Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Hellenistic Karia

 | 
Carbon Jan-Mathieu van Bremen Riet

Part two. Hekatomnid Karia and its legacy

Maussollos and the ‘Uzun Yuva’ in Mylasa: an unfinished Proto-Maussolleion at the heart of a new urban centre?

Frank Rumscheid

Texte intégral

1I am deeply indebted to R. van Bremen and R. R. R. Smith for carefully revising my English.

Introduction: Previous Research And The Date Of The Menandros-Column

2Since Antiquity, a Corinthian column has stood on a stone support in the old part of the modern town of Milas, more exactly on the Hisarbaşı hill’s south-eastern slope (figs. 1, 12, 15). The people of Milas call the column ‘Uzun Yuva’ which is Turkish for ‘High Nest’, because every summer a couple of storks nests here.

  • 1 Spon & Wheler 1679, 274, pl. p. 275 (= Spon & Wheler 1724, 214, pl. 3).
  • 2 Str. 14.2.24 (p. 659-60) and I.Mylasa 402.
  • 3 Cic. Fam. 13.56.1.
  • 4 Str. above, n. 2.
  • 5 For Euthydemos, see Delrieux & Ferriès 2004a and 2004b, and see now Campanile 2006, 525-6 no. 200 (...)
  • 6 Cf. Rumscheid 1994, I, 32-3.

3The column has been known since Jacob Spon saw it in 1675/6 in the Ottoman Melasso and published it soon after in his travel report, written jointly with George Wheler (fig. 2)1. At that time an inscription was still legible on a small plain panel on the fluted column shaft. The English translation runs as follows: ‘The people (of Mylasa) honoured Menandros, son of Ouliades, grandson of Euthydemos, the benefactor of his home town and descendant of benefactors (with this...).’ Spon was the first to point out that Euthydemos, the grandfather of Menandros, was the famous Mylasan orator and demagogue and correctly used this information to identify the site of Melasso with that of ancient Mylasa. Strabo speaks of Euthydemos as a contemporary and says he was master of the city of Mylasa throughout his life2. We know moreover that in 51 BC the people of Mylasa and Alabanda sent him as an envoy to the Roman administration in Ephesos3. At the time of the invasion of Labienus in 40 BC, during which Mylasa was destroyed, it is no longer Euthydemos, but a certain Hybreas who is presented as Mylasa’s most influential citizen4. Euthydemos must therefore have died in the forties of the first century BC5. The column with its inscription could theoretically have been erected soon after the destruction of 40 BC, but a date in the time of Augustus is more probable6.

Fig. 1. The Uzun Yuva seen from the south-east (photo author).

  • 7 See for example Pococke 1745, 60, pl. 54B; further authors are quoted in Rumscheid 1994, II, 49 no (...)
  • 8 Chandler et al. 1797, 27, pl. 31-2.
  • 9 Chandler 1775, 188.
  • 10 Turner 1820, 69-70.
  • 11 Inscription: CIG 2.2698; I.Mylasa 402.
  • 12 Fellows 1853, 213-4.

4During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the column and its substructure are mentioned several times in the reports of European travellers7. In the 1760s the first expedition of the London Society of Dilettanti took precise measurements of the column8. In 1775, Richard Chandler realized that it was an honorific monument, which had once borne a statue9. Some scholars regarded the substructure as a sort of terrace wall, others saw it, along with the column, as the remains of a temple10. A note written by Charles Fellows, who visited Milas in 1838, explains why the connection between the column and its inscription was ignored by later scholars11. He reports that the letters of the inscription had been chiseled off by the owner of the house from whose roof the column rose (fig. 4). The man’s purpose was to prevent the frequent intrusion of foreigners coming to see this particular feature of the column12.

Fig. 2. The Uzun Yuva’s column with preserved inscription (engraving from Spon & Wheler 1679, 275).

  • 13 Laumonier 1933, 31-3, 42, fig. 11; Choiseul-Gouffier 1842, 230-1 (column), 233-4, figs. 83-4 (temp (...)
  • 14 Robert 1951b, xiv-xv; Robert 1953, 413.

5As a result, in 1932, Alfred Laumonier mistook the column and its substructure for the remains of the temple of Augustus and Roma which actually stood further to the south and had been largely pulled down in the mid eighteenth century. Because of this error he criticized the description of the temple published by Marie Gabriel Auguste le comte de Choiseul-Gouffier, even though the latter mentioned the column separately. Despite this misguided criticism, and his own occasional misinterpretations of the archaeological remains, Laumonier’s observations are, on the whole, still very useful. Most importantly, he was the first to refer to the enormous terrace on which both substructure and column stand13. More or less at the same time, Louis Robert interpreted substructure and column as surviving parts of a temple, even though he was aware of the inscription which had been on the column14.

  • 15 Voigtländer 1991; compare Voigtländer 2004, 334 and 336: ‘stattlicher Tempel auf mächtigem Sockel (...)

6In 1991, Walter Voigtländer published three plans of the terrace and the substructure, but despite adding a sectional drawing of its eastern side, he did not fully recognize the remains for what they were. Although he realized correctly that ‘auf dem erhaltenen Oberlager der östlichen Podiumsschalung... Hinweise auf Versatz weiterer Säulenplinthen fehlen’, he – like all his predecessors, without having knowledge of the inscription – interpreted the column and the substructure as a structural unity. And even while summarising, ‘es ist verfrüht, von dieser... Säule auf einen Podiumstempel mit Zugang von Norden schließen zu wollen, dessen Oberbau bis dicht an den Podiumsrand heranreichte’, and despite all the care he took, he was not able to free himself entirely from interpreting the remains as those of a temple building15.

  • 16 Rumscheid 1994, I, 32-3; II, 49 no. 173, pl. 109.1-2; not accepted by Schenk 1997, 37-9, pls. 6, 4 (...)
  • 17 See, with bibliography, Rumscheid 1994, I, 20; II, 26 no. 84, pl. 56.5; Rumscheid 1999c, 54-5 with (...)

7Already in my doctoral dissertation of 1994 I re-established the connection between inscription and column in order to gain a sure point of reference for the dating of architectural decoration. I likewise pointed to the fact that a column which served as support for a statue could not be at the same time a column of a temple16. As a parallel for a single Corinthian column with an honorific inscription on the shaft which had once featured a statue on top, one could compare a more or less contemporary monument inside the Apollo sanctuary at Klaros: the inscription, which replaces an older one, dates probably from the twenties of the first century BC and reports that the people of Kolophon honoured the Proconsul Sextus Appuleius (with the column and statue)17.

  • 18 Rumscheid 1996, 78-80, 86-7, 92, fig. 3; Rumscheid 1997, 124-6, 130-2, 134-7, figs. 2-6.

8The following description is based on a precise documentation of the building remains which my team and I – special mention is due to Jutta Pecher and Peter Haug, at that time students of architecture – prepared in 1994 and 1995 during our survey at Mylasa. We made fundamental progress in reconstructing the plans of the entire terrace and the so-called podium building. Moreover I was able to identify the ornamented foot-moulding of the platform structure18. Recently, while working on the final publication of the Mylasa material, I have had some new ideas about the construction history, the intended function of the whole building complex, and its importance for the development of an urban center in Mylasa. These thoughts are presented here in order to provoke some debate before the final publication goes into print.

Description based on new research

  • 19 See Voigtländer 1991, 249 and 251. The leaden ‘kleine Gegenstand’ below the plinth is however at a (...)

9The marble column which once supported the honorific statue of Menandros is 8.22 m high and consists of an Attic-Ionic base with plinth (fig. 5), a fluted shaft consisting of five drums (fig. 20), and showing the once inscribed tabula (fig. 4) at about one third of the column’s height, and a normal Corinthian capital (fig. 3). The column stands in the middle of the eastern edge of a rectangular built platform (fig. 6). Except for the upper surface, the whole building is faced with white marble, while inside pale ochre, occasionally whitish, porous limestone is used (fig. 7). The greater part of the column plinth is situated on the uppermost marble course, seemingly connected to it by a dowel; the rest extends onto the inner limestone slabs (figs. 5-6)19.

Fig. 3. The Uzun Yuva’s column. The Corinthian capital (photo author).

Fig. 4. The Uzun Yuva’s column. The tabula on the shaft was originally inscribed, but the letters were subsequently erased (photo author).

Fig. 5. The Uzun Yuva’s column. The Attic-Ionic base (photo author).

Fig. 6. The Uzun Yuva’s platform (drawing J. Pecher).

  • 20 Concerning the columns, this was already remarked by Voigtländer 1991, 251.

10It is especially remarkable that in the top surface of the uppermost marble course of the structure, the anathyrosis, clamp and dowel holes that are characteristics of the top surface of the layer underneath, are totally lacking. The whole surface shows instead traces of having been worked with a pointed chisel and, in one place, we can even see the remains of a flat boss (fig. 8). Moreover, on an ashlar block fallen from the eastern side of the platform, the protective boss of the frontal edge is preserved (fig. 9). So it is clear that the top surface of the uppermost marble course remained unfinished and never carried any further columns or layers of stone20.

11The lowest exposed course of the outer marble facing protrudes by 47 cm (fig. 10), which is too much for a compensating course (an euthynteria), so it is most likely the top step of a krepis. A 38 cm high wall plinth is followed by a nearly 47 cm high third course which is recessed by 17.4 cm. On the outside it has a lightly undercut and receding curved profile, a kind of apophyge, framed by a narrow fillet and a small astragal. Above it, a recess was made into the same course for inserting the upper, separately prepared part of the wall’s foot-moulding, which was set with its back against a more or less carefully executed anathyrosis (fig. 11). In the city of Milas we found five pieces of this inserted moulding (fig. 12); three directly in the neighbourhood of the platform building. One piece may even be in its original position somewhat to the west of the south-eastern corner. Height, depth, and the holes for pi-shaped clamps, which, at the upper surface, connected the back of the inserted pieces with the third marble course (fig. 10), prove that the mouldings originate from the wall-footing of the Uzun Yuva. Above the apophyge the wall-footing therefore had a strongly undercut torus, decorated with a carved guilloche below a broad, carved, reversed Lesbian cyma that is set off above and below by narrow fillets (fig. 21).

  • 21 For a figural frieze at a similarly low position, see for example the Telephos frieze in the court (...)

12The 1.20 m-high marble course of orthostates which rises from this wall-footing is set slightly back. At its base is an apophyge probably consisting of a narrow fillet and a concave moulding. Above this apophyge an unfinished bossed surface projects for 6 cm. Here, at eyelevel, a carved figural or ornamental frieze was probably intended (figs. 1, 7, 10, 11, 13)21.

Fig. 7. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Interior structure of the eastern edge seen from north (photo author).

13The height of the upper three ashlar courses, which return to the alignment of the apophyge of the orthostates, goes up to 44, and twice to about 50 cm. At the front these ashlars show no thick bossed surface like the orthostates, but again unfinished smoothing, as is most clearly seen at the more deeply cut corners (figs. 1, 7, 13).

14The courses of the marble facing just mentioned are of different depths and interlock in this way with the inner limestone slabs. Always invisible from the outside, the marble ashlars have anathyrosis in order to close the joints perfectly and are linked to each other by iron and bronze dowels and by pi-shaped iron clamps embedded in lead. The same can be seen at the transition from marble to limestone, while further inside clamps, dowels and anathyrosis are absent (figs. 7, 8, 13). The interior of the built platform appears to consist mainly of massive courses, whose joints hardly ever lie directly above another. Although the height of the courses varies between 35 and 50 cm, the measurements of the limestone slabs are mostly a standard 96 by 96 cm (figs. 6, 14).

  • 22 On the north side Laumonier (1933, 32-3; similarly Bean 1971, 41, pl. 2.1) saw well-smoothed, 47 c (...)

15The plan (fig. 6) of the platform’s upper surface shows that the state of preservation is not everywhere the same, and also that present building density prevented us from a full examination. Even so, we were able to determine the position of the platform’s western edge inside a coal cellar, where a marble orthostate of the west wall is preserved in situ, its direction and level in exact correspondence with the orthostate course of the east wall. So the straight line of the western edge and the location of the eastern corners already known now allow us to fix accurately the horizontal dimensions of the building: between the finished vertical angles of the orthostate course, it was 29.40 m wide from north to south and 36.00 m long from east to west. This means that the longitudinal axis runs from east to west and not, as was earlier thought, from north to south22.

Fig. 8. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Uppermost marble course of the eastern edge. Block with flat boss on the upper surface (photo author).

Fig. 9. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Former uppermost marble course of the eastern edge. Block with protective boss of the frontal upper edge (photo author).

Fig. 10. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Reconstructed section through the lower part of the outer marble facing (drawing J. Pecher).

  • 23 Voigtländer 1991, 248, 250, fig. 4.

16Some 5 m from the eastern edge of the platform and in line with the east-west axis lies a hollow space, which reaches 7 m to the west and is about 3.50 m wide. It is covered with stone beams placed from north to south at the level of the uppermost limestone course (fig. 6). While we were only able to measure the eastern and western ends of the chamber’s ceiling from the outside, Voigtländer had the opportunity to look into the chamber: in a little inner courtyard of a modern house he found the ground consisting ‘aus einer Lage schwerer Steinbalken; einzelne ihrer quadratischen Kopfseiten’ were visible. ‘Diese Balken... überspannen... zwei miteinander kommunizierende Räume mit abgearbeiteten Innenwänden dicht unter der Balkenlage’23. Unfortunately it cannot be decided on present evidence whether the chambers were accessible in antiquity. But it looks as if the double chamber, documented by Voigtländer, is not the only one: in 1995 I was told of another chamber, situated near the west side, which is hidden under a concrete cover and is totally invisible.

Fig. 11. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Lower part of the eastern edge at the south-eastern corner. Recess for the insertion of the upper foot-moulding pieces (photo author).

  • 24 Rumscheid 1997, 125-6, 131-2, 136-7, figs. 5-6. Laumonier 1933, 31-2, states that the wall enclose (...)

17The rectangular platform structure stands on an immense terrace (fig. 15), whose southwest corner we could identify with the corner of a modern dwelling. The wall of the terrace on the eastern side still measures 110 m. To the south the length is completely preserved and runs to 91 m24. If the northern terrace wall lay at the same distance from the Uzun Yuva building as the southern wall still does, we may assume that this now invisible northern wall once determined the position of the street now called Belediye Caddesi. To the east the terrace rises above the natural level by at least 10 m. In its other parts, the terrace level was also higher than that of the surrounding area, except for the north-western corner and the northern section of the west side.

  • 25 The photo is kept in the phototheque of the German Archaeological Institute in Istanbul (no. D-DAI (...)
  • 26 Compare the largely similar description of the wall’s outside by Laumonier 1933, 31-2, followed by (...)

18The outside of the terrace was repaired many times, but where it is preserved in its original state, it consists of a 1.20 m thick cavity wall of marble. Lower courses of slabs that extend across the entire 1.20 m alternate with three or more courses of headers and stretchers. As an old black-and-white picture of the south wall shows (fig. 16), the original surface was designed with decorative variations: the ashlar blocks of the lower header-and-stretcher courses have a roughly worked, convex ‘cushion’ surface with bevelled, narrow ribbed edges25. The ashlars of the higher courses present a plain surface with a smoothly framed, slightly more deeply carved inner area (fig. 17). While in the first three courses above the lowermost course of thinner slabs, the headers are arranged quite regularly, they are almost totally lacking above the second course of slabs26. As can be best seen at the south-eastern corner (fig. 18), the marble facing is strengthened on the inside with another wall constructed not of marble, but of a softer stone of orange-ochre colour.

Fig. 12. Distribution of the find-spots of the upper foot-moulding pieces from the Uzun Yuva’s platform (compilation author).

  • 27 In 1740 Pococke (1745, 60, pl. 54A) saw at the top of the Hisarbaşı hill a big enclosure and the c (...)

19Hardly anything is known about the upper surface of the terrace, apart from the platform building, though travellers of the eighteenth century inform us of standing Ionic columns (fig. 19), which may have belonged to stoai at the terrace’s western and northern edges27.

Fig. 13. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Section through the outer marble facing of the eastern edge near the south-eastern corner (drawing J. Pecher).

Fig. 14. The Uzun Yuva’s eastern edge seen from northeast (photo author).

Interpretation of the remains and further observations

20The major element of the complex, then, is a huge terrace of about 130 m by 90 m, lying across the south-eastern slope of the Hisarbaşı hill. As it was necessary to raise the level of the terrace everywhere except in the north-western part, enormous quantities of material will have had to be moved. So far as we were able to measure it, the present terrace walls are nowhere higher than the lowest visible course of the platform building. Therefore it is difficult to decide whether the walls are only retaining walls or continued above the level of the terrace floor as enclosure walls or even rear walls of stoai. The Uzun Yuva building is situated in the middle of the terrace’s western half. According to our measurements its narrow sides are parallel to the eastern and western alignments of the terrace. The terrace itself is, however, not exactly rectangular, but shows an acute angle at the southeast and an obtuse angle at the south-western corner. If the modern street really indicates the northern edge of the terrace, then the position of the platform building is determined by the terrace’s diagonals, crossing at the centre of the platform’s eastern side (cf. the arrows in fig. 15).

21Instead of having an entrance or stairway, the front of the Uzun Yuva building consists of a plain, uninterrupted marble wall of about 3 m height (fig. 20). There are clear indications that the rectangular platform remained unfinished and never reached its intended height: I mentioned earlier the boss of the orthostates and the unfinished, unprepared surfaces of the marble ashlar blocks above. It may also be noted that the richly decorated foot-moulding has no counterpart on the upper part of the wall. It would moreover not make sense in the case of a finished structure for the sides of the platform to have a precious and durable marble facing, while the upper surface consisted of porous limestone slabs.

Fig. 15. City map of the town of Milas. Detail with ancient structures in black (drawing author).

22What is most striking is that the Menandros column was erected on this substructure with its base partly resting on the inner limestone slabs. We can only explain this by postulating that the terrace and the platform building are older and belong to a totally different plan from that to which the column belongs; the date of the latter cannot be put much earlier than just before the time of Augustus. The disproportionate building effort then becomes understandable: the huge terrace and the platform building were never intended to form the monumental frame for a single column topped by an honorific statue. Having thus detached the column from its context, we must now determine the construction date of the platform building and the terrace.

Fig. 16. Detail of the terrace wall around the Uzun Yuva (unknown photographer 1960).

Date of the first phase

  • 28 Cf. the foot-moulding of an altar of the 3rd or 2nd century BC from the theatre terrace in Pergamo (...)

23The date of the platform is indicated by the architectural decoration of the footmoulding (fig. 21) and by the platform’s technical details: although the design of the guilloche can be paralleled from at least the third to the first century BC28, the Lesbian cyma (fig. 22) can be dated more precisely.

  • 29 Ephesos: Rumscheid 1994, II, 16 no. 42.7, pl. 37.3; Limyra: Rumscheid 1994, II, 36 no. 131.1, pl. (...)

24A few cymata exist that are approximately contemporary with the Menandros column and typologically similar to the ornament of the foot-moulding. One example comes from the gate of Mazaeus and Mithridates in Ephesos which was consecrated in 4/3 BC, another from the cenotaph of C. Caesar at Limyra which was erected soon after 4 AD29. These are, however, no more than classicising parallels.

Fig. 17. Terrace wall around the Uzun Yuva. Detail of an ashlar’s outer surface (photo author).

  • 30 For late Classical and early Hellenistic Lesbian cymata in Asia Minor see Rumscheid 1994, I, 260-1 (...)
  • 31 Cornice: Rumscheid 1994, II, 22 no. 64.6, pl. 47.4; quadriga pedestal: Jeppesen 2002, 68-70, fig. (...)
  • 32 Rumscheid 1994, II, 31 no. 115.5, pl. 64.1.

25The ornament of the Uzun Yuva, on the other hand, actually dates from the Classical period. If we consider the entire series of relevant examples we find that by far the best typological and stylistical parallels come from the Maussolleion in Halikarnassos which was completed soon after 351 BC30. One example (fig. 23) is situated between the frieze and the cornice; the other (fig. 24) belongs to the foot-moulding of the quadriga pedestal at the top of the stepped pyramid roof31. Especially close is the elegant outline of the main leaves, just slightly curved inward, reaching a long way down from above, and ending in a narrow point, as do the so-called darts behind. The latter begin quite narrow and become, at their tip, thin like a needle. The central ribs of the main leaves branch out only at their very ends. In the examples of the Maussolleion the ends of the ribs are however either damaged or could not be worked out as freely as in our Mylasan cyma, due to the horizontal joint; but similar rib-ends are to be found for instance in the cyma at the transition to the cornice of the temple of Zeus at Labraunda, which was dedicated by Idrieus, Maussollos’brother and successor (351-344 BC)32. Other details of this considerably smaller cyma clearly deviate from those of the Uzun Yuva cyma. However, such deviation does not indicate a different date but only the contemporary use of different types of cyma. When studying architectural decoration one should always construct an argument only on the basis of similarities, not differences.

26The cyma from the foot-moulding of the quadriga pedestal is combined with an apophyge-like moulding element, which corresponds to the lowest element of the Uzun Yuva’s foot-moulding, but has at the top a Lesbian profile with a narrow fillet instead of a narrow astragal.

Fig. 18. Terrace wall around the Uzun Yuva. South-eastern corner seen from south-east (photo author).

  • 33 For the preparatory procedures of architectural decoration in Asia Minor compare Rumscheid 1994, I (...)
  • 34 The inserted decorated workpieces of the Maussolleion entablature are marked in the drawings at Je (...)

27Most important, however, is the fact that except at the Uzun Yuva it is only at the Maussolleion that we find the technique of first finishing the carved ornament fillets completely and only then inserting them as separate pieces in the recesses of larger building components33. This appears very frequently at the peristasis entablature of the Maussolleion and, even with the clamp interlocking to the rear, at the foot-moulding of the quadriga pedestal. Its height of 20.5 cm is however less than half the height of the Uzun Yuva’s inserted moulding, which runs up to 46 cm and so offers the space for the additional torus with guilloche34.

  • 35 Height of 14 cm and largest diameter of 6.5 cm are proved by means of biconical holes between styl (...)
  • 36 At the temple of Zeus dowels of a height of c. 8 cm and a greatest diameter of 5 cm can be inferre (...)
  • 37 At the temple of Athena the elements of the columns and antae were connected with each other or wi (...)
  • 38 For Pytheos see, for example, Koenigs 1983; Rumscheid 1994, I, 43; Svenson-Evers 1996, 116-50; H. (...)

28Another technical indicator for the construction date is the bronze dowel (fig. 25), which is still in place in the south-eastern corner of the platform building in Mylasa and which once linked the plinth course with the course of the footmoulding. The dowel has a biconical to slightly barrelshaped appearance, an overall height of 8 cm and is up to 6 cm thick. Such dowels, or at least their holes, have parallels in the Maussolleion in Halikarnassos35, in the temple of Zeus and the south and east propylaea at Labraunda36, and in the temple of Athena in Priene (fig. 26)37. The first four buildings belong to Hekatomnid architecture of the middle of the fourth century BC, and the temple of Athena is related to it through the architect Pytheos, who previously worked at the Maussolleion38.

Fig. 19. Ionic column once standing to the west of the Uzun Yuva (engravingdetail from Pococke 1745, pl. 54).

  • 39 W. Koenigs (pers. comm.). For the total duration of the construction and of its first phase see Ru (...)

29It is interesting that at the temple of Athena, whose building history stretches from the third quarter of the fourth century to the beginning of the Roman Imperial period, dowels of the type described above are found only at the antae and the columns in antis, at the east front, and the three neighbouring columns at the north and south sides of the peristasis. This means that, at least here, this type of dowel was not used beyond about 270/260 BC39.

  • 40 See for example Hansen 1991, 72, fig. 1; 77, fig. 6; compare Orlandos 1968, 57-8, fig. 49 (= Wrigh (...)
  • 41 Pedersen 1991, 21, fig. 15-7 (pry-holes as at the Uzun Yuva only in one of the lateral joint surfa (...)
  • 42 Hellström & Thieme 1982, 20, 71-2, fig. 25 (lower picture).

30Finally, among the technical details should be mentioned a long pry-hole for using a crowbar. At the Uzun Yuva this type of hole is found in the ashlars of the foot-moulding and in that of the uppermost course (figs. 7-8). In each case the hole is carved into the upper anathyrosis-edge of the ashlar’s surface at the lateral joint. Similar pry-holes are also found elsewhere in Classical Greek ashlar architecture40. Once again however, there are parallels in Hekatomnid structures: both anathyrosis and pry-hole occur in identical fashion at the lateral sides of some toichobate blocks, which belonged to the temenos wall enclosing the Maussolleion of Halikarnassos41. Pry-holes at vertical surfaces furthermore exist at some of the building elements from the temple of Zeus at Labraunda42.

Fig. 20. Eastern front of the Uzun Yuna (drawing J. Pecher).

Fig. 21. Best preserved upper foot-moulding piece from the Uzun Yuva’s platform. Now museum Milas (photo author).

  • 43 Jeppesen 2000, 11, 33, fig. 1.59.

31There are parallels to the Maussolleion also in the use of building materials: like the Uzun Yuva the Maussolleion too has a marble-faced exterior while the interior, largely of solid stone courses, consists of less expensive material that was easier to carve (a greenish tuff, quarried north of Myndos). Like the limestone slabs of the Uzun Yuva the green slabs of the Maussolleion are mostly equilaterally shaped. Once again there is something approaching a standard size, not so much in the height, which is about 30 cm, but in the length of the sides. The latter varies between 86.6 and 96 cm, but is mostly about 90 cm, against 96 cm at the Uzun Yuva43.

  • 44 Compare Pedersen 1991, 20, fig. 9-12; 24, fig. 23; 31, fig. 39 etc. He did not know the best prese (...)

32To conclude, then, ornamentation and technical details clearly show that the platform building in Mylasa was erected in the late Classical period, i. e. three and a half centuries earlier than the column of Menandros. The specific parallels with the Maussolleion even suggest that the same workmen were employed at the Uzun Yuva and in Halikarnassos. This can also be assumed for the great terrace wall, which belongs to the same plan as the Uzun Yuva. The terrace wall’s ashlars with decorative outer surfaces, showing smoothed edges around slightly deeper cut areas, recur at the toichobate and the upper courses of the temenos wall around the Maussolleion in Halikarnassos44.

Fig. 22. Lesbian cyma of the Uzun Yuva’s foot-mouldins (photo author)

Fig. 23. Lesbian cyma between the frieze and the Maussoleion at Hallikarnassos (photo author)

Fig.24. Lesbian cyma of the quadriga pedestal’s foot-moulding at the fop of the Maussoleion at Hallikarnassos (photo author and from jeppesen 2002, fig 8. 6b).

Typological comparisons and architectural interpretation

  • 45 Asklepieion: Schazmann 1932, 73, pl. 37-40 (soon after 160 BC); Coulton 1976, 246 (c. 150 BC). Tra (...)
  • 46 Rumscheid 2004a, 154-6.

33Typologically, the built platform and its terrace in Mylasa (fig. 15) are reminiscent of later building complexes like the upper terrace of the Asklepieion at Kos, probably of the second century BC, and the Traianeion in Pergamon45. In both cases a peripteral temple stood on a transverse rectangular terrace, framed on three sides by stoai, reaching well into the front half of the open space and accessible via stairways at the front. By analogy, we may assume that the terrace in Mylasa was open to the plain, which extends to the east of the Hisarbaşı hill, and was framed by stoai on the remaining three sides. If we compare the two other terrace complexes, it is striking how far the built platform in Mylasa recedes towards the rear half of the terrace area and particularly that at the front of the building there is a plain wall instead of a stairway (fig. 20). Because of these differences, and because the podium temple (whose origins lay in the West) was not introduced into Asia Minor before the early Roman Imperial period46, the much older Uzun Yuva cannot have been intended as the substructure of a temple.

Fig. 25. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Bronze dowel at the southeastern corner (photo author).

  • 47 Coupel & Demargne 1969; see now also Benda-Weber 2005, 41-4, 77, pl. 7, 14; Jenkins 2006, 186-202, (...)
  • 48 Borchhardt 1993, 45-52, 149 (bibliography), pl. 11.16, map 4; see now also Benda-Weber 2005, 44-5, (...)

34A look at Lykia, Karia’s neighbour to the south, is illuminating. We know of two dynastic tombs that also have high platforms without frontal stairways: the Nereid Monument of Xanthos, probably built in the second quarter of the fourth century BC47, and the Heroon at Limyra, which is very likely associated with the Lycian ruler Perikles and which, for historical reasons, should be dated to before 360 BC48. Like the Uzun Yuva, these monumental tombs both stood on a slope, and were visible from a considerable distance.

Fig. 26. Temple of Athena Polias at Priene. Biconical bronze dowel. Now London, British Museum (sketch W. Koenigs).

  • 49 Bockisch 1969, 149-52; cautiously Hornblower 1982, 181-2; Ruzicka 1992, 63, 65, 85-6; Benda-Weber (...)

35Because the Nereid Monument was probably situated outside the confines of what was then the city, the Heroon of Perikles provides a better parallel: it stood on a rock-cut terrace of 20 by 20 m directly below the citadel of Limyra, its shorter façade overlooking the lower part of the city and the coastal plain as far as the harbour city of Phoinikous (modern Finike). These two Lykian monuments must have been well known in Karia. Even before the Persian king added Lykia (or parts of it) to the satrapy of Karia in about 360 BC, the Karian ruler Maussollos had his covetous eye on Lycia and so had become the direct antagonist of Perikles and other Lykian dynasts49.

  • 50 The latest, but internally contradictory, reconstructions are by Jeppesen 2002, 58-9, fig. 6.3; 21 (...)
  • 51 Jeppesen 2000, 9-33, 51-5, fig. 6.1; Jeppesen 2002, 95, fig. 9.21; Zahle, Kjeldsen et al. 2004, 17 (...)

36Typologically, the structure related most closely to the Uzun Yuva, however, is the Maussolleion in Halikarnassos. It presents the best technical and ornamental parallels to the Uzun Yuva’s features. It is noteworthy that, just like the Uzun Yuva, the building in Halikarnassos is oriented due east. And however controversial the possible reconstructions may be50, it is clear that the Maussolleion had a huge platform without any sort of access in the form of a staircase. Finally, the 5: 6 proportion of the sides and even their absolute measures largely correspond. In Halikarnassos, inside a rock-cut area of about 32.5 m x 38.5 m, parts of the foundation are preserved in situ51. From what we have at hand, nearly the same dimensions can be reconstructed for the still unexcavated foundation of the Uzun Yuva. My reconstruction of the Uzun Yuva’s krepidoma (fig. 27) shows that about 1.6 m needs to be added on each side to the dimensions of the wall level as measured. So the adjusted size of the Uzun Yuva’s foundation amounts to about 32.60 m by 39.20 m, which is very close to the dimensions of the Halikarnassos foundation.

Fig. 27. The Uzun Yuva’s krepidoma. Dashed lower part reconstructed (drawing author).

Fig. 28. Speculative completion of the Uzun Yuva’s platform as a Proto-Maussolleion (compilation author using slightly modified the Maussolleion-reconstruction of Hoepfner 2002).

37The arguments I have put forward so far, in my opinion allow for the conclusion that the Uzun Yuva was intended to become a monumental ruler tomb, which we should imagine as quite similar to the Maussolleion of Halikarnassos (fig. 28). Accordingly, both the Uzun Yuva and the Maussolleion were not only erected by the same workmen but very likely even following the same plan. After a discussion with W. Koenigs, I suggest that this plan had most probably been drawn by the architect Pytheos.

New ideas on the reconstruction of the Maussolleion in Halikarnassos

  • 52 For the previous state of the reconstruction cf. Jeppesen 2002, 200-1, fig. 23.1-2. Jeppesen 2002, (...)
  • 53 Lagina: Rumscheid 1994, II, 33 no. 122.9, pl. 73.2-3. Samos: ibidem, 80 no. 331.6, pl. 176.5-7.

38The Uzun Yuva, a ‘proto-Maussolleion’ of which much more is preserved in situ than of the closely related ‘wonder of the world’ in Halikarnassos, can in turn provide some new ideas for the latter’s reconstruction. Above the Maussolleion’s euthynteria and krepidoma, of which fragments have been found52, a decorated foot-moulding like that of the Uzun Yuva can be postulated. The shaping and decoration of the Hellenistic anta bases of the Hekate temple at Lagina, and of the foot-moulding of the sacrificial table inside the great altar of Hera at Samos which was renovated around the third quarter of the first century BC, may then have taken the foot-moulding of the Uzun Yuva or, more probably, that of the Maussolleion, as their example53.

  • 54 Compare, with later examples, above n. 21.

39As mentioned above, the bossed surface of the orthostates of the Uzun Yuva is 6 cm thick, while the upper ashlar courses are carved to within a few millimetres of a perfectly smooth finish. This leads to the assumption that a figural or ornamental frieze was planned at eye-level54. So one of the figural friezes of the Maussolleion at Halikarnassos may have been similarly positioned.

  • 55 See above n. 50.

40The Uzun Yuva does not, however, help us to decide whether the huge platform building of the Maussolleion did (as in the reconstructions of G. Waywell and K. Jeppesen), or did not (as W. Hoepfner supposes) have a number of high steps55. A first step would have had to be placed above the height attained by the platform building in Mylasa.

  • 56 Jeppesen 2002, 202-6, fig. 24.2-3 (using a preserved fragment); Hoepfner 2002, figs. 11, 13 and 14 (...)

41If the function of the chamber-like cavities inside the Uzun Yuva, which of course should be further explored, was not only that of accommodating the planned burial, then this suggests that the interior of the Maussolleion in Halikarnassos may also not have been solid throughout. Moreover, the presence of stone beams in the ceiling of the western double chamber of the Uzun Yuva confirms Jeppesen’s reconstruction of the tomb chamber’s ceiling in Halikarnassos, whereas Hoepfner suggested a barrel vault56.

42On the basis of the few original measures available it is hard to decide which foot or outline modulus the constructors of the Uzun Yuva used, and whether it is the same as was used at the Maussolleion. An excavation down to the euthynteria of the Uzun Yuva could shed more light on this question.

Interpretation in the context of urban planning

  • 57 The number of discovered graves increases nearly every year. The personnel of Milas museum tries t (...)

43Why did the complex in Mylasa remain unfinished? If we map the late Classical and Hellenistic tombs in the area of the city of present-day Milas, it becomes obvious that they cluster round the Hisarbaşı hill and its surroundings (fig. 29)57.

  • 58 The first findspot lies a little east of the Orta Okul and was detected in 1952 in the process of (...)
  • 59 Akarca 1971; Rumscheid 1999b, 206-9, fig. 3 (map of the Mylasa plain); Säve-Söderbergh & Hellström (...)
  • 60 Str. 14.2.23 (659). Some scholars using this passage speculated that Mylasa was originally a villa (...)
  • 61 Ps-Ar. Oec. 2.2.13 (1348a). The contents of Book 2 show that its second section consists of passag (...)

44So far three sites, also marked in the plan (fig. 29) and all starting at the latest with late Geometric pottery, show that there was human activity in this area at least from the later eighth century BC58. Nothing however suggests that anything on the scale of a city existed at that time. A small settlement presumably covered the Hisarbaşı hill, and there were others like it in the Mylasa plain and at its edges, for example at the Gencik hill to the east or at Beçin to the south59. Interestingly, this assumption is supported by a passage in Strabo, which says of Hekatomnos, who ruled Karia as a Persian satrap between 392 and 377 BC, that his ancestral home and stronghold in Mylasa was a kome, a village60. The Pseudo-Aristotelian Oikonomika on the other hand reports the following story about Maussollos, the son and successor of Hekatomnos: during the revolt of the satraps in the sixties of the fourth century, Maussollos successfully demanded contributions of the people of Mylasa, promising to build a wall around their city, which he called his metropolis61. The story is perhaps anecdotal, but nonetheless valuable because it was recorded already in the fourth century BC.

Fig. 29. Distribution of late Classical and Hellenistic tombs (black dots) around the Hisarbaşı hill (grey layers) with the Uzun Yuva (black rectangle) and its terrace (black framed rectangle), and findspots of late Geometric pottery (black triangles) in the town of Milas (compilation author).

  • 62 See the discussion in Radt 1969-1970, 168-9 with n. 17.
  • 63 Compare Bockisch 1969, 143-9; Hornblower 1982, 78-105; Ruzicka 1992, 35-6; Klinkott 2009, 158 with (...)
  • 64 See for example Ruzicka 1992, 35.

45It is very likely, then, that Maussollos was the founder of Mylasa’s first urban centre on and around the Hisarbaşı hill. This foundation must have taken place after the beginning of his reign, in 377 BC, and most likely before the end of the revolt, in about 360 BC. It is very probable that he tried to populate the new city through a synoikism of the neighbouring settlements62, as he did later in Halikarnassos at a date not exactly known, but several years before his death in 353 BC63. Maussollos must therefore have been the builder-owner of the Uzun Yuva tomb, since an enormous area like the terrace of the Uzun Yuva, in the very heart of the new city, must have been reserved in the course of the latter’s founding. Before Maussollos made Halikarnassos his new capital, at least the retaining wall and the filling in of the terrace, the foundation and up to 4 m of the proto-Maussolleion’s platform were finished. Hence it follows, despite what has become the modern communis opinio64, that at the beginning of his reign the ruler cannot already have been thinking of relocating his capital city.

  • 65 Rumscheid 1997, 127, 133, 139, fig. 8; Rumscheid 1998a, 389, 396-7, 404-5, figs. 9-10; Rumscheid 1 (...)

46The promised city wall of Mylasa was never built; only at the northern summit of Mount Sodra, far above the new urban center of Mylasa, are there a few walls that could belong to the quickly abandoned project of a so-called ‘Geländemauer’ or ‘Landschaftsfestung’65.

  • 66 Concerning the Maussolleion and its huge peribolos in Halikarnassos, however, Zahle, Kjeldsen et a (...)
  • 67 Diod. 16.36.2 and 16.45.7; Str. 14.2.16 (656); Plin. Nat. 36.4, 30-31; compare Rumscheid 1994, I, (...)

47Among the first building activities that Maussollos arranged for his new capital Halikarnassos must have been the Maussolleion66, but its lavish sculptural decoration could not be completed before the ruler’s death in 353, or even before that of his sister-wife Artemisia in 351 BC67.

  • 68 Carstens 2002, 402-6. An exception of, however, perhaps post-Maussollan date is a tumulus tomb wit (...)
  • 69 Bean 1978, 76-7, fig. 9; Childs 1978, 11-2, 37-42, fig. 6.21, pls. 22-23; Benda-Weber 2005, 153-4, (...)
  • 70 For the royal tombs at Persepolis see Diod. 17.71.7; Schmidt 1970. Compare the one-sided oriental- (...)
  • 71 See Jeppesen 1994, 73-84, with the relevant examples, and also now Schörner 2007, 118-9, and Henry (...)

48It is not clear in what respect Maussollos was able to refer to local traditions when he had his tomb monument erected in the new urban centre of Mylasa. In Karia, dynastic tombs, like other tombs, appear generally to have been situated outside settlements68. In Lykia however the above-mentioned Heroon of Perikles was inside the city wall, and a relief from the so-called King’s or Landscape Tomb at Pinara shows a number of pillar tombs and Lykian sarcophagi inside a city69. Both the Lykian dynasts and Maussollos may have taken the idea of building their monumental tombs during their reign inside their capitals from their mutual sovereign, the Persian king Artaxerxes II (405-359 BC). His impressive rock-cut tomb at Persepolis, together with the later tomb of Artaxerxes III and the unfinished tomb of Dareios III, are located inside the eastern part of the defensive wall, on a slope above and opposite the royal palace’s terrace. In such a context the tomb is to be understood as part of the architectural manifestation of the outstanding position of the ruler and of his dynasty70. But even from a Greek perspective – Karia was already ‘hellenised’ in various ways – a justification of the site of the tomb would not be difficult for Maussollos: as the founder of the city, its heros ktistes, he had the right to be buried inside the city’s boundaries, a custom well-known from Greek colonies. This is also the Greek way to understand what happened later in Halikarnassos, after that city’s complete renewal by Maussollos71. Just as the Maussolleion there was visible from afar, especially from the sea, the ‘proto-Maussolleion’ on its terrace would not only have dominated the new buildings which are to be assumed at the foot of the Hisarbaşı hill, but also the entire plain of Mylasa up to the mountains opposite.

Use, importance, and subsequent impact of the Uzun Yuva Terrace

  • 72 Compare, for example, the above mentioned tombs of late Classical to early Hellenistic date or an (...)
  • 73 See Koenigs 1993, 382-8, fig. 1; idem, in: Rumscheid 1998b, 29, fig 21; 31, 71, fig. 53; von Kienli (...)
  • 74 Vitr. 2.8.13; see Pedersen 1991, 95, fig. 92.
  • 75 Compare the stadium inside the peribolos in the reconstruction of the original city plan by W. Hoe (...)

49Without cleaning up and investigating the area through excavation, we can only speculate about how the platform of the Uzun Yuva and its large terrace were used after the building activities had come to an early end, and while the new urban centre itself flourished72. Since the Greeks tended to situate the tomb of their heros ktistes in the agora, the large terrace may have been planned, and may actually have been used, as an agora, despite the unfinished state of the tomb building. With a space of 11.700 m ² the terrace exceeds the size of the agora at Priene, where a space of a mere 7300 m ² (c. 9070 m ² including the stoai at the edges) was reserved for the agora when the city was planned in the mid fourth century BC73. In Halikarnassos on the other hand, according to Vitruvius’description the agora appears to have been situated to the southeast of the Maussolleion’s peribolos, which, with a surface measure of 25.652 m ² is twice as large, and, with sides of 106 m by 242 m, is more elongated than its counterpart in Mylasa74. Another difference is that the Maussolleion was located off-centre, in the north-eastern corner of the its peribolos. The length of the open space at the south side of the terrace, which measures distinctly more than the 600 feet of an antique stadium, suggests that it was used as a place for ritual games and meetings during celebrations in honour of the living and/or deceased ruler(s)75. If these considerations are right, then Maussollos will have anchored the cult of his person and his dynasty more deeply into the city plan of Halikarnassos than he once planned it for Mylasa.

  • 76 W. Blümel, in I.Mylasa I, at nos 6-7 (p. 8), cites a manuscript by W. Sherard, who found both insc (...)
  • 77 In 1999 two inscriptions were found at Iasos which can be palaeographically dated to the late Clas (...)

50Although the Uzun Yuva’s platform did not contain a burial, it may nevertheless have served as the location for Hekatomnid ruler cult. With such a function we may possibly connect two altars which, according to their inscriptions, Maussollos himself set up in honour, perhaps, of his ancestors. At the beginning of the eighteenth century they were apparently still visible in the vicinity of the Uzun Yuva76. The recently identified Maussolleion at nearby Iasos shows that we should expect such ruler cult facilities also in other cities of the area ruled by Maussollos77.

51Three and a half centuries after their erection, the platform building and its terrace in Mylasa had long been part of the city’s public space, and it was the demos that erected the honorific column for Menandros there. The location must have been chosen very deliberately: although the complex had remained unfinished, it nevertheless kept alive the people’s memory of Mylasa’s most splendid past. And at the most prominent point of this memorial place, preserved through the centuries, a tall monument with a statue was now established for Menandros, the euergetes and descendant of euergetai. Literally growing out of the splendid past, this monument signified an almost unprecedented honour, while simultaneously demonstrating to what extent the citizens expected future benefits from Menandros, the offspring of one of Mylasa’s wealthiest families.

  • 78 Paus. 8.16.4.
  • 79 Compare for example Chandler et al. 1797, 25-6, pls. 24-6 and 28-30; Heilmeyer 1970, 104 with n. 4 (...)

52Much later, in the first half of the second century AD, Maussollos’unfinished Mylasan project may have inspired another builder-owner: on a raised site and therefore clearly visible from a distance, this anonymous citizen of Mylasa erected a tomb (fig. 30) whose architectural structure, though far more modest in size and located outside the city in the area of the western necropolis, is reminiscent of the Maussolleion of Halikarnassos. According to Pausanias this kind of monumental tomb was already known as a ‘mausoleum’ in his day, and the usage of this expression is still current in modern languages78. Since the Roman mausoleum, known by its Turkish name ‘Gümüşkesen’, is still virtually intact today, it is by far the most prominent monument of ancient Mylasa79. Historically more important, however, is the unfinished ‘proto-Maussolleion’ at the foot of the ‘High Nest’, because it opens for us a door to the time when the urban centre of Mylasa was just beginning to take shape.

Fig. 30. Gümüşkesen-mausoleum in the western necropolis of Mylasa (photo author).

Notes

1 Spon & Wheler 1679, 274, pl. p. 275 (= Spon & Wheler 1724, 214, pl. 3).

2 Str. 14.2.24 (p. 659-60) and I.Mylasa 402.

3 Cic. Fam. 13.56.1.

4 Str. above, n. 2.

5 For Euthydemos, see Delrieux & Ferriès 2004a and 2004b, and see now Campanile 2006, 525-6 no. 200 (with further references), who suggests that he may even have borne the title of asiarchēs.

6 Cf. Rumscheid 1994, I, 32-3.

7 See for example Pococke 1745, 60, pl. 54B; further authors are quoted in Rumscheid 1994, II, 49 no. 173.

8 Chandler et al. 1797, 27, pl. 31-2.

9 Chandler 1775, 188.

10 Turner 1820, 69-70.

11 Inscription: CIG 2.2698; I.Mylasa 402.

12 Fellows 1853, 213-4.

13 Laumonier 1933, 31-3, 42, fig. 11; Choiseul-Gouffier 1842, 230-1 (column), 233-4, figs. 83-4 (temple). For a comprehensive publication of the temple of Augustus and Roma see now Rumscheid 2004a.

14 Robert 1951b, xiv-xv; Robert 1953, 413.

15 Voigtländer 1991; compare Voigtländer 2004, 334 and 336: ‘stattlicher Tempel auf mächtigem Sockel nachklassischer Zeit’.

16 Rumscheid 1994, I, 32-3; II, 49 no. 173, pl. 109.1-2; not accepted by Schenk 1997, 37-9, pls. 6, 40.2-3, who however did not know the new evidence derived from our research in 1994 and 1995; at Spawforth 2006, 210, both the column and the substructure are still mistaken for a temple. Compare also Boysal 1994, 323, pl. 84.8: in his view the Corinthian capital belongs to an important building which might even be a temple. It is to be dated to the 1st century BC, but not to the century’s early years.

17 See, with bibliography, Rumscheid 1994, I, 20; II, 26 no. 84, pl. 56.5; Rumscheid 1999c, 54-5 with n. 123, fig. 24; Étienne & Varène 2004, 117-23 (with too early a date), 222-7, figs. 71-6, 263-5, figs. 144-6.

18 Rumscheid 1996, 78-80, 86-7, 92, fig. 3; Rumscheid 1997, 124-6, 130-2, 134-7, figs. 2-6.

19 See Voigtländer 1991, 249 and 251. The leaden ‘kleine Gegenstand’ below the plinth is however at a distance of 32 cm from the eastern, not from the northern, edge.

20 Concerning the columns, this was already remarked by Voigtländer 1991, 251.

21 For a figural frieze at a similarly low position, see for example the Telephos frieze in the courtyard of the great altar in Pergamon. Surviving parts of the uncarved bossed surface show that this frieze was carved into a surface finely worked with a point chisel; see Radt 1999, 177-8, fig. 124 (left slab). Compare further the boss of some of the base platforms of the Artemision in Sardeis (Rumscheid 1994, I, 295-6; II, pl. 179.4) and, though at a considerably higher position, an unfinished cella frieze block of the Nereid Monument of Xanthos (see generally below n. 47). To judge by the traces left by the tools and from the present state of the block, it looks as if the outline of the figures was first traced into the bossed surface, after which the material between the figures was cut away. The result was a flat plane of silhouetted figures against a level background (see Higgs 2006, 176-7, fig. 57). If an ornamental frieze was planned for the Uzun Yuva, the intended decoration may have been a complicated maeander like that on a panel from early Roman Imperial times found in the theatre of Ephesos (for no good reason this piece has been connected with the Artemision’s altar); see Rumscheid 1994, I, 279, 284-5; II, 16 no. 40.6, pl. 36.4.

22 On the north side Laumonier (1933, 32-3; similarly Bean 1971, 41, pl. 2.1) saw well-smoothed, 47 cm deep marble steps which disappeared in the ground below the level of the visible platform, but we could not find any indications of an ancient staircase. The size of 47 cm rather suggests that at least some of the steps were part of the krepis. These krepis steps together with the plinth course and the course of the foot-moulding – which, without its separately made ornamented moulding piece, looked like a double step – probably entered into the platform like a staircase. It is to be assumed that the building’s inner courses too had been partly cleared away. So a sort of staircase came into being which led up to a late hexagonal well but this has nothing to do with the ancient building plan. Compare Voigtländer 1991, 247, who also argues for an original staircase at the north side and refers to irregularities of the limestone slabs behind the course of the marble orthostates. But these can also be found in other parts of the building.

23 Voigtländer 1991, 248, 250, fig. 4.

24 Rumscheid 1997, 125-6, 131-2, 136-7, figs. 5-6. Laumonier 1933, 31-2, states that the wall enclosed a nearly equilateral square with one completely measurable side of 94.50 m length. Since he was probably not able to measure up the slope from the distinct south-eastern corner to the west and was under the impression that he had found the wall’s north-eastern corner, he must have meant the east wall. But since on this side the wall is preserved over a distance of 110 m, without a corner being visible at its present end, he must have mistaken the point where the upper courses break off for a north-eastern corner. Compare Pedersen (1991, 105-6) who adopts Laumonier’s incorrect wall length, but does not relate it to the east side of the wall.

25 The photo is kept in the phototheque of the German Archaeological Institute in Istanbul (no. D-DAI-IST-KB 1315) and was taken in 1960 by an unknown photographer and by mistake marked ‘Milas, Baltalı Kapı, Mauer’.

26 Compare the largely similar description of the wall’s outside by Laumonier 1933, 31-2, followed by Pedersen 1991, 106.

27 In 1740 Pococke (1745, 60, pl. 54A) saw at the top of the Hisarbaşı hill a big enclosure and the column of Menandros on its north wall – which in fact means the east wall, since throughout his descriptions of Milas, Pococke mentions the directions with a distortion of 90 degrees anti-clockwise. ‘To the south’ (which means to the west) he noticed two fluted Ionic columns, one of which he depicted. Ten years later Dawkins, coming from the south (direction mistaken just as in Pococke’s description, here corrected), wrote in his diary: ‘at a few Yards from thence [the Menandros column]... the Ionic Pillar which seems never to have been finished, there were three or four to the North [that means east], but they have been lately destroy’ d’(Joint Library of the Hellenic and Roman Societies, London, Vol. R. Wood no. 6: Diary J. Dawkins p. 83-4). Laumonier 1933, 32, mentions moreover a marble pavement of unknown date. He describes it at a 2.75 m wide entrance from the north in what is nowadays Hisarbaşı lane, which crosses the terrace nearly down the middle. The place, where Laumonier locates the pavement, is not, however, situated at the northern edge of the terrace, as Laumonier thought, but c. 35 m inside it. There he saw big marble slabs which he took to be the remains of a sacred road, but they could just as well have been part of the terrace’s original pavement, or possibly even a late pavement made of reused antique material. At a small distance from the proposed northern edge of the terrace we ourselves observed and measured at both sides of the same lane well set marble blocks (fig. 17), but it is hard to decide whether these have been in situ since antiquity or not. Concerning the Maussolleion’s temenos in Halikarnassos, Pedersen (1991, 80-2, fig. 85) concludes that its surface was either entirely or partly covered with slabs of green tuff rather than marble, but in Halikarnassos marble was not available from neighbouring quarries as it was in Mylasa; for the situation in Mylasa see Str. 14.2.23 (p. 658-9), and Cramer 2004, 148-50, figs. 182-9.

28 Cf. the foot-moulding of an altar of the 3rd or 2nd century BC from the theatre terrace in Pergamon (Rumscheid 1994, II, 61 no. 232.1, pl. 135.3). The moulding corresponds with the foot-moulding of the Uzun Yuva even in the concave element under the guilloche, but instead of the astragal there is a Lesbian cyma and a narrow fillet at the top. See further a wall-foot profile of the Artemis temple at Magnesia which was carried out in the late 3rd century or the first half of the 2nd century BC (Rumscheid 1994, II, 38 no. 137.26, pl. 83.6), and the foot-moulding of the Heraion altar at Samos, belonging to the phase of its renewal in the third quarter of the 1st century BC (Rumscheid 1994, II, 80 no. 331.6, pl. 176.5 and 7).

29 Ephesos: Rumscheid 1994, II, 16 no. 42.7, pl. 37.3; Limyra: Rumscheid 1994, II, 36 no. 131.1, pl. 77.5.

30 For late Classical and early Hellenistic Lesbian cymata in Asia Minor see Rumscheid 1994, I, 260-1. For the date of the Maussolleion see Rumscheid 1994, I, 17-8.

31 Cornice: Rumscheid 1994, II, 22 no. 64.6, pl. 47.4; quadriga pedestal: Jeppesen 2002, 68-70, fig. 8.6, 8.8-9.

32 Rumscheid 1994, II, 31 no. 115.5, pl. 64.1.

33 For the preparatory procedures of architectural decoration in Asia Minor compare Rumscheid 1994, I, 337-9.

34 The inserted decorated workpieces of the Maussolleion entablature are marked in the drawings at Jeppesen 2002, 93, fig. 9.18; 104, fig. 10.8; 127, fig. 13.1. For the height and the joint system of the moulding at the quadriga pedestal see Jeppesen 2002, 68-9, fig. 8.6b, 8.7, 8.9, p. 76.

35 Height of 14 cm and largest diameter of 6.5 cm are proved by means of biconical holes between stylobate, plinth, speira, torus, and lowermost drum of the peristasis columns, see Jeppesen 2002, 146, fig. 14.9.

36 At the temple of Zeus dowels of a height of c. 8 cm and a greatest diameter of 5 cm can be inferred from holes, see Hellström and Thieme 1982, 20. At the propylaea dowels of the same size as at the Uzun Yuva are attested by means of holes in elements of the columns and antae, see Jeppesen 1955, 8, fig. 5D (south propylaea) and 33 (east propylaea).

37 At the temple of Athena the elements of the columns and antae were connected with each other or with stylobate and architraves. The dowel shown in fig. 26, one of six examples kept in the British Museum (inv. no. 1870.3-20.7.2585 with mark ‘B’), is 8.55 cm high and up to 4.55 cm thick, according to the information kindly supplied by W. Koenigs, to whom I also owe the useful sketch depicted in the figure.

38 For Pytheos see, for example, Koenigs 1983; Rumscheid 1994, I, 43; Svenson-Evers 1996, 116-50; H. Knell, NP (2001), s.v. Pytheos; Hoepfner 2004.

39 W. Koenigs (pers. comm.). For the total duration of the construction and of its first phase see Rumscheid 1994, I, 42, 179-93 (esp. 192).

40 See for example Hansen 1991, 72, fig. 1; 77, fig. 6; compare Orlandos 1968, 57-8, fig. 49 (= Wright 2005, fig. 101).

41 Pedersen 1991, 21, fig. 15-7 (pry-holes as at the Uzun Yuva only in one of the lateral joint surfaces!).

42 Hellström & Thieme 1982, 20, 71-2, fig. 25 (lower picture).

43 Jeppesen 2000, 11, 33, fig. 1.59.

44 Compare Pedersen 1991, 20, fig. 9-12; 24, fig. 23; 31, fig. 39 etc. He did not know the best preserved part of the terrace wall in Mylasa, does not propose a date for the building of the terrace, and explicitly regards the alleged temple on it as non-Hekatomnid. Moreover he understands the condition of the outer surface as a result of ‘marginal drafting’, but the fact that the inner panel is rougher and more deeply cut than the edges shows clearly that the feature is merely decorative.

45 Asklepieion: Schazmann 1932, 73, pl. 37-40 (soon after 160 BC); Coulton 1976, 246 (c. 150 BC). Traianeion: Radt 1999, 209-20, fig. 157-9; 350-1 (bibliography).

46 Rumscheid 2004a, 154-6.

47 Coupel & Demargne 1969; see now also Benda-Weber 2005, 41-4, 77, pl. 7, 14; Jenkins 2006, 186-202, fig. 179-96 (tomb of Erbinna, constructed c. 390-380 BC). For the date: Rumscheid 1994, I, 95 n. 186 (with further references) is still to be consulted.

48 Borchhardt 1993, 45-52, 149 (bibliography), pl. 11.16, map 4; see now also Benda-Weber 2005, 44-5, 52-3, 77; Jenkins 2006, 159-60, fig. 149 (colour picture of the reconstruction model by F. Hinizdo in Vienna). For the end of the Lykian dynasts see generally Tietz 2009, 166.

49 Bockisch 1969, 149-52; cautiously Hornblower 1982, 181-2; Ruzicka 1992, 63, 65, 85-6; Benda-Weber 2005, 52-3; Tietz 2009, 166-7.

50 The latest, but internally contradictory, reconstructions are by Jeppesen 2002, 58-9, fig. 6.3; 214-7, fig. 25.4-5, and Hoepfner 2002, 418-20, fig. p. 421; 423-426, figs. 11-15; see also the former reconstructions collected at Jeppesen 2002, 210, fig. 25.2; compare now also Jenkins 2006, 211-5, figs. 203 and 205-8.

51 Jeppesen 2000, 9-33, 51-5, fig. 6.1; Jeppesen 2002, 95, fig. 9.21; Zahle, Kjeldsen et al. 2004, 17, fig. inside front cover.

52 For the previous state of the reconstruction cf. Jeppesen 2002, 200-1, fig. 23.1-2. Jeppesen 2002, 220-1, n. 74, already quotes the corresponding course of the Uzun Yuva as a parallel to the foot-moulding of the quadriga pedestal, overlooking that at that time the once inserted moulding of the Uzun Yuva with guilloche torus and carved Lesbian cyma had already been identified.

53 Lagina: Rumscheid 1994, II, 33 no. 122.9, pl. 73.2-3. Samos: ibidem, 80 no. 331.6, pl. 176.5-7.

54 Compare, with later examples, above n. 21.

55 See above n. 50.

56 Jeppesen 2002, 202-6, fig. 24.2-3 (using a preserved fragment); Hoepfner 2002, figs. 11, 13 and 14c.

57 The number of discovered graves increases nearly every year. The personnel of Milas museum tries to save contents and information as often as possible by rescue excavations. Up to now see Akarca & Akarca 1954, 89, fig. 1 (with signature ‘hm’ for Hellenistic grave); Akarca 1952, 367-405, pls. 75-97; Çakıcı 1995, 321-32; Kızıl 2002, 39, figs. 28 and 30; Kızıl 2009.

58 The first findspot lies a little east of the Orta Okul and was detected in 1952 in the process of canalising the stream called Balavca (Akarca 1952, 376-7; Akarca 1971, 29; pl. 35). The second is a foundation pit dug in 1997 east of the city centre (Kızıl 1999, 225-6, 227, map 1, plan 1; 238, fig. 16; Rumscheid 1999a, 166, 172, 177, fig. 1; 178, fig. 4), and the third is situated c. 50 m east of the temple of Augustus and Roma where in 2005, in a another foundation pit, once again a wide range of ceramics was found, dating from antiquity until the Ottoman period (autopsy; still unpublished).

59 Akarca 1971; Rumscheid 1999b, 206-9, fig. 3 (map of the Mylasa plain); Säve-Söderbergh & Hellström 1997.

60 Str. 14.2.23 (659). Some scholars using this passage speculated that Mylasa was originally a village, situated at Beçin, which was later moved to where the present city of Milas is located (Pococke 1745, 62-3; Chandler 1775, 191; Cook 1961b, 100; Bean 1971, 51-3; with the same tendency see now also Baran 2004, 27-30). Archaeological evidence however shows that there was some settlement activity at the location of the future urban centre of Mylasa already before the time of Hekatomnos (Akarca 1971, 29-30; Rumscheid 1996, 77-8 and 85; Rumscheid 1999b, 206-7; compare also the evidence given above in n. 58).

61 Ps-Ar. Oec. 2.2.13 (1348a). The contents of Book 2 show that its second section consists of passages collected in the last quarter of the 4th century BC, ‘soon after the death of Alexander’: Aperghis 2004, 129-35 (R. van Bremen drew my attention to this information). About this passage and generally on the reliability of the source cf. still Hornblower 1982, 69-70 with n. 126. The interpretation of Bockisch 1969, 151, that the passage is to be connected with the time immediately following the revolt, is possible but less probable.

62 See the discussion in Radt 1969-1970, 168-9 with n. 17.

63 Compare Bockisch 1969, 143-9; Hornblower 1982, 78-105; Ruzicka 1992, 35-6; Klinkott 2009, 158 with n. 69; Rumscheid 2009a, 179, 183-4.

64 See for example Ruzicka 1992, 35.

65 Rumscheid 1997, 127, 133, 139, fig. 8; Rumscheid 1998a, 389, 396-7, 404-5, figs. 9-10; Rumscheid 1999b, 109, fig. 3 (map of the Mylasa plain); 220-2, figs. 18-22. For the terms ‘Geländemauer’ and ‘Landschaftsfestung’ see Pimouguet-Pédarros 2000, 46-7, 100, 106-7 with n. 315 and, in this vol., the paper by P. Pedersen.

66 Concerning the Maussolleion and its huge peribolos in Halikarnassos, however, Zahle, Kjeldsen et al. 2004, 178, now propose a planning after the actual refounding of the city by Maussollos, but do not answer the difficult question why such an enormous and valuable area in the city’s very centre was not covered by other buildings at that late stage.

67 Diod. 16.36.2 and 16.45.7; Str. 14.2.16 (656); Plin. Nat. 36.4, 30-31; compare Rumscheid 1994, I, 17-8 (with the sources and further literature).

68 Carstens 2002, 402-6. An exception of, however, perhaps post-Maussollan date is a tumulus tomb with built-in burial chamber recently discovered inside the (earlier built?) city wall of Hyllarima; see Henry 2009, 220 no. Hyllarima T01, figs. 26, 28, 32, 96-7, pl. 9A.

69 Bean 1978, 76-7, fig. 9; Childs 1978, 11-2, 37-42, fig. 6.21, pls. 22-23; Benda-Weber 2005, 153-4, pls. 34.2.

70 For the royal tombs at Persepolis see Diod. 17.71.7; Schmidt 1970. Compare the one-sided oriental-Persian interpretation of the Maussolleion at Halikarnassos of Caliò 2007-2008, 497-535.

71 See Jeppesen 1994, 73-84, with the relevant examples, and also now Schörner 2007, 118-9, and Henry 2009, 143, but expressly rejecting Caliò 2007-2008, 506, 522.

72 Compare, for example, the above mentioned tombs of late Classical to early Hellenistic date or an anecdote preserved in Athenaios (8.348d). He relies on a tale of Machon, according to which in the 4th century BC, the famous kithara player and humorous writer Stratonikos once traveled to Mylasa. Seeing there more temples than people he took a stand in the middle of the agora and exclaimed (instead of turning to the people): ‘Listen to me, temples!’

73 See Koenigs 1993, 382-8, fig. 1; idem, in: Rumscheid 1998b, 29, fig 21; 31, 71, fig. 53; von Kienlin 1998-1999, 255-6.

74 Vitr. 2.8.13; see Pedersen 1991, 95, fig. 92.

75 Compare the stadium inside the peribolos in the reconstruction of the original city plan by W. Hoepfner in Hoepfner ed. 1999, plan p. 318. Carstens 2009b, 69-74, interprets the Maussolleion of Halikarnassos above all as ‘foremost sanctuary of the new Karian dynasty’ of the Hekatomnids. Caliò 2007-2008, 512-5, figs. 10-2, assumes that most of the peribolos-area was probably used as an oriental paradeisos.

76 W. Blümel, in I.Mylasa I, at nos 6-7 (p. 8), cites a manuscript by W. Sherard, who found both inscribed altars in 1709 ‘on the building by the four Ionian pillars’. These Ionic columns are presumably identical with the columns mentioned by J. Dawkins in 1750 in the neighbourhood of the Menandros column (see above n. 27). Before 1945 one of the inscriptions was once again seen in Mylasa ‘encastrée très haute dans un mur’ (Robert 1945, 102 n. 4). That concerns the south wall of the Uzun Yuva’s terrace, in whose western part the big block with the inscription I.Mylasa no. 7 is built into a secondary raised level of the wall and remains there to this day.

77 In 1999 two inscriptions were found at Iasos which can be palaeographically dated to the late Classical or early Hellenistic period. Both contain the instruction that the text is to be published on the parastas of the Maussolleion. The term ‘Maussolleion’ here clearly means a building in Iasos, and the two blocks in question, together with four other inscribed blocks, belonged to that building. Since it cannot have been the tomb of Maussollos, the most probable solution is that this Maussolleion was an architecturally distinctive structure of the Hekatomnid ruler cult, and since all blocks were discovered in that area, the building probably bordered on the agora; see Berti 2001, 120-1, 125, fig. 5; Maddoli 2007, nos. 11-13 and the discussion on pp. 248-52, reviewed by Franco 2009, 51-2, figs. 1-2; see now, in more detail, also the contribution of G. Maddoli in the present volume.

78 Paus. 8.16.4.

79 Compare for example Chandler et al. 1797, 25-6, pls. 24-6 and 28-30; Heilmeyer 1970, 104 with n. 417, pl. 39.2; Akurgal 1987, 76-7, pl. 226; Rumscheid 1996, 80-1, 88, 95-6, figs. 10-1.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1. The Uzun Yuva seen from the south-east (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 340k
Légende Fig. 2. The Uzun Yuva’s column with preserved inscription (engraving from Spon & Wheler 1679, 275).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 120k
Légende Fig. 3. The Uzun Yuva’s column. The Corinthian capital (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 148k
Légende Fig. 4. The Uzun Yuva’s column. The tabula on the shaft was originally inscribed, but the letters were subsequently erased (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 62k
Légende Fig. 5. The Uzun Yuva’s column. The Attic-Ionic base (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 74k
Légende Fig. 6. The Uzun Yuva’s platform (drawing J. Pecher).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 166k
Légende Fig. 7. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Interior structure of the eastern edge seen from north (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 214k
Légende Fig. 8. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Uppermost marble course of the eastern edge. Block with flat boss on the upper surface (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 171k
Légende Fig. 9. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Former uppermost marble course of the eastern edge. Block with protective boss of the frontal upper edge (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 165k
Légende Fig. 10. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Reconstructed section through the lower part of the outer marble facing (drawing J. Pecher).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 39k
Légende Fig. 11. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Lower part of the eastern edge at the south-eastern corner. Recess for the insertion of the upper foot-moulding pieces (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 283k
Légende Fig. 12. Distribution of the find-spots of the upper foot-moulding pieces from the Uzun Yuva’s platform (compilation author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 366k
Légende Fig. 13. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Section through the outer marble facing of the eastern edge near the south-eastern corner (drawing J. Pecher).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 48k
Légende Fig. 14. The Uzun Yuva’s eastern edge seen from northeast (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 139k
Légende Fig. 15. City map of the town of Milas. Detail with ancient structures in black (drawing author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 234k
Légende Fig. 16. Detail of the terrace wall around the Uzun Yuva (unknown photographer 1960).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 290k
Légende Fig. 17. Terrace wall around the Uzun Yuva. Detail of an ashlar’s outer surface (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 198k
Légende Fig. 18. Terrace wall around the Uzun Yuva. South-eastern corner seen from south-east (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 278k
Légende Fig. 19. Ionic column once standing to the west of the Uzun Yuva (engravingdetail from Pococke 1745, pl. 54).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 143k
Légende Fig. 20. Eastern front of the Uzun Yuna (drawing J. Pecher).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-20.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 117k
Légende Fig. 21. Best preserved upper foot-moulding piece from the Uzun Yuva’s platform. Now museum Milas (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-21.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 208k
Légende Fig. 22. Lesbian cyma of the Uzun Yuva’s foot-mouldins (photo author)
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-22.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 162k
Légende Fig. 23. Lesbian cyma between the frieze and the Maussoleion at Hallikarnassos (photo author)
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-23.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 148k
Légende Fig.24. Lesbian cyma of the quadriga pedestal’s foot-moulding at the fop of the Maussoleion at Hallikarnassos (photo author and from jeppesen 2002, fig 8. 6b).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-24.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 151k
Légende Fig. 25. The Uzun Yuva’s platform. Bronze dowel at the southeastern corner (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-25.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 104k
Légende Fig. 26. Temple of Athena Polias at Priene. Biconical bronze dowel. Now London, British Museum (sketch W. Koenigs).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-26.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 78k
Légende Fig. 27. The Uzun Yuva’s krepidoma. Dashed lower part reconstructed (drawing author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-27.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 65k
Légende Fig. 28. Speculative completion of the Uzun Yuva’s platform as a Proto-Maussolleion (compilation author using slightly modified the Maussolleion-reconstruction of Hoepfner 2002).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-28.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 300k
Légende Fig. 29. Distribution of late Classical and Hellenistic tombs (black dots) around the Hisarbaşı hill (grey layers) with the Uzun Yuva (black rectangle) and its terrace (black framed rectangle), and findspots of late Geometric pottery (black triangles) in the town of Milas (compilation author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-29.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 288k
Légende Fig. 30. Gümüşkesen-mausoleum in the western necropolis of Mylasa (photo author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2708/img-30.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 375k

Auteur

Christian-Albrechts Universität zu Kiel

© Ausonius Éditions, 2010

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540