Town and Country in the Satrapies of Western Anatolia: The Archaeology of Empire (2011)

TOWN AND COUNTRY IN THE SATRAPIES OF WESTERN ANATOLIA:

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF EMPIREMargaret C. Miller

The archaeology of Anatolia in the Persian period has become a hot topic of late, in part sparked by important, if accidental, discoveries1. But such discoveries fit into the context of a longer-developing groundswell within scholarly interests that has seen the emergence of Achaemenid studies as an important new discipline, and against a backdrop of sustained hard slogging in planned and salvage fieldwork across the land. The predominant picture to date here, as elsewhere, is one of selective receptivity of Persian culture, rather than striking testimony to Persian presence. Nevertheless, I will argue that the specific pattern of changes that we see in the archaeological record is significant and informative, even if still sparse. It complements the literary record in one important aspect: the pattern of distribution of the (perhaps small) Persian population post-conquest. I have no new material to bring to bear to this discussion, but will sketch quickly the main types of material evidence, and then consider what seem to be significant characteristics2. My focus is on the range of types, the wide dispersion, and the comparative speed of receptivity manifested; it may be possible to correlate the patterns of receptivity to the prior socio-political structures in the different regions.

Persian or Persianizing?

Literary testimony to the violent conquest of Anatolia by the Persians in the mid-6th century is unequivocal. Yet within the hinterland of the West Anatolian littoral, we have precious little material evidence that directly attests to the presence of ethnic Iranians (“Persian” is perhaps too narrow a concept for archaeological definition or, at the other end of the spectrum, too potentially all-inclusive to be useful). The best evidence available to date emerges from Daskyleion and Sardis, as might be expected; but even these are problematic, for different reasons. At both sites significant construction of subsequent periods hampers attempts to understand the satrapal capitals in the 6th and 5th centuries BC and the extent to which pre-Persian structures and life-style continued after the Persian conquest.

Evidence of manifestly intrusive religious practice ought to indicate a foreign population, and mention of “Persian” cults famously appears in literary sources. Unfortunately the range of religious practice in Iran in the 6th and 5th centuries (most notably the question of the date and spread

1. I am much obliged to Lâtife Summerer and Alexander von Kienlin for organizing their stimulating conference, and for assistance regarding some problems of interpretation, I am indebted to K. da Costa, O. Henry, D. Kaptan, S. Miller, A. Nunn, D. T. Potts, and V. Tolun. Kaptan 2008 usefully articulates the challenges of interpreting ‘markers’ of Persians in the archaeological evidence. I regret that Roosevelt 2009b came into my possession too late for proper consideration.

2. Lintz 2008 announces a project to compile a comprehensive corpus of Achaemenid objects in western Turkey; Kaptan 2008, 657, proposes a systematic investigation of Turkish museum collections for seals and sealings. The data-collection of both projects will offer a major break-through in understanding of Persian-period Anatolia.

320 M. C. Miller

of Zoroaster’s teaching and the extent to which it innovated on past practice) is a matter of debate for which as of yet the archaeological evidence gives little help. The report of an “achämenidischer Kultplatz” under excavation at Daskyleion in 2003-2005 is most intriguing, though its installations are thus far without parallel in Iran and the west. The date rather than necessarily the character is Persian. At Taş Kule the possible fire bowl cut into the platform of the tomb is somewhat more easily paralleled, and perhaps does attest to an Iranian form of ritual in Aeolis; Roosevelt now reports a rock-cut fire altar at Şahankaya in north Lydia3. At Daskyleion it is argued that architectural detail on a building of c. 460 exhibits a Persian feature in the upturned finial of its window lintel, but the façade as a whole perhaps has more to do with local design4.

Seals and seal-impressions (the latter most notably the corpus of bullae from Daskyleion) offer three different kinds of evidence: artefactual, iconographic and epigraphic5. While recent research has established that the bulk of glyptic in West Anatolia in the Persian period was locally produced6, a few seals seem to take us closer to an Iranian population. Röllig identified some five Iranian names, albeit written in Aramaic script, on stamp-seal bullae from Daskyleion7. Three of the seals, a mixture of cylinder and stamp seals, bear images closely akin to imagery of heartland glyptic and are judged by Kaptan to be in the “Achaemenid koine” style (DS 16, DS 18, DS 19). Two bear imagery more characteristic of the Persian West (DS 65, a horseman over a fallen foe; and DS 112, a heron, both “Persianizing” in detail). Perhaps this wide range of motifs selected by the five men with Iranian names should not surprise, in view of Root’s demonstration of the wealth of seal styles available to the patron at Persepolis8, but the Daskyleion evidence presents no clear differentiation in the seal types used by men with Semitic as opposed to Iranian names9. In other words, we cannot use the image of a seal, whether cylinder or stamp seal, as testimony to the Iranian ethnicity of its owner.

The most famous of the Daskyleion sealings are from the three cylinder seals that bore cuneiform royal inscriptions in Old Persian, two of Xerxes and one of Artaxerxes; their impressions constitute “nearly a half of the total number of the Daskyleion bullae”10. Yet, of the three seals, only one, DS 2, inscribed with the name Xerxes in both Babylonian and Old Persian, is judged by Kaptan to be in the actual Court Style as known at Persepolis. Moreover, DS 2 survives in only three impressions.

Kaptan judges the other two royal-name cylinders to be “Achaemenid Persian koine” (DS 3, DS 4). Although they are closely linked with heartland art, details suggest western production on

3. Iranian religion: excellent synthesis in Potts forthcoming. Daskyleion: Bakır 2006, 62, and fig. 2; Bakır 2007, 171-172; Erdoğan 2007, 183 and fig. 8. Taş Kule: Cahill 1988, 494-495, with fig. 7. Şahankaya: Roosevelt 2009b, 118-121 with fig. 5, 8, 240-242.

4. Ateşlier 2001; Cahill 1988, 493, also argued that the finial is Iranian; N.B. the earliest parallel is the tomb of Cyrus.5. Bakır 2001b, 175-176, reports two Babylonian imported seals (Old Babylonian cylinder and 6th century pyramidal

stamp, fig. 13). The former, over a thousand years too early, is doubtless to be associated with the other second-millennium material at the site (Bakır 1997, 231) – a salutary reminder of the very long history of exchange between West Anatolia and the Near East.

6. Kaptan 2002, 107, succinctly summarises; see also Dusinberre 1997 and 2003, 158-171, and Kaptan 2008, 655-657.

7. Röllig 2002, 209 summarises his findings (he suggests that the seal of Elnap is of same man as the stele); he is agnostic in the case of DS 100, argued by Lemaire 2001, 33, to be Iranian. In addition, two or possibly three Semitic names are recognised and one Babylonian. To such onomastic evidence can be added the two Iranian-named individuals who were somehow involved in the production of the funerary monuments of men with West Semitic names in Daskylitis as described on the inscriptions of the monument of Padi and the Stele of Adda: Lemaire 2001.

8. Root 1997; Garrison & Root 2001.9. It is interesting to contrast the cylinder seal from Gordion, with fully Achaemenidizing imagery, albeit cut in an

Anatolian style, and an Aramaic inscription seemingly cut by someone insecure in the script. The name has been read as Iranian: Dusinberre 2009, 91-92 (also Dusinberre 2005, cat. no. 33).

10. Schmitt 2002, DS 2 (Xerxes, Old Persian and Babylonian), DS 3 (Xerxes, Old Persian), DS 4 (Artaxerxes, Old Persian). Quote: Kaptan 2001, 58. Court style: Kaptan 2002, 108.

Town and Country in the Satrapies of Western Anatolia 321

a central visual model. This means that the seals neither provide evidence for royal letters from the King to the satrap, nor are linked with preparations for Xerxes’ invasion of Greece11. The users of these seals need not have even been the satrap. In fact, especially in the case of DS 3 with its large number of impressions (147), the user was most probably not the satrap12. Furthermore, Kaptan has articulated the possibility that the impressions from DS 3 were produced by at least two cylinders worked with an identical design, leading to the inescapable conclusion: DS 3 is a chancery type rather than a private seal13.

The third cylinder seal, DS 4, though preserved in fewer impressions (12), owing to apparent minor differences in the inscription on one bulla, has been similarly suspected to represent two different cylinders cut to seem identical. In this context, the Persepolitan type audience scene on DS 4 is especially interesting; the imagery represents a visual translation of the text, something that has not yet been attested in heartland glyptic. Another oddity is the location of the OP inscription along the top in contrast with the typical vertical orientation of cuneiform inscriptions. The throne scene of the seal best parallels that of the Throne Hall at Persepolis which is itself a reduced version of the Apadana reliefs; but differences in dress among the attendants of the King may indicate that the seal-maker did not understand the intricacies of the Persepolitan dress code14. The suspicion that the impressions were produced by more than one seal cut to a single model may also reveal local manufacture to specifications from the heart.

As pointed out by Kaptan, officials at Daskyleion had the authority to use the cylinder seals with the royal name15; the users need not have been Persians. The use of royal name seals (and associated iconography) merely signalled linkage with the King. Thus, of the rich corpus of sealings at Daskyleion, so ably analysed by Kaptan, only one seal type (DS 2) combines seal type, design, iconography and inscription, not to mention rarity of attested usage, in such a manner as to suggest it was the product of a court workshop in Iran and possibly used by a Persian deputy of the King16.

Horse trappings, as artefacts somewhat lower down the prestige chain, might more convincingly be identified as direct testimony to the presence of Iranians. One bronze example of the distinctive Persian bridle strap-divider shaped in the form of a boar’s tusk is reported from the earlier Persian phase at Daskyleion17. A similar item in a copper alloy emerged from mixed fill at Sardis in the House of Bronzes sector, now known to have been outside the city wall; even though the parallel ridges along its length differ from the stone and bone examples from Persepolis, it is more akin to Persian than Scythian bridle parts18. In view of the incorporation of regional troops within the imperial army for major campaigns (with the implicit utilization of regional expertise in battle-tactics), it is tempting to posit that behind these artefacts lies an Iranian mounted on a horse with an Iranian bridle.

Another strong candidate for Persian ownership is the Pyramid Tomb at Sardis. According to Ratté, ceramic finds give it a post-conquest date while details of the stone-masonry date it before

11. Balkan’s suggestions: Balkan 1959, 123, n. 4, and 127, cf. Kaptan 2001, 58-59; Kaptan 2002, 25.12. See comments of Kaptan 2007, 280, with references to the evidence at Persepolis for royal names on office-seals.13. Kaptan 2002, 109, has observed very minor differences in the DS 3 bullae that cannot be otherwise explained

(noted also Kaptan 2007, 280-1).14. Kaptan 2002, 113; location of inscription, p. 31; dress p. 36. Schmitt 2002, 197, separates DS 4.6.15. Kaptan 2002, 26.16. Kaptan 2002, 107-170, summarized 107. It is tempting, but perhaps unwise, to wonder whether Artabazos, to

whom Xerxes gave the satrapy in 479/8 BC (Thuc. 1.129), or someone close to him, had use of the seal.17. Bakır 1995, 276 with fig. 24; Bakır 2001b, 175 with fig. 11. Other items of similar suggestiveness in lead, bronze,

and ivory are noted in both publications.18. Sardis M 62.8: 4183. Waldbaum 1983, cat. no. 86, defines as Scythian or possibly Persian (p. 41); her cat. nos. 87-

88 would seem to be Lydian. The stone Persepolis examples are conveniently illustrated Curtis & Tallis 2005, cat. no. 387.

322 M. C. Miller

c. 50019. Nothing else at Sardis so clearly seems to say “Persian, made by and for Persians”20. The Pyramid Tomb typologically seems more foreign than local, and intriguingly parallels the Tomb of Cyrus – but it is not at all clear how Persian the Tomb of Cyrus is; the handful of parallels in Iran and Turkey do not settle the question absolutely21.

A fundamental problem arises from the difficulty of understanding the evidence regarding Persian funerary practice22: Herodotos speaks both of exposure followed by secondary deposition of remains and of inhumation in terms that suggest a range of practice23; the former shows some parallels with developed Zoroastrian practice. Yet the Persian Kings had significant funerary monuments, of which one, the Tomb of Cyrus, is said by later Greek sources to have contained the royal body. The rock-cut tombs of the other kings conceivably were just elaborate façades; their chambers were certainly empty when investigated in modern times. Yet their overall appearance more readily supports inhumation rather than secondary deposition of exposed remains.

Unfortunately, there is as of yet no archaeological evidence for the burial of ordinary people of the right period in Iran. Moorey identified the burials at Deve Hüyük as Persian partly on the basis of a burial typology (the stone-lined cist burial) found also in west Iran, but rare in the Levant. The typological distinction was stressed by Stern in his magisterial summaries of the archaeology of the Levant and in the Persian period; but more recently Tal has challenged the interpretative structure, pointing to the wide range of burial types in the period and suggesting that any typological distinction reflects comparative wealth rather than variant ethnicity24. We cannot, it seems, use stone-lined cist-tombs as a touchstone of Persianness.

It is appropriate to articulate my operating assumptions regarding the evidence of burials and burial markers. Funerary rites, including choice of tomb and burial type, tend to play an important role in any society’s self-definition. To identify the ethnicity of the deceased we should look more to the construction of a tomb and evidence for funerary practice rather than the evidence of the contents. By these criteria, all but one tomb so far known archaeologically in West Anatolia had non-Persian occupants; alas, that one tomb, the Pyramid Tomb, yielded no contents. Persian-style contents, or Persian-style ornamentation, do not yield Persians25.

In this context, note should be made of L’vov-Basirov’s identification of traces at two sites (in Lydia and Caria) as compatible with a Zoroastrian funerary ritual. He reports a series of cuttings on two rock outcrops at Gelenbe near Harta and, at Teke Eseri near Amyzon, features that he identifies as exposure platforms and stone trough and cists. If he is right in these observations (and I regret that I have not been able to examine the sites), L’vov-Basirov has made a profoundly important contribution: he has identified archaeological remains that speak to an Iranian population rather

19. Ratté 1992, 154, reports that two fragmentary “Persian Bowls” were found in the limestone chip construction reports that two fragmentary “Persian Bowls” were found in the limestone chip construction layer of the Pyramid Tomb; and (p. 160) that it was constructed before the claw chisel gained prominence in later 6th – early 5th century.

20. Even the prized seals and gold bracteates excavated by Butler’s expedition and recently reassessed by Dusinberre 2003 showed up in Lydian tombs.

21. Th e question of whether the “Pyramid Tomb” and that at Taş Kule (Cahill 1988) are Persian or Anatolian in The question of whether the “Pyramid Tomb” and that at Taş Kule (Cahill 1988) are Persian or Anatolian in ş Kule (Cahill 1988) are Persian or Anatolian in Kule (Cahill 1988) are Persian or Anatolian in character is still unsettled. Summaries of the state of evidence are provided by Boardman 2000, 53-60, and Dusinberre 2003, 138-141.

22. Boucharlat 2005, 279-281, outlines the situation cautiously. L’vov-Basirov 2001 more enthusiastically argues that Zoroastrian practice can explain some archaeological phenomena, and discusses the parallelism and divergence of Zoroastrian practice and Greek testimony regarding Persians.

23. Hdt. 1.140.24. Moorey 1980a, 7-9 (7, quoting Woolley’s description; 9, West Iranian comparanda); Stern 1982, 91-92; Stern

2001, 470-477; Tal 2005, 87-88, lists a number of pertinent site reports.25. The opening comments of L’vov-Basirov 2001, 101-102, e.g., reflect a readiness to see Persians buried in

Anatolian-style funerary arrangements.


than merely an immigrant population from elsewhere in the empire. Yet Roosevelt now suggests that the remains near Gelenbe are more compatible with Anatolian Cybele-cult installations26.

The sculpted stelai especially from Daskylitis but also attested elsewhere continue an Anatolian practice of tomb-marking27. Some iconographic elements reflect Persian ideas, ideas that can be found in other kinds of funerary monuments elsewhere in West Anatolia; these are discussed below. Some of the iconography (also found elsewhere) would seem to be Anatolian; notably the specific type of funerary procession, with the rounded cart, was evidently widespread in Anatolia and already attested in the Hittite period28. It might seem contradictory to the ethnically conservative character of funerary practice noted above that the few cut inscriptions on the stelai bear witness to a mixed population including West Semitic elements, with Iranian paymasters, alongside the Phrygians29. In fact, the use of funerary stelai for burials of men with Semitic names reflects a comparable West Semitic burial practice: an epichoric tradition of marking graves with stone stelai is well attested in North Syria and Lebanon30. Other foreigners resident in Daskylitis who had no such funerary marking habit (or indeed epigraphic habit) are probably escaping our notice; the absence of indication need not reflect a lack of other ethnicities among the immigrant residents of Daskyleion.

In many ways the burials that most intriguingly mix Anatolian with Iranian elements are those whose wealth and size flag them as elite:

the Lydian built chambers of İkiztepe with Anatolian kline and wealth of Iranian and Persianizing (and Anatolian) artefacts;the Phrygian log construction of the Tatarlı tomb, with its Lydian dromos, and decoration in a fascinating mixture of Iranian and South-west Anatolian elements; the tomb at Karaburun to the North-East of Lycia with its local construction and painted interior, again with a fascinating (but different) mixture of Iranian and South-west Anatolian elements.

All of these burials must represent members of the Anatolian elite, each of which has in one way or another exhibited receptivity to Iranian ideas31. We cannot know the role the deceased may have played (or not played) in satrapal social and military structures; it is possible, as Lâtife Summerer has suggested, that above a certain social level it was simply de rigueur to have Iranian elements in life (like the “French accent” mandatory in the private realm among the English elite in different periods of modern history). The fact of marriages between high-ranking Persians and non-Persians can only have helped such attitudes32.

26. L’vov-Basirov 2001; Roosevelt 2009b, 129.27. Nollé 1992 remains fundamental; Polat has added the stele of Manes and a new fragment (Gusmani & Polat

1999 and Polat 2007). Stelai from Ödemiş-Hypaipa, Lydia (Izmir 4338, Dentzer 1982, R62, fig. 318, pl. 58); Altıntaş, Phrygia (Afyon Museum, Dentzer 1982, R63, fig. 319, pl. 58). Lydian stelai of the period are usefully surveyed now by Roosevelt 2009b, 156-164. See also more generally Draycott 2007, esp. 50-63, 209-134, 165-176.

28. For the funerary procession, see now the discussion of Summerer 2008, 278-281, citing Hittite procession; actual carts found in burials discussed by Kökten-Ersöy 1998, shows importance of carts throughout West Anatolia.

29. The new Phrygian inscription (Ergili, Daskyleion depot, c. 500-475) is especially important: Gusmani & Polat 1999. Cf. also Lydian and Phrygian graffiti at Daskyleion: Bakır & Gusmani 1993. Bakır 2001b lists Phrygian script and graffiti, Lydian graffiti, Aramaic script on stelai and bullae, Old Persian on bullae, Babylonian on cylinder seal. See now Maffre 2007a and 2007b.

30. Bonatz 2000, 32-46; Sader 2005; see now the new funerary stele of Kuttamuwa from Zincirli, reported at http://news.chicago.edu/ for November 18, 2008. I am most grateful to Astrid Nunn and Kate da Costa for assistance with this material.

31. İkiztepe: Özgen & Öztürk 1996. Karaburun: Mellink 1975, 349-353, with references to prior reports. I do not accept the argument made in Jacobs 1987, 33, that the deceased is Persian but do accept his argument that the deceased is dressed in the Persian manner. Tatarlı: Summerer 2007a, 2007b, 2008.

32. For marriages, see, e.g., the examples gathered by Kuhrt 2007, 869-872 (being Xen., Hell., 4.1.3-15 and the Saqqara stele, commemorating a deceased with Egyptian name, son of an Egyptian mother and Persian father).

324 M. C. Miller

The very short list of what we might certainly take as material evidence for Iranians in West Anatolia need not mean that there were few Persians out West. How many “Persians” needed to reside in a region for the Persian population to be visible in the material record? How can we recognise a “Persian” archaeologically? To be sure of Iranians we need material finds within a context of use that declares Persians, not just finds at a site where Persians are known to have been: Persians were probably always in the minority out west and therefore will continue to be archaeologically illusive. Yet one wonders whether the recognition of imported Iranian pottery at Gordion by the new team working there was possible only because members of the team had had prior field experience in North Iran33.

Characteristics of the Evidence for Persians

Almost all of the archaeological evidence testifies not directly to Persians but to the selective receptivity of the Persian model on the part of the peoples of Anatolia34. Yet the specific characteristics of the available evidence – its variety, its pattern of dispersal and its speed of commencement – are all potentially significant and worth articulating.

Variety of TypeThe first characteristic of the evidence for Persian presence in West Anatolia is its disparate

nature. Despite the small volume, the traces encompass the full gamut of evidence types: across medium (clay, metal, glass, glyptic, architectural ornamentation, painted and sculpted iconography) and function (economic, decorative, convivial, equestrian, commemorative; not, it seems, military), as well as the type of reception exhibited (use of foreign object, imitation or adaptation of foreign object type, emulation of social action)35. The last element – the social – is the most difficult to ascertain, owing to problems of archaeological invisibility, but it is also potentially the most meaningful. When Greek sources report that a people is barbarised (i.e. acculturated to Persians36), it is probable that the cultural manifestations of receptivity that so offended the Greeks may have been precisely in those areas that leave little or no archaeological trace: language, social action, or dress. Language is beyond my competence; but we can see some traces of Anatolian adoption of Persian social action and dress, even through the adoption or imitation of Persian artefacts.

The most immediately recognisable Persian-style artefacts – vessels, jewellery, seals – are found all along West Anatolia, usually from funerary contexts. Typically in burials there is a mixture of Persian-type status-signifiers with more local material as grave goods. It will be recalled, for example, that the Gümüşçay little girl in the Granikos region had Persian-type gold bracelets with antelope-head terminals as well as Anatolian boat earrings. One of the three rings on the fingers of the “Carian princess” of Halikarnassos (who also boasted gold antelope-head bracelets) had a gem

33. E.g. T. Cuyler Young and Robert Henrickson; Iranian imported ceramic reported Henrickson 1993 and Gates 1996, 308; more generally, see Voigt & Young 1999.

34. Here I part ways with Sekunda, who 1988, 184, took the stelai as direct testimony to Persian presence; I see them rather as reflecting Persians, with possible exception of those stelai erected by a person with an Iranian name for a person with a West Semitic name. A similar sentiment, quoted above, appears in a discussion of Lydia: Sekunda 1985, 13, though he also notes, p. 14-15, that stray Persian finds may be result of gift-exchange and not indicate Persian identity. N.B. comments of Kaptan 2008, 653-654, on the rarity of artefacts.

35. I attempted a provisional summary in Miller 2002, 305-6; more has since been published. Paspalas 2000, with characteristic insight and thoroughness, collected widely the evidence especially for Lydia. Numismatics provide another line of “proof ” of Persian presence, but too complicated to be even lightly touched here; it is not “proof ” we seek, but patterns of manifest presence and reception. Cf. Mildenberg 1993, Borchhardt 1999 (Lycia), and Bieg 2006, 34, adding an issue from Kebren.

36. Plut., Lys., 3.2.


engraved with a standing Persian while a second had the head of Apollo37. Even the rich burials of the Uşak region exhibit Lydian and Phrygianizing vessels as well as Persian and Persianizing; and the jewellery tends to have more of a local character, as Özgen and Öztürk noted38.

Artefacts (Persian and imitations) and Associated PracticeThe overwhelming impression is that the majority of artefacts of Persian character belong

to the sumptuary arts, as has been observed39. Perhaps of greater interest is the implicit adoption of foreign social action. Each type shows a different pattern of adoption or reception. In view of the limited number of sumptuary artefacts with secure Iranian provenance and the certainty that luxurious items potentially circulated far beyond their place of manufacture, it is often impossible to declare whether a Persian-looking object was made locally or in Iran, or indeed elsewhere in the empire. Only one category of material, seals, survives in sufficient quantities with archaeological provenance both in the western empire and in Iran, and has been sufficiently studied to betray a pattern: provincial versions of heartland ideas, in form, in medium, in iconography, are well attested and much more numerous than certainly Iranian seals. On the analogy of seals, it seems best to take Persian-looking items found in West Anatolia as western products emulating with greater or less success a Persian model rather than to see them as Persian imports unless there is very strong evidence to support Iranian manufacture.

Stamp and occasional cylinder seals to date are best represented in the tombs of Sardis excavated by the Butler expedition (1910-1914); but also found elsewhere as one might expect40. Kaptan reports that her new research project to “excavate” Persian seals in the museum collections of Turkey is already bearing fruit: in addition to the famous bullae of Daskyleion, there are now bullae from Seyitömer Höyük41. Glyptic specialists point to a range of styles and modes that indicate a growth of Persianizing subjects even while the image repertoire characteristic of the West Anatolian/East Greek material in the Archaic period is retained42.

Beyond the level of the artefact showing receptivity to Persian ideas in design, material, or iconography, the evidence is now pointing to corresponding change in social practice. Dusinberre has argued for the development of a new “sealing habit” in the Persian period on the basis of the pattern of material remains from Gordion in central Phrygia43. We might note in this context the cords for suspended seals worn by some figures on the Karaburun tomb painting: the reclining

37. Gümüşçay: Sevinç & Rose 1999. “Carian princess”: Özet 1994, 91-92 (the “Persian” ring may well have been a local product). See also the seal-pendants and rings, and gold ring of İkiztepe: Özgen & Öztürk 1996, cat. nos. 95-103. Also the sphinx agate set in a gold ring with lion protome clasps from Akhisar, Gökçeköy (?): Asgari 1983, B154 (also Özkan 1991, pl. 33, 9-10). Sardis and “Lydian Treasure”: see below.

38. Özgen & Öztürk 1996: Lydian chytra (cat. no. 23), side-spouted sieve (cat. no. 60), lydion (cat. no. 63), from İkiztepe; Phrygian-style omphalos bowl (cat. no. 224) and spool-handle holders (cat. no. 225) from Basmacı. Jewellery: Özgen & Öztürk 1996, 58.

39. Predominance of sumptuary arts pointed out by Hanfmann 1978, 31-32, Greenewalt 1995, 134-135, and Paspalas 2000, 162-164. See also comments of Dusinberre 2003, 146.

40. Sardis: see now Dusinbere 2003, 158-171, 264-283 (cylinder Istanbul 4581, her fig. 80; and Istanbul 4643, her fig. 103). Stamp seals at Troy: Miller-Collett & Root 1997; Patara: Işın 2007; Uylupınar: Kaptan 2008, 657.

41. Kaptan 2008, 657. Publication of the site forthcoming (Afyon Museum).42. Kaptan’s chart (2007, fig. 1), presents comparative data for Sardis, Daskyleion and Uşak-Güre. For the probable

western production of even a highly Achaemenidizing cylinder seal from Sardis (Istanbul 4581), see Dusinberre 2003, 158-171. I would be loath to pronounce on the issue, but from the studies of Kaptan, Dusinberre and Root, it would seem that many “Achaemenid” seals are local products based on heartland ideas. I certainly accept arguments of Root 1998 that the “Achaemenid” (rather than Babylonian) pyramidal seals are attested earlier in Iran and so should be viewed as an import type to Sardis; but the bulk of the corpus of extant pyramidal seals, with their Lydian inscriptions, would seem to have been a western production. In this context Bakır’s report of a Babylonian pyramidal seal from a sixth-century context at Daskyleion is most interesting (Bakır 2001b, 175-176, fig. 13). Of interest also is the limestone scaraboid stamp with “Syrian style” animal scene, dated Dynasty XVI, from Xanthos: Metzger 1972, no. 418, fig. 13, pl. 90.

43. Sealing habit: Dusinberre 2005, 24-27; significance noted by Kaptan 2008, 657.

326 M. C. Miller

dynast and his “wife” behind him on the west wall and the old man north of the door on the east wall44. Kaptan suggests that increased use of seals in the period may also indicate greater economic complexity45.

From the realm of the economic, the most precious testimony is the discovery at Abydos of a Persian-type weight in the form of a lion46. At first glance nearly identical in all but scale to the bronze lion weight from Susa, it implies distribution of Persian weight standards. Yet closer observation reveals differences in handling of musculature on the Abydos weight and, in addition to the Aramaic inscription, the incision of a single letter that is best described as the Greek alpha. Such details suggest local (western) production of an object according to a Persian typology and standard; and so the weight implies the adoption of a corresponding social habit. Though it may not be taken as whole-hearted adoption of a different standard on the part of the people of Abydos, it at least reflects a readiness to deal in the Persian standard. Weighing in at nearly 32 kg, it is not easily portable.

There are of course the precious vessels from burials otherwise unremarkably Anatolian; burials with silver phialai range in wealth from quite modest to the hitherto unparalleled İkiztepe material. The Butler expedition to Sardis excavated many burials, a number of which contained such Persian-style artefacts amongst more regular Lydian grave goods. The most common shapes are silver shallow and deep bowls with everted rims47. Here especially it is difficult to establish workshop locations, though some of the İkiztepe bowls present details that are explicable only in the context of Anatolian production emulating Persian ideas48. Silver long-handled ladles with animal-head terminals are reported from a number of West Anatolian burials, from the Troad to the Maeander, as well as in the Levant49. The incense burners of the İkiztepe tomb are unparalleled. The glass phiale from the sanctuary of Artemis at Ephesos remains the best example of a Persian / Persianizing object dedicated at a sanctuary50.

The prevalence of silver deep and shallow round-bottomed bowls within the metalware repertoire of burials makes it not surprising to find local ceramic versions of Persian metalware bowls all over, at satrapal centres (Daskyleion, Sardis, and now even the area of Kelainai), as well as far away from satrapal centres (Karaçallı, Karaburun, Hacımusalar, Harta, Karakoç)51. More doubtless lurk in depots. Whereas in the Near East the bowl with everted rim was a known Assyrian shape prior to the Persian period, and so not generally a suitable benchmark of receptivity to Iranian culture, the ceramic traditions of West Anatolia prior to the mid-6th century do not exhibit such a

44. Cf. Hdt. 1.195 on the universality of seal-wearing by the Babylonian population in the Persian period.45. Karaburun: Mellink 1972, 266 mentioned; pl. 58, 18 (dignitary), pl. 59, 20 (wife). I am indebted to Lâtife

Summerer information concerning the old man. Kaptan 2008, 656.46. London ANE 32625: Mitchell 1973; Miller-Collett & Root 1997; illustrated in Curtis & Tallis 2005, as cat. no.

302, conveniently beside Louvre Sb2718 from Susa and some other animal-shaped weights from Iran.47. Özgen & Öztürk 1996. Sardis: Waldbaum 1983, cat. no. 963 (silver shallow, Istanbul 4539, whose idiosyncracies Özgen & Öztürk 1996. Sardis: Waldbaum 1983, cat. no. 963 (silver shallow, Istanbul 4539, whose idiosyncracies Sardis: Waldbaum 1983, cat. no. 963 (silver shallow, Istanbul 4539, whose idiosyncracies

strongly suggest local manufacture), cat. no. 964 (silver deep, Istanbul 4540), cat. no. 974 (silver deep, New York MMA. 26.164.13); Greenewalt et al. 1993, 35-37, fig. 31 (silver shallow). Gökçeler Köyü: Özkan 1991, 132-133, pl. 30a and 30b (Manisa 4616 [plain] and 4614 [fluted], silver deep). The issues further explored in Miller 2010. Roosevelt 2009b now provides a valuable catalogue for Lydia.

48. Miller 2007 and 2010. See also: Summerer 2006 and Treister 2007 (for fuller context).49. Gümüşçay, Kızöldün: Sevinç & Rose 1999; Özgen & Öztürk 1996, fi g. 125. Sardis: Waldbaum 1983, cat. no. 965 Gümüşçay, Kızöldün: Sevinç & Rose 1999; Özgen & Öztürk 1996, fi g. 125. Sardis: Waldbaum 1983, cat. no. 965 : Sevinç & Rose 1999; Özgen & Öztürk 1996, fi g. 125. Sardis: Waldbaum 1983, cat. no. 965 Sevinç & Rose 1999; Özgen & Öztürk 1996, fi g. 125. Sardis: Waldbaum 1983, cat. no. 965 Özgen & Öztürk 1996, fig. 125. Sardis: Waldbaum 1983, cat. no. 965 . Sardis: Waldbaum 1983, cat. no. 965

(Istanbul 4533). Gökçeler Köyü: Özkan 1991, 133, pl. 31, 3-4. İkiztepe: Özgen & Öztürk 1996, cat. no. 24-31. South of Lydia in the Maeander valley: Aydın: Amandry 1963, 264, fig. 163 right (Istanbul 2243). Generally: Moorey 1980b.

50. Glass bowl: London BM 1907.12-1.542: Barag 1985, cat. no. 46.51. Daskyleion: Bakır 2007, fig. 1; Bakır 2006, 71, announces a thesis by L. Vardar on the subject. Sardis: Dusinberre

1999. Kelainai: report of Dupont and Lungu, this volume. Karaçalli (Pamphilia): Çokay-Kepçe & Recke, 2007. Karaburun (inland Lycia): Mellink 1971, 250. Hacımusalar (inland Lycia): Toteva 2007, 120 and pl. 17. Harta 6626 (Lydia, modern Dönertaş): Özgen & Öztürk 1996, fig. 67. Karakoç (European Turkey, Istanbul AM 10546, 10547, 10548): Fıratlı 1964, 211-212, pl. 42, 3.


form (insufficient earlier metalware west of Gordion survives for analysis). In West Anatolia the round-bottomed bowl with everted rim is an intruder in the ceramic repertoire and must reflect receptivity to Persians, or in some cases, perhaps even the presence of Persians. At Daskyleion, local grey Phrygian ware is used in production of the new forms. The “Achaemenid bowls” at Sardis are described as fired harder and redder than is typical of Lydian ware: ceramic analysis established that most were locally produced52. They circulated widely: the Harta bowl is evidently the same fabric, as are the “Achaemenid bowls” of Lale Tepe and, it seems, the bowls from more distant Karaburun I and Hacımusalar53. In this context the parallels at Kelainai reported by Dupont and Lungu are most interesting; they are evidently very similar to Sardis’ “Achaemenid bowls” 54. The material from Karaçallı is reported to be in the local fabric55. The implications of the carinated bowl type for drinking practice are noted below. In this context should be remembered Paspalas’ discovery of a Lydian ceramic version of the Persian tankard type better known in metalware56.

A different but parallel pattern is seen in one class of ceramic recently identified at Troy, Daskyleion and Larisa57. The provenance of the class is as of yet unknown; its distinctive physical qualities caused Tekkök to dub it “pale porous”. Yet Berlin has observed that its closest parallel both in profile and surface appearance is to be found in the stoneware vessels excavated at Persepolis; the unusually heavy profile of “pale porous” evidently imitated the effect of the stone model, as did its creamy surface. The ritual context of the find at Troy makes the parallel especially interesting in view of the suspected ritual functions of the stone vessels at Persepolis, but it is not clear that such a context holds also for the even more recent identification of “pale porous” at five other sites in the Troad and analogous finds at Hacımusalar in inland Lycia58.

A selective pattern of receptivity is visible in the jewellery. The bracelet with animal-head protomes is especially represented rather than the torque or large round earring59. In more or less opulent varieties, the bracelet type is now attested from burials all along West Anatolia, from the Troad to Caria60. A particularly interesting pair of bracelets comes from a burial at Dağ Kızılca Köyü in southern Lydia; the ridges and grooves articulating the bodies of the full lion-griffin protomes are surely meant to suggest the cloisonné detailing found on more elaborate bracelets from sites in Iran

52. Dusinberre 1999 is fundamental; she notes “throughout the empire, the ceramic varieties are fired very hard, often to a pinkish or reddish colour, with particularly thin walls” (p. 78). Ceramic analysis: Dusinberre 2003, 189, with n. 42; only two were imports, possibly from Ionia. Note the insistence of Ramage 2004 that the new bowls are distinguishable from the earlier Lydian fine-ware also by their “harder firing and the (mottled) red colour”. In turn, Rotroff & Oliver 2003, 60-62, with cat. nos. 215-218, comment on the continuation of the Achaemenid bowl in local fabric as the “Lydian tradition” (stressing the high mica content) in the face of a dominant shift to new Hellenistic ideas in the 3rd century BC.

53. Harta: Özgen & Öztürk 1996, fi g. 67. Lale Tepe: Roosevelt 2009a, 21. Karaburun: Mellink 1971, 250 and Stella Harta: Özgen & Öztürk 1996, fig. 67. Lale Tepe: Roosevelt 2009a, 21. Karaburun: Mellink 1971, 250 and Stella Karaburun: Mellink 1971, 250 and Stella Miller, personal communication. Hacımusalar: Toteva 2007, 120 and pl. 17, cat. 167-178.

54. Bakır 2001b, 174, seems to imply the presence of similar bowls at Daskyleion.55. Çokay-Kepçe & Recke 2007. 56. Paspalas 2000.57. Berlin 2002, 139-140, 145. The deposit at Troy dates 425-310. 58. Bieg 2006, 35, adds “Rhoiteion (Baba Kale), Tavolia (Çobantepe), Sigeion (Yenişehir), Achilleion (Beşik Tepe)

and Ballı Dağ (Gentinos, Petra?)” with an illustration of sherds from Tavolia. Hacımusalar: Toteva 2007, 121 and pl. 17, reports “Achaemenid imitation stone basins.”

59. Tombs at Sardis present one derivative earring (Istanbul 4647: Curtis 1925, no. 63, from Tomb S 10, which to Tombs at Sardis present one derivative earring (Istanbul 4647: Curtis 1925, no. 63, from Tomb S 10, which to my eye looks akin to the earring on an ivory statuette from Susa, Louvre Sb 3728/9188, Spycket 1980, fig. 1), and one more mainstream example is depicted worn on an ivory head (Istanbul 4657; Butler 1922, fig. 156; Curtis 1925, no. 87, pl. VIII; discussed with a survey of examples: McKeon 1973, fig. 4). The Sardis material most recently discussed by Dusinberre 2003, 150-151, with Istanbul 4543 (fig. 56; Curtis 1925, no. 67) surely a local modification of the Achaemenid type; the ivory head (Istanbul 4657) is illustrated here too as fig. 57.

60. Gümüşçay: Sevinç & Rose 1999. Sardis: Berlin 30989a,b (acquired 1904), Waldbaum 1983, no. 994-995, with bibliography; she notes parallel with Stronach 1978, 168, 173-176, 4th century? Gökçeler Köyü: Özkan 1991, pl. 31-32.5-8. Halikarnassos: Özet 1994. It is most unfortunate that the precise provenance of the heavy gold lion-protome bracelets in Uşak is not known: Özgen & Öztürk 1996, cat. no. 130.

328 M. C. Miller

and Bactria61. The particular quality that makes the animal-terminal bracelet so popular in West Anatolia is not clear unless it is its grammatical flexibility: unlike the torque, its design is limited to no specific dress style and does not complicate gender codes.

An unexpected find is a new statuette type within what we might regard as the Greek terracotta repertoire: a man wearing Persian dress. Two are now attested, quite different in appearance from each other. At Assos the statuette appeared in a mid-5th century burial with otherwise Greek-style goods, in the context of a Greek cemetery whose most common grave good is terracotta statuettes. At Cilician Kelenderes the statuette was recovered from a burial dated to the 4th century BC62. It is hard to read this evidence, but it may attest to another phenomenon for which there is a variety of hints: the adoption of Persian dress by at least some West Anatolians, for at least some of the time or for some kinds of activity. The same might be said of the “exhibitionist” from Sardis with his sleeved garment and leg-coverings; Greenewalt’s convincing argument that the distinctive hairstyle, with braids down by the ear, is Lydian and paralleled by Persepolis Delegation XI means that some Lydians wore Persian dress. Another candidate for a Lydian who dresses as a Persian stands with bow on a stele in the Manisa Museum63.

Corroborating evidence regarding dress comes from a surprising quarter: Attic red-figured vase painting of about 430. Two small squat lekythoi from the White Line Class present simple busts of bearded Persians facing left64. The Persians are distinguished from all other Persians in Attic painting by their weapon, a curved sword of the type dubbed “sickle-sword” by Schoppa and “war sickle” by Sekunda. Parallels are known in the native weaponry of south-west Anatolia, most notably the curved sword held by the armed dancers on the wooden planks of the Tatarlı tomb, and the Konya relief65. This may be the weapon termed δρέπανον (sickle) ascribed by Herodotos to the marines of both the Lycian and the Carian contingents in the Persian navy66. The Attic painter of the White Line Class “Persians” with sickle-swords perhaps accurately depicts a Persianized Anatolian, and so confirms other hints that in the Persian period some West Anatolians donned Persian dress.

The elaborate set of gold bracteates, some markedly Achaemenid in character, from a chamber tomb at Sardis has long been seen as one of the few unequivocal testimonia to the Persian presence in the city67. Yet, if the principle articulated above holds, the bracteates are evidence not for a Persian resident of the city, but, as Dusinberre has observed, for the use of textiles adorned in the Persian manner, perhaps even Persian-style clothing, by a resident of the city68. Both the series of six larger plaques with confronted bearded sphinxes below the winged sun-disk within a frame crowned by five stepped crenelations; and the series of nine pacing sphinxes à jour were said to have been found “in the back bed” of Tomb 836. They conceivably all adorned the clothing of one

61. Dağ Kızılca Köyü: lzmir Museum 3569 A/B, Asgari 1983, cat. co. B153; Akurgal 1961, 173, fi g. 117. More Dağ Kızılca Köyü: lzmir Museum 3569 A/B, Asgari 1983, cat. co. B153; Akurgal 1961, 173, fi g. 117. More lzmir Museum 3569 A/B, Asgari 1983, cat. co. B153; Akurgal 1961, 173, fi g. 117. More , Asgari 1983, cat. co. B153; Akurgal 1961, 173, fig. 117. More elaborate examples from Susa (Louvre Sb2761, 2762, Harper et al. 1992, cat. no. 172, 173) and Oxus (London BM ANE 124017 and V&A 442-1884, are illustrated Özgen & Öztürk 1996, fig. 133, 134).

62. Assos: Tolun 2007. Kelenderis: Zoroğlu 1994, 63-64, fig. 84; redrawn by Casabonnne, 2004, 116, fig. 5. I am indebted to V. Tolun for information regarding the lack of osteological evidence from the Assos tomb.

63. Greenewalt 1971; Lintz 2008, 260, provides a new photograph. Manisa 3389: dated late 5th century by Roosevelt; note that the upper half of the stele features a man in Lydian military dress riding a Persian horse: Roosevelt 2009b, fig. 6, 27.

64. Bearded: Athens NM 14718 (ARV 1010.10), Würzburg H4646 (L571) frr. (ARV 1010.11; Langlotz 1932, no. 571, pl. 217; Oakley 1997, 167 L48, pl. 172). Beardless: Laon 37.1049 (ARV 1010.12); Basel BS461 (Para 438.109ter as Achilles Ptr., CVA Basel 3 (Switzerland 7) 1986, pl. 35; Seiterle 1985, 5, fig. 8).

65. Schoppa 1933, 37. On war-sickles: Sekunda 1996, who illustrates the Konya relief, cf. Summerer 2008.66. Hdt. 7.92-93.67. Sardis Tomb 826. Butler 1922, 143 with fig. 158; Curtis 1925, no. 1, pl. 1. E.g. Istanbul 4652, Asgari 1983, cat.

no. B152. It is difficult to imagine the wealth of the original burials if in its robbed state the tomb yielded so many gold artefacts.

68. Dusinberre 2003, 148.


individual as perhaps did the two series of gold rosettes from the same tomb. One would like to know the arrangement of the bracteates in the burial as an aid to understanding the garment but it is not reported; in any case the burial was disturbed in antiquity through re-use of the tomb and then robbery. Dusinberre comments more generally of Sardis’ tombs that: “Some of the ornaments were also found with bodies in patterns that suggest they were sewn on to garments around hem lines or along seams”69. It is interesting to contrast the set of gold clothing attachments and beads sewn on the clothing of the “Carian princess” of Halikarnassos. While their number is impressive, nothing of their design clearly links them with Persians; the same is true of the gold square appliqués from Toptepe70. It is possible that the idea of sewing gold decorations to clothing was not introduced to this gold-rich zone by Persians but was an older Anatolian tradition, and part of the long-standing Near Eastern use of such ornamentation.

Iconography: Further Indices of Social Action A variety of Anatolian arts reveal Persian ideas in their iconography. This can range from single

to complex iconographic ideas, and from precise depiction of Persian realia to reformulations to fit a west Anatolian context; the Persian man-headed sphinxes from Labraunda (and Sidon) discussed in this volume by W. Held involve one such functional transformation resulting in that very western architectural feature, an akroterion. Such reformulation of Persian models can be found on a smaller scale in Anatolian jewellery and toreutic71.

More often one suspects that observed social behaviour rather than iconographic exchange lay behind Persianizing imagery. For example, the widespread appearance of holding drinking bowls on finger-tips, attested primarily in funerary relief sculpture like some of the Daskylitis stelai, but also on the West wall of Karaburun Tomb II, attests to Anatolian adoption of a Persian social practice; it is combined with the local tradition of mixing wine and water, as the frequent appearance of a mixing-bowl in the iconography attests72. The arrival of handle-less drinking bowls in burials, noted above, offers corroborating evidence for the new drinking mode, as well as social devolution of status symbols in the production of ceramic versions. It is interesting to contrast the evidence for use of handled drinking cups (i.e. the Anatolian mode) c. 525 at Kızılbel73.

Jacobs has pointed out that the walls of the almost purely local style tomb at Kızılbel were decorated with many of the scene-types heralded as Persian in later Anatolo-Persian art: audience, hunt, warfare, procession; and he protests that only the first appears in Persian monumental art74. It is reasonable to suppose that the repertory of art in the archaic period of West Anatolia, Lycia and elsewhere, already knew such subjects. It would appear that the difference we see is their rise in popularity thanks to the exemplary display of such social action by the new Persian over-lords.

69. Dusinberre 2003, 146. I find only the report of a cluster of beads at the feet in one burial in Curtis 1925, 18. Not only have many of the excavation records been destroyed; several tombs at Sardis had multiple burials, which disturbed contents already in antiquity. Tomb 836 seems to have been reused in the late third century, to judge from the coins found there. See Dusinberre 2003, 254.

70. Özet 1994, 94-96; for a reconstruction of the “Carian princess” with her decorated garment, see Prag & Neave 1994, fig. 15, now on display at Bodrum Museum (small image at www.bodrum-museum.com). Toptepe: Özgen & Öztürk 1996, nos. 116-119; also, no. 115, lozenge-shaped examples, which are paralleled by some from Sardis (Istanbul 4608): Curtis 1925, nos. 10, 11, 30, 53; Dusinberre 2003, fig. 53.

71. Jewellery: pacing lion on gold ring from İkiztepe: Özgen & Öztürk 1996, no. 103; agate gem with male-headed sphinx: Özgen & Öztürk 1996, nos. 97-98. Toreutic: Royal guard, Royal Hero combating beast, ram-head protome capitals: Özgen & Öztürk 1996, nos. 33-36 (see Miller 2007).

72. Miller forthcoming.73. Mellink 1998, 5-6, on the imprints of one and two-handled vessels suspended on the walls.74. Jacobs 1987, 69-70, with Mellink 1998, pl. XIII and XXVI (warriors), XIVb (parasol-bearing in boat), XX

(audience), XXIII-XXV (hunts), XVI-XVIII (North wall frieze II, procession).

330 M. C. Miller

The treatment of horse-riding in art suggests adoption of Persian realia at quite an early date. The rectilinear saddle cloth with distinctive border already appears in the cavalcade painted in the later sixth century on the North wall at Kızılbel; the painting is too damaged to determine whether the horsemen have bare legs or anaxyrides. Borchhardt and Bleibtreu have shown that the Persians introduced the use of such saddle cloths to Anatolia75. The saddle-cloth is the only clearly distinguishable Persian feature at Kızılbel unless one includes the “Scythian” archers. The clearest emulation of the Persian mode of horse-conducting with one arm thrown over the horse is the frieze on Building G at Xanthus, dated c. 46076. Though the style seems Greek and the subject is possibly Lycian, the treatment of the horse’s tail and mane are also Persian. The Persian mane and tail also appear in the north at Daskyleion and, rather later, at Çan77.

The same situation appears in the case of hunting imagery. Just as horsemanship was an attribute of the elite in pre-Persian West Anatolia, no-one doubts that hunting played a role in elite activity before the Persians arrived; perhaps the boar and deer hunts on the Kızılbel tomb are fully epichoric. A new feature, most easily explained as inspired by the Persian social model, is the multiple-quarry hunt. Examples of hunts with more than one prey can be found in the relief sculpture and possibly the glyptic of Daskyleion, as well as in the monumental imagery of the south-west78.

The new importance of audience imagery in the sculptural repertoire of Lycia (Xanthos and Gjölbashi-Trysa) has long been recognised. Its inspiration is appropriately seen as Persian, perhaps earliest attested on the East side of the Harpy Tomb of Xanthos, 480-470, though its “dynast” seems to wear local, not Persian, dress79. Within the audience imagery, there is a disjunction between those cases in which the image is so close to Persepolitan models that the representation must be emulating a visual model (Daskyleion sealing DS 4; a shield of the Alexander Sarcophagus)80; and those cases whose similarity is not so striking, like Lycian audience scenes, which were more probably inspired by a model in life, court protocol. The details of social action informed the system of representation in Anatolo-Persian art. The early audience scene of Kızılbel is so distinctive (for all that a fan-bearer is present) that perhaps we should see it more as a scene of fealty in the Anatolian idiom.

Despite the wide variety of types of evidence, including iconography, an interesting common feature has emerged: the various indices of reception of Persian ideas often relate to change in social practice that is only partially reflected in the material cultural record (the use of seals, drinking mode, dress mode, hunting mode, perhaps horse-handling). A common element is the adoption of prestige artefacts or social action imbued with intimations of power.

75. Mellink 1998, pl. XXI and Guide sheet B; Borchhardt & Bleibtreu 2008, 178. 76. London B312: Building G side frieze: Zahle 1991, 151; Metzger 1963, pl. 38, 2, had dated c. 480. Identified as

possibly the shrine to Sarpedon: Keen 1992, 55-56.77. Daskyleion, first half 5th century: Nollé 1992, stele 1, Istanbul 5764 upper register. Çan, early 4th century, both

battle and hunt (details of horse rather than the manner of conducting): Sevinç et al. 2001; discussed further by Bieg 2006, 31-33 and Ma 2008, both arguing that the Persian’s opponent is Mysian. See also the Lydian stelai, Manisa 3389 (war?) and Bergama 4394 (hunt): Roosevelt 2009b, fig. 6, 27 and 28.

78. Daskyleion: Nollé 1992, stele 7 from Çavuşköy, Istanbul 1502 (upper frieze zone shows a deer fleeing while a hunter and his dogs take a boar); DS 110, Kaptan 2002, may show two types of prey. See summary with references in Miller 2003.

79. Gabelmann 1984, 35-62, adeptly summarises the case for audience imagery and gives the full prior bibliography; London B287: Gabelmann 1984, 40-43, pl. 5, 2, and Zahle 1991, 151, both with references. Note that this dating places the tomb before the destruction horizon associated with Greek hostilities c. 470 (Metzger 1963, 22-3, 26-7, 32-3, 60-1, 68-9, 81).

80. Daskyleion DS 4: Kaptan 2002, 1, 31-40 and 2002, 2, 50-55. Alexander sarcophagus: von Graeve 1970. Daskyleion DS 4: Kaptan 2002, 1, 31-40 and 2002, 2, 50-55. Alexander sarcophagus: von Graeve 1970.


Wide Geographical Distribution: Town and CountryThe above quick survey of range of types of evidence attesting to the Persian presence

(deliberately not organised by region) has already revealed the second striking feature of the Persianizing material of West Anatolia: the extent of its spread. It once seemed that traces of Persians were visible at only a few places, around the attested major Persian centres, Daskyleion and Sardis81; recent discoveries and more open-minded viewing show quite a different picture. Even though the number of published Persian and Persianizing artefacts is not great, they are quite wide-spread82. The find-spots and range of fabrics attested for the widely scattered ceramic versions of the “Persian bowl” show most clearly a distribution well beyond the satrapal capitals, as noted above. The appearance of Persianizing seals as far west as Ilion and as far south as Patara on the Lycian coast complements their presence at Sardis and Daskyleion83.

Recent finds and survey evidence are particularly important here. Whereas for many years, the focus in the north-west was first on ascertaining the location of Daskyleion, and then excavating it, in the 1990s a series of tomb discoveries drew attention further west, to the Granikos Valley84. Here the vivid presentation of a local population exhibiting many instances of receptivity to Persian culture appears in a variety of formats: from the mixture of Persian-style and Anatolian-style jewellery at Gümüşçay, through the Persian-type furniture in the Dedetepe tumulus, and the fully Persian equipment of the man celebrated in battle and hunt on the Çan sarcophagus. The finds sparked the first archaeological survey of the lower Granikos Valley, whose recently reported results confirm a heightening of activity with a marked increase in sites in the region in the Persian period. Indeed, never again until the middle imperial period had the region anything like such a population density85.

In Hellespontine Phrygia it was tempting in initial cataloguing exercises to link the stelai of Daskylitis directly with the satrapal capital, focusing on their proximity with the site identified as Daskyleion and aiding in that identification86. Reconsideration now, in light of the finds further west, makes more impressive the number of stelai whose findspots are too distant to derive from one necropolis for residents of the capital, even in the context of subsequent reuse. Burials with “Persianizing” stelai may be associated with settlements all across the region rather than more narrowly Daskyleion itself.

81. Eg. Hanfmann 1978, 27, after insisting on the urgent need for fieldwork in Lydia outside of Sardis: “centred at satrapal courts, Persian influence entered Asia Minor. Soon it was being diffused downward and diluted in various ways.” Childs 1981, 72, about Xanthos: “It is perhaps surprising that distinct Persian influences are rare in this period, but outside of satrapal centres this is generally true in Asia Minor.” Balcer 1983, 258: “until the last quarter of the fifth century there was an absence of the Persianization of greater Sparda.”

82. And in thinking this, I differ from Şevket Dönmez’ conclusion (2007, 111): “Works of art showing Achaemenid impact are not observed throughout Anatolia but only in the centers of satrapies and their vicinities, that is, in specific regions.” I suspect that the point of difference lies in the levels of what we require to admit evidence of receptivity, though the comment relates to the northern region rather than the western region.

83. Miller-Collett & Root 1997, 356, suggest that some details of the seal from Ilion are western rather than heartland Achaemenid, cf. Işın 2007.

84. Sekunda 1988, with references to prior work; more recently Maffre 2007a and 2007b, promising a book; Kaptan 2002, 8-12, a concise summary of research at and on Daskyleion; Kaptan 2003. Granikos Valley: Sevinç et al. 1998 (klinai with a wooden table leg fragment, Persian style, ca 480-460); Sevinç & Rose 1999 (sarcophagus with Anatolian and Persian goods); Sevinç et al. 2001 (Çan sarcophagus). Summary: Rose 2007.

85. Rose 2007 summarises the survey of 2004. Rose et al. 2007 includes the field season 2005; the abstract reports: “In terms of ceramics recovered from the survey, less than 1% are Bronze Age (and all second millennium); 41% are Archaic or Classical (with the vast majority dating from the late sixth through the early fourth century); 5% Hellenistic (the majority is early Hellenistic); just over 1% are early to mid Roman (primarily third century A.D.); nearly 29% are late Roman; 14% Byzantine (with the majority being late 12th/early 13th century), and nearly 10% Ottoman (with the majority dating to the 19th century). In other words, the primary settlements date to the period of Persian occupation and to the late Roman period.”

86. Generally: Akurgal 1966; Bernard 1969; Nollé 1992. See Kaptan 2003, 193 for a useful map.

332 M. C. Miller

Further south, in Lydia, an analogous picture is forming. After decades of focus on Sardis, with local tomb finds being wrapped into the urban focus in the modern mental landscape of the region, it is time to stress the distance from the centre of the wealthy tumuli in the Güre region to the east, the fact that Ödemiş, findspot of an important Anatolo-Persian relief, is on the south side of the Tmolos range facing the Kayster valley, and the location of the Harta tomb to the north, by the Kaikos Valley87. Indeed, Roosevelt’s survey of Lydian sites reports 510 tumuli from the period of the mid-6th through 4th century BC (late Lydian and Persian periods); and 49 settlements, representing a 70% increase in sites in the Persian period, a notable expansion of the rural population88. We will never know the contents of most of the tumuli thanks to robbing ancient and modern; but some tombs have been excavated, yielding a range of Persian-style goods (e.g. the finds from Gökçeler in Manisa Museum)89. Perhaps most importantly the survey showed that neither tumuli nor settlements concentrate in the area of Sardis. They are spread the length and breadth of Lydia, as is the (rather more vestigial so far) evidence for Persians.

Caria and coastal Lycia present substantially different personalities of reception from those of Hellespontine Phrygia and Lydia, so far as can now be seen90. Here the evidence is more monumental: in architecture the placement of the Persian bearded sphinx as akroteria at Carian Labraunda discussed now by Held, the use of bull-protomes to mark the entrance of the Heroon at Trysa, and, more obliquely, the appearance of bull-protomes projecting from the four corners of the “chamber” of Xanthos’ Inscribed Pillar. The bull protomes present an even more interesting quotation of Persian architectural form in a thoroughly Lycian context. They would seem to quote the impact of Persian janiform bull-head capitals, if, as Seidl has argued, the bull capitals in the porches of Persian palaces faced out, bearing the architrave, rather than the lateral (purloin-bearing) view normally restored on the basis of Naqs-i Rustam’s reliefs. The bulls at Trysa offer the same view as on the facades of the Paphalogian tombs at Donalar and Salarköy91. Yet the Trysa bulls are more dislocated than those in Paphlagonia, in that they are divorced from any weight-bearing function; they correlate to no column and so are not even in the remotest sense symbolic capitals. The Lycians merely grafted a symbol from Persian architectural iconography on to their monuments92. A more profound translation of Persian monumental ideas into local idiom has recently been presented by Henry in the case of the rock-cut tomb at Berber İni near Mylasa, the earliest of the Carian series of rock-cut tombs. It combines the organisational grammar of Naqs-i Rustam with Greek architectural

87. Güre: Th e possibility of a Persian settlement in the area of Sebaste, 35 km to the SE of Uşak, was raised by Güre: Th e possibility of a Persian settlement in the area of Sebaste, 35 km to the SE of Uşak, was raised by Güre: The possibility of a Persian settlement in the area of Sebaste, 35 km to the SE of Uşak, was raised by Robert 1978, 284-5, n. 63, on the basis of the concentration of Persian names (notably Aribazos, s. Sekunda 1991, 130). Sekunda 1991, 129-130, writing prior to the publication of Özgen & Öztürk 1996, was cautious about adducing the material from İkiztepe, noting the isolation of the find and the possibility that the Persian-looking ontents could be gifts rather than evidence of a Persian population, but already concluded that the tomb may have been linked to a centre at Sebaste. Ödemis: Dentzer 1982, R62, fig. 318, pl. 58. Harta: Özgen & Öztürk 1996, 36-39 summary.

88. Roosevelt 2006; Roosevelt 2009b, 195.89. Özkan 1991. Again, the material collected by Roosevelt 2009b is invaluable.Özkan 1991. Again, the material collected by Roosevelt 2009b is invaluable.90. By “coastal Lycia” I mean the “core” Lycian sites as defined by Marksteiner 2005, 28-29. A number of surveys of

the rich and intriguing Lycian material have been made: Childs 1981, who declared p. 79, “There remains little trace of the Persians in Lycia besides their names”; Jacobs 1987; Zahle 1991; Marksteiner 2005, with references. The Carian situation is, if anything, more challenging, unsupported as it is by such rich epigraphic and numismatic sources; Sekunda 1991, 90-96, usefully collects some onomastic evidence, with references; Zahle 1994, points to a Carian issue combining Zeus Labraundeus with a Persian archer as well as sculptures of Persians. Cf. Gunter 1989, 92-94.

91. Trysa: Oberleitner 1994, fig. 7-9, with model, fig. 27. Xanthos: Demargne & Laroche 1974, 114-116, pl. 38, 62. See Childs 1981, 82; Seidl 2003. Donalar and Salarköy: see also Summerer & von Kienlin 2010. Naqs-i Rustam also manifests an architectural dialogue between Iran and the west in the view of Musche 2006.

92. Marksteiner 2005, 43 reports that Stucky has argued that is a general west Persian taste rather than specific allusion (non vidi). I leave aside the vexed question whether / how much of the Lycian rock cut tomb facades depend on Persian models; the matter is summarised by Marksteiner 2005, 40.


vocabulary to provide a strong visual link between the local Carian dynast (Hekatomnos?) with the imperial centre93.

The debate whether the predominant character of the (notably Lycian) monumental relief sculpture is Anatolian or Persian may continue, but the suddenness of the growth of the genre in this period is highly suggestive, especially in view of the onomastic evidence of Persian names within the elite families of Lycia94. More precisely, the horse-handling motif of Heroon G of Xanthos noted above clearly has a Persian rather than Lycian source. The Karaburun tomb presents a wealth of Persian detail in its painting. The appearance of sculptures in Persian dress on the Mausoleion, like the Persian dress at Karaburun over a century earlier, is testimony to at least partial adoption of Persian dress (i.e. for some activities).

At the level of artefact, it is at present more difficult to point to Persian or Persianizing material in Caria and Lycia than further north: in Caria there is the Anatolo-Persian gem of one of the “Carian princess’s” rings as well as her bracelet, noted above, and from other burials at Halikarnassos both Persian and Persianizing artefats are known95. Seals are reported from inland Uylupınar, as noted above, and at Patara, harbour of Xanthos, though, as its publisher has pointed out, it is a unique find for the region even after forty years of excavations96. Yet the dynast of the Karaburun tomb, his wife and the old man at the door wear seals; perhaps the lack of excavated seals arises from the shortage of excavation of intact cemeteries in Lycia. Most of Lydia’s seals are from burials97.

Against this background, we may anticipate similar widespread testimony for occupation, and perhaps an increase in numbers of sites in the 6th through 4th centuries BC, in west Phrygia. It is encouraging, as we seek the ancient site of Kelainai, that the Tatarlı tomb is near Dinar, the preferred candidate; but the distance of the Tatarlı tomb from Dinar is also worthy of note. It is surely unlikely to have served a full-time resident of Kelainai.

Relative Speed of CommencementThe third significant characteristic is the early date of commencement in the archaeological

record. Although the majority of known instances of receptivity to Persian ideas date at least five or six generations after conquest, some good examples are attested about 500 BC, and so within two generations.

Iconography early reveals traces of Persian ideas at Kızılbel – the Persian saddle-cloths noted above – and in north-west Anatolia, on three stelai as well as on the Polyxena sarcophagus from the Granikos region98. The more securely dated stele is the most recent addition from Ergili, a scene with

93. Henry forthcoming; see also Henry 2009, 159-151. I am most grateful to Olivier Henry for allowing me to read his paper prior to publication.

94. The Carian situation makes a fine contrast in that while most names are Carian, some are Greek, like Perikle.95. Most notably the stone alabastron with trilingual inscription of Xerxes (London BM ANE 132114, now Curtis

& Tallis 2005, cat. no. 140); and the contemporary or somewhat later silver phiale (London ANE 126412, diameter 5.63 cm, Walters 1921, no.16, p.5, fig.4; also at www.britishmuseum.org/research/). These would seem both to be Persian, but the bronze lobed phiale with Carian inscription allegedly from Halikarnassos has been ascribed to a local workshop (Jucker & Meier-Brügge 1978).

96. Işın 2007.97. Sekunda 1991 could find no trace of Persians resident in Lycia; Lycian dynastic families were left alone, so long

as loyal; their loyalty was perhaps reinforced by their sons’ education at Persian court: p. 97 “It is probable that the sons of the Lycian dynasts, who, in Lycian inscriptions, boast of their prowess as archers and horsemen in a familiar Persian manner (cf. Herrenschmidt 1985, 125-136), were educated at Persian satrapal or royal courts.”

98. Ergili fragment: Polat 2007, relatively securely dated c. 500 by a range of features including the anthemion style. The parallels of presentation with the short side of the Polyxena sarcophagus are suggestive. Sultaniye stele (Bursa 8500): Nollé 1992, S3, dated c. 500 in Gusmani & Polat 1999, 149. Manes’ stele: Gusmani & Polat 1999, who date stylistically 500-475.

334 M. C. Miller

women that includes an incense burner of Persian profile. Persian dress is clearly visible on two of the three registers of the stele from Sultaniye; on the third register, as on the stele of the Phrygian Manes from Ergili, some Persian features appear in the iconography of the funerary banquet, most notably the mode of holding the drinking bowl on finger-tips. On the Polyxena sarcophagus, Rose has pointed to the unusual iconography of the enthroned woman and suggests that it is a reflection of Persian imagery; in some sense the closest parallel is the image on a Near Eastern cylinder seal99. Indeed, the very idea of figural decoration on a sarcophagus is perhaps an import – but not from Iran. As Rose has observed, this is the earliest sculpted sarcophagus yet known in West Anatolia, though at least one sculpted example is attested much earlier in the Levant: the sarcophagus of Ahiram of Byblos100.

A range of artefacts yield clear indication of non-Iranians using Persian-style goods and even, it seems, making Persian-style goods, before the end of the 6th century BC. The most vivid testimony is the wealth of Persian and/or Persianizing objects from the İkiztepe tomb, dated by Özgen and Öztürk c. 500 (± 20 years) 101. Moreover, there is accumulating evidence that West Anatolia was a major producer of “Persian” vessels from the same time. As noted above, one may argue that the details of the three silver bowls with figured decoration from İkiztepe could only derive from a non-Persian workshop, working within a Persian idiom. Moreover, close parallels between “Persian” bowls of the Lydian Treasure and elsewhere, both Georgia and Bulgaria, may point to manufacture in Lydia102. Even without the İkiztepe tomb, strong corroborating evidence is offered by the Persianizing silver bowls deposited in Rhodian tombs c. 500 – which are themselves paralleled by a bowl excavated in Kazbeg, Georgia103.

Only a very small proportion of ancient production ever survives in the archaeological record. The speed with which we have evidence that some members of the Anatolian population at a variety of locations adopted Persian implements, iconography, and practices – within two generations of conquest – is impressive. Part of the speed with which receptivity is observed may be attributed to the fact that the Persians, in capturing the Lydian domain, took over a pre-existing imperial entity and one that already had a long tradition of contact with the Near East104. But this is not, I think, the whole story.

Achaemenid “Feudal” Settlement

The fuller explanation for the comparative speed and wide dispersion of traces of Achaemenid acculturation lies, rather, in the specific character of Persian administration and the manner in which the Persians “occupied” their empire. The fundamental governing structure has been aptly dubbed “feudal” (which contrasts, rather interestingly, with the way in which the Romans occupied their empire through legionary forts and veteran colonies). For this we need to look to the labours of our historical colleagues, and their struggles to integrate the literary, numismatic and epigraphic evidence.

99. Sevinç 1996; Rose 2007, 251. Seal: Louvre AO 22359, formerly de Clercq 385; Spycket 1980, 44, fig. 7; Koch 1992, Abb. 174; Koch & Rehm 2006, 97.

100. The point is also made by Geppert 2006, 96-97, summarising the competition, for which see also Hitzl 1991, Hitzl 1991, , who gives, 170-71, full references for the sarcophagus of Ahiram (Byblos Tomb VI, Beirut Museum).

101. Özgen & Öztürk 1996, 64.102. Local production of “figured” bowls (Özgen & Öztürk 1996, nos. 33-35): Miller 2007. Diffusion of “Anatolo-

Persian” metalware: Miller 2010, with Treister 2007, 69-75.103. Persian-style bowls from Rhodes Tombs 61 and 72, possibly made in West Anatolia: Laurenzi 1936, 179-180;

Miller 2010 has further references. Boardman, 2000, fig. 5, 73, illustrates the Kazbeg bowl with references p. 247, n. 133.104. The importance of the Lydian Empire as an antecedent deserves more investigation; I am impressed at the

extent to which Lydian pottery is reported far to the north (Daskyleion) and the south (Cilicia).


Over the past century Greek historians working with texts of Xenophon and the evidence for the early campaigns of Alexander have gathered bits of evidence regarding the scatter of Persians105. The Greek authors bear multiple levels of bias: they clearly pay more attention to Greeks and Persians than to other peoples. When they deal with West Anatolia, only specific dramatic moments within the broad sweep of military and political history are of interest; thanks to circumstance, the spotlight falls with disparate frequency on the region of the Hellespont106. Yet the vividly illuminated glimpses manifestly pertain to social structures of longer duration and involving more players than just Greeks and Persians.

For Daskylitis, there was enough evidence for Sekunda in 1988 to argue the existence and locations of three Persian large land-owning families, which he dubbed “dukedoms”; moreover, Sekunda could posit analogous structures elsewhere in West Anatolia, in accordance with Briant’s convincing explanation of the Persian land-grant structure107. The more recent discovery of a sudden growth in population in the Granikos Valley in the 5th and 4th centuries, noted above, has been linked with a new post-Persian conquest strategic importance: the Persians perhaps deliberately developed the Granikos region as a buffer zone for Hellespontine Phrygia108. The new concentration of sites may reflect strategic deployment of land grants, with their feudal requirement to generate troops. The literary sources attest to analogous concentrations in the Kaikos Valley, the lower Hermos, and the lower Maeander, where they may have similarly served the security function, as has been pointed out109.

Somehow in conjunction with this military-based social structure must also be worked in the literary and onomastic evidence for large military colonies of forces from other regions of the empire110. A scenario with parallel rather than analogous structures (that is, not wrapping military colonies into land grants) makes good sense. The military colonies were doubtless an important vehicle of transmission of ideas around the Persian Empire, but for present purposes, the widespread, if thin, scatter of specifically high-ranking Persians on land grants in Western Anatolia is the point of interest.

The trouble with seeing the growth of the Granikos region as driven by military-inspired Persian land grants is that so far, each of the tombs excavated there can be easily argued to be for a member of the local population. The fact that each exhibits local features together with Persian objects or ideas indicates some degree of receptivity to Persian culture. We would need to shape the model to allow for land-grants to local leaders in exchange for feudal military (and social) obligations to account for this particular range of evidence. This is no real problem; the extent to which local aristocratic leaders were employed by the Persians is abundantly attested by the historical texts. The

105. Lewis 1977, 51-55, acknowledging in n. 25, prior work by Rostovtseff, de Ste. Croix, and Lane Fox; and Sekunda 1985, 1988, 1991. Cook’s map exemplifies well how far one could go in 1983 on the basis of especially literary sources (Cook 1983, fig. 12 on p. 179).

106. As has been observed, e.g. Sekunda 1988, 175; Maffre 2007a and Maffre 2007b, who doubtless chose this subject as his 2002 dissertation for this reason.

107. Sekunda 1988; Briant 1985.108. As Rose puts it (2007, 247): the region only became strategically significant with Persian conquest; he also

notes (p. 256) the difficulty in identifying associated settlements.109. Evidence collected Sekunda 1991, which uses the research of Sekunda 1988. Yet, Tarhan 2007, 125 has recently

urged that the evidence from Urartu – and specifically Tuşpa – shows that that region regressed under Achaemenid rule, and he wonders whether there might have been a systematic strengthening at the boundaries of empire, and neglect close to the heartland for strategic reasons.

110. Sekunda 1985 discusses for Lydia.

336 M. C. Miller

best-known examples are Pythios of Lydia early in the period111; late in the 5th century, Zenis and Mania in the upper Skamander Valley112; and in the early 4th century Hekatomnos of Caria113.

The “buffer zone” model presents a different sort of problem: it might ascribe too much importance to the present danger of the Greek threat, a sense of threat derived from our Greek sources. Their knowledge and interest rapidly diminish with distance from the Aegean coast. Analogous social and military structures gleaned from cuneiform sources for Achaemenid Babylonia support a more widespread application of the principle of a wide dissemination of land-grants rather than concentration at militarily sensitive points114. In other words, it is reasonable to suppose that land-grants to high-ranking Persians featured not only in Daskylitis but also in highland Phrygia where we have fewer literary testimonia115; it is reasonable also to suppose that everywhere local aristocrats were similarly wrapped into the Persian system by the extension of “land-grants” which may have simply entailed a signalled permission to retain prior holdings.

A famous passage in Xenophon’s Cyropaideia states: “Cyrus commanded all those who were being sent out as satraps to imitate him in everything that they had seen: to establish cavalry and chariotry corps drawn from those Persians that accompanied them and from the allies; to require those to whom land and palaces had been given to attend court…; to educate their children at court, just as he did at his; and to lead those of the court out hunting, and to engage in martial practice with them” (8.6.10). The alleged instruction of the King cannot be taken as historical documentation regarding the activities of Cyrus; it can, however, be taken as an accurate reflection of a visible reality in the period when Xenophon was able to observe the empire over a century later: he could perceive replication of social practice in the sub-courts of the western empire.

Satrapal court in some sense imitated royal court; and while it would be unwise to expect exact analogies between, for example, Persepolis and Kelainai and Susa and Daskyleion, a lifestyle appropriate for maintaining dignity can be safely imagined for the owners of large estates comprising villages and farm land. The coopted prominent members of the local populations into their hierarchy, like Zenis and Mania in the upper Skamander Valley and Pythios of Lydia, will have been subject to the requirement to appear at the satrapal court and participate in or at least witness the full range of court activities.

We do not yet have good archaeological evidence for those “dukes” 116. The structure at Larisa once identified as a Persianizing palace looked promising but reconsideration of the plan makes it seem a more likely candidate for a sanctuary hestiatoreion117. However, if we correctly understand the social / military requirement that such “dukes” regularly attend the satrapal court; and if we imagine that they deliberately retained the Iranian lifestyle in the homestead, their pattern of occurrence within the landscape more readily explains the phenomena, the widespread scatter of receptivity to Persian culture observable in Western Anatolia.

111. Hdt. 7.28.112. Xen., Hell., 3.1.10-15. See also Maffre 2007b, 119-121.113. I am most indebted to Olivier Henry for reminding me that Hekatomnos most certainly belongs to this group.

See Henry forthcoming.114. Notably the MuraMurašu Archive: Stolper 1985; see comments of Briant 1996, 615-617, with 995-1006, and passages

of Kuhrt 2007, ch. 14, no. 31 and 38. They parallel the situation described by Xen., Cyr., 8.6.4-5, where the king’s “friends” held land grants and were required to attend court.

115. Cf. Tuplin’s paper in this volume.116. Possible exception the funerary monument(s) near Daskyleion whose sculpted friezes have been found out of

context and restored for a funerary building: Bernard 1969; Nollé 1992, 32, observes that anathyrosis on blocks proves not sarcophagus. But nothing clinches for a Persian and too many details are paralleled in other Anatolo-Persian art: it may be for a wealthy persianizing Phrygian. See now the reconstruction of Karagöz 2007.

117. Böhlau & Schefold 1940; Schefold 1978.


Sekunda hesitated to date the start of the system of what he called “dukedoms.” Yet, on the basis of the evidence for early receptivity in Anatolia, we should imagine that such “dukedoms” were established shortly after conquest as a means of extending control effectively in the face of sudden acquisition of large territory; they are the Persian equivalent of the founding of Roman camps throughout the landscape of Britannia. We can also imagine with Sekunda that such dukedoms could be subsequently increased or expanded with territory claimed as opportunity arose; the famous example is the fate of the chora of Miletos after the Ionian Revolt118.

Clearly we need more evidence for certainty – and evidence of the kind precisely being sought and already found by the project “Kelainai / Apameia Kibotos and its environs: A Royal Residence in Phrygia” – but at present all indicators are pointing to a comparatively rapid process of acculturation to the Persian model throughout western Anatolia owing to the wide-spread residence of prominent Persians (and their native Anatolian deputies) in the countryside as required for military purposes. “Rapid” acculturation was not sought by the Persians; it was a by-product of social and military functions. And “rapid” does not mean universal nor does it mean consistent. Anatolian cultures continued on their own track, with a new overlay of cultural ideas added to the pre-existing mix.

Towards an Archaeology of Empire

The Achaemenid period of Anatolia provides an excellent test case for the question of the safest mode of correlation of archaeological and historical evidence, and for the development of suitable heuristic protocols for the analysis of evidence. Invasions are notoriously difficult to track archaeologically and are usually posited when in the prehistoric longue durée a clear shift in material culture is visible. How can we, as students of the archaeology of a historic period (whose periodization thanks to historical texts is more precisely and more narrowly defined than in prehistory), most responsibly handle the material evidence in our attempt to understand the past? Each source – material and textual – has lacunae, and it is tempting, if dangerous, simply to use one type of evidence to complete the other.

In Anatolia continuity is more readily visible than innovation; hence arose the early impression that the Achaemenid period was archaeologically invisible, and with it the sense that Achaemenid culture was recessive and that Persian control was weak. Greater experience and more understanding of excavated material puts us now into the position of recognising that historically attested invasions typically do not yield immediate or wide-ranging changes in the material record. Researchers must be attentive to detail as well as emergent trends. For Anatolia, we do have material evidence that concurs with the historical fact of invasion. As Christopher Tuplin has recently put it: even if we had no literary evidence at all for the Persian conquest of Anatolia, the changes in the material record would have told us that something was afoot119.

When in the early days of acculturation studies, a group of prominent American anthropologists met to discuss the phenomenon, they noted the variability of rates of receptivity and the fact that a wide range of factors affected receptivity of foreign ideas. Factors that favoured receptivity included compatibility of the specific trait or object; and luxury products, defined as ornamentation, art and leisure activities, were among the least likely to resist innovation120. Foreign traits are typically adopted to enhance local status distinction. We need more evidence for certainty, but the different patterns of receptivity to Persian culture visible between the north-west (Daskylitis and Lydia) and the south-west (Lycia and Caria) may be a function of their differing local social structures in the period prior to absorption within the Persian Empire.

118. Hdt. 6.20.119. Tuplin 2007, 298.120. Barnett et al. 1954, 983, 991.

338 M. C. Miller

The northern regions had already been centralized under monarchy before the Persians; here the continuation of a long-standing tradition of the social devolution of status goods may be posited, whose correlates may be sought in the distribution and replication in local ceramic of the distinctive Lydian lydion or fruit-stand; or the appearance of “marbled” ceramics121. In the south-west, where mountainous terrain fostered independence, local dynastic competition set the stage for a different pattern of receptivity. Here, competitive emulation took the form of incorporating foreign images of power within Lycian and Carian monumental compositions; both Persian and Greek ideas contributed to the architectural iconography of power122. In like manner, as Summerer and von Kienlin have shown, the striking display of Persian (and Greek) ideas in the façades of monumental rock-cut tombs of contemporary Paphlagonia occurred in the context of bitter local dynastic struggles123.

The three characteristics of Persian and Persianizing products in West Anatolia – their variety of type, wide distribution, early appearance – viewed in combination support an interpretation of early widespread diffusion which may reflect the Persian land-grant system together with Persian incorporation of local elites within satrapal court structures. An important aspect of the traces of reception is the extent to which, especially in Lydia and the north-west, they attest to changes in some facets of social practice for which Persian satrapal and sub-satrapal court behaviour provides the most ready model. Furthermore, the different character of patterns of receptivity may be explained by the variable social needs of the different elites, those in previously centralised kingdoms and those in smaller essentially independent units.

Abbreviations

AMI Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, Berlin.AMIT Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, Berlin.ARV J. D. Beazley, Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1963.CVA Corpus vasorum antiquorum.Para J. D. Beazley, Paralipomena, Oxford, 1971.

Bibliography

Akurgal, E. (1961): Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexander, Berlin.— (1966): “Griechisch-persische Reliefs aus Daskyleion”, IA, 6, 147-56.—, ed. (1978): The Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, 1973, Ankara.

121. Lydion: Daskyleion: Gürtekin-Demir 2002 and 2003, Lydian imports start late 7th century; Kızılbel: Mellink 1998, pl. Vc; Düver: Greenewalt 1968. East Greek imitation, traded (and imitated) widely in Mediterranean: Cook & Dupont 1998, 132, with Fig. 19.1b (Munich 532). Fruit-stand: replicated in Phrygian grey ware at Gordion, Henrickson 2005, 134-135; an East Greek version excavated at Xanthos, Metzger 1972, no. 36, pl. 8 (3457). Gürtekin-Demir 2003, 112: reports that some “Lydian” pottery at Gordion and Daskyleion was “locally produced.” Marbling: Greenewalt 1972, 131: “Marbling is common on painted pottery from Sardis and other sites in Asia Minor where Lydian influence is known or thought to have extended, and probably was a specialty of Lydian vase painters.” Gürtekin-Demir 2003, 128, provides an updated list of sites yielding marbled wares; 138, that some marbled ware pieces do not have Sardian fabric.

122. Keen 1992, 54, has observed of the later dynastic tombs of Xanthos: “It seems that, as the political system in Lycia deteriorated, as it did in the late fifth and early fourth centuries, and the dynasts’ actual power became less secure, they felt a need to present more grandiose monuments to their power, monuments perhaps influenced by Persian tombs such as the Tomb of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae.”

123. Summerer & von Kienlin 2010, to whom I am much indebted for sharing this research prior to publication.


Amandry, P. (1963): “Argenterie achéménide”, Collection Hélène Stathatos, III, Strasbourg, 260-272.Asgari, N., ed. (1983): The Anatolian Civilisations, II, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, St. Irene exhibition May

22-October 30, Istanbul.Ashton, R., ed. (1996): Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey, London.Ateşlier, S. (2001): “Observations on an Early Classical Building of the Satrapal Period at Daskyleion”, in: Bakır

2001a, 147-168.Bakır, T. (1995): “Archäologische Beobachtungen über die Residenz in Daskyleion”, in: Briant 1995, 269-285.— (1997): “Phryger in Daskyleion”, in: Gusmani et al. 1997, 229-238. —, ed. (2001a): Achaemenid Anatolia, Leiden. — (2001b): “Die Satrapie in Daskyleion”, in: Bakır 2001a, 169-180.— (2006): “Daskyleion”, in: Radt 2006, 61-72.— (2007): “Auswertung der Keramik für relative Chronologie im perserzeitlichen Daskyleion”, in: Delemen

2007, 167-176.Bakır, T. and B. Gusmani (1993): “Graffiti aus Daskyleion”, Kadmos, 32, 135-144.Balcer, J. M. (1983): “The Greeks and the Persians: The Processes of Acculturation”, Historia, 32, 257-267.Balkan, K. (1959): “Inscribed Bullae from Daskyleion-Ergili”, Anatolia, 4, 123-128.Barag, D. (1985): Catalogue of Western Asiatic Glass in the British Museum, London.Barnett, H. G., B. J. Siegel, E. Z. Vogt and J. B. Watson (1954): “Acculturation: An Exploratory Formulation”,

American Anthropologist, 56, 973-1000.Berlin, A. M. (2002): “Ilion before Alexander: A Fourth Century B.C. Ritual Deposit”, Studia Troica, 12, 131-

165.Bernard, P. (1969): “Les bas-reliefs gréco-perses de Dascylion”, RA, n° 1, 17-28.Bieg, G. (2006): “Die Perser in der Troas”, in: Kreutz & Schweizer 2006, 26-39.Boardman, J. (2000): Persia and the West, London.Böhlau, J. and K. Schefold (1940): Larisa am Hermos, I, Die Bauten, Berlin.Bonatz, D. (2000): Das syro-hethitische Grabdenkmal. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung einer neuen Bildgattung

in der Eisenzeit im nordsyrisch-südostanatolischen Raum, Mainz.Borchhardt, J. (1999): “Die Bedeutung der lykischen Königshöfe für die Entstehung des Porträts”, in: Steuben

1999, 53-84.Borchhardt, J. and E. Bleibtreu (2008): “Von der Pferdedecke zum Sattel. Antike Reitkunst zwischen Ost und

West”, in: Delemen et al. 2008, 167-215.Boucharlat, R. (2005): “Iran”, in: Briant & Boucharlat 2005, 221-292.Briant, P. (1985): “Dons de terres et de villes: l’Asie Mineure dans le contexte achéménide”, REA, 87, 51-72.—, ed. (1995): Dans les Pas des Dix-Mille, Pallas special issue, Toulouse.— (1996): Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris.Briant, P. and R. Boucharlat, eds. (2005): L’archéologie de l’empire achéménide: Nouvelles recherches, Persika 6,

Paris. Brosius M. and A. Kuhrt, eds. (1998): Studies in Persian History: Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis,

Achaemenid History 11, Leiden.Butler, H. C. (1922): Sardis I: The Excavations, 1910-1914, Princeton.Cahill, N. (1988): “Taş Kule: A Persian-Period Tomb near Phokaia”, AJA, 92, 481-501.—, ed. (2009), Love for Lydia: A Sardis Anniversary Volume Presented to Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., Sardis

Report 4, Cambridge MA - London.Casabonne, O. (2004): La Cilicie à l’époque achéménide, Persika 3, Paris.Childs, W. A. P. (1981): “Lycian Relations with Persians and Greeks in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries Re-

Examined”, AS, 31, 55-80.Çokay-Kepçe, S. and M. Recke (2007): “Achaemenid Bowls in Pamphilia”, in: Deleme 2007, 83-96. Cook, J. M. (1983): The Persian Empire, London.Cook, R. M. and P. Dupont (1998): East Greek Pottery, London.Conrad, S., R. Einicke, A. E. Furtwängler, H. Löhr and A. Slawisch, eds. (2006): Pontos Euxeinos. Beiträge zur

Archäologie und Geschichte des Antiken Schwarzmeer- und Balkanraumes, Langenweissbach.Csapo, E. and M. C. Miller, ed. (2003): Poetry, Theory, Praxis: The Social Life of Art and Myth in Ancient Greece,

Oxford.Curtis, C. D. (1925): Sardis, XIII: Jewellery and Goldwork, Rome.Curtis, J. and N. Tallis (2005): The Forgotten Empire. The World of Ancient Persia, London.

340 M. C. Miller

Darbandi, M. R. and A. Zournatzi, eds. (2008): Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran. Cross-Cultural Encounters, Athens.

Delemen, İ., ed. (2007): The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Cultures in Anatolia (Sixth–Fourth Centuries BC), Istanbul.

Delemen, İ., S. Çokay-Kepçe, A. Özdizbay and Ö. Turak, eds. (2008): Euergetes. Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasoğlu zum 65. Geburtstag, Antalya.

Demargne, P. and E. Laroche (1974): Tombes-maisons, tombes rupestres et sacrcophags, Fouilles de Xanthos 5, Paris.

Dentzer, J.-M. (1982): Le Motif du Banquet couché dans le Proche-Orient et le Monde Grec du viie au ive siècle avant J.C., Paris.

Dönmez, Ş. (2007): “The Achaemenid Impact on the Central Black Sea Region”, in: Delemen 2007, 107-116.Draycott, C. M. (2007): Images and Identities in the Funerary Art of Western Anatolia, 600 – 450 BC: Phrygia,

Hellespontine Phrygia, Lydia, PhD Diss, Oxford.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”, AJA, 103, 73-102.— (2003): Aspects of Empire in Achaemenid Sardis, Cambridge.— (2005): Gordion Seals and Sealings, Gordion Special Studies 3, University Museum Monograph 124,

Philadelphia.— (2009): “Circles of Light and Achaemenid Hegemonic Style in Gordion’s Seal 100”, in: Cahill 2009, 87-98.Erdoğan, A. (2007): “Beobachtungen zur achämenidischen Architektur Daskyleions”, in: Delemen 2007, 177-

193.Fıratlı, N. (1964): “Short Report on the Finds and Archaeological Activities Outside the Museum”, İstanbul

Arkeoloji Müzeleri Yıllığı, 11/12, 207-215.Gabelmann, H. (1984): Antike Audienz- und Tribunalszenen, Darmstadt.Garrison, M. and M. C. Root (2001): The Seal Impressions on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets. A Catalogue,

vol. I, Images of Heroic Encounter, Chicago.Gates, M.-H. (1996): “Archaeology in Turkey”, AJA, 100, 277-335.Geppert, K. (2006): “Überlegungen zum Polyxena-Sarkophag von Çanakkale”, in: Kreutz & Schweizer 2006,

89-102.Graeve, V., von (1970): Der Alexandersarkophag und seine Werkstatt, Istanbuler Forschungen 28, Berlin.Greenewalt, C. H. (1968): “Lydian Vases from Asia Minor”, California Studies in Classical Antiquity, 1, 139-154.— (1971): “An Exhibitionist from Sardis”, in: Mitten et al. 1971, 29-46.— (1972): “Two Lydian Graves at Sardis”, California Studies in Classical Antiquity, 5, 113-145.— (1995): “Sardis in the Age of Xenophon”, in: Briant 1995, 125-145.Greenewalt, C. H., C. Ratté and M. L. Rautman (1993): “The Sardis Campaigns of 1988 and 1989”, AASO, 51,

1-43.Gruen, E., ed. (forthcoming), Cultural Identity and the Peoples of the Ancient Mediterranean, Los Angeles.Gunter, A. (1989): “Sculptural Dedications at Labraunda”, in: Linders & Hellström 1989, 91-98.Gürtekin-Demir, R. G. (2002): “Lydian Painted Pottery at Gordion”, AS, 52, 111-143.— (2003): “Imported Painted Pottery from Asia Minor to Daskyleion in the Achaemenid Period”, in:

Henkelman & Kuhrt 2003, 203-226.Gusmani, R. and G. Polat (1999): “Manes in Daskyleion”, Kadmos, 38, 137-162.Gusmani, R., M. Salvini and P. Vannicelli, eds. (1997): Frigi e Frigio, Rome.Hanfmann, G. M. A. (1978): “Lydian Relations with Ionia and Persia”, in: Akurgal 1978, 25-35.Hansen, D. P. (1962): “An Archaic Bronze Boar from Sardis”, BASOR, 168, 27-36.Harper, P. O., J. Aruz and Fr. Tallon, eds. (1992): The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the

Louvre, New York.Henkelman, W. and A. Kuhrt, eds. (2003): A Persian Perspective. Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi-

Weerdenburg, Achaemenid History 13, Leiden.Henrickson, R. C. (1993): “Politics, Economics, and Ceramic Continuity at Gordion in the Late Second and

First Millennium B.C.”, in: Kingery 1993, 89-176.— (2005): “The Local Potter’s Craft at Phrygian Gordion”, in: Kealhofer 2005, 124-136.Henry, O. (2009): Tombes de Carie. Architecture funéraire et culture carienne. vie – iie siècles av. J.-C., Rennes.— (forthcoming): “Hekatomnos, Persian satrap or Greek dynast? A study of funerary architecture”, in: van

Bremen forthcoming.


Herrenschmidt, C. (1985): “Une lecture iranisante du poème de Symmachos dedié à Arbinas, dynaste de Xanthos”, REA, 87, 125-136.

Hitzl, I. (1991): Die griechischen Sarkophage der archaischen und klassischen Zeit, Jonsered.Hoffner, H. A., ed. (1973): Orient and Occident. Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his

Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Neukirchen - Vluyn.Insoll, T., ed. (forthcoming): The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, Oxford.Isager, J., ed. (1994): Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance, Odense.Işın, G. (2007): “An Achaemenid Stamp Seal from Patara”, in: Delemen 2007, 75-82.Ivantchik, A. and V. Licheli, eds., (2007): Achaemenid Culture and Local Traditions in Amatolia, Southern

Caucasus and Iran: New Discoveries, Leiden - Boston.Jacobs, B. (1987): Griechische und persische Elemente in der Grabkunst Lykiens zur Zeit der Achamenidenherrschaft,

Jonsered. Jacobs, B. and R. Rollinger, eds. (2010), Der Achämenidenhof, Stuttgart.Jucker, H., and M. Meier-Brügge (1978): “Eine Bronzephiale mit karishe Inschrift”, MH, 35, 104-115.Kaptan, D. (2001): “On the Satrapal Center in Northwestern Asia Minor”, in: Bakır 2001a, 57-64.— (2002): The Daskyleion Bullae: Seal Images from the Western Achaemenid Empire, Achaemenid History 12,

Leiden.— (2003): “A Glance at Northwestern Asia Minor during the Achaemenid Period”, in: Henkelman & Kuhrt

2003, 189-202.— (2007): “A Channel of Communication: Seals in Anatolia during the Achaemenid Period”, in: Delemen

2007, 275-290. — (2008): “Sketches on the Archaeology of the Achaemenid Empire in Western Turkey”, in: Delemen et al.

2008, 653-660.Karagöz, S. (2007): “Neue Ansichten zu einem freistehenden Grabbau aus Daskyleion”, in: Delemen 2007,

195-214.Kealhofer, L., ed. (2005): The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians. Recent Work at Gordion, Philadelphia.Keen, A. J. (1992): “The Dynastic Tombs of Xanthos: Who Was Buried Where?” AS, 42, 53-63.Kingery, W. D., ed. (1993): Social and Cultural Contexts of New Ceramic Technologies, Westerville, OH.Koch, A. and E. Rehm, eds. (2006): Pracht und Prunk der Grosskönige. Das Persische Weltreich, Speyer.Koch, H. (1992): Es kündet Dareios der König. Vom Leben im persischen Grossreich, Mainz.Kökten-Ersöy, H. (1998): “Two-wheeled Vehicles from Lydia and Mysia”, MDAI(I), 48, 107-133.Kreutz, N. and B. Schweizer, eds. (2006): Tekmeria: Archäologische Zeugnisse in ihrer kulturhistorischen und

politischen Dimension. Beiträge für Werner Gauer, Münster.Kuhrt, A. (2007): The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period, London.Kuhrt, A. and H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, eds. (1988), Method and Theory, Achaemenid History 3, Leiden.Langlotz, E. (1932): Griechische Vasen in Würzburg, Munich.Laurenzi, L. (1936): “Necropoli Ialisie (Scavi dell’anno 1934)”, Clara Rhodos, 8, 7-208.Lemaire, A. (2001): “Les inscriptions araméennes de Daskyleion”, in: Bakır 2001a, 21-35.Lewis, D. M. (1977): Sparta and Persia, Leiden.Linders, T. and P. Hellström, eds., (1989): Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria, Uppsala.Lintz, Y. (2008): “Greek, Anatolian, and Persian Iconography in Asia Minor: Material Sources, Method, and

Perspectives”, in: Darbandi & Zournatzi 2008, 257-263.L’vov-Basirov, O. P. V. (2001): “Achaemenian Funerary Practices in Western Asia Minor”, in: Bakır 2001a, 101-

107.Ma, J. (2008): “Mysians on the Çan Sarcophagus? Ethnicity and Domination in Achaimenid Military Art”,

Historia, 39, 1-16.McKeon, J. F. X. (1973): “Achaemenian Cloisonné-Inlay Jewelry: An Important New Example”, in: Hoffner

1973, 109-117.Maffre, Fr. (2007a): “Example of the Persian Occupation in the Satrapy of Phrygia through the Study of the

Population from the Asian Provinces in the Achaemenid Empire”, in: Delemen 2007, 225-246.— (2007b): “Indigenous Aristocracies in Hellespontine Phrygia”, in: Tuplin 2007b, 117-141.Malay, H., ed. (1991): Erol Atalay Memorial, Izmir.Marksteiner, Th. (2002): Trysa, einezentrallykische Niederlassung im Wandel der Zeit, Wiener Forschungen zur

Archäologie 5, Wien.— (2005): “Das achämenidenzeitliche Lykien”, in: Briant & Boucharlat 2005, 27-48.Mellink, M. J. (1971): “Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia, 1970”, AJA, 75, 245-255.

342 M. C. Miller

— (1972): “Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia, 1971”, AJA, 76, 257-269.— (1975): “Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia, 1974”, AJA, 79, 349-355.— (1998): Kızılbel, An Archaic Painted Tomb Chamber in Northern Lycia, Philadelphia.Metzger, H. (1963): L’Acropole lycienne, Fouilles de Xanthos 2, Paris.— (1972): Les céramiques archaïques et classiques de l’acropole lycienne, Fouilles de Xanthos 4, Paris.Mildenberg, L. (1993): “Über das Münzwesen im Reich der Achämeniden”, AMI, 26, 55-79.Miller, M. C. (2002): “Greece II: Greco-Persian Cultural Relations”, Encyclopedia Iranica, XI. 3, 301-319.— (2003): “Art, Myth, and Reality: Xenophantos’ Lekythos Re-Examined”, in: Csapo & Miller 2003, 19-47.— (2007): “The Poetics of Emulation in the Achaemenid World: The Figured Bowls of the ‘Lydian Treasure”,

Ancient West and East, 6, 43-72.— (2010): “Luxury Toreutic in the Western Satrapies: Court-Inspired Gift-Exchange Diffusion”, in: Jacobs &

Rollinger 2010, 853-900.— (forthcoming): “‘Manners Makyth Man’ Diacritical drinking in Achaemenid Anatolia”, in: Gruen

forthcoming.Miller-Collett, S. and M. C. Root (1997): “An Achaemenid Seal from the Lower City”, Studia Troica, 7, 355-362.Mitchell, T. C. (1973): “The Bronze Lion Weight from Abydos”, Iran, 11, 173-5. Mitten, D. G., J. G. Pedley and J. A. Scott, eds. (1971): Studies Presented to G.M.A. Hanfmann, Mainz.Moorey, P. R. S. (1980a): Cemeteries of the First Millennium B.C. at Deve Hüyük, Oxford.— (1980b): “Metal Wine-Sets in the Ancient Near East”, IA, 15, 181-197.Musche, B. (2006): “Überlegungen zur Architektur der achämenidischen Felsgräber von Naqs-e Rostam”,

AMIT, 36, 335-345.Nieling, J. and E. Rehm, eds. (2010): Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea. Communication of Powers, Black Sea

Studies 11, Aarhus.Nollé, M. (1992): Denkmäler vom Satrapensitz Daskyleion, Berlin.Oakley, J. (1997): The Achilles Painter, Mainz.Oberleitner, W. (1994): Das Heroon von Trysa: Ein lykisches Fürstengrab des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Zaberns

Bildbände zur Archäologie 18, Mainz.Özet, M. A. (1994): “The Tomb of a Noble Woman from the Hekatomnid Period”, in: Isager 1994, 88-96.Özgen, I. and J. Öztürk (1996): Heritage Recovered: The Lydian Treasure, Ankara.Özkan, T. (1991): “Lydia’da ele geçen bir greko-pers buluntu grubu”, in: Malay 1991, 131-135.Paspalas, S. A. (2000): “A Persianizing cup from Lydia”, OJA, 19, 135-174.Polat, G. (2007): “A New Perso-Anatolian Stele from Daskyleion”, in: Delemen 2007, 215-224.Potts, D. T. (forthcoming): “Iran”, in: Insoll forthcoming.Prag, A. J. N. W. and R. A. H. Neave (1994): “Who is the ‘Carian Princess’?” in: Isager 1994, 97-109.Radt, W., ed. (2006): Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien, Byzas 3, Istanbul.Ratté, Chr. (1992): “The ‘Pyramid Tomb’ at Sardis”, MDAI(I), 42, 135-161. Ramage, A. (2004): Rev. of Dusinberre 2003, BMCRev 2004.02.21.Redfield, R., R. Linto and M. J. Herkovits (1936): “Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation”, American

Anthropologist, 38, 149-152.Robert, L. (1978): “Malédictions funéraires grecques”, CRAI, 241-289.Röllig, W. (2002): “Appendix II: Aramaic Inscriptions”, in: Kaptan 2002, 198-210. Roosevelt, Chr. (2006): “Tumulus Survey and Museum Research in Lydia, Western Turkey: Determining

Lydian- and Persian-Period Settlement Patterns”, JFA, 31, 61-76.— (2009a): “Lale Tepe: A Late Lydian Tumulus near Sardis, I. Introduction, Excavation, and Finds”, in: Cahill

2009, 1-23.— (2009b): The Archaeology of Lydia, from Gyges to Alexander, Cambridge.Root, M. C. (1997): “Cultural Pluralisms in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets”, Topoi (Lyon), Suppl. 1, 229-

252.— (1998): “Pyramidal Stamp Seals–The Persepolis Connection”, in: Brosius & Kuhrt 1998, 257-89.Rose, C. B. (2007): “The Tombs of the Granikos River Valley”, in: Delemen 2007, 247-264.Rose, C. B., B. Tekkök, and R. Körpe (2007): “Granicus River Valley Survey Project, 2004-2005”, Studia Troica,

17, 65-150.Rotroff, S. I. and A. Oliver (2003): The Hellenistic Pottery from Sardis, Sardis Monographs 12, Cambridge MA.Sader, H. (2005): Iron Age Funerary Stelae from Lebanon, Barcelona.Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. and A. Kuhrt, eds. (1991): Asia Minor and Egypt: Old Cultures in a New Empire,

Achaemenid History 6, Leiden.


Schefold, K. (1978): “Die Residenz von Larisa am Hermos im Licht neuer Forschungen”, in: Akurgal 1978, 549-564.

Schmandt-Besserat, D., ed. (1980): Ancient Persia: The Art of an Empire, Malibu.Schmidt, M., ed. (1988): Kanon. Festschrift für Ernst Berger, AK Beiheft 15, Basel.Schmitt, R. (2002): “Appendix I. Cuneiform inscriptions”, in: Kaptan 2002, 194-197.Schoppa, H. (1933): Die Darstellung der Perser in der griechischen Kunst bis zum Beginn des Hellenismus,

Coburg.Seidl, U. (2003): “Wie waren die Achaimenidischen Doppelprotomen-Kapitelle ausgerichtet?” in: Henkelman

& Kuhrt 2003, 67-75. Seiterle, G. (1985): “Die Urform der phrygischen Mütze”, AW, 16.3, 2-13.Sekunda, N. V. (1985): “Achaemenid Colonization in Lydia”, REA, 87, 7-29.— (1988): “Persian Settlement in Hellespontine Phrygia”, in: Kuhrt & Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1988, 175-196.— (1991): “Achaemenid Settlement in Caria, Lycia and Greater Phrygia”, in: Sancisi-Weerdenburg & Kuhrt

1991, 83-143.— (1996): “Anatolian War-Sickles and the Coinage of Etenna”, in: Ashton 1996, 9-17.Sevinç, N. (1996): “A New Sarcophagus of Polyxena from the Salvage Excavations of Gümüşçay”, Studia Troica,

6, 251-264.Sevinç, N. and C. B. Rose (1999): “A Child’s Sarcophagus from the Salvage Excavations at Gümüşçay”, Studia

Troica, 9, 489-509. Sevinç, N., C. B. Rose, D. Strahan and B. Tekkök-Biçken (1998): “The Dedetepe Tumulus”, Studia Troica, 8,

307-327.Sevinç, N., R. Körpe, M. Tombul, C. B. Rose, D. Strahan, H. Kiesewetter and J. Wallrodt (2001): “A New

Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Çan”, Studia Troica, 11, 383-420. Spycket, A. (1980): “Women in Persian Art”, in: Schmandt-Besserat 1980, 43-45.Stern, E. I. (1982): Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 B. C., Warminster.— (2001): Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732-332 BCE,

New York.Steuben, H., von, ed. (1999): Antike Porträts: Zum Gedächtnis von Helga von Heintze, Möhnesee.Stolper, M. (1985): Entrepeneurs and Empire: The Murašu Archive, the Murašu Firm and Persian Rule in

Babylonia, Leiden.Stronach, D. (1978): Pasargadae. A Report on the Excavations Conducted by the British Institute of Persian

Studies from 1961-63, Oxford.Stucky, R. A. (1988): “Sidon - Labruanda – Halikarnassos”, in: Schmidt 1998, 119-126.Summerer, L. (2006): “Bemerkungen zum silbernen Kalbskopfrhyton in der Ermitage”, in: Conrad et al. 2006,

135-143.— (2007a): “From Tatarlı to Munich. The Recovery of a Painted Wooden Tomb Chamber in Phrygia”, in:

Delemen 2007, 129-56.— (2007b): “Picturing Persian Victory: The Painted Battle Scene on the Munich Wood”, in: Ivantchik & Licheli

2007, 3-30.— (2008): “Imaging a Tomb Chamber: The Iconographic Program of the Tatarlı Wall Paintings”, in: Darbandi

& Zournatzi 2008, 265-300.Summerer, L. and A. von Kienlin (2010): “Achaemenid Impact in Paphlagonia:Rupestral Tombs in the Amnias Valley”, in: Nieling & Rehm 2010, 195-222.Tal, Ö. (2005): “Some Remarks on the Coastal Plain of Palestine under Achaemenid Rule – an Archaeological

Synopsis”, in: Briant & Boucharlat 2005, 71-96.Tarhan, M. T. (2007): “Median and Achaemenid Periods in Tuşpa”, in: Delemen 2007, 117-130.Tolun, V. (2007): “A Persianizing Terracotta Statuette from Assos”, in: Delemen 2007, 271-274.Toteva, G. D. (2007): Local Cultures of Late Achaemenid Anatolia, PhD Diss, University of Minnesota.Treister, M. Y. (2007): “The Toreutics of Colchis in the 5th-4th Centuries B.C. Local Traditions, Outside

Influences, Innovations”, in: Ivantchik & Licheli 2007, 67-107.Tuplin, Chr. (2007): “The Achaemenid Impact in Anatolia: A Summary”, in: Delemen 2007, 291-298.Tuplin, C., ed. (2007b): Persian Responses: Political and Cultural Interaction within the Achaemenid Empire,

Swansea.van Bremen, R. (2010): Proceedings of the First International Conference on Hellenistic Karia. Oxford 2006,

Bordeaux.

344 M. C. Miller

Voigt, M. M. and T. C. Young, Jr. (1999): “From Phrygian Capital to Achaemenid Entrepot: Middle and Late Phrygian Gordion”, IA, 33, 191-242.

Waldbaum, J. C. (1983): Metalwork from Sardis. The Finds through 1974, Sardis Monographs 8, Cambridge MA.

Walters, H. B. (1921): Catalogue of the Silver Plate (Greek, Etruscan And Roman) in the British Museum, London.Zahle, J. (1991): “Achaemenid Influences in Lycia (Coinage, Sculpture, Architecture). Evidence for Political

Changes during the 5th Century B.C.”, in: Sancisi-Weerdenburg & Kuhrt 1991, 145-160.— (1994): “Hekatomnid Caria, a province in Achaemenid Asia Minor”, in: Isager 1994, 85-87.Zoroğlu, L. (1994): Kelenderis, I, Kaynaklar, Kalıntılar, Buluntular, Ankara.

Town and Country in the Satrapies of Western Anatolia: The Archaeology of Empire (2011)

Documents