Achilles died at Troy and was buried there, ancient myth and poetry agree. After his corpse was burned on a pyre, a great tomb, or tumulus, was heaped up over his bones. But the tumulus of Achilles is not just a mythological motif; it has also been regarded as a real piece of topography in the landscape of the Troad. At times in antiquity rituals were performed at what was considered to be the tomb, in cult worship of the hero. And many famous visitors, such as Alexander the Great, visited the burial place of Achilles to pay their respects. Over the past few centuries, a number of modern visitors have also sought out the tomb of Achilles, as have, more recently, archaeologists—though they often disagreed about which burial mound was the tomb of Achilles. This paper will explore the intersections between myth, ritual, politics, and archaeology in reference to the burial site of Achilles.
As for visitation to the Troad, much depended on who was visiting and where they were proceeding after that. Xerxes stopped by Troy before invading Greece, sacrificing to Athena and making libations to “heroes,” though we do not hear of his visiting tombs. In 334 BC Alexander the Great, styling himself a second Achilles conquering eastern barbarians, visited the tomb of Achilles. He ran naked to the tomb of Achilles and laid a wreath there, while his close friend Hephaistion performed similar rituals at a nearby mound identified as the tomb of Patroklos. Later still Mehmet II, the conqueror of Constantinople, reportedly visited the tombs of Ajax and Achilles. He was said to have fancied himself an avenger of Troy, but he may have seen a need to appease ancient Greek heroes in this mission, much as Alexander in his previous visit to Troy sought to placate the shade of Priam.
Political considerations are prominent in Philostratus' account of the Thessalian cult worship of Achilles in the Troad. When the Thessalians sided with the Persians during the invasion of Xerxes, it is reported by Philostratus, they abandoned the cult of Achilles. Later under Macedonian rule they returned to the practice because of Alexander's fascination with Achilles. [41] In other words, Thessalian attention to a Troad cult of Achilles reflected how their political rulers identified with the myth of the Trojan war.
(Note 41) Philostratus Heroikos 53.14–53.17.
So, the admixture of politics and religion rears its head again in respect to the Thessalians and Alexander. Paralus will no doubt find that noteworthy. More intriguing are the remarks about Alexander’s non-Homeric conception of separate tumuli for Achilles and Patroklos. What does this mean with regard to Alexander’s visit to the tombs? A man who carried around Aristotle’s annotated version of the Iliad must surely have known the details of the burials. Could a slightly different version of Homer have come down to us than that which was known in Alexander’s time? It’s possible, I suppose, but seems unlikely. Is it more probable that Alexander knew that the heroes were buried together, but didn’t care because the main reason for the visit to the tombs was to demonstrate the importance of Hephaistion and the role he was to play in Alexander’s life; i.e., the honoring of Achiles and Patroklos was secondary to the honor shown to Hephaistion? For if they both were to have run around one tumulus (thought to contain both bodies) the significance of the event as regards Hephaistion’s relationship to Alexander may not have been as apparent. Just throwing out thoughts here …Flexibility about Achilles' tumulus is demonstrated elsewhere in the ancient world. Alexander's ritual actions at the Troad presume separate tumuli for Achilles and Patroklos, which contradicts the conception of Alexander's beloved Homer, according to which the bones of Achilles were mixed with the bones of Patroklos and the two were buried under one great funeral mound. This non-Homeric conception of separate tumuli for Achilles and Patroklos is reflected in other ancient sources, (45) and will often be found in post-antiquity, as we shall see. Not only is there little Homeric interest in the exact location of Achilles' tumulus, but some who claimed inspiration from Homer display little care for what the Homeric passages actually state.
(Note 45) Strabo XIII 1.32, Arrian I 12.1; see Pfister 1909–1912:306–307
Burgess refers to Arrian and Strabo as ancient sources which reflect the “non-Homeric conception of separate tumuli.” Now Arrian’s excerpt is about Alexander’s visit but I don’t know in what context Strabo refers to separate tombs. It may also be in reference to Alexander (which means I missed an excerpt), but unfortunately the relevant page on the Perseus web site seems not to be functioning. But could the conception of separate tumuli that “will often be found in post antiquity” also date back to Alexander’s visit?
All in all it’s a small matter, but I find it intriguing. Thoughts, anyone?
Best regards,
)
) in a single tumulus. If our sources had wanted to suggest separate tumuli, then they should have used the Greek word sema, which is literally used as the equivalent of tumulus in Latin. In fact Plutarch speaks of a stele of Achilles being crowned by Alexander. There could have been a stele of Patroclus next to it on the same tumulus and the two stelae would have been taphoi. Strabo refers to mnemata (memorials) of Achilles and Patroclus, which is also a bit ambiguous and could mean stelae.
