Here it is Pauline - I found this interview more clear than the presentation at the university, and making transcripts of that 2hr event would have been a waste and would confuse even more. So, here is a selection of Q&A from Lefantzis interview, I was doing this slowly since Saturday. I do not do translations for a living, so do not assume a word by word accuracy on what I provide below.
That is also a caution for anyone who may take this translation and put it in another website, assuming these are the exact words of Lefantzis. If you are unsure about some parts, I can listen again and clarify the exact wording. Parts in parenthesis are my notes, parts with (...) are skipped, there are also nice discussions in the beginning and the end where previous works of Lefantzis are mentioned. Contributions to Kasta's excavations from many unknown scientists and workers in the ministry and Amphipolis are also mentioned. I left those out, since it really takes time to make these translations. The answers Lefantzis gives are still not clear in many parts, but anyway the interview is still nice, I think.
The sound recording I used was found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ4vhoZ39h4
I hope you find it useful for our discussions.
(1) What is exactly that you claim the findings show. There is still confusion, multiple interpretations concerning what you announced. Is what you found a heroon for Hephaestion, a tomb for him and how is this justified?
An issue is that there are numerous misunderstandings in the communication of the results, maybe because people did not dig enough into what has been presented and publicized in the latest announcements or the ones of the year before. It is not possible for Ms. Peristeri to present within 50 minutes in an obvious and understandable way what has been put forward as a working hypothesis that this is a heroon for Hephaestion. It is clear (that what we claim) is that this is a heroon dedicated to Hephaestion. Beyond that and in the burial part of the monument there is still nothing striking that gives as information about the identity of the buried or the nature of the burial(s). For this to be answered it is still required to do lots of work and to combine findings and other evidence (...) What has also to be done is to generate a discussion in a scientific (not media) level and I hope soon we will do that in a dedicated conference/workshop where the findings and all facts can be presented (...)
(2) So what you recently presented was incomplete?
That was an introductory presentation (note: required by ministry rules, if I am not mistaken) that presents some of the last years findings
(3) Still you reached some conclusions and made interpretations that you should justify.
That is true, there are some conclusions deriving from very specific findings, that we should not be in a hurry to evaluate them from a distance. These have to be presented for analysis and discussion in front of experts.
(4) In the end what is your justification for assigning Kastas as a heroon for Hephaestion. You presented an inscription - is that alone sufficient for connecting a monument with a person?
That is a building inscription which is repeated with the exact same text at least three times in the marble material of the monument. This indicates receipt of part of the material of the monument or part of the monument. For me it corresponds to the receipt of part of the wall (peribolos). There were several construction groups/contractors building the peribolos and deliverables for part of the construction were associated with this text. This word (Π)ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ (...) is not written on the final surface of the marble's processing, it is written before the final working of the stone's front surface. That means that (the inscription was added) when the marble blocks were received with the initial rough processing of the marble and the rustication, then the final processing was done.
(5) But is that still enough to make the connection to Hephaestion?
No, let me first say that we have been speaking about this monument since 2013. We made two conference presentations, 2013 and 2014 in Thessalonike. What we said from the start is that the "emvatis" (characteristic unit of measurement/construction of the monument), all the construction aspects, the geometry, the architecture of this specific monument was giving us indications that there are very specific connections with Alexandria's architecture.
(6) What does that mean?
(...) For me the evidence for an architectural study is in the the marble, the limestone blocks, the way these have been placed on a foundation, the construction methods are what interest me the most. So, to tell you first how things started. I went to Amphipolis not for Kastas. I was researching a specific monument in the south of Acropolis in Athens, requiring to study a ancient gymnasium that is preserved in the best possible condition. No such gymnasium exists in Athens (too few findings), the only one, important gymnasium with influence from Attica preserved in a good condition is at Amphipolis and was (initially) excavated by D. Lazarides in the 1980s (his daughter continued the excavations afterwards) (...). In order to understand the Gymnasium with the archaeologist P. Lazaridi and in order to understand its position with respect to the ancient city, a detailed plan of which was not available then besides the (fortification) walls, it was necessary to start searching/scanning the whole area. At some point, when K. Peristeri saw that I had identified, with the help of P. Lazaridi, scattered parts of the gymnasium, she invited me to see the start of the excavation she did at Kastas when she had discovered few meters of the peribolos wall (mostly the limestone part).
(7) But going back to the Alexandria links, do you mean you found similar type of monuments in Alexandria and/or other regions?
There are similar (from an architectural aspect) in Greece, Minor Asia, middle East and remaining in the north of Africa, these are still studied for their morphological, typological aspects and through a comparative approach.But connections started to appear with the discovery of the peribolos. It was the peribolos that finally connected all independent evidence. For instance, initially we found the peribolos and identified with K. Peristeri the Strymon blocks as being part of that structure, that is almost 500 blocks at Strymon + 100 at Kerkini lake. Note this is the largest quantity of material in second/third use identified with its original monument in the latest years. We studied all this material piece by piece and taking into account past studies. Important scientists have studied these parts and the lion, Broneer, Roger, Miller and they all concluded that they belonged to an important Hellenistic monument of the 4th century BC, during the reign of Alexander or slightly afterwards (**note that actually Miller gives also a possible dating of the marbles in the 2nd century BC, Bakalakis only places them at the 2nd century BC**).
(8) You have been criticized that what you publicize as conclusion never come with a scientific justification (publication or otherwise).
When in 2012 we found the limestone support of the peribolos and presented that, everyone came out and said, "so what, that is just a wall". Then we found the first orthostate and some other marble blocks and based on that I prepared in 2012 and presented a proposed reconstruction of how the peribolos looked like, before we find any well preserved part of it. Most people disregarded that as impossible but our prediction was later confirmed and was presented in the conference in 2013. (...) Then the criticism was that the tumulus had nothing inside. (...) (*** the following sentences were somehow mixed between Q&A with the journalist***) It is natural for the criticism to adjust, we can only use our work in order to offer a rebuttal. What we presented (recently or in other meetings/events) is something that we seriously thought about a lot before publicizing.
I can also reassure you that before publicizing all these findings and interpretations, we collaborated with many scientists. For instance, I collaborated with Professor Poul Pedersen from Denmark, who is for 30-year the architect studying Halicarnasus plus numerous other scientists that studied similar monuments. Do you know how the idea that the lion of Amphipolis was associated with the Kastas tumulus came into being? That came out from discussions with Poul Pedersen because he told me that the lion of Amphipolis cannot be on its own. He suggested that the base of the lion should be (on?) a burial monument. Similar to the Hallicarnasus Mausoleum, the lion should be included in a necropolis/cemetery and that necropolis should be limited by a crepis/peribolos. Where the lion is today there is no cemetery and no crepis wall. The peribolos of Kastas is a crepis wall defining an "avaton". This is the most innovative part that the designer of the monument did.
(9) Going back to the inscription, what is its importance, what does it imply?
It defines the receipt of the building that is a heroon, that will be proven and we will see the (??epigraphic aspects??) that for me it was for Hephaestion.
(10) Is that because of the seal at the end of the inscription?
It is not a seal. That monogram or compilation of letters is a combination that will be studied about what exactly it is. Τhat is a subject of epigraphics for which many experts will have a word. I don't have this expertise, I am an architect and I am therefore interested in an building/construction inscription. In general it expresses the receipt of part of a building project, besides that the "monogram" will be studied. I believe that since the monument is dated in the last quarter of the 4th century BC, it must be connected to Alexander. Alexander did not construct anything else in the form of a burial type of monument apart from the heroa and the Babylon pyre of Hephaestion according to the sources. He also tried to rebuild or fix temples of Artemis. Some of these works may have only be partly completed (...) And that heroon for Hephaestion was built at the point where the campaign for Asia begun. Exactly in front of the Hill 133 and Kastas, in the northern part of Amphipolis's necropolis - which by the way we should remember that Amphipolis was an Athenian colony - that is where the fleet was constructed.
(11) What about the ANT?
(...) The ANT was found at 4-5 points on the well preserved peribolos. This cannot be the mark of a random technician - he would never use such a mark. In Macedonia there are nowhere monograms like this on buildings. They (appear to?) exist however outside Greece.
(12) Where?
I cannot tell you yet, but if these other buildings are from Antigonids, then why not this one?
That means first of all that discussions about this being a roman building should be re-evaluated (...)
(13) One may say again that this is a working hypothesis.
That is not a working hypothesis - that is one of the few well-associated monograms that we know from coins. That is not debatable. Even if we find a dead body and show it they will tell us its not - that is not possible (..) A monogram of the Antigonids is that, obviously (..) which by the way we have in no other construction in Macedonia. If we do have them, well, lets see then what is that construction and who built it? (...)
(14) Explain us why the lion should be on top of the Kastas hill.
The basic argument is that when you have such a lion it should have a (large?) base and be interred in a crepis. To understand lions of such size, posture etc, one should study similar ones. One is at Ecbatana where this is associated to a heroon of Hephaestion - that is where he died -, one at Chaeronia associated with the battle that Philip won and it was on top of the tomb of the Thebans, or maybe not, it could have been elsewhere, nobody knows until today. These are the three most important lions (for our case), the Amphipolis one and these other two. The lions have similar typological characteristics. From the Mausoleum and similar type of monuments we understand that such lions should be be interred in a crepis, which is limited by a peribolos. The lion today is in the middle of nowhere. And something else: 99% of the marble used in the area comes from Kastas. All other buildings excavated is from limestone. The only (large scale?) order of marble for this area was for Kastas. Parts of the Kasta complex, from the peribolos and the lion's base have been used up to the 5th century AD in the Christian basilicas in the acropolis of Amphipolis. There are also pieces from the lion's base. There is a huge piece of a frieze that has yet been presented and is being studied. These pieces have been found at the tumulus or very close to it.
(15) What does it show?
It shows a macedonian scene, with soldiers etc and I am sure it belonged to the marble base of the lion. Also, we should clarify from now on that with regards to how the lion was found, since everyone says it was found where it is today 5 km away from Kastas, that this is wrong. I have studied all records describing the discovery of the lion. The peribolos was dismantled by the Romans and parts were placed at three dams in the strymon in a 5km radius. These begin from the Kerkinitis lake and reach until down, in the south. Many of these pieces were collected at some period, that is the 1st world war. Before 1916 all these were found scattered. The lion was found in 16-17 pieces. These are not complete. Part of the head is missing, same for the jaw. These were spread in a area 2.5-3 km wide, very far from the present position of the lion.
(16) Artificial tumulus or hill?
(...) This is a natural hill filled artificially at a 30% level. There was a small collection of highlands, these contained an old cemetery. On top of that there was a artificial correction/smoothing, that in some places it is 15 m high, in other 8-9 m high.
(17) Can this artificial tumulus support the lion?
We had geotechnical studies for that. The lion together with its base is 15.8 meters. The foundation found on the top of the hill has been studied by Mr. Egglezos (geotechnical engineer of the team) and from others, he calculated the loads etc. and they found that the (hill + foundation) could support 3000 tons, not just 500 tons. That is the weight of 3-4 lions. (...) Parts of the lion
have also been found the last two years at the Strymon, 3km away from its present position and very close to Kastas. That is still unpublished, but a part is its scapula (...) (so with the lion on top of the hill) we have a heroon. That defines the initial intention of the designer. What happens afterwards amidst a complex history, the heroon may have been used for other things, even for burials completely unrelated to the initial purpose of the monument. We do not know that, we have to continue excavations and the study of the findings.
(18) The tomb, although very luxurious, is only a small part of the complex
The tomb is the only visible and possible to visit part of the tumulus (at the beginning of its history). It was a part for cult/worship. Above the peribolos there was a "δίστηλος εν παραστάσι με αέτωμα" (something like this:
http://www.arch.uoa.gr/fileadmin/arch.u ... mg-i08.jpg). This had also shields and was visible from km. The chambers was part of a cult and the usage for a cult is visible in the flooring. I can't say more on that. The chambers were used for many years and were subject to fixes. It is not known to the public that there were numerous fixes but one may hear e.g. from the presentation of Ms. Peristeri that the macedonian door was added during a repair.
(19) What about the frieze inside the tomb?
This was added together with the roof that was needed in order to keep the mosaic in good condition against humidity. The frieze was added on blocks that were supposed to hold the roof and were added a bit later. The frieze shows the dead person's recognition as hero and part/scenes of his life and connections to the Olympian gods. There are also references to dionysiac cults. That is not a roman addition.
Also, there is a misunderstanding from the recent presentation. The representations shown at K. Peristeri's slides are not guesses or random drawings or my own fantasy. That is a mistake. The frieze was photographed with special techniques and filters, and from these (**some technical terms used**) we assigned lines and colours so that we can reach some conclusions (...)
(20) Is what we see on the frieze representative of the burial in the final chamber that was found in bad condition?
I won't answer to that. We need to say many things before that before understanding clearing out what is going on. We need first to explain when the cist tomb was constructed, when the arch was added and the connection to the peribolos in the same period. Until that is clear, we cannot say anything.
(21) Do you mean you still have no result on the above?
No we have, but these are not yet as conclusive as others. There are many things to say, its not enough 1 hour to talk about that. It is more appropriate to have a dedicated conference for that where all involved in the excavation can speak and any other scientist who wants to contribute/talk is invited.
(22) The burial chamber has two spaces?
The burial trench had a separator for a kline and a urn. It should be investigated whether that connects to the representations on the frieze (e.g. many double features). Note that the frieze was added later together with the Macedonian door (...) There are several phases, first the cist tomb, then the arch, separating walls etc, then repairs.
(23) Why should somebody connect an old burial with this luxurious tomb?
That is a subject for the archaeologists. What I can tell you is that the Kastas hill/tumulus has on its top more than 100 burials starting from the iron age. This area was limited by the peribolos, there was a merging of cults (συ-λατρεία) and burials, and the only place defined as a place of worship was what was found last year (he means the cist tomb) that was connected to the peribolos for reasons relevant to the intentions of the designer.
(24) Dismantling of the peribolos: he was asked why part of the peribolos was left intact but unfortunately he didnt understand the question.
We found the base of the roman crane, the balance weight of the crane (all from material of the peribolos) and ramps on the tumulus to bring material down from the top. Recall also that tons of marble pieces were found on the top of the tumulus, not from the peribolos, but from the on-site construction of the lion.
), even if it wasn't Lazarides who put the inverted commas around things. Does Ergon (?) provide anything more about those layers beyond their existence? This area has been mooted as the battle site where Brasidas took his fatal wounds (and Cleon). Of course, there's the battle between Olympias' forces and Cassander's too which would have been somewhere in the area. Hard to imagine anything else requiring extensive burning in the middle of an Archaic graveyard, although I seem to recall some evidence of Archaic burning associated with graves in some of the reports (could be mis-remembering that though).