I

Frank Rumscheid (Hrsg.) · Die Karer und die Anderen II III

Die Karer und die Anderen

Internationales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität Berlin 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005

Herausgegeben von Frank Rumscheid

Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH · Bonn 2009 IV

Umschlag: Männlicher ‘Sphinx’, Akroterion des Androns B in Labraunda (Entwurf S. Biegert auf Grundlage einer Graphik von F. Rumscheid)

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. Detailliertere bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar.

© 2009 by Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn Redaktion: Frank Rumscheid (Kiel) Satz: Susanne Biegert (Bonn) Druck: Druckhaus Thomas Müntzer, 99947 Bad Langensalza

ISBN 978-3-7749-3632-4 V

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frank Rumscheid Einführung VII

Beziehungen zu den Anderen Michael Meier-Brügger Karer und Alt-Anatolier aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht 1 Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier Milet und Karien vom Neolithikum bis zu den ‘Dunklen Jahrhunderten’. Mythos und Archäologie 7 Alexander Herda Karki™a-Karien und die sogenannte Ionische Migration 27 Alain Bresson Karien und die dorische Kolonisation 109 Winfried Held Die Karer und die Rhodische Peraia 121 Christopher Ratté The Carians and the Lydians 135 Hilmar Klinkott Die Karer im Achaimenidenreich 149 Werner Tietz Karer und Lykier: Politische und kulturelle Beziehungen im 5./4. Jh. v. Chr. 163 Frank Rumscheid Die Leleger: Karer oder Andere? 173 Bernhard Schmaltz Klassische Leitkultur und karische Provinz? Archäologische Zeugnisse im südlichen Karien 195 Vincenzo Ruggieri The Carians in the Byzantine Period 207

Einzelne Kulturäußerungen Wolfgang Blümel Zu Schrift und Sprache der Karer 221 Daniela Piras Der archäologische Kontext karischer Sprachdenkmäler und seine Bedeutung für die kulturelle Identität Kariens 229 VI

Pierre Debord Peut-on définir un panthéon carien? 251 Pontus Hellström Sacred Architecture and Karian Identity 267 Abdulkadir Baran Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids 291 Poul Pedersen The Palace of Maussollos in Halikarnassos and Some Thoughts on Its Karian and International Context 315 Mathias Benter Das mykenische Kammergrab vom Pilavtepe 349 Adnan Diler Tombs and Burials in Daml@bo%az (Hydai) and Pedasa: Preliminary Report in the Light of Surface Investigations and Excavations 359 Anne Marie Carstens Tomb Cult and Tomb Architecture in Karia from the Late Archaic to the Hellenistic Period 377 Abuzer K@z@l 1990–2005 Y@llar@ Aras@nda Mylasa’da Kurtarma Kaz@lar@ Yap@lan Mezarlar ve Buluntular@ Üzerinde Genel Bir De%erlendirme 397 ‚smail Fazl@o%lu Daml@bo%az Finds: Inland Carian Archaic Pottery and Related Regions 463

Topographische Studien Mathias Benter Hydas, eine befestigte Höhensiedlung auf der Bozburun-Halbinsel 481 Mustafa ©ahin Alt-Myndos: Einige Betrachtungen zu Lokalisation und Stadtmauern 503 Numan Tuna – Nadire At@c@ – ‚lham Sakarya – Elif Koparal The Preliminary Results of Burgaz Excavations Within the Context of Locating Old Knidos 517 Deniz Pastutmaz Knidos im Licht der jüngsten Ausgrabungen: Der Theater-Dionysos-Tempel-Stoa-Komplex 533 Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids 291 Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids

Abdulkadir Baran

Keywords: Aeolic architecture, Archaic period, Classic period, Hekatomnids, Ionic architecture, Ionic Renaissance, Karia

Abstract: The background to the intensive building program of the Hekatomnid dynasty in the 4th cen- tury B.C. has been sought in other regions, because the architectural development of Karia before the Hekatomnids is unknown. The Hekatomnid period, which includes the buildings in Ionia and Karia, has been named the “Ionic and/or Ionian Renaissance” as a result of similarities with Archaic Ionic buildings. On the other hand, some unique architectural features of this period indicate the existence of a local source for the Hekatomnid building program. For understanding the period before the Hekatomnids the architectural members presented in this study were chosen because they can be dated stylistically to this period since not a single building remains in situ. When all the architectural mate- rial, including possible remains in situ and the ancient textual sources have been taken into consider- ation, the architectural progress of Karia can be determined. All the material leads us to conclude that Karia had an architectural tradition in a comparable scale with the other regions, also after the Archaic period. It can be said that some unique architectural features of Karia indicate that the region was not only a follower but was also one of the leaders in the development of the Aeolic and Ionic architectural styles. An intensive building program1 was initiated by this period are very few: the Maussolleion at Hali- Hekatomnos and his successors, a native Karian dy- karnassos and its terrace4, the propylon of the Arte- nasty, who ruled as Persian satraps2. It has been sug- mis Sanctuary at Amyzon5, the Temple of Zeus at gested that it was a revival of Ionic architecture after Labraunda and other buildings in that sanctuary6 are the Persian domination of Anatolia. In contrast to the only buildings which can be archaeologically what can be drawn from ancient texts and epigraphic dated to the Hekatomnid period. The building activ- evidence3 the buildings that can be safely dated to ity initiated by the Hekatomnids in the 4th century

1 This article is a part of my Ph.D. thesis prepared under the direction of Prof. Orhan Bingöl in Ankara University; I am very grateful to him for his leading and all helps. I would like to express my thanks to Dr. F. Rumscheid who made possible to present my work in this very well organized colloquium. I am also very grateful to L. Karlsson for having revised my English. 2 Hornblower, Mausolus 34–51; S. Ruzicka, Politics of a Persian Dynasty. The Hecatomnids in the Fourth Cen- tury (1992) 15 ff. 3 Hornblower, Mausolus 223 ff. 4 W. B. Dinsmoor, The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus I. The Order; II. The Architectural Design, AJA 12, 1908, 3– 29. 141–171; Pedersen, Maussolleion III (1991); K. Jeppesen, The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos V. The Super- structure. A Comparative Analysis of the Architectural, Sculptural and Literary Evidence (2002). 5 L. Robert, Le sanctuaire d’Artemis à Amyzon, CRAI 1953, 409; J. & L. Robert, Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie I. Exploration, histoire, monnaies et inscriptions (1983) 76 fig. 36; Pedersen, Maussolleion III 67; Pedersen, Reflec- tions 111; Hellström, Architecture 43–44. – s. auch den Beitrag von P. Hellström in diesem Band mit neuer Rekonstruktion, die hier noch nicht berücksichtigt werden konnte [Anm. Red.]. 6 Ibid. 36–57; P. Hellström, Dessin d’architecture hécatomnide á Labraunda, in: Le dessin d’architecture dans les sociétés antiques, Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 26–28 janvier 1984 (1985) 153–165. 292 Abdulkadir Baran

B.C. was termed the ‘Ionic Renaissance’ by Noack7. be grouped by their dates, sizes, find-spots and It has now been accepted by other scholars as well8. stone types. When all the architectural members are The term was meant to explain a renewed building ac- combined with the ancient texts, the epigraphic evi- tivity that introduced new ideas combined with ele- dence and other archaeological remains it is possible ments of Archaic Ionic architecture. The term was to identify some buildings and temples in Karia. subsequently changed to ‘Ionian Renaissance’, with the idea of being the revival not only of architectural forms but also referring to other cultural expressions9. Knidian Peninsula It is believed that this period of revival, following the construction of the earliest building, Andron B at An Aeolic capital found in the Knidian penin- Labraunda10, continued into the Hellenistic period11, sula by Bean and Cook12 can be dated to the second but its exact limits have not been established yet. half of the 6th century B.C. by comparison with ex- However, the background to the so-called Ionic amples from Cyprus13 and Larisa in Aeolis14. It was Renaissance has not received the studies it merits suggested by Betancourt15 as belonging to a stele. and it is still not certain whether there was a real re- However, its upper carrying surface, the bolster ar- vival or whether there was a continuation of earlier rangement and especially its thickness indicate that practices flourishing with the help of the financial it is an Aeolic pilaster capital16. strength of the Hekatomnid rulers. For this reason, the background to the Karian architectural develop- ment that produced an architect like Pytheos in the Kos 4th century needs to be investigated. The main prob- lem of this investigation is the lack of dated build- The first evidence indicating Karian rule over Kos ing remains and for this reason the study will is to be joined into the battle of Salamis under queen analyze architectural members that can be dated Artemisia in 480 B.C.17. There is no evidence for stylistically to this period. The architectural mem- Karian rule over Kos after that period and the bers presented here include not only the published synoikism of Kos in 366 B.C. is said to be the result ones but will also introduce some new pieces found of not the Hekatomnid influence but probably a during our surveys. After examining the architec- democratic move18. On the other hand, it is known tural pieces it is possible to compare them with that Kos was under Hekatomnid rule after the synoi- dated examples. The architectural members will also kism19. Although there are no building remains, ce-

7 F. Noack, Die Baukunst des Altertums (1910) 37 ff. 8 R. Demangel, La frise ionique (1933) 324 ff.; W. B. Dinsmoor, The Architecture of Ancient Greece2 (1973) 216; A. Bammer, Die Architektur des jüngeren Artemision von Ephesos (1972) 34 ff.; A. Bammer, Architecture et société en Asie Mineure au IVe siècle, in: Architecture et société de l’archaïsme grec à la fin de la république romaine, Actes du Colloque international organisé par le Centre national de la recherche scientifique et l’Ecole française de Rome, Rome 2–4 décembre 1980 (1983) 275 ff.; U. Muss – A. Bammer, Der Altar des Artemisions von Ephesos, FiE XII 2 (2001) 161. 9 Pedersen, Renaissance 11 ff. 10 P. Hellström – T. Thieme, The Androns at Labraunda. A Preliminary Account of Their Architecture, MedelhavsMusB 16, 1981, 58–74; Hellström, Architecture 41. 11 Noack op. cit.; Bammer, Architecture et société (see above n. 8); Pedersen, Reflections 97 ff.; P. Pedersen, Pergamon and Ionian Renaissance, IstMitt 54, 2004, 409 ff. 12 G. E. Bean – J. M. Cook, The Cnidia, BSA 47, 1952, 178–179. 188 fig. 4 pl. 38 e. 13 Betancourt, Aeolic Style 37 fig. 9; G. R. Wright, Ancient Building in Cyprus (1992) fig. 285, 1–4; 286; 287, 1–4. 14 J. Boehlau – K. Schefold, Larisa am Hermos I. Die Bauten (1940) 142–143 pl. 19 a; Wesenberg, Kapitelle und Basen 74 ff. fig. 152–154; Betancourt, Aeolic Style fig. 34 pl. 42. 15 Ibid. 50 n. 4. 16 J. Boardman, Chian and Early Ionic Architecture, AntJ 39, 1959, 209. 17 Hdt. 7, 99; Strab. 14, 657; G. E. Bean – J. M. Cook, The Carian Coast III., BSA 52, 1957, 119–127; M. G. Picozzi in: The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (1976) 465 s. v. Kos. 18 Hornblower, Mausolus 103–104. 19 Picozzi op. cit.; Hornblower, Mausolus 44–46. Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids 293 ramic finds and inscriptions show the existence of an Radt also published two buildings which have earlier occupation on Kos city20. Only two architec- Aeolic capitals from another Lelegian-style settle- tural members have been noticed in the museum and ment at Alazeytin near Bodrum29. Buildings 30 and they were published by Shoe21. An anta capital frag- 31, though still unexcavated, were suggested to be a ment22 and a crown block fragment23 which are dated heroon and an altar respectively. Radt presented a re- to the late 6th century B.C. could not be connected construction of the possible heroon building30 with with any building, but since they are of similar size the help of two Aeolic pilaster capitals used as door and material, it is very probable that they belonged to consoles31. There were also wall crowns32, pieces of the same structure24. Their possible origin might be the ovolo and astragal-profiled undecorated blocks33, as Athena or Apollon Pythios sanctuaries which have well as a geison block34 scattered around the building. horoi inscriptions from the 5th century B.C.25. Building 31 with its rectangular form and containing five steps inside could be identified as an altar by comparing it with similar Archaic stepped altars35. Halikarnassos Peninsula Two Aeolic pilaster capitals have fully decorated faces and were placed in the reconstruction with their Radt found a piece of kyma block from the de- sides towards the front36. Although the capitals point bris of a monumental unidentified building in the to an upper structure, there is not enough evidence Lelegian-style settlement on Kaplanda% near Bod- for such a restoration. Furthermore, there are no rum26. The shapes of the darts27 in the ovolo mould- other examples of the arrangement with capitals ing and the curled ornament28 on the bottom side placed with their sides towards the front. With the are comparable to a few other examples, but with help of the capitals, both buildings can be dated to the ovolo form it is possible to date it around the the period just after the middle of the 6th century middle of the 6th century B.C. Although the build- B.C. The pilaster form of the capitals, and especially ing has not been excavated, the existence of an early their employment as door consoles in Building 30, temple in the small castle seems probable because of can be compared to examples from Cyprus and the the remains and kyma block fragment. Eastern Mediterranean37. The volute forms and the

20 Bean – Cook (see above n. 17) 124–125. 21 L. T. Shoe, Greek Mouldings of Kos and Rhodes, Hesperia 19, 1950, 338 ff. 22 Ibid. 347. 356 Cat. 5.9 fig. 5, 9 pl. 109, 2; A. D. Brockmann, Die griechische Ante. Eine typologische Untersuchung (1968) 67 Kat. D.8; J. Ganzert, Zur Entwicklung lesbischer Kymationformen, JdI 98, 1983, 135 fig. 29. 23 Shoe op. cit. 341. 346. 354 Cat. 4.1 pl. 108, 1. 24 Ibid. 354. 25 Bean – Cook (see above n. 17) 121. 123. 125. 26 Radt, IstMitt Beih. 3, 107. 224 n. 33a; 259–262 pl. 42, 3. 7; 43, 1–2. 27 Th. Wiegand – H. Knackfuß, Didyma I. Die Baubeschreibung (1941) F657 Z.658 pl. 220. 28 Similar decorations seen on the column bases from Zincirli (Wesenberg, Kapitelle und Basen 89 fig. 184–187), a capital from Cretan Archanes (Wesenberg, Kapitelle und Basen 45–47 fig. 87; W. B. Dinsmoor, The Architecture of Ancient Greece2 [1973] 59), Kyma blocks from Chios (J. Boardman, AntJ 39, 1959, 177 pl. 29 a; J. Boardman, Excavations in Chios 1952–1955, Greek Emporio [1967] 90 pl. 17) and trochili of a column base from Chios (J. Boardman, AntJ 39, 1959, 182 fig. 1 d pl. 27 c). 29 Radt, IstMitt Beih. 3, 39–63 fig. 1–6. 30 Radt, IstMitt Beih. 3, 45–55 fig. 4–5. 31 Radt, IstMitt Beih. 3, 237–255. 258–259 fig. 22–23 pl. 39. 40, 1–5; 41, 1–2; W. Radt, Die Leleger auf der Halbinsel von Halikarnassos, in: ICCA Ankara-‚zmir I 332–334 pl. 91–94; Betancourt, Aeolic Style 51–53. 137 fig. 16–17 pl. 29–31. 32 Radt, IstMitt Beih. 3, 51 fig. 3 b–c pl. 16, 1. 33 Radt, IstMitt Beih. 3, 52–53 fig. 3 d. 4 pl. 16, 2. 4. 34 Radt, IstMitt Beih. 3, 53–55 fig. 3 f. 4 pl. 16, 3. 35 Radt, IstMitt Beih. 3, 55–64 fig. 6; H. Hoffmann, Foreign Influence and Native Invention in Archaic Greek Al- tars, AJA 57, 1953, 189 ff. pl. 55 ff. 36 W. R. Paton – J. L. Myres, Karian Sites and Inscriptions, JHS 16, 1896, 199–200 fig. 2; Radt, IstMitt Beih. 3, 255– 259 fig. 24 pl. 41, 3–5; 42, 1–2; Betancourt, Aeolic Style 53–55. 137 fig. 19 b pl. 32–35; W. Radt in: ICCA Ankara- ‚zmir I 332 ff. pl. 95–96. 37 Wesenberg, Kapitelle und Basen 64–65. 68–69 fig. 127–128. 130–131; Betancourt, Aeolic Style 27. 47 pl. 4–6; p. 65; G. R. Wright, Ancient Building in Cyprus (1992) fig. 283; V. Karageorghis, The Relations between the Tomb Ar- chitecture of Anatolia and Cyprus in the Archaic Period, in: ICCA Ankara-‚zmir I 365–367 fig. 10. 294 Abdulkadir Baran decorations of the capitals (except the pilaster form) in the Türkkuyusu area is a temple as was suggested can be compared to Aeolic capitals of western by Pedersen on the basis of some architectural mem- Anatolia38. This different treatment of the capitals bers found in the area41. For this reason, until more can probably be defined as a Karian element. evidence is found, it may be suggested that the Ar- Another example that indicates that the Aeolic chaic crown block may belong to an earlier phase of style was used in Karia is a console block from the the suggested Türkkuyusu Temple. Bodrum Underwater Archaeology Museum39. It Two identical column necks found in Bodrum in- was clearly used as a door console with its round dicate another late Archaic building at Halikarnassos42. recess at the back side for the placement of the door The column necks are of the same material and size pole. Although its square form is different, the vo- and have the same ornaments. They clearly belong to lute arrangement and the console function can be the same structure. Similar examples help to date the compared to the Alazeytin examples. The console column necks around 500–480 B.C. There is no infor- block was dated to a period later than the Alazeytin mation about the structure that they might have be- examples but they are possibly contemporary. longed to, because there are no building remains or ar- chitectural members to connect them with. The first column neck was reused as a base for a portico col- Halikarnassos umn in a mosque north of the castle. This may be an indication of the original location of the building, but A crown block which was used as a threshold of there are no solid references for this possibility. a garden door in a house from Türkkuyusu area at A well known Ionic capital from Halikarnassos Bodrum is the earliest architectural member from was dated to the first quarter of the 5th century B.C.43. Halikarnassos. It can be dated around 530 B.C.40. Al- It has small dimensions and cannot be connected though there are no archaeological remains or finds with the other architectural members. In some ar- in the area, the crown block must have belonged to a chaeological publications, the capital has been sug- building in the vicinity. The earliest possible building gested to belong to a votive monument44 or to a

38 Neandria: J. T. Clarke, A Proto-Ionic Capital from the Site of Neandreia, AJA 2, 1886, 1 ff. fig. 1–2; Wesenberg, Kapitelle und Basen 74 ff. fig. 158–159; Betancourt, Aeolic Style 63 ff. pl. 41. – Larisa: Boehlau – Schefold (see above n. 14) 142–143 pl. 19 a; Wesenberg, Kapitelle und Basen 74 ff. fig. 152–154; Betancourt, Aeolic Style 73 ff. pl. 42. 46. – Klopedi: Wesenberg, Kapitelle und Basen 74 ff. fig. 166–167; Betancourt, Aeolic Style 82 ff. pl. 49. – Mytilene: Wesenberg, Kapitelle und Basen 74 ff. fig. 165; Betancourt, Aeolic Style 87 pl. 50. 39 W. Radt, Eine lelegische Türkonsole aus Halikarnassos, in: F. Blakolmer et al. (eds.), Fremde Zeiten. Festschrift für Jürgen Borchhardt (1996) 307 ff. fig. 1–7. 40 It can be compared with the crown blocks from Miletos North Stoa (W. Koenigs, Reste archaischer Architektur in Milet, in: Milet 1899–1980. Ergebnisse, Probleme und Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung, Kolloquium Frankfurt am Main 1980, IstMitt Beih. 31 [1986] 113 pl. 11, 1) and Monodendri Poseidon Altar (A. von Gerkan, Der Poseidonaltar bei Kap Monodendri, Milet I 4 [1915] 450 ff. pl. 5). 41 The architectural members are marble roof tiles, profiled mouldings, an Ionic capital fragment, column drums, a torus, a speira and a crepis block. See P. Pedersen, Two Ionic Buildings in Halicarnassus, in: 5. AST Ankara 1987 I (1988) 361–363 fig. 3–8; Pedersen, Renaissance 27 fig. 23; id. in: 16. AST Tarsus 1998 II (1999) 326–327 fig.1–6; Pedersen, Reflections 104 fig. 7; id. in: S. Isager – P. Pedersen (eds.), The Salmakis Inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassos, Halicarnassian Studies 4 (2004) 156 ff. fig. 19–23; Hellström, Architecture 40. 42 P. W. Lehmann – D. Spittle, The Temenos, Samothrace V (1982) 108 fig. 86; P. Pedersen, Zwei ornamentierte Säulenhälse aus Halikarnassos, JdI 98, 1983, 87–93 fig. 1–4; Pedersen, Renaissance 29–30 fig. 27–28; id. in: 16. AST Tarsus 1998 II (1999) 327. 43 H. Plommer in: Bean – Cook, Halikarnassus Peninsula 169–171 fig. 15 pl. 12 a–b; J. Boardman, AntJ 39, 1959, 206 n. 3; R. Martin, Chapiteaux ionique d’Halicarnasse, REA 61, 1959, 65–76 pl. 1–2; G. Gruben, Das archaische Didymaion, JdI 78, 1963, 174 n. 166; W. Alzinger, Von der Archaik zur Klassik. Zur Entwicklung des ionischen Kapitells in Kleinasien während des fünften Jahrhunderts v. Chr., ÖJh 50, 1972/73, 179–180 fig. 10; id., Athen und Ephesos im fünften Jahrhundert vor Christus, in: ICCA Ankara-‚zmir I 514; D. Theodorescu, Le chapiteau ionique grec (1980) no. 14; L. S. Meritt, Some Ionic Architectural Fragments from the Athenian Agora, in: Stud- ies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture and Topography, Presented to Homer A. Thompson, Hesperia Suppl. 20 (1982) 87; Kirchhoff, Volutenkapitell 53 Kat. 36. 44 Plommer op. cit. Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids 295 building45. One of the faces of the capital was left top and its find spot indicates that this akra is on the smooth, possibly for painting. It can be compared to Zephyrion Peninsula. It was first suggested by many other examples which were done in this way Amadeo Mauiri that the Sanctuary of Apollon was for economical reasons, because painted details are located in the Bodrum Castle area51. This suggestion much cheaper than carving. Martin suggested that was repeated by Poul Pedersen. He proposed that the capital was used as a pilaster capital in a building the exact location is the uppermost part of the cas- because of the undecorated back face and the broken tle where today the French Tower stands52. This middle part of this side46. That suggestion does not area is mostly covered by the castle walls and stone seem plausible, because a small piece of the projec- pavements but cuttings for setting-beds for ashlar ting echinus is preserved. The function of the capital blocks are still visible on two projecting bedrock cannot be determined at the moment, but it may in- pieces. Although these cuttings are not enough for dicate another late Archaic building at Halikarnassos. restoring a structure, they may support his sugges- tion. Pedersen also suggested that some architectural material from the area between the French and Ital- The Temple of Apollon at Halikarnassos ian towers might have come from the Apollon Sanc- tuary53. Some of these architectural pieces have been There are some inscriptions which indicate the collected by Pedersen and are now arranged in an ex- existence of a Sanctuary of Apollon in Halikar- hibition in one of the halls under the French Tower. nassos. The first one is from the middle of the 5th The architectural members (fig. 1) that might be- century B.C. and mentions that official decrees long to the Temple of Apollon are all made of white were kept in the Apollon Sanctuary47. The other marble in good quality. These are two speirai from one is a statue base from the same period and its in- column bases of Samian type, many unfluted col- scription informs us that Kasbollis, son of Pan- umn drums, a column neck, two Ionic capitals and yassis, erected a statue in the paved courtyard where a marble roof-tile. The first speira (fig. 1 e)54 was the Altar of Apollon stood48. There is also an in- probably found in the castle. Its lower diameter is scription from Athens, dated around 430 B.C., 87 cm and the height is 18.6 cm. The second speira which mentions that a copy of this honorific in- (fig. 1 f)55 is seen on the wall of the French tower scription will be placed in the Apollon Sanctuary at and is 15.9 cm high. Although their anathyrosis Halikarnassos49. The most important inscription technique and heights differ, their profiles, which found in the Bodrum castle is a border stone from were drawn by Pedersen56, are exactly identical. The the Apollon Sanctuary50. It says that going to speirai thus are assumed to come from the same “akra” is forbidden for unemployed people. This structure57. It is not easy to date the speirai because inscription shows that the sanctuary was on a hill- of the lack of comparative material. However, they

45 Martin op. cit. 66. 46 Ibid. 66. 68. 47 SIG1 no. 45; Bean – Cook, Halikarnassus Peninsula 97. 48 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff – G. Karo, Aus Halikarnassos, AM 45, 1920, 157 ff. pl. 4, 2; A. Maiuri, Viaggio di esploranzione in Caria, ASAtene 4/5, 1921/22, 461–462 n. 1; Bean – Cook, Halikarnassus Peninsula 93. 49 IG I3 no. 56; Hornblower, Mausolus 30 n. 193; R. Meiggs, The Athenian Empire2 (1999) 426 ff. 50 M. Çetin ©ahin, Five New Inscriptions from Halicarnassus, ZPE 20, 1976, 22–23 n. 5; P. Pedersen in: 25. KST Ankara 2003 I (2004) 475. 51 Maiuri op. cit. 461. 52 Pedersen, Renaissance 30; Pedersen, Reflections 104. 53 Pedersen, Renaissance 30; id. in: 16. AST Tarsus 1998 II (1999) 327; Pedersen, Reflections 104; id. in: 25. KST An- kara 2003 I (2004) 475; M. Berg Briese – P. Pedersen in: 26. KST Konya 2004 I (2005) 404–405. 54 Pedersen, Renaissance 29 fig. 26; id. in: 16. AST Tarsus 1998 II (1999) 328. 338 fig. 10; N. Hellner, Die Säulenbasen des zweiten Dipteros von Samos, Diss. TU München 2002, 177 (online: http://tumb1.biblio.tu-muenchen.de/ publ/diss/ar/2002/hellner.pdf). 55 Pedersen, Renaissance 29 fig. 25; Hellner op. cit. 177. 56 I am grateful to P. Pedersen for letting me use his unpublished profile drawings. 57 For different measurements of members from the same structures cf. A. Bammer, Zum Durchmesser jonischer Säulen, ÖJh 49, 1968–71, 89–92. 296 Abdulkadir Baran may be dated to the period after the beginning of drums. The anthemion decoration of the column the 5th century B.C. by comparing them with an ex- neck ends suddenly at the bottom edge. For this ample from Myus with five scotiae58 and an exam- reason it is probable that the lower part of the col- ple from Pythagorion in Samos with a similar pro- umn was executed on a different drum, but there file59. 28 column drums and fragments (fig. 1 d) on are no parallels for using different drums for the the walls of the Italian tower and in the garden just column necks. The anthemion decoration has also a below it have been identified. They are all of the unique feature. The palmettes differ in their leaves, same marble, have similar measurements and show while one palmette has sharp-pointed leaves the similar technical details60. Although many of them next one has round-ended leaves which incline out- are now in a difficult position to measure, the ones wards. Although there are no exact parallels, it may that could be measured had a height of 70–72 cm and be assumed to be an early example of the open and diameters of 59–70 cm. The most important common closed palmette combination, seen after the 4th cen- features of the drums are the square dowel holes and tury B.C. The column neck may be dated with the similar anathyrosis arrangement on their joining sur- help of parallel examples of anthemion details to the faces (fig. 1ªd). The square dowel hole is surrounded first half of the 5th century B.C.63. One of the two by a central area which is roughly worked with a Ionic capitals (fig. 1ªa) in Bodrum Castle was con- point and a claw-chisel and an anathyrosis with a 10 nected with the Temple of Apollon by Pedersen64. cm-wide smooth band. It should be mentioned that It was re-used on the Italian tower and carries Ital- some of these drums have unusual features such as ian armorial cuttings on its bottom side. It is not the starting point of the flutes, but it is probable that easy to examine the capital because of its position they are the results of later restorations. When we ex- but it has a concave face and plain bolster. The amine the proportions for the reconstruction of the echinus diameter and the joining surface fit well columns, and compare them with the 1 : 10 ratio ac- with the column neck. The second capital (fig. 1ªb)65 cepted for the Heraion at Samos61, it becomes possi- in the lower garden of the castle has a smaller diam- ble to restore the height of the Halikarnassian drums. eter but its general arrangement, especially the bol- When 70 cm is accepted as a lower diameter, then the ster form and echinus kymation, is identical to the total height of the column will be 7 m. Another ar- previous capital. All these similarities make it very chitectural member is a column neck (fig. 1 c), which probable that they were used in the same building66. was probably found in the castle62. Its lower diameter Both capitals can be dated between 500–480 B.C. and joining techniques fit well with the column with the help of parallel examples67 and propor-

58 Speira from Myus dated after 500 B.C.: L. T. Shoe, Profiles of Greek Mouldings (1936) pl. 71 no. 25; J. Boardman, AntJ 39, 1959, 259 n. 1; Wesenberg, Kapitelle und Basen 119 no. 8; Hellner op. cit. 184–186 fig. 20. 59 Speira from Pythagoreion, dated to the end of the 4th century B.C.: Hellner op. cit. 157. 186 pl. 153, 2. 60 Pedersen, Renaissance 30 fig. 30; id. in: 16. AST Tarsus 1998 II (1999) 327. 338 fig. 9. 61 G. Gruben, Griechische Un-Ordnungen, in: E.-L. Schwandner (ed.), Säule und Gebälk, DiskAB 6 (1996) 74 fig. 17–18; id., Griechische Tempel und Heiligtümer5 (2001) fig. 261–262. 62 Pedersen, Renaissance 29–30 fig. 29; id. in: 16. AST Tarsus 1998 II (1999) 327. 337 fig. 8. 63 The different execution of the palmettes may be compared with the ornament of terracotta sima fragments from Athens dated around 480 B.C. (M. Schede, Antikes Traufleisten-Ornament [1909] 19 pl. 1, 6; C. Vlassopoulou – E. Touloupa, Decorated Architectural Terracottas from the Athenian Acropolis. Catalogue of Exhibition, Hesperia 59, 1990 no. 41–43) and from Sicyon dated to the 5th century B.C. (C. Krystalli-Votsi, Arcitektonikçej terrakçotej apço thn arcaçia Sikuçwna, in: Proceedings of the international conference on Greek architectural terracottas of the Classical and Hellenistic periods, Athens December 12–15, 1991, Hesperia Suppl. 27 [1994] 124 pl. 36 a. e–d). The anthemion can be compared to the kyma blocks from Chios Emporio dated to 500–450 B.C. (J. Boardman, AntJ 39, 1959, 190–193 pl. 30 c. 32 c; J. Boardman, Excavations in Chios 1952–1955, Greek Emporio [1967] 93 fig. 50 pl. 17). 64 P. Pedersen in: 16. AST Tarsus 1998 II (1999) 328. 65 Ibid. 328. 339 fig. 11. 66 For different measurements of the members see above n. 57. 67 Cf. two Ionic capitals from Athens, dated to the end of the 6th century B.C.: H. Möbius, AM 52, 1927, 171–173 Beil. 19, 2–3; L. S. Meritt, Some Ionic Architectural Fragments from the Athenian Agora, in: Studies in Athenian Archi- tecture, Sculpture and Topography, Presented to Homer A. Thompson, Hesperia Suppl. 20 (1982) 82 ff. fig. 1–2 pl. 12; L. S. Meritt, Athenian Ionic Capitals from the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 65, 1996, 136–137 fig. 28 pl. 44. Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids 297

Ionic capital 1 Column neck

a) Ionic capital 1

b) Ionic capital 2

c) Column neck

Column drums 1–28

d) Column drum example

e) Speira 1

f) Speira 2 Speira 1

g) Reconstruction of a column

Fig. 1 Halikarnassos. Architectural members attributed to the Apollon Temple 298 Abdulkadir Baran tions68. The first speira, column drums, column neck ments of crown blocks (fig. 2ªa) with an Ionic and the first capital exactly match each other and al- kymation which were uncovered during the excava- low us to make a reconstruction drawing (fig. 1ªg). tions around the agora71. These fragments are of lo- The sizes and technical details of the members indi- cal hard grey limestone and can be dated to 550–540 cate the existence of a building. It is probably a tem- B.C. by comparison with examples of the Ionic ple, datable after the late Archaic period. With the kymation72. Other architectural members from the help of inscriptions mentioning the Temple of same time are two fragments of astragal blocks, one Apollon, it seems likely to identify the building with of them found near the theatre73. Kyma and astragal the Temple of Apollon at the Zephyrion Peninsula, fragments are similar to each other in date and ma- as suggested by Maiuri and Pedersen69. terial, but their different find spots make it difficult to connect them. The six crown blocks (fig. 2ªc)74 which were uncovered during the excavations at Bargylia Iasos, constitute a group with their similar ky- mation forms and dimensions. Only one of the six Bargylia in the Gulf of Güllük is another blocks is known to be found near the Bal@kpazar@. unexcavated site believed to have no finds earlier Four of the blocks are made from the local hard than the Hellenistic period70. However, during the grey limestone and two of them are from white recent surveys an Archaic crown block was found on marble. The similarities point at the same date and the acropolis and will be published by Italians soon. most probably the same building. The crown This crown block may be dated around 530 B.C. It blocks may be dated between 540 and 520 B.C. by has the Ionic kymation form and is an important evi- parallel examples of the Ionic kymation75. Another dence for an earlier occupation at Bargylia. architectural member which was found together with the first crown block around the Bal@kpazar@ consists of three fragments (fig. 2ªc)76. Their size and Iasos the astragal mouldings indicate that they belong to the same block. The axial correspondence between There are a few architectural elements in Iasos the kyma blocks and the astragals help us date them (fig. 2) which can be dated to the period before the to the same time, i.e. between 540 and 520 B.C. The Hekatomnids. The earliest examples are two frag- block is part of an entablature but there is not

68 The proportion of front to bolster is 1.73 : 1 and comparable to the examples from the beginning of the 5th century B.C., see D. Theodorescu, Le chapiteau ionique grec (1980) tableau 1; Kirchhoff, Volutenkapitell Tabelle 1. 69 A. Maiuri, ASAtene 4/5, 1921/22, 462; Pedersen, Renaissance 30; id. in: 25. KST Ankara 2003 I (2004) 475–476. – Zu den hekatomnidischen und früheren Baugliedern und Inschriften, die mit dem Apollon-Heiligtum auf der Zephyrion-Halbinsel in Verbindung gebracht werden, s. auch den Beitrag von P. Pedersen in diesem Band zu Abb. 24–26 [Anm. Red.]. 70 Bean – Cook, Halikarnassus Peninsula 145 n. 237; G. E. Bean – J. M. Cook, BSA 52, 1957, 96–97; G. E. Bean, Tur- key Beyond the Meander (1971) 82–83; Hornblower, Mausolus 100. 71 Berti – Masturzo, Aree di culto 223–224 fig. 139. 72 The frieze crown of the Cnidian Treasury at Delphi (W. B. Dinsmoor, Studies of the Delphian Treasuries, BCH 37, 1913, 68–70 fig. 11; L. T. Shoe, Profiles of Greek Mouldings [1936] II.5 pl. A, 3–4; W. B. Dinsmoor, The Ar- chitecture of Ancient Greece2 [1973] 138), the crown blocks of the Ephesian Artemis Temple (W. Wilberg, Der Alte Tempel, FiE I [1906] fig. 206; D. G. Hogart, British Museum Excavations at Ephesos. The Archaic Artemi- sia [1908] 270 ff. fig. 82 Atlas pl. 9–10) and of the Apollon Sanctuary at Didyma (Th. Wiegand – H. Knackfuß, Didyma I. Die Baubeschreibung [1941] 148 pl. 224–226; W. Hahland, Didyma im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr., JdI 79, 1964, 168 fig. 25.; K. Tuchelt, Branchidai–Didyma. Geschichte, Ausgrabung und Wiederentdeckung eines antiken Heiligtums, 1765 bis 1990, AW Sondernummer [1991] 21 fig. 33–34) have comparable kymation forms. 73 Berti – Masturzo, Aree di culto 224. 74 Berti – Masturzo, Aree di culto 222–225 fig. 137–138. 75 Cf. kymation blocks from the Rhoikos Temple at Samos, 540 B.C. (E. Buschor, AM 72, 1957, 6 Beil. 4. 5, 1–2) and the Poseidon Altar at Monodendri, 530 B.C. (A. von Gerkan, Der Poseidonaltar bei Kap Monodendri, Milet I 4 [1915] 450 ff. pl. 5) and echinus capitals from the second dipteros of the Heraion at Samos, 520 B.C. (O. Reuther, Der Heratempel von Samos. Der Bau seit der Zeit des Polykrates [1957] 49 ff. pl. 16 ff. Z 41 ff.; Buschor op. cit. 16 ff. Beil. 11, 2; 16, 1). 76 Berti – Masturzo, Aree di culto 224–225 fig. 136. Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids 299

a) Kyma group I

b) Anta capital

c) Kyma group 2

d) Frieze block

Fig. 2 Iasos. Architectural members 300 Abdulkadir Baran enough evidence to identify its exact function. The it was used after the 6th century B.C., the remains of well-known frieze block (fig. 2ªd)77, which was the sanctuary, which consists of a temple or treasury found re-used in a late building wall in the agora, is in antis and a stone paved courtyard with stelai for dated around 530 B.C. Its general arrangement and votives, were dated to the 4th century B.C. The other the clamp holes on the upper side show that the sanctuary belongs to Artemis Astias and was located frieze block functioned as a peristyle or wall frieze, near the agora84. The ceramic finds and statue frag- but there is no further evidence to determine its ments indicate the existence of the sanctuary starting function. There is no information about the build- from the Archaic period. However, the actual re- ing with which it might be connected, but Laviosa mains of the small temple in antis were dated to the suggested it may have belonged to the Temple of 4th century B.C. and the surrounding Doric portico Artemis Astias because it was found in the near to the Hellenistic period. The only known evidence proximity78. On the other hand, there are no ar- for an early Sanctuary of Artemis Astias is the pas- chaeological remains of an Archaic temple yet. The sage in Pliny85 where the cult statue of Artemis is said latest of the architectural members from Iasos is an to have been made by Boupalos and Athenis, who anta capital fragment (fig. 2 b), which was found in lived in the 6th century B.C. Building remains in the the Sanctuary of Zeus Megistos79. The white marble southern part of Iasos were identified as a Demeter fragment belonged to the upper part of an anta capi- and Kore Sanctuary because of the votive finds in the tal which has convex volutes and overlapping leaf sanctuary86. The finds show that the sanctuary was decoration on the bolster. The capital can be dated used between the late 6th century B.C. and Roman to the end of the 6th century B.C. by comparison Imperial period. The excavations revealed that the with examples from Samos and Didyma, but Archaic phase of the sanctuary was heavily destroyed though it may have been used in an altar80 or a tem- by later structures. ple building81, its function could not be determined. When all the evidence is taken into considera- Three sanctuaries which might be from the Ar- tion, it is noticeable that there are three possible Ar- chaic period are known from Iasos. The first one is chaic sanctuaries at Iasos. Also, the architectural the Sanctuary of Zeus Megistos. It was identified by materials can be placed into three different groups, a border stone in the north-eastern part of Iasos82. dating 550–540, 540–520, and 500 B.C. One may The epigraphic evidence shows that the sanctuary suggest that these three different groups of mem- was used during the 5th down to the 1st century B.C. bers might belong to the three possible sanctuaries, and that Hera was worshipped together with Zeus83. but except for the anta capital, there is no solid evi- Although the votive finds in the sanctuary show that dence for this suggestion yet.

77 C. Laviosa, Un rilievo arcaico di Iasos e il problema del fregio nei templi ionici, ASAtene 50/51, 1972/73, 397– 418 fig. 1–8; id. in: ICCA Ankara-‚zmir II 1093–1099 pl. 348, 7–8; F. Felten, Griechische tektonische Friese archaischer und klassischer Zeit (1984) 21 pl. 4, 1; E. Akurgal, Griechische und römische Kunst in der Türkei (1987) 62 pl. 84 a; Berti – Masturzo, Aree di culto 217. 222; Baldoni et al., ‚asos 84–85. 78 C. Laviosa, ASAtene 50/51, 1972/73, 409. 79 Id. in: ICCA Ankara-‚zmir II 1097 pl. 349, 9; C. Laviosa, Il santuario di Zeus Megistos e il suo kouros arcaico, in: Studi su Iasos di Caria. Venticinque anni di scavi della Missione Archeologica Italiana, BdA Suppl. 31/32 (1987) 51; Berti – Masturzo, Aree di culto 225–227 fig. 140–143. 80 Cf. E. Buschor, AM 72, 1957, 6 fig. 3; W. Hahland, JdI 79, 1964, 170 fig. 26. 81 W. Voigtlander, Quellhaus und Naiskos im Didymaion nach den Perserkriegen, IstMitt 22, 1972, 96–105 fig. 1–4. 82 C. Laviosa in: The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (1976) 402 s. v. Iasos; id. in: ICCA Ankara-‚zmir II 1096–1097 pl. 347, 5; id. in: BdA Suppl. 31/32 (1987) 47–48 fig. 1; M. Landolfi, La stipe votiva del santuario di Zeus, in: ibid. 59; Berti – Masturzo, Aree di culto 217; Baldoni et al., ‚asos 97–99. 83 C. Laviosa in: ICCA Ankara-‚zmir II 1097 pl. 349; id. in: BdA Suppl. 31/32 (1987) 50–51 fig. 3–10; Baldoni et al., ‚asos 98–99. 84 C. Laviosa, ASAtene 50/51, 1972/73, 409; id. in: ICCA Ankara-‚zmir II 1095 pl. 347, 6; id. in: BdA Suppl. 31/32 (1987) 47; Berti – Masturzo, Aree di culto 217; Pedersen, Reflections 114 ff.; Baldoni et al., ‚asos 90–93. 85 Plin. nat. 36, 4; Berti – Masturzo, Aree di culto 227; Baldoni et al., ‚asos 90. 86 W. Johannowsky, Appunti sul santuario di Demeter e Kore, BdA Suppl. 31/32 (1987) 55–58 fig. 1 ff.; Berti – Masturzo, Aree di culto 218–220; Baldoni et al., ‚asos 115–117. Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids 301

Inner Karia tury B.C. It is very likely that the capital and the terracotta revetments belonged to the Archaic phase The Sanctuary of Artemis and Apollon at of the Temple of Zeus at Euromos, but there is at Amyzon was constructed during the Hekatomnid the moment not enough evidence to support this period with a terrace including the temple and the suggestion. propylon which has a dedication by Idrieus on the architrave87. However, a couple of terracotta figu- rines and a frieze fragment which were found in the The Temple of Zeus at Labraunda sanctuary were dated to the late 6th century and indi- cate the existence of an earlier sanctuary88. Although Concerning the Temple of Zeus at Labraunda the there are no identified building remains, the terra- technical details which point to two different build- cotta frieze revetment which has a possible satyr ing phases were determined after comprehensive in- head, may belong to the Archaic phase of the temple. vestigations of the remains92. The most distinguished The building uncovered at the Hac@bayramlar details are the chipped-out clamp holes, the joining Höyük near Stratonikeia was excavated for a very of the opisthodomos anta, the different clamp types, short period and still can not be identified89. It has the different building stones and the horizontal incli- probably two floors and ceramic finds point to an nation of the cella walls. All evidence indicates an occupation after the Geometric period until the end earlier phase of the temple, which consisted only of of the 6th century B.C. The terracotta sima and frieze the cella. It was suggested to have a distyle in antis revetments which were found in the building and plan without opisthodomos (fig. 3ªa). The exterior around the höyük indicate a well designed building. measurements were determined as 12.07 mª¥ª8.88 m Although there is very little evidence, a palace-like between the euthynteria corners and 11.26 mª¥ª8.06 building seems very probable. m between the cella-wall corners. The inner meas- One more Aeolic capital from Karia was found urements are believed to be identical with those of in Euromos90. Although it was described as belong- the 4th century temple93. ing to an altar and was compared to the ornamenta- There is no architectural material in situ which tion of the Monodendri Altar, it is not possible to can be attributed certainly to the earlier phase of the connect the capital with an altar. The best parallels temple, but there are many architectural members with its pilaster form and the shape of the volutes which were found around the temple and in the are the above mentioned Alazeytin examples. There Oikoi. These members (fig. 3ªb–g) are a column are no building remains at Euromos which may be drum with 36 flutes, a column-neck fragment, an connected with the capital, but terracotta sima and Ionic capital, eight fragments of kyma blocks and frieze revetments found around the Temple of eight dentil blocks. The column drum (fig. 3ªg)94 Zeus91 indicate a building activity in the late 6th cen- with 36 flutes is a bottom drum and has a lower di-

87 L. Robert, Le sanctuaire d’Artemis à Amyzon, CRAI 1953, 403–415; J. & L. Robert, Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie I. Exploration, histoire, monnaies et inscriptions (1983) 66 ff.; Hornblower, Mausolus 278. 314; R. T. Marchese, The Lower Maeander Flood Plain. A Regional Settlement Study (1986) 105–107; P. Pedersen, The Maussolleion- Terrace at Halicarnassus and 4th c. B.C. Planning in South-Western Asia Minor, in: Praktikça tou CII Dieqnoçuj Sunedrçiou Klasikçhj Arcaiologçiaj Athens 1983 IV (1988) 156; Hellström, Architecture 40. 43; Pedersen, Maussolleion III 100–101. – Zur Architektur des Heiligtums in Amyzon s. auch den Beitrag von P. Hellström in diesem Band (mit Zuweisung des Idrieus-Architravs Abb. 10 an den Tempel) [Anm. Red.]. 88 L. Robert, CRAI 1953, 410; J. M. Cook, Greek Archaeology in Western Asia Minor, ARepLond 6, 1959/60, 51; Å. Åkerström, Die Architektonischen Terrakotten Kleinasiens (1966) 117 pl. 59, 2; Hornblower, Mausolus 278; J. & L. Robert op. cit. 63–63 fig. 35; Marchese op. cit. 107; id., The Historical Archaeology of Northern Caria. A Study in Cultural Adaptations (1989) 39. 89 Ü. Serdaro%lu, 1971–1972 Hac@bayramlar Kaz@s@, Anadolu 16, 1972, 77–84 pl. 10–12. 90 Ü. Serdaro%lu, Bautätigkeit in Anatolien unter der persischen Herrschaft, in: Palast und Hütte. Beiträge zum Bauen und Wohnen im Altertum von Archäologen, Vor- und Frühgeschichtlern, Symposium Berlin 1979 (1982) 352 fig. 5. 91 Ibid. 351 fig. 3–4; M. J. Mellink, AJA 76, 1982, 182. 92 Hellström – Thieme, Labraunda I 3, 18. 40–41 fig. 4 pl. 8, 3; 28–31. 38–39. 93 Hellström – Thieme, Labraunda I 3, 41 pl. 38. 94 A. Westholm, Labraunda, in: ICCA Ankara-‚zmir I 544; Hellström – Thieme, Labraunda I 3, 41 D.53 fig. 12 pl. 50 j. 302 Abdulkadir Baran ameter of 70 cm. Comparative examples for the rections. The maximum width of the blocks is 1.36 m number of flutes point to a date in the late 6th century and the maximum depth is 28.5 cm. These dimen- B.C.95. The only architectural member which can be sions show that the blocks functioned as crown connected with the drum is a column-neck fragment blocks by being clamped to each other and to the (fig. 3ªf)96. It is very small and carries a small part of back supporting blocks. The parallel examples of the the possible anthemion decoration and three flutes Ionic kymation point to a date around 500 and 480 which are 5 cm wide. The width of the flute differs B.C.100. The last architectural members from temple from all other structures in Labraunda and the Ar- terrace are the dentils (fig. 3ªb–c)101. There are eight chaic column drum with its 5.5 cm wide flutes is the dentils which are single blocks comprising only one only comparable member. For this reason it is very dentil and one interstice. Although they have similar probable that the drum and the neck fragment be- heights, their widths differ and they can be collected longed to each other. Thus the column neck can also in two different groups. The general arrangement be dated to the late Archaic period. A small Ionic and similar heights show that they were part of the capital (fig. 3ªe)97, which was found on the temple ter- same structure, but most probably decorated differ- race, was dated around 500 B.C. This ruined capital ent sides. There are very few examples of dentils has a diameter of 43 cm and does not have any dowel from the Archaic period102 but it can be noticed that holes on the upper side. Because of this, Thieme sug- most of the examples have a 1 : 1 ratio between the gested that the capital belonged to a votive column98, width of the interstice and the dentil face. The use of though this is not a safe indication for determining single dentil units comprising only one dentil and the function. The small diameter of the capital with one interstice can be compared with an example from only 20 echinus eggs prevents us from determining Delos from the Archaic period103 and with the dentil the function and the building which it might have of the Halikarnassos Maussolleion from the 4th cen- belonged to. Furthermore, there are eight fragments tury B.C.104. On the other hand, the axial correspond- of crown blocks with Ionic kymation99. The homo- ence between the dentil course and kyma blocks is a geneity of the kymation indicates a usage in the same strong evidence for the dating105. By this way the structure and five different blocks (fig. 3ªd) can be dentils can be dated to the same time, about 500–480 identified with the help of preserved corners and di- B.C., and the 1ª:ª1 ratio also supports this date.

95 The columns of the Apollon Temple at Didyma (G. Gruben, Griechische Tempel und Heiligtümer5 [2001] 400), a votive column from Aigina (P. Amandry, FdD II. Topographie et architecture. Le sanctuaire d’Apollon 6. La colonne des Naxiens et le portique des Athéniens [1953] 17) and poros columns of the first phase of the second dipteros at the Samian Heraion (Reuther [above n. 75] 47 Z. 32; Gruben op. cit. 361. 426) have 36 flutes. 96 P. Pedersen, JdI 98, 1983, 101. 114. 97 Thieme, Archaic Labraynda 47. 49 fig. 1–2 pl. 9, 1–2. 98 Ibid. 49. 99 Hellström – Thieme, Labraunda I 3, 41–42 fig. 13–14; Thieme, Archaic Labraynda 47 ff. fig. 3–4. 7 pl. 9, 3–5. 100 Cf. the crown blocks of the Burg Temple at Paros (G. Gruben – W. Koenigs, Der ‘Hekatompedos’ von Naxos, AA 1968, 716 fig. 23 b; G. Gruben, Der Burgtempel A von Paros, Naxos-Paros, Vierter vorläufiger Bericht, AA 1982, 215 ff. fig. 14.) and of the Hekatompedos Temple at Naxos, after 524 B.C. (Gruben – Koenigs op. cit. fig. 23 a.), a crown block from Didyma, late 6th century B.C. (K. Tuchelt, IstMitt 34, 1984, 193 ff. pl. 54, 2), lintel and crown blocks of the Daskyleion andron, 500–480 B.C. (S. Ateºlier, Observations on an Early Classical Building of the Satrapal Period at Daskyleion, in: Akhameneid Anatolia, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Anatolia in the Achaemenid Period, Band@rma 15–18 August 1997, 150 ff. fig. 13–19; T. Bak@r, Daskyleion (Tayaiy Drayahya) Hellespontine Phrygia Bölgesi Akhaemenid Satrapl@%@, Anadolu 25, 2003, 8 fig. 4. 7). 101 Hellström – Thieme, Labraunda I 3, 41–42 fig. 15; Thieme, Archaic Labraynda 49–50 fig. 5–6 pl. 9, 6–7. 102 Larisa dentil: Boehlau – Schefold (see above n. 14) 128 pl. 24 c; 42, 1; B. Wesenberg, in: E.-L. Schwandner (ed.), Säule und Gebalk, DiskAB 6 (1996) 13 fig. 13. – Delos dentils: R. Vallois, L’architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos jusqu’à l’éviction des Déliens 166 av. J.C. II 1. Grammaire historique de l’architecture délienne (1966) 266–267; M. C. Hellmann – P. Fraisse, Délos XXXII. Le monument aux hexagones et le portique des Naxiens (1979) 50 fig. 46; P. Fraisse – C. Llinas, Délos XXXVI. Documents d’architecture hellénique et hellénistique (1995) fig. 481–482; Wesenberg op. cit. 13 fig. 14. – Dentils from the Daskyleion Andron: Ateºlier op. cit. 149 ff. fig. 12–13. 16. 21; Bak@r op. cit. 9 fig. 7. 103 Vallois op. cit. 266–267; Hellmann – Fraisse op. cit. 50; Fraisse – Llinas op. cit. fig. 482. 104 Jeppesen (see above n. 4) 126–131 fig. 13, 10–11. 105 Thieme, Archaic Labraynda 50 fig. 7. Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids 303

a) Plan of the in antis phase of the Temple of Zeus Labraundos

b) Dentil group 1 c) Dentil group 2

d) Kyma blocks

e) Ionic capital f) Column neck fragment

g) Column drum with 36 flutes

Fig. 3 Labraunda. Temple in antis and architectural members 304 Abdulkadir Baran

When all the evidence is taken into considera- in the Milas museum108, is made of local Sodra mar- tion, it seems very probable to date the earlier phase ble. The upper part was carved to function as a of the Temple of Zeus to the late Archaic period. mortar in a later period. The column neck has an Herodotos mentions “... the precinct of Zeus of Ar- anthemion decoration on double S-spirals above 24 mies at Labraunda, a large and a holy grove of flutes. The similarity with the Samian Heraion ex- plane-trees ...”106, but the original word ‘hieron’ can amples109 allows us to date it to the beginning of the be translated as a temple or a precinct. It seems very 5th century B.C. An Ionic capital (fig. 4ªa) also kept plausible to translate it as a temple in the grove of in the museum garden is another important example the plane-trees. Strabo’s (14, 2, 23) mentioning of an with its once partly painted details which are a Les- Archaic naos and a xoanon also supports the earlier bian kymation on the abacus faces and an Ionic existence of the temple. On the other hand there is kymation on the echinus faces. The corner pal- not very strong evidence for attributing the archi- mettes also were probably painted on the capital tectural members to the temple, but the similarity of and trails of paint on abacus and echinus are still the members, except the capital, in dimensions and visible. There is not an exact parallel for this convex material make it very probable. Especially the axial capital but the proportions and the details help us correspondence of kyma and dentil blocks may date it around the second quarter of the 5th century support the theory that they belonged to the Ar- B.C.110. The similarities with Athenian examples and chaic Temple of Zeus Labraundos. especially the painted details may indicate an Athe- nian influence, but only this single element is not sufficient for determining this kind of influence. Mylasa Another architectural member from the museum is the fragment of an anta capital (fig. 4ªb) which has Although there are no building remains in situ at fine workmanship. Although there is no informa- Mylasa, some architectural members (fig. 4) exhib- tion about the find spot, it may be assumed to be ited in the Milas museum might be dated to the pe- found inside Milas by the mortar remains still vis- riod before the Hekatomnids. It is also known that ible on the capital. The front has three superim- many architectural terracotta fragments have been posed registers, double Ionic kymatia and a Lesbian found in Milas, but only two of them (fig. 4ªd) were kymation, but their axes differ slightly. The remains published107. These revetments carry astragals on of floral ornamentation on the side of the capital top, meanders at bottom and walking partridge fig- point that it has carried an acanthus ornament as ures in the middle. The stylistic features indicate a seen on parallel examples111, and its three volutes date around 550–525 B.C. There is not any further give the profile of the registers on the front. The information about the building that they might best parallels for the general arrangement and the have belonged to. A column neck (fig. 4ªc) which kymation forms are the anta capitals from Andron was picked up near the A%a mosque in Milas, now B at Labraunda112 and the Temple of Athena at

106 Hdt. 5, 119 (Translation by A. D. Godley 1920). 107 Åkerström (see above n. 88) 115–117 fig. 35, 1–3 pl. 59, 1; id., Ionia and Anatolia – Ionia and the West. The Fig- ured Architectural Terracotta Frieze: Its Penetration and Transformation in the East and in the West in the Ar- chaic Period, in: ICCA Ankara-‚zmir I 321 pl. 86, 2. 108 Pedersen, Reflections 112 n. 26; Baran, BeHin 26 fig. 26; F. Rumscheid, Der Tempel des Augustus und der Roma in Mylasa, JdI 119, 2004, 159–160 fig. 24. 109 E. Buschor, AM 72, 1957, 16 Beil. 11, 2; Reuther (see above n. 75) 51 ff. fig. 7; G. Gruben, Griechische Tempel und Heiligtümer5 (2001) 361 fig. 271. 110 The proportion of width to depth is 1.53 : 1 and can be compared to Delos and Attica examples from the second quarter of the 5th century B.C.: D. Theodorescu, Le chapiteau ionique grec (1980) Tableau 1; Kirchhoff, Volutenkapitell Tabelle 1. – The use of painted details may be compared with Athenian examples dated to the sec- ond quarter or middle of the 5th century B.C.: L. S. Meritt, Hesperia 65, 1996, 125 ff. 111 Hellström, Architecture 41–42 fig. 12–13. 112 A. D. Brockmann, Die griechische Ante. Eine typologische Untersuchung (1968) 80; Hellström, Architecture 41– 42 fig. 12–13; P. Hellström, Sculpture from Labraynda, in: I. Jenkins – G. B. Waywell (eds.), Sculptors and Sculp- ture of Caria and the Dodecanese, Coll. London 1994 (1997) 109 fig. 197–198. Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids 305

b) Anta capital

a) Ionic capital

d) Terracotta sima revetments

e) Altar volutes c) Column neck

Fig. 4 Mylasa. Architectural members 306 Abdulkadir Baran

Priene113 and an example in the Bodrum Underwa- was a mere village in ancient times, but that it was ter Archaeology Museum, which is as yet unpub- the native land and royal residence of the Karians of lished114. However, double Ionic kymatia, small the house of Hekatomnos”118. axial differences and the rosettes of the side volutes The first suggestion on the location of the old are signs for an earlier date and although there is not Mylasa was made by Pococke119. Then Chandler an exact parallel, it might be dated to the end of the suggested that the Temple of Zeus Karios was at 5th century B.C. There is no information about the Beçin and the stairway might be belonged to a later possible building but it seems probable to connect phase of the temple120. Both of these suggestions the anta capital with the previously published three were renewed by Cook with his theory that old altar volutes (fig. 4ªe) which were dated to the end of Mylasa was at Beçin and that the capital was first the 5th century B.C.115. moved down to the plain and then on to Halikarnassos by the Hekatomnid rulers121. He also found a logical explanation for Strabo’s text, be- The Temple of Zeus Karios at Mylasa cause Mylasa was not mentioned in the original text (Beçin) and translators accepted the subject as Mylasa, but it is probable that the Temple of Zeus Karios was Herodotos is the first historian to give informa- located somewhere else than at Mylasa. The sugges- tion about the Temple of Zeus Karios at Mylasa: “... tion that the Zeus Karios Temple could be found on and they point to an ancient shrine of Karian Zeus the Hisarbaº@ terrace in Mylasa was first made by at Mylasa, to which Mysians and Lydians, as breth- Robert and then accepted by Laumonier and ren of the Karians (for Lydus and Mysus, they say, Akarca122. However, no archaeological remains or were brothers of Kar), are admitted, but not those finds have ever been found there which might be who spoke the same language as the Karians but dated before the 4th century B.C. and because of were of another people”116. Herodotos (5, 66) also this, there is no reason for locating the temple on tells us that Kleisthenes and Isagoras from Athens the terrace123. sacrificed to Zeus Karios117. Another ancient writer Beçin, which has a medieval castle built by the who gives information about the Zeus Karios Tem- emirs of the Menteºe Beyli%i in the 13th century, lies ple is Strabo: “Now these temples belong peculiarly on a rocky hilltop about 5 km south of Mylasa. Not to the city; but there is a third temple, that of the only the large amount of the ancient marble blocks Karian Zeus, which is a common possession of all which are visible in the walls of the castle, but also Karians, and in which, as brothers, both Lydians the mortared walls which point to many marble and Mysians have a share. It is related that Mylasa blocks having been transformed into lime, are indi-

113 Th. Wiegand – H. Schrader, Priene. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1895–1898 (1904) 95 fig. 64–65; Brockmann op. cit. 83–86 Kat. F.20; F. Rumscheid, Untersuchungen zur kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus (1994) II Kat. 293.14 pl. 151–152. 114 This anta capital which was found around Bodrum Türkkuyusu is believed to be from Hekatomnid period due to the characteristic lewis hole, and will be published soon by Pedersen. 115 W. Koenigs, IstMitt 30, 1980, 83 ff. pl. 38, 4. 116 Hdt. 1, 171 (Translation by A. D. Godley 1920). 117 For the possibility that the sacrificied god DIIKARIOS (Zeus Karios) is DIIIKARIOS (Zeus Ikarios), see: Hornblower, Mausolus 20 n. 119. – For Zeus Karios cult at the Attic demos Ikaria, see: C. Kerényi, Dionysos: Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life (1976) 152–153. 118 Strab. 14, 2, 23 (Translation by H. L. Jones 1924). 119 R. Pococke, A Description of the East and Some Other Countries II (1745) 62. 120 R. Chandler, Travels in Asia Minor I (1776) 190. 121 J. M. Cook, ARepLondon 6, 1959/60, 51; id., Some Sites of the Milesian Territory, BSA 56, 1961, 100–101. 122 L. Robert, CRAI 1953, 412–413; A. Laumonier, Les cultes indigènes en Carie (1958) 43; A. & T. Akarca, Milas Co%rafyas@, Tarihi ve Arkeolojisi (1954) 85–86; Akarca, BeHin 28. 123 Cf. also Y. Boysal, Die korinthischen Kapitelle der hellenistischen Zeit Anatoliens, Anadolu 2, 1957, 130 pl. 17; W. Blümel, Die Inschriften von Mylasa I. Inschriften der Stadt, IK 34 (1987) 152 no. 402; W. Voigtlander, Der ‘Zeus Karios’-Bau in Milas, in: Bautechnik der Antike, DiskAB 5 (1991) 246 ff.; Pedersen, Maussolleion III 105 fig. 107–108; Rumscheid (see above n. 113) I 32–33; II Kat. 173 pl. 109, 1–2; id., Milas 1995, in: 14. AST Ankara 1996 I (1997) 130–132; id., Vom Wachsen antiker Säulenwälder, JdI 114, 1999, 54–55. Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids 307 cations of the intensive occupation of Beçin. Ar- ranged in two parallel vertical lines, 4 m from the chaeological excavations on the earlier remains have outer edges of the stairway (fig. 5ªa. d). Preserved in not been conducted on the site but many uncovered situ, there are four blocks on the west side and six tombs which were dated between the 8th and the 4th blocks on the east side. The widths of the blocks centuries B.C. as well as surface finds124 lead to the vary but the vertical axis of the 15 cm wide half- suggestion that the hilltop settlement was aban- round profiles on the upper faces fits each other doned after the 4th century B.C.125 On the other nicely. There are 20 cm wide flat bands on both hand, the existence of Byzantine and Ottoman reli- sides of these half-round profiles and carvings simi- gious buildings at Beçin might be a sign of the con- lar to an Ionic capital are visible on the better pre- tinued importance of the site and it supports the served blocks. This arrangement has no known par- theory presented here that the Zeus Karios Temple allels and for this reason this unique feature could was located at Beçin. not be dated. Although some blocks have been re- The most important structure at Beçin are the re- placed and moved around, there is evidence that mains of a stairway (fig. 5ªa) inside the castle. The most of the steps are preserved in situ128. There are stairway with its six steps was published by Akarca several visible clamp holes which show that the as belonging to a temple podium126. Our investiga- blocks were not moved and that the profiled blocks tions show however that it is not easy to determine have a constant axial correspondence. the function of the stairs. The cuttings for setting- There are two small subterranean rooms (fig. 5ªc–d) beds for blocks in the bedrock lead us to suggest that which can be partly seen from the inner corners of five more steps were at least in the middle part and the medieval cistern just behind the stairway. There they were bordered by profiled blocks at both sides. are also some ancient blocks and possible walls inside These steps can be determined just in the middle the cistern but they are impossible to identify with- front of the stairway, but it is not easy to follow be- out excavation. The subterranean rooms lie between cause the front part was destroyed when the entrance the cistern wall and the stairway and they are not passage way for the castle was built. With the help of placed on the same line because one of them is lo- the setting-beds it can be suggested that there were cated 50 cm north of the other. The rooms have the eleven steps in total and it can be calculated that the same plans and arrangements and similar dimensions. total width would have been 16 m including the de- The western room is 2.63 mª¥ª4.26 m, the eastern stroyed parts on both sides (fig. 5ªd). Although the room 2.80 mª¥ª4.20 m. The roofs of the rooms are widths of the steps vary, their heights and depths are formed by 10 cm thick marble slabs which are car- 40 cm. While the steps were made with local grayish ried by three stone beams. The side walls are built Sodra marble which has blue veins in it, some blocks with single blocks that have beveled edges. The made of brown stones (fig. 5ªa) seem also to be part blocks were tied together by simple clamps in lead of the original plan. There is no archaeological paral- fillings which are now visible because of the activity lel for this but it is possible to assume that the color of illegal excavators. The initial idea about the func- change was used for decorative purposes. It can be tion of these rooms was that they were used in the compared with the practice of using different foundation structure because they are located just colored stones for making contrast on the faces of behind the stairway and there are ancient remains buildings which is seen after the Archaic period127. around them. Akarca also suggested that the rooms The most interesting parts of the stairway are the might have been built for leveling the irregularities series of profiled blocks (fig. 5ªa–b) which were ar- of the land129. Another possible function is that they

124 Akarca, BeHin 25 ff.; C. Özgünel, Karia Geometrik Serami%i/Carian Geometric Pottery (1979) 18 ff. 125 G. E. Bean, Turkey Beyond the Meander (1971) 51; J. M. Cook, ARepLond 6, 1959/60, 51; id., BSA 56, 1961, 99–100. 126 Akarca, BeHin 24–28 pl. 16–21. 31. 127 For colored stones in architecture see L. T. Shoe, Dark Stone in Greek Architecture, in: Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear, Hesperia Suppl. 8 (1949) 341 ff. 128 The reason for well preservation of the stairway might be functioning as seating places for people who lived in the castle, and this function might have helped it to stay undestroyed. The incisions on the steps from the Byzan- tine period onwards also support the view that it was always visible. 129 Akarca, BeHin 26. 308 Abdulkadir Baran

a) The remains of the stairway, front and side views

b) Profiled block example c) Subterranean room

d) Stairway and rooms, plan and section

Fig. 5 Beçin. Stairway and subterranean rooms Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids 309 were meant to be separate tomb chambers. There cially the echinus kymation forms indicate a date are many examples of tombs with similar arrange- around 500–480 B.C.136. The third capital fragment ments and ceiling constructions at Beçin130, Milas131 (fig. 6ªe) differs from the previous fragments with and Alabanda132. Although we have no information convex volutes and the bolster bands endings. On the about the lower parts of the subterranean rooms at other hand, it can be dated to the same period by the Beçin, the fact that they are not aligned with each similar echinus kymation forms, the double bolster other and the difficult position for carrying the bands and by the similar dimensions. The three capi- building above them are evidence supporting a tal fragments might also be attributed to the same tomb function. However, we may conclude that building. Although there are many examples of capi- both functions are possible until future excavations tals with concave volutes on one side and convex on give us better evidence. the other side137, there is no example which shows As has been shown, though both stairway and that differently executed capitals were used in the rooms have technical details which may be dated af- same building. But the above mentioned similarities ter the 6th century B.C., they are impossible to iden- of the Beçin capitals might be the example for this. tify with the present evidence. On the other hand, The other unique architectural member at Beçin may there are some Archaic architectural and sculptural be identified as an architrave block (fig. 6ªf)138. There fragments which indicate an Archaic sanctuary at are two re-used fragments in the castle walls and they Beçin. have similar dimensions and three fasciae on their The earliest ones of the architectural members sides. The first fragment has a roughly worked end- from Beçin are two crown blocks (fig. 6ªa–b)133. They ing which indicates that it was inserted into a wall. can be dated around 550–530 B.C. by comparison The second one has a lion head which indicate the with parallel examples of the kymation moulding134. front face of the block and an anathyrosis on the side Although their general arrangements are similar, showing that it is a corner block. It can be suggested their heights and the shape of the darts in the ovolo that the fragments belong together and that it was an profile are different. The first crown block has a dart architrave block in the corner of a building with a moulding which is uniquely shaped like a leaf (fig. porch in antis. The only parallels to these are two 6ªa). Three Ionic capital fragments have been found at small structures at Gerga which have antae with lion Beçin (fig. 6ªc–e)135. It is possible that the first (fig. 6ªc) heads139. The drop-shaped manes of the lion are the and second fragments (fig. 6ªd) belong to different only dating evidence for the architrave block. Paral- faces of the same capital, but there is no evidence to lel examples indicate a date around the end of the 6th support this. The parallels of the details and espe- century B.C.140. There are also four frieze blocks

130 Akarca, BeHin 34–66 fig. 21. 32. 131 A. Akarca, Mylasa’da Hellenistik Bir Mezar, Belleten 16/63, 1952, 368. 371–372 pl. 75–76. 78–81. 132 Ibid. 372–373 pl. 80. 82. 133 Baran, BeHin 25 fig. 16–17. 134 It has similar kyma form with the crown blocks from Iasos dated around 540 B.C. but also can be compared with the kymatia of round altars from Vathy/Samos, 540–530 B.C. (E. Buschor, AM 72, 1957, 11 Beil. 8, 2), and Miletos (W. Koenigs, IstMitt 46, 1996, 143–146 pl. 28, 1–5). 135 Baran, BeHin 26 fig. 23–25. 136 It can be compared with the echinus kymatia of the Ionic capitals from Phanai/Chios (J. Boardman, AntJ 39, 1959, 180 fig. 4 pl. 27 a–b; W. Alzinger, ÖJh 50, 1972/73, 187 fig. 18; Kirchhoff, Volutenkapitell 82 Kat. 50) and Ephesos (A. Bammer, AA 1972, 440 ff. fig. 1–29; Alzinger, op. cit. 175 ff. fig. 6 b–g; Kirchhoff, Volutenkapitell 92–94 Kat. 58–61). 137 Cf. the examples from the Athenaion at Kavalla-Neapolis (G. Bakalakis, AEphem 1936, 9 ff. fig. 10 ff.) and from Eretria/Euboia (B. Kallipolitis – K. Petrakos, ADelt 18, 1963, 121–127 Exed. 7 pl. 162 b; Kirchhoff, Voluten- kapitell Kat. 39). 138 Baran, BeHin 26 fig. 26–27. 139 G. E. Bean, Gerga in Caria, AnSt 19, 1969, 180–181 pl. 22 b; id., Turkey Beyond the Meander (1971) 205–206 pl. 60; W. Held, Karya’da Gergakome 1994 Yüzey Araºt@rmas@, in: 13. AST Ankara 1995 II (1996) 63 fig. 8. – I am grateful to W. Held for reminding me of these examples. 140 Cf. V. M. Strocka, Neue archaische Löwen in Anatolien, AA 1977, 500 ff. 310 Abdulkadir Baran

a) Kyma blocks 1 and 2

b) Ionic capitals 1 to 3

c) Architrave

d) Frieze blocks

Fig. 6 Beçin. Architectural members Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids 311

(fig. 6ªg)141 at Beçin placed in positions where they Conclusions are difficult to examine. The frieze blocks have an undecorated face and an Ionic kymation in the up- It can be said that the archaeological evidence per section. The dimensions of the blocks fit each consisting of architectural members and building re- other and especially the similar kymation forms mains in situ points to a Karian architectural devel- show that they were used together in the same build- opment that is consistent with the development of ing. The clamp holes on the upper sides indicate that architecture in other regions. However, there are they were placed next to each other and clamped to- some unique features which indicate that a local ar- gether. When the blocks are brought together it may chitectural progress existed in Karia. For example, the be suggested that they functioned as a wall crown or Aeolic capitals have pilaster forms like eastern prec- a normal frieze. The fact that these blocks and the ar- edents, but they bear also Greek characteristics in their chitrave block have similar height might indicate that decorations. One can assume that Karia might have the frieze function is more probable. The blocks can played a role in the development of Aeolic architec- be dated to the end of the 6th century B.C. by paral- ture. Some unique features can also be found on archi- lel examples of the Ionic kymation142. tectural members, such as the painted details on a con- The most important evidence for a sanctuary at vex capital from Mylasa (fig. 4ªa), the curls on a kyma Beçin is an altar fragment found by Akarca143. It was block from Kaplanda%146, a leaf-like dart moulding on at first dated to the 4th century by Akarca144, but has a Beçin crown block (fig. 6ªa), a decoration of overlap- later been dated by Koenigs to the end of the 5th ping leaves on an Iasos anta capital (fig. 2ªb), the century B.C145. The fragment belonged to a mono- anthemion decoration without the lotus flower on lithic rectangular altar of some kind. column necks from Halikarnassos147, the column When the evidence from Beçin is taken into con- neck (fig. 1ªc.ªg) from the Halikarnassian Apollon sideration, it can be concluded that a definite iden- Temple which have two kinds of palmettes with dif- tification of the remains as that of the Temple to ferent leaves and the possibility of two drums usage, Zeus Karios is not possible. First of all, the position and the corner architrave block with lion head (fig. of the remains on the edge of the hilltop is not a 6ªf). Some unique features like different colored preferable location for a temple podium, and also blocks and the profiled blocks can be noticed also on the unique features such as the profiled blocks and the stairway remains at Beçin (fig. 5ªa–b.ªd). the colored stones are not common for a temple The architectural material examined in this article building. For these reasons, it seems more probable leads us to conclude that a dense building activity ex- to connect the stairway with a kind of entrance isted in Karia before the Hekatomnid period. It building. However, in contrast to the remains in should be noted that this activity may be compared situ, the architectural materials, the lion statue and in quantity to Greek regions, because there is not especially the altar fragment are good evidence for much knowledge about the Archaic architecture the existence of a sanctuary at Beçin. The best sug- even in Ionian monumental buildings. It can also be gestion for the identification of this Archaic sanctu- expressed that the unique architectural features of ary is the Sanctuary of Zeus Karios. For the possi- Karia might very well support that Karia was not just ble site of the temple it may be suggested that we a follower but also one of the leaders for the devel- look for it in the middle of the hill. It is today cov- opment of Archaic Aeolic and Ionic architecture. ered by late houses. It should also be pointed out This may explain the local background for the inten- that two crown blocks (fig. 6ªa–b) dated to earlier sive building activity of the 4th century B.C. which times than the other architectural members might includes unique features like mixed orders, grid plans belong to a possible altar in the sanctuary. and proportional systems in the elevations148.

141 Baran, BeHin 25 ff. fig. 18–22. 142 The best parallels are the Labraunda crown blocks (fig. 3 d); see above n. 99. 143 Akarca, BeHin 29 fig. 20. 144 Akarca, BeHin 29. 145 W. Koenigs, IstMitt 30, 1980, 82–83 pl. 38, 1–3. 146 Radt, IstMitt Beih. 3, pl. 42, 3. 7. 147 Pedersen, Renaissance fig. 27–28. 148 Hellström, Architecture 46–50. 312 Abdulkadir Baran

Finally, one very important point needs to be ogy. It should also be mentioned that our knowl- stressed. The architectural materials in this article edge of the archaeological material including sculp- have primarily been dated through comparisons tures, ceramics, coins, inscriptions and historical with parallel examples, because most of the archi- evidence from Classical and especially Archaic tectural fragments were found without any archaeo- Karia must be re-evaluated in the near future. By logical context. Although the unique features are this way, the cultural achievements and the connec- difficult to date, the comparisons of the details lead tions with the other regions can be more under- us to reliable dates in the light of previously dated standable. examples. However, all the parallel examples in In summary then, it can be said that when the western Anatolia seem to be dated to the better- architects of the Hekatomnids initiated the inten- known period before the Ionian Revolt, because no sive building program in the 4th century B.C., they dating criteria for the 5th century have been estab- did not have to look for know-how in other re- lished. In this investigation some architectural gions. Together with the above-mentioned unique members were dated to the 5th century B.C. by sty- features, the use of dentil units which are single listic comparisons. It seems very probable that more blocks comprising only one dentil and one inter- architectural elements should be dated to the 5th stice (fig. 3ªb–c) as was the case in the Archaic Tem- century. Unfortunately, because of the few identi- ple of Zeus in Labraunda and in the Maussolleion at fied archaeological sites from this period and espe- Halikarnassos151 may be accepted as indicators of a cially the lack of information about the building continued architectural tradition of Karia. phases of well known temples149, a developed chro- nology for architectural members of the 5th century still does not exist. But with the knowledge that Abdulkadir Baran many west Anatolian cities remained healthy and Mu%la Üniversitesi often prospered during the Persian domination in Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi the 5th century B.C.150, it may be expected that more Arkeoloji Bölümü evidence will appear through future excavation and TR – 48000 Kötekli–Mu%la research to help us establish a more secure chronol- [email protected]

149 It is known that the Ephesian Artemis Temple took 120 years to build (Plin. nat. 36, 14), but there is not any evi- dence to establish the chronology. Similarly, there is still no information about the 5th century Didymaion except a bothros and some spring houses (Th. Wiegand – H. Knackfuß, Didyma I. Die Baubeschreibung [1941] 129 ff.; W. Voigtländer, Quellhaus und Naiskos im Didymaion nach den Perserkriegen, IstMitt 22, 1972, 105–112 fig. 6– 10). The Samian Hera Temple has also a long term building period and four different building phases were sug- gested by Hellner in his dissertation on the column bases (Hellner [see above n. 54] 127–128). 150 J. M. Balcer, The East Greeks under Persian Rule: A Reassessment, in: H. Sancisi-Weerdenbrug – A. Kuhrt (eds.), Asia Minor and Egypt: Old Cultures in a New Empire, Workshop Groningen 1988, Achaemenid History 6 (1991) 57 ff. 151 Jeppesen’s explanation on the usage of dentil units, “craftsmen must have been extremely cheap” (Jeppesen [see above n. 4] 131), should be revised with the possibility of an architectural tradition. Karian Architecture Before the Hekatomnids 313

Additional abbreviations:

Akarca, BeHin A. Akarca, Beçin, Belleten 35/137, 1971, 1–37 pl. 1–34 Baldoni et al., ‚asos D. Baldoni – C. Franco – P. Belli – F. Berti, Karia’da Bir Liman Kenti ‚asos (2004) Baran, BeHin A. Baran, BeHin, Zeus Karios (?) Tap@na%@, in: 1.-2. Ulusal Arkeolojik Araºt@rmalar Sempozyumu, Anadolu Suppl. 1 (2004) 19–38 Bean – Cook, G. E. Bean – J. M. Cook, The Halikarnassus Peninsula, BSA 50, 1955, 85–171 Halikarnassus Peninsula Berti – Masturzo, F. Berti – N. Masturzo, Aree di culto ed elementi architettonici di periodo arcaico a Iasos Aree di culto (Caria), in: F. Krinzinger (ed.), Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer. Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr., Symposion Wien 1999 (2000) 217–229 Betancourt, Aeolic Style P. Betancourt, The Aeolic Style in Architecture: A Survey of Its Development in Palestine, the Halikarnassos Peninsula and Greece, 1000–500 B.C. (1977) Hornblower, Mausolus S. Hornblower, Mausolus (1982) Hellström, Architecture P. Hellström, Architecture. Charakteristic Building-Types and Particularities of Style and Technique. Possible Implications for Hellenistic Architecture, in: Isager – Pedersen (eds.), Ionian Renaissance 36–57 Hellström – Thieme, P. Hellström – Th. Thieme, Labraunda I 3. The Temple of Zeus (1982) Labraunda I 3 ICCA Ankara-‚zmir E. Akurgal (ed.), The Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archae- ology Ankara-‚zmir 23–30/IX/1973 I–III (1978) Isager – Pedersen (eds.), J. Isager – P. Pedersen (eds.), Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance, Proceedings Ionian Renaissance Symposium Odense 1991, Halicarnassian Studies 1 (1994) Kirchhoff, Volutenkapitell W. Kirchhoff, Die Entwicklung des ionischen Volutenkapitells im 6. und 5. Jh. und seine Entstehung (1988) Pedersen, Maussolleion III P. Pedersen, The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos III 1. 2. The Maussolleion Terrace and Accessory Structures (1991) Pedersen, Reflections P. Pedersen, Reflections on the Ionian Renaissance in Greek Architecture and Its Histori- cal Background, Hephaistos 19/20, 2001/02, 97–130 Pedersen, Renaissance P. Pedersen, The Ionian Renaissance and Some Aspects of Its Origin within the Field of Architecture and Planning, in: Isager – Pedersen (eds.), Ionian Renaissance 11–35 Radt, IstMitt Beih. 3, W. Radt, Siedlungen und Bauten auf der Halbinsel von Halikarnassos unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archaischen Epoche, IstMitt Beih. 3 (1970) Thieme, Archaic Labraynda Th. Thieme, The Architectural Remains of Archaic Labraynda, in: J. des Courtils – J.-Ch. Moretti (eds.), Les grands ateliers d’architecture dans le monde égéen du VIe siècle av. J.- C., Coll. Istanbul 1991, Varia Anatolica 3 (1993) 47–55 Taf. 9 Wesenberg, Kapitelle B. Wesenberg, Kapitelle und Basen. Beobachtungen zur Entstehung der griechischen und Basen Säulenform (1971)

Sources of illustrations: Fig. 1 e–f: after originals by P. Pedersen. – Fig. 2 a: from Berti – Masturzo, Aree di culto fig. 139. – Fig. 2 b: after Berti – Masturzo, Aree di culto fig. 140, rearranged. – Fig. 3 a: from Hellström – Thieme, Labraunda I 3, pl. 38. – Fig. 3 d: the first two from Thieme, Archaic Labraynda fig. 3–4. – Fig. 3 e: from Thieme, Archaic Labraynda fig. 2. – Fig. 4 d: from Å. Åkerström, Die architektonischen Terrakotten Kleinasiens (1966) fig. 35, 1–2. – Fig. 4 e: from W. Koenigs, IstMitt 30, 1980, pl. 38, 4. – The other figures are my own. 314 Abdulkadir Baran