Archaic Themiclesia

Archaic Themiclesia, or the Archaic Period, encompassed the period from the advent of written history in 385 BCE until the 265 CE, a period of 650 years. Despite the existence of written history, the record is sparse, especially compared to the following Classical Period. Until recently, it was only possible to construct a chronology of rulers for much of this period, though after the introduction of archaeology and other methods of analysis, a better image is emerging.

Archaeology

Starting from 1866, a series of ancient tombs were found in Themiclesia and systematically excavated in the decades following. This effort co-incided with a renewal in historical interest in the Archaic Period, particularly the desire to assign absolute dates to the various rulers mentioned in the annals.

Tomb evolution

There is a well-known evolution in rulers' tombs that appears in the Archaic Period.

The earliest style of major Archaic burial is known as the Linear Burial. Its defining feature is that the principal (the person for whom the burial was made) was buried in a pit of modest size, while other pits were laid out in a (more or less) straight line aligning with the principal pit. Goods of bronze, stone, and ivory and representative body parts of victims were then buried in these pits, which together with the principal pit always were an even number. A long pit was dug parallel to the sequence of pits, into which the remaining cadevars sacrificial victims were buried. The principal row was probably topped, when the burial was new, with a roofed structure; this may have been the ruler's actual residence in life and converted to his shrine in death.

The quantity of these victims, together with the general richness of burials, was waxing during the last part of the Dark Ages through the Early Archaic and rose to a maximum during the High Archaic. 4-pit tombs (already large in the Dark Ages) grew to 10-, 12-, and (in one instance) 16-pit tombs; one tomb came to house over 300 sacrificial victims. Capstan wrote in his 1886 study that it "is shocking to see that the headless bodies of most victims were left outside of the principal row... only a their heads were fit to be buried in it", but other views have been offered of this practice.

It is agreed amongst scholars that this linear configuration of pits mirrors the residences of rulers in this period, which was a long and narrow building, under a continuous roof but divided into several rooms of various functions. In such buildings, the end-rooms were often the largest, and in combination with the configuration of Linear Burials, they are probably to be interpreted as the ruler's chambers.

The material richness of the burials was ostentatious and encompassed objects of both close and distant relevance to the principal. Often, thousands of arrowheads and dozens of daggers, swords, axes, and spears were buried in one of the chambers (usually the fourth, fifth, or sixth away from the principal).

The apparent gruesomeness of the royal burials of the Archaic Period has been the subject of much expounding for decades, seeking to explain the ethical or spiritual basis for such a practice. This "flood of blood" strongly contrasts with the mildness and tenderness that has been reputed of many Archaic rulers. One view is that generosity and kindness showed by the principal dead was done towards members of the aristocracy, who were also responsible for the cultural memories of the principal dead.

It is quite possible that not all the victims were slaves in the estate of the principal dead but were funerary gifts presented by those who were (morally or economically) indebted to the principal dead. Such repayment attests to and re-affirms the kindness of the principal dead. Alternatively, the principal dead could be generous to his household slaves, and this could be part of the kindness remembered culturally. There is evidence that kindness towards slaves was a virtue rather than a vice, as it was said of Prang VI, whose "kindness touched even the slaves and slavewomen of the household" (仁眔于室臣妾). But his successors would invariably send a part of his household into the afterlife with him, and this again is considered the successor's kindness and generosity towards the principal dead by giving up part of his inheritance for the benefit of the principal dead, rather than cruelty towards the slaves in the estate.

After the High Archaic (c. 250 – 100 BCE), the quantities of both grave goods and sacrificial victims began to recede, and so did the general form of the burial mutate. Rather than the richness per se of grave goods, the physical size of the burial began to see emphasis particularly in the south, with graves dug deeper into the ground, some reaching as much as 15 or 16 metres under the contemporary ground, compared to 2 to 3 metres in the Early Archaic (though signs of deepening were shown in the High Archaic).

But whereas most of the victims in High Archaic burials had their heads buried separately, almost as property, the Late Archaic to Transitional major burials had subsidiary burials that possessed their own grave goods. A key type of subsidiary burial was the retainer burial, which is first found in an unattributed tomb dating to around 150 BCE. This retainer was some 20 to 25 when he was (probably killed to be) interred with his master, who died perhaps 15 or 16. But unlike the other 47 sacrificial victims in this Linear Burial, the retainer was buried in a full suit of armour, helmet, dagger, axe, and arrows. Such an arrangement must have been unorthodox, for it implies the retainer has personal property that did not belong to the master. Yet this custom began to spread some decades later in the Late Archaic.

By the start of the Common Era, it was not uncommon for major burials to be surrounded by these subsidiary burials. They were hardly rich especially in comparison with the principal burial.

See also

• Themiclesia