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

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 »

Taphoi wrote: They are not crotchless. The photos show that about 90% of the paint is gone. The "crescent" on the bull only looks like a crescent in the weird fantasy reconstructions. In the photos it looks like the remains of a wreath or garland. Perfectly normal for a bull about to be sacrificed.
Best wishes,
Andrew
A garland surely wouldn't be that big or that shape. [edit: just to clarify, look at where the right end of the shape is on the bull's neck - if it were a garland one would expect it to continue up and around I think]. Otherwise, for sure on location.
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:
Taphoi wrote: They are not crotchless. The photos show that about 90% of the paint is gone. The "crescent" on the bull only looks like a crescent in the weird fantasy reconstructions. In the photos it looks like the remains of a wreath or garland. Perfectly normal for a bull about to be sacrificed.
Best wishes,
Andrew
A garland surely wouldn't be that big or that shape. [edit: just to clarify, look at where the right end of the shape is on the bull's neck - if it were a garland one would expect it to continue up and around I think]. Otherwise, for sure on location.
It does continue up and round the way I see it. The weird fantasy reconstructions may be affecting your eye. Ancient bull garlands can be any size you like (below). The crescent bling thing on a sacrificial bull, when everyone knows they wore garlands, is frankly silly.
Best wishes,
Andrew
Image
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 »

If it's got a crescent on its chest it's not a sacrificial bull. Therein is the point. It's not a sacrificial scene. Is that rather curious? Absolutely. Gepd has a Roman example a few posts back which is most intriguing, but first I've seen of that mosaic.

But, no, I still don't see either side going around the bull's neck on the picture you yourself posted. On the left side, it's hidden by what appears to be the bull's neck and on the right seems to end.

By size, you'll notice your example is close to the same thickness all the way round.

Just another idea to kick around, leaving both bull and centaurs as being there, would be that the 'crescents' are way to try and show a colour or texture change. I don't believe that is so, but it's possible.
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:
Xenophon wrote:....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.
Dioskouroi, perhaps? Polydeukes and Kastor, spending alternate days in Haides whilst the other lived amongst the gods, so at any given time there would have been one (deceased) mortal/hero and one god. The following, a relief showing the Dioscuri and the river god is in the Amphipolis Archaeological Museum (image from Livius.org).

Image
Of course I'm not asserting that the frieze IS of the Dioskouroi, especially as they are (almost?) always shown with two horses, but if one doesn't begin from a point of conviction - i.e. this is a cult site for Hephaistion, etc. - then the possibilities and interpretations increase and, as you say, become very interesting indeed. :D

Btw, I was just rereading posts from the past couple of weeks when this caught my eye, hence the delayed response. Oh, and could the helmets in the Dioskouroi plaque be the same as the one in "Corso's" frieze? Hard to tell because of much heavier wear and tear.

Best Regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
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 »

You're reading my meaning far too well Amyntoros :lol:

Just one issue since I posted that, is that the second horse Corso wants to place on his frieze is going in the same direction of travel as the first one and the groom. So if there is a second horse on this frieze (relief), there's no mirroring going on. Not sure quite how that would work if one overcomes the temptation to say 'nonsense, it's a horse from a different relief then'. Would seem to suggest some form of procession, which is where Corso clearly arrived, but I don't think a military parade helps much. Maybe it was a centaur's hoof instead? ;)

It is wonderfully odd. Almost like layers of cultic activity are superimposed upon each other.
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 »

Andrew and Agesilaos I think you reach different conclusions since you use a different approach for "calibration".

From what I understand, Andrew takes the 2 sigma calibration curves and looks for the intersection of those curves with the 70 BC uncalibrated radiocarbon age. Agesilaos takes the average calibration curve and looks for intersections with the the 2 sigma uncertainty ranges of the 70 BC estimation.

In reality, one has to take both uncertainties into account (that of the calibration curve and that of the sample's radiocarbon age). The two sigma result will be somewhere in between 200 and 100 BC for the oldest case, and 20 and 40 AD for the youngest case, and that is because it is known from error propagation that two "two-sigma" results occurring simultaneously is extremely unlikely. In reality one needs more samples to narrow down the uncertainty range - as long as they stick to one sample, discussions like this will be endless.

Still, I think the "early roman" or "late hellenistic" age sounds sensible for the sealing, both on the grounds of coinage and ceramics found in the fill. Ceramics have also been dated from independent groups (Peristeri team & Kottaridi/Veleni) going up to to 2nd century BC or possibly a bit later. I still think that the presence of the 2nd century Amphipolis house (which imitates the chamber's interior) is a good indication that the tomb was still accessible some time in that century. So there is indeed a clear trend from different sources of data about the sealing date. I agree that is still not conclusive.
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 »

Almost right Gepd, the main difference is that Andrew seems not to have read the labels on his axes 8) I am using the Cal13 curve, to which I think you posted the link, which maps the uncalibrated C14 date against a calibrated calendar date. Andrew's graph maps a CALIBRATED date against a calendar date and includes +- 35 yrs, instead of reading from the uncalibrated age, 71 BC, he should be reading across from the calibrated age 24 BC This gives a lower date of 150 BC the graph not venturing into AD.

I adopted the archaeologists' method taking 71BC as the centre then spread 30yrs either side (1 sigma) and then another 30 yrs (2 Sigma) and read across to the lower line; I should have read to the centre but such things on screen, pah!

Even with the erroneous lower limit of 200BC for the sealing the team's Hephaistion and Andrew's Olympias are ruled out as totally irrelevant by then, just declaring the sealing early does not make it so , Mr LaForge.

If there is a crescent on the Bull, I just wonder of what Artemis was the Goddess, Hunting and something else...
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 »

Zebedee wrote:If it's got a crescent on its chest it's not a sacrificial bull. Therein is the point. It's not a sacrificial scene. Is that rather curious? Absolutely. Gepd has a Roman example a few posts back which is most intriguing, but first I've seen of that mosaic.

But, no, I still don't see either side going around the bull's neck on the picture you yourself posted. On the left side, it's hidden by what appears to be the bull's neck and on the right seems to end.

By size, you'll notice your example is close to the same thickness all the way round.

Just another idea to kick around, leaving both bull and centaurs as being there, would be that the 'crescents' are way to try and show a colour or texture change. I don't believe that is so, but it's possible.
The bull is wearing a garland around its neck as outlined below. I can only imagine that you are looking at some of the jagged damage patches that happen to join up in zig-zags in the vicinity of the neck, but it is the smooth trends that have to be followed for real features.
Best wishes,
Andrew
bull_garland.jpg
bull_garland.jpg (103.26 KiB) Viewed 10842 times
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 »

Not sure that is not just the bull's musculature, although I see more of Andrew's large wreath if not but I see nothing indicating a sacrifice in the poses of the figures.
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 »

Taphoi wrote: The bull is wearing a garland around its neck as outlined below. I can only imagine that you are looking at some of the jagged damage patches that happen to join up in zig-zags in the vicinity of the neck, but it is the smooth trends that have to be followed for real features.
Best wishes,
Andrew
Yeah, I see on the left side you're drawing upwards as one discrete shape and I'm not sure it is doing that. And on the right, there's a much darker patch around the bull's shoulders which your orange lines obscure in the second picture. Genuinely do not see it in the shape you do. A garland would be the logical and obvious thing to place around a bull's neck, thoroughly agree. But then we have the centaurs problem too :D There is a desperate need for some peer confirmation of some of the interpretation at the very least though. Too odd :)

edit: is the 'garland' actually above the bull's neck after all? There seems a vague shape to the right of the head above the shoulder. It would move the curve of the 'garland' to the right of the dark patch on the shoulder? But this is where my eyes go wonky. Why did it not show up under UV if it is there? It would still make it a curiously shaped garland though. Pass :)

Just using the picture Andrew provided, which makes it much easier for me to see so thank you for that. Just the best I can do to see a garland around the neck - see what I mean about needing the garland to continue over the shoulder if it's there? The bull is being depicted at an angle rather than directly head on.

Image
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 »

On the date of the assumption of shields by the cavalry of mainland Greece and Macedon, I am rather puzzled as to why the standard position is declared ‘untenable’ in note 71 of the article posted by System 1988.

There is no literary evidence for shielded cavalry before the third century, except for the Tarantines who appear in Antigonid armies in 317/6; they gave their name to a class of cavalry, shielded javelin armed light cavalry, this in and of itself suggests that their equipment was distinctive an, since javelins were common as was a lack of armour, only the shields present themselves.

Icononographically there are no shields shown on the Alexander sarcophagus (c.320), nor the Alexander mosaic (possibly a copy of an original c 310) nor the possible grave monument of Alketas at Telmissos (319)
alketas.jpg
alketas.jpg (10.52 KiB) Viewed 10795 times
Italian cavalry do seem to have been shielded earlier, late fourth century, judging from Campanian vase paintings, yet Polybios says (VI.25.7) that the Romans adopted firmer shields from the Greeks ! The shields that we do find depicted have Gallic features , the ‘spina’. Thus, in the absence of contrary evidence it seems the orthodoxy of the 270’s is about right for the adoption of shields.

The article makes no argument but seems to cite the fact that hoplite shields were found in the Verghina tomb and at Agios Athanasios along with greaves, failing to take into account the fact that rich men will be equipped to suit the occasion; it is hard to imagine a man who could afford either tomb not carrying more suitable equipment for service on foot (and a long campaign was almost certain to include sieges) as well as his cavalry gear.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
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 »

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I take it that debating what is or isn't represented on the 'bull' fresco is some sort of elaborate joke? It is so damaged that any such speculation makes as much sense as debating what can be 'seen' in the inkblots of a Rohrschach test !! What is 'seen' is all in the imagination/mind of the beholder !

All that is certain is that a bull with raised head is depicted, flanked by two figures, a female to the right and an indeterminate one to the left ( see below). Since females are not generally depicted taking part in sacrificial scenes, we can pretty much rule that out.....

Similarly trying to 'interpret' Lefantzis' more or less abstract drawings -most architects can draw better than this ! His main qualification for being involved in the excavation at all appears to be that he is Peristeri's husband/partner!
Attachments
Amphipolis Kasta tomb second chamber architrave frescoes.JPG
Amphipolis Kasta tomb second chamber architrave frescoes.JPG (85.3 KiB) Viewed 10759 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 »

Agesilaos wrote:
Italian cavalry do seem to have been shielded earlier, late fourth century, judging from Campanian vase paintings, yet Polybios says (VI.25.7) that the Romans adopted firmer shields from the Greeks ! The shields that we do find depicted have Gallic features , the ‘spina’. Thus, in the absence of contrary evidence it seems the orthodoxy of the 270’s is about right for the adoption of shields.
I would agree entirely with all of Agesilaos' post - both the shield itself, and the presence of the spina give us a terminus post quem of the 270's BC.

The real problem with the frieze is that there is nothing to associate it with the tomb, or that it was contemporary, so far as I am aware, therefore it is of no use in helping to date the tomb!

The shields that Polybius says were replaced were pressed "...ox-hide, somewhat similar in shape to the round bossed cakes used at sacrifices" [ see below] which of course suffered severely if they got wet, unlike the wooden shields of Hellenistic cavalry. In fact, the ox hide type does not seem to have been entirely replaced, and lingered on well after Polybius' time......
Attachments
lacus curtius relief depicting bossed ox hide shield.jpg
lacus curtius relief depicting bossed ox hide shield.jpg (52.07 KiB) Viewed 10756 times
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 »

Whilst I agree that the frieze need not be directly associated with the tomb its proximity would seem to indicate continued use and interest in the area in the mid third century, given the size of the tomb mound it would be unusual if that interest was not in some way related to the tumulus. Lefantzis has said that there are mouldings which link to the lion base, which would make a direct and significant link, however I have not seen the 'evidence' presented and the conflict between patent facts and the team's interpretations in other matters council caution in taking anything on trust :?
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 »

It looks to me as though the archaeologists have made a big mistake concerning the carbon dating of the torch soot from the interior of the tomb.

But first, I should try to clear up some of the confusion about the calibrated date range. Agesilaos appears to have been confused by my 2-sigma references. He was looking (as gepd has hinted) at the random error in the definition of the calibration curve, which uses other dating (mainly tree ring C-14 tests) to measure the small fluctuations in the C-14 concentration that are required to calculate actual date ranges from calibration dates (dates based on the assumption that the C-14 concentration is constant). The 2-sigma that I was actually referring to is the random error arising from the measurement error in the C-14 concentration for the particular testing of these particular soot samples. The letter from the lab shows that they have (slightly optimistically) assumed a 30-year 1-sigma, so the 2-sigma error is obviously just 60-years (because it is of course assumed that this random error has a normal distribution). The latter random error is usually dominant and is clearly dominant in this instance. My chart is correct and it has actual BC-AD dates on both axes, so it is wrong that a different date than 71BC should be read off the vertical axis. It clearly gives a 95% lowest date of ~200BC and it winds in all the random errors. It also appears to use a slight less optimistic measurement error number of calibration years (perhaps 35 or even 50 years instead of the 30 claimed by the lab). The upper end of the distribution is actually just off my chart. I estimated it from the trend as roughly AD20, but it might be a bit further into the 1st century AD. But just on the random errors, these soot results could mean a date as early as 200BC and they confirm absolutely that the sealing was not later than the early 1st century AD (but we already knew that.)

But now to the mistake. I have already mentioned a third kind of error to which these results will have been subject: contamination. This is a systematic error. It biases the date range towards a younger date than the true date. It happens because younger organic carbon gets mixed in with the sample carbon over time as it sits in the soil. It is a problem at the surface of samples, because that is where the adsorption takes place. For large samples, you can simply carve the surface off the sample before testing. For soot that is obviously not practicable. Soot has a very large surface area relative to its mass, because the particles are very small and the ratio of surface area to mass goes up as the particle diameter decreases. You will all be familiar with how good soot is at adsorbing contaminants, because you will be aware that ground charcoal is used in “odour eaters” used inside shoes. Even ~1% adsorption of more modern organic carbon would move the date range of late 4th century BC samples into the 200BC-AD40 date range. I have mentioned bacteria as a source of adsorption, but even carbon from carbon dioxide or other carbon-rich volatiles could have been adsorbed significantly over 2000 years. For this reason, these soot results should be treated with the greatest caution and should only be regarded as providing an upper limit on the date of the sealing.

But here’s the rub: the letter from the lab casually mentions, “The charcoal fragments were separated from sand, silt, rootlets, or other foreign matter…” ROOTLETS!!!!! In normal archaeological soot samples, rootlets are indeed contamination, because they come from modern trees and shrubs growing in the soil, so the lab would normally treat them as “foreign matter”. But in this case the lab should have been told that the samples come from deep within the tomb (presumably the third chamber) where there has been no light since the sealing, so THERE WILL HAVE BEEN NO ROOT GROWTH SINCE THE SEALING. Those rootlets are the samples that should have been carbon dated, because they will have a smaller surface area to volume ratio than soot particles and some of them might be large enough to remove the surface completely. The opportunity to get a good carbon date for the sealing has been missed in favour of a measurement liable to be hopelessly distorted by contamination.

Somebody should try to point this out to the archaeologists. (They don’t seem to be responding to emails from people I know.)

Best wishes,

Andrew
Post Reply