The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[Efstathios]

Yes that's interesting. I'll try and locate more about this Macedonian tomb 3. After all i think it's Lazaridis who found it, but the difficulty here is that google search provides results mainly in relation with the recent find of the tomb of Amphipolis, so that's where google's advanced search will come in handy. We are essentially looking for a more complete history of Lazaridis' work on Amphipolis area.

However, even if tomb 3 is on the mound it is not linked in any way that we know of to the main tomb and the perivolos.

[Taphoi]

The Tomb of Rhesos thing is intriguing and okay as a 1000:1 bet for people who like long odds, but the archaeology of the Lion Tomb at Amphipolis is now completely unambiguously early Hellenistic (although I do not go so far as "last quarter of the 4th century BC" yet, because the archaeologists still have not released anything that is quite that specific.) However, it is not fifth century BC (as required for the Rhesos tomb) and it is emphatically not Roman or even late Hellenistic. Also the Marsyas fragment does not say that the Rhesos tomb was a mound - it just says that the shrine of Clio was on a ridge or hill opposite the monument of Rhesos. There is no actual evidence that the tomb of Rhesos was a mound, although it might have been. Also the association of Rhesos and Clio is not strictly with Amphipolis (which did not exist in their era), but with the port of Eion south of Amphipolis on the Strymon. It is therefore an enormous stretch to associate an early Hellenistic tumulus north of Amphipolis with a Trojan war monument of a hero from Eion, south of Amphipolis, that was built in the fifth century BC. There is anyway a whiff of red herring about this.

On the other early Hellenistic tomb on the mound, I do not know exactly where it was (it would be interesting to find out). Nor am I exactly sure that it was on the artificial part of the mound or simply very close to it. I am not sure that its exact date is crucial at this point, but it does invite association of some kind with the main tomb now being excavated, because it is close in date and there are similarities in the mosaics. For example, it could well have been for a relative of the principal occupant, who died a little later than the principal occupant. If the Lion Tomb is that of Olympias, which I continue to consider likely, then the other tomb could be for someone close to Olympias who died in the range 316-310BC or perhaps after the death of Cassander early in the next century. It seems to me that Cassander remains the likely desecrator and sealer of the Lion Tomb, probably shortly after the murder of Alexander IV and Roxane in 310BC. So it is unlikely that he would have smiled upon the creation of a secondary tomb in or near the mound between the sealing and his death.

The images of the door fragments suggest that some of them at least were found lying where they fell just inside the doorway in which they had stood. Some of them also appear to have been completely embedded in the fill. This strongly suggests that the sand filling was already underway when the doors were smashed. That means that the desecration (door smashing, mutilation of sphinxes etc.) was simultaneous with the sealing and perpetrated by the same person. That fits Cassander for the tomb of Olympias after the murder of her grandson. Can anyone suggest another historical context in the early Hellenistic period? I think it is difficult otherwise to explain simultaneous desecration and sealing, which looks to be emerging from the archaeology.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Zebedee]

Rhesos works if one accepts context (Edonoi graveyard) and that this tomb/mound is more cult/hero than burial. You are incorrect on both Rhesos and Klio not being closely associated with Amphipolis. The question would be what Athenian cult worship continued after the Macedonian occupation rather than things being 'early' or 'late'. For comparison, one can look to the tomb of Hector at Thebes where an early Hellenistic refounding of the city was also accompanied by an oracle leading to a grave/cult site for a Trojan war hero, one which is not yet known to us in modern times. There is no stretching or manipulation of evidence required for Rhesos. One valid objection would be that perhaps one would expect to find such a site within the city walls but that is not necessarily something which would always hold true - it did not at Thebes where the site was outside the city close to a major road. It is as unlikely as many ideas, but would seem to be more likely than those which require creative interpretations of evidence or indeed rebuttal of our sources on the early Hellenistic period.

[Taphoi]

Rhesos works if one accepts context (Edonoi graveyard) and that this tomb/mound is more cult/hero than burial. You are incorrect on both Rhesos and Klio not being closely associated with Amphipolis. The question would be what Athenian cult worship continued after the Macedonian occupation rather than things being 'early' or 'late'. For comparison, one can look to the tomb of Hector at Thebes where an early Hellenistic refounding of the city was also accompanied by an oracle leading to a grave/cult site for a Trojan war hero, one which is not yet known to us in modern times. There is no stretching or manipulation of evidence required for Rhesos. One valid objection would be that perhaps one would expect to find such a site within the city walls but that is not necessarily something which would always hold true - it did not at Thebes where the site was outside the city close to a major road. It is as unlikely as many ideas, but would seem to be more likely than those which require creative interpretations of evidence or indeed rebuttal of our sources on the early Hellenistic period.

To be more explicit, I mean that it would be perverse to locate the shrine of Clio and the re-burial of Rhesos to the north of Amphipolis when everybody knew courtesy of Homer (where Rhesos is the son of Eioneus) that they were from Eion to the south of Amphipolis. Clearly the intention was to return Rhesos to his home, so how weird then to have reburied him with Amphipolis between him and home? So near yet so far! But this is a minor point relative to the fact that all the archaeology of the mound is early Hellenistic whereas the re-burial of Rhesos is stated by our sources to have been fifth century BC. It is therefore necessary to rebut those sources to put Rhesos in the Kasta Mound. I am pleased that no rebuttal of our sources is necessary for Olympias to be its occupant, although it perhaps involves some degree of rebuttal of creative modern interpretations of our sources, which I am happy to undertake.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Zebedee]

The shrine of Klio is located within Amphipolis. The cult of Strymon is known from inscription to have been at Amphipolis, and sufficiently significant to be named next to that for Apollo. One can cite Homer as much as one pleases, but Hagnon took the bones of Rhesos to Amphipolis and not Eion. And to the west of the Kastas mound is what could be the Thracian settlement controlling the Strymon valley. For Rhesos to work it would indeed need to be a new burial post-dating the foundation of Amphipolis. Or perhaps a new shrine over an older burial, as happened from time to time elsewhere. It requires no contortions over baskets nor hokey Shakespearen verse to make the suggestion that there was a fad for Homeric heroes to be reburied in the Hellenistic period and so place Rhesos as an unlikely possibility which may fit. He at least has a significant connection to the area to justify such a monument.

[amyntoros]

... So near yet so far! But this is a minor point relative to the fact that all the archaeology of the mound is early Hellenistic whereas the re-burial of Rhesos is stated by our sources to have been fifth century BC. It is therefore necessary to rebut those sources to put Rhesos in the Kasta Mound.

This from my link/quote above:

More than 50 burials from the 8th to the 5th centuries B.C. were discovered during initial excavations of the mound and a destroyed Early Hellenistic tomb was found as well.

Am I missing something?
Best regards,

[Xenophon]

Taphoi wrote:

....okay as a 1000:1 bet for people who like long odds.....

There are many here who would put the idea of Olympias being the principal occupant of the tomb under current excavation in the same category !!

Taphoi wrote:

It seems to me that Cassander remains the likely desecrator and sealer of the Lion Tomb, probably shortly after the murder of Alexander IV and Roxane in 310BC. So it is unlikely that he would have smiled upon the creation of a secondary tomb in or near the mound between the sealing and his death.

Has it occurred to you that much of the damage to the tomb was not 'desecration', but given that we have evidence of seismic damage, that this is morely likely than human desecration ? When this occurred, ( and there have been multiple earthquakes in the region since antiquity) and whether the tomb was actually re-sealed are another thing altogether.....

Taphoi wrote:

I am pleased that no rebuttal of our sources is necessary for Olympias to be its occupant, although it perhaps involves some degree of rebuttal of creative modern interpretations of our sources, which I am happy to undertake.

....apart from the literary and epigraphical evidence that strongly suggests she was (eventually) buried at Pydna after her body had been exposed....... and no wilful blindness or (to borrow a term) "hokey" interpretation alters that......

[amyntoros]

...That means that the desecration (door smashing, mutilation of sphinxes etc.) was simultaneous with the sealing and perpetrated by the same person. That fits Cassander for the tomb of Olympias after the murder of her grandson. Can anyone suggest another historical context in the early Hellenistic period? I think it is difficult otherwise to explain simultaneous desecration and sealing, which looks to be emerging from the archaeology.

Not my theory, but one from "Bannister" who posted on Dorothy King's blog on October 28th:

The origin of these damages seems to me bound to an eminently political reason: the will of the Roman, after the defeat of Perseus to Pydna, to erase of the surface of the Macedonian ground any symbol of resistance which could anchor in history.

But it is not either impossible, considering the hatred dedicated by Cassander to Alexander, to her mother and to its descent, that the destructions took place from the fall of Olympias.

The Roman thus walled up the accesses to the grave which, you are right, is probably a Heroon dedicated to Alexandre and built at the request of Olympias by Aristonous - then governor of Amphipolis - and Deinocrates.

The fact that fragments of statues such as heads and wings of Sphinges has been found in the third chamber confirms from my point of view that plunderers not only wished to erase but also to hide: shame is the sister of anger.

Now if Olympias did indeed order Aristonous to build a Heroon dedicated to Alexander then it is quite believable that Cassander would have destroyed it after having her killed. Also, this does come closer to answering the question, "why Amphipolis?" Not that I'm supporting this theory in particular - I think it foolish to wholeheartedly and unquestionably declare for an occupant (or otherwise) without full knowledge of a completed evacuation. And even then, there may be no definitive conclusion. James Romm in an earlier edition of The Daily Beast said it well:

Whatever is learned of what lies inside is certain to cause a sensation, because no one knows what to expect. Scholars at least know what they are hoping for—decisive evidence and clear answers. It’s what they didn’t get from the headache-filled finds at Vergina, still under dispute 37 years later.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

I am pleased that no rebuttal of our sources is necessary for Olympias to be its occupant, although it perhaps involves some degree of rebuttal of creative modern interpretations of our sources, which I am happy to undertake.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Excellent employment of irony, though I hardly think it intentional.

[Taphoi]

Am I missing something?

The mound is early Hellenistic becasue the precisely circular peribolos wall is early Hellenistic and the mound must be later than the wall. Therefore the earlier burials are all part of the pre-existing cemetery in the soil beneath the mound. Nothing says that earlier burials were embedded within the mound.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[gepd]

One thing that could help with the chronology, or better, sequence of events that led to the tomb sealing is the different level of material degradation within the 3rd chamber. The marble in the 3rd chamber appears to have a dark-reddish colour, possibly due to humidity (?) (although I cannot understand how humidity has affected only that chamber).

Similar effects are seen on one of the two door elements: http://www.yppo.gr/2/g2001.jsp?mult_id=15241

On the other hand, the sphinx head (discovered at more or less the same location-depth in the sand as the door above) appears unaffected, same is the other element of the door, which retain their natural, white colour: http://www.yppo.gr/2/g2001.jsp?mult_id=15247 & http://www.yppo.gr/2/g2001.jsp?mult_id=15299

I cannot really make sense of all that, but I thought it is interesting and may provide interesting hints.

[agesilaos]

The main objection to Rhesos is surely that the scholion says it was built in Amphipolis against the sanctuary of Klio, which is known and is inside the walls, excluding Kastas as an option. Just where the fifth century graves found by Lazaridis are in the mound is not resolved, neither are the dates of the various strata, so comment on the phases of construction is pure speculation until the data is released. It is perfectly feasible to build a wall around an existing mound and then cover that mound with a larger one.

I would class 'desecration' as a 'creative modern interpretation'

I doubt much is to be gleaned from the staining on the doors, this is more likely to be connected with the soil type in which the pieces lay, the river silt staining more than the sand for example, although there is an outside possibility of some organic matter overlaying the remains and leaving only a residue colour.

[gepd]

Still, the sphinx head with one door part have much different colouring, although they were excavated in pretty much the same location (ie. exposed to the same type of soil). At least that is what I assume - discovery of those elements was announced simultaneously, after excavation in the entrance of the 3rd chamber started.

[agesilaos]

I am not sure that the fill is uniform rather than part silt and part sand, like the mound, otherwise I think the difference will be some now lost organic material.

[Efstathios]

I agree with Agesilaos here. There possibly was a smaller mound and Deinocrates included it in a larger one. Lazaridis dug from the top of mound Kasta and after he found the base of what is now believed to be the base of the lion he continued down to a depth of 13-14m and found archaic burials from the iron age. The height of the mound when Lazaridis began excavating was 21m, and at 14 m down he found the burials. Furthermore, he continued digging down until he reached the natural hill formation.

I think one of the keys here is that there were older burials and Deinocrates included them in the perivolos and the tomb, and that raises some questions. For example, if it was a tomb for Alexander III then why built it amongst other unrelated burials? And then, one could say the same thing for a royal tomb in general. Lazaridis also said that this tomb could be for Roxane and Alexander IV, as after Cassander killed them the Philipeans were enraged so he may have ordered for a monument to be built.

The latest unconfirmed news is that the archaeologists have asked for a magnetic tomography for the mound to see what is there clearly. Of course that could take some time, for the moment we wait for an official press release that says what else they have found in the 3rd room, and of course inside the big hole.

However the seismic tomography from mr. Polymenakos already reveals a lot of things.