The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[Paralus]

Not to forget the cremated remains which more likely belong to the original occupant, cremation declining significantly during the Hellenistic period. One would expect the occupant of such a tomb to have been cremated if a dating of late 4thc BC is correct. If later - as Agesilaos suggests - the inhumation becomes more likely.

Things are grim when "anonymous scholars" are trotted out "citing no evidence".

[Taphoi]

Let me reassure everyone. There is no need for any nervousness or concern about this.

The bones are being carbon dated. That should show clearly whether they are original or from re-use of the tomb.

The strontium isotope ratios are being measured in the bones and possibly in the single tooth.

If the old lady is Olympias, she spent most of the last decade of her life in Epirus. That should yield a different strontium isotope ratio in her bones than would be seen in a resident of Macedon.

If there is any enamel left on her surviving tooth, that could yield a strontium isotope ratio for the place where she spent her childhood - again Epirus. Tooth enamel does not change after its formation in childhood.

I doubt there is another credible candidate from Epirus who died in her early sixties in the late 4th century BC. So there is every prospect that we will have a definite scientific verdict on her identity soon.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Let me reassure everyone. There is no need for any nervousness or concern about this.

I don't know that reassurance is required.There's no nervousness I can detect in members of the forum other than a member relying upon "anonymous scholars citing no evidence" to bolster a view.

[sean_m]

Also, I think that everyone on this forum has seen many occasions where startling news about archaeology in a press release was followed by a disappointing journal article (either one which made modest claims, or one which left us wondering how it got past peer review). In a world where we need the Ctesias Scale to rate stories, its wise to meet them with some 'pre-emptive pessimism.'

[Zebedee]

I doubt there is another credible candidate from Epirus who died in her early sixties in the late 4th century BC. So there is every prospect that we will have a definite scientific verdict on her identity soon.

I'm far from convinced there's even one known credible candidate from Epirus, who died in her early sixties in the late 4th Century BC and who would be buried at Amphipolis. So many 'ifs' in the chain of logic being used again. One almost suspects a tendency to work backwards to try and fit the evidence to a preconceived idea.

More generally, am looking forward to finding more about dating (familiar story!), and also the cremation and order of burial.

[agesilaos]

It seems quite 'optimistic' to expect the strontium test to be able to differentiate so finely between Epeiros and Macedon since its variations are dependent upon the underlying geology and that of these two regions is largely similar and in places identical. Setting aside the historical improbability and the epigraphic evidence that she was buried elsewhere and the fact that scholars willing to be named refute the suggestion the woman could be Olympias, it remains to be explained just who the male cremation interred with her could be.

[Taphoi]

it remains to be explained just who the male cremation interred with her could be.

The sex of the cremation is not established, but Aeacides, the nephew of Olympias, was killed in a battle with Philip, the brother of Cassander in 313BC. If Philip brought his cremated remains or his corpse back to Macedon, his aunt's tomb would have been the natural place for his burial. It was he who had provided her invasion army in 317BC.

The elder, uncremated male could be Aristonous, Olympias's commander in Amphipolis, who was killed at the same time as the queen.

The younger, uncremated male could be Monimus, Olympias's commander in Pella, who also surrendered to Cassander shortly after Olympias's surrender at Pydna.

The infant could be Roxane's child that died on the Indus, perhaps preserved in a jar to be taken back to Alexander's homeland. Roxane might have put the remains in the tomb of the child's grandmother, whilst she was living at Amphipolis and the tomb was being built.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Kassandros certainly bent over backwards to honour his enemies, then, although he fell short of giving Monimos and Aristonous the cremation custom would dictate. Roxane' Indian birth is only in the Metz Epitome 70; which says that the child was buried there before Alexander left for the Ocean, so no foetus in a jar.

[Taphoi]

Kassandros certainly bent over backwards to honour his enemies, then, although he fell short of giving Monimos and Aristonous the cremation custom would dictate. Roxane' Indian birth is only in the Metz Epitome 70; which says that the child was buried there before Alexander left for the Ocean, so no foetus in a jar.

It was a newborn infant rather than a foetus and we cannot know whether it was literally buried in India or not. The literalness of the Metz Epitome cannot be trusted on this point. If the original source merely said that Alexander held a funeral ceremony for the infant, the Metz Epitomator might have assumed a burial and written sepulto. Even the original source might not have known the precise truth on such a personal matter. Leaving the body of Alexander's child in barely subdued foreign territory would seem rather unsafe, if anyone (e.g. Roxane?) cared about its grave remaining undisturbed. Even if the child was buried, a subsequent exhumation would have been feasible. I think it is the only infant mortality closely related to Olympias that is recorded by history and it was Roxane's first baby and she was there at Amphipolis when the mound was built, if it is Olympias's tomb.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

If Philip brought his cremated remains or his corpse back to Macedon...

The elder, uncremated male could be Aristonous...

The younger, uncremated male could be Monimus...

If the original source merely said that Alexander held a funeral ceremony for the infant, the Metz Epitomator might have assumed a burial and written sepulto....

The infant could be Roxane's child that died on the Indus, perhaps preserved in a jar to be taken back to Alexander's homeland. Roxane might have put the remains in the tomb of the child's grandmother...

I'm assuming all the above is written with tongue firmly in cheek? "If", "could be", "could be", "If", "merely", "might have", "could be", "perhaps", "might have". Yes, jest I'm certain.

[agesilaos]

The 'foetus' was just allusion to the Life of Brian; 'Where's the foetus goin' to gestate? You gonna keep it in a box!?' Like the Cheesemakers it was not meant to be taken literally.

interim filius Alexandri et Rhoxane moritur. hoc sepulto ac re divina facta,...

'Meanwhile the son of Alexander and Rhoxane died. He was buried and sacrifices offered...' sepultus can encompass cremation and interement of the remains too, but here we have 'sepultus' and 're divina', the burial and the rites separated, so the source likely separated them too. Rhoxane was a Sogdian and they disposed of the dead by exposure, so she is unlikely to have harboured any sentimental attachment to a badge of dynastic failure. Had the neonate been so significant as to warrant carrying around Asia and Europe for ten years one might expect one of the major sources to have noted its existence at the very least, it would have been a further example of Alexander's extravagance in grief. If one is to accept the child's existence one ought to accept his burial too, unless there is a reasonable misunderstanding possible and the intermediate source can be shown to be careless of their Greek, as Livy can, for instance. One does not get that sense from the Metz epitomator nor, as a spare epitomator is he likely to have expanded his original.

Had Monimos, Aristonous, this child, Olympias and Aeacides all ended up in the same tomb supplied by Kassandros' regime it is hardly likely to have been the largest and most expensive monument yet discovered; a convenient cess-pit would be more likely.

[Paralus]

Had Monimos, Aristonous, this child, Olympias and Aeacides all ended up in the same tomb supplied by Kassandros' regime it is hardly likely to have been the largest and most expensive monument yet discovered; a convenient cess-pit would be more likely.

I'm afraid it's difficult to avoid...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDNtqy0zjJA

[amyntoros]

The bones are being carbon dated. That should show clearly whether they are original or from re-use of the tomb.

Haven't posted anything in a while (although I check the forum several times a day) due to life getting in the way of what I'd rather be doing. At this point, several short posts from me make more sense than my trying to respond to all in a ridiculously long missive. So ... I'll begin with the above and a question for anyone who has the knowledge. Just how accurate can the carbon dating of bones be? This site from the BBC on the recently discovered bones of Richard III says:

Mr Buckley said the bones had been subjected to "rigorous academic study" and had been carbon dated to a period from 1455-1540.

That's a heck of a spread, methinks, although I guess it works for Richard. I don't think a similar spread for the bones at Amphipolis would clarify much, especially for the Olympiasts*. How would it demonstrate "clearly" whether the bones are original or from re-use? Are we (you?) expecting a much narrower spread?

Best Regards

* "Olympiasts" is a term used by James Romm in one of his posts at the Daily Beast. Definitely worth following him as he often makes sense of the nonsensical.

[Xenophon]

It is interesting to note that one of my earlier thoughts turns out to be correct, namely that the mound/natural hill ( as it turns out to be for the most part) pre-dated the Hellenistic tomb. I am puzzled that the number of skeletons/parts now referred to does not tally with earlier reports of a single skeleton with parts of "it" found outside the grave (??) The grave depicted in diagrams earlier seems to have been set into the floor of the third chamber. The remains of 5 skeletons now seems to be referred to variously as coming from "below the third chamber" and from a "fourth chamber", which one presumes are one and the same, namely the 'grave' below the chamber previously revealed ?

Also with some 550 bones recovered, it must have been obvious from the outset that more than a single skeleton was present, even if there was only one skull ?

One is beginning to get the feeling that amidst all the speculation, some actual 'official' misleading disinformation is being put out.....

Shome confusion shurely ????

In addition, nothing in the latest report states that the skeletons/skeletal parts/cremated remains were all deposited together. Given that the tomb appears to have been 'open', perhaps as a 'heroon' for some time, and the fact that parts of the structurewere added over time, it seems possible that the burials might well have been deposited over a lengthy period, and the tomb re-used/re-cycled, perhaps over generations.

A diagram/drawing showing the surviving parts of the 5 skeletons can be found here, at "The Huffington Post" both in Greek and English translation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.gr/2015/01/19 ... 95220.html

.....and here at the Archaeology News Report.....

http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot. ... MnRNWiUfl8

Note that of the 550 bones/fragments supposed to have been found, only 157 are involved with the 5 individuals so far referred to.....though the reports seem positive that just the five individuals are involved......but more to come ?

Far too early to be making wild guesses about these occupants, who on the evidence so far presented, could have been anyone !!

[Xenophon]

Amyntoros wrote:

So ... I'll begin with the above and a question for anyone who has the knowledge. Just how accurate can the carbon dating of bones be? This site from the BBC on the recently discovered bones of Richard III says:

Mr Buckley said the bones had been subjected to "rigorous academic study" and had been carbon dated to a period from 1455-1540.


That's a heck of a spread, methinks, although I guess it works for Richard. I don't think a similar spread for the bones at Amphipolis would clarify much, especially for the Olympiasts*.

Since the late 1940's when Libby discovered/developed radio carbon dating, progress in the original very approximate results has progressed by leaps and bounds. No doubt everyone is aware that the older the subject matter is, the less accurate the results and that a limit of around 50,000 years is the maximum.

However even with today's sophisticated techniques there are a number of variables in the sample, and surrounding conditions, that can affect accuracy, not to mention that contamination of even minute amounts of modern carbon will lead to false 'younger' readings.

So far as bones are concerned, given an almost perfect (relatively) recent sample, the best accuracy that can be obtained is to within an 80 year period (i.e. a date plus/minus a period to produce a statistical accuracy level) - so the Richard III is about as good as it gets........