The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[Zebedee]

The thing is that the other elements in that part are also pointing towards some form of portrayal of Dionysos or Dionysian ritual. Centaurs make the link just as clearly as if the figures are a satyr and a maenad, and one gets to the same conclusion if they are dancers too.

The question for me is really what relevance that has to the cult at the tomb. Is it linked to the person buried here? Is this the story of someone's life being told? Or is it a more general depiction looking towards Orphism or something along those lines? There are several elements within the tomb which hint at some form of syncretism going on here - perhaps involving Sabazios if there is a need for some form of unifying interpretation. Not sure how that helps with identifying a cremation, any more than similar elements appearing in the tomb of Alexander IV do. One could push on the Sabazios as Thracian Horseman idea I suppose, but it's not a strong case at the moment for this tomb. However, there is good evidence for Sabazios being strongly connected with Thracian hero cult and so remains a possibility beyond the obvious death/rebirth aspects at the tomb.

[Taphoi]

The thing is that the other elements in that part are also pointing towards some form of portrayal of Dionysos or Dionysian ritual. Centaurs make the link just as clearly as if the figures are a satyr and a maenad, and one gets to the same conclusion if they are dancers too.

The question for me is really what relevance that has to the cult at the tomb. Is it linked to the person buried here? Is this the story of someone's life being told? Or is it a more general depiction looking towards Orphism or something along those lines? There are several elements within the tomb which hint at some form of syncretism going on here - perhaps involving Sabazios if there is a need for some form of unifying interpretation. Not sure how that helps with identifying a cremation, any more than similar elements appearing in the tomb of Alexander IV do. One could push on the Sabazios as Thracian Horseman idea I suppose, but it's not a strong case at the moment for this tomb. However, there is good evidence for Sabazios being strongly connected with Thracian hero cult and so remains a possibility beyond the obvious death/rebirth aspects at the tomb.

Let's recall that we do not actually have a cremation: we have only a few percent of a cremation in terms of the amount of material (where is the rest?); we have a cist grave with a slot stated by the archaeologists to have accommodated a coffin, of which we have fragmentary decorations, and suggested by the archaeologists to be older than the monument with a sub-chamber at its end which may have held a cremation urn or equally probably grave goods for the coffin burial. A handle of an urn has been found, but it was not found in the grave and it could have held anything. We also have the near complete skeleton of a 60+ year old woman and substantially complete skeletons of a 35-40 years old man and a 40-45 year old man. The only reason anyone has argued that the cremation might have been original is a) the disproven Hephaistion candidature, b) that the skeletons might have been Roman. The missing pis rule out a) and the dating evidence including C-14 has virtually ruled out b). The focus should be on the skeletons, not on a handful of cremation fragments, which could easily have derived from the pre-existing 5th century BC cemetery on the site.

Friezes in/on parallel tombs (Philip II and Alexander IV and many scenes of warriors in war gear on many different tombs) depict scenes from the life of the occupant.

There is no connection with the rider god of the Thracians, Sabazios, as far as I can see. This tomb is from long after the Macedonian conquest and Amphipolis was an Athenian colony anyway. The Persephone mosaic is purely Greek in its inspiration. Ditto the lion, the Nikes on ships' prows, sphinxes, Klodones, the egg & dart decorations, the architecture... so why do you want to look to the wilds of Thrace for an occupant?

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Zebedee]

Let's recall that we do not actually have a cremation: we have only a few percent of a cremation in terms of the amount of material (where is the rest?); we have a cist grave with a slot stated by the archaeologists to have accommodated a coffin, of which we have fragmentary decorations, and suggested by the archaeologists to be older than the monument with a sub-chamber at its end which may have held a cremation urn or equally probably grave goods for the coffin burial. A handle of an urn has been found, but it was not found in the grave and it could have held anything. We also have the near complete skeleton of a 60+ year old woman and substantially complete skeletons of a 35-40 years old man and a 40-45 year old man. The only reason anyone has argued that the cremation might have been original is a) the disproven Hephaistion candidature, b) that the skeletons might have been Roman. The missing pis rule out a) and the dating evidence including C-14 has virtually ruled out b). The focus should be on the skeletons, not on a handful of cremation fragments, which could easily have derived from the pre-existing 5th century BC cemetery on the site.

Friezes in/on parallel tombs (Philip II and Alexander IV and many scenes of warriors in war gear on many different tombs) depict scenes from the life of the occupant.

There is no connection with the rider god of the Thracians, Sabazios, as far as I can see. This tomb is from long after the Macedonian conquest and Amphipolis was an Athenian colony anyway. The Persephone mosaic is purely Greek in its inspiration. Ditto the lion, the Nikes on ships' prows, sphinxes, Klodones, the egg & dart decorations, the architecture... so why do you want to look to the wilds of Thrace for an occupant?

We have a cremation. It may be inconvenient to some theories if it's the primary burial, but thus far the archaeologists at the site have been consistent on it being a cremation in a cist grave portioned off for a cremation. So let's try not to confuse recollection with wishful thinking.

Life scenes, after life scenes (ie Alexander IV presumed funerary games), mythological scenes (Persephone etc), symbolic representations (Lapiths and centaurs), take one's pick. There's no one rule there.

Wouldn't be so dogmatic on Sabazios. Have a quick peek at the ivory from the kline at the Prince's Tomb from Vergina, and perhaps rephrase any criticism in line with some of the work on Sabazios as a syncretising cult? (eg Alexander Fol's essays on the subject, where he has some sense and support to his writing, or even some footnotes explaining why the Athenian women are shouting 'Sabazios' in Aristophanes!).

Edit: and just to be exceptionally clear, I don't think Sabazios is buried here (?!?). Looking at the elements of cult present here and seeking some sort of explanation to tie those elements together. Whether that helps identify an occupant is another matter altogether!

[gepd]

Let's recall that we do not actually have a cremation: we have only a few percent of a cremation in terms of the amount of material (where is the rest?); we have a cist grave with a slot stated by the archaeologists to have accommodated a coffin, of which we have fragmentary decorations, and suggested by the archaeologists to be older than the monument with a sub-chamber at its end which may have held a cremation urn or equally probably grave goods for the coffin burial. A handle of an urn has been found, but it was not found in the grave and it could have held anything. We also have the near complete skeleton of a 60+ year old woman and substantially complete skeletons of a 35-40 years old man and a 40-45 year old man. The only reason anyone has argued that the cremation might have been original is a) the disproven Hephaistion candidature, b) that the skeletons might have been Roman. The missing pis rule out a) and the dating evidence including C-14 has virtually ruled out b). The focus should be on the skeletons, not on a handful of cremation fragments, which could easily have derived from the pre-existing 5th century BC cemetery on the site.

Friezes in/on parallel tombs (Philip II and Alexander IV and many scenes of warriors in war gear on many different tombs) depict scenes from the life of the occupant.

There is no connection with the rider god of the Thracians, Sabazios, as far as I can see. This tomb is from long after the Macedonian conquest and Amphipolis was an Athenian colony anyway. The Persephone mosaic is purely Greek in its inspiration. Ditto the lion, the Nikes on ships' prows, sphinxes, Klodones, the egg & dart decorations, the architecture... so why do you want to look to the wilds of Thrace for an occupant?

Best wishes,

Andrew

The possibility that unrelated bones ended up in the chambers fill is always there, but apart from that I am not sure how you calculate probabilities, attributing the cremated bones found to external transport as an equally likely or more likely event. For a start, lets recall that at the supposed location of the urn in the cist grave, they also found ashes. Secondly, out of about 75 archaic and iron age burials on the old Kastas hill found by Lazarides and several more found by Peristeri (published in conference proceedings of 2010), not one was a cremation. Besides that, a early hellenistic pyre was found on Kastas, so there is also the correct chronological and archaeological context for having a cremated skeleton in the tomb. The small number of cremated bones found may have an easy explanation. Looters, operating in the tomb with torches, just take the urn or larnax or whatever was there and leave the site: they do not explore the urn's contents inside the tomb. Just few bones falling out is possible, we are even too lucky these few cremated bones were found.

Again, there is lots of archaeological context for that. Peristeri excavated a late Hellenistic Macedonian tomb in 2006 at Amphipolis, near the lion area. The tomb was looted. It had several sarcophagii for inhumations, while on a small recess in the wall of the burial chamber, they could recognize marks from the feet of what was probably a larnax or an urn - so there was also a cremated body in there. What Peristeri's team found was just scattered bones, from the mess that looters created, not one of those was from a cremation, probably because the looters took the larnax (and the bones) with them.

More context exists from a different tumulus, called Ilyas Tepe in Pergamon. This is a 3rd century BC burial, including a cist tomb under the pavement of the burial chamber, similar to Kastas (read here: https://www.academia.edu/5641269/Der_Tu ... h%C3%BCgel). The cist tomb was covered with a lid. Looters made a hole on one of its sides and took whatever was inside, even most of the bones of the dead! Some bones remained there, allowed to infer that this person was a man of about 60 years of age. Together with those bones, the excavators found very few remains of two cremation. No cremated remains were also found in Vergina's royal tombs that were looted. The point is that it seems common in looted tombs that hosted cremated bodies to have very few cremated remains.

So, I don't know how to put a value in the probability that the cremated remains found in Kastas were transported there by accident, but definitely this probability is very small. The finding of an urn handle alone does not prove anything, but when factoring all the above, it is rather safe to assume that there was a cremation.

The idea for a cremation is not based on any Roman assumption or any Hephaestion hypothesis - it is based on archaeological finds. And surely, its not only Hephaestion who deserved a cremation.

The idea that the bones are later burials is also not disrpoven. Yes, they are very likely not Roman, but lets not forget that from the supposed tomb construction until its sealing somewhere around the end of 2nd century BC or slightly later, we have a period of almost 150-200 years! We might count centuries and decades very easily here, but lets not forget that 150-200 years is a very long time. Lots of things could have happened to the tomb, various high-level officials of Amphipolis could have used the tomb for burying their own people or for other purposes. There were important 60-year old women that could also have been placed in there at a later date. Phila has been mentioned, probably more existed.

[Taphoi]

The possibility that unrelated bones ended up in the chambers fill is always there, but apart from that I am not sure how you calculate probabilities, attributing the cremated bones found to external transport as an equally likely or more likely event. For a start, lets recall that at the supposed location of the urn in the cist grave, they also found ashes. Secondly, out of about 75 archaic and iron age burials on the old Kastas hill found by Lazarides and several more found by Peristeri (published in conference proceedings of 2010), not one was a cremation. Besides that, a early hellenistic pyre was found on Kastas, so there is also the correct chronological and archaeological context for having a cremated skeleton in the tomb. The small number of cremated bones found may have an easy explanation. Looters, operating in the tomb with torches, just take the urn or larnax or whatever was there and leave the site: they do not explore the urn's contents inside the tomb. Just few bones falling out is possible, we are even too lucky these few cremated bones were found.

Again, there is lots of archaeological context for that. Peristeri excavated a late Hellenistic Macedonian tomb in 2006 at Amphipolis, near the lion area. The tomb was looted. It had several sarcophagii for inhumations, while on a small recess in the wall of the burial chamber, they could recognize marks from the feet of what was probably a larnax or an urn - so there was also a cremated body in there. What Peristeri's team found was just scattered bones, from the mess that looters created, not one of those was from a cremation, probably because the looters took the larnax (and the bones) with them.

More context exists from a different tumulus, called Ilyas Tepe in Pergamon. This is a 3rd century BC burial, including a cist tomb under the pavement of the burial chamber, similar to Kastas (read here: https://www.academia.edu/5641269/Der_Tu ... h%C3%BCgel). The cist tomb was covered with a lid. Looters made a hole on one of its sides and took whatever was inside, even most of the bones of the dead! Some bones remained there, allowed to infer that this person was a man of about 60 years of age. Together with those bones, the excavators found very few remains of two cremation. No cremated remains were also found in Vergina's royal tombs that were looted. The point is that it seems common in looted tombs that hosted cremated bodies to have very few cremated remains.

So, I don't know how to put a value in the probability that the cremated remains found in Kastas were transported there by accident, but definitely this probability is very small. The finding of an urn handle alone does not prove anything, but when factoring all the above, it is rather safe to assume that there was a cremation.

The idea for a cremation is not based on any Roman assumption or any Hephaestion hypothesis - it is based on archaeological finds. And surely, its not only Hephaestion who deserved a cremation.

The idea that the bones are later burials is also not disrpoven. Yes, they are very likely not Roman, but lets not forget that from the supposed tomb construction until its sealing somewhere around the end of 2nd century BC or slightly later, we have a period of almost 150-200 years! We might count centuries and decades very easily here, but lets not forget that 150-200 years is a very long time. Lots of things could have happened to the tomb, various high-level officials of Amphipolis could have used the tomb for burying their own people or for other purposes. There were important 60-year old women that could also have been placed in there at a later date. Phila has been mentioned, probably more existed.

The cemetery on Kastas was in use into the fifth century, so there will very probably have been cremation burials. If digging the cist grave disturbed a cremation burial, then a few fragments would have been mixed in with the grave fill. I have said nothing about cremated fragments being brought in - that would seem unlikely considering that the sand came from the river.

Why are these "ashes" found in the cist grave different from the torch soot found in the fill above? If ashes fell out of an urn, then the urn was smashed in situ. Where are its fragments? Why was only a handle found in the chamber above and not in the grave at all? Why would anyone dig a coffin shaped cist grave and then have a cremation burial at one end? What are the precedents for mixed cremation and inhumation burials at the same time? Why were cremation fragments from a smashed urn scrupulously removed, whilst hundreds of skeleton bones were left scattered about? None of this makes any sense whatsoever. The people who sealed the tomb thought that there was something important inside. With the cremation fragments and virtually everything else scrupulously removed, that means they thought that those bones were significant. Tombs that were never sealed are not good parallels for the Amphipolis Tomb. There is no reason to prioritise a few cremation fragments over several virtually intact skeletons in a cist grave designed for inhumations - that is where the wishful thinking lies.

The attention paid to the sealing strongly militates in favour of the bones being important to a degree which surely reflects the importance of the person for which the Amphipolis Tomb was constructed. An importance which exceeded even the significance of Philip II as far as its builders were concerned. It is a great mistake to give comfort to the people who would like to distract us from proper and due investigation of the bones. It is a great and growing scandal that these distractors are being allowed to succeed in thwarting the proper application of science to the matter.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[gepd]

The cemetery on Kastas was in use into the fifth century, so there will very probably have been cremation burials. If digging the cist grave disturbed a cremation burial, then a few fragments would have been mixed in with the grave fill. I have said nothing about cremated fragments being brought in - that would seem unlikely considering that the sand came from the river.

Best wishes,

Andrew

So, out of almost a hundred cist burials excavated at Kastas, no cremation was found, but then during the digging of Kastas (for the construction or for the excavation? -not sure what you mean), they were unfortunate to encounter one of the few cremations there, so once again we are mislead by strange coincidences? I cant really see how you treat such a scenario as a probable explanation...

Why are these "ashes" found in the cist grave different from the torch soot found in the fill above? If ashes fell out of an urn, then the urn was smashed in situ. Where are its fragments? Why was only a handle found in the chamber above and not in the grave at all? Why would anyone dig a coffin shaped cist grave and then have a cremation burial at one end? What are the precedents for mixed cremation and inhumation burials at the same time? Why were cremation fragments from a smashed urn scrupulously removed, whilst hundreds of skeleton bones were left scattered about? None of this makes any sense whatsoever. The people who sealed the tomb thought that there was something important inside. With the cremation fragments and virtually everything else scrupulously removed, that means they thought that those bones were significant. Tombs that were never sealed are not good parallels for the Amphipolis Tomb. There is no reason to prioritise a few cremation fragments over several virtually intact skeletons in a cist grave designed for inhumations - that is where the wishful thinking lies.

The attention paid to the sealing strongly militates in favour of the bones being important to a degree which surely reflects the importance of the person for which the Amphipolis Tomb was constructed. An importance which exceeded even the significance of Philip II as far as its builders were concerned. It is a great mistake to give comfort to the people who would like to distract us from proper and due investigation of the bones. It is a great and growing scandal that these distractors are being allowed to succeed in thwarting the proper application of science to the matter.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Why are these "ashes" found in the cist grave different from the torch soot found in the fill above? If ashes fell out of an urn, then the urn was smashed in situ. Where are its fragments?

I think we are dealing with the "model does not fit the data, so data have to be wrong" situation here. Limitations in our imagination do not falsify data.

If it was torch soot, it should have appeared in an extended region, not localized in the separated area of the cist. Otherwise, we are dealing again with a misleading coincidence.

Ashes falling out of the urn - well, maybe they opened it on site, did a fast search to verify it contained valuables, and then took it away. Or maybe the lid opened when they lifted the urn and some things fell out. Or maybe it was a full metallic construction, so it could not break, while it was opened. Or maybe it broke during a raid, as you say, but at a period after which the tomb was still maintained/cleaned, so the broken parts were removed.

The second head of the sphinx is also missing, same for one of the caryatid hands. So, inferring from the way you ask, should I assume one of the caryatids had no hands? Or than one of sphinxes was headless from the start? Instead, I would think that few of these things may have been removed during a cleaning of the chambers after a raid or before the sealing.

I am not saying any of these is the actual explanation, but explanations exist if you try to think.

Why was only a handle found in the chamber above and not in the grave at all?

Maybe for the same reason bones and other finds were found at different heights within the fill. Whatever that reason is.

Why would anyone dig a coffin shaped cist grave and then have a cremation burial at one end? What are the precedents for mixed cremation and inhumation burials at the same time?

For the same reason they constructed a cist grave of 3.23 m long - the longest ever found. I assume we do not know many people of that height. As for mixed cremation and inhumation burials, I just gave two examples above. Even if these two examples were unavailable, I do not see how is the combination so strange.

The people who sealed the tomb thought that there was something important inside. With the cremation fragments and virtually everything else scrupulously removed, that means they thought that those bones were significant.

They also transported tomb elements (e.g. sphinx head and feathers) into the last chamber. Coins were found surrounding the sphinx head, indicating offerings associated with its placement there. And they also preserved and sealed the first two chambers even more carefully. So its not necessary that the bones were the important thing, or the only important thing in there. The Serapion in Memphis was sealed to prevent the continuation of "disturbing" cult. There is no unique explanation for the sealing. Possibly the bones were also important, but that says nothing about whether there was a cremation before or not. And we also do not know if the last chamber was looted after the sealing - so materials from the cremation could have been removed afterwards. Layering of the fill in the last chamber was disturbed.

Tombs that were never sealed are not good parallels for the Amphipolis Tomb.

Why? Your assertion was that since there are very few cremated remains, they are statistically insignificant and then we cannot be sure that a cremated body was placed at Kastas. I brought examples that contradicts what you say, and explained why it is extremely unlikely to have cremated bones at Kastas "by chance". This has nothing to do with the sealing.

There is no reason to prioritise a few cremation fragments over several virtually intact skeletons in a cist grave designed for inhumations - that is where the wishful thinking lies.

There is no prioritization, other than saying that it is very likely that there was a cremated body at Kastas. All finds have to be part of the explanations given.

It is a great mistake to give comfort to the people who would like to distract us from proper and due investigation of the bones.

Nobody gives comfort to anyone. I just argue that there was a cremation and nothing is inconsistent with that- that's all. As far as I know, the bones are being studied, but lack of money and will from the current government delays things. From the recent presentations they could have said more about the stromatography of the skeletal finds, but apparently only gave hints about that which was dissapointing.

[rocktupac]

I've been away from this post on the forum for a while and am definitely not up to date on the many posts..

But do we know yet what was inside the tomb? Who was inside it?

[Zebedee]

I've been away from this post on the forum for a while and am definitely not up to date on the many posts..

But do we know yet what was inside the tomb? Who was inside it?

The most complete official version is by Corso, and is found here:

http://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2016/0 ... is-part-1/

http://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2016/0 ... is-part-2/

[Zebedee]

Why would anyone dig a coffin shaped cist grave and then have a cremation burial at one end? What are the precedents for mixed cremation and inhumation burials at the same time?

For the same reason they constructed a cist grave of 3.23 m long - the longest ever found. I assume we do not know many people of that height. As for mixed cremation and inhumation burials, I just gave two examples above. Even if these two examples were unavailable, I do not see how is the combination so strange.

Was there ever any evidence to support the coffin idea? I know bronze and iron nails were present, as were decorative elements. But anything to suggest a coffin in particular over, say, a kline? And I'm sure the initial suggestion made was that the decorative elements were from something above ground in any case? And Corso since has asserted the presence of a kline.

Just as an example, but a 1.8m x 0.8m x 0.8m wooden kline for an inhumation seems to have needed something like a 2.6m long cist grave (dug into the bedrock!) in Pella in the late 4th century BC. Fragmented decorative elements and nails would be typical remains to find for a wooden one, and are indeed present in Macedonian inhumations from the late 4th century BC and are attributed to a kline or bier. A kline could also potentially remove any need for a second burial within the grave itself, as we find at several notable monumental tombs. Of course, it equally doesn't rule out a burial either nor cremated remains being placed upon it as Corso suggests.

[rocktupac]

I've been away from this post on the forum for a while and am definitely not up to date on the many posts..

But do we know yet what was inside the tomb? Who was inside it?

The most complete official version is by Corso, and is found here:

http://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2016/0 ... is-part-1/

http://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2016/0 ... is-part-2/

Thank you!!

[gepd]

Was there ever any evidence to support the coffin idea? I know bronze and iron nails were present, as were decorative elements. But anything to suggest a coffin in particular over, say, a kline? And I'm sure the initial suggestion made was that the decorative elements were from something above ground in any case? And Corso since has asserted the presence of a kline.

Just as an example, but a 1.8m x 0.8m x 0.8m wooden kline for an inhumation seems to have needed something like a 2.6m long cist grave (dug into the bedrock!) in Pella in the late 4th century BC. Fragmented decorative elements and nails would be typical remains to find for a wooden one, and are indeed present in Macedonian inhumations from the late 4th century BC and are attributed to a kline or bier. A kline could also potentially remove any need for a second burial within the grave itself, as we find at several notable monumental tombs. Of course, it equally doesn't rule out a burial either nor cremated remains being placed upon it as Corso suggests.

In all latest announcements they refer to a kline or a coffin and give comparisons of the decorative elements with those found (from a kline?) at Aghios Athanasios tomb. Most cist tombs have lengths of about 2-2.5 meters, from a quick search I did, I assume because kilne had to be longer than the height of the dead person they where intended for. So, 3.23 meters of a cist tomb at Kastas is not enough for two kline. Furthermore, since we know that the skeletons found at Kastas are not taller than 1.7 m, 3.23 meters long cist tomb is an exaggeration, even if assumed that the 35 year old skeleton (1.68 m tall) corresponds to the primary burial. If that was intended for the female (1.57 m. tall), the exaggeration is even greater. So, the large length of the cist tomb should have a purpose. The separator found and the ashes within that small space, together with the metallic handle, the pyre at Kastas and the bone fragments of a cremated skeleton, are definitely consistent with the presence of a burial of a cremated person. The length of the cist tomb also suggests that the burial of the cremated person was planned there from the beginning. One can never be sure of course, but I think all the above are reasonable assumptions.

[Zebedee]

Interesting they're still not quite sure themselves then about a coffin or kline. Certainly no hint of anything above ground in which to place bodies, so far at least, either.

Tomb 3 at Aghios Athanasios was a glass and ivory inlaid wooden kline, yeah. The suggestion there is the body was upon it because of a stone block which was beneath the marks left on the wall by the kline decomposing if I'm remembering rightly.

Think there's a couple of theories to try to explain wood vs stone klinai but personally don't think either really hold up as a perfect explanation for every example, however mentioning them for those who may not be aware. One idea is that stone was for inhumations and wood for cremations (whether as the object to be cremated upon or to go alongside the cremated remains). Another ideas is that it's based on relative ease of access to wood over stone as materials for funeral couches.

It seems a reasonable assumption that cremated remains within a grave belong to that grave unless there's evidence to suggest otherwise. And even more so with the evidence you list. Just as if the female remains had been found at the bottom of the longer portion one would naturally place her within it too - and Corso may well be wrong on his view of that regardless. The two other adult corpses seem a lot more difficult to place! Can understand Corso seeking to explain them as having presumably entirely looted containers for their remains but not sure how that can be supported evidentially (!).

[Taphoi]

Hi gepd,

Accepting that you have studied some of the archaeological reports and that they concentrated on inhumation burials from the archaic period, it is nonetheless far from clear that cremation fragments would not actually be expected in the soil beneath the Kasta Mound. The reports that I have read (e.g. Lazarides in BCH) say that he found bone fragments (ossements) everywhere in his excavations (which is totally normal for a cemetery area that was in use for hundreds if not thousands of years through to the classical period and again in the Hellenistic period). The BCH text unfortunately does not state whether these bone fragments were cremated, but if any were, then it would actually be expected that a few foreign and unrelated cremation fragments would have been found in the Amphipolis Tomb cist grave fill.

Even if Lazarides' bone fragments were all uncremated, it still does not tell us whether there were pre-existing cremations beneath the Kasta Mound. The area covered by the mound is 20000 square metres. We might presume that the Kasta mound would have been built in the vicinity of the most recent area of cemetery use, because the whole reason for putting the cist grave there must have been that it was a recognisable cemetery area in 325-300BC. That means that the Mound may well completely cover the area of use in the Classical Period, where all the cremations would have been.

I think the evidence for a cremation from "pyre" remains found on the hill is identical with the carbon-14 charcoal fragments: the probable explanation is cooking fires of the Mound builders rather than a funeral pyre.

Since torches were being used to light the activities in the Tomb when it is supposed that one or more urns was extracted from the cist grave, it follows that a torch was held persistently above the tombrobbers whilst they robbed the cist grave. It follows that ash is expected to be concentrated in the cist grave from torches. The archaeologists do not appear to have distinguished between the expected torch ash and the "ashes" they say they found in the cist grave. It does not really make sense that the tombrobbers flung a handful of ashes without bone fragments into the bottom of the cist grave, then separately gathered a handful of cremation bone fragments and mixed them into the soil fill as they replaced it. Torch ash and pre-existing cremation fragments from the fifth century AD are complete and simple explanations for the observations that do not require strange behaviour on the part of the tombrobbers.

Cist tombs in Macedon in the Classical and Hellenistic period typically had two chambers. There is no need to infer that this was for a combined inhumation and cremation. It is far from clear that the sarcophagi and cremation urn crevices that you mention above were contemporaneous. It sounds more as though a cremation tomb later had some sarcophagi popped into it or vice versa. But please do let us know if the archaeologists were able to prove that both kinds of burials were being incorporated in the same tomb at exactly the same time (as would have to be the case for the Kasta Mound cist grave).

Overall therefore there is definitely no proof of a cremation burial in the Amphipolis Tomb and the evidence put forward by the archaeologists requires such bizarre behaviour by the tombrobbers that I am becoming quite incredulous of it. The only certainty is that those skeletons were deliberately buried in the Amphipolis Tomb. Although I cannot quite prove that they were the original burials yet, the early sealing of the tomb and the fact that the sealers thought the bones important (I do not accept the importance of the sphinx head, the coins and the clay pots) strongly militate in favour of them being the original burials.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[gepd]

Accepting that you have studied some of the archaeological reports and that they concentrated on inhumation burials from the archaic period, it is nonetheless far from clear that cremation fragments would not actually be expected in the soil beneath the Kasta Mound. The reports that I have read (e.g. Lazarides in BCH) say that he found bone fragments (ossements) everywhere in his excavations (which is totally normal for a cemetery area that was in use for hundreds if not thousands of years through to the classical period and again in the Hellenistic period).

Yes, I have read them, and reviewed the reports again just now, so that I can be sure I was remembering correctly. Not the summaries in BCH, but the detailed, original reports in the Praktika tis Archaeologikis Eterias (ΠΑΕ in Greek or PAE in English). In these reports he describes in most cases ,each of the burials discovered, separately. I have also read Peristeri's initial report from Kastas presented in the Macedonia conference in 2010 and published in the relevant proceedings last year (see a summary and some photos for that article that we put in our website here: https://enneaodoi.wordpress.com/kastas2009_2010/)

I can say with certainty that you are grossly misinterpreting or mispresenting the findings described in all these.

Nowehere in these articles it is implied they are finding bone fragments "everywhere", but that they have found burials in every excavation session typically occurring once per year at the time of Lazarides. There are very few cases (less than 5) that they report the finding of isolated bones (not part of a cist or pit tomb), nowhere it is implied that these bones are cremated, and in many of those times they scattered bones are animal bones. They never say these bones are scattered in a big area, rather they specify that e.g. "we found a skull"... And what does "everywhere" mean in any case? 1 bone fragment per few square meter? That is not even close to reality.

Nowhere it is implied that burials are from a period of thousand years - most are placed in the greek archaic period, even in the late Greek archaic period. None of the tombs is assigned as "Hellenistic" or "classical" with the exception of the pyre found, which is placed in early Hellenistic times. Some building foundations were also found, but could not be dated. But no burials later than the first half of 5th century BC.

Even if Lazarides' bone fragments were all uncremated, it still does not tell us whether there were pre-existing cremations beneath the Kasta Mound. The area covered by the mound is 20000 square metres. We might presume that the Kasta mound would have been built in the vicinity of the most recent area of cemetery use, because the whole reason for putting the cist grave there must have been that it was a recognisable cemetery area in 325-300BC. That means that the Mound may well completely cover the area of use in the Classical Period, where all the cremations would have been.

Yes it does tell us. The Kastas mound was extensively excavated. Just have a look below on the 1976 picture. Excavations went on by Lazarides until 1982, reports describe sections of several hundred square meters for most of the years of excavation, many reaching the natural rock layer and revealing archaic burials, a period during which cremation was not a practice.



Later burials would have been on higher layers, if existed they would have been revealed together with the nature of the burials (cremation or inhumation). Lazarides is explicit in saying in the manuscript describing the finding of the pyre that the pyre cannot be associated with the archaic burials found at Kastas as cremation was not practiced in that region at that time (and obviously because he did not find burned remains at Kastas).

So what do the reports say?

--Lazarides found about 75 burials, if I counted correctly, all cist or pit tombs, all pre-480 BC (end of "Greek archaic period") and states less than 3-4 cases of isolated human bones with no burial
-In only one case it may be implied that remains found could have been burned. He does not state if skeletal remains were cremated, but were found near a burn layer.
-Peristeri found 9 more burials, all from the archaic period
-In total about 90 burials, out of an area of 20000 sq. meters as you say, ie. you need to excavate about 220 sq meters on Kastas to find a burial. But of course Lazarides and Peristeri did not excavate 20000 sq meters, lets just say the did cover only 25% of the area (I am being very generous here), that is you need to dig 55 square meters to end up with one burial. The third chamber is 4.5 x 4.5 meters sized, ie ~25 sq meters. So the probability to encounter a burial while digging at Kastas is about 36%. Now multiply this with the probability that this burial is from a cremation, which is 1/90 (likely lower), you end up with a probability of 0.4% ...

Now take this 0.4% and assume:

-That the cremated skeleton, probably belonging to an important person, since cremations were not for everyone, was just scattered around in Kastas and not in an unr or larnax and enclosed in a more elegant construction, e.g. at least a single chamber tomb. That is the only way the bones could have gone unnoticed and mix with soil during digging for constructing the chambers.
-That when Kastas construction finished, these scattered cremated bones (9 pieces found) ended up not mixed in the soil forming the foundations or the tumulus cover of the tomb, but inside the brand-new and likely cleaned-up third chamber, ready to host likely one or more very important Macedonians, and nobody took care to notice them and remove them. They were just lying there for two hundred years and ended up mixed in the soil used to seal the tomb...

Not sure how to quantify the latter two probabilities, but I assume they make this 0,4% even lower. And, yes, I know that some of those numbers have uncertainty, but I really have trouble to play around and make the <<0.4% greater than 2-3%. Which still does not look good.

We have the data, we can quantify your scenario, no need to generalise with qualitative probability estimations...

I think the evidence for a cremation from "pyre" remains found on the hill is identical with the carbon-14 charcoal fragments: the probable explanation is cooking fires of the Mound builders rather than a funeral pyre.

Sorry but that is wrong also. The pyre is rectangular creation of red clay 3.8x2.9 meters in size, it had signs of a high temperature fire, they found lots of ceramics, burned material (not just ashes from camp fires and ... barbeque), a handle of a kantharos, typical for for ritual use or offerings, there was also a stamped amphorae and next to the pyre this 4th century BC lekythos (from wikipedia: lekythos was used for anointing dead bodies of unmarried men and many lekythoi are found in tombs)



A photo of the pyre is here:



I hope that clears this subject...

Since torches were being used to light the activities in the Tomb when it is supposed that one or more urns was extracted from the cist grave, it follows that a torch was held persistently above the tombrobbers whilst they robbed the cist grave. It follows that ash is expected to be concentrated in the cist grave from torches. The archaeologists do not appear to have distinguished between the expected torch ash and the "ashes" they say they found in the cist grave.

Same is true when they were looting the main part of the cist tomb, but do not report ash covering the whole cist, only the part which is intentionally divided by a separating wall. Well, they may be lying about that. So that is my only assumption, that they are not lying, I hope I am not wrong.

Apart from that, you previously ask us to find similar examples of inhumation combined with cremation and I gave examples. You may try to do the same to support your scenario, ie, that the separator was there to host offerings. Where in any cist tomb one needed separated parts to place the offerings? Why have a 3.2 m long cist tomb?

It is far from clear that the sarcophagi and cremation urn crevices that you mention above were contemporaneous. It sounds more as though a cremation tomb later had some sarcophagi popped into it or vice versa. But please do let us know if the archaeologists were able to prove that both kinds of burials were being incorporated in the same tomb at exactly the same time (as would have to be the case for the Kasta Mound cist grave).

I am not arguing that inhumation and cremation at Kastas were simultaneous. I am only arguing that there was a cremation. The length of the cist tomb may only indicate, not prove, that they were planning from start to add a cremated body. Whether there was a time lag between the deaths of the two "candidates" for the tomb, or whether they where placed simultaneously, is another story. I obviously do not know the answer. Lefantzis says the cremation was a later addition, not sure how he proves it, so I don't care unless I see the evidence. Same for his assertion that the 45 y. old male was the first burial and then the female was thrown above.

As for the examples that I gave with the combination of cremation and inhumation, I have to check again, but I do not think they discuss whether these were simultaneous or not. That is not the point, however.

Overall therefore there is definitely no proof of a cremation burial in the Amphipolis Tomb and the evidence put forward by the archaeologists requires such bizarre behaviour by the tombrobbers that I am becoming quite incredulous of it.

There is very strong indication of a cremation. All said above are my opinions, not the opinions of the archaeologists. I only use what I consider facts from the archaeologists. The archaeologists did not propose any scenario describing the steps of tombrobbers, only said that there is evidence for cremation, the urn or larnax are missing from the designated area in the cist, so it must have been robbed.

Trying to reconstruct each step of the tomb robbers actions is meaningless. Especially since scenarios are numerous (I gave some, there are many more), and combinations of scenarios (e.g. multiple robbers) and the unknowns even more. I can again remind you the example of the Pergamon tomb - robbers took also the bones from the cist grave, not just the valuables. Does it make sense? Obviously not. But it happened... One caryatid hand is missing, was a broken hand stolen? It does not make sense, but its missing...

[Taphoi]

Hi gepd,
Thanks for a very informative and detailed reply, but I fear that my doubts are not much assuaged.

We now appear to be agreeing that it is difficult to establish precedents for simultaneous inhumations and cremations in the same grave. That is my point. The cist grave in the Amphipolis Tomb is patently a simultaneous structure. It has been suggested that the small chamber contained a cremation burial and the long coffin shaped chamber was not only for a coffin (or kline?) by virtue of its size and shape but it also contained decorative fragments of the coffin as also asserted by the archaeologists. Therefore we are apparently being sold a simultaneous inhumation-cremation concept. And that appears to be a good reason for dubiety - but I am interested whether anyone has any evidence of simultaneous inhumation-cremation graves from elsewhere in Macedon or Greece.

The archaeologists do not seem to have mentioned the torch ash found elsewhere when referring to the ash in the smaller cist tomb chamber, so I am not clear why you expect them to have mentioned torch ash in the vicinity of the coffin part of the cist tomb chamber? Nobody could possibly criticise them for having been insufficiently economical with the truth so far. My point about the secondary chamber of the cist is that it is in line with two chambers in many Macedonian cist tombs. In the other cases, the antechambers were supposed to be for grave goods etc. It is only in the specific case of the Amphipolis Tomb that the archaeologists have decided that the second chamber must be for a cremation. I cannot see any reason why it would not have been for grave goods/offerings.

I now understand your pyre reference. I thought you were referring to recent pyre evidence from Peristeri. But wasn't the pyre that you are showing found actually on the mound? That means it is later than the mound. The mound took at least several years to build. So, unless they stored a decaying body for several years before cremation, the pyre on the mound has nothing to do with the original occupants of the Amphipolis Tomb.

There are other Hellenistic tombs in the vicinity, such as the tomb with the diamond pattern pebble mosaic and cosmetic jars.

I think you may have misunderstood my 20000m2 area. That is the area buried under 20m of mound since the late 4th century BC. I am suggesting that there might have been an area with classical period cremation burials under there and that the early Hellenistic Amphipolis Tomb cist grave was positioned among these graves, because that was the most recent area of use for the cemetery. The consequence would have been that the subsequent mound disguised the existence of the Classical period cremation cemetery. I am happy that the archaic burials seem to have been inhumations.

Sorry, but the merely occasional specifics on isolated bone finds by Lazarides and Peristeri does not prove that isolated fragments were few - only that they found intact burials more interesting and meriting more attention. Clearly it is true that scattered bone fragments do exist across the site. I accept that their density is currently unclear.

Best wishes,

Andrew