pothos.org

I have been through the material and you seem to be confused, as I was myself so no jibe intended, the floor was not intact and then excavated by the archaeologists but was found in the state shown in the drawing with the large door in the grave! It is variously 1.5 tonnes, 1 tonne and 1 ton, either way it did not get floored in. Fragments of the limestone floor were excavated from the grave http://en.protothema.gr/the-dead-reside ... was-found/ and the stories around it make this clearer.

I am impressed you can tell that the grooves in the threshold show no signs of wear, or is that another faith driven conclusion ? One would be loathe to file you in the same box as Harry the Homophobe Seriously though if you can provide a link to the relevant govt release I would be grateful, there is just so much guff out there on the subject of this tomb and even the archaeologists have added their own tumulus of misdirection and reporting. For these reasons I am not going to be my usual certain self, none of the facts have been presented in a useful format.

Onar, you can see it at 0:12 too, looks like a plastic hose, not an artefact but a modern tool or maybe just wrapping

agesilaos wrote:I have been through the material and you seem to be confused, as I was myself so no jibe intended, the floor was not intact and then excavated by the archaeologists but was found in the state shown in the drawing with the large door in the grave! It is variously 1.5 tonnes, 1 tonne and 1 ton, either way it did not get floored in. Fragments of the limestone floor were excavated from the grave http://en.protothema.gr/the-dead-reside ... was-found/ and the stories around it make this clearer.

I am impressed you can tell that the grooves in the threshold show no signs of wear, or is that another faith driven conclusion ? One would be loathe to file you in the same box as Harry the Homophobe Seriously though if you can provide a link to the relevant govt release I would be grateful, there is just so much guff out there on the subject of this tomb and even the archaeologists have added their own tumulus of misdirection and reporting. For these reasons I am not going to be my usual certain self, none of the facts have been presented in a useful format.

The press release should still be available under 21st October 2014 on the official Greek Ministry of Culture press release site here http://www.yppo.gr/2/g20.jsp It clearly states that there were floor slabs exhibiting subsidence in front of the threshold block with the grooves. There are no subsiding floor blocks present in the drawing of the opened up cist grave, so they must have been removed QED The article that you have referenced says nothing about whether floor blocks had been removed in order to access the cist grave.

The grooves were not even ever subject to wear. I repeat: they were carved into the threshold block by the creators of the tomb in order to provide the sockets for metal rails on which the doors rested and swung. This is also stated in the official Press Release for that stage of the excavation.

Best wishes,
Andrew

thanks for the fast response, however it doesn't seem to me like any familiar equipment used in similar works. It more seems like a bone to me...

Moreover, in the same video please have a look at the worker's left foot. it seems to me like having it immersed inside the ground, just behind a wall. An illusion? Perhaps...

Taphoi wrote:

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.)

I see someone has been a-googling on the complex, and ill understood subject of the ‘Brazil Nut Effect’[BNE] . I’ve no wish to pursue a digression on this thread too far, particularly when it is simply a possibility among several. However, most of what Taphoi has posted is more incorrect pseudo-scientific tosh. His mathematical formula is incorrect, because the underlying assumptions are incorrect. For a start, he seems to envisage a single seismic event occurring in a short time, but in fact a 'BNE' can be the cumulative result of many seismic events over the past 2,000 odd years. The effect can be quite literally one which proceeds at glacial speed ( as actually observed in some glaciers).

Moreover, Taphoi [almost] rightly wrote:

....(though in fact there are half a dozen different Brazil Nut mechanisms)....

.....of which the ‘convection’ mechanism is but one, and probably not the one which might have occurred in this instance, which also completely negates Taphoi’s calculations.[ In fact some ten different mechanisms for the phenomenon are under discussion, and research is ongoing].

Also, what Taphoi describes as ‘negative buoyancy’ simply doesn’t exist! ( Things can’t float downward! Taphoi’s term is a contradiction) If the large fragments are suspended in a matrix in the first place, they are not simply going to ‘sink’. This is for the same reason that in reality, people do not sink in “quicksand”, that cliché of Hollywood westerns. ( If the reader can’t figure out the reason – then Google it to find out! ) Objects possibly sinking under vibration etc is more usually described as ‘Reverse Brazil Nut Effect’ in the scientific literature( i.e. the larger particles sinking rather than rising when under vibration) . Whilst some predict that this could occur under certain idealised circumstances, others deny it even exists and it certainly does not occur in nature .There are many puzzling factors of the phenomenon of 'BNE' that are not understood, even by experts on the subject, and are the subject of ongoing study. Taphoi is not in any position to rule out such a possibility.
As one scientists in this field put it: “Can a new mechanism be found that will combine all ten of the currently proposed mechanisms into simple equations? Doing so, however, will take many more years of research efforts. The wonder of children at the segregation of the nuts in the mixed nuts box is not so misplaced nor so easily explained after all.”

Taphoi wrote:

..... 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.

Again, Taphoi is quite correct that seismic events which might lead to a ‘Brazil Nut effect’ might well be quite violent, but wrong to state that the walls [ and roof] are intact. In fact quite severe structural damage, which can only be seismic or possibly from the weight and pressure of earth above or both, has occurred to both walls and roof, and has been confirmed by the excavators. ( for example the large wall crack, likely seismic in origin, which led to damage to one of the caryatids; missing wall stonework; and damaged and fallen roof lintels; the broken marble doors etc. Incidently, like Agesilaos, I don’t think the idea of a battering ram being used to smash these in a confined space 3m long x 4.5m wide is at all credible. In order for sufficient space for a reasonably large ram, and the crew to swing it, you would have to posit that all the cross walls dividing the chambers and supporting the roof didn’t exist! ).And why is one door in fragments, whilst the other is almost intact? Surely that implies the marble doors collapsed or were shattered by seismic events, or pressure from above rather than human activity.

It will be interesting to see if the excavators can apportion which structural damage is due to Mother Nature, and which to Human Agency since clearly both have occurred. On the one extreme we have seismic and/or weight pressure damage causing fissures through which, over centuries, sand/soil has trickled to fill the chambers. On the other we have a demolition gang, who then go to the trouble of filling up the chambers with over 240 cubic metres of sandy soil, weighing some 400 tonnes. That is not impossible given that the mound works generally involved massive engineering, and a lot of manpower. Harder to understand why anyone would go to the trouble of both destroying the totally empty (presumably looted) tomb chamber, then taking a great deal of trouble to seal and preserve it, especially if these people were, as Taphoi suggests, one and the same group [the supposed Cassander/Olympias scenario] Presumably analysis of the soil will determine if it is natural or comes from elsewhere and resolve that question. [ The presence of the swan bone suggests to some that the fill came directly from the river Strymon or its banks, but that is only an assumption at best]

Like Matthew Amt, I am suspicious of the cist grave and whether it predates, was contemporaneous with, or postdates the tomb itself. Not much has been said about what is a huge anomaly. Everything else found is consistent with a late 4th C BC Macedonian Royal tomb, and had it not been looted we might expect the third chamber to have contained a gold larnax inside a plain marble sarcophagus containing cremated remains, as in Philip II’s tomb or perhaps an urn/hydria as found in Tomb III at Vergina [presumed to be that of Alexander IV], again containing cremated remains. An inhumation grave dug below the floor with possibly a coffin is so inconsistent and out of place as to be positively alien !

Taphoi wrote:

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.

A rather biased assumption, with its inference that the tomb is that of Olympias, for the cist grave could just as easily post-date the tomb, and that is in fact more likely. What is the evidence that it pre-dates, or was “hurried”? And other than with Royal resources, who had the means to construct a tomb more magnificent than that of Philip II? [It contained the largest quantity of expensive marble ever found in a Macedonian tomb, for example, and the manpower required for construction must have been significant].
Certainly not the relatively poor family of Olympias ( who would surely have built any such tomb in Epirus), or any of her surviving ‘followers’.
No doubt we may hear more on that subject, but my suspicion for the time being is that the inhumation grave post-dates the actual tomb itself – perhaps an early case of ‘recycling’ a looted and empty tomb.

The dating of the skeletal remains will be a key determinant here. Until that occurs, all is conjecture.

Xenophon wrote:…most of what Taphoi has posted is more incorrect pseudo-scientific tosh. His mathematical formula is incorrect, because the underlying assumptions are incorrect. For a start, he seems to envisage a single seismic event occurring in a short time, but in fact a 'BNE' can be the cumulative result of many seismic events over the past 2,000 odd years. The effect can be quite literally one which proceeds at glacial speed (as actually observed in some glaciers).

My equations are approximations (like ALL equations), but they are sufficiently accurate to demonstrate the point. The cumulative effect of many earthquakes in which the marble blocks sink or are unmoved is for the marble blocks to sink or remain unmoved. If I wished to be unkind (which I note that I do not) then I would call it “pseudo-scientific tosh” to suggest that the cumulative result of many small events can be the opposite of what happened in each small event.

Xenophon wrote:Also, what Taphoi describes as ‘negative buoyancy’ simply doesn’t exist! (Things can’t float downward! Taphoi’s term is a contradiction) If the large fragments are suspended in a matrix in the first place, they are not simply going to ‘sink’.

For anyone unfamiliar with the scientific terminology “negative buoyancy”, a straightforward explanation is readily available on this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_buoyancy

Xenophon wrote:Again, Taphoi is quite correct that seismic events which might lead to a ‘Brazil Nut effect’ might well be quite violent, but wrong to state that the walls [ and roof] are intact. In fact quite severe structural damage, which can only be seismic or possibly from the weight and pressure of earth above or both, has occurred to both walls and roof, and has been confirmed by the excavators. ( for example the large wall crack, likely seismic in origin, which led to damage to one of the caryatids; missing wall stonework; and damaged and fallen roof lintels; the broken marble doors etc.

My point was that the wall blocks would have to have vibrated with speeds of at least several metres per second in order to induce enough vibration in the sand for convection currents to have moved the larger marble door fragments. At those speeds the walls would not just have cracked, they would immediately have disintegrated into rubble.

Xenophon wrote:Incidently, like Agesilaos, I don’t think the idea of a battering ram being used to smash these in a confined space 3m long x 4.5m wide is at all credible. In order for sufficient space for a reasonably large ram, and the crew to swing it, you would have to posit that all the cross walls dividing the chambers and supporting the roof didn’t exist! ).And why is one door in fragments, whilst the other is almost intact? Surely that implies the marble doors collapsed or were shattered by seismic events, or pressure from above rather than human activity.

Any ram need not have been more than a few metres long to smash those marble doors. There is nothing unlikely in this. Regarding the fragmentation, you might as well ask why a glass shatters into fragments of a wide range of sizes, some large and some tiny, when someone smashes it. An answer would be that the pressure waves induced by impact reflect off the interior surfaces as rarefactions, which tear the material apart at weaknesses. The weaknesses are liable to be randomly distributed and the pressure waves will interfere, reinforcing in some places, so the outcome is rather disparate. The pressure waves induced by a ram impact are not very different in principle to the pressure waves due to the door impacting upon some point of its frame in the context of an earthquake.

Xenophon wrote:On the one extreme we have seismic and/or weight pressure damage causing fissures through which, over centuries, sand/soil has trickled to fill the chambers.

This is really a complete non-starter. It should be inherently obvious that sand trickling through massive masonry to the extent of thousands of tonnes is extraordinarily improbable, but certainly a swan bone cannot have trickled in through a crack.

Xenophon wrote:An inhumation grave dug below the floor with possibly a coffin is so inconsistent and out of place as to be positively alien !

In the case of Olympias, she would have been left uncremated and given a relatively poor grave at the time of her murder, because she had been convicted by the Macedonian Assembly. However, Cassander subsequently sought a reconciliation with her daughter, daughter-in-law, grandson and other members of the royal family. In that context an elaborate memorial for Olympias would have been sought by the royal family as part of their price.

Xenophon wrote:…the cist grave could just as easily post-date the tomb, and that is in fact more likely. What is the evidence that it pre-dates, or was “hurried”? And other than with Royal resources, who had the means to construct a tomb more magnificent than that of Philip II? [It contained the largest quantity of expensive marble ever found in a Macedonian tomb, for example, and the manpower required for construction must have been significant].
Certainly not the relatively poor family of Olympias ( who would surely have built any such tomb in Epirus), or any of her surviving ‘followers’…

I have already agreed that it is not currently impossible that the cist grave is a Roman intrusion. It would need to be Roman or later, because inhumation did not supersede cremation until the Roman period. The reasons that Roman intrusion is nevertheless unlikely are that the tomb shows too few signs of wear to have been open for centuries and that there is no explanation for the elaborate sealing of a tomb empty of anything but bone fragments in the Roman period.

The family of Olympias was not poor. Alexander IV was the official and sole king and he and his family could command the resources of the Empire in this matter. The generals overseas believed that he would soon take power (indeed they demanded it as a matter of historical record), so they would certainly have donated generously from their hoards of Persian gold and silver.

Xenophon wrote:The dating of the skeletal remains will be a key determinant here…

I agree. Carbon dating has probably already decided whether the bone fragments are early Hellenistic or Roman. It is just that we are not yet to be told.

Best wishes,
Andrew

Xenophon wrote:Taphoi wrote:

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.

A rather biased assumption, with its inference that the tomb is that of Olympias, for the cist grave could just as easily post-date the tomb, and that is in fact more likely. What is the evidence that it pre-dates, or was “hurried”? And other than with Royal resources, who had the means to construct a tomb more magnificent than that of Philip II? [It contained the largest quantity of expensive marble ever found in a Macedonian tomb, for example, and the manpower required for construction must have been significant].
Certainly not the relatively poor family of Olympias ( who would surely have built any such tomb in Epirus), or any of her surviving ‘followers’.

This is entirely correct. Speculation should always be called for exactly what it is.

Taphoi wrote:In the case of Olympias, she would have been left uncremated and given a relatively poor grave at the time of her murder, because she had been convicted by the Macedonian Assembly. However, Cassander subsequently sought a reconciliation with her daughter, daughter-in-law, grandson and other members of the royal family. In that context an elaborate memorial for Olympias would have been sought by the royal family as part of their price.

And the speculation continues apace. What might be nice here is some evidence for this continued speculation other than your opinion. Assertion without evidence amounts to little more than opinion. Uninformed at that.

Taphoi wrote:The family of Olympias was not poor. Alexander IV was the official and sole king and he and his family could command the resources of the Empire in this matter. The generals overseas believed that he would soon take power (indeed they demanded it as a matter of historical record), so they would certainly have donated generously from their hoards of Persian gold and silver.

His "family" and, more so AlexanderIV, commanded nothing. The child was the prisoner of Kassandros as was his mother. He was stripped of all royal perogeratives and imprisoned in the keep of Amphipolis. The "generals overseas" cared little for him as long as Kassandros kept him there. That you would fall for the propaganda of Antigonos simply demonstrates your willing naivety for the sake of argument. Antigonos and, even more, Ptolemy will have eaten you alive had you been about to enter the rounds with them 2,300 plus years ago.

Paralus wrote:...And the speculation continues apace. What might be nice here is some evidence for this continued speculation other than your opinion. Assertion without evidence amounts to little more than opinion...

Taphoi wrote:Let us recall where we are on the matter of evidence. We have the largest and most magnificent tomb ever found in Greece reasonably securely dated to the last quarter of the 4th century BC containing the bones of a 60+ woman as its principal occupant. It is located at Amphipolis, the city of which the surrender to Cassander let immediately to Olympias’s murder by Cassander, when she was aged about 60... We also have sphinxes guarding the entrance and it is known that sphinxes were used to decorate the thrones of at least two late 4th century BC Macedonian queens including that of Olympias’s mother-in-law (sphinxes were sacred to Hera and the Macedonian king and queen posed as earthly versions of Zeus and his wife Hera). We also have a couple of greater than life-size statues of priestesses of Dionysus guarding the entrance to its second chamber recalling the famous account in Plutarch of Olympias’s associations with these “Klodones”. We also have a truly stunning quality pebble mosaic depicting the abduction of Persephone where it is quite obvious that the woman is intended to symbolise the occupant of the tomb being taken into the underworld. 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). The otherwise inexplicable early smashing, looting and sedulous sealing of the emptied tomb is perfectly explained by the murder of Olympias’s grandson and daughter-in-law at Amphipolis 6 years after her death. There is no other 60+ woman who could possibly have been given such a tomb in the last quarter of the 4th century BC, so there is nobody else whose tomb this could possibly be [provided only that the carbon date of the bones is Hellenistic and not Roman]. To add to all this we have paintings in the tomb that appear to depict the Mysteries of Samothrace at which Olympias first met Philip. They are the Mysteries of Samothrace because the celebrants (a man and a woman) are depicted engaging in bull sacrifice at night (the scene has a black background and is lit by a large brazier) and the celebrants wear red belts and there are Nikes flitting about in the scene, all of which is recorded of the Mysteries of Samothrace.

Best wishes,
Andrew

I believe it was evidence that was asked for not repeated speculation based on red hair or Olympias' supposed murder at Amphipolis. She was, as the sources clearly state, captured and dealt with at Pydna. There is also the matter of the epigraphic evidence which you've airily dismissed as being presented by "intrepid epigraphers" indulging in "invention". Something you'd know a thing or two about it would seem.

Repetition of speculation does not an argument make.

And so, again...

Paralus wrote:

Taphoi wrote:In the case of Olympias, she would have been left uncremated and given a relatively poor grave at the time of her murder, because she had been convicted by the Macedonian Assembly. However, Cassander subsequently sought a reconciliation with her daughter, daughter-in-law, grandson and other members of the royal family. In that context an elaborate memorial for Olympias would have been sought by the royal family as part of their price.

And the speculation continues apace. What might be nice here is some evidence for this continued speculation other than your opinion. Assertion without evidence amounts to little more than opinion. Uninformed at that.

I've made it rather simpler for you. Rather than repeating the assertions in your previous post (which avoided the question entirely - unsurprising that), can you please supply source evidence for this constant refrain?

Taphoi wrote:

My equations are approximations (like ALL equations), but they are sufficiently accurate to demonstrate the point. The cumulative effect of many earthquakes in which the marble blocks sink or are unmoved is for the marble blocks to sink or remain unmoved. If I wished to be unkind (which I note that I do not) then I would call it “pseudo-scientific tosh” to suggest that the cumulative result of many small events can be the opposite of what happened in each small event.

Your equation is wholly inapplicable for the reasons I set out in my previous post. Not least of these is that there is no known equation which explains the BNE phenomenon, as the leading researcher I quoted states. I am sure that those researching the BNE phenomenon would love to hear from you if you think you have a solution!

There seems to be some confusion on your part. I did NOT suggest that the cumulative result of many small events can be the 'opposite', rather that a BNE phenomenon - rising objects - can be the cumulative result of a series of seismic events/vibration over centuries, and can thus occur quite slowly over time with rather less violence than you suggest, rather than all at once as you seem to assume.

For anyone unfamiliar with the scientific terminology “negative buoyancy”, a straightforward explanation is readily available on this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_buoyancy

You borrowed this term from a wikipaedia page? That is not 'scientific terminology' but merely one of those hideous Americanisms that creep into the English language, like 'least worst option' for best option or 'I could care less' for I couldn't care less, or 'deplane' for disembark, or 'reach out to' so common on U.S news broadcasts for ask. It is merely bad grammar. In English we don't say something has 'negative buoyancy'/floats downward, we say it 'sinks' !

My point was that the wall blocks would have to have vibrated with speeds of at least several metres per second in order to induce enough vibration in the sand for convection currents to have moved the larger marble door fragments. At those speeds the walls would not just have cracked, they would immediately have disintegrated into rubble.

Apparently you did not read my post correctly, or misunderstood. Your 'point' derives from your wholly inapplicable formula, nor is the mechanism involved necessarily convection. BNE can occur cumulatively, and slowly .Nor is BNE the only possible 'natural' explanation. For example, if the soil/sand slowly trickled in as a result of multiple seismic events, and then one day a major earthquake caused the doors to shatter and fall down onto a bed of accumulated soil, later seismic activity would continue the soil build-up, leaving the doors/fragments suspended in the fill.

Any ram need not have been more than a few metres long to smash those marble doors. There is nothing unlikely in this. Regarding the fragmentation, you might as well ask why a glass shatters into fragments of a wide range of sizes, some large and some tiny, when someone smashes it. An answer would be that the pressure waves induced by impact reflect off the interior surfaces as rarefactions, which tear the material apart at weaknesses. The weaknesses are liable to be randomly distributed and the pressure waves will interfere, reinforcing in some places, so the outcome is rather disparate. The pressure waves induced by a ram impact are not very different in principle to the pressure waves due to the door impacting upon some point of its frame in the context of an earthquake.

Even "a few metres long" is too big for such a confined space,( see measurements previous post); there must be room for the crew as well, not to mention room to swing it!! My point about the end result is that one door is in small fragments, whilst the other is intact bar one corner. It does not make much sense to thoroughly pound one door to smithereens, and simply knock the other over.

Taphoi wrote:

Xenophon wrote:On the one extreme we have seismic and/or weight pressure damage causing fissures through which, over centuries, sand/soil has trickled to fill the chambers.

This is really a complete non-starter. It should be inherently obvious that sand trickling through massive masonry to the extent of thousands of tonnes is extraordinarily improbable, but certainly a swan bone cannot have trickled in through a crack.

As I pointed out, the accumulated structural damage to the tomb over centuries is quite severe, with missing wall blocks and fallen roof lintels as well as large fissures. The 'holes' are more than large enough to admit the several hundred animal bones found from the mound, (if that's where they came from) including the swan bone. Recollect the mound had been used as a cemetery for a long time.The fill does not amount to "thousands of tonnes", but has been calculated to be about 240 cubic metres weighing around 400 tonnes - see my previous post.

Taphoi wrote:

Xenophon wrote:An inhumation grave dug below the floor with possibly a coffin is so inconsistent and out of place as to be positively alien !

In the case of Olympias, she would have been left uncremated and given a relatively poor grave at the time of her murder, because she had been convicted by the Macedonian Assembly. However, Cassander subsequently sought a reconciliation with her daughter, daughter-in-law, grandson and other members of the royal family. In that context an elaborate memorial for Olympias would have been sought by the royal family as part of their price.

As Paralus notes, this is pure speculation, which is not only un-evidenced, but actually goes against such evidence as we do have. Diodorus tells us she was "riyai/thrown out" and left "ataphos/unburied" [ XVII.118]. You have suggested this means buried without funeral rites rather than physically unburied, a rather preposterous suggestion. The LSJ does not give this meaning, or support this interpretation. Diodorus uses 'ataphos' some 9 times and in each and every case, including this one with its 'thrown out', it is clear he means physically unburied. Can you point to a usage where it translates unequivocally as "buried without funeral rites" rather than unburied?

Nor is there ANY evidence that Cassander 'reconciled' with the Argead family. Rather he treated them with contempt, as Paralus has pointed out. You yourself have described Cassander as "the bitterest enemy" of the Royal family. Still less did he 'reconcile' with the hated Olympias or her family. He appropriated, and married, Thessalonike, daughter of Philip II and hence half-sister of Alexander and proceeded to father three sons on her, thereby acquiring the Royal Argead bloodline for his children (which did not end well for any of them). Though Thessalonike grew up at Olympias' court she was no relation of hers. So just whom, of Olympias' family as opposed to the Argeads, do you say Cassander 'reconciled' with ?

Since Olympias was physically unburied, and such a corpse would have quickly suffered damage by scavengers, even if the woman's skeleton does turn out to be contemporary, it can't be that of Olympias for that reason alone.

Moreover, Olympias died at the hands of a mob, either stoned to death [Pausanias IX.7.8] or hacked to death [Justin XIV.6.13]. In either case there would have been severe trauma to the skeleton, but unlike the men, the woman in the tomb shows no such injuries. Again, this fact alone rules out Olympias.

You also claimed the only feasible female Royal candidates for the tomb occupant were Olympias and Roxane, with the latter ruled out by reason of her age. This is a classic fallacy, often called the 'positivist fallacy' - the assumption that historical sources and/or archaeological remains document significant events and people who appear in the shredded patchwork of what has come down to us as 'history'. In fact there are many important events such as important battles that are undocumented, and many important historical persons who remain anonymous.[Heckel refers to many in his "Who's Who"]
In this instance there are many possible Royal women who were not 'stars' in our surviving history of this era. For example, suppose again that the woman in the tomb does turn out to be contemporaneous, one possibility is that she might be Cassander's mother, who would be the right age and far more likely to be so honoured with such a tomb than Olympias - and that's only one possibility.

Perhaps it is time to examine Taphoi's conviction (obsession?) that the tomb is that of Olympias and the evidence surrounding that repeated assertion a little more objectively - I think in a separate thread so as to avoid cluttering this already overcrowded one.

I know I'm only an interested amateur as far as ancient history is concerned (PhD in Oceanography, BSc in physics... but did a unit or two on ancient history back in high school). But I wonder... we're told the tomb is dated to the late 4th century, but is it really possible to exclude the (very) early 3rd century?

If, say, we could extend the end date out to the 290s... well, the Antipatrids suddenly become plausible candidates for the bodies in the tomb. I mean, the tomb is obviously Royal in magnitude.. and when we look at things the last of the Antipadrids karked it in the space of 3 years following 297BC.

When we look at the bodies (assuming of cause none of them are later intrusions) going with what's publicly available...

Female, approximately 60... Thessalonike? Born either c. 352 or c. 345, died c. 295. Going with the earlier possibility she'd be in her early to mid 50s when she passed... and given the uncertainty around aging remains based upon fragmentary bones error bars of plus/minus a decade doesn't seem unreasonable. Alternatively, other previously unknown wife of Cassander?
Two males, 30-45, one stabbed shortly before death... Cassander's three sons all died between 297 and 294, at least two by violence. Given Cassander's likely age was somewhere in his 50s, IF he had a wife before Thessalonike it wouldn't be implausible for his sons to be in their late 20s to late 30s.
Unidentified cremation, apparently the first internment... Cassander?
One infant... If Cassander's sons were in their 30s it wouldn't be too unlikely for 'em to have kids of their own... and given the civil war between Antipater II and Alexander IV followed by Demetrius Poliorcetes takeover it'd be very likely any such children would have ended up dead.

Concerning the role of BNE, I think I agree more with Andrew that its role was probably secondary for explaining the position of the marble doors. I don't have a good understanding of what BNE can do, but there are several observations that I think highlight that is role was not as important.

For a start, recall the two images below:




There are several types of disconnected blocks, either on the cist tomb (cover, one on top, one on the side) or the floor of the 3rd chamber, which should have also been the subject of BNE motions, but still they look "in place" (here meaning in the approximately correct depth/layer). I cant believe that it was just the doors affected by BNE. Can't exclude it, but find it highly unlikely.

A similar observation from the 2nd chamber:
See on the left of the worker an piece of marble(?) block extruding from the fill, apparently it is part of the a similar block as the one connecting the two holes on the chambers' top (http://content-mcdn.imerisia.gr/filesys ... e12128.jpg). These blocks were originally forming the roof of the chamber. This piece is positioned near the ground, if BNE was important, it would have been higher in the fill.

Finally, the sketch of the 3rd chamber below from a screen-capture of a video (recent presentation on the finds):
Notice that the fill in the 3rd chamber had a downward slope from the entrance until the north wall - it was not filled as high as the other two chambers. If earthquakes were important (hence the possibility to drive a BNE effect), I would have expected also their cumulative action to have leveled-off the slope.

My feeling is that explaining the position of the various tomb elements in the 3rd chamber is the cumulative effect of numerous human-made actions and possibly natural processes. Maybe things happened in multiple steps, no need to invoke only a couple of robbers or a single person doing the sealing to explain what we see. E.g. it could have well been that burials in the 3rd chamber were alreay within a sand/dirt fill, covered by a floor. When the tomb was abandoned or was not possible to protect (surely there were such periods over the centuries of the tomb's exposure), looters could have had easy access into the third chamber, mess up the floor, dig the ground and mess up the burials while trying to reach the bottom. Natural disasters or vandalism would have also placed the doors at some depth within the holes dug by robbers. If chambers were filled after that, we may get the picture we have from the excavations.

An alternative would have been that the people who did the sealing would use all or most tomb elements found (bones, doors, sphinx head etc) as filling material, that was randomly deposited during the filling process. That would also explain the randomness in positions.

Combination of scenarios above may also help explain some of the finds.

Notice also in the 3rd image, how the broken block is located just above the mosaic. If that broke due to a disaster or vandalism before the fill, it would for sure have damaged the mosaic. That is not the case however. This piece appears to have been place on a thin layer of fill - it appears intentional so that no damage to the mosaic is imposed. That is not a chance observation. Indeed, the sealing walls in front of the sphinxes and the caryatids were also sustained on a thin layer of filling material. That means the fill was added before the walls and it was part of a plan - not a natural driven process. That is one more reason to believe that the fill is artificial.

DrRoach wrote:I know I'm only an interested amateur as far as ancient history is concerned (PhD in Oceanography, BSc in physics... but did a unit or two on ancient history back in high school). But I wonder... we're told the tomb is dated to the late 4th century, but is it really possible to exclude the (very) early 3rd century?

If, say, we could extend the end date out to the 290s... well, the Antipatrids suddenly become plausible candidates for the bodies in the tomb. I mean, the tomb is obviously Royal in magnitude.. and when we look at things the last of the Antipadrids karked it in the space of 3 years following 297BC.

When we look at the bodies (assuming of cause none of them are later intrusions) going with what's publicly available...

Female, approximately 60... Thessalonike? Born either c. 352 or c. 345, died c. 295. Going with the earlier possibility she'd be in her early to mid 50s when she passed... and given the uncertainty around aging remains based upon fragmentary bones error bars of plus/minus a decade doesn't seem unreasonable. Alternatively, other previously unknown wife of Cassander?
Two males, 30-45, one stabbed shortly before death... Cassander's three sons all died between 297 and 294, at least two by violence. Given Cassander's likely age was somewhere in his 50s, IF he had a wife before Thessalonike it wouldn't be implausible for his sons to be in their late 20s to late 30s.
Unidentified cremation, apparently the first internment... Cassander?
One infant... If Cassander's sons were in their 30s it wouldn't be too unlikely for 'em to have kids of their own... and given the civil war between Antipater II and Alexander IV followed by Demetrius Poliorcetes takeover it'd be very likely any such children would have ended up dead.

A very sensible post and as good a guess at who the tomb might have been built for as any - the Antipatrids as candidates have been mentioned before, though. I certainly think your suggestions much more plausible than those of Taphoi.......

Gepd wrote:

Concerning the role of BNE, I think I agree more with Andrew that its role was probably secondary for explaining the position of the marble doors. I don't have a good understanding of what BNE can do, but there are several observations that I think highlight that is role was not as important.

A most interesting post, and after reading it I am inclined to largely agree with you. I have said previously that I didn't think that we should digress too far on the subject of BNE, and also that it is but one of a number of possibilities - I suggested one such alternative in my last-but-one post. Like you, I also suggested the current state of the tomb was likely to turn out to be a combination of natural factors and human agency, and that it might be difficult to determine where one ended and the other began.

Notice that the fill in the 3rd chamber had a downward slope from the entrance until the north wall - it was not filled as high as the other two chambers. If earthquakes were important (hence the possibility to drive a BNE effect), I would have expected also their cumulative action to have leveled-off the slope.

I have not seen that diagram before - thanks for posting it, and again you make an excellent point regarding the slope of the fill militating against a seismic BNE effect. However it occurs to me that the sloped fill could still possibly be the result of soil trickling in over a long time due to natural causes. If it entered via one main hole/fissure at one end of the chamber, would we not see exactly that sloped effect? One can reproduce this by slowly pouring flour or similar into one corner of a container.....

Notice also in the 3rd image, how the broken block is located just above the mosaic. If that broke due to a disaster or vandalism before the fill, it would for sure have damaged the mosaic. That is not the case however. This piece appears to have been place on a thin layer of fill - it appears intentional so that no damage to the mosaic is imposed. That is not a chance observation. Indeed, the sealing walls in front of the sphinxes and the caryatids were also sustained on a thin layer of filling material. That means the fill was added before the walls and it was part of a plan - not a natural driven process. That is one more reason to believe that the fill is artificial.

I am not sure I would necessarily agree your last conclusion. In my last-but-one post, I suggested another way how the marble doors might come to be 'suspended' in the fill by natural process, and I think the same principle might apply to your observations. If we think of the trickling in of the fill as a gradual natural process over a long period - centuries - then fairly early on we would have the floor covered in a thin layer ( say, several inches deep) at which point the marble block falls onto it, and perhaps the sealing walls were built. Then, over the centuries the fill continued to accumulate, perhaps being disturbed by robbers, or more than one set of robbers. It is odd that the builders of the sealing walls couldn't be bothered to clear away the fill beneath their footings before commencing building - rather lazy of them, or perhaps suggestive of haste.
That being so, the thin layer of fill is not necessarily artificial, but merely indicative of the passing of time before the sealing walls were erected.....so no proof one way or another of how the fill got into the tomb.

However it occurs to me that the sloped fill could still possibly be the result of soil trickling in over a long time due to natural causes. If it entered via one main hole/fissure at one end of the chamber, would we not see exactly that sloped effect? One can reproduce this by slowly pouring flour or similar into one corner of a container.....

Possibly, but then I would have expected for the soil to be also a bit more concentrated towards the location of the holes/fissures. Actually in both the 2nd and third chambers there is no such evidence. First in the second chamber the level of the fill is uniform and ended just below the fissures - see again the http://content-mcdn.imerisia.gr/filesys ... e12128.jpg . You can see the outline of the soil fill on the wall. The slope in the 3rd chamber is also uniform all over its area. Ε.g. this photo shows the part of the 3rd chamber of at the east side of the chamber (fissure is on the west), looking from the end of the tomb (north) towards the previous chambers (south).

Overall, I would have expected also for the holes to be blocked with soil, if the main transport of soil was occurring naturally through those.

I am not sure I would necessarily agree your last conclusion. In my last-but-one post, I suggested another way how the marble doors might come to be 'suspended' in the fill by natural process, and I think the same principle might apply to your observations. If we think of the trickling in of the fill as a gradual natural process over a long period - centuries - then fairly early on we would have the floor covered in a thin layer ( say, several inches deep) at which point the marble block falls onto it, and perhaps the sealing walls were built. Then, over the centuries the fill continued to accumulate, perhaps being disturbed by robbers, or more than one set of robbers. It is odd that the builders of the sealing walls couldn't be bothered to clear away the fill beneath their footings before commencing building - rather lazy of them, or perhaps suggestive of haste. That being so, the thin layer of fill is not necessarily artificial, but merely indicative of the passing of time before the sealing walls were erected.....so no proof one way or another of how the fill got into the tomb.

Do we have examples of similar sized tombs with sealing walls (or some type of sealing) having so much soil within them that undoubtedly came from natural causes? I looked a lot, haven't found anything. In any case, I would have also expected that if the roof blocks (see my previous post) were falling from several meters high, they would have caused considerable damage in the Persephone mosaic, the thin layer of soil would have not helped much. It is also strange that the only roof block left in position connects the two fissures in the tomb. If the fissures were done from potential looters, how did they know which blocks to remove to access the inner chambers? I think presence of the holes and the roof block and other finds ties well with the scenario of man-made filling. The excavators mentioned (during the November presentation at the ministry) that they recovered from within the fill wooden pallets , apparently used for the sand filling.

Regarding the sealing walls, I would have expected that the constructors to have removed the thin layer of soil before placing them as you point out. Instead, it looks like the soil was intentionally placed and used there, maybe for the stability of the walls. The relevant photos are the bottom right insets here:

http://esp.rt.com/actualidad/public_ima ... 0830c3.jpg

That is a rather high-res image, so you can zoom in to see the features better. The wall was placed on the same soil that fills the chambers (as excavators pointed out), excluding a stone at the center acting like a wedge or something (?). But even that wedge appears to be on a (thinner) layer of soil, so as not to damage the mosaic at the floor (same as what I inferred happened in the chamber behind the caryatids). There are many consistent finds in the different chambers supporting the scenario of man-made filling.