The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[amyntoros]

The case has to be appreciated in its totality...

I’ll try to answer briefly so I can address some other interesting posts. It's your case which you wish to be appreciated in its totality, yet anyone reading this thread can see that each point you have raised (as the excavations have progressed) has met objections from various people on Pothos, myself included. Listing all the points again in a new post is not going to make anyone suddenly appreciate your argument in its totality. Most arguments of such complexity would be addressed by breaking them down and addressing individual points, but that would be redundant here because each point has already been addressed as you built your argument up.

Nobody would have troubled to seal up an empty Heroon with thousands of tonnes of sand and at least three layers of limestone blocks. Nobody would have built a cenotaph to Alexander at Amphipolis, because the sources are explicit that Perdiccas intended to entomb Alexander at Aegae.

So you are definitely against a Heroon or cenotaph? Now if the "tomb" is found to be empty, how are you going to still prove that Olympias was buried there, especially as you just said no one would trouble to seal up an empty Heroon? Wouldn't that also apply to an empty tomb?

Btw, I see no problem with the suggestion of a cenotaph to Alexander being built in Amphipolis. During the timespan proposed for the building of the monument Perdiccas had no influence over anyone at Amphipolis, and perhaps no real influence over anyone in Macedonia. However, if they had wanted to, Antipater or Cassander could easily have built a cenotaph at Aegae without it conflicting with any similar construction in Amphipolis. Attempted exclusivity concerning Alexander's actual body makes sense. Exclusivity regarding monuments in his honor, including cenotaphs, does not. It's obvious in the extant histories that the army, in particular, thought Alexander belonged to everyone.
Best regards,

[agesilaos]

To go back to Alexias’ point about worship of Hephaistion having started in Greece before the death of Alexander; whilst one should certainly not ignore Hyperides, it is also important to keep him in his genre, here a funeral eulogy. Exaggeration is to be expected, and is apparent even in this short chapter ‘sacrifices are being made to MEN etc…’ all in the plural, yet only Alexander had demanded worship as a God and despite his two marriages, he was decidedly singular. Nor was the worship of the Olympians neglected, it is likely that the worship of Hephaistion as a hero had been authorised, other than this passage there seems no evidence for its imposition (unlike the demand in Alexander’s regard). Treves has taken the rhetorical too literally and got ahead of events. Archaeology reveals a small cult in Macedonia and Egypt and nothing elsewhere. There is no good reason to doubt Arrian when he has the Oracle at Siwah sanction heroisation during the final stay in Babylon.

Gepd, those marks are from the Lion Monument are they not? They are not a Hellenistic Inscription , the letter forms are crudely cut and not recognisable in some cases nor do they read in one orientation; those on the extreme left look like surveying marks with a vertical zero and horizontal datum (rotated 90 degrees to the right the latter could be a kappa but there is no character like O<)
I think they are later graffiti.

[gepd]

Gepd, those marks are from the Lion Monument are they not? They are not a Hellenistic Inscription , the letter forms are crudely cut and not recognisable in some cases nor do they read in one orientation; those on the extreme left look like surveying marks with a vertical zero and horizontal datum (rotated 90 degrees to the right the latter could be a kappa but there is no character like O<)
I think they are later graffiti.

These marks are from the marble blocks, scattered next to the lion monument. They were found at a wide range of locations within the Strymon, some were also near the discovered lion parts.
They were catalogued by Stephen Miller (most known for his excavations at Nemea) in the 1970s, where he also noticed the lack of corner blocks. His assumption was that they belonged to a round wall structure, with the following profile:

miller1.jpg (66.94 KiB) Viewed 3754 times

Here is another photo of the blocks being collected after the Kerkinitida lake was partly drained:

miller2.jpg (170.54 KiB) Viewed 3754 times

It is rather clear that these blocks belonged to the round wall at Kastas, and I expect that the current excavators should have even more solid evidence to link them to the monument. The fact that part of the round wall is missing, rather than been destroyed, reinforces the connection, I think.

I agree, however, that later addition of these marks may be possible, especially for the scattered blocks. It may be interesting to read the original work: "Miller, S. G. and S. G. 1972. “Architectural Blocks from the Strymon,” ArchDelt 27, Mel. pp. 140-69.", but can't find a digital copy of that (I doubt it exists). Maybe Miller has some more comments on possible marks on the blocks.

In one of his interviews Miller states that the river should contain more blocks and other possible elements of the Kastas monument, and he is maybe right. Available pieces were discovered only because of the lake's drainage. No underwater search has been performed.

[agesilaos]

Thanks, yes they do seem to be from the peribolos at Kasta in which case could you post the dimensions of the blocks, please? The scale is a bit awkward to use on a computer screen, cheers; the ratios might tell us something.

[amyntoros]

To go back to Alexias’ point about worship of Hephaistion having started in Greece before the death of Alexander; whilst one should certainly not ignore Hyperides, it is also important to keep him in his genre, here a funeral eulogy. Exaggeration is to be expected, and is apparent even in this short chapter ‘sacrifices are being made to MEN etc…’ all in the plural, yet only Alexander had demanded worship as a God and despite his two marriages, he was decidedly singular. Nor was the worship of the Olympians neglected, it is likely that the worship of Hephaistion as a hero had been authorised, other than this passage there seems no evidence for its imposition (unlike the demand in Alexander’s regard). Treves has taken the rhetorical too literally and got ahead of events. Archaeology reveals a small cult in Macedonia and Egypt and nothing elsewhere. There is no good reason to doubt Arrian when he has the Oracle at Siwah sanction heroisation during the final stay in Babylon.

Isn't it possible - not necessarily probable, just possible - that the Amphipolis tomb, if a Heroon for Hephaistion, was started after the pronouncement of the Siwah oracle? I'm investigating the possibility that someone else in Alexander's entourage ordered the construction. I agree that Hephaistion's body was mostly likely burned at Babylon even though I don't believe it was a huge pyre as described. However, I've long argued that the bones would have had to have been collected after the funeral. And the bones of a "hero" offer protection to the city in which they were buried which is why there are incidences of one city stealing the bones of a hero from another. I really can't see any of the Successors caring a whit about having heroic protection for the city of Babylon which is why I'm entertaining the possibility that his bones were not buried there, especially given that Alexander's last plans for them were voted down. It would follow then that someone, possibly from Amphipolis, could have planned to send the bones home and had a Heroon built.

Yes, I know there are legitimate arguments about the expense of the tomb in that it could only have been built for a royal, and also there's this implied belief here that the entirety of Alexander's army, Friends and officers included, hated/despised Hephaistion and wouldn't have offered him a hand if he was drowning, let alone build him a Heroon. Still, I figured I'd put this out there. And thanks to Alexias and gepd for posting the information on H.

Best regards,

Yes

[agesilaos]

No it is absolutely impossible!!

Of course that is in itself impossible to say, but Amphipolis does not look like just a heroon, that part which has been excavated does look like an attached heroon, but given the scale of the monument do you not think it more likely that it is attached to a larger grave-field? If Hephaistion was not burned in Ekbatana, then he was likely mummified, just as Alexander was and ended up at the heroon in Alexandria IMHO. The cost aside, one problem is just who did get back to Macedon? Leonnatos who have had other things on his mind, and would have lost any relics in his defeat; Krateros did hate Hephaistion and also had not travelled to Babylon whence he might have obtained any bones; Lysimachos did not have the wealth until much later and was confined to Thrace until 301; Antipatros can hardly have known Hephaistion and had to sneak across the Hellespont after Triparadeisos. Also, if this monument was built for propaganda purposes and used the Hero Hephaistion, we hear nothing of it in the sources for the period, in fact we hear nothing of the whole thing which I find odd. If the monument dates to the period after Ipsos, or even after the Gallic invasion c270, when there are few sources and scant reportage, then Hephaistion is an almost impossible candidate.

So, more possible than Olympias, but slightly less likely than a cold day in Hell

[gepd]

Thanks, yes they do seem to be from the peribolos at Kasta in which case could you post the dimensions of the blocks, please?

I need to get access to the study by Miller. I will have a look through the university library. The attached images come from screenshots of a tv interview of Miller

[Alexias]

Just to clarify, I don't think Amphipolis has got anything to do with Hephaestion, it was just an informational post. If Hephaestion's bones or ashes didn't go to Egypt with Alexander, they were likely forgotten in Babylon. To build a tomb for someone in this era was surely to declare yourself that person's heir - heir to their wealth, reputation and social status. With Alexander gone, Hephaestion had no reputation or social status anyone would want to appropriate.

.... and also there's this implied belief here that the entirety of Alexander's army, Friends and officers included, hated/despised Hephaistion and wouldn't have offered him a hand if he was drowning, let alone build him a Heroon.

That could be debatable, and partly due to modern prejudice, but it is a side issue, but the point is that the big players would have had other things on their minds, and wouldn't have chosen Amphipolis, even if they had planned something. That might not rule out a local returning home doing something though.

Something though that has confused me is the terminology in this discussion. What precisely is the difference between a heroon and a shrine? Or are they the same thing? And is it usual for either of them to be buried under a tumulus? And why, what's the purpose of cutting the site off from those who want to pay their respects?

Another thing that I am puzzled about is the lack of local myth or story telling about the mound, or even a revealing name. If Alexander's mother were buried in the mound, you would think that would be a fairly simple thing for local memory to record. Even Alexander's admiral or a general might have been easy to remember, but if, as seems likely, the mound contains multiple burials (and from different eras), that might explain why the mound's history was too muddled to get remembered. (Just thinking out loud here).

[Efstathios]

Some days ago i noted in a reply that i made in Dorothy's blog that a tomb or heroon for Alexander couldn't have been built amongst other unrelated and non royal burials. According to the findings of mr. Lazaridis Kasta mound contains burials of men, women and children from the archaic period. She replied that people back then built over ancient building and tombs, and that the architect of a possible tomb of Alexander wouldn't necessarily search for "fresh land". I have my reservations over this, as it doesn't make sense for Alexander's tomb to be inside a hill with unrelated burials. The tomb of Philip is amongst royal tombs. I would like your input on this, as i think that these archaic burials could be a key in identifying who could be buried there. Was there lack of space to build, or is that spot important for some reason? If you see the topography of the area, the mound with the lion on top could have been build in other places closer to the sea if it's purpose would be to be visible. The hill 133 which is the big pyramid shaped hill next to the mound (there are "conspiracy theories" about that hill, pyramid shape, e.t.c) kinda blocks the visibility of the mound. Of course we don't know how the topography actually was thousands of years ago.

About Olympias, it is of course possible that for some reason she could be buried there, but there is no known connection with Amphipolis, when on the other hand Roxanne stayed there with Alexander IV, so it would make more sense for them to be there. It would also explain the different decorative elements that have been found, and a throne if there is one. Although the remains found in Vergina could be of Roxanne and Alexander IV, we don't know. Mr. Lazaridis' hypothesis was that Cassandros build this big tomb for them because the people there were enraged for what he did, and it is a plausible hypothesis.

[agesilaos]

Alexias, a heroon is just a shrine to a hero rather than to a god or other divinity (like a Muse for instance).

Staffi, there is no evidence in the sources that there was any resentment at Kassandros' treatment of Alexander IV

Diodoros XIX 105
1 When Simonides was archon in Athens, the Romans elected to the consulship Marcus Valerius and Publius Decius. While these held office, Cassander, Ptolemy, and Lysimachus came to terms with Antigonus and made a treaty. In this it was provided that Cassander be general of Europe until Alexander, the son of Roxanê, should come of age; that Lysimachus rule Thrace, and that Ptolemy rule Egypt and the cities adjacent thereto in Libya and Arabia; that Antigonus have first place in all Asia; and that the Greeks be autonomous. However, they did not abide by these agreements but each of them, putting forward plausible excuses, kept seeking to increase his own power. 2 Now Cassander perceived that Alexander, the son of Roxanê, was growing up and that word was being spread throughout Macedonia by certain men that it was fitting to release the boy from custody and give him his father's kingdom; and, fearing for himself, he instructed Glaucias, who was in command of the guard over the child, to murder Roxanê and the king and conceal their bodies, but to disclose to no one else what had been done. 3 When Glaucias had carried out the instructions, Cassander, Lysimachus, and Ptolemy, and Antigonus as well, were relieved of their anticipated danger from the king; 4 for henceforth, there being no longer anyone to inherit the realm, each of those who had rule over nations or cities entertained hopes of royal power and held the territory that had been placed under his authority as if it were a kingdom won by the spear.

Justin XV 2
Afterwards, lest Hercules, the son of Alexander, who had nearly completed his fourteenth year, should be called to the throne of Macedonia through the influence of his father’s name, he sent secret orders that he should be put to death, together with his mother Barsine, and that their bodies should be privately buried in the earth lest the murder should be betrayed by a regular funeral.3 As if, too, he had previously incurred but small guilt, first in the case of the king himself,4 and afterwards in that of his mother Olympias and her son, he cut off his other son, and his mother Roxane, with similar treachery; as though he could not obtain the throne of Macedonia, to which he aspired, otherwise than by crime.

The ‘certain men’ of Diodoros were probably agents of Antigonos seeking to destabilise Kassandros, just as he would later attempt by supporting Herakles, and like then he found the death of the ‘heir’ just as convenient. Justin is, not atypically, confused but still does not note any antipathy and implies a little later that the demise ofthe heir was not revealed until 306 when Antigonos and Demtrios assumed the Royal title.

[gepd]

If you see the topography of the area, the mound with the lion on top could have been build in other places closer to the sea if it's purpose would be to be visible. The hill 133 which is the big pyramid shaped hill next to the mound (there are "conspiracy theories" about that hill, pyramid shape, e.t.c) kinda blocks the visibility of the mound. Of course we don't know how the topography actually was thousands of years ago.

I don't think the topography has changed much. The biggest change was the drying of the Kerkinitida lake in the 1930, which led also to the discovery of the marble blocks and the lion.

From earlier maps (see below one from 1926) the Kerkinitida lake extended slightly north of Amphipolis and maybe a bit west of Hill 133. The Kastas hill is few hundred meters from Hill 133, so the Kerkinitida lake was not far.

(Source).

The account of the area from Thucidides (regarding the battle between Spartas and Athenians) gives also the impression that the site has not changed much. The Strymon was apparently navigable up to today's lake Kerkini (called previously Achinos)

[gepd]

Skeleton found (possibly of a woman?) + wooden coffin

Note: multiple edits for updates, corrections

[system1988]

13.30 pm.Found the dead -skeleton in Amphipolis tomb, third chamber.

[Efstathios]

Down at the big hole there was a small burial room of square shape. There was a wooden coffin, and there have been found iron and bronze nails, and bone (ivory?) and glass decorative elements. The remains were found inside and outside of the tomb (whatever this means) and they are going to be analyzed by scientists.

No info has been released about the gender. There is also going to be a geo tomography that will inspect the entire mound.

In the official press release we read: It is a tomb that was constructed with public funding, and has the biggest amount of marble that has been used in Macedonia. It's cost is unlikely to have been covered by a private citizen. It is possibly a monument for a heroified dead person, a prominent figure of his time, as it is the only way to explain the construction of this unique burial complex.

Photos here: http://www.protothema.gr/culture/articl ... mfipolis-/

[Zebedee]

If this is an inhumation, and that isn't a little box of remains there but a coffin, then it does get very interesting.