In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great

by David Grant

  Tombs II and III lay on a different line and so were never intercepted. We may speculate that the scar this incision made into the Great Tumulus was finally smoothed over by Gonatas once the looters had departed; it was potentially then extended to cover his own burial site (potentially Tomb IV). The 9.8-foot-thick layer of rocks at its base emphasises the protective nature of the 360-foot-wide and 40-foot-tall mound.73 Broken stelae below the surface (though above the original tumuli) bore the names of leading Macedonians, so facilitating their dating to ca. 330-275 BCE, and this broadly matches the Gonatas proposition. Another important structure appears to have been built at the centre of the mound, possibly a stoa or cenotaph tumulus, which Hammond postulated may have been dedicated to Alexander, before its contents were removed ahead of the Great Tumulus being raised over it.74

  The depiction of the Abduction of Persephone by Hades (Pluto) on the north wall on the interior of Tomb I is imagery also found on the marble throne in the Tomb of Eurydice in the cluster of the queens, though here Persephone and Hades are painted together in a ‘relationship equality’.75 Very similar funerary theology can be found in the floor mosaic in the second chamber of the Kasta Hill tomb at Amphipolis, discovered in 2014 under the mound now considered a natural hill (nevertheless sculpted) rather than a man-made tumulus. Philip II was already being worshipped ‘as a god’ at Amphipolis as his father, Amyntas III, had been at Pydna.76 It remains uncertain whether the depictions can in any way connect these burial sites more specifically. The common art – the Abduction of Persephone – does suggest a link to the Orphic faith; a Thesmophorion has been excavated at Pella (the female-dominated festival of Thesmophoria was traditionally held there) where the cult of Persephone is attested.77

  The absence of any regalia and precious artefacts at Amphipolis, and the broken marble doors (which show signs of heavy use, thus possibly suggesting a crypt once on display), with the removal of entry stones, as well as the scattered and fragmented nature of the bones, suggest Pyrrhus’ Celtic Gauls may have ransacked this site too, before it was resealed, that is if the Romans under Aemilius Paullus, who entered Amphipolis in 167 BCE, were not responsible.78

  The tomb finds included the bones of a woman aged sixty or over and a little under 5 feet 2 inches tall, a newborn child, fragments of a cremated adult (sex as yet undefined) and the bones of two men aged thirty-five to forty-five and approximately 5 feet 4 inches to 5 feet 6 inches tall, the younger of them appearing to have suffered mortal wounds to the chest. Olympias, aged somewhere around sixty when she was executed, had been initiated into the Orphic mysteries that were linked to Demeter (who was also featured on the east wall of Tomb I) and her daughter Kore, otherwise known as Persephone of the underworld, the patroness of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

  Philip’s mother, Eurydice, was renowned as a politically active queen with links to Eucleia, the female spirit of good repute (the chaste bride) who had a shrine at Aegae that was possibly erected by Philip; inscribed dedications to Eurydice have been found in the temple remains.79 Eucleia was frequently depicted amongst the handmaidens of Aphrodite (she, with Persephone, was the Maiden form of the Earth-goddess) and one of the Kharites (Graces) who were associated with the Greek underworld and Eleusinian Mysteries as well. As Carney has pointed out, after her scandal with Ptolemy of Alorus, Eurydice may have been attempting to salvage her reputation for the sake of her surviving sons.80

  A tomb in the cluster of the queens linked to one of the wives of King Alexander I contained at least twenty-six figurines of Demeter and Kore. Discovered in 1938, another burial site close to the Tomb of Eurydice contained a marble throne adorned with the representations of sphinxes like those at Amphipolis. Never covered by a tumulus, this tomb may not have been occupied by its intended resident; could it have been originally built for Olympias?

  Though a common motif on Greek pottery, the Abduction of Persephone and images of Demeter and Kore seem unique to these Macedonian burial sites, whilst sphinxes (and griffins) were clearly associated with late 4th century BCE Macedonian queens.81 The aforementioned traces of huntite and porphyry suggest the male of Tomb II was cremated in an Orphic funeral mask that could suggest his role as chief priest of Orphic rites, or, if the remains are those of Philip II, then of Olympias’ (perhaps less likely) influence in his funeral as a priestess of the mystery religion, for women had a prominent role in burial preparations.

  Orphic symbolism in the form of the myth of Persephone confirmed the hope for a rebirth and thus an afterlife as both Demeter and Persephone were associated with immortality; the Macedonians may have accepted the afterlife in more literal terms than their Greek counterparts.82 As far as the iconography of ‘abduction’, it was attached to wedding rituals in which the bride was symbolically carried off on a chariot denoting her new fettering to her husband; could the polygamy of the Argeads, and Philip in particular, have added to this emphasis?83

  When Cassander contrived to have Olympias executed at the conclusion of the siege at Pydna, her body was left unburied by the relatives of her victims, but there is no mention that it was hidden (unlike the fate of the bodies of Alexander IV and Roxane); rather, the public humiliation of her corpse would have been a useful warning to any new challengers. Edson and Carney have suggested that Pyrrhus of the Aeacids, the royal clan of Epirus from which Olympias was descended, may have later provided her with grander burial honours close to Pydna when briefly in control of the region, if a now-lost grave inscription nearby was accurate. After all, Pyrrhus hardly seems to have respected the Argead necropolis at Aegae, if the allegations that he failed to stop his Gallic mercenaries from plundering the graves are true.84

  If Olympias’ complicity in Philip’s murder was still suspected or had been broadcast (and bearing in mind she additionally executed his surviving family), then Aegae was an inappropriate resting place regardless of any posthumous self-serving reverence to be paid. Could her remains have finally been transferred to Amphipolis? Olympias could herself have expressed a desire to be interred in grander style than she now merited at Aegae, preferring an attachment to her son’s ‘divinity’ rather than her late husband’s mortal line; we recall that Alexander is said to have promised her ‘a consecration to immortality’.85

  New reports from Katerina Peristeri, the lead site archeologist, claim a further monogram of Hephaestion has been found inside the tomb, giving additional significance to similar inscriptions recovered from the close-by River Strymon in the early 20th century.86 The king’s closest companion and first chiliarch would have been in his early thirties when he died in 324 BCE, thus archaeologists are pondering whether the styling at Amphipolis is resonant of the Rhodian architect Deinocrates for it is said Alexander longed to employ him to build a monument for Hephaestion.87 That connection is unsubstantiated, though Amphipolis certainly appears in the extant Will texts as one of the sites at which Alexander requested commemoratives; as Hammond points out, even the Great Tumulus at Aegae could broadly represent the ‘memorial to match the greatest pyramid’ found in Alexander’s ‘last plans’.88

  So could the Lion of Amphipolis have once stood before (if not above) the subterranean Amphipolis tomb, matching the sepulchral and still-standing lion monument at Ecbatana (modern Hamadan) reputed by some to be a commemorative to Hephaestion?89 Once again, it is an alluring idea, but the graffiti seen at Amphipolis is common at burial sites. Nor should we forget that a Companion Cavalry hipparchy was named after Hephaestion, so it is likely that any former-serving cavalry officers would have exploited their participation in the elite agema in their own commemoratives. Furthermore, as the Assembly vote at Babylon had clearly shown, no one save Alexander was interested in spending further treasury funds on the memory of Hephaestion.90

  It remains possible that Amphipolis was, or became, a polyandreion for illustrious former Companions of Alexander; its construction may have commenced on his instruction, or after his death, when it may have been initially overseen by Antipater or by Ol
ympias upon her return to Macedonia, possibly aided by Polyperchon and Aristonus, or by a later Antigonid king once more exploiting the suggestion of Argead ties.

  Notable candidates for the male bones, and who were linked in some way to both Alexander and Amphipolis, include Alexander’s hetairos Laomedon, the trierarch Androsthenes, Olympias’ supporter and final defender of the city, Aristonus, and the celebrated Nearchus who would have been around the age of forty-five if he perished in battle at Gaza in 312 BCE.91 Although the Amphipolis construction has been recently labelled ‘cheap’, the sphinxes, caryatids with traces of coloured paint with the accomplished mosaic floor, as well as the 1,630-foot marble circular perimeter wall (peribolos) around the 508-foot-in-diameter mound, point to a construction of considerable scale and detail.

  When considering further candidates for the additional significant tombs at Aegae such as the Tomb of Palatitsia, and for the ‘non-royal’ graves under the Great Tumulus, we should not forget the other campaign notables whose burial places have never been identified, and whose remains were likely sent back to Macedonia: Leonnatus who fell at Lamia relieving Antipater, and Craterus whose cremated remains were returned to his former wife, Phila (his monument at Delphi was not a tomb).92 As Hammond pointed out, some forty-seven funerary headstones (though without graves) found in the upper layers of the Great Tumulus ‘emphasise the attachment of deceased warriors’ to Alexander. The newest tomb finds being investigated by Prof. Antikas’ team at Pella and Katerini may also reveal surprise occupants; one day we might even see the tragic lines of Euripides gracing a stone that marks his own resting place.

  ‘Death is a debt we all must pay.’93

  Euripides Alcestis

  NOTES

  1.Some scholars argue that Alexander truly believed he was the son of both Philip and Zeus; discussed in Carney (2006) p 103.

  2.Following Bosworth’s comment in Borza Tombs (1987) p 105 footnote 2 on possible Antipatrid self-recognition.

  3.Adams (1991) p 27 for the ‘universal’ acceptance that Alexander IV occupied Tomb III. Hammond Tombs (1991) p 77 for the items found in Tomb III.

  4.Diodorus 19.52.4, Justin 14.6.13, 15.1.3 for the incarceration of Roxane and Alexander IV at Amphipolis by Cassander. Diodorus 19.105.2, Justin 15.2.5 for the concealment of their murder (Justin confused Heracles for Alexander IV, as he did at 14.6); Pausanias 9.7.2 stated Alexander IV was poisoned.

  5.Xirotiris-Langenscheidt (1981) pp 156-157.

  6.Borza Tombs (1987) p 105-107 for the uniqueness of the double burial. Also Borza-Palagia (2007) p 84 for discussion of antechambers being used as a repository for grave goods, and not double burials.

  7.A thorough summary of the ongoing controversy and attached opinions can be found in a thesis titled Understanding the Bones: The Human Skeletal Remains from Tombs I, II and III at Vergina by Jolene McLeod, University of Calgary and available online at http://theses.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/11023/1562/2/ucalgary_2014_mcleod_jolene.pdf.

  8.Arrhidaeus was likely born in 358/357 BCE, thus late thirties or potentially early forties when executed in 317 BCE by Olympias; Heckel (2006) p 52 for detail. Plutarch 9.6 stated Cleopatra was a maiden when she married Philip.

  9.The remains of three individuals studied earlier exclude the already bagged bones located elsewhere and found by Antikas’ teams. The evidence and findings of the Bartsiokas-Arsuaga-Santos-Algaba-Gómez-Olivencia (2015) report have been called into question.

  10.Tomb I measures 3.5 x 2.09 x 3 metres high: 11.55 x 6.9 x 9.9 feet. The wall painting depicts the Abduction of Persephone; it is the oldest cist tomb in Macedonia decorated with a mythological scene; following Borza-Palagia (2007) p 82. Plinius 35.108 credited Nicomachus with painting the Abduction of Persephone in a style that used only four colours. Hammond (1978) first argued that Tomb I held Amyntas; the additional remains must therefore be ‘secondary burials’ placed in a looted and exposed tomb. He also argued for Alexander II: Hammond Tombs (1991) pp 77-78.

  11.Personal correspondence with Professor Theodore Antikas. For the wound at Methone, Justin 7.6.14 (and mentioned without place or date at Plutarch 3.2).

  12.Demosthenes De Corona 18.66-67; the veracity of Philip’s alleged wounds discussed in Riginos (1994); a full list of the sources citing the wounds is provided on p 106. Borza-Palagia (2007) p 107 for the conflicting opinions of the Langenscheidt-Xirotiris team and Prag-Neave-Musgrave team on the trauma to Philip’s eye socket; Philip was blinded by a projectile during the siege of Methone in 354 BCE. For a thorough rundown and discussion of Philip’s wounds see Understanding the Bones: The Human Skeletal Remains from Tombs I, II and III at Vergina by Jolene McLeod, University of Calgary and available online at http://theses.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/11023/1562/2/ucalgary_2014_mcleod_jolene.pdf p 70 ff.

  13.Borza-Palagia (2007) pp 90-103. Cohen (2010) p 238 ff for its detail and additional arguments.

  14.Hammond Tombs (1991) p 75 for discussions of the royal hunt fresco and suggested likenesses.

  15.The presence of lions discussed at Herodotus 7.124-126, Xenophon Kynegetikos 11.1, Pausanias 6.5.5 ff; see discussion in Fox (2011) pp 10-11 and Hammond Tombs (1991) p 80. Pliny 8.17 and Aristotle History of Animals 579b5-8, 606b14-14 also mentioned lions in the region. The coins of Amyntas III are rejected as proof by Borza-Palagia (2007) p 93 ff and p 96. Athenaeus 1.18a, Pseudo-Aristotle Physiognomics 806b8-11, Herodotus 1.36-43 for the importance of the boar hunt; discussed in Cohen (2010) p 71 and p 240.

  16.Herodotus 5.17-21 for Macedonia first accepting Persian dominance. Justin 7.4.1-3 for Xerxes placing Alexander I in command of an expanded Lower Macedonia, stemming from the marriage of Bubares, a Persian ambassador, to his sister. Demosthenes 4.48 reported Philip II sending envoys to Artaxerxes III in 351/350 BCE; this may have reconciled Artabazus, taking refuge in Macedonia, with the Great King. Artabazus and his family resided at Pella in, or from, 349/348 BCE; Hammond (1994) p 57 for discussion. Demosthenes 6.11 termed Alexander I ‘a traitor’. Herodotus 7.173, 8.34, 8.136-144, 9.44-45 for Alexander I’s participation in the Persian invasion. In the wake of the Persian Wars lower Paionia with Pella, Ichnai, Mygdonia beyond the Axius (Thracian) and territories to the Strymon River were added to the kingdom: Hatzopoulos (1996) p 106. Hammond (1991) pp 16-19 for the politics of the Persian occupation. See chapter titled The Reborn Wrath of Peleus’ Son for more on Persian influences on the Macedonian court.

  17.Plato Laws 947D, quoted in Hammond Tombs (1991) p 73; he suggests Euphraeus, Plato’s pupil, reported on the burials. The late date for barrel-vaulted tombs is refuted by Fredericksmeyer (1981) p 333 and Hammond (1978) p 338 and Hammond Tombs (1991) pp 73 and 79-80; fuller discussion in Saatsoglou-Paliadeli (1999) p 357 ff. Also Borza Tombs (1987) pp 107-109 and Borza-Palagia (2007) p 83 and pp 86-89 for the relative dates of tomb design and the dating of the Tomb of Eurydice; pp 107-117 for the royal paraphernalia.

  18.Pottery fragments dating to 344/3 BCE (the Athenian archonship of Lyciscus) provide a terminus post quem for Eurydice’s death; see Borza-Palagia (2007) p 86 ff for discussion.

  19.See chapter titled Sarissa Diplomacy: Macedonian Statecraft for more on Ptolemy of Alorus. Pausanias 5.17.4, 5.20.9-10 for the Philippeion. Carney (2006) p 101 for its suggestion of divinity. After the death of King Amyntas III in 370/369 BCE, Ptolemy of Alorus, a possible envoy to the king (an alliance with Athens in 375-373 BCE mentioned the name) and possibly the son of Amyntas II (Diodorus 15.71.1; thus descended from the line of Menelaus, son of Alexander I) started a liaison with Amyntas’ widow, Eurydice, and he may in fact have married her and ascended to the throne. In 368/367 BCE Ptolemy allegedly assassinated Alexander II (Diodorus 16.2.4 and 15.71.1-2 but Demosthenes On the False Embassy 19.194-95 stated an Apollophanes was executed for the murder) after less than 2 years on the throne (Diodorus 15.60.3 stated 1 year), and became guardian (epitropos) for the immature Perdiccas III (Aeschines On the Embassy 2.29, Plutarch Pelopidas 27.3), a role that saw him become regent of the kingdom until Perdiccas
killed him in 365 BCE and then reigned for 5 years (Diodorus 15.77.5). Diodorus 15.71.1, 15.77.5, Eusebius Kronographia 228, stated Ptolemy was in fact basileus, king, for 3 years, but the use of the demotic, Alorus, and the absence of coinage in his name, speak otherwise. Moreover his marriage to Eurydice (Justin 7.4.7, Aeschines 2.29) and previously to her daughter, Eurynoe, (Justin 7.4.7-7, 7.5.4-8 stated Ptolemy and Eurydice were lovers even then), suggest he needed legitimacy his heritage did not provide. According to Justin, the intrigue was revealed by Eurynoe. Why Eurydice intrigued with Ptolemy remains unclear (Justin 7.5 claimed she had previously plotted against Amyntas who spared her for the sake of their children); it may have been to undermine Alexander II, or the line of Amyntas on behalf of a foreign regime, or simply lovers intriguing to put Ptolemy in power, even above her sons. However, neither Diodorus nor Plutarch included her in any plotting with Ptolemy, so her involvement may be fiction; Carney (2006) p 90 argues that there is evidence she was a loyal and devoted mother. Pelopidas who had already driven the Macedonian garrisons installed by Alexander II from Thessaly, was called in to arbitrate (Plutarch Pelopidas 26.3, Diodorus 16.67.4). Pelopidas was offered, or took, hostages for good behaviour, including Philip II.

  20.Curtius 10.6.4 for the regalia at Babylon. Diodorus 18.61.1 for Eumenes’ use of Alexander’s regalia and implied at 19.15.4.

  21.Diodorus 18.26-27 for the full description of Alexander’s funeral bier; discussed in Hammond (1989) p 219. A sceptre was apparently discovered by Andronikos in Tomb II in 1977 and featured in his first reports: ‘It seems almost unavoidable to interpret it as a sceptre.’ It appears to have been 6.56 feet tall with a bamboo core wrapped in alternate layers of cloth and gold. The sceptre itself and all mention of it disappeared from Andronikos’ later reports; see Hammond (1978) p 225 and Borza-Palagia (2007) p 108 ff.