The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[Zebedee]

It is fairly clear that the cist grave either pre-dates or post-dates the monument, because it is built at a much lower standard than the rest of the monument. Its blocks are roughly hewn limestone. If it were built at the same time as the overlying monument, it ought to be made from finely sculpted marble.
We now have it confirmed by the archaeologists that the tomb was sealed before the Romans arrived in 168BC. So if the cist grave post-dates the monument, it would probably have to have been authorised by the Hellenistic kings of Macedon. But it is very unlikely that they would have authorised a mean burial in the heart of such a monument and there is no real reason why such a later burial would have been off-centre. Also such a Hellenistic burial should have been a cremation. Also nobody would have bothered to seal this tomb unless the bones were important (they would not have cared about preserving already smashed art works and if they had then they would have mended them).
The only thing that really makes sense is that the cist grave is an earlier tomb of somebody disregarded at the time of burial, but subsequently exalted by others. The reason it is off centre is that the builders of the monument did not know its exact location and did not wish to excavate the cist grave to establish its exact location out of reverence for the occupants.
The reason that the principal occupants were not cremated is that, although very important people, they were executed as criminals. The only other explanation yet offered for this is that the bones were Roman burials, after cremation had gone out of fashion. It is much more significant than the overblown "Hephaistion" graffiti story that this Roman explanation for inhumation has now become impossible.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Well, we have a cremation so I guess we take that as being the most likely candidate for the original occupant given your reasoning there. That's certainly something we'd agree on then. Still, assuming that it is, making an inhumation the central feature of this is rather curious. If you're going to build around a pre-existing thing, you do get to measure it all out before you start construction - you'd have thought someone would have noticed it's squiffy before they started. More understandable if it postdates the chamber and they're working around pre-existing flooring or perhaps that things were fully in motion before the grave was discovered underneath. Limestone over marble may be a reflection of the fact that this is in an archaic graveyard - not everyone in it is a criminal, though I suppose some may be. How would we know? Perhaps a disarticulated pile of bones from where the body had been exposed and the scavengers had had time to get at the corpse?

Which bones were important? We've two men, a woman, a child and a cremation in there. Another sensible view would be that the site was covered over, as others were, because the cult was no longer relevant. The evidence for a continued period of use is quite interesting really.

[Taphoi]

Well, we have a cremation so I guess we take that as being the most likely candidate for the original occupant given your reasoning there. That's certainly something we'd agree on then. Still, assuming that it is, making an inhumation the central feature of this is rather curious. If you're going to build around a pre-existing thing, you do get to measure it all out before you start construction - you'd have thought someone would have noticed it's squiffy before they started. More understandable if it postdates the chamber and they're working around pre-existing flooring or perhaps that things were fully in motion before the grave was discovered underneath. Limestone over marble may be a reflection of the fact that this is in an archaic graveyard - not everyone in it is a criminal, though I suppose some may be. How would we know? Perhaps a disarticulated pile of bones from where the body had been exposed and the scavengers had had time to get at the corpse?

Which bones were important? We've two men, a woman, a child and a cremation in there. Another sensible view would be that the site was covered over, as others were, because the cult was no longer relevant. The evidence for a continued period of use is quite interesting really.

We do not really have a complete cremation. Just a total of 9 cremated bone fragments. The ridge on which the tomb was built was a pre-existing cemetery that was in use up until the classical period (when Amphipolis was founded), so really it is most likely that the cremated fragments simply got mixed in from surrounding disturbed graves when the cist tomb was cut or when it was desecrated (the same may go for the very incomplete handful of infant bones). It is obvious that the cist grave was built for inhumations, because it has a coffin shaped slot and because ivory and glass fragments attributed as coffin decorations were found in the slot.

They have actually probably found the entire skeletons of the 60+ woman, the late thirties man and the early forties man, because only 157 of the 550 uncremated bone fragments were assigned to the three skeletons, but nevertheless a large fraction of each skeleton was identified. In other words the unidentified fragments probably include the rest of the skeletons (as well as some horse bones). The bones of the woman were concentrated in the bottom 90cm of the cist grave cut and her skeleton is most complete and hers is the only complete skull. It follows that she was probably the occupant of the coffin, but that the two men were probably placed higher in the same grave, most probably at the same time. The monument appears subsequently (at least months later) to have been built over this grave to honour its occupants. That is the only story that fits everything.

I think it distinctly unlikely that anyone would have been allowed to sink ultra-deep but cheaply constructed inhumation graves into the floor of the last chamber of the most magnificent monument ever built in Greece during the reigns of the Antipatrid or Antigonid kings of Macedon.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Zebedee]

We do not really have a complete cremation. Just a total of 9 cremated bone fragments. The ridge on which the tomb was built was a pre-existing cemetery that was in use up until the classical period (when Amphipolis was founded), so really it is most likely that the cremated fragments simply got mixed in from surrounding disturbed graves when the cist tomb was cut or when it was desecrated (the same may go for the very incomplete handful of infant bones). It is obvious that the cist grave was built for inhumations, because it has a coffin shaped slot and because ivory and glass fragments attributed as coffin decorations were found in the slot.

They have actually probably found the entire skeletons of the 60+ woman, the late thirties man and the early forties man, because only 157 of the 550 uncremated bone fragments were assigned to the three skeletons, but nevertheless a large fraction of each skeleton was identified. In other words the unidentified fragments probably include the rest of the skeletons (as well as some horse bones). The bones of the woman were concentrated in the bottom 90cm of the cist grave cut and her skeleton is most complete and hers is the only complete skull. It follows that she was probably the occupant of the coffin, but that the two men were probably placed higher in the same grave, most probably at the same time. The monument appears subsequently (at least months later) to have been built over this grave to honour its occupants. That is the only story that fits everything.

I think it distinctly unlikely that anyone would have been allowed to sink ultra-deep but cheaply constructed inhumation graves into the floor of the last chamber of the most magnificent monument ever built in Greece during the reigns of the Antipatrid or Antigonid kings of Macedon.

Best wishes,

Andrew

But the limestone is below ground, isn't it? So a later cist grave lined with cheaper materials actually could just be a reflection of relative affluence, or lack of it. The idea that one constructs Greece's largest tomb but manage to pie-eye the central feature seems amusing. Of course it could happen, but one can't then dismiss other possibilities on the basis of peerless build quality. Your story most certainly does not cover every possibility - it's barely plausible on its own merits, and certainly requires some curious interpretation in order to fit the actual context of the grave. ie inside such a large and seemingly unattested cult site.

[gepd]

Hi Andrew, thanks for the comments.

I don't have much too argue against what you say, as I said my preferred interpretation comes out after balancing possibilities. I do agree with some alternatives you propose but I just consider them much less likely. Each of these explanations separately is unlikely for me but still possible. All these to occur in combination is something that I personally consider extremely unlikely.

One can continue arguing about that - e.g. it is rather clear to resolve graffiti in photos of blocks. Just go in the image database of the America School of Archaeology in Athens, here:

http://www3.ascsa.edu.gr/archives/Advan ... fault.aspx

Give "Amphipolis" in the search field and browse a large number of the Strymon block photos from the time they were being excavated in the 30s. Carvings are deep, easily resolved.

There is also more: there are some names appearing in the region the 2nd or 3rd century AD. The use of ligatures indicates a graffiti being applied later than the 2nd century AD. However it is very likely that the peribolos was dismantled in the 1st century BC or AD. Antipater from Thesallonike reports in the 1st century BC Amphipolis was a ruin, following the Mithridatic wars. Octavian rebuilt Amphipolis later on, there are dedicatory statue bases in the entrance of Amphipolis excavated by Lazarides, mentioning him as "builder". It looks logical to me that it was probably during his time that the peribolos was dismantled for the material to be used for reconstructions. There is then at least 1 century gap (likely much more) between the time names were carved and the peribolos destruction. I dont believe blocks were left over at Kastas for few hundred years.

So blocks must have been moved away from Kastas before graffiti was applied. If therefore the 3 inscriptions can be associated with the Kastas monument (meaning that at least the third, not shown, was found there) it would be extremely unlikely the graffiti of the Strymon blocks and that of the 3 inscriptions to have the same origin.

Note also the the H+Φ monogram was found inside the tomb, too. The large letters, the careless writing etc. is an interesting aspect to discuss, but the essence is in the content. If one associates them with the original monument, then you have something saying that the monument was delivered + the potential Hephaestion reference. Writing style is then secondary. Maybe these was something distributed among the workforce, not something too official.

However, talking about coincidences, here is one you may like. There is one artist called Hephaestion, he made one mosaic in one of the Attalus palaces in Pergamon. His signature is there "ΗΦΑΙΣΤΙΩΝ ΕΠΟIEIΣΕ" (Hephaestion made it). In Pergamon one may also find a grand tumulus tomb from the Hellenistic period, around 2nd or 1st century AD. It is called Yigma Tepe, has exactly the same diameter as Kastas (158 m), approximately the same height (30 m) and a monumental peribolos.

[Taphoi]

So blocks must have been moved away from Kastas before graffiti was applied. If therefore the 3 inscriptions can be associated with the Kastas monument (meaning that at least the third, not shown, was found there) it would be extremely unlikely the graffiti of the Strymon blocks and that of the 3 inscriptions to have the same origin.

Thanks for your interesting response. Some reports (quoting Kottaridi) are now suggesting that the "Hephaistion" graffiti are actually from the drafted margin peribolos blocks dredged from the Strymon with the lion fragments. What is your perspective on this? You would presumably then argue that they had nothing to do with the tomb?
Perhaps the rosette version of the "Hephaistion" monogram is this one:

If so, we are looking at some deeply unconvincing and probably entirely coincidental scratches.
I doubt whether Yigma Tepe is closely connected with the Amphipolis tomb. The coincidence of its having the same diameter is easily explained: 157m was the length of the stade paced out by Alexander the Great's bematists.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[gepd]

Two of the three inscriptions were found in the region with the drafted margin blocks. The third was found on site (I think). If all three were found at the Strymon, it would be a different story, more difficult to support the aforementioned connections, although still not impossible. The blocks where the inscriptions are found seem to have the same dimensions as other drafted margin blocks (although I am not 100% sure) and the content of the inscription is completely different from all other graffiti.

Regarding the rosette with the monogram inside the tomb, I just rely on the excavators remark who had a good look, not on the low-res image of the slides. I hope they do not lie. As for Kotarridi, she makes some good points but she is also heavily biased, so I think one should be as skeptical with her points as with Peristeri's and Lefantzis arguments. Peristeri and Kotarridi have been arguing in a rather bad way the last couple of months, especially when it turned out that an informal visit of the latter at the site, ended up with an inspection report to the ministry.

I also cannot understand how Kotarridi can date the whole thing in roman times in the 2nd century or even 1st century BC, when e.g. there is a pebble mosaic in the tomb, a Hellenistic house in Amphipolis with wall paintings depicting the Kasta Hill wall structure, and reports of Amphipolis being exposed to Thracian raids and being a ruin afterwards in the 1st century BC. But of course I am not an expert, so lets keep an open mind.

The reference to Yigma Tepe was just to show that coincidences do occur - that was all.

[Taphoi]

Two of the three inscriptions were found in the region with the drafted margin blocks. The third was found on site (I think). If all three were found at the Strymon, it would be a different story, more difficult to support the aforementioned connections, although still not impossible. The blocks where the inscriptions are found seem to have the same dimensions as other drafted margin blocks (although I am not 100% sure) and the content of the inscription is completely different from all other graffiti.

It is sounding a bit as though the version that was found on site was the above "rosette-Hephaistion" graffiti, in which the smaller letters seem to be non-existent and even the phi is dubious. If so, the whole argument looks increasingly tenuous. But there is still a lot of ambiguity and mist.
Thanks for your interesting thoughts.
Andrew

[agesilaos]

These marks do seem to have been 'enthusiastically' interpreted. I can see the 'arelabon' but even they do not supply the Pi required for the interpretation proffered, I do not see much in the original photos though. If this is Hephaistion's monogram then he patently has two, one allegedly supplying the whole name with a standard sigma and the rosette one with a lunate sigma on the right.

Now the Antigonids are ruled out because they were too poor! ??? This is copralite of the first order, but where is the alleged Ant. monogram? Personally I would want these examined to determine the date they were made, there is a whiff of Iudaean ossary about the whole exegesis.

[gepd]

The ANT monogram appears in several peribolos blocks on Kastas. I posted one photo in an earlier post, here it is again:



As for the inscription, here is one proposal (found it on twitter). I obvioulsly think the mark on the peribolos is more convincing

[agesilaos]

Thanks, certainly helps my old eyes.

Upon a tomb and obsequies for his friend, and upon their embellishments, he purposed to spend ten thousand talents, and wished that the ingenuity and novelty of the construction should surpass the expense. He therefore longed for Stasicratesa above all other artists, because in his innovations there was always promise of great magnificence, boldness, and ostentation. Plut Alex. 72 v

Amidst the hype this passage has been twisted into saying

‘According to ancient historian Plutarch, when Hephaestion died suddenly in Ecbatana, Iran, “Alexander asked (his architect) Deinokrates to erect shrines all over the country,” she [Peristeri] added

.

Wishing that Deinokrates was handy becomes having him on hand to receive a commission, quite where she gets the ‘all over the country’ from mystifies me. Arrian VII 23 7 tells us just where this monster heroon was to be built,

[7] I myself say this because the letter ordered the fitting out of a heroon for Hephaistion in Alexandreia in Egypt, one in the city and one on the Pharos island, the island where the tower is, they were to be of the greatest size and of the most remarkable extravagance, and in this way the majesty of Hephaistion was to be invoked, and the bonds (symbolaioi) which the merchants contracted among themselves were to be engraved in the name of Hephaistion.

Now Deinokrates is supposed to be overseeing the building of the very same Alexandria, so it is were he to be despatched to Amphipolis these heroia would not have been specified for Alexandria. Archaeology demonstrates that these remained on the drawing board too, yet we are asked to believe that a cenotaph was completed at great expense in the wake of the Lamian War and throughout the Diadoch wars for a completely irrelevant and unpopular figure on the strength of one microscopic and dubious monogram.

The two on the blocks are composite signatures and the natural explanation of stone marked [p]aralabon ‘received’ would be that the consignment has been accepted as being in good order by the inspectors of works, and that the multiple signs demonstrate either a committee or a chain of transport.

[gepd]

There is a sound recording of the 2 hour event available, I am trying to translate it for everyone here, but will take some time. In general, the references of K. Peristeri to the literature are inaccurate, as pointed above by Agesilaos, and many times some of their (Peristeri and Lefantzis) interpretations are presented as facts, but at least Lefantzis was more clear in his talk.

-He says that the ANT monogram does not mean Monophtalmos was responsible for this structure. He says it was seen in 4-5 parts of the peribolos and therefore it dates the peribolos until the period of Gonatas, so the roman scenario for the peribolos (and possibly the tomb) construction cannot be considered.

-While he does not exclude the possibility of the 3rd century construction during Gonatas's reign, he prefers to attribute this to Monophtalmos on the basis of the three inscriptions coming from Kastas containing what appears to be a letter combination that has all letters belonging to "ΗΦΑΙΣΤΙΩΝΟΣ" and an "ΗΦ" monogram in a rosette or seal inside the tomb. He states that these inscriptions are naturally going to be evaluated by epigraphists, but otherwise they are confident they refer to Hephaestion. If that is the known Hephaestion, they are unlikely to be dated in Gonatas's period. Peristeri also mentioned that its not unlikely that they will find a 4th one in the peribolos excavations, after they continuew, as mason's marks from the peribolos indicate at least 4 groups of workers.

-Lefantzis also prefers a 4th century construction because he thinks (or they think) that there were less money available in the 3rd century. While they did not say that, one good reference is the Heroon at Archontiko of Pella, very similar to Kastas in concept, dated in 285-280 BC. That was constructed of limestone, it was smaller, it was never completed after the raids by the Gauls and no similar monument has appeared in Macedonia afterwards. If money or motivation were indeed available, so that they can construct something like Kastas, more monuments like Kastas would have appeared in Macedonia but none has been found.

-They are clear that inscriptions are three, they are all similar, but they have shown only two (not sure why). The two they have shown come from the Strymon blocks. They were originally from the peribolos. Lefantzis said that the letter carvings are rather shallow, they are not easy to read (which is why they went unnoticed all the years and which is why the separate them from other graffiti). The inscriptions were originally brushed away, before being covered by paint or stucko and for the use of the blocks in the peribolos. They did not say where the 3rd inscription was found.

-He mentions Deinokrates name frequently, but never gives a proof for that. Only in past interviews he said that if they can definately date the monument in the 4th century BC, there are 3-4 candidate architects handling such large projects and Deinokrates is one of those. The latest attribution of the monument to Hephaestion + references in the literature about heroa being planned at Alexandria, where Deinokrates was somehow responsible, is what leads to the proposed connection, I assume.

-He talks about additional evidence regarding the placement of the lion on top of Kastas. He says that Lazarides, who excavated a 10.15 x 10.15 m limestone foundation at the center of the hill that was supposed to support a large structure on top, found in its interior a large hole, about 1 m or so wide. What he believes was inside that hole was a large wooden pole that was used to guide the "ruler" for carving the circular perimeter of the tumulus. Then that pole was also used to hold the lion, which was not only supported by a marble base. He says drawings of the lion's parts by the excavators in the 1930s show that it was hollow inside, and that a hole at its bottom matches the size of the one found by Lazarides at the hilltop. The expected position for the lion's placement on the base was also consistent with the position of the hole in the lion and in the foundations.

-He talks about tons of marble piecies found by Lazarides around the foundation, coming from the carving of the lion that happened on site. He also refers to art historians noting an inconsistency between the size of the lion's body and head. He says the reason for that is that it was supposed to be seen from much lower compared to how it is seen now - so that inconsistency was intentional, for optical correction purposes.

-He mentions at the end that the lion was a sign/marker or somehow indicative of a chilarch. He gives no reference about that and I also have no idea what he talks about.

There were many more nice statements about findings and measurements, I just think the ones above are the most interesting for a start.

[agesilaos]

E-ph-a-i-s-t-i-o-n-o-s =of Hephaistion yet on the material we have
E_ph a i A_n-T s-O-? oops too many a’s; so not only has the team failed to read the relevant history accurately they cannot even spell!

So we do NOT have all the letters for ‘Hephaistionos’ we have an eta-phi monogram, a non-jugate alpha-iota, a separate alpha-nu-tau monogram and a separate omega-sigma and a mystery letter group. Now take a step back and ask yourselves, ‘what is the purpose of a monogram?’ It is to convey the idea of a longer word or phrase by some of its constituent letters; ANT –Antigonos, BA – Basileus Alexandrou,: what they are not for is spelling out complete words in a manner to obscure them.

ANT could be any of the many Greek names beginning ‘Ant’, Kings, as a rule do not obscure their contributions beneath stucco. As has already been pointed out Monopthalmos never had a base outside Asia, was permanently at odds with the ruler of Macedon, Kassandros; and whilst I would love to say that makes it Gonatas, it is far more likely the mark of an unknown clerk of works (I hope no Delta-Epsilon-Kappa mark turns up else they will redate to the late twentieth century)[Ant and Dec are TV presenters in UK].

Where has Peristeri plucked four groups of workers from? Oh, masons’ marks that she fails to detail, and since there are four of these each will have its own graffito ‘arelabon’, I need to drop acid to get hip with that ‘logic’.

Lefantzis, as an architect, can be forgiven for being misled by the archaeologists, his reasoning for persisting with the Deinokrates line is clearly based on their dating, for which there is still no evidence presented beyond the misinterpretation of these graffiti .

I look forward to reading your transcript, though I suspect my blood pressure may suffer.

[gepd]

Well, hearing everything again I am not sure they ever said that ANT is part of this letter combination, but that it was seen at the peribolos. If ANT is part of the letter combination, you are right there is one extra "A". Otherwise it may simply be just an N and a T inside.

I haven't seen mason's marks or multiple signs like that (indicating a chain of transport or anything else) - are there examples? It would be strange if they would choose such a complex form of letter combination, all placed in specific ways and sizes, just for masonry works or deliveries or communication between different working groups. As for the letter sequence, that is from the sketch you did on the DIZA ALKOU name, nearly a year ago:



We know it should read DIZA ALKOU (the same name is found carved in a more normal way in another block plus DIZAS was a known name in the region), but the letter sequence seems partly random. So it was maybe some strange regional tradition or concept to write things like that? No idea. More examples will help but I have nothing in mind.

This was not necessarily an inscription for public viewing (given its simplicity), which was why it was covered with stucco or paint, later.

Regarding Lefantzis: if his arguments about the placement of the lion at the top of the hill are correct and the lion has been considered (if I am not mistaken) a 4th century BC construction, that could add to the discussion about the monument's dating.

[Zebedee]

Regarding Lefantzis: if his arguments about the placement of the lion at the top of the hill are correct and the lion has been considered (if I am not mistaken) a 4th century BC construction, that could add to the discussion about the monument's dating.

The lion's dating is stinky. The lion of Hamadan could be Hellenistic. And that of Chaeronea is very possibly associated in dating with the rebuilding of Thebes. But those dates are arguable both ways, and I've always been struck how circular the logic can be around dating one of them by the others. Cnidos is now dated mid-to-late C3rd by the British museum, but there's arguments placing it into the early to late C2nd, or even reaching back to Conon. Piraeus is generally seen as mid C4th isn't it? Other than the traditions associated with it (male, heroic, war), it's not really telling much.

[agesilaos]

I have not seen any examples either, these marks are rarely reported and frequently misunderstood IMHO. They are lightly scratched rather than carved and do not function as a single monogram, but could be a sequence of such I am only guessing at a chain of custody but that is what 'arelabon' seems to suggest, unless you are desperate to link things to Alexander when you can supply 'the sanctuary of'. I am not aware of any other blocks at other monuments with 'arelabon' on them but it is not really my sphere.

DIZA ALKOU is not composed of monograms only single characters and is definitely not original, as the fitting of the letters to the broken pieces demonstrates. The ANT monogram has precedents on coinage (I think I will check Price etc)but there is nothing to stop an ambiguity, I suppose (there was no monogram rulebook). But if this melange means 'of Hephaistion', though 'Hephaistioneionos', 'of the shrine of Hephaistion' might make better sense (and is this not what they are twisting it into?) why not just write it in full normally? If something does not function as a monogram then it is not a monogram. It was not for viewing other than by inspectors before the finish was applied. The other ANT monograms suggest that there was an official signing himself thus.

The lion does not really help since about all the style says is that it is Hellenistic, but firmly connecting it with the monument does rule out any later copying, there is no hint in any text that it would symbolise the Chiliarch; which chiliarch fell at Chaironeia?

I'll try and post any ANT monograms but might have to open a thread the last two uploads I have tried to post here have been rejected