Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Héros et héroïnes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs

 | 
Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge
, 
Emilio Suárez de la Torre

Monumental Tombs and Hero Cults in Thrace during the 5th-3rd centuries B.C.

Nikola Theodossiev

Texte intégral

  • 1 On political history of the Thracian tribes; Ch. Danov, Altthrakien, Berlin-New York, 1976, passim (...)
  • 2 On the Early Iron Age megalithic dolmens and rock-cut tombs see: Megalithite ν Thrakiya, Sofia, 19 (...)

1In the 5th century B.C. the Thracian tribes in the northern parts of the Balkan peninsula consolidated politically and some powerful tribal communities ruled by local kings emerged in these regions1. Over this period the Thracian aristocracy started to look for new ways to express its political power and religious authority in the society. Due to the local funerary traditions of the Early Iron Age (late llth-6th centuries B.C.), when megalithic dolmens and rock-cut tombs were used, and mainly because of the strong contacts with Greece, Macedonia and Anatolia, from the late 5th century B.C. onwards, the Thracian tribal élite started to use monumental beehive tholoi and rectangular tombs (some with barrel-vaulted roof), built under tumuli for burials of some dead nobles2. This custom was widespread in Thrace during the 5th-3rd centuries B.C., with only few exceptions in the 2nd-lst centuries B.C., since more than 80 monumental tumular tombs are now known.

  • 3 On the deification of some Thracian kings see: A. Fol, I. Venedikov, I. Marazov, D. Popov, Thracia (...)

2Archaeological evidence clearly shows that some Thracian tumular tombs were used for longer periods (one-two decades or more) when additional rituals were performed there, some time after the funerals. In other cases the monuments were used for several élite burials, thus becoming family tombs for the local tribal dynasties. It is possible therefore to suppose that part of the Thracian tombs used to be local heroa or even sanctuaries, related to the cult of deified noble ancestors, who were worshipped as heroes and anthropodaimones3.

  • 4 On the excavation results: G. Kitov, Thrakiyska Grobnitsa-Mavzoley kray Grad Strelcha, in Vekove, (...)
  • 5 Cf. C.G. Yavis, Greek Altars. Origins and Typology, Saint Louis, 1949, p. 130-131, 215-221; on the (...)

3Most clear data for additional rituals performed after the burial exist in Zhaba Mogila tumulus near Strelcha, which is among the biggest Thracian mounds, being 20 m in height and 80-90 m in diameter4. Two monumental tombs (beehive and rectangular) were excavated in the southeastern and northwestern periphery of the tumulus, but unfortunately both were looted in the past. Moreover, the rectangular tomb was badly destroyed and no data for eventual additional rituals performed there are available. The beehive tomb (Fig. 1), dated to the 4th century B.C. and located in the southeastern periphery, remained open for several decades after its construction, obviously used for different rituals performed inside. The thresholds of the antechamber and the burial beehive chamber were rubbed out due to the long use; when participants in cult activities entered the tholos, the doors were often opened and shut and thus traces remain. It is not clear, however, if any deceased aristocrat rested in the tholos chamber at that time, or if the burial had not yet been performed. At the final stage of the cult activities, maybe after some secondary burial, a wagon with two horses and another one, all being sacrificed, were placed in front of the tomb entrance (Fig. 2). Obviously, the cart was used for ekphora of the dead noble. Then the doors of the tomb were shut and the burial construction was covered by earth. At the same time, many additional ritual pits (bothroi), with fire-places and animal terracotta figurines put inside were dug in the tumulus’s surface of Zhaba Mogila, some time after the building of both tombs. These bothroi should be connected with some chthonic rituals5 and were surely related to the cult of the buried Thracian dynasts, who were probably celebrated as heroes and anthropodaimones. Moreover, some remains of destroyed primitive building, which also could be connected with additional cult activities, have been discovered on the top of the tumulus.

  • 6 On the excavation results: G. Tsanova, L. Getov, Thrakiyskata Grobnitsa pri Maglizh, in Arheologiy (...)

4Another tumular tomb excavated near Maglizh also shows traces of long use6. It was discovered in the southern part of a tumulus which measures 13 m in height and 48 m in diameter. The tomb (Fig. 3) consists of a narthex flanked by two chambers, a long dromos, two antechambers and a burial chamber, all of them rectangular in design. Unfortunately the tomb was looted in the past and only two funerary beds suggest that at least two burials were performed there. The monument has two stages in its construction; at the second stage the dromos was additionally prolonged and the narthex with two chambers was built, while new wall-paintings replaced the old ones. The wall-painted decoration allows the second stage of the tomb construction to be dated to ca. mid 3rd century B.C. Thus the first stage of the building could be dated one-two decades earlier. Obviously the monument was used as a family tomb of some local Thracian dynasty, but no clear traces of additional rituals related to the worship of the dead nobles, eventually considered as heroes, are preserved. Only the two rectangular chambers from the both sides of the narthex could be connected with some ritual activities related to the cult of the dead dynasts. Therefore, this tomb could represent a local heroon.

  • 7 On the excavations: G. Kitov, Thrakiyski Grobnichno-Kultov Complex ν Mogilata Ostrousha kray Shipk (...)
  • 8 M. Andronicos, Vergina. The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City, Athens, 19932, p. 65-66; most recent (...)

5Two other monumental tombs recently discovered in the region of Shipka were used for longer periods. The first one was excavated in the southern periphery of Ostrousha tumulus, which is about 20 m in height and 70 m in diameter7. The monument (Fig. 4) is rectangular in design and consists of an antechamber, three rectangular chambers and one tholos chamber – symmetrically disposed, and a main sarcophagus-like chamber. Two stages of construction are visible: at the first one only the monolithic sarcophagus-like chamber was put on a stylobate, while at the second stage the other chambers were additionally built around. The tomb was badly destroyed and looted in antiquity, and only a sacrificed horse with some precious objects was discovered in one of the rectangular chambers. The monument is dated to ca. 330-320 B.C., but it is not clear what the period is between the two construction stages (one decade or more?) and how long the tomb was used for cult activities before being covered by earth. Although no clear traces are discovered, additional rituals must have been performed there some time after the burial. The quite complicated and monumental design of the tomb in Ostrousha tumulus and the sacrificed horse may also testify to different rituals performed inside, while the building may be interpreted as a heroon. Moreover, the design of this monument strongly recalls the so-called heroon discovered in the southern periphery of Megali Toumba tumulus at Vergina, where one monumental cist and three barrel-vaulted tombs were also found, and some members of the Macedonian royal dynasty were buried8. Ostrousha tumulus is not excavated yet, but one may expect that some other tombs could be found in the tumular embankment, similar to Megali Toumba.

  • 9 On the excavation results: Kitov, Royal Insignia... (n. 2).

6The second very representative tomb in the region of Shipka was excavated in the southern periphery of Shoushmanets tumulus, more than 20 m in height and more than 100 m in diameter9. The monument (Figs. 5 and 6) consists of a wide-opened narthex, a barrel-vaulted antechamber with a Ionic column supporting the structure (Fig. 7) and a large beehive burial chamber with a Doric column in its center and another seven Doric semi-columns attached to the wall. Although the tomb was looted in the past, four sacrificed horses and two dogs were discovered in the antechamber and remains of human skeleton were found in the tholos chamber. The monument dates from the 4th century B.C. No traces of additional rituals have been preserved, but the massive animal sacrifices and especially the quite monumental design of the tomb show it might have been used as a heroon.

  • 10 On the excavations of this tumulus: N. Theodossiev, Northwestern Thrace from 5th to 1st Centuries (...)

7Another tumulus which should be mentioned here is Mogilanskata Mogila in Vratsa, which measures 8 m in height and 60 m in diameter10. Three monumental stone-built burial constructions were excavated in the tumulus (Fig. 8): the first round-shaped construction is dated to ca. 375-340 B.C., the second one – a rectangular chamber without entrance, to ca. 350-320 B.C., and the third rectangular chamber with two premises and no entrances – to ca. 330-300 B.C. The whole tumulus was surrounded by a monumental rectangular stone-built wall (krepis), which is partly preserved. The first round-shaped burial construction contains a human skeleton and two sacrificed dogs, while the gravegoods are not so rich. The second construction, a rectangular chamber in the centre of the tumulus, is most representative: there is a funerary procession, obviously representing the final moment of ekphora and symbolizing the travel of the dead noble in the chthonic world. A wagon with two sacrificed horses was put in, another saddle-horse, a sacrificed slave who was a horse-leader or wagoner and the deceased dynast rest in the chamber together with numerous rich gold, silver and bronze burial gifts. The latest burial, performed in the rectangular chamber located in the southwestern end-part of the tumulus, was looted in the past, but nevertheless some rich gold and silver gravegoods are preserved and two human skeletons are found one of the premises, while a sacrificed horse is discovered in the other. Although no traces of any rituals performed around these tombs are preserved, the monumental design of the burial constructions and surrounding krepis, the rich kterismata and both the animal and the human sacrifices may show that Mogilanskata Mogila tumulus functioned as a dynastic burial place for 50-70 years, as well as being an aristocratic heroon, where some deified nobles were worshipped.

  • 11 Ibid., Cat. No. 129 and passim.

8Other Thracian tumuli with less representative and monumental graves, but associated with chieftains’ burials, could also be connected with funerary cults of tribal ancestors: e.g. tumulus No. 11 at Leskovets where 6 burials with both inhumation and cremation were discovered11. Three of the burials (one inhumation and two cremations) are dated from the 8th-6th centuries B.C., while a sacrificed horse was also uncovered besides the human remains; one inhumation and one cremation burial come from the 5th-4th centuries B.C. and the latest inhumation grave is from the 2nd-lst centuries B.C. The gravegoods in tumulus No. 11 are not as rich as in the monumental tombs, but they are representative for this particular site. Moreover, the funerary rituals are quite complicated and there is a long continuity in the use of the burial monument. So, it becomes clear that tumulus No. 11 was used as a burial place of the local dynasts for over 600-700 years and some cult of heroized tribal ancestors was probably professed there. Moreover, a primitive tholos building was discovered close to the tumuli within the necropolis.

  • 12 Cf. n. 3; Ν. Theodossiev, The Sacred Mountain of the Ancient Thracians, in Thracia, 11 (1995), (St (...)

9There are some asynchronous ancient literary records which correspond well to the archaeological data mentioned above describing the eschato-logical concepts of Thracian aristocracy. Although these indirect Greek and Roman written sources are scarce and concern mythological personages, they testify that some Thracian tribal kings were deified after death and thus became immortal heroes and anthropodaimones, who would revive from the underworld in the images of deities12.

  • 13 The sources on Zalmoxis are collected in: D. Detschew, Die thrakischen Sprach-reste, Wien, 19762, (...)
  • 14 Hellan., Barb, nom., fr. 73 Jacoby.
  • 15 Hdt., IV, 94-96 Stein-Hude.
  • 16 Strabo, VII, 3, 5 Meineke.
  • 17 Theodossiev, The Sacred Mountain... (n. 12); Id., Semantic Notes on the Theonyms Orpheus, Sabazios (...)

10Important evidence exists for the Getic mythical king and priest Zalmoxis, worshipped as the supreme god among the local Thracians13. According to Hellanicus14 Zalmoxis established the mysteries among the tribe of the Getae and taught that the initiated were immortal; Zalmoxis built an underground abode where he hid and from where he returned in the fourth year; thus the Thracians believed him and considered that the dead were immortal, would join Zalmoxis and would come back. The same narrative is given by Herodotus15, with more details concerning the cult of the deity, especially human sacrifices, when the victims were considered as messengers going to Zalmoxis. According to later evidence by Strabo16, Zalmoxis was a priest who became a god among Getae; he inhabited a cave located in the bowels of the sacred mountain called Kogaionon. Obviously, the cited records should be associated with the symbolic death and rebirth of the deity, while the underground abode or the sacred cave were equivalents of the royal tombs and Kogaionon could be connected with a tumulus; this burial construction symbolized the Thracian sacred mountain exactly – a well attested realia in the ancient sources17.

  • 18 The written evidence on Rhesos in: Detschew, op. cit. (n. 13), p. 395-397; cf. also P. Perdrizet, (...)
  • 19 (Ps.-)Eur., Rhes., 963-973 Ebener.
  • 20 Polyaen., Strateg., VI, 53 Wölffoin-Melber.
  • 21 Schol. in Eur., Rhes., 346 Schwartz.
  • 22 Archibald, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 75 with op. cit.; Δ. ΛΑΖΑΡΙΔΗΣ, Αμφίπολις, Athens, 1993, p. 73-75, (...)
  • 23 Philostr., Her., Ill, 16-17 Westermann.

11The next quite eloquent piece of evidence concerns Rhesos, the mythical king of the Thracian Edonoi18. According to (Ps.-)Euripides19, the deceased king Rhesos would not enter in the dark earth, but hidden in the caves of Pangaion mountain would lie like an anthropodaimon looking at the sunlight, in the same way as Orpheus (?), the prophet of Bacchus, had inhabited Pangaion and was worshipped by the initiated. Once again in this case the association between the cave and the king’s tomb is well evident, while Pangaion could be compared to a tumulus as a symbol of the sacred mountain. Another piece of later evidence is also important, as it clearly testifies to the cult of the heroized Edonian king. According to Polyaenus20, in 437/436 B.C. the Athenian leader Hagnon, based on a Delphic prophecy, ordered the grave of Rhesos at Troy to be opened during the night and the mortal remains of the king to be removed and buried again near Strymon, on the place where Amphipolis was established. In this context, most interesting is a scholion21 to the already cited tragedy Rhesos by (Ps.)-Euripides: in his Macedonian Histories Marsyas said that in Amphipolis there was a sanctuary of Kleio built against the tomb of Rhesos, located in some hill (i.e. in a mound?). Moreover, there is an enormous tumulus called Kastas, 21 m in height and 165 m in diameter and partially (?) surrounded by krepis, located near Amphipolis just below Hill 133, where the Edonian stronghold Ennea Hodoi could be localized22. More than 50 burials from the 8th to the 5th centuries B.C. were discovered during initial excavations of the mound and a destroyed Early Hellenistic tomb was found as well. So, is it possible to suppose that the tomb of the mythical king Rhesos was built exactly in Kastas tumulus? Concerning the cult of Rhesos, there is also important information by Philostratus23, who said that there was a sanctuary of Rhesos in the Rhodope mountains, where the dead king was worshipped as a heros by the Thracians and animal sacrifices were performed on his altar.

  • 24 The evidence on Orpheus’ descent: O. Kern, Orpbicorum fragmenta, Berolini, 1922, test. 60-67, 69-7 (...)
  • 25 Conon, 45 F 4-6 Jacoby.
  • 26 Phanocles, Anthol. lyr., p. 165, fr. 1 Bergk2; Ον., Metam., XI, 50-60 Ehwald-Levy.
  • 27 Luc, Adv. indoct., 109-111 Jacobitz; Philostr., Her., V, 3 Westermann.
  • 28 Paus., IX, 30, 7-12 Spiro; for columns supporting urns in the Greek mortuary practices see: Kurtz (...)

12Some eschatological ideas of death and rebirth could be found in the literary evidence describing the descent of the Thracian mythical king, priest and the singer Orpheus to the chthonic world in search for his wife and his coming back24. When discussing the Thracian tumular heroa however, most interesting is the narrative by Conon25, relating that the Thracian and Macedonian women tore Orpheus to pieces, driven by jealousy, and then the country was devastated by severe famine. According to the prophecy, the disaster was to come to an end when the head of Orpheus was found and buried. And after they found Orpheus’ head still alive near the mouth of the river Meles, ‘they took (the head) and buried it below a large tumulus, which they encircled like a temenos; until a certain time it was a heroon; later (the place) became established as a sanctuary, because it was respected by sacrifices and by other things used in worshipping the gods; however, (the sacred place) was absolutely inaccessible to women’. Keeping in mind the archaeological discoveries described above, it seems that this particular evidence, although too late (the second half of the 1st century B.C. – the early 1st century A.C.), may reflect some earlier direct Greek observations on the Thracian funerary rituals during the 5th-3rd centuries B.C. Concerning the supernatural possibilities and sacrosanctity of Orpheus’ head, another group of sources is also important. According to the evidence, the Thracian women threw the severed head of the mythical singer together with his lyre in the river Hebros (or in the Thracian sea), and while riding the waves it was still singing, finally being buried in Lesbos26. Then the grave in Lesbos became a Bacchic sanctuary, where Orpheus’ head continued to prophesy27. A third different piece of information about Orpheus’ grave also exists: Pausanias28 described a burial construction located near Dion in Macedonia. The grave used to be a column with a stone urn containing Orpheus’ bones, placed on the top. According to Pausanias, there was another narrative in Larisa telling that in the past the grave of Orpheus was located near the Macedonian Libethra, and there was a Dionysiac prophecy from Thrace that the town would be destroyed when the sun would see the bones of Orpheus. Later on, a shepherd went to sleep resting on Orpheus’ grave and while sleeping he started to sing Orphic hymns. Many people from the near locality came closer to the shepherd to hear the hymns and so overturned the column; the stone urn broke and the sun saw the bones of Orpheus. Then the river Sys swelled and destroyed Libethra. Finally, the Macedonians from Dion brought the remains of Orpheus to their town. All the cited records concerning Orpheus’ grave clearly show it was a sacred place, or even a heroon and sanctuary, connected with the worship of the dead mythical king and related to prophecy.

  • 29 Hdt., V, 8, 1 Stein-Hude.
  • 30 Xen., Hell., III, 2, 2-5 Marchant.
  • 31 Hdt., VI, 38, 1 Stein-Hude.
  • 32 Ibid., IX, 116, 2-3 et VII, 33, 1; cf. Thuc, VIII, 102, 2-3 Smith.
  • 33 Arr., Anab., I, 11 Roos.
  • 34 Strabo, VII, fr. 52 Meineke; Pomp. Mela, II, 2, 20-30 Frick; Plin., Nat. hist., IV, 11, 45-50 Mayh (...)
  • 35 Thuc, V, 11, 1 Smith.

13Other historical records, concerning heroic burials of dead people from the Thracian élite, also exist. Herodotus29 wrote that the deceased Thracian nobles were buried by cremation or inhumation in tumuli, after three days of prothesis during which numerous sacrifices were made and funeral feasts were arranged; different contests, including single combats, followed the piling of the tumuli. Later information by Xenophon30 could be added to this description: in 399 B.C., after a battle in Bithynia, the Thracian Odrysae buried their dead comrades, drank a lot of wine and arranged horse-racing in memory of the deceased. In an earlier period – over the late 6th century B.C., in a similar way the inhabitants of the Thracian Chersonesos, following the custom, made sacrifices and arranged horse-races and other athletic games in memory of the Athenian aristocrat Miltiades the elder, who established his rule in the region, being tyrannos of both Athenian colonists and Thracian Dolonkoi31. The tomb-temple of the heroized mythical Greek military leader Protesileos, who died in the Troyan war, was also located in the Thracian Chersonesos – at Elaious; the adyton was surrounded by témenos, while impressive gold and silver phialae, plus other rich offerings, were placed there32. The tomb of Protesileos was even respected with sacrifice by Alexander the Great33 and later it was known as a significant temple34. Another Greek, who received heroic status in Thrace was the Spartan general Brasidas. He died in 422 B.C. and was buried near the agora of Amphipolis, while his tomb was surrounded by a wall and the citizens celebrated Brasidas as a heros and founder through annual sacrifices and contests35. Actually, this particular piece of evidence is not surprizing in the context of the already mentioned records about the tomb of the heroized mythical king Rhesos, located in the region of Amphipolis, and probably some interrelation in these cult practices could be supposed.

  • 36 In details see: A. Pavlopoulou, Myth and Cult of Founder-Heroes in the Greek Colonies of Thrace, i (...)
  • 37 Cf. Kurtz – Boardman, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 297-302.
  • 38 Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch. Bakirtzis, Philippi, Athens, 19972, p. 53-54.

14The list of historical and mythical hero-founders of Greek colonies in Thrace could be prolonged36, but it is clear that the Thracian funerary rituals mentioned above, especially the sacrifices and commemorative games, show that some dead Thracian nobles were heroized in the Greek manner37, while Herodotus’ description of the tomb of Protesileos, being also a temple and sanctuary with impressive offerings, strongly recalls the rich Thracian tumular tombs. All these common features in the burial customs of Thracians and Greeks were obviously due to the strong interactions in the contact zone of the North Aegean coast of Thrace, where both ethnic groups lived in mixed communities. Therefore, it is not surprizing that the clearest archaeological evidence, showing the monumental ashlar-built tombs could be considered as heroa, was found in Aegean Thrace exactly. In the centre of Philippoi (Krenides) an underground barrel-vaulted tomb was excavated; there was an offering table inside and a cist grave burial containing rich kterismata of the 2nd century B.C. was discovered under the floor of the chamber38. Amazingly, there is an inscription on the stone lid which says ‘Euephenes (son) of Exekestos’ (a Greek also initiated into the Samothracian mysteries, according to another epigraphic record from Philippoi), who was obviously the nobleman buried in the cist. The tomb location in the city centre shows that the building was a heroon, which survived into the Roman Period and was later even integrated into an Early Christian church during the 4th-5th centuries A.C. These facts testify that the hero cult of Euephenes played a very important role in the religious beliefs of the citizens of Philippoi.

15In conclusion, it is obvious that the literary sources mentioned in this paper correspond well to some monumental tumular tombs found in ancient Thrace, although more comprehensive and clear archaeological data may be expected in the future. Both written and archaeological evidence testifies to the cults of the dead deified tribal kings, who were worshipped as mythical heroes and anthropodaimones.

Captions

16Fig. 1: Plan and section of the tholos tomb in Zhaba Mogila tumulus at Strelcha

17Fig. 2: Façade of the tholos tomb in Zhaba Mogila with a wagon placed in front

18Fig. 3: Plan and section of the tomb at Maglizh

19Fig. 4: Plan of the heroon in Ostrousha tumulus at Shipka

20Fig. 5: Plan of the tomb in Shoushmanets tumulus at Shipka

21Fig. 6: Section of the tomb in Shoushmanets

22Fig. 7: Façade of the tomb in Shoushmanets

23Fig. 8: Plan of Mogilanskata Mogila tumulus in Vratsa with three monumental burial constructions and rectangular krepis

Notes

1 On political history of the Thracian tribes; Ch. Danov, Altthrakien, Berlin-New York, 1976, passim; A. Fol, I. Marazov, Thrace and the Thracians, London, 1977, p. 131-154 and passim; R. Hoddinott, The Thracians, London, 1981, passim; Z.H. Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus Unmasked, Oxford, 1998, passim.

2 On the Early Iron Age megalithic dolmens and rock-cut tombs see: Megalithite ν Thrakiya, Sofia, 1976 (Thrakiyski Pametnitsi I), passim; Megalithite v Thrakiya, II. Thrakiya Pontica, Sofia, 1982 (Thrakiyski Pametnitsi III), passim; P. Delev, Megalithic Thracian Tombs in South-Eastem Bulgaria, in Anatolica, 11 (1984), p. 1-45; on the Thracian tombs see a recent full review in: Archibald, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 282-303 with op. cit.; G. Κιtov, Royal Insignia, Tombs and Temples in the Valley of the Thracian Rulers, in Archaeologia Bulgarica, 3, 1 (1999), p. 1-20 on the numerous tombs recently discovered in Kazanlak region; J. Hatlas, Der agaisch-anatolische Kontext der thrakischen sepulkralen Bauwerke (5.-3- Jh.v.Chr.), in The Thracian World at the Crossroads of Civilizations, Vol. I, Bucharest, 1997, p. 310-319 with a full list of the tholos tombs.

3 On the deification of some Thracian kings see: A. Fol, I. Venedikov, I. Marazov, D. Popov, Thracian Legends, Sofia, 1976, passim; A. Fol, Thrakiyskiyat Orphisam, Sofia, 1986, passim with the ancient sources collected; D. Popov, Bogat s Mnogo Imena, Sofia, 1995, passim; recently see: N. Theodossiev, ΚΟΤΕΟΎΣ ΗΛΙΟΥ and ΚΟΤΕΟΥΣ ΜΗΤΡΟΣ ΟΡΕΑΣ, in Hermes, 129 (2001), in print, with epigraphic evidence that some Thracian kings considered themselves as divine offspring of the solar deity and Mother Goddess; for dead heroized and heroa in the Greek world see: D.C. Kurtz, J. Boardman, Greek Burial Customs, London, 1971, p. 297-302; for different heroa in the ancient world see J. Fedak, Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age: A Study of Selected Tombs from the Pre-Classical to the Early Imperial Era, Toronto/Buffalo/London, 1990, passim.

4 On the excavation results: G. Kitov, Thrakiyska Grobnitsa-Mavzoley kray Grad Strelcha, in Vekove, 6, 1 (1977), p. 12-21; Id., Thrakiyskite Mogili kray Strelcha, Sofia, 1979 (Prouchvaniya NEK I), p. 2-11; Id., The Thracian Mounds, in Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 15 (1994), p. 121-147.

5 Cf. C.G. Yavis, Greek Altars. Origins and Typology, Saint Louis, 1949, p. 130-131, 215-221; on the ritual pits in ancient Thrace: N. Theodossiev, Sanctuaries and Cult Places in Northwestern Thrace during the 1st Millenium B.C., in Archaeologia Bulgarica, 2, 2 (1998), p. 15-27.

6 On the excavation results: G. Tsanova, L. Getov, Thrakiyskata Grobnitsa pri Maglizh, in Arheologiya, 15, 2 (1973), p. 15-29; L. Getov, Maglizhkata Grobnitsa, Sofia, 1988, passim.

7 On the excavations: G. Kitov, Thrakiyski Grobnichno-Kultov Complex ν Mogilata Ostrousha kray Shipka, in Problemi na Izkoustvoto, 27, 4 (1994), p. 13-20; Id., Das thrakische Mausoleum bei Shipka in Siidbulgarien, in Trans Europam. Festschrift fur Margarita Primas, Bonn, 1995, p. 245-250; Id., Tombeau-Mausolée d’Ostrousha, in Archeologia (Dijon), 313 (1995), p. 62-66.

8 M. Andronicos, Vergina. The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City, Athens, 19932, p. 65-66; most recently: S. Drougou, Ch. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Vergina. Wandering through the Archaeological Site, Athens, 1999, p. 41-59.

9 On the excavation results: Kitov, Royal Insignia... (n. 2).

10 On the excavations of this tumulus: N. Theodossiev, Northwestern Thrace from 5th to 1st Centuries B.C., Oxford, 2000 (British Archaeological Reports - International Series’), in print, Cat. No. 248 and passim.

11 Ibid., Cat. No. 129 and passim.

12 Cf. n. 3; Ν. Theodossiev, The Sacred Mountain of the Ancient Thracians, in Thracia, 11 (1995), (Studia in honorem Alexandri Fol), p. 371-384 with op. cit. and the ancient sources.

13 The sources on Zalmoxis are collected in: D. Detschew, Die thrakischen Sprach-reste, Wien, 19762, p. 173-175; Popov, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 241-244.

14 Hellan., Barb, nom., fr. 73 Jacoby.

15 Hdt., IV, 94-96 Stein-Hude.

16 Strabo, VII, 3, 5 Meineke.

17 Theodossiev, The Sacred Mountain... (n. 12); Id., Semantic Notes on the Theonyms Orpheus, Sabazios and Salmoxis, in Beiträge zur Namenforschung (Neue Folge), 29-30, 3 (1994-1995), p. 241-246; Id., Further Notes on the Mountain Theonyms (Orpheus, Dionysos, Salmoxis, etc.), in Beiträge zur Namenforschung (Neue Folge), 32, 4 (1997), p. 409-416.

18 The written evidence on Rhesos in: Detschew, op. cit. (n. 13), p. 395-397; cf. also P. Perdrizet, Cultes et mythes du Pangée, Paris-Nancy, 1910 (Annales de l’Est, 24, 1), p. 13-28.

19 (Ps.-)Eur., Rhes., 963-973 Ebener.

20 Polyaen., Strateg., VI, 53 Wölffoin-Melber.

21 Schol. in Eur., Rhes., 346 Schwartz.

22 Archibald, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 75 with op. cit.; Δ. ΛΑΖΑΡΙΔΗΣ, Αμφίπολις, Athens, 1993, p. 73-75, 82-83 with op. cit.

23 Philostr., Her., Ill, 16-17 Westermann.

24 The evidence on Orpheus’ descent: O. Kern, Orpbicorum fragmenta, Berolini, 1922, test. 60-67, 69-75, 138, fr. 293-296.

25 Conon, 45 F 4-6 Jacoby.

26 Phanocles, Anthol. lyr., p. 165, fr. 1 Bergk2; Ον., Metam., XI, 50-60 Ehwald-Levy.

27 Luc, Adv. indoct., 109-111 Jacobitz; Philostr., Her., V, 3 Westermann.

28 Paus., IX, 30, 7-12 Spiro; for columns supporting urns in the Greek mortuary practices see: Kurtz – Boardman, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 240-241, while similar graves are not archaeologically attested in Thrace till now.

29 Hdt., V, 8, 1 Stein-Hude.

30 Xen., Hell., III, 2, 2-5 Marchant.

31 Hdt., VI, 38, 1 Stein-Hude.

32 Ibid., IX, 116, 2-3 et VII, 33, 1; cf. Thuc, VIII, 102, 2-3 Smith.

33 Arr., Anab., I, 11 Roos.

34 Strabo, VII, fr. 52 Meineke; Pomp. Mela, II, 2, 20-30 Frick; Plin., Nat. hist., IV, 11, 45-50 Mayhoff.

35 Thuc, V, 11, 1 Smith.

36 In details see: A. Pavlopoulou, Myth and Cult of Founder-Heroes in the Greek Colonies of Thrace, in Thrace, Athens, 1994, p. 115-131.

37 Cf. Kurtz – Boardman, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 297-302.

38 Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch. Bakirtzis, Philippi, Athens, 19972, p. 53-54.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/792/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 99k
Légende Fig. 2.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/792/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 215k
Légende Fig. 3.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/792/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 223k
Légende Fig. 4.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/792/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 164k
Légende Fig. 5.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/792/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 28k
Légende Fig. 6.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/792/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 99k
Légende Fig. 7.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/792/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 102k
Légende Fig. 8.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pulg/docannexe/image/792/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 188k

Auteur

Department of Archaeology
Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski
bul. Tsar Osvoboditel 15
Sofia 1000
Bulgaria
e-mail: nikolatc@sf.icn.bg

© Presses universitaires de Liège, 2000

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.

Acheter