The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[Taphoi]

...That Lefantzis has not sent to anyone on this forum these "uncropped" photos means you are right? That Lefantzis has not provided such to this forum means he is withholding information?...

The point was rather that Lefantzis has not made the information public at all and that he does not appear to have provided it to anyone. If you wish to support the right of the archaeologists to put edited and cropped information into the public domain, which may prove to have been materially misleading, then that is your prerogative (which indeed you have just exercised).

Best wishes,
Andrew

[agesilaos]

Numbers and percentages certainly make things look scientific so let’s examine the relative probabilities, but using the way C14 dating works, which is without bias; there is no ‘normal distribution’ any date within the 1 standard deviation band has the same probability as any other (this is fallacious as a bias towards the bottom ie oldest end of the spectrum has been identified but, sadly not quantified, this is sometimes known as ‘Broshi’s law’).

Standard deviation assigns 68.2% of the results to the 1sigma band, a further 27.2 to 2 sigma, then 4.2 at 3 sigma; there are two peaks in the Kasta sample one has full coverage and the other 36% at 2 sigma (95% certainty) which means the probability that the date is within the earlier peak is 95/131 or 72.5% (394-346) and 36/131 or 27.5% (319-205).

Trees like birch will decompose within ten years, though Scandinavian pines may last 200! If the charcoal is connected to the tomb building then we have to discount the early peak or accept that it has no bearing.

Let us assume it is relevant; the later peak only comprises about one third of the sigma one and half of the sigma two sections when calibrated these, in turn both map to 57 years or thereabouts. Each year with the later sigma one section has a 22.3/57 probability of being the correct year, 0.3912%, whilst each sigma two year has a 13.6/57 or 0.1228%.

Looking at the claims one can see that the Archaeologists Hephaistion theory must start in 322 at the earliest and perhaps end ten years later? That’s seven years of sigma 2 or a 0.8596% probability. Andrew’s ‘inevitable’ Olympias conclusion can only begin in 316, given an early date for her death and run the six years until Kassandros killed Alexander IV or six sigma 2 years which is only a 0.7368% chance; and just in case there is some complaint that a normal distribution would change these results, it would downwards! Gonatas on the other hand ruled for 36 years all within the one sigma band or 36 times 0.3912% equalling 14.0832%.

It is therefore about twenty times more likely that the monument was constructed under Gonatas than either earlier theory, though still three times more likely than that, that the charcoal is from an earlier fire not related to the construction.

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

[gepd]

It is wrong that it doesn’t matter if the excavation team promotes a false theory

I was just saying it does not have any influence on whether their theory will be accepted or not - that may anyway happen only after a series of publications and other steps during which they will have to show the data as required, not in the way they wish. So, no need to worry about never seing better photos and diagrams of the inscriptions, that will come, but not at a time-line defined by internet forums or Facebook. For the rest, they definitely messed up the public outreach part of the story, but that is another issue.

That is reading an awful lot into a single obscure phrase and I’m afraid it makes no sense

Its not coming from one phrase, but from several times this thing has been explained. As for the "you can still fit the Π even with the peritenio", one needs to interpolate a bit too much to allow for him to have meant "you can still fit the Π if you could imagine that longer blocks with peritenio from previous monuments were used". Anyway, no point to dwell on that anymore - just because he stated something does not mean he is right. Its up to you if you trust his statements or not, but I can assure you his reference to the Π fitting in the Kasta type blocks was more than clear.

Looking at the claims one can see that the Archaeologists Hephaistion theory must start in 322 at the earliest and perhaps end ten years later? That’s seven years of sigma 2 or a 0.8596% probability. Andrew’s ‘inevitable’ Olympias conclusion can only begin in 316, given an early date for her death and run the six years until Kassandros killed Alexander IV or six sigma 2 years which is only a 0.7368% chance; and just in case there is some complaint that a normal distribution would change these results, it would downwards! Gonatas on the other hand ruled for 36 years all within the one sigma band or 36 times 0.3912% equalling 14.0832%.

It is therefore about twenty times more likely that the monument was constructed under Gonatas than either earlier theory, though still three times more likely than that, that the charcoal is from an earlier fire not related to the construction.

Cant say I took time to replicate the numbers but I trust you have no mistake there. On the other hand, you are missing at least one additional normalization step. That for such monument to be built, you need to have the death of an extremely important person to have the incentive to build it. The motivation (or probability) to originally have build or use this monument for one of the important persons discussed, is probably higher than to assume it was built for Ptolemy Keraunos, also allowed in the proposed radiocarbon date range. And there is one more normalization step:



That graph is from here: https://www.academia.edu/1438907/Morpho ... nturies_BC_

with additional some notes on top. It shows the approximate tumuli building activity in Thrace (close to Amphipolis - influenced by events in Macedonia) as a function of time and tumulus diameter. The peak in diameters is before 275 BC, the peak in building activity combined with large diameters (orange color) is in the last quarter of 4th century BC, all before Gonatas came into force. In Gonata's reign building activity drops, sizes of tumuli also drop (on average). The critical event around 275 BC is the invasion of Gauls, also marked by the abandonment of the other Kastas-like monument at Pella (Heroon at Archontiko), that occured around 285-280 BC, in consistency with the data on this plot. If they could not continue building at the smaller and cheaper monument at Pella, how could they do that at Kastas. If there was money in the state to fund Kastas, why all building activity reduced so drastically in Gonata's period? So, adding also the normalization factors from archaeology and history will change a lot the results, I think.

[agesilaos]

Gepd, the context for Antigonos constructing the monument would be the establishment, or re-establishment, of the dynasty, there were already dead members to inter including his father Demetrios whom he received from Seleukos in an urn, Keraunos rotted headless on a field unmourned.

The paper is interesting but concerns the Northern Thracian tumuli which are not directly relevant , however even there the trend is for a growth in diameter and height in the third century, she mentions this clearly in her text

ht diameter.jpg (68.51 KiB) Viewed 5283 times

I tend to see the presented C-14 as a distraction, the date is probably much earlier than the building and any dating from wood is imprecise at best due to the lag between felling which can be dated a use which cannot; given that there are three skeletons which could be dated for the same money and either eliminated from consideration or provide an occupant one has to question the choices being made.

Given the noises that Dorothy King was making at the beginning of the dig about ‘Alexander’s horses’ and Hephaistion I think it likely that the relief and the graffiti were known about then.

I have not read your posts as ever supporting the suppression of evidence, Gepd, I think Taphoi just misread what you had actually said. Xenophon is quite right that the shield is a standard size as can be seen on the Aemilius Paullus monument at Delphi, which you posted earlier.

[Zebedee]

The dating of the cist grave, rather than the monument itself, is key to this site, isn't it? The site itself seems to have been in use for at least a couple of centuries, and the styling of various elements could just reflect various stages in the development and refurbishment of the more elaborate tomb. But the grave itself provides us with the reason for it all. It's obviously intended for a cremation, and a cremation has been found. Everything else then follows from that to my mind.

In terms of hero cult vs heroine cult, one would need evidence that the cremated remains were female or something to overturn the view that a big male lion on top of a mound doesn't signify a male hero who was either known as a warrior or who died at war. That's problematic unless one can turn up examples of that from elsewhere in the Greek world. It's not sexist to therefore assume male in the absence of any indication that this is one of the rarer female only sites - it's reality.

That there is only the one snake on the column from the third chamber also suggests that only one of these burials is considered a hero in his own right. That would rule out the older female skeleton and both male ones from being part of the cult. How they relate to the cremated remains would be lovely to know. A family relationship would be the simplest and most logical explanation I suspect? Lefantzis is suggesting a time lag between the grave and the interment of the female skeleton and then a further development of the site (eg a new 'altar' in the mosaic which left a circular hole as the door was then closed on the third chamber). Given the suggested age of the female, this gap in time could be some decades and place us into the 3rd century, assuming the cist grave is last quarter 4th century. Would it be particularly ludicrous to also suggest that the grave's construction implies that further interments within it were planned?

To me, the c14 dating doesn't provide the date of the tomb so much as evidence of activity on the site which may well indicate something between the Thracian period and place us in the time of Philip II and the power politics between him and Athens over the city. I'd like to know a bit more about what they were testing and what was around it to be honest. Is there evidence of this being from a funeral pyre? I don't think it's necessarily related to the tomb itself. It may be. But the general area is logical place for cremations to happen.

[Paralus]

The point was rather that Lefantzis has not made the information public at all and that he does not appear to have provided it to anyone.

I rather think not. You predicated the demand for said information with "It is easy to refute me, if I am wrong" and then appended it with (including the yelled "NO") "There is NO reason that this information should be withheld, if I am wrong". The clear implication is that either Gepd or Lefanztis and the archaeologists are somehow withholding this information deliberately. The reason being that you a not wrong; the motive the saving of face. You should take more care with the implicit charges you bandy about.

If you wish to support the right of the archaeologists to put edited and cropped information into the public domain, which may prove to have been materially misleading, then that is your prerogative (which indeed you have just exercised).

I have done no such thing. I have said that the archaeologists involved - Lafantzis included - are obviously dealing with their professional colleagues rather than via internet forums such as this one. Further, that I would not expect them to bother with such. That Lefantzis or the team have not provided you - or someone you know or Gepd for that matter - with the information you demand does not mean it has not been available to other colleagues (Gepd's posts showing the questions asked indicates this). I'm afraid that in the scheme of things at present (as Amyntoros' earlier post illustrates), you are an irrelevancy - no matter your near religious certainty that only you are correct with respect to the monument. As would I be were I to demand such information.

[gepd]

Agesilaos, I think this plot includes tombs like Sveshtari (somehow connected to Lysimachus, if I am not mistaken) and others and the thracian kingdom was anyway partly integrated into the Macedonian one, especially during the time of Antigonos. Sveshtari may be influenced by the architecture or decoration of Kastas (that is a consideration of the Amphipolis team) but I also saw a reference sometime ago where now bulgarian archaeologists use Kastas as a reference to explain the decortation at Sveshtari, which was until now was considered unique and "out of place artifact". Finally, I think that Thracian tumuli study was interesting because in part it is validated by historical events and archaeological finds in Macedonia: the trends change significantly around 275 BC.

The second plot you added I think shows the same. The increase in heights and diameters after 275 BC is based only on one tumulus. The overall increase in diameters in the 3rd century is there but stops around 275 BC - if one couples that with the much higher building activity before 275 BC, the interpretation changes. Anyway, I may be insisting too much on the pebble mosaics argument, but I also cannot see it fit in Gonata's period. So while I have difficulties to see how they can narrow down the allowed date range to a decade or so, I still do believe that the overall construction started before Gonatas.

[Paralus]

It is a pity that Peter Delev does not frequent this forum. Something of a specialist on Thracian matters and tumuli and having worked on Sveshatri, his input would be most welcome.

[agesilaos]

I think Sveshtari is identified with the homeland of the Getai with whom Lysimachos seems to have established friendly relations following the debacle of his invasion which saw either his own capture that of his son, Agathokles or the two of them depending on the source. Dromichaites released him in 292 but is unlikely to have ever visited Macedonia (where he might have seen Kastas) before Lysimachos ejected Pyrrhos and began his sole rule in 285; Pyrrhos had the part of the kingdom containing Amphipolis prior to that. I think the influences were not therefore direct the one on the other. The reason for the collapse in building is clearly the Galatian invasions, which were both of longer duration and more devastating in Thrace. It is my understanding that Thrace was not recovered by Gonatas and that the Thracians serving in Antigonid armies were mercenaries rather than vassals as formerly; interestingly the diagramma of Philip V warns against allowing foreigners into the Macedonian units of the army and so claiming citizenship, these are probably Thracians or Illyrians IMHO, will have to dig out quote.

Quite when pebble mosaics stopped being laid is a moot point and cannot be used to date the monument , rather the other dating for that will supply the terminus for the mosaics. It is pretty much still all to play for although the late fourth century case is not helped by the clumsy and frankly ignorant exposition by the archaeological team; they resemble nothing so much as the Remain campaign in our EU membership debate, too much poor analysis.

If the Kassandros coins were buried within the complex then an initial phase under him post Ipsos might make sense, although bronze coinage in a royal foundation deposit seems odd.

[Zebedee]

Sveshtari (the city) was an active trading centre which was trading with Greek cities (finds there from Thasos, coins and pottery, have been especially commented upon). But the finds themselves date the city from c.335 BC to c.250 BC, and it's suggested it was a relatively shortlived capital for a major dynasty. The tomb itself is dated to second quarter 3rd century. Pausanias (from memory) says that Dromichaetes married a daughter of Lysimachos, and therefore the proposal is the tomb is for them. Not sure a direct copy is being proposed, but clearly there are links there - whether in copying or stylistic themes. One could draw similar link from Ionia to Amphipolis I suspect, as well as more obvious influences at work there.

[gepd]

Lots of info here: http://www.protothema.gr/greece/article ... kataferan/

Hopefully somebody else can find time to translate (at least the interesting parts). I may do that in parts later.

The photos are also better quality.

[agesilaos]

The author of the piece must truly be a moron, the C14 dates almost completely exclude the life of Alexander (he was ten when the 2 sigma section ends with the rest of his life falling in a 2% probability section) and the rest is just the old 'Roman' strawman. The pictures are nice but the text is just a symptom of the nonsense being bandied around over this site... unless Taphoi's graph is wrong, but despite being a poor way to present C14 to a professional audience I tend to trust it rather more than this journalist's proclamations. Going on the Google translation.

[Taphoi]

The author of the piece must truly be a moron, the C14 dates almost completely exclude the life of Alexander (he was ten when the 2 sigma section ends with the rest of his life falling in a 2% probability section) and the rest is just the old 'Roman' strawman. The pictures are nice but the text is just a symptom of the nonsense being bandied around over this site... unless Taphoi's graph is wrong, but despite being a poor way to present C14 to a professional audience I tend to trust it rather more than this journalist's proclamations. Going on the Google translation.

The Carbon-14 data is for the date of death of the wood. The archaeologists are correct that that could easily be decades before the wood was burnt. It can take over a hundred years for large tree trunks to rot down in the open to the point of being incombustible. The data supports the idea that the wood was most likely burnt in the later 4th century BC having died in the first half of the 4th century BC.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[agesilaos]

I wonder how long straws remain clutchable?

[gepd]

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.

Below I try to list some of the data/facts I could extract from the interviews. If I add interpretations that the team has provided, it is only where they appear to me sensible, which does not necessarily mean they are, so be critical.

-The supposed head of Hephaestion from Louvre is from Thassian marble, found in Amphipolis in the 19th century, exact location is unknown, and was part of a bas relief, not a free standing statue.
-The frieze in the chambers was painted with the encaustic method and there is no background (φοντο?) (argument used for dating the monument)
-The caryatids where formed on site by the sculptors, they are part of the wall, no connectors/ clumps appear to hold them on the wall structure of the chambers. They are just continuous with the wall structure. They cannot be later additions
-The sphinx head fits with the body. They made replicas of the neck, that includes the connector holes, and managed to fit it perfectly with the sphinx body. Inclination of the connector holes suggest that the surviving sphinx head was looking outwards, the other inwards.
-The right front foot of each sphinx is slightly more forward than the left
-They know from the reconstructed wings and the connecting holes that survive, that they were large and pointing down, so they fit the available space in the entrance of Kastas. If the Sphinxes were transferred from elsewhere, it would have been a huge coincidence that the wings did not intersect the chamber's structure (that comment was due to the suggestion by some attendants that the sphinxes where resused from a different monument)
-They plan to add the reconstructed wings on the sphinxes at some later point
-3 additional pieces attributed to the lion found, 2 near the Strymon, one at Kastas.
-Lefantzis said he only read ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ plus an Η & Ν in a monogram, so I assume the rest of the deciphering we have seen comes from an epigraphologist. They already clarified that inscriptions have been given to experts.
-The team will use more samples for carbon dating or the chamber's construction
-They have also performed carbon dating of tumulus samples and preliminary results indicate at least two phases of the artificial tumulus formation (no dates that I can find).
-The threshold of the door, behind the door location in the burial chamber has an ionian molding that matches the ionian molding of the door's lintel - which is how it was identified that it was placed in its final location for a second use and that the door was a later addition. Originally there was no door, so the last chamber was accessible, as it is assumed it fits for a heroon.
-The cist tomb was separated in two parts, one for a kline, and one for an urn. The small space is assumed to have been for an urn because at its base they located ashes, while in the burial chamber they also discovered a metallic urn handle.
-There is a large broken part of the east marble door, assumed to have happened due to a raid, not due to natural disasters. The doors where locked/blocked after some period of time, I assume they were too heavy or difficult to be opened in a normal way by the looters.

-A 1-2 day workshop for Kastas is planned in the near future where many more details will be presented to experts that will attend.

Lots of more stuff are written, mostly interpretations and criticism, that maybe subject for another post.

If you want to try google translate, here are the links:

http://www.protothema.gr/greece/article ... kataferan/
http://www.tovima.gr/society/article/?a ... E%BB%CE%B7
http://www.tovima.gr/society/article/?a ... E%BB%CE%B7