The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[agesilaos]

I agree, Zeb, there seems no correlation with status, Philip II or III has only 5 nail heads as does the nobles Lyson and Kalikles; nor chronological Verghina is late fourth and Lyson/Kallikles late third with Kastas in between. I think Taphoi is right and that it is conditioned by the size of the doorway and aethetic considerations rather than anything more; there is much over interpretation around symbols with some claiming that the number of semi-circles or rays on a sun burst indicate particular kings which is demonstrably untrue, sometimes art is mundane with no hidden significance, Picasso's 'Blue Period' merely reflected the availability of cheap blue pigment

[Zebedee]

Whenever I look at those doors, it's not what's there which stands out. It's what isn't.

eg



(Agia Paraskevi, late 4th century)

[gepd]

http://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2016/0 ... is-part-1/

[Zebedee]

Oh nice. Thank you.

From gepd's link:

The third room leads through a typically Macedonian marble door to the fourth and last room: there the rests of the cremation of a young man have been found, the remains of a woman were thrown on this spot without an orderly re-composition of her body. The skeletal remains of two headless men who were 35 to 45 years old and of a child were also thrown on the spot.

Is Corso saying that the three adult skeletons were not buried then? Dating please...

Figures of snakes also adorned the pyre of Hephaestion (Diodorus 17.115) where of course they expressed the new status of the honoured dead as hero. Snakes represented on the tumulus Kasta may have had the same function.

But this snake on this relief, it's different because this must be Alexander? Unlike the snake in the burial chamber which doesn't signify 'Alexander is buried here' because it has to be Hephaestion to fit the narrative the team want to construct for the tomb. Within a few more weeks the above quote will be Corso's considered opinion with Alexander 'links' relegated to a footnote.

[agesilaos]

There is certainly much to question; how can Corso know the cremation is of 'a young man', this is just a further demonstration of how polluted the whole discourse is, one cannot discern the age of a pile of ashes and teh serpents on Hephaistions pyre, which was probably only a figment of Kleitarchos' imagination

Above these, on the second level, stood torches fifteen cubits high with golden wreaths about their handles. At their flaming ends perched eagles with outspread wings looking downward, while about their bases were serpents looking up at the eagles.

Diod. XVII 115 iii

Why let the details interfere with a p-poor theory, why quote anything that demonstrates it is a bad argument? With Easter approaching I think there are still a few crosses left

[Zebedee]

It could be the case Corso is working backwards from a name to the cremation, or it could be that sufficient bone survives to sex and generally age the remains. As we've seen at Vergina to much sound and fury. I'm open to either possibility. Which is a sad statement on how things are currently. But makes you wonder about headless male corpses (careless to lose them - did the Macedonians go in for decorating things with heads?) and the whens and whys of this chamber and the general tomb.

[Paralus]

But makes you wonder about headless male corpses (careless to lose them - did the Macedonians go in for decorating things with heads?) and the whens and whys of this chamber and the general tomb.

I had thought it had been written hereabouts that these two males were Olympias' generals Aristonous and Monimos? Perhaps the royal family had, as you say, been careless and lost their heads on the way to interment with the lonely Olympias. Perhaps this is the index case for the plethora of zombie stories over the years? Roland(ous) the Headless Sarisa Wielder indeed...

[Zebedee]

Two horses mean two headless horsemen? And a culty mystery is solved too.

I'm trying to get all my ducks in a row with the third chamber.

We have a cist grave which, from the cremated remains still inside, was used to inter the cremation. Presumably in some form of container in the smaller portion of the grave. The size of the remaining part of the cist grave seems sufficient for a kline. But there is, seemingly, no evidence for anyone to have been buried in that part of the cist grave. The grave was for a time covered by a flooring. Based upon fragmented decorations, which are broadly datable to the late 4th century onwards, the initial theory was that some sort of structure was above ground too. Also above the grave was a carved pillar with a snake winding it's way up a tree (?). This appears to be the primary burial at the site. Corso calls it a 'young man', but evidence is absent to support that statement from the remains.

At some point in the history of the site, someone dumped the remains of a woman (seemingly already disarticulated according to Corso?) into the chamber. Two headless men also found themselves within the third chamber, and we also have an infant. When they were placed into the third chamber is currently unknown, whether prior to the doors being erected to the third chamber or whether prior to the c.70 BC closing of the entire tomb or at some point in between. edit: forgot to mention too, there was also mention of animal bones in the third chamber - including horse?

Subject to evidence based revision from the team, that's correct so far isn't it?

[Xenophon]

As remarked elsewhere, anything written by Corso should not be consumed without copious quantities of salt. The man simply does not know what he is talking about and his views are best ignored.......

[Taphoi]

Two horses mean two headless horsemen? And a culty mystery is solved too.

I'm trying to get all my ducks in a row with the third chamber.

We have a cist grave which, from the cremated remains still inside, was used to inter the cremation. Presumably in some form of container in the smaller portion of the grave. The size of the remaining part of the cist grave seems sufficient for a kline. But there is, seemingly, no evidence for anyone to have been buried in that part of the cist grave. The grave was for a time covered by a flooring. Based upon fragmented decorations, which are broadly datable to the late 4th century onwards, the initial theory was that some sort of structure was above ground too. Also above the grave was a carved pillar with a snake winding it's way up a tree (?). This appears to be the primary burial at the site. Corso calls it a 'young man', but evidence is absent to support that statement from the remains.

At some point in the history of the site, someone dumped the remains of a woman (seemingly already disarticulated according to Corso?) into the chamber. Two headless men also found themselves within the third chamber, and we also have an infant. When they were placed into the third chamber is currently unknown, whether prior to the doors being erected to the third chamber or whether prior to the c.70 BC closing of the entire tomb or at some point in between. edit: forgot to mention too, there was also mention of animal bones in the third chamber - including horse?

Subject to evidence based revision from the team, that's correct so far isn't it?

There appears to be no evidence that the uncremated woman and the men are not original burials. Clearly the grave was completely dug out (probably at the time of the final chamber sealing), then what was dug out was bunged back in (possibly minus some valuables).
The sedulous care that somebody took over the sealing, when the only thing left inside was the bones and the (very few) cremated fragments suggests that one of these individuals was believed to be the VIP for whom the monument was built by whoever perpetrated the sealing.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Zebedee]

There appears to be no evidence that the uncremated woman and the men are not original burials. Clearly the grave was completely dug out (probably at the time of the final chamber sealing), then what was dug out was bunged back in (possibly minus some valuables).
The sedulous care that somebody took over the sealing, when the only thing left inside was the bones and the (very few) cremated fragments suggests that one of these individuals was believed to be the VIP for whom the monument was built by whoever perpetrated the sealing.
Best wishes,
Andrew

A grave dug out sufficiently to remove every bone from three corpses but not every remnant of the cremation would need some explaining. I don't put much faith into Corso's words, but if he's giving an accurate recounting of the evidence (and it does indeed match what has already been said) then we're not having any corpse within the grave at any period. That one of the individuals is the VIP would seem self-evident given the evidence for the cremated remains being within the cist grave. The idea of the benevolent grave robber, who ransacks the tomb and digs out the grave but absent mindedly forgets to do anything more than leave the skeletons dumped outside of the grave from whence they came, seems novel worthy.

[agesilaos]

The evidence at the moment would suggest that the original burial was for the cremains within an urn and a body upon a kline or within a coffin (the fragments found could be either). As far as I know there is no evidence for high-status double-decker burials in Macedon. There are then at least three later deposited bodies including the baby.

The paucity of cremains and pieces of coffin might suggest that following the earthquake which damaged the sphinxes and the karyatids the original VIP occupants were moved after damage to the burial, this would be when the doors were pegged shut and all functions removed to the first two chambers.

The ‘sedulous sealing’ utilising slabs from the floor of the final chamber and the intrusive burials can be dated c.70BC possibly to Sulla’s reimposition of Roman rule upon Macedon and Thrace following the First Mithridatic War in 86BC. The two men woman and child would just be collateral damage. It is clear that no care was taken over the burial of any of these bodies, so they can have rated as little more than litter to those sealing the tomb.

Since there was no treasure to bury nor concern for those bodies found we can conclude that the sealing was not to protect what was within but simply to keep people out. If cultic activity persisted then it was closed down, finally. Action against the Macedonian Royal cult would make sense against two irrelevant figures from the Argaead past none.

One can only hope that instead of wasting time and money on charcoalof dubious provenance they will C14 the bones and give a clearer picture.

[Taphoi]

The evidence at the moment would suggest that the original burial was for the cremains within an urn and a body upon a kline or within a coffin (the fragments found could be either). As far as I know there is no evidence for high-status double-decker burials in Macedon. There are then at least three later deposited bodies including the baby.

The paucity of cremains and pieces of coffin might suggest that following the earthquake which damaged the sphinxes and the karyatids the original VIP occupants were moved after damage to the burial, this would be when the doors were pegged shut and all functions removed to the first two chambers.

The ‘sedulous sealing’ utilising slabs from the floor of the final chamber and the intrusive burials can be dated c.70BC possibly to Sulla’s reimposition of Roman rule upon Macedon and Thrace following the First Mithridatic War in 86BC. The two men woman and child would just be collateral damage. It is clear that no care was taken over the burial of any of these bodies, so they can have rated as little more than litter to those sealing the tomb.

Since there was no treasure to bury nor concern for those bodies found we can conclude that the sealing was not to protect what was within but simply to keep people out. If cultic activity persisted then it was closed down, finally. Action against the Macedonian Royal cult would make sense against two irrelevant figures from the Argaead past none.

One can only hope that instead of wasting time and money on charcoalof dubious provenance they will C14 the bones and give a clearer picture.

The 70BC date is very questionable. I have seen no evidence for it, although it has been attributed to C-14 dating of torch ash in the sand fill. If so, then several points must be made:

1) The C-14 date will have been a range covering about 2 centuries just as is the case for the charcoal, so it is certain that somebody is being tendentious and possibly disingenuous in mentioning 70BC rather than a date range - it may be intended as an extreme latest date and have been misreported, but it has definitely been misrepresented.
2) The archaeologists said last September that they had firm dating evidence for the sealing being no later than the 2nd century BC
3) C-14 dating from soot is not very trustworthy, because of contamination issues. There will have been bacteria alive in the sand fill. If even a small number of these had managed to adhere to or penetrate the soot, they would have seriously biased the C-14 date to a value younger than reality. With a substantial lump of charcoal. You can carve a sample out of its heart to prevent contamination, but you cannot do that with soot.

The 70BC date is of no real value until we have had some explanation of the actual associated date range data and of how they prevented contamination of the result by modern bacteria lodged in cracks in the soot particle surfaces. This is especially true since the archaeologists have said that the 70BC date is contradicted by other dating evidence on the sealing.

The C-14 date on the bones should be about 350BC to about 200BC. That will not in itself resolve very much. Other isotopic analyses, such as Strontium isotope ratios, should be more interesting.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

A grave dug out sufficiently to remove every bone from three corpses but not every remnant of the cremation would need some explaining. I don't put much faith into Corso's words, but if he's giving an accurate recounting of the evidence (and it does indeed match what has already been said) then we're not having any corpse within the grave at any period. That one of the individuals is the VIP would seem self-evident given the evidence for the cremated remains being within the cist grave. The idea of the benevolent grave robber, who ransacks the tomb and digs out the grave but absent mindedly forgets to do anything more than leave the skeletons dumped outside of the grave from whence they came, seems novel worthy.

I suspect that you are reading far too much into Corso's words. He actually appears to be being very careful not to say anything we did not already know about the bones, except for the strange comment that the cremation was a young man.
It is not clear how he could possibly know from the handful of cremation fragments unless an intact sciatic notch or an eyebrow ridge were miraculously preserved among them. More likely, he is "predicting" it was a young man on the basis of the supposed Hephaistion evidence.
Nor am I clear that he is telling us that the cremation fragments were in any way more concentrated than the bones. If they had been, the archaeologists would already have made more fuss about it, since they clearly wish to divert attention from the remains of the woman. The bones of the woman really were fairly concentrated near the coffin slot - one of the few published facts from the bone report is that all her bones were found within the bottom 90cm of the grave cut.
It is not clear whether the heads of the men are actually missing or whether instead their skulls are so fragmented that their fragments could not be attributed to the respective individuals. More likely the latter, given the enormous number of bone fragments that could not be attributed. Corso need not be saying any more than that the skeletons from the attributed fragments as published by the university osteoarchaeologists do not have skulls (which we already knew).
I suspect that the archaeologists do not themselves know exactly how the bones from the different individuals were distributed in the grave slot, because the individuals were not identified at all until long after the bones had left the archaeologists' hands.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Zebedee]

Could you help identify which part of "the remains of a woman were thrown on this spot without an orderly re-composition of her body" is "reading far too much into Corso's words"? I'm struggling to see the problem with my summary. I'd have thought disarticulated remains thrown into a grave for someone else would be grist to the OIympias theory generating mill? Go through the scenarios here. A grave robber cared enough to re-bury the female remains after looting the grave? Someone picked through the bones of three adults to find the female ones to rebury?