The LSJ entry on pyra (below) says it means exactly what I said it meant. It even uses tumulus for the tomb on the site of the pyre definition. Diodorus 18.4.2 says that Alexander had left orders for the completion of Hephaistion's pyra, having described a funeral pyre in 17.115. The translator, Russel Geer, explains: "since the pyre had already been completed, the reference here appears to be to the tomb planned by Alexander." My point here is that Justin is using tumulus in the same way that LSJ is using tumulus (in English) as a translation of pyra and therefore he is referring to a tomb specifically on the site of Hephaistion's funeral pyre in Babylon. So the suggestion that Justin is referring to some separate tomb mound a long way from Babylon is without foundation. Are you trying to uphold a Pothos discussion which did not reach a consensus over the translator of Diodorus? And why are you citing LSJ as though it supported your case, when it actually confirms what I have said about the word?Xenophon wrote:Taphoi wrote:....and out comes a discredited argument yet again !! I seem to recall on the "Hephaistion Pyre" thread there was considerable discussion of whether 'pyra' could mean this. The consensus ( Taphoi excepted of course) was that Diodorus did NOT use 'pyra' in this way.Notice too the flat assertion regarding Cleitarchus, whose work has not survived beyond second-hand fragments. Based on this 'non'-evidence we then have 'therefore...', as if it logically followed which of course it does not. And then "Anyone.....would know this."Diodorus uses pyra for both the funeral pyre and the monument to be built on the site of the funeral pyre. So too I think did Cleitarchus. Therefore Justin (actually Trogus originally) is translating pyra as tumulus. Anyone who had studied all the sources in their original languages would know this.
On the contrary, everyone here on Pothos who studied this ( bar Taphoi) came to very different conclusions ! See also the LSJ......
Best wishes,
Andrew