Amphipolis guidebook

This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones ;-)
* Foul or inappropriate language

Moderator: pothos moderators

Post Reply
Alexias
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Amphipolis guidebook

Post by Alexias »

Pauline very, very kindly send me a copy of the Amphipolis guidebook so I thought I would share some of it for those (like me) who don't know much about Amphipolis. Please be aware though that was written in 1993, so it doesn't contain later work.

First, a map of the area:

Image

It was a bit difficult to scan this without breaking the spine of the book so apologies for the middle bit. 17 in the top right of the map is the Kastas tumulus where the tomb currently being excavated is. To the left of this you can see from the contour lines that there is a small, isolated hill. This is Hill 133, a prehistoric settlement site of the late Neolithic - early Bronze Age, although there was probably occupation of the hill until the founding of Amphipolis in about 465 BC. The outer red line is the city walls and the inner red line is the acropolis.

This is hill 133, the Kastas tumulus is the white mound to the right of it, and the text of the Kastas site.

Image

Image

Hopefully you can read it, but the gist of it is that:

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.

4/ the structure found on the summit of the mound (10.15 metres on the north side) was built of unworked stones sloping inwards. The interior of the structure was filled with stones, suggesting it was a base for a grave marker. The text suggests a Macedonian date. However, if you look at the bottom of the map, 22 indicates the position of the Lion (which the text suggests is a monument to Laomedon). So it would seem rather unlikely that someone would bother moving the Lion about 2 km southwards. It's current position, even if not accurate, but by the river, would make it visible to anyone coming upriver from the port of Eion. Incidentally, the ancient bridge was much higher up at 6. The city gate at 4 gave access to the Via Egnatia.

Finally, about the tail end of the previous post. The text says
the historian Marsyas, who came from Philippi: "There is a sanctuary of Klio at Amphipolis, built opposite the monument of Rhesos, on a hill". The cult of the king of Thrace, Rhesos, son of Eion and Klio, whose horses were whiter than ths snow and ran like the wind, is the earliest known cult at Amphipolis, and is attested in Homer.
7 on the map is the sanctury of Klio, south across the small valley from this is the sanctuary of Attis. You can see both the small valley and the sanctuary of Attis in the picture.

Image

Enjoy!

PS I've just discovered how to get big pictures in pothos posts (dumb I know), so for anyone else wondering, I'll post something in the 'how to' board tomorrow (it's too late now).

PPS I forgot to mention that direcrly south of Hill 133 is a Hellenistic cemetry (18). Directly to the east of the acropolis is the Classical cemetry (19). To the south of this at 20 and 21 are two 'Macedonian' tombs. There is a further cemetry at 23, the cemetry at Kastri.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Amphipolis guidebook

Post by Taphoi »

I think that the guide might mean that the investigatory trenches descended into the soil beneath the tumulus and that was where they uncovered graves. It would be normal to take a complete section through the mound with such trenches and to investigate the layers underlying the mound. My current understanding is that the lion monument was found in pieces in the river and there were a series of attempts to reconstruct it nearby. Many of the blocks found have not been incorporated in the current reconstruction. The hypothesis seems to be that the Romans found the lion monument on the tumulus in a ruined state and considered in a convenient source of stone to shore up the river bank where erosion was causing problems. They would probably have rolled the masonry downhill to the river and then taken it downstream by boat. The archaeologists are said to have matched some of the masonry found in the river with the foundations on top of the mound. Admittedly, however, the information on these points is vague at present. It seems to have received limited distribution at a couple of ad hoc seminars.
Best wishes,
Andrew
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Amphipolis guidebook

Post by Xenophon »

I think the most significant piece of data in Alexias' post - thanks to you and Pauline for this information, by the way - is that the mound, while artificial, was built up over a long period of time, and had been used as a cemetary, even for relatively "common" people, perhaps for centuries.

The fact that this was a pre-existing mound changes the dynamic considerably. The idea of a "Grandiose Tomb" covered by a contemporaneous mound disappears, and what we have is an exceptional Macedonian (probably) tomb, excavated into the side of an already existing cemetary mound. This means the work could now be conceivably be of a far lesser person than a Great King or other Royalty, improving the possibility that the tomb might have been built for someone like Nearchos, or some equally lesser mortal.......

For now, my money is still on the Antigonids, even though the prospect of it being a Royal Tomb is now diminished by the above.....
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Amphipolis guidebook

Post by Taphoi »

To say it more plainly: the guide is saying they found graves beneath the mound (i.e. that had existed long before the mound was built). There is nothing in the guide to say that the mound was pre-existing. You are leaping to unwarranted conclusions on the basis of a misunderstanding.
Best wishes,
Andrew
Alexias
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: Amphipolis guidebook

Post by Alexias »

Hi Andrew,

I don't think that you can state that categorically. The guide doesn't state at what depth the Iron Age graves were found, nor whether the archeologists took a trench down to bed rock. I doubt that they did put a trench down to bedrock because of the height of the mound. It would have required far more resources than I think they had, plus I don't think they would have backfilled such a deep trench, plus I don't think there is any evidence of such a major excavation.

It look very much like the mound was originally the cemetry for Hill 133 (unless the archeologists are mistaken), but It also seems dubious that the 'Macedonian' tomb builders would have tunnelled very deeply into an existing mound. Perhaps they built into the edge of it and then extended the mound. The mound is perhaps originally neolithic or bronze Age (maybe Rhesos or a contemporary?).

It would also be interesting to know if the layers of sand making up the mound were river-borne. They area is prone to very heavy flooding as shown by the conduits built into the city walls.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Amphipolis guidebook

Post by agesilaos »

It does say that the tumulus 'covered an earlier cemetery - the cemetery of the prehistoric settlement of the neighbouring "Hill 133"; which reads to me as the sand and soil mound being piled over this earlier burial ground. I would agreee that it is most unlikely that the mound was pre-existing and that the Macedonian tombs were excavated into it, given the current state of collapse it is unlikely that the ancients could have removed sufficient soil for the construction without the workmen becoming entombed themselves. The chambers must have been constructed first and then the mound heaped upon them and then the capping monument built. which phase can be dated by the retaining wall to the Hellenistic period.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Amphipolis guidebook

Post by Taphoi »

Alexias wrote:I don't think that you can state that categorically. The guide doesn't state at what depth the Iron Age graves were found, nor whether the archeologists took a trench down to bed rock. I doubt that they did put a trench down to bedrock because of the height of the mound. It would have required far more resources than I think they had, plus I don't think they would have backfilled such a deep trench, plus I don't think there is any evidence of such a major excavation.

It look very much like the mound was originally the cemetry for Hill 133 (unless the archeologists are mistaken), but It also seems dubious that the 'Macedonian' tomb builders would have tunnelled very deeply into an existing mound. Perhaps they built into the edge of it and then extended the mound. The mound is perhaps originally neolithic or bronze Age (maybe Rhesos or a contemporary?).
I sympathise with you in that the wording of the guide is rather confusing :(
However, it sort of implies that they ran trenches in from the edge of the mound, where its thickness is small. It would be standard practice to take the trenches down into the "undisturbed" soil beneath the mound, though not necessarily to the bedrock. To do anything else would be very peculiar. It is also suggested that they uncovered a stretch of the perimeter wall (in 1965). That has its foundations in the subsoil, so that would have been a good area to find the prehistoric graves. As agesilaos points out, you should consider whether the earlier graves can possibly be in the tumulus, if the tumulus covered the earlier cemetery?
Best wishes,
Andrew
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: Amphipolis guidebook

Post by Zebedee »

Thank you for posting those images.

The 2002 paper Excavating Classical Amphipolis by Chaido Koukouli Chrysanthaki is worth locating for some more context, including a tentative identification of an intramural burial being that of Brasidas in his role as (adopted) founder. It focuses more on the century prior to the one this tomb seems to date from, but the vagaries of cult worship in association with the 'Brasidas' burial are of note - especially that deposits close to the burial seem to have stopped mid-C4th, as well as highlighting the practice of notable graves/cult sites being originally placed in an open enclosure which were sometimes covered, and even totally obscured, at a later date. I posted a map from the article in another thread, so I don't want to push fair usage too far, but also of contextual importance is that the proposed site for the Thracian Gate has a sanctuary to Demeter outside it as well as the main Hellenistic cemetery being located much closer to the city walls. There are however at least a couple of Macedonian tombs away from there and more along the road towards Eion.

Just on the location of the graves that Laziridis found, they were effectively around the tumulus as he did not have the funding to do a great deal with the tumulus itself. That obviously leads to the statement that the tumulus was erected over, or amidst, a pre-existing burial site associated with Ennea Odoi and pre-dating the Athenian settlement. As Andrew highlights, the fact that the perimeter wall was uncovered in two of the trenches should give some insight into where Laziridis was excavating. The marble fragments within the soil and sand layers making up the tumulus would imply to me that it is associated with the perimeter wall rather than pre-dating it.I believe Laziridis himself put forward the idea of Nearchos being a potential candidate? That would imply a date fitting in with what the archaeologists currently believe based upon the evidence uncovered. Sacred enclosures, and then covering them, are certainly attested to in later Thracian cult worship, but the location and date for this tomb seem very much within the practices of the fourth or fifth generation colonists and those of the locale.
Last edited by Zebedee on Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Amphipolis guidebook

Post by amyntoros »

Zebedee wrote:
The 2002 paper Excavating Classical Amphipolis by Chaido Koukouli Chrysanthaki is worth locating for some more context, including a tentative identification of an intramural burial being that of Brasidas in his role as (adopted) founder...
It has been uploaded to Academia.edu so is available online for those who are interested. The direct link to the article is here. :)

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: Amphipolis guidebook

Post by Zebedee »

amyntoros wrote: It has been uploaded to Academia.edu so is available online for those who are interested. The direct link to the article is here. :)

Best regards,
Thank you, I wasn't certain on site policy. The following paper may be of some interest, as it gives a broader Thracian-centric view of tumuli. I came across it whilst doing some further research. Monumental Tombs and Hero Cults in Thrace during the 5th-3rd centuries B.C. by Nikola Theodossiev. It's on openedition so hopefully is ok to be linked to.

Link (web browser link)
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Re: Amphipolis guidebook

Post by Efstathios »

Lazaridis wanted to find the tomb of Roxanne, at least that is what Mrs Peristeri said, as she worked with him in Amphipolis for several years.
"Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks."
Sir Winston Churchill, 1941.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Amphipolis guidebook

Post by agesilaos »

But has not all her talk of Deinokrates been in support of that theory? Not to mention the released dating of 310, ridiculously precise in archaeological terms IMHO, especially without any epigraphy.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Re: Amphipolis guidebook

Post by Efstathios »

I didn't hear anywhere 310 being mentioned. It's 325-300. The whole Deinocrates assumption and certainty from Mrs Persiteri's side is based on the dating, the dimensions, and the style.
"Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks."
Sir Winston Churchill, 1941.
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: Amphipolis guidebook

Post by Zebedee »

Thought perhaps this would be of interest to those who would find greater detail and perhaps some pictures of the trenches useful. This particular year covers the two initial trenches into the mound. Full citation as it's a very useful source if one can't lay hands on the actual reports.

Daux Georges. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1965. In:Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 90, livraison 2, 1966. pp. 879-881.

Link (pdf file download)
Link (web browser version)

Persee provides access to many years (free) here.
Au lieu-dit Καστάς, près de la colline n° 133, sur la petite colline (fig. 8) explorée l'année dernière {BCH, 1965, p. 826), ont été effectuées deux tranchées de 10 m. de largeur, partant de la circonférence vers le centre : tranchée A sur le versant Ouest (fig. 9) et tranchée Β sur le versant Nord (fig. 10). Elles ont prouvé qu'il s'agit d'un très grand tumulus artificiel à remblai de couches de sable fin et de terre dure verdâtre, alternativement amoncelées. Le remblai contenait
en grande quantité coquillages marins, éclats de taille, tessons, fragments de tuiles et galets de rivière.
Sur la partie Est de la tranchée B, à 5,80 m. de la circonférence du tumulus, à une prof. de 1,60 m., une sépulture était située sous de grandes tuiles : quelques restes d'ossements, et, à proximité, des fragments de fer, peut-être d'un couteau, une perle de collier et une lame de bronze. Parmi les tessons recueillis dans les deux tranchées, le plus intéressant montre un satyre et date de la fin du Ve s. av. J.-C. (fig. 11).
Entre les tranchées A et B a été découvert le mur périphérique du tumulus (sur une longueur de 40,80 m. entre A et B, et sur 2 m. de long, au Sud de la tranchée A) ; conservé parfois sur une hauteur de 0,80 m. il est formé de deux assises (fig. 12). Il s'agit donc d'un tumulus artificiel de très grandes dimensions (circonférence de 487 m. env. ; hauteur de 20 m.). Les éclats de taille du marbre provenant du remblai ainsi que les deux modestes tombes découvertes jusqu'ici
donnent à penser que le tumulus recouvre un grand monument funéraire ou une série de petites tombes.
Won't do a full translation but essentially the two initial 10m trenches are dug from the edge of the mound towards the centre, and it's discovered that the mound consists of alternating layers of fine sand and a greenish hard soil. Broken tiles, sherds, larger pieces of pottery, seashells, river pebbles and fragments of marble are found within this. The most interesting (sic) piece of pottery has what seems to be a satyr on it and dates from the end of the C5th. The first burial is found in the trench coming in from the north at a depth of 1.6m and just 5.8m from the edge of the mound. And of course they identify the surrounding wall.

Image
Post Reply