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

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 »

gepd wrote:That is where they found the burned wooden samples for analysis (just above the tholos, west)
I have managed to get to the bottom of this C-14 data. Some will recall the discussion of C-14 dating earlier in the thread and will have realised that there is something a bit fishy about the reported date range of 330BC - 270BC, because I previously carefully explained why so narrow a range is not possible. It turns out that the calibrated date range for the death of the wood for the charcoal at 95% probability is 395BC to 345BC or 320BC to 205BC. There are two probability peaks due to the slight fluctuations in the atmospheric concentration of C-14 in that era. The earlier peak is taller and contains the larger probability and contains the centre of the distribution at ~360BC. It was therefore concluded that the wood died (i.e. stopped absorbing Carbon-14 from the atmosphere) at approximately 360BC and was quite a few decades dead when burnt by the tomb builders constructing the "Hephaistion Monument" in roughly 323BC-320BC. It would have to have been lying around for decades before being burnt, because Alexander's reign and its immediate aftermath are actually significantly outside the peaks of the probability distribution. (Conversely, it could have been dead only a year or two in 315BC-310BC, the building period for a tomb of Olympias.)

As far as I can see, this charcoal is probably not from a funeral pyre, but something from a campfire (or similar) of the builders. It is connected with the date of the tomb, because it was swept up into the first backfill over the domed roof of the tunnel of the tomb chambers. Thus it was sealed into place at the time of the completion of the tomb.

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 »

Conversely, it could be the remains of an old fire from years before any building just caught up in the making of the covered tomb and has absolutely no significance. Do you have a link to the data? Or was it in a journal? It's always interesting to see. Forty year old wood might crop up in a built up area, due to the burning of old building material but seems a stretch on a pretty empty hillside.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Zebedee »

Interesting if that's how they've done it. Thanks Andrew.

One possibility for older wood is the refurbishment of Amphipolis done by Philip II after taking it. There was significant construction work in the city itself. Would builders camp out in a graveyard rather than across the (mooted) road like the Romans did? Not so sure. Philip II construction work doesn't fit the dating required I know.

There is an alternative explanation that this is wood burned at the site in pre-Macedonian times, but pigeons and cats.
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 »

Thanks Andrew. The person that did this study said they are in the process of analyzing more samples, they are not happy with having analyzed only one. They want to repeat a similar study as for the Amphipolis bridge (https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index ... e/3236/pdf)

The burn layers analysed for the fill of the interior are shown below. These are likely from torches of looters

Image

An alternative has been proposed for a similar find in Pella, at the Macedonian tomb of Giannitsa. This is one of the biggest tombs in Pella. There they found the burial chamber packed with earth fill (that entered the tomb with physical processes) and within the fill could find ceramics, layers of burn, animal bones etc. They assumed that when the tomb fell in disuse during Roman times, it was converted into a shelter for travelers that were crossing the Egnatia, passing just outside the tomb. Egnatia is also assumed to have been passing also outside Kastas's entrance.

Image

They also indicated this hole in the mosaic as a location for the placement of a "λουτήρα" (tub for ritual cleansing?), one way they proposed to support the idea that Kastas was α cult site.

Image
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 »

Zebedee wrote:Interesting if that's how they've done it. Thanks Andrew.

One possibility for older wood is the refurbishment of Amphipolis done by Philip II after taking it. There was significant construction work in the city itself. Would builders camp out in a graveyard rather than across the (mooted) road like the Romans did? Not so sure. Philip II construction work doesn't fit the dating required I know.

There is an alternative explanation that this is wood burned at the site in pre-Macedonian times, but pigeons and cats.
My data is directly from the conference presentation.

It is possible but improbable that the burn date was much earlier than the tomb construction.

The archaeology and the history suggests that the cemetery in the vicinity of the Kasta Mound was not in use in the earlier 4th century BC (it seems to have been largely abandoned in the 5th century BC when everyone moved into Amphipolis and buried their dead closer to the new city.) Also the Kasta Mound was on an exposed ridge a long way above the river, so not an obvious campsite.

Hence the amount of burn activity during tomb construction must have been enormous relative to the odd shepherd's campfire in the preceding decades and it would have been easier for new charcoal to find its way into the backfill. I am confident that they will have tested charcoal from the core of the nodules to minimise contamination, so there is virtually no chance of wood death or burning before the 4th century BC.

As I have said, however, there is a non-negligible possibility from these results in isolation that the wood died as late as 205BC. There is only a modest statistical bias in this data towards the last quarter of the 4th century BC as the burn date.

If the wood was decades dead at the time of burn, then they were burning whole tree trunks from long dead trees. This is quite possible, but begs the question of just how many long dead trees there could have been near the Kasta Mound?

For a tomb build after 320BC, it becomes possible for recent twigs and branches to be included or even green wood. So there is also a slight bias in this data towards Olympias relative to Hephaistion.

Best wishes,

Andrew
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Zebedee »

Wasn't doubting your recounting of what you heard Andrew :)

Other ideas and attempts to explain are other ideas and attempts to explain. But we do have some important facts which may relate such as the siege and then subsequent major rebuilding. Whether one wants to posit old wood from the city being used for a later pyre of some sort...

As I pointed out to you a long time back, it's simplistic to rely just on the c14 data points when they can be so variable.

No-one is really sure of quite what was happening at this site once the Thracian settlement was abandoned. It's an interesting question which will hopefully be answered at least partly by the site chronology.

I'll pass on Olympias vs Hephaestion. Hephaestion has the advantage of a known cult but I'm at best agnostic. If the female skeleton's presence in the third chamber post-dates the cist grave cremation then the site clearly was not constructed for her. One could make the female whoever one chose to in such circumstances and it still would not change the fact the site was not built for them.
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 »

Zebedee wrote:Wasn't doubting your recounting of what you heard Andrew :)

Other ideas and attempts to explain are other ideas and attempts to explain. But we do have some important facts which may relate such as the siege and then subsequent major rebuilding. Whether one wants to posit old wood from the city being used for a later pyre of some sort...

As I pointed out to you a long time back, it's simplistic to rely just on the c14 data points when they can be so variable.

No-one is really sure of quite what was happening at this site once the Thracian settlement was abandoned. It's an interesting question which will hopefully be answered at least partly by the site chronology.

I'll pass on Olympias vs Hephaestion. Hephaestion has the advantage of a known cult but I'm at best agnostic. If the female skeleton's presence in the third chamber post-dates the cist grave cremation then the site clearly was not constructed for her. One could make the female whoever one chose to in such circumstances and it still would not change the fact the site was not built for them.
The first comment was for agesilaos. who asked about the source of the data. But I didn't hear it - I read it on the slides.
Pleased that you are agreeing with me that C-14 in isolation will not provide definitive answers, but will merely quell the "Roman" faction.
As far as I can tell, they have not provided any new evidence on the female skeleton, but merely sketched scenarios. They seem still to want to have the monument built for Hephaistion, then used for the woman in what they call the "second phase". But I have provided very clear reasons as to why the Hephaistion hypothesis should now be abandoned. Half the Greek press is now talking about Olympias again :D , albeit coupled with Hephaistion :roll: .
Best wishes,
Andrew
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Zebedee »

Sadly much of the commentary they've released about this site seems more intended towards 'politics' (of all types). Think it's long been commented on in this most lengthy thread.

It's pin an Alexander-era name onto the site time again. If Philip weren't believed to be elsewhere, I'd lay odds on him being linked to this site. And that would almost seem reasonable on the site's own merits (genuinely - as I've mentioned long in the past). I'd really like to see the evidence written down for Lefantzis' ideas on the order of things. It may be possible that some scenarios are more plausible than others depending on the evidence.

I've not seen any plausible reasons against Hephaestion alone, other than the most obvious one that one would really expect him to be the cremation if this site were for him. It seems unlikely, but it does at least conform to the evidence and most interpretations of what they've found so far. Which is, of course, an awful long way from what seems a determination to try and argue he is the man with a cult here.
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 »

Zebedee wrote:Sadly much of the commentary they've released about this site seems more intended towards 'politics' (of all types). Think it's long been commented on in this most lengthy thread.
And politics are still being discussed. Here's a blog post on the subject which I wasn't sure whether to post or not. I don't know anything about the author but it seems to be sensible. Am sure our Greek members will enlighten if otherwise.
system1988 wrote:For the drawing : Thank you very much Amyntoros. Is there a LITTLE DOG between the legs of the boy or am i totally confused ?
It does look that way to me also, but I can't be sure. Will try and find out from the artist what he believes it to be.

More on the helmet. First an image from Helepolis ‏@Heleppolis_68 on twitter who says: "the Military Degree of #Amphipolis a Macedonian inscription (c. 200 BC) refers to Konos helmet"

Image

And then there's this article on The Galation Shield in Egypt which has been linked for comparison to the shield on the "frieze". Arms and armor are not my thing so I will leave discussion to those in the know, but it does seem to me that the Galation shield is oval whilst the one on the frieze is circular.


Best Regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
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 »

Amyntoros wrote:
More on the helmet. First an image from Helepolis ‏@Heleppolis_68 on twitter who says: "the Military Degree of #Amphipolis a Macedonian inscription (c. 200 BC) refers to Konos helmet"
Whilst it is correct that the Amphipolis inscription from the reign of Philip V does indeed refer to the 'konos' helmet as per your quotation, I'm afraid the image is completely incorrect ( originally from a wiki article, I think). It is neither 'Macedonian' nor a 'konos' ( earlier called 'pilos' ) type, nor does it relate to the relief example in any way. The image is of a purely Celtic type whose origins go back to the 5 C BC or earlier. By 300 BC, after contacts with Italian culture in northern Italy, the type acquired Italian type cheek-pieces. I should say at this point that after Alexander, and the widespread use of mercenaries from all Mediterranean cultures, military equipment became very 'mix-'n-match', and whilst its culture of origin can be recognised, the actual user usually cannot. This example comes from the SW Balkans, and is 3 C BC. When found, it contained a rolled up Celtic mail shirt.

For a typical 'konos' type helmet, see image below. The 'konos-Boeotian' hybrid type had the addition of the crimped Boeotian rim, and was very popular with cavalry ( it gave good vision) and augmented the earlier pure 'Boeotian' type common in Alexander's day ( which had a lower crown).

As I posted earlier this type, shown on the frieze, dates from c. 280 BC plus or minus 20 years or so and later.

As to the shield article it is best ignored, based as it is on the incorrect identification of the 'Fayum scutum' as Galatian/Celtic. The shield came from a dump in the Fayum and was discovered in 1900, and published by the German W. Kimmig in 1940. Apart from the fact that much less was known back then, it was also misidentified on the basis of being from 160 BC aprox, a time allegedly before major Roman influence in Egypt. In fact Romano-Italian mercenaries were common in Egypt in the 2 C BC, and after the Roman victory over the Seleucids at Magnesia in 190 BC, both Seleucids and Ptolemies began to imitate Roman troop types and gear.

The 'Fayum' shield is in fact of Roman type. These were made of layered laminated ply, as described by Polybius[VI.23] and invariably curved, which added to strength ( and lightness, the original was circa 20lbs/9 kg or so). Celtic shields were of simpler construction and invariably flat, made of solid planks joined edge-to-edge. ( see images below for the obvious differences ) shapes could vary from pure oval to rectangular - varying with time, place, and fashion as one would expect.

As with the helmet, the typology doesn't tell us who used the equipment e.g. the Fayum example could be actual Roman, Ptolemaic Egyptian mercenary, or foreign mercenary.....

As to circular shields, these were preferred by cavalry over infantry 'long' shield types as being handier, and because large circular shields protected the horse to a degree as well. ( I posted images of celtic circular shields earlier), though for obvious reasons most iconographic depictions of Celtic type spined circular shields come from Hellenistic friezes.
Attachments
Hell 4BC Pilos  Konos (Herman Hist ex Guttman) H23.5cm W715g crest eyelet at rear holes on top also.jpg
Hell 4BC Pilos Konos (Herman Hist ex Guttman) H23.5cm W715g crest eyelet at rear holes on top also.jpg (64.78 KiB) Viewed 3762 times
Fayum Roman type scutum from Egypt Connolly.jpg
Fayum Roman type scutum from Egypt Connolly.jpg (106.62 KiB) Viewed 3762 times
Celtic La Tene shield showing flat board edge to edge plank construction.JPG
Celtic La Tene shield showing flat board edge to edge plank construction.JPG (19.57 KiB) Viewed 3762 times
onar
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:12 pm

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by onar »

An hypothesis that should be examined . . .
Attachments
12800303_1287179111299078_1578851486747455666_n - Copy.jpg
12800303_1287179111299078_1578851486747455666_n - Copy.jpg (91.53 KiB) Viewed 3718 times
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 »

Yes, nice photo shopping ! The helmet is most likely the hybrid 'konos-Boeotian' type, which was my point - I was trying to unravel confusion over type -, and possibly even the Celtic type, but not a traditional Macedonian 'konos' type. The cheek-pieces only appeared on celtic types circa 300 BC and later. However, to my eye the frieze helmet lacks the distinctive pinched 'spike' characteristic of the 'Celtic' type and is more likely a 'konos-Boeotian type, like the helmet of Pyrrhus ( only with cheek-pieces). This helmet ( whichever type, and possibly, even probably, a variation of either - in an age of individual manufacture) and the shield are both consistent with a date c. 280 BC plus or minus 20 years, or later......if it were the celtic type the date would be even later, probably 3- 2 C BC......

Here is another example of a hybrid 'konos-Boeotian' helmet ( found together with short waisted cavalry cuirass ), which fits the bill....and another example, this time 2 C BC.

However, we should not be distracted by quibbles over the exact typology, the point is that a date for the helmet/shield combination cannot be before c. 300 BC, though it can be later ( which is more likely), down to c. 168 BC ( when Macedon as a state ceased to exist)
Attachments
Hellenistic Boeotian Konos type 2 BC Christies.jpg
Hellenistic Boeotian Konos type 2 BC Christies.jpg (44 KiB) Viewed 3709 times
Hellenistic panoply short cav cuirass Boeotian konos helmet.jpg
Hellenistic panoply short cav cuirass Boeotian konos helmet.jpg (37.39 KiB) Viewed 3711 times
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Zebedee »

How I see it too Xenephon. c.275 bc would raise eyebrows for the shield I'd suspect, but I think that's a fair point to start from and then bid down? If this is part of the tomb, and is part of the major construction phase, last quarter 4th century just does not work. Of course, the fact that it seems to resemble most closely a very well known type of stela would seem to suggest the link by proximity to the site, as Gepd noted, is not really worth much anyway.

Of course, I suspect Corso knows that with his attempt to explain away the shield. Nonsense compounding upon nonsense though.

One question I do still have about the relief is whether or not it's Alexander. Two heroes on a relief is known (eg I can think of 3rd/2nd century one from Miletus - with grooms for the heroes too!), but Alexander as a groom is an intriguing idea if it's a stela. And if it isn't, how does one explain it? If there's a phalanx marching behind they currently exist only in Corso's imagination, never mind the dubious composition of the scene required.
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 »

Still not finding any detail on the C14 results ie the probability curves, are they out there only the last time anyone tried second guessing the results from the announcements they have been shown to be hopelessly wrong :roll: Perhaps as much due to the announcements' built in layer of disinformation as anything else.

I am not going to get into a squabble but the 'shields article' is based on rather more than the Fayoum shield and the author mentions the Roman possibility though, like many others discounts it because of the date, 160BC; it is a side issue here, however, as it only concerns 'celtic' long-shield and its use as an ethnic identifier in Ptolemaic Egypt. The round shield monuments remain undated, and thus not decisive in the on the source of the Greek spined shield, though both possible sources, Gallic or Italiote, only came into major contact with the Macedonians around the time of Pyrrhos, previous adventurers in Italy having remained there, their bones bleaching in the sun.

A common thread in the reportage is the disavowal of a Roman or 2nd century date, never a breath of a third century one, to paraphrase Donne ' We are all at the mercie of Princes and strawmen,' :lol:
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 »

agesilaos wrote:Still not finding any detail on the C14 results ie the probability curves, are they out there only the last time anyone tried second guessing the results from the announcements they have been shown to be hopelessly wrong :roll: Perhaps as much due to the announcements' built in layer of disinformation as anything else.
This is the curve presented by Pavlides on 4th March for the date of death of the charred wood found in the backfill above the Amphipolis Tomb chambers. The centre of the uncalibrated radiocarbon age distribution (vertical axis) does not actually intersect the wide secondary peak between 320BC and 205BC, which is why it may be considered subsidiary to the earlier peak (395BC - 345BC), which contains something in the vicinity of 70% of the overall probability. However, there is still a significant level of overall probability in the later peak, so it has arguably been underplayed in the press reports. Clearly, it is also necessary to factor in a possible delay of up to decades between the death of the wood and its being burnt, although opting for a date range like 323BC-320BC, where it is actually necessary to insist upon a delay of decades before burning is not the best of places to vest your hopes.
Best wishes,
Andrew
Pavlides_C14calibration040316.jpg
Pavlides_C14calibration040316.jpg (51.23 KiB) Viewed 3686 times
Post Reply