The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[gepd]

Thanks for all the effort in obtaining these photos Andrew! It is very interesting.

I actually cannot see the fourth margin but I am actually not even sure the bottom margin is the original one. With a rough overlaying of the various photos to a rectangular of the Miller proportions, I also do not see that the height/length proportions are correct so this may be a block with either damage or additional processing in one or more of its sides. The identification that this block belongs to the peribolos may come from other observations, such as the location of the clump/dowel/pry cuttings which were common and similar for this type of blocks. Location of these cuttings may define the coordinate system where one later uses to place the inscription on the reconstructed block. That is my best guess.

I am in any case, negatively surprised by the fact that in the reconstruction of the full block the Π is presented as missing. They make their life difficult for no reason - the sketch could have presented the missing part with dashed lines or something and justification that ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ was written could have been more straightforward. Unless they are sure the Π is intentionally omitted (e.g. by the looking at the other inscriptions) I am not sure why they choose to present it in this way...

[agesilaos]

The overlay in red with the pi restored is Andrew's, Gepd. The block behind shows no features and may have been cut down too after removal. Good work sourcing the photos though Tapho.

[Taphoi]

Thanks for all the effort in obtaining these photos Andrew! It is very interesting.

I actually cannot see the fourth margin but I am actually not even sure the bottom margin is the original one. With a rough overlaying of the various photos to a rectangular of the Miller proportions, I also do not see that the height/length proportions are correct so this may be a block with either damage or additional processing in one or more of its sides. The identification that this block belongs to the peribolos may come from other observations, such as the location of the clump/dowel/pry cuttings which were common and similar for this type of blocks. Location of these cuttings may define the coordinate system where one later uses to place the inscription on the reconstructed block. That is my best guess.

I am surprised that you even wish to rescue the Hephaistion theory in these circumstances. Most people here had already agreed that it would have been astonishing if anyone had spent years building an approx. 1000 Talent monument to Hephaistion after Alexander's death, when the army had specifically voted to abandon such plans in Babylon a couple of weeks after Alexander's death! Now we are rescued from that absurdity and people are still free to believe in some other possibilities, if they wish.

I fear too that your rescue is misconceived. You cannot credibly suggest that the blocks were re-cut from two edges, but they only restored the drafted margin on one of the re-cut edges. Anyway, the Millers were clear that the blocks are basically still at their dimensions from the Kasta peribolos. There is also strong evidence just from the pictures of the other blocks laid out near the reconstructed lion that the blocks were never re-cut, although some of them have become battered and had corners bashed away and margins nibbled by the vicissitudes of time. In the attached photo you can see by examining the blocks with visible drafted margins that the blocks were not cut down in length. And you can see that those with margins are the same length as all the others. And you can see some of the geison blocks from the top of the wall, still exhibiting all their detailed imitation roofing features and totally unresculpted.

As you can imagine, I have studied block 73 very closely and my conclusion is that it has not been reduced in length over the standard 118cm by more than a few cm at most and it probably has not been reduced in length at all since it was built into the Kasta peribolos.

Either the archaeologists accidentally cropped the left-hand margins off both the inscription blocks in their photos exactly at the edge of the first alpha and accidentally drew much larger margins than actually exist around the letters in their drawings or else they had some obscure motive or else they intended to avoid revealing the fact that the pis could have been cut off the blocks. I will not venture to judge which of these possibilities is true, but if it were the latter, they would have had no reason to do so if the inscription blocks were a full letter shorter than the standard 118cm, because that would have been an explanation for the missing pis that supported their Hephaistion theory perfectly. Remember that they know exactly how long the blocks are, because they still have them in their possession. So I would invite you to consider that your idea that the blocks were re-cut after leaving the Kasta Mound would imply that the archaeologists omitted to mention an obvious reason for the missing pis that supported their hypothesis.

Best wishes,
Andrew

KastaBlocksSmall.jpg (227.31 KiB) Viewed 3305 times

[system1988]

Either the archaeologists accidentally cropped the left-hand margins off both the inscription blocks in their photos exactly at the edge of the first alpha and accidentally drew much larger margins than actually exist around the letters in their drawings or else they had some obscure motive or else they intended to avoid revealing the fact that the pis could have been cut off the blocks. I will not venture to judge which of these possibilities is true, but if it were the latter, they would have had no reason to do so if the inscription blocks were a full letter shorter than the standard 118cm, because that would have been an explanation for the missing pis that supported their Hephaistion theory perfectly. Remember that they know exactly how long the blocks are, because they still have them in their possession. So I would invite you to consider that your idea that the blocks were re-cut after leaving the Kasta Mound would imply that the archaeologists omitted to mention an obvious reason for the missing pis that supported their hypothesis.

I say wait for the final published evidence before making speculations over the motives of public servants of a sovereign nation-state like Greece. And Andrew: "They still have them in their possession." On whose hands should they be exactly in your honest opinion, if not in the hands of the Ephorate responsible for the Kasta region? Perhaps in the hands of a foreign archaelogical school? To another nation-state?

Best wishes

Pauline

[system1988]

Either the archaeologists accidentally cropped the left-hand margins off both the inscription blocks in their photos exactly at the edge of the first alpha and accidentally drew much larger margins than actually exist around the letters in their drawings or else they had some obscure motive or else they intended to avoid revealing the fact that the pis could have been cut off the blocks. I will not venture to judge which of these possibilities is true, but if it were the latter, they would have had no reason to do so if the inscription blocks were a full letter shorter than the standard 118cm, because that would have been an explanation for the missing pis that supported their Hephaistion theory perfectly. Remember that they know exactly how long the blocks are, because they still have them in their possession. So I would invite you to consider that your idea that the blocks were re-cut after leaving the Kasta Mound would imply that the archaeologists omitted to mention an obvious reason for the missing pis that supported their hypothesis.

I say wait for the final published evidence before making speculations over the motives of public servants of a sovereign nation-state like Greece. And Andrew: "They still have them in their possession." On whose hands should they be exactly in your honest opinion, if not in the hands of the Ephorate responsible for the Kasta region? Perhaps in the hands of a foreign archaelogical school? To another nation-state?

Best wishes

Pauline

[Taphoi]

I say wait for the final published evidence before making speculations over the motives of public servants of a sovereign nation-state like Greece. And Andrew: "They still have them in their possession." On whose hands should they be exactly in your honest opinion, if not in the hands of the Ephorate responsible for the Kasta region? Perhaps in the hands of a foreign archaelogical school? To another nation-state?

I do not criticise the fact that they have the inscriptions in their possession. That is best for their safe-keeping. I was only making an observation with quite another point in mind.
I do not agree that we are talking about the heritage solely of Greece, but also of the rest of Europe and of the world. Two thousand years ago nearly everyone in this forum will have had direct ancestors living in Greece. That is a genealogical fact, thanks to the Roman Empire.
I regret that the relatively open initial policy of publishing data on the Amphipolis Tomb almost in real time has been discontinued. It will be easier to avoid making mistakes and having information leak out if the data is shared widely for open discussion at the earliest opportunity.
It happens that the possible reasons for them having presented the evidence in the way they did is now evidence supportive of the view that the blocks were not cut down after they left the Kasta Mound. It would not be if all the evidence had been placed in the public sphere, so it illustrates just why the information should not be edited or controlled.
Best regards,
Andrew

[agesilaos]

The comparison which needs to be made, and which the Millars could not make, is between the measurements of those blocks still in the peribolos and those dredged from the Strymon. even so it would not be conclusive. Once the blocks had been delivered to site the 'parelabon' would soon have served its purpose; the workers would then be free to cut them to size and apply the finish whether stippling for a stucco coat (where are the remains of this and why the drafting if it is to be covered? The wall painting from the 2nd century house also reproduces unplastered walling) or purely for decoration. These two blocks may have been roughs in any case and used for practice or test finishes, there are more than one explanations for the state they are in, though probably not for the failure to spell Hephaistion's name either in the nominative or the genitive case correctly.

Pauline, the British Museum is the obvious place to store these antiquities we have years of practice storing Greek marble

Seriously, though, the conference is imminent so let us keep our powder dry, Taphoi already seems to have gone off half-cocked; I do not read Gepd's comments as restoring the Hephaistion theory only not subscribing to a more convoluted but equally fanciful one. Nor is the genealogical 'fact ' anything like a 'fact'. It is statistically true that everyone in the world is related; the logic being that we each have two parents four grandparents eight great-grand parents etc until eventually the number of lineal ancestors will exceed the world population of the time. Statistical truths are renowned for their falsity, however; it is clear that there is no northern European blood in the Australian aboriginal population prior to their arrival in the 18th century and everyone knows that there has only ever been two surnames in Devon/Tasmania/MississippiCork etc (what 'everyone knows' is as reliable as statistics) I do agree that things have been poorly handled, however, but nothing we write here is likely to harm our professional standing the same does not apply to the archaeologists and they have just as many detractors waiting in the wings and probably more vicious ones than our moderator would entertain

[gepd]

Dear Andrew,

I thought I was clear in many of my earlier messages that I simply find the Hephaestion theory more credible than others assuming that inscriptions have been correctly read and that the argument that the inscription was added before the final processing of the marble is valid. I obvioulsy agree with others that those assumptions still need to be proved and that is not an easy task, but lets wait for the full presentation of the results.If inscriptions and the "scratches" in the rosette have been mis- or overinterpreted, there is nothing to tie this monument to Hephaestion more than to other candidates and my view would only then be that this is a late 4th century or early 3rd century BC (pre 275 BC) monument. Hephaestion is then just one posibility, as many others.

I am not trying to restore or blindly support the Hephaestion theory, I have been critical (even in my previous message) about the arguments, presentation skills and tactics of the team. And as said before, I believe more in data than historical sources that have been formulated few centuries after Alexander's campaings. So, that explains my preference. Any theory for the origin of this monument has problems, my view is that the Hephaestion one has many problems with the historical sources, but still fits the archaeological data. I do not wish, however, to adopt any implication that the team has fabricated or is fabricating data. Selective presentation of results is their own right, they are obviooulsy not using this right very well for now, but they know they can also not use it forever. They will soon have to present the evidence to a selected group of researchers - not just the photos or diagrams.

Now, regarding my view on the block properties. I used several photos of the block to see if, as you say, they fit to the proportions of the Miller measurements. See the result below.



The blue rectangle is one with the block proportions by the Millers. Overlayed is a photo of the block, in a view taken approximatelly above its outer surface.

The top shows how the block would compare to the Miller rectangle if what you say is valid: that the 4th margin is barely visible on the left. I still cannot see that margin, but if its really there, then the block is only slightly longer than the photo. As you see, in that scenario, the block is thinner than the rectangle with the Miller proportions.

In the second scenario I assumed that the top and bottom margins visible in the block's photos are the same as in the original drafted margin block, meaning that the height of the block was not modified after removal from the peribolos. So, if I fit the height of the block from the photo to the height of the Miller rectangle, I end up with a much longer block than the one with the Miller proportions.

You may repeat this test if you do not believe I did it correctly. In any case, if you adopt the top scenario and still insist that this block belonged to the peribolos (as stated by Lefantzis and the Millers), you have to assume that it was cut at least in height after its removal from Kastas. If you adopt the bottom scenario, then the block could not have come from the peribolos, it is simply already too long in its current proportions. In that case Millers and Lefantzis are wrong, the block with supposed Hephastion inscrption may come from another monument, but not for the reason you say.

I adopt the top scenario, firstly because I do not believe that both Millers and Lefantzis were wrong in assigning the block to the peribolos. I also think that the apparent bottom margin in the photo is from a later processing of the block for the following reason:

Have a look to the photo below



The central rough surface of the blocks is surrounded by a smoother one on the same level. The margin then surrounds the whole thing. If you look at the block of the inscription, in the photos you kindly provided to us all, I think I can see above the inscription evidence for the transition to a smoother surface, before the margin. On the bottom, this transition is not present (for me), that is why I think the visible margin there is different than the original, taking also into account the geometrical arguments presented above.

Maybe I am wrong, but I hope you can see I am honest in my previous message: I did check the proportions as well as other details and did not refute your conclusions just to blindly support a Hephaestion theory.

[gepd]

FYI, a full 2.5 hour session will be devoted to Kastas and Amphipolis for the upcoming archaeological conference. The relevant part of the program for Friday, March 4 (rough translation of titles by me):

12:15 10. Κ. Peristeri
Excavation research of the Kastas Tumulus of Amphipolis in 2014
12:30 11. K. Peristeri, M. Lefantzis
Architectural and construction characteristics in the evolution of the monumental ensemble of the Kastas tumulus of Amphipolis
12:45 12. K. Peristeri, M. Lefantzis, A. Corso
Study of the scattered marble reliefs in the overall area of Kastas tumulus
13:00 13. E. Kabouroglou, Ι. Mitsis (not members of the excavation team)
The sediments of the burial monument in the Kasta hill of Amphipolis: origin and deposition chronology
13:15 14. G. Tsokas et al.
Progress of the geophysical investigations of the Kastas hill
13:30 15. G. Syridis et al.
The geological structure of Kastas (Amphipolis)
13:45 16. S. Pavlidis et al.
Tectonic structure and paleoseismology of the Kastas hill and the overall region of East Macedonia
14:00 17. P. Malama, N. Basilikoudis
Hellenistic ceramics for Amphipolis (site of Kyprianidis)
14:15-14:30 Discussion

[Taphoi]

The top shows how the block would compare to the Miller rectangle if what you say is valid: that the 4th margin is barely visible on the left. I still cannot see that margin, but if its really there, then the block is only slightly longer than the photo. As you see, in that scenario, the block is thinner than the rectangle with the Miller proportions.

In the second scenario I assumed that the top and bottom margins visible in the block's photos are the same as in the original drafted margin block, meaning that the height of the block was not modified after removal from the peribolos. So, if I fit the height of the block from the photo to the height of the Miller rectangle, I end up with a much longer block than the one with the Miller proportions.

Dear gepd,
Unfortunately your analyses are futile, because it is not true that the photos presented by the archaeologists are taken from precisely in front of the blocks. The photos were taken when the blocks were still in situ near the lion (you can see the grass). Because the blocks are lined up one after another there, you simply could not get the camera into position to take a head-on view from far enough back (other blocks in the way). So the photos must have been taken at a downward angle, which reduces the width of the blocks relative to their length. In addition the photos lack the upper margin (it was down in the grass when these photos were taken), which also invalidates your scaling.

My new photos were also taken at an angle, but there are some clues in them that allow compensation for the perspective. On this basis block 73 does have very nearly the dimensions of the thin type of Kasta Wall facing block. I am sure within a few percent.

It is futile to speculate that the Millers' block dimensions are not the same as the Kasta Mound blocks. As you note, this has been clearly confirmed by people who have seen and measured both and it is obvious from the facts and the photos available to us.

I fear that your speculation about the margins being re-cut is invalidated by the fact that the margins on the loose blocks are simply too battered and eroded to make a judgement.

I agree that pure blood aboriginal Australians will not have any direct ancestors in Greece in about 300BC, but anyone with family coming from anywhere in Europe or within Alexander's empire or North Africa (i.e. most of the population of the world) will have. And even the aboriginals will be indirectly related.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

I fear that your speculation about the margins being re-cut is invalidated by the fact that the margins on the loose blocks are simply too battered and eroded to make a judgement.

And yet you are making a judgement The point must remain open.

The inter-relatedness of human populations is not really a topic for this thread but the falsity of the statistical model is simply demonstrated by the fact that anyone's ancestor pool becomes greater than the available world population c4000BC whilst Homo Sapiens appeared c40,000BC. The reason for the paradox is not difficult to discern; the mathematical model is just too simplistic, it does not address declining birth rates in advanced societies and higher ones in more primitive cultures for instance, this reduces the civilised host nation to a rump population once the barbarians are passed the gates and the two are not inter-breeding. There are many more distorting factors, of course but it was never put forward as a debating point I am sure.

[onar]

Dear Taphoi and others,

Please see my photo below.

1. The black - white sketches come from the Miller study. Their proportions are kept as they are.

2. The upleft background image-1 is the one from Lefantzis presentation in AUTH. The comparison between Miller sketches and image-1, show that they are the same (since their proportion are the same)

3. The Taphoi image (image- 2 at the upleft image) is stretched in such way that the perspective error is significantly minimized. This is done with a widely used photoshop tool but more importantly by using the letters ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ as a guidance.

CONCLUSION: One of the stones found and presented with the letters ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ is SMALLER that the standard stone used at the perivolos.

Possible Explanations:

1. Cut after the standard use in perivolos.
2. Comes from another building.

[gepd]

Thanks Andrew,

I was fully aware of the issue you describe, but I do believe I have a sense of perspective and I dont think the angle effect is so strong: you may see that the vertical side of the drafting is not visible, so the angle is small, no matter how the photo was taken. Furthermore, if perspective was affecting the apparent height of the block in the photos, it would have affected also the height of the letters, but despite that you get a nearly perfect match by aligning the letters from the sketch to the letters in the photo - one may look up photos in the social media of people who did that and the effect comes out as I described before. The block is much smaller. You may also try to include the top margin, if I did not do that correctly. You still cannot cover the difference.
Finally, Millers and Lefantzis categorized blocks not only based on their geometrical properties, but also on workmanship and locations of clumps etc. They are not explicit if all blocks of the same type survive at the same size.

Nevermind, I dont think I can say much more on that, and I do not plan to make a 3d analysis for something we will hear about in few days. I think I get your point, hopefully you get mine, we can wait and see.

[Taphoi]

Dear Taphoi and others,

Please see my photo below.

1. The black - white sketches come from the Miller study. Their proportions are kept as they are.

2. The upleft background image-1 is the one from Lefantzis presentation in AUTH. The comparison between Miller sketches and image-1, show that they are the same (since their proportion are the same)

3. The Taphoi image (image- 2 at the upleft image) is stretched in such way that the perspective error is significantly minimized. This is done with a widely used photoshop tool but more importantly by using the letters ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ as a guidance.

CONCLUSION: One of the stones found and presented with the letters ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ is SMALLER that the standard stone used at the perivolos.

Possible Explanations:

1. Cut after the standard use in perivolos.
2. Comes from another building.

The Miller study sketches are not a good source for the aspect ratio of the blocks: they are subject to all sorts of possible distortions at the level of accuracy that we are dealing with (less than 10% of the length). You should use their numbers for the block sizes which are much more exact. You appear to have drawn the blocks with an aspect ratio of about 3.9. That is wrong. The true aspect ratio of these blocks (those in the Kasta Mound Wall and the loose blocks by the lion) is about 3.65. If you don't use the correct dimensions you will certainly get the wrong result. It looks as though you think that the archaeologists drew their blocks with the correct aspect ratio. Even if they did, which is quite doubtful, the projection system in the hall would normally have too large an error for the projected aspect ratio to be correct. GIGO.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[onar]

dear Taphoi,

as i can understand from your answer, either the Millers & Lefantzis are correct or you. Well here is the proof that you are wrong.

Capture.JPG (31.08 KiB) Viewed 3157 times