http://news.yahoo.com/fever-mounts-stunning-statues-found-ancient-greek-tomb-195417400.html
This is going to be fun to watch.
At a guess, they are going to be really excited when they discover something pertaining to 'Alexandros' in the tomb, to be followed by disappointment when it turns out to belong to his son, Alexander IV ...
These two sites are updated on the progress/discoveries in the tomb as things emerge:
http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/
http://greece.greekreporter.com/2014/09/15/amphipolis-tomb-timeline-what-we-know-until-now-ancient-greek-monument-updates/
2 Caryatids have been found and a new door.....
thanks for the links Rodge, this discovery is really quite exciting and right up my street so to speak. I have a mate who has just moved back not a hundred million miles away from the site......I can feel a road trip coming on next year :)
Is there likely to be anything left in the tomb? Its pretty evident that the damage caused to the caryatids , winged sphinxes etc are as a result of human intervention.
Quote from: valentinianvictor on September 16, 2014, 10:15:50 AM
Is there likely to be anything left in the tomb? Its pretty evident that the damage caused to the caryatids , winged sphinxes etc are as a result of human intervention.
Well, "The Tomb is sealed. This is very important because it means that it has great value and they were afraid that it may be despoiled. Even the ones that opened the upper blocks of the Gate, they couldn't go far" says http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/the-tomb (http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/the-tomb).
And at http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/caryatids (http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/caryatids):
QuoteFaye J. Vasiliadis ยท Harvard University
No. The tomb has not been looted. Parts of the eastern Caryatid's face were found and her face will be restored. The room directly behind the Caryatids was filled with untouched soil -sand from Strymon River- which was placed by the tomb's constructor -as confirmed by the Ministry of Culture. This soil -I repeat- was UNtouched and filled the entire room up to 70cm from the domed ceiling. It didnt fall from the ceiling... it was placed there deliberately to prevent tomb raiders and robbers. Rumor has it that the first or main room is 25 stairs beneath the current floor level.
So it looks as if no tomb-robbers or vandals had got
past the caryatids. Of course that doesn't rule out someone tunneling in through the roof or whatever.
Thanks Duncan, this means this could be a major story once they finally clear all the debris out.
My wife has been bugging me about going to Greece.
In a few years time, this will be an excellent reason to agree.
Quote from: valentinianvictor on September 16, 2014, 11:16:33 AM
Thanks Duncan, this means this could be a major story once they finally clear all the debris out.
Does anybody know the significance of the refilled dirt?
My limited knowledge of teh subject suggests that infilled tombs are unusual.
If the refilling with dirt was meant to preserve the tomb for later use, does the dirt suggest the tomb will be empty?
Quote from: Dangun on October 10, 2014, 05:34:09 AM
Does anybody know the significance of the refilled dirt?
Not I. The current conjecture seems to be that it was deliberately introduced as a deterrent to tomb robbers, but only full excavation will show whether this is just wishful thinking. Egyptians seem to have made occasional use of 'sand rooms' as a barrier to would-be plunderers, and an analogy has presumably been drawn.
It would be very unlikely and extremely unusual for plunderers to fill a tomb with dirt
after they had absconded with the contents. Hence the assumption is that the dirt was put in as a blockage/deterrent and its continued presence suggests that whatever lies behind is untouched by human hands - other than those which placed the contents.
Tomb robbers are unlikely to have brought in special sand to backfill, so this entrance is presumably unbreached. However, tomb robbers didn't necessarily go in by the front door.
History provides two basic approaches to tomb robbery: the optimists who try to get in at the entrance, and the realists who try to dig in from the roof/sides. Several Egyptian tombs have traces of tunnels dug by tomb robbers looking for the jackpot, and the authorities of the Theban necropolis were frequently kept busy sentencing captured robbers and would-be robbers to various not-too-pleasant fates.
On the whole, tomb robbery while the culture that created the tomb was still ruling was not very successful. A prolonged breakdown of civil order and/or an alien invasion (I mean by humans of a different culture) was more likely to produce a rush for the 'buried treasure'.
A case in point was 19th century Etruria. The country was infested by bandits and before the Risorgimento brought Italy together as a nation, Tuscany seemed to be something of a no-man's-land (it was officially the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, ruled from Florence, but after 1797 law and order were a bit thin on the ground) and searching for, discovering and plundering Etruscan tombs seemed to constitute the principal pastime of the locals. On the bright side, it is surprising how many of these tombs from 500-300 BC survived untouched until the 19th century.
One point in favour of Macedonian tombs also surviving centuries or even millennia of potential plunderers is that we already have one which managed to do exactly that: Philip II's tomb at Vergina. This is a strong reason why everyone is crossing their fingers and hoping.
And the latest seems to be that they've found a mosaic -
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/13/vast-mosaic-uncovered-in-northern-greece-depicts-hermes-leading-chariot (http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/13/vast-mosaic-uncovered-in-northern-greece-depicts-hermes-leading-chariot)
http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/news/23 (http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/news/23)
And now a skeleton (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30019338) in a wooden coffin.
Ooooh you beat me to it...was just reading that
So, now we have a skeleton.......who could it be and what's your money on? :)
What seems significant is the lack of any objects of value, or at least any the archaeologists are prepared to own up to. So far, all we have is:
"The limestone tomb was discovered 1.6m (5.2 ft) below the floor of the third chamber of the burial complex. It is 3.23m in length, 1.56m in width and 1.8m in height.
A wooden coffin was placed inside. Archaeologists discovered scattered bronze and iron nails, as well as bone and glass fragments - probably decorations from the casket. "
By royal standards, this is practically a pauper's burial. Besides, one does not build a sumptuous tomb and then dig five feet into the floor to bury the occupant. It looks like an interment from a time before the tomb was built, so any DNA testing, cranial matching etc. with Philip II will probably create a shoal of red herrings.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 12, 2014, 08:32:14 PMBesides, one does not build a sumptuous tomb and then dig five feet into the floor to bury the occupant. It looks like an interment from a time before the tomb was built
But the coffin-space is exactly under the third chamber - quite central, judging from the drawing. So if it
is an earlier burial, then the whole tumulus was precisely built on top of it to put this earlier burial in the "place of honour". Which is even weirder than a lack of grave-goods.
I wonder if we could be looking at some sort of regime-change effect. For example Alexander IV was murdered by Krateros; is it possible that K gave him a modest burial, but some later monarch honoured him by erecting the tumulus over the site? (That would presume, of course, that Vergina Tomb III is not Alex IV, which it is often thought to be.) Or is there anyone else prominent in a similar situation?
That seems a very reasonable hypothesis. One feature that made me think the skeleton was from an earlier burial was the lack of any indication that the bones had been cremated, although on reflection this could simply be a failure to mention rather than an actual absence.
The size of the mound suggests that someone wanted to honour a monarch of genuine royal blood as opposed to a mere Lysimachus or Kassander, and if the discovered grave is in fact the intended recipient of honour the likely candidates would seem to be:
> Alexander IV, as suggested (and I think the current favourite).
> Philip Arrhidaeus, Alexander's brother and notional successor, killed by Olympias in 317 BC.
The description of the grave indicates that it had received the attentions of looters, and this brings to mind Plutarch's
Pyrrhus 26.6:
Quote
After the battle, however, he at once proceeded to occupy the cities. And after getting Aegae into his power, besides other severities exercised upon its inhabitants he left as a garrison in the city some of the Gauls who were making the campaign with him. But the Gauls, a race insatiable of wealth, set themselves to digging up the tombs of the kings who had been buried there; the treasure they plundered, the bones they insolently cast to the four winds.
They may not have confined their activities to Aegae. If so, then filling the outer chamber with soil which has remained undisturbed since was a case of locking the stable door after the horse had gone.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 13, 2014, 11:20:26 AMIf so, then filling the outer chamber with soil which has remained undisturbed since was a case of locking the stable door after the horse had gone.
I apologise for draggin us back to dirt....
But this is very interesting, and I can't come up with a good narrative.
Why would anyone loot the tomb and then re-infill with dirt?
Quote from: Dangun on November 25, 2014, 09:31:21 AMWhy would anyone loot the tomb and then re-infill with dirt?
I don't think that's quite the implication: rather, Patrick was suggesting that one party (such as the Gauls) robbed the tomb, and somebody else filled the outer chamber afterwards to stop it being disturbed again.
Alternative possibilities include that the infill was there from the start, and there was no robbery (in which case, it's a surprisingly poorly-furnished burial); or that the infill was there from the start, but the tomb was robbed by tunnelling in from the roof or the sides, not going in through the front door (in which case, the robbers' entry has not yet been found).
So now we have remains from five skeletons in the tomb:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/11355324/Mystery-of-Greeces-Alexander-the-Great-era-tomb-deepens-with-body-discoveries.html
http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/news/44 - links from there to pages about each of the five
Some commenters want it to be Olympias, but the female skeleton is apparently too old for that; the cremated person of uncertain gender is presumably the principal occupant, though.
Intriguing. One of the men is about 45 years old. Philip Arrhidaeus died at around 43-44 years old (359-317 BC). The indeterminate cremation might in theory be his wife Eurydice. Diodorus has them both interred at Aegae rather than Amphipolis - whether they stayed there following the plundering activities of Pyrrhus' Gauls is another matter.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 20, 2015, 04:43:02 PM
Intriguing. One of the men is about 45 years old. Philip Arrhidaeus died at around 43-44 years old (359-317 BC). The indeterminate cremation might in theory be his wife Eurydice. Diodorus has them both interred at Aegae rather than Amphipolis - whether they stayed there following the plundering activities of Pyrrhus' Gauls is another matter.
The burial of Philip Arrhidaeus was about 317BC
The sacking of the tombs at Aegae would be about 270BC
Now were the bones 'coffined' or was the body just laid out neatly on the floor?
If they were bones from a grave that had been sacked I'd expect them to be a bit jumbled
Jim
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 20, 2015, 05:36:22 PM
Now were the bones 'coffined' or was the body just laid out neatly on the floor?
If they were bones from a grave that had been sacked I'd expect them to be a bit jumbled
Their Excellencies of the media are a bit coy on this point, but from this link (http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/news/44) posted by Duncan it appears the skeletons are fragmentary and incomplete, which suggests remnants being gathered and dumped rather than properly laid-out burials.
Hopefully future reporting will be a bit more thorough and explicit.
Jumbled helps the Aegae idea
Jim
But jumbled could just mean disturbed - a lot will depend on context e.g. did they look like they were in discrete groups of bones, were there remains of grave goods or tomb furnishings equally jumbled or scattered?
We do what soldiers have done since the dawn of soldiering - we wait. Sooner or later someone will say.