ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS

BOREAS. Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations

32

Axel W. Persson after lunch in Labraunda, probably in 1950.

Labraunda and Karia

Proceedings of the International Symposium Commemorating Sixty Years of Swedish Archaeological Work in Labraunda

The Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities Stockholm, November 20-21, 2008

Edited by

Lars Karlsson and Susanne Carlsson

ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS

BOREAS. Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 32

Series editor: Gullög Nordquist Editors: Lars Karlsson and Susanne Carlsson

Address: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Box 626, SE-751 26, Uppsala, Sweden

The English text was revised by Laura Wrang

Abstract Lars Karlsson and Susanne Carlsson (eds.), Labraunda and Karia. Proceedings of the International Symposium Commemorating Sixty Years of Swedish Archaeological Work in Labraunda. The Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities Stockholm, November 20-21, 2008. Boreas. Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 32, Uppsala 2011. 475 pp., with ills., ISBN 978-91-554-7997-8

This volume contains the papers from a conference held in Stockholm in 2008 to commemorate sixty years of the Swedish Labraunda archaeological project. The book is divided in two main sections; the first contains thirteen papers discussing the sanctuary of Labraunda, while the nine papers in the second part deal with the surrounding landscape of Karia.

Keywords: Labraunda, Karia, Ancient , Sacred Way, sanctuary, Greek inscriptions, fortress, architecture, Stadion, Hellenistic, Byzantine, Hekatomnid, archaeological excavations, Roman

Jacket illustration: View of Labraunda in Late Antiquity by Jesper Blid 2010.

Layout: Susanne Carlsson

© Respective authors

ISSN 0346-6442 ISBN 978-91-554-7997-8

Printed in Sweden by Edita Västra Aros, Västerås 2011 Distributor: Uppsala University Library, Box 510, SE-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden www.uu.se; [email protected]

Contents

PART I – INTRODUCTION ...... 7 Labraunda. The excavations and the symposium by Lars Karlsson ...... 9 Labraunda. The rediscovery by Pontus Hellström ...... 19 PART II – PAPERS ON LABRAUNDA...... 49 The Sacred Way and the spring houses of Labraunda sanctuary by Abdulkadir Baran...... 51 Recent research on the churches of Labraunda by Jesper Blid ...... 99 I. Labraunda 62: text and context by Jesper Carlsen ...... 109 Achaemenids in Labraunda. A case of imperial presence in a rural sanctuary in Karia by Anne Marie Carstens...... 121 Who’s who in Labraunda par Pierre Debord...... 133 Feasting at Labraunda and the chronology of the Andrones by Pontus Hellström...... 149 Hellenistic monumental tombs: the Π-shaped tomb from Labraunda and Karian parallels by Olivier Henry ...... 159 The story of a tomb at Labraunda by Olivier Henry & Anne Ingvarsson-Sundström ...... 177 The epigraphic tradition at Labraunda seen in the light of Labraunda inscription no. 134: a recent addition to the Olympichos file by Signe Isager...... 199 The forts and fortifications of Labraunda by Lars Karlsson...... 217 The coins from the excavations at Labraunda by Harald Nilsson ...... 253 The stadion at Labraunda by Paavo Roos ...... 257 Modules or measurements at Labraunda by Thomas Thieme...... 267 PART III – PAPERS ON KARIA...... 277 The Archaic architectural terracottas from Euromos and some cult signs by Suat Ateşlier ...... 279 L’ di alla luce delle più recenti scoperte di Fede Berti...... 291 Day and night at Stratonikeia by Riet van Bremen...... 307

The Chrysaoreis of by Vincent Gabrielsen ...... 331 How unusual were and the Hekatomnids? by Simon Hornblower...... 355 The Ionian Renaissance and Alexandria seen from the perspective of a Karian-Ionian lewis hole by Poul Pedersen ...... 365 Il territorio di Iasos: nuove ricerche (2006-2008) di Raffaella Pierobon Benoit ...... 389 Halikarnassos during the Imperial period and Late Antiquity by Birte Poulsen...... 425 Im Grab mit Aphrodite? Kleinskulpturen aus Mylasa und Stratonikeia von Frank Rumscheid ...... 445 PART IV – APPENDICES...... 461 Appendix 1: Labraunda revisited by Kristian Jeppesen ...... 463 Appendix 2: Labraunda bibliography 1948-2010 by Pontus Hellström 471

Fig. 1. Labraunda. View from a window in Andron A (photograph by P. Pedersen).

The Ionian Renaissance and Alexandria seen from the perspective of a Karian-Ionian lewis hole by Poul Pedersen

Abstract In the buildings of the Hekatomnids in Labraunda it is possible to study a number of the stylistic and technical characteristics of the architecture of the new, East Greek “Ionian Renaissance” of the Late Classical period. Very important among these features is a new kind of lifting device – a special Karian/Ionian lewis, which was apparently invented by the architects of the Ionian Renaissance and used exclusively by them and their workmen whether they worked in western Asia Minor or on the adjoining south-east Aegean islands or on the Greek mainland. It seems to have been widely used by these craftsmen from the first half of the 4th century to sometime in the early 2nd century BC. As this is evidenced by a large number of well-known buildings, it seems safe to see the Karian/Ionian lewis as a hallmark of the architecture of the “Ionian Renaissance”. But inevitably the question arises whether this Ionian Renaissance was restricted to architecture. Or are there indications that the architecture defined by the use of the Karian/Ionian lewis merely formed part of a general, cultural renaissance in the East Greek area in this period, comprising art, literature, philosophy and science? Was there in fact a much larger revival of the Archaic Ionian “enlightenment”? In this article it is suggested that there was, and that this broad, cultural Ionian Renaissance together with Classical Athens constituted the main source for the architects, artists and intellectuals of Ptolemaic Alexandria.

Labraunda must be one of the most fascinating ancient sanctuaries in the Mediterranean area. It is situated in a romantic and wild mountain landscape with beautiful views down to the valley below and towards the plain of Mylasa. There is an abundance of clear, cool water issuing from the rocks, and fresh mountain air with wonderful scents of pine and wild flowers. The setting is well chosen for a sanctuary with solemn ceremonies and merry feasts with plenty of food and wine (Fig. 1). The buildings at Labraunda are designed to serve the functions of the sanctuary, not least to provide the architectural frame for the great religious banquets. At the same time the buildings and monuments at Labraunda are fascinating evidence of a very special period in ancient civilization: the time of the local aristocrat Hekatomnos and his five children, who all in turn came to act as Persian . During a period of about 50 years until Alexander the Great turned up in 334 BC, the Hekatomnid family played a very significant role in the establishment of

Poul Pedersen a new flourishing culture, not only in their own satrapy, Karia, but in all of western Asia Minor. Labraunda appears almost as a laboratory for the new architecture which started in this period (Figs. 2-3). There are experiments combining Ionic architecture with elements from the Doric order, perhaps illustrating the theoretical discussions of Ionic versus Doric mentioned by Vitruvius in his descriptions of Pytheos and Hermogenes. And in the Temple of a new Ionic capital was applied, created by the Hekatomnid architects and destined to have a very long history down into the . The ancient East Greek tradition, however, is very much present as well. The column bases, for instance, have modernized proportions but are basically developed from the archaic tradition of the Ephesian architecture. And in the andrones the architects made experiments with updated versions of the anthemion-decorated capitals from the Polykrates’ Temple at Samos from the Late Archaic and Early Classical periods (Fig. 4). The architects who shaped this new Late Classical architecture almost certainly must have visited the famous Ionian sanctuaries of the Archaic period – in the same way as architects and artists like Brunelleschi and Donatello in the Italian Renaissance travelled to Rome and studied the monuments of Antiquity in order to create a new “authentic ancient” style to accompany the new enlightened society, which the intellectuals of that time hoped to establish.

Fig. 2. Temple of Zeus, Andron A and Oikoi Building from the northeast (photograph by L. Karlsson).

It is a widespread habit to call this new architecture “the Ionic or the Ionian Renaissance”. Some scholars are not happy with this term and claim that this period is not really a true “Renaissance” but rather a “revival”. The designation, however, has come to be widely used, and it

366 Boreas 32 The Ionian Renaissance and Alexandria seen from the perspective of a Karian-Ionian lewis hole will be difficult to replace it with something that might be slightly more precise.1

Fig. 4. Labraunda. Andron B. Ionic capital with anthemion-decorated pulvinus (from Hellström 2007, 90).

Fig. 3. Labraunda. Andron B. Reconstruction of the front with mixed Doric and Ionic order (by Thieme and Löfvenberg, from Hellström 2007, 86).

In Labraunda one meets the new refinements in techniques and design which came to be used very widely in the architecture of the Ionian Renaissance. In the towers of the fortifications at Labraunda as well as in the corners of some of the terraces one finds the special corner bond with two headers placed by side in every second course (Figs. 5-6), which became universal in Hekatomnid fortifications and remained a hallmark for fortifications of western Asia Minor from this time on down into the high Hellenistic period.2

1 The term was used by Ferdinand Noack a century ago in Die Baukunst des Altertums, 1910, ch. 4: ‘Die Ionische Renaissance’, but has not been much acknowledged as a well- defined phase in Greek art and architecture for very many years. Among those using the term in more recent times are Bammer 1972; 34f.; Muss & Bammer 2001, 161 and I myself (Pedersen 1994 and 2001/2002, 109). I find the expression quite necessary, because it somehow characterizes an overlooked main époque in Greek art and architecture. But a very strict definition of this époque has perhaps not been established yet. Wolf Koenigs has mentioned in personal communication that he would prefer an expression like “Ionian Revival”, because there never was a total break between the Archaic and the Late Classical art and culture in Asia Minor. This may be correct but it seems to me that the economic depression and stagnation in East Greek culture in the 5th century BC is so significant that it is adequate to talk of a “Renaissance” in the early 4th century. 2 Some examples from Labraunda in Hellström 2007, 141 and 152. The fortress Burgaz Kale at Labraunda which has this double bonder system has now been dated archaeologically to the time of Maussollos or Idrieus by recent Swedish excavations

Boreas 32 367 Poul Pedersen

In the Oikoi Building at Labraunda one finds the most beautiful examples of ornamental dovetail clamps placed decoratively and visibly on the steps and stylobate of many fine marble buildings of the Ionian Renaissance (Fig. 7). This is common in Hekatomnid buildings and remained popular at least to about 300 BC.3 It is encountered occasionally also in later Hellenistic times, as witnessed by examples in , and , either as a continuing tradition or as a retrospective reference to the glorious Late Classical past.

Fig. 6. Sketch showing principle in double-corner bond (drawing by P. Pedersen). Fig. 5. Labraunda terrace showing double-corner bond (photograph by P. Pedersen).

In the following, however, I will concentrate on a third characteristic feature in the architecture of the Ionian Renaissance. It is a very peculiar cutting, which is found centrally placed on the upper surface of some capitals and antae blocks, for instance in the Propylaia at Labraunda and the Temple of Zeus (Fig. 8). This cutting was made for lifting the architectural blocks into position, and such a lifting system is normally called a “Wolf” in German, a “louve” in French, and a “lewis” in English. In my paper I will occupy myself mainly with this technical device, how it works, its history, and its potentials as a “hallmark” of the

(Karlsson 2008, 272, fig. 5; Karlsson 2009, 108). In addition to the examples from Labraunda, the system can be observed in the fortifications of Halikarnassos, Myndos, , Latmos, Kaunos, Ephesos, Herakleia and Samos, as well as in the earliest walls at Pergamon and in some freestanding watch-towers and small fortresses in Karia. 3 The visible, ornamental, dovetail clamps are also found in the krepis of the Temple of Zeus at Labraunda, in the krepis of the Maussolleion and in a stoa at Halikarnassos, in the so-called Temple of Artemis Astias in Iasos, in the Temple of Artemis at , in the Doric Stoa at Sinuri, in the Harbour Stoa at Miletos, and in the west stoa at the agora of . They are also seen in the steps of the Temple of Athena in Pergamon, and in the Propylaia to the sanctuary of Hekate at Lagina. Krepis blocks with visible dovetail clamps are also present in the Doric ante-temple on the Temple Terrace at Kaunos. The temple is dated to the 1st century BC, but the marble krepis-blocks are believed to be reused from an earlier building (Öğün & Işık 2003, 87-90). For the Labraunda examples, see Labraunda I:3, 18f. and note 8.

368 Boreas 32 The Ionian Renaissance and Alexandria seen from the perspective of a Karian-Ionian lewis hole architects and craftsmen of the Ionian Renaissance. This will help us to follow the diffusion of the architecture of the Ionian Renaissance and to evaluate to what extent it became the architecture of the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic periods in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Fig. 7. Visible dovetail clamps in stylobate of the Oikoi Building in Labraunda (photograph by P. Pedersen).

Fig. 8. The Temple of Zeus at Labraunda. Upper surface of Ionic capital showing cuttings for dowel and Karian-Ionian lewis (photograph by P. Pedersen).

The lewis of the Ionian Renaissance, which I – not very elegantly – will call the Karian-Ionian lewis, consists of two parts: a narrow, rectangular cutting, which has on one side a wedge-shaped cutting (Fig. 9a). A wedge-shaped piece of iron could be lowered down into the rectangular part of the cutting. It was then pushed to one side and a piece of wood presumably would be inserted into the rectangular cutting to prevent the iron anchor from sliding back again. The architectural block could then be lifted into position by a rope or chain attached to the iron anchor.

Boreas 32 369 Poul Pedersen

When the block had been placed in position the iron anchor could easily be removed again and used for the next block.4 To avoid having small chips break off along the bottom edge of the block, the wedge-shaped part of the lewis hole had to be placed precisely in the centre of gravity, and this is normally the case even on blocks with an asymmetrical weight distribution such as some anta capitals.5 It seems that this particular lewis was invented by the architects of the Ionian Renaissance during the time of the Hekatomnids. I do not know of any examples earlier than this, and neither do I know of any examples from other parts of the Greek world except in a very few cases, which at a closer look turn out to be monuments dedicated by donors from western Asia Minor (in Olympia for instance).

Fig. 9a-c. Lewis systems: a. Karian- Ionian type. b. Hellenistic type. c. Hellenistic-Roman type (drawing by P. Pedersen).

Like the Ionian Renaissance in general, its lewis system remained in use long after the time of the Hekatomnids. A late example is from the

4 This as well as the Hellenistic-Roman lewis is described in detail in the Mechanics 3.6- 8 of Heron from Alexandria. I am grateful to Dr. Bakı Demirtaş, who led my attention to this literary source some years ago. A translation from the Arabic text can be found in Drachmann 1963b with a discussion of the passage. In his Danish book from 1963 Drachmann has a realistic reconstruction of the Karian-Ionian lewis, but it is not clear whether he has seen it in real life or if his reconstruction is based only on Heron’s description (Drachmann 1963a, fig. 32). 5 For instance an anta capital from the Türkkuyusu district in , now in the Museum of Bodrum. Probably late 4th century BC.

370 Boreas 32 The Ionian Renaissance and Alexandria seen from the perspective of a Karian-Ionian lewis hole

Artemision of Magnesia, as observed by Bakı Demirtaş who has made a comprehensive study of the technique of this temple.6 At some point, probably in the mid-Hellenistic period, the Karian lewis went out of use and a new and simpler lewis took over and became universally used in Hellenistic-Roman architecture (Figs. 9b-c). This type is frequently illustrated in handbooks, though I don’t remember having seen our Karian lewis mentioned in any of the standard handbooks on Greek architectural technology.7 It has been mentioned and discussed in relation to specific buildings by Kristian Jeppesen, Thomas Thieme and Pontus Hellström, and by Anton Bammer.8 I shall try to make a very rough and brief history of the Karian lewis of the Ionian Renaissance.9 If it was invented by the Hekatomnid architects, how could this have happened? Another look at the wedge-shaped piece of iron shows that it is in fact related to a dovetail clamp (Fig. 10). A dovetail clamp is in similar way placed into a wedge-shaped cutting – although horizontally – to fasten one architectural block to another.

Fig. 10. Different types of dovetail clamps (drawing by P. Pedersen based on Müller-Wiener 1988, Abb. 40).

Could dovetail clamps also be used to fasten architectural blocks vertically? Generally not, as dowels would normally be used for vertical connections. But there is at least one example where this has been done, as shown by Jeppesen in vol. 5 of the Maussolleion reports.10 The ornamental profile crowning the Amazon frieze of the Maussolleion was worked separately and inserted into a rebate in the block following above (Figs. 11a-c). The protruding front of the ornamental insert may have

6 Demirtaş 2007. 7 Usually only the Hellenistic and Roman types of lewis are described, e.g. by Martin (Martin 1965, 216-219) and more recently by Hellmann (Hellmann 2002, 88). According to those scholars the Hellenistic-Roman type began already in the 6th century, but the whole subject is badly in need of a new, critical study (see below n. 9). 8 The Mausolleion at Halikarnassos 5, 24, fig. 3; Labraunda I:1, 9 and fig. 5; Labraunda I:3, 20 and note 12; Bammer 1972, 40. 9 A detailed study of lewises in Greek and Roman architecture is being carried out by Dr. William Aylward. See Aylward 2009. 10 Mausolleion at Halikarnassos 5, fig. 3.2 and 183f., figs. 19.1 and 19.2.

Boreas 32 371 Poul Pedersen

been too heavy, and to prevent it from toppling over it was fastened to the surface of the Amazon frieze blocks with very small, vertical dovetail clamps on the back. In order to fasten the lower half of the dovetail clamp in the stone below, it was necessary to cut a rectangular hole into which the dovetail clamp could be lowered down before being pushed sideways into the wedge-shaped cutting. According to Jeppesen’s observations this is how the ovolo was fastened to the Amazon frieze. Whether the craftsmen realized it or not, they had invented the Karian lewis on precisely this occasion. But of course it may have existed already at this point.

Fig. 11. Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. System for the fastening of the inserted ovolo-profile on top of the Amazon frieze (based on Jeppesen in Maussolleion at Halikarnassos 5, fig. 3.2).

It seems that in some early examples – which possibly include the Türkkuyusu Temple in Halikarnassos – the rectangular part of the cutting is very narrow, and this would seem to be the most appropriate way to secure a safe lifting process (Figs. 12-13).11 In some other examples, especially from Ephesos and , the rectangular cutting is very large and much larger than needed for placing the metal-triangle in the triangular cutting (Figs. 14-15). This seems to make the lifting very unsafe, and Anton Bammer has therefore suggested that the rectangular part of the cutting had been enlarged after the block had been placed in position in order to contain a square wooden dowel or embolion.12 This explanation is not quite satisfying because the dowel would then be placed eccentrically. It also does not explain the

11 Heron of Alexandria expressly states that the two parts of the lewis must be of the same width (Mechanics 3.6). 12 Bammer 1974, 40. It is somewhat unclear to me whether Bammer at this time regarded these cuttings mainly as dowel holes, as some of these capitals and column drums apparently also have the normal Hellenistic-Roman lewis (Bammer 1974, 22). Thieme & Hellström state that these lewis holes did not serve as dowel holes in Labraunda, as there are no corresponding cuttings on the underside of the architectural members to be placed above (Labraunda I:3, n. 12).

372 Boreas 32 The Ionian Renaissance and Alexandria seen from the perspective of a Karian-Ionian lewis hole

occurrence of the same kind of lewis cuttings on the surface of the architraves and the geison blocks attributed to the Artemision Altar at Ephesos, which hardly had large, square dowels.13 The purpose of these large, square cuttings with a very shallow triangular cutting in just one side, which are so typical in Ephesos, remains a mystery to me.

Fig. 12. Halikarnassos. Large fragment of Ionic Fig. 13. Halikarnassos. Lewis cutting on upper capital from the “Türkkuyusu” Temple with surface of capital from Türkkuyusu Temple Karian-Ionian lewis (photograph by P. Pedersen). (photograph by P. Pedersen).

Fig. 14. Ephesos. Corner capital from the Fig. 15. Sardis. Artemision. Karian-Ionian lewis Artemision Altar showing very large lewis cutting on surface of an Ionic capital. The triangular part (from Muss & Bammer 2001, Tafelband Abb. of the lewis cutting is extremely small 238). (photograph by P. Pedersen).

It is obvious, however, that as a lewis hole must be placed in the very centre of the block intended to be lifted there will necessarily be a conflict with the dowel, which should preferably be placed in the same spot if the block is a column capital or a column drum. In fact there are several examples in which a dowel hole has been cut right through the

13 Muss & Bammer 2001, Tafelband, Abb. 261-276, especially 287-288, and a cassette block on Abb. 308.

Boreas 32 373 Poul Pedersen

middle of a lewis cutting, for example in drums from (Fig. 16) or in one of the capitals of the “Zweisäulenmonument” at Olympia (Fig. 17). One possible way to solve the problem is to place two lewises symmetrically on each side of a centrally placed dowel. This was done in some cases in the temple of Athena at Priene and at Miletos. (Fig. 18).

Fig. 16. Bargylia. Surface of a column drum Fig. 17. Olympia. “Zweisäulenmonument”. showing original Hellenistic-Roman lewis, Karian-Ionian lewis of which the central, which seems to have been secondarily pene triangular part has been partly destroyed by trated by drilling for a dowel (photograph by a circular hole for a dowel (photograph by P. P. Pedersen). Pedersen).

Fig. 18. Miletos. Column drum from unknown building. Al- though the surface is much damaged two Karian-Ionian lewises can be seen placed symmetrically on each side of the central dowel hole (photograph by P. Pedersen).

The lewis cutting sometimes looks surprisingly small and fragile compared to the size of the stone to be lifted. But sometimes it is strengthened by having a wedge-shaped cutting placed on two opposite sides of the rectangular hole, so that two iron anchors could be attached at the same time. This was the system applied in the Corinthian capitals of the Belevi Mausoleum (Fig. 19), in some capitals of the Temple of Athena at Priene and the Ionian capitals of the Temple of Leto at (Fig. 20). The system could also be made stronger simply by using two symmetrically arranged lewises as on the architrave of the east

374 Boreas 32 The Ionian Renaissance and Alexandria seen from the perspective of a Karian-Ionian lewis hole

front of the Temple of Athena at Priene and the architrave of the Artemision Altar in Ephesos.14 The Karian-Ionian lewis was used in a large number of buildings covering a wide geographical area and a long chronological period. In Halikarnassos it is so far known from at least five buildings: the Maussolleion, the Türkkuyusu Temple, an anta capital presumably from the Palace of Maussollos, an architrave possibly from the Stoa of Apollo and Ptolemaios, and an anta capital from an additional building from the Türkküyusu area. Examples are known from Labraunda, Priene, Ephesos, Belevi, Iasos, Amyzon, Miletos, Lagina and Magnesia, and I have by chance noticed one example on Kos. It is known from two buildings in Sardis, and William Aylward has informed me of one example in Klaros and another on a reused block in Corinth.15

Fig. 19. Corinthian capital from the Belevi Mauso- Fig. 20. Temple of Leto at Xanthos. Ionic leum kept in the Agora of Izmir. On the upper capital with Karian-Ionian lewis with two surface of the capital is seen a Karian-Ionian lewis opposed triangular cuttings similar to hole with two triangular side-cuttings (photograph lewises on top of the Corinthian capitals of by P. Pedersen). the Belevi Mausoleum (photograph by P. Pedersen).

Among the latest examples there are some in structures that have been connected with the Ptolemies. These include the monument of and Ptolemaios in Olympia, the so-called Ptolemaion in and the Temple of Leto in Xanthos, now thought to be of the third century BC, and the presumed Stoa of Apollo and Ptolemaios at Halikarnassos. This raises an interesting question: do we have any evidence suggesting that the craftsmen and architects working in 4th-century Karia and Ionia travelled to Egypt after Alexander’s conquests to help furnishing the new Ptolemaic kingdom with Greek buildings and especially to assist in building the new Ptolemaic capital, Alexandria?

14 Muss & Bammer 2001, Tafelband, Abb. 261-276. 15 I am most grateful to William Aylward for this information.

Boreas 32 375 Poul Pedersen

As a matter of fact there is good evidence for Ionians and Karians in Egypt and in the old capital, Memphis there were separate quarters in the city called “karikon” and “hellenion”, inhabited mainly by Karians and Ionians. The karikon had a sanctuary for the Karian Zeus, probably Zeus Labraundeus.16 According to Dorothy J. Thompson these Karians and Ionians were probably descendants of mercenaries who immigrated to Egypt in the 7th century BC and settled in Memphis in the 6th century BC rather than newcomers of the late 4th century BC. Their familiarity with Egypt is supposed to have been of great value to Alexander and his companions. It is not clear, however, to what extent these communities may also have included more recent immigrants from Asia Minor. It looks as if Karians and Ionians played an important part in the economical life of early Ptolemaic Egypt as illustrated by the powerful businessman Zenon from Kaunos, who acted as manager of the dioiketes Apollonios in the mid-third century BC. 17 Unfortunately, very little of substance is known about the early Hellenistic architecture in Alexandria, and I am not aware that the lewis of the Ionian Renaissance has ever been observed there. Perhaps nobody looked for it?

Fig. 21. Alexandria. Graeco-Roman Museum, inv. no. 231. Large Ionic capital with pulvinus decoration of the Maussolleion type (from Hoepfner 1971, Tafel 13b).

There are, however, other indications of a connection to Alexandria. A very important find was made in 1902 in the royal quarter of ancient Alexandria. It has been discussed by Hoepfner in his book Zwei Ptolemaierbauten18, and among the architectural finds were eight Ionic capitals which not long after their discovery were described as of the 3rd century BC and very similar to those of the Temple of Athena at Priene

16 Thompson 1988, 94. 17 Thompson 1988, 39, 64 and 95. 18 Hoepfner 1971.

376 Boreas 32 The Ionian Renaissance and Alexandria seen from the perspective of a Karian-Ionian lewis hole

(Fig. 21).19 The pulvini of these capitals are ornamented with the typical “imbricated leaves” decoration, which was first used in the Maussolleion, the Temple of Zeus at Labraunda, and in the Temple of Athena at Priene.20 Hoepfner dates the capitals from Alexandria to the second half of the third century and compares them to those of the monument for Arsinoe and Ptolemaios in Olympia and to the early Hellenistic capitals from the Temple. He points out that they all belong to the tradition of the Maussolleion capitals.21 Therefore we may safely, I think, regard them as dependent on the Ionian Renaissance in Asia Minor, even though I have not yet been able to ascertain whether these Alexandrian capitals have Karian-Ionian lewises. The last piece of evidence related to the Karian lewis is from Alexandria too, and it is in fact the only written evidence that we have concerning this device. It is the description by Heron of Alexandria in his book on mechanics.22

Fig. 22. Heron of Alexandria. Manuscript illustration depicting Heron’s de-scription of a lewis similar to the Karian-Ionian lewis (from Drachmann 1963, fig. 39).

The description in Heron’s Mechanica is a very precise and detailed account of methods and problems in lifting and transporting heavy weights, and is probably meant for architects (Fig. 22). In one of his writings Heron mentions a lunar eclipse, which has been identified with one that took place in Alexandria in AD 62. Therefore he is now generally believed to have lived in the 1st century AD, although dates around 150 BC and down to AD 300 have been mentioned earlier.23 The archaeological evidence, however, suggests that the Karian-Ionian lewis had gone out of use by the end of the 3rd or the early 2nd century BC, to be replaced by the simpler Hellenistic-Roman type. It is therefore surprising that the Karian-Ionian lewis is mentioned by Heron about 200 years later. How can this be explained? It is probably not possible to re- date Heron back to the 2nd century BC. Nor does it seem likely – and so

19 Hoepfner 1971, 63. 20 Was this new type of column capital first used in the Nereid monument at Xanthos as a modification of an Attic Ionic capital? I find it very hard to accept that the capitals of the Nereid monument could be the model for the Maussolleion capitals. So also Rumscheid 1994, 95, n. 186. 21 Hoepfner 1971, 86. 22 Heron, Mechanica 3.6. Heron also describes the simple Hellenistic-Roman lewis (Mechanica 3.8). Drachmann 1963b, 104 and fig. 39; 1963a, 48f., fig. 32. 23 For a discussion of the date of Heron, see Drachmann 1963b, 12.

Boreas 32 377 Poul Pedersen far it is archaeologically unfounded – that the type was still in use this late in Alexandria. Perhaps the most likely explanation is that Heron was quoting information from some earlier writer like Ktesibios of Alexandria, who was attached to the Mouseion early in the 3rd century BC at the time of Ptolemaios Philadelphos, and whom Heron is known to have used in other cases. I suppose that the 3rd century BC could be the time when the Karian-Ionian lewis was still normal among the workmen and architects of the Ionian Renaissance in the eastern Aegean (and in Alexandria possibly), but was slowly being replaced by the Hellenistic- Roman type, which Heron finds more reliable. Anyway, these few items of information do seem to suggest that the Ionian Renaissance of Asia Minor at least to some extent was carried on in Alexandria and that even its peculiar Karian lewis system was known in Alexandria in the early Hellenistic period. Interestingly, as mentioned earlier it is also found in the south-east Aegean and Olympia, in some monuments and buildings that have been connected with the Egyptian ruling family. But perhaps the Egyptian continuation of the Ionian Renaissance should not come as such a big surprise. When Alexandria was being built and developed in the late fourth century BC, the great Classical architecture of Athens had become a magnificent symbol of the great Classical city rather than a contemporary way of building. And Alexander and his Macedonians had little monumental architecture yet in their home country north of the Aegean to serve as model and inspiration for their new city-foundations. Quite a lot of construction work was going on in the 4th century in the great pan-Hellenic sanctuaries, and Epidauros formed a very important centre for new art and architecture. Nevertheless it was the great Ionian Renaissance in the south-east Aegean and on the west coast of Asia Minor that had the most progressive monumental architecture of the day. It constituted in a longer perspective one of the greatest époques in Greek architecture, flourishing precisely at the time of Alexander and his first successors.24 It is therefore no great wonder that the Pharos of Alexandria was constructed by another architect from the homeland of the Ionian Renaissance, Sostratos of , who is known to have worked as an architect in Knidos as well. If one includes the Colossos on Rhodes, four out of the Seven Wonders of the World were in fact constructed in this rich East Greek cultural milieu within less than a century.

An architectural summary Based on this survey of the history of the Karian-Ionian lewis and other architectural evidence, we may briefly summarize as follows concerning the Ionian Renaissance in architecture:

24 The importance of the architecture of the Ionian Renaissance for the 3rd century BC Hellenistic architecture in Asia Minor is obvious from the examples already mentioned. I have tried to demonstrate that this tradition was also important for the architects and planners of Pergamon at least in its earlier phases, although the Karian-Ionian lewis has to my knowledge not yet been observed there (Pedersen 2004).

378 Boreas 32 The Ionian Renaissance and Alexandria seen from the perspective of a Karian-Ionian lewis hole

One or two decades before the middle of the 4th century BC a new époque in Greek architecture and urbanism began in western Asia Minor. It essentially consisted of a sort of antiquarian revival of old Ionic architecture supplemented by influence from recent mainland Greek and maybe from some recent Lycian architecture. Geographically it covered the coast of Asia Minor from the Hellespont in the north to Knidos and even spread beyond to Lykia in the south. It included some of the East Greek islands too, in particular Kos and Rhodes, as recently demonstrated by Luigi Calió and Elisabetta Interdonato.25 Chronologically it covered the 4th century and most of the 3rd until it gradually lost its most distinctive characteristics in the early 2nd century BC.26 It was the architecture of some Ptolemaic constructions in south- west Asia Minor and in Olympia in the early 3rd century BC, and in spite of the very limited research on early Ptolemaic building in Alexandria there are indications that the architecture of the Ionian Renaissance was also applied by the Ptolemies in their Egyptian capital. The only known description of the characteristic lewis system, which may be seen as the hallmark of the Ionian Renaissance, is by Heron of Alexandria in the 1st century AD.

Did the “Ionian Renaissance” cover all aspects of culture? It seems that there is sufficient and convincing evidence to show that there was a major and well-defined “Ionian Renaissance” in East Greek architecture in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, and its importance for the history of later Greek architecture appears to have been decisive. Was such an extraordinary cultural flourishing confined only to architecture? Or is there any evidence that this Ionian Renaissance was a broader cultural phenomenon? What about poetry, science, drama and philosophy? Are there any indications that these arts reached the same level of originality and importance as architecture in this East Greek area in the 4th century BC? And if so did it have a similar influence on Hellenistic culture and science? In fact the extraordinary architectural importance of the south-east Aegean and western Anatolia in the 4th century is only being realized these years, although much of the architectural evidence has been there for a very long time. This has several reasons, one being the traditionally, predominantly Athenian and mainland Greek visual angle in Classical Studies. Rarely has the East Greek culture been described as an entity of its own. Another reason is of course that the study of East Greek and Western Anatolian archaeology has been intensified considerably in recent years, thereby opening new possibilities for a reappraisal of new and old evidence. Concerning the evidence at hand, generally speaking it appears that it consists of very many buildings, not quite as much sculptural material and very little written material in addition to epigraphy and

25 Calió & Interdonato 2005, 49-130. 26 But remained a central source for Vitruvius’ description of Greek architecture no doubt.

Boreas 32 379 Poul Pedersen numismatics.27 But is this a true picture? Or is it perhaps possible to get new information from well-known written evidence if it is re-evaluated from the angle of the Ionian Renaissance as a – hypothetical – broad and general, major cultural phase in Greek history? I think that one must necessarily pose that question, and although it will only be possible to do so in a very superficial way, I shall try to make a brief survey of that large and complex subject here. In philosophy, which also includes the natural sciences and mathematics, we are quite well informed. One of the most important philosophers and mathematicians at this time was Eudoxos of Knidos. He seems to have been attached to the court of Maussollos, and he is also said to have created the laws for his home town Knidos – perhaps in connection with the re-establishment of it at its present location. Eudoxos was in Athens at some point and had close connections with Plato, it seems. Antonio Corso has recently argued that the sculptor Praxiteles was involved in this Platonic environment too, and he suggests that the connection of Eudoxus to this Platonic milieu was instrumental when the “Aphrodite of Knidos” was acquired by Knidos – which must have belonged to the Halikarnassian satrapy at this time. Eudoxos was a mathematician and astronomer with great influence. He was interested in geometry and numbers, and like Plato he was probably inspired by Pythagorean ideas. There can be little doubt that Eudoxos and Pytheos, the new master architect of Maussollos, met each other and probably worked together in Halikarnassos at this time. It is perhaps of interest that both Jeppesen and I exclusively from a study of the monuments believe to have evidence for new experiments with a modular system based on a decimal system rather than feet, hands and fingers.28 And of course the search for simple proportions and grid systems in the layout of the architecture of the Ionian Renaissance has been noticed for a long time.29 Pytheos we know quite well from Vitruvius, who refers to a book by Pytheos. This book was apparently – as pointed out by Burkhardt Wesenberg – the first treatise by a Greek architect, which was not just about one specific building. It had a much wider theoretical scope, discussing the architectural orders, education of the architects and so on.30 I think that the role of Eudoxos and Pytheos in Karia may be seen as significant evidence for an important intellectual and scientific environment in south-west Asia Minor in the Late Classical period, and it may well have had the court of the Hekatomnids in Halikarnassos as one of its centres. The ideas and work of Pytheos and Eudoxos had important future implications. In practical life it formed in many respects the foundation

27 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1962, 53, thinks that much literature of the new Hellenistic style was destroyed because classicists at different periods did not like it. 28 Jeppesen 1984, 170f.; Mausolleion at Halikarnassos 3:1, 93-95; Mausolleion at Halikarnassos 5, 43-54. 29 Hoepfner & Schwandner 1986, 192 and 254f.; Pedersen 1989, 9-14. 30 Wesenberg 1984, 48, note 47.

380 Boreas 32 The Ionian Renaissance and Alexandria seen from the perspective of a Karian-Ionian lewis hole for a new architecture and urbanism. In philosophy and theoretical mathematics the ideas of Eudoxos were carried on in Alexandria and are believed to be a main source for the famous “Elements” of Euclid, who lived in Alexandria in the early third century. The “Elements” of Euclid is perhaps the most important single work on mathematics from antiquity.

Was there an Ionian Renaissance in literature, poetry and drama? Greek drama Greek theatre and drama is basically an Attic phenomenon, but it is believed that about the middle of the 4th century it spread outside of Athens to other parts of the Greek world. Did this affect Hekatomnid Karia and Asia Minor? During the discussions at the Stockholm conference it was mentioned that the stadion at Labraunda is probably a Hekatomnid construction and that it seems possible that the stadion as a building type may be a Hekatomnid architectural innovation in western Asia Minor. Perhaps such a formal establishment for sports could be seen as part of the general “Hellenization” during the time of the Hekatomnids? This cannot be determined at present, but it does not seem unlikely and one might ask if there are indications suggesting that theater and drama could have been introduced from Athens and mainland Greece in a similar way during this time also? Architecturally the mid-4th century BC is likely to be the time when Halikarnassos received its large theatre. This was firmly believed by its excavator Ümit Serdaroğlu, who has stated this on several occasions in both conversation and writing.31 The theatre of Halikarnassos is slightly smaller than that of Epidauros but otherwise shows considerable similarity to it, in particular as far as the theatron is concerned (Fig. 23). There was a need for a theatre in Halikarnassos, if not earlier then – as pointed out by Simon Hornblower32 – in 353 BC when Artemisia organized funeral contests in honour of Maussollos. The event included panegyrics for Maussollos made by contestants who were related to the environment of Isokrates in Athens. The winner of the dramatic contest was Theodektes who participated with the tragedy called “Maussollos”. This should indicate a certain interest in and knowledge of Greek drama by Artemisia. It is perhaps not without significance that when the approach was being made in 337 BC between the Macedonian royal family and Pixodaros for a possible intermarriage between the two dynasties, Alexander sent the tragic actor Thettalos as his emissary to Halikarnassos – perhaps because he knew the place already from earlier theatrical activities in Karia.33

31 Serdaroğlu 1982, 355. 32 Hornblower 1982, 333f. 33 Hornblower 1982, 221.

Boreas 32 381 Poul Pedersen

Fig. 23. Halikarnassos. The theatre (photograph by P. Pedersen).

It seems not unlikely that such a recent theatre tradition from the time of the Hekatomnids was the background for the dramatic successes in Athens of the Halikarnassian writer of comedies Menestheus about 300 BC and of the writer of tragedies Phanostratos, who won at the Lenaia in Athens in 307/6 and who was honoured by his proud fellow citizens of Halikarnasos with a statue on the Acropolis of Athens.34

Prose and poetry Greek drama was one of the important literary subjects that were taken up in Ptolemaic Alexandria and studied and organized by philologists and librarians at the great library of Alexandria. The study of literary history and of ancient writers and authors was carried out with scientific zeal, and in these learned circles it was necessary to have a very great knowledge of literature, myths and not least of the great epic poems of Homer and other authors of the past, many of them from Ionia. These very high intellectual standards and the deep interest in earlier times are very much in keeping with the unrealistically high level of learning that Pytheos, the architect of Maussollos, expects from a good and well-educated architect, and it also seems in accordance with the quest of the architects of the Ionian Renaissance for studying and reviving the Archaic Ionic architecture.35 But Alexandrian literature was not only an interest in ancient works and styles. Kallimachos, the most famous poet of Alexandria, wrote in a new style, which caused a veritable literary controversy in Alexandria.36 The new poetry could be short and elegant epigrams on love, life and death among humans, often expressing their sentiments of joy and grief,

34 Both are mentioned in the Salmakis inscription and are also known from inscriptions from Athens (Isager 2004, 231f.). 35 Pytheos’ demands as to the education of the architect are related by Vitruvius, De arch. 1.1.12. 36 Against Apollonios Rhodios and others (e.g. Fraser 1972, 753f.).

382 Boreas 32 The Ionian Renaissance and Alexandria seen from the perspective of a Karian-Ionian lewis hole as opposed to the great epic poems with dramatic themes taking place among gods and heroes. The writings of Kallimachos were the most important of the time, and had an enormous influence on Roman literature. But according to Wilamovitz-Moellendorff it was not Kallimachos and his contemporaries in Alexandria who invented the new, “modern” literature.37 The new poetry was in fact a creation that took place already in the late 4th century BC in Asia Minor and the south-east Aegean. Alexandria, the new city just beginning to grow at this time, merely took over this poetry. The modern term “alexandrinisch” is therefore not really a correct designation for this new poetry and culture, although its perfection was only attained in Egypt, according to Wilamowitz- Moellendorff.38 Kallimachos had his sources in the recent established literary circles of new poets, which included Filetas of Kos, Asklepiades of Samos, Antimakhos and Hermesianax from Kolophon, and Simias from Rhodes. Kallimachos himself is believed to be a pupil of Hermokrates from Iasos.39 In this geographical area a society of citizens with great love for art and with a great cultural knowledge had developed in the late 4th century, and it was in this learned environment that the modern poetry and Antimachos, Simias and Philitas found their audience. On Samos, for instance, at the time of Asklepiades there must have been a luxurious and high-spirited living comparable to that at the time of Polykrates.40 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff ascribes the new literature to Asia Minor and the south-east Aegean, which is precisely the geographical area where the Ionian Renaissance in architecture most strongly had manifested itself since the mid-4th century BC. In the 340s and a great part of the 330s it was still part of the Halikarnassos satrapy or under Hekatomnid political influence. But Wilamowitz-Moellendorff never mentions Halikarnassos in its capacity of the new capital of the rich Hekatomnid rulers and the princely court that must have developed there. Nor does he seem to be aware of any newly established Late Classical “Ionian Renaissance” although Ferdinand Noack had mentioned this important phase in Greek architecture already in his book from 1910. It is surprising that Wilamowitz-Moellendorff does not reflect on a possible connection between the emergence of a new poetry and culture in the late 4th century and the very great political changes that had just taken place and brought new wealth and new social structures to the cities of western Asia Minor – and in particular as represented by the very rich Hekatomnids and their satrapal court in Halikarnassos. It would be tempting to explain this apparent deficiency in Willamowitz-Moellendorff’s arguments by assuming that he was of the same a priory assumption as most scholars of the entire 20th century, namely that the Greek cities and their culture could not and did not

37 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1962, 49 f. 38 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1962, 53. 39 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1962, 170. 40 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1962, 51f.

Boreas 32 383 Poul Pedersen develop and flourish until after Alexander had liberated the cities of western Asia Minor in 334 BC. As our architectural studies have shown us, this is very wrong. A new look at the written evidence seems to indicate, I think, that there are no good reasons to believe that it should be any more correct when it comes to other aspects of Greek culture in the cities of western Asia Minor and the islands. The new poetry seems to be in very good accordance with the trends in 4th- century Greek sculpture and its interest in ethos and pathos, the individual character and feelings of the persons portrayed. This new development in art probably originally resulted from a disappointment and lack of belief in classical Athenian democracy following the Peloponnesian War. The un-political character of the new art would suit well the conditions in the rich, but undemocratic, East Greek cities now thriving under the rule of the Persian satraps. On the other hand it must be admitted that at present we don’t have any clear and positive evidence to prove that the new type of literature in Asia Minor did start already at the time of the Hekatomnids. And little help is to be gained from more recent books after Wilamowitz- Moellendorff.41 Fraser’s monumental work Ptolemaic Alexandria has very little on the early development of the new literature in Asia Minor.42 And Webster’s book Hellenistic Poetry and Art is perhaps even more unclear on this point. By placing less stress on the geographical origins of the early Alexandrian writers and their predecessors than Wilamowitz-Moellendorff did, they diminish our possibilities for a better understanding of the origin of Alexandrian art and literature.

Fig. 24. Halikarnassos. Salmakis. The Salmakis inscription covers the ashlar in the centre of the picture (photograph by P. Pedersen).

41 Fraser 1972. 42 Fraser does imagine, however, the existence of a number of smaller literary centres in addition to Athens (which he states remained the centre of literary production in general in the Greek world in the 4th century BC). Of these centres, he believes that Kolophon and Kos were the most important for Alexandrian poetry, and he thinks that in both places there was a tradition going back to before the late 4th century, in Kolophon perhaps to the Archaic period (Fraser, vol I, 1972, 554f.).

384 Boreas 32 The Ionian Renaissance and Alexandria seen from the perspective of a Karian-Ionian lewis hole

Halikarnassos The Hekatomnid court and the Ionian Renaissance are not mentioned by anyone as far as I know in relation to the new poetry and its new culture. Halikarnassos is hardly mentioned by Wilamowitz-Moellendorff and is practically absent in the works of Webster and Fraser. But this does not mean that Halikarnassos had no share in the new poetry or no literary aspirations, as one might think. In the publication of the Salmakis inscription in Halikarnassos, Signe Isager has shown that about 100 BC Halikarnassos could boast of an impressive list of poets and writers (Fig. 24).43 Although some of these are just names to us there are also quite a few of importance. The fact that the Halikarnassians of the Late Hellenistic period chose to show a list of writers and poets to witness the greatness of their city, as well as the sheer number of names they could list up, must in some way indicate the existence of a considerable literary tradition in Halikarnassos. The so-called Literaten-Epigramm points very clearly in the same direction.44 Kallimachos himself had acquaintances in Halikarnassos, and among his preserved epigrams is one which he wrote to his friend, the poet Theaitetos from Halikarnassos.45 But this was not the only Halikarnassian poet whom Kallimachos knew. Of exceptional beauty is the touching epigram he wrote when he got news of the death of his close friend, the famous poet Herakleitos from Halikarnassos. It appears from the text that the two of them had known each other for a long time and that they had probably become friends early in life. Halikarnassos therefore probably belonged to the same literary milieu as Kos (geographically, directly facing towards Halikarnassos), Samos, Kolophon and the other East Greek cities that produced the poets that determined the line of future poetry. Except for Panyassis and Herodotos none of the writers named in the Salmakis inscription can at present be safely dated to or before the time of the Hekatomnids, as far as I know. But when seen in connection with other evidence, I think it must be regarded as highly probable that this literary tradition in Halikarnassos had its origin at the time of Halikarnassos’ greatest cultural achievements, the time of the Hekatomnids, and that it formed part of the general literary culture flourishing in the south-east Aegean in the second half of the 4th century.

Conclusion This cursory survey on philosophy, drama and poetry adds up to a picture similar to what we have been able to see in architecture by studying the Karian/Ionian lewis hole and the new architecture of the Ionian Renaissance in general. In spite of the bad state of preservation of

43 Isager 2004, 217f. 44 See e.g. Isager 2004, 230. 45 Until the Salmakis inscription was found, he was believed to be from Kyrene like Kallimachos himself (Isager 2004, 231).

Boreas 32 385 Poul Pedersen literature from that period,46 it seems highly probable that the Ionian Renaissance was not only a matter of architecture. It probably comprised other aspects of culture and art as well. It furthermore seems clear that the Ionian Renaissance in all its aspects had a considerable impact on the art and architecture of the Hellenistic period. Its influence on the architecture of Asia Minor itself can be observed in places like Pergamon, Magnesia, Lagina and Xanthos. But it appears very likely that the Ionian Renaissance had great influence on Ptolemaic Alexandria too. This should not be a great surprise: the Ionian Renaissance was the most recent and probably the most comprehensive cultural époque in all Greece by the time of Alexander, and it is therefore likely to constitute an important part of the “Greek” culture that Alexander and his followers brought to the new world. Ptolemaic Alexandria may in its earliest phases have had a particular relation to the areas previously under the rule or influence of the Hekatomnid satraps. The first Ptolemies even had a personal relation to the area. Ptolemaios the First had participated in Alexander’s battle at Halikarnassos in 334 BC, and Ptolemaios the Second Philadelphos was born in 309 on Kos during a time when the Ptolemaic fleet had its quarters there. Ptolemaios Philadelphos then had Filetas from Kos as his teacher in Alexandria. And later his admiral, Kallikrates from Samos, dedicated a two-columnar monument with statues of Ptolemaios Philadelphos and Arsinoe at the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia. The monument was made by craftsmen from Karia or Ionia in the style developed a few decades earlier by Maussollos’ architect, Pytheos. When south-east Asia Minor became part of the Ptolemaic empire in the early 3rd century BC, it may have come to constitute a culturally important part of Ptolemaic Egypt; the Greek culture of the ruling aristocracy was otherwise limited to Alexandria and a few other places in this vast land with its strange, old and very different culture shaped through centuries of pharaonic rule and culture. Culturally and architecturally speaking, Asia Minor and Rhodes remained one of the most important parts of the Greek world and a model for the new big cities in the Near East, all through the Hellenistic period.

Poul Pedersen Department of Greek and Roman Studies University of Southern Denmark Campusvej 55 DK-5230 ODENSE [email protected]

46 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1962, 53, thinks that much of the new literature was destroyed by “classicists in Roman times”.

386 Boreas 32 The Ionian Renaissance and Alexandria seen from the perspective of a Karian-Ionian lewis hole

Bibliography Aylward, W. 2009. ‘Lewises in the Hellenistic and Roman buildings at Pergamon’, in Bautechnik in antiken und Vorantiken Kleinasien, ed. M. Bachmann (BYZAS 9), 309-322. Bammer, A. 1972. Die Architektur des jüngeren Artemision von Ephesos, Wien. Calió, L.M. & E. Interdonato 2005. ‘Theatri curvaturae similis’, Archeologia Classica 56, n.s. 6, 49-130. Demirtaş, M.B. 2007. Technical and workmanship features of the Temple of Artemis at Magnesia (unpublished thesis). Drachmann, A.G. 1963a. Antikkens teknik. Redskaber og opfindelser i den graeske og romerske oldtid, Copenhagen. Drachmann, A.G. 1963b. The mechanical technology of Greek and Roman antiquity. A study of the literary sources, Copenhagen. Fraser, P.M. 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria I-III, Oxford. Hellström, P. 2007. Labraunda. A guide to the Karian sanctuary of Zeus Labraundos, . Hoepfner, W. 1971. Zwei Ptolemaierbauten. Des Ptolemaierweihgeschenk in Olympia und ein Bauvorhaben in Alexandria, Berlin. Hoepfner, W. & E.-L. Schwandner 1986. Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland, Munich. Hornblower, S. 1982. Mausolus, Oxford. Isager, S. 2004. ‘The pride of Halikarnassos’, in The Salmakis Inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassos, eds. S. Isager & P. Pedersen (Halicarnassian Studies IV), 217-237 (Originally published in ZPE 123, 1998, 1-23). Jeppesen, K. 1984. ‘Zu den Proportionen des Maussolleions von Halikarnass’, DiskAB 4, 167-174. Karlsson, L. 2008. ‘Labraunda 2006’, KST 29, 263-272. Karlsson, L. 2009. ‘Labraunda 2007’, KST 30, 107-118. Labraunda I:1. K. Jeppesen, Labraunda. Swedish excavations and researches, I:1. The Propylaea (ActaAth-4o, 5:1:1), Lund 1955. Labraunda I:3. Th. Thieme & P. Hellström, Labraunda. Swedish excavations and researches, I. Architecture, part 3. The Temple of Zeus (Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul), Stockholm 1982. Mausolleion at Halikarnassos 3:1. P. Pedersen, The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Reports of the Danish archaeological expedition to Bodrum 3. The Maussolleion terrace. Part 1. Text and appendices. The Maussolleion terrace and accessory structures (The Jutland Archaeological Society Publications, 15:3:1), Aarhus 1991. Mausolleion at Halikarnassos 5. K. Jeppesen, The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Reports of the Danish archaeological expedition to Bodrum, 5. The superstructure: a comparative analysis of the architectural, sculptural, and literary evidence (Jutland Archaeological Society Publications, 15:5), Aarhus 2002. Müller-Wiener, W. 1988. Griechisches Bauwesen in der Antike, München. Muss, U. & A. Bammer 2001. Forschungen in Ephesos, Bd 12:2. Der Altar des Artemisions von Ephesos, Wien. Noack, F. 1910. Die Baukunst des Altertums, Berlin. Öğün, B. & C. Işık 2003. Kaunos, Kbid, Izmir. Pedersen, P. 1989. ‘Some general trends in the layout of 4th c. Caria’, in Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1987, eds. T. Linders & P. Hellström (Boreas. Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations, 17), Uppsala, 9-14.

Boreas 32 387 Poul Pedersen

Pedersen, P. 1994, ‘The Ionian Renaissance and some aspects of its origin with the field of architecture and planning’, in Hecatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance. Acts of the International Symposium at the Department of Greek and Roman Studies, Odense University, 28-29 November, 1991, ed. J. Isager, Odense, 11-35. Pedersen, P. 2001/2002. ‘Reflections on the Ionian Renaissance in Greek architecture and its historical background’, Hephaistos 19/20, 97-130. Pedersen, P. 2004. ‘Pergamon and the Ionian Renaissance’, IstMitt 54, 409-434. Rumscheid, F. 1994. Untersuchungen zur kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus, Mainz. Serdaroğlu, Ü. 1982. ‘Bautätigkeit in Anatolien unter der persischen Herrschaft’, in Palast und Hütte. Beiträge zum Bauen und Wohnen im Altertum von Archäologen, Vor- und Frühgeschichtlichtern: Tagungsbeiträge eines Symposiums der Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung Bonn-Bad Godesberg veranstaltet vom 25.-30. November 1979 in Berlin, eds. D. Papenfuss & V.M. Strocka, Mainz am Rhein, 347-356. Thompson, D.J. 1988. Memphis under the Ptolemies, Princeton. Wesenberg, B. 1984. ‘Zu den Schriften der griechischen Architekten’, DiskAB 4, 39-48. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1962. Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos, rev. ed. Berlin [1924].

388 Boreas 32