The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[gepd]

I sympathise with your caution about the sources of information, but in fact the official releases from the Culture Ministry and statements by Lina Mendoni do appear to have been accurate, if limited.

Well, she also said that bones are preserved in a rather good state (http://www.iefimerida.gr/news/179622/me ... -amfipolis), so you can see why I prefer not to elaborate on such short statements. I am not against speculation (unavoidable here), just cautious over potential over-interpretations.

I might not be so sure that they are wrong on this one, so I have some sympathy for the archaeologists having been led slightly astray by the dimensions. They are right that there are a number of other things that might make you think of Deinocrates in respect of this tomb. It was definitely built to be a stade in diameter, for example.

In your book you define the Alexandrian stade as 165 m. In this Wikipedia article, I see that the Egyptian stade is 157.5 meters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes) (not sure what the reference is and not sure if that is the same as the Alexandrian stadion). Here (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00417008) I read that the stadion used by Eratosthenes (and probably the Alexandrian one) is a probably bit more than 166 meters. They also give a measurement of the Heptastadion of Alexandria to 1202 meters (from M. Bey's maps), which, divided by 7 gives a stadion of 171.7 m.

So, I gather that the closest match is with the Egyptian stadion, but that probably does not have its origin to Dinocrates. I only suspect that they have more solid evidence for the connection to this architect (as the journalist who was following the excavation from 2012 recently revealed in a blog - see earlier post by Efstathios), so then this the tomb may eventually be used to re-define the value of the (Alexandrian) stadion. But probably not the other way around.

In one article by Dorothy King it was mentioned that connection with Deinocrates comes from his association with circle-shaped monuments. I was a bit puzzled by that remark, but eventually the only relevant thing i found is the following (http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/R/?fu ... EN01-MCG02) (starting around page 133):

At a time when architects had trouble gaining recognition. Dinocrates seems indeed to have succeeded. Named as "Dinochares" he is the fifth on Plinys list of five architects whom he considers to have excelled in their craft. and whom he also names twice in connection with the foundation of AJexandria. ln Ausonius' fourth century A.O. poem on the Moselle "Dinochares" again appears. this time as seventh of seven great architects in a list headed by the legendary Daedalus and credited to the tenth book of Varro's Hebdomades Ausonius (presumably following Varra) makes him the
builder of Ptolemy's palace at Alexandria of a four-sided pyramid which "devours its own shadow"- and of a miraculous levitating statue of Arsinoe in her temple at Pharos.

"Dinochares" is not the only variation. For Strabo. who writes of Alexandria's foundation mentioning only the involvement of unnamed, plural '''architects" and following Strabo. for the third-century A.D. grammarian Solinus. a "Cheirocrates" from Rhodes (not Macedonia) collaborated in the rebuilding under Alexander's patronage. of the colossal Temple of Anemis at Ephesus in the latter pan of the fourth century B.C. The surviving manuscripts of Pseudo-Callisthenes' third-century A.D. Alexander Romance hesitate between "Hermocrates" and "Hippocrates" (again from Rhodes) as Alexander's architect at Alexandria. The mount Athos project is discussed twice by Plutarch but its perpetrator is one "Stasicrates" who also according to Plutarch designed a magnificent funerary monument for Hephaestion, Alexander' s inseparable campanion, the Patroclus to his Achilles. Three authors besides Vitruvius name '''Dinocrates'' in connection with Alexandria: Vlenus Maximus, Ammianus Marcellinus. and Julius Valerius, a Roman historian of the late third century A. D. Like Pseudo-Callisthenes. Strabo and Solinus, also gives Rhodes as the architect's place of origin.

Ali these names converge less on a single identifiable historical personage than on a persona who emerges from a nexus of constants - grand architectural projects (real or imagined). architect and king - aIl related in a gloss on power for which the name Dinocrates most frequent of the aliases can be read as a kind of epitome. Kratos, of course, is power or might itself, particularly mastery through bodily strength. Kratus was also the name the Pvthagoreans gave to the number ten. The masculine noun "ho dinos" has to do with circularity or circular motion - whirlpools, eddies, circular threshing floors, the whirling of a sling. Like the feminine "he dine", dinos can also be the rotation of the heavens: the whirling the pre-Socratic philosopher Anaxagoras held to be the effect of "nous" as reguIator of the universe. A creative force of nature that resonates with the naturaI power Vitruvius says was constructed (architectata) to govem the revolutions of the universe - the same cosmic spin which is said in Book 10 bring the principles of machinery into being

Not that this proves anything of course.

[Efstathios]

I have been careful only to discuss the candidacy of Olympias in terms of probability

There are two inscriptions that place Olympias' tomb at Pydna, the one that has been discussed here and another one also from Pydna, from a tomb of a child from the later hellenistic years, that according to the inscription was a descendant from Olympias ancestry. Since you choose to ignore these two inscriptions then people might as well choose to ignore the sources that have Alexander buried in Egypt. Or Hephaestion in Babylon. But in the case of Hephaestion there is no single mention of where he was buried, aside from the pyre, so in terms of probability and in light of the official press releases that have the Kasta tomb being a heroon for a heroified person, it is much more likely that it's Hephaestion or a male anyway, as women were not heroified, and they didn't put lions on their tombs.

There is no known cult of Nearchus, or of any other general or king of the time, so that leaves two people, Alexander and Hephaestion. Take your pick. Resos also had a cult, but the main decorative elements of the tomb are Macedonian with the exclusion of the karyatids that refer to Athens of 560-510 B.C.

[amyntoros]

In one article by Dorothy King it was mentioned that connection with Deinocrates comes from his association with circle-shaped monuments. I was a bit puzzled by that remark, but eventually the only relevant thing i found is the following (http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/R/?fu ... EN01-MCG02) (starting around page 133):

Somewhere (in my badly organized bookmarks) there is mention of a comparison with a round building at Samothrace which has a confirmed dating of somewhere around the middle of the tomb dating, plus a reference to Dinocrates. It was a quote from an early statement regarding the tomb walls. I did try to Google search for the info again but was unsuccessful. <sigh> Sorry I can't give more info right now. Will try to find it again later when I'm further along with Thanksgiving preparations.

Best regards,

[gepd]

Efstathios: do you have some more information about the second inscription?

Also, I just received a copy of S. Miller's article on the Strymon (peribolos) blocks. I looks interesting. Just send a PM if you want a copy. I only have to scan it, so I can send it from tomorrow.

[gepd]

In one article by Dorothy King it was mentioned that connection with Deinocrates comes from his association with circle-shaped monuments. I was a bit puzzled by that remark, but eventually the only relevant thing i found is the following (http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/R/?fu ... EN01-MCG02) (starting around page 133):

Somewhere (in my badly organized bookmarks) there is mention of a comparison with a round building at Samothrace which has a confirmed dating of somewhere around the middle of the tomb dating, plus a reference to Dinocrates. It was a quote from an early statement regarding the tomb walls. I did try to Google search for the info again but was unsuccessful. <sigh> Sorry I can't give more info right now. Will try to find it again later when I'm further along with Thanksgiving preparations.

Best regards,

I think you refer to this maybe: http://www.samothrace.emory.edu/visuali ... da-arsinoe

This is probably dated few years into the 3rd century BC.

[Efstathios]

It is actually this: http://www.samothrace.emory.edu/visuali ... lan/hieron

According to Lehmann, it was begun in the late fourth century, c. 325 BCE, although other scholars place the building in the early third century.

The second inscription at Pydna can be seen here: http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/pdf/uploads/hesperia/146994.pdf

“Aeacid is my race, my father Neoptolemus, my name Alcimachus, of those (descended) from Olympias. As a child whose intelligence was equal to that of men, Fate placed me at the age of three a corpse beneath this tomb.” The text is complete, and there is no difficulty at all in the reading.

[agesilaos]

The Rotunda of Arsinoe (II) at Samothrace cannot be dated as early as 325, an inscription mentions a husband , but the name is missing; she married Lysimachos first in 288, Keraunos under duress in 280/79, and Ptolemy II in sometime after 278. The most likely scenarion is that the Rotunda was built to thank Samothrace for assistance rendered when she fled Keraunos' Macedonia.

[Taphoi]

It is actually this: http://www.samothrace.emory.edu/visuali ... lan/hieron

According to Lehmann, it was begun in the late fourth century, c. 325 BCE, although other scholars place the building in the early third century.

The second inscription at Pydna can be seen here: http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/pdf/uploads/hesperia/146994.pdf

“Aeacid is my race, my father Neoptolemus, my name Alcimachus, of those (descended) from Olympias. As a child whose intelligence was equal to that of men, Fate placed me at the age of three a corpse beneath this tomb.” The text is complete, and there is no difficulty at all in the reading.

So you are in fact pointing out that this inscription does NOT say that the tomb of Olympias was at Pydna
Neither does the other inscription say that the tomb of Olympias was ay Pydna. It just has the words tomb and Olympias together on it (all that remains of one of its lines.)
So there actually is NO inscription that says that the tomb of Olympias was at Pydna! Those that have said that there is are wittingly or unwittingly propagating an untruth.
Neither does Olympias necessarily mean the mother of Alexander the Great. Another queen of Epirus was called Olympias. Many other women were also called Olympias. Olympias actually means "one of the goddesses that lived atop mount Olympus". Pydna lies at the foot of Mount Olympus. So why can't the inscription be referring to a tomb somehow associated with one of the Olympian goddesses that lived next door to Pydna?
Best regards,
Andrew

[Taphoi]

In your book you define the Alexandrian stade as 165 m.

The value of 165m is the value discovered by Mahmoud Bey from his excavations of ancient Alexandria. He found that the streets were laid out in a regular grid pattern with spacings that were simple fractions of a stade. So he was able to infer the length of a stade in Alexandria quite clearly.

A stade actually seems to be 100 paces. That is why the stade used by bematists (pacers) seems to have been 157m, about a tenth of a Roman mile, defined as 1000 paces (these are double paces - the bematist two-step, if you like). I am asserting that the Kasta Mound is 100 paces in diameter - not that any local city's definition of a stade was used specifically.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[amyntoros]

I used Google desktop and the Samothrace piece was my first hit - I hadn't bookmarked the page but copied the info to a temp file I use for posting on Pothos! Duh!

Anyway, it isn't a press release but an argument from a professor in support of Katerina Peristeri's early statements. And of course, because my memory is awful these days, there's no mention of Dinocrates. Still, I think it's interesting regarding the dating.

http://www.balkaneu.com/tomb-amphipolis ... rsonality/

Mr. Mavrogiannis stated his certainty that it is a monument of the last quarter of the 4th century BC century, agreeing with the head of the excavations, Katerina Peristeri.
“I believe that the monument must have been built between 322 and 318 BC. Of course we have to wait for confirmation of any ceramics etc. Here though, there is a pseudo-isodomic masonry, which can be dated accurately. This masonry is not an enclosure, it is not a retaining wall, it is the platform with the crowning of the Tomb and there is a similar sample on the walls of the building of Samothrace called “Sanctuary”, which is dated. There is an inscription, 323-317 BC”, argued Mr. Mavrogiannis declaring his agreement with the estimates of Mrs. Peristeri on the dating of the tomb: “I completely agree with the dating of the tomb between 325-300 BC”.

Reading it again, it seems Mavrogiannis is stating there is an image of the tomb wall (or similar) ON the Sanctuary building at Samothrace. Or could this be another example of a mistake in translation?

Best Regards,

[agesilaos]

A stadion was 600 feet, and that is standard BUT the length of a foot (pous) varied, just as the weight of a drachma did. Since the Alexandria that Mehmud surveyed was not the whole ancient city, and certainly not the original ancient city, deductions about the stadion from his nineteenth century measurements are clearly not accurate and just inferred, I would refer everyone to Paralus' comment on the Cleitarchus thread. Theis especially odd since you admit Mahmoud guessed many of the measurement he made for the circuit walls (the actual source for the bogus Deinokrates link) yet suddenly his measurements for the area that had certainly changed due to 23 centuries of redevelopment are accurate! Shoe-menders.

Deinokrates is nothing to to do with Dinocrates the latinised form deinos- terrible, powerful as in dinosaur - not dinos whirlpool etc, yet another Paralus analysis, WTF! Everything about this link is screaming wishful thinking, though 'thinking' is certainly overstating it

Consider the other names given to the man NONE suggest 'circular' ; Cheirokrates - the mighty hand, it is the might that is emphasised, though it should be the 'might ' as in perhaps over the 'might' as in strength since it is doubtful anything he planned was ever built!

Two days to go and my bet is no sound dating and three hours of cobblers; no detail on how things were uncovered, position in fill date of fill and mound strata...a the source for the reasoning that has been released appears the less confidence I have in the interpretive skills of the team; let us hope, and I am fairly confident, that the full report will be precise about the depths etc (dates will only be ranges) and then analysis unclouded by the shadow of Alexander can begin.

[gepd]

Deinokrates is nothing to to do with Dinocrates the latinised form deinos- terrible, powerful as in dinosaur - not dinos whirlpool etc, yet another Paralus analysis, WTF! Everything about this link is screaming wishful thinking, though 'thinking' is certainly overstating it

Consider the other names given to the man NONE suggest 'circular' ; Cheirokrates - the mighty hand, it is the might that is emphasised, though it should be the 'might ' as in perhaps over the 'might' as in strength since it is doubtful anything he planned was ever built!

I was only curious about the comment in D. King's blog, so I looked around for a clarification. I never heard anything similar from the excavation team . My guess about Deinocrates is that the team has some kind of epigraphic evidence or so. Something really direct. It doesn't make sense otherwise. This conclusion suddenly appeared with the beginning of excavations in 2013. In 2012 they were really specific in saying that the architect is unknown, while measurements of the peribolos was known to them (even though it was not fully revealed). And its not like they really needed to state that Dinocrates was the architect in order to get the ministry's and people's attention. Had their intention been to create a fuss due to a potential link of the monument with Alexander, I think the size of that whole thing and the proposed dating was more than sufficient.

That is my best guess...I am actually anticipating more exciting and revealing findings from the peribolos and the surroundings, rather than from the chambers, that were probably emptied from looters.

[Efstathios]

Let's clarify something. Deinocrates (Δεινοκράτης) , and not Dinocrates which is the latinized name, comes from the words "deinos" (δεινός) and krato (κρατώ) the verb. Deinos has two meanings in ancient Greek, terrible and skilful (επιδέξιος), and in this occasion it is most probably skilful (a skilful architect), "κρατώ" turns to "κράτης", and the combination literary means that he holds the skill. Δεινός is a word that we also use in modern Greek to indicate skilful. By the way, Vitruvius said that Deinocrates is not to be confused with Deinohares from Rhodes, Deinocrates was from Macedonia. In Plutarch he is mentioned as Stasicrates. If Deinocrates was a nickname or not we do not know, but if Mrs Peristeri has found an inscription with his name, then we will know. It is possible that the team found a stele with the name of architect and contractor as has been found in other ancient public works. It could be the stele on the ground that is seen on Mr Lefantzis' first drawings of the entrance with the sphinxes that is not seen in the photos.

So you are in fact pointing out that this inscription does NOT say that the tomb of Olympias was at Pydna

The inscription starts with Aecid (Αιακιδες) is my race, the Aecid dynasty from Hipirus, whose member was Olympias, not from Olympus. So there are relatives of Olympias at Pydna where she died, and another inscription has been found that indicates that her tomb might be there. There is an old thread about this here at Pothos that i found while googling the inscription. http://www.pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24315 Your hypothesis about Olympias might still be correct in the absence of concrete evidence like finding her tomb at Pydna, but the same goes for Hephaestion, and even Alexander.

[Paralus]

think I will stop there.

To quote U2: "A promise in the year of election" surely.

So there actually is NO inscription that says that the tomb of Olympias was at Pydna! Those that have said that there is are wittingly or unwittingly propagating an untruth.
Neither does Olympias necessarily mean the mother of Alexander the Great. Another queen of Epirus was called Olympias. Many other women were also called Olympias. Olympias actually means "one of the goddesses that lived atop mount Olympus". Pydna lies at the foot of Mount Olympus. So why can't the inscription be referring to a tomb somehow associated with one of the Olympian goddesses that lived next door to Pydna?
Best regards,
Andrew

And tripe is tripe no matter the sauce that it swims in. Bad metaphor: I actually like tripe...

[gepd]

Few points from S. Miller's "Architectural Blocks from the Strymon (1973)"

(1) 246 blocks collected in the 70s. They were revealed after Strymon was dredged in the 30s
(2) Many of the collected blocks were submerged in Earth, in the artificial banks on the river, and were barely visible. Many more may still reside there, unrecovered
(3) Most blocks have been reused as part of a dam. This dam was noted from 1835, it was located near a modern bridge at the Thessalonice-Kavala highway, near the lion.
(4) Blocks were on both sides of the Strymon, and in some cases the material covering them appeared to have been artifically placed there
(5) Pieces of cement and pottery was on the surface of some blocks
(6) Many blocks had artificial cuttings and clumps (for hooks) that do not appear original. (4)-(6) was evidence for the reuse of the blocks in another construction, possibly the dam mentioned above.
(7) 60 more blocks were found and catalogued at Lithotopos (60 km north of Amphipolis), at the artificial lake Kerkini. They were moved there by the company that constructed the modern dam in the 1930s, they were supposed to be reused for the dam's foundations, but those plans were abandoned. Blocks were left-over there, and they were only appearing on certain seasons of each year, when Kerkini's lake waters were partly residing. 60 blocks were also used for the lion"s base
(8) Several types of blocks were identified:

• [A] Drafted margin blocks: these constituted the majority. The authors found no corner blocks of those series, so they assumed they belonged to an enlosure of arched-like structure. Bocks had certain subdivisions, e.g. orthostates, geisa etc. Characteristic unit of the blocks appears to be 0.325 m, with a small error margin (another study of the same blocks gave a value of 0.328 m). I think that is close to a value of a foot (closer to a greek than a roman one). These blocks (as we know now) belonged to the perimeter wall of Kasta. Only those had graffiti on them. ΔΙΖΑ ΑΛΚΟΥ was the only one analyzed, the authors assumed it may have belonged to a soldier, another author published a more extensive study of the inscriptions. Since only this type of blocks had graffiti on them, they likely existed in different locations from other types of blocks found together in the dam. Dating, based on architectural elements, construction marks etc. is between 4th and 2nd century BC, the authors feel more comfortable with a Roman dating (mostly because they have more examples to compare with)
  Column-Shield series: Only three blocks, appear to come from a single monument, association is based on material, dimensions and workmanship. They point to a monument with shields and columns (columns where found by Boneer who studied the lion). Authors find parallels with wall constructions at Hieron at Samothrace (see earlier posts) and the Treasurey of Siphnos at Delphi. Couldn"t find a reerence to the unit used for this monument - maybe there was not enough data to derive it. Associating those blocks/columns with the actual monument that the lion was placed on is possible, but not without problems.
  [C] Roman monument series: few parts like column bases etc.(roman dating is based on some architectural arguments, if I understood well)
  [D] Doorway series: Three blocks forming an entrance/doorway to a tomb. Uncertain whether there is association with other series of blocks found at the river.
  [E] Various: Arch, Epistyle, Anta (?) blocks found. Curved entablature block, with nicely inscribed "E" and "Δ" (not mason's marks), segment of a circular or semi-circular structure with a 2.3 m radius, which probably had a large inscription. Its dating almost impossible (very large range given). Finally, another block appears to originate from a Macedonian tomb

There are many more details in there + nice figures/diagrams (most I have no knowledge to understand or explain), let me know if need the article, you may pinpoint more interesting things in there. I got the impression that in the context of the Kasta hill excavations, maybe futre excavations or underwater studies at the Strymon will be of equal importance.