The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[gepd]

Regarding the ANT monogram:

There is a nice thesis where the use of this type of "ANT" during his reign is described. I attach 3 screen-shots from the thesis.







The monogram in question from the peribolos is No 23, from "Pan type" coins, appearing in the 3rd period of Gonatas reign (246 - 229 BC). If that monogram was introduced only then, they would have to explain how this ended up in a 4th century BC peribolos. Of course anyone could go mark the peribolos with anything, at any given time, but if that was the case, they would have discovered many more engravings and monograms.

I have trouble finding examples used in Monophthalmus reign. He apparently cut coins with the name of Alexander and 1-2 examples I found do not have the monogram found at the peribolos. The monogram is, however, found on Demetrius Poliorcetes coins, who, I assume, adopted it from his father:



So, if one looks at Gonatas and Monophalmus coinage would likely conclude that the peribolos monogram points to a 3rd century BC dating.
If one takes into account the Demetrius coins, maybe the 4th century BC dating is still not excluded. The question is then if that monogram is introduced from the 4th century BC, why it only appears in later coins from Gonatas.

It is also interesting to observe the various types of monograms on the first image. Some are quite strange and really suggest that the letter combination on the ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ inscription is also likely a monogram.

The thesis I found the aforementioned information is here: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1349335/1/340651.pdf

[gepd]

Even more good quality photos from the presentation here: http://kathrefti.blogspot.gr/2015/10/video_10.html

[Zebedee]

He said the cist tomb predates the monument.

It is hard to see that the mound is not a monument erected over a very simple grave for people who were desperately important, but died in defeat and disgrace.

It's a cist grave in a graveyard where other cist graves have been found. There's a huge lion supposedly associated with the cult site, so whoever had that erected for them most certainly did not die in disgrace. The question is the dating of the cist grave and remains inside it, and then whether the cist grave is an integral part of the cult site. (Just for reference, we know of one other cult site at Amphipolis where an unlooted cist grave contained a silver ossuary - the posited theory is that is the grave of Brasidas).

Would be interested in how Lefantzis sees the original tomb/cult site looking if the roof of the second chamber is a later addition. Are we to imply a dromos entrance as if to a tholos tomb?

----

Interesting gepd. Thank you.

[Taphoi]

So, if one looks at Gonatas and Monophalmus coinage would likely conclude that the peribolos monogram points to a 3rd century BC dating.
If one takes into account the Demetrius coins, maybe the 4th century BC dating is still not excluded. The question is then if that monogram is introduced from the 4th century BC, why it only appears in later coins from Gonatas.

Sorry, but I cannot see that any of the monograms in your post match the ANT monogram (23 lacks the last vertical stroke of the Nu of course). However this coin was minted in the name of Philip Arrhidaeus at an eastern mint and has the exact ANT monogram from the peribolos. So actually we are back to the period of Philip III's reign here (323BC-317BC) and Antigonus ruled in the east for the period 320BC-317BC (and beyond). That being said these monograms are more usually the signatures of the celators (die engravers) at the mints.

Anyway it is not entirely out of the question that Antigonus Monophthalmus helped to fund the Amphipolis Tomb peribolos in the period of the reign of Alexander IV (let's say) and had his monogram placed on some of the blocks. But again there are alternative explanations for the monogram which are perhaps inherently more likely (why can it not be the mason's mark of a mason called Ant*********, for example?). 18 out of 800 biographies in Heckel's who's who of Alexander's reign have names beginning ANT. That suggests that at least one in fifty Macedonians had names beginning ANT and that anyone who links the ANT monograms on the peribolos to a specific king is being rather tendentious.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Taphoi]

And here is the close up of one of the transcriptions of the "ΗΦΑΙΣΤΙΩΝ" monograms. It conflicts with the interpretation of the monogram that the inscriber carved six separate letter strokes that are being seen as the three strokes of an eta (Η). The inscriber does not seem to have had the first letter of Hephaistion's name in mind when he/she carved this. The pseudo-circle with a dot in it at the centre of the monogram would normally indicate a theta - how would that fit in? Why are the loops of the phi so badly misaligned in the other version of the monogram - makes it look more like a rho?

Best wishes,
Andrew

[Taphoi]

It's a cist grave in a graveyard where other cist graves have been found. There's a huge lion supposedly associated with the cult site, so whoever had that erected for them most certainly did not die in disgrace. The question is the dating of the cist grave and remains inside it, and then whether the cist grave is an integral part of the cult site.

Sorry, but I do not understand. Are you proposing an entirely new theory that the lion predates the mound? To be clear, my hypothesis is that the cist grave came first, when the important people were buried in disgrace. Then LATER the mound was built to commemorate them by their followers. Then LATER the lion was erected on top of the mound. The gaps in time could be anything from months to years. What is your timeline please? And how do you get a monument for Hephaistion out of a monument raised over a pre-existing cist grave? And by the way, the previous cemetery on this site belonged to the nearby hill settlement and went out of use in the fifth century BC when the people moved into Amphipolis.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[agesilaos]

Antigonos Gonatas ANT here http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/m ... en_105.jpg I appear to reached my limit for uploading
And here though not too clear on shield http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/m ... s_1425.jpg
And http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/m ... 1206cf.jpg
A variant http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/m ... 1208cf.jpg
Again on different issue http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/m ... p_1214.jpg

These may refer to Antigonos the King since they are common to his issues and have variants with ANTI.

I agree with the theta, but tell me do you see a sigma? I cannot even on Gepd's enhanced photo.

[Zebedee]

Sorry, but I do not understand. Are you proposing an entirely new theory that the lion predates the mound? To be clear, my hypothesis is that the cist grave came first, when the important people were buried in disgrace. Then LATER the mound was built to commemorate them by their followers. Then LATER the lion was erected on top of the mound. The gaps in time could be anything from months to years. What is your timeline please? And how do you get a monument for Hephaistion out of a monument raised over a pre-existing cist grave? And by the way, the previous cemetery on this site belonged to the nearby hill settlement and went out of use in the fifth century BC when the people moved into Amphipolis.

Best wishes,
Andrew

I'm very aware of how your leaps of faith work Andrew. It's why I'm highlighting the problems in your assumptions while you try to fit evidence to hypothesis. Whoever the lion commemorated did not die in disgrace. This is not news. Or it shouldn't be. One would need quite remarkable evidence to overturn that interpretation of the symbology involved in erecting a monumental lion over a site. It's not really too difficult to see what the archaeologists may be suggesting, if the cult site post-dates the grave. Hephaestion, well, not my monkey, not my circus. And my timeline depends on the evidence and so far the dating is not sufficiently clear to propose anything as we have no idea how this cist grave actually relates to the structure above it. I did however state, well before the cist grave was discovered, I'd not be surprised to see an older grave present beneath the Hellenistic showpiece. Much as I wasn't surprised by Persephone and Demeter popping up closely associated with the statues.

The graveyard is primarily Archaic, yes. I've been pointing that out to you for over a year now.

[gepd]

Thanks Andrew and Agesilaos for the good points and links. Andrew I cannot exclude that the ANT is a mason's mark, that's only personal bias. I believe coincidences can occur in general, I am less convinced about combinations of coincidences (ie. a mason named ANT*****, having the same type of monogram as one of the Antigonids and the same monogram as one of the die engravers). They also have single As and Es in the peribolos, they should offer an explanation for those. Last year the said these single letters are mason's marks - not sure how they separate those.

Anyway it is not entirely out of the question that Antigonus Monophthalmus helped to fund the Amphipolis Tomb peribolos in the period of the reign of Alexander IV (let's say) and had his monogram placed on some of the blocks.

That is what they actually propose. If Monophthalmus was involved it could only have happened in the the period of the reign of Alexander IV and not later.

Regarding the ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ inscriptions, Lefantzis stated again that these were carved before the final processing of the marble for its placement on the perivolos (which means the content concerns Kastas). It was not meant to be seen, according to him it likely signifies delivery of material for the perivolos or completion of one of its parts. I do not know how they can determine when an inscription was carved (pre or post processing of the exterior surface). I hope they explain at some point. Of course if one of you knows, I 'd be glad to hear.

[Taphoi]

Anyway it is not entirely out of the question that Antigonus Monophthalmus helped to fund the Amphipolis Tomb peribolos in the period of the reign of Alexander IV (let's say) and had his monogram placed on some of the blocks.

That is what they actually propose. If Monophthalmus was involved it could only have happened in the the period of the reign of Alexander IV and not later.

If it were, for example, Olympias's tomb, then the ANT monograms would fit much better than for an Hephaistion cenotaph, because, if the Royal Family had got Cassander to agree to a monument over her grave circa 315BC, the wealthiest of the nearby generals on whom to lean for a contribution would indeed have been Antigonus Monophthalmus. Nevertheless, the ANT monogram is not specific enough to provide strong evidence.

Olympias died in disgrace in 316BC, but a monument to her in the years 315BC to 310BC might have been surmounted by a lion to symbolise her son and because it had been the symbol that Philip II had dreamt sealed his wife's womb when she was pregnant with Alexander.

Regarding the ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ inscriptions, Lefantzis stated again that these were carved before the final processing of the marble for its placement on the perivolos (which means the content concerns Kastas). It was not meant to be seen, according to him it likely signifies delivery of material for the perivolos or completion of one of its parts. I do not know how they can determine when an inscription was carved (pre or post processing of the exterior surface). I hope they explain at some point. Of course if one of you knows, I 'd be glad to hear.

The Strymon blocks had a hard life. They were eroding in a riverbed for more than a thousand years and have since spent a century weathering on a roadside verge. It is clear from what is visible in the photo of its drafted margin that the Arelabon block has suffered a high degree of surface damage. Anyone who can tell whether the letters or the stippling came first is doing surprisingly well in these circumstances. It is of course a bit of a stretch that anyone would half erase an inscription in the final finishing of the block (why not remove it entirely?) Also why bother to remove it at all? The inscribed face could have been the one hidden in the wall just by turning the block around. Actually these narrow blocks were the same shape as blocks in the medium width bands, which only differed in that the drafted margin was put onto their largest face. That means that only one of four faces had to be exposed in the peribolos wall. Yet they chose to expose the face with the half erased inscription? Lefantzis is telling complicated stories that lead to weird conclusions. The simple story would be that the Arelabon inscriptions are illiterate graffiti added after the blocks were removed from the peribolos.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[Alexias]

The second rosette



PS - I don't know if a new thread needs starting here as it seems no more photos can be uploaded.

PPS - I've just tried starting a new thread and still can't upload a picture so it looks like a website problem.

The photo comes from www.diary.ru, but you have to be a member to see it. It originally comes from the Science and Life Russian magazine but I haven't been able to find the original.

[system1988]

The rosette

Not published yet in Greece as far as i know.

Awesome really. ( e very elegant )

[agesilaos]

I think that is the same rosette only the wide view actually shows the rosette and the inset view has been enhanced and possibly photo-shopped. given the small scale (an inch or less?) random marks should not be ruled out, the stone could have been smoothed before painting.

[delos13]

The second rosette

The photo comes from http://www.diary.ru, but you have to be a member to see it. It originally comes from the Science and Life Russian magazine but I haven't been able to find the original.

It's quite a popular Russian magazine with good reputation intended for general public. I found the website online and the article itself. The article contains the same information as http://www.diary.ru post but the rosette picture is not there. I don't have a paid subscription to the magazine and it's quite possible that paid subscribers have more info. However, when I downloaded the image into google search, I found twitter account that contains the image. https://twitter.com/gourdisp

[gepd]

That is the image of the 2nd block - only got it through a screen capture from a video.



I also agree it makes no sense to inscribe something like what we read on a block that you plan to use, but that applies for the use of the block in any building not just on Kastas. That doesn't change the fact that they did it.

Inscriptions did not necessarily suffer much from intering the blocks in the Strymon. When the blocks in the dam were discovered, they were covered with some sort of mortar which was partly used to hold them together. That is why graffiti in other blocks is still so deep and clear.