The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[Efstathios]

Interesting yes, but i don't see Antigonos or Philip V spending money for a monument that big for themselves. It's the uniqueness of the size and design of the monument that poses the questions here. There were several temples, heroons and statues in honor of heroes and kings, like Resos, Brasidas, Philip II e.t.c but i assume all of them would be a lot smaller. Thacian marble was expensive and the art that we see inside and outside of the monument is unique. The sphinxes are the only thing that has been found that could have any connection with Serapis, otherwise everything else, except for the Karyatids, is Macedonian style. But lacking enough evidence for the dating, it's a working hypothesis. And then we have Mrs. Peristeri that has been working in this area for years and should probably be aware of these various cults and temples, and insists on the dating up to 300 B.C.

[Zebedee]

The Egyptian cults in Macedonian Thrace seem to have been also in association with that of Heracles. (eg see Veymier's essay (in French) - https://www.academia.edu/673656/Les_cul ... _apr._J.-C._ ). Is that vague outline of a bull Cretan by any chance? Obviously later, you've got Harpocrates forming the third part of the trinity too. Veymiers puts forward the idea that the Antigonids may have been keen on this particular cult group.

Dating again though isn't it? Mari suggests that the earliest evidence (the stele to a priestess of Isis) is later than the late C4th but that clearly doesn't rule out the cult being there earlier even if she's correct. I think the problem with doing the Egyptian link to the sphinx is that we've indications of very similar sphinxes being used in Macedonia and Persia prior to this and a long time prior to the first indications of Egyptian cults taking root.

Whether it helps explain an inhumation would depend on whether there's any evidence for a mummification process having been carried out. Frustratingly short of information. The last press conference (in Paris) told us pretty much nothing even with direct questions asked on a few things.

[agesilaos]

It is, indeed the size that begs the question and neither Alexander's hated police chief nor his hated mother answer that question; it seems quite clear that such a mound will cover more than one tomb and that therefore we need to think in terms of a group rather than one individual. The scale is Royal which only leaves the Antigonids. Antigonos Gonatas would have the example of Ptolemy's family precinct and also the ashes of his father to deposit somewhere, so he would not be building something for himself but for the family. His reign is scantily reported, allowing for the monument to fall into the space between what was written and what has passed down to us. There is evidence of municipal and personal cults of the Antigonid king's in the area, possibly clustering there, perhaps around the official cultic centre.

Whether the sphinxes have any Egyptian link depends on whether the Macedonians distinguished between the two types, Greek, as here and Egyptian; I will hold fire there until I read Veymier. The imagery of the hymn to Demetrios as controlling the Sphinx of the Aetolians is suggestive too, yet no one will consider it due to the shibboleth of the 332-300 BC dating for which no evidence has emerged publicly and there is plenty of evidence of wishful thinking with the Deinokrates trope, now thankfully dropped.

Macedonian women were customarily inhumed so the occupant might be an Antigonid Queen, high status males were usually cremated but nothing else points to the sex. Since the arms and legs are described as intact, though we may once again rule out Olympias who, if stoned to death, would display multiple defensive fractures to the limbs.

[system1988]

A link, a bit hillarious maybe (the wings) and perhaps incorrect, but magnificent!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgm9yxJQDTw

Best

Pauline

[Xenophon]

As always, Pauline, a great post. The linked clip ( and others) are quite informative and helpful - even if some of the associated theories seem rather unlikely !

Many thanks !

[Xenophon]

Efstathios wrote:

Interesting yes, but i don't see Antigonos or Philip V spending money for a monument that big for themselves.

One might recall the similar mound at Vergina/Aigai covering the Royal tombs there. Whilst the tombs had been covered by individual mounds, the "Great Tumulus" had been heaped up at a later date. It consisted of a mixture of reddish soil, gravel, sand and unworked stones, in several layers. This spoil also contained a large number ( at least 40)of smashed grave stelai, dating back to 350 BC and earlier. The latest of the stelai dated to the beginning of the third century. I have not seen any reports of a definitive study of these. Andronikos correctly concluded that these violently destroyed grave stelai, occurring between 300 and 250 BC could most likely be attributed to the destruction and looting carried out by Pyrrhus of Epirus' Gallic mercenary garrison of Aigai in 274/3 BC, and referred to in Plutarch. It was this which encouraged Andronikos to continue searching in the tumulus for the Royal tombs - successfully from 1977 onward, as we know.

Quite clearly the "Great Tumulus" had been raised sometime after 273 in order to further protect the Royal tombs from a recurrence of the desecration. Andronikos thought the great tumulus had been erected most probably some time in the 50 years or so after 273.

Now if Antigonus Gonatas or one of his half dozen successors down to Perseus whose reign ended in 168 BC went to such trouble merely to protect the tombs of a previous dynasty, then surely they would take even more care of their own ?

Nor need the erection of an earth tumulus be an overly expensive proposition - it merely required large manpower with buckets and shovels to erect. Mind you, the massive marble perimeter wall must have been an expensive proposition, if only from its sheer size and volume of marble blocks.The actual tomb so far found is perfectly in keeping with the tombs of other Macedonian monarchs, and not overly grandiose.

Like Agesilaos, I put my money down early on the Antigonids being the likeliest 'culprits' for the Katsas mound, and everything so far is consistent with this hypothesis. Unfortunately I don't so far see any definitive evidence for either who the occupant might be, nor dating, and I suspect we won't - unless some other, perhaps unlooted, tombs come to light in the mound in the future.........

[Efstathios]

The mound that covered the royal tombs at Vergina is a lot smaller than the mound Kasta, and there is no marble perivolos. As you said the perivolos is what costed the most. There is a natural hill in Kasta which covers about 2/3 of the overall mound, so they could have used this natural hill and built a smaller perivolos reducing the cost, but they made the mound bigger and also put a big lion on top which was also not an easy task. So, who ever built this didn't care much about the cost and as we can see hired the best architect and artists. The inside is also a lot bigger than the royal tombs at Vergina which were small rooms in comparison. Sure, Antigonos could have built it, but it could as well be a heroon for Hephaestion or for Alexander. The dating will reveal this. It would also be good to know if the roman coins were found inside or outside of the tomb. Lefantzis said that the sealing took place at the later Roman period. Also of interest, a sign (miliario) of Caracalla marking the Egnatia road was found near mound Kasta which according to a research suggested that Egnatia may have passed in between hill 133 and the mound.

[Xenophon]

True enough, Efstathios. The "Great Tumulus" at Vergina is some 330 feet in diameter, and an average of 36 feet high, whilst the tumulus at Kastas is some 525 feet in diameter probably stood some 80 feet high. But as you pointed out some two thirds of the Katsas mound is a natural hill, so perhaps the volume of 'fill' moved was not so different. Certainly the quantities involved in both would be of the same order of magnitude. You are also right that the tomb at Katsas, with its 3 lofty chambers is bigger than that of Philip, with only 2 smaller chambers. Philip's tomb was prepared in haste, but the Katsas tomb was probably built in more leisurely fashion over a longer period of time. The actual tumuli in both cases may have taken years to build depending on the size of the workforce employed in each case.

Moreover, wouldn't we expect a Hellenistic/Antigonid tomb ( or tombs if there are more in the mound) to be bigger and grander than the tumulus probably erected by Antigonus Gonatus over the Aigai tombs ? ( see my previous post)

I'm afraid I'm a little more pessimistic than you about dating - I don't think from the sounds of it that a precise date, or even a date within decades, is going to emerge, certainly on the evidence disclosed so far. Nor, as I said, am I optimistic that the occupant will be identified.

I share Agesilaos' view that Alexander as intended occupant, or Hephaistion can be all but ruled out as highly improbable. Not least because in my view there are likely more tombs present in the mound - a view apparently shared by the current excavation team, who will be searching for more in the future.......

edited to make grammatical corrections

[gepd]

It appears that announcements about the tumulus soundings are coming in the next days - that's from a person who provided who provided rather specific info about the (very promising?) results and seems a rather reliable source.

What i also missed to report from the presentation the excavators gave was that:

a) During excavations on the tumulus, they found traces of roads and indications of crane foundations alongside, needed to transport material (for the lion?) to the top of the tumulus
b) They found at least three parts of the peribolos that have been converted to place ramps in order to remove material from the tumulus. The last ramp they found had lots of ceramics, possibly from belongings (cups, dishes etc.) of the workers involved on this dismantling project and they date this in the late Roman period. Photos of the ramps were shown, unfortunately slides from the (public) presentation have yet to emerge.

The architect was also asked (in a stupid way) about Dinocrates, and his answer was that he bases the connection to the dating he is given by the archaeologists and the fact that he is mainly aware of 3-4 known architects of the time, from which Dinocrates is for him the best candidate (due to the size and magnificence of the monument - no more details where given, as the moderator stopped Lefantzis...). He also said that because of his assumption about Dinocrates, he is investigating, with the help of some archaeologists from Italy (experts on the Ptolemaic Alexandria architecture), whether there can be any links between the two. They are still investigating that and there is nothing conclusive. From that I gather that the whole story about Dinocrates has to do with the way the lead excavator, Ms. Peristeri, makes public statements (the Dinocrates link comes from her...). It doesn't take much to notice that she is extremely careless with that.

As for the dating of the site, it seems to me that many elements of the Samothrace complex (http://www.samothrace.emory.edu/visuali ... ctive-plan) are a very good parallel (in terms of grandeur, style etc) to the monuments at Kasta. Much of what was built at Samothrace is before the mid 3rd century BC, so my feeling is that the monument at Kastas may not be dated later.

Overall, it looks to me that either the monument was constructed near the period of Alexander's death, latest before the death of Olympias or Antipater, because only then they had enough money and madness to do such things (see last wishes of Alexander...), or in the early Antigonid dynasty period (when there is some stability and evidence that monumental constructions are ongoing). I think the period of Kassander's reign and his successors can be safely excluded.

[Efstathios]

It appears that announcements about the tumulus soundings are coming in the next days - that's from a person who provided who provided rather specific info about the (very promising?) results and seems a rather reliable source.

That was expected, Mrs. Peristeri said that the perivolos has still things to be revealed and that items from the third chamber could have been place in another room, and the Polymenakos survey showed further structures inside the mound. Now, the question is if the other rooms are connected to the main tomb or are from a different era, and where is their entrance.

[lio]

Photo of the dead of the tomb of Amphipolis given the last days http://www.thetombofamphipolis.com/the- ... -the-dead/

[system1988]

If the photo is authentic ,the skeleton belongs to a man.I dare say to an elderly man !
I can speculate a little cant Ι ?

[hiphys]

In the magazine 'History'(n.45, January 2015), Professor Emanuele Greco, headmaster of the Italian Archaeological School of Athens said: "I have heard it is the skeleton of a male adult, but for definite results we have to wait. We need many months to get the DNA, and we haven't any safe descendants of Alexander or other personality of that age to compare with" (p.45).
Relata refero.

[agesilaos]

The photo cannot be of the Amphipolis skeleton; all reports clearly state that the cranium was separated from the lower mandible; This is Christmas not April's Fool surely.

[gepd]

I doubt the photo on the top is authentic - it doesn't fit the description of scattered bones, or e.g. the detatched lower jaw or the broken pelvis. The greek version of the website does not have the photo (http://www.thetombofamphipolis.com/GR/t ... -the-dead/)