Bin Tepe and all of Lydia in detail in Chapter 6, but for our purpose here it is sufficient to note that the tumulus became the high-status burial par excellence in Lydia by the mid-sixth century, when Lydian kings 99

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

first used it in Bin Tepe, and it quickly became the burial of choice not just for royalty, but also for others of high status living throughout the region. Today more than six hundred tumuli of the Middle/Late Lydian period have been located throughout Lydia, at least 158 of them in central Lydia, and these were originally used as both individual and family mausolea and were situated in places of conspicuous visibility. In order to allow the deceased symbolic vistas over family property, if not just to display family status, tumuli erected in groups were probably situated within or at the edges of estate territories, thereby marking the general locations of the same.11 The geographic correspondence between cemeteries, especially cemeteries marked by groups of tumuli, and settlements in greater Lydia was first hypothesized more than thirty years ago by A. Ramage and N. Ramage and has been discussed and demonstrated in other areas, again both within and outside Anatolia.12 Groups of tumuli in Ankara and the Lake District of southwestern Anatolia have been taken to indicate the locations of important settlements,13 and tumulus and other cemeteries in areas ranging from prehistoric Britain and Thrace to Siberia have also been identified as settlement markers or symbolic community centers.14 The hypothesis has been confirmed for greater Lydia by the close correspondence between the locations of settlements documented by surveys and museum finds and the locations of tumulus groups: more than 75 percent of such settlements of the Middle/Late Lydian period are located within 5 kilometers of a tumulus group; around half of those are located within only 1 kilometer of a tumulus group.15 The 158 tumuli located within central Lydia cluster into between twelve and twenty-two groups – the number depending on the size of the group – with eight to fifteen groups located in Bin Tepe and the remaining groups surrounding the Gygaean Lake (Figures 5.1–5.2). Bin Tepe, thus, was not a monolithic tumulus cemetery but consisted of individual groups of tumuli, each one probably associated with at least one high-status family and/or estate. In addition to the new evidence for settlements located in and around Bin Tepe, then, the grouping of the tumuli in Bin Tepe might suggest that at least some of the tumulus groups belonged not to Sardians, but to other high-status Lydians living in and around central Lydia. Bin Tepe was very likely a cemetery shared by both Sardians and local landowners, and we will return to the significance of its use for mortuary purposes in Chapter 6, where chronological developments in the tumulus tradition are explored as well. 100

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia Table 5.2. Chronological phasing of the eleven most narrowly dated sites in central Lydia, excluding Sardis and tumulus groups unassociated with other evidence, separated by sites known from evidence of settlement and sites known from evidence of isolated graves, finds, and/or low-density scatters of material, with totals No. of settlements per period Late Lydian Middle Lydian Early Lydian

2

Total per period

No. of isolated graves and finds per period

7

3

2

Total no. of all sites per period

3

5

0 6

3

Total per period

1

6

3 1

0 4

10

2 0

0

Total per period

0

Diachronic Changes in the Settlement Patterns of Central Lydia Our most detailed chronological evidence for settlement sites in central Lydia comes from Ahlatlı Tepecik, and it is noteworthy that imported ceramics from structures in this hamlet indicate its continuous use from Middle Lydian times into the fifth or fourth century without destruction or significant cultural change. Slight changes may be evidenced, though, from patterns of site abandonment and new establishment in the Middle and Late Lydian periods as determined from the eleven most closely datable sites among the twenty sites known: eight settlement sites and three sites indicated by isolated finds or low-density scatters can be dated more narrowly to the Early, Middle, and/or Late Lydian periods (Table 5.2). Of these eight more narrowly datable sites with evidence for occupation as opposed to other types of activities, one can see from total site numbers alone a gradual and small increase in the number of occupation sites in central Lydia from four (Early Lydian), to six (Middle Lydian), to seven (Late Lydian). If one includes the evidence from isolated graves, finds, and low-density scatters, then the number of sites dating to the Late Lydian period jumps to ten. The situation was somewhat more complicated than simple increases over time, however. Examining the data in more detail, we can see that three sites were occupied continuously from the Early through the Late Lydian period (cat. ˘ ¨ nos. 1.6 [Ahlatlı Tepecik], 1.32 [Bugdaylık], and 1.33 [Kılcanlar Hoyuk]). These sites are the largest known in the area and are represented by the densest concentrations of surface remains; they are located along both the southern lakeshore and the edge of the northern foothills. 101

4

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Two sites appear to have been settled anew along the southern lakeshore in the Middle Lydian period, with continued settlement through the Late Lydian period (cat. nos. 1.27 [Cow Patch] and 1.29 [Kaymakc¸ı Lakeshore]). Yet, at both these sites Middle to Late Bronze Age pottery also was identified, opening up the possibility that they should be grouped with those sites occupied continuously throughout the Lydian period, with evidence of their Early Lydian occupation not yet documented because of its scarcity and/or difficulties with its identification – the Early Iron Age pottery of the area is still only poorly known. Only one site was abandoned in the Late Lydian period after occupa˘ tion in the Early and Middle Lydian periods (cat. no. 1.31 [Yandımoglu C¸es¸mesi]). It is located in the uplands west of the Gygaean Lake, over¨ looking the corridor of communication leading to Golmarmara. Offsetting this one abandonment, two sites were settled anew in the Late Lydian period (cat. nos. 1.18 [Rotary Quern Site] and 1.22 [Dibekdere Road Site]). Both are located in the rolling hills and valleys of Bin Tepe and may reflect increased agricultural activities in that area in addition to the locations of north–south communication routes through Bin Tepe. The three ¨ narrowly dateable isolated finds (cat. nos. 1.25 [C¸ullugorece – lekythos]; ˘ – grave]; and 1.34 [Yenikoy ¨ – sarcophagus]) all represent 1.26 [Kanbogaz ¨ ukbelen ¨ funerary contexts of the Late Lydian period stretching from the Buy ¨ north of the Gygaean Lake. Valley, in the west, to Yenikoy, Although based on preliminary data from surface collections and museum finds, these circumstances would seem to suggest general continuity, with an increase in rural settlement and other activities in the immediate hinterland of Sardis through the transition from Lydian to Achaemenid hegemony. As we have seen earlier in this chapter, the one excavated site of Ahlatlı Tepecik shows no evidence of disturbance or great change across this transitional period. In addition, we can conclude, for now, that although diverse areas of central Lydia were occupied throughout the period in which Sardis was transformed into a regional capital, virtually nothing of the increasingly urban nature of Sardis spread to the settlements in its immediate hinterland.

GREATER LYDIA, THE DISTANT HINTERLAND OF SARDIS

As in central Lydia, the majority of archaeological finds of the Middle through Late Lydian periods in greater Lydia probably represent relatively small, hamlet-like communities, in many cases presumably associated with 102

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

the estates of high-status landowners. Sites with primary functions not defined by habitation alone are known as well, and these will be discussed in subsequent sections, with respect to the concerns that influenced the selection of settlement locations. Here, we will be more concerned with the evidence used to determine the locations of settlement areas distributed throughout greater Lydia, including settlement sites, tumulus groups and other funerary evidence, and isolated finds.

Evidence for Settlement and Other Activities in Greater Lydia The most direct evidence we have for the locations of ancient settlement areas in greater Lydia are the remains of occupation sites. These are known from the few extensive survey projects that have been conducted in various regions of Lydia over the last fifty years.16 Such surveys have identified Lydian remains, usually ceramic but sometimes architectural, both overlying prehistoric occupation levels on prominent settlement mounds and scattered among the architectural remnants of later Hellenistic through Byzantine settlements. Such finds are important for determining the locations of settlements of the Middle to Late Lydian periods but are of limited use for determining the nature and extent of such settlements. More common and less direct evidence for activities of the Middle to Late Lydian periods comes from archaeological material now housed in regional museums. In addition to recovery through extensive survey methods, such material derives from museum-directed salvage excavations, usually associated with development, and from illicit digging, the latter of which rarely produces exact, but more commonly only general, geographical evidence on the scale of the modern farm or village. The lack of proper archaeological context for such illicitly recovered or chance finds renders uncertain the nature of the sites they represent (e.g., occupational, funerary, cultic) and dictates their dating on stylistic grounds, which in only some cases makes their archaeological use debatable. The more securely dated and geographically pinpointed materials in Lydia include stone sculptures, coin hoards, groups of ceramics, and other small finds. Some assemblages in local museums can be more securely identified as coming from mortuary contexts because of their explicitly funerary nature (e.g., sculpted and/or inscribed grave stones), or the character of the assemblage in question, especially with respect to the completeness of ceramic vessels – whole vessels are rarely found in archaeological contexts other than graves. These sources help identify seventy-one sites distributed throughout the region outside Sardis and central Lydia (Table 5.3; Figures 5.4–5.5). 103

104

Asartepe

Musacalı

Temrek

Karabel Area

Yukarı Kızılca

¨ uk ¨ Nemrut Hoy

˘ Azmanoglu

C¸obanisa

Akpınar

Manisa

Kayapınar

2.8

2.9

3.2

3.3

3.5

3.6

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

Avs¸ar

2.5

2.7

Akc¸apınar

2.4

Turgutlu

Ahmetli

2.2

2.6

Name

Cat. no.

✓

✓

Early Lydian

✓

✓

✓

✓

Middle Lydian

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Late Lydian

Date

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Middle/Late Lydian

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Settlement

✓+

✓

✓

✓+

✓+

Isolated grave

✓+

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓+

✓

✓

✓

Tumulus group

✓

Textual

✓

✓+

✓

✓

Isolated find

Type of evidence

Mt. Sipylus ˘ (Manisa Dag)

Nymphaeum Valley

Middle Hermus River Valley (Central)

Region

Table 5.3. Sites in greater Lydia, excluding tumulus groups unassociated with other evidence, with indication of date and type of evidence represented. A ✓+ indicates more than one example of such of evidence

105

Tekeliler

Sarıc¸am

¨ Golmarmara

Akselendi

Hierakome

Kennez 1

Moralılar

Akhisar

¨ uk ¨ Karasonya Hoy

Selc¸ikli

¨ uk ¨ Erdelli Hoy

Ballıca

Maltepe

Kahraman

Soma

Salihli

Karatas¸-Adala

5.4

6.1

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.6

8.8

9.2

9.3

9.5

10.1

10.3

5.3

Muradiye ¨ ¸ pınar Uc

5.1

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓+

✓+

✓

✓+

✓

✓

✓

✓+

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓+

✓

✓

✓

✓+

✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓+

✓

✓

✓

✓+

✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓

(continued)

Middle Hermus (Eastern)

Upper Caicus River Valley

Lycus Valley

Middle Phrygius River Valley

Hyrcanian Plain

Middle Hermus River Valley (Western)

106

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

Hayallı

Alas¸ehir

Avs¸ar

Killik

¨ uk ¨ Tilki Hoy

Aetos

S¸ahankaya

¨ Gordes

Daldis

Borlu

¨ oy ¨ C¸amlıca–Kolek

Menye

Kenger

11.9

12.1

12.2

12.4

12.7

13.1

14.1

14.3

14.6

15.1

15.5

16.1

16.2

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓+

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓+

✓+

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Kemaliye

11.8

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Hacılı

✓

✓

Isolated find

11.7

✓

Isolated grave

Mersinli

Settlement

11.5

Middle/Late Lydian

✓

Late Lydian

Yes¸ilkavak

Middle Lydian

11.1

Early Lydian

Name

✓

✓

Textual

Type of evidence

Cat. no.

Date

Table 5.3 (continued)

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Tumulus group

Eastern Lydia

Northeastern Lydia

Northern Lydia

Upper Cogamus

Middle Cogamus River Valley

Lower Cogamus River Valley

Region

107

✓

✓

Kiraz

˘ Ertugrul

18.1

18.8

✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

Tire

Uzgur

¨ ukkale ¨ Buy

Cydrara

19.6

19.8

19.9

20.1

✓

C¸iniyeri

19.5 ✓

✓

✓+

✓

✓+

✓+

✓

✓

Falaka–Bayındır

✓+

✓

19.4

✓+

✓

Hypaepa

19.2

19.3

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Birgi ¨ Odemis ¸

19.1 ✓

✓

✓+

✓

✓

East Tmolus

17.6

✓

Boz Dag˘

17.5

✓

Ovacık Yaylası

17.2

✓

✓

✓

Kel Dag˘

17.1

✓

✓

✓

¨ Gure

16.8

✓

✓

¨ Ortakoy

16.7

✓+

✓+

✓

Kula

✓

✓

✓

16.4

16.6

✓

✓

Emre ˙ Incesu

16.3

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Southeastern Lydia

Cayster Valley

Cilbian Plains

Tmolus Range

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander GREATER LYDIA: SITE TYPES N

9.8

0

9.7

9.6

?

?

9.3

?

Tumulus 8.3 15.3

9.1 8.8

5.3

6.4 6.3

5.1 4.7

4.6 4.5

4.4

4.3 4.2

3.1

3.5 3.2

2.9 4.1 2.6

3.6

14.1

7.4

6.5 2.8

2.7 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.4

11.3

17.3

19.2

17.4

18.5

17.5

16.3

16.8 16.4

16.9 16.7

16.6

16.12

12.8

16.13

12.3

12.2

18.1

16.10

16.11

12.4 12.5 12.1 12.6 12.7

17.6

19.1 18.8

19.4 19.5

16.2

16.1 10.3 11.5 11.6 10.4 11.4 11.7 11.8 11.9 10.1 11.2 11.1

SARDIS

17.2

16.5

10.2

2.1

19.3

19.6

15.5

14.6

Central Lyd ia

17.1

19.7

15.1

7.1

3.4 3.3

19.10

14.4

14.5

7.2

15.4

15.2

14.2 14.3

8.1

7.3

6.2

5.4

5.2

8.2

7.5

8.4

6.1

?

8.9

8.7

8.5

High-Density Site (e.g., settlement)

Lydia

9.2

?

50 km Low-Density Site (e.g., isolated find)

Larger Tumulus Gp.

9.4

9.5

8.6

10 Tumulus Gp.

?

16.14 16.15 16.16

13.1 18.7 18.6

18.4 18.3

13.2

18.2

19.9 19.8

? ?

?

?

?

?

?

20.1

Figure 5.4. Map of greater Lydia, showing the locations of tumuli, tumulus groups, and all sites (with catalogue numbers and symbols indicating density of evidence: high (e.g., settlements, cult sites) and low (e.g., isolated grave(s) and/or find(s)) (C. H. Roosevelt).

Of these seventy-one sites, twenty-four are settlement sites themselves, with or without additional finds, while the rest are represented by other types of evidence, including rock-cut and cist graves (five), groups of finds (fourteen), isolated finds (twenty-two), and combinations of graves and other finds (six). Because intensive survey efforts have yet to focus on areas outside central Lydia, low-density scatters of material representing “off-site” activities have not been identified in the area. Rather, the finds used to establish the locations of settlement areas, isolated or in groups, usually include types of materials associable with settlements in one way or another, including sculpted and/or inscribed stelae, sculptures, and coin hoards. Many such finds presumably come from graves, and their association with settlement areas is best discussed in the context of other funerary remains, the conspicuous tumuli of the elite, again, to be discussed at more length in Chapter 6. 108

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

GREATER LYDIA: SITE DATES N

9.8

0

9.7

9.6

? ?

?

9.4

9.5

9.3

9.2

? ?

8.8

15.3

?

5.3

6.4 6.3

4.6 4.5

4.4

4.3 4.2

3.1

3.5 3.2 3.3

2.9

3.6

14.1

7.2

6.5

Central Lydia

2.8

2.7 2.3 2.2

2.5 2.4

Middle Lydian

Lydia

Early Lydian

17.2

19.2

19.6

16.2

19.5

11.3

17.3

19.3 19.4

15.5

17.4

17.5

16.8 16.4

16.11 16.12

12.4 12.5 12.1 12.6 12.7 12.8

16.13

12.3

12.2

18.1

16.9 16.10

16.7

16.6

17.6

19.1 18.8

18.5

16.3

16.1 10.3 11.5 11.6 10.4 11.4 11.7 11.8 11.9 10.1 11.2 11.1

2.1

15.4

16.5

10.2

SARDIS 17.1

19.7

15.1 14.6

3.4

19.10

Late Lydian

Tumulus

14.4

14.5 7.1

4.1 2.6

Larger Tumulus Gp.

15.2

14.2 14.3

7.4

7.3

6.2

5.1 4.7

8.2 8.1 7.5

8.4

5.4

5.2

8.9

8.7

8.5 6.1

50 km Middle/Late Lydian

8.3

9.1 8.6

10 Tumulus Gp.

16.14 16.15 16.16

13.1 18.7 18.6

18.4 18.3

13.2

18.2

19.9 19.8

? ?

?

?

?

?

?

20.1

Figure 5.5. Map of greater Lydia, showing the locations of tumuli, tumulus groups, and all sites with catalogue numbers and symbols indicating period(s) of occupation (C. H. Roosevelt).

Tumulus Groups in Greater Lydia Just as the tumuli in central Lydia cluster into groups, so do the more than 450 tumuli in greater Lydia cluster into between 69 and 98 distinct groups – again, with the number depending on the size of the group (Figures 5.4–5.5). These groups are likely representative of highstatus families and were probably used to mark estates, and thus also broad settlement areas surrounding estates. As mentioned already, the locations of settlement areas identified by the types of evidence listed above and the locations of tumulus groups correspond well, with thirty-nine of the seventy-one sites in greater Lydia identified above closely associated with a tumulus group (Table 5.3). Through mapping tumulus groups with which no other archaeological evidence has been associated, then, the general distribution of settlement areas throughout the region can be expanded beyond those sites already known from the types of evidence mentioned 109

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander Table 5.4. Chronological phasing of the sixty most narrowly dated sites in greater Lydia, excluding tumulus groups unassociated with other evidence, separated by sites known from evidence of settlement and sites known from evidence of isolated graves and/or finds, with totals No. of settlements per period Late Lydian Middle Lydian Early Lydian

Total No. of isolated Total per graves and finds per period per period period 4

11

29

5 9

2

Total no. of all sites per period

35

33

6 17

1

0

4

Total per period 46

11 10

0

13

2

27

1

3

0

above. Thus, in addition to the seventy-one settlement areas already established, at least fifty-seven additional settlement areas can be inferred from the distribution of tumulus groups.

Diachronic Changes in the Settlement Patterns of Greater Lydia As determined from sixty of the seventy-one sites that are datable more narrowly then to the general Middle/Late Lydian period (Table 5.4), patterns of site abandonment and new site establishment between the Early and the Late Lydian periods are again evident. As in central Lydia, the data are separated by sites with evidence for settlements and sites attested by isolated graves and/or finds, omitting settlement areas indicated by tumulus groups alone because, lacking additional evidence, they can be dated no more precisely than to the Middle/Late Lydian period. Observing the evidence from settlement sites alone, only three sites appear to have been occupied in the Early Lydian period, with the occupation of two enduring through the Late Lydian period. One of these is located on the lower slopes of Manisa Dag˘ (cat. no. 4.4), with apparent cultic and/or defensive concerns, while the other two are situated to take advantage of the broad alluvial plains of the middle Hermus River valley and the upper Caicus River valley (cat. nos. 2.7 and 9.2). A nearly six-fold increase in the number of sites between the Early and Middle Lydian periods – from three to seventeen sites – would reflect a significant proliferation of settlement throughout greater Lydia. The increase in sites becomes ninefold if one includes evidence from isolated finds and graves also – from three to twenty-seven sites. As for central Lydia, these numbers should be greeted with some caution because of the 110

3

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

currently poor understanding of Early Iron Age pottery in Lydia, which may often be confused with Late Bronze Age and/or later wares. Nevertheless, even if not as dramatic as these numbers suggest, it is likely that the period was marked by a significant increase in settlement throughout the region, in locations of varying type, ranging from the edges of fertile alluvial plains to upland areas, both of which sometimes coincided with interregional and intraregional communication routes. At the transition from the Middle to Late Lydian periods, ten settlement sites appear to have been abandoned, along with four other sites indicated by isolated finds and graves.17 Of twenty-seven Middle Lydian sites, then, only thirteen (or roughly 48%) continued to be occupied in the Late Lydian period after the mid-sixth century.18 Offsetting this apparent decrease in the number of settlements was the establishment of four new settlements and a possible twenty-nine other sites indicated by isolated finds and graves. Thus, while known settlement sites per se decreased in number from seventeen to eleven sites from the Middle to Late Lydian periods, inclusion of nonsettlement data shows an overall increase in the number of total sites over the same period – from twenty-seven to forty-six sites – representing a roughly 70 percent increase in the total number of sites. Observing only the settlement sites, six of the sites abandoned at this transition were in alluvial plains and four in upland areas, with most situated well for controlling regional communications.19 As to the four newly established sites, two were situated along the edges of alluvial plains, and two at strategically defensible upland sites, probably indicating continued agricultural concerns in addition to perhaps intensified militarily strategic interests.20 By the various means discussed in this chapter and despite the lack of widespread intensive survey efforts, we can establish a distribution of settlement spread throughout Lydia – even if associated primarily with high-status groups. In contrast to central Lydia, where settlement patterns appear to shift only slightly over the transition from Lydian to Achaemenid hegemony, settlement patterns in greater Lydia appear to show good evidence of change following Persian conquest manifested in an increase in site numbers in rural areas that should reflect increases in rural population. Furthermore, similar changes are apparent in the record of tumulus construction, detailed in Chapter 6, and these phenomena together suggest developments spread throughout the region under Achaemenid rule. In both periods, however, these data sources reveal patterns in the distribution and development of settlement areas that illuminate ancient concerns with settlement location. Settlement areas spread across the region and 111

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

including family estates in both the Middle and Late Lydian periods were situated strategically for defense, for control of specific resources, and, most commonly, for close proximity to rich arable land, pasturage, and routes of communication. Before turning to examples of settlement areas that indicate these primary concerns, it will be useful to examine first what settlement areas and estates might have looked like in the Middle and Late Lydian periods.

SETTLEMENT STRUCTURE AND ESTATES

The evidence of tumuli and other materials cited above speaks best to the broad distribution of settlement areas. The appearance of individual estates or settlements themselves is more difficult to assess because of the lack of excavated sites in Lydia outside Sardis and central Lydia – archaeologists have yet to excavate a rural Lydian estate in its entirety. Nevertheless, epigraphic and historical evidence suggest a basic composition that accords well with contemporary rural settlement in neighboring Greece and the Near East. One of the best and most frequently cited sources of information for estate composition in Lydia is the so-called Mnesimachus Inscription. Carved on a wall of the Temple of Artemis at Sardis, the inscription documents what amounts to the foreclosure on an interest-free loan the Temple of Artemis had made to Mnesimachus; as collateral or security for the loan, Mnesimachus had earlier offered a vast estate that we can presume to have comprised many hundred if not several thousand hectares and that the text suggests was originally a royal grant.21 According to the fullest treatments of the inscription, Mnesimachus’ estate comprised properties in three separate Lydian locales: the Mountain (or Hill) of Ilos in the Sardian Plain; the “Water of Morstas,” perhaps a riverine area; and Attoudda. This Sardian Plain would have certainly included the middle Hermus River valley north of Sardis. It must have been larger than the plain immediately below Sardis, however, as it also contained the Mountain (or Hill) of Ilos. The location of the Water of Morstas remains unknown, but an Attoudda has been identified by second century Roman coins and inscriptions associated with settlement remains in the southeastern Lydo-Phrygian borderlands.22 In these places, Mnesimachus’ estate included the kome (a village- or hamlet-like settlement) of Tobalmoura on the Mountain (or Hill) of Ilos, and attached to it, the komai of Tandos and Kombdilipia. At Tobalmoura were at least one aule (a manor or country house with structures usually arranged around a courtyard), laoi (commoners) and oiketai (slaves), with their households and belongings, 112

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

oikopeda (house plots or farmsteads), and two paradeisoi (enclosed parks, or probably house gardens in this case).23 Near Tobalmoura was a kleros (allotment) in Kinaroa. In the Water of Morstas were another kleros in Nagrioa and the kome of Periasasostra, at which were yet more oikopeda, paradeisoi, and oiketai. In Attoudda was the kome of Ilos. Revenues in coin and kind deriving from these komai and kleroi were part of the estate, and tributes from them were paid to the leaders of local administrative districts. The Mnesimachus Inscription records an early Hellenistic document, but its details have been taken to mirror earlier Middle and Late Lydian estate structure in Lydia and elsewhere with respect to the estate’s original nature as a royal grant, its composition, and its assessment.24 The revenue and tribute amounts might even correspond to Achaemenid landtenure systems, as R. Descat has calculated.25 Further suggestion of the pre-Hellenistic significance of the Mnesimachus Inscription came recently in the discovery of a stele inscribed with an Aramaic text found in the Cogamus River valley and dating to the late fifth or early fourth century.26 The stele, perhaps a grave stele or a boundary stone, invokes a penalty for damaging something that cannot be read (a tomb?) before it clearly refers to a house, domain, land(s), and vineyards, among other possible parts of what is most likely a small Lydian estate. The components of this estate correspond remarkably well with the most common breakdown of a Hellenistic military kleros, including a house plot, agricultural land, and a vineyard, orchard, or house garden (paradeisos). Another Aramaic text, this one found in eastern Lydia and dating slightly later to the mid-fourth century, invokes a similar curse after referring to a house, an enclosure, and an allotment, among other things.27 The allotment mentioned in this latter inscription might match the type of land parcel denoted by the kleros of the Mnesimachus Inscription, and thus we might be dealing with a slightly larger estate in this case, including an allotment like that described in the earlier Aramaic inscription in addition to a house and an enclosure of some sort. Could the houses in the Aramaic correspond to the Greek aule? Could the enclosure in the Aramaic correspond to the Greek paradeisos? Even without the ability to demonstrate exact correspondences at this time, it is clear that we are dealing with lists of similar holdings that make up estates, small estates in comparison to that of Mnesimachus. From textual sources, then, we can understand estates in Lydia to have been focused around manor or country houses at which estate owners and their families presumably spent much of their time. Also integral to the estate were plots or enclosures for vineyards, orchards or small gardens, and some presumably larger allotment of agricultural land. Larger estates, 113

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

like that of Mnesimachus, would have included auxiliary buildings for slaves, too, and may have been set within settlements of hamlet or village size that in essence comprised part of the estate. For the opportunity to share-crop or otherwise use estate lands, commoner inhabitants of hamlets on and around estates would have paid tithes or some other income to estate owners and may have been bound to the estate. Settlement areas, then, as referred to throughout this book, comprised concentrations of settlement that probably included the estates of wealthy landowners and the agricultural hamlets or villages that were attached to them. To date only the excavations of the Sardis Expedition at Ahlatlı Tepecik in central Lydia have exposed a country house or farmstead of the Lydian period. As we recall, the modest remains at that site probably represent a relatively simple establishment within a larger complex, but its configuration of buildings and material assemblages serve as an example for the appearance of more expansive complexes elsewhere. The inscriptions cited above suggest that these more expansive complexes included paradeisoi, enclosures, or other facilities for growing vegetables, legumes, and fruits and for sheltering kept animals. Similar descriptions of Achaemenid-period estates in Anatolia and elsewhere abound in ancient sources; to take one example, around Dascylium in northwestern Anatolia Xenophon described “many large villages, stored with provisions in abundance, and splendid wild animals, some of them in enclosed paradeisoi, others in open spaces.”28 The activities of estate owners, such as entertaining guests, perhaps with banquets, probably took place in the country house, but the processing of foodstuffs and craft-production activities may have occurred there, too, if not also in associated farmsteads, in the types of multifunctional domestic workshop spaces attested in contemporary contexts at Sardis.29 In addition to labor, money, and agricultural goods (produce and fruits), Mnesimachus took as revenue from commoners on his estate “wine vessels,” indicating local production of ceramic jars or, more likely, wine.30 The arrangement of such facilities at particular settlements is impossible to ascertain without further archaeological investigation, but it may be that facilities were loosely clustered around a central courtyard-house complex on the pattern of farmsteads known elsewhere, like the Vari and Dema houses and farmsteads in the Atene Valley of Classical Attica.31 Given the probable origin of many estates in Lydia as royal grants with large servile populations, however, their configurations may have been quite different. The Mnesimachus Inscription suggests also the clustering of whole villages and allotments, and this arrangement is reflected across western Anatolia, and indeed in other parts of the ancient eastern Mediterranean, 114

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

where village-like settlements are seldom attested individually but rather as agglomerations of some sort. Later place names like Pentakome, or “Five Villages,” might reflect this nucleation of smaller settlement units into larger wholes over time, and the same development may be suggested even for Sardis, the Greek name of which is plural: Sardeis.32 The inscription also shows that an estate might comprise vast holdings separated by great distances, stretching at least from central to southeastern Lydia in the case of Mnesimachus’ noncontiguous estate. This noncontiguity may have been an intentional choice of landholders in order to spread risks associated with production in agriculturally vulnerable areas.33 Interestingly, similarities in the agricultural land holdings of Lydia may be seen in the very rich estates of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Ottoman notables, which comprised discrete farmsteads and field systems sometimes dispersed across different valleys.34 Along similar lines, Descat suggested similarity with Ottoman estates in total land holdings, which for Mnesimachus he estimated to be some 3,500 hectares.35

SETTLEMENT CONCERNS

Subsistence and Communication The locations of tumulus groups and settlement sites suggest that settlement areas in greater Lydia were distributed most commonly along the edges of major river valleys. The preference for such locations is probably related to ease of access along river valley floors, the locations of most prominent routes of communication in Lydia, and ease of access to abundant arable land and upland pasturage. Communication and subsistence, then, were probably the most common concerns in ancient Lydian selections of settlement areas. Both ancient testimony and archaeological finds suggest that between agricultural and pastoral subsistence activities, agriculture was more important. Modern climate conditions and agricultural yields show that the major river valleys of greater Lydia could easily have sustained modes of life attested historically and archaeologically in central Lydia at Sardis: basic subsistence practices supplemented by domestic craft production and exchange. The relative prosperity of settlement areas situated with the primary concerns of subsistence and communication may be established with reference to the tumulus groups that mark their locations. Because tumuli served as both individual and family mausolea, the number of tumuli in a tumulus group may correspond to the number of high-status families with 115

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

estate properties nearby, or, alternatively, to the multigenerational duration or stability of settlement in the immediate area. Both interpretations are related to the prosperity of the settlement area, and, in most cases, in Lydia prosperity would have been dependent first and foremost on agricultural fertility. The average number of tumuli in greater Lydian tumulus groups is between four and seven, again depending on how one defines the groups. Given the importance of these primary settlement concerns, it should be no surprise that all larger-than-average tumulus groups (i.e., those consisting of more than seven tumuli each) are located along the edges of the river ¨ (cat. no. 16.8), valleys of greatest fertility: the upper Hermus around Gure the middle Hermus (cat. nos. 2.2, 2.8, 2.9, and 10.4), the Cogamus (cat. nos. 11.8, 12.2, 12.5, and 12.8), the Nymphaeum (cat. no. 3.5), the middle Phrygius (cat. nos. 7.3 and 7.4), and the Cayster (cat. nos. 18.4, 18.5, and 19.6). Interestingly, many of these same tumulus groups also contain the largest tumuli of Lydia. If tumulus size is indicative of the power of those buried in them, and hence indicative of the importance of the territory, then the largest tumuli in the region may also reflect the most prosperous areas of Lydia. Marked by tumuli with diameters larger than 95 meters, settlement areas in the middle Hermus River valley, including central Lydia (cat. nos. 1.8–11, 1.14–15, 1.17, 1.19, 1.21, and 4.2), appear to have been the most prosperous, with other important areas including the Hyrcanian Plain (cat. no. 6.1) and the Cogamus (cat. no. 11.4 and 12.1), middle Phrygius (cat. no. 7.3), Lycus (cat. no. 8.7), and Cayster River valleys (cat. no. 19.6). Although tumulus groups reflect settlement areas and tumulus group compositions their prosperity, the exact correspondence of particular tumulus groups to still undiscovered occupation sites is less clear. Some tumulus groups are arranged in tight clusters and others in linear ribbons that usually conform to valley edges. Tumulus groups with the latter configuration should indicate the locations of prominent routes of communication leading to and from settlements; this is the case outside Lydia at Gordion and also along the Black Sea coast.36 Tightly clustered groups probably represent the high-status cemeteries of particular estate-owning families, but, for all we know, large tumulus groups may have served multiple settlements areas in regions that could sustain them, as is probably the case with Bin Tepe in central Lydia. As we have already seen, there may have been a tendency for multiple settlements to nucleate into cooperative agglomerations that eventually came to be known by one place name. 116

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

Territorial Control The distribution of settlement areas indicates a concern with territorial control in addition to the geographically intertwined concerns of subsistence and communication. An occasional consequence of the preferential selection of settlement areas along good communication routes, in fact, is their location in places strategically positioned to intercept passersby as they entered into or traveled through Lydian territories. Thus, settlement areas marked by the densely populous tumulus groups of the middle Cogamus River valley probably derived importance not only from the fertility of the alluvial plain but also from their situation at the openings of mountain passes connecting the Cogamus Valley with other areas. Settlement areas marked by groups of eleven and eight tumuli, respectively (cat. nos. 12.2– 12.3), located along the southern edge of the valley, were well-situated to monitor communications from the Cayster and Maeander River valleys, and that marked by a group of fifteen tumuli (cat. no. 12.8), located along the northern edge of the valley, would have been able to guard communications through a pass leading to the east toward modern Es¸me and eastern Lydia. In addition to territorial control indicated by tumulus groups at valley edges, Lydian remains have been recovered from high-elevation sites suited for this type of service. The importance of high platforms for territorial control is made abundantly clear in the military chronicles of Xenophon and Herodotus, among other contemporary authors.37 High-elevation sites overlooking communication routes include a settlement on the ridge of Kayapınar just west of Magnesia ad Sipylum (cat. no. 4.6), which is ideally suited to guard the access between western Lydia and Ionia through a ˙ pass that today hosts a major highway connecting Manisa and Izmir. Just east of Magnesia ad Sipylum and on a rocky spur in the lower foothills of Mt. Sipylus was another such site: Yarıkkaya (cat. no. 4.4B). With commanding views over the entire middle Hermus River valley and north to the Hyrcanian Plain, this site had control over at least two major communication routes. Sites in the Tmolus Range, too, were probably situated to control communications in and between the range and/or to overlook valleys to its north and south: Yılan Kalesi to the east (cat. no. 17.6A) overlooks the Cilbian Plain, and Kel Dag˘ to the west (cat. no. 17.1) has more ˘ even if panoramic and controlling vistas. The archaic remains on Kel Dag, they also bore sacred significance, as we will see later in this chapter, match well Strabo’s description of an exedra or lookout post in the area having controlling views over the surrounding valleys, especially the Cayster to the south.38 Although highland sites were naturally defensible, some 117

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 5.6. The east face of S¸ahankaya, to W, with S¸ahankaya proper to right and Yedikule to left (cat. no. 14.1A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

received fortification measures as well, but probably only in Late Lydian times. The most spectacular example of such a fortified stronghold comes from northern Lydia. The towering double-peaked dome of rock that is known locally as S¸ahankaya (cat. no. 14.1A), a corruption of S¸ahinkaya, or “Falcon Rock,” commands views over the central part of northern Lydia (Figure 5.6). Clive Foss previously documented its Hellenistic and Middle Byzantine archaeology and history and established its importance in those times as a strategic and highly defensible stronghold probably known as Plateia Petra.39 A considerable amount of additional evidence on and around the rock has been documented more recently, however, and this points to earlier activities in the area.40 Before they were destroyed in recent times, several tumuli were clustered around its base. These tumuli, and/or other tombs in the area, produced some of the finest metal plate, jewelry,41 and, most recently, sculpture ever found in Lydia (cat. nos. 14.1C–D). These finds bear notable Persian associations and date probably to the first half of the fifth century. Following patterns elsewhere in Lydia, we can be sure of their indication of Late Lydian occupation in the area. S¸ahankaya itself bears tantalizingly little evidence of indisputably early date, but several remains suggest pre-Hellenistic activities, including 118

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

N

0 50 100 Contour interval 25 m 1 Watchtower 2 Church (?) 3 Cisterns 4 Ashlar Well 5 Foundations 6 Pond 7 Fire Altar 8 Rock-Cut Steps 9 Road 10 Gate

1

—Megalithic walls

—Fourth Century– Hellenistic Walls —Middle Byzantine Walls

2 3 5 5

3 3 4

5 5 6

9

7

8 3

Ye d ik u at

h

Fo

ot

le 10

p

Figure 5.7. Plan of S¸ahankaya (cat. no. 14.1A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

fortification walls previously attributed to Hellenistic and later periods (Figure 5.7). These comprise what are best described as megalithic sections composed of enormous local stones, worked only sparingly and set together without mortar. The walls may date as early as the Late Bronze Age, but 119

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

were reused over time, at least through the Middle Byzantine period.42 Additional remains of a military nature consist of the foundations of a roughly 8 meter by 8 meter square tower that occupy the highest point on the northern peak. The construction and size of the tower correspond well to fourth century through Hellenistic watchtowers known elsewhere in western Anatolia and Greece, and its lofty situation would have allowed observation over the entire surrounding area of northern Lydia. The southern of the two peaks is dominated by a Middle Byzantine stronghold, but earlier remains also might be found there. On the saddle between the two peaks are fourth century and/or Hellenistic occupation remains and a conspicuous rock-cut monument that closely resembles rock-cut fire altars found in the Persian heartland of modern Iran (Figure 5.8).43 The strategic significance of S¸ahankaya as a stronghold is clear, and its occupation for such purposes by the Late Lydian period enables us to include fortified strongholds in the repertoire of greater Lydian settlement types, even though it is thus far unique. Why exactly the site was secured and whether it was the refuge of a more expansive site below is less certain. Thanks to the nearby chance find of a sling bullet inscribed with the name of Tissaphernes (cat. no. 14.2),44 the Persian satrap at Sardis, we can suggest a military importance for the site by the late fifth or early fourth century, whether the sling bullet derives from an actual battle site or from some other context. Other circumstantial evidence for the identity of the local inhabitants comes from a second century CE conventus list from Ephesus, a sort of land register that named villages and communities in geographic sequence. A people known as the Julii “who were formerly called Maibozanoi” dwelt in the area around S¸ahankaya at the time, and this group is thought to have had its origins in a Persian military colony or garrison.45 Thus we can imagine the Maibozanoi to have settled the area and then established their garrison on and perhaps around S¸ahankaya. This would explain the strongly Persian features in local funerary remains and would help clarify the significance of the rock-cut fire altar on its saddle: a sacred monument such as this would have allowed ethnic Persian soldiers a familiar sacred outlet in a land that was otherwise completely foreign. Why northern Lydia was deemed important enough to guard with such a garrison force in the Late Lydian period requires explanation. From elsewhere in the Achaemenid Empire, we learn that garrison responsibilities in protecting agricultural territory and commoners, in ensuring productivity, and in managing tribute collections were basically inseparable.46 Northern Lydia has never been known for its agricultural productivity, however, and 120

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

Figure 5.8. The Persian-style fire altar at S¸ahankaya, to W (cat. no. 14.1A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

the hilly ruggedness that defines it is not aptly suited to convenient routes of communication. One possible explanation is that the extremely strong defensibility of S¸ahankaya required it to be held in order to keep it out of the wrong hands. Its intervisibility with Sardis and many other points in central and northern Lydia make it a very strategic place. Another possible explanation is that settlement areas in northern Lydia, such as that ¨ indicated by a few stray finds at modern Gordes (cat. no. 14.3), were more important than previously recognized, and communication routes leading to them may have passed beneath or nearby S¸ahankaya. A final possible explanation for the apparent importance of controlling the area may lie in yet undiscovered reserves of an important material resource, an influence on settlement patterns that we can document elsewhere.

Resource Control and Procurement Certain settlement areas undoubtedly exploited local non-subsistence resources. Ancient workings have been identified only rarely, however, and in such cases the exact date of exploitation is often difficult to determine. 121

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

At the same time, only certain resources may have been considered valuable enough to dictate settlement patterns. Cinnabar used in red pigments, for example, was mined in the fifth century in the Cayster Valley,47 but it may not have been economically significant enough to attract nearby settlement unless other factors such as agricultural viability were already satisfied. For these reasons the number of settlement areas situated for the control and procurement of nonsubsistence resources remains unclear, with all possibilities for such settlement areas also situated advantageously with respect to other concerns. In fact, settlement areas well-suited to multiple settlement concerns – subsistence, communications, territorial control, and special resources – would likely have been important centers, and this is a common explanation for the rise to prominence of Sardis. Sardis controlled the corridor of travel and trade and the rich agricultural territory that was the middle Hermus River valley from a commanding acropolis by which electrum-bearing rivers flowed. In the foothills behind the city was a fine white marble source, in addition to other building materials, nestled amongst grassy knolls that would have sated the appetites of grazing flocks. These factors are not coincidental, and may have combined over the course of hundreds of years to allow Sardians to achieve the status they did by the late eighth or early seventh century. In addition to Sardis, several other settlement areas also may have benefited from control of local resources. ¨ in eastern Lydia may have conThe settlement area near modern Gure trolled metal sources to its north and east in which mining galleries were noted in the early twentieth century CE (cat. no. 16.8).48 Rich gold and silver metal plate and jewelry were among the most common finds of the so-called Lydian Hoard, a collection of material looted from nearby tumulus tomb chambers, and associated metal-working tools probably indicate local production of the same. Gold mines on Mt. Sipylus identified again in the twentieth century may have attracted people to that area (e.g., cat. nos. 4.1–7),49 and the same may have been true in eastern Lydia around modern Es¸me, where tumulus groups and other evidence indicate the locations of ancient settlement areas (e.g., cat. nos. 16.11–13). Materials other than precious metals may have been of influence, too. Fine white marble and wavy-banded travertine sources located along the eastern edge of the middle Phrygius River valley may have invited dense populations there (e.g., cat. nos. 7.1–5). Because of the great expense of overland transport, these fine stones must have been used primarily in local construction and craft production, yet some procurement for longer distance exchange may have supplemented local economies. 122

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

Figure 5.9. The calm water and reeds of the Gygaean Lake, with the tumuli of Bin Tepe in the background, to S (C. H. Roosevelt).

In addition to these material resources, thermal springs may have influenced settlement near Sardis, around Magnesia ad Sipylum, and in the Catacecaumene.50 Ancient activities in these areas are attested (e.g., cat. nos. 4.7, 16.3–6), yet their nature remains unclear. Such springs may have been considered sacred points in the landscape, possibly even associated with healing or divination, as they were in other areas of the ancient world. More formalized religious establishments and related communities are known from elsewhere in central and greater Lydia and are discussed next.

SACRED LANDSCAPES AND CULT PLACES

Religion in central and greater Lydia was, as at Sardis, multilayered with Anatolian (Phrygian and Lydian), Greek, and Persian cults.51 Historical texts and inscriptions provide the largest share of evidence for cult practices at Sardis, where, in addition, altars, sculpted naiskoi, and perhaps even lionsculpture dedications marked the early prominence of Artemis, Cybele, and Zeus, among a pantheon of other gods and goddesses. The same pattern of evidence applies to cult activities in central and greater Lydia, where, again, historical and epigraphic sources outweigh the material remains. The Gygaean Lake and areas around it in central Lydia likely gained sacred significance from an early date and continued to be of spiritual significance in later periods (Figure 5.9). Direct archaeological evidence of religious activities in central Lydia dates primarily to periods later than our 123

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

discussion here, but such evidence is probably reflective of long-standing traditions geographically anchored to sacred spaces spread across central Lydian landscapes. In greater Lydia, too, several rural sanctuaries are known from archaeological evidence. These must have been important places for local communities and, perhaps, urban pilgrims, but understanding of their development and importance is hampered by a general lack of evidence. Religious activities and sacred places unconfined by formal, bounded sanctuaries must have been prevalent in greater Lydia, just as they were at Sardis, but evidence for these, too, remains mainly circumstantial. The historical association of the Gygaean Lake with things sacred begins with its earliest mention by Homer, who says it was the mother of the leaders of the Maeonians who fought alongside the Trojans.52 The Maeonians can be equated with the ancestral Lydians in central Lydia, and the “mother” invoked by Homer may connote the early significance of the area to the Mother, or Cybele, whose importance at Sardis we have seen already. A Roman Imperial period dedication to the “Lydian Mother of the Gods” found along the north shore of the lake strengthens this possibility, although no earlier evidence has been discovered.53 Even if not related to Cybele, Homer’s story of the maternal nature of the lake parallels its probable ancestral significance reflected in its early name. Homer’s referral to Gygaia limne probably predates the famous Mermnad Gyges and thus the name must derive from the common root of Gygaia and Gyges: a cognate to the Luwian Huha and the Lycian Kuga, both meaning “grandfather,” “ancestor,” or “old one.”54 The adoption of this ancestral name for the lake may derive from the fact that, by the Early Iron Age, the area of central Lydia around the Gygaean Lake had been inhabited far longer and had far more noticeable remains of earlier occupation than anywhere else in central Lydia (see Chapter 2).55 Evidence for the best-known cult in central Lydia dates not from such early times, however, but from the Achaemenid period. By the fourth century, a cult of Artemis Colo¨ene (or Lydian kulumsis) is attested in Lydian inscriptions from Sardis, and Strabo informs us that the lake previously called “Gygaean” had taken the name Colo¨e after this goddess by his day.56 In the same passage Strabo adds that at festivals of the cult of Artemis Colo¨ene, baskets were said to dance. Other ancient authors mention sacred fish, dancing islands, and islands of reeds that move with the wind or that can be poled as rafts by men. Modern commentators have cleverly equated the islands of reeds with the dancing baskets and islands, suggesting that they all refer to natural occurrences on and around the Gygaean Lake.57 Indeed, reedy islands in the shallows of the lake do appear to dance or 124

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

move over the ripples of the lake when the wind blows, and fish, sacred or not, are still abundant. The sanctuary was thought to have been discovered in the midnineteenth century on a prominent, flat-topped hill known today as Kus¸tepe (cat. no. 1.3), above the southeast shore of the lake, when three Doric columns and a figural frieze displaying a lion head and a capped archer came to light.58 Although the remains of a temple and other features were identified easily in the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century explorers met with no such luck.59 Worked blocks and other finds of Late Roman or Byzantine date were seen in a disturbed context on Kus¸tepe in 1982, but extensive limestone quarrying on this hill begun before that date had obliterated any chance of a confident identification of the ruins. Other attempts to locate the sanctuary have failed despite the discovery of contemporary remains of a probably religious nature elsewhere around the lake.60 Archaeological remains of Middle/Late Lydian date have been identified on a low, flat-topped ridge that plunges directly into the northern side of the lake. The promontory is known today as Tınaztepe and may have been the site of a sanctuary by Hellenistic times (cat. no. 1.35).61 Three inscriptions from nearby villages refer to a cult of Apollo Pleurenos located at or near a settlement called Pleura. The meaning of these names has something to do with “shores” or “banks,” indicating that they were presumably on the shore of the Gygaean Lake.62 Tınaztepe would be a fitting place for the sanctuary of an Apollo of the shore, but more conclusive evidence is needed to be certain. No other Middle/Late Lydian period evidence of cultic activities in central Lydia is known, despite evidence for later cults of Apollo and the Lydian Mother of the Gods, and also one of Zeus Driktes.63 In greater Lydia, we have already seen evidence for rural religious activity on the saddle of S¸ahankaya in the form of a Persian-style fire altar. While of religious significance, the presence of the altar was probably tied to the occupation of the site for garrison purposes. Other highland or peak sites in Lydia, however, appear to have had as their primary raison d’etre religious activity and are best considered to be rural sanctuaries. Although only a few Middle and Late Lydian sherds have been found on the highest peak of the Tmolus Range, Boz Dag˘ (cat. no. 17.5), the most convincing physical evidence comes from the double-peaked mountain to its west known today as Kel Dag˘ (but probably as Mt. Karios in antiquity), the likely site of Strabo’s exedra mentioned earlier in this chapter (cat. no. 17.1).64 According to recent investigations around the site, in addition to an abundance of Lydian sherds indicating cult activity at the site, structures on each peak 125

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

were made of locally-quarried, large, ashlar foundation blocks of white marble; in stylistic contrast, another, smaller structure on the northern peak was built with fieldstone masonry in addition to the abundant remains of Roman roof tiles scattered along the saddle between the two peaks.65 The range of archaic through Roman finds indicates the continuing importance of this site throughout antiquity. Significantly, the series of outdoor white marble altars located across the entire summit suggests its ritualistic use in antiquity and identifies the site “as an open-air, sacred precinct,” most likely dedicated to Carian Zeus.66 The peak sanctuary on Kel Dag˘ likely garnered prestige from its situation on a north–south route, perhaps a sacred route, connecting Sardis with Hypaepa, and the fourth-century Sacrilege Inscription from Ephesus suggests that the route continued on from there to Ephesus.67 Ancient remains have been noted in several places along this route, and just south of Kel Dag˘ were found other proofs of rural religious activities.68 Among other evidence, a large architectural frieze block probably associated with a temple belonging to a nearby rural sacred precinct has been documented nearer to Hypaepa (cat. no. 17.2).69 Hypaepa received more attention in ancient texts as a rural sanctuary ¨ uce ¨ along this route from Sardis (cat. no. 19.3). Located in modern Gunl (formerly Datbey and Tapay), ancient Hypaepa was the center of a thriving Persian cult of Artemis Anaitis, whose magoi, or priests, were described in antiquity.70 Pausanias tells us that the Lydians who were called “Persians” had sanctuaries in Lydia – one here and one at Hierocaesareia.71 In each sanctuary was a building and an ash-bearing altar on which the magoi set wood, reportedly causing it to burn by donning a tiara and chanting the cult name in a foreign tongue as read from a prepared script. Activities at the site described by Pausanias are given some credibility by numerous inscriptions referring both to the cult of the goddess and the magoi.72 Coins displaying the goddess, her temple, and a fire altar show that the cult was active at least as early as the Hellenistic period.73 An interesting proposal places the Persian Mardoi of Herodotus at Hypaepa,74 and the material evidence of two lion statues found among its ruins shows Lydian period activity there, too (cat. nos. 19.3A–B). One ¨ of these lions, currently in the Odemis ¸ Museum, is unique in western Anatolia: it lacks a rump and bears a second forepart in its stead (cat. no. 19.3B). If indeed it dates to the early sixth century and served as a capital rather than for some other use, it may be a Lydian predecessor to the similarly conceived Achaemenid column capitals known best from Persepolis (Figure 5.10).75 126

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

¨ ¨ Figure 5.10. The double-lion statue from Hypaepa in the Odemis ¸ Museum (OM1955) (cat. no. 19.3B) (C. H. Roosevelt).

The other Persian sanctuary in Lydia mentioned by Pausanias was Hierocaesareia, called Hierakome up until early Roman times (cat. no. 7.3).76 Remains of the later sanctuary located in the middle Phrygius River valley have been known since the late nineteenth century from inscriptions of varying types and coins.77 The origins of this site are just as obscure as those of Hypaepa, but Tacitus dates the consecration of the sanctuary to the time of Cyrus; whether he meant the sixth-century Cyrus the Great or the late fifth-century Cyrus the Younger is unclear, but the latter seems possible given his longer-term interest and activity in Lydia.78 N. Sekunda argued for the existence of the sanctuary by the late fourth century based on Pausanias’ story that a likeness of the Lydian Adrastus was set up in front of the sanctuary of Persian Artemis after his death in the Lamian War.79 Which sanctuary of Persian Artemis Pausanias meant, however, is unspecified, and he may have referred to that at Hypaepa, the one at Sardis, or perhaps to a yet undiscovered sanctuary elsewhere in Lydia. At any rate, Hierakome surely was in existence by the late fourth century as it is named in the so-called Sacrilege Inscription from Ephesus as the hometown of one Sisines.80 Middle or Late Lydian activity at the site is attested materially by two lion statues found in the nearest village, and by a group of ten tumuli that surrounds the area of later settlement remains (cat. nos. 17.3A–C). The association of a tumulus group with a place known primarily for its sanctuary is an interesting circumstance and raises questions about the development of the sanctuary, its priests, and its associated settlement. 127

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Who received the honor of tumulus burial – estate owners in and around Hierakome or sacred officials? Did sacred officials at Hierakome administer a type of “Anatolian temple economy,” controlling sacred revenues and lands, exerting economic influence, and acting in some cases as bankers, as indicated in the Mnesimachus Inscription and also earlier sixth-century dedicatory inscriptions at Ephesus?81 If sacred positions were hereditary, as suggested by the family of Ariaramnes in Caria, which for several generations dominated sacred officialdom in the sanctuary of Artemis at Amyzon,82 might this explain the achievement of such high-status burial in tumuli? Did the sanctuary develop from its association with a settlement area, or did the settlement grow around the sanctuary concomitant with its increasing religious and economic importance? These questions will remain unanswered for the time being, but we can be sure of the growing importance of the cult at Hierakome through the end of the first millennium by which time its influence appears to have become regional. ¨ Inscriptions of this time found at Golmarmara, at the southernmost limit of the middle Phrygius River valley, and Sarıc¸am, on the edge of the Hyrcanian Plain, mention Artemis Persike and a sanctuary of “the Persian Goddess,” respectively, and most probably refer to the cult at Hierakome.83 Cults of Anaitis, the Persian goddess frequently associated with Artemis, were generally very popular in Lydia by this time and were sometimes paired with cults of other deities – those of Zeus in the middle Cogamus River valley, reflecting a possible cultic link to later Sardis, and of Mˆen in eastern Lydia.84 These might be later developments, however, and we must return to evidence for rural sanctuaries in earlier periods. The recently discovered mid-fourth-century Aramaic inscription mentioned above (cat. no. 16.2) refers to a god, probably the moon god Mˆen, and thus might attest Late Lydian worship of this deity, perhaps, as A. Lemaire suggests, at a rural sanctuary.85 The inscription was found in eastern Lydia at the edge of the Catacecaumene, where the cult of Mˆen became extremely popular by Roman times. Among many later rural sanctuaries consecrated to numerous deities – including various epithets of Zeus, Apollo, Artemis, and others86 – rural sanctuaries bearing evidence for earlier activities include those dedicated to the Mother Goddess, known most commonly as Cybele but bearing other titles, too, and to Zeus, in addition to his sanctuary on Mt. Karios. A temple to the Mother Goddess Thea Larmene built in later periods has been identified on Yes¸iloba Tepe in the Catacecaumene of eastern Lydia, but an earlier predecessor lacks substantiation.87 A better-attested early cult of the Mother is known from the foot of Mt. Sipylus, where 128

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

a Hittite-style rock-cut relief was later translated into the cult of Meter Plastene, identified with Cybele on a votive stele found nearby showing the goddess flanked by lions, her most common iconographical companions (cat. no. 4.4C).88 Pausanias, too, confirms the equation by referring to the rock-cut relief known recently as Tas¸ Suret as the “Mother of the Gods.”89 In the mid-nineteenth century, a small lake lying just below the rock-cut monument was drained, revealing remains said to belong to a temple, and probably indicating the association of the later sanctuary of Meter Plastene with springs.90 One last area perhaps sacred to Cybele or the Mother is located in the upper Caicus River valley, between the Kahraman neighborhood of Gelenbe and the village of Karakurt (cat. no. 9.3). In addition to both freestanding and rock-cut tombs,91 stepped monuments hewn from outcrops of the local bedrock are found in great number throughout the area. Neither iconic reliefs nor cult statues have been discovered, yet the close resemblance of these features to similar cultic monuments in the Phrygian Highlands strongly suggests their association with the Mother. Other than on Mt. Karios, Zeus appears to have had a rural sanctuary in modern Birgi, earlier known as Pyrgion and still earlier as Dioshieron, or “Sanctuary of Zeus” (cat. no. 19.1).92 Ptolemy’s remarks and images on local coins prove religious activity at the site in later times, yet a passing reference of Thucydides suggests its existence already in the fifth century.93 Archaeological evidence including an archaic statue of a lion confirms activity during these times and a nearby tumulus brings us back to the bevy of questions raised above with respect to Hierakome about sacred officials and village-sanctuary development and interaction. Undoubtedly many more rural shrines and sanctuaries than this were active in Middle and Late Lydian times. Until substantiated by contemporary archaeological remains, however, their nature and distribution will remain obscure.

LYDIAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND REGIONAL INTERACTION

The locations of settlements and other sites distributed throughout central and greater Lydia reveal general and interrelated concerns about the selection of settlement areas: agricultural viability, communications, territorial control and defense, and area-specific resources. Such concerns provide insight into the nature and extent of economic and sociopolitical interaction among hinterland sites and Sardis. The Lydian countryside is abundant both in subsistence and in rarer material resources. Its productive 129

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

capacity of cereal and wine was praised in antiquity, and many other field, tree-fruit, and pastoral products are evidenced in historical texts, archaeological contexts, and/or recent comparative data. Similarly, sources of building materials, rare minerals with diverse uses, and precious metals can be found in close proximity to many sites and were undoubtedly important economic resources. Settlement areas comprised of wealthy estates and agricultural hamlets or villages in regions best suited to particular types of crop production, animal husbandry, or other types of resource exploitation were well-situated to take advantage of such conditions. Local commoners – equivalent to the laoi of the Mnesimachus Inscription – would have served as the most productive population. In agricultural areas, commoners may have had the status of tenant sharecroppers, but may themselves have been bound to the rural estates of the elite in the fashion of medieval serfs. We cannot clarify this point without new written evidence, but we can imagine commoners and slaves to have provided labor for the procurement of stone and mineral resources, and perhaps also for their processing. While these activities certainly would have been geared toward local subsistence, sites in central Lydia must have provided agricultural produce to help feed the urban population of Sardis, too. As we saw in Chapter 4, estimates for the population of Middle Lydian Sardis range between perhaps 10,000–20,000 and 50,000 inhabitants.94 If one adopts a value of around 0.75–1 hectare of cultivated area per person as a minimum requirement for basic subsistence, then a minimum of between 15,000 and 20,000 hectares (or 150–200 square kilometers) would need to have been under cultivation to sustain a Sardian population of 20,000 inhabitants – the middling population estimate.95 Before the construction of dams on the Hermus River and on tributaries of the Cogamus River in the 1960s and 1970s, the majority of the broad valley floor of the middle Hermus River in central Lydia was nonarable marshland. The area put under cultivation to feed Sardis, then, must have spread to the northern side of the valley and to the east and west of Sardis. An area of 15,000 to 20,000 hectares, although large, might have been under the control of a relatively small number of large estates comparable in size to that of Mnesimachus,96 for example, which could have managed the cultivation easily. In addition, both in central Lydia and further afield, resource activities would have produced surpluses for payment of both revenue to estate owners and tribute to the capital at Sardis, at first, and later through Sardis to the Achaemenid Persian heartland. 130

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

Agricultural production for tribute and certain types of craft production were likely organized by estate owners, with production of crafts using the rarest of resources or requiring the most esoteric knowledge limited to specific resource procurement zones and to Sardis itself, where we can expect a higher number of craft producers to have lived. Estate owners may not have been alone in the organization and exchange of agricultural and craft products, however. Lydians were famed peddlers (kapeloi), at least after the sixth-century invention of bimetallic coinage, but probably beforehand, too, and raw materials and finished goods associated with food and craft production must have traversed exchange networks between producers, crafters, and markets both within the hub of Sardis and radiating outward into the Lydian countryside.97 Lydian traveling markets peddled grain supplies for armies still in the early fourth century and probably had roots in a system of rural exchange that originally supplied the urban population of Sardis with surplus agricultural goods from its hinterland.98 Traveling markets of kapeloi, as well as permanent markets at Sardis manned by agoraioi, facilitated the exchange of nonsubsistence goods also, such as fine imported ceramics from Greek workshops.99 Lydian ceramic production was probably decentralized to some extent, as evidenced by the proliferation of Lydian pottery made with regionally local clays, but finer imports were probably traded through the urban capital. Thus we can see imported Greek and East Greek wares found at Ahlatlı Tepecik and at other sites in central Lydia as evidence of mercantile connections with Sardis rather than as evidence of direct connections with Greek ceramic producing centers at Athens, Corinth, and Chios, for example, or even with Aegean traders bearing products from Greek cities. Such finds, then, are indicative of rural exchange networks tied to Sardis that traded in small crafts and subsistence goods. Other classes of material and craft technologies penetrated into the countryside only rarely before the mid-sixth century but were exchanged between Sardis and other urban areas to the east and west of Lydia. Such items of exchange were usually associated with higher luxury and were probably produced in closely controlled and/or royally sponsored workshops. Hinterland interaction with the capital is also shown by the distribution of sites in defensible locations. As already described, none of these appear to have developed into fortified citadels on the scale of Sardis, but rather were probably smaller scale refuges or strongholds intended to house small garrisons serving to monitor and protect the countryside. The existence of this type of site implies some degree of organization and control from 131

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Sardis. Although remains from the high-elevation lookouts of Kel Dag˘ and S¸ahankaya appear to date primarily to Late Lydian times, the distribution of settlement areas with similar defensive locations suggests the existence of a defensive network already in the Middle Lydian period. That such settlement areas and the estates within them were marked by tumulus burials suggests also the maintenance and organization of such defensive networks by landowning families. In addition to these patterns of settlement evocative of economic and socio-political organization, religious establishments were distributed throughout the region. Sanctuaries and smaller cult places of Zeus, Cybele (or the Mother), Artemis, Artemis Anaitis (or Persian Artemis), and Mˆen have been identified, and, with the exception of the latter two, the others appear to have been active at least as early as the Middle Lydian period. Only a few major rural cult sites are known archaeologically (e.g., Hier˘ but numerous smaller spring and other akome, Hypaepa, and Kel Dag), cults attested in later inscriptions probably have early origins. Sacred roads like that connecting Sardis to Hypaepa may have led from Sardis to the north, east, and west, as well, creating a network of religious places with Sardis at its hub. That central Lydian cults were important at Sardis is manifest in the cult of Artemis Colo¨ene, established at least as early as the fourth century but probably earlier, and sacred links between central Lydia and Sardis continued to be strong in much later times, when inscriptions name central Lydian priests and benefactors of Sardian cults and vice versa. An earlier sacred link perhaps associated with the Mother may be seen also in the ancestral associations of the Gygaean Lake and its environs, which for Sardian kings served as powerful propaganda to validate their incipient imperial power. It has been argued that rural sanctuaries played a significant role in state formation in ancient Greece with Greek city-states using rural sanctuaries as territorial markers, among other things.100 Whether something similar obtained in Lydia, far larger than any Greek city-state, remains completely unknown, yet one might look to the famed patronage of east Greek sanctuaries by Mermnad kings in this light. Given the evidence available to date, it is probable that rural sanctuaries primarily served the needs of rural populations in Lydian and Achaemenid times just as in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.101 Importantly, to the best of our knowledge the physical structures of most sites in central and greater Lydia were never monumentalized. Excepting a few sites of obvious military and/or religious significance, archaeological survey has recovered no evidence of monumental stone architecture 132

Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia

associated with occupation outside Sardis, where public buildings and monumental constructions define it as the primary urban center of the region, according well with many historical sources chronicling its prominent status as capital of the Lydian Kingdom and Empire, as well as the later satrapy of Sparda. Instead of marking status in monumentalized domestic architecture, the simple timber-and-thatch nature of which was sometimes reflected in the interior decoration of tombs, landowning families probably did so with portable goods and with landholdings marked by high-status funerary monuments – tumuli. As will be demonstrated in Chapter 6, high-status individuals and families used tumuli not only to mark the locations of their estates, but also to display their high status; rich grave assemblages and evocative graveside markers also bespeak strong connections to the capital of Sardis and its bustling cosmopolitan community.

133

CHAPTER SIX

Burial and Society

The picture of societal diversity at cosmopolitan Sardis of the Middle and Late Lydian periods painted by the types of evidence discussed in Chapter 4 is both confirmed and interestingly contrasted by the striking uniformity of Lydian traditions concerning death, both at Sardis and in its hinterland. Very little is known about Lydian burial traditions before the late seventh or early sixth century, and so our best evidence, again, dates to the reigns of Alyattes and Croesus, at the end of the Middle Lydian period, and to the Late Lydian or Achaemenid period. By the early sixth century, at any rate, marked status differentiation at Sardis illustrated by textual sources is reflected in a variety of tomb types, all apparently extramural, including simple pits, sarcophagi, and chamber tombs, and the latter two forms are sometimes found in combination. Cremations from this period have yet to be discovered. Although these tombs confirm the existence of vast social inequality at Sardis and in greater Lydia, their uniformity in form and concept obviates most attempts to assign particular burial types to the particular ethnicities we know to have been present at Sardis – not just Lydians, but Phrygians, Mysians, Carians, Greeks, and, later, Persians, as well. The long-term pattern and conceptual uniformity that underpins Lydian burial practices, then, is the display of status through funerary traditions using a limited variety of media. Of greatest interest in the mortuary evidence is not simply that burials were used to display status, but in the symbolic means with which they did so. These means are reflected primarily in the selection of burial forms, graveside markers and sculpture, and grave assemblages that do not appear monotonously again and again across space and over time, but rather that are marked by a vibrant and continuous trend of combining local Lydian, Western, and Eastern features, traditions, and iconography into eclectic compilations. This material and 135

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

iconographic eclecticism is common throughout the region and may be evidence for close interaction between social elites or nobles buried on or near rural estates in greater Lydia and the cosmopolitan center of Sardis in both the Middle and Late Lydian periods. It is these same social elites for whom our evidence is most abundant – their tombs, especially tumuli covering chamber-tomb complexes, were built to be conspicuous in antiquity and they remain so today, with both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, tumuli are easily identified in comparison to contemporary pit and sarcophagus burials, which usually leave little evidence above ground, and thus archaeologists may easily document them. On the other hand, because of this same conspicuousness they fall prey to rapacious tomb robbers, whose activities began already in antiquity and continue today.1 For this reason, the vast majority of funerary evidence from greater Lydia has been recovered from contexts disturbed by looting. What has been recovered in the way of small finds probably represents funerary assemblages that are incomplete because of the poor preservation of perishable materials and the prejudice of looters for objects of perceived market value. In addition, an ancient tendency to reuse tombs for later burials often confounds attempts to understand the long-term development of mortuary practices by intermixing contexts from multiple periods. Nevertheless, much information can be salvaged from the mortuary evidence we have at hand, and this evidence only increases in importance because of the lack of excavations in greater Lydia focusing on “living” or domestic contexts. It is in the tomb types and associated graveside markers and grave assemblages of the region, then, that we have our best evidence for status differentiation in greater Lydian society and the eclecticism of the material culture and iconography employed to mark it.

REGIONAL BURIAL TYPES

Pits Pit burials are usually presumed to be the burial type of lowest status in Lydia – given the relatively slight expense of their construction – and, hence, they should be the most abundant as well. Very few tombs of this type have been discovered, however, but this is probably because they go so easily unnoticed. Those excavated by the ongoing Sardis Expedition, including two at Sardis in 1961 dating to the mid-sixth century (Figure 6.1), and two more at Ahlatlı Tepecik in 1968 dating to that time or slightly later, 136

Burial and Society

˙ Figure 6.1. Two stone-lined pit graves at Sardis (Indere tombs 61.1–61.2) (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

consisted of roughly rectangular pits dug into the ground and lined and covered with stone slabs; those at Sardis were the graves of adults and those at Ahlatlı Tepecik the graves of a young adult and a child (cat. no. 1.6).2 ˘ neighborhood of Buy ¨ ukbelen ¨ Another slab-lined pit in the Kanbogaz in central Lydia was recovered in salvage excavations subsequent to looting, and it had been used originally for the burial of a child in the late sixth or early fifth century (cat. no. 1.26).3 A thus far unique example of a pit grave of the sixth century excavated in 1922 at Sardis was lined not with stone slabs, but with roof tiles and the type of architectural terracottas usually associated with high-status or public buildings at Sardis, presumably reused from a different context.4

Sarcophagi Like those in pits, burials in sarcophagi of terracotta or stone are found set directly into the ground, but they are found also within slab-lined pits and chamber tombs. That sarcophagus burials were of higher status than pit burials can be assumed given the expenditures of materials and labor required for the production of both the terracotta and stone varieties. Terracotta sarcophagi in Lydia are of relatively plain, rectangular form, perhaps 137

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

simple derivatives of the Monastirakia class of terracotta sarcophagi produced in East Greece, and stone sarcophagi are similarly uniform in their simplicity.5 Almost always made of limestone, these usually take a locally developed, indigenous form that is rounded and bathtub-like in its lower section and sealed with a gabled lid (Figure 6.2). A few rectangular, box-like sarcophagi are known from greater Lydia, as well, but these appear to be more common elsewhere in western Anatolia.6 A terracotta sarcophagus set within a slab-lined pit in Tekeliler, north of Mt. Sipylus in the western reaches of the middle Hermus Figure 6.2. Lydian bathtub sarcophagi in a rock- River valley, served as the burial of a cut chamber tomb at Sardis (after Butler 1922: child in the early fifth century (cat. 160, ill. 177) (Department of Art and Archaeolno. 5.4).7 The age and sex of the ogy, Princeton University). deceased found within another terracotta sarcophagus in eastern Bin Tepe was undetermined because of the unfortunate fact that archaeologists were not its discoverers (cat. no. 1.3B); like many such burials throughout Lydia, it was looted first, the details of its context only partially salvaged by archaeologists at a later date.8 In addition to occurring all over Lydia individually, set directly into the ground, limestone bathtub sarcophagi have been found used in combination with other types of burials. In a few cases, sarcophagi were covered with small earthen mounds as the primary burials of tumuli. In many other cases they are found set into the upper layers of tumulus fill as secondary burials made subsequent to the original construction and use of the tomb. In addition, sarcophagi have been found sunken into the floors of rock-cut chamber tombs at Sardis, as in Tomb 813, as well as sunken into or sitting on the masonry-built floors of chamber tombs beneath tumuli, as at the ¨ Basmacı and Golde tumuli, in eastern Lydia (cat. no. 16.8B) and at the eastern end of the middle Hermus River valley (cat. no. 10.1A), respectively.9 More commonly, however, chamber tombs in Lydia are furnished with other types of resting places for the deceased, as we will see below in the section on grave assemblages and funeral ceremonies. 138

Burial and Society

Figure 6.3. Rock-cut chamber tomb entrances in the South Necropolis of Sardis, to S (Courtesy of N. D. Cahill).

Chamber Tombs Chamber tombs in Lydia are either hewn from bedrock, built of masonry blocks, or constructed using a combination of these two methods, and they are defined by their provision of at least one “chamber.” Typical chambers are large enough for a person of average size to stand or lie within and are given some sort of access to the outside, usually a doorway and a short dromos, or access corridor. Found most commonly hewn into hillsides or outcrops of soft bedrock, they dominate the three main cemeteries at Sardis: the Great Necropolis, the South Necropolis, and the Southeast Necropolis (Figure 6.3). More than 1,150 rock-cut chamber tombs were discovered in these cemeteries during the early twentieth century excavations at Sardis, and in only one or two were undisturbed burials revealed.10 These cemeteries appear to have been in use from the late seventh or early sixth century through the Late Lydian period, but understanding their development – originating most likely from local western Anatolian traditions – is hindered by a nearly continuous tradition of reuse, which in some cases continued into even later times.11 In their simplest and earliest forms, they consist of single chambers with some sort of access provided vertically through the ceiling or horizontally by means of a doorway and/or dromos.12 None of those dated tentatively to the late seventh or early sixth century appears to have been prepared for more than a single interment.13 139

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Rock-cut cemeteries occur in greater Lydia, too, but these are even less well documented than those at Sardis. Numerous examples are known – just west of Sardis in the middle Hermus River valley (cat. nos. 2.2C and 2.5), along the northern foothills of Mt. Sipylus (cat. nos. 4.3B and 4.4A), in the Hyrcanian Plain (cat. no. 6.2B), in the middle Phrygius River valley (cat. no. 7.2C), in the Lycus Valley (cat. nos. 8.1C and 8.7C), in the upper Caicus River valley (cat. nos. 9.1B, 9.3A, 9.6, and 9.7B), in the central Tmolus Range (cat. no. 17.3B), and in the Cayster Valley (cat. nos. 19.4B and 19.5) – but they have yet to be explored with systematic methods beyond the haphazard collection of finds of the Middle and Late Lydian periods from chamber tombs that resemble those at Sardis. Whether the rock-cut cemeteries at Sardis were used by Sardians alone or also by those living in nearby satellite communities remains unclear, as does the status of their users. Given the large number of chamber tombs and their sometimes-rich contents at Sardis, it is likely that they served the large and affluent middle classes including the kapeloi, agoraioi, and cheironaktes, among groups mentioned in Chapter 4. The rarest form of chamber tomb in Lydia is the freestanding variety, built of masonry or hewn from bedrock. Because of its rarity and conspicuous nature, in addition to the expense of its production, this type must have been built only for people of very high status. The so-called Pyramid Tomb, a monumental stepped tomb at Sardis, probably resembled the Tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae and was built around the same time, probably in the third-quarter of the sixth century (Figure 6.4).14 In addition to the Pyramid Tomb, a sculpted pediment from Sardis (Figure 6.5) and the sculptural decoration of other freestanding tombs in Lydia (cat. nos. 23.2–23.3; see Figures 6.22 and 6.30) may be further evidence of this type of tomb.15 In greater Lydia the rock-cut tombs carved into seemingly freestanding bedrock spurs at Kahraman near Gelenbe (cat. no. 9.3A; Figure 6.6) and the stepped fac¸ade of the “Tomb of Tantalus” at the foot of Mt. Sipylus (cat. no. 4.4A; see catalogue, Figure C.4) may reflect contemporary and related developments. All such tombs appear to represent a western Anatolian funerary tradition post-dating the Persian conquest that includes also Tas¸ Kule near Phocaea (Foc¸a) and eventually leads to more elaborate monuments at Xanthus in Lycia and Halicarnassus in Caria.16 Before the Persian conquest, by the second-quarter of the sixth century and perhaps earlier, a new tradition of burial was adopted in Lydia – the tumulus burial. Tumulus burials in Lydia at first consisted of individual burial in the traditional chamber-tomb form, but now the chamber was 140

Burial and Society

Figure 6.4. Reconstruction drawings of the so-called Pyramid Tomb at Sardis (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

Figure 6.5. The sculpted pediment of a freestanding tomb of the Late Lydian period at Sardis (Sardis cat. nos. S69.14 & NoEx78.1) (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/ Harvard University).

141

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 6.6. Rock-cut tomb in the Kahraman neighborhood of Gelenbe in northwestern Lydia (cat. no. 9.3A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

built of fine, ashlar masonry rather than being hewn from bedrock, and it was covered by an earthen mound of monumental proportions, sometimes girded by a low, stone retaining wall, or crepis. Because of their distribution throughout greater Lydia, their conspicuous sizes and visible situations, built and positioned with a degree of intended ostentation, tumulus burials are the best known type of burial incorporating chamber tombs, and they are best understood as the funerary monuments of Lydian political and social elites and their families. The labor required for the quarrying, transportation, and finishing of the stones that composed chambers and crepis walls, in addition to that needed to heap up great earthen mounds, indicate that this tumulus tradition was meant for the very rich alone – at first, perhaps, only for royalty, but soon thereafter for other political and/or social elites as well.17 Monumental tumuli in Lydia were constructed and used by royal and high-status populations here as they were in other areas in Anatolia and further abroad. Thus tumuli around Gordion are thought to have been built for Phrygian kings and their families, and tumuli in the Balkans and around the Black Sea coast for a “princely” class.18 The earliest datable tumuli in central Lydia are found not at Sardis, but on the limestone ridge of Bin Tepe, just south of the Gygaean Lake and across the Hermus River valley from Sardis, and these are most certainly the tombs of Mermnad royalty. The largest three tumuli – Kocamutaf Tepe, Kırmutaf 142

Burial and Society

Figure 6.7. The landscape of Bin Tepe from Sardis, to N, showing, among many smaller tumuli (cat. no. 1.19B), two of the three largest tumuli of the area–Kırmutaf Tepe (left) and Karnıyarık Tepe (right) (cat. no. 1.8) (C. H. Roosevelt).

Tepe, and Karnıyarık Tepe – measure, respectively, 361, 350, and 234 meters in diameter, and 70, 46, and 49 meters in height (cat. no. 1.8; Figure 6.7). The largest of them is at the eastern end of Bin Tepe and was known already in antiquity as the tumulus of Alyattes (Figure 6.8).19 The size and

Figure 6.8. The tumulus of Alyattes (Kocamutaf Tepe), the largest tumulus in Bin Tepe, to N (C. H. Roosevelt).

143

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 6.9. Restored and cutaway isometric drawings of the tomb chamber of the tumulus of Alyattes (cat. no. 1.8) (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

impressive stone crepis wall of this tumulus was praised by Herodotus, who counted it among the most remarkable monuments in the world next to those in Egypt and Babylon.20 This tumulus – Kocamutaf Tepe – is only slightly smaller in volume than the largest of the Egyptian pyramids and well deserves its international fame. It is also the only royal tumulus in Bin Tepe whose tomb complex has been located and documented. This consists of a large rectangular chamber built of finely worked marble blocks, roofed and floored with limestone beams and slabs, and accessed via a large doorway and roofless forecourt (Figure 6.9). Tumuli had no precedent in Lydia before the construction of the tumulus of Alyattes, but they had been used in earlier times in immediately neighboring areas. Late seventh-century tumuli in East Greece usually covered cremation burials, and they were relatively small and low.21 The most likely source of inspiration for the construction of tumuli in Lydia is the central Anatolian kingdom of Phrygia, where people had been burying their elites beneath earthen mounds since at least the mid-ninth century.22 A typical Phrygian tumulus tomb consisted of a timber-built chamber, with or without a formalized resting place for a single interment, and lacking any door or post-interment access; this was constructed in a pit or at ground level and was covered by a “stone cap” of rubble and then a “mantle” consisting of layers of clay and earth.23 The complete lack of any evidence for horizontally accessed doorways indicates interment from above prior to the final sealing of the chamber with a flat timber roof. This is the Phrygian tumulus tomb in its most ubiquitous form.24 The chamber-tomb complex within the tumulus of Alyattes, with its forecourt, is the earliest datable tumulus in Lydia. As C. Ratt´e has suggested, 144

Burial and Society

Figure 6.10. Drawings of the tomb chamber of the BT 63.2 tumulus, showing its simple form with no doorway (cat. no. 1.13) (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

its construction may have begun after Alyattes witnessed the regal grandeur of such burial types when he passed through Phrygia on his way to and from Median conflicts, sometime between 585 and 560.25 Another early tumulus burial of the early to mid-sixth century in Bin Tepe, BT 63.2, consists of a simple slab-lined pit meant for a single interment and accessed and sealed from above (cat. no. 1.13; Figure 6.10).26 Other tumulus burials in Bin Tepe and elsewhere were probably constructed before the Persian conquest, but evidence for the dates of their construction allows no greater precision than assignments to the mid-sixth century. As the simple pit burial of BT 63.2 was accessed and sealed from above, so too the unique open forecourt in front of the chamber for Alyattes may have been intended to provide access from above, when the supporting layers of earthen mound construction had been raised to the level of its roof. 145

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

These possible provisions of access from above the tomb have parallels in the contemporary Kızılbel tumulus tomb chamber in the Elmalı plain, with its vertical shaft and portcullis-type door (Figure 6.11), and betray the reliance of the early Lydian tradition on Phrygia, where singleinterment tumulus tomb chambers were invariably accessed and sealed from above.27 In the form of Lydian tumulus tomb chambers, beginning with the tumulus of Alyattes and continuing in most subsequent examples, the most conspicuous divergence from the Phrygian tradition is the doorway and, on some slightly later tumuli, the dromos. The inclusion of these features in Lydian tumulus tomb design has been linked to the tradition of the tomb as Totenhaus,28 or the house of the dead, but it may derive more directly from local rock-cut chamber-tomb traditions contemporary with and probably earlier than the tumulus tradition in Lydia. Other than for the form and monumentality of the earthen mound – most probably of Phrygian influence – Lydians at Sardis need have looked no further than across the Pactolus River valley for model burial types to use in tumuli. Indeed, B. McLauchlin has even suggested that the chamber of the tumulus of Alyattes was simply “a translation of what was essentially an established Lydian grave type, the single rectangular chamber, into more costly materials and proportions suitable to royalty.”29 It is in the more costly materials of Lydian tumulus burials that other external influences are apparent, especially in the ashlar masonry construction of chamber-tomb complexes. We have already seen in Chapter 4 that ashlar masonry techniques appear to have been developed simultaneously in Lydia and East Greece, and this shared development may have been the result of Lydian royal patronage of East Greek sanctuaries, as Ratt´e has suggested.30 The tools, techniques, materials, and finish of Lydian ashlar masonry may be most like examples from Samos and Ephesus,31 but the forms of ashlar monuments in Lydia differ remarkably from those in East Greece. Freestanding buildings in sanctuaries, especially temples, were the focus of early East Greek ashlar constructions, whereas, given available data, the first Lydian employment of ashlar masonry was in terrace wall construction. Even when used for chamber tombs beneath tumuli, the ashlar walls essentially function as retaining walls, built up layer by layer, with each course of masonry withholding from interior spaces a simultaneously rising level of earthen mound fill. The employment of ashlar masonry for such purposes, it seems, stems from Near Eastern traditions dating at least as early as the early seventh century, and it may have been transmitted to 146

Burial and Society

Figure 6.11. Reconstructed isometric drawings of the tomb chamber of the Kızılbel tumulus in Elmalı, showing the chamber and the portcullis-like door system (Courtesy of R. A. Bridges, Jr.).

Lydia via Phoenician craftsman, along with other materials and influences of orientalizing flavor.32 No matter the sources that originally influenced the construction of Lydian tumuli, tumuli were adopted by the last Mermnad kings as they transformed Sardis from the capital of a kingdom to that of a territorial empire spanning most of western Anatolia and the Aegean littoral. Just as these kings transformed the urban landscape of Sardis with monumental construction to match their growth in imperial power, they built correspondingly powerful and impressive funerary monuments. The selection of Bin Tepe for these monumental royal tombs must have been related to its clear visibility – the ridge stands out across from Sardis, and the construction of its artificial landscape must have sent messages to ancient viewers as powerful as those it sends to modern viewers today (Figures 6.7–6.8). The selection of Bin Tepe for royal burials was related not only to visibility, but also probably to ideology – we have described already in Chapter 5 how Lydian-period memory of earlier inhabitants in the area associated it, and particularly the Gygaean Lake, with ancestry and mythical heroes. By transforming the prominent ridge just south of the Gygaean Lake with monumental tumuli, Lydian kings may have claimed symbolic kinship with heroic ancestors in a highly visible way, seeking to validate their power. 147

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander BİN TEPE 0

N

Hacıveliler

1 2 km 10 m contour interval

Bin Tepe

Gygaean Lake ( M a r m a ra Gö l ü )

Tumulus Group

Modern Town

Larger Tumulus Group

Tumulus

Pazarköy

Tekelioğlu

Kargın

na

l

Dibekdere

ar

r

m

diz) R ive

Kendirlik

ar

Ge us (

M

Herm

a

Gö

lü

Ca

Kestelli

Karayahşı

Figure 6.12. Map of Bin Tepe, with tumuli, tumulus groups, and modern villages (C. H. Roosevelt).

Soon after Lydian kings built the first tumuli in Bin Tepe, others with the means to do so followed suit, and the area gradually came to be dotted with the 130 tumuli that give it its modern name meaning “The Thousand Mounds” (Figure 6.12).33 Tumuli were used by elite social groups perhaps seeking to affirm familial ties through inclusion in an otherwise exclusive burial tradition in a significant and ideologically charged landscape. The later selection of this burial form appears to have been related to its original association with Lydian royalty and may have been a means of linking high-status kin groups to the heroic past, just as Lydian kings earlier may have linked themselves with heroic, lake-born ancestors. Tumuli proliferated not just in Bin Tepe, however, but all over Lydia and formerly Lydian imperial territories with a remarkable uniformity in tumulus site selection.34 Today more than six hundred tumuli have been documented within the bounds of greater Lydia, and all are located in highly visible locations, with ridges and hilltops more than two-and-a-half times as common as valley floors and other gently sloping or table lands (Figure 6.13).35 We can be confident that the vast majority of these were constructed originally in the Middle and Late Lydian periods despite their reuse for centuries later: over 95 percent of tumuli in Lydia offering evidence for the date of their construction (as opposed to their later reuse) were constructed during these times, and the vast majority of them were 148

Burial and Society

Figure 6.13. View of a tumulus in the middle Phrygius River valley, showing its prominent location, to SW (C. H. Roosevelt).

probably built between the mid-sixth and mid-fifth centuries.36 A finetuned chronology is at present unattainable because of contexts that are rarely undisturbed by ancient reuse and/or looting and strong continuities in the local material culture of these times,37 yet the general popularity of the tradition can be mapped through time. Of slightly more than six hundred tumuli in Lydia, the construction of fifty-four – a representative sample of around nine percent – can be dated to a range of a century or less. The record begins with the tumulus of Alyattes, presumably built some time just before or after that king’s death in ca. 560, just over a decade before the Persian conquest. If we observe a generation of roughly thirty to thirty-five years, then the seventh generation of tumulus construction following the tumulus of Alyattes would end with the arrival of Alexander the Great in 334, and the eighth would stretch to the end of the fourth century. In order to obtain generational resolution on the chronological patterning of tumulus burials, the date ranges for tumuli can be divided into early estimates, middling estimates, and late estimates, with the construction of each of the fifty-four well-dated tumuli assigned to a generation following 149

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

the construction of the tumulus of Alyattes in 560; these generations correspond roughly to early, middle, and late thirds of centuries (Figure 6.14). As demonstrated in Figure 6.14, whether the early, middling, or late estimates for construction dates are adopted, the vast majority of tumuli were built in the first and second generations following the Lydian king Alyattes – most of them presumably after the Persian conquest. After the mid-fifth century, which probably still saw moderate tumulus construction activity, the number of tumuli began to decline sharply to a low baseline through to the end of the fourth century and later. With the proliferation of tumuli in the sixth century came another clearly evident trend in Lydian mortuary practices. By the middle of the sixth century and continuing well into the Achaemenid period, many chamber tombs – both those hewn into hillsides and those covered by tumuli – were no longer reserved for individual interment, as they had been previously in Phrygia and elsewhere, but now they were built with multiple interments in mind. Many tombs were outfitted with multiple resting places for the dead, and roofed dromoi preserved access to tombs for interments subsequent to initial burials. Used as both individual and family mausolea, then, and situated in places of conspicuous visibility, tumuli became symbols of power and wealth and clearly important foci of family or ancestral cult activities that strengthened the positions of those still living through emphasizing real or perceived kinship with the deceased.38 As discussed in Chapter 5, not only did tumuli serve such familial functions, but also they marked the locations of estates throughout greater Lydia. With the proliferation of tumuli beginning in the mid-sixth century and the widespread use of tumuli as family mausolea came yet another trend: the diversification of burial types, tomb complex arrangements, and the techniques used to construct them. Beneath mantles of rubble, gravel, earth, and clay, tumuli concealed burials in simple rock-cut and slab-lined pits, limestone and terracotta sarcophagi, and chamber-tomb complexes built of ashlar masonry, hewn from bedrock, or constructed using a combination of the two methods. Although both pits and sarcophagi are found as primary burials in some Lydian tumuli, they occur far more frequently as secondary burials dug into the mantles of preexisting tumuli.39 Chambertomb complexes remained the most frequent type of primary burial beneath tumuli throughout the period, and quickly became the most diverse type of tumulus burial, comprising a variety of architectural units including chambers and antechambers with flat or pitched roofs, flat-roofed porches, and dromoi. 150

Burial and Society 50

Early Estimates

46

Middling Estimates

% of 54 Well-Dated Tumuli

41

40

Late Estimates

35

30

28

20 20

20

19 15 15 13 11 9

10 6 6 4 0

0 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

4 2

0

5th

4 2

0

2

0

6th

7th

8th

Early

Middle

Late

Generation after Alyattes Early

Middle

Late

Sixth Century

Early

Middle

Late

Fifth Century

Fourth Century

Figure 6.14. Early, middling, and late estimates for the construction dates of the fifty-four best-dated tumuli in Lydia (C. H. Roosevelt).

One hundred and fifteen chamber-tomb complexes with known configurations reveal seven main types of architectural arrangement, with a maximum of three attached but separate tomb chambers (Figure 6.15). Although no clear linear progression of chamber-tomb arrangements can be suggested, the general trend of development from the early sixth century through the mid-fifth century does seem to move from simple to more complex, despite the tenuousness of the dating evidence.40

GRAVESIDE MARKERS AND FUNERARY IMAGERY

Although the conspicuous visibility of tumuli themselves served as status markers for the deceased interred beneath them, grave markers in stone also accompanied tumuli and other types of burials and likely served a variety of purposes, only some of which can be reconstructed today. In cemeteries at Sardis, grave monuments took diverse forms, some apparently associated with particular tomb types, and the same appears to obtain for the region of Lydia as a whole. The corpus of such monuments includes phallic markers, so called for their rounded, bulbous, or cylindrical terminals supported 151

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 6.15. Attested chamber-tomb complexes associated with tumuli in Lydia (C. H. Roosevelt).

by roughly cylindrical shafts (Figure 6.16); stelae, or upright stone slabs, bearing a variety of carved features including imitations of doors, inscriptions, architectural moldings, decorative floral anthemia, figural relief sculptures, or combinations of these various embellishments; and freestanding statues, all but one example in the form of lions. In addition, funerary imagery can be documented in the preserved remnants of wall paintings from three Lydian tomb chambers. 152

Burial and Society

Figure 6.16. Phallic markers on display in the compound of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

Phallic Markers Six phallic markers have been found on tumuli in Lydia, and the widespread find spots of thirty-seven others are consistent with tumulus use. Phallic markers were probably associated primarily with tumulus burials, although a few examples have been found in contexts that may suggest nonfunerary uses.41 The earliest known example still sits atop the tumulus of Alyattes today (cat. no. 1.8), and, although its preserved surfaces appear never to have been inscribed, it may represent one of five inscribed ouroi Herodotus reported to have ornamented the crown of the tumulus (Figure 6.17).42 Whereas the Lydian origin of the phallic marker seems clear, the function and symbolism of the type remains quite unclear. Some have highlighted the resemblance of the phallic marker form to a mushroom, but one could argue that it depicts a phallus and relates to ideas of rebirth and fertility – an association perhaps suggested also by the sculpted appearance of Cybele, the earth mother, on a late example from northwestern Anatolia.43 Symbolic Door Stelae Tumuli were marked also by stelae decorated in imitation of doors. Such stelae likely symbolized the passage to the underworld, the household, and/or perhaps the house-like conception of the tomb itself, and they have

Figure 6.17. Reconstructed view of the marker on top of the tumulus of Alyattes, with the Acropolis and Necropolis hills of Sardis in the background, to S (cat. no. 1.8) (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

153

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

(a)

(b) 0

(c)

50 cm

˙ Figure 6.18. Symbolic door stelae from (a) the Ikiztepe tumulus in eastern Lydia (cat. no. ¨ ˘ in the Cayster Valley (OM2702) 16.8), (b) a reused context at Sardis, and (c) Ertugrul (cat. no. 8.18) (C. H. Roosevelt) (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

been found in association with rock-cut tombs in addition to tumuli at Sardis and in central Lydia.44 In greater Lydia and other areas of western Anatolia, symbolic door stelae are usually associated with tumuli, and their forms fall into two broad groups: an early type shows a door and draws from Phrygian and/or Ionian architectural vocabulary for ornamental embellishment including, most frequently, fasciae and cyma reversa or ovolo profiles, sometimes with egg-and-dart friezes (Figure 6.18 [a]). A later type still shows a door incorporating also anthemion finials above the door jambs in a manifestation of an apparently Achaemenid Persian architectural tradition but using East Greek or local western Anatolian details in the forms of the anthemia (Figure 6.18 [b]). A subvariant of the first type may be geographically restricted to the Cayster River valley. This ¨ is best represented by an example in the Odemis ¸ Museum consisting of a small and nearly square door stele with partially preserved architectural profiles above a four-panel door, the frames of which are richly ornamented with rosette and boss decoration (cat. no. 18.8; Figure 6.18 [c]). Two unpublished examples of this type are known from the Tire Museum in the same valley (cat. nos. 25.3–4), but nothing like them has been found elsewhere in Lydia or western Anatolia.45 The rosette decoration and the egg-and-dart moldings on the unpublished examples probably point to a date in the early to mid-fifth century,46 but dating by such means is not 154

Burial and Society

secure in an area where the pace of artistic transmission is unclear and was probably not constant through time.

Anthemion Stelae (With and Without Inscriptions) Rosettes decorate another type of grave marker from the Cayster Valley, ¨ too: an anthemion stele from Odemis ¸ with parallels at Sardis suggesting a late sixth or early fifth century date (cat. no. 19.2C; Figure 6.19). Only two other anthemion stelae of this type are known from elsewhere in rural Lydia, but at least ten have been found at Sardis, where their only clearly attested association is rock-cut chamber tombs.47 With the possible exception of the lyre-type volutes on a few Lydian anthemia, the form and arrangement of volutes, palmettes, and lotus buds on the anthemion stelae of Lydia derive almost entirely from East Greek models from Samos, Ephesus, and/or Miletus, and all known examples seem to postdate the Persian conquest.48 The Sardian examples are taken as evidence for artist or artistic interactions between the Lydian capital and East Greece, and those from the Cayster Valley thus may reveal similar connections with Sardis, or directly with East Greece.49 The symbolism of the anthemion stele is not well understood, but several examples carry funerary inscriptions and/or figural reliefs in addition to anthemia, and these allow more interpretation. Funerary inscriptions in Lydia were generally targeted toward the protection of tombs and tomb contents from would-be plunderers and unauthorized secondary users. Such inscriptions were written predominantly in Lydian, but at least two Lydian-Aramaic bilingual inscriptions are known, one from Sardis and one from the Cayster River valley, both probably dating to the early to mid-fourth century.50 Two solely Aramaic epitaphs dating to the late fifth or fourth century are known as well, as described in Chapter 5, and the content of these appears to be much the Figure 6.19. Anthemion stele same as that in Lydian inscriptions.51 ¨ in the Odemis ¸ Museum Lydian funerary inscriptions are best known from (OM2622) ¨ (cat. no. 19.2C) cemeteries at Sardis and are usually formulaic in (C. H. Roosevelt). 155

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

¨ ˙ Figure 6.20. Funerary relief from Odemis ¸ in the Cayster River valley (IzAM4344) (cat. no. ˙ 19.2A) (Courtesy of the Izmir Archaeological Museum).

naming the deceased and attempting to safeguard specified parts of the tomb through curses invoking the wraths of various gods upon tomb tamperers. In addition to such protective purposes, most grave markers served also to display notions of status. The same may be true for phallic markers as well – even if the tumuli they adorned already signified status clearly. Such use is most evident in stelae and other funerary monuments bearing figural decoration.

Figural Stelae Figural scenes from grave stelae found at Sardis include banqueting scenes and a seated male, and these have been published and discussed previously at length.52 The series of subjects decorating grave stelae from elsewhere in Lydia is broader, and it matches the repertoire of funerary imagery from western Anatolia, in general, during the sixth through the fourth centuries.53 Such imagery includes scenes of banquets, seated females with attendants, standing figures, mounted riders and hunts, animal friezes, and a battle. 156

Burial and Society

Figure 6.21. Funerary relief from Hayallı in eastern Lydia (MM6225) (cat. no. 11.9) (C. H. Roosevelt).

BANQUETS

Banqueting involving reclining on klinai, or dining couches (singular, kline), is the earliest attested theme in rural Lydia, with three examples known: one dates to the early to mid-fifth century, and the other two to the midto late fourth century. The earlier banquet scene fills the upper of two ¨ registers on a large block from Odemis ¸ in the Cayster River valley that may have been part of a larger funerary monument (cat. no. 19.2A; Figure 6.20).54 In this scene a reclined male interacts with two seated figures, one playing a kithara, while servants in the wings attend the main figures. In the lower register below the banquet scene crouching lions threateningly 157

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 6.22. Funerary relief with unknown provenience in the Manisa Museum (MM172) (cat. no. 23.2) (C. H. Roosevelt).

flank a grazing ibex. The grazing ibex here resembles a mid-sixth- to late sixth-century relief showing three grazing deer that was found in Bin Tepe in the nineteenth century.55 In the later two examples of banquet scenes, servants again attend single reclining males. In a relief from Hayallı in eastern Lydia a female is seated on the end of the kline in a composition with clear Greek affinities (cat. no. 11.9; Figure 6.21).56 In the surviving segment of the other relief, a standing attendant fans a reclining male beneath whose kline lies a dog (cat. no. 23.2; Figure 6.22).57 SEATED FEMALES

The funerary theme of a seated female receiving an attendant – the “mistress and maid” theme – is common in Greek, especially Classical Athenian funerary imagery,58 and two examples are known from Lydia: one dates 158

Burial and Society

Figure 6.24. Funerary relief from Haliller in the ¨ Cayster River valley (OM2767). The Lydian inscription that begins beneath the relief has been cropped in this image (cat. no. 18.1B) (Courtesy of H. Malay).

Figure 6.23. Funerary relief with inscription from ˙ Incesu in eastern Lydia (cat. no. 16.4) (© Austrian Archaeological Institute).

˙ to the late fifth century and was found in Incesu in eastern Lydia (cat. no. 16.4; Figure 6.23); the other dates to the mid-fourth century and was found in Haliller, in the upper Cilbian Plain (cat. no. 18.1B; Figure 6.24). Both bear funerary inscriptions in Lydian beneath the sculpted decoration. The ˙ Incesu relief shows a female seated to the left on a covered stool with her feet resting on a footstool. She appears to receive a vessel of some sort, probably an unguent container, from another female standing opposite her.59 The Haliller relief shows a woman seated to the right on a covered stool with her feet again resting on a footstool. This time the woman is attended by a diminutive figure that stands on the same footstool. The 159

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

identity of the object(s) transferred between the figures is unclear, as is the sex of the attendant.60 Above the figures in the Haliller relief is a local version of an anthemion finial of lyre-volute type. In place of the usual palmette is a schematic rendering of a bird in flight, with splayed wing feathers substituting for palmette leaves. This provincial rendering of traditional East Greek or western Anatolian elements probably represents a fourth-century loosening of the formal type, here manifested with a local, Lydian twist. STANDING FIGURES

In contrast, an absence of provincialism can be seen in one of the two grave reliefs in rural Lydia that depict standing figures. The relief block ¨ ¸ eler, found at the base of S¸ahankaya in northern Lydia and perfrom Gokc haps associated with a tumulus burial and other grave goods with strong Achaemenid influence found nearby, probably dates to the early fifth century (cat. no. 14.1C) (Figure 6.25). A figure dressed in a long-sleeve, kneelength tunic and open sandals stands to the left, holding a bird in the left hand and what appears to be a flower bud in the right – both probably gifts. If the slightly bulging breast of the figure can be attributed to poorly executed foreshortening, then the tunic, the tightly curled hair, and the muscular build suggest that the figure is a male.61 The iconographic composition is paralleled exactly by an Archaic grave stele from Boeotia,62 where the figure is unclothed, and thus may derive from a Greek or East Greek type. The sculptural style appears to draw from the fifth century “soft style” of Ionian sculptural workshops, but the dress and hairdo of the figure find their closest parallels on the sculptural facades of Darius’s Apadana at Persepolis. The other relief, found in Musacalı in the central part of the middle Hermus River valley, dates to the mid-fifth to late fifth century and shows a man standing to the right and wearing a mantle or cloak over a kneelength tunic, pants, and boots (cat. no. 2.8A; Figure 6.26).63 His right hand holds something obscure, and his left hand is not visible or perhaps holds something else by his side. The cloaked figure of the stele from Musacalı is best paralleled by a similar figure shown in the lower register of a late fifth century relief in the Manisa Museum (cat. no. 23.4; Figure 6.27). This figure stands with the same pose and direction as the man in the relief from Musacalı, but here he wields a bow with an arrow nocked in place.64 A taloned bird, perhaps the hunted prey, hovers in the field to the right of the man. 160

Burial and Society

Figure 6.26. Funerary relief from Musacalı in the central part of the middle Hermus River valley (MM7759) (cat. no. 2.8A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

¨ ¸ eler Figure 6.25. Funerary relief from Gokc (near S¸ahankaya) in northern Lydia (MM9156) (cat. no. 14.1C) (C. H. Roosevelt). MOUNTED RIDERS, HUNTS, ANIMAL FRIEZES, AND A BATTLE

The upper register of the stele just mentioned (cat. no. 23.4) is one of five reliefs from greater Lydia that show mounted riders and/or hunting scenes. Here, a rider wields a spear atop a galloping horse. The composition of this 161

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

mounted hunting scene is repeated in the upper register of another relief stele where boars are clearly indicated as the prey (cat. no. 21.1; Figure 6.28). This latter stele was found in Manisa and is terminated with an anthemion finial of “lyrevolute” type dating to the late fifth or early fourth century. The two boars scamper beneath the horse in flying gallop, and the rider has his right arm raised in a spear-throwing posture. The spear, now missing, must have originally been rendered in paint. In the lower register of the same stele is another horse and rider, this time processing in a relaxed manner beneath a tree, with a dog leading the way and another figure behind. Three armed and mounted riders process in a similar manner on Figure 6.27. Funerary relief with unknown prove- another relief sculpture of unclear nience in the Manisa Museum (MM3389) (cat. no. original use discovered in Bin Tepe 23.4) (Courtesy of H. Malay). in the nineteenth century and dated to the mid- to late sixth century.65 Here no animals of prey are displayed, however, and the riders appear fully armed, with spears held at rest. One last relief of this type was seen in the Tire Museum in the 1970s and probably dates to the mid-fifth century (cat. no. 25.6; Figure 6.29). Here the rider faces left, holding aloft something indistinct in his right hand, and the stele has been ornamented with fascia and ovolo profiles; the latter is decorated with an egg-and-dart frieze. The only battle scene found in Lydian sculpture dates to the mid-fourth century and is found on a partially preserved block that was once part of a larger figural composition (cat. no. 23.3; Figure 6.30).66 The preserved section shows a rider in pants and boots on a horse that is galloping or rearing above the corpse of a nude male. Two other nude figures to the right hold shields in defensive poses, and the shield of another figure is suggested at the far right, where the block is broken. 162

Burial and Society

Figure 6.28. Funerary relief from Manisa in the Bergama Museum (BM4394) (cat. no. 21.1) (C. H. Roosevelt).

163

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 6.29. Funerary relief with unknown provenience in the Tire Museum (cat. no. 25.6) (Courtesy of C. H. Greenewalt, jr.).

Figure 6.30. Funerary relief with unknown provenience in the Manisa Museum (MM6226) (cat. no. 23.3) (C. H. Roosevelt).

164

Burial and Society

Figure 6.31. Recumbent lion statue from Kula in eastern Lydia (MM305) (cat. no. 16.6A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

Freestanding Statues (Lions and a Lion-Griffin) If we turn now to freestanding statues, we find a full corpus to consider, but one dominated by a widespread type marked by a similar eclecticism in representational traditions: lion statues. Twenty-three statues of lions have been found from at least twenty different sites ranging so widely across the region that lion statues can be said to be one of the most ubiquitous finds in Lydia.67 The twenty-three lions fall into two main groups according to size. The sculpting of the six large-scale, approximately life-size (?) lions appears to have followed trends common to sixth century Lydia in applying some of the naturalism and detail incipient in archaic East Greek lion sculptures to the more rigid physical rendering and patterned detail typical of Neo-Hittite (or Anatolian) and Assyrian lion sculptures.68 Thus five of the lions are recumbent: two have their heads turned to the side in apparent Egyptianizing pose, as in the example from Kula in eastern Lydia (cat. no. 16.6A; Figure 6.31),69 and three have their heads straight forward, as in the example from Birgi in the Cayster River valley (cat. no. 19.1A; Figure 6.32).70 One example each of the forward- and sideways-looking lions dates to the early sixth century and one each to the later sixth century, while the remaining forward-looking lion dates to the mid-sixth century.71 165

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 6.32. Recumbent lion statue from Birgi in the Cayster River valley (cat. no. 19.1A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

The final large-scale lion was found in Akselendi in the middle Phrygius River valley (cat. no. 7.2A; Figure 6.33) and is seated in the pose of Classical lion sculptures of Greece, bearing sculpted detail that suggests a date some time in the fifth century.72 The 17 small-scale lions of the second group are all recumbent and forward-looking, and can be further subdivided into those that more closely follow Neo-Hittite or Anatolian models, with thirteen examples, and those that bear stronger influence from Classical Greek sculptural traditions, with four examples. These stylistic categories correspond generally to chronology as well, with the earlier examples showing more Anatolian and eastern influence dating generally to the late seventh century through the sixth century, and the later examples with more Greek influence beginning probably in the fifth century and continuing perhaps through the fourth century.73 The earlier type, represented best by examples from Soma (cat. no. 9.5A; Figure 6.34) and Turgutlu (cat. no. 2.6A; Figure 6.35), is widespread throughout Lydia. Examples of the later type have been found only in the central part of the middle Hermus River valley, at Sivrice (cat. no. 2.4C; Figure 6.36), for example, and in the middle Phrygius River valley at Beyoba (cat. no. 7.3A; Figure 6.37).74 166

Burial and Society

Figure 6.33. Seated lion statue from Akselendi in the middle Phrygius River valley (MM6650) (cat. no. 7.2A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

Figure 6.34. Small lion statue from Soma (MM6094) (cat. no. 9.5A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

167

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 6.35. Small lion statue from Turgutlu (MM538) (cat. no. 2.6A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

Figure 6.36. Small lion statue from Sivrice (MM1465) (cat. no. 2.4C) (C. H. Roosevelt).

168

Burial and Society

Figure 6.37. Small lion statue from Beyoba (MM537) (cat. no. 7.3A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

One last freestanding statue deserves mention here: a combination liongriffin from Kula in eastern Lydia (cat. no. 16.6C; Figure 6.38). The liongriffin takes a form typical to archaic forward-looking lions of Lydia, with a squarish torso and its tail wrapped around its haunch. Interesting here, however, are the petal or tongue-like designs on its haunches, and the large, seven-petalled palmettes on its shoulders from which spring its diminutive, curling wings and smaller leaf-shaped petals. The bands of its strap-like beard/mane and its down-curling tongue are both features common to archaic Greek griffins; and, while no other features seem Persepolitan or otherwise Persian in style, the importance of lion-griffins in Achaemenid art and the application of apparently architectural ornament to the body of the beast may point to a date early in the period of Achaemenid hegemony.75 The predominance of lions in the sculptural repertoire of Lydia has been commented on extensively before, needing little elaboration here. It is not surprising to find such a pattern in greater Lydia when more than one third of all sculptures found at Sardis are of a similar feline nature.76 Associated with the royal house at Sardis and used as its emblem on the earliest of its electrum coins, lions may have generically symbolized courage and power, and perhaps had apotropaic qualities that derived from their even stronger association with Cybele.77 Lions at Sardis found in their original 169

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 6.38. Lion-griffin statue from Kula in eastern Lydia (MM304) (cat. no. 16.6C) (C. H. Roosevelt).

contexts suggest their religious and dedicatory function – they were used to ornament an archaic altar associated with Cybele (see Figure 4.12). They may have had similar functions in greater Lydia, too. Only recently have the original contexts of lion sculptures in greater Lydia been recorded, and in such cases they have been associated with funerary monuments, specifically tumuli. An unfinished small-scale lion statue of the type described above was found sealing the end of the dromos of the Lale Tepe tumulus in the central part of the middle Hermus River valley (cat. no. 2.2B; Figure 6.39), and there it may have been serving an apotropaic function, similar to the sphinxes of Greek funerary traditions.78 Stylized lion heads of archaic date built into the walls of the Kral ˘ tumulus in northern Lydia likely served the same purpose (cat. no. Bagı 15.4B; Figure 6.40), as did another archaic lion discovered alongside a ¨ phallic marker atop a tumulus in the town of Bolcek in the Lydo-Mysian 79 borderlands of the upper Caicus River valley. Tombs ornamented with lion reliefs and statues are, in fact, quite common in other areas of western Anatolia, and, without further evidence of context, it is perhaps best to presume that lions found in Lydia had funerary functions in many if not all cases.80 Although several lions have been found in or near Hypaepa and Hierakome, places associated with the worship of Artemis Anaitis, 170

Burial and Society

Figure 6.39. Unfinished small lion statue from the Lale Tepe tumulus, in the middle Hermus River valley (cat. no. 2.2B) (© Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University).

lions were not associated with that deity, but with Cybele, and so even in such cases funerary contexts can be assumed. Thus while Lydian lions may have served religious and dedicatory functions in greater Lydia as they did at Sardis, the only definitive evidence we have points to their use in funerary contexts, where they probably represented tomb guardians that had special apotropaic power because of their strong association with Cybele.81

˘ tumulus in northern Lydia (MM312– Figure 6.40. Stylized lion heads from the Kral Bagı 13) (cat. no. 15.4B) (C. H. Roosevelt).

171

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 6.41. Reconstruction drawing of the front rail of the kline in the Aktepe tumulus in ¨ eastern Lydia (E. P. Baughan and C. H. Roosevelt). Gure,

Other Funerary Imagery If we shift our focus from grave markers to other types of funerary imagery, we find what may have been another battle or hunting scene in the painted decoration of the front rail of the kline from the Aktepe tumulus in eastern Lydia, probably dating to the early fifth century (Figure 6.41).82 Here we see a central group of two possibly winged lions or griffins flanking a left-facing bull, in a composition reminiscent of the lower register of ¨ the Odemis ¸ relief (described above). Riding away from that central group to left and right are symmetrical groups of galloping riders, with at least one rider on the left with arm raised in spear-bearing pose and with at least one horse-drawn chariot on the right.83 On the side walls of the tomb chamber in the same Aktepe tumulus were painted at least two figures, each proffering branches toward the kline, and presumably to the deceased who once lay upon it (Figure 6.42). Their sexes and what they held are difficult to determine because of the damage caused by looters. The figure on the left, perhaps originally wearing a pointed beard in Persian style, held either a flower bud or an unguent container; and such items, in addition to the branches, may represent gifts for the deceased, like the flower bud and bird ¨ ¸ eler stele described above. of the Gokc Gift-bearing also features in the only other tumulus tomb with painted, figural decoration in Lydia. The porch and chamber of the Harta tumulus in the upper Caicus River valley, again of the late sixth or early fifth century, were both decorated with a mid-wall frieze of bands of different colors and an Ionic cymation consisting of an egg-and-dart frieze above a bead-and-reel design. Above this decorative band were various scenes the identification and interpretation of which suffer from a long history of looting, like the wall paintings from the Aktepe tumulus. At Harta, gifts appear to have been brought by a procession of figures compositionally reminiscent of the tribute bearers on the Apadana at Persepolis (Figure 6.43). Interspersed among the gift bearers were striding and mounted figures, and at least one horse-drawn (war?) chariot.84 The only other tomb in Lydia with a fully developed program of painted decoration shows not figural, but only geometric designs. In the chamber 172

Burial and Society

¨ Figure 6.42. Reconstruction drawing of the wall paintings in the Aktepe tumulus in Gure, ˙ Ozgen). ¨ eastern Lydia (Courtesy of I.

of the Lale Tepe tumulus (cat. no. 2.2B), dating to the early fifth century and located in the central part of the Middle Hermus River valley, an Ionic cymation similar to but smaller than that in the Harta tumulus ran along the top of the walls. The pitched ceiling slabs and gables of the chamber were painted, too, and vibrantly recreated the interior of a thatch roofed building, replete with painted Phrygian-style kingposts and gable “windows,” and zigzagging bands of reed matting above rafters and purlins (Figure 6.44).85

Overview The reader will have noted in the above section that, even though the tradition of marking tombs in Lydia dates to the Lydian period, as indicated by the ouroi of Herodotus, by the orb-like phallic marker on the tumulus of Alyattes, by lion statues, and, perhaps, by a few symbolic door stelae, 173

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Figure 6.43. Wall-painting fragments from the Harta tumulus in northwestern Lydia (cat. ˙ Ozgen). ¨ no. 9.1A) (Courtesy of I.

most of the surviving evidence of grave markers from Lydia postdates the Persian conquest by at least a generation if not more. Thus some subjects and details that figure in funerary imagery might derive from Persian traditions. The nearly complete absence of funerary markers in the Persian heartland, aside from the rock-cut reliefs associated with the royal tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam, however, make such determinations difficult. Yet, some representational details and iconography do appear to be closely derived from Persian sources: witness the long pants and knee-length tunics of figures in the reliefs from the Manisa Museum (cat. nos. 23.2–23.3), the ¨ ¸ eler relief (cat. no. hair and knee-length tunic of the figure in the Gokc 14.1C), the form of the lion-griffin from Kula (cat. no. 16.6C), and the giftbearing procession in the chamber of the Harta tumulus (cat. no. 9.1A). All appear similar to features and themes displayed at Persepolis. By the same token, Lydian and/or western Anatolian traditions might be detected in the predominance of lion sculptures, and East Greek and/or Lydian features ¨ are equally apparent in the dress of the figures in the reliefs from Odemis ¸ ˙ (cat. no. 19.2A), Hayallı (cat. no. 11.9), and Incesu (cat. no. 16.4), for ¨ ¸ eler stele (cat. no. 14.1C) and the instance, in the iconography of the Gokc “mistress-and-maid” reliefs (cat. nos. 16.4 and 18.1B), and in the sculptural style of the battle relief in the Manisa Museum (cat. no. 23.3). The figures in this last piece would be at home even among those from the Nereid 174

Burial and Society

Figure 6.44. The upper walls, rear pediment, and pitched ceiling of the Lale Tepe tumulus in the middle Hermus River valley (cat. no. 2.2B) (C. H. Roosevelt).

Monument or, later, the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, with their particular fourth-century East Greek flavor. But it is not my intention to separate out Persian, Greek, and local features, but rather to highlight that they appear together in many of the images under investigation, and this eclecticism is typical of and defines Lydian material culture in the Middle and Late Lydian periods fairly uniformly across the region. The trend probably began under Alyattes and Croesus, when the cosmopolitan populace of Sardis helped to produce ashlar masonry monuments, Ionic architectural ornaments, and sculptural works of Greek, probably Samian, conception, and it clearly continued later.86 With respect to the funerary imagery reviewed here, though, only little can be said with certainty about change over time because of the incompleteness of the record: gift-bearing honorants of the dead appear individually and en masse by the late sixth or early fifth century in sculptural relief and wall painting, as do processions of riders; banquet scenes appear by the early fifth century and again in the late fourth century; horsemen and hunters appear by the mid-fifth century and again in the late fifth and fourth centuries; “mistress-and-maid” images appear in the late fifth and fourth centuries; and the one known battle scene appears in the fourth century. More difficult to define than general patterns of uniformity are the exact meanings of the various images described in this section. Do they show scenes from life or scenes relating to death, of a private or public nature, 175

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

of historical or generalized events? The traditional view of procession and banquet themes sees them as evidence of funerary rituals and thus relating specifically to conceptions of death. Other themes – animal friezes and hunting and battle scenes, for example – may relate more to lifetime events. A fuller contemplation of these questions will come best after a review of grave assemblages and the evidence for mortuary practices that again show a remarkable degree of uniformity through time and across Lydia.

GRAVE ASSEMBLAGES AND FUNERAL CEREMONIES

Although much has been recovered from tumuli and other graves in central and greater Lydia in the way of small finds, only four burials have been discovered in undisturbed contexts. Two of these were burials in rock-cut chamber tombs at Sardis – Tomb 813, of the early fifth century,87 and Tomb 03.1, of the fifth century88 – and two were burials in sarcophagi in greater Lydia. Of the latter, one was in a sarcophagus set within the sixth-century chamber-tomb complex of the Basmacı tumulus in eastern Lydia (cat. no. 16.8B), the other was in a sarcophagus used as a secondary burial of the late sixth or early fifth century embedded in the earthen mound of the Demirag˘ tumulus in the central part of the middle Hermus River valley, a tumulus that originally covered a separate chamber-tomb complex (cat. no. 2.2B). Additional valuable information can be gleaned from materials confiscated from looted tumuli, most famously the so-called Lydian Hoard. The Hoard ˙ was looted from several tumuli – primarily Aktepe, Ikiztepe, and Toptepe – ¨ in eastern Lydia during the 1960s, was bought by near the town of Gure the Metropolitan Museum of Art soon thereafter, and was returned to the Us¸ak Museum in the early 1990s after several years of litigation.89 Even though the original situation of most finds from these three looted tumuli cannot be reconstructed exactly, the group demonstrates the range of materials and shapes present in high-status grave assemblages, and the testimony of the original looters provides additional information of value. The grave goods from four unlooted burials, then, along with the finds and furniture recovered from disturbed contexts in other burials, provide a general picture of how funerary assemblages in rural Lydia were composed. The most common items can be grouped into four main classes based on function and are presented here in order of ubiquity: banquet assemblages of furniture and vessels; personal items; items that provided atmosphere; and textiles.90 Notably absent in the grave assemblages of rural Lydia, as at Sardis, are weapons. 176

Burial and Society

Figure 6.45. Benches within a rock-cut chamber tomb at Sardis (Courtesy of N. D. Cahill).

The earliest record of burials from Sardis shows that already in the late seventh or early sixth century, vessels associated with banqueting, especially with drinking, made up the largest component of grave assemblages. These included drinking cups, such as skyphoi, dishes, such as phialai and so-called fruit dishes that sometimes stood on tall stems, large bowls, pitchers, and craters for serving and mixing food and drink, and other small and large jugs and jars. Examples from the Lydian period at Sardis have been exclusively ceramic in manufacture, but the lack of metal examples is perhaps a result of looters’ preferences for items of perceived greater value in modern art markets. By the sixth century another feature was included in the banqueting assemblage and became as ubiquitous in Lydian burials as banqueting vessels themselves – klinai, or couches used for reclined dining in living contexts. In a recent dissertation, E. Baughan has shown that these dining couches appear at the same time in East Greece and Lydia, perhaps transmitted from the Near East via Phoenicians or their figural art, and argued cogently that the Lydians were probably the first to adapt their form to a funerary function.91 In rock-cut tomb chambers, they take the form of benches hewn from the bedrock (Figure 6.45), while in masonry-built tombs they are usually constructed from three pieces of stone, including two supports and 177

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

a horizontal bed slab, or from one piece in a monolithic sculptural endeavor (Figure 6.46). Both rock-cut and freely carved examples bear a variety of decorative embellishments, but most common is the ornamentation of the whole in imitation of wooden couches, with legs decorated with volute and floral ornament similar to that common on the legs of klinai shown in archaic Greek vase painting.92 Notable additions to this repertoire in the Achaemenid period include Achaemenid bowls as common drinking vessels, and these and other vessels and plates have been found not only in ceramic, but in a variety of other materials, as well – including silver (sometimes with additional gold leaf), bronze, and chalcedony – and the choice of materials as well as the number of vessels present was probably dependent on the richness of the burial.93 Also discernible by the later sixth century was a freer interpretation of kline design, with wooden and bronze examples known,94 and embellishments including their decoration with incised and painted frieze elements, as described above on the front rail of the kline in the Aktepe tumulus, and the rendering of kline legs or supports in entirely new forms. The legs of the same Aktepe kline rest on couchant deer or calves while the supports of the kline in the Harta tumulus take the form of sphinxes following Greek models. Smaller banquet furniture such as stools and tables made of wood are known from other western Anatolian tomb chambers, and these probably accompanied klinai in Lydian tombs as well, but only a few poorly preserved remnants of wooden furniture from a small number of tombs attest their original presence.95 Personal items found among Lydian grave assemblages include perfume or unguent containers, cosmetic accessories, and jewelry. Perfume or unguent containers include ceramic vessels such as the locally made lydion (an indigenous shape), the aryballos (a vessel imported primarily from Corinth), and various other flasks, some closely and others loosely following the Attic model of the lekythos. Common as well is the alabastron, ultimately an Egyptian shape but common across Archaic western Anatolia and Greece; but these are found not only in ceramic forms, but also in core-formed glass, metal, and fine white stone, again usually depending on the richness of the burial.96 Mirrors of bronze and silver, combs of ivory, bone, or stone, and cosmetic boxes of stone or silver, with small cosmetic utensils, make up the small repertoire of personal cosmetic items. The variety of jewelry items was greater, perhaps because of the probability that both men and women wore them: hair spools, earrings, necklaces, pectorals, brooches, bracelets, rings and pendants (with or without seal devices), pins, fibulae, and other small precious metal items of indeterminate use compose 178

Burial and Society

Figure 6.46. Isometric drawing of a freestanding kline within the BT 05.58 tumulus tomb chamber (C. A. Wait and C. H. Roosevelt).

the assemblage. Most items were fashioned from gold, but electrum, too, was used as was glass and a medley of fine stones including carnelian, onyx, turquoise, and various agates, especially in seal stones.97 Items that provided atmosphere are only rarely recovered from Lydian tombs, but they include silver incense burners with clear Achaemenid connections, ceramic lamps, and possible rattles made of gold known from the rich tombs that produced the so-called Lydian Hoard in eastern Lydia. Our knowledge is limited, too, about the varieties and decoration of textiles used in funerary clothing and shrouds, among other things, but evidence for such burial inclusions include textile pseudomorphs on metal items 179

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

and numerous gold appliqu´e plaques pierced with holes and once sewn to fabric, perhaps along the lines of hems or seams.98 The arrangement of these grave-good classes in burials is not well understood, again because of the rarity of undisturbed contexts. As far as one can reconstruct from the items found in situ within the four unlooted tombs mentioned in this section, however, grave goods were arranged around the dead body with little interpretable significance. In addition to the skeleton, the Demirag˘ sarcophagus contained a pair of ceramic lydia, a pair of ceramic lekythoi, a pair of stone alabastra, and a bronze bowl of Achaemenid type. One item from each pair was located at either side of the feet of the deceased. The bronze bowl accompanied the group on the skeleton’s right. In addition to the skeleton of the Basmacı sarcophagus, a bronze jug and bowl were found near the head; a silver mirror, limestone (?) comb, bronze pin, and marble cup at the left hip; a silver jug, omphalos phiale, and pine-cone decorated lid with ring near the left leg; a silver alabastron with added gold leaf and a Corinthian aryballos near the right leg; a wooden bowl with bronze ring handles between the legs; and a diskshaped bone object at the feet. Textile pseudomorphs on the bronze jug and bowl indicate that a shroud might have covered the deceased along with the entire assemblage.99 The unlooted tombs at Sardis contained a similar variety of forms and materials, with the positioning of grave goods lacking obvious significance. The looters of the Toptepe tumulus in eastern Lydia described a similar arrangement of grave goods when they first entered the tomb, here a chamber tomb rather than a sarcophagus. Stone alabastra were allegedly arrayed on the floor, and all other items were located on a rock-cut bench, both around and on top of the deceased: a silver jug at the foot; a silver ladle by the left side; blue glass and gold bracelets in the middle of the torso; an onyx and carnelian necklace on the upper torso; and various other finds at unspecified locations (a brooch, chain pendants, acorn pendants, earrings, and rattles). Perforated gold appliqu´e plaques were found scattered over the bench as well and may indicate that the deceased and at least part of the grave assemblage were covered with a shroud, as in the Basmacı sarcophagus.100 On the basis of this generalized conception of a funerary assemblage, then, we may attempt to interpret concerns for the dead in the afterlife and the general events of funeral ceremonies in Lydia. Specific interpretations relating to differences between the assemblages and ceremonies of people of differing age or sex will be avoided because of a current lack of evidence.101 What evidence we do have suggests that the deceased were 180

Burial and Society

probably decked out in their finest apparel, fragrant with perfume and sparkling with jewelry, for their eternal rest, usually on funerary couches when buried in tomb chambers, and surrounded by the funerary assemblage. According to the traditional interpretation of such assemblages, the vessels for drinking and fine dining, the lamps and incense burners, and the rattles, too, may all have been included in the grave assemblage so that “the dead, reclining on beautiful couches in their chamber tombs, [could] go on (or at least at times awaken) to eat and drink,”102 in the atmosphere of an eternal banquet. The excessive number of vessels in some assemblages and the inscription of some grave goods with personal names have led to the additional interpretation that grave assemblages as a whole were not just intended to provide sustenance for the afterlife, but were the functional result of funerary ceremonies in which participants partook of such banquets alongside the deceased.103 The importance of the banquet in the afterlife and/or funerary ceremony might be seen also in the funerary imagery described above that features banquet iconography,104 and the funerary banquet appears to have been of importance in earlier Phrygian burial customs as well, where funeral feasts are well-attested by food remains.105 Whether an actual banquet was indeed part of the funerary ceremony or had any relation to conceptions of the afterlife, however, is nearly impossible to determine without textual corroboration. Baughan has recently argued for restraint in assigning funerary assemblages the significance of the eternal banquet, and cautiously suggests that they could be interpreted justifiably as symbolizing the comfortable leisure of the high-status during life;106 thus, the funerary assemblage becomes yet another status symbol to echo the form and situation of tumulus burials and, perhaps, funerary imagery as well. C. Draycott, too, following similar logic, has argued unambiguously that funerary banquet imagery was meant only to signify the elite status of the wealthy, leisurely family, and their proper fulfillment of duties, rather than anything about the afterlife.107 Other evidence, however, might strengthen the argument that commemorative banquets of some sort, perhaps involving ceremony participants, took place at the graveside, even if banquet assemblages and imagery were also intended to serve as status markers. Banqueting vessels have been found outside the formal tomb chambers of many tomb complexes, in antechambers, porches, dromoi, and mound fill, and thus may have been deposited at the site of the grave but not as part of the original grave assemblage. Evidence of fires, perhaps for cooking, is abundant in the carbonized bits of wood commonly attested in tumulus mound fill, and also in the dromoi 181

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

of at least two tumulus tomb complexes. In addition, cooking wares – never otherwise included in grave assemblages – have been found associated with at least five tumulus tombs, animal bones or teeth with at least four, and knives or blades with at least three.108 If all these discoveries are not simply attributed to the meal preparations of tomb builders, which has to remain a possibility, then perhaps they are evidence that funeral banquets actually did take place. The traditional interpretation of the wall paintings in the Harta and Aktepe tumulus tomb chambers and the reliefs showing processions sees them also as representative of parts of funeral ceremonies including processions and acts of giving gifts to the dead.109 The wagons, carts, or chariots shown in some procession scenes may even have been the means by which the deceased was brought to the tomb and displayed, as in the Greek ekphora, according to this interpretation.110 That such wheeled vehicles were important in some aspect is clear not only from funerary imagery, but also from the discovery of several examples actually interred in association with tombs, one from central Lydia (BT 89.1), and several others from other areas in western Anatolia.111 But here, again, recent analyses have questioned the traditional interpretation of this evidence. For Draycott, just as banquet scenes signify high status by revealing the leisurely comfort of well-to-do home life, so procession scenes and wheeled vehicles reveal the high-status life of a knightly class in military convoy or cavalry review.112 Thus, too, she appropriately interprets the hunting scenes common in funerary imagery as not having much at all to do with conceptions of death, but rather as evocative symbols of elite life, perhaps specifically referencing hunts in paradeisoi, the type of thing usually associated with Persian nobility and royalty in written records.113 Without the aid of written evidence to help interpret conceptions of the afterlife and to help reconstruct the ancient Lydian funerary ceremony, all we may say definitively on the basis of funerary assemblages is that the funeral ceremony included the laying out of the deceased on the funeral bed, the deposition of a grave assemblage suitable to a banqueting event, and, at least in some cases, the covering of the deceased with a shroud before the tomb was sealed. If recent reanalyses of traditional interpretations are correct, however, then rural Lydian burial forms and situation, funerary markers and imagery, and funerary assemblages would all be in harmony in their uniform signification of high status through monument, imagery, and object. 182

Burial and Society

BURIAL AND LYDIAN SOCIETY

Tombs and their contents, even if rarely found undisturbed, still provide the fullest archaeological evidence for social differentiation throughout the region of Lydia. Pits, sarcophagi, and chamber tombs of diverse form comprise the most common types of burial, and in the cemeteries of Sardis were probably used predominantly by members of the large and affluent middle class at the urban capital. Rock-cut chamber tombs at Sardis became family mausolea by the mid-sixth century, yet, although they have been discovered in great numbers, grave goods associated with them are by no means common; however, neither are they as rich as tumulus tomb assemblages. Burials in chamber tombs covered by tumuli probably belonged to the upper echelon of political and social elites both at Sardis and distributed throughout the countryside associated with the estates of landowners. Lydian tumuli show uniformity in situation and external form, on the one hand, and eclecticism in tomb design and appointment, on the other. These eclectic features clearly stem from Phrygia and East Greece, if not from further afield, and they are combined with local rock-cut traditions to create particularly Lydian compilations. The sizes of individual tumuli and tumulus groups show some regional patterning, as described already in Chapter 5, and these patterns appear to reflect the relative significance of particular areas of Lydia. Other cases of regionalism in tumulus burials are more difficult to identify. The distribution of tumuli with pit, sarcophagus, and chamber-tomb burials, for example, shows that each was common over a broad area, with apparently no regional preference for particular burial forms. The distribution of the different types of chamber-tomb complexes is equally widespread and shows little evidence of patterning. The uniformity of these high-status burials spread throughout Lydia suggests a certain degree of high-status cultural uniformity across the region deriving from a regional network of landowners. Such landowners must have been unified ideologically through their connections to and probable activities at Sardis, relating to courtly life and also administrative duties associated with providing the capital agricultural or other resources from their estates. This network appears to have been significant until the midfifth century, at least, when ideological changes are witnessed by the abrupt decline in the tradition of tumulus burial. As we will see in Chapter 7, in addition to ideological change, this decline very likely reflects changes in regional interaction and organization.

183

CHAPTER SEVEN

Conclusions: Continuity and Change at Sardis and Beyond

In the introduction of this book, we established that material culture at Sardis and throughout Lydia allows us to investigate both continuity and change in ways that are not possible with other types of research, such as traditional text-based historical studies. Cultural change has been explored only recently in the long history of scholarship on Lydian subjects, and Lydia is of particular interest because of its geographic status as a buffer between Eastern and Western cultural spheres throughout its history. Most significant here are the material correlates that correspond to the broad chronological periods of Iron Age Lydia: the rise of Sardis as a regional center in the Early Lydian period down to the late eighth century; the zenith of Lydian prosperity and power in the Middle Lydian period, especially during the reigns of Alyattes and Croesus from the late seventh through the midsixth century; Persian conquest in the mid-sixth century; and subsequent conditions during the time of Achaemenid hegemony in the Late Lydian period from the mid-sixth century to the late fourth century. The shortcomings of the evidence have already been stressed several times in this book: contexts disturbed by reuse and/or looting; limited chronological control of some classes of material; limited and uneven exposures of living and funerary contexts at Sardis; and evidence limited almost exclusively to surface material in central and greater Lydia. Nevertheless, significant developments in material cultural traditions are apparent. The regional archaeological approach of this study makes apparent such developments in the archaeological record not only at Sardis but also throughout Lydia. Other developments are indicated in textual sources. When juxtaposed, material developments and historical contingencies illuminate evidence of continuity and change in administrative practices, various economic networks, and religious environments during the Middle and Late Lydian periods. In the ensuing discussion, various strands of data presented in 185

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

Chapters 3–6 are brought together to infer synthetic conclusions. In order to keep material evidence as distinct from interpretation as possible in what follows, I will present material developments first, followed by conclusions drawn in the light of contemporary historical particularities.

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MATERIAL RECORD

Very little has been discovered about Early Lydian settlement patterns or funerary and religious practices. Following an apparent hiatus after the end of the Late Bronze Age that may derive as much from archaeologists’ unfamiliarity with materials from the period as from ancient realities, a handful of small Early Lydian sites in central Lydia are known from surface survey, and only a few more can be identified confidently outside this Lydian heartland. The small number of known sites perhaps results more from lack of investigation than from any real evidence of the absence of sites. Among the small network of known Early Lydian sites, Sardis appears to have emerged as a regional center by the late eighth century, distinguished from its peers by the international character of its finds and the extent of its inhabitation. Middle Lydian developments at Sardis include the spread of settlement throughout nearly all of the investigated areas of the site and the probable appearance of monumental buildings in the city center by the late seventh century. Between the late seventh and the mid-sixth century, under the reigns of Alyattes and Croesus, some features of Sardis were “imperialized” with the construction of a colossal fortification wall and with the revetment of its natural landscapes by monumental terrace walls that presented impressive stone facades to those both within and outside the city. Parallels for the techniques of such construction projects can be found both in the Near East and in the Aegean, and such foreign contacts are indicated also by the diversity of sources for both materials and influences found at Sardis, in part the result of the presence of a diverse population of both Lydians and foreigners by the mid-sixth century. We saw in Chapter 4 that imports to Sardis of materials and traditions from Phrygian, Greek, and other sources increased in the Middle Lydian period, especially in the late seventh and sixth centuries. Ceramics and other materials were locally produced, as well, and, with its rich source of electrum in the Pactolus River, Sardis became a center for the production of coinage in the same period, with bimetallic coins issued under Croesus. Contemporary with the rise of Sardis, sites in central and greater Lydia multiplied in the Middle Lydian period, as we saw in Chapter 5. The 186

Conclusions: Continuity and Change at Sardis and Beyond

selection of locations for settlement appears to have involved concerns for local and regional defense and proximity to both resources (agricultural and other) and routes of communication. Some items of Greek and Phrygian traditions and manufacture have been found in Lydia, but imports comprise a small part of assemblages dominated by goods of local types. Neither the one site that has been excavated outside Sardis – Ahlatlı Tepecik in central Lydia (cat. no. 1.6) – nor any other Middle Lydian site in central or greater Lydia begins to approach Sardis in extent or complexity. Little can be said about long-term developments from Ahlatlı Tepecik, yet the site presented no clear evidence of destruction or much of anything extraordinary before or after the mid-sixth century. Changes in more general regional data are apparent after the mid-sixth century. Of the more narrowly dated sites known, activities at slightly less than half of the Middle Lydian sites in greater Lydia continued, while the establishment of thirty-three new sites in the Late Lydian period reflects a dramatic increase in the number of sites, with most new sites located in the more distant hinterland of Sardis and not in central Lydia. Among noteworthy new hinterland sites apparently established in the Late Lydian period were installations of garrisons and other militarily strategic sites. The importance of such sites for the maintenance of territorial control is explored in the next section. S¸ahankaya (cat. no. 14.1A) in northern Lydia appears to have become important in this time, judging from remains both on and around its isolated double peak, and installations at Kel Dag˘ (cat. no. 17.1) in the central Tmolus Range were likely used for their strategic qualities also, if they had not been used for such purposes earlier. In addition to garrisons serving political and military purposes, both sites served religious functions as well, probably predating Persian con˘ Other sacred sites established in or by Late quest in the case of Kel Dag. Lydian times include Dioshieron (cat. no. 19.1), a sanctuary of Zeus in the Cayster River valley, and sanctuaries of Artemis Anaitis, or Artemis Persike, at Hierakome and Hypaepa (cat. nos. 7.3 and 19.3). Judging from the early archaic double-lion statue from Hypaepa, a sanctuary there may have seen Middle Lydian use also. Evidence for Late Lydian Artemis cults at Sardis and in central Lydia is plentiful also, although they probably had Middle Lydian roots not evidenced in the material record. Among the cults that were most certainly established earlier were the cults of Artemis Sardiane, probably celebrated in Late Lydian times with the construction of a monumental altar at Sardis, and Artemis kulumsis, or “Colo¨ene,” associated with the Gygaean Lake, 187

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

which must have been associated with the Mother also, as it had been in earlier Lydian periods. A sanctuary of Cybele at Sardis was burned at the time of the Ionian Revolt, and a Middle Lydian altar to this goddess, called Kuvava locally, was renovated, perhaps into a fire altar, in Late Lydian times.1 Graffiti and inscriptions of the Middle and Late Lydian periods at Sardis indicate also the functioning of cults of Lydian Zeus, Qλdan´ ˜ s, and other lesser-known deities. The evidence for increased rural populations throughout greater Lydia is contrasted by the contemporary paucity of Late Lydian settlement remains in the urban capital. Very little is known from the time immediately following the sack of Sardis in the mid-sixth century, illustrated by the fiery destruction of houses and the fortification wall, with burnt remains strewn right across the city. The satrapal capital appears to have been refortified by the early fifth century; yet, apart from the religious installations and renovations already mentioned, only very limited exposures of occupation contexts survive in the rebuilding of some domestic structures and wells, and in other scattered refuse pits and partially preserved occupation deposits. The character of Late Lydian assemblages, however, indicates the continued prosperity of the site during this time. Middle Lydian building traditions continue into the Late Lydian period at Sardis and in central Lydia, as do other traditions of material production. Carved stonework and architectural terracottas, both fashioned initially in the Middle Lydian period, continued to be produced throughout the sixth century and later, although by the fifth century the increasingly Greek forms and styles of masonry, lion statuary, and grave markers, in particular, are noteworthy.2 Alongside influences from Greece in stonework and architectural terracottas, the importation of Greek pottery saw no slackening throughout the Late Lydian period.3 We have already seen in Chapter 4 that such Greek imports are the most numerous of imported wares or shapes in both the Middle and Late Lydian periods, yet they are far outnumbered by locally produced wares displaying Lydian forms and decoration that continue in popularity through the end of the period.4 Also popular throughout the Late Lydian period is the newly introduced form of the Achaemenid bowl, providing good evidence for the penetration of a new Persian style throughout local communities at Sardis and in greater Lydia in both ceramic and metal forms.5 Some examples of such Persian wares, especially metal wares, were imported into Lydia, yet others were produced locally, at Sardis and perhaps elsewhere,6 along with seals and gemstones showing similar stylistic features from both east and west.7 188

Conclusions: Continuity and Change at Sardis and Beyond

These and other rich finds associated with social elites come not from occupation contexts at Sardis, but from burials, and burial patterns in general show significant developments in the Middle and Late Lydian periods. Pits, sarcophagi, and chamber tombs of varying forms all appear in Lydia by the mid-sixth century, while chamber tombs were probably used earlier, perhaps already in the late seventh century. Cemeteries including pits, sarcophagi, and rock-cut chamber tombs are known throughout Lydia, and, although few have been explored archaeologically, these were likely used throughout the sixth through the fourth centuries. Contemporary with the “imperialization” of Sardis in the Middle Lydian period, the royal tomb of Alyattes was constructed on imperial standards in the first half of the sixth century, with a stone-built chamber tomb buried beneath a monumental tumulus crowned by a phallic-shaped marker among possible other markers. The tomb of Alyattes thus provides evidence of the earliest datable tumulus burial in Lydia in addition to the earliest datable use of graveside markers. Both tumuli and graveside markers thereafter proliferate in number throughout Lydia, providing some of the evidence for an increase in rural site populations during this time and, in addition, good evidence for developments in the form and appointment of both chamber tombs and graveside markers. The most striking changes from the tomb chamber of the tumulus of Alyattes and its few contemporaries in Bin Tepe are the augmentation of the tomb with auxiliary spaces (porches, antechambers, and dromoi) and the provision of resting places for multiple interments, frequently taking the form of klinai.8 Similar changes are evident in rock-cut chamber tombs, also, where rock-cut benches substitute for freestanding klinai. The rock-cut necropoleis at Sardis, popular throughout the Late Lydian period, provide the best evidence for such trends. In addition, in the early fifth century the klinai and walls of a few tumulus chamber tombs were given figural decoration of one type or another, providing interesting examples of funerary imagery paralleled by graveside markers including phallic markers, stelae, and freestanding statues. Definitive statements about the development of funerary traditions – burial forms, funerary imagery, and graveside markers – should be avoided because of the incompleteness of the evidence and the chronological imprecision we have seen already in Chapter 6; yet general comments here are appropriate. High-status associations appear in all data and can be considered the leitmotif that runs throughout Lydian funerary imagery of the Middle and Late Lydian periods. Phallic markers, lion statues, and, 189

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

perhaps, symbolic door stelae attest to the use of graveside markers in the Middle Lydian period and are the best representatives of the endurance of native Lydian traditions in the Late Lydian period of the fifth and fourth centuries, to which most of the evidence dates. By the early fifth century, funerary imagery included gift-bearing mourners garbed in explicitly Persian as well as western Anatolian or east Greek dress.9 Banqueting scenes with similar styles appear at the same time and reappear in the fourth century, to which time dates the one known full-blown military battle scene from Lydia. Processions of cavalry and hunters appear in the early and midfifth century and in the fourth century as well. In addition to Greek styles and techniques in sculptural carving that appear throughout the repertoire, typically Greek iconography appears in the “mistress-and-maid” imagery of late fifth and fourth century examples, and also in the anthemion stelae and lions of the same period.10 Alongside these changes in graveside markers and chamber tomb form and appointment, the chronology of tumuli in Lydia is significant, too. We saw in Chapter 6 (see Figure 6.14) that the vast majority of tumuli were built in the first and second generations following the Lydian king Alyattes in the mid-sixth century. Furthermore, the tradition of tumulus construction sharply declined after the mid-fifth century, with only a handful of examples among hundreds postdating that period. In summary, we can see in the material record clear evidence of developments beginning toward the end of the Early Lydian period, when Sardis emerged as the regional center of Lydia, among the small number of known sites throughout the area. In the Middle Lydian period, then, Sardis flourished with an expansion of settlement, the appearance of colossal and imperial monuments, the establishment of major cults, the production of common and high-status goods in mean and precious materials, foreign interactions attested by foreign imports and their imitations at Sardis, and even by a foreign presence at that site. At the same time, the number of sites in central Lydia increased slightly from the previous period, while that in the greater Lydian hinterland showed dramatic increases. A further dramatic increase in site populations in greater Lydia is witnessed in the Late Lydian period, following Persian conquest, contrasted notably by a lack of rich settlement evidence from Sardis. Production of local products and imitations of foreign objects continued in Late Lydian Sardis, with most evidence for change of any sort dating in and after the fifth century. It remains for us now to consider contemporary historical records for the Middle and Late Lydian periods and, in juxtaposition with the material 190

Conclusions: Continuity and Change at Sardis and Beyond

evidence, to explore how they help explain cultural change and continuity in Lydia.

MATERIAL AND HISTORICAL SYNTHESIS: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

Evidence of both significant change and long-term continuity of traditions is abundant in the material record of Lydia between the seventh and fourth centuries. Some material developments can be linked generally to documentary evidence deriving from Near Eastern and Greek sources, while others require more interpretation. Among the most significant historically documented developments in Lydia during the period of investigation are the two major changes in administration at Sardis: the first from the Early Lydian “Heraclid” or “Tylonid” dynasty to the Middle Lydian dynasty of the Mermnads, with regional rule over the kingdom and later empire of Lydia; the second from the Mermnads to the Persian king and, later, satrap, with regional rule over an important Achaemenid province. A review of the hegemonic styles of these successive regimes helps to contextualize developments in the material record described above, both those restricted to Sardis and those of all greater Lydia. Some material developments in the Late Lydian period might be seen as direct results of a substantial presence of ethnic Persians in greater Lydia by the mid-fifth century; other developments, however, although clearly influenced by the reality of Achaemenid hegemony and showing notable Persianisms, or material markers of highstatus Persian production, use, consumption, and/or tradition, appear to indicate long-term continuity of Lydian traditions practiced by Lydians.

The Early and Middle Lydian Periods General discussions of pre-Mermnad Lydia suggest a regional administrative organization equivalent to that of Dark Age Greece, with independent basileis, or chieftain-like rulers, controlling relatively independent and regionally dispersed settlements; economically, such settlements are thought to have functioned like Bronze Age palaces in which subsistence and luxury goods were prepared under the supervision of and were consumed by political and social elites.11 If such reconstructions are accurate, Sardis would have been one such seat of rulers, the Heraclids, and it probably had slightly more importance than other sites because of its naturally strategic and resource-rich location 191

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

and, perhaps, because of a particularly powerful ruling family. From the Early Lydian period on, Sardis probably held sway over central Lydia, where the few contemporary Early Lydian sites appear not to have been serious rivals. Rivalry, to some degree, was probably present in the greater region, however, and revolt and/or feuding comprise the most common explanations for the Mermnad takeover of Sardis by the early seventh century.12 The Mermnads are the first historically attested kings of Lydia, and the growth of their interregional power is reflected by Gyges’ and his successors’ diplomatic correspondences with Assyrian and Egyptian courts, and by numerous Greek accounts of Lydian campaigns against East Greek citystates as well as beneficence toward Greek sanctuaries. Historical sources touch on modes of regional administration only tangentially, however, so that understanding of regional organization in the Middle Lydian period of Mermnad hegemony, as for the Early Lydian period, must rely on a combination of historical evidence and deductive inference. Using such an approach, most scholars have described the administration of Lydia as basically feudal, even if not exactly parallel to the feudalism of Medieval Europe, and representative of traditional Near Eastern systems of land tenure in use from Hittite to Hellenistic times.13 Agricultural villages of varying size were dispersed throughout the region,14 situated on land probably belonging to noble landowners subordinate to the king at Sardis. The existence of such property, considered to be “private” in some fashion, is suggested by Greek sources that describe the noble opponents of certain Lydian kings, who derived great wealth from their estates.15 Membership in the noble class and, hence, land ownership may have been hereditary, but may also have arisen from ties of kinship to the royal family, if not from oaths of loyalty.16 Material correlates to this type of administrative organization in Middle Lydian times were first published by A. Ramage and N. Ramage following their survey of tumuli spread throughout Lydia.17 The majority of the tumuli they cited as evidence for the wide distribution of noble estates are now thought to date to the Late Lydian period, yet the distribution of nontumulus Middle Lydian sites spread throughout Lydia described above supports the feudal model of regional organization, particularly in the Middle Lydian period. The proliferation of sites in greater Lydia parallels the spread of occupation across the expanse of Sardis in the seventh century – material manifestations of the solidification of the Lydian Kingdom. Settlement patterns defined by Middle Lydian sites in greater Lydia reflect long-term settlement concerns and the likely interdependence of 192

Conclusions: Continuity and Change at Sardis and Beyond

capital and hinterland with respect to the procurement of agricultural and other resources and regional defense, as described in Chapter 5. Thus, a network of noble landowners would have been responsible for providing certain resources to the capital; by the time of Croesus, at any rate, Lydian kings took tribute from those living both outside and within the bounds of Lydia.18 In addition, the royal court depended on landowners for the protection of the Lydian countryside, with famously strong cavalry forces probably drawn from and outfitted by noble estates.19 Nobles, thus, undoubtedly spent some of their time on their estates seeing to business; but they must also have spent time at the royal court at Sardis. The florescence of Sardis in the Middle Lydian period is manifested in many ways, not least among them the appearance of mortuary evidence in the city cemeteries by the late seventh century, perhaps during the reign of Alyattes. The apparently sudden increase in burial might be taken as evidence for a population increase during this time, paralleled by the spread of settlement across the site, but it might also indicate a general rise in prosperity that made burial in archaeologically visible forms more accessible to a wider variety, if not just a greater number, of people.20 With the evidence at hand, we cannot be certain which of these explanations comes closer to the truth. We saw in Chapter 4 that, in the reigns of Alyattes and Croesus, Sardians now lived and worked both within and just outside a monumental fortification wall that defined the urban core and reflected the imperial status of Sardis. The monumental burial form of the tumulus of Alyattes and the stone revetment of several acropolis spurs at Sardis, too, served as vivid expressions of the imperial grandeur of the capital. These constructions adopted and adapted forms and techniques from both east and west. It was during the reigns of Alyattes and Croesus, also, that the influx of foreign materials, technologies, and influences to Sardis reached a peak, producing the generally affluent and cosmopolitan society that defined imperial Sardis in the late seventh and sixth centuries and may have defined Sardian society from the beginning of Mermnad rule. The cosmopolitan eclecticism of ideas, arts, and people at Sardis in the Middle Lydian period derived in part from the nearly constant interaction between Lydian kings and their contemporaries east and west, explored already in Chapters 2 and 4. The kings and their various international relationships illustrate this best. Gyges’ mother was a Phrygian, and his father a Lydian. He prevailed in his usurpation with Carian assistance, and he married a Mysian. He had regular diplomatic relations with the Assyrian Assurbanipal and the Egyptian Psammetichus I, interacting with both as 193

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

equals, and he patronized Greek oracular sanctuaries while plundering the agricultural territories of East Greek city-states.21 Similarly, Gyges’ greatgrandson Alyattes had children by Carian and Greek wives and probably took also a Median princess as his consort, a result of a peace treaty witnessed by kings of Cilicia and Babylon with whom he must also have been familiar. He wedded daughters to both the Median prince Astyages and a tyrant of Ephesus named Melas, patronized several Greek sanctuaries, and allied with Greek tyrants, notably Periander of Corinth.22 Croesus, the last Lydian king, had a Carian mother, a half-Greek brother, and a Greek tyrant and a Median king as brothers-in-law. Croesus continued the tradition of Mermnad foreign interactions by making dedications to Greek sanctuaries, employing Greek craftsman, hosting Greek notables, and making alliances with Sparta, Egypt, and Babylon.23 With such a rich history of international interactions, the internationalism of royal, diplomatic, and military spheres percolated throughout Lydian society at Sardis. There is good evidence, in fact, for the bustling interaction of people of various ethnicities at the city during this period, and the endurance of such cosmopolitanism under Achaemenid hegemony constitutes one of the best examples we have for the continuity of Middle Lydian traditions into Late Lydian times.

The Late Lydian Period The continuity of Lydian traditions at Sardis and in greater Lydia in the immediate aftermath of Persian conquest is best understood in the light of the mechanisms of Achaemenid imperialism. Reasons for abrupt changes in some Lydian traditions that occur later become clear with their juxtaposition to historical events dating between the early fifth and late fourth centuries. The Persian conquest of Sardis resulted in personnel changes. A satrap, or provincial governor, replaced the highest echelon of the preceding administrative machine – that is, the king – and a garrison of faithful Persians served as his bodyguard. Some courtly Persians, bureaucratic officials, and attendants must also have been present at Sardis immediately after Cyrus’ conquest, yet Lydians retained high-status positions and may even have experienced some degree of autonomy for quite some time, perhaps even until the arrival of Alexander, when a contingent of Lydians surrendered the city to him.24 In addition to Lydians and Persians, populations at Sardis included other western Anatolians, Greeks, and others both in the sixth century and in later times, as suggested by inscriptional evidence as well 194

Conclusions: Continuity and Change at Sardis and Beyond

as by inscribed seals and gemstones.25 Political and military control of a multiethnic community at Sardis became Persian, then, while local systems of administrative organization were left generally intact, at least at first. This style of assimilative imperialism was typical of Achaemenid control elsewhere in the Achaemenid Empire, and goes a long way to explain the continuity of some local traditions witnessed not only by ancient sources, but also in the archaeological record at Sardis.26 The archaeology of Achaemenid Sardis known today, and as described already, has revealed little of its presumed original magnificence. Only a few structures are known from this period, albeit important ones including religious monuments and fortifications; yet the richness of the urban necropoleis argues for the continued inhabitation and prominence of the city as suggested in textual sources. In addition to temples, altars, fortifications, and domestic areas refurbished or built anew, Sardis came to include such overtly Persian features as royal gardens and hunting parks, or paradeisoi; the satrapal residence must have been grand as well, even if it was little modified from the original Lydian palace.27 The introduction of new forms, especially the Achaemenid bowl, reflect the pervasiveness of some changes by the early fifth century, but the paucity of stratified deposits prevents us from commenting in detail on developments at Sardis thereafter. This situation is contrasted by evidence from greater Lydia that allows comment on gradual changes within the period of Achaemenid hegemony. There was a roughly 70-percent increase in the number of sites in greater Lydia in Late Lydian times, indicating a dramatic increase in rural populations. At the same time, many settlements came to be marked by tumuli, which proliferated throughout the region in the first few generations after the earliest datable use of the burial form in Lydia for the tomb of Alyattes. What do these developments reflect? As suggested by studies of Achaemenid satrapal administration, the primary concerns of a satrap were similar to those of the previous Lydian king, including the protection of the region through maintenance of a military force, the productive cultivation of foodstuffs, and the collection of taxes and tribute; in Lydia this was likely composed of agricultural and other resources, including perhaps metal coin and/or bullion.28 When Cyrus found himself in control of the resource-rich territory of Lydia, he left a Persian, Tabalus, in control of a garrison, but retained a Lydian, Pactyes, to manage the treasury and also, presumably, the collection of taxes and tribute; another Lydian, Myrsus, son of Gyges, continued to hold important bureaucratic and, perhaps, military positions at Sardis through the early 195

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

fifth century.29 The assimilation of Lydians in the workings of the satrapy likely stretched far beyond Sardis, and may explain some changes in a Late Lydian rural landscape still defined by a feudal-like organization.30 Previous explanations for the proliferation of tumuli in the Late Lydian period have invoked a rise in the prosperity of the merchant class, the release of royal restrictions on tumulus burial, and/or general increases in social mobility combined with the use of tumuli as expressions of Lydian identity.31 Yet, the spread of tumuli is not an isolated phenomenon; it appears alongside other developments. The increase in site populations throughout greater Lydia soon after Persian conquest very likely indicates an increased intensity of rural agricultural production. Thus, the widespread adoption of tumuli may reveal the status and general prosperity of those tasked to manage rural productive activities and maintain some degree of regional military protection both in the interior and along the peripheries of the territory, responsibilities considered most important to satrapal administration. Following Persian conquest Lydian landowners were probably allowed to keep their holdings as long as they continued to provide useful services to the central administration at Sardis.32 The establishment of new sites throughout the region may reflect noble landowners’ at least partial abandonment of urban townhouses in Sardis for country estates, taking advantage of opportunities made possible by the new assimilative mode of control. Some landholdings could eventually have been combined into larger estates through royal grants rewarding services rendered, as we know occurred elsewhere within the realm of Achaemenid hegemony.33 Together, Lydian estates and agricultural villages in greater Lydia formed an integrated network providing for the productive and protective needs of the region and for Sardis, just as it did before. The use of tumuli as family mausolea on or near estates called out the high-status of the landowners, as did the appointment, graveside markers, and grave goods of such tombs, and provided a mechanism for the reaffirmation of that status through subsequent generations, with descendants continuing to use tumuli both for burial and for the proper maintenance of ancestor cult. The prominence of this rural network in greater Lydia and the peaceful prosperity that it enabled may be evident in the relative silence in Achaemenid sources about the satrapy until the reign of Darius, when the rebellious Oroetes was replaced. Closely contemporary with the suppression of the Ionian Revolt and the campaigns of Darius and Xerxes against Greece in the early fifth century, the well-known tumulus burials in eastern and northwestern Lydia that produced the material of the so-called 196

Conclusions: Continuity and Change at Sardis and Beyond

Lydian Hoard – rich in materials and status-related iconography – reflect the increased importance of rural landowners at this time. The following generation or two seems to have been one defined by continued regional peace under the satraps Artaphernes and his son. A decline in the importance of the greater Lydian network of estates set in after the mid-fifth century, as indicated by the general decline in tumulus construction at that time, and contemporary phenomena attested in textual sources helps to explain it. The history of the satrapy of Sparda in the second half of the fifth century is defined not by a faithful solidity of satrapal administration, but by ambition and rivalry resulting in nearly continuous skirmishing between and among Persian satraps and Greeks, enduring to the end of Achaemenid rule in the region. The new era of instability began under the satrap Pissouthnes, and continued later with Darius II’s appointment to the satrapy of his rebellious son, Cyrus the Younger. Tissaphernes’ rivalries with fellow satraps and conflicts with Greeks continued into the early fourth century, and such conditions, among other events, must have provided a need for increased protection of the countryside.34 In addition, initial satrapal difficulties may have intensified because of agricultural scarcity: a serious drought during the reign of Artaxerxes I in the mid-fifth century apparently desiccated all sources of fresh water in the region.35 Modifications in the system of rural administration based on the network of estates must have seemed requisite at the time. Such modifications appeared by the late fifth century, at the latest, and took the form of dispersed, rural garrisons that assumed some of the activities previously the responsibility of landowners: garrisons were standing military forces that protected and insured the productivity of rural agriculture and facilitated the collection of taxes and tribute.36 Some garrisons may have been located on previously existing estates distributed fairly evenly throughout the more agriculturally rich areas of Lydia, perhaps co-opting estate facilities entirely, perhaps symbiotically coexisting with previous inhabitants.37 Other garrisons were situated at sites of stronger defensibility, at forts and watchposts, and may be represented by sites such as S¸ahankaya and Kel Dag˘ (cat. nos. 14.1A and 17.1), and perhaps also by less securely datable sites near the western periphery of the ˘ satrapy at Akkaya, in the Nymphaeum Valley (cat. no. 3.3B), and Yagcılar Kalesi, in the western Hermus River valley north of Mt. Sipylus (cat. no. 5.1B). Such sites may have comprised part of a larger network of contemporary forts located along and protecting the Achaemenid frontier with Ionian Greece in the late fifth and fourth centuries,38 and represent one 197

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

of the more identifiable imprints of Achaemenid hegemony on the Lydian landscape.

Persians and Persianisms at Sardis and Beyond The evidence for both continuity and change in the material record of Lydia during the Late Lydian period begs the question of the size and geographical extent of the Persian presence in Lydia. Few ancient texts reveal meaningful clues for tracking Persians, however, and the material record appears to speak more directly to the status than it does the ethnicity of inhabitants of Lydia under Achaemenid rule. Nevertheless, a gradually increasing Persian presence can be distinguished by reviewing the chronology and nature of textual and material evidence for actual Persians versus Persianisms in Lydia. We have already seen that in the relatively quiet and peaceful halfcentury or so following Persian conquest, a Persian corps was present at Sardis, including the satrap, a garrison, and other Persians as well. Aside from clear textual evidence for the presence of Persians in these bureaucratic and military spheres at Sardis, there is little textual or material indication of either Persians or Persianisms at Sardis or in greater Lydia until the early fifth century. In fact, there is far better evidence for a Lydian presence in Persia than vice versa during this time: blacksmiths, stonecutters, wood workers, and other Lydian craftsmen contributed to constructions at Susa and possibly Persepolis during the reign of Darius I, and were probably brought to work at Pasargadae by Cyrus even earlier.39 Easily identified Persianisms first appear in great number in tumulus and other funerary contexts dating to the very late sixth or early fifth century, especially in tombs associated with the Lydian Hoard in eastern Lydia and in the upper Caicus River valley. The high-status Persian jewelry and metal plate associated with these tombs cannot be shown to signify Persian ethnicity,40 but rather only that new imagery and items were being used to express high status in the generations-old Lydian tradition of doing so in their funerary rites, as discussed in Chapter 6. High-status connotations are abundant in funerary imagery of the same period and may indicate the importance of the wealthy family in addition to its contributions to the cavalry.41 The presence in Lydia of strongly Persianizing artifacts and imagery and their specific manifestations in the early fifth century are understandable in light of both intensified administrative assimilation of landowners and increasingly frequent Achaemenid military activities in Lydia, as discussed 198

Conclusions: Continuity and Change at Sardis and Beyond

above. In the aftermath of the Ionian Revolt and during the Greek campaigns of Darius and Xerxes, Lydians had ample opportunity to view how those of high-status among the Persians marked themselves as such. Emulation of the Persian political and social elite at the satrapal court of Sardis may have intensified because of Xerxes’ extended stay in the city in 479. It is quite likely that many of the Persianisms that appear in the tombs of the high-status landowners of the period were obtained or at least conceived through exposure to such symbols at Sardis and subsequent emulation. Much if not all of the manufacture of Persianizing metal plate, gems, and jewelry likely took place at Sardis,42 while the fashioners of sculpted and painted objects and tomb ornament, too, may have hailed from Sardis even if local materials were used in the construction of rural monuments. Such Persianisms in greater Lydia, then, probably reflect not the presence of ethnic Persians in greater Lydia, but the intent of high-status Lydians to display their status through the conscious selection of fashionable status markers. We hear from Herodotus, though, that some Persians must have been living within Lydia, when he recounts that all Persians west of the Halys River mustered to aid Sardis after it was sacked in 499.43 The local presence of these Persians has been taken to indicate the establishment of Achaemenid royal land grants already by this time.44 Strabo, too, claims that Persians settled in the western part of Lydia known as the Hyrcanian Plain.45 Whether Persian settlements there dated early or late in the period of Achaemenid rule is unclear, however, and we cannot rule out the possibility that Strabo might even have been referring to Seleucid Persians of the Hellenistic period.46 The only textual evidence for a Persian presence in Lydia that may be substantiated by archaeological evidence relates to a people called the Maibozanoi in an inscription of the Roman period found at Ephesus.47 The Maibozanoi may originally have been given a land grant on and around S¸ahankaya in northern Lydia, as suggested by the strongly ¨ ¸ eler discussed in Persianizing style of the graveside marker from Gokc Chapter 6 (cat. no. 14.1C). That a garrison was eventually established on S¸ahankaya itself is suggested by its strong defensibility and Persian-style rock-cut fire altar. The discovery of a sling bullet of Tissaphernes nearby may suggest a terminus ante quem for the establishment of the garrison in the late fifth or early fourth century. It is in and after the late fifth century that evidence of a Persian presence and Persian influences in Lydia is more forthcoming. We have seen that garrisons were established because of nearly constant military skirmishing throughout the countryside, and the contemporary decline in the tumulus 199

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

tradition is one clear example of Persian influence in greater Lydia. Furthermore, some garrisons were peopled primarily with Persians,48 and so garrisons at least partially account for evidence of an increasing Persian presence in Lydia. This presence is marked not only by funerary iconography that includes increasingly Persianizing features in the mid-fifth and fourth centuries – horsemen and hunters in addition to military and cavalry imagery – but also by the appearance of rural sanctuaries of Persian deities at Hierakome and Hypaepa that strongly suggest Persians living in rural Lydia and observing traditional cult practices.49 Historical records and inscriptions from Sardis show that local Lydian cults continued to thrive in central Lydia, at least, and indicate some degree of continuity in the religious landscapes of Lydia alongside the appearance of new sanctuaries. The increasing significance of the Persian presence at this time is suggested also by the appearance of bilingual Lydian–Aramaic inscriptions at Sardis and in the Cayster River valley, both probably dating to the reign of Artaxerxes II in the early fourth century. All other Aramaic inscriptions known from Lydia date to the late fifth or fourth century, as well, and show the continued use of the language in rural areas during this time, parallel with the continued use of Lydian.50 In sum, the continuation of Lydian traditions parallel with the introduction of Persian traditions appears to be entirely characteristic of the Late Lydian period, with significant increases in Persians and Persianisms after the mid-fifth century. These trends are attested not only by the evidence cited above, but also by the record of imported and locally made ceramics and other goods that reveal a mixing of local and foreign features and traditions both at Sardis and in greater Lydia not limited just to Lydian and Persian characteristics. According to some accounts, alongside the survival of native Lydian traditions, Greek and East Greek influences significantly outweighed those from Persia throughout the period;51 such comments derive from the quantity of imported goods, however, rather than the quality or nature of cultural changes that are often barely visible in the archaeological record. In her recent synthesis of Achaemenid Sardis, E. Dusinberre writes that “[t]he cultural history of Sardis demonstrates a remarkably complex mixture of influences: . . . the local social organization at Sardis changed markedly in the Achaemenid period, combining aspects of local tradition with ideas from other cultures – including Iranian – to create an eclectic and fluid new system that might thrive independently of the areas of original influence.”52 This cultural intermixing is indeed evidence of Persian influence in Lydia, yet one must recognize that the cultural framework in which such 200

Conclusions: Continuity and Change at Sardis and Beyond

intermixing was occurring appears to have changed little, if at all, from earlier times. That is, the cultural intermixing that created something distinct in the Late Lydian period may have been new in the sense that the mix itself was new, yet it reflects the same cultural mixing of eastern and western traditions evident already in the Middle Lydian period, and perhaps earlier. Furthermore, the nature of cultural intermixing pioneered at Sardis in the Middle Lydian period appears to proliferate throughout western Anatolia in the time of Achaemenid hegemony, with distinct Persianisms emerging only in the mid-fifth century and later for reasons similar to those outlined in this chapter.53

SOME FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND PRESCRIPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

We have seen that in both the Middle and the Late Lydian periods a rural network must have been integral to the maintenance of Mermnad Lydian and later Achaemenid power at Sardis, in supplying subsistence and other resources to the capital and in securing a vast territory of dispersed communities. The network also helped propagate an eclectic cultural assemblage throughout the region that pervades the material record of both periods. Data currently available suggest that changes to the social, economic, and religious landscapes of Lydia took place in several phases, with an initial increase in rural populations occurring during Mermnad rule in the seventh and sixth centuries, a further increase in rural population and rural prosperity marked by tumulus burials in the first few generations under Achaemenid hegemony in the later sixth and early fifth centuries, and the gradual Persianization of Lydia following the mid-fifth century. Changes in the Lydian countryside prior to the mid-fifth century ran parallel to those at the capital of Sardis, with the gradual growth of the Lydian kingdom and empire imprinted in the material record of Sardis and in its surrounding landscapes. Increases in the number of sites and tumuli following Persian conquest probably reveal the administrative assimilation of Lydian landowners who adopted increasingly Persian symbols of the social elite to mark their status. After the mid-fifth century, the appearance of Persian garrisons and sanctuaries concomitant with the beginning of the end of the tumulus tradition reflects changes in priorities and populations in rural Lydia, the result of increasing insecurity in the countryside. Despite such major changes in Lydian landscapes, the use of the Lydian language and the survival of Lydian customs at Sardis and beyond show that Lydian traditions lived on both at the capital and in its hinterland alongside the 201

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

proliferation of Persian traditions. The Lydia and Sardis that Alexander met in 334, then, were defined by richly intermixed cultural traditions combining a recent and thick veneer of Persianization over an old and strong substrate of traditions with origins in earlier Lydian times. Even though we are told that Alexander pulled back the Persian veil to free the Lydians, this cultural m´elange must have remained prominent in Lydia for some time thereafter. Interpretations and understandings of the regional archaeology of Lydia presented in this book have been enabled by a multipronged approach that integrated archival, museum, and excavation data with the results of extensive and intensive surveys. These interpretations and understandings have been limited by several factors – for example, the geographical extent of investigations, the intensity of those investigations, and understandings of material typologies – and these limitations suggest several ways forward for future studies of the regional archaeology of Lydia. Finer control of the chronology of ceramics and other classes of material abundant in the archaeological record of Lydia is of the utmost need. At present only generalized conclusions can be offered, but with further study one might be able to illustrate better otherwise barely perceptible cultural changes or continuities through time. Furthermore, comparative studies of material stemming from Sardis, from greater Lydia, and from outside Lydia proper have great potential to reveal more clearly than possible here interactions between Sardis, its Lydian hinterland, and its vassal territories during the period of the Lydian imperial expansion in the late seventh and sixth centuries through examinations not only of form and decoration, but also of material procurement and modes of production. Of particular interest would be the assessment of a western Anatolian material koine in the time of Achaemenid hegemony that may owe much to the previous Lydian imperial domination of the same area. Differences between particular areas of Lydia resulting from a variety of environmental, landscape, and socio-cultural factors must have been more pronounced in antiquity than are discernible at present based on current data. How did central Lydia really differ from other areas of greater Lydia? Can significant conclusions be drawn about differences between the particular manifestations of Lydian culture in upland areas versus the low-lying and broad plains of the Hermus and Cayster Rivers and their tributaries? In order to address such questions of regionalism within Lydia, surveys of both extensive and intensive natures should be undertaken in areas both within and outside the modern province of Manisa, the survey area upon which much of this study is based. Excavations, too, to be 202

Conclusions: Continuity and Change at Sardis and Beyond

sure, are needed to address more fully evidence for regionalism, and we now know of many sites that would be good candidates for excavation spread throughout Lydia. In addition to revealing evidence of regionalism, such surveys and excavations would contribute to answering questions surrounding the rise of Sardis in the Early and Middle Lydian periods and subsequent developments in the fifth century and later times. New regional fieldwork in Lydia should incorporate also environmental programs of research to help answer some long-standing and basic questions. Previous and ongoing environmental work in the Tmolus Range and central Lydia have great potential to address questions relating to Sardis and its immediate hinterland, yet these studies could be extended. How might have environmental factors contributed to broad changes in the Lydian and Achaemenid periods? A serious but probably short-lived midfifth century drought may have had an effect on life in Lydia in the reign of Artaxerxes II,54 yet was it regionally disastrous? What about earlier and later climatic upheavals? The textual record is replete with references to drought in Lydia, and perhaps environmental dynamics had great influences on conditions in Lydia both before and after the Early, Middle, and Late Lydian periods. Finally, we are now able to infer broad conclusions about Sardis and its hinterland during the Middle and Late Lydian periods, but what about eras pre- and postdating these times of primary interest here? The ongoing investigation of areas around Sardis by the Central Lydia Archaeological Survey is revealing somewhat startling discoveries associated with a previously unimagined network of Middle and Late Bronze Age sites that suggest a sphere of power focused on the Gygaean Lake rather than on Sardis.55 In addition, it is producing diachronic archaeological data for all periods ranging from early prehistory through early modern times. This project and other future projects have the potential to tell us much about the significance of this region of western Anatolia in other times. At present, it appears to have always been a popular place to live, work, and die, contested by great political powers, and chronicled in various histories, and these appearances remain for future studies to confirm.

203

CATALOGUE OF SITES AND FINDS IN CENTRAL AND GREATER LYDIA

The following catalogue itemizes the material evidence for settlement in Lydia during the Lydian and Achaemenid periods referred to in this book. Omitted from treatment here are remains from Sardis and, as in the rest of the book, remains found outside the border zones of Lydia established in Chapter 3. Thus, those parts of the Maeander River valley that once may have comprised the southern and southeastern limits of Lydia proper remain absent here, as do the middle and lower Caicus River valley and anything east of Us¸ak. The vast majority of information provided here is found in the modern province of Manisa, where survey permits allowed the fullest research opportunities. Information on regions of Lydia that fall ˙ within the modern provinces of Izmir and Us¸ak have been pulled together from disparate sources and will undoubtedly need updating by the results of ongoing surveys in these areas. The order of presentation follows a geographical progression from central Lydia to the middle valleys of the Hermus River and its main tributaries, to northern, northeastern, and eastern Lydia, to the Tmolus Range, to the Cayster River valley and its tributaries, and to southeastern Lydia (Catalogue Sections 1–20). Each entry includes description of the item(s) with associated exploration history and bibliography, if known to the author. Items in regional museums with proveniences unknown to the author are organized by museum and collated in Catalogue Sections 21–25. All dimensions are in meters, unless otherwise indicated. Abbreviations include the following: 2001 survey 2005–2007 survey

Survey conducted by C. H. Roosevelt under the permit of C. H. Greenewalt, jr., in April–May 2001. Survey conducted under the permit of C. H. Roosevelt by CLAS 205

The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander

BM ca. CLAS D est. ¨ EU g H ˙ IsAM ˙ IzAM km L m MM ¨ OM POI pres. SU TG TH TM UM W

˙ Bergama Museum (Izmir) circa Central Lydia Archaeological Survey diameter estimated Ege University Collection gram(s) height ˙ Istanbul Archaeological Museum ˙ Izmir Archaeological Museum kilometer(s) length meter(s) Manisa Museum of Ethnography and Archaeology ¨ ˙ Odemis ¸ Museum (Izmir) Point of Interest (CLAS terminology) preserved Survey Unit (CLAS terminology) tumulus group thickness ˙ Tire Museum Directorate (Izmir) Us¸ak Museum width

206

(B) Hanfmann 1967, 47–8; Waldbaum 1983, 88 cat. no. 487, pl. 31. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 209–10, and 2007.

1. CENTRAL LYDIA

1.1. Duman Tepe TG DESCRIPTION: Group of at least six tumuli located on the ridge of Duman Tepe (a.k.a., C¸ifte Tepe), in northeastern Bin Tepe.

1.4. POI05.13 – Eski Balıkhane DESCRIPTION: Settlement site indicated by dense scatter of Lydian sherds just east of a cluster of earlier and later remains dating to the Early Bronze Age and Roman periods; located on a bluff in northern Bin Tepe overlooking the Gygaean Lake, ca. 1.4 km north˘ Perhaps to be associated east of Tekelioglu. with the Cambaz Tepe tumulus group to its south (cat. no. 1.5).

EXPLORATION HISTORY: 1966 Sardis Expedition excavations; 2005 survey.

Hanfmann 1967, 47–52; McLauchlin 1985, 184–90, 201–5; Ratt´e 1989a, 179–89, and forthcoming, catalogue of monuments; Dinc¸ 1993, 128–37; Roosevelt 2003, 411–15 (TG 2F Bin Tepe), and 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1967–1969 Sardis Expedition exploration; 2005 survey.

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

1.2. Hacırasim DESCRIPTION: Low-density pottery scatter of two sherds (one Middle/Late and one Late Lydian) on the ridge of the Hacırasim sheep fold, in northeastern Bin Tepe (SU05.032, SU05.037). EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Hanfmann 1968, 10; Hanfmann and Waldbaum 1970, 15–16; Mitten ˘ um ¨ 1971; Roosevelt 2003, 631 cat. and Yu¨ gr no. A4.6, and 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1.5. Cambaz Tepe TG

2005 survey.

DESCRIPTION: Group of three tumuli, including one possible tumulus, located south of Eski Balıkhane, just southwest of the hill labeled as Cambaz Tepe on 1:25,000 scale maps, in north central Bin Tepe. Perhaps to be associated with a settlement at Eski Balıkhane (cat. no. 1.4).

Roosevelt 2007.

1.3. POI05.09 – Kus¸tepe One Middle/Late Lydian body sherd of a large dish among abundant remains (ceramic and architectural) dating to Hellenistic and probably later times. Earlier proposed as a candidate for the location of the sanctuary of Artemis Colo¨ene, where three Doric columns and a sculpted frieze showing a lion head and a capped archer were found. (B) Bronze bowl of Middle Lydian date reportedly from a terracotta sarcophagus burial near or on this hill. DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: 1960s Manisa Museum observation; 1966 Sardis Expedition observation; 2005 survey.

Hanfmann 1967, 47; McLauchlin 1985, 190–1; Roosevelt 2003, 410– 11 (TG 2E Bin Tepe), and 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1.6. POI05.40 – Ahlatlı Tepecik

Early observations; 1966 and 1982 Sardis Expedition observation; 2005 survey. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

Settlement site located on a small promontory on the south shore of the Gygaean Lake, ca. 1.1 km northwest of Teke˘ See Chapter 5 for description. Perhaps lioglu. ˘ tumulus group associated with the Tekelioglu (cat. no. 1.7).

DESCRIPTION: (A)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Curtius 1853, 150–2; von Olfers 1958, 542 pl. 1, map; Sayce 1880, 87; Shear 1922, 408; Greenewalt et al. 1985, 59.

207

1.6. POI05.40 – Ahlatlı Tepecik

1.12. SU05.087

(B) Low-density pottery scatter consisting of one sherd of a Middle/Late Lydian crater rim (SU05.112), located ca. 1 km south of lakeshore. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

dis Expedition excavation. vey.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: For full bibliographies, see McLauchlin 1985, 171–4, 250–4; Ratt´e 1989a, 157–69, and forthcoming, catalogue of monuments; and Roosevelt 2003, 407–8, 415–17, and 2007.

1966–1968 Sar2005 sur-

(A–B)

˙ 1.9. Intepe TG DESCRIPTION: Group of twelve tumuli, including five large and seven small tumuli surrounding the larger ones, located along the central ridge of Bin Tepe, on a knoll between Kırmutaf Tepe (BT 63.4/BT 05.81) and Karnıyarık Tepe (BT 63.1/BT 05.22) ˙ known as Intepe.

Hanfmann 1968, 7–10; Hanfmann and Waldbaum 1970, 12–15; Mit˘ um ¨ 1968 and 1974; Ramage ten and Yu¨ gr 1978, 73–4. (A–B) Roosevelt 2007. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A)

˘ TG 1.7. Tekelioglu

EXPLORATION HISTORY: 1989 Manisa Museum excavation of the BT 89.1 tumulus; 2005 survey.

Group of seven tumuli located ˘ and west of Kırsouthwest of Tekelioglu mutaf Tepe (BT 63.4/BT 05.81), the second largest of the three large royal tumuli of Bin Tepe; perhaps to be associated with the settlement at Ahlatlı Tepecik (cat. no. 1.6). DESCRIPTION:

˘ 1991; Dinc¸ 1993, Dedeoglu 150–9; Roosevelt 2003, 406–7 (TG 2C Bin Tepe), and 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

EXPLORATION HISTORY: 1963 Sardis Expedition excavation of BT 63.3/BT 05.74; 2005 survey.

1.10. Bas¸tepe TG DESCRIPTION: Group of five tumuli located along the central ridge of Bin Tepe, south of Kırmutaf Tepe (BT 63.4/BT 05.81).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hanfmann 1964, 56–8, and 1967, 42–3; McLauchlin 1985, 212; Dinc¸ 1993, 126–7; Roosevelt 2003, 404 (TG 2C Bin Tepe), and 2007.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2005 survey.

Roosevelt 2007.

1.8. Royal TG (Figures 6.7–6.9, 6.17) 1.11. Yavs¸anlı C¸es¸mesi TG

DESCRIPTION: Group of the three largest tumuli in Bin Tepe, spread along the peak of its central ridge, including Kocamutaf Tepe (the tumulus of Alyattes/BT 05.114), Karnıyarık Tepe (BT 63.1/BT 05.22), and Kırmutaf Tepe (BT 63.4/BT 05.81), from east to west, that are commonly associated with Lydian kings of the Mermnad Dynasty.

DESCRIPTION: Group of six tumuli located along the central ridge of Bin Tepe, south of Karnıyarık Tepe (BT 63.1/BT 05.22). EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

EXPLORATION HISTORY: Extensive exploration including focused work on the tumulus of Alyattes in the mid-nineteenth century and throughout the existence of the current Sardis Expedition, on Karnıyarık Tepe primarily in the 1960s, and, less intensively, on Kırmutaf Tepe in 1995.

2005 survey.

Roosevelt 2007.

1.12. SU05.087 DESCRIPTION: Low-density pottery scatter consisting of one Middle/Late Lydian sherd, located just south of Karnıyarık Tepe (BT 63.1/ BT 05.22), along the central ridge of Bin Tepe.

208

1.12. SU05.087 EXPLORATION HISTORY:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1.19. Kendirlik 2005 survey.

1.16. POI05.43 – Bozyer DESCRIPTION: Low-density scatter of seven Middle/Late Lydian pottery sherds across a settlement site of primarily Late Chalcolithic through Early Bronze Age date located in eastern Bin Tepe.

Roosevelt 2007.

1.13. Tavs¸anlı Tepe TG (Figure 6.10) DESCRIPTION: Group of seven tumuli located along the central ridge of Bin Tepe, just east of Karnıyarık Tepe (BT 63.1/BT 05.22).

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

2005–2008 survey.

Roosevelt 2007; Roosevelt and Luke 2009; Luke and Roosevelt 2009.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1963 Sardis Expedition excavation of the BT 63.2 tumulus; 2005 survey. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

1.17. Karayahs¸i TG DESCRIPTION: Group of eight tumuli located south–southeast of POI05.43 (Bozyer) and north–northwest of Karayahs¸i in southeastern Bin Tepe.

Hanfmann 1964, 55; McLauchlin 1985, 182–4; Ratt´e 1989a, 176–9, and forthcoming, catalogue of monuments; Dinc¸ 1993, 123–6; Roosevelt 2003, 403–4 (TG 2C Bin Tepe), and 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

1.14. Delikli Tepe TG

Roosevelt 2003, 420 (TG 2H: Bin Tepe), and 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Group of at least six tumuli located along the central ridge of Bin Tepe, west of Kocamutaf Tepe (the tumulus of Alyattes/BT 05.114). DESCRIPTION:

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2005 survey.

1.18. POI05.19 – Rotary Quern Site DESCRIPTION: Settlement site in a valley of central Bin Tepe represented by a dense scatter of ceramics and other small finds dating primarily to Late Lydian through Roman times.

2005 survey.

Roosevelt 2007.

1.15. South of Alyattes TG

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

DESCRIPTION: Group of four tumuli located south of Kocamutaf Tepe (the tumulus of Alyattes/BT 05.114), in eastern Bin Tepe.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2005 survey.

Roosevelt 2007.

1.19. Kendirlik (Figures 6.7 and C.1) Nineteenth-century excavations; 1962 Sardis Expedition resistivity survey and excavation; 1980 Manisa Museum excavation; 2005 survey. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

Low-density pottery scatters of Middle/Late and Late Lydian pottery in fields just east and northeast of Kendirlik (SU05.97, SU05.105, and SU05.108), in southern Bin Tepe. (B) Large group of twenty-six tumuli located east and northeast of Kendirlik, in the southern foothills of Bin Tepe. (C) Bathtub sarcophagus with gold jewelry and appliqu´es (MM6277–6287) found in the Sarıkız neighborhood of Kendirlik, ca. 10 m DESCRIPTION: (A)

von Olfers 1858, 543; Hanfmann 1963, 59–60; McLauchlin 1985, 179– 82, 250, 253–4; Ratt´e 1989a, 169–76, and forthcoming, catalogue of monuments; Dinc¸ 1993, 118–23, 137–9; Roosevelt 2003, 417– 19 (TG 2G Bin Tepe), and 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

209

1.19. Kendirlik

1.21. Kestelli-Dibekdere TG

Figure C.1. Selection of appliqu´es and jewelry from a sarcophagus burial in the Sarıkız neighborhood of Kendirlik (MM6277–6287) (cat. no. 1.19C) (C. H. Roosevelt).

east of the Deliktepe A (BT 05.45) tumulus. Three-hundred and seventy individual pieces of gold included the following groups: 1. An assortment of stamped a` jour appliqu´es including a winged-bull with human head and horns (lamassu? MM6277), what was probably a modified lotus chain with alternating buds, flowers, and rosettes (consisting of 41 garland-shaped pieces (MM6279), 41 small eight-petal rosettes (MM6280), 25 lotus buds (MM6281), 26 lotus flowers (MM6282), and 29 large eight-petal rosettes (MM6278)), and a collection of 192 large four-petal rosettes (MM6287); 2. Unidentified piece(s) of jewelry represented by two gold items each consisting of a short solid stem attached to a globular orb via a granulated ring (MM6283); and 3. Necklace(s) or bracelet(s) of pendant beads on rectangular tubes: pendant pomegranate-like beads in gold (two of which survive: MM6284) probably alternated with similar beads in glass or stone, only the gold rectangular tubes and floral fittings of which survive (four upper (MM6285) and seven lower (MM6286) attachments).

2005 survey. 1994 Manisa Museum excavations. (C) 1976 Manisa Museum salvage excavations. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

(B)

Roosevelt 2003, 408–9 cat. nos. A3.42–3 (TG 2D Bin Tepe), 631–2 cat. no. A4.8, and 2007. (B) Bilgin, Dinc¸, and ¨ Onder 1996, 207–22. (C) Manisa Museum archives reports 470–214/04.05.1976 and 09.04.1980 in the 710.3 Salvage Excavation binder; Dusinberre 2003, 262–3.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–C)

1.20. Tas¸lı Tepe TG DESCRIPTION: Group of six tumuli located north of Kendirlik on Tas¸lı Tepe and the surrounding hills and ridges of Demir Tepe, Koca Tepe, and Kus¸tepe, in the southern foothills of Bin Tepe. EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2005 survey.

Roosevelt 2007.

1.21. Kestelli-Dibekdere TG DESCRIPTION: Diffuse group of ten tumuli, including one possible tumulus, located

210

˘ Grave 1.26. Kanbogaz

1.21. Kestelli-Dibekdere TG

˘ neighborFigure C.2. Necklace, pyxis, and lid from a stone-lined pit grave in the Kanbogaz ¨ ukbelen ¨ hood of the Buy Valley (MM6841–6842) (cat. no. 1.26) (C. H. Roosevelt).

between and around Kestelli and Dibekdere, in the southern and southwestern foothills of Bin Tepe.

Greenewalt 1978b, 70; McLauchlin 1985, 191–3, 205–6; Ratt´e 1989a, 15; Dinc¸ 1993, 139–50; Roosevelt 2003, 398– 403 cat. nos. A3.27–33 (TG 2A Bin Tepe), and 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

EXPLORATION HISTORY: 1995 Manisa Museum salvage excavation of the Akc¸es¸me tumulus; 2005 survey.

¨ ukbelen ¨ 1.24. Buy TG Manisa Museum archives report 714–807/11.08.1997 in binder 714; Roosevelt 2003, 403 cat. no. A3.34 (TG 2B Bin Tepe), and 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

DESCRIPTION: Group of five tumuli, including one possible tumulus, between the villages of ¨ ukbelen, ¨ ¨ Buy C¸ullugorece, and Derici, in the ¨ ukbelen ¨ Buy Valley.

1.22. POI05.29 – Dibekdere Road Site

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

DESCRIPTION: Settlement site in the central western part of Bin Tepe represented by a dense scatter of ceramics dating primarily to Late Lydian and Hellenistic times. EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2001 survey.

Manisa Museum archives report 714–2275/26.10.1999 in binder 714; Roosevelt 2003, 420–2 cat. nos. A3.58–62 ¨ ukbelen). ¨ (TG 3 Buy

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2005 survey. ¨ 1.25. C¸ullugorece

Roosevelt 2007.

DESCRIPTION: Lekythos reportedly ¨ “Lydian” type from C¸ullugorece.

1.23. Belenovası TG DESCRIPTION: Group of eight tumuli, including one possible tumulus, in the western foothills of Bin Tepe, overlooking the ¨ ukbelen ¨ Buy Valley.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

of

1984 Meric¸ survey.

Meric¸ 1984, 2.

˘ Grave (Figure C.2) 1.26. Kanbogaz

1976 Sardis Expedition observation; 1980 Manisa Museum salvage excavation; 2005 survey. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

DESCRIPTION: Stone-lined pit grave with ¨ grave assemblage found in Suleyman Bilgili’s

211

˘ Grave 1.26. Kanbogaz

1.30. POI06.13 – Kızılcayar

vineyard, ca. 1.5 km west of the Gygaean ˘ neighborhood of the Lake, in the Kanbogaz ¨ ukbelen ¨ Buy Valley. The disturbed grave was that of a five- or six-year-old child buried in a pit lined with schist slabs (L: ca. 1.04; W: 0.52; Depth: 0.55) and covered with a single large schist slab. Published finds from the grave included a Lydian pyxis with lid (lid published as a separate bowl; MM6841) and a set of four blue faience pendants – each depicting the Egyptian eye of Horus – along with five onyx and other stone beads (MM6842). While the pyxis may date to the mid-sixth century, the faience pendants could date as late as the early fifth century. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

of the Gygaean Lake, ca. 6 km northwest ˘ of Tekelioglu and 3.75 km southeast of Hacıveliler, and west of the “Cow Patch” (cat. no. 1.27). This is most likely the “Tas¸lıtarla” described by Meric¸, where stone foundations and ceramics indicated Lydian in addition to both much earlier and much later activities. In 2005, among some indication of the same range of materials, one sherd of Middle/Late Lydian date was collected. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

1984 Meric¸ survey;

2005 survey. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Meric¸ 1984, 1, 1985, 200; Roosevelt 2003, 633 cat. no. A4.12, and 2007.

1989 Manisa Mu-

seum salvage excavation.

1.29. POI06.27 – Kaymakc¸ı Lakeshore Settlement site located on a low hill overlooking the southwest shore of the Gygaean Lake, ca. 3 km southeast of Hacıveliler, and west of Arslantas¸ (cat. no. 1.28). Occupation in Middle and Late Lydian times is indicated by a dense scatter of pottery, among other remains of Bronze Age through Byzantine date. (B) Diffuse group of twelve tumuli located in the foothills immediately west of the Gygaean Lake, around Hacıveliler. DESCRIPTION: (A)

Dinc¸ 1994, 57–9. For comparanda, see Butler 1922, 118 fig. 124, Greenewalt, Cahill, and Rautman 1987, 49, n. 36, and Greenewalt, Ratt´e, and Rautman 1993, 37.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1.27. POI81.04 – Cow Patch DESCRIPTION: Settlement site located on the southwest shore of the Gygaean Lake, ca. 4– 5 km southeast of Hacıveliler. In 1981, low lake levels exposed schist wall foundations and a dense scatter of pottery along a ca. 150 m stretch, ca. 0.50 m above lake level, that indicated occupation in Middle and Late Lydian times, in addition to both earlier (Early Bronze Age) and later pre-Roman activities in the area. This same site was probably noted already in 1967.

EXPLORATION

(B)

HISTORY: (A)

2006

survey.

2001 and 2006 surveys.

Roosevelt 2003, 422–6 cat. nos. A3. 63–72 (TG 4 Hacıveliler); Roosevelt and Luke 2008.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B)

1.30. POI06.13 – Kızılcayar

1981 (and possibly 1967) Sardis Expedition observation(s).

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

DESCRIPTION: Settlement site located in the foothills immediately west of the Gygaean Lake indicated by fieldstone wall foundations and a scatter of pottery of Middle/Late Lydian date. Probably associated with the Hacıveliler tumulus group (cat. no. 1.29B).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hanfmann 1968, 10; Greenewalt et al. 1985, 57–9; Roosevelt 2003, 633 cat. no. A4.12.

1.28. POI05.41 – Arslantas¸ (Tas¸lıtarla?)

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

Settlement site located on a rocky promontory on the southwest shore

2006 survey.

DESCRIPTION:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

212

Roosevelt and Luke 2008.

˘ C¸es¸mesi 1.31. POI06.18 – Yandımoglu

1.35. POI81.02 – Tınaztepe

˘ C¸es¸mesi 1.31. POI06.18 – Yandımoglu

grained marble. Slightly tapered shaft with flat bottom supports hammer-dressed bulbous finial. Flat bottom bears traces of a claw chisel. Total H: 0.89; shaft H: 0.54; top D: 0.50; base D: >0.50; finial max. D: ca. 0.60.

DESCRIPTION: Settlement site located northwest of the Gygaean Lake, on a ridge over¨ looking the Golmarmara valley from the south. Wall foundations and a scatter of pottery of Early and Middle Lydian date represent settlement activity. Perhaps associated with the Hacıveliler tumulus group (cat. no. 1.29B). EXPLORATION HISTORY:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1964 and 1981 Sardis Expedition observations; 1975 Manisa Museum observation; 1984 Meric¸ survey; 2001 and 2006 surveys.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–C)

2006 survey.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–C) Hanfmann 1965, 35; Manisa Museum archives report 473–499/ 03.10.1975 in binder 711 Akhisar; Greenewalt et al. 1985, 57; Meric¸ 1984, 1–2, 1985, 200; Roosevelt 2003, 426–9 cat. nos. A3.73–7 (TG 5A Kılcanlar), 633–4 cat. nos. A4.13–14.

Roosevelt and Luke 2008.

˘ 1.32. POI06.22 – Bugdaylık DESCRIPTION: Settlement site located northwest of the Gygaean Lake, on the end of the ˘ Bugdaylık ridge as it meets the floodplain of ¨ the lake, overlooking the Golmarmara valley from the north. Dense distribution of pottery of Early, Middle, and Late Lydian date found in addition to material of early and later times.

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

¨ 1.34. Yenikoy Group of at least three tumuli located around and to the east of ¨ in the foothills north of the Gygaean Yenikoy Lake. (B) Limestone bathtub sarcophagus of typical Lydian type seen in 2001 on the south ¨ side of the road just west of Yenikoy. DESCRIPTION: (A)

2006 survey.

Roosevelt and Luke 2008. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B) 1975 Manisa Museum observation; 2001 survey.

¨ uk ¨ 1.33. POI81.03 – Kılcanlar Hoy Settlement mound of ¨ uk, ¨ located in the floodplain ca. Kılcanlar Hoy 200 m west of Kılcanlar, north of the Gygaean Lake (H: ca. 5–8; area: 300 × 150). In addition to an abundance of Iron Age pottery, including diagnostic wares of the Early, Middle, and Late Lydian periods, Bronze Age pottery and early Byzantine coins as well as Byzantine and Islamic glazed sherds illustrate the popularity of the site in several periods. (B) Group of six tumuli located around Kılcanlar in the flood plain and foothills north of the Gygaean Lake. (C) Phallic marker from Kılcanlar first seen on the lower slopes of the occupation mound in 1984. It is currently located along the ¨ northern edge of the Golmarmara-Kılcanlar road, ca. 300 m northeast of the modern village. Finial is broken. White-gray medium

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Manisa Museum archives report 473–499/03.10.1975 in binder 711 Akhisar. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 429–30 cat. nos. A3. 78–9, 81 (TG 5B Kılcanlar), 635 cat. no. A4.15.

DESCRIPTION: (A)

1.35. POI81.02 – Tınaztepe Settlement site located on a promontory known as Tınaztepe northwest of the Gygaean Lake, ca. 3 km southeast of ¨ and ca. 4.3 km west–northwest of Yenikoy Kemerdamları. Just below its highest point in the north, the roughly dressed limestone blocks of a large rectilinear foundation were seen in 1981. A fragmentary Middle/Late Lydian skyphos indicated Lydian activities among abundant evidence for later Hellenistic and Roman activities. In addition to the

DESCRIPTION: (A)

213

1.35. POI81.02 – Tınaztepe

2.2. Ahmetli

foundation on top of the hill, now completely disturbed by deep plowing, the Manisa Museum noted a long wall of dry-stone construction on the western edge of the site that they took to be an enclosure wall, preserved to a ca. 1.5 m height. New evidence from the region suggests that this might also be a prominent site of the second millennium BCE. (B) Group of at least two tumuli located on ridges north of and directly overlooking Tınaztepe. (C) Possible additional evidence includes two later inscriptions from Kemerdamları which refer to a sanctuary of Apollo Pleurenos at Pleura, literally, “on the shore.” Tınaztepe, on the shore of the Gygaean Lake, would have been a fitting place for a sanctuary of an Apollo “of the shore.”

(B) Possible additional evidence includes the low mound of C¸iftlik Tepe, located ca. 4 km southwest of Poyrazdamları and beneath the southern of two power lines oriented southwest–northeast. In addition to Byzantine pottery and early modern architectural remains, earlier burnished gray wares may date from the Iron Age, if they do not belong with the more abundant evidence of Bronze Age materials. HISTORY: (A) 2001 survey. 1981 Sardis Expedition observation; 2001 survey. EXPLORATION

(B)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B) Greenewalt et al. 1985, 57; Roosevelt 2003, 215, 433–5 cat. nos. 89– 94 (TG 6B Poyrazdamları), 635–6 cat. no. A4.17.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A) 1981 Sardis Expedition observation; 1995 Manisa Museum observation. (B) 2001 survey.

2. MIDDLE HERMUS RIVER VALLEY (WEST OF CENTRAL LYDIA)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Greenewalt et al. 1985, 57; Manisa Museum archives report 720– 731/09.08.1995. (C) Robert 1982, 361–7; ˘ 1996. (A–C) RooseMalay and Nalbantoglu velt 2003, 214–15, 429–30 cat. nos. A3.80–1 (TG 5B Kılcanlar), 635 cat. no. A4.16; Luke and Roosevelt 2009.

2.1. Matdere TG DESCRIPTION: Group of two tumuli located ˘ just east of Matdere (formerly Agıldere). EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Roosevelt 2003, 435–6 (TG

7 Matdere).

1.36. Kemerdamları TG DESCRIPTION: At least seven tumuli located around Kemerdamları, in the foothills northeast of the Gygaean Lake. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

2001 survey.

2.2. Ahmetli (Figures 6.39, 6.44) Rectangular limestone sarcophagus and lydion from near the Ahmetli or Gencer C¸ayı, discovered during construc¨ tion in early 1999 at 233 Turgut Ozal Caddesi in the Barabaros neighborhood of Ahmetli. A lydion was the only find recovered from the grave assemblage of a probable Late Lydian date. In the summer of 2001, the sarcophagus was brought to the Sardis Expedition compound for safekeeping. (B) Group of seventeen tumuli, including two possible tumuli, centered on Ahmetli. (C) Possible additional evidence includes a rock-cut chamber tomb located in Kapıkaya, DESCRIPTION: (A)

2001 and 2007 sur-

veys. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Roosevelt 2003, 431–3 cat. nos. 83–8 (TG 6A Kemerdamları); Roosevelt and Luke 2009.

1.37. Poyrazdamları TG At least six tumuli located around Poyrazdamları, in the foothills northeast of the Gygaean Lake.

DESCRIPTION: (A)

214

2.2. Ahmetli

2.5. Avs¸ar

ca. 1 km to the west of the village of Alahıdır on the northern slope of Tmolus. Described as irregular and oval in plan with rectangular entrance (H: ca. 1.70; W: 0.725), it was published as Hellenistic in date but may be earlier.

(C) Small recumbent lion statue on a low plinth from Sivrice (MM1465); acquired by the Manisa Museum in 1966. L: 0.305; W: 0.135; H: 0.255. Blue-gray marble. Surface is worn and pitted; broken along right front corner, left forepaw, left rear, top of left and right haunches, and right side of muzzle and head; mounted on modern plinth. The back of the lion slopes down to its torso, which is rounded on top and concave on its lower sides. The tail passes under the rump and over the left haunch. Haunches are rectangular and show no articulation of musculature. All paws have three long digits separated by grooves. The hood-like mane is articulated with long grooves on the back and sides of the head that terminate with curls to the left on left side and back of head and in straight ends on right side. A tuft of the breast is depicted by grooved chevrons. The head is oval in section with low-relief eyes marked by raised ridges. A deep groove indicates a “smiling” open mouth on the squarish muzzle. Fifth or fourth century. (D) Group of five tumuli, including one possible tumulus, located around Akc¸apınar and in the plain to its north.

1999–2001 Manisa Museum investigations and salvage excavations; 2001 transport of the sarcophagus to the Sardis Expedition compound; 2001 survey. (C) Meric¸ 1983 survey.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Manisa Museum archives report 714–50/14.01.1999. (A–C) Roosevelt 2003, 436–46 (TG 8 Ahmetli), 636 cat. nos. A4.18–19. (B) Baughan 2008b; Roosevelt 2008b; Stinson 2008. (C) Meric¸ 1983b, 1; Greenewalt, Rautman, and Meric¸ 1986, 24.

¨ 2.3. Gokkaya TG DESCRIPTION: Group of three tumuli located ¨ just north of modern Gokkaya. EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 446–7 (TG

¨ 9 Gokkaya).

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A) 1983 and 1985 Meric¸ surveys. (B) 2001 survey.

2.4. Akc¸apınar (Figure 6.36)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Meric¸ 1983b, 1; Greenewalt, Rautman, and Meric¸ 1986, 24; Meric¸ 1986, 303. (B) Sayce 1880, 88; Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 66. (A–D) Roosevelt 2003, 636–8 cat. nos. A4.20–2, 447–9 (TG 10 Akc¸apınar).

Settlement site located southeast of Akc¸apınar on terraced slopes of the Tmolus foothills; Lydian pottery and terracotta sarcophagus graves indicate the Middle Lydian date of the site, which bore evidence of second millennium activity as well. (B) Rock-cut space on the northern face of ˘ or “Pointy Mountain,” located ca. Sivri Dag, 4.1 km due south of Akc¸apınar and ca. 1.5 km north–northwest of Sivrice; roughly square space of ca. 3.5 m on a side; similarities to better-known rock-cut features at Yarıkkaya, or the “Throne of Pelops” on Mt. Sipylus, suggest an Early–Late Lydian date, but later remains on the site include a cement-lined cistern, near the top, and assorted tile and undiagnostic, plain red pottery littering the site. DESCRIPTION: (A)

2.5. Avs¸ar DESCRIPTION: Three rock-cut chamber tombs and one cist grave located on the C¸atal Kayası ridge, just southeast of Avs¸ar and west of the Karacaali River, seen in 1986; each of the chamber tombs consisted of a chamber and shallow porch with pitched ceilings and a dromos. Two of the dromoi were roofed while the unroofed third dromos led to a chamber the walls and ceiling of which were decorated with a repeating rectangle design in red paint. Gray ware and “late” Black Glaze pottery were

215

2.5. Avs¸ar

2.7. Asartepe

seen at the site, as well as the remains of terracotta sarcophagi.

2.7. Asartepe Settlement mound of Asartepe located just south of the Hermus River, ca. 250 m east of the Akc¸apınarUrganlı Kaplıcaları road (H: ca. 10–15; top area: ca. 105 × 240). Recovered finds include gray ware and red monochrome sherds of probable eleventh through seventh century date in addition to abundant second millennium sherds, among the later Roman and Byzantine remains of a fortified settlement. (B) Phallic marker from Asartepe seen at the western base of the mound in 1982. Its location near the ruins of a mosque may suggest that it had been brought to the area as spolia to be used in recent construction. (C) Large, sideways-looking, recumbent lion statue. L: >1.50; W: >0.55; H: >0.72. Large-grained white marble. Seen in relatively good condition on lower western slope of Asartepe in fall 2000, when the field owner said that it had been dragged down from a place on top of the mound. It now lies on its right side with its head to the south and with its foreparts completely destroyed. Broken along entire left side except for rump, shoulder area, breast, forepaws, and head; rear breaks are old, forepart breaks fresh; underside rough; a shallow divot on the back is a drill or clamp hole; two other drill holes on the left rear side probably come from secondary use. The back of the lion is nearly horizontal but has a slight saddle in the middle. The mane was rendered with stylized ridges and grooves preserved only in a very small area below the breaks on the left side. Sixth century. DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: 1986 Manisa Museum and Sardis Expedition investigation. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Unpublished report of C. H. Greenewalt, jr., 1986; Roosevelt 2003, 638 cat. no. A4.23.

2.6. Turgutlu (Figure 6.35) Small recumbent lion statue on a low plinth (MM538); found in Turgutlu during construction of the Halk Evi (”Public House”) and brought to the Manisa Museum in 1939. L: 0.295; W: 0.13; H: 0.20. Fine- to medium-grained gray marble. Surface is slightly worn and partially covered with a white concretion or plaster; broken along plinth at right rear, front left paw, and muzzle; a deep cavity on the left flank is probably from secondary use; mounted on modern plinth. The back of the lion is horizontal and its torso, oval in section, is much wider than it is tall. The tail passes under the rump and over the left haunch; its end is unclear. Shoulders, haunches, and legs are articulated as finite parts with musculature in high relief. Each paw has three toes separated by grooves. The unarticulated hood-like mane extends in a rectangular fillet down spinal ridge. It wraps around the neck above the shoulders and forms a point on the breast. The head is squarish in section with ears indicated by shallow divots. The almond-shaped eyes are defined by low ridges and pointed tear ducts. The feline muzzle is square in profile and the small lower jaw is dropped below the “smiling” mouth. Late seventh or sixth century. (B) Group of at least five tumuli within the city limits of modern Turgutlu (with only one still standing). DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

HISTORY: (A–B) 1891 and 1895 Buresch observations; 1906 Keil and Premerstein observation; 1981–1982 Foss investigation; 1988 Meric¸ survey. (C) 2001 survey. EXPLORATION

1939 observa-

tion. (B) 2001 survey.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Buresch 1898, 5, 186, 192; Keil and Premerstein 1908, 14; Foss 1982, 190–2, 194; Meric¸ 1989, 361. (B) Foss 1982, 194, pl. IV.2. (A–C) Roosevelt 2003, 639–40 cat. nos. A4.25–7.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 64. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 449–50 (TG 11 Turgutlu), 639 cat. no. A4.24.

216

2.8. Musacalı

2.9. Temrek

2.8. Musacalı (Figure 6.26) Relief stele depicting a cloaked man (MM7759); found in Musacalı and acquired by the Manisa Museum from a citizen of Turgutlu. H: 0.86; W: 0.34; TH: 0.13–0.14. Large-grained white marble with gray clouds and veins. Broken irregularly and freshly along top and part of right side; bottom corners and edges chipped. The stele has a plain rectangular top and a short tenon on the bottom separated from the main field by a raised ridge. Represented in low relief is a man standing to the right dressed in a mantle or cloak detailed with incision. Beneath the mantle he wears a knee-length garment as well as pants and boots. His right arm extends across his body to the right and his hand holds something. His left arm is not visible, but the left hand may be holding something unclear by his left side. The head and face is worn and unclear. On the right side of the stele is a rough and irregular three-line inscription of unclear but probably non-Greek letter forms. Composition and comparanda suggest a Late Lydian date. (B) Group of eight tumuli located around and to the north of Musacalı. (C) Possible additional evidence includes local reports of the presence of a fortress of uncertain date in the hills above the village, perhaps ca. 4 km to its north–northwest on the peak called Kale Tepe. DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (C)

Figure C.3. Small lion statue from Temrek (MM28) (cat. no. 2.9B) (C. H. Roosevelt).

ca. 470. Exact provenience is uncertain, with the hoard perhaps coming from elsewhere ˘ nearby on C¸al Dag. (B) Small, recumbent lion statue from Temrek on low amorphous plinth (MM28); found in Temrek and brought to the Manisa Museum in 1938. L: 0.335; W: 0.155; H: 0.285. Rough and porous gray-brown limestone. Broken along right side, right and left front corners, left side, haunches, and top and right side of head and muzzle; mounted on a modern plinth. The back of the lion slopes down to its rump and is grooved from the head to the middle of the spine. Its belly is convex and swelling. The tail passes under the rump and over the left haunch before ending in a diamond-shaped tuft. An irregular mane decorated with incised vertical lines is defined by a point on the spine and wraps around to the breast below the left foreleg but above the right shoulder. The head is rounded in section with the preserved left ear indicated by a hole and surrounding ridge. The eyes and nose are plastically rendered. Fifth or fourth century. (C) Group of eight tumuli located south and west of Temrek. (D) Possible additional evidence includes local reports of the presence of a fortress of uncertain date in the hills above Temrek.

2001 survey.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Dusinberre 2003, 222; ˘ (A–B) pers. comm. R. Dinc¸, H. Dedeoglu. Roosevelt 2003, 453–7 (TG 13 C¸aldag˘ B), 640–1 cat. nos. A4.28–9.

2.9. Temrek (Figure C.3) ˘ Coin hoard from C¸al Dag; reported to have been found on C¸al Dag˘ around 1945 or earlier. Approximately 2000 silver coins, including ca. 475 Croesid half staters and ca. 945 sigloi of types I–III. The later sigloi provide a date of deposit some time in the first half of the fifth century, perhaps

DESCRIPTION: (A)

217

2.9. Temrek EXPLORATION HISTORY: (C)

3.4. Armutlu TG 2001 survey.

“Late Geometric” decoration, in addition to abundant Roman and Byzantine pottery. (B) Group of three tumuli, including two possible tumuli, located just north of the Karabel Pass.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Thompson, Mørkholm, and Kraay 1973, no. 1178; Robinson 1947 and 1958; Seyrig 1953; Noe 1956. (B, D) Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 68. (A–D) Roosevelt 2003, 450–3 (TG 12 C¸aldag˘ A), 641–2 cat. nos. A4.30–2.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

1985 Atalay cave

survey. (B) 2001 survey. Atalay 1986, 249–50. Roosevelt 2003, 457–8 (TG 15 Karabel), 643 cat. no. A4.34.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A)

(A–B)

3. NYMPHAEUM VALLEY

¨ um ¨ 3.1. Kızıluz

3.3. Yukarı Kızılca

Singleton tumulus located ¨ um, ¨ west of Kemalpas¸a. near Kızıluz (B) Possible additional evidence in the area includes possibly Iron Age remains on the ¨ uk, ¨ located prehistoric mound of Ulucak Hoy ¨ um. ¨ across the valley from Kızıluz Note also that data presented in this section are bound to need updating with the results of the ongoing Nif Dag˘ Survey and Excavation Project, under the direction of Prof. E. T. Tulunay. DESCRIPTION: (A)

Grave assemblage from Yukarı Kızılca, including two late sixth- or fifth-century BCE gold bracelets with griffin ˙ protome terminals now located in the Izmir Archaeological Museum. (A) Rock-cut monuments on Akkaya above Yukarı Kızılca, on the precipitous north face and peak of a lower spur of Mt. Dracon ˘ Numerous features and some (Mahmut Dag). inscriptions may indicate the location of a Hellenistic (perhaps Seleucid?) garrison, but a monument consisting of two rock-cut niches separated by an engaged column and approached by steps is probably Late Lydian in date. It has been interpreted as a watchpost or an unfinished funerary monument, but the low benches found along its back walls may suggest that its form, whatever its function, was finished. DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A) Ramage and Ramage 1970 observation. (B) Ulucak: 1960s Mellaart and French surveys; 1988–1989 ¨ urk ¨ surMeric¸ surveys; 1997 Altıner and Ozt ˘ excavation. veys; 1998–present C¸ilingiroglu BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Ramage and Ramage 1971, 155, no. 100; Roosevelt 2003, 457 (TG ¨ um). ¨ (B) Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 14 Kızıluz 43; French 1965, 15; French 1968, 238, figs. 30, 33, 49; French 1969, 55, 43; Todd 1980: 128; Meric¸ 1988, 387; Meric¸ 1989: 362; Akdeniz 1994, 51; Korfmann et al. 1994, 218, 1413, map II B 14; Yakar 1994, map 12; ¨ urk ¨ 1997, 34–46; Altıner 1997, 39–47; Ozt ˘ Roosevelt 2003, pers. comm. A. C¸ilingiroglu; 642–3 cat. no. A4.33.

EXPLORATION

HISTORY: (A–B)

Numerous

early observations. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Akurgal 1961, 173, fig. ¨ urk ¨ 1998, 42. (B) Keil and Premer117; Ozt stein 1914, 6–8; Bean 1979, 41–2; Atalay 1986, 250. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 643 cat. nos. A4.35–6.

3.4. Armutlu TG 3.2. Karabel area

DESCRIPTION: Group of at least seven tumuli, including two possible tumuli, clustered in and around Armutlu.

Settlement or other site of ˙ ˘ Izmirli’nin Magarası (“The Smyrniot’s Cave”), located above the village of Kurudere, ca. 1 ˘ Dated by sherds with km west of Kale Dag.

DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

218

2001 survey.

3.4. Armutlu TG

4.3. C¸obanisa

Roosevelt (TG 16 Armutlu).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2003,

458–60

sumably ancient) road between Manisa and Turgutlu. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

¨ uk ¨ 3.5. Nemrut Hoy Settlement mound of ¨ uk ¨ (or Karaoglan ˘ Nemrut Hoy Tepe), located ca. 2 km south of C¸ambel and 0.4 km southeast of the Crius River (est. H: 5); Iron Age pottery noted on the surface in 1997, among earlier and later remains. (B) Group of fourteen tumuli, including two ˘ possible tumuli, located between Azmanoglu, ˘ C¸ambel, and Sancaklı I˙gdecik.

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 468–70 (TG ˘ 19 Karaoglanlı B).

DESCRIPTION: (A)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

˘ 4.2. Karaoglanlı A TG DESCRIPTION: Group of at least five tumuli ˘ located east–northeast of Karaoglanlı, along the modern (and presumably ancient) road between Manisa and Turgutlu.

1988–1989 Meric¸ surveys; 1997 Altıner survey. (B) 2001 survey.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 466–8 (TG ˘ 18 Karaoglanlı A).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

French 1969, 54 no. 37; Meric¸ 1988, 387; Meric¸ 1989, 362; Meric¸ 1993b; Akdeniz 1994, 51; Yakar 1994, 36; Altıner 1997, 48–115. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 461–6 (TG 17 Crius), 644 cat. no. A4.37. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A)

4.3. C¸obanisa Lydian inscription of at least eighteen lines on a stele; found in 1906 ˙ ˘ in the kitchen of Ilyas Stefanoglu’s house in C¸obanisa. Marble. The plain stele has a rebated panel along its right side and what appears to be a roughly dressed tenon of slightly smaller dimensions than the stele itself projecting from its bottom. (B) Rock-cut chamber tomb located just above and south of Yukarı C¸obanisa, along the south side of the road which leads to Sancaklı C¸es¸mebas¸ı; ca. 0.5 m deep and ca. 1 m wide recessed porch opens through a 0.5 m wide doorway into a single chamber; ceilings of both porch and chamber are pitched; two benches located on either side of the doorway and a shallow ledge along the back wall between the side benches; wall height above benches ca. 0.5 m. (C) Group of three tumuli clustered tightly around Yukarı C¸obanisa and S¸irin. DESCRIPTION: (A)

˘ 3.6. Azmanoglu DESCRIPTION: Low settlement mound known ˘ located ca. 2.5 km southeast of as Azmanoglu, ˙ C¸ambel, ca. 150 m south of the Izmir-Ankara highway, and ca. 0.6 km south of the Crius and 0.2 km west of the Armutlu rivers (est. H: 3; est. D: 12–15). Evidence for its earliest Iron Age occupation is an Achaemenid bowl, while the remainder of finds are of Hellenistic and Roman date. Perhaps associated with tumulus group in cat. no. 3.5B. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

1997 Altıner survey.

Altıner 1997, 179–84; Roosevelt 2003, 644 cat. no. A4.38.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

˘ 4. MT. SIPYLUS (MANISA DA G)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A) Many early ¨ urk ¨ survey; 2001 observations. (B) 1997 Ozt survey. (C) 2001 survey.

˘ 4.1. Karaoglanlı B TG DESCRIPTION: Group of six tumuli, including two possible tumuli, located east–southeast ˘ of Karaoglanlı, along the modern (and pre-

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Keil and Premerstein 1908, 99 no. 11, fig. 100; Keil and Premerstein

219

4.3. C¸obanisa

4.4. Akpınar

1911, 90–1, fig. 53; Buckler 1924, no. 44; Friedrich 1932, no. 44; and Gusmani ¨ urk ¨ 1997, 98–100. 1964, 265 no. 44. (B) Ozt (A–C) Roosevelt 2003, 470–1 (TG 20 C¸obanisa), 644–5 cat. nos. A4.39–40. 4.4. Akpınar (Figure C.4) Monumental rock-cut tomb known as the “Tomb of St. Charalambos” and the “Tomb of Tantalus,” hewn from limestone at the northeastern terminus of Mt. Sipylus. A trough of roughly rectangular section separates the monument from the rest of the rock face and may have been intended also to divert water from its fac¸ade. A staircase of five full-width steps, followed by two narrower steps, leads up from a horizontal rock-cut floor to a low threshold and doorway in the fac¸ade. Just above the middle of the eastern jamb is a roughly rectangular shallow socket, probably associated with the closing mechanism. The doorway of the fac¸ade leads to an antechamber and another doorway to a chamber. Both of these have roughly horizontal floors while the ceilings are hewn in the form of an irregular and shallow barrel vault. While grave goods were removed long ago, second millennium through Byzantine sherds were found on the surface not far away. Claw-chisel tooling on the eastern door jamb suggests a Late Lydian date. (B) Peak site of Yarıkkaya or the “Throne of Pelops,” located just west of and nearly 300 m above the gorge of Yarıkkaya, at the northeastern terminus of Mt. Sipylus. Site spreads over a ca. 140 m × 25 m area of limestone peak and is represented best by numerous rock-cut basements and cisterns and a few constructed walls. Pottery finds include a “Protogeometric” sherd bearing nine concentric circles, Black Glaze sherds that Ramsay thought looked Greek, fourth through second century pottery, and Late Roman and Byzantine sherds. (C) Rock-cut tombs and monuments associated with the Late Bronze Age Cybele monument, located at the northeastern terminus of Mt. Sipylus, west of (A) and (B). In addition DESCRIPTION: (A)

Figure C.4. The monumental rock-cut tomb in the Akpınar neighborhood of Manisa known as the “Tomb of St. Charalambos” and the “Tomb of Tantalus;” the entrance at the top of steps is sealed by a modern iron door (cat. no. 4.4A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

to the well-known Cybele relief and its two sets of Hittite hieroglyphic inscriptions, possible evidence of Lydian activities in the area include reports of numerous rock-cut tombs and other features among evidence of a later date. (D) Group of five tumuli, including one possible tumulus, located in the Akpınar neighborhood of Manisa. Many early ¨ urk ¨ observations; 1997 Ozt survey; 2001 ¨ and Alexander survey. (C) 1982 Guterbock examinations; 1990s Salvini examinations.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–C)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Steuart 1842, pl. II; Ramsay 1882, 37–8, fig. 8; Weber 1885, 136–8; Ramsay 1882, 37; Perrot and Chipiez 1892, 63–5; Bean 1979, 39. (B) Weber 1880, 118– 19; Ramsay 1882, 35–7; Humann 1888; Perrot and Chipiez 1892, 57–61; Bean 1979, 40; ¨ urk ¨ 1997, 101–45. Aks¸it 1983, 25–44; Ozt

220

4.4. Akpınar

4.5. Manisa (Magnesia ad Sipylum) acquired by the Manisa Museum in 1938. L: 0.46; W: 0.155; H: 0.34. Medium-grained yellowish white marble. Surface is worn and pitted; head is worn smooth and hollowed on left side; broken along right hind leg, front legs, and right front plinth; mounted on a modern plinth. The back of the lion is horizontal and its torso rounded on top with near vertical sides. The tail passes under the rump and does not reappear. Haunches are strongly rectilinear and toes not visible. Eyes are indicated by large and shallow almond-shaped hollows. Unfinished? Late seventh or sixth century. (D) Small recumbent lion statue on low plinth (MM536); probably from Manisa, acquired by the Manisa Museum in 1939. L: 0.48; W: 0.13; H: 0.355. gray-white marble. Originally found broken into three pieces: rump and hind legs; torso; and forelegs, muzzle and left part of head. Surface is worn, pitted, and partially coated with concretion or gray-white plaster; forepaws worn and broken at corners; mounted on a modern plinth. The back of the lion is near horizontal, and its torso completely freed from the underlying plinth. A short tail loops up and onto the spine. Haunches and shoulders are

Figure C.5. Small lion statue from Manisa (MM32) (cat. no. 4.5C) (C. H. Roosevelt).

Sayce 1880, 88–91; Weber 1880; Frazer 1898.3, 552–5; Ramsay 1881, 286–92; Perrot ¨ and Chipiez 1892; Bossert 1942; Guterbock 1956; Bean 1979, 31–3; Umar 1981, 55; ¨ Guterbock and Alexander 1983; Aks¸it 1983, 25–44; Salvini and Salvini 1996, 7–20; ¨ urk ¨ 1997, 146–155. (A–D) Roosevelt and Ozt 2003, 472–4 (TG 21 Akpınar), 645–6 cat. nos. A4.41–3. (C)

4.5. Manisa (Magnesia ad Sipylum) (Figures C.5–C.6) Stele with Lydian inscription of at least six lines, found in Manisa. Marble. (B) Phallic marker (MM550); probably from Manisa, acquired by the Manisa Museum in 1953. Total H: 0.70; shaft H: 0.19; shaft D: 0.28–0.34; finial H: 0.26; finial D: 0.37–0.44. Purplish red andesite with small inclusions. Broken along bottom which now appears as an irregular flange; finial spalled on exposed side; white concretion covers parts of finial and shaft. Plain smooth shaft supports flattopped domical finial. (C) Small recumbent lion statue on low plinth (MM32); probably from Manisa, DESCRIPTION: (A)

Figure C.6. Small lion statue from Manisa (MM536) (cat. no. 4.5D) (C. H. Roosevelt).

221

˘ 5.2. Bagyolu

4.5. Manisa (Magnesia ad Sipylum) rectangular in higher relief than the torso and the musculature of the foreleg is indicated by a curving incised groove. Three toes on the left forepaw are separated by two grooves; the rear paws may be rendered similarly. The mane is worn but roughly dressed on the back of the head and in a collar-like band below the head. The head is near oval in section and a brow line is marked by ridges like the mane higher up. The muzzle is square in section and the lips are pulled back into a “smile” but the mouth is not hollowed. Late seventh or sixth century.

of a north–south oriented gorge that joins the ˙ Sabancı Pass between Manisa and Izmir. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

2001 survey.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 475 ¨ (TG 23 Gurle), 649 cat. no. A4.49.

5. MIDDLE HERMUS RIVER VALLEY (NORTH OF MT. SIPYLUS)

5.1. Muradiye EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–D)

Early investi-

Stele with Lydian inscription of at least eight lines from Muradiye (formerly Hamidiye); found reused as a fountainhead in the garden of the baker Yannakos Sotirou in 1906. Limestone. (B) Possible additional evidence includes the stone foundations of a fort and watch˘ tower at Yagcılar Kalesi and C¸akmak Tepe, respectively, both located northwest of ˘ Muradiye and Yagcılar. Masonry at both sites suggest fourth century or Hellenistic dates of construction. DESCRIPTION: (A)

gations. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Bossert 1936, 430–1; Gusmani 1964, 268, no. 54; (A–D) Roosevelt 2003, 646–8 cat. nos. A4.44–7.

4.6. Kayapınar Settlement remains on ridge of Kars¸ıyaka Tepe, just north of Kayapınar, represented by wall foundations and abundant pottery, including a Corinthian alabastron found in 1990 (MM7178), among later Hellenistic and Roman sherds; two rockcut niches located to the southwest, west of the village of Kec¸ili, may be related remains. (B) Singleton tumulus located just north of Kayapınar. DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

1906 observa-

tion. (B) 2001 survey. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Keil and Premerstein 1908, 99 no. 9, fig. 99; Buckler 1924, no. 46; Friedrich 1932, no. 46; and Gusmani 1964, 266 no. 46. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 649–51 cat. nos. 50, 53–4.

1986 Meric¸ survey; (B) 1991 museum excavation.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Meric¸ 1987, 247; pers. comm. B. Aydın. (B) Dinc¸ 1993, 214–21, no. 25. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 474 (TG 22 Kayapınar), 648 cat. no. A4.48.

˘ 5.2. Bagyolu Singleton tumulus located ˘ ¨ east of Bagyolu and south of Gulbahc ¸ e. (B) Possible additional evidence includes the square foundation of an unidentified structure, perhaps a watchtower, located ca. 2 km ˘ north–northwest of Bagyolu. DESCRIPTION: (A)

¨ 4.7. Gurle Singleton tumulus located ¨ just northeast of Gurle. (B) Possible additional evidence includes undated rock-cut wall foundations and steps on a prominent outcrop of limestone, just ¨ north of Gurle, that juts out over the west side DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

2001 survey.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 475–6 (TG 24 C¸erkes), 650 cat. no. A4.52.

222

¨ ¸ pınar 5.3. Uc

6.1. Sarıc¸am

Figure C.7. Partial grave assemblage from a terracotta sarcophagus burial in Tekeliler (MM5302, 5304–5311); omitted are an Attic Black Figure alabastron (MM5301) and a silver bracelet (MM5303) (cat. no. 5.4) (C. H. Roosevelt).

¨ ¸ pınar 5.3. Uc

lar terracotta sarcophagi set into stone-lined pits and covered with schist slabs. Recovered grave assemblage, with miniature items for a child, included: a silver bracelet with calfhead terminals; a terracotta figurine; a Black Figure alabastron; two lydia; and one each of a lekythos, pyxis, stemmed fruit dish, and small bowl. Late sixth or fifth century.

DESCRIPTION: Stele with Lydian inscription ¨ ¸ pınar (formerly of at least six lines from Uc ˘ oy); ¨ Egrik found in 1906 in the street outside the house of Michael Themistokles; said to have come from a mountain or hill in the vicinity of the village. Limestone. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

1906 observation.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: 1976 Manisa Museum salvage exploration.

Keil and Premerstein 1908, 99 no. 208, fig. 101; Buckler 1924, no. 43; Friedrich 1932, no. 43; and Gusmani 1964, 265 no. 43; Roosevelt 2003, 649 cat. no. A4.51.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Manisa Museum archives reports 470–260/28.05.1976 and 470–315/ 06.07.1976; Roosevelt 2003, 652 cat. no. A4.55.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

5.4. Tekeliler (Figure C.7) DESCRIPTION: Two sarcophagus graves and a ¨ grave assemblage from the field of Huseyin Ege in Tekeliler (MM5301–5311); contents of one grave spirited away and grave partially destroyed; sarcophagus and partial grave assemblage from second grave recovered by Manisa Museum. Both graves had rectangu-

6. HYRCANIAN PLAIN

6.1. Sarıc¸am Squat lekythos from C¸altıtepe (MM6217); acquired by the Manisa Museum in 1982. H: 0.075; neck H: 0.032;

DESCRIPTION: (A)

223

6.1. Sarıc¸am

6.4. Alibeyli ˙ 6.2. Ishakc ¸ elebi

max. D: 0.041; rim D: 0.028; base D: 0.031; handle W: 0.009; handle TH: 0.004. Fine pinkish beige fabric. Complete except for chip on rim. A rounded ring foot base supports a short bulbous body with high center of gravity. A tall hourglass neck is separated from the shoulder by a thin groove and rises to a rounded lip and flat inward sloping ledge rim. A single strap handle attaches at the shoulder and mid-neck. A brownish black slip covers most of surface except for a reserved panel on body opposite the handle, where two near vertical lines frame a palmette-like design reserved in red ground. Fourth century (?). (B) Group of five tumuli between Belenyenice and Sarıc¸am and west of the Bahadır River. (C) Single-panel (?) symbolic door stele with fascia and cyma reversa profiles; found on the lower south slope of the Belenyenice A tumulus (D: ca. 110 m; H: ca. 8 m). H: 0.48; W: 0.71; top TH: 0.25; bottom TH: 0.18. Cream-white limestone. Bottom broken, or perhaps finished with a hammer; fractured at corners and along some edges. Stele with fascia (H: 0.145) and cyma reversa (H: 0.16) profiles above imitation of a single-panel door articulated in three planes. Below the profiles two 0.05 m-wide bands frame a smooth panel on top and sides. The bands and the central panel are each successively recessed 0.0075 m. No trace of a central vertical fillet. Top and sides smoothly point-dressed; front flat-chiseled; back hammer-dressed. Sixth to fourth century. (D) Possible additional evidence includes an inscription of the second century BCE or first century CE from Sarıc¸am mentioning the asylum of the Persike Thea, presumably Artemis Persike or Anaitis, as better known from Hierakome and Hypaepa. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (B)

Group of three tumuli ˙ northwest of Ishakc ¸ elebi and east of the Bahadır River. (B) Possible additional evidence includes a cemetery of rock-cut pit and chamber tombs ¨ on the hill of Alus¸tepe, near Nuriye, due east ˙ of Ishakc ¸ elebi. These have been known since the early twentieth century, but their date is uncertain. DESCRIPTION: (A)

HISTORY: (A) 2001 survey. Early observations; 1970 and 1997 Manisa Museum investigations. EXPLORATION

(B)

Roosevelt 2003, 478– 9 (TG 25B Bahadır), 654 cat. no. A4.59. (B) Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 43; Manisa Museum archives reports 25.02.1970 and 720–673/01.04.1997 in binder 711.0 Saruhanlı. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B)

¨ 6.3. Mutevelli Group of six tumuli, including two possible tumuli, between ¨ Mutevelli and Koldere. (B) Possible additional evidence includes the discovery of an inscription from ¨ (formerly Derekoy) ¨ Yes¸ilkoy mentioning ¡ Dareioukwmhtwn ˆ katoik©a, or a “settlement of Dareioukome,” named after a Darius, perhaps the Persian king. DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION

(B)

HISTORY: (A)

2001

survey.

Early observations.

Roosevelt 2003, 241– ¨ (B) Buresch 2, 479–81 (TG 26 Mutevelli). 1898, 138; Keil and Premerstein 1908, 59; Robert and Robert 1948, 51; Herrmann and Keil 1989, 463, no. 1335. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B)

2001 survey.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–C) Roosevelt 2003, 476–8 (TG 25A Bahadır), 653–4 cat. nos. A4.56– 7. (C) Roosevelt 2006a, 83, cat. no. 5. (D) Welles 1934, no. 68; Herrmann and Keil 1989, no. 1396; Malay 1992; Rigsby 1995.

6.4. Alibeyli Group of four tumuli southeast of Alibeyli, on the lower northern ˘ in the Pidasus River valley. slope of C¸al Dag,

DESCRIPTION: (A)

224

¨ 7.1. Golmarmara

6.4. Alibeyli

¨ Figure C.8. Assorted finds recovered from Golmarmara (cat. no. 7.1) (C. H. Roosevelt). (B) Possible additional evidence includes local reports of a fortress of uncertain date known as Alibeyli Kalesi on a ridge of C¸al Dag˘ above Alibeyli. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

marmara acquired in two groups by the Manisa Museum in 1975 and later. The good preservation of the ceramics suggests funerary contexts. Group from 1975: pilgrim flask (MM5014); Achaemenid bowl (MM5020); Corinthian aryballos (MM5047); biberon (MM5048); skyphos (MM5049); two mirrors (one bronze MM5085, one silver MM5086); two pots in black-fabric cooking ware (MM5046 and MM5102). Later group: biberon (MM5379); stemmed fruit dish with bolster handles and black-on-red geometric decoration (MM5381); krateriskos-like vessel (MM5388); pilgrim flask (MM5390); lekythos (MM5393); two lydia (MM5408 and MM5410). (B) Group of seven tumuli, including two possible tumuli, located northwest and south¨ west of Golmarmara. (C) Possible additional evidence includes an ¨ inscription found in Golmarmara that refers to Artemis Persike, and another inscription that may place a people with the Persian name ¨ of Maibozanoi in Golmarmara (see Chapter 5).

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 481– 5 (TG 27 Alibeyli), 654 cat. no. A4.58. (B) Philippson 1913, map; Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 43; Nayır 1983, 200. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B)

6.5. Heybeli TG DESCRIPTION: Group of three tumuli near Heybeli, in the Pidasus River valley. EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 486 (TG 28

Heybeli).

7. MIDDLE PHRYGIUS RIVER VALLEY

¨ 7.1. Golmarmara (Figure C.8) DESCRIPTION: (A)

¨ Assorted finds from Gol-

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (B)

225

2001 survey.

¨ 7.1. Golmarmara

7.3. Hierakome

Roosevelt 2003, 242– 5, 655 cat. no. A4.60, 487–9 (TG 29A– ¨ (C) Fontrier 1885/86, 51 n. B Golmarmara). 532; Radet 1887, 447–8; Keil and Premerstein 1908, 61; Habicht 1975, 73–4; Robert 1982, 371–3.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–C)

7.2. Akselendi (Figure 6.33) Statue of a sitting lion from Akselendi (MM6650); discovered during plowing in the field of Ali Salhan and acquired by the Manisa Museum in 1988. L: 0.98; W: 0.39; H: 0.78. White marble with gray veins. Broken along left haunch, left forepaw, right front, left side and front of head; deep and modern (plow?) grooves on head, neck, and back. The back of the lion slopes down to its rump, and its torso is rendered with some anatomical accuracy. The tail passes under the rump and over the right haunch and terminates in diamond-shaped tuft near the spine. Shoulders and elbows are defined by grooves and the one preserved paw, the right hind one, has three toes separated by two grooves. The smooth mane is outlined by an incision that meets at a point on the spine, wraps over the shoulders, and meets again between the forepaws, after running along the inner edge of the fore legs. The transition between the breast and the forepaws is abrupt. The head is rounded in section and bulbous. A brow ridge and the lower jaw may be articulated, but these and other features are obscured by breaks. Fifth century. (B) Group of two tumuli located east of Akselendi and south of Sarıc¸alı. (C) Possible additional evidence includes several rock-cut monuments of uncertain date in two large limestone outcrops known as ¨ uk ¨ Tepesi, located ca. 5 km east of AkseGolc lendi and 1 km west of the Ilıca Su neighborhood. DESCRIPTION: (A)

Figure C.9. Frontal view of the small lion statue from Beyoba (MM539), showing the animal carved in relief on its breast (cat. no. 7.3B) (C. H. Roosevelt).

658 cat. nos. 66–7, 498 (TG 31C Moralı). (C) Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 51–2; Manisa Museum archives reports 470–151/ 11.02.1959 and 4701–172/05.12.1960 in binder 711 Akhisar. 7.3. Hierakome (Figures 6.37, C.9) Small recumbent lion statue on low plinth (MM537); probably from Beyoba. L: 0.305; W: 0.125; H: 0.26. Large-grained yellowish gray-white marble. Surface is worn, pitted, and partially covered by a gray-white plaster or concretion; broken or chipped along right plinth, front paws, left plinth, rump and tail; left side of back gouged; face worn smooth; mounted on a modern plinth. The torso of the lion has convex sides with ribs defined by three incised grooves. Preserved foreleg musculature is articulated by a long rounded bulge. Hindpaws each have three toes separated by two grooves. The mane joins a raised rectangular fillet

DESCRIPTION: (A)

HISTORY: (B) 2001 survey. 1930s Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın observation; 1959 Manisa Museum investigation.

EXPLORATION

(C)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–C)

Roosevelt 2003, 247, 226

7.3. Hierakome

7.4. Kennez 1

on the spine and is decorated with rough grooves on the back of the head and chevrons that form a point on the breast. It is ridged on top of the head and ends at a brow ridge. The head is oval in section and rounded in profile with nose worn, but eyes incised and mouth open in a “smile.” Fifth or fourth century. (B) Small recumbent lion statue on low plinth (MM539); probably from Beyoba. L: 0.285; W: 0.12; H: 0.155. Beige-white marble (or limestone?). Broken along rear, right front side, and left plinth; muzzle worn smooth; mounted on a modern plinth. The back of the lion is near horizontal and its torso round on top with near vertical sides. The tail passes under rump and over the right haunch to end in a pointed tuft. Hind legs rendered almost in relief against the plane of the torso, with musculature delineated by a C-shaped groove. Hindpaws each have two toes separated by a single groove; fore legs not rendered at all. The mane is decorated with wavy incisions on the back of the head and wavy ridges on the sides of the head and on a collar-like band that continues beneath the head. The head is oval in section with a raised mane and brow ridge. Small ears may be indicated by shallow hollows on the mane ridge. Eyes are oval and nonsymmetrical with left eye lower and more deeply carved than right. Lower jaw is rounded below a groove that is all that is preserved of the mouth. A lion cub (or perhaps an animal of prey?) is depicted in low relief on the breast, between where the forepaws would have been. Fifth or fourth century. (C) Group of ten tumuli, including one possible tumulus, on the ridge of Kumtepe and to its northwest and southwest. (D) Additional evidence includes coins and inscriptions naming the site at Kumtepe as Hierakome (later Hierocaesarea), the sanctuary town of Artemis Persike mentioned by Pausanias (5.27.5–6), Tacitus (Annals 3.62.3), and Polybius (16.1.8, 32.15.11, 32.25). EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

cat. nos. A4.61–2, 490–4 (TG 30 Hierakome). (D) Buresch 1898, 66, 184; Keil and Premerstein 1908, 53; Robert and Robert 1948, 27– 55; Herrmann and Keil 1989, 444. 7.4. Kennez 1 Kennez 1 settlement mound located ca. 500 m northwest of the village center of Pınarcık (formerly Kennez), and ca. 150 ¨ m west of the Golmarmara-Akhisar road (est. H: 8; est. D: 90–100). Sherds with Attic Black Glaze and streaky glaze decoration seen in 2001 indicate at least Late Lydian occupation in addition to earlier remains of the Bronze Age. (B) Group of eight tumuli, including two possible tumuli, located between Pınarcık and Sarıc¸alı. (C) Six-panel symbolic door stele with anthemion finials; found in 1908 reused in the pitched-ceiling tomb chamber of the Maltepe tumulus (D and H unknown) in the Maltepe neighborhood of Pınarcık (formerly Kennez). Est. H: 1.45; est. W: 0.94. Unspecified stone type. Stele with anthemion finials above imitation of a double-leaf door articulated in four planes. A wide band forms an outer frame on all four sides, “jambs” and “threshold” wider than “lintel.” Recessed ca. 0.008 m are a narrower inner frame and one vertical and two horizontal interconnecting crossbars that divide the remaining space into six panels. Framing each panel is a narrow transitional band recessed 0.005 m from the crossbars, and the panel itself is recessed another 0.005 m. Above the wide “jambs” and over the level of the “lintel”, two rounded members with flat front surfaces imitate the outline form of anthemion capitals and were probably once painted. Fifth to fourth century. DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

vey; 1990 Dinc¸ survey. (C) 1908 observation.

1959 French sur2001 survey.

(A–B)

Early observa-

tions. (C) 2001 survey.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) French 1969, 48 no. 19; Dinc¸ 1991, 26, map; Korfmann et al. 1994, map II B 14. (A–C) Roosevelt 2003, 657 cat. nos. A4.64–5, 495–7 (TG 31B Moralı).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B) Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 52. (A–D) Roosevelt 2003, 245–7, 655–6

227

7.4. Kennez 1

8.1 Akhisar (Thyateira)

Keil and Premerstein 1908, 51; Keil and Premerstein 1911, 12, fig. 6; Roosevelt 2006a, 86, cat. no. 13.

(C)

7.5. Moralılar Settlement site of the Middle and Late Lydian period in the field of ¨ Burhanettin Guler, ca. 1 km south of the village of Moralılar, just east of the MoralılarAkselendi road, and opposite the NATO base access road; discovered in 1994 during agricultural activity. In addition to wall foundations – some of the stones of which are strewn about the road, others removed from the site – a dense scatter of pottery on the surface indicates seventh through fifth century occupation, with only two sherds of later periods noted. Local pottery included gray ware, green-gray ware, and a type with dark gray slip over a very micaceous and sandy fabric. Imported pottery included Ionian cup sherds and an Attic “C” kylix, in addition to one Achaemenid bowl. (B) Group of two tumuli, located at the ˘ north of southeastern foot of Karayunt Dag, Moralılar. DESCRIPTION: (A)

Figure C.10. Small lion statue from Akhisar (MM8491) (cat. no. 8.1A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

then planar below carinations on the sides. The tail passes under the rump and over the right haunch and ends in a diamond-shaped tuft. Haunch musculature is articulated by rounded incisions and bony elbows of forelegs project back and out. Hind paws have three toes separated by two grooves. The mane is rendered like a smooth cape in a wide area of raised relief along the back, curling to a point behind the shoulders, and wrapping above the shoulders to the breast. The head is oval in section and the lower jaw is rendered beneath the deep incision of a “smiling” mouth. Late seventh or sixth century. (B) Coin hoard from Akhisar; found in the environs of Akhisar around 1960. A fourth century date is indicated by the roughly 1000 electrum sixths of Lesbos and Phocaea. (C) Possible additional evidence includes a cemetery of rock-cut chamber tombs of uncertain date, located south east of ˘ Kayalıoglu, on the west-facing slope of ˘ Karayunt Dag.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A) 1995 Dinc¸ survey; 1980s observation? (B) 2001 survey. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Dinc¸ 1997, 266; Hanfmann 1983b, 247 n. 27. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 656 cat. no. A4.63, 494–5 (TG 31A Moralı).

8. LYCUS VALLEY

8.1. Akhisar ( Thyateira) (Figure C.10) Small recumbent lion statue from Akhisar (MM8491); acquired by the Manisa Museum in 1998. L: 0.29; W: 0.105; H: 0.19. Medium-grained gray-white marble with gray veins. Broken along hind legs, left haunch, forepaws, and front; head is spalled in places. The back of the lion is near horizontal and its torso rounded on top and

DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION

HISTORY: (C)

1997

Manisa

Museum investigation. Thompson, Mørkholm, and Kraay 1973, no. 1226. (C) Manisa Museum archives report 720–63,876,913/ 08.01.1998. (A–C) Roosevelt 2003, 659 cat. nos. 68–70. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (B)

228

¨ uk ¨ 8.2. Karasonya Hoy

¨ ¸ ekoy ¨ TG 8.5. Gokc Manisa Museum in 1956. L: 0.56; W: 0.30; H: 0.46. White marble with blue-gray veins. Surface is worn and pitted. The lion is carved with a crude frontal or four-square approach. Its four sides appear as relief sculptures that, when set together, create the threedimensional figure. The two asymmetrical reliefs depicting the left and right sides meet at a raised rectangular fillet on the spine which extends from head to rump. The haunches and shoulders are rectangular and the forepaws end in squarish masses, each articulated with four toes separated by three vertical grooves. The head is rounded in section and terminates in a flat vertical plane on which asymmetrical facial features have been carved: eyes, nose, and slit mouth. Late seventh or sixth century.

Figure C.11. Small-scale lion statue from Selc¸ikli (MM307) (cat. no. 8.3) (C. H. Roosevelt).

¨ uk ¨ 8.2. Karasonya Hoy ¨ uk ¨ settlement DESCRIPTION: Karasonya Hoy mound, located ca. 8 km northeast of Akhisar, ¨ u¨ in the area immediately west of C¸amon known locally as Vakıf C¸es¸mesi or Harmanyeri. Agricultural activity on the top of the large mound (est. D: 200) has ruined the upper archaeological levels and exposed mudbrick walls and stone foundations. Third and second millennium sherds with Troy I and II parallels indicate the early history of the site, and a dense scatter of Iron Age pottery showed that the place was thriving in the seventh and sixth centuries. Notable finds include a large amount of high-quality painted pottery and a spindle whorl scratched with an archaic Phrygian graffito reading the previously unattested name of Per Bastidages (MM8254). Local reports include the presence of a necropolis northeast of the mound that was the source of a Lydian lamp and lekythos.

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

1956 discovery.

Manisa Museum archives reports 471–059/? and 470–012/18.01.1956 in binder 711 Akhisar; Roosevelt 2003, 661 cat. no. A4.76

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

8.4. Osmaniye TG DESCRIPTION: Group of two tumuli south ˘ of Yeni Osmaniye, southwest of the Degir˘ River. menyıkıgı

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 500 (TG 32C Osmaniye).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

EXPLORATION HISTORY: 1981 Manisa Museum investigation; 1995 Dinc¸ survey.

¨ ¸ ekoy ¨ TG 8.5. Gokc

Manisa Museum archives report 711–372/10.07.1981 in binder 711 Akhisar; Dinc¸ 1997, 268–9; Roosevelt 2003, 660 cat. no. A4.71.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

DESCRIPTION: Group of two tumuli south and ¨ ¸ ekoy, ¨ southwest of the southeast of Gokc ˘ ˘ River. Degirmenyıkı gı

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

2001 survey.

8.3. Selc¸ikli (Attaleia) (Figure C.11) Roosevelt 2003, 499–500 ¨ ¸ ekoy). ¨ (TG 32B Gokc

DESCRIPTION: Small recumbent lion statue from Selc¸ikli (MM307); acquired by the

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

229

¨ uk ¨ 8.6. Erdelli Hoy

9.1. Harta

¨ uk ¨ 8.6. Erdelli Hoy

8.8. Ballıca

¨ uk ¨ DESCRIPTION: Erdelli Hoy settlement mound, located just west of the village of Erdelli in the Tellikavak neighborhood, ˘ ˘ ca. 2 km northeast of the Degirmenyıkı gı river, and just east of the small Kocadere ¨ ucek ¨ brook. The site known locally as Uy ¨ uk ¨ or Hoy ¨ uk ¨ Tepe was first discovered Hoy by the Manisa Museum in 1981, and was ¨ uk ¨ in Dinc¸’s subsequent named Erdelli Hoy publication. Third and second millennium finds dominate the top of the mound (est. H: 15), but seventh- and sixth-century pottery with geometric decoration found on its south and east slopes indicates Middle Lydian period occupation.

Small recumbent lion statue on low plinth; seen in Ballıca in the 1960s and later brought to the Tire Museum. L: 0.69; H: 0.43. Whitish gray marble. In good condition aside from the upper left part of the head, which is entirely broken off. Lion rendered with a squarish sense of volume with nearly vertical sides yet slightly more rounded torso. Tail passes under the rump and over the right haunch; its end is unclear. Musculature is undefined yet forepaws have four toes separated by grooves. An unarticulated hood-like mane wraps around the neck above the shoulders. The head is squarish in section with ears unarticulated. The almond-shaped eyes are defined by low ridges and pointed tear ducts. The feline muzzle is square in profile, with whiskers indicated by narrow grooves. The lower jaw is dropped open below a grooved “smiling” mouth containing squared dentition. Late seventh or sixth century. (B) Group of at least three tumuli located northeast of Ballıca. DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: 1981 Manisa Museum discovery; 1980s Dinc¸ survey (?). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Manisa Museum archives reports 711–132/02.03.1981, 711–143/ 06.03. 1981, and 720–852/21.07.2000 in binder 711 Akhisar; Dinc¸ 1991; Roosevelt 2003, 253, 660 cat. no. A4.74.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

Singleton tumulus located ca. 2 km east of Mecidiye and the later site of Apollonis. (B) Phallic marker with unknown exact provenience (MM551); acquired from Mecidiye by the Manisa Museum in 1958. Total H: 0.90; shaft H: 0.37. White stone with pinkish veins. (C) Possible additional evidence includes a limestone bathtub sarcophagus seen on the settlement mound of Mecidiye in the center of the town of that name, and a cemetery of rock-cut tombs located just east of Apollonis ¨ u¨ C¸es¸me ridge. on the So¨ g˘ utl DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION

(B)

1960s observa-

tion. (B) 2001 survey.

8.7. Apollonis

HISTORY: (A)

2001

Radt 1996. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 660 cat. no. A4.73, 501–2 (TG 33B Ballıca).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A)

¨ 8.9. Sunnetc ¸ iler TG DESCRIPTION: Singleton tumulus located just ¨ west of Sunnetc ¸ iler.

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 501 (TG 33A

¨ Sunnetc ¸ iler).

survey.

1958 acquisition.

9. UPPER CAICUS VALLEY

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Roosevelt 2003, 253, 498–9 (TG 32A Apollonis). (C) Manisa Museum archives report 720–586/11.12.1979 in binder 711 Akhisar.

9.1. Harta (Figure 6.43) Singleton tumulus (HartaAbidintepe) southeast of Bakır.

DESCRIPTION: (A)

230

9.1. Harta

9.5. Soma-Altınlı

(B) Possible additional evidence includes a cemetery of rock-cut chamber tombs of uncertain date located southeast of the HartaAbidintepe tumulus near C¸obanhasan.

of rock-cut grooves, platforms, holes and channels (for libation or for industry?), and at least two large rock-cut chamber tombs. The entrance of one of these has a dentilated pediment while outside the other is a poorly preserved figure in a niche. Both tombs feature large and shallow niches in their interior walls, one in the first and two in the second, while only the second preserves a place for the deceased in a deep pit cut into the floor along the wall opposite the entrance. Other bedrock outcrops have been worked similarly to those in Kahraman on the Tabantepe and ˘ Degirmentepe ridges, the sites of third millennium cemeteries. Karakurt has more rock-cut chamber tombs, including at least one with benches and some with antechambers. On the door jamb of one was seen an “ideogram that resembled a fish” (Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 59). (B) Singleton possible tumulus located just west of Gelenbe.

HISTORY: (A) 1965 Manisa Museum observation; 1970 Ramage observation; 1987 Manisa Museum salvage excavation; 2001 survey. (B) 1961 Manisa Museum observation. EXPLORATION

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Manisa Museum archive reports of 1965–1967, 1991, and 1995 in binder Salvage Excavations; Dinc¸ 1993, 221– ¨ ˘ 30; Ozgen et al. 1996, 36–9, 45–6; Dedeoglu 1996, 197–206; Roosevelt 2003, 257, 502–3 (TG 34 Harta). (B) Manisa Museum archives report 470–150/10.11.1961 in binder 711 Akhisar.

9.2. Maltepe DESCRIPTION: Maltepe settlement mound located ca. 1.75 km east–northeast of Bakır ˙ and bisected by the Bakır-Ilyaslar road just ˙ north of its intersection with the IzmirBalıkesir rail line (est. H: 15; est. L: 150). Surface pottery indicates more or less continuous occupation from the EBA through Late Roman or Byzantine times; commonly identified as Hellenistic and later Nakrasos.

Late nineteenth and early twentieth century explorations; 1990s Ege University observation. (A–B) 2001 survey. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 58–60; Manisa Museum archives reports 470–80 and 81/25.02.1966 in binder 711.0 ˘ ¸ ; L’vov-Basirov 2001, 106. (A–B) Kırkagac Roosevelt 2003, 258–9, 504–5 (TG 35 Gelenbe), 662–3, no. A4.78.

Many early observations; 1997 Dinc¸ survey; 2001 survey.

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

Schuchhardt 1888, 1, 139; Conze and Schuchhardt 1899, 152; ImhoofBlumer 1897, 105–6; Magie 1950, 979–80; Robert 1962, 71–6; Zgusta 1984, no. 880; Dinc¸ 1997, 270–1; Roosevelt 2003, 257–8, 661–2 cat. no. A4.77.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

9.4. Musahoca TG DESCRIPTION: Group of five tumuli located between Bayat and Musahoca.

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

9.3. Kahraman (Figures 6.6, C.12)

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 259, 505–6 (TG 36 Musahoca).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Numerous rock-cut monuments and tombs located between Karakurt and the Kahraman neighborhood of Gelenbe, ca. 3 km south of the town center and straddling the Caicus River. Kahraman boasts numerous stepped monuments, a road made

DESCRIPTION: (A)

9.5. Soma-Altınlı (Figures 6.34, C.13) Small recumbent lion statue from Soma (MM6094); acquired

DESCRIPTION: (A)

231

9.5. Soma-Altınlı

9.5. Soma-Altınlı

Figure C.12. View of one of the large outcrops in the Kahraman neighborhood of Gelenbe, with rock-cut features including several stepped monuments and a rock-cut tomb with dentilated pediment (at lower left) (cat. no. 9.3A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

by the Manisa Museum in 1981. L: 0.43, W: 0.23, H: 0.36. Large-grained gray-white marble. In good condition aside from breaks

on the right front corner and paw and a worn lower jaw. The lion is rendered with a geometric or squarish sense of volume with a torso the sides of which are nearly vertical. The tail passes under the rump and over the right haunch and ends in a diamond-shaped tuft between the haunches. The musculature of the forelegs is indicated with incision and paws have three diamond-shaped toes. The incised chevron decoration of the mane wraps around from the back of the head to a collar-like band beneath the muzzle that appears dentilated. The head is oval in section with a squared brow and deeply set eyes. The muzzle is defined by incisions on its top and ends in a trapezoidal shape. The tongue is marked also by two incised lines as are the lips at the sides. Seventh or sixth century.

Figure C.13. Bronze fibula and orange stone bead from a stone-lined pit grave in the Haramdere neighborhood of Altınlı, Soma (MM6648) (cat. no. 9.5B) (C. H. Roosevelt).

232

9.5. Soma-Altınlı

10.1. Salihli

(B) Stone-lined pit grave and partial grave assemblage in the Haramdere neighborhood of Altınlı (Darkale) (MM6648). Bronze fibula and orange stone bead acquired by the Manisa Museum in 1989. Pin of fibula broken from spring, but complete. Bow has thick oval section and ends in rectangular box-like terminals from which extensions with carinations leads to the spring and pin on one side, the clasp on the other (46.89 g; W: 0.051; H: 0.048). The orange stone (or ceramic?) bead has rounded sides (H: 0.006; D: 0.012), and is pierced through its center with a hole (D: 0.002). The fibula appears to be of a Mysian variety of the late eighth or early seventh century. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

(B) Possible additional evidence includes a cemetery of inhumation graves and at least one rock-cut chamber tomb of uncertain date, ¨ and located ca. 1.75 km southwest of Kumkoy ca. 2 km northeast of Sevis¸ler, just south of a ˘ small tributary of the Yagcılı river. Inhumation graves of unclear types looted in an open field; rock-cut chamber tomb on the edge of the stream, with pitched ceiling and benches in a -shaped configuration. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B) Kasper 1970; Roosevelt ¨ oy), ¨ 664 2003, 261, 606–13 (TG 101X Kumk no. A4.81.

Manisa Mu-

seum 1980s observations.

¨ u¨ TG 9.8. Arapold

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 261, 663–4 nos. A4.79–80. (B) For comparanda, see Blinkenberg XII, 5, Caner 1983, 104–5, nos. 603–7, pl. 42, Group F, variant F 3.

DESCRIPTION: Group of three tumuli, including one possible tumulus, perched on a ridge ˘ ¸ uk ¨ River. over the So¨ gutc EXPLORATION HISTORY:

9.6. Akc¸aavlu

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 261, 613–14 ¨ u). ¨ (TG 102X Arapold

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Four-panel (?) symbolic door stele; seen in 1971 outside a rock-cut chamber tomb in Akc¸aavlu, Soma. Dimensions and stone type unknown. Stele with imitation of door articulated in at least two planes. Outer frame with interconnecting crossbars divide the space into at least four panels, each recessed. Further details unknown. Sixth to fourth century. DESCRIPTION:

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

1960s obser-

vations; 2001 survey.

10. MIDDLE HERMUS RIVER VALLEY (EAST OF CENTRAL LYDIA)

10.1. Salihli Group of three tumuli widely dispersed around Salihli. (B) Two alabastra, confiscated from looters in Salihli and brought to the Manisa Museum in 1980. Ceramic alabastron (MM5680). H: 0.141; rim D: 0.033; neck D: 0.016; max. D: 0.042. Fine pink fabric. Broken on bottom, lower sides, and flange; surface spalling. The rounded bottom makes a smooth transition to the sides. A rounded shoulder leads up to a flaring neck that terminates in a flat flange with rounded lip. A beige-yellow slip covers the entire surface. Brown-black slip decoration covers the top of vessel down to the DESCRIPTION: (A)

1971 observation.

Prayon 1989, 443, pl. 1c; pers. comm. F. Prayon; Roosevelt 2003, 261; Roosevelt 2006a, 82 cat. no. 1.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

9.7. Beyce Group of twelve tumuli, including two possible tumuli, located around ¨ the towns of Beyce, Sevis¸ler, and Kumkoy, and to their south.

DESCRIPTION: (A)

233

¨ 11.2. Gobekli TG

10.1. Salihli shoulder, and is then confined to ca. 0.002 m tall bands above the bottom, at mid-body, and under the shoulder. Alabaster alabastron (MM5681). H: 0.142; rim D: 0.038; neck D: 0.022; max. D: 0.053. Yellowish beige alabaster. The polished surface is pitted in some places; broken at the flange and through a hole in the side. The rounded bottom makes a smooth transition to the sides. A rounded shoulder leads up to a flaring neck that terminates in a flattish flange with rounded lip. Two lug handles each with a projecting halfround lug above a key-shaped pendant in low relief are located on opposite sites below the shoulder. (C) Possible additional evidence includes a lion statue seen in Salihli in the 1930s, and three lion statues from Salihli previously attributed to Sardis: MM306, MM311, and MM318.

(D) Limestone bathtub sarcophagus of typical Lydian type; seen in 1984 northeast of Taytan and probably that now located in the courtyard of the school in the Bezirganlı neighborhood of Taytan. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A) 1970 Ramage observation. (B–C) 1983 Meric¸ survey. (D) 1984 Meric¸ survey; 2001 survey. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Ramage and Ramage 1971, 150, no. 53; Roosevelt 2003, 510 (TG 38B Satala). (B–D) Meric¸ 1983b, 2, 1984, 2; Greenewalt, Rautman, and Meric¸ 1986, 24; Roosevelt 2003, 264, 665–6 cat. nos. A4.83–5.

10.4. Durasıllı TG DESCRIPTION: Group of at least eleven tumuli located north of Durasıllı.

HISTORY: (A) 2001 survey. 1930s–1980s museum observations.

EXPLORATION

(B–C)

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

Roosevelt 2003, 262, 507–9 (TG 37 Salihli), 665 cat. no. A4.82. (C) Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 69; Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 70–2, nos. 35, 38, and 41. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

11. LOWER COGAMUS RIVER VALLEY

11.1. Yes¸ilkavak (Figure C.14)

DESCRIPTION: Group of three tumuli, including two possible tumuli, located near C¸apaklı.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Roosevelt 2003, 511–14 (TG

38C–D Satala).

10.2. C¸apaklı TG

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

Many early observa-

tions; 2001 survey.

Settlement site indicated by dense scatter of Middle Lydian pottery in fields to the south of the Osmanlıtepe tumulus and in other nearby fields just east of Yes¸ilkavak. (B) Group of two tumuli.

DESCRIPTION: (A)

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 509–10 (TG

38A Satala).

2001 survey.

10.3. Karatas¸-Adala

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

Singleton tumulus located north of Dombaylı and east of Karatas¸-Adala. (B) Two bowls with Black-on-Red decoration, seen at the Karatas¸ school in 1983; allegedly acquired from around Dombaylı. (C) Limestone bathtub sarcophagus of typical Lydian type; seen in 1983 northwest of ¨ ˘ ¸ neighAkoren on top of a hill in the Karaagac borhood. L: 2.27; interior H: 0.56.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Roosevelt 2003, 262; pers. comm. B. Aydın. (B) Roosevelt 2003, 262, 514–15 (TG 39 Yes¸ilkavak).

DESCRIPTION: (A)

¨ 11.2. Gobekli TG DESCRIPTION: Group of four tumuli, including one possible tumulus, located just north ¨ ¨ of Gobekli and east of Koseali.

234

¨ 11.2. Gobekli TG

11.7. Hacılı 11.5. Mersinli Settlement mound located on the site of the old village of Mersinli, ca. 0.5 km north of the modern village on the floor of a ravine (est. L: 200). Neolithic, third and second millennium, and Lydian sherds were collected from its surface in 1983 and 1984. (B) Group of five tumuli, including one possible tumulus, in the foothills around Mersinli. DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A) 1983 and 1984 Meric¸ surveys. (A–B) 2001 survey.

Figure C.14. Selection of Middle Lydian pottery from Yes¸ilkavak (cat. no. 11.1A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Meric¸ 1983b, 2; Greenewalt, Rautman, and Meric¸ 1986, 24–5; Meric¸ 1984; Meric¸ 1993b (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 522–3 (TG 42B Mersinli), 666 cat. no. 86.

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 516–17 (TG

¨ 40 Koseali).

11.6. Derbent TG DESCRIPTION: Group of four tumuli, including one possible tumulus, northwest and southeast of Derbent.

11.3. Kavaklıdere Group of four tumuli, including one possible tumulus, located south of Kavaklıdere. (B) Possible additional evidence includes masonry finished with probably Lydian techniques and local reports of a fort located south of the town. DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 523–6 (TG

42C Derbent). 11.7. Hacılı

2001 survey.

Stele with Lydian inscription of at least five lines, found immured in ˙ ˘ Molla Ibrahim’s the wall of Abdurrahmanoglu house in Hacılı in 1911. Marble. (B) Group of four tumuli located between ¨ u¨ and Hacılı. Mevlutl DESCRIPTION: (A)

Roosevelt 2003, 266, 517–18 (TG 41 Kavaklıdere).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B)

11.4. Yes¸ilova TG DESCRIPTION: Group of five tumuli located ˙ north of Yes¸ilova, just south of the Izmir– Ankara Highway.

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

1911 observa-

tion. (B) 2001 survey. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Keil and Premerstein 1914, 14 no. 16, figs. 56; Buckler 1924, no. 45; Friedrich 1932, no. 45; and Gusmani 1964, 266, no. 45. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 267, 526–8 (TG 43A Hacılı), 666 cat. no. A4.87.

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 518–21 (TG

42A Yes¸ilova). 235

11.8. Kemaliye

12.1. Ala¸sehir

11.8. Kemaliye (Figure C.15) Stele with Aramaic inscription of at least nine lines (MM8199); found ¨ near Kemaliye by Mehmet Onder during a survey in 1994 and brought to the Manisa Museum. W: 0.495; H: 0.31; TH: 0.035– 0.040. Large-grained white marble. Broken into two pieces; all edges are broken; back is rough; front smooth; brown concretion over surface; larger piece has traces of white plaster near and over edge. The beginning of each line but the last is preserved up to the break on the left side. Late fifth or early fourth century. (B) Group of nine tumuli located in the ˙ foothills between Ismetiye and Toygar, around Kemaliye. (C) Possible additional evidence includes local reports of archaic graves in the area, and a candidate for settlement is the mound in the Asar neighborhood of Kemaliye, occupied in the fourth through second millennia and later in Hellenistic and Roman times. DESCRIPTION: (A)

Figure C.15. Stele with Aramaic inscription from Kemaliye (MM8199) (cat. no. 11.8) (C. H. Roosevelt).

fourth century on comparison to the Atrastas stele from Sardis. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

1994 Museum survey. (B) 2001 survey.

EXPLORATION

HISTORY: (A)

Manisa

1982 Manisa Muse-

um acquisition. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Meric¸ 1991; Meric¸ 1993a, 64–5, fig. 14; Roosevelt 2003, 268, 667 cat. no. A4.89. For comparanda, see also ˙ IzAM4030 (Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 157–8 no. 234, fig. 404) and Sardis cat. no. NoEx77.15 (Ramage 1979).

Petzl 1998, 19 n. 1, fig. 1; Kwasman and Lemaire 2002. (C) Greenewalt 1968, 154; Meric¸ 1983a, 52; Meric¸ 1993b, map. (A–C) Roosevelt 2003, 238, 528–31 (TG 43B–C Kemaliye and Toygar), 667, cat. no. A4.88. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A)

11.9. Hayallı (Figure 6.21)

12. MIDDLE COGAMUS RIVER VALLEY

DESCRIPTION: Relief stele found in the village of Hayallı (MM6225); acquired through a dealer in Alas¸ehir by the Manisa Museum in 1982. Grayish white marble. Top half broken diagonally down from left to right; otherwise worn, but good. Banquet scene with two small attendants standing to left, to the right of a centrally placed kline on which a man reclines to left and a woman sits to right. Another child stands to right behind the woman. Kline has lathe-turned legs with a footstool located beneath it. Both adult figures clutch objects or drapery. Dated to the third quarter of the

12.1. Alas¸ehir (Figure C.16) Group of five tumuli, including one possible tumulus, centered on Alas¸ehir. (B) Ceramic alabastron (MM2460); acquired by the Manisa Museum from collector Mustafa Kolas¸ın. H: 0.180; rim D: 0.040; neck D: 0.020; max. D: 0.052. Fine red fabric. Complete but for chips on flange. The rounded bottom makes a smooth transition to the sides. A rounded shoulder leads to DESCRIPTION: (A)

236

¨ TG 12.3. Sarıgol

12.1. Ala¸sehir

the muzzle is punctuated by a “smiling” open and grooved mouth. Late seventh or sixth century. (D) Possible additional evidence includes the reports of archaic remains in Badınca, some 5.5 km southeast of Alas¸ehir, and an archaic “Head of an East Greek youth” allegedly from Alas¸ehir in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (MFA69.982). HISTORY: (A) 2001 survey. 1980s Manisa Museum acquisitions.

EXPLORATION

(B–C)

Roosevelt 2003, 270– 1, 531–3 (TG 44 Philadelphia), 668–9 cat. nos. A4.90–92.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–D)

Figure C.16. Small lion statue from Alas¸ehir (MM6231) (cat. no. 12.1C) (C. H. Roosevelt).

12.2. Avs¸ar (Figure C.17) Hoard of fifty-eight Croesid half-staters and sigloi from Girelli (MM10567–10624); confiscated from looters and brought to the Manisa Museum in 1984. The thirty-eight Croesid half-staters on the light standard (MM10567–10604; 3.37 g on average) show such strong die and weight regularity as to render their authenticity dubious; the 20 Type III sigloi (MM10605–10624; 5.4 g on average) appear to be real. (B) Group of eleven tumuli, including three possible tumuli, spread between Girelli and Avs¸ar. DESCRIPTION: (A)

a flaring neck that terminates in a flange with a rounded lip. Small formless lug handles are located on opposite sides below the shoulder. A red slip covers the entire surface. Black slip decoration covers the top of vessel down to the shoulder, and is then confined to the lug handles and four ca. 0.002 m tall bands that are relatively equally spaced between bottom and shoulder. (C) Small recumbent lion statue (MM6231); acquired by the Manisa Museum from Alas¸ehir collector Mustafa Kolas¸ın in 1982. L: 0.425; W: 0.15; H: 0.285. Fine-grained translucent white marble. Surface is worn and pitted; broken along front and right shoulder; chipped on left and right sides of muzzle. The back of the lion is horizontal and its torso squarish with a raised rectangular fillet on the spine and rounded sides. The tail loops up and onto the back. Haunches and shoulders are rendered in low relief against the belly with square hind and fore elbows and musculature articulated by raised and rounded panel-like ridges. The two toes of each hind paw are separated by wide grooves. The mane is defined by a ridge on the forehead and is rendered simply with rough-picking on the back of the head. The head is rectangular in section with eyes marked by low ridges. The square end of

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

(B)

1984 discovery.

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 272, 533–9 (TG 45A Avs¸ar), 669–70 cat. no. A4.93.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B)

¨ TG 12.3. Sarıgol DESCRIPTION: Group of seven tumuli, including two possible tumuli, located near and ¨ west–northwest of Sarıgol. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 272, 539–41 ¨ (TG 45B Sarıgol).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

237

¨ uk ¨ 12.7. Tilki Hoy

12.4. Killik

Figure C.17. A (fake?) Croesid half-stater (above) and a Type III siglos (below) from the Girelli Hoard (MM10567–10624) (cat. no. 12.2A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

2001 survey.

12.4. Killik

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

Cemetery (and settlement area?) in the Maltepe neighborhood of Killik. Middle–Late Lydian sherds found among prehistoric through Hellenistic pottery on the surface in 1985. (B) Group of five tumuli clustered around Killik.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Roosevelt 2003, 273, 543–7 ¨ us ¨ ¸ c¸ay). (TG 46B Gum

DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

12.6. Caberkamara TG DESCRIPTION: Group of three tumuli located just northwest of Caberkamara.

1985 Meric¸ sur-

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

2001 survey.

vey. (B) 2001 survey. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Roosevelt 2003, 547–8 (TG 46C Caberkamara).

Meric¸ 1986, 303. (A– B) Roosevelt 2003, 541–2 (TG 46A Killik), 273, 670 cat. no. A4.94. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A)

¨ uk ¨ (Figures C.18, C.19) 12.7. Tilki Hoy Settlement mound of “Tilki ¨ uk” ¨ located ca. 1.75 km southeast of Hoy Caberkamara along the canal road which leads southeast from the village through the ˘ neighborhood. Mound rises gradually C¸igilli

DESCRIPTION: (A)

¨ us ¨ ¸ c¸ay TG 12.5. Gum DESCRIPTION: Group of 15 tumuli, including three possible tumuli, located on the ridges ¨ us ¨ ¸ c¸ay and Aydogdu. ˘ between Gum

238

¨ uk ¨ 12.7. Tilki Hoy

¨ uk, ¨ near CaberkaFigure C.18. Selection of Middle and Late Lydian pottery from Tilki Hoy mara (cat. no. 12.7A) (C. H. Roosevelt).

from surrounding fields (est. H: 5; est. area: 95 × 185); top of mound bulldozed in recent years, now used as vineyard. Fieldstone debris, a few larger limestone blocks, and Middle and

Late Lydian pottery on surface. Field owner reported that graves and pipes were destroyed during the bulldozing. This may be the area ˘ in the C¸igitlitepe neighborhood of Deliler

Figure C.19. Gold jewelry from a sarcophagus burial in the Tilkitepe tumulus, near Caberkamara (UM30.1.00–30.11.00) (cat. no. 12.7B) (C. H. Roosevelt).

239

¨ uk ¨ 12.7. Tilki Hoy

14.1. S¸ ahankaya

(modern Caberkamara), where worked marbles and metal vessels were said to have been found in the 1930s. (B) Group of three tumuli, including one possible tumulus, located just northeast of ¨ uk. ¨ Limestone bathtub sarcophaTilki Hoy gus and partial grave assemblage recovered from the looters of the Tilkitepe tumulus in 2000. Sarcophagus subsequently brought to the Sardis Expedition compound; surviving gold jewelry in the Us¸ak Museum includes eight boat-shaped earrings with carinations (three with loop-in-loop chain pendants and granulation, four with granulation only, one plain); one ring with an intaglio of a winged lion; and two spool-shaped rattles. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A) 1930s observation. (A–B) 2001 survey.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mellaart 1955, map; Roosevelt 2003, 274–5, 671 cat. no. A4.97.

13.2. Bozalan TG DESCRIPTION: Group of four tumuli located ¨ near the junction of the Sarıgol–Denizli road ¨ and the road to Guney, near Bozalan. EXPLORATION HISTORY: 1970 Ramage observation. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ramage and Ramage 1971, 149 nos. 38–41; Roosevelt 2003, 274–5, 554– 5 (TG 47 Bozalan).

14. NORTHERN LYDIA

14.1. S¸ahankaya (Figures 5.6–5.8, 6.25, C.20)

Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 94. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 273, 670 cat. no. A4.95, 548–9 (TG 46D Tilki). BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A)

Settlement remains of several periods on and around the double peak of S¸ahankaya, located just south of the Kayacık ¨ ¸ eler, between Yayakırıldık River and Gokc and Kayacık. Remains of probable early date include walls of megalithic masonry (Late Bronze Age?); a slab-paved road; columned buildings; large rock-cut cisterns; a well composed of roughly squared blocks with drafted edges and protruding, rough central panels (fourth century?); watchtower foundations on the northern of the two peaks (fourth century?); and the rock-cut remains of what appears to be a Persian-style fire altar, consisting of a roughly square, nearly 2 m × 2 m rockcut plinth, encircled by a flat pick-finished band, out of the center of which rises a low dome of rough bedrock, into the top of which has been carved a roughly circular and concave bowl. Parallels include a possibly later rock-cut fire-altar in Naqsh-i-Rustam, Iran. Otherwise, numerous rock-cut steps, grooves, and foundations on the southern of the two peaks, known locally as Yedikule, may also date from Late Lydian times. (B) Group of at least one tumulus, with early reports of more, located north of ¨ ¸ eler, along the northern S¸ahankaya, in Gokc bank of the Kayacık River. DESCRIPTION: (A)

12.8. C¸avus¸lar Group of fifteen tumuli, including one possible tumulus, clustered between C¸avus¸lar and Caberburhan. (B) Phallic marker seen in the cemetery of ¨ oy, ¨ southeast of C¸avus¸lar. C¸opk DESCRIPTION: (A)

HISTORY: (A) 2001 survey. 1969 Manisa Museum observation.

EXPLORATION

(B)

Roosevelt 2003, 273– 4, 549–54 (TG 46E C¸avus¸lar), 670 cat. no. A4.96. (B) Manisa Museum archives report ¨ 470–267/16.08.1969 in binder 711.0 Sarıgol. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B)

13. UPPER COGAMUS RIVER VALLEY

13.1. Aetos DESCRIPTION: Settlement site known in Byzantine times as Aetos; “Anatolian ware of the Iron Age”, including black-on-buff, black-onred, and bichrome pot sherds seen on surface in 1951. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

1951 Mellaart survey. 240

14.1. S¸ ahankaya

14.1. S¸ ahankaya

¨ ¸ eler, below S¸ahankaya (MM4611– Figure C.20. Partial grave assemblage(s) from Gokc 4616, 5288–5290) (cat. no. 14.1D) (C. H. Roosevelt).

¨ ¸ eler, between the Kayacık River and the Gokc Yayakırıldık–Kayacık road; looted in April of 1968 and again in April of 1970. While the material recovered from the looters may have ¨ come from one rich grave (Ozkan 1991), it is also possible that two separate contexts were plundered. Manisa Museum archives make clear their sequence of acquisition. Recovered from looters in 1968 were two gold rings (MM5288 and one other, uninventoried and unpublished) and a bronze mirror (uninventoried and unpublished). Items recovered from looters in 1970 included a silver kyathos with calf-head terminal (MM4611); two silver bracelets with calf-head terminals (MM4612– 4613); two Achaemenid bowls in silver (MM4614–4615); a silver mirror (MM4616); a calf ornament in gold (MM5289); a gold earring (boat-shaped?; MM5290); one bronze cup (uninventoried and unpublished); and a small fragment of gold (uninventoried and unpublished).

(C) Relief stele (MM9156); discovered during plowing of field between the Kayacık River and the Yayakırıldık–Kayacık road in ¨ ¸ eler and brought to the Manisa MusGokc eum in November 2004. H: 1.78; W: 0.545; total TH: 0.24; relief TH: 0.035–0.040. Brownish yellow chalky limestone. Figure stands on a 0.18 m high plinth to left in a long-sleeved, knee-length tunic and sandals, holding a flower bud forward in right hand and a bird at side in left hand. Hair in tight curls. Lips and eyes around iris bear traces of red paint, and straps of sandals must originally have been painted; only the soles of the sandals survive. Tool marks include only the flat chisel. A squarish dowel hole on the left side of the stele (W: 0.05; H: 0.06; ca. 0.07 from the front face, 0.09 from the top) and traces of red pigment (miltos) on the lower right side of the stele indicate that the piece was not freestanding, but joined other blocks. Seventeen finely worked blocks of the same limestone were seen stacked along the edges of the same field in 2001. They appeared to belong to a ruined tumulus chamber tomb (see (B), above), perhaps that which produced (D), below. (D) Grave assemblage(s) discovered just north of the Kayacık River, in the Kuruc¸ay ¨ u) ¨ (or Kahvenin On neighborhood of

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A) Many early observations; 1980 Foss investigation. (A–B) 2001 survey. (D) 1968–1970 looting. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 53–5, 84; Manisa Museum archives report 478.4–486/31.07.1973 in binder 711.0

241

14.1 S¸ ahankaya

14.4. Bayat TG

¨ Gordes; Foss 1987, 81–91. (A–D) Roosevelt 2003, 556 (TG 48 S¸ahankaya), 671– 3 cat. nos. A4.98–9; (D) Manisa Museum archives reports 470–118/25.04.1968 and 470–253/26.07.1971 in binder Salvage Exca¨ vations; Ozkan 1991. 14.2. Kayacık (Figure C.21) Group of five tumuli, including one possible tumulus, located south ˘ of Kayacık, along a ridge north of Azım Dag. (B) Sling bullet of Tissaphernes (MM8225); reportedly found in the vicinity of Kayacık and acquired by the Manisa Museum in 1995 through C. Foss and C. H. Greenewalt, jr. 40.33 g; L: 0.032; W: 0.019; H: 0.014. Lead. The surface of the molded bullet is worn and bears a white lead-oxide corrosion product in its few pits. Raised in molded relief on one side is the Greek legend “TICCAFER.E.” or Tissapher[n]e[s]. Foss argued that, if the item is genuinely that used by Tissaphernes, or rather his troops, it should date between the time when Tissaphernes was apparently ignorant of the use of lead sling bullets in 401 (Xenophon, Anabasis 3.3.16), and the time of his death in 395. DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

Figure C.21. Sling bullet of Tissaphernes recovered from Kayacık (MM8225) (cat. no. 14.2B) (C. H. Roosevelt). (B) Squat lekythos or aryballos from ¨ Gordes (MM6521); donated to the Manisa Museum in 1986 from the collection of Hayrı ¨ in Gordes. ¨ Buke H: 0.076; max. D: 0.055; rim D: 0.028; base D: 0.026; neck D: 0.017. Light brown micaceous fabric. Broken through side of body and rim chipped. The slightly concave bottom makes an angular transition to the sides. The body has a high center of gravity and nearly flat shoulder. The neck has a carination in its middle and rises to a downturned rim. A polished yellow-white slip covers the body and fugitive brown-red slip may indicate other decoration. Fourth century.

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 556– 8 (TG 49 Kayacık), 673 cat. no. A4.100. (B) Foss 1975 and 1987, 91. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B)

¨ 14.3. Gordes Archaic lion head donated ¨ from the colto Ege University by Bilgi Buke ¨ ¨ in Gordes ¨ lection of Hayrı Buke (EU667). White marble. Head worn but in good condition; curving wall of basin (?) (TH: 0.15) broken on either side of head. The lion head has deep-set triangular eyes outlined by ridges and plastically formed ears. Below the squarish muzzle, a collar-like band with irregular grooves represents part of the mane. The mouth is open and holds in its back teeth a thick ring that hangs below the lower jaw. The head is mounted just below the rim of a large curving slab. Sixth to fourth century.

DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION

HISTORY: (B)

1986

Manisa

Museum acquisition. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 282–4, 674–5 cat. nos. A4.103–4.

14.4. Bayat TG DESCRIPTION: Group of six possible tumuli ¨ uler, ¨ ¨ near Bayat and Tup south of Gordes.

242

14.4. Bayat TG EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

15.4. Eskihisar 2001 survey.

grams from Yabacı, east of Borlu and southwest of Cami. Limestone. (B) Group of eight tumuli, including three possible tumuli, spread around the villages of S¸elekler, Borlu, and Gerencik. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A) 1908 observation. (B) 2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 559–61 (TG

52 Phrygius). ¨ 14.5. Gulmeztepe TG DESCRIPTION: Singleton tumulus on the ¨ ˘ Gulmeztepe ridge, west of C¸aglayan, among other reported tumuli. EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Keil and Premerstein 1911, 78 no. 163, fig. 41; Friedrich 1932, no. 53; and Gusmani 1964, 267, no. 53. (A– B) Roosevelt 2003, 561–3 (TG 53A–C Borlu), 675 cat. no. A4.105.

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 558 (TG 50

¨ Gulmeztepe). 15.2. Kılavuzlar TG DESCRIPTION: Singleton tumulus located near Kılavuzlar in the Hyllus (Demirci– ¨ Dumrek) River valley.

14.6. Daldis DESCRIPTION: (A) Hilltop settlement ca. 1.5 km ¨ (formerly Nardı and southeast of Kale Koy Narlı), ca. 3 km north–northeast of Kemer. Painted pottery of Lydian types found in 1983 on the slopes of one of the ravines that define three sides of the site later known as Daldis. (B) Group of two tumuli in the Akkec¸ili neighborhood northeast of Kemer. (C) Assemblage of undecorated pottery allegedly found between the Akkec¸ili and Yazdı neighborhoods of Kemer; seen during 1983 survey and brought to the Manisa Museum (uninventoried?): Two lydia, two lekythoi, an oinochoe, and an Achaemenid bowl with Black Glaze decoration.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 564 (TG 54

Kılavuzlar). 15.3. Demirci TG DESCRIPTION: Singleton possible tumulus located ca. 2.5 km south of the center of Demirci. EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 564 (TG 55A

Demirci).

HISTORY: (A, C) 1980 Foss investigation; 1983 Meric¸ survey. (B) 2001 survey. EXPLORATION

15.4. Eskihisar (Figure 6.40) Group of four tumuli located on ridges south of Eskihisar. ˘ (B) Lion head blocks from the Kral Bagı tumulus, the northern most of the four tumuli of (A) (MM312–313); acquired by the Manisa Museum in 1949. W: 0.36; H: 0.33; TH: 0.20–0.35 (MM312). W: 0.35; H: 0.33; TH: 0.16–0.33 (MM313). Purplish brown andesite. Good condition; the backs of the slabs are rough, their sides, tops, and bottoms smooth. Each consists of a lion head projecting from a stone slab on which a stylized mane is decorated with wavy grooves and ridges. DESCRIPTION: (A)

Meric¸ 1983b, 1; Greenewalt, Rautman, and Meric¸ 1986, 24–5; Foss 1987, 93–4. (A–C) Roosevelt 2003, 558–9 (TG 51 Akkec¸ili), 673–4 cat. nos. A4.101–2. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A, C)

15. NORTHEASTERN LYDIA

15.1. Borlu Block with Lydian inscription of two large-lettered ligatures or mono-

DESCRIPTION: (A)

243

15.4. Eskihisar

16.2. Kenger

The head is oval in section and the muzzle ends in a vertical plane decorated with the grooves and ridges of stylized whiskers. Oval eyes are outlined by low ridges. The mouth is open in a “smile” and the teeth are shown. Tongue, ears, and mouth are decorated with red pigment. The eyes of MM312 are forward on the flatter plane of the muzzle; those of MM313 further back on the slanted plane that meets the brow ridge and mane. Seventh or sixth century.

four panels, each of which is recessed another 0.015 m. Each fillet is decorated with four bosses (D: ca. 0.035); one slightly larger boss marks the intersection of fillets. Late sixth or fifth century. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

Malay survey.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Roosevelt 2003, 677 cat. no. A4.107, and 2006a, 84, cat. no. 9, fig. 11.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B) 1953 Manisa Museum observation; 2001 survey.

16. EASTERN LYDIA

16.1. Menye

Roosevelt 2003, 564– 66 (TG 55B Eskihisar), 676 cat. no. A4.106. (B) Manisa Museum archives report 670– 38/10.04.1953 in binder 711.0 Demirci. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B)

Group of four tumuli ¨ ¸ eoren ¨ located just southeast of Gokc (formerly, Menye). ¨ ¸ eoren ¨ (B) Phallic marker from Gokc (MM555). Total H: 1.05, shaft H: 0.25. White marble. (C) Possible additional evidence includes the identification of Menye with Maeonia and reports of bathtub sarcophagi and archaic graves in the area. DESCRIPTION: (A)

¨ oy ¨ 15.5. C¸amlıca-Kolek DESCRIPTION: Four-panel symbolic door stele with fascia and ovolo profiles and additional decorative elements; found covering a cist ˙ grave in the Salmanhacılar (Ilke?) River val¨ oy; ¨ immured ley just west of C¸amlıca-Kolek in both sides of the southeast corner of Aziz ¨ Onder’s house in same town as of May 2001. Total H: ca. 1.16; W: 0.80; TH: 0.135–0.215. White marble. Two joining fragments. Lower fragment broken at top, along left and right sides and bottom of front; upper fragment broken along entire left side and bottom, lower right corner, and along top edge. Stele with fascia (H: 0.125–0.130), ovolo (H: 0.13), and half-round (H: 0.045) profiles above imitation of a double-leaf door articulated in four planes. Ovolo carved with egg-and-dart decoration. Egg forms are wide and rectangular (H: 0.115, W: 0.085–0.09), egg borders trapezoidal in section (W: 0.015) and joined into a single continuous band, ‘darts’ more like angular teardrops. The door has a 0.050– 0.055 m-wide outer frame on sides and bottom. Recessed ca. 0.025 m from the outer frame, a ca. 0.065–0.075 m-wide inner frame is restricted to the sides. Recessed another ca. 0.025 m, 0.07–0.08 m-wide interconnecting crossbars divide the remaining space into

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 288– 9, 566–7 (TG 56 Menye), 677 cat. no. A4.108. (C) Herrmann and Keil 1981, 164–93; Zgusta 1984, no. 754; Greenewalt 1968, 154. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–C)

16.2. Kenger (Figure C.22) DESCRIPTION: Stele with Aramaic inscrip¨ uk); ¨ tion of at least eight lines (MM73 Etutl acquired by the Manisa Museum from Mehmet C¸etinkaya of Kenger in 1995. W: 0.235; H: 0.280; TH: 0.055–0.060. Mediumgrained white marble. Bottom and left sides preserved; right side and top broken; bottom right front chipped. The inscription may name a place, and may contain the earliest known reference to the god Mˆen. Mid-fourth century.

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

244

1995 discovery.

16.2. Kenger

16.6. Kula

¨ uk) ¨ (cat. no. 16.2) Figure C.22. Stele with Aramaic inscription from Kenger (MM73 Etutl (C. H. Roosevelt).

Lemaire 2002; 2003, 677 cat. no. A4.109.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Roosevelt

standing female attendant. No later than the late fifth century. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

16.3. Emre

1908 observation.

Keil and Premerstein 1911, ¨ 94 no. 8, fig. 57; Pfuhl and Mobius 1977/79, 27–8, no. 62, pl. 16; Roosevelt 2003, 680–1 cat. no. A4.114.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Stele with Lydian inscription ˙ of at least seven lines from Emre (IzAM2096); ˙ found in 1908 in the house of C¸olak Ibrahim ˙ in Emre and eventually taken to the Izmir Archaeological Museum. Marble. DESCRIPTION:

16.5. Hamidiye TG EXPLORATION HISTORY:

1908 observation.

DESCRIPTION: Group of four tumuli, including two possible tumuli, clustered between ¨ uce ¨ and Hamidiye, along the banks of Bortl the Hermus River. Several of these tumuli may be Hellenistic in date.

Keil and Premerstein 1911, 90–1, figs. 51–52; Buckler 1924, no. 42; Friedrich 1932, no. 42; and Gusmani 1964, 264, no. 42; Roosevelt 2003, 681 cat. no. A4.115.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

2001 survey.

Roosevelt 2003, 290, 567–9 (TG 57 Hamidiye).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

˙ ¨ 16.4. Incesu (Golde) (Figure 6.23) DESCRIPTION: Stele with relief sculpture and illegible inscription of at least four lines (in Lydian?); found in the house of Georgios ˙ ˘ in Incesu ¨ Sorboglu (Golde). White marble. A woman sits to left on a draped stool/kline with lathe-turned legs and is confronted by a

16.6. Kula (Figures 6.31, 6.38, C.23) Large recumbent lion statue on low plinth (MM305); acquired by the Manisa Museum in 1947. L: 1.23;

DESCRIPTION: (A)

245

16.6. Kula

16.6. Kula Museum in 1998. L: 0.28; W: 0.125; H: 0.215. Large-grained white-gray marble. Surface is worn and covered with a brown concretion (?); broken at right back corner, right forepaw, and muzzle; amorphous metal (?) adhesion on upper left flank. The back of the lion is near horizontal and its torso squarish. The tail passes under the rump, over the left haunch, and then back to the rump. Haunches are rounded, but not detailed. The mane is not distinct but may have been indicated by incised designs. The head is oval in section with hollows indicating the placement of the eyes. The lower jaw was separated from the upper muzzle by a deep horizontal groove at the back of the open mouth. Late seventh or sixth century. (C) Large recumbent lion-griffin statue from Kula (MM304); acquired by the Manisa Museum in 1947. L: 1.58; W: 0.51; H: 0.88. White marble with gray veins. Surface is worn and pitted and the lower part of the statue broken off cleanly so that all that remains is the upper part. Broken along left chest, lower jaw, and tongue; cracked down spine; divot on top of head and point-dressed flat surface on left haunch may date from secondary use. The head of the beast is forward, its back near horizontal, and its torso has been rendered with a geometric sense of volume. The tail passes under the rump and disappears along the right haunch. Two framed ovolos extend back from the front of right haunch; the lower of the two is smaller. Each shoulder is decorated with a large-petalled palmette within a rounded torus border. Extending back from the palmettes are curling wings and above them large leaf-shaped petals. While barely perceptible on the back or top of the head, the decoration of the mane consists of at least four beard-like bands of vertical grooves that wrap around beneath the muzzle/beak and extend down the breast. The head is squarish in section with deep hollows that indicate the place of the eyes. The worn muzzle/beak projects over the open mouth from which the tongue curls out and down, seemingly in griffintongue fashion. Sixth or early fifth century. (D) Two leaves of a decorated, double¨ ¸ men Koy ¨ leaf stone door brought from Goc

Figure C.23. Small lion statue from Kula (MM8505) (cat. no. 16.6B) (C. H. Roosevelt).

W: 0.45; H: 0.81. White-gray marble. Worn and chipped along left side of plinth; broken along front, forepaws, and top and bottom of muzzle; right haunch cut flat; divots in left flank and on top of head. The head of the lion is turned to the right and its back is horizontal with a raised rectangular fillet extending from head to rump. The torso is rounded from top down to carinations on the sides, below which the belly is planar or slightly concave. The tail passes under the rump and over the right haunch before merging with the fillet on the spine. Haunches are geometric and angular while the shoulders and forelegs were perhaps unfinished. Projecting and elongated bosses on both forelegs have received different degrees of detailing with incision. The right hind paw has two toes, the left, one. The mane is rendered by at least six rows of dangling locks, the curls of which alternate direction with every row. Only one row of locks wraps around the front of the head and passes under the muzzle, but the mane pattern covers the entire breast. The head is squarish in section with worn lumps high on its sides indicating ears. Only traces of the recess of the left eye are preserved. The mouth is open in a “smile,” and the tongue appears to have been projecting. Late seventh or early sixth century. (B) Small recumbent lion statue on low plinth (MM8505); acquired by the Manisa 246

¨ 16.8. Gure

16.6 Kula (current name unknown to me) in Kula to ˙ the Istanbul Archaeological Museum some time in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. Each leaf is composed of raised fillets decorated with small bosses and rosettes that define two recessed panels, one above the other. The three horizontal fillets are nearly three times as wide as the vertical, and each is decorated with twenty small bosses and a large rosette. The vertical fillets are decorated with alternating single and paired small bosses. Rough tenons project up and down from the outer edges of each leaf and facilitated the turning of the door in sockets or another type of turning mechanism. (E) Singleton tumulus located on ridge overlooking Kula on the east. (F) Possible additional evidence includes reports of archaic graves in the area.

rest Type IV, and most are heavily countermarked. (C) Possible additional evidence includes a site named Hancılar located just east of the ¨ ¸ ay River, where Lydian pottery may So¨ g˘ utc have been seen on the surface, and the iden¨ ¸ ay River Valley as the tification of the So¨ g˘ utc Castolus Plain, a mustering point for the Persian army (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.1.2, 1.9.7, and Hellenica 1.4.3). EXPLORATION

(B)

HISTORY: (A)

2001

survey.

Late 1970s discovery.

Roosevelt 2003, 292– 3, 569–73 (TG 58B Castolus), 681 cat. nos. ˙ 1971. A4.116–17. (C) Incel

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–C)

¨ 16.8. Gure Settlement mound of ¨ uk ¨ (or Gerdek Kayası C¸amyazı C¸iftlik Hoy ¨ uk), ¨ Hoy located ca. 3 km east of Yenis¸ehir ¨ near the C¸amyazı and 10 km west of Gure, ˘ C¸iftlik neighborhood, just south Akbıyıkoglu ˙ of and partly destroyed by the Izmir-Ankara highway. The site is founded on top of a high ridge (est. H: 5–10; est. area: 70 × 80). In addition to the large blocks of a circuit wall, surface finds include pottery of the Bronze and Iron Ages down to the fourth century. (B) Group of at least sixteen tumuli, including three possible tumuli, distributed along ¨ the Hermus River valley near Gure, on and around ridges that define the plains of small tributaries to the Hermus. (C) Possible additional evidence includes ˘ “tumulus,” near the village of that the Kayaagıl ¨ River valley, which name in the upper Gure may actually be a prehistoric mound rather than a tumulus. DESCRIPTION: (A)

1940s–1990s Manisa Museum acquisitions. (E) 2001 survey. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–C)

Roosevelt 2003, 574 (TG 58C Kula), 678–80 cat. nos. 110–13. (A) Gabelmann 1965, no. 108; Ratt´e 1989b, 392 no. A44. D) Macridy 1911, 11, fig. 15; ˙ Mendel 1912, 355–8, nos. 140–41; Izmirligil 1975, 65, pl. 15. F) Greenewalt 1968, 154. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–F)

¨ (Figure C.24) 16.7. Ortakoy Group of nine tumuli, including two possible tumuli, dispersed ¨ ¸ ay (Castoaround the junction of the So¨ g˘ utc lus) and Hermus Rivers, and along the course of the Hermus toward Yurtbas¸ı (ancient Tabala). (B) Hoard of fourth century Persian sigloi (Us¸ak Museum); discovered allegedly through routine agricultural work in a field ¨ some time in or just before near Ortakoy, 1979. Of the reported two to three thousand coins originally discovered, 669 were sold to the Us¸ak Museum by inhabitants ¨ of the nearby village of Korez, hence its museum display title: “The Treasure of ¨ Korez.” Around one quarter of those coins in the Us¸ak Museum are Type III sigloi, the DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

2002 observa-

tion with Us¸ak Museum. ˙ BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Incel 1971; pers. comm. ˘ ¨ (A–C) K. Akbıyıkoglu and U. Hos¸goren. ¨ 59), 681 Roosevelt 2003, 573–86 (TG Gure ˘ cat. no. A4.118, 586 (TG 60 Kayaagıl). ˘ 1994b. (C) Akbıyıkoglu 247

16.9. Ye¸sildere TG

16.11. Kıran TG

Figure C.24. Selection of Type III (spear-bearing king) and Type IV (dagger-wielding ¨ ¨ showing countermarks king) sigloi from the “Treasure of Korez” recovered from Ortakoy, (cat. no. 16.7B) (C. H. Roosevelt).

particularly abundant sherds of the Middle and Late Lydian periods down to the fourth century indicate the Iron Age prosperity of the place.

16.9. Yes¸ildere TG DESCRIPTION: Singleton possible tumulus located just north of Yes¸ildere.

EXPLORATION

HISTORY:

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

2002 observation

with Us¸ak Museum.

1960s observation.

˙ Incel 1971; Korfmann et al. 1994, map B II 14; Roosevelt 2003, 682 cat. no. A4.119.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Roosevelt 2003, 586–7 (TG

61 Yes¸ildere).

16.11. Kıran TG ¨ uk ¨ 16.10. Elmacık Hoy

DESCRIPTION: Singleton tumulus located north of the Kemer neighborhood of Es¸me, near Kıran.

Settlement mound of Elmacık ¨ uk, ¨ located ca. 1 km east of Elmacık, Hoy overlooking the Kazancı (Hippurius) River (est. H: 7–20 from east to west; est. D: 300). In addition to second millennium finds, DESCRIPTION:

EXPLORATION

HISTORY:

with Us¸ak Museum. 248

2002 observation

17.1. Kel Dag˘

16.11. Kıran TG

Es¸me).

and n. 22; and Balcer 1993, 90. (A–B) Roo˙ sevelt 2003, 296, 587–8 (TG 62 Inay).

16.12. Kemer TG

¨ uk ¨ 16.15. Narlı Hoy

DESCRIPTION: Group of six tumuli located on ridges in the Kemer neighborhood of Es¸me.

DESCRIPTION: Settlement mound of Narlı ¨ uk ¨ located ca. 2 km north of Narlı, overHoy looking the southern bank of the Es¸me River. Surface pottery allegedly indicates Iron Age in addition to third and second millennium occupation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

EXPLORATION

Roosevelt 2003, 590 (TG 63B

HISTORY:

2002 observation

with Us¸ak Museum. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Roosevelt 2003, 588–90 (TG

63A Es¸me). EXPLORATION HISTORY:

¨ uk ¨ 16.13. Kayapınar Hoy

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Settlement mound of ¨ uk, ¨ located just southwest of Kayapınar Hoy ˘ Yelegen. Surface pottery indicates Iron Age, in addition to earlier and later occupation. (B) Singleton tumulus located near ˘ Yelegen, south of Es¸me. (C) Possible additional evidence includes numerous Lydian and Persian coins brought ˘ to the Us¸ak Museum, as well as from Yelegen ˘ rock-cut pit graves located between Yelegen ¨ uk. ¨ and Kayapınar Hoy

1960s observation.

˙ Incel 1971.

DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION

HISTORY: (A–B)

1930s

¨ Hoy ¨ uk ¨ 16.16. Gok ¨ DESCRIPTION: Settlement mound of Gok ¨ uk, ¨ located ca. 2 km south of Gull ¨ u, ¨ Hoy ¨ u–Denizli ¨ just west of the Gull road. Surface pottery allegedly indicates Iron Age in addition to third and second millennium occupation. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

and

1960s observations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

˙ BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B) Incel 1971; Roosevelt 2003, 590 (TG 63C Es¸me), 682 cat. no. A4.120. (C) Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 104; ˘ pers. comm. K. Akbıyıkoglu.

˙ Incel 1971.

17. TMOLUS RANGE

17.1. Kel Dag˘ DESCRIPTION: Ruins on and around the two ˘ probably Mt. Karpeaks of Kel Dag, ios, including buildings of marble ashlar masonry and Lydian and later pottery and other finds; probably to be identified with the Achaemenid-period exhedra mentioned by Strabo (13.4.5) and/or a sanctuary of Carian Zeus.

˙ 16.14. Inay Group of at least five ˙ tumuli located near Inay. (B) Possible additional evidence includes the site of Blaundus, located ca. 5–6 km south ˙ ¨ umenli, ¨ of Inay and ca. 2 km north of Sul which may be the fifth century fortress called Blauda by Diodorus Siculus (13.104.3, 6). DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

1960s observation.

1930s observa-

Explorations led by

R. L. and U. Bengisu.

tion. Bengisu 1996. See also Foss 1993, 318, Greenewalt 1995a, 125–6 n. 2, and Roosevelt 2003, 683 cat. no. A4.124.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, Tuplin 1987b, 237; Kagan 1987, 383

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A)

102. (B)

249

17.2. Ovacık Yaylası

18.1. Kiraz 1961 exploration of G. M. A. Hanfmann, I. Hanfmann, and D. P. Hansen.

17.2. Ovacık Yaylası

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

DESCRIPTION: Two large sections of an archaic architectural frieze block found near ¨ uk; ¨ Ovacık Yaylası, ca. 4 km west of Golc molding consists of an egg-and-dart frieze above a bead-and-reel profile. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Unpublished report by G. M. A. Hanfmann of August 1961 in the Sardis archives.

Explorations led by

R. L. and U. Bengisu.

17.6. Possible Sites in the Eastern and Western Tmolus Range

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bengisu 1994, 42, pl. 2, fig. 3, and 1996. See also Foss 1993, 318, and Roosevelt 2003, 683 cat. no. A4.125.

A large monument covered with inscribed characters, allegedly Persian cuneiform according to one report, was seen in the eastern Tmolus Range, somewhere above Alas¸ehir in the nineteenth century. (B) Pre-Hellenistic foundations of roughly cut blocks and pre-Roman pottery found at Yılan Kalesi, overlooking the upper Cilbian Plain and above the village of Kemer. (C) Possible additional evidence for contemporary activities in the western part of the Tmolus Range include monuments of uncertain date located in Kara (probably former Karlak) Yaylası, between Sivrice and ¨ Karakoy. DESCRIPTION: (A)

¨ uk ¨ 17.3. Golc At least one possible tumu¨ uk, ¨ lus located ca. 1.5 km northeast of Golc ca. 500 m east of the road to Danacılar. (B) Two tombs located high on the southern spurs of the Tmolus Range just south of ¨ uk ¨ valley, at least one with a rockthe Golc cut stepped approach leading to a rock-cut pit. DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION

HISTORY: (A–B)

Explorations

led by R. L. and U. Bengisu.

vations. ject.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B) Bengisu 1994, 42–3, pl. 3, figs. 5–6. See also Roosevelt 2003, 591 (TG ¨ uk), ¨ 683 cat. no. A4.126. 64 Golc

(B)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Sayce 1880: 88; Sayce 1923: 203–4. (B) Barnes and Whittow 1994, 196, 199. (C) Sayce 1880, 86; Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 66; Anderson 1974, 33 n. 28; 1995 Sardis Report of M. H. Ramage; Greenewalt and Rautman 1998, 503. (A–C) Roosevelt 2003, 301, n. 357, 682–3 cat. no. A4.123.

17.4. Tekke Yaylası DESCRIPTION: At least one chamber tomb of Lydian style located south of Bozdag˘ village and above Tekke Yaylası. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

Early obser1990s Barnes and Whittow pro-

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A, C)

Explorations led by

R. L. and U. Bengisu. 18. CILBIAN PLAINS

Bengisu 1994, 42, pl. 2, fig. 4. See also Roosevelt 2003, 683 cat. no. A4.127. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

18.1. Kiraz (Figure 6.24) Group of at least four tumuli ringing the upper Cilbian Plain around Kiraz. (B) Anthemion-like relief stele with Lydian ¨ inscription of at least 12 lines (OM2767); DESCRIPTION: (A)

17.5. Boz Dag˘ DESCRIPTION: Small collection of Middle and Late Lydian pottery found on the highest peak ˘ of the Tmolus Range, Boz Dag.

250

˘ 18.8. Ertugrul

18.1. Kiraz found in 2002 in the village of Haliller. H: 1.84; max. W: 0.50; TH: 0.20. Marble. Preserved in three pieces of roughly similar size, with breaks in the lower part of the relief and at the eleventh line of the inscription. Anthemion-like finial imitates anthemia of lyre-volute type but in schematic form and with a bird flying to right with wings raised replacing the palmette. In the relief below, a woman sits to right on a draped stool with lathe-turned legs and has her feet on a footstool. Confronting her is an attendant who stands on the stool and exchanges with her an unidentified object. Dated to the 17th year of Artaxerxes (or 343/2). EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Roosevelt 2003, 596–9 (TG

70 Mortepe). 18.5. Balabanlı TG DESCRIPTION: Group of at least eight tumuli located just south of Balabanlı. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

2000s observation.

Roosevelt 2003, 599–601 (TG 71 Balabanlı).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

18.6. Kızılcaavlu TG DESCRIPTION: Group of at least four tumuli located north and east of Kızılcaavlu, on the ˘ lower slopes of Pınar Dag.

2000s obser-

vation. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Roosevelt 2003, 301, 591–2 (TG 65 Kiraz). (B) Gusmani and Akkan 2004.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2000s observation.

Roosevelt 2003, 593–4 (TG

67 Kızılcaavlu). 18.2. C¸omaklar TG 18.7. Kaymakc¸ı TG

Group of at least three tumuli north of C¸omaklar. DESCRIPTION:

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

DESCRIPTION: Group of at least three tumuli located north of Kaymakc¸ı.

2000s observation. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

2000s observation.

Roosevelt 2003, 592–3 (TG

64 C¸omaklar).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Roosevelt 2003, 594–5 (TG

68 Kaymakc¸ı). 18.3. Emirli TG ˘ 18.8. Ertugrul (Figure 6.18)

Group of at least five tumuli clustered around Emirli. DESCRIPTION:

EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

DESCRIPTION: Four-panel symbolic door stele ¨ with rosette and boss decoration (OM2702); exact context unknown, found in the Kar˘ s¸ıyaka neighborhood of Ertugrul; currently in ¨ the courtyard of the Odemis ¸ Museum. Exact dimensions unknown to author. White-gray marble. Surface covered with brown encrustation from recent unearthing; broken along entire top and missing top right corner; all edges chipped, probably not recently. Small squarish stele with at least one molded profile (not preserved) above imitation of a doubleleaf door articulated in four planes. Bands form three successively recessed frames,

2000s observation.

Roosevelt 2003, 595–6 (TG

69 Emirli). 18.4. Ovakent TG DESCRIPTION: Group of at least eight tumuli on ridges known as Mortepe southwest of Mescitli and east–northeast of Ovakent. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

2000s observation. 251

˘ 18.8. Ertugrul

19.3. Hypaepa ¨ 19.2. Odemis ¸ (Figures 6.19–6.20)

continuous on all sides. Outer edges of outer frame have raised ridges on all sides. Middle frame is plain. Wide inner frame in same plane as interconnecting crossbars that divided the remaining space into four equal-sized panels, each recessed again. Inner frame and interconnecting crossbars decorated with nine ninepetal rosettes, one at each corner of the inner frame, and one at each end and at the intersection of the crossbars. Equidistant between each adjacent rosette is a small boss, twelve in total. Sides and bottom roughly squared; a short tab-like tenon projects from the bottom. Sixth to fourth century. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

Thick stele with two super˙ imposed figural friezes in relief (IzAM4344); ¨ found in or near Odemis ¸ and acquired by ˙ the Izmir Museum. Limestone. The top scene shows a banquet with a male reclining to left on a kline near the center. In front of the kline is a small table flanked by two inward facing figures seated on stools or klinai seen on end. Two attendants face inwards at either edge, the left one in front of another table. The lower scene shows a ram or wild goat to left, flanked by two inward facing and crouching lions. Early to mid-fifth century. (B) Coin hoard of the late sixth century ¨ reportedly found in the vicinity of Odemis ¸; contents not specified. (C) Stele with anthemion finial above shaft ¨ decorated with two plain rosettes (OM2622); ¨ found in the town of Odemis¸. Marble. In good condition with traces of a claw chisel on flat surfaces. Mid- to late sixth century (based on claw chisel and a parallel from Sardis). DESCRIPTION: (A)

2000s observation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Roosevelt 2003, 685 cat. no. A4.128; Roosevelt 2006a, 86 cat. no. 12, fig. 16.

19. CAYSTER VALLEY

EXPLORATION

19.1. Birgi (Dioshieron) (Figure 6.32)

HISTORY: (A–C)

Twentieth

century observations.

Large recumbent lion statue on plinth; built into the corner of the Ulu Camii mosque in Birgi, some 4 m above the ground. Marble. Claw-chisel tooling provides a date of after the mid-sixth century. (B) At least one singleton tumulus located near Birgi. (C) Possible additional evidence includes a sanctuary of Zeus (Dioshieron) located in Birgi and probably established by the fifth century (Ptolemy 5.2.17; Thucydides 8.19). DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Borchhardt 1968, 208–9, pl. 52, fig. 2; Dentzer 1969, 196–200; Pfuhl ¨ and Mobius 1977/79, 10 no. 6, pl. 2; Baughan 2004, 561, cat. no. C1; Draycott 2006, 168– 9, cat. no. 29. (A–C) Roosevelt 2003, 685–6 cat. nos. A4.132–4. (C) For comparanda, see Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 73–4, no. 45, and Ratt´e 1994a, 603.

19.3. Hypaepa (Figure 5.10) Small recumbent lion statue on low plinth (Sardis NoEx73.2); found ˙ ˘ in fields near Hypaepa by Ismail Ugurlu and brought to Sardis in 1973. Large-grained gray-white marble. Early sixth century. (B) Large double-headed lion statue on ¨ plinth (OM1955); found immured in a Late Roman or Byzantine wall at Hypaepa and ¨ brought to the Odemis ¸ Museum. Yellowish white limestone or marble. Perhaps from a gate, a throne, an altar table, or a column DESCRIPTION: (A)

2000s and ear-

lier observations. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Strocka 1977, 488–92, figs. 8–12; Ratt´e 1989b, 392 no. A41. (B) Philippson 1910–14.4: 12, map; Ramage and Ramage 1971, 144, map; Meric¸ 1983c, map 6. (C) Foss 1979b, 313–14. (A–C) Roosevelt 2003, 305–6, 601 (TG 72 Birgi), 685 cat. no. A4.129.

252

19.3. Hypaepa

19.6. Tire (Thyeira)

capital. Dated to the first quarter of the sixth century by Hanfmann. (C) Additional evidence for Middle and Late Lydian activities at Hypaepa, in mod¨ uce, ¨ ern Gunl includes inscriptions and other ancient testimony to its sanctuary of Artemis Anaitis. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

271. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 686 cat. nos. 135– 6. (C) Akurgal 1987, 62, pl. 79; Ratt´e 1989b, 392, no. A40. 19.5. C¸iniyeri Settlement remains and a rock-cut chamber tomb with pitched ceiling located near the village of C¸iniyeri. The chamber tomb is hewn irregularly from schist bedrock and consists of a ca. 1.5 m wide dromos that leads east to a 0.74 m wide doorway through which a 2.05 m × 2.32 m chamber is accessed. A rock-cut bench lines the right side wall. Dates uncertain. (B) Settlement or fort remains, rock-cut chamber tombs, and a rock-cut monument ¨ ¸ en; rocklocated south and southeast of Gokc cut monument is approached by four steps of unequal size that lead to a ca. 4 m × 4 m platform, out of the back of which rises a rock-cut stone cist (L: 3.06; W: 1.37; H: 0.70; wall TH: 0.32). Dates uncertain. (C) At least one rock-cut chamber tomb with an antechamber and chamber located ¨ ¸ en, near the village of Yenis¸ehir. south of Gokc Date uncertain. (D) Group of at least three tumuli located ¨ ¸ en, and Kırtepe. around C¸iniyeri, Gokc DESCRIPTION: (A)

1970s obser-

vations. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Hanfmann 1974, 52; Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 171 no. 261, fig. 450; Ratt´e 1989b, 392 no. A42. (B) Anabolu 1979, 415–8, pl. 225, fig. 1–3; Strocka 1977, 512; Hanfmann 1984; Ratt´e 1989b, 392 no. A43. (A–C) Roosevelt 2003, 306–7, 685 cat. nos. A4.130–1.

19.4. Falaka–Bayındır Stele with bilingual Aramaic-Lydian inscription of at least eight lines; found in Falaka, immured in a wall belonging to the house of the barber Ahmet in 1911. Marble. The first partially preserved line is Aramaic, the remaining seven Lydian. As indicated in the first line of Lydian, the inscription records something in the sixteenth year of the reign of one of the kings named Artaxerxes. (B) Several rock-cut chamber tombs located above the towns of Falaka and Buruncuk; they usually consist of a short dromos, an antechamber with benches along the side walls, and a chamber with benches lining three walls in a -shaped configuration. Ceilings of antechambers and chambers are pitched. (C) Forward-looking, recumbent lion statue ˙ (IzAM3258). Mid-sixth century. DESCRIPTION: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–D)

Meric¸ surveys.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–D) Keil and Premerstein 1914, 66; Meric¸ 1983c, 49–53; Roosevelt 2003, 601–2 (TG 73 C¸iniyeri), 687 cat. nos. A4.137–9.

19.6. Tire (Thyeira) Block with Lydian inscription of at least two lines; found reused around a well in the church of Hagia Taxiarchai in Tire. Marble. (B) Plaque with Lydian inscription; found in the Megalais Katefches neighborhood of Tire. Marble. (C) Small statue of a bird of prey (TM149); found in 1957 in the Uzun Kavaklar-Kazantepe neighborhood of Tire and acquired by the Tire Museum. Marble. DESCRIPTION: (A)

1911 observa-

tion. (B) Meric¸ surveys. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Keil and Premerstein 1914, 95 no. 132, figs. 56–7; Buckler 1924, no. 41; Friedrich 1932, no. 41; Gusmani 1964, 264, no. 41; Greenewalt 1995a, 134 n. 20. (B) Meric¸ 1983c, 73; McLauchlin 1985, G2,

253

19.6. Tire (Thyeira)

19.10. Fetrek TG

Dated to the reign of Croesus in the mid-sixth century. (D) Group of at least nine tumuli in the plain and on ridges north of Tire. (E) Possible additional evidence includes ridged lydia and klinai seen in the Tire Museum, and traditions deriving its ancient name, Thyeira, from a Lydian word, and associating with it the Lydian king Gyges. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A–B)

tion. tion.

(C)

1957 discovery.

(D)

by the Tire Museum in 1938. Mediumgrained marble with black flecks. First quarter of the sixth century.

(B–C)

Meric¸ 1983c, 44. (B–C) Strocka 1977, 483–6, nos. 2, 4, figs. 3–4, 7; Ratt´e 1989b, 392, nos. A61, A63. (A–C) Roosevelt 2003, 688 cat. nos. 143–5. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A)

1911 observa2000s observa-

¨ ukkale ¨ 19.9. Buy ¨ ukkale, ¨ DESCRIPTION: (A) Settlement at Buy located west of the village of the same name; remains of a fort of the second millennium were reused in later times, perhaps when sections with polygonal masonry were constructed. Evidence of Lydian date derives from (B), below, while Hellenistic through Byzantine pottery was seen on the site also. (B) Small recumbent lion statue on low ¨ ukkale ¨ plinth (TM142); found in Buy and acquired by the Tire Museum in 1950. Medium- to large-grained marble with black flecks. First quarter of the sixth century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A–B) Keil and Premerstein 1914, 92 no. 126, fig. 52; Buckler 1924, nos. 47, 50; Friedrich 1932, nos. 47, 50; and Gusmani 1964, 266–7 nos. 47, 50. (C) Strocka 1989; cf. Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 160 no. 238, figs. 413–15; Greenewalt 1972, 126 no. 23, 135–6, pl. 10.3; Cahill 2002, 180–1. (E) Hanfmann 1965, 491. (A–E) Roosevelt 2003, 310–11, 602–4 (TG 74 Tire), 687–8 cat. nos. A4.140–2.

19.7. Is¸ıklar–Turgutlu TGs DESCRIPTION: Three groups of at least four tumuli in total, spread between Is¸ıklar, on the west, and Turgutlu, on the east.

Meric¸ surveys. 1950 Tire Museum acquisition.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

(B) EXPLORATION HISTORY:

Meric¸ surveys. 1938 Tire Museum acquisitions.

EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

2000s observations. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A) Meric¸ 1983c, 35–8, 1988, 386. (B)Strocka 1977, 484–5, no. 3, figs. 5–6; Ratt´e 1989b, 392, no. A62. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 688 cat. nos. A4.146–7.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Roosevelt 2003, 604–5 (TG 75A Is¸ıklar, B Akarca, and C Turgutlu).

19.8. Uzgur

19.10. Fetrek TG

Settlement remains and cemetery of rock-cut chamber tombs west of Uzgur; dated by (B) and (C), below. (B) Small recumbent lion statue on low plinth (TM128); found in Uzgur and acquired by the Tire Museum in 1938. Large-grained white marble. Fourth quarter of the seventh century. (C) Small recumbent lion statue on low plinth (TM146); found in Uzgur and acquired DESCRIPTION: (A)

DESCRIPTION: Three groups of at least six tumuli in total, located in the Fetrek Valley, just south of the Karabel Pass.

EXPLORATION HISTORY:

2000s observations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Roosevelt 2003, 618–19 (TG 105A Fetrek, 105B Arslanlar, and 105C Arıkbas¸ı).

254

¨ (Cydrara) 20.1. Saraykoy

23.3. Relief stele (MM6226) ˙ 22. IZMIR ARCHAEOLOGICAL MUSEUM

20. SOUTHEASTERN LYDIA

¨ (Cydrara) 20.1. Saraykoy 22.1. Bronze bowls

Settlement mound located ¨ probably to be idenca. 1 km east of Saraykoy, tified with Lydian Cydrara, where Croesus reportedly set up his boundary stone between Lydia, Caria, and Phrygia (Herodotus 7.30– 1); in addition to earlier wares, Iron Age sherds were noted on the surface, including at least one black-on-red stemmed dish. (B) At least one singleton tumulus located ¨ just west of ca. 5–6 km southeast of Saraykoy, Beylerbeyi. DESCRIPTION: (A)

DESCRIPTION: Two bronze bowls of Phrygian type “from Manisa.” Multiple vertical spools decorate the sides of both bowls, which have ring handles. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

Unknown to author.

Akurgal 1953: pl. 60a; Akurgal 1950: 87, pl. B, fig. 2; Birmingham 1961, 190 n. 2; Knudson 1964, 67; Greenewalt 1972, 130 n. 20.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Mellaart surveys. 1993 Denizli Museum salvage excavation. EXPLORATION HISTORY: (A)

(B)

23. MANISA MUSEUM

Mellaart 1954, 192 map 3; Mellaart 1955, map and 133, pl. 5, no. 77; Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 197 list and map 6, no. 30; Korfmann et al. 1994, 185 nos. 1174–5 and map II B 14; French 1998, 23 n. 12. (A–B) Roosevelt 2003, 620–1 (TG 107X Beylerbeyi), 689 cat. no. A4.148. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (A)

23.1. Bossed fibulae DESCRIPTION: Two large, bossed, bronze fibulae of Phrygian type “from Manisa.” EXPLORATION HISTORY: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Unknown to author.

Birmingham 1961, 186 n. 3.

˙ 21. BERGAMA MUSEUM ( IZMIR)

23.2. Relief stele (MM172) (Figure 6.22) 21.1. Relief stele (BM4394) (Figure 6.28)

DESCRIPTION: Relief slab displaying a banquet scene with a man in a himation reclining on a draped kline, a fanning attendant in a short-sleeved tunic, and a dog beneath the kline. Mid-fourth century.

DESCRIPTION: Relief stele “from Manisa” with anthemion finial of lyre-volute type above two figural registers. Upper register shows a mounted figure who must have been wielding a spear (no longer preserved) above two boars. Lower register shows relaxed horse and rider, dog, and walking attendant, beneath a tree. Radt suggests a date of 500 or later, but the composition and especially the anthemion capital suggest a date in the later fifth or early fourth century. EXPLORATION HISTORY:

Provenience unknown. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Polat 2005a.

23.3. Relief stele (MM6226) (Figure 6.30) DESCRIPTION: Relief sculpture of battle scene from grave monument (?); acquired by the Manisa Museum from Alas¸ehir collector ˙ Ibrahim Koc¸ in 1982. W: 1.06; H: 0.59; D 0.17. White marble with gray crystalline and micaceous inclusions. Broken along

Unknown to author.

Radt 1983. For comparanda, ˙ see IzAM694 (Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 162–3, no. 242, fig. 421). BIBLIOGRAPHY:

255

23.3. Relief stele (MM6226)

25.2. Lion statue (TM84–1)

bottom left corner and front, the entire top, and the right side. The front of the left edge is finished with a smooth chiseled band to meet an adjoining piece. Traces of claw chisel are evident in the flat fields. A figure wearing pants (and boots?) rides a rearing or galloping male horse to right above a nude male corpse that is draped in a contorted pose to left over a tumble of angular boulders. Two nude soldiers confront the rider with overlapping shields: one kneels with left knee forward and right calf and foot superbly foreshortened behind; the other stands behind the first with left leg bent forward and right leg extending straight back and overlapping what may be the smooth surface of another shield near the break. Mid-fourth century.

24.2. Lion statue DESCRIPTION: A sideways-looking, recumbent lion statue. Dated to the second half of the sixth century.

Provenience unknown to author. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

¨ 24.3. Bathtub sarcophagi (OM2284) DESCRIPTION: A set of bathtub sarcophagi, presumably from a single grave with one used as a lid, as found in the S¸eytan Dere area at Sardis (Hanfmann 1967: 37–8, 31 fig. 17).

Provenience unknown to author. Unpublished.

Provenience unknown. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Ratt´e 1989b, 392, no. A45.

Polat 2001. 25. TIRE MUSEUM DIRECTORATE ˙ ( IZMIR)

23.4. Relief stele (MM3389) (Figure 6.27) DESCRIPTION: Relief stele with two figural registers. Upper register shows a mounted and armed figure wielding a spear; lower register shows a cloaked archer and bird. Late fifth century.

DESCRIPTION: Small, forward-looking, recumbent lion statue. Third quarter of the seventh century.

Provenience unknown.

Provenience unknown.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Greenewalt and Heywood ˘ 2003, 62; Dray1992: 16, fig. 25; Dedeoglu cott 2006, 143.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Strocka 1977, 482–3, no. 1, figs. 1–2; Ratt´e 1989b, 392, A60.

25.1. Lion statue (TM135)

25.2. Lion statue (TM84–1) DESCRIPTION: Small, forward-looking, recumbent lion statue on a low plinth. grayish white marble. In good condition aside from minor breaks and abrasions over surface. The lion is rendered with a squarish sense of volume with nearly vertically sided haunches yet more rounded torso. The tail passes under the rump and over the right haunch, ending again on rump. Musculature and paws are given no detail. Cylindrical neck leads to articulation of face, with triangular ears pointing back high

¨ ˙ 24. ODEMIS ¸ MUSEUM ( IZMIR)

¨ 24.1. Lion statue (OM1492) DESCRIPTION: A forward-looking, recumbent lion statue. Sixth or fifth century. Marble.

Provenience unknown to author. Unpublished.

256

25.2. Lion statue (TM84–1)

25.6. Relief stele

on the head. The head is round in section with deeply set, triangular eye sockets. The muzzle is undefined, with mouth indicated by a simple groove. Late seventh or sixth century.

panel in two, and a vertical band dividing the lower panel in two again. On each of the horizontal bands, four pairs of bosses, vertically arranged, alternate with what appear to be three, unfinished rosettes; two pairs of bosses and another unfinished rosette are on the vertical divider in the lower panel, as well. Five more bosses decorate the vertical bands at either side of the door. Sides and bottom roughly squared. Sixth to fourth century.

Provenience unknown to author. Unpublished. 25.3. Lion statue DESCRIPTION: Forward-looking, recumbent lion statue on low plinth; in museum garden as of 2008. Grayish white marble. Forelegs, right shoulder, and front and right-side of plinth broken; head broken, and entire surface very worn; lower right side covered with brown encrustation (from recent unearthing?). The tail passes under the rump and over the left haunch, ending again on rump. Musculature is rounded and the surviving left hind paw is articulated with three toes. Wear obscures head and muzzle features, yet stylized mane indicated with incision is preserved below head on breast. Sixth or fifth century.

Provenience unknown to author. Unpublished. 25.5. Symbolic door stele (TM2003–121) DESCRIPTION: Small, four-panel symbolic door stele; in museum garden as of 2007. Large grained white-gray marble. Surface covered with black concretion; broken along bottom right corner; all edges chipped, but probably not recently. Squarish stele with plain fascia and ovolo profile above imitation of a double-leaf door articulated in four panels. Ovolo profile is given egg-and-dart decoration. Frame border and interconnecting crossbars decorated with twenty-one eightpetal rosettes that alternate with pairs of small bosses, arranged symmetrically around the four recessed panels. Sides and bottom roughly squared; a short, tab-like tenon projects from the bottom. Very similar to the ˘ ul ¨ (cat. no. 18.8). Sixth example from Ertu¨ gr to fourth century.

Provenience unknown to author. Unpublished. 25.4. Symbolic door stele (TM94–101) DESCRIPTION: Small, two-panel symbolic door stele; in museum garden as of 2007. Large grained white-gray marble. Surface covered with black concretion; broken along top, and all edges chipped. Stele with fascia, ovolo, and half-round profiles above imitation of a door articulated in three panels (one large top panel above two smaller panels). Fascia is carved with leaf-and-dart decoration, ovolo with egg-and-dart decoration; half-round profile is plain. Imitation of door is articulated in three planes within a raised border with a half-round profile at the sides. Within this border, a wide band frames the door on top and sides. Bands recessed within this frame line top, sides, and bottom, with a mid-height horizontal band dividing the

Provenience unknown to author. Unpublished. 25.6. Relief stele (Figure 6.29) DESCRIPTION: Relief stele with mounted rider; seen in museum in the 1970s. Whitishgray marble. Surface covered with brown encrustation; broken on all sides, partially preserving an upper part of the stele. Plain fascia and ovolo profile above relief panel. Ovolo profile has egg-and-dart decoration,

257

25.6. Relief stele

25.6. Relief stele

with darts that widen toward their tips. Relief shows mounted rider and horse processing in relaxed manner to left. Rider wears longsleeve tunic and bas¸lık and holds right hand outward, as if holding a no longer preserved item (tooling may suggest it was a bird?); left hand holds reins, which attach to horse bridle.

Horse mane is smoothly rendered, and muzzle is pulled down and back by reins toward the breast. Mid-fifth century. Provenience unknown to author. Unpublished.

258

Notes

Chapter 1. Introduction 1 All ancient dates are BCE (Before the Common Era), unless noted otherwise. 2 For an overview of the results of the Sardis Expedition through the 1970s, see Hanfmann 1983a. 3 See Mattingly 2000 and Roosevelt 2006b for brief lists of regional archaeological projects dispersed widely throughout the Mediterranean. 4 Ammerman 1981; Dyson 1982; Cherry 1982 and 1983. 5 Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Athanassopoulos and Wandsnider 2004. 6 For extensive discussion of the origin of the term and its applications in archaeology, see Cosgrove 1984, Cosgrove and Daniels 1988, Thomas 1993, Crumley and Marquardt 1995, and Knapp and Ashmore 1999. 7 French 1969; Lloyd and Mellaart 1962. 8 Meric¸ 1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989; Dinc¸ 1991, 1996, and 1997. 9 For example, see Keil and Premerstein 1908, 1911, and 1914, Robert 1953, 1962, 1963, 1982, and 1983, Foss 1976, 1979a, 1979b, 1982, 1987, and 1993, Herrmann and Keil 1981 and 1989, Malay 1994 and 1999, and Petzl 1996. 10 For example, see Ramsay 1890, Radet 1893, and Buresch 1898. 11 For example, see Radet 1893, Hogarth 1909, Perrot and Chipiez 1892, Greenewalt 1978a, 1978b, and Dusinberre 2003. 12 Shennan 1994; Whittle 2003; van Dommelen 1997. 13 Thomas 1991; Dietler 1997 and 1998. 14 Dusinberre 2003, 116–7, 128, 138, and 150; Baughan 2004, passim. 15 For similar purposeful adoptions of cultural symbols in Iron Age Europe, see Wells 1980, 1999, and 2001, and Woolf 1998. Examples from further afield include cultural interactions relating

16 17 18 19

to the Asante Empire of Ghana (McCaskie 1972) and in Hawaii (Linnekin 1983). Greenewalt 1978a, 37–8. Dusinberre 1997, 1999, 75, and 2003. See Dusinberre 2003, 109 and 131, who argues that such attempts are perhaps not appropriate. I have adopted this chronological term from Rotroff and Oliver 2003, 1 and 60 and from N. D. Cahill (pers. comm.), who employ it for ceramics produced in local Lydian traditions in the period following the Persian conquest of Sardis. Chapter 2. The Cultural and Historical Framework

1 See Chapter 1, n. 19 2 Finkel 1974, 124–6. 3 Gusmani 1986 and 1995. Lydian inscriptions have been found primarily in the Hermus and Cayster River valleys, but also at Pergamum, Old Smyrna, Ephesus, and Aphrodisias. 4 Melchert 2003a, 10–26, and 2003b, 266–7. 5 Melchert 1995, 2157, and 2003b, 267. For Carian, see Adiego Lajara 2007. For Carian as a transitional dialect between Lydian and Lycian, see van den Hout 1999. 6 Stark 1997, 457; Melchert 2003a, 22. For recent and contrasting opinions, see Yakubovich 2008a and 2008b. 7 For the possibility that such rock-cut monuments may belong to a Luwian, rather than a Hittite, tradition, however, see Aro 2003, 287–8. ¨ ¨ 8 See, for example, Guterbock 1956, Guterbock and Alexander 1983, Hawkins 1998, and Andr´eSalvini and Salvini 2003. Another relief monument with inscription has recently been found just south of the Karabel Pass in the town of Karakuyu. Only partially preserved, the surviving block of the monument shows a figure striding to right, very similar in appearance to the

259

Notes to Pages 16–22

9

10

11 12

13 14

15 16 17 18 19

20

21

22 Iliad 2.864–6, 5.43–4, 20.385, 20.389–92; Herodotus 7.74; Strabo 11, 12.8.18, 13.4.5. 23 van den Hout 2003. See Beekes 2002, 206– 8, however, for the equation of Maeonia with Masa, and counterarguments against van den Hout’s proposal for Maddunassa. ¨ ¸ eoren/Menye, ¨ 24 For Maeonia at Gokc see Hermann and Keil 1981, 164–93, and Zgusta 1984, no. 754. For the preservation of ancient toponyms in earlier Turkish place names, such as Menye, see Robert 1963, n. 106. 25 Beekes 2002, 206–18. 26 Herodotus 1.7. 27 For ancient references, see n. 22, this chapter, as well as Hanfmann 1951 and 1958, 71–2, and Pedley 1968, 27. 28 Herodotus 1.7. For Candaules as Maeonian, see Hipponax (Fragment 3) and Pedley 1968, 27. 29 For the royal traditions of Lydia, see Pedley 1972, 6–17. See Carruba 2003, 152–3, for an attempted reconstruction of most kings and dynasties mentioned in ancient sources, including the Atyads, Heraclids, Tylonids, and Mermnads grouped into proto-Mermnad and Mermnad groups. 30 Carruba 2003, 151–4. The striking similarity between the names of many early Lydian kings and figures named in Hittite texts has been noted frequently: Madduwatta and Alyattes or (S)Adyattes, for example. This can be seen as evidence of continuity from the Late Bronze Age, and/or of the linguistic connections between Luwian and Lydian. 31 Spalinger (1978) shows from Assyrian archives that Gyges had established diplomatic liaisons with Assurbanipal by 664 and died in ca. 644. Herodotus (1.14) claimed that Gyges ruled thirty-eight years, and, although the various estimates for his reign length cannot be trusted as exact, a date of ca. 680 for Gyges’ accession is generally accepted. See also Kaletsch 1958 and Cogan and Tadmor 1977, 78–9, 84. 32 Hanfmann 1967, 34–7; Mee 1978 and 1988; ¨ unel ¨ Ozg 1996; Mountjoy 1998; Vanschoonwinkel 2006. 33 For arguments that a Heraclid invasion is evidenced by the occurrence of Mycenaean ceramics and a violent conflagration, see Pedley 1968, 25, and Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 173 n. 85, followed by numerous other sources, most recently Beekes 2002, 216. 34 For recent finds of the Central Lydia Archaeological Survey, see Roosevelt 2007, Roosevelt and Luke 2008, Luke and Roosevelt 2009, and Roosevelt and Luke 2009. 35 Luke and Roosevelt 2009. 36 A. Ramage 1994, 164. 37 A. Ramage 1987 and 1994, 163–4.

best-preserved relief at Karabel. The inscription, poorly preserved and of at least three lines, names Tarkasnawa as a “Great King” and refers to his settlement of a “dispute/litigation/ revolt.” When considered in relation to the contemporary “Great Kings” at Carchemish and Tarhuntassa, the mention of the “dispute” and the “Great King” Tarkasnawa help put in perspective the growing fragmentation of the Hittite world and its (previously?) vassal states toward the late thirteenth century. For this infor˘ mation, I heartily thank Prof. Recai Tekoglu, who will be publishing the new find. Hawkins 1998. For a minority view and arguments against Hawkins’ reconstruction of historical geography, see Steiner 2007. Bryce 1998; Hawkins 1998; Stark 2007. Support for the inclusion of the Seha River Land in Assuwa may be sought in traditions associating early Lydians with “Asia,” a geographical term derived from Assuwa. For such traditions, see Pedley 1972, 8, no. 11, and notes. Hawkins 1998, 1–31; Mountjoy 1998, 33–67. For problems, see Steiner 2007, 590–611. Hawkins 1998, 17–18, 20; Stark 2007. Manapatarhunda was a contemporary of Mursili II (ca. 1321–1295), and the last descendant of Muwawalwi was a contemporary of Tudhaliya IV (ca. 1237–1209). For Mira and the Seha River Land in general, see Stark 2007. Melchert 2003a, 11, 176; Bryce 2003, 32. For example, see Melchert 2003a, 12–3, 176, and 2005, 257–8, van den Hout 2006, 222–6, and Bryce 2005, 117–22. Stefanini 2002, 798. Melchert 2003a, 11; Bryce 2003, 28–35; van den Hout 2006, 222. Beekes 2003; Widmer 2004. van den Hout 2006, 218. See, for example, Starke 1997, 457, Neumann ¨ 2001, 46, Hogemann 2001, 59–60, Beekes 2002, 206–17, Oettinger 2002, 52, and Melchert 2003a, 22. For a counterargument, see Stefanini 2002, 798. Beekes (2002) offers the fullest arguments for this view, proposing that these Lydian speakers may have been pushed out of northwestern Anatolia by the incursion of the Phrygians who arrived on the Anatolian stage around this time. He argues, as well, that Lydian would have been the language of Bronze Age Troy, and that the Etruscans migrated from here to later Etruria for similar reasons, creatively reconciling the ancient claim of Herodotus (1.94) and others regarding the Lydian origins of the Etruscans. For the upheavals of the Late Bronze Age, see Ward and Joukowsky 1992.

260

Notes to Pages 22–29 38 Herodotus 1.7. For a full selection of the Greek testimonia on these kings, see Pedley 1972, 19– 42. For the dates of the Mermnad kings, see Kaletsch 1958, Cogan and Tadmor 1977, and Spalinger 1978. 39 Herodotus 1.8–12; Plato, Republic 2.359d; Nicholas of Damascus ( Jacoby 1923: 90 F 47); Plutarch, Moralia, Greek Questions no. 45. 40 For Ionian Greek and Phrygian impingement on Lydian agricultural territory as the impetus for revolt, see Balcer 1984, 33–41. For feudal war between Dascylids and Heraclids/ Tylonids, see Ramage 1987. 41 Plutarch (Moralia, Greek Questions no. 45); Herodotus (1.13–14). 42 Herodotus 1.14. For good discussion of the texts, see Cogan and Tadmor 1977, Spalinger 1978, and Aro 1999. For the Assyrian texts themselves and a translation, see Borger 1996, 217– 19. For related Near Eastern mentions of Lydia, see Franklin 2008. 43 For the evidence from Prism E (ca. 664) and the Harran (or “Large Egyptian”) Tablets (ca. 664– 663; referred to as the second recension of Prism E in Cogan and Tadmor 1977) relating to Gyges’ envoys and the beginning of Cimmerian raids, see Cogan and Tadmor 1977, 68–74, and 81–4, Spalinger 1978, 401–2. For the texts themselves, see Borger 1996, 173–88, and 204. 44 Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis (3) 251–8; Strabo 1.3.21. For Assyrian and Neo-Hittite evidence for Tugdammi, see Ivanchik 1993 and Hawkins 2000, 428, respectively. 45 Cogan and Tadmor 1977, 79–80. 46 Herodotus 1.15; Strabo 13.4.8. For the date, see Spalinger 1978, 408. 47 Herodotus 1.16; Nicholas of Damascus ( Jacoby 1923, 90 F 65); Polyaenus 7.2.1; Stephanus of Byzantium, s.v. Antandros. See also Pedley 1972, 23, no. 59, and note. 48 Herodotus 2.152. For mention of Gyges’ assistance in Assyrian Prism A (and the Rassam Cylinder), see Spalinger 1976, 134–7, and 1978, 402– 3, and Borger 1996, 14–92, and 208–9. 49 Balcer 1984, 33. 50 DeVries 2007. For differing views on this new chronology, see Muscarella 2008. 51 Herodotus 1.16–18; Nicholas of Damascus ( Jacoby 1923, 90 F 65). 52 Herodotus 1.26–28; Strabo 13.1.42. 53 Herodotus 1.6, 28, 72, 103, 130. For discussion of the location, testimony, and chronological problems with the date, see Summers 1999 (with bibliography). 54 Huxley (1997/1998, 11) notes also that the Lydians had claim to this area because Gyges mother was a Phrygian, or actually “a woman of the Syroi

55 56 57

58

59 60

61

62 63 64 65 66

67 68 69

70 71 72 73 74

261

of Cappadocia” (Nicholas of Damascus, Jacoby 1923, 90 F 44–7). Herodotus 1.74. See also the Scholia for Plato, Republic 566c in Pedley 1972, 35, no. 102. Herodotus 1.46–53. Herodotus 1.77. For a possible reference to the fall of Sardis in the Nabonidus Chronicle, now rejected by most scholars, see Pedley 1972, 83, no. 296, and Cargill 1977. For discussion of the Chronicle and other evidence for the date of the sack of Sardis, see Cahill and Kroll 2005, 597–609, especially 605–8, and Stronach 2008, 149–73, and 2007, 163–73. For inscriptions of Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes II at places including Bisitun, Hamadan, Naqsh-i Rustam, Persepolis, and Susa, see Lecoq 1997, 188 (DB 6), 218–19 (DH 2), 219–20 (DNa 3), 225–6 (DNe 22), 228 (DPe 2), 230 (DPh 5), 232–4 (DSe 3), 239 (DSm 2), 256–8 (XPh 3), and 271–2 (A2Pa 22). See also Dusinberre 2003, 32–3. Hallock 1969 and 1978; Lecoq 1997. Hallock 1969, 374 (PFT 1321), 396 (PFT 1404), and 1978, Q 901, Q 1809; Dusinberre 2003, 32–3, 38. Lecoq 1997, 234–7 (DSf 10, 12, 13), 243–5 (DSz 9, 11, 12), 245–6 (DSaa 4); Dusinberre 2003, 32–3, 38. Hallock 1969, 252 (PFT 873), 397 (PFT 1409), 687 (for halapzi); Dusinberre 2003, 32–3, 38. For a recent and useful collection of relevant sources, see Kuhrt 2007, especially vol. 1. Briant 2002, 36–8 and 79–80. Herodotus 1.153–6. Herodotus 3.122. Note, however, that the later satraps Cyrus the Younger and Tissaphernes had multiple residences also, at Sardis and at Tralles (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.4.8, Hellenica 3.2.19; Diodorus Siculus 19.75.5; Strabo 14.1.42; Anderson 1974, 37–8), and Magnesia was apparently a base for Tissaphernes, as well (Thucydides 8.50.3). Herodotus 3.120–7. Herodotus 5.25; Briant 2002, 146; Dusinberre 2003, 37. See books five and six of Herodotus for this and the ensuing Ionian Revolt. For discussion and analysis, see Briant 2002, 146–56. Herodotus 6.42. See books eight and nine of Herodotus, and Briant 2002, 528–35. Diodorus Siculus 11.36; Briant 2002, 535–6. Thucydides 1.115; 3.34. Ctesias, FrGrH 688 F15 52. For the date of Pissouthnes’ revolt and its probable continuation by his son Amorges, see Lewis 1977, 80–1, and Westlake 1977, 321–2.

Notes to Pages 29–42 75 For Tissaphernes and Cyrus the Younger, in general, see Xenophon, Anabasis, Hellenica (especially book three); Diodorus Siculus (especially book fourteen); and the excellent syntheses in Briant 2002, 592–600, 615–30, and 634–8. 76 Xenophon, Hellenica 3. 4.25; Diodorus Siculus 14.80. 77 Xenophon, Hellenica 4.8.17; Tod 1948: no. 113. For problems in identifying satraps and lesser officials in this period, see Weiskopf 1982, 88– 93, 133–4, and 476–7, and 1989, 29, and Briant 2002, 321, 991, and 1011. 78 Diodoros Siculus 15.90 (for Autophradates) and 16.47 (for Rhosakes); Plutarch, Cimon 19.8 (for the revolt, in general). For the “Great Satrap’s Revolt,” see Briant 2002, 656–75 and 993–8, and, more fully, Weiskopf 1982 and 1989. 79 Gusmani and Akkan 2004. 80 Arrian 1.12–16; Diodorus Siculus (17.19–21; referring to Spithridates as Spithrobates); Plutarch, Alexander 16.4–5. 81 Arrian (1.17) calls Mithrenes a phrourarch and Spithridates, son of Rhosakes I, the satrap, while Diodorus Siculus (17.21) refers to Mithrenes as satrap. Arrian appears to be more accurate here given the recent epigraphic confirmation of the satrapal line of Rhosakes (see n. 79, this chapter), which Diodorus Siculus attests earlier (16.47). See also Briant 2002, 700–1. 82 Briant 2002, 36–8 and 79–80. 83 Herodotus 3.120 and 5.121; see Diodorus Siculus 10.16.4 for Polycrates’ attempts to win over high-status Lydians to his side. 84 Herodotus 7.74; Xenophon, Anabasis 1.5.6. 85 Arrian 1.17. See also Briant 2002, 702, for the suggestion that “Sardis under Achaemenid dominion enjoyed some degree of autonomy.” 86 For ceramic continuity, see Rotroff and Oliver 2003, 1, 60, and passim.

8 Mellaart 1954, 192, map 3; Mellaart 1955, 133, map, no. 77; Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 197 and map 6, no. 30; French 1998, 23, n. 12; Kaletch 2008. 9 Callimachus, Hymns 3.245; Pedley 1972, 57, no. 188. 10 Robert 1962, 311. 11 Magie 1950, 782 n. 3; Borsay 1965, 11; Debord 1985, 350. 12 Herodotus 7.42; Strabo 12.8.12. 13 Strabo 14.1.38; Xenophon, Cyropaedeia 6.2.22. For Prism B of Assurbanipal, see Pedley 1972, 83, no. 293. ˘ and Gezgin 1998; Gezgin 2001. 14 Doger 15 Herodotus 1.27. 16 Gordon 2007. For further comparative purposes, see the same source for the areas of the Roman Empire (ca. 5,698,000 sq km or 2,200,000 sq mi), the Ottoman Empire (ca. 5,594,400 sq km or 2,160,000 sq mi), Alexander the Great’s Empire (ca. 5,439,000 sq km or 2,100,000 sq mi), and the Seleucid Empire (ca. 3,431,750 sq km or 1,325,000 sq mi). 17 For Lydian interests and activities in areas outside Lydia proper, see Strabo 14.5.28, and Nicholas of Damascus ( Jacoby 1923, 90 F 44, F 46, F 47, F 63, F 65). For the distribution of Lydian pottery, see Mellaart 1955, 121 and map, ¨ and Gurtekin-Demir 2002. 18 Iliad 2.373, 2.866; Herodotus 1.193; Strabo 13.4.5; Pliny, Natural History 5.110; Ovid, Metamorphoses 11.156. 19 For the definition of the Tmolus Range, see Bengisu 1996. 20 Xenophon, Anabasis 1.1.2 and 1.9.7, Hellenica 1.4.3. 21 Strabo 13.4.11/628; 12/578. 22 Iliad 20.392. 23 Herodotus 1.80. Coins found at Saittai (Sidas Kale) showing river gods with the legend “Hyllus” (Ramsay 1890, 122), Homer’s association of the Hyllus with the Maeonians, and the close proximity of Maeonia (Menye¨ ¸ eoren) ¨ Gokc strengthen the identification of the ¨ Demirci-Dumrek with the Hyllus, at least in Lydian and Late Lydian times. Herodotus’ statement that the Hyllus “flowed across the plain in front of Sardis and joined the Hermus” (1.80) is problematic, but his use of the river as a marker for the conjunction of Persian and Lydian forces argues for this identification over that suggested by Strabo (13.4.5/626), who places it west-northwest of Sardis between Thyateira (Akhisar) and Magnesia ad Sipylum (Manisa). 24 Pliny, Natural History 5.3; Buresch 1898, 206, 211. For the alternative identification of the Alas¸ehir River as the ancient Phryx, see Pliny,

Chapter 3. Lydian Geography and Environment 1 Strabo 13.1.3. 2 Zvelebil 1986; Zvelebil and Lillie 2000; Thomas 1991; Dietler 1997 and 1998. 3 Strabo 13.4.12 and 13.4.17. 4 For example, see Herrmann and Keil 1981 and 1989, Sekunda 1985, 30, Greenewalt 1992, 247– 9, and 1995b, 1174–5, and Malay 1994 and 1999. 5 Herodotus 7.30–1; Xenophon, Hellenica 3.2.12– 14; Diodorus Siculus 14.36.3; Strabo 12.8.15/ 577, 14/663. 6 Ptolemy 5.2.15. 7 Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 12 [7].4.

262

Notes to Pages 42–47

25

26

27

28

29 30

31

Natural History 5.119, followed by Kiepert and Kiepert 1894–1914, vol. 8, 5b, and contra Hamilton 1842.2, 373. Pausanias 7.27.5; Radet 1893, 12; Greenewalt 1995b, 126. Some have identified this river as Homer’s Acheloos, along which the nymphs who dwelt near Niobe danced (Iliad 24.603–17; Pausanias 8.38.10). If the famous Niobe is correctly identified with the natural stone monument in Manisa, then the Acheloos should be identified with the small Mutlu Dere located there. For the Phrygius River and its junction with the Hermus near the site of the battle of Koroupedeion in 281 (K»rou Pede±on), see Appian, Syrians 11.30, Livy 37.9 ff., Eusebius 1.234; Jacoby 1923.2, 1205, and, for an inscribed grave stele relating to the same, Keil 1902, 257–62, and Magie 1950, 4, 727 n. 5, 36, 783 n. 8. Strabo (13.4.5/626) reports that the Hyllus was in his day called the Phrygius, but he may have conflated the two rivers. More confusion arises out of the similarities between the plain of Cyrus (KÅrou Pede±on), twice attested in Strabo (13.4.5/626 and 13.4.13/629) and the site of the battle of Koroupedeion (K»rou Pede±on), which evidently took place at the junction of the Phrygius and the Hermus. As Strabo may have conflated the two rivers, so modern scholars equate the plain of K»rou with that of KÅrou, because the second of Strabo’s testimonies can be interpreted (loosely) to suggest the identification of the Persian-named plain of Cyrus with the Persian-named Hyrcanian plain (e.g., Jones 1971, 384). An equally uncomfortable alternative denies the identification of the plain of K»rou with that of KÅrou, and locates the latter in a place more fitting to the activities of Cyrus the Great east of Sardis (e.g. Olmstead 1959, 40, and Sekunda 1985, 23). See also Leake 1824, 266–9, for more confusion about the Phrygius and Hyllus Rivers. For the Glaucus and Lycus, see Radet 1893, 12, and Hermann and Keil 1989, map. For the Pidasus, see Radet 1893, 12, Head 1901, xv and 65, Tischler 1977, 118–9, and Hermann and Keil 1989, map. Anacreon 159; Skylax, Periplus 98; and Strabo 13.4.13 and 14.1.45. Homer (Iliad 2.461) refers to the “Kaystrios.” Strabo 13.4.13; Pliny, Natural History 5.120. Herodotus 7.30–1; Xenophon, Hellenica 3.2.12– 14; Strabo 12.8.9, 14/663, and 15/577; Diodorus Siculus 14.36.3; Pausanias 7.2.11, 7.41.3; and Pliny, Natural History 5.31. ¨ is A possible fifth natural lake called Erigol ¨ (or Kara) Dagı, ˘ on located just north of Gur

32 33 34

35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42

43

44 45

46 47

48

263

the southern edge of the middle Phrygius River valley. Its earliest record is in graphical form on the map of Philippson 1913. Iliad 2.865, 20.391; Herodotus 1.93. Strabo 13.4.5–7/626–7. Nicholas of Damascus ( Jacoby 1926, 11A 90.15) quoted by Stephanus; Robert 1962, 314–15; Robert 1982, 308–10; Bengisu 1994. Sayce 1880, 89; Perrot and Chipiez 1892, 57 fig. 28, 62–3. Pausanias 5.13.7, 7.24.7; Pliny, Natural History 2.93, 5.117. For the Maeander River valley, see Sekunda 1991, 91. ¨ Schuiling 1962; Brinkmann 1971, 172–3; Akkok 1983; Dora et al. 1990. ˙ 1998, 65, map. Inci Brinkmann 1971, 171–90; Sullivan 1989, 28– ˘ 1996, 12–13; Koc¸yigit, ˘ Yusufoglu, ˘ 41; Yusufoglu and Bozkurt 1999; Yılmaz et al. 2000; Purvis and Robertson 2004 and 2005. ˘ 1996, 14–19; Purvis and Robertson Yusufoglu 2005. ˘ Ercan 1993; Yusufoglu 1996, 18–19. This volcanism began around 25,000 ± 6,000 or 30,000 ± 5,000 years ago, and appears to have ended some time before 10,000 years ago in the late Pleistocene or Holocene epoch. For human (and dog?) footprints in mud preserved under lava during one of the Kula volcanic events, see Tekkaya 1976, 8–10. ¨ oz, ¨ and Ten Dam and Krebtov 1970; Filiz, Gokg Tarcan 1992; Tarcan and Filiz 1997; Vengosh, ¨ urlan ¨ Helvacı, and Karamanderesi 2002; Oz and S¸ahin 2006. ˙ Ilhan 1971; Paton 1992. Semple 1931, 346 n. 50, 70; Borsay 1965, 23, 26. See also Hanfmann and Foss 1983, 4, 219 n. 2, where a study of “The Soils of the Gediz Plain” between Alas¸ehir and Muradiye con¨ ducted by the Ministry of Rural Affairs (Koy ˙ ¸ leri Bakanlıgı) ˘ is cited for the general fertility of Is the middle Hermus River valley. See Bakac¸ and Kumru 2000, which confirms that the radioactivity of the river deriving from uranium deposits ¨ ubas ¨ ¸ ı has not reached deleterious near Kopr levels (!). Wigley and Farmer 1982, 37 ff.; Sullivan 1989, 42. See Sullivan 1989, 21 and 91–112, and also Yakar 2000, 17, van Zeist, Woldring, and Stapert 1975, and Bottema and Woldring 1984. These data were compiled by Turkey’s State ˙ ¸ leri Meteorology Works (Devlet Meteoroloji Is ˙ My thanks go to Profs. Ecmel Erlat (DMI)). ˙ Kayan of the Department of Geograand Ilhan phy at Ege University for their kind and patient

Notes to Pages 47–50

49

50

51

52 53 54 55 56

help with these data. Areas south of the Mesogis range in the modern province of Aydın are generally omitted in the following discussion because of limitations in the acquisition of modern comparative data. With regard to climatic continuity, it should be noted that since around 1970 the Aegean region, the sea of Marmara, the Black Sea, Central Anatolia, and the Mediterranean coast have all shown a slight cooling trend in annual mean air temperature when com¨ ¸ , Sumer, ¨ pared to the 1930–1994 average (Turkes and Kılıc¸ 1995, 557, 565, and 568). See also Sullivan 1989, 42. Averaged provin˙ 6.9 in cial temperatures (◦ C.) are 8.6 in Izmir, Manisa, and 3.4 in Us¸ak in winter (December– ˙ February); 15.0 in Izmir, 14.5 in Manisa, and 11.4 in Us¸ak in spring (March–May); 25.7 in ˙ Izmir, 25.4 in Manisa, and 21.9 in Us¸ak in sum˙ mer ( June–August); and 17.9 in Izmir, 16.8 in Manisa, and 13.8 in Us¸ak in fall (September– November). The elevation distribution of the recording stations, especially, leaves much to be desired, with no recording stations located in any of the mountain ranges, thus obscuring potential regional and topographical anomalies. Such anomalies are attested, for example, in Pausanias 1.24.8, where three events in which locusts were wiped out because of environmental factors are given: first, by wind; later, by strong heat after a rain; and last, in a snap frost. See footnote 57, this chapter, for mention of droughts. Local maxima in annual precipitation amounts are noted at Simav (812 millimeters), Gediz (576 millimeters) and Us¸ak (533 millimeters), but these relatively high values probably result from local orogenic patterns and thus may not be regionally representative. Sullivan 1989, 52–3. Zohary 1973; Greenhalgh 1984, 5 fig. 1; Sullivan 1989, 47–53. Sullivan 1989, 52. Sullivan 1989, 49–50. See Thirgood 1981, 2, Greenhalgh 1984, 5– 6, and Sullivan 1989, 12. Timber and forests appear to have been in no small supply during the Lydian and Achaemenid periods. A ready supply of wood has been interpreted from the fact that the Lydian army had no interest in stripping wood from the houses of Miletus, a surprising circumstance in Herodotus 1.17.2. That forests were administered as real commodities in Classical Greece is suggested by Aristotle’s mention of woodland or forest commissioners or administrators (Politics 4.5.4, 7.11.4). The leasing of forest timbering rights around Sardis was the prerogative of the Seleucid king in Hellenistic times

57

58 59 60

61 62 63 64 65 66

264

(Hanfmann and Foss 1983, 7), a situation similar to forests belonging to the municipality of Trebenna in Lycia (Niemann and Petersen 1892, 224 no. 184). Strabo (12.8.19) suggests this volatility with his statement that “changes . . . overtook the land frequently.” Mentions of drought and famine include the following: 1) a drought and famine that led to the Tyrrhenian migration in early Lydian times (Herodotus 1.94); 2) a drought during the contest for the throne involving Cadys, Ardys, Damonno, and Spermes (Nicholas of Damascus, Jacoby 1923, 90 F 49); 3) a drought and famine during the reign of the usurper Meles (Nicholas of Damascus, Jacoby 1923 F F49); 4) another drought just after Meles was deposed by Moxos (Nicholas of Damascus, Jacoby 1923, 90 F 16); and 5) a drought in Lydia during the reign of Artaxerxes (in the mid-fifth century) that left dry “the rivers, lakes, and wells” (Strabo 1.3.4, quoting Eratosthenes, quoting Xanthus of Lydia). Herodotus 5.49; Strabo 13.4.2, 5, 13, 15; Cicero, pro Flacco 71; Xenophon, Cyropaedeia 6.2.22. Xenophon, Hellenica 1.2.4; Diodorus Siculus 14.80.1. Well before dams were built on the Hermus ¨ u, ¨ in 1960, above Satala, near modern Demirkopr and on tributaries of the Cogamus near Avs¸ar, in 1967 and 1977, Fellows (1839) noted that the south side of the middle Hermus River valley had become a swamp with only minimal cereal cultivation and “little rivers of clear water, [that,] after turning a mill or two, serve only to flood. . . .” The marshiness of the plain in front of Sardis was noted also in the diaries of the Wood expedition almost a century earlier, on June 2, 1750. My thanks to Crawford H. Greenewalt, jr., for making available to me his transcriptions of notebooks from Wood’s expedition now kept in the Institute of Classical Studies’ Joint Library of the Hellenic and Roman Societies, London. Theophrastus, On Plants 4.5.4–5. See also Sullivan 1989, 51–2. Strabo 12.6.1, 12.8.16; Archilochus of Paros Fr. 227. Athenaeus 9.388b. ¨ uk ¨ pollen For all data derived from the Golc record, see Sullivan 1989. For ethnographic evidence of continuity in rural subsistence patterns, see Yakar 2000. Agricultural data cited here are published in the 1979 through 1984 bilingual volumes of Tarımsal ¨ Yapı ve Uretim – Agricultural Structure and Production, ˙ ¨ u, ¨ a publication of the Devlet Istatistik Enstitus or State Institute of Statistics of the Republic of Turkey. These volumes cover the only years

Notes to Pages 50–54

67

68 69 70

71 72 73

74 75 76

77

78 79 80

for which data was tabulated and published on a district-by-district level in addition to the rather less useful provincial data still published annually. Discussion is limited to data for the modern ˙ provinces of Izmir, Manisa, and Us¸ak alone as these formed the core of ancient Lydia. Various berries, leaves, and nuts supplemented Lydian agricultural staples, and the terebinth plant, for example, had medicinal uses. Theophrastus, On Plants 3.15.4; Pliny, Natural History 13.54, 24.34. See also Greenewalt 1976 and Gallant 1991, 115–19. Athenaeus 2.59a; Pliny, Natural History 19.32, perhaps referring to Allium cepa. Nonnos, Dionysiaka 13.466–73; Macedonius Consul, Anthologia Graeca 9.645; Foss 1976, 110. Strabo 14.1.15, 12.8.17; Varro, De Re Rustica 1.7.6; Athenaeus 1.57 ff.; Pliny, Natural History 14.54, 73 ff.; 16.115; Magie 1950, 46, 809 n. 58. Pliny, Natural History 14.74; Vitruvius 8.3.12; Theophrastus, On Plants 4.5.4–5. Sullivan 1989. Pliny Natural History 15.92–3 and Diphilos, quoted by Athenaeus 2.54c. Athenaeus (2.53) also quotes Philotimos who called chestnuts, more simply, Sardis nuts. For more on these products of the mountain orchards of Lydia, see Sullivan 1989, 164–5. Xenophon, Cyropaedeia 6.2.22; Theophrastus, On Plants 4.5.4–5. Athenaeus 3.76b; Varro, De Re Rustica 1.41.6. See, for example, the tale of the demise of Atys, the son of Croesus, at the hands of Adrastus, during a wild boar hunt in Herodotus (1.36–43). For hunting as a minimal contributor to overall diet in antiquity, see Gallant 1991, 119–20. For hunting in antiquity as a sport of the elite, see Xenophon On Hunting, Anderson 1975, 30–56, and Hull 1964. For meager evidence of hunting and the small amounts of wild animal bones in the archaeological record at Sardis, see Hanfmann and Foss 1983, 6, 220 n. 26. For fish said to respond obediently to the call of pipes see Varro De Re Rustica, 3.17.4, Strabo 14.1.26, and Borsay 1965, 53. For the Hyllus, see the Iliad 20.239; for catfish in the Hermus, Pausanias 4.34.2. Archilochus, Fr. 227; Strabo 12.6.1, 12.8.16; Bryce 1998, 79. Greenewalt et al. 1990, 154. Sullivan 1989, 53 n. 21. The mountains of Persia were said to be grazed by cattle (Herodotus 1.110) and mountain pastures in Armenia too were grazed by cattle and goats as well (Xenophon, Anabasis 4.6.17). Sheep were apparently pastured in mountain valleys where fruits,

81

82 83 84

85

86

87 88

89

90 91

265

apples, and nuts grew as well (Plato, Republic 2.359C–E). Bacchylides Fr. 31(3).23–4; Mimnermus Fr. 14; Herodotus 1.27, 78–80; Pindar, quoted by Plutarch, Nicias 1; Nicholas of Damascus, Jacoby 1923, 90 F 49; Eustathius, Commentary 839. For Lydian horsemanship in general, see Hanfmann 1945. Pausanias 9.22.4. Greenewalt and Majewski 1980, 135. For Tmolus, see Hanfmann and Foss 1983, 7. For Mt. Olympus, see Theophrastus On Plants, 4.5.4–5. For Sardis, see Butler 1922, 19, 176, Asgari 1976, pl. 249, 1995 Unpublished Report of M. H. Ramage in the archives of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Cambridge, MA, Greenewalt and Rautman 1998, 503–4, and Tykot and Ramage 2002. For two marble quarries located west and northwest of the Gygaean Lake discovered in recent survey work, see Roosevelt and Luke 2008. For other quarries, see Keil and Premerstein 1908, 61–4, Philippson 1910–14.2, 10, Robert 1982, Asgari 1976, pl. 249, Greenewalt and Rautman 1998, 503–4, and Tykot and Ramage 2002. ˘ see Dinc¸ For the area around Harmandalı Dag, 1997, 265. For the area south of Harmandalı, see ˘ 2005. For a quarry near Rahmiye, at the Takaoglu ˘ see Roosevelt southern base of Karayunt Dag, 2003. Greenewalt and Rautman 1998, 503. Ancient marble quarries have been noted just ¨ north of Golde (Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 101), just northwest of Us¸ak in the Kırtas¸ neighbor˘ and just east of the border of hood of Selvioglu, ˘ near Sivaslı Lydia observed here, on Burgaz Dag, (Asgari 1976, pl. 249, and 1989, 37–47). Near Belevi and in the Urfalı Mountains; between Kurs¸ak and Yenioba; north of Hasanc¸avus¸lar (Kızılin) (Atalay 1976, 13 ff., pl. 249; Meric¸ 1983c, 11, 40; Waelkens 1992; ˙ MTA Izmir). Other marble sources in this area of possible but not proven ancient use include ˙ ¨ uce, ¨ those at Ayaklıkırı, Goll Tulum, and Intepe ˙ (MTA Izmir). Greenewalt and Rautman 1998, 503. These other Lydian marbles include white vari¨ eties in the Tmolus near the village of Karakoy, ¨ us ¨ ¸ , west of Thyon Mt. Sipylus, and near Bukn ateira (Greenewalt and Rautman 1998, 503); a brown-red marble with calcite veins north of ¨ us ¨ ¸ recently quarried by Ege Kahve Mermer Bukn (MTA Manisa); and yellowish light-green and dark brown varieties near Saraycık in northeastern Lydia quarried by Demirci Oniks Mermer (MTA Manisa).

Notes to Pages 54–57 92 Unpublished report of a “Lydian Promenade” in 1973 in the archives of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Cambridge, MA; Greenewalt and Rautman 1998, 502–4. 93 C¸olak and Lazzarini 2002, 35–9; Roosevelt 2008a, 285–97. 94 These include whitish limestone deposits in Mt. Sipylus and the Cayster Valley, near Tire (MTA ˙ Izmir), as well as a red limestone found near ¨ us ¨ ¸ , west of Thyateira (Greenewalt and RautBukn ¨ us ¨ ¸, man 1998, 503). Travertine is found at Bukn too, and also at Saraycık, in northeastern Lydia (C¸olak and Lazzarini 2002, 39). 95 The location of chalcedony deposits was indicated to the Sardis Expedition by Dr. Yılmaz Savas¸c¸ın of the Department of Geology at ˙ ¨ University in Izmir Dokuz Eylul (Greenewalt, Rautman, and Cahill 1987, 80, n. 37). 96 Pliny, Natural History 37.105; contra Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 171 n. 21. 97 For serpentine, see Campbell 1971, 506, map, Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 13 n. 2, 155 no. 229, and Asgari 1976, pl. 249. For emery (made up primarily of the mineral corundum), see MTA Manisa and MTA Us¸ak. 98 Theophrastus, On Stones 47; Hesychius, s.v. Basanos; Bacchylides Fr. 25; Theocritus, Idylls 12.36; Pliny, Natural History 33.43, 126; Greenewalt, Ratt´e, and Rautman 1995, 18; Cahill 2002, 178. See also Ramage and Craddock 2000, 247–9. 99 For additional references, see, for example, Strabo 13.1.23 and 13.4.5, and Ramage and Craddock 2000. ¨ 100 Birgi 1944; Saydamer 1963; Pamir and Erentoz 1973. 101 For gold at Sardis and in the northern foothills of Tmolus, see Birgi 1944, Saydamer 1963, Pamir¨ 1973, Alpan et al. 1980, C¸agatay ˘ Erentoz and Arda 1980, and Topkaya 1984. A possible gold mine and workings at a vein of quartz with a nearby water conduit was reported by Cata˙ lanos and Axiotakis, two engineers from Izmir in the early twentieth century (Collignon 1903, 73–4; Waldbaum 1983, 4), and other workings were noted in Dominian 1911, 584. For the 1967 (re-?)discovery of mine workings by Clarence Wendel, Science and Minerals Attach´e of the US Embassy in Ankara, see his letter to G. M. A. Hanfmann with reference to a goldbearing quartz-arsenopyrite vein found and photographed by S. Birgi, quoted in Ramage and Craddock 2000, 26, n. 20. The former workings were equated by Foss (1979a, 37–9) with the site of Metallon mentioned in Nonnos’ Dionysiaka, 13.472. Two modern concessions are recognized at Sardis: the Sart concession (grade:

102

103

104 105

106 107 108 109 110

111

112 113 114

115

266

53–150 mg/m3 ; reserve: 61,000,000 m3 ) and the Kaletepe concession (grade: 96 mg/m3 ; reserve: 20,000,000 m3 ) (MTA Manisa). Very regrettably, recent work by the Pomza Export mining company has begun to turn the Necropolis hill west of the Pactolus into an open-pit mine. Ryan 1960, 7, 66; MTA 1963, 14, 88; Pamir and ¨ 1973, 101; Foss and Hanfmann 1975, Erentoz 21; Waldbaum 1983, 5 n. 37; Ramage and Crad˙ dock 2000; MTA Izmir. Strabo 14.5.28; cf. Aristotle, On Marvelous Things Heard 52; Dominian 1911, 584; Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 21. ˘ For galleries in Karakuyu (modern Eminoglu) and Mıdıklı, see Gr´egoire 1922, 340. The source for the existence of gold deposits in Mt. Olympus or near Nymphaeum is a letter from the Kadı (civil judge) of Manisa to Sultan Murat III published in Refik 1931, 44, and cited in Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 21. ˙ MTA Izmir. Ryan 1960, 30; Pliny, Natural History 33.156, 34.85; Magie 1950, 49, 815 n. 94. Philippson 1910–1914.2, 68; Ravendal 1926, 141; Ryan 1960, 30. ˙ MTA Us¸ak; MTA Izmir. Pliny, Natural History 36.128; Theophrastus, On Stones 41; Eichholz 1962, 103 n. d, who cites recent observations; Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 21. Lucian (Charon 11–12) makes Croesus admit to a dearth of iron in Lydia in his fanciful dialogue between that king and Solon (Waldbaum 1983, 24 no. 58). Philippson 1910–1914.2, 72; Butler 1922, 20 ff.; Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 21, 171 n. 20; MTA Manisa; MTA Us¸ak. Davis 1965, 301–2; Greenewalt and Majewski 1980, 137 n. 28. Pliny, Natural History 33.160; Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 21, 171 n. 20. Ryan 1960, 66; MTA 1963, 14, 88; Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 21. For other deposits in the Tmolus, see Philippson 1910–1914.2, 68, Ravendal 1926, 155, and Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 21, 171 n. 19. Pliny, Natural History 33.160. In Lydian masonry, red ochre appears to have been used in the same way as minium or miltos, more commonly known from Sinope and Spain and associated primarily with lead oxide, or “red lead” (Theophrastus, On Stones 58; Vitruvius 7.8.1; Meric¸ 1983c, 11). For the ancient mines of cinnabar, see Pliny, Natural History 33.114, and Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 21, 171 n. 20. For modern cinnabar mines southeast of Sardis, see Philippson 1910–1914.2, 71, MTA 1963, 113, 139, and Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 171 n. 20. Deposits of mercury have been

Notes to Pages 57–69

116 117

118

119 120 121

found also in the Cogamus Valley near ancient Philadelphia, and in several place in the Cil˙ bian Plain (MTA Manisa; MTA Izmir; Philippson 1910–14.4, 42; Magie 1950, 45, 807 n. 48). MTA Manisa. Lead is found associated with other minerals such as silver, in Mt. Olympus (Gentner et al. 1978, 276); zinc, east of Sardis, in the Cogamus Valley, in the Tmolus, and in the Cilbian Plain ¨ 1973, (Ryan 1960, 6–8, 66; Pamir and Erentoz 101; Foss 1979a, 39); and copper, in northeastern Lydia (MTA Manisa). Sayce 1880, 84–5; Gaudin 1900, 144 ff.; Philippson 1910–1914.2 (1911), 66, and 1910–14.4, 43; Ravendal 1926, 154; Magie 1950, 45, 807 n. 47; Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 21; MTA Manisa. Note that Pliny suggests antimony had medicinal uses as well. Ramsay 1882, 37–8; Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 97. ¨ urlan ¨ Oz and S¸ahin 2006. Hydrothermal or geothermal springs are located in several other places in northeastern and eastern Lydia, as well as in the middle Hermus ¨ oz, ¨ and River valley (MTA Us¸ak; Filiz, Gokg Tarcan 1992; Tarcan and Filiz 1997, 43, 49, 59– 62).

10 Greenewalt 2007, 746, fig. 13. 11 Greenewalt 1979, 21–6; Greenewalt, Sterud, and Belknap 1982, 18–24; Greenewalt et al. 1983, 1–15; Greenewalt et al. 1985, 73–9; Greenewalt, Rautman, and Meric¸ 1986, 6–13; Greenewalt, Cahill, and Rautman 1987, 20–33; Greenewalt, Rautman, and Cahill 1987, 71–2, 80–4; Greenewalt et al. 1990, 141–3; Greenewalt 1990, 9–14; Greenewalt, Ratt´e, and Rautman 1993, 14–26, 1994, 13–22, and 1995, 11– 21; Greenewalt and Rautman 1998, 471–4, 487– 99, 2000, 672–3, and forthcoming; Greenewalt 2001, 416, 2002, 228, and 2006b, 361–3. 12 Greenewalt, Cahill, and Rautman 1987, 25–31; Greenewalt, Rautman, and Cahill 1987, 62–70; Greenewalt et al. 1990, 143–55; Greenewalt 1990, 14–16; Greenewalt, Ratt´e, and Rautman 1995, 13–19; Cahill 2002. 13 For the recent discovery of domestic remains of the Middle Lydian period in the area of the later theater of Sardis, see Greenewalt 2008, 375. 14 See Hanfmann 1975, 6. 15 For these population estimates, see Ratt´e 2008, 128, Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 23, Hanfmann 1983a, 14, and Pedley 1968, 122. 16 For a recent review of the evidence, see Cahill and Kroll 2005. 17 For the reconstruction of the fortification wall, the remains at AcS, and the following paragraph on remains from the Late Lydian period, see Greenewalt 1995a and Dusinberre 2003. 18 Cahill 2008, 119. This abandonment, or at least a structural change in the organization of Sardian settlement, may be suggested further by the sealing of a major gate in the fortification wall following Persian conquest. 19 Greenewalt 1979, 9–19. 20 For house construction and configuration at Sardis, see Ramage 1978 and Cahill 2002. 21 Herodotus 5.101; Ramage 1978. 22 Ramage 1978, 6–8. See also Pedley 1968, 121, and Cahill 2002. 23 Herodotus 5.101. 24 Hanfmann 1968, 13. 25 Greenewalt 1979, 19–21; Greenewalt, Ratt´e, and Rautman 1994, 24–7; Cahill 2002. 26 Ramage, Goldstein, and Mierse 1983, 31; Mierse 1983, 101. 27 Herodotus 5.101. 28 For Lydian household composition in general, see Cahill 2002, in which the seventh-century structures of HoB are identified as a series of single-cell dwellings arranged around a common courtyard. 29 Cahill 2002, 178–80; Nesbitt 2002, 9, 12. For excavated contexts at ByzFort and MMS, see Greenewalt, Rautman, and Cahill 1987, 64, 79,

Chapter 4. Settlement and Society at Sardis 1 Cahill 2008, 116. 2 Roosevelt 2007; Roosevelt and Luke 2008; Luke and Roosevelt 2009; Roosevelt and Luke 2009. 3 Pedley 1968; Balcer 1984; Ramage 1987. 4 For a possible early origin of Lydians in northwestern Anatolia based on linguistic and pseudohistorical evidence, see, for example, Starke ¨ 1997, 457, Hogemann 2001, 59–60, Neumann 2001, 46, Oettinger 2002, 52, Melchert 2003, 22, and, especially, Beekes 2002 and 2003. 5 For noncontextual Early Bronze Age and earlier finds at Sardis, see Greenewalt, Rautman, and Meric¸ 1986, 7 and 18–19, nn. 8 and 23. For the excavation of HoB, see Ramage, Goldstein, and Mierse 1983, 26–52. 6 Ramage, Goldstein, and Mierse 1983, 26–52; N. H. Ramage 1994, 173–83; Ramage and Craddock 2000. 7 Ramage, Goldstein, and Mierse 1983, 26–52. 8 Greenewalt et al. 1985, 64–7; Greenewalt, Rautman, and Meric¸ 1986, 13–17; Greenewalt, Cahill, and Rautman 1987, 34–6; Greenewalt, Rautman, and Cahill 1987, 72–80; Greenewalt et al. 1990, 155–61; Greenewalt 1990, 16–20; Greenewalt, Ratt´e, and Rautman 1993, 26–31; Greenewalt, Ratt´e, and Rautman 1994, 22–7. 9 Greenewalt et al. 1983, 20–2.

267

Notes to Pages 69–76

30

31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46 47

Greenewalt et al. 1990, 146–52, 172 n. 41, and Greenewalt et al. 1994, 19. Pliny, Natural History 18.14.72; Greenewalt et al. 1990, 151–2; Cahill 2002, 178; Nesbitt 2002, 13. Greenewalt, Rautman, and Cahill 1987, 79; Greenewalt et al. 1990, 149, 172 n. 41; Cahill 2002, 180; Nesbitt 2002, 9, 12. Cahill 2002, 180; Nesbitt 2002, 12; Sullivan 1989, 171–5; Greenewalt et al. 1990, 149. See Sullivan 1989 and Greenewalt et al. 1990, 149. Theophrastus, On Plants 4.5.4–5; Sullivan 1989, 163–5. See Chapter 3, n. 73. Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 20; Hanfmann and Foss 1983, 6. Greenewalt, Ratt´e, and Rautman 1995, 19. For Arachne, see Pedley 1972, no. 133, and Ovid, Metamorphoses 6.5–145. Greenewalt et al. 1990, 154; Greenewalt, Ratt´e, and Rautman 1994, 18; Cahill 2002, 179. See also Greenewalt 1978a, 43. Pliny, Natural History 7.57.1, 7.196; Athenaeus 5.26a, 6.67b, 12.514a; Sappho Frs. 39 and 98; Greenewalt and Majewski 1980, esp. 135–7. For Lydian leatherwork, see Iliad 7.221; Sappho Fr. 19. For guilds at later Sardis, Thyateira, and Philadelphia, see Keil and Premerstein 1911, nos. 118 and 217, Magie 1950, 48–9, 58, 812 nn. 78–80, 814–15 n. 92, and Greenewalt and Majewski 1980, 137, n. 34. Nesbitt 2002, 9. For later guilds of linen weavers at Thyateira and Tralles, and for linen nets from Sardis, see Pollux 5.26 and Magie 1950, 48–9, 813 nn. 85–7. For dyeing ivory purple for use in cheek pieces, see Iliad 4.141–5. For other ivories of probable Lydian manufacture, see Dusinberre 2002 and 2003, 151, fig. 57. For the glass workshop, see Greenewalt et al. 1990, 153–4, Brill and Cahill 1988, and Cahill 2002, 180. For rock-crystal and jewelry working, see Hanfmann 1965, 7 fig. 7, and 1968, 13 fig. 13, 25 fig. 15, Greenewalt 1978, 42, Hanfmann 1983b, 72, Greenewalt et al. 1994, 18, and Ramage and Craddock 2000, 88, 98 n. 39. For chalcedony wasters and a partly finished bowl or stand, see Greenewalt, Rautman, and Cahill 1987, 80, and Greenewalt et al. 1990, 160, 172 n. 37. For seals and gems, see Curtis 1925, Greenewalt 1978, 42, Boardman 2000, 152–74, and Dusinberre 1997, and 2003, 158–71. For elaboration of this argument, see Cahill 2002. Greenewalt 1997, 135; Ramage 1997, 66; Schaeffer 1997, 3–4.

48 Dusinberre 2003, 28–9, 175–6. 49 Mierse 1983, 102. Yet, see Greenewalt 1995a, 125, and Dusinberre 2003, 9, for appropriate cautions arising from the poor chronological control of some classes of this evidence. 50 Ramage 1997, 66–8. 51 Dusinberre 1999, 93–4. 52 Waldbaum 1983, 146–8, pls. 56–7, cat. nos. 964 and 974; Greenewalt 1995a, 134; Dusinberre 1999 and 2003. 53 Melikian-Chirvani 1993. 54 For the long-distance exchange of Lydian products in general, see Roebuck 1959, 54–8, Pedley 1968, 132–3, and Greenewalt 1972. 55 Burke 2005. 56 Xenophon, Anabasis 1.5.5; Herodotus 7.30. 57 According to inscriptional evidence (Lecoq 1997, 234–7 (DSf 9–13), 243–5 (DSz 8–12)), materials used at Susa included the following: cedar from Lebanon; gold from Lydia and Bactria; lapis-lazuli and cornelian from Sogdiana; turqoise from Chorasmia; silver and ebony from Egypt; ivory from Ethiopia, India, and Arachosia; and stone columns from Elam. 58 Strabo 13.1.22. Pedley 1972, 19. 59 Strabo 13.1.22; 14.5.28; Nicholas of Damascus, Jacoby 1923, 90F 65. 60 Herodotus 7.27–9; Plutarch, Moralia 262d; ¨ urk ¨ et al. 1996, 24. Ozt 61 See Dusinberre 2003, 154. 62 For a full description and discussion of the refinery and the refining processes, see Ramage and Craddock 2000. 63 Vickers 1985, 116, citing Xenophon, Cyropaideia 8.2.8; Melikian-Chirvani 1993. For the Achaemenid royal disbursements of metal plate, see also Kuhrt 2007, vol. 2, 641–3, for comments on Lysias, On the Property of Aristophanes 19.25, and an Elamite inscription (Cameron 1948, PTT 4). 64 Waldbaum 1983, 7–8. For bronze bridle attachments in the forms of an ibex and a boar probably made at Sardis, see Greenewalt 1978, 41, and Hansen 1962, 27–36. 65 Hanfmann 1983b, 78; Ratt´e 1989a, 104–5. For the process and control of the Assyrian royal building project at Khorsabad, see Parpola 1995, 49–77. 66 Herodotus 1.22. For Assessos, see von Graeve 2006, 253, citing Kalaitzoglu 2008. 67 For shared Lydian and Greek masonry traditions, see Ratt´e 1989a, 1993, and forthcoming. For Greek models of Lydian sculpture, see Hanfmann and Ramage 1978. For musical developments that may parallel these shared traditions in architecture and sculpture, see Franklin 2008.

268

Notes to Pages 76–88 68 For other Lydian dedications at Greek sanctuaries, see Herodotus 1.69–70, 3.48, and Pedley 1972, nos. 97–103. 69 Pliny, Natural History 35.172; Vitruvius 2.8.9–10; Hanfmann 1977. 70 Hanfmann 1977; Cahill 2008, 120–4; Ratt´e 2008, 131–2. 71 Greenewalt, Ratt´e, and Rautman 1993, 27, 31 fig. 25; Ratt´e forthcoming, catalogue of monuments. 72 Pedley 1968, 122. 73 Ratt´e 1994c, 385–9. 74 For a similar distribution of labor among many work crews in the construction of Khorsabad, and especially its city wall, see Parpola 1995, 52–7, 64–5. 75 For this and other passages relating to the construction and location of the fortification wall, see the sources above in n. 11, this chapter. 76 For dimensions and materials used in the construction of the fortification wall, see Cahill 2006. 77 Dusinberre 2003, 53. 78 Dusinberre 2003, 69–70. 79 Hanfmann 1983c, 219–31. 80 Greenewalt 2008, 372. 81 Hanfmann 1987. 82 Hanfmann 1983b, 94, and Popko 1995, 184. The two inscriptions naming Qldan´ ˜ s are Gusmani 1983, nos. 4b (a grave stele) and 23 (the Mitridastas dedication). 83 Heubeck 1959, 15–30. The iconographic evidence is a crescent-shaped outline above the Mitridastas inscription about dedications to Artemis and Qldan´ ˜ s (Butler 1922, 94, ill. 95). Early arguments against the moon-god identification were founded on the absence of early evidence for Mˆen in Lydia and the pairing of a moon-god with Artemis. Mˆen appears to be mentioned already in a mid-fourth century Aramaic inscription from Lydia (Lemaire 2002), however, and the pairing of the moon-god Mˆen (with various epithets) with Artemis and Artemis Anaitis is attested numerous times (Hoz 1999; ¨ Hubner 2003). 84 Hanfmann 1983b, 73, fig. 144; Gusmani 1964, no. 3. 85 Briant 1998; Hoz 1999, 48, 50. ˇ 86 For S´ anda´ see Popko 1995, ˜ s, as the Luwian Santa, 93, 184. Interestingly, the Marwainzi deities, or ˇ “Dark Ones,” appear with Santa in an Iron Age hieroglyphic Luwian inscription, perhaps providing for an identification of the otherwise mysterious Marivda (plural) who appear with S´ anda´ ˜ s in a Lydian inscription; see Gusmani 1964, 252, no. 4, Popko 1995, 93, and Melchert 2002, 243, and 2008, 154–7. For other deities, see Hanfmann 1983b and Briant 1998, in the latter of

87 88 89 90

91

92

93

94 95

96 97 98 99 100 101

102 103 104 105 106

107 108

109

269

which the worship of Agdistis, Ma, and Sabazius is dated to later times. Ramage and Craddock 2000; Dusinberre 2003. Herodotus 5.102. See Hanfmann and Ramage 1978 and Rein 1993. Hanfmann 1964, 34; Greenewalt 1990, 20–1; Gauthier 1989; Greenewalt, Ratt´e, and Rautman 1994, 22. For the Carian significance of these deposits, see Pedley 1974; for their possible dedication to Hermes the Dog Throttler, mentioned by Hipponax, see Greenewalt 1976, 4–9, 27–30, who argues for their date of 575–525 BCE. For Dark Age Anatolian organization, see DeVries 1980, 40–2, Hanfmann 1983b, 80, 84, and Balcer 1984, 36–8. The grouping into nine classes by Hanfmann 1983b, 84, overcomplicates an issue that is already substantially speculative. See also Balcer 1984, 222. The evidence for a serf class is limited to descriptions of Pythius’ miners (Herodotus 7.27–9; Plutarch, Moralia 262d), whom he compelled to work in his mines rather than in their fields. Serfdom is not the only means by which he could have compelled them to do so, however, and debt-bondage is an equally attractive possibility. In any case, the example dates to the Late Lydian period. Hanfmann 1983b, 84–5. Balcer 1984, 47–9, 222. For similar bonds in later European feudal systems, see Bloch 1961, 146– 89, 220–38, and, more generally, Wolf 1982. Hanfmann 1983b, 86. Herodotus 1.93–4; Munn 2006. For recent comparanda, see Crane 1988. Herodotus 1.93–4. Greenewalt 1978a, 44. For Greek graffiti of ca. 570–550 BCE, see Hanfmann 1964, 53, fig. 33. For Sappho, see Pedley 1972, 45, nos. 138–9. For Phrygian-Lydian connections, see Sams 1979 and Greenewalt, forthcoming. Birmingham 1961; Knudson 1964; Dinc¸ 1997. Greenewalt 1984/97, 208 n. 42. Herodotus 1.35. Croesus’ name in Lydian may even have meant something like “the noble Caros” (Kearns 1997; Carruba 2003, 155–6, n. 10). Gusmani 1975, 79–111, 107. For Carian mercenaries at Sardis, see Gusmani 1975, 106; for Carian merchants, see Hanfmann 1983b, 73. For Carian aspects of the ritual dinners, see Pedley 1974, contra Greenewalt 1976, 42–7, and Robertson 1982. Gusmani 1975.

Notes to Pages 88–114 110 Greenewalt 1990, 166–7; Greenewalt and Rautman 1998, 493–5; Ramage, Goldstein, and Mierse 1983, 33, 45; Waldbaum 1983. 111 Herodotus 1.73–4, 1.77; Huxley 1997/1998. 112 Weiskopf 1989, 15; Dusinberre 2003, 44–5. 15 16 17

Chapter 5. Settlement and Society in Central and Greater Lydia 1 Keil and Premerstein 1908, 1911, and 1914; Lloyd and Mellaart 1962; French 1969; Foss 1979a, 1979b, 1982, 1987, and 1993; Herrmann and Keil 1981 and 1989; Meric¸ 1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989; Dinc¸ 1991, 1996, and 1997; Malay 1994 and 1999. 2 Roosevelt 2007; Roosevelt and Luke 2008; Luke and Roosevelt 2009; Roosevelt and Luke 2009. 3 Roosevelt 2006b. 4 Hanfmann 1967; Ramage 1978. 5 See the catalogue for fuller information on these twenty sites in central Lydia. 6 For a full account of the Middle/Late Lydian period remains at Ahlatlı Tepecik, see Ramage, forthcoming. 7 For ceramics produced in Lydian styles outside ¨ of Sardis, see Gurtekin-Demir 2007, and forthcoming. The author, too, has noted Lydian-style ceramics in Us¸ak, for instance, made with nonSardian clays. 8 Wilkinson 1982, 1989, 1992, and 1994; Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988; Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994; Bintliff and Sbonias 2000. 9 For fish bones at Sardis, see Greenewalt et al. 1990, 149, 172 n. 41. 10 Note, especially, Herodotus’ tale of Croesus’ son Atys and Adrastus from Phrygia (1.34–45). ¨ 11 Ozgen et al. 1996, 28; Palavestra 1998, 63. For tumuli as potential territorial markers in Lydia and Herodotus’ use of ouroi for burial markers, see the interesting discussion in McLauchlin 1985, 129–30. ˘ 1993, 12 Ramage and Ramage 1971; Akbıyıkoglu 53. ¨ 13 For Ankara, see Mellink 1998b, 7–12, and Ozguc ¸ and Akok 1947, 29. For the Lake District, see Mellaart 1954, 180. 14 Renfrew 1976; Chapman 1981; Gaffney et al. 1995; Palavestra 1998, 63–4. For prehistoric Wessex culture mounds as territorial markers of cattle breeders, see Fleming 1973, 580–1. For dolmen groups that appear to mark transhumant pastoral grazing territories, see Prag 1995, 78. Polosmak (1994) has argued that Siberian kurgans of the Altai are territorial markers of seminomadic cattle-breeders. In the Kazanlak region of Thrace tumulus groups may be associated with settlements (Lilova 1994, 124). The Odrysian

18 19

20

21

22

23 24

25

26 27 28

270

rulers of Thrace apparently used mounds to demarcate territorial borders (Topalov 1994, 133), and Darius may have built stone mounds during his earlier sojourn there as a claim to territory (Theodossiev 1995, 383). Roosevelt 2006b, 71. See sources in n. 1, this chapter. Abandoned settlement sites include cat. nos. 2.4, 2.7, 8.2, 8.6, 11.1, 11.5, 13.1, 19.8, 19.9, and 20.1. Other abandoned sites include cat. nos. 3.2, 8.8, 9.5, and 10.3. New sites include cat. nos. 3.3, 3.5, 7.4, and 14.1. Abandoned sites in alluvial plains include cat. nos. 2.7, 8.2, 8.6, 11.1, 11.5, and 20.1. Abandoned sites in upland areas include cat. nos. 2.4, 13.1, 19.8, and 19.9. New sites in alluvial plans include cat. nos. 3.5 and 7.4. New sites in strategic upland areas include cat. nos. 3.3 and 14.1. Although the purpose of the inscription has been debated, the most recent explication of problems in Billows 1995, following Debord 1982, seems to make the most sense. For earlier and different readings, see also Buckler and Robinson 1912, Prentice 1912, Franke 1961, Atkinson 1972, and Levi 1976. Anderson 1897, 398–400. For the location of ¨ ca. 35 kilometers eastAttoudda at Hisar Koy, southeast of Kuyucak in the province of Aydın, ˘ 2005. Note, howsee Thonemann and Ertugrul ever, that this Attoudda was a city, not necessarily a region. Atkinson 1972, 69–73; Briant 1975; Billows 1995, 162 n. 47. For debate over the date of the inscription, see Atkinson 1972, 66–7, who argues for a date around 200, and Debord 1973 and 1982, and Descat 1985, who argue for a mid-third-century date of inscription and a late fourth century date for the original contract. For the composition of Achaemenid estates elsewhere in the empire, see Kuhrt 2007, vol. 2, 806–12, 820–5. Descat (1985) suggests that the estate and its tribute were originally a Persian royal gift from which revenues and tribute were collected; he takes the amounts of tribute and revenue cited in the inscription to be direct conversions from Achaemenid measures (after the method of Thompson 1981). For cogent arguments against Descat’s calculations, however, see Billows 1995, 124 n. 32. Kwasman and Lemaire 2002. Lemaire 2002. Xenophon, Hellenica 4.1.15–16. For other Achaemenid estates in general, see Briant 1975, 165– 88, and 1985, 53–72, and Kuhrt 2007, vol. 2, 820–5.

Notes to Pages 114–125 29 Cahill 2002, 181–4. 30 Buckler and Robinson 1912, 56; Billows 1995, 129. For wine produced on the estate of Artystone near Persepolis, see Kuhrt 2007, vol. 2, 811. 31 Jones 1975; Osborne 1987; Lohmann 1992; Garnsey 1999, 22–33. 32 See Diodorus Siculus 19.38.1–2, 39.1, 44.4–6. Briant (1975, 176–7) and Hanfmann (1975, 2, and 1980, 102) commented on this phenomenon earlier, and cited also Thucydides 1.5 and 2.15– 16, for the arrangement of Greek rural settlement kata komai, or according to groups of the same village-like settlement units described here. 33 See other examples of this tendency in Gallant 1991. 34 Nagata 1976. An early parallel for this practice may be found in Hittite cadastres or “field lists” that record the dispersed nature of noble landholdings that is thought to reflect the king’s intent to prevent the consolidation of independent power (Beckman 1995, 538). 35 Descat 1985, 106–7. See also, however, Billows 1995, 124 n. 32. 36 Young 1981, 191, n. 2; Panayotova 1994, 88. 37 E.g., Xenophon, Anabasis 1.9.13, 4.6.11, 5.6.7; Herodotus 5.35. 38 Strabo 13.4.5; Bengisu 1996. My sincere thanks to Rose Lou Bengisu for discussing the strategic and ritual aspects of finds on and in the general ˘ environs of Kel Dag. 39 Foss 1987. 40 Roosevelt 2005. ¨ 41 Ozkan 1991. 42 The construction of this wall, in fact, could be described as cyclopean, and would fit most comfortably within Late Bronze Age building traditions in the Aegean sphere. Could S¸ahankaya be the “Eagle Rock” mentioned in Hittite sources of the fourteenth century (contra Hansen 1997)? The correspondence of its geographic location and physical characteristics to such archival sources encourage more detailed investigation. 43 See, for example, Stronach 1966, 226, pl. 26, fig. 19. 44 Foss 1975, 25–30. 45 Habicht 1975, 73. See also Robert 1982, 371–3, Sekunda 1985, 25, Malay 1992, 118, and S¸ahin 1998, 86. 46 Briant 1978/79, 85. 47 Philippson 1910–14.4, 42; Magie 1950, 45, 807 n. 48. 48 Gr´egoire (1922, 340 ff.) notes galleries in ˘ and Mıdıklı. Karakuyu (modern Eminoglu) 49 Dominian 1911, 584; Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 21.

50 Ramsay 1882, 37–8; Bozkurt and Bayc¸ın 1939, 97. 51 See Petzl 1995 and Ricl 2003 for cults and sanctuaries of later periods. 52 Iliad 2.864–6. 53 Hanfmann 1965, 35–6, fig. 34; Robert 1982, 359–61; Sardis inventory no. IN64.45. For similar ideas relating to the reproductive nature of the lake, see Munn 2006. 54 Heubeck 1959, 62. For an earlier and less likely reading of gyges as “water bird,” see Heubeck ´ 1959, 63, n. 19. For gyges ´ as an appellative, see Seel 1956, 52. For “ancestor” and “old one”, see Carruba 2003, 151–4. For more information on the lake and its history, see Robert 1982, 334– 52. 55 For the early prehistory of central Lydia, see Roosevelt 2007, Roosevelt and Luke 2008, Luke and Roosevelt 2009, and Roosevelt and Luke 2009. 56 Strabo 13.4.5. The Lydian inscriptions are ˙ IzAM691 (a Lydian-Aramaic bilingual; Gusmani ˙ 1964, no. 1) and IzAM688 (Gusmani 1964, no. 2). 57 In an unpublished report of a “Lydian Promenade” in 1982 in the archives of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Cambridge, MA, B. McLauchlin neatly ties together the evidence from Strabo 13.4.5, Pliny, Natural History 2.96, and Varro, Res Rusticae 3.17.4. For more information on the cult of Artemis Colo¨ene see Robert 1982 and Merkelbach 1991, 70–2. 58 Curtius 1853, 150–2 and von Olfers 1858, 542 pl. 1, map. For a bronze bowl (Sardis cat. no. M66.12:7147) reportedly from a Lydian terracotta sarcophagus burial on Kus¸tepe, see Hanfmann 1967, 47, and Waldbaum 1983, 88 no. 487, pl. 31. 59 Sayce 1880, 87; Shear 1922, 408. 60 Umar 1981, 30, 57, and a response in Greenewalt et al. 1985, 59. An honorific inscription found in ¨ the village of C¸omlekc ¸ i, eight kilometers north ¨ of Golmarmara, names the Colo¨enoi, as well as neighbors Tabakreneitai and Koustianoi. Malay (1991, 205–7, and 1994, 43–4, no. 51) takes this inscription as evidence that a settlement called Colo¨e was located somewhere north of the Gygaean Lake. 61 The topographical form of the promontory is reminiscent of second-millennium sites in central Lydia and may indicate an earlier prehistory of the site that has yet to be explored. 62 Robert (1982, 361–7) discussed the sanctuary first, but for a full discussion of the texts and ˘ 1996 bibliography, see Malay and Nalbantoglu and Herrmann 2004. A stele from the village of Kemerdamları was inscribed to record the

271

Notes to Pages 125–129

63

64 65 66

67 68 69

70

71 72 73 74 75

76

honors of a Sardian who was responsible for sacred revenues. Inscriptions from the village of ¨ recorded a petition (Ëp»mnhma) regardYenikoy ing the erection of a stele and a dedication. For the second century CE inscription that records a dedication to Zeus Driktes, see Malay 1994, 152–4, no. 523. Bengisu 1996. See also Foss 1993. Bengisu 1996, and pers. comm., R. L. Bengisu. See also Greenewalt 1995a, 125–6 n. 2. For an introduction to the site and connection to the regional cults of Mt. Tmolus, see Bengisu 1996, 12–13, passim. Bengisu 1996, 10–11. Bengisu 1996. For other evidence, see Bengisu 1996, 8, figs. 13–14, and her forthcoming full publication of a statue from the area. For the remains of a possible temple in Ovacık Yaylası, see Bengisu 1994, 42 pl. 2, fig. 3, and also Foss 1993. Foss 1979a, 34, n. 27. For the later history of Hypaepa, see Foss 1979a, 34–5, nn. 27–9 and 36, and 1979b, 314. Hierocles (659) mentions its Byzantine status as an episcopal center. Roman sources include Strabo 13.627 and Pliny, Natural History 5.120. Appian (12.189) shows that Mithradates’ first-century campaigns brought him to Hypaepa. For the correspondence between Artemis and Anaitis, see Brosius 1998, 227–38. For very brief archaeological investigations that revealed Roman through Byzantine remains, see Weber 1892, 7–21, and more recently Robert and Robert 1948, 61, Robert 1983, 347, and Meric¸ 1983b, 69–71. The ancient site was apparently quarried for the ¨ building of nineteenth-century Odemis ¸. Pausanias 5.27.5–6. For example, see Hanfmann 1974, 52 n. 31, IN73.5 / NoEx73.25. Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 78–81 nos. 1–14, pl. 4 nos. 3–10. Bengisu 1994, 41, 42 ff., citing Herodotus 1.125. For the idea that the double lion was used as a capital in Near Eastern style, see Strocka 1977, 488–92, 512, based in part on the flat finishing of its top in preparation to receive another block. Hanfmann (1984, 89) suggests that it might rather have been part of a throne or altar table. See also Anabolu 1979, 415–18, pl. 225. For a name change in Augustan times see Magie 1950, 141. For a name change resulting from Tiberius’ generous relief following the earthquake of 17 CE, see Robert and Robert 1948, 27. For inscriptions from and the history of ëIerakÛmh and ëIerakaisare©a, see Hermann and

77 78

79 80 81 82 83

84

85

86

87

88

272

Keil 1989, 444 ff., Buresch 1898, 66, 184, Keil and Premerstein 1908, 53, Robert and Robert 1948, 27–55, and Robert 1962, 84 n. 1. See also Pliny, Natural History, 5.33, for mention of Hieracometae subject to Pergamum. Foucart 1887, 79 ff., pl. 14. Tacitus, Annals 3.62.3. For Cyrus the Younger see Boyce 1982, 201–2, 216, contra Sekunda 1985, 21. Sekunda 1985, 21, citing Pausanias 7.6.6. Hanfmann 1987, 3 ff. Hanfmann 1975, 4. See also Balcer 1984, 36–7, and Sekunda 1991, 93. See Robert 1953, 403–15 and 1983, 115, and Sekunda 1991, 93. For the dedicatory inscription referring to ¨ Artemis Persike found in Golmarmara, see Fontrier 1885/86, 51 n. 532, Radet 1887, 447–8, and Keil and Premerstein 1908, 61. Rigsby (1995, 80–3) argued that the now missing inscription found in Sarıc¸am by Fontrier (1885/86, 28) and noted by Hermann and Keil (1989, no. 1396) is most comfortably dated to the early Roman Imperial period. Malay (1992, 87) follows Welles 1934, no. 68, suggesting that the inscription is a letter of Attalos III dating to ca. 138. For a cult of Anaitis and Zeus named in an inscription found in C¸avus¸lar, see Petzl 1996, 3, no. 3. For a sanctuary of Artemis Anaitis and ˘ Mˆen Artemidorou in the Magazdamları neighborhood of Hamidiye, see the Manisa Museum archives (reports 83–1603/06.10.1983 in binder 711.0 Kula and 1998 Yılı C¸alıs¸ma Raporu in ˘ 1989, 40, binder 710 Kula) and Varınlıoglu nos. 1–2, 4, and 1990, no. 44. Lemaire 2002. See above, however, for the correspondence of the physical structures mentioned in the inscription to those common in estates. For sanctuaries of Zeus Digindenos and Zeus Tar(i)guenos in the upper Cilbian Plain, see Zgusta 1984, nos. 262 and 1298, with accompanying bibliography. For sanctuaries of Apollo and Apollo Toumoundes in the upper and middle Cogamus River valleys, respectively, see Buresch 1898, 205, and Meric¸ and Noll´e 1985, 24. Manisa Museum archives reports 83–1603/ 06.10.1983 in binder 711.0 Kula, and 1998 Yılı ˘ C¸alıs¸ma Raporu in binder 710 Kula; Varınlıoglu ˘ 1989, 40, nos. 1–2, 4; Varınlıoglu 1990, no. 44. Kontoleon 1887, 300; Perrot and Chipiez 1892, 59. For this site, see also Ramsay 1881, 286–92, and a note on Pausanias 5.13.7 in Levi 1971.

Notes to Pages 129–145

89

90 91 92

93 94

95

96 97 98 99 100 101

For the relation of the cult of Meter Plastene with that of Meter Sipylene, see Petzl 1994. Pausanias 3.22.4. For the relief, associated Hittite hieroglyphic inscriptions, and its identification as belonging to a spring sanctuary, see ¨ ¨ Guterbock 1956 and Guterbock and Alexander 1983. For bronze and marble figurine dedications to Meter Plastene found nearby, see Frazer 1898.3, 554. Sayce 1880, 89. L’vov-Basirov 2001, 106; Roosevelt 2003, 662–3. For the complete history of the site, see Magie 1950, 141, Jones 1971, 39 ff., Foss 1979b, 313– 14, and Meric¸ 1983b, 67–8. Ptolemy 5.2.17; Head 1977, 650; Thucydides 8.19. Foss and Hanfmann 1975, 23; Hanfmann and Foss 1983, 14; Pedley 1968, 122; Ratt´e 2008, 128. Gallant (1991, 82) proposes that a bare minimum of 3–4 hectares were required to grow enough food to support an average household size of four people. Thus one can estimate a minimum requirement for basic subsistence of ca. 0.75–1 hectare per person. Descat 1985, 106–7. Herodotus 1.94; Hanfmann 1983b, 80. Xenophon, Anabasis 1.5.6. Herodotus 1.93. See, for example, de Polignac 1984, 1994, and 1995. For later rural sanctuaries in Lydia, see Petzl 1995 and Ricl 2003.

10 Butler 1922; McLauchlin 1985; Dusinberre 2003, 128–57 (citing unpublished primary research by C. H. Greenewalt, jr.). 11 Ratt´e 1989a, 94 n. 3; McLauchlin 1985, 55–6, 97–108. 12 McLauchlin 1985, 57–78. 13 The earliest securely datable rock-cut chamber tombs at Sardis include the following (McLauchlin 1985, 64–5): Butler 43, Butler 23A, and Butler 720. Butler 43 had a single chamber and dromos; Butler 23A had a single chamber accessed from above; and Butler 720 had a sarcophagus sunk into its floor (McLauchlin 1985, 215–25). Butler 23A may be as early as the last quarter of the seventh century (McLauchlin 1985, 223). My gratitude to C. H. Greenewalt, jr., for sharing with me his manuscript notes on these and other chamber tombs at Sardis. 14 Ratt´e 1992. 15 For the sculpted pediment from Sardis, see Hanfmann and Erhart 1981. For other sculpted and freestanding tombs in Lydia, see below and Polat 2001 and 2005a. 16 Roosevelt 2006c. For Tas¸ Kule, see Cahill 1988. 17 Tumuli should be considered, without doubt, the highest status type of burial in Lydia. See Ratt´e 1994a, 606 n. 42, and Roosevelt 2003 and 2006b, contra Dusinberre 2003, 133–4. ¨ 18 Young 1981, 263; Hanfmann 1980, 101; Ozgen et al. 1996, 28; Palavestra 1998, 55–61. 19 Ratt´e 1993. For evidence that discounts an earlier idea that associated Karnıyarık Tepe with the Lydian king Gyges, see Ratt´e 1994b. 20 Herodotus 1.93. ¨ uzl ¨ u¨ 2004, 78, for example, for late 21 See Hurm seventh century cremation tumuli at Clazomenae. Other archaic tumuli, perhaps contemporary with or slightly later than the Lydian tradition, have been noted also on Lesbos and in the Troad (Spencer 1995). 22 For precedents to the Phrygian tumulus tradition, a topic too complex for full discussion ¨ here, see excellent discussions in Tuna, Akture, and Lynch 1998. For the dating of tumuli at Gordion, see DeVries 2007. 23 Young 1981; Kohler 1980, 1995, and forthcoming. 24 The far more sophisticated complex in the socalled Midas Mound is an elaboration on this basic type with a pitched roof, stone and wooden retaining walls on all sides, and a pressuredeflecting raft of timber over the chamber ¨ (Young 1981, 80–102; Ozgen et al. 1996, 31). 25 Ratt´e 1993, 5. 26 Hanfmann 1967, 42–3; McLauchlin 1985, 212.

Chapter 6. Burial and Society 1 Roosevelt and Luke 2006a and 2006b; Kersel, Luke, and Roosevelt 2008. 2 Hanfmann and Waldbaum 1970, 14; Greenewalt 1972. 3 Dinc¸ 1994. 4 Shear 1922, 395; Shear 1926, 6–7, fig. 5; Greenewalt 1972, 127, n. 9. 5 McLauchlin 1985, 149–50, after Cook 1981, 2–8. ¨ un ¨ 6 For the “child’s sarcophagus” of the Kızold tumulus in the Troad, see Sevinc¸, Rose, and Strahan 1999. For the sarcophagus of the Karaburun I tumulus in the Elmalı Plain, see Mellink 1971, 249–50. For the sarcophagus of the ¨ “Carian Princess,” see Ozet 1994 and Prag and Neave 1994. 7 Roosevelt 2003, 652 cat. no. A4.55. 8 For other sarcophagi discovered by similar means, see cat. nos. 1.19C and 12.7B. ˘ 1991, 1994a; Dinc¸ 1993. 9 Akbıyıkoglu

273

Notes to Pages 146–162 27 Young 1981, 80. Ratt´e (1989a, 94) pushes the Phrygian connection further arguing that Phrygia “provides an instructive model for the appearance of unusually large and elaborate tumuli in conjunction with the rise of a local kingdom to prominence.” 28 Waelkens 1980a, 1980b 1982, and 1985; McLauchlin 1985, 162 ff. 29 McLauchlin 1985, 160–1. 30 Ratt´e 1989a and 1993. 31 Hanfmann 1965, 493; Ratt´e 1993. 32 See Ratt´e 1993, 9–10, and Boardman 2000, 19– 84, esp. 33–9, who discounts direct Phoenician involvement. Note also, however, the use of crepis, or “peribolos” walls to bound and retain seventh century tumuli at Clazomenae ¨ uzl ¨ u¨ 2004, 78). (Hurm 33 Roosevelt 2006b, 2006c, and 2007. Dennis’ estimate of 130 tumuli in Bin Tepe appears to have been the closest to reality (quoted in an 1882 letter of F. H. Bacon to C. E. Norton, cited in Butler 1922, 10). 34 For hundreds of contemporary tumuli from other areas of western Anatolia, see the following ¨ works for specific regions: Elmalı: Ozgen et al. 1996, 27; Lycia: Zahle 1975; Caria: Radt 1970 and 1973, 340–1, Paton 1900, 65–73, Humann et al. 1898, fig. 23, Demus-Quatember 1958, 74–5, figs. 47–9, and Bean 1971, 211 pl. 83; for the Granicus Valley in the Troad: Sevinc¸ 1996a and 1996b, Sevinc¸ et al. 1998 and 2001, Sevinc¸, Rose, and Strahan 1999, and Rose et al. 2007. 35 Of 333 tumuli in Lydia with recorded topographical situations, 239 were located on ridges or hilltops, and 94 were on plateaus, valley floors, or the gentle slopes that surround them (Roosevelt 2003, and 2006b). 36 Roosevelt 2006b. 37 McLauchlin 1985; Ratt´e 1989a. 38 For a concise discussion of ancestor cult and kinship ties, see Prag 1995, 83, after Chapman 1981, 71–81. For tumuli in other areas of the world as multidimensional monuments that served ritual, territorial, and political purposes, see Fleming 1973, 189–90, and Palavestra 1998, 61, 83–4. 39 For details, see Roosevelt 2003, 126–33. 40 McLauchlin 1985, 53. 41 von Prokesch 1831, 162; McLauchlin 1985, 126–39; Roosevelt 2006a. For examples found associated with the settlements at Kılcanlar ¨ uk ¨ and Asartepe, see Meric¸ 1985 and Foss Hoy 1982, 194, respectively. 42 Herodotus 1.93; Greenewalt, Rautman, and Meric¸ 1986, 20–2. 43 Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 242–4. For the second century example from Dascylium

44 45 46

47 48 49 50 51 52

53 54

55

56 57

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

274

˙ (IsAM334), see Curtius 1932 and Pfuhl and ¨ Mobius 1977/79, 231–2, no. 893, pl. 133. Roosevelt 2006a. For alternative explanations of symbolic door stelae, see Polat 2005b. My gratitude to Suat Ates¸lier for bringing these Tire Museum examples to my attention. For rosettes in Archaic east Greek and Persian architectural decoration, see Boardman 2000, 79–80. Ratt´e 1994a. Hanfmann 1965, 493; Ratt´e 1994a, 600–1 and 605–7. Ratt´e 1994a, 606. Gusmani 1964, nos. 1 and 41. Dusinberre 2003, 27, 116. For grave stelae and sculpture of the Lydian and Achaemenid periods from Sardis, see Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, Rein 1993, and Dusinberre 2003. For a recent analysis of archaic western Anatolian funerary imagery, see Draycott 2006. For full bibliography, see Roosevelt 2003, cat. no. A4.132, Baughan 2004, 561, cat. no. C1, and Draycott 2006, 305–6, cat. no. 29. Perrot and Chipiez 1892, 397–9, fig. 282; Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 156, no. 230, fig. 400; Baughan 2004, 78–81, fig. 59; Draycott 2006, 161–2, 301, pls. 58a, 59a. Meric¸ 1991 and 1993, 64–5, fig. 14. Polat (2005a) argues that this stele, along with MM6226 (cat. no. 23.3), comes from the Mausoleum at Belevi and that it was associated with the funerary monument of the fourth century satrap Autophradates. Exact provenience information for the stele is absent in Manisa Museum archives, however, although Dusinberre (2003, 222) provides a provenience from ancient Bagis in eastern Lydia. Kurtz 1988; Reilly 1989; Clairemont 1993–95; Draycott 2006. Keil and Premerstein 1911, 94 no. 8, fig. 57; ¨ Pfuhl and Mobius 1977/79, 27–8, no. 62, pl. 16. For the attendant as a boy, see Gusmani and Akkan 2004. My thanks to Fred Kleiner, Boston University, for this idea relating to foreshortening. The Akraiphnio Stele in the Thebes Museum shows a naked male (pers. comm., T. S¸are). Dusinberre 2003, 222; Roosevelt 2003, 641, no. 29. Greenewalt and Heywood 1992, 16, fig. 25; ˘ 2003, 62; Draycott 2006, 146. Dedeoglu Perrot and Chipiez 1892, 397–9, fig. 281; Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 156, no. 231, fig. 401; Baughan 2004, 78–81, fig. 59; Draycott 2006, 162–4, 302, pls. 58b, 59b.

Notes to Pages 162–178 66 Polat 2001, 123–33. Together with MM172 (cat. no. 23.2), described above, this is thought by Polat to be part of the Mausoleum at Belevi, which he suggests belonged to the fourth century satrap Autophradates (see also Polat 2005a). 67 Five other lions can be added to this total, but their proveniences are unknown to the author: cat. nos. 24.1, 24.2, 25.1, 25.2, and 25.3. 68 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 15; Ratt´e 1989b, 386. For an invaluable resource on archaic lions in general, see Brown 1960. 69 Gabelmann 1965, no. 108; Ratt´e 1989b, 386. 70 The other forward-looking lions were found in Hypaepa (cat. no. 19.3A) and Bayındır (cat. no. 22.2) in the Cayster River valley, and the other sideways-looking lion at Asartepe in the central part of the middle Hermus River valley (cat. no. 2.7C). 71 Gabelmann 1965, no. 108; Strocka 1977, 488– 92, figs. 8–12; Akurgal 1987, 62; Ratt´e 1989b, 392. 72 For a parallel, see Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, no. 24. For other lions in this pose, see Hanfmann 1964, 38, fig. 23, Hanfmann 1978, 34, and Vermeule 1972, 51, n. 8, pl. 12. 73 Ratt´e 1989b; Dusinberre 2003, 100. 74 Other examples of the earlier type of small-scale lion statues include examples from Manisa (cat. nos. 4.5C–D); Akhisar (cat. no. 8.1A); Ballıca (cat. no. 8.8A); Selc¸ikli (cat. no. 8.3); Alas¸ehir (cat. no. 12.1D); Kula (cat. no. 16.6B); the Lale Tepe tumulus (cat. no. 2.2B); Uzgur (cat. nos. ¨ ukkale ¨ 19.8B–C); and Buy (cat. no. 19.9B). Other examples of the later type include examples from Temrek (cat. no. 2.9B) and Beyoba (cat. no. 7.3B). 75 For Achaemenid lion-griffins in Anatolia and in general, see von Gall 1999 and Dusinberre 2003, 89. For possible Anatolian parallels from a much earlier period, see the incised rosettelike decorations on the shoulders of lions adorning orthostates allegedly from tumuli in Ankara (Buluc¸ 1986 and 1988) and the well-known petal decorations on animal haunches on the Hittite ¨ uk. ¨ orthostate reliefs from Alaca Hoy 76 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 15; Ratt´e 1989b, 380–1. 77 Ratt´e 1989b, 379; Dusinberre 2003, 100–3. The apotropaic quality may be evident in Herodotus’ story of the early Lydian king Meles protecting the circuit of Sardis by passing a lion cub along it (Herodotus 1.84). Lions may also have been associated with Apollo (Cahn 1975, 17–32; Nick 2001). 78 Richter 1961, 6; Roosevelt 2008b.

79 Radt 1996, 86–92; Roosevelt 2003, cat. no. A3.405. See also cat. no. 14.3A. 80 Ratt´e 1989b, 390. For parallels at Miletus, see Gabelmann 1965, 119, no. 114, and Heres and Forbeck 1997; for the Karaburun II tumulus in northern Lycia, see Mellink 1975, 1976, and 1979; for lions at Arslantas¸ and Yılantas¸ among other monuments of the Phrygian highlands, see Haspels 1971 and Draycott 2006. 81 Note that Buluc¸ (1986, 430–3) makes a connection between Cybele and tumuli in a death cult, seeing the Ankara orthostats with lion and other animal reliefs as the earliest example of graveside death-cult monuments. 82 See cat. no. 16.8B. Roosevelt 2003, 577, cat. no. A3.433, and Baughan 2004, 76–7, 366–7, 482 no. A34, 599–600, figs. 32–3. 83 Baughan 2008a. 84 For a fuller description of the scene, see ˘ 1996 and his documentation of what a Dedeoglu ˘ recalled seeing in the tomb. looter, Yusuf Dogan, 85 Stinson 2008, 42–4. See also Baughan 2008b, and Roosevelt 2008b. 86 Hanfmann 1965, 493. 87 See Greenewalt, Cahill, and Rautman 1987, 36– 44, for description of finds with reference to the original publication in Butler 1922. 88 See Greenewalt 2005, 82–3, and S. Ebbinghaus, forthcoming. ¨ 89 Kaye and Main 1995; Ozgen et al. 1996. ¨ 90 Ozgen et al. 1996, 33. 91 Baughan 2004, 317–79. It has been argued, however, that benches in rock-cut tombs appeared in Lydia only after the Persian conquest, and perhaps in association with Persian religious customs that forbade corpses to rest on the ground (Dusinberre 2003, 128–57). Rock-cut tombs with benches dated to the Achaemenid period by grave goods, however, could very well represent reuse of tombs and benches constructed in Lydian times; all evidence of earlier dates could have been erased when tombs were prepared for secondary use. 92 Baughan 2004, passim. 93 For examples of such vessels, see the catalogue ¨ in Ozgen et al. 1996. 94 Baughan 2004, 81–8 and 566–85. 95 For wooden furniture from the Dedetepe tumulus in the Troad, see Sevinc¸ et al. 1998. For ¨ the same from the Aktepe and Gozde tumuli in Lydia, see Dinc¸ 1993, 244–61, no. 32, and 182–8, no. 20. For a stone table in the Kızılbel tumulus in the Elmalı Plain, see Mellink 1998a. For a wooden coffin or kline from the BT 63.2 tumulus, see Hanfmann 1964, 55, and Baughan 2004, 81–5 and 95–6, who suggest it is a kline,

275

Notes to Pages 178–196

96 97 98 99 100 101

102 103 104

105 106 107 108 109 110 111

112 113

and Greenewalt and Majewski 1980, 133–47, who think it is a coffin. Roosevelt 2008a, 285–97. For examples of personal items and jewelry, see ¨ the catalogue in Ozgen et al. 1996. Curtis 1925; Greenewalt and Majewski 1980; ¨ Ozgen et al. 1996, 34; Dusinberre 2003, 146. ¨ Ozgen et al. 1996, 53. ¨ Ozgen et al. 1996, 52. For this problem that plagues funerary evidence from western Anatolia in general, see Sevinc¸, Rose, and Strahan 1999, 502. Hanfmann and Erhart 1981, 89. ¨ Ozgen et al. 1996, 32. ¨ Ozgen et al. 1996, 32. For traditional views of banquet assemblages and the Totenmahl, or funeral meal, see also Dentzer 1969, 1971, and ¨ 1982, Borchhardt 1968, Mobius 1971, Hanfmann 1974, and Ramage 1979. Kohler 1995, 185–90, n. 63. Baughan 2004, 166–76. Draycott 2006, 196–99. Roosevelt 2003, 187, and 2008b, 13 n. 43. Dusinberre 2003, 86. ¨ Mellink 1973, 300–1; Kokten Ersoy 1998, 130– 3. ¨ For chariot wheels in Anatolia, see Kokten 1994 ¨ and 1998, and Kokten Ersoy 1998. In addition to BT 89.1, spoked wooden wheels with iron fittings, commonly identified as chariot wheels, ¨ ¸ pınar tumulus in Balıkesir, are known from the Uc tumulus A at Gordion (Kohler 1980), the Akalan ¨ ¨ un ¨ tumulus in the tumulus in Kutahya, the Kızold Troad, and several tumuli in Ankara, from among other places. Draycott 2006, 190–4 and 196–9. Draycott 2006, 194–5.

10 Ratt´e 1989b and 1994a. 11 Roebuck 1959, 52; Hanfmann 1983b, 80, 84; Balcer 1984, 36–8. For palace-like economies elsewhere in Early Iron Age Anatolia, see DeVries 1980, 40–2. For recent work on early Ionia, see Cobet et al. 2007. 12 Balcer 1984, 33–41; Ramage 1987. 13 Atkinson 1972, 53–62; Levi 1976; Balcer 1984, 47–9. 14 Hanfmann 1975, 2–5; Hanfmann and Foss 1983, 13. 15 For the estate of Sadyattes, an opponent to Croesus’ rule, see, for example, Herodotus 1.92, Nicholas of Damascus ( Jacoby 1923, 90 F 65), and Plutarch, De Herodoti malignitate 18 (858 E), conveniently collected in Pedley 1972, nos. 100, 64, and 67, respectively. The existence of private property contrasts with typical Near Eastern or Asiatic forms of feudalism (Levi 1976, 264). 16 Balcer 1984, 47–9, 222. 17 Ramage and Ramage 1971, 159–60. 18 Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 78.31. 19 Herodotus 1.80. 20 For a similar interpretation of burials in eighth century Athens, see Morris 1987. 21 For the Greek testimony, see Pedley 1972, 18– 22. For the Assyrian, see Cogan and Tadmor 1977 and Spalinger 1978. 22 For Melas, see Aelian, Varia Historia 3.26. For other testimony, see Pedley 1972, 22–5. 23 For the Greek testimony, see Pedley 1972, 25– 42. 24 Arrian, Anabasis 1.17.4; Briant 2002, 702. 25 Weiskopf 1989, 15; Dusinberre 2003, 44. 26 For Achaemenid imperialism, see SancisiWeerdenberg 1990 and 1994, and, with respect to Sparda in particular, Dusinberre 2003. For evidence of imperialism in the archaeological record in general, see Sinopoli 1994. 27 Dusinberre 2003, 70–5. 28 Herodotus 1.192, 6.46; Xenophon, Anabasis 1.1.8; Balcer 1984, 195; Ramage and Craddock 2000, 20. For studies of Achaemenid imperialism and systems of tribute, see Briant 1978/79, 1980, 1982, 1985, and 1986, Balcer 1984, Corsaro 1985, Tuplin 1987a, 137–58, Briant and Herrenschmidt 1989, Salles 1994, and Descat 1994 and 1997. 29 Briant 2002, 36–8 and 79–80. 30 For the feudal organization of most of western Anatolia under Achaemenid hegemony, see Balcer 1984, 35–8 and 195–225, Sekunda 1985, 9–13, 1988, 184–8, and 1991, 83–4, contra Marksteiner 2002, 230–1. For estates under Achaemenid domination, see Tuplin 1987a, 133–7.

Chapter 7. Conclusions: Continuity and Change at Sardis and Beyond 1 Dusinberre 2003, 64–8. 2 Billot 1980, 277–8, 292–3; Ratt´e 1989b and 1994a. 3 Ramage 1997, 66–8. 4 Mierse 1983, 102. 5 Greenewalt 1995a, 134; Dusinberre 1999 and 2003. 6 Melikian-Chirvani 1993; Dusinberre 1999, 90, n. 38. 7 Dusinberre 1997 and 2003, 158–71; Boardman 2000, 152–74. 8 Greenewalt 1995a; Dusinberre 2003; Baughan 2004. 9 For contemporary comparanda, see the mourners on the wall paintings of the Tatarlı tumulus in Summerer 2007a and 2007b.

276

Notes to Pages 196–203 31 Ratt´e 1989a, 104–5, and 1994a, 606–7, nn. 42–3; Dusinberre 2003, 141–3. 32 Sekunda 1985, 9. 33 See, for example, the royal grants of Demokedes of Kroton (Herodotus 3.132), Metiochos in the Chersonese (Herodotus 6.41), Theomestor and Phylakos on Samos (Herodotus 8.85), Amyntas at Alabanda (Herodotus 8.136), and Themistokles at Magnesia (Thucydides 1.138.5). For land grants in Achaemenid sources, see Kuhrt 2007, vol. 2, 659–65, 720–2, and 725–7. 34 For late fifth and fourth century conflicts and regional insecurity, see Gezgin 2001, 181, and Dusinberre 2003, 41, 207–8. 35 Strabo 1.3.4, quoting Eratosthenes, quoting Xanthus of Lydia. 36 Xenophon, Oeconomicus 4.5–11. For the functions of rural garrisons in the Achaemenid Empire in general, see Briant 1978/79, 85, and, especially, Tuplin 1987b, 171–4, and 1988. 37 For such phrouroi in the chora, see Tuplin 1988, 67–70, and consider the holdings of Asidates and Itamenes in the Caicus River valley described by Xenophon, Anabasis 7.8.15 (Sekunda 1985). ˘ and Gezgin 1998; Gezgin 2001. 38 Doger 39 For Achaemenid sources in Hallock 1969 and Lecoq 1997, see chapter two, nn. 58–62. See also Nylander 1970 and 1974, and Dusinberre 2003, 32–3, 38.

40 For the material itself as Persian in influence or manufacture, see Moorey 1980, 142, Francis 1980, 68, Greenewalt 1995a, 134, and MelikianChirvani 1993. 41 Draycott 2006. 42 Melikian-Chirvani 1993. 43 Herodotus 5.102.1. 44 Briant 2002, 66 and 500–2. 45 Strabo 13.4.13. 46 For the Hyrcanian Plain, see Robert and Robert 1948, 16–26, 19 n. 1, Sekunda 1985, 20, and Cohen 1995, 210. 47 Habicht 1975. 48 Tuplin 1987b and 1988. 49 Pausanias 5.27.5–6; Sekunda 1985. 50 Kwasman and Lemaire 2002; Lemaire 2002. 51 Hanfmann 1978, 27, 31; Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 14, 17; Mierse 1983, 100. 52 Dusinberre 2003, 45, echoed by Hall 2007, 351, who argues that the identification of new hybrid cultures lies in the “distinctive conjunction and specific application of cultural elements that need not in themselves be innovative.” 53 Jacobs 1987 and 1994; Balcer 1991 and 1993; Kaptan 2002 and 2003; Draycott 2006. 54 See n. 35, this chapter. 55 Roosevelt 2007; Roosevelt and Luke 2008; Luke and Roosevelt 2009; Roosevelt and Luke 2009.

277

Works Cited

Adiego Lajara, I.-J. 2007. The Carian Language. Handbook of Oriental Studies I, 86. Leiden and Boston: Brill. ˘ ¨ Basmacı Tum ¨ ul ¨ usleri ¨ Akbıyıkoglu, K. 1991. “Gure Kurtarma Kazısı.” Muze ¨ Kurtarma Kazısı Semineleri 1:1–23. ¨ Velis¸in Tepe Tum ¨ ul ¨ us ¨ u¨ Kurtarma 1993. “Gure Kazısı.” Muze ¨ Kurtarma Kazısı Seminelerssi 3:53–63. ¨ ‘Basmacı Tum ¨ ul ¨ us ¨ u’ ¨ Kurtarma Kazısı.” 1994a. “Gure Arkeoloji ve Sanat 64–5:2–8. ˘ Tum ¨ ul ¨ us ¨ u¨ Kurtarma Kazısı.” Muze 1994b. “Kayaagıl ¨ Kurtarma Kazısı Semineleri 4:69–82. Akdeniz, E. 1994. “Kuzeybatı Anadolu Erken Tunc¸ ˘ Unpublished Honors Thesis, C¸ag˘ Keramigi.” ˙ Ege University, Izmir, Turkey. ¨ R. 1983. “Structural and Metamorphic EvoAkkok, lution of the Northern Part of the MenderesMassif: New Data from the Derbent Area and their Implications for the Tectonics of the Massif.” Journal of Geology 91:342–50. Aks¸it, O. 1983. Manisa Tarihi (Magnesia ad Sipylum). ˙ ¨ Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakultesi Matbaası. Akurgal, E. 1950. “Bayraklı: Erster vorlaufiger Bericht uber die Ausgrabungen in Alt-Smyrna.” Ankara ¨ ˘ Universitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakultesi Dergisi 8:52–97. 1953. Phrygische Kunst. Ankara: Ankara University ˘ ¨ Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Falultesi. 1961. Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexander. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. 1987. Griechische und r¨omische Kunst in der Turkei. ¨ Munich: Hirmer. Alcock, S. E., J. F. Cherry, and J. L. Davis. 1994. “Intensive Survey, Agricultural Practice and the Classical Landscape of Greece.” In Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, edited by I. Morris, 137–70. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Alpan, T., et al. 1980. “Salihli ve Cıvarı Altın ¨ um ¨ 2. Salihli-Sart Koy ¨ u¨ Yoresi ¨ Aramaları. Bol

¨ unden ¨ Jeolojisi ve Sart Plaserlerinin Altın Yon ˘ Degerlendirilmesi.” Unpublished Report No. ¨ u. ¨ 6918. Ankara: Maden, Tetkik ve Arama Enstitus ¨ Altıner, A. 1997. “Kemalpas¸a Ovası Yuzey Aras¸tırması.” Unpublished Honors Thesis, Ege University, ˙ Izmir, Turkey. Ammerman, A. J. 1981. “Surveys and Archaeological Research.” Annual Review of Anthropology 10:63– 88. Anabolu, M. U. 1979. “Yayınlanmamıs¸ Olan Birkac¸ Arslanlar Heykeli.” In Turk ¨ Tarih Kongresi 8. [Proceedings of the Eighth Turkish Historical Congress, Ankara, 11–15 October 1976], vol. 1, 415–18. ¨ Tarıh Kurumu Basımevi. Ankara: Turk Anderson, J. G. C. 1898. “A Summer in Phrygia, II.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 18:81–90. Anderson, J. K. 1974. “The Battle of Sardis in 395 B.C.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity 7:27–53. Andr´e-Salvini, B., and M. Salvini. 2003. “Il monumento rupestre della ‘Niobe’ o ‘Cibele’ del Sipilo.” In Licia e Lidia prima dell’ Ellenizzazione. Atti del Convegno internazionale Roma, 11–12 ottobre 1999, edited by M. Giorgieri, M. Salvini, M.-C. Tr´emouille, and P. Vannicelli, 25–36. Istituto di Studi sulle Civilta` dell’ Egeo e del Vicino Oriente. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. (Monografie Scientifiche. Serie Scienze Umane e Sociali.). ¯ Aro, S. 1999. “Gugu.” In The Prosopography of the NeoAssyrian Empire, Vol 1, Part II (B–G), edited by K. Radner, 427–8. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. 2003. “Art and Architecture.” In The Luwians, edited by H. C. Melchert, 281–337. Handbook of Oriental Studies 68. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Asgari, N. 1979. “Anadolu’da Antik Mermer Ocakları.” In Turk ¨ Tarih Kongresi 8. [Proceedings of the Eighth Turkish Historical Congress, Ankara, 11–15 October ¨ Tarıh Kurumu 1976], vol. 1, 451–6. Ankara: Turk Basımevi.

279

Works Cited Bengisu, R. L. 1994. “Torrhebia Limne.” Arkeoloji Dergisi 2:22–43. 1996. “Lydian Mount Karios.” In Cybele, Attis, and Related Cults. Essays in Memory of M. J. Vermaseren, edited by E. N. Lane, 1–36. Leiden: Brill. ¨ Bilgin, A. I., R. Dinc¸, and M. Onder. 1996. “Lydia’daki ˙ Tum ¨ ul ¨ us’de ¨ Iki Temizlik Kazısı C¸alıs¸maları. Arkeoloji Dergisiı 4:207–22. Billot, M. F. 1980. “Style et chronologie des terres cuites architecturales de Sardes.” Revue arch´eologique 1980:263–94. Billows, R. A. 1995. Kings and Colonists: Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, vol. 22. Leiden/New York/ ¨ Brill. Koln: Bintliff, J., and K. Sbonias. 2000. “Demographic and Ceramic Analysis in Regional Survey.” In Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages, edited by R. Francovich, H. Patterson, and G. Barker, 244–58. The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes 5. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Bintliff, J. L., and A. M. Snodgrass. 1985. “The Cambridge/Bradford Boeotian Expedition: The First Four Years.” Journal of Field Archaeology 12:123–61. Birgi, S. 1944. “Gold Deposits in the Region of Sardis (Salihli).” Unpublished Report No. 1521. ¨ u. ¨ Ankara: Maden, Tetkik ve Arama Enstitus Birmingham, J. M. 1961. “The Overland Route across Anatolia in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.” Anatolian Studies 11:185–95. Bloch, M. L. B. 1961. Feudal Society. The Growth of Ties of Dependence, Social Classes and Political Organization. 2 vols., translated by L. A. Manyon. London: Routledge & K. Paul. Boardman, J. 2000. Persia and the West. An Archaeological Investigation of the Genesis of Achaemenid Art. London: Thames & Hudson. Borchhardt, J. 1968. “Epichorische, gr¨ako-persisch beeinflußte Reliefs in Kilikien.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 18:161–211. Borger, R. 1996. Beitrage ¨ zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Borsay, L. A. 1965. “Lydia, its Land and History.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, PA. Bossert, H. T. 1936. “Vorl¨aufige Mitteilung einer neuen lydischen Inschrift.” Forschungen und Fortschritte 12:430–1. 1942. Altanatolien. Kunst und Handwerk in Kleinasien von den anfangen bis zum v¨olligen aufgehen in der griechischen ¨ Kultur. Berlin: E. Wasmuth. Bottema, S., and H. Woldring. 1984. “Late Quaternary Vegetation and Climate of Southwestern Turkey, Part II.” Palaeohistoria 26:123–49. Boyce, M. 1982. A History of Zoroastrianism. Volume 2: Under the Achaemenians. Leiden: Brill.

˘ 1989. “Us¸ak Selc¸ikler ve C¸evresinden Roma C¸agı Lahitleri ve Mermer Ocakları.” Turk ¨ Arkeoloji Dergisi 25.2:11–47. Ashmore, W., and A. B. Knapp, eds. 1999. Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Malden, MA: Blackwell. ¨ ˘ Hakkında On Atalay, E. 1976. “Kus¸ini Mermer Ocagı Rapor.” Turk ¨ Arkeoloji Dergisi 23.1:1–19. ¨ ˘ 1986. “Kemalpas¸a Yoresindeki Magaralar.” Aras¸tırma Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 4:249–64. Athanassopoulos, E. F., and L. Wandsnider, eds. 2004. Mediterranean Archaeological Landscapes: Current Issues. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Atkinson, K. T. C. 1972. “A Hellenistic Land Conveyance: The Estate of Mnesimachus in the Plain of Sardis.” Historia 21:45–74. Bakac¸, M., and M. N. Kumru. 2000. “Uranium, Radium and Field Measurements in the Water of Gediz River.” Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 24:229–36. Balcer, J. M. 1984. Sparda by the Bitter Sea. Imperial Interaction in Western Anatolia. Brown Judaic Studies, no. 52. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. 1991. “The East Greeks under Persian Rule.” Achaemenid History 6:57–65. 1993. “The Ancient Satrapies and Satraps of Western Anatolia.” Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran ¨ 26:81–90. Barnes, H., and M. Whittow. 1994. “Yılanlı Kalesi: Preliminary Report and New Perspectives.” Anatolian Studies 44:187–206. Baughan, E. P. 2004. “Anatolian Funerary Klinai: Identity and Tradition.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 2008a. “Persian Riders in Lydia? The Painted Frieze of the Aktepe Kline.” Paper Read at the XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, September 23, Rome. 2008b. “Lale Tepe: A Late Lydian Tumulus near Sardis. 3. The Klinai.” In Love for Lydia. A Sardis Anniversary Volume Presented to Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., edited by N. D. Cahill, 49–78. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Report 4. Cambridge, MA: Archaeological Exploration of Sardis. Bean, G. E. 1971. Turkey Beyond the Maeander: An Archaeological Guide. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. 1979. Aegean Turkey. 2nd ed. London: Benn. Beckman, G. 1995. “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Hittite Anatolia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. 1, edited by J. M. Sasson, 529–43. New York: Scribner. Beekes, R. S. P. 2002. “The Prehistory of the Lydians, the Origin of the Etruscans, Troy and Aeneas.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 59:205–41. 2003. “Luwians and Lydians.” Kadmos 42:47–9.

280

Works Cited Bozkurt, H., and N. Bayc¸ın. 1939. “Manisa Tarihi Arkeoloji Aras¸tırması.” Unpublished manuscript in the Manisa Museum, Manisa, Turkey. Briant, P. 1975. “Villages et communaut´es villageoises d’Asie ach´em´enide et hell´enistique.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 18:165– 88. 1978/1979. “Contrainte militaire, d´ependence rurale et exploitation des territoires en Asie ach´em´enide.” Index. Quaderni camerti di studi romanistici 8:48–98. 1980. “Forces productives, d´ependance rurale et id´eologies religieuses dans l’empire ach´em´enide.” Table ronde de Besanc¸on 1977:1–42. ´ 1982. Rois, Tributs et Paysans. Etudes sur les formations tributaires du Moyen-Orient ancien. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. 1985. “Dons de terres et de villes: l’Asie Mineure dans le contexte ach´em´enide.” Revue des e´ tudes anciennes 87:53–72. 1986. “Guerre, tribut et forces productives dans l’empire ach´em´enide.” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 12:33–48. 1998. “Droaphern`es et al statue de Sardes.” Achaemenid History 11:205–26. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraun. Briant, P., and C. Herrenschmidt, eds. 1989. Le tribut dans l’empire perse. Paris: Peeters. Brill, R. H., and N. D. Cahill. 1988. “A Red Opaque Glass from Sardis and Some Thoughts on Red Opaques in General.” Journal of Glass Studies 30:16–27. Brinkmann, R. 1971. “The Geology of Western Anatolia.” In Geology and History of Turkey, edited by A. S. Campbell, 171–90. Tripoli: Petroleum Exploration Society of Libya. Brosius, M. 1998. “Artemis Persike and Artemis Anaitis.” Achaemenid History 11:227–38. Brown, W. L. 1960. The Etruscan Lion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bryce, T. R. 1998. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2003. “History.” In The Luwians, edited by H. C. Melchert, 27–127. Handbook of Oriental Studies 68. Leiden/Boston: Brill. 2005. The Trojans and their Neighbors. London and New York: Routledge. Buckler, W. H. 1924. Sardis VI, Part II. Lydian Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill. Buckler, W. H., and D. M. Robinson. 1912. “Greek Inscriptions from Sardes I.” American Journal of Archaeology 16:11–82. Buluc¸, S. 1986. “Ankara Kabartmaları.” In IX. Turk ¨ Tarih Kongresi. Ankara, 21–25 Eylul ¨ 1981. Kongreye ¨ Sunulan Bildiriler, vol. 1, 423–33. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

1988. “The Architectural Use of the Animal and Kybele Reliefs found in Ankara and its Vicinity.” Source. Notes in the History of Art 7(3–4):16–23. Buresch, K. 1898. Aus Lydien: epigraphisch-geographische Reisefruchte. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. ¨ Burke, B. 2005. “Textile Production at Gordion and the Phrygian Economy.” In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, edited by L. Kealhofer, 69–81. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Butler, H. C. 1922. Sardis I. The Excavations, Part 1: 1910–1914. Leiden: Brill. ˙ ¸ erikli Manisa ˘ C¸agatay, A., and O. Arda. 1980. “Altın Ic ˘ Mineralleri.” Salihli-Sart Konglomeralarının Agır ˘ 10:49–64. Jeoloji Muhendisli gi ¨ Cahill, N. D. 1988. “Tas¸ Kule: A Persian-Period Tomb near Phokaia.” American Journal of Archaeology 92:481–501. 2002. “Lydian Houses, Domestic Assemblages, and Household Size.” In Across the Anatolian Plateau, edited by D. C. Hopkins, 173–85. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 57 (2000). Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. 2006. “Mudbrick Experiments, 2006.” Unpublished report in the archives of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Cambridge, MA. 2008. “Mapping Sardis.” In Love for Lydia. A Sardis Anniversary Volume Presented to Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., edited by N. D. Cahill, 111–24. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Report 4. Cambridge, MA: Archaeological Exploration of Sardis. Cahill, N. D., and J. H. Kroll. 2005. “New Archaic Coin Finds at Sardis.” American Journal of Archaeology 109:589–617. Cahn, H. 1975. Kleine Schriften zur Munzkunde ¨ und Archaologie. Basel/Mainz: Arch¨aologischer ¨ Verlag/von Zabern. Cameron, G. G. 1948. Persepolis Treasury Tablets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Campbell, A. S., ed. 1971. Geology and History of Turkey. Tripoli: Petroleum Exploration Society of Libya. Cargill, J. 1977. “The Nabonidus Chronicle and the Fall of Lydia.” American Journal of Ancient History 2:97–116. Carruba, O. 2003. “LudikŸ ˆrcaiolog©a. La Lidia fra II e I millennnio.” In Licia e Lidia prima dell’ Ellenizzazione. Atti del Convegno internazionale Roma, 11–12 ottobre 1999, edited by M. Giorgieri, M. Salvini, M.-C. Tr´emouille, and P. Vannicelli, 145–70. Istituto di Studi sulle Civilta` dell’ Egeo e del Vicino Oriente. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. (Monografie Scientifiche. Serie Scienze Umane e Sociali.). Chapman, R. 1981. “The Emergence of Formal Disposal Areas and the ‘Problem’ of Megalithic Tombs in Prehistoric Europe.” In The Archaeology

281

Works Cited of Death, edited by R. Chapman, I. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg, 71–81. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cherry, J. F. 1982. “A Preliminary Definition of Site Distribution on Melos.” In An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos, edited by C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff, 10–23. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1983. “Frogs Round the Pond: Perspectives on Current Archaeological Survey Projects in the Mediterranean Region.” In Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area, edited by D. R. Keller and D. W. Rupp. BAR International Series, vol. 155, 375–416. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Clairmont, C. W. 1993–1995. Classical Attic Tombstones. 6 vols. Kilchberg: Akanthus. Cobet, J., V. von Graeve, W.-D. Niemeier, and K. Zimmermann, eds. 2007. Fruhes ¨ Ionien: eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion-Symposion Guzelcamli, 26. ¨ September–1. Oktober 1999. Deutsches Arch¨aologisches Institut. Milesische Forschungen, Bd. 5. Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern. Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor. 1977. “Gyges and Assurbanipal.” Orientalia 46:65–85. Cohen, G. M. 1995. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley: University of California Press. C¸olak, M., and L. Lazzarini. 2002. “Quarries and Characterization of a Hitherto Unknown Alabaster and Marble from Thyatira (Akhisar, Turkey).” In Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone. Asmosia VI. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of The “Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity,” Venice, June 15–18, 2000, edited by L. Lazzarini, 35–40. Venice: Laboratorio di Analisi dei Materiali Antichi. Collignon, M. 1901. “Notes sur les fouilles de M. Paul Gaudin dans la N´ecropole de Yortan en Mysie.” Comptes rendus des s´eances de l’Acad´emie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 1901:810–17. Conze, A., and C. Schuchhardt. 1899. “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1886–1898.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung ¨ 24:97–240. Cook, R. M. 1981. Clazomenian Sarcophagi. Mainz: von Zabern. Corsaro, M. 1985. “Tassazione regia e tassazione cittadina dagli achemenidi ai re ellenistici: alcune osservazioni.” Revue des e´tudes anciennes 87:73– 95. Cosgrove, D. 1984. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. London: Croom Helm. Cosgrove, D., and S. Daniels, eds. 1988. The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Crane, H. 1988. “Traditional Pottery Making in the Sardis Region of Western Turkey.” Muqarnas 5:9– 20. Crumley, C., and W. H. Marquardt. 1995. “Landscape: A Unifying Concept in Regional Analysis.” In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by K. Allen, S. Green, and. E. Zubrow, 73–9. London: Taylor and Francis. Curtis, C. D. 1925. Sardis XIII. Jewelry and Gold Work, Part I: 1910–1914. Rome: Sindicato Italiano Arti Grafiche. Curtius, E. 1853. “Artemis Gygaia und die lydischen ¨ Furstengr¨ aber.” Archaologische Zeitung 11:148–61. ¨ Curtius, L. 1932. “Phallosgrabmal im Museum von Smyrna.” In Die wissenschaft am scheidewege von leben und geist. Festschrift Ludwig Klages zum 60. Geburtstag, 10. Dezember 1932, edited by H. Prinzhorn, 19–29. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth. Davis, P. H. 1965. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Volume 1. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. de Polignac, F. 1984. La naissance de la cit´e grecque: cultes, espace et soci´et´e VIIIe–VIIe si`ecles avant J.-C. Paris: ´ Editions la D´ecouverte. 1994. “Mediation, Competition, and Sovereignty: The Evolution of Rural Sanctuaries in Geometric Greece.” In Placing the Gods, edited by S. Alcock and R. Osborne, 3–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995. “Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City-State.” Translated by J. Lloyd. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Debord, P. 1973. “Esclavage myc´enien, esclavage hom´erique.” Revue des e´tudes anciennes 75:225–40. 1982. Aspects sociaux et e´conomiques de la vie religieuse dans l’Anatolie gr´eco-romaine. Etudes pr´eliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain, 88. Leiden: Brill. 1985. “La Lydie du Nord-Est.” Revue des e´tudes anciennes 87:345–56. ˘ ¨ ul ¨ us ¨ Kazısı.” Dedeoglu, H. 1991. “Lydia’da Bir Tum Muze ¨ Kurtarma Kazısı Semineleri 1:119–49. ¨ ul ¨ us ¨ u¨ Kazı C¸alıs¸1996. “Harta Abidintepe Tum maları.” Arkeoloji Dergisi 4:197–206. ˙ 2003. The Lydians and Sardis. Istanbul: A Turizm Yayınları. Demus-Quatember, M. 1958. Etruskische Grabarchitektur. Typologie und Ursprungsfragen. Deutsche Beitrage ¨ zur Altertumswissenschaft 11. Baden-Baden: B. Grimm. Dentzer, J. M. 1969. “Reliefs au banquet dans l’Asie Mineure du Ve si`ecle av. J.-C.” Revue Arch´eologique 2:195–224. 1971. “Aux origines de l’iconographie du banquet couch´e.” Revue Arch´eologique 4:215–58. 1982. Le motif du banquet couch´e dans le Proche-Orient et le ´ monde grec du VII au IV si`ecle avant J.C. Rome: Ecole franc¸aise de Rome.

282

Works Cited Descat, R. 1985. “Mn´esimachos, H´erodote et le syst`eme tributaire ach´em´enide.” Revue des e´tudes anciennes 87:97–112. 1994. “Darius, le roi kapelos.” Achaemenid History 8:161–6. 1997. “Le tribut et l’´economie tributaire dans l’Empire ach´em´enide.” Topoi Suppl. 1:253– 62. ˙ ¨ u. ¨ 1979–1984. Tarımsal Yapı ve Devlet Istatistik Enstitus ¨ Uretim – Agricultural Structure and Production. Ankara: ˙ ¨ u. ¨ Devlet Istatistik Enstitus DeVries, K. 1980. “Greeks and Phrygians in the Early Iron Age.” In From Athens to Gordion; the Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young, edited by K. DeVries, 33–49. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. 2007. “The Date of the Destruction Level at Gordion: Imports and the Local Sequence.” In Anatolian Iron Ages 6: Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Eskis¸ehir, 16–20 August ˘ and A. Sagona, 2004, edited by A. C¸ilingiroglu 79–101. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 20. Leuven: Peeters Publishers. Dietler, M. 1997. “The Iron Age in Mediterranean France: Colonial Encounters, Entanglements, and Transformations.” Journal of World Prehistory 11(3):269–355. 1998. “Consumption, Agency, and Cultural Entanglement: Theoretical Implications of a Mediterranean Colonial Encounter.” In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change and Archaeology, edited by J. Cusick, 288–315. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper 25. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. ¨ uk ¨ und die Bedeutung Dinc¸, R. 1991. “Erdelli Hoy ¨ die bronzezeitliche Geschichte seiner Funde fur des Manisa-Akhisar-Gebietes.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 41:25–38. ¨ ul ¨ usleri.” ¨ Unpublished Ph.D. Dis1993. “Lidya Tum ˙ sertation, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey. 1994. “Lydia’da Bulunan Bir C¸ocuk Mezarı.” Arkeoloji Dergisi 2:57–9. 1996. “1994 Yılı Akhisar-Kulaksızlar Mermer Idol ¨ ¨ Atolyesi Yuzey Aras¸tırması.” Aras¸tırma Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 13:11–41. ¨ 1997. “Kulaksızlar Mermer Idol Atolyesi ve C¸evre Aras¸tırmaları.” Aras¸tırma Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 14:255–82. ˙ Gezgin. 1998. “Arkaik ve Klasik ˘ Doger, E. and I. ¨ ¨ Donemde Smyrna’nın Dıs¸ Savunması Uzerine ˙ ¨ Gozlemler.” In II. Uluslararası Izmir Sempozyumu: ¨ ˙ ˘ Tebligler, edited by N. Ulker, 5–30. Izmir: ¨ ˙ Ege Universitesi Izmir Aras¸tırma ve Uygulama Merkezi. Dominian, L. 1911. “History and Geology of Ancient Gold-Fields in Turkey.” Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers 42:569–89.

Dora, O. O., N. Kun, O. C¸andan. 1991. “Metamorphic History and Geotectonic Evolution of the Menderes Massif.” In Proceedings of the International Earth Science Congress on Aegean Regions, Izmir 1990, edited by M. Y. Savas¸c¸in and A. H. Eronat, 102– ˙ 15. Izmir: International Earth Science Congress. Draycott, C. 2006. “Images and Identities in the Funerary Art of Western Anatolia, 600–450 BC: Phrygia, Hellespontine Phrygia, Lydia.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Oxford University. Dusinberre, E. R. M. 1997. “Imperial Style and Constructed Identity: A ‘Graeco-Persian’ Cylinder Seal from Sardis.” Ars Orientalis 27:99–129. 1999. “Satrapal Sardis: Achaemenid Bowls in an Achaemenid Capital.” American Journal of Archaeology 103:73–102. ˘ 2002. “An Excavated Ivory from Kerkenes Dag, Turkey: Transcultural Fluidities, Significations of Collective Identity, and the Problem of Median Art.” Ars Orientalis 32:17–54. 2003. Aspects of Empire in Achaemenid Sardis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dyson, S. 1982. “Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Basin: A Review of Recent Research.” American Antiquity 47:87–98. Ebbinghaus, S. Forthcoming. “Sardis Tomb 03.1.” Eichholz, D. E., ed. and trans. 1962. Works of Pliny. Loeb Classical Library, vol. 10. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ercan, T. 1993. “Interpretation of Geochemical, Radiometric and Isotopic Data on Kula Volcanics (Manisa-Western Anatolia).” Bulletin of the Geological Society of Turkey 36.1:113–29. Fellows, C. 1839. A Journal Written During an Excursion in Asia Minor. London: J. Murray. ¨ oz, ¨ and G. Tarcan. 1992. “HydroFiliz, S¸., A. Gokg geologic Comparisons of Geothermal Fields in ¨ uk ¨ Menderes Grabens.” Prothe Gediz and Buy ceedings of the XI. Congress of the World Hydrothermal Organization, 13–18 June 1990, Istanbul, ˙ ˙ Pamukkale, Turkey, 129–53. Istanbul: Istanbul ¨ University Tibbi Ekoloji ve Hidroklimatoloji Merkezi. Finkel, D. J. 1974. “The Dynamics of Middle Eastern Skeletal Populations.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon. Fleming, A. 1973. “Tombs for the Living.” Man 8(2):177–93. Fontrier, A. 1885/86. “Smyrna.” Mouseªon kaª biblioqhkŸ tŸv EÉaggelikŸv ScolŸv 5:11–135. Foss, C. 1975. “A Bullet of Tissaphernes.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 95:25–30. 1976. Byzantine and Turkish Sardis. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1979a. “Explorations in Mount Tmolus.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity 11:21–60.

283

Works Cited 1979b. “Late Byzantine Fortifications in Lydia.” ¨ Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik 28:297– 320. 1982. “A Neighbor of Sardis: The City of Tmolus and its Successors.” Classical Antiquity 1(2):178– 205. 1987. “Sites and Strongholds of Northern Lydia.” Anatolian Studies 37:81–101. 1993. “New Discoveries on Mount Tmolus.” American Journal of Archaeology 97:318. Foss, C., and G. M. A. Hanfmann. 1975. “Regional Setting and Urban Development.” In A Survey of Sardis and the Major Monuments Outside the City Walls, edited by G. M.A. Hanfmann and J. C. Waldbaum, 17–34. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Report 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Foucart, P. 1887. “Exploration de la Plaine de l’Hermus (par M. Aristote Fontrier).” Bulletin de correspondance hell´enique 11:79–107. Francis, E. D. 1980. “Greeks and Persians: The Art of Hazard and Triumph.” In Ancient Persia: The Art of an Empire, edited by D. Schmandt-Besserat, 62–83. Malibu, CA: Undena. Franke, P. R. 1961. “Inschriftliche und numismatische ¨ die Chronologie des Artemis TemZeugnisse fur pels zu Sardis.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archao¨ logischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 76:197–208. Franklin, J. C. 2008. “‘A Feast of Music’: The GrecoLydian Musical Movement on the Assyrian Periphery.” In Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbours. Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction, September 17–19, 2004, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, edited by B. J. Collins, M. R. Bachvarova, and I. C. Rutherford, 191–201. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books. Frazer, J. G., ed., trans. 1898. Pausanias’s Description of Greece. 6 vols. London: Macmillan. French, D. H. 1965. “Early Pottery Sites from Western Anatolia.” Bull. Inst. Arch. London 5:15–24. 1968. “Anatolia and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK. 1969. “Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia II. The Balıkesir and Akhisar/Manisa Areas.” Anatolian Studies 19:41–98. 1998. “Pre- and Early-Roman Roads of Asia Minor. The Persian Royal Road.” Iran 36:15–43. Friedrich, J. 1932. Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmaler. ¨ Berlin: W. de Gruyter & Co. Gabelmann, H. 1965. Studien zum fruhgriechischen ¨ L¨owenbild. Berlin: Mann. Gaffney, V. L., Z. Stanˇciˇc, and H. Watson. 1995. “The Impact of GIS in Archaeology: A Personal Perspective.” In Archaeology and Geographic Information Systems: A European Perspective, edited by G.

Lock and Z. Stanˇciˇc, 211–29. London and Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. Gallant, T. W. 1991. Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece. Reconstructing the Rural Domestic Economy. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Garnsey, P. 1999. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gardin, J. C. 1980. Archaeological Constructs: An Aspect of Theoretical Archaeology, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gauthier, P. 1989. Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes II. Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et de Philologie de la ´ ´ IVe Section de l’Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes, III. ´ Hautes Etudes du Monde Gr´eco-Romaine 15, Geneva: Droz. ¨ Gentner, W., O. Muller, G. A. Wagner, N. H. Gale. 1978. “Silver Sources of Archaic Greek Coinage.” Die Naturwissenschaften 65:273–84. ˙ 2001. “Defensive Systems in Aiolis and Gezgin, I. Ionia Regions in the Achaemenid Period.” In Achaemenid Anatolia: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Anatolia in the Achaemenid Period, Bandırma, 15–18 August 1997, edited by T. Bakır, ¨ H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, G. Gurtekin, P. Briant, and W. Henkelman, 181–8. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Gordon, B. R. 2007. “To Rule the Earth.” In Regnal Chronologies, edited by Bruce R. Gordon. http:// my.raex.com/∼obsidian/earthrul.html. (accessed September 10, 2008). Greenewalt, C. H., jr. 1968. “Lydian Vases from Western Asia Minor.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity 1:139–54. 1972. “Two Lydian Graves at Sardis.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity 5:114–45. 1978a. “Lydian Elements in the Material Culture of Sardis.” In Proceedings of the Xth Interna˙ tional Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara-Izmir, 23–30/IX/1973, edited by E. Akurgal, 1:37–45. ¨ Tarih Kurumu. Ankara: Turk 1978b. “The Sardis Campaign of 1976.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 229:57–73. 1979. “The Sardis Campaign of 1977.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 233:1– 32. 1984/1997. “A Lydian Canoe-Shaped Vessel from Sardis.” Anatolia 23:195–220. 1990. “The Sardis Campaign of 1987.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Suppl. 27:1– 28. 1995a. “Sardis in the Age of Xenophon.” In Dans les pas des Dix-Mille: peuples et pays du Proche-Orient vus par un grec. Actes de la table ronde internationale organis´e a` l’initiative du GRACO, Toulouse 3–4 f´evrier 1995, edited by P. Briant, 125–45. PALLAS 43. Toulouse: Presses universitaires du Mirail.

284

Works Cited Campaign of 1979 and 1980.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 249:1–44. Greenewalt, C. H., jr., C. Ratt´e, and M. L. Rautman. 1993. “The Sardis Campaigns of 1988 and 1989.” Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 51:1–43. 1994. “The Sardis Campaigns of 1990 and 1991.” Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 52:1–36. 1995. “The Sardis Campaigns of 1992 and 1993.” Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 53:1–36. Greenewalt, C. H., jr., and M. L. Rautman. 1998. “The Sardis Campaigns of 1994 and 1995.” American Journal of Archaeology 102:469–505. 2000. “The Sardis Campaigns of 1996, 1997, and 1998.” American Journal of Archaeology 104:643–81. Forthcoming. “The Sardis Campaigns of 1999– 2007.” Greenewalt, C. H., jr., M. L. Rautman, and N. D. Cahill. 1987. “The Sardis Campaign of 1985.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Suppl. 25:55–92. Greenewalt, C. H., jr., M. L. Rautman, and R. Meric¸. 1986. “The Sardis Campaign of 1983.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Suppl. 24: 1–30. Greenewalt, C. H., jr., E. L. Sterud, and D. F. Belknap. 1982. “The Sardis Campaign of 1978.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 245: 1–34. Greenewalt, C. H., jr., D. G. Sullivan, C. Ratt´e, and T. N. Howe. 1985. “The Sardis Campaigns of 1981 and 1982.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Suppl. 23:53–92. Greenhalgh, J. 1984. “Notes on the Deforestation of Central Anatolia in Antiquity.” Yayla 5:5–9. Gr´egoire, H. 1922. Receuil des inscriptions grecques chr´etiennes d’Asie Mineure. Paris: Leroux. Gusmani, R. 1964. Lydisches W¨orterbuch mit grammatischer Skizze und Inschriftensammlung. Heidelberg: Winter. 1975. Neue epichorische Schriftzeugnisse aus Sardis (1958– 1971). Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1986. Lydisches W¨orterbuch mit grammatischer Skizze und Inschriftensammlung, Erg¨anzungsband, 3. Heidelberg: Winter. 1995. “Zum Stand der Erforschung der lydischen Sprache.” In Forschungen in Lydian, edited by E. Schwertheim, 9–19. Asia Minor Studien, 17. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. ¨ Gusmani, R., and Y. Akkan. 2004. “Bericht uber einen lydischen Neufund aus dem Kaystrostal.” Kadmos 43:139–50. ¨ Gurtekin-Demir, R. G. 2002. “Lydian Painted Pottery at Daskyleion.” Anatolian Studies 52:111–43.

1995b. “Croesus of Sardis and the Lydian Kingdom.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. 2, edited by J. M. Sasson, 1173–83. New York: Scribner. 1997. “The Lakonian Pottery. The Finds through 1993.” In The Corinthian, Attic, and Lakonian Pottery from Sardis, by J. S. Schaeffer, N. H. Ramage, and C. H. Greenewalt, jr., 133–40. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph 10. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2001. “Sardis: Archaeological Research and Conservation Projects in 1999.” Kazı Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 22:415–24. 2002. “Sardis: Archaeological Research and Conservation Projects in 2000.” Kazı Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 23:227–34. 2005. “Sardis: Archaeological Research and Conservation Projects in 2003.” Kazı Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 26(2):81–90. 2006a. “Sardis: Archaeological Research and Conservation Projects in 2004.” Kazı Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 27:175–86. 2006b. “Sardis.” In Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien. Geplantes und Erreichtes, edited by W. Rad, 359–72. Byzas 3. Istanbul: DAI / Ege Yayınları. 2007. “Sardis: Archaeological Research and Conservation Projects in 2005.” Kazı Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 28:743–56. 2008. “Sardis: Archaeological Research and Conservation Projects in 2006.” Kazı Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 29(3):371–86. Forthcoming. “Lydia.” In The Archaeology of Anatolia: An Encyclopedia, edited by G. K. Sams. ˘ Greenewalt, C. H., jr., N. D. Cahill, H. Dedeoglu, and P. Herrmann. 1990. “The Sardis Campaign of 1986.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Suppl. 26:137–77. Greenewalt, C. H., jr., N. D. Cahill, and M. L. Rautman. 1987. “The Sardis Campaign of 1984.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Suppl. 25:13–54. Greenewalt, C. H., jr., N. D. Cahill, P. T. Stinson, and ¨ 2003. The City of Sardis: Approaches in F. K. Yegul. Graphic Recording. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Art Museums. Greenewalt, C. H., jr., and A. M. Heywood. 1992. “A Helmet from Sardis.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 285:1–31. Greenewalt, C. H., jr., and L. J. Majewski. 1980. “Lydian Textiles.” In From Athens to Gordion; the Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young, edited by K. DeVries, 133–47. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Greenewalt, C. H., jr., A. Ramage, D. G. Sullivan, K. Nayir, and A. Tulga. 1983. “The Sardis

285

Works Cited 2007. “Provincial Production of Lydian Painted Pottery.” In Anatolian Iron Ages 6: Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Eskis¸ehir, ˘ and 16–20 August 2004, edited by A. C¸ilingiroglu A. Sagona, 47–77. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 20. Leuven: Peeters Publishers. Forthcoming. “Lydian Pottery from the Hermus Valley.” ¨ Guterbock, H. G. 1956. “Notes on Some Hittite Monuments.” Anatolian Studies 6:53–6. ¨ Guterbock, H. G., and R. L. Alexander. 1983. “The Second Inscription on Mount Sipylus.” Anatolian Studies 33:29–32. Habicht, C. 1975. “New Evidence on the Province of Asia.” Journal of Roman Studies 65:63–91. Hall, J. M. 2007. “The Creation and Expression of Identity: The Greek World.” In Classical Archaeology, edited by S.E. Alcock and R. Osborne, 337–54. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hallock, R. T. 1969. Persepolis Fortification Tablets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1978. “Selected Fortification Texts.” Cahiers de la D´el´egation Arch´eologie Franc¸aise en Iran 8:109–36. Hamilton, W. J. 1842. Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia, with Some Account of Their Antiquities and Geology. 2 vols. London: Murray. Hanfmann, G. M. A. 1945. “Horsemen from Sardis.” American Journal of Archaeology 49:570–81. 1951. “Prehistoric Sardis.” In Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson on His 70th Birthday, edited by G. E. Mylonas, vol. 1, 160–83. St. Louis: Washington University. 1958. “Lydiaka.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 63:65–88. 1963. “The Fifth Campaign at Sardis (1962).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 170:1–65. 1964. “The Sixth Campaign at Sardis (1963).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 174: 3–58. 1965. “The Seventh Campaign at Sardis (1964).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 177:2–37. 1967. “The Ninth Campaign at Sardis (1966).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 186:17–52. 1968. “The Tenth Campaign at Sardis (1967).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 191: 2–41. 1974. “The Sixteenth Campaign at Sardis (1973).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 215:31–60. 1975. From Croesus to Constantine: The Cities of Western Asia Minor and Their Arts in Greek and Roman Times. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 1977. “On the Palace of Croesus.” In Festschrift fur ¨ ¨ and A. Frank Brommer, edited by U. Hockmann Krug, 145–54. Mainz: Philip von Zabern.

1978. “Lydian Relations with Ionia and Persia.” In Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classi˙ cal Archaeology, Ankara-Izmir, 23–30/IX/1973, edited ¨ Tarih by E. Akurgal, 1:25–35. Ankara: Turk Kurumu. 1980. “On Lydian Sardis.” In From Athens to Gordion; the Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young, edited by K. DeVries, 99–131. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. 1983a. (ed.). Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Results of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, 1958– 1975. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1983b. “Lydian Society and Culture.” In Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Results of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, 1958–1975, edited by G.M.A. Hanfmann, 67–99. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1983c. “On the Gods of Lydian Sardis.” In Beitrage ¨ zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens: Festschrift f¨ur Kurt Bittel, edited by R. M. Boehmer and H. Hauptmann, 219–31. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. 1984. “The Double Lion from Hypaipa.” In Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg: Numismatics, Art History, Archaeology, edited by A. Houghton, S. Hurter, P. E. Mottahedeh, and J. A. Scott, 85–9. Wetteren: Editions NR. 1987. “The Sacrilege Inscription: The Ethnic, Linguistic, Social and Religious Situation at Sardis at the End of the Persian Era.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 1:1–8. Hanfmann, G. M. A., S. L. Carter, and J. C. Waldbaum. 1975. “A Survey of Sardis.” In A Survey of Sardis and the Major Monuments Outside the City Walls, edited by G. M. A. Hanfmann and J. C. Waldbaum, 1–16. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Report 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hanfmann, G. M. A., and K. P. Erhart. 1981. “Pedimental Reliefs from a Mausoleum of the Persian Era at Sardis: A Funerary Meal.” In Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan, edited by W. K. Simpson and W. M. Davis, 82–90. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Hanfmann, G. M. A., and C. Foss. 1983. “The City and Its Environment.” In Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Results of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, 1958–1975, edited by G. M. A. Hanfmann, 1–16. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hanfmann, G. M. A., and N. H. Ramage. 1978. Sculpture from Sardis: The Finds through 1975. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Report 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hanfmann, G. M. A., and J. C. Waldbaum. 1970. “The Eleventh and Twelfth Campaigns at Sardis (1968, 1969).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 199:7–58.

286

Works Cited 1975 (eds.). A Survey of Sardis and the Major Monuments Outside the City Walls. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Report 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ¨ and J. S. Crawford. Hanfmann, G. M. A., F. K. Yegul, 1983. “The Roman and Late Antique Period.” In Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Results of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, 1958–1975, edited by G.M.A. Hanfmann, 139–67. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hansen, D. P. 1962. “An Archaic Bronze Boar from Sardis.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 168:27–36. Hansen, O. 1997. “KUB XXVIII. 13: A Possible Contemporary B.A. Source for the Sack of Troy/Hisarlık.” Annual of the British School at Athens 92:165–8. Haspels, C. H. E. 1971. The Highlands of Phrygia: Sites and Monuments. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hawkins, J. D. 1998. “Tarkasnawa King of Mira: ˘ oy ¨ Sealings and Karabel.” ‘Tarkondemos’ Bogazk Anatolian Studies 48:1–31. 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Head, V. 1901. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Lydia, British Museum Catalogue. London: Trustees of the British Museum. 1977. Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics. Reprint of the 2nd ed. of 1910. London: Spink. Heres, H., and E. Forbeck. 1997. Das L¨owengrab von Milet. Winckelmannsprogramme der Archaologischen ¨ Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 136. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Herrmann, P. 2004. “Apollon de Pleura. Un sanctuaire rural en Lydie entre les e´ poques hell´enistique et romaine.” In L’hell´enisme d’´epoque romaine. Nouveaux documents, nouvelles approches (Ier si`ecle a.C. – IIIe si`ecle p.C.). Actes du colloque international a` la m´emoire de Louis Robert. Paris 7–8 juillet 2000, edited by Simone Follet, 277–86. Paris: De Boccard. Herrmann, P., and J. Keil. 1981. Tituli Asiae Minoris, V. Tituli Lydiae, 1. Regio Septentrionalis ad Orientem Vergens. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. 1989. Tituli Asiae Minoris, V. Tituli Lydiae, 2. Regio Septentrionalis ad Occidentem Vergens. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Heubeck, A. 1959. Lydiaka. Untersuchungen zu Schrift, Sprache und G¨otternamen der Lyder. Erlanger Forschungen. Reihe A: Geisteswissenschaften, Band 9: Erlangen: Universit¨atsbund Erlangen. Hogarth, D. G. 1909. Ionia and the East. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ¨ Hogemann, P. 2001. “Troias Untergang – was dann? Alte Dynastien, neue Reiche und die ‘Ionische Kolonisation’ (12.–6. Jh. v. Chr.).” In Troia: Traum und Wirklichkeit, edited by B. Theune-Großkopf et a.l., 58–63. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss.

Hoz, M. P. de. 1999. Die lydischen Kulte im Lichte der griechischen Inschriften. Asia Minor Studien, 36. Bonn: Habelt. Hull, D. B. 1964. Hounds and Hunting in Ancient Greece, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Humann, C. 1888. “Die Tantalosburg Mittheilungen.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Insti¨ tuts, Athenische Abteilung 13:28 ff. Humann, C., C. Cichorius, W. Judeich, and F. Winter. 1898. Altertumer 4. ¨ von Hierapolis. JdI, Erganzungsheft ¨ Berlin: G. Reimer. ¨ uzl ¨ u, ¨ B. 2004. “Burial Grounds at Klazomenai: Hurm Geometric through Hellenistic Periods.” In Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera: Metropoleis and Colony. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Archaeological Museum of Abdera, Abdera, 20–21 October 2001, edited by A. Moustaka, E. Skarlatidou, M.-C. Tzannes, and Y. Ersoy, 77–95. Thessaloniki: Greek Ministry of Culture. Huxley, G. 1997/98. “A Lydo-Median Treaty in Herodotus (1.74.3–4).” Deltio 12:9–11. ¨ Hubner, S. 2003. “Spiegel und soziale Gestaltungskraft allt¨aglicher Lebenswelt. Der Kult des Mˆen in Lydien und Phrygien.” In Religion und Region. G¨otter und Kulte aus dem o¨ stlichen Mittelmeerraum, edited by E. Schwertheim and E. Winter, 179–200. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt. ˙ Ilhan, E. 1971. “Earthquakes in Turkey.” In Geology and History of Turkey, edited by A. S. Campbell, 431–42. Tripoli: Petroleum Exploration Society of Libya. Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1897. Lydische Stadtmunzen, Geneva: ¨ Schweizer Numismat. Gesellschaft. ˙ Incel, R. 1971. “Us¸ak Tarihi.” Unpublished manuscript in the Us¸ak Museum, Us¸ak, Turkey. ˙ Inci, U. 1998. “Miocene Synvolcanic Alluvial Sedimentation in Lignite-Bearing Soma Basin, Western Turkey.” Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 7:63– 78. Ivanchik, A. I. 1993. Les Cimm´eriens au Proche-Orient. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 127. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires. ˙ ¨ 1975. “Us¸ak-Selc¸ikler Tum ¨ ul ¨ usleri.” ¨ Izmirligil, U. Turk ¨ Arkeoloji Dergisi 22.1:41–69. Jacobs, B. 1987. Griechische und persische Elemente in der Grabkunst Lykiens zur Zeit der Achamenidenherrschaft. ¨ Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology vol. 78. Jon˚ om. ¨ sered: P. Astr 1994. “Review of Noll´e, Denmaler ¨ vom Satrapensitz Daskyleion (1992).” B¨onner Jahrbuch 194:553–6. Jacoby, F. 1923 (and later). Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin: Weidmann. Jones, A. H. M. 1971. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jones, J. E. 1975. “Town and Country Houses in Attica in Classical Times.” Miscellanea Graeca 1:63–141.

287

Works Cited Kagan, D. 1987. The Fall of the Athenian Empire. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kalaitzoglu, G. 2008. Assesos. Ein geschlossener Fund sudionischer Keramik aus dem Heiligtum der Athena Ass¨ esia. Deutsches Arch¨aologisches Institut. Milesische Forschungen, Bd. 6. Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern. Kaletch, H. 1958. “Zur lydischen Chronologie.” Historia 7:1–47. 2008. “Carura.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Brill Online. http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry =bnp_e609810. (accessed September 10, 2008). Kaptan, D. B. 2002. The Daskyleion Bullae: Seal Images from the Western Achaemenid Empire. 2 vols. Achaemenid History 12. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 2003. “A Glance at Northwestern Asia Minor During the Achaemenid Period.” Achaemenid History 13:189–202. Kasper, S. 1970. “Eine Nekropole nordwestlich von Soma.” Archaologischer Anzeiger 85:71–83. ¨ Kaye, L. M., and C. T. Main. 1995. “The Saga of the Lydian Hoard Antiquities: From Us¸ak to New York and Back Again and Some Related Observations on the Law of Cultural Repatriation.” In Antiquities Trade or Betrayed: Legal, Ethical and Conservation Issues, edited by K. W. Tubb, 150–62. London: Archetype. Kearns, J. M. 1997. “A Lydian Etymology for the Name of Croesus.” In Studies in Honor of Jaan Puhvel, edited by D. Disterheft, M. E. Huld, J. A. C. Greppin, and E. C. Polom´e, 23–8. Journal of IndoEuropean Studies Monograph 20. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. Keil, B. 1902. “Korou-Pedion.” Revue de philologie, de literature et d’histoire ancienne 26:257–62. Keil, J., and A. V. Premerstein. 1908. Bericht uber ¨ eine Reise in Lydien und der sudlichen Aiolis, ausgefuhrt ¨ ¨ 1906. ¨ Akademie der WisDenkschriften der Osterreichischen senschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 53, ¨ 2. Vienna: Holder. 1911. Bericht uber ¨ eine zweite Reise in Lydien, ausgefuhrt ¨ ¨ 1908. Denkschriften der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse ¨ 54, 2. Vienna: Holder. 1914. Bericht uber ¨ ¨ eine dritte Reise in Lydien, ausgefuhrt ¨ 1911. Denkschriften der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse ¨ 57, 1. Vienna: Holder. Kersel, M., C. Luke, and C. H. Roosevelt. 2008. Valuing the Past: Perceptions of Archaeological Practice in Lydia and the Levant. Journal of Social Archaeology 8(3):298–319. Kiepert, H. and R. Kiepert. 1894–1914. Formae Orbis Antiqui: 36 Karten mit kritischem Text und Quellenangabe zu jeder Karte. Berlin: D. Reimer.

Knapp, A. B., and W. Ashmore. 1999. “Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptual, Ideational.” In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp, 1–30. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Knudson, A. K. 1964. “From a Sardis Tomb. A Lydian Pottery Imitation of a Phrygian Metal Bowl.” Berytus 15:59–69. ˘ A., H. Yusufoglu, ˘ E. Bozkurt. 1999. “EviKoc¸yigit, dence from the Gediz Graben for Episodic Twostage Extension in Western Turkey.” Journal of the Geological Society of London 156:605–16. Kohler, E. L. 1980. “Cremations of the Middle Phrygian Period at Gordion.” In From Athens to Gordion: The Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young, edited by K. DeVries, 65–89. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. 1995. Gordion Excavations (1950–1973) Final Reports Volume II: The Lesser Phrygian Tumuli, Part I, The Inhumations. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Forthcoming. Gordion Excavations (1950–1973) Final Reports Volume II: The Lesser Phrygian Tumuli, Part 2, The Cremations. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. ¨ Kokten Ersoy, H. 1998. “Two Wheeled Vehicles from Lydia and Mysia.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 48:107– 33. ¨ Kokten, H. 1998. “Conservation and Reconstruction of Phrygian Chariot Wheels from Mysia.” In Thracians and Phrygians: Problems of Parallelism. Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Archaeology, History and Ancient Languages of Thrace and Phrygia, Ankara, 3–4 June 1995, edited by N. Tuna, ¨ and M. Lynch, 131–46. Ankara: CenZ. Akture, tre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment. ¨ Kokten, Z. T. H. 1994. “Anadolu’da Ele Gec¸en ¨ Akhaemenid Donemi Araba Buluntuları.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ege Univer˙ sity, Izmir, Turkey. Kontoleon, A. 1887. “Vari´et´es.” Bulletin de correspondance hell´enique 11:296–301. Korfmann, M., A. Baykal-Seeher, and S. Kılıc¸. 1994. Anatolien in der Fruhen ¨ und Mittleren Bronzezeit. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Kuhrt, A. 2007. The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. 2 vols. London and New York: Routledge. Kurtz, D. C. 1988. “Mistress and Maid.” Annali di archeologia e storia antica 10:141–9. Kurtz, D. C., and J. Boardman. 1971. Greek Burial Customs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kwasman, T., and A. Lemaire. 2002. “An Aramaic Inscription from Kemaliye (Lydian Philadelpheia).” Epigraphica Anatolica 34:185– 7.

288

Works Cited 1994. Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Manisa Museum. ¨ Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-Hist.

L’vov-Basirov, O. 2001. “Achaemenian Funerary Practices in Western Asia Minor.” In Achaemenid Anatolia: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Anatolia in the Achaemenid Period, Bandırma, 15– 18 August 1997, edited by T. Bakır, H. Sancisi¨ Weerdenburg, G. Gurtekin, P. Briant, and W. Henkelman, 101–7. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Leake, W. M. 1824. Journal of a Tour in Asia Minor. London: Murray. Lecoq, P. 1997. Les inscriptions de la Perse achem´enide. Traduit du vieux perse, de l’´elamite, du babylonien et de l’aram´een, pr´esent´e et annot´e par Pierre Lecoq. Paris: Gallimard. Lemaire, A. 2002. “Nouvelle Inscription Aram´eenne ´ d’Epoque Ach´emenide Provenant de Kenger (Lydie).” Epigraphica Anatolica 34:179–84. Levi, M.-A. 1976. “Au suject des Laoi et des inscriptions de Mnesimachos.” In Actes du Colloque 1973 sur l’esclavage. Annales Litt´eraires de l’Universit´e de Besanc¸on, 182, Centre de Recherche d’Histoire Ancienne, 259–71. Paris: Belles Lettres. Lewis, D. M. 1977. Sparta and Persia: Lectures Delivered at the University of Cincinnati, Autumn 1976, in Memory of Donald W. Bradeen. Leiden: Brill. Lilova, B. 1994. “Burial Tumuli in the Kazanlak Region.” In Nadgrobnite mogili v IUgoiztochna Evropa: purvi mezhdunaroden simpozium “Sevtopolis,” Kazanluk, 4–8 iuni 1993 [Burial Tumuli in the South East of Europe: First International Symposium “Seuthopolis,” Kazanluk, Bulgaria, 4–8 June 1993], edited by Kos’o Zarev, 117–24. Veliko Turnovo: Izd-vo “PIK”. Linnekin, J. S. 1983. “Defining Tradition: Variations on the Hawaiian Identity.” American Ethnologist 10(2):241–52. Lloyd, S., and J. Mellaart. 1962. Beycesultan I. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Lohmann, H. 1992. “Agriculture and Country Life in Classical Attica.” In Agriculture in Ancient Greece: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium at the Swedish Institute of Athens, 16–17 May 1990, edited by B. Wells, 29–56. Stockholm: Swedish Institute of Athens. Luke, C., and C. H. Roosevelt. 2009. “The Central Lydia Archaeological Survey: Documenting the Prehistoric through Iron Age Periods.” In TreeRings, Kings, and Old World Archaeology and Environment: Papers Presented in Honor of Peter Ian Kuniholm, edited by S. W. Manning and M. J. Bruce. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Malay, H. 1991. “Lydia’da Yeni Epigraphik Buluntular.” Aras¸tırma Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 8:203–8. 1992. Hellenistik Devirde Pergamon ve Aristonikos ˙ ¨ ur ¨ Ayaklanması. Izmir: Bergama Belediyesi Kult Yayınları.

Klasse, Denkschriften 237. Vienna: Verlag der ¨ Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1999. Researches in Lydia, Mysia and Aiolis. ¨ Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 279. Vienna: Verlag der ¨ Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ˘ 1996. “The Cult of Malay, H., and C. Nalbantoglu. Apollo Pleurenos in Lydia.” Arkeoloji Dergisi 4:75– 81. Marksteiner, T. 2002. Trysa. Eine zentrallykische Niederlassung im Wandel der Zeit. Wiener Forschungen zur Archaologie, Band 5. Vienna: Phoibos. ¨ Mattingly, D. 2000. “Methods of Collection, Recording, and Quantification.” In Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages, edited by R. Francovich, H. Patterson, and G. Barker, 5–15. The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes 5. Oxford: Oxbow Books. McCaskie, T. C. 1972. “Innovational Eclecticism: The Asante Empire and Europe in the Nineteenth Century.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 14.1:30–45. McLauchlin, B. K. 1985. “Lydian Graves and Burial Customs.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Mee, C. B. 1978. “Aegean Trade and Settlement in Western Anatolia.” Anatolian Studies 28:121–56. 1988. “A Mycenaean Thalassocracy in the Eastern Aegean?” In Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, edited by E. B. French and K. A. Wardle, 301–5. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Melchert, H. C. 1995. “Indo-European Languages of Anatolia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. 4, edited by J. M. Sasson, 2151–9. New York: Scribner. 2002. “The God Sanda in Lycia?” In Silva Anatolica: Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by P. Taracha, 241–51. Warsaw: Agade. 2003a. (ed.). The Luwians. Handbook of Oriental Studies 68. Leiden/Boston: Brill. 2003b. “The Dialectical Position of Lydian and Lycian within Anatolian.” In Licia e Lidia prima dell’ Ellenizzazione. Atti del Convegno internazionale Roma, 11–12 ottobre 1999, edited by M. Giorgieri, M. Salvini, M.-C. Tr´emouille, and P. Vannicelli, 265–72. Istituto di Studi sulle Civilt`a dell’ Egeo e del Vicino Oriente. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. (Monografie Scientifiche. Serie Scienze Umane e Sociali.). 2005. “The Problem of Luvian Influence on Hittite.” In Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.–23.

289

Works Cited September 2000, edited by G. Meiser and O. Hackstein, 445–60. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag. 2008. “Greek m´olybdos as a Loanword from Lydian.” In Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbours. Proceedings of an International Conference on CrossCultural Interaction, September 17–19, 2004, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, edited by B. J. Collins, M. R. Bachvarova, and I. C. Rutherford, 153–7. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books. Melikian-Chirvani, A. S. 1993. “The International Achaemenid Style.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 7:111–30. Mellaart, J. 1954. “Preliminary Report on a Survey of Pre-Classical Remains in Southern Turkey.” Anatolian Studies 4:175–240. 1955. “Iron Age Pottery from Southern Anatolia.” Belleten 19:115–36. ¨ Mellink, M. J. 1971. “Excavations at Karatas¸-Semayuk and Elmalı, Lycia, 1970.” American Journal of Archaeology 75:245–55. ¨ and Elmalı, 1973. “Excavations at Karatas¸-Semayuk Lycia, 1972.” American Journal of Archaeology 77:293–303. ¨ and Elmalı, 1975. “Excavations at Karatas¸-Semayuk Lycia, 1974.” American Journal of Archaeology 79:349–55. 1976. “Excavations in the Elmalı Area, Lycia, 1975.” American Journal of Archaeology 80:379–84. 1979. “The Symbolic Doorway of the Tumulus at Karaburun, Elmalı.” Turk ¨ Tarih Kongresi 8. [Proceedings of the Eighth Turkish Historical Congress, Ankara, ¨ 11–15 October 1976], vol. 1, 383–7. Ankara: Turk Tarıh Kurumu Basımevi. 1998a. Kızılbel: An Archaic Painted Tomb Chamber in Northern Lycia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Press. 1998b. “Opening Speech on Behalf of Scientific Institutions.” In Thracians and Phrygians: Problems of Parallelism. Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Archaeology, History and Ancient Languages of Thrace and Phrygia, Ankara, 3–4 June 1995, edited ¨ by N. Tuna, Z. Akture, and M. Lynch, 7–12. Ankara: Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment. Mendel, G. 1912–1914. Mus´ees Imp´eriaux Ottomans: Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines et Byzantines, I– III. Istanbul: Mus´ees Imp´eriaux Ottomans. ˙ Meric¸, R. 1983a. “1982 Yılı Izmir-Aydın-Manisa ˙ ˘ ¨ Illerinde Tarihsel Cografya Konulu Yuzey Aras¸tırmaları Raporu.” Aras¸tırma Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 1:51–2. 1983b. “Report on the Regional Survey of Sardis 1983.” Informal report to the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis on the results of the Historical Geography of the Hermus Valley Project.

¨ ¸ uk ¨ Menderes (Kaystros) Havzasının 1983c. “Kuc ˘ Tarihsel Cografyası.” Unpublished Doc¸entlik ¨ Sanatlar Fakultesi, ¨ Thesis, Guzel Ege University, ˙ Izmir, Turkey. 1984. “Report on the Regional Survey of Sardis 1984.” Informal report to the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis on the results of the Historical Geography of the Hermus Valley Project. ˙ ˙ ¨ 1985. “1984 Yılı Izmir ve Manisa Illeri Yuzey Aras¸tırmaları.” Aras¸tırma Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 3:199– 208. ˙ ˙ ¨ 1986. “1985 Yılı Izmir ve Manisa Illeri Yuzey Aras¸tırması.” Aras¸tırma Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 4:301– 10. ˙ ˙ ¨ 1987. “1986 Yılı Izmir ve Manisa Illeri Yuzey Aras¸tırması.” Aras¸tırma Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 5:247– 56. ˙ ˙ ¨ 1988. “1987 Izmir-Manisa-Aydın Illeri Yuzey Aras¸tırması.” Aras¸tırma Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 6:385– 92. ˙ ˙ 1989. “1988 Yılı Izmir, Manisa Illeri Arkeolojik ¨ Yuzey Aras¸tırması.” Aras¸tırma Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 7:361–6. ˘ Lydia’dan Bir Mezar Steli.” Arkoloji Der1991. “Dogu gisi 1:121–2. 1993a. “Neue ostgriechische Grabreliefs aus Ionien und Lydien; mit einem historisch¨ 62:57–75. topographischen Exkurs.” OJh 1993b. “Pre-Bronze Age settlements of westcentral Anatolia (an extended abstract).” Anatolica 19:143–50. Meric¸, R., and J. Noll´e. 1985. “Neue Inschriften aus der Umbegung von Philadelphia in Lydien: Badınca.” Epigraphica Anatolica 5:19–26. ¨ Merkelbach, R. 1991. “Ein Orakel des Apollon fur Artemis von Koloe.” Zeitschrift fur ¨ Papyrologie und Epigraphik 88:70–2. Mierse, W. E. 1983. “The Persian Period.” In Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Results of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, 1958–1975, edited by G.M.A. Hanfmann, 100–8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ˘ um. ¨ Mitten, D. G., and G. Yu¨ gr 1968. “Excavations at Ahlatlı Tepecik on the Gygean Lake, 1968.” Dergi 17(1):125–7. 1971. “The Gygean Lake, 1969: Eski Balıkhane, Preliminary Report.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 75:191–5. 1974. “Ahlatlı Tepecik beside the Gygean Lake.” Archaeology 27:22–9. ¨ Mobius, H. 1971. “Zu den Stelen von Daskyleion.” Archaologischer Anzeiger 1971:454–5. ¨ Moorey, P. R. S. 1980. Cemeteries of the First Millennium B.C. at Deve Huy ¨ uk, ¨ near Carchemish, Salvaged by T. E. Lawrence and C. L. Woolley in 1913, BAR 87. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

290

Works Cited Mountjoy, P. A. 1998. “The East Aegean–West Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa.” Anatolian Studies 48:33–67. Morris, I. 1987. Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Greek City-State. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. MTA. 1963. Bilinen Maden Zuhurları Fihristi. Publication ¨ u. ¨ 113. Ankara: Maden, Tetkik ve Arama Enstitus ˙ ˙ ˙ Maden ve Enerji Kaynakları.” MTA Izmir. “Izmir Ili ¨ u. ¨ http://www. Maden, Tetkik ve Arama Enstitus mta.gov.tr/madenler/Izmir.doc (accessed November 6, 2007). ˙ Maden ve Enerji KayMTA Manisa. “Manisa Ili ¨ u. ¨ nakları.” Maden, Tetkik ve Arama Enstitus http://www.mta.gov.tr/madenler/Manisa.doc (accessed November 6, 2007). ˙ Maden ve Enerji KayMTA Us¸ak. “Us¸ak Ili ¨ u. ¨ nakları.” Maden, Tetkik ve Arama Enstitus http://www.mta.gov.tr/madenler/Usak.doc (accessed November 6, 2007). Munn, M. 2006. The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia. A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Muscarella, O. W. 2008. “Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian Destruction Date: ca. 700 +/− B.C.” In Stud˘ Prof. Dr. Aykut ies in Honor of Dr. Aykut C¸inaroglu. ˘ ˘ Kitabı, edited by E. Genc¸ and C¸inaroglu’na Armagan D. C¸elik, 175–87. Ankara, Turkey: Yapı Kredi. Nagata, Y. 1976. Some Documents on the Big Farms (C¸iftliks) of the Notables in Western Anatolia. Studia Culturae Islamicae, vol. 4. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. ¨ ul ¨ usleri ¨ Nayır, K. 1983. “Alibeyli Tum Kurtarma Kazısı 1981.” Kazı Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 4:199–206. Neumann, G. 2001. “Der Große Nachbar in Anatolien. Die Hethither.” In Troia: Traum und Wirklichkeit, edited by B. Theune-Großkopf et al., 46– 50. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Nesbitt, M. 2002. “Plants and People in Ancient Anatolia.” In Across the Anatolian Plateau, edited by D. C. Hopkins, 5–18. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 57 (2000). Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. ¨ Nick, G. 2001. “Apollon als Lowenb¨ andiger im ¨ ostlichen Mittelmeergebeit.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 51:191–216. Niemann, G., and E. Petersen. 1892. Stadte ¨ Pamphyliens und Pisidiens II. Vienna: F. Tempsky. Noe, S. P. 1956. “Two Hoards of Persian Sigloi.” American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 136:1–45. Nylander, C. 1970. Ionians in Pasargadae. Studies in Old Persian Architecture. Uppsala: Universitetet. 1974. “Anatolians in Susa – and Persepolis (?).” Acta Iranica 6:317–23.

Oettinger, N. 2002. “Indogermanische Sprachtr¨ager lebten schon im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in Kleinasien.” In Die Hethiter und ihr Reich. Das Volk ¨ and U. der 1000 G¨otter, edited by H. Willinghofer Hasekamp, 50–5. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Olmstead, A. T. 1959. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Osborne, R. 1987. Classical Landscape with Figures: The Ancient Greek City and its Countryside. London: Sheridan House. ¨ Ozet, M. A. 1994. “The Tomb of a Noble Woman from the Hekatomnid Period.” In Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance: Acts of the International Symposium at the Department of Greek and Roman Studies, Odense University, 28–29 November 1991, edited by J. Isager, 88–96. Odense: Odense University Press. ¨ ˙ J. Ozt ¨ urk, ¨ M. J. Mellink, and C. H. GreeOzgen, I., newalt, Jr. 1996. The Lydian Treasure: Heritage Recov˙ ˘ Okman for [the] Republic ered. Istanbul: Ugur of Turkey, Ministry of Culture, General Directorate of Monuments and Museums. ¨ unel, ¨ Ozg C. 1996. Mykenische Keramik in Anatolien. Asia Minor Studien 23. Bonn: R. Habelt. ¨ Ozkan, T. 1991. “Lydia’da Ele Gec¸en Bir Greko-Pers Buluntu Grubu.” Arkeoloji Dergisi 1:131–5. ¨ urk, ¨ ˘ Yuzey ¨ Ozt D. 1997. “Manisa (Spil) Dagı Aras¸tırması.” Unpublished Honors Thesis, Ege ˙ University, Izmir, Turkey. ¨ urk, ¨ J. 1998. “Lydian Jewelry.” In The Art of the Greek Ozt Goldsmith, edited by D. Williams, 41–7. London: British Museum Press. ¨ urlan, ¨ Oz G., and M. H. S¸ahin. 2006. “Integrated Geophysical Investigations in the Hisar Geothermal Field, Demirci, Western Turkey.” Geothermics 35.2:110–22. Palavestra, A. 1998. “Landmarks of Power: Princely Tombs in the Central Balkan Iron Age.” In The Archaeology of Value: Essays on Prestige and Processes of Valuation, edited by D. Bailey and S. Mills, 55– 69. BAR International Series 730. Oxford: J. and E. Hedges. ¨ 1973. Explanatory Text of Pamir, H. N., and C. Erentoz. ˙ the Geological Map of Turkey: Izmir. Ankara: Maden, ¨ u. ¨ Tetkik ve Arama Enstitus Panayotova, C. 1994. “Tumuli in the Ancient Greek Settlements on the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast.” In Nadgrobnite mogili v IUgoiztochna Evropa: purvi mezhdunaroden simpozium “Sevtopolis,” Kazanluk, 4–8 iuni 1993 [Burial Tumuli in the South East of Europe: First International Symposium “Seuthopolis,” Kazanluk, Bulgaria, 4–8 June 1993], edited by Kos’o Zarev, 81–8. Veliko Turnovo: Izd-vo “PIK”. Parpola, S. 1995. “The Construction of Dur-Sharrukin in the Royal Correspondence.” In Khorsabad, le palais de Sargon II, roi d’Assyrie: actes du colloque organis´e au mus´ee du Louvre par le Services culturel les 21 et 22

291

Works Cited janvier 1994, edited by A. Caubet, 44–79. Paris: La Documentation franc¸aise. Paton, S. 1992. “Active Faulting, Drainage Patterns and Sedimentation in Southwestern Turkey.” Journal of the Geological Society of London 149:1031– 44. Paton, W. R. 1900. “Sites in East Caria and South Lydia.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 20:57–80. Pedley, J. G. 1968. Sardis in the Age of Croesus. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1972. Ancient Literary Sources on Sardis. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1974. “Carians in Sardis.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 94:96–9. Perrot, G., and C. Chipiez. 1892. History of Art in Phrygia, Lydia, Caria and Lycia. London: London, Chapman and Hall, Ltd. Petzl, G. 1994. “Zuweisungsprobleme.” Arkeoloji Dergisi 2:137–48. 1995. “L¨andliche Religiosit¨at in Lydien.” In Forschungen in Lydien. Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium im Landhaus Rothenberge der Universitat 7–9 Marz ¨ Munster, ¨ ¨ 1994, edited by E. Schwertheim, 37–48. Bonn: R. Habelt. 1996. “Neue Inschriften aus Lydien (I).” Epigraphica Anatolica 26:1–29. 1998. “Neue Inschriften aus Lydien (III).” Epigraphica Anatolica 30:19–46. ¨ Pfuhl, E. and H. Mobius. 1977/79. Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs. 2 vols. Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern. Philippson, A. 1901–1914. Reisen und Forschungen im ¨ westlichen Kleinasien, I–V, Gotha: J. Perthes. 1913. Topographisch Karte des westlichen Kleinasien. Gotha: J. Perthes. Polat, G. 2001. “Das Grabdenkmal des Autophradates.” In Achaemenid Anatolia: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Anatolia in the Achaemenid Period, Bandırma, 15–18 August 1997, edited by T. ¨ Bakc¸r, H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, G. Gurtekin, P. Briant, and W. Henkelman, 123–33. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 2005a. “War der persische Satrap Autophradates ¨ von Sardeis der ursprungliche Grabherr des Mausoleums in Belevi?” Epigraphica Anatolica 38: 57–72. ¨ u¨ ¨ 2005b. “Bir Anadolu-Akhaemenid Donemi Ol ¨ ˘ Tum ¨ ul ¨ us ¨ Onunde ¨ ¨ u¨ Gelenegi: Steller ve SerKult emoni Alanları.” Olba 11:1–23. Polosmak, N. 1994. “Siberian Mummy Unearthed.” National Geographic Oct. 1994:80–103. Popko, M. 1995. Religions of Asia Minor. Warsaw: Academic Publications Dialog. Prag, A. J. N. W., and R. A. H. Neave. 1994. “Who is the Carian Princess?” In Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance: Acts of the International Symposium

at the Department of Greek and Roman Studies, Odense University, 28–29 November 1991, edited by J. Isager, 97–109. Odense: Odense University Press. Prag, K. 1995. “The Dead Sea Dolmens: Death and the Landscape.” In The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, edited by S. Campbell and A. Green, 75–84. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Prayon, F. 1989. “L’archittetura funeraria etrusca: La situazione attuale delle ricerche e problemi aperti.” In Secondo congresso internazionale etrusco, Firenze, 26 maggio–2 giugno 1985: Atti, edited by G. Maetzke, 441–9. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Prentice, W. K. 1912. “The Mnesimachus Inscription at Sardis.” American Journal of Archaeology 16:526– 34. Purvis, M., and A. Robertson. 2004. “A Pulsed Extension Model for the Neogene–Recent E– W-trending Alas¸ehir Graben and the NE–SW¨ trending Selendi and Gordes Basins, Western Turkey.” Tectonophysics 391:171–201. 2005. “Sedimentation of the Neogene–Recent Alas¸ehir (Gediz) Continental Graben System Used to Test Alternative Tectonic Models for Western (Aegean) Turkey.” Sedimentary Geology 173:373–408. Radet, G. 1887. “Inscriptions de Lydie.” Bulletin de correspondance hell´enique 11:445–84. 1893. La Lydie et le monde Grec au temps des Mermnades (687–546). Paris: Thorin & fils. Radt, W. 1970. Siedlungen und Bauten auf der Halbinsel von Halikarnassos unter besonderer Berucksichtigung der ¨ archaischen Epoche. Mitteilungen des deutschen archao¨ ¨ logischen Instituts, Abteilung Istanbul, 3. Tubingen: E. Wasmuth. 1973. “Die Leleger auf der Halbinsel von Halikarnassos.” In Proceedings of the Xth International ˙ Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara-Izmir, 23– 30/XI/1973, edited by E. Akurgal, 1:335–47. ¨ Tarih Kurumu. Ankara: Turk 1983. “Eine greko-persische Grabstele im Museum Bergama.” Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen ¨ Instituts, Abteilung Istanbul 33:53–68. ¨ 1996. “Archaische Lowen aus der Umbegung von Pergamon.” Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen ¨ Instituts, Abteilung Istanbul 46:83–92. Ramage, A. 1978. Lydian Houses and Architectural Terracottas. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph 5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1987. “Lydian Sardis.” In Sardis: Twenty-Seven Years of Discovery, edited by E. Guralnick, 6–15. Chicago: Chicago Society of the AIA. 1994. “Early Iron Age Sardis and Its Neighbors.” In Anatolian Iron Ages 3: Proceedings of the Third Anatolian Iron Ages Symposium, Van, 6–12 August 1990,

292

Works Cited ˘ and D. French, 163– edited by A. C¸ilingiroglu 72. BIAA Monograph 16. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Forthcoming. “Ahlatlı Tepecik.” In The Gygaean Lake: Explorations and Excavations on the Shores of Marmara G¨olu, ¨ by D. J. Pullen, A. Gunter, A. Ramage, C. H. Roosevelt, and P. Sapirstein. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Report. Cambridge, MA: Archaeological Exploration of Sardis. Ramage, A., and P. Craddock. 2000. King Croesus’ Gold. Excavations at Sardis and the History of Gold Refining. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph 11. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ramage, A., S. M. Goldstein, and W. E. Mierse. 1983. “Lydian Excavation Sectors.” In Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Results of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, 1958–1975, edited by G. M. A. Hanfmann, 26–52. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ramage, A., and N. Ramage. 1971. “The Siting of Lydian Burial Mounds.” In Studies presented to George M. A. Hanfmann, edited by D. G. Mitten, J. G. Pedley, and J. A. Scott, 143–60, Mainz: von Zabern. Ramage, N. H. 1979. “A Lydian Funerary Banquet.” Anatolian Studies 29:91–5. 1994. “Pactolus Cliff: An Iron Age Site at Sardis and its Pottery.” In Anatolian Iron Ages 3: Proceedings of the Third Anatolian Iron Ages Symposium, Van, ˘ and 6–12 August 1990, edited by A. C¸ilingiroglu D. French, 173–83. BIAA Monograph 16. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. 1997. “The Attic Pottery. The Finds through 1990.” In The Corinthian, Attic, and Lakonian Pottery from Sardis, by J. S. Schaeffer, N. H. Ramage, and C. H. Greenewalt, jr., 65–130. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph 10. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ramsay, W. M. 1881. “Studies in Asia Minor, 1.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 2:286–92. 1882. “Studies in Asia Minor: Sipylos and Cybele.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 3:33–68. 1890. The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. London: John Murray. Ratt´e, C. 1989a. “Lydian Masonry and Monumental Architecture at Sardis.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 1989b. “Five Lydian Felines.” American Journal of Archaeology 93:379–93. 1992. “The ‘Pyramid Tomb’ at Sardis.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 42:135–61. 1993. “Lydian Contributions to Archaic East Greek Architecture.” In Les grands ateliers d’architecture dans le monde e´g´een du VIe si`ecle av. J.C. Actes du colloque d’Istanbul, 23–25 mai 1991, edited by J. des Courtils

and J.-C. Moretti, 1–12. Istanbul: Institut franc¸ais d’´etudes anatoliennes. 1994a. “Anthemion Stelae from Sardis.” American Journal of Archaeology 98:593–607. 1994b. “Not the Tomb of Gyges.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 114:157–61. 1994c. “Archaic Architectural Terracottas from Sector ByzFort at Sardis.” Hesperia 63.3:361– 90. 2008. “Reflections on the Urban Development of Hellenistic Sardis.” In Love for Lydia. A Sardis Anniversary Volume Presented to Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., edited by N. D. Cahill, 125–33. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Report 4. Cambridge, MA: Archaeological Exploration of Sardis. Forthcoming. Lydian Architecture: Ashlar Masonry at Sardis. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Report. Cambridge, MA: Archaeological Exploration of Sardis. Ravendal, G. B. 1926. Turkey: A Commercial and Industrial Handbook. U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce Trade Promotion, Series No. 28, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Refik, A. 1931. Osmanlı Devrinde Turkiye Madenleri. ¨ ˙ Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası. Reilly, J. 1989. “Many Brides: ‘Mistress and Maid’ on Athenian Lekythoi.” Hesperia 58:411–44. Rein, M. J. 1993. “The Cult and Iconography of Lydian Kybele.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Renfrew, C. 1976. “Megaliths, Territories, and Populations.” In Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe Mainly During the Neolithic Period and the Bronze Age; Papers Presented at the IV. Atlantic Colloquium, Ghent 1975, edited by S. J. DeLaet, 298–320. Brugge: De Tempel. Richter, G. M. A. 1961. Archaic Gravestones of Attica. London: Phaidon Press. Ricl, M. 2003. “Society and Economy of Rural Sanctuaries in Roman Lydia and Phrygia.” Epigraphica Anatolica 35:77–101. Rigsby, K. 1995. “The Royal Letter from Sarıc¸am.” In Forschungen in Lydien, edited by E. Schwertheim, 77–83. Asia Minor Studien, 17. Bonn: R. Habelt. Robert, L. 1953. “Bulletin e´ pigraphique.” Revue des e´tudes grecques 66:113–212. ´ 1962. Villes d’Asie Mineure: Etudes de g´eographie ancienne. 2nd ed. Paris: E.. de Boccard. 1963. Noms indig`enes dans l’Asie Mineure Gr´eco-Romaine. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. 1982. “Documents d’Asie Mineure. XXI: Au Nord de Sardes.” Bulletin de correspondance hell´enique 106:334–78. 1983. Documents d’Asie Mineure. (Bulletin de correspondance hell´enique 107). Paris: E. de Boccard.

293

Works Cited Robert, L., and J. Robert. 1948. Hellenica: recueil d’´epigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquit´es grecques. Volume VI, Inscriptions grecques de Lydie. Paris: AdrienMaisonneuve. Robertson, N. 1982. “Hittite Ritual at Sardis.” Classical Antiquity 1982:122–40. Robinson, E. S. G. 1947. “A Hoard of Persian Sigloi.” Numismatic Chronicle 1947:173–4. 1958. “The Beginnings of Achaemenid Coinage.” Numismatic Chronicle 1958:187–93. Roebuck, C. 1959. Ionian Trade and Colonization. New York: Archaeological Institute of America. Roosevelt, C. H. 2003. “Lydian and Persian Period Settlement in Lydia.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 2005. “S¸ahankaya in Northern Lydia, Turkey.” Paper read at the Annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, 1 April, Salt Lake City, UT. 2006a. “Symbolic Door Stelae and Graveside Monuments in Western Anatolia.” American Journal of Archaeology 110.1:65–91. 2006b. “Tumulus Survey and Museum Research in Lydia, Western Turkey: Determining Lydianand Persian-Period Settlement Patterns.” Journal of Field Archaeology 31.1:61–76. 2006c. “Bintepeler: Anıtsal Mezarlık.” ArkeoAtlas 5:116–23. 2007. “Central Lydia Archaeological Survey: 2005 Results.” Aras¸tırma Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 24(2):135– 54. 2008a. “Stone Alabastra in Western Anatolia.” In New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts, edited by Y. Rowan and J. Ebeling, 285–97. Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology Series. London: Equinox Publishing. 2008b. “Lale Tepe: A Late Lydian Tumulus near Sardis 1. Introduction, Excavation, and Finds.” In Love for Lydia. A Sardis Anniversary Volume Presented to Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., edited by N. D. Cahill, 1–23. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Report 4. Cambridge, MA: Archaeological Exploration of Sardis. Roosevelt, C. H., and C. Luke. 2006a. “Looting Lydia: the Destruction of an Archaeological Landscape in Western Turkey.” In Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade, edited by N. Brodie, M. Kersel, C. Luke, and K. Walker Tubb, 173– 87. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 2006b. “Mysterious Shepherds and Hidden Treasures: The Culture of Looting in Lydia.” Journal of Field Archaeology 31(2):185–98. 2008. “Central Lydia Archaeological Survey: 2006 Results.” Aras¸tırma Sonuc¸ları Toplantısı 25:305–26. 2009. “Central Lydia Archaeological Survey: 2007 Results.” Aras¸tırma Sonus¸ları Toplantısı 26.

¨ R. Korpe, ¨ Rose, C. B., B. Tekkok, et al. 2007. “Granicus River Valley Survey Project, 2004–2005.” Studia Troica 17:65–150. Rotroff, S. I., and A. Oliver, Jr. 2003. The Hellenistic Pottery from Sardis: The Finds through 1994. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph 12. Cambridge, MA: Archaeological Exploration of Sardis. Ryan, C. W. 1960. A Guide to the Known Minerals of Turkey. Revised edition. Ankara: Maden, Tetkik ¨ u. ¨ ve Arama Enstitus Sachs, S. F. 1996. “Survey of Kel Dag˘ Region: Kel Dag˘ and Ovacık.” American Journal of Archaeology 100:362. Salles, J.-F. 1994. “Du bl´e, de l’huile et du vin. . . . ” Achaemenid History 8:191–215. Salvini, A. and M. Salvini. 1996. “Nouvelles consid´erations sur le relief rupestre de la pr´etendue ‘Niobe’ du mont Sipyle.” In Collectanea orientalia: histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre. ´ Etudes offertes en hommage a` Agn`es Spycket, edited by H. Gasche and B. Hrouda. Civilisations du Proche-Orient S´erie 1, Arch´eologie et environnement, 3. Neuchˆatel: Recherches et publications. Sams, G. K. 1979. “Imports at Gordion. Lydian and Persian Periods.” Expedition 21(4):6–17. Sancisi-Weerdenberg, H. 1990. “The Quest for an Elusive Empire.” Achaemenid History 4:263–74. 1994. “Introduction.” Achaemenid History 8:1–7. Sayce, A. H. 1880. “Notes from Journeys in the Troad and Lydia.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 1:75–91. Saydamer, M. 1963. “Report on the Prospecting of Gold in the Alluvia Between Turgutlu and Salihli, with a Detailed Study of Gold in the Area around the Sart C¸ay.” Unpublished MTA Report. ¨ u. ¨ Ankara: Maden, Tetkik ve Arama Enstitus Schaeffer, J. S. 1997. “The Corinthian Pottery. The Finds through 1990.” In The Corinthian, Attic, and Lakonian Pottery from Sardis, by J. S. Schaeffer, N. H. Ramage, and C. H. Greenewalt, jr., 3– 62. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph 10. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schuchhardt, C. 1888. “Die makedonischen Kolonien zwischen Hermos und Kaikos.” Mitteilungen des Instituts, Athenische Abteilung Deutschen Archaologischen ¨ 13:1–139. Schuiling, R. D. 1962. “On Petrology, Age, and Structure of the Menderes Migmatite Complex (SWTurkey).” MTA Bulletin 58:71–84. Seel, O. 1956. “Herakliden und Mermnaden.” In Navicula Chiloniensis. Studia philologa Felici Jacoby professori Chiloniensi emerito octogenario oblata (Festschrift fur ¨ Felix Jacoby), 52. Leiden: Brill. Sekunda, N. V. 1985. “Achaemenid Colonization in Lydia.” Revue des e´tudes anciennes 87:7–29. 1988. “Persian Settlement in Hellespontine Phrygia.” Achaemenid History 3:175–96.

294

Works Cited In Anatolia Antica. Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati, edited by S. de Martino and F. Pecchioli Daddi, 783–806. Eothen 11. Florence: LoGisma Editore. Steiner, G. 2007. “The Case of Wiluˇsa and Ahhiyawa.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 64(5–6):590–611. Steuart, J. R. 1842. A Description of Some Ancient Monuments, with Inscriptions, Still Existing in Lydia and Phrygia, Several of Which Are Supposed To Be Tombs of Early Kings. London: James Bohn. Stinson, P. T. 2008. “Lale Tepe: A Late Lydian Tumulus near Sardis 2. Architecture and Painting.” In Love for Lydia. A Sardis Anniversary Volume Presented to Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., edited by N. D. Cahill, 25–47. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Report 4. Cambridge, MA: Archaeological Exploration of Sardis. ¨ Strocka, V. W. 1977. “Neue archaische Lowen in Anatolien.” Archaologischer Anzeiger 1977:481–512. ¨ 1989. “Archaischer Raubvogel in Tire.” In Akurgal’a ˘ / Festschrift Akurgal, edited by C. BayArmagan ˘ 267–77. Anadolu 22. Ankara: Dil ve burtluoglu, ˘ ¨ Tarih-Cografya Fakultesi Basımevi. Stronach, D. 1966. “The Kuh-i Shahrak Fire Altar.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 25:217–27. 2007. “The Campaign of Cyrus the Great in 547 BC. A Hitherto Unrecognized Source for the Early History of Armenia?” Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2:163–73. 2008. “The Building Program of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae and the Date of the Fall of Sardis.” In Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran: Cross-Cultural Encounters. First International Conference (Athens, 11–13 November 2006), edited by S. M. R. Darbandi and A. Zournatzi, 149–73. Athens, Greece: National Hellenic Research Foundation. Sullivan, D. G. 1989. “Human-Induced Vegetation Change in Western Turkey: Pollen Evidence from Central Lydia.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Summerer, L. 2007a. “From Tatarlı to Munich. The Recovery of a Painted Wooden Tomb Chamber in Phrygia.” In The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Cultures in Anatolia (Sixth–Fourth Centuries B.C.). Papers Presented at the International Workshop, ˙ Delemen, Istanbul 20–21 May 2005, edited by I. ¨ and O. Tekin, 129– O. Casabonne, S¸. Karagoz, 56. Istanbul: Turkish Institute of Archaeology. 2007b. “Picturing Persian Victory: The Painted Battle Scene on the Munich Wood.” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13:3–30. Summers, G. D. 1999. “Medes, Lydians, the ‘Battle of the Eclipse’ and the Historicity of Herodotus.” http://www.kerkenes.metu.edu.tr/kerk1/ 12propub/wwwpaper/eclbygds/ (accessed August 27, 2007).

1991. “Achaemenid Settlement in Caria, Lycia, and Greater Phrygia.” Achaemenid History 6:83– 143. Semple, E. C. 1931. The Geography of the Mediterranean Region: Its Relation to Ancient History. New York: H. Holt and Co. ¨ us ¨ ¸ c¸ay Tum ¨ u¨ Sevinc¸, N. 1996a. “C¸anakkale – Gum ¨ Raporu.” ¨ lusleri 1994 Yılı Kurtarma Kazıları On Muze ¨ Kurtarma Kazısı Semineri 6:443–9. 1996b. “A New Sarcophagus of Polyxena from the ¨ us ¨ ¸ c¸ay.” Studia Troica Salvage Excavations at Gum 6:251–64. ¨ Sevinc¸, N., R. Korpe, M. Tombul, C. B. Rose, D. Strahan, H. Kiesewetter, and J. Wallrodt. 2001. “A New Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from C¸an.” Studia Troica 11:383–420. Sevinc¸, N., C. B. Rose, and D. Strahan. 1999. “A Child’s Sarcophagus from the Salvage Excava¨ us ¨ ¸ c¸ay.” Studia Troica 9:489–509. tions at Gum ¨ Sevinc¸, N., C. B. Rose, D. Strahan, and B. TekkokBic¸ken. 1998. “The Dedetepe Tumulus.” Studia Troica 8:305–27. Seyrig, H. 1953. “Description des Deux Trouvailles.” In “L’argent grec dans l’Empire Ach´emenide,” in Tr´esors mon´etaires d’Afghanistan, by R. Curiel and D. Schlumberger, 55–7. Paris: Impr. Nationale. Shear, T. L. 1922. “Sixth Preliminary Report on the American Excavations at Sardes in Asia Minor.” American Journal of Archaeology 26:389–409. 1926. Sardis X. Terra-cottas, Part 1: Architectural Terracottas. Cambridge, UK: The American Society for the Excavation of Sardis. Shennan, S., ed. 1994. Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. London/New York: Routledge. Sinopoli, C. M. 1994. “The Archaeology of Empires.” Annual Review of Anthropology 23:159–80. Spalinger, A. J. 1976. “Psammetichus, King of Egypt I.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 13:133–47. 1978. “The Date of Gyges and its Historical Implications.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 98:400–9. Spencer, N. 1995. “Early Lesbos Between East and West: A ‘Grey Area’ of Aegean Archaeology.” Annual of the British School at Athens 90:269–306. Starke, F. 1997. “Troia im Kontext des historischpolitischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend.” Studia Troica 7:446– 87. 2007. “Mir¯a” and “S¯eha.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and˘ H. Schneider. Brill Online. http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry =dnp_e1106960 [and] . . . =bnp_e806310 (accessed September 10, 2008). Stefanini, R. 2002. “Toward a Diachronic Reconstruction of the Linguistic Map of Ancient Anatolia.”

295

Works Cited ¨ ¸ uk ¨ Yerles¸imler.” UnpubS¸ahin, I. 1998. “Lydia’da Kuc ˙ lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey. Takaoglu, T. 2005. A Chalcolithic Marble Workshop at Kulaksızlar in Western Anatolia: An Analysis of Production and Craft Specialization. Oxford: Archaeopress. Tarcan, G., and S¸. Filiz. 1997. “Hydrogeology of the Turgutlu Geothermal Field.” Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 6:43–64. ˙ 1976. “Insanları ˙ ˙ Tekkaya, I. Ait Fosil Ayak Izleri.” ˙ Yeryuvarı ve Insan 1:8–10. Ten Dam, A., and A. I. Khrebtov. 1970. “The Menderes Massif Geothermal Province.” Geothermics 2(1):117–23. Theodossiev, N. 1995. “The Sacred Mountain of the Ancient Thracians.” Thracia 11:371–84. Thirgood, J. V. 1981. Man and the Mediterranean Forest: A History of Resource Depletion. New York: Academic Press. Thomas, J. 1993. “The Politics of Vision and the Archaeologies of Landscape.” In Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, edited by B. Bender, 19–48. Oxford: Berg. Thomas, N. 1991. Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thompson, W. E. 1981. “The Carian Tribute.” Anatolian Studies 31:95–100. Thompson, M., O. Mørkholm, and C. M. Kraay, eds. 1973. An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York: American Numismatic Society. ˘ Thonemann, P. J., and F. Ertugrul. 2005. “The Carminii of Attouda.” Epigraphica Anatolica 38:75– 86. Tischler, J. 1977. Kleinasiatische Hydronomie. Weisbaden: Reichert. Tod, M. N. 1948. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Todd, I. 1980. The Prehistory of Central Anatolia I: The ˚ om. ¨ ¨ Neolithic Period. Goteborg: Astr Topalov, S. 1994. The Odrysian Kingdom from the Late 5th to the Mid 4th c. BC. Contribution to the Study of its Coinage and History. Sofia. Topkaya, Y. A. 1984. “Recent Evaluation of Sart Placer Gold Deposit.” In Precious Metals: Mining, Extraction and Processing, edited by V. Kudryk, D. A. Corrigan, and W. W. Laing, 111–21. New York: American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers. ¨ and M. Lynch, eds. 1998. ThraTuna, N., Z. Akture, cians and Phrygians: Problems of Parallelism. Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Archaeology, History and Ancient Languages of Thrace and Phrygia, Ankara, 3–4 June 1995. Ankara: Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment.

Tuplin, C. 1987a. “The Administration of the Achaemenid Empire.” In Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires, edited by I. Carradice, 119–66. BAR International Series 343. Oxford: BAR. 1987b. “Xenophon and the Garrisons of the Achaemenid Empire.” Archaologische Mitteilungen ¨ aus Iran 20:167–245. 1988. “Persian Garrisons in Xenophon and Other Sources.” Achaemenid History 3:67–70. ¨ ¸ , M., U. M. Sumer, ¨ Turkes and G. Kılıc¸. 1995. “Variations and Trends in Annual Mean Air Temperatures in Turkey with Respect to Climatic Variability.” International Journal of Climatology 15:557– 69. Tykot, R. H., and M. H. Ramage. 2002. “On the Importation of Monumental Marble to Sardis.” In ASMOSIA 5: Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1998, edited by J. Herrmann, N. Herz, R. Newman, 335–9. London: Archetype. ˙ Umar, B. 1981. Lydia. Istanbul: Ak Yayınları. van den Hout, T. 1999. “–ms(-): a Carian Enclitic Pronoun?” Kadmos 38:31–42. ¨ 2003. “Maeonien und Maddunaˇssˇ a: zur Fruhgeschichte des Lydischen.” In Licia e Lidia prima dell’ Ellenizzazione. Atti del Convegno internazionale Roma, 11–12 ottobre 1999, edited by M. Giorgieri, M. Salvini, M.-C. Tr´emouille, and P. Vannicelli, 301–10. Istituto di Studi sulle Civilt`a dell’ Egeo e del Vicino Oriente. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. (Monografie Scientifiche. Serie Scienze Umane e Sociali). 2006. “Institutions, Vernaculars, Publics: The Case of Second-Millennium Anatolia.” In Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, edited by S. L. Sanders, 217–56. Oriental Institute Seminars, no. 2. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. van Dommelen, P. 1997. “Colonial Constructs: Colonialism and Archaeology in the Mediterranean.” World Archaeology 28(3):305–23. van Zeist, W., H. Woldring, and D. Stapert. 1975. “Late Quaternary Vegetation and Climate of Southwestern Turkey.” Palaeohistoria 17:53–143. Vanschoonwinkel, J. 2006. “Mycenaenan Expansion.” In Greek Colonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, Volume One, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze, 41–113. Leiden / Boston: Brill. ˘ ¨ Varınlıoglu, E. 1989. “Eine Gruppe von Suhneinschriften aus dem Museum von Us¸ak.” Epigraphica Anatolica 13:37–50.

296

Works Cited 1990. “Inschriften aus dem Museum von Us¸ak.” Epigraphica Anatolica 15:73–105. ˙ H. Karamanderesi. Vengosh, A., C. Helvacı, and I. 2002. “Geochemical Constraints for the Origin of Thermal Waters from Western Turkey.” Applied Geochemistry 17(3):163–83. Vermeule, C. 1972. “Greek Funerary Animals, 450– 300 B.C.” American Journal of Archaeology 76:49– 59. Vickers, M. 1985. “Artful Crafts: The Influence of Metal Work on Athenian Painted Pottery.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 105:108–28. ¨ von Gall, H. 1999. “Der achaimenidische Lowengreif in Kleinasien.” Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran ¨ 31:149–60. von Graeve, V. 2006. “Milet.” In Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien. Geplantes und Erreichtes, edited by W. Radt, 241–62. Byzas 3. Istanbul: DAI/Ege Yayınları. ¨ von Olfers, J. F. M. 1858. “Uber die Lydischen ¨ ¨ Konigsgraber bei Sardes und den Grabhugel des Alyattes, nach dem Bericht des Kaiserlichen General-Consuls Spiegelthal zu Smyrna.” Abhandlungen der K¨oniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1858:539–56. von Prokesch, A. 1831. Erinnerungen aus Aegypten und Kleinasien 1825, III. Vienna: Ambruster. Waelkens, M. 1980a. “Das Totenhaus in Kleinasien.” Antike Welt 11(4):3–12. 1980b. “The Doorstone of Phrygia.” Yayla 3:12– 16. 1982. “Haus¨ahnliche Gr¨aber in Anatolia von 3 ¨ Jht. v. Chr. bis in die Romerzeit.” In Palast und Hutte. Beitrage zum Bauen und Wohnen im Altertum von Archaeologen, Vor- und Fruhgeschichtlern, edited by D. Papenfuss, V. M. Strocka, A. von Humboldt-Stiftung, 421–45. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. 1985. Die kleinasiatischen Tursteine. Typologische und ¨ epigraphische Untersuchungen zu kleinasiatischen Grabreliefs mit Scheintur. ¨ Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. 1992. “Carri`eres et marbre de l’Asie Mineure.” Dossiers d’arch´eologie, Paris 173:22–9. Waldbaum, J. C. 1983. Metalwork from Sardis: The Finds through 1974. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph 8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ward, W. A., and M. S. Joukowsky, eds. 1992. The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Weber, G. 1880. Les Sipylos et ses monuments. Paris: Ducher & Cie. 1885. “Trois tombeaux archaiques de Phoc´ee.” Revue arch´eologique 5:129–38. 1892. “Hypaepa, le kaleh d’A¨ıasourat.” Revue des e´tudes grecques 5:15–21.

Weiskopf, M. N. 1982. “Achaemenid Systems of Governing in Anatolia (Iran, Turkey).” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 1989. The So-Called “Great Satraps’ Revolt,” 366–360 B.C. Concerning Local Instability in the Achaemenid Far West. Historia, Monograph 63. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Welles, C. B. 1934. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Wells, P. S. 1980. Culture Contact and Culture Change: Early Iron Age Central Europe and the Mediterranean World. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. 1999. The Barbarians Speak: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2001. Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians: Archaeology and Identity in Iron Age Europe. London: Duckworth. Westlake, H. D. 1977. “Athens and Amorges.” Phoenix 31:319–29. Whittle, A. 2003. The Archaeology of People: Dimensions of Neolithic Life. London: Routledge. Widmer, P. 2004. “Lud©a: Ein Toponym zwischen Orient und Okzident.” Historische Sprachforschung 117(2):197–203. Wigley, T. M. L., and G. Farmer. 1981. “Climate of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East.” In Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory, edited by J. L. Bintliff and W. van Zeist. BAR International Series 133. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Wilkinson, T. J. 1982. “The Definition of Ancient Manured Zones by Means of Extensive SherdSampling Techniques.” Journal of Field Archaeology 9:323–33. 1989. “Extensive Sherd Scatters and Land-Use Intensity: Some Recent Results.” Journal of Field Archaeology 16:31–46. 1992. “Off-Site Archaeology.” National Geographic Research and Exploration 8:196–207. 1994. “The Structure and Dynamics of DryFarming in Upper Mesopotamia.” Current Anthropology 35:483–520. Wolf, E. R. 1982. Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. Woolf, G. 1998. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Yakar, J. 2000. Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia. Rural SocioEconomy in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Yakubovich, I. S. 2008a. “Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

297

Works Cited ˘ H. 1996. “Northern Margin of the Gediz Yusufoglu, Graben: Age and Evolution, West Turkey.” Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 5:11–23. Zahle, J. 1975. “Archaic Tumulus Tombs in Central Lycia (Phellos).” Acta Archaeologica 46:77–94. Zgusta, L. 1984. Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Zohary, M. 1973. Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East. 2 vols. Stuttgart: G. Fischer. Zvelebil, M. 1986. “Mesolithic Prelude and Neolithic Revolution.” In Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming, edited by M. Zvelebil. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Zvelebil, M., and M. Lillie. 2000. “Transition to Agriculture in Eastern Europe.” In Europe’s First Farmers, edited by T. D. Price, 57–92. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

2008b. “Luwian Migrations in Light of Linguistic Contacts.” In Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbours. Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction, September 17–19, 2004, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, edited by B. J. Collins, M. R. Bachvarova, and I. C. Rutherford, 122–34. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books. ¨ Yılmaz, Y., S¸. C. Genc¸, F. Gurer, M. Bozcu, K. Yılmaz, Z. Karacık, S¸. Altunkaynak, and A. Elmas. 2000. “When Did the Western Anatolian Grabens Begin to Develop?” In Tectonics and Magmatism in Turkey and the Surrounding Area, edited by E. Bozkurt, J. A. Winchester, and J. D. A. Piper, 131–62. Special Publications, vol. 173. London: Geological Society. Young, R. S. 1981. Gordion Excavations (1975–1973) Final Reports Volume I: Three Great Early Tumuli. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

298

Index

Abydos, 74 administration and sociopolitical organization Achaemenid, 10, 88–89, 194–198 feudal nature, 23, 86, 192, 196, 261, 269, 276 gender differentiation, 86 land-tenure systems, 113 Lydian, 10, 60, 85–88, 191–194 taxes and tribute, 129–133, 195, 197 Adramyttium, 24, 74 Adrastus, son of Gordias, 87, 127, 265, 270 Aegean, 1, 16, 20, 24, 25, 28, 38, 40–42, 47, 48, 131, 147, 186, 264, 271 Agdistis, 82, 269 Agesilaos, 29 agoraioi, 73, 85, 88, 131, 140 agricultural products and tree fruits, 130 apples, 52, 69, 265 cereals, 49, 50, 69, 130, 264 chestnuts, 50, 52, 69, 265 figs, 49, 52 garlic, 50, 52, 69 hazelnuts, 69 nuts, 49, 50 olives, 49, 50, 52, 69 onions, 50 pine nuts, 69 pomegranates, 52, 69 pulses, 50, 69 squash, 50, 52 viticulture, 50, 52, 69 walnuts, 50, 52, 69 wine, 49, 52, 114, 130, 271 Agron, 12, 19 Ahhiyawa, 16, 20 Ahura Mazda, 82 ˘ See Mountains, Gallesion Alaman Dagı. Alas¸ehir, 236, 250, 255. See also settlement areas, Philadelphia, 275

Alas¸ehir River. See Rivers, Cogamus Alexander the Great, 2, 12, 26, 30, 31, 149, 262 Alibeyli, 225 Alyattes, 12, 22, 24, 25, 64, 72, 74–76, 79, 87, 88, 135, 175, 185, 186, 190, 193, 194, 260 Amorges, 29, 261 Amphiaraus, 26 animal husbandry, 50, 53, 58, 70, 130 animal products, 53–54, 57, 71 animals, 53–54 birds, 271 boars, 88, 162, 255 bones or teeth, 70, 182 buffalo, 70 bulls, 172 camels, 70 cattle, 49, 53, 70, 178, 265, 270 deer, 88, 158, 178 dogs, 84, 85, 158, 162, 255, 263 donkeys, 70 goats, 49, 53, 70, 265 horses, 40, 49, 53, 70, 161, 162, 172, 255, 256, 258 ibex, 88, 158, 268 lions, 82, 126, 129, 152, 157, 165, 169–171, 252, 275. See also lion statues and lion-griffins lions, winged, 172 pigs, 53, 70 sheep, 49, 53, 70, 207 Antalya. See Attaleia Antandrus, 24, 74 Apasa, 16 Aphrodisias, 259 Aphrodite, 82 Apollo, 81, 82, 128, 272, 275 Pleurenos, 125, 214 Arachne, 70

299

Index Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, 2, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 71, 75–77, 79, 81, 83–85, 98, 114, 136, 137, 141, 153, 154, 265 Archilochus of Paros, 53, 56, 264, 265 Ardys, 12, 19, 22–24, 264 Ariaramnes, 128 Aristagoras, 28 Arselis, 23 Artaphernes I, 28, 197 Artaphernes II, 28, 29, 31, 197 Artaxerxes, 30 Artaxerxes I, 197 Artaxerxes II, 29, 200, 203, 261 Artemis, 66, 81, 82, 128, 132, 187 Anaitis, 126, 128, 132, 170, 187, 253, 269, 272 at Amyzon, 128 Colo¨ene, 124, 132, 187, 271 Ephesian (ib´simsis), 80 kulumsis, 124, 187 Persian, 80, 127 Persike, 128, 187, 224, 225, 227, 272 Sardiane, 187 s´ fardak, 80 Aryenis, 26 Arzawa, 16, 17 Assessos, 76 Assur, 23 Assurbanipal, 23, 193, 260, 262 Assuwa, 16, 260 Astyages, 26, 194 Astyra, 74 Atarneus, 74 Atene Valley (Attica), 114 Athena, 70 Athens, 2, 29, 40, 131, 276 Attaleia, 40, 43, 229 Attoudda. See inscriptions, Mnesimachus Inscription Atyad Dynasty, 19, 260 Atys, 12, 19, 265, 270 aule, 112, 113 Autophradates, 12, 30, 262, 274, 275 Avs¸ar, 264 Aydın, 37, 38, 44, 222, 234, 264, 270 ˘ Aydın Dagları. See Mountains, Mesogis Babylonian, 27 Bagaeus, 12, 28 Baki, 82 Bakır C¸ay. See Rivers, Caicus Ballıca, 275 barley. See agricultural products and tree fruits, cereals Baughan, E., 177, 181

Berecynthian Field, 38 Bergama Museum, 206, 255 BM4394, 163, 255 Bilgili, S., 211 Bin Tepe, 142. See also burials and tumuli definition, 34, 148 map, 148 selection for tumulus construction, 147 birds, 160, 172, 241, 251, 253, 256, 258 chickens, 53, 70 partridges, 50 Black Sea, 25, 40, 116, 142, 264 blacksmiths, 27, 198 Boeotia, 160 ˘ oy. ¨ See Hattusa Bogazk Boston Museum of Fine Arts, 237 MFA 69.982, 237 bowls, 177 Achaemenid, 73, 93, 178, 180, 188, 195, 219, 225, 228, 241, 243 black-on-red, 234 bronze, 180, 207, 255 Phrygian-style, 87 wooden, 180 ˘ See Mountains, Tmolus Boz Dag. Bozyurt, 44 Brioulla, 44 Bronze Age, 3 Early, 14, 21, 207, 209, 212, 267 Late, 12, 15–20, 62, 102, 111, 119, 203, 220, 240, 260, 271 collapse, 186 geography of western Anatolia, 16–17 Middle, 12, 203 ¨ Buke, B., 242 ¨ Buke, H., 242 burials. See also grave assemblages, grave goods, kline, pottery, and tumuli absence of cremation, 135 Akc¸aavlu, 233 Akpınar, 140, 220 Alus¸tepe, 224 Avs¸ar, 215 Beyce, 233 chamber tombs, 135, 137, 138, 142, 146, 180, 181, 183, 189, 190, 214, 215, 219, 220, 224, 228, 231, 233, 241, 250, 253, 254, 273 antechambers, 150, 181, 189, 231, 253 architectural units and arrangements, 151, 189 benches, 177, 189 doorways, 139, 144–146, 219, 220, 253 dromoi, 139, 146, 150, 170, 181, 189, 215, 253, 273 forecourts, 144, 145

300

Index freestanding, 140–141 porches, 150, 181 rock cut, 138–140, 155, 176, 177, 183 tumulus, 140–151, 183. See also tumuli family tombs, 100, 115, 150, 183 found intact, unlooted, 176, 180 ¨ ¸ eoren, ¨ Gokc 244 ¨ uk, ¨ 250 Golc ˘ Grave, 102, 137, 211 Kanbogaz Kapıkaya, 214 ˘ 228 Kayalıoglu, Kemaliye, 236 Killik, 238 Kula, 247 pits, 135–137, 150, 183, 189, 211, 212, 232, 233 resting places (multiple), 138, 150 sarcophagi, 135–138, 150, 176, 180, 183, 189, 207, 209, 210, 213–216, 223, 230, 234, 239, 240, 244, 256, 271, 273 bathtub shaped, 102, 138, 180 Monastirakia class, 138 terracotta, 137, 138 secondary, 150. See also resused contexts Tas¸ Kule, 140 Tekeliler, 105, 138, 223 Tekke Yaylası, 250 Tomb 03.1, Sardis 176 Tomb 813, Sardis, 138, 176 Tomb of Cyrus, 140 Tomb of St. Charalambos. See burials, Akpınar Tomb of Tantalus. See burials, Akpınar ˙ Tombs 61.1–61.2 (Indere), Sardis, 137 Totenhaus tradition, 146 Yukarı Kızılca, 218 Butler, H. C., 2, 59, 138, 212, 265, 266, 269, 273–275 ¨ ukbelen ¨ Buy Valley, 102, 211, 212 Byzantine period, 6, 103, 118, 120, 125, 212–214, 216, 218, 220, 231, 240, 252, 254, 272 Cadys, 19, 264 Cahill, N. D., 259 Callimachus, 38 Cambyses, 28, 30 Candaules, 12, 19, 23, 87, 260 Caria, 30, 38, 39, 128, 140, 255, 274 Caros, 88 Catacecaumene, 42, 47, 52, 58, 123, 128 cavalry, 53, 70, 182, 190, 193, 198, 200 Central Lydia Archaeological Survey, 21, 92, 93, 203, 206, 260 C¸etinkaya, M., 244 Chalcolithic period, 209

cheironaktes, 85, 140 chiliarchs, 29 Chios, 131 chronology correlation to Sardis excavations, 62 periodization in Lydia, 8, 13, 92 problems, 185, 202 C¸ifte Tepe. See tumulus groups, Duman Tepe Cilbus. See Rivers, Cilbis Cilicia, 23, 25, 26, 194 Cimmerians, 12, 23, 24, 74, 261 Clazomenae, 25, 273, 274 climate, 47–49 coin hoards, 108 from Akhisar, 228 ˘ 217 from C¸al Dag, from Girelli, Avs¸ar, 237, 238 ¨ from Odemis ¸ , 252 ¨ (a.k.a. the Treasure of from Ortakoy ¨ Korez), 247, 248 ˘ from Yelegen, 249 Colophon, 24, 25, 29 Colossai, 74 Common Anatolian, 15 Corinth, 131, 178, 194 Cornell University. See Archaeological Exploration of Sardis Cranaspes, 28 Croesus, 2, 12, 22, 24–26, 38, 39, 58, 64, 74–77, 79, 85, 87–89, 135, 175, 185, 186, 193, 194, 254, 255, 265, 266, 269, 270, 276 cults, 82, 108, 125, 128, 200, 271–275. See also the names of individual deities ancestral, 124, 150, 196 at Sardis, 80–84 in central and greater Lydia, 123–129 cultural change, 3, 4, 7, 9, 66, 92, 101, 185–201 cultural continuity, 8, 10, 28, 31, 66, 102, 185–198 Cunaxa, 29 Cyaxares, 25 Cybele, 82, 123, 124, 128, 129, 132, 153, 169, 171, 188, 275 monument at Akpınar, 220 temple, 82 Cyme, 40 Cyrus the Great, 2, 8, 10, 13, 26, 27, 30, 42, 65, 80, 127, 140, 194, 195, 198, 263 Cyrus the Younger, 12, 29, 31, 127, 197, 261, 262, 272 Darius I, 28–30, 74, 160, 196, 198, 199 Darius II, 29, 197 Dascylus, 19, 22

301

Index ¨ uce ¨ Datbey. See Gunl ˘ Degnekler, 54 deities. See also cults and the names of individual deities Lydian, 10, 80–84 Persian, 10, 81, 200 Delphi, 23, 26 Dema (Attica), 114 Demeter, 82 ¨ Demirci-Dumrek. See Rivers, Hyllus Descat, R., 113, 115 Dinc¸, R., 230 Diodorus Siculus, 37, 249, 261–264, 271 Dionysus, 52, 82 Draycott, C., 181, 182 drought, 49, 197, 203, 264 Dusinberre, E. R. M., 200 eclecticism, 7, 9, 10, 136, 165, 175, 183, 193 Ege University Collection, 206 ¨ EU667, 242 Ege, H., 223 ¨ ¸ pınar ˘ oy. ¨ See Uc Egrik Elamite, 27, 268 Elmalı, 146, 147, 273–275 empire, 3, 7, 16, 17, 20, 24–27, 31, 34, 36, 40, 60, 64, 120, 133, 147, 191, 193, 195, 201, 259, 262, 270, 277 monuments of, 64, 78, 147 Ephesus, 16, 25, 44, 81, 120, 126–128, 146, 155, 194, 199, 259 Artemiseum, 76, 80 Eretrian, 28 estates, 10, 86, 89, 93, 103, 109, 112–115, 130, 132, 136, 183, 192, 196, 197, 270, 272, 276 marked by tumulus groups, 150 network of, 10, 132, 183 noncontiguous nature, 115 revenues, 113, 114, 130 royal grants and, 112, 113, 196, 199 ethnicity, 7, 11, 85, 88, 120, 135, 191, 194, 198–201 exedra, 117, 125 faience, 212 fibulae. See grave goods, jewelry fire altars, 82, 120, 121, 125, 126, 188, 199, 240 fish and fishing, 42, 50, 53, 99, 124, 231, 265, 270 Foc¸a. See Phocaea foreign interactions, 190

Assyrian, 1, 3, 7, 12, 17, 19, 22–25, 38, 40, 88, 192, 193, 260, 261, 268, 276 Babylonian, 26, 27, 74, 88, 144, 194 Carian, 23, 25, 84, 87, 88, 193, 194, 259, 269, 273 Egyptian, 1, 24, 26, 50, 88, 144, 178, 192–194, 212, 268 Greek, 1, 22, 25, 27–31, 39, 49, 69, 86, 194, 196–198 Lycian, 23 Median, 1, 7, 12, 25–27, 88, 145, 194 patronage of Greek sanctuaries, 22, 76, 80, 87, 146 Phrygian, 7, 22, 24, 229 Scythian, 88 Foss, C., 118, 242 funeral ceremonies, 180–182 banquets, 180–182 ekphora, 182 processions, 182 wheeled vehicles, 182 funerary imagery, 152, 173–176, 181, 182, 189, 198, 274 banqueting, 157–158, 190 battles, 162, 172, 190 gift-bearing figures, 172 hunting, 172, 182 mistress-and-maid, 158–160, 174, 190 mounted riders, hunts, and animals, 161–162 processions, 172, 190 seated females, 158–160 significance, 175 standing figures, 160 garrisons, 10, 27, 28, 30, 88, 120, 125, 187, 194, 195, 197–199, 201, 218, 277 responsibilities, 120, 131 Gediz. See Rivers, Hermus gemstones, 188, 195 geology, 46–47 ˙ ¨ Golde. See settlement areas, Incesu ¨ Gordes-Kum C¸ay. See Rivers, Phrygius Gordion, 24, 69, 73, 116, 142, 273, 276 ¨ uk ¨ C¸ay. See Rivers, Lycus Gord Granicus Valley, 30, 274 grave assemblages, 176–180. See also burials, grave goods, kline, pottery, and tumuli absence of weapons, 176 arrangement, 180 banqueting furniture and vessels, 176–178 gender and age differentiation, 180 inclusions for atmosphere, 179 knives or blades, 182 personal items, 178–179 textiles. See textiles

302

Index grave goods, 160, 180, 183, 196, 220, 275. See also burials, grave assemblages, kline, pottery, and tumuli appliqu´es, 209, 210 cosmetic accessories, 178 eye of Horus pendants, 212 figurines, 223 incense burners, 179 jewelry, 73, 87, 118, 122, 178, 180, 181, 198, 199, 209, 210, 218, 223, 232, 233, 239–241, 255, 268, 276 metal plate, 75, 118, 122, 178, 198, 199, 268 mirrors, 41, 178, 180, 225, 241 perfume or unguent containers, 178 rattles, 179 graveside markers, 135, 136, 188–190, 196 anthemion stelae, 155–156, 160, 162, 190 figural stelae, 30, 156–164, 217, 236, 241, 245, 250, 252, 255–257 freestanding statues, 152, 165, 189. See also lion statues phallic shaped, 151, 153, 156, 170, 173, 189, 213, 216, 221, 230, 240, 244 stelae, 108, 152, 189, 274 symbolic door stelae, 153–155, 173, 190, 224, 227, 233, 251, 257, 274 Great Satraps’ Revolt, 12, 30 Greek city-states, 1, 3, 22, 24–26, 29, 30, 53, 132, 138, 144, 146, 155, 177, 183, 192, 194 Greenewalt, C. H., jr., 205, 216, 242, 264, 273 Gugu, 23 ¨ Guler, B., 228 ¨ uce, ¨ 126, 253. See settlement areas, Gunl Hypaipa Gyges, 12, 13, 19, 22–24, 30, 31, 53, 60, 74, 87, 124, 192, 193, 195, 254, 260, 261, 273 halapzi, 27, 261 Halicarnassus, 140, 175 Harvard University. See Archaeological Exploration of Sardis Hattusa, 15, 16 Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, 38, 262 Hellenistic period, 2, 3, 6, 12, 18, 19, 31, 54, 80, 82, 103, 113, 118–120, 125, 126, 132, 192, 199, 207, 211, 213, 215, 218, 219, 222, 231, 236, 238, 245, 250, 254, 264 Hera, 82 Heracles, 82 Heraclid Dynasty, 11, 12, 19, 21, 23, 60, 191, 260, 261

Herodotus, 18, 19, 22, 23, 28, 37, 39, 44, 60, 66, 68, 74, 77, 86, 88, 117, 126, 144, 153, 173, 199, 255, 260–265, 267–277 Hierocaesarea. See settlement areas, Hierakome Hittites, 7, 15 Language, 15 Homer, 18, 19, 44, 71, 124, 262, 263 horsemanship. See cavalry hot springs, 47, 54, 57, 58, 123 households, 66, 68, 69, 112 hunting, 53, 99, 160, 161, 182, 195, 265 hyparchs, 28 ˙ Ibrahim, C¸., 245 Ilos. See inscriptions, Mnesimachus Inscription imperial province. See satrapy Indo-European, 15 inscriptions, 6, 114 Aramaic, 6, 10, 113, 128, 155, 200, 236, 244, 245, 269 bilingual (Lydian–Aramaic), 89, 155, 200, 253 Carian, 88 Droaphernes Inscription, 82 from Akkaya, 218 ¨ from Golmarmara, 225 from Kemaliye, 113 from Kemerdamları, 125, 214 from Kenger, 113, 128 from Sarıc¸am, 224 ¨ 224 from Yes¸ilkoy, Greek, 87 illegible, 159, 245 Lydian, 6, 14, 30, 81, 124, 155, 159, 219, 221–223, 235, 243, 245, 250, 253, 269 Lydian Mother of the Gods, 124 Mnesimachus Inscription, 112–115, 128, 130 on grave goods, 181 Persian cuneiform (?), 250 Phrygian, 87, 229 Sacrilege Inscription, 80, 126, 127 sling bullet of Tissaphernes, 120 Synagogue Inscription, 88 Ionia, 117 Ionian Revolt, 12, 28, 30, 68, 82, 188, 196, 199, 261 Iran, 120, 240 Iron Age, 3, 7, 12, 16, 18–21, 35, 60, 62, 102, 111, 124, 185, 213, 214, 218, 219, 229, 240, 248, 249, 255, 259, 269, 276 ˙ Istanbul Archaeological Museum, 206, 247 ˙ IsAM334, 274

303

Index ˙ Ivriz Relief, 82 ˙ Izmir, 37, 49–51, 55, 117, 205, 222, 264–266 ˙ Izmir Archaeological Museum, 206, 218, 245, 255 ˙ IzAM688, 271 ˙ IzAM691, 271 ˙ IzAM694, 255 ˙ IzAM2096, 245 ˙ IzAM3258, 253 ˙ IzAM4030, 236 ˙ IzAM4344, 156, 252 ˙ Izmir-Ankara Zone, 46 Kadınderesi. See Rivers, Cilbis kapeloi, 73, 85, 88, 131, 140 Karabel, 16, 17, 41, 44, 254, 259 Kayacık. See also Rivers, Glaucus Kaymakc¸ı, 21, 97 ˘ 41, 87, 107, 117, 125, 126, 132, Kel Dag, 187, 197, 249, 271. See also Mountains, Mt. Karios Kennez. See settlement areas, Pınarcık ˘ 26 Kerkenes Dag, Kinaroa. See inscriptions, Mnesimachus Inscription King’s Peace, 30 kithara, 157 Kızılırmak. See Rivers, Halys kleros, 113 kline (pl., klinai), 157, 158, 172, 177–179, 189, 236, 245, 252, 254, 255, 275. See also burials, grave assemblages, grave goods, pottery, and tumuli deer or calf elements, 178 funerary origins, 177 sphinx-shaped supports, 178 wooden and bronze examples, 178 Kombdilipia. See inscriptions, Mnesimachus Inscription kome, 112 Kurtulus¸, 44 Kuvava, 82, 188 Lade, Battle of, 28 Lake District, 40, 100, 270 Lakes, 44–45 Colo¨e, 44, 124, 207, 271 ¨ uk, ¨ 44 Golc Gygaean, 18, 21, 35, 41, 42, 44, 46, 53, 54, 60, 92, 94, 98–100, 102, 123–125, 132, 142, 147, 187, 203, 207, 212–214, 265, 271 ancestral nature of, 124 Saloe, 45

¨ ukl ¨ u¨ Gol ¨ u, ¨ 44 Sul Tantalus, 45 Torrhebia, 44, 50, 264 lamassu. See settlement areas, Kendirlik Lamian War, 127 landscapes definition, 5 laoi, 112, 130 leatherwork, 70, 71, 268 Lemaire, A., 128 Lesbos, 228, 273 Lev´s (Lydian Zeus), 81 lion statues, 82, 126, 127, 165–171, 173, 188–190, 234, 275 Assyrian, 165 Classical Greek, 166 Egyptianizing, 165 from Akhisar, 228 from Akselendi, 166, 167, 226 from Alas¸ehir, 237 from Asartepe, 216 from Ballıca, 230 from Bayındır, 253 from Beyoba, 166, 169, 226, 227 from Birgi, 165, 166, 252 ¨ ukkale, ¨ from Buy 254 ¨ from Gordes, 242 from Hypaepa, 127, 187, 252 from Kula, 165, 245, 246 from Lale Tepe, 171 from Manisa, 221 from Salihli, 234 from Selc¸ikli, 229 from Sivrice, 166, 168, 215 from Soma, 166, 167, 231 from Temrek, 217 ˘ tumulus, 171, 243 from the Kral Bagı from Turgutlu, 166, 168, 216 from Uzgur, 254 ¨ in the Odemis ¸ Museum, 256 in the Tire Museum, 256, 257 Neo-Hittite, 165, 166 significance, 169–171 lion-griffin statue from Kula, 169, 170, 174, 246 lion-griffins in Achaemenid art, 169 livestock. See animals looting, 8, 103, 122, 136–138, 149, 172, 176, 185, 233, 241 Luddi, 17, 23 Luwian, 15–18, 20, 21, 82, 124, 259, 260, 269 Luwiya, 17 Lycia, 25, 40, 140, 264, 274, 275 Lycian, 124, 259

304

Index Lydia agricultural richness, 33 area of empire, 40 area of kingdom, 40 central, 93–102 definition, 34 establishment of new sites, 101–102 map, 95, 109 population, 100 settlement pattern changes, 101–102 site abandonment, 101–102 eastern, 41, 43, 46, 48, 50, 52–57, 69, 106, 113, 117, 122, 128, 138, 154, 157–159, 165, 169, 170, 172, 173, 176, 179, 180, 198, 205, 267, 274 greater, 102–112 area, 92 definition, 36–39 definition of areas within, 45–46 establishment of new sites, 110–112 map, 108 population, 8, 111, 189, 190, 195, 196 settlement pattern changes, 110–112 site abandonment, 110–112 language, 15 northeastern, 46, 47, 50, 58, 205, 265–267 northern, 43, 46, 50, 52, 53, 118, 120, 121, 160, 161, 170, 171, 187, 199, 205 southeastern, 205 Lydian Hoard, 122, 176, 179, 197, 198 Lydus, 12, 19 Lygdamis, 23 Ma, 82, 269 Maddunassa, 16, 18, 21, 260 Maeonia, 18–20, 124, 244, 260, 262 Magnesia, 24, 28, 261, 277 magoi, 126 ˘ See Mountains, Dracon Mahmut Dag. Maibozanoi (Julii), 120, 199, 225 Manapatarhunda, 17 Manisa, 34, 37, 41, 46, 48–52, 55, 87, 104, 117, 162, 202, 205, 219–221. See also settlement areas, Magnesia ad Sipylum ˘ See Mountains, Sipylus Manisa Dag. Manisa Museum of Ethnography and Archaeology, 160, 174, 206, 255, 272, 274 MM28, 217 MM32, 221 ¨ uk, ¨ 244, 245 MM73 Etutl MM128, 217 MM172, 158, 255 MM304, 170, 246

MM305, 165, 245 MM306, 234 MM307, 229 MM311, 234 MM312–313, 171, 243 MM318, 234 MM325, 76 MM536, 221 MM537, 169, 226 MM538, 168, 216 MM539, 226, 227 MM550, 221 MM551, 230 MM555, 244 MM1465, 168, 215 MM2460, 236 MM3389, 162, 256 MM4611–4616, 241 MM5012, 225 MM5014, 225 MM5020, 225 MM5046–5049, 225 MM5085–5086, 225 MM5288–5290, 241 MM5301–5311, 223 MM5379, 225 MM5381, 225 MM5388, 225 MM5390, 225 MM5393, 225 MM5408, 225 MM5410, 225 MM5680–5681, 233 MM6094, 167, 231 MM6217, 223 MM6225, 157, 236 MM6226, 164, 255 MM6231, 237 MM6277–6287, 209, 210 MM6521, 242 MM6648, 232, 233 MM6650, 167, 226 MM6841–6842, 211, 212 MM7178, 222 MM7759, 161, 217 MM8199, 236 MM8225, 242 MM8254, 229 MM8491, 228 MM8505, 246 MM9156, 161, 241 MM10567–10624, 237, 238 Mardoi, 126 ¨ u. ¨ See Lakes, Gygaean Marmara Gol Marmara, Sea of, 18, 24 Masa, 18, 260

305

Index masonry, 138–140, 177, 188, 235, 240, 266, 268 ashlar, 62, 76–78, 126, 142, 146, 150, 175, 249 fieldstone, 66, 78, 95, 126, 212 polygonal, 254 Mastaura, 44 Masturi, 17 Mazares, 27 McLauchlin, B., 146, 271 Mediterranean, 3, 4, 18, 20, 25, 30, 40, 47, 48, 99, 114, 259, 264 Melas, 194, 276 Meles, 19, 264, 275 Mˆen, 81, 128, 132, 244, 269, 272 Menderes Massif, 46, 54 ¨ uk. ¨ See Rivers, Maeander Menderes, Buy ¨ ¸ uk. ¨ See Rivers, Cayster Menderes, Kuc Menemen, 41 ¨ ¸ eoren ¨ Menye. See settlement areas, Gokc Meric¸, R., 212 Mermnad Dynasty, 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22–24, 26, 27, 31, 34, 37, 40, 46, 60, 64, 65, 74, 77, 78, 80, 85, 87, 124, 132, 142, 147, 191–194, 201, 208, 260, 261 Metropolitan Museum of Art, 176 Miletus, 24, 25, 28, 155, 264, 275 mines and mining, 56, 57, 74, 122, 266, 269 Mira, 16, 17, 20, 260 Mitridastas, 81 Mitrobates, 28 Mopsus, 19 Morstas, Water of. See inscriptions, Mnesimachus Inscription Mother (goddess), 82, 124, 128, 129, 188. See also Cybele Meter Plastene, 129 of the Gods, 124, 125 temple, 83 Thea Larmene, 128 Mountains, 41 ˘ 41, 42, 217, 224, 225 C¸al Dag, Dindymus, 38, 41 Dracon, 41, 45, 218 Gallesion, 44 ¨ (or Kara) Dag, ˘ 41, 263 Gur ˘ 265 Harmandalı Dag, Ilos. See inscriptions, Mnesimachus Inscription ˘ 218 Kale Dag, ˘ 228, 265 Karayunt Dag, Karios, 41, 125, 128, 129, 249. See also Kel Dag˘ Mesogis (range), 38, 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 52, 264 Olympus, 41, 45, 52, 54, 57, 265–267

Sipylus, 16, 17, 41–45, 55–57, 104, 110, 117, 122, 128, 138, 140, 197, 215, 219, 220, 222, 265, 266 ˘ 215 Sivri Dag, Temnus (range), 38, 43, 48 Tmolus (range and peak), 18, 34, 38, 41–44, 47, 48, 50, 52–57, 107, 117, 125, 140, 187, 203, 205, 215, 249, 250, 262, 265–267, 272 ˘ 41 Yamanlar Dag, Moxos, 19, 264 ˘ See Mountains, Dindymus Murat Dag. museum collections, 103–108 Muwawalwi, 12, 17, 20, 260 Mycale, 28 Mycenaean, 7, 20, 22 territories identified with Ahhiyawa, 16 Mylasa, 23 Myrsilus, 19 Myrsus, 19, 30, 89, 195 Mysia, 18, 20, 23, 38, 87 Nagrioa. See inscriptions, Mnesimachus Inscription Nesite. See Hittites, Language Nicholas of Damascus, 19, 22, 60, 261–265, 268, 276 Nif C¸ay. See Rivers, Crius ˘ See Mountains, Olympus Nif Dag. Nineveh, 23, 25 Nymphaeum Valley, 45, 104, 116, 197, 218 Nysa, 44 ¨ Odemis ¸ Museum, 126, 127, 154, 206, 251, 252 ¨ OM1492, 256 ¨ OM1955, 127, 252 ¨ OM2284, 256 ¨ OM2622, 155, 252 ¨ OM2702, 154, 251 ¨ OM2767, 159, 250 off-site activities, 92, 94, 98, 108 oiketai, 112 oikopeda, 113 Old Persian, 2, 27 ¨ Onder, M., 236 oracles, 23, 26, 194 Oroetes, 12, 28, 30, 88, 196 ouroi. See graveside markers, phallic shaped ¨ Deresi. See Rivers, Pidasus Oz Pactyes, 27, 28, 30, 89, 195 painting, wall and other, 152, 172–174, 178, 182, 215, 276 Palaic, 15 Pantalion, 87

306

Index paradeisos (pl., paradeisoi), 77, 113, 114, 182, 195 Pasargadae, 140, 198 Pausanias, 126, 127, 129, 227, 263–265, 272, 273, 277 Peace of Antalcidas. See King’s Peace Peloponnesian War, 29 Pergamum, 74, 259, 272 Periander, 194 Periasasostra. See inscriptions, Mnesimachus Inscription Persepolis, 27, 126, 174, 198, 261, 271 Apadana, 160, 172 Persianisms, 191, 198–201 definition, 191 Persike Thea. See Artemis, Persike Philadelphia, 54, 237, 267, 268 Phocaea, 41, 140, 228 phrourarchs, 30 Phrygia, 38, 40, 72, 74, 87, 144, 145, 150, 183, 255, 270, 274 Hellespontine, 40 Highlands, 129 Pissouthnes, 12, 29, 197, 261 Plains, 41–44 Castolus, 41, 43, 247 Cilbian, 43, 50, 52, 55–57, 107, 117, 159, 250, 267, 272 of Cyrus, 263 Hyrcanian, 41, 43, 46, 52, 55, 105, 116, 117, 128, 140, 199, 223, 277 Kiraz, 43 Konya, 40 Koroupedeion, 263 Sardian. See inscriptions, Mnesimachus Inscription Thebe, 24 Plataia, 28 Plato, 22, 60, 261, 265 Pleura, 125, 214 Pliny the Elder, 50, 56, 262, 263, 265–269, 271, 272 Plutarch, 22, 60, 88, 261, 262, 265, 268, 269, 276 Point of Interest, 206 pollen records, 50, 52, 54, 69, 264 Polybius, 227 Polycrates, 28, 30, 262 Pontus region, 40 pottery, 186, 235, 239. See also bowls, burials, grave assemblages, and grave goods Achaemenid-period changes, 72, 93 alabastra, 56, 178, 180, 222, 223, 233, 234, 236 aryballoi, 178, 180, 225, 242

assemblages at Sardis, 72–73 biberon, 225 Black Glaze, 72, 215, 220, 227, 243 cooking wares, 182, 225 craters, 72, 93, 177, 208 Early Iron Age, 102, 111 flasks, 178 fruit dishes, 177, 223, 225, 255 Greek, 98, 131, 188 Greek imports, 72 Ionian cups, 228 jars, 177 jugs (pitchers, oinochoai), 177, 243 kylikes, 228 lamps, 179, 229 Late Geometric, 218 lekythoi, 102, 178, 180, 211, 223, 225, 229, 242, 243 lydia, 72, 73, 178, 180, 214, 223, 225, 243, 254 Lydian, 72, 188 bichrome wares, 240 black-on-buff wares, 240 black-on-red wares, 22, 225, 234, 240, 255 gray wares, 215, 216, 228 marbling, 72 streaky glaze, 72 Middle to Late Bronze Age, 102, 111 phialai, 177 Phrygian, 72 pilgrim flasks, 225 pithoi, 64, 78 Protogeometric, 22, 220 pyxides, 211, 212, 223 skyphoi, 72, 73, 85, 177, 213, 225 Poyrazdamları, 97, 214 precipitation, average, 48, 49 Priene, 24 Princeton University, 2, 14, 138 Proto-Anatolian. See Common Anatolian Psammetichus, 24, 193 pseudohistorical definition, 11 Pteria, 26. See also Kerkenes Dag˘ Ptolemy, 38, 41, 129, 252, 262, 273 Pyrgion. See settlement areas, Dioshieron Pythius, 74, 89, 269 Qλdan´ ˜ s, 81, 188, 269 quarries and quarrying, 54, 73, 74, 79, 125, 142, 265 Ramage, A., 100, 192 Ramage, N., 100, 192 rasaka´s, 30

307

Index Ratt´e, C., 144, 146 regional archaeology, 4, 6, 34, 92, 185, 202 extensive survey, 91, 92 intensive survey, 91, 92, 108 regional interaction, 129–133 resources, 1, 4, 6, 33, 34, 54–58, 71, 95, 112, 123, 183, 187, 193, 195, 201 chalcedony, 56, 71, 266, 268 cinnabar, 57, 122, 266 copper, 57 electrum, 34, 42, 56, 60, 74, 75, 122, 169, 186 emery, 56, 266 gold, 56, 74, 122 hematite, 57 iron, 57 jasper, 56 lead, 57 limestone, 35, 54, 56 marble, 54, 58, 122, 126 ochre, 57, 266 onyx, 56, 212 orpiment, 57 realgar, 57 reeds, 68, 123, 124 serpentine, 56, 266 silver, 74 stibnite, 57 stone, 54. See also limestone, marble, stonework, and quarries and quarrying sulfur, 57 timber, 54, 273 touchstones, 56 travertine, 54, 122 woad, 57 reused contexts, 8, 136, 139, 148, 149, 185, 275 Rhosakes I, 30 Rhosakes II, 30 Rivers, 41–44 Armutlu, 219 Bahadır, 43, 46, 224 Banaz, 44, 46 Caicus, 38, 46, 47, 105, 110, 129, 140, 170, 172, 198, 205, 230, 231, 277 Cayster, 16, 30, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54–57, 107, 116, 117, 122, 140, 154–157, 159, 165, 166, 187, 200, 202, 205, 252, 259, 266, 275 Cilbis, 43 Cogamus, 41, 42, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 106, 113, 116, 117, 128, 130, 234, 236, 240, 262, 264, 267, 272 Crius, 42, 219 ˘ ˘ 43, 229, 230 Degirmenyıkı gı, Es¸me, 249

Gencer (or Ahmetli) C¸ay, 214 Glaucus, 43, 240, 241, 263 ¨ 247 Gure, Halys, 25, 26, 40, 199 Hermus, 5, 16, 18, 26, 34, 38, 41–48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 60, 104, 105, 110, 112, 116, 117, 122, 130, 138, 140, 142, 160, 161, 166, 170, 171, 173, 175, 176, 197, 202, 205, 214, 216, 222, 233, 245, 247, 259, 262–265, 267, 275 Hippurius, 248 Hyllus, 18, 42, 46, 53, 243, 262, 263, 265 ˙ Ilke, 41, 244 Kazancı. See rivers, Hippurius Lycus, 43, 46, 55, 105, 116, 140, 228, 263 Maeander, 16, 28, 38, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 117, 205, 263 Pactolus, 34, 36, 42, 56, 60–62, 64, 66, 74, 77, 146, 186, 266 Phrygius, 42, 43, 46, 54–56, 105, 116, 122, 127, 128, 140, 149, 166, 167, 225, 243 Pidasus, 43, 46, 224, 225 Selendi, 41, 46, 55 ¨ ¸ ay, 41, 247 So¨ g˘ utc Tabak, 34 ˘ Yagcılı, 233 Robert, L., 38 Roman period, 2, 3, 18, 61, 62, 78, 80, 112, 124–128, 132, 199, 207, 209, 212, 213, 216, 218–220, 222, 231, 236, 250, 252, 262, 272 routes of communication, 34, 60, 95, 102, 111, 112, 115–116, 121, 126, 187. See also settlement concerns, communications Sabancı Pass, 222 Sabazius, 82, 269 Sadyattes, 12, 19, 22, 24, 276 Sais, 24 Sala. See Lakes, Saloe Salamis, 28 Salhan, A., 226 Samos, 28, 29, 146, 155, 277 S´ anda´ ˜ s, 82, 269 Sappho, 87, 268, 269 Sardis abandonment, 65, 196 AcN (Acropolis North) sector, 62 acorn. See agricultural products and tree fruits, chestnuts Acropolis, 61, 62, 64, 78 AcS (Acropolis South) sector, 65, 80 AcT (Acropolis Top) sector, 62 administrative buildings, 77–80 Altar of Cybele (PN), 66, 82, 83

308

Index ByzFort (Byzantine Fort) sector, 63, 64, 68, 77–79, 267 cemeteries, 35, 61, 99, 139, 140, 151, 183, 189, 193, 195 coin production, 75, 88, 131, 186 cosmopolitan character, 2, 8, 22, 27, 88, 89, 133, 135, 136, 175, 193 craft production and exchange, large scale, 73–77 craft production and exchange, small scale, 70–73 cults, 80–84 CW (City Wall) sector, 63 Cybele Naiskos, 82, 84 destruction, 65 development, 64–66 diet, 69, 70 domestic economy, 66–70 food production and storage, 68 workshops, 62, 63, 71 emergence as capital, 60, 185, 186, 192, 203 excavation sectors, 61–64 Field 49 sector, 63 florescence, 190, 193 fortifications, 2, 63–65, 78, 186, 188, 193, 195, 267, 269 Achaemenid-period changes, 80 construction and size, 78 glass working, 71 HoB (House of Bronzes) sector, 61–64, 66–68, 72, 88, 267 household size, 68 houses, 62, 63, 66–70, 98, 188 bothroi (storage pits), 68 cellars, 68 construction, 66 courtyards, 67, 68, 70 food production and storage, 69 kitchens, 68 organization, 66 partitions (wattle-and-daub), 68 stables or pens, 70 imported material, 186 Inv. no. G64.2:6339, 71 Inv. no. G86.6:9299, 71 Inv. no. IN73.5 / NoEx73.25, 272 Inv. no. NoEx73.2, 252 Inv. no. NoEx77.15, 236 Inv. no. NoEx78.1, 141 Inv. no. S63.51:5677, 84 Inv. no. S69.14, 141 ivory working, 71

Late Bronze Age levels, 20 Lydian Altar (LA), 66, 80–82 market place, 77 MD2 (Mound 2) sector, 63 Metr¨oon, 83 MMS (Monumental Mudbrick Structure) sector, 62, 63, 67–71, 267 monumental buildings, 64, 77–80, 186 NEW (North East Wadi) sector, 62, 63, 67, 68 palace, royal, 77, 78, 195 paradeisos. See paradeisos PC (Pactolus Cliff) sector, 62, 64, 66, 78 percentage excavated, 59 pit grave lined with tiles, 137 plural name, 115 PN (Pactolus North) sector, 62, 64, 66–68, 71, 75, 76, 82, 83 altar. See Sardis, Altar of Cybele (PN) fountain house, 80 gold refinery, 74, 75 population, 65, 68, 86–89, 186, 193 area needed to feed, 130 pottery, 72–73 prostitution, 86, 87 public buildings, 62, 63, 76–80 Achaemenid period, 80 Pyramid Tomb, 140, 141 ritual puppy dinners, 84, 85, 88 royal buildings, 63, 76–80 seal and gem-cutting, 71 settlement plan, 64 stone working, 71 Synagogue, 82, 88 Temple of Artemis, 66, 80, 112 terrace walls, 62–64, 77–79, 146 Theater sector, 64 Tomb 03.1, 176 Tomb 813, 176 ˙ Tombs 61.1–61.2 (Indere), 137 tribe names, 86 urban area, 61, 63, 64, 78 Wall 46, 63 wells, 68, 80, 188 Sardis Expedition. See Archaeological Exploration of Sardis Sarıyurt, 56 Sart C¸ay. See Rivers, Pactolus s´ atraba´s, 30 satraps, 3, 10, 12, 26, 27, 30, 78, 191, 197, 261, 262 satrapy, 10, 27–29, 196, 197 Caria, 26 Dascylium, 26, 28, 114, 274 Sparda, 2, 7, 26–30, 34, 36, 133, 197, 276

309

Index sculpture, 76, 103, 108, 118 seals, 188, 195, 268 Seha River Land, 12, 16–18, 20, 21, 260 Sekunda, N., 127 Selc¸ikli, 275 Selc¸uk. See Ephesus settlement areas, 103, 108–111, 132 Aetos, 106, 240 Ahlatlı Tepecik, 96, 98, 101, 102, 114, 131, 136, 187, 207, 208, 270 courtyards, 98 houses, 98 kitchens, 98 plan, 99 pottery, 98 Ahmetli, 55, 104, 214 Akc¸apınar, 104, 215, 216 Akhisar, 43, 46, 48, 52, 55, 87, 105, 213, 226–231, 275. See also settlement areas, Thyateira, 262 Akkaya, 197, 218 Akpınar, 104, 220 Akselendi, 105, 226, 228 Alas¸ehir, 55, 106, 236, 237 Alibeyli, 224 Apollonis, 43, 230 Arslantas¸, 97, 212, 275 Asartepe, 104, 216, 274, 275 Avs¸ar, 104, 106, 215, 237 ˘ 104, 219 Azmanoglu, Badınca, 54, 237 Bakır, 231 Ballıca, 105, 230 Bayındır, 55, 275 Belenyenice, 224 Birgi, 107, 129, 165, 252. See also settlement areas, Dioshieron Blauda. See settlement areas, Blaundus Blaundus, 38, 249 Borlu, 106, 243 ˘ 250 Boz Dag, Bozyer, 97, 209 ˘ Bugdaylık, 97, 101, 213 ¨ ukkale, ¨ Buy 107, 254, 275 Caberburhan, 240 C¸akmak Tepe, 222 C¸altıtepe, 223 C¸ambel, 219 ¨ oy, ¨ 244 C¸amlıca-Kolek ¨ u, ¨ 229 C¸amon ¨ uk, ¨ 247 C¸amyazı C¸iftlik Hoy C¸iftlik Tepe, 214 C¸iniyeri, 107, 253 C¸obanhasan, 231 C¸obanisa, 219 Cow Patch, 97, 102, 212

310

¨ C¸ullugorece, 97, 102, 211 Cydrara, 38, 44, 107, 255 Daldis, 106, 243 Dareioukome, 224 definition, 93, 103, 114 ˘ Degirmentepe. See settlement areas, Kahraman Derici, 211 Dibekdere Road Site, 97, 102, 211 Dioshieron, 129, 187, 252. See also settlement areas, Birgi Dombaylı, 234 ¨ uk, ¨ 248 Elmacık Hoy Emre, 107, 245 ¨ uk, ¨ 105, 230 Erdelli Hoy ˘ Ertugrul, 107, 154, 251, 270 Eski Balıkhane, 96, 207 Eskihisar, 243, 244 Es¸me, 55, 56, 117, 122, 248, 249 Falaka–Bayındır, 107, 253 Fetrek Valley, 44, 254 Gelenbe, 129, 140, 142, 231, 232 ¨ uk. ¨ See settlement areas, Gerdek Kayası Hoy ¨ uk ¨ C¸amyazı C¸iftlik Hoy Gerencik, 243 ¨ Hoy ¨ uk, ¨ 249 Gok ¨ ¸ eler, 160, 161, 172, 174, 199, 240, Gokc 241 ¨ ¸ en, 253 Gokc ¨ ¸ eoren, ¨ Gokc 18, 244, 260, 262 ¨ uk, ¨ 50, 52, 54, 69, 250 Golc ¨ Golmarmara, 46, 55, 102, 105, 128, 213, 225–227, 271, 272 ¨ Gordes, 54, 55, 106, 121, 242 ¨ uk ¨ Kale, 43 Gord ¨ Gulbahc ¸ e, 222 ¨ u, ¨ 249 Gull ¨ 56, 107, 116, 122, 172, 176, 247 Gure, Hacılı, 106, 235 Hacırasim, 96, 207 Hacıveliler, 212 Haliller, 159, 251 Hancılar, 247 Harmandalı, 56 Hayallı, 106, 157, 158, 174, 236 Hierakome, 105, 126–129, 132, 170, 187, 200, 224, 226, 227 Hypaepa, 44, 107, 126, 127, 132, 170, 187, 200, 224, 252, 253, 272, 275 Ilıca Su, 226 ˙ Incesu, 107, 159, 174, 245 Is¸ıklar, 254 ˙ ˘ Izmirli’nin Magarası, 218 Kahraman, 105, 129, 140, 142, 231, 232 ¨ 243 Kale Koy, Karabel, 104, 218

Index POI05.29. See settlement areas, Dibekdere Road Site POI05.40. See settlement areas, Ahlatlı Tepecik POI05.41. See settlement areas, Arslantas¸ POI05.43. See settlement areas, Bozyer POI06.13. See settlement areas, Kızılcayar ˘ POI06.18. See settlement areas, Yandımoglu C¸es¸mesi ˘ POI06.22. See settlement areas, Bugdaylık POI06.27. See settlement areas, Kaymakc¸ı Lakeshore POI81.02. See settlement areas, Tınaztepe POI81.03. See settlement areas, Kılcanlar ¨ uk ¨ Hoy POI81.04. See settlement areas, Cow Patch Rotary Quern Site, 97, 102, 209 S¸ahankaya, 106, 118–121, 125, 132, 160, 161, 187, 197, 199, 240–242, 271 plan, 119 Salihli, 48, 55, 56, 105, 233, 234 Sancaklı C¸es¸mebas¸ı, 219 ˘ Sancaklı I˙gdecik, 219 ¨ 38, 44, 255 Saraykoy, Sarıc¸alı, 226, 227 Sarıc¸am, 105, 128, 223, 224, 272 Sarıkız. See settlement areas, Kendirlik Satala, 45, 234, 264 Selc¸ikli, 43, 105, 229 S¸elekler, 243 Sevis¸ler, 233 S¸irin, 219 Sivrice, 166, 215, 250 Soma-Altınlı, 87, 231 SU05.087, 96, 208 SU05.105. See settlement areas, Kendirlik SU05.108. See See settlement areas, Kendirlik SU05.112. See settlement areas, Ahlatlı Tepecik SU05.97. See settlement areas, Kendirlik Tabala, 247 Tabantepe. See settlement areas, Kahraman Tas¸lıtarla. See settlement areas, Arslantas¸ ˘ 96, 207, 208, 212 Tekelioglu, Temenothyrae, 38 Temrek, 104, 217, 275 Throne of Pelops. See settlement areas, Yarıkkaya Thyateira, 43, 46, 52, 56, 57, 87, 228, 265, 266, 268. See also settlement areas, Akhisar, 262 Thyeira, 44, 253, 254. See also settlement areas, Tire ¨ uk, ¨ 106, 238–240 Tilki Hoy Tınaztepe, 97, 125, 213, 214

¨ 250, 265 Karakoy, Karakurt, 129, 231 ¨ uk, ¨ 87, 105, 229 Karasonya Hoy Karatas¸-Adala, 45, 105, 234 Kayacık, 242 Kayapınar, 117, 222 ¨ uk, ¨ 249 Kayapınar Hoy Kaymakc¸ı Lakeshore, 102, 212 Kec¸ili, 222 ˘ See Kel Dag˘ and Mountains, Mt. Kel Dag. Karios Kemaliye, 106, 236 Kemalpas¸a, 43, 45, 55, 218 Kemer, 243, 248–250 Kendirlik, 97, 209, 210 Kenger, 106, 244, 245 Kennez 1, 105, 227 ¨ uk, ¨ 97, 101, 213, 274 Kılcanlar Hoy Kiraz, 55, 107, 250 ˘ ¸ , 46 Kırkagac Kırtepe, 253 Kızılcayar, 97, 212 Koldere, 224 Kula, 54, 55, 107, 169, 245, 247, 275 ¨ 233 Kumkoy, ¨ 57 Kure, Kurudere, 218 Kus¸tepe, 125, 207, 210, 271 Magnesia ad Sipylum, 41, 45, 57, 58, 117, 123, 221, 262 Maltepe, 105, 227, 231, 238 Mecidiye, 230 Mersinli, 106, 235 ¨ u, ¨ 235 Mevlutl Moralılar, 105, 228 Muradiye, 105, 222 Musacalı, 104, 160, 161, 217 ¨ Mutevelli, 224 Nakrasos. See settlement areas, Maltepe ¨ uk, ¨ 249 Narlı Hoy ¨ uk, ¨ 104, 219 Nemrut Hoy ¨ Nuriye, 224 ¨ Odemis ¸ , 48, 55, 107, 155–157, 172, 174, 252, 272 ¨ 107, 247, 248 Ortakoy, Ovacık Yaylası, 250 Pınarcık, 227 Plateia Petra. See settlement areas, S¸ahankaya POI05.09. See settlement areas, Kus¸tepe POI05.13. See settlement areas, Eski Balıkhane POI05.19. See settlement areas, Rotary Quern Site

311

Index settlement areas (cont.) Tire, 44, 48, 50, 55, 57, 107, 230, 253, 254, 266. See also settlement areas, Thyeira Turgutlu, 55, 104, 166, 216, 217, 219, 254 ¨ ¸ pınar, 105, 223, 276 Uc ¨ uk, ¨ 218 Ulucak Hoy Urganlı, 216 Us¸ak. See settlement areas, Temenothyrae ¨ ucek ¨ ¨ uk. ¨ See settlement areas, Erdelli Uy Hoy ¨ uk ¨ Hoy Uzgur, 107, 254, 275 ˘ Yagcılar, 222 ˘ Yagcılar Kalesi, 197, 222 ˘ C¸es¸mesi, 97, 102, 213 Yandımoglu Yarıkkaya, 117, 215, 220 Yayakırıldık, 240, 241 ˘ Yelegen, 249 ¨ 102, 213 Yenikoy, Yenis¸ehir, 247, 253 Yes¸ilkavak, 106, 234, 235 ¨ 224 Yes¸ilkoy, Yılan Kalesi, 117, 250 Yukarı C¸obanisa, 219 Yurtbas¸ı, 247 settlement concerns, 8, 129, 192 communications, 115–116. See also routes of communication defensive, 60, 110–112, 117–121, 131 resources, 60, 121–123. See also resources subsistence, 115–116. See also subsistence economy and activities territorial control, 117–121 settlement patterns, 129–133 central Lydia, 101–102 greater Lydia, 110–112 Sidene, 25 ˘ Simav Dagları. See Mountains, Temnus Sisines, 127 skeletal remains, 13 sling bullets, 120, 199, 242 Smyrna, 24, 25, 88, 259 Sotirou, Y., 222 spices, 50 spindle whorls, 87, 229 Spithridates, 12, 30, 262 status display in burial traditions, 86, 133, 135–137, 140, 142, 156, 181, 182 ˙ 219 ˘ I., Stefanoglu, stonework. See masonry Strabo, 19, 36, 37, 52, 117, 124, 125, 199, 249, 260–266, 268, 271, 272, 277 Struthas, 29 subsistence economy and activities, 5, 33, 49, 50, 53–55, 58, 68, 70, 91, 93, 99, 115–116, 130, 191, 201, 264, 273

Sultanhisar, 44 ¨ umenli. ¨ Sul See settlement areas, Blaundus Survey Unit, 206 survey, archaeological. See regional archaeology Susa, 27, 74, 198, 261, 268 Tabalus, 27, 89, 195 Tacitus, 127, 227, 272 Tandos. See inscriptions, Mnesimachus Inscription Tantalus, 56 ¨ uce ¨ Tapay. See Gunl Tarhunaradu, 17 Tas¸ Suret, 129. See also burials, Akpınar temperatures, average, 48, 49 terracottas, architectural, 8, 66, 67, 78, 95, 137, 188 textiles, 53, 57, 70, 73, 176, 179, 180 dyeing, 57, 71 flax, 71 Themistokles, M., 223 Theophrastus, 69, 264–266, 268 Thucydides, 129 Thyaira. See settlement areas, Thyeira Timolus. See Mountains, Tmolus Tire Museum, 154, 162, 164, 206, 254, 274 TM84–1, 256 TM94–101, 257 TM128, 254 TM135, 256 TM142, 254 TM146, 254 TM149, 253 TM2003–121, 257 Tiribazus, 29 Tissaphernes, 12, 29, 120, 197, 199, 242, 261, 262 Tithraustes, 29 Tobalmoura. See inscriptions, Mnesimachus Inscription Toudo, 23, 87, 193 Tralles, 44, 261, 268 ¨ ¨ Treasure of Korez. See coin hoards, Ortakoy Treres, 23 Tripolis, 44 Troad, 25, 273–276 Trojans, 124 Troy, 21, 229, 260 Tugdammi. See Lygdamis Tulunay, E. T., 218 tumuli, 140–151. See also burials, grave assemblages, grave goods, kline, and pottery adoption (Achaemenid), 148 adoption (Lydian), 144–146

312

Index Akc¸es¸me, 211 Aktepe, 172, 173, 176, 178, 182, 275 Alahıdır, 215 ancestral ideology and, 147 around the Black Sea, 142 as an elite burial form, 10, 99. See also status display Balkan, 142 Basmacı, 138, 176, 180 Belenyenice A, 224 BT 05.114. See tumuli, Tomb of Alyattes BT 05.22. See tumuli, Karnıyarık Tepe BT 05.45. See tumuli, Deliktepe A BT 05.58, 179 BT 05.81. See tumuli, Kırmutaf Tepe BT 63.1. See tumuli, Karnıyarık Tepe BT 63.2, 145, 209, 275 BT 63.4. See tumuli, Kırmutaf Tepe BT 89.1, 182, 208, 276 chronology, 150, 151 crepis walls, 142, 144, 274 decline in use, 150, 183, 199, 201 Deliktepe A, 210 ˘ 176, 180, 214 Demirag, East Greek, 144 ¨ Golde, 138 Harta-Abidintepe, 172, 174, 178, 182, 230, 231 ˙ Ikiztepe, 154, 176 Karnıyarık Tepe, 143, 208, 209, 273 ˘ 247 Kayaagıl, Kırmutaf Tepe, 143, 208 Kızılbel, 146, 147 Kocamutaf Tepe. See tumuli, Tomb of Alyattes ˘ 170, 171, 243 Kral Bagı, Lale Tepe, 170, 171, 173, 175, 214, 275 Osmanlıtepe, 234 Phrygian, 142, 144 proliferation, 148, 195, 196, 201 selection of sites for construction, 148 size and regional prosperity, 116 Tilkitepe, 239, 240 Tomb of Alyattes, 142–146, 149, 150, 153, 173, 189, 193, 195, 208, 209 Toptepe, 176, 180 tumulus groups Ahmetli, 215 Akc¸apınar, 215 Akkec¸ili, 243 Akpınar, 220 Alas¸ehir, 236 Alibeyli, 224 ¨ u, ¨ 233 Arapold Armutlu, 218 as markers of settlement areas, 100, 109

313

˘ Bagyolu, 222 Bahadır, 224 Balabanlı, 251 Ballıca, 230 Bas¸tepe, 96, 208 Bayat, 231, 242 Belenovası, 97, 211 Beyce, 233 Beylerbeyi, 255 Birgi, 252 Borlu, 243 Bozalan, 240 ¨ ukbelen, ¨ Buy 211 Caberkamara, 238–240 Cambaz Tepe, 96, 207 C¸apaklı, 234 Castolus, 247 C¸avus¸lar, 240 C¸iniyeri, 253 C¸obanisa, 219 C¸omaklar, 251 Crius, 219 definition in central Lydia, 100 definition in greater Lydia, 109 Delikli Tepe, 209 Demirci, 243 Derbent, 235 Duman Tepe, 96, 207 Durasıllı, 234 Emirli, 251 Eskihisar, 243 Es¸me, 249 Fetrek, 44, 254 Gelenbe, 231 ¨ Gobekli, 234 ¨ ¸ ekoy, ¨ 229 Gokc ¨ Gokkaya, 215 ¨ uk, ¨ 250 Golc ¨ Golmarmara, 225 ¨ Gulmeztepe, 243 ¨ us ¨ ¸ c¸ay, 238 Gum ¨ 173, 247 Gure, ¨ Gurle, 222 Hacılı, 235 Hacıveliler, 212, 213 Hamidiye, 222, 245, 272 Harta, 230 Heybeli, 225 Hierakome, 227 ˙ Inay, 249 ˙ Intepe, 96, 208, 265 ˙ Ishakc ¸ elebi, 224 Is¸ıklar–Turgutlu, 254 ˙ Ismetiye, 236 Karabel, 218 ˘ Karaoglanlı A, 219

Index tumulus groups (cont.) ˘ Karaoglanlı B, 219 Karayahs¸ı, 209 Kavaklıdere, 235 Kayacık, 242 Kayapınar, 222 Kaymakc¸ı, 251 Kemaliye and Toygar, 236 Kemer, 249 Kemerdamları, 97, 213, 214, 271 Kestelli-Dibekdere, 210 Kılavuzlar, 243 Kılcanlar, 213 Killik, 238 Kıran, 248 Kiraz, 250 Kızılcaavlu, 251 ¨ um, ¨ 218 Kızıluz Kula, 247 Kumtepe, 227 map, 94 Matdere, 214 Menye, 244 Mersinli, 235 Moralı, 226, 227 Musacalı, 217 Musahoca, 231 ¨ Mutevelli, 224 organization, 116 Osmaniye, 229 outside Lydia, 100, 116 Ovakent, 251 Poyrazdamları, 214 Royal, 208 Salihli, 233 ¨ 55, 237 Sarıgol, size and regional prosperity, 115 sizes, average, 116 South of Alyattes, 209 ¨ Sunnetc ¸ iler, 230 Tas¸lı Tepe, 97, 210 Tavs¸anlı Tepe, 96, 209 ˘ 208 Tekelioglu, Temrek, 217 Tilki, 240 Tınaztepe, 214

Tire, 254 Turgutlu, 216 Yavs¸anlı C¸es¸mesi, 96, 208 ˘ Yelegen, 249 ¨ 213 Yenikoy, Yes¸ildere, 248 Yes¸ilkavak, 234 Yes¸ilova, 235 Tylonid Dynasty, 19, 191, 260, 261 Tymolus. See Mountains, Tmolus ˙ 252 ˘ Ugurlu, I., Us¸ak, 37, 38, 49–51, 54–56, 205, 264, 265, 270. See also settlement areas, Temenothyrae Us¸ak Museum, 176, 206, 240, 247–249 UM30.1.00–30.11.00, 239 Vari (Attica), 114 vassal states, 16, 17, 20, 202, 260 vegetation, 47–49 weaving. See textiles wheat. See agricultural products and tree fruits, cereals Xanthus, 22, 60, 140, 264, 277 Xenophon, 37, 38, 73, 114, 117, 242, 247, 261–265, 268, 270, 271, 273, 276, 277 Xerxes, 28, 31, 196, 199, 261 yayla, 44, 49, 53 definition, 40 Kara or Karlak, 250 Ovacık, 107, 250, 272 Tekke, 250 Yedikule. See settlement areas, S¸ahankaya Yenicekent. See Tripolis Yes¸iloba Tepe, 128 Zeus, 81, 123, 128, 129, 132, 187, 188, 252, 272. See also Lev´s Baradates, 82 Carian, 87, 126, 249 Driktes, 125

314