1

On Certain Key Architectural Elements of the Kasta Tumulus:

A Truly Ecumenical Structure Linking

Newgrange, through Mesopotamia and Egypt to Amphipolis.

Dimitrios S. Dendrinos

Emeritus Professor, School of Architecture and Urban Design, University of Kansas, USA. In Residence at Ormond Beach, Florida, USA: cbf-jf@earthlink.net

August 12, 2015; 1st update August 17, 2015; 2nd update August 25, 2015.

Alexander III sporting the ram’s horns of Zeus Ammon.

2

Abstract

No doubt there are thousands of tumuli harboring tombs throughout the World. They must exhibit a Zipf type size distribution, with a very small number of extremely large in height or diameter, and a relatively large number of small ones. Within the known tumulus population, few stand out. Either because of their unique structure, or the uniqueness of the person buried there, or both. Kasta is one of these unique tumuli. Not so much for its size, or its occupant, but because of its sophistication in artwork, construction and form.

As the complex social and art related forces that gave rise to these structures have spatial and temporal influences, so do these structures. The grander (not necessarily in size) the structure, the greater its sphere of influence and range of dominance. This study is an analysis of the social and art form forces that shaped Kasta Tumulus, and of the extent of its dominance at the time of its prominence at the penultimate decade of the 4rd Century BC, till it fell silent buried in collective oblivion, by the first quarter of the 2nd Century BC.

To fully comprehend the structure at Kasta Tumulus and its turbulent life cycle from its highs to its lows, one needs to place it in its effective relative context. One needs to view Kasta in its proper architectural, urban, regional (that is, spatial) context, as well as its proper historical (temporal that is) context. The full extent of that “proper context” of course is the question.

With this paper, the case is made that Kasta Hill’s proper context is one spanning more than three millennia and covers an area extending from the outer edges of Western Europe to the Southwestern parts of Asia, what is loosely referred to as the “Near East”, and of course to Northeastern Africa. This Macedonian edifice, which over its life span was used for sure as a tomb, quite likely as a monument and possibly as a temple, sports an unusual feature in its timeline. The magnificent edifice at Kasta was buried in two phases during its lifespan, as a final burial dumped it in oblivion for over two millennia. And in spite of its architectonic distinction, not a single historical reference exists on it.

Among its many impressive features, the most stunning element of the structure at Kasta is what was perceived to be a perimeter wall, 3-meter in height, ringing the half-kilometer long tumulus’ circumference with a clad made out of marble from the nearby island of Thassos. Its imposing form and meticulous construction detail as seen in certain sections surviving today, set the aesthetic scale of the edifice: a size unsurpassed by any tumulus in Western Eurasia and Northern Africa for well over three millennia. A series of equally impressive objects placed at the Entrance of the structure and along its two Chamber comprising corridor leading to its funerary Chamber through an almost two-ton weighing double-leaf marble door composed a truly monumental image of a structure distinguished by both its beauty and its size. Through a series of rare front Entrance Museum-resembling exhibits, the resulting interior space creates a sense of solemn wonder few architectonic constructs ever attained.

A stunning indeed repertoire of artifacts on display at Kasta includes two huge Sphinxes guarding the Entrance sitting on top of its meticulously proportioned door; they are followed by two imposing Maidens just beyond human size in perfect harmony with the marble bases they stand on, greeting while dancing the special visitor already dazed by the edifice’s carefully balanced dimensions. This corridor of wonders is crowned by an exquisite in artistry and sophistication mosaic floor not meant to

3

be stepped on by any common soul. By any standard, in its ideal finished well polished state, Kasta would match the architectonic achievements of any known structure of its Era.

As much as impressive the interior is, it is no match for its perceived exterior. The size of the structure the archeological axe had come across was initially suggested by the archeological team in charge of the excavation to be nothing less than staggering: six layers of exquisitely carved marble blocks comprising a clad fully encircling up to three meters a 15-meter high, 158-diameter tumulus. It’s a tumulus size no culture in the entire Continent of Europe had ever attempted to entirely ring by limestone masonry, let alone marble cladding. As the archeologists in charge placed the structure in the last quarter of the 4th Century BC., Kasta as perceived was clearly sketching nothing less than an imperial footprint, conjuring the image of Alexander III.

But a very close examination of the remnants of this spectacular exterior structure reveals a very different story about Kasta. It suggests, among other things, that the structure at the tumulus went through three distinct and different in construction quality and objectives transitions in a truly tortured past. Thus, one of the two focal points in this study is the identification and full description of these three major transformations Kasta underwent during its eventful life. The other major focal point of the study is of course Kasta’s striking exterior wall and its real configuration. By taking a very close up look at the architectural details of the structure, we are led to question the view passed on to us by the archeological team about Kasta in a number of ways. Was that imperial in look exterior the real Kasta? How did it really function as an edifice? Were really all of the endowments attributed to it, as the excavation ended in November 2014, its real features? What was really Kasta, and how did it come about? What are its real roots? How does it fare as a monument, when compared with other recent as well as past monuments of its Era? Setting aside for a moment the question everyone asks, “Who is buried there?” we ask the question: Who was intended by its original architect to be the real viewer of Kasta? Were they the mortals or the Heavens?

In search of answers to these questions, and by using as a springboard the details of the edifice, we take a voyage to certain other places and other times. We do so as we try to place Kasta in its proper context, in an effort to discover its planned design and architecture, its spatial context within its immediate and broader Regions, and its own travel through the rough Seas of a turbulent period in human History, Macedonia under Alexander III and the aftermath of the Asian and African conquests. In so doing, this study sets course over different spaces and different historical times.

In an Odyssey of a quest, but never losing track of the main goal and the final destination, we travel to the Neolithic structure of Newgrange in Ireland and to Ramses II’ monument at Abu Simbel, in search of uncovering the real Kasta. At the end, we come to uncover a different, significantly scaled down tomb and monument and temple. We return from that long trip with a revolutionary new perspective about Kasta. The inroads from the Eire setting of 3200 BC to Kasta of late 4th Century BC, by way of Babylon and Ramses II Egypt, is not only an exciting voyage of exploration, it is also an enlightening experience on how a multidisciplinary, comprehensive and dynamic approach to objects of Archeology can shed light upon them from many an angle. For in those objects lie messages emanating from different processes that created them. To receive and analyze their multi-spectral messages one needs to apply means drawing from all these complex, interacting processes. No single narrowly focused discipline in isolation can rival the richness of messages received from such a comprehensive light source. Diverse fields of human inquiry, such as History, Archeology, Sociology, Economics, Political Science, Religious

4

Studies, Geography, Geology, City and Regional Planning, Architecture, Civil and Structural Engineering, Astronomy and Mathematics all in a combined way can be productively employed in dealing with a monumental structure the size and range of Kasta. They all assist in deriving its life story, how it went from the brilliance and glory at its high point to the lowly depths of its pitiful and tortured death.

In addressing these subjects however, numerous references are made to previous work by this author. To fully follow the arguments analyzed here, one needs to read three previous papers. The first paper [1] presents the overall setting at the time and place the structure at Kasta was constructed, its immediate social-historical milieu. The second paper [7] addresses the modular structure of this edifice as recorded in both its exterior and interior walls marble clad, and uncovers a major astronomical feature embedded in its modular code. Finally the third paper [11] presents the mathematics of the mosaic frame in the edifice’s key Chamber #2. In a sense, the current paper is an evolution by expansion, extension and correction in many aspects of the original first two papers.

From the painting of Chamber #2, The Bull.

5

Prologue

Upon the discovery in August 2014 of the structure at Kasta Hill, in the area of Macedonia in Northern Greece, by the Ancient City of Amphipolis, the chief archeologist of the excavation team, Katerina Peristeri made a comment regarding a “truly Ecumenical monument” that had been uncovered. She placed it in the last quarter of the 4th Century BC the Era following the death of Alexander the Great. It turns out that she was right about this monumental structure she fully uncovered, and first presented to the public in August 2014, although she had been excavating Kasta since at least 2012.

The monument/temple/tomb she unearthed is indeed ecumenical. However, it isn’t ecumenical in the sense she implied, in carrying that is within it influences from Mesopotamia and Egypt alone. By describing it using the term “ecumenical”, Peristeri was of course painting the picture and aura of Alexander III. Hovering over this extraordinary structure at Kasta Tumulus, that picture alone fired up the World’s imagination and interest. A truly unique structure had just come to light in a hot August day in 2014, after nearly 23 centuries of lying dormant, buried in oblivion by the riverbanks of Strymonas, at the foothills of Mount Panggaion. And that structure was associated with Alexander III’s death.

Was it a pretentious and grandiose picture Peristeri painted? Did she make a “Big Tease” type statement? It was not of course a humble location that picture was pinned to, and for sure the point in time which framed it couldn’t be far more intriguing. Both, location and era, were not just run-of-the-mill random points in space-time. For that was the location where at age just 21, Alexander III launched his triumphant Asian Campaign in 334 BC. Save maybe Babylon or Alexandria, no other spatial context could have been more apt to excite human imagination within that historical context than Amphipolis, not even Pella or Aigies (Vergina).

At a faraway place Northwest of Amphipolis, and almost three millennia older than Kasta, more than fifty two centuries old, another monument lurked, far removed from the spotlight of that August day when Katerina Peristeri’s words made World News. At the gentle green Hills of County Meath, Ireland, about a mile from River Boyne, lay Newgrange Tumulus. It is of course now in its manicured looks a far cry from what it used to look, more than five millennia ago. But it still maintains the basic fabric of its, ravaged from the Eons, splendor. It turns out that Newgrange could not only tell us a thing or two about Kasta’s original grandeur and mysterious past, but more than this it could point to its deep roots in humanity’s History. A fortiori, it would enrich our understanding of that term “ecumenical” Peristeri employed under the Mediterranean sun, that sizzling summer day at Amphipolis about Kasta.

From the very first day the structure at Kasta came to light, it caused not only amazement but also bewilderment to everyone who followed its saga and hoopla during the excavation process. An increasingly perplexing set of questions surrounded every piece of space and object found in and around it, as the archeological digging progressed. Starting with a ringed with marble wall extended about half a kilometer long perimeter around the Tumulus; to its Entrance sporting two mystery riddled Sphinxes; to two Golden Ratio following statues of Maidens; to a Chamber decorated by a mosaic floor of exquisite sophistication in geometry and artwork; to a shattered heavy double-leaf marble door, leading to finally a funerary Chamber where the scattered remains of bones and bone fragments, about 550 in all, were identified laying inside and outside a vault, belonging to five (possibly more) different individuals. In all, this tomb proved to be an enigma then, and a year later it still remains an enigma, still difficult to fully

6

comprehend, capture and articulate its main features, its symbols, its construction, let alone their meaning.

This puzzle of a structure, is still unclear as to its very core nature. Was it simply a tomb? Or was it a tomb and a temple? Or was it a tomb, a temple and a monument over its life span? These are nagging persistent questions that linger to this day. But they are not unique to Kasta. Almost all ancient monuments evoke these basic questions. Structures and artifacts and sites of a largely unknown and mysterious human past, antiquity has passed on in abundance to us, maybe not all the scale of Kasta or Newgrange or Abu Simbel, but of an interest at par at times with them. Numerous other more modest sites of an equal perplexity and complexity are found everywhere, throughout the World, in all Continents encompassing all epochs of human existence. However, among them all, some stand out. They are history’s markers, pinpointing major events in humanity’s evolution, on its voyage from hunters/gatherers to farmers to Hubble era astronomers. It is an antiquity marred by fuzziness in what was politics economics and religion, social and cult-like order, life and afterlife, Gods Nymphs and Demons, mortal heroes and immortals. But humanity’s long and chaotic trip has some major and consequential stops on its way, structures that have become History’s markers. Just as Newgrange, the Sphinx, the Great Pyramid of Khufu, Abu Simbel, the Parthenon, Kasta may just be one of these stops, forgotten as it may have been till the present.

Under a 15-meter high Tumulus, in a 15-meter long interior corridor the tomb at Kasta was covered by marble (in the same pattern as parts of its exterior about 500-meter long circumferential wall was) and was capped by a 2.25-meter radius semi-circular cylindrical ceiling. It most likely fell victim to tomb raiders, robbers and looters over its life span, a tortured tested turbulent life most likely extending over 23 centuries. To cap it all, this mystery edifice, at some point in time, had the ground level around it raised and ended up eventually totally buried, its inside as well as its outside spaces filled and covered by fine soil. It laid dormant under the weight of Kasta Hill’s dirt and rock, for more than two millennia. And most important of all, not a single historical reference, by either Greeks or Romans, about it has survived to this day. If it weren’t for Archeology, a form of modern day “Resurrection”, this monument would have been lost, having escaped Humanity’s perception possibly forever.

The reader is warned that the short list of items just mentioned in describing Kasta by offering a glimpse into the tomb’s history, don’t even come close to encompassing the richness of objects, detail, or questions associated with this superb architectonic structure and the events surrounding its life. It is expected that its study will preoccupy archeologists, historians, architects, art specialists, engineers, mathematicians, and art critics, professionals and students at all levels in all these fields of study (from undergraduates to Ph.D. candidates), for at least decades possibly centuries to come. Thus this study should be considered in its proper perspective. It is by no means, neither does it aspire nor it expects to be the last word on Kasta. Far from it, in fact. In its breadth of topics and angles, it attempts to indicate productive angles one could take in approaching Kasta, and extending the issues suggested. No matter the broadness of the subjects mentioned, here in this paper the focus is much narrower however. Certain architectural components of Kasta are explored, so that through their detailed treatment a bigger view might emerge about this mystery structure, and hopefully be productively exploited.

7

The Phaistos Disc and Linear A, with the rosette nucleus symbol at its very center and spiral arms.

A Brief and An Extensive Summary plus some commentary.

A very brief Summary. The paper’s major points are the following: First, Kasta should be linked to Newgrange, and a bull cult. Second, Kasta had a ringed shaped, partly marble cladded, circumferential wall; evidence suggests that not only wasn’t the entire 497-meter perimeter wall marble cladded at a 3-meter height, but it was left more or less the way we found it intentionally so. Third, Kasta underwent three major transformative phases, one transitioned a simple pre-existing tomb into a monument, with only sections of it marble cladded, in its “bull cult” phase; a second change (hostile to the agents carrying out the first) transformed Kasta to approximately what we observe today, including the sealing of the exterior wall and the raising of the ground level; it was the “burying” and destruction of the “bull cult” in the structure; this was followed by a third and final transformative transition of the tomb, the burial of its interior in soil. Fourth, the sealing of the exterior marble clad was probably malevolent, while the sealing of the interior of the tomb was probably benevolent. The Romans had very little to do with it; mainly Macedonians did whatever structurally happened to Kasta. Fifth, Kasta may have been imperial at its highs, but it was not characterized by the opulence that was initially attributed to it. Sixth, the 60 year old woman buried in Kasta is either a high priestess of the religious cult Kasta was built for at its very beginning, or the matriarch of a clan, part of which was buried there and was uncovered during

8

the excavation; there’s a very remote chance the charred nine bones of the person buried there belong to Hefaestion; there’s an excellent chance the person buried there is a person very close to Alexander III and a few names are suggested here (three presenting some interest in a probability based reasoning, Perdiccas, Laomedon, and especially Nearchus); Nearchus presents a strong case, as Barsine and Herakles (Alexander’s illegitimate son with Barsine) are involved as possible candidates being buried in Kasta; however, the alternative “Other” is as strong as any one of them in being the tomb’s occupant; some of the bone fragments found belong to unrelated to the tomb persons; they were dug (along with bones from animals) with the soil from the riverbanks of Strymonas, as part of the material used to seal the interior of the monument. That sealing of the interior was carried out in a teacup filling fashion with thick mud. Seven, to analyze the major phase transitions Kasta underwent, and to derive the tomb’s vital statistics over a period spanning approximately a century and a half, the study employs theoretical propositions form the Economic Geography based theory of Regional cycles. These cycles take a Region from a period of growth to one of decline, and in general they are suggested to be unique in a Region’s life span. In Kasta, the major transformative transition took place under Antipater, at the wake of Alexander III death, while the second transformative transition took place under Cassander. About a century later, most likely under Philip V, the tomb was buried.

An extensive Summary. A number of architecture related topics are primarily elaborated on in the seven sections of this paper, as they form the basis to structure the paper’s main arguments. A multidisciplinary approach is employed in analyzing the various issues tackled. First, recognizing that a satisfactory understanding of the Entrance to the tomb at Kasta, as it is today, will take the analyst a long way into comprehending the whole structure, a closer look at the Entrance to the monument/tomb is taken including the portico in Section 1. By doing so, two major phases are identified in the construction and renovation processes this structure seems to have undergone during its life span, before the final phase, that of the sealing with soil of its interior. A simple initial pre-existing tomb phase was converted into a major monumental structure. Part of this remodeling called for a ring wall to the whole tumulus. This constitutes Kasta’s first major construction phase (MCP). Within this context, the study addresses the question whether the marble clad of Kasta’s exterior wall and its limestone support structure were ever completed. In effect, the question is posed whether it was intended by the original architect of the monument to completely cover the perimeter wall with marble. By examining the available photographic evidence, the study establishes that both the perimeter wall and its limestone support system were never finished. Moreover, the study aims at establishing that the architect of this MCP did not intend to have a full marble cladding. To that end, Kasta’s exterior wall unfinished state is further pondered in detail. The possibility is scrutinized whether this unfinished state was due to unintentional stoppage (that is whether construction at some point was abandoned, forced by outside factors); or was the unfinished state the result of forceful removal (that is, the result of blocks having been sometime, somehow, by someone removed although in situ already); or whether the marble clad ended where it did by design (that is, ending up more or less where and how we find it today although its finishing not yet having been completed). Whether a very large part of that marble clad was ripped off by Romans while in situ (as suggested by the archeological team) is a possibility explored and rejected. A key feature of this Section is the identification of both design and construction related failures in the structure. This Section incorporates a very detailed look of Kasta’s portico, attributed to the second renovation phase (SRP) in the monument. In contrast to the view by the archeological team that the sealing of the exterior wall was done either at the same time or after the sealing of the interior, it is shown here why the complete coverage of the exterior wall was undertaken during the SRP. It is

9

conclusively shown that the exterior wall was buried before the interior of the tomb was. And that the burying of the exterior wall had to a large extent a malevolent intent. It was done in conjunction with the raising of the structure’s ground level.

Following the firm establishment of these two major markers in the timeline of the structure, the analysis moves into and concentrates on issues and details regarding the two Sphinxes, guardians of the tomb at the Entrance, and the wall they stand, Section 2. It is here that evidence is shown suggesting that the Sphinxes were intentionally not buried during the final phase of the monument (the tomb’s interior sealing with soil). How the sealing of the tomb’s interior occurred is then extensively analyzed and discussed. It is shown that it followed a teacup type filling with thick mud poured in from the top. The section then proceeds to a more detailed analysis of the two Sphinxes statues, and supplies evidence that the head found in the funerary Chamber does not belong to one of the Entrance’s Sphinxes (directly contradicting the archeological team’s contention that it does). Finally in this section aspects of asymmetry in the Sphinxes’ wall and the arc of the ceiling at the tomb’s façade are presented. Failure in both construction and design in the Sphinxes’ wall section of Kasta are pinpointed as well.

Then, in Section 3, the ringed circumferential wall and its marble coverage (cladding) are discussed in much more depth. A paper by the author [7] is revisited, that elaborates on the modular structure of Kasta. Some imperfections now observed in the construction of the finished part of the exterior wall are further identified and evaluated. In this context, a detailed look into a paper [8] that appeared in 1972 is taken. That paper reports some “measurements” on marble blocks found along the riverbanks of Strymonas, and analysts (including members of the archeological team) attribute to Kasta (the “Romans ripped them off the Hill” theory). These “measurements” are shown to be to an extent fabricated. However, the study now does revise some hypotheses suggested in the earlier paper by the author [7], as a result of a closer look at the photographic evidence. It also points out that one of the (minor) Conjectures (about the orientation of the tomb at the time of its construction under the first transformative intervention) made by the author in the original study [7] about the Modular Structure of the tomb is now rejected.

In Section 4 the revolutionary new insight is presented about the marble clad of the exterior wall at Kasta. Here enters Newgrange (not the presently facelifted, shining and meticulously kept version of it, but its original self), as the real shape of the exterior wall at Kasta is reconsidered. The archeological team has consistently maintained that the exterior wall was once totally cladded, up to a height of three meters. This view is here challenged and rejected. Beyond offering insights as to how the exterior wall and Entrance at Kasta could and did look like, references to Newgrange allow for a new and broader perspective and light to be shed on Kasta. This perspective now places the Kasta Tumulus within a spatio-temporal context of tumulus burials and associated monument construction spanning more than five millennia in time, and touching three Continents in space, Europe, Western Asia as well as Northern Africa. It is here that the term “ecumenical” acquires its proper range and meaning. Beyond bestowing insights, the new perspective emanating from Newgrange (again, in its old real version, not its present Hollywood type redux) imposes limits on the opulence at Kasta. It forces us to recalibrate our expectations in a wholesale fashion about Kastas’ appearance. Moreover, it guides us into seeking the identity of the necessary political-social-economic-religious, i.e., overall cultural infrastructure needed for its construction and subsequent transformative phases. In effect, by referencing Newgrange one scales down considerably the “Majestic” (some might characterize it as “nouveau riche”) image or “Royal” (some may say “Imperial”) look of Kasta. We thus come to recognize that some attributes we

10

may have rushed into assigning to Kasta Tumulus’ structure just a year ago upon its uncovering are simply not there. These new insights revise the narrative of a paper the author published in October 2014 [1], and seriously expand on its major tenets. Central of course among those tenets remains the topic of identifying the broader spatial and temporal milieu of Kasta, as was the central effort in that original paper. Here the introduction of a cycle in the “Bull Cult” is attempted, as its milieu is significantly enhanced in its narrative and expanded in both space and time. No matter how apropos the new revolutionary perspective is on Kasta via Newgrange, the key gain is that the riddle of “no historical record about Kasta” is finally partially answered, albeit at a cost to Kasta’s glamor: its downgraded new status. Corroborative evidence for this downgrading of Kasta is the numerous imperfections in construction and design identified and cited in the earlier Sections. It must be noted, that in spite of this downgrade, Kasta still retains a stature elevating it close to the pinnacle of monumental Architecture. The Section firmly pins the monument to the time following Alexander III’s death.

At the aftermath of Newgrange, a new view emerges regarding the original Entrance and perimeter wall the architect of the MCP transformation at Kasta may have had in mind. This picture is painted in Section 5. Influences from Newgrange are now sketching a rough view of Kasta’s real look: the bull with horns of the Irish tumulus, may have had an equivalent “bull or ram with horns” form in the Macedonian tumulus. It was meant to be visible from Amphipolis and neighboring Hill 133. But mostly, it was intended to be seen from the Heavens. The monument’s intended viewers were not so much those on Earth, as key components (example: exterior wall) of the monument were not so much visible from the ground. Those able to see the monument in full were very few, and belonged to a cast that were allowed to walk along a corridor touching Kasta. They were the functionaries of the cult behind Kasta’s construction. A subsection is devoted to the astronomical linkages of the Kasta Bull Cult and the Constellations of Taurus, Orion and the Hyades Open star Cluster; here possible links to Dionysus are drawn. For the first time with this paper, a new hypothesis emerges: the marble cladded section of the perimeter wall was not visible from the ground or downhill, along the riverbanks of Strymonas. Some of the “whys” and “how” are pondered and discussed in this Section at length.

Section 6 ventures into a brief treatise on Kasta’s true and huge spatial and temporal context, linking it to the deep roots and traditions of monumental Architecture and Art Forms found in the Acropolis of Athens, the Minoans, Abu Simbel, the Great Pyramid of Khufu and the Sphinx of the Giza Plateau, and ultimately Newgrange. A relatively short exposition of a theory in space-time of monumental architecture and its constituent elements are suggested in this part of the paper. In a concise manner, and in basic economic-geographic terms, the principles of such a theory are laid out. Kasta is employed here as a case study. Economic, demographic and regional cycles comprise the central features of the theoretical and Comprehensive framework.

Finally, in Section 7 some components of an outline towards setting up a scenario which would replicate Kasta’s lifecycle are finally presented. This Section is closely linked to the original paper by the author [1] about the “Hefaestion Hypothesis”, although it severely modifies it. By initially dealing with the tomb’s final burial phase, it draws attention to a similar (temporally close, but much larger in scale, and in a different spatial context) case that of the “terracotta army” burial and Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor tumulus tomb-monument. Then the Section proceeds to a brief review of the available evidence from the examination of the skeletal remains found in the funerary Chamber #3 at Kasta, and takes a closer look into the coins located in Chambers #1 and #2. A scenario is then outlined as to whom these remains might belong using probability based estimates, partly drawn from the quantity of bones

11

per skeleton identified. The names of certain individuals very close to Alexander II are discussed as possible occupants of the tomb. The stage is thus set for reproducing the last two phases of Kasta, its state after the second renovation phase (SRP) and the sealing of the structure and its “death”, the monument’s last phase. Assisting the effort is a brief review of the elements from a cyclical theory of Regional Dynamics in this Comprehensive approach to the study of Kasta Tumulus.

Introduction.

In the summary and commentary above, it is evident, a plethora of broad as well as relatively narrow subjects are included. However, the breath of these topics should not take away from, disorient or sidetrack the main analysis here, which retains its focus on certain very specific architectonic details of Kasta. It is the very nature of these details that power the analysis. Whether a modulus was used to design the whole tomb, interior and exterior in a consistent continuum of flowing space and movement, is pondered. Taking off from a previous study by the author [7], the argument is further advanced here and its context and applicability strengthened by a detailed study of the tomb’s exterior wall. Another focal point of this study is the precise identification of certain key (among possibly numerous) renovations or transformations Kasta underwent over its approximate century and a half lifespan. Identification of the two major transitions that occurred at Kasta were initially presented in a paper by the author [1]. Here these transformative interventions are further explored in detail and their specific effects pinpointed. Of particular importance in these transformations are the changes that took place at the Entrance of Kasta, and at its exterior wall.

The first major transformation occurred when a humble tomb inside Kasta Hill was expanded into a 3-Chamber, 15-meter long, 4.5-meter wide, 6.5-meter in height monumental structure taking over the entire 15-meter in height, 158-meter diameter Tumulus. That transformative major construction phase (designated as MCP) was succeeded in relative short order by a second renovation phase (designated as SRP) a phase which also saw the malevolent burial of Kasta’s exterior wall. SRP reshaped Kasta’s form quite a bit, into a state which more or less we found it by the end of October 2014, when the excavation ended. A third major transformation of Kasta occurred when the interior, the Entrance, and its portico were altered with the construction of two limestone diaphragmatic walls. It was a rushed addition. It was followed not quite a bit later by both the interior of the tomb and its portico being filled with soil, thus sealing the whole structure by an undertaker with rather benevolent intent. We may now be able to suggest approximately when these metamorphosis type alterations to Kasta occurred. Moreover, we are now in a position to firmly suggest the effects of all three transformations, and their intent. We can also make weak extrapolations as to the persons buried there, and those whose skeletal remains have been found.

Architectonic and construction specifics regarding all three of these transitions are important for getting a firm hold on Kasta. Nonetheless, the central issue remains the investigation of what was described by the archeological team as a marble cladded, 3-meter high, 497-meter in length circumferential exterior wall. This wall’s specifics are of paramount importance. They play an integral role in gauging Kasta’s monumental stature and position in a lineage of tumulus type tombs and monuments. And it is not just the opulence projected by a 3-meter high, half a kilometer long marble cladded wall. Expanding on a previous paper by the author about the modulus of the marble clad on it [7], and the reading of an

12

annual calendar the architect of the first major transformation at Kasta imprinted on it, this perimeter wall ringing the tumulus attributes to Kasta immense value well beyond scale and size. The embedded astronomical, mathematical, and construction related sophistication elevates Kasta among the World’s major landmark monuments, along with the physical dimensions of the tumulus. In combination, these two characteristics propel Kasta to monumental distinction. Diminishing any one of these two components, obviously decreases its range of dominance and posture over space and time.

Through a revolutionary new insight which links this tomb and monument at Kasta to the tomb and monument at Newgrange and to all tumulus related monuments in the Eurasian supercontinent creates a point and a line of reference to gauge Kasta’s range and its roots. It exterior and interior suggest a lineage of tomb/tumulus evolution over the course of three millennia, from the late Neolithic Period to the Era of Alexander III. From the 3rd Millennium BC Bell Beaker Culture of Western Europe, to the Culture of Pharaonic Egypt and its megastructures, including the six centuries after Newgrange 26th Century BC pyramid of Khufu at Giza and the mid-25th Century BC Sphinx of Khafra, to mid-12th Century BC Abu Simbel of Ramses II, reaching down and touching the rise of Classical Greece in the middle of the 5th Century BC and continuing on to the aftermath of the Macedonian conquests in Western and Central Asia of the second half of the 4th Century BC. Temporal spacing of these structures is anything but random. Notice the intervals, all approximate 6-century multiples; and of special interest is the single century interval between the Sphinx and Khufu’s pyramid, as well as the Athenian Golden Age and the Macedonian Golden Age, both single-century proximities appearing in a two-millennia time span.

By further making a new inference about the then actual shape of the original tumulus at Newgrange, this study identifies both Newgrange and Kasta as members of the “bull cult” which has branches all over the reaches of the Mediterranean Sea, including the Minoan Civilization in Crete. It goes all the way back to the employment of the bull at the dawn of human agriculture and husbandry, to god Apis (later Osiris) in Egypt, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apis_(deity) to the myths of Theseus and the Minotaur to the Minoans and Santorini’s Akrotiri. An evolutionary branch of this “Bull Cult” could also be the Dionysus-Hyades Cult, the original cult behind Kasta and the Constellations it was built to obey its course through the Heavens. The location of its Entrance, and the shape of its exterior wall were tied to these Cults; Kasta’s demise could also be tied to the demise and the closing of their cycle as well.

The paper speculates as to the actual shape of Kasta Hill itself, its perimeter wall and its Entrance that the original architect of the tomb/monument intended, by making equivalences between Kasta and Newgrange. So referencing Newgrange, underscores that the form of the Entrance should be viewed as an integral part of the whole tumulus. The head of the bull encompasses not only the entrance and the cladded section of the perimeter wall as its horns, but also includes the shape of the tumulus itself. While excavating, the archeological team (as did D. Lazaridis before them) forever altered the shape of the mound at Kasta. Over the centuries the original shape of Kasta has been lost, and so has any direct evidence indicative of the shape of the mound that the original architect intended to have.

The archeological team in charge of the excavation at Kasta has always maintained that the Lion of Amphipolis was at the top of the Hill. Nothing could be further from the true form of that Hill than this contention. Not only is the Lion aesthetically and structurally too heavy for that spot, (standing more than 15 meters high on a 15-meter high tumulus) if does not fit the bull and Sphinxes cult written all over the monument. Kasta was used since archaic times as a cemetery, Lazaridis found numerous archaic tombs there. Later on, and after the major renovation phase (MCP) that intended to transform

13

Kasta into a monument for the Ages and the World, the tomb was reformatted by SRP and quite likely a temple was designed and built on top, its remnants still visible through a Google map. The purpose of having that temple built there could be attributed to a plan calling for the very alteration to the shape of the Hill. We do not know much about this Temple on top of Kasta Hill. Here’s a thought though. Could it be that marble blocks from this Temple are the blocks located along the riverbanks? Certainly a modification in the Hill’s overall form could be consistent with the second major renovation objectives, a renovation carried out by an agency hostile to the one that carried out the first in reshaping of Kasta Hill. Building a temple on top of a previous religious structure has always been a means to designate transition in religious beliefs and exertion of dominance by the new comer.

The original tumulus at Newgrange and its guarding symbols carved on its Kerbstones are supplying strong hints regarding similar (in intent not form) symbols potentially decorating the entry stones or other features not presently surviving at Kasta, including possibly another statue of a Sphynx, the head of which was located inside the funerary Chamber by the excavators. The form of the Entrance and its two Sphinxes (sole remaining guardians of the tomb) acquire additional import now in view of the three distinctly different transitions involved in Kasta, and the linkages drawn now from Kasta to Neolithic Newgrange and to two phases of Egypt that during the Nineteenth Dynasty and Ramses II, and that of the Fourth Dynasty and Khufu.

This part of the investigation leads us to the issue of the “sealing” of the monument, both exterior and interior, with soil. Besides examining the manner in which this “sealing” took place, the needed quantity and origins of that soil are sought. It is concluded that the interior of the tomb was filled at a later stage than the exterior, with soil dropped inside from the top, in the form of a thick mud and in teacup fashion; and that the exterior wall was sealed by soil from the very Hill it was to encircle and enclose, further altering the bull shape form of the tumulus. Evidence is also presented indicating the perimeter marble clad was part of a ditch, a corridor partly encircling the tumulus. This ditch would hide the horns from all except those at the top of the nearby Hill 133 and the Acropolis of Amphipolis. Such narrow corridor could further impede immediate access to the tomb, by allowing only the initiated into the cult or sect to walk, in the distinct case Kasta was functioning as a monument and/or temple, besides being a tomb.

The analysis moves through the tomb’s possibly many phases in construction and transformations, but it identifies two major ones. The first is by far the major construction phase, MCP for short, carried out by what must have been an architectural genius. It’s the monument’s Golden Era Phase. Architectural renovations always reflect the prevailing cultural values at the time they are carried out, notwithstanding the fact that some make an effort to preserve some past attributes of a building, elements deemed worth preserving and still desirable at the time of the renovation, while other renovations/transformations have the opposite aim, to permanently delete undesirable attributes. It’s kind of a law in historic preservation theory. In the case of Kasta, it is now evident that during its second major renovation phase, the SRP, certain elements of the monument were deemed undesirable, and were thus permanently erased. In the case of Newgrange in its current redux meticulously manicured form, it clearly makes the point about “current values” always being reflected in the renovation process, while still attempting to maintain some faint resemblance to the past structure. But let’s take a very brief look into the transformations at Kasta.

14

From a humble beginning, as a simple ground tomb buried into an amorphous hill, the tomb was at some stage through MCP transformed into an elaborate Grand Tomb taking up the whole space of a partly man-shaped Tumulus at Kasta. It was the Phase when the two Sphinxes, the two Maidens (Kores, Caryatids, or Maenads) the three mosaic floors (including the mosaic of Chamber #2), the double-leaf marble door, the interior and exterior clad were made, and the tomb acquired its arched semi-circular, cylindrical limestone ceiling and roof. Chamber #2 is pivotal, because that’s where construction during this MCP stage commenced, proceeding from inside out and from bottom up. It is a Chamber which in effect significantly contributes to the prestige of the structure, far more than its share in tomb’s space.

It was within the context of this phase in the structure’s history that the Golden Era of the Tumulus at Kasta occurred, and the Tumulus acquired its glamor. With an almost half a kilometer long perimeter partly marble covered wall, the monument hid deep mathematical and astronomical knowledge. In certain instances, the quality of construction that took place at that Phase leaves one in awe. But that knowledge, encoded in its stupendous interior and exterior marble clad, in the tomb’s overall organizational structure and design, and imprinted in its interior artistry and construction, all put in place under MCP, all that remained hidden from humanity buried in obscurity for more than two millennia. That burial took place in steps. Parts of it were erased, altered or covered up during the second major construction activity.

Kasta underwent its second renovation phase (SRP) in its life cycle as possibly the outcome of major shifts in the Macedonian social and cultural milieu. SRP purposely sought to contribute to Kasta’s decline, it was a malevolent intervention. The tomb was stripped from a good part of its Entrance; the perimeter wall adjacent to the Entrance was ripped off; the part of the exterior wall exposed and cladded was buried in soil; the ground level was raised; and the Entrance space was reformatted to the portico we see today as the stairway was added. A ramp (currently the subject of discussion among some analysts in [4]), located to the West of the Entrance and pointing towards the Hill, could be part of that transition. SRP marked the beginning of period of decline in Kasta’s history. Yet, that was not all, as another more fatal phase was awaiting in the wings, a phase which involved the complete burial of the structure, and the monument’s real death, till its resurrection in August 2014 by the archeologists’ axe. We address certain aspects of that fatal phase in this paper at some length at the very end.

Under MCP, the size, artwork mathematical sophistication and splendor of the structure’s interior and exterior walls, and the Grand Tomb’s internal organization of spaces and objects resulted in the creation of a unique tomb and monument for Macedonia, Greece, the Balkans, and in fact for the whole of Europe. Nowhere in the European and Western Asian Continents, In the Near East and Northern Africa do we encounter inside a man-shaped but natural otherwise tumulus architecture of the quality and sophistication of that encountered at Kasta. Combined with its tumulus extraordinary size, Kasta is a unique structure in that 3-Continent space for the entire BC period of human history. Such uniqueness characterized two other tumulus type structures in their respective time periods: Newgrange and the pair of granite single rock structures at Abu Simbel.

In its glory days, enjoying its Golden Era, only a handful of edifices still standing then, could match the prominence of Kasta and with the exception of Newgrange none of them underground. Certainly by expanding the classification to also include above ground tombs, monuments and temples that could rival Kasta in range of dominance, one can cite some preeminent names in Monumental Architecture. Among them those which stand out are the buildings/monumentss/temples of the Athenian Acropolis,

15

the pair of monuments/temples of Ramses II and Nefertari at Abu Simbel (commemorating the imperial battle of Kadesh between Egyptians and Hittites), the complex of the Great Egyptian Pyramids and the Sphinx at the Giza Plateau, even Stonehenge and of course Newgrange. And that would cover the total space of Western Eurasia and Northern Africa.

And although Kasta’s modest size 15-meter long, 4.5-meter wide 6.5-meter high interior space might not project in sheer scale the majesty, grandeur, and splendor of the twin monuments at Abu Simbel, it does surpass it in the detail and sophistication of the artwork and mathematics within it, as well as in the size of its exterior tumulus structure. In this capacity Kasta acts as a highly developed instrument of gauging the advanced stage of humanistic Hellenic Ancient Art and Architecture, where the individual was the basis around which buildings monuments and Cities were made, compared to that of the Egyptian pharaonic posturing and projection of unbounded egoism, brutal, arrogant and intimidating authority coupled with a bigger than life display of social status all that imprinted in greatly exaggerated oversized monuments to themselves. No matter their stark differences, however, Kasta and Abu Simbel in their own ways, are unique specimens of Monumental Architecture.

Although Kasta doesn’t emerge directly out of a tradition stretching back to the Ziggurats of Mesopotamia, or the Pyramids and the in-granite gigantic structures of Egypt, (the mound next to it, Hill 133 if appropriately carved would foot that bill, see [1] for more on this count), it does strongly share Eastern cultural elements, key in them being the surviving to this day Entrance’s two damaged Sphinxes. Kasta’s exterior form of a bull or a ram head with horns descends from the Tumulus in Eire and the bull cult of the Minoans, and the Egyptians, and so is the bull figure on the marble painting of pivotal Chamber #2. But the majority of its internal construction and objects therein (bar the two Sphinxes) project Classical Greek and Hellenistic influences, especially the two also damaged Maidens and the mosaic of Chamber #2. The ever presence of rosettes within the tomb draw into Kasta one of the primordial symbols of Crete as the rosette symbol is found on the, Linear A attributed, Phaistos Disc. Thus, it does provide an integration of both East and West, with its central point of gravity clearly resting on Classical Greece. It is thus a truly Ecumenical structure with a strong Classical Greece identity.

What was done during the MCP stage, was partly undone during the SRP that ensued, possibly for reasons that had to do with both politics and religion. Unfortunately, we don’t know yet how religion shaped Kasta, as the available evidence isn’t at all clear. For sure, Thracian religious influences are present, as are later Macedonian, Classical Greek and Minoan religious elements and symbols. Moreover, hostile acts against some of these religious elements are found at Kasta as we shall see in detail later. In analyzing these phases of transformation, renovation, and remaking of course then both attraction and repulsion forces (push-pull factors) need be addressed. A detailed examination of the various religious and symbolic aspects of those periods (or eras) prevalent at that location at the time is essential. They are paramount in obtaining a full understanding of their architectonic base, along with their underlying mathematical and astronomical foundations if any. Central of course in, and the motivating forces behind these transitions were changes in the overall cultural milieu at Kasta. And these changes were fast and furious back then, in the aftermath of Alexander III’s death.

In subsection (e) of Section 5, we attempt a first step towards linking some cults’ presence then and there (especially that of Dionysus and Hyades) to the basic Bull Cult we suggest Kasta was built on. Since still we can’t quite put our fingers on the religious underpinnings on Kasta’s various phases and transition points, the emphasis here falls on the pure architectures of those phases and their

16

mathematical foundations. We can say quite a bit about these architectures, especially those characterizing the two key transitions, MCP and SRP, as well as its final one that saw the doomsday of the monument, its burial phase. We may face a bit of uncertainty as to exactly when these phases and transition points occurred, but we do know now they did occur, approximately when, and how they manifested themselves and reshaped Kasta. Perhaps, and for a change we may feel confident in asserting that, there must have been some minor intervening renovations in the life of this structure as well. But clearly these three phases distinctly mark its life cycle. And they all convey still to this day some strong messages that transcend space and time.

Most of the narrative covers the second major phase, and the transition from an MCP based tomb and monument to an SRP based one. The analysis examines in detail how the architecture of the second major transition, the SRP, transformed Kasta into what more or less we see today. However, in so doing references to the long gone Golden Era of this structure are made, its MCP, along with references and some analysis of its final transition to eternal peace, its burial. To this day, there is not a single historical reference to Kasta as a structure, its contents, its creator(s), its undertaker(s), or its occupant(s), and for that you largely can blame SRP. We attempt to address all this and associated detail, as well as major questions, knowing fully well that some are likely bound to collectively become one of Archeology’s major riddles, possibly to remain clouded in a deep mystery within the Quantum World of History and Archeology for decades if not centuries to come. This study may just slightly open the door leading to some answers of some quite perplexing questions.

1. Certain Entrance Specific Issues

By just casually looking at the Entrance space of this extraordinary tomb, uncovered in early August, 2014, one immediately recognizes certain odd features in it. Four of these peculiar features deserve special mention at the outset: (a) Its staircase, which leads from a level at the top of the exterior wall’s marble coverage (about three meters high above what was some time before the ground level of the tomb), down to an area that could not be drained from runoff water; (b) the side walls of this Entrance (portico) join the frontal wall containing the arched ceiling of the tomb in ways that anything but smooth, continuous and aesthetically pleasing can be called; (c) the exposed limestone based support for the staircase, and part of the perimeter wall at the Entrance, simply doesn’t fit the rest of the limestone based support of the marble clad along the perimeter wall. And finally, and of course, (d) how could possibly someone be at the top step stone? That stone was supposed to be at the top of a perimeter wall, after all, where the cornice (or crown molding) was laid. What exactly is going on here?

The Entrances’ strange features (along with other elements, which will be discussed further in this paper) are sources for fundamental questions to be raised, about not only the Entrance itself but the tomb in general. These strange features raise issues related to the whole monument/tomb construction, its builder, as well as its architect’s plan for it and overall design principles. Pondering these issues also lead us to a better understanding of the various phases involved in the life cycle of this structure. Especially its second transitional phase, the Second Renovation Phase (SRP).

Let’s examine these various issues associated with the Entrance in turn. As it was argued in the earlier paper [1], solving the riddle of the Entrance, will take us a long way towards solving the puzzle of this Tomb/Monument and its lifelong history.

17

a. The staircase’s exterior base: partial testimony that the wall was never completed.

In Figures 1.a, b the Entrance is shown, as it was presented to the public in around mid-August 2014, from two slightly different angles. At the same time, some sections of the exterior perimeter wall were also presented, Figures 2.a, b. What these set of photos clearly show, is a sharp difference in the conditions surrounding the perimeter wall. From the exterior wall’s almost pristine condition and finished stage in some sections (shown in Figures 2.a, b), to the very low quality of limestone at an unfinished stage, as shown in Figures 1.a, b. Keeping in mind that the wall’s pristine condition appears in spots away from the Entrance, at locations that to this day haven’t been shown to hold any particular significance in reference to the whole tomb/monument, raises additional questions.

Notice the low quality as well as the relatively lack of care characterizing the lime stones at the very Entrance of the monument. Behind this limestone wall shown in Figures 1.a, and b, the excavating team found stairs. The stairs commence approximately at the very top of these stones leading down to a wall supporting two Sphinxes, at the very center of which there is a doorway into Chamber #1 of the tomb. The peculiarity of this staircase will be the subject of considerable analysis here. No specific measurements have been provided, to pinpoint the exact height of the staircase, or its exact width, or the exact step height. However, it can be inferred that the top of this staircase (the huge step stone shown in Figure 1.a) must lie close to the level where the crown molding of the finished exterior wall is. In case this structure at Kasta was meant to be a monument or a temple (beyond just a tomb) how could possibly anyone reach it from there? On how could anyone find him/herself at that step stone of that limestone wall, is a mystery that this paper will try to address.

Also noticeable is the fact that there isn’t any visible structure intended to support a cover to this Entrance space. The only reference we have as to a possible cover for this Entrance is a vague reference by the head of the archeological team made in the public presentation of November 29th, 2014, that traces of a cover “typical of that era” were found [2].

Since not much of any specificity was said, more than this general statement, it is inferred that not much was offered in terms of protection from the elements and/or unwanted visitors by whoever shaped the final form of this Entrance during SRP. It is noted, that the first thing the archeological team did, upon uncovering this Entrance space was precisely to provide cover from both the weather elements (rain and snow, wind dust and dirt) and the public, by securing this Entrance from unwanted visitors. A key question that arises by just looking at this Entrance is this: before the sealing of the monument interior with soil, why would an architect leave a tomb with a stairway leading down into an open tomb unprotected? With no evidence of any drainage at the bottom of these steps, this structure could easily turn into an open air swimming pool following a downpour, inundating and flooding the whole tomb.

18

Figure 1.a. The Entrance area of the Kasta tomb, as revealed in mid-August 2014.

This elementary question for any student of Architecture, sets the stage for establishing that this structure has undergone major reshaping. What we see in Figures 1.a and 1.b could not possibly be the way any architect would design this tomb. So we are led to conclude this Entrance we see now is not the way that Entrance was at an earlier phase of the tomb. The “Entrance issue” must be answered in either one of two ways: either that the MCP architect/builder didn’t finish the construction of this tomb (and that in his plans, in turn, either a magnificent covered Entrance was designed, to fit the splendor of the rest of the monument, or an appropriately sloping corridor away from the tomb’s wall with the Sphinxes was designed and that all this limestone construction and stairway currently there in front of the Sphinxes’ wall didn’t exist – a possibility to which we shall return later in the text); or whoever ended the construction of this tomb in the manner we observe it today and installed a cover to the Entrance, under whatever conditions that took place, did it in poor taste, hastily, and meant to be temporary. The overall condition of the Entrance as we look at it today, is a testimonial to the hastiness and low quality not only of that “temporary” cover, but of the entire Entrance portico.

In so far as protection from unwanted visitors is concerned, one may argue that the two Sphinxes were in effect the guardians of the tomb’s Entrance. Their powerful presence there certainly was intended to act as such. However, was that enough to really guard the structure? It could be for those loyal to the cult this structure was intended to serve. But what about the rest of the period’s population groups that could be antagonists to this cult? Would the sheer presence of those Sphinxes be enough? Given the

19

multiplicity of cults present at this region over the centuries back then, this must have at least been a concern to those in charge of the structure, at any time period. We shall return to this issue.

Figure 1.b. The Entrance as revealed in mid-August 2014, from a slight different angle from that of Figure 1.a.

But now let’s go back to the condition of the limestone wall at the back of the stairs, at the foreground in Figures 1.a, b. For comparison, the exterior wall’s condition at two areas away from this Entrance, shown in Figures 2.a, b. are shown. Notice the pristine conditions of these sections; behind them lie in perfect condition the limestone support structure of the clad. The limestone support of the clad we observe in Figures 1.a, 1.b simply isn’t at par with that with it. How do we know that? By just looking at the limestone support of Figure 2.b (at the extreme right) and Figure 3.a. In combination with other Figures shown later in the text, it is established that the limestone support structure simply isn’t uniform along the perimeter wall. In turn, it must be concluded that these sections are indicative of different stages in the construction process. However, most importantly for this section of analysis, the fact of interest is that the specific section associated with the Entrance and the staircase leading to the Sphinxes’ wall seems to be very “primitive” – early if you wish in the construction phase.

In their presentation of November 29th, 2014 the archeological team made the assertion that sections of the exterior wall’s marble clad were removed during the “Roman era” without being more specific as to exactly when and by whom – only the purpose was stated (to build a roman public works project). Although not explicitly stated, the archeological team seems to have suggested that the exterior wall was completed, and that the Romans “undid” it – in effect partially demolished it by removing the marble stones from the exterior perimeter wall at some (undetermined as yet) point in time. In a letter to the public the chief archeologist expanded on this thesis by noted that the sealing of the monument

20

(including the exterior wall) occurred in the 2nd century BC by Macedonians (on purpose to protect it from the Romans) (14]. This implies that the archeological team believes that the Romans got to the monument, in a hurry ripped off it a huge section of the marble clad, left a few pieces here and there, and then somehow some Macedonians got together and decided to bury the whole structure to protect it from further rip off by the Romans (but apparently did all that undisturbed by the Romans).

However, this “The Romans did it” theory has many holes in it. If the Romans did it, why didn’t they just rip off all the marble clad? Why confine themselves to ripping off only those missing sections of it? And why rip off all those marble slabs at the Entrance, then skip a section (moving along both directions – East and West of the Entrance) and then continuing the tearing off of blocks? Why leave these sections (shown partly in Figures 2.1 and 2.b) untouched? And more importantly, as the Romans were good at identifying valuable pieces of Art and helping themselves to them (for decorating their imperial capital or their villas) why didn’t they help themselves with the rest of the artwork of Kasta? And more importantly for historians, how come and these excellent in record keeping Romans didn’t record any of this activity, or even the existence of this huge structure? Clearly this “The Romans did it” theory doesn’t hold water.

A very different story is presented here, based on the examination of the details from the photographic evidence supplied by the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports.

Before we address the question, was the exterior wall indeed ever finished, we take a look at the work progress of its support structure. The limestone support structure itself, used to provide the infrastructure for the marble clad, must have been completed before the marble clad was to finish. Is there evidence that it too, was never finished? A close look at the various sections of the exposed limestone structure, as uncovered by the excavation, seems to indicate that in fact it was never finished. In Figure 3.a. the case of a section from an adequately (but not finally) prepared limestone support structure is shown, alongside the finished clad. Here, and to the left of the photo, only three layers (out of five) are shown laid. In Figure 3.b one can obtain a glimpse by a close up in a detail at the extreme right of Figure 2.b. In that photo, the worker stands on top of the third layer of marble coverage and in front of a lime stone from the support structure.

Figure 3.a begs for a closer look. Notice at the very center of this photo and to the right, along the recess offered by the support limestone structure, the shape of the lime stone ready (?) to receive the marble stone lying flat in the third layer from the ground. That lime stone isn’t finished and ready to receive its matching marble stone. At its right side there is a protrusion, clearly not smoothened up and finished. It’s the clearest testimonial that not only the marble clad was never completed, but mainly the limestone support structure was never finished either. But there’s more evidence regarding the incompletion of the limestone infrastructure. Just juxtapose the condition of that infrastructure as shown in Figures 3.a and 3.b to the condition of the support limestone wall of the Entrance, Figures 1.a, and 1.b: simply put, they are not the same. Cases shown in Figures 3.a, and 3.b exhibit limestone wall conditions far superior and well more advanced in construction phase to those of Figures 1.a, and b.

In summary, it is firmly concluded that both the perimeter wall’s marble clad as well as its limestone support infrastructure were never actually completed. In turn, this conclusion has further implications regarding the life cycle of this tomb monument, implications which will be explored later in the text.

21

The Phase of the structure, in which the objective was to transform a humble initial tomb inside an amorphous Hill, nearby the ENNAIA ODOI spot north of the City of Amphipolis, into a marvel of architecture was over. The original plans may have envisioned a perimeter wall fully marble cladded; but for whatever reason, that initial plan was never implemented. Still, the structure was an impressive structure by any means. Yet, its possibly unfinished state offers us the evidence to conclude that Monumental structures that last require a long time to build, which require in turn a prolonged time period of stability. Political, economic, social and religious stability are the sine qua non for monumental construction. The Macedonian brutal, rough and tumble realities of that time could hardly afford such stability.

Figure 2.a. A section of the exterior perimeter wall’s marble clad in almost pristine condition as unearthed in mid-August 2014.

22

b. Where exactly was the ground level of this monument/tomb?

At this point, the reader might ask the following key question, and central in this paper: if this perimeter wall (shown in Figures 2.a and 2.b) were to fully encircle the tumulus base (presuming for a moment that the base of this perimeter wall laid at the ground level around the tumulus itself), how come and anyone could reach the top of this wall at the Entrance and the stairway’s top step, and then step down into the tomb? Let alone the derivative question, why would anyone want to do that? Or, why would any architect design a tomb like that? Or a monument in this fashion? Or a temple? In a final analysis, the real question becomes: where exactly was the ground level, during the initial phase of building the perimeter wall, and the later phase of the staircase construction? Was there a ditch or a tunnel running around the tumulus? Was the marble cladded perimeter wall a part of such a ditch/tunnel? Was there a bridge to join the ground level outside that ditch/tunnel to the step stone of the Entrance’s staircase?

Figure 2.b. Another section of the perimeter wall, in pristine condition, and again away from the Entrance.

23

In these questions the whole theory of a two phase construction is hinged, and the major components of the new perspective offered here are laid out. They point to the fact that there was a second renovation phase (SRP) which succeeded the grand transformational stage, or the major construction phase (MCP) which took a mere tomb hidden under Kasta Hill and made it a monument for the Ages.

This strain of questions, along with the evidence presented here pointing to a difference in both quality level and construction phases involving the Entrance, lead one to the conclusion that the perimeter wall was not initially designed to fully encircle the total perimeter of the Hill. One is driven then to the conclusion that the perimeter wall allowed for ingress to the tomb’s corridor. In turn, this realization leads one to speculate as to the possible configurations of the perimeter wall the original architect may had envisioned, a subject which will be addressed at a later section of this paper. Pay close attention to Figure 2.b. as well as Figure 3.b. There are numerous significant points these photos contain. We will be coming back to them a number of times.

So, at a later stage, the ground level was raised, the whole ingress was covered up, as was the whole perimeter wall, cladded or not, and the ground level became the level of the staircase’s step stone. The marble clad of the exterior wall was no longer visible. The Golden Era of the tomb at Kasta was over. A period of decline set it.

Figure 3.a. Section of the limestone support wall to the marble clad. Mid-August 2014.

24

Figure 3.b. Section of the limestone support wall, at some place away from the Entrance, Mid-August 2014.

c. The Entrance stairway and its sidewalls: poor quality additions.

On both sides of this rectangular stairway there’re thick limestone walls, apparently running parallel to the main axis of the stairway. The stairway itself runs along the main axis of the approximately 15-meter long tomb. What is the orientation of this axis will preoccupy this analysis at the very end. It is not very clear yet from the data offered by the archeological team, how many steps this stairway has (it varies in numerous renditions offered, from 13 to 16. Ref [5] lists 13, with the official axonometric representation of the tomb offered by the architect of the team showing 16 steps.)

In Figure 4 a panoramic view of the Entrance is shown with a photo taken apparently at the top of the stairway. The photo shows the Entrance after the limestone diaphragmatic wall placed just in front and touching the Sphinxes’ wall had been removed. In Figures 5.a, b, the detailed surface of these two sidewalls is shown, the right hand side in Figure 5.a, while the left hand side is shown in Figure 5.b.

A few things become immediately clear by looking at these three elements of the portico, the stairway, and its two sidewalls. No architect that would design a marvelous tomb of this splendor, sophistication and opulence of its original transformation during MCP, would then go ahead and design such an orthogonal stairway, where the major part of it would lead straight into a frontal wall (the wall of the two Sphinxes). It is argued in this paper that the stairway was added to the tomb much later, and certainly not envisioned by the original architect. This is one of the major bases to use for arguing the case that another architect or builder or engineer or designer was involved in SRP, rather than those of MCP. To design stairs that more than half its width lead straight into a wall isn’t architecturally or aesthetically pleasing. The stairway is the springboard for the SRP argument.

Moreover, a closer look into the junctions of these two sidewalls with the frontal Entrance wall, which consists of the 180-degree arched ceiling’s façade plus the marble wall the two Sphinxes stand, reveals more clues as to when and by whom these sidewalls (and the stairway) were built. These junctions are shown in Figures 6.a, and 6.b. They clearly demonstrate that these joints are neither planned, nor designed by the same architect that designed the Entrance’s façade. Their 90-degree misalignments at those specific points shown in the photo close ups, point to different agencies responsible for the façade and the portico as formed by the stairway and its sidewalls.

25

Clearly, whatever messages were intended to be recorded by the façade of the structure during MCP were almost completely erased by the builder of SRP.

Some have argued [3] that the front masonry of the semi-circular arched ceiling in the Entrance’s façade has significance of its own. This possibility will be further analyzed later in this paper. No matter what the subject of that arch is, hidden in its masonry, that part of it has been permanently obscured by the manner the two sidewalls of the portico meet the Entrance’s façade. By the rough, unplanned, brutal superposition of the sidewall’s limestone masonry onto both sides of the arch permanently hides and certainly obscures whatever meaning the arch’s masonry was supposed to convey. It must be thus concluded that the Entrance’s portico is a later addition to the tomb. Its designer/architect was not particularly knowledgeable or fond of whatever messages the frontal masonry was to convey.

However, this is not the only element which raises serious doubts as to the quality of work (in design and construction) characterizing this portico. The two sidewalls are decorated by a relief pattern on their limestone surface. Contrary to the exterior and interior marble clad, the Entrance’s sidewalls simply afford a relief pattern directly on the limestone. By itself this fact directly implies that the sidewalls were not made by the same architect who designed the interior and exterior marble clad. It would make no architectonic and aesthetic sense to have a marble clad moving from inside the tomb to its outside in a continuum, only to be interrupted by a relief pattern on limestone.

Figure 4. A panoramic view of the Entrance, with the first diaphragmatic wall removed.

26

Considering on top of this, the fact that this relief limestone pattern extends vertically along the sidewalls beyond the level of the arch (nowhere else in the tomb this occurs) sheds ample light to the proposition that this relief pattern is a foreign body to the tomb. It is so obvious that this is such a foreign element to the rest of the monument/tomb’ decorative pattern that an awkward and ultimately failed effort was made (by whoever designed that portico) to match this relief pattern to the marble clad of the Sphinxes wall. No exact measures have been offered by the archeological team on these patterns, but a visual inspection is enough to confirm the fact that these patterns have sizes which differ (maybe slightly but differ nonetheless) with the sizes of the marble stones found in both the interior and exterior wall’s clad. But this awkward and failed attempt is shown in close ups of Figures 7.a (right hand side joint) and b (left hand side joint).

Figure 5.a. The right hand side Entrance sidewall, while part of the diaphragmatic wall is still standing.

27

Figure 5.b. The left hand side Entrance sidewall, as diaphragmatic walls’ lime stones are removed

In the particular case of Figure 7.b the slight mismatch at the bottom part of the photo could be attributed to poor workmanship; but the mismatch shown at the top part of the photo is a design flaw. A design flaw is also responsible for the mismatch in Figure 7.a. Finally, in concluding these remarks regarding the portico, also of import is the fact that the only way someone outside the tomb’ Entrance and portico could access the staircase is from the front, namely through the large step stone in front of the Entrance. No sideway access is shown to have existed in this portico, as found in August of 2014.

d. Summary of Entrance issues, and a hint of things to come.

In summary, in this section some clear conclusions can be drawn. Whoever designed and built the Entrance portico, including the staircase and its two sidewalls was not the original architect. Moreover, this portico was constructed later than the tomb’s interior and its exterior marble clad wall. The whole portico was an add-on and of a relatively poor quality at that. In addition, it is concluded that evidence from the Entrance limestone construction reveals that the limestone infrastructure to the exterior wall’s marble clad was never finished. This latter conclusion leads to a further and stronger conclusion, which will be enhanced by evidence to be presented later, that the exterior wall’s marble clad was never completed. This stands in sharp contrast to the archeological team’s claim that the wall was dismantled by later era Roman agencies. Finally, it was postulated by using photographic evidence that the exterior wall could not possibly fully encircle the tumulus. The question, how could possibly one find himself at

28

the top step of the staircase needs further elaboration on the different construction phases experienced by this monument, as well as some pondering as to where was the actual ground level during these different phases of the monument’s construction.

The fact that the exterior wall, both limestone support and marble clad were never finished raise a set of questions. Were they not finished because an exterior to the construction plans force discontinued their construction, although the initial plan called for their completion? Were they abandoned, although planned, because of a variety or social, political, economic, religious (i.e., cultural) reasons, like for example a change in the prevailing elite structure at some point in their construction? Or were they never planned to be completed as envisioned by the archeological team, and instead their state (as we found them) implies that the architect in charge of MCP had something else in mind? Later sections will demonstrate that indeed this was the case. The original architect during MCP had a plan for the whole Tumulus, its ring wall, and partial marble cladding. Keep especially in mind the Figures 2.b. 3.a. and 3.b., as they have a story to tell, beyond the evidence they have supplied us so far.

29

30

Figure 6.a. The junction of the right hand side sidewall with the façade’s arch.

Figure 6.b. The junction of the left hand side sidewall with the Entrance’s façade.

Figure 7.a. Right hand side join, where the meeting of the right hand side Entrance sidewall with the Sphinxes’ wall do not match.

Figure 7.b. Left hand side joint, where the meeting of the left hand side Entrance sidewall with the Sphinxes wall do not match (at all three layers shown.)

31

2. Certain Sphinxes related issues.

a. The unburied Sphinxes.

One of the Kasta Tumulus most spectacular features is the Entrance wall. By now, the two wingless headless and tail-less Sphinxes semi-standing semi-squatting on top of this wall, and under the semicircular arched ceiling of the tomb, have become a signature picture of the tumulus at Kasta Hill. As symbols of mystery, among the many other symbols embedded in them, they fully convey the overall sense of riddle surrounding this tomb and monument. Searching for links of this structure to Eastern influences, and there are numerous in Kasta, the presence of these two Sphinxes dominates the argument. Although Sphinxes are also found in Greek Mythology, literature and artwork, their origin is clearly in Egypt.

These two Sphinxes, carved from a solid piece of Thassos marble, have become the source of many enigmas, besides being enigmas themselves. Many wonder about their form and function there. Many others wonder about the origin of their form. And many more wonder what is it exactly that they tell us about this unique monument/tomb itself. A structural engineer wonders how is this solid marble piece which contains the two Sphinxes supported on top of this Entrance wall. Actually, only their solid marble base and their two magnificently carved, exquisitely solemn and perfectly proportioned bodies come in one marble piece. Their heads and wings were to be inserted into their main bodies at specific recesses, and were made from different marble piece(s). Numerous issues surrounding these Sphinxes, and the wall they stand, have been addressed by many researchers and blogs. For example, see this one (where the author is also a member) [4]. That group (of about 670 members as of July 25, 2015) contains within it certain number of individuals who in some depth have looked at the issues and questions floating around the Sphinxes. Whether each Sphinx’s wings and head came from one marble piece (head plus two wings), two marble pieces (head and two wings together), or three different marble pieces (two wings and a head) is not an issue to pre-occupy this analysis here. In reference [4] one can find some interesting insights on this question. Since no fragments were found containing part of a head and wing, it must be concluded that most likely we are dealing here with the three marble pieces type, where the pair of wings and the head were made separately.

Among the many issues, only a few emanating from these two beautifully carved Sphinxes will be discussed here. First, the question whether the two Sphinxes were covered by soil, as was the rest of the monument (inside and outside). This question becomes of import because it touches upon and offers clues to another issue addressed here, how was the interior of the tomb filled with soil? Second, whether the head found in the funerary section of the tomb (Chamber #3) belongs to the right hand side Eastern Sphinx or not. Finally, certain points will be made with regards to the manner in which these two Sphinxes semi-stand on their marble base. The latter point links back to some earlier made points about the strange stairway leading down into the door of the Sphinxes’ wall.

32

Figure 8.a. The Sphinxes and their background cement-like, smooth wall of soil, packed so as to seal the interior of the tomb.

Figure 8.b. The removal of soil from the area of the Sphinxes.

33

Beyond these issues however, these two Sphinxes present many other challenges to the analyst. Yes, for sure, they were the guardians to the Entrance of the tomb, protectors of its contents. At least that must have been the main motivating factor for the architect placing them there, obeying the prevailing cultural beliefs of the day. However, were they enough to really protect the tomb? Were they, that is, indeed the sole inhibitor of access, the only source of fear to the unwanted visitor? The analysis here implies that most likely they were not, under MCP. Something far more was in effect the case that was included within the original Entrance complex, which was ripped off during SRP.

First, the question will be analyzed as to whether the Sphinxes were covered in the same soil as the rest of the interior and exterior monument was covered. Let’s look at the photographic evidence, during the early phases of this excavation in mid-August 2014. In Figures 1.a and 1.b one obtains the first glimpses of what the excavators found, and shared with the public. But there’s another photo which sheds additional insight onto the condition of the Sphinxes as they were uncovered behind the first limestone diaphragmatic wall. We see the individual stones of that wall, in all of these photos. But Figure 8.a contains more clues.

The prevailing theory regarding the filling of the tomb’s interior with sandy soil from the river Strymonas is that the soil was brought up through the main Entrance, and dispersed into the interior. There are numerous theories as to how this interior dispersal of sandy soil might have taken place. None of these theories explains, in a satisfactory way, what we saw when the Entrance was revealed, and the Sphinxes became visible. What we came across was a cement-like wall flat, smooth and almost vertical just behind the Sphinxes, Figure 8.a. Let’s refer to that wall-like solid-cement like structure as Wc. At its upper right corner, an opening is detected, possibly the spot ancient grave robbers attempted to enter the tomb’s interior in search of loot. Seeing through that recess what lies ahead (an impenetrable space full of well packed soil), the would-be raiders turned back, undoubtedly full of disappointment. The key was that the interior at that entry level was packed with soil to the very top point of the arched ceiling.

What we also came across, visible in Figure 8.b, in mid-August 2014 was powder type soil settled at the very bottom part of the Sphinxes, partially covering their laid down hind legs. The soft texture of this thin (almost thin powdery dust) type soil can be inferred by the shape it has and is shown in the photo. It was possibly dust, accumulated there over the millennia the Sphinxes sat undisturbed by the flow of History.

b. The sealing of the tomb’s interior.

Combining the presence of Wc with the fact, that the first diaphragmatic limestone wall (out of two, the second was found right in front of the two Maidens, located in Chamber #1) was made so that it touched the wall of the Sphinxes and fully covered the façade of the arched ceiling, leads one to the following unavoidable conclusion: the diaphragmatic wall, the arched ceiling, and Wc created a pocket where the Sphinxes stood exposed, not covered by soil. Here, no interpretation of any kind of symbolism is attempted. However, it is undoubtedly of importance that whoever, whenever, and with whatever intent did the sealing of the tomb’s interior did it with the purpose of leaving the Sphinxes uncovered, exposed and visible to whoever was to penetrate the hurdle imposed by the first diaphragmatic wall attempting an entry into the tomb.

34

How was it possible then to create this Wc? How did this sandy soil from the riverbanks of Strymonas find itself packed like cement, on Wc? How could it end up like a flat surface, parallel to the plane of the two Sphinxes, solidly packed to the very top of the arched ceiling? How was it possible and throughout the centuries, this soil didn't migrate onto the Sphinxes' base, and the Sphinxes themselves? All this pondering and syllogism point to the strong possibility that whoever did the sealing of the monument did it from the roof after it secured a soil-free air-tight pocket for the Sphinxes. At some points along the roof of the tomb, they selectively removed the stones from the curved, arched cylindrical ceiling and poured in sandy soil possibly in the form of thick mud (slightly mixed with water that is). It was a “tea-cup” type filling of the interior.

The workers who did this sealing must have placed a flat (possibly wooden) board to block the soil (in the form now of thick mud) from migrating into the area of the two Sphinxes. Of course, this flat and possibly very thick wooden surface must had been anchored on the body of the Sphinxes themselves, to be able to withstand the pressure from the interior soil, as Chamber #1 was gradually filled. They had a second agent though assisting in keeping the pressure under control inside the pocket reserved for the two Sphinxes. By finishing the first diaphragmatic wall before the sealing of the interior, the air-tight pressure inside the pocket was balanced out. The wooden thick board was not in danger of collapsing. When finished with the process of sealing the interior, they placed back the ceiling stones, sealed the roof and piled up soil on top of it. Again, all that because, somehow, they didn't want the two Sphinxes buried.

Within this context then one can approach the reasons why two diaphragmatic walls were installed in the monument and why they were raised at the place they were. Since mud was to be poured into the monument from the top, significant lateral force would be generated from a more or less liquid filling. These lateral fluid dynamics based forces would create significant instability, not only when the mud would be pouring in, but especially in case earthquakes would shake the whole structure. These forces would be particularly strong before the water in that mud would either evaporate (and the soil settle), or drain out from the front part of the tomb. This fluid based instability potentially could compromise the structural stability of the entire tomb/monument. To prevent this instability, the two diaphragmatic walls were constructed, and put at the optimum locations chosen.

This theoretical viewpoint solves another mystery associated with the first diaphragmatic wall. As unearthed by the archeological team, this diaphragmatic wall was virtually floating on air, standing only on a stone in the very middle for support. It was just found sitting on soil packed on top of the Entrance floor. Now the real purpose of this “floating” wall becomes clear: is was initially to allow for draining water from the sealing of the tomb’s interior out. It was not to drain outside runoff water, but instead runoff from the interior. The water from the mud type filling with soil, and thus sealing of the tomb’s interior, had to have a way to escape, eventually. The raised diaphragmatic wall provided the sewer system for the monument water discharge.

Potentially, this teacup type mud filling process of the tomb’s interior may solve another riddle: the almost circular gap in the Chamber #2 mosaic with the displaced pebbles. The force of the mud impacting the floor if the roof opening was right above that point could be the cause of that gap.

Naturally, this teacup type filling does not address the draining of runoff water from the outside. However, this is an issue which has to do with how long was the portico left exposed (even with a temporary roof type cover) after its SRP construction. This will be re-visited when the whole issue of the

35

perimeter wall is examined later in this paper. But before we take a look at this topic, and before we focus on the Sphinxes and their wall, a rough accounting of the volume of mud needed to seal the interior will be provided. That in turn will be linked to the source of that soil, and the impact it may have had regarding the interior internal structural stability of the tomb itself. It will also indicate how major of an activity this could be, in terms of both fiscal expense and time. To argue that this large in scale activity was undertaken by Macedonians under Roman occupation (or threat) in secret, without the Romans’ knowledge, approval or supervision, is short of absurd. Especially, when supposedly the exterior of the tomb (and we shall estimate the magnitude of this enterprise as well later) was concurrently underway to salvage what the Romans hadn’t already ripped off from the exterior marble clad! This simultaneous burial of the toms’ interior and exterior, as suggested by the archeological team makes this argument even more absurd. The plain fact is that Macedonians did the sealing of the tomb, at different stages, to protect it from other Macedonians of a different cult or elite group. It was done in a chaotic period of Macedonian internal strife.

Looking in 3-d, the tomb is a corridor of approximately 15m long, 4.5m wide and 4.25m in height plus a cylinder type arched ceiling running the whole length of the tomb. The length includes the length of the first Chamber (with the two Maidens), a clear total of 6 meters; the width of the Kores’ base (.72m) and the 3m length of the second Chamber (with the mosaic). With regards to the exact length dimension of the third Chamber (the funerary Chamber), things are a bit unclear.

The architect’s axonometric drawing shows a length about 1.5 times the width of the Chamber (1.5x4.5m=6.75m). However, some detailed measurements made public regarding the sizes of the various items in there do not exactly match this length size. In all, the double-leaf marble door’s step stone, containing the rails allowing for the door’s leaves to roll open; plus the area used by the marble door’s marble frame is about 1m in length; the length-wise size of the space dug down to fit the original tomb and the wooden casket used for someone’s burial there is about 3.23m; plus the (unspecified) space between the end of the tomb and the last back wall of the tomb (shown in the axonometric drawing to be about 1m long); all these items amount to a total length of the funerary room to be about 5.23m (about a meter and a half short of the length obtained directly from the architect’s axonometric drawing. For the purposes of a rough estimate, a total length of the tomb will be 15 meters, as opposed to a total of 16.5m, if one were to accept the architect’s axonometric rendition of the funerary Chamber.

In so far as the total height of the tomb, we have been told it is 6.5m to the very top of the arched cylindrical ceiling. Since the ceiling’ arc is a very close semicircle, the diameter of which we know (4.5m – the width of all Chambers) we can estimate directly the tomb’s proper height (6.5-2.25=4.25m). With a total length of 15m, the total volume of mud needed to fill this rectangular space (VR) would be (VR=15x4.5x4.25=286.875m3).

To that quantity, one needs to add the total volume (VC) of a half right circular cylinder, with diameter 4.5m (or radius of 2.25m) and length 15m (VC= 15/2=119.3m3). Total Volume then of mud needed to seal this tomb’s interior is VR+VC=406.16m3.

Granted, the tomb was not filled to the tilt with soil, although the frontal part of Chamber #1 was. One wonders if such huge quantity of soil was indeed in toto moved from the Strymona’s banks to seal the monument; or did part of it come from someplace else, like for example the Kasta Hill itself, or from neighboring Hill 133. If it turns out that in fact all was brought up from Strymonas, then considerable environmental impacts must have ensued along the river’s banks. That’s why this looms as a big “if”. No

36

matter how much time would such an activity of this magnitude take in terms of labor hours (the distance between the Hill’s tomb’s Entrance and the Strymonas is currently about 1.5 kilometers - about as much as it was back then) it can’t be performed in secrecy. Romans would had gotten wind of it quite easily.

Parenthetically, once more accurate measurements become available, one can precisely compute and ponder the exact dimensions of the building’s 3-d modulus. Thus far, one is struck by the relevant (but approximate) dimensions encountered in the interior spaces: (6, 3, 5, 4.5, 6.5, 2.25, 4.25, .72). As it was argued in [7] the key sizes against which these measures must be viewed are the 1.36m and .72m sizes (for lengths and widths correspondingly) and .19m for height. Since the metric system was not in use back then, per se these integer or fractional numbers meant nothing at the time, only their ratios were of import. And among the three of these key measures, the 1.36m was the basis. It is the ratio of the total length of the perimeter wall (497 meters) to that unit length (365.44 – the close approximation to the actual number of days in a year (now estimated to be close to 365.25) that rendered this monument a testimonial for the ages of those architects’ mathematical and astronomical skills [7].

It is finally noted, that in this huge amount of soil one doesn’t include the needed soil to seal the outside part of the monument (namely its exterior perimeter wall). Given the amount of soil used to fully cover that circumferential wall, at the height covered, (as it will be seen more in detail later, and can be inferred by a casual look in Figures 1.a, 1.b, 2.a, and 2.b.), the quantity needed was a huge multiple of the amount needed just to seal the interior. This leads one to conclude that the sources of soil (needed to fill up the interior and the exterior of the tomb) must have been different. And that Romans had nothing to do with it, as they had nothing to do with the ripped off marble blocks from the places they were indeed ripped off – especially the Original Entrance space.

c. The Sphinxes’ wall.

One of the Entrance’s enduring puzzles is of course the staircase’s width, about 4.5m, when compared to the width of the Sphinxes’ wall door (1.67m) framed by two rectangular pilasters (of width about 20cm each). [5] Why would a 4.5m stairway lead to 1.67m door (say 2.07m, were one to include the pilasters’ width to that of the door)? Hardly any architect would design such a connection between a staircase and the door made to service. This is especially exacerbated by the very close proximity of the bottom step of the stairway to the Sphinxes’ wall.

Maybe the Sphinxes’ wall was not always exactly of the form we encounter today. The architect who designed and built the portico was then facing an entry wall consisting only of the door and its two pilasters, and the marble top where the two Sphinxes stand. Maybe that architect also filled the spaces between the pilasters and the tombs’ walls limestone of the same type he filled the staircase’s side walls. In doing so, he attempted (at times unsuccessfully as we showed earlier) to align the relief on these limestone walls. In Figure 9 one of these uncomfortable junctions of this limestone wall part of the Sphinxes façade joins the pilasters’ capital is shown.

37

Figure 9. The uncomfortable join of the pilasters’ capital with the limestone wall part of the Sphinxes.

It can be argued that these pilasters were meant to be free standing. Although this paper isn’t meant to provide a full analysis of the statics of this wall, it can be argued that all necessary support to carry the full load of the Sphinxes and their base is found in the two pilasters and at both ends of the beam. By a casual look at the statics involved here, one notes that the beam supporting the Sphinxes was laid so that it had support from a carrying wall on both sides of the Entrance, along the support it receives from the two pilasters, which extend over the whole width of the beam. The two Sphinxes are located close to the points supported by the two pilasters, thus absorbing a good share of these vertical push forces; whereas the rest of the vertical down forces (the remaining share of the push forces) are picked up by the carrying wall’s masonry at both ends. Any pull forces’ effect at those ends are countered by the arched masonry resting at those ends.

Made of marble, in summary, these pilasters had enough strength to withstand the central loading forces from the Sphinxes’ weight. Thus, free standing pilasters could allow for free access into the tomb along the whole width of the stairway. So, one is led to the conclusion that the limestone construction filling up the two sides of the Sphinxes’ wall was made after the staircase was in place. Moreover, the staircase sidewalls were there when the fillers of the Sphinxes wall were installed. The decorative relief pattern thus of the Sphinxes wall followed the pattern of the portico’s limestone relief – and not the other way around.

38

Now one is left with the question: why were the limestone fillers put there? Why compromise the aesthetic integrity of the free standing pilasters. The answer is now simple: for the same reason why the first diaphragmatic wall was made and put exactly where it was put, attached to the Sphinxes wall. To withstand the push forces from the interior sealing of the monument from all that soil and water (the thick mud) as presented earlier. It is thus very likely that the limestone fillers of the wall were put there much later than the portico was finished; and it was done not to provide support to vertical forces from the beam and the Sphinxes’ weight but rather to withstand the lateral forces from the tomb’s filling.

A three stage construction, is thus a clear possibility as far as the Entrance alone testifies. Such a multi-stage development pattern of the tomb at Kasta Tumulus offers hints as to the overall life cycle of the monument. Although at this point no firm time has been provided to identify when exactly and by what agency in each phase construction proceeded at Kasta Hill, it does suggest a multiplicity of persons being involved, under different spatio-temporal socio-cultural conditions.

d. More on those two Sphinxes: the head of the funerary Chamber.

In discussing the Sphinxes, one can’t avoid pondering the questions: what type head did they have, was human or animal? What happened to their heads and wings? According to formal reports from the Ministry and the archeological team in charge of the excavation [2] some fragmented pieces of these wings have been recovered. Apparently not so that a complete reconstruction of the two sets of wings can be attained. In addition, no heads were found that can directly and unequivocally be attributed to these two Sphinxes. The archeological team contends that the head found in Chamber #3 belongs to the Eastern Sphinx, a view disputed here.

Nonetheless, the excavation unearthed in Chamber #3 (the funerary Chamber) a head, which the archeological team (and many analysts, some for example in [4]) immediately attributed, using indirect evidence, to the right hand side Sphinx of the Entrance. Here it will be strongly argued (employing also similarly indirect evidence) that the head of (apparently) a Sphinx found there, does not belong to the right hand side Sphinx of the Entrance. The question then is raised, where does that head belong, if not to the Eastern Sphinx?

It is of course logical to expect that a direct test of actually placing the head in question on the neck of that Sphinx and restoring it, will supply the ultimate verification of this suggestion. One wonders why the archeological team did not do that, carry out the test, obtain photographic evidence present this evidence, and inform the public. Instead, the architect of that team produced a hand drawing, suggesting that this is the case. However, as we shall see, that hand drawing creates more questions than it answers.

39

Figure 10. The Sphinxes, their beam on which they stand, and the two pilasters.

This paper presents another theory about the head found in the funerary Chamber, and counters all arguments as to why this head belongs to the r.h.s. Entrance Sphinx. The first set of arguments against the thesis (that the head belongs to the r.h.s. Entrance Sphinx) was offered in the paper by this author “On the HFAISTION at Kasta Hill Hypothesis” found in [1}. Since then, the arguments have been elaborated on and sharpened. The latest version on them is found in the author’s Facebook page [6] (in a thread contained in a status dated July 5th, 2015 posted initially at 12:42AM US EDT). Further elaboration on the Sphinx and the head was provided by this author in the form of comments, in a post at ref. [4] by A. Fourlis dated July 10th, 2015 posted at 5:50PM US EDT.

A number of arguments, suggesting that the official Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports position (espoused by almost all analysts at all blogs of the Kasta tomb, including those in [4]) is erroneous, are presented here. They are classified as follows: (a) arguments as to why the head doesn’t seem to fit the body of the Entrance’s r.h.s. Eastern Sphinx; (b) arguments refuting the association of the head to the Sphinx, as shown in a drawing by the archeological team’s architect; (c) arguments placing that head to another statue.

40

Type (a) arguments are also broken down to the following categories: (i) artwork; (ii) marble cut; (iii) ceiling arch; and (iv) neck related problems. They will be analyzed in detail next.

The artwork. A close up look at the head, Figures 11.a and b, shows a type of artwork which results in smooth and clean surfaces in all front, rear and side parts of the head. Even hair braiding and its waves demonstrate sharp but clean, well defined, precision artwork. In contrast, the body of the two Sphinxes is characterized by some fuzziness, dotted texture and roughness, artwork of distinctly different in quality from that of the head. In fact, comparing the artwork of that head to the artwork of the two Maidens in Chamber #1, one can easily conclude that the head’s artwork is much closer to the heads of the two statues, than the artwork of the two Sphinxes’ bodies. So much so, that one could structure an argument that the head and the two Maidens may even not have been made by the same artist as the two Sphinxes.

The marble cut(s). A look at and comparing the origins of the marble “cuts” of these two objects is of interest. An artist of objects that are supposed to fit together into a coherent ensemble would ensure that the material these parts are made perfectly match, eliminating any ambiguity as to whether they belong there, or fit each other well. In this case, the sculptor of the two Sphinxes would make sure that their various components (heads, wings, and bodies) all come from the same marble “cut” or strain within the quarry. Marble strains could often differ in quarries, even in short distances between them, as the variety of geological and physical as well as chemical forces at work may not have uniformly identical outcomes over space, even a limited space. Close inspection reveals that the quality of marble found at different sections of the quarry at Thassos from where that head came, as opposed to the section of the quarry from where the Sphinxes’ bodies came, can’t be the same. Visual inspection seems to indicate that the density (or weight) per unit volume in these two “cuts” is different. The head’s “cut” seems heavier (more dense) than the Sphinxes “cut”. It is concluded that the two “cuts” did not originate from the same section in Thassos’ marble quarry.

The arch. How the head can fit the r.h.s. (Eastern) Sphinx under the semicircular arch of the Entrance’s façade is another major issue here. No exact measures have been supplied by the Ministry as to the 3-d sizes of both the head and the Sphinxes’ bodies, and especially their necks (where, as claimed, the head found in Chamber #3 fits the body of the Sphinx in question). But simple visual inspection reveals that the head is simply too big to fit the body of the r.h.s. Sphinx and at the same time fit under the arch. This “fit” is not only physically impossible, but also aesthetically undesirable on two major counts. First, the angle of the “hat” (KAPELO) on top of the head has at a different slope than that at the arch at that specific point. Second, the “hat” made out of marble, almost touches (if in fact it can do so and lay underneath the arch, something very questionable as of now) a different material (limestone) of which the arch is made. This proximity of two different materials is not aesthetically pleasing, even if the arch was plastered and the masonry hidden.

The neck. A close up look of the r.h.s. Sphinx’s neck and the neck of the head clearly do not match. They fail in both “size” and “follow up” of the head onto the body of the Sphinx. On the size front, and in spite of lack of exact size information on both, one can see (Figures 11.a, 11.b and 12.c) clearly the head’s neck is bigger than neck recess on the Sphinx’s body. Moreover, the hair follow up from the head onto the body isn’t there, as it isn’t the head’s shoulder follow up onto the Sphinx’s body. The mismatch here is almost beyond reasonable doubt. Wear and tear over the millennia can’t fully account for this mismatch.

41

Attention is now switched to the archeological team’s architect drawing of the alleged ‘head to r.h.s Sphinx “fit”’. That “fit” is demonstrated by the details of that drawing presented in Figures 12.a and 12.b. One can easily find faults in this drawing, like for example the fact that it doesn’t accurately depict the head’s proportions (neck size to the total head’s length) as shown by the photos in Figures 11.a and 11.b. In fact the relative size of the drawing’s neck relative to the total length of the head - excluding the ‘hat’ - is proportionally far smaller than the actual ratio. Moreover, the angle of the neck where the Sphinx’s body “meets” the head is much greater than the actual angle, Figure 12.c. However, this isn’t the most serious part of the critique one can assign to this drawing. That main element in the critique has to do with the diminutive size of the head relative to the Sphinx’s body, and the very small (and quite aesthetically unappealing) space left between the head’s “hat” and the arch. Why would any artist create such an uncomfortable, small, unexplained room between the Sphinx’s ‘head cum hat’ and the arch? After all, was this Sphinx’s head supposed to provide ‘support’ for the arch? If not, why be there, so close, in the first place?

These Sphinxes were to act as guardians of the tomb, in their fierceness carrying their menacing and guarding qualities expected of them. Is the Lady’s face of the head in Chamber #3 fierce and menacing? Does it really look like a face that intimidates, pushing undesirable visitors away? Or does it really look like a lady inviting and welcoming the visitor? On this count alone, the argument regarding “the head belongs to the Eastern Sphinx” collapses under its own weight.

If then this head found inside the funerary Chamber doesn’t belong to the Entrance’s r.h.s. Sphinx, where does it belong? It is quite possible that it belonged to another Sphinx located inside the funerary room. And that third Sphinx (the body of which was not found) was made by the same artist who created the two Kores. If so, it was possibly carved at a later phase than either the Kores of Chamber #2, or the Sphinxes. One can be rather certain that it involved a different artist than that who created the Entrance’s two Sphinxes. In addition, that head is not a pushing away, guarding head; it’s a welcoming head. One could possibly attribute it on this count alone to a statue in the funerary Chamber of the tomb.

42

Figure 11.a. The head found in the funerary Chamber – back side.

43

Figure 11.b. The head of Camber #3 – front side.

44

Figure 12.a. The archeological team’s drawing, claiming to match the head to the r.h.s Sphinx.

Figure 12.b. A close up on the drawing’s detail.

e. More on the two Entrance’s Sphinxes: their feet and lack of symmetry.

Those two enigmatic Sphinxes are full of wonders. The closer one looks at them, the more impressed by their details one becomes. Looking at the frontal feet of the two Sphinxes, one notices a subtle difference. The right hand side front foot of the right hand side Sphinx is advancing (slightly but perceivably so), Figure 12.c; whereas, the left hand side foot of the left hand side Sphinx is receding, Figure 12.d. Also noticeable is the fact that whereas in the l.h.s. Sphinx the recess of the frontal foot is followed by a recess in the laying down hind left foot, it doesn’t do so in the case of the r.h.s Sphinx.

Asymmetries of this type might indicate that whatever were the heads and respective directions of these two Sphinxes, as well as their wings and the wings’ deployment, there could not be symmetric. In fact, the exact location of the two Sphinxes on their base (and the marble beam which supports it) is not symmetric. This can easily be checked by the Sphinxes’ location relative to the door underneath them, they are meant to guard. That asymmetry is clearly shown in Figure 10’s photo, a photo which reveals far more in the asymmetric form of the Entrance, as it will be seen in a bit.

45

Figure 12.c. Close up of the Eastern Sphinx: the right hand side foot is advancing.

46

f. A Basic Asymmetry at the Entrance’s Facade.

The asymmetry found in the position and location of the Entrance’s two Sphinxes now leads to another far more fundamental asymmetry found in the Entrance’s façade. Possibly it contains far reaching implications regarding the various types of Architectures encountered here in this monument/tomb, and the apparently many architects involved through its different construction phases, throughout this edifice’s life span.

In Figure 10 these asymmetries become apparent. The 180-degree arch structure isn’t in an exact manner symmetrically placed over the marble beam supporting the base with the two Sphinxes. The two Sphinxes are clearly not symmetrically placed on that beam and their base. More significantly though, the door itself isn’t symmetrically placed under either the two Sphinxes or the semicircular arc of the Entrance’s façade.

Why is it so? Why would an architect offer the illusion of symmetry, without exactly offering symmetry? Is there a message here hidden in these asymmetries? Or are these asymmetries just the result of not a perfect quality construction? Are these asymmetries in effect unintentional or do they contain purpose?

Before attempting to address these questions, one may ask whether these asymmetries are the result of photographic distortions or not. Since they occur in many photographs, this possibility must be discounted right off hand. Especially the asymmetries regarding the positions of the two Sphinxes on the beam, and their asymmetric position relative to the door under them. The only asymmetry which needs further verification is that of the semicircular arch. It could be that the asymmetry shown to exist there is simply the result of poor workmanship, as well as wear and tear of its limestone construction over the millennia, and possibly the “settling” of the ground and/or the ceiling’s masonry.

Correcting for all such ‘nature’ related factors, one must ponder the basic asymmetries of the façade. Especially those attributed to either imperfections due to relatively poor workmanship, or intentional design. At this stage, due primarily to lack of exact measurements publicly available, this issue will remain largely unexplored in further detail. It is noted however, that the design implied asymmetries are of extreme importance, not only regarding potential symbolisms embedded in this monument/tomb – but mainly because these impurities might provide a unifying factor linking many elements and spaces within and outside this tomb. Asymmetries and impurities have been already observed in the outside wall, and the double meander of the mosaic’s frame in Chamber #2. Imperfections due to quality construction have been observed in the portico, as well as in the marble clad of the Kores’ bases in Chamber #1.

Is there a unifying factor cutting across all these impurities, asymmetries, and imperfections found inside and outside this monument/tomb? Answering this bigger question is the single most important factor as to why such a detailed look into the Entrance, the Sphinxes and the surrounding perimeter wall might be of importance.

Before departing the subjects having to do with the Sphinxes, take a final and close and parting look at them in Figure 8.a. The dark recesses formed by their front and hind legs draw the shape of two eyes. A bull’s menacing eyes. Picture the wings on them. Unfortunately, we do not know the nature and form of their heads. But no matter what these heads were like, in these forms, from afar, one can imagine seeing the intimidating upper section of a bull’s head. Figures 1.a. and 1.b. acquire now a new look.

47

48

Figure 12.d. The Entrance’s Western Sphinx. The left hand side foot recedes.

3. Certain Perimeter Wall Related Issues.

As repeatedly stated in this paper, and made clear during the Prologue, Introduction and Summary provided at the very beginning, the perimeter wall and its marble clad is of paramount importance when dealing with Kasta. In it the astronomical and mathematical wonders of this monument are found, and its size is one of the two single most important factors which could launch this monument and tomb into the Pantheon of Worlds’ monuments covering the last seven millennia of human History. It is thus a formidable requirement that the closest possible attention be paid to this wall. Its importance can’t be underestimated by any means. The analysis which follows takes a very close look of various measurements regarding the marble blocks of this wall. Following this detailed look into these blocks, then the following section ventures into what will undoubtedly prove to be the most revolutionary look and theory about this wall.

In this section a prior paper by the author is revisited [7] and partially revised. Here the emphasis is on a specific aspect of the perimeter wall’s marble clad, namely the size of its marble slabs. A 1972 paper (co-authored by Stella and Steve Miller [8]) is extensively discussed and analyzed. A rebuttal to this paper is offered here, debunking some of their claims (especially those associated with the block’s sizes). A review of the 1972 paper was published in [9], where also a brief description of this critique by this author is found. An initial version of this critique is found in this author’s Facebook page, as indicated in reference [9].

Then the paper proceeds onto addressing the most likely shape of the perimeter wall, when it was first constructed. Continuing a thread of arguments presented already, the arguments are laid down systematically building up to deriving its earliest (primordial if you wish) form and shape.

a. The Modular Structure of the Tomb and the Millers marble slabs size controversy.

When the interior of Chamber #1 for the first time over two millennia divulged its beauty to the World, and the two Maidens finally came to light and totally emerged out of their grave, after the sealing soil was completely removed from that room, and their bases and full figures were revealed, almost immediately attention by many analysts, professionals in the field of Archeology as well as in other fields, gravitated towards some key sizes: the dimensions of the Maidens, the dimensions of their bases, and most important maybe of all the dimensions of all the objects in that Chamber, the dimensions of the marble stones the Maidens stand. For the information imprinted and encoded in the size of these stones have profound meaning and important messages to communicate to us, today. Not only do they hide in them the code-module used to construct this edifice, they also reveal to us the deep mathematical and astronomical knowledge those builders had, almost twenty five centuries ago.

Architects often show in the finished product of their labor, the building they designed (and often constructed) a replica of it, a sample of its code. They place this small scale replica close to the Entrance, for the user of the building to see and thus allow the visitor to obtain a short view of and relay to the

49

whole building. This is what the architect of the monument and tomb, under MCP did, with the two maidens’ marble base. That genius of a designer offers here a comprehensive view of his creation.

In [7] the author has made a case regarding the modular structure of the monument/tomb being embedded in the size of the marble stones supporting and decorating the tomb’s interior space. The marble clad of the interior walls has a modular structure based on the dimensions of the Kores base. That interior modular structure extends out to the outside circumferential wall, providing a continuity from inside to the outside space. A key component of that module was its length, measuring today in accordance with our metric system, 1.36m. This unit length, the author in his study [7] revealed, is linked to the length of the perimeter wall’s 497m in an astonishing way: their ratio, 365.44, is an extremely close approximation to the number of days in a year (365.25) as computed with the latest relevant technology in our command today. Such an approximation can hardly be random. Moreover, such stunning astronomical knowledge being possessed by the Greeks of 25 centuries ago is to say the least very impressive.

However, no measurements of either the interior or exterior marble stones have been made available to the public by the archeological team. The measurements of the Kores’ base has been made public, and it was these measurements which have been used to derive the rest of the interior and exterior modulus by the author in [7]. But since the official measurements of the marble slabs used to form the marble clad of the tomb are not public to this day, the claim made by the author in [7] has been challenged in blogs (see for example some discussion in [2]), on the basis that (a) the interior modulus of the marble clad is not the same as the exterior modulus; (b) the interior and exterior clad doesn’t utilize the module of the Maidens’ base; and (3) that some measurements available from prior studies of marble stones considered to have been taken out of the perimeter wall’s marble clad seem to indicate different sizes than those of the Maidens’ base.

In none of these claims, has anyone answered a simple architectural question: why would an architect do that? Why would an architect create a different modulus for the Maidens’ base than the edifice’s modulus? Why would an architect have a modulus for the interior and a different modulus for the exterior of the building? Any architect would agree, that it would be aesthetically and economically far more desirable to have marble stones of set sizes throughout the building. Of course, ultimately the marble stone sizes issue will be resolved and finally put to rest by direct measurements of the relevant stones’ sizes off the monument’s walls.

To counter the author’s claim found in [7], some have argued that the sizes reported by some authors in the literature, on certain stones (or blocks) found around the area of Amphipolis and along the banks of river Strymonas, point to different marble slab sizes on the monument. The counterclaims to the author’s work in [7] center on the key measurement of length (1.36m) in the modulus. No one denies the length in so far as the base of the Kores’ is concerned, since this is a measurement given to us by the archeological team, and found in [5] and used in [7].

So their focus on countering the author’s claim centers on their claim that the exterior wall’s marble clad had measurements different than the Kores’ base marble slabs’ sizes. They point to some evidence from stones found away from the tomb’s either interior or exterior walls (actually far away), blocks claimed by the archeological team to be parts of the wall’s exterior clad taken at some unspecified time in the past by Romans to be used for some public project then. A key reference in their claims is the paper by Stella and Steve Miller [8], whose work in that paper will be scrutinized here.

50

As a result of this issue, an otherwise obscure 1972 paper has come again to the forefront of analysis, gaining some limelight 43 years after its publication, in a relatively obscure Archeological Journal. The paper gained some recent notoriety by its publication in [9], where a summary of my critique of that paper did also appear. In [9] also the reader can find an extensive version of this author’s criticism of the Millers’ paper, and especially their measurements regarding the marble blocks. Here this criticism will be incorporated and expanded.

b. The Millers’ “measurements” and their artificial base.

In their 1972 paper, the Millers describe how some marble blocks they located along the Strymonas riverbanks led them to believe that they were part of a temple that they visualized must have been situated close to that area. They envisioned these marble blocks forming 3-meter high exterior (and carrying) walls of a rectangular in shape temple. They never located any traces of such temple in that area, and they never located any corner blocks either, but their mind apparently was firmly set on this “rectangular shaped temple, with 3-meter high walls”.

Figure 13.a. The Millers’ axonometric drawing of their imaginary 3-meter high temple wall.

51

As a result of their speculative proposition, they produced an axonometric drawing of how they envisioned that straight 3-meter high wall to be looking like, Figure 13.a. Their imaginary wall comprised six layers of marble blocks, including their crown molding. They speculated that the blocks they located along the River Strymonas, were all part of a set of four different types of blocks. They claimed in their 1972 paper that they “measured” these blocks’ sizes, and they found them to be as drawn by them in Figures 13.b.1, 13.b.2, 13.b.3, and 13.b.4.

In Figure 13.b.1 the first type of the Millers blocks is shown with dimensions (“measured” according to the Millers) in meters as: 1.20x.845x.32. In Figure 13.b.2 the second type of a Millers block is shown with dimensions 1.18x.64x.325. In Figure 13.b.3 the third type of a Millers block is shown with dimensions 1.17x.824x.345. Finally in Figure 13.b.4 the fourth type of a Millers block is shown, with dimensions 1.165x.824x.345; it should be noted that the last type of the Millers blocks is the crown molding type, which the Millers have it as having a base of .561m (its top being .824) thus its molding proper accounts for (according to the Millers) a recess of exactly .263 (that is 263 millimeters!)

Figure 13.b.1. The type 1 of the Millers blocks, their “orthostate”.

52

The axonometric of Figure 13.a, as drawn by the Millers, consists (from the ground up) of a layer type 1 blocks, then a layer of type 2 blocks, followed by a layer of type 3 blocks, then a layer of type 2, and again another layer of type 3, to end with a layer of type 4 crown molding (GEISO or cornice). The total height of these six layers of Millers imaginary straight wall is thus 3.17 meters (.845+.325+.665+.325+.665+.345=3.17), a measure close to what the Millers were driving at (a 3-meter high temple wall).

Had the actual wall and the building the Millers imagined not been found, their 1972 paper and the Millers’ “measurements” would had remained obscure, no one ever to read it for any reason going beyond some minor literary and archeological interest. But, to the Millers’ unfortunate turn of events, the actual wall where from these blocks were taken off (the latest story is that they were ripped off by the Romans, and we shall examine this claim also later) was indeed found 43 years after the publication of their paper. And to the Millers misfortunes, it was not a straight wall, it was a round wall. But this doesn’t even come close to recounting what is wrong with the Millers’ “measurements”.

Whereas the masonry of that imaginary Millers temple entailed a 3-meter high wall consisting of six layers of blocks turned out to be a wall comprising five layers at a height much closer to two meters than the Millers height. At the end, the actual marble clad (and not marble masonry) proved to be quite different than the imaginary Millers wall.

Figure 13.b.2. The type 2 of the Millers blocks, their “full thickness, low wall block”.

53

To start with, the Millers imaginary wall was to have a height of about three meters. Their goal was to fit blocks in such a way (and with such “measurements”) to arrive at this height. They were little concerned about the length of the wall, their primary focus and goal was to derive an approximately 3-meter high masonry wall. And for that aim, they took many liberties with their “block sizes”. Before we take up the task of scrutinizing the Millers “sizes”, let’s see what went wrong in a fundamental way with the Millers.

It turned out that the monument these stones came from (or to put it more appropriately, they were intended for – since we have no concrete evidence that these marble slabs were ever actually installed along that wall) was a round wall. As such, its marble slabs had to have an angle to their sides to fit each other, and in [7] the actual angle is (and its meaning and implications are) offered. About half of a degree on each side of each slab had to be carved, in order to have a circular (circumferential) wall built. The workmanship had to be so meticulous and detailed, if the seams between slabs were to be as unnoticeable as they are shown to be in Figures 2.a and 2.b. Such an intricate detail however, apparently escaped the Millers, who otherwise recorded in their 1972 paper “measurements” by the millimeter!

It is not very clear also, whether a slight overall curvature was placed on the frontal side of each marble block, to produce the smooth outline of a perfect circle, rather than a 365-arc equiangular rectangle inscribed to a circle. If this was to be the case, the workmanship at the marble quarry should have been truly exceptional. As noted in [7], extremely sophisticated mechanically and computationally ingenious modern day robots can produce such detailed construction of parts differing minutely from each other but made to perfectly fit a larger structure, as for example the small mirrors of a multi-meter space telescope; or a Space Shuttle’s small tiles of the ceramic shield acting as its skin and offering the Shuttle’s protection during entering the Earth’s atmosphere. Since however, photographic evidence isn’t clear on this point, and the archeological team has mentioned anything along these lines, this issue will not be pursued here any further, and it won’t be held against the Millers.

Setting aside the possible frontal curvature issue, the side angling of the stones remains. How come and the Millers didn’t notice such “angling”? Now, one might hasten to remark, well, the conditions of the blocks were not ideal; the ravages of millennia (by both humans and nature) had taken their toll on these blocks. The wear and tear is obvious on them, and thus these minor details (such as the possible curvature on the stones needed to form the circle on perimeter wall and the less than 90-degree angles at their sides) was erased by the agents of destruction (man and nature). To that, one might fully agree, except that then one can turn around and ask this simple question: how come then, and the Millers were able to “measure” the sizes of these blocks with such an extraordinary millimeter accuracy? One must ask also the same question from the reviewers of their paper at ARXAIOLOGIKON DELTION, the Journal that published the paper. It is such an obvious question to ask.

But there’s a way out for the Millers, not regarding their fudging of the “measurements” but about the 3-meter high “temple” they were looking for to place their marble blocks. What if indeed these blocks were made for (possibly taken from) that Temple on top of Kasta Hill, the remnants of which we currently detect with Google Maps? It’s a possibility. But let’s go back to the Millers’ blocks issues.

54

Figure 13.b.3. The type 3 of the Millers blocks, their “half thickness high wall block”.

How come about half of the Millers “measurements” are in millimeters? These estimates can never been obtained directly by humans measuring with a tape the sizes of exposed to the elements blocks ravaged by more than two millennia of wear and tear. Only statistical sampling and rigorous statistical estimation techniques can produce such fine “measures” as the Millers’ sizes – and no such statistical estimation technique is reported in their paper, where the “Millers sizes” are simply “offered” to the reader.

One may be justified claiming that the Millers simply “fudged” the sizes, taking liberties with these measures, so that their primary objective was attained. That objective of course was the derivation of layers of stones reaching a total of about three meters in height, so that their imaginary wall was possible. History and further evidence might shed more light on the Millers intent and treatment of the data. However, if these Millers measurements prove to be seriously out of true range and confidence intervals (following a thorough investigation, measurements, sampling and proper statistical estimation procedures on the field), then this paper by the Millers should be retracted, following proper procedures in place governing scientific publications.

55

Figure 13.b.4. The type 4 of the Millers blocks, the crown molding (GEISO) with a difference of the top width (.824) from the bottom width (.661) of 263 millimeters.

As the Millers sizes were largely fudged (to avoid a stronger term), their inconsistencies are obvious all over the actual drawings Millers produced, including their axonometric drawing. A casual check on the proportion of these drawings (given the stated Millers “measurements”) show clearly errors, partly due to their internal inconsistencies, partly due to a sloppy set of drawings. In Figure 13.b.1 the sizes of the drawing at the left hand side, the rectangular .845x.32, has sides which (by using any scale) do not fit their stated ratio of .32/.845=.38. Their drawn sides have a ratio of .36 a difference greater than 6%. Now one might argue that this inaccuracy could be just due to a “rough” drawing by an archeologist, where such inaccuracies are to be overlooked. However, when one offers accuracies in measurements by the millimeter, such a big inaccuracy in their own drawings raises serious concerns. One can’t claim credibility in the arguments, when the inaccuracy of the drawings reaches 60 times the inaccuracy of their individual measures.

But there is more serious trouble to be found in the Millers’ claimed “measurements” of the blocks’ sizes. One notices from the Millers sizes that all four types of blocks have different lengths. These Millers lengths by type are: 1.20, 1.18, 1.17, and 1.167 correspondingly. Disregarding for a moment the question as to whether these differences are statistically significant, one again might ask this simple question: why would an architect create a design, involving about 2000 marble blocks, which would require marble slabs of such minutely differing sizes? Not only the order would be in reality infeasible to carry out on the type of marble these technicians were working with, but (maybe more importantly) the

56

resulting aesthetics would leave much to be desired. It is far easier to mass produce one size, than produce four different minutely varying sizes. Simple economies of scale so dictate.

Thus clearly, the numbers offered to us by the Millers are not and could not be “real numbers”. As their axonometric drawing suggests, they were imaginary numbers, of an imaginary wall which may be roughly close to but certainly not exactly reality.

Except if these slabs the Millers were attempting to measure were discarded by the architect of the tomb, as not meeting specification requirements. But then this alternative explanation opens up a totally new vista, as to what these marble slabs are all about, and potentially a new insight as to why the construction of the circumferential wall’s marble clad was never either finished, or never had the shape imagined by the archeological team.

If the Millers simply measured scrap and discarded marble slabs, because these slabs didn't meet specifications for inclusion into the perimeter wall, then this possibility offers some justification for the Millers "measurements" - but doesn't totally exonerate them from all falsehoods. But if this supposition is correct, then a number of conclusions follow (not about the Millers, but about the marble clad and the pieces found away from the wall). These pieces were just left there by the riverbanks of Strymonas since their initial carving brought from Thassos, but rejected by a supervisor overseeing the wall's construction. As a follow up to this, one then concludes that nobody "took" these slabs from the wall, without excluding the possibility that some of the wall's stones may have been removed during the time the wall was left exposed. Thus this new angle is consistent with the key conclusion, that the exterior perimeter wall most likely was never finished, or it was not meant to have the form envisioned.

But before totally abandoning the Millers blocks’ sizes, some more arguments must be presented to draw conclusions on the economics of this construction. Assume for a moment that the Millers "sizes" of these four different types of stones are correct and accurate. We now know the length of the perimeter wall: 497m (a number given by the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports). Thus, we can compute how many of each of these four Millers’ type blocks would be need for completing the actual 497-meter wall. A corresponding Millers' type layer for Type 1 stone: 424.17 marble blocks; for Type 2 stone: 421.19 blocks; for Type 3 stone: 424.79 blocks; and for Type 4 stone: 426.61 blocks - in effect a very peculiar mix of FRACTIONAL (!) in number different stones all of different sizes, never exact, and of different total number for each layer. Unless some highly advanced, chaos theory related, underlying principles (unknown to this author) are hidden in these numbers, such potpourri is another clear indication that these "Millers sizes" are just impossible to be right. Not only the aesthetics don’t call for such a mix, the unreality of fractional numbers of stones renders them infeasible, and the economics in their construction leave much to be desired as well.

Assume again for a moment that these Millers "sizes" are correct and accurate. Let’s carry out a simple statistical exercise to make the "economic" argument a bit more clear. Let's compute their dimensional averages, to derive an "average stone size" according to the Millers; they come to: length 1.18m, width .74m, and height .325m so the typical Millers stone is 1.18x.74x.325 or equal to .284 cubic meters. The five layers at Kasta Hill would require each (497/1.18) 421.2 stones of the average Millers size. By rounding off, to make the point, let’s assume 421 stones per layer, for a total of 2106 marble stones. At .284 cubic meters each, that amounts to a "clear" volume of 598 cubic meters of Thassos marble. Assume a conservative 20% of scrap on that total. This percentage corresponds to about 420 blocks, and it so happens that this was about the number of blocks “measured” by the Millers, found all around

57

Strymonas’ banks. These calculations however, produce a total of the amount of Thassos marble needed to be extracted; it comes to at least about 720 cubic meters of volume taken off the marble quarries of Thassos. And this huge amount is only to cover the exterior perimeter wall, not the interior space.

In [7] the author argues that the basis of the Kasta Hill’s tomb modulus is its length of 1.36m (responsible for the approximation 365.44, the key finding in [7]), and secondarily its width of .72. In [7] the proposition is put forward that only two different types of stones were used (and not four, as the Millers suggested). In these two differing types the only difference was in the height of the stone used in layer E, whereas otherwise the length and width of all other marble stones were the same, although the same stone was used as both standing and laying against the background limestone support structure. There’s an unknown, the "width" of layer E, in [7], as there isn’t enough data there to compute it. It will be assumed (for the sake of the statistical-economic argument to be made here, and without too much loss of generality) to be about .65m, for an average of .685. Finally the modulus height is estimated in [7] to be close to .19.

As a consequence of these measures, when one compares the total volume of marble that it would be needed under the assumptions in [7] would have been far lower than the volume of masonry needed under the Millers sizes. There would be less stones, a lower total height, and the increasing returns to scale would kick in, regarding the scrap generated by the extraction activity. In specific, it would take an average per stone volume of .177 cubic meters for each stone; for 5x365=1825 stones it would take to cover the exterior of the perimeter wall, that would require 323 cubic meters of marble, and a 15% scrap (the increasing returns to scale in extraction kicking in) for a total of 371 cubic meters of marble, which is about half that of the "Millers sizes". The reader should note, that although the total decrease in height of the wall amounted to about a 15% reduction, the total volume of masonry needed decreased by about 50%. Any architect would opt for the second option, the far more efficient and economic one in so far as marble slabs sizes are concerned, letting aside for the time being all aesthetic and mathematical aspects of the project. One could say, regarding this particular point - "it's the economy, stupid" to use a popular political slogan of US politics.

But it should be noted here that in [7] a proposition was made that now, with more photographic evidence available, needs to be revised. In [7] it was argued that all masonry layers were centered, so that the layer above was at midpoint of the layer below. It now seems that this isn’t exactly the case. Layer D of [7] isn’t exactly centered on layer C. Whether this is by design, or an imperfection by construction remains still an open question. The author, in view of all other imperfections pointed out, tends to accept the fact that this is indeed a construction imperfection. Such small deviations, especially if the lengths of the blocks are differing by such small amounts, end up producing a rather confusing wall pattern, unclear and unnecessary as the rest of the monument seems to be built on crisp and well identified proportions. But it does exhibit genuinely construction due imperfections.

We come back now to a topic mentioned earlier, which didn’t preoccupy the analysis in [7], as of course it didn’t either in Millers paper [8] although for different reasons. It has to do with a possible curvature carved on the face of the marble blocks exposed in the exterior (but certainly not the interior) masonry wall. The archeological team hasn’t indicated the presence of such curvature, without this to imply that it doesn’t exist. Close inspection of the photographic evidence as already noted not only doesn’t produce clear evidence, but it should be taken with extreme caution, since photographic distortions could deceive the observer. However, if such curvature does exist, it could shed additional light on many

58

subjects involved with the “Miller” blocks found along the banks of Strymonas. It could be used to additionally justify the claim that these blocks were simply discarded as not meeting specification requirements on that count as well. Now the reason why the potential “curvature” issues didn’t enter into the consideration in [7] is because the emphasis there was placed on the side angles for the blocks necessary to fit into a circular structure. Moreover, the relatively small size of each block (1.36m in length) relative to the total length of the ring (497 meters) renders this polyhedron close enough to a circle.

In summary, this Section demonstrated that the Millers “measurements” are to an extent fictitious. It has also demonstrated that the initial view by the author in [7] that a perimeter wall was fully covered by marble blocks in a cladding system which as a calendar circumferentially ringed the tumulus at Kasta, with each block depicting a day of the year needs also to be appropriately (and as it will be seen, gainfully) revised. However before this revision is made, we need to travel to Eire.

4. The circumferential wall: a new hypothesis, and a link to Newgrange Tumulus.

Earlier in this paper the question was addressed, in multiple contexts: was the perimeter wall ever completed? It is very likely in view of the photographic evidence suggesting that even the limestone support infrastructure was never completed, let alone the circumferential marble wall itself. We now feel quite comfortable arguing that the exterior marble clad was never completed, and that the Romans quite likely didn’t have to strip the wall from its marble clad, as quite likely many discarded marble stones were laying around along the Strymonas, never to be used for the tomb at Kasta. But we are still left with the question: why was it never completed? Was it because it was abandoned, or because it was never meant to be completed by the architect of MCP?

We do now know that the way we found the Entrance isn’t the way the Entrance was meant to be. Its shape and walls forming the portico in front of it, as well as the stairway and the stairway’s support limestone structure simply wasn’t that of the original design. It is simply impossible someone to accept that this (unfinished) condition at the Entrance level, of the limestone construction we found in August 2014, is the way that the architect of this monument with the sophistication of the Sphinxes, the Kores, the mosaic, the double-leaf marble door, and above all the marble clad in the interior as well as the exterior of the monument (in the few sections surviving today) would have an Entrance the type shown in Figures 1.a, and 1.b. Most likely, at some stage in the succeeding years, the Entrance was stripped from its original form, replaced by the form was now see. When, by whom, and how was that done will not be discussed here. Later, in the final section of this paper, some thoughts will be presented on the monument’s life cycle – but these thoughts are highly speculative at this stage. Not enough information has been made available (if it exists) to confidently talk about these issues.

So, what was the initial form of this circumferential wall? In Figure 14.a. the renovated wall of another tomb is shown, a tumulus quite a distance from Kasta, in both space and time. It’s the tumulus at Newgrange, River Boyne, Meath County, Ireland. Kasta and Newgrange have a time difference of about three millennia. Newgrange’s estimated ‘birth’ took place at around 3200 BC, at the Late Stone Age or Neolithic era, about four centuries before the beginning of the Bronze Age in European History. It was the Era when the presence of the so-called Bell-Beaker Culture (the beer drinkers of Western and

59

Northern Europe) were dominating the Western European landscape, from the Iberian Peninsula to Eire. The Tumulus of Newgrange can tell us much about the Tumulus at Kasta, and offer us valuable insights.

Figure 14.a. The frontal renovated area and Entrance of the Newgrange Tumulus.

Not very much will be said about the extraordinary Tumulus in Ireland, and quite little will be presented in terms of comparing Kasta Tumulus to Newgrange, in exposing both their major and minor similarities and differences. At about half the size of Kasta in diameter (keeping in mind that Newgrange isn’t a circle, in the way Kasta is) and about equal in height, old Newgrange offers some likely hints as to what the real and original Entrance to Kasta might have looked like. But more than that, it is lending credence to the argument that (like Newgrange) Kasta’s exterior wall was not fully marble cladded.

Newgrange is clearly the precursor to Kasta in its exterior form. It’s a man-shaped round Tumulus, ringed by 97 “kerbstones” megaliths that is (some of which were decorated by spiral symbols the meaning of which is still not been decoded) and an Entrance with a window on top. Part of its circumference megaliths were covered by smaller in size stones, a controversial modern day version of it (using the quartz stones once used not only to decorate its Entrance wall but also its ground in front of it) is shown in Figure 14.b.

60

Figure 14.b. The modern renovated Newgrange Tumulus’ partially covered exterior wall.

Although not much will be said in detail about the way Newgrange was looking like five millennia ago, we can be assured that whatever masonry coverage and support it enjoyed then would not extend the full length of its perimeter wall. Its Entrance had (as it does today) a window on top of the stoned frame and supported door. That window would allow the rising Sun’ Winter Solstice rays to penetrate the entire length of its interior passage to the very center of the mound. This is the key feature of Newgrange that reaches Kasta and us today: the outside masonry wall was not uniform throughout its perimeter.

But there is far more that we can extract from Newgrange, no matter the Hollywood-like redux and modern day manicure treatment it has received by renovation and transformation. To just say that Newgrange isn’t circular in its various descriptions misses a key point. Noted that its shape has been suggested and described variously and loosely as “circular”, “kidney like” etc. Such descriptions miss the real message from the shape the original Neolithic builders bestowed on the Tumulus, as it dominated the then Neolithic era landscape. Parenthetically, all these modern day descriptions of Nesgrange can be found here: http://newgrange.com/

61

The real image of the original Newgrange, Entrance and Tumulus as an ensemble, can be detected and become immediately evident from a Google Map – it is that of a bull’s head, with long horns emanating on both its sides, see Figures 14.b. and especially 14.d. It is rather certain that the horns back then did not end where the modern day horns end, but the overall and final form is unmistakably clear: a bull and its horns. There was a reason the masonry façade there ended where it did (wherever it did), and it was not because the architect, builder and financier of the monument back then run out of stones. Simply put, the masonry stopped at a point optimal for the showing of the shape of the bull’s horns. And something more: this shape of a bull’s head was a sight not for those on the ground, but for the Heavens. But the purpose here is not to discuss in any depth Newgrange; it’s to focus on Kasta, given certain basic insights we gather, by looking at Newgrange,

Figure 14.c. The Newgrange Tumulus back side, and other secondary points of entrance to the mound.

The message from Newgrange is now crystal clear for Kasta: the masonry wall didn’t circumferentially cover the entire tumulus, by design. And that the Entrance has a distinct shape, which in conjunction with the shape of the entire tumulus would imitate that of a bull’s head and its horns. And the masonry around Kasta under MCP, just as the original masonry on both sides of the Entrance at Newgrange, would extend long enough to replicate the shape of bull’s horns. And that the reason why the Entrance at Kasta was ripped off demolished and rebuilt under SRP was to eliminate that symbolism of the Bull Cult. That is the core message reaching us from 5200 BC Newgrange on our way to 4th Century BC Kasta.

62

We shall elaborate more on this revolutionary new view of Kasta, in view of Newgrange. It has many aspects to it, both in reference to the Kasta’s exterior form and function, as well as to the surrounding region, from the City of Amphipolis and Hill 133 to Panggaion and beyond, and that eye to the Heavens.

Figure 14.d. Aerial view of the bull head with long horns like Newgrange Tumulus.

But well beyond the hints, as to the manner in which the original Entrance and perimeter wall at Kasta might have looked like, from the Tumulus at Newgrange, the Irish Tumulus sheds more light on Kasta’s architectural roots as well. One has to recognize that architectural forms don’t appear out of the blue sky or thin air – no matter how innovation takes place at the primordial stage, where and when ideas and conceptions originate and take shape and form within the brain and mind of the architect or the artist. There’s a continuum often times perceptible, often times not perceived by the observer in the short run, but clearly identified by analysis in the longer term. Thus, one must accept that the real roots of Kasta trace back (surely through intermediate stops both in Europe overall as well as the Balkans – yet to be identified) to some primary source, in fact all the way back to Ireland’s Newgrange, and the prevailing Culture there and then. Newgrange may present the beginning of the religious movement associated with the “Bull Cult” being reflected in Grand Monumental Architecture. This Cult may had seen its zenith during the Minoan Era, and maybe its nadir at Kasta.

Much was presented earlier about the Kasta Entrance, and the lack of any evidence suggesting the monument (temple or tomb) was guarded. Well, Newgrange provides us some hints now on that count as well. We observe that there is a particular megalith at Newgrange, possibly the largest and most

63

impressive of all 97, carved with the spirals (and angular squares and waves) that have become the signature of Newgrange Tumulus, Figure 14.e.

Figure 14.e. The Kerbstone K1, a megalith protecting the Entrance to Newgrange Tumulus corridor.

As already mentioned, these spiral symbols seen in the Kerbstone of Figure 14.e, have yet to be decoded. But we can now speculate that may be they were the main features of “guarding” the monument from the unwanted. These intriguing and bewildering signs of religion and superstition could be the couriers of a curse to all those but the uninitiated into the rituals of Newgrange, a symbolic guarding mechanism accompanied of course by the intimidating gigantic structure of the megalith itself. In effect, these indeed were the guards of the monument, preventing access to it by the general public, possibly the followers of a competing cult. It could be thus, that similar (of course not the same) symbols could be found in the Entrance masonry at Kasta, installed there during MCP, and ripped off during SRP. Thus, the element of “Entrance protection” we examined earlier about Kasta, can be given new light in view of Newgrange. The Sphinxes of course may have been to an extent the qualitatively equivalent of Newgrange’s spirals on megaliths. We shall analyze and discuss these issues a bit more in detail later under section 5. Notice also another qualitative equivalence between Newgrange and Kasta, the interlocking complexity of the spirals and the complexity of the double meander in the frame of the mosaic floor representation at Kasta’s Chamber #2 [11]. Both involve perpetual cyclical motion and flows, the dynamics of waves in endless motion, a continuous repetition of form.

64

Much has been said over the past year or so, when in August of 2014 the monument at Kasta was thrusted to the international public’s attention, that Kasta must be a part of a system of monuments, at the local and regional levels [1]. Speculation has been persistent also, that the tomb discovered inside the Kasta Tumulus, can’t be the only entry of interest inside it, although clearly the Entrance unveiled then is the focal and main anchor point. However, Newgrange suggests to us (Figure 14.c) that very likely there are also other, secondary points-entrances of interest there, harboring man-made spaces deep inside the tumulus yet to be found.

It stretches credulity to assume that the Entrance and the 15-meter long, eccentrically oriented tomb is the only man-made intervention inside the Kasta tumulus, a Hill of over a half a kilometer circumference and rising about 15 meter above its base. Undoubtedly, in its guts there must be more waiting to be uncovered. If a three millennia older tumulus, about half the diameter of Kasta, has so many auxiliary entries into it, it is highly unlikely that Kasta has just a single point of entry. However, this is a huge subject, still ongoing and active, involving seismographic, electrical tomography and other geological studies and tests. A number of studies have already been undertaken at Kasta along these lines, with conflicting and yet to be fully well understood and explored results. Consequently, this paper will not dwell on the topic of auxiliary entries into the Kasta Tumulus any further.

Finally, another major point needs to be made here, a point driven home and reaching us from Newgrange (and Abu Simbel as well) to Kasta. Monuments of such scale need some temporal stability in the social dynamics of their societies in order for them to become possible to materialize. Political, economic, religious and overall cultural stability is a sine qua non. This seems to be a necessary condition, but not sufficient. Relatively advanced and unique up to that point in time and space organizational skills, labor availability (since these tend to be labor intensive activities), technological knowhow and innovation and effective capital utilization capacity are also required. These seem to be the sufficiency conditions, the auxiliary requirements for such monuments to appear. In the cases of Newgrange and Abu Simbel this social stability and the auxiliary conditions mentioned were clearly met.

We can hardly say the same for Kasta with regards to the issues of prolonged stability though, the necessary condition. The last quarter of the 4th century BC was hardly a period of socio-economic-political-religious stability in Macedonia. The scale of the structure at Kasta, in the splendor of its envisioned MCP stage could not materialize partly because of this constraint – possibly the source of its construction imperfections. Not even another ten years in Alexander III’s life would guarantee that. In that sense, Newgrange also supplies us with a shortcut answer to the conundrum: here at Kasta we have potentially the building blocks of a monument to rival the greatest human monuments of all BC antiquity. We have a case where the auxiliary requirements listed above were obviously met. But the essential necessary requirement, prolonged stability, fails. That failure could be the single most important factor in and cause of all failures in construction we observe at Kasta. Ultimately, this could be the reason why not a single historical reference has come down to us about it.

Kasta, by way of Newgrange, and even under MCP, was not even perceived to be what we initially thought Kasta was. We need to adjust our expectations about what MCP’s aims were, to make sense of Kasta. And at the same time, adjust our views as to how exactly Kasta was looking like. In so doing we come to recognize not only the true form of Kasta, but even more importantly, its roots in form and function. These roots are then located deep in European lore and cult, in areas as far away as Ireland, and as close as Crete.

65

5. Answering the questions regarding the Entrance and the Circumferential Wall at Kasta Tumulus.

So, the question is now posed: what was the original shape of the Entrance at Kasta Tumulus, and what exactly was its circumferential wall all about. Was it completed? Or was it left unfinished on purpose where we found it in August 2014? Or was it unfinished because events dictated a sudden change in plans? What exactly happened to the Entrance? What exactly was the shape of the perimeter wall?

We presented clear evidence to strongly suggest that the marble clad as well as its limestone masonry were never finished the way it was initially envisioned. Whether parts of the marble clad were not finished by design or by outside force we can’t at this stage answer with a beyond reasonable doubt type degree of confidence. Similarly, the same can be said about the limestone infrastructure to that marble clad. The case of Newgrange though presents us the (strong) possibility that the unfinished marble clad could be due to design. And although we still don’t have a very clear idea where exactly are the finished sections of the outside marble clad; and although we still can’t pinpoint exactly where the end of the marble clad along the perimeter wall is, we can suggest some locations and reasons as to where potentially can be found.

If there’s a pattern between the two surviving sections, shown in Figures 2.a and 2.b, (only the archeologists would know that) then clearly it must be concluded that the marble clad had an aim to take the form of some symbol, the exact shape of which we are unable at present to precisely identify. Clearly, the possibility that this symbols could be horns of some animal is there, just as in Newgrange. It is recalled that the architrave found at Chamber #2 (the chamber with then mosaic floor depicting the abduction of Persephone by Hades/Pluto under the watchful eyes of Hermes, framed by a complex double meander) contained the remnants of a painting, picturing among its many figures the body of a bull along with other cult or religious figures and symbols. The dominance of the bull is evident there.

No matter however what the designer or the architect of the monument/tomb intended to do (during MCP) with the circumference of the tumulus, the perimeter was shaped to have 497 meters in length, and the measure of the edifice’s modular length was 1.36m. Consequently, the perimeter wall was indeed to act as a calendar. Thus, the main claims of study [7] stand as of now, as does the main claim – that the circumference was structured to act as an annual calendar, and most importantly the ratio 497/1.36=365.44 was an astronomical number approximating the number of days in a year. So, let’s take a closer look into the matters surrounding both the Entrance and the perimeter wall at Kasta.

In view of this new perspective from Newgrange, the extent of the marble cladded perimeter wall – in the form of a bull’s horns – may lead to a variation of the full circumferential coverage taken for granted in [7[. In effect, the arguments in [7] provide a perspective, by way of Newgrange, on the extent to which under the new theory, the exterior wall at Kasta was marble cladded. It was covered up till a point depicting a day of special significance. Here two possibilities exist. Either that the marble clad would extend (possibly in an asymmetric way) to cover specific days of the year moving from the entrance to both in an Eastern and Western direction, given the beginning of the year set at any particular point along the perimeter. Or, alternatively, the marble clad ending could likely correspond to some alignment observed by anyone standing at the top of the mound. Sunrise during any of the Equinoxes or Solstices, or to some other important date of the year in which the cult in question was to commemorate a

66

significant event. It could also be some significant astronomical alignment, or a date linked to the life and/or death of the person the tomb was dedicated. The astronomical alignments will be further discussed in subsection (e) of this Section 5.

But here we not only have a new perspective on Kasta via Newgrange, we potentially have a new perspective on Newgrange via Kasta as well: the extent of stone coverage at the original Newgrange could possibly also extend up to some of these days’ sunrise, as depicted by someone standing at the very top of the tumulus. Whether the modern day quartz stone type coverage at Newgrange actually corresponds to any of these alignments is of course irrelevant.

Let’s revisit now the photos in Figures 2.b. 3.a. and 3.b. in view of the above discussion. In Figure 2.b we may be witnessing the tail end of the bull’s horn, exactly where the worker is standing. In Figure 3.a. a closer look at such an ending could be seen. Moreover, notice the structure adjacent to the wall shown in the close up of Figure 3.b. In [7] the argument was made that along the perimeter wall and at special points corresponding to certain significant days of the cult statues could be put to mark these days. In Figure 3.b. (a close up of Figure 2.b.) the location of potentially such a marker can be seen. A final point to be made here is this: the “bull horns” theory of marble cladding in Kasta’s exterior wall should not have been uniformly high. That is, it isn’t necessary now to assume that all along the wall’s coverage five layers of marble slabs were present, as shown in Figure 2.a. In fact, it is more likely that the coverage was as in Figure 2.b. with a tail ending in coverage (on both sides) as in Figures 3.a. and 3.b. Naturally all this revisions in the type of marble coverage, further reduces the expense of cladding the exterior wall at Kasta. In turn this further brings down the magnitude in range and clout of Kasta.

a. The original Entrance at Kasta, and the Entrance at Newgrange.

If the current Entrance isn’t the original Entrance, then what was the shape of the previous designed Entrance, at Kasta Hill? And it’s listed as “previous” because this tomb at Kasta in all likelihood had an even more primitive phase, with much more humble beginnings. At some point in the early 4th Century BC (maybe even earlier) a simple tomb existed (where is now the funerary Chamber). The 60-year old woman, whose partial skeletal remains were found there, could be the person in that original tomb. At some later stage the 15 meter long tomb and its exterior wall were constructed. Then more persons were interred there, possibly the 45-year old male (whose partial remains were also found there) as well as others from the same clan, one of them being the key person this extraordinary structure was constructed. More elaboration on this topic will be supplied at the ending section of this paper.

In answering the question, what was the original Entrance like, under MCP, when a humble tomb at Kasta was transformed into a Monument, an assumption (weak at that) will be made: the marble clad was extending from the (main) Entrance symmetrically up to an (unspecified as yet) set of points at the circumference of the Tumulus. The Entrance was almost at the ground level, allowing with a suitable slope for draining of runoff water away from the tomb/monument. The perimeter wall was set at the ground level, and it was visible. In this sense, the Entrance at Kasta was roughly resembling the Entrance at Newgrange. But it must be kept in mind that this was a “qualitative” in general resemblance, certainly not an exact replica or copy of Newgrange in detail. Certainly, the Kasta of MCP was not like the Newgrange of today. Although the current form of the Entrance may not resemble that of the old, it could have shared some commonalities. The marble clad could extend up to a 6.5-meter top of the

67

arched ceiling point, progressively sloping down as it moved away from the Entrance wall, forming ram or bull looking horns.

Whether there were sharp turning curved blocks or corner marble blocks linking the Entrance with the perimeter marble cladded wall in the monument at Kasta Hill we can’t tell with certainty. The Millers were looking for cornerstones among the blocks along the river Strymonas, and found none. Of course because they didn’t find, it doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. The archeological team has found none too, anywhere they dug. But cornerstones could exist, according to this scenario, but not large in number. Their fate most likely followed the fate of the blocks supporting whole original Entrance.

To find the remnants of that prior Entrance, one must remove the limestone masonry of the portico, and the lime stones blocking the Entrance, as well as the stairway. However, such an intervention seems unlikely. Underneath the Parthenon and the other structures on the Acropolis of Athens, we know there exist older structures. No one is considering or proposing however to dig at the Acropolis; the multiple expected costs of digging far exceed the multiple benefits of the expected discoveries.

No matter what was the final function of the edifice at Kasta, be that a temple, a monument, or simply a tomb, or a combination of these three social functions, the observer is struck by the fact that under SRP (what we observe today) there are no remains of any structure meant to guard it. There is no evidence that the Sphinxes doorway was made to support a door; and there is no evidence of a sewer system in place to allow for runoff water to drain. It is possible, that some provision must have been made, so that the Entrance to the tomb (monument or temple) was guarded. Since traces of such posts allowing for security guards to operate haven’t been located yet at Kasta one must ask the question what was there exactly as a guarding mechanism in SRP? With such a design, as suggested here under MCP, there was no need to provide cover against the weather elements for the tomb/monument, but there was need to provide guard, as even publicly accessible edifices don’t imply unlimited access to them. The Sphinxes were simply too little.

Notice the main Entrance to the Newgrange tumulus: there’s a system in place there to prevent unlimited access. That system ranges from a stepwise access, from the outside to the corridor containing the tombs; to a setup of megaliths blocking the Entrance while decorated with hieroglyphics spiritually protecting access to it, only allowing individuals belonging to the priesthood cast and the privileged members of an elite to enter. The Kasta tomb (or monument or temple), from what we found so far, was clearly not physically guarded during SRP. Again, the discussion here will, not enter the subject as to whether the Kasta edifice was meant to be only a tomb, a monument, a temple, or any combination thereof during either the MCP or SRP. Even if it was meant to exist simply as a tomb and a monument (not a temple) access had to be limited and controlled. The two Sphinxes clearly couldn’t be relied on alone to do this job. Some other force, limiting access must have been present. However, whatever was installed there under MCP, had been removed under SRP. One might say that under SRP the Sphinxes obtained a stronger guarding role than they had under MCP – thus the reason why were left uncovered by soil under the last and burying phase of transformation to the monument at Kasta.

But the fact that no guarding posts have been found makes stronger the possibility that the Entrance, the way we found it (i.e., under SRP), wasn’t the Entrance planned and designed at its original form (i.e., under MCP). Were there originally stones carrying symbols equivalent to those at Newgrange, which at a later stage were removed, making way for the subsequent Entrance, as we found it in August 2014? Was the transition from the original Entrance to the Entrance we found a religion based transition? Or

68

was it simply an act of politics and a political transition? A bit more on these thoughts and speculation will be offered later.

Whatever that original Entrance was, at some point in time, under some agency not yet fully identified but possibly roughly sketched, and for reasons yet somewhat obscure but not entirely unknown, underwent a transition. It was violently transformed, and in fact changed its form abruptly, in a hurry, and to a considerable degree. In short order, the original Entrance was stripped from all its marble stones (including the possible cornerstones). A new set of limestone walls were made to create a portico, the shape of which we saw in Figures 1.a. and 1.b. and extensively discussed earlier.

b. The perimeter walls at Kasta and at Newgrange.

Here’s found the main gain in insights from Newgrange to better comprehend and understand and envision Kasta Tumulus and its contents. And it turns out that this insight is fundamental in our perception of Kasta Hill, and the socio-economic-cultural processes underlying it.

Whatever happened to the Entrance, also immediately affected the surrounding wall and its marble coverage. Whereas, the original perimeter wall and its clad was visible, now it was buried. The ground level rose to the top of the perimeter wall, where now access to the tomb was from the level we see in Figures 1.a. and 1.b. A stairway was built as we saw in the opening section of this paper, and the portico was formed, with two low quality (relative to the marble clad of both the interior and exterior walls) limestone side walls, with a poor in relief imitation of the exterior clad. Some form of a temporary cover was provided, to shelter the tomb from snow and rain. How was the tomb drained remains a deep mystery, which points to the possibility that this new construction did not last long, or even more, it was not intended to last long.

Something which impressed all who witnessed the unveiling of the finished sections from the perimeter wall was the almost pristine condition of these marble stones from the quarries of Thassos, see Figures 2.a. and 2.b for example. Absent were deep rooted remnants of mold, indicating that either the wall enjoyed excellent maintenance throughout the years it was left exposed; or that it was sealed with soil a rather short time after its construction. Given the rainfall and snowfall amounts in that region of Greece, that period could not have been longer than a few decades. Exposure to sunlight mitigates to an extent the effect of mold, and it must not be totally random the fact that the sections of the circumferential wall with marble clad standing today lay in areas in the Southeastern and Southwestern parts of the perimeter wall, areas that is that receive plenty of sunlight.

The narrative thus far then dictates the strong conclusion that the monument was sealed with dirt at two different time periods, with different soils involved, different methods, and possibly different intents, under different agencies. Moreover, quite clearly, the burial of the exterior wall was carried out well ahead of the final burial of the whole tomb. Possible explanations as to why and when this might have taken place will be discussed later. But now the focus turns to possibly the key insight gained by this comparative analysis of Kasta and Newgrange.

It has been taken for granted that due to its “circumferential thus extensive marble clad” the Kasta Hill edifice must have been the result of an opulence and economic prosperity as well as political power of unprecedented scale for not only Macedonian but Greek and indeed European dynasties that could

69

have possess the means to carry out such a project of a magnitude not seen anywhere in Europe or the World, till that time (the latest quarter of the 4th century BC.) Neither Macedonia, nor Greece, nor the Balkans, nor Europe, not Eurasia had seen a monument that size and of that opulence requiring about 720 cubic meters of Thassos marble (to be quarried, processes, transported and installed) if one accepts the Millers block sizes, and half of that if one accepts the author’s slab sizes. This is indeed an astonishing amount of marble, not to mention the extraordinary amount of labor needed to carry out the project. In [1] the author estimated it to have been approaching one thousand workers, slaves, craftsmen, artists, managers, supervisors etc. It would have required a whole new town to appear near the construction and quarry sites. Clearly this monument, temple or tomb to be built as initially envisioned would require a political, economic, social and religious infrastructure only Alexander the Great could possibly have assembled and ordered or someone acting directly under or his behalf. This prospect fired up the international community’s attention and fascination, that somehow Alexander the Great must be involved here, one way or another. Speculation of course rose by some circles, see [2] that somehow even Alexander’s body found its way there to be buried. And all this speculation was fundamentally (but not exclusively) based on the magnitude and quality of construction associated with the assumed total and complete marble clad of the circumferential wall to Kasta Tumulus.

But Newgrange changes all that. The fact that the Irish tumulus is partially and not circumferentially covered by masonry, changes and challenges the initial Kasta Tumulus perception. What if Kasta was like Newgrange? Then the whole initial view of Kasta in effect collapses.

We can’t tell, in absence of the available evidence possessed by the archeological team but not made yet public, the extent of exterior marble cladding around the Tumulus at Kasta. But we can assert that the costs (and thus the necessary infrastructure) were much less than first thought. And this dramatically changes the conditions under which this tumulus was shaped and its tomb was constructed. Far more than this, this now provides totally new insights as to who is buried there. Now, we may be dealing with much less of a project in scale, possibly carried out by an agency far less powerful than that of Alexander the Great or someone from his immediate entourage, in an era far more distant than the point in time of his death, the summer of 323 BC.

In effect, all bets are now off. This is the legacy of Newgrange on Kasta, the shadow of the monument in Eire reaching over the Continent of Europe all the way to the Macedonian foothills of Mount Panggaion and the riverbanks of Strymonas, from River Boyne of the Irish countryside. After we take a look at Newgrange, Kasta never looks the same again.

It has always been a puzzle, as to why such an initially perceived unprecedented in grandeur monument over space and time, never mustered a single reference by any historian contemporary or later, Greek or Roman. We may now have at last an answer to that perplexing, persistent, and deeply unsettling question. Newgrange has the possible answer to that enigma, which now proves to not have been an enigma after all. The monument was not as grand as we originally thought it would be, even under its MCP stage in planning and design. We now look at these issues in some more detail, far more depth.

70

c. The question of Kasta’s perimeter wall: was it really visible and by whom?

We turn now our attention to the wall’s current conditions, and the possible circumstances surrounding its burial. Following the arguments of the previous subsections, it is now assumed that the perimeter wall at its sections survive today, plus the in-between Entrance which was erased by the intervention of SRP, were more or less what the architect planned to do during MCP. Photos made public after August 10th, 2014 showing the condition of the perimeter wall at various points, but especially those associated with the intact marble clad sections of the wall immediately raise questions of scale in the process of excavation. The focus here will be on a particular aspect of this “excavation of dirt scale”.

It is very obvious by looking at these photos, Figures 15.a and 15.b. that a significant amount of soil was removed along the perimeter. Moreover, a significant amount of soil is still in place rising at least up to the level of the marble cladded sections of the perimeter wall, and at certain points going even higher. Setting aside the question regarding the careful stratigraphic study of such a huge amount of soil, one immediately is drawn to asking certain questions. On the soil already removed, given that all that quantity at least (may be even more) was used to seal the exterior part of the tomb, how much is in volume? Where did it come from? On the soil not yet removed, and still in situ facing the perimeter wall and forming a ditch with the tumulus perimeter wall, one asks: Was all that dirt also used to cover Kasta’s monument? If so, where did that tremendous amount of soil come from? And finally, and most importantly, was the exterior wall indeed visible? And if it was visible, by whom and where?

Let’s look at the ditch that the archeological team dug around this wall. It doesn’t have to do with the ditch itself, but rather with the apparent amount of dirt needed to bury the exterior perimeter wall by estimating the quantity of soil only to fill that ditch. Of course, all this leads one to consider the possibility that indeed the wall was not visible but only seen by those walking along it – in effect that a corridor was surrounding either the whole wall or those parts of the perimeter wall that were (totally or partially) marble cladded. These issues will be analyzed in turn.

First let’s focus on the amounts of dirt required if one were to fully cover and bury the perimeter wall as we currently see it in Figures 15.a, and 15.b. that is, to just fill that ditch which encircles the tumulus. We note that, according to the archeological team, some of that dirt was the result of a previous archeological dig, by D. Lazaridis. Apparently Lazaridis in excavating the top of the mound, inadvertently dumped much soil from the top of the mount onto the area where the Entrance of the tomb, found by archeologist K. Peristeri in August 2014, is located.

No matter how much of that soil we see in Figures 15.a. and 15.b are Lazaridis discarded soil (MΠΑZA), the amount of soil needed to cover a (whole or partial) perimeter wall is considerable. It far exceeds the amount needed to fill the interior of the tomb, estimated earlier to be more than a very impressive 400 cubic meters (in the form of thick mud, as it was argued earlier). Covering an exposed wall of a length reaching about 500 meters at a height of more than five meters (as estimated by the scale individuals offer us in Figure 15.b), at a conservative length of about ten meters, again from the scale offered us in Figures 15.a and 15.b, amounts to a stunning quantity of soil, 25,000 cubic meters of dirt, more than 60 times the amount needed to seal the tomb’s interior. It is an impossible amount of soil to humanly transport from anywhere, possibly exceeding the soil found in all of Kasta tumulus, as the tumulus is to a large extent made from solid limestone.

71

To move such huge quantities of soil, no matter where from, isn’t an insignificant activity, certainly not an activity to go unnoticed by Romans (if Romans were in charge there at the time this was going on). To suggest that someone undertook the activity of dumping so much soil in secret, or in a hurry, is simply ludicrous. Not only it’s a matter of soil quantity, it’s also a matter of workers needed, and time. To do all that, just to cover a few sections that remained after the “Romans ripped off all the rest” begs the question, why? True, it’s quite difficult 23 centuries later to fully grasp the “rationale” of someone back then, but still one could ask reasonably simple questions, and seek reasonably simple answers. May be this was just a project to raise the ground level.

It is not clear at this stage, what is the proportion of the total perimeter wall that is still left cladded. For certain it isn’t a huge share, possibly about a tenth of the circumference. Why not just rip off the remainder of the blocks and simply bury the interior? So what was the big deal about the (few, remaining) block? Apparently they were of no importance to those that covered them. In view of the malevolence regarding what happened to the Entrance and the rest of the wall, to argue benevolence here is far more difficult. It’s not really about 50 meters of sealed marble blocks. It’s simply about covering them to raise the ground level. If there was no malevolence directed at those remnants of the exterior clad, it was simply indifference. The malevolence of SRP was primarily and mainly directed at the Entrance and its form.

Here’s some simple math to make the point.

Figure 15.a. A partial view of the ditch around the perimeter wall at Kasta.

72

We can easily compute the radius of the sphere R making up Kasta Tumulus. Kasta’s perimeter is actually an ellipse, given the slope of the mound from North to South, and that the ground where Kasta stands forms a plane intersecting a hypothetical cone (or a cylinder) at an angle. In [7] it was argued that due to the relatively gentle slope of the ground at Kasta Tumulus, this angle is negligible, thus the ellipse can be satisfactorily approximated by a circle. In effect, for all practical purposes it was argued in [7], the form of the perimeter is very close to a circle, a fact that can be easily confirmed by a Google Map of the site. We know that the diameter of the tumulus D is about 160 meters, thus it has a radius r=80 meters; the total height H of the tumulus is about 15 meters (estimated by the elevation measures offered by Google maps for the mound at Kasta). We really do not know the original form of the mound under MCP. It will be assumed without not a significant loss in generality, that it was spherical and that the ground level formed a plane intersecting this sphere at about 15 meters from the top.

We have then a section of the sphere of radius R at a point H (R-15) away from the center of the sphere confined by a plane perpendicular to the radius there so that it results in a circle of radius r=D/2=80 meters. From simple geometry and applying the Pythagorean Theorem, one obtains the equation to derive the radius of the Kasta tumulus sphere: (R-15)**2 + r**2 = R**2. Simple substitutions and arithmetic produce R=221 meters, the height H of Kasta Hill thus being less than a tenth of the tumulus radius R. So we find that, the center of the Kasta sphere lies about 206 meters below the ground level (the level of the Entrance where the two Sphinxes’ wall rests, and where the ground level of the exposed perimeter wall also lies).

Given now the magnitude of the radius of the Kasta tumulus (221 m), one can estimate the total volume of the section of the sphere comprising the Tumulus. The calculus needed is demanding, but the approximations required to make the point are simple and rather straight forward. A very liberal and easy to obtain upper bound on that volume can be derived. It is known that the volume of half a sphere of radius R is {(2/3)π(R**3)}; this amounts roughly to 16 million cubic meters of volume. If we were to proportionally (not exponentially decreasing as we should have had) allocate volume to the point at the radius linking the center of the sphere to the very top of the tumulus, where it meets the ground at Kasta, that is about nine tenths on the way up, then one would have had about 260,000 cubic meters of volume of soil (a very liberal amount-approximation for our purposes here, as the actual amount is proportionally quite smaller). Keeping in mind that not all of the Kasta Tumulus is packed dirt, as a major portion of it is solid rock, one can have a very rough estimate of the total amount of soil in Kasta (an amount varying probably in the area of 100,000 cubic meters of soil).

In effect, this amounts to about just four times the soil needed to seal just the ditch, running alongside the outside wall as discussed earlier (we showed that about 25,000 cubic meters of soil were needed). To cover an area slightly bigger than the ditch the archeologist dug, it would have required a prohibitively larger amount. No agency could possibly carry out such a task within a reasonable amount of time, and that includes slave labor. Keep in mind, Macedonia in the last quarter of the 4th century BC was not either Ramses II or Khufu’s Egypt, and certainly it wasn’t Newgrange of the 32nd century BC. Not only the amount of slave labor was not there at the level needed, but far more than this shortage the chunk of time needed to execute such immense in magnitude projects simply was not at any Macedonian agency’s disposal. Moreover, it isn’t even clear where from such huge quantities of soil could be taken – Strymonas definitely could not afford such draining of its riverbanks, and the nearby Hill 133 is not such a likely candidate, as it is quite rocky itself. One is left with the possibility that this

73

soil was in effect soil from the tumulus itself, a possibility which could be conceivable but clearly not very likely at such amounts.

It is recalled that Kasta Hill is largely a natural rocky hill, only partly man shaped. The taking of so much soil from the tumulus itself would had destabilized the mound at some points, possibly compromising the structural integrity of the tomb itself. It would significantly reshape its skyline. It would had produced certainly ecological and environmental damage, and although back then no agency was required to carry out an Environmental impact Statement and seek political consent before acting, some political process must have been in place when such huge intervention was sought. It isn’t possible to assume that no political action was involved (under any authority) before this size of an enterprise was scheduled.

Mound shape was no longer the concern of those in charge of SRP, and form modification from a bull’s head would be a desirable thing to pursue up to a point. However, the scale of the enterprise was clearly beyond their economic means, or political realities. Planners, architects and engineers of SRP were definitely not enjoying an embarrassment of riches, clearly so judging from the quality of work they did at the very Entrance of the monument. Apparently, the cost of removing more marble blocks from the Entrance area and the wall was more expensive to them from sealing and burying the perimeter wall at some point to raise the ground level. One has to derive two conclusions: first, the perimeter wall was not only not fully marble cladded but the remaining cladded sections of it could be buried in a hurry and relatively inexpensively; and second, there must have been a reason why these marble blocks were possibly undesirable most likely indifferent to those in charge of SRP.

Obviously, those ordering and managing the sealing of the perimeter wall and the raising of the ground level at Kasta, did have some use for the blocks they removed, and no much use for the blocks they left behind and buried. Right here, a hint is lurking, that somehow the blocks removed were different enough from those left behind to raise their special interest.

The highly selective removal and possible re-use of the Entrance blocks, and the selective sealing of the rest, coupled with the quantities of soil needed to seal the exposed sections of the perimeter wall, all combined point to the following strong possibly: the space needed to be filled and sealed was not as huge as first thought. In effect, the “ditch” the archeologists formed as they uncovered the perimeter wall was possibly a pathway, a corridor surrounding only the wall along the length of the bull’s horns and the entrance. In effect, the cladded part of the wall was not visible beyond the mound, and it was surrounded by an enclosed possibly sacred walkway of as yet unknown height.

Picture a narrow strip of space along the Eastern-Southeastern, Southern, and the Southwestern-Western part of the mound. This walkway possibly was a pass only the initiated in the cult and the high priest and his entourage could take, in the period this tumulus was used as a temple and a tomb. Such walkway, could meet and enhance the controlled access requirements discussed earlier, of an Entrance under MCP. So now we can form of picture as to who could see this exterior wall and its limited marble cladding from a very close distance: the very few initiated into the bull cult this temple belonged to. We also can now view who could not see this bull’s horns: the viewer from the ground along the riverbanks of Strymonas.

But it is of interest who could see the bull’s head and its horns from afar: the viewer from Hill 133, and the privileged resident of Amphipolis’ Acropolis. The Southern sun would shine off the clear smooth

74

hard Thassos marble during the day, as it would the Moon’s pale soft light reflected off the shining marble surface at dusk and at night. As the cladded wall has been raised at a slight angle from the ground leaning against the Tumulus, the reflection would be well directed towards these two high mounds in the visually rich landscape at Kasta. Torches along the sacred corridor would enhance the sight at night. It would be a sight to behold to those who could see it. But the mortals of Earth were not the intended viewers. As was the case with Newgrange, it was meant to be seen by the Heavens.

We yet don’t know precisely where the Entrance is on the perimeter wall, as the archeological team has kept that from the public. We do know for certain that it doesn’t lie exactly at the southernmost tip of the perimeter wall, but to the left, towards the West. Another unknown has been the exact orientation of the 15-meter long tomb and its portico including the stairway. Again, the archeological team has kept that information from all of us. But apparently not all of us. A. Chudd [10] has produced a diagram of the tomb’s Entrance and orientation, which seems to have been made up from obscure sources; the diagram is shown in Figure 16.

The Chugg diagram can’t be correct, as one can judge by inspecting aerial photos of the tomb’s Entrance from a variety of sources. It clearly doesn’t lie on an almost radius as Chugg has it, but instead at an angle to the radius at the entrance point. Moreover, its angle to the North-South axis is probably less than 26 degrees. In [7] it was argued that the current angle of the tomb’s orientation to the N-S axis was such that back in 323 BC that orientation was due North, and the angle would be almost zero. However more recent work on this topic indicates that the ecliptic has not much changed (it amounts to about 3 degrees), thus this hypothesis is no longer applicable. A. Fourlis, a member of group in [4], contributed work to prove this point to the author.

However, given that the hypothesis in [7] regarding the orientation of the tomb, and the fact that it isn’t exactly on a radius to the tumulus center raise the question, as to why? What was in the architect’s mind when designing the tomb? Why was that specific point on the perimeter wall picked? Why was the specific orientation chosen? Was it simply factors from geology that dictated this angle to the radius at the Entry point, as the geologically optimum? Or were there other factors as well? Some thoughts on these questions will be offered in subsection (e).

75

Figure 15.b. Another view of the ditch surround the exterior wall at Kasta.

76

Figure 16. Andrew Chugg’s diagram of the circumferential wall at Kasta Tumulus, derived by him from unnamed sources.

In [7] it was postulated that the specific entry point on the perimeter wall was picked because a specific day of the year (and indeed a specific 6-hour segment of that day is identified, based on the modulus’ 1.36m length, and a radius at midpoint of the Entrance area on the perimeter). And in [1] it was argued that a combination of geological as well as design factors determined the optimum angle of the tomb’s orientation. In addition, if one presumes that the tomb represents the upgrading of a much earlier tomb located at we now know as the funerary Chamber at Kasta (Chamber #3), then the decision on a point of entry would automatically set the tomb’s overall orientation under MCP.

77

d. Near misses and details in the tomb.

However, this nagging question as to why isn’t the angle of the tomb’s orientation crisp, or its aim towards the tumulus center clear and exact (for example, being on a radius) brings up a persistent issue one encounters throughout the tomb. That is, the tomb in terms of exact detail in construction leaves something to be desired. One may relegate some of these failures in detail to local, small scale relatively poor workmanship. However, in a tomb characterized by such a high degree of mathematical sophistication, under its MCP planning and design stage, these near misses do become an issue worth further exploring, as indicative of possibly more fundamental managerial and possibly design deficiencies and maybe failures. Do they signify an excessively accelerated construction process?

We already had to revise the statement in [7] regarding the alignment of the various layers of masonry in the exterior wall, already noted. Why such a minor misalignment? What purpose does it serve if it is intentional? In a final analysis was it intentional design or failure in construction? The questions as of now remains unanswered.

Earlier, and under stage SRP, such failures and misalignments were pointed out in the portico section of the Entrance, and their joins with the Entrance façade, its two Sphinxes’ wall. These junctions erased whatever message was the architect of the façade was to convey. Was this done intentionally by the architect/builder/designer of the renovation/transformation of the Entrance? Or was it unintentional, and the result of poor workmanship? We now conclude that these imperfections were not really unintentional, but intentional. They meant to erase some of the attributes given by MCP.

Let’s now take a look at the misalignments observed in the interior of the tomb, as evidenced by the photos made available. In Figure 17.a. The reader is asked to keep in mind now that these are all construction activities during MCP, the Golden Era stage of the structure. A set of misalignments in the marble clad of the left hand side Western Maiden of Chamber #1, as its base touches the wall. This specific set of joints will be chosen to make the point. Whereas the bottom joint shown in Figure 17.a. is perfect, the one above it clearly isn’t and by a wide margin. This misalignment isn’t poor workmanship as both the base and the wall clad are what they were supposed to be in respective marble slab sizes. This is an imperfection in design. On the other hand, in Figure 17.b. one comes across a pair of failures in matching the clad of both wall and base, a failure in construction.

What is then one to conclude from these various types of imperfections in both design and construction? In sum, one may surmise that this tomb wasn’t really what it was billed to be by the archeologists’ initial pronouncements. And now we have many grounds on which to stand arguing this point; and while we are at it, we may also have an answer to the major nagging question: How come and there isn’t a single historical reference to this monument, temple or tomb? The answer again could be mighty simple: because it was not actually what it was made out to be, or as important as some archeologists today may imply it is. But this doesn’t paint the complete picture, as the overall picture is far more complex.

Evidence has recently emerged suggesting a level of mathematical (algebraic and geometric) sophistication not easily encountered in monuments of that era. In [11] the author outlined the advanced notions in mathematics involved in the frame of the mosaic found in Chamber #2 of the tomb. A code was uncovered built into that complex frame, which has yet to be unlocked. They were design

78

impurities, as well as construction imperfections found there as well. So the findings from this study regarding impurities in design and construction failures have multiple sources to draw their evidence.

But we can’t escape from a fundamental contradiction which haunts us here; if we are correct in identifying this tomb’s underlying mathematical and astronomical sophistication (modulus [7], mosaic frame [11] being standing examples) by the monument’s original architect and artists, in MCP, how can we reconcile the failures in workmanship? We can certainly understand the failures during the next phase of construction, SRP. The failures we encounter during the final renovation phase of the monument were in fact intentional, they meant to downgrade and diminish the importance of the first architect’s achievements and objectives, to in effect partially erase the message he tried to pass on through the building’s elaborate and advanced décor and magnificence. But how can we excuse the construction failures of the grand phase of this monument, in view of the underlying mathematical and design sophistication?

Figure 17.a. One perfect joint and a misalignment of marble clad involving one of the Kores’ base.

Figure 17.b. Two imperfect joints, involving misalignments in cladding between the Kores’ base and the interior wall.

The only way out from this serious dilemma is the recognition that the monument didn’t have ever the time to fully develop its potential. Construction (and possibly design and planning, even under MCP) were somehow hurried. And the end result of this hurried up activity we read in the imperfections we noted throughout the monument, in both its interior and exterior.

79

e. Astronomy and religion at Kasta.

Note. This subsection was written in August 25, 2015, and after some comments and encouragement received from Mrs. Effie Tsilibary, a person that has contributed considerably to the author’s study of this monument at Kasta Hill. This is a section, where an attempt is made to read the Myths and Cults and Worshiping traditions of the ancients by looking at the Heavens and how they places their physical structures, buildings, monuments, roads, etc., on the basis of these Heavenly bodies and their apparent motions in the night sky. In that regard, Kasta isn’t any exception or unique.

Newgrange’s Bull Cult tomb corridor was oriented towards the sunrise point at winter’s solstice. We are not sure of what specific astronomical symbols and names the Bell-Beaker Culture used back then. Maybe the deciphering of the spirals on the Kerbstones might reveal the language, the words, and the letters used to express their worshiping traditions within that Cult. We do know that the Bull Cult has been around not only after the advent of Agriculture, but even far earlier in Homo Sapiens History, at least as far back as the bulls painted in the caves of Lascaux (about the 18th Millennium BC.) We must rest assured that the Bell-Beakers of Ireland in 3200 BC were fully aware of the Bull in the Constellation Taurus. The day’s sunrise during winter Solstice they sought by orienting the tomb’s corridor, is directly linked with the Bull’s horns high above the horizon in the night skies of Europe on December 22.

We may not know the Bell-Beaker Culture’s astronomical knowledge, but we do know the Babylonian and Hellenic astronomical knowledge and symbols and names in place by the time Kasta was built (even in place during the early phase, that of a humble tomb, at the pre-MCP era). For references the reader is directed to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUL.APIN There, among other references, a key reference to the article by Bradley E. Schaefer, 2006, “The Origin of the Greek Constellations” Scientific American, November, is supplied. It discusses the Constellations as the Greeks saw them back then.

During the months of December and January the Constellation of Taurus, Figure 18.a, is dominant in the night skies of Europe. Being on the ecliptic, the Constellation of Taurus is part of the Zodiac. Its northwestern component is the Crab Nebula (with a neutron star at its core, a pulsar spinning 36 times per second). Its brightest component is a star with a modern day Arabic name, Aldebaran (meaning the “follower” as it follows the Pleiades Open Cluster in rising over the horizon in the night skies). Aldebaran (alpha-Tau) is a “red giant” type star of apparent magnitude V; it’s one of the brightest stars in the Northern Hemisphere’s night sky.

Figure 18.a. The Constellation of Taurus (the Bull).

80

Figure 18.b. The Constellation Taurus and the Open Star Cluster Hyades.

Besides the Pleiades, alpha-Tau has an extremely interesting neighborhood in the night sky: to its southwest lies Orion the Hunter that the bull’s head directly confronts; to its northeast of course is the Pleiades, and to its East is Aries, another Constellation in the Zodiac. It is a ram’s horns that Alexander III sports, as Zeus-Ammon. But what makes the Constellation of particular interest as far as Kasta is concerned is the Open Star Cluster at the very core of the Constellation Taurus and at the same line of sight as Aldebaran: the Hyades, the nearest Open Star Cluster to the Solar System, Figure 18.b.

The Pleiades were known since Homer. It’s one of the most recognizable features of the Northern Hemisphere’s night sky, right at the very junction of the Bull’s horns. Pleiades play a pivotal role in this narrative, because they hold a very strong connection to Dionysus cult, a cult apparently still in place at this point in space-time. Although the Dionysus cult goes far into the deep early Mycenaean and Minoan religious traditions (as does the Bull Cult). However, it reaches an apparent zenith in this Region of the Balkan Peninsula when in its followers Thracians, Macedonians and residents of Epirus are drawn.

As in every Cult or Religion, not all sub-regions follow the same cult warship rituals, symbols or nomenclature. As Christianity today experiences many different versions today, so did the Bull Cult back then and there, in the Macedonia of Kasta. Not all cults and sub-cults peak at the same time at all places, and most importantly not all last as long. But they all obey the life cycle that all such social movements follow: their birth is succeeded by a burst of growth, a peak, and a decline (fast or slow). In

81

every case nonetheless, a unique signature is left, as each branch of the cult follows its own course governed by the both local socio-cultural and environmental conditions, as well as outside influences differentially impacting each point in space-time.

If History is any indication, cult antagonisms must have been back then as strong and at times as vicious as today. And this type of religious conflict, both inter-cult as well as intra-cult, did reach a crescendo apparently at Kasta, in the critical decade following Alexander III’s death. And this is what we observe in the various conflicting architectures of this turbulent tomb.

Among the very many Dionysus cults and sub-cults, a variance itself of the European, Northern African, Near East version of the Bull Cult, at the Region of Kasta at the 4th Century BC must have had its own branch: the Hyades sub-cult. Some of these sub-cults of the Dionysus cult is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus

The one of interest here is that which links Zeus, who upon Dionysus’ birth gave him to Hermes, who in turn took him to the rain-nymphs of a faraway place called “Nysa” a place supposedly somewhere in Africa or Asia for them to raise Dionysus. Parenthetically, rain-worshiping was also the case at Newgrange, as the March Equinox (Bull’s month) is associated with the rainy season in Ireland. Zeus in turn “rewarded” these “Nymphs of Nysa” for their good services in raising Dionysus by placing them at the very center of the Constellation Taurus, the Pleiades star cluster.

Another interesting version of the Dionysus Myth, again in reference to Kasta, is that Zeus gave Dionysus upon his birth to Persephone to raise him in the Underworld. Since this paper isn’t really a study in Greek Myth or Cults and symbolism, whatever interesting extension exist here are all left to the interested reader to pursue. The key however remains, that this Bull Cult and its Dionysus sub-cult have a strong presence in Kasta. We find strong links between this cult, and especially the Dionysus sub-cult(s) and Kasta: not only in the perimeter wall, but also in key Chamber #2, both within the mosaic and the marble painting.

6. A few Lessons from History: putting Kasta in its proper spatial and temporal context.

We are then led to a major conclusion. Even under MCP, the time period this structure at Kasta was to mark time and space for the ages in the name of its intended honoree(s), when opulence and prosperity and political will and economic resources were seemingly in relative abundance, haste and at times poor workmanship are evident. It must be then that “time” was short, the builders of Kasta didn’t enjoy the prolonged political stability that the builders of Newgrange or Abu Simbel did. In Macedonian history there simply isn’t space for such temporal luxuries. In a fast moving era of raw brutality and intrigue, no member of the ruling elites had that kind of time allowance. Moments of intellectual genius didn’t have the amount of perspiration time needed to fully take advantage of their brief, rare but very high moments of inspiration to develop and be effectively implemented.

The downsizing of the exterior wall’s marble clad must have been a key component under such circumstances. Yes, the “bull with horns” hypothesis is valid, not as a scapegoat – but one can envision a rich “top of the line” version of it, and a second rate variant of it. Most likely now, under the previous arguments, evidence seems to suggest that a “lower tier” version of it was ultimately for the one the agency in power then opted under the MCP regime. And in so doing it didn’t compromise with reference to its main objective, the unfolding of a monument along the tradition of the bull cult it was conceived.

82

Does this imply that Kasta’s bid for inclusion in an elite group of World megastructures fails? I doubt it. There’s still enough stuff in it to raise it to heights rarely achieved by any human construct. And we already alluded to some of them already.

But here the effort will turn to another issue, the outlining of a theoretical background which could provide a deeper understanding of Kasta, and the forces placing it in the Pantheon of humanity’s monuments. This background is as applicable about the megastructures of the past, as is for the megastructures of today, be that La Tour Eiffel of Paris, or the Marina Bay Sands Hotel of Singapore.

Megastructures must be viewed always in relative terms, relative to other structures of the era and space. They are structures of significant architectonic value (including managerial, mathematical and astronomical sophistication unique for their era) and of extraordinary relative size when compared with other contemporary and spatially neighboring areas. They historically punctuate periods of significant relative prosperity in humanity’s History, The (usually single) cultural agent and agency responsible for their creation, as a rule, commends a relatively vast territory, unique for the standards of that period. Their construction does not exceed the lifespan of the ruler responsible for their planning and execution. Such megastructures require periods of considerable political stability, and economic prosperity. They seem to appear at non-neighboring in space and time points.

One might consider this as a social spatio-temporal dictum or principle. It will be considered as a necessary requirement to be met in classifying the construction of any edifice or sets of closely linked edifices as a Megastructure. A whole theory can be posed in stating this principle, and quite a bit of evidence can be supplied to argue for it, all left for the interested reader to pursue more in detail and depth. Great historians of humanity have spoken about the rises and falls of Civilizations and the agents behind it and their deeds as recorded in building such megastructures. All Civilizations have left us architectural traces of their grandeur. And among the greatest of them all, one also finds the greatest monuments of them all. Thus in Architecture and Art, among other sources, the fingerprints and deeds of great Civilizations and their dominant agents are recorded.

In so far as Architecture is concerned, the key question though is this: to these megastructures precede, are concurrent with, or signify and pinpoint the beginning of economic decline of the time period which produced them at the first place? In effect, to put it in finance terms, are they “leading” or “lagging” indicators of economic (and overall social and broadly cultural) growth?

It seems that the answer again is tied up with that of scale. Major architectural edifices definitely appear during a period of significant growth (of a company or Nation), vary rarely at the start, but undoubtedly in the midst of their economic prosperity. The 20th Century skyscrapers of the Americas and Asia are examples of such structures constructed in the midst of economic prosperity of the underlying their building entities.

By looking at these megastructures (keep always in mind, here we do not only imply size, but also a mathematical sophistication and aesthetic quality to accompany it) in the geographic area we have been looking at (Europe, Western Asia, Northern Africa), where does Kasta fall? Clearly and beyond any doubt it reaches the very top. Of course there are numerous monuments that could come close to footing the bill. However, a good case can be made that none of them is of the scale (in comparative terms) of Newgrange, Abu Simbel, and Kasta (undoubtedly in its full and perfect version, the one that according to this author never materialized, as well as its scaled down version as presented here).

83

Exceptionally large in mere size projects come at the tail end of economic prosperity. In effect, they may cause economic decline in the economic system that created them. Paradoxical as it may look at a first glance, they in effect contribute to the fall and ultimate very destruction of the systems that created them. Their scale simply is such that creates a drain in economic resources, unduly occupying labor from other potentially more productive economic activities. They have an extremely high inter- temporal opportunity cost: they divert productive resources (including natural resources, physical as well as intellectual capital, labor, land, and above all time) from alternative investments with potentially much higher rates of return thus damaging the future of that system which builds them at the first place.

They are not often repeatable, and they appear at rare moments in the historical record. Their effects are of an extremely long term nature, and of course not always positive and for all entities involved. A full scale benefit-cost analysis of such monuments is still to be undertaken, and for sure what entities such an analysis would include and account for estimating their respective benefits and costs remains an open research question.

Such megastructures usually emerge after major expansionist campaign by the agents (rulers) who builds them. Such expansions do not necessarily confine themselves to military campaigns, as was mainly the case in the past we are looking at now with this paper on Kasta. Expansionist campaigns could also entail large in scale capital movements, or cultural influences. All involve vast transfers of wealth to a core region, which then acquires a vast spatially dispersed periphery of client regions. These are the basic economic and spatial dynamics of empires (military based, or finance capital based empires). Let’s take a look at some case studies, and thus place Kasta within this theoretical framework.

Abu Simbel required a very prolonged time period of political stability for its construction. If the historical record is at all accurate, construction started very early into Ramses II rein, by 1264 BC. It’s a monument carved out of granite and with a construction period of about 20 years. It was built to commemorate an imperial conquest, the battle of Kadesh against the Hittites. Ramses II ascended to power in 1276 BC and reined till about 1213 BC. He is a unique individual in human History, a monarch of unprecedented longevity. We don’t know the person who built Newgrange, or exactly how long its construction lasted. But it will be safe to assume that the agent responsible for that Megalithic construction was a major figure for his Neolithic era, and that he lived long enough to oversee its undertaking from start up to its completion. It is safe to suggest that its construction didn’t exceed the creator’s life span. Moreover, if the theory just suggested is correct, we rest assured that the construction of Newgrange must have commenced at a time period close to a major conquest of the time, a period when considerable human resources could be mobilized to execute a monument of that magnitude.

We now know when approximately Kasta MCP took place, and that was the time close to the death of Alexander III, the only era in Macedonia that anyone could support such a major construction type undertaking. Thus here we have a major, by any historical standards, individual in the ancient world. Indeed, Alexander III’s imperial conquest to the East brought into Macedonia not only riches but also cheap human labor from Asia and Africa. We have an Empire, we have the tail end of that Empire. Almost all factors are confluent, except one: Alexander didn’t live long enough.

But there is another problem here. Even with a scaled down version, still Kasta is a huge in scale economic activity. But it isn’t the scale of construction, as envisioned at first. One might venture the proposition that a full scale MCP without the imperfections observed and mentioned in detail here,

84

Kasta could be the place to honor and rest the body of someone in the immediate circle of Alexander, but not Alexander himself. Kasta is still small for someone the caliber and stature of Alexander III. In [1] it has been argued that HFAISTION (Alexander’s deputy and closest personal friend) was the likely person to fill that role. And that the pyramid at Hill 133, next to Kasta, imperial architect and planner Deinokratis would had used for Alexander himself. But both of these schemes, Kasta cum Hill 133, didn’t materialize for a simple reason: Alexander died too early. This condition, the early death of Alexander III, is the single most important factor that violates the necessary conditions included in our theoretical proposition stated above.

Thus Kasta, in a scaled down form under MCP, was used for someone else. It was not Alexander, but undoubtedly someone Alexander personally knew very well. It could not have been anyone else in Macedonia. Anyone else would violate the basic tenets of the above state theoretical perspective. Who that person or persons is/are will probably await decades of detailed and painful research and examination of evidence to figure out. It will have to successfully face challenges from close competitors to whoever emerges as the likely candidate. Central in that competition will always be the question: would that person rival in magnitude the Newgrange builder, Ramses II, or Khufu? Only Hefaistion possibly could, but again, the time requirement doesn’t quite get satisfied: Hefaistion didn’t enjoy a 20-year period of political support in Macedonia following his death (in November 324 BC) or his key backer and ETEROS’ death about seven months later. No other person in Alexander’s army or family comes even close to the level of Newgrange’s builder, or Ramses II. And the evidence from the skeletal remains that he was buried there is very weak. This is in effect, the factor pointing at the downgrading of Kasta (the real Kasta, and not the never materialized “Cadillac” version of it). Anyone else from the list of close Alexander’s associates doesn’t have the aura to back the proposition that such monument was built for him, or her. And no one in the period that followed, not only in Macedonia but in the entire Greece, and not only in the last quarter of the 4th Century BC but the entire century and indeed over the millennium that followed doesn’t come even close to the aura of an Alexander III. Not until Justinian appears in Constantinople eight centuries later.

The lifespan of the tomb itself, covering about a century and a half following the death of Alexander III, doesn’t certainly contain any hidden Khufu in it any great creator of History and wealth. It does contain many candidates for its SRP transformative stage, and its ultimate burial. Macedonia and the surrounding Regions were overproducing agents of such destruction back then. The exact identification of the agent or agents that contributed to Kasta’s demise may be an intriguing historical exercise. But it certainly doesn’t commend any interest beyond that narrow confines of searching for “who dune it”.

Some (but certainly not all) Great Figures of History built great monuments to themselves for the eternity of afterlife. Having been elevated to deities, it was their name they wished to keep alive for ever. If their megastructure was their tomb (like Khufu’s Pyramid) their main objective in doing so (keep in mind that this is one of those multiple-objective decision making processes) is for them to remain forever undisturbed by mortals, while perpetuating their dominant image upon them. They built their tombs in places mortals (although humans were not their primary focus, their aim was the Heavens) could see, but remain unable to reach, thus imposing their presence in eternity upon humanity. In that sense, the Great Pyramids in Egypt are stark examples in monumental vanity and human arrogance. But here at Kasta we see an oddity. MCP wanted the creation of such a Masterpiece for both humans and the Heavens to see. But SRP went against it. SRP reduced that ambition significantly. And then the final

85

process, its burial and sealing in soil, was to take it off entirely from humanity’s sight, hide it from the Heavens themselves. It was the ultimate manifestation of suicidal behavior.

Khufu’s Pyramid is of great interest in this context as a case study. Build in a 20-year period also, construction of it started around 2560 BC, under the reign of another powerful Pharaoh. Historians disagree as to the exact length of his rein, which ranges between 24 and 63 years. Modern historians estimate his reign to have lasted about 40 years, quite long for the then standards. As a ruler he was involved in expansionist campaigns during Egypt’s first half of the Old Kingdom. These numbers and activity confirm the numbers already describing the social-economic-demographic figures of the other megastructure builders.

In the far reaches of Asia, powerful Chinese Emperors did exactly the same, proving that the underlying necessary and sufficient cultural (social, political, economic, religious) structure producing such monuments cuts across societies since the dawn of human History. On the other hand, Genghis Khan opted to be buried in a place no one would know, and to guarantee this secret location had all those who built his tomb killed. His afterlife he wanted to only be preoccupying the Heavens. An exception that validates the rule, may be.

But of course not all human societies reached that level, and had individuals ruling them with enough longevity and power to produce the Monuments we are dealing with in this monograph. For these individuals must have been unique in the History of humanity. The builder of Newgrange, Ramses II, and Alexander III were such unique individuals. And their time spans (3200 BC, 1270 BC, 323 BC correspondingly) are far apart to meet the temporal spacing requirement discussed earlier.

But here we encounter another problem, as we look at that rule. The Golden Age of Macedonia, during the reins of Phillip II and Alexander III (350 BC to 320 BC) does come close to the Golden Age of Athens (460 BC – 430 BC), the Greek Classical era, the time of Pericles and the construction of the Acropolis there. The various buildings that constitute the complex of monuments at Acropolis were constructed in the period 460 BC – 400 BC, with the Parthenon (the pinnacle of edifices there made out of Pentelic marble and built on the Golden Ratio principle, a principle unsurpassed in aesthetic value to this day). It was built in the period 447 BC to 438 BC at the heart of Pericles’ reign. Although the term “Golden Age” is exclusively used for the Athenian period under Pericles, the author considers the period 350 BC – 320 BC to also reflect an equivalent time in the history of Macedonia, with Pella and Amphipolis and a number of other places under Macedonian direct control in Northern Greece then to reflect the tenets of a Golden Age.

Acropolis and Kasta to an extent may not have in them edifices the size of the megalithic structure at Newgrange, or the granite Chambers of Abu Simbel. But they have in them mathematical, astronomical, art form aesthetics and construction sophistication unparalleled by any building to that point in time. In specific Kasta contains in its marble clad an annual calendar, an estimate of an astronomical constant that any scientist of today would marvel at: the approximation of the exact number of days in a year (365.44). It also contains the sophistication in its Maidens’ Golden Ratio [7], and a double meander in its mosaic floor containing Chamber #2 {the structure’s umbilical cord), with unparalleled geometry and algebra imprinted in it [11] together with a code-mathematical sequence still to be deciphered.

As the two Golden Ages are so close in space-time, the principle (dictum) of spatio-temporal distance as stated earlier seems to fail. This could be another corroborative reason as to why Kasta can’t be quite

86

elevated to the original billing of a Monument to rival Newgrange or Abu Simbel. On the other hand, it could be a testimonial to the greatness of the Greek and Hellenistic Culture combined. Greece may have been the only place in Eurasia and Africa where two megastructures Kasta in Macedonia, and the complex of buildings on Athens’ Acropolis, appeared in a span of about a century. The mathematics of Kasta establishes this structure almost at par with the Parthenon, and this phrase certainly doesn’t constitute a hubris, on the part of Kasta’s proponents. Whereas the construction, mathematical, astronomical, design details of the Parthenon have preoccupied Archeology, History, Architecture, Art, and Mathematics for some time now, those equivalent studies about Kasta have just started. This author expects studies on Kasta to continue unabated (no matter the occasional politics) for decades, possibly centuries to come.

It is worth repeating here an observation made at the Introductory Section of this paper. The century-long proximity of Kasta and the Athens Acropolis can only be paralleled with the century long proximity of Khufu’s pyramid and the Sphinx at the Giza plateau, a span of two millennia.

Kasta is not just the structure. For this structure at Kasta, has also a history to go with it, a perplexing narrative, a novel of some note, a mystery and riddle for the ages. In the basket containing the positives and negatives associated with a candidate for induction into a “Hall of Fame” of “superstructures” or “megastructures” or “extremely important monuments”, this captivating certainly intriguing life story must naturally be included as one of the key attributes. And this might turn out to be the biggest asset Kasta contains in its arsenal on its way to Superstardom.

7. Reconstructing the Life of the Structure at Kasta.

a. The Final Phase: Kasta’s burial.

In our attempt to reconstruct Kasta’s life we start with its death puzzle. At some point in time, yet unknown, and for reasons marred in mystery, and by some agency still obscure, the interior and whatever remained outside exposed was finally buried. Whoever was buried in there, under the soil of Kasta Hill, endured periods of torment, while the tomb would witness raids, looting and desecration partly recorded in the condition the funerary Chamber was found as well the condition of the skeletal remains and bone fragments unearthed. The tomb itself suffered from capital depreciation as well destruction by both humans and natural causes. At some point, someone decided to put an end to it. In the final act of a drama, potentially both tragedy and comedy, someone poured dirt on it, burying the burial place itself, in effect re-burying the buried. This represents the third and final act in this play. It’s the final phase of the structure’s life span, FP for short from now on.

Sealing with dirt such a huge by all means tomb, is a unique event in the lifespan of monuments. This act alone, attaches considerable significance to the whole structure. It exhibits a human attribute, an act of considerable social (and more broadly cultural) value unique in the History of humanity. Only one equivalent action we have recorded in modern time that somehow shares common characteristics with Kasta. This is the case of the “terracotta army” burial associated with the burial of Qin Shi Huang, the

87

first emperor of China, in Xi’an, the first Capital of China in Shaanxi Province. Not much will be said here on this case, since China is certainly not in the radar screen within the spatio-temporal milieu we are currently addressing, as China was not part of the influences any of the rulers encountered here enjoyed. It will only be noted, for purposes of simple comparative analysis, that the event at Xi’an involved only a terracotta army (not the ruler himself, whose mausoleum right next to his army burial, is still to be explored and certainly isn’t buried in soil as his terracotta figurine companions in his afterlife were). Interestingly, the Xi’an burial took place in 210 BC, about a century after the MCP construction at Kasta and a few decades before the burial of Kasta’s interior.

As the burial of Kasta’s interior succeeded the burial at Xi’an, it could be an interesting question to ponder whether somehow the Macedonians knew of Xi’an. Although the question may likely be answered in the negative, the affirmative response would not be terribly surprising. It is also noted that in the Xi’an burial about 700,000 workers (if one could call them still “labor” and not “slaves”) participated. For the record, in terms of size, this untouched yet mausoleum makes Kasta or any known monument pale by comparison: it rises about 80 meters above the ground, and her an outer perimeter of about 6.5 kilometers. The first human who will set eyes in it, might experience the same feeling Neil Armstrong experienced upon setting foot on the surface of the Moon. Undoubtedly, that will be an excavation for the centuries. It might be the next excavation to raise more interest than the excavation at Kasta during the fall of 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terracotta_Army

Whoever did undertake Kasta’s final phase (FP) transition, in fact the tomb’s undertaker, hoped that at long last the buried would be left alone forever in peace, not to be disturbed again. Thus, one may detect here a benevolent intent in the undertaker’s action. However, the dead persons buried there apparently were not the agent’s only concern. That agent (or agency) wanted to preserve the structural integrity of the edifice and maintain some respect in reference to certain objects of the tomb. Special attention was paid in protecting the two Maidens in Chamber #1 and the two Sphinxes at the Entrance. The agent did an indeed quite thorough job, although the quality of the sealing was not particularly remarkable; it was however certainly quite innovative and ingenious. The agent incurred considerable expense, and in spite of the fact that the sealing of the tomb was done in a hurry, it was not exactly an overnight job.

To secure the structural integrity of the edifice the ultimate undertaker raised two diaphragmatic walls, one just in front of the two Maidens, the other just touching the Sphinxes wall from the outside, and made sure, as we extensively discussed earlier in the text, that the two Sphinxes would not be buried as he poured thick mud inside the tomb from the roof. We still can’t fathom the reasons why he didn’t want the Sphinxes buried, although we must assume that this had some symbolic or even religious meaning. The undertaker’s interest in the Maidens and the Sphinxes could potentially tie this individual to the agency that was involved in MCP. In effect, his action can be seen as a “return to the Bull Cult” act, and an effort to preserve for eternity the remnants of the previous glory days.

The tomb’s undertaker most likely brought the soil to create the mud to seal the interior from the banks of Strymonas. He could have used the soil from the Hill itself, but he didn’t. Strymonas, as the Nile for the Egyprians, and maybe Boyne River for the builders of Newgrange in Ireland would represent the Milky Way Galaxy, the source of the Heavens. When this was finished and the structural integrity of the interior secured, maybe he used some soil from the hill itself to bury the rest of the structure, especially the portico. Apparently, there was not enough fine dirt soil on top of the Hill left, and maybe more

88

importantly, the undertaker didn’t want to disturb whatever was left of the bull shape form of the tumulus (the remnants of it that may have survived the SRP period).

And thus FP would have been the final act, if it wasn’t for the archeologists of the second decade of the 21st Century AD. They resurrected the monument, its symbols, its meaning, and its messages, and in so doing hopefully they haven’t erased for good evidence that could have enlightened us about Kasta and its period. Their uncovering thrusted upon humanity a great riddle: what is this evidently huge structure? To what period does it really belong? What exactly socio-cultural conditions would create such a monument and then turn around and bury it? These fundamental set of questions had another riddle in it: How come and such a seemingly megastructure doesn’t have a single historical reference to it? How could such an impressive edifice possibly be buried in oblivion for about 23 centuries? It is noted, that although not yet entered and explored, Qin Shi Huang’s mausoleum has had historical references to it since about 100 BC.

b. The lack of historical records on Kasta tumulus.

In this essay some partial answers to these questions that may be considered “basic” (only surpassed by the generic question: who’s buried there?) were provided. An answer-key to all of them is that addressing the question about the lack of historical records: the monument never attained “recognition status” during the three main phases of its transformations because it never reached its pinnacle of potential. May be too much was expected from it and it didn’t live up to its expectations then. Central in the “failed expectations” scenario is the set of imperfections we have found, and extensively discussed, besetting this structure in all of its construction phases.

But there’s also another set of failed expectations, and these are of a current nature. What the archeologists “expected” (the full 3-meter high exterior marble clad circumferentially ringing the structure) was an illusion. The monument never had this configuration, as we elaborated here. Thus, we should not have expected historians to comment on a monument associated only peripherally to Alexander III, if a figure not himself (or may be Hefaistion) is buried there. No historian lists the death place of Olympias or even the next more powerful ruler of Macedonia after Alexandros III, Cassander.

On the way to solving at last this “lack of records” riddle, we uncovered the possibly true face of this structure, via references to Newgrange. And this in effect propelled us to the broader socio-spatial milieu of this structure at Kasta, and assisted in placing it in its broader spatial and temporal cultural context. In this subsection we will elaborate a bit more on these issues.

We started this trip by posing this question: Why neither Greeks nor Romans (especially the Romans, who kept such meticulous records of places and events), historians and story tellers, didn’t pay any attention or visited and wrote about, thus make any reference to this impressive structure? How can a structure potentially rivaling Abu Simbel, doesn’t appear anywhere in anyone’s records of spaces and monuments? How come and no one entered this tomb at Kasta Hill over more than two millennia at least? With regards to the Romans, and their record keeping ability, one could also ask: if in fact the Romans stripped this monument from its marble clad, how come and they don’t mention this fact anywhere? Let alone mention the fact that a great tomb is found in Amphipolis, with great Art objects in it, and these objects could be of interest to the person in power in Rome? Simply because, they never

89

did come across this tomb and monument. And the Macedonians they conquered, didn’t much care about it, because to them (or at least to the vast majority of them) it was probably an insignificant structure. More accurately, over the centuries it might have become an insignificant structure, nothing special to write home about it.

Newgrange laid abandoned and in oblivion for about five thousand years, and so was Abu Simbel for about four thousand years. And we had no historical records of them either until relatively very recently. The earliest references to Newgrange come during medieval times by way of folklore; whereas, in the case of Abu Simbel (the above ground structures visible to all who would care to see and write about) first vague references to them come during the 6th Century BC, a good six centuries after their construction, and a full accounting of its magnificence and splendor doesn’t arrive into the historical record until the beginning of the 19th century.

History records what it chooses to record, however it chooses to record it. History transcends individual historians and individual human action. History isn’t a perfect recording machine. History has gaps in it but also a highly developed mechanism of self-correcting and self-completing. But while closing some of those gaps, it also opens up new ones in time. Historical records are living things, far beyond the living span of any historian, great or small.

Not all human activity falls under history’s attention. This “History” is an aggregate view, not a reference to any particular individual historian, but to a collective and its overall performance. As a collective activity, it’s far more than the sum of all historians’ individual activities. To the reader of History’s incomplete records, facing one of those History’s gaps, it’s at times difficult to distinguish the reason why a human action hasn’t been recorded by a record keeping History. Was it because it was on purpose ignored or was it simply because it escaped History’s record keeping capacity and its attention? In the latter case, one can further ask, was it because it was an insignificant, inconsequential, minor action? Or was it that History at that time wasn’t paying attention to it? The bottom line is, and it is of course both the blessing and the curse of Historiography for humanity, that ultimately we simply don’t know the answers to these questions. We can only answer then in retrospect with regards to specific acts or structures or objects, and we can’t generalize. For sure, there isn’t in real life instant replay, or rewinding of the clock. Of course, the size of the Historical record declines exponentially fast as one looks further back in time.

We now have some answers about Kasta, via Newgrange. The wall, which so much impressed all (from those involved in the excavation, to those who followed it closely), a wall that almost everyone thought that it completely put a luxury ring to the tumulus, marble cladded and all under MCP, was apparently not at all that way built. It was a much less involved enterprise. And its burial during SRP would put an end to its existence. Whatever religious, symbolic or mathematical and astronomical meaning it held, all that was gone with its burial in SRP.

Along with it, any elements associated with the Entrance of MCP were also erased with the refurbishing Kasta was subjected under SRP. It is clear that SRP was a hostile act against those responsible for the MCP. The SRP transformation reflected of course a deep change in the dominant cult. But it also reflected a sharp change in the very social elite structure of Macedonia. Moreover, in the rough and tumble history of Macedonia in the period following the death of Alexander III, we can now place the impurities and construction failures (as we discussed earlier) of (even a full blown largely imaginary “Cadillac” version) MCP. Thus, these imperfections are now put finally in their proper perspective.

90

Despite its exquisite design, the construction under MCP was done in a hurry, thus discounting in the eyes of many the value of the structure. Specific conditions prevailing then (see discussion in [1] regarding the reigns of Antipater, Polyperchon, and Cassander, during the last years of Alexander’s life and immediately following the earthquake announcement of his death in Babylon in June 323 BC) could give a plausible explanation as to the presence of these errors in design and construction, assuming that the Kasta’s MCP was done close enough to Alexander’s rein. Thus, not only social conditions prevailing then led to these imperfections, but also artistic and aesthetic considerations would justify why to a large extent the structure was shunned by individual historians.

However, another factor comes now into play via Newgrange: suppose that Kasta’s exterior wall’s marble clad was sufficiently limited in extent (length and height wise), so that the economic cost of building this structure was significantly less than even a modest exterior wall marble clad would require (let alone the “Cadillac” full exterior wall marble coverage). Then, this cost reduction makes the building of the structure affordable to not necessarily the top ruling elite of the Golden Age of Macedonia (RE: Alexander’s immediate circle), but to simply someone certainly in the elite structure of Macedonia, and not necessarily in its Golden Age. In effect, Newgrange on the one hand assists us in dealing with the form and magnitude and scale of Kasta, by telling us that there’s a physical reason why the structure isn’t found in the historical record (Kasta was not that impressive, elaborate and expensive). But this tremendous insight comes at a cost, as on the other hand Newgrange throws a wrench in our efforts to pinpoint the agent and time period Kasta was undertaken. In effect, Newgrange unhooks Kasta from the crucial decade (325 BC to 315 BC). This is the period that Alexander III and its immediate entourage and family would have any saying about Kasta. For the rest of that period, till the end of the 4th Century BC, belongs to another strong man of Macedonia, Cassander. And as time moves on, the chances of anyone else in charge of the Macedonian Kingdom, being able to mount such an effort, even under a shoestring type operation at MCP, decreases exponentially fast.

Romans ruled Macedonia past 146 BC, and any Roman Noble undertaking such enterprise involving any scale of MCP at Kasta would be recorded by Roman historians. None was. And the time left about a century and a half following Cassander’s rule doesn’t include any major figure of any noteworthy power and political status (with the possible exception of Dimitrios I, who ruled Macedonia from 294 BC till about his death in 283 BC, although by that time it was not very clear who was in charge of what in Macedonia) to undertake any kind of MCP at Kasta, let alone its “Cadillac” version. Macedonia of that era certainly didn’t include any Ramses II type ruler, or an economy to rival that of the Macedonian Empire with its Eastern riches and slaves under Alexander III. And if a ruler could not afford such a structure, no lower member of the Macedonian elite caste would. Even if he could, the political realities of the day would prevent him from doing so. In the brutal Macedonian Court of that era, no one could outdo the King, especially in death and ritual.

Paradoxically, at the end, Newgrange forces us to go back to the critical decade (325 – 315 BC) as the time of MCP at Kasta Tumulus. In doing so Newgrange now has offered us a calibrating mechanism regarding Kasta’s scale during its own MCP: it was not of the “Cadillac” type: not only because there simply was not enough time or enough resources or even design objectives to do so; instead, there was an alternative design objective fulfil, to carry out a well targeted and limited marble clad ringing of Kasta’s perimeter as bull horns. That design had strong religious and ritualistic connotations, with which the ruling Macedonian elite at the time may not had felt comfortable. These symbols may have raised hostility to it by rival social and religious groups. Coupled with its imperfections in design and

91

construction we encounter by carefully examining its interior and exterior construction details, all these factors formed a bundle of repulsive forces. This bundle was in a final analysis the reason why the structure at Kasta isn’t listed in History’s books.

Thus, we now can understand the lack of historical documentation of the structure up till not only the MCP period, but also the end of the SRP period. If one can find an excuse for a news blackout on Kasta under MCP, a fortiori one can understand why the structure at Kasta in the poor state (in terms of quality) and inaccessibility under SRP would be avoided and ignored by historians: it was not that important to virtually anyone, except those caring about the buried there (if they had any descendants left), or to a small group of loyal followers of a religious sect associated with the symbols found within Kasta, and especially the Sphinxes. It was not that big of a deal in the state it found itself following the SRP transition, no matter how long that phase lasted, and the longer it lasted, the less important it became as capital depreciation and social dislike increased with time. Kasta apparently didn’t age “gracefully” or acquired “antique value” as the problems it faced kept mounting at a faster pace with the onset of the Macedonian Empire’s down fall, and the coming of the Roman era.

Newgrange, although liberates Kasta from the grasp of Alexander’s aura and era, by lowering Kasta’s status and stripping it from the grandeur of a fully encircling half a kilometer long tumulus 3-meter tall marble cladded exterior wall, at the end brings us back full circle to an era following Alexander III’s death. This then sets the stage for an account of this structure’s timeline.

c. A brief history of Kasta’s time.

We are now able to roughly outline a plausible history of this structure at Kasta. Furthermore, we are now going to put some names and dates to this Tomb. Finally, we will attempt to sketch a scenario as to what may have happened to this perplexing till now structure.

To do so, we turn our attention to something that was related to the public by the archeological team on November 29th, 2014: the finding of coins and pottery fragments in the sealing soil inside Chambers #1 and 2, as well as the condition of the bones and bone fragments found inside the funerary Chamber, inside as well as outside an underground vault, as announced in January 2015.

The announcement of November 29th 2014 [12], was a setback for the structure’s prospects in a number of respects. It was not enlightening enough to the eager public awaiting breakthrough type announcements about the occupant of the tomb (the focal point of anyone’s concern). That was only answered by a set of poor slides showing scattered broken bones in the vault of Chamber #3 (the funerary Chamber), and a statement by the chief archeologist that the bones “of the person” were sent for anthropological and medical autopsy at a lab. The main menu of the entire presentation was taken up by the architect of the team in an effort to show how “the Lion of Amphipolis was fit on top of the mound”. There was also a presentation by the team’s engineer, who for the first time indicated that “there could be a prior tomb” where the vault of the funerary Chamber was found. As an afterthought, a bomb was dropped by K. Peristeri, the sound of which went almost unnoticed.

That “silent bomb” was her statement that: “since the start of the excavation fragments of pottery, along with coins of Alexander III and early Roman era spanning the period 320 BC to the late 2nd to early 3rd century AD were found inside Chambers #1 and 2”. (A question here: why were they not announced

92

when found? And of course, why were not photos of them made public to this day? In the Byzantine world of Greek Archeology one may seek and perhaps find the answer.) Nobody in the audience asked whether these coins and pottery fragments were found inside the sealing soil (and at what level), or whether they were found on the floor of the tomb. Of course that information was not volunteered to the public by the chief archeologist, a public servant of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports. In effect, this byline of the presentation ripped a good part of the “Hefaistion Hypothesis” narrative, as found in [1].

Another tidbit of news in that November 29th 2014 presentation was the location of the bones found in the funerary Chamber: not only were they found inside as well as outside the vault, and the location of their “intact wooden casket the individual was buried”, but also on the (in a mess) floor outside the vault and “in the strata of soil” used to seal the tomb. When about two months later the results of the medical lab came it [13] regarding the bones of that “individual” that Peristeri talked about in November, things took an unexpected turn. It turned out that about 500 bones and bone fragments were counted, out of which only one quarter the examiners were able to clearly identify. In addition, bones also from a variety of animals were found in the soil analyzed.

The medical and anthropological team was able to identify five individuals. The majority of these bones and bone fragments belong to a woman. She was over 60 years old and 1.57m tall. This woman was the main individual and the deepest buried inside the vault. Among the two adult males identified, the youngest was 35 years old, and 1.68m tall. He had deep (plausibly death causing cuts and injuries, since the cuts were unhealed); his autopsy revealed that this individual was struck in numerous parts of his body including his neck and thorax. The oldest adult male was about 45 years of age, and 1.62m tall, with a broken wrist. Finally, the fourth individual identified was someone whose nine partial bones recovered were burned. The astonishing mix finally revealed the bones of an infant of unclear gender.

No stratigraphic representation of these finds was presented, neither for the coins and pottery fragments nor the human and animal bones. It is hoped that it exists. In fact to this date, no photos of the coins and pottery fragments have become available to the public. On the other hand, some bones’ photos have been made public. The analysis now proceeds by closely analyzing both the bones related findings and then the coins.

The bones and some candidates, and the special case of NEARXOS.

So the evidence available to the public establishes a number of facts regarding the skeletal remains and human bones and bone fragments found inside the funerary Chamber #3 at Kasta:

(i) The tomb was not used for a single individual. Although the medical and anthropological examiners identified five individuals’ skeletal remains, the possibility exists that the more than 393 remaining and unaccountable thus far bone fragments may come from the bones of other individuals. Moreover, although the general belief is that this represents a family tomb, this is just an assertion and not necessarily a fact. Moreover, we can be reasonably assured that the tomb was built either for all those among the five that belong to the tomb, or at least for one present here. That is, we have in our hands the person of the tomb – it can’t be someone not present there.

93

(ii) The oldest individual buried there and the one with most complete skeleton was a 60 year old woman.

(iii) No complete skeletons were found, implying that the tomb had been severely assaulted, viciously desecrated and bones taken from it and from all buried there. Given the brutal treatment of the dead, and noting the manner in which the double-leaf marble door was rammed and broken down into pieces, is further testimony to the hostility present during the tomb raid.

(iv) Parts of a head were found only for the 60 year old woman, and the infant; the two males’ heads were not among their remaining bones or bone fragments.

(v) The tomb had been raided, possibly numerous times, and quite viciously.

(vi) Since bones and bone fragments were found in the sealing soil, it must be concluded that some of the human bones and bone fragments found were dumped with the Strymonas river soil, while the tomb was being sealed. Obviously, these individuals have nothing to do with tomb. They are the Jimmy Hoffa’s of that era.

(vii) It is likely that since Strymonas has been the theater of many a battle in antiquity, quite likely the bones of the 35 year old could be from there, it could belong to a victim of such a battle, and thus having absolutely nothing to do with the tomb. However, because we have more bones from this male than the 45 year old male, the possibility that this individual did belong to the tomb should not be discounted.

Moreover, the person with the unidentified gender and age, whose nine burned bones were recovered could be another such person, having nothing to do with the tomb. Quite likely however, the three individuals genuinely connected to the tomb could just be the 60 year old woman, the 45 year old man, and possibly the infant. Of special importance here is the 60 year old woman, and the main person buried there in term of skeletal bone integrity, including her skull. This woman could be the High Priestess of that initial tomb, existing in Kasta prior to the mound turning into a monument under MCP. She could belong to the cult of an era prior to 350 BC potentially up till 400 BC, if not even earlier, thus indicative of possibly a ritualistic function associated with that initial tomb and possible prior structure there.

The partial skeleton of the 60-year old woman presents another possibility though. It can be the unifying factor linking the rest of the skeletons to hers, and to a story even closer to Alexander’s life as it will be shown momentarily. She could be short of a “matriarch” of the clan, for which this tomb was constructed.

Of real interest however is the 45 year old male. He’s the only person for whom this tomb was not necessarily made but potentially used. What was found as decorative remnants of a casket could belong to just this person. This person could be someone of Alexander’s close campaign companions (possibly one of his generals or admirals) or someone of his family. Krateros, Perdiccas, Laomedon and the admiral of Alexander’s fleet Nearchus are possible candidates here, and far less likely Hefaestion. It was for Hefaestion the paper in reference [1] was written. However, Hefaestion was 32 years of age (if historical records are accurate) and the main candidate here is the 45 year old male and the 60-year old female. To argue that the person with the nine burned bones is Hefaestion, is a possibility, as is for any of Alexander’s Generals listed here along with his admiral.

94

Among the four possible candidates offered here, the chances vary. Krateros died in 321 BC at the age of 50. He could possibly fit the description of the 45 year old male. Alexander’s ring recipient Perdiccas (of uncertain age), died around 320 BC while battling Ptolemy I Soter in Egypt for succession in ruling the empire Alexander left. He was assassinated in a plot involving his own commanders in Egypt. What happened to his remains is unknown. However, the conditions of the 35 year old’s death and injuries could conceivably describe his condition. Laomedon was a General held in high esteem by Alexander III, but his age and date of death are unknown. His name disappears from the historical record at around 320 BC. Nearchus presents a very interesting case as a candidate to be the 45 year old male in the tomb at Kasta. He died at 300 BC at about age 60 according to historical records. Besides serving as the admiral of Alexander’s formidable fleet, he was Alexander’s mentor. He was born in Crete, but his family had settled in Amphipolis, where he spent a bit of his young life [14]. Although his age doesn’t quite fit into the age of the individual in question (45), inaccuracy in both the historical record and the autopsy margin of error could conceivably be reconciled. The chance is also there the charred bones belong to him. Apparently Nearchus’ family had strong ties with Philip II and Nearchus kept strong prolonged ties to the Macedonian royal elite over that topsy-turvy period of Macedonian history. He was definitely a survivor.

In addition, what makes the Nearchus case a strong possibility is his connection to Barsine (Alexander’s mistress). Barsine (366 – 309 BC) bore Alexander an illegitimate son, Heracles (327 – 309 BC). Nearchus married Barsine’s daughter, and upon Alexander’s death he argued for the rights of Heracles to succeed Alexander as an heir to Macedonia’s throne. In that he found a strong ally, Polyperchon Macedonia’s Regent, who came back from a six year hiatus in 309 BC (and after the murder in 309 BC by Cassander’s orders of Roxane and Alexander IV), to argue for Heracles’ rights as well, only to end up ordering the murder of Heracles after negotiating with Cassander a peaceful retirement for himself. Nearchus has another strong connection to the royal Macedonian elite, He’s mentioned as Dimitrios I’s advisor in the 313-312 BC period by Diodorus Siculus [14].

Thus Nearchus case contains the possibility of tying either Barsine to the 60-year old skeletal remains of the woman in Kasta, or her daughter, Nearchus’ wife. The Nearchus scenario does fit well the Kasta MCP and SRP transformations: a monument initially made to commemorate the Asian campaign (MCP), is taken over by Cassander, undergoes SRP and is handed over to Nearchus and his family.

But Nearchus is not the only possibility. If one had to set probabilities on the five individuals mentioned, Hefaestion (H), Krateros (K), Perdiccas (P), Laomedon (L), and Nearchus (N), then the chances could possibly go as follows:

A. regarding the bones of the burned person (itself of a low probability – around 10% - to directly belong to the tomb, as opposed to just having been dumped there as part of the soil from Strymonas, probability 90%): H(b): 25%, K(b): 5%, P(b): 10%, L(b): 15%. N(b): 20% Other(b): 25%.

B. Regarding the bones of the 45 year old male (with probability of belonging to the tomb at 90% and of course not belonging to the tomb at 10%): H(45): 0%, K(45) 10%, P(45): 25%, L(45): 25%, N(45): 20%, O(45): 20%.

C. Regarding the bones of the 35 year old male (probability of not belonging to the tomb at 90%, with the rest 10% being the probability that is does): H(35): 0%, K(35): 10%, P(35): 40%, L(35): 20%, N(35): 0%, O(35): 30%.

95

Taking then these probabilities, one has the following conditional probabilities identifying the chances of each of the six possible alternatives: under (A) Hefaestion, 2.5%; Krateros, .5%; Perdiccas, 1%; Laomedon, 1.5%; Nearchus, 2%, Other, 2.5%. Under (B) Hefaestion, 0%, Krateros, 9%, Perdiccas, 22.5%, Laomedon, 22.5%, Nearchus, 18%, Other 18%. Under (C) Hefaestion, 0%, Krateros, 1%, Perdiccas, 4%, Laomedon, 2%, Nearchus, 0%, Other, 3%.

By adding these three independent event’s probabilities for each of the six alternatives we extract the total probability that any of these six alternative candidates is present in Kasta: Hefaestion, 2.5%, (97.5% isn’t), Krateros, 10.5% (89.5 isn’t), Perdiccas, 24.5% (75.5% isn’t) , Laomedon, 26% (74% isn’t) , Nearchus, 20% (80% isn’t), Other, 23.5% (76.5% isn’t). These probabilities point to LAOMEDON as the most likely alternative, beating even the “other” alternative, although by a narrow margin. Perdiccas comes in as a close second, with the alternative “Oher” coming in third. Nearchus follows as a close fourth alternative with a respectable 20% chance. Krateros is a distant fifth with one out of ten chances his remains are in Kasta, and the list completes with Hefaestion’s meager chances of being the person with the burned nine bones at 2.5%.

At the end, it seems that the chances are respectable regarding three specific individuals, Laomedon, Perdiccas and Nearchus. We must accept that History records with errors, and so do scientists. To err is human. If there’s an error regarding History’s Nearchus’s age (60), and an error in the identification of the “45-year old” individual’s true age, and if the error falls more on the autopsy than history’s incorrect Nearchus’ age, then the chances that this was a family tomb for the NEARCHUS clan, given the History recorded ties his family and himself had with Amphipolis, increase dramatically.

One more component can be introduced here, based on the number of identified bones and bone fragments found in the tomb (157 out of 550 recorded), and belonging to any of the five identified individuals’ skeletal remains. Assigning a probability distribution of likelihood, that a specific skeleton belongs to Kasta or not (i.e., they were re-buried there from some other place for some reason, extraneous to Kasta having being built), then one can further gauge the final probability this monument was made for a particular individual. The greatest abundance of bones was that of the 60-year old female. Let’s call the bone abundance X{W}, a number between 1 and 206 (the total number of bones a human adult skeleton contains). The female’s bone abundance count could be obtained from the drawings shown in http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/news/44 and similarly for the rest of the individuals. However, the scale and detail of the drawing does not permit precise counting, thus this part of the analysis will remain abstract. Then the next higher abundance is for the 35-year old male, X(35), and it could be obtained from: http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/news/46 ) followed by that of the 45-year old, X{45}, obtainable from: http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/news/47 ). The individual comprising the nine charred bones is next, followed by the just four bones for the infant. Then, X(60)+X(65)+X(35)+X(b)+X(I)=157. Let’s define as x(60) the probability that any bone belongs to the 60 year old female, x(45) that of the 45 year old male, x(35) that for the 35 year old male, x(b) that of the individual with the burned bones, and x(I) that of the infant from the set of 157 bones and bone fragments. Then obviously, x(60)+x(45)+x(35)+x(b)+x(I)=1.00, where x(60)=X(60)/157 etc. This constitutes an exhaustive set of probabilities, since we can’t assume that the tomb was built for someone without any single bone present there. Here for illustration purposes it will be assumed that we have: x(60)= 50%; x(35)= 20%; x(45)= 15%; x(b)= 10%; x(I)=5%, By weighing the dominant by skeleton category individual’s chances in accordance with these probabilities we arrive at the following set of final chances: H(2.5x.10=.25%), P(40x.20=8%), K(10x.15=1.5%), L(25x.15=3.75%), N(20x.15=.3%), Other

96

(35x.2=7%). The application of a bone count based likelihood of Kasta dedication implies that the chances of the female, Perdiccas and any “Other” increase considerably, whereas the individual chances for Hefaestion, Krateros, Laomedon and Nearchus are reduced. However, they do shoot up, if one includes the possibility that this is a family tomb and that their mother (or wife) is buried there, and is found in the skeletal remains of the 60-year old female.

We can make further inferences using these counts. If the number of people with skeletal remains in the tomb represent some distribution of individuals buried over time, then a utilization rate can be established. For example, if the assumed longevity of the monument as a tomb (its vital statistic) is 150 years, one obtains the average ratio that a (recognized) person per 30 years (150/5=30) was buried there. The greater that ratio, the more extended the idle interval for the tomb, that is the less the number of persons buried per time period there. Conversely, the lower the ratio, the greater the usage of the tomb during its lifespan. Assuming a generation’s life expectancy in Macedonia of the 4th Century BC, to be about close to today’s World wide average of about 30 years, then the proposition that this was indeed a family tomb obtains additional validity.

On the other hand, if the life expectancy then there was significantly lower than 30, a family tomb lifespan of 150 years must be questioned or the family tomb hypothesis must be questioned. In terms of gender distribution, if the gender of the person with the burned bones and/or the infant are females, then the chances that this is a family tomb increase significantly. Of course, only DNA evidence can conclusively answer the family tomb question. Weighing the chances of either a shorter lifespan for the tomb, versus the null hypothesis that this isn’t a family tomb, it is suggested that the 150 year time horizon seems to the less likely, and in a more likely scenario, we are dealing with a family tomb.

Coins.

Let’s turn back to the coins and pottery fragments, in an effort to obtain the structure’s vital statistics. Can the coins give any hints as to when this structure appeared, (its “birth” date), and when was its inside sealed (its “death” date)? Since no dating of the skeletal remains has become available (and no DNA results), the answer to these two birth and death related questions we can only rely on the coins and pottery fragments (accepting the reported information that they were found inside the tomb).

In reference to coins, a set of rules can be set up to gauge the validity of the information they contain regarding the chronology of a structure. At the outset, coins are historical markers if and only if the soil strata they are buried are “genuine” meaning naturally formed, thus capable of producing genuine readings. In this case, a set of soil strata consists of layers such that any given lower soil stratum is at most as contemporary as the soil stratum above it. Otherwise, the layers of soil are artificially made (fake stratigraphy), and thus they offer false readings. In the case of Kasta, we know that the soil strata inside the tomb consists from soil extracted from the banks of Strymonas. Thus it was man-made. It could contain coins available from any time period before the tomb was sealed. Thus, it can’t provide any information as to the monuments “birth”. But they could provide information as to the edifice’s “death”.

97

One need distinguish here between two categories, (I) coins found on the floor of a structure which later in its life was sealed with soil from an outside source; and (II) coins found in the sealing soil strata, that is the time the structure in question, in effect met its “death”.

Under case I, one can make the following statements: (Ia) coins can be used as reliable time markers only as earliest possible “death” (EPD) signs, if we know for sure the date of their being minted. Since the tomb couldn’t have “died” at an earlier date than the coin found in it was minted, this also sets a trivial last possible “birth” date; (Ib) they can’t be used as informative “birth” markers, since their availability could span centuries, following their withdrawal from circulation in the marketplace (as they usually become collectors’ items); coins can’t be used as nontrivial “birth” markers of a structure, since an earlier coin can be dropped on a later structure, and a later coin can be dropped on an earlier structure. The only information they can supply regarding the “birth” of the edifice is the trivial date, a statement in effect that the edifice couldn’t have been constructed any time after it was buried, so in that sense it does supply the trivial latest birth date (LBD).

In summary, coins found on the floor of the edifice can be relevant (provide genuine reading) for setting the EPD date of the structure. In case of multiple coins with different mint dates, the LATEST (youngest coin) becomes of essence.

Now let’s turn our attention to the case the coins are found in the sealing strata, case II, i.e., when the edifice was buried and met its “death”. Could those coins become EPD markers? (IIa) found within the soil strata of the edifice’ sealing soil, coins can also be markers of EPD of the tomb, and in case of multiple coinage (as in the case of floor coins) the latest coinage becomes of essence, since they have to be in existence before put inside, under the assumption that the sealing remained undisturbed thereafter (meeting the genuine strata requirement); (IIb) Similarly to the coins found on the floor, coins found in the sealing soil strata are irrelevant as “birth” markers; (IIc) from all coinage in the tomb, be that floor or sealing soil, the youngest coinage trumps all others as an EPD marker; (IId) if the soil above the highest found coin in the strata is at least as young as that coin’s stratum, thus guaranteeing genuine readings, and if a statistically derived probability distribution and frequency tables are available in reference to various coins in circulation at a given era, then some additional information can be extracted about a structure’s probable life span. Such frequency distribution tables could open up limits as to how far on both starting (birth) and end (death) side of a building’s demography one can go, if coins are found in there.

The above discussion opens up a new field of study, potentially of interest beyond the case of Kasta. Moreover, it is expected that Peristeri’s conclusion [15] regarding the 2nd Century BC chronology of the monument’s interior sealing is based on the above supplied syllogism about coins.

The basis for deriving Kasta’s lifespan scenario.

Beyond this angle to the coins’ location and mint dates found inside the tomb, another angle is of import. If the coins were found on the floor, then certain inferences can be made with regards to the usage and function of the building. Such functions could be either some form of a ritual related to the structure being used as a temple, or ritual related to the edifice used as a tomb. Consequently, exact location of these coins is important and informative. Since not much has been said by the archeological

98

team about these coins’ location, not much will be added here in regards to the possible functions of the building. The only information offered was that they were not valuable coins.

It should also be mentioned that the exact 3-d distribution of coins and pottery fragments in reference to the whole of the tomb’s interior offers considerable information from a statistical “cluster analysis” view. Then, one can test various hypothesis regarding these “clusters” with within and among “clusters” variances – leading to possible rejection of hypotheses regarding specific “sealing” as well as “dating” scenarios. It is hoped that such precise stratigraphic recording exists, and that it contains enough data to allow rigorous testing of related hypotheses.

On the basis of the previous syllogism about coins and dates thus, it must be concluded that the Alexander III era coins do not set the earliest possible time period the tomb was sealed. They don’t set the period the structure at Kasta was built either, no matter where they were found. It’s the Roman era coins found inside the tomb that do. According to the above stated principle they set the “death” marker for the monument, its EPD. No specifics were offered as to what specific Roman era were these coins from. Following the November 29th 2014 presentation by the archeological team, press reports indicated that the archeologist in charge made references to early (2nd Century BC) and to late 2nd century AD period coins. However, with her public letter of August 9th 2015 [15] she made clear that the tomb was sealed in the 2nd century BC, thus invalidating the 2nd century AD chronology. It must be assumed that the archeological team located inside the tomb Roman coins of the 2nd BC period, and these were the latest coin vintage found inside Kasta.

In so far as the pottery fragments are concerned, according to press reports following the November 29th 2014 presentation, chronologically were the same as the coins. It was then reported that pottery fragments were found that included pottery types both of the black-figure and red-figure specimens. Both were available over the early 4th century BC till the 2nd century AD period. In view of [15] these reports proved incorrect, and one must surmise that the pottery fragments found inside the tomb were also of a no later than the 2nd century BC type. Since not much is added by them in terms of tomb’s timeline relevant information, not much more will be said about them here, except to note that their presence there may signify the use of the interior space at Kasta as a tomb and a temple and a monument.

The analysis presented in the previous Sections clearly puts the MCP stage close to 320 BC. Peristeri’s announcement [15] places the 2nd century as the “death” marker for the monument. Thus, Kasta’s vital statistics cover about a century and a half. As the condition of the currently in place marble slabs indicate that they were buried in relatively short order upon their completion, possibly few decades, this leads one to accept the proposition that this monument, in the state we saw it in August 10, 2014 (that is under SRP) lasted for about a century. But the Entrance in the form we have it, and as discussed extensively, could not sustain such a prolonged existence, since it offered no serious protection from the elements and raiders and looters and the ravages of time. The tomb needed protection. The pair of Sphinxes alone simply could cut it, in offering the needed protective shield from a century of unabated attacks from humans and nature.

Peristeri’ letter [15] provided some more information regarding her team’s view of the monument at Kasta. According to her, the sealing of the tomb’s interior took place (as already stated) during the 2nd century BC by Macedonians. In her letter, although not explicitly stated, it was implied that the sealing of the exterior occurred contemporaneously with the interior (if not later). This view has been

99

challenged by this study. It was extensively argued, by a close look at the details of this structure, that the exterior (which never intended or reached a complete ring coverage of the tumulus’ circumference to start with) preceded the burial of its interior.

We now have a clearer picture as to the structure’s vital statistics. We are in effect dealing with a monument that lasted no more than a century and a half quite possibly a bit less. It was built in the closing of the 4rd Century BC, and met its death before the beginning of the Roman conquest in the middle of the 2nd Century BC. One needs thus to walk through an approximate 150-year long history. Arguments presented in the previous Sections established the very large scale activity involved in the sealing of both the interior and certainly the exterior of the monument and the concomitant rising of the ground level around Kast Hill. Such huge undertakings could not have taken place overnight and in secrecy under the Romans’ rule, without them knowing about it and approving of it. Thus it must be concluded, that it was undertaken before the Romans’ arrival, and so it couldn’t have occurred after 146 BC, when finally Rome took over Macedonia and relegated it to one of its Provinces.

The scale and splendor of Kasta and its fortunes as it rose and fell in time match the fortunes of Amphipolis and Macedonia as they rose and fell along with it. Kasta may have been a lagging indicator of Macedonian’s fortunes in its building phase, but in its fall it became a leading indicator. How this occurred is briefly chronicled in the following subsection.

The rise and death of Macedonia, Amphipolis and the tomb: a case study in Cycles.

Before we provide a short outline of Kasta’s life story, a brief visit to certain basic principles in Urban and Regional Dynamics [16] will be paid. Regions undergo cycles of growth and decline. At times these are repeated cycles, most often they are unique life time events. Through the life of a Region, mostly demographic and secondarily economic cycles set in. Cycles involving political and social forces, although significant, have less of an impact in driving a system’s dynamics, where primarily demography and secondarily economics drive a Region’s dynamical behavior within a broader spatial and temporal context.

Regions are linked by four types of flows: labor (the various migratory flows people, forced or voluntary), capital (flows of capital investment, in various forms of instruments, involving tangible {machines} as well as intangible {money, know how}), commodities (trade flows), and information (including technological innovation, cultural influences, social norms movement, data flows etc.) Some of these links (due to these flows) are strong, others are weak. Not all are congruent, as for example at times capital flows tend to have the opposite direction of labor flows.

Underlying any specific Region’s position in this complex interplay of forces, are two key factors: its geographical location (a fixed factor), and the comparative advantages a location enjoys at any given point in time in reference to other Regions (with which it interacts), mostly tied to its initial endowments (natural resources).

As a result of these complex and multiple flows, Regions’ economies undergo periods of instability, periodically short lasting, at times quite drastic often chaotic. Civilizations prosper and decline as the

100

end result of such linkages. The impact of these multiplicity of forces operating upon a specific spatial setting, at a particular point in time, may have short lasting but dramatic effects. Regional inequalities are formed as a result of these dynamical instabilities, primarily driven of initial inequalities in natural resource endowments and differences in relative spatial comparative advantages. These instabilities are in turn causes and effects of regional conflicts.

A product of these inequalities, and in turn a mechanism fueling them is the formation of relative regional growth poles (growth attractors, sinks), and the concomitant formation of relative regional decline sources (growth repellents). Metropolitan growth centers form, i.e., Regional capitals appear, where a relatively large portion of a Region’s population accumulates. At the same time, a periphery is also formed, in a client state with its growth pole center. It’s the clearest of evidence in spatial inequality and dualism. Economies of scale effects (the so called “agglomeration effects” or “increasing returns to scale”) characterize growth poles, the large “centers” of what is referred to in Economic Geography as “Central Place Theory”. Empire formation is a simple example of a growing growth pole.

As growth poles form, increasing returns to scale kick in, fueling dynamics of growth, accelerating their pace. But this isn’t unlimited, not lasting certainly forever. At some point, negative effects of growth (negative externalities they are called, like exceedingly high population densities, various forms of pollution, significant impacts of different types of congestion effects or bottlenecking stifling growth, etc.) get to a point of surpassing the positive effects of further agglomeration of population and economic, social, cultural activities. This sets in process a period of stagnation and the onset of a decline phase. Split-up forces set in. Empires break into pieces.

In time, Growth Poles move over space. They don’t sit around, planted there forever. Empires don’t last forever, and neither does the glory of Cities, or the splendor of monuments. As various forces pull and push growth and decline in space and time, centers of economic, social, cultural activity move, sometimes fast, oftentimes slowly. And once they move away, they don’t seem to come back any time soon. And this basic spatio-temporal principle applies equally to Regions (including Empires) or Cities or monuments.

The City of Ur in Mesopotamia isn’t any more what Ur of the Ziggurats was. Neither is Babylon, nor the site at Abu Simbel.

Macedonia, Amphipolis and ultimately Kasta, as Abu Simbel and Newgrange did before them, obeyed the same basic Regional Dynamics rules.

The Region of Amphipolis could not escape the determinism of basic Urban and Regional forces’ dynamics. As presented in [1], under Philip II and later upon Alexander’s launching of the Asian campaign, Amphipolis regional fortunes skyrocketed. Its proximity to the natural resource rich Panggaion Mountain, to the navigable river Strymonas, to the Aegean Sea, and the main road arteries cutting across in all directions (the Nine Roads, or ENNAIA ODOI road intersection), made Amphipolis a Regional growth pole of unprecedented proportions. At the tail end of the 4th century BC, no other urban center (including possibly Pella, and for sure Philippi) could rival Amphipolis as a growth pole in the whole Macedonian Region, and possibly the whole of the Balkan Peninsula. Amphipolis’ growth explosion was contemporaneous to the Golden Age of Macedonia. Kasta appeared at this very point in time. MCP at Kasta was the pinnacle of both Amphipolis and Macedonia; it was the Golden Era of Kasta.

101

With Kasta in it now Amphipolis placed a claim in becoming the Core in effect not only of Macedonia, but of the entire Macedonian Empire, and ultimately the Center of the then Europe-centered Western World – a super-Region which excluded only the Region of the Far Eastern Asia. Kasta was to become its Crown Jewel. To Deinokratis’ Alexandria and Alexander’s Babylon, Amphipolis was the Macedonian response to a World Class Growth Pole. This was however a rivalry that alas was never meant to materialize, as the wind that was to power Kasta’s and Alexandria’s sails and the fortunes of Babylon all of them together, died suddenly in June 323 BC.

Actually, neither Babylon, nor Alexandria ever became that “Core”. The conflict between the DIADOXOI of Alexander in effect became a struggle to determine which setting was going to become that very Core of the Empire, as apparently the Macedonian Empire couldn’t absorb many competing Cores. Those split-up forces mentioned above set in indeed. Alexander’s Empire followed the deterministic rule of breaking up, as decreasing returns to scale set in. It couldn’t escape it. No Empire can – it’s the very definition of an Empire to possess just a single Core. Political intrigue, as is brutal and murderous behavior are all parts of it, characteristics of a period marred by decadence and decline. Most importantly, as pointed out in [1], the conflict between Alexander himself and Cassander was whether the Core of Macedonia was to remain in a Macedonia of Macedonians, by Macedonians, for Macedonians. Or whether Macedonia was to become a peripheral Region to an Empire with its Center, its Core that is, in Babylon or Alexandria or someplace else.

Amphipolis fortunes were tied too closely to Alexander’s fortunes. His death in June 323 BC sealed in effect the fortunes not only of Amphipolis, but of Macedonia itself. The unravelling of Amphipolis was much faster though than the unravelling of Macedonia; the later lasted till the beginning of the Roman Rule, but the decline in Amphipolis only extended till the very end of the 4th Century BC. The decline of Amphipolis was a leading indicator in the decline of Macedonia.

And tied up to both the Amphipolis decline, and the Macedonian decline was the decline set on Kasta.

SRP was the beginning phase of that decline. The final burial of the tomb’s interior was its final phase. SRP came with Cassander, and his disdain of “all things Alexander”. And under MCP, Kasta was Alexander’s legacy. The final end, its sealing with Macedonian soil, came at the very end of Macedonia and the beginning of another Era – the Empire of Rome.

A closer look into the Macedonian realities now permit us to trace the rough voyage of Kasta. Following the death of Alexander, but with his consent and order and under the rule of Antipater, the Golden Era of the tomb at Kasta is set. It’s the period of the grand construction activity, the period when a humble possibly pre-existing tomb at Kasta Hill becomes the masterpiece to mark the ascent of Amphipolis, and Macedonia, and Alexander’s Empire into the pinnacle of World power, class and status. Kasta was not then just a tomb, but it was set to become a Tomb, a Temple and a Monument – and for a brief time period it did. It became a beacon and lightning rod, projecting World power with inter-continental range. It was meant to set its stamp on Alexander’s Macedonian Empire. It was the Golden Era and MCP time at Kasta. But it needed staying stable strong power for it to set in, take form and settle.

But the required political stability wasn’t there, and the earthquake of June 323 BC that shook the then known World was felt right at Amphipolis. The shock there was as strong as it was at its epicenter in Babylon. Kasta’s progress was hurried, as Antipater was quickly running out of time and power and money. His son Cassander, a hater of all things Alexander, set the stage for the SRP transformation of

102

Kasta. Under Cassander, Kasta became just a tomb and a transformed monument. And so it functioned till the end of Cassander’s rule and the waning of his influence at around 290 BC.

Part of the decline in popularity of “all things Alexander” under Cassander, another cycle seems also to have been coming to a close – the decline of the “Bull Cult”. If Newgrange was the beginning of a monumental setting for Bull Cult worship, and the Minoan WEra saw its apogee, at Kasta the cycle of this religious movement under SRP was its end point, or at least close to that end.

The ensuing century saw the real decline in fortunes of all Regions in Macedonia, including Amphipolis. A chaotic period followed, marked not only by internal strife, but also raids by Galatians, Thracians, and other tribes from the North and East. In the Western parts of Macedonia, Epirus suddenly emerges as a serious rivaling State on its way to its own Golden Age. Growing threats from another Region, of a neighboring with the Balkans Peninsula, Rome loom on the horizon.

Within this turbulence of conflict, influences, economic decline, social disorientation and decadence, Kasta gradually loses all its glamor. It struggles through the 3rd Century BC just as a hapless neglected tomb. Its clan, only few decades ago rubbing elbows with the most powerful and charismatic individual that possibly walked on the face of this Earth, whose name aura and figure still excites possibly billions of people two full millennia after his death, desperately tries to cling to a dying creed of memories and a falling deteriorating structure. During the relatively stable but short lived period of reign of Dimitrios I the Poliorketes (294 to 288 BC) the tomb would experience some stability, functioning possibly both as a tomb and a monument to the hero buried in it.

This short lived period of stability is followed by a decade of severe instability punctuated by a series of raids on Macedonia, Amphipolis and Kasta. Strymonas, and its river valley, major artery for navigation and commerce and access to the Balkan hinterland from the Aegean Sea, now becomes a source of trouble. Along with the river valley of Axios to the West, Strymonas becomes the gateway to the Aegean for the raiding hordes from the North. Pella with Aigies to the West (via Axios), and Amphipolis and Kasta to the East (via Strymonas) find themselves now on the receiving end of hostile expansionism and pure mayhem. Amphipolis now discovers that the positives and blessings of being situated along an accessible site, can turn in a hurry to negatives and a curse. They realize that locational access is a double edge sword.

Most vicious quite likely were those by the Galatians and their allies in Epirus. Raids from Thrace based clans are also possible in that dark period. It's a time that sees predatory behavior by outside populations trying to prey on a dying and wounded animal, a falling Empire unable to effectively defend itself. This is a period that possibly inflicted as much damage to the tomb’s interior as it was done on its exterior by SRP. During this regime of assault, the tomb very likely was stripped from all its interior furnishings. Possibly desecrated, for sure plundered, and definitely raided, its marble double-leaf door still may be standing but is unable to secure the privacy and impenetrability of the funerary Chamber. Periods of care for the dead are succeeded by consecutive periods of pillage ravaging and desecration. It was the Dark Decade for a lawless and powerless Macedonia, Amphipolis and a helpless semi abandoned Kasta. As the tomb is subjected to repeated raids, bones of the dead buried there are thrown off the casket and the vault by vandals seeking all possible valuables attached to them at burial. Mayhem and chaos rule, as a region in marred by disorder, a city goes ungoverned, and a tomb remains unprotected.

103

Scenario A. Kasta survived the Dark Decade: the likely scenario.

Antigonus II Gonatas’ rule brought the “swan song” for Macedonia. Far from himself being a Phillip II or Alexander III, he did install in 277 BC a ruling dynasty of sorts, the Antigonid Dynasty (it lasted for about a century). He bought some form of stability for Macedonia and put an end to the Dark Decade. Alas, it proved to be the final act in Macedonian History. The Antigonid Dynasty was no match to the glorious Argead Dynasty that ruled Macedonia and gave her its Golden Age under Philip II and Alexander III. The Argead Dynasty lasted for about four centuries (from around 700 BC to the closing years of Cassander’s reign, the founder of the decade-long Antipatrid Dynasty) in 302 BC. It was the longest ruling Dynasty of any region in the Hellenic World.

A successful, distinguished and with a lasting impact dynasty needs a long time to ascend. However, following its pinnacle of success, its unavoidable decline takes the form of a sharp, fast and dramatic ending. One finds these features reflected at both ends of the Argead Dynasty of Macedonia, in its slow rise and its fast fall. Dynasty dynamics are again unique cycle events, reflecting pretty much the rise and fall of Regions, Cities and Empires. They obey deterministic rules, and History is full of such examples.

Under Antigonus II Gonatas, (and scenario A) one encounters the most likely time period that Kasta saw some decent maintenance for the tomb at least as much as it received under the reign of Demetrius I. Very likely, it’s the time possibly that the protective roof at the modified Entrance was installed. Over the ensuing five decades, the monument however fell off the public’s eye and maintenance gradually decreased. Many Macedonians quite likely were experiencing the multiple pains of a falling Empire. A far cry of the Macedonian State under the Argead rulers, and especially Alexander III, they were probably quite ambivalent about the causes of its falling fortunes. In the relatively short period of a century, the Empire that ruled the largest part of the known World was reduced to a pitiful state of affairs. Kasta was no longer evoking good memories, except to the clan that it was dedicated to and kept it going through the rough and tumble years of the Dark Decade.

By the end of the 3rd Century, new dark menacing storm clouds were appearing on the horizon for whatever remained of the Kingdom of Macedonia. The threat was coming from a new source. War drums were sounding, increasingly louder and faster approaching. Roman Legions were on the move by land and sea. A new far more perilous threat was taking shape. As Rome was marching, various clans from neighboring regions to the North and East would become Rome’s first clients. They would be unleashed to weaken Rome’s enemy, before the main assault were to begin. Amphipolis and Kasta were at the wild frontier, where the waves of the first assaults would land. It’s in one of these raids that the marble door is rammed, and the tomb desecrated for the final time.

As a last ditch effort to preserve whatever was left, and most likely under Philip the V by the turn of the 2nd Century BC and by the last years of his reign in the 280’s BC, enough labor was mobilized and enough resources were assigned to protect the monument, at its last gasp, dying in its abandoned state of rape and neglect. Multiple factors most likely entered that decision. It was not only the raids on it and the looting by Rome’s client looters and treasure hunters. Sympathy for its deteriorating physical condition, coupled with the encroaching Roman peril, certainly must have been part of the motivating force to mobilize resources for the monument’s protection. But benevolence was not the only force, although it could be the main force. Dissent for things linked to Alexander and his era could be another force. Disdain for a monument which would generate memories of regret from a painful past that left Macedonians and Macedonia such a curse, must have been another component.

104

The thought must have crossed many a Macedonian mind at that time, why their Great King who conquered to World, why couldn’t he secure his homeland first. What was at the end the benefit of reaching Babylon and India, when a mere half a century later marauding thugs from the North could shred to pieces the very core of Macedonia? What was the ultimate benefit to the Macedonian farmer and peasant, seeing his daughter and wife raped and his farm destroyed, while Ptolemy Soter’s sons were enjoying the privilege of a nice retirement by ruling Egypt? It’s an argument that the peasant or that era’s lumpen-proletariat point of view would make. A trader or the artisan of that era would take a different look at the Imperial expansion and probably extract pleasant memories from it. The sons and daughters of the veteran of the Asian campaign would have an entirely different perspective, as would the various members of the upper cast or the recent migrants. And the student of History and Culture would complement the argument that this genius of Alexander saw what was there for the taking, and dared to take it and ultimately took it. Unfortunately no one knew that he would die when he did. It was one of those historical accidents that shaped the course of human History. One must keep this in mind before rushing into arguing the Alexander III was guilty of criminal negligence for whatever happened to his homeland after he left Amphipolis in 334 BC. Setting aside all cult-related issues and changes and inherent unavoidable cycles, this likely was the main thought that crossed Philip V’s mind in deciding to protect the monument.

In combination thus, short sighted malevolency and long term benevolence pushed the last ruler with the capacity to undertake this task to order the burial of the tomb. That last ruler could not have been Philip V’s son Perseus (179 – 168 BC). Perseus reign was too short, and he had his hands full dealing with the very serious, by now well planned and organized, Roman raids into the Kingdom. It must have been Philip V, the ultimate undertaker of the tomb at Kasta. For the ground to settle, for the tomb to hide for good, and for memories to provide the buffer towards oblivion of a monument that had just been buried, time lapse was of the essence. The buried don’t just die at the moment burial takes place, they die when their memory dies. Perseus period was just that needed buffer. Philip offered the resources and time for burial, Perseus supplied the mourning cushion.

The Romans were too late to arrive, but they still had a function to perform, and here is where one finds possibly the supreme irony of History. It was the Romans eventually who elevated Alexander to greatness, not the Macedonians or the Greeks of mainland Greece. Paradoxically, Alexander’s legacy was at the end protected by those who initially sought to eliminate his Kingdom. While the extent to which Kasta reflected his legacy, it was protected by those who at the time had shun and denied him. When Julius Caesar elevated Alexander to Greatness, he just corrected the record by setting it straight. He pointed out to the Greeks, what they should had done. It was of course done at no cost to the Romans, to acknowledge Alexander III’ greatness. It gave justification and legitimacy to their own imperial quests and personal ambitions.

By the time the Romans arrived and set a firm foot onto the land of Macedonia, the tomb, the monument and the temple that once stood there to rival in prestige and quality and magnificence any monument in the known World, Kasta was no more. It laid buried deep under the tumulus, a ghost, forgotten as was Alexander’s memory. Remarkably all successors of Alexander, from 323 BC to the end of Macedonia as an independent entity in 147 BC, never erected any monument to their once powerful King and God Zeus-Ammon Alexander or to his soldiers, or to his campaigns. At least none that was left standing in Macedonia, or big enough not to be looted and taken away to decorate the seat of the new Empire or the residence palaces and villas of its ruling elites. Historians had nothing to write about

105

Kasta, simply because there was nothing there to write about it. The old glory of Kasta and Alexander was left to a few to pass on to their descendants as a misty memory, where reality and legend, together with fear and pride mingle and ultimately fade in the passage of time.

Scenario B. Kasta didn’t survive the Dark Decade: a very unlikely scenario.

With an outside chance to have been buried at the aftermath of the raids by the Northern marauders of Galicia one can conceive a scenario whereby the founder of the Antigonid Dynasty, undertook the task of sealing the monument shortly after the Dark Decade was over. This scenario could well explain the small number of buried individuals in Kasta (five), as well as the relatively short time period the monument existed (about half a century) thus allowing one more reason why it escaped History’s attention. However, this scenario would contradict the “Roman coins were found in Kasta tomb’s Chambers #1, and #2” evidence. Thus, it has a very limited chance to have taken place, unless these Roman coins were of an earlier Roman period.

Epilogue.

In this Comprehensive View taken of the tomb at Kasta Tumulus, it was not only the cycle in its life span that was recorded and chronicled. Beyond the cycle in Macedonia’s short lived Empire, and the cycle in Amphipolis’ days of glory, it was also another cycle that met its demise there and then: that of the Bull Cult. The latter directly points to the long term cycles of cults and religions, this possibly spanning more than three millennia. Certain religious cycles, those of dominant cults, are the longest of all cycles within the context of human societies, far longer than the second longest lasting of all social cycles, demographics. Kasta was at the point in space-time where many dominant BC cult cycles converged and ended their lives. In that sense also, Kasta is a truly unique setting.

106

The City of Singapore celebrating in August 9th 2015 its 50th Anniversary of Independence from Malaysia, and the Marina Bay Sands Hotel.

Concluding remark.

Singapore’s celebration and its impressive glittering slick superstructures may be an appropriate setting for some parting remarks to a paper that covered the other side of the Eurasian space, and reached back more than seven millennia. It’s certainly not an Archeological subject. It is though a subject of History, a very recent History at that. The fast and furious growth during the last quarter of the 20th Century of the Pacific Rim of Asia, and especially some of its core Cities, including Singapore, has been certainly remarkable, regardless of how long will it last.

To a large extent Singapore serves also as a vivid reminder of the cycles discussed in this paper, cycles which know no specific space or time. Growth and decline of Cities, the continuous flow embedded in the meander of Kasta’s mosaic in Chamber #2, or the spirals carved on the Kerbstones at Newgrange, are nothing but special forms Heraclitus of Ephesus’ dictum “ΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΡΕΙ”. But it is also a reminder of another dictum History has taught us to expect, an incipient requirement and prerequisite for significant

107

structures to come about: that an oasis of relative stability must exist, for them to get a foothold on space and time.

Singapore had this oasis: Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister and strong man who governed Singapore with an iron fist during the better part of the last quarter of the 20th Century. Singapore was not then, and certainly is not now an ideal form of Democracy. Whether Democracy is the best conduit and means towards the creation of megastructures in monumental Architecture is the parting question of this monograph.

The End?

A Comment.

Long after Manolis Andronikos’ name will fade away, if that ever happens, Katerina Peristeri’s name and that of her associates, including my colleague in the field of Architecture and Facebook friend Michalis Lefantzis will remain still alive, as they were involved in what proved to be a far bigger in magnitude excavation than the one in Vergina. So they need not worry too much about criticism, from wherever it comes, including the one here. For if they have the facts, in the long run these facts will carry their day. I’m sure they are fully cognizant however of the limitations of archeological ‘facts’. But, even if History proves them not to have had all the facts straight, still their contribution in discovering and unearthing this extraordinary monument will stay, while for the rest of us, critics or not, for sure our names will fade away. DSD.

Acknowledgements.

Many individuals deserve to be mentioned here. First, a group of individuals who have provided encouragement and assistance in the writing and publication of the author’s previous three papers. Panagiotis Petropoulos, Theodoros Spanelis, Vagelis Vagianos, ARXAIOGNOMON, and George Rodakoglou are key individuals in this group that the author wishes to acknowledge their contribution. They have been instrumental in my efforts to communicate to the public the ideas expressed in my three previous papers cited. Then, there is a group of individuals that have stimulated my thinking about this monument. I have exchanged points of views with them, and I have been able to improve my understanding about Kasta Hill as a result of this interaction. First and foremost in this group is Photini-Effie Tsilibary. Certain members of the Facebook Group “OMADA APOSYMBOLISMOY TYMBOY KASTA” require special mention. They are again, Theodoros Spanelis, Vagelis Vagianos, George Rodakoglou, as well as Athanassios Fourlis, Elena Vardakosta, Dimitrios Savvidis, Marinos Konstantinou, Kostas

108

Papalexiou, Konst Karsk, Ioanna Tzavella, Thomas Karydas, Vilma Evaggelia Alexandri, Liana Kastrinaki, Petros Josephides, Vikrant Rao, Katerina Kaltsou, Timos Ploumis, Virginia Kavraki, Apostolos Gouzis, and of course Michalis Lefantzis and a number of others who periodically have appeared in comments and posts there. These “un-named contributors” names may not appear here, because of the limits to my memory, but their influence has been everlasting. All of these named and unnamed individuals not only provided valuable insights to me, but most of all they have enlightened the members of that group with their insightful, well documented, and penetrating discussion of and comments on various subjects related to this monument. Furthermore, with their informative and interesting posts to the Group’s Facebook site, they have advanced the discussion significantly. I’m sure professional archeologists can gain considerably from their input. I also wish to acknowledge the contribution that another group focusing on the subject of Kasta has made not only to my thinking about the monument, but also and mainly to the overall advancement of knowledge and understanding about it. It’s the EMPEDOTIMOS group in the site “ORFIKH KAI PLATONIKH THEOLOGIA”, at: http://empedotimos.blogspot.com/

It is that group which got me involved in this research subject.

Special thanks are due to the electronic news outlet XRONOMETRO at: www.xronometro.com and ELLHNONDIKTYO at: http://ellinondiktyo.blogspot.gr/

These sites are first rate sources for the latest information and analysis regarding topics touching not only Kasta, but more broadly the Greek archeological space. Two more sites which have provided input to the study of the subject have been:

http://www.amfipoli-news.com/blogpost.php?id=505

and http://amfipolinews.blogspot.gr/2014/12/blog-post_682.html

I owe a deep sense of gratitude to all these individuals. However, for any errors in fact or judgement regarding this topic, I retain full responsibility.

References.

1. Dimitrios S. Dendrinos (aka George Watkins): http://www.academia.edu/14138924/On_the_HFAISTION_at_Kasta_Hill_hypothesis A previous version of this paper is found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxfAWy6wujqyS2d2MDQ2TWE4VnM/view With an initial version of it published in: http://ellinondiktyo.blogspot.com/2014/11/on-hfaistion-at-kasta-hill-hypothesis.html

2. http://empedotimos.blogspot.com/2014_11_01_archive.html 3. https://app.box.com/s/nk289vash8jm06mxveluyerkao2d5qoy 4. https://www.facebook.com/groups/853515938047750/ 5. http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/gate

109

6. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100006919804554 7. Dimitrios S. Dendrinos (aka George Watkins):

http://www.academia.edu/10923712/The_modular_structure_of_the_tomb_at_Kasta_Hill_by_D_Dendrinos

{Ref. 7 appeared also in XRONOMETRO: http://www.xronometro.com/amfipoli-arxitektoniki-meleti/

And also in ARXAIOGNWMWN: http://ellinondiktyo.blogspot.com/2015/03/blog-post_62.html#gsc.tab=0

With a version of it in pdf: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxfAWy6wujqyRDB5c2EzWVY1UWM/view

Among its many other versions.}

8. Stella and Steve Miller, 1972, “The architectural blocks of the Strymon”, ARXAIOLOGIKON DELTION, Volume 27, Part A, pp. 140 – 169.

9. Theodoros Spanelis, 12 July 2015, XRONOMETRO: http://www.xronometro.com/the-architectural-blocks-from-the-strymon/#comment-6819 where a first and brief description of Dimitrios Dendrinos’ critique of the Millers’ paper is included. A more extensive version of this critique is found in Dimitrios S. Dendrinos Facebook page, under a post dated July 13, 2015 at 3:44PM US EDT and one more extensive dated July 13, 2015 at 9:32 PM US EDT: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100006919804554

10. Andrew Chugg, June 2015 https://www.academia.edu/12959942/Fresh_Insights_into_the_Mystery_of_the_Amphipolis_Tomb

11. Dimitrios S. Dendrinos July 17th,2015 https://www.academia.edu/14249879/The_Mosaic_of_Kasta_Hills_tomb Published also in XRONOMETRO: http://www.xronometro.com/the-mosaic-kasta/ Published also in ARXAIOGNOMON: http://ellinondiktyo.blogspot.gr/2015/07/blog-post_31.html#more

12. The key points of the presentation of November 29th 2014: http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/news/37

13. The key findings of the presentation by the autopsy and anthropological examination of January 19th, 2015: http://www.theamphipolistomb.com/news/44

14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearchus 15. Katerina Peristeri letter of August 9, 2015 :

http://www.thousandnews.gr/index.php/epikairotita/item/179762-apantisi-vomva-tis-peristeri-stin-avgi-me-apokalypseis-gia-tin-amfipoli

16. Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, 1992 The Dynamics of Cities: Ecological Determinism, Dualism and Chaos, Routledge, London, UK.

17. http://www.britannica.com/place/Macedonia-ancient-kingdom-Europe

110

Note 1. The author hasn’t provided any references to what is considered to be just “encyclopedic knowledge”.

Note 2. The author wishes to thank Elena Vardakosta for supplying the details of the Millers’ 1972 paper, including the blocks’ drawings.

© The author, Dimitrios S. Dendrinos (aka George Watkins, and J. Peters) retains all rights to this study. No parts of this study can be reproduced without the author’s written consent.