pothos.org

gepd wrote:

Taphoi wrote: The Greek Reporter says that the Greek Deputy Culture Minister "sent a formal document to the Greek Parliament" and gives the above as a direct quotation from that text, so it was not a statement made to journalists. Do you have the full text of the document sent to the Greek Parliament please? If it is not in the other news reports, that would not be surprising, since the media are not very good at spotting the most significant parts of these statements.
Best wishes,
Andrew

They refer to an oral statement, which corresponds to "Ένα μνημείο, το οποίο από την κατασκευή του πρέπει να συνεργάζεται συνεχώς με το έδαφος, να δέχεται και να «απαντάει» στις ωθήσεις." (...It is monument that since its construction must constantly cooperate with the ground, accept and "respond" to the loads." (http://www.real.gr/DefaultArthro.aspx?p ... 88&catID=1).

The story has been picked up by every news website in Greece and the above is the closest statement I could find to what the Greek Reporter apparently translated.

Most importantly however, during the open briefing by the excavation team last year, they stated numerous times that sealing occurred during the Roman times. They have given many interviews since then, there is no change to that statement. The woman's skeleton is just the most complete skeleton, but there is no inference if that was the main occupant and if so, whether it is a late addition or contemporary to the monument's construction. In other interviews, Katerina Peristeri stated that the main occupant may have been a man - the one of the 1.60 m height skeleton. Public outreach was handled in a very amateurish way, don't be surprised if any statements change in the future.

Furthermore, as said recently it appears the Karyatids (or however they have to be called) where apparently surrounding a statue, the base of which has been identified in the marble floor. They were possibly crowing it, they were not guarding an entrance. The excavators also noted that they found in the 3rd chamber positions for a funeral urn and a funeral bed/couch (κλινη - not sure what the terminology is).

Finally, if you want to see more images of the 3rd chamber and the top of the tumulus from the presentation of the person who disputed some of the team's findings, have a look here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYghv8ghqIM

The quotes in the Greek Reporter article are very different from the words that you cite and the Greek Reporter stated that they were quoting from a document sent to the Greek Parliament. You originally said that it was a statement to journalists and now you are saying it was an oral statement (to the Greek Parliament?) Could it not have been all three with differing words in each case? Clearly the matter needs to be clarified. Certainly there is some confusion somewhere here. I am trying to investigate.

You are wrong about the woman's skeleton just being the most complete. The woman's skeleton was stated in the Press Release from the Culture Ministry on 19th January to be the one mainly occupying the bottom 1m of the grave cut. The other bones were mainly higher up in the fill. It is very difficult for that not to mean that she was the principal (or at least the earliest and deepest) occupant. The exact words in the Press Release were:

Στο γυναικείο σκελετό φαίνεται ότι αποδίδονται τα περισσότερα οστά που βρέθηκαν στον κιβωτιόσχημο τάφο, από τα 7,8 μ. από την κορυφή του θαλάμου και κάτω, δηλαδή 1 μ. πάνω από το δάπεδό του κιβωτιόσχημου...The female skeleton it seems are the main bones found in the cist grave, from 7.8 m from the top of the chamber and down, that is 1 m above the floor of the cist.

Saying that the Klodones are guarding the entrance was just a figure of speech meaning that they are stood either side. The possibility of a third statue is interesting, but it does not affect who the occupant was. The possibility that the chamber held a Kline bed and urn is also interesting, but they are the expected furniture of such a chamber. And my suggestion has been that the cremation burial was indeed possibly added to the tomb in 313BC. Katerina Peristeri did indeed say that the occupant may have been a man of about that height, but she said so before Xmas and before the bone results were announced. The speculation since has been that the cremated individual might have been the original occupant and that the uncremated bones were Roman additions. Everything therefore continues to hang on the date of the sealing and the carbon dating of the bones. The archaeologists speculated in the November news conference in response to questioning that the sealing might have been associated with the Roman dismantling of parts of the peribolos, but I had not heard that this has been repeated since (where exactly, please?)

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:...sphinxes were sacred to Hera and the Macedonian king and queen posed as earthly versions of Zeus and his wife Hera

As every Pothosian probably knows by now, I am most fascinated by religious aspects of the period. I'm certainly aware of the connections between Philip/Olympias and Samothrace but you've flummoxed me with your statement about the king/queen posing as earthly versions of Zeus and Hera. Yes, we know of the statues at Olympia but it is never stated that they are representations of the royal family as gods, plus the transfer of the statue of Olympias to the temple of Hera doesn't indicate anything specific, i.e, there were many women/female gods in Hera's temple, all with their own identity. The Philippeion is an exception and its use of chryselephantine statues is an aberration which is more of a slap in the face to the rest of Greece rather than a confirmation that Philip posed as Zeus within Macedonia. Were it an acceptable and known fact in Macedon, I doubt that Alexander's "claims" to be the son of Zeus would have received opposition from his army during his campaigns. (If you're claiming to be the son of Zeus, and Philip has already posed as the earthly version of Zeus, doesn't that make you less than your father? Not something Alexander was like to do!) And what the Ptolemies did in Egypt when they set up their wives as earthly representations of goddesses is to follow Egyptian patterns, not Macedonian ones. To prove your point that Olympias was known as Hera one would have to first establish that this queen-as-goddess representation was well established in Macedonia. If you know of source or archaeological evidence then I'll be very interested, although I prefer it not to be another circular argument. Just because Zeus was extremely important to the Macedonians (and to the rest of Greece) does not mean that Philip posed as an earthly version of him. And so it follows with Olympias ... ...

There's been plenty of mention in this debate alone about the representations of sphinxes in the rest of Greece. The fact that sphinxes have been found in Macedonian tombs does not make them exclusive to Macedonian royalty unless NO sphinxes have been found in association with tombs elsewhere in Greece. Much more research and evidence needs to be presented before one can (or cannot) claim that the sphinxes indicate Olympias. And, btw, the styling of the sphinxes is not acceptable as 'proof'. The fact that sphinxes are shown on funerary thrones in Macedonia and, often, on funerary stelai in the rest of ancient Greece is only indicative of (a) artistic style/representation and (b) the situation at hand. I.e., the rest of ancient Greece (with the exception of Sparta) did not have dead kings and queens so therefore no funerary thrones whatsoever.

Taphoi wrote:This “Persephone” is a queen with flame coloured hair, where we know that Olympias’s family were famous for their flame coloured hair (the family name of Pyrrhus actually meaning someone with flame coloured hair).

From this site about the pigments identified on ancient Greek statues

“If there is color preserved on the hair of statues of Greek women and some men,” notes curator Susanne Ebbinghaus, “it is red. The red must have served as a base color, and so the yellow kore has been given brown hair.”

A quick internet search will bring up multiple pages stating that red was the most common color for hair on ancient works of art, but as they do not provide sources I don't feel they are reliable enough to quote. Therefore, in order to definitively link the coloring of Persephone's hair on the pebble mosaic with the that of Olympias and her family, one ought to first research in depth the hair colorings on ancient works, Persephone included, but not limited to her alone. One can't claim an undeniable link/proof if the hair coloring is the rule rather than the exception.

And enough from me. I could challenge other claims in your post but I'm really not trying to disagree with you on a major level. It's more that I can't accept a claim that you ...

Taphoi wrote: ... do indeed insist that the evidence screams that this is the tomb of Olympias. If anyone wishes to propose another candidate, then they will be doing so in the face of this overwhelming evidence.

If you insist that the evidence screams that this is the tomb of Olympias then it is very, very important to support each and every subsidiary claim with serious research if others are to agree with you. And by serious research I mean not just archaeological or source evidence that supports your claim, but ALL the evidence available concerning the subject at hand.

I would love for this tomb to be proven to be that of Olympias. It would delight everyone in the surrounding area and change their lives for the better and it would be wonderful for Greece as a whole because of the increase in tourism. But if you want to prove it is Olympias it just isn't enough to pull out vague connections and declare them to be 'overwhelming evidence'.

All the best, sincerely,

The quotes in the Greek Reporter article are very different from the words that you cite and the Greek Reporter stated that they were quoting from a document sent to the Greek Parliament. You originally said that it was a statement to journalists and now you are saying it was an oral statement (to the Greek Parliament?) Could it not have been all three with differing words in each case? Clearly the matter needs to be clarified. Certainly there is some confusion somewhere here. I am trying to investigate.

As I said, the story about this document was in every news website in Greece, in no place there was any quote from it about a sealing few years after construction. Greek Reporter has the same sources as all other news media - I am just saying what they put in their website is just their own interpretation of what the Minister said (or maybe written - I am not sure on that). And even if the Minister said something like what they quote, don't take it seriously, especially when the archaeological team has stated the contrary in every other way possible. Don't assume that because of his status he is counting every word he says.

It is very difficult for that not to mean that she was the principal (or at least the earliest and deepest) occupant.

Not really. She may just have been the last occupant, subject to less looting, destructions etc. before the sealing, which is why her skeleton was in the way and position it was found, if the statement from the ministry is accurate. Because there is one more statement (see below)

The other bones were mainly higher up in the fill. (...) Katerina Peristeri did indeed say that the occupant may have been a man of about that height, but she said so before Xmas and before the bone results were announced.

From here: http://www.tanea.gr/news/culture/articl ... okaphloys/

"Υπάρχει ένα μεγάλο κομμάτι σκελετικού υλικού από τον νεκρό που βρέθηκε πιο χαμηλά από τους υπόλοιπους, δηλαδή κοντά στο δάπεδο, και ανήκει σε έναν κοντούλη 1,60 μ."--> There is a large portion of a skeleton that was found lower than the others, meaning close to the floor, and belongs to a short man 1.6 m height.."

In the same article she is quote to say that everything was messed up by grave robbers, and that skeletons may belong to occupants, late additions or even sacrificed persons. In another interview Lefantzis states with more certainty that the skeletons belong to sacrificed persons. Statements are all over the place, just to fit any scenario we want.

Public outreach of this excavation was a mess and has created a lot of confusion, despite the fact that it was indeed fun and nice to see frequent updates.

Everything therefore continues to hang on the date of the sealing and the carbon dating of the bones. The archaeologists speculated in the November news conference in response to questioning that the sealing might have been associated with the Roman dismantling of parts of the peribolos, but I had not heard that this has been repeated since (where exactly, please?)

Not everything. They said they found 2nd century BC coins in the fill and 3rd century AD (not clear if within the chambers or just outside). That is a bit hard if the sealing occurred in the 4th century BC. Coins of course can only set the earliest date limits on when the sealing took place, but unless they change their mind (again) about such hard facts, one needs nothing more to say that sealing did not take place just after construction.

In the press conference they stated there were many later repairs in the 3rd chamber especially. Why repair the chambers of something just destroyed (after its construction), that you intend to seal? They also said that the sealing walls in front of the Sphinxes and the Caryatids were constructed using limestone from the peribolos. To use peribolos limestone it means you need to dismantle the marble cover first, an act attributed to the Romans. There are also some other simple observations one may make:
In the photo above you can see that on each side of the entrance, the marble of the peribolos is missing, meaning that whoever did that passed in front of the entrance. Still, the internal part of the side walls leading in the chambers has still the marble covering. Many findings inside the chamber are preserved in an excellent condition. To me this shows that the chambers were left intentionally intact (to whatever condition they were found by the destroyers of the peribolos). That shows intention to protect the important part of the monument, not to destroy it (as Cassander would have done).

As for a recent statement, here is a summary from what the architect said in a recent talk: http://www.serresparatiritis.gr/index.p ... e_id=11561

Όσον αφορά το ίδιο το μνημείο ο Μιχάλης Λεφαντζής είπε μία ιστορία , η οποία ίσως να αποτυπώνει (αλληογορικά) μία πλευρά για τα όσα γνωρίζει ο ίδιος για την χρήση και την ιστορία του μνημείου της Αμφίπολης και τις ιστορικές φάσεις από τις οποίες πέρασε. (κατασκευή, χρήση, καταστροφή, επανάχρηση, επιχωμάτωση, αφανισμός και οτιδήποτε άλλο μπορεί να συνέβη στο μνημείο). Ο αρχιτέκτονας με αυτό τον τρόπο έδωσε - προφανώς- ένα στίγμα για την ερώτηση που είναι "ποια είναι τελικά αυτή η ταυτότητα του μνημείου;" που ίσως να μην είναι μόνο μία στο πέρασμα των αιώνων και να θέλει...

"Regarding the actual monument Michael Lefantzis told a story, which perhaps reflects one side of what he knows for himself and usage and the history of the monument of Amphipolis and its historical stages (manufacture, use, destruction, re-use, filling, hiding and anything that happened to the monument). The architect thus gave obviously a stigma to the question "what is it that the identity of the monument?" which may not be only one over the centuries..."

I have managed to trace the Greek source text for the story in the Greek Reporter. It did come from a written statement by the Deputy Culture Minister to the Greek Parliament, but it does appear that the journalist misinterpreted a statement about soil forces on the tomb chamber. Hence there is no official statement on the date of the sealing. Therefore I revert to my earlier position that nothing yet decisively excludes the possibility that the bones are Roman intrusions. Dating evidence on the sealing or on the age of the bones is needed to decide the issue.

However, there are reasons that a Roman sealing is unlikely.

1) On the matter of coin evidence, the archaeologists have conspicuously avoided stating that any coin was found inside the sealing wall erected in front of the sphinxes, despite having many opportunities and despite the fact that this would immediately settle the question of the date of the sealing. The only statement that I have heard on this point is that of Katerina Peristeri in November to the effect that no coin or pottery dating evidence was found within the main chamber. I believe that she meant the whole of the region inside the first sealing wall by that. If there were indeed no potsherds or coins found within the first sealing wall, then that militates in favour of an early sealing.
2) The fragments of the marble doors were found in locations near the doorspace as if they had been left where they fell when they were smashed. Yet some of those fragments were entirely suspended in the sand fill of the chambers. This implies that the chambers had already been partly filled with sand when the doors were smashed. In other words the people who performed the sealing also perpetrated the smashing of the doors. It is very unlikely that anyone in the Roman period would have done both things. Only Cassander had the motivation to smash the tomb and also to seal the bones so that nobody could reach them. Why would a Roman tomb raider spend tens of thousands of denarii of his loot in sealing up a few smashed bones. Why would a Roman tomb protector have smashed the chamber doors?
3) A Roman sealer would have used mortar in the sealing walls. It would be extremely unusual for mortar not to be used in such walls in the Roman period. Furthermore, there was no need for the sand fill and multiple sealing dry-stone walls in the Roman period, when a single mortared wall would have sufficed to seal an emptied tomb.
4) The paint on the external façade of the tomb is no more weathered than the paint on its exterior. That remains incomprehensible if the façade was exposed to weathering for centuries. The edge of the step down into the vestibule is still sharp in places – very unlikely if people were visiting the tomb for centuries.

Regarding some of gepd’s comments: there is no reason why the peribolos wall near the tomb entrance should not have begun to be dismantled in the context of an early sealing operation then more extensively dismantled by Romans on quarrying missions. The sealers would not have dismantled the passageway walls at the tomb entrance, because it would have blocked their access to the tomb. Everyone agrees that the third chamber had a large area of its floor torn up and replaced by a horizontal dry-stone sealing layer and before that it is possible that the cremation burial was added to the tomb, so there is no inconsistency in remodelling having taken place in the third chamber whatever the date of the sealing. The recent Lefantzis statement that you have given a link to is completely enigmatic: he seems to have been listing all the kinds of things that might have gone on. The comments on the bones by Katerina Peristeri are interesting, but she was not involved in the bone analysis. The only thing about the relative positions of the different skeletal remains that we have officially is the statement that the main bones in the bottom 90cm of the cist grave were those of the 60+ woman. That came from the official bone analysis report.

Regarding Amyntoros’s comments, of course I support more extensive research into the tomb. I particularly support the possibility of Amyntoros conducting more extensive research into the tomb related evidence that I have actually put forward in various detailed articles on the merely summarised points in my post above: for example, the evidence that Philip was actually worshipped as Zeus Philippios.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:
Regarding Amyntoros’s comments, of course I support more extensive research into the tomb. I particularly support the possibility of Amyntoros conducting more extensive research into the tomb related evidence that I have actually put forward in various detailed articles on the merely summarised points in my post above: for example, the evidence that Philip was actually worshipped as Zeus Philippios.

Quick answer here (because I've noticed that if I don't respond immediately I sometimes don't respond at all). The problem as far as the tomb and "Zeus Philppios" worship is concerned is that he wasn't worshiped in Macedonia. Lesbos, Ephesus and Athens were not Macedonia and their reasons for raising up Philip were political. During his lifetime those within Macedonia did not feel they had to laud Philip and afford him a godlike status, or at least I have so far found no evidence of such, and his probable promotion of himself as a thirteenth god late in his reign may even have contributed to his death.

As for this being extended even further to include Olympias as Hera ... well there's even less to be found. There is, however, this:

Plutarch 3.3-4 Moreover, Olympias, as Eratosthenes says, when she sent Alexander forth upon his great expedition, told him, and him alone, the secret of his begetting, and bade him have purposes worthy of his birth. Others, on the contrary, say that she repudiated the idea, and said: "Alexander must cease slandering me to Hera."

And finally, do you not think that your assertion of Philip being accepted within Macedonia as the representation of Zeus on earth puts a whole different coloring on Alexander's supposed claim to be the son of Zeus?

Best regards,

Just to support Amyntoros; the point about Philip being the thirteenth Olympian is clearly that he was not replacing Zeus, Zeus was there in his own right. If he was hinting at anything it may have been a desire to be accorded the 'god equalling status' that the Epeirotes had given to Achilles. That he was not recognised as anything other than mortal in Macedonia may be evidenced by the reaction of the phalanx to Alexander's divine pretensions, the jibe at Arrian VII 6 iii, that Alexander continue campaigning with his father, meaning Ammon, becomes confusing if Philip too was considered a god.

On the numbered points
1) The numismatic evidence has not been presented beyond dating the cranes used to dismantle the peribolos to mid empire, and some 'bearing the portrait of Alexander the Great', not coins of Alexander, as initially reported. It would be amazing if there was no ceramic evidence in the whole tomb, one would have to imagine that it was carefully swept out and the sand sifted before being filled, not the actions of desecrators. Conversely, the evidence may just not have been released as not supporting the prevailing theory, despite D. King's faith in the team I am not impressed with the publication of either evidence or opinion.
2) Both Xenophon and I have explained the brazil nut effect which can explain the position of the broken doors in the fill and the scattering of the bones, all of the damage can be related to natural causes, towhit earthquake, indeed the lost face of the right hand Karyatid is expressly ascribed to this. So the answer to your question is that no one 'smashed' the doors at all.
3) A bold assertion, do you have a few examples of tombs in Greece from the Roman era sealed with mortared walls?
4) Photographic evidence of the steps would be handy, I have not seen anything clear, most of the shots are into the tomb and ignore the entrance, but the phrasing 'sharp in places' implies it is worn in others, just the sort of pattern to expect when it is used. Were it open and in use then there would be periodic re-painting, probably throughout.

Had Kassandros 'smashed' the tomb it would certainly have been mentioned in one of the lists of his crimes against the family of Alexander, it is Kassandros who suffers most from the Antigonid nature of our sources, he was important to depict in a bad light since it was his dynasty they replaced, the Argaeads were history but still remembered, which lends more credence to the hostile tradition about Olympias transmitted via these Antigonid writers, there was no percentage in vilifying her and similarly none in exculpating her. Am onto the quellenforschnung, just massing the texts pro tem.

agesilaos wrote:Just to support Amyntoros; the point about Philip being the thirteenth Olympian is clearly that he was not replacing Zeus, Zeus was there in his own right. If he was hinting at anything it may have been a desire to be accorded the 'god equalling status' that the Epeirotes had given to Achilles. That he was not recognised as anything other than mortal in Macedonia may be evidenced by the reaction of the phalanx to Alexander's divine pretensions, the jibe at Arrian VII 6 iii, that Alexander continue campaigning with his father, meaning Ammon, becomes confusing if Philip too was considered a god.

I said they emulated Zeus and Hera. Not that they thought they were Zeus and Hera. They adopted the symbols of Zeus and Hera. They went a certain distance towards divinisation, but not as far as contemporary Egyptians, who literally considered the pharaoh a god. Neither did Alexander go so far. He seems simply to have adopted the Homeric epithet of Diogenes (=Zeus-born). Obviously this opened him to the accusation from antagonistic people of claiming to be the son of Zeus, but he never denied Philip's paternity.

agesilaos wrote:Both Xenophon and I have explained the brazil nut effect which can explain the position of the broken doors in the fill and the scattering of the bones, all of the damage can be related to natural causes, towhit earthquake, indeed the lost face of the right hand Karyatid is expressly ascribed to this. So the answer to your question is that no one 'smashed' the doors at all.

This is really quite preposterous. For there to be any possibility of the sand lifting the marble blocks, the sand would have to be vibrating fast enough to develop a pressure in excess of the weight pressure of the blocks. Simple calculations show that the average speed of the sand grains would have to exceed 30km/hour. In turn the walls of the chamber would have to be vibrating with a speed in excess of 30km/hour. The entire tomb would turn into a pile of rubble in about 3 seconds under those conditions.

agesilaos wrote:Photographic evidence of the steps would be handy, I have not seen anything clear, most of the shots are into the tomb and ignore the entrance, but the phrasing 'sharp in places' implies it is worn in others, just the sort of pattern to expect when it is used. Were it open and in use then there would be periodic re-painting, probably throughout.

The point is that the step should show a completely smooth pattern of wear after centuries of footsteps. But it is still sharp in some places and chipped in others.

agesilaos wrote:Had Kassandros 'smashed' the tomb it would certainly have been mentioned in one of the lists of his crimes against the family of Alexander...

There is much unique information about major activities of Alexander in Arrian. Yet Arrian has been transmitted to us through a single manuscript, that could easily have been destroyed. The source material on Cassander is far thinner, so it would be entirely easy for some of his major actions to have been lost from the historical record.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Thanks Andrew - some of your answers are interesting. There are still however many discussion points. E.g.

Only Cassander had the motivation to smash the tomb and also to seal the bones so that nobody could reach them. Why would a Roman tomb raider spend tens of thousands of denarii of his loot in sealing up a few smashed bones. Why would a Roman tomb protector have smashed the chamber doors?

One problem I see here is that you try to find a single person that has the motivation to do all these actions simultaneously. Smashing, looting, sealing etc. What you see may actually be the results of many actions of different individuals over centuries.

Also, it is not only hatred the motivation for sealing a tomb. According to the sources, Severus sealed Alexander's tomb, still we have no good reason for that. And even if one has a good theory, I don't think it involves hatred.

Door smashing may have been the result of looting, e.g. by the Phyrrus' Gauls or the Thracians during the Mithridatic wars, who captured Amphipolis.

Taphoi wrote: I said they emulated Zeus and Hera. Not that they thought they were Zeus and Hera. They adopted the symbols of Zeus and Hera. They went a certain distance towards divinisation, but not as far as contemporary Egyptians, who literally considered the pharaoh a god.

Yet in a recent post you said:

Taphoi wrote: Regarding Amyntoros’s comments, of course I support more extensive research into the tomb. I particularly support the possibility of Amyntoros conducting more extensive research into the tomb related evidence that I have actually put forward in various detailed articles on the merely summarised points in my post above: for example, the evidence that Philip was actually worshipped as Zeus Philippios.

When you make a statement about Philip actually being worshipped, it does follow that responses will be according to that statement (and I did answer accordingly). Now, following your change in direction, I can only say that the 'adoption' of the symbols of Zeus and Hera does not confirm any theories. I.e., sphinxes have been found that have nothing at all to with Olympias - or Hera if we're being honest - or any individual adopting symbols of the gods as their own. I'm backing off from this part of the discussion now as it's becoming very familiar to me. Any further 'extensive research' into the tomb-related evidence proving your theory (or not) must be your own, although, of course, any and all Pothosians are welcome to jump in.

Just a little mention though regarding:

Taphoi wrote:"The point is that the step should show a completely smooth pattern of wear after centuries of footsteps. But it is still sharp in some places and chipped in others."

A quick Google image search of, say, 'stairways in castles' brings up photos of all kinds of wear and tear, including chips and sharp edges in places and smooth edges elsewhere. There are probably experts who can discuss patterns of wear on different kinds of stones, etc., but I doubt that any Pothosians qualify. If they do, they've been hiding their light under a bushel.

Best regards,

1) The numismatic evidence has not been presented beyond dating the cranes used to dismantle the peribolos to mid empire, and some 'bearing the portrait of Alexander the Great', not coins of Alexander, as initially reported. It would be amazing if there was no ceramic evidence in the whole tomb, one would have to imagine that it was carefully swept out and the sand sifted before being filled, not the actions of desecrators.

The Q&A session can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz4gJKNdyhw and at around 31:15 K. Peristeri answers that "...but from the other chambers (i.e. not the burial one) we have ceramics and coins, which are in the process of cleaning and preservation so that they can be studied. We just haven't shown them to you yet. The dating (I assume she means according to ceramics/coins/other findings) indicate a first phase in the last quarter of the 4th century BC where construction took place, then we have coins from the 2nd century BC which are from the last Macedons (ie before the Romans take over) that protect their monument and we also have (coins???) from the roman period, from the 3rd century AC, which is the time..."

Then she abruptly stopped the sentence and started talking about something else... Unfortunately her statements are not really well structured, but I assume one can at least understand that 2nd century BC coins were found in one of the first two chambers. These haven't been shown yet, so depends how much you trust them to adopt these statements as facts or not.

Regarding the brazil-nut effect, I think it may be too weak to move marble doors up and down the fill. That can maybe work for the small bone pieces. However, I think the presence of the sphinx head in that chamber shows that the end use of that chamber was something like a depositor of all destroyed tomb elements (αποθέτης;). The head had to be intentionally placed there after it was most likely found outsde the entrance. It looks like all these pieces were collected, mixed with sand and deposited in the last chamber, which explains mostly their random positions in the fill.

If you could also follow part of the conference presentation I provided in an earlier post, you can see that evidence of layers of ashes /evidence of burning in the last chamber are shown. The fact that they appear in layers in the fill maybe indicates a gradual filling process, with rituals including burning? Not sure how to interpret that.

gepd wrote: The Q&A session can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz4gJKNdyhw and at around 31:15 K. Peristeri answers that "...but from the other chambers (i.e. not the burial one) we have ceramics and coins, which are in the process of cleaning and preservation so that they can be studied. We just haven't shown them to you yet. The dating (I assume she means according to ceramics/coins/other findings) indicate a first phase in the last quarter of the 4th century BC where construction took place, then we have coins from the 2nd century BC which are from the last Macedons (ie before the Romans take over) that protect their monument and we also have (coins???) from the roman period, from the 3rd century AC, which is the time..."

Then she abruptly stopped the sentence and started talking about something else... Unfortunately her statements are not really well structured, but I assume one can at least understand that 2nd century BC coins were found in one of the first two chambers. These haven't been shown yet, so depends how much you trust them to adopt these statements as facts or not.

Actually, I believe the word she uses that you are translating as "chambers" translates more literally into English as "spaces", so her remarks remain completely ambiguous, because the "other spaces" could mean for example the ditches around the monument or the entrance passage or the space at the bottom of the steps. However, in general, I agree with you that her words were completely unclear.

The reason that I suspect that she was using "spaces" in the more general way that I have suggested is that it is archaeologically meaningless to distinguish dating evidence between the second and third chambers (or even the first), because the fill was obviously the same fill in all the filled chambers, so dating evidence found in it anywhere would apply to all the filled chambers. So either the lady was being spectacularly illogical or she has in fact told us that they found no dating evidence later than the 4th century BC in any of the chambers behind the sealing wall in front of the sphinxes.
Best wishes,
Andrew

amyntoros wrote:When you make a statement about Philip actually being worshipped, it does follow that responses will be according to that statement (and I did answer accordingly). Now, following your change in direction, I can only say that the 'adoption' of the symbols of Zeus and Hera does not confirm any theories. I.e., sphinxes have been found that have nothing at all to with Olympias - or Hera if we're being honest - or any individual adopting symbols of the gods as their own.

I have said that the matter of the divinisation of Philip and his queen was nuanced. You seem to want me to say that he either was or wasn't worshipped by everybody. But I will simply repeat that the matter was nuanced and complex.

I am not talking about sphinxes in general. I am talking only about sphinxes in the context of the tombs of late 4th century BC Macedonian queens.

Best wishes,

Andrew

gepd wrote:Thanks Andrew - some of your answers are interesting. There are still however many discussion points. E.g.

Only Cassander had the motivation to smash the tomb and also to seal the bones so that nobody could reach them. Why would a Roman tomb raider spend tens of thousands of denarii of his loot in sealing up a few smashed bones. Why would a Roman tomb protector have smashed the chamber doors?

One problem I see here is that you try to find a single person that has the motivation to do all these actions simultaneously. Smashing, looting, sealing etc. What you see may actually be the results of many actions of different individuals over centuries.

Also, it is not only hatred the motivation for sealing a tomb. According to the sources, Severus sealed Alexander's tomb, still we have no good reason for that. And even if one has a good theory, I don't think it involves hatred.

Door smashing may have been the result of looting, e.g. by the Phyrrus' Gauls or the Thracians during the Mithridatic wars, who captured Amphipolis.

Just to be clear: one key reason that I have proposed Cassander is particularly the evidence that the tomb was smashed, looted and carefully sealed by the same group of people. In trying to avoid that conclusion you are effectively saying that the people who did the sealing found the fragments of the doors lying where they had fallen when a previous group of people smashed them. But instead of dumping their sealing sand directly onto the fragments, the second group lifted the fragments up, dumped their sealing sand directly onto the floor and then put the door fragments back down on top of the freshly deposited sealing sand. I submit that that is an untenable version of what happened. If the second group had bothered to move the door fragments, they would have piled them up out of the way in a corner before they added the sealing sand and they would not have moved them again to lie on top of the sealing sand at jaunty angles in front of the doorway as though they were lying where they fell when smashed. It is inevitable that the same group of people smashed the tomb, looted its contents, burnt some of its contents and then sedulously sealed the tomb with sand and drystone walls and they did all these things at the same time. I note that that is exactly what Cassander would be expected to have done in 310BC. If you can think of another historical character that had a motive to do these things, then I would be happy to consider their candidature too. Best wishes,

Andrew

So, Kassandros' men started filling the place with sand, which was surely preceded by the erection of the stone retaining walls, and then thought 'Oops, we forgot to smash the doors and we may as well place the bits we have smashed and the sphynx head we did not bother to in a back chamber.' Brazil nuts! And all the while escaping the notice of history, during a well-covered period.

Since sphinxes are found other than in Macedonian Royal Queens' tombs, they are clearly not a symbol of Macedonian queens, they are merely a common symbol. Nor is Olympias the only Macedonian queen, the Antigonids married too, and the wife of Antigonos Doson, whose age we do not know

[Antigonos'] queen, Chryseis, also gave a hundred thousand medimni of corn, and three thousand talents of lead Poly V 89

maybe a reason for the baskets (poloi) on the karyatids.

I have refrained from commenting on Taphoi's assertions, though very tempted to, since it is always difficult to respond to too many opponents, but I will comment on just one point.......

Taphoi wrote:

agesilaos wrote:
Both Xenophon and I have explained the brazil nut effect which can explain the position of the broken doors in the fill and the scattering of the bones, all of the damage can be related to natural causes, towhit earthquake, indeed the lost face of the right hand Karyatid is expressly ascribed to this. So the answer to your question is that no one 'smashed' the doors at all.

This is really quite preposterous. For there to be any possibility of the sand lifting the marble blocks, the sand would have to be vibrating fast enough to develop a pressure in excess of the weight pressure of the blocks. Simple calculations show that the average speed of the sand grains would have to exceed 30km/hour. In turn the walls of the chamber would have to be vibrating with a speed in excess of 30km/hour. The entire tomb would turn into a pile of rubble in about 3 seconds under those conditions.

This is quite untrue, and merely demonstrates that Taphoi does not understand the principles of 'gravitational convection' at all. "Speed"[sic] has nothing whatever to do with the phenomenon, nor "weight", and this assertion is not science but pseudo-science. And whence comes the assertion of "half tonne" blocks? The pieces are, as far as I understand, much smaller fragments. The mind boggles at the thought that this was done by 'smashing' with sledgehammers or similar. Far more likely that seismic activity, repeated over centuries, is responsible for the much of the state of the tomb at present, as well as human activity.

We originally discussed this some time ago [p.31 of the thread], when Taphoi previously raised 'weight' as an obstacle to this natural phenomenon,to which I responded :

Xenophon wrote [page 31 26 Oct]

The weight of the 'pebble' is irrelevant, since the rise is caused by the smaller particles working their way beneath the larger due to vibration, and in this instance seismic action supplies all the energy needed. Huge boulders emerge from farmers fields and glaciers due to precisely this effect. (just 'google' the phenomenon).

Obviously, if this effect can occur in farmer's fields to raise boulders, then the same can occur to similar sized fragments in the tomb.