The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[Taphoi]

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.

Clearly the Athenian stade was 600 foot. However the bematist's stade was equally clearly 100 paces. It can accurately be measured at 157m because we have the stathmoi from Alexander's expedition and many of the places have known locations today. (It was derived by Fred Hoyle, Astronomy, Rathbone Books Limited, London 1962.) That would be a foot of only 26cm (extraordinarily small and well below the normal range) and I don't quite follow you on your apparent concept of the bematists pacing the route by putting their feet down heel to toe repeatedly: it is a rather comic picture that you conjure up by suggesting they did that Worthy of Horrible Histories!
Mahmoud Bey's value for a stade in Alexandria is accurate, because he actually excavated the ancient grid of streets and showed that they were repeated regularly both NW-SE and SW-NE. However a value for the circumference of the walls taken from his map will be inaccurate, because he only excavated the walls on the eastern and southern sides. He himself says he inferred (guessed) the course of the walls in the west in particular. I don't really understand your apparent premise that Mahmoud Bey was either entirely accurate or entirely inaccurate. In fact he was either inaccurate or accurate depending on how good and complete his evidence and analysis were.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[gepd]

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.

Clearly the Athenian stade was 600 foot. However the bematist's stade was equally clearly 100 paces. It can accurately be measured at 157m because we have the stathmoi from Alexander's expedition and many of the places have known locations today. (It was derived by Fred Hoyle, Astronomy, Rathbone Books Limited, London 1962.) That would be a foot of only 26cm (extraordinarily small and well below the normal range) and I don't quite follow you on your apparent concept of the bematists pacing the route by putting their feet down heel to toe repeatedly: it is a rather comic picture that you conjure up by suggesting they did that Worthy of Horrible Histories!
Mahmoud Bey's value for a stade in Alexandria is accurate, because he actually excavated the ancient grid of streets and showed that they were repeated regularly both NW-SE and SW-NE. However a value for the circumference of the walls taken from his map will be inaccurate, because he only excavated the walls on the eastern and southern sides. He himself says he inferred (guessed) the course of the walls in the west in particular. I don't really understand your apparent premise that Mahmoud Bey was either entirely accurate or entirely inaccurate. In fact he was either inaccurate or accurate depending on how good and complete his evidence and analysis were.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Thanks for the info Andrew: I gather that the exact value of the stade could vary a bit depending which reference one uses, however a motivation for one of my earlier comments was on your statement that an indirect link to Deinocrates would be the use of 1 stade a typical measurement unit for the peribolos/tumulus construction. Even if that unit is 157 meters (ie. Athenian stade as you say, Egyptian as I read elsewhere) how does it become specific to Dinocrates? If one would "associate" a unit with Dinocrates (and even that sounds a bit strange), it would be the Alexandrian stade, which is around 165-167 m, based on Mahmud Bey and other references I came across. Am I missing something?

[Xenophon]

Gepd wrote:

Am I missing something?

...I don't think so. Agesilaos is quite right that a 'stadion' was always 600 Greek feet/'pous' but that the Greek foot varied considerably - over half a dozen measures are known varying from the 'Attic' foot of 294-296 mm, through the 'Salamine' foot of 306-307 mm, to the 'Doric' foot ( commonly in use in Macedonia) of 326-328 mm to the Samian-Ionian- Egyptian foot of around 348 mm.The 'Attic', 'Doric' and 'Samian-Ionian-Egyptian' measures were the most common and widespread.

The race track for athletics in ancient Greece was one 'stadion' long, and six extant race tracks can be accurately measured. Unsurprisingly, they are all slightly different, depending on the foot/'pous' unit utilised !! They are as follows :-
Olympia : 192.27 metres based on a foot of around 320.7 mm
Epidauros: 181.3 metres based on a foot of around 302.3 mm
Priene : 191.39 metres based on a foot of around 318.9 mm
Miletus : 177.36 metres based on a foot of around 295.2 mm
Delphi : 177.55 metres based on a foot of around 296.3 mm
Athens : 184.96 metres based on a foot of around 308.6 mm - note this is not the so-called 'Attic' foot, but a 'foot of
kyrenaika', also called 'Attic-Olympic foot'. The 'Doric' foot and others were also widely used in Athens.

The margin of error/accuracy in these ancient 'stadia' is quite good, varying from a mere 0.3 % at Priene to 1.4 % at Miletus, with most around 1 %.

It was not uncommon for architects to use 'combined' measures on large projects, e.g the monument of Lysicrates built in Athens circa 330 BC works out in both 'Attic' and 'Doric' feet - this was presumably for the benefit of craftsmen from different parts used to working in a particular measure, and several other monuments work out in whole number units of three or four different measures, though the majority use only a single measure!

It is not possible therefore to associate a particular measure with a particular architect, just as you thought, for they might have to use 'local' measures for a particular project. A greek architect going to Alexandria to build something, for example, might be required to work in Macedonian 'Doric feet', or the 'Samian-Ionian-Egyptian foot' or even design something that used the two 'combined'.

[Xenophon]

Taphoi wrote:

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

As Efstathios has pointed out, the reference to Olympias can only be the mother of Alexander, because the family descent as 'Aeacids' is referred to quite specifically in the inscriptions, which is a rather large oversight on your part when postulating 'some other Olympias', which argument you have tried to run previously in this thread, but I don't think you convinced anyone.

This issue was explored earlier in this now humungous thread, not so long ago. Nor did anyone state that the tomb of Olympus was definitely at Pydna - you yourself complained of this very thing, people misquoting by changing a 'probable' into a 'definite'. In short neither Agesilaos, nor myself, nor Efstathios, nor even Amyntoros back in the 2006 thread or here "propagated an untruth". It would appear the only one propagating an untruth is you in maligning others !!

For the record:

Agesilaos wrote page.2 20 August

Indeed the link to Charles Edson's paper is here http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/pdf/uploads/hesperia/146994.pdf her tomb seems to have been at Pydna where she died.

(my emphasis )

I wrote:

there is very suggestive archaeological evidence that Olympias was buried at Pydna, from inscription fragments from the tombs of her descendants. ( her family settled there subsequently).

....and on page 10; Sept 9 I quoted Edson at length ( repeated here to save current readers trawling back ):
Xenophon wrote p.10 Sept 9

..not to mention that there is archaeological evidence that suggests Olympias was buried somewhere close to Pydna.
From the 1930's onward, fragments of funeral epigraphy, clearly suggested that Olympias' Epirote family ( the Aeacids) had moved to Pydna, lived there for generations, died and been buried there.

"After the execution of Olympias at Pydna, Cassander, according to Diodorus [Diodorus, XVII.118.2] and Porphyry, refused her body proper burial and caused it to be cast into the open.But there were surely those in Macedonia who would see to it that the corpse of the mother of the great king received interment, however informal. Because of the circumstances it is understandable that the initial and necessarily surreptitious burial should have been at or nearPydna. Given Cassander's notorious hatred for Olympias, it is unlikely that a formal tomb was constructed for the queen's body during his reign or even during that of his sons, that is, from 316 down to 294 B.C. The terminus ante quem for the construction of Olympias' tomb is the years 288 to 285 B.C. during which Pyrrhus of Epirus, himself of course an Aeacid, ruled the western half of Macedonia within which Pydna was situated. Pyrrhus would surely have seen to it that the body of his famous cousin received proper burial, had such burial not already taken place during the short reign of Demetrius I (294-288 B.C.)..........Our knowledge of the internal history of the Epirote monarchy after the death of Pyrrhus in 273 is too slight to permit anything save conjecture. The relations between Antigonid Macedonia and King Alexander II of Epirus (273-ca. 240 B.C.) were ordinarily hostile or at best strained. Conceivably there can have been quarrels within the Aeacid house which caused some of its members to flee to Macedonia. But for this there is no evidence at all. There is one occasion, however, which would motivate the appearance of members of the Epirote royal family in Macedonia. Shortly before 229 B.C. the dynasty in Epirus was overthrown by a popular revolution and its members put to death. At this time the wife of Demetrius II, king of Macedonia, was the Aeacid princess, Phthia. Had any members of the Aeacid house-small children, for example-lived through the revolution, Demetrius II would have made every effort to save them and to give them refuge in Macedonia. And nothing would have been more appropriate than for the Aeacid survivor or survivors to have received a land grant from the Macedonian king at the place where was located the tomb of Olympias, the most celebrated of Aeacid princesses. I suggest, though there can as yet be no certainty on the matter, that it became the custom for the Aeacid family after settling at Makriyialos[Pydna] to bury their dead in the immediate vicinity of Olympias' tomb. This explanation best motivates the mention of the tomb in Oikonomos' fragmentary epigram and adds point to the claim to descent from Olympias made in the epitaph for Alcimachus." Charles Edson.

With two fragmentary references to Olympias and her tomb implying that it was nearby, that is strong evidence that Olympias' tomb ( most likely a modest one) is at Pydna, undiscovered. That, of course is exactly what we should expect......

Then followed your unconvincing attempt to discredit Edson's conclusions, and the equally unconvincing 'coulda been some other Olympias' argument.....

We do not need to re-rehearse this portion of the discussion, and everyone is aware that you will cling to your"Olympias" hypothesis long after reason and probability dictate otherwise, especially as the occupant's skeleton is unlikely to be identified beyond doubt.

Not expecting anything significant in the announcement due later, but the cheery optimist always pops up with a "Well, you never know....."

[Taphoi]

Thanks for the info Andrew: I gather that the exact value of the stade could vary a bit depending which reference one uses, however a motivation for one of my earlier comments was on your statement that an indirect link to Deinocrates would be the use of 1 stade a typical measurement unit for the peribolos/tumulus construction. Even if that unit is 157 meters (ie. Athenian stade as you say, Egyptian as I read elsewhere) how does it become specific to Dinocrates? If one would "associate" a unit with Dinocrates (and even that sounds a bit strange), it would be the Alexandrian stade, which is around 165-167 m, based on Mahmud Bey and other references I came across. Am I missing something?

Just to clarify this, I am saying that the architect of the Kasta Mound designed it to have a diameter equal to the Bematist's stade of 100 paces. A bematist's stade could not be measured in feet, because it was impractical to do heel to toe measurements across thousands of miles. Instead, they used 100 paces. That is clearly shown by the size of a bematist's stade, which is much smaller than the 600 foot stades used by various cities. However, it also seems that the Alexandrian stade was a hundred paces, because it is closer to the 100 pace stade than the 600 foot stades. That is a slight link with Deinocrates - it slightly suggests that he paced out the dimensions of Alexandria. It is also a slight connection between the Kasta Mound and Deinocrates, but I would not afford this any great weight. More tangibly, Deinocrates is associated with projects that were intended to impress through extraordinary size: that is quite a good reason to suspect Deinocrates in the case of the Kasta Mound. We can say that an illustrious Greek architect designed the Kasta Mound with a 100 pace diameter deliberately to impress through size and through a planned size of exactly one of Alexander's bematists' stades.

On other points above: many people including Dorothy King have stated that Edson's paper proves that Olympias's tomb was at Pydna - they do not say that it is merely "suggestive of" that (and even to say "suggestive of" massively overstates the truth). However, I am glad that we have finally agreed here in Pothos that Edson's paper does not prove that Olympias's tomb was at Pydna.

Olympias II also had Aeacid ancestry. And Aeacid ancestry was probably claimed by huge numbers of descendants hundreds of years after Alexander's time when the inscriptions found in the vague vicinity of Pydna and used by Edson were carved.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[Efstathios]

11.25 GMT+2 Mrs Peristeri started her presentation.

I will be updating this post as the news keep coming. If you find an live report in english let me know.

11.28 The locals were talking about the tomb of a Queen, we uncovered the perivolos. (mention to Lazaridis was made earlier).

[gepd]

Τhanks Stathis. I can also try to help with that

First info is that they discovered elements of roman crane + roads, that was used to dismantle the peribolos.

Live updates here (maybe you are using those?)

http://www.protothema.gr/culture/articl ... oinoseon-/
http://www.newsit.gr/default.php?pname= ... 29&catid=3

[Efstathios]

Yes, the newsit one.

[Efstathios]

Mrs Peristeri showed a photo of a marble piece of the epistyle on the top of the Karyatids that fell and destroyed the karyatids face, so vandalism is excluded for this statue.

We do not know whom the remains belong to (no mention on gender).

Mrs Peristeris' presentation is finished. Mr Lefantzis starting his.

He mentions that in 1916 a british brigade was preparing to move 1000 pieces of the perivolos and the lion to England. Bulgarians and Austirans attacked the ships that sank at Strymon and the pieces were at the bottom of the river.

In his oppinion the reconstruction of the base of the lion by Broneer was not correct.

He also reveals that people of the area are returning pieces of the perivolos that had in their houses, the findings keep getting more.

Perivolos from the top down seems a circle but its eliptical and has a vertical angle from North to South.

Question about the letters at the perivolos pieces and they are from the same date as it's construction. Mr Lefantzis said that it's currently under research.

The lion was facing to the Southeast.

He is showing representations of how they constructed the monument.

The sealing of the tomb must have took place after the destruction of the perivolos during the Roman years.

Edit: I am posting this info from a greek forum from someone that is probably inside the presentation.

Mr Englezos, Civil Engineer, says that the monument is a technical "cut and cover" construction.

Mr Englezos is now explaining the support techniques.

When they entered the 3rd room ten pieces from the sealing fell, and it was the most difficult to support.

The burial chamber was constructed before the mound was raised. It would have been technically impossible for the trench to have been constructed after.

Mrs Peristeri in her second speech is now presenting pictures of the Skeleton.

Questions time by the reporters.

Mr Lefantzis said that the third room was re-constructed at a later time as there is repositioning of materials.

Mrs Persiteri said that given the lion on top it could be one of Alexander's Generals.

Also, the monument was initially open for visits, and there were lootings. The monument was sealed with sand and the walls at the same time. The openings on top in the rooms were used for the sealing with sand.

There are sources that indicate that Alexander wanted to build a large monument.

Items and coins have been found inside the rooms from different periods and up to the 3rd century A.D.

Mr Lefantzis said that the monument is unique, in it's own category.

Photo of the remains.


The monument was designed and constructed by one architect only said mr. Lefantzis.

The excavation will continue, this was the first phase.

They will have a picture by the geo-survey results in about 2-3 months.

Deinocrates is not related with the tomb of Alexander, however if he is the architect of this monument is a different hypothesis. The monument required large amounts of money.

Mrs Peristeri: In the epistyles we can see color. We gathered the pieces and we are trying to discern figures and faces. We will work with laser technology. There hasn't been ultra violet imaging yet to determine their dating, we need time.

Mr Lefantzis said that there were found pieces of the original base of the lion that have sculpted embossed shileds.

Mrs Peristeri did not exclude the possibility that the remains are of Alexander the Great, or of someone of his family, she said nothing can be excluded and nothing can be said with certainty.

Mrs Mendoni intervenes and says that the skull was found outside of the trench, and there are many bones but the pelvis has been found in pieces because of stones that fell on it, that is why it is difficult to discern the gender.

Edit: My own remark, since the base of the lion monument had shields we are most possibly talking about a male.

The presentation and interview is finished.

[agesilaos]

No mention of Deinokrates,now and the last thing mentioned; coins of Alexander III found but no use for dating as in circulation for centuries, thus Alexander types but not lifetime issues. Falling members rather than vandalism/'desecration' and the thing is eliptical so not a stade in diameter at all!

I am more certain than ever that this is the Mausoleion of the Antigonid dynasty, the original dating only allows two options for occupant, AtG or Hephaistion, both of whom can be ruled out on logical grounds and historical probability, later, ruler cults were common; the good news is that there ought to be more tombs and some may be intact.

Which begs the question whose skeleton was found? Monopthalmos cannot have returned as an articulated skeleton and was most likely cremated by the victors after Ipsos, Demetrios Polioketes was definitely cremated and returned to Gonatas as ashes by Seleukos, Gonatas himself might be possible, he was influenced by certain philosophical schools which might have preffered inhumation over cremation. Demetrios II Aitolikos died after or in battle and was probably cremated, though as a very shodowy figure anything is possible. Antigonos II Doson died after battle too, but Philip V died of illness in Amphipolis! Perseus was no lover of his father, however, but post Kynoskephalai, Macedonia staged a dramatic recovery which allowed Perseus to be defeated commanding a much larger army than his father; the monument seems older though...which leaves Rhesos, but those bones must have been disarticulated and possibly not even human, the bones of Orestes taken from Tegaea by the Spartans may have been those of a prehistoric mammal

[Paralus]

Good work Stathi! Didn't realise you had stenography training!! Have to catch up in the morning: too bloody tired....

Agesilaos, don't waste the keystrokes: the intrepid Tombs is engaged in a journey of faith. Facts and faith do not mix.

[Efstathios]

Thanks Michael. The interview is not over yet, i am continually updating the post.

[Taphoi]

No mention of Deinokrates,now and the last thing mentioned; coins of Alexander III found but no use for dating as in circulation for centuries, thus Alexander types but not lifetime issues. Falling members rather than vandalism/'desecration' and the thing is eliptical so not a stade in diameter at all!

I am more certain than ever that this is the Mausoleion of the Antigonid dynasty, the original dating only allows two options for occupant, AtG or Hephaistion, both of whom can be ruled out on logical grounds and historical probability, later, ruler cults were common; the good news is that there ought to be more tombs and some may be intact.

Which begs the question whose skeleton was found? Monopthalmos cannot have returned as an articulated skeleton and was most likely cremated by the victors after Ipsos, Demetrios Polioketes was definitely cremated and returned to Gonatas as ashes by Seleukos, Gonatas himself might be possible, he was influenced by certain philosophical schools which might have preffered inhumation over cremation. Demetrios II Aitolikos died after or in battle and was probably cremated, though as a very shodowy figure anything is possible. Antigonos II Doson died after battle too, but Philip V died of illness in Amphipolis! Perseus was no lover of his father, however, but post Kynoskephalai, Macedonia staged a dramatic recovery which allowed Perseus to be defeated commanding a much larger army than his father; the monument seems older though...which leaves Rhesos, but those bones must have been disarticulated and possibly not even human, the bones of Orestes taken from Tegaea by the Spartans may have been those of a prehistoric mammal

There is a very high degree of confusion in the reports at the moment, so concluding anything is dangerous.
If the peribolos is elliptical, then it is only very slightly elliptical and it does not mean that either the major or minor axis was not a stade.
One thing that is clear is that they have in fact re-asserted a dating to the last quarter of the 4th century BC - seemingly linking this to the mosaic.
Some reports (e.g. above) are trying to say that they have said that Roman material was found in the rooms, but a more detailed quote elsewhere only has them saying that this material was found "in other places".
It is also clear that Katerina Peristeri has confirmed that she never said the skeleton was a man, but merely stated what she has been saying all along: that she thinks the lion is suggestive of one of Alexander's generals. This is not even news. People have been saying for over a hundred years that the lion is suggestive of one of Alexander's generals, which shows the complete confusion that creeps into some of the reporting on this matter.
We shall have to see whether any clarity emerges in the official versions of today's event. Certainly at the moment there is no distinction being made between evidence and speculation.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Zebedee]

the monument seems older though...which leaves Rhesos, but those bones must have been disarticulated and possibly not even human, the bones of Orestes taken from Tegaea by the Spartans may have been those of a prehistoric mammal

Yeah. Leaving Rhesos to one side, it is very suggestive of cult worship so far from what has been said? Which perhaps would have been noted for someone truly notable? No votives or anything found thus far though? There's at least one other burial site, not that far away to the NE from recollection, which mixes Macedonian and Thracian which seem to have been some form of veneration of ye truly old bones. Perhaps this is something similar? Although that one seems to have had a piping system to get wine/liquid offerings to inside the graves rather than being open for visiting.

Thanks to those following updates live and posting here, much appreciated, also reading through some twitter comments from various accounts about it.

[Efstathios]

Ok, time for a recap. The monument as seen from top down is a circle, it is eliptical in space in the vertical axis, it has an angle from North to South obviously for water drainage. The tomb was sealed at around the 3rd century A.D. The base of the lion monument has shields embossed. It further indicates a male burial. The monument was also a heroon.

I don't expect them to present everything they have now, and since it was an official presentation they were careful in making connections with names, such as Deinocrates. The connections have been made unofficially though. I think they have more evidence about the dating that couldn't be covered here as this was pretty much a recap of the present phase of the dig, but they will present them probably at an official archaeological convention.

More about the identity of the occupant will be known in the coming months, as they are preparing a team to analyze the remains. Also, it will take 2-3 months for the geo-survey to be concluded and studied.

It isn't only the mosaic and pebble floor that date the monument but also the amount of money needed for it's construction, so dates earlier than 325 B.C. can be excluded.