The Chronology of The Macedonian Royal T

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE MACEDONIAN
ROYAL TOMBS AT VERGINA

by E u g e n e N . B o r z a and O l g a P a l a g i a
1 INTRODUCTION
About 30 years have passed since the commencement of Manolis Andronikos’ spectacular
excavations at the Macedonian royal necropolis at Vergina1. Almost without exception schol-
ars have now accepted the northern Greek village of Vergina as the location of ancient Aigai,
known from literary sources to be a burial site for the Macedonian royal family, the Argeadai.
Reorganized in the 1920s from two existing hamlets into a village as a settlement for Greeks
relocated from Asia Minor, Vergina had long been a center of archaeological interest2. But it
was not until 1968 that anyone had seriously proposed that Vergina might be the site of ancient
Aigai. In that year Nicholas Hammond presented a paper at the First International Symposium
on Ancient Macedonia in which he challenged the widely held opinion that had equated Aigai
with the town of Edessa, and suggested that the idea be abandoned on the grounds of insuffi-
cient evidence. He proposed instead that the ancient site be located in the environs of Vergina3.
The present article offers a chronology of the Macedonian royal tombs at Vergina based on the available archae-
ological, anthropological and art historical evidence. Both authors have previously and separately presented their
views elsewhere, but the recent official publication of the pottery from Tomb II and the hunting frieze on the
tomb’s façade has provided the incentive to revisit the question by combining our resources.
O. Palagia is here primarily responsible for the sections dealing with the hunting frieze and Macedonian painting in
general, the clay pottery, and the gold and ivory shield. E. N. Borza is primarily responsible for all other subjects. Both
authors, however, contributed to each others’ work, and both accept responsibility for the whole. Acknowledge-
ments for the assistance of a number of colleagues will be mentioned along the way, but special thanks are due here
to Peter Green for friendship, encouragement and advice, and to Kathleen A. Pavelko and Eugene Ladopoulos for
having assisted in the electronic transfer and merging of texts composed on both sides of the Atlantic. Susan
Rotroff provided sound advice on the pottery. We are grateful to Hans Rupprecht Goette for his photos of the
Vergina hunting frieze, to Vasilis Petrakos and the Archaeological Society of Athens for permission to reproduce
photos from the Society archives, to Bernhard Weisser for the photos of the Aboukir medallions and the contorniate
in Berlin and for making available his unpublished joint article on the Aboukir medallions, and to Brian Rose for
sharing his unpublished manuscript on the tombs from the Granikos Valley.
The authors are pleased to dedicate this article to the memory of Manolis Andronikos, whose generosity toward
his colleagues – most especially the foreign scholars who expressed an interest in his discoveries – set an unmatched
standard for scientific cooperation that contributed to a major advance in our knowledge of ancient Macedonia.
1 There is a deservedly large bibliography on this site, although most recent guide books and many other accounts
are derivative from the early publications. For present purposes we shall cite mainly those works which relate
directly to the issues we have raised. Anyone interested in a useful comprehensive bibliography on the Vergina
tombs, outlining the course of scholarship on many matters, should consult Riginos 1994, 103 n. 1.
2 A useful summary of archaeological investigation in the area of Vergina before the excavation of the royal tombs
can be found in Andronicos 1984, 17–21.
3 Hammond 1970, 64 f. In rejecting Edessa as the location of Aigai, Hammond had been anticipated by only a handful
of scholars, most notably Fanoula Papazoglou as early as 1957, with a modification expressed in her magisterial
»Les villes de Macédoine à l’époque romaine«; see Papazoglou 1988, 131–135. But it was Hammond who sug-
gested that Vergina was the site of Aigai.
82 E U G E N E N . B O R Z A – O L G A PA L A G I A
Hammond’s suggestion was given credence only with the discoveries in 1977–1978 of the
tombs at Vergina, thereby convincing the skeptics, who had at one time even included An-
dronikos himself 4.
For several years Andronikos had been attracted to a large tumulus that was located at the
village of Vergina, where he conducted some minor exploratory work on and around the monu-
ment. By 1977 he had secured both the financial and political support to commence a full-
scale excavation. Among the monuments discovered within the tumulus were three tombs
(fig. 1)5. One of these (hereinafter ›Tomb I‹) is a small cist tomb that had been looted in
antiquity. It is, up to the present moment, the only monument from the Vergina tumulus to have
received a full scholarly publication6. Tomb I was called the ›Tomb of Persephone‹ after the
stunning interior wall painting depicting the ›Rape of Persephone‹ (colour plate 3). It is the
earliest known cist tomb in Macedonia decorated with a mythological scene. The al fresco
technique with incised outlines and the restrained palette of its wall painting are so far unique.
They form a sharp contrast with the al secco technique and brilliant colors of later
Macedonian wall paintings, including Tomb II7; the difference has been attributed to the new
ideas introduced with Alexander’s conquests. With internal measurements of 3.50 m to 2.09 m
and a height of 3 m, Tomb I had been looted in antiquity, the grave robbers having removed
one of the covering roof slabs to gain entry. Whatever grave goods were looted is unknown,
but the human remains were scattered on the floor. They have been described by a forensic
expert as those of a mature male, a much younger female, and a neonate 8. At the time of their
4 For an account of his initial skepticism about Hammond’s equation of Aigai with Vergina, and his eventual change
of mind because of his own excavations, see Andronikos 1968, 61 f. The major exception to the acceptance of
Vergina as Aigai is, notably, by one of Andronikos’ own associates. Faklaris 1994, places Aigai in the vicinity of
Kopanos, near the village of Naousa.
5 The basic publications for the excavation of this tumulus are Andronikos 1978, which is mainly technical, and
Andronicos 1984, which is a fuller account and more interpretative. The tumulus yielded other materials, includ-
ing funerary stelae and a small building of which little beyond its foundations survived, insufficient either to pro-
vide much information about its functions or to affect the arguments in this article. A fourth tomb (Tomb IV) lies
half outside the tumulus and dates from a later period, probably the third century B. C. – Drougou et al. 1996 is a
guidebook to the tumulus and its contents, while Drougou 2005 discusses the other burials in addition to the
monumental tombs. – Moreover, there is a vast amount of other material, especially from Tomb II, that has com-
manded attention over the years, such as the gilded mismatched bronze greaves, a gilded gorytos cover, exquisitely
carved ivory figures, and a variety of splendid bronze and silver vessels. While many of these items are of enormous
individual interest, their presence does not affect the main themes of the present article, which are to establish a
coherent chronology for the three main tombs at Vergina. Thus, for the sake of economy, it has been thought best to
exclude them from the discussion in favor of those materials that relate directly to the main lines of our argument.
6 Andronikos 1994. We are told that the text of this work had gone through a full first draft, but the author’s unfor-
tunate final illness and subsequent death in 1992 prevented him from undertaking final preparations for publica-
tion. The task of readying the manuscript for release was undertaken by Andronikos’ associates from the Vergina
excavation team. While the text is a very full analytical account of the magnificent wall painting from the interior
of the tomb (Andronikos was well known to have been fascinated by these paintings), there is only a miniscule
description of the human remains, and one must turn to earlier publications for this kind of information, e. g.,
Andronicos 1984, 86 f., and Musgrave 1991, see n. 11 below.
7 Brecoulaki 2002, 28 f.; Brecoulaki 2006, 91–96 (pictorial technique of ›Tomb of Persephone‹); 117–132 (Tomb II).
8 Musgrave 1991, 7. – Andronikos (1994, fig. 10) published one revealing photograph showing large sections of
relatively undamaged fibulae, tibiae, and femura, causing one to wonder if this was not, in fact, an inhumation
burial, hinted at by Andronikos’ earlier reference (supra) to »skeletons«. The skeletons may well be those of the
deceased, not of a grave robber, as some have speculated. We are grateful to Dr. Antonis Bartsiokas for advice
concerning the interpretation of the published osteological evidence from the Vergina tombs. It is clear that among
the desiderata at Vergina is a scientific study and publication of the human remains from Tomb I.
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE MACEDONIAN ROYAL TOMBS AT VERGINA 83
Fig. 1. Vergina, site plan of Tombs I, II, and III
deaths, Philip was about 46 years of age, his wife Kleopatra in her late teens, and their child
only a few weeks or months old. The correspondence between the osteological evidence and
the historical evidence is compelling. With reference to the objection that a king as famous
as Philip II could not have been interred in such a simple cist tomb, it is necessary to point
out that a) in 336 B. C. the Macedonians had not yet developed the large chambered tombs
that mark important burials from the end of the fourth century B. C.; b) whereas the tomb
itself is a simple structure, the interior wall paintings are sophisticated and well-wrought works
of art, as befits the burial of an important person; and c) Andronikos himself described the
tomb as the final resting place of »a very wealthy person«9. One is reminded that we should
not always expect an exact correspondence between the importance of the deceased and the
wealth associated with their burials. The example of the stunning wealth found in the tomb
of a relatively minor Egyptian monarch, Tutankhamun, is instructive. In sum, there is nothing
about the burials in Tomb I to prohibit the possibility that the deceased are in fact Philip II
and his wife and child. It is a possibility to be kept in mind, and we may tentatively assign this
small cist tomb to Philip II and his family10, although further support for such a hypothesis
rests in part on the analysis of the other tombs which follows.
The other two tombs were unlooted chamber tombs. Tomb II contained the cremated
remains of a middle-aged male in the main chamber, and that of a female about age 20 in
the antechamber (fig. 2)11. Tomb III contained a single burial in the main chamber12. The
identity of the deceased in Tomb III, whose cremated remains were found in a silver hydria,
19 Andronicos 1984, 87.

10 First suggested by Borza 1987.
11 Musgrave 1991, 3–7, with relevant earlier bibliography; see also below pp. ??????.
12 Musgrave 1991, 7 f.
cannot be in doubt. The deceased is an adolescent, an identification based in part on the evi-
dence of the hip bones, which indicate that the normal process of fusion of three separate
bones into a single adult hip bone was already under way, determining the age of the de-
ceased at the time of death to between 12 and 15. While the bone fragments do not permit
certainty regarding gender (there are indications pointing toward a male), the only possible
adolescent burial in the royal necropolis during this period is Alexander IV, son of Alexander
the Great, born in the summer of 323 B. C. shortly after the death of the conqueror, and exe-
cuted by Kassandros sometime between 311 and 309 B. C.13.
The identity of the deceased in Tomb II, however, has been more problematic. The exca-
vator insisted from the start that the occupants of Tomb II were Philip II of Macedon and his
young wife, Kleopatra. Philip was assassinated by a royal bodyguard in late summer, 336 B. C.,
and Kleopatra was executed by Philip’s estranged wife, Olympias, mother of Alexander the
Great, shortly thereafter14. Andronikos’ premise rests on the assumption that Philip II was
cremated. But at the time of Philip’s death (and well into the end of the fourth century and the
beginning of the third) cremation and inhumation were practiced concurrently in Macedonia15,
and the only evidence on Philip II’s cremation is a late Latin author, Justin (11, 1, 4), who refers
to the king’s friends as grieving because the torch of the daughter’s wedding also lit the father’s
funeral pyre. This, however, was a well-known poetic simile, familiar from Ovid and Proper-
tius16. It has also been pointed out that since cremation was common Roman practice it could
easily be reflected in the Roman literary sources of Philip II’s history17. Andronikos, at any rate,
steadfastly held to his interpretation – publicly, at least – until his untimely death in 199218.
Over the years, however, a body of evidence has emerged to suggest that Tomb II is not the
resting place of Philip II.
2 ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHITECTURAL DECORATION

What does the evidence say about the date of the tomb? Let us look first at the architec-
ture and decoration. Tomb II has two chambers, covered by a barrel-vault (fig. 2). Normally,
Macedonian tombs of this type from the fourth and third centuries B. C. contain all burials
13 The chronology of the end of the fourth century B. C. is currently undergoing revisions, with a growing tenden-
cy to the down-dating of some events (e. g., inter alios, Wheatley 1998 and Wheatley 2003, with an extensive
bibliography on the chronological controversies: 275 f.). One result of recent scholarship is to place Alexander
IV’s execution in 309 rather than 311/10 B. C. The new date, if correct, does not influence our identification of
the remains in Tomb III as those of the young king, as a 309 B. C. date is still within the adolescent osteological
parameters of the skeletal remains: Alexander would have been 14 in 309 B. C. rather than 12.
14 On Olympias’ activities between 323 and 316 B. C., one must now consult the comprehensive study by Carney
2006, 60–87.
15 Themelis – Touratsoglou 1997, 202.
16 Yardley 2003, 101.
17 Rives-Gal 1999, 178.
18 Andronikos’ widely-publicized identification of the tomb as Philip II’s produced both critics and supporters, a
number of whom published responses in the pages of American Journal of Archaeology. The controversy was
lively, but, when faced with the prospect of continuing debate without any new evidence, the editors of AJA 87,
1983, 99, prudently called for a moratorium on further commentary, presumably until such time as new archae-
ological evidence would be made available. The single exception to the moratorium was the article challenging
the identification of Vergina with ancient Aigai (supra n. 4). – For the earlier controversy: Lehmann 1980;
Fredricksmeyer 1981; Calder 1981; Lehmann 1982; Fredricksmeyer 1983; Calder 1983. These exchanges pro-
vide abundant bibliographies of contemporary writing on the subject.
Fig. 2. Vergina, Tomb II, cross-section
in the main chamber, while the antechamber serves as a repository for grave goods. We have
here, however, a double burial, a middle-aged male in the main chamber and a much younger
female in the antechamber. Not only is this kind of double burial, effected at a single time,
unique among the tombs excavated thus far, but the antechamber, which is normally only a
small fraction of the size of the main chamber, is here nearly 3/4 as large as the main chamber19.
The large antechamber strongly suggests an important double burial, which accords with the
interments of Arrhidaios and Adea Eurydike, both buried at Aigai in 316 B. C. in an elabo-
rate royal ceremony, as both the literary evidence and the archaeological remains make
clear20. It is unlikely that Kleopatra, the young wife of Philip II, would have been accorded
such an elaborate burial, especially as the burial arrangements would have been handled by
Alexander and/or his mother Olympias, neither of whom had any reason to thus honor the
young woman. In addition, the unprecedented wealth of the burial goods would have been
more likely after Alexander’s conquest of Asia poured vast riches into the kingdom of
Macedon21.
But there is another way in which the architecture may help to date the tomb, and that is
the existence of the barrel-vault itself. In his work prior to and unrelated to the Vergina
tombs Thomas Boyd argued that the barrel-vault (as opposed to the pointed corbelled vault)
was not introduced into the European world of the Greeks and Macedonians until the age of
19 For the interior dimensions of a number of double-chambered tombs (or what many archaeologists call ›Mace-
donian‹ tombs, so as to distinguish them from cist tombs), see Borza 1987, 121. That the antechamber of Tomb
II at Vergina belonged to the same architectural phase as the main chamber was established by Zambas 1999.
Thus far the only other attested antechamber burial in a Macedonian tomb (Amphipolis Tomb I) dates from a
period later than the several burials in the main chamber: Lazarides 1997, 68–71; Sismanides 1997, 86–88.
20 The literary sources for the burial of Arrhidaios and Adea Eurydike are Diod. 19, 5, 5 and Athen. 4, 155 A, the
latter a fragment of Diyllos. See also Palagia 2000, 197 n. 138 f.
21 Themelis – Touratsoglou 1997, 222–224.
Alexander the Great, when it appears suddenly and fully-developed22. There is no architec-
tural history of the development of the barrel-vault in Greece itself, where the earliest exam-
ples are at panhellenic sites and other places influenced by the Macedonians. The earliest
securely dated barrel-vault (fig. 3) is the passageway (kρυπτὴ ει σοδο ) leading to the sta-
dium at Nemea from the athletes’ preparation room (αποδυτήριον). The excavator, Stephen
Miller, suggests a date of about 320 B. C., citing ceramic and numismatic evidence plus a
graffito of a known athlete23. Miller’s dating of the tunnel at Nemea supports Thomas Boyd’s
argument for the introduction of the barrel-vault into Greece during the generation following
Philip II’s death in 336 B. C.
In one of his earliest discussions of the problem Andronikos clearly understood the impli-
cations of Boyd’s and Miller’s position concerning the late introduction of the barrel-vault
into Greece and Macedonia, and he dealt with the issue at length24. But the foundation of
Andronikos’ argument was that the barrel-vault of Tomb II was earlier than what Boyd and
Miller suggested because Tomb II was the burial place of Philip II, who was interred in 336 B. C.
(our emphasis). Clearly this is circular reasoning. Rather, the vault should be dated indepen-
dently, without reference to the occupant of the tomb, and only when that chronology is esta-
blished can the identity of the occupant(s) be proffered.
In 1987 Andronikos uncovered a barrel-vaulted tomb which he dubbed as the ›Tomb of
Eurydike‹25. He dated the tomb to ca. 340 B. C. on the evidence of sherds of a Panathenaic
amphora found in association with the tomb, one of which bore the first letters of the name
Lykiskos, the eponymous Athenian archon of 344/43 B. C. Andronikos wrote: »This dating …
disproves the theory according to which the Great Tomb at Vergina cannot be that of Philip II,
on the grounds that the vault was not introduced in Greece before Alexander’s campaign in the
East«. The evidence of a datable Panathenaic amphora, however, does no such thing. These
magnificent vessels were highly prized in antiquity, and were often kept by their owners and
buried with them. There was also a second-hand trade in such amphorae, which is more like-
ly the source for the vessel in the ›Eurydike Tomb‹. One must thus reject any attempt to date
the tomb precisely from the evidence of this Panathenaic amphora alone, except to point out
the obvious: the tomb post-dates the year of the archon26. Indeed, the magnificent interior
decoration of the ›Tomb of Eurydike‹ strongly suggests a fully-developed and sophisticated
style (see below) more akin to the latter part of the fourth century (or later) than to 340 B. C.
One of the characteristics of Macedonian chamber tombs of the later fourth and the third
centuries is that their façades are fashioned to resemble the appearance of a small Doric or
22 Boyd 1978.
23 Miller 2002, 90–93, a date recently reconfirmed in personal correspondence from the excavator. – Andronikos
(1987, 5–7) apparently following a theory by Hammond (1982, 115) concerning early uses of the vault, attemp-
ted to back-date the barrel-vault in Macedonia on the basis of a reference in Plato (leg. 947 d, written perhaps
during the final decade before the author’s death in 347 B. C.) to a vaulted tomb. But the word Plato uses is ψαλί ,
from the verb ›to cut‹, often a description of scissors or scissors-like objects. Thus Plato could be describing a scissors
vault, a primitive form of corbelled vault, long known in the Greek world. The fact remains that at present the earliest
securely dated barrel-vault in the Greco-Macedonian world is at Nemea.
24 Andronikos 1987, 3–8.
25 Discussed at some length by Andronikos in: Ginouvès 1994, 154–161. Palagia (2002, 4) calls the attribution of
this tomb to Eurydike, mother of Philip II, »uncertain at best«.
26 For a discussion of the longevity of Panathenaic amphorae – and other matters related to the manufacture and
distribution of these vessels – see Neils 1992. – Palagia (2002, 4) suggests the possibility that the amphora might
have been picked up by someone in Philip II’s embassy to Athens in 342 B. C., although there is a variety of ways
that such a vessel might have found its way into Macedonia.
Fig. 3. Nemea stadium, barrel-vault passageway
Ionic building 27. Both Tomb II (fig. 4) and Tomb III (fig. 5) at the Vergina royal necropolis
have decorated façades in Doric style. What is interesting about these decorative façades is
that the architectural elements are not architecture at all, that is, they are not structural.
Rather, they are decorative – what Stella Miller-Collett has described as »illusionist«. They
present the illusion of real architecture, but are rather strictly ornamental, painted plaster or
stucco applied to the front wall of a small stone building 28. This idea, like in the case of the
barrel-vault, has been a matter of some debate on whether its origin lay in Macedonia itself
or whether it was imported by those who accompanied Alexander 29. The issue is relevant
only insofar as chronology is concerned. Andronikos and others believed that the develop-
ment of the barrel-vault and other characteristic features of Macedonian chamber tombs
were indigenous Macedonian developments, although the adherents of this view have pro-
vided no evidence showing the development of these features in Macedonia itself. Tombs
with a barrel-vault were built in Anatolia before Alexander’s conquest, for example, the tomb
at Labraunda in Caria, dated to the 340s under Hekatomnid rule30. The practice of architec-
27 A number of these tombs, most of which are along the periphery of the central Macedonian plain at sites like
Lefkadia, Amphipolis, Pella, Vergina, Dion, Ag. Athanasios, and Thessaloniki, are illustrated in Miller 1993, and
all extant Macedonian tombs are listed in Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, 173–180.
28 Miller-Collett’s thesis was laid out persuasively in her paper presented at the symposium attending the opening of
»The Search for Alexander« exhibition of Macedonian antiquities at the National Gallery of Art in Washington,
D. C. in 1981 (Miller 1982), and reinforced in her comprehensive study of Macedonian tombs, a work whose an-
alysis remains unsurpassed (Miller 1993). Andronikos (1987, 2) describes the stucco as »lime plaster«.
29 Relevant bibliography in Miller 1982, 167 n. 3, and Miller 1993, 101 f.
30 Fedak 1990, 74–76.
Fig. 4. Vergina, Tomb II, façade
tural illusion, like the barrel-vault, had been used for some time in parts of Asia Minor and
in other places through which Alexander’s army passed, for example, the rock-cut and free-
standing tombs at Kaunos in southeastern Caria and the rock-cut façade of the ›Tomb of
Xerxes‹ at Naqsh-i-Rustan, inspired by Achaemenid palace architecture31. Recent investiga-
tions of the Macedonian royal palace at Pella have shown that its propylon had a two-storey
façade, with Doric columns on the ground floor supporting a row of windows decorated with
Ionic half-columns on the upper storey, much like the façades of Macedonian tombs32. In
the generation following Alexander’s death, Macedonian builders continued to refine these
decorative architectural features. Perhaps the ultimate expression of such architectural deco-
31 Kaunos: Fedak 1990, 97 fig. 39. – Naqsh-i-Rustan: Schmidt 1970.

32 In particular the façade of the ›Great Tomb‹ (sometimes called the ›Tomb of the Judgment‹) at Lefkadia, excava-
ted by Photios Petsas, illustrated, among several places, in Petsas 1966; Miller 1982, 152; Touratsoglou 1973 pas-
sim; Touratsoglou 1995, 202. – For the Pella façade see Akamatis 2004, 33.
Fig. 5. Vergina, Tomb III, façade
ration among tombs recovered thus far can be found near Vergina in the tomb erroneously
identified as the ›Tomb of Eurydike‹, where the interior of the rear wall of the tomb is done
up as if it were the exterior façade of a Ionic building33. The tomb has been looted in antiq-
uity, and the excavators suggest that the grave robbers actually thought that the door which
formed part of the façade led to another chamber. The intruders attempted to pry it open, to
discover that they had succeeded only in chipping away plaster decoration covering the rear
stone wall of the tomb. The evidence of these tombs suggests that the development of
Macedonian decorated chamber tombs may have resulted from influences that found their
way home through the continuing exchange of troops in Alexander’s army.
33 Ilustrated, among other places, in Ginouvès 1994, frontispiece; Touratsoglou 1995, 24–27; Drougou –
Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 1999, 60 f.
3 THE HUNTING FRIEZE

The iconography of the frieze painted on the façade of Tomb II provides additional evi-
dence for the dating of the tomb. It is the earliest known monumental representation of a
multiple-quarry mounted hunt this side of the Aegean (colour plates 4–7)34. It is noteworthy
that a similar scene was depicted on the chryselephantine couch found in the main chamber,
emphasizing the predilection of the deceased for the hunt35. Big-game hunting in Macedon is
first recognized in the reign of Archelaos, who met his end, perhaps as the victim to a court
conspiracy, during a hunting expedition in 399 B. C.36. The prey in Archelaos’ fatal hunt is
not specified. The multiple-quarry hunt is first attested in the art of Macedon with the fune-
ral pyre of Hephaistion, built in Babylon to Alexander’s order in 324 B. C. and inspired by
a combination of oriental and Greek motifs37. Representations of collective, big-game hunts
in Greek art of the Classical period (often placed at the service of Near Eastern or Anatolian
patrons) were confined to settings in the Persian Empire involving Orientals. The Attic relief
lekythos of Xenophantos, for example, represents a Persian hunt where the hunters are
named after famous historical figures38. The multiple-quarry hunt was a favorite theme of
fourth-century funerary monuments in the western Persian Empire. For example, royal sarco-
phagi from Sidon and dynastic monuments from Asia Minor carry multiple-quarry hunting
scenes, often juxtaposed to battles, celebrating the prowess of the deceased. The Nereid
Monument and the Monument of Trysa in Lycia, the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos in Caria
and the Çan Sarcophagus from the satrapy of Hellespontine Phrygia are some of the most
prominent examples dating from the first half of the fourth century39. The juxtaposition of
wild beasts like lions, bears, panthers and boars that do not usually live in close proximity
suggests that some of these hunts either take place in Asian game parks (παράδεισοι)40 or
represent separate episodes in a range of locales. The different-colored backgrounds of the stag
and boar hunts separated by a bare tree on the Çan Sarcophagus indicates two different locales
where the owner of the sarcophagus distinguished himself hunting different types of game 41.
His highly individualized facial features raise the question of portraiture in funerary biogra-
phical scenes, a question that also arises with regard to the Vergina hunt.
The great artistic merit and iconographical significance of the Vergina hunting frieze (colour
plate 4) can hardly be underestimated. It is one of the earliest and finest examples of Greco-
Macedonian wall-painting but its uniqueness has made it hard to interpret. It is dated by
general consensus to the second half of the fourth century B. C. Its precise dating within that
time span, however, as well as its ideological content, has generated a great deal of contro-
versy. Questions to be posed are: a) does it postdate Alexander the Great’s conquest of the
Persian Empire?, b) is it a hunting expedition in a single landscape or a compendium of scenes
34 Andronicos 1984, 100–119 figs. 58–71.

35 Kottaridi 2002, 81 pl. 16 B.
36 Arist. pol. 1311 b, 11–12; Diod. 14, 37, 6. Borza 1990, 177; Tripodi 1998, 43–46.
37 Diod. 17, 115, 1–5. Tripodi 1998, 79 f.; Palagia 2000, 167–171.
38 St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum inv. Π 1837.2: Miller 2003.
39 Royal sarcophagi from Sidon: Anderson 1985, 73–78 figs. 27–31;Tripodi 1998, 76–79 figs. 16–18; Palagia 2000,
178. 186–189 figs. 2–7. 9–11; Barringer 2001, 185–189 figs. 99–104. – Monuments in Lycia and Caria: Tripodi
1998, 74 f. fig. 14; Palagia 2000, 177 f. fig. 1; Barringer 2001, 190–201 figs. 105. 110. – Çan Sarcophagus in
the Çanakkale Museum: Rose et al. 2001.
40 On the game parks (παράδεισοι) of the Persian elite see Anderson 1985, 58–62; Tuplin 1996; Palagia 2000, 177
with n. 48.
41 Rose et al. 2001, 388. 394 figs. 5. 10; Rose forthcoming.
involving different kinds of game in a variety of habitats?, c) does it commemorate a histor-

ic occasion and does it include portraits?, d) can it be properly described as a royal hunt?,
e) is it set in Asia, Europe or both?, and f) is it, finally, an oriental subject couched in a Greek
artistic idiom?
The recent full publication of the painting by Chrysoula Saatsoglou-Paliadeli (2004) has
left matters unresolved. Her attribution of Tomb II to Philip II is not supported by the evidence.
The big-game hunting frieze (colour plate 4) consists of three mounted hunters, seven hunters
on foot, six beasts (a pair of deer, a boar, a lion and a bear, possibly two) and nine dogs. Seven
of the ten hunters are nude or nearly so. Nine of ten are beardless. Three are on horseback.
The hunting equipment includes spears and javelins, a net, and a double axe for breaking the
animal’s spine. This is consistent with the weapons used in Greek hunts42, except for the double
axe which may be employed here in lieu of the single-headed axe (σάγαρι ) of Persian hunt-
ers described by Xenophon. The double axe appears in representations of the Calydonian
boar hunt43 but also in non-mythological hunts that postdate Alexander’s conquest of Asia,
for example, in the deer hunt mosaic from Pella44, in the lion hunt on a relief frieze from a
funerary monument at Messene (fig. 6)45 and on an Attic kantharos of the second half of the
third century B. C. from the Athenian Agora with a lion and boar hunt (fig. 7)46.
The composition of the Vergina hunt (colour plate 4) is broken up into separate episodes
centered on each animal or pair of animals and emphasized by changes in the landscape.
From left to right we see a pair of naked youths, one on horseback, hunting two deer in a
hilly landscape framed by two trees (fig. 8; colour plate 5). The next episode shows two
naked youths on foot hunting a boar in a flat plain, also framed by a tree at either end (colour
plate 6). The boar, which is already wounded by two javelins sticking out of its hide, is in
fact being despatched by a young man, facing the spectator, his chlamys wrapped around his
left arm, who spears the beast head on.
Non-mythological deer and boar hunts are familiar in Greek art prior to the fourth century
B. C. Mounted youths hunt deer and boar in Archaic Attic vase-painting, for example, but such
scenes reflect the pursuits of an aristocratic society and gradually go out of fashion with the
onset of the Athenian democracy at the end of the sixth century47. Henceforth Greek hunting
iconography is dominated by hare hunts conducted on foot48. Boars and deer, too, were hunted
on foot in the Peloponnese: Xenophon’s estate in Skillous, established in the early fourth
century, comprised a sanctuary of Artemis Ephesia with a big-game hunting ground attached.
This was not a game park but a natural hunting ground49. Hunting festivals were organised by
Xenophon once a year, when it was permitted to kill boars and deer in a sacred area50.
42 Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 66–74. For the equipment of Persian hunters see Xen. Kyr. 1, 2, 9.
43 Daltrop 1966, 24 pl. 21 (Attic red-figure pelike of the fourth century, St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum inv. B 4528);
Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 72.
44 Akamatis 2004 fig. 17.
45 Paris, Louvre inv. MA 858: Parian marble; Palagia 2000 fig. 15; Themelis 2002, 241. 243 fig. 8 b. – A fragment of
another block from the same frieze recently came to light in Messene, indicating that it formed part of a multiple-
quarry hunt.
46 Athens, Agora Museum inv. P 6878: Rotroff 2003, 221–223 fig. 13; Rotroff 2007, 243 no. 115 fig. 202; see also
infra n. 57. – Rotroff points out the characteristic axe-wielding technique of Macedonian hunters (evident here
and also reproduced in the Vergina hunt) which differs from earlier representations.
47 Anderson 1985, 23–26 figs. 10. 11; Tripodi 1998, 70–72 fig. 12; Barringer 2001, 15–17. 42–46 figs. 1. 2. 18.
48 Anderson 1985, 70 f.; Barringer 2001, 95–98; Miller 2003, 24.
49 The distinction is made clear by Tuplin 1996, 113.
50 Xen. an. 5, 3, 4–13. Anderson 1985, 31; Tuplin 2004.
Fig. 6. Paris, Louvre MA 858: Frieze block with Macedonian lion hunt from Messene
Boar hunts were popular in Macedonia. They could also involve rites of passage, for no man
was allowed to recline at dinner unless he had killed a boar without using nets51. The practices
of big-game hunting in sacred groves on special occasions and of ritual boar killing may
serve to explain the boar hunt on Tomb II. It seems to be taking place in a sacred space, as
indicated by a tree (colour plate 5) from which hang a votive plaque, a ribbon and various
hunting trophies (perhaps animal tails), and by a tall pillar (colour plate 5), crowned by three
posts with round tops; a lump at the right corner cannot be easily interpreted52. The pillar is
puzzling. The posts have been considered aniconic images of deities, tripod legs or torches,
and the pillar has been described as a misunderstood stylized tree inspired by Persian cylinder
seals53. Its sacred nature, at any rate, is obvious54. The tree too, laden with dedications, be-
longs to a shrine. Votives hang from trees in sacred groves where there are no walls to receive
them. Prisoners hang their chains from trees after liberation, while hunters hang their tro-
phies (chiefly animal hides) or hunting equipment as votives to Pan after a successful hunt55.
The closest parallel to the tree tied with a ribbon adjacent to a sacred pillar topped by divine
images can be found in a Hellenistic votive relief in Munich, showing a family sacrifice
offered to a pair of deities (fig. 9)56. A big-game hunt in a sacred landscape comparable to the
Vergina painting is shown on the Agora kantharos (fig. 7), where a lion and boar are being
51 Athen. 1, 18 a. Tripodi 1998, 104–106; Carney 2002, 59. 62.

52 Pekridou-Gorecki 1996, 93–99; Palagia 2000, 193 f.; Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 89 f. 138–141.
53 Deities: Pekridou-Gorecki 1996, 96–99 (nymphs or Graces). – Tripod legs: Palagia 2000, 194. – Torches:
Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 139 pl. 9 a. – Stylized tree: Miller 2003, 38.
54 Carroll-Spilleke 1985, 152–154; Palagia 2000, 193.
55 Chains hanging on trees in the sacred grove of Hebe at Phlious: Paus. 2, 13, 3 f. Pausanias notes the absence of
a cult statue in this particular grove. – Hunting trophies hanging from trees: Anth. Pal. 6, 35. 57. 106. 110. 168.
262. 331; de Cazenove 1993; Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 89.
56 Munich, Glyptothek inv. 206: Smith 1991, 186 fig. 214; Ridgway 2000, 208–210; Wünsche 2005, 118 with color
plate.
Fig. 7. Athens, Agora P 6878: Watercolor of Attic kantharos showing both sides as a continuous frieze
hunted on foot beside a pillar carrying a torch, and a pillar base supporting a votive relief57.
The sanctity of the space in the Vergina hunt has been contested because there is no altar or
cult statue58; but even though the hunt in the Agora kantharos also lacks them, the votive
relief shown on it must signal the existence of a shrine. At any rate, the religious significance
of the hunting ground in the boar episode excludes a Persian παράδεισο since those were
known to be secular59. In sum, there are no Asian elements in the flora, prey, hunting equip-
ment or indeed in the hunters’ nudity in the deer and boar hunting episodes of the Vergina
hunt. The sacred landscape of the boar hunt is characteristic of Greek hunts. A Macedonian
locale is very likely indicated here. The center of the composition is occupied by a lone hunt-
er framed by a pair of leafless trees (colour plate 6). He turns his back on the boar hunt and
thrusts his javelin at a lion which is surrounded by three other hunters. He is crowned with
laurel and wears a short purple chiton with short sleeves and an overfold, as well as open-
work boots. The laurel wreath is unique in this scene and may be a symbol of victory or of
(posthumous) heroization60. The belted chiton with overfold is usually worn by Persians in
57 Supra n. 46. The kantharos is dedicated to Artemis and Dionysos. The other side (here fig. 7) shows Artemis
spearing a panther in a rural shrine suggested by a blazing altar, a statue in an architectural frame and another
votive pillar: Rotroff 2003, fig. 12; Rotroff 2007, fig. 202.
58 Pekridou-Gorecki 1996, 94, followed by Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 138.
59 On the secular nature of Persian game enclosures see Tuplin 1996, 125 f.
60 Symbol of victory: Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 80. – Posthumous heroization: Palagia 2000, 195.
Fig. 8. Vergina, hunting frieze, detail of deer hunt
Greek art, but these have long sleeves and trousers, too. The short-sleeved variant may have
been introduced by Alexander the Great, as we see him wearing it on the Alexander
Sarcophagus61. After Dareios III’s death in 330 B. C. Alexander was said to have adopted a
mixed Persian and Macedonian dress62. This peculiar chiton is so far only attested in his
entourage and in the funerary monuments of his veterans, for example on the putative
Hephaistion on the Alexander Sarcophagus, on a Macedonian spearing a Persian painted on
the ›Kinch Tomb‹ at Lefkadia, and on a similar scene on a marble grave relief from Pella,
all dating from the last years of the fourth century63.
To the right of the central hunter the actual lion hunt consists of three hunters and three
dogs in front of a cluster of trees (colour plate 7). The lion turns back to face a rearing horse
whose rider towers above everyone else in the frieze. This iconographical detail may be of
particular significance, as we shall see. The rider looks the lion in the eye as he is about to
despatch it (colour plate 7). He wears a short, purple chiton, a chlamys and boots, and he is
the only figure sporting a beard. The other two hunters are on foot and in the nude, one wearing
a purple kausia and chlamys and aiming his spear at the lion, while the other, also in the
nude, wields a double-headed axe with both hands. Their job is clearly to assist the horse-
man as he gives the fatal blow. As the landscape is generic and there are no Persian hunters
involved here, the location of the lion hunt cannot be iconographically determined. We will
return to this question later on.
61 Persian dress: Miller 2003, figs. 2. 10–15. – Alexander Sarcophagus: Istanbul, Archaeological Museum inv. 370:
von Graeve 1970; Palagia 2000, 188 figs. 10. 11.
62 Arr. an. 4, 7, 4 and 4, 9, 9. Palagia 2000, 188 n. 90 with further references.
63 Palagia 2000, 188 fig. 11 (Hephaistion); Miller 1993 pl. 8 a (›Kinch Tomb‹); Chrysostomou 1999, 290 f. fig. 15;
Palagia 2000, 200 f. fig. 14 (Pella relief).
Fig. 9. Munich, Glyptothek 206: Votive relief
Non-mythological lion hunts in Greek art before the fourth century B. C. are confined to
the orientalizing Chigi Vase of the seventh century64. In the fourth century the statue base of
the Olympic victor Poulydamas (who won in 408 B. C.), created posthumously by the sculp-
tor Lysippos, commemorates the boxer as he kills a lion with his bare hands on Mt.
Olympos65. Pausanias (6, 5, 5 f.) reports that the occasional lion on Mt. Olympos had strayed
there from the region of Abdera in Thrace. Lions were known to have attacked the camels of
Xerxes’ army when it was marching between Abdera and Therme in 480 B. C. Herodotos’
account (7, 125) of this episode became the standard reference regarding the appearance of
lions in Thrace and Macedonia. Aristotle’s mention of lions in northern Greece (hist. an. 6, 31)
is directly dependent on Herodotos. In sum, there is no evidence of lions in Macedonia
except in the fifth century, during Xerxes’ attack and again in Poulydamas’ encounter with
the stray lion. We have no evidence that the Macedonians ever hunted lions in Macedonia,
before or after Alexander the Great. The only royal hunts attested in Macedonia where the
prey is named involve boars and bulls66. Xenophon (kyn. 11), who wrote before Alexander’s
64 Lion hunted by foot soldiers: Rome, Museo Nazionale di Villa Giulia inv. 22679: Anderson 1985 fig. 15; Boardman
1998, 87 fig. 178. 3; Miller 2003, 23 f. figs. 2. 4. 5. – On non-mythological hunts before Tomb II: Schauenburg
1969, 9 f.
65 Olympia, Museum inv. Λ 45: Moreno 1995, 91–93; Palagia 2000, 180 f.
66 Anth. Pal. 6, 114–116 (Philip V). Briant 1991, 238; Tripodi 1998, 129–140.
conquests, categorically states that lions could be hunted only in foreign countries, e. g., Thrace,
Syria and Asia Minor: »Lions, leopards, lynxes, panthers, bears and other wild beasts are cap-
tured in foreign lands, around Mt. Pangaion and Mt. Kittos beyond Macedon; some may be
caught on Mt. Olympos and Mt. Pindos67 in Mysia, others in Nysa beyond Syria, and on other
mountains capable of supporting such wild life«.
We are not told the contents of the royal game parks, complete with professional hunters,
which were encountered by the Romans in Macedonia after the battle of Pydna in 168 B. C.
(Pol. 31, 29), and we do not know when they were introduced in Macedonia68. Exotic beasts
like elephants were introduced in Greece after Alexander’s death: Polyperchon used them
when he marched on Piraeus in 318 B. C. (Diod. 18, 68, 3) and they were eventually cap-
tured by Kassandros (Diod. 19, 35, 7)69. The lion hunts mentioned by Menander (Epitr. 324)
as an elite occupation may have taken place anywhere in the Successor kingdoms during the
final years of the fourth century and the early years of the third. Multiple-quarry hunts includ-
ing a lion appear on third-century Attic pottery from the Athenian Agora, for example a
kantharos (fig. 7) and a mold-made bowl70. Because of their similarity to the Vergina hunt-
ing frieze, these pots are thought to have been produced under the Macedonian occupation
of Athens, which ended in 229 B. C. They might be taken as indirect evidence of the exist-
ence of game parks with exotic beasts in Hellenistic Macedonia; the hunt in the sacred grove
in fig. 7 certainly indicates a Greek, rather than Asian, ambience.
The only lion hunt represented in the art of Macedon before Tomb II occurs on a silver stater
of Amyntas III (393–369 B. C.), perhaps minted early in his reign71. The obverse carries a
mounted hunter striking downwards with his spear, while a lion crunching a spear in its jaws
appears on the reverse. Read in a wrap-around fashion, this coin is taken as evidence of
mounted lion hunts in Macedonia in the 380s72. The rider, however, need not represent the
king of Macedon as has been suggested but may be a mythological figure associated with
the Thracian hunter hero73. The dependence of Macedonian coin types showing the rider on
those of Thrace with the Thracian Rider has often been remarked74. As for representations
of lion hunts in Macedonia after Tomb II, the excavation of the dromos of Tomb IV in the
Great Tumulus at Vergina, which dates from the early third century, revealed a clay relief
frieze with a multiple-quarry mounted hunt which included felines75.
In the ancient Near East the lion was a prey usually reserved for kings. The ritual lion
hunts of the Assyrian kings represented on Assyrian palace reliefs of the eighth and seventh
centuries B. C. symbolized the king’s care for his country76. From the sixth to the fourth cen-
67 Anderson 1985, 55 f. – Both Briant (1991, 238), and Saatsoglou-Paliadeli (2004, 85), misunderstand the topogra-
phy, locating Mt. Pindos and Mt. Olympos in Epirus and Macedonia. But Xenophon is referring to their name-
sakes in Anatolia. For Mt. Olympos (Ulu Daǧ) in Mysia see Hdt. 1, 36, 1 and Hdt. 7, 74; Strab. 12, 4, 3 (C 564);
Müller 1997, 886–888.
68 Briant 1991, 230–232; Briant 1993, 272–274.
69 Bosworth 2002, 92. 121.
70 Athenian Agora inv. P 18645: Rotroff 2003, 223 f. fig. 14.
71 Gäbler 1935, 160 pl. 30, 6; Briant 1991, 238–239; Greenwalt 1993, 515–519; Greenwalt 1994, 120. 125–131 pl.
7, 3; Tripodi 1998, 48 n. 46; Carney 2002, 61.
72 Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 108. 160.
73 As pointed out by Greenwalt 1994, 125–131.
74 Greenwalt 1993, 509–510. 516 f.; Greenwalt 1994, 127 f.; Carney 2002, 60 with further references.
75 Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs: Drougou et al. 1996, 46 f. The occupant is unknown and the tomb awaits
publication.
76 Collon 1995, 152–156 figs. 121. 122; Tuplin 1996, 83 f.; Palagia 2000, 181; Miller 2003, 25.
turies the monumental art of the Achaemenid Empire favored the representation of peaceful
pursuits, hunts and battle-scenes being relegated to the minor arts. On cylinder seals and the
so-called Greco-Persian gems, for example, the lion is hunted on horseback or from a chariot
but it is not always possible to distinguish a royal hunter – satraps or nobles may also pursue
lions77. An early fourth-century king of Sidon, effectively a Persian satrap, was shown on his
marble sarcophagus hunting a lion from his chariot78. Persian hunts took place in game enclo-
sures or in natural hunting grounds and were treated as general practice for warfare (Xen.
Kyr. 8, 1, 34)79.
Non-mythological lion hunts represented in monumental Greek art after Alexander tended
to involve the conqueror himself, commemorating historic hunts of his Asian campaign80.
They probably all date from within the lifetime of the Successors. As these have often been
analysed, a brief mention will suffice here. A floor mosaic from the ›House of Dionysos‹ in
Pella, dating from the end of the fourth century, represents a lion hunted on foot by two nude
Macedonians with billowing chlamydes, brandishing swords81. Even though the heads are not
portraits, Alexander is generally recognised as the hunter on the left. Despite the lack of orien-
tal elements of any kind, the hunt mosaic is commonly thought to reflect a historic occasion
in Syria, when Alexander’s life was saved thanks to the intervention of Krateros82. That hunt
was probably conducted on foot, as witnesses the description of the now lost bronze group
commemorating the event that was dedicated in the name of Krateros’ infant son at Delphi
sometime between 321 and 316 B. C. The dedicatory epigram states that Krateros was Alexan-
der’s companion in victory and helped bring down the bull-devouring lion (ταυρόφονο λέων).
Paspalas has recently argued that the »bull-devouring lion« can be interpreted as a symbol
of Achaemenid Persia, thus investing Krateros’ participation in Alexander’s hunt with a deeper
significance, implying a share in the victory against the Persians and a claim to empire83.
Plutarch’s (Alex. 40, 4) anecdote of the Persian ambassador remarking to Alexander after the
same hunting episode that he had wrested the kingship from the lion, carries a comparable
connotation.
Palagia has argued that after Alexander’s death, his Successors chose the lion hunt imagery
as a means of legitimizing their share in his empire, for participation in his royal hunts demon-
strated not only their intimacy with the king but also their ability to rule84. In addition, Carney
has pointed out how the hunting monuments of the Successors did not stem from royal tradition
in either Persia or Macedonia but were a direct allusion to their contribution to Alexander’s
conquest85. Representations of lion hunts in the late fourth and early third century more often
than not involve Alexander and an aspirant to his throne. The new significance attached to
the lion hunt iconography pervades all such images connected with Alexander as they were
77 Anderson 1985, 67 f.; Palagia 2000, 181; Boardman 2000, 159 fig. 5, 9; Curtis – Tallis 2005, 221 no. 398; 228 f.
nos. 418 f.; Merrillees 2005, pls. IV–XV.
78 Istanbul, Archaeological Museum inv. 369 (Lycian Sarcophagus): Palagia 2000, 178. 181 f. fig. 7; Barringer 2001,
185 fig. 99.
79 On Achaemenid royal hunts see Anderson 1995, 58–63; Briant 2002, 97–299; Miller 2003, 26–29.
80 The known hunting expeditions of Alexander and the art works associated with them are enumerated and discussed
by Briant 1991; Briant 1993; Tripodi 1998; Palagia 2000; Carney 2002.
81 Pella, Museum: Salzmann 1982, 12. 19. 28 f. 105 f. no. 98 pls. 30. 31; Palagia 2000, 185 f. fig. 8.
82 Plin. nat. 34, 64; Plut. Alex. 40, 5. Stewart 1993, 270–277. 390 f.; Palagia 2000, 184 f.; Paspalas 2000; Bosworth
2002, 276 f.
83 Paspalas 2000.
84 Palagia 1998; Palagia 2000.
85 Carney 2002.
concocted after his death to promote the interests of the Successors. In addition to Alexander’s lion
hunts on foot represented at Pella and Delphi, mounted hunts are attested as well. The Alexander
Sarcophagus from Sidon shows a multiple-quarry hunt in a Persian setting: Abdalonymos,
who was placed on the throne of Sidon at Hephaistion’s recommendation, hunts a lion along-
side the conqueror86. A Hellenistic hunt mosaic in Palermo is also set in Asia as witness the
exotic foliage and the participation of a Persian hunter87. It involves Alexander coming to the
rescue of a supine hunter about to be devoured by a lion, while another Macedonian horseman
hunts a boar. More enigmatic is a relief frieze from Messene, now divided between Messene and
Paris, showing a multiple-quarry hunt, where a Macedonian rider in kausia, chiton and chlamys
hunts a lion with the aid of a professional hunter in a lionskin wielding an axe (fig. 6)88. The
hunter in lionskin suggests an Asian ambience; the identification of the horseman in kausia
with Alexander is by no means certain but the conqueror may have been depicted in the next
block. The relief can be dated to the third century and has been tentatively attributed to a
funerary tholos, perhaps sheltering the remains of Polyperchon89. After serving as (failed)
regent of Macedon in 319–316 B. C., he retreated to the Peloponnese in 315 B. C.; Demetrios
Poliorketes’ campaign against Messene in 295 B. C. is thought to have been directed against
him90.
It has become clear by now that the iconography of the non-mythological lion hunt in the
fourth century involves royalty. The lion episode of the Vergina hunt frieze very likely shows
a royal hunt91. We do not know whether lions were hunted in Macedonia in the fourth century
but even if they were, why did this painting suddenly appear at this time in the funerary iconog-
raphy of Macedonia? What can its ideological content be? If Tomb II were dated to 336 B. C.
and belonged to Philip II as suggested by Andronikos, followed by Paliadeli, Drougou and
Kottaridou, the multiple-quarry hunt would be part of the funerary repertoire of the Persian
satrapies of the west coast of Anatolia, celebrating the dynast’s prowess in the hunt. This orien-
tal content would be at odds with Philip’s strategies of demonstrating his Hellenism to the Greeks.
The Persian connotations of the royal hunt iconography would have easily confirmed De-
mosthenes’ picture of Philip as a barbarian92. If, on the other hand, the Vergina frieze postdates
Alexander, it could readily fall within the new ideological framework formulated after Alex-
ander’s death, showing a Successor hunting with Alexander to promote his own legitimacy93.
But who in the Vergina frieze is Alexander and who is the Successor? And where is the lion
hunt located? We will address these problems at the end of our survey of this painting.
At the extreme right of the hunting frieze a man in kausia, chlamys and boots is about to
spear a bear standing above him on a rocky outcrop and gnawing a broken javelin that missed
its mark (colour plate 7)94. A lion biting a snapped javelin is a familiar motif in Macedonian
86 Istanbul, Archaeological Museum inv. 370: von Graeve 1970; Tripodi 1998, 77 f. fig. 18; Palagia 2000, 186–189
fig. 10. – On Abdalonymos see Heckel 2006, 1.
87 Wootton 2002.
88 Supra n. 45.
89 Palagia 2000, 202–206.
90 Plut. Demetr. 33, 2. Heckel 2006, 226–231.
91 This seems to be generally accepted, cf. Harrison 2001, 288; Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 3. – Themelis –
Touratsoglou (1997, 202) believe that the tombs in the Great Tumulus at Vergina are not royal, thus questioning,
by implication, the identification of Vergina with Aigai.
92 Cf. Tripodi 1998, 96.
93 Cf. Briant 1993, 276 f.; Tripodi 1998, 88 f. 93. 96; Palagia 1998; Palagia 2000; Rives-Gal 1999, 328–332;
Barringer 2001, 201; Harrison 2001, 288; Miller 2003, 30 f.; Burn 2004, 41–43.
94 Andronicos 1984, fig. 68; Paliadeli 2004, 84–86 pl. 19.
hunting iconography: as mentioned above, it was used as a coin type by Amyntas III, and
repeated on the coinage of Perdikkas III and Kassandros95. In addition, the projecting parts
of the axles of the wheels of Alexander’s funeral cart were decorated with a golden lion head
crunching a broken spear in its jaws96. But the Vergina bear hunt is so far unique in Greco-
Macedonian art. Although there were bears in Greece, no bear hunts are attested before the
Roman period97. It seems that the bear was sacred to Artemis and was protected by her98.
Peukestas’ perilous encounter with a bear recorded by Plutarch did not take place in Macedonia
but in Asia, during Alexander’s expedition99. In the fourth century B. C. Xenophon (kyn. 11,
1–4) reports that bears can be hunted, along with lions, in the foreign lands of Thrace,
Anatolia and Syria. He also mentions bears hunted by Persian royalty100. Representations of
bear hunts can indeed be found in multiple-quarry hunting scenes of the western Persian
Empire, on tombs of local dynasts in fourth-century Lycia and in Sidon, for example on the
heroon of Trysa, the Nereid Monument, the sarcophagus of Payava and the Mourning Women
Sarcophagus101. Bear hunts are also depicted on Persian sealings from Daskyleion, capital
of the satrapy of Hellespontine Phrygia102.
Beyond the bear hunting group on the Vergina frieze, a hunter with a net has trapped another
beast (fig. 10; colour plate 7)103. The beast cannot be distinguished but by reason of symmetry
with the other end of the composition, which comprises a pair of deer, the existence of a sec-
ond bear is assumed. The trapper with the net is distinguished by his peculiar attire, weapon
and skin color. He wears a fawn-colored chiton, perhaps made of leather, an animal skin
(perhaps bearskin or wolfskin) cape, a fur (?) hat104 and boots. Animal hides and leather gar-
ments are an indication of barbarian taste if not origin. His dark, almost grey skin is not sun-
tanned as suggested by Paliadeli but forms a sharp contrast with the pale skin of the Macedo-
nian hunters105. Surely an Oriental figure is represented here. He has been tentatively identi-
fied with one of the Oriental noblemen recruited by Alexander after his return from India in
324 B. C.106. Paliadeli, however, interprets him as a Macedonian of lower status because the
Macedonian elite would not have hunted with nets107. But Alexander’s companions of the
highest nobility, Leonnatos and Philotas, for example, were said to have practised net-hunting108.
195 Amyntas III: supra n. 71. – Perdikkas III: Gäbler 1935, 161 pl. 30, 15. – Kassandros: Gäbler 1935, 176 pl. 32, 8.
196 Diod. 18, 27, 3. See also Miller 1986 pls. 2 b; 3 b. c.
197 Anderson 1985, 15; Tripodi 1998, 87. – For bears on Mt. Parnes in Attika in the second century A. D. see Paus. 1,
32, 1.
198 Anderson 1985, 15; Bevan 1987.
199 Plut. Alex. 41, 3. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli (2004, 85) erroneously takes this episode as evidence of bear hunts in
Macedonia in the time of Alexander.
100 Bears hunted by Persian royalty: Xen. Kyr. 1, 4, 7; Xen. an. 1, 9, 6. Briant 1993, 273. See also supra n. 67.
101 Trysa: Oberleitner 1994, 46 fig. 99; Étienne 2000, 69. – Nereid Monument: Childs – Demargne 1989, pl. 115;
Tripodi 1998, fig. 14; Étienne 2000, 69 fig. 1. – Payava Sarcophagus: Tripodi 1998 fig. 15; Étienne 2000, 69. – For
further examples of bear hunts in the funerary art of fourth-century Lycia see Kaptan 1996, 94; Étienne 2000,
70. – Mourning Women Sarcophagus: Fleischer 1983, 11 pl. 12; Étienne 2000, 69; Palagia 2000, 178 fig. 3.
102 The bears are hunted by single hunters either on horseback or on foot: Kaptan 1996, 89–92 figs. 3. 4. 6. 7; Miller
2003, 26.
103 There is no evidence that he is fishing as suggested by Harrison 2001, 290: the landscape is landlocked.
104 Saatsoglou-Paliadeli (2004, 75 f.) points out the difficulty in identifying this hunter’s headgear. – For leather gar-
ments worn by Persians see Miller 1997, 167.
105 Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 76. Suntanned skins in Greek art are tinted red rather than black. In addition, Saatsoglou-
Paliadeli does not explain why this particular hunter would be singled out for his tan.
106 Arr. an. 7, 6, 4 f. Palagia 2000, 197.
107 Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 75–77.
108 Plut. Alex. 40, 1; Athen. 12, 539 d; Ail. var. 9, 3. Briant 1993, 269 f.; Carney 2002, 62.
Fig. 10. Vergina, hunting frieze, detail of bear hunt
The net here is best taken as evidence of hunting technique rather than a sign of the hunter’s
status. The bear hunt and the presence of an Oriental hunter seem to reflect the hunting practices
of the Persian Empire and its satrapal art, and to point to an Asian locale for this episode109.
The non-mythological character of the hunting frieze raises the question whether we are
dealing with a historic occasion involving historical personages that can in fact be identified.
Scholarly opinion has been divided as to whether the scene represents a continuous landscape,
indeed an oriental-style παράδεισο , or a compendium of disjointed hunting episodes. We
have argued here that the hunt is broken up into separate episodes which take place in dif-
ferent seasons and in a variety of geographical locations, placing the deer and boar hunt
scenes in Macedonia and the bear hunt in Asia. The location of the lion hunt is not readily
determined but we agree with the majority of scholarly opinion that it is a royal hunt.
The highly idealized features of the hunters render identification hazardous. We will confine
ourselves to speculation on possible identities that have a bearing on the date of Tomb II110.
The painting does not include proper portraits: the figures are differentiated mainly by their
gear and clothing (not to mention skin color) though the bearded horseman about to spear
the lion stands alone in a crowd of beardless faces. Andronikos identified him with the royal
owner of Tomb II despite his off-center position111. Having dated Tomb II to the second half
of the fourth century, he argued that its splendor was appropriate for Philip II because the
other possible candidate, Philip III Arrhidaios, was an obscure, ill-starred figure, who would
not have merited such a regal burial112.
109 So Palagia 2000, 196 f. (Babylon); Harrison 2001, 289 (Thrace); Miller 2003, 30 (Anatolia). – Étienne 2000
attributes the depiction of the bear hunt to Thracian, not Persian influence.
110 For recent attempts to identify the hunters see Palagia 2000, 196–199; Harrison 2001, 288–290; Saatsoglou-
Paliadeli 2004, 144–150.
111 Andronicos 1984, 115 f. The premise that the bearded hunter is royal has been generally accepted except by
Harrison (2001, 289), who identifies him with Antigonos Monophthalmos instead.
112 Andronicos 1984, 228. Cf. supra p. ??????.
The king’s proximity to the lion indeed accords well with oriental custom (which also applied
to Alexander’s court) demanding that no hunter was allowed to anticipate the king’s strike at the
quarry113. His elevated position above everybody else can be compared to the appearance of
Dareios III in his chariot on the Alexander mosaic, showing the battle of Gaugamela114.
Andronikos interpreted the beard as an indication of mature age and proceeded to categorize
the other hunters as teenagers, relegating most of them to the status of royal pages115. He identi-
fied the youthful horseman at the center of the picture with Alexander III, and this suggestion
has since become widely, though not universally, accepted116. Following Andronikos’ inter-
pretation of the beard as a sign of maturity, Paliadeli has nevertheless modified the picture,
seeing the men in kausias not as boys but as young adults in Philip II’s court, of the same
age as his son shown at the center117. Both Paliadeli and Andronikos, however, were unable
to offer an explanation why Alexander would have taken pride of place in a painting intended
to glorify his father.
Whereas bearded men in Classical Athens (and as portrayed in Athenian art) are indeed to
be understood as adults, beards or lack thereof cannot serve as indication of age in the Mace-
donian courts of Philip II, Alexander III and the Successors. Smooth chins were introduced,
perhaps as a sign of sexual orientation, already in Philip II’s reign (Athen. 6, 260 d–261 a)
but became the standard fashion under Alexander III (Athen. 13, 565 a–b) and the Successors118.
The preponderance of smooth chins in the hunting frieze rather sets the lion hunt scene in
Alexander’s court119. The bearded horseman need not be older than the other hunters, or
indeed age has nothing to do with his beard. That the occasional Macedonian male could and
did sport a beard contrary to current fashion is indicated by the single bearded banqueter in
the banquet frieze on the façade of the recently discovered Tomb of Ag. Athanasios from the
early third century (fig. 11) and by the pair of bearded men in the ›Tomb of the Philosophers‹
in Pella dating from roughly the same period120. In the same light, we should not attach any
particular significance onto the beard of the horseman about to despatch the lion other than
as a result of its owner’s personal choice. He can therefore not function as the key figure in the
interpretation of the hunting frieze. This role must be taken by Alexander, who is strategically
placed at the center. We have already demonstrated the lack of evidence of lion hunts in Ma-
cedonia in the fourth century and earlier, and in any case his quasi-oriental dress, not attested
before the Asian campaign, indicates that the lion hunt is located in Asia. His strikingly
youthful appearance is not realistic but probably due to posthumous heroization.
We assume that the lion hunt episode commemorates a historic occasion involving the
tomb’s occupant. Three of Alexander III’s lion hunts are recorded, and all three took place in
the game parks (παράδεισοι) of the Persian Empire121. There is no record that he ever hunted
113 Literary sources are collected and discussed by Palagia 2000, 183.
114 Naples, Museo Nazionale inv. 10020: Cohen 1997, fig. 51. – Battle of Gaugamela: Palagia 2000, 188.
116 Andronicos 1984, 115 f. – The extreme youth of this figure has prompted others to recognise Alexander’s adolescent
son, Alexander IV: Tripodi 1998, 101–108; Harrison 2001, 289. Both argue that Tomb II postdates the death of
Alexander the Great and that the central figure is not the tomb’s occupant.
117 Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 55. 144–156. That the men in kausiai and chlamydes were adults was already advo-
cated by Palagia 2000, 195.
118 Flower 1994, 108 f.; Palagia 2005, 291–293.
119 Palagia 2000, 195 f.
120 Tomb of Ag. Athanasios: Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005 pl. 34 b. – ›Tomb of the Philosophers‹: Lilimpaki-Akamati
2007, pls. 38. 40. 45. 46.
121 In Syria and Sogdiana: Palagia 2000, 183 f. See also supra n. 80.
Fig. 11. Ag. Athanasios Tomb façade, detail of banquet frieze
lions outside game parks, and the odds are that a παράδεισο is represented here though
certainty is of course impossible. Since Alexander is not the one killing the lion, his presence
must be a means of enhancing the prestige, indeed the legitimacy of the bearded Successor
who strikes down the beast. We have briefly discussed the iconography of the Successors’ lion
hunt monuments. Chief among them, Krateros’ colossal bronze group at Delphi seems to have
made the greatest impact on posterity122. Even though Krateros died before he had a chance
to rule the Empire, he was to all intents and purposes a Successor, who moreover strove to
imitate Alexander’s regal appearance123. After his death, his remains were carried around by
Eumenes for about five years until they were conveyed to his widow Phila (married at the
time to Demetrios Poliorketes), who gave them proper burial in Macedonia in 315 B. C.124.
Tomb II, however, cannot be attributed to Krateros not only because his lion hunt with
Alexander was conducted on foot as we have seen, but also because he was buried alone, not
with a female companion.
By a process of elimination, we arrive at the Successor who was definitely buried at Aigai
with a female companion, Philip III Arrhidaios. He may well have sported a beard as is also
indirectly attested by the bearded figure wearing a royal diadem in one of the pediments of
the Alexander Sarcophagus thought to represent the murder of Perdikkas125. The choice of
the royal lion hunt iconography to commemorate Arrhidaios’ intimacy with Alexander would
122 Supra n. 82.

123 Arr. succ. F 19; Demetr. Eloc. 289. Bosworth 2002, 276; Heckel 2006, 98 f.
124 Diod. 19, 59, 3. Heckel 2006, 99. – For the suggestion that the occupant of Tomb II was not buried immediately
upon death see below pp. ??????.
125 Stewart 1993, 301 f.; Palagia 2000, 196.
accord well with contemporary practice126. Paliadeli believes that Alexander’s half-brother
was mentally weak and therefore could not ride127. That he could ride well, however, is attested
by Curtius’ (10, 9, 16) description of the events in Babylon after Alexander’s death. We thus
assume that Alexander is included in the hunt as a heroic presence to boost the prestige of
the tomb’s occupant who is accorded the supreme honor of striking down the lion.
4 THE CLAY POTTERY AND THE INSCRIBED SILVER STRAINER

FROM THE MAIN CHAMBER
Archaeological finds are often dated thanks to the evidence provided by clay pottery found
in closed contexts. This has not been the case with Vergina Tomb II, where the pottery finds
have been disappointingly difficult to date with any degree of precision. The excavation of
the chamber of Tomb II yielded seven clay pots and a lamp (fig. 12), while the fragments of
two more pots were found in the antechamber128. The clay pottery from the interior of the
tomb is now fully published by Stella Drougou, but the chronological problem has yet to be
resolved129. Most of the pottery is Attic black-glaze with the exception of three imitation
Cypriot amphoras, an intact one coming from the chamber and fragments of another two
from the antechamber. Not a single fragment of Attic red-figure pottery turned up in this
deposit. The production of red-figure vases in Athens ceased around 330–320 B. C.130 which,
though an argumentum e silentio, strongly suggests a post-330 B. C. date for Tomb II. Contrary
to Attic red-figure which is used as a firm basis for chronology, Attic black-glaze is notoriously
difficult to date with any precision because it normally covers a span of at least a quarter
century if not more. Its chronology is based on dated Athenian Agora deposits and tends to
vary as new excavations come up with fresh evidence, it is therefore periodically in need of
revision. But let us consider the pots individually.
The Attic black-glaze clay lamp is classified by Drougou as ›Howland type 23D‹, ›Scheibler
DSL2 and 3‹131. The date proposed for this type by Howland is the third quarter of the fourth
century down to the last years of the century; Scheibler’s dates range from 380 to 220 B. C.
Howland’s typology was revised by Susan Rotroff, who now dates type ›23D‹ to 345–275
B. C.132. The wide range of dates possible for this type of lamp renders it of little value in
establishing the date of the tomb. The same may be said of the three imitation Cypriot ampho-
ras from the chamber and antechamber133. Drougou tentatively classes them as local ware,
but the vast quantities excavated in Corinth suggest that the fabric may be Corinthian134.
126 Arrhidaios was first identified as the bearded hunter by Tripodi 1998, 106 f.; this identification was argued at
length by Palagia (2000, 195 f.), who tentatively located the hunting episode in a παράδεισο in Babylon. She
was followed by Barringer 2001, 201; Burn 2004, 41 f.
127 Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2004, 156.
128 Susan Rotroff and Ian McPhee kindly offered advice on pottery chronology.
129 Drougou 2005, 28–47 (reviewed by Rotroff 2007b). Only a selection of the plain pottery from the pyre of Tomb
II is included in the same volume. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli (2007, 52) believes that the Tomb can be precisely dated
to 336 B. C. by the pottery.
130 Boardman 2001, 105 f. This date depends on the dearth of Attic red-figure in Alexandria (founded in 331 B. C.).
131 Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs: Drougou 2005, 38 f. no. 1 figs. 17. 20; Howland 1958, 61 f.; Scheibler
1976, 37–40.
132 Rotroff 1997, 494.
133 Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs: Drougou 2005, 43–45 nos. 8, 1. 2; 165–167 figs. 27 α–γ.
134 Pemberton 1984, 285 n. 46; Steiner 1992, 391 n. 37; Rotroff 2006, 142–145. – Ian McPhee kindly drew atten-
tion to the possible Corinthian origin of the amphoras; he and Susan Rotroff provided the references.
Fig. 12. Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs: Pottery from the chamber of Tomb II
The closest parallels to the Attic black-glaze oinochoe135 (›Agora shape 3‹) are Agora P
6384, dated by Sparkes and Talcott to not before 350 B. C.136, and P 7772, dated by Rotroff
to 300–275 B. C. It is noteworthy that P 7772 was originally dated ca. 325 B. C. by Sparkes
and Talcott about thirty years before Rotroff’s catalogue was published137. Even if this shape
was produced as early as the mid of the fourth century, it was still current by the first quar-
ter of the third. Moreover, the great discrepancy between the dates suggested in Agora 12
and Agora 29 demonstrates the uncertainty over the chronology of Attic black-glaze pottery.
The shallow askos from the tomb chamber belongs to a Classical shape produced from the
second quarter of the fifth century to the third quarter of the fourth and perhaps beyond138.
It was certainly found in later deposits. The parallel from Mekyberna, port of Olynthos, cited
by Drougou, is a useful example found in a late context since, on the evidence of coins, we
know that Mekyberna was inhabited until the reign of Kassandros139.
The four spool salt cellars from the tomb chamber are of unusual shape140. The earliest
documented example comes from the Sciatbi cemetery of Alexandria which must date from
after the foundation of the city in 331 B. C.141. Another example was excavated in a site in
135 Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs: Drougou 2005, 39 f. no. 2; 160 figs. 21. 22. Also illustrated in Androni-
cos 1984, fig. 122.
136 Sparkes – Talcott 1970, 245 no. 127.
137 Rotroff 1997, 293 no. 468; Sparkes – Talcott 1970, 245 no. 129.
138 Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs: Drougou 2005, 40–42 no. 3 figs. 23, 167. Also illustrated in Andronicos
1984, fig. 121; Drougou et al. 1996, 115. – Drougou argues that production of this shape ceases after the third quar-
ter of the fourth century: Drougou 2005, 152 f. – On the chronology of the shape: Sparkes – Talcott 1970, 159.
139 Drougou 2005, 41; Robinson 1950 no. 460 A pl. 172. – Coins of Mekyberna: Robinson – Clement 1938, 372–
374; Mylonas 1943, 86.
140 Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs inv. 207–210: Drougou 2005, 42 f. figs. 24–26. – Four identical saltcellars
were also found in the pyre of Tomb II (Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs inv. 142): Drougou 2005, 54–57
figs. 39–42.
141 Breccia 1912, pl. 56 no. 116; Rotroff 1984, 351. – On the date of Sciatbi, see Venit 2002, 23. 230 n. 233.
Thrace tentatively identified by its excavator as Stryme142. Stryme was destroyed ca. 350
B. C.143, but this site contained not only two plain-rimmed kantharoi that can be dated near
the end of the fourth century144 but also two stamped amphora handles from Thasos datable
around 315 B. C.145. Habitation therefore continued until the end of the fourth century146.
Finally, and perhaps most telling, three similar spool salt cellars were found in the Athenian
Agora, datable to the period 325 to 295 B. C. The dating is based on their discovery in closed
contexts including datable fill and an Athenian coin struck between 307 and 300 B. C.147. If
Rotroff’s chronology of this type of vessel is correct – that the salt cellars are not earlier than
(roughly) the last quarter of the fourth century – the tomb cannot be that of Philip II, which
was closed in 336 B. C.
The excavators of late fourth-century cist tombs at Derveni, a site north of Thessaloniki,
have published pottery from those tombs, which are independently dated to the last quarter
of the fourth century. A number of clay vessels from Derveni are related to though not quite
the same as those found in Tomb II at Vergina. Based on both the ceramic and numismatic
evidence the authors postulate a terminus post quem for the Derveni burials of 323 B. C.148.
We thus have several sources of external evidence for the chronology of materials found in
Tomb II at Vergina. In sum, Drougou’s tentative dating of these clay vessels to the third quar-
ter of the fourth century in order to maintain the attribution of Tomb II to Philip II can be
challenged on the basis of the evidence cited above. While it is difficult to establish a precise
chronology for these vessels, the evidence clearly points to a period after ca. 325 B. C.
Of great interest is the silver wine strainer, a type of perforated implement otherwise
known in Macedonia, but especially significant here because it was inscribed (fig. 13)149.
The dotted inscription on the rim provides a name (ΜΑΧΑΤΑ) and the object’s weight (41
drachmas). Machata is the genitive form of the Macedonian Machatas, perhaps the name of
the craftsman rather than the owner150. The weight of the object makes it important for
dating the tomb. It weighs 171.45 grams, and its inscribed ancient weight of 41 drachmas
was likely calculated on the basis of the Athenian drachma of 4.18–4.35 grams, the result of
the metrological reform of Alexander the Great151. Moreover, two silver kylikes from Tomb
II and the silver funerary hydria from Tomb III, all with inscribed ancient weights, seem to
have been calculated on the basis of the same Attic drachma152. Thus the preponderance of
142 Bakalakis 1967, 105 no. 45 pl. 61, 3; Drougou 2005, 42.
143 Bakalakis 1967, 145. – The identification of the site is not confirmed by inscriptions and remains at best uncer-
tain: Terzopoulou 2000, 143.
144 Kantharoi: Bakalakis 1967, 105 no. 44 pl. 60, 1. – Date: Rotroff 1984, 351 n. 55.
145 Garlan 1999, 54.
146 Terzopoulou 2000, 144.
147 Rotroff 1982, 283; Rotroff 1984, 343–354; Rotroff (1997, 166 with n. 71) cites further examples. – On the Athenian
coin from this fill see Kroll 1983; Rotroff 1984, 345; Kroll l993, 33 with n. 44; Rotroff 2007b, 810. – A useful
discussion of the methodological principles involved in dating these objects can be found in Biers 1992, 79–82.
148 Themelis – Touratsoglou 1997, passim with summary at 220–222.
149 The object is described in The Search for Alexander 1980, 167 no. 130, with the fullest discussion of the strainer
and other silver vessels from Vergina in: Themelis – Touratsoglou 1997, 215–217.
150 Themelis – Touratsoglou 1997, 216.
151 Alexander’s metrological reform: Price 1991, 27 f. 38 f. On the matter of the details of that reform useful advice
was provided by Kenneth Harl and Frank L. Holt, both of whom possess expert knowledge of this subject and
support the conclusion of Touratsoglou, himself the former director of the Numismatic Museum in Athens.
152 Themelis – Touratsoglou 1997, 216 f. – Two additional vessels from Tomb II, both silver kalykes, were also marked
with their ancient weights, but in accord with the system of the so-called Persian drachma. In Macedonia the Persian
system was concurrent with the Attic system for a period of time following the metrological reform of Alexander in
336 B. C. – Illustrations of all the inscribed silver vessels from Tomb II can be found in Andronikos 1978, fig. 31.
Fig. 13. Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs: Inscribed silver strainer from Tomb II
evidence from the ceramic and metal goods points to a closing date for Tomb II during the
last quarter of the fourth century B. C.
5 HUMAN REMAINS
The human remains have presented an array of complex issues. Recognizing the potential
value of a scientific analysis of these cremation interments, Andronikos turned the bones
over to two forensic experts, Langenscheidt and Xirotiris153. The forensic team suggested
that the burial in the antechamber of Tomb II was that of a young female, age 18–20, a con-
clusion that has thus far met with general acceptance. Inside this stone sarcophagus was a
larnax containing cremated bones wrapped in an elaborate cloth. Although these human
remains cannot by themselves determine gender, the grave goods found in association with
the burial, including jewelry and garments, clearly identify the deceased as female154. Both
the bones and the associated grave goods could be ascribed either to Kleopatra, the wife of
Philip II, or to Adea Eurydike, the wife of Arrhidaios, both of whom met their end at approx-
imately the same age – late teens or earlier twenties155. Thus any attempt to identify the
deceased in the antechamber rests upon both the dating of the tomb and on an identification
of the male burial in the main chamber.
And it is the burial in the main chamber that has aroused the greatest interest. Philip II is
known to have suffered a number of injuries, the evidence for which might be revealed in
153 Xirotiris – Langenscheidt 1981, 142–160.

154 The antechamber burial contained a woman’s gold brooch and diadem (found inside the gold larnax):
Andronicos 1984, figs. 145. 158. 159. – Gold and purple cloth: Andronicos 1984, figs. 156. 157. – That the war-
rior’s equipment which can be associated with the occupant of the antechamber indicates a warrior queen (by
implication Adea Eurydike) was suggested by Palagia 2000, 191.
155 On the royal careers of Kleopatra and Adea Eurydike see Carney 2000, 72–75. 132–137. 234–244.
the examination of the bones, most especially the skull fragments, for Philip had his eye
destroyed by an arrow shot during the siege of Methone in 354 B. C.156. Forensic examinations
of skeletal features look for evidence of healing in the bone structures that are in proximity
to traumatic wounds. Andronikos’ forensic team, Langenscheidt and Xirotiris, found no evi-
dence of damage or healing consistent with the severe eye wound suffered by Philip II.
Andronikos then turned the skull over to a British team, Prag, Neave, and Musgrave, who
produced an entirely different conclusion, arguing that their examination showed evidence
of trauma and healing consistent with the eye wound suffered by Philip157. And that is where
the matter stood for nearly twenty years: two forensic examinations, one of which showed
evidence of the injury experienced by Philip II, the other not.
A recent new study of the bones, however, has reopened the issue158. Using some advanced
techniques in macrophotography, Antonis Bartsiokas determined that the skull fragments show
no evidence of a wound such as that suffered by Philip II, thereby agreeing with the origi-
nal forensic conclusion by Xirotiris and Langenscheidt. But what is even more important,
Bartsiokas set about to determine whether the bones had been cremated shortly after death
(with flesh still around them [›wet‹]) or at some later period, after the flesh had been decom-
posed by time and/or burial, and were thus degreased (›dry‹). The evidence is found in the
color, degree of warping, and forms of minute fractures that are especially prominent on the
long bones. Bartsiokas described bones that are ›dry‹, suggesting a cremation at some time
far removed from death. We may recall that Philip’s interment occurred shortly after his death,
and it is uncertain whether he was cremated. The remains in Tomb II had been cremated but it
is unlikely that Arrhidaios was thus incinerated soon after his murder by Olympias in 317 B. C.
Some time in 316 B. C. Kassandros, who was for the moment intent on honoring the fallen
Argead royalty in order to boost his own credentials as their successor, reinterred Arrhidaios
and Adea Eurydike at Aigai, as our literary sources make clear, and we should have expected
that the burial would have required full royal honors, including the ritual cremation. That is,
the condition of the bones from the male burial in Tomb II accords more closely with the
events surrounding the death and burial of Arrhidaios than they do that of Philip II.
6 διάδηµα, σkη̃πτρον, πλα

A number of other items recovered from Tomb II have both drawn the attention of schol-
ars and may prove to have some bearing on the date of the tomb itself159. The period imme-
diately following the death of Alexander the Great at Babylon in early June 323 B. C. was
marked by uncertainty and some confusion. As the king lay dying, his comrades surrounded
156 Unfortunately, only skull fragments have been closely examined for evidence of Philip’s wounds; see Riginos
1994 for a full discussion of Philip’s eye wound. Among Philip’s other wounds were a collarbone injury in 345
or 344 B. C., a leg wound suffered in 339 B. C., and, of course, the thrust of a Celtic dagger that killed him in
336 B. C. Riginos (1994, 106–118) provides an important detailed analysis of the ancient testimonia on Philip’s
injuries, including an analysis of how Demosthenes’ (cor. 67 f.) image of a battered, mutilated, and scarred Philip
came to influence a number of later literary traditions about the king’s injuries.
157 Prag et al. 1984; Prag 1990. For doubts about this team’s methods see Borza 1985.
158 Bartsiokas 2000.
159 Much of the following discussion was first published in Borza 1987 and Borza 1992, who welcomes this oppor-
tunity to revise and enhance those views in light of new evidence and, one hopes, a more sophisticated inter-
pretation. But, not wishing to encumber unnecessarily an article already replete with detailed text and notes, we
provide a summary of what was written earlier, and the interested reader is urged to consult that earlier work.
him and eventually the question was posed: to whom would he leave his empire? In a gesture
of what may be considered consummate irresponsibility, the conqueror was reported to have
answered »to the strongest«, or possibly, »to the best«160, thereby leaving the succession open
to the schemes of a notoriously competitive group of individual commanders. In a situation
in which open conflict was a real possibility, some cooler heads prevailed, and the crown was
given to Alexander’s half brother Philip Arrhidaios, the sole surviving Argead161. At that
moment, however, Alexander’s Bactrian wife, Roxana, was pregnant. Her child would be born
shortly later, and that male child of Alexander, also named Alexander (IV), would join his
uncle Arrhidaios as a joint ruler of the Macedonians.
Eumenes of Cardia had been Alexander the Great’s secretary and had also served
Philip II, but, as an ethnic Greek, he was unable to lay claim to the Macedonian throne162.
Intent on ensuring an orderly succession against the very real danger of military interven-
tion by some of the more ambitious Macedonian commanders, he pledged his services to the
surviving members of the royal family. As part of his scheme, Eumenes claimed that he had
experienced a dream in which Alexander had appeared to preside over a council of his offi-
cers, as had actually been Alexander’s practice in life. Eumenes then proceeded to set up a
tent decorated with a number of items from among Alexander’s royal paraphernalia, among
which items were the king’s diadem (διάδηµα), his scepter (σkη̃πτρον), and arms (πλα),
as reported by Diodoros (Siculus). With these materials at hand, along with Alexander’s robe
adorning Arrhidaios, Eumenes joined the other court notables in earnest discussion of mat-
ters of state, as if Alexander himself were present163. We thus have a well-attested literary
tradition from antiquity describing the survival of a number of Alexander’s personal posses-
sions, some of which are symbols of royal authority. These did not accompany the king’s
funeral cortege, hijacked by Ptolemy to Egypt, but remained in the possession of the Argead
loyalist, Eumenes. Except for the throne and the king’s robe, examples of all of the items
mentioned by Diodoros and others were found in Tomb II at Vergina. Discussion of some of
these items follows.
One of the most beautiful items recovered from the main chamber of Tomb II was a hollow
gilded silver hoop meant to be worn on the head (fig. 14)164. The ends of the hoop are enclosed
within a movable ring shaped like a Herakles knot, thereby enabling the object to be adjusted to
conform to the bare head of the wearer or to be worn over head gear. This object is unquestion-
ably a diadem, a matter regarded »as certain« by Andronikos. The diadem is incised to repre-
sent a woven cloth fillet, yet one more example of the Macedonians fashioning from pre-
160 In Diod. (17, 117, 5) and Arr. (an. 7, 26, 3) τ kρατίστ, although τ αρίστ in Diod. 18, 1, 4. Curt. (10, 5, 5)
has Alexander saying ei qui esset optimus, while Just. (12, 15, 8) reports that Alexander respondit dignissimum.
It is noteworthy that our most detailed description of Alexander’s final days (Plut. Alex. 75–77), an account that
may go back to a contemporary or eyewitness source, fails to mention Alexander’s last words, raising the possibil-
ity that all of the other evidence (»to the best« or »to the strongest«) are rhetorical flourishes of the post-Alexander
literary tradition.
161 The situation is described in several ancient sources. For a detailed discussion of these events, see Borza 1987,
110 f., with sources cited.
162 For a discussion of Eumenes as a case of what appears to be discrimination by Macedonians against a Greek on
the basis of ethnicity, see Borza 1996, 133–135.
163 The existence of these items is mentioned in several ancient sources, among which is the most detailed version
in Diod. 18, 60–63, based on Hieronymos of Kardia, Eumenes’ friend, who may have been an eyewitness. Other
sources are Curt. 10, 6, 4; 10, 7, 13; Diod. 19, 15, 3 f.; Plut. Eum. 13, 3 f.; Nep. Eum. 7, 2 f., and Polyain. 4, 8, 2.
164 Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs. The object is well illustrated, inter alia, in Andronikos 1978, figs. 138.
139 with discussion on 171–175.
Fig. 14. Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs: Gilded silver diadem from Tomb II
cious metal objects originally produced from a different material165. In his discussion of the
diadem Andronikos cited several instances of Macedonian kings from Alexander the Great
down into the Hellenistic period who are portrayed wearing a diadem as a symbol of royal
authority. But Andronikos failed to mention that images of Macedonian kings wearing cloth
fillets as a sign of royal authority go back at least as far as the reign of Alexander I (ca.
498/97–ca. 454 B. C.)166.
Among early reports that a scepter had been found in Tomb II were several by the exca-
vator himself in which he described the object as about two meters in length, consisting of
what may have been a wooden rod wrapped in gold167. Without parallels it is difficult to
know what a Macedonian scepter would have looked like, even though we know from Dio-
doros’ account (18, 60–63) that a scepter had been associated at least with Alexander the
Great. Andronikos’ original identification of this object as a scepter was plausible enough to
warrant further discussion. He mentioned the scepter in several lectures on his discoveries
until he presented a description of his finds before an academic audience in Athens. E. Borza
heard independently from two sources who were present at an Athenian lecture that some of
Andronikos’ fellow scholars questioned the identification as scepter: what was the scepter
of Philip II doing in Philip’s tomb? They argued that the scepter, as a symbol of royal author-
ity, was presumably passed down from one monarch to another in succession. The conclu-
165 E. g., the many silver vessels from Tombs II and III – which mirror ceramic models –, and the gold larnax that
contained the cremated remains of the male burial in the main chamber of Tomb II (see Andronikos 1978,
figs. 135. 136). The gold larnax has the architecture of a wooden box, not unlike the dowry chests well known
from Athenian vase painting.
166 A magnificent silver octadrachm of Alexander I depicts the king as a mounted hunter, his cloth fillet clearly
visible: Hatzopoulos – Loukopoulos 1980, 29. For bibliography and discussion of this octadrachm, see Borza
1990, 130 with n. 73.
167 Andronikos 1977, 59: »the only possible explanation is ... that it is a scepter«; Andronikos 1978, 72; 38: »it seems
almost unavoidable to interpret it as a scepter«.
sion is inescapable: either the object is not a scepter or the tomb is not that of king Philip II,
that is, the scepter would likely have been passed on to Alexander and from Alexander to his
successor. Suddenly the scepter disappeared from the continuing literature about the tomb.
Without revealing what had been learned from the Athenian witnesses, Borza (who was
based in Athens at the time) wrote to Andronikos on 22 October, 1985: »… in the early accounts
of the items found in Tomb 2 at Vergina, there was mention of a sceptre. … Beginning with
your London archaeological congress report (1979) and in the next four accounts of your
work on Tomb 2, published in 1980–1984, the sceptre has not been mentioned. I should like to
inquire about it for two obvious reasons: 1. Despite its badly deteriorated condition among the
remains of the kline, you seemed quite certain in identifying it as a sceptre. 2. The historical
significance of such an object for identifying the tomb as royal is self-evident. Can you inform
me about the present state of your work and your thoughts concerning this object?«
Andronikos’ reply was not long in coming, as it was his wont to answer correspondence
promptly and to engage in a dialogue with colleagues. He wrote (26 October): »In my first
reports I mentioned that ›there may have been an object which has disintegrated on top of
the kline etc. etc.‹ and that ›the only possible explanation is, I believe that it is a sceptre‹.
And at the end of my report in AAA I added: ›The ›sceptre‹ (under brackets) adds very much etc.
etc. … It is true that we must reserve judgement [sic] about this until it has been repaired‹.
After careful examination of the material of the kline we realized that it was not a scepter«.
Thus the scepter disappeared, either because the excavator came to believe that it was not
a scepter, or because an admission that it was a scepter would have weakened his assertion
that Tomb II was the burial place of Philip II. But the issue has not disappeared, for there are
two crucial pieces of evidence bearing on the Macedonian royal scepter. The first is the afore-
mentioned reference in Diodoros that a σkη̃πτρον was among the items that Eumenes
used to furnish »Alexander’s tent« as the venue for meetings of the Macedonian court in the
aftermath of Alexander’s death. The second is a connection with an important medallion
issued by Alexander to commemorate his defeat in battle of the Indian rajah Porus168. The
reverse of this decadrachm shows a full-length portrait of the victor, the only known portrait of
the king issued during his lifetime (fig. 15). Alexander is dressed as a cavalry warrior, and in
his left hand he holds a pole-like object butt-down, the top end of which is contained within
the frame of the coin169. At first glance it would appear to be a spear, but the actual length
of a Macedonian cavalry sarissa (15–18 feet) would have been 2–3 times the height of the
standing figure. The object being held upright by Alexander cannot be a spear. Indeed, it is
much closer to the length of the object initially described by Andronikos as a scepter: it is
somewhat taller than the king himself. Moreover, in such a commemorative medallion the
use of a scepter as the symbol of the king’s authority is more appropriate than an illustration
of a spear, which, in any case would have been too long to fit into the medallion’s design
field170. Thus we have solid evidence that Alexander held an object similar to the rod disco-
vered by Andronikos, a scepter that was in the possession of Alexander’s successor, Arrhidaios
and (presumably) Alexander IV, joint rulers of Macedon. It is a small step to suggest that when
168 Holt 2003 provided illuminating discussions of the Porus victory medallions and a comprehensive treatment of
these matters, essential reading for anyone who wishes to study this subject.
169 There are numerous illustrations of these medallions, e. g., Davis – Kraay 1973, 29 nos. 10–12; Holt 2003, fig. 5
pls. 3–5.
170 Holt (2003, 121 f.) has accepted the view that the rod-like object held by Alexander is a scepter (»… it would
be safe on present evidence to declare this object a scepter without much fear of direct contradiction …«) even
while admitting that there can be no absolute certainty.
Fig. 15. London, British Museum: Silver decadrachm (›Porus‹ medallion), reverse
Kassandros interred Arrhidaios in 316 B. C. he not only buried the king but also a number
of personal items associated with the Argeadai, including the royal scepter. It was a sign that
the Old Order was finished, and that a new regime headed by Kassandros now ruled the
Macedonians. With the death of Alexander the Great’s son within a few years the Argead
family that had ruled the Macedonians for centuries had been liquidated, and Kassandros
stood alone.
Among the most interesting items found in Tomb II was a panoply, consisting of a helmet
(fig. 16), cuirass (fig. 17), and sword. It might stretch credulity to suggest that these very arms
are Diodoros’ πλα, as arms are often a feature of male burials. But what is of special interest
is the helmet, which is iron. It is of the ›Phrygian‹ type, known to have been worn by some
Macedonians in the late fourth and early third centuries B. C.171. But there is something special
about this helmet. First, it is of iron, and we may recall that Plutarch (Alex. 32, 5) describes
Alexander’s helmet as iron burnished to look like gleaming silver172. The helmet was pro-
duced by the craftsman Theophilos, otherwise unknown to us, but apparently famous enough
in his own age to warrant a personal reference. Andronikos remarked on the excellence of its
construction in which the craftsmen joined together many small pieces of iron hammered
into curved shapes173. The photo of the helmet in situ reveals that the top left rear side was
171 E. g. the portrait of a Macedonian-at-arms which once decorated the façade of ›Kinch’s Tomb‹ at Lefkadia, and
published by Kinch (1920). Although the painting is now lost, Kinch’s illustration has been widely reproduced;
see Rhomiopoulou 1997, fig. 34, and Miller 1993, pl. 8 a. – See also the façade of the Tomb of Ag. Athanasios:
Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, pl. 35 b. – Another type – in bronze – may have been derived from a leather or cloth
cap; see Romiopoulou et al. 1980, cat. 103 pl. 16.
172 Iron helmets have been found in some later Macedonian tombs, e. g., Tomb of Ag. Athanasios: Tsimbidou-
Avloniti 2005, 106. – Plutarch goes on to describe an iron gorget, or pectoral, studded with precious stones, to
which the helmet was attached. Such a pectoral was found in Tomb II, but it was too badly corroded to know
what decoration, if any, it ever had. It is now on display in the Museum of the Royal Tombs in Vergina.
Fig. 16. Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs: Iron helmet from Tomb II
Fig. 17. Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs: Iron cuirass from Tomb II
damaged: a large section is missing174. The damaged section has undergone restoration for
display in the Vergina Museum. Plutarch (Alex. 16, 7) informs us that, during the battle of
the Granikos, Alexander was nearly killed by a blow from the battle-axe of the Persian com-
mander Spithridates. The helmet apparently saved the king’s life, but it was damaged exten-
sively175. Borza contacted Andronikos, recalling the tantalizing correspondence between
Plutarch’s story of Spithridates’ attack on Alexander and the damaged iron helmet in the
main chamber of Tomb II. He asked specifically if there was any evidence that the helmet
had been repaired in antiquity, and that the hole in the helmet was the result of the repairs
having disintegrated at a faster rate than the original undamaged fabric. Andronikos replied
that he understood the implications of Borza’s question, and that he would turn the helmet
over to the technicians for further examination. Nothing further was heard from Andronikos
about this matter.
7 THE GOLD AND IVORY SHIELD

The remnants of three shields were recovered from the chamber of Tomb II176. They all
had wooden frames and could have been used in battle. One was particularly elaborate and
precious, made of ivory, gold, gilded silver and glass inlays (fig. 18)177. It has been described
as ceremonial but it was probably carried in battle. Two comparable shields are recorded in
Athens during the Peloponnesian War. One, made of ivory and gold, belonged to Alkibiades,
the other, made of gold and purple, to his political rival, Nikias178. Nikias’ was certainly
functional, as it was captured in Syracuse along with him and dedicated in one of the city
temples as a war spoil. It was not, at any rate, buried in a tomb like the Vergina shield. Only
fabulously wealthy individuals like the two Athenian generals could afford shields made of
precious materials. They were surely made to order, and their devices must have been intensely
personal. It has been argued that the aristocratic families of Classical Athens made use of
family crests that appeared on their shields179. Alkibiades’ personal choice of Eros wielding a
thunderbolt was severely criticized by his contemporaries, presumably because he jettisoned
the family crest180. The premise that shield blazons had a particular significance for their
owners is also manifest in the shield descriptions of the Seven given in Aischylos, Seven
Against Thebes (lines 385–390. 478 f. 510–513. 558–560. 659–661).
Enough remains of the Vergina shield device to reconstruct a battle scene between a Greek
and a defeated Amazon fallen at his feet (fig. 18). The interior of the shield was further deco-
rated with Nikai, lions, and a Herakles club. The Amazonomachy conforms to an iconogra-
phical schema familiar in Greek sculpture from west metope 14 of the Parthenon and the
podium frieze of the Mausoleion at Halikarnassos181. A Greek warrior with a prostrate Amazon,
174 Andronicos 1984, figs. 31. 34; Hatzopoulos – Loukopoulos 1980, fig. 103.
175 Plutarch’s detailed description of the damage to the iron helmet speaks of damage more extensive than the hole
apparent in the in situ photos, but, as there is no published scientific analysis of the helmet, it is impossible to carry
the argument further.
176 Andronicos 1984, 136–140 figs. 91–94; Drougou et al. 1996, 109–111; Lilimpaki-Akamati – Kottaridi 2003, 45
(illustration of second shield).
177 The gold and ivory shield was recently reconstructed for a second time, illustrated in Lilimpaki-Akamati –
Kottaridi 2003, 20 f.
178 Plut. Alk. 16, 2; Plut. Nik. 28, 5; Athen. 534 e.
179 Tiverios 2007, 8–10.
180 Tiverios 2007, 9 with n. 49.
181 Parthenon: Berger 1986, pls. 138 f. – Mausoleion: Cook 2005, pls. 6, 4. 14. 15.
Fig. 18. Vergina, Museum of the Royal Tombs: Device of gold and ivory shield from Tomb II
taken in isolation, often represents the fatal encounter of Achilles with Penthesilea, the Amazon
queen182. Achilles falls in love with her at the moment he plunges his sword into her chest.
The Amazonomachy on the shield of the gold and ivory cult statue of Athena Parthenos by
Pheidias183 may have provided the ultimate model for the Vergina shield. It is likely that
Pheidias had in mind the shield of Achilles described by Homer (Il. 18, 478–608): in addi-
tion to the heavenly bodies and Okeanos surrounding the earth, it comprised the image of a
city siege, and this was indeed represented on the Parthenos shield.
Whereas Amazonomachies in Greek art of the fifth and early fourth centuries B. C. were
inspired by the Persian Wars, by the second quarter of the fourth century their significance
is diluted to the point of being represented on satrapal tombs in Asia Minor (notably the
Mausoleion), thus merely serving as a mythological parallel for the encounter between East
and West184. But at the end of the fourth century, after Alexander’s conquest of Asia, the con-
182 Devambez – Kauffmann-Samaras 1981, 597–599.

183 Harrison 1981.
184 Amazonomachies inspired by Persian Wars: Boardman 1982. – Amazons in funerary art of the fourth century:
Devambez – Kauffmann-Samaras 1981, 646 f.
flict between Greeks and Amazons resumes its original meaning of implacable confronta-
tion, as on the Amazon Sarcophagus from Cyprus185.
The story of the Greek Achilles and the Trojan Penthesilea is particularly apt for Alexander
the Great: not only was he a descendant of Achilles on his mother’s side, he also carried Trojan
blood in his veins, thus being both Greek and Barbarian at once. This synthesis was succinctly
expressed by Brian Bosworth: »[Alexander] did not follow the example of Herodotos and
interpret the Trojan War as an early instance of the perpetual antagonism between Greek and
Barbarian. He had Trojan blood in him through the Molossian royal line, which traced its
origins to Achilles’ son Neoptolemus and the captive Trojan princess Andromache; and he was
eager to reconcile the two sides of his lineage … For Alexander the Trojans were not barbar-
ians but Hellenes on Asian soil, and both in his person and in his propaganda he united the
Greek communities on either side of the Aegean. The descendants of Achilles and Priam
would now fight together against the common enemy. It was a most evocative variation on the
theme of Panhellenism, and Alexander proceeded to battle with the ghosts of the past enlisted
in his service«186.
Among Alexander’s many gestures at Ilium was the dedication of his armour to the temple
of Athena in exchange for armour allegedly from the Trojan War187. He wore it at the battle
of the Granikos River and, after it was damaged, he had the Ilion shield carried before him
in battle. Peukestas famously followed him into the stronghold of the Malli carrying the
sacred shield with him (Arr. an. 6, 9, 3). There is no record that this shield was supposed to
have belonged to Achilles, but such a story must have eventually developed: on one of the
Aboukir medallions of the first half of the third century A. D. Alexander is shown carrying
Achilles’ shield emblazoned with the zodiac and other cosmic signs reminiscent of Homer’s
description188. Even more intriguing is the shield, forming a mirror image of the Vergina
shield, which is presented by Nike to Alexander, the new Achilles, on two gold medallions
from Aboukir (fig. 19)189. The arming of Alexander as the new Achilles recurs on a number
of brass contorniates minted in Rome in the fourth century A. D. (fig. 20 a)190. Alexander
sits with a variant of the Vergina shield on his lap, his corselet and helmet placed on the
ground. The obverse carries a bust of Olympias as the new Thetis (fig. 20 b).
Some of the Aboukir medallions were intended to celebrate Caracalla as the new Alexander.
In A. D. 215 Caracalla visited Alexander’s mausoleum in Alexandria and deposited his luxu-
rious cloak, belt and jewellery in honor of its illustrious occupant (Herodian. 4, 8, 9). His
obsession with Alexander was such that he was said to make use of the king’s drinking cups
and weapons that had come into his possession (Cass. Dio 78, 7, 1). If he indeed owned
Alexander’s effects, one wonders if he had not removed them from Alexander’s tomb in
exchange for his own. Caligula had provided a precedent by wearing Alexander’s corselet which
he had taken from the sema (Suet. Cal. 52)191. Considering the Macedonian custom of plac-
185 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum inv. 169: Fleischer 1998.
186 Bosworth 1993, 39. – Achilles as Alexander’s mythological ancestor and role model: Ameling 1988; Cohen 1995.
187 Arr. an. 1, 11, 7 f.; 6, 9, 3; Diod. 17, 18, 1. Bosworth 1993, 39; Cohen 1985, 485.
188 Dressel 1906, pl. II c; Brendel 1980, 67–82 fig. 1; The Search for Alexander 1980, cat. 11 col. pl. 5; Hardie
1985, 24–27 pl. II a; Stewart 1993, fig. 130; Boardman 2002, 167 fig. 151. – The exact date and mint of these
medallions are problematic: Weisser – Dahmen (forthcoming) now advocate a Macedonian mint in the reign of
Severus Alexander (A. D. 222–235).
189 Dressel 1906 pls. II e and III 2; Hardie 1985, 27 pl. II b; Salzmann 2001, 182 pl. 26, 3. On the association of the
Vergina shield with the Aboukir medallions and the brass contorniates see Palagia 2000, 192.
190 Alföldi 1976 pl. 22 nos. 7–12; pl. 23 no. 1 cat. 61.
191 On Alexander’s tomb in Alexandria see Adriani 2000.
Fig. 19. Berlin, Münzkabinett 1908/3: Gold medallion from Aboukir, reverse. Alexander the Great and Victory
ing arms and drinking vessels in tombs, and following Diodoros’ testimony (18, 26, 4) that
Alexander’s arms had been placed in his funeral cart, one would expect his sema in Alexandria
to have been equipped in a fashion similar to the richest burials in Macedonia.
Otto Brendel had suggested that the Aboukir medallion with Alexander holding the shield
of Achilles was inspired by an artwork produced in Alexander’s lifetime192. The Achilles and
Penthesilea shield device is not based upon the shield of Achilles, yet it is associated with
Alexander in late Roman medallions and contorniates (figs. 19; 20 a. b). Why? What was
the model for the shield they used for the arming of Alexander, the new Achilles? Was this
shield device associated with Alexander in Hellenistic paintings, now lost? Did Caracalla
remove Alexander’s own shield from Alexandria and did it have an Achilles and Penthesilea
motif which was reproduced in the medallions? We will never know.
The gold and ivory shield (fig. 18) from Tomb II was obviously made to order, and its
device had a special meaning for its owner. That shields could be personal things is also
made clear in Menander (Aspis 324), where the decayed body of a dead soldier is identified
(erroneously, as it turns out) by means of his shield. That the Macedonians also played this
game is evident from the painted or stuccoed shields (and their devices) prominent on the
façades of a number of Macedonian tombs like the tomb of Ag. Athanasios193, the tomb at
Phoinikas194, the tomb at Spelia Eordaias195 and Vergina Tomb III (fig. 5)196. The ›Judgment
Tomb‹ at Lefkadia has shields flanking the interior door of the antechamber197.
The Achilles and Penthesilea motif on the Vergina shield could have had no special signif-
icance for Philip II. He was neither related to Achilles nor had he fought against the Persians.
Alexander, on the other hand, had a special affinity with Achilles, and we have already
discussed the possible significance that the Penthesilea motif could have had for him. In
192 Brendel 1980, 67–82.

193 Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, pls. 36 f.
194 Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2005, pls. 13 a; 14 b.
195 Karamitrou-Mentesidi 1987, 3 fig. 1.
196 Andronicos 1984, fig. 160.
197 Petsas 1966, 56 fig. 15.
Fig. 20 a and b. Berlin, Münzkabinett 1812/306: Brass contorniate, reverse and obverse.
Alexander the Great as Achilles
1987 Borza suggested that the shield belonged to Alexander the Great and was deposited in
his half-brother’s tomb as a family relic198. Philip III Arrhidaios is known to have donned his
brother’s garments upon his accession199. Alternatively, the shield could have been made in
imitation of one of Alexander’s shields. His companions and Successors were known to have
imitated him to the extent of copying his personal effects200. In any case, the shield device
suggests an object that postdates the reign of Philip II.
8 CONCLUSION
The royal necropolis at Vergina is significant for at least two reasons. The first is its poten-
tial intrinsic value: if, for example, we can be reasonably assured that one of the Vergina
tombs is that of Philip II of Macedon, conqueror and organizer of the Greek city-states and
father of Alexander the Great, we will have at hand the resting place and physical remains
of one of the most important persons of antiquity. There is nothing else comparably signifi-
cant surviving from the Classical world. But what is more important from a strictly scienti-
fic point of view is that such an identification yields a rare prize – precise archaeological
dates. If the present authors are correct about Tomb I containing the burials of Philip II and
Kleopatra, Tomb II the burial of Arrhidaios and Adea Eurydike, and Tomb III the burial of
Alexander IV, the dates are 336, 317/16, and 311/10 B. C. (or shortly thereafter) respectively.
It follows that all the materials contained in these closed tombs, especially Tombs II and III
(because of the richness of the grave goods), must be dated to the period of the tombs’ closing
and earlier. Thus, even aside from the fame of the tombs’ occupants, we would have at hand
an enormous aid in the archaeological dating of the last third of the fourth century B. C.
As we have seen, there is a growing body of evidence from several scholarly fields sug-
gesting that Tomb II dates to a generation later than the death of Philip II in 336 B. C. The
198 Borza 1987, 115.
199 Curt. 10, 7, 13. Borza 1987, 110. See also supra p. ??????.
200 Arr. succ. F 12, F 19; Demetr. Eloc. 289; Athen. 12, 539 c–d. Bosworth 2002, 58 n. 108; 276. See also supra p. ?????.
evidence for a later date rests in the architecture of the tomb itself and in the decorative frieze
on its façade. It rests on the firm later dating of its ceramic ware and on the inscriptions of
its silver implements. And it rests on the forensic evidence of the skeletal remains of the
male burial in the main chamber, which reflects the well-documented historical evidence for
the deaths and interments of Macedonian monarchs in the later fourth century B. C.
In sum, the burial in Tomb III is that of Alexander IV: the forensic evidence is clear about
that burial. The evidence for the double burial in Tomb II strongly suggests a date in the last
quarter of the fourth century: the deceased are Philip III Arrhidaios and Adea Eurydike. Thus,
if we accept that this is the royal Macedonian necropolis of the last Argeadai, the process of
elimination – plus the evidence of the human remains found therein – dictates that the small
cist tomb is the resting place of Philip II, his wife Kleopatra, and their infant201.
In the nearly three decades that have elapsed since the commencement of the excavations
of the royal necropolis at Vergina no credible new argument has been offered to support the
identification of Philip II as the occupant of Tomb II at Vergina. The overwhelming prepon-
derance of scholarly attention has, on several grounds, questioned the excavator’s initial
ideas. Those who continue to promulgate Andronikos’ views do so partly, perhaps, as an act
of pietas honoring their famous teacher and colleague. Yet nothing in the interpretations
being offered on these pages diminishes the significance of Manolis Andronikos’ achieve-
ment, both as an excavator and as a tireless advocate in behalf of the material culture he and
his associates recovered. One would like to believe that, were he still alive, he would have
come to a conclusion similar to ours in light of new evidence and new scholarly discussions.
Wo r k s c i t e d :
Adriani 2000 A. Adriani, La Tomba di Alessandro (Rome 2000)
Akamatis 2004 M. and I. Akamatis (eds.), Pella and its Environs (Athens 2004)
Ameling 1988 W. Ameling, Alexander und Achilleus. Eine Bestandsaufnahme, in: W. Will (ed.),
Zu Alexander d. Gr. Festschrift G. Wirth II (Amsterdam 1988) 657–692
Anderson 1985 J. K. Anderson, Hunting in the Ancient World (Berkeley – Los Angeles – London
1985)
Alföldi 1976 A. and E. Alföldi, Die Kontorniat-Medaillons (Berlin 1976)
Andronicos 1984 M. Andronicos, Vergina. The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City (Athens 1984)
Andronikos 1969 M. Andronikos, Βεργίνα Ι. Το νεkροταφείον των τύµβων (Athens 1969)
Andronikos 1978 M. Andronikos, The Royal Graves at Vergina (Athens 1978 = AAA 10, 1977, fasc. 1)
Andronikos 1987 M. Andronikos, Some Reflections on the Macedonian Tombs, BSA 82, 1987, 1–16
Andronikos 1994 M. Andronikos, Vergina II. The ›Tomb of Persephone‹ (Athens 1994)
Bakalakis 1967 G. Bakalakis, Ανασkαφή Στρύµη (Thessaloniki 1967)
Barringer 2001 J. M. Barringer, The Hunt in Ancient Greece (Baltimore – London 2001)
Bartsiokas 2000 A. Bartsiokas, The Eye Injury of King Philip II and the Skeletal Evidence from
Royal Tomb II at Vergina, Science 288, 2000, 511–514, with an editorial sidebar
by Robert Koenig (p. 411)
Berger 1986 E. Berger, Der Parthenon in Basel. Dokumentation zu den Metopen (Mainz
1986)
Bevan 1987 E. Bevan, The Goddess Artemis and the Dedication of Bears in Sanctuaries, BSA 82,
1987, 17–21
201 The recent publication (Delemen 2006) of an unplundered chamber in southeastern Thrace, dated to the last
quarter of the fourth century B. C., shows a remarkable similarity between the grave goods found in this tomb
and those found in a number of tombs in Macedonia, especially at Vergina. It would appear that the Macedonian
and Thracian tombs bear much closer resemblance to one another than either does to the burial places of Greeks
further south.
Biers 1992 W. R. Biers, Art, Artefacts, and Chronology in Classical Archaeology (London –
New York 1992)
Boardman 1982 J. Boardman, Herakles, Theseus and Amazons, in: D. Kurtz – B. Sparkes (eds.),
The Eye of Greece (Cambridge 1982) 1–28
Boardman 1989 J. Boardman, Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Classical Period (London 1989)
Boardman 1998 J. Boardman, Early Greek Vase Painting (London 1998)
Boardman 2000 J. Boardman, Persia and the West (London 2000)
Boardman 2001 J. Boardman, The History of Greek Vases (London 2001)
Boardman 2002 J. Boardman, The Archaeology of Nostalgia (London 2002)
Borza 1985 E. N. Borza, A Macedonian Skull. The Association of Ancient Historians, News-
letter 36, 1985, 3 f.
Borza 1987 E. N. Borza, The Royal Macedonian Tombs and the Paraphernalia of Alexander
the Great, Phoenix 41, 1987, 105–121 (with extensive bibliography)
Borza 1992 E. N. Borza, Manolis Andronikos, 1919–1992, AJA 96, 1992, 757 f.
Borza 1996 E. N. Borza, Greeks and Macedonians in the Age of Alexander: The Source
Traditions, in: R. W. Wallace – E. M. Harris, Transitions to Empire. Essays in
Greco-Roman History, 360–146 B. C., in honor of E. Badian (Norman – London
1996) 122–139
Borza 1999 E. N. Borza, Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedonia, Publications of
the Association of Ancient Historians 6 (Claremont, CA 1999) 68–74
Bosworth 1993 A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire (Cambridge 1993)
Bosworth 2002 A. B. Bosworth, The Legacy of Alexander (Oxford 2002)
Boyd 1978 T. Boyd, The Arch and Vault in Greek Architecture, AJA 82, 1978, 83–100
Breccia 1912 E. Breccia, La necropoli di Sciatbi (Cairo 1912)
Brecoulaki 2002 H. Brecoulaki, Eléments de style et de technique sur les peintures funéraires de
Macédoine (IVe–IIIème s. av. J.-C.), in: A. Pontradolfo, La Pittura parietale in
Macedonia e Magna Grecia (Palermo 2002) 25–36
Brecoulaki 2006 H. Brecoulaki, La Peinture funéraire de Macédoine. Emploi et fonctions de la
couleur, IVe–IIe s. av. J.-C. (Athens 2006)
Brendel 1980 O. Brendel, The Visible Idea (Washington 1980)
Briant 1991 P. Briant, Chasses royales macédoniennes et chasses royales perses: le thème de
chasse au lion sur La Chasse de Vergina, DialHistAnc 17.1, 1991, 211–255
Briant 1993 P. Briant, Les chasses d’Alexandre, Αρχαία Μαkεδονία 5, 1993, 268–277
Briant 2002 P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire. Translated
by Peter T. Daniels. (Winona Lake, Indiana 2002)
Burn 2004 L. Burn, Hellenistic Art. From Alexander the Great to Augustus (London 2004)
Calder 1981 W. M. Calder, Diadem and Barrel-Vault: A Note, AJA 85, 1981, 334 f.
Calder 1983 W. M. Calder, Golden Diadems, AJA 87, 1983,102 f.
Carney 2000 E. Carney, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia (Norman 2000)
Carney 2002 E. Carney, Hunting and the Macedonian Elite: Sharing the Rivalry of the Chase,
in: D. Ogden (ed.), The Hellenistic World (London 2002)
Carney 2006 E. Carney, Olympias, Mother of Alexander the Great (New York – London 2006)
Carroll-Spilleke M. Carroll-Spilleke, Landscape Depictions in Greek Relief Sculpture (Frankfurt –
1985 Bern – New York 1985)
De Cazenove 1993 O. De Cazenove, Suspension d’ex-voto dans les bois sacrés, in: Les Bois sacrés.
Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre Jean Bérard et l’École
Pratique des Hautes Études, Naples 23–25 November 1989 (Naples 1993)
Childs – Demargne A. P. Childs – P. Demargne; Le Monument des Néréides. Le décor sculpté,
1989 Xanthos 8 (Paris 1989)
Chrysostomou 1999 P. Chrysostomou, Ο Μαkεδονιkό τάφο Στ’ µε τι σαρkοφάγου τη
Πέλλα , Αρχαία Μαkεδονία 6, 1999, 281–306
Cohen 1995 A. Cohen, Alexander and Achilles – Macedonians and ›Mycenaeans‹, in: J. B.
Carter – S. P. Morris (eds.), The Ages of Homer (Austin 1995) 483–505
Cohen 1997 A. Cohen, The Alexander Mosaic (Cambridge 1997)
Collon 1995 D. Collon, Ancient Near Eastern Art (London 1995)
Cook 2005 B. F. Cook, Relief Sculptures of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (Oxford 2005)
Curtis – Tallis 2005 J. Curtis – M. Tallis (eds.), Forgotten Empire. The World of Ancient Persia (London
2005)
Daltrop 1966 G. Daltrop, Die kalydonische Jagd in der Antike (Hamburg – Berlin 1966)
Delemen 2006 I. Delemen, An Unplundered Chamber Tomb on Ganos Mountain in Southeastern
Thrace, AJA 110, 2006, 251–273
Devambez – P. Devambez – A. Kauffmann-Samaras, Amazones, in: LIMC I (1981) 586–653
Kauffmann-
Samaras 1981
Davis – Kraay 1973 N. Davis – C. Kraay, The Hellenistic Kingdoms: Portrait Coins and History
(London 1973)
Dressel 1906 H. Dressel, Fünf Goldmedallions aus dem Funde von Abukir (Berlin 1906)
Drougou – S. Drougou – Ch. Paliadeli-Saatsoglou, Βεργινα. Περιδιαβάζοντα τον
Paliadeli-Saatsoglou αρχαιολογιkό χώρο (Athens 1999)
1999
Drougou et al. 1996 S. Drougou et al., Vergina. The Great Tumulus 2(Thessaloniki 1996)
Drougou 2005 S. Drougou, Βεργίνα. Τα πήλινα αγγεία τη µεγάλη τούµπα (Athens 2005)
Étienne 2000 R. Étienne, La chasse à l’ours, in: A. Alexandru – M. Babeş (eds.), Civilisation
grecque et cultures antiques périphériques. Hommage à Petre Alexandrescu à son
70e anniversaire (Bucarest 2000) 68–75
Faklaris 1994 P. Faklaris, Aigai: Determining the Site of the First Capital of the Macedonians,
AJA 98, 1994, 609–616
Fedak 1990 J. Fedak, Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age (Toronto – Buffalo – London
1990)
Fleischer1983 R. Fleischer, Der Klagefrauensarkophag aus Sidon, IstForsch 34 (Tübingen 1983)
Fleischer 1998 R. Fleischer, Der Wiener Amazonensarkophag, AntPl 26 (München 1998) 7–54
pls. 1–18
Flower 1994 M. A. Flower, Theopompus of Chios (Oxford 1994)
Fredricksmeyer 1981 E. A. Fredricksmeyer, Again the So-Called Tomb of Philip II, AJA 85, 1981,
330–334
Fredricksmeyer 1983 E. A. Fredricksmeyer, Once More the Diadem and Barrel-Vault at Vergina, AJA
87, 1983, 99–102
Gäbler 1936 H. Gäbler, Die antiken Münzen von Makedonia und Paionia III (Berlin 1936)
Garlan 1999 Y. Garlan, Les Timbres amphoriques de Thasos I, Études Thasiennes 17 (Paris 1999)
Ginouvès 1994 R. Ginouvès (ed.), Macedonia from Philip II to the Roman Conquest. Translated
by D. Hardy (Princeton 1994)
von Graeve 1970 V. von Greave, Der Alexandersarkophag und seine Werkstatt, IstForsch 28 (Berlin
1970)
Greenwalt 1993 W. S. Greenwalt, The Iconographical Significance of Amyntas III’s Mounted
Hunter Stater, Αρχαία Μαkεδονία 5, 1993, 509–519
Greenwalt 1994 W. S. Greenwalt, The Production of Coinage from Archelaus to Perdikkas III and
the Evolution of Argead Macedonia, in: I. Worthington (ed.), Ventures into Greek
History (Oxford 1994) 105–134
Hammond 1970 N. G. L. Hammond, The Archaeological Background to the Macedonian
Kingdom, Αρχαία Μαkεδονία 1, 1970, 53–67
Hammond 1982 N. G. L. Hammond, The Evidence for the Identity of the Royal Tombs at Vergina,
in: E. N. Borza – W. L. Adams (eds.), Philip II, Alexander the Great and the
Macedonian Heritage (Lanham – New York – London 1982) 111–127
Hardie 1985 P. R. Hardie, Imago mundi: Cosmological and Ideological Aspects of the Shield
of Achilles, JHS 105, 1985, 11–31
Harrison 1981 E. B. Harrison, The Motifs of the City-Siege on the Shield of the Athena Parthenos,
AJA 85, 1981, 281–317
Harrison 2001 E. B. Harrison, Macedonian Identities in Two Samothracian Coffers, in: D. Tsia-
fakis (ed.), ´Αγαλµα Μελέτε για την αρχαία πλαστιkή προ τιµήν του
Γιώργου Δεσπίνη (Thessaloniki 2001) 285–291
Hatzopoulos – M. B. Hatzopoulos – L. D. Loukopoulos (eds.), Philip of Macedon (Athens 1980)

Loukopoulos 1980
Heckel 2006 W. Heckel, Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great (Oxford 2006)
Holt 2003 F. L. Holt, Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions
(Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 2003)
Howland 1958 R. H. Howland, Greek Lamps, Agora 4 (Princeton 1958)
Kaptan 1996 D. Kaptan, Some Remarks about the Hunting Scenes on the Seal-Impressions of
Daskyleion. Archives et sceaux du monde hellénistique, BCH Suppl. 19, 1996,
85–100
Karamitrou- G. Karamitrou-Mentesidi, Ο Μαkεδονιkό τάφο Σπηλιά Εορδαία , AErgo-
Mentesidi 1987 Mak 1, 1987, 23–36
Kottaridi 2002 A. Kottaridi, Discovering Aigai, the Old Macedonian Capital, in: M. Stamato-
poulou – M. Yeroulanou (eds.), Excavating Classical Culture (Oxford 2002)
75–81
Kroll 1983 J. H. Kroll, Nailing Down the Archaeological Chronology of Early Hellenistic
Athens, AJA 87, 1983, 241 f.
Kroll 1993 J. H. Kroll, The Greek Coins, Agora 26 (Princeton 1993)
Lazarides 1997 D. Lazarides, Αµφίπολι 2(Athens 1997)
Lehmann 1980 P. W. Lehmann, The So-Called Tomb of Philip II: A Different Interpretation, AJA
84, 1980, 527–531
Lehmann 1982 P. W. Lehmann, The So-Called Tomb of Philip II: An Addendum, AJA 86, 1982,
437–442
Lilimpaki- M. Lilimpaki-Akamati, Πέλλη 1. Κιβωτιόσχηµο τάφο µε ζωγραφιkή δια-
Akamati 2007 kόσµηοη από την Πέλλα (Thessaloniki 2007)
Lilimpaki-Akamati – M. Lilimpaki-Akamati – A. Kottaridi, Το Μουσείο των βασιλιkών τάφων των
Kottaridi 2003 Αιγών (Athens 2003)
Lilimpaki-Akamati – M. Lilimpaki-Akamati – I. M. Akamatis, Pella and its Environs (Athens 2004)
Akamatis 2004
Merrillees 2005 P. H. Merrillees, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum.
Cylinder Seals VI. Pre-Achaemenid and Achaemenid Periods (London 2005)
Miller 1997 M. C. Miller, Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century B. C. (Cambridge 1997)
Miller 2003 M. C. Miller, Art, Myth and Reality: Xenophantos’ Lekythos Re-examined, in: E.
Csapo – M. C. Miller (eds.), Poetry, Theory, Praxis. The Social Life of Myth,
Word and Image in Ancient Greece (Oxford 2003) 19–47
Miller 1982 S. G. Miller, Macedonian Tombs: Their Architecture and Architectural Decora-
tion, in: B. Barr-Sharrar – E. N. Borza (eds.), Macedonia and Greece in Late Classi-
cal and Early Hellenistic Times, Studies in the History of Art 10 (Washington,
D. C. 1982) 152–169
Miller 1986 S. G. Miller, Alexander’s Funeral Cart, Αρχαία Μαkεδονία 4, 1986, 401–412
Miller 1993 S. G. Miller, The Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles: A Painted Macedonian Tomb
(Mainz 1993)
Miller 2002 S. Miller, Nemea II: The Early Hellenistic Stadium (Berkeley – Los Angeles 2002)
Moreno 1995 P. Moreno, Lisippo. L’arte et la fortuna (Monza 1995)
Müller 1997 D. Müller, Bildkommentar zu den Historien Herodots. Kleinasien (Tübingen 1997)
Musgrave 1991 J. Musgrave, The Human Remains from Vergina Tombs I, II and III: An Over-
view, AncW 22, 1991, 3–9 (with other papers – by B. Barr-Sharrar, E. D. Carney,
and W. L. Adams, with commentary by E. N. Borza – presented at a Vergina sym-
posium at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America,
San Francisco, 29 December, 1990: AncW 22, 1991, 3–40)
Mylonas 1943 G. E. Mylonas, Excavations at Mecyberna 1934, 1938, AJA 47, 1943, 78–87
Neils 1992 J. Neils, Panatheniaic Amphoras: Their Meaning, Makers and Markets, in: J. Neils
(ed.), Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens. Exhibition
Catalogue, Hood Museum of Art, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH – Princeton,
NJ (Princeton 1992) 29–51
Oberleitner 1994 W. Oberleitner, Das Heroon von Trysa (Mainz 1994)
Palagia 1998 O. Palagia, Alexander the Great as Lion Hunter: The Fresco of Vergina Tomb II
and the Marble Frieze of Messene in the Louvre, Minerva 9, 1998, 25–28
Palagia 2000 O. Palagia, Hephaistion’s Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander, in: A. B. Bos-
worth – E. J. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction (Oxford –
New York 2000) 167–206
Palagia 2002 O. Palagia, The ›Tomb of Eurydike‹, Vergina, Plundered, Minerva 13, 2002, 4
Palagia 2005 O. Palagia, A New Interpretation of Menander’s Image by Kephisodotos II and
Timarchos, ASAtene 83, 2005, 287–298
Papazoglou 1988 F. Papazoglou, Les villes de Macédoine à l’époque romaine, BCH Suppl. 16
(Athens 1988)
Paspalas 2000 S. Paspalas, The taurophonos leon and Krateros’ Monument at Delphi, in: G. R.
Tsetskhladze – A. J. N. W. Prag – A. M. Snodgrass (eds.), Periplous. Papers on
Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman (London 2000)
211–219
Pekridou-Gorecki A. Pekridou-Gorecki, Zum Jagdfries des sog. Philipp-Grabes in Vergina, in: F.
1996 Blakolmer – K. R. Krierer – F. Krinzinger (eds.), Fremde Zeiten. Festschrift J.
Borchhardt II (Wien 1996) 89–103
Pemberton 1985 E. G. Pemberton, Ten Hellenistic Graves in Ancient Corinth, Hesperia 54, 1985,
271–307
Petsas 1966 Ph. Petsas, Ο τάφο των Λευkαδίων (Athens 1966)
Prag et al. 1984 A. J. N. W. Prag et al., The Skull from Tomb II at Vergina: King Philip II of Ma-
cedon, JHS 104, 1984, 60–78
Prag 1990 A. J. N. W. Prag, Reconstructing King Philip II: The ›Nice‹ Version, AJA 94,
1990, 237–247
Price 1991 M. J. Price, The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip
Arrhidaios (Zurich – London 1991)
Ridgway 2000 B. S. Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture II: The Styles of ca. 200–100 B. C. (Madison
2000)
Riginos 1994 A. S. Riginos, The Wounding of Philip II of Macedon: Fact and Fabrication, JHS 94,
1994, 103–119
Rives-Gal 1999 G. Rives-Gal, Funérailles, politique et idéologie monarchique (Villeneuve d’Ascq
1999)
Robinson 1950 D. M. Robinson, Vases Found in 1934 and 1938, Olynthus 13 (Baltimore 1950)
Robinson – D. M. Robinson – P. A. Clement, The Chalcidic Mint and the Excavation Coins
Clement 1938 Found in 1928–1934, Olynthus 9 (Baltimore 1938)
Rose et al. 2001 C. B. Rose et al., A New Painted Greco-Persian Sarcophagus from Çan, StTroica
11, 2001, 383–420
Rose et al. C. B. Rose et al., The Tombs of the Granicus River valley, in: O. Casabonne – I.
forthcoming Delemen – S. Karagoz – O. Tekin (eds.), The Achaemenid Impact on Local
Populations and Cultures in Anatolia (Istanbul forthcoming)
Rotroff 1982 S. Rotroff, Royal Saltcellars from the Athenian Agora, AJA 86, 1982, 283
Rotroff 1984 S. Rotroff, Spool Saltcellars in the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 53, 1984, 343–354
Rotroff 1997 S. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery. Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware
and Related Material, Agora 29 (Princeton 1997)
Rotroff 2003 S. Rotroff, Minima macedonica, in: O. Palagia – S. V. Tracy (eds.), The Macedo-
nians in Athens 322–229 B. C. (Oxford 2003) 213–225
Rotroff 2006 S. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: The Plain Wares, Agora 33 (Princeton 2006)
Rotroff 2007a S. I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery, in: J. K. Papadopoulos (ed.), The Art of Antiquity.
Piet de Jong and the Athenian Agora (Athens 2007) 233–252
Rotroff 2007b S. I. Rotroff, AJA 111, 2007, 809 f. (review of Drougou 2005)
Saatsoglou- C. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Βεργίνα. Ο τάφο του Φιλίππου. Η τοιχογραγία µε
Paliadeli 2004 το kυνήγι (Athens 2004)
Saatsoglou- C. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, La peinture de la Chasse de Vergina, in: S. Descamps-
Paliadeli 2007 Lequime (ed.), Peinture et couleur dans le monde grec antique (Paris 2007) 47–55
Salzmann 1982 D. Salzmann, Untersuchungen zu den antiken Kieselmosaiken, AF 10 (Berlin 1982)
Salzmann 2001 D. Salzmann, Alexanderschilde – numismatische Zeugnisse für die Alexander-

verehrung Caracallas, in: J. Bergemann (ed.), Wissenschaft mit Enthusiasmus.
Festschr. Klaus Fittschen (Rahden 2001) 173–191
Schauenburg 1969 K. Schauenburg, Jagddarstellungen in der griechischen Vasenmalerei (Hamburg –
Berlin 1969)
Scheibler 1976 I. Scheibler, Griechische Lampen, Kerameikos 11 (Berlin 1976)
Schmidt 1970 E. F. Schmidt, Persepolis III: The Royal Tomb and Other Monuments (Chicago 1970)
Sismanides 1997 K. Sismanides, Κλίνε kαι kλινοειδεί kατασkευέ των Μαkεδονιkών τάφων
(Athens 1997)
The Search for The Search for Alexander 1980. An Exhibition. The National Gallery of Art,
Alexander 1980 Washington, D. C. (Boston 1980)
Smith 1991 R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture (London 1991)
Sparkes – B. A. Sparkes – L. Talcott, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centu-
Talcott 1970 ries B. C., Agora 12 (Princeton 1970)
Steiner 1992 A. Steiner, Pottery and Cult in Corinth: Oil and Water at the Sacred Spring,
Hesperia 61, 1992, 385–406
Stewart 1993 A. Stewart, Faces of Power (Berkeley – Los Angeles – Oxford 1993)
Terzopoulou 2000 D. Terzopoulou, Τα επιτάφια µνηµεία τη αρχαία Στρύµη . ADelt 55, 2000,
Mel 143–182
Themelis – P. Themelis – I. P. Touratsoglou, Οι τάφοι του Δερβενίου (Athens 1997)
Touratsoglou 1997
Themelis 2002 P. Themelis, Messene, Recent Discoveries (Sculpture), in: M. Stamatopoulou –
M. Yeroulanou (eds.), Excavating Classical Culture (Oxford 2002) 229–243
Tiverios 2007 M. Tiverios, Panathenaic Amphoras, in: O. Palagia – A. Choremi-Spetsieri (eds.),
The Panathenaic Games (Oxford 2007) 1–19
Touratsoglou 1973 I. Touratsoglou, Lefkadia, Keramos Guides (Athens 1973)
Touratsoglou 1995 I. Touratsoglou, Macedonia. History. Monuments. Museums (Athens 1995)
Tripodi 1998 B. Tripodi, Cacce reali macedoni (Messina 1998)
Tsimbidou- M. Tsimbidou-Avloniti, Μαkεδονιkοί τάφοι στον Φοίνιkα kαι στον ´Αγιο
Avloniti 2005 Αqανάσιο Θεσσαλονίkη (Athens 2005)
Tuplin 1996 C. Tuplin, Achaemenid Studies, Historia Einzelschriften 99 (Stuttgart 1996)
Tuplin 2004 C. Tuplin, Xenophon, Artemis and Scyllus, in: T. Figueira (ed.), Spartan Society
(Swansea 2004) 251–281
Venit 2002 M. S. Venit, Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria (Cambridge 2002)
Weisser – Dahmen B. Weisser – K. Dahmen, Goldene Alexander zum Geschenk, in: Festschrift I.
forthcoming Touratsoglou (Athens forthcoming)
Wheatley 1998 P. V. Wheatley, Polyperchon and the Murder of Heracles, Antichthon 32, 1998,
12–23
Wheatley 2003 P. V. Wheatley, The Year 22 Tetradrachms of Sidon and the Date of the Battle of
Gaza, ZPE 144, 2003, 268–276
Wootton 2002 W. Wootton, Another Alexander Mosaic: Reconstructing the Hunt Mosaic from
Palermo, JRA 15, 2002, 265–274
Wünsche 2005 R. Wünsche, Glyptothek München. Meisterwerke griechischer und römischer
Skulptur (München 2005)
Xirotiris – N. I. Xirotiris – F. Langenscheidt, The Cremation from the Royal Macedonian
Langenscheidt 1981 Tombs at Vergina, AEphem 1981, 142–160
Yardley 2003 J. C. Yardley, Justin and Pompeius Trogus: A Study of the Language of Justin’s
Epitome of Trogus (Toronto – Buffalo – London 2003)
Zambas 1999 K. Zambas, Αποkατάσταση αναληµµατιkού τοίχου στο προαύλιο του τάφου
του Φιλίππου Β’, AErgoMak 13, 1999, 553–565
S o u r c e s o f i l l u s t r a t i o n s : Fig. 1; Colour plate 3: E. N. Borza. – Figs. 2. 4. 5. 12: Archaeological

Society of Athens. – Figs. 3. 8. 9. 10; Colour plates 4–7: H. R. Goette. – Fig. 6: O. Palagia. – Fig. 7:
American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Agora Excavations. – Figs. 11. 13. 14. 16. 17: TAP
Service. – Fig. 15: Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. – Fig. 18: A. Bartsiokas. –
Figs. 19; 20 a. b: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Münzkabinett.
Prof. Dr. Eugene N. Borza, 5 Chantilly Ct., USA-Mechanicsburg PA 17050, E-Mail: borza@comcast.net
Prof. Dr. Olga Palagia, Sarantapichou St. 21, GR-114 71 Athens, E-Mail: palagia@enternet.gr
Abstract:
Eugene N. Borza and Olga Palagia, The Chronology of the Macedonian Royal Tombs at Vergina
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.
Keywords: Vergina, Royal Tombs – Barrel-Vault – Hunt (Bear and Lion) – Spool Salt
Cellars – Cremation

The Chronology of The Macedonian Royal T

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Chronology of The Macedonian Royal T

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE MACEDONIAN

ROYAL TOMBS AT VERGINA

Fig. 1. Vergina, site plan of Tombs I, II, and III

19 Andronicos 1984, 87.

2 ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHITECTURAL DECORATION

Fig. 2. Vergina, Tomb II, cross-section

Fig. 3. Nemea stadium, barrel-vault passageway

Fig. 4. Vergina, Tomb II, façade

31 Kaunos: Fedak 1990, 97 fig. 39. – Naqsh-i-Rustan: Schmidt 1970.

Fig. 5. Vergina, Tomb III, façade

3 THE HUNTING FRIEZE

34 Andronicos 1984, 100–119 figs. 58–71.

involving different kinds of game in a variety of habitats?, c) does it commemorate a histor-

51 Athen. 1, 18 a. Tripodi 1998, 104–106; Carney 2002, 59. 62.

Fig. 8. Vergina, hunting frieze, detail of deer hunt

Fig. 9. Munich, Glyptothek 206: Votive relief

Fig. 10. Vergina, hunting frieze, detail of bear hunt

Fig. 11. Ag. Athanasios Tomb façade, detail of banquet frieze

122 Supra n. 82.

4 THE CLAY POTTERY AND THE INSCRIBED SILVER STRAINER

153 Xirotiris – Langenscheidt 1981, 142–160.

6 διάδηµα, σkη̃πτρον, πλα

7 THE GOLD AND IVORY SHIELD

182 Devambez – Kauffmann-Samaras 1981, 597–599.

192 Brendel 1980, 67–82.

Hatzopoulos – M. B. Hatzopoulos – L. D. Loukopoulos (eds.), Philip of Macedon (Athens 1980)

Salzmann 2001 D. Salzmann, Alexanderschilde – numismatische Zeugnisse für die Alexander-

S o u r c e s o f i l l u s t r a t i o n s : Fig. 1; Colour plate 3: E. N. Borza. – Figs. 2. 4. 5. 12: Archaeological

You might also like

6 διάδηµα, σkη̃πτρον, πλα