In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

233 C H A P T E R 4 Banqueting and Identity in Achaemenid Anatolia Despite the evidence presented above for the Anatolian roots of the kline-tomb concept and the “Lydian-ness” of funerary klinai, the fact remains that most securely dated instances of this burial type in Anatolia come from the Persian period or later. A remarkable kline-tomb excavated in 2010 at Daskyleion, one of the Achaemenid satrapal capitals of western Anatolia (see Fig. 1), offers vivid testimony, in the form of klinai stained with the remnants of rich purple cloths, to the association of this burial type with Persian royalty.1 What explains the apparent florescence of this tomb type in diverse and distinct regions of Achaemenid Anatolia? This chapter explores the Persian and Persianizing elements of the kline-tombs catalogued here and considers them in conjunction with banqueting scenes in contemporary grave reliefs and other funerary art in the same regions, especially in the vicinity of Daskyleion. Far from supporting a “Persianizing” significance for the kline-tombs, both classes of evidence suggest a multiethnic, elite clientele that drew upon both local and Persian cultural traditions and artistic models, in varying degrees, to create uniquely Anatolian-Persian funerary statements. Banqueting and luxuries were evidently important aspects of these funerary statements, and both types may be read as constructed representations—the reliefs expressing in two dimensions and for an exterior audience what funerary klinai and associated grave goods (tables, vessels, etc.) could convey in three-dimensional tomb interiors. Study of the kline-tombs, then, highlights the complexity of cultural identity in Achaemenid Anatolia. Though the emergence of this burial type appears unrelated to the Persian conquest, its popularity across different cultural areas of Late Archaic Asia Minor may reflect the social changes that ensued; and an emphasis on native Anatolian traditions in tomb design and decoration may have appealed to Achaemenid newcomers as well as members of the local elite. Approaches to Cultural Identity in Achaemenid Anatolia First it is necessary to place this discussion of cultural identity generally within the context of scholarship on Achaemenid Anatolia and the theoretical approaches outlined in the Introduction. The cultural impact of Persian rule on the western satrapies has received much attention in recent decades. Following Root’s paradigm-shifting 1991 analysis,2 assessments of the “weight” of this impact generally moved from negative to positive. Root’s study provided a new theoretical model for assessing Banqueting and Identity in Achaemenid Anatolia 234 Persian forms in the west, by balancing them with evidence from the “heartland” center (specifically, sealings on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets). The apparent “meagreness of Persian impact on the art and architecture of the western empire” could easily be explained by shifting our perspective and expectations: “There may have been (in theory) a systematic, centrally-ordained policy of assimilation with indigenous elites practiced by Achaemenid officials abroad. Such a situation could have resulted in the de-emphasis of conspicuous Persianisms of architecture and even of portable goods in favor of the adaptation of cultural mores and accoutrements of the indigenous peoples.”3 Even subtle “Persianisms” in Achaemenid Anatolia can, then, carry much weight. More recent studies have emphasized the range of possible meanings such “Persianisms” may have conveyed.4 Gates, in particular, has highlighted the constructed nature of style in so-called Graeco-Persian glyptic art: an artist of Persian descent could well have produced a seal in an apparently “Greek” style, and vice versa. She stresses that style is not a “direct indicator” of ethnic identity but one of many “possible tools” available for “articulating identity.”5 So in Achaemenid Anatolia (and especially in cosmopolitan centers of satrapal administration like Sardis), the signaling of ethnic identity may bear no relation to actual ethnic group affiliation. As Dusinberre has noted, there may have been a “conscious appropriation of signifiers of one ethnic group by a member of a different group, or by a person of multi-ethnic heritage.”6 In some cases ethnicity may not have been the most important vector of identity to express. Dusinberre has shown how in the “polyethnic” society of Persian-period Sardis, grave assemblages consistently display a “cosmopolitan” blend of cultural elements. She reasons that Sardis’s “polyethnic elite [class] . . . was devising a new symbolic language of personal ornamentation and funerary inclusion to symbolize membership in and adherence to the new standards and ways of the wealthy and those of high status in Achaemenid-period Lydia.”7 Different elements of the same...

Share