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
Sound caveats about the soot, but I thought it was from the ceiling rather than within the fill and one would have to check the Greek, one man's 'charcoal' is Google translate's 'soot' The issues would remain. I would take the 70BC as the centre of the range of the uncalibrated results, this being how the charcoal result was announced.
The other 'evidence' will be the alleged stylistic considerations so I 'd not be placing any faith in the judgement of people who see Alexander everywhere and fail to recognise a Macedonian cavalry shield!
If the excavation was performed properly, and we are continually told it was then each fragment of bone will be numbered and those that were seen as the matrix was cleared will be mapped, even those later found by sieving the fill will have a general provenance, this is general good practice; thus the location of the later identified bone fragments should be clear and their relation to each other inform an interpretation. C14 ought to be able to rule out either a burial in 315 or one c 70 BC., all other analysis would, naturally be welcome.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Zebedee wrote: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?
The logic is that the bones found in the grave are the original bones. Because the sealing is early. Because the sealer thought the bones were important. Because in any circumstances it is always much more likely that bones found in a grave include the original bones rather than that the original bones were entirely removed and a fresh set were flung in. Because there is a coffin slot as well as another slot that might have held a vessel. Because the sealing is too early for the uncremated remains to be explained by Roman practice. We are therefore at high probability dealing with an original grave that was desecrated and robbed. There is no reason whatsoever to infer that the robber was "benevolent" or to attribute that view to me or anyone. The motives for sedulous sealing would be that the robber/desecrator feared or hated the VIP (even beyond the grave, so to speak). That is the straightforward story told by these findings. Bits of the smashed doors were suspended in situ within the fill, so the robber/desecrator is in all probability also the sealer. Attempts to tell complex and vastly improbable alternative stories around these facts or to spin them by implying that the disarticulated remains of the woman were scooped up elsewhere and bunged into the grave slot after the desecration of the cremation are distractions. There is no evidence that the burials are not original. The dating is definitely early. The sealing is definitely early, but the evidence remains ambiguous on just how early.
Many of the archaeologists' interpretations of their evidence look highly suspect at the moment. For example, they appear to have concluded that the tomb doors are "from a second phase", simply because the threshold stone with the grooves over which the doors rotated had mouldings on some of its edges and was therefore re-used. But that logic falls down if the tomb builders were re-using masonry prepared for an abandoned monument to Hephaistion as would now seem probable. In general, their logic is susceptible to the possibility that the original builders were re-using finished masonry from somewhere else. It is just as likely that an original builder might have re-used masonry from elsewhere as an hypothetical second phase builder. Nothing that the archaeologists have said about the second phase so far is actually inconsistent with the sorts of design tweaks that might have been perpetrated by original builders in the course of a build that lasted some years. It is bad practice to over-complicate explanations beyond what is strictly required by the facts (I reference Occam's Razor on this).
Best wishes,
Andrew
Corso says, "the remains of a woman were thrown on this spot without an orderly re-composition of her body"
I summarised as, " 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."
You claimed, "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."
Could you explain what you mean? You realise that 'without an orderly re-composition of her body' means that either the skeleton was removed from the grave and then re-buried (disarticulated) or that it was not a corpse but (disarticulated) remains which were buried in the first place? Of course, assuming Corso is correct which, as has been stated by several including myself already, could be a stretch. Another answer could be the bones were disturbed within the grave, but hopefully that should be testable given the great differences in position between the bones within the fill.
I'm glad you've found Occam's Razor. As you're now using it, who do you believe the primary burial (ie the cremation) is?
Taphoi wrote:We are therefore at high probability dealing with an original grave that was desecrated and robbed. There is no reason whatsoever to infer that the robber was "benevolent" or to attribute that view to me or anyone. The motives for sedulous sealing would be that the robber/desecrator feared or hated the VIP (even beyond the grave, so to speak). That is the straightforward story told by these findings. Bits of the smashed doors were suspended in situ within the fill, so the robber/desecrator is in all probability also the sealer. Attempts to tell complex and vastly improbable alternative stories around these facts or to spin them by implying that the disarticulated remains of the woman were scooped up elsewhere and bunged into the grave slot after the desecration of the cremation are distractions. There is no evidence that the burials are not original. The dating is definitely early. The sealing is definitely early, but the evidence remains ambiguous on just how early.
Hang on, why the hedging of bets? Why is a 'robber' now a part of the story? I'd have thought the sure and certain 'theory' was complex and vastly improbable enough without adding further complications. Unless something altered in all these interminable pages that absolute certaintly was that the royal family (a boy stripped of all royal perogatives and reduced to a common Macedonian, his barbarian mother, unseated Aiakides and Kleopatra) "pressured" Kasandros to allow this magnificent burial. A burial which annoyed the tripe out Kassandros who then murdered the royal family after which he desecrated the tomb and sealed it up (seduously). This even while Kleopatra must have protested the royal family's chagrin.
Taphoi wrote:That means that the desecration (door smashing, mutilation of sphinxes etc.) was simultaneous with the sealing and perpetrated by the same person. That fits Cassander for the tomb of Olympias after the murder of her grandson. Can anyone suggest another historical context in the early Hellenistic period? I think it is difficult otherwise to explain simultaneous desecration and sealing, which looks to be emerging from the archaeology.
A malleable theory. Occam's razor in desperate search of an edge...
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Just on the second date that has been announced, 70BC for the final closing. Assuming that this is in the same uncalibrated form as the very convenient 300 BC one then once calibrated using this free programme http://www.calpal-online.de/ and arrange + or – 30yrs the calibrated range is 58BC – 11AD (1 sigma; 68%); which would make a context in the Roman Civil Wars more likely than the Mithridatic, the campaign of Philippi being most likely.
The charcoal result gives a range of 374-244 BC so the algorithm does not recognise the dual peaks in that calibration but gives the whole range.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
amyntoros wrote:
Did they show any more photographs of the paintings at the conference? I'm fairly certain that the ones posted online so far are not all-inclusive.
Best Regards,
Was intrigued myself since you brought them up again. Best I can find is a video of the presentation, courtesy of a facebook group:
Sure these will have been posted before, so apologies if so. One would think trying to establish the dating for the helmet there would help buttress a date for at least one stage of the site's development.
Helmet? Maybe if it were to be redrawn by a four year old on acid...with DTs (I live in a rough area) I do see a round tower falling and a square one next to it, maybe a siege tower; Olympias and Hephaistion were hardly famed for siege warfare, one chap was but the name eludes me...
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
I see a vaguely Montefortino-style helmet with two plumes and a raised hinged cheekpiece on the pinkish thing in the foreground. It may however be a boulder.
Don't see the round tower, but do wonder about the square one. Another possible interpretation is something based on Hero and Leander? Has to be said that very difficult to make out much of anything without them publishing this stuff to see properly.
Ah I see, thank you. For scale, just behind the pink 'tower' is a white flying creature which is flying off to the right. I think the pink object is in the foreground. Perhaps a quiver if so? They sort of frame the tower in this part so pin a name to the tower I guess. Orthanc? Barad-Dur? Or decide it's not a tower as it suits.
Will pass on the question over presentation of evidence. I have the distinct impression that we'll be waiting for years for all the evidence to be published properly, and long after interpretation has been presented as fact.
From left to right Helmet=yes (round helmet) twr= helmet( common macedonian) round twr falling= quiver with arrows on top
Sorry for the laconic style
Pauline
It's very like seeing shapes in the flames or the clouds.
Whilst the thing by 'twr' resembles the comb of a Phrygian style helmet there does not seem enough room for all of it; the face and/or cheek guards. It could be the prow of a ship, but it is impossible to be dogmatic; though I have no doubt the archaeologists can see everything clearly. Quivers are not usual in Macedonian Tombs, although other military equipment, swords shields helmets corselets and greaves are.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
The issues would remain. I would take the 70BC as the centre of the range of the uncalibrated results, this being how the charcoal result was announced.
