The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[agesilaos]

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pD7 ... ic&f=false

Hopefully the link will take you to the Pottery chapter of 'Halos a Hellenistic Town in Thessaly'; her it is stated that dating by pottery for the early Hellenistic period (350- 261) is complicated by the lack of reference assemblages with firm dating evidence; one is Olynthos destroyed in 348, and the other a Ptolemaic outpost in Attika , occupied 280 -261. This book was written 2003 so Lazaridis' dating must be broader than you suspect.

[gepd]

Thanks Agesilaos - I actually thought ceramics can narrow down a dating rather well (based on some comments I heard from Kottaridi) but I guess I misunderstood. So maybe Gonatas cannot be excluded based on this finding. I assume that proving that the lion was on top of the mound, trusting that the lion is safely dated in the 4th century BC and assuming that its placement was simultaneous with the formation of the tumulus/peribolos complex is what is left. But that is still not free of assumptions... So if ceramics is not enough, what one would need to directly date (without assumptions) this monument in the 4th century?

For the record, the date range for the "Early Hellenistic period" was obtained from a recent publication of the Greek Ministry of Culture. The relevant page is here: http://www.yppo.gr/0/anaskafes/pdfs/TIMELINE.pdf

The full publication is freely available here: http://www.yppo.gr/0/anaskafes/ (clicking on the image leads to the table of contents).

[agesilaos]

Dating is quite a subjective subject, so it may have been Kottaridi over stating the case; to date the monument directly to the late Fourth century one would need a dated inscription, or coins of the period at all levels and nothing earlier or later; needless to say this is not the case. There are periods when ceramics can date quite precisely, or rather, in view of some doubts about the Egyptian chronology behind many dating systems let us say they establish a sequence. Even so, only broad bands which overlap emerge, there were no digrammata banning the use of certain shapes after a specific date Dating is also complicated by the nature of the base assemblage, if it is associated with a recorded natural disaster then there is a firm terminus ante quem, nothing in Pompeii or Herculaeneum can date after 79 AD (and there is more specific date, August?) but many come from workshop dumps where they are dated by associated material especially coins. Not only is the dating of Greek coins rarely as precise as for Roman Imperial types where the emperor's offices provide firm dates, but one has to consider why large quantities of earthenware would be dumped, which gives the ceramics a longer run than when they were highly fashionable, just as coins can remain in circulation long after they were minted, so we can only give a terminus post quem from this evidence, as I am sure you know. Finds in isolation can never be considered safe evidence for dating, a Geometric cup fragment on a pyre suggests an Archaic date but the Greeks did collect antiques so that conclusion would need further support.

I do not find the terms Early Middle and Late very useful in the historical period especially when they are pegged to historical events, in your example we have Death of Alexander to Accession of Gonatas to Roman conquest of Greece (Battle of Korinth 148 BC) to Fall of Ptolemaic Egypt (31 BC Actium), nothing convinces me that these events saw changes in the material culture which is what the divisions ought to represent. But at least they have said what they mean by the terms which is more than the vague pronouncements from Kastas.

[gepd]

Thanks Agesilaos,

here are a couple more photos from the part of Lefantzis presentation. These are screenshots from a 20 min video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pPKNps0Wwk). The talk is in Greek of course but you can anyway go through and have a look to some very nice slides.

The ones below show first the diagram of the foundation excavated at the top and the off-center location of the hole (red) found by Lazarides. At the bottom right Lefantzis has the discovered parts of the lion and maybe you can understand where he indicates the hollow part was. If that is correct, it helps them understand also how the lion was oriented.

The second slide shows one of the deformed parts of the peribolos, interpreted as a ramp formed by the romans, used to bring down material from the top (meaning there was lots of material on the top). In one of the slides after that Lefantzis shows rail-like marks on that structure supporting this ramp concept.

[system1988]

Before the squinting and after the squinting

http://s1246.photobucket.com/user/IamSy ... sort=3&o=0


You can always enlarge the picture.

PS

The "signature" is artistic and engraved by a literate person (playfull as well if I might add)

[agesilaos]

Interesting they reinterpret the theta as an omicron , add a second sigma (sigma ex machina?) and interpret the sign that elsewhere, including on the monument is ANT as simply NT; 'punishment should be reserved for those that have perpetrated this atrocity'

[system1988]

Interesting they reinterpret the theta as an omicron , add a second sigma (sigma ex machina?) and interpret the sign that elsewhere, including on the monument is ANT as simply NT; 'punishment should be reserved for those that have perpetrated this atrocity'

There is a second sigma- enlarge! As for the letter ' O " with ' .' maybe it is a decorative element.

[agesilaos]

What they are making a second sigma are the round of the theta, the leg of omega and a chunk on nu, thus uniquely containing no part that is not part of another letter, not to mention forming the letter incorrectly with a curved centre (how else could they get out of the theta dilemma?); I remain unconvinced, System.

But if we accept that it says [P]arelabon Hephaistionos, it would mean 'I received [this] from Hephaistion', paralambanw means 'to receive from' where the article received is in the accusative and the supplier in the genitive e.g. “π. τὴν βασιλείαν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός” in the LSJ definition. The form [parelabon] can be 1st singular or 3rd plural aorist indicative active, so it could equally be 'they received [it]' followed by more than one signature.

[system1988]

What they are making a second sigma are the round of the theta, the leg of omega and a chunk on nu, thus uniquely containing no part that is not part of another letter, not to mention forming the letter incorrectly with a curved centre (how else could they get out of the theta dilemma?); I remain unconvinced, System.

But if we accept that it says [P]arelabon Hephaistionos, it would mean 'I received [this] from Hephaistion', paralambanw means 'to receive from' where the article received is in the accusative and the supplier in the genitive e.g. “π. τὴν βασιλείαν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός” in the LSJ definition. The form [parelabon] can be 1st singular or 3rd plural aorist indicative active, so it could equally be 'they received [it]' followed by more than one signature.

What they are making a second sigma are the round of the theta... Exactly. It is abanduntly clear that this is a distinguishable and eccentric writing style. Needles to say, if we would humor this that the individual that engraved it was a very proud one for himself for doing this ("wow, look what I did!"). On a more serious note, as far as my knowledge goes at least, I haven't seen anything quite like this before; not in signatures on vases , not in signatures on sculpture. It seems to have a closer relationship to something we would find on papyrus.

Yes you are right "Παρέλαβον" can either be 1st singular and 3rd plural but if the latter is true then where are the other names? Also the word missing should be in accusative form, meaning "Το Ηρώον" etc. Also, there is the letter "O" which can be presented with a dot at its center.

What is important as far as the name goes is that we find the monogram inside the tomb on a rossette. It is on of the greatest proof tokens that the tomb, for a certain period of time, was for someone whose name started with an "ΗΦ". It is inconceivable for an architect to dare to put his own initials inside that holy ground, meant for something equivelant to a "saint" if I might say so, as if he would want to make a name for himself, in terms of "here are the good rossettes! please consider us again for your next deceased general!"

In any case epigraphy experts are the ones who will have the last say in the matter.

Greetings

[Paralus]

In any case epigraphy experts are the ones who will have the last say in the matter.

Greetings

Indeed - it is now in the purview of the epigraphers. Intrepid epigraphers to be sure.

[agesilaos]

One gets more than one signature by considering the alleged 'Hephaistionos' monogram as a group of separate monograms, if ANT is interpreted as a distinct monogram elswhere it is somewhat perverse to insist it is only NT here and part of a whole word monogram (of which there are Byzantine exempla but I know of no Hellenistic examples, though I am no expert).

The mark in the rosette is more than EPH there is a sigma too, either lunate or incongruously lower case and terminal. The purpose of an invisible scratch is certainly one for the epigraphologists.

[system1988]

Just a footnote here, as far as the rossette epigraph is concerned: In the Greek alphabet, the letter "O" happens to be depicted with a dot in the middle. This happens in the Corinthian alphabet (a Doric one) and not always. Also if memory servers me right this applies more to the archaic era.

I post this link in which you will find the various appearances of the Corithian Alphabet. The letter I refer to is the 7th row on the 3rd stele from the left.

http://s1246.photobucket.com/user/IamSy ... sort=3&o=0

Best

Pauline

[agesilaos]

Yes, but that's 200 years earlier and not Macedonian; however, what are the letter forms in late fourth century inscriptions in Macedon? I will only be able to access transcriptions and they are always in Attic I will check the web again though, I think there is a site with photographs of Macedonian stelai.

[system1988]

Yes, but that's 200 years earlier and not Macedonian; however, what are the letter forms in late fourth century inscriptions in Macedon? I will only be able to access transcriptions and they are always in Attic I will check the web again though, I think there is a site with photographs of Macedonian stelai.

There is a dot in the "O" as well as on Macedonian steles that date back to late 4th, early 3rd. I will send photos and the text the citation later.

[agesilaos]

Thanks, that is a new factor.