Heroon of Perikle at Limyra

Anatolian Studies
http://journals.cambridge.org/ANK
Additional services for Anatolian Studies:
Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
The sculpture of the Heroon of Perikle at Limyra: the making of a Lycian king
Tuna Şare
Anatolian Studies / Volume 63 / December 2013, pp 55 ­ 74
DOI: 10.1017/S0066154613000045, Published online: 11 July 2013
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0066154613000045
How to cite this article:
Tuna Şare (2013). The sculpture of the Heroon of Perikle at Limyra: the making of a Lycian king. Anatolian Studies, 63, pp 55­74 doi:10.1017/S0066154613000045
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ANK, by Username: ndcahill, IP address: 88.249.194.229 on 16 Jul 2013
doi:10.1017/S0066154613000045
Anatolian Studies 63 (2013): 55–74
The sculpture of the Heroon of Perikle at Limyra:
the making of a Lycian king
Tuna Şare
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey
[email protected]
Abstract
As one of the many monumental tombs of fourth-century BC Anatolia, the Heroon of Perikle at Limyra is usually
overshadowed by the earlier and better preserved Nereid Monument of Xanthos. Its owner, Perikle, is seen as either
a mediocre pro-Achaemenid dynast or a fan of his namesake, the Athenian strategos, a view reflected in previous
assessments of the stylistic pedigree of the tomb’s ornamentation. But a re-examination of the Heroon’s sculptural
programme that places the cella friezes, karyatids and akroteria within their historical context shows the tomb to be
Perikle’s announcement of his status as the first military king of Lycia. The Heroon of Perikle reflects associations
with both the buildings of the Athenian Akropolis and Persian iconography, but these elements were appropriated to
serve the political agenda of Perikle and his later hero cult.
Özet
M.Ö. 4. yüzyıl Anadolusu’nun anıtsal mezar örneklerinden olan Limyra’daki Perikle Heroonu, genellikle kendisinden
daha iyi korunmuş bir anıt mezar örneği olan Ksanthos’daki Nereid Anıtı’nın gölgesinde kalmıştır. Heroon’un sahibi
Perikle ise ya Akamenid yanlısı ortalama bir lider ya da adaşı olan meşhur Atinali generalin hayranı ve taklitçisi olarak
yorumlanmış, bu yorumlar da anıt mezarın süslemelerinin sanatsal değerlendirmesine büyük ölçüde etki etmiştir. Bu
makalede, Perikle Heroonu’nun heykeltraşlık programı (cella frizleri, karyatidler ve akroterler) tarihsel kontekst içerisinde tekrar değerlendirilmiş ve bu program ile Perikle’nin yaptığı askeri seferlerle Likya’yı birleştiren ilk kral olarak
lanse edildiği ileri sürülmüştür. Ayrıca, Perikle Heroonu’nun Atina Akropolisi’ndeki anıtlar ile ve Pers ikonografisi ile
benzerlikleri incelenmiş, ancak bu benzerliklerin Perikle’nin politik propagandası doğrultusunda ve Anadolu kontekstinde yepyeni anlamlar kazandığı ve Heroon’un Pers ya da Yunan kopyası olarak değil, Anadolu ürünü olarak değerlendirilmesi gerekliliği öne sürülmüştür.
A
Greek outlook (Jacobs 1987: 71–73; Stewart 1990: 180;
Ridgway 1997: 94–99; Jenkins 2007: 159). This essay
offers an alternative interpretation of the Heroon’s sculptural programme. Although the architectural design and
the iconography of the Heroon are dependent on Greek
and Persian models, the unifying theme of the programme
is the kingly power of Perikle, who ruled independently of
both Persian and Greek authorities. It is argued that the
two long friezes on the cella walls of the monumental
tomb might refer to two victorious campaigns of Perikle,
in eastern and western Lycia, whereby he unified the land
under his control. The depiction of Perikle’s entourage in
various costumes on the friezes signals the importance of
mercenaries in his army and sends the message that the
fter its excavation between 1969 and 1976, Jurgen
Borchhardt published the monumental tomb of
Lycian Perikle – the so-called Heroon of Perikle at Limyra
– in an exceptional monograph that remains the only
detailed study of the sculptures of the fourth-century BC
tomb. Borchhardt explains the thematic programme of the
Heroon’s sculptures as a reflection of Perikle’s political
power under the Achaemenid king: the crowded processional scenes on the Heroon friezes showing his
dependency on and loyalty to Artaxerxes III (Borchhardt
1976; 1980; 1983; 1998; 1999a; 2000). Borchhardt’s
‘Dependenz Theorie’ has been challenged briefly by a few
scholars, who point out that the prominent Greek influence
in the sculptural programme might suggest Perikle’s pro-
55
Anatolian Studies 2013
wealth of Perikle is comparable to that of the Persian king.
The Heroon karyatids are similar to those that mark the
tomb of Kekrops, the first king of Athens, in the
Erechtheion, thus implying a parallel role for Perikle.
Finally, the Heroon akroteria, which depict mythical rulers
associated with Lycia, signal the divine right of Perikle to
rule Lycia. The overall programme reflects some
modelling from Athenian and Persian artistic and cultural
traditions, but the purpose behind the programme and the
outcome are uniquely western Anatolian.
Bronze Age mention the existence of a city called Zemuri
in the area of Limyra. The akropolis of Limyra, on a
prominent hilltop (316m above sea level), dominates the
plain below and the harbour. A continuous wall connects
a lower residential area to the akropolis, the latter
containing the remains of several buildings including a
castle and the monumental tomb of Lycian Perikle, the socalled Heroon of Perikle (fig. 2). Despite Persian control
of western Anatolia during most of the fifth and fourth
centuries, Limyra seems to have had its heyday as an
independent Lycian city in the second quarter of the fourth
century, under the rule of Perikle, whose name supposedly
derives from his family’s admiration for the Athenian
strategos (Keen 1998: 155–56; Borchhardt 1999a: 40).
A brief review of the political history of Lycia in the
so-called Dynastic period is necessary here for a better
understanding of Perikle’s temporary rule as the military
king of Lycia (on the history of Lycia during this period,
see Childs 1981; Bryce 1983; Bean 1978; Keen 1998;
Thonemann 2009; see also Draycott 2007a for a reinter-
Limyra and Perikle
The ancient town of Limyra is situated on the eastern coast
of Lycia, 150km from modern Antalya (fig. 1) (for recent
excavation reports on Limyra, see Borchhardt 1991/1992;
1993; 1997; Marksteiner 1997; 2003; 2004; 2005; 2006;
2007; Marksteiner, Schuh 2008). The earliest known
archaeological evidence from the city dates from the
eighth century BC (henceforth, all dates are BC unless
indicated otherwise). Yet, Hittite sources of the Late
Fig. 1. Map of Lycia (by Onur Bamyacı)
56
Şare
The power of the Xanthian dynasty waned in the
fourth century, and Erbinna, who conquered Xanthos,
Pinara and Telmessos, became the new power in western
Lycia. Shortly afterward, Perikle and the younger
Trebennimi (possibly Perikle’s brother) emerged as the
joint rulers of Limyra in the east (Keen 1998: 156, 166–
67). After the death of Trebennimi, Perikle became the
sole ruler of Limyra and established his military power in
eastern and central Lycia (Milyas, Rhodiapolis, Korydalla,
Phaselis and the Lycian cities of northern Cibyra are listed
as among the cities captured by Perikle; see Borchhardt
1999a: 40–43; Gay, Korsten 2006). Perikle then moved
west, defeating Xanthian Arttumpara (the new ruler of
western Lycia, appointed by the Persian satrap Autophradates after the death of Erbinna) and annexing Telmessos,
and thus uniting most of Lycia under his rule. Indeed,
Bryce calls Perikle’s rule ‘a temporary reunification of the
country (Lycia) under a form of military dictatorship’
(Bryce 1983: 39). The sepulchral inscriptions found at
Limyra, Timiusa, Arneae and Kızılca near Choma (TL
103–32; TL 67; TL 83; N 314) acknowledge Perikle’s
supreme authority in eastern and central Lycia (Bryce
1983: 38; Keen 1998: 47). In these inscriptions, Perikle’s
name appears in the common ēnē … χñtawata formula,
which might be translated as ‘under the kingship of’ (Keen
2003: 274). Perikle’s dictatorship, however, did not last
long. His possible involvement in the unsuccessful
Satraps’ Revolt (370–362) against the Persian king Artaxerxes II and the crushing of the revolt in 362 brought his
career to an end (Gezgin 2007: 121–31; Briant 2002: 662–
73 doubts Perikle’s active involvement in this revolt).
Based on numismatic and epigraphic evidence one
can say that Perikle, born around 435 to a local family
with ties to Athens, ruled Limyra and then tried to control
most of Lycia between 380–362 (Keen 1998: 166–67).
Two different views of Perikle exist in current scholarship. The first identifies him as a westerner, who from
the very beginning ‘saw himself as a latter-day Pericles
[of Athens], inspired by the vision of a free, independent
Lycia united against Persian despotism’ (Bryce 1980:
379; also see Bryce 1986: 111; Jacobs 1987: 67; Childs
[1981: 60] recognises Perikle as a leader with a western
outlook, but considers him as a local dynast without any
overarching influence throughout Lycia). The second
view sees him as a loyal vassal to the Achaemenid
authority who only became the king’s enemy after his
involvement in the Satraps’ Revolt (Borchhardt 1976:
66–67, 121–23; 1999a: 49–52; Keen 1998: 157–58). The
first theory is based on the Lycian ruler’s name and his
monumental tomb, which stylistically recalls buildings of
the Athenian Akropolis. The latter theory depends on an
interpretation of the motifs on the friezes of Perikle’s
Heroon as pro-Achaemenid.
Fig. 2. Model of the Heroon of Perikle at Limyra (Institut
für Modelbau der Hochschule für angewandte Kunst,
Vienna, model by F. Hnizdo)
pretation of the term ‘dynast’ and its historic implications). Persian authority was established in Lycia around
540, shortly after the Persian conquest of Sardis
(Herodotus, Histories 1.171–76). The history of the
region from the beginning of Persian control until the
conquests of Alexander the Great is called the ‘Dynastic
period’ because of the prominent role of the dynasties
ruling Lycian cities (Bryce 1983: 33). Among these
families, the Xanthian dynasty, which maintained a close
alliance with the Persians, was the most influential power
during most of the fifth and early fourth centuries. In the
mid fifth century, however, Lycia joined the Delian
League, possibly by persuasion or by force (Bryce 1983:
35–36; Bean 1987: 26). In the tribute lists, Lycia as a
whole ethnic group and Telmessos as an individual city
are recorded as contributing to the Delian League from
452 to 445 (Thonemann 2009: 171). The Athenian
expedition against Lycia in 430 (Thucydides, History of
the Peloponnesian War 2.69) and the defeat of Athenian
Melesander and his army by Trebennimi (perhaps an
ancestor of Perikle) indicate that sometime before 430 the
Lycians left the League for unknown reasons (Keen 1998:
123–24). The last decade of the fifth century marked the
re-establishment of Persian authority, with the dynasts
enjoying their political power as Persian vassals.
57
Anatolian Studies 2013
The following investigation of the sculptural
programme of the Heroon of Perikle will show that both
theories have some truth insofar as they register both
Athenian and Persian influences on the Lycian ruler. Yet,
there is no need to see Perikle as either a local imitator of
the Athenian general or a strictly pro-Achaemenid ruler.
He seems to have been a uniquely Anatolian leader, who
created his own socio-political ideology by utilising
Persian, Athenian and western Anatolian cultural and
artistic traditions.
podium topped by a tetrastyle amphiprostyle structure,
which contains a burial chamber entered from the south
(fig. 2). The ground-plan of the mausoleum covers an area
of 10m by 7m. Borchhardt records (1999a: 46) that at the
time of its archaeological discovery the Heroon’s burial
room still contained the remains of the kline and traces of
other tomb furniture – which are now hard to trace
following a fire. According to B. Ridgway (1997: 94), the
Heroon’s high podium recalls the bastion supporting the
Temple of Athena Nike and the orthostat pedestal below
the Erechtheion korai; yet, as is well known from the
slightly earlier Nereid Monument, high podiums are
typical of Lycian tombs of the late Classical period, and
the origin of the type possibly goes back to the Archaic
pillar tombs (for a concise review of Lycian pillar tombs
and the Nereid Monument, see Jenkins 2006: 160–202).
The Heroon
The Heroon of Perikle is situated on a rock-cut platform
on the southernmost rim of the fortifications of the
akropolis at Limyra. Overlooking the residential plain
below, the monumental mausoleum consists of a high
Fig. 3. One of the Heroon karyatids from the north, before and after restoration (after Borchhardt 1999a: pls 14, 15)
58
Şare
The sculptural decoration of the Heroon includes large
karyatids in the manner of the earlier Erechtheion,
akroteria, carved rosettes on the anta capitals and at the
upper zone of the peristyle, lion-head waterspouts running
along the lateral sima and, finally, the figural friezes on
the outer cella walls (the main sources on the sculptures of
the Heroon are Borchhardt 1976; 1993; 1999a; Boardman
1995; Ridgway 1997; Benda-Weber 2005). An accidental
fire during the 1990 excavation season damaged the
Heroon, and the building subsequently underwent a long
restoration process (Daxner 1996). Today, the rescued
and restored parts of the Heroon, including parts of the
friezes, karyatids and akroteria, are on display in the
Antalya Archaeological Museum.
Based on its relation to Perikle’s career, the Heroon is
dated to around 370 (Borchhardt 1976: 99–105; Keen
1998: 167). Borchhardt’s ‘Dependenz Theorie’ was
highly influential in this dating, since, according to this
theory, the Heroon friezes glorify the Persian king, thus
the monument must have been completed before Perikle’s
break with the King in 370. Yet, C. Bruns-Özgan (1987:
90), doubting its attribution to Perikle and pointing out its
stylistically advanced features, places the monument as
late as the 340s. Ridgway (1997: 97) notes that the
concave rendering of the soldiers’ eyes on the Heroon
friezes might indicate that the Heroon was constructed
more than a decade later than the Nereid Monument, the
date of which is established to sometime between 390 and
380 (for a full discussion of the Nereid Monument, see
Childs, Demargne 1989; Jenkins 2006: 186–202). What
we know of Perikle’s life and the style of the friezes is
consistent with a date between 370 and 362 for the
construction of the Heroon. The coins that Perikle minted
at Limyra, several local tombs bearing his name in
inscriptions and the monumentality of the Heroon leave
little doubt that this monument belongs to anyone but
Perikle. A variety of votive offerings found on the
northern side of the terrace that houses the Heroon
indicates the continuation of the hero cult of the deceased
ruler until the end of the Hellenistic period.
Fig. 4. One of the Erechtheion karyatids (© Trustees of
the British Museum)
veil styles in ancient Anatolia, see Şare 2011: 53–62).
They wear high-soled sandals and also bracelets with
lion-head terminals. They are holding a range of objects
in their hands, including rhyta and phialai. All the figures
have slightly varied elaborate hairdos: wavy strands
(rendered in different thicknesses for each figure) above
the forehead extend and fall down the chest and the upper
arms in the form of long twisted tresses. According to
Ridgway (1997: 98), these tresses indicate youth and also
lend an Archaistic touch to the supports. Such tresses are
typical of earlier Anatolian iconography, indicating a
continuously popular hair-fashion (see, for example, the
twisted tresses of the sixth-century ivory figurines from
The karyatids and akroteria
On both the southern and northern façades, four karyatids
support the Heroon’s roof (fig. 3; Borchhardt 1976: 27–
45; 1999a: 47–48; Scholl 1995: 208–10; Ridgway 1997:
98–99). The inspiration for the karyatids comes possibly
from the Erechtheion of the Athenian Akropolis (fig. 4;
Borchhardt 1999a: 47). Yet, the typology and the style of
the female supports point to a local production. Each
figure stands on a tall cylindrical base with a large
kalathos on the head. The karyatids wear a chiton,
buttoned along the arms, a peplos over the chiton and a
long veil over the head in typical Anatolian fashion (for
59
Anatolian Studies 2013
Artemis at Ephesos. Undoubtedly, these so-called
columna caelatae from Ionian temples also allude to the
actual participants in their respective cults. Thus, since
Scholl (1995: 208–10) shows that representations of
specific figures from Attic mythology would not make
sense on the tomb of a Lycian king, it is, as in the case of
the Erechtheion, more appropriate to think of the Heroon
karyatids as priestesses of the cult of Perikle.
In contrast to the rigidity of the karyatids, the
plasticity in the style of the surviving akroteria from the
Heroon comes closer to fourth-century styles of Greek
sculpture. The best preserved is the central akroterion of
the north gable. Perseus, the legendary hero highly
popular in Lycia, appears holding the head of Medusa,
while standing over her headless body (fig. 5). Unlike
Greek representations, he wears a bashlyk (see below)
with a pointed top and also a long cloak fastened at the
shoulders. The sunken eyes, prominent eyebrows and
open mouth of the hero are reminiscent of the ‘Skopaic
style’ known from Tegea (Ridgway 1997: 96–97). The
scholarly interpretations of the Heroon’s Perseus also
reflect the pro-Greek or pro-Achaemenid dilemma.
Borchhardt (1976: 123) sees Perseus with his bashlyk as
an easterner leading the west, thus again emphasising
Lycian Perikle’s affiliation with Achaemenid rule. İ.
Özgen and E. Özgen (1988: 53), however, see this
Perseus as a reminder to the Persian king that he too was
once ruled by a Greek (for the identity of Perseus in Lycia
and a discussion of other Lycian representations of the
hero, see Keen 1998: 158; Barringer 2008: 196).
The corner akroteria of the north gable are
fragmentary, but possibly depicted the fleeing sisters of
Medusa (fig. 6; Borchhardt 1976: 86–88; 1999a: 47). The
akroteria on the southern gable are also damaged, but the
remains of a beardless face and a horse might suggest that
the central akroterion illustrated another myth associated
with Lycia, namely Bellerephon on Pegasos slaying the
Chimaera (Borchhardt 1976: 88). Although there is no
material evidence, the other deed of Bellerephon that took
place in Lycia – his defeat of the Amazons (Homer, IIiad
6.186) – leads one to think that Amazons might have
decorated the corners of the south gable.
Elmalı and Ephesos: Şare 2010: 57, fig. 3, 73, fig. 13).
The stiff and linear treatment of details such as the folds
of the drapery or the lack of plasticity in the rendering of
the Heroon karyatids’ bodies underneath the drapery
contrasts sharply with the style of the Erechtheion
karyatids, suggesting the involvement of a local sculptural school imitating Greek formulas. The Anatolian
fashion of dress and the style of the Heroon karyatids
further suggest that, although the sculptors were relying
on Athenian models, they were being distinctive in their
choices of what to copy, perhaps deliberately.
Borchhardt identifies the Heroon karyatids as Horai
and Charites, based on a comparison with Pausanias’
description of Horai and Charites on the throne of Zeus at
the Temple of Zeus at Olympia (Pausanias, Description of
Greece 5.11.7; Borchhardt 1999a: 47). He identifies the
tall headdresses of the karyatids as poloi, and thus
justifies his identification of these females as belonging
to the divine sphere. Yet, the polos, especially in an
Anatolian context, cannot be categorised as a specifically
divine attribute since the headdress was also worn by
mortals. Borchhardt’s view on the polos is based on V.
Müller’s suggestion (1915: 81–84) that the headdress was
not a quotidian dress item. Ridgway (1993: 173, n.4.65),
in her examination of the few Attic korai wearing poloi,
reaches a similar conclusion – that the polos is a divine
attribute. Indeed, the headdress is most familiar as an
item of clothing commonly worn by divinities. Archaic
representations from Anatolia, however, indicate that the
polos was also worn by human beings, especially cult
devotees, of both genders. Thus, the polos in ancient
Anatolia was apparently worn in real-life and had a
ceremonial function marking the status of its wearer (Şare
2010: 65–67).
The items held by the female supports suggest that
they are indeed earthly figures, possibly young priestesses, setting an ideal model for the visitors to the tomb,
who would offer votives or pour libations. Indeed, A.
Scholl, in his identification of the Erechtheion karyatids
as a generic representation of libation-bearing women
guarding the tomb of Kekrops, points to the Heroon
karyatids as a justification of his interpretation. Prior to
Scholl’s work, the Erechtheion karyatids were regarded
as epic or mythical figures (Scholl 1995: 210), as representations of either the captive Carian women, based on
Vitruvius’s account (De Architectura 1.1.5), or the
daughters of Kekrops. Like Scholl, J. Connelly (2007:
125) also believes that the Erechtheion karyatids mirror
the appearance of actual kanephoroi performing a ritual
action. M. Shear (1999) traces the origins of the karyatids
back to the maidens sculpted on the lowest column drums
of the Ionian temples of the Archaic period, such as those
from the Temple of Apollo at Didyma and the Temple of
The friezes
Figural friezes adorn the eastern and western walls of the
cella on the outside. Each frieze consists of three 2mlong blocks, which together form a frieze 6m in length.
The later discovery of a small fragment of frieze that
possibly went around a corner suggests that the frieze
might have continued to the south, where the doors of the
tomb chamber would have been located, but not much is
known of the south frieze (Borchhardt 1976: 49). Unfortunately, more than 50% of the east frieze is also lost,
60
Şare
thought of as mounting the chariot. The whole
procession starts to follow behind him. Immediately
behind him are eight figures on foot. They are military
and civic officials and musicians clad in different
fashions. Following them at the centre of the procession
are six variously-attired riders in pairs. The rider at the
centre, who is shown in full profile without any overlap,
appears to be the most prominent among them (fig. 7, no.
22, fig. 10). Behind the riders, bringing up the rear of the
procession, come a phalanx of hoplites armoured with
various kinds of helmets. Thus, from left to right the
figures on the frieze form three main groups: first, the
phalanx group; second, the group of riders; and, third, the
figure mounting the chariot with the group of musicians
and the other striding males following him.
Fig. 5. The central akroterion of the north gable: Perseus
holding the head of Medusa, while standing over her
headless body (after Borchhardt 1999a: pl. 18)
leaving us largely dependent on the relatively betterpreserved west frieze to provide a general interpretation
of the motifs in the sculptural programme.
Both the west and east friezes depict a procession
marching from north to south, from the castle towards the
city of Limyra (figs 7–15). They were initially thought to
be mirror images, but the later discovery (in 1985) of
additional fragments from the east frieze shows that the
procession scenes are in fact slightly different.
The west frieze. The procession scene in the west
frieze includes 45 figures, some preserved only fragmentarily (figs 7–9; Borchhardt 1976: 49–51, 58–66). The
procession starts with a chariot driving left to right.
Behind the chariot driver a heavily armoured and bearded
figure with a raised right hand turns back and gives the
sign of departure (fig. 7, no. 38). The lower part of this
prominent figure is not visible, but possibly he should be
Fig. 6. The corner akroterion of the north gable: possibly
a fleeing Gorgon (after Borchhardt 1999a: pl. 19)
61
Fig. 8. Borchhardt’s drawing of the west frieze based on the surviving fragments (after Borchhardt 1976: pl. 12)
Fig. 7. Drawing of the west frieze based on the surviving fragments (digitised by Onur Bamyacı)
Fig. 9. The surviving parts of the
west frieze as displayed in the
Antalya Archaeological Museum
(photo by the author)
Anatolian Studies 2013
62
Şare
The arrangement of the figures, especially of the
hoplites in the phalanx group, recalls Roman historical
friezes, in which figures at the back are shown only as
disembodied heads with their bodies hidden behind those
standing towards the front (see, for example, the Roman
army on the Column of Trajan: Ramage, Ramage 2005:
200, fig. 6.12). The hovering feet of the soldiers in the
back rows suggest that the sculptors of the west frieze
intended three different ground levels, which perhaps
were detailed later by the painter (Borchhardt 1993: 353).
The ‘stacked’ appearance of the figures on different
ground levels conveys a sense of human mass and gives a
kind of perspective to the two-dimensional frieze, a
feature unknown in contemporary Greek sculpture
(Ridgway 1997: 96). This treatment, and also the concave
rendering of the soldiers’ eyes, might indeed indicate that
the frieze of the Heroon is chronologically more advanced
than the nearby Nereid Monument (Ridgway 1997: 97).
The representation of the hoplite phalanx formation in
the front row of the Heroon’s west frieze, with each
soldier sheltered by his neighbour’s shield (fig. 11), is a
variation on the typical Lycian ‘phalanx’ motif. This
motif is a common feature of Lycian battles scenes, with
examples known from several reliefs (Benda-Weber
2005: 154–56, Taf. 36). Most of the figures in the
phalanx group wear corselets carefully shaped to fit their
torsos, with long-sleeved tunics as undergarments and
leggings. A. Snodgrass (1999: 92) categorises this type
of corselet as a new form of archaic ‘bell’ corselet that
developed in fifth-century Greek armoury. These
Fig. 10. A detail from the west frieze showing the head of
the central figure, no. 22 (photo by the author)
Fig. 11. A detail from the west frieze showing the phalanx group (photo by the author)
63
Anatolian Studies 2013
corselets basically consisted of two metal plates (back
and front) fastened on the sides, with attached leather
flaps protecting the lower abdomen and the hips. The
fronts of these corselets usually model the muscles of the
abdomen and the chest. The wide usage and the lengthy
popularity of these corselets are demonstrated by the
many examples found in Etruscan tombs of the fourth
century. Since they were probably tailored to fit specific
individuals, these corselets were highly prized.
There is no sign of shoes or sandals on the hoplite
phalanx of the west frieze. Perhaps, as Borchhardt
suggests, they were rendered in paint (Borchhardt 1976:
58). There are three main types of helmets (fig. 11): the
half-round Attic helmet, with forehead, nape and cheek
protection (figs 7, 8, nos 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14); an eggshaped helmet with protection at the nape and a
protrusion on the forehead that ends in rolls at the temples
(figs 7, 8, no. 6); and the so-called Thracian helmet, with
a rounded top falling forward (figs 7, 8, nos 2, 3, 4, 9, 10,
15, 16; also referred to as a Macedonian helmet, after the
fourth-century helmet found at Vitsa: Ioannia Archaeological Museum). Some of the helmets have crests on top
(for hoplite helmet types, see Snodgrass 1999: 51–125;
for a classification of helmet types on the Heroon’s west
frieze and in Lycian iconography in general, see Borchhardt 1976: 63–64; 1999b: 53–71). Besides shields, the
soldiers of the west frieze also carry swords and lances,
the latter possibly rendered in paint.
The riders of the group in the middle of the procession
wear long-sleeved tunics over tight trousers (anaxyrides),
which must have been brightly patterned in paint. An
Achaemenid contribution to the Anatolian costume repertoire, anaxyrides, as the the trousers are named in ancient
Greek sources, are remarked on for their colourfulness
(see Herodotus, Histories 1.71; Xenophon, Anabasis
1.5.8; Euripides, Cyclops 182; Aristophanes, Wasps
1087). These fitted trousers were usually worn underneath knee- or thigh-length sleeved tunics and combined
with a bashlyk (see below) and sometimes with a kandys
(see below). The patternings – especially zigzag patterns
in variously-coloured superimposed bands or dotted
designs – indicate that these trousers were possibly of
wool, since the soft texture of linen does not permit such
decoration (Şare 2011: 89–92).
Two of the figures at the centre (figs 7, 8, nos 22, 26)
also wear kandyes with a fur lining over their shoulders.
A kandys is a full- or knee-length coat with ornamental
sleeves, draped over the shoulders and usually fastened
with straps at the shoulders. A popular dress item for
Anatolian men especially in the Achaemenid period, the
kandys is usually worn over a tunic and trousers. It
usually has a fur lining or fur trim, indicating the high
social standing of its wearer. Greek literary sources
(Xenophon, Anabasis 1.5.8; Cyropaedia 8.3.10) imply an
Iranian origin for this jacket with false sleeves. However,
iconographic evidence, namely the friezes from
Alacahöyük, suggests this style of jacket existed already
in Bronze Age Anatolia (for a full examination, see
Knauer 1978: 23; Şare 2011: 82–89).
Most of the riders wear bashlyks. The bashlyk is a
head covering with long side flaps or a cowl, usually
indented at the top, and possibly made of felt or leather.
This popular headdress is variously referred to as a
kurbasia, kidaris or tiara in ancient sources (Herodotus,
Histories 1.132.1, 3.12.4, 5.49, 7.61.1, 7.90) and usually
associated with Scythian, Persian or Thracian wearers.
Distinguishing between kurbasia, kidaris and tiara is a
problematic issue since these three terms seem to have
been used interchangeably. Thus, to avoid adding further
terminological complexity, I use the modern Turkish
word bashlyk (properly spelt başlık but commonly spelt
bashlyk in the literature; on the bashlyk, see Şare 2011:
62–77; for the problems associated with the terminology
used for this headdress, see Miller 1991: 63). The
bashlyk is perhaps the most commonly represented item
of dress in Anatolian iconography of the fifth century. It
appears in a variety of contexts, including combat scenes
and processions, and is worn always by men.
Representations show that the bashlyk is worn in
three different configurations: the long ear-flaps may be
tied around the chin, left free to fall to the shoulders on
both sides or tied back on top of the cap, freeing the face
and the shoulders. The first two configurations appear
on the Heroon friezes, but that of figure 22 is distinguished from the other bashlyks by its upturned pointed
top falling forward. Borchhardt classifies this headdress
as the orthe tiara worn only by the Persian king (in
Xenophon, Anabasis 2.5.23, Tissaphernes mentions that
only the king may wear the orthe tiara upright; for a
detailed discussion of the Achaemenid king’s headdress,
see Tuplin 2007). Hence, he identifies this figure as the
Persian king Artaxerxes III, an identification that will be
discussed in detail and rejected below (Borchhardt
1976: 59).
Usually worn by men in combat or processional
scenes, the combination of tight trousers, long-sleeved
tunics, and kandyes and bashlyks is well known from the
Achaemenid art of Anatolia. This fashion seems to have
been adopted from Persian military uniforms. Herodotus
(Histories 7.61.1, 7.62) describes the Persian and
Median contingents of Xerxes’ army as wearing
bashlyks, patterned sleeved chitons and anaxyrides about
their legs. For other Anatolian examples, see the
paintings from the fifth-century Tatarlı Tomb of Phrygia
and the Karaburun Tomb of Lycia (Summerer 2010:
120–85, figs 21, 23, 41).
64
Şare
In the west frieze, all the figures, with the exception
of the man getting into the chariot, appear in strict profile.
The new fragments of the east frieze, however, display a
more relaxed arrangement with petasos-wearing men
turning towards each other as if in conversation. Borchhardt, through comparison with figures in dialogue on the
Apadana procession scenes, sees this motif as
Achaemenid in origin (Borchhardt 1993: 353, pl. 41.2).
Yet, similar compositions with figures turning and facing
each other, in a static processional arrangement, also
occur on the Parthenon friezes, especially amongst the
seated divinities of the so-called Peplos Frieze (Neils
2005: 199–224; Pedley 2007: 262, fig. 8.23). Figures
interacting with each other in a procession are also
notable on the friezes of the mid fifth-century Building G
at Xanthos (Benda-Weber 2005: Taf. 23.3).
The treatment of space on both the east and west
friezes of the Heroon is the same, but the styles are
slightly different, perhaps indicating different artists. The
figures of the west frieze have clear outlines, while the
east frieze (slightly higher than the west) exhibits a
greater sensitivity with regards to plasticity and painterly
effects (fig. 14; Borchhardt 1976: 80).
The horses of the rider group have the knotted tails
and forelocks typical of the ‘Nisean’ breed, representations of which are also well known in the Achaemenid art
of Anatolia (Nollé 1992: 58; Gabrielli 2006: 17–35;
Draycott 2007b: 83–84). Unlike the hoplite group, the
riders do not carry any military equipment. The riders
wearing helmets at the back of the group might be an
exception, but their fragmentary nature prevents us from
discerning any weapons. Borchhardt (1976: 75–76),
however, reconstructs these ‘weaponless’ prominent
riders as carrying lances in their left hands. He then notes
that if the riders were indeed depicted without any
military equipment in a military procession, this might be
explained by an Achaemenid military custom whereby
riders’ weapons were carried by their servants.
The group in the frieze behind the chariot contains 11
figures, including the charioteer. Figure 38, the focus of
the group getting onto the chariot, wears a heavy muscle
corselet above his sleeved tunic and a pilos helmet. Pilos
helmets are associated with Spartan hoplites in Greek
sources (see Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian
War 4.34, 3). The so-called Boeotian-type helmets, which
became widely popular all around the Mediterranean in
the fourth century, also bear a marked resemblance to the
pilos hat, and the helmet worn by figure 38 of the
Heroon’s west frieze can also be categorised as a variation
of the Boeotian-type helmet (for a discussion of Boeotian
helmets, see Snodgrass 1999: 94–95). This figure is the
only bearded figure in the whole frieze. Among his
followers, figures 31 and 35, and also the charioteer, wear
the egg-shaped helmet with nape or cheek protection and
the rest wear the Greek petasos (a broad-brimmed felt hat
associated with travellers in Greek literature; see Cleland
et al. 2007: 147). The wearers of small petasoi at the front
of the procession (figs 7, 8, nos 34–37) are also clad with
sleeved tunics and cloaks fastened at the shoulders.
The themes represented on the Heroon friezes
According to Borchhardt, the themes represented on
both friezes emphasise Perikle’s power and his loyalty
to the Persian king Artaxerxes III, shown prominently
at the centre of each frieze among the riders (figs 7, 8,
no. 22). Borchhardt identifies the west frieze as a
military procession and the east as a departure scene for
a royal hunt, both led by Perikle and the officials in his
court, followed by the king Artaxerxes III and other
Persian officials on horseback, and, finally, mercenary
troops on foot (Borchhardt 1976: 66–67; 1993: 356;
1999a: 49–52).
Borchhardt’s interpretation is mainly based on two
key figures in the west frieze, nos 38 and 22 (figs 7, 8),
whom he identifies as Perikle (or his father, elder
Trebennimi) and Artaxerxes III respectively (Borchhardt
1999b). A re-examination of the iconography, however,
suggests different identities for these figures. There is
little doubt that the most prominent figure of the west
frieze is no. 22, who is shown almost at the centre without
any obstruction. Borchhardt’s interpretation of this figure
as the Persian king Artaxerxes III is mainly based on his
pointed and upturned bashlyk, which he classifies as the
orthe tiara, a headdress that, according to Xenophon
(Anabasis 2.5.23), only the Persian king may wear
upright (fig. 10). Some of the other riders (possibly highstatus court officials) accompanying him are dressed
similarly with sleeved tunics, kandyes, trousers and
bashlyks, but only no. 22 has the upturned version of the
The east frieze. Since the entrance to the Heroon’s temenos
is on the east, the east frieze might originally have been
more significant than the west. The fragments of the east
frieze (including two new fragments discovered after
Borchhardt’s initial publication) indicate that this side of
the Heroon also had a procession scene led by a chariot and
a figure giving the signal for departure, followed by civic
and military officials (including trumpet players), a rider
group and a phalanx (figs 12–15). Overall, the costume
repertory of the surviving figures is similar to that of the
west frieze, but the newly discovered fragments show that
the execution, composition and the number of figures
wearing a variety of costumes and headgear are slightly
different (Borchhardt 1993: 351–59). There seem to be
more petasos-wearers both among the group behind the
chariot and the group of riders.
65
Fig. 13. Borchhardt’s drawing of the east frieze before the discovery of additional elements in 1985 (after Borchhardt 1976: pl. 14)
Fig. 12. Drawing of the east frieze based on all surviving fragments (digitised by Onur Bamyacı, based on Borchhardt 1993: 354, pls 1, 2)
Anatolian Studies 2013
66
Şare
headdress. Yet, Borchhardt’s classification of this
headdress is not enough to identify this figure as the
Persian king. In Anatolia, upturned bashlyks appear in
several other contexts worn by people other than the
Persian king. For instance, a mounted cavalryman wears
the pointed headdress on the early fourth-century
Yalnızdam grave stele from Lycia (fig. 16). As Ridgway
rightly points out, it is also very unlikely that Perikle, who
rebelled against the Persian king in the Satraps’ Revolt,
would show Artaxerxes III, who suppressed the revolt
and brought an end to Perikle’s rule, on his own tomb
(Ridgway 1993: 96). Even if we consider Perikle as a
pro-Achaemenid ruler and date the completion of the
Heroon’s construction slightly before 370, before the
outbreak of the Satraps’ Revolt, one would still expect to
see Perikle represented as the most prominent figure on
his own tomb rather than as a secondary figure, a subordinate to the Persian king.
Borchhardt identifies the second most prominent figure
in the west frieze, no. 38, as Perikle (or Trebennimi in his
later publications; Borchhardt 1998; 1999b) in his full
armour getting into a quadriga and dramatically gesturing
back, as if calling the followers to depart for battle. This
identification is mainly based on iconographic comparison
of figure 38 with representations of a bearded Perikle on
Lycian coins (discussed in detail below; fig. 17; Borchhardt 1976: 99–105, pl. 60.2, 3; 1999b: Taf. 21.1–3). This
comparison, however, is not reliable since the facial
features of figure 38 on the relief are not clear enough to
facilitate comparison with the small-scale representations
on the coins (Ridgway 1997: 94).
If no. 38 is not Perikle and no. 22 is not Artaxerxes III,
then who are these prominent figures? One plausible
explanation is that no. 22 is indeed Perikle himself, while
no. 38 is one of his leading generals, whose identity is lost
to us. Another possibility is the existence of two protagonists on the frieze, perhaps Perikle and younger
Trebennimi, who co-ruled Limyra until the death of the
Fig. 14. A fragment of the east frieze as displayed in the
Antalya Archaeological Museum (photo by the author)
Fig. 15. A detail from the east frieze showing the different headdresses of the group of riders (photo by the author)
67
Anatolian Studies 2013
Tuplin 2011: 155–56). In the fourth century, in their
Anatolian context, these costumes might have lost their
direct association with Great Persia and become simply
symbols of authority and royalty. In the case of the
Limyra friezes, Perikle’s and his followers’ adoption of
Persian clothing customs does not necessarily make them
subordinate followers of Persian authority, as Borchhardt
argues, but instead might imply Perikle’s wealth and his
royal ambitions (Borchhardt 1976: 121). Indeed, Perikle’s
successor Payawa, who is shown as paying homage to the
Persian satrap and is identified with an inscription on his
monumental tomb, appears less ‘Persian looking’ in his
military costume, even though he seems politically to
have been more firmly linked with the Achaemenids
(Keen 1998: 170; Benda-Weber 2005: Taf. 28.9; Jenkins
2006: 179–85). Thus, kandys, trousers and bashlyk can
not be considered as representative of the wearers’
political affiliations. This is indeed what M. Miller argues
for the Athenian adoption of Persian dress in the fifth
century – simply a luxury fashion indicating the owner’s
wealth (Miller 1997: 153–83) – but not usually what is
thought for dynasts of Asia Minor and their dress.
It is harder to decipher the motifs represented on the
fragmentary east frieze. The newly discovered fragments
indicate that the figure leading the procession (fig. 12, no.
28), corresponding to no. 38 in the west frieze, wears a
petasos. Most of his body is damaged, but his
outstretched arm suggests that he, too, is directing the
procession for some sort of departure or entrance. Borchhardt suggests that on the east side, Perikle (fig. 12, no.
28) is shown setting out for a royal hunt, a typical representation of an oriental ruler and his entourage (Borchhardt 1976: 66–67; 1993: 356).
It is hard to be certain about the identity of figure 28,
but the depictions of Lycian dignitaries dressed in
different costumes, perhaps as references to their
different roles as leaders, within the same narrative
programme, seems indeed to be common in Lycian
iconography. The origin of the tradition possibly goes
back to the first half of the fifth century. The protagonist
of the Karaburun II Tomb frescoes, possibly the deceased,
appears three times on three different walls dressed
differently in each of the three different social contexts: in
a procession, in battle and in a banquet scene (Mellink
1973: 356; Şare 2011: 65–69). He wears a bashlyk and
kandys whilst on a throne-chariot in the procession and a
chiton and a headdress decorated with flower buds and
beads whilst on a kline in the banquet scene. At first
glance, these might seem to suggest that the tomb-owner
is trying to associate his dignity with the aristocratic
activities of both the Persian and Greek worlds. Yet, a
closer look reveals that the banquet scene is different
from Greek symposium representations as it incorporates
Fig. 16. The mounted warrior with an upturned bashlyk
on the so-called Yalnızdam grave stele (Antalya Archaeological Museum, photo by the author)
latter, or Perikle and his father, perhaps the elder
Trebennimi. Indeed, the commemoration of the collaborative rule of father and son seems to have been a
common Lycian practice, and is well known from the
Inscribed Pillar of Xanthos, which refers to the co-ruling
of western and central Lycia by Kheriga and his son,
Erbinna of the Xanthian Harpagid dynasty (Jenkins 2006:
156; on the collaborative rule of the Lycian dynasts, see
Thonemann 2009: 169–71).
It is not surprising to see Perikle or Trebennimi
dressed in kandys, trousers and bashlyk, items of dress
usually associated with Persians. As already pointed out
above, in the fifth century these clothes were variously
adopted and used by Anatolians as luxury items symbolising the wearers’ high status (for a recent discussion on
the adoption of Persian dress in western Anatolia, see
68
Şare
known minor reliefs from Işında, İslamlar, Köybaşı and
Muskar (Benda-Weber 2005: 109–12, Taf. 14–15). In
most of these examples, the hunt motif includes mounted
warriors with long spears and swords attacking boars,
lions or bears. In none of them do chariots or an
extensive marching phalanx group appear. In the
fragmentary east frieze of the Heroon at Limyra, there is
neither a warrior attacking an animal nor any trace of
prey. Thus, if the east relief indeed contained a large
phalanx group as restored by Borchhardt, it would be
more plausible to consider this relief also as a military
procession scene.
One final question regarding the dress and identity of
the figures on the Limyra reliefs remains crucial to understanding the overall theme of the friezes, and that is the
ethnic identity of the phalanx and cavalry groups of the
west frieze. Borchhardt thinks that, except for Perikle,
depicted as setting out for hunting and warfare at the
beginning of each frieze, none of the figures are Lycians
(Borchhardt 1976: 121–22). Pointing to their dress and
also their ‘Persian breed horses’, he interprets the riders
as Persian nobility, including King Artaxerxes III, and by
their military equipment ethnically identifies the phalanx
as Greek mercenaries (Borchhardt 1976: 64–66). He
interprets the overall message of the frieze thus: ‘the
pillars of the rule of the Lykian king, Perikle, are Persian
authority and Greek mercenaries’ (Borchhardt 1976:
122). Yet, as already demonstrated above, the kandys,
bashlyk and tight trousers do not identify the riders as
Persians, since most of these items of clothing were
adopted by Anatolians. As mentioned above, the ‘Persian
breed’ or ‘Nisean’ horses frequently appear also in fifthcentury Anatolian iconography, possibly suggesting the
rider’s élite status (Nollé 1992: 58; Gabrielli 2006: 17–
35; Draycott 2007b: 83–84). Furthermore, unlike the
usual representation of Persians, none of the Limyra
riders have beards, and thus are in accord with the
common representation of Lycians as clean-shaven
(Jacobs 1987: 73; Borchhardt 1976: 122, n.507, Borchhardt also mentions this feature as a major argument
against his identification of the figures as Persians). An
examination of the weaponry of the phalanx group is not
enough to classify them as Greeks either, since Greek
hoplite armour had been adopted with small variations all
around the Mediterranean by the fourth century
(Snodgrass 1999). It is more likely that Lycian Perikle is
shown on the west frieze with his court officials, his
military officials and ethnically diverse mercenaries.
The great variety of the headgear on both friezes
might imply the intention to depict mercenaries of
different ethnic origins all acting together under Perikle’s
command (figs 11, 15). Besides bashlyks, the procession
participants wear Attic- and Thracian-type helmets, egg-
not male companions but the wife of the deceased along
with his servants. Thus, dressed appropriately in two
different contexts, the dignitary’s courtly status might
have been the main message conveyed in the Karaburun
frescoes.
In his interpretation of the sculptural
programme of the Nereid Monument, I. Jenkins also
identifies the pro-Persian dynast Erbinna as appearing
several times in different outfits on different friezes:
dressed in a ‘Persian’ manner as a courtly king or in a
‘Greek’ manner as a banqueter (Jenkins 2006: 201).
To support his ‘departure for hunt’ theory for the east
frieze, Borchhardt points out the greater number of
petasos-wearers, whom he identifies as the paj group who
accompany Persian royalty in images of hunts. Borchhardt (1993: 352–53) defines the paj group as young
aristocratic boys, educated in the court as part of an
Achaemenid institution, who accompanied the king as
servants in public and took care of the horses in the royal
hunt. It is important to note here that most of the known
hunting scenes from fourth-century Macedonia also
include petasos-wearing figures, suggesting that the
headdress might have had a peculiar function associated
with the hunt. Among the examples are the hunt fresco
on the façade of the Tomb of Philip II (Andronikos 1984:
106–18) and the stag-hunt and lion-hunt mosaics from
Pella (Dunbabin 1999: 14, fig. 12).
The investigation above of the west frieze has shown
that Borchhardt’s identification of figure 38 as Perikle is
unreliable. Given the fragmentary nature of the east frieze,
it is also problematic to identify figure 28 as Perikle; he
could simply be a leading figure in Perikle’s entourage.
Even if figure 28 is indeed Perikle, then his outfit (namely
his petasos) is not enough to interpret the overall theme on
the east frieze as his departure for a royal hunt.
Hunting in royal parks was a vital courtly activity in
the ancient Near East, signifying the prowess of kings or
princes. This custom was taken up by Greek aristocrats
already in the Archaic period and continued into the
Hellenistic period. Thus, generic hunting scenes appear
as a sign of aristocratic status in the sixth century and
afterwards, both in western Anatolian and Greek iconography (Barringer 2001). To elevate the commemoration
of the élite participants as heroes, hunt scenes are often
juxtaposed with battle scenes (Barringer 2001: 10–70).
Famous examples from the fourth century are the long
friezes of the Alexander Sarcophagus, in which
Abdalonymus of Sidon appears hunting and fighting in a
battle along with Alexander the Great (Pedley 2007: 314–
15, figs 9.37, 9.38). The theme also consistently appears
on fifth- and fourth-century Lycian reliefs, examples
coming both from monumental tombs, such as the architrave friezes of the Nereid Monument at Xanthos and the
temenos friezes of the Heroon at Trysa, and from less-
69
Anatolian Studies 2013
political power amidst his faithful followers, without
specific reference to events and places’ (Ridgway 1997:
96). She argues that because of ‘the duplication of the
theme’ on both sides and because of ‘the lack of any
historic reference’, the subject matter should be
considered generic rather than historic. Yet, it is also
probable that these military processions refer back to
historic events in Perikle’s career: his victorious
campaigns in eastern and western Lycia, shown on the
respective cella walls of his Heroon.
Indeed, depictions of real-life events are not foreign to
Lycian art. As W. Childs demonstrates in his discussion
of the city-reliefs of Lycia, there is a particular interest in
‘historicism’ in Lycian iconography (Childs 1978).
Although it does not specifically mention the Heroon
friezes, F. Pirson’s study of the battle scenes on late fifthand fourth-century Lycian reliefs also reveals a Lycian
tendency towards depicting combat scenes based on reallife experiences (Pirson 2006: 640–46). This tendency to
document historical reality in Lycian art is most evident
in defeat and siege scenes, which outnumber the parallel
imagery in Attic iconography. If the subject matter on the
Heroon friezes refers back to historic events, then the
differing dress of the two sides of the building might
relate to two major campaigns of Perikle – one in the east
and one in the west. The differing mercenary groupings
on the friezes may have been noticeable and they might
have helped to differentiate the specific events, but, with
the available evidence, there is no way of establishing
such details.
As outlined at the beginning of this essay, although no
direct literary account survives, numismatic and
epigraphic evidence records Perikle’s military victories in
eastern and western Lycia, and thus his ambition to unify
the land under his kingship (Bryce 1983: 38–42). The
sepulchral inscriptions found in eastern and central Lycia
(mentioned above) acknowledge Perikle’s supreme
authority by naming him as the king. If restored
correctly, another inscription from Limyra (SEG
41.1382.2) suggests that Perikle himself employed the
title of ‘king of [all] Lycians’, basileus (Wörrle 1991:
203–17; Keen 1998: 47–48, 161). The mention of Perikle
as the king of the Lycians and Lycia as an independent
country under Perikle’s rule in contemporary and later
Greek sources (Theopompus, Philippica F.103.17;
Polyaenus, Stratagems 5.42; Diodorus, Bibliotheca
Historica 15.90.3) suggests that his claim was also
accepted by some outside of Lycia (also Keen 1998: 165;
Bryce 1983: 39).
Not only the Heroon sculpture, but also an iconographic overview of the coinage struck during his rule
might cast light on Perikle’s political ambitions (for the
political implications of Perikle coinage, see Bryce 1983:
shaped helmets, a pilos helmet and petasoi. One doubts
that the artist would have taken such pains to render the
variety of headgear if his intention was merely to convey
stylistic variety. Indeed, literary sources indicate the
importance of mercenaries of different ethnic origins in
the Persian and dynastic armies of western Anatolia. For
example, Xenophon in Anabasis (1.2.14) mentions the
multi-ethnic mercenaries of the Persian army when he
describes how Cyrus (brother of Artaxerxes II) proudly
displays his army of ‘Greek’ and ‘barbarian’ mercenaries
to the Cilician queen. Although one cannot trace the
existence of different ethnic groups within them, the
imagery of ‘military convoys’, a common motif in
western Anatolia in the fifth century, might have been
modelled from the parallel representations of the Persian
army. C. Draycott argues that through the use of the
‘military convoy’ motif on their tombs, western
Anatolian dynasts might have proclaimed their own
military power (Draycott 2010a; 2011). Likewise, the
depiction of Perikle’s crowded military entourage might
have been intended to convey his power and wealth – his
ability to employ and lead a variety of mercenaries in his
army, parallel to that of the Persian king.
Another peculiarity of the Heroon friezes is the
emphasis on the outset and display of campaigns without
showing the fight and the enemy. Apparently, instead of
the actual battle, the regalia and ceremonial parade of
Perikle’s campaigns are seen as more effective in
presenting his military achievements and kingly power.
This feature seems to distinguish this tomb from other
contemporary or slightly earlier Lycian tombs, such as the
Nereid Monument and the Heroon of Trysa, on which
military parades are linked with actual battle scenes. The
reason for such a preference on the Heroon friezes is hard
to trace, but one can see a parallel form of display on the
fifth-century Apadana reliefs in Darius’s palace at Persepolis. On the Apadana reliefs, the power of the Persian
king is emphasised by the depiction of his subjects of
different ethnic groups, clad in varying attires, bringing
tributes to him in long processional scenes, without any
references to an enemy or actual battles (Schmidt 1953).
The overall sculptural programme: a military king in
Lycia
The above re-evaluation of the Limyra friezes shows that
Perikle, along with another prominent figure, appears as
the protagonist of each frieze, accompanied by his court
and military officials along with mercenaries of differing
ethnicities in a military procession. The trumpeters
leading the procession indicate that Perikle and his
entourage are setting out for war on both friezes.
Ridgway believes that in the west frieze, Perikle ‘is twice
emblematically shown as a person of military rank and
70
Şare
39). The three-quarter profile of Perikle with individualistic details on the obverse and the naked (except for his
Corinthian helmet) hoplite in a fighting pose on the
reverse of these coins are surely different from earlier
dynastic coins that exhibit prominent Persian motifs (fig.
17; Olçay, Mørkholm 1971: 13–15, pl. 7, nos 389–447).
The typical satrapal formula on dynastic Lycian coins
shows rulers in profile, usually wearing a bashlyk or a
helmet (Mørkholm, Zahle 1976: 47–90). Perikle,
however, is shown in three-quarter view as a middle-aged
bearded man wearing a cloak, of which only the part
fastened at the shoulders is visible. He has large eyes and
thick eyelids, mane-like hair recalling representations of
Herakles and full lips. The remarkably unconventional
features on these coins reveal Perikle as an idealised
individual whose military power is asserted through the
image of the hoplite on the reverse, though one should be
cautious about considering this image as realistic
portraiture.
At first glance, the overall theme of the Limyra friezes
– military processions glorifying and justifying Perikle’s
unifying rule – might seem slightly different from themes
common in Lycian iconography. Yet, a general consideration of the sculptural programme of the Heroon at
Limyra, together with its akroteria and karyatids,
suggests that the theme is uniquely Anatolian. The usual
thematic programme of Lycian funerary iconography
presents a mixture of real-life exploits (both historic and
symbolic) and mythological or epic stories that glorify or
heroise the deceased (Ridgway 1997: 101–02). The
tradition goes back as far as the sixth century, as the
frescoes of the Kızılbel Tomb demonstrate (Mellink
1998). The friezes of the Nereid Monument, for example,
present the dynast Erbinna’s real-life (courtly and
military) activities, which become ‘progressively more
symbolic and eventually merge with those of epic heroes
and mythological figures to suggest eternal afterlife in
another world’ (Ridgway 1997: 81). Similarly, the sculptural programme of the Heroon at Trysa, built for an
unknown Lycian dynast, mixes historical depictions with
mythological stories. On the temenos walls of the
Heroon at Trysa, the deeds of Perseus and Theseus,
amazonomachies and centauromachies appear side by
side with city siege scenes that refer to historic places or
events (Barringer 2008: 171–202). There is no mythological or epic reference on the Limyra reliefs. Yet, the
military procession of Perikle and his retinue is staged
just below Perseus and Bellerephon, who crown Perikle’s
Heroon as central akroteria on the two gables. Thus, the
prowess of Perikle merges with that of the Lycian heroes,
reinforcing his epic roots and at the same time transforming the historical deeds shown on the friezes into
legend.
Fig. 17. Lycian coin with an image of Perikle on the
obverse and a hoplite in a fighting pose on the reverse
(after Olçay, Mørkholm 1971: 398)
The karyatids and the overall design of the Heroon at
Limyra also complement the friezes. The costume and
the style of the karyatids and the idea of a monumental
tomb with a high podium are at home in western
Anatolia, yet the use of female supports and processional friezes on the cella walls echoes the buildings of
the Athenian Akropolis, namely the Erechtheion and the
Parthenon. Furthermore, the modest size of the Heroon’s
plan (10m by 7m) and the references to contemporary
campaigns on its friezes echo the Temple of Athena Nike
at Athens, which measures 9.36m by 6.6m. Indeed, J.
Hurwit (2004: 276, n.9) notes that the small size and
design of the Temple of Athena Nike created a
resounding success which prompted the construction of
several similar buildings in the fifth and fourth centuries,
including the Ilissos temple and a choregic monument in
Athens. Like the traditional decoration of Lycian tombs,
the continuous frieze on the cella walls of the Temple of
Athena Nike combines historical battle scenes (possibly
scenes from Marathon) and mythological scenes (for
discussion of the possible sculptural programme, see
Harrison 1997; Camp 2001: 91; Hurwit 2004: 181–88).
Furthermore, a recent study demonstrates the possible
use of the Attic foot in the standardised measurements of
the blocks used in the construction of the Heroon
(Mühlbauer 2006: 508–09).
As is the case with other monumental tombs of
western Anatolia, such as those of Mausolos and Erbinna,
the construction of the Limyra Heroon must have begun
during the lifetime of the king (Ridgway 1997: 102).
Thus Perikle, as the patron, would have exercised control
over his tomb’s architectural and sculptural programme.
If this indeed was the case, then the decoration of the
Heroon reveals that its commissioner and owner, Perikle,
was a well-educated man who knew of the success of the
Athenian Akropolis programme in reinforcing the power
of the Athenian empire, and was also familiar with the
artistic propaganda of the absolute power of the Persian
kings, whose wealth and success depended on faithful
followers and mercenaries. Perikle seems to have utilised
71
Anatolian Studies 2013
images from both East and West to celebrate his power,
which he held independently of both Persian and Greek
authorities. Yet, the sculptural programme of the Heroon
at Limyra reflects Perikle’s kingly power and his synoikismos of Lycia in a uniquely Anatolian manner in the
Anatolian context.
Acknowledgements
Many colleagues helped with constructive comments and
friendly support in both the research and writing
processes of this manuscript. I would like to thank
especially Dr Clemente Marconi, Dr John Kenfield, Dr
Ekin Kozal, Dr Tevfik Emre Şerifoğlu, Dr Tolga Özhan
and Barbara Werther. I am also grateful to the editors and
anonymous reviewers of Anatolian Studies for their
comments, which improved the end product.
This study would not have been completed without
the moral support of my family, especially my dear son
Can Aras Ağtürk, who has been with me (from foetus to
toddler) at every stage of the process.
Conclusion
The re-evaluation of the sculptural programme of the
Heroon of Perikle reveals significant points with regards
to both the monument itself and traditional approaches
towards the Achaemenid-period art of Anatolia in
general. As this study shows, the previous scholarship on
the Heroon of Perikle is caught between the pro-Greek or
pro-Persian dilemma, overlooking its authentic features.
The tendency to see western Anatolia simply as an agency
for the exchange of western and eastern styles and motifs
during the Achaemenid period is reflected in the evaluation of many other art works, which are classified as
‘Graeco-Persian’ in style. Only recently have scholars
started to question the limitations of such categorisations
(Gates 2002; Greaves 2007; Draycott 2010b). Evidently,
the ethnic classifications of styles adopted by the traditional approach do not reflect the diversity of western
Anatolian art and do not allow for the exploration of the
fluid and diverse identitites expressed by the artist, patron
or user through his or her stylistic choices. The Heroon
of Perikle incorporates Greek and Persian stylistic
formulas in its decoration, but simply tracing these
formulas does not provide their semiotic meaning within
the Anatolian context. Trying to understand the
functioning of the overall sculptural programme within
its own historical and geographical context might be
more helpful in illuminating the past. For this reason,
references to the buildings of the Athenian Akropolis or
Persepolis do not make Lycian Perikle a westerner
leading the East or an easterner leading the West. Perikle
and his tomb should principally be considered as western
Anatolian. The overall innovation of Perikle’s Heroon
within the milieu of Lycian tomb imagery seems to be the
emphasis given to the procession scene, which possibly
included mercenaries. As discussed earlier, the ‘military
convoy’ motif is not foreign to western Anatolia, with
examples from fifth-century tomb imagery. Yet, such a
strong emphasis on this motif on the Heroon might reflect
Perikle’s kingly aspirations. This study also reveals
another methodological problem of the traditional scholarship – the tendency to equate dress with ethnic identity.
The language of dress surely tells us a lot about ancient
cultures, but, as the re-identification of the figures on the
Heroon frieze shows, one should be cautious in using
costume as a sign of the political and ethnic identity of the
wearer (for related theories, see Miller 1991; 1997).
Bibliography
Andronikos, M. 1984: Vergina: The Royal Tombs and the
Ancient City. Athens
Barringer, J.M. 2001: The Hunt in Ancient Greece.
Baltimore
— 2008: Art, Myth, and Ritual in Classical Greece. New
York
Bean, G.E. 1978: Lycian Turkey: An Archaeological
Guide. New York
Benda-Weber, I. 2005: Lykier und Karer: zwei autochthone Ethnien Kleinasiens zwischen Orient und
Okzident. Bonn
Boardman, J. 1995: Greek Sculpture: The Late Classical
Period. London
Borchhardt, J. 1976: Die Bauskulptur Des Heroon von
Limyra. Berlin
— 1980: ‘Zur Deutung lykischer Audienzszenen’ in H.
Metzger (ed.), Actes du Colloque sur La Lycie
Antique. Paris: 7–12
— 1983: ‘Die Dependenz des Königs von Sidon vom
persichen Großkönig’ in K. Bittel, R.M. Boehmer,
H. Hauptmann (eds), Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
Kleinasiens. Festschrift für K. Bittel. Mainz: 105–20
— 1991/1992: ‘Grabungen und Forschungen in Limyra aus
den Jahren 1984–1990’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen archäologischen Instituts in Wien 61: 125–92
— 1993: ‘Zum Ostfries des Heroons von Zemuri/Limyra’
Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43: 351–59
— 1997: ‘Grabungen und Forschungen in Limyra aus den
Jahren 1991–1996’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen
archäologischen Instituts in Wien 66: 321–426
— 1998: ‘Gedanken zur lykischen Gesellschaftsstruktur
unter persischer und attischer Herrschaft’ in G.
Arsebük, M.J. Mellink, W. Schirmer (eds), Light on
Top of the Black Hill: Studies Presented to Halet
Çambel. Istanbul: 155–69
— 1999a: Limyra Zemuri Taslari: Likya Bolgesi’nde
Limyra Antik Kenti’nin Gizemli Sularında Yapılan
Arkeolojik Araştırmalar. Istanbul
72
Şare
— 1999b: ‘Die Bedeutung der lykischen Königshöfe für
die Entstehung der Portraits’ in H. von Steuben
(ed.), Antike Porträts: zum Gedächtnis von Helga
von Heintze. Möhnesee: 53–58
— 2000: ‘Dynasten und Beamte in Lykien während der
persischen und attischen Herrschaft’ in R. Dittman,
B. Hrouda, U. Löw, P. Matthiae, R. MayerOpificius, S. Thürwächter (eds), Vario Delectat.
Iran und der Westen. Gedenkshrift für Peter
Calmeyer. Münster: 73–140
Briant, P. (tr. P.T. Daniels) 2002: From Cyrus to
Alexander the Great. A History of the Persian
Empire. Paris
Bruns-Özgan, C. 1987: Lykische Grabreliefs des 5. und 4.
Jahrhunderts v. Chr (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 33).
Tübingen
Bryce, T.R. 1980: ‘The other Perikles’ Historia 29: 377–81
— 1983: ‘Political unity in Lycia during the Dynastic
period’ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42: 31–42
— 1986: The Lycians in Literary and Epigraphic
Sources. Copenhagen
Camp, J. 2001: The Archaeology of Athens. New Haven
Childs, W.A.P. 1978: The City-Reliefs of Lycia (Princeton
Monographs in Art and Archaeology 42). New
Jersey
— 1981: ‘Lycian relations with Persians and Greeks in
the fifth and fourth centuries re-examined’
Anatolian Studies 31: 55–80
Childs, W.A.P., Demargne, P. 1989: Le Monument des
Nereides (Fouilles de Xanthos 8). Paris
Cleland, L., Davies, G., Llewellyn-Jones, L. 2007: Greek
and Roman Dress from A to Z. New York
Connelly, J.B. 2007: Portrait of a Priestess: Women and
Ritual in Ancient Greece. New Jersey
Daxner, S. 1996: ‘Zur Steinkonservierung in der Achäologie: das Heroon von Limyra’ in M. Koller, M.R.
Prandtstetten (eds), Zum Thema zwanzig Jahre Steinkonservierung 1976–1996: Bilanz und Perspektiven
(Restauratorenblätter Band 17). Vienna
Draycott, C.M. 2007a: ‘Dynastic definitions. Differentiating status claims in the Archaic pillar tomb reliefs
of Lycia’ in A. Sagona, A. Çilingiroğlu (eds),
Anatolian Iron Ages 6. The Proceedings of the Sixth
Anatolian Iron Ages Symposium (Ancient Near
Eastern Studies Supplement 20). Louvain: 103–34
— 2007b: Images and Identities in the Funerary Arts of
Anatolia, 600–450 BC: Phrygia, Hellespontine
Phrygia, Lydia. PhD thesis, University of Oxford
— 2010a: ‘Convoy commanders and other military
identities in tomb art of western Anatolia around the
time of the Persian Wars’ in M. Dalla Riva (ed.),
Roma 2008 – International Congress of Classical
Archaeology. Meetings between Cultures in the
Ancient Mediterranean (Bollettino di Archeologia
On-line, Special Edition): session G.1: paper 2, 7–
23. http://151.12.58.75/archeologia/bao_document/
articoli/2_Draycott_paper.pdf
— 2010b: ‘What does “being Graeco-Persian” mean? An
introduction to the papers’ in M. Dalla Riva (ed.),
Roma 2008 – International Congress of Classical
Archaeology. Meetings between Cultures in the
Ancient Mediterranean (Bollettino di Archeologia
On-line, Special Edition): session G.1: paper 1, 1–6.
http://151.12.58.75/archeologia/bao_document/
articoli/1_Draycott_Introduction.pdf
— 2011: ‘Funerary or military convoy? Thoughts on the
Tatarlı convoy painting and the meaning of the
“Greco-Persian” convoy’ in L. Summerer, A.
Ivantchik, A. von Kienlin (eds), Kelainai–Apameia
Kibotos: Stadtentwicklung im anatolischen Kontext.
Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums, München,
2–4 April 2009. Bordeaux: 55–61
Dunbabin, K. 1999: Mosaics of the Greek and Roman
World. New York
Gabrielli, M. 2006: Le cheval dans l’empire achéménide.
Istanbul
Gates, J.E. 2002: ‘The ethnicity name game: what lies
behind “Graeco-Persian”?’ Ars Orientalis 32: 105–
32
Gay, A., Korsten, T. 2006: ‘Lycian tombs in the Kibyratis
and the extent of Lycian culture’ Anatolian Studies
56: 47–60
Gezgin, I. 2007: Arkaik ve Klasik Dönemde Batı Anadolu.
Ankara
Greaves, A. 2007: ‘Trans-Anatolia: examining Turkey as
a bridge between East and West’ Anatolian Studies
57: 1–15
Harrison, E.B. 1997: ‘The glories of the Athenians: observations on the program of the frieze of the Temple
of Athena Nike’ in D. Buitron-Oliver (ed.), The
Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece
and Rome. New Haven: 109–25
Hurwit, J.M. 2004: The Acropolis in the Age of Perikles.
New York
Jacobs, B. 1987: Griechische und persische Elemente in
der Grabkunst Lykiens zur Zeit der Achamenidenherrschaft. Göterborg
Jenkins, I. 2006: Greek Architecture and its Sculpture.
Cambridge
Keen, A. 1998: Dynastic Lycia: A Political History of the
Lycians and Their Relationship with Foreign
Powers. Leiden
— 2003: ‘The kings of Lycia in the Achaemenid period’
in R. Brock, S. Hodkinson (eds), Alternatives to
Athens: Varieties of Political Organization and
Community in Ancient Greece. London: 269–80
73
Anatolian Studies 2013
Knauer, E.R. 1978: ‘Toward a history of the sleeved coat.
A study of the impact of an ancient Near Eastern
garment on the West’ Expedition 21: 18–36
Marksteiner, T. 1997: Die befestigte Siedlung von Limyra
(Studien zur vorrömischen Wehrarchitektur und
Siedlungsentwicklung in Lykien unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der klassischen Periode). Vienna
— 2003: ‘Limyra 2002’ ANMED (Anadolu Akdenizi
Arkeoloji Haberleri) 1: 20–22
— 2004: ‘A short preliminary report of the work at
Limyra in 2003’ ANMED (Anadolu Akdenizi
Arkeoloji Haberleri) 2: 33–36
— 2005: ‘Excavations at Limyra in 2004’ ANMED
(Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri) 3: 47–50
— 2006: ‘Excavations at Limyra in 2005’ ANMED
(Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri) 4: 37–40
— 2007: ‘Works at Limyra in 2006’ ANMED (Anadolu
Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri) 5: 33–36
Marksteiner, T., Schuh, U. 2008: ‘Excavations at Limyra
in 2007’ ANMED (Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji
Haberleri) 6: 42–46
Mellink, M. 1973: ‘Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and
Elmalı, Lycia’ American Journal of Archaeology 77:
293–307
— 1998: Kızılbel: An Archaic Painted Tomb Chamber in
Northern Lycia (University of Pennsylvania Archaeological Monographs). Philadelphia
Miller, M.C. 1991: ‘Foreigners at the Greek symposium?’
in W.J. Slater (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context.
Ann Arbor: 59–81
— 1997: Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A
Study in Cultural Receptivity. Cambridge
Mørkholm, O., Zahle, J. 1976: ‘The coinages of the
Lycian dynasts Kheriga, Kherei and Erbbina’ Acta
Archaeologica 47: 47–90
Mühlbauer, L. 2006: ‘Ein lykisches Fuβmaβ?’ in K.
Dörtlük, B. Varkıvanç, T. Kahya, J. Courtils, M.
Alparslan, R. Boyraz (eds), Antalya 2005. The Third
Symposium on Lycia, Antalya. Symposium
Proceedings II. Antalya: 489–514
Müller, V.K. 1915: Der Polos: Die griechische
Götterkron. Berlin
Neils, J. 2005: ‘With noblest images on all sides’ in J.
Neils (ed.), The Parthenon: From Antiquity to
Present. New York: 199–224
Nollé, M. 1992: Denkmaler vom Satrapensitz Daskyleion: Studien zur graeco-persischen Kunst. Berlin
Olçay, N., Mørkholm, O. 1971: ‘The coin hoard from
Podalia’ Numismatic Chronicle: 339–447
Özgen, İ., Özgen, E. 1988: Antalya Museum. Ankara
Pedley, J.G. 2007: Greek Art and Archaeology (3rd
edition). New York
Pirson, F. 2006: ‘Das vielfaltige Bild des Krieges: Kampf
und Gewalt in der lykischen Reliefkunst des spaten
5. und des. 4. Jhs. V. Chr.’ in K. Dörtlük, B.
Varkıvanç, T. Kahya, J. Courtils, M. Alparslan, R.
Boyraz (eds), Antalya 2005. The Third Symposium
on Lycia, Antalya. Symposium Proceedings II.
Antalya: 639–47
Ramage, N., Ramage, A. 2005: Roman Art From Romulus
to Constantine (4th edition). New York
Ridgway, B.S. 1993: The Archaic Style in Greek
Sculpture (2nd edition). Chicago
— 1997: Fourth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture.
Wisconsin
Şare, T. 2010: ‘An Anatolian ivory figurine from Elmalı:
cultural hybridization and a new Anatolian style’
Hesperia 79: 53–78
— 2011: Dress and Identity in the Arts of Anatolia: The
Seventh Through Fourth Centuries BCE. PhD
thesis, Rutgers University
Schmidt, E.F. 1953: Persepolis. Chicago
Scholl, A. 1995: ‘Χoηφoρoι. Zur Deutung der Korenhalle
des Erechtheion’ Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 110: 179–212
Shear, M.I. 1999: ‘Maidens in Greek architecture: the
origin of the caryatids’ Bulletin de correspondance
hellénique 123: 65–85
Snodgrass, A.M. 1999: Arms and Armor of the Greeks.
Baltimore
Stewart, A.F. 1990: Greek Sculpture: An Exploration.
New Haven
Summerer, L. 2010: ‘Wall paintings’ in L. Summerer, A.
Klienlin (eds), Tatarlı: The Return of Colors.
Istanbul: 120–86
Thonemann, P. 2009: ‘Lycia, Athens and Amorges’ in J.
Ma, N. Papazarkadas, R. Parker (eds), Interpreting
the Athenian Empire. London: 167–94
Tuplin, C. 2007: ‘Treacherous hearths and upright tiaras:
the Achaemenid king’s headdress’ in C. Tuplin (ed.),
Persian Responses. Oxford: 67–97
— 2011: ‘The limits of Persianization: some reflections
on cultural links in the Persian empire’ in E.S. Gruen
(ed.), Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean. Los Angeles: 150–85
Wörrle, M. 1991: ‘Epigrapische Forschungen zur
Geschichte Lykiens IV: drie griechische Inschriften
aus Limyra’ Chiron 21: 201–39
74