Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son ... - Historia Antigua

NOTES TO PAGES 48–49 253
56. Paspalas 2005 argues that this was the error that Philip Arrhidaeus
and his handlers made.
57. See further Carney 2000a: 232.
58. Van Bremen 1996: 142–44.
59. For the tombs once covered by the Great Tumulus at Vergina, see
Drougou et al. 1996 for an up-to-date description of tomb goods. For
the “Eurydice” tomb at Vergina, see Andronicos 1994: 154–61. On the
archaic female burials at Vergina, see Kottaridi 2004a and Lilibaki-
Akamati 2004.
60. See Carney 2000a: 307, n. 91 for discussion and references.
61. Llewellyn-Jones 2003.
62. Llewellyn-Jones 2003: 11 cites Macedonian grave reliefs from the
Hellenistic period that show about a third of women veiled; of course, the
depiction of veils and being veiled are not synonymous matters. He also
notes (2003: 34) that the face veil ( tegidion) only appears in our sources
in the late fourth century when it is worn in Boeotia, Macedonia, Asia
Minor, and Egypt. This timing could mean that the tegidion had a Macedonian
origin. Llewellyn-Jones also argues (2003: 124) that initially, as in
Homer, veiling was an elite custom.
63. Llewellyn-Jones 2003: 200. Tegidion, as he explains (2003: 62), literally
means “little roof.”
64. Dillon 2007: 64, discussing female portraiture, observes that
“bodies were important because the faces were so normative” and argues
that identity was displaced to the body. She also suggests (2007: 66) that
the preference for marble in female statues may have resulted from the
variety of hues of marble and thus the possibility of illustrating the colorful,
expensive nature of elites female clothing. Schultz 2007: 217 points
to the heavy (thus pricey) drapery of the Vergina Eucleia statue and agrees
with Dillon that costume was a defi ning aspect of early Hellenistic portraits
of women.
65. Connelly 2007: 87 argues that priestly dress was “associated with
both royal and divine costume” and points to scepters as common attributes
of priests, queens, and goddesses (and male equivalents). She speaks
of priestesses imitating/impersonating the divinities to whom they were
dedicated.
66. See Llewellyn-Jones 2003: 136–40 on women as conveyers/displayers
of status and wealth. Van Bremen 1996: 142 comments “it is hard
to overestimate either the sumptuousness and theatricality of an elite
woman’s appearance, or the extent of their visibility on the public stage.”
Dillon 2007: 76 deduces that that female statues, since they showed more
costume detail and color than male images, would have attracted more
attention. She also notes (2007: 79) that, thanks to concern for modesty as
well as display, women had to be covered yet conspicuous.