structures in‘pan-Hellenic’sanctuaries, on the one hand, and small
shrines in indigenous sites on the other, is hard to understand. Why
should it have been acceptable to expend very large sums of money on
the sponsorship of structures in sites of wider Aegean significance,
including more distant sanctuaries like Delos, and not to devote the
same resources in one’s very own sanctuaries?^11
The explanation may lie partly in the realm of international politics and
partly in different ways of understanding human–divine interactions.
Asignificant factor is the religious dimension of relations between rulers
and their subjects. Leaders, whether at the level of kingdoms, regions, or
localities, in Macedonia as in Thrace, held a special, cultic significance,
which had no direct equivalent in the rest of the Aegean. It is tantaliz-
ingly reflected in the deification of Macedonian kings by a range of
northern civic communities, as we can see in a series of inscriptions
Fig. 8.4.Dion, Macedonia: fourth-centurybctemple foundations (centre right);
two shrines built of ashlar masonry with columned entrances (Doric-style in
antis) replaced late sixth-century predecessors in unbaked bricks.investment that Macedonians made in tombs.... Early archaeological remains from non-
mortuary contexts in Macedonia are notoriously poor, which makes the amount of wealth
invested in the burials at Sindos [and similar cemeteries] all the more remarkable’(ibid.
438); Mari 2011b, 458–64; for Argead dedications on Samothrace, see now the contribu-
tions to Palagia and Wescoat 2010.(^11) Bringmann and von Steuben 1995, with a conspectus of Macedonian royal dedica-
tions on Samothrace, 261–6 [cat. nos 233, Philip III and Alexander IV–236]; Delos, 187– 200
[cat. nos 117, Krateros–141, Perseus]; for regional munificence, cat. nos 110 (Perseus’
dedication to Artemis Tauropolos at Amphipolis); no. 111 (Philip V dedicates stoas to
Athena, Beroia); no. 112 (Alexander III, statue groups at Dion); cf. also Bringmann 2001.
Continuity and commemoration 303