The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[Taphoi]

Taphoi wrote:

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.

....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."

On the contrary, everyone here on Pothos who studied this ( bar Taphoi) came to very different conclusions ! See also the LSJ......

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?
Best wishes,
Andrew

Pyra_in_LSJ.png (26.55 KiB) Viewed 4231 times

[Efstathios]

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."

Ok, although here we have an inconsistency by Diodorus who could have used another word for tomb other than pyra, if we accept Geer's explanation then we have a plan for a tomb for Hephaestion.

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

Why specifically to the site of the pyre in Babylon? Justin doesn't say that. And in the sources we see the pyre either in Babylon or in Ekbatana. The pyre could have as well been different that the tomb for Hephaestion which could be somewhere else.

But we have a confirmation that one of Alexander's plans which was the rebuilding of the temple of Artemis tavropolos at Amphipolis happened. And we also found a big tomb in Amphipolis that it's construction according to the archaeological team was funded by the state and is of the last quarter of the 4th century B.C, which suggests that it could have been also a part of Alexander's plans.

Now, since Justin says tumulus, he could be referring to the tomb at Amphipolis, since no surviving source mentions where the tomb of Hephaestion is. Of course this alone does not make this Hephaestion's tomb. But there are other compelling evidence too. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is why would Alexander make a tomb for Hephaestion in Babylon or Ecbatana, that Hephaestion had nothing to do with, and not in Macedonia.

[Taphoi]

Why specifically to the site of the pyre in Babylon? Justin doesn't say that. And in the sources we see the pyre either in Babylon or in Ekbatana.

The point is that Justin is giving a one sentence summary of the same account that was used by Diodorus. This is not even controversial, though some have pretended that it is. It is very widely accepted (and published in many books) that Justin and Diodorus both derive from Cleitarchus. If Justin and Diodorus are both using Cleitarchus, then Justin's tumulus is Diodorus's pyra and that means it was a tomb scheduled to be built on the site of the pyre in Babylon. As added confirmation, Justin and Diodorus both give a cost of 12000 talents for the cost of the pyre and tomb, whereas other sources say 10000 talents. So it is pretty unambiguous that Diodorus and Justin are using the same source.
Three sources state that the funeral was in Babylon: Diodorus, Arrian and Polyaenus. In addition, Aelian says that funeral ceremonies for Hephaistion were not complete when Alexander died. That means that they were taking place at Babylon, which is where Alexander died.
I am desperately sorry if somebody has managed to convince you that there is a source that says Hephaistion's funeral was in Ecbatana, but to my knowledge there is not. However, I would be very interested if anybody thinks that they have found one and anticipate that they will reference it here promptly.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[amyntoros]

Why is it widely assumed that both Diodorus' account and Justin/Trogus' account come from Cleitarchus. Why not Ephippus' "On the Funeral of Alexander and Hephaestion"? The title alone makes it sound like an obvious choice for a later writer to consult. I keep getting the feeling that Cleitarchus is being forced upon us as the only writer of Alexander's time that any of the Roman's used, other than Ptolemy. And, yes, I know I'm exaggerating a little for effect, but seriously, only a little ... Every discussion that involves translations seems to devolve to Cleitarchus, Cleitarchus, Cleitarchus. Just because he was the most popular writer of his time doesn't mean that he was (a) the most credible and (b) the only one referenced.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

mulus[/i] The translator, Russel Geer, explains: "since the pyre had already been completed, the reference here appears to be to the tomb planned by Alexander."

That is simply only one view amongst several as anyone who had studied the papers on these passages would know. We can, then, conclude that Greer's view (on this at least) is not numbered amongst your derisive "modern re-writes".

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.

No. Not at all. Your point here is rather bolster your view with the claim that Trogus is translating pyra from Cleitarchus because Diodorus used Cleitarchus (as did Justin) and Diodorus also used pyra. A nonsense as I've demonstrated. But then we are only too familiar with your arguments built on the manipulation of single words. Single words which, when translations by professionals do not suit, your translate to your purpose. Exipio and exido come to mind as well as the thread mentioned by Xenophon. Emendation (as with pharnoucheous / eunouchos) cannot be too far away...

[Paralus]

Why is it widely assumed that both Diodorus' account and Justin/Trogus' account come from Cleitarchus. Why not Ephippus' "On the Funeral of Alexander and Hephaestion"?

Absolutely and a view argued by McKechnie (if I recall) who is probably numbed among those "modern re-writers"...

[Efstathios]

The other day I did see photos of inscriptions inside the tomb. Just found them again - here's the link in full:

https://twitter.com/PepiSer/status/5344 ... 48/photo/1

Mrs Ariadni Papafotiou is the reporter who took the interview from Mrs Peristeri back in 2013, and spoke in a presentation with the title "an excavation that will rewrite history". At a Greek blog where she has been posting she was asked by a member if the findings are decisive as to who the architect is, and she said that they are overwhelmingly decisive. So, it's fair to assume that the findings are not based on just theories on analogies, but the analogies and the references to Deinocratis' scale and Alexandria are based on concrete findings.

However, I would be very interested if anybody thinks that they have found one and anticipate that they will reference it here promptly.

Well, this is what happens when you try to "decode" Diodorus and the sources while writing a reply. No there aren't any sources that have the pyre taking place at Ecbatana, i had in mind Paul McKechnie’s article about the pyre, and meant to say that these sources could as well be mistaken about a pyre taking place at Babylon. But it doesn't really matter as here we are interested about where Hephaestion could have been buried, as i said in the previous post it doesn't really make sense for his tomb to be at Babylon. Hephaestion was Alexander's Patroclus. Achilles and Patroclus were buried in troy because they fought there, but Hephaestion didn't die at battle, so it would make more sense for Alexander to have his tomb built in Macedonia.

[delos13]

It is difficult for me to undestand why these two Diodorus' passages considered contradictory by some people:


"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."

Surely, it is not hard to believe that Alexander wanted to erect a monument/different types of monuments for Hephaistion in every city of his Empire? Ecbatana, Babylon, Alexandria, ...<long list of other cities>, Amphipolis, <long list continues>, and so on. Something was done in Ecbatana, then grand pyra/pyre (either for cremation or permanent, or both), and there were more in the Last Plans that Perdicca stroke out from the list together with other grand projects.

I don't believe much that it were Hephaistion's remains that were discovered in Amphipolis but to completely reject the idea that he was buried in Amphipolis simply because authors of the old mentioned pyra/pyre dedicated to him in other city(ies) is not a very valid argument.

We try to explain many things by logic but human behavior is not always based on this. Imagine such scenario, Alexander, Hephaistion and the rest of the army passing through Amphipolis on their way to conquer Persia. Hephaistion falls in love with surroundings and says to Alexander, when I die, I want to be buried here. Alexander says something like this, we never going to die. And Hephaistion responds, just promise me you send my ashes to be buried here. And so it goes. I know, sounds like pure fantasy, but...why so many people want their ashes to be scattered all over the earth, let alone the Moon?

Please, don't berate me harshly for this side note.

[amyntoros]

Question: If a body buried in direct contact with soil had been embalmed, either by the honey method or a method similar to the Egyptians, would the embalmed flesh and any wrappings disintegrate over the course of time, especially if it were longer than 2,000 years? I know that Egyptian mummies remained intact but they were enclosed in air-tight containers and then placed in rooms that were also sealed. A mummy buried in dirt is another matter. Don't know enough about findings in Egypt to know if they found a mummy in any such circumstances. Plus there's the option of the honey embalming which I mentioned.

And ... if the flesh and any wrappings did disintegrate, would forensic testing recognize them in the soil surrounding the bones?

Just curious and I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts.

Best regards,

[Efstathios]

Hephaistion and the rest of the army passing through Amphipolis on their way to conquer Persia

Amphipolis was actually the base from where the army set out for both campaigns, the first for the North, and the second for Persia along with the fleet. The fleet was brought from Cyprus where the ships were built to Amphipolis by Hephaestion.

Amyntoros: I've seen similar discussions on whether the mummy could remain intact buried in the soil, and from what i have gathered that probably wouldn't be the case. By the way, if you are thinking Alexander, i don't think he was wrapped in anything as according to the sources Augustus accidentally broke his nose. That is if the story is to be believed. The again according to Pausanias he was buried in Memphis according to the Macedonian way, and that implies cremation. So, either he wasn't cremated, or the mummified body that the Emperors were seeing in Alexandria was not Alexander.

[Xenophon]

Taphoi wrote:

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?

As I said above, a consensus among those posting, with yours the only dissenting voice. What the LSJ illustrates is that 'pyra' in the sense of an earth mound erected over the pyre site occurs only in poetry, not prose such as Diodorus. To save readers going through the "Hephaistion's pyre" thread, I will post part of a relevant post by Agesilaos here:-

Agesilaos wrote, page 2 April 1st 2013:

First let us look at the claim that the Greeks regularly called a monument raised on the site of a funeral pyre 'Pyra'. On analysing the use of the word in six prose authors (Polybios, Strabo, Pausanias, Diodoros Arrian and Aelian) I find ninety uses of the word 'pyra' these split 24/66 between general fires- normally campfires - and funeral pyres- only the two concerning Hephaistion's pyre may be considered different by those favouring a special case.

Arrian uses it four times for fires and eight times as a funeral pyre with a thirteenth use for Hephaistion, the so-called Hieronyman books of Diodoros (XVIII-XX) are a four four split and one for Hephaistion's 'pyre'. Clearly not common usage.

Pausanias II 21 iv includes a telling passage

The building of white marble in just about the middle of the marketplace is not, as the Argives declare, a trophy in honor of a victory over Pyrrhus of Epeirus, but it can be shown that his body was burnt here, and that this is his monument, on which are carved in relief the elephants and his other instruments of warfare. This building (oikodomhma) then was set up where the pyre stood, but the bones of Pyrrhus lie in the sanctuary of Demeter, beside which, as I have shown in my account of Attica, his death occurred. At the entrance to this sanctuary of Demeter you can see a bronze shield of Pyrrhus hanging dedicated over the door.


Were it normal to call the monument above a pyre 'pyra' this monument would not have been called a trophy nor would Pausanias call it a building when correcting the misapprehension.

Diodoros too III 55 ii

Myrina accorded a funeral to her fallen comrades on three pyres(pyrai) and raised up three great heaps(chwma) of earth as tombs(taphoi), which are called to this day "Amazon Mounds(swrous)."
τὴν δὲ Μύριναν θάψασαν τὰς ἀναιρεθείσας τῶν συστρατευουσῶν ἐν τρισὶ πυραῖς χωμάτων μεγάλων ἐπιστῆσαι τάφους τρεῖς, οὓς μέχρι τοῦ νῦν Ἀμαζόνων σωροὺς ὀνομάζεσθαι.


The mounds are called just that not 'pyrai'.

The benefit of LSJ is that it gives examples of usage, all those for 'pyra' as a mound or grave are poetic, historia was defined as a prose work; guess this is evidence and fact, I challenge you to bite the bullet, live by the apothegm....

( my emphasis)

Taphoi wrote:

So the suggestion that Justin is referring to some separate tomb mound a long way from Babylon is without foundation.

I would agree with this.

It would seem that Hephaistion must be regarded as only a remote possibility as the occupant of the Katsas mound because:
1. Hephaistion was almost certainly cremated if our sources have any truth in them at all . If his body was transported any distance, even to Babylon for cremation, it would have required immediate preservation of some kind.

The occupant of the Katsas mound was NOT cremated.

2.Even if Diodorus, uniquely among Greek prose writers was using 'pyra' in the sense of a subsequent mound raised over the site of the pyre, rather than its obvious sense of funeral pyre, then as Taphoi says, such a 'pyra' could only be in Ecbatana or Babylon by its very definition, not in Amphipolis.

The Katsas mound cannot be a 'pyra' for Hephaistion. ( unless one supposes is preserved corpse went to Amphipolis for cremation and burial - except that the occupant was, as already mentioned, NOT cremated.

[Xenophon]

Question: If a body buried in direct contact with soil had been embalmed, either by the honey method or a method similar to the Egyptians, would the embalmed flesh and any wrappings disintegrate over the course of time, especially if it were longer than 2,000 years? I know that Egyptian mummies remained intact but they were enclosed in air-tight containers and then placed in rooms that were also sealed. A mummy buried in dirt is another matter. Don't know enough about findings in Egypt to know if they found a mummy in any such circumstances. Plus there's the option of the honey embalming which I mentioned.

And ... if the flesh and any wrappings did disintegrate, would forensic testing recognize them in the soil surrounding the bones?

Just curious and I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts.

Best regards,Amyntoros

The answer to your question is "yes", generally speaking. Only under certain rare soil conditions can even mummies survive when buried in the bare ground. One such is the Chinchorro culture of the Andes, where mummies much older than Egypt survive. ( those found range from c. 5,000 BC to 3,000 BC) This is due to some very unique conditions. The soil is very rich in nitrates, which serves to dessicate, and the dry conditions and low humidity also ensure that mummification does not decay.

Various mummification techniques were used over the time period.

Another example of bodies which become naturally mummified and survive are the "bog bodies".

In all cases of survival such as those examples above, it is essential that bacterial activity is effectively stopped, e.g. toxic nitrate salts and extreme dessication, or highly mineralised liquid/water combined with lack of oxygen.

Uniquely, so far as I am aware, Egyptian embalmers used a combined technique with the excellently preserved XVIII dynasty mummies ( Tutankhamun's family). As well as the usual embalming techiques, the mummified corpses were soaked in a liquid natron bath for a long period. ( as opposed to simply being packed in the salt).

It is difficult to generalise, obviously, for conditions in each case are likely to be unique, but forensic testing can only work in instances where something, at least, survives to be tested....in most cases, even mumified examples in 'normal' soil types decay, and only bones are likely to survive any great length of time.

[Xenophon]

Efstathios wrote:

Achilles and Patroclus were buried in troy because they fought there, but Hephaestion didn't die at battle, so it would make more sense for Alexander to have his tomb built in Macedonia.

...by that reasoning, if Hephaistion was to be entombed somewhere other than where he died, then isn't Egypt the likeliest choice ? After all Alexander is supposed to have expressed the wish to be entombed in Egypt, and wouldn't 'Achilles' have wanted his 'Patroclus' to be with him ? Of course, there is no evidence for this in our sources, just as there is no evidence for Haphaistion being taken to Macedon for interrment......

[amyntoros]

Amyntoros: I've seen similar discussions on whether the mummy could remain intact buried in the soil, and from what i have gathered that probably wouldn't be the case. By the way, if you are thinking Alexander, i don't think he was wrapped in anything as according to the sources Augustus accidentally broke his nose. That is if the story is to be believed. The again according to Pausanias he was buried in Memphis according to the Macedonian way, and that implies cremation. So, either he wasn't cremated, or the mummified body that the Emperors were seeing in Alexandria was not Alexander.

Actually, I was pondering about Hephaistion. The gap between his death and his purported burial was long enough that he would have had to be embalmed or they would have had an unbelievably rotten corpse on their hands. Now if Diodorus is correct about the building of such a great pyre (which I've argued against in previous threads) then the actual lighting of same would have caused an inferno of almost unimaginable proportions. It would have been incredible to watch in any era - the largest pyre ever built, decorated at considerable expense, and then set afire - so why no remarks on this? Why just, "Alexander entertained everybody handsomely"? I know someone will hit me about an argument from silence, but seriously, would not a witness to such a sight make some mention of the actual burning. Then there's Aelian who said that Alexander threw armour and gold and silver on to Hephaistion's pyre. Seriously, if the pyre was as described in Diodorus, the only thing that Alexander could have done is drawn back and "lobbed" any articles AT the pyre. I'm one of those annoying people who, long before the discovery of the Amphipolis tomb, have never been able to reconcile the description of the pyre and the reality that such a burning structure would present. Hence, I've never been 100 per cent that Hephaistion was actually cremated in Babylon before Alexander's death. So, here I am wondering about embalming, and obviously whether the body/bones at Amphipolis could have been embalmed. No insistence on it being Hephaistion though, just my own musings - I'm not such a fool to think I know anything for sure about the body in the tomb

Quick edit as posts have been made since I starting writing this. Thanks Xenophon for the information provided.

Best regards,

[agesilaos]

Without re-hashing the whole pyre thread, it must be bourne in mind that the two mentions of the 'Pyra' occur in two separate books, XVII based on Kleitarchos, possibly directly, in which case as a non eye-witness he possibly took his description from Ephippos' pamphlet and Book XVIII which is probably based on Hieronymos of Kardia (possibly via an intermediate source), the fantasist clearly describes a pyre for burning and the tradition based upon his works continued to as evidenced by Polyainos; the probable eye-witness of events in Babylon says it was not built and the structure described by Diodoros would have required the hand of God to both build and then erase completely from the archaeological record.

Something must have happened to Hephaistion's corpse, however, so either it was cremated at Ekbatana and the 'soma' Perdikkas carried to Babylon should be understood as 'earthly remains' or he was embalmed by those who would later embalm Alexander, although whilst the continuity of the competitors at the funeral games is commented upon this is not.

I think one would be able to detect honey, they discovered the food stuffs left at the tombs of the Phrygian kings (won't say Midas) and analysed them and I think honey was among the offerings.