Achaemenid Interfaces: Thracian and Anatolian representations of

XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Roma 22-26 Sept. 2008

Session: Being ‘Graeco-Persian’

37

Bollettino di Archeologia on line I 2010/ Volume speciale G / G1 / 4 Reg. Tribunale Roma 05.08.2010 n. 330 ISSN 2039 - 0076

www.archeologia.beniculturali.it

Maya Vassileva

Achaemenid Interfaces: Thracian and Anatolian repre sentations of elite status Introduction

Scholars have long noticed Achaemenid affinities with fifth–fourth century BC finds from Thrace1. Leaving aside the discussion about the Skudra satrapy (which presumably comprised part of Thracian territory along the Northern Aegean coast)2, it can be stated that the Persian military campaigns in the Balkans had an impact on the local elites. Achaemenid presence in the area was probably the original impetus for the Thracian aristocrats to emulate a similar code of royal status representations. However, Thracian kings and nobles adapted and creatively interpreted further the Achaemenid “borrowings”. The present paper deals with Anatolian Achaemenid traits in the Thracian sepulchral monuments, specifically Thracian stone-built chamber tombs dated to the fifth–third century BC, the richest and largest number of which can be assigned to the fourth century BC, which was the floruit of the Odrysian Kingdom.

‘Perso-Anatolian’ architectural features in Thracia n tombs

The sepulchral complex in the Ostrousha Mound, near the town of Shipka in Central Bulgaria (fig. 1), was compared with Anatolian monuments since its discovery3. For example the monolithic chamber erected on a stereobate resembles the Tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae (fig. 2) as well as the tomb at Buzbazar4. While the Tomb of Cyrus displays Ionian affinities, the latter does not show any such peculiarities5. The so-called Pyramid Tomb at Sardis, whose style has often been defined as ‘Graeco-Persian’, could also be added to this group of monuments6. The Taş Kule rock-cut monument near Phocaea (fig. 3) has a somewhat strange outline; it can also be considered within the same set of architectural constructions7. The same is true about

1 VENEDEIKOV and GERASSIMOV 1973. 2 The discussion on the Skudra satrapy is summarised in BORZA 1990, 100, 293 and BRIANT 2002, 905; see also: FOL and HAMMOND 1988, 243–248 and JORDANOV 2003, 43, 46. 3 KITOV and KRASTEVA 1994–1995, 21. 4 BERGHE 1964. 5 RATTÉ 1992; BOARDMAN 2000, 57–60; VALEVA 2005, 14–16. 6 RATTÉ 1992, 160. 7 CAHILL 1988.

M. Vassileva – Achaemenid Interfaces: Thracian and Anatolian representations of elite status



38

the rock-cut sarcophagus from Dereyazı8. A reconstruction of a similar tomb has recently been produced on the grounds of the archi-tectural fragments and reliefs found at and near Daskyleion9.

The Ostrousha Tomb chamber di-splays a peculiar hybrid nature. It has ele-ments of Greek architecture, like the gabled roof, the dentils, and the funerary bed, but unusually, it has its entrance on its long side. A similar architectural solution can be obser-ved in the Antiphelos (modern Kaş, Lycia) late fourth century BC Tomb, which is almost square in plan (4.7 х 4 х 4.5 m), the entrance being situated on the longer side. To some extent the Taş Kule monument might be a

good parallel with, the Ostrousha Chamber as while there is a false door on its short side, the real entrance is on the longer side, although off centre10.

Parallels with Anatolian/Perso-Ana-tolian tombs can also be found in other Thra-cian tombs, both rock-cut tombs and stone-built tomb chambers. The connection betwe-en the rock-cut and the stone-built tombs in Thrace has long been discussed. The mo-nolithic rectangular chambers with pitched roof resemble the Phrygian rock-cut tombs (most of

which date to the sixth century BC and later) 11

8 KLEISS 1996, 135, 138. 9 KARAGÖZ 2007.

10 CAHILL 1988, figs. 5–6, 9. 11 For the Phrygian rock-cut tombs see HASPELS 1971, 112–138.

Fig. 1a-b –The Ostrousha tomb: general view and the ceiling. (Courtesy TEMP = Thracological Expedition for

Exploration of Tumuli; KITOV 2008, fig. 75).

Fig. 2 – The Tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae. (DEDEOĞLU 2003, 82).

Fig. 3 – The Taş Kule rock-cut monument. (DEDEOĞLU 2003, 82).



39



Among the stone-built chambers, an analogous monolithic chamber has recently been discovered in the Golyama Kosmatka Tumulus, also near the town of Shipka, (fig. 4)12. This is not a freestanding construction as it is incorporated into a more complex building that follows the design of Thracian tombs. The chamber comes third in a line of three successive chambers, constructed one behind another. In this third room were housed all of the grave goods. As the chamber lies perpendicular to the dromos, its entrance is also on the long side.

Another parallel with the Anatolian architecture of Achaemenid time is provided by a painted relief representation of a lion, discovered in the Zhaba Mogila Tumulus, near Strelcha, central Bulgaria (fourth century BC) (fig. 5)13. It is possible that this triangular relief was one of a pair that was arranged on the pediment of a building, or flanking a door or a niche, as is the case in some Lycian monuments14. A similar arrangement can be seen on Phrygian rock-cut facades: Arslankaya (sixth century BC)15.

As well, newly discovered tombs in Thrace have yielded a great number of stone doors that closed the chambers. Their stylistic analysis shows that their closest parallels are to be found in Asia Minor16. The numerous door like stelai found in Achaemenid Anatolia suggest that the door in the burial rites and ceremonies were important, as were the ‘blind’ doors on some of the rock-cut monu-ments17. Those found at and near Daskyleion were placed in tumulus mantles, usually at their peripheries and should probably be associated with commemorative practices18. These door stelai have been defined as Ionian-type doors (initially meant for sanctuaries) with some Persian elements19. Other ‘hybrid’ doors John Boardman terms ‘Lydo-Ionian’: the door frames of the Cyrus Tomb, that of the blind door at Taş Kule, as well as those on the towers at Pasargadae and Naksh-i-Rustam20.

12

KITOV 2005a, 44. 13 KITOV 2008, fig. 26. 14 See e.g. Buildings F and H on the Xanthian acropolis: METZGER 1963. For another possible tomb with relief-carved gables near Daskyleion, see supra N. 9. 15 HASPELS 1971, 87, figs. 186–191. 16 STOYANOVA 2007, 534, 540–541. 17 CAHILL 1988, 495–498. 18 POLAT 2005. 19 BÜSING-KOLBE 1978, 82–83; 119–122. 20 BOARDMAN 2000, 59–60.

Fig. 4 – Visiting the monolithic chamber of the tomb in the Golyamata Kosmatka tumulus near Shipka (South Central Bulgaria) with Dr. Kitov, 2004. (Photo: the author).

Fig. 5 – The painted lion relief from the Strelcha tomb. (KITOV 2008, fig. 26).




40

Thus, the ‘Greek’ or Ionian archi-tectural elements found in the fifth–fourth century BC Thracian tombs21 are rather ‘Graeco-Persian’, or ‘Lydo-Ionian’. The idea that Ionian architects and builders con-structed the fourth century Thracian tombs is no longer valid.

Furthermore, the long accepted Macedonian and Greek influence in Thra-cian sepulchral architecture of the early Hellenistic and Hellenistic times now seems not so unidirectional.

The Alexandrovo tomb and iconographic affinities

Field surveys in the last few years revealed hundreds of tumuli along the Granicus Valley in the Northern Troad22. During rescue excavations one stone-built tomb and three sarcophagi were unearthed. One of these sarcophagi, a fourth century BC sarcophagus in a tumulus near Çan, provides a good opportunity to discuss si-milar Thracian-Persian and ‘Graeco-Per-sian’ representations of elite status23.

The Çan Sarcophagus, unlike the other two, which were placed directly in the ground, was placed in a round stone chamber with a false dome. There is no dromos and the entrance was sealed with stone blocks24. Two of the sarcophagus sides, one long and one short, bear painted reliefs. A battle scene is depicted on the short side: a horseman attacks a fallen enemy with his spear (fig. 6). The rider is helped by a soldier on foot holding two spears and a machaira (short, curved sword). While the enemy has been identified as Greek, the clothing defines the rider as Persian25. The landscape is schematically rendered by a rocky ground level and a leafless tree, near which the adversary has fallen.

Two hunting scenes occupy the long side of the sarcophagus: a stag hunt and a boar hunt. The scenes are divided by a similar tree (fig. 7). The stag hunt is situated on the left-hand side of the viewer, while the boar hunt is on the right-hand side. The two scenes are colour marked: the left-hand one is on a blue background while the right one is on green. The boar is attacked by two dogs while the horseman aims his spear at the boar’s eye. The hunter wears Persian costume – long-sleeved cloak and anaxyrides (trousers).

21 TSETSKHLADZE 1998. 22 ROSE 2007a, 249; 2007b, 72–74. 23 SEVINÇ ET AL 2001. 24 SEVINÇ ET AL 2001, 385–387, fig. 2; ROSE 2007a, 256, fig. 11; 2007b, 75. 25 Another opinion is that the enemy is a Mysian: MA 2008.

Fig. 6 – The battle scene on the short side of the Çan sarcophagus (Courtesy B.C. Rose).

Fig. 7 – The hunting scenes on the long side of the Çan sarcophagus (Courtesy B.C. Rose).



41



The second hunting scene has suffered bigger damages but two stags chased by two riding hunters can be distinguished. The stags are represented much smaller than the wild boar26.

The choice of the scenes on the Çan Sarcophagus provokes a comparison with some Thracian monuments. The boar hunt is widely represented in Thracian toreutics27. A recently found chamber tomb with wall paintings at the village of Alexandrovo, southeastern Bulgaria, provides rich compa-rative material28. Despite stylistic differences in the paintings, the visual vocabulary and the visual programme of both the Alexandro-vo Tomb and Çan Sarcophagus are very close (fig. 8). In both cases the paintings were meant for a round burial chamber or placed within such a chamber. Battle scenes are depicted on the smaller surface – above the chamber entrance at Alexandrovo29 and on the short side of the Çan Sarcophagus30.

A horseman attacks a soldier on foot who is already on the ground. In the Alexandrovo painting the enemy is not yet down. In this respect, the Thracian scene can be compared with one on a fragmentary relief at the Archaeological Museum in Manisa (from a sarcophagus or from a burial chamber), where a figure on horseback attacks a naked opponent on foot, who is shown shielding himself31.

In both cases, the hunting scenes are shown in a larger space: the dome of the tomb and the long side of the sarcophagus respectively. Both on the Çan Sarcophagus and in the Alexandrovo paintings the wild boar is attacked by two dogs: one on his back, biting his neck, the other attacking his belly, a pattern well known from ancient hunting scenes (fig. 9). There are some iconographic differences, however: the most enigmatic figure on the Thracian painting is the naked man with a double-axe. Besides this, there are four horsemen hunting two boars and two stags. They are helped by a hunter on foot equipped with spears, a machaira and a club32. The boars are already wounded, unlike the one on the Çan Sarcophagus where a spear is aimed at the boar’s eye. The Anatolian

26 SEVINÇ ET AL 2001, 388–395, figs. 4–10; ROSE 2007a, 256–257, fig. 13. 27 MARAZOV 1996, 160–179; 2005, 92–96. 28 KITOV 2001. 29 KITOV 2001, 19–20. 30 SEVINÇ ET AL 2001, 386. 31 POLAT 2001. 32 KITOV 2001, 20–27.

Fig. 8 – The paintings on the dome of the Alexandrovo tomb (Die Thraker 2004, 255, fig. 11).

Fig. 9 – One of the boar-hunt scenes from the Alexandrovo tomb (After: Die Thraker 2004, 256, fig. 13).




42

boar has a bigger head and a shorter muzzle, and looks somewhat clumsier. The outline of his body is comparable to the Near Eastern representations of lions.

The similarities in the clothing of the riding hunters are even more obvious. All of them wear anaxyrides and soft shoes of textile or leather. The Thracians are represented as wearing

a ‘Median costume’: two are shown wearing long-sleeved tu-nics. The saddle blanket is almost identical with the Persian horse cloth: it is decorated with a border of stepped half-merlons (fig.10). Beyond the Çan Sarcophagus, this type of

saddle blanket is known from the ‘Graeco-Persian’ stele from Çavuşköy33, which is a close parallel, as well as fifth century BC depictions of riders on other media in Northwestern Iran and Northwestern Anatolia34. Battle and hunting scenes can be found on the Persian seals and bullae, which provide ‘the universal iconographic medium’ for imagery transfer, not dissimilar to Greek vases35. The series of seals with hunting scenes and battles between a Persian and a Greek are usually defined as ‘Graeco-Persian’ and dated to the fifth century BC and later36. They show duels between a horseman and a pedestrian, as well as hunting scenes (figs. 11 and 12)37. A boar hunt scene can be seen on several of the bullae from Daskyleion38. Similarly to the sarcophagus relief, the head of the animal is attacked.

Besides the Alexandrovo Tomb, the same iconographic schemes can be observed in fourth century BC Thracian art of different media. Boar hunt scenes are most popular in minor arts, especially in Thracian toreutics. One of the famous examples is the silver gilt belt from the village of Lovets, North Central Bulgaria (fig. 13)39. Jug No.159 from the Rogozen Treasure (fig. 14)40 and the recently discovered seal ring in Peicho-

33 BORCHHARDT 1968, 206–208; AKURGAL 1961, 172, fig. 119; SEVINÇ ET AL 2001, 398, fig.17. 34 BORCHHARDT and BLEIBTREU 2008, Type Ib, 189, pls. 3 and 9. Cf. Baughan in these Proceedings, N. 31. 35 BOARDMAN 2000, 153. 36 BOARDMAN 2000, 168–174. 37 BOARDMAN 2000, 158, 171, figs 5.38, 5.39, 5.46. 38 KAPTAN 2002, 153–155, DS 94–97, 99; DS188, 189. 39 MARAZOV 1998, no. 105, 59, 175. 40 MARAZOV 1989, 188–189, no. 159.

Fig. 10 – Detail from the Alexandrovo paintings to show closer the saddle blanket

of the Thracian hunter (After: Die Thraker 2004, 257, fig. 14).

Figg. 11-12 – Impression of a Persian seal (BOARDMAN 2000, fig. 5.39)

and Persian seal (BOARDMAN 2000, fig. 5. 46).

Fig. 13 – Silver gilt belt from Lovets, central Bulgaria (Die Thraker 2004, 318, fig. 3).



43



va Mogila near Starosel, Central Bulgaria (fig. 15)41 can be added to the examples. The bronze statue of a boar, probably part of a statuary group, found in Mezek near the Bulgarian-Tur-kish border, now in the Istanbul Museum, also shows a wounded boar42. In the toreutics, often the animal is wounded with two spears, or one is still in the air.

The semantics of the hunting scenes have been discussed, including Achaemenid and Indo-European parallels43. Scholars have long detected the meaningful iconographic differen-ces between the hunting scenes in Greece and in the Near East. Hunting a wild boar or a stag on horseback depicted on sixth century BC Greek vases is a collective event, a suite of young men (ephebes) chasing the

animal44. Representations of a hunt on horseback practi-cally disappeared from vase painting in the early fifth century BC. Now, it is a lonely hunter on foot that is depicted, most often identified as Meleager45.

Earlier scenes of royal hunts and duels existеd in Anatolia and in the Near East46, as did earlier mythological texts on the subject47. The king is depicted as hunting lions from a chariot on the Assyrian reliefs. Recently, the role of the hunt in Hittite royal ideology has been discussed. Hittite texts from Tudhalyias IV’s reign (thirteenth century BC) reveal that the hunt was related to the claim and reclaim of a certain territory by the royal power48. They are related to the royal/aristocratic trial that led to the renewal and consolidation of the royal power49. The king thus associates himself with the heroic past.

The boar depicted on the Rogozen Jug is almost as big as the hunters’ horses. Thus, it has been suggested that a supernatural animal is represented, which the ruler/aristocrat should face and overcome50. Here the most often quoted ancient text is Herodotus’ passage on the boar hunt in which Atys, Croesus’ son was killed (1.36–43). This monstruous

41 KITOV 2003, 16, fig. 71. 42 VENEDIKOV and GERASSIMOV 1973, fig. 60. 43 MARAZOV 1996, 160–179. 44 DURAND and SCHNAPP 1989, 61–65. 45 DURAND and SCHNAPP 1989, 65–69. 46 HEIMPEL and TRÜPELMANN 1977. 47 WEST 1999, 373–374. 48 HAWKINs 2006. 49 MARAZOV 1996, 179; 2005. 50 MARAZOV 1996, 161.

Fig. 14 – Detail of jug No.159 from the Rogozen treasure (MARAZOV 1996, fig. 124).

Fig. 15 – The bezel of the gold seal-ring from the Peychova tumulus showing boar-hunt on horseback.

(KITOV 2005b, 35, fig. 38).




44

animal was devastating the Mysian lands. In describing the hunt, Herodotus speaks about ‘picked men’ (1. 36): obviously, young noble men who would attack the wild boar, helped by dogs. On the one hand, this hunting episode resembles the initiation of the ephebes, but on the other, it comes close to the trial of the king-to-be. Adonis being killed by a boar in the Calydonian Boar Hunt furnishes another mythological example (Theocr. Id. 30, Ovid. Metam. 10.710, Apollod. 3.14.4, Macr. Sat. 1.21.4)51.

Both the Achaemenid Anatolian and the Thracian hunting scenes fall within this tradition of hybrid hunting scenes which, designed primarily for sepulchral monuments, can be linked with the ‘Eastern’ royal ideological tradition. In the Çan Sarcophagus and in the Alexandrovo Tomb the hunt is given more space and is thus more important than the battle scene52. This could mean that the hunt was ideologically more important for the Anatolian and Thracian aristocrats. The sarcophagus and the Thracian tomb painting have important differences, which relate to their cultural contexts, but they also share important features which link the Thracian and Western Anatolian spheres.

Conclusion It was 20 years ago when Machteld Mellink noted: “The syncretism of the Greek, West Anatolian and

Persian art is noticeable from Thrace to inner Lycia”53. Although Anatolian and Achaemenid affinities have long been recognised in Thracian tombs, specific comparisons more effectively situate the Thracian visual repertoire. The most compelling examples are to be found in the fourth century BC stone-built Thracian tombs and vessels made out of precious metals. The monuments discussed above reveal similarities in the representation of elite status in fourth century BC Thrace and Achaemenid Anatolia.

The Western Anatolian monuments to which the Thracian monuments have been compared were products of a provincial satrap aristocracy or the local Persianized elite. In the past, they have been called ‘Graeco-Persian’. This term has recently been much criticised and for good reason54. There are no good parallels from Persia proper for either Anatolian or Thracian monuments. Both the locals and the Persians interacted with the East Greeks. Scholars now prefer to use ‘emulation’ to denote a process of adopting, adapting and creation55. This term may be helpful in understanding the creation of Thracian monuments of Achaemenid inspiration. The models that Thracian aristocracy emulated were ‘Graeco-Persian’, Ionian or ‘Lydo-Ionian’ – that is, models from Western Anatolia rather than Persia itself. Proximity and similarities in the social structure of Thrace and Achaemenid Anatolia must have facilitated this emulation at this Western Achaemenid interface.

Dr. Maya Vassileva Center of Thracian Studies

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 13, Moskovska Street

Sofia 1000 Bulgaria

51 VIDAL-NAQUET 1983, 170. 52 SEVINÇ ET AL 2001, 401. 53 MELLINK 1988, 221. 54 ROOT 1991, 22, KAPTAN 2002: 2–4; MILLER 2006. 55 MILLER 2007, 66–67.



45



Bibliography AKURGAL E., 1961. Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexander. Berlin. BERGHE L.V., 1964. Le tombeau achéménide de Buzpar. In K. BITTEL (ed), Vorderasiatische Archäologie.

Berlin, 243–258. BOARDMAN J., 2000. Persia and the West. An archaeological investigation of the genesis of Achaemenid art.

London. BORCHHARDT J., 1968. Epichorische, gräko-persisch beeinflußte Reliefs in Kilikien. IstMitt, 18, 161–211. BORCHHARDT J. and BLEIBTREU E., 2008. Von der Pferdedecke zum Sattel. Antike Reitkunstzwischen Ost und

West. In İ. DELEMEN, S. ÇOKAY-KEPÇE, A. ÖZDIZBAY and Ö. TURAK (eds), Euergetes. Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasoğlu zum 65. Geburtstag. Part 1. Antalya, 167–215.

BORZA E.N., 1990. In the Shadow of Olympus. The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton. BRIANT P., 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: A history of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, Ind. BÜSING-KOLBE A., 1978. Frühe griechische Türen. JDAI, 93, 66–174. CAHILL N., 1988. Taş Kule: A Persian-Period Tomb near Phokaia. AJA, 92.4, 481–501. DEDEOĞLU H., 2003. The Lydians and Sardis. Istanbul. Die Thraker. Das goldene Reich des Orpheus (exhibition catalogue). 2004. Bonn. DURAND J.-L. and SCHNAPP A., 1989. Sacrificial Slaughter and Initiatory Hunt. In CL. BÉRARD, CHR. BRON, J.-

L. DURAND, F. FRONTISI-DUCROUX, F. LISSARRAGE, A. SCHNAPP and J.-P. VERNANT (eds), A City of Images. Iconography and society in Ancient Greece. Translated by D. Lyons. Princeton, 53–70.

FOL A. and HAMMOND N.G.L., 1988. Persia in Europe, apart from Greece. In J. BOARDMAN, N.G.L. HAMMOND, D.M. LEWIS and M. OSTWALD (eds), CAH IV2: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 BC. Cambridge, 234–253.

HASPELS C.H.E., 1971. The Phrygian Highlands. Sites and Monuments 2 vols. Princeton. HAWKINS J.D., 2006. Tudhaliya the Hunter. In TH. P. J. VAN HOUT with the assistance of C.H. VAN ZOEST (eds),

The Life and Times of Hattušili III and Tuthaliya IV. Proceedings of a Symposium held in honour of J. de Roos, 12-13 December 2003, Leiden. Leiden, 49–76.

HEIMPEL W. und TRÜPELMANN L., 1977. Jagd. In Reallexicon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 5/3–4. Berlin, 234–238.

JORDANOV K., 2003. Achaemenido-Persica: Attempts at Political and Administrative Control (ca. 515–466 BC). Thracia, 15, 39–54.

KAPTAN D., 2002. The Daskyleion Bullae: Seal images from the Western Achaemenid Empire (Achaemenid History XII). Leiden.

KARAGÖZ Ş., 2007. Neue Ansichten zu einem freistehenden Grabbau aus Daskyleion. In İ. DELEMEN, O. CASABONNE, Ş. KARAGÖZ and O. TEKIN (eds), The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Cultures in Anatolia (Sixth–Fourth Centuries BC). Istanbul, 195–214.

KITOV G., 2001. A Newly Found Thracian Tomb with Frescoes. Archaeologia Bulgarica, 5 (2), 15–29. KITOV G., 2003. Starosel – centre cultuel thrace (Preliminaires). Orpheus, 11–12, 5–60. KITOV G., 2005a. The Newly Discovered Tomb of the Thracian Ruler Seuthes III. Archaeologia Bulgariaca, 9

(2), 39–54. KITOV G., 2005b. The Valley of the Thracian Rulers. Varna. KITOV G., 2008. Mogili, khramove, grobnitsi. Sofia. KITOV G. and KRASTEVA M., 1994–1995. The Thracian Grave and Cult Complex in the Ostrousha Tumulus

near Shipka. Talanta, 26–27, 7–28. KLEISS W., 1996. Bemerkungen zum “Pyramid Tomb” in Sardes. IstMitt, 46, 135–140. MA J., 2008. Mysians on the Çan Sarcophagus? Ethnicity and domination in Achaimenid military art. Historia,

30 1–16. MARAZOV I., 1989. The Catalogue. In A. FOL (ed), The Rogozen Treasure. Sofia, 138–194. MARAZOV I., 1996. The Rogozen Treasure. Sofia.




46

MARAZOV I. (ed), 1998. Ancient Gold. The Wealth of the Thracians. New York. MARAZOV I., 2005. The Thracian Warrior. Sofia. MELLINK M.J., 1988. Anatolia. In J. BOARDMAN, N.G.L. HAMMOND, D.M. LEWIS and M. OSTWALD (eds), CAH

IV2: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 BC. Cambridge, 211–233. METZGER H., 1963. Fouilles de Xanthos 2. L'acropole Lycienne. Paris. MILLER M.C., 2006. Betwixt and Between: Western Anatolia in the Persian Period. In C.C. MATTUSCH, A.A.

DONOHUE and A. BRAUER (eds), Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Boston, August 23–26, 2003. Oxford, 225–227.

MILLER M.C., 2007. The Poetics of Emulation in the Achaemenid World: The Figured Bowls of the ‘Lydian Treasure’. AWE, 6, 43–72.

POLAT G., 2001. Das Grabdenkmal des Autophradates. In T. BAKIR (ed), Achaemenid Anatolia. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Anatolia in the Achaemenid Period. Bandirma 15–18 August 1997. Leiden, 123–133.

POLAT G., 2005. Bir Anadolu-Akhaemenid dönemi ölü kültü geleneği: tümülüs önünde steller ve seremoni alanları. Olba, 11, 1–23.

ROOT M.C., 1991. From the Heart: Powerful Persianisms in the Art of the Western Empire. In H. SANCISI-WEERDENBURG and A. KUHRT (eds), Asia Minor and Egypt: Old cultures in a new empire. Proceedings of the Groningen 1988 Achaemenid History Workshop (Achaemenid History VI). Leiden, 1–29.

RATTÉ C., 1992. The ‘Pyramid Tomb’ at Sardis. IstMitt, 42, 135–161. ROSE B.C., 2007a. The Tombs of the Granicus River Valley. In İ. DELEMEN, O. CASABONNE, Ş. KARAGÖZ and

O. TEKIn (eds), The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Cultures in Anatolia (Sixth–Fourth Centuries BC). Istanbul, 249–266.

ROSE B.C., 2007b. Granicus River Valley Survey Project, 2004–2005. Studia Troica, 17, 65–150. SEVINÇ N., KÖRPE R., TOMBUL M., ROSE C. B., STRAHAN D., KIESEWETTER H. and WALLRODT J., 2001. A New

Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Çan. Studia Troica, 11, 383–420. STOYANOVA D., 2007. The Greek Door in the Tomb Architecture of Macedonia, Thrace and Asia Minor. In D.

KAPLANIDOU and I. CHIOTI (eds), Ancient Macedonia VII. Macedonia from the Iron Age to the Death of Philip II. Papers read at the Seventh International Symposium Held in Thessaloniki, October 14–18, 2002. Thessaloniki, 531–550.

TSETSKHLADZE G.R., 1998. Who built the Skythian and Thracian royal and elite tombs? Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 17 (1), 55–92.

VALEVA J., 2005. The Painted Coffers of the Ostrusha Tomb. Sofia. VENEDIKOV I. and GERASSIMOV T., 1973. Thracian Art. Sofia. VIDAL-NAQUET P., 1983. Le chasseur noir. Formes de pensée et formes de société dans le monde grec.

Paris. WEST M., 1999. The East Face of Helicon. Oxford.

Documents

Achaemenid Interfaces: Thracian and Anatolian representations of