An Archaic Vault in Tomb 3 of Salamis: Architecture, Function and Symbolism

Tomb 3 lies in the Archaic Royal Tombs necropolis at Salamis, where Vitti counts 15 burials from Cypro-Geometric III to Cypro-Archaic I, given as 850–600 BC, and dates the construction of Tomb 3 to around 600 BC. He reconstructs its burial chamber, dromos and large tumulus from the 1964 excavation's published account and the Department of Antiquities records of survey drawings, photographs and descriptions, since the structures are no longer visible. The sections follow the tomb from its location and excavation through its architecture to the function of the vault and a closing comparison with Tumulus 77.

The evidence

Excavation proceeded from the top down and exposed a dome-like construction, the drum that supports it, the dromos and the chamber, while much of the mound around the dome and dromos was left untouched. The chamber is of limestone ashlar with a gabled roof, and the dromos and prodromos have retaining walls in dressed stone and in mud-brick. The tumulus is reconstructed as a nucleus of alternating local soil and stone, a cylindrical drum divided into radial sectors, a rubble buttress and an outer mound laid in horizontal layers. The surviving mud-brick shell of the vault has a curved intrados and extrados, and traces of radial internal walls inform the reconstruction of how it was supported while it was built (pp. 145–162).

The argument

Vitti argues that the vault drew on Near-Eastern building knowledge rather than on Mycenaean tholos construction, and he compares it with the fired-brick vault of Tomb 1336 at Enkomi and with Assyrian descriptions and depictions of arches and domes. Vitti proposes that radial mud-brick courses formed a dome, with the inner radiating walls and probably timber formwork helping to carry it. Vitti reconstructs the vault as hollow and inaccessible, spanning about 9.60 m over the lower dromos where funeral ceremonies took place, so it neither gave a usable chamber nor protected the burial chamber below. Vitti considers structural reinforcement and a reduced mound volume as explanations and rejects both as sufficient explanations, and suggests instead that its place above the ritual area gave it a symbolic role in honouring the dead and expressing the deceased's rank (pp. 157–170).

Tumulus 77 extends the discussion to the political use of monumental burial. Its pyre without human remains has been taken to suggest a cenotaph for Nicocreon, possibly raised by Demetrius Poliorketes, and Vitti reads it as a claim to royal authority. His conclusion sets the hurried, unfinished work on parts of the chamber and dromos against the carefully layered construction of the mound, where ceremonies continued after the burial, and finds in Tomb 3 a combination of local practice with techniques associated with the East (pp. 171–173).