The Royal Court in Ancient Macedonia: The Evidence for Royal Tombs - Olga Palagia

18 THE ROYAL COURT IN ANCIENT MACEDONIA: THE EVIDENCE FOR ROYAL TOMBS Olga Palagia The archaeological evidence for royal courts is best obtained from excavations of palaces. Three royal Macedonian palaces are known to date, located at Pella and Vergina (Aigai) in Macedonia and Demetrias in Thessaly. As palaces are addressed elsewhere in this volume, I will confine myself to tombs in Macedonia and what they can teach us about the king of Macedon and his court in the periods of Philip II, Alexander III and the Successors.1 Monumental underground tombs, often decorated with wall-paintings, have been coming to light at Pella, Vergina, Lefkadia, Potidaia, Dion, Pydna, Thessaloniki and Amphipolis, producing a wealth of information about Macedonian attitudes to the hereafter and, to a lesser extent, the practices of the royal court.2 We have four categories of underground house tombs in Macedonia: chamber tombs, rock-cut chamber tombs, cist tombs, which consist of a rectangular chamber built of ashlar blocks and accessible only through the roof (Fig. 18.1), and the so-called Macedonian tombs which have a barrel-vault roof, a front entrance and a façade often decorated in imitation of a propylon (Fig. 18.2).

These tombs were costly affairs, often going in tandem with cremation, an expensive burial method that could only be afforded by the Macedonian elite. Though the earliest monumental tomb painted with a narrative scene (Vergina Tomb I: Fig. 18.1) is now generally associated with Philip II and his family (see section 1 below), the majority of painted Macedonian tombs were financed with the spoils of Alexander’s conquest of Asia and date roughly between the last quarter of the fourth century and the first quarter of the third.3 Because of the feudal system in Macedonia, it has been argued that the king was only first among equals,4 something that is reflected in the large number of monumental decorated tombs which served not only royals but also the king’s companions and their families. Making a distinction between royal tombs and tombs of the elite is fraught with difficulties, especially when the tombs have been plundered. Two of the most spectacular painted

409

Olga Palagia

Fig. 18.1: Interior of Vergina Tomb I with painted Rape of Persephone. From Drougou and Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 1999, fig. 71.

Fig. 18.2: Reconstructed faรงade of Vergina Tomb II with painted hunting frieze. From Drougou and Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 1999, fig. 60.

410

The royal court in ancient Macedonia: the evidence for royal tombs Macedonian tombs, the Tomb of the Palmettes and the Judgement Tomb at Lefkadia, are generally acknowledged to belong to members of the court rather than royalty.5 What constitutes a royal tomb as opposed to a tomb of the nobility? This question will be discussed in connection with some peculiar aspects of tombs at Vergina and at Agios Athanasios near Thessaloniki.

1. Identifying royal tombs: issues raised by the tombs at Vergina Several important tombs of the fourth and third centuries have come to light at Vergina (Aigai), the old capital of the Macedonians: some may be royal, others can be associated with the king’s court.6 Four tombs, excavated

by Manolis Andronikos between 1977 and 1987, were not only identified by him as royal, they were even attributed to historical personalities (Figs. 18.1–4). These attempts have generated much controversy which continues unabated to this day. I refer to Tombs I (Fig. 18.1), II (Fig. 18.2) and III, all covered by the Great Tumulus (Fig. 18.3),7 and the so-called Tomb of Eurydike near the palace of Vergina (Fig. 18.4).8 Tombs I, II and III, lined up and numbered in chronological order, are generally associated with the Argead royal family. The fact that they were eventually covered for protection by a single tumulus probably indicates a family burial plot. What makes them royal, however?

Because of his historical importance, Philip II seems to be the prime candidate for occupancy of one of the two tombs, I (Fig. 18.1) and II (Fig. 18.2). Tomb I is an underground cist tomb, the contents of which were plundered in antiquity, rendering it practically undatable; the dates proposed so far range from the middle to the third quarter of the fourth century.9 It is named the Tomb of Persephone after its high-quality interior fresco of the rape of Persephone. When excavated, it was reported to contain the skeletons of a man, a woman and a newborn infant.10 Andronikos relegated the man’s remains to a tomb robber without offering any explanation for the fact that his bones were found scattered all over the floor.11 He dated the tomb to the mid fourth century and assigned it to a woman and her child.12 Eugene Borza attributed the tomb to Philip II, his last wife Kleopatra and their infant daughter Europa on the strength of the human remains.13 Angeliki Kottaridi recently attributed this tomb to one of Philip II’s wives, Nikesipolis, who died at childbirth, without offering any arguments for the identification.14 Nikesipolis, however, died shortly after giving birth to Thessaloniki,15 who survived to become Kassandros’ queen, she is therefore ruled out as a candidate for Tomb I which contains the remains of at least one infant. The situation is compounded by the discovery in 2014 of further human and animal remains from this tomb, some belonging to infants, lurking forgotten in

411

Olga Palagia storage.16 The total number of human remains from Tomb I now amounts to seven individuals, one adult male, one adult female, four infants and a foetus. Further study is being carried out to determine which of these belong to primary burials. The attribution of Tomb I to historical personalities, at any rate, remains sub judice.

The adjacent Tombs II (Fig. 18.2) and III belong to the category of tombs known as Macedonian tombs. They were found with their contents intact, being rich in gold and silver jewellery and vessels, chryselephantine weapons and furniture, as well as iron and bronze arms and armour.17 All burial goods are of exquisite quality. Philip II and one of his last wives were Andronikos’ favourite occupants for Tomb II, which housed the cremated remains of a couple.18 A rival view attributing this tomb to Philip II’s son, Philip III Arrhidaios and his wife Adea Eurydike, seems to have been gaining ground in recent years.19 An alternative view questions the connection of these tombs with royalty, challenging the identification of Vergina with Aigai.20 However, the controversy is far from being resolved. Tomb III, known as the Prince’s Tomb, contained the cremated remains of an approximately 13–14 year old boy, also accompanied by lavish burial goods. He is usually identified with Alexander the Great’s son, Alexander IV.21 To resume the question posed earlier in this chapter: what makes these tombs royal? Tomb I was plundered and there is nothing specifically royal about the iconography of its frescoes. The dazzling array of luxury burial goods found in the unplundered Tombs II and III is not enough evidence of royalty, considering that a similar wealth of offerings came to light, for example, in the distinctly non-royal tombs at Derveni, dating from the closing years of the fourth century.22 Their wealth can be attributed to the spoils of Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire. Two objects in particular, found in the main chamber of Tomb II, have been seen as entailing royal connotations: a silver gilt diadem and the hand-guard of a torch.23 The silver gilt diadem has been interpreted as a priest’s headgear, thus appropriate for a Macedonian king who performed priestly duties.24 Painted versions of similar diadems have been found in two non-royal cist graves at Pydna and Aineia.25 The problem is compounded by the fact that the tomb at Aineia belonged to a woman. This raises questions about the function of such diadems. As for the hand-guard of a torch, it is so far unique in Macedonia and can have no particular significance until further information becomes available.

That Tomb II may be royal can be more readily supported by the iconography of the lion hunt painted on its façade (Fig. 18.2).26 Despite the strong idealisation of the hunters’ features, this is usually recognised as a historical not a mythological scene.27 The lion hunt episode forms part of

412

The royal court in ancient Macedonia: the evidence for royal tombs a multiple quarry hunt involving mounted and pedestrian hunters, dogs, deer, a boar, bears and a lion. The frieze has been interpreted in various ways, but this much is clear: the lion can only be hunted by a king. The iconography of royal lion hunts was established in the ancient Near East

by Assyrian palace reliefs;28 in the fourth century the lion hunt appears as a funerary motif on the sarcophagus of one of the kings of Sidon, who was effectively a satrap of the Persian Empire.29 In the visual arts of the Successors lion hunts acquired a symbolic significance for these dynasts, as they struggled to establish their claims on Alexander’s empire by demonstrating that they had played an active part in his lion hunts and by implication, his conquests.30 The painted lion hunt on Tomb II seems to introduce on this side of the Aegean the non-mythological mounted lion hunt with royal connotations, inspired by Asian prototypes. In any case, if Tomb II is a royal tomb, then Tombs I and III must belong to members of the same dynasty, since they were all covered by the Great Tumulus after they were damaged in antiquity.

A further problem concerns a fourth structure that seems to complement this cluster of tombs under the Great Tumulus: an overground rectangular building adjacent to Tomb I (Fig. 18.3).31 Tomb I lies in fact between this overground structure and Tomb II. The foundations of the rectangular

Fig. 18.3: Model of the tombs under the Great Tumulus, Vergina; from left to right: foundations of overground rectangular structure, roof of Tomb I, Tomb II, Tomb III. From Drougou and Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 1999, fig. 55.

413

Olga Palagia structure were built of regular limestone blocks, while its superstructure was of marble, as attested by fragments found scattered among the remains. Its architectural plan is unknown. The structure has not been fully published, but in his preliminary report Andronikos envisaged a temple-like design. The building seems to have been razed to the ground and plundered at the same time as its neighbouring Tomb I. Andronikos attributed the looting and destruction to the Gaulish mercenaries of King Pyrrhos of Epiros who raided the royal cemetery of Aigai in the reign of Antigonos Gonatas in 274/3.32 He suggested that the two plundered structures, Tomb I and the overground naiskos, as well as the intact royal Tombs II and III which lie beyond Tomb I, were eventually covered up by a huge tumulus, probably by Antigonos Gonatas, to preserve them from further damage.

Even though the foundations of the overground rectangular structure are adjacent to Tomb I, Andronikos chose to associate it with Tomb II, which lies on the other side of Tomb I. He ventured an interpretation as a nearly contemporary heroon for the worship of the dead buried in Tomb II that he believed to be Philip II. He cited the unreliable Alexander Romance (1.24.11), which states that Alexander buried his father in a splendid tomb and erected a temple over it. But he could cite no parallels. In recent years the overground structure has been interpreted as a heroon serving the occupants of all the tombs within the Great Tumulus.33 We need to consider this overground structure, however, within the general context of Macedonian burial practices. Its close proximity to a cist tomb (Tomb I) is neither unprecedented nor unique. The earliest instance known to me of an underground cist tomb forming a building complex with an overground naiskos is the fifth-century Tomb D of Aiane in Western Macedonia, where a Doric structure was built on top of a cist tomb. The cist tomb functioned as a funerary crypt, and offerings to the dead were made within the naiskos above. A similar arrangement can be observed in the early-fourth-century Tomb A at Aiane.34 Three cist tombs associated with overground naiskoi which probably carried funerary monuments rather than sheltering funerary rites, have also come to light in two late-fourth-century cemeteries at Pella, none of them being royal.35 We have so far no overground structures associated with Macedonian (rather than cist) tombs. The naiskos-like buildings accompanying cist tombs do not of themselves entail royal associations. Further study and a proper publication of the rectangular structure under the Great Tumulus would help illuminate some of the questions raised here.

Philip II’s mother, Eurydike, was Andronikos’ candidate for the socalled Tomb of Eurydike (Fig. 18.4).36 This tomb was found plundered and still awaits publication. It consists of an antechamber and a main

414

The royal court in ancient Macedonia: the evidence for royal tombs

Fig. 18.4: Main chamber of the so-called Tomb of Eurydike at Vergina with painted marble throne and marble cinerary chest. From Drougou and Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 1999, fig. 83.

chamber covered with a barrel-vault. Even though it is a Macedonian tomb, it is encased in ashlar blocks as if it was a cist tomb. The tomb façade has not been excavated. There are marble doors leading from the dromos to the antechamber and thence to the main chamber. A false door is painted in the back wall of the main chamber which is decorated like an Ionic façade pierced with a pair of windows. The main chamber contains a painted marble throne on which rested a marble chest sheltering the cremated remains of a woman. The remains of a gold and ivory couch also came to light in the main chamber. Two male skeletons were excavated in the antechamber.37 Andronikos assigned the male skeletons to the inevitable tomb robbers and attributed the tomb to Eurydike, probably inspired by the view, prevalent at the time, that Macedonian tombs with thrones were appropriate for women.38 Further study of the skeletal remains is needed to determine whether they were primary burials or the result of accidental death. It must be noted, however, that burials in both the chamber and the antechamber are attested in other Macedonian tombs.39 We do not know the year of Eurydike’s death, but she was already dead by 346 when Aeschines visited the court of Philip II.40 Andronikos dated the tomb to shortly after 344/3 on the strength of several sherds of Panathenaic amphoras from the year of the Athenian eponymous archon Lykiskos (344/3), found in the funeral pyre associated with the tomb. The remnants

415

Olga Palagia of the pyre were found before the tomb entrance. In addition, an Attic red-figure pelike by the Eleusinian Painter, dating from 340/330, was excavated inside the tomb.41 Panathenaics, however, were kept by their owners for many years after their production date and cannot be used as chronological indicators. The case of five Panathenaics of the 360s maintained on display in the House of Mosaics at Eretria until the first half of the third century is indicative of the prestige of these vessels as heirlooms.42 The pelike by the Eleusinian Painter may well have been an heirloom too. In addition, there is not enough evidence that a woman was the sole occupant of the tomb. Fragments of a helmet were found in the antechamber, indicating male occupancy and the remains of a gold and ivory couch from the main chamber suggest a second burial;43 in addition, it has been pointed out that the Panathenaic amphoras from the pyre are probably more appropriate to a male burial.44 A post-Alexander date seems more likely for the ‘Tomb of Eurydike’.45 A marble throne was also found in the adjacent so-called Tomb of Rhomaios, which is equally located near the royal palace.46 This tomb has been attributed to queen Thessaloniki on very dubious grounds.47 A third marble throne came to light in the Macedonian tomb ‘Bella II’, which is at a considerable distance from the palace and bears no indication of being royal.48 Whereas the date of the so-called Eurydike Tomb is controversial, the Rhomaios and Bella II Tombs both date from the first half of the third century BC.

Fig. 18.5: Attendants carrying torches and banqueting equipment. Detail of the banquet frieze painted on the façade of the Tomb at Agios Athanasios. From Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, pl. 32a.

416

The royal court in ancient Macedonia: the evidence for royal tombs The proximity of a tomb to the royal palace probably indicates royal connections but does the presence of a marble throne in a Macedonian tomb indicate a royal burial? It has been argued that marble thrones in Macedonian tombs may entail royal associations.49 The concept of the royal throne as a seat of power was introduced to Macedonia by Alexander the Great after his conquest of the Persian Empire, inspired by the throne of the Great King of Persia. It may well be significant that the only funerary thrones found in Macedonia so far are located in the old capital of the Macedonians and may all date after the conquest of Asia, thereby signifying royal burials.50 2. No funerary banquet: dining and death at Agios Athanasios Whereas the context of the Vergina tombs remains ambiguous, more tantalising possibilities are offered by another Macedonian cemetery. The difficulties in identifying royal burials in Hellenistic Macedonia are indeed highlighted by the case of the painted Macedonian tomb at Agios Athanasios. It is not located near a royal palace and was plundered in antiquity, thus eliminating the possibility of finding any royal paraphernalia.51 Nevertheless, the wall-paintings on its façade (Figs. 18.5–13) appear to illuminate aspects of the royal court not only reminiscent of what information we have from the literary sources but also perhaps indicative of a royal burial.

In a pioneering study of the special significance of royal banquets in the history of Alexander the Great, Eugene Borza has argued that these events

Fig. 18.6: Guest with escort arriving at the banquet. Detail of the banquet frieze painted on the façade of the Tomb at Agios Athanasios. From Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, pl. 32b.

417

Olga Palagia functioned as a means of reinforcing the intimate relations of the king with his court.52 He pointed out that these banquets were no mere entertainment but provided the opportunity for a display of the king’s wealth and power.

They also gave vent to tensions within the king’s entourage and sometimes ended in disaster. Violence at royal Macedonian banquets was not unheard of; we only need cite the banquet at Maracanda in 328, where Alexander killed Kleitos.53 Dramatic developments at symposia continued beyond Alexander’s reign, the obvious example being the banquet at Larissa, where Demetrios Poliorketes murdered Kassandros’ son, Alexander V, in 294.54 In this light, what can we make of the banquet frieze painted on the façade of the Macedonian Tomb III at Agios Athanasios near Thessaloniki (Figs. 18.5–11)? The frieze represents a night-time symposion, with six diners reclining on couches. As in the case of the Vergina hunting frieze, the individual features of the banqueters, albeit idealised, do not entail a mythological scene. The chief banqueter, situated at the centre of the entire frieze, holds a rhyton ending in the forepart of a griffin (Figs. 8–9). The symposiasts are attended by two female musicians (a flute player and a kitharode) and a naked youth serving wine from a sideboard (Figs. 18.7–9).

A military escort of three men and five youths, armed to the teeth, stands at right (Figs. 18.10–11), while a guest arrives from the left leading his horse, escorted by a pair of unarmed horsemen and five attendants who carry torches and banquet equipment (Figs. 18.5–6). The tomb belonged to a warrior, a member of the elite, and contained his iron arms and armour.55 Iron armour was particularly precious and Plutarch (Alex. 32.9) records Alexander the Great’s iron helmet, created by the famous Theophilos. The excavator dated the tomb to the early years of the third century and interpreted the banqueting scene as a private party given by one of the king’s companions in his garden, therefore of no special significance to the tomb owner’s life.56 A parallel can be drawn between the painted banquet of Agios Athanasios and the sculptured banquets of fourth-century Lykia, represented on the façades of rock-cut tombs as well as on the Nereid Monument at Xanthos. They all share a common detail: the deceased is shown as a symposiast holding an animal head rhyton of Achaemenid design.57 There are significant features in the iconography of the banquet of the Agios Athanasios Tomb that require explanation and may, in fact, entail that the artist had a specific event in mind. To begin with, the banquet is set in an open-air location as indicated by the tree growing behind the sideboard (Fig. 18.7). This is laden with gold and silver vessels, notably gold phialai for libations. The luxurious equipment demonstrates the elite standing of the host. Macedonian symposia were customarily held either in banqueting rooms called androns (we have several examples of them in

418

The royal court in ancient Macedonia: the evidence for royal tombs

Fig. 18.7: Sideboard with naked youth serving wine. Tree in the background. Detail of the banquet frieze painted on the faรงade of the Tomb at Agios Athanasios. From Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, pl. 33a.

Fig. 18.8: Flute player, symposiast and animal head rhyton held by the deceased (who is visible in Fig. 18.9). Detail of the banquet frieze painted on the faรงade of the Tomb at Agios Athanasios. From Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, pl. 33b.

Fig. 18.9: Deceased holding rhyton, courtesan playing the kithara and Macedonian king. Detail of the banquet frieze painted on the faรงade of the Tomb at Agios Athanasios. From Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, pl. 34a.

419

Olga Palagia

Fig. 18.10: Three bodyguards. Detail of the banquet frieze painted on the façade of the Tomb at Agios Athanasios. From Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, pl. 35a.

Macedonian palaces such as the one at Vergina),58 or in temporary tents, like Alexander’s famous pavilion of 100 couches which was used on several occasions, including the farewell celebrations at Dion on the eve of his departure for Persia in 33459 and during the mass marriages at Susa in 324.60 Open-air dining only took place as a last resort. On the occasion of the mass marriages, for example, Chares reports that the commanders of Alexander’s army and the ambassadors of the Greek cities had to dine al fresco in the courtyard for lack of sheltered space.61 Open-air dining was also practised when the huge number of guests required it, as during the famous banquet for the army organised by Peukestas at Persepolis in 317.62 The open-air setting of the Agios Athanasios frieze thus probably commemorates a historic event (when sheltered space was not available) rather than serving as the backdrop of a generic scene.

Careful study of the rest of the composition of the painted façade of the tomb of Agios Athanasios can be richly rewarding. A pair of guards wearing a kausia, the Macedonian elite hat, a short chiton and Macedonian chlamys, as well as military boots and holding a sarissa, stand guard on either side of the tomb’s entrance, suggesting that the occupant was entitled to special honours (Figs. 18.12–13).63 It could even be suggested that in this case art imitated life, and that real sentries were in fact placed at the tomb’s entrance. The painted guards are in tears, indicating intimacy with the deceased. A painted shield hangs on the wall above each guard, presumably in commemoration of actual shields hanging on walls.

The shield devices carry royal connotations: the shield on the left is

420

The royal court in ancient Macedonia: the evidence for royal tombs

Fig. 18.11: Five royal pages. Detail of the banquet frieze painted on the façade of the Tomb at Agios Athanasios. From Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, pl. 35b.

decorated with a gorgoneion, which recalls Agamemnon’s shield in the Iliad (11.36–7); that on the right has a winged thunderbolt, attribute of Zeus, king of the gods.

The details of the banquet frieze point to a scene in the royal court on account of the military escort at the right end. It consists of three Macedonian adults holding spears and wearing kausias and full military gear, leather corselets, chlamydes and boots (Fig. 18.10),64 and of five youths wearing short chitons and equipped with Macedonian shields and spears (Fig. 18.11). Two of these youths wear Phrygian helmets and one wears a kausia. These adolescent boys may well be royal pages who accompanied the king of Macedon at symposia and hunting expeditions and served him in general capacities in the palace.65 Their presence here would indicate a scene in the royal court, entailing that the king is participating in the symposion. Since we have already seen that the deceased is identified by means of his rhyton, then perhaps the king is the banqueter on his right, attended by the female kithara player (Fig. 18.9).

He touches her kithara in a proprietary gesture. Female kitharodes are so rare in banquet scenes that she effectively draws attention to herself and her companion.66 She can hardly be a member of the host’s family:67 female entertainers at symposia were professionals. A courtesan of exceptional skills and high standing is probably meant here. The association of Macedonian kings with hetairai, beginning with Philip II, is well documented.68 Demetrios Poliorketes, for example, was notorious for his liaisons with courtesans, notably the Athenian Lamia.69

421

Olga Palagia

Figs. 18.12–13: The façade of the Tomb at Agios Athanasios, with bodyguards on the left and right of the entrance, each with a painted shield hanging above his head. Note the frieze at the top. From Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, plates 36–7.

The banquet frieze on the facade of the tomb of Agios Athanasios would thus commemorate a specific event in which the deceased dined with the king.

There is, however, an added twist to the story. The group of revellers coming from the left comprise a young man in long hair, long chiton and himation (Fig. 18.6), dressed exactly like the symposiasts on the frieze and leading his horse. He is attended by two horsemen with close-cropped hair, wearing short military chitons, three youths and a taller attendant bringing up the rear. All are wreathed for the festivities, none is armed, and they carry torches or vessels for the symposion. What are we to make of this group? Are they crashing the party? How many of them are guests?70 Perhaps the riders in short chitons are a military escort rather than guests in their own right. Are we dealing with a continuous narrative or consecutive scenes? Should we expect to see the young guest with longish hair reclining among the banqueters? In addition, what is the significance of the escort?

Is the young guest a Macedonian noble or a king, attended by bodyguards and royal pages albeit weaponless?

422

The royal court in ancient Macedonia: the evidence for royal tombs The banquet scene, framed by the two military escorts, one armed, the other weaponless, is reminiscent of a historic banquet recorded by Plutarch (Demetr. 36). In 294 Kassandros’ youngest son, Alexander V, king of Macedonia, called on Pyrrhos, king of Epirus and his uncle, Demetrios Poliorketes, to aid him in the civil war against his brother Antipater II.71 By the time Demetrios arrived at Dion and met Alexander, the conflict had been resolved: Pyrrhos had departed and the kingdom had been divided between Alexander and Antipater. Alexander no longer needed the services of Demetrios, he therefore hatched a plot to do away with him during a banquet. Having got wind of this, Demetrios arrived at the banquet at Dion with an armed escort who stayed with him throughout. He then announced his departure. Alexander escorted his uncle as far as Thessaly, still intending to do away with him during dinner. But first he had to accept a dinner invitation from Demetrios at Larissa. He participated in the banquet unarmed, leaving his escort outside in order not to arouse suspicion.

Demetrios anticipated him and Alexander was cut down by his uncle’s bodyguards on leaving the symposion. His attendants who came to the rescue were also killed (presumably being weaponless and unprepared).

We do not know to what extent Macedonian funerary paintings record historic occasions. The question of their historicity should be considered in connection with the hunting frieze painted on the façade of Vergina Tomb II (Fig. 18.2). I have argued elsewhere that the frieze does indeed reflect historic hunts and that it is not a continued narrative but a compendium of scenes.72 But the interpretation of the hunting frieze is controversial and can only offer a tentative parallel. That the lion hunt is a royal hunt and can therefore be interpreted as a court scene is argued in section 1 above.

Would it be legitimate to identify the tomb at Agios Athanasios as the last resting place of Alexander V without any further evidence? The royal pages attending the symposion, the aristocratic bodyguards guarding the tomb’s entrance and the royal devices of the shields hanging above their heads give us food for thought. The fact that the tomb is not located in the royal capital, Pella, where we would expect to find the burials of the Antipatrid dynasty, may be partly explained by the fact that the dynasty was uprooted by Demetrios. Would Demetrios, as Alexander V’s uncle and successor, be expected to take charge of his nephew’s burial? Who was responsible for the choice of the banquet theme which subtly combined the iconography of the funerary banquet with historical banquets at the Macedonian court? All this belongs to the realm of speculation. The tomb’s wall-paintings, at any rate, may serve as an illustration of a court scene in the period of the Successors and the painted

423

Olga Palagia tomb at Agios Athanasios is certainly connected to the royal court but cannot be eliminated as a potential royal burial.

3. Conclusion The social position of the king of Macedon as first among equals is reflected in the elite burials of Macedonia, where the tombs of courtiers may be as lavish as that of their sovereign. The evidence at our disposal only allows for conjecture, judging, for example, by the proximity of a tomb to the royal palace, the inclusion of a marble throne (which may well carry royal connotations), the iconography of painted friezes which may suggest a royal hunt or a royal banquet and finally, by the context, e.g. the inclusion of tombs in the same tumulus as a royal burial. Such suggestions, however, may be treated as preliminary, pending further discoveries in Macedonia.

Acknowledgements I am grateful to Andrew Erskine and Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones for the invitation to a very stimulating conference. My thanks are also due to Yannis and Maria Akamatis, Beth Carney and Panos Valavanis for advice and suggestions, to Theodore Antikas for information on the human remains of seven individuals from Vergina Tomb I, and to Panagiotis Faklaris for placing at my disposal his manuscript on the so-called Tomb of Eurydike prior to publication.

Notes 1 For palaces, see the chapters in this volume by Morgan, Engels (section 4) and Hardiman.

2 For a list of painted Macedonian tombs, see Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, 172–80.

3 Cf. Touratsoglou 2010, 116–27.

4 Hatzopoulos 1996, 487–96 (based on the epigraphical evidence); Paschidis 2006; Ma 2011, 524. This obviously did not apply to Alexander III’s court: cf. Spawforth 2007.

5 Tomb of the Palmettes: Rhomiopoulou and Schmidt-Dounas 2010; v. Mangoldt 2012, 183–6; Judgement Tomb: Petsas 1966; v. Mangoldt 2012, 177–81.

6 On the tombs of Vergina, see Ginouvès 1994, 128–77; Drougou and SaatsoglouPaliadeli 1999, 36–71; Drougou 2011, 253; Kottaridi 2011e; v. Mangoldt 2012, 275–84, 291–4.

7 Andronicos 1984.

8 Andronikos 1987; v. Mangoldt 2012, 291–4, pl. 112, 5–6; Faklaris forthcoming with further references.

9 Andronicos 1984, 86–95.

10 Musgrave 1990, 274, 280.

11 Andronicos 1984, 87. For the position of the bones, see Andronikos 1994, 45, fig. 10.

424

The royal court in ancient Macedonia: the evidence for royal tombs 12

Andronicos 1984, 66.

Borza 1987, 118–119; Borza and Palagia 2007, 82–3. According to Diod. Sic. 17.2.3, Philip’s and Kleopatra’s child was only a few days old at his assassination.

Kleopatra and her daughter were put to death by Olympias shortly afterwards: Paus.

8.7.7; Plut. Alex. 10.8; Just. Epit. 9.7.12. See also Carney 2000, 74.

14 Kottaridi 2011b, 103, 142.

15 Carney 2000, 60–1.

16 Antikas 2015; Grant 2017, 768.

17 Andronicos 1984, 62–217.

18 Andronicos 1984, 226–33. For a recent summary of the arguments in favour of Philip II, see Lane Fox 2011, 1–34 (with earlier references).

19 See now Borza and Palagia 2007 (with earlier references). A stylistic date for about half the silver vessels from Tomb II in the last quarter of the 4th century is suggested by Zimi 2011, 104.

20 Faklaris 1994 and 2011, 347 n. 10; Themelis and Touratsoglou 1997, 143, 202.

The identification of Vergina with Aigai is defended by Drougou 2011, especially p. 255 with fig. 19, showing a stamped tile with goat’s head from Vergina as a symbol of the city.

21 Musgrave 1990, 281. For Tomb III, see Andronicos 1984, 198–217; Kottaridi 2011c, 142, figs. 154, 163–4; Kottaridi 2011e, 106–25.

22 Cf. Themelis and Touratsoglou 1997, 158–60, 202. Quantities of silver vessels were placed in tombs of the elite in the late 4th and early 3rd centuries, cf. Zimi 2011, 21–6.

23 Andronicos 1984, 171, 174–5, figs. 138–9 (diadem); 168, fig. 132 (torch); Kottaridi 2002, 80.

24 Cf. Tsigarida 2002. On the priestly duties of the Macedonian king: Christensen and Murray 2010, 440–1.

25 Pydna (Makrygialos): Besios 2010, 197. Aineia: Vokotopoulou 1990, 74–5, fig. 37.

26 Illustrated in Andronicos 1984, figs. 58–9; Borza and Palagia 2007, col. pl. 7; Franks 2012, figs. 4–12. For a detailed analysis of the hunting frieze, dating it to 316, see Borza and Palagia 2007, 90–103. For a different view, dating it to 336: SaatsoglouPaliadeli 2004; Lane Fox 2011, 10–13. The debate focuses on the question of the existence of lions in Macedonia in the 4th century: if they existed, then the royal hunter can be Philip II (Saatsoglou-Paliadeli; Lane Fox); if not, then the hunt takes place during Alexander’s expedition to the East and the king can be identified as Philip III Arrhidaios (Borza and Palagia). Franks (2012, 115–26) is undecided about the date of Tomb II. 27 With the exception of Franks 2012, who interprets the hunt as an episode from the life of Karanos, mythological founder of the Argead dynasty. For a critical review, see Palagia 2014.

28 Palagia 2000, 181; Borza and Palagia 2007, 96 with earlier references.

29 Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 369. Palagia 2000, 181–2, figs. 6–7; Borza and Palagia 2007, 97.

30 Palagia 2000; Carney 2002; Borza and Palagia 2007, 97–8; Seyer 2007, 93–171; Sawada, 2010, 400–2.

31 Andronicos 1984, 65–6. Drougou and Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 1999, figs. 52, 55.

32 Plut. Pyrrh. 26.6; Andronikos 1994, 33–4.

13

425

Olga Palagia 33

Drougou et al. 1996, 47–8.

Karamitrou-Mentesidi 2008, 50–1, 56–7 (interpreting both tombs as royal).

35 Chrysostomou 1987; Lilimpaki-Akamati 1989–1991, 143–4, pls. 59–61.

36 Andronikos 1987; Ginouvès 1994, 154–61; Kottaridi 2007, 38–44; Kottaridi 2011a, fig. 16; 2011b, fig. 92; Kottaridi 2011c, figs. 165–6; v. Mangoldt 2012, 291–4, pl. 112, 5–6; Faklaris forthcoming.

37 Andronikos 1987.

38 The attribution of Macedonian tombs with thrones to women was based on a pair of seats that passed as thrones in the Macedonian Tomb of the Erotes at Eretria, inscribed with women’s names. Cf. Sismanides 1997, 197–9. On the Tomb of the Erotes, see Huguenot 2008, 53–201. These seats, however, are more likely stools as they have no backs and no armrests.

39 For example, Vergina Tomb II (Fig. 18.3) and Amphipolis Tomb I. For Amphipolis, Tomb I, see Lazarides 1997, 68–71.

40 Aeschines 2.27–29. Palagia 2010, 38.

41 For the sherds of archon Lykiskos, see Kottaridi 2011c, fig. 168. For the amphoras of Lykiskos, see Eschbach 1986, 88–9; Bentz 1998, 175. The pelike by the Eleusinian Painter is illustrated in Kottaridi 2011b, fig. 83.

42 Bentz 2001.

43 Palagia 2010, 38 n. 23; Faklaris forthcoming. Lane Fox (2011, 8) suggests that the helmet belonged to a tomb robber. Why would a tomb robber wear armour? For the gold and ivory couch, see Kottaridi 2007, 39.

44 Palagia 2002, 4; Huguenot 2008, 118–19; Valavanis forthcoming; Faklaris forthcoming.

45 Palagia 2002.

46 Ginouvès 1994, 176–7; Galanakis 2011, 50, fig. 36; v. Mangoldt 2012, 270–3, pls.

107 and 108, 1–2.

47 Kottaridi 2011b, 142.

48 Ginouvès 1994, 175–6.

49 Huguenot 2008, 115–19. Contra, Paspalas 2005, 88.

50 The argument that the royal throne in Macedonia was introduced by Alexander and that the funerary thrones may indeed be royal, is developed in detail in Palagia forthcoming.

51 On this tomb, see Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, 89–171; Palagia 2011, 484–7; v. Mangoldt 2012, 71–74.

52 Borza 1983. Macedonian banquets are further studied by Carney 2007; Sawada 2010, 393–9; Carney 2015, 263–4.

53 Curt. 8.1.43–52; Plut. Alex. 51.8–9; Arr. 4.8.8; Just. Epit. 12.6.3; Carney 2007, 168–70. For violence at royal Macedonian banquets in the 5th century, see Carney 2007, 164.

54 Plut. Demetr. 36.3–6.

55 Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2011.

56 Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, 125–6, 134–5, 141–2. She subsequently revised the date of the tomb to the last quarter of the 4th century on no clear evidence (TsimbidouAvloniti 2011, 351).

57 The deceased as symposiast holding a rhyton in Lycian funerary iconography: a) banquet frieze of the Nereid Monument from Xanthos in the British Museum: 34

426

The royal court in ancient Macedonia: the evidence for royal tombs Jenkins 2006, 196, fig. 190; b) rock-cut tomb relief of the 4th century at Myra: BrunsÖzgan 1987, 267, F 17, pl. 14,1. See also Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, 142. No rhyta in precious metals have been found in excavations in Macedonia so far but their existence is known from literary references and inscriptions: Zimi 2011, 16.

58 Kottaridi 2011d, 323, 327, figs. 32a–b.

59 Diod. Sic. 17.16.4. Spawforth 2007, 92–3. On royal tents, see Morgan this volume.

60 Plut. Alex. 70.3; Athen. 12.538b–539a; Spawforth 2007, 94, 97–8, 112–13.

61 Chares, FGrH 125 F 4 (Athen. 538b–539a). See also Aelian, VH 8.7; Spawforth 2007, 112–13, 118.

62 Diod. Sic. 19.22.

63 Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, 142–7.

64 The three men were interpreted as bodyguards by Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, 139.

65 According to Arrian (4.13.1), the institution of the royal pages was introduced by Philip II. Royal pages continued to serve Macedonian kings until Perseus (Livy 45.6.7–9).

Their function was to attend the king at symposia and hunting expeditions, stand guard outside his bedroom and bring his horse before battle (Curt. 5.1.42). On royal pages, see Carney 2008; Sawada 2010, 403–6; Carney 2015, 222–3.

66 That the female kithara player is so far unique in Greek and Macedonian representations of symposia was observed by Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, 135.

67 So Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, 136.

68 See now Ogden 2011.

69 Wheatley 2003; Ogden 1999, 177, 241–2; Ogden 2011, 227–31. See also K. Buraselis in this volume.

70 Tsimbidou-Avloniti (2005, 137) suggests that the two riders and the man leading the horse are all guests and that they arrive in the middle of the dinner party.

71 Hammond and Walbank 1988, 214–17.

72 Borza and Palagia 2007, 90–103, col. pl. 4.

Bibliography Andronicos [Andronikos], M. 1984 Vergina: The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City, Athens.

Andronikos, M. 1987 ‘Βεργίνα. Ανασκαφή 1987’, Το Αρχαιoλογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 1, 81–8.

1994 Vergina II. The ‘Tomb of Persephone’, Athens.

Antikas, T. 2015 Letter to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, dated 27 July, 2015, posted in www.academia.edu/TheodoreAntikas.

Bentz, M. 1998 Panathenäische Preisamphoren, Antike Kunst Beiheft 18, Basel.

2001 ‘Die Preisamphoren aus dem Mosaikenhaus in Eretria’, Antike Kunst 44, 3–12.

Besios, M. 2010 Πιερίδων στέφανος: Πύδνα, Μεθώνη και οι αρχαιότητες της βόρειας Πιερίας, Katerini.

427

Olga Palagia Borza, E. N. 1983 ‘The symposium at Alexander’s court’, Ancient Macedonia 3, 45–55.

1987 ‘The royal Macedonian tombs and the paraphernalia of Alexander the Great’, Phoenix 41, 105–21.

Borza, E. N. and Palagia, O. 2007 ‘The chronology of the Macedonian royal tombs at Vergina’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 122, 81–125.

Bruns-Özgan, C. 1987 Lykische Grabreliefs des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Tübingen.

Carney, E. D. 2000 Women and Monarchy in Macedonia, Norman, Oklahoma.

2002 ‘Hunting and the Macedonian elite: sharing the rivalry of the chase’, in D. Ogden (ed.), The Hellenistic World: New Perspectives, London and Swansea, 59–80.

2007 ‘Symposia and the Macedonian elite: the unmixed life’, Syllecta Classica 18, 129–80.

2008 ‘The role of the Basilikoi Paides at the Argead court’, in T. Howe and J. Reames (eds), Macedonian Legacies. Studies in Ancient Macedonian History and Culture in Honor of Eugene N. Borza, Claremont, 145–64.

2015 King and Court in Ancient Macedonia, Swansea.

Christensen, P. and Murray, S. C. 2010 ‘Macedonian religion’, in J. Roisman and I. Worthington (eds), A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, Oxford, 428–45.

Chrysostomou, P. 1987 ‘Ο τύµβος Α1 της Ραχώνας Πέλλας’, in ΑΜΗΤΟΣ, τιµητικός τόµος για τον καθηγητή Μανόλη Ανδρόνικο 2, Thessaloniki, 1007–25.

Drougou, S. 2011 ‘Vergina – the ancient city of Aegae’, in Lane Fox 2011, 243–56.

Drougou, S. and Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, C. 1999 Βεργίνα. Περιδιαβάζοντας τον αρχαιολογικό χώρο, Athens.

Drougou, S., Saatsoglou Paliadeli, C., Faklaris, P., Kottaridou, A., Tsigarida, E. B. 1996 Vergina. The Great Tumulus, Thessaloniki.

Eschbach, N. 1986 Statuen auf panathenäischen Preisamphoren, Mainz.

Faklaris, P. B. 1994 ‘Aegae: determining the site of the first capital of the Macedonians’, American Journal of Archaeology 98, 609–16.

2011 ‘Και άλλα προβλήµατα του Τάφου ΙΙ της Βεργίνας: το µέγεθος και οι φάσεις κατασκευής του’, in P. Valavanis (ed.), Ταξιδεύοντας στην Κλασική Ελλάδα, Athens, 345–68.

Forthcoming ‘Προβλήµατα του λεγοµένου ‘τάφου της Ευρυδίκης’ στη Βεργίνα’, Archaiologikon Deltion Franks, H. M. 2012 Hunters, Heroes, Kings, Princeton.

Galanakis, Y. 2011 ‘Aegae: 160 years of archaeological research’, in Heracles to Alexander the Great. Treasures from the Royal Capital of Macedon, a Hellenic Kingdom in the

428

The royal court in ancient Macedonia: the evidence for royal tombs Age of Democracy, exhibition catalogue, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 49–58.

Ginouvès, R. (ed.).

1994 Macedonia, Princeton.

Grant, D. 2017 In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great, Dexter, Michigan.

Hammond, N. G. L. and Walbank, F. W. 1988 A History of Macedonia III, Oxford.

Hatzopoulos, M. B. 1996 Macedonian Institutions under the Kings I, Athens.

Huguenot, C. 2008 Eretria XIX, La tombe aux Érotes et la tombe d’Amarynthos, Lausanne.

Jenkins, I. 2006 Greek Architecture and its Sculpture in the British Museum, London.

Karamitrou-Mentesidi, G. 2008 Αιανή. Αρχαιολογικοί χώροι και Μουσείο, Aiane.

Kottaridi, A. 2002 ‘Discovering Aegae, the old Macedonian capital’, in M. Stamatopoulou and M. Yeroulanou (eds), Excavating Classical Culture, Oxford, 75–81.

2007 ‘L’épiphanie des dieux des Enfers dans la nécropole royale d’Aigai’, in S. Descamps-Lequime (ed.), Peinture et couleur dans le monde grec antique, Paris, 27–45.

2011a ‘The legend of Macedon: a Hellenic kingdom in the age of democracy’, in Heracles to Alexander the Great. Treasures from the Royal Capital of Macedon, a Hellenic Kingdom in the Age of Democracy, exhibition catalogue, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1–24.

2011b ‘Queens, priestesses and high priestesses: the role of women at the Macedonian court’, in Heracles to Alexander the Great. Treasures from the Royal Capital of Macedon, a Hellenic Kingdom in the Age of Democracy, exhibition catalogue, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 93–125.

2011c ‘Burial customs and beliefs in the royal necropolis of Aegae’, in Heracles to Alexander the Great. Treasures from the Royal Capital of Macedon, a Hellenic Kingdom in the Age of Democracy, exhibition catalogue, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 131–52.

2011d ‘The palace of Aegae’, in Lane Fox 2011, 297–333.

2011e Macedonian Treasures. A Tour Through the Museum of the Royal Tombs at Aigai, Athens.

Lane Fox, R. (ed.)

2011 Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon, Leiden.

Lazarides, D. 1997 Αµφίπολις 2, Athens.

Lilimpaki-Akamati, M. 1989–1991 ‘Ανατολικό νεκροταφείο Πέλλας’, Arkhaiologikon Deltion 44–46, A’Μελέτες, 73–152.

Ma, J. 2011 ‘Court, king and power in Antigonid Macedonia’, in Lane Fox 2011, 521–43.

429

Olga Palagia von Mangoldt, H. 2012 Makedonische Grabarchitektur, Berlin.

Musgrave, J. H. 1990 ‘Dust, and damn’d oblivion: a study of cremation in ancient Greece’, Annual of the British School at Athens 85, 271–99.

Ogden, D. 1999 Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death. The Hellenistic Dynasties, London and Swansea.

2011 ‘How to marry a courtesan in the Macedonian courts’, in A. Erskine and L. Llewellyn-Jones (eds), Creating a Hellenistic World, Swansea, 221–46.

Palagia, O. 2000 ‘Hephaestion’s pyre and the royal hunt of Alexander’, in A. B. Bosworth and E. J. Baynham (eds), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford, 167–206.

2002 ‘The “Tomb of Eurydice”, Vergina, plundered’, Minerva 13.1, 4–5.

2010 ‘Philip’s Eurydice at the Philippeum at Olympia’, in E. Carney and D. Ogden (eds), Philip II and Alexander the Great. Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives, Oxford, 33–41.

2011 ‘Hellenistic Art’, in Lane Fox 2011, 477–93.

2014 Review of H. M. Franks, Hunters, Heroes, Kings. The Frieze of Tomb II at Vergina, Journal of Hellenic Studies 134, 2014, 255–6.

Forthcoming ‘Alexander the Great, the royal throne and the funerary thrones of Macedonia’, in B. Antela Bernárdez and A. I. Molina Marín (eds), Alexander’s Gaze. Studies in honor of A. B. Bosworth.

Paschidis, P. 2006 ‘The interpenetration of civic elites and court elite in Macedonia’, in A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets, M. B. Hatzopoulos and Y. Morizot (eds), Rois, Cités, Nécropoles, Athens, 251–68.

Paspalas, S. A. 2005 ‘Philip III Arrhidaios at court – an ill-advised persianism? Macedonian royal display in the wake of Alexander’, Klio 87, 1, 72–101.

Petsas, P. 1966 Ο τάφος των Λευκαδίων, Athens.

Rhomiopoulou, K. and Schmidt-Dounas, B. 2010 Das Palmettengrab in Lefkadia, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung, 21. Beiheft, Mainz.

Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, C. 2004 Βεργίνα. Ο τάφος του Φιλίππου. Η τοιχογραφία µε το κυνήγι, Athens.

Sawada, N. 2010 ‘Social customs and institutions: aspects of Macedonian elite society’, in J. Roisman and I. Worthington (eds), A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, Oxford, 392–408.

Seyer, M. 2007 Der Herrscher als Jäger, Vienna.

Sismanidis, K. 1997 Κλίνες και κλινοειδείς κατασκευές των Μακεδονικών τάφων, Athens.

430

The royal court in ancient Macedonia: the evidence for royal tombs Spawforth, A. J. S. 2007 ‘The court of Alexander the Great between Europe and Asia’, in id. (ed.), The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies, Cambridge, 82–120.

Themelis, P. G. and Touratsoglou, Y. P. 1997 Oι τάφοι του ∆ερβενίου, Athens.

Touratsoglou,Y. P. 2010 A Contribution to the Economic History of the Kingdom of Ancient Macedonia, Athens.

Tsigarida, B. 2002 ‘Fourth century male diadems from Macedonia’, Revue Archéologique, 181–4.

Tsimbidou-Avloniti, M. 2005 Μακεδονικοί τάφοι στον Φοίνικα και στον Άγιο Αθανάσιο Θεσσαλονίκης, Athens.

2011 ‘Αγιος Αθανάσιος, Μακεδονικός τάφος ΙΙΙ. Ο οπλισµός του ευγενούς νεκρού, in νάµατα. Τιµητικός τόµος για τον καθηγητή ∆ηµήτριο Παντερµαλή, Thessaloniki, 351–63.

Valavanis, P. Forthcoming ‘Patterns of politics in ancient Greek athletics’, in A. Futrell and T. Scanlon (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World, Oxford.

Vokotopoulou, I. 1990 Οι ταφικοί τύµβοι της Αίνειας, Athens.

Wheatley, P. 2003 ‘Lamia and the besieger: an Athenian hetaera and a Macedonian king’, in O. Palagia and S. V. Tracy (eds), The Macedonians in Athens, 322–229 B.C., Oxford, 30–6.

Zimi, E. 2011 Late Classical and Hellenistic Silver Plate from Macedonia, Oxford.

431