pothos.org

Taphoi wrote:

gepd wrote:

agesilaos wrote:Is it 'smashed' or just 'in pieces'? The full details of how the skeleton was found are as hard to ascertain as the dating evidence! Roll on 29th.

From the context of what was said during that interview, I gathered that it probaly means "in pieces". Mendoni also stated that the bones show no signs of cremation or embalment, but I wouldn't count on that. I don't think she can judge these things by just looking the remains (especially the embalment issue).

Just to be clear, agesilaos is suggesting that Lina Mendoni used "in pieces" to mean that the bones were intact (not broken), but no longer touching one another (disarticulated). Is that what you and system88 understand her to have meant, please? (We already knew that from the fact that the bones were scattered inside and outside the grave slot.)
Best wishes,
Andrew

Ah, ok, sorry for the confusion. I understand that the pelvis is broken in pieces but the pieces are in a state than the pelvis can be reconstructed. I hope it is clearer now (I need to find that interview...).

Today's news: here are some peribolos marbles from the Kerkini lake, returning home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J79cwEuhieo

Here it is:

http://www.news.gr/ellada/nea-ths-perif ... -sthn.html

"Δεν ξέρουμε ακόμα αν πρόκειται για άνδρα ή για γυναίκα διότι κάποιος αρχαιολόγος μπορεί να ξεχωρίσει το φύλο από τα οστά της λεκάνης, τα οποία τα έχουμε αλλά είναι σπασμένα. Επομένως δεν μπορούμε να διακρίνουμε σε μια πρώτη ματιά το φύλο"

"We do not know yet if they correspond to a man or a woman because an archaeologist may realize that from the pelvis bones, which we have but they are broken. Therefore, clarifying the sex from a quick look is not possible."

Edit to clarify that with the last sentence she refers to the "quick look" by a non-expert.

gepd wrote:Here it is:

http://www.news.gr/ellada/nea-ths-perif ... -sthn.html

"Δεν ξέρουμε ακόμα αν πρόκειται για άνδρα ή για γυναίκα διότι κάποιος αρχαιολόγος μπορεί να ξεχωρίσει το φύλο από τα οστά της λεκάνης, τα οποία τα έχουμε αλλά είναι σπασμένα. Επομένως δεν μπορούμε να διακρίνουμε σε μια πρώτη ματιά το φύλο"

"We do not know yet if they correspond to a man or a woman because an archaeologist may realize that from the pelvis bones, which we have but they are broken. Therefore, clarifying the sex from a quick look is not possible."

Edit to clarify that with the last sentence she refers to the "quick look" by a non-expert.

Very many thanks. That clears up the confusion nicely and shows that they really don't have any idea whether it's a man or a woman yet. And it shows that the pelvic bones probably are smashed. Somebody really did not like the occupant!!! Pity that bit didn't get quoted by the press, since it is overwhelmingly the clearest and most authoritative statement made on the matter.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Spasmona only means BROKEN so rather than clearing things up, as usual, things remain unclear.

agesilaos wrote:Spasmona only means BROKEN so rather than clearing things up, as usual, things remain unclear.

But you appear to be suggesting that it means "intact" - surely that is a stretch

We already know that somebody scattered the bones about, so a bit of smashing to round things off is only too likely.

Alternatives are vanishingly improbable: e.g. the occupant died by having a heavy rock fall on his/her pelvis (which is a one in a million cause of death); or totally physically impossible: e.g. an earthquake broke up pelvic bones sufficiently to make gender identification difficult.

Best wishes,
Andrew

If one considers a pelvis a unit when it is disarticulated it is broken: the force of the Greek is not 'smashed'; nor wouldthe ancient Greeks have understood 'sexing' by the pelvis, as usual your poor language skills have led you astray, a disassociated pelvis is not intact but may be complete. Once the skeleton proves to be male you might change your theory; should you not then the gloves will be off! Contrariwise, should it prove to be female, I would favour an Antigonid wife, but will have to entertain the Olympias theory; given the lack of cremation , though, a re-burial of Rhesos' bones seems a better bet to me.

agesilaos wrote:If one considers a pelvis a unit when it is disarticulated it is broken: the force of the Greek is not 'smashed'; nor wouldthe ancient Greeks have understood 'sexing' by the pelvis, as usual your poor language skills have led you astray, a disassociated pelvis is not intact but may be complete. Once the skeleton proves to be male you might change your theory; should you not then the gloves will be off! Contrariwise, should it prove to be female, I would favour an Antigonid wife, but will have to entertain the Olympias theory; given the lack of cremation , though, a re-burial of Rhesos' bones seems a better bet to me.

Your poor language skills have let you down: Rhesos was male.
I am confident that a broken bone is definitely broken and not merely disturbed.
I have not said anything about sexing by ancient Greeks.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Taphoi wrote:

gepd wrote:Here it is:

http://www.news.gr/ellada/nea-ths-perif ... -sthn.html

"Δεν ξέρουμε ακόμα αν πρόκειται για άνδρα ή για γυναίκα διότι κάποιος αρχαιολόγος μπορεί να ξεχωρίσει το φύλο από τα οστά της λεκάνης, τα οποία τα έχουμε αλλά είναι σπασμένα. Επομένως δεν μπορούμε να διακρίνουμε σε μια πρώτη ματιά το φύλο"

"We do not know yet if they correspond to a man or a woman because an archaeologist may realize that from the pelvis bones, which we have but they are broken. Therefore, clarifying the sex from a quick look is not possible."

Edit to clarify that with the last sentence she refers to the "quick look" by a non-expert.

Very many thanks. That clears up the confusion nicely and shows that they really don't have any idea whether it's a man or a woman yet. And it shows that the pelvic bones probably are smashed. Somebody really did not like the occupant!!! Pity that bit didn't get quoted by the press, since it is overwhelmingly the clearest and most authoritative statement made on the matter.
Best wishes,
Andrew

I wouldn't jump to such conclusions. All statements we have are from non-experts who may only have had a quick visual inspection to the bones. We do not even know if they belong to one or more persons (why not? there seem to be a large and a smaller casing in the tomb). We do not even know if the person found is the one originally buried there. Macedonian tomb 3 within few hundred meters from Kasta, with the same type of mosaic (rhombuses etc.) had its floor broken for reburials.



I also do not think "broken" implies smashed due to hatred. Looters could cause all kinds of accidental damage to the bones.

Presentations on Saturday will be rather extended. The whole session is planned to last three hours:

(1) K. Peristeri: Excavations of the tomb monument at the Kastas tumulus of Amphipolis
(2) M. Lefantzis: The relation of the lion with the Amphipolis tumulus: architectural and construction aspects
(3) D. Egglezos: The role of a civili engineer in the Kasta tomb excavations: presentation of the temporary measures for the monument's structural support and analyses for the interpretation of several historical assumptions

http://www.yppo.gr/2/g22.jsp?obj_id=59232

If the corpse is female, may the tomb be of Thessalonike (daughter of Philip and wife of Cassander?)

gepd wrote: I wouldn't jump to such conclusions. All statements we have are from non-experts who may only have had a quick visual inspection to the bones. We do not even know if they belong to one or more persons (why not? there seem to be a large and a smaller casing in the tomb). We do not even know if the person found is the one originally buried there. Macedonian tomb 3 within few hundred meters from Kasta, with the same type of mosaic (rhombuses etc.) had its floor broken for reburials.

I also do not think "broken" implies smashed due to hatred. Looters could cause all kinds of accidental damage to the bones.

The statement is attributed to Lina Mendoni, Secretary General at the Greek Culture Ministry and a top archaeologist in her own right. She has been co-interviewee in many of the official statements on Amphipolis. She is one of the few people commenting who does have complete access to the dig results and has the training to understand them. I remain confident that when she says broken, she means that the bones are individually broken - not disarticulated. I am especially sure of this, because I know that mere scattering of the parts would not prevent a rapid sex determination.
The logic of the situation is this:
a) If the sealer of the tomb was not also the person who scattered the bones, then the sealer would have tidied the bones before sealing out of respect for the dead (the fact that the sealing and the desecration were simultaneous is also supported by the fact that parts of the smashed doors were suspended in the sand fill, but seemingly where they fell since they were just inside the doorway in which they had stood)
b) It follows that the sealer and desecrator was also the looter and the smasher of the sphinxes
c) The sealer must have been extremely strongly motivated to prevent access to the scattered bones in order to have ordered such a comprehensive sealing.
d) The bones must therefore be those of somebody extremely important.
e) The bones in this tomb must therefore be the ones that the monument was built for (although I agree that other tombs may have been added to the monument.)
f) The cist tomb is very poor quality relative to the rest of the monument, so it must pre-date the monument
g) The cist tomb burial was uncremated: the only likely explanation is that the occupant was considered a criminal at the time of initial burial (because ALL high status individuals were cremated in this period - even Alcetas eventually)

I think I will stop there. I think there is a pretty remorseless logic derivable from the extraordinary features and circumstances of this utterly remarkable tomb. So we do know an awful lot really and we can see that the bones were indeed smashed by the looter, as you suggest, because he was also the sealer and probably the lord of Macedon at the time. If so, he did it out of hatred, because one does not accidentally smash pelvic bones in a skeleton.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Taphoi wrote:I think I will stop there.

One can only hope so. Your continued cavalier dismissal of any and all views (and evidence) contrary to your cherished Christmas wish - couched in your usual peremptory tone of "only I am aware of the truth" - shows scant regard for those contributing to this discussion. A classic example of which is your twisting dismissal of gepd's reply:

gepd wrote:We do not even know if the person found is the one originally buried there. Macedonian tomb 3 within few hundred meters from Kasta, with the same type of mosaic (rhombuses etc.) had its floor broken for reburials.

I also do not think "broken" implies smashed due to hatred. Looters could cause all kinds of accidental damage to the bones.

Taphoi wrote: So we do know an awful lot really and we can see that the bones were indeed smashed by the looter, as you suggest, because he was also the sealer and probably the lord of Macedon at the time. If so, he did it out of hatred, because one does not accidentally smash pelvic bones in a skeleton.

Again, one can only hope so.

Andrew let me just be more specific in saying that "broken" does not *necessarily* imply smashed due to hatred. I hope that makes it clearer.

Regarding the rest of the argumentation, I cannot say I am convinced. Most discoveries in this excavation are unexpected, even the tomb's and the peribolos' existence defy logic given our sources, let alone findings within the tomb (sphinxes, head of sphinxes within the 3rd chamber etc. - the list is really long, I am sure you agree). So trying to make sense about the bones from a single sentence of an official, who on the one hand, has access to all the findings, but still does not study them, is more than risky. The same person recently said that bones show no signs of cremation or mummification, while she adds they are still uncertain on the sex of that dead person. Doesn't that sound a bit strange? It could well be that she somehow referred to a damage in the pelvis as an excuse for not giving any hint about the sex of the buried person.

Remember that part of Lina Mendoni's role is also to keep public interest high about that excavation between successive press releases, without however, revealing anything too important that does not appear on the latter. Choosing the right words in this case can be tricky and over-interpreting these words can be risky.

Finally, I can also argue in the same way as you do saying that Katerina Peristeri, the lead excavator, who is much closer to the finds than Mendoni (obviously), keeps insisting (even after the discovery of the skeleton) that the tomb belongs to one of Alexander's generals. Then Peristeri has also made this much discussed and refuted (by you) statement about the Dinocrates and his 15.84 measure... What should one make out of that, then?

I 'd say, maybe better wait for more concrete results and carefully prepared statements, rather than informal comments. I 'd say better wait for Saturday.

Site with the best collection of photos from Amphipolis and surrounding area:

http://amphipolis.gr/en/

Many more inscriptions are now recognizable on the blocks by people who visit them - all look from a later period than the proposed construction date.

gepd wrote:Andrew let me just be more specific in saying that "broken" does not *necessarily* imply smashed due to hatred. I hope that makes it clearer.

Happy to agree that broken needn't mean smashed (in itself). All I am saying is that the circumstances do very much imply that the breaking was deliberate smashing (but nothing is certain yet.)

gepd wrote:Regarding the rest of the argumentation, I cannot say I am convinced. Most discoveries in this excavation are unexpected, even the tomb's and the peribolos' existence defy logic given our sources, let alone findings within the tomb (sphinxes, head of sphinxes within the 3rd chamber etc. - the list is really long, I am sure you agree). So trying to make sense about the bones from a single sentence of an official, who on the one hand, has access to all the findings, but still does not study them, is more than risky. The same person recently said that bones show no signs of cremation or mummification, while she adds they are still uncertain on the sex of that dead person. Doesn't that sound a bit strange? It could well be that she somehow referred to a damage in the pelvis as an excuse for not giving any hint about the sex of the buried person.

I sympathise with your caution about the sources of information, but in fact the official releases from the Culture Ministry and statements by Lina Mendoni do appear to have been accurate, if limited. My arguments above only rely on these pieces of "official" information. They are not arguments of certainty, but of probability. But it will be necessary to believe some very strange things, if anybody wishes to disbelieve any of them. It is easy to see whether bone has been cremated no matter how many pieces it is in, if you are an experienced archaeologist. Sexing relies especially on measuring the sciatic notch angle accurately: males are generally less than 68 degrees and females greater than 68 degrees (although there is some overlap). It relies on measurements accurate to a degree or two so is easily interfered with by the bones being in fragments.

gepd wrote:Finally, I can also argue in the same way as you do saying that Katerina Peristeri, the lead excavator, who is much closer to the finds than Mendoni (obviously), keeps insisting (even after the discovery of the skeleton) that the tomb belongs to one of Alexander's generals. Then Peristeri has also made this much discussed and refuted (by you) statement about the Dinocrates and his 15.84 measure... What should one make out of that, then?

If I hadn't read Mahmoud Bey's book, published in 1872 and in French, concerning how he prepared his map on which they based the 158.4m measurement coincidence, I might not be so sure that they are wrong on this one, so I have some sympathy for the archaeologists having been led slightly astray by the dimensions. They are right that there are a number of other things that might make you think of Deinocrates in respect of this tomb. It was definitely built to be a stade in diameter, for example.

gepd wrote:I 'd say, maybe better wait for more concrete results and carefully prepared statements, rather than informal comments. I 'd say better wait for Saturday.

I have myself been telling people that we now need to await the verdict from the bones, but I don't see any problem with discussing probabilities in the meantime. I have been careful only to discuss the candidacy of Olympias in terms of probability, if you read what I have actually said, rather than what various people have claimed that I have said.
Best wishes,
Andrew