DEUTSCHES ARCHAOLOGISCHES INSTITUT

ARCHAOLOGISCHER ANZEIGER
2000

SON D E RDR UCK SE IT E 387 -403

Chryssoula Saatsoglou-Paliadeli

QUEENLY APPEARANCES ΑΤ VERGINA-AEGAE.

OLD AND NEW EPIGRAPHIC ΑΝη LITERARY EVIDENCE

WALTER ΩΕ GRUYTER· BERLIN . NEW, YORK_

2000
 QUEENLY APPEARANCES ΑΤ VERGINA-AEGAE.
OLD AND NEW EPIGRAPHIC AND LITERARY EVIDENCE
by Chryssoula Saatsoglou-Paliadeli

SUMMARY

Apart from the impressive finds which the excavation of the royal tombs brought to light Ι, among
some o!d and new inscriptions from Vergina 2, a high!y fragmentary new piece of epigraphic evidence
from the Sanctuary of Eukleia assumes particu!ar significance as a resu!t of the identification of its
find-spot with the agora of the ancient city and its contribution to the history of the old Macedonian
capital. There is good reason to be!ieve that the poorly preserved inscribed piece presented at the
beginning of this article should be re!ated to the !ast queen of Macedonia, Laodike, daughter of
Se!eucus IV, wife of Perseus and presumed mother of Andriscus; especially when considered ίη
re!ation to three other inscriptions attesting the presence of Eurydice, queen of Amyntas ΠΙ at the
same archaeo!ogica! site. If this is the case, then it seems that despite the transference of the adminis-
trative center of the Macedonian kingdom to Pella, the old capita! never lost its importance for the
roya! family but continued to accomodate ΟΓ p!ay host to it unti! the Roman occupation.

ΤΗΕ SANCTUARY OF EUKLEIA ΑΤ VERGINA-AEGAE (Fig. Ι)

Despite its massive destruction ίn the mid-second century Β. C. and the centuries of dec!ine,
abandonment, demo!ition and cu!tivation which followed the Roman invasion, the Sanctuary of
Euk!eia has enriched ουΓ knowledge with important and impressive materia! evidence since 1982,

Sources of illustrations: Figs. 1. 8-1 1: Ν. H ad- 733 -744 ρl. 144.

dad. - Fig. 2: Th. Vakoulis. - Figs. 3-7: Ch. Saatso-
glou-Paliadeli.
Parts of this article were either published elsewhere ΟΓ
originally presented at Thessaloniki, ίn February 1999
and at the Seminar fίiΓ Klassische Archaologie der
Freien Universitat ίn Berlin, ίn May 1999. The author
owes much to Μ. Hatzopoulos, W.-D. Heilmeyer,
W. Hoepfner, G. Velenis, Α. Kol1toyannis, Μ. Za-
chou-Kontoyanni and Η. G. Martin. Το Η. Kyrieleis
who read the draft and supported its publication Ι
owe Iny special thanks.
AJong with the abbreviations prescribed by the ΑΑ
1997, 61 1 ff. , the following are used ίn this article:
Andronikos 1984 = Μ. Andronikos, Vergina: The
Royal Tombs and the Ancient City (1984).
Bringmann-von Steuben, Schenkungen = Κ. Bring-
mann - Η. νοn Steuben (eds.), SchenkLIngen helle-
nistiscl1er ΗeΠSCl1er an griechische Stadte und Hei-
ligtίimer Ι (1995).
Hammond-Griffith = Ν. G. L. Hammond - G. Η.
Griffith , Α HistolΎ of Macedonia ΙΙ (1976).
HamInond, Macedonian State = Ν. G. L. Hammond ,
T11e Macedonian State. Origins, In stitutions and
History (1989).
Paliadeli 1987 = Ch . Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Ευρυδίκα
Σίρρα Ευκλείαι , ίn: ΑΜΗΤΟΣ. Τιμητικός τόμος
γ ια τον καθηγητή Μανόλη Ανδρόνικο (1987)
Paliadeli 1990 = Ch. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Β εργίνα
1990. Ανασκαφή στο Ιερό της Εύκλειας, AErgo-
Mak 4, 1990,21 -34 figs. 1- 12.
Paliadeli 1991 = Ch. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Β ε ργίνα
1991. Ανασκαφή στο Ιερό της Εύκλειας, AErgo-
Mak 5, 1991 , 9-21.
Paliadeli 1993 = Ch. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Σκέψεις
με αφορμή ένα εύρημα από τα Παλατίτσια , An-
cient Macedonia 6, 1989 (1993), 1339 ff. figs. 1-8 .
Paliadeli 1996 = Ch. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Το Ιερό
της Εύκλειας στη Βεργίνα, AErgoMak 10, 1996,
55-68.
Paliadeli 1996 a = Ch. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Aegae: Α
Reconsideration, ΑΜ 111 , 1996,225-236 ρl. 45.
1 Andronikos 1984, passim.
2 Ch. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Τα επιτάφια μνημεία από
τη Μεγάλη Τούμπα της Βεργίνας (1984); idem, Βι­
λάρρα Τέλλου, ΖΡΕ 72, 1988, Ι Ι Ι f. ρl. 10 a-c (cf.
Μ. Hatzopoulos, ΖΡΕ 68, 1987, 237-240 ρl. 13 c);
idem, Σκέψεις με αφορμή δύο ονόματα από τη Βερ­
γίνα, HOROS 10-12, 1992-1998, 369 -380; idem,
Ναών ευστύλων: Α fragmentary inscription of the
CΙassical period from Vergina, ίη: Inscriptions of Ma-
cedonia (1993) 100ff.; idem, Απόλλωνι Λυκίωι: Ανα­
θηματικό ανάγλυφο ελληνιστικών χρόνων από τη
Βεργίνα, ίn: Μελέτες στή μνήμη της Ι Βοκοτοπού­
λου (2000) 441-451 fίg. Ι.
 CHRYSSOULA SAATSOGLOU-PALlADELl
388

,
-------------------------------- ',.
'τ· \
\
\ ~~. ___ d Ι. _Ό
. ~
Η- ο ί - -~~.,~ 11 ,ΙL! b' lτη
_~~ .. αι 11 11
+ \
\
\
Ι
\
~ .. • !' \
\
1
\1
\
\
ι

.~,\
_....ι
1
ί
ι
\
ί
1

+ ί
ί
,/ ~:-/"'~'

ί
ι
...... ,
.-'

'-
'-
'-,
\
1 ".
ι
.' ~ . ~:-Ι

,u:v:-- ~ .t ../
ι
\ ί
- Ι
1 ----:J3 ί
1 ο ,----- - r
Ι
)---
, ι -----
- - - - _ _ .. _ _ e _ _ _ _ _ _ _

----._--------- --.-----:,~.r~,
J

+ +
Fig. 1. The Sanctuary of EιIkleia at Vergina. The actual condition
 VERGINA-AEGAE. EPIGRAPHIC ΑΝΟ LTTERARY EVIDENCE 389

when its systematic archaeological investigation sponsored by the Aristotle University of Thessalo-
niki was initiated.
The identification of the Sanctuary with the agora of the old Macedonian capital was originally
suggested ίη 1987 3 οη the basis of the epigraphic evidence deriving from a dedicatory inscription
(here no. 2 a, Figs. 3. 4) of Eurydice, daughter of Sirras 4 , queen of Amyntas ΙΙΙ5, to Eukleia: a
panllellenic deity 6, whose worship ίη the agoras of the ancient cities 7 and the erection of her temple
at the Atllenian agora from the spoils of the Battle of Marathon 8 accord with the political connota-
tion of her name 9 , as a protectress of good fame lO .
The systematic excavation of the Sanctuary vindicated the original hypothesis: The poorly pre-
served but eloquent architectural remains of two temples, an altar, three stoas and a peristyle buil-
ding ι ι indicate the public and religious charactel" of the site which is fLlrther suggested by its ρroΧί­
mity to the theater j 2 and the palace 13, ίη a town plan fΟΓeshadοwίng the related features of the
Hellenistic basileia 14. Further epigraphic evidence from the same site attests the appearance of at
least two Macedonian queens ίη the area.

1. QUEEN LAO[DIKE], DAUGHTER OF SEL[EUCUS ΙΥ]:

The fragmentary inscription (Fig. 2)

Α precondition

Without the epigraphical evidence for the presence of Eurydice, queen of Amyntas ΠΙ at Aegae,
represented by the three inscriptions flΌm the archaeological site of Vergina (here nos. 2 a -c), any
attempt to complete this higl1ly fragmentary dedicatory inscription would be impossible. Yet the
find-spot of the fragment under discussion, among the architectιιral remains of the Sanctuary of

3 Paliadeli 1987, 742 f.
4 Ηaιηmοnd , Macedonian State 31 ff.; Α. Ν. Oikonomi-
des, Α New Inscription from Vergina and Eurydice
the Mother of ΡΙιίlίρ Π, The Ancient World 7, 1983 ,
62 -64; Κ. Mortensen, Eurydice: Demonic ΟΓ Devoted
ΜοtheΓ?, AncHistB 6, 1992, 156 - 171 , with an exten-
ded discussion of all relevant SΟUΓces; Strabo νπ 7, 8:
Οί δε Λυγκησται υπ' ΆρραβαίCΡ έγένοντο του Βακ­
χιαδων γένους δντι. Τούτου δ ' ην θυγατριδη η Φιλίπ­
που μήτηρ του Άμύντου Ευρυδίκη, Σίρρα δε θυ­
γάτ ηρ. - For the long discussion οη the conect form
of ΕUιΎdίce's patronymic and tlle contribution of tlle
eΡίgΓaΡhίc evidence from Vergina see Oikonomides
ορ. cit. 62 n. 4; 63 nn. 5. 6. 10 with all the ΓeΙeνant lίte­
ratuΓe.
5 Ηamιηοnd -GΓίffith 176; Ε . Badian, ELIrydice, ίη:
W. L. Adams - Ε. Ν . Borza (eds.), Philip ΙΙ , Alexan-
der tlle Great and the Macedonian ΗeΓίtage (1982)
99 ff. esp. n. 14; cf. Bulletin EpigraphiqLIe 450 no. 249
(1. et L. Robert), ίη: REG 97, 1984; Ε. Ν. Borza, [η
the Shadow of Olympus. The Emergence of Macedon
(1990) 192 f.
6 L. R. Farnell, The CuHs of the GΓeek States V (1909)
444 and n. 233; Μ. GuaΓduccί , SteMat 14, 1938, 6 ff. ;
[5, 1939, 58 ff. ; R. Hampe, RM 62, 1955, 107 ff. ; F. W.
Ηaιηdοrf, GΓίecΙιίsche ΚultΡeΓsοnίfikatίοnen ([ 964)
11 ; Paliadeli 1987, 739ff.; Η. Α. Sllapiro, Personifica-
tions ίη Greek Aι,t (1993) 70-78; LIMC II 1 (1984)
677 s. v. Artemis-Eukleia (L. Gahil); LlMC ιν Ι
(1988) 48 - 51 s. ν. Eukleia (Α. Kossatz-Deissmann).
7 ΡΙιιι. , Arist. ΧΧ 6 (Boeotia); Paus. ΙΧ 17, 5 (Boeotia
and LΟCΓίs); PaLIs. Ι 14, 5 (Athens); Xen ., Hell. ιν 4,
2 (Corinth); Ch. Kaufmann Williams, Pre-Roman
CtIlts ίη the Aι'ea of the ForιIm of Ancient Corinth
(1978) 38 n. 43; Α. Schachter, Cults οΓ Boeotia, 8.
Suppl. BICS (1981) 102f.; F. Kolb, Agora und Thea-
ter, Volks- und Festversammlung (1981) II f. 82 f.; Pa-
liadeli 1987, 742 f.
8 W. Gauer, Weihgeschenke aus den Perserkriegen , 2.
Beih . IstMitt (1968) 26. 70; R. Hampe, RM 62, 1955,
107 ff.; Paliadeli 1987, 739 . - Ε. Hanison, AJA 81 ,
1977, 139 n. 14, suggested the identification of her
temple with the Hephaisteion οη the Athenian Κο­
lonos.
9 Liddell - Scott s. ν. Ευκλεια; Hampe ορ. cit. 144 ;
Gauer ορ. cit. 70 n. 294; Paliadeli 1987, 741; ShapiI'o
ορ. cit. 77.
ιο Gauer ορ. cit. 26. 70; Paliadeli 1987, 740 ff., against
ΡΓeνίοus suggestions associating heI" with Artemis-Eu-
kleia 3nd ίnteΓΡΓetίng he!" worship ίη Boeotia as a pro-
tectΓess οΓ maITiage (see below).
ιι Paliadeli 1996, 57. fig. 1.
Ι2 Paliadeli 1993, 55 fig. 3; St. Drougou, Το θέατρο της
Β ε ργίνας, AErgoMak 3, 1989, 13-23 figs. 1- 5; idem,
Das Theater νοη Vergina, ΑΜ 112, 1997, 281 -305
pls. 37-41.
Ι3 Andronikos 1984, 38-46 figs. 17-21; W. Hoepfner -
G. Brands (eds.) , Basileia: Die Paliiste der hellenisti-
schen Konige (1996) passinl.
Ι4 Η. LaLIter, Die Architektur des Hellenism us (1986)
85-88.
390 CHRYSSOULA SAATSOGLOU-PALIADELI

Fig. 2. The fragmentary inscription

Euk!eia 15 , the public character ofthe site and, above all, the roya! dedications ofEurydice, mother
of Philip Π, to Euk!eia (here nos. 2 a. b) justify the following reflections, despite the difficu!ties
posed by the poor state of preservation of the inscribed fragment.

Description and date of the fragment

Having broken away from a !arger b!ock of marble, the fragment preserves ηο origina! surface
apart from the inscribed one: Measuring 16 cm ίη height and on!y 8 cm ίη width, it bears a fragmen-
tary inscription consisting of three !ines, with only three !etters ίη each of them, reading as follows:
]ΛΑΟ[
]ΣΕΛ[
[τω]lΘΕΩ[ι]

The letters, 2,8 cm high, are most carefully incised, each of them occupying the necessary width,
with ηο deliberateintention of a stoichedon script, apart from the first two lines, where the width
of the !etters produces a rather canonica! arrangement. The form of th cc a!pha with a broken hori-
zonta! bar, of the sigma with horizontal and not oblique bars, of the epsi!on with the midd!e bar
shorter than the exterior ones, with the round !etters omikron and theta shorter than the others,
the small omega with a c!osed horse-shoe shape and 10ng horizonta! bars, and finally the light but
obvious apices of the bars, date the inscription to the late third or ear!y 2 nd century Β . C., very
c!ose to inscriptions related either to Phi!ip V ΟΓ even better to Perseus 16 .

Dedicated to Zeus Mei!ichios?

The dedicatory character of the text is revea!ed by the dative acclamation to the anonymous
god ίη line 3 of the text, easi!y supp!emented ίη the common acc!amation [τω]ι θεω[ι] rather than
[τη]ι θεω[ι].

15 Paliadeli 1991 , 15 fig. 5. 184 ΩΟ. 115 fig. 73 (Philip Υ); 177 no. ]10 figs. 64 - 66
16 Bringmann -von Steuben, Schenkungen 178 ff. no. (Perseus); 417[. ΩΟ. 343 figs. 161. 162 (Perseus).
111 fig. 67 (Philip Υ); 182ff. no. 114 fig. 72 (Philip Υ);
 VERGINA-AEGAE. EPIGRAPHIC AND LITERARY EVIDENCE 391

Who that god might be can οηlΥ be assumed from an impressive piece of sculpture uncovered ίη
the same context: a colossal marble snake which was discovered ίη a deposit especially dug for it ίη
the antechamber of Temple ΙΙ at the Sanctuary of Eukleia 17. Two coins of King Perseus found ίη
the same ditch certify that the colossal marble snake was buried after the destruction of the site by
the Romans, around the mid-2 nd century Β. C. Unique for its dimensions and form, this extraordi-
nary piece of sculpture was once erected οη a marble base, as its well preserved plinth indicates. It
can be securily reconstructed according to similar depictions of snake-gods οη fourth-century votive
reliefs to Zeus Meilichios ΟΓ Philios from Peiraeus l8 , ίη the form of a colossal standing figure ,
originally about 180 cm high 19, and even more accurately according to a Hellenistic votive relief
from Delos depicting a colossal snake οη a high clothed base 20 .
The discovery of the colossal snake ίη the antecllamber of Temple ΙΙ at the Sanctuary of Eukleia
and its dimensions suggest a cult statue of a snake-god: Zeus Meilichios 21 rather than Ktesios, when
one takes into account the fact that the former was worshipped as a protector of fertility at the
agoras of ancient Greek cities 22 , while the latter was especially worshipped ίη private places 23 .
Το sum υρ: The discovery of ουΓ fragmentary dedicatory inscription ίη the same area as the
colossal marble snake permits the assumption that the vague acclamation οη the inscribed fragment
befits a snake-god, possibly Zeus Meilichios, according to relevant epigraphic and iconographical
evidence from fourth-century votive reliefs 24 .

Reconstructing the fragmentary text

The following remarks assist ίη the reconstruction of the text:
Ι. According to a common formula for dedicatory inscriptions, the acclamation to the god οη
the inscribed fragment from Vergina is expected to lίe οη the axis of the original inscription 25 and
placed separately ίη line 3.
2. The remaining letters οη lίηes 1 and 2 thus belong to the middle of the original inscription.
3. The leηgth of lines Ι and 2 thus obviously exceed ίη leηgth the acclamation οη lίηe 3.
4. According to similar and contemporary dedication formulas , lines Ι and 2 must have accomo-
dated the name of the dedicator and his/her patronymic, respectively26.
Were it not for the monumental size of the letters, their most careful incision, the dating of the
inscription to the beginning of the 2 nd century Β. C. , the similarity of its formula to contemporary
royal dedications, the public and religious character of the find-spot and the erection of similar royal
dedications ίη the same area, the preceding remarks would be inadequate for the reconstruction of
the lost text. These factors , however, permit the assumption that οη the small inscribed fragment
from the Sanctuary of Eukleia one may recognize a royal dedication from the first half of the 2 nd
century Β. C., originally erected ίη the agora of the old capital.

The suggestion
As already mentioned, the inscription obviously extended to both sides of the surviving letters,
as the incomplete preservation of the third lίηe shows, and the acclamation ίη lίηe 3 must have had

]7 Paliadeli 1991, 12-16 figs. 6- 10; idem 1996 a, sammlung (1981) 58 η. 283; Μ. Jameson, The Sacrifi-
229 - 231 ρ1. 45, 3. cial Calendar from Erchia, BCH 89, 1965, 159 - 172,
]8 Α. Cook, Zeus. Α Study ίη Ancient Religion ΙΙ (1965) suggests a popu1ar ηοΙ a state worship of the god ίη
1108 fig. 844; 1109 fig. 945; 1176 fig. 978. Athens; the dedication of Philip V Ιο Zeus Meilichius
]9 Paliadeli 1991 , 13 and reconstruction οη ρ . 12; idem at Pella (Brinkmann-von Steuben, Schenkungen 184
1996 a, 229 η. 38. ηο. 115 fig. 73) indicates the importance of the god
20 Paliade1i 1991, 14.21 fig. 9; idem 1996 a 230 n. 50 pl. for the royal fami1y.
45, 4. 23 Paliadeli 1991 , 15 n. 26 = Cook ορ. cit. 1067.
2] Ch. Picard, Sanctuaires, representations et symboles 24 Paliadeli 1991 , 13 ff.
de Zeus Meilichios, RHistRel 125/126, 1942/43, 97 - 25 Bringmann - von Steuben, Schenkungen 179ff. nos.
127. 111. 113-115.
22 F. Kolb, Agora und Theater, Volks- und Festver- 26 Idem.
392 CHRYSSOULA SAATSOGLOU-PALIAOELI

an axial position οη the inscription, while the length of both 1ines 1 and 2 must have been approxi-
mately the same. Furthermore, the formulas used ίη other Hellenistic roya1 dedications Llsually
inc1ude the terms βασιλεύς ΟΓ βασίλισσα preceding the name and the patronymic of the dedica-
tor 27 . Among the known members of the Macedonian roya1 family of the last Antigonids, Laodike,
daughter of Seleucus IV, queen of Perseus corresponds to the surviving 1etters and satisfies the
preconditions posed above, thus permitting - according to similar dedications of both ΡΙ1ί1ίρ V and
Perseus 28 - the reconstruction of the fragmentary inscγiption ίη the following way:
[Βασίλισσα] Λαο[δίκη]
[Βασιλέως] Σελ[ εύκου]
[τω]ι θεω[ι]

Epigraphica1 and historical commentary

The οη1Υ other epigraphic evidence for Queen Laodike is preserved οη a honorific inscription οη
De10s, dated to around 177 Β. C. 29 ; her name and patronymic are a1so preceded by the terms
βασίλισσα and βασιλεύς, respectively, with the addition of her tit1e, as wife of King Perseus
(γυναικα βασιλέως Π ερ σέως) , which is impossib1e for reasons of space to be app1ied οη our ίη­
scription.
Α 10ng but fragmentary inscription from the Athenian Agora preserves the name and tl1e tit1e of
a Queen Laodike 30 ; according to the archon's name, which Β. Meritt dates to 181/18031, the inscrip-
ιίοη should ηοΙ be re1ated Ιο Perseus' queen 32 .
Tlle fragmentary inscription from VeΓgίηa can be fairly accurate1y dated Ιο between 179/178 and
168 Β. C.; the former yeal" relating to the glamorous aHival of the queen-to-be Laodike ίη Macedo-
nia, οη a convoy of Rhodian ships (Po1ybios ΧΧV 4, 8-10), the 1atter coinciding with Perseus'
defeat at Pydna. We know that the 1ast queen of Macedonia very propably returned Ιο tl1e Se1eucid
CΟUΓt and tl1at she was unsuccessfully οffeΓed as a bride Ιο Ariarathes V (Diod . ΧΧΧΙ 28; lustin
ΧΧΧV 1, 2) by her brother Demetrius Ι Soter. It is not certain whether she finally maHied her own
brotheΓ, but her profile has been recognized οη the Se1eucid coins issued by DemetΓίus 33 .
Of her offspring we know nothing aΡaΓt from Andriscus 34 , who claimed to be her son by Perseus
ίη order to 1egitimize his right to the Macedonian throne 35 ; after some martial success against the
Romans, the pretender was finally defeated by Q. Caeci1ius Metellus Macedonicus ίη 146 Β. C.,
marking a glorious triumph for the victor and the definitive end of the Macedonian kingdom.

2. EURYOICE, OAUGHTER OF SIRRAS, QUEEN OF AMYNTAS ΠΙ

The literary evidence

Originating from tl1e royal fami1y of Lyncestis, ίη Upper Macedonia, Eurydice, daughter of SίΓ­
ras 36 was married to Amyntas ΠΙ, ίη 392 Β. C., possibly for po1itica1 reasons. Having given birth

27 Td eIn 63 ff. no. 29; 10 Ι no. 57; 103 f. no. 59; 179 no.
111; 182ff. nos. 114. 115; 19lf. no. 129; 196ff. no.
135; 225 no. 180; 259 ff. no. 232; 265 f. no. 236.
28 ldem (above η. 16).
29 ΙΟ Χ 4, 1074 = Oittenberger, Sylloge 3 639.
30 Bringmann-von Steuben, SchenkLIngen 51 - 53 ηο.
22.
3] Β. Meritt, Historia 26, 1977, 181; Bringmann-von
SteLIben , SCl1enkungen 51: »vor 181/180 v. ChΓ.«.
32 Jdem 52, cOInmentary οη lίηe 8 f. = Ch . Habicht, Chi-
Γοη 19, 1989, 13. 18; Ph. GauthίeΓ, Nouvelles In scγip­
tions de SaΓdes 1I (1989) 74, identifίes her witl1 Lao-
dike ΤΙ; ΒΓίngmanη-vοn Steuben, Schenkungen 54,
do ηο! exclude a member of the Antigonid dynasty.
Were ίι ηοΙ for the dating of the Athenian inscription,
before Laodike's malTiage Ιο ΡeΓse us iη 179/8 Β. C. ,
Laodike of Ι. 8 coLIld be identifίed with the la st Mace-
donian qL]een.
33 BMC GΓeek Coins, Seleucid Κings 50 Taf. 15, 1. 2.
R. FΙeί sc h eΓ, Studien Ζ ΙΙΓ SeleL]kidischen Kunst Ι.
ΗerrSCl1eΓbίΙdnisse (1991) 58 η. 484 Taf. 30 d-g.
34 RE Ι 2 (1894) 2141-2143 s. v. Andriskos 4 (Wilcken).
35 Diod. ΧΧΧΙΙ 15; Ιίν. ΡeΓ. IXL.
36 Mortensen 's recοn sίdeΓat ίοn of the available evidence
Γe-estabΙί s he s ELIrydice as a devoted n10t11eI" ratheI"
than a deιηοnic queen.
 VERGINA-AEGAE. EPIGRAPHIC AND LITERARY EVIDENCE 393

to a daughter, Eurynoe, and three fl1tuΓe kings of Macedonia, AlexandeΓ Π, ΡeΓdίccas ΠΙ and Philip
Π37, she plΌtected the thlΌne for theω, after ΑωΥηtas' deatll ίη 370 Β. C., ίη every possibJe way 38.
Aischines Π 26-29, ίη 343 Β. C. records her as a queen ωοther, ίη connection with the events
following Aωyntas ' death; aCCΟΓdίηg to this source, the Athenian general Iphicrates was invited to
ωeet heΓ at her cotlrt ίη 368/367 Β. C. and the way she appealed to his eωοtίοηs persuaded hίω to
alter the Athenian position towards Pal1sanias, t11e pretender to the Macedonian thlΌne, and thHs
save it [ΟΓ Al11yntas IIl's SOnS 39 .
Plutarcll, Moralia χιν b. c 40 , preserves an eΡίgraω accoωΡaηΥίηg a dedication of Eurydice to
tlle Ml1ses, which is separately discιIssed ίη the appendix to this article.

The epigraphic evidence

EιIrydice's presence at Aegae can be detected οη three ωοηuωeηts found ίη and arOιInd the
archaeological site of Vergina: two of theω (here nos. 2 a. b) are dedicatory inscriptions uncovered
at the SanctuaIY of Etlkleia; the third (here ηο. 2 c) is an inscribed statuary base which was found
re-used ίη an Early Christian basilica at Palatitsia, two kίΙοωetres to the north-east of the ancient
city. The ίωΡοrtaηce of these inscriptions lies οη the fact that they represent the only epigraphic
attestation of this Macedonian queen preserved so far since antiqHity 41.

2 a. Dedicatory inscription οη a rectangulaΓ ωarbΙe base [Γοη1 the Sanctuary of ElIkleia

(Figs. 3. 4)

The ωοnιιωeηt (Fig. 3)

The rectangιιlaI ωarbΙe base was discovered ίη 198242. Tlle excellent wοrkωaηshίΡ of the ωarbΙe
conf1icts with sοωe technical inconsistencies, and the absence of any ωοuldίngs οη the lower and
the top edges of t11e rectangle indicate a reconstlΉction of the fOl1rth-century ωοηl1ωeηt during the
Hellenistic period 43 .
Standing οη a low sqlIare ωarbΙe step which consisted of four blocks fastened together with Π­
shaped ίlΌη clasps ίn lead 44 the rectangular base is also fΟΓωed by four blocks originally fastened
together with ίlΌη n-shaped clasps which are now ωίssίηg 45 . Its lIpper slIIface woιιld have Ieceived
another ωarbΙe block οη which the lost dedication would rest l1ροη 46 .

The ίηscΓίρtίοη (Fig. 4)

The dedication , Ευρυδίκα Σίρρα Ευκλείq. , is preserved ίη an excellent condition and is elegantly
inscribed οη the flΌnt wide side of tlle [ectangle; it is fΓaΙl1ed wit11in an incised band-shaped area,
with the strings at the ends also depicted ίη incision. The choice to have the inscription incised οη
a taenia-sllaped tabula 47 ωaΥ not be ΡUΓeΙΥ deCΟΓatίve, as it repIesents an attribnte which is often

37 Hammond, Macedonian State 31 - 36 esp. 32 f.;
Κ. Mortensen, Eurydice: Deιηοηίc ΟΓ Devoted Μο­
ther?, AncHistB 6, 1992, 156.
38 Hanlmond -Griffitll 184 f. η. 4; Mortensen ορ. cit.
passil11.
39 Aischines II 26 - 29; Mortensen ορ. cit. 157 - 159.
40 Mortensen ορ. cit. 159 f.
41 Α fragmentary inscription recently found at Οίοη pre-
serves tlle nal11e of Siaas; its publication by D. Pan-
termalis ννίll show wllether ίι should be related to Εη­
rydice, as well (see below η. 103).
42 Μ. AndlΌnikos , Prakt 1982, 52 ff. ; idenl, ΕΓgοη 1982,
19 Iίg. 26; Α. Ν. Oikonomides, Α New Inscription
flΌl11 Vergina and Eurydice tlle Mother οΓ Philip Il,
The Ancient WΟΓld 7, 1983, 62 - 64; Paliadeli 1987,
733 ff. ; idem, 1996, 68 Iίg . Ι.
43 Paliadeli 1987, 735; such a possibility was ηοΙ di s-
cussed there. New indications, hοweveΓ, flΌm the ex-
cavation of the Sanctuary suggest an extended recon-
stγuction of previoLls remains ίη the aΓea which might
also explain these inconsistencies.
44 Heigll t 18 CI11.
45 Height 47 CI11; length 143 cnl; width 97 cm.
46 What tlle dedication might have been is impossible to
guess, although fragmentary sCLIlpture οΓ the second
half of the fοuΓth century Β . C. have been found ίη
the SanctLJary. See Paliadeli 1990, 21 ff. Iίgs . 9-11.
47 Paliadeli 1987, 736 ηη. 10. 14 Iίg. 1. - For a simila r
ΡheηOlηeηοη οη a funerary tοιηbstοηe see Ρ. Μ . Fra-
ser - Τ. Ronne, Boeotian and West Greek Tomb-
394 CHRYSSOULA SAATSOGLOU-PALIADELI

Fig. 3. Marb!e base 2 a: the monument

Fig.4. Marb!e base 2 a: the inscription

connected with Euk!eia 48 . The excellent qua!ity of the incision and the e!egant form of the !etters,
2,2 cm high, can be dated to ηο later than the third quarter of the 4th century Β. C.49. An ear!ier
date from the second quarter of the 4th century Β. C., however, shou1d not be ru1ed out 50 .

The date and the reason for the dedication

The dating of the dedication to between 370 and 3401330 Β. C. is further supported by historica!
evidence: Born around 410 Β. C.51 and married to Amyntas ΠΙ in 392 Β. C., Queen Eurydice is not
attested !ater than 368 Β. C. 52. It is not easy to decide whether she was still alive dnring the reign
of her mighty son Phi!ip Π53, bnt it seems qnite improbab!e that she was stil1 !iving when her
grandson Alexander died in 323 Β. C.

stones (1957) 5 ηο. Ι ρl. Ι , Ι ; see a!so Α. Κrug, Binden
ίη der griechischen Kunst (1968) ρl. 2, 1 b.
48 R. Hampe, Kata!og der Samm!ungen antiker Klein-
kunst des archiίologischen Instituts der Universitiίt
Heidelberg II.Neuerwerbungen 1957-1970 (1971)
82 f. ηο. 115 (Terrakottastatuette einer GDttin) .
49 Paliadeli 1987, 736 η. 18. - Β. Helly, before the identi-
fication of the dedicator was rea!ized, suggested to me
a much later date, to the end of the 4th century. Ιι
seems that the actual state of our knowledge, as far
as the !ettering is concerned, is still a f1exib!e means
for the exact dating of an inscription.
50 The fina! conclusion is high!y depending οη the stndy
of the other finds from the Sanctιιary of Eukleia,
which is ίη progress by the author of this artic!e.
51 Hammond-Griffith 16.
52 Hammond-Griffith 184 ηη. 1-3; 204 η. 3.
53 See be!ow η. 58.
 VERGINA-AEGAE. EPIGRAPHIC ΑΝD LITERARY EVIDENCE 395

While for historical and morphological reasons the dedication cannot be dated to earlier than
370 Β. C. and later than 340/330 Β. C. the reason for its erection is not easy to discern.
Any suggestion relating Eurydice' s dedication to the early events ίη her life, such as her marriage
to An1yntas ΠΙ ίη 392 Β. C.54, should be excluded; although Eukleia (as Artemis Eukleia) has been
suggested to be a protectress of marriage 5 5, the lettering of the inscription cannot be dated to the
eaΓΙΥ ΥeaΓS of the fΟUΓth century and Eukleia at VeΓgίna aΡΡeaΓS as an independent deity, ίη ηο
obvious connection with the Boeotian Artemis-Eukleia. If, hοweveΓ, the political character of Eu-
kleia is taken into account 56 , it is [easonable to suggest that a majol" event ίη Macedonian history
within this ΡeΓίοd of time might have offered a good opportunity to ΕUΓΥdίce for a dedication
to Eukleia.
An10ng οtheΓ, unidentifiable hίstΟΓίcaΙ events, and against my ΡΓevίοus suggestion [elating the
queenly dedication to Chaeronea 57, the succesful meeting of the queen mother with the Athenian
geηeΓaΙ Iphicrates ίη 368 Β. C., which safeguarded the Macedonian throne for hel" son Perdiccas
Π 5 8 , seems to be the most suitable reason for such a dedication. (Philip II's political success at
De!phi ίη 347/346 Β. C .59 ΟΓ even the Battle of Chaeronea ίη 338 Β. C.60, shou!d be mΟΓe appro-
ΡΓίate occasions for Phi!ip himself, as Ε. Ν. ΒΟΓΖa and Κ. Mortensen have a!ΓeadΥ pointed oιιt)61.
It seems to me now, that Eurydice's ρeΓsοnal achievement ίη the eaΓ!Υ ΥeaΓS of her widowhood must
have been a most suitable reason [ΟΓ a dedication to Euk!eia as the ρrotectΓess of the glory which
derives from a personal deed with beneficia! [esults [ΟΓ the public profit 62 . If this is the case than
the ίnSCΓίρtίοη should be dated to a little after 368 Β. C.63, thus offering a va!uab!e refeΓence point
for the study of the Macedonian epigraphy.

2 b. Dedicatory inscription οη a statuaΓΥ base from the Sanctuary of Eukleia (Figs. 5. 6)

The monument (Figs. 5. 6)

Identica! ίη content to the first, the second dedicatory inscription recording the same queen and
the same deity is incised οη a marble statuary base which was discovered ίη 1990, a few meters to
the ηΟΓth of the first dedication 64.

54 Ε. Ν. Borza, Ιη tl1e Shadow of Olympus. The ΕmeΓ­ 57 Paliadeli 1987, 742.

gence of Macedon (1990) 192 f.; W. GI'eenwalt, Amyn-
tas ΙΗ and the political stability of AΓgead Macedonia,
The Ancient World 18, 1988,42; Κ. Moι·tensen, ΕυΓΥ­
dice: Demonic or Devoted Mother?, AncHistB 6,
1992, 164 f. does ηο! seem to accept the idea.
55 Hampe ορ. cit. 83 suggested the political connotation
of the deity although he interpreted the Heidelberg
figLlrine as a representation of ΑΓtelηίs-Ειlkleίa, PlΌ­
tecting marriage; Ε. Simon, Die G6tteI" der Griechen
(1969) 178 and G. Despinis, Ένα νέο θραύσμα από
την ανατολική πλευρά της ζωφόρου του Παρθενώνα ,
ίη: Κέρνος. Τιμητική προσφορά στον καθηγητ11
Γ. Μπακαλάκη (1972) 41 f., recognized her as a pro-
tectress of youth οη the east frieze of the Parthenon;
Α. Schachter, Cults of Boeotia (1981) 106 and L. Ga-
hil, LIMC Π Ι (1984) 677 s. ν. AΓtemis-Eukleia, inteI-
preted AΓtemis-Eukleia as a plΌtectress of warriors.
For the political nature οΓ the deity see next note;
Borza ορ. cit. 192 f. , relates the dedication with EηlΎ­
dice's marriage to An1yntas ΠΙ, although οη ρ. 192 n.
38 he accepts the political connotation of Eukleia. See
also below n. 63.
56 R. Hampe, Eukleia und Eunomia, RM 62, 1955,
113 ff. ; F. Kolb, Agora und Theater, Volks- und Fest-
versamn11ung (1981) passim; Paliadeli 1987, 738 ff.
58 Aischines Π 29: και μετα ταύτα ηδη δέησιν ισχυραν
εποιείτο [Εύρυδίκη] και ύπΙ;ρ ύμών και ύπΙ;ρ της
αρχης και δλως ύπίφ της σωτηρίας. Άκούσας δε
ταύτα 'Ιφικράτης έξήλασε Παυσανίαν εκ Μακ ε δο­
νίας και την δυναστείαν ύμίν εσωσε. Mortensen ορ. -
cit. 157 ff.
59 Ρ. Londey, Philip Π and the Delphic Amphiktyony,
Mediterranean AΓchaelogy 7, 1994, 25 ff. with pre-
vious lίterature. - Ι owe the suggestion Ιο Ε. Badian.
60 Andronikos 1984,51; Paliadeli 1987, 742.
61 Borza ορ. cit. 193; Mortensen ορ. cit. 164 f.
62 Paliadeli 1987, 744.
63 According to Mortensen ορ. cit. 165 ff. Eurydice's sec-
ond marriage Ιο her son-in-Iaw, Ptolemy of Aloros,
recorded only by the scholiast οη Aeschines ΙΙ 29 by
Jnstin ΥΗ 4, 7, did ηο! ίη fact affect her powerful
position ίη the Macedonian court; for those who ac-
cept the late testίlηοnΥ οη Eurydice's second marriage
(see Mortensen ορ. cit. 157 ff.) and recognize οη Ευ­
kleia tl1e plΌtectress of marriage, the dedication conld
alternatively be associated with this particulaI" event,
withont affecting the dating of the inscription to the
early years of 360's Β. C .
64 Paliadeli 1990, 23 ff. figs. 2. 3; Paliadeli 1993,
1356-1358 figs. 7. 8.
396 CHRYSSOULA SAATSOGLOU-PALIADELI

Fig. 5. StatuaΓΥ base 2 b: the [ΓΟπΙ view

Fig. 6. StaΙιιaΓΥ base 2 b: the back side

Ιη contrast to the previons one, the inscribed base is a!most intact, with monldings οη t!1e !ower
and npper parts and the !ead [ΟΓ the safe erection of a statιιe still preserved in place οη its npper
SΙΙΓface; the plinth of the fema!e marble statιιe of a pep!ophoros which was fonnd in the same
context fits perfect!y onto it 65 . ThLls, the roya! dedication is safely reconstrncted in its origina! form;
foLlnd in the same spot, along with othel" monnmental scιιlptιιres of the 4th centιιry Β. C.66 this
most important scιιlptιιre from tl1e agora of ancient Aegae will certainly contribLlte - when [ιιΙΙΥ
pHblished - to ΟΙΙΓ knowledge of Late Classical Greek epigraphy, sclI!ptιιre and ΡοrtraitιιΓe 67 .

65 Paliadeli 1990 fϊgs. 4. 7- 9. centuΓΥ Β.C. phase of the SaηctuaΓΥ see Paliadeli
66 Idenl 25 fϊg s . Ι Ο. ι]. 1996, 55-68 fϊgs. 1- 3.
67 FOl" a ΡrelίιηίnaΓΥ ΓeΡΟΓt οη the ,"eslI]ts and tlle 4th
 VERGINA-AEGAE. EPIGRAPHIC ΑΝΟ LITERARY EVIDENCE 397

The inscription
The dedicatory inscription, Ευρυδίκα Σίρρα Ευκλείι;ι , is carefuJly incised οη the front surface of
the base; identica! ίη script and content to the previous one, it should be dated to the same period
and probab!y erected οη the same occasion.
Tlle inscribed base and the pep!ophoros it once snpported not οη!Υ justify the importance of the
site, as part of the re!igions and po!itica! center of Aegae, bnt a!so indicate a specia! re!ationship
between Eurydice, Euk!eia and the ancient city. It can thns be conc!uded that ΕυΙΎdίce, as queen
mother, was preslImab!y a priestess of Enk!eia 68 , possib!y a permanent resident of the o!d capita!,
nntil her nnrecorded death, and she was obviously buried there, sometime during the third quarter
of tlle 4t!1 centυry Β. C. , at the !atest 69 .

2 c. Inscγiption οη a statυary base from Pa!atitsia (Figs. 7 -11)

The monument (Fig. 7)
Α third inscription preserved οη another statυary base supports Enrydice's special re!ationship
with the o!d Macedonian capita!; the fragmentary monnment was fonnd two ki!ometres to the
north-east of the archaeo!ogica! site of Vergina and it was partly destroyed , ίη order to be re-nsed
as a co!nmn base ίη an Ear!y ChΓίstίan basi!ica at Pa!atitsia 70.
ΑΡaΓt from some minot' dίffeΓeηces ίη dimensions, the shape of the Pa!atitsia base is identica! to
tl1e one υncοveΓed ίη the agΟΓa of the ancient city (above no. 2 b) and can thlIs be safe!y reconstrυc­
ted ίη its ΟΓίgίna! form (Fig. 8)7 ι . One notab!e difference is the fact that the bad!y damaged yet
secυΓe!Υ [estored inscription is not incised οη the main face of the slab bnt οη the !eft-hand lateral
snrface (Fig. 9); ίη a [ather unlIsnal relation to tl1e expected front view of the statυe which can best
be explained only if the statυe , foJlowing tl1e placement of the inscγiption, was part of a larger
statυaΙΎ group (Fig. 10)72.

The inscription and its abηΟΓmal position

Consisting of the name and the patronymic of Enrydice, danghter of Siaas, the epigraphic for-
mula, Ευρυδίκα Σίρρα , aJlndes to a lost maΓble statυe of the Macedonian queen which once stood
at Aegae 73 and represents the only recorded depiction of Alexander's grandmother aΡaΓt from the
one ίn the chryselephantine group of the Philippeion 74.

68 Κ . Mortensen, Eurydice: Demonic οΙ' Devoted Moth-
er7, AncHistB 6, 1992, 167 π. 42, suggests that Eury-
dice was actually the one to intlΌduce tl1e cult οΓ Arte-
mi s (7) Eukleia at Aegae: »Artemis Eucleia was wor-
shipped ίn Corinth and ίι is ποΙ unlikely tl1at Eurydi-
ce's mother, a dallghtel' of AHhabaells ο[ Lyncestis
and there[ore a Inember of the CΟΓίntl1ίaη Bacchia-
dae, was a devotee of tl1e cult, whicl1 l11ay have been
well-established ίn Lyncestis if cιιΙtuΓal lίηks with Cor-
ίηΙl1 had been maintained«. It sl10llld be noted ,
110wevel' that there is πο evidence ίη Xen. , Hell. ιν 4,
2 that Eukleia was worshipped ίπ Corinth as Artemis
Eukleia. The connection has been assumed by
R. Lisle, The Cults of Corintl1 (1955) 103, ίπ accor-
dance Witl1 the examples of Boeotia and Locris. - cf.
Paliadeli 1987, 739 ηη . 32. 33.
69 Α most impressive and the eal'liest - ιιρ Ιο now -
Macedonian tomb was uncovel'ed at Vergina ίn 1987.
- Μ . AndlΌllikos, Βεργ ίνα. Ανασκαφή 1987, AErgo-
Mak 1, 1987,8 1- 88 esp. 82-84 figs. 7- 11; ideln, Er-
gon 1987, 45 - 49 figs. 45 -50; idel11, Prakt 1987,
]28 -132; St. G. Miller, The Tomb ο[ Lyson and Kalli-
k]es: Α Pa inted Macedonian TOI11b (1993) ] 14, and
has been actιιally related Ιο this specific queen. ΑΙ­
thougl1 tΙ1eΓe is ηο external sllpport for the attri bu-
ιίοη , apart from the early dating ο[ the tomb to the
late 340's Β. C., the relation of ELIl'ydice with this spe-
cific tol11b wollld eventLlally rule οΙΙΙ the Battle of
Ch ae lΌnea as a reason for her ded ications to Eukleia.
70 Ergon 1983 (1984) 30; G. Touch ais, BCH 108, ]984,
797; Bulletin EpigraphiqLle 424 πο. 654 (Μ . Hatzo-
pon]os), ίη: REG ]01 , 1987; Μ. AndlΌllikos , Βεργίνα.
Αρ χαιολογ ία και Ιστορία, ίη: Φί λια Έπη εις Γ. Ε.
Μυλω νάν Ι (1986) 35 f. π. 46; Paliadeli 1993,
1339-137] , figs. 1- 6, dl'awings nos. 1-3. 8 οη
ρρ. 1366. 1367. 1371 respectively. - Ε. Ν. Bol'za, lη
the Shadow of Olympns. The Emel'gence of Macedon
(1990) 193; Mol'tensen ορ. cit. 165.
71 Paliadeli 1993 , 1371.
72 Idel11 1344Π. figs. 4- 7.
73 Idem 1342-1344 fig. 4; 1356-1358, with drawings οη
ρ. 1367.1370.137].
74 Paus. V 17, 4: Μ ετε κομίσθη δε cωτόσι (ίη the He-
raion) και ε κ του καλουμένου Φιλιππ είου, χρυσου
398 CHR YSSOULA SAATSOG LOU -ΡΑ LIADELI

Fig.7. Statuary base 2c: the back side and the ΙateΓal position of the
inscription

The possible connection of the statuary base flΌm Palatitsia with the Leocharean glΌup ίη 0lym-
pia is ΡrίmaΓίΙΥ suggested by the abnormal position of the inscγiption οη a lateral and ηοΙ the flΌllt
surface of the statuary base, best explained as a result of the special placement of Eurydice's statue
οη the right-hand end of a glΌup that consisted of more than three statues (Fig. 11).
Due Ιο this unusual position of the inscγiption ίι has already been suggested 75 that the statuary
base from Palatitsia may contribute Ιο our knowledge of the original Leocharean composition once
erected ίn 0lympia, since ίι coincides with the position where Eurydice was plΌbably depicted οη
the semicircu1ar base ίη the Philippeion 76. With Alexander ίη the middle 77, 01ympias and Eurydice
(seen by Pausanias ίη the Heraion) wou1d original1y occupy the extreme ends of the glΌup78, while
Philip and Amyntas wou1d border Alexander, indicating that Pausanias who saw Philip, Alexander
and Amyntas ίn the Philippeion, possibly started his descγiption flΌm the left 79 .
The erection of a marble glΌup at Aegae, repeating either the whole ΟΓ part of the chryselephan-
tine Leocharean composition at 0lympia, accoIds with the similar donble dedication of the Daochos
glΌup at Delphi 80 and Pharsalos 8I . Thus it cannot be ruled out that a statuary group similar Ιο the
one at the Philippeion was once dedicated at Aegae.

και ταύτα και ελέφαντος, Εύρυδίκη τε ή Φιλίππου 105. - Paliade1i 1993, 1349 f. n. 33; SeileI" ορ. cit. 98
( μήτηρ και 'Ολυμπιάς ) . F. SeίΙeΓ, Die gIiecl1ische n. 411 does ηο! accept ίι wholeheartedly.
Tholos (1986) 89 - 193. 79 Zschietzmann ορ. cit. 52; Α. Mallwitz, Olyn1pia lInd
75 Paliadeli 1993, 1348 - 1354. seine Bauten (1972) 128.
76 For the Philippeion and the chIyselephantine group 80 Τ. Dohrn, Die Μarιηοr-Standbίlder des Daochos-
ίι hosted see Bringmann-von Steuben, Schenkungen Weihgeschenks ίn Delphi, ΑηιΡI 8 (1968) 33 - 52, pls.
403 - 406 no. 329 (with pIevious liteΓatuΓe). 10-35.
77 W. Zschietzschmann, Das Philippeion, OF Ι (1944) 8ι Ε. ΡΓeιιneΓ, Είn del phisches Weihgeschenk (1900)
51 f.; Α. Borbein, JdI 88, 1973, 66 n. 105; SeileJ' ορ. cit. 39 - 47; J. Marcade, Recueil des signatures de sclIlp-
98 n. 41 Ι. teΙΙΓS grecs Ι (1953) 68; Ρ. Moreno, Vita e arte di Li-
78 That is, before they were ("emoved ιο the Heraion , sippo (1987) 34-43; idem, Lisippo, l'arte e la fortlIna
wheΓe Paus. V 17, 4 saw them. F. AdleI, 01ympia ΙΙ (1995) 81 - 85; Ο. Palagia, The Enemy. Α Macedonian
(1892) 128 ff., esp. 129. For the position of the female ίη Piraeus, ίη: Ο. Palagia - W. ColIlson (eds.), Re-
statues at the eχtΓeme ends of the gIΌlIP see giona l Schools ίn Hellenistic SclIlpture (1998) 19 nn.
Zschietschmann ορ. cit. 51 f. - ΒΟΓbeίn ορ. cit. 66 n. 23.24.
 VERGINA-AEGAE. EPIGRAPHIC ΑΝD LITERARY EVIDENCE 399

~~~' __~____________~5~O_______________ ~__~1~5~5__~ι

81 .,'

Fig. 8. Statυary base 2 c: tlle monument ΓecοnstΓucted

<

-. -0.
----- - - --- - --- - - - - - - - ------ -------'

Fig. 9. Statυary base 2 c: the inscγibed side

The bad!y damaged inscription οη the statιJary base from Pa!atitsia cannot be easi!y dated; if
however its re!ation to the chryselephantine group is accepted, then ίι should be dated witl1in the
third quarter of the 4th centιJry Β . C., obviously after 336 Β. C. , if ίι is accepted that Philip's decision
ιο dedicate at Olympia after the Battle of Chaeronea was ηοΙ realized but οηlΥ during Alexander 's
reign 82 .

Το sum up: The three inscriptions from Vergina presented above constitιJte the οηlΥ epigraphic
evidence for the mother of Phi!ip preserved since antiquity; consequent!y, they supp!ement the
scanty literary evidence οη her life. Her patronymic: Σίρρας, wrong!y attested ίη some ancient sour-
ces 83 and wide!y criticized by modern historians 84 , can now be securely reconstructed , thanks ιο the
epigraphic evidence from the old capita! of the Macedonian kingdom 85 . The fina! pub!ication of the

82 Adler ορ. cit. dates the eΓectίοn ηο later than 334 Β. C. and Eurydice tlle Mother of Philip JI , The Ancient
- cf. Β . Schmidt-Douna, Engnatia Ι , 1989, 106ff. nn. WΟΓΙd 7, 1983, 62 n. 4.
11. 14; BIingmann - von Steuben, SchenklIngen 403 - 84 Oikonomides ορ. cit. 63 f.
406 no. 329. 85 Hammond - GΓίffίth 14 ff. ; Oikononlides ορ. cit. 62 n.
83 Α. Ν. Oikonomides, Α New Inscription fIOI11 Vergina 4; PaJiadeJi 1987,733[. nn . 3- 6.
400 CHRYSSOULA SAATSOGLOU-PALIADELI

Ψ
OCΗ

3.

..
2•

Fig. 10. Statuary base 2 c: hypothetical position of the Π10Ι1UΠ1ent

Fig. 11. Statuary base 2c: hypothetical reconstructioI1 of the statuary grotιp

marble statue she dedicated to Eukleia and its stylίstic appreciation will hopefully clarify t11e histori-
cal reason [ΟΓ the erection and will thus contribute largely to our knowledge of Late Classical
sculptιJre, portraiture and epigraphy 86.

EPILOGUE

The royal dedications discussed above indicate that the transference of the administrative centre
from Aegae to Pella did not affect the importance of the old capital of the Macedonian kingdom
fo[ the members of the royal families whicll followed; this is also well ref1ected οη the Hellenistic

86 Soon 10 be published by the authoJ" of this aΓΙίcΙe.

 VERGINA-AEGAE. EPIGRAPHIC AND LITERARY EVIDENCE 401

dedicatoIY votive reliefs 87 and the inscriptions to HeIak!es Patroos fΓOm the palace of Vergina 88 :
Tlle ΓOyal residence, the theatIe, the agora and possibly the cemetery continlled to accept them alive
ΟΓ dead llntil the Roman occllpation. The new material evidence from VeIgina Γef1ects their presence
at the site, and thlls cοntΓίbιιtes to ΟΙΙΓ llnderstanding of the aΓchaeοΙοgίca! remains already revealed
ΟΓ waiting to be discovered ίη tlle futuΓe. It is finally obviolls that, despite a recent attempt to
ιιηdeΓestίmate the significance οΓ tlle site 89 , the identification of Vergina with Aegae does not rely
any more ιιροη the impressive finds from the Great Tllmll!lls 90 and the pa!ace 9I bllt it is e!oqlIently
Ief1ected by ablIlldant new material evidence discovered within the limits οΓ the ancient city.

APPENDIX

Pllltarch, Moralia χιν b. c, and Ellrydice's dedication to the Mllses: Α statue οΓ Pothos?
The impressive personality οΓ Ellrydice is best [ef1ected ίη an epigram ΡΓeseΓνed ίη Pllltarch,
ΜΟΓaΙίa ΧΙΥ14 b. c, which shoιιld not be associated with any epigraphic evidence fΓOm Vergina 92 .
Ρ!ιιtaΓch's attestation concerns a dedication of ElIΓydice, dalIgl1ter οΓ Sirras, to the MlIses, as an
eΧΡΓessίοη of her gratitude for being able to learn how to read and write when l1er children weΓe
a!ready teenageIs 93 ; it Sl10ιιld therefore be dated to the !ate 370's ΟΓ the early 360's Β. C.94 .
Εύρυδίκα Σίρρα , πολιητις, τόνδ' ανέθηκε
Μούσαις , εϋιστον ψυχΊ] έλουσα πόθον
Γράμματα ycιp μνημεια λόγων, μήτηρ γεγαυια,
παίδων ήβώντων εξεπόνησε μαθεΙν .

What exactly ΕΙΙΙΎdίce dedicated and where the Sanctuary οΓ the Mllses might be located cannot
be extracted from the vaglle information provided by the epigram. Α comment, however, οη specific
sllggestions already made by Α. Ν. Oikonomides 95 might illuminate the meaning of this most inter-
esting lίterary evidence οη Ellrydice.

The term πολιητις

a. The llse of the term πολιητις ίη veΓse 1 of the epigram shonld not be conceived as contrasting
witl1 Ilel' tit!e-designating her, that is, as a civilian ίn cοηtΓast with her previous roya! statιιs, as
Oikonomides originally snggested 96 . Such an ίηterpΓetatίοη would conf1ict with the official adoption
οΓ the terms βασιλεύς - βασίλισσα by the Hellenistic dynasties, ηο ear!ier than 304 Β. C.
b. Πολιήτης ίn ancient Greek texts is opposed to ξένος not βασιλεύ ς 9 7 and it is constantly used
by Herodotus to designate citizensl1ip ΟΓ fellow-citizenship 98,

87 L. Heuzey - Η. DaUlηet, Mission al-cheologique de 91 Hoepfner - Brands ορ. cit. passinl.

Macedoine (1876) 179 Π. ; Ch. Kunze, Die Skulpturen- 92
ausstattung hellenistischer Palaste, ίη: W. Hoepfner -
G. Brands (eds.), Basileia. Die Palaste der hellenisti-
sCllen K6nige (1996) 109 ff. esp. 120 f.
88 ADelt 25, 1970, Chron 394; Andronikos 1984, 22; Pa- 93
lίadelί 1996 a , 227 nn. 14. 15. Α re-eχaιηίnatίοn of the
tholos at Vergina and its contents, ίη pΓOgress by the 94
author of this article lηaΥ hopefully clarify its form
and fLlnction.
89 Ρ. Faklaris, ΑΙΑ 98, 1994, 609-616. Fo[ the weak 95
philological, POOl' historical and inconlplete archaeo- 96
logical argumentation see Μ. Hatzopoulos, REG 109, 97
1996, 264-268; Ν. G. L. Hammond , JHS 117, 1997, 98
177 - 179; Paliadeli 1996 a , 225-236, ρl. 45.
90 Andronikos 1984, passim.
Hammond, Macedonian State 33 n. 68 seems ιο relate
ίι with the ELII'ydice inscγiption s fΓOm Vergina; Κ.
Mortensen, ELI[ydice: Demonic ΟΓ Devoted Mother?,
AncHistB 6, 1992, 159 f.
Οη the discussion about the attribution of the text ιο
Plutarch see Mortensen ορ. cit. 159 η. 16.
Α. Ν. Oikonomides, Α New lnscription fΓOm Vergina
and ΕUιΎdίce the mother οΓ ΡΙιίlίρ Π , The Ancient
World 7, 1983 , 64.
Idem.
Idem.
Liddell - Scott s. v. πολιήτης.
Idem: »Ερ . and Ιοη. for πο λ ίτη ς, citizen«. - Con-
stantly ίη HeΓOdotus as fellow-citi zen, countryman.
402 CHRYSSOULA SAATSOGLOU-PALIADELI

c. ίη the form πολιητις ίι means a citizen 99 οτ anytlling related to a city.IOO

Consequently, the use of the term πολιητις ίη our epigram should be viewed not as a reference
to ΕUΙΎdίce 's eX-lΌyal status 101 but rather as an allusion Ιο her permanent residence-possibly, accor-
ding Ιο the suggestion put forward above, at Aegae lO2 . Such an assumption would lead to the
hypothesis that a sanctuary of the Muses should be located ίη the precincts of the old Macedonian
capital. A1though there is ηο archaeological evidence available at the moment to suppoIt this possi-
bility, and altholIgh Dion would be an equally plΌpel' place for such a dedication 103, the area alΌund
the mountains ίη which Aegae is located should not be excluded as a possible location for a sanc-
tuary dedicated Ιο the Muses l04 .

The dedication

Wondering about what kind of object was dedicated by Eurydice to the Muses, Oikonomides
admits that ίι is impossible Ιο choose »flΌm among Eurydice's statue, a statue of ΑροlΙο and a
tablet with the Greek alphabet inscribed οη ίι« 105.
It is actually true that the vague addIess of the aIticle τόνδε ίη veIse 1 of the epigram does ηοΙ
permit much scope [ΟΓ interpretation; some remarks, however, ίη Oikonomides' suggestions might
shed light οη the plΌblem:
a. For grammatical reasons τόνδε can refer neither Ιο αγαλμα ηοτ Ιο εικών , both terms designat-
ing a statue: αγαλμα (originally any offering, later the statue of a god)106; εικών (originally any
portrait, later a portrait statue) 107.
b. Ά νδριάς, an alternative term for a portrait statue (never a statue of a god) may fit Ιο the
grammatical requirements of the masculine article but it can hardly refer to a female statue 108.
It seems that Eurydice's dedication to the Muses was neither her portrait statue, ί. e. εικών ηΟΓ
a statue of ΑροlΙο , ί. e. αγαλμα.
c. Α pinαx inscribed with the Greek alphabet would be grammatically correct but arcllaeologically
most difficult Ιο support, especially when related Ιο a lΌyal dedication.

τόνδ ' ανέθηκε Μούσαις , ευιστον Ψυχij έλουσα Πόθον(?)

From the grammatical point of view, the al'ticle τόνδε ίη the epigram actually defines the term
πόθον ίη verse 2. One might therefore assuιne that it was not iHelevant to the actual dedication,
but rather referred to it. CoιιId it thus be suggested that the dedication of Eurydice was a statue
representing the personification of Pothos?
Πόθος does ηοΙ necessarily possess an erotic connotation, as has been slIggested, mainly οη the
basis of Pausanias' late comment οη the statuary group which he saw at Megara 109. The term is
clearly distinguished flΌm both ϊμερος and ερως, and ίη literary contexts it does not mean ' elΌtic
desil'e ', but Ύearnίηg , longing, desire of things usually absent ΟΓ missing ' , such as a πόλις (πόθος

99 AnthGr. ΥΠ 218, 3: ΛαΊδ ' εχω, πολιητιν άλιζώνοLO eΓ? ,AncHistB 6, 1992, 166: at Dion/Aegae? Pella?
Κορίνθου ; ΥΠ 492, 1. 3: ΟΙχόμεθ ' ώ Μίλητε, ... 105 Α. Ν. Oikonomides, Α New Inscription frol11 ΥeΓgίηa
τρισσαι πο λ ιι1τιδε ς. and Eurydice the l11otl1eI' of Philip Π , The Ancient
100 Eur. , Ηίρρ . 1127: ψάμμαθοι πολιάτιδος ακτάς. WΟΓΙd 7, 1983, 64.
10 1 Mortensen ορ. cit. 165 η. 38. 106 R. R. R. Sl11ith, Hellenistic Royal PortΓaits (1989) 16
102 Paliadeli 1996 a 227 η. 15. η. 11.
103 Α fragmentary inscription preserving the name SiITas 107 IdeJn 16 ηη. 13. 17 (for ΓaΓe and late exceptions).
was recently revealed at Dion. D. Pantermalis who an- 108 Idel11 16 n. 12.
nounced ίι dLlring the 11 th International Congress οη 109 PaLIs. 143.6: Σκόπα δε Έρως και 'Ίμερος και Πόθος ,
Ancient Macedonia and Thrace (AErgoMak 11 , 1999) εΙ δή διάφορά έστι κατά ταυτό τοις όνόμασι και τα
was kind enough to show ίι to me, recently. έργ α σφίσι. LIMC ΥΠ 1 (1994) 501 - 503 s. ν. Ρο­
104 Κ. Mortensen, Eurydice: Del110nic ΟΙ' Devoted Moth- thos (1. Bazant).
 VERGINA-AEGAE. EPIGRAPHIC AND LITERARY EVIDENCE 403

πόλιος) 110. ActuaJJy, it iS ίn this non-erotic sense that it is used ίn our epigram: a strong desire for
learning associated with t11e Muses, protectors of knowledge and learning 111 .
Ιη Greek art Pothos, as a personification of the term, appears during the late 5th century Β . C.;
he is usuaJJy depicted ίn the circle of Aphrodite, Apollo and Dionysos, along with other personifica-
tions, which do not necessarily embody erotic desire, although they are usuaJJy related to women 112 .
Our interpretation for the non-erotic Pothos would accord with his depiction along with Mou-
saios and the Muses οη a vase-painting of the Meidias Painter, where the winged personification , is
resting his hands οη Kalliope's s110ulders 113; it may also be ηο accident that οη another vase-paint-
ing by the Meidias Painter, Pothos, winged again, is driving Aphrodite's chariot 114 along with Hedy-
logos (a unique personification of Sweet Speech) 115.
Seen ίη this context, it seems that a statue of Pothos, as the representation of longing - for
learning ίη our case - would be a most appropriate dedication for Eurydice, who wished to express
her gratitude to the Muses for her late acquaintance with knowledge 116; such an interpretation
would accord with the syntax of the epigram and would clarify its meaning.
Erected, as already suggested, at the time of ΟΓ shortly after Amyntas' death, ί . e. ίη the late 70's
ΟΓ the eaIly 60's of the fourth century, while Eurydice's chiJdren were still teenagers, our Pothos
should not be directly related to the Scopan Pothos, usually dated to the 330's Β. C. 11 7 and recorded
to have been standing ίη Samothrace and at Megara 118 . It should οηlΥ be assumed that another
statue of Pothos, of an earlier date, by another ΟΓ the same artist 119 had already been created ίη
the first half of the 4th century Β . C., possibly ίη ordeI to accommodate the special demands of a
Macedonian queen .
Ιη any event, what can be concluded from Eurydices' dedication to the Muses is the fact that the
cultural contact of the Argead dynasty with the artists of the Greek world was not restricted to the
short peIiod of Archelaos' Ieign 120 to be repeated with Philip and AJexander, οηlΥ, but was a Jong
established and continuous tradition which is now best reflected ίn the magnificent fIesco paintings
of the royaJ tombs 121 and the impressive sculpture unearthed ίη the agora of the ancient Macedo-
nian capital l22 .

Addre ss : DI: CΙ1I"JSSOUla Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, DeΡαι'ιmenι oj ΗίS ΙΟIΎ and Arc/1aeology, Tl1 e Arisιotle Universily, GR-
54006 Thessaloniki, Ε-ΜαίΙ: cspal@hisl. aulh..gr

ι 10 Liddell - Scott s. ν, πόθος (HeIΌdotus Ι 165).
ιιι W. Otto, Die Musen und der g6ttliche U rsprung des
Singens und Sagens (1961) passim.
112 LIMC νπ Ι (1994) 501 - 503 s. v. Pothos (1. Bazant);
Η , Α. ShapiIΌ , Personifications ίη Greek Α.ΓΙ (1993)
110 ff. esp. 121 - 124, 242 - 244 s. ν, Pothos.
113 L1MC Vll 1 (1994) 501 s. v. Pothos ηο. 3 (Ι. Bazant);
L, Burn , The Meidias Painter (1987) 26.
114 LIMC ΥΗΙ (1994) 501 s. v. Pothos no. 6 (1. Bazant);
ίη three other cases (idem nos. 2. 4. 5) Pothos is repre-
sented along with Eukleia.
ι 15 Liddell - Scott s. v. Ήδύλογος ; Burn ορ. cit. 26.
ι 16 For the educational character of the Muses see L. R .
Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States V (1909) 436;
LIMC ΥΙ 1 (1992) 657 ff. s. v. Monsa, Mousai
(Α. Queyrel).
117 Α. Stewart, Skopas of PaIΌS (1977) 107ff. 109 n. 65;
144 - 146 ρl. 45 a. c,
ιΙ8 ΡΙίη. ΧΧΧΥΙ 25 (Samothrace); Paus. Ι 43, 6 (Megara);
Stewart ορ. cit. 127. 130 respectively.
119 For Skopas' early carreer see Stewart ορ. cit. 90 - 94.
12 0 For artists ίn Archelaos' court see Hammond- G rif-
fith 137-141. 149 and Ε. Ν. Borza, Ιη the Shadow of
0lympus. The Emergence of Macedon (1990) 168 f.
172 f. For the possible appearence of Kallill1achos ίη
Arche1aos' conrt see Ch. Saatsoglu-Pa1iade1i, Ναω ν
ευστύλων. Α fragmentary inSC1"iption of the Classica1
Period fIΌm Virginia, ίη: Inscriptions of Macedonia,
3'd International Symposium οη Macedonia, Thessa-
10niki 1993 (1996) 100 - 112; further promoted by
W. Fnchs, Eine versteckte Huldigung des Euripides an
Kallin1achos, Bi1dhauer und Torent, ίη: S. G oedde -
Th. Heinze (Hrsg.), Skenika. Festschrift fίir H.-D.
B1H111e (2000) 189 - 196.
12 1 AndIΌilikos 1984, passim; idem, Vergina Π : The
' Tomb of Persephone ' (1996) passim; Ch. Saatsoglou-
Paliadeli, The Hunt Frieze οη Philip's Tomb at Ver-
gina (ίn press).
122 Pa1iadeli 1990, 21 ff. ; Β. S. Ridgway, Fourth-Century
Styles ίη Greek Sculpture (1997) 347 η. 46.