BMCR 2025.02.04

Der archaische Heiligtumsbefund vom Taxiarchis-Hügel in Didyma. Teilband 1: Grabungsstratigraphie, archäologischer Kontext und topographische Einbindung

, Der archaische Heiligtumsbefund vom Taxiarchis-Hügel in Didyma. Teilband 1: Grabungsstratigraphie, archäologischer Kontext und topographische Einbindung. Didyma III, 6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2023. Pp. xii, 312. ISBN 9783447118361.

Preview

[Table of contents are listed at the end of the review]

 

The oracular site of Apollo in Didyma was the most important extra-urban sanctuary of the polis of Miletus, to which it was connected by a Sacred Way. Together with the temples of Artemis in Ephesus and Hera on Samos, the Temple of Apollo was one of the largest and most spectacular cult buildings of the Archaic period. Besides Apollo’s, other cults are documented in Didyma, such as those of Zeus and Aphrodite, but their cult areas have not yet been localized with certainty. The temple of the goddess, for instance, is thought to be on the site of today’s mosque in the village of Didim, which was built over the sanctuary from the late 18th century AD under its previous name Yoranda.

This book deals with another presumed cult area, whose cult and deity are unknown, and where excavations were first carried out in 1962. The cult area, presumably initially without any buildings, was set on the highest elevation in the area, the Taxiarchis Hill, 200 m northwest of the Temple of Apollo. At the beginning of the 20th century, windmills still existed on the site on the impressive mound of rubble from the temple and the buildings that followed it, which underline its prominent topographical position. The hill was named after the Byzantine chapel of Saint Taxiarchis erected at its peak, which has since been demolished.

The results of the excavation campaigns on the Taxiarchis Hill from 2000–2001, 2003 and 2009 are presented in three volumes of the series “Didyma III”. Volumes 6,2 and 6,3 of this set will present all finds dating to the Archaic period, with double volume 2 devoted exclusively to the large quantity of Archaic pottery (including a few Geometric finds) from the excavations. In contrast, this first volume, as the title suggests, deals with the stratigraphy, the archaeological contexts and explanation of the topography.

However, this description of its coverage is only partly true. The body of Volume 1, framed by a short introduction (Helga Bumke) and brief remarks on topographical aspects (Bumke, Elgin von Gaisberg), is divided into two unequal parts. The first part on stratigraphy is devoted to the Archaic contexts, the second part to the post-Archaic documentation. While no Archaic finds are presented in the first part, as these will be published in volumes 2 and 3, the section on the post-Archaic period deals with both stratigraphy and finds, thus going far beyond the aims formulated in the title. This choice makes the focus of the publication clearer, as the Archaic period seems to have yielded the largest quantity of finds, thus also reflecting its outstanding importance for the site.

One may be disappointed at first by the absence of buildings, installations, architectural remains, inscriptions and meaningful graffiti dating from Archaic times. In fact, this prominent topographical point in itself reveals nothing about the cult and its significance in the religious topography of Didyma. However, the authors always refer to the quantity of excavated pottery on Taxiarchis Hill related to cult and votive practices, as well as to significant individual finds, such as a bronze griffin protome from the Archaic period, in order to justify its designation as a cult area.

Leaving aside the Temple of Apollo and the so-called “Felsbarre” at the Sacred Way west of the Taxiarchis Hill, the authors have succeeded in providing the first comprehensive stratigraphy on Taxiarchis Hill for the Archaic period in Didyma, in which undisturbed Archaic deposits were encountered. Out of the eight recognized cultural layers in total, four were dated to the Archaic period. The finds in the Archaic layers range from Geometric artifacts from the 2nd quarter of the 8th century BC to finds from the beginning of the 5th century BC. Although Geometric finds have occasionally been made in Didyma, Geometric layers have not yet been found anywhere. Stratigraphically, an undifferentiated oldest occupation layer that grew up here can be identified, which suggests an open area over several centuries until the third quarter of the 6th century BC. This is followed by two Late Archaic strata, one of which is a terracing layer and the other a levelled charcoal stratum. The first stratum is again subdivided into different phases, which, however, represent structural units or components of a single construction activity. It is not certain if the charcoal stratum is the result of a fire on the site or if it consists of material brought there from the surrounding area. This burnt layer is associated with the Persian destruction and offers the only reference to documented historical events that took place in either 494 BC (Hdt. 6, 19) or 474 BC (Strab. 11, 518; Paus. 8, 46, 3), in the context of the Ionian Revolt and its aftermath. Finally, the Archaic layers are sealed by a post-Archaic fill. Alexandra von Miller presents for the Archaic period an in-depth description and discussion of excavation results, the examination of units and strata, as well as the extensive listing of relevant contexts and their color-coded assignment to the layers in tables and graphics. These comprehensive efforts are intended to buttress the claim put forward by Bumke in her introduction, namely, that this volume serves to provide the “backbone” for the chronological classification and interpretation of the retrieved material (pp. 10–11) to be published in volumes 2 and 3. However, this means that the dating and classification of the finds will only be verifiable after the other volumes become available.

The post-Archaic history of the site, between the Persian destruction and the late Hellenistic period, is succinct: there are neither features nor finds. The sanctuary on Taxiarchis Hill was abandoned and out of use for centuries. It was only in the late Hellenistic period, somewhat later than the start of the construction of the new monumental Temple III of Apollo nearby, that building activities and large-scale levelling resumed, with the subsequent use of the hill continuing into the Middle Ages. Elgin von Gaisberg, Georg Pantelidis, with Wolfgang Günther, Jan Breder, Norbert Ehrhardt, Gudrun Klebinder-Gauß, Anne Sieverling, and Aylin Tanrıöver describe and discuss the post-Archaic use and stratigraphy of the area and the finds. For the Hellenistic period, they were able to find evidence of a well on the lower terrace, traces of a road and, on the upper terrace, a retaining wall against which two buildings, A and B, from the Imperial period were placed. Other walls erected there in the northwest part of the hill were probably connected with further fillings and terracing. Architectural elements and roof tiles provide further documentation of construction activities. The excavations did not provide any information on the function of the building remains. Only the chapel, which dates to the Middle Ages, shows evidence of a religious purpose and possibly points to cultic continuity at the site. Beyond this, the presence of several wells from antiquity on the hill, one of which is at the heart of the chapel, is considered an indication of possible cultural practices involving them. The stratigraphy of the post-Archaic period is examined along the uncovered building remains and other features. The features are presented in their archaeological contexts. In contrast to the Archaic material, the finds here are discussed in catalogs and for the most part accompanied by drawings and photos. This arrangement, together with the excellent illustrations and plans of the excavation, makes the arguments easy to follow. Some individual finds are addressed separately, such as a gravestone and its inscription (Ehrhardt, pp. 103–105) from the 3rd century BC, which has been completely preserved apart from the pediment. It was probably moved there from the nearby necropolis.

The main theme of the last chapter, the integration of the mound and the cult area into the topography of Didyma, does not go beyond speculation. On the one hand, the evidence offered for a connection with the Sacred Way or a possible enclosure of the mound by a temenos wall, the partial reconstruction of which is attempted on the basis of remains from older documentation, is not entirely convincing due to the weak state of the material remains. On the other hand, the authors can provide good confirmation of the man-made changes to the Taxiarchis Hill with its fillings and terracing. The mound, which was initially uneven, was levelled and extended to the north and west by the 6th century BC at the latest.

The bulkiest parts of the volume are by far the page-long concordances of finds and the lists of matches and affiliations of pottery fragments. These are tabular lists organized by stratigraphic units and contexts. All excavation sections between 2000 and 2009 are recorded on them. Each context and each individual find is assigned to a layer or stratum in a row by means of color coding. It is therefore a kind of database in tabular, printed form. Perhaps an electronic database would have been more useful and accessible.

The text is accompanied by an extensive set of general and detailed plans, folding plans (some attached separately), photos, graphics and the geophysical results integrated into a topographic map so that the descriptions and discussions can be followed in detail. These are properly integrated and placed in a user-friendly way. It includes German, Turkish and English summaries. The editing is thorough and contains hardly any errors.[1]

In sum, the authors and contributors are to be congratulated for a fine volume that will serve as a basis for exploring the contexts of the excavation finds from the years 2000 to 2009 and for understanding their stratigraphic position. Judging from the thoroughness with which the post-Archaic finds are laid out in it, one can only look forward to the Geometric and Archaic ones receiving a similar treatment in volumes 2 and 3.

 

Contents

Vorwort

I Einleitung (Helga Bumke)

II Grabungsstratigraphie, archäologischer Kontext und topographische Einbindung

II.A Die archaische Stratigraphie vom Taxiarchis-Hügel

Einleitung – Die Kulturschichten archaischer Zeit und ihre Versiegelung – Zusammenfassung – Anhang 1: Befundkatalog – Anhang 2: Liste der Gefäßanpassungen und -zusammengehörigkeiten (Alexandra Ch. J. von Miller)

II.B Die nacharchaische Nutzung von der hellenistischen bis in die byzantinische Zeit (Elgin von Gaisberg, Georg Pantelidis, Wolfgang Günther, Jan Breder, Norbert Ehrhardt, Gudrun Klebinder-Gauß, Anne Sieverling, Aylin Tanrıöver)

II.C Die Einbindung des Taxiarchis-Hügels in die Topographie Didymas und die Genese seines Geländeprofils (Helga Bumke, Elgin von Gaisberg)

Konkordanzlisten nach Kontexten

Keramik (Kataloge) – Kleinfunde (Kataloge) (Alexandra Ch. J. von Miller, Georg Pantelidis)

Zusammenfassung

Özet (tercüme eden Hüseyin Cevizoğlu)

Summary (translated by Jan-Henrik Hartung)

Abbildungsnachweis

Literaturverzeichnis

Abkürzungsverzeichnis

Verzeichnis der Autorinnen und Autoren von Band I (alphabetisch)

Tafeln 1–80

 

Notes

[1]I noted relatively few errors or misprints: p. 102 cat. no. nTke 1: Randfragment instead of Bodenfragment; p. 108 cat. no. nTke 25: Wandfragment instead of Randfragment and nTke 29: Randfragment not Wandfragment; p. 111 cat. no. nTke 52 and p. 146 cat. no. nTke 182: Henkelfragment instead of Randfragment; p. 152 cat. no. nTke 209: Wandfragment instead of ganzes Profil; p. 153 cat. no. nTke 216+17: Randfragment not Bodenfragment; p. 300 Möhnesee not Möhnsee; p. 302 (Wien 2003) instead (2003). One typographical error on p. 125: A. Sieverling must be bold.