The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[agesilaos]

Alexander IV cannoty have been buried before 294 when Demetrios came to the throne, Kassandros would not have bothered nor his troubled sons, so if it is Alexander IV it is early third century or later. That said the picture outside Aigai is more mixed but I do not think there is a duostyle facade before the third century, the door does look like is an antechamber, however, the sphynxes demonstrate an entry hall at the very least and this feature is earlier rather than later, everything points to early to mid third century BC, which is where the historical probability would put it too; the reign of Kassandros precludes any late fourth century burial for any of the proposed occupants who were either his victims or his enemies.

I am not entirely convinced on the breast issue but certainly the one on the left does appear to have once had something like that. One can also see the hole into which the wing once attached, which indicates they were the normal upright style which would have occluded the arch and yet they do seem to be part of the existing lintel! I would suggest, and this is pure speculation, that the arch is the newer feature (excavation will show that to be true or not) and that the damage to the sphynxes was the result of an earlier structure collapsing. Were this to be shown to be true then the importance of the occupant would be underlined even more than the size of the thing indicates, as any collapse is unlikely to have been hard on the heels of its completion, this is good workmanship, earthquake damage is possible as a cause of the original collapse. One was reported around 281 in the area in Justin, it is an omen of the fall of Lysimachos; this one I would put later, though, but only for reasons of my preferred dating!

edited for spelling error

[Taphoi]

Alexander IV cannoty have been buried before 294 when Demetrios came to the throne, Kassandros would not have bothered nor his troubled sons, so if it is Alexander IV it is early third century or later... the reign of Kassandros precludes any late fourth century burial for any of the proposed occupants who were either his victims or his enemies.

It does not appear always to be the case that rulers did not allow the entombment of dead enemies. Counter examples are numerous, e.g.:

Alexander sent the body of Darius to Persepolis, with orders that it should be buried in the royal sepulchre, in the same way as the other Persian kings before him had been buried.

I am not entirely convinced on the breast issue but certainly the one on the left does appear to have once had something like that. One can also see the hole into which the wing once attached, which indicates they were the normal upright style which would have occluded the arch and yet they do seem to be part of the existing lintel! I would suggest, and this is pure speculation, that the arch is the newer feature (excavation will show that to be true or not)...

It may be true that the arch is later and the specifics of the architecture or other archaeological clues may indeed decide this. Against this, firstly, we are told that the lion and therefore the mound were contemporaneous with the sphinxes. If the arch is later than the sphinxes and it supported the mound, then we find ourselves in a bit of a logical impasse. Secondly, arches and barrel vaulting are a regular feature of Macedonian tombs of this period. Thirdly, it is not really clear whether the wings fitted or not: consider the sphinxes on the Lycian sarcophagus from Sidon, if their heads had been smashed away, then it would be tempting to conclude that there was not enough room for them, because we would not be able to see how the sculptor has actually twisted them to fit within the curve of the sarcophagus lid.

The sphinxes on the Lycian sarcophagus from Sidon

SidonSphinxes.jpg (41.14 KiB) Viewed 12132 times

...and that the damage to the sphynxes was the result of an earlier structure collapsing. Were this to be shown to be true then the importance of the occupant would be underlined even more than the size of the thing indicates, as any collapse is unlikely to have been hard on the heels of its completion, this is good workmanship, earthquake damage is possible as a cause of the original collapse. One was reported around 281 in the area in Justin, it is an omen of the fall of Lysimachos; this one I would put later, though, but only for reasons of my preferred dating!

It is possible that the sphinxes suffered earthquake damage at some point, but the fact that their breasts appear to have been smashed off (in addition to heads and wings) militates in favour of deliberate mutilation. I point this out sadly, because it implies that the contents of the tomb may not be entirely intact, if the sphinxes were mutilated before the entrance was walled up. Nevertheless, that it was worth walling up implies that there was still something worth protecting inside! Clearly, nobody subsequently penetrated through that wall, so robbers would have had to dig through the mound, which would have been difficult and pointless, if the valuables had already been stolen. So I am hopeful of actual graves within.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[system1988]

Hi all

Just communicating the head of the excavation words she stated yesterday on the air worldwide:

The tomb dates back to the 325BC and 300 BC. It is a monument of global interest. The tumulus surveyed the entire city as well as the cemetery grounds.

This is my personal take on the matter: I cannot fathom how a such a well known scientist (in the archaeological sciences) would risk her status by stating hypoteseis that are bound to be wrong. She must have seen something (probably the tomb characteristics or the ceramic shards from vases, or maybe another object) that made her absolutely sure of her words.


Best

Pauline

[agesilaos]

I've just checked the date and it's not April 1st; Andrew, it is true that some rulers are more compassionate or detached than others but this is Kassandros, the man who cut the throat of Demades' son while he stood next to his father and then despatched the sire soaked in the blood of his offspring, he has quite a blood thirsty streak or a grasp of Realpolitick, depending on your angle (Iike him), nor did Alexander kill Dareios, look to his treatment of Bessos for your parallel or Kallisthenes.

Barrel vaults are indeed a feature of Macedonian tombs, by the late fourth century almost the defining feature but they still collapse in earthquakes and the collapse would be visible allowing the repair of the damage, or it may not have been covered by the mound originally, to allow further burials or religious ceremonies. the dimension of wing allowed by the present arch would not require separate carving, the heads were not pegged and would have fallen and smashed along with the wings in this scenario damaging the chests, they were not themselves repaired as the new vault did not allow the space and they decided to wall the entrance in. This would mean that the tomb is probably not robbed out. Christians might attack the breasts of a statue but Greeks? I see more accidental than human agent here. We might further speculate that the Lion Monument collapsed at the same time but was too difficult a jigsaw without the box lid and was transported merely to clear site and possibly for Health and Safety reasons.

Pauline, I watched the excavation director (I think) talking to your PM on his visit declaring that everything was Dinokratis, yet there is no evidence of how his work would look nor how it would differ from that of his school or something done in his style. There is alot of excitement around the find, quite rightly and it seems to me that things are being shoe-horned into pushing an Alexander connection, when frankly, the later history is much more interesting IMHO as the Romans might have put it 'erant magni post Alexandrum'.

Only time will tell what is under the tel

[system1988]

24-8-2014.www.culture.gr ( the greek version ) and www.in.gr

[Taphoi]

There are suggestions in some news stories that the lion was found in the river, because the Romans were using the masonry to shore up its bank. If so, no sinister motive is necessary for the removal of the lion. This mkes sense, because a lot of the supporting structure for the lion was also found in the river (~5km from the mound). The monument atop the mound may already have been ruinous in the 2nd century AD and these ruins might have been the nearest convenient source of massive ready-carved blocks at the time. This would tend to make the Roman activity much later than the date at which the tomb was walled up.
The association with Alexander's architect, Deinocrates (literally the "Master of Marvels"), is interesting. He is widely referenced in the ancient sources and is also called Cheirocrates ("Hand Master"), Stasicrates, Deinochares and even Diocles. It has been suggested that Stasicrates was his real name and that Deinocrates was a nickname. He was the proposer of the project to sculpt Mt Athos into a giant statue of Alexander (rejected by the king). He is specified to have restored the temple of Artemis at Ephesus and, most famously, he was the architect for Alexandria in Egypt. In my book, The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great, 2nd Edition, 2012, p.160, I made a link between the masonry of the most ancient fragments of the walls of Alexandria and the Lion tomb at Amphipolis (i.e. the blocks from the structure that supported the lion, which was all there was at that time):

The blocks of limestone in the oldest parts of this fragment [of the walls of ancient Alexandria, located in the modern Shallalat Gardens] are crammed with shell fossils and the largest stones are over a metre wide, although they vary in size and proportions. They have a distinctive band of drafting around their edges, but the remainder of the face of each was left rough-cut. The Tower of the Romans in Alexandria was faced with the same style of blocks, including the bands of drafting. Such blocks are particularly to be found in the context of high status early-Hellenistic architecture. Pertinent examples elsewhere include the blocks lining the Lion Tomb at Knidos and the original base blocks of another Lion Tomb from Amphipolis in Macedonia. Both most probably date to around the end of the fourth century BC and are best associated with Alexander’s immediate Successors.

The photo below shows these blocks in Alexandria and below that is a photo showing similar blocks from the enclosure wall of the Lion Tomb at Amphipolis, excavated since the above quote was published. Thus there is a substantive link between a known project of Deinocrates and the Lion Tomb at Amphipolis, which had been made prior to the current excavation.

The oldest section of the walls of ancient Alexandria

AncientWallAlex.jpg (216.74 KiB) Viewed 12073 times

Blocks in the enclosure wall of the Lion Tomb at Amphipolis

amphipolisencwall.jpg (101.79 KiB) Viewed 12073 times

Best wishes,
Andrew

[Callisto]

Hello all,

There are some more pictures from Amphipolis published today.
http://www.yppo.gr/2/g22.jsp?obj_id=58112

Archaeologist A. Kottaridi said sth interesting some days ago. In Northern Greece the peribolus of the Amphipolis tomb is similar only to the one of Archontiko(Pella). All the other Macedonian tombs in Greece have got different type of peribolus. She also said this specific type of peribolus is found also in Ierapolis (Phrygia).

Regarding the Sphinxes, there is sth interesting about the tomb from Archontiko. In "Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon" (p. 180), Paspalas claims:

"...While two tomb-markers, both in the form of a sphinx, a type of tomb guardian particularly well-attested in Attica during the Archaic period, have recently been excavated at Archontiko, in the Pella plain, and at Pentavrysos,..."

Unfortunately i couldnt find any pic of these sphinxes from Archontiko. There are some pics about the sphinx of Pentavrysos.

http://www.enet.gr/?i=news.el.article&id=215726

http://fouit.gr/2013/03/%CE%B7-%CF%83%C ... %B5%CF%82/

Best Regards

[Taphoi]

Thanks, Callisto. I see that the Pentavrysos sphinx is dated to 470BC. Do you know the date of the Archontiko sphinx, please?
Looks like they have a ladder inside the vestibule up against further walls or earth mounds in the latest pictures. Good progress - maybe it's not filled with earth inside.

Peering inside the vestibule.

amphipolis13a.jpg (127.08 KiB) Viewed 12048 times

Best wishes,
Andrew

[agesilaos]

There is no similarity between these two courses. Amphipolis has blocks of regular lengths and heights with the heights varying between courses in a 2, 1, 3 ratio, the height at Alexandria was intended to be constant but varies slightly, and the lengths also vary. The only 'linking' feature remaining, the border is so common on Hellenistic blocks as to hardly be distinctive of one particular architect, but don't worry no link has been proven to Deinokrates at either site. He is credited with designing Alexandria but did that really go down to the way courses of stone would be laid? Micromanagement does not seem to be one of his failings, from the projects of which we hear, the Mt Athos Statue, design of a city, the floating statue of Arsinoe II, all betray a grandiose vision rather than focus on the minutiae.

Interesting pics , the Pentavrysos example is dated to 470BC in the text, yet there is mention of a Paionian shield inscribed 'Audoleontous', Audoleon, who was king of Paionia 315-285, not clear that the finds were associated though.

I think what you are seeing as a ladder are two acroes to support the roof.

[Taphoi]

Amphipolis has blocks of regular lengths and heights with the heights varying between courses in a 2, 1, 3 ratio, the height at Alexandria was intended to be constant but varies slightly,

Actually the vertical band width is varied in the walls of Alexandria too (below). However, it is invariant in reconstructions of the base of the lion monument that crowned the mound at Amphipolis. The band of drafting is not all that common, although there are other examples. I think band width variations and block size variations are arbitrary and not innate to the style of the architect.

Varying vertical band width in the walls of Alexandria.

Alexwalls.jpg (89.06 KiB) Viewed 12041 times

Best wishes,
Andrew

[system1988]

toTaphoi : very interesting photos, thank you , to Callisto thank you for the info and the sites,to Agesilaos: for the paionian schield of Autodoleon try 'historyofmacedoniacom/mia aspida milaei gia thn arxaia macedonia' 21-10-2010, but i am not sure if it works
Best
Pauline

[agesilaos]

Well the block sizes and bands are regular at Amphipolis, and form some mathematical relationship, possibly golden sections, whereas at Alexandria they are arbitrary; I am unclear as to what you find similar, the drafting? Which is certainly not restricted to these sites. There is no reason, however why a functional defence work should share architectural detail with a prestigious tomb, it's comparing apples and pumpkins. Work does seem to progressing quite quickly , tough, as reports from our Greek correspondents show, we may have some solid facts by next weekend, especially if the chamber roofs have not collapsed.

It would be interesting to know the actual dimensions of the cladding blocks, the 'golden section' was calculated by Euklid c.300BC, which would push the date down were it not for the fact that architects may have been using it 'instinctively' for about a century earlier; it seems to inform some of the ratios of the Parthenon, designed c.455 BC.

[Taphoi]

Well the block sizes and bands are regular at Amphipolis...

Your conclusion about the regularity seems to be based on the photo that I posted here of one well-preserved section. Your conclusion about a 2-1-3 pattern in the band heights seems to be based on just the three bands visible in that photo. Looking at other views of the perimeter wall of the Lion Tomb of Amphipolis (below) it is far from clear that the blocks in it do not exhibit similar irregularities to the blocks in the ancient walls of Alexandria. You can see that ladder again in this photo too btw! As for the drafting band on the edges of the blocks, its significance is that I have noticed that it is common to a series of major Hellenistic monuments and structures that date roughly to the last quarter of the 4th century BC around the eastern Mediterranean and it is fairly infrequent (though not unknown) elsewhere. It is one of the very few architectural details that might therefore have a whiff of Deinocrates (or his immediate peers) about it.

Entrance and adjoining perimeter wall to the Lion Tomb at Amphipolis

Greece_Amphipolis_01.jpg (255.79 KiB) Viewed 11977 times

Best wishes,
Andrew

[system1988]

http://www.lifo.gr for the rear ( painted ) of the capitαls of the pillars, and one of the walls of anti-chamber Now !
Another wall and two rooms= two people.

[agesilaos]

I think your second picture is just showing an unclad wall revealing the rough core, hence the lack of the border drafting, and the irregularity of the blocks; the drafting on the Alexandria tower shows that that is the external finished wall.

Could you list those monuments that you have noticed with the bordering? I have been looking but it is a long trawl, and a short cut would be welcolm, half the trouble is that most of the people posting online pictures are interested inthe whole monument rather than the block work!

I still think they are acroes the ladder up to the sphynxs would be too long to fit beneath the lintel upright and if you look you can see a block of wood protecting the ceiling and spreading the load.