Baran, Karian Archit
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 <http://dnb.d-nb.de> 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.