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
I have , partially at least, answered some of my own questions, and here are some snippets of information taken from Greek News reprts, mostly the "Greek Reporter", as can be seen from the links. Comments and clarifications in square brackets are mine.
The Ministry’s general secretary Lina Mendoni told journalists that the skeleton was found in fragments, but most of it has been found. The skull was located outside of the burial opening, while the pelvis bone, which could indicate the deceased’s gender, was found in pieces. In conjunction with the fact that no burial offerings have been found, it is believed that the tomb was probably open to the public and looted in the past.
Civil engineer Dimitris Eglezos told journalists that the artificial opening beneath the tomb\s third chamber, where the skeleton was discovered, was constructed prior to the dome[vault] itself. There is no indication, so far, as to the time difference between the construction of the opening and the tomb. Additionally, the yard [peribolos] surrounding the tomb[mound] was likely destroyed in the post-Roman era, with various pieces later used for other purposes.
During the press conference it was also announced that coins were found during the excavations bearing the face of Alexander the Great, along with other coins dating to the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC.
18 Nov 2014
Culture Ministry official Lina Mendoni says it could take more than eight months for experts to complete test on the human remains found in the ancient tomb being excavated in Amphipolis, northern Greece.
The ministry’s general secretary told Skai TV that authorities have not yet assigned the task of conducting the tests to a university or other organisation.
Mendoni said that most of the field work at Amphipolis has been completed but that archaeologists still had plenty of work ahead in terms of assessing what has been found at the site.
Archaeologists are discussing the possibility of comparing the DNA of the remains from the tomb in Vergina of Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, with the remains found in Amphipolis.
Mendoni said the challenge was no easy one as the bones found at Amphipolis had been burned [ This is contradicted elsewhere. Published photos seem to show unburnt bones. Perhaps this a misprint/mistake and should read "Vergina"] and the remains at Vergina were discovered more than 50 years ago [ Actually not true. Andronikos excavated the “Philip Tomb” in 1977/78, just 37 years ago] when conservation procedures were less thorough.[We have discussed the likely difficulties of recovering DNA from cremated remains earlier.]
The grave was found 1.60 metres beneath the third chamber floor. The outer dimensions are 3.23 metres by 1.56 metres and inside the grave there is a hollow part 0.54 metres wide and 2.35 metres long. It is estimated that the height [actually internal length, which some have described as the height of the occupant] of the grave was 1.80 metres. Also, the total height from bottom[of the grave] to ceiling[vault of chamber 3] is 8.90 metres.
Archaeologists have announced that inside the grave there was a wooden coffin containing a whole human skeleton. The implication of the coffin derives from the fact that inside the grave there were about 20 iron and copper nails and several coffin decorations made of bone and glass.[ No wood survives]
Inside the grave, the human skeleton found was almost intact. The skeleton will be transferred to a laboratory for a DNA test to determine the sex and age of the dead.
Reporters asked several questions on the identity of the skeleton found and the condition it was found in. “The bones were found inside and outside the burial pit,” said General Secretary of Culture Lina Mendoni. “The skull was quite some distance [ A foot? A metre? More?] away from the pit, the lower jaw was just outside the pit and the largest part of the skeleton was inside the pit. A close look shows that the legs and arms are almost intact, rib bones and parts of the spine as well as the pelvic bones are in fragmentary condition, therefore it is impossible for archaeologists to say if they belong to a man or a woman.” -
See more at: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2014/12 ... UcMdz.dpuf
I would suggest this supports the idea that the 'Brazil nut effect' was the cause - the globular skull would be the bone most likely to rise. photos show that the grave was almost completely open when found, with only one covering slab in place.
Nov 30
Katerina Peristeri who led the excavation process at Amphipolis Tomb and head of the Antiquities Ephorate in Serres, northern Greece spoke about the excavation. Meanwhile, ministry officials noted that this will be the final press conference regarding the excavation, as archaeologists are now ready to begin their research.
Peristeri made special reference to the time that her team found the Caryatids, expressing her emotions. She noted that according to her assessment when the tomb chamber that hosted the Caryatids filled with sand, one of the beams fell, thus destroying the face of the magnificent statue.
- See more at: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2014/11 ... 0w64q.dpuf
For some lighter entertainment, see Andrew Chugg/Taphoi's recent article ( the seventh !!) in the "Greek Reporter" in his unrelenting efforts to champion his increasingly unlikely postulation that the occupant is Olympias !! The unsupported assertions and Eric Von Daniken style arguments are most entertaining !!
Xenophon wrote:For some lighter entertainment, see Andrew Chugg/Taphoi's recent article ( the seventh !!) in the "Greek Reporter" in his unrelenting efforts to champion his increasingly unlikely postulation that the occupant is Olympias !! The unsupported assertions and Eric Von Daniken style arguments are most entertaining !!
I don't charge terribly much for the use of intellectual property! It is indeed 'lighter entertainment'.
It of course does nothing of the sort. As usual, any and all counter evidence is ignored.
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.
That coins of 2nd century BC were within the tomb, explodes the whole fantasy. The sealing was much later than Kassandros' reign. Nor does the usual cod linguistic explanation wash, covering the body with three handfuls of earth sufficed for a ritual, hence the dread of dying at sea, Aeneas' helmsman gets a long lament in the Aeneid, I think.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Perhaps Kassandros was a time traveler? Taken by Von Daniken's aliens he returns to desecrate the tomb a century or more later? One might only imagine what is in the other six parts.
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.
agesilaos wrote:That coins of 2nd century BC were within the tomb, explodes the whole fantasy. The sealing was much later than Kassandros' reign. Nor does the usual cod linguistic explanation wash, covering the body with three handfuls of earth sufficed for a ritual, hence the dread of dying at sea, Aeneas' helmsman gets a long lament in the Aeneid, I think.
On a cautionary note, I don't recall reading anywhere that the coins specifically came from within the tomb. Rather that they came from "the excavations", which is rather vague and could refer to the excavations generally, and hence the coins could have been found outside the tomb. In addition I read a 'throwaway' quotation that casually remarked that they had found "thousands" of shards of pottery, which they hadn't even looked at or examined as yet. That sort of quantity won't have come from within the tomb. It is an important find though, for as and when they are examined in detail, they will reveal all the dating evidence for the mound that anyone could wish, and perhaps for the tomb too, if some of the shards came from within, though one gets the impression that the interior of the tomb was pretty bare of artifacts - obviously long since looted in antiquity.
Here they say that pottery and coins were found 'in the chambers', but this may not be accurate, of course!
It would be surprising if all the dating evidence came from outside. Notice this report mentions Alphas and Etas(?) on the peribolos and has Lefantzis stating they are construction marks common to the era (though not specifying the 'era') which other summaries seem to have missed.
I would not immediately assume all the treasures have been looted; donning my rose tinted spectacles, after a good dusting, it is possible that artefacts have been removed to other chambers in the complex (I cannot believe a mound the size of Kastas covers only one little tomb at one edge); pieces of the sphinx and probably the Lion Monument were clearly moved into the Tomb for preservation indicating some care and concern prior to sealing. Looters are not normally successful in finding every artefact. It may also have been the case that an attempt was made to move the wooden coffin (the decoration found seems insufficient for a complete casket, although they may not have displayed everything, of course). It may be that it collapsed when lifted depositing the skeleton both in and out of the grave, it would not take much for the Greeks to conclude that the occupant did not wish to leave the Tomb and to let the bones rest as they fell (a sneeze would suffice!). Fanciful, certainly, but pending full disclosure of the finds and their positions within the fill, possible.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Pottery or coins in the chambers fill may have nothing to do with the construction period of the chambers. All these may have been transported from the region that the fill material was acquired. They may only indicate the last period the place was open to visitors (or looters). I think a precise dating of the interior will only be based on the peribolos dating, due to the fact that the wall structure of the peribolos seems to evolve into the chambers (so they seem like a unique construction). I still cannot understand why the mosaic excludes later dating than 300 BC, maybe somebody can explain that?
Roman coins and a crane have definitely been discovered at the peribolos excavations before 2014. Regarding the coins, that information was available to us from conference presentations in 2013 and 2014 (I think) and by a journalist who interviewed excavator before 2012. The finding of the the base of a roman crane was announced few weeks ago. They assume that this crane was used to dismantle the wall, not construct it. That is a natural assumption if they are certain that independent evidence support a 4th century BC dating for the construction of the wall.
Where did it say the mosaic had to be pre 300BC? It looks later to me, but Xenophon is the one who studied them; I don't think arguments from style can ever be so precise. The coins may have been brought in with the fill but they still providea terminus post-quem for the fill, no one can drop a coin that has yet to be minted. Carbon dating of the skeleton and the coffin remains will date the construction most securely within a range, coins and ceramics only provide dates after which things must have happened; the Panathenaic Krater found in the so-called Tomb of Eurydike, dated to 344 BC but it could have been an antique when interred, other factors make it unlikely it was much older than when it was made but we do not have corresponding evidence at Kasta (at least it has not been released).
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
I can see this in many statements, from the excavator or the secretary of the ministry, that the mosaic confirms the dating conclusions (something to do with the use of pebbles?)
Pebble mosaics can be found at Tiryns c1200 BC and were not replaced by tessarated ones until sometime in the third century (those at Pella combine a main design worked in pebbles and detailed work in tesserae), this is not dating confirmation, but a further example of agenda based statements; it could be last quarter of the Fourth Century therefore it is and let's ignore the fact that the style persisted into the third century There is a world of difference between 'not contradicting' the dating and 'confirming' it.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Yes the dating evidence are not firm, but then we have the monument being also a heroon. Now, i am assuming that they came to this conclusion cause of the marble doors that show marks that suggest they were opened more than once, the various pottery found inside, the lion on top, and other possible evidence. So, was there someone that was heroified after Alexander and Hephaestion and had a cult? Ptolemy was deified like a Pharaoh but he was in Egypt. And Antigonus and Demetrius were honored in Athens with an altar and maybe statues, but there is no record of them having a cult. And if they did would their heroon be at Amphipolis? The city is linked with various events, but maybe the most notable one regarding the hellenistic period was that it was where the fleet was costructed (by Hephaestion) and the base from which Alexander started both
his campaigns. Also, the lion was looking to the South East, towards Persia maybe, thus indicating someone that was at Alexander's campaign.
"Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks."
Sir Winston Churchill, 1941.
Antogonas Gonatas is known to have had a cult at Rhamnous near Athens and Philip V had a cult name 'Soter' making it likely that the Antigonids were the object of ruler-cults just as much as the contemporary Lagids, Seleukids and Attalids (not to mention other divinised dynasts on Kypros and other islands)
Once one lets go of the suppose 323-300 dating a much more plausible context arises, more in line with the numismatic, 3rd century BC, evidence and the more developed mosaic technique. The Athenian hymn to Demetrios also praises him for taming the Sphinx! The Aetolians in this case, but clearly an analogy open to any raiders - Gonatas defeated the Gauls at Lysimachaia. Possibly an explanation of the sphinxes, as a dynastic badge rather than his personal one; I do not believe the skeleton is Gonatas, the knees would have given it away!
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Efstathios wrote: The city is linked with various events, but maybe the most notable one regarding the hellenistic period was that it was where the fleet was costructed (by Hephaestion) and the base from which Alexander started both
his campaigns. Also, the lion was looking to the South East, towards Persia maybe, thus indicating someone that was at Alexander's campaign.
Sorry, what's the evidence that Hephaestion constructed Alexander's invasion fleet? He commanded the supporting fleet for the invasion of Egypt, and constructed boats to cross the Euphrates and Indus. I didn't think he had any connection with Amphipolis which, IMHO, makes it unlikely the monument has anything to do with him.
agesilaos wrote:Antogonas Gonatas is known to have had a cult at Rhamnous near Athens and Philip V had a cult name 'Soter' making it likely that the Antigonids were the object of ruler-cults just as much as the contemporary Lagids, Seleukids and Attalids (not to mention other divinised dynasts on Kypros and other islands)
Once one lets go of the suppose 323-300 dating a much more plausible context arises, more in line with the numismatic, 3rd century BC, evidence and the more developed mosaic technique. The Athenian hymn to Demetrios also praises him for taming the Sphinx! The Aetolians in this case, but clearly an analogy open to any raiders - Gonatas defeated the Gauls at Lysimachaia. Possibly an explanation of the sphinxes, as a dynastic badge rather than his personal one; I do not believe the skeleton is Gonatas, the knees would have given it away!
Mari gives the evidence for Macedonian ruler cults in this essay: https://www.academia.edu/3403174/The_Ru ... _Macedonia
(Will come as no surprise that Amphipolis repeatedly crops up as a most peculiar place in this regard.)
The relief she mentions in footnote #68 may not be useful for her to consider, but it did raise my eyebrows when I re-read the essay a few months back.
Very interesting, particularly the section on the Antigonid cult, which seems firmly rooted around and in Amphipolis, and the association of at least two Egyptian cults within the city and Isis and Serapis with a Philip, probably V. This seems a better reason for the Sphinxes than those previously advanced, having the benefit of being based on archaeological finds from Amphipolis rather than mere speculation. The facing of the Lion towards Asia may symbolise the Antigonid ambition to re-conquer their former Asian Empire rather than any echo of Alexander's expedition.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
There is a world of difference between 'not contradicting' the dating and 'confirming' it.