The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[gepd]

Zebedee, the last slide you show from the presentation is one used for comparison with the findings, not one from Kastas

[Zebedee]

Zebedee, the last slide you show from the presentation is one used for comparison with the findings, not one from Kastas

Indeed. But they want a hoplite procession it seems. Did they give a date or source for the comparison stela do you know?

[gepd]

Not sure even which aspect was compared. Will wait for more things to come out and let you know. Needless to say they did not convince many people yesterday, nevertheless from all the claims at least the one for the lion on top of Kastas received negligible criticism.

[Zebedee]

Thanks Gepd.

Would think it was the shield being compared looking at the similarity there. Just by-the-by but Broneer speculated once that an overly large circular shield was part of the representation of the 'heroic dead'. But good to know I'm not alone in having significant doubts over what I've seen of the interpretations given yesterday.

[agesilaos]

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VpW ... es&f=false

This should link to a Daniel Ogden article from a book on foundation myths.

The Romance sheds light upon Andrew’s Alexander, it is not him but Proteus who is the ‘son of the serpent’ and the whole story is a Ptolemaic construct probably post 306 and Ptolemy’s assumption of the kingship it is attested in Eratosthenes ap Strabo. Once again the detail points to the third century and again rules out both Hephaistion and Olympias.

[32] G Now Alexander arrived at the district and found the rivers and the canals and the towns (?) arranged as described. From the land he saw a certain island out at sea and asked what it was called. The natives said: "Pharos, and Proteus dwelt there, where the memorial to Proteus is on a very high mountain, the one revered by us." Then they escorted him to what is now called the herōon and showed him the coffin. He sacrificed to the hero Proteus and, seeing that the memorial had fallen down from the ravages of time, he gave orders to have it set up at once and that the circumference of the city should be plotted.
They threw down grain and marked the line. But birds flew down and seizing all the grain flew away. And Alexander, disturbed at this, sent for soothsayers and related what had happened. They interpreted the events in this way: "This city which has been built will nourish the inhabited world and the men born in it will be everywhere. For the fowls of the air have flown all over the world."
Now they began to construct Alexandria from the plain of Mesos and the district took (?) its name from the fact that the building of the city began there. While they were occupied there, as happens, a serpent appeared and terrified the workmen who stopped working because of the arrival of the creature. This was reported to Alexander. He gave orders on the next day, whenever it came down, to capture it. So having received the order, when the creature appeared near what is now called the Stoa, they surrounded it and killed it. Alexander then ordered that the spot should be a sacred enclosure and he buried the serpent in it. He ordered that garlands should be hung there in memory of the Agathos Daimon whom they had seen.

Next he directed that the digging of the foundations should proceed only in one place, namely exactly where a great hill appeared which is called Copria. And when he had prepared the foundations of the greatest part of the city and planned it, he inscribed five letters Α, Β, Γ, Δ, Ε; Α for Alexander, Β for βασιλέυς {king}, Γ for γένος {son}, Δ for Δίος {of a god}, and Ε for the initial of the phrase beginning ἔκτισε {built the city}. Now many beasts of burden and mules were sacrificed. And when the herōon was consecrated, there came to the epistyle many troops of serpents and, creeping, they made their way into the four houses already built. And Alexander, present in person, consecrated the city and the herōon itself on the twenty-fifth of the month Tybi. So the door-keepers reverenced these serpents as Agathoi Daimones that had entered the homes. They do not shoot arrows at them, but even a pretence of shooting drives them away. And sacrifices were made to the hero as to the son of a serpent and the animals were festooned with garlands, and given a rest from their labours because they had worked hard and long for the founding of the city. And Alexander commanded that food be given to the guards of the buildings. They took the grain, ground it, and, keeping off wild creatures, (?) on the day quickly gave it to those dwelling in the buildings. So among the Alexandrians even till now this custom is preserved: on the twenty-fifth of Tybi the animals are festooned with garlands and sacrifices are made to the Agathoi Daimones by those who care for the buildings and gifts of domestic animals are made.

So snakes are not necessarily connected to Olympias.

[Zebedee]

A few more details: http://www.xronometro.com/amfipolis-synedrio-2/

[Taphoi]

The Romance sheds light upon Andrew’s Alexander, it is not him but Proteus who is the ‘son of the serpent’ and the whole story is a Ptolemaic construct probably post 306 and Ptolemy’s assumption of the kingship it is attested in Eratosthenes ap Strabo. Once again the detail points to the third century and again rules out both Hephaistion and Olympias.

[32] G Now Alexander arrived at the district and found the rivers and the canals and the towns (?) arranged as described. From the land he saw a certain island out at sea and asked what it was called. The natives said: "Pharos, and Proteus dwelt there, where the memorial to Proteus is on a very high mountain, the one revered by us." Then they escorted him to what is now called the herōon and showed him the coffin. He sacrificed to the hero Proteus and, seeing that the memorial had fallen down from the ravages of time, he gave orders to have it set up at once and that the circumference of the city should be plotted.
They threw down grain and marked the line. But birds flew down and seizing all the grain flew away. And Alexander, disturbed at this, sent for soothsayers and related what had happened. They interpreted the events in this way: "This city which has been built will nourish the inhabited world and the men born in it will be everywhere. For the fowls of the air have flown all over the world."
Now they began to construct Alexandria from the plain of Mesos and the district took (?) its name from the fact that the building of the city began there. While they were occupied there, as happens, a serpent appeared and terrified the workmen who stopped working because of the arrival of the creature. This was reported to Alexander. He gave orders on the next day, whenever it came down, to capture it. So having received the order, when the creature appeared near what is now called the Stoa, they surrounded it and killed it. Alexander then ordered that the spot should be a sacred enclosure and he buried the serpent in it. He ordered that garlands should be hung there in memory of the Agathos Daimon whom they had seen.

Next he directed that the digging of the foundations should proceed only in one place, namely exactly where a great hill appeared which is called Copria. And when he had prepared the foundations of the greatest part of the city and planned it, he inscribed five letters Α, Β, Γ, Δ, Ε; Α for Alexander, Β for βασιλέυς {king}, Γ for γένος {son}, Δ for Δίος {of a god}, and Ε for the initial of the phrase beginning ἔκτισε {built the city}. Now many beasts of burden and mules were sacrificed. And when the herōon was consecrated, there came to the epistyle many troops of serpents and, creeping, they made their way into the four houses already built. And Alexander, present in person, consecrated the city and the herōon itself on the twenty-fifth of the month Tybi. So the door-keepers reverenced these serpents as Agathoi Daimones that had entered the homes. They do not shoot arrows at them, but even a pretence of shooting drives them away. And sacrifices were made to the hero as to the son of a serpent and the animals were festooned with garlands, and given a rest from their labours because they had worked hard and long for the founding of the city. And Alexander commanded that food be given to the guards of the buildings. They took the grain, ground it, and, keeping off wild creatures, (?) on the day quickly gave it to those dwelling in the buildings. So among the Alexandrians even till now this custom is preserved: on the twenty-fifth of Tybi the animals are festooned with garlands and sacrifices are made to the Agathoi Daimones by those who care for the buildings and gifts of domestic animals are made.

I was not referring to the Agathos Daimon material in Pseudo-Callisthenes (Alexander Romance) 1.32 and onwards, but to the legend of Alexander's conception in 1.6-7 of the same work:

AlexSerpentConceptionPC2.jpg (216.33 KiB) Viewed 3584 times

[amyntoros]

I don't think people are merely questioning the origin of the relationship of Olympias with snakes. It's more your conviction that where there is a snake it must mean Olympias, as if there could be no other reason for the portrayal of a serpent. If you don't see this as an indication of confirmation bias you might want to make a more thorough examination of ancient Greek religious beliefs. I'll briefly outline some other associations (and this list is far from complete and lacking in much detail):

House snake or agathos daemon: Cult l-o-n-g established in Greece before taking root in Alexandria.
Athena: The snakes depicted on her robe, aegis and/or shield were *real*. Snake on shield may be Erichthonios (serpent god).
Hermes: Bears the Caduceus – two snakes entwined around a staff. Chthonic association - god who guides the dead to the underworld.
Ares: – A snake (which some said was his son) guarded his spring. Killed by Cadmus and Harmonia who were later turned into snakes. Teeth of snake planted and up sprang the Spartoi.
Hekate: (Brimo): Guarded by fearsome snakes.
Python: – Chthonic she-dragon of Delphi. (Hence sculptures of Apollo with snake.)
Typhon: Storm-giant. Legs fingers were snakes/snake heads
Asclepius: Shown with snake entwined around his staff.
Hygeia: Often shown holding snake.
Zeus and Demeter: In the Orphic myths Demeter and Zeus were mated in the form of serpents.
Sosipolis: Child savior of the Eleans. On the spot where he had disappeared in the form of a snake they built a sanctuary to him and his supposed mother Eileithyia (a serpent).
Persephone: In the Orphic myths, the maiden goddess Persephone was seduced by Zeus in the guise of a serpent.
The Erinyes: Agents of divine wrath: bringers of death, madness, and sometimes war. Portrayed/described as having snakes in their hair, over faces, entwined around body.
Mithras: The chthonic serpent was one of the earth-animals associated with the cult of Mithras.
Serapis: Serpent god amongst other portrayals. Portrayed as a serpent (snake tail). Alternatively shown completely encased with entwined snakes or one huge serpent. Also portrayed in human form leaning on a serpent staff.

And, in general (and most applicable to this debate):

Chthonic snake/serpent: Guardian of the underworld. Its habitat in the earth between the roots of plants made it an animal with chthonic properties connected to the afterlife and immortality. Immortality implied by shedding of skin being symbolic of renewal/rebirth.

Therefore, one might expect to see serpents in tombs especially, but not exclusively, where there is a strong Orphic presence in the community.

Best Regards,

[Zebedee]

Gina Salapata's summary for this context is quite nice.

It seems likely, therefore, that the snake was considered in some Greek areas an
independent chthonic being and may have been worshiped. Despite its appearance
in very different religious contexts, the snake eventually assumed a primary association
as hero (or ancestor) signifier. It became the companion or attribute of a hero and
sometimes may also have represented the hero himself, as, for example, in the case of
Sosipolis. The precise reason behind this association, however, remains unclear to us. One
could argue that the snake, originally an underworld being, became associated with heroes
because heroes were persons who had died and who were closely attached to their real or
alleged graves, or, more likely, because this animal, so intimately connected with the earth
and tied to particular locations, better expressed the restricted locale and autochthonous
nature of most heroes, especially founders and eponymous heroes. It is also possible that
in the minds of the ancients the snake represented such figures of the remote past as the
Hesiodic Silver Generation, the hypochthonioi, who were honored after their death and,
by definition, resided under the earth. The hero, therefore, being buried and attached to a
specific location, would have kept company with the original subterraneous inhabitants,
who were anonymous and collectively embodied by the snake.

Another commonly argued explanation is that the snake was first the manifestation of
all chthonic spirits, including heroes; with the advance of anthropomorphic concepts it
was demoted, becoming the sacred animal of some chthonic gods and heroes and thus
their attribute. Its presence then would indicate that a scene takes place in the Underworld
or is to be connected with the chthonic powers.

Gina Salapata, Hero Warriors from Corinth and Lakonia, Hesperia 66.2, 1997

----

Corso's interpretation of this being Alexander playing groom to another 'hero' is based on the face of the groom in any case.

The composition of the relief just seems too cramped to suggest this is a marching phalanx. And for the life of me I can't understand why Alexander and a horse are being frogmarched at spear point in front of an army. If the dating of the shield is a problem, then let that be the problem...

[Xenophon]

Zebedee wrote:

If the dating of the shield is a problem, then let that be the problem...

There's no real problem regarding the dating of the shield. Agesilaos is essentially right. Greek/Macedonian cavalry did not use shields in Alexander's day (Not least because the 12foot 'xyston' lance really required two hands ). The large circular shield with spine is a Celtic type that can be firmly dated to the period 300-270 BC. They were likely introduced following the usage of so-called 'Tarantine' cavalry whose armament of missiles/javelins and shield was found to be effective. The larger Celtic spined type would have been encountered by Pyrrhus' troops in Italy c. 281-275, and may have been, and probably was, introduced to Greece by his cavalry. Alternately it could have been adopted following Celtic invasions of Greece around the same time, when the Celtic long infantry shield called by the Greeks 'thureos' was also adopted.

This of course only dates the frieze that the fragment came from, which MAY have come from the Lion monument, or some other later monument - after all the Kasta site was an on-going concern quite possibly for millenia......

The helmet depicted, and the photos of an actual example, are of a hybrid type - a combination of the 'Konos' type and 'Boeotian' type both popular from Alexander's time onward, and will have been a cavalry type typically used throughout the 3 C BC and into the 2 C BC.....

edited to add dates

[Taphoi]

I don't think people are merely questioning the origin of the relationship of Olympias with snakes. It's more your conviction that where there is a snake it must mean Olympias, as if there could be no other reason for the portrayal of a serpent. If you don't see this as an indication of confirmation bias you might want to make a more thorough examination of ancient Greek religious beliefs.

That is not a statement of my position. I have not said anything that might suggest that that is my position. My position on the serpent in a tree is that among the sensible candidates with other associations with the Amphipolis Tomb and consistent with the (now) established period of the tomb, it is Olympias who has the main association with serpents apart from Alexander himself (who is not a candidate and whose connection with serpents arose via Olympias). It is also my position that citing random ancient references and sculptures that have nothing in the way of a particular connection with the Amphipolis Tomb constitutes an anti-confirmation bias, for it is of course true that there are enormous numbers of other depictions and references to serpents in antiquity that have no connection with Olympias and no connection with the Amphipolis Tomb. And if we are being comprehensive, why constrain ourselves to antiquity even? Below is another famous serpent in a tree. It has at least as strong a connection with the Amphipolis Tomb as others that are being cited here, and the story it relates is ancient
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Zebedee]

There's no real problem regarding the dating of the shield.

There is when the proposal is that what we're seeing is a spearpoint placed against the shield Not really debating the consensus here Xenophon, which both yourself and Agesilaos have rightly set out, more highlighting how trying to force the evidence towards any specific historic figure is dubious whether it's Andrew not able to see standard themes in funerary contexts or Corso trying to justify Hephaestion because a ridge on the shield means an anachronistic portrayal of 'Alexander'.

[agesilaos]

Andrew I think it is perfectly logical to describe your position as Amyntoros has based on the previous two posts

A statue of Alexander the Great from Alexandria, where he was remembered as the Son of the Serpent.

And

The matter is not controversial. There is a whole class of these Alexander statuettes from Alexandria, including the one you might know from the British Museum (below). Obviously, this is yet another strong connection with Olympias since it potentially alludes to the story about Zeus-Ammon visiting her to father Alexander in the guise of one of her pet snakes.

Still, since Alexandria, the only place the ‘Aegis-bearing Alexanders’ are found they are irrelevant to Amphipolis, not least because they are probably copies of the cult statue which was not unveiled before Ptolemy moved his capital to Alexandria between 312 and 285, see Stewart ‘Faces of Power’ pp.246ff here

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1SU ... er&f=false

That you are in love with your theory is fair enough and I have no doubt you, much like the so-called archaeological team will blythly ignore the accumulation of contrary evidence and claim instead it supports your position. This is common enough in the shoddy journalism following the various announcements. The C14 dating demonstrates that there was a pyre at an unspecified site on the mound; if it was on the artificial part then it can date the chambers, as they must predate their covering with the artificial mound; the date range is 330 to 270, however, this does not confirm a date in the late fourth century, although it permits it.

Stigmatising perfectly valid comparanda, they are ancient Greek and generally Macedonian reliefs, as random is particularly puerile given your own offerings are equally as irrelevant by your own terms, unless you are suffering that ‘confirmation bias’, which makes everything you say ‘relevant, ipso facto. Be a good puppy and just address the points, they are relevant.

The final sealing of the third chamber (despite the presentation it had to be open in the final stage if its floor was used in the sealing walls) was 70BC (presumably within a range 100-40 BC). The female skeleton has been reportedly ‘added later’, though later than what I have not seen.

The relief is definitely third century at the earliest, though I agree with Xenophon that its date only dates whatever it was part of, if that was the Lion base it would seem to be contemporary with the tomb, effectively ending the claims of Hephaistion and Olympias, Niarchos et al. If the two areas of interest contain a further tomb, more may eventually emerge to clarify the picture.

I presume, Zebedee, that someone is attempting to interpret the spine of the cavalry shield as the head of a sarissa? The little evidence there is would suggest that sarissai had fairly small heads (Grattius describes them as having ‘small teeth’ [Grattius 'Cynegeticon'; 117-8

'quid, Macetum immensos libeat si dicere contos?'
quam longa exigui spicant hastilia dentes!.'

and the weights of the preserved butts would not allow a head of such dimensions without additional counterweight; in any case the spine is clearly just that and the posited form of the spearhead, with a long spike, a nonsense, or at least ‘unique’.

[gepd]

The large circular shield with spine is a Celtic type that can be firmly dated to the period 300-270 BC.

Hi Xenophon, is there a reference for that? Not sure where to read about it. The only thing that commonly comes up is that Celtic shields were oval shaped, so is the circular type a Macedonian adjustment?

Regarding the frieze, I am not sure the shield-bearing soldier shown is from the cavalry, he could be also escorting a horse and carriying the weapons of the dead depicted in other parts of the frieze, unfortunately not shown.

[Zebedee]

@agesilaos - Sorry should have been clearer, didn't realise it hadn't been said. From what I've been told, Corso has explained the shield as having a spear head in front of it which then leads to him postulating a phalanx behind as part of a much larger frieze. I'm not sure on whether he's proposing a Macedonian version of a phalanx or a more retro style sorry. His idea is that the figure pictured in the relief which has been found is Alexander, as the face is similar to other depictions, and therefore he's playing groom to a Hephaestion as a hero figure who would be somewhere out in front.

-----

To my eyes, it's obviously hero cult related, just from the elements there on the relief found (including those not involving a snake ), but the rest seems like nonsense. It 'looks' late 3rd century/early 2nd to me - the relief from Pergamon could be close to the very same scene pictured from head on. Not that is in any way unique. It's not really new knowledge that this site is hero cult related, everything has pointed to that from the start. We know that Amphipolis followed very standard Greek portrayals of hero cult, eg Amphipolis' museum has at least one stela with a (mounted) heros equitans (and a snake in a tree), so it's still really whether there is something later syncretised with that perhaps via Rhesos or(?) the Thracian Horseman or Hephaestion. Or all at once.

Looking forward to reading more from the non-Corso related part of things. I'm surprised he was persuaded away from Phyllis. /snark