Achaemenid Interfaces: Thracian and Anatolian Representations of Elite Status

XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Roma 22-26 Sept. 2008 Session : Being ‘Graeco-Persian’ Maya Vassileva Achaemenid Interfaces: Thracian and Anatolian representations of elite status Introduction Scholars have long noticed Achaemenid affinities with fifth–fourth century BC finds from Thrace 1. Leaving aside the discussion about the Skudra satrapy (which presumably comprised part of Thracian territory along the Northern Aegean coast) 2, it can be stated that the Persian military campaigns in the Balkans had an impact on the local elites. Achaemenid presence in the area was probably the original impetus for the Thracian aristocrats to emulate a similar code of royal status representations. However, Thracian kings and nobles adapted and creatively interpreted further the Achaemenid “borrowings”. The present paper deals with Anatolian Achaemenid traits in the Thracian sepulchral monuments, specifically Thracian stone-built chamber tombs dated to the fifth–third century BC, the richest and largest number of which can be assigned to the fourth century BC, which was the floruit of the Odrysian Kingdom. ‘Perso-Anatolian’ architectural features in Thracian tombs The sepulchral complex in the Ostrousha Mound, near the town of Shipka in Central Bulgaria (fig. 1), was compared with Anatolian monuments since its discovery 3. For example the monolithic chamber erected on a stereobate resembles the Tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae (fig. 2) as well as the tomb at Buzbazar 4. While the Tomb of Cyrus displays Ionian affinities, the latter does not show any such peculiarities 5. The so-called Pyramid Tomb at Sardis, whose style has often been defined as ‘Graeco-Persian’, could also be added to this group of monuments 6. The Ta ş Kule rock-cut monument near Phocaea (fig. 3) has a somewhat strange outline; it can also be considered within the same set of architectural constructions 7. The same is true about 1 VENEDEIKOV and GERASSIMOV 1973. 2 The discussion on the Skudra satrapy is summarised in BORZA 1990, 100, 293 and BRIANT 2002, 905; see also: FOL and HAMMOND 1988, 243–248 and JORDANOV 2003, 43, 46. 3 KITOV and KRASTEVA 1994–1995, 21. 4 BERGHE 1964. 5 RATTÉ 1992; BOARDMAN 2000, 57–60; VALEVA 2005, 14–16. 6 RATTÉ 1992, 160. 7 CAHILL 1988. Bollettino di Archeologia on line I 2010/ Volume speciale G / G1 / 4 Reg. Tribunale Roma 05.08.2010 n. 330 ISSN 2039 - 0076 www.archeologia.beniculturali.it 37 M. Vassileva – Achaemenid Interfaces: Thracian and Anatolian representations of elite status Fig. 1a-b –The Ostrousha tomb: general view and the ceiling. (Courtesy TEMP = Thracological Expedition for Exploration of Tumuli; KITOV 2008, fig. 75). the rock-cut sarcophagus from Dereyazı 8. A reconstruction of a similar tomb has recently been produced on the grounds of the architectural fragments and reliefs found at and near Daskyleion 9. The Ostrousha Tomb chamber displays a peculiar hybrid nature. It has elements of Greek architecture, like the gabled roof, the dentils, and the funerary bed, but unusually, it has its entrance on its long side. A similar architectural solution can be obser- ved in the Antiphelos (modern Ka ş, Lycia) late fourth century BC Tomb, which is almost square in plan (4.7 х 4 х 4.5 m), the entrance being situated on the longer side. To some extent the Ta ş Kule monument might be a Fig. 2 – The Tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae. (DEDEO ĞLU 2003, 82). good parallel with, the Ostrousha Chamber as while there is a false door on its short side, the real entrance is on the longer side, although off centre 10 . Parallels with Anatolian/Perso-Ana- tolian tombs can also be found in other Thra- cian tombs, both rock-cut tombs and stone- built tomb chambers. The connection betwe- en the rock-cut and the stone-built tombs in Thrace has long been discussed. The monolithic rectangular chambers with pitched roof resemble the Phrygian rock-cut tombs (most of 11 which date to the sixth century BC and later) Fig. 3 – The Ta ş Kule rock-cut monument. (DEDEO ĞLU 2003, 82). 8 KLEISS 1996, 135, 138. 9 KARAGÖZ 2007. 10 CAHILL 1988, figs. 5–6, 9. 11 For the Phrygian rock-cut tombs see HASPELS 1971, 112–138. Bollettino di Archeologia on line I 2010/ Volume speciale G / G1 / 4 Reg. Tribunale Roma 05.08.2010 n. 330 ISSN 2039 - 0076 www.archeologia.beniculturali.it 38 XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Roma 22-26 Sept. 2008 Session : Being ‘Graeco-Persian’ Fig. 4 – Visiting the monolithic chamber of the tomb in the Golyamata Kosmatka tumulus near Shipka (South Central Bulgaria) with Dr. Kitov, 2004. (Photo: the author). Among the stone-built chambers, an analogous monolithic chamber has recently been discovered in the Golyama Kosmatka Tumulus, also near the town of Shipka, (fig. 4) 12 . This is not a freestanding construction as it is incorporated into a more complex building that follows the design of Thracian tombs. The chamber comes third in a line of three successive chambers, constructed one behind another. In this third room were housed all of the grave goods. As the chamber lies perpendicular to the dromos, its entrance is also on the long side. Another parallel with the Anatolian architecture of Achaemenid time is provided by a painted relief representation of a lion, discovered in the Zhaba Mogila Tumulus, near Strelcha, central Bulgaria (fourth century BC) (fig. 5) 13 . It is possible that this triangular relief was one of a pair that was arranged on the pediment of a building, or flanking a door or a niche, as is the case in some Lycian monuments 14 . A similar arrangement can be seen on Phrygian rock-cut facades: Arslankaya (sixth century BC) 15 . As well, newly discovered tombs in Thrace have yielded a great number of stone doors that closed the chambers. Their stylistic analysis shows that their closest parallels are to be found in Asia Minor 16 . The numerous door like stelai found in Achaemenid Anatolia suggest that the door in the burial rites and ceremonies were important, as were the ‘blind’ doors on some of the rock-cut monu- 17 Fig. 5 – The painted lion relief from the Strelcha tomb. ments . Those found at and near Daskyleion were (KITOV 2008, fig. 26). placed in tumulus mantles, usually at their peripheries and should probably be associated with commemorative practices 18 . These door stelai have been defined as Ionian-type doors (initially meant for sanctuaries) with some Persian elements 19 . Other ‘hybrid’ doors John Boardman terms ‘Lydo-Ionian’: the door frames of the Cyrus Tomb, that of the blind door at Ta ş Kule, as well as those on the towers at Pasargadae and Naksh-i-Rustam 20 . 12 KITOV 2005a, 44. 13 KITOV 2008, fig. 26. 14 See e.g. Buildings F and H on the Xanthian acropolis: METZGER 1963. For another possible tomb with relief-carved gables near Daskyleion, see supra N. 9. 15 HASPELS 1971, 87, figs. 186–191 . 16 STOYANOVA 2007, 534, 540–541. 17 CAHILL 1988, 495–498. 18 POLAT 2005. 19 BÜSING -KOLBE 1978, 82–83; 119–122. 20 BOARDMAN 2000, 59–60. Bollettino di Archeologia on line I 2010/ Volume speciale G / G1 / 4 Reg. Tribunale Roma 05.08.2010 n. 330 ISSN 2039 - 0076 www.archeologia.beniculturali.it 39 M. Vassileva – Achaemenid Interfaces: Thracian and Anatolian representations of elite status Fig. 6 – The battle scene on the short side of the Çan sarcophagus (Courtesy B.C. Rose). Thus, the ‘Greek’ or Ionian architectural elements found in the fifth–fourth century BC Thracian tombs 21 are rather ‘Graeco-Persian’, or ‘Lydo-Ionian’. The idea that Ionian architects and builders constructed the fourth century Thracian tombs is no longer valid. Furthermore, the long accepted Macedonian and Greek influence in Thra- cian sepulchral architecture of the early Hellenistic and Hellenistic times now seems not so unidirectional. The Alexandrovo tomb and iconographic affinities Field surveys in the last few years revealed hundreds of tumuli along the Granicus Valley in the Northern Troad 22 . During rescue excavations one stone-built tomb and three sarcophagi were unearthed. One of these sarcophagi, a fourth century BC sarcophagus in a tumulus near Çan, provides a good opportunity to discuss si- Fig. 7 – The hunting scenes on the long side of the Çan sarcophagus milar Thracian-Persian and ‘Graeco-Per- (Courtesy B.C. Rose). sian’ representations of elite status 23 . The Çan Sarcophagus, unlike the other two, which were placed directly in the ground, was placed in a round stone chamber with a false dome. There is no dromos and the entrance was sealed with stone blocks 24 . Two of the sarcophagus sides, one long and one short, bear painted reliefs. A battle scene is depicted on the short side: a horseman attacks a fallen enemy with his spear (fig. 6). The rider is helped by a soldier on foot holding two spears and a machaira (short, curved sword). While the enemy has been identified as Greek, the clothing defines the rider as Persian 25 . The landscape is schematically rendered by a rocky ground level and a leafless tree, near which the adversary has fallen. Two hunting scenes occupy the long side of the sarcophagus: a stag hunt and a boar hunt. The scenes are divided by a similar tree (fig. 7). The stag hunt is situated on the left-hand side of the viewer, while the boar hunt is on the right-hand side. The two scenes are colour marked: the left-hand one is on a blue background while the right one is on green. The boar is attacked by two dogs while the horseman aims his spear at the boar’s eye.

Load more