The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[agesilaos]

You are absolutely right, Paralus...you are no numismatist! Sorry, can never resist an open goal, however, whilst what you say is true of the precious metal issues these coins are all bronze, they are still impossible to date beyond any royal title belonging after 305ish the types are a mix of old styles and new, http://eu.www.mcu.es/museos/docs/MC/Act ... anders.pdf gives a full discussion of the types and photos.

So far there are no secure theories, although there are some rather more fantastic than others, 'No facts were troubled in the formulation of this theory'.

[agesilaos]

Gepd, you seem to have hit the nail on the head, the arguments are basically to counter the Palagia caucus' Roman dating. I am no sculptural expert but between the late fourth and mid third i cannot think of any radical change in technique, re the footwear I have a book on its way and will be better placed to comment when it arrives, I could curse you to the crows, though, Gepd, for not mentioning the breast dating theory sooner always been more into breasts than sandals Fond of boots, however

It is also apparent that the dating is not independent of the theory the team have concocted; as far as i know there is no research that would differentiate a lion of 350 from one of 250BC, even the date of the Lion of Chaironaia is not secure and may date to a recommemoration after Kassandros' restoration of Thebes. Dating by style is imprecise at best and Peristeri et al seem to delight in the circular argument, leftzantides mentioned Deinokrates and his measure because she had suggested a late fourth century context and he is the most famous architect of the era which then supports her dating, despite the fact that the basis for the so-called Deinokrates' measure was fallacious that in turn supports the dating of the lion and so on in a concatenation of presumption.

[gepd]

I doubt that they still hold onto the argument of the 15.84 km long wall of Alexandria - never mentioned again besides that time with the informal, on-camera chat of Peristeri with the prime minister in August 2014. I also doubt that they use Dinocrates hypotheses for dating the monument - it is just as I said that Peristeri is never careful in her public statements.

One guess is that the connection to Alexandria comes out from the modulus of the Kasta Hill, which they believe is represented by the height of the lion. The height of the lion is 5.28 m according to the excavators (5.3 by Broneer), height of tumulus 5 times that, diameter exactly 30 times that etc.

There is a book about Alexandria architecture by Judith McKenzie, where she states that Alexandria as well as other Ptolemaic cities were built on the basis of the royal egyptian cubit (0.525 m, range is 0.523-0.529 m). Depending on where one chooses to put the value of the cubit (0.528) one gets different types of solutions for organizing Alexandria's measurements - e.g. with a cubit of 0.528 m (1/10 of the lion's height) one comes up with exactly 625 cubits of length for the Alexandrian blocks (330 m). One may play around with such numbers and find interesting solutions.

That is just a guess.

[agesilaos]

I thought the Deinokrates link was mentioned during the most recent conference or seminar, but it was all in Greek so I may well have that wrong. Hopefully they will just give the data uncluttered by their interpretation; sadly, I think that is just wishful thinking.

[Taphoi]

Dear gepd,
Everything that you say is very reasonable. Personally, I have never doubted that the preponderance of the evidence points very strongly to the last quarter of the 4th century BC and I have explained my own reasons in this thread and elsewhere. It remains the case that there is no single fact that precisely requires 325-300BC, but there are more than a dozen lines of argument that point to it and nothing to contradict it and as a scientist I appreciate that an accumulation of many inconclusive arguments eventually becomes virtually conclusive.
Nevertheless, the Hephaistion connection has been entirely overplayed. It remains doubtful whether the graffiti has been correctly interpreted: they have been unable to produce photos where the smaller letters are distinct from the roughness of the stone surface and it is highly suspicious that the two versions of the "monogram" that they have published are distinctly different in the details. Even if we were to accept that they have interpreted the letters correctly, it would not mean that the monument was originally built for Hephaistion. Other possibilities include (but are not limited to):
1) The stones were originally quarried and shaped on Thasos with a view to being used for one of the shrines to Hephaistion in 324BC, but that project was cancelled before they were shipped and they were eventually used for a tomb for somebody else at Amphipolis. How have they ruled this out?
2) Some visitor to the tomb carved Hephaistion monograms onto the blocks as graffiti during its construction or later (How have they ruled this out?)
3) The monograms are graffiti referring to another Hephaistion - many others have been cited in this thread (How have they ruled this out?)
4) This graffiti was done by a modern prankster, when the blocks were stored in the open decades ago (perhaps as long as a century ago) and has since weathered to look old (How have they ruled this out?)
How do they explain how this tomb fits in with the history, which tends to suggest that it is extremely unlikely that anything on the scale of the Kasta tomb could have been built or funded for Hephaistion after Alexander's death and that there was not enough time to make much progress on such a project before Alexander's death?
It is important that they are now saying that they have a coin from 319-317BC (I will forgive them the attribution to Cassander, when it must have been minted in the name of the Kings). It is not really credible that anybody would have funded the largest tomb in Greece for Hephaistion after 317BC.
Finally, it still seems to be the case that the graves in the third chamber were older than the monument. I still have not heard a cogent explanation of that from anybody, least of all the archaeologists. The correct explanation of the Kasta tomb needs to explain ALL the facts, not just a tendentious selection of two samples from hundreds of examples of graffiti found on the loose blocks that were dredged from the river early last century. Above all, it is quite unreasonable to offer an explanation for the tomb that excludes the burials found within it, especially as it is now agreed that the sealing was early, which means that the burials are likely to be the original occupants. And where are the carbon dates? Where are the strontium ratios? They must have had this data for many months, but now they are backtracking by saying that even the sexes of the skeletons are still indeterminate (possibly they mean that DNA confirmation of sex is still not available, but it is most unlikely to overturn the sex determination from the skeletal features.)
On the facts as you describe them, nobody could reasonably justify announcing to the world as a CONCLUSION that the mound was originally built for Hephaistion, so that is why I am critical of the fact that that is what the archaeological team has done.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Paralus]

You are absolutely right, Paralus...you are no numismatist! Sorry, can never resist an open goal, however, whilst what you say is true of the precious metal issues these coins are all bronze, they are still impossible to date beyond any royal title belonging after 305ish the types are a mix of old styles and new...

I was aware the coins were bronzes. The point of mentioning the precious metal coins is that no other Successor was issuing coinage in his own name - rather continuing to issue Alexanders (III or IV) and Philips (III). There is no reason why Kassandros would be issuing coins bearing his name (bronze or otherwise) in 319. At the very earliest his coinage can only begin post 316 and even then once only in formal control as "ruler" of Macedon. That might be placed after the "Peace of the Dynasts" where he was acknowledged as such. But again, I'm no numismatist!

[gepd]

Hi Agesilaos,

I think Lefantzis still supports the Dinocrates theory (which is why we still listen about it), but not because of the 15.84 km wall argument. Actually we never heard his arguments about that except that he thinks there are common architectural features between Alexandria and Kastas that may point to this link.

Andrew, I just listed for reference what I understand are the arguments of the team, just to have them all in the same place, without saying whether they are right or wrong (apart from some opinions in the end). There were some new arguments about the sculptures and the lion's base, so I thought I would add them in this post.

As for the inscription, you know my opinion. I still believe the most probable explanation is that it refers to the known Hephaestion but that cannot be conclusively proven with what has been presented. Regarding some of your specific comments:

The stones were originally quarried and shaped on Thasos with a view to being used for one of the shrines to Hephaistion in 324BC, but that project was cancelled before they were shipped and they were eventually used for a tomb for somebody else at Amphipolis. How have they ruled this out?

It cant be ruled out. Even the team claims that the inscriptions indicate only the intent to have this monument as a shrine to Hephaestion. Whether the purpose of the monument changed during the design, the construction or at a later phase is not known. One can say that Hephaestion's death was the motivation to start the project. That is the least the inscriptions may prove, if indeed they can be dated before the monument's construction.

Some visitor to the tomb carved Hephaistion monograms onto the blocks as graffiti during its construction or later (How have they ruled this out?)

That is extremely unlikely or impossible. Random visitors would not carve "ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ" and a complex letter bundle they never saw before. Furthermore, different visitors going around doing this carving would mean that we would end up with many more similar graffiti on the preserved peribolos or the Strymon blocks - none has been mentioned. The graffiti on the Strymon blocks is stikingly different. By the way I am talking about different visitors because writing on the two inscriptions has differences in almost every single letter of ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ or the bundle. It is by far more probable that two different persons received the same order to carve this as part of a construction/delivery process. That is how I rule it out.

The monograms are graffiti referring to another Hephaistion - many others have been cited in this thread (How have they ruled this out?)

Yes, that has been discussed before. Yes we did find cases of Hephaestion being used, but not enough to say that this was a common name. Also, all instances of other Hephaestions post date the 4th century BC as far as I know. Finally, I have posted a link to a thesis studying a database of about 550 names from Amphipolis from classical times to Byzantine times. Hephaestion does not occur not even once. So, the one time it may appear is on the form of a complex letter bundle, that is part of on of the largest and more luxurious monuments in Macedonia, that can be potentially dated to the 4th century BC. So in that respect, the fact that it may point to the known Hephaestion is not just a small probability.

This graffiti was done by a modern prankster, when the blocks were stored in the open decades ago (perhaps as long as a century ago) and has since weathered to look old (How have they ruled this out?)

That is impossible. Weathering has not affected the deeper graffiti, why should it affect that? Furthermore, I highly doubt the pranksters would be so clever or lucky to come up with the idea of carving Hephaestion's name in a complex bundle, without most likely having the slightest clue who Hephaestion was, that the marbles were associated to Kastas and that Kastas was going to be a monument potentially dated to 4th century BC. Pranksters with knowledge of Greek paleography would also be extremely rare.

As also said, Lefantzis calims that he can identify the processing layers on the stone that were done after the carving. He has not explained that, but I at least trust his observations more than those of Peristeri. And I separate fundamental observations that from far-fetched interpretations (common elements to Alexandria/dinocrates etc.). Of course I do hope do hear more about that, but that's my view.

How do they explain how this tomb fits in with the history, which tends to suggest that it is extremely unlikely that anything on the scale of the Kasta tomb could have been built or funded for Hephaistion after Alexander's death and that there was not enough time to make much progress on such a project before Alexander's death?

They may not have to explain it. What they have is data. If they can potentially date the inscriptions before the construction, Hephaestion is a very good candidate as the person referenced in these blocks. Just because its difficult to fit a scenario to it, data cant be ignored. Even Kasta's presence makes no sense according to our sources, but its there.

The correct explanation of the Kasta tomb needs to explain ALL the facts, not just a tendentious selection of two samples from hundreds of examples of graffiti found on the loose blocks

Please see above. Graffiti of names has nothing to do with those inscriptions. And there is lots of context about those inscriptions. I agree Hephaestion makes no sense when historical sources are considered, but data is data.

[Taphoi]

The stones were originally quarried and shaped on Thasos with a view to being used for one of the shrines to Hephaistion in 324BC, but that project was cancelled before they were shipped and they were eventually used for a tomb for somebody else at Amphipolis. How have they ruled this out?

It cant be ruled out. Even the team claims that the inscriptions indicate only the intent to have this monument as a shrine to Hephaestion. Whether the purpose of the monument changed during the design, the construction or at a later phase is not known. One can say that Hephaestion's death was the motivation to start the project. That is the least the inscriptions may prove, if indeed they can be dated before the monument's construction.

I mean that the blocks could have been intended for a monument to Hephaistion elsewhere than Amphipolis. If we assume that the archaeological team is right in their interpretation of these graffiti, that they do pre-date the monument itself and that they assign the blocks to a Hephaistion monument project, then what makes historical sense is that they were quarried and roughly shaped at Thasos in 323BC, that the Hephaistion project was abandoned upon Alexander's death and that the blocks were stacked on Thasos unused until the next big project came along for which they were suitable (that project being the Kasta Mound Tomb).
It is interesting that the pi is missing off both blocks in PARELABON. The archaeologists' diagrams suggest that there was an empty space in front of the alpha where the pi should have been, but their photos do not show the edge of the blocks in front of the alpha. Have you seen any photos showing the left-hand edge of the blocks? Is there any chance that the pi is missing because it was cut away when the blocks were re-cut to different dimensions for the Amphipolis project?
We need explanations that can be shown to agree with the history rather than naive contradictions of history.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Alexias]

gped wrote

"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.

I might have missed something but I thought the lion was moved in antiquity to the river. Yet this implies that it was already broken. Why move a broken lion? Or was there more than one lion? A 10 x10 m base is very large for just one lion, unless there was a small temple as well. The presence of more than one lion might indicate the presence of other tombs within the mound. The principal tomb may not even have been found yet.

[gepd]

I mean that the blocks could have been intended for a monument to Hephaistion elsewhere than Amphipolis.

Well, the shape, size and processing of the blocks depends on the overall design of the construction they were intended for. So, in that case, we are talking about plans of a Hephaestion shrine at Thassos or Amphipolis, with similar properties as the Kastas monument. Alternatively, we are talking about pieces of marble that had different shapes and processing, and that were modified later to fit the Kastas peribolos. And by chance, after cutting and reshaping them, the ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ + bundle inscription is not cut at random locations, but fits well vertically within the final shape of the marble blocks, and occupies the exact same legnth in the horizontal direction. Well, can't exclude that, but if the investigators are misled by so many amazing coincidences, they are excused by me.

One can make infinite assumptions and scenarios about how the excavators have been misled by such coincidences - that can go on forever. The fair thing is to then apply the same strict arguments in interpreting e.g. other inscriptions and data associated with monuments etc. The Hephaestion theory is definitely not watertight, as the Olympias one and others, but excavators can't consider all these amazing possibilities. If one asks them to do so, its like asking them not to propose any theory about the monument or asking other researchers to take back all their claims e.g. about Philip's tomb at Vergina etc. Hephaestion is a probable candidate that can be associated with this monument, data are not inconsistent with that, historical sources may be. But data are more powerful than historical sources written few centuries after the events - which by the way fail to even give a hint about the presence of Kastas...

I might have missed something but I thought the lion was moved in antiquity to the river. Yet this implies that it was already broken. Why move a broken lion? Or was there more than one lion? A 10 x10 m base is very large for just one lion, unless there was a small temple as well. The presence of more than one lion might indicate the presence of other tombs within the mound. The principal tomb may not even have been found yet.

War diaries from the Greeks and English describe the locations that the lion was originally found. The location that was excavated in the 1930s is where the English abandoned the lion pieces after trying to transport it away from Amphipolis (they were stopped by Bulgarian forces). There are not two lions - none of the pieces recovered so far is double. Unless again that is coincidental...

PS: By the way, Peristeri did not say they do not know the sexes of the skeletons - she was misquoted. She just said "apart from knowing sexes and age of the persons corresponding to the different skeletons, we have not much more information yet".

[agesilaos]

Paralus, I was unsure whether it had been said that the coins were bronze, but I do remember that they said they had coins ‘with the head of Alexander’, combining those facts and assuming, perhaps optimistically, that the archaeologists are not complete fools there is only one issue they can have found towhit

SNGCop_1138vKass.jpg (39.12 KiB) Viewed 6458 times

Of course they are mistakenly taking the portrait of Herakles as one of Alexander which is a common error (and whether it is an error is not entirely certain), what is interesting is the reverse of a lion; this is not a symbol one would associate with Kassandros but rather with his ally, Lysimachos. Who also has a bronze issue without the royal title

lysimachos.jpg (21.87 KiB) Viewed 6458 times

If the issue is referencing their partnership it can hardly be earlier than 315 and the third Diadoch War and possibly not before the Peace of the Dynasts in 311. The laureate head of Zeus recalls Philip II’s silver issues. Both dates fatal to any Hephaistion hypothesis

[Taphoi]

I mean that the blocks could have been intended for a monument to Hephaistion elsewhere than Amphipolis.

Well, the shape, size and processing of the blocks depends on the overall design of the construction they were intended for. So, in that case, we are talking about plans of a Hephaestion shrine at Thassos or Amphipolis, with similar properties as the Kastas monument. Alternatively, we are talking about pieces of marble that had different shapes and processing, and that were modified later to fit the Kastas peribolos. And by chance, after cutting and reshaping them, the ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ + bundle inscription is not cut at random locations, but fits well vertically within the final shape of the marble blocks, and occupies the exact same legnth in the horizontal direction. Well, can't exclude that, but if the investigators are misled by so many amazing coincidences, they are excused by me.

One can make infinite assumptions and scenarios about how the excavators have been misled by such coincidences - that can go on forever. The fair thing is to then apply the same strict arguments in interpreting e.g. other inscriptions and data associated with monuments etc. The Hephaestion theory is definitely not watertight, as the Olympias one and others, but excavators can't consider all these amazing possibilities. If one asks them to do so, its like asking them not to propose any theory about the monument or asking other researchers to take back all their claims e.g. about Philip's tomb at Vergina etc. Hephaestion is a probable candidate that can be associated with this monument, data are not inconsistent with that, historical sources may be. But data are more powerful than historical sources written few centuries after the events - which by the way fail to even give a hint about the presence of Kastas...

It would not be an amazing coincidence, but exactly what anybody here who knows the history would expect to have happened. We know Alexander ordered shrines to Hephaistion all over the empire, but the absence of any attributable ruins plus the statement that the army abandoned plans for completion of the principal monument in Babylon suggests very strongly that the projects were virtually all abandoned long before completion and shortly after Alexander's death. Nevertheless there was enough time between Hephaistion's death and Alexander's demise (~7 months) for stone to be cut and rough shaped to the required sizes at the major marble quarries within the empire. So one would expect unused marble blocks for Hephaistion's shrines in Macedonia itself to have been piled up at the marble quarries on the Isle of Thassos after Alexander's death and they would have then been used for the next big project that needed similarly large blocks. If some of them were a bit larger than the size required for the Amphipolis tomb a few years later, then they might have been cut down from one or more edges and that is why ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ could be missing its Π. If there is not enough room for another letter between the leading alpha and the left-hand drafted margin of the blocks then it is fairly certain that this is what has happened, because it perfectly explains the missing Π. It would also be quite certain that the Amphipolis tomb has nothing to do with Hephaistion and pretty certain that it was built after 323BC but well before 300BC, because the valuable blocks are not likely to have gone unused for more than a decade or two. If the Amphipolis tomb had been designed for Hephaistion then there would have been no need for the Π to be cut off the blocks, because the blocks would have been roughed out at the correct size from the start.

I am not trying to make infinite assumptions here. I will leave that to the archaeologists, who seem to think that they can explain the evidence bit by bit and do not need to use one piece of evidence as a control on the interpretation of another. Instead I am trying to reconcile the evidence that the archaeologists have presented with the huge historical improbability that a shrine to Hephaistion was funded to the tune of a thousand or more talents after Alexander's death.

Even if the Π was not cut off the blocks, it is still more likely that blocks cut for Hephaistion's shrines were simply re-used at the Kasta monument than that the Kasta monument was built for Hephaistion. I do not believe that there is any overwhelming reason why the Kasta architect could not have generated his design to fit the blocks left from the abandoned Hephaistion projects in order to save a bit of money and accelerate the timescale for the construction. But if the Π could have been cut off, then it becomes almost certain that this is what happened - because it actually makes sense of ALL the evidence AND fits the history. so do you have any photos of the left-hand edges of the ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ blocks please? (I wonder why these edges seem to have been cut off the presentation photos btw ?)

Best wishes,
Andrew

[agesilaos]

I cannot see the ARELABON coming about due to re-cutting of the blocks; this was a phenomenally expensive edifice, is it likely that they would use second hand blocks for the outside wall? There is no sign of the haste we find at Vergina II here.

The ‘letter bundle’, a much better term than ‘monogram’ I think, has to be forced to spell Hephaistion, the letters are not right, nor is this bundling seen before the Byzantine Empire AFAIK, [P]ARELABON can be both 1st person singular or third person plural, so I would see a group of monograms representing a group of officials whose names give many but not all of the constituent letters of ‘Hephaistion’, otherwise a Hephaistion is in receipt of the blocks it just does not work. I would explain the lost Pi as a local variant, we know that phi was pronounced as an aspirated beta, a soft ‘bh’, such a sound might easily be lost at the start of a word and have affected the pronounciation of pi.

Whilst I agree that archaeological data must take precedence over our surviving sources I think most, if not all of the historical problems disappear if one considers a date early in the reign of Gonatas, for which our sources are poor. Continued use of the monument points to the popularity of the occupant(s), not a match with Hephaistion nor Olympias, nor Brasidas IMHO though possible for Rhesos, I do not find the iconography conducive. Yep, still betting on the Antigonid Mausoleion, though the case would be a lot stronger if they found some more tombs!

graffamph1.jpg (41.71 KiB) Viewed 6447 times

If these drawings are accurate the initial alpha is clearly not at the edge of the block, nor would your scenario make sense Taphers; who was signing for the blocks at the quarry? The ARELABON must mean that they had been delivered to site for the intended job, nor is your time scale right, Alexander can only have ordered the worship of Hephaistion once he had received the God's judgement o how he could be worshipped, Kleomenes in Egypt earned brownie points by acting at once on the verdict which he knew ahead of Alexander. Nor were heroa ordered throughout the Empire we only hear of two in Alexandria, although cult worship was ordered this too did not survive Alexander outside Macedonia, even in Egypt the temples that had been started were re-purposed by Ptolemy. The inscription/graffitti cannot be used to support a late fourth century date, therefore.

[Taphoi]

The drawings are NOT accurate in the matter of the width of the margin around the letters, which is the crucial point here. Anyone can see this from the released presentation images of the blocks below. For some reason they have omitted the left-hand edges of the blocks from their photos (although it need not be a sinister reason). Of course they would have re-used blocks intended for Hephaistion's monuments. If Alexander considered them fine enough for Hephaistion's monuments then they were certainly good enough for anybody else's and they had huge value once hewn and shaped. Alexander did not wait to hear from Siwa before ordering monuments for Hephaistion. A stone version of the pyre was planned in Babylon. The orders reached Egypt for shrines in Alexandria. We have the plaque inscribed to Hephaistion from Pella and Hypereides the orator recorded that the Athenians were forced to erect temples and performs sacrifices to the servant of Alexander. There is enough to show that Alexander intended widespread monuments to Hephaistion from soon after his death.

parelabon.jpg (59.03 KiB) Viewed 6439 times

[Paralus]

If the issue is referencing their partnership it can hardly be earlier than 315 and the third Diadoch War and possibly not before the Peace of the Dynasts in 311. The laureate head of Zeus recalls Philip II’s silver issues. Both dates fatal to any Hephaistion hypothesis

Agreed entirely - if your assumption is correct (about the archaeologists)! The coins were mentioned somewhere in the six thousand pages of this thread or possibly elsewhere.