Achaemenid Interfaces- Thracian and Anatolian representations of elite status

XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Roma 22-26 Sept. 2008 Session: Being ‘Graeco-Persian’

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/pages/pubblicazioni.html

37

Maya Vassileva

Achaemenid Interfaces: Thracian and Anatolian representations of elite status

Introduction

Scholars have long noticed Achaemenid affinities with fifth–fourth century BC finds from 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 Thracian tombs

The sepulchral complex in the Ostrousha Mound, near the town of Shipka in Central Bulgaria (fig. 1),

was compared with Anatolian monuments since its 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 TaĢ 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.




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 KaĢ, 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 TaĢ 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 TaĢ 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 TaĢ 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 ÇavuĢköy33

, 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).

Fig. 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

E-mail: [email protected]

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 Ġ. 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. TaĢ 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 ġ., 2007. Neue Ansichten zu einem freistehenden Grabbau aus Daskyleion. In Ġ. DELEMEN, O.

CASABONNE, ġ. 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 Ġ. DELEMEN, O. CASABONNE, ġ. 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.

Achaemenid Interfaces- Thracian and Anatolian representations of elite status

Documents

Transcript of Achaemenid Interfaces- Thracian and Anatolian representations of elite status