The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[agesilaos]

The two tovima articles actually talk sense and eschew the hype (even in Googletranslate) thanks Gepd.

It is good to see the third century getting a mention at long last; I can't agree with the complete interpretation. Were this a heroon for a re-buried Rhesos or similarly aged Hero one would not expect a cremation; when the Spartans recovered the bones of Orestes from Tegaea they were bones not ashes (though quite possibly not human; they are thought in some circles to have been from a prehistoric elephant).

The two stage building with a modest early phase and a more lavish later one demonstrates that the occupant continued to be important from the early third or late fourth to the second century (or later third) neither case applies to Hephaistion or Olympias, nor anyone else from Alexander's age (Niarchos et al). Such a development would fit with Gonatas interring the remains of his father however. in the 270's the kingdom would be recovering from the Gallic predations and a simple tomb may have suited the royal coffers, this would also be a re-burial as Plutarch has an original one in Demetrias near Sikyon (Dem.51.iii).

[Zebedee]

I think the number of remains in the third chamber seems to argue against an earlier (Athenian) hero cult. One could stretch, say, Rhesos to including his wife and create a little story to explain it all. But an extended family seems dubious to put it mildly. The cremation itself I wouldn't see as a problem for a reburial given Homeric-age hero also implies all the Homeric undertones of extravagant funerals, pyres and mounds. (eg the small bronze vessel said to contain the remains of Tantalus (son of Broteas) at Argos from Pausanias 2.22.2).

What I wonder about is why the number of phases. (NB: my assumption is that the cremation is male. If the cremation is female, does one then get two couples?)

We have the initial cist grave - let's place the cremation in there as the evidence supports. There's clearly room there for the interment too so are both woman and cremation buried at the same time? Or is there a gap in time of what could be some decades before the woman is buried?

We then have the second, major, construction phase. The door is closed and ritual is moved to the second chamber. That implies a change in purpose? Does it explain the other bodies inside the third chamber? Or is it the burial of the woman? And if the burial of the woman, why was this not foreseen rather than have to move into the second chamber? I'd suggest a good reason for moving ritual into the second chamber isn't an interment but bodies on klinai.

So we may not have a couple of causal events, but three and more with each leading to changes in how the tomb is developed.

It seems to fit better with the idea of a family tomb, but I suppose one can't rule out something more complex either. So one could put forward the idea of some sort of mixing of cults going on or whatever, but one would really need some evidence to support that outside of trying to hammer things into a preconceived idea.

[agesilaos]

‘Homeric’ is a rather unfortunate term, Zeb, as it can apply to the about which Homer wrote LHIII (where the nobility were generally interred) or when his poetry was composed c. 8th Century BC (by which time cremation was in vogue and appears in the poems).

The initial deposition must have been the double interment of the urn and a female body, possibly not the 60 year old skeleton (I would suggest the re-uniting of Antigonos’ parents, Poliorketes and Phila; the size of the thing looks Royal and the initial stages could be dated to the Antigonid era; Thessalonike survived Kassandros by two years and neither son long survived her, Lysimachos would not be in a position to build this until 285 but remains a possible builder although at that time Aigai seems a better fit for a royal tomb). The second phase need not be a response to new burials, klinai were normally stone benches at this time rather than the former actual beds. The only evidence suggested is the installation of the doors and the damaged mosaic; this need only indicate the establishment of a more formal cult and the creation of an inner sanctum exclusive to the priesthood. There are other buildings and possibly tombs which makes me think ‘Dynastic Mausoleion’ just like the Ptolemaic one. Pure speculation but at least it does not posit the continuing cult of a Hero whose chapels do not seem to have been erected elsewhere nor the worship of a hated tyrant persisting long passed the demise of her dynasty, in a vast monument built by her arch-enemy.

The frieze could be an allegory of ‘royalty’ rather than a particular king, or that allegory sacrificing, as in the comparanda and the line of kings in procession (it may even be headed by Alexander in contemporary 3rd C dress, Gonatas seems to have included the Argaeads in his ancestral group.

Bulls and tripods feature on the Portico of Gonatas on Delos and Poliorketes was depicted with the horns of a bull

Newell_123.1.jpg (29.18 KiB) Viewed 5032 times

[Zebedee]

I've just edited my post agesilaos, but for a counter-example to the Spartan one, Pausanias (2.22.2) has no problems with Tantalus son of Broteas having his remains in a small bronze vessel. He quibbles only over whether it's the son of Zeus because of another grave site. Pausanias is obviously much later, but he does give some indication of expectations not being set over cremation vs inhumation. Take the point on oversize bones all the same.

Unfortunately, it seems like one can't date by whether wood or stone klinai. One suggestion is that wood was more common with cremation, and stone with inhumation. But other opinions are available on the factors feeding into this. The late 3rd century tombs at Amphipolis do have stone ones though. So really it leaves at least two adults to account for in a site which was being used for quite some time, and, seemingly, was closed with a certain amount of care.

[agesilaos]

Good find, I was not aware of Tantalos so yes things are once again ambiguous. The extra two bodies are inhumations however and they with the neonate must belong to the last 70BC phase when the floor was ripped up and the tomb filled, it is not usual to leave corpses rotting uncovered; C14 testing these remains rather than random pieces of charcoal would actually be informative.

I think a telling point is that Lefantzis only saw the Eta, which is clear and a nu, nor is anything more visible on the Millar's photo nor do they report it, I would not accuse the team of faking things but it does look like some sort of prank being over-interpreted, Oliver Stone's film was released between the Millars' survey and the discovery of the letter cluster, which remains innaccurate if it is meant to be 'Hephaistionos', something that should not be forgotten. This is the only 'evidence' for Hephaistion having any connection to Kastas, and the only 'evidence' for Deinokrates was the late fourth century dating and the only evidence for that remains the desire to find it, the stylistic comparisons are not just imprecise they are also selective; it is all frustrating; scenario writing is a fun game but it is not real analysis. All the same Mortimer Wheeler's opium fuelled flights of fancy certainly encouraged alot of interest in archaeology (I am joking about the opium ).

[system1988]

But what an evidence!!!

[Taphoi]

The uncalibrated radiocarbon age is 2250 BP plus/minus 30 years. Whoever wants to make exact calculations instead of drawing lines by eye on the plot Andrew supplied, can use the latest calibration curve for the northern hemisphere for which the data is here: http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal13.htm (File intcal13.14c - just save it as a .csv file and it will open in your Excel, if you know how to use that).

Essentially, this should be the curve the team has used, it includes the variation in atmospheric carbon that causes all the dating problems.

Hi gepd,

Maybe you have not understood: the graph I posted here is not my curve, but the calibration plot actually presented for these results at the conference. It was this curve that was used for the conclusions drawn at the conference. It is why it was suggested that the wood died ~360BC at the conference.

What is peculiar is that the calibration curve presented at the conference is significantly different at first sight to the one that you have referenced.

The curve that you reference brings the main peak of the distribution into the last couple of decades of the 4th century BC and first decade of the 3rd century BC at first sight, which is interesting. I wonder whether they have used an out-of-date calibration curve? Or perhaps a calibration curve that is more exactly tuned to Northern Greece?

Best wishes,

Andrew

[gepd]

Hi Andrew,

just added the data in my tools and from a first look I can replicate the results they have within an accuracy of 1-2 years they provide (i.e. most probable date for the death of the wood is 362 instead of 360 BC etc), so that is the correct calibration curve. Maybe the offset you see is because you did not subtract ages from 1950 (the reference date) but from a more recent one?

The secondary peak that is within the 1-sigma range is somewhere between 287 BC and 233 BC, occupying a bit less than 1/3 of the negative 1-sigma range, on average.

The 2-sigma region that intersects the secondary peak is between 318 - 287 BC and 233 - 206 BC.

The intersection of 1 and 2 sigma ranges with the main probability peak covers all the range from 393 - 346 BC.

To all these numbers you may consider a 1-3 years of error, due to uncertainties in the radiocarbon measurements.

And, no, I did not misunderstood the graph you posted, if I gave that impression that is due to bad English from my part. I just said that the plot you gave is an image file, if one wants to do the calculations with numeric data and also replicate the numbers on the plot, one can refer to the latest calibration data set that is available online.

In any case, the analysis has probably more steps so I am looking for the transcript of the presentation to see how they explained the way they propose the end of 4th century BC as the most likely solution. Looking at this work (https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index ... e/3236/pdf) (e.g. Fig 9), one can se many more tools to narrow down the date range of the dating analysis

[Taphoi]

Hi Andrew,

just added the data in my tools and from a first look I can replicate the results they have within an accuracy of 1-2 years they provide (i.e. most probable date for the death of the wood is 362 instead of 360 BC etc), so that is the correct calibration curve. Maybe the offset you see is because you did not subtract ages from 1950 (the reference date) but from a more recent one?

...In any case, the analysis has probably more steps so I am looking for the transcript of the presentation to see how they explained the way they propose the end of 4th century BC as the most likely solution. Looking at this work (https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index ... e/3236/pdf) (e.g. Fig 9), one can se many more tools to narrow down the date range of the dating analysis

You are right. I forgot that the "Present" is defined as 1950 for C-14 dates Before Present and was effectively using 2016. So everything checks out to within very small inaccuracies.

I have seen the slides. They do not explain the exact reasoning. But they do mention the range 330BC to 270BC as being the conclusion (apparently for the actual burn date of the wood), after having defined the two peak result for the date of death of the wood.

It is not hard to see that they argued that the first peak for the wood death was dominant and then that there must have been some discussion of how to estimate the age range of the wood when it was burnt. I think 330BC as a terminus post quem is supported by the fact that nobody could have afforded to build the Amphipolis Tomb before 330BC. You might argue 270BC as an approx. terminus ante quem on the grounds that wood that died in the first peak would be unlikely to remain combustible beyond 270BC. But this would be a rotten argument

The first peak is much more likely to have produced wood that was burnt in the 330BC - 300BC period than in the 300BC - 270BC, because the age distribution of decaying wood in the environment must be a strongly decaying function, due both to rot and to its consumption in fires.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[gepd]

Thanks Andrew - I need to hear what they say when they present the slides, what is written on the slides is never enough. People who keep writing on the slides exactly what they say are gradually disappearing

I think there are still big problems besides the non-unique solution the calibrated data provide. The big problem is that this appears to be an isolated piece of burned wood. One needs archaeological context to argue that it was placed there close to the end of its life and that it was simply not mixed with the soil from past activities, especially since Lazarides found that Kastas is full of burn layers. Practically, they are dealing with the old wood problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_wood), carefully considered for the problem of the Amphipolis bridge dating, they need to do the same. So, that radiocarbon measurement is far from providing anything conclusive, at least for me.

[gepd]

Not something from the excavators, but few noteworthy observations by amateurs:

1) By the user edmondo on Twitter, noticing the 6 bosses on the Kastas tomb Macedonian door, a unique feature, at least for the doors that have been found.



2) The second from Athanasios Fourlis, noticing that if the theory that the lion was placed at Kastas with the orientation implied by the geometry of the base found there, then it was pointing SE to the visible horizon behind the mountains at the sunrise point of the winter solstice, like many other historical sites thought to be aligned in the same way. Winter solstice is the day assumed to be the birth of Dionysus, fitting well to the local religion and the findings in the tomb.

[Taphoi]

...from a first look I can replicate the results they have within an accuracy of 1-2 years they provide (i.e. most probable date for the death of the wood is 362 instead of 360 BC etc)

Have you put in the 1-year correction for the fact that the BC-AD scale has no year zero? Thus the year 360BC is the year -359 in Universal Time?

It occurs to me also that the wood in the cores of tree trunks and large branches is already dead before the tree dies, so it is very easy to get an older C-14 ratio from burnt wood than the date of burning. There may be standard corrections for this.

I would conclude that the C-14 results are most consistent with a date in the last quarter of the 4th century BC, but they are not conclusive in isolation. However, in the context of the rest of the dating evidence now available the results are virtually conclusive: the Amphipolis Tomb was built in the last quarter of the 4th century BC with better than 95% certainty.

Are the boss numbers simply scaling with the size of the portal? Or do they correlate with the importance of the occupant? Or both?

Is the sunrise on the Winter Solstice actually visible from the mound or is it hidden behind Mt Pangaion?

Best wishes,

Andrew

[gepd]

...from a first look I can replicate the results they have within an accuracy of 1-2 years they provide (i.e. most probable date for the death of the wood is 362 instead of 360 BC etc)

Have you put in the 1-year correction for the fact that the BC-AD scale has no year zero? Thus the year 360BC is the year -359 in Universal Time?

It occurs to me also that the wood in the cores of tree trunks and large branches is already dead before the tree dies, so it is very easy to get an older C-14 ratio from burnt wood than the date of burning. There may be standard corrections for this.

I would conclude that the C-14 results are most consistent with a date in the last quarter of the 4th century BC, but they are not conclusive in isolation. However, in the context of the rest of the dating evidence now available the results are virtually conclusive: the Amphipolis Tomb was built in the last quarter of the 4th century BC with better than 95% certainty.

Are the boss numbers simply scaling with the size of the portal? Or do they correlate with the importance of the occupant? Or both?

Is the sunrise on the Winter Solstice actually visible from the mound or is it hidden behind Mt Pangaion?

Best wishes,

Andrew

Forgot about the 1 year correction, but anyway I think calibration curves are uncertain by at least 1-2 years anyway and their sigma is 30+ years, so that doesn't change much.

Regarding the door bosses, 5 looks like a maximum from other tombs:

http://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/ind ... 2/5401.pdf

Page 7 has a table. last column is height of the door opening, 2nd column with numbers is door height, there are few doors in the range of Kastas's door height (~3.1 m), so it could be more driven by the importance of the burial.

According to the calculations performed, the sunrise time is estimated not at the sea horizon, but at the horizon defined by Mt Pangaion. The alignment is not sensitive to the potential date of the tomb's construction

[agesilaos]

He shoots...

It is 100% certain that neither Andrew nor the ‘Team’ will modify their views, however

...

I would conclude that the C-14 results are most consistent with a date in the last quarter of the 4th century BC, but they are not conclusive in isolation. However, in the context of the rest of the dating evidence now available the results are virtually conclusive: the Amphipolis Tomb was built in the last quarter of the 4th century BC with better than 95% certainty.

He scores!!!!

Bogus and exaggerated claims of %probabilities do no one any credit.

[Zebedee]

Not something from the excavators, but few noteworthy observations by amateurs:

1) By the user edmondo on Twitter, noticing the 6 bosses on the Kastas tomb Macedonian door, a unique feature, at least for the doors that have been found.

It's interesting, but I'm not sure it's anything more than stylistic. There's no pattern to the dating there, unless it's 4 bosses is late and six is early with 5 covering a couple of centuries inbetween. We're looking at c.360 BC as the very earliest for the main construction phase of the tomb so that's all kinds of messy. It's unlikely to be status related given the heroon at Vergina, as well as Philip having a cult in his own lifetime. Curious one though. Wonder if there's something similar from a broader context.