Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Hellenistic Karia

 | 
Carbon Jan-Mathieu van Bremen Riet

Part two. Hekatomnid Karia and its legacy

Hekatomnos, Persian satrap or Greek dynast? The tomb at Berber Ini

Olivier Henry

Texte intégral

  • 1 Robert 1935, 338, fig. 5.
  • 2 Robert 1937, 572, n. 3. Hekatomnos established his capital at Mylasa as the first dynast/satrap of (...)
  • 3 The tomb was first published by Akarca 1971 and Bean 1971, 43, pl. 4.
  • 4 Debord 1999, 375.
  • 5 A recent architectural study was published by Roos 2006, 10-12.

1After his first trip to Karia, L. Robert noted the exceptional character of the rock-cut ‘temple’ grave of Berber İni near Mylasa in Karia (fig. 1.1)1. He was so impressed by the structure that he suggested, in a later publication, that it could be the tomb of Hekatomnos2. The author offered no argument to support this thesis, which was limited to a short footnote3. Since then, other scholars have had the same idea4. But, none of them provided any specific evidence to support this theory. The aim of the present study is to have a new look at the question, based on a geographical, topographical, architectural5 and structural analysis of this unique grave, and to discuss the consequences of such a possible identification.

The Date

  • 6 Most recently, Hellmann 2002, chs 7-9.
  • 7 See Hellmann 2002, 136-42, for a general discussion, and Coulton 1979 for a more detailed study.
  • 8 The poor quality of stone forbids any precise measurement.
  • 9 Hellmann 2002, 138; these capitals are related to the eighth group, as defined by Coulton 1979, 10 (...)
  • 10 Roux 1961, 129, 178-9 and 323; Fraisse & Llinias 1995, 94-9.

2The dating of the monument, which has never been attempted with any precision, is the crucial first step in an attempt at identification. On this subject, the architectural details present many clues. Recent studies of Greek architecture suggest that the form and the characteristics of the Greek orders are significant in determining a chronology6. According to these studies, and despite the availability of a wide range of ‘canonical’ building types, the chronological development of the Doric order seems to have followed a coherent evolution7. It is determined by two principal parameters: the first is the ratio between the height of the echinus and the height of the capital; the second is based on the profile of the echinus. In our case (fig. 1.2), although the ratio of the heights cannot be precisely calculated, its average stays between 0.33 and 0.368. These values correspond to a structure worked out before the mid-fourth century BC9. This dating may be confirmed by the analysis of the shape of the shoulder of the echinus, which has a low profile and shows a very clean separation from the abacus. All of the few known examples that have such a profile belong to the first third of the fourth century BC10. It seems clear, on that basis, that the dating of the tomb of Berber İni should be considered to lie between 400 and 370-360 BC, the early years of the Hekatomnid period.

Fig. 1.1. Berber İni, General view. Fig. 1.2. Berber İni, Detail. Fig. 1.3. Berber İni, Detail. Fig. 1.4. Labraunda – Andron B (Hellström 1994, 52).

  • 11 Roos 2006, 12 considers this a ‘normal feature of rock-cut tombs in Caria’, which is obvious since (...)

3This way of dating might appear fragile; however, a second point, concerning the very peculiar style of the façade of the grave, seems to corroborate the chronology. The façade offers a classical Doric colonnade distyle in antis, but its entablature with a double fascia followed by an ovolo under the geison has none of the proper characteristics of the Doric order: these features correspond to the classical Ionic scheme (fig. 1.3)11.

  • 12 See especially Westholm 1963. The authors considered this element either as a local variation or a (...)
  • 13 A Doric architrave bearing a dedication under a frieze with triglyphs and metopes, crowned by a co (...)
  • 14 The starting date of the Mausolean project at Labraunda is still under discussion. It seems, howev (...)

4Although it is hard to compare the unique style of this tomb to any other building, one must remember that such architectural experiments are not unknown in Karia. The excavations at the Karian sanctuary of Labraunda have brought to light many structures built on the same principle of mixing the orders12. The andrones A and B, for example, offer an Ionic colonnade distyle in antis supporting a Doric entablature13. The dedication carved on the architrave of andron B gives a date of the construction during the reign of Mausollos, i. e. 377-353 BC (fig. 1.4)14.

  • 15 This point would also explain the lack of fluting on the columns.

5This way of mixing the orders in official buildings allows us to establish a filiation between the grave of Berber İni and the fourth-century architectural program conducted at Labraunda. Yet there are some important differences between the buildings of the two sites that need to be investigated: on the one hand, we see a Doric colonnade under an Ionic entablature at Mylasa, on the other, an Ionic colonnade under a Doric entablature at Labraunda – the exact opposite. At Berber İni the constraints due to the material could provide one explanation. The rock face at Berber İni, in which the grave has been cut, is made of a very crumbly limestone which restricts an elaborated workmanship of relief and decorations15. Therefore, it is probable that preference was given to a Doric colonnade associated with a blank Ionic entablature, two simplified forms that made it possible to avoid detailed carving.

  • 16 Hellström 1994, 51.
  • 17 Vitruvius 4.3.1.
  • 18 The attribution of this building to Pytheos is currently being discussed. In his study of the arch (...)
  • 19 The development of this architectural movement is described today as the ‘Ionian Renaissance’: see (...)

6In addition to the technical parameters, the identity of the architects in charge of the design of these monuments might help to explain the differences in style. In the program carried out at Labraunda, the Ionic order was preferred for the religious architecture. It is known from Vitruvius that Pytheos, who probably participated in the construction schedule at Labraunda16, did not believe that ‘the Doric order was suited for temples’17. One cannot therefore exclude the possibility that he influenced the design of other buildings of the same time, such as andron B18. The arrival of such architects at Labraunda probably marked a rupture in the design of the religious architecture. It would have passed from conventional, Doric, structures to buildings whose architectural development was more daring and required greater technical control, such as the details of the Ionic order19. In other words, if the grave at Berber İni clearly appears to date from the first third of the fourth century, it was probably conceived before this change of style, i.e. before the first building of the architectural project that Maussollos developed for Labraunda.

The Type

  • 20 There are also isolated tombs at Keramos and on the peninsula of Halikarnassos (Yalıkavak, Gürice (...)
  • 21 See for example Roos 1976, who tried to develop a typology based on the proportions of the dentils
  • 22 Kaunos E01 and E30, see Roos 1972, 42 and 47.
  • 23 Roos 1985, 29-30.
  • 24 Roos 1985, 46-7.
  • 25 The grave C50 for example: Roos 1972, 38-9.
  • 26 Roos 1985, 41-2.
  • 27 Kubitschek & Reichel 1893, 12: Robert 1954, 86; Astrom 1957, 205.
  • 28 In fact it is the dominant type.
  • 29 It appears, however, to be the only one to present such a developed colonnade associated to an ent (...)
  • 30 D2 and D6 in Roos 2006, 60-3.
  • 31 Roos 2006, 38-9.
  • 32 However, in all these cases the façade does not have a colonnade.
  • 33 Roos 1972 and 2006.

7The dating of the grave being settled, it seems necessary now to question its type. The grave of Berber İni belongs to the type of rock-cut ‘temple’ tombs. Common to Karia, this type is concentrated particularly along the coast of the Keramic Gulf and in the area of Kaunos20. Even if it is difficult to establish a precise typology for these monuments21, it is still possible to define some general groups starting with criteria such as the general installation of the tomb, the order of the façade, the organization of the colonnade, the shape of the entablature, the characteristics of the pronaos, the type of opening and closing systems or internal installation like ceiling, burial, decoration, etc. When analysed according to these criteria, the grave of Berber İni presents many common points with the other rock-cut ‘temple’ tombs. It is carved in a niche, like some of the tombs at Kaunos22, Octapolis23 or Solungur24; it shares too the Doric order with certain tombs of Kaunos25, Evgile26 and Tabai27; finally, its colonnade distyle in antis is very widespread28, like the sequence of the entablature – if one forgets the frieze – made of two fascias under an ovolo crowned by a geison29. Its obliterated pronaos on the other hand is rarer: only for some tombs, in Idyma30, Octapolis, Solungur and Yenice31, was this form adopted32. As for the aspect of its principal opening – a frame surmounted by a hyperthyron – it appears relatively frequently in rock-cut funerary architecture (the examples are numerous both at Kaunos and Idyma) but generally this type of opening shows false double doors with fictive panels33.

  • 34 The region of Tabai (supra n. 27) is not considered Karian before the end of the fourth century BC
  • 35 These features exist mostly in Phrygia and Etruria but not in Karia.
  • 36 If these forms of representation are indeed meant to show a temple façade: see the remark of Jeppe (...)

8Thus, the grave of Berber İni belongs without question to the family of the rock-cut ‘temple’ tombs. However, a number of particular characteristics make it radically different from the other rock-cut monuments. First of all, it is the only one in Karia to have a half-engaged colonnade: in all other cases the columns are disengaged from the rock face34. Besides, in all the Karian rock-cut ‘temple’ tombs, the funerary room is reached through a door cut in the centre of the façade, the door of the ‘temple’35. In Berber İni, however, the distinction between the main building and the funerary space is very clear. The former dominates the latter; the false door of the ‘temple’ is completely blind and the access to the funerary space is placed under the stylobate of the colonnade36.

  • 37 One cannot accept the assumption of Akarca 1971, that the inner chamber would be an alcove reserve (...)
  • 38 As for example the grave at Ortaokul in Mylasa (Akarca 1952, 399-405, Pl. LXXV-LXXVII).
  • 39 This tomb was discovered by the author during a survey led by P. Debord and E. Varinlioğlu. It wil (...)
  • 40 Newton & Pullan 1862, 480-511; Krischen 1944, 173; Dinsmoor 1950, 257 and Waywell 1980, 5-7.
  • 41 First published by Lebas 1888, Pl. II. 9, it has often been mentioned by scholars since (Westholm (...)
  • 42 See Jeppesen 2002 for the analysis of the superstructure.

9A second interesting point is the internal arrangement of this funerary space (fig. 2). The complicated interior installation of the grave of Berber İni, showing a chamber and an antechamber37, does not exist in any other rock-cut ‘temple’ tomb. This configuration is more current in tombs with a built underground chamber or covered by an earth mound38. Even then, the examples associating such a complex internal organization with a superstructure are quite rare. A tomb with such characteristics is located in the centre of the town of Hyllarima39. Here, the funerary space, formulated with a sequence of dromos/ vestibule/funerary chamber, is crowned by a structure probably linked with cultic activities, but it is a very unusual case since the whole building is covered by a tumulus. Another example is the Lion Tomb at Knidos (fig. 3.1)40, but the internal installation, with its multiplicity of radiant burials, is too different from that of Berber İni to justify a thorough comparative analysis. A third example is the monumental built tomb from Labraunda (fig. 3.2)41. In its topographical position and its conception on various levels, this grave offers several features for comparison with the tomb of Berber İni. Unfortunately the advanced degradation of its upper parts forbids any further comparisons. Thus there is no tomb but the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos42 to present sufficient common points with the grave of Berber İni. Indeed, both have a complex internal organization located under a superstructure adopting the shape of a cultic building, both are of Hekatomnid origin, and finally both occupy a specific and unusually dominant position.

Fig. 2. Grave of Berber İni (Akarca 1971, and Roos 2006, pl. 34).

  • 43 Akarca 1952, 399-405.
  • 44 Akarca 1952, 405.
  • 45 The exact location of this structure is not known. Bean 1971, fig. 2, gave a plan of the city and (...)
  • 46 Akerstedt 2001.
  • 47 See for example Akerstedt 2001, 14-17, fig. 9.
  • 48 Generally around the circuit wall of the city. At Mylasa, nevertheless, the defensive walls have n (...)

10Many necropoleis have been discovered these last years around Mylasa. They are distributed between the the plain and the slopes of the hills dominating the modern city. The oldest known structures are those of Ortaokul43, in the south-eastern part of the city, and of Damlacık44, at the foot of Sodra Dağ45. They are dated to the years 325-300. Other, later funerary structures, excavated in 1938, have recently been published46. They belong to a large necropolis located on the south-eastern slope of Hıdırlık Tepe47, where about sixty tombs are located. Although they appear dispersed, all these necropoleis probably girded the ancient city of Mylasa48. Today all these graves have disappeared below the modern city.

Fig. 3.1. Lion tomb of Knidos (Fletcher 1975, 160).
Fig. 3.2. Built tomb at Labraunda (Lebas 1888, pl. II. 9).

The Location

  • 49 It is located above the current cemetery on the periphery of the modern city.
  • 50 See Hornblower 1982, 313; Debord 1999, 375.
  • 51 Hornblower 1982, 313, seems to link the grave to the site of Beçin. However the ‘short walk from t (...)

11The tomb of Berber İni just escapes the sprawl of the urban area. It is located at approximately three kilometers to the south-west of the city, on the south side of the principal road leading to the coast, towards Güllük, Bodrum and Iasos49. Although the tomb appears isolated, a geographical analysis clearly shows that it was related to the Hekatomnid presence in the area50, i.e. to the site of Beçin or that of Mylasa51.

12The plain of Mylasa (modern Milas, fig. 4.1), between Sodra Dağ in the west and the Batı Menteşe Dağları in the east, is at the centre of a complex topographic configuration. It is located at the crossroads of the major east-west and north-south routes of Karia. Towards the north one crosses a plain that extends several kilometers, circumvents the Sodra Dağ, and reaches Herakleia under Latmos and Miletos via Euromos. Towards the south it starts at a large valley at the junction of Sodra Dağ and Batı Menteşe Dağları and reaches, via Beçin, the north coast of the gulf of Keramos. To the east, a route leads into central Karia, passing through Batı Menteşe Dağları via the site of Kuyruklu Kalesi and reaching the city of Stratonikeia and the upper valley of the Marsyas river. The only route leading west crosses Sodra Dağ at the site of Berber İni by a difficult but practicable pass which opens out onto the Aegean coast, the sites of Iasos and Bargylia and the peninsula of Halikarnassos.

  • 52 For a general discussion of the fortifications around the plain of Mylasa see Rumscheid 1999.
  • 53 Radt 1969-70, 168, 174 dates the primitive occupation of Kuyruklu Kalesi to the 6th-5th centuries (...)
  • 54 As for example Burgaz Kalesi, established during the fourth century and probably related to the in (...)
  • 55 Pimouguet-Pédarros 2000, 220.
  • 56 Bean 1971, 20.
  • 57 Str. 14.2.23.
  • 58 This is attested by unfinished carved blocks, drainage channels streaking the rock plate, etc.
  • 59 At the time of the installation of the Hekatomnids at Mylasa, the Aegean coast and Halikarnassos s (...)
  • 60 This system of defence, ensured by strengthened akropoleis disseminated around a urban centre, is (...)

13Each one of these main routes seems to have had a system of defence that provided proper control52: the fortresses of Kuyruklu Kalesi in the east, Beçin Kalesi in the south53, and a number of small structures in the north54. The defence system for the western section of the plain and the access towards the littoral remains a problem still under discussion. Even if a polygonal wall has been uncovered at the top of the hill of Hıdırlık above the city, the function of this installation is not obvious55. It seems to have been merely used as a refuge for the population of the city in case of danger56. When Strabo travelled to Mylasa, he noted the strategic weakness of the city, founded at the foot of an abruptly steep hill (fig. 4.2)57. The western access to the plain of Mylasa is today the only route that appears to be deprived of fortifications intended to ensure control and surveillance. However, during a visit to the site, it became clear that the platform situated immediately above the tomb was not a natural formation. It was probably in use for a long time as a quarry58, and there is no doubt that it carried some built structures as well. The marks left in the rocky ground are still clearly visible (fig. 5.1). Besides, if each of the access roads to the plain, and therefore to the city, was strengthened and controlled, then it is both necessary and plausible to assume a defensive structure also at this, its western part59. The best place for it would have been the site of Berber İni which offers a complete panorama not only of the plain, but also of the pass that cuts across Sodra Dağ from east to west (fig. 5.2)60.

Fig. 4.1. Map of the plain of Mylasa, its routes and its defensive organization.
Fig. 4.2. View of the town of Milas, seen from Beçin.

  • 61 Only a few of the courses of the fortification wall of the akropolis of Muğla are preserved, altho (...)
  • 62 It is surprising that Strabo apparently did not know of a fortification at Berber İni, but it is p (...)

14It can thus be reasonably supposed that this strategically important place was the location of a defensive structure. Unfortunately, most obvious traces of such a structure have disappeared following an intensive re-employment followed in turn by a quarrying of the rock. But this phenomenon is not unique in Karia and several examples may be cited of structures re-used down to their foundations61. In sum, the monumental grave of Berber İni, far from being isolated, may have been associated with one of the highest and most visible defensive installations of the plain of Mylasa62. Unique in its location, this tomb is also distinctive by its topographic situation. At a high altitude, and turned towards the east, i. e. towards Beçin and Mylasa, it seems to dominate the entire territory of the city. Its isolation from other funerary structures reinforces this impression.

  • 63 Nearby one can find another, very simple, rock-cut tomb, probably of a very different period.
  • 64 Influence also shown by the Greek temple façade of the tomb of Berber İni.
  • 65 The Hellenization of the Karian dynasts is well known, in particular at the time of Maussollos: se (...)
  • 66 See Marchegay 1998. This type of regulation existed in many places, in particular in Lykia: see Sc (...)

15Other than sites with similar structures, Mylasa has only one rock-cut ‘temple’ tomb63. Moreover it is known that in a city on the Greek model, or at least of Greek culture, as was Mylasa64, the funerary rights and granting of burial site were governed by very strict regulations65. This tomb can thus only be that of an exceptional individual, a member of the elite of Hekatomnid society and with the ability to free himself from the rules imposed on the common people66.

Fig. 5.1. Berber İni, remains of occupation. Fig.
5.2. General view of Berber İni (Akarca 1971).

  • 67 Here we understand as heroon a grave which occupied a central position in the city (tumulus of Hyl (...)
  • 68 Without an epigraphic testimony it is of course impossible to be absolutely certain of the identif (...)

16In conclusion, it appears that the grave of Berber İni dates back to the first third of the fourth century BC.; that the style of the tomb is not only related to the Hekatomnids’way of building, but also makes for an absolutely unique structure; that the only graves that can be compared with Berber İni are exceptional tombs, whose status as heroa is undeniable67; finally that the tomb is clearly separated from the usual necropoleis by its location, indicating that the aim of the builder of the tomb was not only to dissociate himself from the rest of the population, but also to impose his imprint on the Mylasan landscape. These observations serve to confirm the intuition of L. Robert: that this tomb might very well be that of Hekatomnos68.

Implications

  • 69 The Hekatomnids are the only local dynasty to have reached the status of satraps. See Briant 1996, (...)
  • 70 In general see Isager 1994 and notably the papers of Pedersen 1994b, 11-31 for urbanism and Waywel (...)
  • 71 See Rumscheid, this volume, showing that Mausollos started the construction, at Mylasa, of what mi (...)
  • 72 This term, introduced by Dinsmoor 1950, 216, then borrowed by Bammer 1972, 34-5, and Gruben, 1976, (...)

17Such a conclusion raises a number of questions. Two are particularly urgent: who built the tomb of Berber İni, and why this type of tomb? The question as to its creator is crucial given that the tomb is unique, conceived in a dynastic context for a unique dynast/satrap69, and pioneering in its architectural characteristics. But if kings and dynasts are known often to have themselves conceived the shape of their future resting-place, in this specific case it would be very surprising if Hekatomnos did so. The tomb’s architectural audacity is not something we can easily associate with what is known of Hekatomnos, nor do we have any evidence that he ever commisioned any building, in contrast to his son Maussollos, who is famous for the urban, military and religious architectural developments he brought to Karia70. Given the funerary project Maussollos carried out for himself at Halikarnassos71 and the ‘Architectural Renaissance’ 72he initiated at Labraunda, it is but a short step to seeing him as the originator also of the grave of Berber İni, a tomb conceived to honour his father Hekatomnos, the dynasty’s founder. The assumption that Maussollos may have conceived the grave of Berber İni can provide a partial explanation for the origin of this tomb.

  • 73 Fedak 1990, 49-50 and Briant 1996, 182-3. We deliberately leave aside the Phrygian rock-cut graves (...)
  • 74 These particularly close relationships, most probably in existence even before the appointment of (...)

18Rock-cut graves are well-known in Asia Minor, and in the close vicinity of Karia they are found especially in Lykia. But none of the Lykian graves that offer a house-like façade can be compared either in dimension or in style to that at Mylasa. The only monumental rockcut graves that the Hekatomnids could have encountered were located in Persia, in the royal necropolis of Naqš-i Rustam, near Persepolis (fig. 6.1)73. Even if Mylasa seems far away from Persepolis, the Hekatomnids, who belonged to an established family of local Karian dynasts and had been granted the rank of satrap, must have counted among their duties the regular visits to the King at Persepolis. Besides, the sources attest that members of a satrapal family and especially the first-born were at least partially educated at the Persian court74. The royal rock-cut tombs at Naqš-i Rustam must have been well known to the Hekatomnids.

  • 75 The first such were built in Makedonia, around the mid-fourth century. But the type, a built chamb (...)
  • 76 Coupel & Demargne 1969.
  • 77 Borchhardt 1970.
  • 78 Fedak 1990, 68 and Martin 1971.
  • 79 One can deduce from the current topography of the city that certain pillars had been similarly pla (...)
  • 80 Keen 1992, 62.
  • 81 Coupel & Demargne 1969, 27.
  • 82 The inscribed pillar is 9,71 m high: Deltour-Levie 1982, 164.

19If the general idea of carving a monumental grave may have come from a Persian model, the iconography offered by the façade of the grave of Berber İni seems to have been directly inspired by a Greek cultural background. Yet, despite being drawn as a Greek temple distyle in antis, it is worth noting that such a form of burial was totally unknown at this period in Greece75. At the beginning of the fourth century BC there are only two known examples of a tomb built on a ‘Greek temple’ model. Both are located in the immediate vicinity of Karia, in Lykia: the Nereid monument at Xanthos76, and the herôon of Limyra77. The Nereid monument (fig. 6.2) – the tomb of Arbinas, the last dynast of Xanthos, who died about 370 BC – occupies a particular place in the dynastic funerary landscape of Xanthos by its very innovative style as well as by its position. First, its iconography, the shape of the building and the techniques of construction, offer a picture of a culture closely influenced by the Greek world, as opposed to the old Perso-Lykian funerary tradition (funerary pillars): a new expression of a Graeco-Lykian art78. Second, the establishment of a monument away from any funerary context was new in Xanthos79. A.G. Keen explains this new feature as the result of a lack of space80. However, it is clear that the tomb has not been randomly placed81. It occupies a prominent position, at the entrance to the city, which reveals the intention of giving an ostentatious and sovereign character to an already monumental building. Located inside an enclosure, the structure reached 13.50 m in height, which is higher than the tallest known funerary pillar of the former dynastic funerary type of Lykia (fig. 6.3)82. The body of the building includes a rectangular podium supporting a sepulchral chamber which has the shape of a small peripteral Ionic temple. It was richly decorated and one could see in the west pediment the dynastic couple sitting amongst their courtiers. While the Nereid monument was being built in the western part of Lykia, a very similar tomb was erected further east. The herôon of Limyra (fig. 6.4) was built by Perikles for the local dynast Trbbẽnimi. It presents many common points with the Nereid monument. Its situation on the slope of the acropolis is exceptional since it dominates the entire city. The building is set at the centre of a temenos-type space dug in the rock. As at Xanthos, the tomb is made up of a high podium which supports the ‘temple-shaped’ funerary room (tetrastyle amphiprostyle whose columns are replaced by Karyatids). Here again, deliberate emulation of a Greek model is clearly present.

Fig. 6.1. General view of the necropolis of Naqš-i Rustam (Boardman 2000, 2.27b).
Fig. 6.2. Nereids monument (Coupel & Demargne 1969, pl. 100).
Fig. 6.3. Inscribed pillar of Xanthos (Borchhardt 1970, fig.31).
Fig. 6.4. Herôon of Limyra (Borchhardt 1970, fig. 2).

  • 83 Keen 1998, 151.
  • 84 Theopompus, FGrHist 115, F103.17. Little is known about Perikles’motivations. The conclusions of K (...)
  • 85 It is probable that the intervention of the central Persian authorities was not solely related to (...)
  • 86 See Debord 1999, 354 invoking the opinion of Bryce 1980, 379. The form even of the herôon of Limyr (...)

20For Lykia, the emergence of these new types of tombs, clearly contrasting with the local funerary tradition, is not fortuitous and seems to have originated in a particular political context. Indeed, the construction period of both monuments was followed by a time of particularly tense relations between the Lykian dynasts and the Persian authorities. In Xanthos, it is not known whether Artembares directly succeeded Arbinas. If, as proposed by A.G. Keen, he was sent by Autophradates, satrap of Lykia, to succeed him83, then the brutal change at the head of the city, the sudden stop of the construction of traditional dynastic tombs and finally the installation amongst the locals of a Persian military officer all indicate the will of the satrap to reinstate Lykia under closer Persian control. This assumption seems to be supported in the east by the cessation of the relations between Perikles of Limyra and the central Persian power84. In this context, the erection of funerary monuments bult in a new style can be regarded as symbolic of the Lykian response, which seems to turn towards the Greek world as a sign of dissidence against the central Persian authority85. In this respect, the name chosen by Perikles of Limyra can be interpreted as ‘un symbole, même approximatif, de la lutte pour la liberté et contre l’ oppression perse’86.

  • 87 See Debord 1999, 353.
  • 88 See Jenkins 1959, 36 and Debord 1999, 354.
  • 89 By Theopompus, FGrHist 115, F103.17, but also in an inscription carved on an altar dedicated to Ze (...)
  • 90 On the coinage and its common points with the Lykian dynastic coinages see Debord 1999, 138. On He (...)
  • 91 Sources are so numerous that scholars, such as Petit 1988, 313-20, or Childs 1981, 75 and n. 2, de (...)

21To a certain degree the Hekatomnids seem to have followed the same path. When, around 370 BC, Perikles put forward his claims to dominate the whole of Lykia, he took three symbolic actions87: he built a monument in the Greek style, breaking away from the traditional type of tomb; he issued a new coinage clearly dissociated from the Persian88; he may also have proclaimed himself basileus of Lykia, as is suggested in some of the sources89. Yet, when the Hekatomnid dynasts became satraps, they kept almost the same Karian monetary types as used hitherto90, and they were called ‘kings’91. Moreover, if the grave at Berber İni belongs to Hekatomnos, the first of the Karian dynast-satraps was buried in a new type of monumental ‘Greek-style’ tomb. Thus the question of the motivation of the Hekatomnids, whose authority was supported by the Persians, arises: did they try to project an image of a certain independence from the central Persian power?

  • 92 See the text of Herodotus mentioning οἱ Κᾶρες (Hdt. 5.118) during the Ionian revolt, but the term (...)
  • 93 Karian royalty is attested as early as the time of the Persian wars. Herakleides of Mylasa (known (...)
  • 94 I.Mylasa 10, 1-2:] Καρῶν βασιλ[ε
    ]ξατράπης Σ[
    This inscription is at the origin of a long debate, es (...)
  • 95 As a priesthood of Zeus Karios of Mylasa and of Zeus Labraundeus at the sanctuary of Mylasa or eve (...)

22This question, which was generated by the title ‘King of the Karians’ which the Hekatomnids bore, is still relevant. It is still argued by scholars that the Karian ‘kingship’ carried both symbolic and political weight, not least because it was grafted onto a particular form of political organization, the koinon. This term is mentioned for the first time in the reign of Maussollos92, but it is probable that even before this date a particular organizational structure representing the local Karian communities existed independently of any institutional Persian framework93. Nonetheless, in an inscription of the fourth century BC, the terms of satrap and king do not appear as incompatible94. According to S. Hornblower, the title could correspond to the image of an old royal dynasty which, when absorbed by the Persian administration, preserved its royal title only in a local context95.

  • 96 See the Trilingual of Xanthos but also the position of Pixodaros in Plut. Alc. 10.1.
  • 97 Especially during the activities at the sanctuary or during the local festivals, but also in Str. (...)
  • 98 Diodorus only uses the term of dynastes or the related verb for Hekatomnos (14.98.3), Mausollos an (...)
  • 99 Debord 1999, 138.100.
  • 100 F. Rumscheid (this volume) argues that Maussollos intended first to build his monumental tomb at M (...)

23The erection of the tomb of Berber İni, and later of the Mausoleum, seems to contradict this interpretation, as does the fact that the terms ‘satrap’ and ‘king’ are employed in two clearly distinct contexts. Indeed, one speaks about ‘satrap’ in texts related to the role of the Hekatomnids in the Persian sphere of influence96, whereas the term basileus appears either in inscriptions from the region or in the Greek authors97. Besides, if the function of ‘King of the Karians’ was only relevant in a local context, one can hardly explain the recurrence of this term in Greek texts, or the apparent embarrassment of certain ancient authors when trying to qualify the Hekatomnids98. It seems likely that the promotion of the Karian dynasts within the Persian hierarchy did not obliterate their royal identity. As underlined by P. Debord, it appears that for the Greek authors the Hekatomnids stayed what they always were: autochthonous dynasts99. Consequently, one could consider that they sought to preserve the image of a dynasty to which their newly acquired position of satrap would have offered new means of expression. One of the strongest demonstrations of this was the erection of monumental, dynastic, Greco-Persian tombs at Mylasa and later on at Halikarnassos100.

  • 101 The changes in Achaemenid funerary architecture, from the built model of Cyrus at Pasargadae to th (...)
  • 102 The legitimacy of the Hekatomnids seems to have been regularly questioned by local notables. The a (...)
  • 103 See especially the Hekatomnid military operations against Lykia after the Satraps’Revolt (Hornblow (...)
  • 104 Especially when Hekatomnos was sent to subdue the rebels in Cyprus while secretly helping them (Di (...)
  • 105 In particular Isocrates Phil. 103, who appealed to Idrieus to help Philip and the Greeks in an act (...)
  • 106 If it is possible to see a sign of a successful integration into the Persian Empire in the long re (...)

24By setting up such tombs, which borrow their principal characteristics both from Persian royal funerary architecture and from Greek monumental architecture, the Hekatomnids adopted symbols of power as they were represented in the two rival ‘empires’101. Indeed, if the form, and, to a certain extent, the iconography, point towards a Persian funerary symbolic system, the architectural features of these tombs and the ideology surrounding their owner are the signs of a largely Hellenized culture. Thus the Hekatomnids underlined the singularity of their authority by distinguishing it from that of other rulers – neighbouring satraps and local dynasts – and by establishing their legitimacy in the eyes of both the Karian population and the Greeks102. Besides, they also ensured their integration within the Persian Empire, being the guarantors of Achaemenid law and order103, while expressing a philhellenism which can be interpreted as an emancipation – real104 or simulated105 – from the central Persian authority. In the representation of their authority as well as in its exercise, the Hekatomnids seem to have intended to put their satrapal power at the service of their dynastic ambitions106.

  • 107 And most probably by the tomb of Idrieus in Labraunda, see Henry 2006.
  • 108 As it appears in the epigraphic, numismatic and political arguments discussed by Hornblower and De (...)
  • 109 Briant 1996, 183 (on the constructions of Darius and his successors): ‘cet art nouveau et par exce (...)
  • 110 See for example the Mausoleum at Belevi (Praschniker & Theuer 1979; Hoepfner 1993), the Charmyleio (...)

25To sum up, if the tomb at Berber İni is indeed that of Hekatomnos, it could be the first important step – followed by Maussollos’tomb at Halikarnassos107 – in a development of a Hekatomnid dynastic funerary architecture. It might then also confirm the ambiguity of the position of the dynasty108. Between two rival entities, the Persian kingdom and the Greek world, the Hekatomnids appear to have used the power of the former in order to get closer to the latter. Acting and building as autonomous kings109 within a complex international grid, they also provided a model for the later rulers of the Hellenistic kingdoms who tried to symbolize their power through the construction of monumental tombs, mostly following the examples of Berber İni and Halikarnassos110.

Notes

1 Robert 1935, 338, fig. 5.

2 Robert 1937, 572, n. 3. Hekatomnos established his capital at Mylasa as the first dynast/satrap of Karia: Hornblower 1982, 36-8; Debord 1999, 134.

3 The tomb was first published by Akarca 1971 and Bean 1971, 43, pl. 4.

4 Debord 1999, 375.

5 A recent architectural study was published by Roos 2006, 10-12.

6 Most recently, Hellmann 2002, chs 7-9.

7 See Hellmann 2002, 136-42, for a general discussion, and Coulton 1979 for a more detailed study.

8 The poor quality of stone forbids any precise measurement.

9 Hellmann 2002, 138; these capitals are related to the eighth group, as defined by Coulton 1979, 103.

10 Roux 1961, 129, 178-9 and 323; Fraisse & Llinias 1995, 94-9.

11 Roos 2006, 12 considers this a ‘normal feature of rock-cut tombs in Caria’, which is obvious since almost all the rock-cut ‘temple’ tombs offer an Ionic order. However, an example given by the same author of another rock-cut ‘temple’ tomb showing a Doric colonnade (Kaunos, C50 in Roos 1972, 38-9) has a Doric entablature with a frieze made of metopes and triglyphs.

12 See especially Westholm 1963. The authors considered this element either as a local variation or as a misunderstanding of the Greek Doric order, depending on whether this mixing of orders is understood as an ‘architectural experiment’ (see Pedersen 1994b, 24) or as a ‘barbarism’ (see Tomlinson 1963, 163 and Hornblower 1982, 310, n. 126).

13 A Doric architrave bearing a dedication under a frieze with triglyphs and metopes, crowned by a cornice with mutulus.

14 The starting date of the Mausolean project at Labraunda is still under discussion. It seems, however, to have taken place during the first years of Maussollos’ reign, and the goal of these constructions may have been the attempt to gain the favour of Zeus before starting the construction of the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos. On this point see Hoepfner & Schwander 1994, 192 and Hellström 1994, 52. The dedication of andron A is quite fragmentary, but the most recent studies seem to attribute its construction to Idrieus, who was the most active builder in the sanctuary. He totally reorganized the area and enriched it within the few years of his reign (351-344 BC). Cf. for example the number of Idrieus’dedications (I. Labraunda II, 15-19) to Maussollos’solitary one (I. Labraunda II, 14).

15 This point would also explain the lack of fluting on the columns.

16 Hellström 1994, 51.

17 Vitruvius 4.3.1.

18 The attribution of this building to Pytheos is currently being discussed. In his study of the architects and the sculptors, Waywell attributed the building to Satyros (Waywell 1978, 79-80). For the present discussion it does not matter much whether it was Pytheos or Satyros, the practices of these two architects are very close: see for example the book they wrote together on the construction of the Mausoleum (related by Vitruvius, in the foreword of Book VII).

19 The development of this architectural movement is described today as the ‘Ionian Renaissance’: see the volume edited by J. Isager 1994, and Pedersen 2001-2002, and see Pedersen in this volume.

20 There are also isolated tombs at Keramos and on the peninsula of Halikarnassos (Yalıkavak, Gürice and Turgutreis).

21 See for example Roos 1976, who tried to develop a typology based on the proportions of the dentils.

22 Kaunos E01 and E30, see Roos 1972, 42 and 47.

23 Roos 1985, 29-30.

24 Roos 1985, 46-7.

25 The grave C50 for example: Roos 1972, 38-9.

26 Roos 1985, 41-2.

27 Kubitschek & Reichel 1893, 12: Robert 1954, 86; Astrom 1957, 205.

28 In fact it is the dominant type.

29 It appears, however, to be the only one to present such a developed colonnade associated to an entablature without a frieze.

30 D2 and D6 in Roos 2006, 60-3.

31 Roos 2006, 38-9.

32 However, in all these cases the façade does not have a colonnade.

33 Roos 1972 and 2006.

34 The region of Tabai (supra n. 27) is not considered Karian before the end of the fourth century BC.

35 These features exist mostly in Phrygia and Etruria but not in Karia.

36 If these forms of representation are indeed meant to show a temple façade: see the remark of Jeppesen in Roos 1989, 68 and Pedersen 2009. Both of them propose to see in these façades instead the representation of andrones, based mainly on those known at Labraunda and on the triclinia-shape of the funerary chambers. The idea is seductive (also because of the mixture of the orders found both at Berber Ini and Labraunda), but many rock-cut ‘temple’ graves do not have these triclinia, and very often the graves belong to men as well as to women, even sometimes to children. It is however possible that they were first conceived as representation of an andron and then later interpreted and reproduced as representations of temples.

37 One cannot accept the assumption of Akarca 1971, that the inner chamber would be an alcove reserved for the votive deposit: if so, we would expect to find a table or a console, rather than a pit of human dimensions.

38 As for example the grave at Ortaokul in Mylasa (Akarca 1952, 399-405, Pl. LXXV-LXXVII).

39 This tomb was discovered by the author during a survey led by P. Debord and E. Varinlioğlu. It will be published in a collective volume on the city of Hyllarima.

40 Newton & Pullan 1862, 480-511; Krischen 1944, 173; Dinsmoor 1950, 257 and Waywell 1980, 5-7.

41 First published by Lebas 1888, Pl. II. 9, it has often been mentioned by scholars since (Westholm 1963, 101-5, fig. 56-8; Hellström 1965, 57, n. 41, Pl. 6.44 and 7.60, Fedak 1990, 74-6, fig. 80-4). A full architectural study should be published soon by P. Roos (see the manuscript mentioned by Carstens 1999, 76-7, fig. 80-3). For a recent study of this tomb see Henry 2006.

42 See Jeppesen 2002 for the analysis of the superstructure.

43 Akarca 1952, 399-405.

44 Akarca 1952, 405.

45 The exact location of this structure is not known. Bean 1971, fig. 2, gave a plan of the city and indicated, in addition to the location of Ortaokul, that of two Hellenistic tombs. The first is at the foot of the slope of Yeldeğirmeni Tepesi in the northern part of the city, the second is halfway between the temple of Zeus Osogo and Hıdırlık Tepesi.

46 Akerstedt 2001.

47 See for example Akerstedt 2001, 14-17, fig. 9.

48 Generally around the circuit wall of the city. At Mylasa, nevertheless, the defensive walls have never been found. It is not even certain that they existed in the fourth century. On this point see Pimouguet-Pédarros 2000, 220-2.

49 It is located above the current cemetery on the periphery of the modern city.

50 See Hornblower 1982, 313; Debord 1999, 375.

51 Hornblower 1982, 313, seems to link the grave to the site of Beçin. However the ‘short walk from the foot of Peçin’ to Berber İni that he mentions seems more than optimistic. The names Peçin and Beçin indicate the same place and are used indifferently. The current name is Beçin. On the evolution of the name see Akarca 1971, 32.

52 For a general discussion of the fortifications around the plain of Mylasa see Rumscheid 1999.

53 Radt 1969-70, 168, 174 dates the primitive occupation of Kuyruklu Kalesi to the 6th-5th centuries BC, followed by Pimouguet-Pédarros 2000, 182-3. Beçin is regarded as the original seat of the dynasts of Mylasa, developed well before the installation in the plain, and which seems besides to have suffered from the transfer towards current Milas (Hornblower, 1982, 99) probably at the time of Hekatomnos (Debord 1999, 375). On the fortifications of Beçin, see Akarca 1971, 1-37.

54 As for example Burgaz Kalesi, established during the fourth century and probably related to the installation of a defensive network intended to ensure the safety of Labraunda but also of Mylasa (Pimouguet-Pédarros 2000, 314).

55 Pimouguet-Pédarros 2000, 220.

56 Bean 1971, 20.

57 Str. 14.2.23.

58 This is attested by unfinished carved blocks, drainage channels streaking the rock plate, etc.

59 At the time of the installation of the Hekatomnids at Mylasa, the Aegean coast and Halikarnassos seem to have escaped, at least partially, from their control: see Debord 1999, 258, referring to Lysias 28.12 and 17. The establishment of a defensive system on this side of the plain was thus absolutely necessary.

60 This system of defence, ensured by strengthened akropoleis disseminated around a urban centre, is characteristic of Karian settlements of the sixth and fifth centuries. See Pimouguet-Pédarros 2000, 222.

61 Only a few of the courses of the fortification wall of the akropolis of Muğla are preserved, although access to the summit from the plain is very difficult (see Brun 2001, 23-5); but the clearest example is at Altıntaş. This site is located at the entrance to the eastern pass of the mountains separating the valleys of Harpasos and Marsyas, and it carried in antiquity a strong fortress situated on a large rock (Paton 1900, 61, mentions a built fortress and its walls ‘of good isodomic style’). Today nothing remains but the marks of its foundation steps cut in the rock.

62 It is surprising that Strabo apparently did not know of a fortification at Berber İni, but it is possible that it was abandoned early on, once the west coast passed under Hekatomnid control and after Maussollos transferred the Karian capital from Mylasa to Halikarnassos.

63 Nearby one can find another, very simple, rock-cut tomb, probably of a very different period.

64 Influence also shown by the Greek temple façade of the tomb of Berber İni.

65 The Hellenization of the Karian dynasts is well known, in particular at the time of Maussollos: see Robert 1946, 506-23. See for example the institutional process of the assembly of the Mylasans which, at the time of the affair of Arlissis in 367-366 BC, voted the confiscation of its possessions (I. Mylasa 1).

66 See Marchegay 1998. This type of regulation existed in many places, in particular in Lykia: see Schweyer 2002, 45-7 for the funerary rights, and Zahle 1980 for the ‘ruler-tombs’.

67 Here we understand as heroon a grave which occupied a central position in the city (tumulus of Hyllarima and the Mausoleum) or which has been built inside a temenos area (such as the Lion tomb of Knidos, the built tomb of Labraunda and the Mausoleum).

68 Without an epigraphic testimony it is of course impossible to be absolutely certain of the identification. Some scholars, accepting my points, proposed that it could have been the tomb of a high-ranking officer or of another Karian dynast. This proposal is hard to accept since we know that the region of Mylasa belonged to the Hekatomnids since the beginning of the fifth century (Hornblower 1982, 59). It would also be very surprising if the Hekatomnids had first allowed a rival dynast to have such a tomb and then copied its style for the architecture of Labraunda.

69 The Hekatomnids are the only local dynasty to have reached the status of satraps. See Briant 1996, 686-7.

70 In general see Isager 1994 and notably the papers of Pedersen 1994b, 11-31 for urbanism and Waywell 1994, 58-70, for scultpture; chapter IV of Pimouguet-Pédarros 2000 for the military questions; Dinsmoor 1950, and also Gruben, 1976, 323-4 and 378-80 for the religious architecture.

71 See Rumscheid, this volume, showing that Mausollos started the construction, at Mylasa, of what might be called a ‘proto-Mausoleum’.

72 This term, introduced by Dinsmoor 1950, 216, then borrowed by Bammer 1972, 34-5, and Gruben, 1976, 384, is largely accepted today, see Isager 1994 and Pedersen 2002.

73 Fedak 1990, 49-50 and Briant 1996, 182-3. We deliberately leave aside the Phrygian rock-cut graves which are very few and uncertainly dated. Moreover there is no source mentioning any contact between Phrygians and Karians at this period.

74 These particularly close relationships, most probably in existence even before the appointment of Hekatomnos as satrap of Karia (as it is suspected in Lykia: Sekunda 1991, 97 ‘it is probable that the sons of the Lycian dynasts, who, in Lycian inscriptions, boast of their prowess as archers and horsemen in a familiar Persian manner, cf. Herrenschmidt 1985, 125-136, were educated at Persian satrapal or royal courts’), could then explain why, amongst a large number of local dynasts, the Hekatomnids were chosen by the Great King to administer Karia, and also why the Great King had the confidence to give Hekatomnos the leadership of his fleet against Cyprus immediately after his nomination (Theopompus, FGrHist 115, F103; Diod. 14.98. 3-4). See also Pedersen 2001-2002, 124.

75 The first such were built in Makedonia, around the mid-fourth century. But the type, a built chamber covered by an earth mound, is far removed from the tomb of Berber İni.

76 Coupel & Demargne 1969.

77 Borchhardt 1970.

78 Fedak 1990, 68 and Martin 1971.

79 One can deduce from the current topography of the city that certain pillars had been similarly placed (Lion, Harpies, Theatre and Inscribed pillars). See however the remark of Deltour-Levie 1982, 194, with the image of the tomb close to the agora (Demargne 1974, 21), as well as the conclusions of Courtils 2000, concerning the establishment of intramural tombs in Lykia, a phenomenon which does not appear so exceptional.

80 Keen 1992, 62.

81 Coupel & Demargne 1969, 27.

82 The inscribed pillar is 9,71 m high: Deltour-Levie 1982, 164.

83 Keen 1998, 151.

84 Theopompus, FGrHist 115, F103.17. Little is known about Perikles’motivations. The conclusions of Keen 1998, 166-7, suppose a simultaneous designation of Artembares and Mithrapates as responsible for the two halves of Lykia. That could have induced Perikles to revolt. Nevertheless, his position is not very clear: see Debord 1999, 356.

85 It is probable that the intervention of the central Persian authorities was not solely related to the pretension of the dynast of Xanthos (Hornblower 1994, 214).

86 See Debord 1999, 354 invoking the opinion of Bryce 1980, 379. The form even of the herôon of Limyra, whose architecture carries a Greek-inspired decoration mixed with Persian elements, demonstrates clearly that Perikles was familiar with Persian usage, but it does not prove that he was a loyalist dynast at the time of the erection of the monument (contra Keen 1998, 158-9). The building accentuates the ambiguity of his position.

87 See Debord 1999, 353.

88 See Jenkins 1959, 36 and Debord 1999, 354.

89 By Theopompus, FGrHist 115, F103.17, but also in an inscription carved on an altar dedicated to Zeus, son of Kronos and Rhea, by Περι[κλ]ῆς Λυκίας Β[ασιλεύων]: see Wörrle 1991, 203-39, and id. 1993, 187-90; see also Debord 1999, 354, who accepts the restoration.

90 On the coinage and its common points with the Lykian dynastic coinages see Debord 1999, 138. On Hekatomnid coinage see Konuk 1998.

91 Sources are so numerous that scholars, such as Petit 1988, 313-20, or Childs 1981, 75 and n. 2, deny them the title of Satrap. On the existence of a ‘King of the Karians’ most probably even before the time of Maussollos see Hornblower 1982, 61-2. The question is mentioned too in Debord 1999, 137, n. 170. Most of the literary sources are late, except a mention at Athens during the fourth century: Epigenes, in his Mnemation evokes the father of Pixodaros, Hekatomnos ‘King of the Karians’: Edmonds 1959, 559, n. 6.

92 See the text of Herodotus mentioning οἱ Κᾶρες (Hdt. 5.118) during the Ionian revolt, but the term koinon is attested for the first time in I. Mylasa 1. On koina see Debord 2003.

93 Karian royalty is attested as early as the time of the Persian wars. Herakleides of Mylasa (known by Herodotus 5.121) is mentioned in the Suda (s.v. Skylax) as saying that Skylax wrote a book on that ‘king’.

94 I.Mylasa 10, 1-2:] Καρῶν βασιλ[ε
]ξατράπης Σ[
This inscription is at the origin of a long debate, especially concerning the dissociation of the terms Karon and Basileus. Le Bas & Waddington 1870, 388, separated the two terms, whereas Hornblower 1982, 55, n. 28, puts them together on the basis of a Hellenistic inscription mentioning a priest and king of the Karian koinon (I. Mylasa 828, l. 12). See also Debord 1999, 137, n. 170, who agrees with Hornblower and mentions the Lykian inscription TL, 61 (Zahle 1980, 103) in which Autophradates is called King.

95 As a priesthood of Zeus Karios of Mylasa and of Zeus Labraundeus at the sanctuary of Mylasa or even at the meetings of the koinon: Hornblower 1982, 60-1.

96 See the Trilingual of Xanthos but also the position of Pixodaros in Plut. Alc. 10.1.

97 Especially during the activities at the sanctuary or during the local festivals, but also in Str. 14.2.17.

98 Diodorus only uses the term of dynastes or the related verb for Hekatomnos (14.98.3), Mausollos and Artemisia (16.36.2), Idrieus and Ada I (69.2), and Pixodaros (74.2). Id. in Strabo for Ada II (14.2.17). One can also find the term of archon in Theopompus (FGrHist, 115, F299) and of tyrannos in Ps.-Aristotle Oec. 2.2. (1348a).

99 Debord 1999, 138.100.

100 F. Rumscheid (this volume) argues that Maussollos intended first to build his monumental tomb at Mylasa. It even seems possible to trace back the erection of such monumental tombs in Karia up to the end of the 6th century BC, see Henry 2009, 135-137.

101 The changes in Achaemenid funerary architecture, from the built model of Cyrus at Pasargadae to the rock-cut necropolis of Naqš-i Rustam near Persepolis initiated by Darius I, were accompanied by a deep reform of royal ideology which aimed to develop the status of the Great King and the image of his power. See Briant 1996, 184 and in general ch. VI. On the Greek side, the Artemision at Ephesos is not far removed. See also the article of Nylander 1983, who concludes: ‘... le rôle du ‘grécisme’ dans les relations culturelles complexes avec le monde iranien. Rôle non seulement éblouissant mais aussi de compétition et de coexistence avec d’autres traditions fortes et prestigieuses’.

102 The legitimacy of the Hekatomnids seems to have been regularly questioned by local notables. The action of Arlissis, son of Oussollos, sent as ambassador from the Koinon of the Karians to the Great King, who tried to plot against Maussollos, cannot be regarded as the venture of one man. See also two other known attacks, one against the statue of Hekatomnos, the second against the person of Maussollos: these three texts are preserved on the same stele, Tod, II 138 (Syll.3 167) = I. Mylasa 1-3. See also in this volume the article by Fabiani.

103 See especially the Hekatomnid military operations against Lykia after the Satraps’Revolt (Hornblower 1982, 181). Moreover, Debord 1999, 145-6, emphasizes that if the Hekatomnid seem to have systematically taken advantage of the circumstances, their own interest often coincided with the interests of the Empire.

104 Especially when Hekatomnos was sent to subdue the rebels in Cyprus while secretly helping them (Diod. 14.98.3 and 15.2.3); see also the behaviour of Maussollos in the 360s (Hornblower 1982, 179 and 202).

105 In particular Isocrates Phil. 103, who appealed to Idrieus to help Philip and the Greeks in an action against the Persian King. See Debord 1999, 376, n. 12.

106 If it is possible to see a sign of a successful integration into the Persian Empire in the long resistance that Halikarnassos offered to Alexander (Debord 1999, 139), it is also possible to see this as the resistance of a local power against an invader.

107 And most probably by the tomb of Idrieus in Labraunda, see Henry 2006.

108 As it appears in the epigraphic, numismatic and political arguments discussed by Hornblower and Debord (supra).

109 Briant 1996, 183 (on the constructions of Darius and his successors): ‘cet art nouveau et par excellence royal’.

110 See for example the Mausoleum at Belevi (Praschniker & Theuer 1979; Hoepfner 1993), the Charmyleion at Kos (Schatzmann 1934, 110-27), the monumental tomb of Rhodini (Lauter 1972, 49-59; Fraser 1977, 5) or that of the Archokrateion at Lindos (Kähler 1971, 23-4), and many other rock-cut ‘temple’ tombs of the Hellenistic period. In this respect, see Hornblower 1982, 353: ‘Last of the satraps and first of the Diadochi, the Hekatomnids bridge the Classical and the Hellenistic worlds’.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1.1. Berber İni, General view. Fig. 1.2. Berber İni, Detail. Fig. 1.3. Berber İni, Detail. Fig. 1.4. Labraunda – Andron B (Hellström 1994, 52).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2714/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 297k
Légende Fig. 2. Grave of Berber İni (Akarca 1971, and Roos 2006, pl. 34).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2714/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 102k
Légende Fig. 3.1. Lion tomb of Knidos (Fletcher 1975, 160).Fig. 3.2. Built tomb at Labraunda (Lebas 1888, pl. II. 9).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2714/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 279k
Légende Fig. 4.1. Map of the plain of Mylasa, its routes and its defensive organization.Fig. 4.2. View of the town of Milas, seen from Beçin.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2714/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 269k
Légende Fig. 5.1. Berber İni, remains of occupation. Fig.5.2. General view of Berber İni (Akarca 1971).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2714/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 206k
Légende Fig. 6.1. General view of the necropolis of Naqš-i Rustam (Boardman 2000, 2.27b).Fig. 6.2. Nereids monument (Coupel & Demargne 1969, pl. 100).Fig. 6.3. Inscribed pillar of Xanthos (Borchhardt 1970, fig.31).Fig. 6.4. Herôon of Limyra (Borchhardt 1970, fig. 2).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2714/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 261k

Auteur

Koç Üniversitesi, Istanbul

© Ausonius Éditions, 2010

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