- 317845193_10223194604158568_6685697812478859973_n.jpg (126.09 KiB) Viewed 1703 times
The following article has been published recently and concerns inter alia Kasta.
https://www.academia.edu/87675719/Maced ... lted_tombs
k
The author claims that 'the excavation was carried out too rapidly' but I can testify that K. Peristeri and the other members of the team followed fully the archaeological methodology in the field work on Kasta. This assertion is just slander.
She also claims that 'the tomb was attributed to the circle of Alexander the Great and dated to the last quarter of the 4th
BCE even before it was excavated.' However the date to the end of the 4th c. BC is based on the shape of the clamps joining the blocks which does not exist after that period, moreover it is based on the coins found there which include one of Alexander the Great, finally it relies on 4th c. pottery found during the excavation and shown by K. Peristeri in the Macedonian conference of 2017: the author of the commented article was in the audience, thus she has no excuse for ignoring these details .
She also claims that 'The original suggestion that it was the tomb of Hephaestion had to be abandoned after the discovery that it contained at least five burials.' However this is hardly true. Prof. Mavrogiannis published seminal articles ('Considerazioni storiche sulla sepoltura dell'«ateniese» Hephaestion ad Amphipolis ed il problema della scelta del porto fluviale della Macedonia per il grande tumulo' and 'PARELAVON HEPHAESTIONOS (reading and design Arch. M. Lefantzis). The inscription from the Kasta Tumulus at Amphipolis', both in academia.edu) in which he shows that the attribution of the tumulus to Hephaestion relies on epigraphical evidence. Moreover I have shown in my article 'the sculptures of the tumulus Kasta' (also in academia.edu) a head also probably from Kasta which likely represents Hephaestion (it is attached to this post). Thus this attribution has not been abandoned at all.
She also claims that 'There is no façade (...) the barrel vault at the entrance is in plain view'. This mistake is just unbelievable because Dr. Lefantzis has shown that there was a propylon in front of room 1 of the tumulus: the blocks recognized to be part of this propylon were shown by Dr. Lefantzis in his power points in two lectures held in Athens in 2019. The author of the commented article was in the auditorium of one of these two lectures, thus she has no excuse in ignoring these data.
She also claims that 'The caryatids, also of Thasian marble, are created in an archaistic style which finds parallels in the late Hellenistic period.' However I provided very close comparanda for the style of these Korai in the sculpture of the late 4th c. BC in my above mentioned article, K. Peristeri has also shown comparisons in the same period, thus the author cannot assert that.
Then she attributes the actual configuration of the tumulus to 'to a refurbishment after the Roman conquest of Macedonia, which would explain the tomb’s grandiose scale and the lavish use of Thasian marble.' That idea is contradicted by the above mentioned materials found in the tomb, moreover by the C14 date of an element of wood found in the barrel vault.
Rebus sic stantibus, scholars are warned to use the commented article with great care
