The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones ;-)
* Foul or inappropriate language

Moderator: pothos moderators

agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by agesilaos »

You seem to be confusing ‘evidence’ with ‘proof’, Andrew; the inscriptions most certainly are ‘evidence’ and though they are not proof, the mention of ‘the Tomb of Olympias’, and it can hardly be restored otherwise due to the standards forms and the metrical imperative. Nor does he bury his belief that Olympias died at Pydna in a footnote (all of which I and I am willing to bet many others , always read), it is plainly stated in the text on p87,

Code: Select all

‘Our epitaph for the intelligent infant, Alcimachus, son of Neoptolemus, proves that by the first century BC there resided at the ancient site near the modern village Makriyialos a family which claimed descent from the Aeacid kings of Epirus and thus, as is specifically asserted in  the poem, from Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great. This is indeed an extraordinary claim, and one is at first tempted to dismiss it as an unjustified and pretentious imposture. But the ancient site at Makriyialos  was either Pydna itself or in the near vicinity of Pydna, and it was at Pydna in 3116BC that Cassander besieged Olympias, starved her forces into submission, caused her to be condemned by the Macedonian ‘army assembly’ and executed by the relatives of those Macedonians whom she herself had so recently put to death.* It can hardly be fortuitous that Alcimachus’ family, which claimed descent from the Aeacidae and from Olympias, lived at or very near the place where the most celebrated of Aeacid princesses met her death…’

The note* reads ‘Diodoros, XIX, 50-51. From Diodoros’ account there can be no doubt whatsoever  that Olympias died in Pydna.’
So Edson does not claim that Diodoros says Olympias died at Pydna, only that it is clear from his narrative that this was so. And as far as I know no other scholar thought differently, as has been said there is no mention of her being moved elsewhere and the situation does not demand it, indeed circumstances tend to militate against it.

It is only your theory that has even raised the possibility and it is an argument from silence, i.e. it is only that Diodoros does not specify a scene which permits any thought that it is not still at Pydna. The idea still has to be allowed but impugning Edson’s scholarship because he had no crystal ball to foresee a skeleton of Olympias’ rough age and sex turning up in a monument that lay undiscovered is hardly a sensible position.

Just who are these mysterious ’relatives’ of Olympias about whom you so often speak? The boy king shorn of royal trappings and kept in protective custody at Amphipolis? Aeacides, whose support for his cousin had seen the Molossians expel him and establish a koinon allied with Kassandros? If Kassandros was allowing a funeral why not allow the customary cremation? Half measures are not typical of his methods. You require a dangerous woman to be shipped around an unsettled country and not reported, not fatal by itself, then a murder to be committed but to escape report in a context of reporting Kassandros’ crimes (Monimos), the only reason being to explain two male uncremated corpses. Further whilst one was murdered with a blade the other was what, poisoned? There is no reported weapon trauma on the second skeleton. Then you have to have the wrong funeral rites for the men but a nice cist tomb for the female. There seems little foundation to any of these ‘ifs’.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:Hi gepd,
The deaths of Olympias and Aristonous were virtually simultaneous and we can infer that Monimus would have been killed at the same time. She was left unburied for some days and it is unlikely that the corpses of her commanders were treated any better, but her family must have been petitioning for the right to bury her. It seems that they were eventually successful and it is likely that everyone would have seen it as fitting for her generals to be buried over her grave. I do not think that they would necessarily have rated anything more than a coffin, if even she was only afforded a poor cist tomb at that time.
The deaths of Olympias and Aristonous will have occurred fairly close together. It depends upon the amount of time it took Kassandros to arrange his 'assembly' and how long afterward the murder actually took place. Aristonous will have died before her, having been ordered to surrender at which time he was swiftly killed. Nothing says that Monimus was killed and we might expect Diodorus to have mentioned such. Claiming he was killed is simple speculation with no foundation and it is far more likely that, as with many commanders and 'Friends' of the period, he simply switched sides after said surrender. Unlike Aristonous, Monimus was no clear and present threat once he surrendered along with his garrison. Aristonous certainly was as Diodorus (more likely his source) makes quite plain. Aristonous was murdered because he was a somatophylax of Alexander and carried the reputation of having campaigned and gained his standing from that king. Something Kassandros could not match. It will be remembered that Lysimachos made this the cornerstone of his right to Macedonia when ejecting Pyrrhos.
Last edited by Paralus on Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Xenophon »

Taphoi wrote:
...She was left unburied for some days and it is unlikely that the corpses of her commanders were treated any better, but her family must have been petitioning for the right to bury her. It seems that they were eventually successful and it is likely that everyone would have seen it as fitting for her generals to be buried over her grave.
The latter part of this assertion is pure supposition, as Agesilaos has referred to. Nor am I aware that there is any evidence that she was unburied only "for some days". Let us remind ourselves of the evidence.

Firstly, Diodorus XVII.118 "Cassander, however, is plainly disclosed by his own actions as a bitter enemy of Alexander's policies. He murdered Olympias and threw out her body without burial, and with great enthusiasm restored Thebes which had been destroyed by Alexander." [Loeb translation]
......but alternately...
"“However, it is very apparent that Cassander was a great enemy to the concern of Alexander, for he suffered the body of Olympias, after she was murdered, to lie with disdain unburied, and he made it his great business to rebuild Thebes, which Alexander had razed to the ground,”

The later Roman Porphyry, in his chronology of Macedonian rulers [as transmitted by Eusebius] says:
" Olympias the mother of Alexander killed Aridaeus, but then Cassander the son of Antipater executed her and both the sons of Alexander, the one by himself and the other (the son of Barsine) by prompting Polysperchon. Cassander cast away Olympias' body without a burial, and proclaimed himself king; and from then onwards, all the other satraps acted as kings, because the family of Alexander had been destroyed. Cassander married Thessalonice the daughter of Philippus, and survived as king for another 19 years as king, until he died of a wasting disease. His reign, including the year in which Olympias ruled after the death of Aridaeus, lasted from the first year of the 116th Olympiad [316 B.C.] until the third year of the 120th Olympiad [298 B.C.]."

As Edson noted in his paper "The Tomb of Olympias" [available on-line], the evidence such as we have clearly points to Olympias being executed at Pydna, and her body discarded [period]. There is no mention, or even implication, that this was merely for a few days, nor any mention of any 'petition' to Cassander by her family ( What family do you have in mind?).

The inscriptional evidence indicates that ultimately, after her descendants had moved to Pydna, probably in exile, a tomb for her was raised at Pydna - but just when is a somewhat moot point - probably not before her cousin Pyrrhus controlled the region giving a 'terminus ante quem' of 288-285 BC ( see Edson) and likely later.......

All this has, of course, been aired earlier a number of times..........
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Taphoi »

I am pleased to note that I have now been able to check uncropped photos of one of the ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ Hephaistion inscriptions, which were taken by the Millers at the beginning of the 1970s. I can now confirm that the uncropped images show that the Π of ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ was trimmed off the blocks when they were truncated by 11cm to reduce them from 4 foot x 2 foot x 1 foot to 3.66 foot x 2 foot x 1 foot. The explanation must be that the Amphipolis Tomb architect re-used blocks cut for a monument to Hephaistion, but stockpiled at the quarry on Thassos, when the Hephaistion monument project was abandoned after Alexander's death. The architect needed to re-size the blocks to fit the new project. Therefore the Amphipolis tomb is the grave of another immensely important individual who died within a decade or so after Alexander's death and has nothing to do with Hephaistion.
Best wishes,
Andrew
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by agesilaos »

Any chance of posting the picture or giving the reference where it is to be found?
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by amyntoros »

Taphoi wrote:... ...Therefore the Amphipolis tomb is the grave of another immensely important individual who died within a decade or so after Alexander's death and has nothing to do with Hephaistion.
The tomb has been dated that accurately? To within a decade or so after Alexander's death? Not being facetious - am just not sure where to look for this kind of info given the length of the thread.

Best Regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by agesilaos »

Look no further than Andrew's hypothesis; the evidence such as it is points later for the the tomb on stylistic grounds (sandal type and finish of the marble, the developed pebble mosaic etc) but nothing is precise in the area of 'style'. The coin evidence puts the monument as early as 316 at the earliest if the coins are of Kassandros' first issue and they were dropped or deposited soon after they were minted.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Taphoi »

amyntoros wrote:
Taphoi wrote:... ...Therefore the Amphipolis tomb is the grave of another immensely important individual who died within a decade or so after Alexander's death and has nothing to do with Hephaistion.
The tomb has been dated that accurately? To within a decade or so after Alexander's death? Not being facetious - am just not sure where to look for this kind of info given the length of the thread.
If the Amphipolis tomb used up the stones cut on Thassos for Hephaistion's abandoned monuments, then it cannot have been built very much later. The inscriptions suggest that Alexander's agents had paid for the blocks, in which case they would have been "crown property". So we are looking at re-use in the next major project sponsored by the Macedonian Royal Family, which is also significant, because it means that the tomb should really be for a member of the Royal Family (the logic is becoming inexorable). Therefore the discovery of these blocks now becomes the strongest dating evidence, but it is completely in line with all the other evidence on the date of creation of the Amphipolis Tomb. The coins could have been dropped any time after the monument was built and before the sealing, but clearly I would suggest a construction in the range 315-310BC.

Best wishes,

Andrew
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by amyntoros »

Taphoi wrote: The inscriptions suggest that Alexander's agents had paid for the blocks, in which case they would have been "crown property". So we are looking at re-use in the next major project sponsored by the Macedonian Royal Family, which is also significant, because it means that the tomb should really be for a member of the Royal Family (the logic is becoming inexorable).
Not really (inexorable) hon. Just as much as the death of Alexander meant the cancelling of any monument to Hephaistion (per your hypothesis) it also meant that there was no "Macedonian Royal Family" with power of any kind and "crown property" couldn't be claimed by the remainder of Alexander's family who were now prisoners in everything but name. Those who still lived at (perhaps) the beginning of the monument building had no authority and at that time Olympias was still an anathema to Cassander who did hold the reigns of power. I'm afraid that this teddy bear version of Cassander in which you believe does not match any description found in Diodorus. I could copy and paste all his references to Cassander but anyone who has Diodorus knows what I mean.

Best Regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Taphoi »

amyntoros wrote:
Taphoi wrote: The inscriptions suggest that Alexander's agents had paid for the blocks, in which case they would have been "crown property". So we are looking at re-use in the next major project sponsored by the Macedonian Royal Family, which is also significant, because it means that the tomb should really be for a member of the Royal Family (the logic is becoming inexorable).
Not really (inexorable) hon. Just as much as the death of Alexander meant the cancelling of any monument to Hephaistion (per your hypothesis) it also meant that there was no "Macedonian Royal Family" with power of any kind and "crown property" couldn't be claimed by the remainder of Alexander's family who were now prisoners in everything but name. Those who still lived at (perhaps) the beginning of the monument building had no authority and at that time Olympias was still an anathema to Cassander who did hold the reigns of power. I'm afraid that this teddy bear version of Cassander in which you believe does not match any description found in Diodorus. I could copy and paste all his references to Cassander but anyone who has Diodorus knows what I mean.
Neither would I describe Cassander as a teddy-bear. He was clearly a vicious and deadly individual. However, he had to operate within the political realities. Antigonus and the other generals required him to respect the succession of the royal family, because they were not prepared to see Cassander become King of Macedon. Moreover, the people were not ready to see the succession of Alexander's family overturned. Cassander could not act against these pressures without taking a terrible personal risk. That is why he waited until Alexander IV was about to come of age and pose an even bigger risk to Cassander. Furthermore Cleopatra, Alexander's sister, was at large and so was the king of Epirus (until 313BC) and Polyperchon was still a royalist. So the Royal Family was still very powerful and influential and capable of building massive tombs for their close relatives up to 310BC.
Best wishes,
Andrew
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by amyntoros »

Taphoi wrote: Neither would I describe Cassander as a teddy-bear. He was clearly a vicious and deadly individual. However, he had to operate within the political realities. Antigonus and the other generals required him to respect the succession of the royal family, because they were not prepared to see Cassander become King of Macedon. Moreover, the people were not ready to see the succession of Alexander's family overturned. Cassander could not act against these pressures without taking a terrible personal risk. That is why he waited until Alexander IV was about to come of age and pose an even bigger risk to Cassander. Furthermore Cleopatra, Alexander's sister, was at large and so was the king of Epirus (until 313BC) and Polyperchon was still a royalist. So the Royal Family was still very powerful and influential and capable of building massive tombs for their close relatives up to 310BC.
Do not see any power and influence of Alexander's family in the "court" of Cassander. I originally started to convert certain points below into italics, but the whole quote is relevant. This is 315 BC and all "terrible personal risks" had already been taken by Cassander.
Diodorus Book 19 [61] (315 B.C.) Antigonus, after Polyperchon's son Alexander had come to him, made a pact of friendship with him, and then, calling a general assembly of the soldiers and of the aliens who were dwelling there, laid charges against Cassander, bringing forward the murder of Olympias and the treatment of Roxanê and the king. 2 Moreover, he said that Cassander had married Thessalonicê by force, and was clearly trying to establish his own claim to the Macedonian throne ; and also that, although the Olynthians were very bitter enemies of the Macedonians, Cassander had reestablished them in a city called by his own name and had rebuilt Thebes, which had been razed by the Macedonians. 3 When the crowd showed that it shared his wrath, he introduced a decree according to the terms of which it was voted that Cassander was to be an enemy unless he destroyed these cities again, released the king and his mother Roxanê from imprisonment and restored them to the Macedonians, and, in general, yielded obedience to Antigonus the duly established general who had succeeded to the guardianship of the throne. It was also stated that all the Greeks were free, not subject to foreign garrisons, and autonomous. When the soldiers had voted in favour of these measures, 4 Antigonus sent men in every direction to carry the decree, for he believed that through their hope of freedom he would gain the Greeks as eager participants with him in the war, and that the generals and satraps in the upper satrapies, who had suspected that he was determined to depose the kings who inherited from Alexander, would, if he publicly took upon himself the war in their behalf, all change their minds and promptly obey his orders.
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote: Moreover, the people were not ready to see the succession of Alexander's family overturned. Cassander could not act against these pressures without taking a terrible personal risk.That is why he waited until Alexander IV was about to come of age and pose an even bigger risk to Cassander.
Yet this is precisely what he did. He arranged the judicial murder of the Argead matriarch and then imprisoned the heir and his mother in the citadel of Amphipolis. Diodorus (19.52.4) is clear as a bell that the heir was stripped of all his royal trappings including his syntrophoi, to be treated as any other private individual of no important standing (ἰδιώτου), and imprisoned. This was clearly well recognised as Antigonos makes plain by demanding Kassandros release "the king" and his mother from their imprisonment (19.61.1 7 3). The only reason Kassandros did not kill Alexander IV was fear of the Macedonians' reaction to the murder of his grandmother and the consequent reaction to killing the grandson. None of that, in any way, demonstrates that the rump of the royal family was in any position to order a massive funerary construction for the dead matriarch.
Taphoi wrote: Furthermore Cleopatra, Alexander's sister, was at large and so was the king of Epirus (until 313BC) and Polyperchon was still a royalist. So the Royal Family was still very powerful and influential and capable of building massive tombs for their close relatives up to 310BC.
I can't see this. Kleopatra was near as much a prisoner as Alexander IV. There was little that she did or could do without Antigonos' approval. Unless you can point to some evidence that Antigonos, on her behalf, insisted that this monument be built, I doubt she'd anything to do with it. Aiakides was in little position to be a "powerful and influential" presence here. Indeed, he was no longer king of the Epirotes after he'd failed to come to Olympias' aid. In fact, he did not return from exile until 313 when he raised an army and was promptly killed by Kassandros' general, Philip (likely his brother). I do not see Kassandros bowing to the pressure of a defeated exile.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
gepd
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:06 pm

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by gepd »

Andrew, I think for now it is more interesting for us to see the un-cropped image of the inscription. If you cannot share it here, providing us with a reference may also work, we can try to look it up. Until I see the image, I cannot take for granted your interpretation - which is even difficult for me to understand even if blocks are trimmed in the way you say. Blocks may have been trimmed after the dismantling of the peribolos, for building basilicas or anything else in Amphipolis. In that case it would still be strange that the excavators present a sketch of the block with an assumption that the Π was missing from the trimmed part, but that is another story.

PS: Use of metric system of units would also be appreciated :)
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by agesilaos »

Photos can be found here

https://www.academia.edu/22242910/Proof ... ephaistion

I tend to agree with Gepd's interpretation, i.e. the blocks were cut after being moved to the Strymon; the evidence is the lack of any 'drafting' on the leftmost edge whereas those blocks in situ are drafted all round. I still do not see the correct letters for 'Hephaistionos', making any connection with a monument for him rather moot. Further, the Millars examined these blocks yet did not record the graffito, nor is anything other than the eta visible in the admittedly grainy photographs, perhaps an indication of 'optimistic interpretation'.

Nor is the part of the tale about purchase contracts sound. Thasos was part of the Macedonian kingdom under Philip II who took it from Athens, in all likelihood its minerals including the marble became Royal property, just as the Crown owned the forests and mineral rights within the kingdom. Evidence is more plentiful for the timber trade due to Athens many trade treaties with the kingdom but it is unlikely that the Macedonian Crown would be buying its own property. The 'Paralebon' must be a receipt for the goods rather than any payment and therefore signed by the overseers of the works on site. This is not fatal to any theory but seems how things would have worked.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Taphoi »

The fourth margin does appear to be present vestigially upon close inspection. The Millers recorded in their catalogue that all the loose blocks had evidence of drafting on 4 sides, so the blocks were not trimmed after removal from the Kasta wall. Anyway, the block is the same length as another behind it in the same photo. Anyway, the Millers recorded that all these blocks were 118cm long in their catalogue (they did not make an exception for this block.) Also, from what can be reconstructed of its length in view of the perspective, the block must be very nearly 118cm, because the blocks are 32.5cm wide. It is fairly impossible that the block is a full letter width short of 118cm. The block was certainly truncated before incorporation into the Kasta Mound on the assumption that the inscription is for Hephaistion.
I am using ancient feet because (according to the Millers) those are the dimensions to which these blocks were cut. An ancient foot in this case was about 32.25cm.
Best wishes,
Andrew
Post Reply