Monumental tomb forms in the Olba region

British Institute at Ankara and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anatolian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

Monumental Tomb Forms in the Olba Region Author(s): Murat Durukan Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 55 (2005), pp. 107-126Published by: British Institute at AnkaraStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20065538Accessed: 14-01-2016 07:15 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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 [email protected].

This content downloaded from 193.255.130.9 on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 07:15:20 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/publisher/biaa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20065538

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



Anatolian Studies 55 (2005): 107-126

Monumental tomb forms in the Olba region

Murat Durukan

University ofMersin

Abstract

One of the most studied subjects in the Olba region is the graves. Nevertheless, new grave forms emerge with each new

study conducted there, and old studies are re-evaluated based on recent findings. In some rare cases, results accepted up to now may change. This study addresses such a possibility in terms of burial customs. In this study, tombs, also referred

to here as monuments, are considered. Examples of new forms of tomb monuments that were previously unknown, or

only a few of which were published before, are presented. The features of these monuments are used to introduce new

and strong evidence with regards to the chronology. One of the most important results is the discovery of evidence for

the practice of cremation, accepted as a rare occurrence during the antique period. Based on this, a shift in the process of burial customs during the Roman period, especially for the temple tombs, is suggested as a new dating criterion.

?zet

Olba b?lgesinin en ?ok ?ah?ilmi? konularindan biri mezarlardir. Bununla birlikte, yapilan her ara?tirmamn sonucunda, bu mezarlara eklenebilecek yeni formlar ortaya ?ikmaktadir. Yeni bulgulara dayanarak eski ?ali?malar tekrar deger lendirilmektedir. Ender durumlarda ise, g?n?m?ze kadar kabullenilmi? olan bazi sonu?larm degi?tirilmesi m?mk?n

olabilmektedir. Bu ?ah?ma, ?l? g?mme gelenekleriyle ilgili olarak, b?yle bir nitelik ta?imaktadir. Ara?tirmada, anit

olarak tammlanabilecek mezarlar ele alinmi?tir. Daha once az sayida ?rnegi yaymlanmi? olan ya da ?rnegi bilinmeyen

yeni mezar anitlan tamtilmi?tir. Bu amtlarda bulunan tarihleyici unsurlar kullamlarak, kronolojiye yeni ve g?cl? kamtlar getirilmi?tir. En ?nemli sonu?lardan biri ise, antik d?nemde az kullamldigi kabullenilmi? olan kremasyon

geleneginin kamtlanna ula?ilmi? olmasidir. Buna dayanarak, g?m? geleneklerinin Roma d?nemindeki degi?im siireci, ?zellikle tapinak mezarlar i?in, yeni bir tarihleme kriteri olarak ?nerilmi?tir.

The territory of the Priestly Dynasty of Olba (fig. 1), located between the rivers G?ksu in Silifke and

Lamas (Lamos) in Erdemli, is one of the best

documented regions of Rough Cilicia. The native

people of Olba appear to have practised stone archi

tecture since the Hellenistic period. They created a

cultural identity that is strongly reflected in the archi

tecture of Olba. It has been recognised that tomb archi

tecture was one of the most important legacies of this

unique culture, setting it apart from that of the rest of

Rough Cilicia and Plain Cilicia.

Comparisons between the architectural characteristics

of the Olba region and those of middle and west Rough Cilicia have resulted in the recognition of an interesting difference: the architectural nature of the Olba region in

the Hellenistic period carries characteristics totally of its

own. The architectural structure of defence systems (see also Durug?n?l 1998) and the civic and religious

buildings, which are part of the defence systems, were

erected using a polygonal masonry technique. They are

spread all over Olba, differentiating the Olba region from

the rest of Rough Cilicia.

However, during the Roman period, an architectural

feature that shows close similarities to the rest of Rough Cilicia is observed in the Olba region. This similarity, which is present in the architectural characteristics of the

religious and civic buildings, especially in the tomb

forms in both regions, can be explained by the unity established by the authority of Rome.

In this study, the structural characteristics of tomb

forms (also referred to as tomb monuments), used since

the Hellenistic period in the Olba region, are investigated.

107



Anatolian Studies 2005

KILIKIA PEDIAS

X Sertavul

KILIKIA TRACHEIA

Adana

Tarsus

Marsin

tslanh

Kalykadnos R

H?sametli Yeniyurt

OLBA

Diocaesaraea? ^?Cambazli

H?seyinler* Cati?ren Kanhdivane

OvacK. H.sa*rkale4|aJus8aSebaste Pasii

y Isikkale / Korykos

Demircili

Meydancikkale

Seleukeia

Kap Sarpedon

4 50km

MEDITERRANIAN SEA

Fig. 1. Cilicia and the Olba region

Hellenistic tombs

The monuments that were constructed with polygonal

masonry indicate a characteristic architectural design of the

Olba region during the Hellenistic period (fig. 2). These

tombs can be identified as the smallest structures showing Hellenistic architectural characteristics in the Olba region

(Durukan 1999: 79-91). This local form seems to have

appeared at the beginning of the second century BC and

continued in use until the last quarter ofthat century (S?g?t 1993: 225; Tupan 1994: 420; Durukan 1999: 89).

With a unique form of construction, these tombs have

a special character not found outside Olba. These tombs

are a reflection of the influence of wooden and sun-dried

Fig. 2. Hellenistic tomb monument with polygonal

masonry from Hisarkale

brick construction on stone architecture that appeared

suddenly in an extremely developed manner in Olba in the

third century BC. A preserved example of wooden and

sun-dried brick architecture, a local house from the last

century in Silifke, shows great similarities to these tombs

in terms of plan and roof covering, thus giving clues to the

constructional characteristics of the ancient period (fig. 3). It must be emphasised that these tombs were the

outcome of a native culture possessing a totally local

character. We can observe graves with a local character

also in the Roman period; but beside these examples further grave types were introduced into this region as a

result of interaction with others. It is quite normal to

Fig. 3. Wooden sun-dried structure from the last century in Silifke

108



Durukan

come across both situations in the same period of time

(?evik 2003: 213-50). The temple tomb with a barrel

vaulted entrance instead of columns is a special form

erected in the Olba region (Machatschek 1967: 107).

Returning to tombs constructed in polygonal masonry, we will consider tomb 1 at Hisarkale as the best

monumental example. The difference of this monument

from other tombs with polygonal masonry is the elaborate

masonry work observed on its surface (Durukan 1999:89).

Excluding the entrance wall, there are in total five niches

on the other three walls (Durukan 1999: pi. 12, fig. 7;

S?g?t 2003: pis 48-49, figs 15-16). These rectangular or

almost square niches are thought to be special places for

burial gifts in cases of inhumation, or used to keep urns if

cremation was practised (S?g?t 2003: 251-52). Although this question has not yet been answered completely, the

presence of well-carved benches (triclinium) projecting from the wall suggests that inhumation was the normal

practice. Similarly, Machatschek has drawn attention to

the fact that a burial tradition without cremation was used

extensively in this region and that cremation is very rarely observed between the first century BC and the first century

AD, contrary to Roman traditions (Machatschek 1967:

16). On the other hand, considering the number of graves

belonging to the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, this

explanation should be questioned, since no graves

belonging to the Hellenistic period have yet been found, besides the tomb monuments with polygonal masonry. These grave houses number around 30 for the whole

region. Moreover, no grave has yet been found dating to

the first century BC or earlier. Even if inhumation is

believed to have been practised, it remains possible that

cremation was used at the same time.

An example of a tomb monument with polygonal

masonry in the Corycian necropolis (Machatschek 1967:

67, FG 1 tomb, fig. 32) was found with an altar relief on the

side wall, related to the cult of the dead, and an inscription on the door lintel of the tomb. It dates to the Roman period

(Keil, Wilhelm 1931: 192, inscription no. 648). Although altar reliefs are not common on tombs of polygonal

masonry, they occur quite often during the Roman period in

tomb architecture. For this reason, the altar relief found on

the polygonal walled tomb, like the inscription on the door

lintel, probably belonged to a second phase.

Temple tombs

The temple tombs1 were erected during the Roman

period. These monuments have either two or four

columns or a barrel-vaulted pronaos entrance (fig. 4). These are typical Roman structures and show a construc

tional layout resembling small prostylos type temples. Since they are gable roofed, pediments exist on the front

and rear sides of these tombs.

Fig. 4. Temple tomb T6 with barrel-vaulted entrance at

Kanhdivane

In some of these tombs, the construction of the roof is

based on the principle of vaults. The mortar (containing

ceramic, stone and sand) was piled on the vault to form a

thick and impermeable layer. The upper surface of this

inclined layer was designed to fit the gable roof. In some

tombs, however, such a mortar layer was not used.

Instead, an arch was constructed in the centre of the

chamber and the blocks of the roof covering were laid on

top of this arch. Furthermore, the upper surfaces of these

stone blocks were carved to resemble the stroter and

calipter pattern of roof tiles. The two different forms of

the roofs are important criteria for the dating of the

temple tombs. While the roofs of the early examples were formed by the use of heavy barrel vaults, the later

temple tombs bore the popular light form of arched roofs.

In temple tombs we usually find the following features: lion head spouts on the sima (Machatschek 1967: 88), friezes decorated with floral ornaments, archi

traves usually with three fascias, and column and pilaster

capitals in the Corinthian and, rarely, in the Ionic style. In

some examples, for instance the Yeniyurt tomb, there is a

false door (on false doors, see Waelkens 1986) (fig. 5). In

1 For temple tombs of Olba, see Keil, Wilhelm 1931: 23,34,44,

85; Machatschek 1967: 85,106; 1974: 251; Wegner 1974: 575;

Hellenkemper, Hild 1986: 52, 57; 1990: 223, 275, 288, 350, 450; Schneider 2003: 263; Erten 2003: 55; Cormack 2004. For a bibliography of this architectural tradition, see also Cormack

1989: 36.

109




Fig. 5. Temple tomb with a false door at Yeniyurt

some cases these tombs have two storeys due to the

topographical structure of the land. In such cases, the

entrance to the first storey was from the side wall of the

tomb, while the entrance to the second storey was either

from the front or the rear part, so that the entrances to the

first and second storeys were generally placed perpendi cular to each other. Burial troughs attached to walls are

generally found in these tombs.

Although the temple tombs of this region generally have similar characteristics, exceptional features can also

be observed. For example, in the two-storey Til temple tomb found in Elaiussa Sebaste (Machatschek 1967: 89, table 52-54, figs 68-69) there is one burial couch on the

ground floor, and in addition to this, niches in the side

walls on both floors (figs 6-7). These niches may point to the tradition of cremation. Schneider (2003a: 263-64)

pointed out that the niches in the upper chamber of tomb

Til were probably used for cult purposes, and thus the

burials were located on this storey. She also proposed that the niches in the lower chamber were definitely for

either a wooden or terracotta sarcophagus, or for an

osthothek. She also noted the likelihood of a

sarcophagus being present in the pronaos. This tomb will

be discussed later in detail.

Fig. 6. Temple tomb Til in Elaiussa Sebaste (from Machatschek 1967)

plan of the upper floor

SM

plan of the lower floor

a

t

Fig. 7. Temple tomb Til, plans of the upper and lower

chambers (from Machatschek 1967)

110



Durukan

Generally, there is a consensus on their dating since

some of these monuments in the Olba region carry

inscriptions. Architectural and archaeological studies

have been supported by epigraphic findings. It has been

established that the building of these monuments inten

sified in the second century AD, and continued into the

third century AD (Keil, Wilhelm 1931: 25; Machatschek 1967: 106; 1974: 261; Wegner 1974: 581; Schneider 2003a: 263; Cormack 2004: 197-99, 204

18, 255-56, 330-32). A study published in 2003 stated that most of the

temple tombs were constructed during the Augustan

period (Berns 2003: 86, 186). However, putting the date

of these impressive monuments back to this very early

period seems rather problematic. From a historical

perspective, it has been recognised that the most

important architectural progress in the Olba region took

place towards the end of the first century AD, during and

after the reign of Vespasian (MacKay, MacKay 1969:

141; Mitford 1980: 1247; Sayar 1992: 57; S?g?t 1999:

406). Except for a few inscriptions on the rock-cut tombs

that can be dated to the beginning of the first century AD,

only a few clues have been found relating to the tombs

dated to this period in the Olba region. The F4 and F6

rock-cut tombs in Kanlidivane, dated to the first half of

the first century AD, are the earliest ones in the region to

be dated by inscriptions (Machatschek 1967: 59; for

these inscriptions, see Heberdey, Wilhelm 1896: 58).

Furthermore, the remains found in two rock-cut tombs

during the Elaiussa Sebaste excavations revealed that

these were also among the earliest examples. The finds

in a grave excavated in 2000 were dated to between the

end of the first century BC (Schneider 2001: 226) and the

middle of the first century AD. The second one, found in

2001, was dated to the first century AD (Schneider 2003a: 262). Additionally, the glass finds discovered in

a grave in Elaiussa Sebaste during the Mersin museum

excavation in 1973 were dated to the first century AD. A

Claudius coin (41-54 AD) found in the same grave confirmed this dating (Erten 1999: 173). Furthermore,

sarcophagi and trough-shaped graves appeared after the

middle of the second century AD, and none can be dated

before this period (Koch 2001: 265; see also Schneider

2003a: 268). In addition, the appearance of varied and

monumental tomb forms from the second century AD

suggests that the Augustan period is too early for the

commencement of both epigraphic and architectural

development. Moreover, it has been observed that civic

construction in general, except for the tombs, intensified

towards the end of the first century and during the second

century AD. For example, in Elaiussa Sebaste,

aqueducts, the theatre, most of the civic edifices, the road

system and most of the other various important architec

tural structures were built towards the end of the first

century and during the second century AD.2 In short, the

development and increased variety of architecture in the

Olba region occurred at the end of the first century AD

and reached a pinnacle during the second century AD.

Considering all this, it does not seem convincing to

accept that these temple tombs were constructed as early as the Augustan period when most of the above

mentioned structures had not yet been built.

Berns took into consideration the stylistic character

istics of the column and pilaster capitals, together with

the decorative elements used for fa?ade arrangement, as

dating criteria. However, isolating the temple tombs

from the general constructional development and from

other factors, and considering only stylistic criteria in the

architectural decoration, without taking other factors into

consideration in this period, could be misleading. The

Olba region has a very individual character and this is

strongly evident in both the regional sculpture and archi

tecture. For this reason, it is misleading to compare the

stylistic features of architecture in the Olba region with

those of other well-known centres. In fact, the stylistic features of the decorative elements of the tomb archi

tecture have been dated by different scholars to various

periods, covering a two-century time-range between

Augustus and Severus (Wegner 1974: 575; Berns 2003:

86, 186; Schneider 2003a: 266; Cormack 2004: 197-99,

204-18, 255-56, 330-32). In this manner, the general process of regional devel

opment must be taken into consideration in relation to the

evolution of architectural styles. It is unlikely that such

temple tombs, reflecting the wealth and the high standards of the region, were built at a time when other

architectural development was backward.

Also, the inscriptions found on the temple tombs

should be taken as definite dating documents of the

architectural reform periods. All the inscriptions,

although they are not numerous, indicate construction in

the second century AD. A well-known example is the

inscription found on a temple tomb in Kanhdivane (T6

temple tomb in Machatschek 1967: 95, 109, pis 45-47,

fig. 65). Hicks (1882: 227, no. 4) stated that this, 'could

not be dated to before the second century AD', and this, of course, was also accepted as a dating criterion for the

temple tomb itself (fig. 4). On the other hand, Berns

noted that the decorative elements of the same tomb

indicate a date in the first century AD, and argued that

this inscription could belong to a second phase because it

2 For the Roman impact on Cilician architecture in general and

for a detailed bibliography on this subject, see Spanu 2003: 1. For articles about the architecture of Elaiussa Sebaste, see

Schneider 1995-1997 and also Spanu 1999: 411.

Ill




was not carved in the centre of the fa?ade. In other

words, he did not agree with Hicks' evaluation.

Moreover, Berns (2003: 226) noted that Heberdey and

Wilhelm read the same inscription later and corrected

Hicks (1896: 54, no. 123). But their correction was about

the spelling of some words and not related to the dating.

Furthermore, Schneider (2003a: 266) noted that the

palaeographic character of this tomb inscription indicates

a date in the late Antonine-Severan period, and Cormack

(2004: 235) has pointed to the second half of the second

century AD.

Another example of a temple tomb with an

inscription was discovered in Demircili by Heberdey and

Wilhelm (1896: 82, no. 159), who deciphered the

inscription, although they did not suggest a date (for further tombs found here see Machatschek 1974: 260

61). On the front of one of the three sarcophagi inside the

chamber of this tomb there are reliefs of two reclining male figures, interpreted as river gods, with two veiled

female busts beside them. In the centre, there is a relief

that could not be precisely identified. Heberdey and

Wilhelm (1896: 82, no. 159) provided an illustration of

the reliefs, together with the inscription, and proposed that the damaged object in the middle could be a fruit

basket (see also Cormack 2004: fig. 82). It could also be

a basket of wool or a basket filled with flowers. On the

other hand, Wegner (1974: 581, pi. 178b) was wrong to

interpret this object as a male face. The reliefs, except for

the central one, are in good enough condition to give

stylistic clues. Recently, Cormack (2004: 206-09) dated

this tomb to the beginning of the third century AD.

A further example of a tomb with a bust in a clipeus on its pediment can be included in this group. It is

located next to the modern road in Demircili (Imriogon

Kome, temple tomb no. 3, Cormack 2004: 209). There

were two columns between the antae walls of the

monument. While one is missing the other is still lying on the ground next to the tomb. A different roof design

was used. The roof blocks, the outer surfaces shaped in

roof brick form, were placed on an arch constructed in

the middle of the chamber. An inscription found on the

architrave was first deciphered by Heberdey and Wilhelm

(1896: 81, no. 158). Later, Keil and Wilhem (1931: 24

25, no. 49) found a faint inscription on the left anta of the

same tomb and presumed that it dates to the second or

third century AD. This tomb was also recently dated to

the late second or early third century AD by Cormack

(2004: 211). Based on the clues provided by the inscriptions, it

can be concluded that construction of the temple tombs

intensified especially in the second century AD. This is

also in accordance with the historical development of

the region. Without a doubt, there must be a chrono

logical sequence among these tombs, which number

around 25. However, these chronological differences

must be sought in the second and third centuries AD.

Likewise, Machatschek investigated the decorative

features of the temple tombs in Elaiussa Sebaste3 and

Imriogon Kome (for the tombs found there, see

Machatschek 1967: 109; 1974: 260-61; Cormack 2004:

204). He indicates that they are in principle similar. He

also considered that these tombs were constructed, both

in terms of architectural construction and their details, over half a century between the late second and early third centuries AD. This dating conflicts with the

suggestions made by Berns (2003: 86, 186), who

undertook his dating using similar methods.

To sum up, Berns, using the style of the architectural

decoration as a criterion, suggests that these tombs were

built from the Augustan period onwards. However, other

researchers, using similar methods, have dated the temple tombs to the second century AD and later. This

difference in dating is attributed to two important details

that Berns interpreted differently. The first detail

concerns architectural decoration. Berns compared the

quite local characteristics of architectural ornamentation

with examples from the large and important centres. The

second detail concerns the inscriptions. Albeit few in

number, all of the inscriptions on the temple tombs have

been dated after the second century AD.

It would be a mistake to compare decorations of the

local style of architecture with the decorative architec

tural designs of major centres. In dating temple tombs

the first consideration needs to be the inscriptions. The

stylistic criteria of the figures on the sarcophagus found

in the lion tomb in Demircili are also important factors

that should be considered for dating purposes.

Furthermore, it is understood from this example that

sarcophagi could appear in the temple tombs, and that

sarcophagus forms appeared in this region after the

middle of the second century AD.

The dating criteria that can be identified today belong to the second half of the second century. They provide a

clear indication as to when these temple tombs were

popular and confirm that they were most probably built

at around the same time. So we can conclude that

Machatschek was right when he claimed that they were

built in a time period of about 50 years. Accordingly, Berns' suggested chronology is rather too early.

Moreover, this chronology proposed by Berns does not

correlate to the development of architecture in the Olba

3 Machaschek (1967: 108) proposed that the architectural

decorations of the temple tombs are quite unimpressive and

show similarities to the tombs found outside the imperial centres

of Syria dated to the second and early third centuries AD.

112



Durukan

region. During the Augustan period public architecture

was totally lacking in the Olba region. Actually, the

architectural reforms in this region began with the

Flavians. Therefore Berns' dating is inconsistent with the

period when these reforms were introduced and with the

style of reliefs and the inscriptions. In order to obtain a concrete chronological sequence,

several other criteria should be considered. For example, the change in burial customs during the Roman Empire can be considered as one of the criteria. The relatively small number of inhumation graves from the Hellenistic

and early Roman periods found in the Olba region contrasts with the fact that various forms of graves were

used simultaneously in the second century AD in the

whole region. This leads one to presume that the

cremation tradition might have continued until early in

the Roman period in this region.

During the reign of Vespasian, Rome established its

authority in a real sense, and defined Cilicia as a

province. In Hadrianic times, burial customs altered

throughout the Roman Empire. Both were important

turning points for the Olba region. Starting from the time

of Vespasian, various investments were made in the

region. It seems clear that the Olba region was culturally

integrated into the Empire by the time of Hadrian.

Before Vespasian there was limited cultural exchange with Cilicia, as it was considered a problematic region.

However, during the reign of Vespasian, special impor tance was given to Cilicia. Rough Cilicia was united

with Plain Cilicia which became independent from Syria

(Syme 1939: 327; Ten Cate 1961: 42; Mitford 1980:

1246). After Vespasian there was a sudden burst of

construction in this region.

During the reign of Hadrian, the practice of cremation

declined and inhumation began to be widespread (Nock 1932: 321-23; Toynbee 1971: 40). The change in burial

customs at this time seems to have influenced Olba along with the rest of the Empire.

Fig. 8. Niches of the lower chamber of temple tomb Til

If dating is performed from this point of view, the Til

tomb monument in Elaiussa Sebaste should be

considered as one of the earliest temple tombs in the

region (fig. 6). Machatschek (1967: 108-09), who

analysed the style of the column capital, presumed that

the Til tomb was constructed in the first half of the

second century AD. This date is among the earliest ones

proposed by Machatschek for the temple tombs.

Cormack (2004: 218) also shares this view. On the other

hand, Berns (2003: 186), also using stylistic arguments,

placed this monument among the early examples dating to the Augustan period.

The interior arrangement of this two-storey monument differs from that of other temple tombs. In

both storeys, 16 niches were found. It is surmised that

a trough on the east wall of the first storey belonged to

the first phase, and then was removed in a second phase

(Schneider 2003b: figs 373-78). In addition, there are

lid beds on some of the niches, with traces on others,

indicating that all the niches were covered with lids.

Machatschek failed to see the faint trace of the trough, which appears to have been present in the first phase, but removed at some later period. Schneider (2003a:

Fig. 9. Niche with the lid bed in the lower chamber of

temple tomb Til

113




fig. 6; 2003b: fig. 378), on the other hand, depicted the

trough on her section drawing but did not mention it in

her article. Neither researcher, nor Cormack, however,

mentioned the lid traces found in the niches in the lower

chamber. Cormack (2004: 218) first mentioned that the

lower chamber niches were possibly intended for

servants, and, then, that a possibility existed that only the lower chamber was used for burial. Afterwards,

noticing that the lower chamber niches were relatively small for inhumation, and referring to Machatschek

who pointed out the fact that the tradition of cremation

was not widespread in Elaiussa Sebaste, Cormack

suggested that the sarcophagi placed outside the tomb

chamber were primarily used for burials and that these

niches were used only for cult purposes. The lid beds, and their traces, are observed in the middle of the 1

1.20m deep niches (figs 8, 9). As all the niches on the

ground floor had been closed with such a lid, this

signifies that, most probably, an ostotheke or an urn was

placed behind the lid. The niches on the ground floor

differ from those on the upper floor, having different

forms, a different scale and lids. For this reason, as

Schneider mentioned (2003a: 264; 2003b: 405; see also

Cormack 2004: 218), the upper floor could have been

used for ritual purposes and these niches could have had

a cult function. Niches are also found one on each side

of the entrance of the T3 tomb in the Elaiussa

necropolis (for theT3 tomb, see Machatschek 1967: 95,

pis 40-42, figs 61-62). They show a close similarity to

these upper floor niches. It appears from the burial

troughs found on all the walls that inhumation was

practised in the one-storey T3 tomb which had a barrel

vaulted entrance. This suggests the theory that these

niches, like the second floor niches of tomb Til, were

designed for cult purposes. The design of the Til temple tomb reveals that

cremation and inhumation burial were practised concur

rently in the first phase. If the replacement of cremation

with inhumation during the period of Hadrian is taken as

a criterion, the second quarter of the second century AD

(when the practise of cremation lessened and inhumation

become widely practised) can be suggested as the

construction period of the Til temple tomb.4

Furthermore, this suggestion supports the dating of tomb

Til by Machatschek (1967: 108-10) and Cormack

(2004: 218).

No other temple tomb with such an internal

arrangement has been discovered. The burial couches in

the form of a trough or a sarcophagus used in the

interiors of the other temple tombs indicate inhumations.

Starting from the middle of the second century AD in the

Olba region, the use of sarcophagi or troughs supports the hypothesis from two standpoints. First, the use of

sarcophagi or trough type graves at Olba must have been

introduced at the same time as the temple tombs.

Second, the change in burial custom was also reflected

in the temple tombs constructed after Hadrian. In this

case, it can be suggested that the building of temple tombs in which inhumation burial was practised inten

sified in the second half of the second century AD, and

continued in the third century. The dating proposed for

the Elaiussa Sebaste temple tombs is based both on the

architectural decoration and on expansion into the

southern part of the cemetery (Schneider 2003a: 264; 2003b: 411). The dating of the temple tombs with

barrel-vaulted entrances found in important centres such

as Elaiussa Sebaste and Kanlidivane must also be inter

preted from this point of view (Machatschek 1967: 59).

However, the criteria needed to identify the date of

construction of each of these temple tombs cannot yet be

determined definitely. In addition to this, it is generally

agreed that the building of monumental tombs inten

sified between the second and third centuries AD in

neighbouring regions (Cormack 1989: 39, n. 24).

Furthermore, similar dating has been suggested for the

temple tombs found in the southern part of Anatolia

(Hallet, Coulton 1993: 54, 60-61; I?ik 1995: 160; Cormack 2004: 161-239).

In summation, all reseachers are in agreement that

Til is one of the earliest examples of a temple tomb in

the region. Indications of cremation and inhumation

burial are present. In addition, again in the Til tomb, the

presence of a trough indicates inhumation burial. This

shows that during the period that this burial monument

was under construction both inhumation and cremation

burials were used. However, there are no signs of

cremation burials in later constructions of other temple tombs. All evidence from these graves points to

inhumation burials. Thus, in the first phase of the

tradition of temple tombs in Olba both methods of burial

were used together. Because of this, the Til temple

tomb, which is one of the earliest examples, can be dated

to the second quarter of the second century AD when

burial traditions in the Roman Empire were beginning to

change from cremation to inhumation and both continued

to be popular. Since later temple tombs only exhibit

signs of inhumation practices, we may conclude that the

practice of inhumation began to dominate from the

middle of the second century AD onwards.

4 Graves dated to this century have been found in which both

types of burial practise were used. For example, a chamber with

space allocated for three bodies and 22 ash urns was found in a

grave in Rome that has been dated to between the second half of

the second century and the beginning of the third century AD

(see Nock 1932: 324).

114



Durukan

A new temple tomb

A new tomb monument, which will be called tomb T12, found in the Kanhdivane necropolis area during this

research, is unique in terms of form and layout (fig. 10). A barrel-vaulted entrance is located in the fa?ade of this

tomb, which measures approximately 6.20m by 4.50m.

The interior of the chamber differs greatly from the

design of the usual temple tombs. The presence of klinai

on top of each other was noted, the lower ones

constructed partly from an outcrop of rock and the upper ones with stone plates (fig. 11). Both the upper and

lower klinai are of a typical triclinium form. From the

three klinai on the lower floor two more graves are

carved from an outcrop of rock. One is at the rear and the

other at one of the sides. Therefore, places for at least

eight burials were prepared inside the tomb chamber.

There is a relief in two pieces representing a male

figure reclining on a kline, which has collapsed to the

ground at the entrance. From conversations with local

people, it was established that the severely damaged relief

was of a reclining male figure with a long beard, and that

it may originally been placed above the entrance.

According to information provided by local people, there

were formerly two reliefs of children to the left side of the

barrel-vaulted entrance. Unfortunately, they have been

stolen. From the pose of the reclining figure and the form

Fig. 10. Tomb T12 from the necropolis of Kanhdivane

Fig. 11. Interior of tomb TI 2

of the block, it is possible to conclude that the block could

be a kline lid. In particular, the soft 'S' form at the foot of

the furniture and under the left shoulder of the male figure

(fig. 12) is observed in most kline lids (for a similar

example, see Strocka 1971: 67, pi. 7). Therefore, this relief

should be the lid of one of the graves on the upper floor.

This conclusion, of course, contradicts with what was

gleaned from the local people about the function and the

original location of this block. However, no other example has yet been found for either of these scenarios. For this

reason, both of these functions and locations should be

considered as possibilities.

Fig. 12. Male figure relief at the entrance of tomb T12

115




Whether functioning as a kline lid or something else, no other temple tomb has yet been found with a reclining

figure in this pose and two such different reliefs. While

some busts may have been on the pediment medallion or

on the front face of the sarcophagus in the chamber, it

appears that a different practice was carried out here with

the tomb bearing monumental works in relief form.

A further difference in the tomb is the presence of

another relief, which had fallen onto the upper floor of

the chamber (fig. 13). On this relief there are branches

extending down the sides of a volute-formed vine tree

with grape clusters. A few leaf and rosette motifs were

also added. The floral decorations were framed in a

pediment form, and even outlined with a dentil row. The

grape cluster is a motif related to the cult of the dead

represented in various forms on many graves. However,

the grape motif has not previously been encountered in

this region in this setting. The original location of this floral decorated block

has not yet been identified. However, one possibility is

that both this block and the block bearing the reclining male figure were placed one on top of another, perhaps in

an 'L' form. In that case, the floral decorated block

would have been resting on the kline figure block,

functioning like an awning. Apart from a negligible difference of a few centimetres, the dimensions of the

two reliefs are the same. Perhaps these blocks, placed one on top of another, were used as the lid of a grave in

the chamber or as a decorative piece above the entrance.

It should be noted that tomb T12, although resem

bling the temple tombs with barrel-vaulted entrances

previously discussed with the Elaiussa and Kanhdivane

examples, does not have a pediment. On the first block

of the barrel vault on the fa?ade of the monument are

both an architrave with three fascia and a cornice. Above

this architectural element the highest preserved part of

this structure remains in situ. Another piece placed at the

highest level is also preserved. Although of triangular

form, it is not possible to conclude that this piece was

part of a pediment. However, this triangular block

indicates that the building had a gabled roof.

The roof of the main chamber behind the pronaos has

collapsed. Here, too, there are no clues to indicate how

the roof was constructed. Although it can be surmised

that the roof was formed with a barrel vault, no traces

were found to indicate this, and accordingly various other

alternatives must be considered.

No tombs with a vaulted pronaos and an unvaulted

burial chamber have been recorded. However, again at

Kanhdivane, we have an example of a tomb having three

columns at the front (Machatschek 1967: pi. 56, fig. 71). The roof on the front section of the monument was covered

with flat stone slates, while that of the chamber was

Fig. 13. Relief with a vine tree and bunches of grapes in

tomb T12

covered with a vault. There is, therefore, the possibility that the roof of the chamber of the T12 monument had a

different form to that of the pronaos. One alternative is

that it may have been covered with plain stone plates. Most of the monumental tombs have a gable roof

covering that is constructed on top of a vault. However,

there is an alternative way to construct a gable roof.

Triangular stone blocks can cover the roofs of smaller

scale monuments, and there are such roofs on tombs in

this region. The best example of this is the roof of the

monument at Yeniyurt Castle (fig. 14). The roof of this

tomb can provide ideas about the roof of the T12

monument in Kanhdivane.

Fig. 14. Roof blocks of the Yeniyurt tomb

116



Durukan

The Yeniyurt tomb has a rectangular plan. Within

there are two long troughs attached to the wall in the form

of sarcophagi. In the chamber room there is a rare

example of a freestanding sarcophagus (fig. 15). A

platform was built on the ground floor using blocks of

stone. The walls were constructed using a single stone

course. A false door is located in the rear wall. The

upper rows of stones of the longer walls project from the

chamber in the direction of the false door. The platform on the ground floor, a stylobate, continues to the back of

the chamber. This indicates that a portico was found in

front of the false door (fig. 5). In all probability, columns

supported the portico. However, there is no evidence of

columns. Most likely, the portico was covered with short

blocks perpendicular to the roof covering. One of the most important features of the Yeniyurt

tomb is the chamber roof. A simple, but imposing, and

at the same time, functional roof covering was

constructed using five triangular blocks extending from

one long side to the other. These blocks were placed

directly on the longer walls without using an arch or a

vault. The inner dimensions of the chamber are 2.60m

by 3.30m. The biggest block of the roof is 2.75m by 0.70m and is 0.45m high in the centre. The other blocks

have similar dimensions. As can be imagined, the

2.75m blocks are not long enough to cover the external

width. Therefore, the upper row of stones on the longer sides of the chamber was about 15cm wider than the

lower row of stones. With this simple solution, the

opening to be covered by the blocks was narrowed and

a secure setting for them was prepared. It is possible to

suggest that the same design was also used for the roof

of the chamber of the T12 monument at Kanhdivane.

When the ca. 75cm thickness of the walls is subtracted

from the external width, about 3m of internal width

remains; about 40cm more than at the Yeniyurt tomb.

Nonetheless, it still seems appropriate for the same roof

design to have been used.

The most striking feature for dating tomb T12 is the

vault in the fa?ade. This architectural feature indicates

that this tomb should be dated after the mid-second

century AD. The relief is too worn for accurate dating

purposes, and no other dating evidence is present.

Nevertheless, this monument is only 200m from the

temple tomb with a barrel-vaulted entrance bearing an

inscription in the Kanhdivane necropolis (temple tomb

T6), and they face each other. They resemble each other

when the ornamentation on the fa?ade of the entrances is

taken into consideration. Features such as the pilaster

capital near the T12 monument resemble the pilaster

capital of the temple tomb T6. It is fitting therefore to

think that there is a link between these monuments. This

again points to a date in the second century AD. The

Fig. 15. Interior of the Yeniyurt tomb chamber with an

independent sarcophagus and troughs bonded into the

wall

different roof designs, and tombs having such roofs, are

generally dated towards the end of the second and to the

third century AD. They can be considered as an alter

native dating criteria for both the T12 tomb in the Kanh

divane necropolis and the Yeniyurt tomb. Other temple tombs have a similar roof design. Their dating criteria

are investigated below under the heading 'Gable roofed

aedicula tombs'. In this case, considering the light and

simple roof design, the Yeniyurt tomb should be dated to

the early third century AD. But tomb T12 must be

constructed a short time before this tomb as it still bears

a vault at its pronaos. Therefore, a date between late

second and early third century AD can be proposed for

the tomb Tl 2.

Grave houses

Simple grave houses are typical Roman tombs

(Machatschek 1967: 74, 23-36, figs 34-55; Schneider

2003a: 269, figs 14-15; 2003b: 412-33) constructed by

using small stone blocks and mortar, especially in the

necropolis areas of the large, coastal Roman cities. This

117




type of grave was covered with a vault. They sometimes display a cubic form when the vault is fully covered on the exterior. The roofs of such graves

generally bear a plain or slightly inclined gable roof

structure. They seldom possess a complete gable roof.

In some cases, when the vault is uncovered, the grave

roof has an elliptical form (Machatschek 1967: 74, pis

23-25, figs 37-39). The grave houses have rather small

entrance doors. Burial troughs are attached to the walls

inside. These troughs are similar to the ones found in

temple tombs. However, these troughs, elaborately formed like a sarcophagus in a temple tomb, are

unimposing in grave houses.

Many examples of these grave houses are found in

Cilicia. The grave houses found on Mara? Hill near

Nagidos, Anemurium, Antiochia ad Cragum, Selinus,

Iotape, Syedra (Rosenbaum et al. 1967) and Kelenderis

(Zoroglu 2000: 125-27) display some similarities with

the examples from the Olba region, especially those in

Elaiussa Sebaste. Research conducted on the

Anemurium grave houses has concluded that they can be

divided into two phases. The first phase dates to the first

century AD. The grave houses built in this phase are

freestanding on a platform with steps leading to them.

They have a rather simple layout with arcosolia and a

vault (Rosenbaum 1971: 4, 30). In the second phase at Anemurium the grave houses

are situated in groups, and sometimes a wall encloses a

group. There are add-ons, such as benches, cisterns,

ovens, balconies, windows or a second room. There are

also decorative features such as frescoes and mosaics in

the main chambers and niches in the front rooms. The

grave houses at Anemurium with these features have

been dated to the second and third centuries AD

(Rosenbaum 1971: 30; Russell 1984: 16). The grave houses in the Olba region, mostly those

found in the Elaiusssa Sebaste necropolis, have many similarities to those of the first phase at Anemurium.

The exteriors, the barrel-vaulted design, or cubic form, can be likened to the graves found in Elaiussa Sebaste.

Nevertheless, the interior designs of the chambers differ

greatly from one another. There are generally three

(sometimes two) arcosolia in the early period grave houses in Anemurium (Rosenbaum 1971: 2, 8). The

bodies were sometimes laid on the arcosole, or both on

and below it. However, there are generally burial

troughs attached to the walls in the grave houses of

Elaiussa Sebaste. Graves with arcosolia are limited in

number. Rosenbaum also drew attention to this

difference (1971: 3). Furthermore, it is believed that

the chambers with arcosolia found at Anemurium

belong to an earlier period than those found at Elaiussa

Sebaste (Rosenbaum 1971: 11).

For this reason, comparisons between the grave chambers of Elaiussa Sebaste and Anemurium would be

erroneous for the purposes of dating. Instead, a consid

eration of the similarities of the interior designs of the

temple tombs and of the grave houses found in the

Elaiussa Sebaste necropolis is a better methodology for

establishing the date of the grave houses.

In fact, overlooking the structural features related to

displays of wealth, the interior designs of the grave houses display parallels with those of the temple tombs.

There are striking similarities in the basic interior design of the grave forms covered with vaults. The most

important features are the burial troughs attached to each

of the walls, other than the wall housing the door. The

burial troughs found in the grave houses are attached to

the walls, and sometimes supported by consoles. These

are in the form of a simple trough or triclinium made of

flat plates. In the temple tombs, a similar practise was

carried out by elaborately shaping the large blocks

comprising the walls of the monument in the form of a

trough.

Another similarity is the presence of narrow trape zoidal openings called embrasures. This can be taken as

a further indication of the fact that both grave forms

influenced each other. Bearing in mind these similarities

and influences, it can be concluded that the grave houses

in the Olba region, perhaps simply as cheap copies of the

temple tombs, also appeared from the mid-second

century AD onwards. Machatschek (1967: 105) also

suggested the mid-second century AD as the date of the

emergence of these tombs (see also Schneider 2003b:

431-33). Tomb K29 in the Elaiussa Sebaste necropolis is one

example that supports the hypothesis that these grave houses mimicked the temple tombs. The fa?ade of this

grave house is constructed with ashlar masonry, which is

common in temple tombs and might have come from

such a tomb, and is mounted with a triangular pediment. The other walls and the interior decoration of this

structure carry all the common features of grave houses.

This example indicates that the grave houses were

designed to emulate the temple tombs (Machatschek 1967: pi. 35, fig. 51; Schneider 2003b: 416). Another

grave house resembling this example is found at Kanh

divane (Machatschek 1967: 74, pi. 34, fig. 53). The roof

covering and the pediment have collapsed and a small

piece of this pediment can be seen nearby. Some grave houses in Elaiussa Sebaste, an important

centre for Christianity, were re-used during the Byzantine

period, as indicated by cross motifs found on the grave houses. Clearly the practice of using grave houses

continued to be popular for a very long period of time

(Schneider 2003a: 271).

118



Durukan

Barrel-vaulted aedicula tombs

These tombs, which resemble big barrel-vaulted aedicula

(Lanckoronski et al. 1892:116, flg. 86; Machatschek 1967:

84; ?evik 1997: 89; ?evik et al. 1998: 405-06), are

generally constructed for a single person. However, the

existence of an example with more than one grave, which

is discussed below, demonstrates that this is not a strict rule.

Burials in the aedicula can be in the form of

chamosorium (fig. 16), a sarcophagus or a carved trough

(rock-cut sarcophagus) (fig. 17). They were built with

large stone blocks without mortar. Their most striking feature is the barrel vault, which gives a sense of

grandeur to the structure. There is no evidence relating to a cult of the dead, no decoration and no inscriptions on

the walls of these monuments. However, it can be

presumed that such features would have been portable and have been removed. Indeed, some examples

supporting this suggestion will be discussed below.

Although typical of the Roman period in general, in

the absence of any inscriptions or reliefs, it is difficult to

date the aedicula tombs with any precision. Since there

are no reliable clues indicating a date before the second

century AD, it can be suggested that this type of tomb

was constructed from this period onwards. Indeed, in the

Olba region, the second century AD is noteworthy for

being a period of intensive architectural development when various monumental tomb forms were introduced, and the most impressive examples of the barrel vault date

from the middle of the second century onwards.

Another dating criterion for the aedicula form of

monument is the introduction of the use of sarcophagi.

Sarcophagus or chamosorium burials are found within

this tomb type. For this reason, it is suggested that such

monuments were first constructed in the second half of

the second century AD when sarcophagi and their varia

tions were initially used. Moreover, tombs like this have

been discovered in neighbouring regions and also dated

to the second century AD (?evik 1997: 89; ?evik et al.

2003: fig. 51). For example, a structure in Plain Cilicia

with a closed fa?ade has an inscription carved above the

door which refers to the structure as an Heroon built in

170 AD (Sayar et al. 1993: 140, figs 6, 7). An interesting example of this type is located in the

Elaiussa Sebaste N4 necropolis. This tomb is quite different

from the typical ones found in the inland region. It was

constructed using rather small stone blocks with mortar, and the barrel vault was covered to form a squared profile.

A portable sarcophagus was found inside (Machatschek 1967: 84, pi. 37a, fig. 56). The more typical inland

examples are quite impressive monuments constructed of

large blocks of stone without mortar. The barrel vault was

not covered, and a rock-cut sarcophagus or chamosorium

would generally be used in these monuments.

Fig. 16. Barrel-vaulted aedicula tomb with chamosorium

in Pash

Fig. 17. Barrel-vaulted aedicula tomb with rock-cut

sarcophagus in Somek

Since these monuments were constructed in the same

general period of time, the variations in design noted

between the example in Elaiussa Sebaste and the inland

examples may simply be characteristic of the personal

preferences of the owners. Indeed, there are not many

examples of the Elaiussa Sebaste style of aedicula tomb

in this region. However, in the inland settlements of

Pash, I?ikkale, S?mek, H?sametli, Aslanh, Barak?i,

Olba, Ovacik (Sayar 1994: 48, fig. 19), G?vercinlik

(Sayar 2001: 117, fig. 14) and Karab?c?l? about ten

tombs have been found which are typical examples of

this form. This number will probably increase with

further investigations. In a recent article S?g?t (2005:

105-06) detailed examples of newly discovered aedicula

tombs in the Olba region. Two examples which somewhat resemble this tomb

type in the Olba region have been found in the

Anemurium necropolis. They are identified as a 'high aedicula form'. There are niches in the interior and apses at the rear. Similar examples to these graves have not as

119




yet been found, but their construction techniques and

traces of fresco decoration date the tombs to the second

phase of the Anemurium necropolis (Rosenbaum 1971:

6, pis III, All 2, 8). Accordingly, these tombs can be

dated at the earliest to the late second and third centuries

AD (for the second phase of the Anemurium necropolis see Rosenbaum 1971: 30).

An interesting example of this tomb type was

discovered in Yukan H?seyinler village (fig. 18). Partic

ularly in terms of scale, it differs significantly from the

other aedicula tombs. First and foremost, thick walls

(1.65m in the middle) were constructed to bear the

weight of the roof. The walls are 2.5m in height, with a

slight narrowing towards the top. The rear wall of the 'U'

shaped monument, facing southwest, has been destroyed down to the base. The dimensions of the monument are

7.92m by 5.12m.

Fig. 18. Tomb in H?seyinler, rear view

Since it has been totally lost, it has not been possible to form any precise understanding of the form of the roof.

However, the intact part of the west wall, consisting of

five rows of blocks, provides some clues about the roof

covering. In particular, there is important evidence on

the upper surface of the upper blocks. By carving out

approximately 70cm of the interior part of these blocks, a slight angle towards the interior of the tomb was

created. Stones must have been placed on these blocks to

cover the tomb. These stones, because of their angle,

might have been the arching stones of a barrel vault.

Taking all this into consideration, the roof may well have

been covered with a barrel vault.

Today, the monument no longer has a front wall. The

thick side walls end at the front leaving the entrance

open. Even though its dimensions are considerably

larger than other examples, this monument can be

identified as an aedicula tomb.

Fig. 19. Interior of the tomb at H?seyinler with two of the

three chamosoria

Another interesting feature of this aedicula tomb can

be seen inside the chamber. Only one sarcophagus or

chamosorium has been found in all the other examples, but here, three chamosoria are located within the tomb.

Since it has not been possible to remove the debris with

which the chamber is completely filled, just the two

chamosoria near the west and the east walls, that have a

41cm opening, could be photographed (fig. 19). These

chamasoria have a conical structure broadening towards

the base. Furthermore, three lids in pieces were found in

the vicinity of the monument. The positioning of the

chamosoria, perpendicular to the rear wall, differs from

other aedicula tomb designs in which a single chamosorium or sarcophagus was placed parallel to the

rear wall.

A broken column of about 5m in height and 85cm in

diameter was found next to the monument. Furthermore, a cubic block of 91cm in height and used as a base was

also located. This base was moved slightly from its

original position and is now located in front of the tomb

(fig. 20). In the middle of the upper surface of the base, there is a skamillus, 85cm in diameter, where it seems the

column was erected. In addition, a large console, which

originally stood on top of the Doric capital, was found

next to it (fig. 21). There is a partly legible inscription of

120



Durukan

13 lines on the column. It is known that such columns

were used as grave pillars. S?g?t (2005: 103-54) has

recently published an article describing such columns

and the graves they are associated with.

Another find related to this aedicula tomb is a round

altar with a relief of a hand holding a wreath, which was

found in front of the tomb. The original location of the

altar may have been at some point in front of the tomb.

The altar would have been used to make offerings, but

must also have served the purpose of increasing the

degree of honour of those resting in the tomb, and conse

quently the members of their family. Another striking feature related to the same aedicula

tomb is the rock-cut pots on the surface of the fifth row of

the western side wall (fig. 22). The upper stones have a

width of about 1.50m. On the inside, 70cm is reserved to

support the barrel vault, and the remaining 80cm is exposed on the exterior of the tomb. In the centre of the exterior

surface of each block there are elaborately carved rock-cut

pots. No other example of this feature has as yet been

found. These could possibly be related to a libation ritual

related to a cult of the dead. Symmetrical rock-cut pots were also present on the eastern wall, as can be observed on

one of the fallen blocks of the eastern wall (fig. 19).

Fig. 20. Column with its pedestal in front of the

H?seyinler tomb

Fig. 21. The Doric capital and the consol of the

H?seyinler tomb

In light of these findings, a reconstruction of this

tomb can be proposed. S?g?t (2005:140, fig. 10a), in his

reconstruction of this monument, assumed that the tomb

was covered with a vault inside and a straight roof

outside. However, the rock-cut pots found on the upper surfaces of the very thick side walls lead me to conclude

that the original height of these walls was as they stand at

present and that the surface of the barrel vault was not

covered. For this reason, an alternative reconstruction is

offered here (figs 23, 24).

Fig. 22. The rock-cut pots on the upper surface of one of the walls of the H?seyinler tomb

121




Fig. 23. Reconstruction of the H?seyinler tomb

This monument should not be dated to a period much before or after that of the other early aedicula

tombs ? the second half of the second and the first

half of the third centuries AD. The most important evidence for the dating of this tomb is the inscription of 13 lines found on the column. The letter character

of this inscription supports a date of the late second

century AD. Late examples of this tomb form, found

in the vicinity of Sinekkale and I?ikkale, can be dated

to the early Byzantine period due to the cross motifs on

the walls.

Gable roofed aedicula tombs

This tomb form displays similarities to the temple tombs,

with a roof design employing a triangular pediment with

an open-faced front. Examples of this kind of tomb are

found in Termessos. Some of these have a simple aedicula with only one sarcophagus inside (Lanckoronski et al. 1892: figs 29, 70, 72). Some have columned

entrances at the front and are as impressive as the

prostylos type temple tombs (Lanckoronski et al. 1892:

figs 74-78, 83). An example in S?mek was the first example of this

type of tomb to be identified in the Olba region (fig.

25) and a drawing was published by Keil and Wilhelm

(Keil, Wilhelm 1931: 101, fig. 129). This monument

has a podium constructed of a single stone course. At

the front there are rather simple Corinthian capitals on

the two rounded pilasters at the wall endings. On the

interior of the side walls there are two consoles placed on the same row as the Corinthian capitals. Also on

this row is an architrave with two fascias and a profiled

moulding.

Fig. 24. Reconstruction of the H?seyinler tomb

Although severely damaged, the base part of a

portable sarcophagus and an almost complete piece of a

triangular lid were found inside this elaborately worked

tomb. This indicates that portable sarcophagi were used

in similar monuments. A round block with an inscription was found approximately 20m away from the monument.

Being so close, it is presumed that it belongs to this tomb.

Furthermore, the inscription refers to a burial. Using the

inscription for dating purposes, it is clear that it belonged to the Roman Imperial period of the second century AD.

Fig. 25. The gable roofed aedicula tomb in Somek

122



Durukan

Although the roof of this monument has totally

collapsed, some blocks found on the ground give an idea

as to its roof construction. In particular, the presence of

a cornice where a dentil row is found indicates the

existence of a triangular roof. An example in Cati?ren

(fig. 26) confirms this proposal. The front part of the

Cati?ren tomb, though on a smaller scale in comparison to the S?mek monument, could be included in the same

tomb type group. Although it is generally ruined, the rear

wall is well preserved, and on top of this wall a triangular roof block exists in situ.

The same type of tomb was found in C?c??reni,

S?mek. The remains of this tomb, although quite ruined, confirm the style of roof construction and the use of a

sarcophagus in this type of monument. Only one side wall

remains of this tomb monument. From the evidence of

this wall it appears that it had an open-faced front. In the

interior of the monument a piece of the lower half of a

sarcophagus was found. The lid of the sarcophagus, with

a reclining lion on it, was also found inside the monument.

The face of the lion in particular has been destroyed, but

its body and its rump are well preserved. This find

confirms the use of sarcophagi in this type of tomb.

Further information obtained from the same tomb

relates to the entablature features. Blocks belonging to a

dentil row and a piece of triangular pediment were

discovered among the scattered building stones. This

evidence confirms that the roof had a triangular pediment. The design of gable roofed aedicula tombs must have

been influenced by the temple tombs. The entablature

features, such as the eaves with a dentil row, the archi

trave, the gable roof and the triangular pediment, can be

compared with those of the temple tombs. Furthermore, the open-faced front and the presence of a sarcophagus are features similar to those of the barrel-vaulted aedicula

tombs. This interaction can provide us with clues for the

dating of tombs belonging to this group. Both the temple and barrel-vaulted aedicula tombs were popular during the late second and early third centuries AD. This must

also be the period for the first appearance of this group of

tombs.

With its open-faced front, temple tomb 3 in Demircili

(Imriogon Kome) also displays a similarity to this group of tombs. This temple tomb, with two columns at its

front, was dated to between the late second and early third centuries AD. This example provides evidence that

the gable roofed aedicula tombs were influenced by the

temple tomb architecture and dated to the same period. In addition, one of the most important pieces of

evidence related to the dating of these gable roofed

aedicula tombs is the inscription found at the front of the

Cati?ren tomb. The characteristics of this roughly written

inscription may date it to the third century AD or later.

Fig. 26. The gable roofed aedicula tomb in Cati?ren with

an in situ roof block

The probable dates for the inscriptions of the different

tombs leads to the conclusion that the monuments of this

group began to appear from the early third century AD,

and remained in use for some time. Furthermore, the

simple block roof covering of the tombs of this group indicates that this type of roof emerged in the early third

century AD as an alternative to the labour intensive and

heavy barrel-vaulted roof form.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the earliest tombs discovered in the Olba

region can be dated to the beginning of the second

century BC. The earliest examples are the tomb

monuments with polygonal masonry exhibiting the

typical characteristics of the Hellenistic architectural

tradition of Olba. Tombs of this architectural tradition

are thought to have disappeared concurrently with the

Hellenistic culture towards the end of the second century BC. No other form of grave has been discovered

belonging to the Hellenistic period. Cremation and/or

underground burials, which may have been the norm,

have not yet been discovered. Only with further research

in the region will this be made clear.

As the end of the first century BC approached, the

region slipped into a period of stagnation that was

reflected in all the fields of structural design. During the

process of establishing settlements, Rome was clashing with the people of Anatolia, primarily with the Cilician

pirates. No tomb structure dating to this period has yet been discovered in this region. The complete absence of

construction (including tombs) indicates that the region suffered a chaotic period during the first century BC. It

is not possible, therefore, to make a clear interpretation of the culture of the Olba region during this period.

In terms of graves this can be taken as strikingly inter

esting for the first century BC. Presumably, this must be

thought of as a continuation of the third and second

123




centuries BC, because, apart from a few tomb

monuments with polygonal masonry belonging to the

second century BC, there is no data about the graves of

this period. This means that the traditions relating to a

cult of the dead and burial customs were still in practise

during the first century. After a long period of stagnation, rock-cut graves

were used intensively from the first half of the first

century AD onwards. Furthermore, important architec

tural developments occurred during the second century

AD, and new tomb forms appeared in the Olba region towards the middle of that century. Previously

completely absent from the region, sarcophagi, aedicula

tombs, grave houses, temple tombs, chamosoria and

baldachin forms and their variations began to be used, and continued in use into the third century AD without

undergoing any great change. Some of the grave forms that appeared in the second

century AD were still constructed using rock outcrops. Besides this fact, the most important feature of this century is that structural tomb forms re-emerged in various forms.

Such monumental tomb forms were observed for the first

time at the beginning of the second century BC and they

disappeared by the end of the same century. The appearance of almost all the monumental grave

forms in the second century AD5 is closely related to

Roman policies towards the region. For propaganda

purposes, Rome initiated intensive construction projects in many cities of Anatolia during this period. This

policy is clearly seen in cities such as Elaiussa Sebaste,

Corycos, Diocaesarea and Olba in terms of their burial

architecture.

To summarise, tomb architecture demonstrates a

limited development of burial traditions during the

Hellenistic period. However, radical alterations in

grave architecture occurred during the mid-Roman

Imperial period. Without a doubt, these changes must

be related to burial customs as well. Some practises related to burial cults, established and developed in the

Hellenistic period, continued in the Roman period.

Consequently, Roman influence was not fully estab

lished in this region in the first century AD. However, towards the middle of the second century AD, the

power of Roman culture made itself felt in the Olba

region.

Roman burial customs continued to develop under

the influence of the cultures of Greece and Egypt. The

burial customs, either inhumation or cremation, became popular one over the other from time to time.

Even mummification was practised in some periods within the imperial borders, although to a much lesser

extent than other burial practises. These regional

changes occurred primarily according to the fashions

practised in Rome itself. It is understandable that

these fashions were reflected in the provinces, while at

the same time the provinces continued to practise their

own distinctive burial customs. The Olba region, under the impact of Roman rule, became one of the

regions where the capital city's preferences were

adopted. Accordingly, it is possible to conclude that

the period up to the middle of the second century AD

was a period of Romanisation, that is, the period when

Roman culture started to influence the region. The

subsequent period should be considered as time when

the culture of the region was totally dominated by the

Romans.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank ?zcan Karaalp for drawing the

reconstructions of the ruined tombs. I am grateful to

Erkan Alka? and Ercan A?kin for their help in the

different phases of this study. I am further indebted to

Dona Heliste for helping to translate my text into

English.

5 Whether tomb monuments with structural characteristics were

present in the Olba region in the first century AD or not cannot

as yet be proven with absolute certainty. For example,

arguments on the dating of a pyramidal roofed tower tomb

monument in Diocaesarea have continued for some time. A

number of researchers, using different criteria, have dated this

monument to various periods from the early second century BC

to the late first century AD (for details and literature see

Durukan 2003: 219). Furthermore, though there is much

evidence indicating that temple tombs emerged in the second

century AD, some scholars have concluded, with reference to

the style of the capitals, that this date should be the first century

AD. However, this method is not reliable as is demonstrated by

the different interpretations of the same capitals made by

various scholars. This subject is covered under the heading

'temple tombs', above. Nevertheless, some tombs (identified as tombs with monumental pillars) have been dated to the first

century AD using this method (see S?g?t 2005: 103-54). Although stylistic dating criteria is an indispensable method of

archaeology, it should be kept in mind that this method is not

reliable for the dating of such tombs, and the only inscription

found on the monumental columns was dated to the end of the

second century AD. This inscription, found on the monumental

column in front of the barrel vaulted aedicula tomb in Yukan

H?seyinler, is a much more reliable dating criterion than the

stylistic criterion. Moreover, under the heading 'Barrel-vaulted

aedicula tombs', above, several other criteria are mentioned

supporting the second century date of such tomb monuments.

For these reasons, and considering regional architectural

properties, the dating suggested for the tombs bearing similar

columns is the second half of the second century, rather than the

first century AD.

124



Durukan

Bibliography

Berns, C. 2003: Untersuchungen zu den Grabbauten der

fr?hen Kaiserzeit in Kleinasien (Asia Minor

Studien Band 51). Bonn

Cormack, S.H. 1989: A mausoleum at Ariassos, Pisidia'

Anatolian Studies 39: 31-40 ? 2004: The Space of Death in Roman Asia Minor.

Vienna

?evik, N. 1997: An oil production centre in Pamphylia:

Lyrbaton Kome' Lykia 3: 79-100 ? 2003: Anadolu'daki Kaya Mimarligi ?rneklerinin

Kar?ila?tinlmasi ve K?lt?rlerarasi Etkile?im

Olgusunun Yeniden irdelenmesi' OLBA 8: 213-50

?evik, N., Kizgut, ?., Akta?, S. 1998: '1997 YihTrebenna

ve ?evresi y?zey Ara?tirmalari' Arastirma

Sonu?lan Toplantisi 16: 401-21

?evik, N., Varkivan?, B., Kizgut, L, Guisen, F. 2003: A

settlement in Lycia: Dan?z?/Kastabara' Adalya 6:

189-232

Durug?n?l, S. 1998: Turme und Siedlungen im Rauhen

Kilikien (Asia Minor Studien Band 28). Bonn

Durukan, M. 1999: 'Hisarkale Garnizonu ve Bu

Merkezde Polygonal Teknikte ?n?a Edilmi? Mezarlar' OLBA 2: 79-91

? 2003: 'Olba/Diocaesarea'daki Piramit ?atili Mezar

Amtinin Tarihlemesi ?zerine Yeni Bir G?r??' OLBA 1: 219-38

Erten, E. 1999: 'Kilikia'da Cam' OLBA 2: 169-83 ? 2003: 'Olba 2002 Y?zey Ara?tirmasi' Arastirma

Sonu?lan Toplantisi 21: 55-66

Hallet, C.H., Coulton, J.J. 1993: 'The east tomb and

other tomb buildings at Balboura' Anatolian

Studies 43: 41-68

Heberdey, R., Wilhelm, A. 1896: Reisen in Kilikien. Vienna

Hellenkemper, H., Hild, F. 1986: Neue Forschungen in

Isaurien und Kilikien. Vienna ?

1^90: Kilikien und Isaurien. Vienna

Hicks, E.L. 1882: 'Inscriptions from western Cilicia' The

Journal of Hellenic Studies 12: 225-54

I?ik, F. 1995: 'Tempelgraber von Patara und Ihre

Anatolischen Wurzeln' Lykia 2: 160-86

Keil, J., Wilhelm, A. 1931: Denkmaler aus dem Rauhen

Kilikien (Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua 3). Manchester

Koch, G. 2001: Roma ?mparatorluk D?nemi Lahitleri.

Istanbul (Translated from: Koch, G. 1993:

Sarkophage der R?mischen Kaiserzeit. Darmstadt)

Lanckoronski, K.G., Niemann, G., Petersen, E. 1892:

St?dte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens IL Prague,

Vienna, Leipzig

Machatschek, A. 1967: Die Nekropolen und Grabmaler

im Gebiet von Elaiussa Sebaste und Korykos im

Rauhen Kilikien. Vienna

? 1974: 'Die Grabtempel von D?sene im Rauhen

Kilikien' ManseVeArmagan: 251-61

MacKay, Th.S., MacKay, P.A. 1969: 'Inscriptions from

Rough Cilicia east of the Calycadnus' Anatolian

Studies 19: 139-42

Mitford, T.B. 1980: 'Roman Rough Cilicia' Aufstieg und Niedergang der r?mischen Welt II.7.2: 1230

61

Nock, A.D. 1932: 'Cremation and burial in the Roman

Empire' The Harvard Theological Review 25: 321

59

Rosenbaum, E.A. 1971: Anamur Nekropol?. Ankara

Rosenbaum, E., Huber, G., Onurkan, S. 1967: A Survey

of Coastal Cities in Western Cilicia. Ankara

Russell, J. 1984: 'Funerary scenes from Roman

Anemurium' Yayla5: 16-24

Sayar, M. 1992: 'Starssenbau in Kilikien unter den

Flaviern nach einem neugefundenen Meilenstein'

Epigraphica Anatolica 20: 57-62 ? 1994: 'Kilikya'da Epigrafi veTarihi Cografya Ara?tir

malan 1993' Arastirma Sonu?lan Toplantisi \2:

39-60 ? 2001: 'Kilikya'da Epigrafi veTarihi Cografya Ara?tir

malan 2000' Arastirma Sonu?lan Toplantisi 19:

111-26

Sayar, M., Siewert, P., Taeuber, H. 1993: 'Dogu Kilikia'da Epigrafi ve Tarihi Cografya Ara?tir

malan, 1992' Arastirma Sonu?lan Toplantisi 11:

137-60

Schneider, E.E. 1995-1997: Elaiussa Sebaste I.

Campagne di scavo 1995-1997. Rome ? 2001: 'Excavations and research at Elaiussa Sebaste:

the 2000 campaign' Kazi Sonu?lan Toplantisi 23:

223-36 ?

2003a: 'Some considerations on Elaiussa's north

eastern necropolis' OLBA 1: 261-73 ? 2003b: Elaiussa Sebaste II. Un porto tra Oriente e

Occidente. Rome

S?g?t, B. 1992-1993: 'Kilikya Tracheia'da bir

Hellenistik Mezar Yapiti' Sel?uk ?niversitesi Fen

Edb. Fak. Dergisi 7-8: 225-36 ? 1999: 'Lamos'da Bulunan Bir Tapmak' OLBA 2:

399-409 ? 2003: 'Daghk Kilikia B?lgesi Mezar Ni?leri' OLBA

1: 251-60 ? 2005: 'Tombs with monumental pillars in the Olba

region' OLBA 11: 103-54

Spanu, M. 1999: 'Some considerations on the theatre of

Elaiussa' OLBA 2: 411-24 ? 2003: 'Roman influence in Cilicia through archi

tecture' OLBA 8: 1-38

Strocka, V.M. 1971: 'Kleinasiatische Klinensarcophag Deckel' Archaeologischer Anzeiger 86: 62-86

125




Syme, R. 1939: 'Observations on the province of Cilicia'

in W. Calder, J. Keil (eds), Anatolian Studies

Presented to William Hepburn Buckler.

Manchester: 299-332

Ten Cate, H. 1961: The Luwian Population Groups of

Lycia and Cilicia ?spera during the Hellenistic

Period. Leiden

Tupan, A. 1990: 'KilikiaTracheia'da Polygonal Ta??rg?l? Duvarlar' Turk Tarih Kongresi 11. Ankara: 405-24

Toynbee, J.M.C. 1971: Death and Burial in the Roman

World. Baltimore, London

Waelkens, M. 1986: Die Kleinasiatische T?rsteine.

Mainz

Wegner, M. 1974: 'Kunstgeschichtliche Beurteilung der

grabtempel von Olba/Diokaisareia' Mansel'e

Armagan: 575-83

Zoroglu, L. 2000: 'Kelenderis Nekropol?' OLBA 3: 115

33

126



Monumental tomb forms in the Olba region

Documents

Transcript of Monumental tomb forms in the Olba region