The cultural impact of contact with Greece on Persia is discussed below (sec. vii). Here the evidence for receptivity to Persian culture in Greece, the North Aegean, and West Anatolia is addressed, including receptivity on the part of the non-Greek peoples of these regions. Literary evidence generally presents a picture of hostility between the Persian and Greek worlds, with Macedonia, Thrace, and west Anatolia comprising much of the battle ground; the focus in the historical record on the military conflicts and diplomatic relations implies little cultural exchange. However, archeological and iconographic evidence reveals increasing receptivity to Iranian material culture throughout Anatolia. Such “Iranizing” both reinforces the evidence for a Persian presence and provides a background for cultural relations with Greece. Anatolia can be regarded as an interculturation zone through which much of Greek perception of Persians was filtered until the conquests of Alexander focused Greek atten-tion more on the Levant and Mesopotamia. The most striking instances of receptivity in the Greek world, as in the North Aegean and Anatolia, are responses to luxury toreutic; the Achaemenid deep and shallow bowls were particularly imitated in metal and ceramic throughout most of the lands in question. Textiles and clothing played a role, as did the transmission of images via the minor arts (jewelery and seals). There are indications, too, of emulation of Persian court ceremonial and setting.
1.1. Problems of the evidence. The study of such receptivity is beset by a variety of problems relating to the fact that it is perforce based on archeological evidence for regions that are as yet imperfectly known. The near-complete dependency on the material record may re-sult in an imbalanced picture. When receptivity can be traced, the precise origin of the models is often unclear owing to the nascent state of knowledge about the regional styles of the Achaemenid Empire. A traditional bias in the study of the Greek world has focused attention away from such issues; much evidence doubtless exists, awaiting integration into a broad study of the question throughout the entire region. It is uncertain to what extent Greeks and even Western Anatolians were informed observers of Persian material culture, able to distinguish closely the lands and peoples (especially the Iranian peoples) of the empire. This is reflected in the on-going debate about the reliability of the Greco-Carian historian Herodotus on matters Persian (see, e.g., Asheri, Dalley, Fehling, Nesselrath, Romm), itself inspired by some notorious gaffs.
1.2. Zones of contact and mechanisms of transfer. In view of the brief duration of Persian military presence in Greece in 490 and 480-79 B.C.E., it is important to establish that other circumstances allowed sufficient contact between the cultures for Greek receptivity to Persian culture to occur. There are two facets to the question: the extent of the Persian presence in Anatolia, which was under Persian control for two centuries (and the concomitant question of the extant of Greek contact with Anatolia during this period); and the evidence for the importation of Persians and their cultural artifacts into Greece itself. For long it seemed that the Achaemenids, though the masters of Anatolia for two hundred years, left no material trace of their presence there; and in their absence, the chances for real cultural exchange between Persians and Greeks seemed to have been few.
Intensified excavation in Turkey and restudy of finds from older excavations now affirm a significant Persian presence in Anatolia (Sekunda, 1985, 1988, and 1991). Much is the indirect evidence of instances of local acculturation (for details see below). Recent discoveries confirm an expectation that the imperial iconography developed at Persepolis and Susa was exported to the regional capitals (cf. Seidl): the Achaemenid-style procession relief sculptures at Medancıkkale, Cilicia (Davesne and Laroche-Traunecker), and the cloth-bearing processants painted in a tomb at Harta in Lydia (Özgen and Öztürk, p. 38). Impressions from a cylinder seal of (?) Artaxerxes I from Daskyleion with the king enthroned surrounded by attendants confirms the probable role of glyptic in circulating Persian visual concepts (PLATE I; Kaptan; for some implications for visual communication, see Root).
For three generations in the Archaic period and again in the 4th century B.C.E., the Greek cities of Western Anatolia were part of the Persian Empire, although they never lost contact with the states of mainland Greece (Debord). The evidence for Persian presence in Anatolia shows that East Greeks must have known Persians well; indeed, almost all of the known Greeks who spoke Persian come from this region (Miller, pp. 131-32; Bernard, forthcoming). Excavated ceramics verify that trade between the Greek world and Persian-held Asia Minor (and the Levant) continued throughout the period, showing no hint of a negative impact from military or other tensions. This evidence comes from the satrapal centers Daskyleion (Tuna-Nörling, 1998, pp. 18-22; idem, 2001; both omit Attic black-gloss that figures prominently elsewhere in this period) and Sardis (Ramage, pp. 67-68), as well as Gordion in the interior, where trade with Greece is even said to have increased under Persian domain (Voigt, pp. 18-23; DeVries).
Very few examples of actual Persian imports survive in the Greek world (Miller, pp. 41-43; Tuplin, pp. 164-65; Baitinger; Völlig). Nonetheless, a variety of evidence attests to the spread of Persian material goods and cultural knowledge to Greece, thanks to trade, booty and diplomatic relations. Traded goods introduced to Greece included such items as foodstuffs, textiles, glass, slaves, and possibly toreutic. A major source for material goods introduced to Greece was the booty from the Persian Wars. The capture of the Persian camp at Plataia (479 B.C.E.), whose wealth far exceeded anything within Greek imagination, became legendary and was probably the single largest intrusion of Persian (and other foreign) goods into Greek society (Herodotus, 9.80-83), but there is reason to suppose that substantial booty was also won at Marathon (490 B.C.E.) and especially at the battle of the Eurymedon River (466 B.C.E.), as well as at various other engagements on land and sea throughout much of the 5th century B.C.E. A portion of the spoils was dedicated to the gods (cf. Thucydides 2.13.3-5; Harris, pp. 109-10, 204-6), but the rest was distributed among participants, ensuring a wide distribution throughout much of the Greek world. Though items in precious metals were doubtless soon melted down, some traces indicate that not all were, or if they were, their unusual qualities were remembered: the most striking instance is a Persian bracteate design that appears as a shield device in Attic red-figured vase-painting about 490-470 B.C.E. (PLATE II; Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University, B8; Thompson; Miller, pp. 29-62).
The extensive diplomatic relations before and after the Persian invasions of Greece also served as a vehicle of information transfer. Whereas goods gained in trade or as booty are already divorced from their cultural context, participants in diplomatic missions were able to penetrate the environment of the upper echelons of the empire. A number of Athenian and other embassies to the king at Susa are attested; many more went to the satrap at Sardis. Such communication allowed prominent Greek citizens an opportunity to witness the luxury culture of the Persian satrapal and royal courts. Diplomatic gifts frequently included luxury toreutic and fine textiles; and, once, peacocks (Miller, pp. 109-33, with references; Bivar). Diplomacy also involved dedications, like the robe dedicated by Pharnabazos of Daskyleion to Athena (Harris, p. 230).
At the other end of the social scale (as high-ranking Persians are rarely attested in Greece), immigrants, especially to Athens in the time of its own mid-5th-century imperial peak, must have served as a valuable means of communication. Both slaves and freemen composed part of the Athenian population, and their numbers included many peoples from areas under Persian control (Miller, pp. 81-85; Bäbler). In the later 5th and 4th centuries, Greek mercenaries served under Persian commanders.
Bibliography: David Asheri, “Erodoto e Bisitun,” in Emilio Gabba, ed., Presentazione e scrittura della storia: storiografia, epigrafi, monumenti, Bibliotheca di Athenaeum 42, Como, 1999, pp. 101-16. Balbina Bäbler, Fleissige Thrakerinnen und wehrhafte Skythen: Nichtgriechen im klassischen Athenund ihre archäologische Hinterlassenschrift, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1998. Holger Baitinger, “Waffen und Bewaffnung aus der Perserbeute in Olympia,” Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1999, pp. 124-39. Paul Bernard, “Presentation,” CRAI, forthcoming (2002). Adrian David Hugh Bivar, “SYMBOLON: A Noteworthy Use for a Persian Gold Phiale,” in Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, ed., Ancient Greeks West and East, Mnemosyne Bibliotheca Classica Batava, Suppl. 196,Leiden and Boston, 1999, pp. 379-84. Stephanie Dalley and A. T. Reyes, “Mesopotamian Contact and Influence in the Greek World 2: Persia, Alexander, and Rome,” in Stephanie Dalley, ed., The Legacy of Mesopotamia,Oxford, 1998, pp. 107-24. Alain Davesne and F. Laroche-Traunecker, Gülnar I. Le Site de Meydancıkkale: Recherches entreprises sous la direction d’Emmanuel Laroche (1971-1982), Paris, 1998. Pierre Debord, L’Asie Mineure au IVesiècle (412-323 a.C.): pouvoirs et jeux politiques, Ausonius Institute Études 3, Bordeaux, 1999. Keith DeVries, “The Attic Pottery from Gordion,” in John Howard Oakley, William D. Coulson, and Olga Palagia, eds., Athenian Potters and Painters: The Proceeding of the International Conference Held at The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 1-4, 1994, Oxford, 1997, pp. 447-55. Deltev Fehling, Die Quellenangaben bei Herodot: Studien zur Erzählkunst Herodots, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 2, Berlin 1971; tr. J. G. Howie as Herodotus and His “Sources”: Citation, Invention and Narrative Art, Leeds, 1988. Diane Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion, Oxford, 1995. D. Kaptan, “The Great King’s Audience,” in Fritz Blakolmer et al., eds., Fremde Zeiten: Festschrift für Jürgen Borchhardt, zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, Vienna, 1996, pp. 259-71. Margaret C. Miller, Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century B.C.: A Study in Cultural Receptivity, Cambridge, 1997. Heinz Gunter Nesselrath, “Herodot und Babylon: der Hauptort Mesopotamiens in den Augen eines Griechen des 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr.,” in Johannes Renger, ed., Babylon: Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne, Colloquium der Deutchen Orient-Gesellschaft 2, Saarbrück, 1999, pp. 189-206. Iknur Özgen and Jean Öztürk, eds., The Lydian Treasure: Heritage Recovered,Ankara, 1996.
Nancy H. Ramage, “The Attic Pottery,” in Judith Snyder Schaeffer, Nancy H. Ramage, and Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., eds., The Corinthian, Attic, and Lakonian Pottery from Sardis, Archeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph 10, Cambridge, Mass., 1997, pp. 63-130. James S. Romm, Herodotos: Father of History or Master Storyteller?, New Haven, 1998. Margaret Cool Root, “Cultural Pluralisms in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets,” in Recherches récentes sur l’Empire achéménide, Topoi: Orient-Occident, Suppl. 1, Toulouse, 1997, pp. 229-52. Rüdiger Schmitt, “Assyria Grammata und ähnliche: Was wussten die Griechen von Keilschrift und Keilsinschriften?” in Carl Werner Müller, Kurt Siert, and Jürgen Werner, eds., Zum Umgang mit Fremden Sprachen in der griechisch-römischen antiken Mittelmeeraums (Festschrift für Jürgen Untermann), Innsbruck, 1992, pp. 385-401. Ursula Seidl, “Eine Triumphstele Darius I aus Babylon,” in Johannes Renger, ed., Babylon. Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege Früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne, Saarbrück, 1999, pp. 297-306. Nicholas Sekunda, “Achaemenid Colonisation in Lydia,” Revue des Études Anciennes 87, 1985, pp. 7-29. Idem, “Persian Settlement in Hellespontine Phrygia,” in Amélie Kuhrt and Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, eds., Achaemenid History III: Method and Theory, Proceedings of the Achaemenid History Workshop (London, 1985), Leiden, 1988, pp. 75-96. Idem, “Achaemenid Settlement in Caria, Lycia, and Greater Phrygia,” in Amélie Kuhrt and Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, eds., Achaemenid History VI, Asia Minor and Egypt: Old Cultures in A New Empire, Proceedings of the Achaemenid History Workshop (Groningen, 1988), Leiden, 1991, pp. 83-143. Dorothy Burr Thompson, “The Persian Spoils in Athens,” in Saul S. Weinberg, ed., The Aegean and the Near East: Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman, Locust Valley, New York, 1956, pp. 281-91. Yasemin Tuna-Nörling, Attische Keramik aus Daskyleion (Daskyleion I), Izmir, 1998. Idem, “Attic Pottery from Dascylium,” in Tomris Bakır et al., eds., Achaemenid Anatolia, Leiden, 2001, pp. 109-22. Christopher Tuplin, “Medism and its Causes,” Transeuphratène 18, 1997, pp. 155-85. Mary M. Voigt et al., “Fieldwork at Gordion: 1993-1995,” Anatolica 23, 1997, pp. 1-59. E. Völlig, “Zwei altorientalische Siegel aus Olympia,” Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1999, pp. 277-89.
2. CULTURAL RELATIONS WITHIN THE WESTERN EMPIRE
The increasing evidence for a Persian presence in Anatolia is accompanied by new and re-evaluated evidence for acculturation in these regions; and also in Thrace and Macedonia, both of which the Persians held for an unknown but comparatively short length of time. Acculturation would seem not to have been imposed from above (though it may have been encouraged), but to have been part of a natural process of gradual re-alignment to the new dominant power in the region. A general Persian policy of readiness to make significant dedications to native cults can but have helped (Briant, 1998); there is some indication that Anatolia imported religious ideas (Bivar, 2001). All of western Asia Minor, from Cilicia to the Troad, evidently acculturated to some degree; the many different ethnic backgrounds of the peoples of the region play a role only in the local variation. The apparent novelties of social practises depicted in sculpture and painting may well be Anatolian, in which case the Persian addition is in details of clothing, equipment, vessels, and sometimes composition.
2.1. Sardis and Lydia. The Lydian kingdom based at Sardis was the dominant monarchy in the region for at least a century before the Persian conquest and Sardis remained an imperial center, even as it was the “Persian” city best known to the Greeks. Archeologically, early strata have suffered from the importance of the Roman city which has long submerged the prior Hellenistic and Persian periods, and also from the frequent success of tomb-robbers in anticipating excavation of intact burials. Nonetheless, enough now survives from excavation and repatriated tomb materials to show that Sardis (and Lydia) under the Persians was highly acculturated to the Achaemenid model (Dusinberre, 2002). Possible evidence for intermarriage can later be found in the mixture of Lydian, Greek, and Persian names on a 4th-century list of residents of Sardis (the “sacrilege inscription”: Hanfmann; cf. Briant, 1996, pp. 722-25). Although no Old Persian inscriptions have yet been found at Sardis, Aramaic is well represented. Evidence for Zoroastrian funerary ritual at Gelenbe in western Lydia has been claimed (L’vov-Basirov).
Achaemenid luxury toreutic from the region would appear to be largely a product of local workshops rather than imported from the Persian heartlands, as witnessed by the Lydian and Phrygian inscriptions on the vessels (Melikian-Chirvani; Özgen and Öztürk, cat. nos. 42, 60, 71); and the decorative syntax is occasionally ungrammatical in the visual language of the Persian imperial centers (Özgen and Öztürk, cat. no. 35, as perhaps are nos. 33-34). From at least about 500 B.C.E., the vessels (notably lobed and fluted shallow bowls, incense burners, and strainer) emulate the shapes and decorative devices of the Achaemenid centers or, in the case of the lidded jug, modify a traditional Lydian form in accordance with Achaemenid taste (Özgen and Öztürk, p. 55 and cat. no. 23). Also from about 500 B.C.E., the local ceramic assemblage moved to a repertoire in which Achaemenid shallow and deep carinated bowls predominated; and at least one other local vessel type, the kantharoid cup, imitates an Iranian form (Dusinberre, 1999, noting a change even in the cooking wares; Paspalas, 2000a). Imperial-style cylinder seals were evidently made at Sardis (Dusinberre, 1997); and the pyramidal seal, though not originating there in its Achaemenid guise as previously thought, was eagerly emulated from an early date (Root; Boardman, 1998; idem, 2000, pp. 152-74). It is therefore likely that the thin gold bracteates with Persian motifs from the chamber tombs of Sardis were also local products (Curtis, nos. 1, 2, 8). There is little evident response to Achaemenid jewelery, except for the occasional work with cloisonné or “kidney-shaped” animal-protome bracelet, which are perhaps imports (Özgen and Öztürk).
Funerary architecture occasionally reflects cultural interaction already early in the period of Persian control. The precise relationship between the early “Pyramid Tomb” (unique for Sardis) and the Tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae is problematic, but Achaemenid inspiration remains a possibility (Ratté; Kleiss). One rock-cut tomb at Sardis (Tomb 813) has a hybrid form, featuring both Lydian and Achaemenid elements (Dusinberre, 1997, pp. 99-101). Remains of carts found at tombs reveal interaction between Persians and Anatolians in funerary arrangements (Kökten-Ersoy). The building complex at Larisa on the Hermos was believed by its excavator to be the palace of tyrants or dynasts from the end of the 6th century B.C.E., and its facade has been reconstructed along Achaemenid lines (Böhlau and Schefold; Schefold). The unique tomb at Taş Kule near Phokaia has Persian elements, suggesting that it was either for a Persian from early in the period, or for an Achaemenidizing local leader (Cahill).
2.2. Daskyleion and Hellespontine Phrygia, Propontis. The first traces of Persian presence in Daskyleion (Ergili) appear in the late 6th century B.C.E. (Bakır, 1997, pp. 243-45). Daskyleion, whose excavation has recently been resumed, promises to be crucially important to the understanding of local receptivity to Persian culture, as the extent of post-Achaemenid construction is comparatively limited. The region displays a different pattern of receptivity to Persian culture than that of Sardis, perhaps owing to the fact that it was Phrygian rather than Lydian, and that in its recent past the city had been a minor center under Lydian sway rather than a royal capital. Neither Daskyleion nor Sardis can be said to show greater receptivity to East Greek culture. There is now evidence for Milesian marble-workers at Daskyleion in the late archaic period, which points to a rich cultural mix at the site (Bakır, 1997, p. 235). Epigraphical evidence shows the use of Aramaic, Lydian, and Greek in addition to Phrygian, and sealings bear Old Persian and Babylonian inscriptions (Bakır, 2001).
Although ceramic Achaemenid bowls are reported (Bakır, 1997, p. 236; idem, 2001), the best-known corpora for reception at Daskyleion are a cache of over 500 bullae and the Perso-Anatolian stelai (often misleadingly termed “Greco-Persian”). While some of the sealings are manifestly Persian, bearing the names of Xerxes and Artaxerxes in Old Persian and images copied from the imperial centers (PLATE I; Kaptan, 1996; idem, 2001), others share affinities with the coinage of nearby Greek cities like Kyzikos and must be local products (Kaptan, 1990; idem, 2000). Sculpted stelai and related funerary reliefs exhibit a distinctive iconography of social (hunting on horseback and banqueting), funerary, and ritual practices, and they range in date from about 500 B.C.E. through the 4th century (Nollé; Bernard). Though the iconography is profoundly Iranian (here, for example, are some of the most convincing depictions of Persian magoi), their inscriptions show that at least some stelai were for non-Iranians. Yet the form of the stelai and their workmanship reveal a local production. The discovery of Perso-Anatolian sarcophagi at recent excavations of tumuli in the wider region testifies to the spread of Persian culture between the late 6th and 4th centuries (Sevinç, 1996, 1998, 1999, and forthcoming). With its hunt and battle scenes featuring what looks to be a Persian leader, the new sarcophagus from Çan both links with elite Persian art elsewhere in western Anatolia and also suggests the sort of product on which the less prestigious funer-ary stelai were modelled for an often local population (Sevinç, forthcoming). Wooden paintings without provenience but similarly decorated perhaps also derive from the region (Calmeyer, 1992).
Daskyleion’s claim to yield our only known satrapal residence to date is tempered by the fact that the building exists only in some scattered parts. Nonetheless, it can be determined to show a relationship with Ionian architecture of the second quarter of the 5th century B.C.E. as well as in the traces of an earlier, late 6th-century phase of construction; like the sarcophagi, it was built partly of Prokonnesos marble (Bakir, 1997, pp. 234-35, 236-38; idem, 2001). The trace of a window has been regarded as a Persian feature, but windows are also known in monumental Greek construction (cf. the Parthenon). A funerary building for a Persian employs local construction (Altheim, Stiel, and Cremer).
2.3. The Greek cities of western Anatolia. The migrations of Greeks to the west coast of Asia Minor in the late bronze age yielded settlements that by the mid-6th century B.C.E. had largely acculturated to the local Anatolian populations, even while they retained their Greek language and gods (Asheri, pp. 15-64, 39-51). Archaic East Greek pottery belongs to the wider Anatolian koine in which a white background is a common feature. Greek dialects developed regionally, reflecting their incorporation of elements of the local Anatolian language, whether Lydian or Carian (Herodotus, 1.142.3-4; Blümel). It is often difficult to identify traces in the material culture record of acculturation to the new Persian power in Anatolia; this difficulty can be attributed largely to the accidents of survival and the extent to which over-building in major East Greek cities has made untouched late archaic and classical strata rare, and need not be ascribed to resistance on the part of this already heterogenous society. The nearby presence of numerous high-status Greek refugees from the mainland who had received gifts of land from the Persian king doubtless also played a role; the “bicultural” coinage of Themistocles on his estate in Magnesia is exemplary (Cahn and Gerin). Several of the Greek states minted on a “Persian” standard over the course of the 5th century even while paying tribute to the Greek Delian League (Balcer).
There are traces of receptivity to Persian culture in the literary and archeological record. The best known testimony is the record of Greek perception of Ephesos at the end of the 5th century: in 407-405, the Spartan general Lysander found the city “in danger of being completely barbarized on account of the admixture of Persian customs, since it was surrounded by Lydia and the King’s generals had passed most of their time there” (Plutarch, Lysander 3.3). We learn specifically of the use of Persian clothes there, notably the kalasiris, and aktaia with gold attachments (Athenaeus, 12.525c-e; Briant, 1996, pp. 721-22). The cult of Artemis at Ephesus bears traces of acculturation in the title of its priest, Megabyzos, the Greek rendering of OPers. Bagabuxša (Xenophon, Anabasis 5.3.6); inscriptions attest to the presence of the cult also in Sardis (Briant, 1996, p. 722; idem, 1998).
Few Achaemenid objects have been excavated at Greek sites, but a seal comes from Troy (Miller-Collett and Root) and from Ephesos we have an Achaemenid glass phiale and ivory bridle attachments (Barag, no. 46; Hansen, pp. 27-30). Local versions of Achaemenid vessel forms are perhaps visible (Pfrommer, Cat. No. KaB A 93; Ebbinghaus, 1999, pp. 401, 406). The discovery of a bronze weight at Abydos bears testimony to the use of an imported standard (Mitchell). An Achaemenid style incense-burner appears on a 6th-century Clazomenaean hydria fragment, possibly showing the court of King Priam (PLATE III, Athens, National Museum, Inv. No. 5610). Persian horses seem to have attracted particular attention on the part of East Greek artists: a fragmentary relief from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos depicts a manner of horse-handling known from Persian reliefs (Muss, p. 87, fig. 101; Paspalas, 2000a), and a fragmentary East Greek bowl was first identified as showing a Persian horse on account of the parallel between its harness and a type known at Persepolis, and now the distinctive treatment of the tail is paralleled by the new sarcophagus from Çan (PLATE IV; Maşat Hüyük, 77/105; Özgüç, p. 123, pl. 64, 1a-b; Calmeyer, 1985, p. 131 and pl. 46.2; Sevinç, forthcoming).
Kyzikos adopted the Persian archer model for Herakles on its coinage (Kaptan, 2000, p. 219). Several late archaic Clazomenaean sarcophagi depict battles between Greek hoplites and Persian cavalry (Louvre, CA 1024; Cook, Cat. No. G13; Princeton, University Art Museum, Inv. No. y1990-9, Cook, Cat. No. G15a); and others depict hoplites killing a pointed-hat Scythian archer (Cook, Cat. No. 16, 27, 28). Mandrokles’ painting of Darius’ review of his imperial army, dedicated at the Samian Heraion (Herodotus, 4.88), may truly be regarded as “Greco-Persian” art (Hölscher, p. 36).
2.4. Caria. Not until her 4th-century period of independence from Lycian control under the satrapal Hekatomnid dynasty does Achaemenid Caria have a strong archeological character. The Hekatomnid dynasty moved its seat of power from Mylasa to Halikarnassos and, late in the period, intermarried with Persians (Ada II married Orontobares). The re-foundation of Halikarnassos can itself be viewed as a sort of Persian conception (Asheri, pp. 43-44). The admixture of Persian and Carian names in a family lineage presumably reflects intermarriage (Debord, p. 180, with references).
The extent of Carian receptivity to Persian material culture is very difficult to determine at present. The appearance of monumental terraces in the 4th century at such Carian sites as Priene, Labraunda, Amyzon, and Halikarnassos (Pedersen) may have derived some inspiration from Achaemenid models (cf. the dramatic employment of terraces at Achaemenid Sardis and now Daskyleion, possibly emulating such capitals as Susa and Persepolis). Similarly, the monumental staircase has been seen as “the most influential part of the Hekatomnid propyla” (Hellström, p. 53); the dramatic use of staircases is a striking feature of Achaemenid terrace architecture. Although the architectural design of the Maussolleion has Lycian roots with a Greek veneer and the sculpture was Greek in style and even execution, the ideological foundation, betrayed in several of the sculptural themes and overall concept, is Achaemenid. Whether or not the inspiration is direct or indirect remains unclear, just as whether the pyramidal form of the roof can be ascribed to Persian funerary prototypes (Nylander, p. 93; Waywell).
An Achaemenidizing sculpture of a male sphinx from Andron B of the sanctuary at Labraunda, whose best parallel comes from Persian Sidon, evidently misunderstands its Persian model (Hellström and Thieme, p. 68, fig. 17; Stucky, pp. 123-25; Gunter, pp. 93-94). The mid-4th century “Carian Princess,” recovered at Bodrum in 1989, was adorned with Anatolian and Greek jewelery; her three rings included one with a chalcedony Perso-Anatolian gem decorated with a Persian warrior (Özet). The combination gives insight into the cultural mix of Caria. Carian coinage of around 490-480 and 360-340 B.C.E. occasionally presents Achaemenid motifs, whose precise meaning is unclear, but assuredly their function was to stress allegiance; the coinage commenced after the Persian conquest, perhaps in response to the need to submit tribute (Konuk).
The situation in Caria may be characterized as sophisticated allusion rather than real acculturation. Perhaps this is the result of the fact that Caria did not gain its independence within the empire until the 4th century, so that her leaders missed out on one and a half centuries of intimate contact with the Achaemenid superstructure. Margaret Cool Root has argued the case that imperial policy was to encourage the peoples of the empire to develop their own “accent” in the “language” of imperial art; elements longer encouraged to develop their accent are more likely to have done so with more visible effect. Certainly the ceramic record of Caria suggests a policy of isolationism in the earlier periods (Schmaltz).
2.5. Lycia. In Lycia there is clear evidence for (local) “top-down” acculturation: from the early 5th century, Lycian dynasts, especially at Xanthos, liked to present themselves in the image of the Great King both in texts and funerary monuments, even while they equally deliberately incorporated Greek stylistic elements in their monuments and coinage (Keen, pp. 61-66). The suggestion that the dynastic family was founded by the Mede Harpagos, who captured the city during the conquest of Anatolia (Herodotus, 1.176; Shahbazi; Asheri, p. 60), has been challenged (Jacobs, 1987, p. 27; cf. Zahle, 1991, p. 153). The elite, alone of Lycians, adopted Persian names (Schmidt, 1982a; idem, 1982b, esp. 387; Asheri, p. 60) and intermarried with Persians (for Pharnoukos, whose father was Lycian and mother Persian, see Debord, p. 21 with references). From the public sphere, the famous “trilingual inscription” of 337 B.C.E. bears witness to the satrap’s use of Aramaic, even when decreeing in purely local matters (Metzger; cf. Briant, 1998).
Lycian iconography, often from funerary contexts, represents the major vehicle through which acculturation to the Persian (and Greek) model comes clear. Most major monuments of the period represent the dynamic interaction of the Anatolo-Lycian roots with Achaemenid Persian ideology on the one hand and Greek figural expression on the other. Perhaps the most useful early index of acculturation can be found in comparison of the two painted Lycian tombs near Elmalı at Kızılbel (ca. 525 B.C.E.; Mellink, 1998) and Karabarun (ca. 480 B.C.E.; Mellink, 1971-74). Whereas the aristocratic ideology at Kızılbel is expressed in a predominantly Anatolian manner, many details of the Karabarun tomb are pure Achaemenid (clothing, utensils, jewelery) and the subject matter fits well within the repertoire of the Perso-Anatolian stelai and sarcophagi. Yet some details, like the dress of the dynast, are still Anatolian.
The various structures and dynastic tombs of Xanthos show a profound and meaningful mixture of Persian iconography and Greek style overlaying a Lycian architectural core. The Persian iconography can appear in small details, like the manner in which a horse is conducted (Bernard, 1965), and in the global ideological expression, like the inclusion of audience, hunt, and battle scenes as on the Harpy Tomb (480-70 B.C.E.), the “Nereid” Monument (probably the tomb of Arbinas, ca. 390-380 B.C.E.; Tritsch; Childs and Demargne, pp. 403-4; Robinson), the Gjölbasi-Trysa Heroon, the Heroon at Limyra (Borchhardt, 1976) and Payava Sarcophagus (360s B.C.E.; Shahbazi; Jacobs, esp. pp. 33-37, 45-52). It is not always clear whether the Achaemenidizing features are merely iconographic borrowings from Persian imperial monuments, or “veristic representations of a Lycian society embued with Persian practise” (Bernard, p. 285); or, yet again, Anatolian royal traits that were simply shared with Persia. Evidence for Zoroastrian funerary ritual is suggested at Limyra (L’vov-Basirov).
The inter-relationships of Lycian coinage are very complex. At various points the coins incorporate Persian motifs such as a walking lion-griffin on the coinage of Kprlli (ca. 485-440) and, later, figures wearing a kidaris, who may or may not be Persian satraps (as opposed to a Lycian dynast; see Zahle). The late Greek author Athenaeus provides evidence for a local industry in Achaemenid style luxury toreutic. He describes a cup, the batiake, as a “Persian phiale,” and later includes in an inventory allegedly written by Alexander the Great “batiakai made in Lycia” (11.784b; Briant, 1996, p. 980). Possibly there was a local industry in metalware rhyta (Ebbinghaus).
2.6. Cilicia. Among the most important sites for Anatolian-Persian interaction is the local center at Kirshu (Meydancıkkale) in Rough Cilicia (the mountainous region of west Cilicia). Meydancıkkale had been the summer residence and the ancestral capital of the local dynasty, which retained its power under the Achaemenids. In the Persian period the citadel underwent some modifications which rendered its point of access more grandiose and provide the strongest case for emulation of an imperial court model on the part of a local dignitary. Two procession reliefs show men in Persian dress (PLATE V) and a covered passage from access stair or ramp to inner court with four interior columns on Achaemenid style bases is reminiscent of Achaemenid palace architecture (like the Gate of Darius at Susa; Davesne and Laroche-Traunecker, p. 119, figs. 25-26; 225; 293-306). One resident possibly with a Semitic name commissioned a Persian-style rock-cut tomb, providing further testimony to local acculturation (Davesne and Laroche-Traunecker, pp. 275, 314-20).
Cilician acculturation has long been visible in the coinage of cities of the Cilician plain (in contrast to those of Rough Cilicia), which, from the second half of the 5th century through the 4th century B.C.E., combines Achaemenid and Cilician motifs (Casabonne, 1996 and 2000). From a more humble perspective, a small, doubtless locally-made terracotta statuette of a man wearing Persian dress from Kelenderis may reflect the local adoption of Persian clothing (Zoroglu, pp. 63-64, ill. 84). Three Perso-Anatolian reliefs from Cilician sites testify to the fact that the type was not limited to the area of Daskyleion (see Hermary). A small gold bracteate with Achaemenid motifs is probably a local luxury product given the peculiar disposition of its elements (Briant, 2001, pp. 47-48).
2.7. Kelainai, Gordion and Phrygia. Kelainai, the satrapal capital of inland Phrygia, remains unexcavated; the only trace of the Persian presence in the region remains the nearby Perso-Anatolian rock-cut relief at Çeçtepe (Fıratlı, pp. 121-22, fig. 80-84 on pp. 157-59). More strictly Persian in style, and possibly inspired by imported metalwork, is the lion-griffin relief on a rock-cut tomb at Hayran Velisultan (von Gall). Persian crowned sphinxes appear on several Phrygian bichrome vessels (Mellink, 1988, pp. 230-31, with references).
Gordion, the Phrygian site longest under excavation, is now yielding significant evidence of both Persian occupation and Phrygian receptivity. A unique bichrome sherd (i.e., from the local ceramic tradition) depicts the head of a Persian (Voigt and Young, fig. 1). Changes indicating acculturation are identified in horse gear and military equipment (Voigt and Young, p. 236). There are local ceramic imitations of Achaemenid metalware vessels, as well as a probably locally-made silver deep bowl (Young, pp. 154-55, pl. 41.1-3; Sams, p. 13, fig. 11); and even west Iranian ceramic forms appear in a new buff ware (Henrickson in Voigt et al., pp. 16-17).
Bibliography: Adrian David Hugh Bivar, “Magians and Zoroastrians: The Religions of the Iranians in Anatolia,” in Tomris Bakır et al. eds., Achaemenid Anatolia, Leiden, 2001, pp. 91-99. Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’Empire Perse, Paris, 1996. Idem, “Droaphernès et la statute de Sardes,” in Maria Brosius and Amélie Kurt, eds., Achaemenid History XI: Studies in Persian History. Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis, Leiden, 1998, pp. 205-26. Margaret Cool Root, “From the Heart—Powerful Persianisms in the Art of the Western Empire,” in Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Amélie Kuhrt, eds., Achaemenid History VI. Asia Minor and Egypt: Old Cultures in a New Empire, Proceedings of the Achaemenid History Workshop (Groningen, 1988), Leiden, 1991, pp. 1-29.
Lydia. John Boardman, “Signs and Seals: Anatolian Stamp Seals of the Persian Period Revisited,” Iran, 1998, pp. 1-13. Idem, Persia and the West: An Archaeological Investigation of the Genesis of Achaemenid Art, London, 2000. Johannes Böhlau and Karl Schefold, Larisa am Hermos, die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen I: Die Bauten, Berlin, 1940. Nicholas Dunlap Cahill, “Taş Kule: A Persian-Period Tomb near Phokaia,” AJA 92, 1988, pp. 481-501. C. Densmore Curtis, Sardis XIII: Jewellery and Gold Work Part I, Sindacato italiano arti grafiche, Rome, 1925. Elspeth M. Dusinberre, “Imperial Style and Constructed Identity,” Ars Orientalis 27, 1997, pp. 99-129. Idem, “Satrapal Sardis: Achaemenid Bowls in an Achaemenid Capital,” AJA 103, 1999, pp. 73-102. Idem, Satrapal Sardis in the Achaemenid Persian Empire, Cambridge, UK, forthcoming (2002). George Maxim Anossov Hanfmann, “The Sacrilege Inscription: The Ethnic, Linguistic, Social and Religious Situation at Sardis at the End of the Persian Era,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 1, 1987, pp. 1-8. Wolfram Kleiss, “Bemerkungen zum »Pyramid Tomb« in Sardes,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 46, 1996, pp. 135-40. H. Kökten-Ersoy, “Two Wheeled Vehicles from Lydia and Mysia,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 48, 1998, pp. 107-33. O. P. V. L’vov-Basirov, “Achaemenian Funerary Practices in Western Asia Minor,” in Tomris Bakır et al. eds., Achaemenid Anatolia, Leiden, 2001, pp. 101-7. Assadullah Souren S. Melikian-Chirvani, “The International Achaemenid Style,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 7, 1993, pp. 111-30. Iknur Özgen and Jean Öztürk, The Lydian Treasure: Heritage Recovered, Ankara, 1996. S. A. Paspalas, “A Persianizing Cup from Lydia,” Oxford Journal of Arcaeology 19, 2000a, pp. 135-74. Christopher John Ratté, “The ‘Pyramid Tomb’ at Sardis,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 42, 1992, 135-61. Margaret Cool Root, “Pyramidal Stamp Seals—The Persepolis Connection,” in Maria Brosius and Amélie Kuhrt, eds., Achaemenid History XI: Studies in Persian History. Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis, Leiden, 1998, pp. 257-289. Karl Schefold, “Die Residenz von Larisa am Hermos im Licht neuer Forschungen,” in Ekrem Akurgal, ed., The Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, 1973, 3 vols., Ankara, 1978, I, pp. 549-64.
Daskyleion and Hellespontine Phrygia. Franz Altheim, Ruth Stiehl, and Marielouise Cremer, “Eine gräko-persische Türstele mit aramäischer Inschrift aus Daskyleion,” Epigraphica Anatolica 6, 1985, pp. 1-16. Tomris Bakır, “Phryger in Daskyleion,” in Roberto Gusmani, Mirjo Salvini, and Pierto Vannicelli, eds., Frigi e Frigio, atti del simposio internazionale (Rome, Oct. 1995), Instituto per gli studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici, Rome, 1997, pp. 229-38. Idem, “Die Satrapie in Daskyleion,” in Tomris Bakır et al., eds., Achaemenid Anatolia, Leiden, 2001, pp. 169-80. Paul Bernard, “Les reliefs gréco-perses de Dascylion, à la lumière de nouvelles découvertes,” RA, 1969, pp. 17-28. Peter Calmeyer, “Zwei mit historischen Szenen bemalte Balken der Achaemenidenzeit,” Münchener Jahrbuch für Bildende Kunst 43, 1992, pp. 7-18. Keith DeVries, “The Nearly Other: The Attic Vision of Phrygians and Lydians,” in Beth Cohen, ed., Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, Leiden, 2000, pp. 338-63. D. Kaptan, “The Great King’s Audience,” in Fritz Blakolmer et al., eds., Fremde Zeiten: Festschrift für Jürgen Borchhardtzum sechzigsten Geburtstag, Vienna, 1996, pp. 259-271. Idem, “Common Traits on Seals and Coins of the Achaemenid Period in an Anatolian Context,” in Olivier Casabonne, ed., Mécanismes et innovations monétaires dans l’Anatolie achéménide: numismatique et histoire, Actes de la table ronde internationale d’Istanbul, May 22-23, Varia Anatolica 12, Istanbul and Paris, 2000, pp. 213-23. Idem, “On the Satrapal Center in North-western Asia Minor: Some Evidence from the Seal Impressions of Ergili/Daskyleion,” in Tomris Bakır et al., eds, Achaemenid Anatolia, Lei-den, 2001, pp. 57-64. D. Kaptan-Bayburtluoglou, “A Group of Seal-Impressions on the Bullae from Ergili/Daskyleion,” Epigraphica Anatolica 16, 1990, pp. 15-26. Margret Nollé, Denkmäler vom Satrapensitz Das-kyleion: Studien zur graeco-persischen Kunst, Berlin, 1992. Nurten Sevinç, “A New Sarcophagus of Polyxena from the Salvage Excavations at Gümüş Çay,” Studia Troica 6, Mainz, 1996, pp. 251-64. N. Sevinç et al., “The Dedetepe Tumulus,” Studia Troica 8, Mainz, 1998, pp. 305-27. N. Sevinç et al., “A New Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Çan,” Studia Troica 11, Mainz, forthcoming. N. Sevinç, C. B. Rose, and Donna Strahan, “A Child’s Sarcophagus from the Salvage Excavations at Gümüş Çay,” Studia Troica 9, Mainz, 1999, pp. 489-509.
East Greece. David Asheri, Fra ellenismo ed iranismo: Studi sulla società e cultura di Xanthos nella età achemenide, Bologne, 1983. Jack M. Balcer, “The East Greeks under Persian Rule: A Reassessment,” in Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Amélie Kuhrt, eds., Achaemenid History VI: Asia Minor and Egypt, Old Cultures in a New Empire, Leiden, 1991, pp. 57-65. Dan Barag, Catalogue of Western Asiatic Glass in the British Museum, London and Jerusalem, 1985. Wolfgang Blümel, “Karien, die Karier, und ihre Nachbarn in Kleinasien,” in Wolfgang Blümel, Peter Frei, and Christian Marek, eds., Colloquium Caricum: Akten der Internationalen Tagung über die karisch-griechische Bilingue von Kaunos, 31.10-1.11.199,Kadmos 37, 1998, pp. 163-73. Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’Empire Perse, Paris, 1996. Idem, “Droaphernès et la statute de Sardes,” in Maria Brosius and Amélie Kuhrt, eds., Studies in Persian History: Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis, Achaemenid History 11, Leiden, 1998, pp. 205-26. Herbert Adolph Cahn and D. Gerin, “Themistokles at Magnesia,” NC 148, 1988, pp. 13-20. Peter Calmeyer, “Zur Genese altiranischer Motive IX: Die Verbreitung des westiranischen Zaumzeugs im Achaimenidenreich,” AMI 18, 1985, pp. 125-44. Robert Manuel Cook, Clazomenian Sarcophagi, Forschungen zur antiken Keramik, Kerameus 3, Mainz, 1981. Susanne Ebbinghaus, “Between Greece and Persia: Rhyta in Thrace from the Late 5th to the Early 3rd Centuries B.C.,” in Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, ed., Ancient Greece West and East, Mnemosyne Suppl. 196, Leiden, Boston, and Cologne, 1999, pp. 385-425. Donald P. Hansen, “An Archaic Bronze Boar from Sardis,” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 168, 1962, pp. 27-36. Tonio Hölscher, Griechische Historienbilder des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Beiträge zur Archäologie 6, Würzburg, 1975. D. Kaptan, “Common Traits on Seals and Coins of the Achaemenid Period in an Anatolian Context,” in Olivier Casabonne, ed., Mécanismes et innovations monétaires dans l’Anatolie achéménide: numismatique et histoire, Actes de la table ronde internationale d’Istanbul, May 22-23, Varia Anatolica 12, Istanbul and Paris, 2000, pp. 213-23. S. Miller-Collett and Margaret Cool Root, “An Achaemenid Seal fom the Lower City,” Studia Troica 7, Mainz, 1997, pp. 355-62. T. C. Mitchell, “The Bronze Lion Weight from Abydos,” Iran 11, 1973, pp. 173-75. Ulrike Muss, Die Bauplastik des archaischen Artemision von Ephesos, Osterreichisches Archäologischen Institut, Sonderdruck 25, Vienna, 1994. Tahsin Özgüç, Maşat Höyük II: A Hittite Center Northeast of Bogazköy, Ankara, 1982. S. A. Paspalas, “A Persianizing Cup from Lydia,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19, 2000a, pp. 135-74. Michael Pfrommer, Studien zu Alexandrinischer und Grossgriechischer Toreutik Frühellenistischer Zeit, Archäologische Forschungen 16, Berlin, 1987.
Caria (Halikarnassos and Labraunda). David Asheri, Fra ellenismo ed iranismo: Studi sulla società e cultura di Xanthos nella età achemenide, Bologna, 1983. Pierre Debord, L’Asie Mineure au Iesiècle (412-323 a.C.): pouvoirs et jeux politiques,Ausonius Publications Études 3, Bordeaux, 1999. Ann C. Gun-ter, “Sculptural Dedications at Labraunda,” in Tilia Linders and Pontus Hellström, eds., Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria, Boreas 17, Uppsala, 1989, pp. 91-98. Pontus Hellström, “Architecture, Characteristic Building-Types and Peculiarities of Style and Technique: Possible Implications for Hellenistic Architecture,” in Jacob Isager, ed., Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance, Odense, Denmark, 1994, pp. 36-57. Pontus Hellström and T. Thieme, “The Androns of Labraunda: A Preliminary Account of Their Architecture,” Medelhavsmuseet. Bulletin 16, 1981, pp. 58-74. K. Konuk, “Influences et éléments achéménides dans le monnayage de la Carie,” in Olivier Casabonne, ed., Mécanismes et innovations moné-taires dans l’Anatolie achéménide: numismatique et histoire,Varia Anatolica 12, Istanbul and Paris, 2000, pp. 171-84. Carl Nylander, Ionians in Pasargadae: Studies in Old Persian Architecture, Uppsala, 1970. M. A. Özet, “The Tomb of a Noble Woman from the Hekatomnid Period,” in Jacob Isager, ed., Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance, Odense, Denmark, 1994, pp. 88-96. P. Pedersen, “The Ionian Renaissance and Some Aspects of Its Origins within the Field of Architecture and Planning,” in Jacob Isager, ed., Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance, Odense, Denmark, 1994, pp. 11-35. R. Schmaltz, “Vorhellenistische Keramikimporte in Kaunos-Versuch einer Perspektive,” in Wolfgang Blümel, Peter Frei, and Christian Marek, eds., Colloquium Caricum: Akten der Internationalen Tagung über die karisch-griechische Bilingue von Kaunos, 31.10-1.11.1997,Kadmos 37, 1998, pp. 203-10. R. A. Stucky, “Sidon—Labraunda—Halikarnassos,” in Margot Schmidt, ed., Kanon: Festschrift für Ernst Bergerzum 60. Geburgstag, Antike Kunst Beiheft 15, Basel, 1988, pp. 119-26. Geoffrey B. Waywell, The Free-Standing Sculptures of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus in the British Museum: A Catalogue, London, 1978.
Lycia. David Asheri, Fra ellenismo ed iranismo. Studi sulla società e cultura di Xanthos nella età achemenide, Bologna, 1983. Paul Bernard, “Remarques sur le décor sculpté d’un édifice de Xanthos,” Syria 42, 1965, pp. 261-88. Jürgen Borchhardt, Die Bauskulp-tur des Heroons von Limyra, Ist Forsch 32, Berlin, 1976. Jean Bousquet, “Arbinas, fils de Gergis, dynaste de Xanthos,” CRAI, 1975, pp. 138-48. Idem, Fouilles de Xanthos IX: les inscriptions gréco-lyciennes, Paris, 1992, pp. 147-99. Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’Empire Perse, Paris, 1996. Idem, “Cités et satrapes dans l’empire achéménide: Xanthos et Pixôdaros,” CRAI, 1998, pp. 305-40. William A. P. Childs and Pierre Demargne, Le monument des Néréides: le décor sculpté I-II, Fouilles de Xanthos 8, Paris, 1989. Pierre Debord, L’Asie Mineure au IVesiècle (412-323 a. c.): pouvoirs et jeux politiques,Ausonius Publications Études 3, Bordeaux, 1999. Susanne Ebbinghaus, “A Banquet at Xanthos: Seven Rhyta on the Northern Cella Frieze of the ‘Nereid’ Monument,” in Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, A. J. N. W. Prag, Anthony M. Snodgrass, eds., Peri-plous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman, London, 2000, pp. 98-109. Clarisse Herrenschmidt, “Une lecture iranisante du poème de Symmachos dédié à Arbinas, dynaste de Xanthos,” Revue des Études Anciennes 87, 1985, pp. 125-35. Bruno Jacobs, Griechische und Persische Elemente in der Grabkunst Lykiens zur Zeit der Achämenidenherrschaft, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 78, Jonsered, 1987. Anthony G. Keen, Dynastic Lycia: A Political History of the Lycians and their Relations with Foreign Powers c. 545-362 B.C., Mnemosyne 178, Leiden. O. P. V. L’vov-Basirov, “Achaemenian Funerary Practices in Western Asia Minor,” in Tomris Bakır et al., eds., Achaemenid Anatolia, Leiden, 2001, pp. 101-7. Mechteld Johanna Mellink, “Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia,” AJA 75, 1971, pp. 245-55; 76, 1972, pp. 257-69; 77, 1973, pp. 293-303; 78, 1974, pp. 351-59. Idem, Kızılbel: An Archaic Painted Tomb Chamber in Northern Lycia, Philadelphia, 1998. Henri Metz-ger et al., Fouilles de Xanthos VI: Le stèle trilangue du Létoôn. Paris, 1979. T. H. Robinson, “Erbinna, the ‘Nereid Monument’ and Xanthus,” in Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, ed., Ancient Greeks West and East, Mnemosyne Suppl. 196, Leiden, Boston, and Cologne, 1999, pp. 361-78. Rüdiger Schmitt, Iranische Namen im Lykischen, Iranisches Personennamenbuch 4, Vienna, 1982a. Idem, “Iranische Wörter und Names im Lykischen,” in Johann Tischler, ed., Serta Indogermanica: Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 60. Geburtstag I, Innsbruck 1982b, pp. 373-88. A. Shapur Shahbazi, The Irano-Lycian Monuments: The Principal Antiquities of Xanthos and Its Region as Evidence for Iranian Aspects of Achaemenid Lycia, Tehran, 1975. Franz J. Tritsch, “The Harpy Tomb at Xanthos,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 62, 1942, pp. 39-50. Jan Zahle, “Achaemenid Influences in Lycia (Coinage, Sculpture and Architecture) . . . ,” in Amélie Kuhrt and Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, eds., Achaemenid History VI: Asia Minor and Egypt, Old Cultures in a New Empire, Proceedings of the Groningen 1988 Achaemenid History Workshop, Leiden, 1991, pp. 145-60.
Cilicia. Pierre Briant, Bulletin d’histoire achéménide II, Paris, 2001. Olivier Casabonne, “Présence et influence perses en Cilicie à l’époque achéménide – Iconographie et représentations –,” Anatolia Antiqua 4, 1996, pp. 121-45. Idem, “Conquête perse et phé-nomène monétaire: l’exemple cilicien,” in Olivier Casabonne, ed., Mécanismes et innovations monétaires dans l’Anatolie achéménide: numismatique et histoire, Varia Anatolica 12, Istanbul and Paris, 2000, pp. 21-93. Alain Davesne and F. Laroche-Traunecker, Gülnar I. Le Site de Meydancıkkale: Recherches entreprises sous la direction d’Emmanuel Laroche (1971-1982), Paris, 1998. Antoine Hermary, “Un nouveau relief greco-perse en Cilicie,” RA, 1984, pp. 289-300. Le-vent Zoroglu, Kelenderis I: Kaynaklar, Kalıntılar, Buluntular, Ankara, 1994.
Gordion. Phrygia (Kelainai). N. Fıratlı, “Uşak-Selçıkler kazısı ve Çevre Araş tırmaları 1966-1970,” Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 19/2, 1970, pp. 109-60. H. von Gall, “Der Achaimenidische Löwengreif in Kleinasien: Bemerkungen zu dem sog. Zerbrochen Löwengrab bei Hayranvelisultan in Phrygien,” AMI 31, 1999, pp. 149-160. Machteld Johanna Mellink, “Anatolia,” CAH IV/2, pp. 211-33. Gilbert Kenneth Sams, “Imports at Gordion, Lydian and Persian Periods,” Expedition 21/4, 1979, pp. 6-17. Mary Voigt et al., “Fieldwork at Gordion: 1993-1995,” Anatolica 23, 1997, pp. 1-59. Mary Voigt and T. Cuyler Young, Jr., “From Phrygian Capital to Achaemenid Entrepot: Middle and Late Phrygian Gordion,” Iranica Antiqua 33, 1999, pp. 191-242. R. S. Young, “The 1961 Campaign at Gordion,” AJA 66, 1962, pp. 153-68.
3.1. Thrace. While Thracian absorption of Greek ideas in architecture, dress, ornament and military equipment is stronger, in the 5th century B.C.E. imported Achaemenid Persian goods played a significant role in articulating social divisions in the emergent Odryssian kingdom of Thrace. The duration and extent of Persian direct control of Thrace is much debated (Archibald, pp. 79-90), but it was in some sense responsible for the local development of coinage (Picard, 2000). Persian silverware appears in volume for a brief period early in the 5th century B.C.E., possibly as diplomatic gifts (Archibald, pp. 85, 103, 179-84); the 4th-century florescence of Thracian silver vessels imitated Persian shallow and deep bowls and animal-head rhyta (Archibald, pp. 260-74; Ebbinghaus, 1999; Zournatzi); local ceramic imitations of Persian bowls are also known (Archibald, p. 154; Fıratlı, 1964, pl. 42.3 = Pfrommer, Cat. No. KAB A 104-6). The Thracian silver jug is an adaptation of the Persian amphora (Ewigleben, p. 26). Bowls and jugs are well exemplified by the Rogozen Treasure (Fol, Nikolov, and Hoddinott, passim). Concomitant adoption of Persian drinking customs and royal practise, notably gift-giving, is suspected (Archibald; Ebbinghaus; Zournatzi). The main painted frieze in the 3rd-century tomb at Kazanlak, both by theme (procession) and in the detail of the Achaemenid turned legs on the silver-plated throne, supports such an interpretation (Shivkova, pl. 21).
Among the Greek cities of the north Propontis can be found Perinthos, which yielded a funerary stele with Greek inscriptions but in the Perso-Anatolian manner and style (Şahin; Asgari, Cat. No. B124). Further west, several of the Greek cities in the Chalkidike minted coins in the late Archaic period (i.e., under Persian dominion) with what seem to be Achaemenid subjects: a lion attacking a boar or a bull, a subject well known from Persepolis, possibly a sort of insignia of royal power (Root, p. 236), and suspected of religious symbolism (Kraay, pp. 133-234; Bivar; Picard, 1989).
3.2. Macedon. There has been no doubt that late-4th-century Macedon responded to the influx of spoils from the campaigns of Alexander. Traces are found especially in luxury toreutic from roughly mid-4th to mid-3rd century (Pfrommer, pp. 55-63; Zimmermann, pp. 36-42); the Macedonians characteristically added a head on the omphalos of the deep bowl (Barr-Sharrar 1982, pp. 131-32; Themelis and Touratsoglou, p. 217). Moreover, a dining couch with glass frit Achaemenid turned legs excavated from a cist tomb at Pella of about 300 B.C.E. may be an import or a local product (Lilibake-Akamate; Paspalas, 2000b). A segment of the interior painting on a tomb of about 300 B.C.E. at Dion imitates hanging Achaemenid textiles, with pacing lion and radiate lion-head motifs (Soteriades; Boardman). Perhaps actual spoils are preserved: a glass deep bowl of around 350-25 B.C.E. at Veroia (Touratsoglou, pp. 625, 641-43, fig. 5); from Derveni Grave B, of about 300 B.C.E., a horizontally-fluted glass beaker, two silver deep bowls, and two silver phialai (Ignatiadou; Themelis and Touratsoglou, Cat. No. B 45, B12-13 and B18-19); and from Pydna a gem and a conoidal stamp seal (Paspalas, 2000b, n. 154). A Persian-type horse bit was excavated at Olynthos (Donder, p. 161 n. 103).
Alexander the Great is said by the sources to have learned much from the Persians that he conquered (e.g., Court protocol: Curtius, 8.5.5-24, Plutarch, Life of Alexander 54, Arrian, 4.9.9-12.5; Dress: Curtius, 6.6.1-8, Plutarch, Life of Alexander 45, Arrian, 4.9.9). Iconographically, the most telling indication is the report that in his funeral cortege was suspended a representation of Alexander enthroned and holding a sceptre, surrounded by Macedonian and Persian guards (Diodorus, 18.26.3); this may owe something to Perso-Anatolian funerary practice as well as to the Achaemenid imperial vision (Root, p. 37).
The extent to which Macedon responded to Persian material culture before Alexander, inspired perhaps by diplomatic gifts and the regalia of high-status exiles, remains less clear (Barr-Sharrar, 1986; Themelis and Touratsoglou, pp. 183-85). An Achaemenid glass phiale from the Sanctuary of Demeter at Dion with a deposi-tion date of the 5th century verifies that Achaemenid goods did earlier make their way to Macedon (Ignatiadou p. 113). Macedonian emulation of the Achaemenid deep bowl in silver had evidently begun already by the mid-4th century (Pfrommer pp. 59, 63). Indeed, Perso-Anatolian monumental tomb practice has been thought to have contributed to the monumentalization of Macedonian tombs at a crucial period (Paspalas, 2000b, p. 552), and the role of the lion-hunt in Macedonian court life and royal iconography has been associated with a Persian model (Briant; Palagia).
Bibliography: Thrace. Zofia H. Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace, Oxford Monograph on Classical Archaeology, Oxford and New York, 1998. Nuşin Asgari, et al., The Anatolian Civilisations II, Istanbul, St. Irene/Topkapı Palace Museum, May 22-October 30, 1983. Adrian David Hugh Bivar, “Document and Symbol in Achaemenid Art,” in Monumentum H. S. Nyberg, Acta Iranica, 2nd Ser. 4, Leiden, 1975, pp. 48-67. Susanne Ebbinghaus, “Between Greece and Per-sia: Rhyta in Thrace from the Late 5th to the Early 3rd Centuries B.C.,” in Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, ed., Ancient Greece West and East, Mnemosyne Suppl. 196, Leiden, Boston, and Cologne, 1999, pp. 385-425. Cornelia Ewigleben, “An Atelier of Silversmiths in Western Thrace: The Jug Cat. no. 155 from Rogozen and its Connections to the Vessels with Figural Reliefs from Poroina, Strelca, Loukovit and Vratsa,” in B. F. Cook, ed., The Rogozen Treasure: Papers of the Anglo-Bulgarian Conference, 12 March 1987, London, 1989, pp. 26-32. N. Fıratlı, “Short Report on the Finds and Archaeological Activities Outside the Museum,” Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Yilliği 11/12, 1964, pp. 211-14. Alexandur Fol, Bogdan Nikolov and Ralph F. Hoddinott, The New Thracian Treasure from Rogozen, Bulgaria, London, 1986. Colin M. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coinage, London, 1974. Olivier Picard, “Le lion et le taureau sur les monnaies d’Acanthe,” in Georges Le Rider, ed., Kraay-Morkholm Essays: Numismatic Studies in Memory of C. M. Kraay and O. Markholm, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989, pp. 225-31. Idem, “Monayages de Thrace à l’époque achéménide,” in Olivier Casabonne, ed., Mécanismes et innovations monétaires dans l’Anatolie achéménide: numismatique et histoire, Varia Anatolica 12, Istanbul and Paris, 2000, pp. 239-53. Michael Pfrommer, Studien zu Alexandrinischer und Grossgriechischer Toreutik Frühellenistischer Zeit, Archäologische Forschungen 16, Berlin, 1987. Margaret C. Root, The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art, Acte Iranica 19, Leiden, 1979. E. Şahin, “Zwei spätarchaische Grabinschriften aus Perinthos,” Epigraphica Anatolica 2, 1983, pp. 77-80. L. Shivkova, Das Grabmal von Kazanlak, Recklinghausen, 1973. Antigoni Zournatzi, “Inscribed Silver Vessels of the Odrysian Kings: Gifts, Tribute, and the Diffusion of the Forms of ‘Achaemenid’ Metalware in Thrace,” AJA 104, 2000, pp. 683-706.
Macedon. Beryl Barr-Sharrar, “Macedonian Metal Vases in Perspective: Some Observations on Context and Tradition,” in Beryl Barr-Sharrar and Eugene N. Borza, eds., Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Studies in the History of Art 10, Washington, 1982, pp. 123-39. Idem, “Eastern Influence on the Toreutic Art of Macedonia before the Conquest of Alexander the Great,” Archaia Makedonia 4: Anakoinoseis kata to tetarto diethnes symposiou Thessalonike 1983, Thessaloniki, 1986, pp. 71-82. John Boardman, “Travelling Rugs,” Antiquity 44, 1970, pp. 143-44. Pierre Briant, “Chasses royales macedoniennes et chasses royales perses: le theme de la chasse au lion sur laChasse de Vergina,” Dialogues d’his-toire ancienne 17, 1991, pp. 211-55. Helga Donder, Zaumzeug in Griechenland und Cypern, Prähistorische Bronzefunde 16/3, Munich, 1980. D. Ignatiadou, “Duo chyta gualina aggeia apo to Derveni,” in Mneme Manole Andronikou, Thessaloniki, 1997, pp. 5-114. M. Lilibake-Akamate, “Apo te diakosmese tōn nekrikōn klinōn,” Archaiologika Analekta ex Athenōn 22, 1995 (1989), pp. 123-30. Olga Palagia, “Hephaistion’s Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander,” in Albert Brian Bosworth and Elizabeth J. Baynham, eds., Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford, 2000, pp. 167-206. Stavros A. Paspalas, “On Persian-Type Furniture on Macedonia: The Recognition and Transmission of Forms,” AJA 104, 2000b, pp. 531-60. Michael Pfrommer, Studien zu Alexandrinischer und Grossgriechischer Toreutik Frühellenistischer Zeit, Archäologische Forschungen 16, Berlin, 1987. Margaret Cool Root, “Lifting the Veil: Artistic Transmission Beyond the Boundaries of Historical Periodisation,” in Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Amélie Kuhrt, and Margaret Cool Root, eds., Achaemenid History: Continuity and Change, Proceedings of the Last Achaemenid History Workshop, April 6-8, 1990, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Leiden, 1994, pp. 9-37. Giorgios Soteriades, “Anaskaphai Diou Makedonias,” Praktika, 1930, pp. 36-51. P. G. Themelis and Y. P. Touratsoglou, “Oi Taphoi tou Derbeniou,” ArchDelt Suppl 59, Athens, 1997. Y. Touratsoglou, “To xiphos tes Beroias: Symbole ste makedo-nike oplopoiia tōn klasikōn chronōn,” Archaia Makedonia 4: Anakoinoseis kata to tetarto diethnes symposiou: Thessalonikē, 1983, Institute for Balkan Studies 204, Thessaloniki, 1986, pp. 611-50. Nina Zimmermann, Beziehungen zwischen Ton- und Metallgefässen spätklassischer und frühhellenistischer Zeit, Internationale Archäologie 20, Rahden, 1998.
4. CULTURAL RELATIONS WITH GREECE (EXTRA-IMPERIAL)
The study of mainland Greek cultural relations with Persia in the classical period is still in its infancy so that it is at present not really possible to discuss it from a chronological perspective or even in terms of regional variation except in the grossest fashion. Current research has focused on Athens, but evidence from elsewhere in Greece is also noted; more will emerge from excavation and further study of excavated finds. The following is organised from most to least tangible. The receptivity to Achaemenid Persia is manifested in discrete spheres of production, doubtless a reflection of the modes of contact and the specific range of cultural values implied: luxury toreutic, textiles, imperial imagery.
4.1. Vessel forms. The clearest evidence of Greek receptivity to the material culture of the Achaemenid Empire comes from ceramic material, most especially fine ware fabrics with a plain black gloss finish. Receptivity can be recognized in both the form and the surface treatment. At present the best understood ceramic tradition is that of Athens, where from the late 6th century to at least the 3rd century B.C.E. some shapes show a relationship with Achaemenid toreutic (Miller, 1993; idem, 1997, pp. 135-52). Preliminary surveys show traces also in other ceramic repertoires of Greece. In the latter cases, it is unclear whether inspiration came directly from the Persian-dominated east or indirectly, modelled on the Attic example. The response ranges from close imitation, to moderate adaptation, to modification of existing vessel types, either in profile or surface treatment. One may suppose that the same response occurred in Greek metalware, but Greek metalware rarely survives (see Shefton, pp. 645-46, for two silver-protome rhyta identified as Greek; Miller, 1997, pp. 135-52). It should be noted that despite this phenomenon, the bulk of Attic and Greek ceramic remained unchanged.
The Achaemenid deep bowl with its characteristic offset everted rim and various surface treatments (horizontal fluting and lobes) was the preferred model for imitation and adaptation. The “Achaemenid phiale” (not always with an omphalos) appears in Attic black gloss ca. 510-ca. 425 B.C.E.; often an “intentional red” finish was added to the horizontally-fluted bowl, yielding a bichrome effect (PLATE VI; Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsemmlungen Inv. No. T550). The Attic “calyx cup” with its petal-grooving imitated the lobed Achaemenid deep bowl for the period around 350-260 B.C.E. (PLATE VII Athens, Agora Excavations, Inv. No. P16828), probably through the intermediary of the shape in silver in 4th- and 3rd-century Macedon, though the type started be-fore Alexander’s conquest (Rotroff, pp. 91-92; Pfrommer, p. 63; cf. Zimmermann, pp. 36-42). Other regions in Greece produced ceramic versions of the Achaemenid deep bowl after the Macedonian conquest of the Persian Empire: Thebes (Pfrommer, p. 218, Cat. No. KAB A 52) and Corinth (Pfrommer, p. 219, Cat. No. KAB A 61).
Adaptations of Achaemenid toreutic, usually the addition of handles and a base or foot to a round-bottomed vessel, reflect the modifications required to allow for differences of use relating to differences in social practice. Such vessels in Attica include animal-head drink-ing cups and horizontally-fluted beakers as well as deep bowls, ranging in date from the end of the 6th century throughout the 5th century B.C.E. (PLATE VIII, Karls-ruhe, Badiches Landesmuseum, Inv. No. B881; East Greek animal-head cups appear to be close imitations rather than adaptations). Some unusual Boeotian sessile kantharoi may also be adaptations. Instances of imitation and adaptation first appear in Athens by the end of the 6th century, and are essentially contemporary responses to the first generations of contact with Achaemenid culture in Asia Minor. Both significantly increase in number and variety in the second quarter of the 5th century. The greater volume in the post-war period surely reveals the role of Persian War spoils in shaping Athenian tastes and desires. None of these can be characterised as export products as many examples have a Greek provenance.
A more derivative response to Achaemenid metalware can be seen in the introduction of various surface treatments to, or modifications to the profile of, a pre-existing Greek vessel type. The most long-lived contribution of Achaemenid toreutic to the Greek repertoire was the use of fluting, grooving, and petal-grooving as surface decorations (PLATE IX; Athens, Agora Excavations, Inv. No. P18288 [left] and P 10980); they had hitherto been largely unknown in the archaic Greek tradition and became a permanent, if not a universal, component. Some derivative surface treatments are also visible in Boeotian and Elean (Peloponnesos) wares. Production of the “von Mercklin” class rhyta in more than one center in Greece in the 4th and 3rd centuries probably reflects a metalware intermediary (Ebbinghaus and Jones). In the early Hellenistic period, the profile of some types of the Greek kantharos (in metal) evolved towards one closer to the Achaemenid deep bowl (Pfrommer, p. 61).
4.2. Iconographic transfer and decorative elements. Images from Persian imperial art caused Athenian vase-painters to re-envision episodes from Greek myth or even to re-cast Greek myth into a foreign ambience. In the later 6th century, the gifts taken by Priam to Achilles to ransom his son Hektor (narrated in Iliad 24) began to be rendered in a procession akin to depictions of tributaries bearing gifts to the Achaemenid king (PLATE X, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. No. IV 3710; Miller, 1995). In about the mid-5th century, a number of kings from Greek mythology adopted the trappings of Persian monarchy, following the model of Achaemenid throne scenes. We find Persianized Midas and Bousiris attended by guards and a fan-bearer (PLATE XI, London, British Museum, Inv. No. E447; Miller, 1988, 2000). The discovery of a small-scale depiction of the Great King enthroned on sealings at Daskyleion testifies to the manner in which such images may have come to the attention of the Attic vase-painter (PLATE I), and a reasonably accurate representation of a Persian dignitary in audience on an Attic vase otherwise establishes knowledge of such subjects in Athens (Istanbul Inv. No. 7501; Asgari, Cat. No. B151). Later, a pair of ivory reliefs excavated at Demetrias in Thessaly, and dating from 4th or 3rd century B.C.E., depict a Persian in audience and banqueting in a manner akin to the Perso-Anatolian tradition. It is not clear whether they were imported or a local imitation (Arvanitopoulos; Dentzer, 1969, pp. 216-20; idem, 1982, pp. 288-90).
Some captured textiles or bracteates must lie behind the sudden appearance of lion heads with radiating locks, known in a number of Persian media, as a shield-device on a number of Attic red-figure vases of about the Persian war period, i.e., about 490-475 B.C.E. (PLATE II). Seals probably inspired the resurgent interest in animal-combat groups in 4th-century Athens (Miller, 1997, pp. 56-59). One 4th-century marble relief, though manufactured in Athens (the marble is local), bears witness to the replication of Persian iconography in Athens with its “Royal Hero” flanked by two lion-griffins and lion attack group, both paralleled by seals (Bivar; Miller, 1997, p. 56, fig. 134; Boardman, p. 182).
Later classical (i.e., 4th century) graphic arts reveal that importation of minor arts (textiles, jewelery, seals) also inspired a new interest in monsters, like the griffin in the earlier Greek repertoire. The griffin-fighting Arimasps (themselves an iconographic derivation from Persians) became very popular in arts of the 4th century. In some instances, the inner markings of the griffin depicted bear close resemblance to Achaemenid cloisonné work, as on an Attic red-figure pelike (PLATE XII, St. Petersburg, Hermitage, Inv. No. P1863.14; Miller, 1997, p. 58) and on a winged griffin pebble mosaic pavement from mid-4th century Sikyon, with its red patches echoing the stylized musculature of Persian animal art (Salzmann, p. 112, no. 118).
4.3. Architecture and monuments. The importance of the hypostyle hall in Achaemenid Persian architecture, and its comparatively rare appearance in Greek architecture, makes any hypostyle hall in Greece suspected of Persian influence. The earliest such halls, the archaic Telesterion at Eleusis (second half of the 6th century) and Persian Influence. The earliest such halls, the archaic Telesterion at Eleusis (second half of the 6th century and its classical successor, as well as the 5th-century civic building at Argos, were more probably the natural result of a cultic or, in the case of Argos, civic need for a large enclosed interior space. In contrast, the so-called Odeion of Perikles in Athens (3rd quarter 5th century), though unlike real Persian Apadana architecture, seemed to the Greeks to be so Persian in appearance that it gained the reputation as being an imitation of the tent of the Great King allegedly captured at Plataia. Its pyramidal roof, also strikingly un-Greek in appearance (as well as un-Persian), re-enforced the impression. It probably was deliberately created to evoke a Persian atmosphere, for the Athenians’ own imperial propagandistic purposes (Miller, 1997, pp. 218-42).
The double animal-protome capital, another distinctive feature in Achaemenid architecture, was also occasionally emulated. First about 500 B.C.E., the Sanctuary of Herakles of Thasos, whose cult, we are told, was imported from the Phoenicians (Herodotus, 2.44), had a winged horse protome functioning as a sort of free anta capital of a long gallery. Much later, the bull protomes of a late 4th-century shed for a ship dedicated to Apollo on Delos, the “Monument des taureaux,” are also ascribed to an Achaemenid model (Roux, pp. 263-67).
The Attic-Ionic column base in the Stoa of the Athenians at Delphi (470-450 B.C.E.), which perhaps commemorated a victory against the Persians, has been thought to allude to the Persian bell base (Amandry, pp. 87-98, 112-16; Wesenberg, pp. 140-41); but the victory may not have been against Persians (Walsh); and the ultimate genealogy of the form may be Greek (Boardman, pp. 68-72). Some of the most prominent victory monuments from the Persian Wars perhaps include quotations of Near Eastern iconography to project their message: the serpent column with its golden tripod at Delphi, constructed to celebrate the victory at Plataia, is found to have Elamite antecedents (Stähler, 1992, pp. 15-22; Laroche), and the “Eurymedon Palm,” also at Delphi (Stähler, 1989).
It has been argued that the Athenian acropolis as a whole represents a deliberate mid-5th-century response to the Persian imperial center at Persepolis (Lawrence). Moreover, the frieze around the cella of the Parthenon, with its timeless rendering of the Panathenaic festival procession, both in entire conception and in occasional detail, is sometimes compared with Persian procession friezes, though its rich multivalency precludes a single line of interpretation (Kyrieleis, pp. 144-46; Root; Castriota, pp. 184-226; Niels, pp. 173-201).
4.4. Textiles, clothing, and furniture. Herodotus (9.80.2) comments on the wealth of textiles captured at Plataia, and clothing frequently appears among royal gifts in the Near East. The nature of the evidence makes discussing clothing very difficult as textiles rarely survive in either Greece or the Near East. Nonetheless, iconographic and epigraphic evidence indicate that a number of foreign clothing types entered the wardrobe of the elite Athenian women and occasionally men in the 5th century B.C.E. The origin of each is eastern, though only one, the kandys (a Greek word of uncertain etymology) is certainly Persian; this cloak with unused sleeves is best known from depictions on the reliefs at Persepolis.
The specific garments that can be identified include the ependytes, a tunic-like overgarment, worn by women over their chiton, and by men over a short chiton or alone (the patterned garment on PLATE XIII, Bologna Musico civico, Inv. No. PU295). It appears at the end of the 6th century, and seems to originate from the Levant. The sleeved chiton contrasts strikingly with the Greek clothing repertoire, where anything like tailoring is anathema (garments were worn as removed from the loom, with the addition of pins and belts to secure them). Attested both in epigraphical sources and iconographically from about 440, they must reflect a foreign, possibly Persian, garment (PLATE XIV, Paris, Musée du Louvre, Inv. No. S1660). The Persian kandys, though rarely attested in art for Athenian wear, figures prominently in the votive offerings by Athenian women of used clothing at the sanctuary of Artemis of Brauron (PLATE XIII, above; Linders; Knauer, pp. 607-13; Miller, 1997, pp. 153-87).
From time to time more highly decorated textiles – the decorations taking the form of stacked friezes – are manifest in Greek art (as in the first decades of the 6th and last decades of the 5th century), though it is not completely certain that their appearance in art is co-extensive with and reflective of a similar alteration of taste in decorated textiles in life. Nonetheless, the preference for elaborately decorated textiles in the later 5th century Attic red figure painting has been linked with a new taste for “foreign textiles” as a result of trade and booty in this period (von Lorentz; Miller, 1997, pp. 75-81).
A kind of women’s shoe known as the persikai enjoyed a vogue in Classical Athens; its shape is not known, but its name suggests some sort of link with Persian wear (Aristophanes, Lysistrata 229; idem, Thesmophoriazusai 734; idem, Clouds 148-52; idem, Ekklesiazousai 319; Tuplin, p. 149). A tombstone of a Thracian persikopoios, or persikai-maker, in Athens, indicates that at least one manufacturer was not an Athenian (Bäbler, pp. 197-98, Cat. No. 116). <
Despite the wealth of furniture captured at Plataia (and the tradition that the stool of Xerxes was housed in the Parthenon, see Thompson, pp. 285-86), in general there are no traces of Persian style furniture in Greece. However, in the 5th century, the throne of Zeus on the Parthenon frieze has been recognized as having an Achae-menid profile (Kyrieleis, pp. 144-46). Later, after Alexander’s conquests a Macedonian-style barrel-vaulted tomb, built near Eretria, had two stone klinai with Achaemenid profile legs, dating from the first half of the 3rd century (Vollmoeller, pp. 366-76).
4.5. Elite lifestyle and status-indicators. There was a considerable disjunction between reality and representation in many aspects of the lifestyle of classical Greece. The extent to which physical luxury pertained in classical Athens is a matter of some debate, but despite the claims of ancient authors and the general silence of the archeological record, there is evidence to suggest that the Persian East provided models for new mechanisms of expression of social hierarchy in classical Athens, and perhaps elsewhere in mainland Greece as well. The traditional Greek economy relied largely on subsistence agriculture, with some assistance from trade based on a range of manufactured goods. The military impetus to naval empire in the 5th century yielded the concomitant result of increased trade within and without the Greek world, and both through a variety of mechanisms increased the material wealth of classical Athens. The increased gap between the wealthiest and the poorest Athenian citizen, and the growth in the non-citizen population of Athens, created a situation in which a wider range of status indicators became desirable. The Persian Empire (perhaps particularly the western satrapies) provided models.
The social differentiation implicit in differences in leisure gained new physical attributes in the later 6th and 5th centuries: the parasol, the fan, and the flywhisk (PLATE XIV, above; PLATE XV, Paestum, Salerno, Museo Archeologico Nationale). All appear to have been imports from the Persian East, together with the slave that carried them, and were introduced for Athenian women, in contrast to the oriental model. The evidence is largely iconographic with some support from literary sources. The parasol was used to especial effect in the Panathenaia, one of the major religious events in Athens. For its procession at some point in the 5th century, the Athenians legislated that the daughters of non-citizens should bear parasols for the sacred basket-carrying daughters of Athenian citizens in a markedly efficient indication of the relative standing of the two social orders. By and large, however, the implements figured more in private life than public ceremonial; equally important is the increased use of specialized slaves reflected in their use (Miller, 1997, pp. 193-215).
Literary evidence reveals that peacock-raising was introduced to Athens in the second half of the 5th century (evidently as the result of a gift of Artaxerxes I to one Pyrilampes, who served as Athenian ambassador), serving to expand the range of prestigious animal-breeding well beyond the horse, where it had been limited for centuries (Miller, 1997, pp. 189-93).
Bibliography: Pierre Amandry, Fouilles de Delphes II/8: La colonne des naxiens et le portique des athéniens, Paris, 1953. S. Arvanitopoulos, “Chrysa argyra, kai elephantina kterismata ek taphou tes Demetriados,” Polemōn 3, 1947/8, pp. 81-90. N. Asgari, The Anatolian Civilisations II: Greek/Roman/Byzantine, Istanbul, 1983. Balbina Bäbler, Fleissige Thrakerin-nen und wehrhafte Skythen: Nichtgriechen im klassischen Athenund ihre archäologische Hinterlassenschaft, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 108, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1998. Adrian David Hugh Bivar, “A Persian Monument in Athens, and Its Connections with the Achaemenid State Seals,” in Mary Boyce and Ilya Gershevitch, eds., W. B. Henning Memorial Volume, London, 1970, pp. 43-61. John Boardman, Persia and the West: An Archaeological Investigation of the Genesis of Achaemenid Art, London, 2000. David Castriota, Myth, Ethos and Actuality: Official Art in Fifth-Century B.C. Athens, Madison, 1992. Jean Marie Dentzer, “Reliefs au banquet dans l’asie mineure du Ve siècle avant J.-C.,” RA, 1969, pp. 195-224. Idem, Le motif du banquet couché dans la Proche-Orient et le monde grec du VIIe au IVe siècle avant J.-C., Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome246, Paris, 1982. Susanne Ebbinghaus and J. Ellis Jones, “New Evidence on the von Mercklin Class of Rhyta: A Black-Gloss Rhyton from Agrileza, Laureion, Attica,” Annual of the British School at Athens 96, 2001, pp. 381-94. Elfriede Regina Knauer, “Ex oriente vestimenta: Trachtgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Ärmelmantel und Ärmeljacke,” Aufstieg und Niedergang des Römischen Welt II: Principät 12/3, Künste, Berlin and New York, 1985, pp. 578-741. Helmut Kyrieleis, Throne und Klinen: Studien zur Formgeschichte altorientalischer und griechischer Sitz- und Liegemö-bel vorhellenistischer Zeit, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungsheft 24, Berlin, 1969. Didier Laroche, “Nouvelles Observations sur l’offrande de Platées,” Bulletin di correspondance hellénique 113, 1989, pp. 183-98. Arnold Walter Lawrence, “The Acropolis and Persepolis,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 71, 1951, pp. 111-19. Tullia Linders, “The Kandys in Greece and Persia,” Opuscula Atheniensia 15, 1984, pp. 107-14. F. von Lorentz, “BARBARŌN HYPHASMATA,” Römische Mitteilungen 52, 1937, pp. 165-222. Margaret C. Miller, “Midas as the Great King in Attic Fifth-Century Vase-Painting,” Antike Kunst 31, 1988, pp. 79-89. Idem, “Adoption and Adaptation of Achaemenid Metalware Forms in Attic Black-Gloss Ware of the Fifth Century,” AMI 26, 1993, pp. 109–46, pl. 18-42. Idem, “Priam King of Troy,” in Jane B. Carter and Sarah P. Morris, eds., The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, Austin, Tex., 1995, pp. 449-65. Idem, Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century B.C.: A Study in Cultural Receptivity, Cambridge, 1997. Idem, “The Myth of Bousiris: Ethnicity and Art,” in Beth Cohen, ed., Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, Leiden, 2000, pp. 413-42. Jenifer Neils, The Parthenon Frieze, Cambridge and New York, 2001.
Michael Pfrommer, Studien zu Alexandrinischer und Grossgriechischer Toreutik Frühellenistischer Zeit, Archäologische Forschungen 16, Berlin, 1987. Margaret Cool Root, “The Parthenon Frieze and the Apadana Reliefs at Persepolis: Reassessing a Programmatic Relationship,” AJA 89, 1985, pp. 103-20. Susan I. Rotroff, The Athenian Agora XXIX. Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material, Princeton, 1997. Georges Roux, “Le Chapiteau à protomés de taureaux découvert à Salamine de Chypre,” in Salamine de Chypre: his-toire et archeologie, Colloques International du CNRS 578, Paris, 1978, pp. 257-73. Dieter Salzmann, Untersuchungen zu den antiken Kieselmosaiken, Archäologische Forschungen 10, Berlin, 1982. Brian B. Shefton, “Metal and Clay: Prototype and Re-Creation. Zoffany’s ’Tribuna’ and Lessons from the Malacena Fabric of Hellenistic Volterra,” REA 100, 1998, pp. 643-55. Klaus Stähler, “Die Palme der Herrschaft Eurymedon-Votiv und persisches Repräsentationszeichen,” in Nazih Başgelen and Mihin Lugal, eds., Festschrift für Jale Inan Armagani, 2 vols., Istanbul, 1989, pp. 307-17. Idem, Griechische Geschichtsbilder klassischer Zeit, Beiträge zur antiken Bildersprache, Münster, 1992. Dorothy Burr Thompson, “The Persian Spoils in Athens,” in Saul S. Weinberg, ed., The Aegean and the Near East: Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman, New York, 1956, pp. 281-91. Christopher Tuplin, “Medism and Its Causes,” Transeuphratène 18, 1997, pp. 155-85. René Valois, Bulletin di correspondance Hellénique 53, 1929, pp. 185-315. Karl G. Vollmoeller, “Über zwei euböische Kammergräber mit Totenbetten,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Atenische Abteilung 26, 1901, pp. 333-76. J. Walsh, “The Date of the Athenian Stoa at Delphi,” AJA 90, 1986, pp. 319-36. Burkhardt Wesenberg, Kapitelle und Basen: Beobachtungen zur Entstehung der griechischen Säulenformen, Beiheft der Bonner Jahrbücher 32, Düsseldorf, 1971. Nina Zimmermann, Beziehungen zwischen Ton- und Metallgefässen spätklassischer und frühhellenistischer Zeit, Internationale Archäologie 20, Rahden, 1998.
5. CONCLUSION ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT
Before the Persian conquest, Anatolia had lain within the cultural orbit of the ancient Near East; and the Greeks had been ready recipients of Eastern cultural ideas (notably in the “Orientalizing period” of the 7th century B.C.E.). The two centuries of Persian presence in Anatolia could not alter the basic structures which were already akin but evidently resulted there in an enriched iconographic vocabulary and encouraged an on-going process of homogenization.
The brief period of Persian control of Thrace and Macedon was complemented by a long period of sustained contact, which is deemed crucial to the development of Thracian material culture, including style, and it was significant in the shaping of the luxury vocabulary of Macedon.
For Greece, it may be argued that the increased variety of material goods aided the process of social stratification in the crucial period of transition from focus on public (polis) to private (oikos) life in the late 5th and 4th centuries; and contributed to status expression in the subsequent Hellenistic world. Some elements entered the Greek koine by the 4th century. Long-standing contact with the “orientalized” East Greeks, regarded as kin, must have contributed, just as Archaic Ionia provided a model for elite emulation in mainland Greece; but direct contact with the whole of the Persian-dominated east contributed at least as much.
(Margaret C. Miller)
Originally Published: December 15, 2002
Last Updated: February 23, 2012
This article is available in print.
Vol. XI, Fasc. 3, pp. 301-319