Taş Kule: A Persian-Period Tomb near Phokaia

Author(s): Nicholas Cahill

Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 92, No. 4 (Oct., 1988), pp. 481-501
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/505245
Accessed: 25/10/2010 15:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
 Ta? Kule: A Persian-PeriodTomb near Phokaia
NICHOLAS CAHILL
Abstract
A unique freestandingtomb near Phokaia, known as
Tag Kule, is presentedhere, and an attemptmade to ana-
lyze its cultural background.Tag Kule does not belong to
any of the normal Anatolian traditionsin funeraryarchi-
tecture;rather, its unique form should be connectedwith
Persian aristocratsand administratorsliving in Asia Mi-
nor, and with "Persianizing"local nobility. The funerary
traditionsof these aristocratsseem to differ from those of
local nobles and of Persians living in the homeland, and
certain aspects of these "hybrid"traditions, such as false
doors, are discussed. On archaeological and historical
grounds, Tag Kule should probably be dated to the sec-
ond half of the sixth or earlier fifth century B.C., placing
it among the earliest freestandingtombsin Anatolia. The
origins of these tombs may be related to the more general
use of monuments as propagandisticmemorials, and the
historical contextof Tag Kule itself may thus be relatedto
attempts to maintain political controlover this tradition-
ally rebellious area of the Persian empire.
About 7 km east of Eski (the ancient
Fo;a, Turkey
Phokaia) stands an imposing tomb known locally as
Ta? Kule or Ta? Ev (figs. 1-8).' Hewn from a single
outcrop of limestone bedrock, it rises majestically, and
somewhat unexpectedly, from the level valley floor.
There are no traces of ancient settlements in its imme-
diate vicinity; the closest site is Phokaia.2 The modern
road to Eski passes within 100 m of the struc-
Fo;a
I
David Stronach first introducedme to Tag Kule during
a trip through northwesternTurkey in July 1982; many of
the ideas expressed here were first suggested by him during
this trip and in subsequent discussions. Crawford H.
Greenewalt,jr., has given constantguidanceand encourage-
ment, both during the 1983 Sardis field season, when I did
the basic study and recordingof the monument,and in later
research. Permission to study Ta? Kule was graciously
granted by the Turkish General Directorate of Antiquities
and Museums and its Director General, Nurettin Yardimci;
to ExcavationsDivision Assistant Meral G6zibiiyiik, many
thanks for her adviceand support. Tevhit Kekeq,archaeolo-
gist at the Bergama Museum and commissioner for the
fieldwork at Tag Kule, made work at the site a pleasure. R.
Tringham, R. Stroud, J. Borchhardt,G.M.A. Hanfmann,
R.A. Bridges, and J. Zahle all offered many valuable sug-
gestions and criticisms of the manuscript.To all these and
many other friends and colleagues I owe my deepestthanks.
A short report on this study was given in Izmir at the 6th
Annual Congress for the Results of Archaeological Re-
search and Excavationin Turkey, 16-20 April 1984.
2 On excavations at Phokaia, cf.
especially F. Sartiaux,
"De la nouvelle 'i l'ancienne Phoc&e,"CRAI 1914, 6-18;
"Chroniquede Fouilles," BCH 44 (1920) 412; E. Akurgal,
"Les fouilles de Phoc&eet les sondagesde Kyme,"Anatolia 1
481
American Journal of Archaeology 92 (1988)
ture, and the ancient road may have passed this way as
well, since this valley is the shortest and most logical
route from the harbors of Phokaia to the Hermos
River and the main routes to Buruncuk/Larisa, Mag-
nesia ad Sipylus, Sardis, and inland Anatolia. Ta?
Kule must have always been a conspicuous monu-
ment, known to local travelers.
The tomb has not been thoroughly studied, how-
ever. An article written more than a century ago by G.
Weber is the only detailed treatment, and it leaves
many questions unanswered.3 Ta? Kule has received
passing mention in a number of guidebooks and hand-
books of Turkish archaeology, and in treatments of
funerary architecture of Asia Minor, but to date there
has been no systematic study of the monument since
Weber's.4
The relatively brief treatment Ta? Kule has re-
ceived is due in part to its unusual form and structure.
It does not fit easily into established architectural tra-
ditions of Asia Minor; no exact parallels are known for
its shape or decoration. Hence there is no general
agreement about its date or the architectural tradition
to which it belongs. Weber compares it vaguely to
Phrygian tombs, and, pointing out the nearness of La-
risa/Buruncuk, "l'antique cite pelasgique," ascribes it
to the prehellenic epoch. Perrot and Chipiez follow
(1956) 3-14; Akurgal, Die Kunst Anatoliens (Berlin 1961)
17, 180, 283; E. Langlotz,"Beobachtungenin Phokaia,"AA
1969, 377-85; Langlotz, "F. Sartiaux' Phokaia-Karte,"AA
1976, 480-81.
3 G. Weber, "Troistombeauxarchaiquesde Phoc&e," RA
1885, 129-38; I have not seen the article in MovorEov Kal
BLpLOO'K? 7rT7^EayyEALK')S IXoA)S', A?vrepa,
'Eros 1875-76 (Smyrna 1876)HEp•OdOS'
101-102, cited by
WeberHpoTrov,
on p. 132.
4 G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, History of Art in
Phrygia,
Lydia, Caria and Lycia (London 1892) 65-67, figs. 39-41;
Akurgal 1961 (supra n. 2) 294-95, fig. 262; Akurgal, An-
cient Ruins and Civilizations of Turkey (Istanbul 1983)
118, fig. 40; G. Bean, Aegean Turkey (London 1966)
96-97, fig. 23, pl. 20; M. Waelkens, "Das Totenhaus in
Kleinasien,"AntW 11 (1980) 6; Waelkens, "Hausahnliche
Griber in Anatolia vom 3 Jht. v. Chr. bis in die Rdmerzeit,"
in D. Papenfussand V. M. Strockaeds., Palast und Hiitte.
Beitriige zum Bauen und Wohnen im Altertum von Archdo-
logen, Vor- und Friihgeschichtlern (Mainz 1982) 433. U1.
Serdaroglu, "Bautitigkeit in Anatolia unter der persischen
Herrschaft,"in Palast und Hiitte 355, figs. 6a-b, publishes
the only drawings of the monument not based on Weber's
sketches.
482 NICHOLASCAHILL
Fig. 1. Ta?Kule,distantviewfromthesouthwest
this attribution;and Bean, while admittingthat "noth-
ing whatever is known about this remarkabletomb,"
suggests that "its general style is reminiscent of the
early monumentsin Phrygia ... Later,when the Lyd-
ians and then the Persiansintervened,Phrygianinflu-
ence in Ionia is hardly to be expected.There seems no
reasonwhy this tomb shouldnot date backto this early
period;it may indeed be earlier than Phokaia itself."
Akurgal, on the other hand, places it in an indigenous
Anatolian tradition, incorporating traits of Lydian,
Lycian, Phrygian, and Achaemenid Persian monu-
ments, and dates it to the fourth century,when neigh-
boring Larisa/Buruncuk was ruled by tyrants under
Persian control. Serdaroglucomparesthe monument
to the PyramidTomb at Sardis, and dates it to ca. 390
B.C., but does not attempta moredetailedanalysis.5
This remarkable and little-understood tomb de-
serves closer study. The most appropriate way of
studying such a singular, isolated monumentmust be
the comparativemethod,to try to determinethe archi-
tectural and funerary traditions in which it was
plannedand built, and thus to make suggestionsabout
the identityand backgroundof its commissioner,andto
I
Akurgal1961(supran. 2) 294-95. Weber(supran. 3)
135-36. Supran. 4: Perrotand Chipiez66-67; Bean97;
[AJA92
try to explain why the monumentwas built in the way
it was, what its form and decorationmight have signi-
fied, and finally,why such an unusualmonumentcame
to be built near Phokaia.After a generaldescriptionof
Ta? Kule, I propose to examine the monumentfrom
three angles:first,its generalform and structure,com-
paring it to other freestandingtombs in Asia Minor
and elsewhere;second,its architecturalvocabulary,the
detailssuchas moldingswhich can oftenbe so revealing
of the architecturaltraditionsbehind a building; and
finally, its symbolicand religiousaspects.
DESCRIPTION
Ta? Kule is a freestandingmonument cut entirely
from a single massive outcrop of bedrock.Its corners
are approximatelyorientedto the cardinalpoints (the
long sides are 500 east of north), but this may have
been determinedin part by the shape of the original
outcrop,which was probablynot much largerthan the
tomb. It does not seem to be oriented to any ancient
road or structure, and there is no reason to suppose
that religious or other considerationsdeterminedits
orientation.'
Akurgal1983,118;Serdaro'lu352,354.
6 Weber's
drawings,andthoseof PerrotandChipiezand
1988] TA$ KULE: A PERSIAN-PERIOD TOMB NEAR PHOKAIA
Fig. 2. Ta?Kule,viewfromthe northeast
The monument is comprisedof two stories, sepa-
rated by a four-steppedtransition which resemblesa
segment of a stepped pyramid (figs. 1-6). The lower
story is rectangular,measuring8.8 x 6.2 m and 2.7 m
high.7 The stepped transition and upper story are set
near the front of the lower story, so that the lowest
three steps of the transition are missing on the front
side; hence the front face of the monument rises
straight to the level of the fourth step. The steps are
somewhatirregular,the treadsand risersvaryingfrom
0.3-0.4 m. The upper story is a plain cubical mass,
2.9 x 2.9 m and 1.9 m high. On top of this cube a single
step is preserved,with a cutting taken out of its east
edge. Within the tread of this step the stone rises irreg-
ularly, to a maximum height of 0.27 m above the tread.
This unfinished or very roughly finished surface was
probably capped by a built section, now missing; it
might be reconstructed as two or more steps forming
the top of the pyramid, as proposed here (figs. 4, 6).8
Bean followingWeber's,show an inaccurateorientation;
Serdaroglu'sdrawing is accurate in this regard. For conve-
nience I will refer to the front of the monument, the short
side with the false door, as the north side, and the other sides
accordingly.
The dimensionsare ratherirregular;for example,the
483
Two narrow, rather roughly cut grooves run roughly
north-south, diverging slightly to the south, across the
entire length of the top between the uppermost step
treadsand the roughinterior;they mightbe settingsfor
the capping section.A small pit 0.19 m wide and 0.28
m deep is cut into the northerntread.
The front of Ta? Kule bears its only decoration,a
false door with a simple but importantlintel molding
(figs. 2-4). The door itself is recessed0.5 m from the
front of the monument,and is dividedinto four panels
by slightly raised crossbars.The whole doormeasures
2.3 m wide x 2.1 m high; the lower panels are 0.7 m
high, the upper only 0.4 m high; the crossbars0.3 m
wide. Aroundthe panels is a raisedborder,0.3 m high
on the top and bottom,0.1 wide on the sides.
The "door"is borderedon its top and sides by a
frame 0.20 m wide, aroundwhich runs a raisedfascia
0.25 m wide. This fascia supports the "door"at its bot-
tom, and continues to either side as a sort of base
width varies from 6.18 m on the north side to 6.30 m on the
south.
8 Weber does not suggestany restoration.Perrotand Chi-
piez (supra n. 4) 66 speculate that it might have been a
pyramid, rosette or a "phallic"marker, but say that the
traces do not "admiteven of conjecture."
484 NICHOLAS CAHILL
molding. Above the fascia rests a kyma reversa mold-
ing, 0.19 m high, 0.03 m in profile but extending 0.10
to either side of the fascia. On this molding sits an-
other flat fascia, whose finials are turned up in a very
distinctive manner (fig. 14). The fascia is 0.22 high,
the finials 0.33 high and 0.23 wide.9
A real door on the west side of the tomb, centered
beneath the upper cube, leads into two chambers cut
into the lower story (figs. 5-6, 9-10). The antecham-
ber measures 2.7 x 1.6 m and is 1.8 m high; both its
floor and ceiling slope down slightly toward the outer
door. The inner room is larger than the antechamber,
3.0 x 3.5 x 2.0 m high; its floor is 0.4 m below that of
the antechamber. At the far end of the inner room a
single burial cist is cut into the floor, 2.1 m long, 0.9 m
wide and 0.9 m deep. There are no cuttings for a lid or
cover around its rim. The walls, floors, and ceilings of
both rooms are roughly picked, not smoothed as care-
fully as the exterior of the monument. There is no
trace of plaster or other treatment of the walls; today
they are heavily blackened by fire.
The doorways to both these rooms were meant to be
closed and locked, although of the doors themselves
nothing survives. Cuttings on the thresholds and
jambs of the doors suggest that they were bivalve, al-
though differently arranged, probably of stone, and
opening inward (fig. 11).1
The northeast corner of the monument is incom-
plete. This corner seems to have been the edge of the
original bedrock outcrop, and to compensate for the
irregularity, the corner was cut back in stages on both
sides (figs. 2-4, 8). The gap may have been filled with
cut stone, now lost, although there are no traces of
clamps or dowels to hold the stone fill in place.
Irregular ledge- or shelf-like platforms were left on
all sides of the tomb in its carving; these are especially
conspicuous on the north and east sides (figs. 2-8, 10).
On the northern ledge, a circular bowl-like cutting
0.50 m wide and 0.45 m deep is located near the cen-
tral axis of the tomb, just in front of the false door; its
interior is burnt and blackened by fire. In addition,
cuttings resembling channels and steps dissect the
shelves on all sides. Weber suggested that the bowl
I
Weber's sketch of the molding is misleading, as he
shows it as resembling a corner akroterion more than a
horn-like raised finial; Serdaroglu'sdrawing does not show
the molding at all.
10Cf. for instance the doors on the tumuli at Selgikler,DU.
Izmirligil, "Ugak-SelgiklerTtimtiltisleri,"TiirkArkDerg22
(1975) 41-69, and on Carian and Lycian tombs, P. Roos,
"The Rock-Tomb Doors of the Lyco-Carian Borderland,"
OpAth 10 (1971) 25-30; Roos, The Rock-Tombs of Caunus
1: The Architecture (SIMA 34.1, G6teborg 1972).
[AJA 92
Fig. 3. Ta? Kule, view from the north
and channels were used in the celebration of sacred
liturgies, presumably imagining libations and the like
running in the channels." I prefer to interpret the
channels in a more mundane fashion, as cuttings to
quarry the bedrock and remove the ledges to a lower
level. This was the usual method of quarrying stone in
Archaic times and later; here the quarrying process
was left incomplete, and so the channels remain.12
However, the highest segment of stone at the center of
the monument's front side, into which the bowl is cut,
is not separated from the tomb itself by a channel; and
this central segment of stone must therefore have been
intended to remain after the monument was finished,
forming a small platform in front of the false door.
There are other hints that the monument was left
unfinished. Slightly raised, roughly picked surfaces
surrounded by more finely worked strips on the west
and south sides and the top of the lower story ought to
represent the unfinished "quarry surfaces," left after
the monument was roughed out but before it was
given its final finish.
Another peculiar feature of the monument is a cut-
l Weber (supra n. 3) 135.
12A. Pechlow-Bindokat,"Steinbrtichevon Milet und He-
rakleia am Latmos,"JdI 96 (1981) 157-235, esp. figs. 34,
42, 43, 84; W. Koenigs, "Beobachtungenzur Steintechnik
am Apollon-Tempel von Naxos," AA 1972, 380-85; A.K.
Orlandos, Les matiriaux de construction et la technique ar-
chitecturale des anciens Grecs 2 (Ecole Franpaise d'Athenes,
Travaux et Memoires 16, Paris 1966-1968) 15-20;
R. Martin, Manuel d'architecture grecque (Paris 1965)
146-55.
1988] TA$ KULE: A PERSIAN-PERIOD TOMB NEAR PHOKAIA 485
6.18

r
!

LL
I I _______

0 ! . . -
ESIt r;00-TA$ ,
.ULE
FRDt4-rl .LEATIO$

N23

Fig.4. Ta? Kule,frontelevation

ting near the back of the lower story (fig. 8). Since this
is shallowly cut into an unfinishedsurface, it may not
have been intended as a permanent feature; its pur-
pose and significanceare difficultto judge. Two shal-
low drain channels run along the long sides of the
lower story.
Toolmarks are unfortunatelydifficultto distinguish
in this relatively soft, coarse, and weathered stone.
There are no traces of the claw chisel. The rough sur-
faces are worked with a pick or a point, while finer
work was apparentlydone with a fairly wide flat chis-
el or an adze-like tool.
Nearby are other, smaller outcrops of bedrock
which have been worked to some degree. Just east of
the tomb is a triangular outcrop the center of which
has been cut away in step-like stages,and to the south-
east is a larger mass, also worked with channels and
step-like cuttings. Both these outcropswere probably
quarried to provide stone for the built sections of the
tomb, such as the cap for its upper storyand the fill for
its northeastcorner.Furthercuttingsare visible in the
wadi bed nearby.
No ancient inscriptions remain on the tomb, al-
though it is coveredwith moderngraffiti.
FORM AND STRUCTURE
Tag Kule does not fit easily into established Anato-
lian traditionsin funeraryarchitecture,and compari-
sons with "normal"tombs simply reveal how unusual
this monumentis. There is one type of Anatoliantomb
 486 NICHOLAS CAHILL
Fig. 5. Ta? Kule, view from the southwest
which is comparable to Ta? Kule in a general way; it
is to these tombs that Akurgal compares Ta? Kule
when he describes it as being in an Anatolian and par-
ticularly Lycian tradition.13 In its basic structure this
consists of two stories, a square or rectangular podi-
um, generally containing a chamber, and an architec-
tural stage standing on the podium, often columnar or
embellished with other architectural decoration. Be-
fore the Hellenistic period such mausolea were almost
entirely restricted to the non-Greek regions of western
Asia Minor, Lycia, Caria, and Lydia. Almost none
are known from Ionia, Aeolia, the Doric cities of the
southwest, or other Greek regions until after Alexan-
der's conquest. This in itself suggests that Ta? Kule,
nearest to the Greek city of Phokaia, ought to be con-
sidered separately from native Anatolian tombs.14
The earliest tombs of this type seem to be Lycian,
13 Akurgal 1983 (supra n. 4) 118.
14 On these tombs in general see D. Kurtz and J. Board-
man, Greek Burial Customs (Ithaca 1977) 283-302;
G. Waywell, "Mausoleain SouthwestAsia Minor," Yayla3
(1980) 4-11, and referencesinfra. On Ionian graves of this
period, in addition to Kurtz and Boardman, H. Philipp,
"Archaische Graber in Ostionien," IstMitt 31 (1981)
149-66; E. Pfuhl and H. Mdbius, Die ostgriechischeGrab-
reliefs (Mainz 1977).
15 Building G: H. Metzger, Fouilles de Xanthos 2: L'acro-
pole lycienne (Paris 1963) 49-61. Apollonia: K. Kjeldsen
and J. Zahle, "A Dynastic Tomb in Central Lycia. New
Evidence for the Study of Lycian Architectureand History
in the Classical Period,"ActaArch47 (1976) 29-46. Nereid
Monument: P. Coupel and H. Metzger, Fouilles de Xan-
thos 3: Le monument des Nereids: L'architecture(Paris
1969); R. Martin, "Le monumentdes Nereids et l'architec-
[AJA 92
and date to about the second quarter of the fifth cen-
tury or slightly later; among these are Building G at
Xanthos and the recently discovered podium tomb at
Apollonia. Later, the Nereid Monument at Xanthos
and the Heroon at Limyra are structurally similar to
the early tombs, but are built with Greek architectural
forms, Ionic columns or caryatids, and primarily
Greek decorative elements, rather than the native Ly-
cian forms which apparently imitated local wooden
construction." All these Lycian tombs apparently
contained two chambers, one in the podium, the other
in the "cella" or upper stage. The uses of these cham-
bers is not certain, but inscriptions suggest that the
upper seems to have been the primary burial chamber,
while the lower might have been used for burial of the
prfinezi, the "personal household," coresidents or rel-
atives of lower status than the builder.16
ture funeraire,"RA 1971, 327-37; on inscriptionsof Erbbi-
na, probablythe commissionerof this tomb, infra n. 30. He-
roon at Limyra: J. Borchhardt,Die Bauskulpturdes He-
roons von Limyra (IstForsch 32, 1976). On Lycian tombs in
general, most recently,K. Kjeldsenand J. Zahle, "Lykische
Griber: Ein vorldiufiger Bericht," AA 1975, 312-50;
J. Zahle, Arkaeologiske studier i lykiske klippegrave og
deres reliefferfra ca. 550-300f.Kr (Copenhagen 1983); and
J. Zahle and T.R. Bryce, The Lycians 2 (Copenhagen
forthcoming,cf. infra n. 16).
16 E.g., the tomb of Ahqqadi at Xanthos: E. Laroche in
P. Demargne, Fouilles de Xanthos 5: Tombes-maisons,
tombes-rupestres et sarcophages: Les epitaphes lyciennes
(Paris 1974) 135-36; P.H.J. Houwink ten Cate, The Lu-
wian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during
the Hellenistic Period (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis
Antiqui 10, Leiden 1961) 90-91. Cf. G. Neumann, Neu-
1988] TA* KULE: A PERSIAN-PERIOD TOMB NEAR PHOKAIA
The most famous tomb of this type is the Maussol-
leion at Halikarnassos in Caria. Although many de-
tails of this Wonder of the World remain controversial,
it is clear that it shared the formal principles of earlier
Lycian mausolea: the two-story structure, podium,
and peripteral upper stage; the use of Greek architec-
tural elements and ornament; and lavish decoration
with reliefs and freestanding sculpture. In important
structural and functional aspects, however, the Maus-
8.81
2-90
0 1 3 3.(7
98
r-C
F-SK( FOQCA:TA? O~~~.
k-ULE I
..m
SIDEE -E-VATION
Fig. 6. Tag Kule, side elevation
funde lykischer Inschriften seit 1901 (TAM 1, Suppl. 1,
DenkschrWien 135 [1979]) no. N306. On priinezi in gener-
al, T.R. Bryce, "Lycian Tomb Families and Their Social
Implications," Journal of the Economic and Social History of
the Orient 22 (1976) 296-313. T.R. Bryce, The Lycians in
Literary and Epigraphic Sources (The Lycians 1, Copen-
hagen 1986) 116-25, 150-53. Later inscriptions in Greek
are cleareron the matter:the lower chamber,or hyposorion,
is frequently reserved for the builder's o'KEtOLt
(e.g., TAM 2,
217, 247, 322, 331, 438, 454, 604, 611).
17Most recently K. Jeppesen, "Neue Ergebnissezur Wie-
derherstellungdes Maussoleions von Halikarnassos:4. vor-
487
solleion, together with other Carian tombs, differs
from its Lycian predecessors.Its main burial was in a
sarcophagusin a chamberat the base of the podium,
rather than on a kline in the upper stage as in Lycian
tombs;and it was designedfor a single interment,not
as a family tomb as most Lyciantombswere. Parallels
to later tombs suggest that there was a room in the
upper story,perhapsservingas a cult chamber."1
A number of later Carian tombs share these for-
liufiger Bericht der dinischen Halikarnassos-Expedition,"
IstMitt 26 (1976) 47-99; K. Jeppesen et al., The Maussol-
leion at Halikarnassos 1: The Sacrificial Deposit (Jutland
Archaeological Society Publications 15.1, Jutland 1981);
K. Jeppesen and A. Luttrell, The Maussolleionat Halikar-
nassos 2: The WrittenSources(Jutland ArchaeologicalSo-
ciety Publications15.2, Jutland 1986). An upper chamberis
restoredby most students of the monument, e.g., Jeppesen
(supra) 57-58. He suggests a cultic function, perhaps in-
volving libations to the deceased, on the basis of upper
stories in other monumentswhich were connectedwith the
burial chamber by a channel or opening in the floor (to
488 NICHOLAS CAHILL
Fig. 7. Ta? Kule, view of front platformfrom above
mal and structural principles: the mausoleum at Be-
levi is the earliest and best studied of these. A later
tomb at Mylasa, known as Gilmiikesen, has received
much less attention, undeservedly so since it is re-
markably well preserved. The Lion Tomb at Knidos
may also have been similar, although little remains of
this monument.'8
In contrast to Lycia and Caria, relatively few tombs
of this type have been discovered in Lydia. The only
reasonably certain example is represented only by two
blocks of its sculpted pediment, discovered at Sardis,
which depict a banquet in "Greco-Persian" style.
There is no direct evidence for its structure; the tomb
may be reconstructed in various ways by analogy to
other mausolea.19
This typeof tombcontinuedto be popularin later
periods,not onlyin Asia Minorbut in otherpartsof
the Mediterranean. Tombsof the Romanperiodwith
the samebasicstructureas earliermausoleaare par-
ticularlycommonin the moreconservative Anatolian
of
regions Lycia and Cilicia, althoughthese later
which add GuimiiSkesen[infra n. 18] and, at Bin Tepe near
Sardis, tumulus tomb BT 66.1, G.M.A. Hanfmann, "The
Ninth Campaign at Sardis,"BASOR 186 [1967] 48).
18 Belevi: C. Praschniker,M. Theuer et al., Das Mauso-
leum von Belevi. Forschungenin Ephesos 6 (Vienna 1979).
Lion Tomb: C.T. Newton, A History of Discoveriesat Hali-
carnassus,Cnidusand Branchidae(London 1862) 480-511;
F. Krischen, "L6wenmonumentund Mausolleion," RM
59 (1944) 173-81. Giimiiakesen: O. Benndorf and
G. Niemann, Reisen im siidwestlichenKleinasien 1 (Vien-
na 1884) pl. 49; Akurgal 1961 (supra n. 2) 162, pl. 112;
1983 (supra n. 4) 248, pl. 77; G.E. Bean, Turkeybeyondthe
Maeander (London 1971) 23, pl. 5.
19 G.M.A. Hanfmann and K.P. Erhart, "PedimentalRe-
liefs from a Mausoleum of the Persian Era at Sardis:A Fu-
nerary Meal," in W.K. Simpson and W.M. Davis eds.,
Studiesin Ancient Egypt, the Aegeanand the Sudan:Essays
[AJA 92
tombs have received much less scholarly attention
than their predecessors.20
These comparisons demonstrate how different Tag
Kule is from most Anatolian tombs, and point out its
uncommon form and structure. The similarities be-
tween Tag Kule and Anatolian mausolea are rather
general, in their rectangular, two-storied structure,
their occasional imitation of architectural elements
which are not directly functional in the structure of
the tombs, and in their inner chambers. But in all
these respects Tag Kule differs greatly from "norma-
tive" Anatolian freestanding tombs. Although it con-
sists of two stories, these are not an architectural stage
standing on a high podium, but a large lower block
which carries the architectural facade, surmounted by
a stepped transition and a much smaller and totally
plain upper cube, without a chamber. The treatment
of architectural ornament on Tag Kule is different
from that on Anatolian mausolea, too. Other tombs
are true architectural constructions, with functional
columns and other architectural members, or are more
in Honor of Dows Dunham on the Occasion of his 90th
Birthday (Boston 1981) 45-56.
20 E.g., E. Alf6ldi-Rosenbaum,The Necropolis of Adras-
sus (Bababolu) in Rough Cilicia (Isauria) (DenkschrWien
146, 1980);J. Borchhardtet al., Myra. Ein lykischeMetro-
pole in antiken und byzantinischen Zeit (IstForsch 30,
1975) 61-63, pls. 30-31; E.S. Equini, La necropolidi Hie-
rapolis di Frigia. (MonAnt, Serie Miscellanea 1.2, Rome
1972);J. Keil and A. Wilhelm, Denkmdleraus dem Rauhen
Kilikien (MAMA 3, Manchester 1931) pls. 11-14, 17, 18,
37; A. Machatschek, Die Nekropolen und Grabmdilerim
Gebiet von Elaioussa und Korykos im Rauhen Kilikien
(Verlag der OsterreichischenAkademieder Wissenschaften
96, 1967) 63-110, pls. 23-54; H. Swoboda, J. Keil and
F. Knoll, Denkmdleraus Lykaonien,Pamphilien und Isau-
rien (Vienna 1935) 114-16, figs. 25-28.
1988] TA KULE:A PERSIAN-PERIODTOMB NEARPHOKAIA
-i K
2-on,
ESkJ FQ9A-TA5 KULE.
OVN-9ALL PL-AN /TRMM
Fig.8. Ta?Kule,overallplan
or less convincing recreationsof structures normally
built in other fashions, for instance the "petrified
wooden architecture"on Lycian tombs. More impor-
tantly, the architecturalelementson those tombsartic-
ulate and function with the tomb itself, and the treat-
ment is generally completedon all visible parts of the
tomb, not restrictedto a single area. Architecturalren-
derings on TaQKule, on the other hand, are limited to
the false door on its front. Even in the illusion this
"door"does not articulate or function in the structure
as a whole: it appears almost pasted on the front of an
otherwise plain and blocklikemass, and dominatesthe
front of the tomb as an independentelement. This is
21 Waelkens 1980,1982(supran. 4).
489
1Ii
M3`I
He
MAO,6N
not a simple, convincingrepresentationof real archi-
tectural forms; it cannot be explained, as Waelkens
has suggested, by proposing that it recreatesor imi-
tates local domesticarchitecture.21Rather, this "door"
is better interpreted as a symbolic motif which can
function independently of its architectural context.
Other than this false door, Ta? Kule is plain, un-
adorned;the monument as a whole is blocklike and
quite unlike the highly decorated,"normative"Anato-
lian mausolea.
There are, however,a few closerformalparallelsto
Ta? Kule, which themselves lie outside the "norma-
tive" traditions in Anatolian funerary architecture.
490 NICHOLAS CAHILL [AJA 92

2..30
S2.f ii

..63

N INF
\N~~
NIi~
fI
r r \
i~:?\~\\~\\,\?~=~\;?=IN,

,N,

ESKI FO(A: IA5 KULE •

E$K•I
5ECTIO fb•:TA• KuLE_
R

5ECTIONAIL NAL- PLANPI-AHi

Mrr,.
Wl a

0 0I2." 2-L PIC

k1*3
N..
NC. lS3

Fig. 9. TaQKule, sectionalplan

The closest parallel to the pyramidal form of Ta?
Kule is the Pyramid Tomb at Sardis, excavated by
H.C. Butler in 1914 and investigatedfurther by the
present Sardis Expedition.22The most recent study
reconstructsthe tomb as a pyramid in two stages (fig.
12). This reconstructionis not the only possible one,
however, and a reconstructionsimilar to the Tomb of
Cyrus, as proposedby Butler, fits the evidenceas well
(fig. 13).23 The complete break from earlier Lydian
funerary traditions, the remarkablesimilarity of its
masonry to that of buildings at Pasargadaedating to
the reign of Cyrus, the material (local limestonerath-

22 H.C. Butler, Sardis 1: The Excavations (Leiden 1922)
154, 167-70, fig. 185; G.M.A. Hanfmann,Sardisfrom Pre-
historicto Roman Times (Cambridge,Mass., 1983) 42, 100,
103, figs. 67-69.
23 Studied by A. and B. Kasper in 1969. Kasper has not
revealed his reasons for reconstructingthe tomb as a com-
plete pyramid; only his drawings have appeared in print.
There are no separatefoundationsfor solid walls in the base,
which might argue against a reconstructionsimilar to the
Tomb of Cyrus, but the packingof the base consistsof large
stonesand earth,and might be stableenoughto supporta tall
superstructure.The sole survivingblockfromabovethe floor
of the chambershows no sign of differing wear or exposure
on its upper surface, while the tread surfacesof other step
blocks are quite worn and eroded;this indicatesthat at least
two courses above the chamberfloor formed a vertical wall
ratherthan furthersteps of a pyramid.Althoughthe restora-
tion of the upper part of the tomb remainsuncertain,at least
the base of the pyramid and a vertical section dividing the
structureinto two "stages"are certain.
1988] TA$ KULE: A PERSIAN-PERIOD TOMB NEAR PHOKAIA
TA5 K.LE
FoxAr:
ESK.I
SECTIONALELEVATION
NC. IgW
Fig. 10. Ta? Kule, sectionalelevation
er than marble), and the lack of clamps, dowels, and
claw chisel marks suggest that the Pyramid Tomb was
built in the second half of the sixth century B.C. under
Persian authority, perhaps for a Persian, as Hanf-
mann has proposed.24
The upper story of Ta? Kule may also be compared
to the tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae and the closely re-
lated, unfinished tomb near Persepolis, known as
Takht-i Rustam or Takht-i Gohar.25 Although the
stepped podiums of these tombs are on a far grander
scale than the stepped transition of Ta? Kule, the
effect is somewhat similar: a section of a stepped pyra-
mid supporting a relatively plain upper stage.
While the parallels are not exact, the Pyramid
Tomb and the Tomb of Cyrus do offer closer formal
24 Hanfmann dated the tomb to ca. 540, and suggestedthat
it was the tomb of Abradatasand his wife Pantheia, seen by
Xenophon (Cyr. 7.3): Hanfmann (supra n. 22) 42, 103;
Hanfmann, "The Third Campaign at Sardis (1960),"
BASOR 162 (1961) 31 n. 45. C. Nylander, Ionians at Pa-
sargadae. Studies in Old Persian Architecture (Uppsala
1970) 93 suggests "adate before500."An earlier date, in the
first half of the sixth century, is not impossible, but would
not agree with the main periodsof use of this cemetery(from
the mid-sixth century on), nor with the very close parallels
to datable masonry at Pasargadaeand at other sites. Exca-
491
and conceptual parallels to Ta? Kule than any other
freestandingtombs. The stepped elements forming a
pyramidal base to an upper stage, the blocklike char-
acter of the monuments, and their independence from
the architecture of the living-houses and temples-
tie these monuments together and distinguish them
from the more common types of freestanding tombs in
Asia Minor. Further evidence for this independence,
and for foreign influencesacting on Ta? Kule, is pro-
vided by the architectural details of the tomb.
THE ARCHITECTURAL VOCABULARY
The architectural vocabulary-moldings, decora-
tive forms, and the like-is very limited on Ta? Kule.
The only molding is that on the lintel above the false
vation in the core of the tomb recoveredno datablematerial.
On traditional Lydian tombs, B.K. McLauchlin, Lydian
Graves and Burial Customs (Diss. Univ. of California,
Berkeley 1985).
25 D. Stronach, Pasargadae (Oxford 1978) 24-43, 302-
304; W. Kleiss, "Der Takht-i Rustam bei Persepolis und
das Kyrosgrab in Pasargadae,"AA 1971, 157-62; A.B.
Tilia, Studies and Restorations at Persepolis and Other Sites
of Fars II (IsMEO Reports and Memoirs 18, Rome 1978)
73-80.
492 NICHOLASCAHILL
OUTIDE.
3.-S."DEE?
OUTSIDE.
OUOUTT- DOOPO
E.TAl-Sor DcC CUTTIM-H65
Fig. 11.Ta?Kule,detailsof doorcuttings
door, the kyma reversa and the fascia with horn-like
upturned finials (fig. 14). The kyma reversais a com-
mon Greek molding, but the upturned finials on the
fascia above are rare or unknown in Greek architec-
ture. The only possible parallels are corner akroteria
common on pedimental buildings and altars, and oc-
casionallyfound on doorwaylintels, but these are very
different in form and purpose from the finials on Ta?
Kule.
This molding is thoroughly at home, however, in
Achaemenid Persian architecture,and specificallyon
tombs. The closest parallel is the lintel molding above
26Stronach(supran. 25) 32-34, figs.17a,18a.
27D. Stronach,"UrartianandAchaemenian TowerTem-
ples,"JNES26 (1967)278-88;Stronach(supran. 25) 117-
[AJA92
LINTEL
DoOR
-OUTE.R.
UTFTElT•.Eo
7 ci/ /R ABcK)VE)
AT
UTTING&
TDF OF IHNSR.
the door on the Tomb of Cyrus (fig. 15).26 This mold-
ing is almost identical in form and proportionto that
on Ta? Kule, and is considerably closer than any
known moldingfrom the Greekworld. Similarfasciae
with upturnedfinials, although without the kyma re-
versa, are found above the doorson the Zendan-i Su-
laiman at Pasargadae and the Ka'aba-i Zardusht at
Naqsh-i Rustam (fig. 16). The functionsof these tow-
ers remain enigmatic: suggestions include fire sanc-
tuaries, tombs, or repositories for religious or other
paraphernalia.27Whatever the functions of the Zen-
dan and Ka'aba,it remainsclear that such door mold-
36; E. Schmidt,Persepolis 3: The Royal Tombsand Other
Monuments(OIP 70, Chicago1970)34-49; M. Boyce,A
History of Zoroastrianism2 (Handbuch der Orientalistik
1988] TA$ KULE: A PERSIAN-PERIOD TOMB NEAR PHOKAIA
ings were well established in the Achaemenid archi-
tectural vocabulary,on the doors of tombs such as the
Cyrus Tomb as well as on other monuments.
A fascia with upturnedfinials abovea dooris found
on yet one more monument, a "Greco-Persian"relief
from the satrapal capital of Daskyleion.28This relief
depicts a magos standing before a door (perhaps a
false door?),holding a barsombundle. The lower part
of the molding above the door is brokenaway, but the
fascia above has the same upturned finials as those on
Ta? Kule and the Iranian monuments.This relief and
a similar, better known relief, also from Daskyleion,
are generally interpretedas funeraryscenes, depicting
rites and sacrifices before the tomb door of some de-
ceasedperson, presumablyPersian;such sacrificesare
attested in literary sources. The reliefs probably date
to the fifth century B.C.29
The parallels between Ta? Kule, the Pyramid
Tomb, and the Tomb of Cyrus, and the use of door
moldingsfound elsewhere only on Achaemenidmonu-
ments of Iran and Daskyleion, lead us away from the
usual varieties of Anatolian tombs and bring us into
8.1.2.2a, Leiden and K61n 1982) 57-60, 116-17; A. De-
mandt, "Studienzur Kaaba-i Zerdoscht,"AA 1968, 520-40;
F. Krefter, "Achamenidische Palast- und Grabtuiren,"
AMIran N.F. 1 (1968) 99-113; B. Goldman, "PersianFire
Temples or Tombs?"JNES 24 (1965) 305-309.
28 Istanbul
ArchaeologicalMuseum no. 5391; this relief is
illustratedto date only in a small photographin A. Buising-
Kolbe, "Friihe griechische Turen," JdI 93 (1978) 121, pl.
26. It is also mentioned, although not illustrated, in An Il-
lustrated Guide to the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul
(Istanbul 1968), and by M. Mellink, "Archaeologyin Asia
Minor," AJA 64 (1960) 68. The reconstructionof the con-
sole below the finial is not secure;it is also possible that the
upper fragment should be moved further to the left, placing
the upturned finial closer to the doorjamb as on other simi-
lar doors.
29 Second relief: T.
Macridy, "Reliefs gr&co-persesde la
region de Dascylion,"BCH 37 (1913) 340-58; P. Bernard,
"Les bas-reliefs gr&co-persesde Dascylion a la lumiere de
nouvelles d&couvertes,"RA 1969, 17-28; J. Borchhardt,
"Epichorische,grako-persischebeeinflutte Reliefs in Kili-
kien,"IstMitt 17 (1968) 201-203; Boyce (supra n. 27) 117-
18. Since both reliefs were found in secondarycontexts,their
findspotsdo not help determinetheir original use. They are
generally held to be funerary,and an iconographicallysim-
ilar relief carved in front of a rock-cut tomb at Ravansar,
Iran supportsthe contention(P. Calmeyer, "Das Grabrelief
von Ravansar,"AMIran N.F. 11 [1978] 73-86). Sacrifices:
Arr. Anab. 6.29; Strab. 15.3.15; Aesch. Pers. 607-680;
Boyce (supra n. 27) 70-71.
30 General backgroundon the Iranian presence in Anato-
lia and the "Greco-Persian"phenomenon includes Borch-
hardt (supra n. 29); C. Starr, "Greeksand Persians in the
Fourth Century B.C.: A Study in Cultural Contactsbefore
Alexander," IrAnt 11-12 (1976-1977) 39-99, 49-115;
493
the world of the Persian administratorsof this prov-
ince of the Achaemenidempire.They suggestthat Ta?
Kule was designedand executed accordingto Persian
rather than local architecturalprinciples, or, rather,
accordingto principles developedfor these provincial
administratorsand their Persianizing local subordi-
nates, drawingin part on both Iranianand localtradi-
tions. This then should accountfor its dissimilarityto
other Anatolian tombs.3"
SYMBOLICAND RELIGIOUS ASPECTS OF TA KULE
The Daskyleion reliefs depictingmagoi performing
sacrificesand rituals before the door of a tomb raise
further questions about the symbolism and functions
of various featuresof Ta? Kule. The false door on the
frontof Ta? Kule is one of its most prominentfeatures,
and demandsexplanation, as does the bowl-like hol-
low in frontof the "door."These two features,perhaps
more than any others, may be related to the religious
beliefs of the commissionerand may allow some in-
sight into the ideologiesbehind the design of the tomb.
J.M. Balcer, Sparda by the Bitter Sea (Brown Judaic Stud-
ies 52, Providence1984).On PersianizingLydians,cf. the
holders of Achaemenid Court Style pyramidal seals in-
scribed with Lydian names such as Manes: J. Boardman,
"Pyramidal Stamp Seals in the Persian Empire," Iran 8
(1970) 19-44, esp. nos. 4-5, and pp. 20-21, 30-39; N.V.
Sekunda, "AchaemenidColonization in Lydia," REA 87
(1986) 7-30; C.H. Greenewalt,jr., "An Exhibitionist from
Sardis,"in D.G. Mitten, J.G. Pedley, and J.A. Scott eds.,
Studies Presented to George M.A. Hanfmann (Harvard
Monographs in Art and Archaeology2, Mainz 1971) 29-
46; C.D. Curtis, Sardis 13: Jewelry and Gold Work (Rome
1925) esp. 11-13, nos. 1, 2, 8; L. Robert, "Une nouvelle
inscriptiongrecque de Sardes:reglementde l'autoriteperse
relatif ia un culte de Zeus," CRAI 1975, 306-30. On Per-
sianizing Lycians, A.S. Shahbazi, The Irano-LycianMonu-
ments (Teheran 1975); D. Asheri, Fra Ellenismo e Iran-
ismo (Bologna 1983); Bryce 1986 (supra n. 16); J. Borch-
hardt, "Zur Deutung lykischer Audienzszenen,"Actes du
Colloque sur la Lycie Antique (Paris 1980) 7-14; W.A.P.
Childs, "Lycian Relations with Greeks and Persians Re-
examined," AnatSt 31 (1981) 55-80. M. Jean Bousquet,
"Arbinas,fils de Gergis, dynaste de Xanthos,"CRAI 1975,
138-48 and L. Robert, "Les conquetes du dynaste lycien
Arbinas,"JSav 1978, 3-48, publish two inscriptionsof this
dynast of west Lycia, who boasts among his many accom-
plishments that he "7Trvrae TA7raLr
t 7rpe7Tov c-rarep oropo't
TE LLy-
avspegricracrtv],/ rofoo$rvL 7rEiapeT7LT7e, wL7T'7f0V
,iara quintessentialPersianvirtues.These inscrip-
tions etb[•w],"
also shed important new light on the sculptural pro-
gram of the Nereid Monument, generally accepted as his
tomb (Childs [supra] 71 and n. 99). Cf. C. Herrenschmidt,
"Une lecture iranisante du poeme de Symmachosdedie A
Arbinas, dynaste de Xanthos," REA 87 (1986) 125-36;
Asheri (supra) 97-104.
494 NICHOLAS CAHILL
The Bowl in Front of the Tomb
The hollow in front of Ta? Kule resembles fire
bowls used in Zoroastrian ritual; and in view of the
tomb's other Achaemenid associations this hollow can
be interpreted as such a fire bowl. The fact that it is
cut into a section of ledge which was not meant to be
quarried away, but would have remained as a small
platform or altar in front of the false door with the
bowl centered on the tomb's axis, shows that this bowl
was part of the tomb itself, rather than an artifact of
its construction like the channels. Unfortunately, it is
impossible to determine whether the traces of burning
in its interior are ancient or modern; but there is no
obvious reason why a modern farmer or shepherd
should build a fire in this relatively small cutting on a
narrow exposed ledge, rather than by the side of the
tomb or in its chamber, nor is there any evidence that
the burning is not ancient. A number of fire altars of
the Achaemenid period have been found in Anatolia,
at Limyra in Lycia and Bunyan in Cappadocia; and
PYRAMID TOMB
RECONSRUT
ION orSARDIS
1,506
. SCALE*L
J, fiLJIFlom
IFf$001.
0. -sicilo"
t.coos$
Flom
W11W AOOVE
t-l
ii? ~ "r
~-~
Fig. 12. Sardis, PyramidTomb. (Drawing by S. Kasper, CourtesySardis Expedition)
31 Limyra: W.W. Wurster, "Die Burg von Limyra,"AA
1974, 261, fig. 6. Bunyan: K. Bittel, "KappadokyadaBulu-
nan bir AteSSunagi," TilrkArkDerg6 (1956) 35-42; Bittel,
"Ein persischer Feueraltar aus Kappadokien," Satura.
Friichte aus der antiken Welt (Baden-Baden 1952) 15-29.
On fire altars and bowls in general, Boyce (supra n. 27); S.
Wikander, Feuerpriester in Kleinasien und Iran (Lund
1946); J. Duchesne-Guillemin, "La religion,"Beitriigezur
Achdmenidengeschichte (Historia Einzelschriften 18, Wies-
baden 1972) 74-76; D. Stronach, "The Kuh-i Sharak Fire
Altar,"JNES 25 (1966) 217-27; Stronach,"Excavationsat
[AJA 92
Persian cults are well attested throughout this prov-
ince of the Empire.3
Bowls and altars, or depictions thereof, are known
in Iran in funerary contexts. A fire bowl similar to
that at Ta? Kule was carved into a ledge in front of the
tomb at Ravansar in the western Zagros; the front of
this tomb is decorated with a relief depicting a sacri-
fice like those from Daskyleion.32 Fragments of port-
able fire altars were found out of context at Pasar-
gadae, one about 300 m from the Tomb of Cyrus;
these might have been associated originally with the
Tomb itself.33 On the tombs of Darius and his succes-
sors at Naqsh-i Rustam, the King is shown perform-
ing rituals in front of a fire altar, and two freestand-
ing, rock-cut fire altars, although probably Sassanian
in date, stand near these tombs.34 In the late or post-
Achaemenid period, similar rituals before a fire altar
were depicted on the rock-tombs at Kizkapan and
Sakavand, in imitation of the earlier Royal Achaeme-
nid tombs.35 And finally, literary testimonia for such
41_ _7
LIL
..- -?- - ----
-- -- - -- -- -
'i__i. --IF
Tepe Nush-i Jan," Iran 11 (1973) 129-40; and references
infra. Persian cult: supra ns. 29-30.
32 Calmeyer (supra n. 29), who, however, does not men-
tion the bowl; D. Stronachobservedit in 1977.
33 Stronach (supra n. 25) 141, 145. Four Sassanian fire
bowls have also been found at Pasargadae,p. 163.
34 Schmidt (supra n. 27); K. Erdmann, "Die Altairevon
Naqsh-i Rustam,"MDOG 81 (1949) 6-15.
35 H. von Gall, "Zu den 'medische'Felsgrdiber," AA 1966,
27, fig. 21; Calmeyer(supra n. 29) 73-86, fig. 19.3.
1988] TA* KULE: A PERSIAN-PERIOD TOMB NEAR PHOKAIA 495

77-

PYRAMID
TOIIB
NWEST 5 LOPE OFA\R OPOL 5

?,, ~ ~I?I~~Ii~9~,.
~~
1 g,

- - - - --
-

II _____
fit:

C-OTHFCE -LS FC_

4%
;??? 11 t4
11
~' 5
-*T7F:
7L ??,?

PLA ,- -FANRB?TOED
A*?!- -CTAL-5TT

APAN CTVL SATE. NPANP.3TOhTD ____

Fig. 13. Sardis, PyramidTomb. (After H.C. Butler, Sardis 1 [Leiden 1922] ill. 185)

rituals have been mentioned above. The bowl is
roughly the same size and shape as other known fire
bowls; and in view of the tomb's other Iranian connec-
tions it seems plausible to identify this cutting as a re-
ceptacle for fire used in Zoroastrian funerary ritual.
The False Door
False doors as funerary motifs are quite common in
Roman Anatolia, particularly in Phrygia and neigh-
boring regions.36 Earlier examples of false doors,
however, are rarer. Two possible examples have been
mentioned, the two stelai from Daskyleion depicting
Persian magoi performing rituals before the door.
Since their placementin the tomb is uncertain,the in-
terpretationof the doors on these two reliefs is diffi-
cult: are the doors to be interpretedas symbolic false
doors.like that on Ta? Kule, or as sculptural depic-
tions of real (or false?) doors?A third early doorstone
with an Aramaic inscription recently discovered at
Daskyleion further documents the use of door sym-
bolism in the funerarypracticesof the Persian admin-
istratorsof the satrapy.37

36M. Waelkens, Die kleinasiatischen Titrsteine (Mainz
1986).
3 R. Altheim-Stiehl and M. Cremer, "Eine griko-per-
sische Tiirstele mit aramiischer Inschrift aus Daskyleion,"
EpigAnat 6 (1985) 1-15. The authors suggest that all three
doors from Daskyleion originally had reliefs on their right
sides and Aramaicinscriptionson their left, and were set up
outside tumuli as at Karaburunand Ikiztepe (infra). None
of these stones is complete, however, and the proportions
and sizes of the stones with reliefs seem to distinguishthem
from the inscribed doorstone and other early doorstones.
This does not mean, however,that the symbolismof all these
doors is not comparable.
496 NICHOLAS CAHILL
iS
.- -? ,',
,•H
Fig. 14. Ta? Kule, detail of false door molding
False doors are probably to be associated with at
least two tumuli of the late sixth or early fifth century
B.C., at Ikiztepe in eastern Lydia and at Karaburun
in upland Lycia. Although designed in local architec-
tural traditions, both these tumuli may have been built
for resident Persians or for Persianizing Anatolians:
the chamber at Karaburun was painted with scenes of
a banquet, a procession and a battle in which the tomb
owner and his attendants appear in Persian costume,
while objects recovered from Ikiztepe include an
Achaemenid-type incense burner, Achaemenid bowls
with "Court Style" decoration such as double bull pro-
tomes over winged disks, and many other silver and
38 Karaburun: M. Mellink, "Excavationsat Karata?-Se-
mayuikand Elmali, Lycia,"AJA 79 (1975) 349-53; "Exca-
vations in the Elmali Area, Lycia, 1975," AJA 80 (1976)
382-84; "The Symbolic Doorway of the Tumulus at Kara-
burun, Elmali,"8 TUrkTarih Kongresi(Ankara 1979) 383-
87. The iconographic similarity between the Karaburun
wall paintings and "Greco-Persian"funerary stelai and re-
liefs from Daskyleion and other sites is most striking. Ikiz-
tepe: B. Tezcan, "Ikiztepe Kazisi," 8 Tiirk Tarih Kongresi
(Ankara 1979) 391-97; Mellink 1979; "Archaeologyin
[AJA 92
gold objects in Achaemenid as well as Lydian and
Greek shapes and styles.38
On the slopes of both these tumuli were stone bases
which originally supported a superstructure of some
kind. That at Karaburun was apparently destroyed in
the late fifth century B.C. as a sort of damnatio memo-
riae. Fragments of a limestone facade apparently in-
cluding a false door were found around the base, to-
gether with fragments of at least one almost life-size
statue of a lion. A similar base was discovered at the
foot of the tumulus of Ikiztepe. Two exquisitely
carved marble doors, treated with anathyrosis on all
edges and so not swinging, but originally belonging to
a facade or other structure, are now in the USak Mu-
seum. These were brought to the nearby village of
Beyler Hani by villagers about the time the tomb was
0 10 30 50 cm
I II I I I I
Fig. 15. Pasargadae,Tomb of Cyrus. Molding over door.
(After D. Stronach,Pasargadae[Oxford 1978] fig. 18a)
Asia Minor," AJA 71 (1967) 172, figs. 20-21; Izmirligil
(supra n. 10) 43, 48; Waelkens (supra n. 36) 37, no. 9. The
objects mentioned are in the Ugak and Ankara museums,
mostly unpublished. Strikingly similar objects are now in
the Metropolitan Museum in New York: D. von Bothmer,
"Les tresors de l'orfevreriede la Grace orientale au Metro-
politan Museum de New York,"CRAI 1981, 194-207, and
von Bothmer, A Greek and Roman Treasury (BMMA,
Summer 1984).
1988] TA* KULE: A PERSIAN-PERIOD TOMB NEAR PHOKAIA
robbed, presumably from Ikiztepe. The doors them-
selves do not fit the cuttings in the base, but they may
have been set into a separateframe.A thirdfalse door,
of unknown provenienceand possibly earlier in date,
is also in the Upak Museum.39
Other false doorsare known fromthis generalperi-
od. Two doorstones have been found at Sardis, one
bearing a Lydian epitaph of Manes, son of Alus. This
was found "inthe doorwayof a tomb"in the necropo-
lis west of the Pactolus, although probably not in its
Fig. 16. Pasargadae,Zendan-i Sulaiman. Door frame with
molding. (After D. Stronach, Pasargadae [Oxford 1978]
fig. 65a)
39Waelkens(supran. 36) 146no. 363.
40 Stele of
Manes:Butler(supran. 22) 56-57, ill. 49;
W.H. Buckler,Sardis 6.2: LydianInscriptions(Leiden
1924)8-11, no. 4. Uninscribedstele:C.H. Greenewalt,jr.,
N.D. Cahill,andM.L. Rautman,"TheSardisCampaignof
1984,"BASORSuppl.25 (1987)46, fig. 32. The steleis of
locallimestone,workedwitha flatchisel.The backandtop
are roughlytrimmed;the sidesare smootherandmaybear
slightanathyrosis.H. 0.55,W. 0.65,Th. 0.17-0.32m. The
arrangement andproportionsof thedooraresimilartothose
of the false dooron Ta? Kule:slightlywiderthan high;
lowerpanelslargerthanupper.R. Gusmanidatesthestele
of Manesto thesecondhalfof thefifthor thefourthcentury
497
Fig. 17. Sardis, doorstone from necropolis (NoEx 84.10).
(CourtesySardis Expedition)
original location; the uninscribed stone was found in a
field near the necropolis in 1984 (fig. 17).40 Another
early stele depicting a false door was found on Lem-
nos, reused in a tomb of the fifth century B.C.41 Fi-
nally, a false door was carved on the podium of the
mausoleum at Belevi, the real door being located at
the back.42
The significance of false doors in these contexts
should be examined more closely. The two doors at
Ikiztepe might well correspond to the two chambers in
the tumulus. Such false doors could be interpreted as a
symbolic passage from the world of the living to the
world of the dead, a passage that must be created, or
facilitated by its representation, for each deceased per-
son.43 They might also represent symbolic entrances to
the tomb where survivors could bring offerings, as sug-
gested by Mellink.44 Moreover, the juxtaposition of
on the basis of letter forms (letter of 20.ii.84); the new unin-
scribeddoorstoneis probablypre-Hellenistic,to judge from
the material and masonry (limestone worked with a flat
chisel, commonat Sardis in the Lydian and Persian periods
and less commonthereafter).
41 G. Caputo, "La stele tirrenicadi Efestia,"ASAtene 15-
16 (1932-1933) 279-88.
42 Praschniker,Theuer et al. (supra n. 18) 17-20, figs. 4,
17, 51, 52.
43 An inscription from Eumaneia in southwest Phrygia
identifies the grave with an entrance to the underworld,
Ramsay, infra, and n. 45; Waelkens 1980 (supra n. 4) 13.
44 Mellink 1979 (supra n. 38) 387.
498 NICHOLASCAHILL
the false doorwith the fire bowl in frontis probablynot
coincidental.In his interpretationof Phrygian funer-
ary customs, W.M. Ramsay proposedthat doorstones
were generally paired with altars, and that the door
was a "shorthand"for a temple in which the heroized
or deifieddead lived on and receivedsacrificesfromthe
altar. A number of Roman inscriptions from Euma-
neia seemed to him to corroboratethis interpretation.
More recently,Waelkens rejectedthis view, seeing the
doorstonesrather as symbolizing the house of the de-
ceased, the domus aeterna. The depictionof sacrifices
in front of tomb doors at Daskyleion and Ravansar,
however, the literary evidencefor such sacrifices,and
the placementof false doorsin contextsrather isolated
from the tomb itself, as at Karaburun,Ikiztepe and to
some extent Ta? Kule itself, might suggestthat at least
in Persian and Persianizing contexts, doors and false
doors played a role in the later tomb cult and mainte-
nance, with the symbolicemphasis on the implication
of passage in the door itself, rather than the implica-
tion of a dwelling for the dead.45
The false door on Ta? Kule, then, can be compared
to false doorson a varietyof tombsof the sixth and fifth
centuries B.C., a remarkable number of which are
probably tombs of Persians living in Asia Minor or of
Persianizing Anatolians: the reliefs with magoi and
doorstonewith Aramaic inscriptionfrom Daskyleion;
Karaburunwith its owner depicted in Persian dress;
Ikiztepe, which producedsuch a wealth of Achaeme-
nid metalwork; Ta? Kule itself. However, the false
door is not found on Persian tombs from Iran itself.
The nearest parallels are rectangular niches, resem-
bling blind windows, on the Gur-i Dukhtar tomb in
the Buzpar valley, blind windows on those enigmatic
towers, the Zendan-i Sulaiman and the Ka'aba-i Zar-
dusht, and in traditional Iranian architecture.46But
none of these are really close in formor, presumably,in
functionor meaningto the false doorson tombsin Asia
Minor. On the other hand, false doorsare foundon the
tombs of people with native Anatolian names, such as
Manes the son of Alus at Sardis. Since many such
upper-class Lydians emulated or adoptedcertain cus-
toms of their Iranian rulers, and since Persian cults
were well established in Anatolia, should the use by
45 W.M. Ramsay,"Sepulchral
Customsin AncientPhry-
gia,"JHS 5 (1884) 241-62; Citiesand Bishopricsof Phrygia
(Oxford1895)1:99-101;2: 367-68, 395;Waelkens(supra
n. 36) 17-31; 1980, 1982 (supra n. 4).
46 Gur-i Dukhtar: Stronach
(supra n. 25) 300-302, who
suggests a relatively late date, no earlier than the fifth cen-
tury and possibly terminal or even post-Achaemenid.Zen-
dan and Ka'aba:supra n. 27. Traditional "blindwindows"
as at Baba Jan Tepe (C. Goff, "Excavationsat Baba Jan,
1968,"Iran 8 [1970] pl. 3); and Nush-i Jan (Stronach 1973
[AJA92
native Lydians of the door-motif, found most com-
monly on tombs associatedwith Persians, be consid-
ered another such instance of the emulation or adop-
tion of the belief systemsof their Iranianmasters?
Finally, the burial in a cist, rather than in a sar-
cophagusor on a kline, the normalpracticesin Anato-
lian built tombs, might suggest foreign rites. Persian
kings and nobles were normally buried in cut cists of
different kinds, as at Naqsh-i Rustam and the so-
called "Median" tombs; and the cist in Ta? Kule
might be comparedto those.47
DATE
Dates from the "prehellenicera" to the late fourth
century B.C. have been proposedfor Ta? Kule; most
recent studies have endorseda fourth century date.48
Positive dating criteria are few. Admittedly,the form
of the tomb is unusual, and its architecturalvocabu-
lary, which could be so useful in dating, is limited. But
on the basis of the comparisons suggested above, I
would propose a date earlier than that generally ac-
cepted, in the secondhalf of the sixth or the early fifth
century. The closest formal parallels to Ta? Kule are
the Pyramid Tomb, which probably dates to the sec-
ond half of the sixth century, and the tomb of Cyrus,
ca. 530 B.C. The moldingabovethe false door is most
closely comparableto moldingson the Tomb of Cyrus
and the Zendan-i Sulaiman, dating to the reign of
Cyrus; on the Ka'aba-i Zardusht, built probably in
the reign of Darius (522-486 B.C.); and on the Das-
kyleion relief, probably of the earlier fifth century.
Parallels to the symbolic door are also found in this
period, on the Daskyleion reliefs, at Ikiztepe (late
sixth/early fifth centuries B.C.), and at Karaburun
(about 470 B.C.). All these comparisonssuggesta date
between 540 and 470 B.C.
Historical arguments may also be adduced. This
Persianizing tomb could only have been built during
the periods of Achaemenid control of Phokaia, from
the 540s, when Harpagos first took it, to ca. 479 B.C.
when the Greeks retookthe coast of Asia Minor after
the Persian Wars, and then from the collapse of the
Athenian empire at the end of the fifth century until
Alexander's conquest in 334 B.C. It is unlikely that
[supra n. 31] 129-40).
47 Cists of coursewere commonfor less pretentiousburials
(Philipp, supra n. 14); but in monumentalbuilt tombs the
norm is either a kline or sarcophagus. Naqsh-i Rustam:
Schmidt (supra n. 27) 79-107; "Median"tombs: von Gall
(supra n. 35).
48 Akurgal 1983 (supra n. 4) 118 (fourth century B.C.);
Sedaroglu (supra n. 4) 354 (390-380 B.C.); Praschniker,
Theuer et al. (supra n. 18) 177, 194 (320-310 B.C.).
1988] TA$ KULE:A PERSIAN-PERIODTOMB NEARPHOKAIA
such a tomb would have been built during the period
when Phokaia was a memberof the Delian League.49
The comparisonsabove suggest that of the two peri-
ods, the earlier is the more likely.
Such a date places Ta? Kule amongthe earliestfree-
standing tombs in either Anatolia or Iran, and raises
the question of the origin and developmentof this type
of tomb. The earliestcloselydatablefreestandingtomb
is the Tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae,which must date
to before 530 B.C. Takht-i Rustam at Persepolis and
the PyramidTomb at Sardis probablydate to roughly
the same period, as do the earliest Lycian pillar-tombs
such as the Lion tomb at Xanthos.50But attempts to
find antecedents for any of these tombs are fraught
with difficulties. Aspects of the architecturalvocabu-
lary and structuralfeaturesof the Tomb of Cyrus, for
example, have been convincinglycomparedto Ionian
and Lydian architecture,but the tomb overall knows
no precedents,Anatolianor Persian. It seemsratherto
be in some way the productof interactionsof Persian
and Western traditions, using Near Eastern, Ionian,
and Lydian architectural forms to achieve the pur-
poses of the Persian King. Similarly the Pyramid
Tomb uses Lydian masonrytechniquesand styles in a
type of tomb which has no Lydian antecedents,per-
haps for an Iranian commissioner.
There seem then to be a numberof relatively inde-
pendent traditions of funerary architecturein Anato-
lia and the Near East during this early period:strictly
local types such as the Lycian pillar-tombs; more
widespread (and later) types of two-storiedmausolea;
Iranian freestandingtombs such as the Cyrus tomb,
Takht-i Rustam, and Gur-i Dukhtar, which are in a
way themselves "hybrids";and the rather odd, mixed
traditionsof Anatolia representedfor instance by Ta?
Kule and the Pyramid Tomb. Although there is little
formal relationship between these various traditions,
there are other similarities:Anatolian rulers and dy-
49 Phokaiawas probablyone of the originalmembers
of
the Delian League from 478 B.C., B.D. Meritt, H.T.
Wade-Gery,and M.F. McGregor,The AthenianTribute
Lists3 (Princeton1950) 194-224. M.F. McGregor,"The
Attic Quota List of 453/2 B.C.," Hesperia 45 (1976) 280-
82 publishesnew fragmentsof the earlytributelistswhich
includetwo paymentsby Phokaiain this year (cf. infra
n. 54). F. Bodenstedtdatesa satrapalcoinissuedin Phokaia
to 453/2 byits styleandon thehypothesisthatPhokaiamay
havebeenin revoltduringthis period,alongwith Erythrai
and Miletos; but this dating must be revised in the light of
thenewfragmentsof the TributeLists(F. Bodenstedt,
"Sa-
trapen und Dynasten auf phokiiischenHekten," SchwMbll
26 [1976] 69-75; cf. Bodenstedt,Die Elektronmiinzenvon
Phokaia und Mytilene [Tuibingen1981] 147, Issue 65; 154,
Issue86).
0SSee Kjelsdsen and Zahle 1975; Zahle 1983 (supra
499
nasts used their monumentaltombs in much the same
way as the Persian Kings and administratorsused
them, as explicit symbolsof power and personalglory,
as memorials of their exploits in battle, of their no-
bility and the nobilityof their ancestors.These themes
are commonin the sculpturaldecorationand epitaphs
of both Persian and Anatolian freestandingtombs."
Although the forms of the tombs are different, the
meanings are similar, and it is possible that the use of
monumental, highly visible and decoratedtombs to
conveythese messagesabout the deceasedis relatedto
Persian usage, and to the changedsocial situation and
new sourcesof controland legitimacyin Anatoliadur-
ing the Persian period.
TA? KULE: ITS HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL
CONTEXT
Among the most interesting and important ques-
tions Ta? Kule raises are why this tomb was built in
such an unusual form near the Greek city of Phokaia,
and why other tombs of this type are rare or un-
known. The two questionsmay be connected:the ex-
traordinaryform of the monument might be related
to its location near the Greek coast rather than in
inland Anatolia.
It has been suggestedthat Ta? Kule was the tombof
a person of Iranian backgroundor under strongIran-
ian influence, perhaps practicing a form of Zoroas-
trianism, presumablya local administratoror estate-
holderin or near Phokaia.But othertombsof Persians
or Persianizing Anatolians, at Daskyleion, Ikiztepe,
Sardis, Karaburun,and other sites, are generallylocal
Anatolian or Greek types of tomb:tumuli, tombswith
anthemion stelai, mausolea, sarcophagi. They have
been recognizedas Persian or Persianizing solely by
their decorationor contents.It seems, then, that Per-
sian administratorsin Asia Minor were generally
buriedin tombsresemblingthose of local nobles,not in
n. 15); C. Deltour-Levie, Les piliers fundraires de Lycie
(Publicationsd'histoirede l'art et d'archeologiede l'Univer-
site Catholiquede Louvain31, Louvain-la-Neuve
1982);
E. Akurgal, GriechischeReliefs des VI. Jahrhundertsaus
Lykien (Berlin 1942) 98-101.
51 Lycian tombs are the most explicit examplesof this. For
instance,the InscribedPillar at Xanthos is remarkablysim-
ilar to Persian monumentssuch as the Behistun Relief and
the Tomb of Darius in its use of multilingual texts illus-
tratedby reliefs,all with a stronghistoricand propagan-
disticcontent;the ensembleis completelyforeignto Greek
art (TAM 1, no. 44; Demargne [supra n. 16] 112-16;
W.A.P. Childs, "The Authorship of the InscribedPillar at
Xanthos,"AnatSt 31 [1979] 97-102; Childs [supra n. 30]).
W.A.P. Childs, The City-Reliefsof Lycia (Princeton 1978)
discussesrelatedproblemsof Lyciantombiconography
and
theirpossibleNearEasternprototypes.
500 NICHOLASCAHILL
outwardly distinctivetombs. Thus Ta? Kule would be
extraordinarynot only in comparisonwith Anatolian
mausolea, but also comparedwith the tombs of other
Persians or Persianizingaristocratsliving in Anatolia.
It makes a far more forthright statement of its occu-
pant's alliance or ethnicity than, for instance, Ikiztepe
or Karaburun.And the very fact that more such dis-
tinctive tombs have not been found suggests that such
statementswere comparativelyrare.
Why then this statementat Phokaia, and not in the
interior, in Lydia, Lycia, or Caria? Perhaps because
Phokaia and the Ionian coast were not as tightly con-
trolled as the interior during this time, and that more
and different forms of control and propagandawere
necessary to maintain Achaemenid authority. In the
540s the Phokaians had resistedthe Persian approach
and fled instead; in 499, despite apparent economic
weakness, they provided the Ionian revolt with its
commander.Perhaps becauseof the difficultiesof con-
trolling this coastal region, a Persian administrative
center was installed in the town, probablyas early as
the 540s as implied by Herodotos.52By the fifth cen-
tury B.C., satrapal coins were minted in Phokaia, im-
plying Persian administrativepresence and control.53
In the early fourth century Tachos, a Persian officer,
founded (or refounded) Leukai just south of Phokaia
as a base for his rebellion against the King; this area
was still one where he might receive support against
Persian authority.54We know little about the mecha-
nisms of Persian administrativecontrolin Anatolia in
this early period, but the Persians were well aware of
the potential of buildings, tombs, and other monu-
ments for making propagandisticstatementsand facil-
itating political control. The relief and inscription at
Behistun, those on the Tomb of Darius, and particu-
larly the Persepolis reliefs are all eloquent and effec-
tive propaganda about the relationships between the
King and his subjects.55Ta? Kule may be interpreted
in this way as well, as an explicit statement of both
52 Hdt. 1.163-69; 6.11.
53Bodenstedt1976(supran. 49).
54 Diod.Sic.15.18,15.92;Strab.14.1.38;Bean(supran. 4)
125-27.The siteexistedearlierif L. Robert'srestoration
of
the recentlydiscoveredfragmentof the AthenianTribute
List for 453/2, Q[0o]KatGs [A]E[v]Ko,is correct;a second
7rapaT
entry for Phokaia, simply [0[o]KaLfs, follows this ("Bulletin
6pigraphique,"REG 1977, 336 no. 138).
55 M.C. Root, The King and Kingship in AchaemenidArt
(Acta Iranica 19, Leiden 1979); M. Weiskopf, Achaemenid
Systemsof Governingin Anatolia (Diss. Univ. of California,
Berkeley 1982).
56 Of the extensive literature about these motifs, cf. espe-
cially Borchhardt (supra n. 29); H. Metzger, "Sur deux
groups de reliefs 'gr6co-perses'd'Asie Mineure," AntCl 40
[AJA92
status and ethnicityor alliance, and as a deliberateas-
sociation of the status of the deceasedto his ethnic or
cultural background.The statementis all the stronger
since it is locatedin a region where built freestanding
tombs were very rare and where Persian authority
was resisted.
However, although Ta? Kule used Achaemenid
architecturalformssuch as the moldingabovethe false
door, and its fire bowl shouldbe relatedto Zoroastrian
religious practice,the tomb itself is not a Persian type
of tomb. Thus, although it may have been designedto
make an explicit statementabout the alliance or eth-
nicity of its commissioner,it did not do so by referring
to traditional Iranian tomb types, but by creating a
new type incorporatingforeignelements.Indeed,there
seem to be a numberof somewhateclecticfunerarytra-
ditions more or less specificto Iranians living in prov-
inces of the Empire or Persianizedlocal nobility, and
Ta? Kule may be compared to these traditions and
placed among them. As suggestedabove, for instance,
early false doors seem to be most frequently found on
tombs associatedwith Persiansin Asia Minor, but the
false dooris not itself an Iranianfunerarymotif.As an-
other example, a distinctive iconographic complex
consistingof a processionwith a tented wagon, a ban-
quet scene, and a hunt or battle, is foundalmost exclu-
sively on the tombs of Persians or Persianizingaristo-
crats living in Anatolia and their Aramaic-speaking
assistants:at Daskyleion, Karaburun,and, in incom-
plete forms,at Sardis,Sidon,and othersites;but not on
Anatoliantombswithout other Persianassociations,or
on Persiantombsin the homeland.56
These motifs then are neither strictly Persian nor
properlyAnatolian;they servedthe particularneedsof
Achaemenidadministratorsin Asia Minor, needs that
would have been different from those either of Per-
sians at home or of nativeAnatolianaristocrats.There
was some overlapping of requirements,leading per-
haps to the use of these motifs by other social groups;
(1971) 505-25; H. M6bius,"Zu den Stelenvon Dasky-
leion,"AA 1971, 442-55; E. Akurgal,"Griechische-per-
sische Reliefs aus Daskyleion,"IrAnt 6 (1966) 147-56; R.
Altheim-Stiehl,D. Metzler,and E. Schwertheim,"Eine
neuegriko-persische
Grabsteleaus SultaniyeK6yundihre
Bedeutungfor die Geschichteund Topographievon Dasky-
leion," EpigAnat 1 (1983) 1-23; M. Tappeiner, "Ein Bei-
trag zu den Wagenziigen auf den Stelen aus Daskyleion,"
EpigAnat 7 (1986) 81-95; J.-M. Dentzer, Le motifdu ban-
quet couchedans le Proche-Orientet le mondegrec du VIIe
au IVe sizcle avant J.C. (BEFAR 246, Rome 1982); R.
Fleischer, Der Klagefrauensarkophagaus Sidon (IstForsch
34, Tiibingen 1983); I. Kleeman, Der Satrapen-Sarkophag
aus Sidon (IstForsch20, Berlin 1958).
1988] TA$ KULE:A PERSIAN-PERIODTOMB NEARPHOKAIA
but their fairly restricteduse ought to imply a require-
ment limited to a specific social and/or ethnic group.
This sort of limited requirementmay also lie behind
the extraordinarydesign of Ta? Kule, which also is
neither Iranian nor Anatolian. These special require-
ments may have been relatedto the difficultiesof a for-
eign population, without well-developedarchitectural
or iconographictraditions,controllinga region where
these traditions were very highly developed and of
great antiquity; of a new stratum of aristocratsestab-
lishing its position within the fairly stable social struc-
501
tures of Anatolia; they may have been related to the
need to createnew and differentsymbolsof power and
birth to serve the new social order. The exact reasons
and the full meanings of these newly createdsymbols
may remain uncertain;but it is in this contextthat we
shouldtry to interpretTa? Kule and othersuch monu-
ments of the Persian presencein Asia Minor.
GROUP FOR ANCIENT HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720