The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[gepd]

Well, I hope I at least know better Greek to understand what he means, but I think he is clear in his last sentence, saying practically, that even if you consider that one cannot write where the drafting was, you can still fit the Π. I don't think the 10-12 minutes of conference presentation by Lefantzis with a focus explain the architectural phases and overall findings of the excavations should have devoted more than few seconds to an issue raised in forums, which may not be an issue at all. As said, archaeologists, committees and epigraphologists were invited to see the inscription, held now in the storages of the museum. Miller's photos do not show the level of damage/recutting on the surface, and the is no point to turn this discussion into a trigonometry exercise. Finally, the first Α in your own reconstruction is somehow bigger and displaced a bit more left that the reconstructed inscription by Lefantzis, while the distance of your proposed Π from the A can also be made smaller, given the mean distance of the letters.

[Taphoi]

Well, I hope I at least know better Greek to understand what he means, but I think he is clear in his last sentence, saying practically, that even if you consider that one cannot write where the drafting was, you can still fit the Π. I don't think the 10-12 minutes of conference presentation by Lefantzis with a focus explain the architectural phases and overall findings of the excavations should have devoted more than few seconds to an issue raised in forums, which may not be an issue at all. As said, archaeologists, committees and epigraphologists were invited to see the inscription, held now in the storages of the museum. Miller's photos do not show the level of damage/recutting on the surface, and the is no point to turn this discussion into a trigonometry exercise. Finally, the first Α in your own reconstruction is somehow bigger and displaced a bit more left that the reconstructed inscription by Lefantzis, while the distance of your proposed Π from the A can also be made smaller, given the mean distance of the letters.

I have no idea exactly what you mean by "even if you consider that one cannot write where the drafting was, you can still fit the Π".
Nor are the missing Πs a minor issue. If the Πs have been cut off, then the blocks were re-sized for incorporation in the Kasta Mound peribolos, so the Kasta Mound is not a monument to Hephaistion. I think you are clinging to the hope that Block 73 was significantly truncated after being removed from the peribolos, but I fear you will be disappointed - I have given a number of reasons why and Lefantzis has said absolutely nothing about the dimensions of these blocks, which is a significant silence, because he jolly well should have, if they are significantly shorter than the standard 118cm. I have not changed the width of the alpha as far as I can see: I am using the same lefthand stroke as the archaeologists (I changed the righthand stroke in the alpha slightly, because it looked wrong relative to details in the 1970 photo) and the gap between my Π and the alpha is no larger than the gaps between other letters. However much you quibble over fine details, there is not enough room on the block for the Π and Lefantzis suggested that there was in his drawings.

It is easy to refute me, if I am wrong. Just show me uncropped photos of both inscription blocks from the archaeologists or from anybody who has managed to arrange one of these visits to the museum that you seem to think are happening. And tell me the dimensions of the blocks. There is NO reason that this information should be withheld, if I am wrong.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[gepd]

I agree Andrew, it is straightforward to refute that, but I dont think Lefantzis and other go around forums and the social media taking requests and answering them. Sometimes they may answer, but that is not something we should take for granted it should happen always. All justifications and discussions eventually will happen in their appropriate time, committees will visit soon the museum to view the findings, a special workshop is planned for Kastas only in the near future, publications will follow etc. No matter how loud the excavation team promotes the Hephaestion theory, it doesnt prove anything as long as they do not publish the findings together with all necessary details. And that includes the inscriptions. The reason that I still accept the Hephaestion theory as a possibility is because I think the inscription fits the archaeological context and because I doubt that the team has forged or falsified raw data in such an extreme way. That is just my perspective. Plus, I am a bit biased towards exciting scenarios - cant hide that. I dont really care if the Hephaestion theory proves to be wrong or yours correct or both wrong, otherwise. Any explanation for the association of the monument with a specific person or persons (or even a lack of an explanation) will be exciting in its own way.

I have no idea exactly what you mean by "even if you consider that one cannot write where the drafting was, you can still fit the Π".

What I mean, or what Lefantzis meant, is that when inscriptions are written, they are written on the unprocessed surface of the marble/block which is initially smooth. The inscription may cover all the area from edge to edge. The Kastas blocks have a carved outer border, slightly deeper than the central area of the outer block's surface. That is what in Greek is called peritenio, essentially meaning "surrounding strip/band" (I assume that is what drafting or drafted margin means). If a letter was occupying the area where the peritenio was going to be added, it would have been removed in that part of the block's processing. So Lefantzis is practically saying that there was originally more space to write the inscription if we include the area where the peritenio is, but for the specific block, there is enough space to write the Π, without even having to include that area

[agesilaos]

A rejoinder on the C-14 is pending, but on this 'Arelabon' sideshow, just look at the Millars' photo, can anyone see the letter cluster, the eta is pretty clear but there are no other characters I can discern; the dating is therefore between 1970 and 2016 +-30yrs

[Xenophon]

Gepd wrote:

Plus, I am a bit biased towards exciting scenarios - cant hide that. I don't really care if the Hephaestion theory proves to be wrong or yours correct or both wrong, otherwise.

One must be wary of the natural human tendency to do this. It is called the 'positivist fallacy' and refers to the often false assumption that historical sources and archaeological remains must relate to significant events and people, that we are aware of. The historical 'spotlight' focuses on people such as Hephaistion or Olympias, but in truth there were many other important people who rate only a minor mention, or none at all - such as Cassander's mother, or how many are even aware that in addition to Iollas, whose tomb Olympias desecrated, Cassander had several other siblings, Nicanor,(also deceased), Philip, Pleistarchus, Alexarchus, Eurydice, Nicaea, and Phila ( at least)? In their time, many of these people were famous and important too, sufficient to warrant a memorial from their contemporaries.

One could quote many examples of this natural tendency.....

I also tend to agree with Zebedee that rather than just a Royal Tomb, what we likely have here is some sort of sacred site/heroon going back centuries, with which people liked to be associated hence the digging of the Macedonian tomb into the side of the mound....

edited to correct typos

[gepd]

Some more info from the presentations:

From Lefantzis:

-The frieze with the soldier and the sculpture with the snake where found 100-120 meters west of the tumulus
-One more piece attributed to the frieze was found in the Strymon blocks, showing a foot of a horse, which is why they think the frieze included more than one horses - possibly a procession.
-The frieze with the soldier had places for clumps on the left and right sizes, which is why they say it was part of a frieze, not a funerary stele
-It also had a Π shaped hole on the back, for its placement against a retaining wall (I assume from that the back side was not supposed to be visible)
-Lefantzis said that the size is atypical for the frieze of a temple (surviving height is 1.6 m), more typical for a monumental pedestral
-The sculpture with the tree is 2.7 m. high, the limestoe block from the floor of the burial chamber that had a hole for a placement of such a sculpture was located at the center above the cist tomb. The cist tomb was originally fully covered by the floor.

From Corso:

-The shield is too large for the size of the soldier - likely carrying them for the dead soldier following the homeric tradition
-The anatomy of the the horse's head can be compared to that of the Artemision of Ephesos

Source (with much more info that I have no time to translate) is here: http://www.xronometro.com/amfipolis-alexander/
Maybe Google translate can help, or somebody else can help for now.

[gepd]

And one more image of the square feature in the first chamber:

[Zebedee]

A clearer (heh) pic of the column Lefantzis believes was placed above the closed cist grave in third chamber, from gepd's link.

[Zebedee]

Source (with much more info that I have no time to translate) is here: http://www.xronometro.com/amfipolis-alexander/

Corso compares a stele, which is also from Amphipolis and has been mentioned a couple of times a few pages back, to the 'frieze' image and makes all the comparisons. That's all fine, but he also manages to date the stele to the second half of the 3rd century without seeming to realise that's another part of the comparison which should also be examined. He seems to believe the frieze inspired the later stele. I really don't understand why he's not seeing the common elements present here, which is no doubt behind some notable archaeologists questioning his interpretation too.

His interpretation of the snake and tree seems to be fuzzier and fuzzier the more information comes out. It could be Zeus wrapped round Demeter's sacred fig tree. It could be Ladon wrapped around the tree of life. It doesn't seem to matter as long as it points to Alexander, and doesn't involve elements common to thousands of other stelae.

The evidence for another horse are the hind legs in motion. So whatever the 'frieze' is and whenever and wherever it's from, there are two horses on it at least. Presumably moving from left to right as you look at the frieze judging by his 'reconstruction' involving horses inside a phalanx. That at least justifies his belief that this may be part of something larger, even without other indications that would be so. So any interpretation will need to account for the second horse. I'd personally suggest a second groom, one carrying the weapons of the hero whilst leading a horse. That would naturally lead one to a hero who requires two horses. Another alternative could be a second hero, although with just the one snake up the tree, that would seem less likely.

[Xenophon]

....or just several dismounted cavalrymen?.....still, no point speculating at all, until if and when some more recognisable bits of the frieze are identified.....and of course, we must keep in mind that the frieze may not be contemporary with, or associated with, the tomb in the side of the mound.....

Corso's comments are hardly to be taken seriously, nor his reconstruction, and his latest comments seem to be getting more and more fantastic....the shield is certainly not "too big". By comparison with other similar shields it is pretty much a standard life-sized, large, spined cavalry shield. With cavalry tactics changing, and the adoption of javelin/missile armed 'Tarantine' style cavalry, not only was a shield necessary for protection, but a large round shield protected a good deal of the horse as well, despite its unwieldiness.

[amyntoros]

I agree Andrew, it is straightforward to refute that, but I dont think Lefantzis and other go around forums and the social media taking requests and answering them. . .

Agree, and to support your remarks there's the following from an Archaeology and arts blog which quotes from the conference. First some remarks showing that that questions from other archaeologists and the academic community were acknowledged:

Corso’ s suggestions, as well as part of the views expressed by Peristeri and her fellow researchers were highly questioned (or met with requests for additional explanation) by other archaeologists and academic community members consisting part of the audience.
“This is a typical representation of a warrior and ‘heroic reliefs’ “, “this was a child-warrior and this is why he is so short in height in relation to the weapons he carries”. “The inscriptions have been carved prior to the final configuration (of the site)”. “The Amphipolis masonry had been formed in two chronological phases”. “The peribolos is later than the monument”. These are only a number of the questions/suggestions expressed by archaeologists/ Aristotle University lecturers.

And then (my italics):

“We now participate in a section of the AEMTH Conference, not in an Amphipolis-related symposium” said the section’ moderator Maria Lilibaki-Akamati, forced to interfere.
“Let’s not be in a rush concerning the interpretation of the finds, the discussion regarding the excavation material is to last for years. The beginning just happened. What is important is to keep the conversation going between scholars, within its ‘natural habitat’, that is archaeological scientific conferences, and not that much in public, as it was the case in the past.”

However we may feel about ourselves, the members and the debates at Pothos are "public".

Best Regards,

[Xenophon]

A small piece of trivia I came across while looking for something else.......

Don't hold your breath on any more information emerging about the skeletal material emerging in the near future. According to this Greek news site:

http://www.xronometro.com/the-architect ... e-strymon/


work on the skeletal material has been postponed "indefinitely", back in 2015. And the reason? Cost! The Culture Minister Nikos Xidakis apparently won't allocate the necessary funds - 30,000 Euros.......

And a further piece of trivia, which I recall was mentioned somewhere near the start of the thread. According to Polyaenus VI.53, the Delphic oracle predicted success for the new colony of Amphipolis provided the bones of the Hero Rhesos were removed from Troy and re-interred at Amphipolis. This was duly done, and a cult of Rhesos there is attested archaeologically.'Schol. Eur.Rhesos 346' records a fragment of Marsyas of Pella, which records a sanctuary of Klio (the muse father of Rhesos) built on a hill in Amphipolis "built opposite the memorial of Rhesos" .....which sounds awfully like hill 133 and the Kastas mound. This is consistent with the suggestion of Zebedee that the mound structure might originally have been a 'Heroon', which I tend to think the most likely of theories so far put forward also.....

[Zebedee]

....or just several dismounted cavalrymen?.....still, no point speculating at all, until if and when some more recognisable bits of the frieze are identified.....and of course, we must keep in mind that the frieze may not be contemporary with, or associated with, the tomb in the side of the mound.....

Corso's comments are hardly to be taken seriously, nor his reconstruction, and his latest comments seem to be getting more and more fantastic....the shield is certainly not "too big". By comparison with other similar shields it is pretty much a standard life-sized, large, spined cavalry shield. With cavalry tactics changing, and the adoption of javelin/missile armed 'Tarantine' style cavalry, not only was a shield necessary for protection, but a large round shield protected a good deal of the horse as well, despite its unwieldiness.

The reason why it's most unlikely to be 'just' dismounted cavalrymen is the snake in the tree and the groom. That's hero cult symbolism found on thousands of known stelae. Which I'd think is why Corso's getting such a huge pushback against his interpretation. Happy to be convinced otherwise with examples, or even just the one example, but the combination of elements doesn't so much shout 'hero cult' as blows raspberries at suggestions otherwise. The (Thracian and mid-to-late third centry) tomb at Sveshtari, as I posted a few pages back, has something of a procession mirrored by a group of priestesses. That may be drawing upon inspiration from elsewhere, but there is just the one horse. Two heroes with a tree present would usually (always?) have two snakes on the tree (or tree substitute). Without that element one could look to two heroes or even two gods. It's possible it's a hero and a god with a horse, and that would be very interesting indeed. Take your point on speculating without evidence, but in any other place there'd be no quibbling about what other elements would be expected to be found. But it's Amphipolis, so Alexander has to be present in some form I suppose.

Very true about a frieze. There are clearly a number of phases to the site, some of which I think they acknowledged in the past are mid-to-late 3rd century, so a refurbishment could well have given things a twist.

(little spelling eidt )

[Taphoi]

…No matter how loud the excavation team promotes the Hephaestion theory, it doesnt prove anything as long as they do not publish the findings together with all necessary details. And that includes the inscriptions. …I doubt that the team has forged or falsified raw data in such an extreme way.

It is wrong that it doesn’t matter if the excavation team promotes a false theory, as is shown by the postponement of the investigation of the skeletons noted above. If the excavation team had said that the skeletons were important and could include the original occupant instead of pursuing a theory that points to the cremation fragments (if anything), then there would have been much more public and political pressure to investigate the skeletons. And the DNA will be degrading all the time – potentially there will be much more oxygen getting to the remains than was the case in the graves and it is an extremely reactive gas.

I have said nothing about forgery or fraud. It is quite possible that we are just looking at a series of human errors on the analysis and presentation of the inscribed blocks. But real culpability will be engendered by further delays driven by embarrassment, which lead to a continued lack of focus upon the skeletons.

What I mean, or what Lefantzis meant, is that when inscriptions are written, they are written on the unprocessed surface of the marble/block which is initially smooth. The inscription may cover all the area from edge to edge. The Kastas blocks have a carved outer border, slightly deeper than the central area of the outer block's surface. That is what in Greek is called peritenio, essentially meaning "surrounding strip/band" (I assume that is what drafting or drafted margin means). If a letter was occupying the area where the peritenio was going to be added, it would have been removed in that part of the block's processing. So Lefantzis is practically saying that there was originally more space to write the inscription if we include the area where the peritenio is, but for the specific block, there is enough space to write the Π, without even having to include that area

That is reading an awful lot into a single obscure phrase and I’m afraid it makes no sense. The blocks had obviously already been dressed to size and shape when the inscription was written and the amount of material that is needed to accommodate the Π is about 11cm and that takes the block length to exactly 4x its width and twice its depth. One does not chip away 11cm of dense marble merely in order to level up a rough-cut face.

As for the monument being for a hero – I would suggest that we not be sexist and add heroine. And certainly the member of the royal family for which this tomb may have been built would have been regarded as a heroine by her family, who would have commissioned the tomb.

As for us averting our gaze while the really competent archaeologists get on with their theorising, I note that they have shown themselves capable of numerous errors so far (I recall that they managed not to notice that they had a female arm sticking out when they uncovered half the mosaic and now they seem to have managed somehow to present drawings of the inscriptions with the edges of the blocks in completely the wrong places.) Therefore it is appropriate that they should be subject to the review of the wider international scholarly community in order the sooner to correct any similar future deviations from the truth. And I would promote glasnost and perestroika for the forums too. What is the alternative exactly? Soviet style repression and curtailment of free speech?

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

I have said nothing about forgery or fraud. It is quite possible that we are just looking at a series of human errors on the analysis and presentation of the inscribed blocks. But real culpability will be engendered by further delays driven by embarrassment, which lead to a continued lack of focus upon the skeletons.

Well it began this way:

Either the archaeologists accidentally cropped the left-hand margins off both the inscription blocks in their photos exactly at the edge of the first alpha and accidentally drew much larger margins than actually exist around the letters in their drawings or else they had some obscure motive or else they intended to avoid revealing the fact that the pis could have been cut off the blocks. I will not venture to judge which of these possibilities is true....

Most recently it has become:

It is easy to refute me, if I am wrong. Just show me uncropped photos of both inscription blocks from the archaeologists or from anybody who has managed to arrange one of these visits to the museum that you seem to think are happening. And tell me the dimensions of the blocks. There is NO reason that this information should be withheld, if I am wrong.

You would seem to have leaned well towards the deliberate withholding of information side of things. That Lefantzis has not sent to anyone on this forum these "uncropped" photos means you are right? That Lefantzis has not provided such to this forum means he is withholding information? Really,it beggars belief. I doubt he and the others involved are bothered by the questions and demands of self proclaimed experts from internet forums - here or elsewhere. They appear to have enough on their hands with their professional colleagues as these show (if they've not been linked to here before... sooo many pages):

http://anaskafi.blogspot.com.au/2016/03 ... st_96.html
http://fragilemag.gr/amfipoli-alexandros/

As for the monument being for a hero – I would suggest that we not be sexist and add heroine. And certainly the member of the royal family for which this tomb may have been built would have been regarded as a heroine by her family, who would have commissioned the tomb.

This theory seems quite malleable or, in the very least, adaptable.

And I would promote glasnost and perestroika for the forums too. What is the alternative exactly? Soviet style repression and curtailment of free speech?

A dose of hyperbole never goes astray on a Sunday night!