VI. HELLENISTIC ANATOLIA

Anatolia came under Persian domination in 547/6 BC when Cyrus II of Persia defeated Croesus of Lydia and imposed two centuries of Achaemenid rule. During this period, the Persians exerted military and administrative control by appointing satraps, recruiting mercen aries and levying taxes. But perhaps their most memorable achieve ment, and the one by which they maintained their dominance for so long, was their construction of a vast and efficient network of roads throughout their empire, including the famous Royal Road across Anatolia which linked the Aegean with the heartland of Persia from Sardis along a route roughly through Phrygia, across the Kizilirmak, via Tokat, Sivas and Malatya, over the Firat and Dicle (Tigris), and through Nineveh to Susa. Indeed, it was said by Herodotus to take 90 days to travel from end to end on foot—a distance of over 2500km. Yet culturally Persia was not a dominating force, except at what might be called the 'palace' level of monumental art, and the Hellenistic inclination evident under the Lydian kings continued to exert its sway. This process was further strengthened in 334 BC with the conquest of first the Anatolian portion and then the rest of the Persian Empire and beyond by Alexander of Macedon, best known as Alexander the Great. And what is generally called—since the 19C—the Hellenistic period dates from Alexander's death in 323 BC to the assumption by Octavian as 'Augustus' of the Roman Consul ship in 27 BC. It is to the civilization of Anatolia in this period that we now turn.

The sudden death of Alexander with no heirs other than a mentally disturbed half-brother and a posthumous son caused serious dynastic problems whose immediate settlement by the administrative division of his empire among a number of military commanders proved but temporary. The internecine strife into which these Diadochi (Suc cessors)—as they have passed into history—rapidly fell initiated the almost continuous warfare that was to characterize the Hellenistic period. The three major monarchies that emerged out of the Wars of the Diadochi (323-280 BC)—Macedonia under the dynasty of Antigonus, Egypt under that of Ptolemy, and Anatolia and the rest of the Asian provinces under that of Seleucus—were unable to maintain their respective frontiers unopposed, the most fluid being those of the Seleucid dynasty. Indeed, Anatolian political history was at its most confused after its fall to Seleucid domination, with the almost immediate rise of independently ruled and mutually antagonistic local kingdoms in Pontus, Bithynia, Pergamum, Cappadocia and Armenia. Of these, the western Anatolian kingdom of Pergamum under the Attalid dynasty became most prominent after Attalus I's defeat of the Celtic Galatians in 240 BC, expanding its borders from the Thracian coast in the north to the Mediterranean shore near Antalya. With the Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt, Pergamum domi nated the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, but was able to maintain its ascendancy only by reliance on Roman support; and the last king of the Attalid one. Attains ID (139-133 BC bequeathed the kingdom and treasury of Pergamum to Rome on his death.

By this time, the Romans were already a dominating power in the Hellenistic world and a force to be reckoned with by all who sought to acquire or preserve political power of any dimension. The pre carious balance of power—at times hardly discernible—of the 2C BC had thus been heavily distorted, for whereas in the previous century cities and local kingdoms could play off one power against another, now all looked to Rome. And its peaceful acquisition of Pergamum in 133 BC established western Anatolia as a Roman province—from 129 BC the Roman Province of Asia.

Yet the lack of central authority so evident in Anatolia, as elsewhere, during the greater part of the Hellenistic period seems to have proved fertile ground for a flourishing of the arts and sciences in numerous urban centers. For out of political faction and misrule emerged, by the middle of the 2C BC, the cultural homogeneity of Hellenistic rule.

Probably the most obvious and important characteristic of the Hellenistic period was the city—a tradition long established in Anatolia where, especially in the western regions, cities had long occupied a considerable position in economic and cultural, as well as political, life. Yet now new cities were founded all over the Hellenis tic world, taking their names from their founders and often maintain ing a close connection with them and their successors. Alexander, entering Anatolia in 334 BC, himself added to the numerous cities already existing in the hinterland by founding one of his many Alexandria, the modern city of Iskenderun—whose continuing importance today as a thriving port attests the perspicacity and care with which the site was chosen. The founding of cities, a policy particularly applied by the Seleucids, was not always the establish ment of a completely new site or community. It could be, and often was, done by revitalizing an existing town through changing its name, bringing in colonists and giving special concessions in order to stimulate trade and production. Alexander favored the re-establishment of Smyrna, and although this was only begun by one of the Diadochi, Antigonus, and completed by another, Lysimachus, the city maintained its founding links with Alexander well into the 2C AD. Antigonus himself founded the city of Antigoneia (near Iznik Golu, Lake Iznik), later to change its name to Nicaea (Iznik), and Lysimachus transferred the city of Ephesus to its present location at the foot of Bulbul Dagi—Ephesus being but one of a number of cities, particularly ports, that changed their location for one reason or another. The Seleucids founded many cities, mostly inside areas of mixed ethnicity and usually near great roads or rivers and shores suitable for harbors. Seleucus I Nicator (321-280 BC), for example, built one of his 16 Antiocheias on the south-eastern Anatolian coast— Antakya, in the province of Hatay—in a strategically important position for the eastern trade routes. And the local kingdoms of Anatolia themselves adopted this policy of establishing such cities. For example, Attaleia (Antalya) was founded in the kingdom of Pergamum by Attalus II, Pharnaceia and Eupatora in the kingdom of Pontus and Nicomedia in Bithynia. These cities, too, became import ant cultural centers.

The general policy behind this widespread construction of cities across the Hellenistic world was partly to prompt the economic development that would support, through taxation and gifts, the lavish expenditure of their rulers. But more than this, they were to serve as oases of Hellenistic culture in a world of diversity and strangeness—particularly in the Asian provinces to the east. Even close at hand, such as in Anatolia, the Hellenistic culture of this period seems to have affected only a minority of the population—the urban and the educated; those living outside the cities largely maintained their own folkways and beliefs. As in previous periods of Anatolian history, while the areas of confrontation, as it were, and especially now the regions along the Aegean and Mediterranean coasts, naturally evolved in conjunction with the changing circum stances, in the hinterland Hellenism exerted far less influence. The cities of the Hellenistic period, then, were founded and populated with immigrant Greeks and Macedonians alongside native people sympathetic to Hellenism. These communities were granted a certain degree of autonomy in their internal affairs. Thus, they could, as in the classical city-state, organize their own administrative institutions, pass their own laws and elect their own administrators. The new cities developed rapidly with their economic concessions, and often grants, and grew into centers of culture maintaining their own existence quite separate from the kingdoms inside whose territories they were located. Yet unlike the city-state, or polis, of the classical period, these cities did not possess the characteristics of a state. They were the property of kings and their citizens the dependants of these kings. Thus, they were obliged to pay taxes like any other city. But, as I have pointed out, they had special privileges and, since the administrators within the cities tended to be drawn from the popula tion and were therefore close to them, the oppression so apparent in much of the Hellenistic world was probably somewhat reduced in these cities.

All the cities resembled one another in the urban planning tech niques associated with Hippodamus of Miletus in the 5C BC, an architect and philosopher who planned the organization of cities upon the basis of the rationalization of public life, geometrical theory and simplicity of layout. The older, unplanned settlements which had grown up around the acropolis had arisen out of the earlier tradition of the western Anatolian city-states where the populace took refuge in the acropolis in times of danger and later gradually rebuilt haphazardly downwards. What is known as the Hippodamian plan was a systematic division of the city into zones, based on a regular gridiron of roads intersecting at right angles and centering on the agora (market place) and other public and administrative buildings— a design that provided for the efficient and logical organization of the expanding functions and services of the city. We know that this design was implemented in a number of prominent cities such as Heracleia (Eregli) and Cnidus, and for the new sites of cities like Priene, Colophon, Smyrna and Ephesus which shifted their locations; indeed, many settlements of the Hellenistic period were to be expanded according to this plan. Yet, while the early written sources inform us (correctly or otherwise) that this form of urban design was first applied by Hippodamus in Miletus, Rhodes and Piraeus with great success, archaeological excavations have revealed the rect angular, intersecting grid plan in the cities of Urartu (9-7C BC)—for example, at the Karmir Blur and Zernaki Tepe sites—thus indicating quite conclusively that it came from the east.

During the late 3rd and early 2C BC, the building program of the kings of Pergamum, in their capital city, ushered in a new and striking phase in urban planning which was to be adopted in the enlarging of other Hellenistic mountain dues- This was the con struction of large terraces on the slopes of the mountain to support their majestic civil and religious buildings, giving Pergamum an ordered and well-planned layout, based on a system of terracing. This period thus witnessed a further development in urban planning beyond the two-dimensional linear grid found at Miletus and elsewhere: the Pergamum school produced a design which strove for a more dynamic and monumental environment that emphasized vertical as well as horizontal composition. The result, in these terraced mountain- and hill-side cities, was a complex of porticoed public buildings—temples, shrines, public fountains, theatre, gym nasium, agora, and sometimes library as at Pergamum—attached to one another by stairs to various terraces on different levels, all designed and built together in organic coordination.

The primary role of the city during the Hellenistic period should not obscure the existence, nor importance, of the larger political entities, the kingdoms. These were carved out of territories involved in the continuous warfare among the successor-states of Alexander's empire and themselves, like the semi-autonomous cities, remained mutually antagonistic in political terms and competitive in cultural and economic.

The local kingdoms of Anatolia were ruled by absolute monarchs who each sought to expand his territory and establish a world empire on the lines of Alexander's. Taxes had to be levied for the principle objective of maintaining and enlarging the armed forces. Thus, the real burden of the incessant warfare was borne, in effect, by the people. The Seleucids adopted, in Anatolia and elsewhere, the old Persian imposition of a ten per cent tax on land and immovable property and taxed the producers of papyrus, beer and wine, while oil and salt were monopolies of the king. Other sources of income included profits from agricultural labor on royal lands, the exploita tion of mineral resources, particularly of precious metals, and gifts and tribute from vassals. Often, trade was fostered by various means, including the levying of taxes on the import and export of goods. It was clearly in the pursuit of a sound economy for the perpetration of their military and political goals that the cities were so assiduously founded and fostered.

The armies were composed of paid soldiery whose numbers could thus easily be expanded during wartime and reduced in time of peace. The foot-soldiers formed the essential strength of the forces and were complemented, as the finances of the kingdom allowed, by cavalry and elephants. Organization was by phalanx, sub-divided into units of taxeis (singular: taxis) with about 1500 soldiers, armed with shield, sword and long spear, who acted as the striking force. The development of naval power was vital in a period so dependent upon commerce, for whoever commanded the seas controlled the overseas trade. It was no coincidence that Pergamum and Ptolemaic Egypt between them dominated the Aegean and Mediterranean for so long, in conjunction with the independent city-state of Rhodes, whose navy, up to the Roman occupation, was the strongest. The Hellenistic period, with its numerous sea-battles, witnessed the development of ship-building techniques from the three-decked trireme to the five-decked, and even the eight-decked okter with its 1600 oarsmen—200 on each deck—providing immense power and speed.

The administrative organization of kingdoms in the Hellenistic period was not uniform but varied according to local conditions and traditions. Generally, however, the king ruled with the help of a council of personal advisers or 'Friends' (Philoi), appointed by him self and drawn chiefly but not—in the Seleucid kingdom at least— exclusively from Greek and Macedonian personnel. This mixture of immigrant and native counselors probably provided some connec tion with the locality, even where the monarch himself had none, and prevented too severe tax impositions on the general populace. The Seleucids divided their territories among satrapies, each under a strategos who administered also the smaller units of hyparchioi (counties) and toparchioi (villages). Among the strategoi were two governor-generals, one for the Upper Asian and one for the Lower Asian satrapy. As for jurisdiction, judges were appointed by the king who himself held ultimate authority and could authorize executions or grant pardons.

The autocratic nature of the Hellenistic monarchy from the very start of the period found, perhaps, its roots in the reign of Alexander who, in the course of time, became increasingly authoritarian, to the extent that he not only became an object of worship in some of the lands he conquered but even came to require his long-standing supporters and companions-in-arms at court to perform obeisance to him. Yet the growing practice of the ruler-cult in the Hellenistic kingdoms was probably more closely connected with the need for legitimation of their rule by the new kings who came to succeed to portions of Alexander's empire. Each of the Hellenistic dynasties seems to have adopted a special protector-god from among the pantheon—the Seleucids, for example, claiming Apollo of Miletus as the father of Seleucus I. This practice gradually extended to the worship of first the dead and later the living monarchs as gods in some parts of the Hellenistic world, although the stages by which the full transformation took place could be long drawn out. At Troy, for instance, in 298 BC an inscription in honor of the new ruler, Seleucus, named a month in his honor, accorded him a festival and recognized Apollo as the ancestor of the dynasty, but did not go quite so far as to name him a god himself. In Anatolia, the cult of ruler-gods seems not to have impressed itself as deeply as elsewhere— most particularly in Ptolemaic Egypt and in the more easterly Seleucid territories. The Attalids of Pergamum were not recognized as gods during their lifetime and there appears not to have been an official dynastic cult here, although many cities honored them with cult recognition. Indeed, the initiative to deification often came from the cities and, while it may not have altered the legal relationship between king and city, the good will generated thereby must have been as useful to the city as the deification, with its reinforcement of his authority and legitimacy, to the king.

But while the adoption of patron-gods and the growth of the ruler-cult had clear political implications, there were many other reasons for new religious developments, chiefly; it appears, as a response to changes in social conditions and corresponding individual attitudes. The great mixing-up of peoples characteristic of the Hellenistic period caused a mixing of their beliefs, including a gradual decrease in the number of deities who had previously represented aspects of nature, and a perceptible tendency toward monotheistic belief. It is possible to argue that as people's understanding, through reason, of the world around them increased, their need for representative deities decreased. Such a process may be observed in the popularity of the new deity, Tyche, representing the rather abstract Fortune or Luck, announced by Seleucus I as the paramount god of the Seleucid state, and before long worshipped extensively within and without Seleucid territories. Tyche was in due course to enter the Roman pantheon as Fortuna Vet the transfer also of the long-revered Anatolian goddess Kybele, to Rome and the passage of the Egyptian Serapis to Anatolia and elsewhere, alongside the growth and spread of many mystery-cults promising individual salvation through their ceremonial rites, implies the continuing need of ordinary people for more personal and comprehensible deities. Among the Hellenistic pantheon deities such as Zeus, Dionysus, Apollo and Athena, long known and worshipped in Anatolia, increased in importance. So where do we see this reduction in numbers of deities and gradual inclination toward monotheism? These may be observed in the tend ency of each city or kingdom to accord their own patron deity supremacy over all the rest—local and newcomer alike—and to try to combine the other deities on a single subordinate level.

In science and philosophy as in religion, the general upheaval generated by almost continual warfare and the rise and fall of states, the intermixture of peoples with their own traditions and beliefs, and the place of the cities as patrons of religious, intellectual and artistic activity led to the cross-fertilization of ideas in conjunction with a profound doubt as to the bases and continuing security of people's way of life and most cherished beliefs. Thus we see the advance of rational enquiry blocked, as it were, by retreat in the face of adversity and change. In religious belief, the tentative acknowledgement of abstract ideas or a single, coherent plan ruling men's lives was countered by renewed interest in personality cults, whether of rulers or gods. In science, great strides were made in astronomy, mathema tics, physics and anatomy as the cities offered patronage and pro vided superb libraries. Notable scientists of the Hellenistic period came chiefly from the schools of Pergamum and Alexandria—the astronomers Hipparchus of Nicaea, who invented trigonometry, and Apollonius of Pergamum and the physicians Herophilus of Chalcedon (Kadikoy district of Istanbul) and Erasistratus of Chios (Sakiz) whose knowledge of the human body was said to be based on the practice of dissection, even of the living—of criminals obtained from prison. In the branch of mechanics and the application of technology, however, achievement was less spectacular, with only the requirements of warfare and gadgetry for the wealthy apparently being advanced. Could this deficiency and, indeed, general weaken ing in the rational outlook during the course of the Hellenistic period be attributable to a failure by the philosophical schools to support scientific endeavor? For the four major schools of philosophy that find their roots in this period do seem to subordinate the question of understanding the world to the aim of gaining peace of mind. The Cynical school of Diogenes of Sinope (Sinop) sought virtue and moral freedom in liberation from desire and rejected the conventions and conveniences of society; Pyrrho's Sceptics maintained that there was no rational ground for preferring one course of action to another— which in practice argued that men should, without self-doubt or recrimination, conform to whatever customs prevailed around them; the Epicurean school looked to the attainment of 'static' pleasure, as in the absence of desire or need, through moderate contentment; and the Stoics of Zeno denied the possibility of chance, positing rather that the course of nature was rigidly determined by natural laws and that a man's virtue was the sole good. Thus, the Hellenistic age may be viewed as giving birth to a general philosophy of retreat, not one that sought to grapple with the problems of society. Yet this can also be seen not so much as a failure to support the rational sciences, as I have suggested above, as perhaps a symptom of the same individual timorousness in the face of a dangerous and uncertain world. Safer indeed to be indifferent to it all and concentrate on one's own salvation.

Yet curiously enough, this intellectual dilemma is hardly apparent in the arts, so brilliantly and grandly represented in the Hellenistic cities. Architecture, sculpture and painting form the media of expres sion for which the Hellenistic age is particularly remembered. In architectural achievement, new temples were constantly erected during this period, with each new god being accorded his own; and the thriving cities continuously sought to outdo one another in their patronage of culture and in their monuments of artistic endeavor.

The classical Doric and Ionic orders of architecture continued into the Hellenistic period and gradually came to develop a Hellenistic character with, in particular, the spread of a new order incorporating the elegance of the Ionic and featuring the Corinthian-style capital. Indeed, the Corinthian capital, as it now developed, became par ticularly popular and well-known in Anatolian architecture of the period, impressive examples being found at the Mausoleum of Belevi near Selcuk. Probably the oldest surviving temple of the Corinthian order is the peripteral Temple of Zeus Olbios near Olba (Diocaesarea; Uzuncaburc, near Silifke). The rich and lively ornamenta tion of acanthus leaves typical of the Corinthian capital, sometimes interspersed with figural elements-human and animal, was most suitable for the growing aesthetic taste for effects in light and shade, developed also in other aspects of Hellenistic architecture. A mixture of styles may often be found within one building, as in the small Temple of Dionysus at Pergamum and in the colonnades of the Temple of Athena Polias Nikephoros there. The classical Ionic style, resting on the fame of its earlier buildings, however, showed no rapid change, as is evident in the colossal new Temple of Apollo at Didyma, begun in 310 BC on virtually the same plan as its preceding, building of 540 BC; while perhaps the best example of the classical Ionic style of architecture is the Temple of Athena Polias in Priene. But the distinctive Hellenistic character of temple architecture began to emerge about the beginning of the 2C BC with the career of Hermogenes. He was an outstanding architect and theoretician who is recorded by Vitruvius as having written his own theories on temple design, based principally on mathematical proportions and adjust ments. It was he who abandoned the by now over-worked and exhausted Doric order and developed new and original techniques based on the Ionic. Perhaps Hermogenes' finest and best-known work was in relation to the introduction of the pseudo-dipteros to Anatolia, in which the usual inner pteron was omitted, allowing a spacious colonnade two spans in width around the core of the temple, pleasant to walk in and protected from sun and rain; it also created, with its deeply-incised ornamentation, a pleasing contrast of light and shadow that was wholly in accord with Hellenistic aesthetic preferences, and one in which Hermogenes was interested. A fine example of this interest—and the effect produced by the play of light and shadow from a distance—is his Temple of Artemis Leuk-ophryene at Magnesia ad Maeandrum (near Soke). His use of a simple Attic base and Attic frieze is evident here and at the Temple of Dionysus at Teos (Sigacik). Both of these architectural devices were to become standard. Hermogenes principle of widely spaced columns required a reduction in weight and hence the height of the frieze and supported architectural elements, again a tendency that was to be reflected in the architecture of the later Hellenistic period as architects sought to reduce the appearance of massiveness in their buildings and attain the maximum effect of lightness.

But one of the chief characteristics of Hellenistic architecture was its increasing secularization, as we have seen in relation to urban planning, where the major municipal buildings were no longer all religious in nature. The agora, gymnasium, town hall, theatre and other public buildings were given due importance among the city's monuments. Indeed, it is still possible to see some of the best theatres of the Hellenistic world, with Roman modifications, in the Anatolian sites of Pergamum, Aphrodisias (Geyre), and Ephesus. Of particular importance in urban architectural development was the new emphasis given to planning on a central axis and the front entrance in place of the classical four-sided character of many buildings—and especially, temples—and to the three-dimensional concept apparent in the multi-storied constructions with their monumental stairways and close attention to the problems and potential of space.

Major developments were evident in the sculpture and art of the Hellenistic period. The classical style and subtle expression of major Hellenistic sculptors created the expressive and muscular physiques that are so well-known today. Figuring prominently was the palace sculptor of Alexander, Lysippos, who introduced new 'impres sionistic' proportions on the grounds, according to the written sources that have come down to us, that he wanted to represent men not as they were but as they appeared. Pliny the Elder records that Lysippos sculpted 1500 works, including portraits of Alexander, but, apart from some Roman copies, virtually none of the originals survives. Among artists, the figure most comparable to Lysippos was Apelles of Colophon who was brought up in Ephesus and became the palace artist of Alexander. Just as Alexander allowed himself to be sculpted only by Lysippos. so his portrait was only painted by Apelles. He departed Alexander clasping lightning in one hand, lightning that was said by contemporary sources to have gleamed so brightly that it seemed almost to emerge from the picture, displayed in the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Many anecdotes are told of Apelles' intimacy with the monarch; for example, that Alex ander used to visit the studio and talk at length about painting, only to be told by Apelles to keep his mouth shut if he did not want to be laughed at by the slaves who ground the colors.

Notable works of sculpture from the Hellenistic period include the bronze athlete found at Selcuk (Ephesus), which has been attributed to Lysippos, and the statue of Alexander found at Manisa (Magnesia ad Sipylum), on which Lysippos' influence has been perceived. After Alexander, sculptures of kings were often made, as were statues of the new deity, Tyche, who was believed to hold the fate of cities in her hands. The statue of Tyche sculpted by Eutychides (one of Lysippos' pupils) for Antiocheia and that of a boy in prayer by Boidas (a son and pupil of Lysippos) were popular enough to have copies made for Roman clients. A new and interesting depth in sculpture was achieved by Doidalsas in a bronze model of Aphrodite, in a crouching pose, for Nicomedia (Izmit) in Bithynia. But pride of place in sculpture (as well as in painting) most be accorded to the Pergamum school which flourished after Attalus I's victory over the Galatians prompted numerous victory sculptures. Of these, one of the most remarkable is that known as the 'Ludovisi Gaul’—of a Galatian who, having killed his wife, is on the point of stabbing himself with his own sword; while the great sculptural frieze on the huge altar erected in the Acropolis of Pergamum, representing a struggle of gods and giants and symbolizing the victory of Pergamum over the Galatians, is among the finest examples of Hellenistic plastic art. Other schools of repute included the Tralles (Aydin) school from the 2C BC, admired for the depiction of such aesthetic details as the veins in human skin and the natural fall of silken drapery, and for the depth of expression achieved by its sculptors—who were particularly noted for their fine group statuary. The school of Rhodes was also prominent in both sculpture and painting during the 1C BC. Monu mental art accounted for much sculpted decoration, with the earlier figures of deities soon replaced by expressive and vibrant human and animal forms. Best known must be the famous 'Alexander Sar cophagus' (4C), thus misnamed because although its sides are ornamented in glorious reliefs of Alexander's exploits, the sar cophagus actually belongs to one of his vassals, King Abdalonymous of Sidon (in modern Lebanon).

As for artists, whose work is familiar mainly from copies and historical sources Pliny has recorded many of their names and works, often with amusing anecdotes. For example, the artist Nealkes threw a paint-soaked sponge at a picture of a battle scene he was painting in exasperation at his inability to portray successfully the foaming mouth of a horse, and by so doing achieved the desired result. Vitruvius also narrates a story illustrating the tastelessness and dull conformity of the later Hellenistic period. The artist Apaturios of Alabanda (Araphisar) made his name by painting the stage decor ation of the ekklesiasterion (assembly hall) at Tralles in a new and original design replacing the columns with human figures and resting the architrave on centaurs. But the mathematician Likymnios, in rebuke, likened the Tralleans to the people of Alabanda who had become a laughing-stock by putting sculptures of athletes in the agora and sculptures of orators in the gymnasium, for the unsuitable placing of statues in respect to the proper function of the places where they were displayed was held to be in very poor taste.

The standard of floor mosaics during the Hellenistic period was by no means inferior to that of painting. Found in the vestibules of numerous houses, their limitation in color was amply compensated by their particular technique in shading. Mosaic copies of popular paintings were common, of which the most famous—although quite distant from our area—is that in the Casa del Fauno in Pompeii, depicting the defeat of Darius by Alexander. This is a copy of a late 4C painting usually attributed to Philoxenos of Eretria. Minor arts, such as ceramics and work in precious metals continued to flourish in Hellenistic Anatolia. The production of metal, and especially silver, vessels with relief decoration greatly expanded. Yet the gold-and silver-ware created for the extravagant courts of Pergamum and elsewhere has almost entirely disappeared.