CHAIRONEIA 338: TOPOGRAPHIES of COMMEMORATION Author(S): JOHN MA Reviewed Work(S): Source: the Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol

CHAIRONEIA 338: TOPOGRAPHIES OF COMMEMORATION Author(s): JOHN MA Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 128 (2008), pp. 72-91 Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40651724 . Accessed: 28/08/2012 10:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org Journalof Hellenic Studies 128 (2008) 72-91

CHAIRONEIA338: TOPOGRAPHIES OF COMMEMORATION*

Abstract:This articleexamines two funerarymonuments associated with the battle of Chaironeiain 338: first,the mound,covering a masscremation, by the Kephissos; second, near the town of Chaironeia, the mass burial surrounded bya stoneenclosure and topped by a colossalstone lion. The acceptedidentifications are confirmed (the mound is that of the Macedonian dead, the lion monumentthat of Theban dead, in all probabilitythe Sacred Band), and two propositionsdeveloped: the mound does notrelate to thetactical dispositions of thebattle, and hencethe generally acceptedreconstruction ofthe battle must be discarded;the lion monument must date to muchlater than 338. In devel- opingthese propositions, I examine material which has been longknown, but never considered in depth;I notably presentwhat I believeare the first photographs of some of the osteological material from the mass burial under the lion monument.More generally, the two monuments, located at differentpoints of the battlefield, set up bydifferent actors and at differentmoments, offer the opportunity for considerations on thedifferent functions of 'memory'surrounding an historicalevent: the Macedonian mound reflected the needs and self-imaginingof thevictorious army, imposing a tracein thelandscape; the lion monument embeds itself in preexistingtopographies, for a morereflective, and more troubled,effect.

'AufChäroneas Heide Im altenSchlachtgefild' Liegtwie versteintin Leide Ein marmornLöwenbild.' E. Geibel,Erinnerungen aus Griechenland,stanza 20.

'In thisroom are exposed the bones of those who died at Chaeronea,with the sword-cuts showing. This has no bearingon art,and is a rathershocking sight. It wouldhave been better to leave theseheroes in thegraves they earned so nobly.' MacmillanGuide to Greece(1908).

On 2 August338 BC, in theplain between Chaironeia and theKephissos, Philip II decisively defeateda coalitionof Greek states, especially Athens and the Boiotian League.1 The subsequent settlementconfirmed Philip's political dominance over the Greek states. This most événementiel ofevents, once heldto symbolizea watershedin Greekhistory, took place as a concretehappen- ing;it then existed not just as a historiographicalconstruct, but also as a monumentaland cultural phenomenonin a particularlandscape. The present paper re-examines the battle from interrelated viewpoints:the details of the battle, ritual practices, topographies of memory.

I. CHAIRONEIA

AncientChaironeia (Plate 4(a)),2 likeits modern successors (Kápraina, known to generationsof travellers,and the contemporary dhimos of Cherónia), lies in an importantlieu de passage, the west endof the Kephissos corridor. The plainstretches east to west,about three kilometres wide from thesouthern mountain range to theriver. On theother side of theriver, the range of Akontion

* I thankPolly Low, Graham Oliver and Peter Rhodes for Kápraina,and who helpedme withhis Plutarchanand theinvitation to give an originallyvery different paper; I Chaironeianexpertise), Angelos Chaniotis, Jim Coulton, owe theexpression 'cultures of commemoration' to them. SylvianFachard, the late PeterFraser, Tonio Hölscher, Researchfor this paper was carriedout thanks to a Philip AlistarJackson, Maria Liston, Paraskevi Martzavou, Josh LeverhulmePrize, for which I am gladto thank the Lever- Ober,Karen Schlott,Antony Spawforth. Mistakes and hulmeTrust. Workin Greece was enabled by James omissionsremain my own. 1 Whitley,Helen Clark,Vassilios Petrakos, Ioanna Ninou, Plut.Cam. 19.8 (7 Metageitnion);Hammond (1973) VassiliosAravantinos, Iannis Phappas, Giorgios Korres, 567. 2 Roza Proskynitopoulou,Mika Palaiokrassa.I also thank Paus. 9.40-1,with Frazer (1898); Fossey(1988) 375- the followingpersons for assistance: Kostas Buraselis, 85; Kountouri(2006). ChristopheChandezon (with whom I trampedaround CHAIRONEIA338 73

definesthe northern edge of the plain. The plain leads towards Phokis and the pass ofParapotamioi, whichseparates the plain of Chaironeiafrom the basin of Elateia.3 An importantroad leads fromThebes to Phokis,via Haliartos,the south edge of theKopais basin,and Chaironeia,where the road shifts from its east-west direction into the great bend that willtake it to the basin of Elateia. Themain route to Delphi branched off this road, after Panopeus. FromChaironeia another road leads north-east, towards a crossingon theKephissos and Opous.4 Orchomenosmay have been connectedwith Chaironeia by tworoads, one alongthe foot of Mt Akontion,past the village of Akontio (Bisbardi), until the Kephissos bridge, the other along the rightbank of the Kephissos.5 Chaironeia,at the footof a double crag,Petrachos, occupies a small north-southvalley. Reckoningeastwards, there are threemore such valleys. Firstcomes thewell-watered vale of Lykouressi,distinguished by threechurches and a monastery;the valley leads up to a metalled roadtowards Lebadeia. The valleysheltered a shrineof Herakles;the stream in thevalley is the ancientThermodon or Haimon.6 The next valley is thatof the ancient river Molos:7 the lower part is takenby oliveculture, the upper part by Mediterraneansavanna. The thirdvalley leads, by an easyroad through garrigue, to a smallplateau (and a modernquarry), then down a longslope to Lebadeia. Thisis theonce much-frequented 'Kerata pass'.8 Moderntraffic now exclusively takes thewinding road at thefoot of themountain. The mountainseparating Chaironeia from the valleyof Lebadeia shouldnot be called Thourion,as on modernmaps; the name should be re- servedfor the mountain west of Chaironeia.9 The landscapeis also structuredby man-madelandmarks. Earliest is a Neolithicmound (MagoulaBaloumenou) near the Kephissos crossing.10 Second, a funeraryenclosure, including a colossalstone lion, was erectedeast of the city. This has beenidentified as thetomb of theThe- bansmentioned by Pausanias; specifically, the 255 deadmen laid to rest there in a hasty,offering- poorburial have been identified with the crack troops of the Thebans, the so-called Sacred Band. Finally,there is a largetumulus, about 3 kilometresto theeast of the Neolithic mound: this is the polyandrionof the Macedonians mentioned by Plutarch, and identified on thebasis ofthe sarissa headsand a Macedoniancoin foundin thecremation level. The identificationsare convincing andmutually reinforcing (see below).

II. THE BATTLE OF 338 BC

Thereis a standardaccount of thebattle, created by Sotiriadis,Hammond and Pritchett.11We knowthat Philip and Alexander commanded the army; Philip took the right wing, the royal position,and prince Alexander the left. Philip is said to have deceivedthe Athenians by a planned

3 On theplain, Conner (1979) 134 fig.2, 138 fig.4; walkingto themonastery. The startingpoint of thepil- Belle (1881) 135. grimageis notrecorded, but is likelyto be Lebadeia,or a 4 Flauberttook the road on 10 January1851, setting villageon theLebadeia side ofthe mountain. 7 outfrom Molos on theMalian Gulf, and taking eight hours Sotiriadis(1904), (1905); Hammond(1973) 536-40; to reach'Rapurna' as thename is misspelledin thepub- Campeia/. (1992). lishedversion of his notes:Flaubert (1998) 558, fromthe 8Lolling(1989) 221-2. Earlier,e.g. Clarke(1818) 172 transcriptionbyhis niece Caroline; since R forK is a com- ('the antientpaved way to CHAERONÉA'); Hobhouse monmistake made by readersof Flaubert'shand, correct (1813) 266 ('wild andrugged' road); Stephani(1843) 64- to Kapurna.My thanksto S. Dord Crousléfor advice. 5 (good road);Flaubert (1998) 559. 9 5On theroad (unearthed on a 35 m stretch),Aravanti- Camp eia/. (1992). 10 nos(1993). An Orchomenianinscription, IG 7.3170, men- Sotiriadis(1902), (1910); Tzavella-Evjen(1995). 11 tions'the road to Lebadeia'and 'theroad to Chaironeia'. Sotiriadis(1903); Costanzi(1923); Pritchett(1958); 6 Sotiriadis(1904) 45-50,(1905) 113-20,for the Her- Hammond(1973) 534-57,with the meagre sources; Kro- akleionand Plutarch. Not a cul-de-sac,as claimed in mayer(1905) 16-23; Braun (1948); Rahe (1981), etc. Hammond(1973) 542: a modernpious inscription (1970) Buckler(2003) is cautious.See also Bucklerand Beck recordsthe Virgin's protection in Easter1912 for children (2008) fora critiqueof the received version. 74 JOHNMA retreat,so theAthenians were posted opposite Philip, on theallied left;Alexander defeated the SacredBand, so theBoiotians were posted opposite him, on theallied right. Alexander camped underan oaktree, not far from the polyandrion of the Macedonians identified by excavation, which givesus an idea of wherethe Macedonian left was; thetumulus is supposedto markthe spot of thehardest fighting, no doubtthe site where the Sacred Band was overwhelmedby Alexander. The tumulusof the Macedonians anchors the whole scheme. Sotiriadisreconstructed the op- posinglines perpendicular to theKephissos valley; but this does notallow theallies access to the Keratapass towards Lebadeia, where the defeated Greeks took refuge. So theGreek line must have angledforward from the spot of the Macedonian mass tomb. Sincethe Greek camp occupied the Herakleionin theLykouressi valley, the left flank of the Greek line must have startedwest of this valleyat theridge (behind the modern museum) between the Lykouressi valley and the Kapraina valley.Hence we havea longbattle line, nearly due east-west,with the best troops, the Boiotians andthe Sacred Band, on therefused right flank, and the Athenians thrown forward. If theMace- donianleft was indeedlocated 'not far' from the tumulus, as indicatedby 'Alexander'soak', then a greatpart of the Macedonian battle line formed up in an acuteangle between the allied right and thecourse of the Kephissos, with its back hard against the river and itsmarshy bed.12 None of thisholds. Thereis no reasonto supposethat the Macedonian mound marks any precisespot of thebattlelines; at Marathon,for instance, the soros is locatedquite far from the actualbattlefield. The detail about Alexander's oak doesnot establish the link between mound and battlelines: the oak couldhave been locateda kilometreor threeaway; in addition,the detail of Alexander'ssleeping there could simply be folklore.The SacredBand mightwell havebeen on the otherwing: the storythat Alexander 'shook' the Sacred Band belongsto theAlexander Vulgate,and Plutarch does notvouch for it.13 Therefore, the allied line formed to thewest of the entranceof the Lykouressi valley, and stretchedacross the Kephissos valley - a shortline allow- ing forthe usual Boiotiandeep phalanxes. The courseof thebattle had to negotiatethe local micro-topography(notably the various rivers flowing out of thesouthern ridge), but we haveno idea how. The Boiotians,including the Sacred Band, perhaps fought on theleft, thrown forward accordingto thetactics inaugurated by Epameinondas;they might have facedPhilip and his best troops.The alliedtroops lost, with heavy casualties. One thousandAthenians were killed, two thousandcaptured. Allied survivors made their way to Lebadeia, whence they contacted Philip the nextday. The slaughter-strewnfield may have contributedto theplague that followed, raging in winter338/7.14 Thereis anothersource that can be explored:battle archaeology.15 In thisparticular case, there aretwo securely identified mass graves from the battle of 338 (see below),the Macedonian mound andthe Theban polyandrion. From the Macedonian mound comes a setof instructive finds. First, thehuman remains from the cremation. The excavator'sdescription of a vastand thicklayer of ashes,75 cmthick in the middle, 100 squaremetres in area, implies an importantnumber of Mace- doniandead. Thisis confirmedby the material preserved at ChaironeiaMuseum: two large crates, brimmingwith bone fragments,sieved out of theashes.16 Secondly, the excavation produced a largenumber of metalartefacts, mostly weapons of thedead, heavily damaged by thecremation andground humidity. Swords are represented by handles (from xiphê, straight swords) and blades, 12 On thelower Kephissos valley, Theophr. HP 4.11; Persepolis),37.4 (Demaratosof Corinth weeps), 42.1 (ear Paus. 9.41.7 (marshflowers). coveredwhen listening to 13 capitalaccusations). Buckler(1992) 4801-3considers that Plutarch's in- 14Theophr. HP 4. 11.3. 15 formationis good and must come from his written sources; Foran overviewof the 'archaeology of the common see also Leitão (2002). But 'it is said', used here by soldier', Osgood 2005; earlier,e.g. Ingelmark(1939); Plutarch,denotes ben trovato stories and sayings in his Life Carman(1997); Fioratoet al (2000); Salazar(2000) on the ofAlexander: for instance, 2-3 (storiesabout Philip and ancientworld. On thearchaeology of the mass graves from Olympias),6.5 (Boukephalas,Philip's exclamation), 10.4 thebattle of Chaironeia, Clairmont (1983) 240-2(nos.77d- (Euripidesquoted to Paus.), 13.2(alleged kindness to The- 3), Pritchett(1985) 136-8,both with bibliography. 16 bans), 14.3 (Diogenes), 36.1 (marvelof dyed cloth at Sieve: Cooley(1904) 141 (andphotograph). CHAIRONEIA338 75 mostbelonging to machairaior kopides,curved sabres.17 Some smalljavelin heads are present. One spearpoint and several butt-spikes must belong to theusual doru; other spear points are very long(the best preserved one is 42 cm),with a centralstiffening ridge, and probablycome from sarissas.They are comparable to othersarissa finds from Vergina and Derveni.18 However, many otherelements do notseem to be attestedin theChaironeia finds: the flanged buttspike19 and the ironsleeve used tojoin thecornel-shafts together - in otherwords, the Macedonian troops were armedwith an earlyversion of the sarissa. The findsalso includea fewarrowheads. One perfectly preservedthree-finned bronze exemplar might have lodgedin thebody of a Macedonian.Some findsgive a vividimage of Macedonian soldiers on campaign:knife blades,20 or a well-wornwhet- stonewith a holefor a retainingcord. Generally,the material illustrates the forces present: sarissa- armedinfantry, probably cavalry, light-armed javelineers (the crack Agrianians already?), archers on bothsides. The otherset of material remains relating to the battle of 338 comesfrom the mass grave of the Thebans,on theother side of the plain. Descriptionsof the skeletons found in thegrave insist on visiblewound-marks.21 Some skeletalmaterial was exhibited,before the evacuation of 1940,in case 93 ofthe 'third vases room'in theeast wing of the National Archaeological Museum.22 Thismaterial offers shockingly direct evidence for the 'face of battle'.23 The bones show many tracesof circa-mortem trauma. Shinbones exhibit multiple cut marks, a typeof wound paralleled in theskeletons from the medieval mass graveat Wisby,and reflectingclose-range combat with edgedweapons.24 Several skulls bear marks of multiple sword blows. Thephenomenon of blows tothe head is wellparalleled, notably in the medieval evidence (though it is notyet possible to point to anyrecurrent pattern of m vivodamage to theleft fronto-parietal region of the skull, such as at- teststo face-to-facefighting with swords).25 One manreceived a powerful'aft-fore' cut, followed bya coupde grâce to therear part of the left parietal, probably from a butt-spikeof the 'furniture - leg' or 'Stabspitze'type (used notablyby theMacedonians). This blow produceda smallhole wherethe spike punctured the skull - surroundedby a widercircular mark and radiatingcracks, in otherwords, a depressedfracture resulting from the impact of the flaring ring or flangeabove thespike (Plate 4(b)).26In oneparticularly horrendous case ('Gamma16', i.e. 'row3, skeleton16',

17 Sotiriadis(1903) 309. The materialawaits detailed (encasedin plaster)and parts of two more, and an assort- publication. mentof bonesfrom the lower limbs (including two feet). 18 Andronikos(1970); Markle(1977), (1980), (1982); M. Listonkindly shared her observations;I remainre- Themelisand Touratsoglou (1997) 109; andmost recently sponsiblefor the interpretations here (and am guiltyof the Connolly(2000). However,the publication of theMace- expressioncirca-mortem, rather than peri mortemused by doniantomb at HagiosAthanassios challenges Connolly forensicanthropologists). A furtherskeleton, entirely en- by clearlyshowing that the 'infantry'sarissa had large cased in plaster,has turnedup in theNational Archaeo- heads:Tsimbidou-Avloniti (2005). logical Museum(in the ceramicscollection, inv. 9802: 19 Vergina:Andronikos (1970). Derveni:Themelis and mentionedand misunderstoodunder this inv. number in Touratsoglou(1997) 84 withliterature for parallels, 109. theGuide Bleu (1935) 119 as a 'castof a skeleton').There 20 On 'soldier's'knives, Markle (1980), (1982). probablyis a secondskeleton, and perhaps a third,waiting 21 Frazer (1898) 6.210; also Journaldes Débats, to be rediscovered:see n.76. quotedin Rev. Arch 1880, 2.182-3, lurid; New YorkTimes 24Ingelmark(1939)164, 171-8. 25 9 January1881, p.4 (fromThe Athenaeum). E.g. Wakely(1997); earlierIngelmark (1939). 22 26 Mentionedin pre-WWIIguides to Greece:for in- On thistype of butt-spike, Baitinger (2001) 64-70(I stance,Meyers Reisebücher. Griechenland und Kleinasien owe thisreference to A. Jackson).It appearsin the 'second (1901) 170; Macmillan's Guide to Greece (1908) 78 tomb'of the Bella Tumulusat Vergina (Andronikos (1984) (quotedas an epigraphto thispaper); Guide Bleu. Grèce 37 fig.16). An examplenow in theGreek Museum of the (1935) 119. The provenanceis also attestedby the paper Universityof Newcastle upon Tyne (inv. Ill) bearsthe let- tagsleft with the boxes in whichthe material was packed tersMAK, perhaps an abbreviationof MaK(eôovo)v), a sug- in 1940('third sarcophagus room'); the boxes still contain gestionof Brian Shefton, recorded by Foster (1978) 13;the brokenglass fromthe case. The materialwas notexhib- weaponwould have been 'governmentissue'. The hole itedafter the war (never mentioned in guidebooks). measuresabout 6 mmacross (8 mmat thewidest point, 23 Inv.no. A.X.28 A /Xcupcoveioc I, II, IV,V, VI, VIII. wherebone flakedoff). On theNewcastle spike, the dia- I examinedthis material in 2005 and 2006: now 6 skulls meterof the point, immediately under the flange, measures 76 JOHNMA

to giveit the nomenclature of the excavator), a blowperhaps delivered from the man's left sliced fromtemple to templeacross the top of theforehead, shearing off the face (Plate 4(c)): thisis compatiblewith a cavalrymanfighting against an infantryman,driving past him in a mêléeand hackingdown backhanded. Such blows are recorded during the charge of the British heavy cavalry againstd'Erlon's corps at Waterloo.27 Five javelin points (?) arepreserved among the finds - from thebodies, or sweptinto the grave with the fill? Hundredsof 'bonebuttons' are probably eyelets fromtrochades, 'running sandals': the finds were recorded by proximityto individualskeletons (Plate 6(a)).28 The mendied, and wereburied, with their boots on. At leastsome of thehead woundsmight have been producedby thekopis, the slashing sabre to whose blows a forward centreof gravitylent extra momentum - exactlythe type represented by ironblades fromthe Macedonianmass grave. The tracesof numerous sword cuts give direct evidence for tactics and weaponryin action;the wound suffered by 'Gamma16' contradictsan indicationin Livy (derived fromPolybios) about the horror felt by Macedonians before the Roman gladius.29 Froma thigh-bone(possibly belonging to thesame man as theskull with the coup de grâce to theback of the head), and the sole completeskeleton, we havethe height of two of the men: both measuredaround 1.79m (5' lOi/2"),significantly taller than the average Greek male of the Classi- cal period.30The sample(two individuals, one incomplete)is tiny,but it is at leastlikely that the Thebanfull-time crack troops were chosen large. The patternof woundsimplies a lack of pro- tectionof the legs, and perhaps only light protection for the head. Late fourth-centuryAttic grave stilai showhoplites wearing muscle cuirasses but no greaves;at the risk of a hyper-positivistread- ingof the visual evidence, I wonderif the Theban hoplites also eschewedgreaves, and furthermore ifthey fought in the'light' style favoured in thelate fifth and early fourth century, under Pelopon- nesianinfluence: pilos helmet,no greavesor bodyarmour. If so, theywere at a disadvantage againstthe heavily armoured, sarissa-equipped Macedonian phalanx.31 The archaeologicalmaterial gives direct access to an ancientbattle - weaponry,Macedonian casualties,but also therage with which the Thebans were cut downas theyheld out. The en- countertranscends the pornography of violence ('fighting techniques of the ancients'): the mod- ernviewer of the remnants is experiencinga memorial encounter with an old battle- similarto the viewingof relics from Waterloo or the Somme,32 but also to theexperience of the ancient inhabit- antsof Boiotia, whose life and surroundings often involved involuntary battlefield archaeology.33 The archaeologyof battle is a culturalexperience, especially when it concerns monuments set up in theaftermath of fighting.

9 mm(thanks to A. Spawforthand A. Parkinfor checking), fragmentarybutton, strengthening theidentification as parts butthe hole left by penetrating wounds can be smallerthan of footwear.On ancientboots, Morrow (1985), especially theweapons that inflict them, since living bone flexes as it 63-4,84-5 on thetrochas, an 'unusuallycomplex' form of admitsthe point(I owe thisinformation to M. Liston). footwear(also Hdt. 1.195for 'Boiotian boots'); on similar Squareholes in bronzearmour dedicated at Olympiahave eyeletsfound on theAthenian Agora, Thompson ( 1 954) 5 1- beeninterpreted as butt-spike punctures (Furtwängler (1890) 5 (associatedwith hobnails, not present at Chaironeia). 29 152-3;doubtfully, Anderson (1991) 24). Liv. 31.34. 27 30 LifeGuardsman Jack Shaw is saidto have sliced off E.g. Bisel (1990), on the 'grave precinctof the a Frenchman'sface 'like a bitof apple', in the words of an Messenians',where adult male skeletons of the fourth cen- eyewitness,admittedly in combat with a cavalryman turyaverage 1.70 m. Thereare no good publishedan- (Knollys(1876) 32); whencapturing the Eagle ofthe 45th thropométriedata from Boiotia (such as thecemeteries of Régimentde Ligne, SergeantC. Ewart (Royal Scots Akraiphiamight provide). 31 Greys)cut down two infantrymen 'through the face' (and On the'light hoplites', Anderson (1970). 32 onecavalryman 'up throughthe teeth'): Cotton (1862) 60- The Musée de l'Arméein Parisdisplays relics from 1; Dalton1904 (1971) 258,Ewart's own words. But these Waterloo,notably the breastplate of a Carabinierofficer, oft-quotedsources perhaps deserve caution. marredby thehuge ragged holes, entry and exit,left by a 28 Inv.no. A. X. 28 A /Xaipcoveiot III (263 buttons,13 cannonball.On Waterlooand on WWI I owe muchto pa- fragmentarybuttons). The findswere kept in smallboxes persgiven by L. Yarringtonand G. Oliverat a conference labellede.g. It' ß' veicpoû7, 'Row 2, corpse7', butthe on warand commemoration(July 2004). 33 originalclassification is not preserved. A piece of Plut.Dem. 19 (on thefolk etymology of the name of metatarsal(a bonefrom the foot) remains attached to one theriver Haimon); Sulla 21 (Orchomenos). CHAIRONEIA338 77

III. THE MACEDONIAN TOMB

The moundin theplain of Chaironeia is a Macedoniantomb, but a veryspecial one. It is located in southernGreece rather than in theMacedonian flatlands; it is collectiverather than individual; itwas setup bythe Macedonian state, rather than privately. The sitewas locatedbeyond the actual battlefield, on thenorthern edge ofthe plain, closer to theriver bed thanthe road and the southern mountain wall (whichlies overone kilometreaway). A pyrewas erected;the excavation uncovered its remains, with indications of itsconstruction - - largestones, bronze and iron nails butno recordedevidence for the type of wood used (the moun- tainson bothsides of the Kephissos corridor are currentlynot well wooded). The 'Brandschicht' givesa senseof the size ofthe pyre, but also ofthe density with which the Macedonian dead were piledup. The graveofferings were not spectacular: a fewcoins (one Macedonian),34some ceramic, an amphora,perhaps containing wine, some strigilsand weapons. Thatthe weapons were burned withtheir dead ownersis provedby many of them being fused together. There seems not to have been anydefensive equipment among the offerings. There is also a completelack of precious metalor evenbronze vessels; even the coins were bronze. The simplicityof offeringsstands in contrastto otherMacedonian tombs, notably Tomb II at Verginaand the cist graves at Derveni.35 The Chaironeiacremation reflected the practical circumstances of an armyon campaign.Defen- sive equipmentwas recoveredand recycled. Gold offerings,though popular at home(and in- creasinglylavish later on, especiallyafter 323), werenot left behind in a mass graveaway from Macedonia. In spiteof thelack of Macedoniangold, this was a grandfuneral. The pyre,bedecked with weapons,made for an impressivespectacle. Inhumation and cremation are both attested in Mace- donia;nonetheless, cremation, complex and costly,probably had heroizing,heightened connota- tions;the weapons emphasized their identity as fighters,thus generalizing aristocratic warrior practicesand valuesto thedead of thewhole army. The grandfuneral distinguished the Mace- doniandead fromthe hastier burials of theiropponents.36 The cremationwas partof a widerset ofgestures. In hisaccount of the battle Diodoros tells us explicitlyof victory sacrifices, and hence feasting,and honourspaid to thefallen.37 These rituals constitute the nomos and kosmosfor the dead, to use Arrian's wordsin describingmilitary funerals performed by Alexanderafter his victories.38Arrian helps us expandDiodoros' bald mentionof 'honours':the kosmos might have includeda paradeof the whole army in fullarray, perhaps even a funeraryagon, hippie and gym- nic. All theserituals explain the choice of the site for the cremation: the Macedonian army needed openspace forthe events, involving tens of thousands of men. If theroad attested archaeologic- allysouth of the Kephissos39 existed in 338,it might have served both for the gathering of the bodies andfor the movements of men and horses during the post-battle celebrations. Ceremonywas followedby monumentalization.The remainsof thepyre were covered by a mound:in 1902 Sotiriadismeasured it as 7 m highand no less than70 m across. As a comparison,the Marathon sows is 9 m highbut only 50 m across;the average dimensions of thetumuli in theVergina necropolis are 20 m in diameterand at most3 m in height;the great tumulus (a specialcase) is 110 m acrossand 12 m high.40The Chaironeiamound is locatedin the upper size- range:a large,monumental structure, both by southernGreek and by Macedonian standards. The earthwas removedfrom the surroundingsof thepyre: Sotiriadis could stilldetect the broad 34 Sotiriadis(1902), (1903), (1904) 50. 37Diod. 17.86.6. 35 38 Andronikos(1982); Themelisand Touratsoglou Arrian,Anabasis 1.16.5, 2.12.1, 5.20, 5.25.6. (1997). 39Aravantinos(1993). 36 40 See belowpp. 82-3 forthe Thebans; also Sotiriadis Andronikos(1982) 188, 192. The forty-cubit-high (1904) 50-1 fora mass gravefound close to therailway moundrecorded by Plutarch,Alex. 56 forDemaratos of track,'not far from the [Macedonian] mound'. Corinthis unparalleled(emend to fortyfeet?). 78 JOHNMA

dish-shapeddepression after 2,239 years. The fillin themound contained a greatamount of tile fragmentsand sherds,dated to thefourth and fifthcentury: these reflect, in concentratedfashion, a phenomenonwell known in Boiotia,the scatter of sherds in cultivatedfields, due to thepractice of spreadinghousehold rubbish as fertilizer.At somepoint, an urnwith the ashes of a cremation was buriedin themound: the remains of one or severalMacedonian soldiers who died of their woundsafter the funeral. The locationof the mound projected meaning into the future, once the Macedonian army had leftthe battlefield. Its position, pushed forward towards the enemy cities of Thebesand Athens, is aggressive:symbolic considerations determined the position of themound, as well as ritual activities.The tombfunctioned as a victorymonument and a reminderof Macedonianpower: it acted as a trophy- an institutionwhich the Macedoniansdid not have, as Pausanias states (9.40.7-9), and as is clearfrom the narrative of Alexander's battles.41 There is anotherway in whichthe site of the mound mattered. Located along the river rather than the highway, it imitated theNeolithic tumulus further west, to whichit was perhapsconnected by theroad parallel to the river.By aligningthe post-battle mound on theold tumulus,the Macedonians claimed the heroic statusfor those cremated and buriedalong the Kephissos, by analogywith the ancient mound. Theyfurther claimed the same durabilityin thelandscape as theolder monument, with political implicationsfor Macedonian power and itsnature as heroicproject. However, the Macedonians did notassociate their monument with a pre-existingfocal point or landmark,but created a new landmarkin theplain. The visualimpressiveness of the mound in thelandscape is confirmedby theaccount of E.D. Clarke,who noticedits highprofile as he crossedthe eastern end of the Kephissoscorridor:42 the shape of the earthen cone echoes the grand mountain of Parnassos in the background.The veryarbitrariness of thespot chosen expresses power. The identityof the mound was rememberedby the Chaironeians. A nearbyoak was associated withAlexander and the night before battle: the topography of this part of the field signified Mace- donianvictory, both in the 'pre-victory' stage of Alexander's sleep before the clash and in the post- battlemonument of Macedonian fighting power and domination. The Chaironeiantradition shows theefficacy of the Macedonian mound in shaping the landscape to expressive purpose. The absence ofany sherds around the mound suggests the fields around it were no longerfertilized, because they wereno longercultivated. If thisexplanation is correct,the funerary and monumentalnature of themound would have been respected in theuse of local landscape. * * * Photographsdocument Sotiriadis' 1902 excavation, showing the mound close to theriver, and the workersdeep inside.43Some timeafter the excavation, the mound was denselyplanted with cypresses:the resulting grove stands out darkly in the plain and is also brieflyvisible from the Athens- Thessalonikitrain as it flashesby (Plate 4(d)). The moundis now difficultto visit. Heavy ploughinghas eradicatedany trace of thescooping out of thefill and damagedthe mound itself. Underthe cypress the slope is steepand treacherous;at thetop there are no moretrees, only the lip of thehuge trench hacked out by Sotiriadis.Rushes spring out, tall and denselypacked, like sarissas. Peeringback at Chaironeiaclearly shows the unlikelihood of anyreconstruction of the battleplacing the brunt of the fighting as fareast as thisspot. In contrast,the open ground is suit- able fora Macedonianmilitary funeral, with the Parnassos as backdrop.

41 42 See furtherPritchett (1974) 262-3. Diod. 16.86.6 Clarke(1818) 179-80: the moundbore a Turkish mentionsa trophyafter Chaironeia, but this may be a slip; flag;also Wyse(1871) 160: Veryvisible even at a great thetrophy at 16.88.2 is a metaphorin a speechby Lyk- distance... island-like,pointing conewise up fromthe ourgosagainst the Athenian general at the battle, Lysikles. plain'. QuintusCurtius 7.7.14 mentionsMacedonian trophies 43Coolley(1904). underAlexander, but as partof a highlywrought speech at- tributedto theking. CHAIRONEIA338 79

IV. THE LION OF CHAIRONEIA

Theother monument of the clash of 338 is wellknown: the colossal Lion of Chaironeia (Plate 5(a)). It nowsits on a toweringbase bythe south side ofthe modern road - aftera complicatedstory of discovery,excavation and re-erection.44 The Lion was discovered,on 3 June1818, by fourEnglish travellers, John Sanders, William Purser,Edward Cresy (who published an anonymousaccount in theLiterary Gazette on 24 April 1824)and George Taylor (whose account was publishedforty-odd years later).45 The travellers im- mediatelyidentified the huge head and large paw as partof the Lion describedby Pausanias, fur- therattributing the Lion to theSacred Band, a piece of speculationnot founded on Pausanias. Theyhad the two fragments reburied, and tried vainly to obtainthem for the British Museum. The Lion was seen in 1819 by theFrench traveller, Louis Dupré,who drewother fragments than the head and paw discoveredby thefour English travellers.46 Who uncoveredit in themeantime? One possibilityis OdysseusAndroutsos, whom Ali Pashaappointed military leader of the Eastern Stereain 1819;this would explain the persistent but mistaken account that the Lion was blownup byAndroutsos in searchfor gold (already current in 1830sThebes). All publishedGreek accounts strenuouslydeny this canard (a good indicationof theemotions at stakein therebuilding of the monument).47After Dupré, many travellers saw thegreat head lyinggraffito-covered in a cross- shaped,brush-choked excavation in a low mound;the actual circumstances of discoverywere quicklyforgotten.48 Reconstructionwas consideredin 1839 by theGreek Archaeological Society.49 In 1842 U. Welckersuccessfully petitioned the king, Othon, for permission to rebuild the Lion alongthe plans ofa Germansculptor C. Siegel(involving a 24 fttall base). Theproject was tobe entirelyfinanced by Germandonors. The projectcame to griefduring the revolution of 1843 and theensuing insultsby the 'uppity Greek mini-country' (Welcker) against the 'great German nation'. Welcker atleast published Siegel's project for reconstruction.50 A rebuilding project is mentioneden passant by theRumanian writer Dora d'Istriain I860.51 In 1862 castsof the two largest fragments were takenfor the British Museum.52 In 1879 theArchaeological Society started afresh. Two archaeologists,with Siegel and the Teniotsculptor L. Phytalis,studied the remains of the Lion. Subsequentexcavation by the ephor P. Stamatakisuncovered the originalbase, and a períbolos,preserved up to thetop course. Duringthis excavation, surprisingly, no human remains were found. In spring1 880 Phytalis,sent 44 Kawadias (1902) 27-32(extended narrative of dis- Felsch (1969) 136, and Pritchett(1985) 136 n.133. See appointmentand ultimate fulfilment); Oikonomos (1938); also Kastorchis(1875), an attackon 'theEnglishman [sc. Lappas (1939), a truculentlocal history;Conner (1979), Irishman]Mahaffy' for suggesting that the reconstruction illuminatingon thehistory and context of discovery; Clair- of theLion wouldbe an easy task,and thatthe failure to mont(1983) 240-2,no.77d; Petrakos (1987); Mallouchou- re-erectthe monument reflected Greek neglect. 48 Tufano(1998) 31 andn.84, 231. Mostrecently, Davidson Mure (1842) 218-20; d'Istria(1863) 1.95-6;Wel- (2007) 249-53(inaccurate). cker(1865) 2.55-6;Wyse (1871) 158;Flaubert (1998) 559; 45Vaux (1866) withCresy 's accountfrom 1824; Tay- Mahaffy(1905) 223. 49 lor (1870-2) 1.109-14(reproducing Vaux (1866) and ex- The projectis mentionedin Praktika1839-40, 88 pandinghis earlieraccount in TheBuilder, 20 Dec. 1862, {nonvidi). 50 908). Taylorfurther protests (1 60) againstWelcker 's mis- Welcker(1856) 1-5;also Welcker(1864). 51 attributionof Cresy's accountto theeditor of the Literary D'Istria(1863) 96 (proposalbefore the Archaeolog- Gazette,'Crawford' (whose name, alas, appearsas thatof ical Society). 52 thediscoverer of theLion on themodern plaque recently Times,12 December1862, p.4 (arrivalof thecast); setup beforethe monument). 4 September1863, p.9 (exhibitedin frontof theLion of 46This is clearfrom Dupré 's description(Dupré (1825) Knidos); Vaux (1866) 1; Smith (1892-1904) 3.442-4 22-3, 32), and fromhis engravingof a Tatarbefore the no.2698 (head,paws). Conner(1979) 140, believesthe Lion (pl.17): thehead and whatseems to be theLion's cast lost(buried under the great lawn of theBritish Mu- lowerfront (minus genitals) are represented. seumsince WWII), but it is in factkept in a BM storeroom 47 AlreadyMure (1842) 218-20; Göttling(1846) is off-site,as I. Jenkinsinforms me. suitablysceptical about the tale; it is repeatede.g. inJacob- 80 JOHNMA againto investigatethe feasibility of reconstruction,sank deep trenchesand foundserried ranks ofskeletons. Phytalis' soundings and report are extremely competent and useful, though not always completelyclear; he includesa sketchof his finds- theonly published record of theexcavation of thepolyandrion (Plate 5(b)).53 Stamatakisreturned to uncoverthe whole mass grave. Six cratesof bones were taken to Athens.Stamatakis may have contractedmalaria during the excavation;he diedof it in 1885,without publishing his findings(his excavationnotes are lost).54 The ArchaeologicalSociety disagreed on how to proceed(full reconstruction of themonument or simplyre-assembly of the Lion, without rebuilding the base), andthe project faltered. In 1894,an offerfrom 'foreign archaeologists and scholars',notably from Great Britain (me- diatedby theBritish School inAthens), to financethe rebuilding was turneddown by theGreek government.55The CrownPrince of Greece(the future Constantine I), presidentof the Archaeo- logicalSociety, urged the rebuilding of the monument, at all costs,in 1896; workstarted only in 1902,after various setbacks.56 The project was carriedout by the sculptor Lazaros Sochos. Photo- graphs,notably in thearchive of theArchaeological Society, document early stages of thework: thearea was cleared,the ancient fragments gathered, the base shoredup, a castset up undera shed to serveas a guideto thereconstruction ofthe statue.57 In 1904,the anastylosis was finished,the enclosurewalls completedwith one courseof new stoneto protectthe ancient stonework.58 TheLion mattered, because it was mentionedin Pausanias as themonument of the Thebans who fellin the Battle of Chaironeia: from the beginning the Lion was identifiedas a monumentof Greek liberty.59It also offeredthe advantage of being an ancientlion-monument, more prestigious than modernlions such as thoseat Lucerne(1821, forthe Swiss guards killed at theTuileries in 1792), Waterloo(1826) orBelfort (1879). Siegelhad earlier made the Lion ofNauplion, commemorating Bavariansfallen in theGreek war of Independence.However, the exact context, apperance and hencemeanings of the monument are far less clearthan it seemed in the nineteenth-century. * * * Whatwe nowsee at Chaironeiais a monumentof 1902. The enclosurewall, preserved to itsorig- inal heightin 1879,degraded over the following twenty years.60 By 1902 whatwas leftwas a mereoutline. The originalcourses are now invisible,and all thatappears is themisleadingly weatheredcapping stonework laid in 1902,which does notshow the ancient internal buttressing. Likewise,the base, preserved to a considerableheight when excavated, seems to havedecayed or beenplundered. The moderntall base, built on Sochos' instructionsin 1902,is basicallythat pro- posedby Siegelin 1842(which he admitswas onlya possibility:the main purpose was to givean idea ofcosts); it does notrest on anyancient evidence.61 The complex,stepped base is typicalof 53 Kastorchis(1879), writtenin March 1880; report by adis (1903) 325, fig.5. The castwas latermoved to the S. Koumanoudisin Praktika1880 (for1879), 22-5; Phy- ThebesMuseum (e.g. Praktika1905, 22; BCH 60 (1936) talis (1880); reportby Koumanoudisin Praktika(1881) 15),but is no longerto be seen. 58 16-18;Petrakos (1987) 53 fig.21, draftof Phytalis'plan, Richardson(1907) pl. no. 84 (fig.9). 59 morecomplete than the published version (but extremely Kawadias (1902) 29-30 (on thespecial meeting of difficultto read). theArchaeological of 18 November1 896, and the 54 Society Kastorchis1880 (157-8); Petrakos(1987) 279-82. speechof the Crown Prince). 60 Stamatakis'illness is reportedin theThebes Sphinx, 24 Sanborn(1897) 97 (also inCollignon (1911) 233 fig. June1879 (mentioned,probably by L. Kaftantzoglou,in 152: 'photogr.de l'Inst.arch.'); Bintliff (2004) 146: DAI Parnassos 3 (1879) 623-4). I thankProfessor G. Korres Athens,c. 1900); Erlangen Universityphotographic fordiscussing Stamatakis' notes. archive,VS/XII OH 55 (www.aeria.phil.uni-erlangen.de/ Bosanquetand Tod (1902) 380. Thereis no surviv- photohtml/topographie).Brandt (1894) 46-8, describes ingcorrespondence in thearchives of the BSA. theperíbolos, but with no indicationon preservation. 56 61 Times2 December1896, p.7; Kawadias (1902) 30- The base is discussedin Jacob-Felsch(1969) 136 1. The unsuccessfulwar of 1897 mayhave reducedthe no.241 among ancientmonumental bases, but without priorityof the reconstruction project. awarenessthat it is a modernreconstruction. The 57 profile Petrakos(1987) 99 fig.60 (fromseries in Archaeo- of the Siegel-Sochosbase is apparentlyinspired by the logicalSociety archive; see also,in the same archive, nos. 'Theseion',the temple of Hephaistosabove theAthenian 2218-21,2225-7, 2894, 3110,taken in 1903); also Sotiri- Agora. CHAIRONEIA338 81 modern'statue-mania' (as seen in Sochos' nextwork, the equestrian statue of Kolokotronisin frontof the ancient parliament in Athens on StadiouStreet). In addition,it is impossibleto tell,standing in frontof the monument, which parts of the Lion areancient and which are modern.62 There were enough large fragments to permitreconstruction ofthe general shape of the statue, as thecast set up in 1902 shows. However,the statue has been patchedup extensively,with recarving, as can be seen in theback ofthe statue: comparison with thecast (documented in contemporary photographs) shows that cuttings for a massiveclamp have vanished,and the details of the lower mane have changed; in addition,the Lion's snoutwas prob- ablytouched up.63 This is a modernstatue, built out of ancientfragments (on a steelskeleton, characteristicofKavvadias and his engineer N. Baianos).64Finally, the barrier of cypress trees on threesides was plantedduring the reconstruction.65 Like the cypresses on theMacedonian mound, thetrees make the Chaironeia Lion intoa modernfunerary monument. Whatdid theancient monument look like?Excavation revealed an enclosure22.55 m wide, 13.45m deep,oriented NNW/SSE, surrounded by a wall 2.18 m high,and within which the base ofthe Lion, 3.65 m wideand 4.30 m deep,projected. The wall andbase weremade of local poros. Thoughit does notseem, from the plan publishedby Phytalis,that the masonry of thebase is bondedwith that of the períbolos, it is likelythat both base andperíbolos are contemporary. The topcourse of the períbolos and the upper cladding of thebase werefurther executed in thesame grey-blue'Boiotian marble' as theLion, from quarries at Chaironeiaitself. Wasthere a funerarymound? Phytalis reported that some blocks from the períbolos wall were foundat the foot of the wall, thus ruling out any mound overlaying the whole enclosure; however, thewell-preserved state of the buttresses inside the períbolos implied that these were protected by fill. Phytalisvisualized the monument66 as a tumulusrising inside the enclosure, with the Lion emergingfrom the front slope (this is howthe polyandrion at Thespiaiis reconstructed).67In the nineteenthCentury the Lion was foundinside a low mound;but it is notclear whether this was the remainsof an ancientmound, or build-up from alluviation.68 Thereis littleevidence for the original appearance of the base, which was despoiledof its poros coreand itsgrey marble cladding. A feworiginal blocks lie nearthe Lion; it is likelythat some of themarble was reusedin thechurch of Panagiaand in thefountain near the ancient theatre.69 (The fountainstill exists, though reclad and now muchdiminished.) The originalheight is also unclear. The head of theLion was foundjust below groundlevel in 1818.70The difference

62The recentcleaning of the Lion preventsthe viewer atelyafter discovery) and thesketch by thearchitect J.L. fromeasily distinguishing between ancient fragments and Wolfe (executedin 1821), both reproducedand com- modernadditions (Archaiologikon Deltion 53 (1998); mentedon in Conner(1979); theview by Dupré (1825) is Chronika2.1, 354-5); see thephotograph in Collignon fanciful. 69 (1911) 235 fig. 153. Iron clamps were replacedwith Some of theoriginal blocks, with a characteristic bronzein 1960:BCHS5 (1961) 748. step(12 cm x 5 cm), alreadyappear on a photographof 63 Sanborn(1897) 98 fora photographshowing the 1902 (Arch.Soc. no.2225),and probablycome fromthe wornstate of the head; also Belle (1881) 132. top courseof thebase. As faras I can tell,they are not 64 Armagnac(1910) 99; Mallouchou-Tufano(1998) on published.The blocksin thechurch have a steppededge, modernrebuilding of monuments, and Kavvadias' policy. butof differentmeasurements (4 cm x 5 cm). Fountain: 65Arch. Soc. 2225; also thephotograph, from the same e.g.Clarke (1818) 175 ('a beautifulantient fountain'); Tay- series,published in Petrakos(1987) 99 fig.60; Richard- lor (1870-2) 1.160 ('Of thepedestal I knownothing, ex- son (1907) pl. 84; Armagnac(1910) 97; herePlate 5(a). ceptthat there were several pieces of mouldings built up in Mahaffy(1905) 225 mentions(mistakenly ?) an ironrailing. theConduit near'). 66 70 Phytalisexhibited a plastermodel of the monument Cresywrites that the head was foundby theroad- inhis workshop on ZoodochouPigis Street. But what hap- side,which concurs with Kastorchis' indications that the penedto themodel when, in 1909, Phytalisdied in the head lay southof thebase. Taylor'saccount of his horse poorhouse? stumblingon thehead would imply that it lay north of the 67 Low (2003), based on Schilardi(1977); Clairmont base,under the road itself; this should be consideredem- (1983) 232-4no.48c. bellishment,since there is no mentionof theincident in 68The moundis difficultto recognizeon theearliest his,admittedly laconic, journal (Taylor (1870-2), 1.109). evidence,the watercolour by Taylor(executed immedi- 82 JOHNMA

betweenthe top of the enclosure wall andthe ground level in 1879 is aboutone metre.71 However, thebase couldhave been higher, if alluviation did not reach the top of the base bythe time the Lion felloff (perhaps because the master clamp in itsback gave out). At leastit is clearthat the base stoodout from the enclosure wall, because of itsheight, but also itsmarble surface and masonry: thesethree features may have evokeda fortificationtower, a formwhich the Hellenistic military writerPhilon of Byzantion (86.13-18) recommends for the monuments of the war dead. Theperíbolos wall does notrest on a foundationtrench, but on a wide,shallow foundation course,one blockthick and threeblocks wide; accordingto Phytalis'plan the total width of this courseis 1.95m. The reasonfor this arrangement is that the builders did notwish to disturbthe massburial. A possibleexception is thebase of theLion, aroundwhich a soundingby Phytalis foundno bodies.72Were the skeletons removed to ensurea stablefoundation under the heavy stonelion? In thatcase, wherewere the skeletons reburied? One possibilityis thatthey were placedwithin the base itself;if so, theymay still lie undisturbedwithin the modern monument. Fromthe preliminary report, we knowthat 45 cm belowthe foundation layer of the períbolos 254 skeletonswere found, in sevenrows, many showing the traces of wounds; in addition,in row 2, betweenskeleton 13 and 14, a 'heap of bonesand ashes' mustrepresent the cremation of one manor perhaps several men, placed there at a latertime.73 The finds,mentioned earlier (pp. 75-6), are modest:in additionto thebone buttons(Plate 6(a)), therewere a fewcoins, some ceramic (Plate 6(b)), andmany simple iron strigils.74 Most of the skeletons were reburied under 5 cm of earth,apparently with numbered plaques by the head of each one,75 and may still lie there.In addition,there is one completeskeleton from the polyandrion, still encased in theplaster used bythe excavatorsto keep it togetherand transportit: sinceit was handedover by theArchaeological Societyto theNational Museum in 1894,it must come from the excavation of 1880.76

71 Phytalis(1880) 348; Petrakos(1987) 53 fig.21. ArchaeologicalSociety in the Polytechneion) are presum- 72 Phytalis(1880) 348-52. Skeletonswere found ably lost; theyincluded two pots, a glass vessel, five 'belowthe base' (mìcoGevxox> Kprimôcouaioç); his sound- bronzecoins (as well as twolegs and one skull). The of- ingnext to the base (rjon hisplan) revealed no bones(even feringswere kept in the National Museum as inv.no. A. X. thoughhe drovethe trench to a depthof 1.90 m); he dis- 28 A XcupcoveiaII, III, IV,VII (pottery),IX-XI. Thereare coveredskeletons in a row,'below the base' (mxcoOeviox> now 14 itemsof ceramic: 3 black-glazecups, 2 black-glaze ßaGpoi)). KoVccûGevmust mean 'at a lowerlevel', rather saucers,9 commonone-handled bowls. The potterywas thanliterally 'underneath': Phytalis ((1880) 352) executed seenby Ure ((1913)23 n.4). Sotiriadismay have conducted a sounding'under [lower than] the foundation, at a dis- furthersoundings: in a postcardto P. Wolters(23 August tanceof 2.30 m fromthe wall' (k on his plan). I assume 1906)he mentions sherds found 'beim Löwenmonument im Phytalisand Stamatakis could not excavate under the mas- theban.Polyandrion' (Braun (1981) 3; manythanks to K. siveporos base (at thistime, over 2 m high);however, Schlottfor this reference); the Greek newspaper Skrip (21 Phytalis'drawing seems to indicatesomething (a leg?) November1904, p.3) mentionsthe rediscoveryof two half-engagedunder the base, in his soundingimmediately skeletonsduring work on thenew base. Thestrigils, in their southof the base. Thereis no descriptionof finding skele- presentstate, have often been completed by the gluing on of tonswhen the base of the Lion was shoredup in 1902 cupulaenext to the handle; this seems unparalleled (Kotera (Kawadias (1902) 27-32; Armagnac(1910) 99: modern Feyer(1993) containsno similarmaterial). cementfoundation). 75Sanborn(1897). 73 76 Phytalis(1880) 350 (I am notsure how to reconcile Kawadias (1900) 82 mentionsone skeletonbrought hisdiscovery of skeletons at a depthof 45 cm,with the 40 toAthens (though there is no mentionin Phytalis' and Sta- cmhe mentionsas separatingvirgin earth from the lowest matakis'reports). I thankR. Proskynitopouloufor exam- courseof the base, 348). I wonderif the 45 cm arein fact iningthe relevant records of the National Museum. There measuredfrom the deepest level reachedby Stamatakis' are probablytwo skeletonsfrom the grave: the Baedeker firstexcavation of theperíbolos, so thatthe skeletons for1905 (Eng. trans.),88, mentionsindications of trauma ' wouldhave been found at a depthof 85 cm (40 + 45); but on 'no.9801 (yetunlocated), whereas the skeleton recently thisdoes notseem to be whatPhytalis says. (The account rediscoveredat theNational Museum is cataloguedas no. reproducedin Rev Arch.1 880, 2. 182-3, wrongly mentions 9802 - and,being entirely encased in plaster,could not a depthof 4 m.) haveshown traces of wounds. Hitzig and Büttner in their 74 The findsbrought by Phytalisto the Varvakeion noteon Paus., 3 (1907) 522, mistakenlyattribute these School (and probablylater taken to thecollection of the skeletonsto theMacedonian mound. CHAIRONEIA338 83

Burial,rather than cremation, reflects the unfavourable circumstances of Thebes after the battle. Pausaniasstates that the monument is thepolyandrion of theThebans. The statementhas sometimesbeen challenged on politicalgrounds: Philip would not have allowedthe construction ofthis monument after Chaironeia.77 But the difference in funerarypractice, the distance from the moundand the likely site of the post-battle ceremonies, and the poverty of gravegoods, all argue againstthe grave being Macedonian despite an overlapin materialgoods (both polyandria show thesame pottery, black-glaze fluted cups, and the same type of iron strigils; the explanation must be thatthe Macedonians collected these offerings locally).78 However,many more than 255 Thebansfell in battle; Pausanias' information cannot be strictly correct.From the moment the Lion was discovered,it has beenwidely assumed that the grave is thatof the Theban 'Sacred Band', the 300-strong full-time detachment of crack troops, famous for itspart in Boiotianand Theban victories of thefourth century. Since theBand was wipedout at Chaironeia,the number of dead in thegrave makes the identification attractive; the missing 45 memberscould be survivors,or simplybodies that were not found on thebattlefield. The 'SacredBand' or 'CityCompany' of Thebes was foundedafter the liberation of the Kad- meia in 378.79 It foughtagainst the Spartan garrisons in Boiotia,and won a notablevictory at Tegyrain 375; itprobably played an importantrole in the victory at Leuktrain 371,and in the sub- sequentinvasions of Lakonia. But a Thebanélite troop had existedearlier. A groupof 'chosen Thebans',with their own leader,had alreadyleft a dedicationat Tanagrac. 600. A 300-strong bandhad fought,and been destroyed,at Plataia in 479; thesame fateprobably befell the élite Thebantroops who endured'unbearable grief at Oinophytawhen the Athenians conquered Boiotiain 458. The éliteband was probablyrecreated when Boiotia freed itself in 446, andfought victoriouslyagainst an Athenianinvasion in 424, in thebattle of Delion.80The unitdisappeared again,probably when Thebes was takenover by a pro-Spartangarrison, before being recreated in 378. The SacredBand was associatedwith the vicissitudes of Thebanhistory, and specifically withthe constant possibility of the re-emergence ofTheban power after defeat. The military culture ofthe Sacred Band, centred around athletic training, homosexuality and heroic titles, reflects the politicalproject of fourth-centuryThebes,81 but also thecommemorative nature of the unit: the SacredBand was a 'site of memory',lieu de mémoire,to use theconcept developed by P. Nora (and whichcan be appliedfruitfully to the ancient world). The burialof the Theban élite soldiers was simple,but its location was visibleand significant. It was sitedat thefocal point of theplain, the confluence of thegreat highway from Thebes, the short-cutto Lebadeia overthe 'Kerata pass', and theLykouresi valley. This locationat a cross- roadsmay reflect the topography of the battle. As suggestedabove (p. 74), it is possiblethat the laststand of the Sacred Band tookplace on theallied left; the Sacred Band wouldhave fought to coverthe retreat towards the Kerata. The mass burial could have taken place closeto this dramatic site:it is lockedin an emotionaltopography, recalling the Greek alliance, setting the clock back to 'pre-battle'time, the starting point before the day went wrong. Specifically, the grave is close to a shrineof Herakles, probably at thechapel of H. Paraskevion a ridgeoverlooking the road, at thestart of theLykouressi valley.82 The Thebanmilitary élite is buriednear to a shrineof the 77 Costanzi(1923) arguesfor the Lion beinga Mace- of thetradition, but lends too muchvalue to Xenophon's donianmonument; he furtherbelieves Anth. Pal 9.288,a silenceand is too dependenton V.D. Hanson'sminimalist fictionalepigram under a dedicationby Philipand allud- interpretationof Leuktra. See now Davidson(2007) 249- ingto Dem. Cor. 208, to referto theLion. See also Ham- 53. 80 mond(1973) 553-7. 'ChosenThebans': Nomima I, no.70. Plataia:Hdt. 78 Sotiriadis,in his postcardto P. Wolters(Braun 9.67; Oinophyta:Pindar Isthmian 7; bothpassages are dis- (1981) 3), declares the potteryfrom the Macedonian cussedin Kirsten(1984) 100. Delion: Diod. 12.70. 81 tumulusand the Lion monumentto be thesame (Kabirion On thelink between Theban military affirmation and ware). Herakles,Ritter (2002) 102-20. 79 82 Plut.Pelopidas 18;Anderson (1970) forthe Theban Sotiriadis(1904) 45-50. Bandin its context. Leitão (2002) offerssalutary criticism 84 JOHNMA

Thebanhero closely associated with Boiotian militarism in thefourth century. Unlike the Mace- donianmound, set up in a virginsite creating its own spatial meanings, the Theban grave meshes withpre-existing topography. Thestone lion and períbolos came later - butwhen exactly? After the defeat, Thebes was treated exceptionallyharshly. The élitewas decimatedby exile and execution,and a pro-Macedonian factioninstalled; at the same time Philip resurrected Boiotian cities with a stronganti-Theban past, Plataiai,Orchomenos, Thespiai.83 The pro-Macedonian faction was expelledin 335,as Thebesre- volted;Alexander reacted by razing the city. Neither the years 338-335, nor the year of revolt, 335, arelikely contexts for the monument, even if we cannotknow what Philip did or tolerated;84 inthe case of335 Alexander's swift reaction does not leave time for quarrying stone, building a highperi- bolos,fashioning and settingup theLion. Hencea lowerdate.85 At the earliest the períbolos and Lion were set up after3 16, whenThebes was refoundedby Kassandros. Arguments such as 'Kassandroswould not have allowedthis', or 'Thebeswould have been pro-Macedonian' cannot hold.86 Kassandros' policy was 'revisionist'and idiosyncratic:the foundation of Kassandreiareversed Philip's decision to deprivethe Chalkidike ofa strongurban centre. The refoundingof Thebes was specificallycriticized by Antigonos. The erectionof theLion monument,perhaps with Kassandros' financial assistance, would fithis policy;Kassandros' visit in 3 15,when he financedthe city walls, would provide a context.87The monumentwould represent a veryvisible homage to theTheban past, at a timewhen the city's monumentsand dedicationswere being repaired. If Thebeswas re-integratedinto the Boiotian Leagueonly as lateas c. 285,as recentlysuggested, this would provide a contextfor the Lion: fifty yearsafter the original events, at a momentwhen Boiotian unity was beingreinvented and re- inforced.Though a monumentto a Thebangroup, the Lion was setup in theterritory of another Boiotiancity, Chaironeia, and exploitedthat city's local marbleresources: if under Kassandros, hisauthority will have enabled this gesture, even if Thebes was notyet part of the Boiotian League; ifc. 285, themonument was setup withthe permission of theBoiotian League forthe newly reintegratedThebes. I cannotsee anyway of deciding between the two contexts, but any later date is unlikely.There is no stylisticargument against this late dating,88 which reveals an important phenomenon:a memorialgap of a generationor two,for the rawness and violenceof eventsto settleinto something that could bearably be reifiedand monumentalized.89 If thissolution is correct,it would explain the fill between the mass grave and the foundation ofthe períbolos. The shallowfoundations are also understandableifthe monument was builtupon a pre-existingmass grave. There might be morebodies outside the períbolos: the excavators were determinedto clearthe enclosed area, but made only soundings outside the wall (threeskeletons wereindeed found to thenorth).90 Is therean eighthrow of skeletons to thesouth side of the perí- bolos,where the excavation did notclear away the 'low tumulus'in whichthe Lion was found? The SacredBand wouldthus have been buried eight deep, and the missing row (about thirty-five skeletons)would bring the number close to thefull complement of three hundred. The sequenceof ritualactivity on thesite is thereforethe following. Shortly after the battle, thebodies of the Theban hoplites were buried in a massgrave, tightly packed, with few offerings (butstill wearing their boots), in a phalanxof thedead. Thismass grave may have been marked witha simplemonument (now irrecoverable).Later funeral activity took place aroundthis mass 83 87 Justin9.4.4; Diod. 17.13.5; Paus. 4.27.10, 9.1.8, Diod. 19.62.2,63.4; Paus. 9.29. On Kassandros' 9.37.8. urbanism,Touratsoglou (1996). 84 88 Philip'sremoval and subsequentreturn of the bones On sculptedlions, Willemsen(1959); Vermeule of theTheban hero Linos showboth harsh treatment and (1972); Knigge (1976); MertensHorn (1986), (1988); 'leniency'(Paus. 9.29.8). Waywell(1998). 85 89 Kmgge(1976) 170 (notdisproved by Mertens-Horn Mayo(1988) on warmonuments and memory in sa- (1988) 52 n.307); Mee and Spawforth(2001) 319. credlandscapes. 86 Costanzi(1923) 63; Hammond(1973) 553-7, re- 90Phytalis(1880)352. tractedin Hammond(1987) 237. CHAIRONEIA338 85

grave:the deposit of remains from a cremation,possibly at a carefullychosen spot of the original burial;perhaps the scattered burial of other skeletons around the 'phalanx'. Other mass burials may have takenplace on thebattlefield.91 Thirty or fortyyears later a monumentalenclosure (with colossalsculpture) was drawnon thearea of themass grave;it was builtwith particular care to avoiddisturbing the burial. The Lion's head is turnedto itsright, at an angleof 40 degreesor so, whichgives the whole statueits characteristic, dynamic stance This is nota featureintroduced by Sochosin themodern anastylosisof the monument (as photographsof the cast from behind make clear). Whatis theLion gazingat? One answeris Thebesand therest of Boiotia;the Lion's stanceacts as a reminderof thedead men's city and of Boiotian history. But there is a moreimmediate recipient of the Lion's gaze. It looksacross, if not directly at the Macedonian mound, at leastin its general direction. The Lion relatesthe two monuments; itforces the viewer to lookover his shoulder,to noticethe huge Macedonianmound, to thinkof the geography beyond the mound, of the way the mound tries to imprintits own meaningson thisgeography, thus turning the Kephissos plain intoa memorial sceneof confrontation. This type of 'intermonumental'meditation is well knownin anothercon- text,the competition between dedications in internationalshrines such as Olympiaand Delphi.92 In addition,the choice of a lionwas significant.93It is probablycontemporary with a colossal stonelion at Amphipolis, whose nature and appearanceremain unclear.94 The choicemight have beeninfluenced by Macedonian practice.95 However, the turn of the head on theChaironeia Lion is original:this adaptation of thegeneral model of thesitting lion showshow themonument is embeddedin a local contextand in local meanings. Thereare twoearlier lion monuments nearby. The firstis thelion at Thermopylai,set up by theAmphiktions in honourof Leónidas and the300 Spartiates.96The Chaironeiamonument proposeda historicalparallel between the heroic Spartiates and theTheban élite, who also died fightingagainst a king,for Greek freedom, in a nobledefeat. In 479 at Plataiathree hundred élite Thebans- theancestors of theSacred Band of 338 - had fallenfighting for the Persian King, againstthe alliance defending Greek freedom; the previous year, at Thermopylai, the Theban con- tingentsurrendered to thePersians, and itsmen were apparently branded. The ChaironeiaLion, in proposinga parallelwith Thermopylai, erased the shame of themedizing of theThebans in 480-479, an act of historiographythrough monument; it reframedthe battle of 338 in a pan- Hellenicnarrative. The roadto Opous,even if in ancienttimes it did notnecessarily branch off the highwayexactly opposite the ChaironeiaLion as the modernroad does, connectedthe Chaironeiamonument and Thermopylai, acting as a visualcue forthe implied parallel. The pathos- ladencomparison between the defeat before Chaironeia of the Greek alliance fighting for freedom, andthe earlier victorious defence of Greekfreedom during the Persian wars, was madeearly on, forinstance at Athensin Demosthenes'speech On theCrown, and in an inscribedepigram for thosewho died 'fightingfor holy Greece, in theglorious fields of Boiotia'.97 The secondmonument is thepolyandrion at Thespiai,probably dating to 424. The general shaperesembles the arrangement at Chaironeia:a mass cremation,surrounded by a períbolos, coveredby a mound,with a largecouchant stone lion. The relationbetween the two monuments is problematical,because the historical background is unfavourable.Thespiai resisted the Theban take-over(or consolidation)of theBoiotian League after378, and was extinguishedas a polis 91 94 Sotiriadis(1904) 50-1. Roger(1939); Broneer(1941); Millerand Miller 92 Hölscher(1974); Jacquemin(1999). (1972). The fourth-centuryAttic grave stele for Leon of 93 On lionsand animals generally on tombs,public and Sinope (National Museum, no.770; Woysch-Méautis private,Newton (1862-3) 2.2, 494-501; Frazer (1898) (1982) 133 no.358)with its sitting lion looks very similar 6.210; Lethaby(1918); Vermeule(1972); Stupperich to boththe Chaironeia and the Amphipolis lions. 95 (1977) 68-9; Vermeule(1979) 85-8; Woysch-Méautis Ritter(2002) 121-34for Philip II and Herakles. 96 (1982) 73-7; Clairmont(1983) 65; Koch (1984); Oakley Hdt.7.233; Clairmont(1983) 114-15,no.8a. 97 (2004) 202. Dem. Corona208; IG II2 5226 (theancient context is unclear,and the text needs re-examining). 86 JOHNMA

soonaftewards; it was resurrectedafter Chaironeia, and in 335 participatedenthusiastically in the sack ofThebes with Boiotians from other cities that had sufferedbecause of Thebes. Did theChaironeia Lion alludespecifically to theThespian polyandriorii The latteris in fact unlikethe Chaironeia monument: the enclosure is larger,contains a masscremation, and was in- scribedwith casualty lists, in imitationof Athenian practice; the very practice of burying the war dead at homerather than on thefield also imitatesAthenian habit.98 Rather than imitate the Thes- piantomb, the lion monument at Chaironeiamight have been couchedin a local idiom(mound, períbolosand sculpture), but in a renditionof problematically massive dimensions (the crouching liontowers at 6 m high,in comparisonwith the supine Thespian lion, about 3.30 m longand 2 m high). The Chaironeiamonument seems to alludeto theBoiotian genre, but also transcendsit, as a reflectionof precisely those Thebes-centred tendencies which aroused strong opposition in the earlyfourth century. The SacredBand embodiedTheban militarism, continuity and renewal- problematicmeanings after 338, and evenafter 316. The firstmonumental intertext, the lion of Thermopylai, enriches any interpretation ofthe Lion ofChaironeia, by writing it into a pan-Hellenicnarrative of libertyand remembered good deaths, in an act of selectivememory. The secondintertext, the lion of theThespians, refers the viewer backto a bitterlocal history.The battleof Chaironeiaand thedeath of theTheban Sacred Band werenot simple events. The monumentdoes notbear an inscription,as notedand puzzledover byPausanias. This absence reflects the difficulty of articulatingwhat the battle actually meant for differentBoiotians." But at thesame time, the lack ofprecisely articulated meanings, as would havebeen defined by an epigramor a casualtylist, allowed the monument to operateeffectively: itwas expressiveand 'obvious',thus mobilizing the viewer's knowledge in theacceptable forms of whathe wantedto rememberor referto - thebattle against Philip, the history of Greekfree- dom fromMarathon to Chaironeia.At thefoot of theimpressive but wordless monument, for- getfulnessand remembering did their work; Strabo spoke of indeterminate 'public burials of those who fellin thebattle'.

V. CONCLUSION: IN THE SHADOW OF THE LION

Thispaper elaborates two proposals about the battle of Chaironeia:first, it dissociates the Mace- donianmound from tactical dispositions; second, it downdates the lion monument for the Sacred Band to c. 316 or later.Unpacking these two suggestions leads to studyingcommemoration: the celebratorygestures by theMacedonian army immediately after the battle; the unfinished funer- arymonument erected a generationlater, using local topography and history to present its message, butalso preventedby these same local elementsfrom fully articulating its meanings. Chaironeiawas a muchmore complicated site of memory than the sounding performed in this papersuggests. There were other monuments for the dead of 338 mentionedby Plutarch. Another battletook place in 245, anotherBoiotian defeat, this time against the Aitolians. Yet another battle tookplace in 86,between Sulla andArchelaos, Mithradates' general; Chaironeians took a decisive partin Sulla'svictory, and the name of the two leaders of the Chaironeian contingent were inscribed on thetrophy set up on Thourion.100Plutarch grew up in a smallBoiotian polis denselytextured withhistorical monuments of which the Lion, never mentioned by Plutarch, was onlyone part. The layeringof memory continues to ourday: theLion has a modernstory of itsown. Its long-desiredreconstitution was onlythe beginning of itssecond life.'Alter gewaltiger Löwe von Chäronea! Eine Thränetrat mir heimlich in's Auge, als ich vor Dir stand,Dir schönes

98 100 Low (2003). Sotiriadis(1904) 50-1;battle of 245: Pol. 20.4,Plut. 99 For modernparallels, see Rainbird(2003) on the Aratos16.1; Camp et al (1992), paralleledin therecent 'BrokenHill Digger', or theacrimonious debates about discoveryof anotherSullan trophy at Orchomenos,as re- theWorld Trade Centre monument in LowerManhattan. portedin theGreek press in December2004. CHAIRONEIA338 87 altehrwürdigesSinnbild des ruhmreichkämpfenden und doch fürimmer verlorenen Griechen- ' lands! Fornon-Greek visitors, the point of the Lion was thatit was broken,which offered a sat- isfyingstarting-point formelancholy meditation about the various forms of brokenness to be seen in Greeceold andnew; forthe national archaeological institutions of nineteenth-century Greece, itwas imperativeto rebuildthe Lion as partof a broadernarrative of inheritanceand identity.101 But afterreconstruction, the monument seems to have lostits interest;102Mahaffy, who had railedat theGreek state for not undertaking the 'easy' taskof reconstructingthe Lion, found the resultbathetic.103 The culturalhistory of the Lion in modernGreece is anothertopic; a pointeris providedby a full-sizereplica set up in 1930 as a homageto 'the fightersof 1821' in Vathy (Samos),where it stands on PythagorasSquare, surrounded by palm trees. Back inCentral Greece, themodern route to Delphi passes through Livadhia, leaving the roadside Lion offthe main tourist circuits.Nowadays, the Lion gracesguidebooks and textbooks, and doubtless enlivens countless slideor Powerpointprojections during Greek history survey courses. - HereI exploredwhat we couldknow about this famous, but ill-known monument topography, photographs,old excavationreports (involving 'journals archaeology') -and in theNational ArchaeologicalMuseum (Athens), material from the Theban polyandrion, for which the Greek ArchaeologicalService generously granted a publicationpermit, and on whichI practised'store- roomarchaeology'. This material has now been sent to the Chaironeia Museum, thus to be reunited withthe original site after 125 years,and soon to be exhibitedagain after nearly seventy years' absencefrom the public. Thearchaeology of the Lion of Chaironeia invites us tothink about cultures of commemoration. Theseinclude the gestures of the victorious Macedonians, the incomplete Theban / Boiotian monu- mentabout a defeat,set up a generationor two later - butalso modernarchaeological activity, such as therediscovery and long drawn-out rebuilding of the Lion. Exploringthe stratigraphy ofcom- memorationhas led to our encounteringtwo objects. First,the mutilated skull of 'Gamma 16' (Plate 4(c)), terribleto behold,all thatremains of a 50-yearold whoselife (c. 388-338)spanned theduration of Theban-led revival and militarism in Boiotia:104 this trace of his violent death raises questionsabout the 'face of battle', the 'sharp end' of battle, the contexts and meanings of violence - to quotethe neurologist Cyril Courville, 'man's inhumanity'sto manas manifestedby wounds ofthe head is a heritageof his past'.105 All thesequestions are channelled, tailored, answered but also silenced,by themonumental Lion (Plate 5(a)), setover the body of 'Gamma 16' a generationor so afterhis violentend, and proposing multiple statements about his lifeand his death,in a reminderof the paradoxes of time and memory at theheart of the disciplines of archaeology and history. JOHNMA CorpusChristi College, Oxford

101 Hettner(1853) 291-7;Hettner also uses E. Geibel's post-defeatGermany: Norden (1966) 555. Thereis a four- poemon theLion, quoted at thebeginning of thispaper: lettergraffito in Gothicletters on the back of the base theLion thereserves as an emblemfor the fall of Greek (CDRE), whichI do notknow how to interpret. 103 and culture,and as a to modernGermany Mahaffy(1905) 225: 'greatdisappointment', 'ludi- liberty warning ' ('0 schau'in diesen Spiegel | Schau'her, mein Vaterland! : crouseffect'. 104 Geibel(1918) 2.155). See e.g. Wyse(1871) 151-8on the At some point beforehis death at Chaironeia - Lion andthe plain as melancholyexperience (plagiarized 'Gamma16' losttwo of his front teeth to trauma perhaps in Belle (1881) 130-2);Mahaffy (1905) 223-4. thetrace of participation in an earlierbattle, or the result of 102 Lappas(1939) pointsout that the ceremonial inaug- violenttraining? This individualmight have been seven- urationof therebuilt monument, scheduled to coincide teenor eighteen when Leuktra took place, twenty-six dur- withthe First International Congress of Classical Archae- ingthe campaign and battle of SecondMantineia. 105 ology(1905), seemsnever to havetaken place. A lecture On thearchaeology of violence, see Carman(1997); byE. Norden,given in 1928,is a lateexample of the med- Courvilleis quotedand discussedthere: Wakely (1997) itationbefore the monument, uninscribed yet 'more elo- 25; on emotionin the archaeology of death, Tarlow (1999). quentthan any word', given new meaning in the context of 88 JOHNMA BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson,J.K. (1970) MilitaryTheory and Practicein theAge ofXenophon(Berkeley) - (1991) 'Hopliteweapons and offensivearms', in V.D. Hanson(ed.), Hoplites:the Classical Greek BattleExperience (London) 15-37 Andronikos,M. (1970) 'Sarissa',BCH 94, 91-107 - (1982) 'La Nécropoled'Aigai', in M. Hatzopoulosand L. Loukopoulou(eds), Philippe de Macédoine (Paris) 188-229 - (1984) Vergina.The Royal Tombs and theAncient City (Athens) Aravantinos,V. (1993) 'Aycoyoç(puoncoû àepíou ÀEI1A',Archaiologikon Deltion 40, Chronika2.1, 180 Armagnac,J. (1910) 'De Chéronéeà Delphespar les défilésdu Parnasse',Tour du Monde 13ème livraison(26 March1910) 97-100 Baitinger,H. (2001) Die Angriffswaffenaus Olympia {Olympische Forschungen 29, Berlinand New York) Belle,H. (1881) Troisannées en Grèce(Paris) Bintliff,J. (2004) 'Local historyand heritage management in Greece',in P. Doukellisand L. Mendoni (eds),Perception and Evaluationof Cultural Landscapes (Meletemata 38, Athens) 137-52 Bisel, S. (1990) 'Die Menschenknochenaus demGrab der Messenier', in W.K. Kovscovics(ed.), Kerameikos14 (Berlin)151-9 Bosanquet,R. andTod, M.N. (1902) 'Archaeologyin Greece1901-1902', JHS 22 378-94 Brandt,P. (1894) VonAthen zum Tempethal: Reiseerinnerungen aus Griechenland(Gütersloh) Braun,E. (1948) 'Zur Schlachtbei Chaironeia',Jahreshefte des österrarchäolog. Instituts 37, 81-9 Braun,K. (1981) BemalteKeramik und Glas aus demKabirenheiligtum bei Theben {Das Kabirenheiligtum4, Berlin) Broneer,O. (1941) TheLion Monument ofAmphipolis (Cambridge, MA) Buckler,J. (1992) 'Plutarchand Autopsy', ANRWll 33.6,4788-830 - (2003) AegeanGreece in theFourth Century BC (Leiden) Buckler,J. and Beck,H. (2008) CentralGreece and thePolitics of Power in theFourth Century (Cambridge) Camp,J., Ierardi, M., Mclnerney,J., Morgan, K. andUmholtz, G. (1992) 'Atrophyfrom the battle of Chaironeiaof 86 BC, AJA96, 443-55 Carman,J. (1997) (ed.),Material Harm. Archaeological Studies of Warand Violence(Glasgow) Clairmont,C. (1983) PatriosNomos. Public Burial in Athens during the Fifth and FourthCenturies B.C.: theArchaeological, Epigraphic-Literary, and HistoricalEvidence (Oxford) Clarke,E.D. (1818) Travelsin variouscountries of Europe, Asia andAfrica, Part thesecond: Greece, Egyptand theHoly land, Section the third, Volume the seventh (4th edn, London) Collignon,M. (1911) Les statuesfunéraires dans Vart grec (Paris) Connolly,P. (2000) 'Experimentswith the sarissa - theMacedonian pike and cavalry lance: a functional view',Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 11, 103-12 Conner,P. (1979) 'GeorgeLedwell Taylor and theLion ofChaeronea. A travellerin Greecein 1818', ApolloMagazine, March 1979, 134-42 Coolley,A.S. (1904) 'The Macedoniantomb and the battlefield of Chaironeia', Records of the Past 3.5 (May 1904)131-43 Costanzi,V. (1923) 'II Leone di Cheroneaet alcunequestione con esso connesse',Riv. FU. 51, 61-70 Cotton,E. (1862) A Voicefrom Waterloo. A Historyof the Battle Fought on the18th June 1815 (6thedn, Mont St-Jean) d'Istria,D. (1863) Excursionsen Roumélieet en Morée(Zurich and Paris) Dalton,C. (1904) The WaterlooRoll Call (reprintof the 2nd edn, London 1971) Davidson,J.N. (2007) TheGreeks and GreekLove. A Radical Reappraisalof Homosexuality in Ancient Greece(London) Dupré,L. (1825) Voyageà Athèneset à Constantinople(Paris) Fiorato,V., Boylston, A. andKnüsel, C. (2000) Blood Red Roses. TheArchaeology of a Mass Gravefrom theBattle ofTowton AD 1461 (Oxford) Flaubert,G. (1998) Voyages(ed. D. Barbéris,Paris) CHAIRONEIA338 89 Fossey,J. (1988) Topographyand Populationof Ancient Boiotia (Chicago) Foster,P. (1878) GreekArms and Armour, Greek Museum, University of Newcastle upon Tyne (Newcastleupon Tyne) Frazer,J. (1898) Pausanias' Descriptionof Greece (London) Furtwängler,A. (1890) Die Bronzenund die übrigenkleineren Funde aus Olympia{Olympia 4, Berlin) Geibel,E. (1918) Werke(ed. W. Stammler,Leipzig) Göttling,K. (1846) Narratiode Chaeroneaatque praesertim de leone Chaeronensispugnae monumento (Iena) Hammond,N. (1973) Studiesin GreekHistory (Oxford) - (1987) Reviewof Pritchett (1985), CR 37, 236-7 Hettner,H. (1853) GriechischeReiseskizzen (Braunschweig) Hobhouse,J. (1813) v4Journey through Albania and otherProvinces of Turkeyin Europe and Asia, to Constantinople,during the years 1809 and 1810 (London) Hölscher,T. (1974) 'Die Nike derMessenier und Naupaktier in Olympia.Kunst und Geschichte im späten5. Jahrhundertv. Chr.', Jahrbuch des DeutschenArchäologischen Instituts 89, 70-11 1 Ingelmark,B. (1939 ) 'The Skeletons',in B. Thordemann,Armour from the Battle ofWisby 1361 (Stockholm),1.149-209 Jacob-Felsch,M. (1969) Die Entwicklunggriechischer Statuenbasen und die Aufstellungder Statuen (Waldsassen) Jacquemin,A. (1999) OffrandesMonumentales à Delphes (Paris) Kastorchis,E. (1875) Tlepi xox>év Xccipcoveta',Athenaion 4, 304-9 - (1879) Tlepi xox>év Xaipcoveía',Athenaion 8, 486-506 - (1880) 'Äp%aioôyiKaieíôrjaeiç', Athenaion 9, 157-61 Kawadias, P. (1900) laxopíotxy'q ApxocioXoyiicfiç èxaipeíaç arcòxr'q év exei 1837 iôpuaecoçocoxíiç ué%pixoû 1900 (Athens) - (1902) "'EkGeoiçxcov TteTtpayuivcov xfjç'Exaipeiaç', Praktika9-36 Kirsten,E. (1984) Landschaftund Geschichte in derantiken Welt (Bonn) Knigge,U. (1976) 'Zum Löwenvon Kantzas', Ath. Miti 91, 167-73 Knollys,W. (1876) Shaw theLife Guardsman (London) Koch,G. (1984) 'Zum Grabreliefder Helena', JP GettyMuseum Journal 12, 59-72 Körte,A. (1878) 'Die antikenSculpturen aus Boeotien',Ath. Mitt. 3, 301-422 KoteraFeyer, E. (1993) Die Stngilis(franklurt am Main) Kountouri,E. (2006) 'ÄvocGKotcpiKecepyccoieç oxnv Xocipcoveux 2000-2002: ilpcoxeç 6kxiut|G£iç , ApxaiokoyiKàëpya OeaaaXíaç Kai Erepeãç 'EXXáõaç2 (Volos) 779-97 Kromayer,J. (1905) 'Zu dengriechischen Schlachtfelderstudien', Wiener Studien 27, 1-34 Lappas,T. (1939) fOAécov xfjç Xcupcoveiocç (Athens) Leitão,D. (2002 ) 'The legendof the Sacred Band', in M.C. Nussbaumand J. bihvola (eds), lhe òleep oj Reason:Erotic Experience and SexualEthics in Ancient Greece and Rome(Chicago) 143-69 Lethaby,W.R. (1918) 'Greeklion monuments', JHS 38, 39-44 Lolling,H. (1989) Reisenotizenaus Griechenland1876 und1877 (Berlin) Low,P. (2003) 'Rememberingwar in fifth-centuryGreece: ideologies, societies and commemoration beyonddemocratic Athens', World Archaeology 35, 98-111 Mahaffy,J. (1905) Ramblesand Studiesin Greece(5th edn, London) MallouchouTufano, F. (1998) fHócvocoxriÀxoari xcovap%aicov uvr||Li£icov axr| vecoxepri EÂÀaòa, 1834-1939:xò ëpyoxr'q év 'A0f|vaiç'ApxaioJloyiidiç 'Exaipeíaç Kai xfjç'Apâioôyiicfiç Tripeaíaç (Athens) MarkleIII, M. (1977) 'The Macedoniansarissa, spear, and relatedarmor', AJA 75, 323-39 - (1980 ) 'Weaponsfrom the cemetery at Vergina and Alexander's army', in K. Vavouskos(ed.), MéyccçAÀiÇocvôpoç. 2300 xpóvia u£xàxòv Gávaxóv xo') (Thessaloniki)243-67 - (1982 ) 'Macedonianarms and tactics under Alexander the Great', in B. Barr-Sharrarand E. Borza (eds),Macedonia and Greecein Late Classical and EarlyHellenistic Times (Washington) 87-111 Mayo,J.M. (1988) 'Warmemorials as politicalmemory , GeographicalReview 78, 62-75 Mee, C. and Spawforth,A. (2001) Greece.An OxfordArchaeological Guide (Oxford) 90 JOHNMA Mertens-Horn,M. (1986) Die Löwenkopf-wasserspiessendes griechischen Westerns im 6. und5. Jahrhundertv. Chr. im Vergleichmit den Löwen des griechischenMutterlandes (Mainz) - (1988) 'Studienzu griechischenLöwenbildern', Rom. Mitt. 93, 1-61 Miller,S. andMiller, S. (1972) 'Architecturalblocks from the Strymon', Arch. Delt. 27, 140-69 Morrow,K.D. (1985) GreekFootwear and theDating of Sculpture (Madison, Wisconsin) Müller,H. (1887) GriechischeReisen und Studien (Leipzig) Mure,W. (1842) Journalof a Tourin Greeceand theIonian Islands (Edinburgh) Newton,C. (1862-3)A Historyof Discoveries at Halicarnassus,Cnidus and Branchidae(London) Norden,E. (1966 ) 'Heldenehrungen',in KleineSchriften (Berlin) 552-64 Oakley,J. (2004) PicturingDeath in ClassicalAthens: the Evidence of the White Lekythoi (Cambridge) Oikonomos,G. (1938) Ta eraxov exr|xíiç ev Aor|vaiçApxaioAoyiKTÍç 'Exaipeiaç. AoyoçTtavnyupiKoc too rpajijiiaxécûçxoû lx>ii$ox>Xíox>(Athens) Osgood,R. (2005) The UnknownSoldier. An Archaeology of the Common Soldier (Stroud) Petrakos,V. (1987) ?Hev Äörivocicap%aioXo xuußcov rcapòt xíiv Xaiocoveíav', Praktika 53-9 - (1903) 'Das Schlachtfeldvon Chäroneaund der Grabhügel der Makedonen', Ath. Mitt 28, 301-30 - (1904) Ai TcccpàXTjv Xcupcoveíav, xòv 'Opxojxevòv Kal xtjv'Etaxxeíav avaamcpaí, Praktika35-57 - (1905) 'Untersuchungenin Boiotien und Phokis. 1. Topographischesüber Chaironeia. Das StadtflüsschenHaimon und das Herakleion',Ath. Mitt 30, 113-20 - (1910) 'Ai év XccipcoveíocKai Kaxà xr'vOcoKÍôa àvaoracpai', Praktika122-30 Stephani,L. (1843) Reisedurch einige Gegenden des nördlichenGriechenlands (Leipzig) Stupperich,R. (1977) Staatsbegräbnisund Privatgrabmal im klassischen Athen (Münster) Tarlow,S. (1999) Bereavementand Commemoration:an Archaeologyof Mortality (Oxford) Taylor,G. (1 870-2) TheAuto-biography ofan OctagenarianArchitect, being a Recordof his Studies at Homeand Abroad, during 65 Years,Comprising among the Subjects The Cathedrals of England, Franceand Italy,the Temples of Rome, Greece and Sicily,with Explanations of their Various Styles - and Plans,from Measurement; also, Incidentsof Travel, and Sketchesof Other Buildings and Objects on hisRoute, From Notes and Measurementsduring Tours through England, France, Italy, Greece and Sicily,1816-17-18-19 (principally on Foot), withRe-visits in 1857 to 1868,2 vols. (London) Themelis,P. andTouratsoglou, I. (1997) Oi xacpoiiox> Aepßevio') (Athens) Thompson,H.A. (1954) 'Excavationsin theAthenian Agora: 1953', Hesperia 23, 31-67 Touratsoglou,I. (1996 ) 'Die BaupolitikKassanders', in W Hoepfherand G. Brands(eds), Basileia. Die Paläste derhellenistischen Könige. Internationales Symposion in Berlin vom 16.12.1992 bis 20.12. 1992 (Mainz) 176-81 Tsimbidou-Avloniti,M. (2005) MaKeôoviKoixácpoi axov Ooívixa Kai oxov'Äyiov AOavaGio 0eocaXovÍKT|ç(Athens) Tzavella-Evjen,H. (1995) 'Avacncacpucècëpeweç axrjvXaipcoveia', Ep. HetBoiot.Mel. 2.1, 630-7 CHAIRONEIA338 91 Ure,P. (1913) Black Glaze Potteryfrom Rhitsona in Boeotia (London and New York) Vaux,W. (1866) 'On thediscovery of the Lion at Chaeronaea,by a partyof English travellers in 1818', Transactionsof the Royal Society of Literature, 2nd ser. 8, 1-11 Vermeille,C. (1972) 'GreekFunerary Animals, 450-300 B.C.', AJA16, 49-59 Vermeule,E. (1979) Aspectsof Death inEarly Greek Art and Poetry(Berkeley) Wakely,J. (1997) 'Identificationand analysisof violent and non-violent head injuriesin osteo- archaeologicalmaterial', in Carman(1997) 24-46 Waywell,G. (1998) 'The Lion fromthe Lion Tombat Cnidus',in O. Palagia andW. Coulson(eds), RegionalSchools in Hellenistic Sculpture (Oxford) 235-42 Welcker,F.G. (1856) 'II leonedi Cheronea',Monumenti Annali e Bulletinipubblicati dalVlnstituto di CorrispondenzaArcheologica 1-5 and pl. 1 - (1864) 'Der Löwe von Chäronea',in Alte Denkmäler 5.62-72 - (1865) Tagebucheiner griechischen Reise (Berlin) Willemsen,F. (1959) Die Lowenkopj-wassenspeiervom Dach des Zeustempels(Olympische Forschungen4, Berlin) Woysch-Méautis,D. (1982) La Représentationdes animauxet des êtresfabuleux sur les monuments funérairesgrecs: de Vépoque archaïque à la findu IVe siècle av. J.-C.(Neuchâtel) Wyse,T. (1871) Impressionsof Greece (London) PLATE 4 CHAIRONEIA 338 JHS 128 (2008)

(b) Skullfrom the Theban mass grave,showing a coup de grâce witha buttspike

(a) Chaironeiaand surroundings afterSotiriadis (1903)

(d) The gravemound of theMacedonians JHS 128 (2008) CHAIRONEIA 338 PLATE 5

(a) The Lion (photoChr. Chandezon)

(b) Phytalis'soundings PLATE 6 CHAIRONEIA 338 JHS 128 (2008)

(a) Bone buttons,with box and skeletonnumber: row5, fromskeleton 16

(b) Ceramicsfrom the Theban mass grave