The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[Zebedee]

Assuming 'simultaneous' is in proximity rather than time (not sure how one could prove that to a reasonable degree), double inhumation and cremation burials in cist graves are uncommon but found in places like Thesprotian Epirus during the Hellenistic period. These aren't monumental tombs however. Sample size of cist grave plus monumental tomb seems rather small. Obviously not unknown, as gepd has explained, in monumental tombs generally across the Hellenistic world with the typical assumption being there is a family relationship of some sort present.

I'd personally actually agree with Corso that a single cremation in there is sufficient with a kline. The closest thing to an inhumation of a corpse being the woman with the issues there around her position in the fill which need to be overcome. Other suggestions which have been made need to be supported with evidence really. Just from the nearest parallel examples in the geographical area, time and known customs, one would assume the presence of a kline of some form and that could explain the size of the cist grave in addition to the cremation.

However, it doesn't rule out the possibility of more going on. But that needs evidence which either hasn't been provided or isn't there.

[Taphoi]

Assuming 'simultaneous' is in proximity rather than time (not sure how one could prove that to a reasonable degree), double inhumation and cremation burials in cist graves are uncommon but found in places like Thesprotian Epirus during the Hellenistic period. These aren't monumental tombs however. Sample size of cist grave plus monumental tomb seems rather small. Obviously not unknown, as gepd has explained, in monumental tombs generally across the Hellenistic world with the typical assumption being there is a family relationship of some sort present.

I'd personally actually agree with Corso that a single cremation in there is sufficient with a kline. The closest thing to an inhumation of a corpse being the woman with the issues there around her position in the fill which need to be overcome. Other suggestions which have been made need to be supported with evidence really. Just from the nearest parallel examples in the geographical area, time and known customs, one would assume the presence of a kline of some form and that could explain the size of the cist grave in addition to the cremation.

However, it doesn't rule out the possibility of more going on. But that needs evidence which either hasn't been provided or isn't there.

Hi Zebedee,

Thanks for your views. I did mean simultaneous in time, but I am happy to accept examples from any type of Classical or Hellenistic Greek tomb or grave - not just the monumental ones.

I note again that from an evidence point of view there is no proof that there was a cremation in the Amphipolis Tomb at all - just a series of unrelated circumstantial observations (9 cremated bone fragments in the soil that overlay the cist tomb, ash in the smaller cist chamber, a broken off urn handle in the chamber above the graves, a later pyre on the mound). All of these observations appear to me at present to be more readily explained by other things than a cremation burial in the Amphipolis Tomb.

The only certain burials (due to the quantity of bones) are the 60+ woman, the 35-40 year old sword-slain man and the 40-45 year old man. It seems to me that from the point of view of the investigation being driven by the evidence, it is premature even to consider a cremation burial, when there is no evidence whatsoever that the skeletons are not the original occupants. They should be the original occupants because the sealing was early (probably before 200BC), so there was not much opportunity for the original occupants to be displaced and replaced. They should be the original occupants, because there is no other credible motive for the sealing other than preventing access to those bones. There was not enough cremated material for it to have merited the sealing. The sealing is unusual among the spectrum of Macedonian tombs, so presumably was motivated by the exceptional importance of the original occupants, which requires that they were still inside. The obvious approximate parallel is the enlargement of the Great Tumulus at Aegae, probably after the Celtic raiding, which actually succeeded in protecting the tombs of Philip II and Alexander IV.

There are no real issues with the position of the bones of the 60+ woman as far as I can see. The official report by the Ministry of Culture on the investigation of the bones stated that the woman's bones were concentrated in the bottom 90cm of the cist grave. The excavation team members did not themselves establish where her bones were, because the bone material left their hands before the bones of the woman (as distinct from the men and the horses) were identified by the osteoarchaeologists at the universities. It is absolutely clear that the cist grave was dug out by the tombraiders, who I still argue were the same people as the tomb sealers. It is clear that they dug the cist grave material out and piled it onto the rest of the floor of the third chamber. Then they scraped the fill back into the grave slot leaving the disarticulated/disrupted skeletal fragment field that was excavated by the archaeologists. The last fill out was the first fill to go back in. The woman's skeleton must have been at the bottom of the cist grave, which is how her disrupted skeleton became most concentrated towards the bottom of the refill. What was found is exactly what you would expect for these circumstances as far as I can see, but perhaps you could let us know why you think there are "issues" here please?

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Zebedee]

What evidence is there to show that the cist grave was filled with earth, backfilled with the same earth, and then that was sealed over with the sand fill? Genuinely new to me, so absolutely fascinated to learn that there is evidence to show that.

[gepd]

We now appear to be agreeing that it is difficult to establish precedents for simultaneous inhumations and cremations in the same grave. That is my point. The cist grave in the Amphipolis Tomb is patently a simultaneous structure. It has been suggested that the small chamber contained a cremation burial and the long coffin shaped chamber was not only for a coffin (or kline?) by virtue of its size and shape but it also contained decorative fragments of the coffin as also asserted by the archaeologists. Therefore we are apparently being sold a simultaneous inhumation-cremation concept. And that appears to be a good reason for dubiety - but I am interested whether anyone has any evidence of simultaneous inhumation-cremation graves from elsewhere in Macedon or Greece.

I don't see anything too innovative or too original in the possibility to have simultaneous cremation and inhumation - no need to have a tradition or a too creative mind to do that. Just the proper conditions or coincidences.

As for the simultaneous presence of cremation and inhumation, in space and/or in time, there are parallels, as said before. Consider also the site of the Battle of Chaeronea and one from Thespiai, Regarding Chaeronea, a polyandrion was found near the area of the lion hosting 254 skeletons, surrounded by a rectangular peribolos and covered by a low mound.

There is one study from John Ma (CHAIRONEIA 338: TOPOGRAPHIES OF COMMEMORATION) who attributes this to the polyandrion of the sacred band of the "300" elite Theban soldiers that died following the battle of Chaeronea in 338. Almost all burials are inhumations, with little or no offerings, indicating a cheap and not a heroic burial (probably because Philip would not have allowed that, or because the overall circumstances after the battle did not allow that). Between some of those skeletons, however, some burned remains and elements of cremation from a later time were found. That could be from dead soldiers who died later of their wounds, when it was allowed to cremate them.

At Thespiai, we have a similar case, I am copying from "Remembering War in Fifth-Century Greece: Ideologies, Societies, and Commemoration beyond Democratic Athens" by Polly Low:

"What these enquiries revealed was a large enclosure (32m x 23m), located alongside an ancient road about a kilometre from the modern village and close to the eastern gate of the ancient city, in an area which seems to have been one of the city's main cemeteries. When excavated, the enclosure was found to contain the traces of a large funeral pyre, with remains of cremated bodies and of extensive grave offerings: ceramics, glass, and terracottas, as well as bronze and bone objects, and traces of foodstuffs (catalogued in Schilardi 1977). As well as this cremation, the tomb also contained seven inhumations. The reason for this anomaly is not quite clear. The possibility that the different form of burial reflects a difference in the status of the dead cannot be ruled out, although there is no good evidence to support this view (no obvious difference in the nature or quality of the grave goods, for example). Arguments based on chronology tend to be favoured, although these too are limited by lack of evidence, and, in particular, by the absence of any detailed stratigraphic record: it is not, therefore, possible to tell whether the inhumations preceded or followed the cremation. It has been argued that, for some reason, these seven bodies were returned to Thespiae before the other casualties, and therefore reached home when they were still in a condition in which burial rather than cremation was a viable option (Keramopoullos 1911: 159; followed by Clairmont 1983: 232). More convincing, perhaps, is the suggestion that these inhumations took place after the cremation: these bodies might be those who died of their wounds some time after the battle (Kurtz and Boardman 1971: 248; followed by Schilardi 1977: 63). It seems improbable, at any rate, that there was any great chronological gap between the two kinds of burial, since the inhumations certainly precede the erection of the stone enclosure (the head of one of the skeletons lies under the line of the east enclosure wall (Keramopoullos 1911:154; Schilardi 1977:25,64))."

This combination of inhumation and cremation in those cases does not result from a tradition or anything complex, it was just circumstantial. Probably there are more examples, one has to look for them.

The archaeologists do not seem to have mentioned the torch ash found elsewhere when referring to the ash in the smaller cist tomb chamber, so I am not clear why you expect them to have mentioned torch ash in the vicinity of the coffin part of the cist tomb chamber? Nobody could possibly criticise them for having been insufficiently economical with the truth so far.

Peristeri has mentioned the burn layers several times in her talks . Other members of the excavation team (e.g. Lefantzis, Kambouroglou) have also referred to those on several occasions.

My point about the secondary chamber of the cist is that it is in line with two chambers in many Macedonian cist tombs. In the other cases, the antechambers were supposed to be for grave goods etc. It is only in the specific case of the Amphipolis Tomb that the archaeologists have decided that the second chamber must be for a cremation. I cannot see any reason why it would not have been for grave goods/offerings.

So you suggest they decide to place the offerings in a simulated antechamber in the cist tomb, by separating it in two spaces? Sorry, but that sounds far too unlikely to me because that would make the use of an antechamber obsolete and because numerous cist tombs have been found with offerings scattered within them - no need for a separate space. The separate space in the cist tomb is not a proof that an urn was there. One can imagine different functions, even e.g. hosting the bones of a newborn, if they were fitting. The occurence of a cremation, however, could offer an explanation for the separate space's presence, ie. it fits well the other cremation-related evidence in and out of the chambers that provide the necessary context. All have been presented multiple times in previous posts.

There is at least one more Macedonian tomb hosting a cist grave with multiple spaces. It is the 4th century BC tomb of Macridy-Bey, near Derveni. That was a two chamber tomb, the burial room contained a cist grave, with rather tall walls, its description is very similar to what we have at Kastas. The bottom part of the cist grave, where the dead was interred, was a single space. The upper part was divided into two spaces - I am not sure if an explanation was put forward for those finds.

I now understand your pyre reference. I thought you were referring to recent pyre evidence from Peristeri. But wasn't the pyre that you are showing found actually on the mound? That means it is later than the mound. The mound took at least several years to build. So, unless they stored a decaying body for several years before cremation, the pyre on the mound has nothing to do with the original occupants of the Amphipolis Tomb.

No need to rush into conclusions. Geologists who study the mound said that it appears its formation took place in two stages. Lazarides found this pyre in the south-east part of the tumulus (general direction of the chambers) and 11 m below the tumulus surface, so the pyre was erected and used before the completion of the tumulus. The pyre was later covered. Burial activity on the tumulus goes up to about mid 5th century BC, then there is a gap, and sometime later this pyre appears. The depth of the pyre, its early Hellenistic dating and later burial suggests it is a structure formed when Kastas started being reused again, very possibly around the time the decision was taken to convert it to the monument we see now. Nevertheless, its presence strongly supports the occurrence of an early cremation at Kastas, no matter if that slightly post-dates or pre-dates inhumations.

There are other Hellenistic tombs in the vicinity, such as the tomb with the diamond pattern pebble mosaic and cosmetic jars.

Τhat is 240 m away from Kastas, and possibly post-dates Kastas, imitating the tomb's decoration. It is also at a lower elevation - the elevation changes sharply when moving away from the entrance of Kastas towards this tomb, so one cant assume there was a continuous cemetery between those points. So it is not relevant at all. Furthermore that tomb is a huge structure, its presence would have been known, as possibly any other classical tomb hosting cremated bodies - so they would not make the trench for Kasta's chambers at those known locations.

I think you may have misunderstood my 20000m2 area. That is the area buried under 20m of mound since the late 4th century BC. I am suggesting that there might have been an area with classical period cremation burials under there and that the early Hellenistic Amphipolis Tomb cist grave was positioned among these graves, because that was the most recent area of use for the cemetery. The consequence would have been that the subsequent mound disguised the existence of the Classical period cremation cemetery. I am happy that the archaic burials seem to have been inhumations.

There is no need to hypothesize for that. There is a simple reason that burials stop around mid 5th century BC at Kastas: the foundation of Amphipolis and the move of the "city life" few km south from the site of Hill 133 and the earlier settlements. Roman, Hellenistic and Classical cemeteries have been found around Amphipolis, southern of Kastas.

Sorry, but the merely occasional specifics on isolated bone finds by Lazarides and Peristeri does not prove that isolated fragments were few - only that they found intact burials more interesting and meriting more attention. Clearly it is true that scattered bone fragments do exist across the site. I accept that their density is currently unclear.

Using generalized statements ("scattered fragments existed across the site, their density is unclear") that fit to every occasion proves nothing. You are the one who makes the claim, you have to provide specific evidence. Can you quantify how much of those scattered bones you need to have on Kastas, how do you get them on an apparently organized and important cemetery (and not a dead body dump site), how do you end up with a large number of scattered cremated bones in there (given than cremations where reserved for important people with equally important burials) and how do you get Lazarides and Peristeri not mentioning that? They obviously wont have mentioned every bone fragment found, but they would have at least reported finds of scattered bones, if they were common. Because they did that for shattered pieces of ceramics and the marble chips. In few sentences - but they did that.

Finally, some basic info about the skeletons:

-There is no way the excavators are not aware of the overall stromatography of the bones
-The press release from the ministry indicates that the female skeleton is the most complete skeleton found within one meter from the bottom of the cist tomb
-No information in the ministry press release is stating if it was found deeper or not from other skeletal remains.
-Peristeri has clarified that the majority of the skeletal remains from the 40-45 yr old man, although less complete than those of the female, were the ones found deeper
-No other info is given on the depth of the other remains

Assuming again that nobody is lying, these are some general facts.

[Taphoi]

What evidence is there to show that the cist grave was filled with earth, backfilled with the same earth, and then that was sealed over with the sand fill? Genuinely new to me, so absolutely fascinated to learn that there is evidence to show that.

Below is the archaeologists' plan and section. There appears to have been a roof of slabs on the cist tomb more that a metre below the floor of what we call the 3rd chamber and the Greeks call the 4th space. Since also the 3rd chamber appears to have had a complete floor, it would appear to follow that the volume between the slab roof of the cist and the floor level was filled with earth most probably from the soil displaced by the cist tomb when it was first constructed. The soil must have been removed by the tomb raiders, including some of the surrounding soil (as appears to be indicated by the diagram). It is obvious that it would then have become the first part of the refill together with the bones, when the entire space was filled during the sealing. If all the soil had been taken away (and what tomb raider is so tidy as to take all the soil outside?), then the bones would have been found in a thin concentrated layer at the bottom of the cist in the narrow coffin-shaped slot. But in fact they seem to have been thrown on the pile of extracted soil during the tomb desecration. That is why they were found mixed into a layer of a metre or two of soil in the lower part of the grave. To suppose otherwise would be to imagine that the sealers had a pile of extracted bones, which they gradually mixed into the fresh sand as it was used to fill the cist, which is a highly improbable scenario. The soil is therefore cemetery soil extracted in creating the cist grave. There would have been of the order of ten cubic metres involved. That means that less than one cremated bone fragment per cubic metre of cemetery soil (when excavated to create the cist tomb) could explain the entire cremated bone yield from the Amphipolis Tomb.

TombChamberPlans.jpg (64.71 KiB) Viewed 10696 times

I see no reason to suppose that burials in the Kasta Mound cemetery entirely ceased at the beginning of the Classical period and then suddenly re-commenced in the last quarter of the 4th century BC. Instead, use probably merely declined in the Classical period and the use became concentrated in the best area on the Kasta Mound ridge. That area then became covered by the mound. If there was a small Classical cremation cemetery around the cist grave site, then we would not know about it, because it is still covered by the Mound even now. But the presence of some continuing cemetery use on that spot is probably why the cist tomb was placed where it is. Otherwise it would be an odd coincidence that the cist tomb was placed in a cemetery area that had been abandoned for more than 150 years and probably would not have been very recognisable as a cemetery in the absence of continued use.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Zebedee]

So you're guessing? Because that's not evidence for what you're claiming 'clearly' happened. And I suppose that too would be my point on there being 'issues' with some ideas. They're built on guesswork and assumptions which should have evidence to support them, but the evidence is (at least so far) absent. One has to establish the evidence and build around that. Could there be soil in the cist grave which was re-used? Sure. No-one has commented on that thus far. And that's strange because it ought to at least help clarify the sequence of events, even short of other dating material being found within the soil itself.

[gepd]

That means that less than one cremated bone fragment per cubic metre of cemetery soil (when excavated to create the cist tomb) could explain the entire cremated bone yield from the Amphipolis Tomb.

Ok, thanks, so that means for every 11-12 sq. meters you dig at Kastas, at 1 m. depth in the area on the chambers, you should find one cremated bone fragment. I hope you can see why I will have hard time to believe that. Discovery of bones would have been too frequent plus you cant just find cremations without evidence for burials. Of course there are additional reasons stated earlier.

I see no reason to suppose that burials in the Kasta Mound cemetery entirely ceased at the beginning of the Classical period and then suddenly re-commenced in the last quarter of the 4th century BC.

You may see no reason but archaeology indicates the contrary. There may have been a short transition period, but that's all. That doesn't change the big picture. Settlements at Hill 133 were abandoned, why not the cemetery?

If there was a small Classical cremation cemetery around the cist grave site, then we would not know about it, because it is still covered by the Mound even now.

Geologists have shown that the chambers formed with the "cut and cover" technique. They cut into the natural hill, reached under its natural surface, in a place that no burials could exist, unless one assumes the classical cemetery you infer was many meters deep below its surface. No "cremation cemetery" could have existed where the chambers are, unless it was on the southeast, top of the hill. And nothing like that has been reported.

[Taphoi]

Settlements at Hill 133 were abandoned, why not the cemetery?

a) Because the area was used for tombs in the Hellenistic period during which Hill 133 was also abandoned, so the abandonment of Hill 133 evidently did not cause the cemetery use to end; b) Because cemeteries tend to persist in cemetery usage even when there are marked changes of population as a general trend; c) Because the choice of the Kasta ridge for the Amphipolis Tomb was probably prompted by the presence of some preceding active cemetery use, especially if the monument began with a simple cist tomb; d) Because if the Amphipolis Tomb was added to the edge of a small Classical cemetery lying on the peak of the ridge, the Amphipolis Tomb Mound would have obliterated it, so the evidence of previous archaeological investigations is worthless in determining whether it existed or not (and anyway they do not seem to state whether any of the bone fragments found scattered in the soil were cremated); e) Because the existence of very few cremation fragments in the cist grave soil fill is in itself positive evidence for the Classical cremation burials, because it is hard to explain so few and isolated cremation fragments in terms of the Amphipolis Tomb itself (one has to suppose a leaky urn or a tomb raider who chose to scatter a handful of ashes in the cist grave and then picked out 9 bone fragments and mixed them into the soil fill and then took the rest of the cremation and the jar - except one handle - away with him: which stretches the imagination rather ). You need to rule out all these things, if you wish to be as certain that there was a cremation in the Amphipolis Tomb as you would like to be. Note that I am not ruling out a cremation. I am just saying it is easier to account for the evidence by supposing that there was not and that it is negligent to defocus from the certain inhumation burials in favour of an accompanying and necessarily simultaneous (if you want to put the urn into the cist) cremation burial, which is probably imaginary, because in fact the Macedonians did not put cremations and inhumations into the same grave at the same time (to a good approximation at least.)

Geologists have shown that the chambers formed with the "cut and cover" technique. They cut into the natural hill, reached under its natural surface, in a place that no burials could exist, unless one assumes the classical cemetery you infer was many meters deep below its surface. No "cremation cemetery" could have existed where the chambers are, unless it was on the southeast, top of the hill. And nothing like that has been reported.

I am not clear on exactly how trustworthy the geological results on how much of the hill is natural and how much is artificial are. There seems to be an ongoing debate. However, it does not matter in this instance, because the surface soil will have had to be cut away, when the cist tomb was cut and there is no reason why some of that surface soil would not have been used to back fill over the cist tomb. By the way, one cremation fragment per cubic metre is a very low level for an area that was used for cremation burials for a century or more.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

So you're guessing? Because that's not evidence for what you're claiming 'clearly' happened. And I suppose that too would be my point on there being 'issues' with some ideas. They're built on guesswork and assumptions which should have evidence to support them, but the evidence is (at least so far) absent. One has to establish the evidence and build around that. Could there be soil in the cist grave which was re-used? Sure. No-one has commented on that thus far. And that's strange because it ought to at least help clarify the sequence of events, even short of other dating material being found within the soil itself.

No, it is deduction from firm facts. How would you fill the space between the roof of the cist tomb and the floor of chamber 3 please? How would you explain the fact that the bones were found mixed in with a metre depth of soil? Do you actually prefer the sealer-mixer scenario: somebody standing there popping a bone from a pile into each bucketful of sand before it was flung into the grave? Why did your bone-popper stop when they had backfilled the grave to just over a metre depth? What was his ritualistic motive?
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Zebedee]

No, it is deduction from firm facts. How would you fill the space between the roof of the cist tomb and the floor of chamber 3 please? How would you explain the fact that the bones were found mixed in with a metre depth of soil? Do you actually prefer the sealer-mixer scenario: somebody standing there popping a bone from a pile into each bucketful of sand before it was flung into the grave? Why did your bone-popper stop when they had backfilled the grave to just over a metre depth? What was his ritualistic motive?
Best wishes,
Andrew

You're presenting your 'deduction' as a firm, 'clear' fact. Which it isn't. It's a guess. Based on piling assumptions upon assumptions to the point where one has to fact check every sentence you post because there's no clear line between genuine fact and your guesses which you work into an interpretation.

Was the soil where bones were found (regardless of depth) different to the fill? I honestly don't know. It's a good question. One would think that's something which would be noticed. But silence it seems? That seems to imply it hasn't helped in the slightest with establishing the sequence of events even if it is there. If last out is first in, why are remains so far up in the fill? Is that where your suggestion of dropping a bone in before a bucket of something is coming from, to try and make sense of your idea? Or did they want the bones to have a soft landing? Why not put them back into some form of container if the sealing was being done with reverence etc etc?

To be honest, I have absolutely no idea what most of your post there is referencing. Could you quote something I've written which it applies to? One can have any number of scenarios. But while there's no evidence to support one, they remain fantasies. I just asked for evidence, and you have none again.

Find it interesting that those sealing the tomb didn't replace such flooring as there was but rather used it elsewhere (to best of my knowledge?). Was the grave fully sealed at floor level? The initial suggestion was some kind of above ground structure being present. What's changed since? Also find it interesting that whoever looted the cistgrave knew precisely which part of the tomb flooring to take up and then 'dig' through.

[gepd]

a) Because the area was used for tombs in the Hellenistic period during which Hill 133 was also abandoned, so the abandonment of Hill 133 evidently did not cause the cemetery use to end; b) Because cemeteries tend to persist in cemetery usage even when there are marked changes of population as a general trend; c) Because the choice of the Kasta ridge for the Amphipolis Tomb was probably prompted by the presence of some preceding active cemetery use, especially if the monument began with a simple cist tomb; d) Because if the Amphipolis Tomb was added to the edge of a small Classical cemetery lying on the peak of the ridge, the Amphipolis Tomb Mound would have obliterated it, so the evidence of previous archaeological investigations is worthless in determining whether it existed or not (and anyway they do not seem to state whether any of the bone fragments found scattered in the soil were cremated); e) Because the existence of very few cremation fragments in the cist grave soil fill is in itself positive evidence for the Classical cremation burials, because it is hard to explain so few and isolated cremation fragments in terms of the Amphipolis Tomb itself (one has to suppose a leaky urn or a tomb raider who chose to scatter a handful of ashes in the cist grave and then picked out 9 bone fragments and mixed them into the soil fill and then took the rest of the cremation and the jar - except one handle - away with him: which stretches the imagination rather ).

Do not mix the Kastas area (few sq. km region) with the Kastas tumulus. That was explained earlier. There is no other Hellenistic tomb on Kastas tumulus discovered so far, except the one discovered in 2014. There is no single classical tomb found. There is no evidence for activity on classical times. But if you insist that scenariology (your points a-e) is stronger than tons of archaeological data, stated to you multiple times, then there is no point to continue arguing. Because anyone can make up scenarios.

Just for the record, nobody stated that it is impossible for a cemetery to have a continuous life over centuries. I just wondered why is so strange for the use a cemetery to be discontinued, as actual data show. There is nothing strange. You just have to look for those things, its your theory. The point is if you want to look for them.

It would just help the discussion if one stops ignoring things written multiple times, e.g. why it is not strange to find few cremation fragments from a looted cremation burial, and how this is consistent from excavation of looted tombs... Numerous examples like that exist. I wont insist anymore.

d) Because if the Amphipolis Tomb was added to the edge of a small Classical cemetery lying on the peak of the ridge, the Amphipolis Tomb Mound would have obliterated it, so the evidence of previous archaeological investigations is worthless in determining whether it existed or not (and anyway they do not seem to state whether any of the bone fragments found scattered in the soil were cremated);

So, you came up with a solution where a tiny cemetery was concentrated and centered around Kastas chambers (only). This is a solution that cannot be tested, except if they start dismantling the Kastas tomb to search the layers underneath it. Which of course will never happen. So the theory cannot be disproven...? That is the approach? It can also not be proven and the scenario proposed is crazy, so please recall what you wrote to me earlier about taking decisions based on possibilities, if data are unavailable. I just wonder what kind of concentrated cemetery is this that gave up 9 bone fragments from an area of 10-20 square meters...

I am not clear on exactly how trustworthy the geological results on how much of the hill is natural and how much is artificial are. There seems to be an ongoing debate.

My suggestion was to avoid general statements - I repeat it here again and wont insist anymore.

Yes, there is a debate. But one has to be specific about what the debate is. The debate is a completely stupid one, whether one should call the overall Kastas formation an artificial tumulus or a natural hill between Kotarridi et al. and the excavation team. Kotarridi et al. argues about the hill being mostly natural, so it should not be called a tumulus and should not be compared with that of Vergina. There is no debate at all about the specifics of the trench created to construct the tomb. The trench has been excavated, it has been partly revealed with sounding, geologic and artificial interfaces have been identified by all geologists (including Kambouroglou who "sides" with Kotarridi's views) and the engineer D. Englezos. The tomb was cut inside the hill. One needs no more than that.

Of course one can assume that those results are not trustworthy, you may do so, but that is maybe the only way to keep your theory about the cremation cemetery alive and I would not bet on that.

[Helepolis]

Hello everyone,
I really can't read all posts here so sorry if this has already been discussed
it seems that a horse exist behind the male figure, isn't it a bit strange a horse to exist behind a centaur
I believe the horse there ( if of course there is one ) defines a characteristic of the figure in front of it

[Zebedee]

Hi Helepolis,

would be odd to have a horse's head so far in the background behind a centaur, yeah. Does seem to be something happening over the shoulder, I agree. Not really sure on what though. The thing it most reminds me of is a mythological figure (several spring to mind) carrying a cornucopia with a cloak draped over the arm.

But you're not alone in seeing a horse there, I know others have seen one there too.

eg



(Crisinella Cripta on twitter)

[Helepolis]

hi Zebedee,

yes at the current state it seems it is floating in the air or at a different level behind the male figure but we dont actually have a complete picture
of the background



if it actually exists the figure is most propably a Hero, a god, or maybe both a hero with a divine status

the posture is a classic hellenistic ruler one, with the following as a best match, I really don't think is a centaur

[Taphoi]

Do not mix the Kastas area (few sq. km region) with the Kastas tumulus. That was explained earlier. There is no other Hellenistic tomb on Kastas tumulus discovered so far, except the one discovered in 2014. There is no single classical tomb found. There is no evidence for activity on classical times. But if you insist that scenariology (your points a-e) is stronger than tons of archaeological data, stated to you multiple times, then there is no point to continue arguing. Because anyone can make up scenarios. Just for the record, nobody stated that it is impossible for a cemetery to have a continuous life over centuries. I just wondered why is so strange for the use a cemetery to be discontinued, as actual data show. There is nothing strange. You just have to look for those things, its your theory. The point is if you want to look for them.

I have not said that it is strange for a cemetery to be abandoned. It is not. I have said it is strange for the Kasta Mound ridge area to have been a cemetery for hundreds of years up to the early 5th century, then for at least two tombs to be built in the early Hellenistic area with nothing at all in the 1.5 centuries in between. I have said it would be more normal for there to be a modest number of Classical era tombs that got concealed by the Mound. You appear to agree with me that we cannot know. The absence of Classical tombs elsewhere is not evidence that there are none under the mound. So it does not exclude the presence of cremation fragments in the soil used to backfill the cist tomb. Really this is just a fact and not susceptible to debate. It is a fatal flaw in your argument that the cremation fragments must be from a cremation burial in the Amphipolis Tomb. It is clear, thanks, that you have no solution to this flaw at present, so I am happy to drop the matter.

It would just help the discussion if one stops ignoring things written multiple times, e.g. why it is not strange to find few cremation fragments from a looted cremation burial, and how this is consistent from excavation of looted tombs... Numerous examples like that exist. I wont insist anymore.

I am not ignoring your statements about cremation fragments in other tombs. It simply is not relevant to the Amphipolis Tomb case. I have no problem with accepting that tombs in general often had a few cremation fragments in them. But that is because they were open for centuries. Dogs and foxes were probably redistributing material etc etc endless processes... This does not apply to the specific case of the Amphipolis Tomb, where the tomb raiding and the sealing were virtually and perhaps actually simultaneous. In that case it becomes very strange that virtually all the bones are still there but just a few isolated cremation fragments with more than 90% of the cremation missing. Clearly the tomb raiders and sealers would have to have done something strange to achieve this. One would expect that they either took the cremation or left it. You yourself have suggested that they rummaged in the urn or maybe they poured out the contents then scooped them back in. That would be okay as an explanation except for the fact that the archaeologists are trying to say that there were concentrated "ashes" (no bones) in the bottom of the cist and 9 cremation bone fragments scattered elsewhere in the soil. Something very complicated would have to have happened to bring about simultaneous concentration of ashes and scattering of bone fragments. It is simpler to suppose that the ashes and the bone fragments are unrelated and have different origins.

So, you came up with a solution where a tiny cemetery was concentrated and centered around Kastas chambers (only). This is a solution that cannot be tested, except if they start dismantling the Kastas tomb to search the layers underneath it. Which of course will never happen. So the theory cannot be disproven...? That is the approach? It can also not be proven and the scenario proposed is crazy, so please recall what you wrote to me earlier about taking decisions based on possibilities, if data are unavailable. I just wonder what kind of concentrated cemetery is this that gave up 9 bone fragments from an area of 10-20 square meters...

I am pleased that you now understand my hypothesis. If it is crazy, you will be able to state a clear proof of why such a Classical cemetery does not exist and you will not need to resort to calling me "crazy" to try to win the argument. My whole point in this part of the discussion has been to guide you to the realisation that it is investigation of the bone fragments (ALL the bone fragments) that is where the evidence to resolve these issues will come from. I wish to encourage you and others to stop passively accepting the Hephaistion cremation hypothesis from the archaeologists and to start demanding investigation of the bones instead.

Of course one can assume that those results are not trustworthy, you may do so, but that is maybe the only way to keep your theory about the cremation cemetery alive and I would not bet on that.

You keep implying that I think the archaeologists are lying. I do not. I have been the one who previously defended them against that accusation in this thread. But consider this: I could say: "Hitler was never very popular with the German people" and that would be a lie. Or I could say, "Hitler was one of the most popular politicians in all of history with the German people" and that would be the truth. However, that truth spoken in isolation of the rest of the truth would be more misleading than the preceding lie to somebody not familiar with all of the circumstances. The problem with the Kasta Mound archaeologists is not that they have lied, but that they have been economical with the truth. Key facts have been withheld. They seemingly knew about the Hephaistion inscriptions from the start, but said nothing (except possibly to tip off their friends, who have since used the information to appear prescient to the media.) They omitted key parts of the inscription blocks in their photos etc etc.

Best wishes,

Andrew