The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[gepd]

Thanks a lot for all the clarification about the lion and other topics. The subject of dating monuments based on stylistic arguments is very confusing for me. I cannot understand how e.g. Kotarridi and Palagia argue that sphinxes and karyatids cannot be from earlier than the 2nd centrury BC, Peristeri saying that these are typical 4th century BC (she presented analogues in her talk), while other art historians that have been asked can be confident enough to offer a dating with a 10-20 year error margin.

Some more photos with preliminary reconstructions of the paintings on the architraves are also here:

http://kathrefti.blogspot.gr/2015/10/video.html

As for the chilarch-lion connection, I dont think he said it is a one to one connection. Not that this makes his statement more clear.

I will also try to put a series of mason marks or construction-relevant marks I found. Many of these marks can be found at the Hephaestion (Theseus) temple in Athens (by coincidence . They are really many, all are pretty simple, single letters.

I guess my personal view on this one is that whatever the function of this letter combination is on the Amphipolis inscriptions, it is still striking why these letters were chosen. If selection was random just for marking completion of construction phases or something similar, it may be one of the most misleading coincidences I 've encountered.

[sean_m]

There is a sound recording of the 2 hour event available, I am trying to translate it for everyone here, but will take some time. In general, the references of K. Peristeri to the literature are inaccurate, as pointed above by Agesilaos, and many times some of their (Peristeri and Lefantzis) interpretations are presented as facts, but at least Lefantzis was more clear in his talk.

Thanks a lot gepd. I still think its best to wait a few years for a trustworthy published version of the evidence to come out, but people who want to guess now have more fuel for the fire.

[Taphoi]

Regarding Lefantzis: if his arguments about the placement of the lion at the top of the hill are correct and the lion has been considered (if I am not mistaken) a 4th century BC construction, that could add to the discussion about the monument's dating.

The lion's dating is stinky. The lion of Hamadan could be Hellenistic. And that of Chaeronea is very possibly associated in dating with the rebuilding of Thebes. But those dates are arguable both ways, and I've always been struck how circular the logic can be around dating one of them by the others. Cnidos is now dated mid-to-late C3rd by the British museum, but there's arguments placing it into the early to late C2nd, or even reaching back to Conon. Piraeus is generally seen as mid C4th isn't it? Other than the traditions associated with it (male, heroic, war), it's not really telling much.

The stylistic dating of the lion is as dubious as all other stylistic dating of this kind of sculpture due to late Hellenistic and Roman sculptors having copied early Hellenistic works inveterately and fairly exactly. Nevertheless the Chaeronea lion is the best parallel for the Amphipolis lion and that is clearly 2nd half of the 4th century BC. Furthermore, Broneer was fairly persuasive in dating the lion to the last quarter of the 4th century BC in 1941. His view was obviously quite independent of the current controversy over the date of the Amphipolis Tomb. Furthermore, he looked at a wide range of features and did not dwell on style. He argued that the types and spread of the clamps used to hold the sections of the lion together aligned with an early Hellenistic date and he drew strong parallels with the construction methods of the Temple of Apollo Patroos in the north-west of the Athenian Agora and built in 340-320BC. He also analysed the architectural features of the pedestal-monument on which the lion once stood and believed it fitted best into the late 4th century BC.

The talk of the lion being "hollow" as mentioned by gepd does not seem to be literally accurate. I have the sectional views of the lion published by Roger in BCH (though unfortunately cannot post due to the ongoing block on uploads to the board). They perhaps indicate some domed interfaces to improve the interlocking of the sections, but no real sign of hollowness.

I remain unconvinced that the archaeologists have more than the two Strymon block "Hephaistion" inscriptions plus the Eta-Phi in the rosette from the ceiling above the mosaic. That makes three inscriptions, if we are broad in our definition of the word.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[Taphoi]

I guess my personal view on this one is that whatever the function of this letter combination is on the Amphipolis inscriptions, it is still striking why these letters were chosen. If selection was random just for marking completion of construction phases or something similar, it may be one of the most misleading coincidences I 've encountered.

Yes, but the archaeologists have elected to focus on two inscriptions from a very large set of graffiti inscriptions on the 600+ Strymon-dredged blocks from the Amphipolis Tomb. It is always possible to find seemingly striking coincidences with a large set of possibilities to choose from. If you have just 23 people in a room there is a 50% chance that two of them will share the same birthday.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Zebedee]

The stylistic dating of the lion is as dubious as all other stylistic dating of this kind of sculpture due to late Hellenistic and Roman sculptors having copied early Hellenistic works inveterately and fairly exactly. Nevertheless the Chaeronea lion is the best parallel for the Amphipolis lion and that is clearly 2nd half of the 4th century BC. Furthermore, Broneer was fairly persuasive in dating the lion to the last quarter of the 4th century BC in 1941. His view was obviously quite independent of the current controversy over the date of the Amphipolis Tomb. Furthermore, he looked at a wide range of features and did not dwell on style. He argued that the types and spread of the clamps used to hold the sections of the lion together aligned with an early Hellenistic date and he drew strong parallels with the construction methods of the Temple of Apollo Patroos in the north-west of the Athenian Agora and built in 340-320BC. He also analysed the architectural features of the pedestal-monument on which the lion once stood and believed it fitted best into the late 4th century BC.

I personally feel Broneer's case is most persuasive for that particular lion. His argument that Laomedon is a potential candidate for a cult site surmounted by a lion at Amphipolis is also interesting.

[gepd]

Hi Andrew, I think you mean those:





Peristeri is also clear in the talk that inscriptions are 3 and separates them from the finding of the rosette in the tomb.

Since we mentioned the lion, there is an article about Roger's excavations here from Ecole française d'Athènes. I don't understand French but it looks interesting: http://www.efa.gr/index.php/fr/ressourc ... BvbGlzIl0=

[Taphoi]

Hi Andrew, I think you mean those:

No, sorry. Those diagrams are in the main text of Roger's article, but I meant Planche VI at the back of the journal issue, which shows how the pieces fit together and there is no real sign of a hollow core.

Peristeri is also clear in the talk that inscriptions are 3 and separates them from the finding of the rosette in the tomb.

I think there are roughly 2500 marble blocks forming the exterior face of the peribolos. About 500 were dredged from the Strymon. If two in these five hundred blocks have "Hephaistion" graffiti, then there should be about ten "Hephaistion" graffiti altogether. Thus it will be a bit surprising statistically if they have only found one other on the intact peribolos. They know exactly where to look, so they could find the others in an hour, if they exist. As a matter of logic, the suspicion has therefore to be that the ones on the peribolos do not exist, especially since we have not actually been shown a single "Hephaistion" graffiti from the peribolos.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[agesilaos]

Some cod statistics there, Andrew, since there is no reason to suppose an even distribution of these marks. If one actually said that it was from 'a shrine to the hero Hephaistion' that would be significant whereas a hundred with these unclear marks would not. It would be nice to know just where these blocks were originally, the narrow blocks were also used for the geison bearing course, I think, where the marks would be internal, which might explain why so few are found.

[gepd]

They may have to look in more places, but I agree they may find more. I don't believe finding something "on-site" means necessarily on the intact peribolos, but in the area of the hill, which is huge and partly unexcavated. I am sure if the extent the trenches outwards from the peribolos they will come up many more blocks or other interesting findings. Egnatia was probably crossing the area between Kastas and the nearby Hill 133 (from this study: http://www.ilak.org/docs/proceedings_c/volume_1/08.pdf)

Overall, the well preserved part of the peribolos is about 80 m long. Parts of it have been used even for building modern houses. Peribolos parts have also been found in Amphipolis's Basilicas. One piece is possibly below, with the same markings as the Strymon blocks.



I am trying to be selective in which parts of the sound recording I translate - I may only put here parts that are really clear just to avoid confusion. For instance, Peristeri says that based on ceramics from the sand fill in the chambers they estimate the sealing occurred around the 2nd century BC, but then she comes up saying how they found ceramics from the Roman period in the same place. I am not sure what she means there - I can only imagine roman ceramics were found at the top layers of the fill and may come from looters of that period, but that is a guess.

[Taphoi]

Thanks gepd.

The alternative hypothesis that the "ARELABON" inscriptions were added after the blocks were removed from the walls is probably not readily disprovable unless they can find a matching inscription on the intact part of the peribolos. That might be difficult, if there are only 80m left intact.

I will of course believe it when I see it.

Lacking a matching inscription on the peribolos, then the natural assumption is that these are graffiti from after the removal of the blocks from the peribolos. You yourself argued strenuously that virtually all the graffiti must be post block removal above.

Also somebody in Greece should have a close look at all the Strymon blocks and re-used blocks to see whether there is anything resembling an ARELABON inscription on any face of these blocks that was not exposed when they stood in the wall.

The whole Hephaistion hypothesis hangs perilously by the fraying thread of a merely rumoured ARELABON inscription from "on-site" and a mysteriously incomplete survey of the various block caches for similar inscriptions.

I completely agree with agesilaos that these issues concerning how the ARELABON inscriptions came about are matched by equal difficulties with the interpretation of these scratches. I am personally most interested in the fact that there are more inconsistencies in the smaller letters between the two examples than in the larger letters. An inconsistent (slightly illiterate) inscriber should really have been equally inconsistent in all parts of the inscription, but uncertainties in the modern transcription would especially affect the smaller letters!

Best wishes,

Andrew

[gepd]

The best quality photos of the two out of three inscriptions are here:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MQOJcI9CMXw/V ... 1600/3.jpg



Lefantzis gives an radio interview today, lets see if some things become more clear.

[Taphoi]

Thanks gepd. Clearly, this is a pair of photos of a single inscription. Have you seen any photos of the second inscription from the Strymon blocks or just the transcription please?
Best wishes,
Andrew

[system1988]

Wassily Kandinsky and Marc Chagall in Amphipolis!

Let us do something heretic here! I firstly want to note that if this post is considered off topic to be moved to the appropriate section.

Well, I had the chance to take a good look at mr Lefatzis' drawings of the architraves. For certain, it was a valiant effort to restore at least some of the semi-lost presentations that have worn off with time (millenia). His attempts will continue in the coming years and I am sure that many other architects and conservation staff will also undertake the same project.

But with the current efforts of restorations, the picture forming before our eyes is a mysterious puzzle that forces us to squint and tear up from the effort in order to fantisize about various things. Seriously though, it is very possible that we are looking at the representation of the achievements of an outstanding man (or two men perhaps?)

Some of my impressions, after all the squinting:

Too crowded. Too many objects, In the air and on the earth. Too much glory. Too many symbols. Too many winged beings. Something Etruscan is in the atmosphere. Disharmonic stances. For the first time, in ancient Greek drawing, and yes also in Roman drawing I dare say, the animal is in a completely different and far off scale compared to the man figures. The animal is also facing the viewer which is also one of a kind in ancient Greek drawing (this goes for the bull as well). The tower is not an common Greek element. It is most certainly a foreign element, probably from the East. I believe that this tower is a siege tower. The deceased man must have been in charge of sieges.

All this of course is unsubstanciated hypothesies of mine and are derived from whatever I can pick up from the drawings as well as my gut feelings. This artist is an innovator of his time (if this is indeed for late 4th BC).

In the end all this remind me of 2 paintings of the 20th AD of Wassily Kandinsky and Marc Chagall!

Her is the link to the ancient photos and the modern ones:

http://s1246.photobucket.com/user/IamSy ... sort=3&o=4

Special thanks to gepd for the awesome link that gave us the opprortunity to take a really good look at the photos!

Best wishes to all

Pauline


PS

Dedicated to mrs C.H and mr K.S

[gepd]

Thanks Pauline,

as a side note, Lefantzis radio interview just finished now, few points that have been noted before but were better highlighted this time:

- The lion of Amphipolis was not excavated at the point discovered in the 30s. It was rediscovered there after the English transport ships (that had all the pieces of the lion collected) sunk at that point. Initially (around 1910, when discovered by the Greek army) they where scattered in an area 2-3 km wide. Same is for some of the Strymon blocks, some formed two additional dams in the region. They also found new parts of the lion, almost 3.5 km away from the present lion's position, very close to Kastas.

-In the peribolos excavations they discovered an enormous piece of a frieze that they attribute to the original decoration of the lion's base (he says they are sure about that but still working studying some of its aspects, before at least publicizing some pictures of it). The iconography is Macedonian.

-The frieze found inside the chambers (that Pauline talks in the earlier post) was a later addition in the tomb. He did not say, however, when that was added. The blocks with the frieze were meant to support the roof blocks above the mosaic, the one you see here (http://www.capital.gr/images/large_imag ... 01f1cc.jpg). The roof was also a later addition, same as the marble door. He said that they believe the roof was added to control the humidity in the chambers (that was affecting the mosaic), the door as a fix to the damage of the original door to the last chamber. He said that there is a period of fixes/renovations in the chambers, which is why some parts may look as being from a later date.

-He said the cist tomb predates the monument.

Andrew thanks for noticing that the blocks are the same - I will look for more images.

[Taphoi]

He said the cist tomb predates the monument.

That is an extremely interesting statement, although I believe they said it before last year. 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. I cannot see how they can reconcile this with the Hephaistion thing.

Best wishes,

Andrew