TABLE 7 - The Byzantine City of Amorium

TABLE 7: Literary references to the imperial verde antico sarcophagi
Place of
Mesaritês,
EMPERORS burial De Ceremoniis
ἕτερος λάρναξ
Anonymous list C Anonymous list R HA Chronicon Altinate
πράσινος
ἑτέρα λάρναξ
in pila thesalonica, hoc
1. Leo I (457-474) HA, MC Ἱερακίτης Omitted
πράσινος ἱερακίτις Omitted est in exprusio lapide
ἕτερος λάρναξ ἑτέρα λάρναξ
ND of the
2. Zeno (474-491) HA, MC
Mon. of
πράσινος Θετταλὸς πράσινος Θετταλή Omitted
stone in labro thesalonico
3. Justin I (518-527) Augusta (St. ἐν λάρνακι ἀπὸ λίθου
and Euphemia Thômas) πρασίνου Θεσσαλοῦ Omitted Omitted Omitted in labro porfiretico
4. Constantine IV (668-
685) and Anastasia HA, MJ
5. Constantine V
(740-775) HA, MJ
6. Michael II
(820-829) HA, MJ
7. Theophilos
(829-842) HA, MJ
Michael III
(842-867) HA, MC
8. Basil I (867-886),
Eudocia and Alexander HA, MC
IMPERIAL FAMILY
9. Fabia, wife of
Heraclius HA, MJ
10. Fausta, wife of
Constans II HA, MJ
11. Maria, wife of
Constantine V HA, MJ
12. Constantine, son
of Theophilos HA, MJ
13. Marianos and
Symbatios, brothers Mon. of St.
of Basil I
Euphêmia
14. Theophanô, first
wife of Leo VI and her
daughter Eudocia HA, MC
15. Eudocia, third wife
of Leo VI HA, MC
ἕτερος λάρναξ ἑτέρα λάρναξ ἑτέρα λάρναξ
in pila thesalonicis
Σαγαρινὸς
ἕτερος λάρναξ ἀπὸ
λίθου πρασίνου
Σαγγαρινή Σαγγαρινή Omitted lapide
Θετταλικοῦ ND of the stone ND of the stone Omitted in pila thesalonica
ἕτερος λάρναξ ἑτέρα λάρναξ
in pila alba ex lapide
πράσινος Θετταλὸς Προικοννήσιος Omitted Omitted proconisso
ἕτερος λάρναξ ἀπὸ ἑτέρα λάρναξ ἑτέρα λάρναξ πράσινος
λίθου πρασίνου
ἕτερος λάρναξ πρασίας
πράσινος
πράσινος (λάρναξ) in pila proconissa
λίθου Θετταλικῆς Omitted Omitted Omitted in pila proconissa
ἕτερος λάρναξ ἑτέρα λάρναξ ἑτέρα λάρναξ ND of the
πράσινος Θετταλὸς Θετταλή
πράσινος Θετταλή stone in pila thesalonica
ἕτερος λάρναξ ἑτέρα λάρναξ ἑτέρα λάρναξ
πράσινος Θεσσαλὸς
ἕτερος λάρναξ ἀπὸ
πράσινος Θετταλή πράσινος Θετταλή Omitted
λίθου πρασίνου ἑτέρα λάρναξ ἑτέρα λάρναξ
Θεσσαλικοῦ
πράσινος Θετταλή πράσινος Θετταλή Omitted
ἕτερος λάρναξ ἑτέρα λάρναξ ἀπὸ ἑτέρα λάρναξ
πράσινος Θεσσαλὸς
ἕτερον λαρνάκιον
λίθου Προικοννήσου Ἱεραπολῖτις Omitted
πράσινον
ἑτέρα σταταραία ἀπὸ
λίθου πρασίνου
Omitted Omitted Omitted
Θετταλοῦ Omitted Omitted Omitted
ἕτερος λάρναξ
πράσινος Θέτταλος
ἕτερος λάρναξ
πράσινος Θετταλὸς
ἑτέρα λάρναξ
πράσινος Θετταλή
ἑτέρα λάρναξ
πράσινος Θετταλή
ἑτέρα λάρναξ ND of the
πράσινος Θετταλή stone
ἑτέρα λάρναξ
πράσινος Θετταλή Omitted
Key: HA = Holy Apostles, MC = Mausoleum of Constantine, MJ = Mausoleum of Justinian, Mon. = monastery, ND = no description
Leo
Gramm. Kedrênos
ἐν λάρνακι
πρασίνῃ
ἐν λάρνακι
πρασίνῳ
ἐν λάρνακι
Θετταλῇ
ἐν λαρνάκι
πρασίνῳ
Other
sources
ἐν λάρνακι Patria (ND of
πρασίνῃ the stone)
ND of the
stone
ND of the
stone
Nik. Patr.
(ND of the
stone)
TheophCont:
“ἐν λάρνακι
πρασίνῳ
Θετταλικῇ

TABLE 7 (cont): A note concerning the literary references to the imperial verde antico sarcophagi
The presentation in this table on the literary references to the imperial sarcophagi reveals the inconsistencies of the available
evidence, especially in the case of some of the Byzantine emperors (nos. 3, 4 and 6). The testimony of the Chronicon Altinate, which
refers to sarcophagi made of stone from Thessalonica, is not, however, problematic, since what is almost certainly meant here is
stone from Thessaly. The confusion between the names of Thessaly and Thessalonica is a very common phenomenon in the
sources, mainly from the 11th c. onwards [Avramea, Thessalia (1974), 33-5].
As far as the rest of the inconsistencies are concerned, Grierson has commented on them extensively [Tombs (1962)] and has
tried to identify the real material of each sarcophagus. I generally follow his conclusions, apart from the case of Constantine IV, to
whom I prefer to assign a sarcophagus made of verde antico (while Grierson proposes a Sagarian one) for the following reasons.
The correct identification of the Constantines in the various sources is very troublesome, since the compilers were apparently
confused by:
a) the fact that Heraclius’ son (Heraclius Constantine or Constantine III), grandson (Constans II or Constantine Pôgônatos) and greatgrandson
(Constantine IV) were all named Constantine
b) by the doubtful identity of Constantine Pôgônatos and
c) by the brief three months’ reign in the spring of 641 of Heraclius’ son, Heraclius Constantine, which accounts for the fact that he
was generally forgotten, so that Constans II (641-668) and Constantine IV (668-685) were treated as Heraclius’ son and grandson,
instead of as his grandson and great-grandson respectively 1 .
Since Constans II seems to have been buried in the monastery of St. Gregory at Syracuse, the main problem is to clarify the
information on the tombs of Constantine III and Constantine IV. In assigning the entries in the sources cited in TBL7 to Constantine
IV, I have followed Grierson’s view [Tombs (1964), 32], which seems to bridge quite well the otherwise contradictory information given
by the various sources. As regards the material of the tombs, Grierson follows the Book of Ceremonies and assigns a sarcophagus of
Proconnesian marble to Heraclius Constantine and his wife Gregoria and a sarcophagus of Sagarian marble to Constantine IV and
his wife Anastasia. Grierson generally - and probably rightly - puts more weight on the credibility of the Catalogus sepulchrorum in the
De Cer., since this is not only the fullest but also the earliest (and therefore closer to the events) account of the imperial tombs that we
have. In the case of the Constantines, however, I do not believe that the information in the De Cer., can be taken as correct. My
hesitations are based on the following:
a) The entries in both the De Cer. and the Anonymous lists C and R, which relate (according to Grierson’s view, which I accept) to
Constantine III and Constantine IV show clear uncertainty in the use of the names and many inconsistencies in trying to establish the
right kinship among the various Constantines themselves and then between them and Heraclius. On the contrary, the relevant entries
in the Necrologium are free of any such inconsistencies. Thus, the entry for Constantine III correctly mentions that “Constantinus
imperator, the son of Heraclius was buried in a block of white Proconnesian marble in the church of the Holy Apostles, where his
father is also buried.” (The only mistake in this entry is the name of Constantine III’s wife, who is called Glygoria instead of Grêgoria,
1 Grierson, Tombs (1962), 31, fn. 113.

probably an error due to oversight during copying). The entry for Constantine IV is also correct in identifying this “Constantinus
imperator” as “filius Pogonis”, an attributive that modern scholarship has conclusively assigned to Constans II.
b) The fact that the Necrologium lists all three of the Constantines (without forgetting Constantine III despite his brief reign!) is
stressing even more the reliability of this source for the entries under question.
If we re-examine now the question of the material of the sarcophagi of the two Constantines, we observe that all the entries in the
relevant sources (De Cer., ii. 42; the Anonymous lists C and R and the Chronicon Altinate) agree that the sarcophagus of Constantine
III was made of white Proconnesian marble. We have, therefore, no reason to question this statement. For the sarcophagus of
Constantine IV things are not so clear. While, according to the De Cer. and the Anonymous lists C and R, it was made of Sagarian
stone, the Chronicon Altinate claims that it was made of green Thessalian marble. The testimony of the Chronicon Altinate is also
supported by the independent testimony of Leo Grammatikos, who identifies the emperor correctly and records that the tomb was of
Thessalian marble. This evidence together with the aforementioned lack of clarity, as far as the entries in the De Cer. and the
Anonymous lists C and R on the Constantines of the Heraclian dynasty are concerned, suggest to me that more credit should be
given (at least in this case) to the testimony of the Necrologium 2 . Thus, I prefer to assign to Constantine IV and his wife a
sarcophagus made of green Thessalian rather than Sagarian marble.
2 The overall trustworthiness of the Chronicon Altinate in repeatedly underlined by Grierson [Tombs (1962), 18, 20];: “... in its lists of both tombs and obits the
Necrologium represents an important and in the main a reliable source of Byzantine history” and “...in some cases there are good reasons for believing that the
date given by the Necrologium is correct and that the error lies not in it but in the other source”.