With the disappearance of the Lydian State in 547 BC, Anatolia continued its life under Persian rule for two centuries. Persians kept the cities under their control with the Satrapy system they established. The number of Satrapies at the imperial level was 23. Satrapies-Provinces were divided into smaller satrapies-provinces. The number of these provinces reached 127.
According to this division, the following new satrapies were established in Anatolia:
Yauna (Ionian) Satrapy: It covered the entire western coastal region of Anatolia, from Aeolia to Caria, Lycia and Pamphylia; it was obliged to pay an annual tax of 400 talents of silver to the treasury. Later, the coasts between Caria and Cilicia were separated from this satrapy.
Sparda (Sardes) Satrapy: It included Mysia, Lydia, Lasonia, Kabalia and Hygennia; the annual tax was 500 talents of silver.
Daskyleion Satrapy: Phrygians, Anatolian Thracians, Paphlogonians, Mariandians and Cappadocians, i.e. the entire northern coast of Anatolia, the Greek cities on the southern shores of the Dardanelles and the Sea of Marmara, inland Phrygia and Cappadocia were also under this satrapy; the annual tax was 360 talents of silver. Later on, this very large satrapy was divided into three satrapies: Hellespontus Phrygia, Great Phrygia and Kapatuka (Kappadokia).
Cilicia Satrapy: It covered the part of Anatolia extending from the Taurus Mountains to the Mediterranean Sea; the annual tax it was obliged to pay was 360 white horses at the rate of one per day and 500 talents of silver. Of this, 140 talents went to the Persian Cavalry Garrison in Cilicia. It was initially ruled by local Cilician kings called Syennesis; later it became a province directly subordinate to the centre.
Eastern Black Sea Satrapy: It included the area between the present-day Ordu and Trabzon provinces, inhabited by the Moskhi and Tibarenes, formerly called Muski and Tabal, as well as the Makrons, Mossyniks and Marelis; the tax was 300 talents of silver.
Satrapy of Pactyica and Armenia: It extended from the northern part of present-day eastern Anatolia to the Black Sea; the annual tax was 400 talents of silver.
Thanks to these satrapies, they collected regular taxes and tried to ensure control with permanent garrisons. One of the most important of these is the Satrapy of Dasklyleion. In 1952, German archaeologist Kurt Bittel discovered Hisartepe in Ergili Village as the Persian Satrapal Centre. The first excavations in Daskyleion were carried out by Ekrem Akurgal. In 1988, Tomris Bakır restarted the excavations. During the Early Achaemenid Phase between 547-480 BC, Satraps known as Pharnakes, Mitrobates, Megabazos and Megabates served as governors in Daskyleion. Archaeological finds from this period include architectural blocks of palaces and a magnificent Terrace Wall and typical Persian palace architecture. The Middle Achaemenid Phase between 480-370 BC constitutes the Golden Age of Daskyleion and some architectural fragments found during this period comprise an Andron belonging to noble rulers and a section belonging to the palace. Satraps such as Artabazos I, Pharnabazos I, Pharnakes I and Pharnabazos II lived in this palace. This palace was burnt and destroyed by the Spartan commander Agesilaos in 395 BC. Tomb stelae in Anatolian-Persian style with royal inscriptions in Aramaic, ivory artefacts, loom weights, and more than 500 bullae (seal impressions), evidence of the correspondence of the Great Shah of Iran with his satraps in the west, should be mentioned. Some remains indicate that structures belonging to the Zoroastrian religion were also located in Daskyleion. After the Battle of Granicus (Biga) in 334 BC, the Persian rule both in Daskyleion and in Anatolia came to an end.
The term "Anatolian Persian Art" was coined by T. Bakır in consideration of the Persian Period grave stelae found in various regions, especially in the Propontis region, which differ in their continuity and composition. With the arrival of the Persians, workshops ceased in a significant part of Anatolia, and especially Western Anatolia was plunged into a darkness that lasted for about two centuries. The Persians' constant struggle with Athens played an important role in this. It is debatable to what extent the Persians dominated the cultural history of Anatolia during their two-century rule. In fact, while archaeological researches reveal a certain amount of Persian pattern in the satrapal centres, this situation is uncertain in other regions.
Architecture:
The Pyramidal Tomb from Sardis and the Stone Tower Tomb Monument from Phokaia are the earliest examples of Persian architecture in Anatolia, dating to the late 6th and early 5th centuries BC. Architectural examples include orthostad blocks with reliefs of different periods, column capitals or bases, a marble window lintel with Persian-style profile and ornamental details, a Miletian-style corner acroter with volutes, fragments of kyma decorated with a lotus-palmette frieze, architectural terracottas similar to Anatolian and especially Lydian examples, decorated or plain architrave blocks, and other finds belonging to buildings built in Daskyleion from the late archaic period onwards. While these architectural fragments provide information about the buildings of the Persian period, they also show that the Persians employed Ionian craftsmen as architects and stonemasons, that these Anatolian craftsmen both applied the Ionian architectural style and made ornaments in the Persian tradition, and at the same time prove that a new "Anatolian - Persian" style was born with the architecture of Daskyleion.
Tomb Stelae:
The Anatolian tomb stelae of the Persian period, with their heights up to 3 m., the body structure narrowing from bottom to top and the anthemion on the upper part, originate from Western Anatolia, since the closest examples in terms of form are found in Samos and Sardes. In terms of form, it is found in the Troad Region, Samos, Ionia, Attica and Thessalia from the Early Archaic period onwards. On the other hand, while there is no relief decoration on the Sardis and Samos examples, the Attica and Thessalia examples depict a single scene consisting of one or two figures covering the whole body, while the Perinthian stelae depict one or two small human figures on the upper part of the body. It is thought-provoking that the three-line inscription under the relief depictions on the stele called "Manes Stele" found during the excavations at Daskyleion is not in Aramaic as usual, but in Phrygian. The depictions on the stelae depict scenes from the lives of the Persian nobles, such as banquet scenes, hunting scenes, the dead being brought to the grave in a chariot, or the ceremonies required by the cult of the dead. Among the figures in these scenes, the deceased nobleman and his relatives are distinguished from the other figures (usually servants) by their proportions and their size. The style of the reliefs is also unique. The surfaces of the figures are left flat and the details (face, hair, clothing) are indicated by timely colouring. These depictions bear no resemblance to Greek art, and directly reflect the iconography of the Pre-Anatolian and Anatolian cultures.
These stelae are categorised into six groups according to their subjects.
I . Ekphora Scene,
Banquet Scene II,
Hunting Scene III,
Act IV. Battle Scene,
V. The Induction Scene,
VI. Religious Ceremony
I. EKPHORA SCENE
The fact that these procession scenes, which start around 500 BC and continue until the post-Achaemenid period, feature similar types of chariots carrying cargo and emphasise their importance leads to various interpretations. The common feature of the scenes is a chariot with a dome-shaped upper part, carrying a load. The transition from the flat body to the dome is characterised by a protrusion at the back and front. The carts are usually drawn by two horses, but in a single example they are drawn by four horses. The carts have a single axle and a high wheel. Some figures accompany these chariots in the processions.
These scenes, which are common in the Propntis Region, are also found in Lycia in the burial chamber of the Karaburun II Tumulus (Fig.1) and in the Tomb of Weeping Women from Sidon (Fig.2). The extensive treatment of the subject matter in the procession scenes of Karaburun II and the Sarcophagus of Weeping Women is important in terms of understanding the figures neglected due to lack of space in the tomb stelae found in the Propontis Region and in terms of showing that the people participating in the procession on the stelae were not limited to depictions.
The equestrian figures depicted on the upper frieze of the Istanbul 5764 Stele (Fig.3 ) are difficult to explain on their own. These equestrian figures, which move in the silence of a religious ceremony, gain meaning only when they are combined with the lower frieze. Considering Karaburun II, Sarcophagus of Weeping Women and Istanbul 5762 Stele (Fig.4), it is understood that the equestrian figures in the first frieze accompany the chariot and a procession scene is depicted. The procession scenes depicting carts also shed light on the processions in which carts were not found. The longest of these procession scenes, the cortege on the southern frieze of Xanthos G Heroon (Fig.5 ), does not include a chariot. However, the fact that the chariot is located at the end of the cortege in Karaburun II and Istanbul 5764 Stele strengthens the possibility that the chariot is located in the last part of the southern frieze of Heroon G, which has not been recovered. Except for the Sidon example, ekphora scenes in this style are not encountered outside Anatolia. This draws attention to Anatolia in this regard.
The discovery of beasts of burden such as horses and oxen, as well as related materials in Phrygian tumuli from the 8th century BC onwards, shows that in Phrygian funeral ceremonies, the cart and the animals pulling it were also buried together with the deceased. This Phrygian tradition continued in the tumuli of the Achaemenid period in the Lydian and Phrygian regions. Based on the findings, it can be said that this tradition continued in the Achaemenid period and was also adopted by the Persians living in Anatolia.
II. BANQUET SCENE
The most important figure in the banquet scenes is the male figure lying on the kline. In some scenes, this man shares the kline with a woman. In others, the woman sits not on the kline but on a stool next to it. In some scenes where the woman is not emphasised in this way, she participates in the scene as a servant.
The meaning of the banquet scene in Anatolian Persian tomb iconography is one of the most debated topics. Three main views have gained weight in explaining this iconography.
1. That the banquet scene is a cross-section of the life of the deceased,
2. That it was a farewell dinner,
3. A feast attended by the deceased in the afterlife.
Macridy, Akurgal and Kleeman agree that this is a slice of the life of the deceased. Dentzer, on the other hand, associates it with Persian court life and says that the status of the person is emphasised. Hanfman and Mellink see the banquet scene as a reflection of the high standard of living that the Persian king valued and to which his satraps had to conform.
Borchhardt, on the other hand, goes beyond all these views and brings a different interpretation. He believes that in the early cults of Mycenae, Argos, Crete and Cyprus, human sacrifices were made in the tomb of the deceased, and that the participants of the feast should actually be buried in the tomb, but that ancient traditions gained humanitarian applications with modern thought, so that only their depictions were placed on the tombs. Dolunay, on the other hand, while agreeing with Dupont-Sommer's interpretation of the stelae as votive stelae, interprets the scene on Stele 5763 in Istanbul as a funeral feast (Fig.6), while the banquet scene on the Ödemiş Stele (Fig.7) from the İzmir Museum is interpreted as entertainment, the comfort and joy of finishing a job, rather than a meal for the dead, and therefore emphasises that this stele is a votive stele related to transport and caravans.
While women are present in the banquet scene on many Lycian reliefs, there are no women on Trysa (Fig.8) and Nereid (Fig.9). Jacobs argues that this was not only due to the social status of the deceased, but also to his political status. In other words, these were official banquets given by the ruler himself, and therefore women could not attend. In this context, the Karaburun II Tumulus is a summary of the banquet scene in the Nereid example.
We can learn from Herodotus and other ancient writers that there were banquets in Persia in which women also participated. Herodotus, in particular, states that it was customary for women to attend banquets in Persia.
Undoubtedly, banqueting meetings could not be organised by everyone and required a certain wealth and social status. Therefore, the reason why Persian or pro-Persian nobles, who were not rulers, also included banquet scenes in tomb iconography must be the understanding of transferring this wealth and status to the grave.
III. HUNTING SCENE
The hunting scene is a favourite subject in Anatolian Persian funerary iconography. These scenes depict the hunting of five different animals. These are the male wild boar, deer, bear, bird and panther.
Due to space constraints on the stelae, hunting scenes are usually represented by only one horseman. On the other hand, on monuments with long friezes, such as the Nereids, they are depicted quite long (Fig.10 ). The hunt is usually carried out with long spears and a dog always assists the hunter.
Although the subject matter is centred on the encounter between the hunt and the hunter, there are also scenes of the hunt and the return from the hunt. For example, on the Pergamon 4394 Stele, the lower frieze depicts going hunting and the upper frieze depicts hunting. The Dereköy Stele has a similar narrative.
Only Manisa Stele 3389 depicts a bird hunt (Fig.11). The hunter dressed in Persian costume uses a bow and arrow and aims at a bird perched on a branch. The hunting scene with arrows is also found on the Alexander Sarcophagus.
The hunting scenes at Kızılbel and Isinda also show that this subject was depicted in Anatolia in the 6th century BC. The depiction of the hunting scene has been used in Assyrian palaces since the 9th century BC. Khorsabad in the 8th century BC and Til-Barsib in the 7th century BC are other early examples. In the Achaemenid hunting scenes, early examples of depictions of hunters struggling with the prey while standing on their hind legs are found in Assyria (Fig.12).
As Jacobs also states, hunting scenes were depicted in Anatolian art, albeit to a lesser extent, before the Persian conquest of Anatolia. They were also an indispensable part of the tomb iconography of the Anatolian Persian period.
IV. BATTLE SCENE
Almost all of the battle scenes depicted on friezes and stelae are between horse cavalry and foot soldiers.
The Nereidler Monument (Fig.13) depicts a battle between Persians and Greeks. In these battles, the cavalry depicted on horseback are dressed in Persian clothes, while the soldiers on foot are fighting on the Greek side. The Persian cavalry is constantly superior to the foot soldiers. In the scenes with a long depiction area, the defeat of the enemy by the army, in which the grave owner is also included, also heroises the grave owner, while in the steles with a narrow area, only the grave owner and his opponent are depicted. In the Manisa 3389 Stele, this is narrowed even more and the grave owner is depicted alone (Fig.11).
Although the siege of a city, as seen on the Nereidler Monument and Trysa Heroon, is not found in continental Hellas, the closest examples are found on Assyrian palace reliefs. Like the battle on the Nereids Monument, the battle on the Payava Sarcophagus (Fig.14) is thought to deal with a specific war. Because the rocky place where the battle was fought in the Payava Sarcophagus is similar to the landscape in the Autophradates relief and the mention of the name Autophradates in the Payava Sarcophagus carries this to a more serious dimension. This must be related to a battle won by Autophradates. The historical experience and the spatial reflection of the subject matter here give the work the characteristic of being a historical document in the real sense.
The war scenes in the Anatolian Persian iconography had previously been included in the iconography of Anatolia and Hellas. Starting from the Archaic period, the deceased is depicted as a warrior on tomb stelae. This subject is also encountered in the Klazomenai sarcophagi.
V. THE RECEPTION SCENE
The scene of the audience, which is depicted in many places in the Persepolis Palace, shows that this narrative has an important place in Persian palace iconography. Apart from Persepolis, the audience scene in this palace depiction is also found on the sarcophagus of Alexander and on the seals of Daskyleion.
The other scenes of the audience were found in Anatolia, especially in Lycia. These are found in Kızılbel Tumulus (Fig.15), Harpy Monument, Nereidler Monument (Fig.16), Payava Sarcophagus (Fig.17) and Trysa Heroon. It is seen that these ceremonies took place in an official atmosphere by following certain rules.
The fact that the figures on the Nereids Monument and the Payava Sarcophagus are wearing tiaras suggests that they could not have been the Great King. Moreover, it is clear from the inscription on the Payava Sarcophagus that this person represents the Lydian Satrap Autophradates. The close resemblance of the first of the two men next to the satrap to the person depicted in the other sections suggests that he may be Payava.
The frieze of Podium II of the Nereidler Monument depicts the reception of the dignitaries of the besieged city by a Persian dressed person, who is probably the Satrap, which must be a continuation of the reception scene at Persepolis.
At this point, the reception scene on the wall painting of the Kizilbel Tumulus, which is dated to 525 BC, creates a problem. This is because it appears to be earlier than the depictions in the Treasury Buildings, which are the earliest of the Persepolis initiation scenes. However, the fact that this type of reception scene was found in Assyrian art before the Persians, and that the reception scenes in the wall paintings found in Til-Barsib (Tell Ahmar) are very similar to the Persepolis reception scenes, clearly shows that the reception scenes in Persian art were influenced by Assyrian art. In spite of this clear similarity, Persian reception scenes did not copy Assyrian reception scenes exactly, but developed a unique form, especially in terms of furniture components. According to Kyrieleis, the cover over the kline and stools is also a Persian feature.
VI. RELIGIOUS CEREMONY
Only three artefacts from the Persian period in Anatolia depict Persian religious ceremonies in the real sense. Two of them were found at Daskyleion and the other at Bünyan. The Median garments worn by magos such as tiara, kandys, sarapis and anaxyrides were also used by Persian nobles during the Achaemenid period. The classes and duties of the wearers of these garments, which do not differ in terms of shape, can be distinguished by the different colours they carried. For example, magos wear white clothes that give a simple appearance, while commanders are much more flamboyant and striking with their red or purple clothes. In this context, the figure in relief 5391 (Fig.17) is distinctive in that he holds the barsman in his right hand, while the red colour of the kandysun must emphasise that he is not a magos but a Persian nobleman.
Although the colours of the figures in relief 2361 (Fig.18) have not been preserved, it is possible that they were father and son magos, as it is clear that they were performing the sacrifice with the stunted sticks they were holding in their hands and that they were in a divine supplication with their right hands raised upwards. The figures in reliefs 5391 and 2361 are probably performing the sacrifice in front of a building.
In the cella frieze of the Nereidler Monument (Fig.19), the figures performing the sacrificial ceremony prefer himation instead of Persian clothes. In the frieze, the figure standing on the left side of the altar is libating with a bowl in his right hand. The figure bringing a bull and two goats from the right side must represent a priest with a garment exposing both shoulders. This scene is not similar to the relief no. 2361. However, we learn from the ancient sources that the Persians organised sacrifices to gods, fire, water and deceased persons, and that each of these ceremonies had its own rules. The Persian nobleman depicted on the Cappadocian Altar of Fire is also holding a barman in his right hand and a libation vessel in his left hand.
In relief 2361, the heads of sacrificed animals rest on a quadrangular object. This quadrilateral, elaborated with thin sticks, must symbolise the pile of myrtle and laurel branches that kept the sacred fire burning and on which the meat was then placed. A similar scene was found at Ravansar. In the light of these two scenes, Calmeyer believes that a religious ceremony was performed in front of the tomb.
In the Ravansar rock-cut tomb, the ceremony was performed at the actual door of the tomb, whereas in reliefs 5391 and 2361 the scene is depicted in front of a door. The façade of the Aktepe Tumulus of the Achaemenid period, which was opened in Uşak-Güre, shows an interesting similarity with the structure in these reliefs. This similarity suggests that this structure, in front of which ceremonies were performed, was a tomb. Indeed, as reported by Arrian (Anabasis VI. 29.7), it is known that sacrificial ceremonies were performed in front of the tombs during the Achaemenid period. At the tomb of Cyrus, a sheep was sacrificed every day and a horse every month.
In the light of these data, while the reliefs 5391 and 2361 depict a religious ceremony in front of a tomb, a summarised version of a religious ceremony is also found on the Cappadocian Fire Altar. The cella frieze of the Neridler Monument, on the other hand, depicts a prolonged sacrifice scene. In the ceremony performed in front of a fire altar, animal sacrifices are performed as well as libations. These religious scenes reflect Persian traditions in accordance with the information obtained from ancient sources.
In particular, when the grave stelae of the Achaemenid period are analysed, it is seen that these works, which are under the influence of Anatolian local cultures in terms of form and style, also incorporate Persian style to a certain extent and thus deserve the definition of Anatolian Persian Art. However, the issue to be emphasised here is whether these artefacts adequately reflect the traces of a culture that dominated Anatolia for two hundred years. Stelae, relief blocks and architectural artefacts were mostly found in satrapal centres such as Daskyleion and Sardes, and in Xanthos, the local administrative centre. These artefacts are a blend of Anatolian and Persian art. However, the emphasis here shifts towards Anatolia. The situation that we encounter on many depictions is simply that the owner of the grave presents himself as a Persian. Whether the tomb owner is Persian or local, this is intended to emphasise a purely political situation, i.e. loyalty to the administration.On the other hand, hunting, war and banqueting scenes, which were seen in Anatolian iconography before the Persian invasion of Anatolia, continued to increase as they were related to the Persian understanding of life. Ekphora scenes, on the other hand, are not found in Persian grave iconography, and this indicates a Phrygian influence when horse and chariot burials are taken into consideration. The preferred form of grave stelae is also from Propontis. Monumental tomb architecture such as tumuli, heroons and pillars are also of Phrygian and Lycian origin.
