pothos.org

Agesilaos wrote:

I am not going to get into a squabble but the 'shields article' is based on rather more than the Fayoum shield and the author mentions the Roman possibility though, like many others discounts it because of the date, 160BC; it is a side issue here,

digression:......small detail, that dating is nowhere near accurate. Kimmig originally dated it to the 3 C BC, based on the Polybius' accounts of Celts in Egypt. Later revised it to 2 C BC based on nearby Ptolemaic buildings and associated pottery, lamps etc, but the site was pierced by later Ptolemaic graves, which means the shield could date from as late as Caesar's or Mark Anthony's time...... essentially the Fayum shield is of unknown date.

So what the curve actually shows is the uncalibrated result on the y-axis as a thick black line (2250 BP +- 30) then a further 30 years either side of that giving 2250 +- 60 years; this is then mapped to the calibration curve (blue wavy line) which gives two possible ranges 383-355 and 288-232. If the charcoal has any bearing on the monument then it confirms the third century date most likely under Antigonos Gonatas (273-239BC). A result suggested by both the frieze, sensibly interpreted and the footwear of the Karyatids and the overwhelming historical probability; an unreported massive monument is more likely in a poorly reported period than in one well covered.

Thanks for the additional info on Fayoum, Xenophon, it highlights the need for a full description of the dating evidence and its context. Was nothing really said about the Kassndros coins? Their context seems increasingly the only evidence that might drag things back to the late fourth century, such coyness is odd if they were found in the chambers in near mint condition.

agesilaos wrote:So what the curve actually shows is the uncalibrated result on the y-axis as a thick black line (2250 BP +- 30) then a further 30 years either side of that giving 2250 +- 60 years; this is then mapped to the calibration curve (blue wavy line) which gives two possible ranges 383-355 and 288-232. If the charcoal has any bearing on the monument then it confirms the third century date most likely under Antigonos Gonatas (273-239BC). A result suggested by both the frieze, sensibly interpreted and the footwear of the Karyatids and the overwhelming historical probability; an unreported massive monument is more likely in a poorly reported period than in one well covered.

There is about an 80% chance overall that the wood died in the 4th century BC and only a 20% chance that it died in the 3rd century BC (and a negligible chance that it died at any other time), so there is a significant bias towards the 4th century BC in these results and especially the late 4th century BC for the actual burning (tomb build). Therefore this data can hardly be said to support Antigonus Gonatus. Broadly it supports the archaeologists' dating to the last quarter of the 4th century BC, especially because anything earlier than 330BC is effectively ruled out by a lack of money to build anything so grand. However, this data does still allow a date in the 3rd century BC as a weak possibility.
Best wishes,
Andrew

The data you have presented does not show that, if there is more disclose it, no probabilities are attached to the graph posted.

The data definitely does not support the archaeologists' theory unless you want to believe in a fire from 40 year old wood the lower date of the first peak would coincide with Philip's siege of Amphipolis when fires were surely made; it is most likely no evidence for the building at all. Methodologically when a date is plus or minus 30 years then that provides the termini one does not tack an additional 30 years at each end of the range.

Here you can find some more images from the presentation about the geological studies at Kastas.

http://www.xronometro.com/amfipolis-sirinis/

I find this image interesting - this is the same stuff Lazarides was reporting for his excavations of Kastas in the 1960s and 70s: pieces of marble everywhere on the site (including the top of the tumulus), probably indicative of the building activity at the site.



Note that there has been no press release from the excavators about their findings - all comes out from journalists or attendants at the presentations, each one with his/her own bias towards transmitting information. Most people tend to report the interpretations of the excavators, not their methods or justification (if any justification at all was presented). There was at least extended discussion for the geological and engineering studies of the tumulus - for instance, the mechanical engineer of the team has shown that if one uses the model proposed by Lefantzis for the lion's base he can explain the damage observed on the foundations found on top of Kastas. Any considerably lighter or heavier construction would have caused different damage.

For me the carbon dating results are not surprising - the pebble mosaics were hardly used after the first quarter of the 3rd century BC, if I have understood well. Especially the ones with the simple geometrical patterns (rombus etc.) and colours are only found before the end of the 4th century. Here is one more example of a pebble mosaic in a house from Alexandria's royal quarter.



For that one they could explore also the building"s foundations and found a series of coins buried underneath the mosaic dating before a so-called "coinage reform" in the Ptolemaic kingdom (not sure what event that is), securely dating that house and its mosaic before 315 BC.

When Lazarides was also excavating the tumulus he found lots of ceramics in the artificial part of the tumulus, suggesting an early Hellenistic date for the building activity, besides the large pyre found of Kastas with such ceramics on top, typically dated to 4th century BC (http://collections.culture.gr/ItemPage. ... &KindID=51).

Not sure, however, why this team avoids to talk about ceramics - they only refer to those found in the chambers fill or above the layers of the destroyed peribolos, dating the sealing of the tomb and destruction of the peribolos, respectively. I assume they had many chances to excavate foundations of the overall construction and check for ceramics or coins trapped there. For instance, they have shown that they excavated the part of the destroyed Persephone mosaic, but did not explain if any ceramics or coins were found there.

There were also many references (especially during the extended Q&A session at the end) to the details of the peribolos wall structure. They say that many details match with the ones at the Hieron of Samothrace (built latest in 317 BC). See here some drawings for reference: https://ojs.lib.uom.gr/index.php/Balkan ... le/549/556

Recently, Tony Kozelj who works permanently at Thassos for the French archaeological school has posted also some of his relevant findings for comparison:




Obviously the wall structure is not an accurate dating method (they also admitted that) but from comparison the trend seems to indicate that similar type of constructions like Kastas's peribolos in the region are from the 4th century BC.

So, I think the biggest challenge for them in not to justify that this whole thing is early Hellenistic, but to narrow down the date range especially if they want to try and make any association with a person, whether that is Olympias, Hephaestion or anyone else and they likely need ceramics and/or coins to do that. Having a date range 25-50 years wide doesn’t help any of these scenarios, especially if they also stick to the idea that the frieze discovered comes from the base of the lion and is synchronous to the original construction.

agesilaos wrote:The data you have presented does not show that, if there is more disclose it, no probabilities are attached to the graph posted.

Okay, so you need more help understanding the C-14 curve. I'm happy to oblige. Please note that the black and white bars represent first and second standard deviation limits respectively. The raw radiocarbon age distribution on the y-axis is basically a normal distribution (i.e. Gaussian). Observe that the raw distribution on the y-axis does not intersect the 3rd century BC part of the curve at all for radiocarbon age of 2240 years Before Present and older. That means that all the probability in that part of the normal distribution (about 60% of all the probability) lies entirely in the 4th century BC. Now for radiocarbon ages less than 2240 years Before Present, the distribution generally intersects the curve at points in both the 3rd century BC and the 4th century BC. Therefore roughly speaking the remaining 40% of the total probability will split evenly between the 4th century BC and the 3rd century BC. Hence the total probability of wood death in the 4th century BC is approx 80% and for the 3rd century BC it is just 20%. I note also that I am being more generous to the 3rd century BC than the archaeologists here by acknowledging its 20% clearly.

agesilaos wrote:The data definitely does not support the archaeologists' theory unless you want to believe in a fire from 40 year old wood the lower date of the first peak would coincide with Philip's siege of Amphipolis when fires were surely made; it is most likely no evidence for the building at all. Methodologically when a date is plus or minus 30 years then that provides the termini one does not tack an additional 30 years at each end of the range.

I did not say it supports the Hephaistion hypothesis. I said it supports the more general assertion that the tomb was built in the last quarter of the 4th century BC and that is the absolute truth of it.

More generally still, it does not seem actually to have been denied that the Πs have been cut off the end of the Paralebon-Hephaistion inscriptions. That means that the blocks were re-cut for the Amphipolis Tomb, having been quarried and dressed for an abandoned monument for Hephaistion. That means that the Amphipolis Tomb is not a monument to Hephaistion, but the next big tomb to be built by the Royal Family, who owned the blocks as Alexander's heirs. That means the tomb is from the decade or so after Alexander's death and it was built for a very senior member of the Royal Family. Combine that with the discovery of the skeleton of a 60+ year old woman in the cist grave cut and the conclusion really is getting rather obvious.

Best wishes,

Andrew

It's not obviously built for a senior member of the Royal Family sadly Andrew. It's built for a hero.

More generally still, it does not seem actually to have been denied that the Πs have been cut off the end of the Paralebon-Hephaistion inscriptions.

Actually it was denied, and it was specifically said that there is enough space for the Π to fit there. Archaeologists asked also during the Q&A session to view the inscriptions again and Lefantzis was offering to send it to them by email or invited them to visit the Amphipolis museum and get a better impression. Not what one expects for someone who has "filtered" or presented the data wrongly, trying to hide his mistakes. Nevertheless, I think you will still need to see more on that, so I wont insist.

On the inscriptions part, Lefantzis explained (I think) that parts of the letters that would extend in the drafting of the block (which is added in the last stage of the processing) were missing, so that is one evidence that the inscription was written earlier. He may also have said that there was an attempt to give a minor curvature to each blocks outer surface (since they were part of a round structure), so the final roughening of the blocks was stronger on each block side, less in the center (which is why letters on the side are more erased than the center ones). That can also be an effect if the inscription was added pre-processing, but I am not sure if I fully understood his point about curvature.

They were criticized by some people that the letters are more typical for a 1st century AD, not sure what answer they gave to that. They are working, however, with an experienced epigraphologist (https://auth.academia.edu/PantelisNigdelis/), I assume he would have given them already a warning if that was the case.

A most interesting post, Gepd, highlighting the fact that the tomb isn't the only item of archaeological interest at Kasta ! As Lazarides discoveries showed, the site was in use for hundreds of years, and the point about that is it makes dating difficult

.... especially if they also stick to the idea that the frieze discovered comes from the base of the lion and is synchronous to the original construction.

That idea may or may not be true, of course. The frieze could, for example, be associated with Tomb 3, or something else entirely. Moreover, given the on-going nature of the site, the Lion could have been constructed before or after the heroon/tomb that is the focus of the current excavation.....

Another small detail matter;

Agesilaos wrote:

Seriously, we need to find the earliest evidence for that hybrid helmet, attic-boeotian or brimmed konos, and the spined cavalry shield; and from the original with its dating evidence, standing assumptions wont wash (and I myself own to adopting them, I was unaware of the poverty of evidence for circular spined gallc shields until I looked into it (it remains a logical deduction, but the actual evidence is wanting).

....and....

The round shield monuments remain undated, and thus not decisive in the on the source of the Greek spined shield, though both possible sources, Gallic or Italiote, only came into major contact with the Macedonians around the time of Pyrrhos,

Back on p.85 Mon Mar 7 I posted an illustration from Connolly, showing a celtic stele from Bormio, Northern Italy with a circular spined shield. He did not give a date for it, but further enquiry reveals that the stele is dated V C BC.....

The 'konos-Boeotian' type helmet does not seem to appear before the first quarter of the third century - the dates for the helmet and the adoption in Greece of the celtic round spined cavalry shield are quite consistent i.e. first quarter of the 3 C BC.

gepd wrote:

More generally still, it does not seem actually to have been denied that the Πs have been cut off the end of the Paralebon-Hephaistion inscriptions.

Actually it was denied, and it was specifically said that there is enough space for the Π to fit there. Archaeologists asked also during the Q&A session to view the inscriptions again and Lefantzis was offering to send it to them by email or invited them to visit the Amphipolis museum and get a better impression. Not what one expects for someone who has "filtered" or presented the data wrongly, trying to hide his mistakes. Nevertheless, I think you will still need to see more on that, so I wont insist.

What Lefantzis is reported to have said in his "clarification" is actually completely ambiguous:

Επίσης ξεκαθάρισε ότι στον μάρμαρο με την επιγραφή υπήρχε χώρος για το Π, στο ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ, οπότε η αποσιώπησή τους δεν ήταν θέμα διαστάσεων, όπως γράφτηκε.

It all depends on how you interpret χώρος, which is essentially a space in normal translation, but it can be an emptiness just as space can mean emptiness or void in English.

I have photos from 1970 of one of the blocks and it is perfectly clear that there is no stone where the Π should be. The only area of doubt is that I was unable to trace the second block (perhaps it is one found since 1970). Somebody I know has emailed Lefantzis and has not received any clarification or uncropped photos at this point. Perhaps you could email Lefantzis and get the uncropped block photos, please gepd. Uncropped photos of both blocks would certainly settle the matter.

Best wishes,

Andrew

One of the statements is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGw17Ub2ASM where he says "...and it is obvious that it has been carved on the unprocessed (or unroughed?) part of the block, before the forming of the drafting and the rough surface of the block, and there was an attempt to erase it. The pi indeed fits , even with the drafting...(το Π όντως χωράει, ακόμα και με την περιταίνια)"

Many people have asked him for the blocks, he has just said that locations of clumps and other features have been used to identify the block as part of the peribolos, orthophotography and CAD was used to reconstruct the original inscription. I dont think anyone is willing to share more material - if he clarifies something that is usually just by writing, they never provided extra photos from the excavation apart from those shown. Whether ones believes his statements or not is personal prespective, I assume.

gepd wrote:One of the statements is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGw17Ub2ASM where he says "...and it is obvious that it has been carved on the unprocessed (or unroughed?) part of the block, before the forming of the drafting and the rough surface of the block, and there was an attempt to erase it. The pi indeed fits , even with the drafting...(το Π όντως χωράει, ακόμα και με την περιταίνια)"

Many people have asked him for the blocks, he has just said that locations of clumps and other features have been used to identify the block as part of the peribolos, orthophotography and CAD was used to reconstruct the original inscription. I dont think anyone is willing to share more material - if he clarifies something that is usually just by writing, they never provided extra photos from the excavation apart from those shown. Whether ones believes his statements or not is personal prespective, I assume.

Still totally ambiguous language, which does not clarify the matter at all. Why would it even be difficult for them to show uncropped photos to settle the matter? Dimensions would be helpful too.

In the quote that I gave, I think there could be ambiguity as to whether he said:

Επίσης ξεκαθάρισε ότι στον μάρμαρο με την επιγραφή υπάρχει χώρος για το Π, στο ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ, οπότε η αποσιώπησή τους δεν ήταν θέμα διαστάσεων, όπως γράφτηκε.

or

Επίσης ξεκαθάρισε ότι στον μάρμαρο με την επιγραφή υπήρχε χώρος για το Π, στο ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ, οπότε η αποσιώπησή τους δεν ήταν θέμα διαστάσεων, όπως γράφτηκε.

Evidently the blocks are not on display in the museum, so if anybody turned up there, how would they see them without the explicit permission of the Ephorate?

He is risking being accused of evasiveness on this issue, when it should be trivial to refute what I have said (if indeed it can be refuted). And he cannot actually refute the 1970 photo anyway. Why are people in Greece happy to allow such ambiguity to hang in the air?

Best wishes,

Andrew

gepd wrote:"...and it is obvious that it has been carved on the unprocessed (or unroughed?) part of the block, before the forming of the drafting and the rough surface of the block, and there was an attempt to erase it...[/i]

This part of what he says (which has nothing to do with the pi issue) has been said before, and I put it into my recent article.
He means that the surface of the blocks was re-worked after the parelabon inscriptions were written, because some parts of some strokes of the inscriptions were chiselled away. This could be good evidence that these particular inscriptions do precede the incorporation of the blocks into the Kasta Mound wall. But there is a big difference between partial surface reworking and chopping 11cm off the end of the blocks.

Best wishes,

Andrew

People can see for themselves from the photos below that if Lefantzis is saying that there is stone in the place that the pi would have been (and it is not at all clear whether he is saying that), then he is incorrect.
Best wishes,
Andrew