Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Archaeological Institute of America
Archaeological Institute of America
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
Ta? Kule: A Persian-PeriodTomb near Phokaia
NICHOLAS CAHILL
Abstract ture, and the ancient road may have passed this way as
A unique freestandingtomb near Phokaia, known as well, since this valley is the shortest and most logical
Tag Kule, is presentedhere, and an attemptmade to ana- route from the harbors of Phokaia to the Hermos
lyze its cultural background.Tag Kule does not belong to River and the main routes to Buruncuk/Larisa, Mag-
any of the normal Anatolian traditionsin funeraryarchi- nesia ad Sipylus, Sardis, and inland Anatolia. Ta?
tecture;rather, its unique form should be connectedwith
Persian aristocratsand administratorsliving in Asia Mi- Kule must have always been a conspicuous monu-
nor, and with "Persianizing"local nobility. The funerary ment, known to local travelers.
traditionsof these aristocratsseem to differ from those of The tomb has not been thoroughly studied, how-
local nobles and of Persians living in the homeland, and ever. An article written more than a century ago by G.
certain aspects of these "hybrid"traditions, such as false
Weber is the only detailed treatment, and it leaves
doors, are discussed. On archaeological and historical
grounds, Tag Kule should probably be dated to the sec- many questions unanswered.3 Ta? Kule has received
ond half of the sixth or earlier fifth century B.C., placing passing mention in a number of guidebooks and hand-
it among the earliest freestandingtombsin Anatolia. The books of Turkish archaeology, and in treatments of
origins of these tombs may be related to the more general funerary architecture of Asia Minor, but to date there
use of monuments as propagandisticmemorials, and the
historical contextof Tag Kule itself may thus be relatedto has been no systematic study of the monument since
attempts to maintain political controlover this tradition- Weber's.4
ally rebellious area of the Persian empire. The relatively brief treatment Ta? Kule has re-
ceived is due in part to its unusual form and structure.
About 7 km east of Eski (the ancient It does not fit easily into established architectural tra-
Fo;a, Turkey
Phokaia) stands an imposing tomb known locally as ditions of Asia Minor; no exact parallels are known for
Ta? Kule or Ta? Ev (figs. 1-8).' Hewn from a single its shape or decoration. Hence there is no general
outcrop of limestone bedrock, it rises majestically, and agreement about its date or the architectural tradition
somewhat unexpectedly, from the level valley floor. to which it belongs. Weber compares it vaguely to
There are no traces of ancient settlements in its imme- Phrygian tombs, and, pointing out the nearness of La-
diate vicinity; the closest site is Phokaia.2 The modern risa/Buruncuk, "l'antique cite pelasgique," ascribes it
road to Eski passes within 100 m of the struc- to the prehellenic epoch. Perrot and Chipiez follow
Fo;a
I
David Stronach first introducedme to Tag Kule during (1956) 3-14; Akurgal, Die Kunst Anatoliens (Berlin 1961)
a trip through northwesternTurkey in July 1982; many of 17, 180, 283; E. Langlotz,"Beobachtungenin Phokaia,"AA
the ideas expressed here were first suggested by him during 1969, 377-85; Langlotz, "F. Sartiaux' Phokaia-Karte,"AA
this trip and in subsequent discussions. Crawford H. 1976, 480-81.
Greenewalt,jr., has given constantguidanceand encourage- 3 G. Weber, "Troistombeauxarchaiquesde Phoc&e," RA
ment, both during the 1983 Sardis field season, when I did 1885, 129-38; I have not seen the article in MovorEov Kal
the basic study and recordingof the monument,and in later BLpLOO'K? 7rT7^EayyEALK')S IXoA)S', A?vrepa,
research. Permission to study Ta? Kule was graciously 'Eros 1875-76 (Smyrna 1876)HEp•OdOS'
101-102, cited by
granted by the Turkish General Directorate of Antiquities WeberHpoTrov,
on p. 132.
and Museums and its Director General, Nurettin Yardimci; 4 G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, History of Art in
Phrygia,
to ExcavationsDivision Assistant Meral G6zibiiyiik, many Lydia, Caria and Lycia (London 1892) 65-67, figs. 39-41;
thanks for her adviceand support. Tevhit Kekeq,archaeolo- Akurgal 1961 (supra n. 2) 294-95, fig. 262; Akurgal, An-
gist at the Bergama Museum and commissioner for the cient Ruins and Civilizations of Turkey (Istanbul 1983)
fieldwork at Tag Kule, made work at the site a pleasure. R. 118, fig. 40; G. Bean, Aegean Turkey (London 1966)
Tringham, R. Stroud, J. Borchhardt,G.M.A. Hanfmann, 96-97, fig. 23, pl. 20; M. Waelkens, "Das Totenhaus in
R.A. Bridges, and J. Zahle all offered many valuable sug- Kleinasien,"AntW 11 (1980) 6; Waelkens, "Hausahnliche
gestions and criticisms of the manuscript.To all these and Griber in Anatolia vom 3 Jht. v. Chr. bis in die Rdmerzeit,"
many other friends and colleagues I owe my deepestthanks. in D. Papenfussand V. M. Strockaeds., Palast und Hiitte.
A short report on this study was given in Izmir at the 6th Beitriige zum Bauen und Wohnen im Altertum von Archdo-
Annual Congress for the Results of Archaeological Re- logen, Vor- und Friihgeschichtlern (Mainz 1982) 433. U1.
search and Excavationin Turkey, 16-20 April 1984. Serdaroglu, "Bautitigkeit in Anatolia unter der persischen
2 On excavations at Phokaia, cf.
especially F. Sartiaux, Herrschaft,"in Palast und Hiitte 355, figs. 6a-b, publishes
"De la nouvelle 'i l'ancienne Phoc&e,"CRAI 1914, 6-18; the only drawings of the monument not based on Weber's
"Chroniquede Fouilles," BCH 44 (1920) 412; E. Akurgal, sketches.
"Les fouilles de Phoc&eet les sondagesde Kyme,"Anatolia 1
481
American Journal of Archaeology 92 (1988)
482 NICHOLASCAHILL [AJA92
Fig. 1. Ta?Kule,distantviewfromthesouthwest
this attribution;and Bean, while admittingthat "noth- try to explain why the monumentwas built in the way
ing whatever is known about this remarkabletomb," it was, what its form and decorationmight have signi-
suggests that "its general style is reminiscent of the fied, and finally,why such an unusualmonumentcame
early monumentsin Phrygia ... Later,when the Lyd- to be built near Phokaia.After a generaldescriptionof
ians and then the Persiansintervened,Phrygianinflu- Ta? Kule, I propose to examine the monumentfrom
ence in Ionia is hardly to be expected.There seems no three angles:first,its generalform and structure,com-
reasonwhy this tomb shouldnot date backto this early paring it to other freestandingtombs in Asia Minor
period;it may indeed be earlier than Phokaia itself." and elsewhere;second,its architecturalvocabulary,the
Akurgal, on the other hand, places it in an indigenous detailssuchas moldingswhich can oftenbe so revealing
Anatolian tradition, incorporating traits of Lydian, of the architecturaltraditionsbehind a building; and
Lycian, Phrygian, and Achaemenid Persian monu- finally, its symbolicand religiousaspects.
ments, and dates it to the fourth century,when neigh-
DESCRIPTION
boring Larisa/Buruncuk was ruled by tyrants under
Persian control. Serdaroglucomparesthe monument Ta? Kule is a freestandingmonument cut entirely
to the PyramidTomb at Sardis, and dates it to ca. 390 from a single massive outcrop of bedrock.Its corners
B.C., but does not attempta moredetailedanalysis.5 are approximatelyorientedto the cardinalpoints (the
This remarkable and little-understood tomb de- long sides are 500 east of north), but this may have
serves closer study. The most appropriate way of been determinedin part by the shape of the original
studying such a singular, isolated monumentmust be outcrop,which was probablynot much largerthan the
the comparativemethod,to try to determinethe archi- tomb. It does not seem to be oriented to any ancient
tectural and funerary traditions in which it was road or structure, and there is no reason to suppose
plannedand built, and thus to make suggestionsabout that religious or other considerationsdeterminedits
the identityand backgroundof its commissioner,andto orientation.'
I
Akurgal1961(supran. 2) 294-95. Weber(supran. 3) Akurgal1983,118;Serdaro'lu352,354.
135-36. Supran. 4: Perrotand Chipiez66-67; Bean97; 6 Weber's
drawings,andthoseof PerrotandChipiezand
1988] TA$ KULE: A PERSIAN-PERIOD TOMB NEAR PHOKAIA 483
The monument is comprisedof two stories, sepa- Two narrow, rather roughly cut grooves run roughly
rated by a four-steppedtransition which resemblesa north-south, diverging slightly to the south, across the
segment of a stepped pyramid (figs. 1-6). The lower entire length of the top between the uppermost step
story is rectangular,measuring8.8 x 6.2 m and 2.7 m treadsand the roughinterior;they mightbe settingsfor
high.7 The stepped transition and upper story are set the capping section.A small pit 0.19 m wide and 0.28
near the front of the lower story, so that the lowest m deep is cut into the northerntread.
three steps of the transition are missing on the front The front of Ta? Kule bears its only decoration,a
side; hence the front face of the monument rises false door with a simple but importantlintel molding
straight to the level of the fourth step. The steps are (figs. 2-4). The door itself is recessed0.5 m from the
somewhatirregular,the treadsand risersvaryingfrom front of the monument,and is dividedinto four panels
0.3-0.4 m. The upper story is a plain cubical mass, by slightly raised crossbars.The whole doormeasures
2.9 x 2.9 m and 1.9 m high. On top of this cube a single 2.3 m wide x 2.1 m high; the lower panels are 0.7 m
step is preserved,with a cutting taken out of its east high, the upper only 0.4 m high; the crossbars0.3 m
edge. Within the tread of this step the stone rises irreg- wide. Aroundthe panels is a raisedborder,0.3 m high
ularly, to a maximum height of 0.27 m above the tread. on the top and bottom,0.1 wide on the sides.
This unfinished or very roughly finished surface was The "door"is borderedon its top and sides by a
probably capped by a built section, now missing; it frame 0.20 m wide, aroundwhich runs a raisedfascia
might be reconstructed as two or more steps forming 0.25 m wide. This fascia supports the "door"at its bot-
the top of the pyramid, as proposed here (figs. 4, 6).8 tom, and continues to either side as a sort of base
Bean followingWeber's,show an inaccurateorientation; width varies from 6.18 m on the north side to 6.30 m on the
Serdaroglu'sdrawing is accurate in this regard. For conve- south.
nience I will refer to the front of the monument, the short 8 Weber does not suggestany restoration.Perrotand Chi-
side with the false door, as the north side, and the other sides piez (supra n. 4) 66 speculate that it might have been a
accordingly. pyramid, rosette or a "phallic"marker, but say that the
The dimensionsare ratherirregular;for example,the traces do not "admiteven of conjecture."
484 NICHOLAS CAHILL [AJA 92
I
Weber's sketch of the molding is misleading, as he l Weber (supra n. 3) 135.
shows it as resembling a corner akroterion more than a 12A. Pechlow-Bindokat,"Steinbrtichevon Milet und He-
horn-like raised finial; Serdaroglu'sdrawing does not show rakleia am Latmos,"JdI 96 (1981) 157-235, esp. figs. 34,
the molding at all. 42, 43, 84; W. Koenigs, "Beobachtungenzur Steintechnik
10Cf. for instance the doors on the tumuli at Selgikler,DU. am Apollon-Tempel von Naxos," AA 1972, 380-85; A.K.
Izmirligil, "Ugak-SelgiklerTtimtiltisleri,"TiirkArkDerg22 Orlandos, Les matiriaux de construction et la technique ar-
(1975) 41-69, and on Carian and Lycian tombs, P. Roos, chitecturale des anciens Grecs 2 (Ecole Franpaise d'Athenes,
"The Rock-Tomb Doors of the Lyco-Carian Borderland," Travaux et Memoires 16, Paris 1966-1968) 15-20;
OpAth 10 (1971) 25-30; Roos, The Rock-Tombs of Caunus R. Martin, Manuel d'architecture grecque (Paris 1965)
1: The Architecture (SIMA 34.1, G6teborg 1972). 146-55.
1988] TA$ KULE: A PERSIAN-PERIOD TOMB NEAR PHOKAIA 485
6.18
r
!
LL
I I _______
0 ! . . -
ESIt r;00-TA$ ,
.ULE
FRDt4-rl .LEATIO$
N23
ting near the back of the lower story (fig. 8). Since this has been cut away in step-like stages,and to the south-
is shallowly cut into an unfinishedsurface, it may not east is a larger mass, also worked with channels and
have been intended as a permanent feature; its pur- step-like cuttings. Both these outcropswere probably
pose and significanceare difficultto judge. Two shal- quarried to provide stone for the built sections of the
low drain channels run along the long sides of the tomb, such as the cap for its upper storyand the fill for
lower story. its northeastcorner.Furthercuttingsare visible in the
Toolmarks are unfortunatelydifficultto distinguish wadi bed nearby.
in this relatively soft, coarse, and weathered stone. No ancient inscriptions remain on the tomb, al-
There are no traces of the claw chisel. The rough sur- though it is coveredwith moderngraffiti.
faces are worked with a pick or a point, while finer
FORM AND STRUCTURE
work was apparentlydone with a fairly wide flat chis-
el or an adze-like tool. Tag Kule does not fit easily into established Anato-
Nearby are other, smaller outcrops of bedrock lian traditionsin funeraryarchitecture,and compari-
which have been worked to some degree. Just east of sons with "normal"tombs simply reveal how unusual
the tomb is a triangular outcrop the center of which this monumentis. There is one type of Anatoliantomb
486 NICHOLAS CAHILL [AJA 92
which is comparable to Ta? Kule in a general way; it and date to about the second quarter of the fifth cen-
is to these tombs that Akurgal compares Ta? Kule
tury or slightly later; among these are Building G at
when he describes it as being in an Anatolian and par- Xanthos and the recently discovered podium tomb at
ticularly Lycian tradition.13 In its basic structure this Apollonia. Later, the Nereid Monument at Xanthos
consists of two stories, a square or rectangular podi- and the Heroon at Limyra are structurally similar to
um, generally containing a chamber, and an architec- the early tombs, but are built with Greek architectural
tural stage standing on the podium, often columnar or forms, Ionic columns or caryatids, and primarily
embellished with other architectural decoration. Be- Greek decorative elements, rather than the native Ly-
fore the Hellenistic period such mausolea were almost cian forms which apparently imitated local wooden
entirely restricted to the non-Greek regions of western construction." All these Lycian tombs apparently
Asia Minor, Lycia, Caria, and Lydia. Almost none contained two chambers, one in the podium, the other
are known from Ionia, Aeolia, the Doric cities of the in the "cella" or upper stage. The uses of these cham-
southwest, or other Greek regions until after Alexan- bers is not certain, but inscriptions suggest that the
der's conquest. This in itself suggests that Ta? Kule, upper seems to have been the primary burial chamber,
nearest to the Greek city of Phokaia, ought to be con- while the lower might have been used for burial of the
sidered separately from native Anatolian tombs.14 prfinezi, the "personal household," coresidents or rel-
The earliest tombs of this type seem to be Lycian, atives of lower status than the builder.16
13 Akurgal 1983 (supra n. 4) 118. ture funeraire,"RA 1971, 327-37; on inscriptionsof Erbbi-
14 On these tombs in general see D. Kurtz and J. Board- na, probablythe commissionerof this tomb, infra n. 30. He-
man, Greek Burial Customs (Ithaca 1977) 283-302; roon at Limyra: J. Borchhardt,Die Bauskulpturdes He-
G. Waywell, "Mausoleain SouthwestAsia Minor," Yayla3 roons von Limyra (IstForsch 32, 1976). On Lycian tombs in
(1980) 4-11, and referencesinfra. On Ionian graves of this general, most recently,K. Kjeldsenand J. Zahle, "Lykische
period, in addition to Kurtz and Boardman, H. Philipp, Griber: Ein vorldiufiger Bericht," AA 1975, 312-50;
"Archaische Graber in Ostionien," IstMitt 31 (1981) J. Zahle, Arkaeologiske studier i lykiske klippegrave og
149-66; E. Pfuhl and H. Mdbius, Die ostgriechischeGrab- deres reliefferfra ca. 550-300f.Kr (Copenhagen 1983); and
reliefs (Mainz 1977). J. Zahle and T.R. Bryce, The Lycians 2 (Copenhagen
15 Building G: H. Metzger, Fouilles de Xanthos 2: L'acro- forthcoming,cf. infra n. 16).
pole lycienne (Paris 1963) 49-61. Apollonia: K. Kjeldsen 16 E.g., the tomb of Ahqqadi at Xanthos: E. Laroche in
and J. Zahle, "A Dynastic Tomb in Central Lycia. New P. Demargne, Fouilles de Xanthos 5: Tombes-maisons,
Evidence for the Study of Lycian Architectureand History tombes-rupestres et sarcophages: Les epitaphes lyciennes
in the Classical Period,"ActaArch47 (1976) 29-46. Nereid (Paris 1974) 135-36; P.H.J. Houwink ten Cate, The Lu-
Monument: P. Coupel and H. Metzger, Fouilles de Xan- wian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during
thos 3: Le monument des Nereids: L'architecture(Paris the Hellenistic Period (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis
1969); R. Martin, "Le monumentdes Nereids et l'architec- Antiqui 10, Leiden 1961) 90-91. Cf. G. Neumann, Neu-
1988] TA* KULE: A PERSIAN-PERIOD TOMB NEAR PHOKAIA 487
The most famous tomb of this type is the Maussol- solleion, together with other Carian tombs, differs
leion at Halikarnassos in Caria. Although many de- from its Lycian predecessors.Its main burial was in a
tails of this Wonder of the World remain controversial, sarcophagusin a chamberat the base of the podium,
it is clear that it shared the formal principles of earlier rather than on a kline in the upper stage as in Lycian
Lycian mausolea: the two-story structure, podium, tombs;and it was designedfor a single interment,not
and peripteral upper stage; the use of Greek architec- as a family tomb as most Lyciantombswere. Parallels
tural elements and ornament; and lavish decoration to later tombs suggest that there was a room in the
with reliefs and freestanding sculpture. In important upper story,perhapsservingas a cult chamber."1
structural and functional aspects, however, the Maus- A number of later Carian tombs share these for-
8.81
2-90
0 1 3 3.(7
98
r-C
funde lykischer Inschriften seit 1901 (TAM 1, Suppl. 1, liufiger Bericht der dinischen Halikarnassos-Expedition,"
DenkschrWien 135 [1979]) no. N306. On priinezi in gener- IstMitt 26 (1976) 47-99; K. Jeppesen et al., The Maussol-
al, T.R. Bryce, "Lycian Tomb Families and Their Social leion at Halikarnassos 1: The Sacrificial Deposit (Jutland
Implications," Journal of the Economic and Social History of Archaeological Society Publications 15.1, Jutland 1981);
the Orient 22 (1976) 296-313. T.R. Bryce, The Lycians in K. Jeppesen and A. Luttrell, The Maussolleionat Halikar-
Literary and Epigraphic Sources (The Lycians 1, Copen- nassos 2: The WrittenSources(Jutland ArchaeologicalSo-
hagen 1986) 116-25, 150-53. Later inscriptions in Greek ciety Publications15.2, Jutland 1986). An upper chamberis
are cleareron the matter:the lower chamber,or hyposorion, restoredby most students of the monument, e.g., Jeppesen
is frequently reserved for the builder's o'KEtOLt
(e.g., TAM 2, (supra) 57-58. He suggests a cultic function, perhaps in-
217, 247, 322, 331, 438, 454, 604, 611). volving libations to the deceased, on the basis of upper
17Most recently K. Jeppesen, "Neue Ergebnissezur Wie- stories in other monumentswhich were connectedwith the
derherstellungdes Maussoleions von Halikarnassos:4. vor- burial chamber by a channel or opening in the floor (to
488 NICHOLAS CAHILL [AJA 92
mal and structural principles: the mausoleum at Be- tombs have received much less scholarly attention
levi is the earliest and best studied of these. A later than their predecessors.20
tomb at Mylasa, known as Gilmiikesen, has received These comparisons demonstrate how different Tag
much less attention, undeservedly so since it is re- Kule is from most Anatolian tombs, and point out its
markably well preserved. The Lion Tomb at Knidos uncommon form and structure. The similarities be-
may also have been similar, although little remains of tween Tag Kule and Anatolian mausolea are rather
this monument.'8 general, in their rectangular, two-storied structure,
In contrast to Lycia and Caria, relatively few tombs their occasional imitation of architectural elements
of this type have been discovered in Lydia. The only which are not directly functional in the structure of
reasonably certain example is represented only by two the tombs, and in their inner chambers. But in all
blocks of its sculpted pediment, discovered at Sardis, these respects Tag Kule differs greatly from "norma-
which depict a banquet in "Greco-Persian" style. tive" Anatolian freestanding tombs. Although it con-
There is no direct evidence for its structure; the tomb sists of two stories, these are not an architectural stage
may be reconstructed in various ways by analogy to standing on a high podium, but a large lower block
other mausolea.19 which carries the architectural facade, surmounted by
This typeof tombcontinuedto be popularin later a stepped transition and a much smaller and totally
periods,not onlyin Asia Minorbut in otherpartsof plain upper cube, without a chamber. The treatment
the Mediterranean. Tombsof the Romanperiodwith of architectural ornament on Tag Kule is different
the samebasicstructureas earliermausoleaare par- from that on Anatolian mausolea, too. Other tombs
ticularlycommonin the moreconservative Anatolian are true architectural constructions, with functional
of
regions Lycia and Cilicia, althoughthese later columns and other architectural members, or are more
which add GuimiiSkesen[infra n. 18] and, at Bin Tepe near in Honor of Dows Dunham on the Occasion of his 90th
Sardis, tumulus tomb BT 66.1, G.M.A. Hanfmann, "The Birthday (Boston 1981) 45-56.
Ninth Campaign at Sardis,"BASOR 186 [1967] 48). 20 E.g., E. Alf6ldi-Rosenbaum,The Necropolis of Adras-
18 Belevi: C. Praschniker,M. Theuer et al., Das Mauso- sus (Bababolu) in Rough Cilicia (Isauria) (DenkschrWien
leum von Belevi. Forschungenin Ephesos 6 (Vienna 1979). 146, 1980);J. Borchhardtet al., Myra. Ein lykischeMetro-
Lion Tomb: C.T. Newton, A History of Discoveriesat Hali- pole in antiken und byzantinischen Zeit (IstForsch 30,
carnassus,Cnidusand Branchidae(London 1862) 480-511; 1975) 61-63, pls. 30-31; E.S. Equini, La necropolidi Hie-
F. Krischen, "L6wenmonumentund Mausolleion," RM rapolis di Frigia. (MonAnt, Serie Miscellanea 1.2, Rome
59 (1944) 173-81. Giimiiakesen: O. Benndorf and 1972);J. Keil and A. Wilhelm, Denkmdleraus dem Rauhen
G. Niemann, Reisen im siidwestlichenKleinasien 1 (Vien- Kilikien (MAMA 3, Manchester 1931) pls. 11-14, 17, 18,
na 1884) pl. 49; Akurgal 1961 (supra n. 2) 162, pl. 112; 37; A. Machatschek, Die Nekropolen und Grabmdilerim
1983 (supra n. 4) 248, pl. 77; G.E. Bean, Turkeybeyondthe Gebiet von Elaioussa und Korykos im Rauhen Kilikien
Maeander (London 1971) 23, pl. 5. (Verlag der OsterreichischenAkademieder Wissenschaften
19 G.M.A. Hanfmann and K.P. Erhart, "PedimentalRe- 96, 1967) 63-110, pls. 23-54; H. Swoboda, J. Keil and
liefs from a Mausoleum of the Persian Era at Sardis:A Fu- F. Knoll, Denkmdleraus Lykaonien,Pamphilien und Isau-
nerary Meal," in W.K. Simpson and W.M. Davis eds., rien (Vienna 1935) 114-16, figs. 25-28.
Studiesin Ancient Egypt, the Aegeanand the Sudan:Essays
1988] TA KULE:A PERSIAN-PERIODTOMB NEARPHOKAIA 489
-i K
2-on, 1Ii
M3`I
He
MAO,6N
Fig.8. Ta?Kule,overallplan
or less convincing recreationsof structures normally not a simple, convincingrepresentationof real archi-
built in other fashions, for instance the "petrified tectural forms; it cannot be explained, as Waelkens
wooden architecture"on Lycian tombs. More impor- has suggested, by proposing that it recreatesor imi-
tantly, the architecturalelementson those tombsartic- tates local domesticarchitecture.21Rather, this "door"
ulate and function with the tomb itself, and the treat- is better interpreted as a symbolic motif which can
ment is generally completedon all visible parts of the function independently of its architectural context.
tomb, not restrictedto a single area. Architecturalren- Other than this false door, Ta? Kule is plain, un-
derings on TaQKule, on the other hand, are limited to adorned;the monument as a whole is blocklike and
the false door on its front. Even in the illusion this quite unlike the highly decorated,"normative"Anato-
"door"does not articulate or function in the structure lian mausolea.
as a whole: it appears almost pasted on the front of an There are, however,a few closerformalparallelsto
otherwise plain and blocklikemass, and dominatesthe Ta? Kule, which themselves lie outside the "norma-
front of the tomb as an independentelement. This is tive" traditions in Anatolian funerary architecture.
2..30
S2.f ii
..63
N INF
\N~~
NIi~
fI
r r \
i~:?\~\\~\\,\?~=~\;?=IN,
,N,
The closest parallel to the pyramidal form of Ta? however, and a reconstructionsimilar to the Tomb of
Kule is the Pyramid Tomb at Sardis, excavated by Cyrus, as proposedby Butler, fits the evidenceas well
H.C. Butler in 1914 and investigatedfurther by the (fig. 13).23 The complete break from earlier Lydian
present Sardis Expedition.22The most recent study funerary traditions, the remarkablesimilarity of its
reconstructsthe tomb as a pyramid in two stages (fig. masonry to that of buildings at Pasargadaedating to
12). This reconstructionis not the only possible one, the reign of Cyrus, the material (local limestonerath-
22 H.C. Butler, Sardis 1: The Excavations (Leiden 1922) stonesand earth,and might be stableenoughto supporta tall
154, 167-70, fig. 185; G.M.A. Hanfmann,Sardisfrom Pre- superstructure.The sole survivingblockfromabovethe floor
historicto Roman Times (Cambridge,Mass., 1983) 42, 100, of the chambershows no sign of differing wear or exposure
103, figs. 67-69. on its upper surface, while the tread surfacesof other step
23 Studied by A. and B. Kasper in 1969. Kasper has not blocks are quite worn and eroded;this indicatesthat at least
revealed his reasons for reconstructingthe tomb as a com- two courses above the chamberfloor formed a vertical wall
plete pyramid; only his drawings have appeared in print. ratherthan furthersteps of a pyramid.Althoughthe restora-
There are no separatefoundationsfor solid walls in the base, tion of the upper part of the tomb remainsuncertain,at least
which might argue against a reconstructionsimilar to the the base of the pyramid and a vertical section dividing the
Tomb of Cyrus, but the packingof the base consistsof large structureinto two "stages"are certain.
1988] TA$ KULE: A PERSIAN-PERIOD TOMB NEAR PHOKAIA 491
TA5 K.LE
FoxAr:
ESK.I
SECTIONALELEVATION
NC. IgW
er than marble), and the lack of clamps, dowels, and and conceptual parallels to Ta? Kule than any other
claw chisel marks suggest that the Pyramid Tomb was freestandingtombs. The stepped elements forming a
built in the second half of the sixth century B.C. under pyramidal base to an upper stage, the blocklike char-
Persian authority, perhaps for a Persian, as Hanf- acter of the monuments, and their independence from
mann has proposed.24 the architecture of the living-houses and temples-
The upper story of Ta? Kule may also be compared tie these monuments together and distinguish them
to the tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae and the closely re- from the more common types of freestanding tombs in
lated, unfinished tomb near Persepolis, known as Asia Minor. Further evidence for this independence,
Takht-i Rustam or Takht-i Gohar.25 Although the and for foreign influencesacting on Ta? Kule, is pro-
stepped podiums of these tombs are on a far grander vided by the architectural details of the tomb.
scale than the stepped transition of Ta? Kule, the
effect is somewhat similar: a section of a stepped pyra- THE ARCHITECTURAL VOCABULARY
mid supporting a relatively plain upper stage. The architectural vocabulary-moldings, decora-
While the parallels are not exact, the Pyramid tive forms, and the like-is very limited on Ta? Kule.
Tomb and the Tomb of Cyrus do offer closer formal The only molding is that on the lintel above the false
24 Hanfmann dated the tomb to ca. 540, and suggestedthat vation in the core of the tomb recoveredno datablematerial.
it was the tomb of Abradatasand his wife Pantheia, seen by On traditional Lydian tombs, B.K. McLauchlin, Lydian
Xenophon (Cyr. 7.3): Hanfmann (supra n. 22) 42, 103; Graves and Burial Customs (Diss. Univ. of California,
Hanfmann, "The Third Campaign at Sardis (1960)," Berkeley 1985).
BASOR 162 (1961) 31 n. 45. C. Nylander, Ionians at Pa- 25 D. Stronach, Pasargadae (Oxford 1978) 24-43, 302-
sargadae. Studies in Old Persian Architecture (Uppsala 304; W. Kleiss, "Der Takht-i Rustam bei Persepolis und
1970) 93 suggests "adate before500."An earlier date, in the das Kyrosgrab in Pasargadae,"AA 1971, 157-62; A.B.
first half of the sixth century, is not impossible, but would Tilia, Studies and Restorations at Persepolis and Other Sites
not agree with the main periodsof use of this cemetery(from of Fars II (IsMEO Reports and Memoirs 18, Rome 1978)
the mid-sixth century on), nor with the very close parallels 73-80.
to datable masonry at Pasargadaeand at other sites. Exca-
492 NICHOLASCAHILL [AJA92
OUTIDE.
LINTEL
3.-S."DEE?
DoOR
-OUTE.R.
OUTSIDE.
OUOUTT- DOOPO
UTFTElT•.Eo
7 ci/ /R ABcK)VE)
door, the kyma reversa and the fascia with horn-like the door on the Tomb of Cyrus (fig. 15).26 This mold-
upturned finials (fig. 14). The kyma reversais a com- ing is almost identical in form and proportionto that
mon Greek molding, but the upturned finials on the on Ta? Kule, and is considerably closer than any
fascia above are rare or unknown in Greek architec- known moldingfrom the Greekworld. Similarfasciae
ture. The only possible parallels are corner akroteria with upturnedfinials, although without the kyma re-
common on pedimental buildings and altars, and oc- versa, are found above the doorson the Zendan-i Su-
casionallyfound on doorwaylintels, but these are very laiman at Pasargadae and the Ka'aba-i Zardusht at
different in form and purpose from the finials on Ta? Naqsh-i Rustam (fig. 16). The functionsof these tow-
Kule. ers remain enigmatic: suggestions include fire sanc-
This molding is thoroughly at home, however, in tuaries, tombs, or repositories for religious or other
Achaemenid Persian architecture,and specificallyon paraphernalia.27Whatever the functions of the Zen-
tombs. The closest parallel is the lintel molding above dan and Ka'aba,it remainsclear that such door mold-
26Stronach(supran. 25) 32-34, figs.17a,18a. 36; E. Schmidt,Persepolis 3: The Royal Tombsand Other
27D. Stronach,"UrartianandAchaemenian TowerTem- Monuments(OIP 70, Chicago1970)34-49; M. Boyce,A
ples,"JNES26 (1967)278-88;Stronach(supran. 25) 117- History of Zoroastrianism2 (Handbuch der Orientalistik
1988] TA$ KULE: A PERSIAN-PERIOD TOMB NEAR PHOKAIA 493
ings were well established in the Achaemenid archi- the world of the Persian administratorsof this prov-
tectural vocabulary,on the doors of tombs such as the ince of the Achaemenidempire.They suggestthat Ta?
Cyrus Tomb as well as on other monuments. Kule was designedand executed accordingto Persian
A fascia with upturnedfinials abovea dooris found rather than local architecturalprinciples, or, rather,
on yet one more monument, a "Greco-Persian"relief accordingto principles developedfor these provincial
from the satrapal capital of Daskyleion.28This relief administratorsand their Persianizing local subordi-
depicts a magos standing before a door (perhaps a nates, drawingin part on both Iranianand localtradi-
false door?),holding a barsombundle. The lower part tions. This then should accountfor its dissimilarityto
of the molding above the door is brokenaway, but the other Anatolian tombs.3"
fascia above has the same upturned finials as those on
Ta? Kule and the Iranian monuments.This relief and SYMBOLICAND RELIGIOUS ASPECTS OF TA KULE
a similar, better known relief, also from Daskyleion,
are generally interpretedas funeraryscenes, depicting The Daskyleion reliefs depictingmagoi performing
rites and sacrifices before the tomb door of some de- sacrificesand rituals before the door of a tomb raise
ceasedperson, presumablyPersian;such sacrificesare further questions about the symbolism and functions
attested in literary sources. The reliefs probably date of various featuresof Ta? Kule. The false door on the
to the fifth century B.C.29 frontof Ta? Kule is one of its most prominentfeatures,
The parallels between Ta? Kule, the Pyramid and demandsexplanation, as does the bowl-like hol-
Tomb, and the Tomb of Cyrus, and the use of door low in frontof the "door."These two features,perhaps
moldingsfound elsewhere only on Achaemenidmonu- more than any others, may be related to the religious
ments of Iran and Daskyleion, lead us away from the beliefs of the commissionerand may allow some in-
usual varieties of Anatolian tombs and bring us into sight into the ideologiesbehind the design of the tomb.
8.1.2.2a, Leiden and K61n 1982) 57-60, 116-17; A. De- J.M. Balcer, Sparda by the Bitter Sea (Brown Judaic Stud-
mandt, "Studienzur Kaaba-i Zerdoscht,"AA 1968, 520-40; ies 52, Providence1984).On PersianizingLydians,cf. the
F. Krefter, "Achamenidische Palast- und Grabtuiren," holders of Achaemenid Court Style pyramidal seals in-
AMIran N.F. 1 (1968) 99-113; B. Goldman, "PersianFire scribed with Lydian names such as Manes: J. Boardman,
Temples or Tombs?"JNES 24 (1965) 305-309. "Pyramidal Stamp Seals in the Persian Empire," Iran 8
28 Istanbul
ArchaeologicalMuseum no. 5391; this relief is (1970) 19-44, esp. nos. 4-5, and pp. 20-21, 30-39; N.V.
illustratedto date only in a small photographin A. Buising- Sekunda, "AchaemenidColonization in Lydia," REA 87
Kolbe, "Friihe griechische Turen," JdI 93 (1978) 121, pl. (1986) 7-30; C.H. Greenewalt,jr., "An Exhibitionist from
26. It is also mentioned, although not illustrated, in An Il- Sardis,"in D.G. Mitten, J.G. Pedley, and J.A. Scott eds.,
lustrated Guide to the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul Studies Presented to George M.A. Hanfmann (Harvard
(Istanbul 1968), and by M. Mellink, "Archaeologyin Asia Monographs in Art and Archaeology2, Mainz 1971) 29-
Minor," AJA 64 (1960) 68. The reconstructionof the con- 46; C.D. Curtis, Sardis 13: Jewelry and Gold Work (Rome
sole below the finial is not secure;it is also possible that the 1925) esp. 11-13, nos. 1, 2, 8; L. Robert, "Une nouvelle
upper fragment should be moved further to the left, placing inscriptiongrecque de Sardes:reglementde l'autoriteperse
the upturned finial closer to the doorjamb as on other simi- relatif ia un culte de Zeus," CRAI 1975, 306-30. On Per-
lar doors. sianizing Lycians, A.S. Shahbazi, The Irano-LycianMonu-
29 Second relief: T.
Macridy, "Reliefs gr&co-persesde la ments (Teheran 1975); D. Asheri, Fra Ellenismo e Iran-
region de Dascylion,"BCH 37 (1913) 340-58; P. Bernard, ismo (Bologna 1983); Bryce 1986 (supra n. 16); J. Borch-
"Les bas-reliefs gr&co-persesde Dascylion a la lumiere de hardt, "Zur Deutung lykischer Audienzszenen,"Actes du
nouvelles d&couvertes,"RA 1969, 17-28; J. Borchhardt, Colloque sur la Lycie Antique (Paris 1980) 7-14; W.A.P.
"Epichorische,grako-persischebeeinflutte Reliefs in Kili- Childs, "Lycian Relations with Greeks and Persians Re-
kien,"IstMitt 17 (1968) 201-203; Boyce (supra n. 27) 117- examined," AnatSt 31 (1981) 55-80. M. Jean Bousquet,
18. Since both reliefs were found in secondarycontexts,their "Arbinas,fils de Gergis, dynaste de Xanthos,"CRAI 1975,
findspotsdo not help determinetheir original use. They are 138-48 and L. Robert, "Les conquetes du dynaste lycien
generally held to be funerary,and an iconographicallysim- Arbinas,"JSav 1978, 3-48, publish two inscriptionsof this
ilar relief carved in front of a rock-cut tomb at Ravansar, dynast of west Lycia, who boasts among his many accom-
Iran supportsthe contention(P. Calmeyer, "Das Grabrelief plishments that he "7Trvrae TA7raLr
t 7rpe7Tov c-rarep oropo't
von Ravansar,"AMIran N.F. 11 [1978] 73-86). Sacrifices: TE LLy-
avspegricracrtv],/ rofoo$rvL 7rEiapeT7LT7e, wL7T'7f0V
Arr. Anab. 6.29; Strab. 15.3.15; Aesch. Pers. 607-680; ,iara quintessentialPersianvirtues.These inscrip-
Boyce (supra n. 27) 70-71. tions etb[•w],"
also shed important new light on the sculptural pro-
30 General backgroundon the Iranian presence in Anato- gram of the Nereid Monument, generally accepted as his
lia and the "Greco-Persian"phenomenon includes Borch- tomb (Childs [supra] 71 and n. 99). Cf. C. Herrenschmidt,
hardt (supra n. 29); C. Starr, "Greeksand Persians in the "Une lecture iranisante du poeme de Symmachosdedie A
Fourth Century B.C.: A Study in Cultural Contactsbefore Arbinas, dynaste de Xanthos," REA 87 (1986) 125-36;
Alexander," IrAnt 11-12 (1976-1977) 39-99, 49-115; Asheri (supra) 97-104.
494 NICHOLAS CAHILL [AJA 92
The Bowl in Front of the Tomb Persian cults are well attested throughout this prov-
The hollow in front of Ta? Kule resembles fire ince of the Empire.3
bowls used in Zoroastrian ritual; and in view of the Bowls and altars, or depictions thereof, are known
tomb's other Achaemenid associations this hollow can in Iran in funerary contexts. A fire bowl similar to
be interpreted as such a fire bowl. The fact that it is that at Ta? Kule was carved into a ledge in front of the
cut into a section of ledge which was not meant to be tomb at Ravansar in the western Zagros; the front of
quarried away, but would have remained as a small this tomb is decorated with a relief depicting a sacri-
platform or altar in front of the false door with the fice like those from Daskyleion.32 Fragments of port-
bowl centered on the tomb's axis, shows that this bowl able fire altars were found out of context at Pasar-
was part of the tomb itself, rather than an artifact of gadae, one about 300 m from the Tomb of Cyrus;
its construction like the channels. Unfortunately, it is these might have been associated originally with the
impossible to determine whether the traces of burning Tomb itself.33 On the tombs of Darius and his succes-
in its interior are ancient or modern; but there is no sors at Naqsh-i Rustam, the King is shown perform-
obvious reason why a modern farmer or shepherd ing rituals in front of a fire altar, and two freestand-
should build a fire in this relatively small cutting on a ing, rock-cut fire altars, although probably Sassanian
narrow exposed ledge, rather than by the side of the in date, stand near these tombs.34 In the late or post-
tomb or in its chamber, nor is there any evidence that Achaemenid period, similar rituals before a fire altar
the burning is not ancient. A number of fire altars of were depicted on the rock-tombs at Kizkapan and
the Achaemenid period have been found in Anatolia, Sakavand, in imitation of the earlier Royal Achaeme-
at Limyra in Lycia and Bunyan in Cappadocia; and nid tombs.35 And finally, literary testimonia for such
PYRAMID TOMB
RECONSRUT
ION orSARDIS
1,506
. SCALE*L
J, fiLJIFlom
IFf$001. 41_ _7
0. -sicilo"
t.coos$
Flom
W11W AOOVE
LIL
t-l
77-
PYRAMID
TOIIB
NWEST 5 LOPE OFA\R OPOL 5
?,, ~ ~I?I~~Ii~9~,.
~~
1 g,
- - - - --
-
II _____
fit:
4%
;??? 11 t4
11
~' 5
-*T7F:
7L ??,?
PLA ,- -FANRB?TOED
A*?!- -CTAL-5TT
Fig. 13. Sardis, PyramidTomb. (After H.C. Butler, Sardis 1 [Leiden 1922] ill. 185)
rituals have been mentioned above. The bowl is mentioned, the two stelai from Daskyleion depicting
roughly the same size and shape as other known fire Persian magoi performing rituals before the door.
bowls; and in view of the tomb's other Iranian connec- Since their placementin the tomb is uncertain,the in-
tions it seems plausible to identify this cutting as a re- terpretationof the doors on these two reliefs is diffi-
ceptacle for fire used in Zoroastrian funerary ritual. cult: are the doors to be interpretedas symbolic false
doors.like that on Ta? Kule, or as sculptural depic-
The False Door tions of real (or false?) doors?A third early doorstone
False doors as funerary motifs are quite common in with an Aramaic inscription recently discovered at
Roman Anatolia, particularly in Phrygia and neigh- Daskyleion further documents the use of door sym-
boring regions.36 Earlier examples of false doors, bolism in the funerarypracticesof the Persian admin-
however, are rarer. Two possible examples have been istratorsof the satrapy.37
36M. Waelkens, Die kleinasiatischen Titrsteine (Mainz outside tumuli as at Karaburunand Ikiztepe (infra). None
1986). of these stones is complete, however, and the proportions
3 R. Altheim-Stiehl and M. Cremer, "Eine griko-per- and sizes of the stones with reliefs seem to distinguishthem
sische Tiirstele mit aramiischer Inschrift aus Daskyleion," from the inscribed doorstone and other early doorstones.
EpigAnat 6 (1985) 1-15. The authors suggest that all three This does not mean, however,that the symbolismof all these
doors from Daskyleion originally had reliefs on their right doors is not comparable.
sides and Aramaicinscriptionson their left, and were set up
496 NICHOLAS CAHILL [AJA 92
iS
.- -? ,',
,•H
38 Karaburun: M. Mellink, "Excavationsat Karata?-Se- Asia Minor," AJA 71 (1967) 172, figs. 20-21; Izmirligil
mayuikand Elmali, Lycia,"AJA 79 (1975) 349-53; "Exca- (supra n. 10) 43, 48; Waelkens (supra n. 36) 37, no. 9. The
vations in the Elmali Area, Lycia, 1975," AJA 80 (1976) objects mentioned are in the Ugak and Ankara museums,
382-84; "The Symbolic Doorway of the Tumulus at Kara- mostly unpublished. Strikingly similar objects are now in
burun, Elmali,"8 TUrkTarih Kongresi(Ankara 1979) 383- the Metropolitan Museum in New York: D. von Bothmer,
87. The iconographic similarity between the Karaburun "Les tresors de l'orfevreriede la Grace orientale au Metro-
wall paintings and "Greco-Persian"funerary stelai and re- politan Museum de New York,"CRAI 1981, 194-207, and
liefs from Daskyleion and other sites is most striking. Ikiz- von Bothmer, A Greek and Roman Treasury (BMMA,
tepe: B. Tezcan, "Ikiztepe Kazisi," 8 Tiirk Tarih Kongresi Summer 1984).
(Ankara 1979) 391-97; Mellink 1979; "Archaeologyin
1988] TA* KULE: A PERSIAN-PERIOD TOMB NEAR PHOKAIA 497
45 W.M. Ramsay,"Sepulchral
Customsin AncientPhry- [supra n. 31] 129-40).
gia,"JHS 5 (1884) 241-62; Citiesand Bishopricsof Phrygia 47 Cists of coursewere commonfor less pretentiousburials
(Oxford1895)1:99-101;2: 367-68, 395;Waelkens(supra (Philipp, supra n. 14); but in monumentalbuilt tombs the
n. 36) 17-31; 1980, 1982 (supra n. 4). norm is either a kline or sarcophagus. Naqsh-i Rustam:
46 Gur-i Dukhtar: Stronach
(supra n. 25) 300-302, who Schmidt (supra n. 27) 79-107; "Median"tombs: von Gall
suggests a relatively late date, no earlier than the fifth cen- (supra n. 35).
tury and possibly terminal or even post-Achaemenid.Zen- 48 Akurgal 1983 (supra n. 4) 118 (fourth century B.C.);
dan and Ka'aba:supra n. 27. Traditional "blindwindows" Sedaroglu (supra n. 4) 354 (390-380 B.C.); Praschniker,
as at Baba Jan Tepe (C. Goff, "Excavationsat Baba Jan, Theuer et al. (supra n. 18) 177, 194 (320-310 B.C.).
1968,"Iran 8 [1970] pl. 3); and Nush-i Jan (Stronach 1973
1988] TA$ KULE:A PERSIAN-PERIODTOMB NEARPHOKAIA 499
such a tomb would have been built during the period nasts used their monumentaltombs in much the same
when Phokaia was a memberof the Delian League.49 way as the Persian Kings and administratorsused
The comparisonsabove suggest that of the two peri- them, as explicit symbolsof power and personalglory,
ods, the earlier is the more likely. as memorials of their exploits in battle, of their no-
Such a date places Ta? Kule amongthe earliestfree- bility and the nobilityof their ancestors.These themes
standing tombs in either Anatolia or Iran, and raises are commonin the sculpturaldecorationand epitaphs
the question of the origin and developmentof this type of both Persian and Anatolian freestandingtombs."
of tomb. The earliestcloselydatablefreestandingtomb Although the forms of the tombs are different, the
is the Tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae,which must date meanings are similar, and it is possible that the use of
to before 530 B.C. Takht-i Rustam at Persepolis and monumental, highly visible and decoratedtombs to
the PyramidTomb at Sardis probablydate to roughly conveythese messagesabout the deceasedis relatedto
the same period, as do the earliest Lycian pillar-tombs Persian usage, and to the changedsocial situation and
such as the Lion tomb at Xanthos.50But attempts to new sourcesof controland legitimacyin Anatoliadur-
find antecedents for any of these tombs are fraught ing the Persian period.
with difficulties. Aspects of the architecturalvocabu-
TA? KULE: ITS HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL
lary and structuralfeaturesof the Tomb of Cyrus, for
CONTEXT
example, have been convincinglycomparedto Ionian
and Lydian architecture,but the tomb overall knows Among the most interesting and important ques-
no precedents,Anatolianor Persian. It seemsratherto tions Ta? Kule raises are why this tomb was built in
be in some way the productof interactionsof Persian such an unusual form near the Greek city of Phokaia,
and Western traditions, using Near Eastern, Ionian, and why other tombs of this type are rare or un-
and Lydian architectural forms to achieve the pur- known. The two questionsmay be connected:the ex-
poses of the Persian King. Similarly the Pyramid traordinaryform of the monument might be related
Tomb uses Lydian masonrytechniquesand styles in a to its location near the Greek coast rather than in
type of tomb which has no Lydian antecedents,per- inland Anatolia.
haps for an Iranian commissioner. It has been suggestedthat Ta? Kule was the tombof
There seem then to be a numberof relatively inde- a person of Iranian backgroundor under strongIran-
pendent traditions of funerary architecturein Anato- ian influence, perhaps practicing a form of Zoroas-
lia and the Near East during this early period:strictly trianism, presumablya local administratoror estate-
local types such as the Lycian pillar-tombs; more holderin or near Phokaia.But othertombsof Persians
widespread (and later) types of two-storiedmausolea; or Persianizing Anatolians, at Daskyleion, Ikiztepe,
Iranian freestandingtombs such as the Cyrus tomb, Sardis, Karaburun,and other sites, are generallylocal
Takht-i Rustam, and Gur-i Dukhtar, which are in a Anatolian or Greek types of tomb:tumuli, tombswith
way themselves "hybrids";and the rather odd, mixed anthemion stelai, mausolea, sarcophagi. They have
traditionsof Anatolia representedfor instance by Ta? been recognizedas Persian or Persianizing solely by
Kule and the Pyramid Tomb. Although there is little their decorationor contents.It seems, then, that Per-
formal relationship between these various traditions, sian administratorsin Asia Minor were generally
there are other similarities:Anatolian rulers and dy- buriedin tombsresemblingthose of local nobles,not in
outwardly distinctivetombs. Thus Ta? Kule would be status and ethnicityor alliance, and as a deliberateas-
extraordinarynot only in comparisonwith Anatolian sociation of the status of the deceasedto his ethnic or
mausolea, but also comparedwith the tombs of other cultural background.The statementis all the stronger
Persians or Persianizingaristocratsliving in Anatolia. since it is locatedin a region where built freestanding
It makes a far more forthright statement of its occu- tombs were very rare and where Persian authority
pant's alliance or ethnicity than, for instance, Ikiztepe was resisted.
or Karaburun.And the very fact that more such dis- However, although Ta? Kule used Achaemenid
tinctive tombs have not been found suggests that such architecturalformssuch as the moldingabovethe false
statementswere comparativelyrare. door, and its fire bowl shouldbe relatedto Zoroastrian
Why then this statementat Phokaia, and not in the religious practice,the tomb itself is not a Persian type
interior, in Lydia, Lycia, or Caria? Perhaps because of tomb. Thus, although it may have been designedto
Phokaia and the Ionian coast were not as tightly con- make an explicit statementabout the alliance or eth-
trolled as the interior during this time, and that more nicity of its commissioner,it did not do so by referring
and different forms of control and propagandawere to traditional Iranian tomb types, but by creating a
necessary to maintain Achaemenid authority. In the new type incorporatingforeignelements.Indeed,there
540s the Phokaians had resistedthe Persian approach seem to be a numberof somewhateclecticfunerarytra-
and fled instead; in 499, despite apparent economic ditions more or less specificto Iranians living in prov-
weakness, they provided the Ionian revolt with its inces of the Empire or Persianizedlocal nobility, and
commander.Perhaps becauseof the difficultiesof con- Ta? Kule may be compared to these traditions and
trolling this coastal region, a Persian administrative placed among them. As suggestedabove, for instance,
center was installed in the town, probablyas early as early false doors seem to be most frequently found on
the 540s as implied by Herodotos.52By the fifth cen- tombs associatedwith Persiansin Asia Minor, but the
tury B.C., satrapal coins were minted in Phokaia, im- false dooris not itself an Iranianfunerarymotif.As an-
plying Persian administrativepresence and control.53 other example, a distinctive iconographic complex
In the early fourth century Tachos, a Persian officer, consistingof a processionwith a tented wagon, a ban-
founded (or refounded) Leukai just south of Phokaia quet scene, and a hunt or battle, is foundalmost exclu-
as a base for his rebellion against the King; this area sively on the tombs of Persians or Persianizingaristo-
was still one where he might receive support against crats living in Anatolia and their Aramaic-speaking
Persian authority.54We know little about the mecha- assistants:at Daskyleion, Karaburun,and, in incom-
nisms of Persian administrativecontrolin Anatolia in plete forms,at Sardis,Sidon,and othersites;but not on
this early period, but the Persians were well aware of Anatoliantombswithout other Persianassociations,or
the potential of buildings, tombs, and other monu- on Persiantombsin the homeland.56
ments for making propagandisticstatementsand facil- These motifs then are neither strictly Persian nor
itating political control. The relief and inscription at properlyAnatolian;they servedthe particularneedsof
Behistun, those on the Tomb of Darius, and particu- Achaemenidadministratorsin Asia Minor, needs that
larly the Persepolis reliefs are all eloquent and effec- would have been different from those either of Per-
tive propaganda about the relationships between the sians at home or of nativeAnatolianaristocrats.There
King and his subjects.55Ta? Kule may be interpreted was some overlapping of requirements,leading per-
in this way as well, as an explicit statement of both haps to the use of these motifs by other social groups;