The past decade has witnessed a surge in synthetic studies on the funerary practices of the ancient populations of the northern Aegean, which was made possible thanks to the dozens of cemeteries that have come to light in the region, especially since the 1980s. Some of these studies focus specifically on ancient Macedonia, seeing in the funerary remains a unique opportunity to investigate the early history of the kingdom, which, being little documented by ancient texts, had long been neglected in research.[1] Christos Giamakis has focused on the lavishly equipped male, which he terms “warrior” (his quotation marks), and female burials that are known from the kingdom of the Archaic period, with the primary aim of situating them within their sociopolitical context.
In the first part of the book, the author presents the nine sites included in his study (Sindos, Archontiko, Aigai, Agios Athanasios, Nea Philadelpheia, Thermi, Agia Paraskevi, Aiani and Trebenishte), along with the topography of the kingdom and the ancient texts that recount the process of its formation. He further provides a brief but critical overview of earlier scholarship on the subject and outlines his own theoretical and methodological approach.
The second part is devoted to the analysis of the evidence from the nine sites. The author concludes that each of these sites attests to the presence of a distinct “dominant group”, whose burials alone exhibited the following features: a standardized “full kit” of offerings that was gender- but not age-specific; graves that were of particular types or unusually large; and a location in a specific area within or outside the communal cemetery, to which no one else had access. Giamakis specifies that, although common across the region, this pattern displayed local variations.
In the third and final part of the book, the author seeks to interpret this funerary pattern in relation to the organization of the kingdom. He suggests that, once the kingdom was established in the 6th c. BCE, the elite of Aigai introduced a new set of funerary practices in order to affirm its power, thus becoming “prototypical” for the dominant groups at other sites. These groups imitated the new practices of the Aigai elite for their own purposes, and subalterns also attempted to do so. However, since elite members maintained “tight control” (p. 193) over their own diacritical practices, subalterns could never fully imitate them. As a result, a clear “gap” (p. 200) emerged between burials of the two groups. Giamakis further argues that, since no burial practice appears to have been exclusive to Aigai, this site did not achieve regional primacy until later, in the 5th c. BCE. He therefore understands the Archaic kingdom as having involved multiple power centers that were organized in a heterarchical rather than hierarchical manner.
The author is to be commended for his effort to systematize a substantial body of evidence, which is unevenly published, and especially for integrating both an intrasite and a regional level of analysis. Nonetheless, the combined presence of factual inaccuracies and shortcomings in his methodological and theoretical approach compromises the credibility of his interpretation.
The book contains numerous factual errors, only a few of which can be highlighted here. Given that the Aegean chronology is conventionally applied also to Macedonia, the Archaic period is generally dated to 700–480 and not to 600–400 BCE.[2] Among the 123 (not 121) graves found at Sindos, only 51 are of Archaic date. It is not true that highly ostentatious burials became very rare in Macedonia in 500–450 BCE and then almost completely disappeared until the time of Philip II (p. 207-208). Within the decade 500-490 BCE, such burials disappeared from all sites except Aigai, but as of ca. 480 BCE they began to reappear at other sites, and they increased progressively in number.[3] There is no evidence that either of the two separate burial clusters at Aigai (Β and Γ) was covered by a large tumulus. Neither the region of Aiani nor that of Trebenishteformed part of the Temenid kingdom in the Archaic period (both were conquered by Philip).[4] Grave inventories are often inaccurately described (for example, the jewelry set from Grave 20 at Sindos included eleven additional pieces beyond those listed in Table 2, p. 60).[5]
In terms of methodology, it is difficult to understand Giamakis’ decision to analyze Archaic burials from Sindos together with those from the Classical period. Since funerary patterns changed around 500 BCE at this site, with highly ostentatious burials and several among the more exclusive types of offerings disappearing,[6] merging the two datasets has distorted the picture of 6th-century patterns. Archaic female burials, for instance, contained an average of 12 pieces of jewelry, not 6 (p. 59). Similarly, in the case of Trebenishte, the author has also taken into account the so-called “poor graves”, which span a period from the 7th to the 3rd c. BCE. Further distortion of the funerary patterns has resulted from the inclusion, in the analysis of both Sindos and Archontiko, of disturbed burials. For example, the four Archontiko burials that are cited as containing swords but no spears (p. 107) were looted or partly destroyed.[7]
More importantly, the existence of a standardized “full kit” of offerings, which Giamakis identifies at Sindos and Archontiko and postulates for the remaining sites, is not supported by the evidence. In terms of the quantity, quality and variety of offerings, Macedonian grave inventories from the 6th c. BCE form a continuous spectrum and are impossible to divide into two clearly bounded groups, an elite and a non-elite.[8] Guided by his conviction that such a distinction must have existed, the author made certain choices in order to align the evidence accordingly. First, his tables of “full kit” burials, which omit details on the precise types and numbers of offerings, create a false impression of uniformity between highly varied inventories that could hardly belong to individuals sharing the same status (e.g., graves 25 and 105 at Sindos, p. 81, Table 13). Aside from being overly generic—thus masking variation in the types of goods and the degree of their exclusivity—some of the categories of offerings he includes in his “full kit” are not useful. Drinking cups, for example, were not offered to the dead because they were “vessels”, just as models of spits were not offered because they were “miniatures”. Both types of artifacts were chosen because of their association with feasting, which was signified at all burials, albeit by means of sets of different forms and sizes to denote differential access to this practice. Another arbitrary choice lies in the definition of an “optional kit” solely for women, despite the fact that the same categories of goods were also absent from some “full kit” male burials. Finally, Giamakis repeatedly states that not all wealthy burials received his “full kit”. In this regard, he cites one grave from Sindos, which is of Classical date, and several graves from Archontiko, which were either looted or placed lower on the spectrum than his “full kit” burials (p. 95–96, 128–129).
Giamakis claims that the eastern part of the cemetery at Sindos and the central part of the cemetery at Archontiko, respectively, were reserved for exclusive use by the dominant group of each site. While it is true that the wealthiest burials at each site tended to cluster in specific areas, these areas were neither reserved for such burials nor were they the only ones to receive them. For example, the highly ostentatious burial 25, found at the eastern part of the cemetery at Sindos, formed a cluster with the much more modest burials 24 and 27, while the elaborate burial 458 at Archontiko was located at the southeast (not the central) part of the cemetery, among much more modest burials. In addition, the assertion that two clusters of subadult burials, which were found at the west part of the Sindos cemetery, attest to differences in the treatment of children during the Archaic period is unfounded. Two of the three burials of the first cited cluster belonged to individuals aged between 17 and 18 years, who could hardly qualify as children. As for the second cluster, it consists exclusively of Classical burials.
Giamakis does not acknowledge that not all sites have yielded burials representing the full range of the continuous spectrum. Among the sites of the Temenid kingdom included in the book, only Aigai, Archontiko, Sindos and Thermi have yielded burials representing the upper grades of the spectrum and, and of these, only the ones at Aigai were made outside the communal cemetery, forming the two aforementioned Clusters Β and Γ. In other words, the cemeteries of the kingdom attest to a three-tiered site hierarchy (hierarchical scheme with three tiers). This scheme becomes more readily apparent when one examines the evidence from more sites of the lowest tier, such as the ones at Mieza and Asomata that are fully published.[9] A better understanding of regional patterns can likewise be achieved by adopting a broader scale of analysis covering the wider northern Aegean. Unfortunately, Giamakis did not realize that Trebenishte, which did not form part of the kingdom at that time, did not share the funerary practices of Macedonian sites.[10] Similarly, he did not address the fact that 6th-century Thracian and northern Greek colonial sites also evince different sets of practices.[11]
Regarding the theoretical premises of the book, the recurrent use of the term “state” to designate the Temenid kingdom (e.g., p. 13, 17), along with the fact that the author states that not all past societies were either “strictly stratified” or “egalitarian” (p. 103), suggests a lack of familiarity with both neoevolutionary typologies and more recent approaches to social complexity and power.[12] Furthermore, it must be stressed that the term “heterarchy” cannot describe the diffusion of power across different centers within a polity, unless each of these centers drew its power from a different source or a different set of sources.[13] That this was not the case with the Macedonian kingdom is indicated by the fact that offerings from highly ostentatious burials signified the exact same sources of power across the region. Moreover, Giamakis’ conceptualization of the process of emergence of his “full kit”, involving a “prototypical group” that everyone wished to imitate without everyone being allowed to do so, is deeply embedded in the culture-historical approach and strongly elite-centered. At the same time, associating male burials primarily with warfare and female burials with personal adornment, although individuals of both gender groups were consistently also associated with various other practices, betrays an approach that is conditioned by western androcentric perceptions of gender.[14]
Finally, the book includes several misunderstandings of both ancient texts and modern scholarship. In his analysis of Thucydides’ account of the Macedonian expansion (2.99), Giamakis suggests that the “other” Macedonians implied in the text might refer to non-Macedonians who were incorporated in the kingdom (p. 206). Yet, as indicated at the beginning of the passage itself, the distinction pertains to the inhabitants of Lower and Upper Macedonia. To give another example, lumping together all earlier studies on highly ostentatious burials from 6th-century BCE Macedonia (even though these studies encompass a range of, at times, diametrically opposed views), the author criticizes previous scholarship for allegedly suggesting that the appearance of such burials at all sites, except for the core area of Aigai, was symptomatic of the Macedonian conquest of these sites (p. 13, 26, 183, 204). In reality, such a claim has been made only with regard to the region east of the River Axios, and only by two of the eleven scholars cited by the author in this respect.[15]
Offering an extensive synthesis of Macedonian funerary evidence in English, Giamakis’ book is likely to be consulted by many archaeologists and historians working on ancient Macedonia. For many reasons, only some of which were outlined above due to space limitations, they should approach it with caution.
Works referenced
Archibald, Z. 2024. “Macedonia,” in P. Cartledge and P. Christesen (eds.), The Oxford History of the Archaic Greek World. Vol. 4: Cyrene to Metapontion, Oxford, 245–483.
Bouzek, J. and Ondřejová, I. 1988. “Sindos-Trebenischte-Duvanli. Interrelations between Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece in the 6th and 5th centuries BC”, MedArch 1, 84–98.
Chrysostomou, P. 2019. “Οι Μακεδόνες του Αρχοντικού Πέλλας: η αλήθεια των πραγμάτων”, AEMTh 28, 261–272.
Chrysostomou, A. and Chrysostomou, P. 2010. “Ανασκαφή στο δυτικό νεκροταφείο του Αρχοντικού Πέλλας κατά το 2007. Η ταφική συστάδα του πολεμιστή με τη χρυσή μάσκα και άλλες ταφικές συστάδες”, AEMTh 21, 83–90.
_____. 2013. “Δυτικό νεκροταφείο του αρχαίου οικισμού στο Αρχοντικό Πέλλας: η σωστική ανασκαφική έρευνα του 2009”, AEMTh 23, 195–204.
Crumley, C.L. and Levy, J.E. (eds) 1995. Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, Arlington, VA.
Despoini, A. 2016. Σίνδος Ι. Το νεκροταφείο. Ανασκαφικές έρευνες 1980-1982. Η ανασκαφή των τάφων, τάφοι και ταφικά έθιμα, το σκελετικό υλικό, Athens.
Feinman, G.M. 2023. “Reconceptualizing Archaeological Perspectives on Long-Term Political Change”, Annual Review of Anthropology 52, 347–364.
Hammond, N.G.L. and Griffith, G.T. 1979. A History of Macedonia, vol. II. 550–336 B.C., Oxford.
Kefalidou, E. 2009. Ασώματα. Ένα αρχαϊκό νεκροταφείο στην Ημαθία, Thessaloniki.
Rhomiopoulou, K. and Touratsoglou, G. 2002. Μίεζα. Νεκροταφείο υστεροαρχαϊκών – πρώιμων ελληνιστικών χρόνων, Athens.
Salminen, E. 2023. Age, Gender and Status in Macedonian Society, 550–300 BCE. Intersectional Approaches to Mortuary Archaeology, Edinburgh.
Saripanidi V. 2017. “Constructing Continuities with a ‘Heroic’ Past: Death, Feasting and Political Ideology in the Archaic Macedonian Kingdom”, in A. Tsingarida and I.S. Lemos (eds), Constructing Social Identities in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece, Brussels, 73–135.
___ 2019. “Vases, Funerary Practices, and Political Power in the Macedonian Kingdom During the Classical Period Before the Rise of Philip II”, AJA 123.3, 381–410.
___ 2020. “Genre, statut social et pouvoir dans la Macédoine archaïque”, in I. Algrain (ed), Archéologie du genre. Construction sociale des identités et culture matérielle, Brussels, 73–109.
____ 2024. “Power Structures and Death Rituals in Archaic Lower Macedonia”, in M. Gavranović, D. Heilmann, M. Verčik and P. Ardjanliev (eds), The Mechanism of Power. The Bronze and Iron Ages in Southeastern Europe. Proceedings of the 3rd PEBA Conference Held in Ohrid, 25–28 May 2022, Rahden, 81–104.
Notes
[1] E.g. Saripanidi 2017; Salminen 2023.
[2] See, e.g., Archibald 2024, especially 269.
[3] Saripanidi 2019, 400–406.
[4] Hammond and Griffith 1979, 650, 652–659.
[5] Despoini 2016, 33–35.
[6] Saripanidi 2019.
[7] Despite the author’s claim of the opposite (p. 105), this is clearly stated in the graves’ publication, see Chrysostomou and Chrysostomou 2010, 84, 87; 2013, 199.
[8] Saripanidi 2020, 78–85; 2024, 87–88
[9] Rhomiopoulou and Touratsoglou 2002; Kefalidou 2009.
[10] Bouzek and Ondřejová 1988; Saripanidi 2024, 96.
[11] Saripanidi 2017, 78–81, 127–129.
[12] For an overview see Feinman 2023.
[13] Crumley and Levy 1995.
[14] Saripanidi 2020.
[15] Saripanidi 2017 and Chrysostomou 2019.