pothos.org

Here:
City built upon Strymon and the broad Hellespont, grave of Edonian Phyllis, Amphipolis, yet there remain left to thee the traces of the temple of her of Aethopion and Brauron, and the water of the river so often fought around; but thee, once the high strife of the sons of Aegeus, we see like a torn rag of sea—purple on either shore.

http://www.aolib.com/reader_2378_76.htm

Antipater of Thessalonica here gives some info about Amphipolis and refers to the temple of Artemis (Aethopion, Brauron) implying it was an important monument for the town. No word about the tomb of Casta which was next to the river.

There are a few cults known at Amphipolis at various points. Apollo, Strymon, Rhesos, Klio, Poseidon, Kore, Asklepios, etc. I think the problem with trying to equate this particular mound/tomb with Artemis Tauropolos is the absence of known iconography which would make the link, as agesilaos pointed out. No votives have been reported as having been found. And I'd wonder whether such an important temple would have been outside the city walls and built on an iron age/archaic graveyard. The reference to it as a place of sanctuary does seem to imply that it was within the city walls to me.

Agesilaos wrote:

.... it certainly seems Hellenistic to me but the style seems later than that to which the archaeologists are wedded, but arguments from style are quite imprecise. There is a lot more to dig, I just hope they are remembering that the construction of the mound itself is also an important aspect of understanding its history and function. I am just not hearing anything about that topic.

I don't think that there is anything found so far that even hints of "Roman". I was once a student of mosaics, going so far as to reproduce Roman examples. The mosaic in the tomb is certainly NOT Roman, for the pebble techniques, the style etc were not in use in Roman times. It is in fact squarely Hellenistic in both technique and style, and quite sophisticated so that one would tend to place it later rather than earlier. Compare it for example with the well known Pella mosaics - the stag hunt mosaic, the lion hunt mosaic, Dionysius riding a panther, and the abduction of Helen mosaic ( similar in subject to the Amphipolis tomb mosaic). These are all late 4 C BC, contemporary with the age of Philip and Alexander. The Amphipolis mosaic shows a better use of colour, better detail and so on and generally looks more sophisticated and developed in style [ it is probably the finest Hellenistic mosaic extant], and one would conclude it is a later example, or else the product of a much more talented artist (or both). Of course, this is just an impression, and no more than a straw in the wind when it comes to dating - I would echo Agesilaos' caveat regarding' style'. What is needed is firm dating evidence not so far forthcoming, and I for one am very skeptical of the excavators claims in that regard.

I would also second Agesilaos' comments on the (understandable) over-concentration on the tomb, to the detriment of study of the mound. We've heard nothing of any geo-physics survey of the mound. Do they not use ground penetrating radar in Greek archaeology? [ send out another call to "Time Team !! ] The sandy sub-strata of the mound is good for this technique, and penetration of up to 10-15 metres should be possible.

Earlier, I speculated on the mound being a pre-existing one ( perhaps going back to the bronze age?). Hints of this are the fact that it apparently consists of strata or layers - an indicator that it may have been built up over a long period of time; the fact that the tomb is on the edge of the mound, possibly indicating it was dug into the side of it ( if the mound was erected over the tomb following its construction, one might logically expect it to be under or nearer to the centre. It seems a bit pointless to heap up a huge mound, presumably to defeat tomb-robbers and leave the tomb near the edge); the construction of the 'retaining wall', which might have been necessary if the mound had been there from earlier times and was eroding. I emphasise that this is just speculation, but it would be easy to determine from the location of the earlier graves/cemetery, for if they are all under the mound, then the mound was constructed later, but if any earlier graves were found within the mound, above the natural ground level, then the mound was pre-existing, and if so changes things considerably, as I posted earlier. From the information so far posted here, it is unclear to me which is the case ( see e.g. Zebedee's post on p.18

The depths given seem to be taken from the mound surface down as they vary quite considerably, presumably from how close to the centre or not the find has been made.

)

Has anyone seen any definitive information on the location of the earlier graves ?

I put a link to BCH in this thread Xenephon and that has snippets of information. Reading through the (limited) coverage through the years, my impression has been that the iron age and archaic graves were beneath the mound and that the mound was constructed over them at a later date. The pottery finds listed in the first year's dig from within the layers (roughly 6m into the mound and from the first 2m down) are C5th so it's hard to see how the mound can be earlier than that. If the graves are from the Thracian settlement, then you'd be perhaps tempted to even look more towards 436 and Hagnon founding Amphipolis as the earliest the mound could have been constructed.

Thanks, Zebedee.....I had followed that thread earlier, and it does in fact answer my question, but apparently not definitively...

Alexias wrote a summary of the information from the guide book:

1/ the perimiter wall was first discovered in 1965, but no date is given for its construction.

2/ about 70 graves 'were investigated' (implying there were more not investigated) over the surface of the mound, which goes a long way to explain the anomalies in the scan of the mound. Some of these graves date from the early Iron Age. We are therefore not looking at a mound constructed over the tomb being excavated, but a burial mound appropriated by the tomb builders

3/ the mound itself is constructed of layers of fine sand and hard earth with the implication that it was built up over a considerable period with material brought from the riverside.

( my emphasis )

The mound seemingly pre-dates the tomb, and was there in the early iron age and perhaps earlier. Incidently the reference to a scan of the mound indicates geo-phys. ground penetrating radar was used, but I haven't seen any detailed information regarding the results. Anyone got any more information on this aspect ? ( on reading back through this now immense thread, Taphoi referred to this too)

However, I see that Taphoi and Agesilaos disputed this, based on little more than wishful thinking. Certainly a grave found some 5.8 metres into the steep sided mound, and only 1.6 metres below the surface of it must have been above the natural ground, one would think. ( just look at the photo, for example)

I was hoping there might be some definitive information on those 70 graves and their location/depth - were they all from around the perimeter for example ? Were they limited to just one section of the mound? Were they found in more than one of the strata? Reports on the 70 graves must exist somewhere...............

I have access to jstor.org through the university server I work (although I am not an archaeologist), some references are here:

At Kastas (AR 1973-74 27) further examination of the immediate surrounds of the great tomb mound revealed more early Iron Age burials. (Ergon 1974, 31-9)

Second, he undertook further work at the grave mound at Kastas (AR 1973-74 27;AR 1974-75 20). Though the anticipated tomb-structure has not yet been located, a number of Early Iron Age graves were found, as in earlier seasons. On the southwest flank of the mound, eleven metres below its surface, a rectangular stone-built pyre has been discovered, datable to the early Hellenistic period (Ergon 1975, 41-53).

Further work was undertaken at the grave mound at Kastas (AR 1975-76, 22 with references). Six more cist graves of late Archaic date were found; one of which (Fig. 83)-no. XX, a child's grave-contained ten terracotta female protomes, and two bronze fibulae. In the earth of which the mound is composed a fine marble terminal figure was found (Ergon 1976, 25-36).

Work continued at the grave-mound at Kastas (AR ibid.). In the N.E. section a burial structure is reported, consisting of a stone paving 8-15m. wide and 12m. long, with which were associated thirteen early Iron Age burials. Five of these were in pithoi, one in an amphora, and the rest simply lying on the earth below the paving. Burial offerings included two large iron swords and a bronze fibula. A similar, smaller pavement is reported in the N.W. area of the mound, of the same date and concealing five more burials, four again in pithoi. In the S. and S.W. areas two late Archaic cist-graves were found.

At Kastas work continued on the grave mound; a late Archaic child's cist tomb was found in a test in the SW sector, with bf lekythoi, a female statuette, brooches and a necklace of sea-shells (Ergon
1978, 14-17).

Further excavation at the Kastas tumulus revealed a late A cist tomb containing jewellery and ornaments of bronze, silver and gold. (Ergon I979, I2-I3).

At Kastas, work continued in the tumulus. A late archaic grave was found containing four bronze clasps, a bronze needle, a silver ring, two gold earrings and a gold bangle from a necklace (Ergon 1979).

Excavation continued at the Kastas tumulus, where its makeup was removed to the level of the A tombs. 11 more graves (some cists, others pits) were found, among whose furnishings were two kothons (?Corinthian), an Ionian kylix, silver jewellery and an A coin. Elsewhere two EIA handmade vases were found and a child's grave with a terracotta bird figure. (Ergon 1981, 14-16).

Work continued on the Kastas tumulus (ibid.) on its N and W sides, down to the level of the A tombs. Ten burials were found; finds include a PC or aryballos, gold jewellery, bronze coins, weapons and tools of iron, including a knife with curved blade and bone handle decorated with incised circlets (Ergon 1982, 14-7).

All these come from "Archaeological Reports", published by The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies.

The "Ergon" references are from here: http://www.archetai.gr/site/content.php?sel=201 , but it seems the various volumes are not digitized (at least on that website). All reports come from Lazarides and stop at the year he passed away. I assume there are more details about the locations etc. of the Archaic tombs within the Ergon articles.

Here you go: http://en.protothema.gr/ancient-amphipo ... -the-tomb/

There is a pdf with the report posted at 2004: http://issuu.com/presstime/docs/amphipo ... 340#search

Edit: Found a better link for the pdf.

And the thesis of the seismic tomography by the same person (with color figures) can be downloaded from here:

http://we.tl/S89sNkWJer (online till Nov. 6)

or it can be viewed online here:

http://thesis.ekt.gr/thesisBookReader/i ... 1/mode/2up

That part is only in Greek, and has all the info on the tomography. Lots of it is too technical, of course.

The part about the Kasta Hill tomography starts on page 247

According to the scan, the H1 and L1 areas are possible tomb locations, with L1 possibly being a ramp. The entrance to the current dig is southwest as seen in the image near L2. Mr Polymenakos says though that this scanning method doesn't go as deep and accurately.

I posted the link to the thesis in English on my previous post.

Xenophon wrote:Thanks, Zebedee.....I had followed that thread earlier, and it does in fact answer my question, but apparently not definitively...

Alexias wrote a summary of the information from the guide book:
.

From the reports, BCH seem to have French versions of those gepd has posted, there's no sense of these burials being above a particular level and when depths are given they seem to be consistent with the height of the mound in a certain area. So I'm hesistant to agree with Alexias' summary. The mound may pre-date the Macedonian tomb, but I'm not seeing multiple archaic burials being done several metres down into a bronze age mound, if that makes sense? The mound does seem to be a later addition amidst a much older burial site to me.

Zebedee wrote: So I'm hesistant to agree with Alexias' summary. The mound may pre-date the Macedonian tomb, but I'm not seeing multiple archaic burials being done several metres down into a bronze age mound, if that makes sense? The mound does seem to be a later addition amidst a much older burial site to me.

I could very well be wrong. However, given that the mound is about 160 metres across and this tomb only appears to extend about 30 metres into the mound, as agesilaos says, there could well be much more in the mound. This stuff may nor may not be contemporary with the tomb being excavated.

However, it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that, as we know the mound is built on an existing cemetry, the builders of this tomb may or may not have built several tombs on this site and at some point, enclosed the whole lot - possibly incorporating existing mound(s) (which would probably have been lesser in height) - within the perimeter wall and put a mound over the whole lot. This would save quite a lot of effort, and explain the disproportionate size of the mound, if it was built exclusively for this tomb.

I read somewhere (unfortuantely can't remember where) that the perimiter wall was part of a flood defence system. This isn't unreasonable given the proximity of the river and the heavy floods in the area. It would thus help to stabilise the mound. The layers of sand would also aid drainage and help prevent erosion of the mound.

New findings here: http://www.yppo.gr/2/g22.jsp?obj_id=58972

In summary:

a) Foundations of side walls found - they sit on 40 cm thick material placed by the builders, not on natural ground.
b) They refer to the limestone floor as "sealing floor"
c) West part of the wall and limestone floor damaged due to sedimentation, from the collapse of the sand filling below.
d) Artificial trench sized 4 X 2.1 m found, filled with sand .They have reached 1.4 m below the level of the previous room, and filling continues.
e) Part of the door was found in the trench.

Having just read Broneer’s monograph (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=w ... 1up;seq=19) further evidence of wishful thinking emerges; Lefantzis gave the height of the lion monument as 15.84 metres (http://phdiva.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/am ... ments.html) Broneer and Roger calculated it at about 12.41 (they give no estimate for the entablature). A difference of over three metres or ten feet ought to be explained, but nowhere have I seen it said that more element of the Lion’s base have come to light; I suppose the corollary of not releasing data is that you can publish what you like

I guess the difference comes from the fact that they seem to have discovered the base of the monument at the hill summit, while Boneer assumed a difference base construction. Of course, they will have to demonstrate their estimation. and I expect they will do, although I never trust cm accuracy in all these measurements.