The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[Taphoi]

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.

The evidence shows that the sand must logically have begun to be deposited before the doors were smashed. Probably the people that did it were in a hurry, so the sand filling was begun before the smashing and burning was complete. The sealing walls might have been begun before the doors were smashed. The doors were smashed when the grave slot had been three-quarters back-filled, because the largest door fragment was found near the top of the cist grave at a jaunty angle as though that was where it fell. So another thing that can be said is that the door smashers were the same people who back-filled the grave slot.

Since sphinxes are found other than in Macedonian Royal Queens' tombs, they are clearly not a symbol of Macedonian queens.

I am clearly debating with a true master of the non sequitur. Lions are symbols of the British monarchy, yet they are also sculpted in their own right and used as symbols of lots of other things. It all depends on the context.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[Taphoi]

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.

The phenomenon that raises boulders seems to be ice formation in the subsoil. The expansion of the water as the ice forms raises up the overlying soil including any boulders. The ice subsequently melts initially in small pockets and small grains of the oversoil trickle down into these pockets leaving the boulders effectively raised above the previously surrounding soil. But this phenomenon could not happen within the tomb. You could have small pockets of air in sand fill in the tomb and an earthquake could cause the sand to sink down into these, but this would not raise up marble blocks already touching the floor. Simple fluidity in the sand would not raise up the blocks either, because they would be denser than the vibrating sand and would therefore have negative buoyancy (i.e. would sink rather than rise.)

If you want to see boulders raised by an earthquake, then you will have to infer convection currents or similar in fluidised soil/sand, but in order to be powerful enough to raise large marble door fragments, as an absolute minimum the pressure in the vibrating sand will need to be large enough to counteract the weight pressure of the blocks. This enables us to set up an equation. The weight pressure of a marble door fragment with density D, thickness t and area A is just D*t*A*g/A=D*t*g, where g is the Earth's surface gravity. The pressure P in vibrating sand can be estimated from the kinetic gas theory for a gas of density d with an average particle speed v from P=d*v*v/3. Equating the two pressures we get v=sqrt(3*D*t*g/d). If the density of marble D is about 3g/cm2 and the thickness of the fragments is 0.15m and g=9.81m/s/s, then we just need to estimate d, the density of the vibrating sand. The density of dry sand is around 1.5g/cm2, but the vibrating sand will expand to fill all the empty space left in the arch of the chambers, which is about a third of the chamber volume, so the vibrating sand will have a density of about 1g/cm2. Hence v=sqrt(3*3*0.15*9.81/1)=3.64m/s. This is an rms average speed (a bit lower than the speed I mentioned before, because I have refined the calculation). As a minimum, in order to impart this speed to the sand the walls of the tomb chamber would have to vibrate with this speed. Given the frequencies present in earthquakes, the accelerations required would tear the wall blocks apart almost immediately. I conclude that there is no mechanism that could have raised up marble blocks of the size and weight found in the tomb without that mechanism also destroying the walls of the tomb. Really you don't need to resort to equations to understand this. Anything that is going to toss large marble door fragments about within the sand is also going to disrupt the marble wall blocks entirely. Since the walls of the tomb are intact, nothing so violent ever happened. It is a figment.

I doubt that they used sledgehammers on the doors, but probably a ram, like the ones they used to batter down gates in sieges.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[agesilaos]

Let’s just look at the issue of non-sequitur; my proposition is that since sphinxes are common decorations in many tombs, they cannot be considered a specific symbol of Macedonian queens; you posit that lions are a symbol of the British monarchy, but are seen elsewhere and therefore… everything relies on context; fine but clearly the context may not be defined by either lions or sphinxes. Tricky thing logic; you do, however make an interesting point about the retaining walls, whilst still not getting the Brazil Nut mechanism; I can think of an answer but have to check some things.

As a Partian shot you now have Kassandros’ men in a hurry, yet moving fragments of wing to the rear chambers along with a head they had no time to smash, dragging a ram into the tomb! And building the retaining walls lickety –split… hear that? It is credulity, straining; upon what I will leave to your imagination

[Taphoi]

Let’s just look at the issue of non-sequitur; my proposition is that since sphinxes are common decorations in many tombs, they cannot be considered a specific symbol of Macedonian queens; you posit that lions are a symbol of the British monarchy, but are seen elsewhere and therefore… everything relies on context; fine but clearly the context may not be defined by either lions or sphinxes. Tricky thing logic; you do, however make an interesting point about the retaining walls, whilst still not getting the Brazil Nut mechanism; I can think of an answer but have to check some things.

The diagram below shows what you seem to be referring to as Brazil Nut effect (though in fact there are half a dozen different Brazil Nut mechanisms) and it shows why it does not apply in the Amphipolis tomb. A mix of granules of a material with a wide distribution of sizes, when shaken, will go to a configuration with the larger grains at the top. The reasons for this is as follows. The grains themselves are the same material, so they have the same density. However, the air gaps (interstices) between the larger granules are larger. Consequently the ensemble of larger grains has a lower average density than the ensemble of finer grains. The lower energy configuration is for the denser material to lie at the bottom and the least dense at the top. So there is a tendency for larger grains with their associated air spaces to drift to the top when you shake the mix.

However, this is not the situation for the marble door fragments in the Amphipolis tomb. They are nearly twice as dense as dry sand and the sand granules fit around them virtually as tightly as they fit other sand granules. Anyway the associated air space for the door blocks is negligible relative to their volume. Therefore, when you fluidise the sand by shaking/vibrating, the marble blocks have negative buoyancy and the lowest energy outcome is for them to sink onto the floor of the tomb (if they are not already there).

It is possible in extremely violent shaking for convection currents to be set up in the sand, which could conceivably lift the marble blocks. But as I have shown the degree of violence required would destroy the walls of the tomb.

There is no Brazil Nut mechanism that could have lifted up the marble door blocks at Amphipolis. If you think otherwise, please explain the physics of how it would work.

I do not really see that there is anything unlikely in the way that you have described Cassander's men hurrying.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Brazil Nut vs Negative Buoyancy

BrazilNut.jpg (160.46 KiB) Viewed 8294 times

[system1988]

About the debriefing of the new Minister of Culture, Nick Xidakis in Huffington Post Greece

http://www.huffingtonpost.gr/2015/05/16 ... ref=greece

Here is an excerpt from the text that is of interest.

Ναι, βάσει του αρχαιολογικού νόμου, μέσα σε εννιά μήνες από την ολοκλήρωση του ανασκαφικού κύκλου πρέπει να ανακοινώσει τι έχει βρει. Τρέχει ο χρόνος, οπότε μέχρι το φθινόπωρο θα πρέπει να κάνει μια πλήρη ανακοίνωση. Αυτή είναι η υποχρέωση της βάσει του νόμου. Ότι έχει βρει, μελετήσει, τις περιγραφές της, τα συμπεράσματά της, ότι υλικό υπήρχε, να το παρουσιάσει.

Translation

"According to the law for archaeology, within 9 months after the completion of the excavation cycles the findings must be published. Time is running out so a full announcement must be made until Autumn. That is her (Mrs Peristeri) obligation according to the law. Whatever she has found, studied, her descriptions, her conclusions, whatever material there is to be present must be done so."

I want to add something here, a translation of another excerpt from the same text.

"Υπάρχει περίπτωση να μάθουμε κάτι καινούριο;
Δεν το ξέρω. Υπάρχει ένα μεγάλο υλικό που μελετάει, το περισσότερο φυλάσσεται στο Μουσείο Αμφιπόλεως - εκεί γίνεται η μελέτη και η συντήρηση. Εικάζω ότι οι πιο πολλές πληροφορίες για τη χρονολόγηση και τη σύνθεση ενός αφηγήματος για το Μουσείο θα προκύψουν από τη μελέτη της κεραμικής. Επειδή ο τάφος είναι άγρια συλημένος, ότι ευρήματα βρούνε θα βγούνε από 'κει. Η κεραμική συνήθως δεν αποσπάται οπότε μας δίνει πολύτιμες πληροφορίες. Μπορεί να μην είναι υψηλής αισθητικής η εκθεσιακής αξίας ωστόσο δίνει τις καλύτερες πληροφορίες για τις χρονολογήσεις."

"Is there any chance we might learn something new?
I do not know. There is a great ammount of material findings that she (K. Peristeri) is studying, most of which is being kept in the Amphipolis museum. It is there the research and the preserving of the artifacts is done. I hypothesize that most of the info that will be used to create the official story of the tomb (by the museum) regarding the dating will be extracted from the said proccess. The ceramics are never looted so they are always a source of valuable information. The ceramics themselves may not be of great aesthetic or exhibitional value but they surely give us the best info we need for the dating proccess."


Thus we wait for the Autumn in order to hear the first official and complete presentation of the excavation. In that presentation the excavator must present all the ceramics found and must report where he/she found it. We are also waiting, apart from that presentation, the official announcement regarding the dating of the bones found.

It is more than obvious that the excavation was used for political purposes (the ex prime minister's profile enhancement). We were actually watching an actual Macedonian tomb excavation live, something that gave rise to many voices of opposition, mainly from the scientific community. Archaelogy and politics are never a good match. In this context I give to you a translated text from what a member of the excavation team reported.

"Inside the box-like tomb we didn;t find any dead remains, nor a wooden coffin. Contrary to that we found the piece of the mosaic that had been taken away from the previous chamber. So, what is pointed out to us here is that the monument was looted and there is a general destruction image f it. That is why we found the head and parts of the wings of the Sphinx elsewhere and why there are holes on the monument. The skeletons that were found do not belong to individuals that were buried in the monument but to other dead of the Kasta cemetery. These skeletons arrived in the monument either from the natural moving of the dirt (water flowing) or there were inside the dirt that was used by those who burried the monument to hide or preserve it. For example the fact that we found a bone from a horse is proof of this. If they had burried the dead along with his horse, something that was customary, we should have found the entirety of the horse skeleton instead of just one bone. Something that it is also hidden from the public is that a bone from an actual swan was also found. Where id it com efrom. Was the deceased buried along with a swan? Obviously not. All this was inside the dirt used to hide the monument and ultimately with the passage of time entered the monument itself."

I will add more next weekend if possible, mostly the answers given by the scientific community to 3 questions, 1) if this tomb is the biggest one ever found in Greece 2) The lion 3) Deinokrates, the architect of the monument.

[Taphoi]

"Inside the box-like tomb we didn;t find any dead remains, nor a wooden coffin. Contrary to that we found the piece of the mosaic that had been taken away from the previous chamber. So, what is pointed out to us here is that the monument was looted and there is a general destruction image f it. That is why we found the head and parts of the wings of the Sphinx elsewhere and why there are holes on the monument. The skeletons that were found do not belong to individuals that were buried in the monument but to other dead of the Kasta cemetery. These skeletons arrived in the monument either from the natural moving of the dirt (water flowing) or there were inside the dirt that was used by those who burried the monument to hide or preserve it. For example the fact that we found a bone from a horse is proof of this. If they had burried the dead along with his horse, something that was customary, we should have found the entirety of the horse skeleton instead of just one bone. Something that it is also hidden from the public is that a bone from an actual swan was also found. Where id it com efrom. Was the deceased buried along with a swan? Obviously not. All this was inside the dirt used to hide the monument and ultimately with the passage of time entered the monument itself."

Thanks system1988. I would just like to make a few comments on the "excavation team member" quotation above.
1. The swan bone was widely reported in the Greek press (and discussed in this forum) when it was found. Its presence is entirely consistent with the tomb fill being sand from the nearby River Strymon, which I think is uncontroversial. I am bemused that this excavator should wish to make a mystery of it.
2. Nobody has said that a wooden coffin was found. Instead we were shown photos of ivory and glass decorations found in the cist grave slot that it was suggested were consistent with the decoration of a wooden coffin (they are definitely not "pieces of mosaic" as this informant seems determined to imply). I am not aware that anybody has challenged the suggestion that they came from a coffin. Certainly the finds are quite real.
3. The suggestion that the bones were deposited by running water undermines the credibility of this person for me, because it is completely preposterous that water should flow through a grave on the top of a ridge of land underneath one edge of an artificial mound.
4. If the bones were randomly present in the fill, why were none found (except the swan bone) until they excavated the cist grave beneath the third chamber?
5. Regarding the horse bone, what has been said is that a significant proportion of the >500 bones and bone fragments found were animal rather than human and it has been said that horse bones were prominent among them. It has also been said that many bones were too fragmentary to assign them to a particular skeleton, so we do not know whether we have complete skeletons or not. So on what authority does our informant above assert that only one horse bone was found? On what authority does he/she imply that the skeletons were incomplete?
6. It has already been said that mosaic pieces were found in the third chamber. It is hardly surprising, since we know that a lot of fragments of the sphinxes were also deposited in the third chamber. This was part of the sealing process. I fail to see any mystery in it.
7. The informant is happy to suggest that the tomb sealers were trying to conceal or preserve the monument, but he/she discreetly avoids the interesting question of what possible motive they could have had (especially in the Roman period), given that he/she asserts that the tomb was COMPLETELY empty of any actual contents (the bones having arrived accidentally in his/her opinion). The informant thereby merely compounds the mystery by seeking to argue away all trace of any motivation for the sedulous sealing in the form of original burials from the scene.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[system1988]

I will add more next weekend if possible, mostly the answers given by the scientific community to 3 questions, 1) if this tomb is the biggest one ever found in Greece 2) The lion 3) Deinokrates, the architect of the monument.

Well, with the holidays upon us I thought I would give an end to the previous post.

There were 3 certainties from the excavators' part:

1) The Kasta tomb is the largest one in Greece. The opposition to this says that it is a naturally occured hill which was used as a tomb and as geologists also confirm, only a small part of it is man-made. The use of the term "tumulus" by Lazaridis was overused. As confirmed by Evagelos Kampouroglou (geologist) who took part in the excavation: "There are 4 more similar hills to Kasta with the same soil composition and almost the same height just east of it. The hill of Kasta is not a tumulus but a hill.

My observation here is that man-made tumulus means performing undeground burials and move on top of the burial sites hundreds of kilos of dirt, finally making a man-made hill (Vergina). It's the concept that changes, meaning that the man-made tumulus indicates a grave of a family or tomb-status.

2) The Amphipolis Lion was on top of Kasta hill according to M. Lefatzis. This certainty is based on the fact that Lazaridis found on Kasta a stone base that is supposed to belong to that Lion statue. As proof, he indicates the marble pieces that were found around the base. Kampouroglou says: "First of all the lion is 5km away from the site called ''base''. Why a monument weighing so many tons was moved in the first place? These marble pieces are found all over the hill and it is natural, since the ancient peribolos is also made of marble, this means that it was built there and the marble pieces belong to it as leftovers from its construction process. After all "the base" is 10*3,5 meters and not 10*10 which would fi the lion sculpture. Also, the "base" is not located on the Kasta hill top. There are higher places there than it on the same hill. Moreover, the "base" material is not stable. Is it possible for the ancient Greeks to make such a statue in order to locate it somewhere so insescure?

3) The tomb is Deinokrates work and that places it on late 4th BC. As the oppossition says however, even if we were to take for granted that the peribolos is Deinokrate's work the entire tomb must have taken decades to finish as it is a gigantic enterprise to undertake (3 meters tall and 500 meters in diameter). The tomb itself was built after the peribolos and the underground part of the tomb was built even later on.

Greetings

Pauline

[Taphoi]

1) The Kasta tomb is the largest one in Greece. The opposition to this says that it is a naturally occured hill which was used as a tomb and as geologists also confirm, only a small part of it is man-made. The use of the term "tumulus" by Lazaridis was overused. As confirmed by Evagelos Kampouroglou (geologist) who took part in the excavation: "There are 4 more similar hills to Kasta with the same soil composition and almost the same height just east of it. The hill of Kasta is not a tumulus but a hill.

My observation here is that man-made tumulus means performing undeground burials and move on top of the burial sites hundreds of kilos of dirt, finally making a man-made hill (Vergina). It's the concept that changes, meaning that the man-made tumulus indicates a grave of a family or tomb-status.

It is not in dispute that part of the mound is natural. That is inevitable for a structure of such size in an undulating landscape. But neither is it disputable that much of the mound is artificial, because the peribolos wall defines it to be perfectly circular and domed and perfectly circular, domed mounds do not occur in nature. This argument is doubly futile, because the effort of building a 500m long by 3m high solid marble wall was arguably even bigger than the effort of moving the earth for the mound, so trying to argue away the obviously artificial parts of the mound would not significantly diminish the overall scale of the effort involved in building the tomb even if it were a valid argument (which it is not).

2) The Amphipolis Lion was on top of Kasta hill according to M. Lefatzis. This certainty is based on the fact that Lazaridis found on Kasta a stone base that is supposed to belong to that Lion statue. As proof, he indicates the marble pieces that were found around the base. Kampouroglou says: "First of all the lion is 5km away from the site called ''base''. Why a monument weighing so many tons was moved in the first place? These marble pieces are found all over the hill and it is natural, since the ancient peribolos is also made of marble, this means that it was built there and the marble pieces belong to it as leftovers from its construction process. After all "the base" is 10*3,5 meters and not 10*10 which would fi the lion sculpture. Also, the "base" is not located on the Kasta hill top. There are higher places there than it on the same hill. Moreover, the "base" material is not stable. Is it possible for the ancient Greeks to make such a statue in order to locate it somewhere so insescure?

The most important of many reasons to be certain that the lion came from the Kasta Mound is the established fact that the lion fragments were found together with drafted margin marble blocks, which with complete certainty came from the peribolos wall of the Kasta Mound. I have read (partially) Broneer's account of the reconstruction of the lion and the associated drafted margin blocks and they were one of his reasons to date the lion to the late 4th century BC.

The figure of 3.5m that you mention is not the width of the base, but the maximum surviving height of the stonework of the base (actually 3.4m). As I understand it the north side and just parts of the east and west sides of the base were preserved, so it is not clear that anybody knows how wide the base was. It would seem that your information source here is horribly garbled and should be ignored.

3) The tomb is Deinokrates work and that places it on late 4th BC. As the oppossition says however, even if we were to take for granted that the peribolos is Deinokrate's work the entire tomb must have taken decades to finish as it is a gigantic enterprise to undertake (3 meters tall and 500 meters in diameter). The tomb itself was built after the peribolos and the underground part of the tomb was built even later on.

Deinocrates' involvement is only an interesting possibility, but given that the dating to his era is fairly secure and that the tomb probably had some kind of royal involvement due to its sheer scale and the resources required and given that he was the royal architect under Alexander and given that he was famous for proposing projects of immense scale (including adapting mountains), it is a perfectly sensible possibility to have in mind. The Amphipolis Tomb is probably "school of Deinocrates", even if it is not by Deinocrates himself.

It need not have taken more than a few years to build. I doubt whether there was enough political continuity to maintain its construction over a period of several decades in the late 4th century BC. There is perfect continuity of the design between the peribolos and the main tomb chambers. I agree that the cist grave is a different phase, but there appears to be no evidence to contradict the view that it slightly antedates the main tomb construction. Somebody important died suddenly at Amphipolis in the last quarter of the 4th century BC and was given a hurried cist grave burial. Subsequently, the followers or family of the individual decided to mark the grave with a spectacular tumulus tomb.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Matthew Amt]

...I agree that the cist grave is a different phase, but there appears to be no evidence to contradict the view that it slightly antedates the main tomb construction. Somebody important died suddenly at Amphipolis in the last quarter of the 4th century BC and was given a hurried cist grave burial. Subsequently, the followers or family of the individual decided to mark the grave with a spectacular tumulus tomb.

I kinda feel like I'm butting in, here, but from the drawings and photos of the 3rd chamber and cist grave that have been posted here, it's very obvious to *me* that the grave was a LATER addition to the 3rd chamber! Otherwise the floor would come to a finished edge around the grave, and it does not. The floor slabs just end randomly, or are missing where they don't need to be missing, with bare dirt exposed underneath. (I'll try to attach the image that Xenophon posted on page 52.) That is NOT how I imagine the final resting place of someone so important, in a custom-built tomb of unmatched size and splendor. Why would the focal point of the tomb be left unfinished?

It's very clear that the 3rd chamber was built and completely floored, and then at some later date some of the floor slabs were pried up and the cist chamber dug and built.

UNLESS---some blocks were removed by the archeologists? WAS there a finished edge which was, for some unknown and unstated reason, dismantled and removed? OR, is the idea that the cist was completely floored over and not visible, and that the archeologists had to remove part of the floor to get to it? In which case, was it just the one vertical "head stone" slab sticking up through the floor that told them there had to be a grave under the floor?

Sorry, I'm not an archeologist nor do I know much about Macedonian burial practices. And I realize the information doled out in tiny drops about this whole excavation are completely inadequate and generally contradictory! I might simply have missed something that clears it all up. But the data I've seen about this particular point flatly contradicts the conclusions being presented.

Thanks,

Matthew

3rdchambcist.jpg (57.63 KiB) Viewed 8097 times

[Taphoi]

...I agree that the cist grave is a different phase, but there appears to be no evidence to contradict the view that it slightly antedates the main tomb construction. Somebody important died suddenly at Amphipolis in the last quarter of the 4th century BC and was given a hurried cist grave burial. Subsequently, the followers or family of the individual decided to mark the grave with a spectacular tumulus tomb.

I kinda feel like I'm butting in, here, but from the drawings and photos of the 3rd chamber and cist grave that have been posted here, it's very obvious to *me* that the grave was a LATER addition to the 3rd chamber! Otherwise the floor would come to a finished edge around the grave, and it does not. The floor slabs just end randomly, or are missing where they don't need to be missing, with bare dirt exposed underneath. (I'll try to attach the image that Xenophon posted on page 52.) That is NOT how I imagine the final resting place of someone so important, in a custom-built tomb of unmatched size and splendor. Why would the focal point of the tomb be left unfinished?

It's very clear that the 3rd chamber was built and completely floored, and then at some later date some of the floor slabs were pried up and the cist chamber dug and built.

UNLESS---some blocks were removed by the archeologists? WAS there a finished edge which was, for some unknown and unstated reason, dismantled and removed? OR, is the idea that the cist was completely floored over and not visible, and that the archeologists had to remove part of the floor to get to it? In which case, was it just the one vertical "head stone" slab sticking up through the floor that told them there had to be a grave under the floor?

Sorry, I'm not an archeologist nor do I know much about Macedonian burial practices. And I realize the information doled out in tiny drops about this whole excavation are completely inadequate and generally contradictory! I might simply have missed something that clears it all up. But the data I've seen about this particular point flatly contradicts the conclusions being presented.

3rdchambcist.jpg

Hi Matthew. You are very welcome to join in here.

My answer is that we cannot be sure what the original floor looked like, because it seems that it was ripped up well beyond the edges of the cist grave. The drawing that you have shown does not show how the archaeologists found the floor. The floor had been rebuilt right the way across the cist tomb, probably by the same people who had raided the tomb and torn up the original floor. Sorry if the drawing has misled you on this point. The archaeologists re-lifted the central parts of the floor, because they saw that the floor was dipping down slightly in the middle.

I am not sure why you think that the original floor would have respected the precise edges of the cist grave slot (although it is possible that it did). I do not think that the constructors of the tomb chambers and the mound opened up the cist grave. They were probably too respectful of the dead to disturb them. I think that they considered their additions to be what the Greeks called a Sema (meaning a sign or marker to vaunt the importance of the dead rather than a tomb in its own right).

Best wishes,
Andrew

[agesilaos]

Are you sure about the floor of the third chamber, Andrew? In any case it is somewhat fanciful to have alleged desecrators rip up a floor and then re-lay it, Tomb-Robbing by B and Q? Could you point us to where there is a description of how they found that floor, I cannot locate anything which does not indicate it was found as the drawing shows (eg. http://greece.greekreporter.com/2014/10 ... olis-tomb/ ), yet I do have a vague memory of there being talk of a sagging floor.

I have not forgotten the Brazil Nut challenge and will pick it up once my equations have been unified, just one more thing; you are still saying the dating is secure yet the total lack of any evidence having been presented means it is anything but. Hopefully Mrs Pigeons (as google translate calls Dr Peristeri)
will present the team's findings soon, the deadline must be approaching.

[Matthew Amt]

Thanks, Andrew, I appreciate it! So it's basically my "Option 3", the floor slabs originally covered the cist grave completely. I have no problem with that, it's just frustrating that the archeologists *never said so*. That seems to be the rule for this dig, though I realize it's a completely political activity, with little to do with history or science... It boggles my mind that modern archeologists don't work with live web cams going full-time--that would have pre-empted *most* of the questions and arguments on this thread! Sorry, I shouldn't start frothing...

I do have to agree with Agesilaos that idea of *desecrators* re-laying the original floor seems unlikely. If they were not intentionally desecrating but just investigating and re-purposing, sure, but again, we have not been allowed to know enough.

Thanks again (froth froth!),

Matthew

[Alexias]

It boggles my mind that modern archeologists don't work with live web cams going full-time--that would have pre-empted *most* of the questions and arguments on this thread! Sorry, I shouldn't start frothing...

Cost, probably. We're lucky Greece found the money to excavate, and hasn't sold the site out to a corporate sponsor (as far as I know anyway).

And no wifi or mobile phone signal either, without which you'd need to lay wires - yet more expense.

[Taphoi]

Are you sure about the floor of the third chamber, Andrew? In any case it is somewhat fanciful to have alleged desecrators rip up a floor and then re-lay it, Tomb-Robbing by B and Q? Could you point us to where there is a description of how they found that floor, I cannot locate anything which does not indicate it was found as the drawing shows (eg. http://greece.greekreporter.com/2014/10 ... olis-tomb/ ), yet I do have a vague memory of there being talk of a sagging floor.

The press release of 21st October mentions subsidence of the floor in the third chamber, where it joined the threshold block with the grooves. I remember that this was widely discussed at the time. The supposed door into a fourth chamber had just been revealed to be merely wall damage where a feature had been removed. So the speculation was that the excavation would now explore beneath the dipping stone blocks of the floor and that is what happened. By the way, someone said here recently that the threshold block grooves showed that the door had been in use a long time, but that is just another fallacy. The grooves were the sockets for metal rails on which the doors had rested and swung and nothing to do with wear.

The floor of the third chamber was discussed intensively at the time as being a third, horizontal version of the two vertical sealing walls in front of the sphinxes and the caryatids. It seems to have been made of the same type of limestone blocks. These were not ordinary graverobbers. They were really keen to stop anybody getting to the bones!!!

Best wishes,

Andrew

[onar]

I would like to ask you if you can recognize what could be that object on the right of the worker at the 0:04 video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CclEr0LE0

I apologize if this was discussed in the past in this forum. In that case I would appreciate if you could tell me what you have discussed.