Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:21:53.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Reflections on the Macedonian Tombs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Manolis Andronikos
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The excavation of the Royal Tombs at Vergina has led to discussion of problems posed by them. This paper discusses problems of chronology, and the difficulties of deducing date purely from consideration of the architectural features of the Macedonian tombs. It also considers the use of the vault to roof them, and argues that this was developed in Macedonia itself, through the enlargement of cist tombs to meet the particular needs posed by the larger tombs of the fourth century BC. Finally, it discusses the architectural embellishment of the façades.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 82 , November 1987 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The exception of the tomb at Karytsa (Ch. Makaronas, , PAE 1955, 151–9) does not change this pictureGoogle Scholar, since the grave-offerings are minimal.

2 Ph. Petsas, 46. Pantermalis, D., νέος Μακεδονικός τάφος της Βεργίνας, Makedonika 12 (1972) 176, where the relevant dimensions are quoted.Google Scholar

3 Heuzey, L. and Daumet, H., Mission archéologique de Macé doine (1876) 226–33.Google Scholar

4 Ibid. 233.

5 Op. cit. 176.

6 Miller, S. G., AM 88 (1973) 205 n. 74Google Scholar; id., Hellenistic, Macedonian Architecture (1978) 107 ff. Bryn Mawr Ph.D. thesis.

7 Gossel, Berthild, Makedonische Kammergräber (1980) 208.Google Scholar

8 In fact, the expression ‘Architekturformen’ is meaningles in this connection, since the entire façade consists of no more than two pseudo capitals and the epistyle.

9 Andronikos, M., PAE 1982, 54.Google Scholar

10 For the date, Debidour, M., BCH Suppl. V, Thasiaka (1974) 311Google Scholar; id., ‘En classant les timbres thasiens’, BCH Suppl. XIII, Recherches sur les amphores grecques (édité par Empereur, J.-Y. et Garlan, Y.) (Paris 1986) 331.Google Scholar See also Gheorghe Poenaru, ‘Les timbres amphoriques de Thasos à Galatis’, ibid. 342. Stamps with the name are assigned to the group of the ‘last third of the 4th century’, before the group ‘of the end of the 4th century’, which should indicate a period from c. 330 to 310 BC.

11 Orlandos, A. K., Τα υλικά δομής των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων ii (1958) 338 ff.Google Scholar

12 Boyd, T. D., The Arch and the Vault in Greek Architecture (1976). Indiana University Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar

13 ‘The Skull from Tomb II at Vergina: King Philip II of Macedon’, JHS 104 (1984) 60–78.

14 Neave, , ‘The Skull from Tomb II at Vergina: King Philip II of Macedon’, JHS 104 (1984) 66.Google Scholar

15 Andronikos, , Ο βασικíς τáøος τες Βερíνας καí το φρóβλεμα του νΕκροú, AAA 13 (1981) 156 ff.Google Scholar (with English translation 168 ff.).

16 See the enlightening paper by Daniel, G. E., ‘Fron Worsaae to Childe, the Models of Prehistory’, PPS 38 (1971) 140–53Google Scholar, and Renfrew, A. C., Before Civilization, The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe (1973: Pelican 1976).Google Scholar

17 Montelius, O., Der Orient und Europa (Stockholm 1899)Google Scholar; Childe, V. G., ‘The Orient and Europe’, AJA 43 (1939) 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 It is worth noting that this tendency has been transformed into a kind of interpretative method for many classical archaeologists. The continuing strength of this line of though is revealed by publications of young archaeologists, as, for instance, Pfrommer, M. in JdI with the revealing titles, ‘Grossgriechischer und mittelitalischer Einfluss in der Rankenornamentik frühhellenistischer Zeit’, JdI 97 (1982) 119–90Google Scholar and ‘Italien-Makedonien-Kleinasien, Interdependenzen spätklassischer und frühhellenistischer Toreutik’, JdI 98 (1983) 235–85.

19 It is important to remember that in another instance this comparative method was used in exactly the opposite fashion in the publication of the vaulted tomb of Belevi where it was considered obvious that the form of the vaulted tomb in Asia Minor is easily explained after Alexander's expedition and the transfer of this Macedonian feature. Cf. Forschungen in Ephesos vi (1979) Das Mausoleum von Belevi 117 (C. Praschnicker): ‘Die tonnenüberwölbte Grabkammer, nun schon in zahlreichen Beispielen bekannt, ist eine Form, welche zunächst in einem engen Kreis, in Makedonien, und zwar schon in der ersten Hälfte des 4. Jahrhunderts aufgekommen ist und sich von da über Nachbarländer nach Osten, Süden und auch nach Westen, verbreitet hat.’ On the previous page (116) Praschniker observes that ‘auf kleinasiatischem Boden ist die Grabkammer von Belevi jedenfalls das früheste bekannte Beispiel dieser Form’.

20 Orlandos, , Τα υλικά δομής ii. 351.Google Scholar

21 AJA 82 (1978) 89 n. 24. Orlandos, op. cit. 351 records that Lugli, G., Palladio, NS ii (1952) 9Google Scholar and Tecnica edil. Rom 335 maintains that the information concerning Demokritos was a simple sophism of Seneca.

22 C. M. Robertson, A History of Greek Art 487 and 708 n. 106.

23 Especially Head and Hand in Ancient Greece (London 1947). See also Greek Science: Its Meaning For Us 194.

24 See Griffith, in Hammond, N. G. L. and Griffith, G. T., A History of Macedonia ii (1979) 203, 205–7.Google Scholar See Plato, Gorgias 471a–d. Even if we are certain that the fifth Platonic letter is not genuine, virtually nobody doubts the genuineness of the letter of Plato's nephew, Speusippos, to Philip, confirming the earlier connections of his uncle with the Macedonian dynasty. Griffith, op. cit. 514 and Lesky, A., Geschichte d. Gr. Literatur3 (1971) 610Google Scholar, tr. by A. Tsopanakis, 754.

25 Letter of Speusippos to Philip II, 30, 12 (R. Herscher, Epistologr. Graeci). For a commentary and translation of the letter, Bickermann, E. and Sykutris, J., Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie, phil.-hist. Klasse. 80.3 (1928).Google Scholar

26 AAA 13 (1981) 165; cf. Rhomaios, K. A., Ο Μακεδονικός Τάφος της Βερίνας (1951) 51.Google Scholar

27 Diodorus Siculus 18, 26 ff.

28 The rest of the passage: poses problems. These have led editors to emend others to and attempt corresponding identifications. I feel that a detailed analysis of the problem is beyond the scope of this paper. For the hearse of Alexander, F. Miller, Der Leichenwagen Alexanders des Grossen (1905) and Bulle, H., ‘Der Leichenwagen Alexanders’, JdI 21 (1906) 57–73.Google Scholar

29 Op. cit. 51.

30 Andronikos, M., Ανασκαφή νεκροταφείον ΒεργίναςPAE 1953. 143. 150.Google Scholar

31 Makaronas, Ch., Τάφοι παρά το Δερβένι θεσαλονίκης, ADelt 18 (1963)Google Scholar, ChrB 193 ff.

32 Kotzias, N., AE 1937, 3, 866–95.Google Scholar

33 A preliminary account of the excavation has been given by M. Besios, the excavator, in a publication of the Nomarchia of Pieria entitled Archaeologists Speak about Pieria, pp. 51 ff. According to information provided by Mr Besios (to whom I owe warm thanks) four of the tombs were over 2 m long (2.33, 2.52, 2.06, 2.57 m) but none was over 1.30 m wide.

34 Petsas, Ph., ADelt 22 (1967)Google ScholarChr 400, pl. 302d.

35 Karamanoli-Siganidou, M., ADelt 21 (1966)Google ScholarChr 342, figs. 9–10.

36 Robinson, D. M., Olynthus xi (1942) 117 ff.Google Scholar, no. 598 pls. 53–8; Kurtz, D. C. and Boardman, J., Greek Burial Customs (1971) 194 fig. 40Google Scholar; Despini, A., AAA 13 (1980).Google Scholar The tomb should be dated to the first half of the fourth century BC.

37 Orlandos, op. cit., plate following p. 358, draws the tomb with a vaulted roof with no further comment or explanation.

38 Op. cit. 868, 869.

39 That, I suggest, is self-evident, since in this instance this roof must have been constructed at the same time as the rest of the tomb and certainly before the committal.

40 Katerini, —Despini, A., Ο Τάφος της Κατερίνης, AAA 13 (1980) 198–209Google Scholar; Palatitsia, —Ergon 1984, 32Google Scholar; 1985, 19–20.

41 Despini, op. cit. 209.

42 Despini, op. cit. 200

43 Ibid. 199–200

44 Ibid. 202. It must be noted that the expression ‘cisttombs intended for an individual, even if it seems generally to correspond to the facts, should not be used indiscriminately. In the ‘Persephone Tomb’ at Vergina bones were found belonging to at least two people (and to a new-born child): J. H. Musgrave, ‘The Skull of Philip II of Macedon’, in Proceedings of a Meeting Held in the Department of Physiology, The Medical School, University of Bristol, U.K. on 4th and 5th July, 1985, edited by S. J. W. Lisney and B. Matthews, p. 9.

45 Despini, op. cit. 205. It should be mentioned that no Macedonian tomb has a door any wider than 2 m.

46 The excavator mentions ibid. 206 that in the chamber were found ‘only two pieces of burnt bone, which come from the lower jaw and from the forearm of an infant’. But the presence of weapons in the chamber and fittings belonging to a cuirass with parts of a pectoral in the antechamber leaves no doubt that the principal burial was of a warrior.

47 Ibid. 207.

48 Ibid. 206.

49 A similar phenomenon was noted in the Philip tomb at Vergina where the remains of the funeral pyre were placed above the vault over the chamber. Andronikos, , Vergina. The Royal Tombs (1984) 97–8, 227.Google Scholar

50 As this door was not essential for access to the chamber, as the flat roof would have been sealed after the burial, it is not out of the question that it was sealed from the moment of construction. Nevertheless, it is more likely to have remained open until the burial to simplify circulation of those responsible for depositing the bones and the funeral gifts.

51 Note should perhaps be taken that, if the tomb had been placed at a shallow depth, this difficulty might not have been experienced. It seems, though, that (1) the tomb was located at a fair depth for reasons of security, so that it should not be readily pillaged, and (2) construction of a particularly lofty tumulus was an ancient practice of the Macedonians, as the tumulus cemetery of Vergina illustrates, as well as the majority of the large tombs so far excavated.

52 Gossel, B., Makedonische Kammergräber (Berlin1980).Google Scholar

53 H. Büsing, Die griechische Halbsäule (1970).

54 Andronikos, , ADelt 16 (1960)Google Scholar, Chr 214, fig. 1, pl. 183a–b.

55 Pantermalis, op. cit. fig. 1 and p. 152. As I showed earlier study of the typological development of the façades of Macedonian tombs is not necessarily to be based on their chronological succession, since I feel that simpler types, even though we may encounter them in later monuments, allow us to understand the problems the builders faced and the solutions they found for them. Only were we to have knowledge of all the monuments that had been constructed and of their chronological succession would we be able to view in theory as unjustified the assumptions I appear to have taken in this discussion. Besides, the survival of earlier types in later monuments is a familiar phenomenon, particularly when we are dealing with the less expensive, simpler structures.

56 Andronikos, , Vergina. The Royal Tombs (1984) 35–7 fig. 15.Google Scholar

57 Heuzey and Daumet, op. cit. 226–33 pl. 15; Gossel, op. cit. 204–9.

58 Rhomaios, op. cit. 20.

59 Petsas, Ο Μσκεδονικός τόφος παρά χωρίον Τούμπα Παιονίας Χαριστήριον εις Ορλάνδον, A.K iii. 235.Google Scholar

60 Gossel, op. cit. 18.

61 (1) Three in the ‘Bella’ tumulus at Vergina (Andronikos, , Vergina. The Royal Tombs (1984) 35–7)Google Scholar. (2) One at Dion (D. Pantermalis, 12). (3) One at Pydna (Makryialo), M. Besios, op. cit. 54 fig. 5. (4) One at Ayia Paraskevi, 30 km south-east of Thessaloniki (Sismanides, K., AAA 15 (1982) 267–84).Google Scholar (5) One at Potidaea. (6) One within Thessaloniki (for the last two there are no published details at present). (7) From the periodical Archaeologia 18 (Feb. 1986) 81 we learn that ‘a vaulted Macedonian tomb was found during the digging of foundations for a block of flats in Drama’.

62 Andronikos, op. cit. (see n. 56 above) 35–7.

63 Ibid. 20.

64 The conjunction ‘whenever’ (όταν) used by Rhomaios must be taken not as chronologically hypothetical but as chronologically aetiological, somewhere between ‘after’ and ‘because’ Petsas, 87 discusses at considerable length the problem whether ‘the Macedonian tombs are temple-shaped’, to end by concluding that the Lefkadia tomb, at least, represented a type of house. Gossel accepted his opinion (op. cit. 28–9) with the further observation that in some cases of Macedonian tombs one could support the view that ‘es handelte sich … um die Wiedergabe eines Propylon oder eines Torbaus’. I fancy that all three responses could find examples which would support them, and others that would disprove them. The effort to find a single identification produces an impasse. It would be helpful to understand how the builders of Macedonian tombs adapted the architectural features they knew to the special case of the Macedonian tomb, a subterranean building. This fundamental difference from structures built above ground created special difficulties, which called for new solutions. And that is what Rhomaios demonstrated, briefly but clearly.

65 Andronikos, op. cit. (see n. 56 above) 83 (by oversight referred to there as ‘north of the tombs’; this should be ‘south’).

66 A similar roof occurs in Tomb I of the ‘Bella Tumulus’ (Andronikos, op. cit. (see n. 56 above) 35) and in the Angista, Dion I, Lefkadia II and the Aliakmon barrier tomb—Gossel, op. cit. 15 n. 77.