See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330875525

Closer to Heaven: The Tradition of Above Ground Burials in Western Anatolia.

In: ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ STUDIES IN HONOUR OF JAN BOUZEK, edited by P. Pavúk, V.
Klontza-Jaklová and A. Harding.ΕΥΔ...

Chapter · December 2018

CITATION READS

1 961

2 authors, including:

Lucia Novakova
University of Trnava
51 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Anatolian Greeks and their counterparts: intersecting of cultures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lucia Novakova on 05 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ
STUDIES IN HONOUR OF JAN BOUZEK

Opera Facultatis philosophicae Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis vol. XVIII

Peter Pavúk – Věra Klontza-Jaklová – Anthony Harding (eds)

This book presents the contributions offered
to Professor Jan Bouzek at the conference in
honour of his 80th birthday held in May 2015 in
Prague.
Jan Bouzek has been one of the most
influential and prolific archaeologists in
Europe over the course of his career, with
interests spanning climate change, the world
of later prehistory in central and eastern
Europe, and the archaeology of the Iron Age
and Classical world from central Europe,
through Bulgaria, to Turkey and the Black Sea
area. The papers in this volume reflect these
concerns. The world of ancient Thrace is an
important area of interest, especially in view
of the excavations at Pistiros (Bulgaria) which
he led between 1993 and 2015. Contributions
relating to the prehistoric Aegean, to Bronze
and Iron Age central Europe, to the Classical
and Hellenistic Balkans, and to the ancient
Pontic world, are among those which reflect
the many interests of this wide-ranging and
learned – but very human – scholar, and the
numerous friendships he formed over the
whole of Europe and beyond.
Opera Facultatis philosophicae Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis vol. XVIII
ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ
STUDIES IN HONOUR OF JAN BOUZEK

Peter Pavúk – Věra Klontza­‑Jaklová –

Anthony Harding (eds)
Opera Facultatis philosophicae Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis,
series editor: Michal Stehlík

This book was published with the assistance of the Institute of Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP) –
Philadelphia, USA
and as part of the Charles University program PROGRES Q 09: History – The key to understanding
the globalized world.

Copy readers:
Alexandros Mazarakis Ainian
Peter Warren

Opera Facultatis philosophicae Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis

vol. XVIII

Peter Pavúk – Věra Klontza­‑Jaklová – Anthony Harding (eds)

ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ. Studies in honour of Jan Bouzek

Published by the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague, nám. J. Palacha 2, Prague 1
in cooperation with Masaryk University, Žerotínovo nám. 617/9, 601 77 Brno

© Charles University, Faculty of Arts, 2018

© Masaryk University, 2018
© Peter Pavúk, Věra Klontza­‑Jaklová, Anthony Harding (editors), 2018
© Alexandru Avram, Philip Betancourt, Fritz Blakolmer, Jan Gerrit de Boer, Dorel Bondoc,
Victor Cojocaru, Alina Dimitrova, Andrea Ďurianová, Ayşe F. Erol, Bogusław Gediga,
Aleksey Gotsev, Vladimir Gotsev, Marta Oller Guzmán, Hilke Hennig, Anna Józefowska,
Marios Kamenou, Petra Kmeťová, Konstantinos Kopanias, Venceslas Kruta,
Luana Kruta Poppi, Andy Lamb, Dagmara Łaciak, James Muhly, Sarah C. Murray,
Emil Nankov, Lucia Nováková, Hristo Preshlenov, Vyara Petrova, Pavel Sankot, Deniz Tamer,
Valentina Taneva, Ivo Topalilov, Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, Alexandrina Tsoneva, Marek Verčík,
Saro Wallace, Ioannis K. Xydopoulos, Fikret K. Yegül, Eleni Zimi, 2018
Cover and typography: Jana Vahalíková
Cover illustration modified from CMS II,6 no. 11. Image courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg
Fedra typesetting: Dušan Neumahr
Press: Togga, spol. s r. o., Prague
First edition, Prague 2018
ISBN 978-80-7308-767-8 (Charles University, Faculty of Arts)
ISBN 978-80-7308-795-1 (online : pdf)
ISBN 978-80-210-9025-5 (Masaryk University. Brno)
CONTENTS

11 Preface

I. The Aegean and Anatolia

17 The Early Trade Routes for Metals in Bronze Age Crete

(Philip P. Betancourt, James D. Muhly)
29 A ‘Special Procession’ in Minoan Seal Images: Observations
on Ritual Dress in Minoan Crete
(Fritz Blakolmer)
51 Deconstructing Achilles. The Stories about Piyamaradu
and the Making of a Homeric Hero
(Konstantinos Kopanias)
71 Imported Objects as Proxy Data for Change in Greek Trade after
the Mycenaean Collapse: A Multi­‑variate Quantitative Analysis
(Sarah C. Murray)
93 Movement Mad? Perspectives on Movement in the Ancient
Aegean
(Saro Wallace)

II. Classical, Hellenistic and Roman World

131 In Pursuit of Connectivity in the Mediterranean: Corinthian

Conventionalizing Pottery from Euesperides and the Broader
Region of Cyrenaica
(Eleni Zimi)
151 The Macedonian Expansion West of the River Axios: The Case
of Almopia
(Ioannis K. Xydopoulos)
161 „Marathon without Phalanx?“ – Die Entstehung der Phalanx
und ihre Bedeutung für die Polis aus der Sicht der Archäologie
(Marek Verčík)
179 Closer to Heaven: The Tradition of Above Ground Burials
in Western Anatolia
(Lucia Nováková, Andrea Ďurianová)
201 Change You Can Believe in: Architecture and Unorthodox
Classicism in Asia Minor
(Fikret K. Yegül)
221 The Roman Bridge between Dolni Vadin (Bulgaria) and
Grojdibodu (Romania)
(Dorel Bondoc)

III. Central Europe

245 Böhmen und Bayern in der Urnenfelderzeit. Ein Grab

der Mittleren Urnenfelderzeit aus Sengkofen, Landkreis
Regensburg, Oberpfalz
(Hilke Hennig)
257 Cultural Contacts of the Societies of South­‑Western Poland
in the Early Iron Age
(Bogusław Gediga, Dagmara Łaciak, Anna Józefowska)
267 ‘And four strong­‑necked horses he threw swiftly on the pyre…’
On human­‑horse relationship in the Early Iron Age Central
Europe from the perspective of interregional contacts
(Petra Kmeťová)
291 Sulla presenza dei cavalli nelle tombe dell’età del Ferro in Italia
settentrionale
(Luana Kruta Poppi)

IV. Celts on the move

299 Boïens et Volques : les deux visages celtiques de la Bohême

et de la Moravie
(Venceslas Kruta)
321 Les relations de la Bohême avec l’Ouest et l’Est Laténiens
entre Ve et IIIe sc. avant J.–C. nouvelles considérations
(Pavel Sankot)
335 The Belgae of Gaul and Britain: Revisiting Cross­‑Channel
Contacts in the Later Iron Age
(Andrew W. Lamb)

V. Thrace and its Rulers

361 Latest Investigations and New Perspectives at Emporion

Pistiros (South Central Bulgaria)
(Aleksey Gotsev, Vyara Petrova, Vladimir Gotsev)
379 Les Monnaies de l’emporion de Pistiros
(Valentina Taneva)
391 Attic painted pottery from emporion Pistiros – spatial
distribution
(Vyara Petrova)
403 Pistiros: the “Middle Ground” of a “Small Greek World”?
(Jan Gerrit de Boer)
423 Hephaestus Dabatopios and the Divine Patronage of Metallurgy
in Moesia Inferior and Thracia
(Marios Kamenou, Alina Dimitrova)
439 A Roman Crater with a Dionysiac Scene from South Central
Bulgaria
(Emil Nankov, Alexandrina Tsoneva)
457 Once More on the Benefactor of the Metropolis Philippopolis,
Thrace, T. Claudius Sacerdos Iulianus
(Ivo Topalilov)
 VI. Black Sea Area

467 ‘The Most Marvellous of All Seas’: The Great King and the
Cimmerian Bosporus
(Gocha R. Tsetskhladze)
491 Réflexions sur quelques traits particuliers du corps civique dans
les Cités Nord­‑Pontiques
(Victor Cojocaru, Marta Oller Guzmán)
511 Le statut juridique des cités grecques de la côte occidentale
de la mer Noire à l’époque d’Auguste
(Alexandru Avram)
525 The Southwestern Pontos in Orbis Romanus. General Trends
of the Political Integration of the Regional Communities
(Hristo Preshlenov)
541 The Place of Cingirt Kayasi in the Pontic Region during the Reign
of Mithridates VI
(Ayşe F. Erol, Deniz Tamer)

559 Abstract
563 Index
CLOSER TO HEAVEN:
THE TRADITION OF ABOVE
GROUND BURIALS
IN WESTERN ANATOLIA

Lucia NOVÁKOVÁ, Andrea ĎURIANOVÁ

Abstract

The Anatolian Iron age landscape presents a spectacular variety of burial practices,
funerary architecture and ancestry monuments as well as a rich iconography of
the dead. Many top­‑hill burial places of various dates are known from the regions
of Phrygia, Ionia, Lykia or Karia. The western coast of Anatolia was a border re‑
gion between Western and Eastern cultural influences, as is revealed in syncretic,
even hybrid forms of art. Material culture reflected both foreign and local influ‑
ences. Communities in south­‑western Anatolia bustled to build sepulchral rath‑
er than sacral monuments. Above ground tombs and burials may be explained
by the maintenance of native tradition as well as the inspiration of foreign cus‑
toms, both on a broad geographical and chronological scale. The tradition of above
ground burials in the Classical and post­‑ Classical periods may be seen in the re‑
semblance of older peak sanctuaries, preceding rock­‑ cut monuments, the Persian
way of placing the dead or local architectural tradition in Karia or Lykia.

Keywords

Grave temenoi; Karia; Lykia; Podium tombs; Rock­‑ cut tombs

Sepulchral landscape of western Anatolia

The Anatolian tradition certainly contributed to changes in burial rites

within the Greek communities and vice versa. Local elites adapted cultural
stimuli from the West and the East according to their own needs much
earlier than the Hellenistic period (Miller 2013, 304–17; Jenkins 2006, 187).
Sepulchral buildings and extensive monuments were family tombs at

179
 ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ

first. They were still in use in the Roman period, frequently situated in
an inhabited area (Borchhardt 1975; Keen 1998, 34).
Rock­‑ cut tombs of the Classical and Hellenistic periods may pres‑
ent surviving examples of earlier architectural types, which should be
discussed in the wide historical and regional context of their making, even
at the time of the Hittite Empire and its aftermath. Scholars emphasize
the eastern origin of Frygian rock cut monuments, especially tombs and
open­‑air sanctuaries. The location and furnishing of tombs, in particular
a stepped altar for libation, presumed certain deification of Neo­‑Hittite
rulers, expected according to finds from Arslantaş or Atabindi (Işık 2007,
15–31). Archaic rock­‑ cut tombs with an opening on the top are usually con‑
sidered places for mystery rites, while some of the stone–built chamber
tombs are supposed to have been used as sanctuaries (Aşağıtırtar, Karaköy,
Bayındır; Vassileva 2012, 243–52). In southern Anatolia, a certain degree
of phrygianisation can be seen in central Pisidia near Aşağıtırtar (Isparta
Province) from the late 8th century B.C., in western Pisidia near Karaköy
and on the border between Pisidia and Lykia near the Elmalı Plain, where
a large group of tumulus burials, including two 7th century B.C. tumuli in
rather Phrygian style were found. In Karia nothing has been found that
has a bearing on the subject at hand (Van Dongen 2014, 697–712). Archaic
and Classical tombs found in Karia bear a series of components that might
be interpreted as traces of petrified woodwork. Chamber tombs, built ei‑
ther freestanding, subterranean or under tumulus, were provided with
petrified marble doors that closed funerary chambers, a common feature
of chamber tombs built as early as the first half of the 4th century B.C.
Numerous chamber tombs were built all over Karia in the second half of
the 4th century B.C. Karians probably never stopped building such structures
from the end of the 6th until the mid-4th century B.C., but their perishable
building material did not permit them to survive (Henry 2010b, 296–315).
A type of burial ground also appearing in the Hellenistic period was attest‑
ed to much earlier in Karia. The heaped soil without peripheral masonry
covered a chamber tomb built with a flat or corbel vault. The interior of
the tomb was arranged into a dromos, stomion (pronaos) and burial chamber.
Such types of sepulchral structures were in contrary to the popular type of
above­‑ground tombs of various dates. The geographic conditions of western
Anatolia combined with the presence of various ethnicities mediating new
stimuli resulted in the formation of a unique funerary landscape. It seems
that the Karians were, as early as the late 6th century B.C., already strongly
influenced by the Ionian culture, which they apparently appropriated for
the construction of their most sumptuous and monumental structures.
These tendencies were essentially expressed through the construction of
sacred buildings, especially but not limited to temples.
Archaeological finds indicate that the Karians did not limit them‑
selves to the reproduction of typical Greek buildings but also erected a new

180
Closer to Heaven

Fig. 1. Elevated chamber tomb – tradition of maussolleion type in the Roman period.
Gümüşkesen, Milas (photo: Ivan Kuzma).

type of sacred monument: a heroon dedicated to the leader of the area

(Henry 2013a, 81–90). Similar efforts were noticeable in Lykia, where ex‑
perimentation with various architectural forms resulted in the erection
of dynastic monuments with clear ideological messages. Development
of new types of elevated sepulchral structures is recognizable during the

181
 ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ

Fig. 2. Lykian tombs at Acropolis of Xanthos – the Harpy tomb and the pillared sarcophagus
(photo: Lucia Nováková).

Classical period, when the architects took over the form of the Greek
temple with a new element, the podium or high­‑raised pedestal. These
are interpreted as being of eastern origin, referring e.g. to the tomb of
Kyros the Great in Pasargadai. Above ground burials could be understood
as inspiration from foreign funerary practices, however similar customs
were not unknown in this area. The elevated surface of a tomb is some‑
times seen as a resemblance of older hilltop sacred places characteristic of
Karia of the pre­‑ Classical period (Debord 2003, 115–180). It corresponds to
above ground burials, which cannot be explained only by the inspiration
of Persian burial rites but also by local tradition (Işık 2005, 107–24).
While in Karia a stronger inclination to the subterranean burials is
recognizable, with emphasis on the upper part of the building in the Clas‑
sical period, elevated monuments such as pillar tombs can be recognized in
neighbouring Lykia (Fedak 1990, 37–42). The oldest examples of pillar tombs
appeared at the time when Lykia was conquered by the Persians, while the
early group of these monuments (550–500 B.C.) was attested in the west‑
ern and central region. They are understood as multipurpose monuments
of funerary, votive and triumphal character, while some can seek closer
connection with Greek votive columns (Draycott 2007, 103–34). Especially
notable is the proximity of Karian and Lykian material culture, becoming

182
Closer to Heaven

increasingly apparent in current scholar works. It is reflected in similar

types of funerary buildings, importance of dynastic monuments, the
long­‑term tradition of heroa or modification of foreign stimuli according
to their own needs. The elevation of a burial chamber in the monumental
masonry tombs could be recognizable from the second half of the 5th cen‑
tury B.C., having a substantial impact on the development of following
funerary monuments in the wider geographical sphere.

Persian­‑Anatolian tradition

Funerary rites, including a choice of tomb and burial type, tend to play an
important role in any society’s self­‑definition. The Persian way of placing
the dead (Hdt. 1.140) may enhance already known tendencies for above
ground burials in western Anatolia. In many ways the burials that most in‑
triguingly mix Anatolian with Iranian elements (Persian­‑style contents, or
Persian­‑style ornamentation) are those whose wealth and size flag them as
elite. Some iconographic elements of tombs reflect Persian ideas, ideas that
can be found in other kinds of funerary monuments elsewhere in western
Anatolia. Some of the iconography would seem to be Anatolian. Evidence
attesting to the Persian presence in western Anatolia has already revealed
the extent of its spread. Even though the number of published Persian
and Persianizing artefacts is not great, they are quite wide­‑spread beyond
the satrapal capitals (Miller 2011, 310–19). Since the Late Classical period
at least, certain, constantly appearing features in the material culture of
Lykian, Karian and mixed, Karian and Greek communities, can be observed.
Lykians, and Karians, might be understood as carriers of local Ana‑
tolian tradition, traceable to the early Iron Age or even further. Karian
belongs to the Indo­‑European family of Anatolian languages, which also
comprises Hittite, Luwian, Lykian, Lydian and Pisidian, and it forms part
of the so­‑ called Luwic group (Adiego 2007, 345–7). Linguistics can support
the Karian claim of autochthony and close connection to Lykians, which
is also attested by archaeological finds in the context of tombs and burials.
During the Persian dominance part of the Lykian population most likely
settled down in Karia. The numerous epigraphic finds of the Classical and
post­‑Classical periods with Karian personal names coming from various
localities were found mostly in neighbouring Lykia and to a lesser extent
in Ionia and Pisidia (Şahin 1981, no. 501–741; Şahin 1990, no. 801–996). The
foreign cultural influences had an impact on the development of religious,
funerary and urban architecture in this region almost in the same man‑
ner as persistence of local tradition. An indispensable contribution was
the building program of local dynasties, resulting in a new type of sacred
monument, dedicated to the needs of rulers. Such tendencies were visible
in the Classical Karia and Lykia period, both closely related in material
culture as well as in historical events.

183
 ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ

During increasing social, political and economic development in the

5th century B.C. Lykia, changes in eschatological beliefs and architectural
innovations resulted in the erection of monumental dynastic monuments.
Persian religion might be a factor for the increase and final dominance
of inhumation in Lykia, particularly because of the otherwise obvious
Persian influence on tomb architecture and decoration. After the first half
of the 5th century B.C. cremation is difficult to trace in the archaeological
records, despite its frequent use in the seventh, and its rare use in the 6th
century B.C. (Ahrens 2014, 185–214). The elevation of the burial chamber
in the early tombs built in Lykia can be observed since that time, too.
A number of Lykian heroa, testifying to the idea of divinized deceased, can
be found in Xanthos. Heroon G was built on a high terrace from polygonal
and rectangular masonry (15.5x10, 25x3 m), accessible from the northern
side by the stairs or a ramp. It is assumed that the burial chamber was
situated inside of that terrace. Naos, respectively the area for cult activity
was built in the upper part (6.4x4, 26x5 m). Stone walls were, according
to the Lykian a profane architectural pattern, from the outside trimmed
in the manner of imitation wooden panels and beams. Six pillars wearing
a flat roof were situated inside.
The structure dates back to the second half of the 5th century B.C. Tech‑
nical construction and decoration details show Greek influence, while the
upper part was built according to Lykian traditions (Coupel and Metzger
1963, 64–73). Heroa of city founders were located in a prominent place of
acropoleis, followed by temenoi or terrace tombs in necropoleis of the follow‑
ing period. A similar effort to underline autochthonous identity can be
traced in the neighbouring regions. Native dynasts tried to legitimize their
power based on divinized ancestors and family members. Both Greek and
local customs resulted in the uprising of temple­‑like grave monuments,
the predecessors of which can be found within monuments of the Karian
and Lykian dynasties, deliberately referring to monumental profane and
sacral architecture as well. Soon after the elevation of the burial chamber
in the case of early Lykian built tombs, the growing importance of the
upper­‑structure of Karian chamber tombs, from the Meander valley in the
north to Kaunos in the south, can be recognizable. The burial chamber
was regularly located in podium (hyposorion), understood as continuity of
local chamber tombs tradition, or slightly elevated. However, an attempt
to separate the burial chamber and upper­‑structure, with increasing im‑
portance, is clearly visible and became more evident later.
Tombs in Karia and coastal Lykia present a substantially different
reception of Iranian elements in burial architecture from tumuli of Phry‑
gia and Lydia. Some scholars suggest the strong visual link between local
Karian dynast and imperial centre. The earliest of the Karian series of
rock­‑cut tombs in Berber İni near Mylasa reflected Persian monumental
ideas (Henry 2010c, 103–119). Later tombs with a high elevated stepped

184
Closer to Heaven

podium or pyramid roof could be seen as inspired by the Pyramid tomb at

Sardis, which is a strong candidate for Persian ownership. And, what is
more, two sites in Lydia and Karia are directly compatible with Zoroastrian
funerary ritual: Gelenbe near Harta and, Teke Eseri near Amyzon. A se‑
ries of cuttings on rock outcrops can be identified as exposure platforms
and stone trough and cists (Miller 2011, 310–19). The different patterns
of receptivity to Persian culture in Lykia and Karia can be explained by
differing social structures. Both Persian and Greek ideas contributed to the
architectural iconography of power, incorporating foreign images within
local monumental composition. Although Aegean Karia had been subject
to Greek colonization from the Bronze Age on, mountainous inland Karia,
with its own culture and language, remained fairly isolated. This changed
when the Greek urban formula rapidly began to be applied in an effort
to politically re­‑ organized society according to the wider interests of the
Hekatomnid dynasty and later the Hellenistic kings.

Lykian heroa

In Lykia, as well as in Persia, the habit of above­‑ground burying was pre‑

dominant. Some of the monumental tombs and heroa, which took the form
of massive square pillars, surmounted by sarcophagi or funerary chambers,
are still visible in situ (Coupel and Metzger 1963, 64–73). An intensive build‑
ing program in Karia was initiated by the native dynasty of Hekatomnids
(395–334 B.C.), who ruled as Persian satraps. This building activity intro‑
duced new ideas combined with elements of Archaic Ionic architecture.
It is believed that this period of revival, following the construction of
the earliest building, continued into the Hellenistic period (Baran 2009,
291–314). Several monuments of the Greek type were built during a period
of particularly tense relations between the Lykian dynasts and the Persian
authorities. Iconography, the shape of the memorial building and the
techniques of construction were in contrary to the previous, Lyko­‑Persian
types. The emergence of these new types of tombs, probably originated
from a particular political context. Their erection can be regarded as sym‑
bolic of the Lykian response, which seems to turn towards the Greek world
as a sign of dissidence against the central Persian authority. Whether or
not the construction of early Hekatomnid monuments had a direct link
with the Ionian revolt, is impossible to deduce at present, yet the similarity
of both contexts should not go unnoticed (Henry 2010c, 103–119).
The Nereid monument, the tomb of Arbinas, the last dynast of Xan‑
thos, who died about 370 B.C, occupies a particular place in the dynastic
funerary landscape of Xanthos due to its very innovative style and its
position. The monument can be seen in the tradition of dynastic tombs
connecting elements of monumental buildings and tombs built on high­
‑raised podiums. The nature of the building and its decoration clearly

185
 ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ

shows the Greek influence, while the composition was probably of oriental
origin (Hilds 1973, 105–6; Bommeelaer 1986, 249–7). The tomb was built on
a high­‑raised podium (6.8x13.5 m) with its bottom part consisting of lime‑
stone blocks. The upper part made of marble was decorated by relief friezes
showing military scenes and a siege of the city. The podium was completed
by astragal, ovolo and simple moulding. An upper structure had the shape
of a small peripteral Ionic temple with four columns on the east and west
façade and six columns on the north and south façade, accessible from the
northern side of the monument. The building was richly decorated with
free standing statues representing Nereids erected in interkolumnium. Four
klinai were placed in the naos, accessible from the pronaos and opisthodomos,
from the outside it was decorated by relief frieze portraying a funerary
banquet, while the architrave was adorned by a frieze portraying hunt‑
ing scenes. The western pediment displayed a schematic military scene,
while the eastern pediment was showing a ruling dynastic couple with
their servants.

Fig. 3. Heroon of Perikles, Limyra – detail from the east frieze. Archaeological
museum in Antalya (photo: Erik Hrnčiarik).

186
Closer to Heaven

Fig. 4. Necropolis of Xanthos. Lykian pillar and rock­‑cut tombs (photo: Lucia Nováková).

The area of south­‑western Anatolia is interesting from the perspective of

the reception of cultural influences from various areas. Karia developed
politically, culturally and economically mainly during the Ionian renaissance
when an intensive Hellenization took place (Hellström 1989, 99–104; Baran
2009, 292). In Lykia, a period of struggle between dynasties was followed by
the relatively stable rule of satraps from neighbouring Karia, while part of
the Lykian population probably settled there. Lack of written testimonies,
fragmentary character of epigraphic finds or a problematic interpretation
of coinage, which depicted a host of local political figures more or less
subordinated to the Persian authority, impede the understanding of this
process in detail. The placement of tombs and memorial monuments
inside the cities can be regarded as a contribution of native funerary cul‑
ture. However, a similar scheme can be traceable in the Greek­‑speaking
settlements since the beginning of the Archaic period. While the Nereid
monument was being built in the western part of Lykia (Henry 2010c,
103–119) a very similar tomb was erected further east along with increasing
popularity of this type of building elsewhere in Anatolia.
The heroon of Limyra had many common points with the Nereid mon‑
ument, made up of a high podium which supported the temple­‑like
funerary room. The tomb itself (6.8x10.4 m) was built on a terrace carved
in the rock. The burial chamber was located inside the podium made
of rectangular blocks (3.8 m). Unlike the Nereid Monument it was not

187
 ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ

decorated with a relief. Tetrastyle amphiprostyle was situated on the podi‑

um, where on round shaped bases four caryatids were standing (2.8 m
high) supporting Ionic entablature (Borchhardt 1975, 137). An architrave
consisted of two fascias, while the cornice was made of dentil. Tympanum
was framed by geison and sima. It was possible to partially reconstruct the
akroteria of northern gable: the central akroterion represented Perseus and
Medusa, while the corner akroteria consisted of sisters Medusa Stheno and
Eurydale. In naos, there was the second burial chamber decorated by relief
friezes. The western frieze portraying a military parade was preserved.
Semi­‑columns with rosettes were present in the corners of the naos. The
building was set at the centre of a temenos type space, situated on the slope
of the acropolis and dominated the entire city. The monument probably
belonged to the local ruler Perikles who died during the satrapy uprising
in 360–60 B.C. Declaring domination of the whole of Lykia, Perikles took
symbolic actions, such as erecting a monument in the Greek style or the
minting of coins clearly dissociated from the Persian.

Hekatomnid maussolleia

While in Lykia more symbolic resistance to the Persian oppression can be

seen, in the Hekatomnid dynastic program an effort to underline autoch‑
thonous identity might be recognizable. Several tombs near Mylasa, the
original seat of the dynasty, can be understood as early examples of Hek‑
atomnid maussolleia, which combined Karian, Lykian, Greek and Persian
ideas (Herda 2013, 421–506). Their construction possibly had a direct link
with the Ionian revolt. The latest discoveries of Karian built tombs raise
the possibility that Maussolleion was a more original type of monument
than previously believed. Growing importance of the upper–structure can
be recognizable, while the burial chamber was regularly located in the
podium or elevated. An attempt to separate the burial chamber and the
upper­‑structure is clearly visible and became more evident in the case of
later temple­‑like tombs and maussolleia types. Monumental tombs in the
vicinity of Mylasa, Halikarnassos and Labraunda had been erected, having
a significant impact on funerary architecture in a broader geographical
scale. The final resting place of the Persian Satrap and native Karian Maus‑
sollos (377–353 B.C.) was without doubt one of the most significant and
ostentatious tombs of the fourth century B.C. Listed as one of the Seven
Wonders of the Ancient World, the tomb is often seen as the masterpiece
of the Hekatomnid building programme.
The structure was so magnificent, that the term maussolleion (μαυσσωλ-
λεῖον), the original name given to this particular tomb, became a synonym
for monumental and richly decorated tombs. The analysis of sepulchral
buildings from this period indicates that the Karians seized the political
situation as an opportunity to emphasise the cultural unity of their coun‑

188
Closer to Heaven

try. The manifestation of this unity was the erection of monumental me‑
morials to honour their dead, understood as a result of modified ancestral
veneration and hero worship ideology. The cultural development can also
be seen in the architectural movement, which gave rise to many trans‑
formations in the Karian architectural landscape (Henry 2010a, 71–128).
Beside Maussollos and his sister­‑wife Artemisia, who were buried in the
Maussolleion at Halikarnassos, there are many archaeological and histor‑
ical clues indicating that each of the Hekatomnid dynasts was provided
with a monumental tomb, even if precise identification of tomb owners
remains in many cases hypothetical. Archaeological remains present
sufficient common points to identify these sepulchral buildings, among
which can be recognizable a complex internal organization located under
a superstructure adopting the shape of a cultic building and a specific and
unusually dominant position.
Borrowing principal characteristics both from Persian royal funerary
architecture and from Greek monumental architecture, the Hekatomnids
adopted their own symbols of power. If the form and iconography point
towards an Iranian funerary symbolic system, the architectural features
and the ideology surrounding the owners of these tombs are the signs of
a largely Hellenised culture (Henry 2010c, 120). These sepulchral buildings
are considered as the first of its kind and a result of interaction between
foreign and local cultures. A large structure, entirely built of marble, with
a monumental podium was found at Beçin near Mylasa. The building had
been considered to be a temple (Baran 2004, 19–38), however, a series of
recent observations, studies on Karian tombs and discoveries in Milas
enabled the identification of the podium as a late Archaic monumental
tomb. Architectural fragments date the tomb to the last quarter of the 6th
century B.C. Two chambers were located inside the podium with a particu‑
lar roofing system, made of a series of three transversal beams supporting
the roof slabs. Both rooms have identical characteristics considering size,
structure, material and building technique. The eastern room also had
a dromos like its western counterpart. Such an arrangement would then
link both rooms as one unique structure, such as an antechamber and
chamber (Henry 2013a, 81–90).
The structural features of the chambers are very similar to many sub‑
terranean tombs found in the vicinity of Mylasa. The use of transversal
beams bearing horizontal roof slabs was identical with more than twenty
other tombs discovered in Karia, most of which are subterranean and all
date from the late Classical to the early Hellenistic period. This technique,
which appears to be typical of Karian funerary architecture, was clearly
existent in late Archaic Karia, as shown by a series of tumuli located in
the Harpasos valley, dating from the early 5th century B.C. (Henry 2013b,
257–68). Monumental Hekatomnid tombs can be considered as revivals of
the powerful late Archaic dynasty from Mylasa, which acted as the Kar‑

189
 ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ

ian leader when it stood as a nation against the Persian threat. A lavish
monumental tomb, known as Uzunyuva, was discovered at Mylasa. This
sepulchral building can be seen as the basis of a proto­‑Maussolleion (Rum‑
scheid 2010, 69–102), although the tomb might not have been connected
with Maussollos. It seems more likely that the Uzunyuva tomb belonged
to Maussollos’ father Hekatomnos who died in ca. 377 B.C.
Another candidate for Hekatomnid ownership is the rock­‑ cut temple­
‑like tomb of Berber İni (Berber Yatağı) in the vicinity of Mylasa, dated
before the mid-4th century B.C. Some believe that the grave at Berber İni
(Berber Yatağı) belonged to Hekatomnos, presuming that the first of the
Karian dynast­‑satraps was buried in a new type of monumental tomb
built in the Greek style. Even if an assumption, the tomb represents an
important step in the development of a Hekatomnid dynastic funerary
architecture (Henry 2010c, 103–121). According to stylistic analysis of
architectural details the dating of the tomb should be considered to lie
between 400 and 370–360 B.C., the early years of the Hekatomnid period.
New findings from the so–called Built tomb (the Monumental tomb, the
Π- shaped tomb), constructed above the temple terrace in Labraunda,
complete the picture of architecture dated back to the Hekatomnid pe‑
riod. The main body of the tomb was made up of two storeys. The lower
storey contained two funerary rooms, an antechamber and a chamber,
while the upper storey was limited to a large unique room with a low
ceiling. An open court enclosed on all four sides was part of the com‑
plex. The tomb was crowned by a massive superstructure; fragments
of architecture can still be seen in the slope between the tomb and the
temple terrace.
Architectural analysis and material collected during the cleaning of
the tomb indicate that it can be dated back to the fourth century B.C. The
tomb shared in common many features with the Maussolleion at Halikar‑
nassos (Henry 2010a, 93–5). The identity of the owner of this monumental
tomb has long been a subject of debate. Considering the early date of its
conception and the obvious high social position of the deceased, it is
thought that the first owner of the tomb could have been Idrieos himself.
Understanding of the tomb as an abode of the deceased in Anatolia spans
many centuries. The new studies on Karian funerary architecture from the
sixth century B.C. to the mid-4th century B.C. reveal striking similarities
with later building types, and raise the possibility that they might have
been part of a long­‑term tradition of native funerary culture (Henry 2013a,
81–90). The dynamic construction activity in the fourth century B.C. Karia
could be explained by the political and economic background, which cre‑
ated a favourable context for the construction of monumental structures
(Henry 2010a, 296–315). Erecting of dynastic monuments frequently took
a place in an inhabited area, while similar kinds of intramural burials
within Greek settlements were generally reserved for heroes and mythical

190
Closer to Heaven

Fig. 5. Subterranean chamber tomb at Turgut (photo: Ivan Kuzma).

founders of the cities. Iconography combined themes characteristic for

mixed Persian and Anatolian monuments (procession, hunting scenes)
with typical Greek motives (e.g. Kentauromachy, Amazonomachy), bear‑
ing a clear ideological message.

191
 ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ

Fig. 6. Temple­‑like tomb – popular type of Roman funerary monuments in the whole Anatolia.
Demircili (photo: Lucia Nováková).

Temple­‑like tombs – display of power

An effort to resemble local dynast as a semidivine entity may be recogniza‑

ble from the 5th century B.C. onward. Archaeological finds indicate a heroon
dedicated to the leader of the area was a new type of sacred monument in
both Lykia and Karia. They became prototypes of later temple­‑like tombs,
nowadays understood as the implication of older Anatolian tradition in
funerary culture, referring even to the Hittite, Urartian and Phrygian
background. The origin of the temple­‑like tombs, as well as the model of
their façades, has been long debated, while it seems to be accepted now
that they were shaped in order to reflect some kind of monumental, prob‑
ably dynastic, buildings, rather than Greek temples. The mountainous
area of Lykia is a region with numerous preserved tombs displaying ele‑
ments of Greek architecture, appearing increasingly since the 4th century
B.C. Nevertheless, plentiful architectural details such as so called Lykian
knots suggest that tombs found their origins in the wooden architecture of
Lykian houses. Even if some understand the funerary architecture solely
as the imitation of sacral structures (Marksteiner 1993, 87–94).
With the extension of the new sepulchral types, another structure
where the tomb itself was part of a wider building complex designed
for cult activities began to appear in Lykia. The grave temenoi or periboloi
represent burials with a slightly different concept, which are also often
classified as heroa. In such cases, only a few details have been derived from

192
Closer to Heaven

Fig. 7. The Built tomb – burial chamber. Labraunda 2006 (photo: Ivan Kuzma).

temple­‑like tombs located within the occupied area. The spectrum of the
Lykian tombs was to a large extent limited to pillar tombs, rock­‑cut tombs
and sarcophagi which have been accepted as typical for this region. However,

193
 ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ

recent studies have revealed new discoveries represented by so called free

standing chamber tombs and the small chamber tombs, which had a close
parallel with sepulchral buildings in Karia. Tombs, referred to as Lykian
heroa, consisted of podiums or slopes of terraces, usually of rectangular
plan, which were surrounded by high walls and filled with rubble (Hülden
2006, 263–79). The chronological span for this grave type is dated mainly
from the Archaic to the Classical periods, however later examples can be
traced to the Hellenistic period. Nevertheless, their origin can be traced
back to the beginning of Lykian monumental architecture. Similar types
of burials are attested in neighbouring Karia. Again, sepulchral buildings
themselves were increasing in height thanks to the use of scaffolding
systems.
Numerous terrace or podium tombs can be understood as a subtype
of local heroa, of which one can seek connection with temple­‑like tombs
of much older chronological background. The meaning of these buildings
was possibly derived from both the Persian and Greek environment. Close
connection between Karian and Lykian funerary architecture might be
interpreted as a result of much older Anatolian tradition. Similar types
of sepulchral precincts are more often found in the Classical and the late
Hellenistic period in the whole south­‑western Anatolia: the courtyard was
usually surrounded by various rooms and an underground burial chamber
was one of those. Even if the presence of underground burial still appeared,
either by subterranean chamber tombs or grave temenoi, certain features
designed for cult purposes rose from ground level. A high elevated podium
of various tomb types can be understood as an Anatolian contribution to
the funerary architecture. In Lykia development of rock­‑ cut tombs re‑
flected Greek temples as well as local residential architecture (Mühlbauer
2007, 28–45). The rock­‑ cut tombs of distylos in antis became predominant;
their richly decorated façade with elements of the Ionic order concealed
a simple burial chamber recalling a triclinium.
With the spread of Iranian burial customs, and under the influence
of the neighbouring Lykia, rock­‑cut tombs became much popular in Karia.
However, recent studies suggest mutual closeness of the burial types in
Karia and Lykia, as well as rock­‑ cut chambers or monumental rock­‑ cut
sarcophagi occupied a special position in Karian funerary landscape. The
combination of a rock­‑ cut tomb and a sarcophagus was typical for late
Hellenistic and Roman Karia and Lykia. Located on the top of hills, the
rock­‑ cut sarcophagi, ostentatious on account of their position and size,
benefited from a spatial arrangement that aimed to welcome, organize
and increase the pomp of the funerary rites and ceremonies. Among the
most common features were rock­‑cut staircases leading to the burial tomb,
shelves for ex­‑vota and sockets for stelai (grave markers). Some of these tombs
were even provided with an associated building, transforming the burial
into a monumental funerary altar (Henry and Ingvarsson­‑Sundström 2011,

194
Closer to Heaven

160–77). They are particularly concentrated in central Karia, where they

are often associated with old Karian settlements, as Alabanda, Alinda and
Latmos­‑Herakleia, as well as sanctuaries such as Labraunda.

Rock­‑cut monuments

Tombs might become religious shrines, and an architectonic embodiment

of funerary beliefs, even if understood as social status markers. The deco‑
rative elements on tombs depicted expectations of the afterlife as well as
the rank of the deceased within society, or even reflected specific, real­‑life
events. Above­‑ground burials were probably a result of the influence of
both older, local customs (Şare 2013, 58) and the Persian­‑Anatolian tradi‑
tion. They were no doubt also adapted by the Greek part of the population,
which resulted in the combination of various architectonic and decorative
elements in the funerary architecture. The range of burial rites was as
broad as the ethnic composition of western Anatolia. Cremated remains
were frequently placed in the same tomb as inhumations and may, if
contemporary, provide proof that both rites were practiced within the
same family (Ahrens 2014, 185–214). The co­‑existence of the Greeks with
the local communities is also partially proven by the fact that burials in
the numerous rock­‑cut tombs were characteristic for both groups in Karia.
The rock­‑ cut tombs can be found not only in the Lyko­‑Karian borderland,
but also in central Karia, i.e. in areas where a substantial representation
of the Karians was attested, as Mylasa, Labraunda or Stratonikeia. The
rock­‑cut tombs were similar in character to the tombs built above ground,
where the position of the burial chamber was elevated from the ground.
Building of such monuments was based on actual natural landscape
conditions, but it also reflected the wealth of the death, as it was not as
expensive as in the case of free­‑standing tombs.
According to the form of the exterior, the most common type of rock­
‑cut tombs, were tombs embedded in the rock, with at least one of the
walls attached to the crag. Architects could avoid the problems with the
statics when constructing the tombs. The structures often imitated the
free­‑standing tombs. According to the form of their façade, they can be
divided into tombs with niche, embedded, flush or protruding façade.
Some of the Karian rock­‑cut tombs seem to adopt decorative and functional
elements of the Lykian residential architecture, such as the Lykian knot or
a sliding door, others bore features of Greek architecture. In the last dec‑
ades a series of studies has emphasized the importance of architectural
petrifaction in the funerary landscape of Anatolia. Such phenomena were
considered limited to Lykia, however, tombs found in Karia bear a series of
components that might well be interpreted as traces of petrified woodwork.
The Hellenistic sepulchral temple­‑like buildings connected high elevated
podia and monumental size, which is an Eastern origin, with decorative

195
 ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ

Fig. 8. Temple­‑like tomb from north necropolis of Hierapolis (photo: Lucia Nováková).

elements of Greek architecture and modified according to local taste and

tradition of dynastic architecture. How far did they manifest the social
status of the dead and how far did they symbolize the expected afterlife,
and thus cult sphere, is still open. The presence of underground burial still
appeared, by tumuli or periboloi, but certain structural elements designed
for cult purposes rose up from ground level.
For development of temple­‑like sepulchral buildings construction of
the dynastic monuments in Karia and Lykia was crucial. For temple­‑like
tombs with a large podium a triple vertical division was characteristic,
consisting of a stepped pedestal, an upper structure with peristyle and
a pyramidal roof (Winter 2006, 65–70), while the inner division contains
pronaos, naos and in some cases opisthodomos. The burial chamber itself was
usually found in a massive podium or – much less often – in a raised naos.
Such buildings could be defined in the area of western Anatolia as maussol‑
leia, basically monumental and richly decorated tombs with a pyramidal
roof, built on a high podium and situated in an area reminding sepulchral
precinct. From an architectural point of view, it is possible to describe
some heroa as a combination of sepulchral construction and shrine of which
the typical form was a burial chamber on a high pedestal with naos placed
above. The term heroon refers to the sepulchral monument, respectively
memorial, serving to the hero cult celebration. Such a building is primarily
defined by its purpose and location within the urban area, not its archi‑
tectural form. The oldest graves within the cities of western Anatolia are

196
Closer to Heaven

indicated in non­‑Greek settlements of local origin, as in Pisidia (Schörner

2011, 223–30), Lykia or Karia.
The relationship between Lykia and Karia was in the Hellenistic pe‑
riod affected by a power struggle between the Seleucids, the Ptolemies,
Rhodians and Attalids, and indicates an existing cooperation between
the regions in their efforts to gain independence. One of the principal
differences between the two areas was the degree of Hellenization and
cultural dominance of the Greek settlement. Karia was considerably Hel‑
lenized already in the previous periods, with Greek cities bordering the
peninsula’s protrusions, and mixed Greek­‑Karian communities clustered
on the coasts of bays. Inhabitants of some Greek cities co­‑existed with the
local population better than others. Such examples, attested by epigraphic
finds, were Halikarnassos or Iasos, in contrary to Knidos. A strong mutual
exchange of architectural and customary features becomes evident in the
tomb architecture and decoration of the dynastic elites of Classical Anato‑
lia. Cremation experienced a revival in several regions along the western
coast of Anatolia in the late fourth and early third centuries B.C., reflecting
the adaption and emulation of foreign customs enabled by new cultural
and economic contacts under Macedonian and Ptolemaic rule (Ahrens 2014,
185–214). The origin of the magnificent Hellenistic tombs can be traced to
the south–western Anatolia, where the above–ground burials on a raised
podium appeared, presumably derived from older Anatolian tradition,
attested by pillar tombs and tombs reminding of the profane architecture
in Lykia (Fedak 1990, 37–42).
The resulting hybrid funerary structures connected together high
podia and monumental dimensions, that probably have their origin in
the East, while upper parts of tombs contained elements of Greek archi‑
tecture and original local features, related to the dynastic architecture,
satisfying the desire of the owner to be remembered and lavishly displayed.
The raised stepped podia of Hellenistic built tombs and altars elevated on
pedestals in the case of temenoi with an underground chamber, were similar
in character to the rock–cut tombs carved as high as possible above the
ground. Prototypes of these tombs, occurring during the whole Hellenistic
period, can be seen in Hekatomnid maussolleia in Mylasa, Halikarnassos
or Labraunda, but also in the so­‑ called Nereid Monument at Xanthos or
Heroon at Limyra in Lykia. Some of the most important Hellenistic funerary
structures of this type were the Lion tomb at Knidos or the tombs built in
Alinda, Labraunda, Bargylia or Kaunos. The development of similar funer‑
ary monuments in this area was terminated by the Ta Marmara tomb in
the Roman period (Akurgal 2002, 249). But still, their tradition survived,
when revived interest in similar types of structures could be seen during
a wide chronological span (Gümüşkesen tomb). In the late Hellenistic
period, a significant decrease of monumental tombs caused by social and
political conditions in this area could be observed. However, this regress

197
 ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ

was not as visible by another, the artistic activities as votive, honorific

and funerary sculptures, flourishing in many workshops in Karia.

Acknowledgments

The present paper has been completed within two projects supported by
the Slovak Grant Agency VEGA: 1/0045/14 and 1/0346/15.

Bibliography

Adiego, I. J. (2007) The Carian Language. Handbook of Oriental studies 86: The Near and
Middle East. Leiden.

Ahrens, S. (2014) Whether by decay or fire consumed: Cremation in Hellenistic

and Roman Asia Minor. In J. R. Brandt, M. Prusac and H. Roland (eds.),
Death and Changing rituals, 185–214. Studies in Funerary Archaeology. Oxford.

Akurgal, E. (2002) Ancient Civilisations and Ruins of Turkey. Ankara.

Baran, A. (2009) Karian Architecture before the Hekatomnids. In F. Rumscheid

(ed.), Die Karer und die Anderen. Internationales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität
Berlin 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005, 291–313. Bonn.

Bommeelaer, J. F. (1986) Sur le Monument des Néréides et sur quelques principes

de l’analyse architecturale. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 110, 249–71.

Borchhardt, J. (1975) Myra: eine lykische Metropole in antiker und byzantinischer Zeit. Ist.
Forsch. 30. Berlin.

Coupel, P. and Metzger, H. (1963) L’Acropole Lycienne. Paris.

Debord, P. (2003) Cité grecque­‑village Carien. Des usages du mot koinon. Studi
ellenistici 15, 115–180.

Draycott, C. (2007) Dynastic definitions: Differentiating status claims in the

archaic pillar tombs refiefs of Lycia. In A. Sagona and A. Çilingirloglu (eds.),
Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Symposium held at Eskishehir, Turkey 16–19
August 2004, 103–134. Anatolian Iron Ages 6. Louvain.

Fedak, J. (1990) Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age. A Study of Selected Tombs from the
Pre­‑classical to the Early Imperial Era. Phoenix Supp.Vol. 27. London.

Hellström, P. (1989) Formal Banqueting at Labraunda. In T. Linders and

P. Hellström (eds.), Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria. Proceedings of the
Uppsala Symposium, 99–104. Uppsala.

Henry, O. (2010a) Necropolis of Labraunda. In F. Kuzucu and M. Ur (eds.), Mylasa/

Labraunda. Archaeology, Historical and Rural architecture in southern Aegean, 71–128.
Istanbul.

198
Closer to Heaven

Henry, O. (2010b) Wood Reflections on Stone Tombs in Southwest Asia Minor.

In L. Summerer and A. von Kienlin (eds.), Tatarli, the Return of Colours, 296–315.
Istanbul.

Henry, O. (2010c) Hekatomnos, Persian satrap or Greek dynast? The tomb

at Berber Ini. In R. Van Bremen and J. M. Carbon (eds.), Hellenistic Karia:
proceedings of the First International Conference on Hellenistic Karia, 103–21. Bordeaux.

Henry, O. (2013a) A tribute to the Ionian Renaissance. In O. Henry (ed.), 4th

century Karia. Defining a Karian identity under the Hekatomnids, 81–90. Paris.

Henry, O. (2013b) Tombes cariennes, tombes lyciennes: un processus analogue de

pétrification architecturale? In P. Brun, L. Cavalier, K. Konuk and F. Prost
(eds.), Euploia. La Lycie et la Carie antiques. Actes du colloque de Bordeaux 5, 6, 7 novembre
2009, Ausonius Mémoires 34, 257–268. Bordeaux.

Henry, O. and Ingvarsson­‑Sundström, A. (2011) The story of a tomb in Labraunda.

In L. Karlsson and S. Carlsson (eds.), Labraunda and Karia: proceedings of the
international symposium commemorating sixty years of Swedish archaeological work in
Labraunda, Boreas 32, 160–177. Uppsala.

Herda, A. (2013) Burying a Sage: The Heroon of Thales in the Agora of Miletos.
With Remarks on Some Other Excavated Heroa and on Cults and Graves of
the Mythical Founders of the City. In O. Henry (ed.), Rencontres d’archéologie de
l’IFEA : Le Mort dans la ville Pratiques, contextes et impacts des inhumations intra­‑muros en
Anatolie, du début de l’Age du Bronze à l’époque romaine, 67–122. Istanbul.

Hilds, W. A. P. (1973) Prolegomena to a Lycian Chronology: The Nereid

Monument from Xanthos. Opuscula Romano 9, 105–6.

Hülden, O. (2006) Chamber Tombs, Podium or Terrace Tombs, Tumuli. Recently

Discovered Grave Types Expand the Spectrum of Lycian Graves. In K. Dörtlük
and T. Kahya (eds.), Proceeding of The IIIrd International Symposium on Lycia, 07–10
November 2005, 263–79. Antalya.

Işık, F. (2005) Die Vergöttlichung der Lykischen Dynastien im Lichte Ihrer Gräber.
In H. İşkan and F. Işık (eds.), Grabtypen und Totenkult im Südwestlichen Kleinasien,
Lykia VI., 107–124.

Işık, F. (2007) The Light of the Dark Ages and on the Anatolian Character of the
Phrygian Art. In H. Sivas and T. T. Sivas (eds.), The mysterious civilization of the
Phrygians, 15–31. Istanbul.

Jenkins, I. (2006) Greek architecture and its Sculpture. New York.

Keen, A. G. (1998) Dynastic Lycia. A political history of the Lycianas and their relations with
foreign powers: 545–362 B.C. Leiden.

Marksteiner, T. (1993) Wohn- und Sakralbauten: Die Suche nach den hölzernen
Vorbildern lykischer Felsgräber. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen
Institutes in Wien 62, 87–94.

199
 ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ

Miller, M. C. (2011) Keleinai–Apameia Kibotos: Développement urbain dans le

contexte anatolien. In L. Summerer, A. Ivantchik and A. von Kienlin (eds.),
Actes du colloque international Munich, 2–9 avril 2009, 310–19. Bordeaux.

Miller, M. C. (2013) Greece II: Greco–Persian cultural relations. In Encyclopedia

Iranica, vol. XI.3. 301–19. Columbia.

Mühlbauer, L. (2007) Lykische Grabarchitektur: Vom Holz zum Stein. Forschungen in Limyra
3. Wien.

Rumscheid, F. (2010) Maussollos and the Uzunyuva in Mylasa: an unfinished

Proto­‑Mausoleion at the heart of a new urban centre? In R. van Bremen and
J.-M. Carbon (eds.), Hellenistic Karia, 69–102. Bordeaux.

Şahin, M. Ç. (1981) Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia. Teil 1. Inschriften griechischer

Städte aus Kleinasien 21. Bonn.

Şahin, M. Ç. (1990) Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia. Teil 2.2: Neue Inschriften und Indices.
Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 22. 2. Bonn.

Şare, T. (2013) The sculpture of the heroon of Pericles at Limyra: the making of
a Lycian king. Anatolian Studies 63, 55–74.

Schörner, H. (2011) The intra­‑urban burial inside Greek poleis in Asia Minor. The
example of Termessos. In O. Henry (ed.), Rencontres d’archéologie de l’IFEA: Le
Mort dans la ville Pratiques, contextes et impacts des inhumations intra­‑muros en Anatolie,
du début de l’Age du Bronze à l’époque romaine, 223–230. Istanbul.

van Dongen, E. (2014) The extent and integrations of the Phrygian kingdom. In S.
Gaspa, A. Greco, D. Morandi Bonacossi, S. Ponchia and R. Rollinger (eds.),
From Source to History: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond, Alter Orient
und Altes Testament 42, 697–712. Münster.

Vassileva, M. (2012) The rock­‑ cut monuments of Phrygia, Paplagonia and Thrace:
a comparative overview. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Black Sea, Paphlagonia,
Pontus and Phrygia in Antiquity. Aspects of archaeology and ancient history, British
Archaeological Reports S2432, 243–252. Oxford.

Winter, F. E. (2006) Studies in Hellenistic architecture. London.

Lucia Nováková
Trnava University in Trnava, Faculty of philosophy and arts
Department of Classical archaeology
lucia.novakova@truni.sk

Andrea Ďurianová
Trnava University in Trnava, Faculty of philosophy and arts
Department of Classical archaeology
andrea.durianova@truni.sk

200

View publication stats