typology and ideology in the mausoleum of augustus. tumulus and tholos

7/28/2019 Typology and Ideology in the Mausoleum of Augustus. Tumulus and Tholos

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/typology-and-ideology-in-the-mausoleum-of-augustus-tumulus-and-tholos 1/44

Typology and Ideology in the Mausoleum of Augustus: Tumulus and TholosAuthor(s): Jane Clark ReederSource: Classical Antiquity, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Oct., 1992), pp. 265-307Published by: University of California Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25010976 .

Accessed: 21/04/2013 15:09

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].

.

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Classical

Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:09:29 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25010976?origin=JSTOR-pdf






http://www.jstor.org/stable/25010976?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal



JANE CLARK REEDER

Typology and Ideology in theMausoleum

of Augustus: Tumulus and Tholos

UST AS THERE have been various attemptsat reconstruction of the Mauso

leum of Augustus by architects and archaeologists from theRenaissance to the

present, so there have been attempts to enter definitively theAugustan monumental round tomb into various typologies on thepart of arthistorians. The two

most traditional typologies have been "mausoleum" and "tumulus"; indeed both

terms were applied to the tomb in antiquity. In the modern typologies the

Etruscan tumulushas usually been seen as the traditionalprototype.'There are a considerable number of well-preserved tumulus tombs from the

archaic period, which are found in the necropolises of Caere and in those of

other cities of southern Etruria as well as those of the coastal area of northern

Etruria.2 The general resemblance of the simplest form of the Roman roundtomb to the Etruscan tradition is obvious: the tumulus, a conical mound of

earth, is raised on a round base or socle; not only the conical tumulus itself but

the interior part of the base is usually formed of a homogeneous mass of earth

and held by a circular wall of dressed stone. These basic features, tumulus

mound and base wall, are testified to in theMausoleum of Augustus by Strabo,

1. Two of the most important earlier sources for the traditional interpretation of the Roman

round tombwere B. Goetze, Das Rundgrab von Falerii (Stuttgart, 1939);andR. Fellman, Das Grabdes Lucius Munatius Plancus inGaeta (Basel, 1957), esp. 90-93; see also L. Crema, L'architettura

romana (Turin, 1959) 130, 242-43; H. Windfeld-Hansen, "Les couloirs annulaires dans l'architecture

funeraire antique,"Acta AArt Hist 2 (1965) 38, 53.M. Eisner ("ZurTypologie derMausoleen des

Augustus und des Hadrian," RM 86 [1979] 319-98) has given a recent assessment of the typology as

tumulus.

2. A. Boethius, Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture (Middlesex, 1978) 94-99, figs. 36, 61.

? 1992 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA








266 CLASSICALNTIQUITY Volume 11/No. 2/October 1992

a witness who belonged to the generation that saw the construction of the

tomb.3 In some tombs of this type, such as the tumulus of the Curiatii on the

Via Appia, there is a small cavity in the center of the base for the funeraryurns.4 The sepulchral cella at the center entered by a corridor of access and the

pillar at the center that supported the crowning block of the tholos in the

Etruscan examples and the statue of Augustus on his Mausoleum are found in

some Etruscan tombs.5

However, the developed Roman tumulus differs from the Etruscan not only

in the regularityof the architectural coordination of the internal arrangement,

especially in the structure of the cella at the center, but also in the systematiza

tion of the interior buttresswalls for thepurpose

ofdividing

themass andweightof the earth.6 This latter feature, found among neither the Etruscan tumuli nor

Hellenistic extant examples and rarely in the Greek tumuli of the classical pe

riod, is a technique of Roman engineering used for the construction of founda

tions, terraces, andmilitary ramparts,as testified tobyVitruvius (DeArch. 6.8).The rudiments of this interior buttressing are said to be found for the first time in

the northernmost of the two Roman tumuli called the Tombs of the Horatii near

the fifth mile of theVia Appia.7 This is apparently the only Roman tumulus

tomb that remains securely dated to the end of the Republican period (ca. 80-44

B.C.).8

While it still seems rash to dismiss the Etruscan precedent entirely, never

theless the traditional connecting link between the Etruscan tumuli and the

Mausoleum of Augustus, the so-called Late Republican Roman monumental

round tomb, has all but disappeared. That is, the well-known Roman tombs

built for private citizens of the patrician class such as the Torrione di Micara at

Tusculum traditionally identified with L. Licinius Lucullus, the tomb of Cae

cilia Metella on the Via Appia, and the tomb on the Via Appia known as the

Casale Rotondo, associated with M. Valerius Messala Corvinus, as well as the

tomb of Munatius Plancus at Gaeta, have now been dated after the Mausoleum

of Augustus, built in 28 B.C.9However, amore recent study by M. Eisner, "On

theTypology of the FuneraryMonuments inSuburbanRome," which showed

the tumulus to be themost frequent type there, resisted the previous conclu

sion expressed by such scholars as R. Holloway and J.-C. Richard, that the

Mausoleum of Augustus was the earliest known Roman round tomb and there

fore that the imperial tomb rather than a private one stood at the beginning of

3. Strabo (5.3.9) testified to the towering foundation wall supporting the tumulus mound

covered with evergreens.4. Windfeld-Hansen (supra, n. 1) 54 n. 4.

5. Boethius (supra, n. 2) 96-97 figs. 95, 96;Crema (supra, n. 1) 244.

6. Crema (supra, n. 1) 130, 242-43; Windfeld-Hansen (supra, n. 1) 55.

7. Crema (supra, n. 1) 131 fig. 260; Windfeld-Hansen (supra, n. 1) 55.

8. Boethius (supra, n. 2) 214; Windfeld-Hansen (supra, n. 1) 55; Crema (supra, n. 1) 131, 243

fig. 260.

9. R. Ross Holloway, "The Tomb of Augustus and the Princes of Troy," AJA 70 (1966) 171-73.








REEDER:heMausoleum ofAugustus 267

the Roman tumulus tradition.1 Eisner still held out for the earlier dating of the

Torrione di Micara (ca. 50 B.c.) and the Casale Rotondo (ca. 40-30 B.c.) as

well as the literary tradition (Lucan 2.222) that Sulla's tomb in the CampusMartius was a tumulus.11

Of course the Etruscans were not the only people to have built tumuli, and

it was perhaps inevitable with the broader investigation of non-Italian and

Hellenistic sources not only thatwould references be made to tumuli in other

parts of the Hellenistic world but, moreover, that the typological placement of

the Mausoleum of Augustus would follow and be instrumental in newer at

tempts at tomb typologies, especially those of the "tower" type of Roman

funerarymonuments. While Delbruck early used the expression "Podium fa

cade" for Italian architecture including in the term the tomb's high base and its

decoration, a typewhose purposeMatz then explained as the separation of the

dead from the living, and both scholarspointed to the origin of the type inAsia

Minor with the Mausoleum of Halicarnasus as chief exemplum, the major new

typological attempts to order Roman funerarymonuments have come in the

last two decades.12

H. Gabelmann was the first to give a comprehensive typology of the Roman

tower-type funerarymonument. Having begun by concentrating on theRhine

area and on H. Kahler's "Pfeilergrabmaler" type, he went on to divide the

Roman tombs in Italy and the northern provinces into two basic types: the

"Pfeilergrabmal" and the more basic "Mausoleumsgrundform."13 nother re

gional study, one on the funerarymonuments of Pompeii byV. Kockel, included

such regional types as the "multiple-storied" tomb for a broader discussion of the

typology of Roman tombs.14 Kockel was critical of Gabelmann's term "Mausole

umsgrundform" and also wished to emphasize the fourth-centuryGreek precedents for private tombs.15He preferred the phenomenological term "multilevel"

("mehrstockige") funerary monuments as the most "neutral" as well as one that

best did justice to themany possibilities.A recent dissertation by W. Kovacsovics extensively explored the Roman

tower-type funerary monument.16 He too found Gabelmann's "Mausoleum"

10. Eisner (supra, n. 1); Holloway (supra, n. 9); J.-C.Richard," 'Mausoleum':d'Halicarnasse

aRome, puis aAlexandrie," Latomus 29 (1970) 386.

11. Eisner (supra, n. 1) 321, 323-24.

12. R. Delbruck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium II (1912) 130;F. Matz, "Hellenistische und

romischeGrabbauten," Antike 4 (1928) 277.13. H. Kahler, "Die rheinischen Pfeilergrabmaler," BJb 139 (1934) 145ff.; H. Gabelmann,

"Romische Grabmonumente mit Reiterkampfszenen im Rheingebiet," BJb 173 (1973) 132ff.;"Romische Grabbauten in Italien und den Nordprovinzen," Festschriftfir Frank Brommer (Mainz,

1977) 101-17.

14. One-fourth of Pompeii's one hundred known tombsbelong to thiscategory:V. Kockel, Die

Grabbauten vor dem herkulaner Tor in Pompeji (Mainz, 1983); see chap. 4, "Die Grabbauten:

Typen-Bauherren," 15-41.

15. Kockel (supra, n. 14) 27.

16. W. Kovacsovics, Romische Grabdenkmaler (Waldsassen, 1983).









term inadequate since it commonlymeant no more thanmonumental tomb and

could includedisparate types.17Kovacsovics defined the tower type asmultilevel

with podium and temple-type upper level; the basic form and architectural ideawas founded in the Greek heroa. The Greek-temple type of the upper level

determined the typology. Kovacsovics preferred to use the Vitruvian orderingand terminology of the temple typeswhen these were available since theywere

ordered on the "stereometic basic form."A large part of the temple-type archi

tecture of the upper level of tower funerarymonuments had a round ground

plan. Vitruvius (De Arch. 4.8.1, 3) had called the round temple an aedes ro

tundae and included this under the term tholos. Kovacsovics found tholos the

most suitable term for the

building

with a round

ground plan

that had the

function of a temple.18 Other scholars in addition to Kovacsovics, such asW. von

Sydow, have gone on to insist that the architectural division of amonument, as

Gabelmann would have it, could not be a "secure criterion" for a typological

classification.19 Indeed some have been critical of even the attempt to order

funerarymonuments in this formalmanner, which they consider futile, since

every typology stumbles on the fact that the greater part of themonuments must

be characterized as "atypical particular forms."20

New efforts have also been made to define the tumulus, to further subdivide

its types, and to relate these types in Italy both to the Mausoleum of Augustus

and to Hellenistic prototypes. Both Kovacsovics and von Sydow derived the

Roman funerary tumulus not from Etruscan or Italian prototypes but from Helle

nistic tumuli of Greece and the East. They insist that the Mausoleum of Augus

tus, itself derived from Greek prototypes according toKovacsovics, revived the

idea of the tumulus in Italy and elsewhere.2l Von Sydow noted that tumuli with a

high vertical podium often stood also on a high, four-stepped square base.

"Stepped base and podium have the same function but typologically must be

divided."22 Tumuli with a high, vertically built "krepis" or base go back in Asia

Minor to the geometric period and are found even in Greece from the early sixth

century.23Although the development cannot be completely followed, examples

mainly from the Hellenistic period show its continuance.24 Kovacsovics elabo

rated on the type of funerary tumulus over a high podium that he called an

17. Ibid. 17, 11.

18. See ibid. 12-13 for further divisions and variants of the tholoi.

19. W. von Sydow, "Ein Rundmonument in Pietrabbondate," RM 84 (1977) 292 n. 89.Gabelmann's "Saulenfronttypus"and "Aediculatypus"were dependent on the division and shapingof the front of the temple-type upper level (Kovacsovics [supra,n. 16] 17).

20. J. Ganzert (DasKenotaphfuirGaius Caesar inLimyra, IstForsch. 35 [Tubingen, 1984] 173),for example, preferred a regionalor a sociological typology.Ganzert (173-74) includeda useful brief

summaryof recent typologies.21. Kovacsovics (supra, n. 16) 63; von Sydow (supra, n. 19) 294-96.

22. von Sydow (supra, n. 19) 294.

23. See ibid. n. 96 for these references.

24. Ibid. nn. 99-103, citing Hierapolis, Cortona, andCyrene.









"architecturalized" tumulus.25He noted that the four-stepped base was replacedwith the high podiumwithout steps in the lateHellenistic period on assimilation

to the Greek heroin. VonSydow

had observed that thistype

of tumulus on a

podium was very rare outside of Italy, and no example could be securely dated

before theAugustan period.The Mausoleum of Augustus, then, is not a simple round tomb. It ismonu

mental not only in its dimensions, 89 m in diameter, but also in its height. It is the

tallestmonument of a group of comparablemausolea of ultimate Asiatic origins,second only in height to the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus.26 In elevation it is at

the least a combination of the enormous cement cylinder topped by the earthen

planted mound and a second order of circular plan; it is thus a tower type.

Moreover, the center or interiorplan of thisgreat tumuluswas unique (Fig. 1).The interior construction of five concentric walls (nos. 1-5 in Fig. 1) placedaround a central pillar supported the superstructure.The pillar served to supportthe statue of the emperor at the summitmentioned by Strabo (5.5.8). These ring

walls divided the interior of the Mausoleum into five annular zones. The two

exterior zones formed the buttressing, a product of Roman engineering referred

to above.27The three interior zones, which constitute the hypogaeum itself, are

limited on the exterior by the third ringwall, which is uniquely pierced by a

vaulted dromos. The central pillar (a in Fig. 1) is surrounded by a sepulchralchamber (b), which is limited by the first circular wall. The two annular corridors

(c, d) surrounding this cella are placed respectively between the firstand second

and third walls. The dromos (e) ends in front of the second wall, where it enters

into the exterior annular corridor. This wall probably contained two doors that

gave access to the interior annular corridor.28

Now the fact is that typologies do not ordinarily take account of these

annular passages. Nor do Etruscan tombs or Roman engineering furnish prece

dent for these singular passages, even if the latter furnished the technical knowhow for the concrete vault construction. Only one scholar,H. Winfeld-Hansen,

has sufficiently emphasized this unique feature of the Mausoleum of Augustus.29

The function of these inner corridors was not a pragmatic one of buttressing as

was that of the two outer rings. Their purpose was of another order. They were

created for the funerary rites of circumambulation and lustration and have analo

gies and prototypes elsewhere to which Iwill return later. They served in other

words a ritual or symbolic function.

25. Kovacsovics (supra, n. 16) 63, 65. This architectural tumulus could apparently take the

form of a cone-shaped mound of earth or a stone conical roof with or without a filling of earth.

26. A list of ten monuments by height is in Ganzert (supra, n. 20) 174.

27. See Windfeld-Hansen (supra, n. 1) 40 pl. la, for the details of thisbuttressing.28. This exact description of these ringwalls and annular corridors is found inWindfeld

Hansen (supra, n. 1) 40. Fellman (supra, n. 1: 88) earlier and Kovacsovics (supra, n. 16: 66) more

recently have alsomentioned inpassing thepurpose of these corridors.

29. Other large round tombs that followed Augustus's precedent had only one annular ring.See the list inWindfeld-Hansen (supra, n. 1) 41-49.









Although Strabo's (5.3.9) brief description of theMausoleum of Augustusmentioned two of its more obvious features, the towering base and tumulus

crowned by a statue of the emperor, the architectural reconstruction of theMausoleum's exterior elevation is still open to debate.30 Although only the first order,

the enormous drum, is extant today, it is certain that there was a second order

because, in addition to the drawings of Baldassare Peruzzi, antique fragmentsboth of the facing and of the entablature have been identified.31 However, it is not

agreed whether this second order consisted of a smaller cylinder with a Doric

entablature (Fig. 6) or a tholos with or without a colonnade.32Recently more

scholarshave been inclined toacceptG. Gatti's reconstructionof theMausoleum,

althoughthis isstillnot

universallyknown

(Fig. 2).33Gatti's

reconstruction,based

on Renaissance drawings and on his own observation during the modern excava

tions of the varying thicknesses of the ringwalls, forces the imperialmausoleum

into the tower type if one accepts his conclusion that a second architectural order

was placed on top of the first.34 Gatti assumed that the circular superstructure was

a round temple but left it open as towhether the temple was a closed rotunda (the

version adopted for his reconstruction inFig. 2) orwhether itwas surroundedby a

portico supported by the third annular wall. In any case it seems to me that the

consequences of this second architectural order for the typologies of themonu

ment have not been fully taken into account.35 That is, if the second order was a

round temple or tholos, it necessitates a broadening of the discussion of the

30. See Crema (supra, n. 1) 246 fig. 264 for a diagrammatic surveyof the reconstructions.

31. H. von Hesberg, "DasMausoleum des Augustus," Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene

Republik (Mainz, 1988) 245-48, cat. no. 113: theDoric entablature andphotograph, p. 251; fig. 148:

a reconstruction drawing of this entablature.

32. Von Hesberg (supra, n. 31: 246) speaks of an upper "cylinder"whose wall was probably of

equal height to the lower.A new reconstruction of theMausoleum by vonHesberg and S. Panciera

was announced in the bibliography (249); the reconstruction is reproduced inP. Zanker, The Powerof Images in theAge of Augustus (AnnArbor, 1988) 74 fig. 59 and inmy Fig. 6. Although von

Hesberg compares theMausoleum's effect to the "WorldWonders," theMausoleum of Halicarnas

sus and theGardens of Semiramis of Babylon, her emphasison themound (248) and the appearanceof the cylinder of the second order (Zanker fig. 59;my Fig. 6), which generally resembles those of

Roman round tombs such as Caecilia Metella's, appear to give this reconstruction a more conserva

tive cast.However, itwould seem wise towait for the details in the forthcoming full publication of

von Hesberg and S. Panciera. Compare P. Gros (Aurea templa:Recherches sur l'architecture

religieusede Rome c I'epoque d'Auguste [Rome, 1976] 205 pl. xlvii), who speaks of the cornice as

being from the entablature of "the exterior portico"; and F. Coarelli andY. Thebert ("Architecturefun6raire et pouvoir: Reflexions sur l'Hellenisme numide,"MEFRA 100.2 [1988] 783), who reproduced G. Gatti's reconstruction (see infra, n. 33, for Gatti) in fig. 21 and emphasized the "theme of

the colonnade" introduced in the Asian prototypes at the second level in the Nereid Monument of

Xanthos.

33. G. Gatti, "II mausoleo de Augusto: Studio di ricostruzione," Capitolium 10 (1934) 457-64:

"Nuove osservazioni sulMausoleo diAugusto," L'Urbe 3 (1938) 1-17.

34. According to Gatti (supra, n. 33: [1934] 463), the second annular wall from the interior is

broader than the others and thus supported a second circular order of less diameter than the first.

35. While Kovacsovics' (supra, n. 16) tower-type typology focused attention on the temple

type architecture, i.e., the tholos, of the upper level, theMausoleum of Augustus was discussed

primarily in his work as the precedent in Italy for the "architecturalized" tumulus.








REEDER:heMausoleum of Augustus 271

prototypes of the round tombbeyond the question of the tumulus, regardlessof

whether the origin of this latter feature is considered to be Etruscan, Greek,

Asiatic,orMacedonian

(seebelow for the

last).My investigationof the form of theMausoleum ofAugustus focuses then on

this second architecturalorder and the possible prototypes for the round templeor tholos. But first anothermajor pointmust be stressed. IfGatti's reconstruction

and the typologies establish that theMausoleum ofAugustus was not justa simpleround type,we may well have to take intoaccountquite different explanations for

its form and intentions. It isnecessary, furthermore, to insist that theMausoleum

as amonumental new creation featured a combination of features derived from

many different sources-already theAsiatic podium, Etruscan andHellenistic

mound, Greek tholos, Roman buttressing, crowning statue, and annular corri

dors for funerary rites have been mentioned. The new Augustan monument,

then, was an eclectic creation or a creation of several older elements with new

content, as was typicalofAugustan invention inart and architecture ingeneral.

Finally, it behooves us to ask not only how and from what sources Augustus and

his architects hit upon these various elements and their combination, but why

Augustus built such a monument in such a place so early in his lifetime. In the last

analysis, then, the argumentmust return to themeaning of this unprecedented

creation, andmeaning takesus out of thenarrower realm of typologies into thearena of history, political propaganda and cult, and ultimately symbolism.

The debate of two scholars in particular has helped to focus the meaning of

theMausoleum in the last three decades.36The tombwas not strictlya gentilicianone since neitherMarcellus, Agrippa, norDrusus theElder, who were all buried

there,were Julii. K. Kraft saw themeaning as a propagandistic counterpart to

the burial of Marc Antony at the side of Cleopatra in Alexandria. J.-C. Richard

proved that Octavian's and the Roman historians' use of the term mausoleum

referred to the precedent of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, the tomb of theCarian dynast.37 However, the Mausoleum of Augustus was round and not rect

angular; nor could it probably have featured any aspect of design so blantantly

Egyptian as a pyramid so soon after the civil war.38 This circumstance did not

rule out more subtleEgyptian references, however.39

36. K. Kraft, "Der Sinn des Mausoleums desAugustus," Historia 16 (1967) 189-206; Richard

(supra, n. 10). The earlier bibliography on the Mausoleum is given in Richard, 370 n. 2, and in E.

Nash, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome (London, 1968) 38.

37. Richard (supra, n. 10: 370-75) showed that the word mausoleum, of Carian origin, was the

official and canonical usage forAugustus's tomb. Richard (364) suggested thatMunatius Plancuswas

responsible forOctavian's adoption of the termmausoleum.

38. It is interesting that the tropeum of La Turbie, modeled on the form of the Mausoleum of

Halicarnassus according to Richard (supra, n. 10: 384), not only has the statua loricata of the emperor

but also is reconstructed with the pyramid that the Mausoleum lacked, although the trophy's

"stepped pyramid" is of circular section rather than rectangular in the usual reconstruction (as in

Crema [supra, n. 1] 257 fig. 281). Perhaps the date of thismonument (7-6 B.c.) was long enoughafter Actium to include a visible ifmuted reminder of the civil war.

39. See infra.









Both Kraft andRichard struggledwith the conflicting notions ofAugustus'smonarchical ambitions in the construction of his Mausoleum and the question

of the restitution of the respublica libera. The inherent contradiction of Augustan politics in this early period was classically formulated by Syme: "At the

very moment when he was engaged upon the ostensible restoration of the

Republic, he constructed in the Campus Martius a huge and dynastic monu

ment, his own Mausoleum."40 The same ambiguitywas reflected in the architec

ture. While the tumulus mound was so familiar a feature of the Italian topogra

phy to Romans that the architectural entity might be said to reflect the mos

maiorum and national tradition in a way analogous to the philological use of

the ancient term,41 the

juxtaposition

of this tumulus to the

towering

base and

statue of the emperor, the two monumental features of Hellenistic dynastic

implication that Strabomentioned, might reflect this inherent ambiguity. Rich

ard understood the crowning bronze statue of the Mausoleum as an epithema,

probably a statua loricata, a trophy, in other words, and thus not anterior to the

victory at Actium and Octavian's triumph in 29 B.C.42However, despite the

reassuringgesture of the tree-plantedmound, if such itwas, the total impactof

themonument and its surroundings lay in the direction of Hellenistic dynastic

power.

If the dynastic implications of the Mausoleum have often seemed inconsis

tent with the avowed wishes of Augustus to restore the Republic, the respublica

restituta is a complex historical issue, much debated, and one that must be left to

the historians. However, the total effect of Octavian's architectural program of

thisperiod ispertinent in this regard.After the victory overAntony atActium

Octavian could turn his full attention to his building program at Rome. There

were two chief centers for this new program: the Palatine and the Campus

Martius.

The Temple of Apollo and the House of Augustus were built on the Pala

tine, approximately contemporarywith thebuilding of theMausoleum ofAugustus in the Campus Martius.43 Although the building of the temple of Apollo as a

victory monument stood in the Republican tradition and the house was by no

means a "palace" like the Flavian one of the later imperial tradition, the whole

conglomerate of buildings took in an unprecedented area; the complex would

have eventually included the entire Palatine hill.44 There was one feature in

40. R.Syme,

The RomanRevolution,

2d ed.(Oxford, 1952), quoted

inKraft(supra,

n.36),194 n. 25.

41. Richard (supra, n. 10: 372-74) suggested that theword tumulus,when used forAugustus'stomb in opposition to the canonical mausoleum of dynastic connotation, had an antiquarian and

conservative or republican tone. It was the term used exclusively by Tacitus when referring to the

Julio-Claudian tomb and funerary rites.

42. Richard (supra, n. 10) 380.

43. G. Carettoni, RendPontAcc 39 (1966/67)55-75; NSc, ser. 8, 21 (1967)287-319; Archeologia

Laziale 1 (1978) 72-74, for the recent excavation of theHouse of Augustus.44. N. Degrassi, "Ladimora diAugusto sulPalatino," RendPontAcc 39 (1966/67) 77-116.









particular that was without precedent. The temple originally built on private

property was in effect a private chapel thatwas connected to the House of

Augustus bya corridor. House and

templewere

one,and

Augustus mightliter

ally be said to have dwelt with the gods or at least with his divine protector,

Apollo.45Only Hellenistic royalcomplexes, suchas those atAlexandria or Perga

mon, furnished a precedent for the proximity of house and temple.46Moreover,

this house and temple complex containedAugustan emblems derived from the

Hellenistic ruler cult. The Room of the Masks in the House of Augustus held

programmaticpaintings that featured thebaluster of Diana justas the terra-cotta

decorations of the Temple of Apollo contained the conical column of Apollo

Agyieus.47 The ceiling of the corridor or ramp connecting house and templefeatured the thunderbolt.48The most immediateprecedents for the agyieus and

baluster were Ptolemaic; the thunderboltwas taken from Seleucid iconographybased on Alexander theGreat's precept.49

Although the Campus Martius scarcely had the ancient monuments and

references of the Palatine, itwas not entirely free of older associations.50 More

over, theopen space there presented an opportunity for development, and it too

became anAugustan architectural center. The Mausoleum ofAugustus stood at

the northern end of a monumental complex that later included the Solarium

Augusti and the Ara Pacis; the Pantheon, planned about the same time as the

Mausoleum, stood inAgrippa's complex in the southern part of the Campus. P.

Zanker is the only scholar to stress sufficiently the use of the architecture itself as

a direct source for the controversial question of the respublica restituta,usuallydiscussed along historical lines.51Although generals of the lateRepublic had

recourse to the Hellenistic monarchical iconography,Octavian overstepped all

boundaries of theRepublican nobility. In view of themonumentalized architec

turalpresence inRome in the years immediately followingActium, "the ques

45. Augustus's Apollonian connection has now often been treated.E. Simon's account, inDie

Portlandvase (Mainz, 1957) 30-44, is still one of the best.

46. P. Zanker ("Der Apollontempel auf dem Palatin," Citta e architettura nella Roma impe

riale, AnalRom Suppl. 10 [Odense, 1983], 21) suggested Pergamon as a general prototype and

remarked that the palace complex includednot only house and temple but libraryat Pergamon and

Mouseion at Alexandria.

47. J. C. Reeder, "Agyieus and Baluster: Aniconic Monuments inRoman Art" (diss.Brown

Univ., 1989) 50-68, 103-4, 249-61.

48. G. Carettoni, "La decorazione pittorica della casa di Augusto sul Palatino," RM 90 (1983)

fig. 6, color pl. 6.

49. Reeder (supra,n. 47) 85-89, 341-53; see n. 54 infraon theAugustan "imitatioAlexandri."

Apelles had paintedAlexander theGreat with the thunderbolt (Plut.Alex. 4.3); thepaintingwas set

up in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus (Pliny, NH 35.92). The thunderbolt appears as a chief

element of the figural decoration on the helmet of the cuirassed figure on the so-called Ptolemycameo inVienna, which has recently been identified as a portrait of Alexander-Augustus commis

sioned soon after Octavian's conquest of Egypt (W.-R. Megow, "Kameen spathellenistischer und

fruhaugusteischerZeit," JdI 100 [1985]473-82, figs. 9-10).50. For the Tarentum and the Secular Games, see infra.

51. Zanker (supra, n. 46).









tion of the division of power in the new city was decided even before it could be

effectively put."52

In linewith the understanding of the influence of Hellenistic dynastic politicsand iconography upon the Late Republic, it is natural that some have looked to

the tomb of Alexander the Great as the major precedent or prototype for the

Mausoleum of Augustus.53According to the historians (Suet. Aug. 19.1, Dio

Cass. 51.16.5) Octavian after his entrance intoAlexandria visited the tomb of

Alexander and paid homage to the relic. Suetonius (Aug. 50.1) also related that

Augustus initiallyused a seal inhis official and personal correspondencewith the

emblem of a sphinx and then with the image of Alexander before substituting his

own. The emulation of Alexander in

style

and

iconography

on the

part

of Octa

vian and the generals of the Late Republic is awell-enough-known phenomenonnot to need repeating here.54Similarly, the popularity of "Egyptiaca" inAugustan court circles is a familiar artistic result of the conquest of Egypt. The "Egyp

tianizing"phase of second-stylewall painting is the best known decorative conse

quence, and the houses in the imperialproperty on thePalatine reflect this stylemost vividly. A frieze in the Aula Isiaca included the corona atef and the uraeus

incorporated as floral ornament. The corona atef is also found on theMausoleum

of Augustus. A marble fragment of the cornice contains it in one of the spaces

between the coffers.55 It is juxtaposed with a lotus motif in the recessed coffer;

the rosette appeared in a sketch of B. Peruzzi.56 But the atef crown here ismore

52. Ibid. 27.

53. This conclusion was drawn early byM.-L. Bernhard, "Tombeaud'Alexandre et Mausolee

d'Auguste," RA 47 (1956) 153; other references follow.

54. The "imitatio Alexandri" is a well-known topos in Roman antiquity and in Roman studies

with a copious bibliography. See, forexample, on theLate Republic: D. Michel, Alexander als Vorbild

fir Pompeius, Caesar und Marcus Antonius, Coll. Latomus 94 (Brussels, 1967); 0. Wippert,"Alexander-Imitatio und romische Politik in der republikanischenZeit" (diss.Wurzburg, 1972). For

Augustus in regard to theMausoleum in particular, see D. Kienast, "Augustus und Alexander,"

Gymnasium 76 (1969)430-56; althoughKienast (431n. 3) treatedextensively the influenceofAlexan

der on Augustan propaganda and symbolism, includingAugustus's visit toAlexander's tomb, he

followed K. Kraft (supra, n. 36) on thequestion of Alexander's tombasprototype for theMausoleum.

On Augustus, see also G. Marrone, "ImitatioAlexandri in eta augustea,"AeR 25 (1980) 35-41; M.

Menichetti, "La testa colossale della Pigna, il colossus diviAugusti e 'l'imitatioAlexandri' ineta giulio

claudia,"MEFRA 98 (1986)565-93 with bibliography;Menichetti (579-83) distinguished at least four

phases of the Augustan "imitatio" and compared itwith the Claudian. Compare G. Wirth, "Alexander

und Rom," inAlexandre leGrand: Image et reality,Entretiens sur l'Antiquite Classique (Geneva,

1975)22, esp. 184.E. Badian's "SomeRecent InterpretationsofAlexander" in the same volume (279

304) isa sobering reminderof thechangingmodes of historical interpretationand studies of Alexandersymbolism. See also F.Walbank, "Livy,Macedonia andAlexander," Ancient Macedonian Studies in

Honor of Charles F. Edson (Thessaloniki, 1981) 335-56, bibliography on 355 n. 107.

55. M. de Vos, Egittomania in pitture e mosaici romano-campani della prima eta imperiale

(Leiden, 1980)74; the fragment is illustrated in the frontispiece.This cornice isnow known tobe from

the second order; see v.Hesberg (supra, n. 31).While de Vos (60n. 137, 74) found the insertionof

Egyptian cultic objects in floral friezes prefigured in Ptolemaic friezes, she too thought the motifs

valuable for the hypothesis thatOctavian was inspiredby the tombof Alexander for his mausoleum.

56. A. Bartoli, "L'architettura del Mausoleo di Augusto," BdA, ser. 2, 7 (1927) fig. 14; see P.

Gros (supra, n. 32: 205) for a comment on another segment of this cornice illustrated in pl. xlvii.









thanmere ornament. After Octavian's conquest of Egypt he reserved the coun

try as his private domain (Tac. Ann. 2.59), where he was hailed as "Son of Re."57

Theatef crown, then,

as apharaonic symbol

iscomparable

to the thunderbolton

the ceiling of theHouse ofAugustus or the agyieus from theTemple ofApollo.The objects asAugustan appropriations are ruler-cult emblems.

Neither K. Kraft nor J.-C. Richard utterly excluded thepossibility thatOcta

vian's decision to build his mausoleum was made in 30 B.C. when he entered

Alexandria.58 The tomb of Alexander as a prototype for theMausoleum, how

ever, appeared in the typological studieswith M. Eisner andV. Kockel.59Eisner,

having removed the imperialMausoleum from the private Roman tradition of

round tombs, was willing to see a connection with the tombs of theHellenistic

rulers and suggested the tumuli of the Numidian kings, the "Tombeau de la

Chretienne" and "LeMedracen" inAlgeria, as intermediariesbetween Alexan

der's tomb and Octavian's. F. Coarelli has recently reaffirmed the hypothesis of

theAlexandrian origin of theMausoleum ofAugustus in a study onHellenistic

Numidian tombs.60Coarelli reversed themore traditionalargumentwith his thesis

that the architectural form of Alexander the Great's mausoleum, which was mod

eled on the Macedonian tumulus-that is, amonument of circular form and thus a

revisionof the rectangular plan inheritedfrom themausolea of Halicarnassus and

of Asia Minor-is verified by itsmost perfect imitation, theMausoleum of Augus

tus. Coarelli's views are similar to mine on two major points, but he has added

other details in the most forceful argument to date. He too emphasized the politi

cal significanceof thevastAugustan constructionprogram in theCampusMartius

and asserted that the ideologicalmessage of theEgyptian references therewent

beyond amere "Egyptianizing"decor tocorrespond to the creation of a "veritable

new Alexandria" at Rome and thus a " 'national' riposte" to Antony, accused of

plotting to transfer the center of empire from Rome to Alexandria.61 He con

cluded that the number of Octavian's references to Alexander the Great

amounted to a virtual "filiation" or "assimilation" of the two persons.62

57. The traditional formula represented thepharaonic royalty's incarnation as Horus. Accord

ing toA. Bowman (Egypt after thePharaohs [Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1986] 37-38), documents

from the early Augustan years actually referred to Egypt as the kratesis, or dominion, of Caesar.

58. While Kraft (supra, n. 36: 200) would connect the date and motivation with Antony's burial

on theNile, Richard (supra, n. 10: 381-82, 384) had reservations because he believed that theword

mausoleum could not be used as evidence since it was not in use at Rome before 28 B.c. The real

prototypewas theMausoleum of Halicarnassus.

59. Eisner (supra, n. 1) 322;Kockel (supra, n. 14) 35 n. 293 with bibliography.60. Coarelli and Thebert (supra, n. 32) 761-818, esp. the section "Alexandre, laNumidie et

Rome," 786-800. The authors (798) believe that the tombs of circular plan of the Numidian dynasts

served as a "relai" between the tomb of Alexander and the Mausoleum of Augustus in the diffusion

of theAsiatic model of theHellenistic dynasticmausoleum.

61. Coarelli (supra, n. 32) 792 n. 48.

62. Note Octavian's gestures inEgypt showing his succession toAlexander (Coarelli [supra,n.

32] 788-89 n. 42, 813 n. 77); also note Coarelli's additions to the "imitatio Alexandri," 791 n. 47, 813

n. 77.









The problem of the reconstruction of the tomb of Alexander, however, is a

difficult one.63The tomb has never been found, and the ancient sources provide

few and confusing references. Strabo (17.1.8) told the story of how PtolemySoter took possession of the body of Alexander and laid it "in its present resting

place" inAlexandria; other sources attribute this act to Philadelphus. It is a later

source, Zenobius (3.94), who added the important information that Ptolemy

Philopater built another mausoleum called the Sema for Alexander and his own

dynastic predecessors, who had been previously buried separately.64References

to the tomb of Alexander in the Roman period (Suet. Aug. 18, Dio Cass. 2.16.3

5, Herodian 4.8.9), then, must be to the combined mausoleum of Alexander and

the Ptolemies.65 The sources do not give the form of the later monument; recon

structions are based on two passages in Lucan (Pharsalia 8.692-99, 10.19).66

Even if Lucan's description may be taken to be reliable,67 scholars have

differences of opinion in their interpretationof his exactmeaning.68Accordingto H. Thiersch, Alexander was buried in a vaulted tomb (antrum, Pharsalia

8.692) towhich one descended underground.69Thiersch saw this underground

type as an Alexandrian columbarium; it was used in the earlier tomb built for

Alexander by Ptolemy Soter or Philadelphus. But the new element in Philo

pater's tombwas the artistically shaped conical tumulus (tumulis, 10.19) placedabove the vault; this was the specific feature that gave the tomb the name sema, a

highly visible marker or signum of a grave.70 The tumulus (extructus mons,

8.695), then, was a conical man-made mound; the type was of northern Macedo

nian origin, where it was used for royal tombs.Thiersch himself distinguishedAlexander's tomb from those of the other Ptolemies, which he saw as belonging

to another type, that is, a tomb in the form of a decorative smaller pyramid as

later in the tomb of Cestius at Rome.71 P. M. Fraser, however, did not find such

63. A treatment of the subject in regard to the Mausoleum of Augustus was given by Bernhard

(supra, n. 53). P. M. Fraser (Ptolemaic Alexandria [Oxford, 1972] I 15-17; II 17 n. 31, P 6; 31-42 nn.

79-92) discussed the appearance and location of the tomb of Alexander. Fraser (II 31-32) has a

discussion of the various historical sources. Bernhard and Fraser contain bibliographies of the older

literature.

64. Fraser (supra, n. 63) I 16, II 33 n. 80. Strabo (17.1.8) also mentioned in his description of

the royal precinct at Alexandria called "the Palaces" that theSema was an enclosure containing the

tombs of the kings and of Alexander.

65. Fraser (supra, n. 63) II 34 n. 82.

66. Lucan 8.692-99: "Cum tibi sacratoMacedon servetur in antro / Et regumcineres exstructo

monte quiescant, / Cum Ptolemaeorum manes seriemque pudendam / Pyramides claudant indig

naqueMausolea."67. Already inantiquityServius (inAen. 6.154) had remarked thatSeneca, thephilosopher and

Lucan's uncle who had spent time in Egypt and had written a work on the country, must have been

Lucan's source.

68. H. Thiersch ("Die alexandrinischeKonigsnekropole," JdI [1910]55-97) is still themost

thorough study of the reconstruction of Alexander's tomb and Lucan's description.69. The antrumof Lucan; the conditoriumof Suetonius (Thiersch [supra,n. 68] 71).70. The word sema seems to have been used especially for a tumulus; Herodotus (1.93) used it

for the Alyattes' tumulus (Thiersch [supra, n. 68] 65 n. 38, 70, 71, 84, 85, 90).

71. Thiersch (supra, n. 68) 68-69.









a distinction in Lucan; to Fraser, Lucan described Alexander's tomb as having a

pyramidal superstructure over a vault, although he admitted thatmany varia

tions of thismight

beimagined.72

Other scholars have more or lessfollowed

these suggestions.73Some have thought to see depictions of Alexander's tomb among the repre

sentations of Alexandria found on Greco-Roman lamps, tesserae, terra-cottas,

mosaics, etc.74 Richard suggested that itwas possible that the representations on

the lampswere inspired by a model in the paintings found in the triumphal

procession of 29 B.C.75However, the representations on the lamps are very

cramped and stylized;76Fraser found the identifications "dangerous."77That Alexander's tomb type should have reflected hisMacedonian origins

seems reasonable. It also seems probable that Octavian would more likely have

had Alexander's tomb vividly inmind after his return to Rome, since he had just

seen itwith his own eyes, than the more remote example of the Mausoleum of

Halicarnassus. Alexander the Great would also have certainly furnished amore

likely model for Octavian than a Carian dynast. The tumulus, at least, of Augus

tus's tomb would then be a matter of Macedonian influence.78 The Alexandrian

precedent could also be mitigated or at least appear alongside the reference to

the archaizing Etruscan tumulus and thus to the conservative mos maiorum. But

probably no pyramidwas possible, whether on themodel of theMausoleum of

Halicarnassus or the mausolea of the Ptolemies or even on the order of the later

Augustan trophy of La Turbie, since the pyramid as a traditional symbol of

Egypt was too vivid a reminder of the civil war.79

But if the tomb of Alexander seems more than a logical precedent for the

Mausoleum of Augustus and has even begun to appear as such in the typologies,

the hypothesis may not be proven simply because the tomb has not been found,

and it seems possible that itmay never be, as even the location is debated and the

72. Fraser (supra, n. 63) 16, II 35 n. 83.

73. J.-C. Richard (supra, n. 10: 382) followedThiersch's distinction.M.-L. Bernhard (supra, n.

53: 142) interpretedLucan's description tomean a tumulus terminatedwith a pyramid. F. Coarelli

(supra, n. 32: 787) believed Lucan indicated that theMacedonian tumulus adopted forAlexander's

tombwas surrounded by the pyramid tombs of the three early Ptolemies.

74. Bernhard (supra, n. 53); Fraser (supra, n. 63) II 17 n. 31 P6 for a list.

75. Richard (supra, n. 10) 381.

76. A study such as Bernhard's (supra, n. 53) could not reallyovercome thisproblem.77. Fraser (supra, n. 63) II 17 n. 31.

78. It does not seem necessary to derive every feature of the Augustan mausoleum from

Alexander's asCoarelli, for example, does (supra, n. 32: 793). There aremore convincingprototypeselsewhere for the annular rings and corridors in particular.

79. It is debated as to exactly when the obelisks, as traditional a symbol of Egypt as the

pyramid, were set up in front of theMausoleum. These were brought directly fromEgypt, and it is

probable that theywere set up not too long after the completion of theMausoleum. These obelisks

could also have been seen as trophies or victory monuments, as the inscriptions on two other obelisks

set up in theCampusMartius in the SolariumAugusti and in theCircusMaximus explicitly state (see

infra).Compare Coarelli (supra, n. 32: 788-792, esp. 791 n. 48), who sees no ambiguity inanyof the

Egyptian references.









unending searches have been negative. Therefore, since the argument at this

point inevitably comes to a dead end,80 it seems necessary to enlarge the circle of

discussion. I propose to do this by bringing into the discussion a building notordinarily seen inconnectionwith theMausoleum ofAugustus, one that not onlyserved as a link between Macedonians and Ptolemies but one that I believe

would have been suggestive in form and symbol if itwas not a direct prototypetheArsinoeion of Samothrace. The two buildings have both general architec

tural similarities and ruler-cultconnections. Further, theArsinoeion itself intro

duces a group of buildings related in type,which in turnhelp both tobroaden the

discussion ofMausoleum prototypes and to stress theMausoleum's classification

as atower-type building.

Thatis, theybring

the second architecturalorder, the

round temple or tholos, into the discussion, which for too long has centered

more or less exclusively on the tumulus, although themajor reason for this

limitation is understandable since only the first order of theMausoleum is extant

as a whole.

Samothrace, although a remote island at the top of the Aegean off the coast

of Macedonia and Thrace, is an important site for the study of the history of

architecture and religion and the role of both in international relations in the

Hellenistic world.81 The dynasties represented here were the royal families in

Macedonia and the Ptolemies of Egypt; their ruler cults and dynastic ambitions

were important predecessors andmodels for theRomans, whose involvement

later in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods at Samothrace was considerable.

The more recent archaeological evidence dates the development of the Samo

thracian sanctuary to the fourth century B.C.82This development was the result of

outside interest and a deliberate policy supported by a considerable outlay of

capital. This interest in and development of the sanctuary was aMacedonian

80. Unless one reverses the argument, as did Coarelli (supra, n. 32: 788).81. According to H. Thompson (in Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenis

tic Times, Symposium Series I,National Gallery of Art [Washington,D.C., 1982]) 177, "it docu

ments in an extraordinarilyvividway the interplayof dynastic forces in the thirdand second centuries

B.C."

82. A good summary is found in S. Cole, Theoi Megaloi: The Cult of the Great Gods at

Samothrace (Leiden, 1984) 11-16. Earlier itwas believed that therewere "substantial"stone struc

tures in the sanctuary as early as the Archaic period. K. Lehmann had argued that the "Orthostate

Structure"underlying theAnaktoron, theArsinoeion, and their immediateperiphery and apredecessor to the Anaktoron was a "double precinct" built in the latter part of the seventh century B.C. and

that the first version of the Anaktoron was built in the late sixth century. However, J. McCredie's

excavations in 1974 substantially revised thedating.McCredie (Hesperia48 [1979]27-34) has shown

that Lehmann's "Double Precinct" had three rather than two divisions and that itwas built in the first

half of the fourth century B.C. rather than in the seventh century. Furthermore, McCredie claimed

that the Anaktoron was a building of the Early Imperial period rather than a sixth-century one.

Remains of a proto-Anaktoron on the same site as the Anaktoron date from the early third century

B.C.; theproto-Anaktoron was probably built at the same period as theArsinoeion, whose construc

tion had covered over the Orthostate Structure, Lehmann's other term for the "Double Precinct"

(Cole 11-16).









one, a resultof successfulmilitary expansion and an undertaking to enhance the

prestige of the dynasty.83

The Macedonianinvolvement

beganwith

Philip II,who

accordingto tradi

tion (Plut.Alex. 2.2) as a youth while undergoing initiation into theMysteriesmet and fell in love with Olympias, whom he later married.84 The first "substan

tial"building in the sanctuary, theOrthostate Structure,was built about the time

Philip II came to power inMacedonia, and the granderHieron was begunwhile

Alexander still ruled.85Three other buildingswere constructed duringAlexan

der's reign: the Temenos, the Altar Court, and a Doric building on the eastern

hill near the entrance to the sanctuary.86 The Altar Court (340-330 B.c.) and the

Doric rectangularexedra are linkedby inscriptions toPhilipArrhidaios, Alexan

der's elder half-brother and his "consort of sacred and religious ceremonies"

according to Curtius Rufus (10.7.2).87Although theHieron, the chief hall of

initiation, cannot yet be attributed to an individualpatron, its size and costlyThracian marble suggest the investment means of a member of the Macedonian

royal house, possiblyArrhidaios.88

There is, furthermore, some indication that Alexander himself was also

involved with this activity in the sanctuary. The possibility has also been raised

that Alexander was an initiate of the Mysteries, as his parents, Philip II and

Olympias, and as his half-brother seem to have been.89 Although Alexander,

unlike his father, seems to have wasted no time himself loitering at Samothrace,

it has been suggested that possiblyArrhidaios's sponsorship of theAltar Court

83. Cole (supra, n. 82) 20. Earlier, A. Fraser ("Macedoniaand Samothrace: Two Architectural

Late Bloomers," inMacedonia and Greece inLate Classical andEarlyHellenistic Times) andThompson (supra, n. 81) had noted theMacedonian connection, and P. M. Fraser (Samothrace2,1: The

Inscriptions on Stone [NewYork, 1960] 13 [hereafter Fraser, Samothrace 2,1]) had concluded that

thedecisive element in the development of the sanctuarywasMacedonian patronage.84. While the

story maywell be romantic fiction,

Philip'sassociation with the

sanctuaryis

probably fact. Curtius Rufus's (8.1.26) report thatAlexander criticized his father for spending so

much time at Samothracewhen he could have been conqueringAsia suggestsPhilip's special interest

inSamothrace (Cole [supra, n. 82] 17).85. Cole (supra, n. 82) 16.

86. The precinct of the temenos was enclosed by walls, and a propylon was constructed at its

entrance sometime after 340 B.C. The excavator, P. Lehmann (Skopas in Samothrace [North

hampton, 1974]8-14), attributed the architecturaldesign toSkopas of Paros. A. Stewart (Skopas ofParos [ParkRidge, 1977] 108) suggested a slightly later date thanLehmann, but agreed that the

propylon was finished by 330-320 B.C. (cited by Cole [supra, n. 82] 16 n. 124). Lehmann had

suggested that itwas Philip II himselfwho had contributed theoriginal donation for thisbuilding, the

earliest to use marble in the sanctuary (Cole 16 n. 125).87. The inscription bore the names of both Arrhidaios and Alexander IV, the posthumous son

of Alexander (A. Fraser [supra, n. 83] 194-95; Thompson [supra,n. 81] 179 n. 32; compare Fraser,

Samothrace 2,1, 41-48; Cole [supra, n. 82] 16-17, 19).88. A. Fraser (supra, n. 83) 195;H. Ehrhardt (Samothrake:Heiligtiimer in ihrrer andschaft

undGeschichte alsZeugen antiken Geisteslebens [Stuttgart, 1985] 74) suggestedArrhidaios.

89. The inscription on the Altar Court may name Arrhidaios as both donor and a priest of the

Kabeiroi (Ehrhardt [supra, n. 88] 72, 213-15); however, the interpretation of the Altar Court

inscription is debated. Compare Fraser, Samothrace 2,1, 45-47, and Cole (supra, n. 82) 18-19.









was a direct expression of the lastwishes ofAlexander, who was accompanied byhis half-brother on hisAsian campaign up to his death inBabylon in 323 B.C.90

Alexander contributed to individual temple projects and according toDiodorus(18.4.4) had planned to construct temples at six Greek sites.91 If Arrhidaios was

the likelymember of Alexander's familyactually responsible for the execution of

the plan to develop the sanctuary at Samothrace, themotivation was not the

result of an "eccentric interest in promoting an obscure cult" but a "desire to

legitimizeMacedonian supremacy"by creating a religious center in the north to

rival those of Olympia, Delphi, and Delos.92 The plan was successful, as the

continuing popularity and influence of Samothrace in the next century show.

Thus the tradition of Alexander both as a temple founder and as the most

prominent member of theMacedonian dynasty that built up the Samothracian

sanctuary, home of the Roman Penates (see below), would have been an impor

tantprecedent in the influence of Alexander's history and imageryonAugustusand inthe choice of prototypes for hisMausoleum. But perhaps evenmore influen

tial for an Augustan association with Alexander was the legend (Plut. Alex. 2.2) of

Olympias's conception ofAlexander connectedwith her "Dionysiac"-typeorgieswith snakes, presumably at Samothrace,93 a legend thatwas doubtless partly

90. In Flavius Philostratus's biography of Apollonius of Tyana (2.43), it was reported that

Apollonius in his travels to India in the first century A.D. came upon an altar near the river Hyphasis

thatAlexander had dedicated todifferent gods. The Samothracian godswere includedwith Ammon.

Herakles, Athena Pronaia, Olympian Zeus, the Indian sun god, and Delphic Apollo (Ehrhardt

[supra, n. 88] 215;Cole [supra, n. 82] 17).91. Cole (supra, n. 82) 18.While the Ephesians refused Alexander's donation and offer to

dedicate the new temple of Artemis, Priene accepted a contribution for the new temple of Athena

Polias and in turn gave Alexander the right to dedicate the building. He also had the temple of Bel in

Babylon rebuilt.While the listof projected temples occurs inamuch-disputed passage supposed to

contain Alexander's posthumousmemoranda, the tradition thatAlexander planned temple founda

tions inGreece at Delos, Delphi, Dodona, Dion, Amphipolis, Kyrrhos, and in Asia at Ilion is

supported by the situation in Greece at the time of his death. Of these temples only the one at Ilion is

known to have been built. Of the Greek sites, three are major cult centers. Olympia is not men

tioned, but Philip had already put a building there to enhanceMacedonian prestige. The other three

sites are located inMacedonia, where considerable building activity has been proven. "Samothrace.

like the second group, was a site located near Macedonia, and like the first group, was a site of

international reputation. Unlike Delphi, Delos andOlympia, however, Samothrace was relatively

underdeveloped and therefore attractive toMacedonian interests .... If it was not Alexander him

self who chose to contribute temples at Samothrace, it is likely to have been someone close to him or

someone inhis immediate family" (Cole [supra, n. 82] 18).92. Cole (supra, n. 82) 19-20.

93. Plutarch did not say specifically that the conceptionor

Olympias's imitation of the riteswith snakes took place at Samothrace. But he tied a series of stories to the fact of the couple's

meeting and initiation at Samothrace. One of the versions of Olympias's conception was then tied

to her imitation of "Orphic rites and the orgies of Dionysus." While the connecting idea here

appears to be the snakes, the initiation into the Mysteries of Samothrace seems to be the initial

theme in this succession of stories, and Samothrace would be the probable locus for an association

ofMystery cult-type rites.

If the story of Olympias's intercourse with the serpent was her own-and according to E.

Badian ("The Deification of Alexander the Great," Ancient Macedonian Studies inHonor of Charles

F. Edson [Thessaloniki, 1981] 44), it does seem to go back to her own account-Samothrace would









instrumental in theRoman myth (Suet.Aug. 2.94) of Atia's conception ofAugustus through the snake in the temple of Apollo.94

During the third centuryAlexander's successors took a special interest inSamothrace, and the Mysteries continued to be important not only to the Mace

donian kings but also to the Ptolemies as well. The monumental propylon that

gave entrance to the sanctuary is ascribed to Ptolemy II on the basis of its

inscription.95The formula of the inscriptionsdates the structure to ca. 285-280

B.C.,approximately the same period as theArsinoeion.96Arsinoe, at the time of

the dedication of the roundbuilding,was still thewife of Lysimachus and queen,and thus a link between Macedonian and Ptolemaic patronage. At least two

round buildingswere dedicated to her.97

Lysimachus,

who

reigned

as

king

from

299 to 281 B.C., is the subject of two decrees found at Samothrace that reveal his

involvement in the life of the sanctuary,98 and it is likely that he was an initiate.99

Lysimachus died in 281 B.C., leaving the Ptolemies the dominant power in the

be a logical locus in view both of her own initiation there and of the Macedonian royal family's

continued interest in the sanctuary,whether the eventwas some culticphenomenon perceived as real

or alleged propaganda. Compare thisaspect of Plutarch's story about Alexander's divine conceptionwith Plutarch's legend of the divine procreation of Alexander by Ammon (Alex. 3.1-2) and the

versions of Augustus's conception inSuetonius (Aug. 94) and Dio Cassius (45.1), which are treatedin P. Grandet, "Les songes d'Atia et d'Octavius: Note sur les rapportsd'Auguste et de l'Egypt,"

RHR 203 (1986) 365-79, esp. 368 n. 6 on Plutarch's version;Grandet's emphasison Egyptian sources

is noted byCoarelli (supra, n. 32) 791 n. 47.

94. Simon (supra, n. 45: 14-19, 26, 31-33) gave thehistory of this legend.95. A. Fraser (supra, n. 83) 199.

96. Although Ptolemy IIPhiladelphus dedicated the propylon while Ptolemy Soter, father of

Arsinoe and Philadelphus, was still alive, and Beloch had argued that the dedication must have been

made after Samothrace had come into the Ptolemaic political orbit and assumed that this had

happened throughArsinoe's marriage toPhiladelphus, bothArsinoe and Philadelphus, asmembers

of a prominent family originally fromMacedonia, would have been interested inSamothrace because

of theMacedonian connection as well (Cole [supra,n. 82] 22).97. One of the two funerary shrines erected later for the deified queen and her dynastic cult at

Alexandria was a small round temple called theZephyrion (D. B. Thompson, Ptolemaic Oinochoai

and Portraits in Faience:Aspects of theRuler-Cult [Oxford, 1973] 57, 66-67; Ehrhardt [supra, n. 88]

298). It was dedicated by Kallikrates, an admiral of Ptolemy from Samos. According to Kalli

machos's poem EktheosisArsinoes, her apotheosis took place there. The name of theother funeraryshrine, the Arsinoeion, was an antique one in contrast to the round building at Samothrace by the

same name (Thompson 72; Ehrhardt 298; Fraser, Samothrace2,1, 50 no. 10).Although the shape of

this shrine is not known, the Arsinoeion at Samothrace may well have been the prototype for at least

the round temple at Zephyrion. The Ptolemies and Arsinoe in particularwere devoted to the

Samothracian gods, the Kabeiroi, who, early equated with the Dioskouroi, were worshipped assavior gods in Ptolemaic Egypt and were linked with the royal house as synnaoi (Fraser [supra, n. 63]

207). It is probable that the Arsinoeion at Alexandria, especially if it too was a round building, and

the Zephyrion, as monuments erected to the Ptolemaic ruler cult, also had some influence on the

Mausoleum of Augustus.98. IG XII.8, no. 150 = SIG3 no. 372; Cole (supra, n. 82) 17, 21, 22; Ehrhardt (supra, n. 88)

290; Fraser, Samothrace 2,1, 13. See also J. McCredie, "Samothrace: Preliminary Report on the

Campaigns of 1965-1967," Hesperia 37 (1968) 220-21; Ehrhardt 136,290-91.

99. An unusual story in Diodorus (21.10.12.20) has been taken to suggest that Lysimachus was

an initiateof theMysteries; see Ehrhardt (supra, n. 88: 291-92) for details.









Aegean, as thePtolemaion in the sanctuaryof Samothrace of approximately the

same period bears witness.100

J.McCredieplaced

the Doric stoa on the western hill of thesanctuary in the

same half-century as theArsinoeion and thePropylon of Ptolemy II.101Althoughthe patron's name is not known, in the context of the politics of the other

monuments the donor was likely to have been aMacedonian one likewise.102 In

any case a column honoring Philip V of Macedon was put up in front of it ca. 200

B.C.103Considering the ties between Macedonia and Samothrace in this and the

next generation, itwas natural that Philip's son Perseus would have sought

asylum at Samothrace after his defeat at Pydna in 168 B.C. Furthermore, there is

evidence that Samothrace as neutral territory where theoroi of the Aegean met

toworship togethermay have had special recognition by all three of themajorHellenistic dynasties, includingnot only theMacedonians and Ptolemies but also

the Seleucids.104 Samothrace continued to maintain its position as an interna

tional center and a place for display of international documents even after Mace

donia became a Roman province.105

The form of the Arsinoeion and its function within the sanctuary must now

be considered before turning to what the Romans knew of Samothrace and the

Great Gods. The Arsinoeion, as the largest enclosed, domed, and nonperipteral

round building in the ancient world before Hadrian's Pantheon, must have been

the most famous of the buildings on Samothrace and one widely known in the

Hellenistic Greek world. The rotundawas a novel design (Fig. 3).106 he cylindrical drum was surmounted by a gallery of Doric pilasters. The pillars alternated

with low parapets; the walls above may have contained windows. The Doric

architrave was surmounted by the dome of the roof, which was remarkable for

the technical skill of its wooden frame, spanning over 17 m. The roof construc

100. It is worthwhile to note in the wider context of Hellenistic dynastic monuments and tombs

that influenced the Mausoleum of Augustus that the Mausoleum of Belevi, in type closely related to

the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, was considered by some to have been built for Lysimachus about

285-281 B.C., although the heroin was never completed (H. Bauer, "KorinthischeKapitelle des 4.

und 3. Jahrhundertsv.Chr.," AM-BH 3 [1973]119;C. Praschniker,M. Theuer, Das Mausoleum von

Belevi, Ephesus 6 [Vienna, 1979] 118.Compare G. Hanfmann, From Croesus toConstantine: The

Cities of Western Asia Minor and Their Arts in Greek and Roman Times [Ann Arbor, 1975] 37-38).

101. J. McCredie, "Samothrace: Preliminary Report on the Campaigns of 1962-1964,"

Hesperia 34 (1965) 101-16.

102. A. Fraser (supra, n. 83) 201.

103. The dedication of his statue to the Theoi Megaloi implies that Philip V was an initiate, as

does the fact that the Theoi Samothrakes are included in the oath sworn by the Lysimacheians in the

treatybetween Philip and Lysimacheia (Cole [supra,n. 82] 24 n. 1.).104. Ibid. n. 2.

105. Ibid. n. 3.

106. A short description inA. W. Lawrence, Greek Architecture, 4th ed., rev. R. A. Tomlinson

(Middlesex, 1983) 245-46; F. Seiler, Die griechische Tholos: Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung,

Typologie und Function kunstmdssigerRundbauten (Mainz, 1986) 108-12, contains a more detailed

one with bibliography.









tion is still discussed; itwas probably conical.107 The wall above the foundation of

sandstone was of marble fromThasos; themarble plates of the euthynteria lay

directly on the foundation. An Anthemion frieze led to the orthostate rowof thedistinctively high ashlarmasonry wall, which was concluded with a frieze of lotus

and palmettes. A single door led into the interior.

It is ironic that the earlier reconstructions of the elevation of theMausoleum

of Augustus that followed themodern excavations (1926-30) showed a greaterresemblance to the reconstruction of the elevation of the Arsinoeion than the

laterones.108A. Bartoli and others, largelyon the basis of B. Peruzzi's perspective sketch, saw the Mausoleum's exterior wall as constituted of two more or less

equalunits, one

superimposedon the other.109 artoli understood the

upper partto be decorated with pilasters and crowned with an entablature with Doric frieze.

Above the entablature would have risen the conical tumulus, similar in shape to

the conical roof of theArsinoeion. However, laterG. Gatti, taking the results of

the recent excavations intoconsideration, saw thata base formed of two superim

posed drums was not possible.110 Gatti insisted that a second architectural order

was imposed on the first but that the second order was sustained not by the

exterior base wall but by one of the interior annular rings, the second from the

center. Gatti supposed that the wall of the second order either had been deco

ratedwith pilasters or had been surrounded by a portico supported by the third

annular wall. Thus if Gatti was correct, the second order would have been a

round-temple type, a tholos, whether peripteral or not. If the closed wall had

alternated with pilasters and screens and was crowned with the Doric entabla

ture, it would have been somewhat comparable to the top section of the

Arsinoeion. P. Gros, in commenting on the relative rarity of monumental con

structions of pseudoperipteral type in the Hellenistic period in contrast to the

frequent use in the fourth century of lateral colonnades, remarked on the "rejec

tion" of the decorative gallery as an actual colonnade of the tholos of the

Arsinoeion and attributed this to the necessity of reserving the largest possible

107. Seiler (supra, n. 106) 112 n. 456 with bibliography.108. G. Niemann's perspective sketch of the elevation (restored) of theArsinoeion (found in

earlier studies of A. Conze, A. Hauser, G. Niemann, Archaeologische Untersuchungen aufSamothrake I [Vienna, 1875] liv)has frequentlybeen reproduced in the literatureon Samothrace, as

in Ehrhardt (supra, n. 88) fig. 46, Seiler (supra, n. 106) figs. 43-44, and in the surveys such as J.

Pollitt, Art in theHellenistic Age (Cambridge, 1986) fig. 253.

109. Bartoli (supra, n. 61) fig. 9 (Peruzzi's perspective sketch); E. Fiorilli, "A proposito del

mausoleo di Augusto," BdA 7 (1927) 214-19 fig. 3; R. A. Cordingly and I.A. Richmond, "TheMausoleum of Augustus," BSR 10 (1927) 23-35.

110. Gatti (supra, n. 33: [1934] 460) felt that two factors in particular signified a second

architectural order: (1) another drawing by B. Peruzzi (Uffizi 392; Gatti's fig. 10) showed an

entablaturewith Doric cornicewith frieze of triglyphsandmetopes. The notable size of thewhole,

includingarchitrave, frieze, and cornice, was indicatedby Peruzzi asmore than 2m; (2) the second

(from the interior) annular wall was thicker than the others and therefore ought to have had a special

function. This wall was also the only one in addition to that of the cella dressed with travertine opus

quadratum on both sides.









area at the ground level for the cultic ceremonies.11 In any case, after Gatti's

reconstruction the Mausoleum in elevation is now taken to be a tower-typemonument

and therefore differs, strictly speaking, from the unicum of theArsinoeion. This dissimilarity does not necessarily mean, however, that the

Arsinoeion could not have been influential in theMausoleum's conception. If

Octavian had requested amonumental round building such as had not been seen

in Italybefore, themost famous prototype towhich his architects could turn for

the enormous drum would have been the Arsinoeion. Furthermore, ifmodels

were sought for a nonperipteral type of tholos to serve as theMausoleum's

second order, then theArsinoeion would have been a rareprototype;whereas if

themore usual tholos with colonnade was desired, there were possible models

closer to home, the round temple near the Tiber or Temple B in the Largo

Argentina at Rome.112 Moreover, the Mausoleum was a composite creation not

only of two different orders, tumulus and tholos, but of particular internal fea

tures that also must be taken into account.

The American excavations on Samothrace have established the function of

theArsinoeion. The unusual round building was a thymele, a building for the

worship of chthonic divinities bymeans of a bothros where liquid offerings could

be poured down to the underworld gods.113The foundations of theArsinoeion

were laid out to include ancient pre-Greek ritual areas, called "rock altars" by

the excavators because these rock structures recalled the Phrygian rock altars

affiliated with the cult of the Great Mother goddess, Cybele.114 Cybele was

depicted on the coinage of Samothrace,115 and both the goddess and her entour

age appeared persistently in the ancient literarysources regarding theorigin and

rites of the Samothracian cult. When the Greeks settled in Samothrace, they

built over the old native sanctuary an open-air "double precinct" in which the

northern section preserved the old sacred rockwhile the southernpart contained

a bothros in the shape of a beehive.116 The primitive form of the bothros and its

shaft into which the blood of the sacrificial sheep was evidently poured down to

the underworld reminded K. Lehmann of Homer's Nekyia and of Odysseus

111. Gros (supra, n. 32) 171.

112. F. Rakob, W.-D. Heilmeyer, Der Rundtempel am Tiber inRom (Mainz, 1973) 35-39. esp.

n. 33, for a summary of the dating of Roman tholoi.

113. K. Lehmann, "Samothrace: Third Preliminary Report," Hesperia 19 (1950) 13 n. 46:

"Samothrace: FourthPreliminaryReport," Hesperia

20(1951)

10.

114. Lehmann (supra, n. 113:Hesperia 1950, 7-21; Hesperia 1951, 1-10) includesa summary

of the earlier report.McCredie's later revisionswere noted supra, n. 82.

115. Cybele enthroned and attended by a lionon theHellenistic bronze coinage of Samothrace

in P. Lehmann, D. Spittle, Samothrace 5, The Temenos (Princeton, 1982) (hereafter P. Lehmann.

Samothrace 5) 221 fig. 189.

116. According to Lehmann's early estimate (supra, n. 113: Hesperia 1950, 10-11; Hesperia

1951, 3) the second major building period beneath the Arsinoeion was represented by the

"Orthostate Structure" and occurred in the seventh century B.C. Compare McCredie's later revision

of a triple precinct and date, supra, n. 82.









killing a ram over a pit at the entrance to the nether world.117 Furthermore, the

Samothracian circle of gods included a king and queen of the underworld,

Axiokersos andAxiokersa,

and Lehmann concluded that the southern section of

the precinct belonged to these underworld gods, who were worshipped at the

bothros "in a loose fusion" with the Great Mother of the Rocks, the Kabeiroi,

and Kadmilis. Another arrangement evidently supplanted the old beehive

shaped bothros of the earlier precinct but continued the tradition of the

Arsinoeion as a thymele.18The chthonic characterof the offerings is stressed bythe ornament between theCorinthian half-columns on the parapet above. The

rosettes are actually phialai with central omphalos, customarily used in liquid

offerings of blood orwine.19 The bucrania decorated with sacrificial ribbonhave

reminded some of the sacrifice of black cows in the enagismoi of the Heroon of

Palaimon. 20

However, the ritesperformed in theArsinoeion may not have been confined

to chthonic burnt offerings and libations.121. Ehrhardt has offered a hypothesisfor the ceremony that took place in the round building.'22He suggested that a

wooden platform ran around the interiorwall.123The excavators at Samothrace

identified the stone block found in the middle of the round building under the

original floor as the base for a high torch.Not only the torchbut the largenumber

of oil lamps found in the Arsinoeion testify to nocturnal ceremonies; the clay

lampswere thenused by themystai.124Ehrhardt suggested thatafter theofferings

117. Lehmann (supra, n. 113)Hesperia 1950, 11-12 pl. 9 fig. 21.

118. The prominent position of a deep shaft builtwith the original structure of theArsinoeion

next to its entrance and the presence of a large number of sheep bones and several ram's horns

indicated the sacrificialpurpose of a bothros (Lehmann [supra,n. 113]Hesperia 1951, 8-10, pl. 9 fig.

22).119. Seiler (supra, n. 106) 77 n. 295with bibliography.120. Ehrhardt (supra, n. 88) 286.

121. The rotunda probably served not only for the more narrowly cultic purpose but also as a

meeting hall for assemblies and for the reception of the international ambassadors (the6roi) who

gathered there to offer sacrificeson behalf of their states (K. Lehmann, Samothrace:A Guide to the

Excavations and theMuseum [Locust Valley, 1975] 25, 54) (hereafter Lehmann, Samothrace:

Guide). In fact Seiler (supra, n. 106) found this interpretation themost convincing up to now. He

noticed the building's affinity with early Hellenistic assembly halls and found analogies for its

typology, especially inMacedonian palace architecture and the facades of representative funeraryarchitecture (113n. 469; n. 470 forbibliography). Seiler found itmore difficult to specify the type of

ritual. He suspected that the round hall may have had less to do with the cult sacrifices themselves

than with sacrificial banquets and the cultic festivities connected with them (115 n. 478). The window

gallery

also

suggested

a

dining

hall. The

assembly

of the6roi

may

have held their sacral transactions

here at the community ritual meal in observance of their roles as mystai of the cult (115 n. 479).

122. Ehrhardt (supra, n. 88) 288.

123. According to Ehrhardt (supra, n. 88: 288), excavation showed an elevation of the groundall around the interior of the Arsinoeion. It seems as if the zone of the orthostates was not even

visible in the interiorof thebuilding. This detail in addition to the remarkablyhighwall ledEhrhardt

to suppose that a wooden podium ran around the interior.He compared theTelesterion of Eleusis

with its stone steps before the interior wall. Seiler (supra, n. 106: 115 n. 476) noted that the height of

the floor level had not yet been clarified.

124. Lehmann (supra, n. 113)Hesperia 1950, 15-18.









the participants of the cult, being led by a priest and holding lighted lamps,

stepped from the podium and, proceeding in a linked chain, approached the lit

torch in the center inever-narrowing spirals.The spiraldance, probably accompanied by music, could produce a trance or ekstasis.125 hrhardt concluded that

telete,thecompletion or high point of theMystery celebrations and actsnecessaryfor the epopteia, the second degree of theMysteries, took place then in the

Arsinoeion.126The hypothesis of thewooden frame for theArsinoeion is reason

able in light of the wooden platforms Lehmann claimed for the Anaktoron, al

though here base stones for the wooden construction were actually preserved

along the walls.127

There is also someliterary

evidence for thisgeneral type

of dance. Plato

(Euthyd. 277d) spoke of a teleteof theCorybantes called thronosis, inwhich the

initiate sat on a throne while a dance was performed around him before his

initiation.28The essence of the ceremony (and the verb perikathairo) seemed to

be in the making of a circle around a person accompanied by music and the

dance. Statius (Ach. 2.157) referred to religious dances on Samothrace: "modo

quo Curetes inactu /quoque pii Samothraces eunt,"where the context suggestedthat he was thinking of an "interlacing choral movement" used inCabiric rites.129

Cybele or Rhea was mistress of the Corybantes and Curetes. The title of a lost

Orphic work, ThronismoiMetrooi, suggested that such a ritualwas associated

with Cybele. "FromPherecydes onwards ancientwriters often assimilatedCabiri

andCorybantes, and Strabo (X, pp. 466-67 [10.3.7-9]) makes itclear that there

was no little resemblance between the emotional ceremonies of Cabiri, Curetes,

andCorybantes, as well as between popular concepts of Corybantes, Curetes,

and Cabiri as identified with Dioscuri."130 Lehmann had drawn attention to the

construction of a platform in the Anaktoron characterized by its "double bot

tom."'31The hollow inside the supporting ring of field stones was probably

meant as a "resounding space" that multiplied the effect of beating the ground in

dances, as was characteristic of the Corybantic ritual. Presumably the powers

inherent in circular motion would be similar whether the initiate himself or an

instrument of his initiation, such as the torch or an altar, was at the center of such

ecstatic dances in the Anaktoron and in the Arsinoeion. This type of magic.

inherent in the circle and the making of a circle, will also appear in the rituals of

125. Ehrhardt (supra, n. 88) 288 n. 46.

126. Ibid. 289; compare Cole (supra, n. 82) 26-29 for the arguments of two versus threeseparate rites (myesis, telete,epopteia) in the Samothracian initiation.

127. K. Lehmann, "Samothrace:Second PreliminaryCampaign,"AJA 44 (1940) 331-34; Cole

(supra, n. 82: 29) advised caution until the final reporton theAnaktoron ispublished.128. A. D. Nock, "Cabiric Rite," AJA 45 (1941) 579.

129. Ibid. 579.

130. They were all concerned with deliverance; as theCabiri, Dioscuri, andCuretes became

more widely prominent in the Hellenistic period, the Cabiri or Curetes probably absorbed

Corybantic rites (Nock [supra, n. 128]580-81).131. Ibid. 577-78, 580-81.









circumambulation and in the function of the annular corridors of the tholos at

Epidaurus and theMausoleum of Augustus.132

A. Conze on his return from his first trip to Samothrace in 1858 had com

pared Statius's passage about Samothracian dances with the relief of dancingwomen from the sanctuary.133hile this frieze is now known to have come from

the entablature of thepropylon of the temenos and hence cannot attest todances

held in the Arsinoeion, nor even prove the probability of those held in the

temenos for that matter, it is the most valuable witness to the role of the dance in

the Samothracian cult.134 he frieze has generally been interpreted sinceConze

as figures performing a cult dance, although itwas debated whether the dances

were done in the Samothracian cult as a whole or within the actual

Mysteries.

C.

Picard, for example, had suggested that they were the kourai of Cybele, a

"choros"performing a perpetual lustration."'35 . Lehmann described the "cho

rus" of maidens with clasped hands as dancing in a long "chain" with figures

moving in two directions.136She identified the polos worn by the participants as

the type customarilyworn by theGreat Goddess and her votaries. The lowpolosofMycenaean typewas worn byAphrodite andCybele inparticular.The Helle

nistic coinage and a terra-cotta figure from the sanctuary show the Great God

dess of Samothrace with this ritualpolos.137Lehmann found prototypes for this

chorus in the chains of draped female figureswearing low poloi and claspinghands that occurred frequently on lateGeometric andOrientalizing pots.'38The

cult scenes with ritual dancers honoring the Great Mother on these pots sug

gested that the dancing maidens on the propylon performed a similar liturgy in

honor of the Samothracian Great Goddess, perhaps in the temenos. Moreover,

since dancing was a standard feature of weddings, and since a key element in the

Samothracian legend was the wedding of Kadmos and Harmonia (Diodorus

5.49.1), the frieze of the propylonmay represent the celebration of this legend

ary wedding, which was probably in itself a "paraphrase" of the hieros gamos of

the Mysteries.'39 Thus while the dancers of the propylon frieze may well have

referred to a particular aspect of the cultic celebrations or to the sacred drama

performed within the temenos itself, a ritual dance in honor of the Great Mother

132. See infra.133. Nock (supra, n. 128) 579 n. 11;P. Lehmann, Samothrace 5, 12.

134. For the history and description of this frieze, see P. Lehmann, Samothrace 5, 172-262.

135. Ibid. 220.

136. Ibid. 201, 222 n. 135.137. Ibid. 221 fig. 189 (coin), fig. 190 (terra-cotta).138. Ibid. 223 figs. 191-93, 244 fig. 208, 225-26 figs. 194-95. The arrangement of dancers

around the surface of these pots necessarily suggests circularmotion. On a seventh-century bronze

bowl from Idalion inCyprus, now in theMetropolitan Museum ofArt inNew York, an enthroned

goddess isaccompanied by a priestess, an offering table, a line of sixdraped female dancerswearing

poloi and clasping hands, and three female musicians playing the double flute, a kithara, and a

tympanum, the same instrumentsplayed in the great frieze and also three instruments found in the

service of Cybele (P.Lehmann, Samothrace 5, 229 fig. 198, 230).139. Ibid. 222 and n. 166.









may have taken place in one or more buildings or spaces of the sanctuary,

including theArsinoeion. Certainly "the dance" came to be understood as symbolic not

onlyof the Samothracian cult in

particular but,even as

Lucian reported, of the ancientMystery cult ingeneral.140

Statius's reference suggests at least Roman literary acquaintancewith the

Samothracian Mysteries. It should now at this point be asked if itwas probable

thatOctavian himself, Agrippa, or their advisers and architects would have

known the Arsinoeion, and therefore if it was likely that it would have been

one of the designs influential in the choice of a monumental round tomb,

before proceeding to argue the connection between the Arsinoeion as a

thymele and related structures. Indeed Samothrace and its sanctuary had a

particular appeal to the Romans for a number of reasons. Literary tradition

and excavated remains both testify to this fact. After the Roman establishment

of the province of Macedonia in 148 B.C., the island of Samothrace, where

Perseus had taken refuge, was left independent under Roman protection. P. M.

Fraser thought it probably was no "coincidence" that just at the time of Roman

activity on Samothrace in connection with Perseus "a close sentimental link"

was established between the island and the power that had replaced Mace

don.141 While the sanctuary seems to have been known by the Romans

earlier-Marcellus in 212/11 B.C. had dedicated some of the booty from Syra

cuse there (Plut. Marc. 30.6)-the proximity to the Roman province of Mace

donia made the sanctuary a resort of Roman provincial officials.142 Judging

from the striking prominence of the Romans among the surviving lists of the

mystai, it seems to have been customary from the first century B.C. on for the

Roman governor and members of his staff to be initiated. While these initia

tions and the dedications made to both city and sanctuary by Roman officials

may have been due to political tact, it is also true that from an early date the

great numbers of other Roman visitors, "soldiers and officials in transit, mer

chants, and freedmen," suggest that the island was especially appealing to

Romans.143 Although Romans from an early period on showed interest in other

Greek sanctuaries, they were an important part of the Samothracian clientele,

as the initiate lists show.144

While the earliest provincial administrator from Macedonia to be mentioned

at Samothrace was L. Julius Caesar, proconsul inMacedonia in 93/92 B.C., who

was probably an initiate,145 the most famous Roman connected to the sanctuary

140. Lucian, Peri Orcheseos 15; citation in P. Lehmann Samothrace 5, 230.

141. Fraser, Samothrace, 2,1, 12-16; Cole (supra, n. 82) 92-93.

142. Fraser, Samothrace 2,1, 12, 15;N. Lewis, ed. & trans., Samothrace 1, TheAncient Liter

ary Sources (NewYork, 1958) (hereafterLewis, Samothrace 1) no. 197.

143. Fraser, Samothrace 2,1, 16;Lehmann (supra, n. 127) 358.

144. For detailed information on theseRoman initiates, see Cole (supra, n. 82) 87-103.

145. According to Cole (supra, n. 82: 90) he made a dedication addressed to the Samothracian

Theoi Megaloi at Samothrace during the year of his office.









was L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, Caesar's father-in-law, consul in 58 B.C.146

Piso, at the end of his consulate, left Rome to be proconsul of Macedonia (57-55

B.C.).According to H. Bloch, at least, itmay be inferred from Cicero (Pis. 89)that Piso not only visited Samothrace from Macedonia with his suite and Greek

friends but was initiated into the Mysteries while there.147 The catalogues of

mystai from the end of the Republic begin with the name of a noble Roman, then

follow with his family, friends, freedmen, attendants, and slaves. Piso's name

was found in an inscription on a base at Samothrace.148

Bloch suggested that Varro was also an initiate since he referred (LL 5.58)

to theMysteries with the words "ut Samothracum initia docent."'49 As Pompey's

legate in the war against the pirates in 67 B.C. he would have had occasion to visit

Samothrace. Six years earlier, in 73 B.c., Lucullus had sent his legate Voconius

to Nicomedia to interceptMithridates, but Voconius, according to Plutarch

(Luc. 13.1-2), had lingered in Samothrace to get initiated and had allowed

Mithridates to escape.The witness of such men as Varro and Piso is important particularly in regard

to the question of Augustus's knowledge of Samothrace. Varro and Piso were

the leading representatives of old Roman virtue and religiosity, and their sympathetic attitude toward the foreign Mystery cult of Samothrace was evidently not

inconsistent with this reputation.150 Indeed Piso as a member of the old

nobility-the very "imago antiquitatis" as Cicero (Sest. 19) at least would have

it151-is likely to have shared the belief that the Samothracian gods were con

nected to the Penates and to the Trojan legends, traditions of great importance

toAugustus. Moreover, Piso's broader philhellenic tendencieswere famous. His

patronage of Philodemus, the most famous Epicurean of his age, and the cre

ation of his villa at Herculaneum (ca. 50 B.C.), called the Villa of the Papyri, bear

witness to these interests.152 An epigram of Philodemus in which he invited his

146. H. Bloch, "L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus in Samothrace and Herculaneum," AJA 44

(1940) 485-93.

147. According to Bloch (ibid. 488), the phrase "Samothraciam te . . .contulisti" was under

stood to refer to the initiation itself.Compare Cole (supra,n. 82) 90;Cole, however, also considers it

quite possible thatPiso was an initiate.

148. Fraser, Samothrace 2, 1, no. 18, pp. 56-57. According toFraser, the inscriptionwas not

from the sanctuary as Bloch had assumed but from Chora. It may then have stood in the town, as

Piso is called patronus of the city. Therefore, although Piso may have been initiated at some time,

this inscriptiondoes not prove it.

149. Bloch (supra, n. 146) 489.

150. Cole (supra, n. 82: 91)mentions the fact that since theMysteries of Samothrace appealedon the whole to a different class of Romans than the clientele of the Mysteries of Isis and Magna

Mater, they were never a social threat.

151. Bloch (supra, n. 146) 490-93.

152. Piso as the owner of the Villa of the Papyri has been the traditional hypothesis for two

centuries. H. Bloch's article (supra, n. 146) was basic in the modern era; a short summary of the

controversy with bibliography in J.D'Arms, Romans on theBay of Naples: A Social and Cultural

Study of the Villas and Their Owners from 150 B.C. toA.D. 400 (Cambridge, 1970) catalogue I, no.

5. A new hypothesis has been advanced with the recent renewed study of the villa in M. R. Wojcik,








290 CLASSICALNTIOUITY Volume 11/No. 2/October 1992

patron to a dinner in honor of their master Epicurus influenced an invitation sent

by Horace to Maecenas (Carm. 1.20).153 Horace was said to have dedicated his

Ars Poetica to Caesoninus's son L. Pisoand L.

Piso'stwo

sons. The son, L.Calpurnius Piso pontifex, continued the traditionof his house innot onlymain

taining relationswith Philodemus after his father'sdeath, but also with the circle

of Roman poets who had studied under Philodemus. The villa remained in the

hands of the Pisones after Caesoninus's death. L. Piso had a brilliant career,

which culminated in the consulship of 15 B.C.;154he too seems to have served, as

his father before him, as governor of Macedonia.l55

The sanctuary's appeal to Romans of various classes is usually explained by

the

widespread

belief

among

Romans of the ancient correlationsbetween Samo

thracian and Roman religion, and the versions of the legend of Aeneas that

associated the hero and Rome with Samothrace.156 A version of the wanderings

of Aeneas seems to have originated, in Latin literature at least, with the annalist

L. Cassius Hemina, who, writing in the middle of the second century B.C., said

that Aeneas had brought the Penates to Rome from Samothrace, not Troy.L57

Varro modified Hemina's version by introducing the tradition into the story of

Dardanos's taking the Penates from Samothrace to Troy.158 Servius In Ae

neidem, quoting Varro and Cassius Hemina, had much to say about the tradition

of Aeneas bringing the Penates from Samothrace and the Roman identification

of the Penates with the Great Gods.159 Varro had said that the Penates and the

Great Gods are "one and the same" (In Aen. 3.12).160 Therefore the Samothra

cians are said to be the kinsmen (cognoti) of the Romans (In Aen. 3.12).161 In the

Aeneid (3.28.8), whereas Vergil himself did not haveAeneas stopping at Samo

La Villa dei Papiri ad Ercolano: Contributo alla ricostruzione dell'ideologia della nobilitas tardo

republicana (Rome, 1986); discussion of the controversy in reviews by B. Conticello and C. Cicirelli

inRStPomp 2 (1988) 279-83; E. Leach, AJA 92 (1988) 145-46.

153. Bloch (supra, n. 146) 490, 493.154. For references to the Pisones during the Late Republic and earlyPrincipate, seeR. Syme,

The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1983), index s.v. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, L. (cos. 58 B.C.).L.

Piso as consular seems to have vanished from the record after 44 B.C. (p. 197). L. Piso the son (cos. 15

B.C.)held an eminent ifneutral position in thePrincipate (p. 424).155. T. Sarikakis, "L.Calpurnius Piso Pontifex:A Disputed Governor ofMacedonia," Ancient

Macedonian Studies inHonor of Charles F. Edson (Thessaloniki, 1981) 307-14.

156. Bloch (supra, n. 146) 488-89; Fraser, Samothrace 2,1, 16-17; see section E: "Roman

Traditions and Syncretisms," inLewis, Samothrace 1, nos. 172-92.

157. The story of Aeneas's wanderings in Thrace is considerably earlier and probably dates

back to Hellanikos (Fraser, Samothrace 2,1, 16 nn. 67, 69). Hellanikos is the earliest source for the

foundation myth of Troy and the story that Dardanos, legendary founder of Dardania in the Troad

and the ancestor of Priam andHektor, came originally fromSamothrace (Cole [supra, n. 82] 100).158. Fraser, Samothrace 2,1, 16 n. 68. The6roi of the Dardanians appear together with Roman

symmystae in inscriptions twice (Bloch [supra, n. 146]489 n. 19).159. Lewis, Samothrace 1, nos. 179, 180, 181, 182a, 183, 184, 289, 192, 241.

160. Servius, preferring the tradition that the Penates came from (Lauro)Lavinium, denied

this. On Servius's tradition as the result of a later "distortion" of Varro's "idiosyncratic" interpreta

tion of the Samothracian Theoi Megaloi, see Cole (supra, n. 82) 101-3.

161. Lewis, Samothrace, 1, n. 179.









thrace, Aeneas dedicated the arms taken from the victorious Danaans and fixed

a shield on the entrance pillars to the Temple of Apollo at Actium. Servius (In

Aen. 3.287) added the fact that this shield was dedicated by Aeneas in thesanctuary at Samothrace, thereby implying thatAeneas had stopped at Samo

thrace on his journey fromTroy to Italy.162t is not known who actually invented

this version of the myth, but it is not difficult to understand how such a tradition

developed, given the fame of the Samothracian cult and its location on the sea

routes, and Roman interest inSamothrace.Dionysius ofHalicarnassus reported

(Ant. Rom. 1.50.4) that Aeneas and his Trojans established "at Actium a sanctu

ary of Aphrodite Aeneias and near it a sanctuary of Great Gods, which have

remained inexistence down to

my

time."Modern scholars have

generally

inter

preted this as a reference to the Samothracian gods.163

The association of Samothrace with Actium and Apollo was only one step in

an intricate interweavingof Samothracian religion, Trojan origins, andApollonian propaganda inAugustan religious politics. This progressionwas a complexone and cannot be discussed here, but it is worth noting barbarian Cybele's

prominent place in the new Palatine topography andAugustan ideology. The

House of Augustus was built on the Palatine between the new Temple of Apollo

and the older temple of Magna Deum Mater Idaea, which Augustus had re

built.164 An aristocratic Claudian, according to the Augustan tradition, had es

corted the Great Mother to the city of Rome; a freedwoman of the empress was

chosen as priestess of Cybele, and Livia herself was later to be depicted as

Cybele afterAugustus's death.165Vergil (Aen. 10.220) gaveCybele theVenusian

epithet of alma, andOvid (Met. 14.531-64) incorporatedCybele into theTrojan

saga as the "benign" mother who saved Aeneas and his pinewood ships from

Turnus. The wall painting of the House of Augustus indeed made reference to

the goddess and her proximity. The so-called Room of the Garlands featured

branches of pine around the walls.166 While garlands are a usual feature of

Roman wall painting of the second style, pine ones are rarer. The pine was

especially sacred to Cybele, and her March festival included the bringing of a

162. Ibid. no. 241b;Cole (supra, n. 82) 101.

163. Lewis, Samothrace, 1, no. 241b.

164. The older temple, erected in 205 B.C. at the command of the Sibylline Books, burned

down in A.D. 3. The reconstruction received specialmention in the Res Gestae (19).165. Ovid (Fasti 4.291-348) and Livy 29.14.12: "matronaeprimores civitatis inter quas unius

Claudiae Quintae"; CIL VI 496: ONESIMVS OLYMPIAS/LIVIA BRISEIS AUG. LIB. SAC./

M.D.M.I.; F. Bomer, "Kybele inRom: Die Geschichte ihresKult alspolitisches Phinomen," RM 71

(1964) 130-51, esp. the appendix "Claudia quinta"; on the Capitoline relief, 146-51; D. Porte,"Claudia Quinta et le problem de la lavatio de Cybele en 204 J.-C.," Klio 66 (1984) 93-103; M.

Bieber, The Statueof Cybele in theJ. Paul GettyMuseum, Museum Publication no. 3 (Malibu, 1968)

figs. 2-6, 13. Sardonyx cameo with Livia with the attributes of Cybele holding the bust of Divus

Augustus is also illustrated in E. Simon, Augustus: Kunst und Leben in Rom um die Zeitenwende

(Munich, 1986) fig. 211.

166. G. Carettoni, BdA 46 (1961) figs. 1-3; "La decorazione pittorica della casa diAugusto sul

Palatino," RM 90 (1983) color pl. 2,2.









tree to her temple on the Palatine. Cybele, accompanied by a corybant, is

depicted in sculpture on the Sorrentine base among the chief divinities of the

Palatine and the Houseof

Augustus.167It is not impossible thatAugustus himself visited Samothrace, nor is there

any intrinsic reasonwhy he should not have been an initiate, although nothing is

heard of either supposition. The survivors of Philippi had fled to Samothrace

(Cornelius Nepos, Atticus 11.2), andAugustus made a number of trips to the

East when he would have had occasion to visit, as numbers of other Romans had

done whether from Macedonia or on other trips along the sea route from the

Troad to Thrace and Macedonia.168 Augustus's interest in religious matters is

well known; he was initiated in at least one other Mystery cult, that of Eleusis,

twice, both times at least in part for political reasons.169 Earlier Sulla and proba

bly Antony had also been initiated into theEleusinianMysteries (Plut. Sulla 26;

Anton. 23).170 The two Mystery cults of Eleusis and Samothrace were compared

in antiquity, and some men seem to have been initiates of both.171 Germanicus in

A.D. 18 had attempted to visit Samothrace with the specific object of "sacra

Samothracum visere," according to Tacitus (Ann. 2.54), but had not been able to

land because of the winds. Hadrian later, sailing by way of Asia and the islands

to Greece, visited Samothrace and may have participated in the rites.'72 He is

known to have been an initiate of the Eleusinian Mysteries; in this he followed

the example of Heracles and Philip, according to the ScriptoresHistoriae Au

gustae (Had. 13.1).But ifAugustus did not visit Samothrace, other Romans did, and any num

ber of government officials, military personnel, or businessmen could have

brought back detailed descriptions of the Arsinoeion even if a Piso would seem

the likeliest source. As unique a monument as it was, in size, in shape, and in

167. G. Rizzo, "La base di Augusto," BullCom 60 (1932) 92-100, pl. 5;M. Guarducci, "Enea e

Vesta," RM 78 (1971) pls. 67, 68.

168. G. Bowersock ("AugustusonAegina," CQ 58 [1964]120-21) gave an account of Augustus's trips to the East.

169. Augustus was initiated first as mystes in 31 B.C. (Cass. Dio 51.4.1), seemingly as part of his

propagandistic program againstAntony's portrayalof himself as a newHeracles and a newDionysus

(D. Kienast, Augustus: Prinzeps undMonarch [Darmstadt, 1982] 375 n. 34). Augustus was initiated

for the second time, when he probably became an Epoptes (second degree) in 19 B.C. (Cass.Dio

54.9.10), on his return trip to the East when he stopped at Athens on the way home. The two

dedications reported byDio were unusual and have been variously explained. R. Bernhardt ("Ath

ens, Augustusund die eleusinischen

Mysterien,"AM 90

[1975]233-37)saw itas

partof the

problemof the relationship of Augustus and Athens. A review of the problem is found in K. Clinton, "The

Eleusinian Mysteries: Roman Initiates and Benefactors, Second Century B.C. to A.D. 267," ANRW 18

(1989) 1499-1538, esp. 1507-9 onAugustus.170. Kienast (supra, n. 169) 375 n. 34; compareBernhardt (supra, n. 169) 236.

171. Lewis, Samothrace 1, nos. 205-8; Cole (supra, n. 82) 25, 92. Appian (Mithr. 63) said that

Sulla was staying at Samothrace at the time of a pirate raid in 84 B.C. Later that same year he was

initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries, according to Plutarch (Sull. 26). It ispossible that he was

initiated at Samothrace as well (Cole 82).

172. Cole (supra, n. 82: 100) shows that the evidence for this is slim.









sitingwithin the sanctuary, itwas undoubtedly widely known. M. L. Thompsonhas suggested that a Pompeian painter even used the round domed building in a

landscape paintingin the tricliniumof theCasa del Orfeo to

identifythe site of

Samothrace for a Roman patron who wished to commemorate his own initiation

at Samothrace bymeans of aparticularpainting program.173hompson hypothesized that the Arsinoeion may have come to be a symbol of the sacred site of the

Mysteries. She thought the painting in the Casa del Orfeo may have illustrated

the storyof Kadmos and Harmonia.74 K. Lehmann had noticed theparallelwith

the historical romance of Philip ofMacedon and Olympias and believed that

Olympias might therefore have had a part in the dedication of the temenos.175

Thompson went on to suggest that a painting program associated with the Samo

thracianMysteries was a creation of theHellenistic period handed down throughtraditionalpattern books. A painter such asApelles, who, as the courtpainter of

Alexander the Great, was closely associated not only with Alexander but with

his Ptolemaic successors, also patrons of the Samothracian sanctuary,might have

commissioned such a program for a building of the sanctuary like the temenos.

Apelles did compose two sets of pendant paintings of political and religious

character, one honoringAlexander. Augustus himself had dedicated two paint

ings of Apelles with Alexander as subject in his forum (Pliny,NH 25.10.27,

36.93-94); one of the panels representedAlexander with theDioscuri and theother his triumph.The panels were originally intended for Ptolemy I andwere

brought to Rome from Alexandria by Augustus.176The existence of another

Hellenistic painting cycle involving royalMacedonian personages, historical or

allegorical, has also been suggested as a prototype for thepaintings of theOecus

of the Villa of P. Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale.177 The allusions here to Alexan

der coincidewith the political claimsmade by the generals of theLate Republicsuch as Pompey around the time of thewall painting (50-40 B.C.).W. Kovac

sovics has even assumed that wall painting was one factor in the dissemination of

prototypes forRoman tombs.178

At this point the hypothesis proposed in this studymay be summarized

namely, that the Arsinoeion of Samothrace may well have been a leading building

173. M. L. Thompson, "A Pompeian Painting of a SamothracianMyth?" Essays inMemory ofKarl Lehmann (NewYork, 1964) 329-43.

174. Thompson (supra, n. 173) 339 for the relation of thepainting and itspendant ina programmatic context in thisPompeian house.

175.Thompson (supra,

n.173)

342-43, nn.40,

41.

176. E. Schwarzenberg, "The Portraiture ofAlexander," Alexandre leGrand: Image et reality,Entretiens sur l'Antiquit6 Classique (Geneva, 1975) 256-60. For the position of these paintings in

the forum and their relationship to other Alexander references, seeMarrone (supra, n. 54) 35-41;

Menichetti (supra, n. 54) 575-83 n. 27 with bibliography.177. K. Fittschen, "ZumFigurenfries der Villa von Boscoreale," Neue Forschungen inPompeji

und den anderen vom Vesuvausbruch 79 n.Chr. vershuttetenStadten (Recklinghausen, 1975) 93-100

with bibliography; B. Andreae, "Wandmalerei augusteischer Zeit," Kaiser Augustus und die

verloreneRepublik (Mainz, 1988) 282, cat. no. 130 (reconstructionof theOecus).178. Kovacsovics (supra, n. 16) 21.









in the design of the Mausoleum of Augustus as a dynastic monument, given this

series of factors: (1) the fame that the Arsinoeion must have had in the ancient

world as a unicum of architecture, the largestroundbuilding of theperiod; (2) theimportant role the Arsinoeion played in the Samothracian cult and the relation of

these rituals to its round form; (3) the conspicuous place thatSamothrace occu

pied in the Late Republic, given thepopularityof theMysteries invarious levels of

Roman society and the corresponding correlationmade between Samothracian

and Roman religion and legend, in particular that of Aeneas and the Penates; (4)

the importanceof theMacedonian and Ptolemaic rulers for the development of

the architecture on Samothrace and the precedent these rulers set for the Roman

ruler cult initiated by Augustus; and (5) the influence of Alexander and the

Macedonian involvement at Samothrace onAugustus.In the last section it is necessary tomention briefly other buildings that

belong to the Arsinoeion's type. The Arsinoeion, as mentioned above, is a

thymele. There is, then, a strong connection between the Arsinoeion as a

thymele and the group of circular buildings and temples known as tholoi. F.

Robert made the classic study of the relation between thymelai and tholoi.179 At

the heart of Robert's study was the problem of the function of the labyrinthine

crypt beneath the circular building known as the thymele in the Sanctuary of

Asclepius at Epidaurus (Fig. 4). According to Pausanias (2.27.3), this round

building was called a tholos, but the preserved fourth-century construction ac

counts use the term thumela.180 Evidently by Pausanias's time the meaning of

thymelewas no longerunderstood, and the circularbuildingwas known only byits generic term, tholos. While the time and trouble taken for the construction of

the architecture, with its rich ornament and its position at the heart of the

sanctuary near the abaton and the temple, bear witness to the great importance

of the thymele for the cult of Asclepius, it has been more difficult to determine

exactly what aspect of the cult it served. Most scholars seem to agree that the

extraordinary arrangement of the inner foundations suggests a special cultic

function, but the exact nature of this is still debated.181

At the tholos of Epidaurus an opening in the floor gave access to the founda

tions, which consist of six concentric rings forming a maze (Fig. 5).82

Only the

179. Thymele: Recherches sur la signification et la destination desmonuments circulaire dans

architecture religieusede la Grece (Paris, 1939); a review of his book by L. B. Holland inAJA 52

(1948) 307-10, and a recent critique in Seiler (supra, n. 106) 2-3.

180. IG IV.12 103, lines 125, 162, cited inRobert (supra, n. 179) 259;A. Burford, TheGreek

Temple Builders atEpidaurus (Liverpool, 1969) 63 n. 63, account nos. VI 125 and 162 for the term

thumela or thymela (Burford's transliteration and spelling).181. A convenient summary of the debate and older references are given in Burford (supra, n.

180) 65-68, and Seiler (supra, n. 106) 85 n. 338.

182. For the construction date and debate as to whether all six rings belong to one building

phase, compare N. Yalouris, "Epidauros," PECS 312;Robert (supra, n. 179) 298-304; G. Roux,

L'architecture de l'Argolide aux IVe et IIIe siecles avant J.-C. (Paris, 1961) 134. A. Tomlinson

(Epidauros [London, 1983] 61)most recently has stated that "there isno doubt thatdespite suggestions to the contrary, all six rings belong to one and the same building period."









three interiorwalls have openings,which lead into three annularcorridors, each of

which contained a partition runningcrosswise, closing off thepassageway inone

direction.183In order toget

from the outerring

to thecenter,

one was forced to

walk thewhole circuit of each passageway and reverse direction in thenext, or to

make, in other words, a complete turn around the circular space at the center.

According to F. Robert and G. Roux, the center contained the bothros, the

chthonic altar forbloody sacrifices.184 thymele, then,was abuilding forchthonic

sacrificesmade at a bothros. There was probably access to the crypt through a

wooden staircaseor a ladder, although theplacement has been contested.185

The Greeks who built the labyrinthinecrypt under the tholos of Epidauruswere probably aware of thewell-known myth of Theseus and theMinotaur and

the tradition of the Cretan labyrinth.The Epidaurian labyrinthwith its annular

corridors is similar to some of the representationsof the labyrinthofKnossos on

ancient coins.186Robert thought that the architect of the Epidaurian thymelewould have also known of the geranos danced on the occasion of the Delia at

Delos, sacred toApollo.'87 According to Plutarch (Thes. 21), thisdance, which

imitated the turns and detours of the labyrinth,was brought toDelos byTheseus

on his return fromCrete. On the FranqoisVase, Theseus leads the dance with

the chorus of Athenian boys and girls whom he rescued from the Minotaur.188

Lucian (De Saltatione 49) gave a listof Cretan dances by the names of Labyrin

thos, Tauros, Daidalos, Ariadne, etc. and indicated that there were probablyseveral types or names, which supposedly imitated the twists and turnsof the

Cretan labyrinth.The dance, performed in an interlacingchain, was quite cur

rent in ancient Greek cult, and representations are found early inGeometric and

Archaic art.189 Its exact disposition could vary; more often it was composed

exclusively of women, but sometimes men were included. This general type of

183. Yalouris (supra, n. 182) 312;Windfeld-Hansen (supra,n. 1) 59; the fullestdescription andthe best plan of the crypt and illustrations of the annular corridors are in Roux (supra, n. 182) 132-36

pls. 37, 40.

184. Robert (supra, n. 179) 159-60, 179-80, 259-68, 339 fig. 14, 350 fig. 17;Roux (supra, n.

182)135-36.

185. Robert (supra, n. 179) 347-53; Roux (supra, n. 182) 136, 194 n. 4; Tomlinson (supra, n.

182)61; Seiler (supra, n. 106) 85 n. 334.

186. Windfeld-Hansen (supra, n. 1) 59-60; Robert (supra, n. 179) 306.

187. Robert (supra, n. 179) 313-15.

188. The interpretation of the frieze on the neck of the Franqois Vase has long been debated. F.

Johansen in his monograph on this scene, Thesee et la dance t Delos (Copenhagen, 1945), tried to

separate the victory dance celebrating Theseus's andAriadne's rescue of theAthenian youths fromthe Minotaur on Crete from the Delian geranos or "crane" dance. According to Johansen, the two

dances had not yet in the time of Kleitias, the painter, been associated. E. Simon (Die griechischen

Vasen [Munich, 1976]72-73 pls. 52, 54, fig. 2) notably has argued the alternative view that the vase

portrayed the rescued Athenians performing the geranos on Delos. Recently H. A. Shapiro has

questioned whether the "nearly stationary" movement on the vase is in fact a dance at all (Art and

Cult inAthens [Mainz, 1989] 146 pl. 66a with a summary of the older argument and bibliography and

his new reading).189. Johansen (supra, n. 188: 13-44) gave examples and illustrationsdepictingTheseus and the

victory dance; see the references given above forpossible Samothracian dances and theirprototypes.









dance was also known in Italy, in Etruria, and inMagna Graecia, as the rare

hydria of Polledrara and the unique wall painting from a tomb at Ruvo inApulia

certify.190While this

typeof dance was not in itself a

funerary one,it assumed

such a character at Ruvo, where the chorus is understood as specifically

circumambulating the body of the deceased.191Robert had compared the significance of the ritual course around the corridor at Epidaurus both to the legendary

Cretan dance and to the Italian equestrian maneuver.'92 Since the thymele at

Epidaurus was devoted toAsclepius as dead hero and god, he supposed that the

worshippers made the rounds of the circularpassages in the cryptbefore arrivingat the center to make the funerary and chthonic sacrifices at the bothros.

The rituals of circumambulation and the rites of purification and lustration

connected with the magic of the circle and circular movement have long been

known to have played an important role inGreco-Roman religion. Among the

Greeks the thymele of course was not only a circular building housing a chthonic

altar but the center of the theater orchestra or circular dancing place for the

chorus, where dances of cultic origin and dramatic performances toDionysuswere performed.193Circularmovement was considered by theRomans to have a

cathartic effect and was used in annual festivals such as the Ambarvalia,

Ambilustra, and Amburbia.194 The purification of an altar before a sacrifice was

of great importance to both Greeks and Romans. Romans practiced the lustratio

making one or more, often three, turns around the altar where the rite took

place.

190. The six panels from Ruvo are now in the Museo Nazionale at Naples, and the hydria of

Polledrara is in theBritishMuseum. This writer appreciates the reminderof the Ruvo painting byone of the readers of her article. The date of the painting has been lowered to the second half of the

fourth century B.C. by F. Tine Bertocchi in "Le danzatrici della tomba di Ruvo," RivlstArch 11

(1963) 9-27; La pittura funeraria apula (Naples, 1964) 33-50. A particular form of the chain dance

known as the "tratta" is the type depicted on the hydria of Polledrara and on the Ruvo walls

(Johansen [supra, n. 188] 30-40 figs. 15, 17;Bertocchi 13).While the dance scene on the Etruscan

hydria (dated to the last decades of the sixth century B.C.) is said to be Theseus's victory dance and

has been identified as a prototype of the Ruvo painting by M. Johnstone (TheDance inEtruria

[Florence, 1956] 51-56, cited byBertocchi 12, 20) and Bertocchi herself (13) thought itwas possiblethat the choral dance of Ruvo would be a "local expression" of the mythical dance of Theseus, she

found Maiuri's definition of a "threnos" of women surrounding the dead in the ritual moment known

as "prothesis"more convincing (A.Maiuri, Roman Painting [Geneva, 1953] 15, 17-18). Bertocchi

noted that the depiction of a funerary use of this type of dance was an "unicum" in Greek painting; it

was particularly significant that itwas not found on Apulian or southern Italian vases.

191. In addition to the fact that the frieze was found to extend around the walls of the tomb, an

old watercolor depicts the frieze as surrounding the open grave, which contains skeleton and vessels

(Bertocchi [supra,n. 190]21-23 fig. 19).Although thedrawing cannot be dated precisely, Bertocchi

thought it had probably been done prior to 1833, the year of excavation, when the tomb was found

already robbed of its contents.

192. Robert (supra, n. 179) 319.

193. The concrete thymele seems to have been the low sacrificial platform or altar in the center

of the orchestra; the term was probably expanded to the circle of the orchestra itself (M. Bieber, The

History of the Greek and Roman Theater [Princeton, 1961] 14, 54, 126 fig. 224).

194.Windfeld-Hansen (supra, n. 1) 59 nn. 3,6.









But the ceremonies of circumambulationwere best known for their use in

the cult of the dead, where they had both a purificatory and an apotropaic

character. The chain dance around the tomb in the exceptional wall painting atRuvo was mentioned above. The literary sources above all give us famous exam

ples of these rituals.195 hen Odysseus (Od. 11.26-28) sacrificed to the dead in

theNekyia he began by making three libations,which he poured around the

trench. InHomer's description of the funeral of Patroclus atTroy (II.23.12-14),Achilles and theMyrmidons made three turns on horseback around the body of

Patroclus. Statius (Theb. 6.215) in describing the funeral of Archemoros at

Nemea was quite precise about the lustration.After the chthonic libations have

been

poured,

the

Argives

turned three times ex sinistro orbe around the funeral

pyre and then reversed and did three turns to the right. Plutarch (Alex. 15)described an occasion that showed that this typeof ceremonywas adopted by the

Macedonians. Indeed it may have been one that served as a precedent for

Augustus in the design of his tomb. When Alexander the Great visited the

tumulus of Achilles near Troy, he and his companions poured a libationof oil

over the hero's funerary stele and then ran nude around the tumulus. This type

of ceremony was continued by the Romans and was later depicted in Roman

relief on the well-known base of the Column of Antoninus Pius.196 In the Roman

military decursio, soldiers paraded around the funerarypyre of the dead chief

and later the rogus of the emperors. The horseman rode in one direction and

then reversed.

The decursio was probably related to the Roman equestrian dance called

Troiae lusus, which also recalled the Cretan and Greek dances mentioned ear

lier. Vergil (Aen. 5.545-603) gave a full description of a Troiae lusus in his

account of the funerary rites in honor of Anchises.197 After pouring libations on

the tumulus of Anchises, Aeneas and his companions invoked the huge snake

from the depths, which made seven turns around the tomb and altars. As part of

his reorganization of the Equites, Augustus had supervised the iuventus, espe

cially after Caius and Lucius Caesar were appointed as principes iuventutis, and it

was in this context that Augustus revived the Troiae lusus for boys of high

rank.198 Vergil and Horace had already celebrated these games and their origins

as part of the Augustan propaganda.199 According to Suetonius (Aug. 43.2),

Augustus gave up these vigorous performances only when one toomany acci

dents caused complaint in the Senate. These "Trojan" traditions of tumuli and

gameswere influential forAugustan ideology, and although thiswriter believesthat the Mausoleum of Augustus cannot be regarded primarily as a "conscious

195. Robert (supra, n. 179) 22, 320-21; Windfeld-Hansen (supra, n. 1) 60.

196. L. Vogel, The Column ofAntoninus Pius (Cambridge, 1973) pls. 9-15.

197. Robert (supra, n. 179) 317-18, 177-78.

198. J.-P. Neraudau, La jeunesse dans la literature et les institutions de la Rome republicaine

(Paris, 1979) 227-34.

199. Kienast (supra, n. 169) 154 n. 114with literarysources.









revival" of a Trojan tradition, such customs were always of great importance for

Augustus, asR. Holloway pointed out earlier.200

H. Windfeld-Hansen has been theonly

scholar to stressadequately

the

importanceof the annularpassages of theMausoleum ofAugustus.201Accordingto him, it isprincipally in Italy thatmausolea with annular corridors are found,

and they nearly all date to the Empire.202 The Mausoleum of Augustus is the

only mausoleum extantwith two annular corridors.203 he likeliestprecedent in

Italy for these annular corridors was the tholos of the Sanctuary of Fortuna

Primigenia at Praeneste.204 This tholos was formed of two concentric walls

around a circular hall with an annular corridor between the two walls.205 The

tholos of the sanctuary at Praeneste was the aedes Fortunae, which held the

famous gilded statue of the oracular goddess described by Pliny (NH 33.19.61)and the area of the sortilege.206 As the earliest tholos built in Italy it was an

importantprecedent for the Roman tholoi.

The purpose of the Roman funerary annular corridors was a ritual one; they

served the rites of circumambulation of a lustral character used in the cult of the

dead.207 The function of the two concentric passages of the Mausoleum of Augus

tus (c and d of Fig. 1) ismade clear by the actual structure of the tomb. The annular

corridorswere used for ritualprocessions because the dromos (e inFig. 1)does not

lead directly to the sepulchral chamber (b inFig. 1), as it does inmost of the other

round Roman mausolea, but ends in front of the second circular wall (2 in Fig. 1).

"The visitor to the tomb is then forced to enter into the outer corridor in place of

passing through one of the two narrow doors cut in the second circular wall to the

left and to the right of the place where the dromos empties into the corridor. Thus

the visitor is forced to traverse the length of the exterior passage and thus in this

way to make a complete turn around the sepulchral chamber. The same thing

happens when he arrives into the interior passageway by one of the two doors

mentioned above. It is only then after having made the circuit of the sepulchralchamber twice that he can pass through the door opening into the first wall and

thus arrive into the [sepulchralchamber]."208

200. Holloway (supra, n. 9) 171-73. I am grateful to Ross Holloway for having read an earlier

version of thispaper and for his criticism and practical suggestions.He isnot tobe held responsibleof

course for the positions advanced here.

201. Windfeld-Hansen (supra, n. 1).202. Ibid. 35. Outside of Italy the only three funerarymonuments with an annular corridor

known areNumidian ones inAlgeria (50-51).203. The Roman mausolea of the empire have only one corridor (ibid. 39-41).204. Windfeld-Hansen (ibid. 57) cited the rotunda of Fortuna and a large cistern near Lake

Bracciano as the nonfuneraryRepublican structures formed with two concentric walls.

205. Windfeld-Hansen (ibid. 57 nn. 2, 3) cited the differences in opinion as to the exact

construction of this "rotunda";more recentlyH. Riemann, ("PraenestinaeSorores," RM 95 [1988165 n. 169) included a note on the current interpretationsand bibliography.

206. Riemann (supra, n. 205) 65.

207. Windfeld-Hansen (supra, n. 1) 58, for earlier references.

208. Ibid. 62-63.









The thymele of Epidaurus is the only tholos, or circularGreek buildingwith

a subterranean labyrinthformed of circularpassages, thathad a cultic function.

Robert had earlier pointed out the funerary character of the cult of Asclepius,mortal hero and god, as well as the chthonic character of the thymele.209 The

tholos was a place of heroic cult celebrated in the labyrinth at the bothros after a

triple lustration of the annular passages. G. Roux, after asking two additional

questions-(1) why itwas necessary to construct the chthonic altarundergroundin the thymele, and (2) why such a sumptuous building was necessary for a

simple bothros-concluded that the tholos was the "fictive tomb" of Ascle

pius.210R. A. Tomlinson likewise came to the conclusion that the likeliest func

tion of the labyrinthine foundations of the thymelewas a ritual one connected

with the particular forms of sacrifice to the heroic dead.211While Asclepius was

honored as a god mainly in the temple with his cult statue, the thymele reflected

chiefly the heroic aspect. Its conical roof rose like a tumulus over a burial

chamber.

The tholos of Epidaurus offers the most likelyGreek precedent for the

annular corridors of theMausoleum of Augustus. Furthermore, the tholos, the

second architectural order of theMausoleum, was placed atop the tumulus

tomb with its three inner circular walls and two annular passages around a cella

in the same manner as the splendid cella of the tholos-thymele at Epidauruswas placed above the labyrinthine crypt with its three concentric walls and

annular corridors. Or the tholos as a funerary temple of the Mausoleum and at

Epidaurus was placed above a system of circular walls and annular corridors

that contained at the center a sepulchral chamber in the Mausoleum and a

bothros at Epidaurus, which came to symbolize the tomb of Asclepius. More

over, not only tholos and thymele but also tholos and tumulus were understood

by the Greeks to be related. It is generally admitted that the oldest common

type of Greek tomb, the tumulus,may have been inspired by theMyceneantholos and its mound.212

It would have been important for the architects of the Mausoleum of Augus

tus to have Greek prototypes. The Augustan preference for the neoclassical stylein art and architecture is well known and has been exemplified in the Campus

Martius in the Ara Pacis.213 The fact that Greek tholoi furnished the precedent

for the round temple as the second architectural order of theMausoleum would

209. Robert(supra,

n.179)

327, 337.

210. Roux (supra, n. 182) 190-94. Roux emphasized the literary examples of funerarylustrationwith three courses in particular.Moreover, the particular ornament, phialaiwith twelve

cavities on the exteriormetopies, and the plants and flowerson the ceiling-the acanthus and poppy

capsule-were of a symbolic funerarycharacter (Roux 195-96 pl. nos. 52, 1, 3).211. Tomlinson (supra, n. 182) 66, 57.

212. Some of the Bronze Age circular tombs known as tholoi were accessible in later periods

(Lawrence [supra, n. 106] 239).213. A. Borbein, "DieAra Pacis Augustae: Geschichtliche Wirklichkeit und Programm," JdI

90 (1975) 242-66.









have doubled the exemplary force of the famous tholos-thymele at Epidaurus.The supposition that lustralrites and dances took place in the circular spaces of

both thetholos-thymele

ofEpidaurus

and of theArsinoeion of Samothrace

emphasizes the symbolic importanceof these roundcult buildings for theMauso

leum, a tomb, and therefore a building normally considered to belong to the

category of funerary monuments rather than to cultic ones. But as J.-C. Richard

has pointed out, the mausolea came to play a role in the cult of the divi.214 Dio

Cassius as a rule used the term mnemeion or mnema for the tombs of Augustus

and of Hadrian and reserved the term heroon for a sanctuary whose erection

followed the consecratio of an emperor.215 But Dio Cassius reported that the text

of the Res Gestae that Augustus had engraved on bronze stelai was put up pros to

heroon, that is, as is known, before the Mausoleum. Likewise Dio Cassius

(63.26.5) used the term toAugousteion todesignate both theMausoleum and the

Temple of the Divinized Augustus.216The Mausoleum of Augustus, then, was

not merely a funerary monument but a cultic one as well. It served as an Au

gusteum or temple for the living ruler and later for a daily sacrifice to the divus

Augustus.217Thus sacrificial libationswere probably poured both to chthonic

powers in this Greco-Roman custom and to the dead emperor as a deified hero

in a heroin, and in particular in the manner of those toAlexander in the Sema at

Alexandria. It is even possible that sacrifices or libations took place at the

Mausoleum while Augustus was still alive.218

But if in Dio Cassius's terms the Mausoleum of Augustus, a round dynastic

monument, was also a her6on or anAugousteion, the chief prototype found

among the group of famous Greek tholoi was the Philippeion of Olympia. At the

very heart of theMausoleum was the center pillar, which, while itmay have

owed its structure in part to similar pillars in Etruscan tombs, supported on the

Roman Mausoleum an epithema, which was the monumental statue of Augustus,

usually said to be a statua loricata. The Roman cuirassed statue had Hellenistic

214. J.-C. Richard, "Les funerailles des empereurs romains aux deux premiers siecles de notre

&re,"Klio 62 (1980) 467-69.

215. Richard (supra, n. 10) 374 n. 1, and Richard (supra, n. 214) 468, for a list of the passages

inDio Cassius.

216. Richard (supra, n. 214) 468 n. 1.

217. Richard (supra, n. 214: 469) spoke of the mausoleum's resembling a temple in that itwas

the "theater" of a daily sacrifice to the divus of Augustus.

218. In 30 B.C., immediately afterAugustus's triumphalreturn fromEgypt, theRoman Senate

issued a consultum that ordered a libation be poured to the Genius Augusti at banquets. D. Thomp

son (supra, n. 97: 122-24 nn. 1, 2, 4) pointed out the Ptolemaic origin of the libation bowls used in

the practice inaugurated by this decree as well as those used during festivals in which citizens pledged

their loyalty to the emperor in public vows. The new-year date, on which important vota publica were

given, was shifted in the early days of Augustus to the time of the spring festival of Isis. Coins related

to the new-year festival in Rome show Serapis and Isis as the presiding deities. F. Coarelli (supra, n.

32: 790-91) has pointed out that the coherentAugustan constructionprogram in theCampusMartius

with itsEgyptian references included the templeof Isis joining theSaepta. The votapublica and their

sacrificial libations were also offered on occasions other than the new year, such as the victorious

returnof Augustus from his campaigns.









prototypes based on Alexander theGreat;219therefore the topmost element as

well as the tomb itselfwas probably influencedbyAlexander's precedent. The

Philippeion was essentially built, as Pausanias tells it (5.20.9-10), to contain thestatues of theMacedonian royal family. The statues were placed on a curved

base in the interior of the circular cella.220 he Philippeion was begun by Philip II

after the fall of Greece at Chaeroneia in 338 B.C. (Paus. 5.20.9-10) and was

finished byAlexander, since Philip died two years later in 336 B.C.Alexander's

statuemay in fact have stood as the center of the group.221 lthough themonu

ment could doubtless fall into the conventional class of politically and religiouslymotivated anathemata offered by the Greek cities or by single rulers in

panhellenic sanctuaries as thanks for a

victory,

the

Philippeion "consciously

and

provocatively distanced itself" from the Greek norms as a closed peripteral

building distinguished asmuch by its rare and rich architectural forms as by the

chryselephantine statue group.222The Philippeion had been placed by Philip inproximity to thePelopeion and

to the prytaneion and the Heraion.223Robert had thought that the idea that

determined both the architectural type, a heroin, and the placement of the

Philippeion was the notion of the "perpetuity"of "an exceptional royal race"

tied to an old architectural form, the tholos,which symbolized both fertility and

the cult of the dead.224Stella G. Miller suggested thatPhilip's placement of the

tholos next to thePelopeion was done toemphasize his own and theMacedonian

tradition of royal lineage fromHeracles, a great-grandson of thehero Pelops and

the founder of theOlympic Games, according to Pausanias (5.13.2, 7.9).225The

propagandistic importance of the portrait statues and the tholos built to displaythem was not only guaranteed by their famous Athenian sculptor but by their

costly and rarematerials, gold and chryselephantine, the latterusually reserved

in the Classical period for cult statues.226 Thus the statues insinuated or pro

claimed the heroic character of theMacedonian dynasty aswell as itscontinuityand possibly its immortality. In this sense, at least, itmay be loosely character

ized as a heroin, even if the possibility exists that it was actually built as a

treasury.227 The tholos in any case was adopted for theMacedonian ruler cult by

Philip and Alexander and served as a prototype forAugustus's use of the tholos

219. K. Stemmer, Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Chronologie und Ikonographieder Panzer

statuen,DAI Archaeologische Forschungen, 4 (Berlin, 1978) 133-39.

220. S. Grobel Miller, "ThePhilippeion andMacedonian Architecture," AM 88 (1973) 191-93;

A. Borbein, "Die griechische Statue des 4. Jahrhundertsv.Chr.," Jdl 88 (1973) 66-67.221. Borbein (supra, n. 220) 66 n. 105;Seiler (supra, n. 106) 98 n. 411.

222. Seiler (supra, n. 106) 100.

223. Seiler (ibid. 90 n. 372) has a summaryof different explanations of itsplacement.224. Ibid. 404. Borbein (supra, n. 220: 66-67 n. 106) also notes that the tholos was a building

type that often served as a heroin.

225. Miller (supra, n. 220) 192; also Seiler (supra, n. 106) 100 n. 418.

226. This point is still debated; see the bibliography in Seiler (supra, n. 106) 102 nn. 426, 427.

227. Borbein (supra, n. 220) 67 n. 107with references; compare Seiler (supra, n. 106) 100 and

n. 429.









in the imperial cult.228 Thus the two architectural forms associated here with

Alexander-tumulus of the Macedonians and of the Sema at Alexandria, and

tholos of Olympia, the Philippeion-were influential in the two architecturaltypes, tumulus and tholos, joined in theMausoleum of Augustus under the

shadow of the statua loricata that witnessed not only to the funerary heroin but

to the divinizing character of an Augusteum as well in the manner of itsMacedo

nian predecessor.A major thesis of this study has been that the circular forms of the Mauso

leum of Augustus, both tumulus and tholos,were not just amatter of typologybut of ideology and symbolic form. The tholos in particular in the Greek world

could

signify

in turn

thymele,heroin, and ruler cult, and the rituals connected

with them. While the tholoi-thymelai of Samothrace and of Epidaurus both

supplied architecturalprototypes for the round forms, the force of theprecedentwas doubled atEpidaurus, where the annularpassages of the crypt furnished an

example for those of the base of theMausoleum, just as the Greek tholos above

did for the funerary temple atop the tumulus. These buildings as thymelai also

served ritual purposes, which were probably intrinsic to their round form. It is

true that the labyrinthine form of the crypt at Epidaurus implies the rituals of

circumambulation more explicitly than the round space and uncertain floor level

of theArsinoeion assure the possibility of ritual dances there.While the annular

passages of theMausoleum undoubtedly served the rituals of circumambulation

of lustral and funerary character, and while it is reasonable to assume that

sacrificial libations were made both to the living ruler and then to the divus

Augustus at theMausoleum, both heroon andAugousteion according to Cassius

Dio, there is no proof that the Mausoleum was a thymele as the Arsinoeion and

tholos of Epidaurus were. Instead of a bothros at its center, the Mausoleum

contained a small chamber with niches for the funerary urns, and at the cella's

core the tall columnar support for the emperor's monumental statue. The tomb

was raised, moreover, not for the worship of a dead hero but early in the reign of

a living one. While there may have been an altar, possibly even a bothros,

located somewhere in theMausoleum, the interior was in ruins after the Renais

sance and the second order no longer extant.229

But there was a famous and comparable chthonic altar not too far off in the

228. Two Greek tholoi were used for the imperial cult in the Augustan period. The exact date

of the appropriationof theTholos ofAthena Pronaia atMarmaria isnot certain, butDelphi probablyinstituted a cult of the emperors there inApollo's largerprecinct in the same period as other

Augustan monuments, such as the temple of Apollo on the Palatine or the victory monument at

Actium, and as the reorganization of the amphictyony. Shortly afterActium, Augustus also erected

his own tholos (monopteros) on the Acropolis at Athens, the Temple of Roma and Augustus,

devoted to the dynastic cult.

229. The inner core of the Mausoleum with the two annular rings had been leveled and

effectively destroyed in the Renaissance when the Soderini had transformed the interior into a

garden in 1549 (P. Virgili, "A proposito del mausoleo di Augusto: Baldassare Peruzzi aveva

ragione."Archeologia Laziale 6 [1984]209-12).









Campus Martius, the so-called Tarentum, an altar of the mundus type and a

trenchwhere sacrificeswere customarilymade toDis and Proserpina, theunder

world deitiesbrought

from southernItaly.230

ut in 17B.C.Augustus andAgrip

pa, serving as quindecemviri for the celebration of the lustralceremony of the

Ludi Saeculares,231 acrificednot to those chthonic powers but to theirheavenly

counterparts,Apollo andDiana, now radiant solar deities asHorace's Carmen

Saeculare,written specifically for theoccasion, proclaimed.Diana was inevitablyovershadowed by theApollonian propaganda afterActium, which reached to

ward a solarmonotheism. Augustus not only had twoobelisks, Egyptian "pillarsof the sun," placed before his Mausoleum, but two others were brought from

Heliopolis: one was set up in the Circus Maximus, where it served as the spina,

and the other in the Campus Martius as gnomon or sundial of the Horologium.

This obelisk read: Soli donum dedit. It was the first obelisk brought to Rome

from Egypt; the solarium in fact was one of the Augustan victory monuments, as

the inscription also stated:Aegypto inpotestatempopuli Romani redacta.232

The impact of the Augustan architecture on the Palatine and on the Campus

Martius brought with it reflections of Hellenistic dynastic ambitions and the

influence of the Ptolemaic ruler cult upon the ideology of theRepublic. While

Augustan policy was undoubtedly made in fits and starts as the emperor re

sponded to political exigencies, much seems to have been inspired and set inmotion shortly after Octavian returned from Egypt. Thus the monuments of the

Campus Martius were aligned with Hellenistic ruler cults and dynastic ambitions

early on. The Mausoleum, inspired by the tomb of Alexander and the Phi

lippeion, was begun in one part of the Campus Martius, like the Pantheon in

another.233 The Augustan architecture of the Campus Martius, then, revealed a

particular unity of symbolism and foresight from this early date. E. Buchner in

his exposition of the Horologium of Augustus showed how the solar clock itself

was tied to the birthday of Augustus under the sign of Capricorn. Moreover, the

Mausoleum and later the Ara Pacis were strictly aligned with the solarium in a

monumental complex.234 This writer has maintained that Greek prototypes were

as integral a part of the Mausoleum as they were for the Ara Pacis, although both

monuments received new content and context. That Augustus should have built

230. Reeder (supra, n. 47) 325-27 with references to the older literature.

231. For the ceremony of the Ludi Saeculares and related lustral rituals involving Diana and

these deities, see J. Poe, "The Secular Games, theAventine, and the Pomerium in theCampus

Martius," CSCA 3 (1984) 59-68.232. E. Buchner, "Solarium Augusti und Ara Pacis," RM 83 (1976) 320 pl. 109, 1 (CIL VI

602). The obelisk erected in the Circus carried the same inscription (CILVI 701).233. F. Coarelli ("IlPantheon e l'apoteosi di Romolo," Citta e architetturanella Roma impe

riale,AnalRom Suppl. 10 [Odense, 1983] 41-66) suggested (46) that theMausoleum of Alexander

was probably the Hellenistic model for the Pantheon as well as for theMausoleum of Augustus.

Nevertheless, the original Pantheon of Agrippa is thoughtprobably to have had a rectangularcella

and not a round one (W. L. MacDonald, The Pantheon: Design, Meaning, and Progeny [London.

1976]60-62).

234. Buchner (supra, n. 232) 320-65 figs. 14, 19.









his tomb at so early a date has often seemed worthy of comment. That artistic

emblems as imperial icons and architecture as symbolic form so soon elaborated

a planned totality of Hellenistic dynastic ambition and ruler cult is even moreremarkable. Or as Buchner eloquently expressed it, the symbolism enforced a

thematicunity from birth to grave.235

Providence, R.I.

235. Ibid. 365.








REEDER Figures 1& 2

X

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

:i

Fig. 1. Plan of the Mausoleum of Augustus (from Gatti

[supra, n. 33: (1934) fig. 31; letters a-e added by this author).

....'~:..........

':..-_

ii

',:".~

i'i

?.:..|

; : :s:;:

!..:oi

... .:.......".

2Gat'ig.. Pla:nf he Mausoleum of Augustus (.from Gatti 3 .

[supra,. 33: 1934)ig. ]; etters-e addedythisuthor).

': L

*: o ..:.: ~~~~~~~~?~??''.'^..'^3_*"_**l.|i

......~~'~~; i~:~"'" __M

'~ ,:~..

?,b?*:,?..:,.

.?...:,.' u.?.~~_9":........

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

:.a_...........................?...?.....'.:'..:'

,'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;' : '.'?

yyI || |. ... ...: . li | _c -::s -.w -si . .r

",~"~" . ~it_s

Fig.2. Gatti's reconstructionf theMausoleumofAugustus (supra,n. 33: [1938] ig.13).








Figures 3 & 4 REEDER

0. OUX.L'ARCHUCURIISL'ARIOOMID PL

;,'.!:..'.:';:: . iinm {- thjM).?^?j.<kfri feimi t. .'

Fig. 3. The Arsinoeion at Samothrace (restoration drawing by G. Niemann in Conze

.': ffi .. .. ,..' .- ....:.: ....

ii. .

:[supra, n. 108: p. 54]).

Fig. 4. The tholos at Epidaurus (section; from Roux

[supra, n. 182: pi. 39]).

*f... ' I II:.0 *

..i~ l'3.i;':.', - . . _ | | ....,":':'.Z".::-..,;,~..

" :' .:i t;.};:!,

?..i:. 'J~ .. ...:

....








REEDER Figures 5 & 6

G. ouX.L'mICiIlCEUBrBJIGOLEG P

0____O SO__ 5 10M

|l i?Al.kIrMaM iNrm. dr~lF<mkm?*l f I l C"-SI.dm.

Fig. 5. Plan of the crypt of the tholos at Epidaurus (from Roux

[ibid.: pl. 37]).

.P.

. :... : ..'

. . .. .*? . . . . . ............:......:.:........ .

*i i!..:. '.!

? . . :...... . . . . . .

..' ;':,'".:i.9s:: . '

Fi. . R e o s r u t o o hMsle f A u utsom (bHvHeb g

fro Z a kesIa.2f ig 5])

typology and ideology in the mausoleum of augustus. tumulus and tholos

Documents