Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:10:13.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dynastic Tombs of Xanthos—Who was Buried Where?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2015

Antony G. Keen
Antony G. Keen
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Probably the best-known, and certainly the most individual, of the monuments of the Classical period from Lycia (in south-west Anatolia) are the pillar tombs. At least 33 are known, and perhaps as many as 43, ranging in date from the mid-sixth century B.C. to the mid-fourth. It seems likely that these were the tombs of local ruling dynasts, who are known chiefly from the numismatic record, a supposition supported by the small number of pillars in comparison with all other types of tomb in Lycia, the ornate sculpture on the finest specimens, their rough chronological coincidence with the coin-issuing of dynasts in the country, and finally, the fact that the one example that can be almost positively attributed belongs to one of these dynasts (this will be discussed later). Each tomb was probably erected during the owner's lifetime, since inscriptional evidence from tombs of lesser figures certainly indicates that these were prepared during the owner's lifetime. At most of the cities in Lycia knowledge of the local dynasts is not sufficient to allow an attempt at any sort of attribution of these tombs to individuals, at least not without a great deal of work on the monuments and coinage, but at Xanthos, chief city of Lycia, knowledge of the dynasty is perhaps enough to allow some speculation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 42 , December 1992 , pp. 53 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This paper arises out of Ph.D. thesis work on the dynasts of Lycia during the period of the Persian Empire (c. 540-360 B.C.) and an earlier version was delivered at the 4th Annual Conference of the British Association for Near Eastern Archaeology at Birmingham on 11 November 1990. I should like to thank the conference organizers for the opportunity to deliver this paper, and, for their comments on earlier drafts, Mr. S. J. Hodkinson, Dr. J. Zahle, and Prof. O. R. Gurney. None of these should be taken as necessarily agreeing with the conclusions at which I have arrived. A Travel Grant from the Institute enabled me to visit Xanthos and to see the monuments in question.

1 Distribution of the pillar tombs in Lycia: Deltour-Levie, C., Les piliers funéraires de Lycie (Louvain-la-Neuve 1982)Google Scholar; Zahle, J., Arkœologiske studier i lykiske klippegrave (Copenhagen 1983), 142–3Google Scholar; they give totals of 37 (including the Pillar of the Wrestlers, not listed on Deltour-Levie's general table, but noted at 159) and 35 respectively, of which 33 appear in both lists. To these might perhaps be added three further pillars at Pinara, in addition to those noted by Deltour-Levie and Zahle (Wurster, W. W. and Wörrle, M., “Die Stadt Pinara”, AA 1978, 80Google Scholar), and possibly a further pillar at Xanthos (Borchhardt, J., “Die Ruinen von Gürses’, Borchhardt, J. [ed.], Myra [Berlin 1975], 82Google Scholar; but see below, n. 5). Many of these must be considered dubious, however (e.g. two pillars identified at Apollonia by Wurster, W., “Antike Siedlungen in Lykien”, AA 1976, 38–40Google Scholar, are identified by Kjeldsen, K. and Zahle, J., “A dynastic tomb in central Lycia”, Acta Archaeologica XLVII [1976], 30–1Google Scholar, as sarcophagi).

2 Pillar tombs as dynastic tombs: Zahle, J., “Lycian tombs and Lycian cities”, Colloque sur Lycie (Paris 1980), 38Google Scholar; (above, n. 1), 32–3, 64–5, 107–11. Dynasts known from the coinage: Mørkholm, O. and Neumann, G.. Die lykische Münzlegenden (Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen I, 1978)Google Scholar.

3 A representative selection of these inscriptions: Bryce, T. R., The Lycians I (Copenhagen 1986), 71–88Google Scholar.

4 Bryce, T. R., “Tombs and the social hierarchy in ancient Lycia”, Altorientalische Forschungen XVIII (1991), 73Google Scholar, states that “there can be little doubt that the most impressive 5th and early 4th century monuments in Xanthos…are to be associated with this dynasty.”

5 Generally on the pillars: Demargne, P., Fouilles de Xanthos (henceforth referred to as FdX) I (Paris 1958)Google Scholar (with supplementary material in Demargne, P., FdX V [Paris 1974], 112–16Google Scholar); Deltour-Levie (above, n. 1), 159–68; on the Harpy Tomb in particular: Zahle, J., Harpyiemonumentet i Xanthos (Copenhagen 1975)Google Scholar. The so-called “Sarcophagus Pillar” (Demargne, , FdX I, 47–51Google Scholar), which probably dates no earlier than the third century (Demargne, FdX I, 51), is omitted from this discussion. Borchhardt (above, n. 1), 82, allocates two relief fragments found at Xanthos (Demargne, , FdX I, 33–4Google Scholar) to a seventh pillar dated c. 525 B.C., but Demargne gives no indication that such an attribution of these fragments might be correct, and the relief fragments as illustrated do not automatically lead one to the belief that they belonged to a pillar, so these will also be disregarded. Locations of these monuments: Fig. 1; general map of Xanthos: Akurgal, E., Ancient Ruins of Turkey6 (Istanbul 1985), 259Google Scholar. The reliefs of the Lion Pillar and the Harpy Tomb are now in the British Museum, whilst those of the Inscribed Pillar are divided between the British Museum and the Istanbul Archaeological Museum.

6 Zahle (above, n. 2), 38.

7 Nereid Monument: Coupel, P. and Demargne, P., FdX III (Paris 1969)Google Scholar; Demargne, P. and Childs, W. A. P., FdX VIII (Paris 1989)Google Scholar; Demargne, P., “Das Nereiden-Monument von Xanthos”, Götter, Heroen, Herrscher in Lykien (Vienna 1990), 65–9Google Scholar (the reliefs from this monument are in the British Museum). Building G: Metzger, H., FdX II (Paris 1963), 49–61Google Scholar; Kjeldsen and Zahle (above, n. 1), 39–41 (the reliefs, recovered from the Byzantine city wall, are now in the British Museum).

8 Date of Building G: Metzger (above, n. 7), 60–1. Other heroön-type tombs include that at Trysa, dated to c. 380–70 B.C. (Childs, W. A. P., “The date of the Heroon from Gölbaşi-Trysa”, AJA LXXVII [1973], 210Google Scholar; “Prolegomena to a Lycian chronology, II”, RA 1976, 281–316Google Scholar; Oberleitner, W., “Das Heroon von Trysa”, Götter, Heroen, Herrscher in Lykien [Vienna 1990], 72)Google Scholar; at Phellos, dated to the fourth century (Borchhardt, J., Ist Mitt XXIX [1989], 95Google Scholar); and at Limyra, dated to c. 370–60 B.C. (Borchhardt, J., Die Bauskulptur des Heroons von Limyra [Berlin 1976], 108Google Scholar).

9 For this deterioration see Bryce (above n. 3), 110–14, and n. 36 below.

10 Kleiss, W., “Der Takht-i-Rustam und das Kyros Grab”, AA 1971, 157–62Google Scholar; Stronach, D. B., Pasargadae (Oxford 1978), 24–43, 302–4Google Scholar. Persian influence on Anatolian tombs: Cahill, N., “Taş Kule”, AJA XCII (1988), 493, 499–501Google Scholar; Cormack, S., “A Mausoleum at Ariassos”, AS XXXIX (1989), 37Google Scholar.

11 The only contemporary monument comparable to Building G is a monument at Apollonia; Kjeldsen and Zahle (above n. 1), 29–46. Besides the tombs at Trysa, Phellos and Limyra, the Nereid Monument was also imitated by the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos (Coupel and Demargne [above, n. 7], 159).

12 The appearance of the Lycian equivalent of the name Artaxerxes in the historical section of the Lycian inscription (TAM I 44. b. 59–60Google Scholar), and the close conjunction of this name with that of Dareios, which points towards this being Artaxerxes II who acceded to the Persian throne in 404 B.C., give a terminus ante quem for the monument. The pillar cannot in any case be earlier than 412 B.C., since the suppression of the Persian rebel Amorges (Thucydides, VIII 28) seems to be referred to (TAM 44. a. 55). Cf. Mørkholm, O. and Zahle, J., “The coinage of Kuprlli”, Acta Archaeologica XLIII (1972), 111–12Google Scholar and n. 435.

13 Building G: Coupel in Metzger (above, n. 7), figs. 12–16, 28; Inscribed Pillar: Demargne, P. and Coupel, P., “Towards a reconstruction of the Inscribed Pillar of Xanthos”, Illustrated London News, 5 October 1963, fig. 4Google Scholar.

14 Suggested by Metzger (above, n. 7), 62 (interpreted by Childs, W. A. P., The City Reliefs of Lycia [Princeton 1978], 5Google Scholar, as suggesting that Buildings F, G and H were rebuilt tombs of earlier dynasts). Hero-cults: Fraser, P. M., Rhodian Funerary Monuments (Oxford 1977), 76–8Google Scholar, esp. 77 and n. 443a.

15 Other references: Zwicker, J., “Sarpedon”, RE II. A (Stuttgart 1921), 41Google Scholar.

16 Metzger (above, n. 7), 60; no actual foundations have been found, however, the only evidence being some doubtful pre-470 B.C. fragments of pottery, which Metzger admits could have ended up in place due to some disturbance caused by a latter development of the site, e.g. the levelling carried out in Byzantine times.

17 Metzger (above, n. 7), 49.

18 Buildings F and H: Metzger (above, n. 7), 63–75; 49 for the suggestion that all three formed a linked unit. The precinct in which Buildings F, G and H all stand would then be a cult area. The hero Pandaros had a cult at Pinara (Strabo, XIV 3.5), whilst Bellerophon was honoured by having a deme named after him at Tlos (TAM II 548.11, 36Google Scholar; 590.4), as was Sarpedon (TAM II 597. a. 2)Google Scholar; both Pandaros and Bellerophon are possibilities for having a cult centre at Xanthos, as is Glaukos, mentioned as a hero at TAM II 265. 7Google Scholar.

19 Kjeldsen and Zahle (above, n. 1), 29–46, interpret the monument at Apollonia as a dynastic tomb of the mid-fifth century, partially through parallels with Building G. It is possible that this monument is also connected with a hero-cult (cf. W. Wurster [above, n. 1], 40, who interprets it as “eine Art Temenos”). If Building G was a dynastic tomb, then it must have been the tomb of Kuprlli (see below); the Theatre Pillar, which this paper assigns to Kuprlli, would probably have then to be assigned to another member of the dynastic house who was not a ruling dynast himself, of whom the most likely candidates are Kheriga's father Harpagos (TAM I 44. a. 1–2 and 30Google Scholar; 77. 2b; Neumann, G., Neufunde lykische Inschriften seit 1901 [Vienna 1979]Google Scholar, N 310.4) or his uncle Kheziga (TAM I 44. a. 31Google Scholar).

20 Coinage: Mørkholm and Zahle (above, n. 12), 57–113; “The coinages of the Lycian dynasts”, Acta Archeologica XLVII (1976), 47–90Google Scholar; inscriptional evidence: TAM I 44. a. 30Google Scholar; Bousquet, J., “Arbinas, dynaste de Xanthos”. CRAI 1975, 138–48Google Scholar; Hansen, P., Carmina Epigraphica Graeca II (Berlin 1989), 281–5Google Scholar nos. 888–9. The last dynast thought to be minting at Xanthos, Arttupara (Mørkholm and Neumann [above, n. 2], M231, M302), was probably a Persian official (perhaps implied by an inscription [TAM I 29. 7Google Scholar] in which he seems to be described as “the Mede” [Arttu para: Mede]; cf. Schmitt, R., “Iranische Namen im Lykischen”, Mayrhofer, M. and Schmitt, R. (eds.), Iranische Personennamenbuch V.4 [Vienna 1982], 18Google Scholar; Bryce, T. R., “Hellenism in Lycia”, Descœrdres, J.-P. [ed.], Greek Colonists and Native Populations [Oxford 1990], 536Google Scholar).

21 Babelon, E., Catalogue des monnaies grecque de la Bibliothèque Nationale: les Perses achéménides (Paris 1893), 431–2Google Scholar; Hill, G. F., Catalogue of Greek Coins: Lycia, Pamphylia and Pisidia (London 1887), xxvi, xxxii, Lycia nos. 8, 9Google Scholar; Babelon, E., Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines II.2 (Paris 1910), 506–7Google Scholar; Mørkholm and Neumann (above, n. 2), 6. Date: O. Mørkholm apud Bryce, T. R., “A ruling dynasty in Lycia”, Klio LXXIV (1982), 330–1Google Scholar and n. 10.

22 All the manuscripts carry the name (Kyberiskos, son of Sikas), but the emendation, originally suggested verbally by J. P. Six (cf. How, W. W. and Wells, J., A Commentary on Herodotus [corrected ed., Oxford 1928], II, 163Google Scholar) to (Kybernis, son of Kossikas) has the advantage that Kossikas could well be the Greek equivalent of the Lycian personal name Kheziga (Bryce [above, n. 21], 330). κύβερνις is possibly an attempt to render into Greek the Lycian name Kuprlli (Bryce [above, n. 21], 331); an alternative Greek rendering is perhaps , suggested by a Greek inscription of the fourth or third century (TAM II 922Google Scholar; Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H. J.. The Luwian Population Groups [Leiden 1961], 6 and n. 7)Google Scholar.

23 The dating of Kuprlli's earliest issues depends on the date of the Asyut hoard: Kraay, C. M., “The Asyut hoard”, Numismatic Chronicle ser. VII, XVII (1977), 189–98Google Scholar (esp. 194); Cahn, H. A., “Asiut”, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau LVI (1977), 279–87Google Scholar.

24 Much evidence has been advanced in favour of this idea (see e.g. Fellows, C., Discoveries in Lycia [London 1841], 436, 493Google Scholar; Lloyd, W. W., Xanthian Marbles [London 1846], 95Google Scholar; Rawlinson, G., Herodotus, I [London 1862], 250 n. 6Google Scholar; Maspero, G., Passing of the Empires [London 1900], 624Google Scholar; Tritsch, F. J., “The Harpy Tomb at Xanthos”, JHS LXII [1942], 47Google Scholar and n. 12; Shahbazi, A. S., The Irano-Lycian Monuments [Tehran 1975], 44–5Google Scholar; Jacobs, B., Griechische und persische elemente in der Grabkunst Lvkiens zur Zeit der Achämenidenherrschaft [SIMA LXXVII, 1987], 27–9Google Scholar), but most of it is very slight. A full refutation of the idea cannot, however, be entered into here.

25 (“by his very fine deeds he glorified the family of Ka[?]ikas”). The name is usually restored as Karikas, but the restoration of the missing letter as ρ depends entirely on the assumption that it was a Greek form of Kheriga (although since it is recognized, e.g. by Childs, W. A. P., “Lycian relations with Greeks and Persians”, AS XXXI [1981], 70 n. 90Google Scholar, that the name on the inscription refers to the founder of the dynasty, it is generally thought to be an earlier Kheriga than the coinissuer); it is now almost certain that the Greek form of Kheriga was Γέργις (Bousquet [above, n. 20], 141–2). For the suggestion that the missing letter should be ξ or σ, see Bousquet, J., “Les Lyciens”, REG C (1987), 127Google Scholar; σ is perhaps preferable, since Herodotos apparently represents the z of Kheziga with σσ (see above, n. 22)—indeed, Kasikas and Kossikas may well be the same man. The name Kheziga: Melchert, H. C., Lycian Lexicon (Chapel Hill 1989), 104Google Scholar.

26 The date of Kheziga's accession is based on the belief, which will be argued below, that there was a change of dynasty at Xanthos in the reign of the Persian King Kambyses; the date of his death is based on his identification as owner of the Pillar of the Wrestlers (see below). The date for Kherẽi's death arises from the earliest date given for his cessation of minting (Mørkholm and Zahle [above, n. 20], 59); the earlier date is preferable because of the erection of the Inscribed Pillar before c. 390, which was probably erected early in the reign of Erbbina. The date of Erbbina's death is derived from the belief—to be argued elsewhere—that the Limyra Heroön (of which the earliest date is 370 B.C.: above, n. 8) was begun before the death of Erbbina. All these dates are of course somewhat imprecise.

27 Laroche, E., “Les épitaphes lyciennes”, FdX V (Paris 1974), 148Google Scholar.

28 Bousquet (above, n. 20). The tomb was originally identified as belonging to Kherẽi, largely, it would seem, on the assumption that the Kheriga mentioned in the pedigree of the owner (TAM I 44. a. 30Google Scholar) was the dynast. The inscriptions showed that the Greek form for Kheriga was Γέργις, which Bousquet (above, n. 20), 141–2, suggests fits the surviving letters ([--]ρ[-]ις) in the gap where the owner's name should be in the Greek epigram (TAM I 44. c. 24Google Scholar). The attribution is further supported by the suggestion of Laroche (above, n. 27), 145–6, that the gap in the Lycian inscription was of six letters, not five, which would allow Kheriga, but exclude Kherẽi (kh represents a single Lycian letter). Childs, W. A. P., “The authorship of the Inscribed Pillar at Xanthos”, AS XXIX (1979), 97–102Google Scholar, has attempted to prove that the gap is in fact five letters; but the restoration in the Greek epigram of Γέργις, an attested Greek form of a Lycian name, ought to be preferred to the suggestion of κόρρις, a suggestion first made by Imbert, J., “L'épigramme grecque de la stèle de Xanthe”, REG VII (1894), 271Google Scholar. Whilst this latter name exists (CIG II 2694.A.6) it is known from an inscription from Mylasa and hence was probably a Carian name; nowhere is it attested as a Greek form of a Lycian name.

29 Date: Childs, W. A. P., “Prolegomena to a Lycian chronology: the Nereid Monument from Xanthos”, Opuscula Romana IX (1973), 105–16Google Scholar; link with Erbbina: Demargne, P., CRAI 1975, 150Google Scholar; “L'iconographie dynastique au monument des Néréides”, Recueil Plassart (Paris 1976), 81Google Scholar n. 4; “Athéna, les dynastes lyciens et les héros grecs”, Florilegiwn Anatolicum (Paris 1979), 99–100Google Scholar n. 16; Demargne and Childs (above, n. 7), 401; Demargne (above, n. 7), 69.

30 Demargne, , FdX I (above, n. 5), 44–5Google Scholar.

31 Shahbazi (above, n. 24), 49.

32 Deltour-Levie (above, n. 1), 204 n. 33.

33 This inscription, only partially preserved, records some payment to be made to the miñti, a Lycian council connected with the supervision of tombs, but otherwise somewhat obscure; Laroche (above, n. 27), 142: Bryce (above, n. 3), 121–2.

34 Laroche, E., “L'inscription lycienne”, FdX VI (Paris 1979), 54–8Google Scholar, though it should be noted that no inscription can be positively dated earlier than the late fifth century (Bryce [above, n. 3], 46–8). I am grateful to Prof. H C. Melchert for advice on this point.

35 The surviving inscription reads: [ἀπ]οκαθελὼ[ν] μετέθηκεν. Date: Friedrich, J., Kleinasiatisches Sprachdenkmäler (Berlin 1932), 70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 On the basis of inscriptions that reveal that Erbbina had to reconquer Telmessos, Xanthos and Tlos (Bousquet [above, n. 20], A 3 and B 6; Robert, L., “Les conquêtes d'Arbinas”, Journal des Savants 1978, 3–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar [reprinted in Opera minora selecta VII [Amsterdam 1990], 381–426]Google Scholar), three cities where Kherẽi is known to have minted coinage (Mørkholm and Zahle [above, n. 20], 150–2), Bousquet (above, n. 25), 127, suggests that Kherẽi temporarily usurped power from Erbinna, who, as son of Kheriga (Bousquet [above, n. 20], B 4), would have been rightful successor. It may be that indications on the Inscribed Pillar (TAM I 44. b. 1–25Google Scholar) of some sort of internal struggle in Lycia c. 411, which include mention of Kherẽi (TAM I 44. b. 23Google Scholar), also point to this usurpation; but there is not the space to argue this matter fully here.

37 The sites in question are Gürses (c. 500 B.C.; Borchhardt [above, n. 1], 82–4), Isinda (c. 550–500 B.C.; Akurgal, E., Griechische Reliefs des VI. Jhrs. aus Lykien [Berlin 1941], 52–97Google Scholar; Deltour-Levie [above, n. 1], 172–4) and Trysa (c. 500 B.C.; Akurgal, op. cit., 98–109; Deltour-Levie [above, n. 1], 87–98). Full bibliography on these monuments: Borchhardt (above, n. 1), 86.

38 Against this view, see Bryce, T. R., “Political unity in Lycia during the ‘Dynastic’ period”, JNES XLII (1983), 33Google Scholar: “it is more than likely that the dynastic system was largely a Persian innovation”.

39 Demargne, , FdX I (above, n. 5), 32Google Scholar. It should be noted that his main reason for the earlier dating is to allow what he considers a reasonable timelapse between this and succeeding pillars, which is not, of itself, altogether a sound argument.

40 Metzger (above, n. 7), 16–19.

41 Lycian house tombs have stone reproductions of wooden architectural features, and so it is not unlikely that originally these tombs would have been at least partially of wood, which makes it quite possible that the pillars were the same. In northern Lycia it is still possible to see beehives constructed on the top of wooden pillars; Mellink, M. J., “The early Bronze-Age in southwest Anatolia”, Archaeology XXII (1969), 290–9Google Scholar; Kjeldsen, K. and Zahle, J., “Lykische Gräber’, AA 1975, 346Google Scholar. Since it is known that at least one stone pillar, the Pillar of the Wrestlers, has subsequently disappeared, there is no reason why there should not have been other stone pillars of the pre-Persian dynasty which have also perished, but there is no evidence for them as yet.

42 Akurgal ([above, n. 37], 2, 18, 40, 100; Phrygische Kunst [Ankara 1955], 89 n. 18Google Scholar) dates it to 540 at the earliest, whilst Borchhardt (above, n. 1), 85, and Zahle (above, n. 1), 12, also support a date of 540–25.

43 The evidence is Herodotos, III 4.2; in 526 Phanes, a Greek mercenary captain on the run from Egypt, reached Lycia. Despite Lycia being nominally part of the Persian empire and so supposedly safe from Egyptian agents, Phanes was captured by Egyptian eunuchs who seem to have been operating without fear of interference from the Lycians.

44 Demargne, , FdX I (above, n. 5), 51Google Scholar. The relief is illustrated on Pl. XIII of that work.

45 Necropolis on the slopes of the Hellenistic acropolis, where the Lion Tomb was set up: Demargne, , FdX V (above, n. 5), 25–30Google Scholar.

46 Zahle (above, n. 1), 107–11, argues for “super-rulers” who emerged from amongst the average dynasts, and who were the ones buried in the heroön-type tombs; the pillar tombs continued in use as tombs of the nobility and certain dynasts. There seem, however, to be too few pillars in Xanthos for them to have been regularly used by the nobility; nor do there seem to be enough heroön-type tombs for the dynasts, if they began using them in the mid-fifth century (Zahle suggests that the heroön-type tombs were family tombs, for the owner and his household and children, as are many tombs in Lycia, according to the inscriptions [e.g. TAM I 3Google Scholar; 4; 6; 7; 56; 61; 84; 88; 101; 102; 107; 117; 139; 143; Neumann [above, n. 19], N 322]; but in the case of dynastic tombs, each ruling dynast would want to erect his own monument to himself and his achievements). Furthermore, it seems strange that Kheriga, who led the Lycian resistance to Athenian invasion in 430/29 B.C. (TAM I 44. a. 42–5Google Scholar; note also the tone of his Greek epigram [TAM I 44. c. 26–31]Google Scholar), should not consider himself a “super-ruler”, whilst Erbbina, who had difficulty retaining hold of Xanthos (above, n. 36), did.