The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

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

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

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by Zebedee »

gepd wrote: On a similiar matter, the Lion is always sketched to be at the center of the Kastas hill. However, the excavators mentioned that they have discovered the base of the lion on the hill. Still if you look the video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5Q1cB2J68

the center of the hill does not appear to be excavated. Excavated parts appear to be along the line of the chambers - I assume the lion was there? So that is also confusing and contradictory from what we learned from the team...
Forgive me snipping your post, but just want to see if it's possible to answer this part. I believe the excavation on the summit of the mound was done in 1972. Here's what one summary of Lazaridis' initial reports says:
La fouille du tumulus s'est poursuivie. On a dégagé partiellement, au sommet, les restes d'une
construction qui formait sans doute la base du monument funéraire couronnant le tumulus.
(BCH, 1973)

Quick translation for those who want it: The excavation of the mound continued. On the summit, we partially uncovered the remains of a construction which probably formed the base of a funerary monument crowning the tumulus.

Lefantzis has done more work on this since and made the link between lion and tumulus.

(Thank you for redoing link, and the drawing was too well done not to post!)

edit: corrected date from 73 to 72.
Last edited by Zebedee on Thu Oct 09, 2014 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gepd
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:06 pm

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by gepd »

Thanks for this reference, but either the summit excavation was abandoned (it really looks like a physical hill in the video) or the shape of the hill was different when Lazaridis was excavating it.

The image below is from Goolgle Maps/Bing several years back before any extended excavations by Peristeri begun.

Image
Image

Maybe the hill was more extended by the time of Lazaridis (who also made some excavations at the bottom) and the summit was at a slightly different location before he excavated the top.
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by Zebedee »

I think we have to use the peribolos to determine where the summit of the tumulus was originally - as you say, so many centuries and the mound changes shape. Some of the early pictures of the peribolos being excavated show just how deeply it had become buried and in the pictures of Lazaridis' initial excavations around the edges of the mound you can see that it extended out over the wall by then.
gepd
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:06 pm

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by gepd »

Well, I extracted individual images of the video, added them in some nice autocad online applications and got a rough 3D model of the tumulus, which I hope works for you (it likely wont work if you use Linux).

http://bit.ly/1sLlDoU

Moving the view point above the hill, you see the periphery of the tumulus very well, + that the center is part of the physical hill and is the area not excavated... The chambers are also not directed along the tumulus radius.

Image
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by Zebedee »

I went back through the recent summaries available of the current Amphipolis excavations, and there is no reference to recent excavation on the summit itself - albeit the absence of reporting in a brief summary since 2012 doesn't mean there weren't any. The link to the lion statue is on the basis of the marble fragments found (possibly even those found in 1972?) and from the marble blocks themselves indicating a relationship between peribolos and lion. I'm not certain whether the 1972 excavation would be visible on the mound summit today? As you pointed out, the excavation itself may have changed the shape. Another possible factor is that there are reports which say that an attempt to loot the tomb with a mechanical excavator was prevented, so I wonder whether that too has distorted what we now see.

Interesting point on the offset of the entrance itself. It seems to be along a chord of the circle? Would one therefore expect a right turn at the bottom of these new stairs being excavated, and for that to take us back towards the centre? It would fit with the 1999 results and give us something between H5 and H1? All very Orphic grotto if that's what lies ahead. :wink:

Was very interesting being able to move around the mound like that with your CAD work, thank you.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by agesilaos »

The inscription reconstructed by Edsonis not any old piece of prose but a funerary poem, which were, typically in elegiac couplets, one hexameter line followed by one pentameter line, usually dactyllic. This form is as restrictive as a sonnet so you cannot just fill in anything. Clues to the fact that this is the case here are the metre of the extant words and the increaseed spacing noted in lines 2 an 4, the pentameter, which indicate that there were fewer letters therein and that the cutter spread the letters out in order to keep his margins even, as Edson notes. So in th espirit of your 'analogies', your 'method' would allow this reconstruction (apologies to the over-sensitive)

There was was a young man from St Paul's,
Who toured all the Musical Halls,
His favourite trick
Was t[he one where a dove is produced from a lady sawn in two]
And r[ibbons were drawn from an unlikely recepticle.]

No notion of form, space or genre. :lol:
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: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by Taphoi »

agesilaos wrote:The inscription reconstructed by Edsonis not any old piece of prose but a funerary poem, which were, typically in elegiac couplets, one hexameter line followed by one pentameter line, usually dactyllic. This form is as restrictive as a sonnet so you cannot just fill in anything. Clues to the fact that this is the case here are the metre of the extant words and the increaseed spacing noted in lines 2 an 4, the pentameter, which indicate that there were fewer letters therein and that the cutter spread the letters out in order to keep his margins even, as Edson notes. So in th espirit of your 'analogies', your 'method' would allow this reconstruction (apologies to the over-sensitive)

There was was a young man from St Paul's,
Who toured all the Musical Halls,
His favourite trick
Was t[he one where a dove is produced from a lady sawn in two]
And r[ibbons were drawn from an unlikely recepticle.]

No notion of form, space or genre. :lol:
This is no defence against filling an unbounded gap in an inscription with a specific meaning that relies on a direct connection between the fragments either side. The proper term for that procedure is "guesswork". There is no reason why countless other meanings could not be inserted into this void metrically.
The first thing that should be suspected when discovering a fragment reading "ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑ[Σ]" near Pydna is a connection with Mt Olympus, the residence of the gods at the foot of which it stood. ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΣ means literally one of the Olympian Goddesses. Clearly goddesses do not have tombs, but their servants and followers do and much is missing from this text. I remain highly dubious that there was any connection whatsoever with the tomb of the mother of Alexander in this inscription.
Best wishes,
Andrew
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by amyntoros »

Taphoi wrote: This is no defence against filling an unbounded gap in an inscription with a specific meaning that relies on a direct connection between the fragments either side. The proper term for that procedure is "guesswork". There is no reason why countless other meanings could not be inserted into this void metrically.
Well, that's a rather jaw-dropping statement. "Guesswork"?? May I remind you of a conversation re your Reconstruction of Cleitarchus: (Underlines are mine).
Taphoi wrote:Hi Alexander,

You raise many intelligent points. I can only offer brief responses here.
abm wrote:You seem to have only very few potsherds to work with. Out of 9603 words in the sample chapter, only 192 are marked as certain, if I have counted correctly. That is about 2%…
The words that you mention are the fragments of Cleitarchus. They are by no means “certain”, but are merely those passages that were attributed to Cleitarchus by ancient writers. Those writers could have misattributed them or they could mean a different Cleitarchus, but of course they are from our Cleitarchus with a high degree of probability. In fact, all the words in bold type in my reconstruction are Cleitarchan in their substance with a reasonably high probability and they constitute about half of the reconstruction overall. Where any of the Metz Epitome, Curtius and Diodorus agree in detail, it is very likely that their common source was Cleitarchus and that the substance of the version they give comes from Cleitarchus. However, there is no such thing as certainty: all knowledge is probabilistic in the real world....
So, hmm, "guesswork", wouldn't you say? No, no you wouldn't, Andrew. Of course you wouldn't, and nor would anyone else. You have had much to say about how you put together your own reconstruction and I know you worked hard and long on each volume. No one (I hope) had the effrontery to dismiss your work as mere "guesswork". So why the remark above? Are you an expert on the art or science (whichever you prefer) of reconstructing texts on ancient fragments? Have you worked in the field? Dismissing the work of a specialist in a field as "guesswork" is an insult and isn't any way to bolster one's own argument. In fact it cheapens it.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by Paralus »

amyntoros wrote: Dismissing the work of a specialist in a field as "guesswork" is an insult and isn't any way to bolster one's own argument. In fact it cheapens it.
Agreed. Worse, as I remarked above, is the use of "invention" to demean the work of that same specialist. The logical conclusion is that trained epigraphists, when reconstructing damaged inscriptions, are engaged in complete “invention”. This is tantamount to a physiotherapist dismissing a finding of cancer by an oncologist. Again, I would quote Ersnt Badian:
As every working historian knows, there is a peculiar brand of historical fiction created by those (most often primarily historians, not epigraphists) who build far-ranging historical theories on words or phrases which their epigraphist predecessors have inserted - meaning no harm, and often exempli gratia - between square brackets in a fragmentary text. The epigraphic facts will be admitted, sometimes even discussed, with the conclusion that the supplement is "necessary" or "inevitable". As every epigraphist knows, and some historians as well, such a statement, especially in non-stoichedon texts and non-formulaic phrases, is often a warning that the wish has been father to the thought, and that scrutiny is needed.
The difference here, though, is that the “epigraphic facts” are completely ignored – dismissed out of hand with terms such as “unbounded gap” and trite, self-serving ‘reconstructions’ (if such they may be called). The text, as Agesilaos (and Edson) has pointed out, is far from “non-formulaic”. It is, in fact, very formulaic and it is within that tight formula that the epigraphist, Edson, has worked in contrast to the amateur historian.

The wish here is most certainly father to the thought. The wish being that Olympias is the occupant of the Amphipolis tomb and the thought being to deny any association of Olympias with Pydna. This has come through throughout this thread (and / or the other on the subject) with the ardent desire to bend the primary literary source (Diodorus) to the notion that Cassander trailed Olympias along with him as he went on to take Amphipolis. Just as ardent has been the desire to demonstrate that “powerful” persons wanted to give the queen a magnificent burial and, so, “there is nothing surprising about Olympias occupying this tomb from a political point of view”. That literary evidence does not support either of these speculations and is, in fact, antithetical to it, as has been pointed out by more than just myself.
Diod. 17.118.2:
Cassander, however, is plainly disclosed by his own actions as a bitter enemy to Alexander's policies. He murdered Olympias and threw out her body without burial, and with great enthusiasm restored Thebes, which had been destroyed by Alexander.

Paus. 9.7.2:
My own view is that in building Thebes Cassander was mainly influenced by hatred of Alexander. He destroyed the whole house of Alexander to the bitter end. Olympias he threw to the exasperated Macedonians to be stoned to death; and the sons of Alexander, Heracles by Barsina and Alexander by Roxana, he killed by poison.
In the wake of Cassander’s murder and disposal of Olympias, he married Thessalonice, the daughter of Philip and Nicesipolis of Pherae. This was plainly a political marriage as the sources make clear. What is not clear is why Thessalonice, recently betrothed to the cynical, murderous Cassander, would be carrying any torches for the dead Olympias or, for that matter, the barbarian wife and son of her half-brother who her eventual sons would supplant in line for the throne.

Until firm evidence comes to light Olympias, along with others, remains a fringe candidate for the Amphipolis site. Arguing a "Clietarchan high degree of probability" based on bending source material and dismissing possible counter evidence presented by an epigraphist as “invention” and “guesswork” does little to advance that cause. Again, I wonder just what the reaction to this epigraphic evidence will have been had it been found in connection with the Amphipolis dig. A “Cleitarchan high degree of probability” I’m sure.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
gepd
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:06 pm

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by gepd »

At least Cassander requested a painting depicting Alexander in a battle with Darius (a copy of which could be the Alexander mosaic), but maybe that is the farthest he would have gone for praising Alexander...

From Pliny:
Among his pupils, were his brother Ariston, his son Aristides, and Philoxenus of Eretria, who painted for King Cassander a picture representing one of the battles between Alexander and Darius, a work which may bear comparison with any.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by Paralus »

And that would, supposedly, be the one contrasting piece of evidence for Cassander's view of Alexander's legacy. What needs to be considered is the false divide of Cassander adjoining himself to Philip's family but not to that of Alexander. The two are one and the same and one doubts the Macedonians seeing any huge divide. The sources are more than clear, though, that Cassander held no candles for Alexander or his offspring. There is no great inconsistency between Cassander marrying Thessalonice and eliminating Alexander's line: he continued the royal line via Philip. He'd little choice in the matter: Cleopatra was in Asia Minor and under Antigonos' control. Needing legitimacy, the bride on hand was better than the bride of Sardis.

It would be wonderful were the palace of Aigai to be still standing. There, I'm sure, we would see paintings of prior kings and their deeds - perhaps including Philip. That Alexander's victory over Darius might have there is not surprising. The Macedonians had supplanted the Spartans in more than the obvious: they too possessed that arrogant martial chauvanism and to celebrate such in art is no surprise.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by Taphoi »

amyntoros wrote:So, hmm, "guesswork", wouldn't you say? No, no you wouldn't, Andrew. Of course you wouldn't, and nor would anyone else. You have had much to say about how you put together your own reconstruction and I know you worked hard and long on each volume. No one (I hope) had the effrontery to dismiss your work as mere "guesswork". So why the remark above? Are you an expert on the art or science (whichever you prefer) of reconstructing texts on ancient fragments? Have you worked in the field? Dismissing the work of a specialist in a field as "guesswork" is an insult and isn't any way to bolster one's own argument. In fact it cheapens it.
I have been very clear why it is guesswork in this particular instance: the gap that is being filled is of unknown and indeterminate length, because we do not know how big the block was from which the fragment survives. Such a gap cannot be filled without guessing. If you think otherwise, please explain how?

My reconstruction of Cleitarchus is irrelevant. It is entirely based on surviving manuscript text. The area of doubt is not what was recorded anciently, but whether it derives from Cleitarchus. I embrace that doubt and code the presentation of my text to indicate the level of doubt. Contrast that honesty with this case, where people are presenting in this forum and elsewhere a scholar's reconstruction of a block of text that is completely unknown and of unknown length as certain proof that Olympias cannot be entombed at Amphipolis.

Needless to say I have nothing against epigraphy in general, where there is more evidence, a known gap to be filled and the degree of uncertainty is estimated and embraced.

Best wishes,
Andrew
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by agesilaos »

The fragment is clearly in elegiac couplets, a form as restrictive as a limerick, it is not part of a Joycean stream of consciousness rendering your objections void. That you continue to fail to se this speaks more to that supposed 'honesty' of yours than any lack of clarity in explanation; should you be able to find Greek to fill the gaps and have the meaning you want go ahead, 'Amphipolis' or any of its declensions, is difficult to find any place for.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:My reconstruction of Cleitarchus is irrelevant. It is entirely based on surviving manuscript text.
Which manuscript of Cleitarchus would that be? I'd advise a reading of Thomas Africa's Ephorus and Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1610 (The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 83, No. 1, 1962, pp. 86-89).
Taphoi wrote:Contrast that honesty with this case, where people are presenting in this forum and elsewhere a scholar's reconstruction of a block of text that is completely unknown and of unknown length as certain proof that Olympias cannot be entombed at Amphipolis.
"A scholar's reconstruction"? What happened to this being "invention" and "guesswork". Best not to have your "Cleitarchus" classified under "guesswork" or "invention" along with epigraphy. Honesty indeed.
Taphoi wrote:Needless to say I have nothing against epigraphy in general...
No, only this in particular: it wasn't found at the Amphipolis mound.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipol

Post by Taphoi »

agesilaos wrote:The fragment is clearly in elegiac couplets, a form as restrictive as a limerick, it is not part of a Joycean stream of consciousness rendering your objections void. That you continue to fail to se this speaks more to that supposed 'honesty' of yours than any lack of clarity in explanation; should you be able to find Greek to fill the gaps and have the meaning you want go ahead, 'Amphipolis' or any of its declensions, is difficult to find any place for.
In order to establish a unique reconstruction, it is necessary to determine as a first step the exact length of the gap between one line fragment and the next and to show why it can only have that size. There is nothing to delimit that gap in this instance. It could be 10 characters or 100 characters. It follows as a matter of pure logic that many alternative reconstructions are possible in this instance (indeed three are presented in the paper). If Edson has plucked one from a large set of viable alternative reconstructions, then he is necessarily guessing. In fact he appears to have informed his reconstruction with a pre-existing belief that the tomb of Olympias lay at Pydna, but it is of course circuitous to use the thing you are trying to prove as an assumption in the argument that you use to prove it.

Below is a similar fragment in English. It is from a known text, so it may not be impossible to reconstruct it by finding that text with the help of Google etc. However, please explain to me how you would go about uniquely reconstructing it without the help of Google on the assumption that its original was lost? I hope this will help to clarify the difficulty of the problems presented by such fragments.
Best wishes,
Andrew
fragment.jpg
fragment.jpg (33.71 KiB) Viewed 4731 times
Post Reply