^* The following abbreviations are used in this article:

Andronikos 1969 = Andronikos, M., Vergina I: the Cemetery of Tumuli (Athens, 1969)Google Scholar

Andronikos 1984 = Andronikos, M., Vergina: the Royal Tombs (Athens, 1984)Google Scholar

Andronikos 1987 1 = Andronikos, M., ‘Some reflections on the Macedonian Tombs’, BSA 82 (1987) 1 ff.Google Scholar

Andronikos 1987 2 = Andronikos, M., ἡ ζωγϱαφιϰὴ στὴν ἀϱϰαία Μαϰεδονία, AE 1987 363 ff.Google Scholar

Hammond 1978 = Hammond, N.G.L., ‘“Philip's Tomb” in Historical Context’, GRBS 19. 331 ff.Google Scholar

Hammond 1982 = N.G.L. Hammond, ‘The evidence for the Identity of the Royal Tombs at Vergina’ in Philip II, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Heritage, edd. Adams, W.L. and Borza, E.N. (Washington, 1982)Google Scholar

Hammond 1989 = Hammond, N.G.L., The Macedonian State (Oxford, 1989)Google Scholar

HM I, II and III = Hammond, N.G.L., Griffith, G.T., Walbank, F.W., A History of Macedonia I (1972), II (1979), III (1988)Google Scholar

Musgrave = J.H. Musgrave, ‘Cremation in Ancient Macedonia’, being the typescript of a paper to the Fifth International Conference on Ancient Macedonia. Dr Musgrave has kindly allowed me to refer to his paper, which is awaiting publication.

SNG = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum.

¹ These are described in her booklet Aiani of Kozani; archoeological guide (Thessaloniki, 1989), 53–7.

² Ibid. 53. In this the largest tomb it is probable that support to the roof was given by a plain stone column of which a part was inside the tomb.

³ Illustrated on p. 56. The ivy leaves imply a worship of Dionysus.

⁴ See HM II 18 f. The importance of ancient Aeane is discussed in HM I 119 f.

⁵ Andronikos 1984 86 f. with fig. 46 showing red and white plasters.

⁶ From the time of Alexander I onwards (see HM II 18). Rich offerings in sixth century pit-graves at Aiani and at Vergina show close contacts.

⁷ See also the account of Andronikos 1987 1, 10 ff.

⁸ It is reported in Andronikos 1987 2, 375 ff. I am most grateful to him for sending me an offprint. It is described in Ergon 1987. 46 ff.

⁹ Ergon 1987. 46 δὲν ὑπάρϰει σ᾿ αὐτὴν (τὴν πρόσοΨη) ἀρϰιτεϰτονιϰἠ διαμόρφωση.

¹⁰ Illustrated in Andronikos 1987 2, 376 fig. 3.

¹¹ Andronikos 1987 2, 379.

¹² For the status of the queen mother see Hammond 1989 32 and 172.

¹³ Illustrated in Andronikos 1987 2, 369, fig. 1.

¹⁴ Tomb II is described in Andronikos 1984 97 ff.

¹⁵ Andronikos 1984 31; 1987 1, 10 ‘to the third quarter of the fourth century by fragments of a lekythos’; 1987 1, 2 with n. 10 suggested a possible narrowing down of the dates to ‘c. 330 to 310’.

¹⁶ Heuzey, L. and Daumet, H., Mission archéologique de Macédoine I (Paris, 1876) 227 ff.Google Scholar and plates 15–16. This tomb had other peculiarities. It was divided into two chambers by ‘two square pillars which supported a kind of epistyle’; and the cross-slabs of the antechamber rested on top of those of the main chamber (Andronikos 1987 1, 10).

¹⁷ See Andronikos 1984 198 ff.

¹⁸ Hammond 1982 116 and HM III 166, where I preferred 309 as the year of Alexander's death.

¹⁹ Rhomaios, K.A., ὀ Μαϰεδνιϰὸς τάφος τñς Βεϱγίνης (Athens, 1951)Google Scholar, and Andronikos 1984 31 ff. with fig. 11.

²⁰ See Andronikos 1984 33; the Palace has been dated to ‘the last years of the fourth century’, ibid. 39.

²¹ There are, of course, other built-tombs in Macedonian territory, e.g. at Olynthus and at Sedhes, which are important in the history of this type of tomb; but I am concerned here only with the sequence in Pieria and Elimeotis.

²² This is not a list of all innovations. For example, see n. 16 above for an unusual form of division into two chambers, and add the finding of ‘four freestanding Doric columns’ on a stylobate, which probably stood slightly in front of a tomb not far from Tomb II at Vergina (see Andronikos 1987 1, 15).

²³ ϑήχην δὲ ὑπὸ γἠς αὐτοῖς εἰργασμένην εἶναι ψαλίδα προμἡχη λίϑων ποτίμων χαὶ ἀγἡρων εἰς δὐναμιν, ἔχουσαν χλίνας παρ᾿ ἀλλἡλας λιϑίνας χειμἑνας οὖ δὴ τὀν μαχάριον γεγονότα ϑέντες, χύχλῳ χώσαντες, . . .πλἠν χώλου ἑνὀς ὄπως ἄν αὔξην ὁ τάφος ἔχῃ ταὑτην τἠν εἰς ἄπαντα χρὁνον αὔξην ὁ τἁφος ἔσῃ ταὑτην τἠν εἰς ἄπαντα χρὁνον ἀνεπιδεῆ χὡματος τοῖς τιϑεμἑνοις.

²⁴ Cf. Hammond 1982 115 and Andronikos 1984 223 and 1987 1, 5.

²⁵ HM I 329–30 and Andronikos 1969 2 ὑποϑέτω ὅτι ὁτύμβος ἀνη̑ϰεν εἰς μίαν οἰϰογένειαν.

²⁶ Musgrave 6.

²⁷ Hammond 1982 116 ‘there is no possible alternative’, although Fox, R.L. in The Search for Alexander (Boston, 1980)Google Scholar had proposed not Alexander but the assassin Pausanias, a Bodyguard.

²⁸ Andronikos, in Archaeology 31 (1978) 5.Google Scholar 33–41 and 1984 64.

²⁹ Musgrave 9.

³⁰ See Hammond 1989 72.

³¹ Andronikos 1984 101 ff. and 1987 2, 369.

³² Andronikos 1984 116.

³³ Andronikos 1984 115.

³⁴ Andronikos 1984 228.

³⁵ Musgrave, J., Neave, R.A.H. and Prag, A.J.N.W. in JHS 104 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar They took into account the earlier analysis by Xirotiris, N.I. and Langenscheidt, F., ‘The cremations from the royal Macedonian tombs of Vergina’, AE 1981. 142 ff.Google Scholar

³⁶ Andronikos 1984 127. The second head is exhibited in the Thessaloniki Museum. This is the only ivory portrait of which two examples were provided in the tomb.

³⁷ Paus. 5. 20. 10; Hammond 1978 336.

³⁸ See Hammond, in Antichthon 14 (1980) 54–6 for the dateCrossRefGoogle Scholar; contra Markle, M. in AJA 82 (1978) 483 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who put the invention of the pike after the battle of Chaeronea in 336.

³⁹ Justin 11. 2. 5; see Hammond 1982 122.

⁴⁰ See references in Hammond 1982 124.

⁴¹ The quotation is from Andronikos' article in Hellenikos Borras of 22 November 1977.

⁴² Further in Hamnmond 1982 124.

⁴³ Musgrave 4 n. 9, citing Xirotiris and Langenscheidt ‘about 25 years’, and 5 adding ‘no features … that would permit an estimate as low as 18–20.’

⁴⁴ This possibility is advanced in Hammond 1982 123, using Justin 9. 2. 1–4; contra P. Green in the same book on p. 145 n. 44.

⁴⁵ For the Thracian connection see Andronikos 1984 189. Most scholars have seen these objects as ‘spoils’ won by Philip and mistakenly placed in the wrong chamber. Yet nothing in the main chamber has been regarded as a ‘spoil’. Some thought that the uneven, non-matching two gold-engraved greaves in the antechamber were intended for Philip's chamber. But Philip had three matching pairs of greaves in his chamber already; and the smaller greave of the uneven pair was for the left leg, whereas Philip's wounds were in his right leg (Hammond 1982 123 f.). In the same book P. Green on p. 135 suggested that the shrunken left leg might have been due to polio. Whatever the cause, the woman was the owner of the uneven pair and she, not Philip who used pike, lance and sword in battle, was the archer.

⁴⁶ Musgrave 6.

⁴⁷ The covering slabs were moveable, as at Aiani. I do not see the reason for Andronikos' assertion that Tomb I was not reopened (1984 6); it is not clear whether the recesses in the walls of the Aiani large tomb were at the same level as those in Tomb I.

⁴⁸ Some prehistoric tumuli were cenotaphs, and the great mound erected in 327 for Demaratus was a cenotaph, since his cremated remains were sent to Corinth.

⁴⁹ Andronikos 1984 82.

⁵⁰ I have not seen a full description of these remains. From early publications in journals I understood that they covered an area 20 m long but narrow and had indications of 3 m high walls at the narrow ends, so that they might have been the remains of a stoa. Andronikos 1984 64 is brief on the subject.

⁵¹ Diyllus implied that they were buried together: ϑάψας τὸν βασιλέα ϰαὶ τὴν βασίλισσαν ἐν Αἰγαίαις ϰαὶμετ᾿ αὐτω̑ν τὴν Κύνναν.

⁵² For the genuineness of these plans see Appendix III in Hammond, , Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman (2nd ed., Bristol, 1989).Google Scholar

⁵³ Andronikos 1984 83.

⁵⁴ In his early reports Andronikos thought that the Great Mound had been built over the tomb of Antigonus Gonatas as its central point in 239, and that the funerary stones were brought together with earth from elsewhere (? from a cemetery disused after c. 290) to make the Mound. But that treatment of funerary headstones seems inconsistent with the respect for the dead which the Macedonians clearly had. No tomb was found under the central part of the Great Mound.

⁵⁵ Hammond 1978 337 f. and 1982 124 f.

⁵⁶ See Green, P. in Philip II, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Heritage 139 ff.Google Scholar, who puts her birth within the bracket 337–335 and her age at death in 317 between 20 and 18. See n. 43 above.

⁵⁷ I do not give detailed references for what follows. The main arguments of dissent are to be found in Adams, W.L. in The Ancient World 3 (1980) 67 ff.Google Scholar; Borza, E.N. in Archaeological News 10 (1981) 73 ff.Google Scholar and 11 (1982) 8 ff. and in Phoenix 41 (1987) 105 ff.; Lehmann, P.W. in AJA 86 (1982) 437 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar and AAA 14 (1981) 134 ff; Ritter, M. in AA 1984. 105 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Much attention has been given to the origin of the vault in Macedonia. See Tomlinson, R.A. in BSA 82 (1987) 305 ff.Google Scholar, written before Andronikos 1987 and before the report of the Tomb of Eurydice. Fredricksmeyer, E. in AJA 87 (1983) 99 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar opposed the downdating of the vault in Macedonia to after Alexander's expedition. It is likely now that the origin was in Macedonia, whether or not the arch went through a corbelled stage before it became a keystone-vault.

⁵⁹ For the comparison see Hammond, in Phoenix 43 (1989) 221 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, replying to Borza's, E.N. article in Phoenix 41 (1987) 105 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, of which he kindly sent me a copy. I owe him an apology for saying that his reasons for dating Tomb II after the death of Alexander were not stated there; I should have said ‘not stated fully’.

⁶⁰ SNG V Pt 3, no. 2440.

⁶¹ Andronikos 1984 64.

⁶² Rotroff, S.I. in AJA 84 (1980) 228CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 86 (1982) 283 and Hesperia 53 (1984) 343 ff. and especially 351 ‘a date between 325 and 295 would therefore be most likely”.

⁶³ See Andronikos 1984 174. Ritter (n. 57 above) p. 110 considered it to be a hatband, but the engraving seems out of place on a hatband.

⁶⁴ See Smith, R.R.R., Hellenistic Royal Portraits (Oxford, 1988) 36.Google Scholar Those who date the wearing of the diadem to after 331 rely to some extent on Justin 12. 3. 8, who states that Alexander assumed the diadem then ‘insolitum antea regibus Macedonicis’. But Justin 12. 3. 8–10 and a parallel passage in Diodorus, 17. 77. 5–7, both adding Alexander's taking over of Darius' harem, clearly derive from Cleitarchus, a notoriously undependable writer (FGrH 137 T 6, T 7, T 8, T 9, F 13, F 15, F 24, F 34). See Hammond, , Three Historians of Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 1983) 59 and 102 f.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Hammond, in Antichthon 20 (1986) 73 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Smith, op. cit. (n. 64 above), 36.

⁶⁶ From Alexander I onwards; see his octadrachm enlarged in Sakellariou, M.B. ed., Macedonia (Athens, 1983) 69.Google Scholar For Alexander III wearing a cloth diadem see Arr. An. 7. 22. 2.

⁶⁷ The injury to Philip's appearance was not as great as Musgrave, Neave and Prag suggest in JHS 104 Plate V. Pliny NH 7. 37 recorded that Critobulus extracted the arrow from his eye and treated the loss of sight without deforming his appearance (Critobulo fama est extracta Philippi regis oculo sagitta et citra deformitatem oris curata orbitate luminis). Philip suffered the injury eighteen years before his death.