Tumulus

Abstract: This paper seeks to relate the form of the Marathon tumulus to both tomb and hero cult as practiced in Attica in the Archaic period. Distinctions are made among various archaeological manifestations of hero cult and between two senses of the term heros in Archaic Greece. The named warrior heroes of the epic tradition are to be distinguished from the anonymous heroes whose cult was often located in or over Bronze Age tombs. The popularity or prevalence of various kinds of hero and tomb cult can be shown to change considerably between the eighth and early fifth centuries B.C., partly in response to political change. The genealogy of the Marathon tumulus can be traced back to the seventhand early sixth-century aristocratic funerary complexes with tumulus, central cremation, and offering trench. Such practices seem to be a deliberate evocation of those described in the Iliad. This fact considerably alters our interpretation of the Marathon tumulus, which can now be seen as an example of the appropriation of aristocratic values and symbols to serve the needs of the new democracy.* The tumulus at Marathon is not one of the major architectural achievements of fifth-century Athens. To some, therefore, it may seem a perverse choice for an exercise in art-historical explanation.' But, though simple in form, this monument is not at all easy to explain. It is a monument that looks both forward to the full democracy of the late fifth century, and backward to the world of the Archaic aristocracy. It echoes in its design features of much earlier monuments, but, at the same time, anticipates forms of public commemoration that were to become current by the time of Pericles. Its role too is ambiguous, since it served to commemorate a battle, as a place of burial, and, in later times, as the locus of "hero cult." Hero cult is a complex issue, one too often treated simply as an aspect of Greek religion.2 This approach is clearly inappropriate in our case: the Marathon tumulus, no less than the Cenotaph in London, or the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C., is primarily a political monument, one intimately connected with collective Athenian identity and self-esteem. As such, its genealogy, its relation to earlier and later forms of commemoration, burial, and tomb and hero cult, is a matter of some importance. Burials and hero cults have been popular topics in many recent discussions of early Greece. Many scholars have tried to link changes in mortuary practice * This is a revised version of a paper I gave at Corpus Christi College, Oxford in October 1991. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion that followed, in particular Christiane Sorvinou-Inwood and Robin Osborne. For permission to reproduce illustrations, I am grateful to the Deutsches Archaologisches Institut in Athens and the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Agora Excavations. I would also like to thank Anthony Snodgrass, Nick Fisher, Hans Van Wees, Ian Morris, Sanne Houby-Nielsen, Francois de Polignac, Carla Antonaccio, and one anonymous referee of AJA for comments on earlier drafts of this paper, and Robin Osborne for encouraging me to publish it. They are, of course, not to be held accountable for any remaining mistakes, omissions, or errors of tact and judgment. The following abbreviations are used: Antonaccio C.M. Antonaccio, The Archaeology of Early Greek "Hero Cult" (Diss. Princeton Univ. 1987). Clairmont C.W. Clairmont, Patrios Nomos: Public Burial in Athens during the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. (BAR-IS 161, Oxford 1983). Coldstream J.N. Coldstream, "Hero Cults in the Age of Homer,"JHS 96 (1976) 8-17. Jeffery L.H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece2 (Oxford 1990). Kearns E. Kearns, The Heroes of Attica (BICS Suppl. 57, London 1989). Morris I. Morris, Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Greek City-State (New Studies in Archaeology, Cambridge 1987). Shapiro H.A. Shapiro, Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens (Mainz 1989). Stupperich R. Stupperich, Staatsbegrdbnis und Privatgrabmal im klassischen Athen (Diss. Westfailische Wilhelms-Universitit, Miinster 1977). Whitley A.J.M. Whitley, "Early States and Hero Cults: A Re-appraisal,"JHS 108 (1988) 173-82. ' For "explaining" historical artifacts, see in particular M. Baxandall, Patterns and Intentions: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures (New Haven 1984); and most recently J. Whitley, "The Explanation of Form: Towards a Reconciliation of Archaeological and Art-Historical Approaches," Hephaistos 11/12 (1992-1993) 7-33. 2 This is the approach adopted by, among others, A.D. Nock, "The Cult of Heroes," HThR 37 (1944) 141-74; and L.R. Farnell, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (Oxford 1921). 213 American Journal of Archaeology 98 (1994) 2 13-30 214 JAMES WHITLEY [AJA 98

Abstract: 1. Troy in the Bronze Age 2. Troy during the Archaic Period 3. The tombs of the Granicus River Valley: the Polyxena sarcophagus 4. The tombs of the Granicus River Valley II: the child's sarcophagus 5. The tombs of the Granicus River Valley III: the Dedetepe tumulus 6. The tombs of the Granicus River Valley IV: the Can sarcophagus 7. Ilion, Athens, and Sigeion during the 5th and 4th centuries BC 8. Ilion in the early Hellenistic period 9. The West Sanctuary during the Hellenistic period 10. Late Hellenistic and early imperial Ilion 11. From the Flavians to the Byzantines 12. The concept of Troy after antiquity.

Abstract: The Great Tumulus at Vergina, excavated by Manolis Andronikos in 1977-1979, yielded three Macedonian tombs (Tombs II-IV) and a cist tomb (Tomb I). The rich burial goods of Tombs II and III and the high-quality wall-paintings of Tombs I and II aroused international interest and fuelled the debate whether the tombs belong to the royal family of the Argeadai. Andronikos' attribution of Tomb II to Philip II (buried in 336 B. C.) has been challenged by a rival theory, attributing the tomb to his eldest son, Philip III Arrhidaios, and his wife Adea Eurydike (buried in 316 B. C.). The recent publication of the clay pottery from Tomb II has prompted the authors to re-examine the evidence for the dating of Tomb II. Crucial details in the architecture, the wall-painting techniques and the iconography of the hunting frieze, the human remains, the paraphernalia, the Achilles motif of the gold and ivory shield, the black-glaze clay pottery and the Attic standard used in weighing a number of silver vessels, all suggest that Tomb II postdates the death of Alexander the Great. The authors attribute Tomb I to Philip II and his last wife, Kleopatra, Tomb II to Philip III and Adea Eurydike, and Tomb III to Alexander IV son of Alexander the Great.

Abstract: In my recent book Epirus, published in June 1967, I have dealt with the finds from the tumuli of North Epirus at Vajze, Vodhine, Bodrishte, and Kakavi which were excavated in 1954 and 1955 and reported in Albanian in the Buletin per Shkencat Shoquerore (referred to hereafter as BUSS) 1956, 1. 180 ff.; 1957, 2. 76 ff.; and 1959, 2. 190 ff. It was in 1963 that I first heard of this journal and late in 1964 that I obtained an offprint of the Vajze report through the kindness of the excavator, Professor Frano Prendi. He dated the tumuli and their contents to the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age and to the early centuries of the Iron Age, but I have advanced the view in my book that the earliest of these tumuli and the earliest burials in such tumuli date to the Middle Helladic period. When this went to press in December 1964, I was able to publish also a few objects from the tumuli of the Mati valley which were illustrated in the same journal for 1955, and appeared to be of Middle Helladic date but had been dated by the excavator to the end of the Bronze Age at the earliest. Late in 1965 I was sent by Professor Frano Prendi a copy of a new Albanian periodical Studia Albanica, no. i of 1964. Here the same dates were given for the tumuli of North Epirus and of the Mati valley but reference was made for the first time in my experience to a Middle Helladic dating of tumuli and of objects which had been found at Pazhok. This material was too late to be included in my book. As the evidence at Pazhok is conclusive for the Middle Helladic dating, I give a summary of the brief report, which this time was in French, and I reproduce the illustrations which were not of a high standard. The reports of all these excavations have escaped the notice of scholars in the western countries, so far as I am aware. The Pazhok report runs as follows (with my numbering of paragraphs and a few comments).