Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXIII, 1998

THE IONIC CAPITAL FROM THE TEMPLE OF THE OXUS (NORTHERN )1

BY LITVINSKY B.A., PICHIKIAN I.R.

Excavations at the Oxus Temple (site Takht-e Sangin) have led to the dis- covery of what is for a unique architectural complex (Figs. 1, 2, 3), where approximately 8 000 objects from the temple treasure have been found, only a small part of which has been published 2.

1 The article is published with financial support from the Russian Fund of Humani- tarian Scholarship, No. 96-01-00-201. 2 Surveys on the site of Takht-e Sangin were conducted by B.P. Denike in 1928 and A.M. Mandel’shtam in 1956. Regular excavations have been organized since 1976 under directorship of B.A. Litvinsky by the Takhi-Kubad division (I.R. Pichikyan) of the South- Tadzhikistan archaeological expedition (B.A. Litvinskij). See: B.A. Litvinskij, I.R. Pichikyan, The Temple of the Oxus. — JRAS. 1981, No 2. p. 133-167; idem., Baktrijsky gorod Takht- e Sangin. Drevnie vzaimosvyazi i kul’turnyj sintez,” UNESCO Curier 8 (1985), p. 28-31. idem., An Akinak Scabbard from Bactria. — Soviet Anthropology and Archeology/Recent Soviet Work on the Scythian and Related Ancient Civilizations. A Journal of Translations, vol. XXI, N 1-2, Sumer-Fall. 1982, p. 139-182; idem., Gold Plates from the Oxus Temple (Northern Bactria). — Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, N 2, 2. Brill. Leiden. p. 196-220. Idem., A Panterae Antesetes. A Corinthian Motiv in Bactria. — EW (A Special Number Publised in Colaboration with Vestnik Drevney Istorii), IsMEO, vol. 42, N1, 1992, p. 69-84; idem., River — Deities of Greece Salute the God of the River Oxus/Vakhsh. Ach- elous and the Hippocampess. — In the Land of the Gryphons. Papers on Central Asian Archeology in Antiquity (Monographie di Mesopotamia, vol. V). Ed. by A. Invernizzi, Firenze. 1995, p. 129-149; idem., An Achaemenian Griffin Handle from the Temple of the Oxus. The Makhaira in Northern Bactria. — In the Land of the Gryphons. Papers on Central Asian Archeology in Antiquity (Monographie di Mesopotamia, vol. V). Ed. by A. Invernizzi, Firenze. 1995, p. 107-128, 1995; idem., A Rhyton from Takhti Sangin. — Ancient Civi- lizations from Scythia to Siberia. N 1,3. Leiden, 1994, p. 356-364; idem., The Hellenistic Architecture and Art of the Temple of the Oxus. — Bulletin of the Asia Institute. The Archaelogy and Art of Central Asia. Studies From the Former Soviet Union, 1994, N.S. Vol. 8, Michigan, 1996, p. 47-66; See also: I.R. Pichikyan, Kul’tura Baktrii. Akhemenidskij i ellinisticheskij periody. (Moscow: 1991); ibid., Oxos-Schatz und Oxos-Tempel. Achäe- menidische Kunst in Mittelasien. — Antike in der Moderne. B., Akademie Verlag GmbH., 1992, 155 S., 41 Abb; ibid., The Oxus Temple Composition in the Context of Architectural Comparison. — Informatinn Bulletin IAS CCA, Issue 12, M., 1987. p. 45-55. ibid., The Graeco-Bactrian Altars in the Temple of the Oxus (Northern Bactria). — Information Bulletin IAS CCA, Issue 12, M., 1987. p. 56-65; ibid., Die Entwicklung des baktrischen Palast- 234 B.A. LITVINSKY & I.R. PICHIKIAN

Among the architectural details the Ionic capital from the Temple of the Oxus has the most precise dates (Figs. 4-7). The capital of the Asia Minor type is rather large: about 1 m (96 cm with the edges broken away). The lower diameter, that corresponds to its shaft’s upper diameter, is 58 cm; the overall height is 42.5 cm. A high scroll-shaped abacus crowns it. Along the perimeter it is decorated with a Lesbian cyma. On the face and at angles the abacus is decorated with five complete and two halves of the cyma’s segments. In the lower part each of them has deep-cutting semi- circular domes. The ornament-forming fasciae slightly taper towards the cyma’s lower ends. According to Weikert similar ornaments are dated to the 4th-3rd centuries B.C3. A thick fascia bordered with two fine fillets form the volutes’ scrolls. They are concave; there are protruding eyes in the volutes’ centre. The low cushion of the capital is slightly concave and has no pronounced central deflection. The greatly protruding echinus (conge) is made of five complete and two corner half eggs (egg-and-dart ornament). The eggs are of the shape typical of the capitals of the 5th to 3rd centuries B.C. Small angle palmettes between the volute scrolls and the eggs of the echinus consist of three curving leaves pressing on the angle echinus eggs. The capital’s vertical axis cuts in the centre the middle ovoid figure of the Lesbian cyma and the central egg of the Ionic echinus. Under it there is a fascia modelled into barrel-shaped ornament and a smooth fillet that tapers to the end and transforms into a non-fluted column shaft. The side balusters, that taper from the mouths to cylinders are belted with two fasciae with fillets that resemble the fasciae forming the volutes on the face side. The balusters are smooth and have no incisions. The echinus. The extended echinus is the most specific feature of the Takht-i Sangin capital. Instead of the traditional five it is formed by five different egg motifs; there are half the figures at the corners covered with

Temples. — Basileia. Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige. Internationales Symposion in Berlin vom 16.12.1992 bis 20.12.1992, B., 1996, S. 226-233; ibid., Süd-Tadschikistan um die Zeitenwende. — Kunst Mittelasiens. In der Zeit Alexander d. Gr. bis zum Islam. Staatliches Museum fur Völkerkunde. München, 1990, S. 29, 32-50; ibid., Oxus. Il Periodo persiano ed ellenistico ed i regni greco-battriani (VI-II secolo a.C.). — Tesori dell’Asia Centrale. Roma. 1993, p. 11-13, 30-37; B.A. Litvinsky, K genezisu architexturno-planirovochnych schem vos- tochnoiranskogo ellinizma. Vestnik drevnei istorii N. 4, Moscow, 1996, p. 3-16. 3 Weickert C., Das lesbische Kymation. Lpz., 1913, p. 21; Ganzert J. Zur Entwicklung lesbyscher Kymationformen. — Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Bd. 98. Berlin, 1983, p. 153, Abb. 68-71. THE IONIC CAPITAL FROM THE TEMPLE OF THE OXUS 235 palmettes. An investigation of the Greek Ionic capitals in Asia Minor, Continental and Magna Graecia revealed over five Ionic egg motifs on archaic capitals. There are seven of them on the Naxos column in Delphi (570-560) and six on a column in the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus dated to c. 550 B.C. by Croesus’ dedicating inscription4. Our capital has another distinctive feature in the form of the echinus that protrudes far beyond the balusters’ face side (by 11 cm on each side). It was Gruben who first pointed out to a similar protrusion in Heraion on the Samos (500-480)5. In a developed form it can be seen in a large num- ber of monuments of the 4th-3rd centuries B.C.: in the Halicarnassus Mau- soleum, the Temple of Athena on the Samothrace6. It is interesting to note that similar capitals (including one on the Samos) were ornamented with Lesbian cyma. The volute scrolls. The fasciae that formed the scrolls of the capital in the Temple of the Oxus were bordered with fillets on two sides. The scrolls themselves were concave. The combination of convex fasciae and concave scrolls dates the capital to the 5th-2nd centuries B.C. The concave scrolls were typical of Ionic capitals only between the second half of the 6th and the early 5th centuries B.C. (according to Bingöl, up to the end of the 5th c. B.C.). In any case, this determining feature cannot date our cap- ital earlier than to the 4th century B.C. The fasciae of the volute scrolls with two fillets on both sides appeared in the 5th century B.C. On the majority of the 4th-2nd century capitals the fasciae are enclosed into rec- tangular fillets. The fascia scrolls with a double fillet were typical of the capitals in the Temples of Athena Nike (The Athenian Acropolis)7, the temple of Athena in Priene8. The same applies to the capitals of the Temple of Artemis in Magnesia-ad-Maeandrum of the early 3rd century B.C. How- ever, even on the capital of the Halicarnassus Mausoleum by architect Pythius the fascia has a fillet on one side9. The corner palmettes. Two corner palmettes on each side reach the cen- tres of the 2nd and 6th eggs and cover completely the 1st and 7th eggs that

4 Durm J., Die Baukunst der Griechen. Lpz., 1910, Figs. 275, 279 (2), 281. 5 Gruben G., Die Kapitelle des Heratempel auf Samos. – Diss. München, 1960, p. 6. 6 Puchstein O., Das ionische Kapitell. – Siebenundfierzigstes Programm zum Winckel- mannsfeste. B., 1887, Figs. 28, 34. 7 Noak F., Die Baukunst des Altertums. B., 1910, Plate 42a. 8 Noak, 1910, Plate 49a; Gruben, 1986, p. 38, Fig. 317. 9 Noak, 1910, Plate 47b. 236 B.A. LITVINSKY & I.R. PICHIKIAN have only one side. Poorly developed they are an important dating element. They testify more in favour of the 5th-4th centuries rather than in favour of the 4th-3rd centuries. In the Hellenistic and the Roman periods angle palmettes were either large or very large. This is, the element grew bigger and were made in bolder relief as the 5th century was left behind10. The capitals of the Halicarnassus Mausoleum and of Ptolemeion of Samothrace can be believed to be the closest where the palmette size is concerned. The capital of the Sanctuary of Artemis in Magnesia seems to be much younger because of the very large corner palmettes11 and the deep cut through the egg-and dart ornament of the echinus. The capitals of the long sides of Diphimeston in Miletus look even much younger12. The abacus. The large abacus and the non-fluted shaft (cut together with it) make the Takht-i Sangin capital look high with its general extended proportions. The abacus is cut through with a Lesbian cyma. The column dedicated by Croesus to the Sanctuary of Artemis in Ephesus was the first instance when the Lesbian cyma decorated the abacus. There are two more and still rare examples of similar decorations, painted, in these cases, on the marble capitals of the Acropolis in Athens. They are also dated to the 6th century B.C.13. Over a century-long gap capitals with the Lesbian cyma reappeared in large quantities in Asia Minor in the 4th-3rd centuries B.C. The latest dating feature proved to be one of the most decisive in stylistic and chronological analysis as applied to the capital from the Temple of the Oxus. It turned out that the Early Hellenistic times made wide use of the Lesbian cyma as preferred to the traditional egg-and-darts. This was artistically justi- fied and varied the set of decorative elements. It was used for a short time. The proportions of large, high capitals cut from one stone together with the mould and the shaft are shown to their best in the memorial to ’s father — Philippeum at Olympia, built in 33814. The baluster of the Temple of the Oxus is made of four fasciae: two large side ones and two small in the centre. All of them are flanked with fillets.

10 Pichikian, 1975, p. 96, Fig. 4, 6, 7; Akurgal, 1969, Figs. 69, 56, 66, 32, 65; Puch- stein, 1887, Figs. 4-19; 27-43. 11 Noak, 1910, Plates 50, 51b; Gruben G., Die Tempel der Griechen. München, 1986, p. 398, Figs. 328-330. 12 Noak, 1910, Plate 53. 13 Puchstein, 1887, Figs. 5, 7. 14 Puchstein, 1887, Fig. 23. THE IONIC CAPITAL FROM THE TEMPLE OF THE OXUS 237

There is a convex scotia between the central small fasciae. It should be noted that this baluster type with a deeply concave scotia and no leaf ornaments is typical of archaic and classical capitals and absolutely absent from the Hellenistic time. It cannot be dated later than the end of the 4th century B.C. What we have is a splendid sample of an Ionic capital of the Asia Minor type. A comparison with Asia Minor capitals to specify the dates points to similarities and individual features of the capital from the Temple of the Oxus. Previous research allows us to establish the date within half a cen- tury or even more exactly by the stylistic features. In the first place, the architectural details form a nearly continuous advance of the vertical construction of the pre-order and the order periods. An analysis has testified that their evolution, granted there is an adequate classification, fits neatly into narrow chronological spans. Here we shall not discuss the archaic capitals with concave scrolls of the volutes, since we are dealing with a capital with convex scrolls. Let’s have a brief look at the capitals starting with the 5th century B.C. The late archaic capitals from Ephesus found next to the Sanctuary of Artemis but, judging by their sizes, related to a smaller monument form an interesting group where their artistic features are concerned. Its style that is a transition from the archaic to the classical period is peculiar: the capitals’ facades were decorated with convex volutes, while their back parts with concave scrolls. This transition took place when the Artemis Sanctuary had already been built and the architectural standard formed. This confirms an idea that the Ephesus architectural centre was the leading one. The developing its capital form with identified and decorated abacus points to a new architectural koine for the capitals with concave scrolls of the volutes that later developed together with the Ionic order. Their abacuses were also decorated either with a cyma or egg-and-darts while the volutes slightly leaned forward like on the Ionic monuments of the 3rd century B.C. The first of the capitals was narrow and elongated of expressive yet heavy proportions. It has preserved the traditional archaic interpretation of the convex scrolls. Alzinger dates it to the middle of the 5th century, the period which was too late for the style15. In his opinion this date is

15 Alzinger W., Alt Ephesos. – “Das Altertum” Bd. 13, H.1., 1967, p. 35. 238 B.A. LITVINSKY & I.R. PICHIKIAN suggested by the ornamental features and the fact that the cushion and the echinus were made of one stone16. R. Heberdy and W. Wilberg wrongly dated three other capitals related, by the place they were found in, to the hall of columns next to a large theatre in Ephesus, to the Early Hellenistic period. On the outer sides the capitals were ornamented with concave and on the inner side with convex scrolls of the volutes. They are much shorter than in the Temple of Artemis, only 1.20 m. Their balusters are decorated with scales like the balusters in the temple at Locri Epizephyrii. W. Alzinger disagrees with the late date: he quite rightly believes that the volutes with concave scrolls should be related to an earlier period. Concave volutes are known from the capitals of three dipteroi dated to the 4th century B.C. Convex volutes are typical of a much later period than the first quarter of the 5th century B.C17. He mentions two other capitals that are of a more of less similar size and have both convex and concave volutes. They came from a place in Ephesus to the west from the large theatre. One of them with scaly volutes is the original sample of the turn of the 5th century B.C.18; the other belongs to the middle of the 5th century B.C. While studying the earliest archaic capital found in the North Pontic area in Panticapaeum, one of the present authors gathered together all the pub- lished capitals with both concave and convex scrolls of the volutes19. One of the rarest samples should be added. It was found in the ruins of a church in Agia Triada. H. Möbius dated it to the 6th-early 5th century B.C.20. We believe that they are all capitals of a transitory type and should be dated to this period alone. This is all the more true since Alzinger links this shift in architecture with the shift from the black-red-figure vases in Attica. One can say here that the styles replaced one another in the shop of Andokid in 530 B.C. The transfer from concave to convex scroll happened between the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. Alzinger here refers to Gruben21. We also agree that the capitals of the transitory group should be dated between

16 Pichikian I.R., Archaicheskaja woluta is Kerthi, – Kratkie soobshchenia Instituta arche- ologii, M., 1975, fig. 38, 1. 17 Alzinger, 1967, pp. 35, 36. 18 Alzinger, 1967, p. 37. 19 Pichikian, 1975, p. 90. 20 Möbius H., Attische Architecturstudien. – AM.Bd. 52, 1927, p. 167, Plate XXVII. 21 Gruben G., Zum Artemis-Tempel von Sardis. – AM.Bd. 76, München, 1961, p. 36. THE IONIC CAPITAL FROM THE TEMPLE OF THE OXUS 239

530 and 480 B.C., the first capital with concave scrolls included. All spe- cialists in antiquity agree with the date. Two constructions built by the greatest architect of Ionia Pythius are of especial interest for our research. They are the Temple of Athena in Priene consecrated by Alexander the Great in 331 B.C. and the tomb of a Caria king Mausolus in Halicarnassus, built in the middle of the 4th century B.C. Both constructions greatly affected further development of Ionic order buildings. The capital from the Athena sanctuary in Priene is the closest analogy to our capital. By a votive inscription it is dated to 331 B.C.22. The general rather high proportions, a slightly convex cushion, the fascia and the fil- lets that go around it and form the scrolls of the volutes, the abacus with Lesbian cyma and the leaning corner eggs partly covered with small pal- mettes23 make it close to the Takht-i Sangin column. The capital from the Temple of the Oxus was probably made from the models of Pythius’s capitals (mid-4th c. B.C.) in Bactria, the region far removed from Halicarnassus and Priene. However, all later capitals, starting with the 3rd century B.C. look to be much younger than the Oxus capital. Capitals of the early 3rd century B.C. form another intermediary group between the capitals of the Pythius circle and the Hermogenes group. Deeply cut reliefs to achieve the play of light and shade and large pal- mettes make them look much more festive and a bit fanciful. Such are the capitals of the Pergamum altar (197-159)24. Another, Late Hellenistic stage in Asia Minor architecture, is connected with another no less significant architect Hermogenes. He built the Temples of Artemis and Zeus Sosipolis in Magnesia25. He was greatly influenced by Pythius and borrowed from him, in particular, some of the capitals’ architec- tural details that he, believed, were worth reproducing. Other Late Hellenistic sanctuaries, such as the Temple of Aphrodite in Messa, 2nd century B.C.26.

22 Heisserer A.J., Alexander the Great and the Greeks. The Epigraphic Evidence. B., 1980, p. 143. 23 Dinsmoor W.B., The Architecture of Ancient Greece. L. — N.Y., 1950, Plate LX. 24 Puchstein, 1887, Fig. 30. 25 Pichikian I.R., Malaja Asia-Severnoe Prichernomorje. Antichnye tradizii i vlijania. M., 1984, p. 50, 51. 26 Akurgal E., Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey. Istanbul, 1969, p. 30, Figs. 1, 4. 240 B.A. LITVINSKY & I.R. PICHIKIAN bore the traces of influence of both great architects. This proved to be the last period when the canons of the Asia Minor architectural style were used directly. The capitals of the so-called Hermogenes group to which Vitruvius referred with great respect (III, 2,6; 3,8; IV, 3,1; VII, insert, 12) was the closing stage of the form’s development in Asia Minor architecture. This is amply demonstrated by Hermogen’s first building, the Temple of Zeus Sosipolis in Magnesia-ad- Maeandrum27. His later creations — the Temple of Athena in Magnesia28 and Diony- sus on Teos29 — bore Ionic capitals with huge corner palmettes that were nearly sculptures. What was more, the echinus of the Teos capitals had the egg-and-dart ornament that contained diphteroi dart heads. The egg-and-dart ornament made its wide-spread appearance in the capital and the numerous periphery architectural schools across the huge at the end of the 2nd century B.C. in Asia Minor and in Roman architecture in the 1st century B.C. (the Temple of Fortuna Virilis)30. A comparison between the Oxus capital and the Asia Minor capitals of the 5th-2nd centuries has demonstrated that the Takht-i Sangin capital stood closest to the monument of the narrow local Asia Minor group (the Temple of Athena in Priene, dated by Alexander the Great’s consecration31 and the Temple of Artemis in Sardy32 clearly dated between 330-280 B.C.33. From this it follows that the Temple of the Oxus was completed approximately at that time. An analysis of the entire architectural and archeological mate- rial from the Temple of the Oxus, the chronology of its features (like the torus-like bases and removable toruses), the technology of the altar treatment, the main mass of the votive material (unbaked clay sculptures, very short- lived objects, in the first place) support the dates between the end of the 4th and the early 3rd centuries B.C. as the probable date of the temple’s completion and decoration of its interiors.

27 Akurgal, 1969, p. 187, Fig. 66. 28 Akurgal, 1969, p. 184, Fig. 65. 29 Puchstein, 1887, Figs. 32, 33. 30 Pichikian I.P., Bosporskie antablementi pervyh vekov n.e. — Sovetskaja archeolo- gia. 1975, N 1, p. 180, Figs. 6-10. 31 Dinsmoor, 1950, p. 233, Fig. 80 and Plate 55; Durm, 1910, p. 415, Fig. 291 a,c. 32 Durm, 1910, p. 418, Fig. 384. 33 Pichikian, 1984, p. 125, Fig. 48. THE IONIC CAPITAL FROM THE TEMPLE OF THE OXUS 241

The first publication of the Takht-i Sangin capital caused a great inter- est among our colleagues. P. Bernard believes that the Ionic capital “was a significant dating feature”34. He is right in referring it to a series of the contemporary Greek capitals. He also pointed that what we themselves indi- cated: the face sides of the echinus were decorated not with the traditional five egg figures but with seven of them (two angle ones were halves): “Two additional ovoid figures are seen (which is true) in an atrophied form”. Further he writes: “Despite these particular features that puts apart its structural development from the Greek models the author (I.R. Pichikian) is quite right when he defines it as close to the capitals of the sanctuary of Athena in Priene. However, an absence of a scotia from the capital allows us to compare it with the capitals of the second phase of the temple’s con- struction (the western part of the colonnade).” This leads P. Bernard to a conclusion: “The Takht-i Sangin capital cannot be earlier than the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. This coordinates with a hypothesis that the temple was initiated by the Seleucids. One can learn about the two construction phases of the Priene temple (of which the author seems to be ignorant) in M. Schede and J.C. Carter”35. Two construction phases of the Priene temple are a well-known fact. Their dating causes much more doubt. It has been investigated for 200 years now since its discovery in 167336. The descriptions by 17th and 18th cen- tury travellers were followed by studies and publications by the “Society of Dilletanti”. At the end of the 19th century (1895-1898) Germans dug in Priene and published the results. In the 20th century the temple’s architecture was carefully studied: the results were described in general works on Greek architecture and the architecture of Greek temples. The most significant works on the subjects were contributed by U. von Wiliamowitz-Moellendorf (1914), A. von Gerkan (1914), K. Lehman-Hartleben (1932), M. Schede (1934), H. Drerup (1954), G. Kleiner (1962), W. Koenigs (1983), J.C. Carter (1983) and others. Both the temple ruins and the architectural details in Istanbul, London and Berlin museums were studied. Three inscriptions allow to justify the dates. The inscription on the front side of the upper block of the southern anta says:

34 Bernard, 1994. La temple du dieu Oxus a Takht-i Sangin en Bactriane: temple du feu ou pas? — Studia Iranica, t. 23, fasc. 1, P., 1994, p. 82, No. 3. 35 Bernard, 1994, p. 82, Note 3, further p. 107. 36 Gruben, 1986, S. 378-385. 242 B.A. LITVINSKY & I.R. PICHIKIAN

Basileùv ˆAlézandrov ˆané‡jke tòn naòn ˆA‡jnaíji Poliádi. “King Alexander has built the Temple of Athena Polias”37.

Another inscription, a decree in honour of Megabyzos, says that he was dili- gently working to complete the Athena naos38.

[Megábuhov] Megabúhon newkórov t±v ˆArtémidov t±v ˆen ˆEféswi.

This decree on the base was completed with the words that Megabyzos was a neokoros of Artemis in Ephesus39: The first publisher who also studied the inscription, Hiller v. Gaertringen dated the inscription that mentioned Alexander to 334 B.C., while the first inscription with the name of Megabyzos, to the next 333 B.C. However, later there appeared another interpretation of the same inscrip- tions40. It was the following. During his stay in Ionia Alexander just ordered to complete the naos of the temple already in progress. As we know from Arrian (Arr., Anab,m I, 17, 10) Alexander showed concern for the Temple of Artemis of Ephesus. He ordered that the fees the Ephesus people had used to pay to the Achaemenides went to the temple. The inscription says that Megabyzos filled an important post in the temple. It is surmised that Alexander entrusted the Temple of Artemis and Ephesus with helping to complete the naos in Priene. Upon its completion and during Alexander’s lifetime the inscription was made in his name in 323. Probably the inscrip- tion of Megabyzos was made at the same time41. This interpretation, just like the first one, agrees with what Vitruvius said (Vitr., I, 1,12; 7, praef. 12)

37 Hiller von Gaartringen F., Inschriften von Priene, 1906, S. 129, No. 156. 38 Hiller von Gaertringen, 1906, S. 5f, No. 3. 39 Hiller von Gaertringen, 1906, S. 148, No. 231. 40 D. van Berchem. Alexandre et la restauration de Priene MusHelv 27, 1970, p. 198- 205; S. Hornblower. Mausolus, 1982, p. 323-330; Carter J.C., The Sculpture of the Sanc- tuary of Athena Polias at Priene. London, 1983, p. 36-38. 41 Carter, 1983, pp. 36-38. THE IONIC CAPITAL FROM THE TEMPLE OF THE OXUS 243 about the temple architect being Pythius who had taken part in the con- struction of the Maussoleion in c. 350 B.C. The first students of the temple, H. Schrader in particular, believed that the techniques and styles of its parts did not differ much and that one could accept that it had been built consecutively throughout a very short period. A more detailed and profound analysis made several decades later allowed M. Schede to make a different conclusion: “The upper part of the Athena Sanctuary in Priene is divided into two clearly identified periods. The first of them applies only to the eastern part”42. He dated the first period by Alexander’s name to 334 B.C.43. The rest of the building was dated to the middle of the 2nd century B.C. on the strength of silver coins minted by a Kappadokia king Orophernes, the palaeography of other inscriptions and, mainly, on considerable differences in the ornaments44. However, writ- ten sources dealing with synchronous events in Priene (Pol., 33,6; Diod., 31, 32, 1) mentioned that in c. 155 B.C. the Priene people gave 400 talents for safe-keeping in the Athena Sanctuary. They say nothing about any contributions for its construction; epigraphic sources likewise say nothing about it. Contrary to what M. Schede thinks that coins themselves cannot be a “starting point” for any dating. An analysis of the temple went on after M. Schede published his work. There were several important contributions to the subject, including by H. Drerup (1954), G. Kleiner (1962), W. Koenigs (1983) and, especially, by J.C. Carter (1983). He used a vast body of material, including recent materials to prove that the ornamental divergences in the first and second stages were not significant. He also revised the palaeography of the inscrip- tions that bore the names of Alexander and Megabyzos. His conclusion was that the ornaments of both phases done in relief were stylistically uni- form enough. He also thinks that the second phase was chronologically close to the first and dates the end of the second phase by the nineties of the 3rd century B.C. If we accept Carter’s viewpoint then the time gap between the two phases was only 30 to 40 years. The discussion has not ended though. Other works, by W. Koenigs45 (1983), a later work by K. Tancke

42 Schede M. Heiligtümer in Priene. — Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaeologischen Insti- tuts, Bd. 49. B, 1934, S. 102. 43 Schede, 1934, S. 98. 44 Schede, 1934, S. 106-108. 45 Koenigs W., Die Athenatempel von Priene. — Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Bd. 33. Tübin- gen, 1983. 244 B.A. LITVINSKY & I.R. PICHIKIAN

(1989)46, and some others insist on the date of 2nd century B.C. for the second phase (an excellent review can be found in47). If Carter’s dates are accepted — and they seem to be convincing enough — then the similarity with the second phase capitals (on which P. Bernard insists and against which we object) cannot serve an argument against the dates suggested by us. To obtain a specialist opinion about the Oxus capital we addressed the greatest authority in the Hellenistic architecture Prof. Hoepfner of Berlin Free University. Having studied the documents we supplied Prof. Hoepf- ner kindly sent us his written conclusion cited here in full:

“Das Kapitel ist ein interesantes und seltes Beispiel für die Auf- nahme griechischen Kulturgutes in Asien in hellenistischen Zeit. Es handelt sich nicht um ein Exportstück, sondern um ein Kapitell, das von einheimischen Steinmetzen sehr warscheinlich nach einer Zeichnung angefertigt worden ist. Irrtümlich ist der Abakus mit les- bischen Kyma zu hoch geraten, ein Fehler, der einem griechischen Kapitellspezialisten nicht unterlaufen wäre. Ferner sind die Schneck- enwindungen zu volumenös und zu breit im Verhältnis zum darzwischen liegenden Canalisgrund. In änlichen Weise ist der Gurt der Polster- seite zu eng geschtaltet. Die Proportionen des Kapitells mit kleinen und gestreckten Voluten sind spätklassisch und kleinasiatisch. Nach dem von Pytheos ein- geführten Schema verhalten sich Volutenhöhe zu volutentiefe zu Volutenbreite wie 1:2:3 (Vgl. W. Hoepfner - E.-L. Schwandler, Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland (1986) 193 ff.). Verwandt erscheint das Mausolleionkapitell des Architekten Pytheos. (Vgl. H. Dre- rup in Jahrbuch des DAI 1954, 1 ff.). Änlich auch ein erst im späten 3. Jh. in Alexandria gearbeitetes und unter kleinasiatischen Einflus stehendes Kapitell. (Hoepfner, Zwei Ptolemaierbauten (1971). Bügelkyma und angearbeiter Säulenhals sprechen zunachst für eine Datierung in hochhellenistische Zeit. Gemalte lesbische Kymatien haben aber schon Ende 4. Jh. v. Chr. die form des Bügelkymas, bei

46 Tancke K., Figuralkasseten griechischer und römischer Steindecken. 1989. 47 Rumscheid F., Untersuchungen zur kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus. Text; Katalog. Mainz, 1994 (Beiträge zur Erschliessung hellenistischer und kaiserzeit- licher Skulptur und Architektur, Bd. 14), S. 42-45. THE IONIC CAPITAL FROM THE TEMPLE OF THE OXUS 245

der das Zwischenblatt zum beherrschenden Element wird. Dafür gibt es an makedonischen Kammergräber viele Beischpiele. (Vgl. G. Pestas, O tapos ton Leukadion). Das hier vorliegende Kyma ist sehr wahrscheinlich nach einer farbiger gemalten Vorlage in Stein gemeißelt worden. Für eine Datierung in das 3. Jh. spricht die tek- tonische Gestaltung: Anders als bei späten ionischen Kapitellen ist das Polster kompakt und der Freiraum unter dem Abakus niedrig. Auf der Unterseite ist der Eierstabkranz auch im Berecht der Voluten sorgfältig ausgeführt. Das Kapitell beweist uns, daß Architekturzeichnungen im Hellenismus eine große Rolle spilten und die Verbreitung der griechischen Säulen- architektur bis nach Asien ermöglichen. Wolfram Hoepfner, Freie Universität Berlin.

He has made significant additions to our publications. He believes that the Oxus capital was an interesting example of Greek cultural traditions trans- ferred to Asia during the Hellenistic period. The capital was made of the local stone probably from a drawing. The proportions with small convex volutes were Late Classical and belonged to Asia Minor. The height, depth and width of the volutes relate as 1:2:3 according to the pattern intro- duced by Pythius. The capital of the Halicarnassus Mausoleum looks very similar (or kindred); it was made by Pythius. The parallels that we have missed proved to be important: with the painted capitals of Macedonian tombs in Leucadia48 of the late 4th century B.C., cited by Prof. Hoepfner. The protruding cyma and the untreated column neck relate to the Early Hellenistic period. However, Prof. Hoepfner does offer some support for possible dates in the 3rd century B.C. We believe them to be of a general nature and not free from some flaws. “The 3rd century dates are supported by the tec- tonic shape which is different from the Late Ionic capitals: a compact fas- cia and a low cushion under the abacus (This is what relates it to the early 5th-4th cc. B.C. – Authors). The lower part decorated with the Ionic egg- and-darts between the volutes was also carefully shaped” [Hoepfner, expert opinion]. We believe that more likely than not this supports the dates of the 4th rather that 3rd centuries. We do not dare to argue with the acknowledged

48 PETSA F.M. O TAFOS TWN LEUKADIWN. — BIBLOQJKE TJS EN AQJNAIS ARXAIOLOGIKJS ETAREIAS ARIQ. 57, Pin.33a, Eik.27. 246 B.A. LITVINSKY & I.R. PICHIKIAN authority especially because he has cited no example. If there are such examples they will be discussed during the next investigation as soon as possible. We feel we should dwell in detail on the reasons for our dates: the 4th rather the beginning the 3rd century B.C. We have to enumerate the additional dating features that do not allow the dates later than the 4th or the early 3rd centuries B.C. for the Oxus capital (though we have never excluded such a possibility): 1. The Lesbian cyma. Fundamental works by C. Weickert (1913); W. Alzinger (1974); J. Ganzert (1983) and F. Rumscheid (1994) provide detailed ideas of its types and evolution. There is a considerable similarity with the pattern of the Lesbian cyma from a Labraunda temple (351-344 B.C.). In both cases the leaf-shaped elements (Hauptblatt is the German term) have broken contours of the side surfaces. In Labraunda the base/height ratio is larger, that is, the leaf is wider; the leaf is broken lower. The central vein (Mittelrippen-Ast) divided in a very similar way. The patterns of the intermediary loop- shaped elements are practically the same49. We can also mention here the Lesbian cyma in the temple in Messa (stylistically dated to 340-320 B.C.), where the loop mouth is wide50, just like in Halicarnassus. The pattern of the elements of the Lesbian cyma on the Takht-i Sangin capital is strikingly close to the pattern on the capital of the western facade of the Priene temple51. F. Rumscheid noted that the central vein was made by two parallel rollers that slightly separated on top52. However, in Priene the loop is very narrow, or nearly closed53. In Charmyleion at Kos (late 4th c. B.C.)54 the loop and the central vein are very close to the Takht-i Sangin capital. These parallels are not solely based on the pattern of the Lesbian cyma and its elements — the proportions are also involved. The Lesbian cyma of Asia Minor of the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic time was marked by the 3:3 ratio between the height and width of leaves; the cyma leaf

49 Rumscheid, 1994, Taf. 64/1. 50 Ganzert J., Zur Entwicklung lesbyscher Kymationformen. — Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Bd. 98. Berlin, 1983, Abb. 53. 51 Schede, 1934, S. 99-100, Abb. 3. 52 Rumscheid, 1994, S. 260. 53 Ganzert, 1983, S. 143, Abb. 48, 50. 54 Ganzert, 1983, S. 145, Abb. 54. THE IONIC CAPITAL FROM THE TEMPLE OF THE OXUS 247 from the Temple of the Oxus has an 11:15 ratio, that is, it is insignifi- cantly narrower. The ornaments in Belevi also display generally close cyma patterns55 and in Samothrace56. It was in the early 3rd century B.C. that the rollers showing leaf veins forked at the base the upper ends being wide apart. This is clearly seen on a capital fragment from Heraion of Samos (stylistically 290-260 B.C.)57, the capital of which has very similar outlines. Thus, the Lesbian cyma from the Temple of the Oxus is between the groups of the latter half of the 4th and early 3rd century B.C. It best fits into the chronological limits of the late 4th century B.C. 2. The shape of the Ionic egg-and-darts that decorate the echinus is late Classical, the darts between them are classical. W. Koenigs made a detailed analysis of the Ionic egg-and-darts on the capitals and other archi- tectural details of the Temple of Athena in Priene related to its first and second phases. He pointed out that the egg-and-darts of the first phase58 were carefully modelled, the lower parts of the ovals were rounded; the ovals themselves were framed in rectangles with the vertical upper parts. This was done in high relief. The short barrel-shaped pattern is absolutely the same. Similar ornaments were typical for other Asia Minor monuments of the 4th century B.C. and for the Maussoleion and Labraunda, in the first place. At the second stage Koenigs59 points to careless modelling, the frames becoming triangular. The elements dividing the semi-ovals, executed like straight line-ribs, not as extended rhomboids (sometimes with a short base) like in the first phase60. The comparison between the Ionic eggand-dart ornaments on the Takht- i Sangin capital and the similar ornaments on the capitals and architectural details of the two construction phases of the Athena Temple in Priene61 points to a much greater similarity with the first phase. The shape of the semi-ovals, the rectangular frames that press onto the semi-ovals bring them closer to the first phase. In Priene there are five eggs, in Takht-i Sangin

55 Ganzert, 1983, S. 146-147, Abb. 56-57, probably 290-280 B.C. 56 Ganzert, 1983, S. 145-146, Abb. 55, the early 3rd c. B.C. 57 Rumscheid, 1994, Taf. 177/3, S. 261. 58 Koenigs W., Die Athenatempel von Priene. — Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Bd. 33. Tübin- gen, 1983, Taf. 31,1; 32/1-1; 33/1. 59 Koenigs, 1982, Taf. 32/3; 33, 2. 60 Koenigs, 1983, S. 170-172. 248 B.A. LITVINSKY & I.R. PICHIKIAN also five and one half-egg on each side. The eggs and their frames in Priene are vertical in their upper parts, in Takht-i Sangin they are parts of curved semi-ovals. In Priene the eggs and the frames are spaced widely with a dividing line going through the entire height. In Takht-i Sangin they are pressed closely to each other and the dividing line can be seen only below. Just like the egg patterns of the first phase of the Athena Sanctuary in Priene the Ionic eggs on the Oxus capital originated, without doubt from the egg ornaments on the Halicarnassus Mausoleum (mid-4th c. B.C.)62. We have already mentioned the Temple of Zeus in Labruanda (351-344 B.C.). The egg-and-darts on that temple63 are very close to those from Takht-i Sangin. The difference belongs to the rectangular frames that are wider and do not press on the eggs. The eggs have gaps between them. The same similarity can be seen in the egg-and-dart and barrel-shaped patterns and the in the temple in Messa (Lesbos, 340-320 B.C.)64 and with Belevi, proba- bly the beginning of the 3rd century65. 3. The angle palmettes made up of three petals pressed closely to each other and to the egg pattern are small: the analogies are found in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. and in the very beginning of the 3rd century B.C. as rare exceptions66. The Ptolemeion capital from Limira used by Yu. Vinogradov to support the probable early 3rd century B.C. date67 had sculptured and large pal- mettes: one could push a finger between them and the egg-and-darts while the palmettes of the Oxus capital were carved next to the egg pattern. Besides, they were so small that they hardly protrude beyond the egg halves68. This capital of a column of the peripteral tomb of Ptolemeion in Limira (Li 86/547) is dated to 278-270 B.C. Hoepfner suggested this date stemming from a capital of the Ptolemeion’s votive in Olympia69. There are large palmettes, fasciae that framed the eggs shaped like narrowed ovals.

61 Rumscheid, 1995, Taf. 142-157. 62 Rumscheid, 1994, Taf. 44/3; 48/2-6. 63 Rumscheid, 1994, Taf. 64/2. 64 Rumscheid, 1994, Taf. 96. 65 Rumscheid, 1994, Taf. 15. 66 Ganzert, 1983, S. 164, Abb. 94. 67 Borchardt J., Ein Ptolemaion in Limyra. — Revue archéolologique, 1991, fasc. 2, p. 316, Fig. 12 (Yu. Vinogradov spoke about I. Pichikian’s paper at the Learned Council of the Institute of Oriental Studies on 19 June 1992). 68 Pichikian, 1991, Fig. 25; Pitschikjan, 1992, Abb. 14a,b. 69 Hoepfner W., AM, Bd. 99, 1984, S. 353, Taf. 53, 54; Borchardt, 1991, p. 316, Fig. 12. THE IONIC CAPITAL FROM THE TEMPLE OF THE OXUS 249

The eggs are divided by deep-cut fasciae that creates a strong light-and- shade effect. The eggs are narrower towards the lower part that speaks about a later period. The similarity is great and cannot be denied yet the Takht-i Sangin capital looks very much like a grandmother of a very sim- ilar granddaughter. It should be mentioned that Prof. Hoepfner avoided citing this capital as a Takht-i Sangin analogy though he was aware of its existence since he had himself published it. A large group of capitals belong to the 3rd century B.C.: the capitals of the of Artemision in Sardes70, the Temple of Athena in Priene No. 26771, the Temple of Zeus in Priene No, 26972, the Didimeion in Miletus [Bingol, 1980, p. 124]; the Aphroditetemlpe in Messa73; the Temple of Apollo in Chryse74; the market in Egy75, Priene No. 27076, No. 19677. In his review P. Bernard touches on a rather interesting problem: dates for the Ai Khanoum capitals that, he believes “were a whole century younger than those of Takht-i Sangin and which were a very free interpretation the Ionic capitals”78. Here we are once more confronted with his idea about the Ionic capitals. It is useless to look for Asia Minor analogies to the Ai Khanoum capitals: they belong to a different, Eastern Hellenistic type (they know no echinus, egg-and-darts, and angle palmettes). They were widespread in Persia (Horhe and the isle of Ikaros), Central Asia (Aï Khanoum) and India. The Oxus capital is of the purely Asia Minor style. Besides, if P. Bernard does insist on his date of the early 3rd century B.C. for the Oxus capital then the Ai Khanoum capitals that were, to borrow his description “a whole century younger” should be dated to the early 3nd century B.C. that goes contrary to his own dates for the buildings that existed for a long time. They had lived through many construction periods before being ruined in 145 B.C., the date, according to P. Bernard, when the city of Ai Khanoum was destroyed. It should be noted that he was on the whole correct when he said that not only the capital but the majority of

70 Bingöl O., Das ionische Normalkapitell in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit in Kleinasien. — Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Beicheft 20, 1980, p. 228, No. 274. 71 Bingöl, 1980, p. 124, 227, No. 267. 72 Bingöl, 1980, p. 124, No. 269. 73 Bingöl, 1980, p. 124. 74 Bingöl, 1980, p. 124. 75 Bingöl, 1980, p. 124. 76 Bingöl, 1980, p. 124, No. 270. 77 Bingöl, 1980, p. 124, No. 196. 78 Bernard, 1994, p. 82, Note 3. 250 B.A. LITVINSKY & I.R. PICHIKIAN finds from Aï Khanoum were one century younger than the Early Hel- lenistic masterpieces from the Temple of the Oxus. It seems strange, how- ever, why in his latest article P. Bernard related the buildings and the entire city of Aï Khanoum to the time of Alexander the Great (probably on the strength of the only find close to the time, namely, a signet ring with a dog on it). At the same time he totally passed over in silence Takht-i Sangin where the majority of finds belonged to his and the earlier period79. In fact all this fits well his tendentious, as we think, hypothesis that the Temple of the Oxus was built in the Seleucid period and that there was no connection between it and the Oxus Treasure. And this despite the fact that nowhere in Central Asia (with the sole exception of the Temple of the Oxus) Achaemenian objects of art and gold votive plates were found. They are similar only to the objects from the Oxus Treasure and despite the adequate dedication to the Oxus in Aramaic (Oxus Treasure, signet ring No. 105) and Greek (Atrosokes dedication to the Oxus). Tens of Achaemenian objects from the Temple of the Oxus have been published in all languages yet P. Bernard absolutely denies their existence while he does not want to recognise the presence of gold objects and plates in the Temple of the Oxus. This is hardly an objective approach. If one follows in his footsteps along the road of indirect dates than one will have to admit that it was in the time of Alexander the Great when the ideas of his contemporary, architect Pythius, could reach the Oxus shores together with war trophies. We believe that our capital relates to his circle on which Prof. Hoepfner and P. Bernard himself insist. The architectural and stylistic features of the capital from Takht-i Sangin date it to the last third of the 4th (I.R. Pichikian) and, probably, to the very beginning of the 3rd century (B.A. Litvinsky): this does not contradict any of the interpretations suggested by the researchers. At the same time the dates should not be detached from the date of the building and, mainly, from the Late Achaemenian columns one of which it crowned. As was proved above they supply an exact chrono- logical indication to the Late Achaemenian-Early Hellenistic period, that is, the last third of the 4th century B.C. — first decades of the 3rd century B.C. This period coincided with Graeco-Macedonian expansion and early Seleucid Kingdom and wide construction of cities and fortresses probably

79 Bernard, 1996. THE IONIC CAPITAL FROM THE TEMPLE OF THE OXUS 251 made under the supervision of Greek rulers. A comparison of the monu- mental architecture of the temples of the Oxus and Ai Khanoum deserves special discussion yet it is obvious that Greek culture, transplanted onto an alien yet receptive Bactrian soil, played a progressive role. The two monu- ments confirm this. Centralised power, Greek written language, brisk eco- nomic and cultural relationships promoted flourishing of the Bactrian cities and the arts. This cannot be denied. 252 B.A. LITVINSKY&I.R.PICHIKIAN

Fig. 1. Temple of the Oxus. Plan of 1991. THE IONICCAPITALFROMTEMPLEOFOXUS

Fig. 2. Citadel of Takht-e Sangin. From the west. 253 254 B.A. LITVINSKY & I.R. PICHIKIAN

Fig. 3. Propylaea of the temenos of the temple of the Oxus. THE IONIC CAPITAL FROM THE TEMPLE OF THE OXUS 255

Fig. 4a. Ionic capital from the Temple of the Oxus from front side.

Fig. 4b. From baluster side (Photo). 256 B.A. LITVINSKY & I.R. PICHIKIAN

a

b

c

Fig. 5a. Ionic capital from the Temple of the Oxus from front side. b. Ionic capital from the Temple of the Oxus from rear side. c. from baluster side (fig. by architect Mrs. O. Wasina). THE IONICCAPITALFROMTEMPLEOFOXUS 257 Fig. 6. Ionic capital from the Temple of the Oxus from front side (Fig. by architect J. Arsamanov). 258 B.A. LITVINSKY & I.R. PICHIKIAN

Fig. 7. Order of the Temple of the Oxus Fig. by architect J. Arsamanov).