The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

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

Moderator: pothos moderators

agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by agesilaos »

I think there may be confusion over the number of bones and that 550 is the total number counting the fragmentary bones individually and that the reconstructions number the reconstructed bones singly hence the discrepancy; this is only a hunch, however the reporting is, as usual, rather unclear.

On C14 dating
RICHARD FREUND: It's called Broshi's Law. Magen Broshi came up with a law when they carbon-dated all of the Dead Sea Scrolls but they still had a 200 year gap, and they couldn't figure out. And Broshi's Law was an experiment that they did on letters from the Cave of Letters. Why? Because the Cave of Letters has dated documents.

NARRATOR: Using three letters from Bar Kokhba, archeologist Magen Broshi compared the actual dates appearing on the letters to the results of the carbon-14 analysis. In each case, the actual date of the letters corresponded almost exactly with the older date in the carbon-14 range.

RICHARD FREUND: Broshi's Law is, "You always follow the older extreme." That's what they use in the Dead Sea Scrolls; I didn't make this law up.
This from a Nova programme 'Ancient Refuge in the Holy land' http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/an ... -land.html so we might favour the older end of any range (good news for the Olympiasts, sadly), Richard died 1485 so 30 years after the oldest date and 55 before the oldest; Amphipolis is 1,800 years older than Richard III so its range will be wider, they will not be able to differentiate between 316 and 287 BC, but may be able to identify intrusive burials which would most likely date to after the final defeat of the Antigonids in 167 BC.

I think the cist grave must be contemporary with the monument as it is structurally accomodated by the floor and the cremation associated with that occupant as the practice passed out of use later although this is pure supposition. I do not think a 'high-status' mass grave is a viable option despite much being unique.

Obfuscation seems to be the watchword and still not a single piece of dating evidence revealed.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Taphoi »

Carbon dating is predicated on an historically constant concentration of carbon-14 (radiocarbon) in the environment. Radiocarbon is mainly produced by the interaction of cosmic rays with nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere. Living things absorb carbon with the environmental proportion of carbon-14 until they die. Then they cease to absorb and the carbon-14 decays back to nitrogen with a half life of 5730 years. The ratio of carbon-14 to stable carbon-12 in organic matter therefore potentially dates its death.

However, there are several sources of inaccuracy. Firstly, the accuracy of the measurement of the ratio is limited by the experimental technique and sample quality. This is mainly a random pseudo-Gaussian error. Secondly, the sample can become contaminated, usually with carbon from the current environment giving a spuriously young date (but occasionally with carbon from material that died before it did - e.g. the bog that bog-men are found in). Thirdly, the proportion of carbon-14 in the environment has varied by a few percent in the past (probably because the cosmic ray flux has varied a bit.) This last error can be calibrated out using tree ring data, because the ring dates the carbon sample in that case.

Unfortunately, there was a rise in the environmental carbon-14 concentration in Alexander's time that took over a century to relax back down to more normal levels. As can be seen from the charts below, this means that a sample with a true date of 316BC will have the same carbon-14 concentration now as a sample with a true date ~210BC (blue curves in first chart). The distribution for a sample from 316BC will typically extend between 380BC to 170BC at 95% confidence (second chart). However, there should be narrower sub-peaks within the overall distribution in the last quarter of the 4th century BC and around 210BC, so long as the Gaussian measurement error is reasonably narrow. The ratio measurement being made on several different skeletons may help to narrow the measurement error and sharpen the sub-peaks, but it probably will not remove the false sub-peak at ~210BC. A date later than about 170BC should be excluded, provided contamination is minimal.

Agesilaos is wrong about the geology of Greece. It varies a lot between Macedonia and Epirus (chart 3). Thus there is a good chance of strontium isotope ratio variations between Macedonia and Epirus, but I have no specific data at this time. It principally depends on the age of the rocks, not their type.
Best wishes.
Andrew
Carbon14a.jpg
Carbon14a.jpg (89.78 KiB) Viewed 5287 times
Carbon14b.png
Carbon14b.png (6.03 KiB) Viewed 5287 times
GreekGeology.jpg
GreekGeology.jpg (116.33 KiB) Viewed 5287 times
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by agesilaos »

http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/wi ... otope.html

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html

Comparison will demonstrate that the strontium levels do not exactly correlate with different rock types; is there no comparable map of the strontium spread in the Balkans? I confess that I could not even find the geology map!

Interesting and informative on C14, but it does make the dating even more fraught :cry:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Taphoi »

The carbon dating should differentiate whether the bones are from before or after approximately the end of the Macedonian kingdom. it is unlikely that it will be able to do much more than that. Much will continue to rest on other dating evidence. The archaeologists have said that the cist grave cut appears to be older than the monument/mound. The cist grave slot appears designed according to its size and shape to accommodate a coffin and coffin decorations were found in it. Thus it should be difficult to argue that the uncremated remains are not original occupants, if their carbon dating is consistent with the last quarter of the 4th century BC (i.e. not Late Hellenistic or Roman). The potsherds and coins may well date the mound to the last quarter of the 4th century BC, which is what the archaeologists have said all along. Katerina Peristeri said that there were no coins or potsherds found in the "main chamber" in the press conference in November. That seems to have been interpreted by the press as meaning the third chamber, but it looks more likely that she was referring to the whole space inside the sealing wall in front of the sphinxes. If there was no dating material inside the sealing wall before the sphinxes, that militates strongly in favour of an early sealing (Cassander perhaps). This is bound to be clarified at some point. The paving in the area immediately behind the sphinxes (white marble slab fragments in a red cement) matches paving in the late 4th century BC palace at Aegae. It may therefore be a useful indication of the date and associations of the Amphipolis tomb, if it is unknown elsewhere. The best parallels for the mosaic are also late 4th century BC from the Argaead palaces. As was said early in this thread, masonry with the distinctive bands of drafting is highly characteristic of the late 4th century BC or very early 3rd century BC. Dating arguments from the style of monumental sculptures are untrustworthy for several reasons. Firstly, Late Hellenstic and Roman sculptors copied early Hellenistic sculptures assiduously. Secondly, some of the dating is done on the styles of terracotta statuettes, because too few monumental originals are known, but styles of statuettes lag their originals by centuries - look at the plethora of copies of Michelangelo's David in Florence and elsewhere today. Thirdly, we will not usually find the archetypes of a sculptural style in the archaeology, but instead versions from when the style became popular, so such dating will always tend considerably to postdate the true origin. In future millennia, archaeologists will discover that versions of Van Gogh's paintings suddenly appeared in the archaeological record in the late 20th century and might make the mistake of thinking that that was when the style originated, because they will be lucky to dig up any 19th century archetypes!
I still have no strontium isotope ratio maps for Greece. However, the age of the geology is a reasonable proxy for the strontium ratio (there is proportionately more strontium-87 relative to strontium-86 in rocks that formed longer ago). Chart 1 shows the strontium ratio map for the UK. You can see that it is similar in its trends to the map of geological eras in chart 2, which shows Greece as well as the UK (unfortunately not at very high resolution.)
Best wishes,
Andrew
UK Strontium Isotope Ratios
UK Strontium Isotope Ratios
UKstrontium map.png (43.43 KiB) Viewed 5163 times
The Era of Geology across Europe
The Era of Geology across Europe
rockageseurope.jpg (148.05 KiB) Viewed 5163 times
Last edited by Taphoi on Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
gepd
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:06 pm

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by gepd »

Hi all,

since there are not many developments lately on the subject, here are some notes and photos you may find interesting:

a) The early excavation work by Lazarides, resulted in the discovery of a rectangular stone pyre at the southwest flank of the mound.
Second, he undertook further work at the grave mound at Kastas (AR 1973-74 27;AR 1974-75 20). Though the anticipated tomb-structure has not yet been located, a number of Early Iron Age graves were found, as in earlier seasons. On the southwest flank of the mound, eleven metres below its surface, a rectangular stone-built pyre has been discovered, datable to the early Hellenistic period (Ergon 1975, 41-53).
It is interesting that this stone pyre was at the side of the tomb's entrance (southwest) and it is from the early Hellenistic period, especially in the context of the cremated bones found. I didn't manage to retrieve the relevant publication - does anyone know if "Ergon" is available in digital format, or does anyone have easy access to that? (http://www.worldcat.org/title/ergon-tes ... c/19767245)

Were pyres usually constructed near the final resting place of the dead, or was their location unrelated?

b) The only other known tomb nearby is the so-called Macedonian Tomb 3, discovered in the early 60s. The location of Tomb 3 is really in front of the entrance of the Kastas hill tomb, just few hundred meter away (yellow circle), and it appears that orientation of the chambers may have been similar.
mapsm.jpg
mapsm.jpg (95.86 KiB) Viewed 5056 times
This tomb has similar mosaic elements as the Kastas tomb (as also discussed in earlier posts here), and was also used for numerous burials. It is dated in the 4th century BC or early 3rd century, and I assume from all that there may be a possible connection between the two monuments.

c) A couple of old aerial photos of the Kastas mound from the Army's Geographical Service (http://web.gys.gr/GeoSearch/) are below:

1945:
Image

1967:
Image

1977:
Image

Hope you find these interesting.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by amyntoros »

The following from chiniapost.eu on March 8th.
The famed Lion of Amphipolis statue could not have been placed on the Kastas hill covering a controversial tomb in northern Greece’s ancient Amphipolis site, specialists said at a congress in Thessaloniki on Saturday, because it is too heavy to have been supported by the naturally formed hill, while the burial found in the tomb most certainly belongs to a different date than the original monument.

Evangelos Kambouroglou, director of the Palaeoanthropology and Speliology Ephorate’s department of archaeological research, told the 28th annual archaeological congress on Macedonian and Thracian archaeology at the University of Thessaloniki that according to current evidence the Lion, dated to the 4th century BC, could not have been placed on the monument.

Kambouroglou said, “the Kasta tomb hill is natural, not artificial. It consists of sediments of quartzite sand, clay and sandstone, which give it a limited durability and render it unable to support any weight over 500 tonnes.” The lion, with its base, weigh over 1,500 tonnes, and the conclusion he reached is the same that archaeologists of the site had already known.

He added that the box-shaped grave found in the last chamber in the last excavated chamber of the monument was made at a different time from the main monument, and is “a cheap construction” that does not fit in with the surrounding monument, but did not date it as bone analysis is pending.

Kambouroglou, who has worked closely with chief archaeologist at the site Katerina Peristeri, said that when he had entered the chamber with the burial “there were many human interventions and burnt remains (samples of which have been sent to a Massachusetts institute for analysis), while its roof showed the earth had shifted,” possibly from the same earthquake as that of 597 AD, which is thought to have been so strong it changed the direction of the of Strymon River flow.

University of Thessaloniki physics professor Grigoris Tsokas, another of the researchers involved in the excavation’s analysis, said during his talk that the construction of the perivolos, or low wall surrounding the monument, has created problems in the earth layering and made it impossible to use imaging technology.

The congress, held annually to present results from excavations and research of sites in northern Greece, is wrapping up its second and last day. On Friday, the presenters had announced that Peristeri would not be making any statements as results of research were not out yet, and made special mention of the media frenzy created around the excavation globally
.
Now, the ekathimerin.com version of the above quotes Kambouroglou as saying that the ancient tomb found together with a series of vaulted rooms wasn't built at the same time, but somewhat later than the rooms themselves.

And from ekathimerini.com on March 14th.
No more cash for Amphipolis dig at the moment

There will be no more government funding at this stage for the archaeological work at Amphipolis, northern Greece, with experts focusing on the findings that have already been unearthed, Alternate Culture Minister Nikos Xydakis said on Saturday during a visit to the site.

“The excavation project has received funding,” he said in response to a question about whether more public money would be provided. “There are not many excavations in Greece that have received such support. At the moment, there is not a need for any more.”

The tomb discovered at the site, thought to date from Alexander the Great’s era, yielded five skeletons and various other artifacts. Xydakis said that archaeologists are focused on studying these finds and carrying out work aimed at making the tomb safe from collapse.

“This is a huge project, which at the moment is getting the breathing space that it needs,” added the minister.
Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Taphoi »

As noted by amyntoros, the press has reported that geologist Evangelos Kambouroglou, who had some (peripheral) involvement in the Amphipolis tomb investigations last year, presented several conclusions at the 28th annual archaeological congress on Macedonian and Thracian archaeology at the University of Thessaloniki independent of the rest of the archaeological and geological team and apparently against their wishes.

1) He believes that the Kasta mound is (entirely) natural
2) He believes that its soil was not capable of supporting the weight of the Lion Monument
3) He believes the cist tomb is younger than the rest of the monument (although other reports say that he is hedging on its exact age)

On the question of whether the mound is natural or artificial, it had seemed that everyone had already agreed that it is a combination of natural and artificial structure. The evidence would appear to require this. On the one hand, the original land surface underneath the mound cannot have been perfectly flat, since its vicinity is quite hilly. Therefore natural geology must have been incorporated in the mound. Conversely the 3m tall precisely circular peribolos wall appears to encompass the entire mound with a circumference close to 500m. It is statistically improbable in the extreme that a pre-existing natural mound could have been so perfectly circular without considerable man-made sculpting and adaptation of the natural geology.

Regarding the soil not supporting the weight of the monument, many major buildings have been constructed in places where the soil cannot support their weight. The Basilica di San Marco in Venice is built on a swamp and is far heavier than the Lion Monument. The trick is to replace the soil with massive foundations or to build foundations or piles that penetrate down to firmer soil or bedrock. The interesting question is therefore how Kambouroglou has established how deep the foundations said to have been found atop the Kasta Mound penetrate into its soil and how he has established that they do not reach bedrock beneath the mound and proved that they do not rest on a spur of rock rising up through the mound? Nothing whatsoever has been reported on these points. The strength of the soil is irrelevant to the question of whether the lion stood on top the hill, if taken in isolation. Furthermore, the archaeological team has re-asserted that they found massive foundations on the hilltop that match the stones from the Lion Monument and that they found lost fragments of the lion itself in archaeological contexts during the Kasta Mound dig.

On the matter of the cist tomb being of a younger age than the rest of the monument, I believe it is already uncontroversial that it is of a different age than the rest of the monument and it was clear that it is of a lower quality than the rest of the monument as soon as it was revealed. But what is Kambouroglou’s evidence that it is younger rather than older than the rest of the monument? The main members of the team appeared to suggest that it is older during their presentations and press conference in November. Some press reports suggest that Kambouroglou actually hedged on suggesting the relative age of the cist tomb and the mound, so it is unclear whether he really said anything controversial on this point at all.

I find it hard to put any weight on these reports. Certainly, what has been reported does not make any sense.

Best wishes,

Andrew
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Xenophon »

One did wonder when Greece's current financial woes would impact upon the massively expensive archaeological dig. It appears there will be many questions left unanswered for many years yet......

I must agree with much of what Taphoi has said. It is certain that the mound is a combination of natural and man-made feature, with considerable sculpting of it.

It is also equally certain that the mound is much older than the tomb. Laziridis discovered iron-age and archaic tombs, which clearly pre-date the cist tomb ( a type which didn't exist prior to the fourth C. B.C.) by hundreds of years.

It is also certain that in antiquity, the site had been modified periodically down into Roman times, and equally certain that it had been affected by earthquake damage down the centuries - as I posted long ago.

There is every possibility too that the tomb was re-used and that the present occupants were not the original occupants - the DNA and dating will determine if that's the case, presumably. I am certainly not aware of another example of a cist tomb where the original occupant was interred in a coffin buried under the floor. Is anyone else ?
University of Thessaloniki physics professor Grigoris Tsokas, another of the researchers involved in the excavation’s analysis, said during his talk that the construction of the perivolos, or low wall surrounding the monument, has created problems in the earth layering and made it impossible to use imaging technology.
One wonders what is meant by 'imaging technology' ? This should not prevent at Geo-physical survey by ground penetrating radar (as used on "Time Team" for example) - a relatively cheap way of exploring the mound, though the depth achievable and whether a picture all the way to the 'natural' could be obtained would depend on soil conditions, moisture etc
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Efstathios »

From Protothema http://en.protothema.gr/amphipolis-clas ... geologist/
“Mr. Evangelos Kambouroglou took part in the excavation for ten days at the most. He was not one of our main associates,” the archaeologist said, adding that the geologist made several mistakes and incorrect assessments that repeatedly led the team to the wrong conclusions.
The original article is not translated entirely. Mrs Peristeri said that he led them to wrong conclusions, like when he saw a small door in the 4th area that did not exist, it was a brace that had been removed during ancient times, and he said that the burial chamber was intact and unlooted when it wasn't.

In an interview he also used the word "cheap" (ευτελές) for the chambers in comparison to the rest of the monument. How can the marble decoration, the pillars, the statues, the colors that are still visible, the mosaic e.t.c be considered cheap, is beyond my comprehension.

What's more of interest though is a new interview by Mr Lefantzis in which he said that 80 marble pieces that are part of the lion's stand have been found near the excavation site and have sculptures and depictions on them of Macedonian military theme. These will further help in the dating of the monument.
"Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks."
Sir Winston Churchill, 1941.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by agesilaos »

Would love to see those sculptures, Happy Independence Day, Stathi, system1988 and all the other Greek Pothosians!
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
system1988
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 739
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:20 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by system1988 »

agesilaos wrote:Would love to see those sculptures, Happy Independence Day, Stathi, system1988 and all the other Greek Pothosians!
As a thank you to your post here is a photo
10748195_396878000459503_1155131736_n.jpg
10748195_396878000459503_1155131736_n.jpg (146.15 KiB) Viewed 4710 times
Lord Byron was a poet, aristocrat, politician, a great romantic: Many other foreigners came from USA and Europe to Greece in order to help the Greeks with the Independence Struggle. Lord Byron sums everything up to the max the idea of what constitutes a romantic friend to the Greeks: In his ambitious journey to and from Greece het met everything: Pirates, sexual assaults (!) from the Ali Pasha of Ioannina, illness, hunger (during the siege of Messologhi the townspeople were forced to eat mice), treason, failures, disputes, syncophants, a chaos.

In the meantime however he found time to fall in love with a girl named Teresa Makri and carve his name on one of the columns of Cape Sounion's Poseidon temple. Later on he traveled to Messologhi where he died. His body was burried in England but the Greek warriors demanded that his heart was to be burried in Messologhi. It's still there.
Πάντες άνθρωποι του ειδέναι ορέγονται φύσει
hiphys
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:59 am

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by hiphys »

Now we are happy to see Byron's and other famous visitor's names in this most famous temple, but fortunately today it's impossible to write in such ancient stones! By the way, this is the only monument I visited in Greece that is better in pictures than in fact (possibly I expected a larger one, and with less crowd around!)
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by Efstathios »

According to a work in progress by Dimitris Dendrinos, the total number of marble slabs that surrounded the perimeter wall were 365.44 and the days of the year as calculated with modern means is 365.22. The architect probably had the slabs sculpted in a way that 365 of them fit in a 360 degree circle. What is also interesting is this:
The date and time depicted. Assuming a clockwise motion and the current North as
the beginning of the calendar depicted by the 365 marble stones of the exterior wall
(something which seems to be the most likely case and the simplest scenario here),
the entrance does depict three days and the first six hours of that day in late June
and early July. These days and hours may had been connected to some religious
observances 23 centuries ago, or to the time of the year the occupant of the tomb
died (or was born, or something of significance happened to his/her life).Such
symbolic interpretations however, are left to the interested reader.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxfAWy ... Y1UWM/view

The author states that this is a work in progress open to anyone that can expand it and contribute with ideas or corrections.
"Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks."
Sir Winston Churchill, 1941.
system1988
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 739
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:20 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by system1988 »

Hellenic Centre,Great Hall,
16-18 Paddington Street,
London W1U 5AS

14-5-2015 . An illustrate lecture in english : " Amphipolis' by Caterina Peristeri.
Πάντες άνθρωποι του ειδέναι ορέγονται φύσει
sean_m
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:00 pm

Re: The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

Post by sean_m »

Thanks for the continued updates. Archaeology is a way to learn new things about the age of Alexander and his successors too!
My blog (Warning: may contain up to 95% non-Alexandrian content, rated shamelessly philobarbarian by 1 out of 1 Plutarchs)
Post Reply