The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[Alexias]

Thank you, Efstathios and gped, for the translations.

Pic of the bones here http://www.tovima.gr/en/article/?aid=655264, plus the info that the grave was constructed before the tomb.

[gepd]

Photos of the entablatures found behind the sphinxes. They show at least a male and female figure, a bull and winged creatures.

http://www.yppo.gr/2/g22.jsp?obj_id=59295

[Zebedee]

The tripod object to the right of the winged figure seems very similar to my eyes to those depicted in association with Apollo. (eg as seen on coinage of Philippi)

[Alexias]

It looks like the man and woman are dancing. If the bull is central, does this mean it is associated with Zeus? Or could be just be a sacrificial processon?

[system1988]

Possibly the second one. Anyway its really very very rare a representation full frontal of a bull (if i see well) and its a evidence of a new concept in painting.

[Efstathios]

This is one of the seven parts of the entablature, and they haven't told us if it's the one in the center. The bull can be seen everywhere in ancient Greece and it isn't clear here if the figures are dancing around it or are ready to sacrifice it.

[system1988]

My dear fellow the bull is a usual figure in the art of ancient Greece from the Minoan era. I was simply refering to the bull being presented in a frontal way as being rare occurence in painting.

[Efstathios]

Yes, the bull at least from what we can see follows a similar style to the mosaic, there is depth in the image.

[speople]

Whilst there are theories as to whom the tomb was built for, who is actually inside it, and when it was sealed and why, I have yet to see one even remotely plausible explanation for the state of the skeleton.

The tomb was open for visitation (though on what basis no one will eve know now), but did the visitors know someone was actually buried there ?
The remains were found both inside and outside of the grave cist, which means that barring something miraculous happening, that's exactly how they were left.

The general consensus is that as well as taking a lot of time, and money to build. It's also taken a group of people a lot of time and trouble to seal it all up.

That the sphinx head and wings are SO far inside the complex almost certainly means they were deliberately placed there. The same with the missing fragments of the mosaic. (As if collecting up all the broken fragments that belonged to the complex so that they "stay with it". This to me shows a huge amount of respect for who was interred). Now then, we have all this care shown, but yet the remains are left strewn around instead of collected together too. This seems VERY odd, and I have yet to see a credible explanation as to why the tomb's sealers would leave the skeleton in such a state and yet seal everything up nice and neatly. It simply doesn't make sense.

Re Olympias: It is reported that she was killed following the siege of Pydna. That part of the terms for her surrender were the sparing of her life and that of Alexander IV and his mother. Cassander didn't honour the terms and reportedly ordered his soldiers to kill her, however, reportedly, they refused to kill the mother of ATG, which is why it is reported that she was stoned by ordinary people instead and then denied the rights of a proper burial. Alexander IV and his mother were reportedly taken to Amphipolis and held prisoner.

Where the murdering of Olympias took place is not documented, but I'm of the opinion that it was probably @ Pydna upon her surrender. I don't know how far Pydna is from Amphipolis, but regardless, given Cassander's profile at the time, it seems unlikely that he'd then let people build the biggest tomb ever constructed in Greece in such a major city at the time as Amphipolis as a place to pay homage to her.

[Zebedee]

This seems VERY odd, and I have yet to see a credible explanation as to why the tomb's sealers would leave the skeleton in such a state and yet seal everything up nice and neatly. It simply doesn't make sense.

If it were the Romans who sealed the tomb, then one could posit something along the lines of ritual pollution etc etc as a reason for not handling (or even viewing!) the skeleton. There are certainly sufficient paradoxes within Roman treatment of the dead for me to not see too great a mystery, although I definitely agree it would be a little perplexing by modern standards to find such behaviour.

----

The vague figures are proving to be something of a Rorschach test for interpretation at the moment. Quite enjoyable looking round at what different people are saying they can see - from the Apis bull to centaurs to Nike.

[Paralus]

The vague figures are proving to be something of a Rorschach test for interpretation at the moment. Quite enjoyable looking round at what different people are saying they can see - from the Apis bull to centaurs to Nike.

Yes, absolutely agree on the Rorschach test. On the skeleton, I think (without reading all the way back) that there's a suggestion (by one or more involved) the cyst burial post dates the monument?

[agesilaos]

The cist may PRE-date the tomb, is the suggestion but it is more likely that it was simply the first stage of the tomb IMHO; towhit, the cist tomb was built and then the floor layed, it protrudes from the floor so that sequence seems sound, then a wooden 'sarcophagos' was placed over the grave, disguising the cheaper stone of the cist (not unusual in building, what the eye don't see...) ; 'earlier', need not mean more.

Tabboos against touching the dead are only relevant for non-slave owning communities; the rancid corpses of both Philip III and Eurydike/Adea were disinterred and re-buried by Kassandros, no doubt via the agency of Thracian (or some such) slaves. Until the details of the dating evidence from the fill and the strata of the mound and the position and state of the skeleton are released we are merely urinating into the wind; sadly it looks like we will have to wait for years until this happens

[Xenophon]

One obvious factor seemingly not so far considered is the possibility that the disarticulated skeleton, a pile of loose bones, was not necessarily the subject of 'desecration', but rather the state in which it was found might be the result of repeated seismic activity down the centuries - a factor which may explain other 'mysteries' associated with the tomb.

[agesilaos]

I refer the learned gentleman to my post of 11 November page 42 of the thread; I agree 'desecration' seems a fanciful and rather extreme explanation, which does not fit the evidence well IMHO.

[Xenophon]

I assume you are referring to your post of Nov 17 ( rather than the several of 11 Nov ) ?
You briefly referred to the possibility in a single sentence:
Agesilaos wrote Nov 17:

The skeleton being both in an out of the grave may be accounted for by the seismic activity rather than any 'desecration'.

I, and doubtless most people if not all, had forgotten this among the now hundreds of thousands of words......my apologies.
Perhaps though it is as well to remind everyone of this possibility.

Iapetos wrote [p.43,Nov 17 as an afterthought to some splendid photos]

after the great Thessaloniki earthquake (7.1 on the Richter scale).
And as we are in the topic of earthquakes. I've been through quite a few in my short life (Greece is verrrrrry shaky as you know), but at no time have I seen things "jumping up" and out of containers... Most things during an earthquake, usually follow the shortest (and quickest) route to the center of the Earth... so they drop...
@Agesilaos
There is no way bones could jump up (1.8 meters) and out of a tomb. The magnitude of an earthquake that could cause that would have leveled the whole of Macedonia (at least the middle & eastern part of it) and most of the rest of Greece....

To which you responded....[P.43, Nov 17]

Not quite what I was thinking, rather another example of the 'Brazil nut effect'; once the wooden coffin had rotted away, along with the flesh, the bones would be free in the fill and, since the stones did not seal the grave - two were missing, in the report I read - the bones could migrate out of the grave. not in one mad rush but gradually as the earthquakes came and went, until the fill solidified, if it did. I can assure that I am well aware of gravity and how it works having been a victim on several occaisions Though generally as a result of mixing chemistry with physics!

...and Iapetos wrote....

@agesilaos
I can accept bones moving up the soil column, but these were found outside the physical boundaries of the cyst... So I don't accept natural/physical causes as the reason...

...and you wrote....

My understanding is that the cyst was not fully sealed, Iapetos, so that some bones below the opening could have moved out of the grave naturally; better details of how the remains were disposed could easily disprove this of course.

....after which the discussion moved on. There was a link to a short news item on moving the bones, from which we learnt that some of the bones were fragmented, that the bones were treated so as to avoid contamination, and removed complete with the soil they were buried in. But whence came Iapetos' figure of 1.8 metres rise? (see above)So did details of how the skeleton was 'in situ' actually emerge? Can anyone add these details?
The tantalising few details - that the whole thing was embedded in soil - suggests to me that Granular Convection ( a.k.a the Brazil nut effect ) is a more likely explanation for this phenomenon than some human agency. ( I referred to this effect previously).

As Agesilaos said, we definitely need more information on this aspect of the finding and actual location of the skeleton parts.......