Tumuli

Troad is a landscape that is abundant of various tumuli. Tumuli, which first exemplars were ac- cepted to be erected to the honour of Homeric heroes, were continuously in use in the region during the whole antiquity. Unfortunately, studies on tumuli from Troad are either insufficient or limited. Within this frame, every discovery and its proper scientific analysis gains an essential role.
Nevertheless, such a discovery took place in 2018 as a tumulus located a few kilometres southwest of Parion was rescue excavated under the directorship of Çanakkale Museum. Known as the Beyoba Tumulus this mound and a tomb structure built under it rests on a high hill overlooking one of the plains that were once dominated by Parion. Revealed to be partially destroyed as a result of several illicit excavations the Beyoba Tumulus sup- plied a notable amount of artefacts and an interesting architectural layout. Especially the architecture, reflect- ing a hybrid Thraco-Macedonian character, supplied us with a rare exemplar for its subject matter when the region of Troad is into consideration.
This paper focuses primarily on the more important architectural traits of the Beyoba Tumulus. Within its course firstly a descriptive sharing of the tumulus’ plan, building technique and main architectural traits will be achieved. Following this, in-detail analogies will be established with parallels originating respectively from Thrace and Macedonia. This analogical approach will be further harmonized with certain contemporary local tumuli. By doing so, it is aimed to contextualise the origin and existence of this hybrid structure originating from the Beyoba Tumulus. A further historical and geopolitical contextualisation will also be achieved by the interpretation of this tumular tomb with the historical events of its era.
Keywords: Parion, Thraco-Macedonian tumuli, Late 4th century BC, corbelled roof, barrel-vault

In 2007 en 2008 zijn respectievelijk een boor- en proefsleuvenonderzoek uitgevoerd op een heuvellichaam dat op grond van vooronderzoek als mogelijke Romeinse tumulus met keermuur was aangemerkt. Hoewel tijdens het onderzoek geen centraal graf is aangetroffen, zijn diverse aanwijzingen verzameld die de interpretatie van Romeinse grafheuvel bevestigen. Aardewerk en een OSL-datering van het oud oppervlak onder de heuvel geven een waarschijnlijke datering van de heuvel in de 2e eeuw. De concentratie van grind en tufsteen aan de voet van de heuvel wijzen erop dat er weliswaar een keermuur is geweest, maar dat deze inmiddels geheel uitgebroken is. De heuvel heeft bij benadering een volume van ca. 360 m3, oftewel 4332 (moderne) kruiwagens. De tumulus is opgeworpen op een terrein dat vanaf de IJzertijd al in gebruik is geweest als nederzettingslocatie. In het graf is waarschijnlijk een
bewoner van de 350 m noordoostelijker gelegen villa begraven.
De grafheuvel was zichtbaar vanuit de villa, maar was ruimtelijk en symbolisch hiervan gescheiden door een laagte uit het Laat-Weichselien. Zowel op grond van het criterium belevingswaarde als de fysieke en inhoudelijke kwaliteit, is de grafheuvel als behoudenswaardig gewaardeerd en aangewezen als rijksmonument.

Preliminary data on the moundscape of the Republic of Moldova demonstrate an uneven chronological, cultural and spatial distribution. At present, more than 6100 barrows are documented in various regions of the country and 390 were investigated during archaeological excavations. Based on their spatial distribution, the following local groups can be distinguished: Middle Prut, Dniester-Răut, Lower Dniester and Lower Danube. It is seen that the burial mounds generally follow a linear pattern, are stretched in a line and are closely related to the relief: located on ridges, on high plateaus along the rivers. Of course, it is impossible to understand how the territory surrounding the burial mounds is arranged without explaining the role of the barrow in the ancient landscape. On the one hand, the burial mound itself can be considered as a social and cultural marker indicating the presence of cultural communities and the boundaries of these communities. On the other hand, the reuse of mounds, the expansion of barrow lines in following periods by other cultures gave the barrow cemeteries an active mnemonic role in the ancient landscape. The linear nature of the patterns along which the barrows were constructed does not exclude their probable connection with ancient roads, marking, probably the migration routes. Thus, the next steps of this research are to exemplify how the funeral landscape of North-West Pontic area was organized, to reveal the patterns in the construction of the barrows and using them later by other communities. Or, in other words, how the prehistoric and protohistoric communities shaped the natural landscape according to their ideological beliefs and how the very idea of a tumulus was changing during the existence of this cultural practice.

The village of Pet Mogili is located in the southern part of the Nova Zagora plain, where it reaches the lower ground between the Svetiiliiski and Monastery Hills and connects with the low parts of the relief in the neighbouring Tundzha geomorphological region (Fig. 1–2).
Looters excavated the barrow in the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006. On the top of the mound, they dug a rectangular trench, 2 m wide, 4 m long and 5.50 m deep (Fig. 4). Various artefacts were found in the soil from the ditch: fragments of various ceramic vessels (including black-glazed wares, both Thracian grey-colour wheel-made and handmade vases, amphorae), parts of iron objects (including a fragment of a spearhead), many pieces of wooden beams, and flakes of bronze. In the western part of ditch, the looters unearthed a wooden structure that continues towards the base of the mound. Because of this attemted intervention in the barrow, The National Institute for Monuments of Culture and the Ministry of Culture of Bulgaria organized a committee, on to the barrow. The commission which decided that o be made rescue excavations should be organized of the already demolished burial structure. Thus, at the beginning of 2006, rescue investigations of the mound were undertaken.
The tumulus is part of a necropolis that comprises four mounds in the Golyamata Mogila (Large Mound) locality (Fig. 5–6). The Large Tumulus (Fig. 7) is the largest, about 50 m in diameter and with a maximum height of about 6 m (elevation 178 m). The investigations focused on the southwestern quadrant of the barrow, that covered the looted burial structure.
Stratigraphy (Fig. 8–9)
A mound of homogeneous black soil with an approximate diameter of 26 m and height 2, 30 m was piled on the top of the hill. On top of it, there were split stones of various size (from very small to very large) and potsherds (primarily amphorae). The next layer is of a black soil (probably ancient chernozem), with an approximate diameter of 23–24 m and 1.80 m high in the central part. Over the second layer, a layer of different colour and texture follows, predominantly of white clay with crumbly blue-green stones. Streaks of grayish-whitish earth interspersed with lumps of black earth could be seen in this layer. This embankment has an approximate diameter of 36–40 m and a maximum height of 2.50 m. The height of 1.30 m in the central part indicates that the mound has spread over time. No artefacts were found in these layers. On the top, there is a layer of grey-brown soil, 0.40–0.50 m thick, while in the parts where there were later digs (by looters or others) it reaches a depth of 1.00–1.20 m.
Features
The excavation revealed ten graves in the top layer of the mound (southwestern quadrant), at depths between 0.10 and 0.50 m (Fig. 10). Probably, the deceased were laid in plain pits. The bodies were in extended supine position with folded arms and heads to the west (Fig. 11). In one of the graves, traces of a 0,60 m wide wooden coffin were revealed grave goods. The exact date of the burials cannot be determined, but all graves are Christian. The looted burial structure (no. 11, Fig. 12) was built on an already existing small mound, probably from the Bronze Age. Three pits were dug into one another at the top of that mound. The first one is oval-shaped with measurements of 5.50 x 7.20 m and a depth of 0.80 m. The second pit is rectangular with sloping walls, maximum dimensions of 3.50 x 4.50 m and depth of 0.40 m.
The third and smallest pit is also rectangular dug in the bottom of the second one, with dimensions 1.50 x 2.70 m and 0.25 m deep. A wooden sarcophagus (Figs. 12–13) was built in the third pit. The sarcophagus was destroyed by the looters almost entirely. Separate parts of its base and the vertical walls were preserved in situ (Figs. 13–15). According to the preserved wooden pieces, the dimensions of the sarcophagus were 2.65 x 1.30 m. The wooden sarcophagus is extremely crudely built of massive oak planks. On the planks of the floor, there were traces of white powder (?) (Fig. 15). The deceased was cremated outside of the grave and the burnt remains were laid in the wooden sarcophagus. Then the grave goods were placed in the sarcophagus and it was probably closed with a cover of wooden beams. Then the pit was filled with split stones, rising to a height of 0.70 m and forming a small mound. Over the stone tumulus, there was a cover, probably of perishable materials – wood, wattle, etc. Thereby, the soil could not seep between the stones and an airtight chamber was formed enabling the preservation of the wood.
Funerary rituals were performed above the stone mound and around it in a radius of about 10 m. Potsherds (including amphorae, red-figure pottery, grey monochrome ceramic vessels and handmade pots), burnt bone fragments and small charcoals were discovered between the stones of the mound (Figs. 16–17). A mound of chernozem and white soil was piled above the ritual platform.
Grave no. 12 is of interest (Fig. 18). It is cremation carried outside the tumulus. The burnt remains were collected, cleaned (probably washed) and placed in a ceramic vessel (cinerary urn), buried in the mound. The homogeneity of the mound in this part makes it difficult to determine whether the container was placed in a separate pit or in the one dug for the Grave no. 11. The grave is associated with the rich burial No. 11, which is apparent from the intact ritual platform above it and the sherds of krater-like vessels that are near the urn and the ritual platform. In the cinerary urn, parts of two highly corroded iron fibulae and an iron knife were found mixed with the cremated bones.
Grave no. 11
The vast majority of the finds were revealed in a fragmented state, overlooked or neglected by the robbers.
Weaponry
The elements of the offensive weapons and the armour of the deceased warrior were unearthed in the western part of the wooden sarcophagus.
Offensive weapons
In the grave, numerous pieces of a sword were found. Its type cannot be precisely determined because of their fragmentation and active corrosion. Judging by separate elements, it could be assumed that the fragments belong to a machaira, xiphos or akinakes (Cat.no. 11.1; Fig. 21). More fragments of spearheads were found (Cat.nos. 11.2–3; Fig. 22, 1) with a preserved part of the wooden shaft in one of the sockets (Fig. 22, 1-б); a spear-butt (σαυρωτήρ) (Cat.no. 11.4; Fig. 22, 2); two types of arrowheads, some with wooden shafts coloured in red (Cat.no. 11.5; Fig. 23–24); several shafts of arrows that became stuck to a metal object that is not related to them (Fig. 24, 1); as well as fragments of a scabbard or sword handle (Fig. 32, 2).
Armour
In the Pet Mogili burial, there were also iron scales (Cat. no. 11.6, Fig. 25–27) that belong to an object that is not fully preserved or deposited in its entirety. The scales are applied to leather (Fig. 25). The typological and chronological similarity between the scales from Gorski Izvor and Pet Mogili as well as the undertaken analysis indicate that the piece of armour placed in the Large Tumulus near the village of Pet Mogili is a scale helmet.The elongated-conical shape and dimensions (total height c. 35–40 cm) of the object support its identification as a scale helmet (Fig. 26). Apart from the chronology of the burial and the use of specific types of armour during this period, another primary argument for interpreting the object, as a scale helmet is a bimetal (gold and iron) socket (Cat.no. 11.7, Fig. 27, 1). The object is hollow; and was attached to another part, resembling a small stand (Fig. 27, 1). A scale helmet in Vasil Bojkov Collection has a similar socket (Marazov 2011, 94, Cat.no. 6, Marazov and others 2012, 141, 158, Cat.no. 6). Onthe helmet from the private collection, this extra piece is mounted at the top of the calotte, as is the case with the Pet Mogli helmet (Figs. 26, 2; 27, 2). The small size (length 6 cm, see Cat.no.11.7), the shape and the place of the object, as well as the similar example in Vasil Bojkov Collection give us reason to identify the shaft from Pet Mogili as an element on the calotte of the scale helmet used by the warrior. The discovery of bell cuirass elements in the Large Tumulus near the village of Pet Mogili is also one of the main arguments that a scale helmet was placed in Grave 11. We suppose that elements from a bell cuirass were preserved in the grave on the base of an iron fragment (No. 11.8, Fig. 28, 1). The piece is the most
specific detail of the bell cuirass conical extension.....

The summary is too long, according to the requirements of the Academia, so you can see the full summary in the article

Focusing on the interpretation of a shared, widespread and particularly perplexing iconographic theme, this book compares explanatory frameworks in different schools of archaeology including Classical, Egyptian and Chinese, and importantly challenges a prevailing material skepticism that eschews and even invalidates religious and afterlife beliefs as a part of ancient social identities.

The papers largely concentrate on pictorial depictions of banqueting and/or food offerings and how they might be understood in such settings, although some papers consider tomb deposits and furnishings. Traditionally, three main interpretative paradigms have been employed in 'deciphering' such images: 1) they represent worldly activities, either quotidien or idealised, 2) they represent an imagined pleasant afterlife (and therefore evidence this belief) and 3) they represent funerary or mortuary rites. Such interpretations have been challenged by scholarship that refutes the validity of these strict, divisive categories, but in concentrating on social structures embedded in the images, has tended to eschew potential eschatological aspects of meaning. Collectively, the papers here reconsider this matter, making significant contributions to discussions of ambiguity, agency, interaction, performance, the role of the viewer, the issue of 'meaning', and the various ways in which images can be approached and used.

Contents

Preface
Introduction: what lies beyond? (Draycott)

1. J. Fabricius, ‘Hellenistic Funerary Banquet Reliefs – Thoughts on Problems Old and New’.
2. P. Amann, ‘“Banquet and grave”. The material basis, aims and first results of a recent research project’.
3. G. Robins, ‘Meals for the dead: the image of the deceased seated before a table of offerings in ancient Egyptian art’.
4. N. Harrington, ‘The Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian banquet: ideals and realities’.
5. D. Bonatz, ‘Syro-Hittite funerary monuments revisited’.
6. E. Baughan, ‘Burial klinai and “Totenmahl”?’
7. C.M. Draycott, ‘Drinking to Death. The ‘Totenmahl’, drinking culture and funerary representation in late Archaic/early Achaemenid Western Anatolia’.
8. S. Lockwood, ‘Family matters: the interpretation of Lycian “funerary banquet” reliefs’.
9. A.M. Carstens, ‘Bridging the boundary: the sacrificial deposit of the Maussolleion of Halikarnassos and its symbolic language’.
10. M. Tsouli, ‘Testimonia on funerary banquets in ancient Sparta’.
11. C. Lawton, ‘The “Totenmahl” motif in votive reliefs of Classical Athens’.
12. M. Stamatopoulou, ‘Banquets in the painted stelai of Demetrias’.
13. M. Kalaitzi, ‘The theme of the banqueter on Hellenistic Macedonian tombstones’.
14. T. Mitterlechner, ‘The banquet in Etruscan funerary art and its underlying meaning’.
15. L. Audley-Miller, ‘The banquet in Palmyrene funerary contexts’.
16. A. Slawisch, ‘Reading the image? Ambiguities in the interpretation of banquet scenes on grave stelai from Roman Thrace’.
17. M. Nylan, ‘At table: reading and misreading funerary images of banquets in early China’.

Envoy (O. Murray)

Review
F. Hobden, JHS 138 (2018), 290-291 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-hellenic-studies/article/abs/cm-draycott-and-m-stamatopoulou-eds-dining-and-death-interdisciplinary-perspectives-on-the-funerary-banquet-in-ancient-art-burial-and-ritual-colloquia-antiqua-16-leuven-peeters-2016-pp-xxxviii-690-110-9789042932417/15C83FDE7C1A0CC3814ACDBD69BF057F

The following analysis emerged as an attempt to explain and contextualize a very rich grave, already historiographical notorious, with analogies equally famous, traditionally dated around the middle of the 4th c. BC, discovered in 1970, at Peretu, Romania, 40 km north of the Danube. The main objective of the study was to explore how (and if) this ostentatious display of authority, consumed in the symbolic domain, was linked with other processes of rising collective identities in North Danube Thrace, as suggested to had taken place by a series of neighbouring fortified sites dated approximately in the same period with the grave. These sites stand out through their particular technique of building defences based on using burnt clays in the construction of their enclosure walls. The interpretations will be partially based on recent interdisciplinary investigations (geophysical & aerial) undertaken in several fortified sites of the Teleorman region. In the two-three decades before the Macedonian rule, these fortified sites were already focusing the attention of regional communities around a cultic component. In a broader framework the study examines the processes of social growth, authority centralization and emergence of collective identities occurred during the early Hellenistic period in peripheral territories of the Macedonian rule. North Danube Thrace exhibited after the wars of Philip II and especially during those of Alexander’s Successors a particular vivid demographic development. It is stated that this development, including the wealth visible in several graves, was triggered by the Macedonian coin and political interests of the Diadochi that used North-Eastern Thrace as a secondary stage in their power competition through proxy.