Amphipolis tomb - carbon 14 dating

[Alexias]

System1988 has told me that the results of carbon 14 dating on a (soil?) sample taken from the insulation of the tholos - a part of the monument that cannot have been contaminated by later activity - has given a date of 320 - 300 BC for the monument's construction. I can't find anything online about this yet, but this article (Jan 2024) https://greekreporter.com/2024/01/05/wh ... nt-greece/ would seem to indicate that if this tomb was Hephaestion's, then the only candidate for the remains is the cremated remains of a person of unknown age and sex. The 35 year old male's remains indicate that he died a violent death and was not cremated, which rules him out as Hephaestion. The monument would appear to have been originally built for the occupant of the 'cyst' grave, whether that was the 60 year old woman or one of the other sets of disturbed bones is not known.

[marcus]

I've always found it difficult to believe that the tomb could be that of Hephaestion - not least because he died in Ecbatana, before even considering the fact that he was cremated.

I think the possibility that the tomb belonged to Roxane is intriguing, especially as she did die in Amphipolis. That such a magnificent tomb would have been constructed for her, especially when her murder was kept secret to begin with, and in the context of the crises ongoing at the time, makes me less confident. But I would love it to have been hers!

[Alexias]

I've always found it difficult to believe that the tomb could be that of Hephaestion - not least because he died in Ecbatana, before even considering the fact that he was cremated.

Ditto. This monument can't have been completed before Alexander died, and then who would have bothered to complete it? And why Amphipolis? We don't know that Hephaestion had any connection with the city. Alexander's last plans were to build a monument (or tomb) for Hephaestion in Babylon, and that didn't happen. As with the Philip II tomb (which seems to be Arrhidaeus's), it just feels like there is pressure for the archaeologists to attach a big name to the monument.

I doubt it was Roxane's. Who would have dared bury her in such a spectacular way when Cassander was still alive? And why would her remains have been separated from those Alexander IV who seems to have been buried at Aegae? Again who would have buried Alexander IV in comparatively lavish style while Cassander was alive? Could this actually have been Caranus, the supposed brother Alexander got rid of after Philip's death?

I don't know if they have done any DNA analysis on the 5 persons in the tomb to find out if they are related, or if there is any way they can date them to find out if they are the original occupants of the tomb.

I don't think the 60 year old woman can be Olympias either. I know Andrew Chugg came up with a lot of stuff about her body being found at Pydna, but again, if anyone would have dared to give her a royal burial, why at Amphipolis? Why take her body all the way to Amphipolis when Aegae was nearer? The only other candidate I can come up with for the 60 year old woman is Eurynoe, Philip's sister. I don't think we know what happened to her, but could she have settled at Amphipolis and this is her family?

[marcus]

I've always found it difficult to believe that the tomb could be that of Hephaestion - not least because he died in Ecbatana, before even considering the fact that he was cremated.

Ditto. This monument can't have been completed before Alexander died, and then who would have bothered to complete it? And why Amphipolis? We don't know that Hephaestion had any connection with the city. Alexander's last plans were to build a monument (or tomb) for Hephaestion in Babylon, and that didn't happen. As with the Philip II tomb (which seems to be Arrhidaeus's), it just feels like there is pressure for the archaeologists to attach a big name to the monument.

I doubt it was Roxane's. Who would have dared bury her in such a spectacular way when Cassander was still alive? And why would her remains have been separated from those Alexander IV who seems to have been buried at Aegae? Again who would have buried Alexander IV in comparatively lavish style while Cassander was alive? Could this actually have been Caranus, the supposed brother Alexander got rid of after Philip's death?

I don't know if they have done any DNA analysis on the 5 persons in the tomb to find out if they are related, or if there is any way they can date them to find out if they are the original occupants of the tomb.

I don't think the 60 year old woman can be Olympias either. I know Andrew Chugg came up with a lot of stuff about her body being found at Pydna, but again, if anyone would have dared to give her a royal burial, why at Amphipolis? Why take her body all the way to Amphipolis when Aegae was nearer? The only other candidate I can come up with for the 60 year old woman is Eurynoe, Philip's sister. I don't think we know what happened to her, but could she have settled at Amphipolis and this is her family?

Basically ... yes to all of this.

[chris_taylor]

Basically ... yes to all of this.

#MeToo

I went to see this thing two years ago, and it's unbelievably enormous.

rule no 1: follow the money. is there anyone else other than the royal house of Macedon who would have had the money and *the access to labor force* to build a tomb that size for anyone, in that area ?

[Alexias]

I've been thinking about this, and a couple of things:

1. The Amphipolis mound has the same circumference as Silbury Hill, the largest man-made mound in Europe, about 500 metres, but is not as high, 30 metres as opposed to 40 metres, so yeah, it is pretty huge.

2. Amphipolis itself is not Macedonia proper. It only came under Macedonian control the year before Alexander was born. I therefore think it unlikely that Macedonian Argead royalty would be buried there. It seems to have become more important during Alexander's campaign, and subsequently, as an entrepôt for Asia. Roxane and Alexander IV may have been imprisoned there because it was where they landed from Asia.

3. Nearchus, the Cretan, who appears to have been an experienced sailor, took up residence at Amphipolis sometime during Philip's reign. Nearchus is last heard of with Demetrius Poliorcetes in Syria in 313/2 BC, and is thought to have retired thereafter to write his memoirs. He may have retired to Amphipolis. Erigyius, who died of illness in Sogdiana, was from Mytilene was also granted land at Amphipolis, presumably after Philip took the city. His brother Laomedon also settled at Amphipolis. After Alexander's death, he was made satrap of Coele-Syria, but disappears after about 319 BC. These would have been very wealthy men, and their families may have been settled at Amphipolis, with money from them pouring into the city.

4. At the Susa weddings, Nearchus was given the daughter of Barsine and her first husband Mentor. After Alexander's death, Nearchus unsuccessfully put forward Heracles', Barsine's son by Alexander, for the kingship. Being related to Heracles would have given him a lot of power. His wife was half-Greek, so perhaps Nearchus didn't repudiate her after Alexander's death, wanting to retain that link with Alexander's son. Heracles was murdered by Polyperchon in 309 BC. By this time Barsine would have been at least in her late fifties (363 BC is given as an estimate of her birthdate), if not older. If she was murdered at the same time as her son, or died later, could she be the 60 year old woman in the tomb? And the cremated remains be Heracles?

5. The iconography of the Amphipolis tomb presents a problem. The caryatids and the Persephone mosaic seem to indicate a feminine burial (ie the 60 year old woman) but the lion monument on top and the size of the mound would seem to indicate a male burial. I don't know if there has been any stratigraphical analysis of the composition of the mound, but could the original mound have been enlarged, the retaining wall built and the lion put on top to commemorate the slightly later male burials? Nearchus's sons from an earlier marriage? Or a co-lateral branch of the royal family? Who knows?

[chris_taylor]

I've been thinking about this, and a couple of things:

your detailed knowledge is AMAZING.

what struck me most when I went to see it was the weird combination of size & location: it's visible from everywhere. it clobbers the landscape. Amphipolis was strategically and commercially important, home to wealthy families, but from what you say, didn't have royal connections of any kind, past or present.

well, building a tomb that size in Amphipolis is like building a Buckingham Palace replica in Liverpool. and one size up from the original, just to make sure everyone gets the point.

the tombs at Vergina fit into the landscape and are clearly built by the living to express respect for a dead king. Amphipolis looks as if it was built for the living to look at and think "the person underneath here was as important as Alexander".

from your list of names, my money is on Nearchus.

[Alexias]

Thank you, yes, I think the comparison with Liverpool is an apt one - new money getting rich on empire.

By the time of Heracles' death, Nearchus would have been at least in his fifties, if not older, so he could have had a 35 year old son. I have a feeling that only males were cremated, which makes sense if a soldier was killed far from home, was cremated and his bones sent home to his family for burial. So the cremation would logically have been male. But this also argues that the two uncremated males in the tomb died locally. I can't at the moment find enough about the history of Amphipolis to find out if there was fighting around the city in the period 320-300 BC given by the Carbon 14 dating.

[Jeanne Reames]

Both women and men were cremated. I suspect some of the reason may have to do with circumstance: where, when, and how they died, as well as family tradition.

I have always been VERY curious about the BLUE color of the mosaic, as that's not a color we find in any of the Pella or Aigai mosaics from the late 4th century, so I'd like to see some other mosaics with that color of pebbles, and what dates these have. The color is a bigger clue than I think has been properly noted. (At least in reports I've read, but those tend to be Anglophone; I'm not reading the modern Greek, except a bit here and there.)

It's not Hephaistion. I'm 99% sure of that. I also doubt it's Olympias, unless she were reburied there after Kassandros' family were removed. But in that case...why? As noted above, Aigai is the logical place. Pydna is most likely her final resting place; I'll follow Olga Palagia on that one.

Another point, after ATG's death and the burials in the royal tombs, Aigai falls out of favor for burials generally. There just aren't many after. (My grad student just did a fantastic thesis on the topic of figured tombstones from the Classical and early Hellenistic era in Macedonia.)

It could be Nearchos. But it could be others. A number of high ranking Macedonians were given land around Amphipolis by Philip (in addition to any they may also already have had). I *think* the epigraphic note of these is Syll3 266. Erigyios is also mentioned (as noted above), along with his brother Laomedon, who seems to have survived his brother.

But I'm betting the tomb may turn out not to be a famous name, but somebody/family stinkin' rich from ATG's campaign. I also won't be surprised if the date gets adjusted downward (blue mosaic again). It could be an outlier, or the first of its kind. I just keep coming back to the colors.

[chris_taylor]

I have always been VERY curious about the BLUE color of the mosaic, as that's not a color we find in any of the Pella or Aigai mosaics from the late 4th century,

Interesting. never thought about that. it seems quite difficult to photograph the mosaic in situ. this one shows the whole mosaic, but it looks as if the colours changed over time. the bottom left is different to the top right.

https://ancient-greece.org/art/amphipolis-mosaic.html

is that just the photography? if not, then I suggest blue is the colour of the sea.

but why put a mosaic on the floor of a tomb? and what's that big hole in the middle of it?

[chris_taylor]

I also won't be surprised if the date gets adjusted downward (blue mosaic again). It could be an outlier, or the first of its kind. I just keep coming back to the colors.

I forgot to mention: my understanding is that there are no other floor mosaics from that period *inside a tomb". The mosaics at Pella have the same feel about them, incredibly dynamic and jaw-drapping artistry. But they are all on floors in rooms with natural light.

the Amphipolis mosaic is on the floor of the second chamber. not sure whether that had any light, but it can't have been much. is it possible that the artist adjusted the colours to account for the different illumination?

[Alexias]

The blue stones would appear to have a copper element tingeing them. Maybe someone owned a copper mine? Other than that, maybe it was meant to be reminiscent of lapis lazuli or, blue is associated with the Virgin Mary, so maybe there is a far older association with female divinities? I recall that there seemed to be hint of blue paint left on one of the caryatid's robe.

I think that the hole in the mosaic was attributed to the position of an altar or incense burner.

[Alexias]

I've found another candidate for the Amphipolis tomb - Aristonus son of Peisaeus, apparently brought up in Pella and Somatophylax/Bodyguard to Alexander, and possibly Philip. He may be identical with the Aristophanes who removed Alexander's sword during the quarrel with Cleitus.

Gepd has already suggested him as a possibility here https://pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.php? ... nus#p44262, and he would seem to be a better fit than Neachus to justify the lion monument and the size of the mound. But again, would Cassander have permitted this?

Heckel's 'Who's Who'

once Cassander had prevailed over Aeacides of Epirus and Polyperchon, both of whose armies were weakened by defections, Aristonus thought
it prudent to fall back on Amphipolis. This town, however, he defended until early 315 (D 19.50.3 ) – indeed, he had actually defeated Cassander’s general Crateuas at Bedyndia (19.50.7 ). He was induced by a letter of Olympias to surrender Amphipolis. Cassander, although he pledged Aristonus
his safety (D 19.50.8 ), feared him on account of his popularity, which he derived from his high position in Alexander’s lifetime, and had him killed through the agency of some of the relatives of Crateuas (D 19.51.1 ), though it is not clear if these represent the family of Aristonus’ fellow Somatophylax Peithon son of Crateuas.

The Diodorus section is here https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/ ... /19c*.html

[marcus]

I've found another candidate for the Amphipolis tomb - Aristonus son of Peisaeus, apparently brought up in Pella and Somatophylax/Bodyguard to Alexander, and possibly Philip. He may be identical with the Aristophanes who removed Alexander's sword during the quarrel with Cleitus.

Aristonous was also one of the trierarchs of the Indus fleet, which suggests that he was wealthy, too!

[gepd]

Making sense of the Amphipolis monument is extremely difficult, due to the complexity of the monument itself and also inaccurate/misleading reporting/misinterpretation of the results. For instance, you may often hear M. Lefantzis (excavation architect) quoting the radiocarbon dating of the coal found on filling above the vault, to give an age of 320-300 BC. However, this is not consistent with the actual data, which indicates a radiocarbon age of 2250 (BP1950). Calibrating this result gives two probable solutions, one before about 360 BC, the other belonging to a broad range of 300-200 BC, centered in the 3rd century. The interval of 320-300 BC is the one with the minimum probability!

Should one have to choose between the two broad solutions, the pre-360BC case seems unlikely, given the quality and state of the vault (not even mentioning that that Amphipolis became a Macedonian colony in 357 BC!) It makes more sense that the correct solution is one that points to the 3rd century. Still...

The rombus mosaics seem 4th century - two more tombs in Amphipolis have them, one in the center of the classical cemetery of Amphipolis. Pebble mosaics tend to also point not much later than the beginnings of the 3rd century, more likely in the 4th century. The type of the cist tomb found in Kastas (with an extra space for grave goods?) is identical to the 4th century BC tomb of Makridi-Bey. Published results indicate the vault slabs were connected with hinges, which is considered by some to be rather early approach for macedonian vaults (fearing that they may collapse?). Not sure if that is correct. The tumulus with the identical (in style and proportions) retaining wall as that of Kastas, found in Pella, has been accurately dated before 270-285 BC based on pottery on the tumulus foundations. Assuming it copies Kastas, rather than the other way around (since the Pella one was never completed), then we can at least place Kastas earlier than 285BC. But if the unstable era of Macedonia prevented the completion of a tumulus much smaller than Kastas, then it is likely the Kastas construction was completed closer to 300 BC, when one may assume more stability.

In addition, there is multiple evidence of Kastas receiving renovations.

Putting it all together, a date pointing at the end of the 4th century or the very beginning of the third is the most likely explanation for the time that Kastas achieved its full grandeur (with the marble retaining wall, multiple chambers etc.). Different parts may have been built in phases, with some elements of the monument dating back even in classical times (a non-vaulted version of the tomb?). Theories that Kastas was built on the site of a much older heroic burial seem to be gaining ground - similar cases of Macedonian tumuli enclosing older burials were found in the proximity of Kastas and may explain why the monument was apparently left open for visits.

Burned wood was also found in the filling of the chambers, and its radiocarbon dating indicates several solutions with absolute dates ranging from 90BC all the way to 80 AD, so lots of speculation of who and when ordered the sealing of the monument. Clearly, this did not seem to happen when Romans took over Macedonia, but later (Mithridatic wars etc).

In the 2-3 centruries the monument remained open, it is also very likely its role and occupants changed.