The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[agesilaos]

Aside from the fact that the monument was finished, obviously long after Alexander's death , thus no longer any need to appease him and the cost, most people do not spend their fortune on monuments for their potential executioners; there was no surge in monuments for Stalin from any sense of relief, for instance. Alexias has already indicate the problematic location, Alexander would likely be dead before the order had got to the quarry.

On the mason's marks, I think they call single letters that, why I do not know as coins certainly bear the monograms of mint officials (thus exploding the notion I have seen, that only royals used them), I have not been able to find sufficient data to even venture a theory nor any theory that does not just seem like a guess

[Alexias]

There probably isn't any way to prove that a local such as Apollodorus built the shrine. But completing it as a family mausoleum while retaining the function as a shrine would serve to remind people that the family had connections with the great and famous, and that the founder had been on Alexander's great big adventure. There are probably examples in English churches of family monuments that incorporate reminders that the family obtained its wealth and prominence from British conquests in India, for example. It's just a theory anyway.

[Alexias]

This is not directly relevant but I was looking for something else and came across this and thought it might be of interest. It comes from 'Pella: Alexander the Great's Capital' by Photias Petsas (1978) and shows an 'A' inscribed on a block of masonry. The circle's mine.





I came up with another theory about the tomb. If indeed it is connected with Hephaestion, who would have built it, and why at Amphipolis? It seems to be generally accepted that Hephaestion's family came from Athens because of the frequency with which the name, and that of his father, appear on inscriptions in Attica and Euboea. According to the map Jeanne Reames included in her thesis ' Eminence Grise at the court of Alexander the Great ', there are no occurrences of the names in Macedonia. There are however, three occurrences on the island of Thasos to the east of Amphipolis. I'm unable to tell from the map whether the occurrences are 'Hephaestion' or 'Amyntor'.

Amphipolis was an Athenian colony, and Thasos a close ally of Athens. Is it possible that Hephaestion's family, originally from Attica or Euboea, migrated to Pella from Amphipolis, or even Thasos? If this was the case, Hephaestion may have had relatives - second cousins perhaps - who grew rich from his patronage, exporting supplies from Macedonia to Alexander. They may have built the tomb/heroon in gratitude to publish his memory and to serve as a family tomb.

It might even be possible that if Amyntor's father was the one who moved from Amphipolis to Pella, perhaps in Amyntas III's reign, he may have looked for a wife for his son among his relatives in Amphipolis. Maybe Hephaestion's mother came from Amphipolis, and might even have returned there after her husband's death and built a tomb for her son?

It's only a theory with no proof, but perhaps Jeanne's research might throw up some new inscriptions in the region.

[system1988]

Hi Alexias

Your theory is a very good one but let's take it backwards: If in the future would be confirmed that the monument - for the first use - was meant for Hephaestion, then Hephaestion has some relation with Amphipolis for sure. Perhaps the skeleton of the old woman is that of his mother, the cremated one is Hephaestion , and the other of an important relative. A DNA testing of the skeletons would then be absolutely necessary in order for us do discover whether they were relatives or not.

Best

Pauline

[agesilaos]

But DNA would only demonstrate a relationship, it does not then follow that that is with any individual; nor would the lack of a match prove that Hephaistion was not one of the bodies. Better, or indeed, any dating evidence is more likely to clear things up IMHO.

[Zebedee]

Wonder when they intend to publish the report with the niggling details such as dating evidence. Silence since the 'must write something for the government' deadline?

[system1988]

We are informed that in March 2016 for the archaeological conference of Thessalonica (which has a special scientific weight), the entirety of the evidence concerning the excavation of Amphipolis monument will be announced by mrs Peristeri and her team. Of course official notes will be taken. All Greek experts on the subject will be participating.

Off the record, it is expected for her to announce that the monument was at first dedicated to Hephaestion and most probably his own tomb, of while simultaneously presenting the proper evidence for this of course.

[Taphoi]

Katerina Peristeri has just given a lecture on the tomb in Cyprus. She has largely reiterated the evidence presented last September. There does not seem to be anything new to support Hephaistion. Everything still hangs on whether we believe in the scratches in the ceiling rosette and whether we accept that the putative Hephaistion graffiti monograms are older than all the other graffiti on the loose blocks dredged from the river a hundred years ago.
She has added that they found "coins of Cassander from 319-317BC" and that they were in very good condition. The implication appears to be that the tomb was completed not long after 317BC (but not long could easily be a decade). The grasp of history still seems tenuous: for example, Cassander was not the ruler of Macedon between 319-317BC.
She has also mentioned the association of bone and glass and gold fragments with the location of a funerary bed in the burial chamber.
She has also said that nothing is clear regarding the skeletons and that they are still being examined by the experts at the University of Thessalonike. She is also being quoted as saying that it is not known whether the skeletons are men or women. This appears to be a direct contradiction of the very expert and very clear report published by the Ministry of Culture last January and would seem a bit disingenuous. Maybe the skeleton story is not chiming with the idea that this was Hephaistion's cenotaph, ordered by Alexander in 324BC, but faithfully completed by Antigonus Monophthalmus whilst he was a refugee in Macedon or whilst he was busy establishing his control of parts of Asia Minor after the second division of the satrapies.
We also hear that the Ministry of Culture is sponsoring a meeting of archaeologists at the Amphipolis museum in a week's time.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Paralus]

Maybe the skeleton story is not chiming with the idea that this was Hephaistion's cenotaph, ordered by Alexander in 324BC, but faithfully completed by Antigonus Monophthalmus whilst he was a refugee in Macedon or whilst he was busy establishing his control of parts of Asia Minor after the second division of the satrapies.

I'm no fan of the Hephaistion cenotaph idea and would prefer, as Agesilaos does, to await some sound, incontrovertible dating data. I'm intrigued by the above though. I'm assuming that your reference to the One-Eye as a "refugee in Macedon" would be the autumn and winter of 321/20 after he fled Perdikkas' kangaroo court? If so, Antipatros was "ruler" of Macedon at this time and would be the person to complete any such structure. The second division of satrapies was Triparadeisos after which Antigonos was thoroughly involved in the campaign to eradicate the Perdikkan forces. Firstly with Antipatros and then, from spring 319 on, on his own. Again, until Antipatros died in autumn 319, he will have been the one to complete such a structure would he not? I cannot see the One-Eye ever having the time or inclination to complete a putative cenotaph at Amphipolis at either time.

[Taphoi]

Maybe the skeleton story is not chiming with the idea that this was Hephaistion's cenotaph, ordered by Alexander in 324BC, but faithfully completed by Antigonus Monophthalmus whilst he was a refugee in Macedon or whilst he was busy establishing his control of parts of Asia Minor after the second division of the satrapies.

I'm no fan of the Hephaistion cenotaph idea and would prefer, as Agesilaos does, to await some sound, incontrovertible dating data. I'm intrigued by the above though. I'm assuming that your reference to the One-Eye as a "refugee in Macedon" would be the autumn and winter of 321/20 after he fled Perdikkas' kangaroo court? If so, Antipatros was "ruler" of Macedon at this time and would be the person to complete any such structure. The second division of satrapies was Triparadeisos after which Antigonos was thoroughly involved in the campaign to eradicate the Perdikkan forces. Firstly with Antipatros and then, from spring 319 on, on his own. Again, until Antipatros died in autumn 319, he will have been the one to complete such a structure would he not? I cannot see the One-Eye ever having the time or inclination to complete a putative cenotaph at Amphipolis at either time.

Personally, I agree with you. However the archaeological team seems to be leaning towards an early involvement of Antigonus in the cenotaph, without apparently comprehending the historical problems that would tend to exclude Antigonus even as merely a major co-funder until circa 316BC. Perhaps they have at least realised that it would be even more jarring to suggest that Alexander ordered the monument (a point upon which they are absolutely adamant), yet Antigonus postponed putting Alexander's order into effect until ~316BC. So we appear to be left with the proposition that Antigonus as a refugee at Antipater's court pursued a sideline in building a monument to a deceased chiliarch. That literally seems to be where the archaeological team would like to lead us.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Personally, I agree with you. However the archaeological team seems to be leaning towards an early involvement of Antigonus in the cenotaph, without apparently comprehending the historical problems that would tend to exclude Antigonus even as merely a major co-funder until circa 316BC.

Agreed. Even then (316), Antigonos would find no gain in supporting a monument to a decade deceased chiliarch of dubitable popularity while alive. Certainly The One-Eyed's concern at this stage was the coalition formed against him. One part of that coalition was, of course, Kassandros and Antigonos' famaous harangue against the Macedonian ruler at Tyre was all about de-legitimising the Antipatrid. Aside from the claims of murder of Olympias and imprisonment of the royal family, the trope of the "freedom of the GReeks" was squarely aimed at the Antipatrid. Supporting a cenotaph to a long dead chiliarch gains Antigonos nothing as far as Macedon and the Macedonians were concerned; even less so the Greeks. Hephaistion, away from Europe as long as was Alexander, can have meant little to both the Macedonians or the Greeks surely?

[Taphoi]

Personally, I agree with you. However the archaeological team seems to be leaning towards an early involvement of Antigonus in the cenotaph, without apparently comprehending the historical problems that would tend to exclude Antigonus even as merely a major co-funder until circa 316BC.

Agreed. Even then (316), Antigonos would find no gain in supporting a monument to a decade deceased chiliarch of dubitable popularity while alive. Certainly The One-Eyed's concern at this stage was the coalition formed against him. One part of that coalition was, of course, Kassandros and Antigonos' famaous harangue against the Macedonian ruler at Tyre was all about de-legitimising the Antipatrid. Aside from the claims of murder of Olympias and imprisonment of the royal family, the trope of the "freedom of the GReeks" was squarely aimed at the Antipatrid. Supporting a cenotaph to a long dead chiliarch gains Antigonos nothing as far as Macedon and the Macedonians were concerned; even less so the Greeks. Hephaistion, away from Europe as long as was Alexander, can have meant little to both the Macedonians or the Greeks surely?

It is arguable that Antigonus was broadly supportive of Cassander in 316BC and that they fell out later. Nevertheless, in general I agree with you again. The archaeological team has been crystal clear in its presentation of two hypotheses:
1) The Kasta tomb is one of the shrines for Hephaistion ordered by Alexander the Great in 324BC
2) The Kasta tomb was built on the orders of Antigonus or he was at least its major funder
In fact, as you point out, these hypotheses are virtually mutually exclusive on historical grounds (unless our historical sources are telling fairy tales). Therefore Hephaistion has no clothes, but the international archaeological community is (rather cruelly) failing to point this out to the archaeological team.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[agesilaos]

One gets a distinct feeling of panic from these announcements; a desperate scrabble to try and maintain the supposed link to Alexander. It is especially disappointing when they produce nonsense; as Andrew points out , Kassandros was not minting coins in 319-7, so one has to wonder which references they used to identify these well-preserved coins? It looks like they have looked at the regnal years given by some numismatist, Wildwinds gives 319-297 for Kassandros, counting from the death of Antipatros and his revolt from Polyperchon, which may be fine for coin collectors but certainly not for archaeologists or ancient historians!

Such errors make one wonder if the coins are even of Kassandros, named bronzes circulated alongside unnamed issues and older Alexander types. It may turn out that these are marked ‘basileus Kassandros’ in which case they will not be earlier than c 305 BC. They might even be generic shield and helmet types from the interregnum; sight unseen one cannot say beyond that 319-317 is not an option.

Similarly the new doubt on the sex of the remains seems odd, there seems to be enough of the pelvises remaining for a clear verdict in each case.

The Monopthalmos link was posited purely to explain the ANT monograms, which were interpreted as ‘Antigonos’, but could not be Gonatas because of their insistence on the late fourth century date which left Monopthalmos whose non-presence and total lack of interest were only minor problems.

I dare say we can expect more of this ‘Through the Looking-Glass’ Logic as the team continue to demonstrate that the Iguanodon’s thumbspike is really a horn… but at least we may actually get to see the coin evidence

[Paralus]

I am no numismastist but, if memory serves, in the early Hellenistic period (down to the death of Philip III in 317) coins minted in the Asian mints we generally those of Philip III; the remainder being the "standard" Alexander III or some Alexander IVs (the exception being Ptolemy's "Elephant scalp" Alexander type of, perhaps, 321-19) and those in Europe Philip III (from Pella). The Amphipolis mint continued producing large numbers of "standard" Alexander III types. There is next to no possibility of Kassandros issuing his own coinage in 319. The predominance of Philip III is probably due to Perdikkas: he was the regent and puppet master of the new kings and likely saw that coinage as cementing that position.

I agree it all seems extremely odd and, while I'm not at all convinced by Andrew's Olympias guess, this view (Hephaistion/Monophthalmos) reduces our sources to "telling fairy tales". If that view proves incontrovertibly correct, then the state of our knowledge based on these sources is more than lamentable, it is reduced to that most infamous Hollywood get out: "inspired by true events". In other words, rubbish.

[gepd]

If you dig into the world of social media you will discover that at least two members of the team (M. Lefantzis and Antonio Corso, the second being the expert for studying the sculptures) are quite open with providing info regarding the monument. From that and Peristeri's and Lefantzis presentations one can understand where some, if not most, of the info about dating comes. I try to provide a summary below. What is unfortunate is that K. Peristeri makes rather bad presentations, her speeches are careless and never tries to make a clear separation of data and hypotheses. It is interesting to view her slides but difficult to understand her explain them. Having that limitation, I just try provide below what I understand the team claims - some guesswork is involved but no personal opinions:

1) Lion: dated as a 4th century BC sculpture by the team as well as most other experts. If it was on top of the Kastas Hill (see points 2-7), that at least dates the intent of the designer to have a monumental construction at Kastas. Whether that was completed on the 4th century BC or later is another story.

2) The parts of the Lion that were discovered by the Greek army and later on by English forces were originally scatter in a 4 km wide area extending towards Kastas. Part of the lion's back was discovered by the current investigators close to Kastas, part of the lon's mane was found at Kastas (it was even mentioned in a press release). Tons of marble piecies were discovered at the top of Kastas's hill by Lazarides, when he was excavating there in the 1970's, indicating the presence of a large marble monument, where the foundations of a ~10 m x 10 m base were found.

3) The frieze attributed Lion's base was discovered near Kastas in the 2012-2013 excavations. Many parts of it were found integrated in late roman or Byzantine constructions at the acropolis of Amphipolis. This was actually presented in the 2013 or 2014 conference about progress in archaeological studies in Macedonia and Thrace, although images did not go public. The workmanship on these pieces helped, among other, in order to identify them. What they also state is that iconography of the frieze is consistent with a late 4th century BC dating. I assume geometrical features of the frieze (one piece is very large) or other aspects (e.g. locations of clumps etc.) are probably also helping with its association to the base of the lion.

4) Roger, Broneer and Millers studied the marble remains of a large construction near the Strymon. Among the pieces we now know belonged to the peribolos, they also found several parts with shields and columns that had common elements - so they likely came from the same construction. Millers propose a reconstruction of this monument (and give litte margin of error for this reconstruction) - it came out to be a square building with approximately 10 m wide on each side, very close to the sizes of the foundations found on top of Kastas.

5) Most or all authors above mention that the workmanship on the peribolos blocks is similar to that of the 4th century BC lion and proposed they may come from the same monument. That is why for instance Roger or Broneer in the proposed reconstruction of the lion assumed that the peribolos blocks formed parts of its base (and that is why many peribolos blocks are actually used).

6) Millers proposed a dating of the peribolos blocks to either 4th or 2nd century BC. Bakalakis proposed a 2nd century BC, Roger/Broneer a 4th century BC. From all the above it seems a 4th BC dating is what makes sense

7) There are geometrical aspects of the discovered lion parts (e.g. gap between the feet) that match features discovered within the foundation on top of Kastas. Specifically, it is assumed that a hole located by Lazarides was used to position and stabilize the lion.

8) "ANT" monogram on the peribolos. Does not support 4th century BC dating, only considered as an indication that the peribolos is Hellenistic

9) Letter bundle with (almost?) all letters of the word "ΗΦΑΙΣΤΙΩΝΟΣ" in 2 or 3 peribolos blocks. M. Lefantzis claims that workmanship reveals that the inscription that contains the bundle was written before its final processing for placement on the peribolos. When combined with everything else + the large size/luxury of the monument, the bundle is attributed to Hephaestion, which then supports the dating.

10) The Caryatids wear sandals of the late 4th c. BC (the date of this type of sandals has been established by Froning in 2007)

11) Surfaces of Caryatids and Sphinxes are crispy, as it is typical of late classical sculptures, and not hyperpolished and translucid as it is typical of late Hellenistic sculptures.

12) The arrangement of the drapery of the Caryatids - with an oblique strap anda a triangular pattern with a zig-zag decoration - is exactly corresponding with the same patterns on a statue of Dionysus from the theatre of Euonymos which is epigraphically and archaeologically dated around 330-320 BC.

13) The wings of the Sphinxes are of the typically late classical large size and not yet of the reduced size which became trendy after the Eros and the Kairos of Lysippus.

14) Bases of Caryatids are not decorated - as it became usual for later hellenistic times

15) Reference 4th century BC art/sculpture works (by Antonio Corso) :https://www.facebook.com/antonio.corso. ... 1311717165

16) Note by Antonio Corso: "one of the indices to date a female sculpture is the way breasts are carved. In the period of the severe style, there is a wide bosom between the two breasts, the bosom is already reduced with the Cnidian Aphrodite, it becomes very narrow with the Capitoline Aphrodite, whose original statue was created toward the end of the 4th c. BC. The width of the bosom of the female sculptures of Amphipolis is similar to that of the Cnidia, and this is one of the many reasons which lead to a date of these sculptures before the creation of the Capitoline Aphrodite.
This sequence is not a new discovery. Already Reinach understood this trend in carving breasts in his article 'L'indice mammaire' of 1931."

17) Mosaic with geometrical patterns before the caryatid entrance: same as a 4th century mosaic discovered ~200 m south of Kastas (although some date it down to early 3rd century). Comparisons also with Pella and other placed support the 4th century BC dating

18) Pebble mosaic technique - used up to mid 3rd century BC, becoming mixed with other techniques later.

I dont think coins or ceramics from the tomb have been used to date anything, other than approximate the period the tomb was sealed (by just looking the latest date of those finds). E.g. 4th century BC Alexander coins found may have entered there by accident with the earthen fill.

19) Decorative parts of the klinai found at the 3rd chamber also consistent with a 4th century BC dating.

Apart from that, it is also my understanding that it is only claimed that the original purpose for building the monument was to use it as a heroon for Hephaestion - that is based on their interpretation of the inscriptions. There is no claim, to my knowledge, regarding the stage at which the monument's use was changed. Maybe the Hephaestion heroon idea was abandoned even during construction, but construction continued maybe for the benefit of Antipater or some other reason.

Also, I think the association with Monophthalmos is problematic, they just try to explain how the monogram appears at the peribolos while being consistent with a 4th century BC dating. Regarding the inscriptions, I am at least sure that they have nothing to do with the much later graffiti on the blocks which is very deeply carved and contains only names - not actions. I have no opinion about dating sculptures, my only understanding is that while arguments presented by A. Corso appear reasonable to a non-expert, he cares mostly to explain why the sculptures are not late-hellenistic or roman. I don't see how his arguments exclude an early 3rd century BC dating. It appears that the strongest dating argument so far comes from the association of the lion with Kastas and the common processing elements found with the peribolos blocks and the (candidate) base pieces.