We now appear to be agreeing that it is difficult to establish precedents for simultaneous inhumations and cremations in the same grave. That is my point. The cist grave in the Amphipolis Tomb is patently a simultaneous structure. It has been suggested that the small chamber contained a cremation burial and the long coffin shaped chamber was not only for a coffin (or kline?) by virtue of its size and shape but it also contained decorative fragments of the coffin as also asserted by the archaeologists. Therefore we are apparently being sold a simultaneous inhumation-cremation concept. And that appears to be a good reason for dubiety - but I am interested whether anyone has any evidence of simultaneous inhumation-cremation graves from elsewhere in Macedon or Greece.
I don't see anything too innovative or too original in the possibility to have simultaneous cremation and inhumation - no need to have a tradition or a too creative mind to do that. Just the proper conditions or coincidences.
As for the simultaneous presence of cremation and inhumation, in space and/or in time, there are parallels, as said before. Consider also the site of the Battle of Chaeronea and one from Thespiai, Regarding Chaeronea, a polyandrion was found near the area of the lion hosting 254 skeletons, surrounded by a rectangular peribolos and covered by a low mound.
There is one study from John Ma
(CHAIRONEIA 338: TOPOGRAPHIES OF COMMEMORATION) who attributes this to the polyandrion of the sacred band of the "300" elite Theban soldiers that died following the battle of Chaeronea in 338. Almost all burials are inhumations, with little or no offerings, indicating a cheap and not a heroic burial (probably because Philip would not have allowed that, or because the overall circumstances after the battle did not allow that). Between some of those skeletons, however, some burned remains and elements of cremation from a later time were found. That could be from dead soldiers who died later of their wounds, when it was allowed to cremate them.
At Thespiai, we have a similar case, I am copying from
"Remembering War in Fifth-Century Greece: Ideologies, Societies, and Commemoration beyond Democratic Athens" by Polly Low:
"What these enquiries revealed was a large enclosure (32m x 23m), located alongside an ancient road about a kilometre from the modern village and close to the eastern gate of the ancient city, in an area which seems to have been one of the city's main cemeteries. When excavated, the enclosure was found to contain the traces of a large funeral pyre, with remains of cremated bodies and of extensive grave offerings: ceramics, glass, and terracottas, as well as bronze and bone objects, and traces of foodstuffs (catalogued in Schilardi 1977). As well as this cremation, the tomb also contained seven inhumations. The reason for this anomaly is not quite clear. The possibility that the different form of burial reflects a difference in the status of the dead cannot be ruled out, although there is no good evidence to support this view (no obvious difference in the nature or quality of the grave goods, for example). Arguments based on chronology tend to be favoured, although these too are limited by lack of evidence, and, in particular, by the absence of any detailed stratigraphic record: it is not, therefore, possible to tell whether the inhumations preceded or followed the cremation. It has been argued that, for some reason, these seven bodies were returned to Thespiae before the other casualties, and therefore reached home when they were still in a condition in which burial rather than cremation was a viable option (Keramopoullos 1911: 159; followed by Clairmont 1983: 232). More convincing, perhaps, is the suggestion that these inhumations took place after the cremation: these bodies might be those who died of their wounds some time after the battle (Kurtz and Boardman 1971: 248; followed by Schilardi 1977: 63). It seems improbable, at any rate, that there was any great chronological gap between the two kinds of burial, since the inhumations certainly precede the erection of the stone enclosure (the head of one of the skeletons lies under the line of the east enclosure wall (Keramopoullos 1911:154; Schilardi 1977:25,64))."
This combination of inhumation and cremation in those cases does not result from a tradition or anything complex, it was just circumstantial. Probably there are more examples, one has to look for them.
The archaeologists do not seem to have mentioned the torch ash found elsewhere when referring to the ash in the smaller cist tomb chamber, so I am not clear why you expect them to have mentioned torch ash in the vicinity of the coffin part of the cist tomb chamber? Nobody could possibly criticise them for having been insufficiently economical with the truth so far.
Peristeri has mentioned the burn layers several times in her talks . Other members of the excavation team (e.g. Lefantzis, Kambouroglou) have also referred to those on several occasions.
My point about the secondary chamber of the cist is that it is in line with two chambers in many Macedonian cist tombs. In the other cases, the antechambers were supposed to be for grave goods etc. It is only in the specific case of the Amphipolis Tomb that the archaeologists have decided that the second chamber must be for a cremation. I cannot see any reason why it would not have been for grave goods/offerings.
So you suggest they decide to place the offerings in a simulated antechamber in the cist tomb, by separating it in two spaces? Sorry, but that sounds far too unlikely to me because that would make the use of an antechamber obsolete and because numerous cist tombs have been found with offerings scattered within them - no need for a separate space. The separate space in the cist tomb is not a proof that an urn was there. One can imagine different functions, even e.g. hosting the bones of a newborn, if they were fitting. The occurence of a cremation, however, could offer an explanation for the separate space's presence, ie. it fits well the other cremation-related evidence in and out of the chambers that provide the necessary context. All have been presented multiple times in previous posts.
There is at least one more Macedonian tomb hosting a cist grave with multiple spaces. It is the 4th century BC tomb of Macridy-Bey, near Derveni. That was a two chamber tomb, the burial room contained a cist grave, with rather tall walls, its description is very similar to what we have at Kastas. The bottom part of the cist grave, where the dead was interred, was a single space. The upper part was divided into two spaces - I am not sure if an explanation was put forward for those finds.
I now understand your pyre reference. I thought you were referring to recent pyre evidence from Peristeri. But wasn't the pyre that you are showing found actually on the mound? That means it is later than the mound. The mound took at least several years to build. So, unless they stored a decaying body for several years before cremation, the pyre on the mound has nothing to do with the original occupants of the Amphipolis Tomb.
No need to rush into conclusions. Geologists who study the mound said that it appears its formation took place in two stages. Lazarides found this pyre in the south-east part of the tumulus (general direction of the chambers) and 11 m below the tumulus surface, so the pyre was erected and used before the completion of the tumulus. The pyre was later covered. Burial activity on the tumulus goes up to about mid 5th century BC, then there is a gap, and sometime later this pyre appears. The depth of the pyre, its early Hellenistic dating and later burial suggests it is a structure formed when Kastas started being reused again, very possibly around the time the decision was taken to convert it to the monument we see now. Nevertheless, its presence strongly supports the occurrence of an early cremation at Kastas, no matter if that slightly post-dates or pre-dates inhumations.
There are other Hellenistic tombs in the vicinity, such as the tomb with the diamond pattern pebble mosaic and cosmetic jars.
Τhat is 240 m away from Kastas, and possibly post-dates Kastas, imitating the tomb's decoration. It is also at a lower elevation - the elevation changes sharply when moving away from the entrance of Kastas towards this tomb, so one cant assume there was a continuous cemetery between those points. So it is not relevant at all. Furthermore that tomb is a huge structure, its presence would have been known, as possibly any other classical tomb hosting cremated bodies - so they would not make the trench for Kasta's chambers at those known locations.
I think you may have misunderstood my 20000m2 area. That is the area buried under 20m of mound since the late 4th century BC. I am suggesting that there might have been an area with classical period cremation burials under there and that the early Hellenistic Amphipolis Tomb cist grave was positioned among these graves, because that was the most recent area of use for the cemetery. The consequence would have been that the subsequent mound disguised the existence of the Classical period cremation cemetery. I am happy that the archaic burials seem to have been inhumations.
There is no need to hypothesize for that. There is a simple reason that burials stop around mid 5th century BC at Kastas: the foundation of Amphipolis and the move of the "city life" few km south from the site of Hill 133 and the earlier settlements. Roman, Hellenistic and Classical cemeteries have been found around Amphipolis, southern of Kastas.
Sorry, but the merely occasional specifics on isolated bone finds by Lazarides and Peristeri does not prove that isolated fragments were few - only that they found intact burials more interesting and meriting more attention. Clearly it is true that scattered bone fragments do exist across the site. I accept that their density is currently unclear.
Using generalized statements ("scattered fragments existed across the site, their density is unclear") that fit to every occasion proves nothing. You are the one who makes the claim, you have to provide specific evidence. Can you quantify how much of those scattered bones you need to have on Kastas, how do you get them on an apparently organized and important cemetery (and not a dead body dump site), how do you end up with a large number of scattered cremated bones in there (given than cremations where reserved for important people with equally important burials) and how do you get Lazarides and Peristeri not mentioning that? They obviously wont have mentioned every bone fragment found, but they would have at least reported finds of scattered bones, if they were common. Because they did that for shattered pieces of ceramics and the marble chips. In few sentences - but they did that.
Finally, some basic info about the skeletons:
-There is no way the excavators are not aware of the overall stromatography of the bones
-The press release from the ministry indicates that the female skeleton is the most complete skeleton found within one meter from the bottom of the cist tomb
-No information in the ministry press release is stating if it was found deeper or not from other skeletal remains.
-Peristeri has clarified that the majority of the skeletal remains from the 40-45 yr old man, although less complete than those of the female, were the ones found deeper
-No other info is given on the depth of the other remains
Assuming again that nobody is lying, these are some general facts.