Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

[Taphoi]

Actually, there are pebble mosaics later that the early 2nd century. They're not common, but they do persist into the early 1st century. Again, I am deferring to the art historians, as that very point was raised earlier and Olga (and a couple others) named several that are later. Also of note are the *blue* pebbles, which are not used in the late 4th/early 3rd century mosaics at Aegae or Pella. By contrast, the blue may reflect Roman influence which, in turn, reflected Egyptian influence. Also a Roman art historian friend said the folds on the peplos of the caryatids looked suspiciously Roman to her eyes (and she has no horse in this race, so she really doesn't care). All this stuff is beyond my ken (except for the blue stones), but I'm dubious of an early date. I don't think we have enough evidence yet, and archaeologists always want to attach a famous name to their digs to stir up interest (and funding). Greek archaeology (especially in Macedonia) has been problematic for quite a while due to political influences (Royal Tombs anybody?), and this tomb has been used to deflect attention to the debt crisis, don't forget. ;>

I hate to be a "Debbie Downer," but personally, I suspect that the tomb belonged to a wealthy local family under the last of the Antigonids or very early Roman occupation, and is probably nobody we've ever heard of before ... much like the spectacular tomb of Lyson and Kallikles, excavated and published by Stella Miller(-Collett)--and also a tomb with multiple burials. It's still a magnificent find, even if it's not a name or family previous known to us.

On pebble mosaics I have taken my information from "Mosaics of the Greek & Roman World" by Katherine Dunbabin.

The later history of pebble mosaics represents a decline in quality. They continued to be produced throughout the third century BC and into the second; there was some enlargement of the decorative repertory, but the standard of execution was seldom high.

I have no trouble believing that you can find 1st century BC examples if you try hard enough, but they would be in the nature of exceptions that prove the rule. I would be very surprised if there is anything to compare with the mosaic in the Amphipolis tomb. Indeed any such pebble mosaic would already be famous. There is nothing that compares to the Amphipolis tomb mosaic in quality and ambition except in the palace at Pella and dating to the late 4th century BC. It is not necessary to rely on any single indication for the date of the Amphipolis tomb, but it is obviously very unlikely that its mosaic is later than about 250BC and in its 3D effects it really belongs with the Pella examples in the late 4th century BC.

The Archontikon Heroon that I mentioned has a circumference of 158.5m whereas the Amphipolis tomb has a diameter of 158.4m. It is therefore obvious that the two tombs are related. Again this makes it extraordinarily improbable that the Amphipolis tomb could be late Hellenistic or Roman. Instead it compels an early Hellenistic date.

Interestingly, you mention Stella Miller: are you aware that she studied the loose blocks from the Amphipolis tomb's peribolos wall in the early 1970s? She concluded that they were either 4th century BC or 2nd century BC on the basis of the geison soffit mouldings on the crowning blocks from this wall.

There is already enough evidence in the public domain to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Amphipolis tomb is either late 4th century BC or very close to it and the archaeologists have said that their coin and ceramic evidence will support a date in the last quarter of the 4th century BC when they eventually publish it (they are very experienced local experts, so it is unwise to question their evidence on the matter of dating). Olga's stylistic arguments are looking increasingly Canute-like.

Have you calculated how much the Amphipolis tomb cost to build? It has a 0.5km perimeter with a 3m high wall of solid marble blocks imported by sea from the island of Thasos and finely sculpted by master masons. The lion sculpture is 6m tall. We are in the thousands of talents range. Who exactly do you think could have funded something on this scale among wealthy local families? Only powerful royal families were ever capable of funding something on this scale. That is why in its size and scale the Amphipolis tomb is unique in Greece. Only the 120m wide mound over the late 4th century BC tombs at Aegae comes close to it.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Since virtually every line of this post is incorrect, it will be necessary to deal with it in detail. My comments are in blue

Xenophon wrote

Almost from the outset of the excavation of the Katsas tomb at Amphipolis

Start of excavation 2012 Olympias firmly suggested (30%) 3rd September 2014

Taphoi/Andrew Chugg has held the conviction that the tomb must have been that of Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great,

No, 7th Sept up to 50%, it takes until 6th October for ‘conviction’ to solidify,

and has ‘championed’ this cause, virtually single handed. Indeed he has now gone so far as to suggest she is the only possible candidate.

A fact, a palpable fact!

I suggested on the “sphinxes” thread that now we have as much as we are going to get for a while regarding the excavation, and in the light of Taphoi’s repeated assertions

‘assertions’ hoho! there’s a claim of ‘objectivity’ coming soon LOL!

that the tomb can only be that of Olympias, it might be a good time to try and examine such evidence as we have

‘such evidence as we have?’ Does that not mean all the evidence we have?

objectively,

Told you, this becomes a sort of comic refrain.

and see where that evidence actually leads us.

Implies that the conclusion may be more than someone else is wrong, perhaps.

At the outset, in order to get Olympias to Amphipolis, Taphoi asserted that Cassander must have gone there after the fall of Pydna in the Spring of 316 BC. There is no evidence for that assertion.

Nor , of course, is there evidence for the contrary assertion, it remains a matter of interpretation, all hail objectivity!

We are simply not told of Cassander’s immediate movements, but according to Diodorus he seems to have headed south through Boeotia to the Peloponnese [ XIX.54].

He definitely headed south through Thessaly and Boeotia to the Peloponnese AFTER Olympias had been killed and ‘53 1 But Cassander, after assembling an adequate force, set out from Macedonia, desiring to drive Polyperchon's son Alexander from the Peloponnesus;’

Next, Taphoi asserts

This seems to be one of those irregular verbs, when Taphoi guesses beyond the written record he ‘asserts’ yet when you do things ‘appear to show’or ‘seem’, even though both are in fact assertions as they lack evidence; or if one was being ‘objective one would call them interpretations.

that Cassander took Olympias with him to Amphipolis, but there is no evidence for that either. In fact it would appear she never left Pydna.

See comment above

After her conviction, just before her execution,

With such a precise understanding of the chronology of these books I am amazed that no one has offered you a professorship, oh hang on, that ‘just before is only an unevidenced assertion, bad luck!

Cassander sent messengers to her offering to provide a ship/naus to take her to Athens, which she refused.[ so she obviously was not with him, wherever he was]

Non sequitur alert!! Kassandros is a smooth operator, he visits the old hag and then she escapes. Sometimes post hoc ergo propter hoc is the right solution. Had he been lodging next door he would have sent an errand boy.

. Since Amphipolis is inland, on the river Strymon, and inaccessible by sea-going ships, due to bridges etc, she could not have been there.

This is just wrong: the bridge across which Brasidas entered the city has been found and connect s northof the bend in the river; the Strymon would be navigable until one reached the bridge , triereis having shallow drafts, so the possibility of a flight by ship exists.

Nor could she have been taken down-river from Amphipolis by boat to a ship offshore, for the prevailing winds at that time of year [Spring] are southerly,

Not according to this ‘The etesian winds are the prevailing annually recurring summer winds, blowing over large parts of Greece, the Aegean Sea and eastern Mediterranean. The name derives from the Greek 'etesios', annual. They blow steadily from northern to northwestern directions, bringing cold continental air and clear skies between end of May and beginning of October. Naturally what you mean by spring and Diodoros by its onset might change this but the possibility still remains.

creating the dreaded ‘Lee-shore’, against which no sensible ship’s Captain would allow himself to be trapped or wrecked ( as various Persian fleets found to their cost along these shores).

Kassandros was offering passage to Athens, even from Pydna that means a northerly wind; or they could row which might explain the warship (naus) rather than a merchantman (ploion)

Pydna, of course, was one of Macedon’s few important harbours.

Eion, the harbour of Amphipolis was another

In fact that is the reason Olympias ‘holed up’ there in the first place. With Macedon largely under Cassander’s control, with the aid of his powerful backers, she was expecting succour in the form of a relieving army from the sea by her allies.

No, try Diodoros XIX 35-36; Macedonia only abandons Olympias’ cause after the defection of the Epirotes, when Olympias first entered Pydna she held Macedon, which is also signalled by her supporters continuing to hold Amphipolis and Pella when she surrendered. Kassandros’ ‘powerful backers’were Ptolemy and Antigonos and they were largely passive. Far from ‘a bolthole’ she intended Pydna as a command centre with good land and sea communications to her generals in the Perhaibaian passes and Polyperchon possibly in Asia Minor. The rapidity of Kassandros’ success and advance following the collapse of her allies left her trapped.

In the event that this did not occur, it also provided a viable evacuation point – as Cassander later tried to utilise with his offer.

Another assertion since we have no statement of where Kassandros or Olympias were at the time, we are being ‘objective’ remember, not writing with an object.

[gepd]

I think there is too much effort in proving where Olympias was when she was murdered. Most important is whether there was an intention to offer her a grand burial and whether conditions allowed for that. It doesn't really matter if she was killed at Pydna or Amphipolis. Even if the first is valid, somebody could have moved her in a location for which a tomb was prepared for her. I assume there are many examples of dead bodies being relocated for burials. Alexander the Great is an obvious example, Demetrius I Poliorcetes is another.

If one insists that the place Olympias was murdered defined her final burial place, he/she also asserts that the decision to built such grand tomb post-dates her death. I see no motivation at all to do something like this after Olympias death. Nobody cared much, those who may have bothered were imprisoned (Alexander IV) and the political situation was too turbulent until Antigonus Gonatas, who comes into play in the 3rd century BC (so introduces problems with the 4th century BC dating of the construction, which Andrew accepts). And in such a situation, having to prepare a tomb with "a 0.5km perimeter with a 3m high wall of solid marble blocks imported by sea from the island of Thasos and finely sculpted by master masons, a lion sculpture 6m tall costing thousands of talents" (in Andrews words) seems impossible to me.

The alternative scenario would be for the tomb to pre-date Olympias death. If that was intended for Olympias, then we have to assume that she pre-ordered this as a family tomb or something. Was that common? Probably not, although I think we have examples (e.g. Lysimachus ordering the Belevi mausoleum for him). That cannot be proven with the available evidence, it can only be a very low probability scenario with many, possibly extreme, implications.

I do agree with Andrew that the scale of this tomb is royal (from all aspects: physical size, luxury, cost, building plan etc). For various physical phenomena we talk about size distributions - e.g. if you sample dust in nature, you will find many different sizes of dust particles, few big, many smaller. The big ones give rise to many smaller ones (e.g by fragmentation), you get a smooth transition from one size the other. When smooth distributions are violated (e.g.some big particles, many very small ones but nothing between), then one needs to look for something peculiar, something that filters certain sizes.

I think this applies to our case. There were many rich families after AtG in Macedonia, so I can't explain the gap in the "size distribution" between Kastas and other burial monuments. If Kastas was possible for one rich family, it should have been possible also for others. Sure there were some luxurius tombs, but that concenrs only the tomb chambers quality (E.g. Lyson's tombs) - nothing sort of the scale we see at Kastas in almost every aspect of the monument. So in that case we should look for something peculiar that can explain the uniqueness of the monument. For me that is the death of AtG or, at least Antipater, which causes a discontinuity in the motivation for constructing such grand monuments.

Still, I find the scenario that this was built for Oympias alone, highly unlikely and I still believe the (partial) evidence available to us make a nice story about her tomb being in Pydna. If her tomb is not in Pydna, then we are just in the situation that we have lots of misleading coincidences. Can't exclude that, but still what we have is enough for me to say that Olympias is definately not the most likely candidate of the Kastas tomb. On the balance of probabilities, she may still be a candidate, but that's all.

[agesilaos]

Gepd, the point about where Olympias died is simply that given the circumstances she was more than likely buried on the spot after a period of exposure; she had been condemned, presumably on a charge of treason and would be unlikely to be moved any distance.

Looking at the sources there is a good clue to the fact that Kassandros did not go to Amphipolis; Diodoros XIX 52 iv

τὴν μὲν Ῥωξάνηνμετὰ τοῦ παιδὸς εἰς φυλακὴν παρέδωκε, μεταγαγὼν εἰς τὴν ἄκραν τὴν ἐν Ἀμφιπόλει,

and Justin XIV 6 xiv

filium Alexandri cum matre in arcem Amphipolitanam custodiendos mittit.

Both the Greek and the Latin mean ‘sent’ to the citadel of Amphipolis; it could mean from the lower city but is much much more likely to mean from one city to another and the city where Roxane and Alexander were last mentioned together was Pydna along with Olympias and Thessalonike who also figure in this part of Diodoros’ narrative. Not conclusive but … something that looks very like a straw, though whether to build bricks with or clutch at you will have to decide.

I agree with your assessment of the general situation.

[Taphoi]

Thanks to agesilaos for his corrections, but there is one thing that I would like to correct:

and [Taphoi] has ‘championed’ this cause, virtually single handed. Indeed he has now gone so far as to suggest [Olympias] is the only possible candidate.

A fact, a palpable fact!

I suggested that Olympias was the only possible candidate when I had read a misleading news report that suggested that the Greek Ministry of Culture had stated that the sealing of the tomb had occurred a few years after its construction. I believe that this is likely eventually to be proven to be true, but I have established that the Greek Ministry has not actually said it. Therefore my position is that there is still a non-negligible possibility that the bones found are Roman intrusions.

Olympias will be the only possible candidate if either the sealing was early or the bones are shown to be early Hellenistic and also provided that the oft-repeated claim from the archaeologists that they have definitive dating evidence for the last quarter of the 4th century BC is valid.

I think there is too much effort in proving where Olympias was when she was murdered. Most important is whether there was an intention to offer her a grand burial and whether conditions allowed for that. It doesn't really matter if she was killed at Pydna or Amphipolis. Even if the first is valid, somebody could have moved her in a location for which a tomb was prepared for her. I assume there are many examples of dead bodies being relocated for burials. Alexander the Great is an obvious example, Demetrius I Poliorcetes is another.

I broadly agree. Olympias might have been entombed at Amphipolis even if she died at Pydna or Pella, because Amphipolis was where the royal family were based for the next six years.

If one insists that the place Olympias was murdered defined her final burial place, he/she also asserts that the decision to built such grand tomb post-dates her death. I see no motivation at all to do something like this after Olympias death. Nobody cared much, those who may have bothered were imprisoned (Alexander IV) and the political situation was too turbulent until Antigonus Gonatas, who comes into play in the 3rd century BC (so introduces problems with the 4th century BC dating of the construction, which Andrew accepts). And in such a situation, having to prepare a tomb with "a 0.5km perimeter with a 3m high wall of solid marble blocks imported by sea from the island of Thasos and finely sculpted by master masons, a lion sculpture 6m tall costing thousands of talents" (in Andrews words) seems impossible to me.

The royal family cared deeply. Cleopatra was at large and in a position to arrange funding from the generals for a grand tomb for her mother. The generals believed that Alexander IV would soon be their king, so they would have seen it as an investment in the future. Cassander was married into the family via Thessalonice and had decided not to murder Alexander IV, so he was ostensibly working towards reconciliation, even if he was secretly hedging his bets, so he would have allowed a monument. The tomb satisfied everyone's needs in the particular circumstances.

There were many rich families after AtG in Macedonia, so I can't explain the gap in the "size distribution" between Kastas and other burial monuments. If Kastas was possible for one rich family, it should have been possible also for others. Sure there were some luxurius tombs, but that concenrs only the tomb chambers quality (E.g. Lyson's tombs) - nothing sort of the scale we see at Kastas in almost every aspect of the monument. So in that case we should look for something peculiar that can explain the uniqueness of the monument. For me that is the death of AtG or, at least Antipater, which causes a discontinuity in the motivation for constructing such grand monuments.

I am happy to offer you an explanation. Olympias was already the mother of a god at the time (Alexander is already "the divine Alexander" in inscriptions) and the god had asked that she should be recognised as a goddess after her death (Curtius 9.6.26). The Kasta Mound is not the tomb of a queen, but the monument of a goddess. That is why its scale is unique. That is the way Olympias's supporters, who were still very influential, saw the situation in those years. In other words, the Kasta Mound is really a testament to the continuing power and influence of Alexander himself as he achieved his enduring apotheosis. Remember that he is also the thirteenth member of the Pantheon by order of the Senate of Rome. You need to appreciate the religious dimension.

Berst wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Started quite sanely...got any of those mushrooms left?

[Xenophon]

A fine example of your 'Xeno-phobia' and your relentless personal animosity toward me, which every regular reader of this forum will be only too well aware of I fear you would argue black was white or that the earth was flat, provided it disagreed with anything I might have to say. On the other hand,it is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so thanks for the compliment, and since you closely imitated my layout, I shall respond similarly, for convenience
!

Since virtually every line of this post is incorrect, it will be necessary to deal with it in detail. My comments are in blue
....Rather, there is much that is incorrect in this post of yours. And since you don’t criticise every line, but exclude a considerable portion of the post, hardly true.

Xenophon wrote

Almost from the outset of the excavation of the Katsas tomb at Amphipolis

Start of excavation 2012 Olympias firmly suggested (30%) 3rd September 2014

The existence of the excavation and the uncovering of the entrance did not become public knowledge until toward August 2014, and is misleading to refer to 2012. Within days Andrew wrote that “The recently discovered sphinxes guarding the entrance to the Lion Tomb beneath the great mound at Amphipolis in Macedonia were unveiled on August 12 th 2014 during a visit by the Greek prime minister, Antonis Samaras......It therefore seems that sphinxes were a particular symbol of late 4 th century BC Macedonian queens.[ an early error].... The sphinxes at Amphipolis may therefore be interpreted as suggesting that the occupant of the tomb was a prominent queen of Macedon. Do we know from the historical record that any such queen died at Amphipolis in the last quarter of the 4th century BC? There are in fact two such candidates: Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great and Roxane, his wife.......
....On this evidence I consider Olympias to be the leading contender at the time of writing (6/9/2014) for the occupant of the magnificent tomb at Amphipolis currently being excavated with Roxane also a strong possibility.”

Andrew is already convinced that Olympias is the “leading contender” and this before the tomb itself was entered, or that it was established that the find was a tomb !

Taphoi/Andrew Chugg has held the conviction that the tomb must have been that of Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great,

No, 7th Sept up to 50%, it takes until 6th October for ‘conviction’ to solidify,

See above. In the period between 3-6 September, she is the “leading contender”, so clearly higher than 50 %. This is nit-picking at its worst by you.

and has ‘championed’ this cause, virtually single handed. Indeed he has now gone so far as to suggest she is the only possible candidate.

A fact, a palpable fact!

Despite the sarcasm – the lowest form of wit – it is good to see we can agree on something !

I suggested on the “sphinxes” thread that now we have as much as we are going to get for a while regarding the excavation, and in the light of Taphoi’s repeated assertions

‘assertions’ hoho! there’s a claim of ‘objectivity’ coming soon LOL!

Brilliantly perspicacious ! You can read ahead a little. [ You are not the only one who can exhibit sarcasm. I suggest we avoid it in future for other readers sake, that is, if you can.]

that the tomb can only be that of Olympias, it might be a good time to try and examine such evidence as we have

‘such evidence as we have?’ Does that not mean all the evidence we have?

No, it means what it says. ‘such evidence as we have’ is that which has so far been disclosed. Not all the excavators evidence has been disclosed yet.

objectively,

Told you, this becomes a sort of comic refrain.

[sigh! I shall not retort with equal sarcasm, for fear of inciting "flaming".
“Objectively” has its natural meaning, and means without starting with the assumption that the occupant is Olympias, and then seeking to make the evidence fit this opinion, or ignoring evidence which contradicts it.

and see where that evidence actually leads us.

Implies that the conclusion may be more than someone else is wrong, perhaps.

I didn’t make any conclusions as to who the occupant might be. Merely that on the known evidence from the literature and archaeology, Olympias should be ruled out, a logical conclusion.Just the evidence of the skeleton alone excludes her.

At the outset, in order to get Olympias to Amphipolis, Taphoi asserted that Cassander must have gone there after the fall of Pydna in the Spring of 316 BC. There is no evidence for that assertion.

Nor , of course, is there evidence for the contrary assertion, it remains a matter of interpretation, all hail objectivity!

At this point in time, I am examining Taphoi’s ‘evidence’ and case, not putting forward a hypothesis based on an objective examination. That comes later. In any event, as you agree, the evidence infers that Olympias never left Pydna. That is not ‘interpretation’, rather what is inferred from the literature. And you seem to be forgetting that there is also strong archaeological evidence for the contrary assertion, namely that she lies in Pydna, not Amphipolis. Your statement is incorrect.

We are simply not told of Cassander’s immediate movements, but according to Diodorus he seems to have headed south through Boeotia to the Peloponnese [ XIX.54].

He definitely headed south through Thessaly and Boeotia to the Peloponnese AFTER Olympias had been killed and ‘53 1 But Cassander, after assembling an adequate force, set out from Macedonia, desiring to drive Polyperchon's son Alexander from the Peloponnesus;’

On what basis do you assert that Cassander did not depart for the south with his army until after the death of Olympias ? As I said, we have no information on his immediate movements. Olympias’ death might easily have occurred after his departure, especially if, as was his wont, Cassander was moving fast trying to surprise Alexander as he had Olympias.

Next, Taphoi asserts

This seems to be one of those irregular verbs, when Taphoi guesses beyond the written record he ‘asserts’ yet when you do things ‘appear to show’or ‘seem’, even though both are in fact assertions as they lack evidence; or if one was being ‘objective one would call them interpretations.

Now you nit-pick the words I choose to use? It is not usual in English to proclaim “I assert”! That would be clumsy. I choose better forms of expression and grammar. It will be interesting to see you use “I assert” if you believe that form of expression to be correct.

that Cassander took Olympias with him to Amphipolis, but there is no evidence for that either. In fact it would appear she never left Pydna.

See comment above

The evidence of the literature infers that she did not. The archaeological evidence all but puts it beyond doubt.

After her conviction, just before her execution,

With such a precise understanding of the chronology of these books I am amazed that no one has offered you a professorship, oh hang on, that ‘just before is only an unevidenced assertion, bad luck!

It is not an unevidenced assertion. It is specifically stated by Diodorus XIX.51, which readers should be familiar with from earlier discussions, but perhaps you are not.The chronology of my statement is not in doubt.

Cassander sent messengers to her offering to provide a ship/naus to take her to Athens, which she refused.[ so she obviously was not with him, wherever he was]

Non sequitur alert!! Kassandros is a smooth operator, he visits the old hag and then she escapes. Sometimes post hoc ergo propter hoc is the right solution. Had he been lodging next door he would have sent an errand boy.

O.K. So let me concede it is theoretically possible he was lodging next door when he sent his friends as messengers to her, but I don’t think anyone would think that likely from the way that Diodorus couches it. It is more consistent with him being very much elsewhere, either sorting out his army for the campaign, or already on his way south.

.

Since Amphipolis is inland, on the river Strymon, and inaccessible by sea-going ships, due to bridges etc, she could not have been there.

This is just wrong: the bridge across which Brasidas entered the city has been found and connect s northof the bend in the river; the Strymon would be navigable until one reached the bridge , triereis having shallow drafts, so the possibility of a flight by ship exists.

Very well, let us agree that some sort of vessel could get upriver to Amphipolis, such as a trieres. That was hardly a suitable vessel to take the Queen ( and doubtless a reduced entourage) to Athens. After all, earlier, Polyperchon had sent a Quinquereme/penteres to Pydna as an appropriate vessel.

Nor could she have been taken down-river from Amphipolis by boat to a ship offshore, for the prevailing winds at that time of year [Spring] are southerly,

Not according to this ‘The etesian winds are the prevailing annually recurring summer winds, blowing over large parts of Greece, the Aegean Sea and eastern Mediterranean. The name derives from the Greek 'etesios', annual. They blow steadily from northern to northwestern directions, bringing cold continental air and clear skies between end of May and beginning of October. Naturally what you mean by spring and Diodoros by its onset might change this but the possibility still remains.

This is mistaken. The northerly ‘Etesian winds’ or Meltemi usually occurs in summer from late May to September. Prior to that, in the Spring the prevailing winds are the southerly Foehn winds.Olympias, as we have discussed before surrendered “as spring came on “ [Diod XIX.50] i.e. just before, or at the beginning of spring and was executed shortly afterward.

creating the dreaded ‘Lee-shore’, against which no sensible ship’s Captain would allow himself to be trapped or wrecked ( as various Persian fleets found to their cost along these shores).

Kassandros was offering passage to Athens, even from Pydna that means a northerly wind; or they could row which might explain the warship (naus) rather than a merchantman (ploion)

Oared fighting ships did not undertake long voyages under oar, but rather utilised sail as much as possible, as one might expect. Obviously a warship was much speedier than a round merchant vessel, and hence would be more convenient.

Pydna, of course, was one of Macedon’s few important harbours.

Eion, the harbour of Amphipolis was another

Is there a point here ? Olympias went to Pydna, because of its size, harbour facilities and fortifications, making it the obvious choice. Eion, at the mouth of the Strymon was much smaller and apparently had only mud-brick defences. Whether Eion was ‘important’ is debateable. It was certainly not as important as Pydna.

In fact that is the reason Olympias ‘holed up’ there in the first place. With Macedon largely under Cassander’s control, with the aid of his powerful backers, she was expecting succour in the form of a relieving army from the sea by her allies.

No, try Diodoros XIX 35-36; Macedonia only abandons Olympias’ cause after the defection of the Epirotes, when Olympias first entered Pydna she held Macedon, which is also signalled by her supporters continuing to hold Amphipolis and Pella when she surrendered. Kassandros’ ‘powerful backers’were Ptolemy and Antigonos and they were largely passive. Far from ‘a bolthole’ she intended Pydna as a command centre with good land and sea communications to her generals in the Perhaibaian passes and Polyperchon possibly in Asia Minor. The rapidity of Kassandros’ success and advance following the collapse of her allies left her trapped.

Yes indeed. Having been deserted by the Epirotes and Macedonians, Olympias’ only hope lay in help from overseas – Polyperchon or perhaps Eumenes. She thus needed a large port to disembark an army, one fortified so that she could withstand a siege, and one large enough to supply that army once it landed. But if all else failed, she could escape from there. The fact that her forces held by force a probably hostile Amphipolis and Pella is neither here nor there – she knew she could expect no help there.

In the event that this did not occur, it also provided a viable evacuation point – as Cassander later tried to utilise with his offer.

Another assertion since we have no statement of where Kassandros or Olympias were at the time, we are being ‘objective’ remember, not writing with an object.

Another nit-picking quibble. An ‘objective’ analysis would conclude that Olympias was at Pydna – as you have done previously.

You realise I could equally criticise your posts line by line in a sarcastic manner if I chose? However, I don't believe readers would find that edifying. Perhaps in future, you might like to show me the same courtesy. Lose the sarcasm, please.

[Xenophon]

Gepd wrote:

Still, I find the scenario that this was built for Oympias alone, highly unlikely and I still believe the (partial) evidence available to us make a nice story about her tomb being in Pydna. If her tomb is not in Pydna, then we are just in the situation that we have lots of misleading coincidences. Can't exclude that, but still what we have is enough for me to say that Olympias is definately not the most likely candidate of the Kastas tomb. On the balance of probabilities, she may still be a candidate, but that's all.

A balanced and well-reasoned post. That it is a Royal tomb, or built with resources only available to Royalty is not, I think, seriously disputed.The tomb may have been prepared for Alexander whilst he was on the journey home.[ The idea that the tomb would have taken 'years' to build doesn't really hold up. The "Philip" tomb was apparently prepared in a matter of months, and many Macedonian tombs show signs of haste in their construction.] It could also have been prepared for the Antipatrids, once Cassander acquired the riches of Macedon, and Alexander's legacy.The spoils of Asia had not been squandered on wars yet. All depends, as has been said by many, on the dating.....

If Olympias may "still be a candidate", then you have to account for the state of the undamaged female skeleton, which is in marked contrast to the severe skeletal trauma Olympias' remains received, both in the execution and subsequently...

[Xenophon]

Taphoi wrote:

Olympias will be the only possible candidate if either the sealing was early or the bones are shown to be early Hellenistic and also provided that the oft-repeated claim from the archaeologists that they have definitive dating evidence for the last quarter of the 4th century BC is valid.

You repeat this though it is demonstrably untrue. Apart from the skeletal evidence, which must rule out Olympias as the female skeleton in the tomb; as has been pointed out, to assume Olympias is the 'only' possible candidate is a 'positivist fallacy' since for every known character from history there are many about whom we know little or nothing. Cassander's mother is one such, and there is no obvious reason she could not be interred there, or some other Macedonian Queen.

I agree with Agesilaos that the latter part of this post is totally unevidenced, and largely imagination.

[Paralus]

Cleopatra was at large and in a position to arrange funding from the generals for a grand tomb for her mother. The generals believed that Alexander IV would soon be their king, so they would have seen it as an investment in the future. Cassander was married into the family via Thessalonice and had decided not to murder Alexander IV, so he was ostensibly working towards reconciliation, even if he was secretly hedging his bets, so he would have allowed a monument. The tomb satisfied everyone's needs in the particular circumstances.

Cleopatra was hardly "at large". She was to all intents and purposes in the custody of Antigonos. As events proved, she could not even marry who she chose as Antigonos prevented it. She was about as "at large" as the remnants of the royal family who were prisoners of Cassander. That she was in a position to arrange and fund a tomb for Olympias is hardly likely. That the generals believed contributing to such was "an investment in the future" is just as unlikely. The only investment these rapacious individuals cared for was in their own interest. King Alexander IV was not in their interest.

Cassander did indeed marry Thessalonice, Alexander's half sister. This he did after murdering Olympias and after he incarcerated the royal family in the keep of Amphipolis, making sure to strip all royal prerogatives from them. To claim that then marrying Philip's daughter by another woman and not immediately murdering Alexander IV shows Cassander "ostensibly working towards reconciliation" with the royal family is more than incongruous. If this is what passes as the rationale for the statement that Cassander "subsequently sought a reconciliation with her daughter, daughter-in-law, grandson and other members of the royal family" I can only say that it utterly fails to convince. One might also notice the change of language from "subsequently sought" to "ostensibly working towards". A shifting of more than nuance: a shifting of ground in the reverse.

[gepd]

Xenophon wrote: If Olympias may "still be a candidate", then you have to account for the state of the undamaged female skeleton, which is in marked contrast to the severe skeletal trauma Olympias' remains received, both in the execution and subsequently...

I agree - that is a problem, but maybe the identity of the skeleton has nothing to do with the person for whom the tomb was built for. The skeleton could have been interred in the tomb centuries later. Also, even if that ended up being Olympias, I am still open to the possibility that the sources about her violent death may be inaccurate (e.g. about stoning etc.). If we have a 160 m sized tumulus tomb in one of the most important Hellenistic cities that disappears from history, then I can still accept that somebody got some details about Olympia's death wrong. Of course, let me just clarify that I still just consider this as a possibility, albeit a highly unlikely one.

As far as I know, Antipater alone had 10 wives or so. Do we know anything for any of those?

[agesilaos]

Antipatros had ten sons and daughters, we do not know how many wives. See Heckel 'Who's Who', can't remember the ancient source I thought it was Suda but have just checked and it is not

Since half the bones are missing and the rest broken it must be one of those divine inspirations that allows Xenophon to declare that the female skeleton is intact! Stoning might not present further than broken bones, they are not going to have time to heal. The stories of Olympias' death are contradictory, hacked to death in Justin, stoned in Pausanias, but as you say gepd the big anomaly is the mound itself, it is never mentioned and that ought to make us look at an under reported era.

I have no doubt that the monument has nothing to do with Olympias, but it is only a conviction based on my interpretation of the source material and the context of Kassandros' seizure of power, which has been sketched often enough.

[Zebedee]

For me, it's just always been a case of the interpretations which lead to 'Olympias' seem to require you to begin with Olympias as intended occupant, and then work backwards forcing alternative meanings on various elements of the tomb. Which isn't to say it can't be Olympias' tomb, just that there's nothing there which seems to suggest it is other than her death fitting the dating suggested so far and the scale of the monument suggesting high status. Those two things are hardly helpful for identifying a unique individual buried here however...

The idea of it not being a 'name' we're familiar with is of course a plausible one, but location and size (especially so if the lion is associated with the tomb) really do niggle for the thus far suggested dating.

Much of the criticisms are already present in the other thread, as long and meandering as it is. But I'll take this opportunity to thank Andrew for his willingness to engage with good grace.

Hoping that autumn this year brings a little more evidence to the table for aspects of this tomb which are still puzzling. Not least the remains found and dating.

[Taphoi]

Xenophon wrote: If Olympias may "still be a candidate", then you have to account for the state of the undamaged female skeleton, which is in marked contrast to the severe skeletal trauma Olympias' remains received, both in the execution and subsequently...

I agree - that is a problem, but maybe the identity of the skeleton has nothing to do with the person for whom the tomb was built for. The skeleton could have been interred in the tomb centuries later. Also, even if that ended up being Olympias, I am still open to the possibility that the sources about her violent death may be inaccurate (e.g. about stoning etc.). If we have a 160 m sized tumulus tomb in one of the most important Hellenistic cities that disappears from history, then I can still accept that somebody got some details about Olympia's death wrong. Of course, let me just clarify that I still just consider this as a possibility, albeit a highly unlikely one.

As far as I know, Antipater alone had 10 wives or so. Do we know anything for any of those?

Which account of Olympias's death are you referring to? There are two. Pausanias says that she was stoned. Justin says that men attacked her with swords. It is indeed the case that someone got it wrong.

The skeleton is not intact. It is fragmentary and half of it is so fragmentary that it cannot be confidently assigned to the 60+ female.

The fact that there is sufficient desperation to avoid the obvious as to propose that the Macedonians spent thousands of talents in building by far the greatest tomb ever erected in Greece for somebody unknown to history is very telling of the weakness of the evidence against Olympias's candidacy. It makes it very clear that it is recognised that no other candidate known to history is tenable, whereas there are thousands of individuals in the era of Alexander who are known to history. But I would urge people not to put themselves in the position of the sceptic in my little dialogue above, who took the view that there was salvation to be had from the obvious through proposing preposterous alternatives. It is not even reasonable to propose an unknown individual until it has been proved that no known individual fits. In fact Olympias is an excellent fit to a 60+ woman in a grand Macedonian tomb with queenly iconography at Amphipolis that was built in the last quarter of the 4th century BC, but there is nobody else in the entire Heckel Who's Who of Alexander's era (or Diodorus, or Justin...) who is a good fit.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[agesilaos]

Until the dating is in this is just an extended fantasy; the skeleton may well be a later intrusion, the whole monument may well not be late fourth century, obsessing over Olympias and ignoring the historical context is still not good method any more than replacing one assertion with another is 'objectivity'. Only time will tell, though there is certainly a weight of written source material which tips the scales in one direction whilst not completely eliminating the possibility that every ancient history textbook can be ignored and in the middle of a war Kassandros spent a fortune on a traitor's corpse.