A TribuTe To The ioniAn renAissAnce

Olivier HeNRy *

Although there is no doubt that foreign influences played a role in the conception of the Halikarnassos’ Maussolleion, new archaeological data brings greater nuance to this picture. Previous studies presented the tomb of Maussollos as a prototype of a new kind of tomb, borrowing its char - acteristics from foreign influences and later spreading this model throughout Asia Minor. This paper aims to readdress the issue in light of new studies on Karian funerary architecture from the 6 th century BC to the mid 4 th century BC (when Maussollos started to build his tomb). These funerary buildings reveal striking similarities with the Maussolleion, and raise the possibility that this building type might have been part of a long-term tradition of Karian funerary culture.

Hekatomnid Karia holds a specific place in the study of ancient architectural history. One of the main features of 4 th century Karia is its original and intensive architectural activity developed by the members of the 4 th century dynasty and defined today as the ‘Ionian Renaissance’. This ‘Ionian Ren - aissance’ is best characterized by a revival of Archaic east Greek architecture influenced by both contemporaneous mainland Greek architecture and substantial technical features introduced by the Hekatomnids and their architects. The context that led to this ‘Renaissance’ is usually explained by the period of peace and economic growth that offered the Hekatomnids the opportunity to occupy a major position in the political history of southwestern Asia Minor, positioned between Greeks and Persians. The Hekatomnid ambition behind such behavior is not easy to draw; some scholars defend the idea of a re-establishment of the Golden Age of Persian supremacy during the 6 th century BC 1, while others consider the ‘Ionian Renaissance’ to be the result of a creolization process, intended at casting a new ‘Karianness’ 2. Although it is clear that the Hekatomnids created a new approach to monumental architecture (especially monumental funerary architecture), influenced by both Greek and Persian techniques, a re-appraisal of monumental remains from late 6 th century Karia seems to point out that this was not the first occurrence of such architecture in Karia.

At Beçin, 3 km south of Mylasa, under the ruins of a Seljuk fortification, lie the remains of a large structure entirely built in marble. The most visible part of this monument is a large staircase that occupies the whole southern of a podium (Fig. 1). One can still see architectural pieces reused in the medieval walls that belonged to the superstructure that stood above the podium long ago; all of these architectural fragments (drums and capitals of Ionic order, lion protome , epistyle, etc.) date from the last quarter of the 6 th century BC (Fig. 2). These remains were first published in 1971 by A. Akarca, who dated their foundation to the Archaic period, and identified the podium as that of the temple of Zeus Karios. This identification was fully accepted by scholars and was never

*) Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes, , USR 3131. My warmest thanks to Naomi Carless Unwin for her reading and polishing of this paper. 1) Pedersen 2001/2002, 119. 2) Carstens 2009 and see the contribution by this author in this volume. 3) Hornblower 1982, 313. 82 Olivier HeNRy

Fig. 1 : General view of the beçin staircase (Photo by the author). thoroughly discussed 3. In a recent article, A. Baran proceeded to produce a more detailed analysis of the building and of the surrounding architectural pieces. Here again the author agreed with the identification of the structure as a monumental podium that once supported a large temple dedicated (probably) to Zeus Karios 4. The analysis is based on architectural characteristics and on the many blocks that supposedly belonged to the superstructure: the column and capital fragments indeed clearly indicate the presence of a frontal, if not peripteral, Ionic colonnade in front of a narrow but richly decorated building with decorated column necks with anthemion, finely cut Ionic kymation profile and Lion protome . Although the above description seems to fit perfectly the description of a temple, it could correspond to any monumental construction built from the late Archaic period to the late Classical times. One has to remember, for example, that the same general approach led the travelers who re- discovered the sanctuary of to identify the Andron A as the temple of Zeus Labraundos 5, and more recently the Uzunyuva podium at was identified as another foundation of a temple 6. There is also no doubt that the Maussolleion itself would have probably been identified as a monumental temple, were it not so well documented by literary and archaeological sources, especially because of its subterranean funerary space.

4) Baran 2004. 5) From Pückler-Muskau in 1938 until the first excavations unearthed the dedication mentioning the Andron : see Hellström 2011, on the rediscovery of Labraunda. 6) Laumonier 1958, 43; Robert 1953, 412-413. See Rumscheid 2010, 71-72 for a history of the building. A TRIBUTe TO THe IONIAN ReNAISSANCe 83

Beçİn, a temple or a tomB?

In the case of Beçin, it is interesting to notice that neither literary nor epigraphic sources support the identification with the temple of Zeus Karios 7. First, it seems that the plateau supporting the structure was an old burial ground. In 2007, the Museum of Milas conducted a salvage excavation along the northern edge of the plateau, some 50 m to the north of the late Archaic building and discovered a Bronze Age tomb 8. This exca - vation, which only concerned a 5 m 2 trench, was the very first and only one ever conducted on the plateau, and raises the possibility that many other tombs might have existed in this area. Second, if the temple hypothesis is true then the orientation of the late Archaic structure is surprising. If a temple dedicated to Zeus Karios had stood at Beçin, the usual custom would have led the architects to draw its orientation toward the rising sun and not towards south-west, the direction which the present day remains of the podium and staircase are facing (Fig. 3). One should remember that the Archaic temple of Fig. 2 : An example of the reused material in Labraunda, which was dedicated to a local Zeus the wall of the castle (Photo by the author). (Labraundos) and built during the same period, was oriented “almost perfectly to the east” despite the obstructing difficulty of working on a much tougher topography for construction 9. The topography therefore did not dictate the orientation of the building even in Labraunda. Similarly at Beçin the structure is placed in a way that the staircase stood on a flat area above a small cliff, although this configuration impeded easy access (Fig. 1). The unusual orientation of the building might therefore not be connected to the difficulties raised by the topography but rather be related to its location on the plateau. The plateau of Beçin stands along a north-south crest. The northern extension of the plateau is limited on the north by a steep cliff over the plain and is separated from the rest by an escarpment, creating an upper (northern) promontory and a lower (southern) plateau (Fig. 4). The Archaic podium stands at the southern edge of this northern promontory, and its staircase was positioned above a small cliff, and turned towards the southern part of the plateau. Today the staircase is hidden behind one of the main towers of the Medieval castle (Fig. 5) but there is no doubt that it must have originally offered an impressive display which could have been seen afar from the south. The only entrance in the wall of the medieval remains stands against the Archaic podium. This might not be completely fortuitous and one might easily imagine that the access to the promontory has not changed much since ancient times, i.e. the Archaic podium was built near the main access to the promontory, so that visitors would have had to face this impressive construction.

7) Identification which is largely based on both a quote from Herodotos (I.171.6) mentioning a temple dedicated to Zeus Karios at Mylasa and the fact that Beçin was the early seat of the city: Hornblower 1982, 91, 101. 8) This discovery has not yet been published but a report should appear in 2012 in the Müze Kurtarma Kazısı Sonuçları series. 9) Hellström & Thieme 1982, 42. Other local examples are numerous, such as the temple built at Gencik Tepe, see Hellström 1997. 84 Olivier HeNRy

Fig. 3 : Plan of the structure (from Akarca 1971, Lev. XXXI, the dromos has been added by the author).

Fig. 4 : Aerial view of beçin (the podium is encircled). A TRIBUTe TO THe IONIAN ReNAISSANCe 85

Fig. 5 : The entrance to the castle seen from the south; the ancient staircase is located behind the main square tower at the center of the picture.

Finally, the structure of the podium itself seems unusual as a foundation for a temple. Besides the already mentioned uneasy access to its staircase, Akarca described two chambers located inside the podium that were entirely built of marble. These two chambers, each of which show very fine crafts - manship, were arranged side by side (Fig. 3). These chambers were never seriously taken into account in the analysis of the podium and A. Akarca interpreted them as part of the podium’s foundation, which aimed at leveling the rough bedrock on which the podium was sitting. In his recent study, A. Baran noticed the particular roofing of the chambers, each made of a series of three transversal beams supporting the roof slabs (Fig. 6), and recalled that this kind of roofing was also found in monumental subterranean tombs discovered in the vicinity of Milas (Fig. 7) 10 . Nonetheless, the author rejected the identification of the podium with a monumental tomb, on the basis that the rooms had no direct access, and followed the early interpretation of the chambers as foundations for the temple. However, a series of recent observations of the structure’s building, studies on Karian tombs and discoveries in Milas seem to point out the possible identification of the podium with a late Archaic monumental tomb. Illegal digging and systematic destruction by robbers, which allowed A. Akarca to enter the chambers inside the podium, did not stop in the 1970s. During a recent visit of the remains I recognized that illegal excavations in the western cham ber had uncovered a large part of the rubble that had filled the room. They revealed a dromos that opens at the center of the western wall of the room. The extremity of this finely built corridor, made of large marble blocks, has collapsed and it is now impossible to determine its original length (Fig. 8). Although it cannot be confirmed whether or

10) Baran 2004, 23-25. 86 Olivier HeNRy

Fig. 6 : section of the chambers (from Baran 2004, the dromoi have been added by the author).

Fig. 7 : The roofing system of a monumental subterranean tomb along the sacred way leading from Milas to Labraunda (Photo by L. Karlsson). A TRIBUTe TO THe IONIAN ReNAISSANCe 87

Fig. 8 : View of the western wall of the west room. not the eastern room had the same kind of arrangement due to the amount of rubble hiding most of it, it is highly possible that the eastern room also had a dromos like its western counterpart, considering the identical characteristics (size, structure, material, building technique) of both rooms. Such arrangement would then link both room as one unique structure, such as antechamber and chamber. The existence of a dromos should challenge the ‘foundation’ interpretation of both chambers in the favor of a funerary context. As noticed by A. Baran, the structural features of the chambers are indeed very similar to many subterranean tombs found in the vicinity of Milas. In fact, the roofing technique of the rooms in Beçin, using transversal beams bearing horizontal roof slabs, is identical with more than 20 other tombs discovered in Karia, including the Maussolleion itself, most of which are subterranean and all date from the late Classical to the early 11 . Moreover, this technique, which appears to be typical of Karian funerary architecture, was clearly existent in late Archaic Karia, as shown by a series of tumuli located in the Harpasos valley, dating from the early 5th century BC 12 . precedent to the maussolleion

A few years ago a lavish monumental tomb was discovered at Milas. This structure, known as Uzunyuva, was recognized long ago by travelers and archaeologists and has always been identified, until recently, as a podium supporting a temple. In a recent article, F. Rumscheid offered a new inter - pretation for the podium, based on a detailed analysis of its architecture and decoration, and argued that this monumental building was the basis of a ‘proto-Maussolleion’. He proposed that this structure was begun, yet not finished, by (and for) Maussollos before he transferred the Karian capital from Mylasa to Halikarnassos 13 . A recent plundering of the podium by tomb robbers confirmed Rumscheid’s interpretation that Uzunyuva was indeed a monumental tomb, although the tomb might not have been connected with Maussollos. The cleaning of the remains seems to indicate

11) Henry 2009, 165-168. 12) Henry 2010a. 13) Rumscheid 2010. 88 Olivier HeNRy that the tomb had been used, while Rumscheid supposed that it was abandoned. The present day ar - chaeologists working on the site and investigating the monument pointed out that the original owner might have been Maussollos’ father, Hekatomnos. The debate surrounding the occupant of this tomb is ongoing, but we have to wait for a detailed publication of the structure in order to proceed further, At this point, the identification of the tomb as that of Hekatomnos, rather than Idrieus, has more ad - vocates 14 , although I am inclined towards a different interpretation presented in a previous article 15 . Were this hypothesis confirmed, it would bring a completely new insight into the context in which Halikarnassos’ Maussolleion was built. Listed as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, the Maussolleion is often seen as the apex of the Hekatomnids’ material culture. The structure is considered as the first of its kind and a result of interaction between foreign and local cultures. Now it seems that this traditional view, placing the Maussolleion as the source of a long series of other monumental tombs, in Karia or abroad 16 , should be revised. The building should be reconsidered in its Karian architectural context and not only as a sumptuous offspring of earlier Lykian, Persian or egyptian tombs 17 . If the Uzunyuva tomb belonged to Hekatomnos (who died in ca. 377 BC), it would not only have been built before the Nereid monument (usually dated to ca. 370 BC) but it also might have offered the Maussolleion a better model as a source of inspiration, itself possibly inspired by the Beçin monument 18 . revisiting the historical contexts

Another interesting point concerns the comparable historical context in which both the late Archaic Beçin monument and the 4 th century Hekatomnid Monumental tombs – at Uzunyuva, Ha - likarnassos and maybe at Labraunda 19 – have been erected. As mentioned above, the Beçin monumental podium dates from the late 6 th century BC 20 . Although the historical background of Milas or even Beçin in the late Archaic times is obscure for the most part, architectural remains as well as literary sources clearly indicate that the late 6 th century BC must have been a flourishing period for Karia. This prosperous background is particularly clear at Labraunda where excavations have emphasized the intense activities, both architectural and economic 21 , in this period. According to the excavators, this period ends during the Ionian revolt 22 .

14) See Descat forthcoming; Konuk: http://www.haberturk.com/kultur-sanat/haber/541326-turkiyenin-tutankhamonu 15) Henry 2010b. 16) In Karia with the Monumental tomb at Labraunda; abroad with, for example, the Belevi Mausoleum. 17) Hornblower 1982, 223-274. 18) At Beçin one finds a series of either architectural members or architectural technique dated to the late archaic period, such as a decorated column-neck and the typical marginally drafted masonry of the podium’s western side. P. Pedersen, speaking of the 4 th century Karian architecture considers both decorated column necks found in Halikarnassos and marginally drafted masonry of the Maussolleion terrace as good parallels of pieces found respectively in Archaic Samos and Miletos (Pedersen 1994, 26-27). A careful investigation of the remains at Beçin proves that such material already existed in Archaic center Karia, associated with the monumental podium (Baran 2004, 21, res. 6 and 26, res. 26). A supplementary and decisive comparative material between the 6 th century BC Beçin building and the 4 th century Hekatomnid architecture might be the use of visible and ornamental dovetail clamps. Although very rare in Greek architecture, they are to be found on the staircase of Beçin (Baran 2004, res. 8), on the staircase at Uzunyuva (unpublished) and at Labraunda in the crepis and stylobate of the two propylaea and of the 4 th century temple of Zeus as well as in the face of the inscribed Doric architrave of the Oikoi. 19) Henry 2006. 20) According to both P. Hellström and Th. Thieme, specialists of the architectural history of Labraunda, the architectural members of this structure, including a fine epistyle found inside one of the rooms in the podium (Baran 2004, 25-26, res. 18), might have very well been carved before the archaic temple of Zeus Labraundos. I am very grateful to both P. Hellström and Th. Thieme for this information. 21) Jully 1981 insist on the large quantity of Attic black figure pottery. The same is true at Sinuri: Sinuri ii , 15. Hellström & Thieme 1982, 41-42 present many monumental architectural blocks that could not belong to the archaic temple but rather to votive or even funerary structures (see p. 42, n.3). See also the fact that Karian coinage started in the second half of the 6 th century BC (Konuk 2012, 54), at Mylasa. 22) Hellström & Thieme 1982. A TRIBUTe TO THe IONIAN ReNAISSANCe 89

The account given by Herodotos of the Ionian Revolt emphasizes the position of Karia as a leading region in this part of Asia Minor at the end of the 6 th century BC. Not only the strength but also the tenacity of the Karians was striking: after raising a mighty army and losing over 10,000 soldiers at the battle on the Maeander, “which was obstinately contested and lasted long” 23 , they did not abandon the struggle even after enduring another defeat (at Labraunda?) 24 . According to Herodotos, the Karians were the last to surrender: “after the capture of Miletos the Persians forthwith got possession of Karia, some of the cities having submitted to their power voluntarily, while others of them they brought over by force” 25 . The determination of the Karian population gives a hint concerning both the Karian resources and their close links with the Ionians and Miletos. These strong links between Karia and the Ionian cities are not merely limited to the political context but also emphasized by the archaeological sources. To consider only the architecture 26 , many Karian sites such as Labraunda, Mylasa, euromos or have revealed lavish architectural monuments dated to the late 6 th century BC 27 , with direct links to Ionian Archaic architecture. The re - semblance between the architecture of both regions led Th. Thieme to emphasize that “Ionic architecture though in a limited scale was spread and appreciated in the Carian hinterland in the end of the 6 th century” 28 . It seems that the Karians were, as early as the late 6 th century BC, already strongly influenced by Ionian culture, which they apparently appropriated for the construction of their most sumptuous and monumental structures. This ‘philo-Ionism’ is essentially expressed through the construction of their sacred buildings, especially but not limited to their temples. Nonetheless, if the identification of the Archaic podium at Beçin with a monumental tomb is accepted it indicates that Karians did not limit themselves to the reproduction of typical Greek buildings but also have erected a new type of a sacred monument: a Herôon dedicated to the leader of the area. Whether or not the construction of this Herôon has a direct link with the Ionian revolt, and the leader of the Karian armies 29 – such as hinted in Lykia by the construction of the 4 th century Herôon of Perikles in during the revolt against the Persians 30 – is impossible to deduce at present, yet the similarity of both contexts should not go unnoticed. After the defeat against the Persian armies, Karia lost most of its connections with Greece and experienced a rather difficult economic as well as political period, which might explain the lack of major constructions in Karia during the 5 th century BC. It is not until the rise of the Hekatomnids in the early 4 th century BC that intensive construction was resumed in the region, under the patronage of Maussollos, as well as his brothers and sisters. This architectural activity has always been described as part of the ‘Ionian Renaissance’, characterized by a revival of former architectural models from Ionia. This renaissance, elaborately described by P. Pedersen 31 , has been primarily illustrated and exemplified through sacred architecture, namely through the temples and sanctuaries that presented close similarities with the archaeological data from the late Archaic period. Buildings such as the Mausolleion at Halikarnassos were considered to have appeared in this context either as an extraordinary creation, an œργον intended to emphasize the power and the originality of the

23) Herodotos, V.119. 24) Herodotos, V.121. 25) Herodotos, VI.25. 26) For coinage one might refer to the contribution by Koray Konuk. 27) See also the unpublished PhD on Archaic Architecture in Karia , by A. Baran, summarized in Baran 2009. 28) Thieme 1993, 50. 29) Beçin is believed to be the early dynastic seat of Mylasa, governed by Herakleides, leader of the Karian forces in the Ionian revolt (Herodotos V.21). 30) Theopompus, FGHist , 115, F103.17; Keen 1998, 126-127. 31) See the contribution by the author in this volume with the bibliography. 90 Olivier HeNRy

Hekatomnid dynasty 32 , and/or as part of the process in the construction “of a past, of a history, of dynastic traditions” 33 . Seen from the late Archaic point of view, exemplified by the monumental building at Beçin, these assumptions might also very well be applied to 6 th century Karia in general and to the dynasty seated at Beçin/Mylasa at this time. In fact, both the Uzunyuva tomb at Mylasa and the Maussolleion at Halikarnassos can be considered as revivals of the powerful late Archaic dynasty from Mylasa, which acted as the Karian leader when it stood as a nation, οˆ Κ©ρε ò, against the Persian threat 34 . The 4th century monumental architecture of Karia should no longer be perceived as a novel attempt to create a regional identity in a new political context, but rather as the renaissance of an established identity that already existed in Archaic Karia.

bibLioGrAPhy

Baran, A., 2004 : “Beçin, Zeus Karios (?) Tapınağı”, Anadolu/ , ek. dizi 1, 2004, 19-38. – 2009 : “Karian Architecture before the Hekatomnids”, in F. Rumscheid (éd.), Die Karer und die Anderen. Internationales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität Berlin 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005, Bonn, 2009, 291-313. Carstens, A.-M., 2009 : Karia and the Hekatomnids, The creation of a dynasty, Oxford , 2009. Descat, R., forthcoming : “Tombes de fondateurs dans les villes de Carie : les exemples de et de ”, in O. Henry (éd.), Le Mort dans la ville. Pratiques, contextes et impacts des inhumations intra- muros en Anatolie, du début de l’Age du Bronze à l’époque romaine , Istanbul, forthcoming. Hellström, P., 1997 : “excavations at Gencik Tepe, 1938”, Acta Archaeologica 68, 1997, 75-107. – 2011 : “Labraunda. The rediscovery”, in L. Karlsson & S. Carlsson (éds.), Labraunda and Karia. Proceedings of the International Symposium Commemorating Sixty Years of Swedish Archaeological Work in Labraunda , Uppsala, 2011, 19-47. Hellström, P. & Thieme, Th., 1982 : Labraunda Swedish Excavations and Researches I.3, The temple of Zeus , Lund, 1982. Henry, O., 2006 : “Remarques sur le propriétaire de la tombe monumentale de Labraunda”, Revue des Etudes Anciennes , 2006, 3-4, 5-22. – 2009 : Tombes de Carie. Architecture funéraire et culture carienne du VI e au II e s. av. J.-C. , Rennes, 2009. – 2010a : “, les nécropoles”, in P. Debord & e. Varinlioğlu (éds.), Cités de Carie : Harpasa, , dans l’Antiquité , Rennes, 2010, 77-96. – 2010b : “Hekatomnos, Persian satrap or Greek dynast? A study on funerary architecture”, in R. van Bremen & M. Carbon (éds.), Hellenistic Karia, Bordeaux, 2010, 103-122. Jeppesen, K., 2000 : The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos 4 : The Quadrangle , Copenhague, 2000. Jully, J.J., 1981 : Labraunda Swedish Excavations and Researches II.3, Archaic Pottery , Lund, 1981. Konuk, K., 2012 : “Asia Minor to the Ionian Revolt”, in W.e. Metcalf (éd.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage , Oxford, 2012, 43-60. Laumonier, A., 1958 : Les cultes indigènes en Carie , Paris, 1958. Pedersen, P., 2001/2002 : “Reflections on the Ionian Renaissance in Greek Architecture and its Historical Background”, Hephaistos 19/20, 97-130. Robert, L., 1953 : “Le Sanctuaire d’Artemis à Amyzon”, CRAI , 1953, 403-415. Rumscheid, Fr., 2010 : “Maussollos and the ‘Uzun yuva’ in Mylasa: an unfinished Proto-Mausoleion at the heart of a new urban centre?”, in R. van Bremen & J.-M. Carbon (éds.), Hellenistic Karia , Bordeaux, 2010, 69-102. Thieme, Th., 1993 : “The Architectural Remains of Archaic Labraunda”, in J. des Courtils & J.-Ch. Moretti (éds.), Les grands ateliers d’architecture dans le monde Egéen du VI e av. J.-C. , Istanbul, 1993.

32) Hornblower 1982, 274. 33) Carstens 2009, 74. 34) Herodotos V.118.1 et V.119.2.