Egypt presenting detailed iconographical examinations of the monuments and copious references for further reading.7 Wasmuth, M. (2019). Transient or eternal? Cross‐regional identity display reconsidered: the missing head of the statue of Darius I (NMI 4112). Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, 24, pp. 49–66. Study on further reconstruction options and their contextualization at the primary Egyptian and the secondary Persian place of erection.
8 Wasmuth, M., Creasman, P.P. (eds.) (2020). Udjahorresnet and his world (= Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 26). Tucson: Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections. Collection of papers on this key figure of world diplomacy who facilitated the integration of Egypt into the Persian Empire.
9 Wuttmann, M., Marchand, S. (2005). Égypte. In P. Briant, R. Boucharlat (eds.), L’archéologie dans l’empire achéménide: nouvelles recherches (Persika 6). Paris: De Boccard, pp. 97–128. Compilation of the archeological sites in Egypt in use during the period of the Achaemenid Empire.
CHAPTER 21 Asia Minor
Deniz Kaptan
Recent excavations, surveys, and publications have contributed substantially to the progress of the archeology of the Achaemenid Empire in Asia Minor, yet different perspectives associated with methodological variance in the interpretation of finds and their correlation within the imperial organization persist. The region's fragmented cultural landscape, and the effects of diverse physical geography on communities, need to be reckoned with. Rich archeological data can be found in the expansive literature about the classical sites on the coastal lines, e.g. major coastal Ionian and Karian cities, which have had a long period of excavation history, and likewise publications of sites located inland with Iron Age levels. It should be noted that the conventional terms of art history, the Greek Archaic and Classical periods, overlap the Achaemenid Empire period, and the problems of periodization partially stem from the geographic and sociocultural constructs, the Near East and the Classical world, the boundaries of which are difficult to define in Asia Minor. In the wide territorial span of the Achaemenids, the empire emerges as the connector of diverse communities across the region, notable in the archeological record.
This chapter, organized in geographic order, provides only a glimpse into select studies relevant to the Asian portion of Turkey, excluding the former land of Urartu (Figure 21.1). Illicit excavations and plunder of burials continue to be significant problems.
Figure 21.1 Map of northwestern Asia Minor (Deniz Kaptan).
Western Asia Minor
Inland western Asia Minor was the territory of the Lydian kingdom as the Aiolian, Ionian, and Dorian cities were located on the coastal line. The topography of this region comprises fertile river‐cut valleys (Kaikos/Bakırçay, Hermos/Gediz, Kayster/Küçük Menderes, and Meandros/Büyük Menderes) and forested mountain ranges (Pindasos/Madra Da
The sack of Sardis by the Achaemenid army has been archeologically well documented. There is impressive material evidence for combats that took place in the streets of the city thanks to the carefully explored destruction debris, especially in the northern and eastern sectors of the city, in the Lydian houses, and under the Roman period theater. Among the finds are the skeletal remains of two warriors in their mid‐twenties who died during combat, as indicated by fractures in their skulls and bones. During the chaotic days of the fall of the city, there was clearly no opportunity to give a proper burial to these defeated, presumably Lydians, nor were they robbed for their valuable belongings that included their weapons, a small croeseid, and a bronze and iron helmet (Cahill and Kroll 2005: pp. 590–608; Cahill 2010: pp. 339–357). Cahill cautiously suggests a date for the destruction between 550 BCE, the accession of Cyrus to power, and the conquest of Babylon by his army in 539 BCE.
The urban design of the acropolis comprised terrace walls and stairways built of worked blocks, a large portion of which were eventually recycled in the Byzantine period fortress, but the surviving parts testify to the skills of the builders. Sets of terraces belonged to a system, supporting a number of buildings on the acropolis, which may have included elements of public landscapes such as gardens (Greenwalt 1995, 2011: pp. 1116–1125). The lower city was surrounded by a strong fortification wall covering an area of about 108 ha. So far, excavations have revealed no structure that could be directly associated with the palace(s) of the Lydian rulers and the Persian satraps.
During the Achaemenid period, freestanding monumental tombs emerge in Asia Minor, reaching a peak with the construction of the Maussolleion at Halikarnassos in the second half of the fourth century BCE. The Pyramid Tomb, located on a ridge on the northern slope of the acropolis in Sardis, appears to be one of the first in this category (Ratté 2011: pp. 65, 94–99, no. 15). The structure, the remains of which consist of a stepped platform, was probably never completed. On the platform there would have been a freestanding chamber, possibly with a gabled roof. Based on the building techniques and the masonry, the monument is dated to the second half of the sixth century BCE. An associated monument with a stepped construction and a false door is Taşkule standing on the roadside of Phokaia (Cahill 1988).
Occupation and sanctuaries stretched beyond the city walls of Sardis. One of the extramural sanctuaries belonged to the goddess Cybele, active during the Achaemenid period (Cahill 2010: pp. 100–101). A second sanctuary to the south of the settlement was for Artemis. Its earliest architectural evidence, “the Lydian Altar” situated in the west end of the Hellenistic temple, is a stepped platform comparable to the Pyramid Tomb, but unlike the Pyramid Tomb it is solid, not constructed around a rubble core. A date between the late sixth and early fourth centuries BCE has been suggested (Ratté 2011: pp. 123–125).
The burial chambers of many of the tumuli at Bin Tepe, the Pactolos valley, central Lydia, and those in the Uşak‐Güre area display Lydian ashlar masonry; only a few were built out of irregular blocks covered with plaster. The majority of tombs are from between the mid‐sixth and mid‐fifth centuries BCE, with no significant typological change from the Lydian period; a few show a variety, e.g. three chambers, pitched roofs, flat ceilings, false barrel vault, chambers with dromoi and antechambers (Roosevelt 2009: pp. 148–151).
Among portable artifacts, the deep bowl with high rim as the adaptation of Achaemenid metal original in pottery
