The steles of the great tumulus of Vergina
As I mentioned in the first post, and as an answer to what Agesialos mentioned (it would be interesting to know how these inscirptions
with the dotted "o" were dated) I will once again make a reference to Paliadeli's text. First, I had sent Filota's inscription: That stele is painted and this multiplies the difficulties of the dating process, as mentioned before. Also, faced with that difficulty, Andronikos, as well as Paliadeli, were greatly helped by the quite precise dating of the relief steles- which due to them being of the same theme as the painted ones, and belonging to that same closed ensemble (meaning that they all were simultaneously burried with the tumulus)- a fact that helped them date painted ones. By comparing the form of the inscription, the form of the depiction as well as using other already dated Macedonean and non- Macedonian inscriptions of that same era.
So by applyting this method on Filota's inscrpition and his family's and by comparing it with others of Samothrace as well as with the little girl's depiction which is common on presentations that date back to the early hellenistic era, the Filotas dotted "o" inscription is dated back to the the first quarter of the 3rb BC.
We are not aware if The Theukritos Theifanous and Theodoros Theifanous inscriptions (with dotted "o") were painted or not. Thus, after an exhausting presentation of the inscriptions of both steles (since they are similar) Andronikos dated them around 325 BC.
With the above, I think I gave the dismention of the difficulties of those specific inscritions.
- DSC05279.JPG (103.23 KiB) Viewed 2879 times
- DSC05280.JPG (115.56 KiB) Viewed 2879 times
Since we are still taking about the Vergina tumulus, I would like to add something to the conversation which I don't recall being mentioned at any point: The gigantic mass of soil that created the constructed tumulus was gathered to burry the group of the tombs which were discovreed concentrated at the south western quadrant of the tumulus: The location of the
royal tombs was extremely
off-center compared to the main mass of the gathered soil. (Maybe it was Gonatas' thinking that they shoud be off-centered so that any potential looters who would of course try the center of the tumulus to descent into the tombs would be discouraged not being able to find anything or in the end, assume that this was a naturally created mass of dirt).
In about 4 to 5 meters down, narrow and long constructions were found (the 2 photos), which according to Andronikos' opinion, were made in order for the mass of soil to be held at bay. It is very characteristic the fact that on top of the royal tombs there was no such stone construction. Such a huge and cared for stone construction is unique from what we know of in archaelogical data. The pile of stones that was uncovered in the great tumulus of Amfipolis belongs in the category of filling of a 4 sided stone construction at the center of the tumulus and was construed as a foundation for the burial
sema (the lion of Amphipolis). An analogoous, but made of bricks, construction was found at the center of the Eretria tumulus....
Finally, I will conclude with with somethhing of a trivia. Here is a photo of the stele of Arpalos, brother of Pagasta, which dates back to the second half of 4th BC (a helping hand in the dating process of this one is meandros' form and the blossoms.)
"If we take from the name Pagasta construe that this Pagasta was the well known courtesan of the Macedonean court, during Alexander's adolescence, then dating this stele to the third quarter of the 4th BC is a very possible scenario." Paliadeli
- DSC05278.JPG (108.58 KiB) Viewed 2879 times