ON THE “HFAISTION AT KASTA HILL” HYPOTHESIS:

The Three Phases of a 7-year Saga regarding anambitious “System of Monuments” at Amphipolis,

Followed by a personal account and commentary oncertain associated issues.

________________________________________________________________

11/11/2022 5:37 PM

By Dimitrios S. Dendrinos (aka George Watkins aka J. Peters, bothliterary pseudonyms)

Abstract

The tomb uncovered in August 2014 at Kasta Hill, North of the old cityof Amphipolis, in the Region of Macedonia, Greece, is an extraordinaryTomb-Monument, a marvel of architectonic creation. To fully understandit, one needs to transcend analysis of typical Macedonian tombs. A number of experts, archeologists and historians, have come forward trying to describe and explain this tomb, and its occupant, by resorting to references as to what Macedonian tombs of that era were like and contained. Such analysis simply is grossly insufficient and glaringly inadequate. It may be misleading to measure this tomb up against other Macedonian tombs. This is a unique tomb built for a Macedonian of partial Athenian descent – HFAISTION - who conquered Asia and Northern Africa alongside with ALEXANDROS, thus someone who died with more than just having experienced Macedonian life; one must expect then that his burial had to and did conform to Macedonian customs up to a point.

A run-of-the-mill Macedonian provincial architect didn’t build this tomb. Nor did some wannabe politician or trader of that era design or ordered this huge Macedonian tomb inside a 33 meter high and 497 meterlong perfectly round Hill for him and his family. This tomb isn’t

1

similar to the hundreds of tombs found in Macedonia and Thrace. Only one person in the Empire had the wealth and political power and support so that he could mobilize and commend the large in scale resources and manpower to order such formidable undertaking: ALEXANDROS. No one before Him and no one after Him in Macedonia, Greece, or anywhere in the Balkans during the 4th century BC could order and accomplish such task. It was commissioned and built by a distinguished (over the ages) and the best known then Architect and City Planner, Deinokratis. It was dedicated to a person almost at the very top echelon of the ancient World’s greatest Empire, HFAISTION.

At the same time, this unique monument-tomb disappeared from collective memory and it was buried into oblivion. No historical references are found on this outstanding building. To fully understandthis tomb-monument’s life span from start to finish, from its gloriouscreation to its unceremonious burial one needs a totally different perspective than a perfunctory examination of a typical Macedonian tomb and its occupant(s). Thus, at the very core of the needed analysis must be a satisfactory explanation as to why this tomb was wholly buried in historical oblivion. Such an angle is provided with this Note.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Some necessary foundational remarks: my Note’s three primitives

A brief summary of the proposed “scenario of turbulence” at Kasta Hill:

On the tomb’s three phases and the embedded hypotheses

The “Big Tease” announcement and its aftermath

On some historical records pertinent to this tomb

2

Chapter I. The Monument of Kasta Hill as a part of a “Monuments System” at the North Amphipolis Region.

Phase A. Deinokratis under Antipatros: November 324BC – 321 BC.

November 324 BC – July 323 BC: the brief “God HFAISTION” period of the monument

The slowdown: July 323 BC – Triparadeisos 321 BC. HFAISTION the Hero

Phase B. The architect “B” phase: 321 BC - 316 BC: HFAISTION in transition from Hero to commoner; the low quality phase of HFAISTION’s tomb.

Phase C. Kassandros 316 BC: the engineer’s turn andthe final episode in the monument’s saga; HFAISTION thepariah and his tomb’ raid and sealing.

Epilogue

Chapter II. A few general observationsPost Script 1. Archeology, Statistics, and Quantum Theory: a

brief note on abstract method.

Post Script 2. Kasta Hill: the main characters and a Hollywood scenario of a “love story”.

HFAISTION and ALEXANDROS: refuting some myths.

KASSANDROS: historical justification and possible rehabilitation of his reputation.

APPENDIX 1. A note on the archeologists’ ethical responsibility

APPENDIX 2. A short comment on DNA analysis and related issues

3

APPENDIX 3. The persons of the drama at Kasta Hill mentioned in this Note.

Acknowledgments

Copyright

_____________________________________________________________________________

Introduction .

This is a theoretical perspective on the intriguing archeological findings at Kasta Hill. It's composed in the form of a historical novel, and in accordance with what the author has seen from, read and heard about the on-going excavation as of November 12, 2014. Work on this Note started in around October 20th, 2014. Many individuals' comments from various websites have contributed in formulating the ideas presented here. Noted especially are: the EMBEDOTIMOS' blog "ORFIKH KAI PLATONIKH THEOLOGIA" and its participants, "ARXAIOGNOMON","XRONOMETRO" and "AMFIPOLH b.c.” at “amphipoli-news.com". Other sources include Amphipolis’ excavation related videos available from the site "ZOUGLA.gr". Special reference is made to the video of Professor Theodoros Mavrojannis’ lecture at the University of Cyprus of September 11, 2014 on the subject”

http://www.zougla.gr/greece/article/oli-i-parousiasi-gia-ton-tafo-tis-amfipolis-sto-panepistimio-tis-kiprouhttp://www.zougla.gr/greece/article/oli-i-parousiasi-gia-ton-tafo-tis-amfipolis-sto-panepistimio-tis-kiprou

These videos at Zougla.gr include presentations by many experts as well as non-experts on the subject. Formal references are not providedin this Note, as this is not intended at this stage as a formal scientific publication, but rather as a depository of some thoughts towards solving the puzzle at Amphipolis and Kasta Hill.

4

It should be made clear at the outset, that this Note is not to answerthe question “who’s buried in Kasta Hill”? It’s rather about describing the conditions surrounding the life span of this tomb, given that the person buried there is HFAISTION. It’s about explaininghow, all things uncovered during the excavation there came to be. Nonetheless, after the announcement by the archeological team of November 12, 2014, an additional piece of evidence was found inside the vault with the complete (unburned – an issue that will be addressed later) skeleton, which to the author’s view further strengthens the HFAISTION hypothesis, an assumption otherwise for thisNote. This additional link to HFAISTION has to do with signs on the ivory ornaments unearthed and attributed to the wooden coffin used (according to the archeological team) to place inside dead person’s (HFAISTION in this Note’s scenario) skeletal remains. These ivory decorations, found next to the skeletal bones, together with frieze patterns on capitals of the columns the two sphinxes rest on at the entrance wall and similar patterns also found on some EPISTYLIA in chamber #1 (the Karyatides – or Kores or Klodones or Mainades chamber)of the tomb, are all identical with decorative patterns found on the so-called “Alexander Sarcophagus” (a sarcophagus which does NOT belongto ALEXANDROS, and sometimes is been referred to as the “Laomedon sarcophagus”). Here it is suggested that this sarcophagus is linked toHFAISTION, not only because he (HFAISTION) is depicted in two of the friezes there (together with ALEXANDROS), but also (and mainly) because it was HFAISTION (upon ALEXANDROS’ request as his deputy, and since he – ALEXANDROS - didn’t have time to devote to the search for aruler of Sidon himself) who picked Abdalonymos as ruler of Sidon (the place the sarcophagus was uncovered in 1887) and for whom the sarcophagus was actually made. See:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204621904574246094055079788?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052970204621904574246094055079788.html

It may be a pure coincidence of symbolic representation, but a highly unlikely “simple coincidence”. However, this in and by itself doesn’t constitute proof that the tomb at Kasta Hill belongs to HFAISTION (or to ALEXANDROS for that matter), it’s just an additional indication. This sarcophagus has also a very strong Deinokratis (directly through him or his artists-associates at Kasta Hill) presence on it, a link

5

which should be further explored. Its sizes (length, width and height and their ratios, its artwork and its ornamentation, its pediment and acrotiria) all suggest that either Deinokratis or a close artist associate (who accompanied Deinokratis at Kasta Hill) worked on that sarcophagus. The name and attribution of this sarcophagus to at least three individuals (ALEXANDROS, Laomedon and Abdalonymos – and possiblymore) is indicative of a “quantum superposition” in the historical-archeological record, as it will be further discussed later in this Note. It is noted that the same decorative pattern appears in later day sarcophagi – as that of Meleagros in Delphi. Overall however, icons and symbols and their artwork and symbolism are not an area thisNote will dwell much on, but some necessary comments on symbols will be made as needed. They certainly deserve many Masters Theses and Ph.D. Dissertations.

In addition to this new element uncovered after the November 12, 2014 Greek ministry of culture announcement, one more piece of evidence waspresented in the ministry’s November 22, 2014 announcement; namely, that the EPISTYLIO found in chamber #2 contained painting depicting a “man and a woman” and that it has been treated with laser to identify the two figures on it. Following that announcement, and a search on HFAISTION’s historical record with regards to the events following hisdeath, a relief (STHLH) currently at the Archeological Museum of Thessaliniki was brought to the fore, and attains some relevance. Thisstele is shown here:

http://greek-art.livejournal.com/27202.html

It will be used as an additional element in support of the “HFAISTION at Kasta Hill” hypothesis and be more extensively analyzed later in the text.

In exploring what it was uncovered and how these various elements comprising the tomb at Kasta Hill came about requires one to derive a narrative capable of replicating the broader historical and social conditions which led to this tomb’s specifications and configuration, its rise and its fall, its construction and demise in being buried for23 centuries into oblivion. In setting up the stage to present the plot surrounding the dynamics of the various elements of this tomb, one can set various parameters and decide the extent to which the analyst will dip into the broader forces at work, forces which shaped

6

Kasta Hill’s monument and its life span. This effort takes up Chapter I of this Note.

There are indeed a number of angles to this story, that go beyond explaining the specifics of the monument – specifics like for example“why is there a representation of Persephone’s abduction by Pluto in the mosaic found at the floor of this tomb’s chamber #2?” Broader issues, such as the prevailing demographics for instance at the time of ALEXANDROS’ death in 323 BC, have also a direct bearing on the lifeof this tomb and they are discussed in Chapter II. Some, like the impact of key personalities found in this plot, including ALEXANDROS, HFAISTION and KASSANDROS, may fall well within the Kasta Hill scenario-specific narrative, being in effect central to the main plot.Kasta Hill demands that we revisit their life story and especially their legacy, as we focus on that critical 4th quarter of the 4th century BC. They are briefly discussed at the end under Chapter II Post Script 2 as well. In that Chapter, a brief reference to some abstract theoretical-methodological issues when dealing with archeological and historical records is supplied in Post Script 1.

Many are the messages emanating from a study of Kasta Hill. But the central one, in a few words, is a confirmation of the moral “whatever/whoever rises fast, falls/dies fast as well”. Mere reflection on the mysteries at and magnificence of Kasta Hill and its sudden fading from collective memory fully confirms this moral, and the drama hidden in it. Evidently, it started as a formidably ambitious extraordinary undertaking; but in quick order it unceremoniously ended up marred into oblivion. Astonishingly, granted its magnificence, no historical references to this unique monument arefound over more than 23 centuries that have elapsed since its construction. This mere fact strongly hints that here we are dealing with a huge and bright “flash in the pan” of historic proportions, a celestial shooting star of some magnitude. This Note provides an explanation as to why such an impressive monument-tomb does not mustereven a single citation in Pausanias (a historian who extensively reported on monuments and tombs throughout ancient Greece), in whose ATTIKA one simply comes across two references on Amphipolis, none having to do with Kasta Hill.

Many lessons might be learned by studying and analyzing Kasta Hill, besides the acquisition of knowledge about and understanding of this

7

superb monument’s short life story. Let’s hope that the variety of messages emanating from Kasta Hill will resonate with all parties directly affected, no matter the specific geographical context. The messages coming to us from ALEXANDROS’ World might still be of import,at present. His everlasting legacy is still as strong as it was 23 centuries ago. ALEXANDROS, in conquering the then known Eastern World,had to face the same problems that any Empire had and has to face: ruling effectively over a very diverse set of peoples. The problems hehad to confront in such an undertaking will be briefly addressed here,for the simple reason that their effects are not only directly but more importantly indirectly reflected on the monument at Amphipolis itself, my main focal point of analysis. As ALEXANDROS’ Empire rose and fell fast, immediately after his death, so apparently did HFAISTION’ legacy and the monument at Kasta tumulus: all three traced parallel trails in both ascend and descend.

Some necessary foundational remarks: my Note’s three“primitives”.

1.  In formulating the story, I tried to employ parsimony: the least possible number of strong hypotheses; I also use the least number of weak hypotheses, although some of these “weak” hypotheses are so weak that they could be considered as simply “common sense” self-evident type statements. I use the terms “strong” as an indication of “necessary” and “weak” as that of “sufficient” conditions for my suggested scenario. I drew to the maximum extent from crossed referenced historical sources. I attempted to explain the empirical findings from the archeological excavation to the extent I'm able to identify them from official photos made public and public announcements. Thus, I tried to put persons and chronology to findings, and present a scenario which would replicate all that material to the utmost extent.

8

2.  Being a firm believer in Occam’s razor Principle, I opted for the simplest possible explanation, trying to stay away from complicated reasoning, of course rejecting any "conspiracy" type theories.

3.  I tried to look at the "Kasta Hill" subject from a comprehensive point of view, as a system, by considering not only that specific mound at that point in time, but rather its broader spatial and temporal context.

4.  In this Note, I accepted as two “primitives” (in the sense this term is used in the field of symbolic logic), the two "Peristeri hypotheses" that (a) this is a tomb/monument built in the period 325 -300 BC; and (b) it was designed and built (at least initially) by Deinokratis. I narrow down the time frame from 324 to 316 BC of the first Peristeri (chronological) hypothesis; and I provide some reasoning to strengthen the second Peristeri (Deinokratis) hypothesis.I dwell on a likely personality and role manifested by the initial Architect of the Kasta Hill monument, pointing to Deinokratis as beingthe architect of record indeed. In case however that either of these two “Peristeri hypotheses” prove erroneous, all bets are off. It should be noted also that my belief in those two hypotheses has been shaken a bit since late October 2014. At the very start of this excavation, around August 15th, 2014, these two assumptions sounded solid. Some statements however, made by the archeological team, unrelated to these two assumptions, during the course of the excavation, have brought these two (seemingly unassailable) working hypotheses somewhat into question. The credibility of the archeological team in effect is now at stake in my view, especially following the release of the videos and related material by the Greek ministry of culture. However, I still cling onto these two propositions as of today. But one can’t avoid noticing there have beencontradictory and often inconsistent statements (not to mention failures by omission – a point on which I elaborate at the very end ofthis Note) by members of the ministry and the various members of the archeological team. These weaknesses became apparent especially when the videotaped evidence they presented conflicts with some visual (photo) evidence they published. Some of these selected photos for public release could be photo-shopped. As a result, I will consider but not take under full account the "where" the "how" and the "when" specific objects and other findings were pronounced as having been “just” uncovered. Moreover, and unfortunately, there are many

9

political aspects to this excavation, on which I won't elaborate here. 

5.  As the cornerstone of my narrative, and as my third “primitive”, Iaccept the Prof. Mavrojannis hypothesis that this is a tomb/monument intended for HFAISTION. Some archeologists and non-archeologists have at times since August 10th 2014 proposed HFAISTION as the likely resident of this tomb as well. I also have suggested two points (mentioned earlier) linking HFAISTION to this tumulus. But it must be noted in no uncertain terms that Professor Mavrojannis fully deserves the characterization “the Mavrojannis HFAISTION hypothesis” because hewas the first historian Worldwide who provided historically documentedevidence to back up his hypothesis with his September 11, 2014 lecture. For this reason, I will be referring in this Note to the “Mavrojannis HFAISTION hypothesis” from now on. Prof. Mavrojannis contends that there's historical evidence which clearly indicates thatALEXANDROS, following HFAISTION's death (in November 324 BC) ordered atomb for HFAISTION in Macedonia. He elaborated further on this issue with his September 28th, 2014 article:

http://www.philenews.com/el-gr/politismos-kritikes--gnomes/391/220463/o-ifaistion-etafi-os-vasileys

(This is an article which Effie Tsilibari sent me on November 27th, 2014, and strengthens the findings of this Note; however, it still leaves unanswered the question exactly when was HFAISTION interred, and under what rites). Moreover, Mavrojannis also contends, ALEXANDROSsent a significant sum of money for that purpose. Further, Prof. Mavrojannis suggests that this place couldn't have been at Aiyes, Pella or any place else in Macedonia, and it must have been at Amphipolis. However, the HFAISTION hypothesis presents a problem. On November 12, 2014 the archeological excavation revealed the existence of more or less scattered but unburned bones (whether they were preserved or not is not clear yet) inside a grave beneath the floor ofchamber #3. As of this writing the identity of these bones, comprisingapparently the complete skeleton of a single person, hasn’t been announced. However, if these bones are associated with either a woman or a single male aged older than his early 30s (HFAISTION’s age), or anon-Caucasian, or a person of a different time frame (with a burial other than the 324 - 320 BC window) obviously this hypothesis also loses strength. Why is there a problem though? Because historical

10

evidence (Diodoros from Sicily) contends that HFAISTION (who died in Ecbatana – the place coincidentally where ALEXANDROS ordered the murder of Parmenion) was burned in Babylon according to Macedonian custom. Mavrojannis in more recent and subsequent presentations following the 11th September 2014 lecture contends that this report by Diodoros might not be as definite or clear as first thought. Plutarxos, Arrianos and Diodoros have all written about HFAISTION’s death (far more is known about his death than his deeds while alive). Many dispute the most detailed report of his death, that of Diodoros from Sicily. Paul McKechnie [in “Diodorus Siculus and Hephaestion’s Pyre”, (1995) Classical Quarterly, Vol. 45(ii), pp. 418-432], also disputes this report. Till proof to the contrary, I will assume from now on that these are HFAISTION’s skeletal bones as Prof. Mavrojannis had suggested. I will add that this lack of cremation may show that HFAISTION was buried as a Macedonian, but with customs up to a point Macedonian, since he was not 100% Macedonian. In addition to his father being an Athenian, he participated in the Asian and African conquests – thus a great part of his life was spent outside Macedonia,justifying to an extent why Macedonian custom may not have been fully followed during his burial. This is my own explanation as to why HFAISTION was not cremated. On top, adding to the uncertainty regarding the exact procedures followed upon HFAISTION’s death (how was he buried and the rites offered him) is the confusing account given by the secondary historical records available, most of which do not conform to the archeological findings at Kasta Hill. These accounts demonstrate a fuzzy record, and fully justify the methodological point raised in this Note, that a quantum superpositionof hypotheses govern History’s oratory. No matter whose bones they turn out to be, some historical records will have to be purged or modified. This tomb is about to rewrite history books no matter its occupant.

Given all of the above, the three primitives, which constitute the backbone of my theoretical propositions, what follows is a possible narrative linking what we have seen so far from the excavation, to specific places, dates and persons. Moreover, it tries to answer the question when exactly was HIFAISTION buried and under what rites. It's a scenario possibly tying up all these events to all elements of the "Kasta Hill System" and the Kasta Mound as unearthed and presentedso far. It constitutes a revision of my announcement published in

11

ARXAIOGNOMON's Ellinondiktyo.blogspot.com on October 23, 2014 titled "The raided tomb of Hfaistion" by George Watkins (translated into Greek by the creator of the blog ARXAIOGNOMON). In concluding these introductory notes, it must be noted that, as all theoretical hypotheses go, this one too has weak points; by all means, I don’t claim infallibility.

A brief summary of the proposed “scenario ofturbulence” at Kasta Hill:

The three Phases and the embedded hypotheses .

Three distinct albeit brief phases (A, B, and C) are suggested in the turbulent life cycle of this fateful tomb. If I could accommodate the archeological findings and the associated scenario in only two Phases,I would. In effect, that was my main intent in my October 23, 2014 Note in ARXAIOGNOMON’s blog. However, given the recent findings and their state as found and communicated to the public by November 12, 2014 I think this isn’t possible. The key question remains, however, as to the exact timing of HFAISTION’s burial, and the exact rites under which he was interred. I suggest here, based mostly on the archeological evidence, that he was buried under architect B’s watch, and as a commoner under Polyperchon during the 319 – 318 BC period - as the most likely scenario – although a small possibility exists thathe was buried as a Hero at the beginning of architect B’s tenure, postTriparadeisos (321 BC), under Antipatros in the 321- - 319 BC period. The archeological findings preclude, in my view, the possibility that HFAISTION was buried under Deinokrastis; and it also precludes the possibility that he was buried under Polyperchon with a Hero’s rites. All that is quite clear from the condition chamber #3 and the vault containing the bones were found.

In the narrative that follows I designate as sH a strong hypothesis onmy part, and as wH a weak one. There are three weak hypotheses, and seven strong ones with corresponding explanatory narrative. Both typescontain historically documented facts. They can be broken down

12

further into specific sub-hypotheses, something I plan to do, in a more systematic way at some future time, when and if more evidence through excavation and further analysis confirms my three primitives.

For sure many theoretical propositions will emerge as many will try tounderstand and explain the multifaceted in space and time aspects of Kasta Hill. It's not very likely that one will dominate and push away all others. I suggest mine knowing fully well that, as in a “Quantum Superposition”, a number of plausible (and even impossible) explanations will coexist over some time to come. For Archeology (as well as History) is a prime area, I submit, where some abstract notions of Quantum Mechanics can offer valuable theoretical insights. A little more on this angle of the story will be given at the very endof this Note in Chapter II.

The “Big Tease” announcement and its aftermath.

Since the tomb first came to light and attracted the World’s attention, early August 2014, many ‘guesses’ have been offered as to the actual occupant(s) of the Kasta Mound. To just guess the name(s) correctly isn’t the final or only question though. The quest is to geta handle of the unknown monument facing us, as uncovered by the recentexcavation, and devise a valid explanatory story and a sequence of least offending to the historical record (to the extent possible) events that might replicate to the maximum extent the life cycle of this structure and its uncovered by archeological excavation components in and around it. And that’s what I’m after with my story here: a persuasive tale with an accompanying moral, something that I haven’t seen many do.

It should be noted that what drew worldwide attention, interest and ensuing betting on the occupant(s) of this tomb was the “Big Tease” announcement by Peristeri made on August 10th, 2014 about the discoveryof a “huge in size and magnificent monument-tomb of the era immediately following the death of Alexander the Great, which obviously must be associated with a great General of that era.” Although she qualified the statement by adding that “it was too early to associate any names to the tomb”, the impact of the statement was immediate, profound and unavoidable. That announcement caused a stir in the archeological world, and invited a torrent of interest by millions of people the World over. Everyone was immensely impressed with the huge size of this monument, its exquisite marble work on the

13

outside encircling a tumulus with a 497/8 meters perimeter, the largest monument-temple-tomb in the entire Balkan Peninsula not only in Macedonia, or Greece. Scientists, historians, and experts from almost all scientific fields, as well as ordinary people, begun following developments of this excavation on a daily basis – an unprecedented event in the history of archeology.

I do not know of course the real intent by Peristeri in making that initial announcement, which explicitly contained in it the name of “ALEXANDROS O MEGAS”. But all of us now know the end result of that statement, and it would be safe to say that Peristeri herself must hadknown the likely effect that statement would entail Worldwide as well.Only a naïve person would had underestimated the impact of that statement, in view of the monument’s apparent size then. As it may turn out, she was right, a great General’s tomb was located at Kasta Hill, and HFAISTION is a great Macedonian General of that era. However, apparently Peristeri knew about this monument-tomb since 2011. Hense, she had three years in her disposal to come up with a more measured statement that would not contain the words “Megas Alexandros” in it. Maybe she has had second thoughts about it herself.I’m sure as of now that she will regret that statement sometime in herlife and wished that she had made a more modest announcement. It should be mentioned that Aikaterini Peristeri, the current chief archeologist excavating Kasta Hill was a D. Lazaridis (a great figure in Greek Archeology at par with M. Andronikos and S. Marinatos) co-worker, while Lazaridis was carrying out extensive excavations in the Amphipolis area during the 1960s and 1970s. Both knew about a great tomb at Kasta Hill even back then. Both were apparently searching for,expecting to find, Roxane’s tomb there.

That a “great General must be in that tomb” was an opinion Peristeri still espoused and repeated on November 12, 2014. Granted, she didn’t say “STRATHLATHS” in August 10th 2014 (and certainly not in November 2014); that would have directly implied ALEXANDROS. But I’m sure, it was not HFAISTION (or any other of the great Generals and Admirals ALEXANDROS had) in Peristeri’s mind, when she made that initial “Big Tease” statement back in August 2014. As a result of the “Big Tease”, many took the bait and fell for the likelihood that this was the Holy Grail of Archeology – HIS tomb.

14

Overnight it gave rise to a cottage industry of scenarios about the nature proper of the Kasta Mound and its contents. From formal investigations to conspiracy theories, from archeologists to common folk, from forensic specialists to dentists, from geologists to chemical engineers, from linguists to photographers, from painters to coin experts, from stock brokers to city planners, you name it, a guessing game was ignited, the likes of which the World had never experienced before: “who might be the occupant(s) of that tomb-monument”? Some of these “experts” and “non-experts” paraded in front of Greek TV cameras and got their Andy Warhol 15-minute fame. Everyonefelt as being a part to this extraordinary event, a participant to this discovery. This must have been one of the positives of the “Big Tease” announcement – as so many people from all walks of life the World over but especially in Greece revisited rather obscure pages of History, learned more about that era and its central figures, and thentried to make a contribution to solving this riddle. This Note is justan example of the frantic activity that followed the “Big Tease” Peristeri announcement of August 10th, 2014. ALEXANDROS, even 23 centuries later, still fascinates this World.

As of November 12. 2014 Peristeri still hasn’t opened her cards, as towho exactly she thinks this “great General” might be. I will, however,as I feel even more certain after this critical announcement of November 12, 2014 that HFAISTION was in fact buried there; and I have a story that tells how and when and why he ended up in the depths of Kasta tumulus.

On some historical records pertinent to this tomb.

This monument-tomb hides many mysteries. But the greatest mystery, besides who’s the real occupant, is why did it go unmentioned in history books for over 23 centuries, and why was it unceremoniously buried from top to bottom into soil so that no-one could see it or remember it? Who would create such a marvel of architecture so huge and imposing, only to bury it and simply hide it from history? And why?

I assume (with some reasoning) that HFAISTION was buried there, in a tomb created by Deinokratis to rival the greatest tombs ever built; a tomb which apparently cost a significant amount of money, mobilized an

15

immense labor force, for a relatively short time period, during some very turbulent years in the history of the World, Macedonia and Greece. What really happened? Did something go terribly wrong with this monument-tomb? What happened to Deinikratis? Who buried that monument-tomb? We know that HFAISTION and ALEXANDROS died about eight months apart in November 324 BC and July (or June depending on the calendar used) 323 BC respectively. We know from Diodoros of Sicily (asource which will preoccupy this Note quite a bit) that upon HFAISTION’s death at Ecbatana (for which ALEXANDROS considerably grieved over his body in Babylon) ALEXANDROS ordered and built a magnificent Pyre-monument for his ETAIROS and XILIARXOS in Babylon; and we also are told by Diodoros that HFAISTION was cremated in accordance with Macedonian custom. Archeologists however have never been able to locate even traces, let alone ruins, of such a monument. And no other historical source mentions it or makes any mention as to what happened to HFAISTION’s body or funeral. We have also been told by a number of historians that wrote about HFAISTION’s death that ALEXANDROS ordered immediately following his ETAIROS’ death that he behonored as God. But to be safe, he also sent a delegation to Siwa, apparently asking for their OK. And we also have been told that when the oracle came back it called for HFAISTION to be honored just as “a divine Hero”. See for an easy reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephaestion

Especially, the section on his “death and funeral” where the Siwa angle is addressed. However, this is just a start into the Odyssey of searching for the exact events that followed HFAISTION’s death. On November 20th 2014 my friend Panagiotis Petropoulos sent me some historical scholarly references that shed some more light on this issue of HFAISTION’s funeral reporting by Diodoros. In fact, these references address Diodoros’ account of HFAISTION’s Pyre, and its credibility. And all question whether this Pyre was ever made. In particular, this reference from the University of Chicago:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/18A*.html#3

And this reference from Immauel Bekker et al website at Tufts Universitywith commentary on Diodoros:

16

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0541%3Abook%3D18%3Achapter%3D4

A number of things are apparent from both references, as well as the summary reference by Wikipedia, in combination with the available so far archeological record. First, that the Diodoros account of HFAISTION’s Pyre is a myth, as both scholarly references indicate thatthe project was canceled upon ALEXANDROS’ death most likely by Perdikas’ recommendation, the rest of the aspiring successors concurring. Second, that besides the Pyre, other projects ALEXANDROS wanted done were cancelled as well, considered to be too expensive. Third, the Amphipolis project by Deinokratis is NOT mentioned in that list of projects to be cancelled – presumably the money for its construction already been dispensed to Macedonia. Fourth, HFAISTION was not buried at Ecbatana and in fact ALEXANDROS himself participatedin bringing back to Babylon HFAISTION’s body. Fifth, no account is given as to what exactly happened with HFAISTION’s body, immediately following his death, except to assume that it was not cremated while ALEXANDROS was still alive, and possibly not after his death either. Although it is undisputed from historical records that HFAISTION’s body (cremated or not) was taken back to Macedonia, it remains unclearthough, how and under whose custody was it shipped back. Further, and of immediate concern here is, since no matter what funeral was in store for HFAISTION, there was need to preserve his body for some time, how was that done? Since historical sources are mute on this, reasoned speculation is admissible and offered herewith. In trying to address these historical voids, a possible exact chronology associatedwith the events following HFAISTION’s death is supplied, including what rites most likely offered him, a time frame and the broader political and social conditions surrounding his burial. Much of it ties very well with the events surrounding the construction and the phases Kasta Hill’s monument underwent, since as did HFAISTION’s fortunes go so did his monument-tomb.

ALEXANDROS, and HFAISTION by Deinokratis

Mainly tied to all that is the central unknown regarding which exactly(if any) of the various posthumous honors suggested as accorded HFAISTION actually did occur. We know from historical records that ALEXANDROS wanted him honored as God. However, that honor was changed

17

(while ALEXANDROS was still alive, and possibly very close to his own death) to “divine Hero” as a result of an oracle from Siwa ALEXANDROS had sent for and received before July (or June) 323 BC. In addition, things get more complicated by an account offered by Mavrojannis that HFAISTION died accorded the rites of a King. Whatever happened a change in rites did take place, from the original ALEXANDROS wish for HFAISTION to be honored as God. This change in honors and funeral rites was critical not only for HFAISTION’s own legacy, but also for the fate of the Monument-tomb found at Kasta Hill. It turned out that this demotion at the outset, was a real bad omen of what was to take place in relatively short order at Kasta Hill. According to the reasoning provided here, and conforming to the archeological evidence presented so far from the excavation and the vault found under the floor of the crimson chamber there, HFAISTION died in far more humble conditions than any historical sources hint at. This is a central finding of this work and that excavation.

Anyone doing work on HFAISTION is struck by the fact that so much morehas been written about him about his death, than about his remarkable life, career and deeds. No person ever has climbed up close to the very top of one of World’s greatest Empires on the wings none other but an eagle, commanding skills none other but a lion, demonstrating an intelligence none other but a fox. His significant accomplishments deserve the attention of much more scholarship than has up till currently been devoted to him. Maybe now, 23 centuries after his earlydeath in his early 30s during the early days of the Hellenistic Empire, he might be shown the respect he didn’t receive during those dark and turbulent years following the death of his MEGAS ETAIROS and partner in conquest, the man who still brings shivers in people young and old, the World over, ALEXANDROS.

Another outstanding figure that emerges out of this analysis is that of the Empire’s Architect and City Planner that goes by many names, his exact place of birth not known for sure, his personal life a mystery, Deinokratis. Here we are dealing with an obvious genius that life has not paid also due respect. He may had gotten a bad press backthen, and Vitruvius along with other historians may have underestimated his creativity and sharp intellect. Hopefully, the close attention paid to this monument at Kasta Hill in its overt obvious opulent magnificence will evoke the right recognition to be granted finally to this genius, with 23 centuries worth of interest.

18

History, in one of those rare moments, where it conjoins fatefully consequential men and women’s paths, brought together three splendid personalities, at a moment in time so critical for the World’s History. All three of them marked and graced that brief albeit critical moment in time by their glorious presence and magnificent deeds. Humanity still owes the three of them, and in paying them back through study still draws lessons and ideas and guidance from them.

Chapter I. The Monument of Kasta Hill as a part of a “Monuments System” at the North Amphipolis Region.

Phase A.   Deinokratis under Antipatros: November 324 - 321 BC .

November 324 BC – July 323 BC: The brief “God HFASTION” period ofthe Monument.

The facts and a question. First, what we know as basic facts from the historical record: upon HFAISTION's death (November 324 BC), ALEXANDROS summons his favorite Architect Deinokratis (or “Stasikratis”) to Babylon to build there a magnificent monument for HFAISTION's cremation according to Macedonian custom. In view of the November 12, 2014 announcement by the archeological team that unburnedbones were found in the tomb at Kasta tumulus, one must immediately question the historical record that HFAISTION was “cremated at Babylon

19

according to Macedonian custom”. Diodoros from Sicily has reported on this issue. It seems that the cremation process and huge building associated with it, as suggested by Diodoros, isn’t likely an event that actually took place in Babylon (something pointed out earlier andthat Prof. Mavrojannis also now suggests). This critical inaccuracy, if indeed proves to be so, brings into question the reliability of “historical records”, and this general issue will be analyzed more extensively later in this Note, under chapter II.

wH.1: The Architect Deinokratis and his architectonic visions. There and then in Babylon, ALEXANDROS gives Deinokratis the order and the commission for an Amphipolis monument/tomb for “God HFAISTION”. Deinokratis becomes in effect The GOD-KING's Architect. His prestige and authority obviously reach their peak right then and there. Vitruvius tells us that Deinokratis sported an impressive and dominating presence with a rhetoric and delivery to match it. His grandiose schemes of architectonic creations would go comfortably with both his appearance and talk. Indeed, he was a person people carefully and at awe would listen to, even ALEXANDROS. His wild imaginative design creations only a GOD-KING the magnitude of an AMUN-RA could tame. And that grandiosity manifested itself at Amphipolis.

wH.2: The marching orders to Deinokratis at Babylon. One of the following four distinct (and maybe exhaustive) possibilities exist forthe money and HFAISTION's body to be hauled to Amphipolis: Krateros, Perdikas, Deinokratis or Aristonous. Who actually did bring back to Amphipolis HFAISTION's body isn't that important for the story, although the timing of its arrival at Amphipolis is somewhat critical and his actual time of burial of fundamental concern, as is the question of the rites offered him. Since HFAISTION’s unburned (but somehow preserved) bones were found in the Kasta Hill tomb, most likely Deinokratis was the carrier of HFAISTION’s body back to Amphipolis, possibly accompanied there by Aristonous, carrier of ALEXANDROS’s money to pay for the monument-tomb. A further note here is in order about the Diodoros reference of a magnificent monument to house HFAISTION’s cremation in Babylon that apparently never saw the light of day. Maybe either ALEXANDROS himself or some powerful Generalin his staff (could be Perdikas, as McKechnie suggests) must have found it unrealistically extravagant and killed it, or kept delaying its construction. Maybe Perdikas persuaded ALEXANDROS that the monument at Amphipolis was enough for HFAISTION. This failure to

20

complete that structure must have registered as a possible warning forDeinokratis, but not as an impediment for what he had in mind for HFAISTION in Macedonia, at Amphipolis, away from all this militaristicbureaucracy of Babylon. Maybe, he shared with all ETAIROI in Babylon what he conceived and wanted to do at Amphipolis, and then they decided en masse to stop the Babylon monument since the Amphipolis (and anyway final) monument was to be constructed in grandeur. Maybe, ALEXANDROS’ generals (Perdikas included) recommended that an oracle from Siwa be obtained as to how HFAISTION should be posthumously honored. We can be rather confident in accepting that ALEXANDROS did sent a delegation to Siwa asking precisely that. And some time later that the message did come back from Siwa indicating that HFAISTION should be honored as a “divine Hero”. But no matter what exactly happened following the oracle from Siwa, no matter how these exact instructions were carried out and by whom, and ultimately who’s the actual occupant at Kasta Hill, buried there under whatever rites the archeological excavavion reveals, the real effectr will be this: the historical record will be amended on many issues. What is rather certain is that Deinokratis’ instructions leaving Babylon on his way to Amphipolis were for him to build a monument for “God HFAISTION”.

sH.1: Amphipolis, the huge construction site. Winter of 323 BC. Deinokratis assembles his staff. The best from all over the Empire converge to Amphipolis: engineers, architects, masons, artists of all types, surveyors, managers, as well as labor - free men and slaves from Asia and Africa. Deinokratis the GOD-KING's Architect and City Planner, Alexandria's SXEDIASTHS (331 BC), draws both his Architectural Master Plan for the tomb, and a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the whole area. Management schedules and detail designs and drawings for this project are drawn by his assistant architects under his strict directions. Meantime, he sets up his construction site at the northern suburbs of Amphipolis and at his marble quarry (or quarries, as they probably were more than one location there marble was extracted from) at the island of Thassos, both sites certainly supervised by assistant managers. His immediate staff must number at least two dozen, and the total labor at his disposal for this project may be in the hundreds if not thousands. As the Architect of the Empire, he has been commissioned to undertake the most grandiose Plan in the history of Macedonia, for the person who's the closest to ALEXANDROS, his XILIARXOS and ETAIROS, his NAYARXOS and chief of the

21

cavalry, the second most important person in the Empire, the person ALEXANDROS wanted elevated to deity next to himself the GOD-KING. One needs to appreciate the grand scale of this undertaking at that time, its grand frame of reference, in order to understand Amphipolis and Kasta Hill during Winter 323 BC. Money is now no obstacle, simply put it's not an issue and Deinokratis’ imagination and creativity run rampant. ALEXANDROS had the riches of the East at his disposal, and Deinokratis was given in effect a free hand and a blank check. ALEXANDROS was at the zenith of his power, Deinokratis at his prime ofcreativity. Only one person could authorize such undertaking, a personwho had unique and extraordinary political power, a new Pharaoh ALEXANDROS. No one else in the Empire (neither Olympias, nor Antipatros) could muster the financing as well as the political and social support enabling Deinokratis to go ahead with this project. ButDeinokratis needs in situ political support for the day to day operations. ALEXANDROS is in Babylon, and in Macedonia Antipatros is in charge, in Pella. There's some historical evidence that ALEXANDROS'bodyguard Aristonous (a Perdikas and Olympias ally) by 322/1 BC appears as the City Manager of record at Amphipolis. It's possible that he was sent there by ALEXANDROS before July 323 BC. Although he is formally under Antipatros (the strong man of Macedonia at the time) Aristonous' real boss in Macedonia is Olympias. His role, although secondary, might be of some interest in what follows July 323BC. We have through him a possible custodian of both HFAISTION's body and the money given by ALEXANDROS for HFAISTION's tomb. He is now the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of this operation at Amphipolis. Under his full political and economic support, Deinokratis is in an extreme almost frantic pace, in a race against time to complete this elaborateproject for God HFAISTION. He draws his plans and assembles all his staff so that by beginning of Spring 323 BC he has everything in place, all his ducks in a row, for actual construction to commence. Meantime, an urban explosion is under way. The population of Amphipolis has ballooned, the city is now experiencing an unprecedented in-migration flow. The place takes the look of a huge workstation. In and around Amphipolis slum areas spawn as a result of this construction activity, and temporary shelters house slaves and low echelon workers at the site. Housing within the city of Amphipolisproper and its immediate suburbs becomes scarce, its labor force explodes as upper echelon managerial workers in Deinocratis’ army of labor seek dwelling accommodations and associated services.

22

Parenthetically, this graphic narrative is also in response to some analysts who contend that this is a tomb built in secrecy (some contend by Olympias for Alexandros – a clear impossibility), its construction going unnoticed (another virtual impossibility), but plausible in the minds of many today who wish to see ALEXANDROS be buried there. A huge boost to the local economy, this new and large scale construction activity inflates the local housing market, and theprice of housing (and other commodities) shoots through the roof. Landis purchased at the Northern area of Amphipolis for the monuments to be constructed, and of course the price of land explodes. A multipliereffect sets in, affecting all services and industry in the major Metropolitan now Amphipolis region. We are witnessing, in the first half of 323 BC unprecedented urban growth there, the likes of which Macedonia has never witnessed before. Meantime, in the island of Thassos, the quarries’ land owners see the price of their product, marble, shooting through the roof as well, let alone land prices there. Amphipolis becomes a paradise for speculators, something equivalent to the 1849 gold-rush in California. As the economy gets a boost, the beneficiary stands to be someone nobody probably consideredwhen authorizing this public works project back in Babylon: Antipatros. Under his rule and watch now Macedonia is prospering.

sH.2: Why is the tomb at Kasta Hill? I will not address the question as to why Amphipolis was chosen as the place to construct the tomb; it's something that both Prof. Mavrojannis and the archeological team have already adequately addressed, and I accept their reasons without having much to add except by pointing out certain Urban Planning and Transportation related corroborative issues and narrative. No doubt, the existence of the corridor Amphipolis-Filippoi played a major role in this decision, as this corridor was becoming a second growth pole (along religious, cultural, social, and economic dimensions) attracting growth away  from Pella. The expansion of Macedonia into the broader Thraki region was an integral part of such spatial development at that time, the second half of the 4th century BC, the Golden Age of Macedonia under FILIPPOS II and ALEXANDROS III. Amphipolis’ proximity to Strymonas, the Aegean Sea, and a number of resources (the Mount of Pangaion, in both metals and timber) obviouslyplayed a major role in this decision to pick Amphipolis for this project. Being the major Mint for the Helladic monetary sphere at thattime (due to Pangaion’s gold and silver mines), was also a key reason

23

why Amphipolis was chosen. But here I shall address the "Why at Kasta Hill?" question. In so doing, I'll take first a comprehensive view of the locale, and also take a cut at a possible Deinokratis' grand INTENT and vision to highlight this particular area, so that a broaderperspective can be obtained. It will lead one to the unavoidable conclusion that indeed we are dealing with Deinokratis as the Architect and City Planner of record at Kasta Hill.

(a) Deinokratis' Comprehensive Land Use Plan: the ALAXANDROS-HFAISTIONMonuments Complex of a Major GOD-KING and a Minor God, his ETAIROS andXILIARXOS.  

(a.1) Kasta Hill’s locational advantages. Looking at the map, both current and of that era, one clearly sees that Kasta Hill is at the closest proximity to the navigable river Strymonas. Due to the ground's morphology and the resulting Strymonas meandering, Kasta Hillcomes closer to it (about 1.5 kilometers) than any other physical mound (except Hill 133, which I'll address momentarily). There's no evidence that the flow of Strymonas close to Kasta Hill has considerably changed over the 23 centuries that have elapsed since then. The geomorphology of the area hasn't radically altered this proximity, except possibly at the margins. The flow of Strymonas has changed South of Kasta Hill since then, running East of Amphipolis:

http://wellcomeimages.org/indexplus/obf_images/83/0a/d1ba1742571da0c04b11d93ad561.jpg

It’s found in: http://wellcomeimages.org/indexplus/image/L0031928.html

If anything, as the above map from Thucydides shows, it’s likely that this physical proximity was higher back then, than now. Thus Kasta Hill enjoyed locational advantages for the transport by boat of all marble slabs from Thassos. Marble, along with limestone, was the primary natural resource used for the tomb's construction. With limestone quarries nearby, Kasta Hill thus represents the minimum transport cost site regarding the input factors in the production process in the whole vicinity of the then Amphipolis Metropolitan Area.

(a.2) The System of Monuments. Amphipolis was by no means (as already mentioned) an insignificant second tier town then; to the contrary, itrivaled Pella in significance and power Pella being the seat of government, Amphipolis the center of commerce and finance and a

24

thriving agricultural hinteland. Its Akropolis enjoyed a view encompassing the cross roads of the Royal Road linking FILIPPOI with Pella, the intersection of the Ennea Odoi, the bridge over Strymonas (mentioned by Thoukydidis, its Eastern remnants with a gate discoveredby Lazaridis in 1977), the busy Port from which the Campaign to Asia was launched and the Macedonian fleet set sail, on Strymonas’ mouth at the Aegean Sea, and of course at the tail end of the PangaionMountain Range. It sported a view second to none in magnificence, beauty and history. Deinokratis was fully aware (as a City Planner) ofthese locational advantages Amphipolis enjoyed. What he had to do is to pull them together and formulate his Comprehensive Land Use plan totake full advantage of them all. And he did, in a way that only a Deinokratis would. Along the road from the minimum transport cost point at the river’s edge of Strymonas to Kasta Hill, the remnant of which is still traced to this day, along the way to the City of Amphipolis, he drew an uphill rolling access road to a Junction point,a focus point from where one could stroll both around Kasta Hill and also Mound 133. I'll come back to this junction point, as I now present the “Monuments System” Deinokratis intended to build.

(a.3) Mound 133: Here is a more fundamental reason, in my hypothesis, as to why Kasta Hill was picked by Deinokratis for HFAISTION's tomb. At the same time, this is the key reason as to why I think Deinokratis is behind Kasta Hill’s monument-tomb. A simple check with Google Earth shows due west of Kasta Hill and in just a short distancefrom it rises an un-natural in shape Mound, Hill 133. Back in the 1960s even Lazaridis pointed out that this is likely a man-shaped structure. The special shape of Mound 133 as a truncated pyramid is also shown in:

http://eleytheron.blogspot.gr/2014/10/blog-post_89.html

Kasta Hill is very close to Mound 133 not only in physical proximity but in shape and relative sizes in the mind of Deinokratis. Kasta Hillis a round shaped, largely artificial mound; Hill 133 looks like a truncated pyramid, a most likely artificially shaped structure as well, even today what has remained of it. Deinokratis intent (I suggest) was to EVENTUALLY make that pyramid structure ALEXANDROS monument and tomb, the Monument to the GOD-KING. Moreover, there’s some historical evidence to suggest that ALEXANDROS (when giving the order to Deinokratis to build a tomb for HFAISTION in Macedonia), also

25

confided to him that he wanted to be buried close to HFAISTION upon his death. Now the relative magnitude of these two sites becomes apparent. To Deinokratis, Kasta Hill was big enough for HFAISTION, theMinor God and XILIARXOS (Chief of Alexander’s Army) but too little forthe EMPEROR the MAJOR-GOD ALEXANDROS. On the other hand, Mound 133 (with a square base of about 660 meters on each side) was big enough to accommodate his client, the richest and most powerful leader-GOD the Western World had known, far more powerful than any Egyptian Pharaoh ever was. ALEXANDROS’ monument for DEINOKRATIS had to exceed in size, grandeur and splendor that of ANY Pharaoh. Mound 133 would fit the bill, it would make the big pyramid of Giza look small by comparison. Moreover, this duo of monuments would be next to the Riverof the Empire - Macedonia's Nile River, Strymonas. And that would dwarf the Giza Plateau in splendor. For among all these advantages Amphipolis enjoyed relative to the Giza Plateau, in addition there wasa mountain in its skyline - Pangaion. That was Deinokratis vision for Amphipolis, the new Sacred City of the Empire, the New Thebes and Luxor at a bigger scale and more glamorous than any place in Egypt or anywhere in the Empire, at the OMFALO of the Empire - Macedonia, the birthplace of the Major GOD-KING. Although apparently some work was done on Mound 133, at the end of Deinokratis’ tenure at Amphipolis thegrand scheme didn't go very far. But in my view, these two mounds constitute the basic components of the “System of Monuments” Deinokratis designed and started to build there. Deinokratis would never, in my view, build an isolated monument just for HFAISTION at some random round mound (and there are a number of them in the generalregion of Amphipolis). It was the combination of these two that clinched in Deinokratis mind Kasta Hill. Deinokrtis was a pioneer Architect back then – he conceived the notion of working with a landscape, shaping the natural geological formations to anthropomorphic configurations. Historical records indicate (Vitruvius) that he proposed one such scheme to ALEXANDROS before. Here, we have morphological evidence to suggest he was planning something similar – to shape the natural landscape at a grand scale. This is why, in the grandeur of Hill 133, I see Deinokratis as being the architect of record. But there’s more to this Monuments System. Within this context, a brief look into the two diagonals of the squarebase of the truncated pyramid is worth taking; the one which currentlyhas a SW to NE orientation seems to be parallel to the SW to NE orientation of the radius at the point of entrance of the Kasta Hill

26

mound. Given that the position of the North has changed since then, it’s quite safe to presume that both of these axes were pointing very close to north back 23 centuries ago. It would be worthwhile to test this hypothesis of alignments and orientations. If this is the case, then here we have another confirmation of Moud 133 being a part to theDeinokratis Grand Plan for the system of Monuments there, north of Amphipolis. It is reminded that all three pyramids at the Giza Plateauhave parallel axes of their square bases. A final point regarding the orientation of the SE – NW (the alleged east – west) axis of the truncated pyramid’s square basis: its extension cuts almost in half the circular base of Kasta Hill, going through its center. To summarize this section, there seems to be some alignment between Hill 133 and Kasta Hill’s tomb – the exact nature of which still awaits analysis.

(b) Deinokratis' HFAISTION's tomb/monument Master Plan for Kasta Hill,and Deinokratis’ Module.

wH.3: The Grand Entrance that was never built. In my view, the two components that hold the key to understanding the Kasta Hill monument's fortunes and course over time are primarily its entrance, and secondarily its marble double-leaf door. I’ll take these two elements under scrutiny as the scenario unfolds. By looking at the monument excavated so far at Kasta Hill, one immediately asks: why is the entrance at this specific point of the perimeter? Why place thewhole monument at an angle to the radius at that point? Why so long (about 25 meters)? Why so wide (about 4.5 meters)? And finally, why sohigh? Inside the tomb, the "current" height is about 6.5 meters on theaverage from its floor to the top of the arched ceiling, and about 8.50 meters from the bottom of the vault to the ceiling of the crimsonchamber (chamber #3, the last chamber of the tomb). I emphasize "current" because I contend that Deinokratis may have had a different ceiling in mind when he designed it. Some answers to these architecture drawn questions I may have later, when I address the modular structure of the tomb. I also contend that Deinokratis didn't end up finishing the construction of this monument, another architect did, and certainly Deinokratis didn’t intend what we now see as an “entrance” to be the actual entrance into this monument - more on

27

these points later. In answering though the logical queries I just posted, one can safely make the following assumptions:

(b.1) Locating the tomb inside the Hill. Deinokratis and the surveyorsdetermined the exact and optimum location, given the size of the monument/tomb he wanted to build; it was the result of the imposed constraints and challenges upon them from the geology, landscape as well as the history of the natural tumulus, given the multiple objectives Deinokratis had for the tomb. Let's look at these objectives first; Outside the tomb/monument, the aim was to transform a natural mound into a man-shaped tumulus with an imposing but yet gentle curve, which would distinguish it from as far as the City of Amphipolis' Akropolis to the South, the Pangaion Mountain Range to theEast, and as far as West and North the eye could see in the Valley of Strymonas. Deinocratis in all likelihood had estimated the volume of the spherical dome this tumulus would have and I expect that studies will be undertaken on this as well as other measurements of interest associated with this tumulus. Inside that Mound, Deinokratis decided to put the tomb with the previously listed approximate sizes, and orient it as close as possible to the then North. We do not exactly know these dimensions yet, as we don’t know the exact location of the entrance as found (they haven’t been provided). As with many other critical measurements, the archeological team hasn't made them public,as only approximate sizes and orientations have been offered; thus it would be risky for anyone to make suggestions now as to their implied exact relationships. For sure, they were not random. Specifically, length, area, and volume measures are evidently linked to the modular basis of the tomb. More on this later. By inserting such a tomb into the natural Mound, he wanted to minimize work effort in carving the natural rock structure and minimize the amount of soil needed to shapethe final skyline of the Hill. But Deinokratis was also aware of the history of this Mound as a place where burials of old times were to befound. In fact Lazaridis in the 1960s excavations did come across archaic era tombs there. The location of HFAISTION's burial site shouldn't interfere with these ancient Macedonian ancestral tombs. Thus, in consultation with his geologists, Deinokratis probably used anatural schism in that Hill, where we now find the entrance, to accommodate the tomb. The access to the tomb road level was probably abit higher than the intended floor of the tomb, and a ramp was

28

probably put there to allow workers' conduit for the needed excavationand shaping of the tomb inside the Mound. 

(b.2) The Amphipolis Lion. The archeological team has suggested that on top of Kasta Hill Deinokratis intended to put the "Amphipolis Lion". A drawing by the team's architect, Lefanzis, has been offered to the public along these lines. Further, and in support of the proposition that Deinokratis is the architect of record for the Kasta Hill tomb, it has been suggested by Peristeri and Lefanzis that there are some measures associating this lion statue to the tumulus and thento a "Deinokratis number” or “ratios" including the Hill’s perimeter of about 497/8 meters. I do not espouse these contentions. A lion was indeed to be made and was crafted to mark the site. Although never assembled in antiquity, it was made piece by piece to be assembled sometime in the future when the “System of Monuments” at Amphipolis would be completed. But it was not to be put on top of the Kasta tumulus. It simply is too big, disproportionally high and too "heavy" for this gentle Hill. In my view, the "Amphipolis Lion" was to be installed at the "Junction Point" I referred to earlier, marking the FOCUS where the visitor would veer on one side, East, towards HFAISTION's tomb, and West towards ALEXANDROS's intended monument (Mound 133). A victim to the historical events following its carving from Thassos marble, the confluence of events conspired so that the monument was never finished, assembled, and installed at its planned location. The whole site was never developed as Deinokratis intended. A glaring witness to the whole System of Monument's fortunes is the condition and location of the statue's pieces as they have been found along the riverside of Strymonas. It should be mentioned, that in thisimagery by Deinokratis of an area-wide monuments complex reminding oneof Egypt's Giza plateau (and with the intent to surpass it) there's a stand-alone Nile-gazing Sphinx equivalent here: the stand-alone Strymonas-gazing Amphipolis Lion. This Junction point, punctuated by the Lion, was intended to be the focal point for Worship of both ALEXANDROS and HFAISTION. In my view, it is in this context that the Lion’s presence there must be approached and appreciated.

(c) The tomb's perimeter. A marble-covered, 497/8-meter long, about 3-meter high perimeter wall was designed to both define the perfect circle of the tumulus and at the same time protect the artificial partof the mound to slide down and erode in time. The evidence we have is that this perimeter was in fact shaped at its intended exact location,

29

but its cover with marble slabs was never completed. The archeologicalteam suggested that some of its slabs were taken from the monument by the Romans to be used for a local dam. I do not espouse this hypothesis. Instead I contend that the marble pieces used for the dam were just taken from the riverside where many were left unused although intended for the monument. The condition we found the monument in August 2014 was the actual condition that the monument wasleft unfinished, abandoned and sealed in Strymonas' soil in 316 BC. A reasonable question is whether Deinokratis planned only to put a monument-tomb just 25 meters in length into a tumulus with a 497/8-meter perimeter. We will probably never know for sure what exactly Deinokratis intended for the whole mound. But he must have planned more than just this tomb for it like for example the grand entrance I alluded to earlier. However, by 321 BC Deinokratis may have had the space, but he had run out of time as we shall see to complete whateverelse he planned not only for Kasta Hill but for the whole monuments system at the area North of Amphipolis. A comment must also be made about the source and amount of limestone used in Kasta Hill, since much has been said about the huge quantity of marble (and its source) Deinokratis used for HFAISTION’s tomb. Well, it’s obvious that a much higher quantity of limestone was employed and the source of this limestone hasn’t been made clear or elaborated much by the archeological team, although it should. Kasta Hill must have presentedlocational advantages as to that limestone quarry or quarries as well.Since the quantity of limestone used was far greater than the amount of marble used (in weight) the limestone quarry must have been closer to the Kasta Hill monument than the marble quarry; this follows as a consequence of calculating optimum proximity as a function of per unitcost per ton carried per average cubic meter of built structure factor(marble and limestone) combination. Transport rates (by boat and by land) per ton, prices per ton of processed slab (marble and limestone)are the key variables in finding optimal allocation patterns in industrial location theory – these must have been the relevant factorsback then as well. Remember, we are dealing now with only Phase A where marble and limestone are used, as in Phases B and C no longer ismarble used in the construction process. Then, only proximity to the limestone quarry mattered. But the most stunning component of the walls appearance is its ORTHOMARMAROSH. Four and at times five parallel running strings of marble slabs, of four different heights but identical length (the module) with a very thin sealing space

30

between each pair of slabs (horizontally and vertically), are crowned by a decorative cornice with its own unit length as module. The total height of the wall (from its base to the cornice) we are told is aboutthree meters, but obviously this can’t be the case when five strings of marble slabs are running. Both unit lengths (as well as the four/five strings’ height) are encountered inside the tomb as well. More on this later. A simple division of the total Hill’s perimeter length (about 497 meters) by the unit lengths of both modules should be an integer. Assuming the length of the Karyatides base (the same modular length as we’ll see in the next subsection) is 1.36 meters (weare told) then the ratio comes out to be 365.44(!) Quite close to the number of days in a year (365.22). Are you teasing us Master of Architecture Deinokratis? Presumably the .44 of a slab’s length was used to seal the marble stones all around the perimeter. Of course keeping in mind that all these numbers are approximate, Deinokratis estimated most likely exactly a string of 365 sets for each row of marble stones running around the Hill’s perimeter minus of course the slabs not needed because of the “entrance” opening. That opening thus must have been an exact multiple of 1.36 meters plus any residue from the .44 of a slab’s length, following the module as it (the module) turned inwards inside the tomb’s inner chambers. More on this module in subsection (d - xi). Finally, a simple visual inspection of some wall’s photos released by the ministry show a slight off vertical inclination for the perimeter wall – the exact measure of this angle not being random of course. Such an angle is structurally needed of course, to more effectively retain the pressure from the artificial mounds’ soil, in preventing its erosion. More on this modular structure of the tomb in a forthcoming paper.

(d) The guiding principles in the design of the tomb. The points made in this section refer to the tomb-monuments architecture, and are independent of the person it was intended for or ended up housing. Deinokratis designed a specific size tomb, and found the optimum pointof entrance and the optimum angle to a radius (arch) to place that tomb. That angle was determined by the point of entrance and the location of the rock Deinokratis wanted to carve the funerary chamber (chamber #3 of the tomb). As pointed out earlier the radius at that point 23 centuries ago could have a South-North orientation (it doesn’t seem to me that the orientation of the tomb itself had the exact South to North orientation back then, but this need verification

31

after an exact floor plan of the monument is made public by the archeological team) given that (I) he wanted the closest possible North-South axis for the entrance facing the Akropolis of Amphipolis and wanted to align the Kasta Hill monument-tomb to the Hill 133 N-S diagonal; (ii) Deinokratis wanted the closest possible East-West axis for his chamber of the mosaic i.e., the movement of the chariot to be from East towards the West, from Filippoi to Pella, from this World tothe Underworld, as Pluto was abducting Persephone rolling on a chariottaking her from Kasta Hill towards Mound 133 under Hermes’ watchful eyes; this beautiful mosaic was the imaginary link of the two tombs, Kasta Hill and Mound 133, the link between HFAISTION and ALEXANDROS; the mosaic was indeed the highlight of the tomb’s imagery and symbolism, its climatic apotheosis; (iii) he determined the width (about 4.5 meters) of the whole tomb's corridor simply by the length size of the mosaic (and not the other way around). Here’s the great importance of this mosaic to Deinocratis: its length was the dominant factor in determining not only the width of the monument inside the tomb, but by extension, that mosaic’s length determined the modular structure of the whole Hill’s outside marble covered wall as well. Andalthough the ministry of culture and the archeological team didn’t talk much about the meandering (MAIANDROS) marvel of this mosaic (for apparently some ridiculous political reasons) the strength of the mosaic, again in my view, lies on its fantastic triple meandering frame structure – simply manifested by the mere area it takes as a frame to the area of the mosaic’s main icon and the advanced geometry and algebra involved in its design and pattern of motion along all four of its sides; it can’t be under-emphasized how sophisticated the mathematics of this monument are – and I expect Ph.D. dissertations toemerge out of simply this element of Kasta tumulus’ monument. A close examination of the mosaic’s MAIANDROS must reveal an intimate connection between it and the 1.36 meters of the tomb’s modular grid. (iv) Deinokratis built the tomb from the bottom up in plain daylight, and from the inside out, starting the architectural finishing (marble cover and floor finish) with the mosaic floor containing chamber; chamber #2 was the first one to have its floor done and its walls covered by marble; (v) he wanted to place the funerary chamber (the crimson chamber) inside the rock, making it inaccessible to possible tomb raiders from all sides except the double-leaf marble door of the mosaic chamber; chamber #3, although the first to be shaped when construction started, was to be completed last and then the roof was

32

to be added; why? For the simple reason Deinokratis didn’t yet know what is to be put inside the funerary chamber in terms of valuables, and since it was never finished, we can only speculate what he intended to do with it. For sure we would not have left it in the condition we found it. This chamber is extremely important in placinga time frame on the scenario of this Note, in determining who ended upfinishing it and locking it. It speaks tons about the difference between the original Architect of the tomb, and the architect who followed and sealed the crimson chamber. Very likely, marble would have been planned to be used to cover the floor; how can one tell? By just looking at the step just in front of the marble door which is used to support the movement of the leaves on its rails. This step andthe limestone floor aren’t on the same level, the floor is at a lower level, awaiting for the marble slabs to level it off with the door’s threshold. Furthermore, crimson was not planned by Deinokratis to paint all sides of the chamber’s walls. Possibly some wall painting(s)were in the plan depicting HFAISTION’s key life scenes. But more importantly, Deinokratis must have wanted to put inside the funerary room a sarcophagus or at least a larnaka, something befitting a God, aKing, or a divine Hero – NEVER bury him in the ground, that’s left forcommoners not for Gods. Most likely a sarcophagus was planned, to contain the larnaka already containing preserved body of HFAISTION. But this isn’t what we found in there, and this tells us who did all this inside the crimson room, and what exact conditions surrounded HFAISTION’s interment. Moreover, the fact that this room was NOT finished first in the “inside out” process for building this tomb is because Deinokratis wanted the sarcophagus and its base put in from above frist then complete the marble cover of the chamber’s floor in apattern to further “elevate” the soul of the Honored Dead HFAISTION from the rhomboid of chamber #1, to the mosaic of chamber #2, to the ultimate height of chamber #3. The step down into the crimson chamber from the door’s lower threshold could never be Deinokratis design. Notto mention the digging of a vault in the limestone covered floor, treatment far beneath what the second man in ALEXANDROS’ Imperial Hierarchy deserved; (vi) The tomb’s Imperial Module. Shown in the dimensions and pattern of the marble slabs inside and outside the monument (ORTHOMARMAROSH), running in parallel strips are repeated series of marble slabs. Running from the inside out, they define by their size the total perimeter’s intended length (estimated

33

approximately at 497/8 meters) of the artificial-natural mound. That total length must be an exact multiple of these individual slabs’ length. And as we discussed in subsection “c” above it is: 365. Since there are at least three different types of parallel running strips ofmarble covers, there must be a mathematical rule governing them – the exact identification of which awaits exact measurement of the individual slabs and their in-between seal width to be announced. Their exact algebraic relationship will define the tomb’s MODULE, something which will be elaborated further below, under subsection (xiii); (vii) The marble door. This door has a story to tell about what happened to this tomb. The double-leaf marble door leading from the mosaic chamber to the crimson chamber is the biggest in size and most heavy of all doors found thus far in any Macedonian tomb, befitting the biggest in size Macedonian tomb ever constructed. Each leaf weighs approximately one and one half to two tons. Both leaves were lowered inside on the rails from above. The archeological team found fragments of this door - it was obviously rammed and shattered; the exact location, shape, sizes, fractures and texture of its sides would tell a lot about the history of this tomb and its pastpossible raid, looting, and vandalism it may have suffered. What was offered to the public by the team of excavators is unfortunately very inadequate to answer in full these questions - but hints can be obtained as to its tortured and turbulent past. The archeological teamhas suggested that the door’s fracture was due to “natural causes” (earthquakes) or even outdoor bombings. I do not accept either of these two proposals, since I find next to impossible for the door to be fractured the way it did by either of these two causes, while beingfully submerged into compacted sandy soil. Simple structural mechanicsdo not support such an interpretation of nature caused or man-made events. Instead, I contend, this door together with the tomb's entrance and chamber #3 offer the keys to decoding this monument’s deep mystery and the violent part in its life cycle. Its broken parts reveal to a large extent the existence of three distinct Phases to this monument as presented here. Its construction is associated with Phase A, its installment and closure (sealing) marks Phase B, and its wrecking cups Phase C, as we shall see in more detail later. (viii) Torepeat, all possible sizes inside the tomb, including the marble door’s components, have measures that are definitely not random, as one would expect from an Architect the stature of Deinokratis, although it's very difficult to exactly identify these

34

measures now with the data/photos available to us so far; I’m sure they will be the subject of extensive future study. These measures, including the sizes of the double-leaf marble door are linked to the building’s module. (ix) Obviously, every single figure and representation and symbol inside that tomb has a meaning and a purpose, but I don't wish to elaborate on symbolism, since decoding symbols is quite subjective and not particularly central to the main issues covered here. But I don't wish on the other hand to underestimate their import either. (x) Finally, it's my view that Deinokratis INTENDED to have this monument accessible to people (I wouldn’t go as far as saying “accessible to the public”, but certainlyto a few persons in high privilege, certainly persons belonging to thevarious Macedonian religious elites), up till the marble door, becausehe considered Kasta Hill to be a "Monument-Temple" for a God (HFAISTION) and not just a "tomb". And indeed up till that point inside the monument, the building does have the design, allure, and look of a Temple, befitting a place of worship, the inner sanctum of esoteric religious mysticism. So much so that many analysts (as for example Yiorgos Lekakis) have suggested the monument was used just as a Temple, and others have looked at it as a Treasury Department (justifiably so, as many Banks and Treasury Departments do try to acquire the look of Temples!). However, these interpretations lasted up till the Macedonian double-leaf marble door was uncovered, and thatdidn’t leave any doubt that this was indeed a Macedonian tomb. (xi) Since no architect would leave its entrance unprotected from the elements (rain and snow), as well as potential looters, Deinokratis must have had in mind a magnificent and imposing grand entrance, to match the rest of this tomb. (xii) Deinokratis never intended to seal with soil the tomb and the mound. If he wanted to seal the tomb, an architect of his caliber would have found better ways to do it - to rival the way the architects of the Giza Pyramids had it done: he had millennia of architectural experience he could build on. He knew Egyptrather well, he taught the World back then how to build cities and walls and monuments. He definitely could have done a more decent job, than the agent who sealed the monument the humble way we found it sealed today. (xiii) The largest (orthogonal) rectangle’s horizontal base of the marble coverage (ORTHOMARMAROSH) at the base of the two Karyatides in chamber #1 show the module (in terms of length) on the basis of which the total length (width, and Deinokratis’ intended

35

tomb’ height) inside and outside of the tomb were determined. The length Karyatides height to the height of their base ratio seems closeto the “golden section” rule. Besides this ration, another one of interest here is the frontal length-wise size of that base, and its constituent stones. The length of the rectangle at the Karyatides’ main base (stand) contains the modular measure used by Deinocratis to derive his building’s dimensions. It is shown to the visitor right there as the basis where his two Karyatides stand. We are told that the length is about 1.36 meters (as mentioned in the previous subsection). I refer to this length the “unit length of the module”. Avery accurate measure of that length (and thus height – both constituting the so-called surface or section grid or KANNABOS in architecture) will allow someone to determine as multiples possibly all linear measures in this magnificent tomb. Since detail views of the tomb’s floor plan as well total views of all its walls have not been supplied, it is not possible to make definitive and accurate statements about the three-dimensional size(s) of this grid pattern. Here’s a rough cut approximation on how this grid’s length is used to outline the chamber’s width: at the Karyatides room, the two bases have a combined length of 2x1.36=2.72 meters plus a few centimeters inexcess taken up by the two stands’ primary bases. We were told that the total width of the tomb is about 4.5 meters, thus the balance mustbe the remainder of the .44 of a slab (see subsection “c” above). Any measures at this stage, given what the ministry has announced is clearly rather premature. Nonetheless, I’m rather sure this grid to not only be the surface pattern used to derive the inside the tomb’s surfaces but also to be manifested (as shown already) in the rectangles of its perimeter marble covered wall, as well as the envisioned by Deinokratis height of the man-made tumulus. In so doing, one could derive the accuracy with which Deinokratis computed πnot only from the tomb’s circumference, but also from the tumulus spherical dome he planned. Unfortunately the marble coverage of the exterior wall was not completed; so the implementation of his measurement of π in using 365 marble slabs of appropriate (about 1.36 meters) length to actually exactly encircle the wall can’t be confirmed. We don’t have an exact measure of the wall’s perimeter length to the required two significant decimals, and trace on the ground with an exact Hill’s floor and site plan. To use the diameter’slength (158 meters) as announced by the archeological team at this

36

stage isn’t very helpful, as it is grossly inaccurate. It’s my firm belief that an exact analysis of the exterior ORTHOMARMAROSH coupled with a precise site plan will confirm both Deinokratis’ mathematical genius in among other things estimating with significant accuracy π, and perfection in architectural building skills.

The exquisite work done by Deinokratis at the Kasta Mound, in my view,deserves granting this genius the title of “A Great Architect-City Planner”. In combination with his other accomplishments throughout hislife, he deserves to be considered as the greatest architect of the 4th

century BC. Vitruvius, while writing about Deinokratis, was not aware of this magnificent monument (let alone Deinokratis’ total Plan for the Monuments System at Amphipolis he had most likely conceived). I have little doubt that, had Vitruvius known about this Project, he would be willing to award such a recognition to his fellow distinguished Architect.

The slowdown: July 323 BC – Triparadeisos 321 BC. HFAISTION the Hero

sH.3: Deinokratis’ unfinished job: Fall 323 – 321 BC. “HFAISTION the Hero” but no longer the God now.

The huge earthquake. It was July 323 BC, work at Amphipolis' Kasta Mound was feverish, when the jolt that shook the known World, the unthinkable, did happen. ALEXANDROS unexpectedly dies. An earthquake of the greatest magnitude shakes the Empire, from East to West. The most wide and deepest power vacuum in the history of the World hits the Empire. Political fortunes are made and lost at a blink of the eye, and so are economic, social, religious and cultural fortunes. TheDark (literally and figuratively) Age of ALEXANDROS' succession begins. The Golden Age of Macedonia is immediately followed by its Dark Age. Turmoil, social and political instability are evident now. A 7-year turbulent period of murder, mayhem and fratricidal infightingsets in. The ensuing conflicts have horrendous long-run implications, ripple effects raging and ranging over centuries to come. They weaken the Empire, rendering Macedonia and most of ALEXANDROS’ Empire unable little more than a century later to withstand the Roman advance. At the very epicenter of that horrendous shock is now Pella (where septuagenarian Antipatros is in the midst of

37

an open power struggle with Olympias), and Babylon of course, where all military leaders and possible presumptive successors of ALEXANDROSare found except Krateros. He along with Polyperchon are on their way to Macedonia bringing back some 11,000 veterans together with a lot ofmoney. The earthquake that shook the empire shook also the tomb at Amphipolis. Overnight, HFAISTION's legacy and fortunes start to evaporate, as his mentor and ONLY backer is now dead. HFAISTION's successor Perdikas is appointed Regent of the Empire and guardian of Philip III and Alexandros IV under the 323 BC Babylon agreement among ALEXANDROS' Generals. McKechnie asserts that Perdikas was the one who ended the building of HFAISTION’s Pyre in Babylon. It is possible that up till now (summer 323 BC) it was assumed that the cremated HFAISTION’s body would travel to Amphipolis, but now the UNBURNED but preserved body is on its way to Kasta Hil and Perdikas (HFAISTION’s successor after his death) may be carrying it. The body undoubtedly must have been preserved (possibly in honey). Sometime before ALEXANDROS death he sent for an opinion as to how HFAISTION ought to be honored posthumously, and the message had come back that he should be given honors of a “divine Hero” (an opinion which would satisfy all, ALEXANDROS - who wanted him as God, and his generals that wanted him as Hero). Perdikas, having canceled all monuments (and many other projects ALEXANDROS had planned) must have sent orders to Deinokratis that HFAISTION was to be given only Hero’s honors. Anyway, the 323 BC succession agreement following ALEXANDROS’ death wasn't to last long. In fact that very Empire ALEXANDROS built in just eleven years (crossing Hellespont in 334 BC) was beginning to unravel. How could the monuments Deinokratis envisioned at Amphipolis go unscathed from such a cataclysmic event? A brief note here regarding the time lapse or delays in communications during the second half of the 4th century BC seems in order. How fast did news travel back then? What about mailservices? And finally, how long would it take for HFAISTION’s body to travel from Babylon to Amphipolis? The historical record is not quite clear on these issues. Although not much is known about the mail routes of that era, communications must have been quick and efficient;safe supply lines are a sine qua non for a successful expansion and support being part of the necessary infrastructure of an Empire. It must be assumed that the minimum transport time (and safest) pathway from Babylon to travel or send/receive messages to/from Macedonia was the following: the overland trip from Babylon to the port of Sidon (orTyre), then by boat to Pydna’s port and then by land to Pella. An

38

alternative route would be of course from Sidon (or Tyre) to the port of Amphipolis and then inland using the Royal Road to Pella. Such a trip by land and sea, depending on the time of year and weather conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean Seas, covering approximately a distance of over 2,000 kilometers would take (at a possible 200 to 300 kilometers a day) about a week to ten days at most, thus making any timetables mentioned here feasible. The study ofALEXANDROS’ Empire infrastructure, in supplies and communications, would make a good Thesis for a student of History. Within this context, the port city of Sidon (and thus of its ruler Abdalonymos) asa central node in the communications network of the Empire from the Asian Eastern provinces to Pella attains some prominence and import. So much so that HFAISTION himself (by authority delegated to him by ALEXANDROS), had appointed the administrator of that town six years back.

(b) The slowdown. Actually immediately after the death of ALEXANDROS the prospects for the whole Monuments System Deinokratis put in place at Amphipolis looked paradoxically brighter. Deinokratis may have initially thought that now he had ALEXANDROS’ body coming to Amphipolis to be placed inside Hill 133 along with the unburned body of HFAISTION, as he had planned possibly with Olympias’ agreement and encouragement. But this expectations were short lived, as the course of events soon dash Deinokratis’ hopes and would dictate a drastic change in these plans. The earthquake of ALEXANDROS' death brings about a drastic change to the building under construction at Amphipolis, as Deinokratis' sponsor is no longer alive and he has to rely on someone else for continuing funding and political support. Thepower base of the Empire's Architect is to an extent still there but eroding. Aristonous is still the City Manager, but Antipatros is the strong man of Pella and he has possibly by now received news that HFAISTION was to be honored as a Hero (divine Hero, but Hero nonetheless). Indicative of this downsizing in HFAISTION’s status, things aren't quite the same, human relationships aren't the way they used to be before the earthquake of ALEXANDROS’s death. Although ALEXANDROS is initially expected back in Macedonia for burial, his body immersed in honey lies in State for almost two years in Babylon –no one apparently making any decisions as to what to do with it. Antipatros obviously doesn’t ask for it and doesn’t feel an urge for its return. The upcoming Triparadeisos meeting is to decide what to do

39

with it. And maybe, the expensive Kasta Hill project’s future prospects are also left for that crucial meeting coming up. Obviously,the pace of construction must have been affected at Amphipolis. But let's take a look at the monument excavated at Kasta Hill, to see whether we could exactly pinpoint some of these drastic and not so drastic changes about the pace of construction from the evidence uncovered thus far.

(c) The change in quality within and outside the monument, and the unfinished business. What do we now know about the two sites at Northern Amphipolis, on and inside Kasta Hill and on Mound 133? Let's focus on the monument intended for HFAISTION first, where we canwitness from the uncovered elements of the tomb so far a noticeable change in quality. We clearly see that the ceiling, the staircase leading down into the monument, the crimson chamber (both in its wallsand floor), the two limestone diaphragmatic walls, and finally the sealing of the monument with sandy soil from Strymonas are obviously indicative of far inferior in quality, luxury and artwork construction than the rest of it. The Sphinxes and the “entry” wall they stand on, the floor of chamber #1, the Karyatides and their base,the mosaic floor of chamber #2, the marble coverage of the interior walls in chambers #1 and #2, the marble double-leaf door, and the marble ceiling slab with the RODAKAS under it in chamber #1 are well above in workmanship and art levels than the rest of the monument. Andnot by little. The limestone used isn't well worked out, and the use of marble in the construction process at some point abruptly ends altogether.

In addition, and very critical in my view as indications of a drastic shift in quality and testimonial to the fact that in effect another architect was involved in the completion of the monument at Kasta Hill, are the flowing pieces of evidence (or better yet, lack of evidence):

(d) We have no concrete evidence that the lion was ever assembled and placed where ever it was intended to be installed. It lay down, in alllikelihood, where ever it was first uncovered in the 1910s.

(e) We have no concrete evidence, as already mentioned, that the perimeter was ever finished being covered by marble slabs as intended;only parts of it are. Which parts are finished we don’t know, as the archeological teams hasn’t made that information public.

40

(f) We of course have no evidence that an entrance to the monument to protect and show it off was ever constructed. The current "entrance" with the two sphinxes and a staircase leading down into the monument isn't really an entrance. Notice that the first thing the archeological team did as they came across this "entrance" was to cover it and protect it from the elements and unwelcome visitors. Theyalso carried out extensive work to prevent runoff water from entering the monument. If the entrance as we see it today was the actual entrance and was left unprotected either now or back then, it would turn the monument at least into an outdoors swimming pool in case of aflash flood. No architect worth his reputation would create an entrance the way we found it in August 2014. To an architect’s eye, the space in front of the two sphinxes with the orthomarmarosi on eachside does not match at all the way the staircase touches the marble covered walls. It is very evident that the decision to add the stairs was in poor taste, after the two walls were in place, and by an inferior architect. Hints as to the marvel of the real entrance Deinokratis intended for Kasta Hill may be found in the form of the abandoned head the archeological team came across when digging into the crimson chamber. More on this later.

(g) Now let's take a brief look at Mound 133: it looks like the perfect square was carved at the base; two of the four sloping sides of the frustum were straightened out; its top was leveled off and flattened - all that we can easily see even today with a Google Earth search. But that was about it. The Northern side of the truncated pyramid was never filled. Probably, that's all Deinokratis could get his labor force to do, in the short time period he was in charge. I don't expect anything inside to have been crafted to hold ALEXANDROS body as a tomb. Others now were custodians of ALEXANDROS body in Babylon (and Ptolemaios o Sotir in Egypt later). I will accept the overwhelming historical record which clearly indicates that Alexandrosis buried someplace in Alexandria, till archeological or convincing historical evidence proves this, almost universally accepted view, wrong. So at the end of Deinokraris’ tenure, time and money simply hadrun out for this project. Deinokratis is informed that ALEXANDROS’ body isn’t coming to Macedonia, instead it’s redirected by Ptolemaios to Egypt by 321 BC. Besides, a couple of years down the road no one was any longer interested in HFAISTION not only being a God but possibly not even a Hero, and Kasta Hill (read: HFAISTION) was his

41

main commission. Mound 133 never really took off ground, in spite of potentially strong support from Olympias, and it gradually turned intoan example of a “pie-in-the-sky” type adventure.

(h) It is reasonable to assume (although not critical to this analysis) that Deinokratis, through one of his artists-assistants, would have prepared a highly elaborate sarcophagus for HFAISTION, by the time the preserved body was to have been arrived at Amphipolis. Wemay have an indication as to how this sarcophagus was looking like by a marble relief, a stele (STHLH):

http://greek-art.livejournal.com/27202.html

This relief is currently found at the Museum of Thessaloniki. It is mentioned there that it is “believed” to have come from the “Temple ofHFAISTION” at Pella. We have no evidence of any monument at Pella for HFAISTION, and if that project was in the cards under ALEXANDROS’ plans we know Perdikas killed it, along with many other ambitious projects ALEXANDROS had proposed. It is very likely that this is either a stele intended for HFAISTION’s tomb at Amphipolis, or part ofthe sarcophagus intended for HFAISTION at Kasta Hill. In a scene covering an area about 60 centimeters long and 58 centimeters high, and 6 centimeters thick. It shows HFAISTION (as a fellow estimated to be about 1.60 meters tall, and a woman of about equal height) – a pairof a man and a woman, and that is exactly what the archeological team announced they have uncovered (a painting depicting a man and a woman)on an EPISTYLION in the chamber with the mosaic (chamber #2) inside the tomb. The scene depicts (in my view) a woman (possibly HFAISTION’swife – although historical references do not mention anything about HFAISTION’s personal life, let alone a wife, without this to necessarily imply he wasn’t married, or possibly some semi-divine female figure) offering him some purifying liquid (wine, oil or water)from a LYKHTHOS being poured into a bowl (baby faced) HFAISTION is holding in his right hand. She seems to be holding in her left hand a round box, possibly a present from HFAISTION brought to her from his Asian campaign. It’s noted that HFAISTION’s horse head is at the very center of the scene, just as the two horses carrying the carriage at Persephone’s abduction by Pluto of the mosaic in chamber #2. It further seems to me that the same artist who created the two sphinxes made this relief now at Thessaloniki, from the same marble quarry at Thassos, and the same artwork. It is my suggestion that this is a part

42

of the original sarcophagus DEINOKRATIS wanted to put HFAISTION’s bodyin, as a “divine Hero” expecting his burned body (after a Pyre in Amphipolis) to be put inside the sarcophagus into a larnaka deserving of a divine Hero (just as was the case of Philip II’s burned body keptin a larnaka in Vergina, except in addition it would be put inside a sarcophagus. Work on that sarcophagus may have stopped once the news came back that HFAISTION was to be honored and be given rites as just a Hero (or as Mavrojannis suggest, as a (Macedonian) King (in no need for a sarcophagus. That relief, by the way, has an inscription on it at the very bottom of it (in what seems like hastily written letters):“DIOGENHS HFAISTIONI HRWI” that is, ‘it is dedicated to Hero HFAISTIONby “Diogenis”’ – possibly a distinguished HFAISTION’ (cavalry?) deputycommander. But all this is my suppositions. If the reader is interested in reading some others’ suppositions, then (s)he should read this, you will get many, so many in fact that some suggest this man in the relief isn’t even HFAISTION, no matter what the inscriptionsays:

http://www.pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3742

A discussion is offered in this reference which elaborates on what is represented on this relief, now in Thessaloniki’s Museum. If anyone has still any doubts regarding the quantum nature of the historical record, these doubts will be, undoubtedly, gone after finishing the perusal of the exchange contained therein.

It’s also safe to assume that at the early stages of the post-ALEXANDROS’ death period, Aristonous and Deinokratis (with Antipatros concurring) must have planned for HFAISTION’s AFHRWISMOS. But as it will be shown later, fate had in store a different outcome for all.

sH.5: The Macro-Economic Political and Social Changes following ALEXANDROS’ death. When is exactly this sudden transition in quality level work occurring in the Kasta Hill tomb and the abandonment of Mound 133? I contend that Antipatros after July 323 BC, told Deinokratis to slow down, maybe not immediately, but soon thereafter. He didn't right away and in categorical terms kill the projects, but he decelerated their progress considerably. Antipatros in all likelihood told Deinokratis that HFAISTION was not a God for Macedonians in Macedonia, but maybe just a Hero of the Asian campaign,

43

just below the “divine Hero” classification Siwa issued to ALEXANDROS.Besides, the priorities of the Empire and demand for and supply of itsresource base had all drastically changed after ALEXANDROS’ death. Antipatros was a pragmatist not the visionary type ALEXANDROS was or Deinokratis. It was time now for Antipatros to "downsize", and the first downsizing was the demotion to just a Hero for HFAISTION definitely from God status and even from divine Hero status as Hero would be enough for the time being for Antipatros. But to him, Antipatros that is, he had bigger fish to fry. His dominion, Macedonia, was riding on a wave of prosperity with Alexandros quests as well as the boost the local economy in and around Amphipolis was enjoying as a result of this huge public works projects at Kasta Hill and Mound 133. On the macro-economic front, possible inflation was nowhitting the Empire and its member "States" as well. As Macedonia expanded, the "nouveaux riches" class of Macedonia appeared as trade very likely increased dramatically with the Empire’s new territories in Asia and Africa. The ranks of its middle class comprising mainly ofsoldiers and veterans returning from Asia swell, as did their income. Such economic structural change must have brought about a restructuring in the traditionally agricultural bucolic Macedonian economy. An unprecedented urbanization process must have been triggered. A new middle class must have emerged, along with new social, religious, cultural and economic realities. Most likely this urbanization process and the rise of the middle class in such a short time frame (less than a generation) resulted in shocks to both labor supply and inflation levels. It would be of interest to do an economic analysis, a "before and after" ALEXANDROS' death, but this isn't the place to do so. As is of interest to undertake a thorough examination of the social and cultural as well as religious impacts the return of so many thousands of veterans from the East, having beenexposed to the culture of lands many Macedonians had never known, has had on Macedonian society. But all this is left to the interested reader. For the immediate subject at hand, let's focus on the area in question. Whereas construction at Mound 133 came to a complete stop, work on Kasta tumulus did go on, albeit dramatically decreasing in intensity over the next couple of years, 323 - 321 BC. Whereas Amphipolis was prior to July 323 BC a town bursting in activity, the death of the GOD-KING saw its economy gradually being deflated, and its business activity slowly fizzle. Undoubtedly, the housing bubble had burst, as probably did the price of marble. Not completely dead

44

yet, but definitely nowhere near its previous peak of economic prosperity, with its brisk and fast pace of growth experienced throughSpring 323 BC.; Amphipolis is now slowly experiencing a sudden phase of decline. Deinokratis is still the Architect of the Empire and stillin charge of HFAISTION's tomb, but all now know he's a lame duck, as is City Manager Aristonous. A new star is rising in the political horizon of Macedonia, and his name is Kassandros. The ailing but stillstrongman of Macedonia Antipatros continues to call the shots, but hisson Kassandros is anxiously awaiting in the wings, eager to assume power. At Triparadeisos (321 BC) Antipatros solidifies his power, but his life is swiftly coming to an end, and so is the fate of all thingsconnected to ALEXANDROS and especially to HFAISTION. In so far as the Kasta tumulus monument goes, its crest of splendor was behind it; its trough in infamy still lay ahead. Was HFAISTION’s body back at Amphipolis by the time Deinokratis had left the job, in case Perdikas or Krateros were the carriers of HFAISYTION’s preserved body to Amphipolis? Of course we don’t know for sure, and the historical record is silent on this question. Most likely it wasn’t at least not right away, unless Deinokratis (with Aristonous) had brought it back upon his return to Amphipolis himself. Dealing with HFAISTION’s body wasn’t one of the major issues in the successors mind, following ALEXANDROS’ death, other issues were far more pressing. Thus, taking odds, one would say that this was unlikely. Not to go unnoticed in this context is the fact that even ALEXANDROS’ body laid there in Babylon unburied, for a couple of years before some decision was reached as to what to do with it.

In the period Spring 323 BC till the Triparadeisos Agreement (321 BC) all the excellent quality work of the tomb at Kasta Hill is finished. Chambers #1 and #2 are done; and so are the Sphinxes, Karyatides and the double leaf marble door, as well as all their interior walls and floors. But the exterior wall isn’t finished, the tomb has no roof, chamber #3 isn’t done yet, and the grand entrance, the tomb’s real intended estrance hasn’t been constructed yet. The best of days for the tomb, as well as HFAISTION’s legacy, are now behind. Dark days layahead – and bleak now look the fortunes of ALEXANDROS’ Empire.

I could quite easily end here my narrative. Most likely it would find many readers agreeing to it, and few expressing strong disagreements with any parts and their nuances. In any case, these thoughts stand asmy main theoretical propositions. But I won’t play safe; I will show

45

that from these major suggestions, a few more in the form of minor propositions emerge. The story to me cries out loud for more discussion. Thus, I go ahead and present my minor suggestions, becauseI strongly believe in them as of now; I’m fully aware of the risk involved, as some readers may decide to throw away the baby with the bathwater. Anyway, here they are.

Phase B: The architect "B" phase: 321 BC - 316 BC. HFAISTION intransition from Hero to commoner: the low quality phase in

HFAISTION’ tomb.

sH.6: Deinokratis departure. Deinokratis sooner or later reads the writing on the wall, his vision of the future contains many dark clouds. He recognizes that not only his desired Grand Plan for this place but even the Kasta Hill part of the monuments probably won't ever fully materialize. He now knows for sure that ALEXANDROS’ body isn’t coming back to Macedonia. He witnessed the demotion of his client’s XILIARXOS from God to Hero and the prospects for further downsizing in HFAISTION’s status quite vivid on the horizon. He may have come to recognize that his effort (and by extension and more fundamentally ALEXANDROS' expressed desire) to influence traditional Macedonian lifestyle with Egyptian and Asian customs was failing. Elevation to Deity status (for both ALEXANDROS and HFAISTION) wasn’t selling well in Macedonia any longer if it ever did. His cosmopolitanism was probably meeting with some resistance as well. Reflecting broader social mood swings, possible unrest within his own staff, coupled with probable desertion by some of his workers puts himin a conundrum. He understands that most likely he will never finish the monument the way he envisioned, and even more fundamentally that ALEXANDROS effort to even marginally "Easternize" or "modernize" Macedonia was not going well. At first, his interest in the Projects at Amphipolis declines; at the end, in disgust or disappointment he quits the project, or is fired by Antipatros in 321 BC immediately following the Triparadeisos Agreement. Whatever was decided there and

46

then was not apparently to his liking. Although there isn't historicalrecord about the decisions reached during the 321 BC meeting at Triparadeisos, except who got what of the Empire’s pieces and ALEXANDROS’ Empire ceased to exist as one single united entity, one thing is quite clear from the historical record: in Macedonia - Antipatros (representing the "traditional Macedonian values" - the septuagenarian stalwart of Macedonian's cultural traits) has emerged now with more power in his hands than ever before. Whatever role or influence Olympias had up till now, is gradually coming to an end. Aristonous is a City Manager only in title. A glaring example of this loss of interest by Deinokratis in this project is the completion in construction of the crimson chamber. That chamber is not at par in quality and artistry to the two chambers preceding it. The first two chambers of the tomb were made for a God HFAISTION, the third crimson chamber was possibly made for just a Hero HFAISTION and wasn’t even finished. It was left for last to be completed just before HFAISTION'sbody, sarcophagus and valuables were to be put in there and the final decision as to the honors and rites to be offered to him determined. We do not exactly know Deinokratis’ plan for chamber #3, the crimson funerary chamber, except speculating that he planned to put in there HFAISTION’s sarcophagus containing his larnaka which would contain hispreserved (not necessarily mummifies) body. But anyway, cosmopolitan Deinokratis is now out, having fallen out of favor for his grandiose expensive and ambitious plans and designs, shun by the Macedonian elite headed and dominated by provincial pragmatist paragon of Macedonian traditions Antipatros. We do not have any historical evidence that Deinokratis is the architect of record for any building commissioned by any member of the Macedonian elite, in Macedonia, following 321 BC. Of course, being the former Architect of ALEXANDROS,enjoying an international reputation, and from Rhodes (there’s some dispute on this though, and making things worse, Deinokratis used manynames apparently throughout his career, and the exact reasons as to why could be the subject of some research and speculation) allowed Deinokratis to obtain commissions by others at different places (as for example a later commission by Ptolemaios from Egypt, and he’s listed as the architect of record for a temple in Delos.) But as far as Macedonia is concerned, he is forever gone from its limelight. His star there has definitely faded. His three year stint as the Architectof the System of Monuments at Amphipolis was over. There was no need to set up the Lion, no need to worship any of the two new Gods

47

(ALEXANDROS and HFAISTION) there anymore. The purpose of his continuing presence at Amphipolis had lost its meaning. We can be surethat Deinokratis didn’t see HFAISTION being buried in Amphipolis either as a God or a divine Hero. Deinokratis would never bury HFAISTION in such a poor vault, and NO divine Hero, or even just a Hero, would be buried in a way we found the bones of HFAISTION’s buried under the limestone floor of chamber #3. The archeological teamhas periodically hinted that the person buried there may have receiveda Hero’s rites, but no concrete archeological evidence has been presented documenting that claim.

sH.7: Architect B’s appearance and HFAISTION’s likely funeral: towards resolving the fuzzy historical account of what really followedhis death. Following Deinokratis’ exit from the Kasta Hill and the Amphipolis scene, architect "B" is appointed by either Antipatros or Aristonous (and certainly both concurring, no matter whose choice thatarchitect B was). Very likely, one of Deinokratis' assistant architects, possibly his deputy, is now in control of the monument. His exact identity is of no particular import here as his role proved to be limited and his work undistinguished. Most likely, he could be aMacedonian architect familiar with Macedonian nobility tombs. His instructions are now to wind down operations, finish the tomb/monument at the earliest possible date, and at the minimum possible cost. At the beginning, around 321 BC, architect B in effect implements at Kasta Hill what the political process determined, namelythe political “KATABASIS” (demotion) of HFAISTION, his fall from God to just a Hero, for the moment at least, but a fast drastic decline instatus nonetheless. By the end of his tenure at Kasta Hill architect Bsaw a further erosion in HFAISTION’s social and political status from a Hero to just a commoner. Here the question whether HFAISTION's body had actually reached Amphipolis by 321 BC becomes of essence. One can easily presume that immediately following HFAISTION’s death in November 324 BC and while waiting in Babylon for the cremation according to Macedonian custom and for the PYRA to be built (which wasnever done) obviously HFAISTION’s body should have been preserved somehow. The historical record is silent on this issue. At some time (undefined by the historical record) the body must have been

48

transported to Macedonia, and I suggested it was either Deinokratis orAristonous most likely, but it could be two others (Perdikas or Krateros) who could have brought HFAISTION’s body to Macedonia. If so by 323 BC (which is certainly possible, especially in combination withthe November 12, 2014 announcements from the archeological team) then HFAISTION's unburned but preserved body and sarcophagus was already inplace together with all other valuables by the time architect B commences work at the tomb, and the marble door not sealed yet. The fact that HFAISTION was not cremated indicates that his burial followed Macedonian customs up to a point. It is recalled that HFAISTION’s father Amyntor was Athenian. It is possible that Antipatros decided not to cremate HFAISTION and instead bury him as anAthenian. This indecision on HFAISTION’s treatment maybe was a reason why the doors were not sealed yet (and may have been opened and closeda couple of times as a result – leaving marks on the rails indicative of possibly more than one opening and closing of it). The roof and ceiling wasn’t done, because the floor of chamber was not finished, the sarcophagus (to be lowered inside from the open air above) not yetin place, and the paintings on the funerary chamber’s walls not completed. Thus, since the crimson chamber was not finished, the marble door was not sealed by the time all work done under Deinokratiswas over. His work prematurely ended and he departed fading away, and this is suggested here as the scenario which seems most likely based on the archeological evidence available. Most likely, HFAISTION’s interment took place either at the initial stage of architect B’s tenure (while working under Antipatros), or at the later stages of hiswork at Kasta Hill (working under Polyperchon). If done at an early stage, it is possible that AFHRWISMOS of HFAISTION actually did take place during his funeral, which must have been of some notice. If it was done at the tail end of architect B’s tenure, then AFHRWISMOS of HFAISTION never took place, and his funeral must have been relatively modest and gone unnoticed by the public at large.

Material evidence from what has been unearthed, in my view, clearly shows that AFHRWISMOS didn’t take place. This is an issue that finds this analysis in disagreement with Professor Mavrojannis analysis in:

http://www.philenews.com/el-gr/politismos-kritikes--gnomes/391/220463/o-ifaistion-etafi-os-vasileys

49

According to Mavrojannis, HFAISTION was buried as a “King” under Antipatros. No such evidence has been forthcoming from the excavation in support of this claim. To the contrary, evidence points to a normalfuneral, for a man who died some three years at least prior to his funeral (and most likely more) with his fate in the hands of people inpower who had no allegiance to him, and in fact considerable dislike. A normal funeral must have accompanied (it is the suggestion here) theinterment of HFAISTION, in accordance with burial rites afforded a commoner, as for example described in:

http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Ancient/en/BurialRites.html

http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/hd/dbag/hd_dbag.htm

Chamber #3 was sealed close to the mid or end point of architect B’s tenure there. Deinokratis may have expected the cremated body of HFAISTION to arrive and be placed inside the well decorated sarcophagus (a partial and broken frieze of which we already saw) on an elaborately finished floor surrounded by colorfully painted walls of chamber #3. This though never happened. The unburned but preserved body of HFAISTION is still in his larnaka, awaiting formal burial, possibly still on its way to Amphipolis. From archeological excavationinto chamber #3 we now know what architect B did, under political conditions dictating his actions; he decided to dig a grave in the floor of this chamber, in the form of a vault (the way we found it in November 2014), and inter the body. The interment of HFAISTION’ preserved body is now rather clear how it must have taken place. HFAISTION’s body lay still in the larnaka it was placed in and preserved at Babylon and brought to Amphipolis and kept at a place Aristonous must have found temporarily for it, when architect B commences work at Kasta Hill. But interment was not done with the bodyinside the larnake. Archeological evidence indicates that interment ofHFAISTION happened in a wooden narrow casket not inside the undoubtedly richly decorated larnaka from Babylon. And that offers us a strong hint as to the rites accorded HFAISTION at his funeral, and likely time that funeral took place in the life span of architect B’s tenure. We may be safe in assuming that it must have occurred close tothe mid or end point of architect B’s tenure at Kasta Hill. It must have been close to the start of Polyperchon’s rule. No matter the personal interest by Polyperchon to follow ALEXANDROS’ wishes, HFAISTION’s status was on a downhill spiral, fast approaching a state

50

of just being considered a “commoner”. By 317 BC it was already close to seven years HFAISTION had died, and not many in the Macedonian ruling class cared much about him any longer. Going along this descentin status, the quality of the workmanship at Kasta Hill deteriorates significantly during this 321 – 316 BC period. But the arrival of HFAISTION’s body at the tomb (no matter when it happened) is very critical.

This marks the time that the tomb is no longer INTENDED for HFAISTION,it becomes his tomb. As already mentioned, this is the key point wherethis narrative differs from the Mavrojennis claim expressed in his September 19th, 2014 article. If there was some thought given by Polyperchon to grant hero’s rites to HFAISTION at the beginning of histenure at the helm of Macedonia’s realm as Regent and Supreme Commander (of the Empire – an entity which existed on paper but no longer in actuality), that remained just a thought. Archeological evidence presented on November 12th, 2014 clearly disputes the claim that HFAISTION was buried as a King (the way ALEXANDROS’ father FILIPPOS II was), or as a Hero (when cremation and Pyre must have taken place) since no evidence indicates such rites. Instead, it supports the claim presented here that HFAISTION was buried with ritesfar less than both of those, although at sharp variance with the initially INTENDED rites, under Deinokratis tenure and scheme and plans. Many in the ranks of the Macedonian elites, for example those supporting Kassandros (aloose cannon by now on the Deck of Macedonian State), may have expressed second thoughts about the expenses associated with HFAISTION’s monument-tomb and its costs, economic and otherwise. Orders from Polyperchon to architect B must have been alongthe lines of “let’s get it over with, I’m getting a lot of flak and negative publicity on this, finish it as fast as you can” as he moved onto the next subject of his very full agenda.

A chain of critical events follow the decision to bury HFAISTION. Workon the crimson chamber ceases completely, following architect B’s decision to bury HFAISTION’s unburned but preserved body inside the vault dug out from the floor of the crimson funerary chamber. HFAISTION’s larnaka is opened and his body placed in a wooden coffin, the remnants of which the excavation revealed. All valuables are placed at the funerary chamber, definitely the beautiful and richly decorated sarcophagus (or the stele mentioned earlier) no longer inside the tomb. Instead, inside a humble vault and inside a simple

51

wooden coffin HFAISTION’s body rests now. Finally, HFAISTION rests in his tomb – or at least that’s what architect B may think now, and Polyperchon may be hoping. Little they know of what was coming. Anyway, the whole floor is covered by limestone slabs that are just covered by a thin layer of white varnishing. The vault opened up to accommodate HFAISTION’s coffin is of a width so that the transversal limestone slabs to cover it have a thickness and a width enough to support the floor’s limestone slabs above them. The tomb funerary chamber’s marble door is finally ready to be sealed. No paintings on the funerary chamber are commissioned. No more marble is installed on the monument of course, as already said, and the quarries at the island of Thassos having ceased operations some time ago. No marble slabs are hauled up to the tumulus any more to cover the perimeter wall following Deinokratis’ departure. Many slabs of marble are abandoned at Strymonas' riverside, along with unfinished parts of Amphipolis' Lion as already mentioned. Work now simply utilizes limestone, marble's poor cousin in monuments' construction. Whatever plans Deinokratis had for a grand entrance to the tomb are now totally abandoned. Marble prices may have declined precipitously, and prices of limestone must have collapsed. The archeological team hasn’t reveal the source of this limestone, but sources from this areaknow about an ancient limestone quarry located close to a present day town called “Mesolakkia” (Kasta Hill is close to “Nea Mesolakkia”). Another candidate is an old quarry north of present day Serres, and ata distance considerably further than the Mesolakkia quarry which is atan airline (straight line) distance of only about 6 kilometers from the tomb. This latter location would be a very convenient source for limestone, if it turns out that this was indeed the original source for the type of limestone used in Kasta Hill’s tomb. It is possible though that not all limestone at Kasta Hill is of a single type or from a single source.

(a) With (no longer God or Hero now) HFAISTION the commoner inside thecrimson chamber, the marble door leading to the funerary chamber is closed and sealed. There isn’t a rotating mechanism for the door’s leaves indicated to the public by the archeological team, only the rails on which the leaves rolled have been shown. Thus only guesses can be made as to the nature of this rotating mechanism and its pivoting on the door’s frame. It can be safely assumed that the two leaves didn’t have a knob of course, and it also will be assumed that

52

the door didn’t open and close many times, and possibly only a couple of times at most. The crypt-vault or floor opening of approximate dimensions 4x2=8 sq. meters (gradually in steps narrowing down to a thin and short space of about 60 centimeters wide and about 180 centimeters long) could never be what ALEXANDROS wanted and Deinokratis planned for HFAISTION. This vault befits neither a King nor a Hero – definetely not a God. Architectonically, many changes in tone, texture and quality show up inside the monument, as we move from323 BC to about 317 BC. The original grid pattern Deinokratis set is abandoned and its modular form not used any longer inside the tomb. This vault must have definitely been what architect B designed for him, indicative of a common interment, designed by a non-descript architect, following commonplace architectural tomb design. What a sharp contrast between chambers #1 and #2 on the one hand (the God phase of HFAISTION) and modest, humble, austere chamber #3 (with the floor vault) on the other: God, Devine Hero the former, then the commoner phase the latter. Quite indicative of the difference between cosmopolitan Imperial Architect Deinokratis and provincial architect Bin both skills and intent – between the conditions for about half a year past HFAISTION’s death and the aftermath of ALEXANDROS’ death, asfollowed by the Empire’s decline. A sequence of significant events directly mirrored in the decline of the tomb’s construction quality and fortunes.

(b) The photo of the “entrance” to the tomb as given to the public by the archeological team on August 14th, 2014 shows exactly what architect B did to the tomb. He raised a wall from limestone in front of the sphinxes to protect the tomb from outside easy access and especially viewing. To reach the area inside the monument now from theinside, the poor quality staircase we see today is constructed from limestone too. Most likely, architect B had some temporary cover installed, similar to what the archeological team devised to protect from weather conditions the entrance to the tomb.

(c) Architect B installs the arched ceiling and roof at the tomb we see today also from limestone. He doesn't complete the horizontal marble ceiling in chamber #1 (the Karyatides, or Kores, or Klodones orMainades chamber). Thus we only see the single horizontal slab that was made under Deinokratis (with the huge beautiful RODAKA), but not the other two the archeological team was expecting to find there. A brief side note here about the 8-leaf "RODAKA" one comes across inside

53

this tomb at Kasta Hill, and in many Macedonian buildings and especially Macedonian Royal tombs. This type RODAKAS is also found in the oldest writing on Crete, the FAISTOS disk. Recent efforts by Gareth Owens indicates that this symbol represents a specific monosyllabic word and a sound on that disk. The disk is very likely anode to a mother-queen-goddess (according to Owens), and it has been partially decoded and its sound articulated. Thus, this symbol might actually be "writing" inside the tombs, referring to a primordial goddess.

(d) During construction of the ceiling, under architect B's auspices and as a result of poor workmanship, carelessness and low morale the two Karyatides' hands break. An accident during construction of the ceiling damages the two Karyatides. The Eastern Karyatida's face is severely damaged as the sheering off from a falling heavy limestone defaces her. The face of the Western Karyatidais slightly damaged by partial sheering off of her nose and chin.

(e) Architect B realizes that the arched ceiling couldn't accommodate the two sphinxes at the current entrance with their heads and wings onthem. Deinokratis very likely had plans for a glorious entrance, wherethese two sphinxes heads' KAPELO would impressively fit and carry the bottom marble covered epistylio which in turn would hold an exquisite and impressive fully marble-covered entrance ceiling, a ceiling holding an entrance he never got to start building, let alone finish. Architect B orders both wings and heads of the sphinxes cut off. What we see today in terms of damages to these magnificent artifacts most likely occur under architect B's watch and instructions. His work is to be charged for these losses, either by intended or unintended negligence. Were they part of a professional jealousy towards Deinokratis' work and glitter on the part of architect B? Possibly. For sure, they were not the result of Galatians, Romans, Christians, Muslims or any other horde of people vandalizing the tomb in later years, as some have suggested. Vandalism is awaiting the monument, buthas not happened yet. It wouldn’t be caused by any of these groups, asthe monument would lay in oblivion long before these groups arrived atAmphipolis. The archeological team announced that a head found during the excavation inside the crimson chamber (chamber #3) belongs to the Eastern sphinx of the tomb, and they claim that its own neck cut and the sphinx's shoulder cut "perfectly" match. In further support for this claim, the architect of the team Lefanzis supplied a drawing to

54

demonstrate the truth of the matter. However, by just looking at this drawing, many have expressed serious doubts regarding this “match”. The size of the head found, the Kapelo it wears, and the space allowedunder the arched roof, simply can't accommodate such a claim. Further,and most importantly, the marble type and cut the two (head and body) are made out of, and the artwork on them obviously don't match. Moreover, the marble kapelo's top incline and the limestone's arch at that point not only present a "joining" of two different materials problem, but their mismatch further augments the counter claim that the two don't fit. Insistence on this "they perfectly fit" claim by the team brings the most serious of doubts one can express about the credibility of the archeological team carrying out this excavation. Tomany, it's abundantly clear that the head found in chamber #3 belongs to another statue, quite possibly made by the same sculptor who did the two Karyatides, a different artist than the one who made the two sphinxes. I contend that this head may belong to a statue intended forthe real grand entrance Deinokratis planned and was never built. As for the two heads of the sphinxes, most likely they are lost to looters, as was the body of the Karyatida whose head was found in chamber #3.

(f) These building "improvements" (if someone could call them such) were being done at a very slow, snail like pace mostly due to lack of labor. Weather and minor possible looting during this phase of the tomb's construction produces some wear and tear in all aspects of the tomb. We can see some of this deterioration still today, preserved well by the sealing by soil of the monument, especially in so far as some sections of the interior orthomarmarosi goes.

(g) In around 320 BC Antipatros fell ill, and in 319 BC he died. Before his death, his son Kassandros apparently too eager in his questto succeed his father showed himself to be a bit bolder than Antipatros could take. In retaliation, and apparently to the surprise of the Macedonian elites, he appoints Polyperchon as his successor. It’s not clear how old Polyperchon was exactly, but it was for sure another septuagenarian. Antipatros maybe thought that he would act as a good advisor and mentor to Kassandros, his son, for soon he would bethe King of Macedonia.

(h) More changes in store for the tomb. Under Polyperchon (319 - 316 BC) Aristonous is no longer the City Manager; the historical record is

55

silent as to who succeeded him, if anyone, indicative a declining status for Amphipolis itself. By the time Polyperchon’s rule is comingto an end, architect B was probably still in charge of the tomb, although the work was about to come to a complete stop. Even though architect B was still the tomb's custodian, his interest in this thankless task must have waned and the course of events must have had him disappointed as well. But Polyperchon is still a loyal ALEXANDROS soldier, and determined to keep ALEXANDROS wishes about HFAISTION alive up to a politically feasible point. History hasn’t recorded him as a very strong and determined political leader with lasting potential. However, what is left inside the tomb as Polyperchon fightsfor his own political survival, facing constant assaults by Kassandros, is unknown. Obviously no matter what the intentions Polyperchon might have entertained in his three year rein in regards to the Kasta Tumulus, for sure his own survival must have ranked first, as political dead bodies of ALEXANDROS’s successors were flyingaround the dominion. HIFAISTION himself must by 317 BC be considered by Macedonians as just a commoner, at Polyperchon’s chagrin no doubt. Yet the tomb is in its penultimate phase of HFAISTION’s demotion, withthe worst still in store. How much looting took place inside the tomb,even under architect B's careful watch, can't be accurately ascertained. For sure, the Deinokratis commissioned HFAISTION’s sarcophagus (and the Thessaloniki STHLH) most likely was already gone long ago, possibly even during Antipatros’ years in power, to eventually find itself in the Archeological Museum of Thessaloniki changing hands through the centuries. However, no matter the abuses the tomb had suffered so far, the marble door was kept sealed, as in all likelihood no one would mount such a concerted and serious assaulton the tomb to either ram the door or unseal it, while architect B guarded the tomb and Polyperchon was in power, still mustering enough political and military support to prevent a raid on it. For sure, any movable objects inside the tomb's chambers #1 and #2 must have been removed by the end of Polyperchon's rule. People around Amphipolis must have known by then that not much was left for easy picking at that huge from the outside, yet so small on the inside monument, with the unfinished perimeter wall and entrance. They probably knew that nothing valuable was left in there, except whatever was put in chamber#3 floor vault together with HFAISTION's body in a wooden casket together with his warrior and daily belongings. They must had been wandering what was going on with that huge tomb, and wondered about

56

its future. The young would ask the elders questions about that tomb and its occupant, while the elders would respond back with some ambivalence. For many the size and cost of this tomb must had become aconcern, and the continuous funding and work on it a problem, considering that HFAISTION was thought of now as just a commoner, possibly a fading (and painful to many) memory. However, it is very likely that the marble leaf door remained sealed and un-assailed. TillKassandros comes to power in 316 BC.

To summarize: HFAISTION is considered God (at ALEXANDROS’ orders) and “divine Hero” till ALEXANDROS’s death; he is considered Hero under Antipatros and possibly the very early Polyperchon days; he’s considered commoner under the late Polyperchon days. Deinokratis laststill Triparadeisos (321 BC); afterwards architect B takes over. Aristonous lasts till 319 BC when Polyperchon takes over Macedonia andKassandros lurks in the wings of State. It was indeed a turbulent period. It was uncertainty and cynicism and decline and mayhem and theneed for a drastic change written all over, all vividly mirrored on Kasta Hill. HFAISTION is most likely buried as a commoner under architect B’s watch, during the mid Polyperchon days. No rites of a Hero are afforded him. A less plausible scenario (which could be accommodated in this narrative under some stretching) is that HFAISTION is interred under Hero rites in the first days of Polyperchon’s rule and the initial or mid (at most) days of architect B’s tenure. To clear the odds, more information from the detailed examination of all elements found in the crimson chamber is needed. Asthings stand now, this looms as a very unlikely scenario.

(i) Kassandros in the wings, Polyperchon’s relinquishing power, architect B’s exit. The exact plans by architect B regarding the whole Hill we’ll never know, and do not really matter, and most likelythey weren’t anything spectacular or worthwhile to talk about not onlyfor us, but apparently for the historians who never talked about Amphipolis and this tomb as well. What we do know is that, whatever architect B actually did during the period he supervised work there, we are just looking at now. The limestone work architect B did inside the tomb was exactly what the archeological team found when it uncovered the tomb in August 2014. Anyhow, by the time Kassandros becomes the new strong man of Macedonia as in 316 BC he formally assumes power, architect B must had abandoned the project, as had his predecessor just a few years before him. His part-time tenure at Kasta

57

Hill lasted for about four years, during a time period which probably witnessed the continuous erosion of HFAISTION’s status, from a Hero toa commoner, maybe to a distinguished or even notorious commoner but commoner nonetheless with a tendency for further decline close to the tail end of his tenure. Momentum must have been building riding on a wave of dissatisfaction with the monument; it must have been building up gradually during the last days of Polyperchon. By the end of his tenure, architect B must have felt that this tomb was too big and too much for HFAISTION. And he acted on it accordingly. His anonymous and colorless work is a glaring testimonial to a dark period descending upon Macedonia itself. The Empire is no more by 319 BC; it had alreadybroken down into pieces, under an incessant internal conflict among all possible successors of the great STRATHLATH, the GOD-KING who was no longer God and no longer alive to hold it together, to slap them all in the face and tell them to just stop acting like animals or little kids in a playground marred in a children’s brawl, spoiled brats in seasoned warriors’ body and face, with spoils just gotten from mythical kingdoms to fund and buy their retirement spreads, and with minds blurred by eastern mysticism, where Aristotle’s logic had become a distant memory and a perverted reason that led them to their own destruction and the eventual demise of Macedonia and Greece at large. But that magnificent STRATHLATHS, creator of the Empire that would never be again, and the colossal stalwart of Hellenism was now gone. Lucky HFAISTION didn’t live to see and experience this monumental decay. Lucky was while alive – because in death, luck was but on his side. At the time Polyperchon relinquished power, the worstwas still ahead for HFAISTION’s tomb, and for HFAISTION’ legacy, as more violence and turbulence were about to set in upon the land of ALEXANDROS and Kasta Hill. ALEXANDROS’s successors were marred in an amazing struggle for dominance, survival and utter eventual self-destruction blinded by limitless ambition, unrestrained in their brutality and motivated by riches from the East that could not tame a bit or slightly quench their desire for raw power. The tumulus was awaiting for the fatal blow, for a third and final hand to structurally intervene and for this tomb now to be interred itself forgood.

58

Phase C: Kassandros 316 BC: the Engineer' turn and the finalepisode of the monument’s saga;   its raid and sealing, and its

overnight   disappearance from living memory .

HFAISTION, the pariah and his sealed in sandy soil tomb.

HFAISTION’s ultimate fall. The monument's life cycle is now gradually coming to a close, the coup de grace that would end it for good is fast approaching. HFAISTION's glitter glory and glamor had faded away. His God status had already passed, his Hero status had come to a close as well; now by the end of 317 BC he’s viewed as a commoner, and not evenby all in the land of Macedonia. By the time Kassandros comes to power, HFAISTION is viewed by most in Macedonia as a pariah. The monument's concomitant splendor had long dissipated. Whatever little stayed in the collective memory regarding this tomb was almost gone bynow. Within the broader context of things Macedonian, this monument isof very little importance. To many it could be an example of extravagance beyond the austere means of traditional Macedonian existence, lifestyle and custom. To some the very presence of this tumulus was an eyesore, besides standing out as a boondoggle of wastedpublic expenditures, conjuring memories of a painful recent past – as painful as having all these battle fatigue carrying, injured veterans coming back home trying to integrate back into Macedonian society and lifestyle, still reminiscent of children they left behind with Easternlovers and illicit wives. It could also represent memories of a past not befitting the still prevailing religious and social moral Macedonian values. To many Macedonians, this monument could stand for undue, exaggerated arrogance. In the minds of Amphipolis' residents and of Macedonians in general this part of the nation's history could be something to suppress rather than elevate to prominence and promote. "Reactionary forces" by "conservatives" clinging to "traditional values", a detesting of "progress" and of "social change", to use but a few of the “popular” (but inaccurate) liberal terms in today's nomenclature, could also be present and been flying around back then in shaping the social dynamics and morae of Macedonian society as the 4th century BC was coming to a close. Ultimately, it could simply be an unpopular project to the upcoming

59

new Macedonian ruling elite, represented by Kassandros. I offer this remark as just a reminder that what we may today look at with awe, thesphinxes and the Karyatides and the mosaic floor of chamber #2, back then may have evoked reactions and produced feelings quite different indeed. To many it could be quite painful to look at, let alone ponder, a monument conjuring up painful memories, experiences obtainedunder different circumstances than those in a Macedonia different thanthat of the pre 323 BC years, not the mention the pre 334 BC years. Just like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, in Washington DC, today.

So, in comes Kassandros. He grabs this opportunity to deal once and for all with any remnants of ALEXANDROS' legacy in Macedonia. Olympiashad become a big thorn to his eye and too sharp of a noise to his ear a stick on his way for political and social dominance and control, an obstacle to his rule. He orders the death of Olympias by stoning. Next, sets his eyes to Kasta Hill, her' son's legacy, the person who wanted to change strict Macedonian customs, to make his ETAIROS a god.To the extent that we know from historical records, no reference to any monuments/tombs made in Macedonia are found to honor or commemorate anyone or anything from the long and, for many, protractedAsian campaign. If we are correct in accepting the Mavrojannis hypothesis about HFAISTION being the person buried in Kasta Mound, Kasta Hill is the only monument related to this campaign or to personalities (large and small) associated with the Asian conquest. This by and on itself is possibly indicative of the negative popular feelings regarding such monuments back then. Historical record also indicates, ALEXANDROS discouraged the building of any monuments memorializing and commemorating his victories at any phase of the Asian campaign. Such possible public discontent could be channeled especially towards someone no longer held in high political esteem in Macedonia (HFAISTION) after ALEXANDROS' death. Such a sentiment could be coupled with the obvious unwillingness by Macedonians to honor him (HFAISTION) as god. So in his efforts to consolidate power, Kassandrosgrabs onto this political photo-op and orders the raid of the monumentat Kasta Hill, and its sealing into collective social oblivion. Besides, the eyes of Kassandros were not on Amphipolis; his interest is now towards the construction of a new city and a new future, Thessaloniki, to him possibly a new Alexandria. Amphipolis becomes a place to exile ALEXANDROS’s wife Roxane, and his son Alexandros IV.

60

Amphipolis just isn’t Kassandros’ cup of tea. Amphipolis is just too much of ALEXANDROS.

The tomb’s raid. How can we be so sure of a violent end to this otherwise magnificent monument at Kasta Hill? Our certainty can be drawn primarily by examining the marble door's fragments and possibly the associated circular damage to the mosaic. But most of all, by examining the poor work (not even at the level of architect B’s workmanship) in the construction of the two diaphragmatic walls and the sealing of the monument in sandy soil. But most of all, in the violence and desecration of the tomb’s raid, evident in the condition of crimson chamber. No one knows for sure the social composition of the raiding team acting on Kassandros orders. No one can fully replicate the exact movements and motives of each member of a raiding horde of people and its mass psychology. Thus, no one can precisely reproduce, explain and account for the exact condition of the objects found and the location they were found in the tomb. But asone can roughly reproduce the outcome of a soccer game by its main highlights (and not by a 90-minute complete replication of the ball's movement and the players' exact motion throughout the game), so can one discern in a rough outline what had most likely occurred during the raid. One can assume that the usual guard stationed there to protect the monument from looters or vandals in the Antipatros and Polyperchon years of the tomb was now withdrawn. Any movable objects in chambers #1 and #2 were by now totally removed. The only chamber left not pillaged was the funerary chamber #3, behind the double-leaf marble door. The door is still sealed and closed, secure by its formidable weight and the seal which architect B applied. Its huge leaves, each about 3.50 meters high, 90 centimeters wide and 15 centimeters thick and weighing close to two tons, had to be rammed andviolently brought down. Fragments recovered strongly suggest that the Western leaf took the brunt of the ramming and shattered into many pieces, while the Eastern leaf went rather unscathed, breaking into just two large pieces. A ramming mechanism was brought inside the monument, and its use not only fractured the door, but also damaged the floor of chamber #2 the mosaic's chamber. The mosaic already affected by the humidity inside the tomb from the exposure to the elements for about 7 years, suffered a loss of pebbles (tesserae) in an almost circular fashion slightly to the West off center, just facing the Western leaf of the marble door as it was being attacked

61

and pounded. We can presume all this, from the available evidence we now have, as uncovered by the ongoing excavation so far.

The looting. Any valuables found inside the crimson chamber were looted by the mob raiding the tomb. Looters also dug onto the floor toseek more treasures and to unearth the interred body of HFAISTION and its wooden casket taking all decorative valuables from HFAISTION’sskeletal remains. Ironically, that is exactly what the archeological team also did 23 centuries later, but with obviously different intent.The limestone of the room's floor was violently removed, and left as we found it today. The fact that a dead person’s tomb and casket was assaulted, directly implies that the raiding team wasn’t only seeking gold and silver but also had overt religious overtones in its raid. HFAISTION was no more the god, as ALEXANDROS wanted him to be adorned.All valuables (except some minor decorations of minor value to these raiders) inside the vault are taken, and some of HFAISTION’s skeletal remains spill out of the wooden casket, his skeletal bones having beenstripped from any valuable belongings and ornaments. They had no use for the two round glass pieces put on HFAISTION’s eyes, or for his beard comb, or for a marble rectangular top (of the marble box containing his favorite rare and lucky semi-precious stone the lootersfound to their liking and took, leaving for us just the cover). Of course they had no use for the ivory decorations too, I referred to atthe beginning of this narrative (linking this scene of the crime to another funerary item, the so-called “Alexander sarcophagus” – thus letting us have another clue to solving this criminal act). On their way out, the raiding team throws into the crimson chamber all fragments of whatever time and previous looters had left. One of theseabandoned fragments is the head of a statue, long gone from the tomb, staring with irony and melancholy at the unwelcome visitors. With the heads of the two sphinxes long gone, their shattered wings and some fragments from their necks are thrown into the room to fill it with debris; so cynical of a reason, so that the sealing of the monument won't have to bring into this last room more than the minimum amount of sandy soil necessary to cover it up. Kassandros hires an engineer and instructs him to seal the monument. Now the third and final hand is in charge of construction/destruction of the site at Kasta Hill; the two prior architects give their place to an engineer. The order toseal the monument is now being carried out in earnest. Kassandros orders are very specific: make sure that the tomb never gives in, to

62

reveal its existence or what was done to it. Secure the structural stability of the monument, so that it won't ever cave in. What was done to it must remain a fact perennially hidden and totally forgottenas was the occupant of this tomb, HFAISTION. That was Kassandros' malevolent intent in sealing the monument. The skeleton in his closet.

The engineer and the burying of the tomb. The engineer in charge, summoned to do this thankless and largely macabre job, decides to build the two diaphragmatic walls, exactly as, and where we currently found them: one in front of the sphinxes, the other in front of the Karyatides. He builds them from limestone, at a thickness just good enough to provide structural support for the tomb's walls and thus theroof. This was by far the main reason to build them, as protection from future intruders was primarily left to the sandy soil the tomb was about to be filled with. They also have a secondary structural purpose, as at the same time these two walls do not allow the soil about to be poured into the three chambers to move around in time, even by strong earthquakes, threatening thus the monument's structuralstability. Their rising is accompanied with the concomitant rise in the level of the soil being poured in. The archeological team has proposed that sandy soil from the river Strymonas was used to seal thetomb. I suggest that first, soil used to shape Hill 133 was used to seal the monument at Kasta Hill, and by the time they run out of that by exposing the rock structure of the north side of the hill then and only then they used river soil. Anyway soil is brought up and poured into the crimson chamber first (where most of the debris had been placed), then into the mosaic chamber, followed by the filling of the Karyatides chamber. In so doing, some of that soil is mingled with fragments of the Karyatides long ago broken arms (under architect B’s tenure, as the reader will recall) as well as construction nails from the wooden support structure used to build the ceiling and the tomb’s roof. Such nails and marble fragments were reported by the archeological team as found at some level above the chamber’s floor, and here’s an explanation as to how they were found there. Finally thespace of the "entrance" with the sphinxes is filled up to the top of the staircase. Now, the covering of the whole mound is left to be done, to hide the marble perimeter wall - the final play of a drama that lasted for seven years is rapidly coming to an end. The final curtain falls when the whole perimeter marble covered circular wall isno longer visible, buried for good in Strymonas’ sandy soil. Some

63

contend that the building of the two limestone diaphragmatic walls andthe filling up of the tomb with soil may have taken place at differenttime periods. This of course isn’t possible under the story presented here; what is possible though is that the filling with soil of chambers #3 and #2 was followed by the building of the limestone wall in front of the Karyatides, which was followed then by the filling with soil of chamber #1 and then its filling with soil, followed up with the construction of the limestone in front of the sphinxes and then the fill up of the space with sandy soil. In effect, the filling up of the tomb and the construction of the two diaphragmatic walls could have been following in reverse what the archeological team didexactly in uncovering the tomb. How much did the sealing of the tomb and that of the whole mound last? One can’t be sure of course, but thehaste it was done, the damage it produced on the monument and the appalling sight of the desecrated HFAISTION’s body hint that it didn’tlast long.

A question that many ask is this: Why would Kassandros opt to seal thetomb rather than just demolish it? Those who ask this question assume that it would cost less to totally destroy than efficiently seal into oblivion the tomb at Kasta tumulus. Of course this is an obvious and simple question, and as all obvious and simple questions go it has a complicated answer. Because to answer it one must estimate the then perceived by Kassandros expected composite benefits and costs of thesetwo courses of action. Economics was not the only or even major factorin this calculus, and dealing with a dead person’s tomb goes beyond economics and enters the domain of religion and sociology. In considering all these composite benefits and costs it is my evaluationthat the net benefits (i.e., benefits minus costs) of sealing were indeed far in excess of the net benefits of totally destroying the tomb, as all benefits and costs were perceived by Kassandros back then. This calculus is quite involved, and it would need a separate Note to address.

Later day petty tomb robbers (starting their raids centuries later, since up till then the collective memory would inform them that there wasn’t anything left in there to loot) over the two millennia that followed would attempt to dig into the mound, seeking treasure only tohit the two sealing diaphragmatic limestone walls. The first wave would probably stop before the sphinxes; later day waves (those

64

persistent ones) would possibly reach the second diaphragmatic wall (that before the Karyatides), and possibly open up further the holes we see on the separating walls at the arched ceiling level (some of which could have been originally made by the engineer’s workers while filling up the chambers with soil). The sandy but well packed soil of the tomb's sealing sand would finally make them abandon the effort. One can’t preclude additional soil to have drained inside the monumentfrom natural erosion at the Hill. The fact that the various stratigraphic levels of soil the tomb is filled with are of the same type can be attributed to the simple fact that the top of the Hill wasalso covered under architect B with the same sandy soil from Strymonas. And any natural erosion of the outside originating soil found inside the tomb must have come from the “entrance” with the sphinxes.

That engineer who did the sealing may not have been an engineering or architectural genius, but (just like architect B) he must not have been a totally non-descript type engineer either. He did a good job inerasing this tomb from living memory, following the instructions he had received. Earthquakes followed, apparently some having registered quite high on the Richter scale. As a result, at places the ground cave in and erosion ensued. Some of those effects we have detected inside the crimson chamber. Wars were fought on the surface of that land over the millennia that passed; even bombs were thrown onto the mound which received quite a bit of shelling during last century’s warfare in that region of Macedonia. All this violent activity resulted in further stirring up the fallen debris inside thatin haste built in-rock carved chamber #3; in a soup made with the sandy soil used for sealing (the chamber and the tomb overall) the violent mix up of items found inside the third chamber have stimulatedmany theories about the monument-tomb and whether this mix was the product of looting or ritualistic in essence. To me, this is a nonissue, since the tomb has been raided beyond the shroud of a doubt.But what this mix, inside the crimson chamber, of all these diverse items reveals is remarkable. What all that geological and man-made commotion didn't manage to accomplish is definitely more noticeable than the damage these intrusions produced. Twenty three centuries of stirring didn’t end up revealing what was hidden in there. And this isdefinitely, albeit ironically, to the engineer's credit. HFAISTION now

65

lies buried in a tomb which is buried in turn itself. The beginning two steps of a burial fractal.

The narrative I suggested as possible scenario outlining the lifecycleof the Kasta tumulus and its tomb presents the underlying historical, social, cultural, economic etc. reasons as to why the monument’s lifespan was so short, its effective life cut short by events much larger than itself. But there’s a final testimony that needs to be added as to why the life cycle of the tomb is so short, and it has to do with the overall physical condition we found the monument buried insandy soil in August 2014. The almost perfect condition of the marble coverage, both inside and outside the monument, at so many areas of its walls, demonstrates that the marble was well protected, almost immediately after being put in place. If marble (and limestone) are left unprotected from the weather in a wet and humid environment (as is the case in Amphipolis with its formidable winters), for longer than a few decades then the mold would penetrate so deeply into the material, it would be extremely difficult (if at all possible) to clear it up. This final argument is humbly submitted to all those who still espouse the view that the monument was left unprotected for a prolonged time period, up to half a millennium according to some, and subjected throughout that period to multiple raids, vandalism and destruction by various hordes; and then it was sealed. These scenariosare simply not possible. We all need to get rid of our glasses, and move around our viewing positions as much as possible, when we try to understand and explain historical events. Granted, our biases are inevitable, we are humans after all and we all carry a perspective at all times. But we need to be willing to take off our glasses from timeto time – it helps us all see better.

Epilogue.

The meteoric rise of this tomb-monument was followed by an equally sharp fall into oblivion in what amounted to History's blink of an eye– seven tortured years. The monument’s life cycle had to be short and its end almost repugnant, for it not to register in History’s collective cumulative memory. Its construction and demise both had to be brief. The glory of its rise had to be countered by the ignominy of

66

its fall. This very short 7-year time period is the key factor why no historic reference is made to this monument at all. The other being that all knew back then that nothing is left inside, except some bonesof someone no one cared much to remember. This in-stages decline of the monument’s fortunes were tied up with the sharp rise and then the precipitous decline in HFAISTION’s own status: from God, to Hero, to commoner to a pariah.

In history, the built capital stock's longevity depends basically on two forces: local geological and social dynamics. The former define the nature's forces at work. The latter identify the acceptance or rejection of the built structure by social groups surrounding it over time. Within the domain of the latter type forces, economic dynamics (in the form of depreciation, maintenance, upkeep and/or improvement of the structure), along with social, political, religious etc., factors define the willingness or unwillingness of those social groupsto either continue its use, modify, abandon, or demolish it; these factors in effect determine the structure's social longevity. In the case of Kasta Hill, the latter forces (social dynamics) far outdid theimpact of the former (geodynamics). 

It started as a dream by the legendary Architect and City Planner of the Empire, to transform Kasta Hill along with Mound 133 to a "New Egypt" for the "New Ammon-Ra" of Macedonia's Empire and his ETAIROS. Deinokratis envisioned the North Amphipolis Monuments complex as the resting places of Deities, a Major GOD (ALEXANDROS) and a Minor God (HFAISTION). It unceremoniously ended, buried into permanent oblivion sealed by an anonymous engineer. Having been stripped of almost all its contents, actual and abstract, it lay in ground barren, all his intended magnificence stamped on the eyes of its diverse personalities-figures that no one would ever look at. The majestic gently shaped Kasta Tumulus almost overnight was transformed into an almost unnoticeable mound; its hastily covered surface was blending rather well into an amorphous landscape now, littered with abandoned slabs of marble along the river's edge. Mingled with fragments of a once fearsome lion's face and body laid a story unwanted by the livingthen, but pleading to be told by later generations far into the future. To those living at their vicinity, these ruins would remind them of an era gone by, an arrogance which met its judgment. As the visitor to the site post 316 BC wouldn't find anything anymore to write home about, so would the historian of the future. Once one gets

67

there, simply there isn't anything there. All is gone, nothing worthy to record. Deinokratis' dream proved to be just a dream, probably too ambitious to have ever had any chance of becoming lasting reality. The"New Egypt" wasn't meant to be, solid proof that "imitating" is alwaysephemeral and exaggerated arrogance short lived. Deinokratis’ architectonic genius and unbounded imagination met swiftly albeit violently the cynical hands of reality. Cosmopolitanism died inside Kasta Hill. As did ALEXANDROS’ Empire in Asia and Africa: BIOI PARALLHLOI of sorts. ALEXANDROS, HFAISTION, their Empire, the Kasta Hill monument-tomb all rose fast, and all died young.

We need to look thus into more deeply than just scratching the surfaceand dusting off of Kasta Tumulus to understand it and appreciate its significance. Especially its cosmopolitanism, its ecumenical messages – messages with ambivalent meanings. ALEXANDROS, the greatest STRATHLATHS this Earth has ever known, went down History not because of what he did as an Easterner, but what he accomplished as a Macedonian HELLHN. He never lost his Hellenic authenticity, except when he tried to partly mesh it with Asiatic lore. History has and will still pronounce varying judgments upon his deeds, as we’ll see later. But it’s worth noting that HFAISTION - the Eastern side of ALEXANDROS, was gone forever - courtesy of Kassandros. ALEXANDROS on the other hand never made it back to Macedonia, thanks to Ptolemaios. The complete book on this story wasn’t meant to be finished, until we uncovered the ending chapter of this drama, written and hidden well inthe ground of Kasta Hill, in August 2014. Whether this discovery proves to be a present (or curse) from ALEXANDROS to us, or a curse (or present, depending on one’s point of view) from Kassandros, remains to be seen. It certainly can be used as a lesson on many burning issues of today. And this everlasting message could be the real legacy of ALEXANDROS, the eternal HELLHN from Macedonia who wanted to and did conquer the World, but never made it back home.

68

CHAPTER II. A few general observations.

Post Script 1. Archeology, Statistics and Quantum Theory: a briefnote on abstract method.

Quantum Mechanics and Archeology or History. I have offered the above viewpoint about Kasta Hill’s monument, which started as a monument butended as a humble tomb, as one possible explanation of how it was built and buried; how all objects found there came about to be where they were found, by offering both their initial and final condition. Ianalyzed how HFAISTIONS’ bones were found inside the vault, their condition and why. This is just one, among the many theories that currently have been suggested of course. Obviously all these theories do not have the same probability of being accurate, and at present none exists which is universally accepted as either being the most accurate or by far the most probable. I’m aware that the possibility exists that the real “truth” of the matter – if such truth exists at all – will never present itself, and even if it does it might not become universally accepted. In fact, a cloud of uncertainty and a plethora of alternative theories might co-exist in the future (as theydo at present) about Kasta Hill’s history, occupant and contents. Someof these theories even might seem highly unlikely if not totally improbable.

The historical record is messy. In fact at times it’s a royal mess, and very few times if ever it offers a clean and clear view of events.It’s full of contradictions, inaccuracies, multiple and differing reporting of the same event, and subject to multiple interpretations for almost anyone’s pick and choose based on one’s inherently present biases. As I have suggested in the past, a Quantum Superposition of

69

theoretical hypotheses might occur regarding events such as those related to the topic at hand. In a comment I made in a blog at the endof August 2014, I remarked that we may be dealing with a case of “Schrodinger’s cat” in trying to identify the occupant of Kasta Hill’stomb. This comment quite clearly directs attentions to the possibilitythat certain abstract theoretical notions from Quantum Mechanics (QM) might be appropriate for approaching subjects of archeological interest. In the past, it has been suggested that QM in abstract (likefor example, the Heisenberg “Uncertainty principle”) could be fruitfulin describing (and possibly explaining) subjects seemingly far removedfrom Physics, as for example specific topics in the Social Sciences having to do with population counts and dynamics. Social systems naturally belong to the world described by classical mechanics and Newtonian Physics – common sense implies. I contend that this is a rather narrow view of social systems and Archeology. A quantum cloud might be a very productive way to approach social systems’ behavior aswell as analysis of social observers’ interactions and perceptions of them. Especially so, in regards to Archeology proper and History as well. One can only imagine the magnitude and dynamics inside that quantum cloud, if the bones found in the vault of the crimson chamber’s floor can’t be identified for sure.

Statistical validity in Archeology and History. Here a simplistic reference will be made to “statistical analysis”, since formal statistics would require the testing of the null hypothesis in partialsupport of a formal, statistically testable hypothesis involving data collection and testing – something which is next to impossible to carry out in History and Archeology (as well as in Anthropology), for reasons which go far beyond the scope of this brief note to write about. Nonetheless, a point worth mentioning here is the reliability of historical sources, especially those not independently verified (single sources, or those historical references repeatedly copied froma single source). I won’t address the various biases one finds in all historic accounts, ancient or modern, which it’s a much bigger issue. I’ll address only specific analytical errors possible to find in historical accounts. The chances for accepting the statistical validity of such references are obviously very limited. This caveat must be kept in mind, when reviewing the fuzzy and thus largely unverifiable historical record. We can never be sure of the exact and accurate recording of past events, let alone the multiple

70

interpretations of any particular historical record of such past events. We all know about biases and inaccuracies in various events reporting (or lack thereof) by today’s media – not to mention the heavily painted by ideology history texts. We can’t expect things to have been different back then. This condition is more pervasive, the more one looks back in time. Speculative statements (i.e., statements reported by historians the accuracy of which the historians themselveswere unable to verify at a level of 100%, or that we can’t verify at the same certainty level), always appear in the historical record and they should be expected. This is true no matter the source, be that a primary, secondary or tertiary historical source, or any combination thereof. It’s impossible to have a historical report totally free fromspeculative statements made by the historian in question, even in the case of a primary source. The very nature of social events and their reporting necessitate this condition. But this largely unavoidable shortcoming of the historical record should not confuse strict and “asobjective as possible” historical reporting, from a record where inaccuracies and falsehoods abound. There are obviously first rate historians (like Thucydides or Herodotus) and then second rate ones (like Josephus, a Jew who went to Rome, and acquired a Roman name – “Titus Flavius” – just like another modern day Jew, Mordechai better known as “Marx” both having written flawed histories and tales filled with lies, inaccuracies and historical biases). The glaring case of Josephus is even more telling in this case: he “reports” that “ALEXANDROS, on his way to Jerusalem, paid respects to and kneeled in front of the local chief Rabbi” – a laughable claim.

Two examples of direct interest here will be further discussed (among the many hinted at in this Note): first, the historical record (comingto us from Greek historian Diodoros of Sicily) that HFAISTION’s body was cremated in Babylon; if the later Mavrojannis hypothesis that thismay be not accurate (and borne out by scientific identification of HFAISTION’s bones) then obviously this was a false historical record. It must be noted that statistically speaking, to assume that ALL events reported by any historian are 100% accurate is simply not very likely and indeed next to impossible. Especially those which are not double (or multiple) referenced (as is the case with HFAISTION’s alleged cremation). This report by Diodoros on HFAISTION’s cremation may just be a case in point. It doesn’t necessarily imply that Diodoros’ overall credibility must be questioned. It simply might be

71

indicative of a somewhat exaggerated reporting about this specific event, an event which seems to have attracted a number of historians’ attention (HFAISTION’s death and its aftermath) contrary to the rest of his life (which not much is known about – a curious coincidence). For sure, when the identity of the bones is revealed then the historical record of the time will have to be either purged to an extent, added on to, or modified. It could be the case where simply the archeological record corrects the historical record.

Case number two: take Arrianos’ Alexander’s “Anabasis” – a record which survived in full and composed from up to five original sources. An entertaining version of this speech in Greek is given here:

http://ellinondiktyo.blogspot.com/2014/10/blog-post_63.html

Arrianos supplies one of the most complete references to the totality of ALEXANDROS’ campaigns. It was written in the middle part of the 2nd century AD, and records a speech delivered by ALEXANDROS four centuries earlier. Notwithstanding the multiple sourcing of this work,one safely may assume that the chances this particular work contains, at a level of 100% certainty, an accurate account of ALEXANDROS’ complete speech to his soldiers following the campaign to India, is close to zero. This note must be kept in mind when later I’ll refer tothis speech in discussing the role ALEXANDROS played in marginally Easternizing Macedonia, while Hellenizing the East to a much larger extent. It seems to me this angle to the speech needs much further analysis, especially in reference to the topic at hand now. However, one must be extremely careful in purging parts of the historical record (especially rare reports from antiquity). I feel uncomfortable finding myself in the position to question and purge the record of HFAISTION’s cremation in Babylon, in 324 BC, thus partly contradictinga point Diodoros reported. Although others before me have apparently done so, for example McKechnie, I wish I didn’t have to deny a historian’s account. Especially when this point is counter to a Macedonian custom (although as I have pointed out, HFAISTION was partially Macedonian). I consider this issue one of the weakest pointsof my theoretical scenario. I have argued so that it is possible that a large part of historians’ accounts can be questioned. True, but thisopens up the Pandora’s Box for History and Archeology alike. That of course makes many of us uncomfortable. Even knowing fully well that, quite often, historians (modern ones and of antiquity) often try to

72

hide the truth without telling a lie; or that sometimes they don’t report the truth, not knowing that they are reporting a falsehood. These historians do not intend to lie, they act out of partial (incomplete or imperfect) information (possibly Diodoros being a case in point). Then, there are some historians who intentionally violate the truth, with straight out lies (I already mentioned such a case, Josephus).

Post Script 2. Kasta Hill: the Main Characters and a Hollywood scenario of a “love story”.

In what follows is an effort to approach the main characters of this Kasta Hill related drama with a strong dose of hindsight. Such approach will necessarily escape the strict confines of the Kasta Hillarcheological findings and associated narrative. It will venture into some broad statements in History, Economics, Sociology and Demography.At issue will be the focus on specific individuals and micro-psychology. But the analysis will also sail into some Macro-historicalaspects of the macro-social systems these’ persons historic paths are traced, and ponder their implications. It is a part of the narrative which contains the contrasts found in any human story, love and hate, genius and imbecility, good and evil, foresight and myopia, determinism and chance. At the end, over different time horizons theseopposites become blurry, as we shall see. Almost a perfect story for aHollywood production, and as controversial may be.

HFAISTION and ALEXANDROS: refuting some myths and falsehoods.

This monument at Kasta Hill, and the alleged here Master Plan by Deinocratis for a “System of Monuments” at Amphipolis, including Mound133, may also be looked at as a testimonial to love and hate. Many readers will immediately assume the connotation I make refers to a personal intimate relationship between ALEXANDROS and HFAISTION. Centuries of historians, Roman down to present, and for example one can see this popular magazine’s very recent report:

73

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141121-amphipolis-tomb-alexander-great-greece-archaeology/#

These historians and reporters have used the Greek notion of ETAIROS for their own self-serving sexual preferences and interpretations, in justifying their own proclivities, a narrow and strict interpretation which I reject. Historians and analysts, as well as novelists wring about ALEXANDROS, have over the years, and especially in contemporary references, feel at ease commenting on ALEXANDROS bedtime habits. As if they had their eyes stuck on his bedroom keyhole excited partaking in his nightly habits. It mattered and matters little to them that by referring to him as a “homosexual” or “gay” in a wholesale like fashion and thus label a whole era and ethnic group. It matters littleto them that these accounts are false and inaccurate, since they are not based on any direct testimonial by any historical figure associated directly or indirectly with ALEXANDROS or HFAISTION admitting such relationships. But in the era of loose morals, Lady Gaga, Hollywood type “liberalism” and “political correctness” such labelling is perfectly admissible, notwithstanding the fact that not asingle shred of evidence is available to substantiate these outrageousclaims. Denial of such libelous claims is considered “homophobia” and thus socially deplorable, if not indicative of some form of “hate” from the part of those who wish to set the record straight. It’s called “progress” and “social progressivism” these days.

What is the case based on reason, regarding the relationship between ALEXANDROS and HFAISTION then? ALEXANDROS needed close, capable and trustworthy friends and confidents to accomplish what he did. He didn’t need male lovers and the time energy and intrigue such activitywould entail. He simply had no time to waste, and no evidence exists he harbored any vices. Ruling an army of the caliber he had under his command, administering and managing an Empire the size of the Macedonian Empire of 323 BC he created, conducting continuously victorious campaigns the number and size and distance from his ancestral lands he did, he could afford no idle time. Above all, he needed trusted and extraordinarily capable multi-talented subordinates. He needed outstanding personalities and gifted persons to successfully delegate authority and conduct affairs of State. HFAISTION was one of them, his real DEPUTY and XILIARXOS, but there were plenty of others. Homosexuality had nothing to do with that closeness; need for effective management did. To the much discussed

74

and well known equivalence between Achilles and Patroklos on the one hand and ALEXANDROS and HFAISTION on the other, I will add nothing to what has already been said and written.

More than fifty of these lieutenants sporting in ALAXANDROS Hellenic Army and his immediate and trusted entourage were capable of conducting on their own campaigns the envy of any General since then. A dozen of them could rule large States on their own. And a few could have been worthy successors of ALEXANDROS himself. Here’s a few: KLEITOS, PARMENION, FILOTAS, KTATEROS, PTOLEMAIOS, PERDIKAS, SELEYKOS,HFAISTION, NEARXOS, etc. Parenthetically, no Army Commander over the course of recorded history (from Julius Caesar up to and including modern History’s Napoleon and Eisenhower, all commending far greater size armies) had assembled such an extensive group of extremely capable associates and assistants in carrying out any comparable campaign as ALEXANDROS did. To argue that all of these ETAIROI were ALEXANDROS’s male lovers is not only absurd but ludicrous; nonetheless, this claim has been engrained in some people’s thought inreference to HFAISTION and ALEXANDROS’s alleged homosexuality. It willcontinue to persist in certain circles of analysts, simply because there’s demand for such an interpretation no matter its inaccuracy.

ALEXANDROS was given the attribute of MEGAS by the Romans and, maybe it can be argued, out of self-interest Romans did it to justify their own Empire building undertaking. So, ALEXANDROS had shortcomings in retrospect, at a grand scale because he was after building an Empire, and someone may find fault in that. No one however can deny his capabilities in accomplishing grand objectives. In so doing nonetheless, one must also remind oneself that ALEXANDROS wasn’t a perfect human being, no matter his grandeur and unique for History personality and accomplishments. He had weaknesses, as all human beings do. But arrogance wasn’t one of them. Heavy drinking might havebeen one that clouded his judgment at times and with tragic consequences, as is the case when he killed PARMENION. He had failed to set up a proper institutionally viable evaluation and promotion scheme (as any organization must have in its Human Resource department, military or civilian to be viable and successful) in placewhere his successor was to be found following his death. In this regard, he failed, and the consequences were tragic for the Empire andMacedonia. There were possibly other shortcomings ALEXANDROS had, but this isn’t the place to fully address them. But was ALEXANDROS’

75

decision to elevate himself “GOD” an example of such human shortcomings? He realized (as a good student of History) that this wasthe only effective means to govern a huge and diverse Empire. It did not elevate himself to divinity status, because he was stupid, vain oran imbecile. Stupid may have been some minor Roman Emperors who did so; vain he wasn’t as proven by him rejecting his own Architect’s suggestion to carve his body as a city at where current Agion Oros is 60 kilometers South from Amphipolis.

The most distinguished student of Aristotle (along with KASANDROS and HFAISTION) couldn’t be an imbecile, nor could an imbecile or fool do what ALEXANDROS did. Prosecuting the type of innovative and ingenious military campaigns he did, and the manner he administered the vast expanse of an Empire totally unfamiliar and unknown to him and his army in both land and peoples, were deeds no imbecile can accomplish. His creative genius is just an element of his extremely high intelligence. His manifest ability to grant justice and demonstrate fairness, coupled with his mastery of macroeconomic forces at work then, as well as an obvious effectiveness and efficiency in his administration and management of that vast Empire constitute impeccable, impossible to purge witnesses to his insurmountable intelligence, ability and skill. He was both a visionary and a pragmatist, both countering each other in a perfect balance; an astutestudent of History he recognized that only the prestige and faith in aGOD can unite his diverse peoples he was now ruling. He saw that only the prestige of a GOD can commend the obedience and respect that societies of back then could render them governable and could grant one the power to rule. He was a deeply religious person, so this elevation to a Devine Figure would possibly make him somewhat uncomfortable. His Homeric idol, AXILLEAS, never did or even thought of it, and ALEXANDROS must have known that to elevate oneself to God status wasn’t in the Hellenic traditions he espoused; Olympias’ claim that he was the son of DIAS must have been discounted by a fellow firmly grounded in reality. Deity of rulers was a foreign custom, not entirely suited for a Hellenic King; and this must have brought some discomfort in him. We can’t of course be sure, since it’s impossible to enter one’s mind in toto, especially when this person we try to psychoanalyze is someone unique in the history of humanity, none of uswill ever be, and lived 23 centuries ago under conditions no one of uswill or can exactly replicate in thought. But we have no evidence that

76

ALEXANDROS was ever worshiped as god by any religious hierarchy anywhere back then, including Egypt and including Siwa.

Numerous sources refer to ALEXANDROS as an individual whose actions were ruled by oracles, prophesies and words of soothsayers, a person plunged into superstition and premonitions. Like all humans, ALEXANDROS sought some of that, since the desire to predict the futureis inherent in human behavior. All humans place bets, speculate and try to predict future events somehow – some more rationally than others – to carry out actions. However, no one can conquer the known World on the basis of actions drawn from card readers or animal sacrifices. It’s simply laughable to claim that ALEXANDROS acted on the basis of such feeble reasoning. Did he occasionally perform such rituals? Undoubtedly yes. Why? To offer the equivalent of modern day photo ops, to satisfy the premonitions of his subjects and his army’s soldiers, I suggest, if and when he recognized that such rituals wouldboost morale. ALEXANDROS never let the irrational take over the rational part of his mind. Especially in affairs of State. Of course, the logical foundations of rational behavior maybe different now than then, but not that different; there are some elementary rules of logicthat obey long term time scales, that is they exist rules of logic which remain constant over long time periods transcending specific social environments and historical circumstances. Evidence suggests, and some will counter, that ALEXANDROS’ visit (in 331 BC) at the Temple of the Oracle of Amon-Ra in the Oasis of Siwa, demonstrates hisirrational side; but the aims of this trip from the historical record are not entirely clear. I submit, it was not to obtain guidance on hisroad to conquest, but rather to familiarize himself with Egypt’s divinity system, testing the divinity waters. It was for him a learning experience and a performance for his soldiers and also a demonstration of dominance to his current new subjects in North Africa. It was a rational well calculated action. Elevation to Deity may have been an effective strategy in managing peoples of Asia and Africa back then, but a very perilous stratagem for Macedonia and the rest of Greece. The use of this Temple at Siwa by ALEXANDROS shows also in how it came in handy when he sent for instructions on how to deal with HFAISTION’s posthumous title and burial rites. Its use proved a malleable way to address internal politics within his military bureaucracy.

77

This note leads me to another topic popular with historians and people(from antiquity to the present) comprising arguments based on a logic marred by a tendency to see “conspiracies” and the like: conditions surrounding ALEXANDROS’ death. It has been suggested that he fell victim of poisoning, through a conspiracy involving Antipatros, Kassandros, Iollas and even Aristotle. Again, such “theories” have persisted and will persist simply because there’s a demand for them, by all of those who seek easy explanations of complicated events, or unnecessarily convoluted explanations to otherwise easily understood events. No matter how void of evidence and logic some of these “theories” might be, they will always provide (tasteless or tasty, depending on one’s perspective) food for hungry pallets that crave forsuch ventures into the occult, the strange and the weird. We do not know, and we’ll possibly never know what ALEXANDROS died from, till sometime (if ever) his dead body is found and scientific tests will determine the cause of death. Till then, all types of strange or likely causes will be offered, and I won’t be surprised if someone comes up with an AIDS related reason for his death. Given the current era and the prevailing social state of affairs and morae one should expect everything.

But I shall touch here on the alleged (and baseless) role that KASSANDROS played in ALEXANDROS death, as a springboard to what we presently call “acculturation” and “multiculturalism”. The motive attributed to KASSANDROS in allegedly poisoning ALEXANDROS, beyond boyhood jealousy, is that he was appalled by the Eastern customs ALEXANDROS exhibited while visiting him during the summer of 323 BC inBabylon. And this (possible) dislike brings us to a major role ALEXANDROS played in his conquest of the East. There is more than justa grain of truth to this dislike indeed. ALEXANDROS did attempt to primarily influence East and Central Asia, and Eastern North Africa byexpanding the ideals, ideas, customs, art and architecture of HELLAS. But in so doing, he recognized that he had to adopt to a limited and largely inconsequential extent Eastern customs as well. To give, you must also take; to offer, you must also accept – a deep Eastern trait in human interaction. He applied that principle, because he found it useful and effective in managing that vast Empire. To succeed, he had to compromise, not be rigidly stuck into Macedonian ritual.

And he did just that. He offered to the Eastern provinces of his Empire Hellenic cities and buildings and ideas and art. In return, he

78

received and tried to implant into his army a taste of new Eastern foods and new dress codes, and pleasantries and pleasures that may have bothered KASSANDROS. ALEXANDROS encouraged his soldiers to intermarry Asian women, mix with the residents of the new territories.A quite fair trade I would say, but not necessarily so to everyone, especially to those in his Macedonian army who detested horse-trading and all things Eastern. His allure to the East, and his explicit attempt to marginally alter the Macedonian society’s transition to a new era of Empire from an old fashioned isolated agriculture bound State, we find recorded in Arrianos’ “ALEXANDROU ANABASIS”, in a successful by all accounts call to and for a change in his soldiers’ thinking mode. He told them about his father taking them out of theirfields, poor uneducated dressed in animal leather Macedonian peasants and transformed them into respectable persons. And then he goes on telling them how he (ALEXANDROS) elevated them to masters of a new world who HE granted them for their on benefits and riches, transforming them to persons with a cosmopolitan outlook. We can read today this speech and we may see in it a few things the way we like tosee them, and interpret them in ways we wish to interpret them today. I contend that for sure that’s not exactly what ALEXANDROS said, and what he implied and exactly meant by what he said then. It’s likely, Arrianos did the same thing too; he not only quite likely put some words in ALEXANDROS’ mouth, but also he emphasized things he (Arrianos, for whatever reasons) wanted seen emphasized. But I will stick to my interpretation of the “multiculturalist” elements in that speech. One can read that speech and conclude that he (ALEXANDROS) mayhave recognized the different type of intelligence Easterners espoused; to an extent he may even have liked it. I suggest, he had envisioned fertilizing Classical Greek thought and behavior, with Eastern Pleasure. His actions towards that end speak loud and clear. After all, he married the beautiful Baktrian (now Afghani) Princess Roxane, and had with her the heir to the Empire’s (not simply Macedonian) throne, Alexandros IV.

One could picture the IV-th not only as an able successor to the III-rd, but even surpassing him in glory as an Emperor of both East and West. The odds now, (for reasons shown later) seem to have not favoredthe IV-th growing up to be a Word Inter-Continental Leader. Moreover, ALEXANDROS envisioned conquering the rest of Europe and was planning to attempt a Western European campaign after his eventual return to

79

Pella. In hindsight we know the odds were overwhelmingly negative on this front too. The odds back then? Not so favorable either, I would guess. But we would never know, because KASSANDROS interfered with thecourse of History by killing ALEXANDROS’ son, and ALEXANDROS died before his planned return to Pella. For certain, the World would have been different, if ALEXANDROS III were to reach his 70s, instead of Antipatros who did. It’s one of those dictums emanating from the nonlinear dynamics of Chaos Theory, the butterfly effect: when some slight disturbance of an individual’s dynamic path in phase space, produces a drastically different final end state for the system at large. It goes also as “extreme sensitivity to initial conditions”. July 323 BC may have resulted in such a butterfly effect for the Worldat a whole

KASSANDROS: historical justification and possible rehabilitation ofhis reputation.

So, the “love story” I alluded to earlier, was definitely not that between ALEXANDROS and HFAISTION, definitely not between ALEXANDROS and Roxane. It was that between KASSANDROS and Thessaloniki, ALEXANDROS’ half-sister. Somehow I feel that KASSANDROS needs and deserves a closer look. He for sure had a bad press over the centuries. But what he did could not have been done without some political support, he could not have acted in a political vacuum. Evenunder rudimentary form, there was a Legislative and a Judiciary branchof government in Macedonia back then notwithstanding its authoritativepolitical governance structure. We know from historical records about the existence of a “common Assembly of the Macedonians” or EKKLHSIA aninstitution of advisors to the KING; and we also know that trials weretaking place. Thus, an elementary system of State bureaucracy existed to offer political backing to KASSANDROS, no matter how limited this institutional framework was. Thus, KASSANDROS was not alone in his decision making process, others must have supported his decisions, possibly many others within both the ruling class as well the emergingMacedonian middle class and the peasantry. KASSANDROS had shortcomings, and plenty of them; but he had some strengths as well. He will remain a controversial figure in the pages of History. But he definitely deserves a second look.

80

KASSANDROS did end up ordering the murder (some would rephrase this as“he went along with having her stoned to death and left unburied, following her conviction after a trial” in a more “politically correct” expression) of Olympias (a lady from HPEIROS) in 316 BC; he also had Roxane (a lady from Baktriani), and Alexander IV (the son of a Macedonian and an Asian) murdered as well in 310 BC. Roxane was according to the historical record a beautiful lady who enjoyed widespread appeal among ALEXANDROS’ army. She must have had white complexion (whether she was a Caucasian or not we don’t know). What israther certain is that she wasn’t born into a Greek Deities religious system and we don’t know whether she “converted” into it after marrying ALEXANDROS – the historical record doesn’t talk about the customs followed at their wedding ceremony. Moreover, we don’t know her proficiency in speaking Greek either, whether she learned Greek after her marriage to ALEXANDROS, and how well she spoke Greek by 310 BC, or her “accent” in speaking Greek while in Macedonia. Regardless of her actual personal religious beliefs or her proficiency in Greek, or her skin complexion, very likely while in Macedonia she would be considered by many locals as a “foreigner” especially among the Macedonian elites. Roxane must have adapted well into the Macedonian culture and morae of the then ruling class though, as historical records indicate she plotted and murdered a number of second tier ALEXANDROS’ wives (Stateira II or Varsine, and her sister Drypteis or Paryratis: see, Hugh Chisholm ed., 1911, Roxana Encyclopedia Britannica11th Edition, Cambridge University press). In any case, ALEXANDROS immediate family members were all gone by the sixth year into KASSANDROS’ reign. Without doubt, these acts alone made him the villain of History in the Era of ALEXANDROS. KASSANDROS’ rule marks the beginning of the end of the Golden Age of Macedonia, as Macedonia becomes introverted. Wars outside the Hellenic tip of the Balkan Peninsula come to a close. Macedonians seem to have been tired of conflicts overseas. KASSANDROS recognizes this new sentiment, and decides to focus on solidifying the Hellenic-European part of the Empire, letting other successors fight their worries out on lands outside Macedonia and Greece proper. He focuses on erasing the ALEXANDROS legacy, and in lower his constituency’s expectations about a future that was becoming increasingly uncertain. The psychology, economics and social behavior of social groups is very different when a State grows into an Empire, than when it declines, contracts and shrinks and splits up into smaller entities. It may be so that the

81

difficulties managing decline far outweigh those managing growth. ALEXANDROS may have been the best on the way up, but KASSANDROS may have been the best on the way down. In the field of Finance, mergers and acquisitions may be easier than divestitures, and certainly need different talents, personalities and skills by their managers.

As suggested in Chapter I, KASSANDROS decides to bury this remnant of ALEXANDROS’s memory, the Kasta Hill monument to the ground. But he doesn’t stop with negative actions; he proceeds with positive deeds aswell. In 315 BC he rebuilds Thebes, a city ALEXANDROS had leveled in 335 BC. And during the same year, he establishes his new city as a center for Macedonian rule, Thessaloniki. He gave the city the name ofhis wife, a person who didn’t love exactly (love back then among the Macedonian elites was scarce) but decided to honor. That honorary giftfrom the City’s founder to his wife survives to this day, as possibly the most important port city of all Balkan Peninsula, for the use of which many wars have been fought over the two millennia. There’s no historical record regarding the makeup of the new city’s population. Quite likely, the city accommodated the thousands of new migrants intoMacedonia to build the monuments and temples Alexandros wanted, as well as to work as slaves in the Macedonian fields and homes, to support the new emerging middle class of Macedonia, the direct result of the Empire’s riches being brought back from the East (Asia) and South (Africa). We can safely assume that it wasn’t internally determined demographics that forced the establishment of Thessaloniki,as we have no evidence that the Eastern Asia campaign was the trigger of any significant population growth rate within Macedonia (or Greece at large) by Macedonians (or more broadly, Greeks).

However, the biggest question haunting KASSANDROS, and in effect all of ALEXANDROS’s unsuccessful or successful successors to the various fragmented entities of the Empire is this: was KASSANDROS, along with all others, correct in ceasing its expansion to the West, let alone contributing by breaking the Empire up into its constituent parts? Thevoice to maintain the Empire as one unit was weak, the strongest and prevailing one in both the Babylon succession agreement (323 BC) and at Triparadeisos (321 BC) was to partition it. The economies of scale that seem to be apparent and possible to attain under ALEXANDROS, werenot that apparent or feasible under his successors. Thus, any thought for a movement to the West, ALEXANDROS’s vision, was not only sidelined, but totally abandoned. In any case, as KASSANDROS is

82

concerned, he never showed any desire or ability he could handle such ambitious, mercurial, monumental task. We do not know if he actively discouraged it, if it was even suggested by any of the successors, butwe do not have any indication he encouraged it either. I do not expecthim to have proposed it though, because I’m sure he (as probably all others) could see that the chances of a Westward expanse were doomed. All must have known that this campaign into Western and Northern Europe was in ALEXANDROS’ long term agenda. Was Triparadeisos, where KASSANDROS’ father Antipatros participated and emerged as the Strong Man of “Europe” (at the time confined as the Macedonia-Epirus-Thrace-rest of Greece Region) the place and time where this vision was abandoned? Possibly, although we know next to nothing from historical sources; no Minutes of that Meeting, where major Agreements were struck, were ever made public.

We can briefly ponder the Macro-dynamics, Macro-Economics, Demographics, and in general the Macro-effects if such campaign were to be entertained and carried out then. History has witnessed the ferocious, bloody, fratricidal conflicts that ensued ALEXANDROS’ deathfor both survival and dominance in that era. An excessively aggressivecompetition Macedonia and the Empire did experience back then, excessive by any historical standard. Such destructive competition doomed the prospects of proceeding with a Western European expansion. Macedonia was weakened so gravely by all these bloody conflicts, that a mere century later was unable to withstand the invasion of another rising neighbor to the West, the Romans. Far beyond the waning of enthusiasm for such a new campaign, the vitality characterizing the Macedonian society of the 350s BC was long gone by now, its energy depleted by incessant conflict and mostly channeled into the Asian campaign. This reality, I contend, was known to and felt by many, including KASSANDROS.

Again, also, larger scale demographics come into play. Macedonia conquered the East (till India) but didn’t populate it. Sensing the need to populate these newly acquired regions of Asia, ALEXANDROS encourage his soldiers to mate and have off-springs with local women in Asia and Africa, not by raping them, but by marrying them. Of course he married Roxane to give the prime example. It flooded the East with ideas, diffused Hellenic Ideas, but not with Greeks. The demographics were simply not there. One needs to keep in mind always, the aim of ALEXANDROS was not to either populate, or pillage, kill and

83

rape, but to civilize. Yes, there was revenge – and Persepolis paid for all horrors Persians over the century had inflicted on Greece. Butrevenge was not ALEXANDROS’ main objective. Securing his back, by fertilizing it with Hellenic culture was his objective.

Thus, we can safely argue that ALEXANDROS run an experiment on “multiculturalism”. It was certainly a case where the invader had superior culture to offer to the invaded, at the same time allowing some of the invaded group’s culture to penetrate the donor. Maybe, ALEXANDROS had understood by the time of his death that this experiment had failed. We can detect this sense of failure by the toneof his speech as reported by Arrianos in ALEXANDROU ANABASIS. Maybe hehad by then changed his mind also about a Western campaign. Of course we can never know. But such attempts towards multiculturalism we also find in Diodoros as part of ALEXANDROS’ will (in the form of Memoranda) to his soldiers and his subjects. We read in section #4, Paragraph #4, Book XVIII:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/18A*.html#3

ALAXANDROS is asking his people to move East into Asia and have Asiansmove West into Macedonia and Greece and Europe to “transplant populations” in order to bring these Continents to “common unity” and integrate. Besides questioning the degree of accuracy in such statements attributed to ALEXANDROS by Diodoros, and assuming that a grain of truth at least lies in them, let’s switch focus on KASSANDROS. Did KASSANDROS agree with such objectives? Did KASSANDROS sense the futility of such grand schemes, of wholesale changes in the Demography on Nations-States even back then?

No historical record exists as KASSANDROS’ thoughts in reference to these questions. But we can ponder if KASSANDROS knew the possible effects of such policies, because we know that he never attempted any cross-fertilization of cultures, he didn’t encourage it at all. All indications show that he strongly discouraged it. Dumping dirt to cover HFAISTION’s tomb and monument to the Macedonian who turned Eastern God by ALEXANDROS’ wishes, was just an example of defiance towards this “multiculturalism” he may have thought. Disfiguring the “ecumenical” monument that cosmopolitan Deinokratis intended for the new Amon-Ra ALEXANDROS’ ETAIROS God-designate HFAISTION was another

84

act of defiance to the Eastern-ization and African-ization of Macedonia.

It is rather safe to conclude that the ALEXANDROS era of Macedonia triggered a significant Asian and African in-migration flow to the Greek Peninsula. There must have been some out-flow of skilled Greek labor to these Regions as well, but the main population flow must havebeen definitely from East and South to West and North. KASSANDROS may have attempted to ease that movement and its effects on Macedonia, andThessaloniki may have been an effort towards this direction. He established a place to house and absorb all that influx of migrants. At the same time, he proved to be the tombstone to any thought for a Western campaign. Was he wrong? In view of these developments and conditions facing the Macedonian Empire in the aftermath of ALEXANDROS’ death, would anyone have any illusions that a Western campaign would have succeeded? Assume away for a moment the presence of the Roman threat, and let’s hypothesis “what if” Alexander or any of his successors would had undertaken this expansion course. Would they have succeeded where (up to a point) Rome had failed?

Yes, Rome in effect employed a borrowed (Greek) culture in its conquest, whereas ALEXANDROS would have used the original; that was his main weapon in his Eastern campaign. That original culture was theone which many centuries later produced the Renaissance, thus conquering the West with Ideas. Was this culture related factor good enough to guarantee success of a possible Northern/Western European Macedonian/Hellenistic campaign? Would Alexandros (or KASSANDROS) and his army do any better than the Romans did? The answer is clear, in myview. When demographics fail, no matter the superiority of a culture and its technology the invading group is bound to fail. Lessons on this dictum can be offered by the telling dynamics of mathematical ecology. At the end, population size dynamics matter the most. Maybe KASSANDROS knew that, either by instinct or acute foresight. I’ll grant him that. He saved Macedonia from another adventure equally futile, although in doing so he had to break some eggs to enjoy Macedonia’s omelet, an omelet that ALEXANDROS never got to enjoy and for which his immediate family actually paid quite dearly.

Macedonia under ALEXANDROS had a net outflow of ideas into the vastness of the Empire’s margins (the Hellenistic legacy), but a net inflow of peoples into the core’s realm. At the end, one ought to

85

consider the very long term effects of this eastern and northern Africa migration into Macedonia and Greece from the times of Alexanderthe Great, as further enhanced by the population movements during the Byzantine Empire era. In so doing, one might be able to trace and explain the strong anti-Hellenic sentiment among some residents of current day Greece. That strong “ANTHELLHNIKO” sentiment expressed in the current political environment of Greece, may trace its DNA to those eastern roots of the Macedonian and Byzantine Empires. Impacts of demography-drawn self-destructive seeds pinpoint the negatives (along with the positives) one encounters in Empire building, no matter the spatial or temporal context in focus. Similar anti-nationalist sentiments are found in all contemporary Nations, large and small. Case in point, the strong anti-American sentiment within the US at present, manifested by the strong hate some leftists in the US exhibit towards the Tea Party. Similar probably would have been thecase in the past in other Empires (say, the Roman or the British Empire). Implosion may simply be the sine qua non within a national population structure, the level of ethnic diversity in which may have exceeded the various carrying capacities of Nations to beneficially absorb it, as it has reached levels at which its destructive, corrosive, dilapidating effects start to show and take over the smoothfunctioning of a prior homogeneous society in which the immigrants showed an unwillingness or inability to integrate and be gradually absorbed. Reconfirming this realization, and by inescapably revisitingboth ALEXANDROS and KASSANDROS in their respective roles as they shaped the life cycle of HFAISTION’s tomb at Amphipolis, might be the lasting legacy of Kasta Tumulus, so vividly shown to us after dusting off all that dirt that covered it for 23 centuries.

____________________________________________________________________________ END____

APPENDIX 1. A note on archeologists’ ethical responsibilities.

Kasta Hill broke ground not only in terms of unique findings, but alsoit broke ground on how archeological excavations and the reporting of the findings ought to be taking place, setting a significant

86

precedent. By examining what happened in this case, suggestions can beoffered, recommendations can be made, and guidelines can be derived inan effort to address the obvious inadequacies confronted this case. The issue here is the “public’s right to know” and the “appropriate time frame in disseminating information” about an on-going archeological excavation, versus the (yet legally undefined and unclear) “rights an archeologist has” to the primary sources, the “rawmaterial” of his/her excavation.

No doubt, the Kasta Hill excavation is an extraordinary archeological dig, the likes of which the World has not been accustomed to. In recent memory two other archeological findings may be close to this case in importance: the Antikythera Mechanism, in its 2014 follow up by the Woods-Hole Oceanographic Institution, and the processing of themanuscripts and the events surrounding the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Comparing the events in all these three cases becomes usefulin deriving certain conclusions regarding the proper handling of such significant archeological searches. It pinpoints the implied archeologists’ ethical responsibilities, not only in terms of a safe handling of the primary material but also in informing the public within a proper as well as reasonable time frame. The way Antikythera and the Scrolls (post 1991) were handled stands in sharp contrast to the way Amphipolis has been handled. One won’t even venture into the manner in which space exploration and live coverage of such events hastaken place and has been approached by both NASA and ESA (see for example the two relatively recent cases of the Huygens Titan’s landingassociated with the Cassini probe in 2005, and the most recent Philae landing on Comet 67P of the Rosetta spacecraft on November 12, 2014). It won’t even be necessary to mention the July 21st, 1969 Eagle landing on the Moon by Neil Armstrong with the Apollo 11 Lunar missionreported live and flashed on international TV around the World even back then. Such comparison of archeological reporting with space exploration is daunting and naturally very challenging to contemplate;but it puts in perspective the archeological search at Kasta Hill and its reporting requirements that were not met, by anyone’s account.

Since the discovery at Kasta Hill was made public on August 10th, 2014,the intense public interest and scrutiny throughout this excavation process brought up some obvious shortcoming by those responsible for handling the PR of this dig. A non-exhaustive and quite partial list of public complaints include the following aspects of public

87

communications follows; it is not meant to be just a rant, but a set of issues which archeological due process leads to pay close attentionto. Further, it should be noted that these comments do not mean to imply that either the archeological team or the ministry of culture had acted with ‘intent to deceive’ but just under poor judgment and attimes simple negligence. To avoid such conditions, safeguards need to be put in place to guide archeologists and public officials in the future. So, let’s take a look at what went wrong here.

Many findings were delayed in being made public; some although were announced as found, have never been offered to the public even in the form of photos (example: an EPISTYLIO found in chamber #1, broken intothree pieces, and taken under heavy police security to the local Museum “for maintenance” and for three months now no photo has been released of it). Highly selective photos were offered to the public, and some with obvious photo shop editing; only approximate measurements were offered of almost all entities inside and outside the tomb and never exact ones; diagrams have been offered with obviousinaccuracies in them; instead of electronic eyes and auto-Cad assistedcomputer generated drawings of the various chambers and their components, some hand-drawn diagrams-sketches were made public. Instead of live coverage as new chambers were being excavated and opened up for the first time in 23 centuries (and while the World was holding its collective breath as to what the archeological team may come across) we were offered press releases with day long delays in them. Instead of open ended press conferences to answer the public’s burning questions, few minutes of set photo opportunities were grantedto the press accepting limited number of questions to respond. Finally, instead of trying to address the public’s willingness to know, political considerations governed the public announcements. It was reported that the chief archeologist was in daily morning telephone contact with the Greek prime minister regarding the excavation’s progress! It was as if he had priority over his subjects,in knowing what was going on at Amphipolis. One should have asked Ms. Peristeri where in her job description says that she is obligated to do this, instead of informing the public at large. Was this a matter of National Security for Greece justifying such a behavior?

All these instances identify failures in action, private and public, and someone could easily be a critic of them all. True, all human endeavors are imperfect, and at times humans make individual mistakes

88

in commission or errors of omission. However, when there is such widespread failure to inform, persistent over so many months (if not years in this case, as the Kasta Hill site was known to hold archeological interest since the 1960s, work on seismic scanning was done in the 1990s and in 2003, and Peristeri herself started work on this Hill in 2011), then one is facing massive communication failures.The failures may be indicate of institutional (not only individual) inability to effectively discharge a public agency’s fiduciary responsibilities. One can safely assert this was the case with the excavation at Kasta Hill. To her credit, Peristeri had indicated her willingness to continuously inform the public about the excavation’s progress. But apparently the ministry of culture imposed severe constraints on her. Obviously, both the archeological team and the ministry of culture were caught largely unprepared to effectively handle and manage the PR of this excavation.

Surprisingly, most of the people in Greece seemed to be satisfied withthis grossly inadequate coverage of the excavation, since not much complaining was heard. In blogs, many would show a differential attitude towards both the archeological team and the ministry of culture’s agents handling this excavation. They recognized a “prerogative” to them and in their PR handling authority to reveal whatever they wished, whenever they wished. And this public reaction cuts to the heart of the matter. People just took it as a natural reaction to a State which has accustomed them to a perennial lack of openness and transparency. But there was another reason why the Greek public was accepting this lack of transparency by the archeological team and the ministry of culture. There is a demand for “conspiracy theories” and this lack of information was supplying them an excellentopportunity to derive such “theories”. It was a mutually beneficial co-existence. So, as a side effect of this one could say ‘massive failure’ in informing the public on time, the “conspiracy theories” industry flourished, in both blogs and certain media outlets. A natural reaction to information voids, coupled with a tendency under suspicion that someone was intentionally “hiding” from the public something (real or not), led many into resorting to the strange, the weird, and the unusual to “explain these conspiracy theories’ object of interest, whatever that was”; lack of information fed people’s imagination and led to certain outlandish claims. At the heart of all these “conspiracy theories” and “claims” was largely a belief that

89

ALEXANDROS’ tomb was at Kasta Hill and the state was hiding this fact from the people for anyone of a number of “reasons”. None of that assortment of “theories” will be elaborated here. Of course the publicsector’s attitude that was feeding these conspiracies is not necessarily what should have happened.

To rationally discuss what should have taken place, one needs to address the question: “what’s the ethical obligation an archeologist has to share ‘timely’ information about his/her ‘raw’ findings and their derivatives with the public and with colleagues”. To comprehensively answer this question, I wish to address some more fundamental issues here, and go beyond the set of grievances and side effects discussed above. Put differently, I wish to address the extentto which and for how long archeologists have a legitimate right to withhold evidence (in the form of “raw” findings, not their analysis, hypothesis, or conclusion) from the public and from other interested scientists and archeologists. One must ask, to what extent can archeologists be granted “monopoly” over their finding? An example close to Kasta Hill, involving another archeological team brings the point home: more than 40 years ago, in Amphipolis, archeologist Lazaridis came across the so-called “EFHBARXIKOS NOMOS” a 139 or so lines of writing from a 1st century BC Macedonian Stele. For all these years, no one has seen even a photo of this stele, as it awaits research analysis by Lazaridis’ daughter who’s the “custodian” of thisstele. This case, which is bordering the scandalous, may be a single and rare case, but a real case nonetheless. Yet, the Archeological establishment of Greece, the State and the public simply accept it. Infact, the Greek leftist Archeological establishment (by a petition signed by 140 members) has unfairly attacked Peristeri when she statedthat she wanted greater transparency and participation by the public, more involvement by it and consequently she expressed a willingness toshare information from the excavation with it! One may say that the stele’s treatment by the archeologist in charge (Lazaridis’s daughter)is a regrettable case setting precedent.

But to get a firmer grasp of the issues at hand and obtain a broader perspective on this issue, we need to take a look at some other examples. Let’s take a look first at the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered mainly during the period 1946-56 at Qumran, with other parts discovered in later years), a case of interest here, as it presents another precedent. There is no need to dwell on the details

90

of these parchment written documents, their history of discovery etc. Only one aspect of these Scrolls will be addressed, as it directly bears on the discussion here: their being made public under threat of legal action, as apparently a group of Jewish scholars had developed a“proprietary” attitude towards them. For many decades, this small group of scholars were controlling access to the Scrolls, not allowingeven photographs to be disseminated to other interested parties. Finally, in 1991 the Biblical Archeology Society provided photographs of the Scrolls (a derivative of the original raw archeological items) to the public, while investigations on the contents of these Scrolls was (and still is) on-going:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19910922&slug=1306832

The other case mentioned here is the Antikythera underwater archeological excavations undertaken during the September 15 – October15, 2014 period by the Woods-Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in cooperation with the Greek Navy:

http://antikythera.whoi.edu/2014/10/

During that underwater operation, using the latest technology for underwater archeology, enabling safe and prolonged dives under 50-60 meters from the surface and employing specially made suits, live coverage of the operations and the discovery of items was provided, under live streaming of data on the web with 4G technology. Although official announcements were censored by the ministry of culture as well, the effort by the US research Institution was pioneering. WHOI demonstrated to the World that in this decade of the 21st century archeology can’t operate as it did in the 19th or the 20th century. Worldwide interest in specific historical and archeological topics (like the Antikythera Mechanism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Kasta Hill), coupled with innovations in both electronic recording and communications technology demand a new set of standards in sharing information regarding discoveries of items which belong to the domain of public interest, be that a specific National domain or an International one.

So, what can one conclude from the above mentioned cases? Archeologists for sure should retain the right to physical proximity, as well as the responsibility for the proper handling of raw

91

archeological finds. Naturally, for a reasonable amount of time they should retain exclusive access to the raw items, but again for what can be considered as a reasonable amount of time. They do not possess (or have been explicitly or implicitly given by any authority and certainly not the public) exclusive rights to the various derivative products (accurate measurements, photographs, electronically transmitted images, videotapes etc., in anyway descriptive of the archeological raw material.) These derivatives belong to the public and not to any specific archeologist. And if they act as if they were granted such rights, then they abuse the public trust. The raw items of their excavations are sole property of the people that pay their salaries and employ them, the public. They do not have proprietary rights over them. They only have been given the right to exclusive direct access to raw items for a reasonable but limited amount of time, and they are obligated to supply to the public derivatives almost immediately upon discovery if not in live coverage. This needs to be well understood by them and their Institutions. Archeological due process DEONTOLOGIA (proper caring) isn’t a cover for prolonged denial of access, and certainly not an excuse for avoiding the PROMPT and immediate release of secondary, derivative, products from archeological raw material.

In summary, archeologists can no longer ask for or demand monopoly andexclusive rights (or copyrights) on the raw material they uncover. They certainly deserve credit for the uncovering of these items in rawform; they deserve any right possible to carry out their analysis as does anyone else interested in these findings including other archeologists and the public at large. Archeologists are obligated to supply to all parties interested secondary derivative information about raw findings in a manner which will not endanger the archeological process or the people involved. Archeologists ought to allow access to all those that wish to review and analyze these raw findings, at least in due course. Archeologists should not be given byright or obligation and any priority in presenting their findings overanyone else qualified to do so. The public certainly deserves immediate access to the derivative instruments from these raw items. For certain, archeologists in Greece must conform to and satisfy specific requirements regarding the presentation of their findings to both their colleagues and the public. And so should the Greek ministryof culture. Events surrounding this excavation and the PR associated

92

with it clearly demonstrated that these guidelines and procedures are badly in need of urgent revisions.

For sure, this new approach (if one could call it such) to archeological research will most likely take care of “conspiracy theories”. It will close the information gaps such “theories” fill andare fed from. Moreover this continuous flow of information will eliminate leaks by members of the archeological team; and in effect itwill wipe out a novel phenomenon which appeared throughout this excavation, namely “insider trading” of in situ discoveries. Some membersof the archeological team or the ministry of culture would supply information about the monument to outside entities, which then would find its way to the media, as exclusive “news” regarding the dig. Sucheconomic exploitation of public property raises legal questions and issues, which have been raised for the first time in the history of Archeology. Such questions were brought up in reference to some announcements made by archeologist Dorothy King which brought attention to the manner her information was obtained. She revealed that someone “from inside the ministry” was leaking information, although she acknowledged personally knowing the architect of the team, but denying he was the source of these leaks. Access to insider information by D. King resulted in many flocking to her webpage, unashamedly seeking “insiders information” as to what was either “not publicly reported” or “what about to be reported” by the Greek ministry of culture or the archeological team. Insider trading out of archeological finds which belong to the public, for personal gain (however that gain may be defined) is unethical. Avoidance of conflicts of interest of this type should be a part of a Professional Code of Conduct to which all archeologists must abide unequivocally.

APPENDIX 2. A short comment on DNA analysis and related issues.

Since the skeleton was discovered inside the tomb, obviously issues have been raised about using DNA of the bones to exactly identify the person buried there. It is hoped that such DNA analysis will take place (the Greek ministry of culture announced that such analysis is under discussion), in either of the two top laboratories specializing

93

in such work, at the University of Manchester, UK, or the University of Arizona, USA. The point to be made here is that Greece ought to have a DNA lab and radiocarbon dating capabilities (as well as labs with more advanced dating procedures, beyond carbon-14 dating, like potassium-argon dating, amino-acid dating, and many others for both organic as well as inorganic material) second to none in the World. The National Center for Scientific Research Demokritos does have a Laboratory of Archeometry in its Institute of Nanomaterials and Nano-Science and an advanced DNA laboratory is being planned for the University of Crete which however are not fully funded and supported according to standards met in Western European countries, the US, Japan and China. Greece ought also to have the most complete set of records on ancient DNA (covering the period 10,000 BC to the present, since so much DNA exploitable material is available there.) Greece ought to possess the most complete DNS bank in the World. Laboratoriescapable of doing such advanced work could provide an incubator type development pole for Greece.

Significant capital investment, domestically originating as well as from outside Greece, could be attracted by using Kasta Hill findings as a point of reference and stimulator. Moreover, Archeological research and work is a sector Greece enjoys significant comparative advantages, and thus an area for Greece to specialize and build up hereconomic development path. Potential archeological work is so extensive, that a Long Range rationally driven archeological exploration Plan must be set up, flexible enough to accommodate unexpected findings. A large segment of the Greek labor force could possibly be employed in this sector. In addition, the excitement created as a result of the Kasta Hill excavation (already mentioned) could attract many volunteers into Archeology, of all age groups and all regions of Greece. The unused human resource potential, in the form of unutilized volunteerism, is a national tragedy. There must be social and economic initiatives along these lines. The State should encourage and stimulate (although not mobilize, this ought to happen from the bottom up to be effective, not from the top down) the vast class of unemployed and underemployed youth to offer real service to the country by having all this human resource occupied with archeological exploration. It should also tap the potential of the highly educated and motivated retired professional class of Greek citizens, a class which can also contribute considerably to the

94

advancement of the state of the art in Archeology. Their immense energy and capabilities have been demonstrated over the past few months by their tireless participation in various internet blogs, researching all things connected with Kasta Hill’s excavation.

To do so, however, Greece needs a comprehensive Nation-wide smart and flexible dynamic land use plan, and a Labor Force employment and volunteerism Plan. Within such a Plan’s framework, the trade-offs regarding optimum mix of agricultural, archeologically restricted, industrial, residential, and tourist dedicated land areas, as well as archeological labor inducing incentives and archeological education and volunteerism programs should be set. Relevant regulations and restrictions must be firmly put in place, set and adhered to. Finally,optimal guidelines must be established and efficient monitoring of archeological sites must be secured to avoid looting. Dealing in antiquities is a widespread practice which needs to come to an end. Dealing in antiquities is an international disgrace, and requires an international approach. UNESCO must be the lead agency to initiate international legislation addressing this issue. Within Greece’s borders though, an end to illicit dealing in antiquities will only be accomplished with a nation-wide educational campaign, which will raiseawareness among all sectors, age groups, all occupations and in all regions of Greece. These plans and initiatives must be carried out with input and participation of local communities and institutions, soall will feel that they are “stake holders” and “participants into this effort”. For at the end, present generation Greeks themselves will be the ones to either get credit or blame for whatever happens totheir country’s archeological treasures, and not only. Empowerment isn’t simply a word, it’s a social imperative. And if the State would not move along the lines of advancing the interests of the Greek Landsand its people, then the Greek people should grasp the initiative. Allis in their hands.

APPENDIX 3. The persons of the drama at Kasta Hillmentioned in this Note.

1. Major characters :

95

Megas Alexandros, Hfaistion, Kassandros, Deinokratis, Antipatros, Olympias, Roxane, Alexandros IV, Polyperchon, Aristonous, architect B,the engineer,

2. Minor characters :

Perdikas, Krateros, Ptolemaios o Sotir, Kleitos, Parmenion, Philotas, Seleukos, Nearxos, Iollas, Aristotle, Diogenis (possible Hfaistion cavalry commander), Stateira II (Varsine), Drypteis (Paryratis).

3. Other individuals mentioned in the narrative :

Achilles, Patroklos, Homer, Laomedon, Abdalonymos, Thucydides, Philippos II, Philippos III, Vitruvius, Amyntor, Herodotus, Arrianos, Diodoros of Sicily, Pausanias, Persephone, Pluto, Zeus, Hermes, Meleagros, W. Heisenberg, E. Schrodinger, A. Peristeri, D. Lazaridis, T. Mavrojannis, P. McKechnie, S. Marinatos, M. Andronikos, Y. Lekakis,M. Lefantzis, T.F. Josephus.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements. Comments by Professor Mavrojannis of the University of Cyprus are greatly acknowledged. Further, comments from ARXAIOGNOMON, who published an older version of this Note:

http://ellinondiktyo.blogspot.com/2014/11/on-hfaistion-at-kasta-hill-hypothesis.html

Embedotimos, Effie Tsilibari, Panagiotis Petropoulos, Virginia Kavraki, Apostolos Gouzis, Konstantinos Kairis, Erasitexnis (Viky Papadopoulou), Dimitris Tsimperis, Ioannis Tzanakakis, and Theodoros Spanelis, Editor of XRONOMETRO are also greatly appreciated. Assistance by Panayiotis Petropoulos with historical references, and

96

in converting this manuscript into successive PDF files is also appreciated. The author is solely responsible for any errors in fact or judgments and views expressed. In particular, the comments by EffieTsilibari and Ioannis Tzanakakis as well as the work by Panagiotis Petropoulos are deeply appreciated. I also wish to thank my Facebook friends for their comments and encouragement:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100006919804554

By Dimitrios S. Dendrinos [George Watkins and J. Peters are both literary pseudonyms]

2:00AM EST-US, November 29, 2014 (Last revision).

©Copyright by “Dimitrios S. Dendrinos” No parts of this paper may bereproduced without the written consent of the author.

End Notes.

1. This Note presents the latest of an ongoing research effort by the author. Citing parts of this study is allowed, as long as proper reference to the work-Note’s author is given.

2. This is the last draft prepared by me, before the November 22, 2014 announcement by the archeological team. The next revision will be a new paper, taking under account the news these people made during that presentation.

3. My last entry on substance took place on 12/3/14 at 11pm EST US.4. The real name of this Note’s author is “Dimitrios S. Dendrinos”

Professor Emeritus, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas USA. In residence at Ormond Beach, Florida, USA

5. Since the November 29th 2014 announcements by the archeological team on the subject of the Kasta Hill monument, the above three key assumptions (the two Peristeri hypotheses and the Mavroyannishypothesis) need to be revised. This is now the subject of an ongoing new Paper, partly in co-operation with Effie Tsilibari. (2/17/2015 4:10pm EST US).

6. The paper is published only for purposes of archiving and documenting work done by the author in the past year, in regards to the Monument/Tomb at Kasta Hill. It is obvious that as new

97

evidence and closer scrutiny dictate the assertions, hypotheses and main theses of this paper need revisions and have been revised in forthcoming publications.

7. A related publication by the author is that on “The Modular Structure of the Tomb at Kasta Hill” found in: https://www.academia.edu/10923712/The_modular_structure_of_the_tomb_at_Kasta_Hill_by_D_Dendrinos

____________________________________________________________________________________

98