Interview with Nicholas J. Saunders: "the best qualified people to interpret Amphipolis tomb are the professional Greek archaeologists now excavating it"

August 30, 2014, 1:42 pm

≫ Next: Exposición - "Macedonian treasures" llega al Museo Arqueológico de Pella

≪ Previous: Entrevista con Fernando Bermejo: "dado que Jesús fue convertido enseguida en una figura venerada, la importancia de Juan el Bautista tuvo que ser neutralizada"

Access to the tomb, with two great sphynx. Photo: Hellenic Ministry of Culture

Regarding the great Amphipolis tomb, Greece, have been already written many lines, although the research team led by Katerina Peristeri has not finished yet the excavation of the site, discovered in 2012. Mediterráneo Antiguo has sought to find an authoritative voice, Nicholas J. Saunders, professor at the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Bristol, author of The tomb of Alexander in 2006, published in Spain by Editorial Planeta in 2007 and one of the most importants recent studies about the question of the tomb of Alexander the Great. Here is our conversation with him.

Question - What do you think about the Amphipolis tomb? Could it be the burial of Laomedon or Nearchus?
Answer - I think the tomb is a wonderful discovery, and the best qualified people to interpret it are the professional Greek archaeologists now excavating it. Whoever is buried inside (as long as it’s not looted), it could be a very important discovery for tourism and the local community. So, in my opinion the tomb could belong to several possible individuals: it could be one of Alexander’s Companions and high-ranking successors, such as Nearchus or Laomedon, as neither of them would have been buried at Aegae. Also Nearchus at least came from Amphipolis so it would be natural to build a high status tomb nearby for one of Alexander’s great men. Also it could be perhaps be Roxanne as she (and her son Alexander IV) were murdered by Cassander at Amphipolis. Roxanne could be buried here as she was not Argead royal blood, but Alexander IV was, so it is likely he was buried at Aegae, which would perhaps agree with Andronikos’ identification – I agree with Andronikos (though I think some experts still argue about it). It could also perhaps be Alexander’s sister Cleopatra who was murdered at Sardis but probably on Cassander’s orders – though again one would think that because she was Argead royal blood she would be at Aegae. Macedonians and especially those of Amphipolis, hated Cassander for his murders of Alexander’s family, and when Cassander died they welcomed Demetrius his successor – so it would be no surprise that they built a massive tomb nearby – possibly for reburying Roxanne (and others?). It could of course be a ‘surprise’ multiple burial with several burial chambers as at Vergina - with some permutation of Nearchus, Laomedon, Roxanne, Cleopatra, or perhaps even Heracles – Alexander’s illegitimate son by his Persian mistress Barsine? Interesting question about Heracles being Alexander’s son and therefore Argead blood – but maybe not buried at Aegae because of his illegitimacy? Almost nothing is known of the deaths/burials of these individuals. It’s a real mystery – and more exciting because of it.

Question - What about the possibility of a massive burial of macedonian soldiers?

Inside de tomb. Photo: Hellenic Ministry of Culture

Answer - Interesting idea which recalls the mass burial of the Sacred Band inside the polyandrion at Chaeronea (338 BC) – and with a Lion on top as well. The Amphipolis tomb could be something similar – but it’s so huge – much bigger than the Chaeronea tomb so it is probably unlikely in my opinion. I think that with this new tomb – size relates to status not number of bodies. Also it’s intriguing because it is so huge that it rivals Aegae in this way, but is not actually in that sacred dynastic landscape so is ‘inferior’ in that way – so it’s an intriguing mix – perhaps a compromise paid for with silver from the famous Amphipolis mint.

Question - Manolis Andronikos identified the corpse of a young man of 13-14 years as the Alexander's son, Alexander IV, in Vergina (ancient Aegae). What do you think?
Answer - There is still some disagreement about the identification of Alexander IV at Vergina – though in my opinion Andronikos is correct in saying it is Tomb III at Vergina. As a legitimate heir, Alexander IV would have been buried at Aegae, the objects in the tomb are about right date – 308 BC, and analysis of cremated bones indicate a youth – and he was murdered at 13 years old. So I think that most experts would agree with Andronikos – so it may be that after their bodies had been discovered from the secret places that Cassander had hid them, the mother Roxanne was re-buried at Amphipolis and her royal son at Aegae.

Detail of a polychrome capitel. Photo: Hellenic Ministry of Culture

Question - About Alexander's tomb, it is sure that he is not buried in Greece. All historical sources talk about his tomb in Alexandria. What do you think?
Answer - Yes, I agree, it is almost impossible to imagine that the new Amphipolis discovery is Alexander’s tomb for many archaeological and historical and literary reasons. It is an intriguing possibility that it was designed and built for Alexander (his body was destined for Macedonia when Ptolemy hijacked it to Egypt), but the problem with this is that he would have been buried in his ancestral royal burial ground at Aegae/Vergina – it would have been impossible to bury him anywhere else in Macedonia – and Amphipolis was very secondary to Aegae. So, all the sources are correct – he was buried (several times) in Alexandria, where his mummy was visited by Julius Caesar, and several Roman emperors. Those sources must be right. I think Alexander’s tomb (or at least the remaining foundations of it) are still there many metres down below the modern city streets in Alexandria at the location I pinpoint in my book. It’s difficult to believe that there would be much left of the building itself however. As for his mummified body, that’s a quite different matter. It could be destroyed (burnt) in the Christian riots; it could have been hidden somewhere else in Egypt – perhaps in the huge Ptolemaic period cemetery at Bahariya (Valley of the Golden Mummies); but my own favourite explanation is that his body was broken into pieces and sold as powerful talismans to Alexandrians (who still loved him even when many of them became Christians) – this was a very popular phenomenon, and in my opinion it was the beginning of the subsequently well-known Christian practice of Saint’s body-parts as sacred powerful objects. So, in a sense, Alexander’s body could have been returned in small pieces to the inhabitants of his own city!?

Author
Mario Agudo Villanueva

↧

Exposición - "Macedonian treasures" llega al Museo Arqueológico de Pella

September 4, 2014, 8:28 am

≫ Next: Exhibition: "Macedonian treasures" at New Archaeological Museum of Pella

≪ Previous: Interview with Nicholas J. Saunders: "the best qualified people to interpret Amphipolis tomb are the professional Greek archaeologists now excavating it"

Vista general de la muestra. Foto: Museo Arqueológico de Pella

El Museo Arqueológico de Pella inaugura mañana, 5 de septiembre, la exposición "Macedonian treasures", que podrá visitarse hasta el 30 de septiembre de 2015. Se trata de una muestra de más de 500 tesoros encontrados en los territorios en los que se ubicaba el antiguo reino de Macedonia, situado al norte de Grecia. Hallazgos arqueológicos de los últimos 25 años de trabajo en la zona, que incluyen máscaras y coronas de oro, joyería, brocados, armas, esculturas únicas, trabajos en metal, alabastro, cerámica y muchos más objetos procedentes de las necrópolis de Egas (actual Vergina) y Arcóntico,

Cartel oficial de la exposición. Foto: Museo Arqueológico de Pella

que fue predecesora de Pella en el período arcaico del reino macedonio (siglos VII-VI a.C.) La colección se presenta por primera vez al público en una gran exposición temporal que servirá a su vez para potenciar el nuevo Museo Arqueológico de Pella, pues se ubicará en la planta superior.

Algunos de estos objetos arqueológicos se ganaron al público en dos grandes exposiciones, una en el Ashmolean Museum de Oxford y la otra en el Louvre, de París. Ahora ha llegado la hora de exhibirlas en su lugar de origen. Aquí os dejamos la información que publicamos con motivo de esta exposición itinerante: The Heracles to Alexander the Great.

Para más información sobre la muestra, podéis visitar las webs http://www.aigai.gr/ y http://www.pella-museum.gr/

Autor
Mario Agudo Villanueva

↧

Exhibition: "Macedonian treasures" at New Archaeological Museum of Pella

September 4, 2014, 8:31 am

≫ Next: Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the Tomb at Amphipolis?

≪ Previous: Exposición - "Macedonian treasures" llega al Museo Arqueológico de Pella

Exhibition's overview. Photo: Archaeological Museum of Pella

More than 500 treasures of Macedonian land, archaeological finds of the last 25 years, including gold crowns, gold masks, jewellery, brocaded weapons, unique sculptures, metalwork, alabaster and clay pottery and many more finds from the necropolis of the Aigai and Archontiko, which was the predecessor of Pella in the archaic period (7th-6th century B.C.), will be presented for the first time to the Greek public at a large temporary exhibition in the new Archaeological Museum of Pella. The temporary exhibition is entitled "Macedonian Treasures", will be held on the upper floor of the new Archaeological Museum of Pella and will last until September 30, 2015.

Exhibition's poster. Photo: Archaeological Museum of Pella

The exhibition will open on Friday, September 5th at 11:30 by the Minister of Culture and Sports, Constantine Tassoulas.

In 2011 some of the archaeological objects in the new exhibition won the European public in two major exhibitions abroad, in Oxford (Ashmolean Museum) and Paris (Louvre). Now it is time to present them in their birthplace, along with many other treasures presented for the first time to the wide public.

For more information, you can visit the official webs http://www.aigai.gr/ and http://www.pella-museum.gr/

Author
Mario Agudo Villanueva

↧

Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the Tomb at Amphipolis?

September 8, 2014, 7:01 am

≫ Next: Entrevista con Andrés Carretero: "hemos conseguido mostrar al público que la arqueología no tiene por qué ser aburrida"

≪ Previous: Exhibition: "Macedonian treasures" at New Archaeological Museum of Pella

The recently discovered sphinxes guarding the entrance to the Lion Tomb beneath the great mound at Amphipolis in Macedonia were unveiled on August 12th 2014 during a visit by the Greek prime minister, Antonis Samaras. They may be telling us more than has yet been realised about the occupant of this newly excavated tomb and its connections with other important Macedonian tombs of the period. That they are indeed sphinxes, rather than griffins or winged lions, is shown by the fact that both originally had human female breasts in the chest area. Despite the fact that these breasts, together with the heads and wings, were removed by deliberate mutilation at some time in the past, published photos clearly show the stone starting to protrude at the rims of the damaged patches (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1. The sphinxes recently revealed sitting above the tomb entrance at Amphipolis

Figure 2: Close-up of the right-hand sphinx

The tomb has been dated to the last quarter of the fourth century before Christ (325-300BC) by the archaeologists, led by Katerina Peristeri. This was the period immediately following the death of Alexander the Great in 323BC. Sphinxes are not particularly common in high status Macedonian tombs of this era, but, significantly, sphinxes were prominent parts of the decoration of two thrones found in the late 4th century BC tombs of two Macedonian queens in the royal cemetery at Aegae (modern Vergina) in Macedonia. The first of these was found in the tomb attributed to Eurydice I, the grandmother of Alexander the Great. Carved sphinxes were among the decorations of its panels until they were stolen by thieves in 2001 (Figure 3).

Figure 3. The throne of Eurydice I and its panel with sphinxes

Secondly, a marble throne was found in another royal tomb close by the tomb of Eurydice I by K. A. Rhomaios in 1938. It was in pieces, but has since been reconstructed (Figure 4) and it has sphinxes as supporters for both arm rests and also royal Macedonian starbursts at the head of its back panel. Archaeology has shown that this tomb was never covered by the usual tumulus, so it may never have been occupied. It dates roughly to the end of the 4th century BC. Both of these tombs are from a section of the royal cemetery dominated by high status female graves and therefore known as the “Queens’ Cluster”.

Figure 4: The throne of a late 4th century BC queen from the Rhomaios tomb at Aegae

It therefore seems that sphinxes were a particular symbol of late 4th century BC Macedonian queens. But why might Macedonian queens have associated themselves with sphinxes? One possible answer emerges from Greek mythology. Apollodorus 3.5.8 wrote: Laius was buried by Damasistratus, king of Plataea, and Creon, son of Menoeceus, succeeded to the kingdom. In his reign a heavy calamity befell Thebes. For Hera sent the Sphinx, whose mother was Echidna and her father Typhon; and she
had the face of a woman, the breast and feet and tail of a lion, and the wings of a bird. So the sphinx was the creature of Hera, Queen of the Gods and wife of Zeus. It is well known that the kings of Macedon traced their descent from Zeus via Heracles (e.g. Diodorus 17.1.5 and Plutarch, Alexander 2.1), that they put depictions of Zeus on their coinage and that they associated themselves with Zeus quite generally. They celebrated an important festival of Zeus at Dion and the people of Eresus in Lesbos erected altars to Zeus Philippios (M. N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions 2, 1948, no. 191.6) - possibly indicating the divinisation of Philip II in the guise of Zeus. If the Macedonian king posed as Zeus, it would consequently hardly be surprising if his senior queen became associated with Hera, the mistress of the sphinx.

The sphinxes at Amphipolis may therefore be interpreted as suggesting that the occupant of the tomb was a prominent queen of Macedon. Do we know from the historical record that any such queen died at Amphipolis in the last quarter of the 4th century BC? There are in fact two such candidates: Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great and Roxane, his wife. The situation regarding Roxane is straightforward: she was killed on the orders of Cassander together with her 13-yearold son, Alexander IV, whilst imprisoned at Amphipolis in 310BC (Diodorus 19.52.4 & 19.105.2). The location of the death of Olympias is less clear, the only good evidence being the account of Diodorus 19.50-51. After Olympias surrendered to Cassander in the spring of 316BC at Pydna, he immediately sent troops to seek the surrender of her troops at Pella and at Amphipolis. Pella duly capitulated, but
Aristonous at Amphipolis initially refused compliance. Therefore Cassander had Olympias write him a letter ordering him to surrender. After he had done so, Cassander immediately arranged the murders of both Aristonous and Olympias. Although Olympias’s whereabouts at this point are ambiguous, it would seem very unlikely that Cassander did not himself go to Amphipolis with his army, given that
these events took weeks to transpire. If so, it would seem likely that he took Olympias with him, rather than leave her alone in another part of freshly re-conquered Macedonia, potentially to be rescued by her supporters. Therefore there is a good chance that Olympias too died at Amphipolis.

The tombs of Alexander’s father, Philip II, and of his son Alexander IV, were unearthed under another enormous mound in the royal cemetery at Aegae by Manolis Andronicus in the late 1970s. There are some interesting parallels between this pair of tombs and the new finds at Amphipolis. Firstly, elements of the painted decoration of the architectural elements at Amphipolis are a near exact match to such decoration in the tomb of Alexander IV at Aegae (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Painted decoration in the tomb at Amphipolis (left) and the tomb of Alexander IV (right)

Secondly, a spaced line of 8-petal rosettes newly discovered in the Amphipolis tomb provide a close match for the similar lines of rosettes that decorate the edge bands of the gold larnax from Philip II’s tomb at Aegae (Figure 6). Olympias will of course have been involved in arrangements for the entombment of her husband.

Figure 6. The line of 8-petal rosettes found at Amphipolis match the rosettes on the larnax of Alexander's father

Thirdly, the lion monument that once stood atop the great mound at Amphipolis was reconstructed on the basis of its fragments by Jacques Roger and his colleagues in an article published in 1939 (Le Monument au Lion d’Amphipolis, BCH 63, pp. 4-42). There are close parallels between the façade of this monument and the facades of the tombs of Philip II and Alexander IV (Figure 7). Note also that the simulated roof edge at the top of the façade of the tomb of Alexander IV matches the simulated roof edge above the rosettes in the Amphipolis tomb (Figure 6).

Figure 7. Roger’s reconstruction of the façade of the Amphipolis monument (left) compared with the facades of the tombs of Philip II and Alexander IV at Aegae.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the freshly revealed floor of white marble fragments fixed in a matrix of red cement in the vestibule of the tomb at Amphipolis has an exact match in a patch of flooring revealed in the late 4th century BC royal palace at Aegae (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Floor section of marble fragments in a red cement matrix in the royal palace at Aegae (left) compared with the similar floor in the vestibule of the Amphipolis tomb (right)

On this evidence I consider Olympias to be the leading contender at the time of writing (6/9/2014) for the occupant of the magnificent tomb at Amphipolis currently being excavated with Roxane also a strong possibility. It should be recalled that the tomb mound has a diameter of 155m, larger even than the Great Tumulus at Aegae and posing the question of whom the Macedonians would conceivably have spent this much money and effort upon commemorating, Olympias is by far the most convincing answer at present. Although it is true that the ancient accounts say that she was unpopular at the time of her death, it is nevertheless clear that she was only really unpopular with Cassander’s faction, whereas Cassander himself was sufficiently worried about her popularity as to arrange her immediate death in order to prevent her addressing the Macedonian Assembly (Diodorus 19.51). Furthermore, her army under Aristonous stayed loyal to her cause long after she herself had surrendered.

Ultimately, her cause was seen at the time as identical with the cause of Alexander himself, so it was in a sense Alexander whom they honoured by building his mother a spectacular tomb. If it were objected that Cassander would not have allowed the construction of a magnificent tomb for his enemies, Olympias and/or Roxane, I would note that Cassander probably did permit the entombment of Alexander IV at Aegae, since his tomb seems to have been constructed during Cassander’s reign. I also see no cardinal reason for Cassander to have denied his enemies burial and it does not appear
generally to have been the practice that rulers did not allow the entombment of dead enemies at the time. Counter examples are numerous, e.g. Arrian 3.22.1 wrote: Alexander sent the body of Darius to Persepolis, with orders that it should be buried in the royal sepulchre, in the same way as the other Persian kings before him had been buried.

It is especially interesting and pertinent that another pair of monumental late 4th to early 3rd century BC freestanding female Greek sphinx sculptures was uncovered by Auguste Mariette in excavating the dromos of the Memphite Serapeum at Saqqara in Egypt in 1851 (Figure 9). These sphinxes are a very good parallel for the Amphipolis sphinxes and Lauer & Picard in their 1955 book on the Greek sculptures at the Serapeum argued that they date to Ptolemy I. A semicircle of statues of Greek philosophers and poets was also uncovered by Mariette in the dromos of the Memphite Serapeum near to the sphinxes (Figure 10) and Dorothy Thompson in her 1988 book on Memphis Under The Ptolemies suggested that the semicircle had guarded the entrance of the first tomb of Alexander the Great at Memphis. I elaborated on this idea in my article on The Sarcophagus of Alexander the Great
published in Greece & Rome in April 2002. Later, in the 2nd edition of my book on The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great (May 2012), I wrote in the context of discussing the semicircle: “In 1951 Lauer discovered a fragment of an inscription in the neighbourhood of some other Greek statues [including the pair of Greek sphinxes] standing further down the dromos of the Serapeum. It appears to be an artist’s signature in Greek characters of form dating to the early third century BC. It therefore
seems likely that all the Greek statuary at the Serapeum was sculpted under Ptolemy I, hence these statues were contemporaneous with Alexander’s Memphite tomb.”

Figure 9. The sphinxes found by Mariette in the dromos of the Serapeum at Memphis

Figure 10. The relationship between the semicircle and the sphinxes at the Serapeum

These monumental pairs of sphinx statues from the late 4th to early 3rd century BC may prove to be virtually unique to the Amphipolis tomb and the probable Serapeum tomb. (The only similar sphinxes I have yet discovered are the pair decorating an end of the lid of the “Lydian sarcophagus” found together with the “Alexander sarcophagus”, belonging to Abdalonymus, in the royal necropolis at Sidon.) If so, it greatly reinforces the connection of both the Amphipolis tomb and the Serapeum with Alexander. It potentially reinforces the dating of the Serapeum sculptures to Ptolemy I (which has been much disputed, though on scant evidence). It also directly connects the Greek sphinxes of the Serapeum with a royal Macedonian tomb of the late 4th century BC located in Macedon, thus boosting the candidacy of the Serapeum as the site of Alexander’s initial tomb, later moved to Alexandria. It is even possible that Olympias commissioned the sphinxes found at the Serapeum in order to decorate the tomb of her illustrious son at Memphis.

Author
Andrew Chugg
Author of The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great and several academic
papers on Alexander’s tomb (see https://independent.academia.edu/AndrewChugg
and www.alexanderstomb.com)

↧

Entrevista con Andrés Carretero: "hemos conseguido mostrar al público que la arqueología no tiene por qué ser aburrida"

September 20, 2014, 6:21 am

≫ Next: Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the tomb at Amphipolis (Part II)

≪ Previous: Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the Tomb at Amphipolis?

Andrés Carretero en el patio de escultura romana. Foto: Dani Duch ©MAN

El pasado 1 de abril abrió sus puertas al público el Museo Arqueológico Nacional, el más importante de España en su especialidad, el segundo de Madrid por su significado y uno de los más relevantes de Europa por sus contenidos. Paseando por sus renovadas salas podemos adentrarnos en la historia de nuestro país, desde la Prehistoria hasta la Edad Moderna, a través de un recorrido por las piezas arqueológicas más importantes de nuestro territorio. Las nuevas instalaciones han permitido al MAN afrontar con garantías los retos del siglo XXI, en el que los museos han dejado de ser lugares donde se almacenan y muestran obras de arte por su valor estético a ser espacios que ofrecen multitud de alternativas. Por ello hemos querido hablar con Andrés Carretero, el director del Museo Arqueológico Nacional, quién ha atendido amablemente la llamada de Mediterráneo Antiguo.

Pregunta - Tras el boom del estreno del museo ¿cuál ha sido el volumen de visitas durante los meses de julio y agosto?
Respuesta – Te puedo decir que esta semana llegaremos al medio millón de visitantes. Desde el 1 de abril, que abrimos al público, llevamos 491.817. Además, con una progresión muy curiosa: el primer mes fue el bombazo de la reapertura, en el que tuvimos 170.000 visitantes. De ahí cayó al mes siguiente, pero desde entonces vamos creciendo hasta el mes de agosto, en el hemos superado los 90.000 visitantes. En cinco meses hemos llegado al medio millón de visitantes que es una cota que era la que nos planteábamos casi para el año. Cuando el museo cerró, su límite estaba en los 200.000 visitantes, le costaba mucho pasar de esa cifra al año. Ahora en septiembre encima comienzan a venir los colegios.

Pregunta - ¿Y cuáles cree usted que son los motivos del éxito?
Respuesta - Los museos arqueológicos siempre tienen la imagen de museo aburrido, erudito… Hemos contado con un buen reflejo en prensa. Hubo 103 periodistas acreditados en la inauguración. El reflejo fue muy bueno y la gente se ha enterado de que hemos abierto. Hemos conseguido mostrar al público que la arqueología no tiene por qué ser aburrida. Se está produciendo un boca a boca de la gente que se recomienda venir al museo.

Pregunta - ¿Cuáles han sido las principales apuestas del nuevo espacio expositivo?
Respuesta – Son muchas. Es un museo grande y complejo y, sobre todo, cualquier movimiento en una institución de este tipo requiere una reflexión previa e intensa. No es una exposición temporal, es una exposición que va para 30 años. Había varias líneas de actuación. Una era la de modernizar los servicios y las instalaciones. La última reforma material fue la de Almagro a finales de los 60, con lo que se había quedado obsoleto en términos arquitectónicos. Una segunda línea era la de la accesibilidad, en los tiempos que corren hay que prestar atención a la accesibilidad, que es la que nos ha llevado, en correlación con la arquitectura, a cambiar los recorridos con esa rampa de acceso que nos ayuda a organizar el flujo de la exposición. El antiguo montaje tenía una estructura radial. Hacer la entrada lateral ayuda a generar flujos norte-sur y seguir la linealidad expositiva. Otra meta era la de modernizar servicios o crear servicios. Cuando se hizo la última reforma, lo de las exposiciones temporales y talleres didácticos era una entelequia.

Andrés Carretero en el patio donde se encuentra Pozo Moro. Foto: Dani Duch ©MAN

En los 70, no se planteaban estas cosas. El MAN no estaba pensado para esto, pues hablamos de servicios al público que ni existían como concepto en el 70. Nos hemos planteado tener una sala de exposiciones temporales, tener un salón de actos propio de ese nombre, una sala de conferencias para actos menos multitudinarios o tener un vestíbulo de recepción amplio y espacioso. Crear salas para actividades didácticas o dotarle de una librería en condiciones. A lo largo del proceso de reforma, de hecho, el museo ha crecido del orden de 4.500 metros, que es lo más que permite la norma de edificación. De esos 4.500, prácticamente 4.000 son servicios al público. Todo ha cambiado de lugar, pero la superficie de conservadores, almacenes… sigue siendo la misma. La biblioteca sí ha crecido, pero se puede considerar también un servicio. Es decir, el grueso del crecimiento ha ido hacia los servicios al público, aunque la exposición permanente ha pasado de unos 7.000 a 9.000 metros. El siguiente núcleo básico de actuación era el conseguir la meta de acercarnos a un público más general. Cuando ves los estudios de público que se han hecho, uno en 2002 y otro en 2009, ves que la mitad de visitantes eran titulados superiores o doctores, lo que era una cifra altísima y que además iba creciendo. En cambio, el porcentaje de gente con estudios elementales o sin estudios, ha ido bajando hasta ahora. Cada vez venía más gente con estudios y menos sin estudios. Era evidente que el museo resultaba duro de visita para la persona que no tiene conocimientos. Una meta era que el museo se acercara más al público general, a segmentos no puramente intelectuales. Eso solo podía hacerse planteándose la museografía por otras líneas.

Pregunta - ¿Y cuáles son las líneas que permiten acercar el museo a esas personas sin estudios superiores?
Respuesta - Aquí han entrado multitud de planteamientos. Decidimos separar claramente la cronología de la historia de España que, salvo especialistas o algunos visitantes extranjeros, es lo que buscan la mayoría de visitantes. Por otro lado, queríamos separar la historia de España del resto de las colecciones (Grecia, Egipto y Próximo Oriente). Para ello se colocó en medio la historia del museo, para explicar por qué están esas colecciones en el MAN. Otra cuestión es ¿hasta qué época llegar con el Museo? El MAN tenía el concepto de museo arqueológico en el sentido del siglo XIX, es decir, de antigüedades. Cuando se crea el Museo Arqueológico su objetivo fue el aglutinar todo lo que no fuera al Museo del Prado. Era un gran museo de antigüedades de todo tipo y clase. Decidimos llegar en el discurso hasta Isabel II. Esto facilita que el visitante tenga mayor sensación de narrativa histórica, van percibiendo que hay una secuencia histórica amplia y con contenidos arqueológicos de todo tipo, que realmente estaban en el museo. Hemos ido soltando colecciones a otros museos a lo largo de todo el siglo.

Nuevo vestíbulo del museo. Foto: Niccolo Guasti ©MAN

Pregunta - ¿Cómo se plasma este plan en el discurso museográfico?
Respuesta - Bajando al detalle de la museografía, lo que hicimos fue trabajar mucho en el esquema básico. La cronología es la que es. Lo importante era decidir de qué hablas en cada período, hasta qué grado de profundidad llegar. Queríamos que los visitantes tuvieran una aproximación clara a cada uno de los momentos históricos y tratamos de ir estructurando detalladamente todo el contenido. De cara período histórico se establecieron unidades temáticas y de ahí, unidades expositivas. Fuimos procurando que toda la información fuera equilibrada, salvo el área de Edad Moderna, que es más reducida a propósito, porque hay muchas otras alternativas en Madrid con colecciones bastante ricas. Se estructuró el discurso de esta manera haciendo una distribución espacial, lo que no resultó tarea fácil.

Pregunta - ¿Cuáles son ahora los retos del MAN?
Respuesta – Como reto general tenemos el de tratar de demostrar que un museo arqueológico no tiene porqué ser aburrido. Crear una tónica de trabajo que nos permita irnos abriendo a todo tipo de público. Ya vemos que viene gente muy variada al museo, pero se trata de que no sea solo la novedad. Se trata de que la gente vuelva a través de actividades que reclamen su atención. Queremos que la gente repita en su visita al museo. Creo que el éxito de los museos no hay que medirlo por la gente que va sino por la que vuelve. El museo tiene que ofrecer actividades, tiene que ofrecer cosas que hagan que la gente regrese. Tratar de fidelizar además públicos variados. Por eso hacemos lo de la pieza del mes, la visita guiada de los miércoles… Hay que tener claros los niveles a lo que nos dirigimos. No hay que dar erudición, porque el erudito ya sabe lo que es la Dama de Baza. Hay gente que necesita que se le explique la Dama de Baza, ese es al que hay que explicarle los elementos y el significado de esas piezas. Esa es la línea en la que se ha hecho el montaje y en la que se están planteando todas las actividades. Es un enfoque más didáctico. Por supuesto, seguiremos manteniendo la agenda de actos académicos, ahora comienza una mesa redonda sobre cruzados en la Reconquista, por ejemplo.

Pregunta - En momentos de crisis, hay personas que ven la inversión en cultura, y especialmente en la arqueología, como un derroche innecesario ¿qué les diría usted para convencerlos?
Respuesta – A parte del conocimiento histórico que se genera, que según quién puede importarle bastante poco, hay que decir que la actividad arqueológica es nuestra historia como tal. Las instituciones culturales recogen esa historia. La inversión en cultura puede no notarse de forma directa, pero es fundamental. Hay personas que tienen la obsesión de cuadrar el balance, pero hay que ver qué actividad indirecta genera un museo. La Cueva de Altamira deja para Santillana del Mar cerca de 30 millones de euros al año. Eso es un beneficio que está generando una institución cultural, a través del tráfico de turistas que consumen, se alojan, comen… Son generadores indirectos, pero al fin y al cabo generadores de actividad económica a su alrededor. También generan actividad directa. Por ejemplo, la inversión en la remodelación del MAN ha permitido que trabajen aquí muchas personas durante el transcurso de las obras, por lo que se ha generado empleo. A parte de que vivimos en un mundo con un nivel cultural cada vez más alto y sería incomprensible que un gobierno no intentara fomentar la presencia de instituciones culturales, que son necesarias como elementos educativos. Es una educación informal, que no es la académica, pero que participa en ese proceso de elevación general del nivel educativo de la población.

Pregunta – ¿Volverán las exposiciones temporales una vez que finalice la de las Mercedes?
Respuesta – Por supuesto, aunque no es fácil en el momento actual. El volumen de exposiciones temporales en toda Europa ha bajado. Por ejemplo, nosotros veníamos prestando del orden de 1000 piezas anuales a exposiciones temporales. Ahora mismo prestamos muchas menos menos. Conseguir financiación para grandes actividades como las exposiciones temporales es difícil, pero han llamado a nuestra puerta ya muchas de ellas.

Pregunta - ¿Y qué harán en el terreno de la divulgación?
Respuesta - Una novedad que estamos haciendo ahora es la publicación de catálogos monográficos de nuestras colecciones. Vamos a lanzar un catálogo relacionado con los trabajos de Luis Siret y otro con las piezas del yacimiento de La Bastida de Totana, donde se están produciendo importantes hallazgos de la mano de Vicente Lull, a quién tendremos aquí dentro de poco en una mesa redonda. Poco a poco iremos publicando más catálogos que estarán disponibles en la web del museo y que servirán par ampliar el conocimiento sobre nuestras colecciones.

Autor
Mario Agudo Villanueva

↧

Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the tomb at Amphipolis (Part II)

September 21, 2014, 10:40 pm

≫ Next: Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the Tomb of Amphipolis? (Part III)

≪ Previous: Entrevista con Andrés Carretero: "hemos conseguido mostrar al público que la arqueología no tiene por qué ser aburrida"

I wrote my initial article on this question on the morning of 6th September (a day before the announcement of the discovery of the caryatids) and I drew a number of inferences from the evidence then available:

In this extension of my first article I will describe how the newly discovered caryatids, shown in Figures 1 and 2, may be fitted into the scenario and I will explain why the symbolism of a lion particularly suits the case of Olympias. Finally, I will discuss a few objections to the candidacy of Olympias.

Fig. 1. The left-hand caryatid in the vestibule of the tomb

Fig. 2. The torsos of the Amphipolis caryatids

Caryatids, meaning in general pillars formed from sculptures of female figures, are extremely common in Greek and Roman art and architecture. The twisted locks of hair coming forward over the shoulders of the Amphipolis caryatids are a common feature. However, their stance and in particular the arrangement of their arms is slightly more distinctive. They stand facing forward either side of a doorway as near mirror images of one another and they each have the arm on the side of the doorway
upraised and the opposite arm lowered and slightly lifting the dress. The closest parallel to the Amphipolis caryatids that I have yet seen is a caryatid from Tralles (modern Aydin in Turkey) shown in Figure 3. It probably dates to the early Roman period (1st century BC). However, Roman period caryatids were very often closely based on Classical or Hellenistic prototypes, so this says nothing about the date or precise inspiration of the Amphipolis caryatids.

Fig. 3. A 1st century caryatid from Tralles (Aydin, Turkey)

A more instructive parallel is to be found in the miniature caryatids decorating the throne of Alexander’s grandmother, Eurydice I, found in her tomb at Aegae and shown in Figure 4. They are alternated with actual pillars acting as struts in its construction. They too have one arm upraised and the other lowered and slightly lifting their dresses. They have a slightly more dynamic posture than the Amphipolis
caryatids, appearing to strut rather than merely step forward, so they have sometimes been called dancers. Nevertheless, the general similarities are striking, when we remember that this same throne also had sphinxes (now stolen), which were one of the parallels to the Amphipolis sphinxes that I mentioned in my previous article. It is hard not to see confirmation of a connection between a fourth century BC queen of Macedon and the Amphipolis tomb in the caryatids of Eurydice’s throne.


Fig. 4. Caryatids in the throne of the grandmother of Alexander the Great - perhaps specifically Klodones, Dionysiac revellers or priestesses

Indeed, the very fact that the caryatids constitute a second pair of female guardians for the Amphipolis tomb should surely be recognised as hinting at a female occupant for the tomb. Whereas modern sensibilities may incline us to eschew sexual stereotypes, it would be the height of foolishness to project such modern views back onto 4th century BC Macedon, for which our sources are extremely clear that kings had adolescent boys as their servants, whereas queens had women and adolescent girls.

It is possible to be more specific. Plutarch in the second chapter of his Life of Alexander gives a colourful account of Olympias and her women. He writes that these women participated in Orphic rites and Dionysiac orgies with the queen and were called Klodones (possibly “spinners” or “cacklers”) or Mimallones (“men imitators”). Polyaenus 4.1, in a story about Argaeus, an early king of Macedon, writes that the Klodones were priestesses of Dionysus, who became called Mimallones after Macedonian virgins carrying the wands of Dionysus were mistaken for men in a battle. Plutarch also tells us that Olympias kept serpents that would often rear their heads out of the “mystical winnowing-baskets” of her Klodones to terrify the men. The word λίκνων that Plutarch uses for these baskets describes the type of basket that is carried on the heads of the Amphipolis caryatids. Therefore, on the assumption that
the Amphipolis tomb is that of Olympias, the explanation for the caryatids would be that they represent those Klodones that shared in Orphic rites with the queen whose tomb they guard.

Ostensibly, the lion from the monument that once stood atop the tomb mound at Amphipolis as shown in Figure 5 is a problem for the identification of the tomb as that of Olympias. Some have argued that it might be a lioness as no penis has yet been found belonging to it. But this is difficult, because it has a very definite mane, an attribute exclusive to male lions. However, the second chapter of Plutarch’s Alexander answers this point too, for he tells the story of how Philip, Alexander’s father, dreamt that he put a seal bearing the device of a lion on the womb of Olympias whilst she was pregnant with Alexander. What better symbol, therefore, to proclaim the tomb of the mother of Alexander the Great than the device on the seal under which she became his mother? And it is a truly monumental lion standing 5.3m tall, the biggest of the lions from early Hellenistic tombs and far bigger than the lion that stood (and now stands again) on the battle site of Chaeronea. It must at any rate have marked the tomb of an exalted individual and there are not so many that qualify within the period defined by the excavators.

Fig. 5. The lion and its reconstructed monument as it stood atop the tomb mound al Amphipolis

Another objection to the candidacy of Olympias is the fact that Diodorus 17.118.2 accuses Cassander of having left her unburied at the spot where she was murdered by the relatives of her own victims. However, there is nothing to say that this was not a temporary indiscretion and indeed it has generally been assumed that either Cassander or Olympias’s relatives and supporters must eventually have arranged the entombment of her remains. There would have been a great deal of moral and social
pressure in Macedonia at the time to ensure that the mother of Alexander the Great eventually received a fitting burial.

Finally, I was well aware even before I wrote my previous article that there is a paper published in the journal Hesperia that seeks to infer from fragmentary inscriptions that there was a tomb of Olympias at Pydna, although no such tomb has ever actually been found in the vicinity of Pydna. Its methodology is to fill gaps in these inscriptions in ways differing from the ways the gaps were filled by the scholars who originally reconstructed their texts and such as to allude to the existence of an undiscovered tomb of Olympias at Pydna. I fear however that this paper may say more about the ingenuity of its author in the art of textual reconstruction than about the true location of the tomb of the mother of Alexander the Great. It is unlikely that Olympias died at Pydna, because she died at least weeks after she surrendered to Cassander at Pydna and Cassander seems to have been nearby when she died. It is hard to believe that Cassander remained lurking at Pydna for all those weeks, whilst Amphipolis remained
the focus of revolt against his rule.

Neither my previous article nor this follow-up in any way proves that the lion tomb of Amphipolis is that of Olympias. Nevertheless, I believe I have shown why Olympias remains the leading candidate with Roxane as a strong secondary possibility. Literally everything that is currently known supports this hypothesis, whereas other candidates either conflict with the archaeological dating or fail to provide such satisfactory explanations of the symbolism inherent in the marvellous statuary of this magnificent
Macedonian mausoleum.

Author

Andrew Chugg
Author of The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great and several academic papers on Alexander’s tomb (see https://independent.academia.edu/AndrewChugg and www.alexanderstomb.com)

More about thisquestion

You can read the preovius article here: Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the Tomb at Amphipolis (part I)

Another article about caryatids (in spanish), here: Las cariátides de Atenas, el eterno homenaje a Cécrope

↧

Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the Tomb of Amphipolis? (Part III)

September 30, 2014, 2:25 am

≫ Next: Interview with Theodore G. Antikas: "the female cremated with Philip II could be the daughter of the Scythian king Ateas"

≪ Previous: Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the tomb at Amphipolis (Part II)

I wrote my initial article on this question on the morning of 6th September (a day before the announcement of the discovery of the caryatids) and I wrote a second part, dealing with the caryatids and a few other issues on 20th September. In these two articles I drew a number of inferences from the evidence available:

1) Sphinxes decorated the thrones found in the tombs of two mid to late 4th century BC queens of Macedon, one of whom was Alexander’s grandmother Eurydice I

2) Greek mythology recognised Hera the wife of Zeus as the mistress of the sphinx: the 4th century BC Macedonian kings identified themselves with Zeus, so it would make sense for their principal queens to have identified themselves with Hera

3) The female sphinxes at Amphipolis have their closest parallel in a pair of female sphinxes found by Mariette at the Serapeum at Saqqara, which were dated to the reign of the first Ptolemy by Lauer & Picard, mainly on the basis of an associated inscription: the Serapeum at Saqqara is also a strong candidate for the site of the first tomb of Alexander the Great

4) There are strong parallels between the façades of the tombs of Philip II and Alexander IV at Aegae and the reconstructed façade of the lion monument that stood atop the mound at Amphipolis

5) The paving in the tomb at Amphipolis closely matches paving in the 4th century BC palace at Aegae

6) The 8-petal double rosettes in the Amphipolis tomb have an excellent match on the edge bands of the gold larnax of Philip II

7) The evidence therefore favours an important queen being entombed at Amphipolis: Olympias, Alexander’s mother, and Roxane, Alexander’s wife may both have died at Amphipolis and are the only prominent queens that accord with the archaeologists’ firm dating of the Amphipolis tomb to the last quarter of the 4th century BC

8) On the assumption that the occupant of the Amphipolis tomb is Olympias, a straightforward explanation of the caryatids would be that they are Klodones, the priestesses of Dionysus with whom Plutarch, Alexander 2 states that Olympias consorted: the baskets worn on their heads would be those in which Plutarch says the Klodones kept snakes.

9) Plutarch, Alexander 2 tells the story of Philip having dreamt that he sealed Olympias’s womb whilst she was pregnant with Alexander with the device of a lion. This provides an explanation for the tomb having been surmounted by a
lion monument.

In this third part of my episodic commentary on this question I will put forward some evidence that the form of the baskets on the heads of the Amphipolis caryatids is consistent with the types of basket that were actually used by the ancient Greeks to accommodate the snakes used in the worship of Dionysus.
Then I will show additionally that the attire, stance and overall appearance of the Amphipolis caryatids matches ancient Greek representations of priestesses of Dionysus or the female servants of Dionysus known as Maenads.

It is clear that the newly discovered Amphipolis caryatids are members of the large sub-class of caryatids known as canephora: caryatids that bear baskets upon their heads (see Figures 1 and 2).
Canephora are so common and so well studied as to make any other explanation of the caryatids’ headgear at least improbable. Plutarch, Life of Alexander 2, states that the Klodones of Olympias used to keep snakes in sacred baskets, which they employed in the course of their Dionysiac rites. Specifically, he uses the terminology μυστικῶν λίκνων for the Klodones’s baskets.
The word λίκνων originally meant a wicker fan used for winnowing wheat, but wicker baskets used in festivals of Dionysus came to be known by this name.
Although it is tempting to suppose that the type of basket referred to by λίκνων in some way resembled a winnowing fan, it is obvious that a flat basket could not have accommodated snakes (not for very long anyway!)

Fig. 1. The left-hand caryatid in the vestibule of the tomb at Amphipolis at the time of her discovery

Fig. 2. The entire bodies of the Amphipolis caryatids now revealed

Furthermore, there is plenty of ancient evidence available on the form of ancient snake baskets as used in Dionysiac rites. The Dionysus Sarcophagus from the Metropolitan Museum in New York (Figure 3) depicts a procession including Dionysus himself at its centre riding astride a panther and wielding his traditional pine-cone tipped wand or thyrsos. Its sculpture depicts a variety of baskets that should be identified as μυστικῶν λίκνων in view of the context. However, in particular there sits on the ground beneath the feet of the god a small basket with a snake disappearing beneath its lid. This is very similar in its shape and size to the baskets worn by the Amphipolis caryatids.

Fig. 3. Marble sarcophagus with the Triumph of Dionysus and the Seasons, Roman, c. A.D. 260–270, Phrygian marble in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New YorkFigure

The Dionysus sarcophagus dates to ~AD260-270, but there are much earlier examples of Dionysiac snake baskets. For example a coin minted in ~2BC in Pergamon in Asia Minor is reported to show the cista mystica, i.e. the basket containing the sacred implements of Dionysus worship. It too includes a prominent snake and is similar to the baskets atop the heads of the caryatids.

Fig. 4. A basket sacred to Dionysus with a snake emerging depicted on a coin minted ~2BC in Pergamon

It is also possible to find ancient artworks which convincingly show that the Amphipolis caryatids wear the dress and adopt the stance of priestesses of Dionysus. In particular there are surviving Roman copies of a 4th century BC statue of Dionysus leaning on the diminutive figure of a human priestess in the Metropolitan and Hermitage museums (Figures 5 and 6). She is a human priestess rather than a goddess, because the statue is a standard type. There are parallel statuettes of Aphrodite leaning on a diminutive priestess, where the priestess wears a basket. This means she is bearing offerings for the goddess as well as being physically leant upon and a fellow goddess would not be depicted in such a servile role.

In the case of the Met-Hermitage Dionysus, the priestess has many features that resemble the Amphipolis caryatids. Her stance is similar with one arm upraised and the other lowered to hitch up her dress. She has the same hairstyle, with three curly locks brought forward over each shoulder.
The Hermitage version wears the same thick-soled sandals as the Amphipolis caryatids.
In particular, the priestess wears a similar dress to the caryatids with a chiton (tunic) worn on top.
The most unusual feature is that the chiton is hung over only one shoulder and its top edge is terminated by a diagonal band running between the breasts and exhibiting curious folds.
This diagonal band seems to be rare in other contexts, so it merits special attention, since it consequently provides relatively strong evidence for the identification of the Amphipolis caryatids as priestesses of Dionysus.

It may be worth noting that the priestess’s chiton and diagonal band appears to echo the panther skin tunic worn by Dionysus himself in the Hermitage statue. The fact that the chiton it is hung over only one shoulder is more in keeping with the way Greek men wore tunics and therefore recalls Plutarch’s alternative term for the Klodones: Mimallones or “men imitators”.

It is also worth noting a couple of other examples of female figures wearing the single-shoulder chiton with a diagonal band of folds at its top edge. Firstly, there is a relief depicting dancing women wearing this dress from the Temenos in the sanctuary of the mysteries on the island of Samothrace (Figure 7).
This building is believed to have been constructed between 340-317BC. Plutarch, just prior to his account of the Klodones, recalls that Olympias (then called Myrtale) first met Philip of Macedon at the mysteries on Samothrace. The dates of the Temenos make it possible that it was built under the patronage of the Macedonian royal family and it is interesting that the completion of this phase of expansion of the sanctuary (including several other buildings) is dated to the year preceding Olympias’s death.

Secondly, there is a famous Attic red-figure cup depicting the death of Pentheus on its exterior and a Maenad on its interior. It is attributed to Douris and dates to about 480BC (see Figures 8 and 9).
The Maenad, a female follower of Dionysus, also wears the single-shoulder chiton with a diagonal band along its upper edge. Although this depiction is much earlier that the 4th century BC examples discussed above, the long tradition of this kind of attire among the female servants of Dionysus is probably significant.

Fig. 5. Statue of Dionysus with a priestess, a Roman copy from the 2nd century AD of a Greek original of the 4th century BC (Hermitage) – see also Figure 6

Fig. 6. Statue of Dionysus with a priestess, a Roman copy from the Augustan age of a Greek original of the 4th century BC (Metropolitan Museum) – see also Figure 5

Fig. 7. Relief showing dancing women wearing chitons with diagonal bands from the Temenos in the sanctuary of the mysteries on the island of Samothrace

Fig. 8. Douris “Death of Pentheus” cup interior, depicting a Maenad with the thyrsos of Dionysus and a cheetah (~480BC)

Fig. 9. Douris “Death of Pentheus” cup exterior, depicting a Maenad brandishing a lower leg of Pentheus before the enthroned Dionysus (~480BC)

Some have posed the question of who would have constructed such an impressive tomb for Alexander the Great’s mother? They argue that our sources state that Olympias had made herself unpopular by executing some of Cassander’s supporters and that Diodorus 17.118 states that Cassander left Olympias’s body unburied.

However, I answer that her relatives would have been duty-bound to retrive the queen’s remains and that Cassander must subsequently have agreed to allow their entombment. Probably, the tomb would have been commissioned, designed and paid for by Olympias’s relatives and other supporters: Roxane and Alexander IV were kept at Amphipolis for 7 years after Olympias was murdered, so they are likely to have overseen the arrangements. Furthermore, Cassander’s wife was Thessalonike, Alexander’s half-sister and a daughter of Philip II. Then too Alexander’s sister by Olympias, Cleopatra, could well have been involved. She would have been extremely concerned to ensure the appropriate burial of her mother. Olympias had many rich and powerful friends and relatives alive when the lion tomb at Amphipolis was built. Cassander had to negotiate with the generals then running other parts of Alexander’s empire and these men would have pressurised him to behave properly in the matter of according funeral rites to so important a member of Alexander’s close family.

In summary, I have presented powerful evidence that the Amphipolis caryatids are indeed Klodones with reference both to the baskets borne upon their heads and their close resemblance to priestesses of Dionysus and Maenads in contemporaneous ancient Greek art. If they are Klodones, then this is a strong indication that the occupant of the Amphipolis tomb is most likely to be Olympias or else possibly another important queen of Macedon.

There are those who propose that the Amphipolis tomb is either an abandoned cenotaph for Alexander himself or that it is a cult centre and not a tomb at all. For them the obvious question is: why did somebody take such pains to seal up an empty complex with multiple strongly built sealing walls and of the order of thousands of tonnes of sand from the bed of the local river?

There are those who favour male candidates for the occupant of this tomb. To them I pose the question of why in this period a male would be assigned two pairs of female guardians for his tomb, when he came from a society where the servants of kings were adolescent boys and the servants of queens were women and girls and in general there was a high degree of segregation between the sexes?

There are those who argue for a date range radically different than that proposed by the archaeologists. This is difficult, because the archaeologists have apparently found coin and potsherd dating evidence in digging this monument. It is even more difficult, because there are many matches with late 4th century BC decorative styles in everything so far revealed: especially the flooring match with the 4th century BC palace at Aegae, but also the painted and sculpted decoration in general.
It is especially difficult, because a reconstruction of the demolished Lion Monument done in the 1930s closely echoes the facades of the tombs of Philip II and Alexander IV, not unearthed until the 1970s. It may be added that the band of drafting around the edges of some of the blocks from the Lion Monument matches the band of drafting on the blocks in the perimeter wall of the mound, so any suggestion that the Lion Monument never actually surmounted the Kasta Hill mound is fraught with difficulty.

You can read the previous parts of this article here:

Part I - Is the mother of Alexander the Great at the tomb of Amphipolis? Part I
Part II - Is the mother of Alexander the Great at the tomb of Amphipolis? Part II

Author
Andrew Chugg
Author of The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great and several academic papers on Alexander’s tomb (see https://independent.academia.edu/AndrewChugg and www.alexanderstomb.com)

↧

Interview with Theodore G. Antikas: "the female cremated with Philip II could be the daughter of the Scythian king Ateas"

October 11, 2014, 4:39 pm

≫ Next: Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the Tomb of Amphipolis? (Part IV)

≪ Previous: Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the Tomb of Amphipolis? (Part III)

Remains in the larnax of the main chamber.
Photo: Vergina: The Royal Tombs (Andronikos, 1984)

In 1977, Manolis Andronikos discovered a cluster of Temenid burials at Vergina, ancient Aegae, under the Great Tumulus. Tomb II was unlooted, doublé chambered and each chamber had a sarcophagus housing a gold larnax (casket) that contained the cremated bones of a man and a woman, respectively. The king's body was cremated in a great pyre, in the same way as epic heroes of the Iliad. A huge pile of half-burnt mud bricks, ashes, charcoal, and hundreds of burnt objects covered the whole length of the tomb's barrel-vaulted roof. The presence of this pyre was the clearest evidence that the deceased was Philip II and not Philip III Arrhidaios, as some scholars suggested. A recent 5-year anthropological study has analyzed all bones and fragments of the human remains from the two larnakes in an effort to put an end to endless debates on the identity of the dead based on insufficient anthropological data. We have talked to Theodore G. Antikas, head of the Anthropological Research Team at Vergina excavation, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki.

Question - What was the purpose of your study and what kind of technologies have you used to analyse the remains?
Answer - The new study of human cremains found in the larnakes of Tomb II involved reexamining and reevaluating previous studies on the cremains (1981-1990) with the aid of medical (CT scans) and physico-chemical (eSEM, XRF) tests, and creating a data base containing 4000 digital color photos of the 450 bones and fragments analyzed.

Question - Could you talk us about the profiles of your team?
Answer - The team consisted of L.K. Antikas, I. Maniatis, A. Kyriakou, A. Tourtas and myself, basically from the Aristotle University and the National Center of Scientific Research ‘’Demokritos’’ in Athens.

Question - What can you explain us about the health of Philip II before his death?
Answer - We identified a male aged 41-49 years. We determined his age by examining pelvis bone fragments, the pubic symphysis and the auricular surface, not used by previous researchers. He suffered of chronic frontal and maxillary sinusitus which might be related to an old facial trauma. Showed signs of healed pleuritis on the visceral surface of lower thoracic ribs which may have been caused by hemo or pneumothorax after his clavicle was shattered. Showed degenerative changes and markers indicating middle age and excessive horse riding. And suffered an old incised wound on his left metacarpal caused by a sharp edged object, probably a weapon. That trauma had been missed in the studies of the 80’s and 90’s.

Unequal greaves and gorytus in the antechamber.
Photo: Vergina: The Royal Tombs (Andronikos, 1984)

Questions - Philip was cremated together with his younger wife. What have you discovered about her?
Answer - Please note that Philip's ''younger wife'', daughter of Skythian King Ataias, was actually his 7th wife or concubine. His 8th and last wife was the 18/19 year old Cleopatra. This female showed similar degenerative changes and markers due to excessive horse riding. Suffered a compression Schatzker IVfracture of her left tibial plateau that had caused shortening, atrophy, lameness and most probably disfiguration. This led us to the conclusion that the shorter left greave, the Scythian gorytus, the 74 arrow-heads and the weaponry found in the antechamber belonged to her, a fact that had therefore not been suspected. The woman could be (as NGL Hammond suggested as early as 1978) the daughter of the Scythian king Ateas.

Questions - Are you going to continue your study with Alexander's IV remains?
Answer - Yes, our research continues with the cremains of Alexander IVin Tomb III, and the inhumed bones from the looted tomb-I of Persephone. This will be the last phase of this demanding project that has been delayed by the lack of funding.

Author
Mario Agudo Villanueva

↧

Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the Tomb of Amphipolis? (Part IV)

October 15, 2014, 1:22 pm

≫ Next: Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part V)

≪ Previous: Interview with Theodore G. Antikas: "the female cremated with Philip II could be the daughter of the Scythian king Ateas"

1) Sphinxes decorated the thrones found in the tombs of two mid to late 4th century BC queens of Macedon, one of whom was Alexander’s grandmother Eurydice I
2) Greek mythology recognised Hera the wife of Zeus as the mistress of the sphinx: the 4th century BC Macedonian kings identified themselves with Zeus, so it would make sense for their principal queens to have identified themselves with Hera
3) The female sphinxes at Amphipolis have their closest parallel in a pair of female sphinxes found by Mariette at the Serapeum at Saqqara, which were dated to the reign of the first Ptolemy by Lauer & Picard, mainly on the basis of an associated inscription: the Serapeum at Saqqara is also a strong
candidate for the site of the first tomb of Alexander the Great
4) There are strong parallels between the façades of the tombs of Philip II and Alexander IV at Aegae and the reconstructed façade of the lion monument that stood atop the mound at Amphipolis
5) The paving in the tomb at Amphipolis closely matches paving in the 4th century BC palace at Aegae
6) The 8-petal double rosettes in the Amphipolis tomb have an excellent match on the edge bands of the gold larnax of Philip II
7) The evidence therefore favours an important queen being entombed at Amphipolis: Olympias, Alexander’s mother, and Roxane, Alexander’s wife may both have died at Amphipolis and are the only prominent queens that accord with the archaeologists’ firm dating of the Amphipolis tomb to the last quarter of the 4th century BC
8) On the assumption that the occupant of the Amphipolis tomb is Olympias, a straightforward explanation of the caryatids would be that they are Klodones, the priestesses of Dionysus with whom Plutarch, Alexander 2 states that Olympias consorted: the baskets worn on their heads would be those in which Plutarch says the Klodones kept snakes.
9) Plutarch, Alexander 2 tells the story of Philip having dreamt that he sealed Olympias’s womb whilst she was pregnant with Alexander with the device of a lion. This provides an explanation for the tomb having been surmounted by a lion monument.

The newly discovered mosaic from the Lion Tomb at Amphipolis is a spectacular example of its kind (Figure 1). It exhibits considerable artistic prowess and its quality is further attested by the unusually wide range of colours deployed in its execution in comparison to other Macedonian mosaics of the 4th century BC.

It covers virtually the entire floor of the chamber of the tomb immediately behind the caryatid sculptures that I have suggested represent priestesses of Dionysus. But it has not yet been fully revealed. Particularly on its right-hand side, it is obvious that important elements of its design are still concealed beneath the sandy earth that was used to fill the tomb.

The mosaic depicts a chariot drawn by a pair of horses, which are being led by a youth wearing winged sandals and carrying a type of wand called a caduceus. The chariot is driven by a bearded man wearing a bright wreath or radiate crown. The Greek Ministry of Culture has correctly advised that the youth running ahead of the horses is Hermes, the messenger of the gods, here depicted in his traditional role as a psychopompos, one who leads the souls of the dead into the afterlife.

In Christian art there are certain traditional scenes such as Nativities, Crucifixions, Madonnas, Last Suppers and Baptisms of Christ, which are defined by a set of common elements, but which have been produced with variant details by a host of artists. The newly discovered mosaic comprises most of the required elements from just such a traditional scene found in artworks from ancient Greek religion: the abduction or rape of the goddess Persephone by Hades, the god of the Underworld.
The only essential element of this traditional scene that is currently missing from the new mosaic is Persephone herself.

Perhaps the most famous ancient version of the Abduction of Persephone is the mural discovered in the first of the three main tombs under the Great Tumulus in the Royal Cemetery at Vergina (ancient Aegae) in Macedonia (Figure 2). In this version Hermes again leads the horses of the chariot carrying his caduceus and wearing the same petasos hat and cloak as the Hermes in the new mosaic. A bearded Hades drives the chariot and grasps a distressed Persephone. This tomb is next door to the tomb of the father of Alexander the Great. It had been looted when discovered in 1977 but it contained the scattered bones of a woman, a man and a newborn baby.

Other versions of the Abduction of Persephone are to be found on Greek vases from the same period (Figures 3 & 4). One shows Hades driving Persephone in a chariot with Hermes strolling beside it and Hecate lighting their way. This is actually dated to the late 4th century BC, but it may depict Persephone’s emergence from the Underworld rather than her abduction. It is interesting that Hades here wears a radiate crown or halo rather similar to that worn by the bearded chariot driver in the new
mosaic. Another version (Figure 4) shows Persephone standing beside Hades in his chariot, gripping its front rail with a braceleted arm, again with Hermes as Psychopompos striding ahead of the horses.

Fig. 1: the newly discovered mosaic from the Lion Tomb at Amphipolis

Fig. 2: the mural of the Abduction of Persephone by Hades in Tomb I beneath the Great Tumulus at Vergina/Aegae

Fig. 3: Hades driving Persephone in a chariot with Hermes strolling beside it and Hecate lighting their way from a late 4th century BC vase

Fig. 4: the Abduction of Persephone by Hades on a red-figure vase with Hermes with his caduceus leading the way

It is interesting also to note that the rear panel of the throne found in the tomb of Eurydice I, Alexander the Great’s grandmother, at Vergina/Aegae also depicted Hades and Persephone in a four-horse chariot (Figure 5). This time they are shown as king and queen of the Underworld. This throne had sphinxes and Caryatids as well as this painting. It is turning out to be a microcosm of the Amphipolis tomb and serves further to emphasise the connections between the finds at Amphipolis and the late 4th century BC royal tombs at Aegae.

From all this it follows that we should be looking for the possible uncovering of a Persephone figure in the chariot next to the bearded man in the newly revealed mosaic. But she would be depicted in the unexcavated portion at the right-hand side, so it would seem we should have to wait for the archaeologists to complete the unearthing of this magnificent work of art. However, a hint of what is to come may already be visible. Careful examination of the area around the possible Hades figure reveals some interesting points (Figure 6). Firstly, Hades may be driving the horses with a flail or similar, because the topmost part of some such object is visible just above where his hand would be at the top edge of the central patch of damage. Possible yellow cords from this flail appear to the right of the damage patch just below the arm of Hades.

Fig. 5: hades and Perspehone in a four-house chariot in a painting from the back of the throne found in the tomb of Alexander's grandmother Eurydice

Fig. 6: Conjectural interpretations of details in the newly discovered mosaic

Secondly, and more importantly, there appears to be an arm descending down the right edge of the excavated area such that the hand is grasping the front rail of the chariot (outlined in red in Figure 6) rather like the arm of Persephone grasping the chariot rail on the vase mentioned above. It might be tempting to try to see this as the other arm of Hades, but that does not really work, because it would make Hades into a hunchback, which is very improbable in a work of this nature and quality. Additionally, the arm grasping the chariot rail appears to wear a bracelet just above its wrist (dark dots between the pair of arrows in Figure 6), again this parallels the bracelet worn by Persephone on her arm that is clutching the chariot rail on the vase. This bracelet can be seen more clearly in a close-up of Hades (Figure 7).

In fact Hades appears to have a mantle covering one shoulder. It appears more likely to me that his body is facing away from us and that he is looking forward over his left
shoulder, so that the mantle is draped over his right shoulder and the flail is in his left hand, but it is not impossible that his body is facing towards us and the mantle is over his left shoulder. Nevertheless, whichever way he is facing, that other arm does not seem to be his. Furthermore, although it is not impossible for a man to be depicted wearing a bracelet in Greek art, it is rather more likely for a woman. It seems therefore a reasonable conjecture that the arm of our missing Persephone may already have been revealed to us.

If indeed the chariot contains a female passenger yet to be fully uncovered, then the scene is definitely another Abduction of Persephone. But the real significance is that it would be hard not to see this also as a depiction of the occupant of the tomb being driven into the Underworld in the guise of Persephone. If so, the occupant was a woman and probably an important queen of Macedon given the fabulous scale and quality of this tomb. In the light of the firm dating to the last quarter of the 4th century BC only two candidates are known to us: Olympias, the mother of Alexander, and Roxane, his wife. The latter almost certainly died at Amphipolis and the former died when the focus of events was at Amphipolis. Of the two, Olympias is the more likely occupant, because she is known to have associated with priestesses of Dionysus and the lion could be symbolic of the lion device with which Alexander’s father dreamt he had sealed her womb. Furthermore, Alexander had expressed a desire to make her a goddess before he died (Curtius 9.6.26) and he himself had virtually become a god by
the time she died. Thus she enjoyed an almost holy status that might help to explain the phenomenal grandeur of the lion tomb.

It is only possible to conclude that we must await the unveiling of the rest of the mosaic with bated breath.

Fig. 7: a detailed photo of the Hades figure in the new mosaic: part of the conjectural arm and detail of the possible bracelet in the lower right

You can red the previous parts of this article here:

Part I - Is the mother of Alexander the Great at the tomb of Amphipolis? Part I

Part II - Is the mother of Alexander the Great at the tomb of Amphipolis? Part II

Part III - Is the mother of Alexander the Great at the tomb of Amphipolis? Part III

Author
Andrew Chugg
Author of The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great and several academic papers on Alexander's tomb (see https://independent.academia.edu/AndrewChugg and www.alexanderstomb.com)

↧

Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part V)

October 20, 2014, 12:28 pm

≫ Next: Entrevista con Carlos de Juan: "el estudio del Bou Ferrer está aportando una importante información histórica"

≪ Previous: Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the Tomb of Amphipolis? (Part IV)

Figure 1: The new mosaic depicting the Abduction of Persephone fully revealed

I wrote my initial article on this question on the morning of 6th September, a day before the announcement of the discovery of the caryatids, and I wrote a second part on 20th September and a third part on 28th September dealing with the caryatids. The discovery of the mosaic announced on 12th October prompted fourth article on 13th October, in which I predicted that the part-excavated mosaic depicted the Abduction of Persephone with the god Hermes running ahead of the chariot and Hades (a.k.a. Pluto), god of the Underworld, driving the chariot. Therefore I forecasted that the figure of Persephone would be found in the unexcavated part on the right-hand side. I further suggested that “Persephone” would actually be a representation of the occupant of the tomb. On 16th October Persephone was duly revealed and that has required that I compose this fifth instalment, since the image of this goddess provides us with the strongest evidence yet on the identity of the occupant of this increasingly impressive mausoleum.

But in order to set the occupant’s identification in context I first offer the following summary of the inferences I drew from the evidence available in my first three articles:

1) Sphinxes decorated the thrones found in the tombs of two mid to late 4th century BC queens of Macedon, one of whom was Alexander’s grandmother Eurydice I.
2) Greek mythology recognised Hera the wife of Zeus as the mistress of the sphinx: the 4th century BC Macedonian kings identified themselves with Zeus, so it would make sense for their principal queens to have identified themselves with Hera.
3) The female sphinxes at Amphipolis have their closest parallel in a pair of female sphinxes found by Mariette at the Serapeum at Saqqara, which were dated to the reign of the first Ptolemy by Lauer & Picard, mainly on the basis of an associated inscription: the Serapeum at Saqqara is also a strong candidate for the site of the first tomb of Alexander the Great.
4) There are strong parallels between the façades of the tombs of Philip II and Alexander IV at Aegae and the reconstructed façade of the lion monument that stood atop the mound at Amphipolis.
5) The paving in the tomb at Amphipolis closely matches paving in the 4th century BC palace at Aegae.
6) The 8-petal double rosettes in the Amphipolis tomb have an excellent match on the edge bands of the gold larnax of Philip II.
7) The evidence therefore favours an important queen being entombed at Amphipolis: Olympias, Alexander’s mother, and Roxane, Alexander’s wife may both have died at Amphipolis and are the only prominent queens that accord with the archaeologists’ firm dating of the Amphipolis tomb to the last quarter of the 4th century BC.
8) On the assumption that the occupant of the Amphipolis tomb is Olympias, a straightforward explanation of the caryatids would be that they are Klodones, the priestesses of Dionysus with whom Plutarch, Alexander 2 states that Olympias consorted: the baskets worn on their heads would be those in which Plutarch says the Klodones kept snakes.
9) Plutarch, Alexander 2 tells the story of Philip having dreamt that he sealed Olympias’s womb whilst she was pregnant with Alexander with the device of a lion. This provides an explanation for the tomb having been surmounted by a lion monument.

Figure 2: Hades abducts Persephone in his chariot: she flails her left arm in distress

In pursuing the logic of the evidence provided by the mosaic, there is a strong presumption that the figure of Persephone could be a portrait of the deceased individual who is the occupant of the tomb. This is because a forced abduction into the Underworld is a metaphor for death. If there is a depiction of someone passing from life laid out across the path of a visitor on entering a tomb, it is hard not to form a conception that it represents the death of the tomb’s occupant.

But there is a second reason to believe that Persephone should be a portrait of the deceased. The people who built a tomb of such phenomenal grandeur clearly intended to exalt its occupant in every possible way. Since the world was plunged into permanent winter when Persephone was abducted, to make her look like the deceased in the mosaic would have been a wonderful compliment. It was like saying that the world was again plunged into a kind of winter by the death of the occupant. It is hard to believe that the tomb-builders, who were probably the occupant’s close relatives, would have missed such an opportunity, when they had gone to so much trouble and expense over the rest of the arrangements.

Figure 3: Mural depicting a reddish blond Alexander from Pompeii

If Persephone is indeed a portrait of the deceased, then the occupant was a woman. In view of the exceptional size and magnificence of the structure, she should be a woman of exceptional status, almost certainly a queen. Everything I have seen tends to support the archaeologists’ firm date range for this tomb within the last quarter of the 4th century BC. Consequently, the field of possible occupants narrows to just two particular queens: Olympias, the mother of Alexander, and Roxane, his wife, both of whom may have died at Amphipolis.

I have previously argued that the caryatids representing priestesses of Dionysus and the lion that stood atop the mound are more readily explicable, if Olympias is the occupant. But now the fully revealed mosaic (Figure 1) presents us with a significant new piece of evidence to decide between them. Specifically, the Persephone figure has reddish hair (Figure 2). It is certain that Alexander’s wife, Roxane, was a native of northern Afghanistan. There are now, and I believe were then, very few redheads in that region. The reddish hair of the Persephone figure makes Roxane an unlikely occupant for this tomb (or at least an unlikely principal occupant.)

Conversely Olympias was a Molossian from Epirus, Greece, where redheads were reputedly common. Some websites actually declare that Olympias had red hair, as though it is an established fact (e.g. http://www.ancient.eu/Olympias/). However, I am not sure that we have any direct evidence from written sources or ancient images to confirm it.

Nevertheless, there is some slightly less direct evidence on the matter. Firstly, Olympias claimed direct descent from Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles. His nickname was Pyrrhus, which means flame–red in Greek. This nickname suggests the person had reddish-blond hair in rather the same way that the nickname “Ginger” usually means someone with auburn hair in English. This Pyrrhus was of course a semi-legendary figure, but in fact the grandson of Olympias’s sister and uncle was the historical King Pyrrhus of Epirus, after whom Pyrrhic victories are named.

There is also firmer evidence in that we do have some strong indications of Alexander’s hair colour, which might very well have echoed that of his mother. Two ancient sources provide direct evidence on Alexander’s hair colour as follows:

“They say that Alexander the son of Philip was naturally handsome: his hair was swept upwards and was golden-red in colour.” Aelian, Varia Historia 12.14

“Alexander had the body of a man but the hair of a lion.” Pseudo-Callisthenes 1.13.3

Even better, we have a near certain colour image of Alexander in the form of a mural found at Pompeii (Figure 3). The hair colour of this Alexander is an excellent match for the hair of the Persephone figure in the mural and these murals from Pompeii are usually copies of much earlier Greek paintings.

Finally there is a mosaic depicting a deer hunt found at Pella in Macedonia (Figure 4) in which some scholars (e.g. Paolo Moreno, “Apelles: The Alexander Mosaic”, pp. 102-104) have seen representations of Hephaistion and Alexander. This is because the double-headed axe is an attribute of the god Hephaistos, after whom Hephaistion was named, and also because the Alexander figure on the right has his hair swept up over his forehead in an anastole, which is a feature found in many of the most authentic surviving ancient portraits of Alexander.

Figure 4: Deer hunt mosaic from Pella: a possible representation of Alexander and Hephaistion, the latter wielding a double-headed axe

Therefore we can conclude that the reddish hair colour of the Persephone in the newly discovered mosaic is highly consistent with Olympias’s probable hair colour and the ensemble of evidence now before us makes it reasonable to suspect that Persephone is represented as a portrait of Olympias.

The question next arises of whether the Hades (or Pluto in Latin) and Hermes figures in the Amphipolis mosaic also have human counterparts? Did its artist intend that there should be a kind of overall duality in its interpretation, such that each of the gods is actually a portrait of a dead member of the Macedonian royal family? This is inherently quite a likely possibility, because artworks seeming to possess a similar duality have been found in other Macedonian tombs of this era. In particular, there is a superb ivory carving from the Prince’s tomb (Tomb III) at Vergina (Figure 5), which has often been interpreted as representing Philip and Olympias as a god and goddess with Alexander serenading them on the pipes in the guise of the god Pan.

Figure 5: Ivory from the Prince’s tomb (Tomb III) at Vergina possibly representing Philip and Olympias as a god and goddess and Alexander as Pan.

In this ivory it is immediately obvious that the bearded and wreathed man at its centre bears a striking resemblance to the bearded and wreathed Hades figure in the newly discovered mosaic. Hades also looks very similar to a range of other contemporaneous portraits of Philip II, Alexander’s father, and it was widely remarked prior to the unveiling of Persephone that he looked like a portrait of Philip II. That he is crowned as a king could equally refer to a kingdom in the Underworld or in Macedon.

Furthermore, Hades averts the right side of his face. This is significant, because Philip’s right eye was disfigured by an arrow wound at the siege of Methone in 354BC, so the right side of his face could not be shown without spoiling the Hades- Philip duality. It is a magnificent irony to depict Philip as carrying Olympias into the Underworld, since Justin 9.7.1 repeats an old rumour that she had been involved in organising his assassination.

But it is the final figure’s possible human identity, which is the most interesting point of all. The artist seems to have depicted Hermes (Figure 6) with particular care, vivacity and drama. Staring out at us, he almost steals the show! If he is to have a human counterpart he should be somebody close to Olympias who preceded her into the afterlife for he precedes her into the Underworld and nobody still living at the time the mosaic was crafted could sensibly be depicted entering the afterlife. Philip is depicted at about his age at death, which was forty-seven. He could not be shown any older, if he were to be recognisable. He died at about the autumnal equinox in 336BC, almost twenty years before the death of Olympias in the spring of 316BC. All the human portraits in the mosaic therefore need to be consistent with the year 336BC in order for them to work as a group portrait of members of the royal family, although there is some artistic leeway, since it is difficult to be precise about the ages of figures represented in mosaics. Olympias would have been in her mid-thirties in 336BC. Rendering her more youthful than her actual age at death could also be seen as a compliment to the deceased, so it was probably expected of the artist anyway.

Figure 6: Hermes in the newly discovered mosaic: a portrait of Alexander the Great at twenty?

Hermes appears as a young, clean-shaven man of about twenty and there is something curiously familiar about him to me. Indeed this riddle has a simple solution: the male member of the royal family who was twenty when Philip died and who pre-deceased Olympias was their only son, Alexander the Great. There seems to me also to be a family resemblance between the figures of Hermes and Persephone in the mosaic. It is not difficult to believe that they are mother and son. Although it may be unfamiliar to see Alexander depicted wearing a petasos hat, there is in fact a parallel instance in the Pella deer hunt mosaic (Figure 4), where just such a hat has flown up off of Alexander’s head, due to the impetus of his attack on the deer. A few other portraits of Alexander at this age survive, perhaps the most important being a head found on the Acropolis in Athens (Figure 7). It seems to me quite credible that the Amphipolis Hermes and this Acropolis Alexander depict one and the same individual.

This duality in the interpretation of the figures in the newly discovered mosaic is necessarily conjectural, but if it is obvious to me, it should have been obvious to anybody viewing this mosaic when it was first made. We may have a spectacular new portrait of Alexander as a young man – the way he was always remembered in Macedon, for he left his homeland at twenty-one, never to return. The whole composition is really quite moving when you know the tragic stories of the three enormously important individuals portrayed. And everybody who saw this when it was new would have known and understood everything that its subtle and masterful artist intended.

Figure 7: The youthful Alexander from the Athenian Acropolis

Finally it is opportune to note that an interview with Lena Mendoni, general secretary of the Greek Ministry of Culture, and Katerina Peristeri, head of the Amphipolis archaeological team was published by the Ministry on 16th October. They suggest that the occupant is “extremely important” and they are connecting the finds with Orphic and Dionysiac cult activities. Furthermore, they state that this may in turn connect the occupant to the Royal Family of Macedon. They also remain firm on the dating of the tomb to the final quarter of the 4th century BC.

I would like to comment that there are not many extremely important members of the Macedonian royal family that were available to be buried at Amphipolis in that period. Alexander himself was entombed in Egypt beyond reasonable doubt. His father was the occupant of Tomb II at Aegae/Vergina, as has just been re-confirmed.

It is about 90% certain that Tomb III at Aegae/Vergina contained the cremated remains of Alexander IV. Philip-Arrhidaeus, Adea-Eurydice and her mother Cynna are stated to have been interred at Aegae by Diodorus 19.52.5. Cleopatra, the daughter of Philip and Olympias, was murdered at Sardis in about 308BC and Cassander and Thessalonice died a little too late in 297BC and 296BC respectively. Among prominent members of the royal family that mainly leaves Olympias and Roxane. But among all the members of the royal family, the person most explicitly associated with Orphic and Dionysiac cults was undoubtedly Olympias, so it is appropriate in conclusion to cite Plutarch’s comments on Olympias’s participation in such activities:

“Moreover, a serpent was once seen lying stretched out by the side of Olympias as she slept, and we are told that this, more than anything else, dulled the ardour of Philip’s attentions to his wife, so that he no longer came often to sleep by her side, either because he feared that some spells and enchantments might be practised upon him by her, or because he shrank from her embraces in the conviction that she was the partner of a superior being. But concerning these matters there is another story to this effect: all the women of these parts were addicted to the Orphic rites and the orgies of
Dionysus from very ancient times, being called Klodones and Mimallones, and imitated in many ways the practices of the Edonian women and the Thracian women about Mount Haemus, from whom, as it would seem, the word ‘threskeuein’ came to be applied to the celebration of extravagant and superstitious ceremonies. Now Olympias, who affected these divine possessions more zealously than other women, and carried out these divine inspirations in wilder fashion, used to provide the revelling companies with great tame serpents, which would often lift their heads from out the ivy and the sacred baskets, or coil themselves about the wands and garlands of the women, thus terrifying the men.” Plutarch, Life of Alexander, 2.4-6

Perhaps it is still premature formally to identify Olympias as the occupant of the Lion Tomb at Amphipolis, but it is very clear that the evidence continues to move forcefully and consistently in that direction.

You can read the previous part of this article here:

Part I - Is the mother of Alexander at the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part I)
Part II - Is the mother of Alexander at the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part II)
Part III - Is the mother of Alexander at the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part III)
Part IV - Is the mother of Alexander at the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part IV)

Author
Andrew Chugg
Author of The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great and several academic papers on Alexander’s tomb (see https://independent.academia.edu/AndrewChugg and www.alexanderstomb.com)

↧

Entrevista con Carlos de Juan: "el estudio del Bou Ferrer está aportando una importante información histórica"

October 31, 2014, 7:58 am

≫ Next: Entrevista con Víctor Amiano: "lo que más se refleja en la fraseología romana conservada son las costumbres y la vida cotidiana de esta cultura"

≪ Previous: Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part V)

Vista general del pecio en la que pueden observarse ánforas y parte de la estructura del barco. Foto: José Antonio Moya

La arqueología subacuática avanza a buen ritmo en España. En aguas alicantinas se está investigando sobre uno de los pecios más grandes de todo el Mediterráneo, el Bou Ferrer, que más allá de la espectacularidad de las imágenes, está aportando una gran cantidad de información sobre su carga, sobre la construcción de las naves romanas y sobre el comercio en nuestro mar. Mediterráneo Antiguo ha querido repasar estos trabajos con Carlos de Juan, el director de la excavación, que ha atendido amablemente nuetras preguntas.

Pregunta - El pecio Bou Ferrer es probablemente el yacimiento que alberga el mayor barco romano en excavación de todo el Mediterráneo. Descríbanos brevemente lo que se ha encontrado hasta ahora.
Respuesta - Efectivamente en estos momentos el Bou Ferrer es el pecio romano de mayor envergadura en fase de excavación en el Mediterráneo y según avanzan las investigaciones quizás podamos asegurar en un futuro no muy lejano que es el pecio en excavación de mayor tonelaje del periodo imperial, sin embargo esta característica en realidad no tiene mayor importancia frente a la información histórica que está aportando su estudio. El Bou Ferrer no es el barco romano más grande conocido por la arqueología naval, ya que el pecio de época republicana de La Madrague de Giens (79 a.C.) excavado en la década de los setenta, es el más grande (a pesar de que el pecio de Albenga pueda ser considerado por algunos de mayor envergadura). Por el momento conocemos que el cargamento principal del Bou Ferrer está formado por un numero entre las 2000 y las 2500 ánforas. Hasta la fecha se ha excavado principalmente en la zona central del barco, la que se corresponde con la manga máxima de la nave en cuya bodega se dispusieron apiladas conformando una retícula posiblemente de cuatro pisos, ánforas gaditanas, siendo el tipo mayoritario las Dr. 11. Todas ellas estuvieron estibadas entre sarmientos de vid para proteger la carga durante el transporte. Las ánforas excavadas, divididas en cuatro grupos tipológicos principales, se encuentran todas ellas impregnadas en su interior con resina para impermeabilizarlas por lo que desde el inicio de las investigaciones se planteó que el contenido fuera muy líquido, barajándose la posibilidad de que fuera algún tipo de salsa de pescado, dato que se corroboró más tarde con el análisis de la ictiofauna conservada dentro en las ánforas. Por el momento se conoce que la base de esta salsa de pescado muy bien elaborada era el boquerón, la caballa y el jurel junto con especies por determinar de mayor tamaño. Rápidamente nos viene a la mente el garum sin embargo por ahora no tenemos ningún dato científico para asegurar que el contenido en las ánforas del Bou Ferrer fuera esta salsa de pescado de máxima calidad. El garum, la muria, el liquamen y el hallec procedentes de la provincia romana de la Bética eran unas de las mercancías más apreciadas de la época, base de la gastronomía romana. La excavación en la zona de la quilla del barco permitió la localización de una serie de lingotes de plomo triangulares procedentes de Sierra Morena (Linares-La Carolina), algo superiores en peso y tamaño a los estándares romanos. La presencia repetida en ellos de una serie de estampillas con el acrónimo IMP AVG GER certifica el timbrado de los lingotes por un agente imperial. Se trata de una marca de propiedad del emperador, augusto y germánico, que sugiere a priori un flete del poder de Roma. Ello abre la puerta a dos hipótesis de trabajo, bien que se trate de un encargo para el mismo emperador y su familia o bien que fuera el Bou Ferrer una nave annonaria, aquellas que participaban de los programas imperiales de abastecimiento de alimentos para la metrópoli. Por el momento, el cruce de los datos conocidos sitúan el naufragio del barco en torno a la mitad del s. I d.C. entre los reinados de Calígula, Claudio y Nerón. Por último queremos destacar que bajo el cargamento de ánforas se conserva en excepcional estado la obra viva del barco en madera. El estudio de la arquitectura naval del pecio Bou Ferrer tiene mucho interés para investigación ya que hasta la fecha, han sido varios los pecios del s. I d.C. excavados por la escuela francesa en las costas de Córcega, relacionados con el transporte marítimo de alimentos procedentes de la Bética con destino principalmente hacia la metrópoli Roma u otros grandes puertos de la Península Itálica Central y Meridional, como pueden ser por ejemplo los pecios de Sud-Perduto 2, Sud-Lavezzi 2 o Lavezzi 1. Sin embargo por diversas razones de profundidad o conservación, no contamos con información relevante sobre la arquitectura naval de ninguno de las naves comparables con el Bou Ferrer, tan solo conocemos algunos detalles que se han podido observar a partir de la documentación fotográfica, por lo que el desconocimiento de los grandes mercantes del Alto Imperio es elevado. Por ello el Bou Ferrer se presenta como una oportunidad para la investigación. Para la época Republicana podemos destacar por su importancia los datos sobre la arquitectura naval de pecios como La Madrague de Giens, Dramont A o Titan y para el s. II d.C. destacamos pecios como Saint Gervais 3, Tiboulen de Maïre o La Bourse sin embargo para el s. I d.C. la ausencia de datos sobre los grandes mercantes es completa en la bibliografía.

Ánforas del Bou Ferrer. Foto: José Antonio Moya

Traslado en superficie de piezas rescatadas del pecio. Foto: José Antonio Moya

Pregunta - ¿Con qué dificultades se encuentra el arqueólogo subacuático?
Respuesta - La principal dificultad lógicamente es tener que desarrollar la investigación bajo del agua. Ello obliga no solo a dominar completamente las técnicas del buceo, el trabajo en el medio marino y la metodología propia para la excavación subacuática, sino que además todo ello ha de realizarse con tiempos de permanencia en el fondo limitados en función de la profundidad. Cuando la visibilidad es reducida y el clima marítimo no acompaña, el trabajo se complica exponencialmente.

Ánforas transportadas hacia la superficie desde el pecio. Foto: José Antonio Moya

Pregunta - ¿Cuál es la composición del equipo que está trabajando en el pecio?
Respuesta - En el pecio trabajamos un grupo muy pequeño de arqueólogos subacuáticos y un especialista en imagen, pero no estamos solos, ya que aparte hay todo un equipo consolidado participando en el proyecto de investigación. En tierra contamos con el equipo de virtualización del patrimonio de la Universidad de Alicante y todo el personal técnico de Vilamuseu. La asociación y colaboración de varias instituciones en el proyecto hace que sea posible la investigación en este gran velero mercante del periodo romano. Participan la Dirección General de Cultura de la Generalitat Valenciana, junto con la Universidad de Alicante y su Fundación General, el Vilamuseu y su Ayuntamiento y el Club Náutico de Villajoyosa.

Arqueólogos trabajando con una manga de succión por agua. Foto: José Antonio Moya

Pregunta - Como la arqueología en tierra, imagino que la labor del arqueólogo subacuático continúa más allá de las profundidades marinas ¿cuál es el proceso que siguen las piezas encontradas en un yacimiento de este tipo?
Respuesta - La cerámica si está bien cocida como es el caso de las ánforas del pecio Bou Ferrer, no conlleva mayores problemas de conservación y tratamiento, más allá de la obligatoria desalación para evitar que con el paso del tiempo los cristales de sal puedan deteriorar las piezas. Las ánforas, tras llegar a superficie son trasladadas a los almacenes del Museu de La Vila, donde se combina la desalación por el procedimiento de ósmosis, junto con el vaciado y cribado de su contenido. Por lo que hace referencia a los lingotes de plomo, éstos no son tampoco problemáticos y el personal del museo se encarga de limpiezas mecánicas para eliminarles parte de la concreción marina que puedan llevar adherida. Por último, la madera y demás material orgánico, lleva un proceso completamente independiente mediante la consolidación por saturación en politienglicol de diversos pesos moleculares y la liofilización. Por el momento no hemos planteado la extracción de material orgánico por la problemática que ello conlleva, si bien en un futuro no muy lejano llegará el momento de abordar esta cuestión.

Una de las inscripciones que está aportando información histórica de gran importancia para las investigaciones. Foto: José Antonio Moya

Pregunta - ¿Hasta cuándo tienen previsto seguir trabajando en la zona y qué objetivos se han planteado?
Respuesta - Seguiremos excavando en el pecio hasta que se haya obtenido respuestas a todas las cuestiones de partida que justificaban la intervención arqueológica en pecio. Nuestro objetivo no es sacar ánforas del fondo del mar, sino obtener datos que nos permitan saber más sobre el comercio marítimo del periodo, las producciones anfóricas, las salsas y salsamentas, así como sobre la arquitectura naval de este gran mercante.

Impresionante acumulación de ánforas del pecio. Foto: José Antonio Moya

Pregunta - ¿Cuál es su valoración sobre la situación actual de la arqueología subacuática en España?
Respuesta - La arqueología subacuática española ha evolucionado mucho en las pasadas dos décadas y se han dado pasos muy importantes, tanto a nivel científico como en la gestión del Patrimonio Cultural Subacuático si nos comparamos con los países mediterráneos, muchas veces en un contexto mucho más complicado que éstos. Creo que hay un muy buen análisis de la situación, con las luces y sombras de la disciplina en el Libro Verde http://museoarqua.mcu.es/web/uploads/ficheros/verde.pdf

Autor
Mario Agudo Villanueva

↧

Entrevista con Víctor Amiano: "lo que más se refleja en la fraseología romana conservada son las costumbres y la vida cotidiana de esta cultura"

November 3, 2014, 3:37 am

≫ Next: Artículo - Las herramientas de piedra como fuente de conocimiento

≪ Previous: Entrevista con Carlos de Juan: "el estudio del Bou Ferrer está aportando una importante información histórica"

Portada del libro

La ocasión la pintan calva, quedarse de piedra, aunque la mona se vista de seda, Roma no paga a los traidores, hacerse el sueco, tener humos, andar con cien ojos, zapatero a tus zapatos… Son algunas frases de origen romano que siguen vivas en nuestro hablar cotidiano, a pesar de que han pasado casi dos mil años desde que se utilizaran originalmente. Los filólogos Antonio Cascón Dorado, Rosario López Gregoris y Luis Unceta Gómez, de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, han publicado recientemente la obra Dichosos Dichos, editada por Ariel, que es en realidad la continuación de otra obra en la misma línea que publicaron hace algunos años: Peccata minuta. Los tres autores, que escriben bajo el pseudónimo de Víctor Amiano, han hablado con nosotros para explicarnos con más detalle en qué consiste esta obra que acaba de salir al mercado.

Pregunta - En una entrevista con Mediterráneo Antiguo, Carlos García Gual nos decía que renunciar a los clásicos era renunciar a parte de nuestra personalidad. A juzgar por su libro, también es renunciar a buena parte de nuestro lenguaje ¿no es así?
Respuesta - La lengua evoluciona, es una constante, y lo hace por el efecto que ejercen los hablantes sobre ella al usarla. Es el fenómeno que explica que el latín se haya transformado en la multitud de lenguas romances que se hablan en la actualidad. La cultura y formación de los hablantes se deja ver en su manera de expresarse y cuidar de la lengua. La presencia de expresiones latinas o fraseología procedente del mundo clásico era más frecuente hasta hace unos veinte años por la sencilla razón de que se estudiaba mucho más latín y griego y sus respectivas culturas que ahora. Y por tanto, la generación anterior no solo las comprendía, sino que estaba acostumbrada a adornar su discurso con expresiones que ahora simplemente se han olvidado o solo recuerdan ya los de cierta edad, como, por ejemplo, “retirarse al Aventino”, expresión que recoge un episodio fundamental de la historia de Roma: cuando en los primeros tiempos republicanos, en el 494 a.C., los plebeyos se retiraron desde Roma al monte Aventino, dejando de abastecer a la ciudad de productos y servicios imprescindibles, para presionar a los patricios, los poderosos, y conseguir así cierta igualdad de derechos, que quedaron plasmados en la las leyes de las XII tablas, primer monumento legistativo de Roma. Por tanto, sí se podría decir, en paralelo a la afirmación de Carlos García Gual, gran filólogo griego y buen conocedor de la situación de la cultura clásica en España, que la ausencia del latín y el griego del bachillerato supone una pérdida grande de nuestro pasado clásico, no solo en lo que tienen que ver con los conocimientos generales, sino también a la hora de hablar.

Pregunta - ¿Cómo surge la idea de recopilar estas frases en un libro?
Dichosos dichos es de algún modo la continuación de un libro anterior, titulado Peccata minuta, que firmamos también como Víctor Amiano. Este último recogía los latinismos crudos y las expresiones latinas que con más frecuencia se usan en el hablar cotidiano, algunas frecuentemente mal usadas y también mal pronunciadas, intentando explicar su origen, uso en la Antigüedad y uso correcto en la actualidad. Un ejemplo muy llamativo de un uso aberrante es la palabra ratio, que para los economistas se ha convertido en un término masculino, “los ratios”… Durante el proceso de escritura de Peccata minuta comprobamos que también había muchas expresiones en español que tenían su origen en la literatura, la historia, la filosofía o la mitología antiguas, y propusimos a la editorial recogerlas en el actual volumen, Dichosos dichos, que, dado su proceso de gestación, hace pareja con el primero. Como si fueran anverso y reverso de la misma idea. Y así compilamos “La manzana de la discordia”, “ser un adonis”, “hacerse el sueco”, “tener muchos humos”, “llevarse la parte del león”, etc. Además, en este volumen, hemos querido acompañar las frases con textos explicativos, que pretenden ser amenos y divulgativos. En ellos, se ofrece información sobre hitos históricos importantes, pero también sobre cuestiones relativas a la vida cotidiana, las prácticas religiosas o la literatura de griegos y romanos, que pretenden servir de apoyo para la comprensión del mundo antiguo y sus expresiones. De este modo, hemos podido definir algunos géneros literarios caídos en desuso, como la sátira o la épica, cómo funcionaba el calendario romano o se desarrollaban los sacrificios, o de qué manera el mundo antiguo pervive en realidades populares como el fútbol o el cine.

Pregunta - ¿Cómo se rastrea el origen de una frase para saber que se remonta a la Antigüedad? ¿qué fuentes se utilizan?

Portada de la primera parte

Respuesta - En realidad el proceso es otro; no se trata tanto de rastrear, cuanto de leer los textos antiguos, sobre todo la historia, la fábula, la filosofía, en fin, todos los géneros inventados por los antiguos, y comprobar, sobre todo en algunos autores, que sus relatos contienen la expresión o el germen de la anécdota que da lugar a la expresión. Lo que ocurre es que esos textos están en latín y son los que aún conocen esa lengua los que pueden identificar esas expresiones. Es una tarea laboriosa y en ocasiones es el producto de muchos años de lectura de los textos antiguos con los que nosotros estamos familiarizados. Por tanto, las fuentes son siempre los textos clásicos, aunque hay que reconocer que algunos autores dan más juego que otros; por ejemplo, los historiadores romanos Livio y Tácito son una fuente inestimable de anécdotas y expresiones que se han fijado en nuestra lengua: odio púnico, por ejemplo, referido al odio que Aníbal juró contra Roma. Las fábulas de Fedro también ofrecen muchos ejemplos, como contrato leonino, es decir, las condiciones gravosas que el león impone a sus socios a la hora del reparto del botín y el poderoso a sus subalternos. Una vez reconocido el origen de una expresión, hemos procurado hacer una valoración sobre su uso en castellano, especialmente el actual, para la que nos hemos servido de distintas búsquedas en los corpora (CORDE y CREA) de la Real Academia, que nos han proporcionado información muy valiosa sobre los sentidos concretos que atribuyen los hablantes a esas expresiones y que pueden haber evolucionado con el paso del tiempo.

Pregunta - ¿Podría explicarnos el origen de alguna frase cuyo pasado romano sea poco deducible?
Respuesta - Quizá la expresión más sorprendente es “hacerse el sueco”, porque, como es natural, el referente inmediato que nos viene a la cabeza es un “sueco”, es decir, un habitante de Suecia. Sin embargo, el origen tiene que ver con el tipo de calzado, el zueco (soccus en latín), que calzaban los actores de comedias, y que los identificaba ante los espectadores, como en el circo de nuestros días se identifica al Zapatones. Entre los elementos caracterizadores de ese personaje estaría el de hacerse el desentendido o el loco y, de tal modo, “hacerse el sueco” comienza a usarse en el sentido de no darse por aludido, hacer como que uno no se entera, típico procedimiento cómico para escabullirse de alguna situación delicada. El paso en la pronunciación de “sueco” a “zueco” es fácil de entender en algunas regiones de España.

Pregunta - ¿Y alguna que haya perdido su significado original, pero que ahora se siga utilizando en otro sentido?
Respuesta - Una expresión que tiene mucho predicamento en la prensa deportiva es la de obtener una “victoria pírrica”, cuando un equipo se impone a otro por la mínima puntuación, es decir, “por los pelos” (el libro, por cierto, explica también algunas expresiones relacionadas con “pelos”). Pero, en origen, la expresión procede de la historia de Roma y la llegada a la península itálica del rey del Epiro, Pirro, allá por el siglo tercero a.C. El tal Pirro debía de ser un gran estratega y todas sus batallas contra los romanos se materializaban en triunfos, pero le suponían tantas bajas entre sus tropas que estas victorias no reportaban beneficio alguno a su empresa y su ejército quedaba vencedor, pero diezmado. De todos modos, gracias a la prensa deportiva muchas de estas expresiones de origen clásico se han conservado y se usan con cierta frecuencia, como “cancerbero” para referirse al portero o “ariete” para el delantero.

Pregunta - ¿Podemos deducir la forma de ser de los romanos a partir de sus expresiones o frases hechas?
Respuesta - Sí, el carácter leguleyo, su mentalidad pragmática (“aún estaban verdes las uvas”, dice la zorra que no alcanza las uvas), su afán bélico y su origen rústico (véase la expresión “mala pécora”). Estos rasgos sí pueden conservarse en algunas expresiones, pero lo que más se refleja en la fraseología romana conservada son las costumbres y la vida cotidiana de esta cultura. Se trataba de un pueblo de gran religiosidad y muy escrupuloso en el cumplimiento del ritual, muy supersticioso y bastante socarrón. Por eso la sátira y la fábula son fuente inagotable de moralejas y dichos graciosos.

Pregunta - ¿Qué futuro le espera a este tipo de expresiones? ¿corren riesgo con el cambio generacional?
Respuesta - La tendencia general es que se pierdan paulatinamente, en la medida que dejen de usarse y sean sustituidas por otras sinónimas pero de orígenes más cercanos. Este tipo de expresiones están sometidas a un desgaste expresivo que impele a su renovación permanente. Con todo, siempre se conservará alguna que se haya quedado bien fijada, aunque no se sepa el origen, como “andar con cien ojos”. El corte generacional ya se observa en las expresiones que hemos recogido en Dichosos dichos; somos conscientes de que algunas frases son muy usadas, como “quedarse de piedra”, pero otras ya solo las usa y entiende la generación formada en los clásicos, como, por ejemplo, “lanzar una filípica” o “pasar por las horcas caudinas”. Por eso, es muy importante que se recupere el estudio de las lenguas clásicas en el Bachillerato y que se apueste desde las instituciones por el fomento de las Humanidades, tan vapuleadas últimamente. En este sentido, Peccata minuta y Dichosos dichos son nuestra modesta aportación para que las nuevas generaciones, aunque no las usen, al menos sí comprendan el origen, el uso y las curiosidades de estas expresiones de origen clásico.

Autor
Mario Agudo Villanueva

↧

Artículo - Las herramientas de piedra como fuente de conocimiento

November 11, 2014, 12:56 pm

≫ Next: Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part VI)

≪ Previous: Entrevista con Víctor Amiano: "lo que más se refleja en la fraseología romana conservada son las costumbres y la vida cotidiana de esta cultura"

Este artículo pretende dar a conocer de forma sencilla en qué consisten los restos líticos procedentes de la talla y qué tipo de información aportan al conocimiento científico contribuyendo a la construcción de interpretaciones históricas.

Por su resistencia a la degradación y la ubicuidad de las materias primas, las herramientas de piedra y los restos resultantes de su fabricación son muy abundantes en los yacimientos arqueológicos. Esto supone que estos materiales sean una de las principales fuentes de conocimiento para la Prehistoria, fundamentalmente. Por ello han sido y son uno de los focos principales de la investigación en Arqueología Prehistórica, generando una abundantísima literatura científica y diversos tipos de aproximaciones teóricas y metodológicas.

Para poder interpretar la información que proporcionan estos restos es necesario que éstos pasen por un proceso de trabajo laborioso desde su registro en el yacimiento, hasta su depósito en el museo. Este proceso consiste en la recuperación de cada pieza y la documentación en campo de su posición exacta, el remontaje, la clasificación, la descripción de sus características, su lectura tecnológica, el estudio traceológico si procede y su representación gráfica. Todos estos trabajos dan como resultado un conjunto de datos que son los que al final se interpretan.

Fig. 1 - Dibujos a tinta de materiales líticos tallados. Por DIBUJANTES DE ARQUEOLOGÍA

Breve historia de la disciplina

A la vista de cualquier persona ajena al conocimiento de este tipo de restos, éstos no parecen más que fragmentos de piedra, con la salvedad de algunas cuyo significado parece muy evidente, como son algunas puntas de flecha. Por ello, es imprescindible el reconocimiento de aquellas primeras personas que comenzaron a plantearse que algunas piedras con filos cortantes y formas extrañas podrían haber sido obra de nuestros antepasados.

Uno de aquellos primeros que podíamos considerar prehistoriadores fue Boucher de Perthes, quien expuso en su publicación de 1847, Antiquités celtiques et antediluviannes, la presencia del ser humano en el Pleistoceno (el primer período del Cuaternario). Esta afirmación, contraria a los escritos bíblicos que se tomaban como referencia en aquella época, fue producto de la observación de la aparición de herramientas de piedra (interpretadas como tales por Boucher de Perthes) junto a especies animales extinguidas en yacimientos de terrazas fluviales como Abbeville (yacimiento epónimo del Abbevillense) y Saint-Acheul (que da nombre al Achelense). Este excepcional descubrimiento fue anterior a la publicación de El origen de las especies en 1859 por Charles Darwin. Solamente después de que se planteara la posibilidad de una evolución de las especies, se empezó a reconocer el valor de la publicación de Boucher de Perthes y, por tanto, se reconocía que la especie humana había fabricado aquellas herramientas en un momento coetáneo a la existencia de especies extintas.

A partir de ese momento, los descubrimientos se sucedieron y condujeron al reconocimiento oficial de la Prehistoria. Desde entonces y hasta la mitad del siglo XX aproximadamente el estudio de estos materiales consistía en lo que se denomina Tipología (Cahen et al. 1981), es decir, en la clasificación en tipos únicamente de los restos líticos que se consideraban útiles o herramientas y en plantear una evolución de los tipos de herramientas conforme a una evolución cultural única como si fueran fósiles paleontológicos. De esta época procede el concepto de fósil director, que consideraba los tipos clave que definían una cultura.

En la segunda mitad del siglo XX, empezó a considerarse de importancia la manera en que aquellas herramientas prehistóricas fueron fabricadas, lo que fue el origen de la aproximación tecnológica. Este tipo de estudios surgió en parte por la influencia de la etnología. En este período hay que destacar a dos investigadores que encabezaron sendas corrientes en los estudios del Paleolítico europeo. Por un lado, François Bordes que desarrolló la aproximación cultural mediante el método tipológico-estadístico (Bordes, 1961) y, por otro lado, André Leroi-Gourhan que inauguró la corriente paleoetnológica y que introdujo en Prehistoria el concepto de Cadena Operativa (Leroi-Gourhan, 1964-1965), procedente de la Etnología. Este concepto se ha desarrollado posteriormente constituyendo una de las principales herramientas metodológicas en los estudios de tecnología lítica (Bar Yosef y Van Peer, 2009). Este concepto sugiere que todos los procesos de trabajo se pueden dividir en fases hasta la consecución del objetivo final. Esto permite la ordenación de los restos que se generan en cada fase del proceso y analizar la información que procede de cada uno de ellos.

Es a partir de los años 80 del siglo XX cuando verdaderamente se produce el desarrollo de los estudios en tecnología lítica. Los artefactos líticos son considerados plenamente como evidencias del comportamiento humano en su dimensión técnica, económica y social (Pelegrin, 1990). Los estudios de los yacimientos prehistóricos pasan a ser multidisciplinares y los datos que proporcionan los restos líticos son contrastados con los arqueofaunísticos (los restos de animales aportados o procesados en los yacimientos), los traceológicos (las huellas originadas por la utilización de las herramientas), los tafonómicos (los procesos de formación y alteración de los yacimientos), etc. Como consecuencia de todo ello, además aparece la Arqueología Experimental (p. ej. Bordes 1947; Tixier et al. 1980), que persigue la contrastación de hipótesis mediante el diseño de experimentos que, en muchas ocasiones, incluyen la réplica de los procesos de trabajo que dieron lugar a los restos estudiados. La experimentación en Arqueología tuvo como punto de partida el estudio tecnológico de los restos líticos.

Por último, hay que destacar la importante innovación metodológica que se ha llevado a cabo a partir de entonces. No solamente se trata de la incorporación de las llamadas nuevas tecnologías, sino de una auténtica revolución metodológica que se extenderá a toda la Ciencia Arqueológica. El desarrollo de los estudios en tecnología lítica impulsó la necesidad de llevar a cabo un registro riguroso como el registro de las coordenadas de cada objeto en un espacio tridimensional (Laplace y Méroc, 1954) o la realización de remontajes (Cziesla et al. 1990) que consiste en reunir los fragmentos tallados, como si de un puzzle se tratara, revertiendo el trabajo realizado, por no olvidar el desarrollo de una representación gráfica específica (Dubois, 1976).

Breve historia del empleo de herramientas de piedra

La elaboración de herramientas de piedra mediante la talla comienza hace 2,5 millones de años y esto desató una maquinaria evolutiva muy potente. Fue la aparición de la fabricación de estas herramientas y su utilización las que favorecieron la evolución cognitiva y cultural del ser humano (Ambrose, 2001). Es decir, la posibilidad de que un homínido fuera capaz de fabricar herramientas cortantes mediante la transformación de determinadas piedras cuya fractura es predecible, facilitó el acceso a recursos cárnicos, por ejemplo, y mejorar su alimentación. Este descubrimiento abrió la puerta a la mejora de dichos instrumentos y nuevas formas de fabricarlos, así como la posibilidad de acceder a nuevos recursos. El surgimiento de la tecnología, conllevó la necesidad de desarrollar la abstracción y la anticipación: la abstracción de la idea de objeto o proyecto a fabricar y la capacidad de anticiparse al resultado de efectuar un golpe en un lugar determinado, con una herramienta, una fuerza y de una manera determinada, sobre un tipo de roca determinada. A partir de ese momento, las herramientas de piedra pasaron a ser insustituibles a lo largo de todo el Paleolítico.

Con el Neolítico aparecen nuevos usos como las hojas para hoces. En el Calcolítico (Edad del Cobre) los artesanos especializados en la talla alcanzan su máximo nivel técnico, al menos en la Península Ibérica. La destrucción de las redes de intercambio de sílex, junto con la introducción paulatina del metal en la vida cotidiana, provocó que el uso y, sobre todo, la fabricación de herramientas de piedra, entraran en recesión y pasase a una producción doméstica en la Edad del Bronce.

En épocas históricas se mantuvo relegada a ámbitos muy restringidos. La introducción de la pólvora y las armas de fuego marcan un repunte en la talla del sílex, iniciándose por primera vez la producción industrial de piedras de fusil. La elaboración de dientes de trillo es la última producción de piedra tallada que desaparece a mediados del siglo XX en algunos lugares como España.

Por último, a pesar de la influencia de la cultura occidental y la urbanización global, la elaboración y uso de herramientas y adornos personales en piedra tallada aún pervive en algunas sociedades africanas y asiáticas.

Tipos de restos y su interpretación

La talla de la piedra se basa en la aplicación de una fuerza (Whittaker, 1994) a unas determinadas rocas cuyo tipo de fractura (concoidea) hace que ésta sea predecible y controlable. El objeto de esta acción es partir la roca de una determinada manera que produzca un filo cortante en una pieza de una forma más o menos predefinida o planificada. Estos filos pueden transformarse, dividirse o reforzarse mediante trabajos posteriores.

Las rocas más comúnmente utilizadas son el sílex (y todas las rocas silíceas en general), la cuarcita y la obsidiana. Cada una tiene unas características apropiadas para diferentes tipos de herramientas y, en general, los grupos humanos se han adaptado a la disponibilidad de rocas de áreas más o menos amplias en su entorno. La talla puede realizarse mediante percusión o presión (Tixier et al 1980), con instrumentos de piedra (percutores denominados duros), de asta o madera (percutores blandos o elásticos y presionadores) o metálicos (percutores y presionadores).

Tallar la piedra genera una cantidad de restos muy grande ya que se desprenden de cada golpe no solamente el fragmento deseado, sino también otros más pequeños. Además, dependiendo de la complejidad del trabajo realizado, para conseguir la herramienta final, debe darse forma a la roca inicial. Son los restos de la fabricación, junto con los instrumentos líticos ya elaborados y utilizados, los materiales que encontramos los arqueólogos en los yacimientos. La interpretación de estos restos depende de la reconstrucción de los procesos de trabajo y de su estudio. Los restos pueden ordenarse, como ya hemos explicado, según la fase de trabajo en la que se han producido (la Cadena Operativa), teniendo en cuenta que cualquier resto puede haber sido abandonado sin que el proceso de trabajo se haya terminado, o puede haber sido aportado al yacimiento en una fase de transformación intermedia.

De esta manera, la Cadena Operativa de fabricación de herramientas de piedra, se compone de las siguientes fases: adquisición de la materia prima, configuración, producción de soportes, retoque o fabricación de herramientas, utilización de dichas herramientas y abandono. El reciclaje, es a su vez una parte del trabajo.

1.- El primer paso para transformar las rocas en herramientas es el aprovisionamiento de las materias primas. Los grupos humanos conocen su entorno y el lugar en el que se encuentran las rocas apropiadas. Estas rocas aparecen en forma de roca masiva, nódulos, fragmentos o cantos rodados. El análisis del comportamiento con respecto a esta fase del trabajo nos proporciona información sobre el territorio frecuentado por los grupos prehistóricos, sus técnicas extractivas, su capacidad de organización en trabajos colectivos como la cantería y la minería, y el transporte e intercambio de estas materias. Esto a su vez puede ayudarnos a interpretar cuáles eran las relaciones sociales entre grupos y a valorar cuestiones relacionadas con costes en términos de trabajo invertido.

2.- Una vez obtenida la materia prima los bloques deben transformarse en soportes y herramientas en las fases de configuración y producción. Los nódulos que empiezan a tallarse se denominan núcleos y los fragmentos que se extraen de ellos son lascas o láminas, además de desprenderse multitud de restos de talla.

Fig. 2 - Análisis y toma de dimensiones de un núcleo de sílex. Foto: DIBUJANTES DE ARQUEOLOGÍA

El estudio de esta fase nos informa sobre las capacidades cognitivas de los individuos que tallan y sus habilidades técnicas: su capacidad de planificación, de organización y de abstracción. Esta parte está íntimamente relacionada con la evolución humana ya que parece ser que la tecnología lítica puso en marcha un mecanismo adaptativo que favoreció la evolución. Esta fase además implica información sobre la gestión de los recursos y la economía de medios, adaptando los gestos y las técnicas a la materia prima disponible.

La manera en que los restos líticos generados durante esta actividad fueron abandonados y se disponen en el espacio, aporta datos de gran calidad sobre cómo era la gestión de los espacios de trabajo y/o domésticos: la disposición de las tareas en lugares diferentes e incluso la jerarquización de individuos que tienen limitado el acceso a posiciones centrales y realizan sus actividades en las periféricas.

A este respecto es posible identificar diferentes niveles de destreza en la elaboración de las piezas, lo cual nos permite profundizar en la manera en la que diferentes sociedades prehistóricas transmitían el conocimiento técnico a la siguiente generación.

3.- La fase de retoque, enmangue y utilización de las herramientas contiene información indispensable para su interpretación y para la reconstrucción de los modos de vida prehistórico. Los restos correspondientes a esta fase son las herramientas propiamente dichas, como el bifaz, el hendedor, la raedera, el raspador, el perforador, el buril, las puntas de proyectil, piezas de hoz, piezas de trillo, piedras de fusil, etc.

Los tipos de herramientas utilizadas y sus formas implican un cierto grado de influencia aportada por la tradición de los grupos, así como de las necesidades que dieron pie a su fabricación. El uso de estas piezas se analiza mediante los estudios traceológicos o de huellas de uso. Estos estudios consisten en observar, caracterizar e interpretar las alteraciones que la utilización de las herramientas produjo en su superficie.

El conocimiento de los usos de las herramientas implica saber qué actividades tuvieron lugar en el yacimiento y nos informan sobre si se pusieron en prácticas estrategias más elaboradas o más expeditivas en el consumo de determinados recursos, aparte de conocer la economía de un grupo.

4.- Por último, existen piezas que avalan la práctica de reciclaje o reutilización de los instrumentos. Es imprescindible estudiar este tipo de comportamiento para valorar la economía de medios e interpretar las razones de su existencia. El reciclaje en la Prehistoria es una constante. Es una práctica que se realiza incluso en condiciones de abundancia de un recurso, en este caso, la piedra. Quizás nos resulte algo extraño de asumir ya que nuestra sociedad de consumo apenas acaba de concienciarse y recuperar una práctica prehistórica.

Autores

Nuria Castañeda y Paco Fernández (DIBUJANTES DE ARQUEOLOGÍA)

Bibliografía

AMBROSE (2001): Palaeolithic Technology and human Evolution. Science 291.

CAHEN, D., C. KARLIN, L. H. KEELEY y F. VAN NOTEN, (1981): "Mèthodes d'analyse technique, spatiale et fonctionnelle d'ensembles lithiques", Hellinium, 20.

BAR-YOSEF, O. and VAN PEER, PH. (2009): “The ‘Chaîne Opératoire’ Approach in Middle Paleolithic Archaeology”. Current Anthropology 50 (1): 103-131.

BORDES, F. (1947): «Etude comparative des différentes techniques de taille du silex et des roches dures». L'Anthropologie, tome 51.

BORDES, F. (1961): Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Delmas, Publications de l'Institut de Préhistoire de l'Université de Bordeaux, Mémoire no 1 (1961), réédition CNRS, 1988.

BOUCHER DE PERTHES, J. (1847): Antiquités celtiques et antédiluviennes. Mémoire sur l'industrie primitive et les arts à leur origine. Paris.

CZIESLA, E., S. EICKHOFF, N. ARTS, and D. WINTER (eds.), 1990: The Big Puzzle. International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts. Studies in Modern Archaeology 1. Bonn: Ho¬los.

DAUVOIS, M. (1976): Précis de dessin dynamique et structural des industries lithiques préhistoriques. Périgueux: Pierre Fanlac.

LAPLACE, G. et MEROC, L. (1954) : «Application des coordonnées cartésiennes à la fouille d'un gisement ». Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, t. LI, p. 58-66.

LEROI-GOURHAN, A. (1964-1965): Le Geste et la Parole, 1: Technique et langage, 2: Mémoire et les Rythmes. Paris, Albin Michel.

PELEGRÍN, J. (1990): "Prehistoric lithic technology: some aspects of research". Archeological Review from Cambridge, 9 (1).

TIXIER, J., INIZAN, M. L. y ROCHE, H. (1980): Préhistoire de la pierre taillée. 1: terminologie et technologie. Antibes: C.R.E.P.

WHITTAKER, J.C. (1994): Flintknapping. Making and Understanding Stone Tools. Austin: University of Texas Press.

↧

Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part VI)

November 16, 2014, 12:49 pm

≫ Next: Entrevista con Juan Pinedo: "el proyecto Isla Grosa favorece la participación de la sociedad y la implicación con un patrimonio que es suyo"

≪ Previous: Artículo - Las herramientas de piedra como fuente de conocimiento

I wrote my initial article on this question on the morning of 6th September, a day before the announcement of the discovery of the caryatids, and I have written five more parts since, each showing how the latest evidence continued to be consistent with the occupant being Olympias, the mother of Alexander. In the sixth part, which I wrote on 23rd October, I predicted that human remains would be found within the tomb and on 12th November the discovery of a skeleton was announced and photos of the cist grave beneath the floor of the third chamber of the tomb were published (Figures 1 & 2). Today, the 14th November, Greece’s General Secretary of Culture, Lina Mendoni, has confirmed that the skeleton has not been cremated. That means that DNA confirmation of the sex of the occupant should be possible and the age will also be approximately determinable. Therefore my question as to whether the deceased is Olympias should soon effectively be answered, for, if this is the skeleton of a woman in her fifties, very little doubt will remain.

Figure 1. The cist grave at Amphipolis during removal of the sand fill

Fig. 2. The cist grave fully excavated revealing the slot that have held a wooden coffin

Two rival theories that have been popular over the last few months can be ruled out immediately. The tomb is obviously not a cenotaph or an empty Heroon, because the remains are clearly the burial that this monument was built to honour. Furthermore, this cannot be the tomb of Hephaistion, as some have speculated, because there are sufficient ancient accounts to confirm that he was cremated. However, the main purpose of this article is to discuss three extraordinary aspects of this newly discovered burial:

a) It is very rare to find a burial of a high status individual in Macedonia in this period that has not been cremated
b) The artistic quality and richness of the cist burial containing the bones falls far beneath the standard of the rest of this monument: the stone of the cist is relatively crudely carved without decoration and has been described as limestone rather than marble and the coffin was wooden and had decorations of glass and carved bone
c) The bones were found scattered both inside and outside of the grave slot where the coffin lay

Each of these observations has a connection with the story of Olympias and with the reports from ancient manuscripts concerning her murder. Whilst we await the results of the tests on the skeleton, which are likely to be decisive one way or the other, it is appropriate to complete the connections between the evidence provided by the Greek Ministry of Culture and the possibility that this is the tomb of Olympias. There are two surviving ancient accounts, which mention the fate of Olympias’s body: firstly in Diodorus 17.118.2 and secondly in a fragment of the writer Porphyry, which is preserved through the Armenian version of Eusebius. However, they both say much the same thing and may both have been taken from the same original source, which was possibly the History Concerning Alexander [the Great] by Cleitarchus of Alexandria, because we know that Diodorus based much of his account of Alexander on that influential lost work. In Greek Diodorus wrote: …τήν τε γὰρ Ὀλυμπιάδα φονεύσαντα ἄταφον ῥῖψαι. This literally refers to Cassander having murdered Olympias and “cast her away unburied”. That is how it is usually translated, but it has always been a stretch to believe that the body of the mother of Alexander the Great could literally have been left to rot in the open in his homeland of Macedonia. Most scholars have believed that her body was eventually collected by her relatives and given a relatively simple burial. However, the word taphos has a duality of meanings in ancient Greek. It can indeed mean a burial or tomb, but it also means the funeral ceremony and funeral rites. Ataphos could therefore mean “unburied”, but it could also mean “without funeral rites”. In that case we could read Diodorus as meaning that Cassander “disposed of Olympias’s body without funeral rites”. Clearly, that is extremely interesting, because the lack of a cremation for the skeleton unearthed at Amphipolis would in itself have been sufficient cause for an ancient account to make the complaint of a lack of funeral rites. So the known history of the disposal of Olympias’s body precisely explains the extraordinary lack of cremation for the remains found in the Kasta Mound. It will be difficult to find such an historically recorded explanation for the lack of cremation in the case of any other prominent candidate.

These circumstances of murder and inhumation without cremation also offer a complete explanation of why the cist tomb containing these bones falls so far below the quality of the rest of the monument. For example, the egg & dart moulding (Figure 3) that decorated the wooden coffin matches the egg & dart moulding painted onto the portal that supports the sphinxes and connects the burial with the rest of the monument, but it is carved in bone, which is a very low-grade material relative to the gold and silver vessels used for royal bones at Aegae/Vergina. Yet the monument at Amphipolis is more magnificent than the Royal Tombs at Aegae/Vergina. We could infer a hasty and relatively crude burial arranged by Cassander or by Olympias’s relatives and supporters, but in either case with a prohibition against the normal funeral ceremonies. This would have been fitting, because Cassander had had the Macedonian Assembly condemn Olympias to death as a criminal (Diodorus 19.51.1-2), so he would have taken the position that she had been judicially executed and should not be given proper funeral rites. However, he subsequently pursued some degree of reconciliation with the Royal Family: he married Thessalonike the daughter of Philip and the half-sister of Alexander “since he wished to establish a connection with the Royal House” (Diodorus 19.52.1). He initially allowed Alexander IV and Roxane, the son and wife of Alexander the Great, to live although he kept them under guard at Amphipolis. That allowed the possibility that Alexander IV would inherit the empire of his father when he came of age. In this context Cassander could have allowed the Royal Family to build a monument at Amphipolis over the tomb of Olympias.

Fig. 3. Decoration in glass and carved bone from the wooden coffin burial including an egg & dart motif (upper right)

The policy of reconciliation and the opportunity to build the monument may have lasted for most of the period between the murder of Olympias in 316BC and the murders of Alexander IV and Roxane on Cassander’s orders in 310BC, just a year or so before Alexander IV came of age and was eligible to take control of the empire. Clearly Cassander eventually decided that reconciliation was impossible. He may well have realised that he would not be forgiven for the murder of the king’s grandmother when he saw the magnificence of the monument that had been created over her burial. At that point there would no longer have been any political benefit to Cassander in preserving Olympias’s tomb and he had a burning private motive to indulge in its desecration. Cassander’s younger brother, Iollas, had been Alexander the Great’s cupbearer at the party in Babylon at which the king had fallen ill. When Alexander died some ten to twelve days later, it was not many months before malicious gossip fostered a rumour that he had been poisoned at that party and Iollas, amongst others, was implicated. Iollas died and was buried in Macedonia some time between Alexander’s death in 323BC and Olympias’s return to Macedonia in 317BC, but she had heard the rumours about her son having been poisoned, so she desecrated the tomb of Iollas and she also murdered Cassander’s other brother, Nicanor (Diodorus 19.11.8 & 19.35.1). Cassander therefore had a perfect motive for desecrating the tomb of Olympias, if he had an opportunity and his murder of her grandson at the city where her tomb lay would have created just such an opportunity in 310BC.

The reported fact that the bones were found scattered both inside and outside of the grave slot for the coffin shows quite unambiguously that the Amphipolis skeleton was subjected to exactly the same desecration of its grave as had been experienced by Iollas. Furthermore, the fact that the lord of Macedon who organised the sealing of the tomb did not tidy up the scattered bones confirms my previous inference that he was also the person who performed the desecration, the robbing of grave goods and the mutilation of the sculptures. This all fits Cassander perfectly. The Greek Ministry of Culture is undoubtedly correct in suggesting that the occupant of this tomb was subject to a pseudo-religious cult. In the case of Olympias this is explained by the fact that her son was a fully-fledged god at the time of her death. He is for example referred to as “the divine Alexander” in an inscription from Delphi created a few years after his death (Greek Historical Inscriptions 404-323BC by PJ Rhodes & Robin Osbourne, Inscription 92, pp.466-470). Furthermore, he is recorded by Curtius 9.6.26 as having stated a desire to make his mother a goddess after her death. If the bones had a cult status among Cassander’s enemies, it was vital that he denied access to them for the Royal Family and their supporters. This completes a perfect explanation for the remarkable simultaneous defilement and scrupulous sealing up of this astonishing tomb. Since the announcement of the skeleton there have been a few press reports that the skeleton is probably male. However, some of these reports are clearly based on a misunderstanding: they have taken the height of 1.8m estimated for the cist that contained the bones in the official press release as being the height of the occupant and reasoned that such a height is more consistent with a male. But it is clear that that dimension was not intended to allude to the height of the occupant in any way. Other reports are disputed by the fact that Lina Mendoni has indicated today that the sex of the occupant is still being determined. Everything we have seen is therefore highly consistent with Olympias being the occupant of this tomb. But the DNA analysis together with other osteoarchaeological techniques, such as facial reconstruction, should provide the final verdict. However, it is finally worth highlighting the key implication of the discovery of an uncremated skeleton: if it is Olympias, then the DNA will be that which she shared with her son Alexander the Great. That will tell us a great deal about their ancestry, which they claimed could be traced back to Achilles. It will also provide a confident basis to identify any remains suspected of belonging to Alexander himself. I myself have suggested that the skeleton kept in a marble sarcophagus within the high altar of the Basilica di San Marco in Venice (Figure 4) merits investigation. These bones were taken to Venice from Alexandria in AD828. They are said to be the (originally mummified) remains of St Mark the Evangelist, who founded the Christian Church in Alexandria. However, the tomb of St Mark in Alexandria was first mentioned by St Jerome, writing in Bethlehem in AD392 around three centuries after St Mark’s death. The corpse of Alexander the Great was last mentioned as being on display in Alexandria by Libanius in his 49th Oration, written in Antioch in about AD390. In AD391 the Roman Emperor Theodosius outlawed paganism throughout the Roman Empire and the mummified body of Alexander the Great, who had been recognised by the Roman Senate as the thirteenth god of the Graeco-Roman Pantheon, disappeared mysteriously from the annals of history.


Figure 4. The sarcophagus of St Mark the Evangelist within the altar of the Basilica di San Marco in Venice containing a skeleton that appeared in Alexandria in Egypt just after the last historical mention of Alexander's mummified corpse.

You can read the previous part of this article here:

Part I - Is the mother of Alexander at the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part I)
Part II - Is the mother of Alexander at the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part II)
Part III - Is the mother of Alexander at the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part III)
Part IV - Is the mother of Alexander at the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part IV)
Part V - Is the mother of Alexander at the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part V)

Author

Andrew Chugg

Author of The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great and several academic papers on Alexander’s tomb (see https://independent.academia.edu/AndrewChugg and www.alexanderstomb.com)

↧

Entrevista con Juan Pinedo: "el proyecto Isla Grosa favorece la participación de la sociedad y la implicación con un patrimonio que es suyo"

November 21, 2014, 3:57 pm

≫ Next: Noticia - Se constituye la Sociedad Internacional Geography And Historiography In Antiquity (GAHIA)

≪ Previous: Article - Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the tomb of Amphipolis? (Part VI)

Arqueólogos llevando a cabo tareas de documentación. Foto: Proyecto Isla Grosa

La arqueología subacuática es una disciplina que va ganando cada vez más terreno en España. Hace poco entrevistábamos a Carlos de Juan, director del proyecto Bou Ferrer, y hoy nos hemos querido detener en un proyecto diferente, que no sólo busca investigar, sino también formar y divulgar. Un nuevo concepto de gestión del patrimonio arqueológico submarino que supone una apuesta de futuro en el sector. Está capitaneado por Juan Pinedo, director; Carlota Pérez-Reverte y Felipe Cerezo Andreo, co-directores. Hemos querido hablar de ello con Juan Pinedo, que acumula más de 25 años de experiencia en proyectos de arqueología subacuática de ámbito nacional e internacional.

Pregunta - Descríbenos en qué consiste el proyecto Isla Grosa

Respuesta - El Proyecto Isla Grosa es un proyecto de investigación en Arqueología Subacuáticaque se estructura a través de tres ámbitos: Investigación, Formación y Difusión.

La investigación se desarrolla en una zona históricamente privilegiada: un lugar de paso, unos bajos y una Isla que han transitado las grandes culturas marítimas de nuestra Historia, desde fenicios, púnicos, romanos o aragoneses, hasta los piratas berberiscos de época moderna. Estamos hablando de un área en la que se conservan, por poner algunos ejemplos, los restos de una importante embarcación de época fenicia (el pecio del Bajo de la Campana), que nos habla de las primeras navegaciones a Occidente; de las naves romanas que transitaban nuestras costas con el objetivo de comerciar productos de todo el Imperio; y de embarcaciones modernas donde los cañones y los indicios de una batalla naval nos hablan de la lucha por el control del Mediterráneo en época moderna. Como se puede ver, podemos documentar la actividad marítima en esta zona a lo largo de los diferentes periodos históricos, lo que la convierte en un punto muy interesante para comprender la historia marítima del levante español.

La formación está destinada a estudiantes y titulados que quieren iniciarse en esta apasionante disciplina que es la Arqueología Subacuática, a través de un curso práctico en el que no solo trabajan todos los días en el agua, sino que además reciben clases teóricas que les ayudan a comprender la complejidad de la disciplina, las diferentes líneas de estudio y las técnicas y métodos de trabajo propios. Esta formación se realiza mediante el equipo investigador y gracias a la colaboración de expertos de diferentes universidades tanto nacionales como internacionales. Este año por ejemplo lo hemos dedicado a la prospección arqueológica y los estudiantes han tenido la oportunidad de aplicar diferentes técnicas de documentación (dibujo, fotografía, topografía, etc) y reconocimiento del fondo marino (prospecciones lineales, circulares, etc).

Y por último, la difusión y la divulgación de los resultados. Revertir a la sociedad el conocimiento y hacer accesibles los yacimientos al público “in situ” son dos recomendaciones principales que hace la UNESCO de cara a la protección del Patrimonio Cultural Subacuático en su convención de 2001. Nosotros nos hemos centrado en tres aspectos que nos parecían importantes: el primero, hacer que la comunidad se sienta partícipe de su patrimonio y se involucre con él; en segundo lugar, demostrar a la comunidad que proteger e investigar el patrimonio cultural subacuático es necesario y puede potenciar el desarrollo cultural, social y económico; y finalmente, trabajar con los buceadores recreativos y con los centros de buceo las prácticas de buceo responsable recomendadas por la UNESCO. Desde nuestro punto de vista, este es uno de los objetivos más importantes del proyecto, en el que hemos buscado involucrar a la comunidad a través de diferentes asociaciones empresariales y sociales. Mediante esta colaboración hemos creado diferentes herramientas para la difusión como son la musealización del yacimiento fenicio del Bajo de la Campana, la gestión de visitas subacuáticas al mismo, y por otro lado una serie de charlas, exposiciones divulgativas y talleres infantiles que hemos impartido en diferentes centros de la zona.

El proyecto Isla Grosa es un proyecto de investigación pero también propone un modelo de gestión alternativo, en el que desde el rigor científico se favorece la participación de la sociedad y la implicación con un patrimonio que es suyo y que está ansiosa por conocer.

Trabajos bajo el mar. Foto: Proyecto Isla Grosa

Pregunta - ¿Qué tipo de profesionales participan?

Respuesta - Todo proyecto arqueológico debe por fuerza tener un carácter interdisciplinar. Cuanto más especializado y diversificado sea el equipo mayor será el abanico de preguntas que podamos plantearle al yacimiento. Como ocurre en este tipo de proyectos, el núcleo del equipo es muy reducido pero contamos con la colaboración de diferentes profesionales en función de nuestras necesidades como restauradores, fotógrafos, o expertos en periodos históricos concretos. Hay que tener en cuenta que, además, en nuestro caso combinamos la investigación con la formación práctica y la difusión. Así, las prospecciones, por ejemplo, se han llevado a cabo por arqueólogos y estudiantes, las visitas al yacimiento las han guiado un arqueólogo y un restaurador, hemos contado con profesores invitados de diferentes universidades que nos han ayudado a impartir parte de la formación teórica… Uno de los aspectos más bonitos de este proyecto con tantas ramificaciones es que todo el que participa, se siente parte del equipo. Y lo sentimos parte del equipo. Desde el patrón al mecánico, el community manager o el mecenas han sentido este verano que Isla Grosa era un poco suyo. Este proyecto debe su existencia a la implicación de muchas personas, aunque el músculo del mismo lo forman los alumnos, que participan día a día con entusiasmo en la investigación arqueológica.

Conferencia sobre cerámica. Foto: Proyecto Isla Grosa

Pregunta - La costa murciana es rica en pecios, como el de los famosos barcos fenicios de Mazarrón ¿qué otros destacaría?

Respuesta - Las costas de Murcia han sido densamente navegadas desde la antigüedad. El Puerto de Cartagena y sobre todo Cabo de Palos han sido ejes de la navegación, puntos obligados de paso, no sin cierto peligro. Pecios como el Stanfield, el Sirio o el enigmático Beatrice están en la mente de todos. Los pecios de Mazarrónforman parte de la historia de la disciplina. Las costas de Murcia han sido cuna de la arqueología subacuática con yacimientos como los de San Ferreol o Punta de Algas, donde pioneros como Julio Más comenzaron una trayectoria que cristalizó en el Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Subacuáticas de Cartagena. Años más tarde el propio museo comenzó a realizar varios proyectos para sistematizar la información recogida por Julio Más y se localizaron otras embarcaciones significativas, como las de Mazarrón. Tal vez las de mayor repercusión científica y social han sido las excavaciones de los pecios romanos, tardorromanos y medievales en la Isla de Escombreras, y las del pecio fenicio del Bajo de la Campana que como algunos dicen podría ser el Uluburun del Mediterráneo Occidental: un gran mercante que transportaba una carga enormemente valiosa para la época de materias primas como bronce, estaño, galena, marfiles de elefante y elementos suntuarios y religiosos de excepcional interés.

Vista de la Isla Grosa desde el Canal del Estacio. Foto: Mario Agudo Villanueva

Pregunta - ¿En qué medida la apertura del ARQUA en Cartagena puede impulsar los proyectos de arqueología submarina en la región?

Respuesta - Contar con un museo nacional en exclusiva dedicado a una disciplina como es la Arqueología Subacuática es una gran ventaja con la que no cuentan otros países de nuestro entorno. Esto nos debe permitir difundir mejor tanto el trabajo de los arqueólogos como el resultado de las investigaciones que se realizan en otras partes de España y fuera de nuestro país. Su refundación a finales del 2008 en una nueva sede, con nuevos objetivos, ha dado frutos como los cursos de formación (sirva de ejemplo el de 2011 en colaboración con la UNESCO), o varios congresos realizados en 2011, 2012 y el recientemente clausurado IKUWA V, el congreso internacional más importante de la disciplina. Y no solo eso, tras la reciente inauguración de la colección material de la Fragata Mercedes el incremento de visitas está siendo muy significativo lo que es un síntoma del interés que está despertando en la sociedad la arqueología subacuática.

Pregunta - ¿Cuáles son las principales dificultades de la arqueología subacuática?

Respuesta - La arqueología subacuática en España se enfrenta a un momento apasionante: tras muchos años de periodo embrionario en el que se han desarrollado las bases de la disciplina, contamos con muy buenos investigadores y profesionales. Ahora se está comenzando a plantear la necesidad de revertir a la sociedad de forma más directa el conocimiento que generamos. Participación social y afianzamiento en el ámbito académico tal vez sean dos de los principales retos de la Arqueología Subacuática. Quizá uno de los problemas que siempre ha adolecido la disciplina es que en nuestro país (excepto dos honrosas excepciones) no ha estado presente de forma clara en el mundo académico. Eso parece estar cambiando ahora, en los últimos años se han leído algunas tesis doctorales sobre la temática y están en camino otras. Una nueva generación de investigadores, de la mano de la experiencia y el bagaje de los profesionales que han trabajado en las últimas dos décadas, está dando frutos muy interesantes. Proyectos como los del Bou Ferrer, Finisterre o Aigua Blava son una muestra de ello. Y un ejemplo de que en Arqueología Subacuática, como en todo lo demás, de vez en cuando hay que reinventarse. En plena crisis, con los recortes presupuestarios y sin el apoyo financiero directo de organismos públicos, están saliendo adelante muchos proyectos que ofrecen nuevas perspectivas, nuevas experiencias y alternativas, luchando por recuperar nuestro pasado común, ponerlo en valor y contarnos la vieja historia del Hombre y el Mar.

Podéis consultar más información sobre el proyecto en su web www.proyectoislagrosa.com

Autor

Mario Agudo Villanueva

↧

Noticia - Se constituye la Sociedad Internacional Geography And Historiography In Antiquity (GAHIA)

November 26, 2014, 1:32 pm

≫ Next: Interview with Nektarios Poulakakis: "the ancient remains of a stoa together with three natural caves there were probably the area of the school of Aristotle at Mieza"

≪ Previous: Entrevista con Juan Pinedo: "el proyecto Isla Grosa favorece la participación de la sociedad y la implicación con un patrimonio que es suyo"

Los días 20 y 21 de noviembre se celebró en la Sede Central de la Universidad de Alcalá de Henares el acto de constitución de la sociedad científica internacional para el estudio de la geografía antigua, que recibirá el nombre de Geography And Historiography in Antiquity (GAHIA) y estará presidida por Francisco J. González Ponce, de la Universidad de Sevilla.

Los fines que se plantea la asociación son:

1. El estudio del pensamiento geográfico del mundo antiguo y sus implicaciones dentro del género historiográfico grecolatino, y de la geografía histórica de la antigüedad, así como el fomento y la difusión de dichas materias en todos sus aspectos y géneros y su tradición desde la antigüedad hasta el momento actual.

2. La colaboración con el resto de instituciones y asociaciones nacionales e internacionales que tengan por objeto estos mismos estudios.

3. La defensa de sus legítimos intereses científicos y culturales.

A pesar de que la fundación se ha fundado recientemente, ya cuenta con algunos proyectos muy bien definidos:

- Puesta en marcha de una ambiciosa campaña de divulgación y de captación de nuevos asociados en diversos países europeos.

- Programación de una divulgación exhaustiva de la Asociación en los órganos científicos habituales sobre las materias objeto de estudio.

- Solicitud de ayudas públicas nacionales e internacionales (programas europeos de ayuda a la investigación).

- Nombramiento de una Presidencia de Honor, que estará ocupada por un investigador español y otro extranjero de reconocido prestigio.

- Establecimiento de reuniones científicas bianuales con tema monográfico.

- Diseño de un sitio web con capacidad para cubrir todas sus necesidades científicas.

- Diseño de un sistema de comentario on line de los diversos libros de la Geografía de Estrabón (para el que hay ya nombrado un Comité Científico).

- Mantenimiento de una sesión de actualización científica on line sobre la especialidad.

- Creación de una serie monográfica de publicación periódica que se convierta en el principal producto científico de la Asociación.

- Admisión como actuaciones patrocinadas por la Asociación de cualesquiera otras actividades científicas llevadas a cabo por los miembros que la integran.

La relación de asociados fundadores es la que sigue:

- Jaime Alvar Ezquerra (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid).

- Cinzia Bearzot (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano).

- José María Candau Morón (Universidad de Sevilla).

- Antonio L. Chávez Reino (Universidad de Sevilla).

- Virgilio Costa (Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata).

- Gonzalo Cruz Andreotti (Universidad de Málaga).

- Luis A. García Moreno (Real Academia Española de la Historia).

- Marco V. García Quintela (Universidad de Santiago de Compostela).

- Francsico J. Gómez Espelosín (Universidad de Alcalá de Henares).

- Francisco J. González Ponce (Universidad de Sevilla).

- Arthur F. Haushalter (Université de Reims).

- Pierre Moret (Université de Toulouse).

- Roberto Nicolai (Università di Roma La Sapienza).

- Gabriella Ottone (Università degli Studi di Genova).

- Irene Pajón Leyra (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas).

La asociación busca la idea de conseguir agrupar a la totalidad de los especialistas e interesados por el estudio del pensamiento geográfico antiguo y sus relaciones con el ámbito historiográfico, de canalizar todos sus trabajos y esfuerzos y de fortalecer dicha disciplina en el ámbito de las humanidades.

Foto del acto fundacional

Los miembros fundadores de la asociación lideran actualmente una serie de Proyectos de Investigación subvencionados por el Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología del Gobierno de España, que cuentan entre sus fines precisamente la fundación de una asociación de las características de GAHIA. Tales Proyectos son los siguientes:

1. Por la Universidad de Sevilla: “Literatura fragmentaria histórica y geográfica: tradición y transmisión en el contexto de los nuevos recursos tecnológicos” (FFI2012-36220-C02-01), dirigido por Francisco J. González Ponce y en el que participan J. M. Candau Morón y A. L. Chávez Reino.

2. Por la Universidad de Alcalá de Henares: “Conquista y exploración: Alejandro Magno y la geografía” (FFI2012-36220-C02-02), dirigido por F. J. Gómez Espelosín, en el que participan L. A. García Moreno y A. I. Molina Marín.

3. Por la Universidad de Málaga: “Identidades étnicas e identidades cívico-políticas en la Hispania romana: el caso de la Turdetania-Bética” (HAR2012-32588), dirigido por G. Cruz Andreotti, en el que participan P. Moret, F. J. García Fernández, E. Castro Pérez, B. Mora Serrano y L. Sánchez Voigt.

La idea parte de una propuesta presentada por el actual Presidente de la Asociación, en el Seminario Internacional “Géographie et géographes anciens (Ancient Geography and Geographers)”, dirigido por P. Arnaud y F. J. Gómez Espelosín, y celebrado en la Universidad de Niza el pasado mes de octubre de 2010, acto en el que participaron, además de los colegas mencionados, D. Marcotte, R. Talbert, G. Cruz Andreotti y L. A. García Moreno. En tal ocasión se llegó al acuerdo de formalizar una red de especialistas focalizada especialmente en el ámbito mediterráneo (idea liderada en sus inicios por los colegas franceses), pero en aquel momento no llegó a cristalizar.

↧

Interview with Nektarios Poulakakis: "the ancient remains of a stoa together with three natural caves there were probably the area of the school of Aristotle at Mieza"

November 29, 2014, 4:35 pm

≫ Next: Interview with Adrian Goldsworthy: "It is a mistake to see Augustus as essentially the same person in 44 BC as he was in 27 BC or AD 14"

≪ Previous: Noticia - Se constituye la Sociedad Internacional Geography And Historiography In Antiquity (GAHIA)

The archaeological site of Mieza was the place where Aristotle, according to Plutarch, had the school where Alexander the Great studied together with the young members of Macedonian aristocratic families. Mediterráneo Antiguo has contacted to Nektarios Poulakakis, archaeologist, member of the team of the archaelogical site, to know deeply more information about it and about the recent restoration work in the theatre.

Fig. 1. Map of Macedonia. Photo: Archaeological site of Mieza.

Question - Mieza was one of the major cities of the Macedonian kingdom, What do we know about the foundation of this city through the archaeology?

Answer - The city Mieza once belonged to ancient Bottiaia, the area stretching between Mountain Vermio and River Axios (Fig. 1). Ancient authors and geographers refer to Mieza as one of the cities of “ερατεινή ‘Ημαθία” (lovely Emathia), as mentioned by Homer (Iliad, XIV, 226). Also, the name of the city appears in ancient inscriptions. The identification of the city with ancient Mieza was proposed convincingly by the archaeologist F. Petsas in 1966; he combined references of ancient authors (Stephen of Byzantium, National, etc.; Mieza, Pliny, Naturalis Historia 31.30 and 4.34; Plutarch, Alexander, 7; Ptolemy, 3.13.39) with topographical observations and the results of the archaeological research. This identification is now almost unanimously accepted by the scientific community (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Map of Mieza. Photo: Archaeological site of Mieza.

The antiquities of the region are first mentioned in the middle of 19th century by foreign travellers (W. M. Leake, A. Delacoulonche). The first excavation was conducted by the Danish architect K.F. Kinch, who excavated the Macedonian tomb of “Niaousta” or “Kinch” from 1887 to 1892. In 1942, the then curator of antiquities Ch. Makaronas excavated the Macedonian tomb of Lyson and Kallikles (Fig. 3) that has exquisite wall paintings.

Fig. 3. Macedonian tomb of Lyson and Kallikles. Photo: Archaeological site of Mieza.

Rescue excavations became more systematic in the 1950s and 1960s with the intensification of farming and public works in the region. The main excavation work during that time was carried out by F. Petsas. Since then archaeological research in the area has been sporadic, though work was intensified in the 2000s.

Question - Along the road led from Pella to Mieza we can find six Macedonian tombs, two of them of a high quality, Lyson and Kallikles’ tomb and Judgement's tomb. Do you expect to find more tombs?

Answer - Numerous funerary monuments, especially rock-cut tombs have been excavated from this phase of the city’s history. The most important of these are seven Macedonian tombs, three of which, the so-called tombs of ‘’Judgement’’ (Fig. 4) and ‘’Palmettes’’ (Fig. 5) and the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles (Fig. 3), are adorned with wall paintings preserved in excellent condition and are among the most important buildings of Macedonian funerary architecture. There is quite a possibility that we will discover more tombs during our future excavations, but we do not have yet specific archaeological elements about this matter.

Fig. 4. Macedonian tomb of "judgement". Photo: Archaeological site of Mieza

Fig. 4a. Hermes from the tomb of "judgement". Photo: Archaeological site of Mieza.

Fig. 4b. Aiakos from macedonian tomb of "judgement". Photo: Archaeological site of Mieza

Fig. 5. Tomb of "Palmettes". Photo: Archaeological site of Mieza.

Question - Near Mieza we have the Nymphaeum, the site where Plutarch identified with the school of Aristotle. Has archaeology could prove this issue?

Answer - In the region of the ancient city Mieza has been discovered the Nymphaeum (Fig. 6), in which the philosopher Aristotle, in response to a request by Philip II, the king of Macedon, founded a school at which the young Alexander studied together with the young members of Macedonian aristocratic families. The area occupied by the Nymphaeum, a sanctuary dedicated to the Nymphs, is a highly impressive landscape, in which the ancient remains of a stoa together with three natural caves there were probably the area of the school. Ph. Petsas, the archaeologist who investigated the area between 1965 and 1968, advanced arguments based on descriptions by Plutarch (Alexander, VII, 3) and Pliny (Naturalis Historia IV, 34, XXXI, 30) for identifying it with the Nymphaeum and the School of Aristotle.

Fig. 6. Nymphaeum. Photo: Archaeological site of Mieza

Question - Could you talk us about the remodelation of the Hellenistic theater?

Answer - The work on conservation, restoration and enhancement of the ancient theatre of Mieza (Fig. 7a, 7b) intended both to restore its original form and halt the damage caused by its exposure to weather conditions. It also aimed to enable its partial reuse as venue for small cultural events and educational activities. In summary, the most important work carried out was as follows: With the support of a crane, new blocks of travertine marble were placed, in accordance with the restoration plan for the koilon, the supporting walls on the rock and the scene building. In total, 295 stones were installed: 173 in the koilon, 47 in the supporting walls and 75 on the scene. These stones were cut so as to meld with the surviving ancient stones at an aesthetic and visual level. Parts of the walls of the scene were completed with small coarse stones according to the recommendations of the plan.

Fig. 7a. Aerial view of the ancient theatre of Mieza. Photo: Archaeological site of Mieza.

In addition, the surviving original stonework was cleaned and damage and imperfections were rectified with a suitable mortar. The preservation and restoration of the ancient masonry was the hardest part of the work, as many stones were in a very bad state. The restorers used a specially mixed mortar based on analysis of the travertine in a separate study conducted by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the Stone Centre of the Ministry of Culture and Sports. The aim of the intervention was to protect the surviving stones, restore their integrity and integrate aesthetically both old and new stones into the newly restored monument.

Fig. 7b. Ancient theatre of Mieza. Photo: Archaeological site of Mieza

Furthermore, in order to provide public access to the monument, the koilon above the seventh row of seats was backfilled and shaped, the floors of the orchestra and the scene were restored, a lighting plan was developed and implemented, the site was fenced, a new parking space and visitor entrances were created and seating and information boards were installed. Finally, the private land where the scene was found was expropriated by the State.

The total restoration of the monument aims at highlighting its historical value and enhancing its educational character as well as raising its profile and providing for its reuse so that the monument becomes a key place for cultural activities in the region. Meanwhile, the conserved and restored theatre will become a focal point in the unification and overall enhancement of the archaeological site of Mieza.

This is a vital project for the region: the value of the archaeological site of Mieza as a place that brings together different monuments and the importance and conservation status of those individual monuments scattered within the boundaries of the archaeological site - many of which are inaccessible to the public - highlights the need for further studies and plans to protect and make them accessible. This work will not only ensure their survival, but will also lead to an increase of visitors in the area.

Question - Have you leading excavations in course right now? In this case, which are the objectives?

Answer - Currently, I haven’t any excavation in progress.

Fig. 8. Bust of Olganos. Photo: Archaeological Museum of Veroia.

Question - Finds located in Mieza are exhibited at the Archaeological Museum of Veroia, what do you highlight about it?

Answer - One of the most important findings that are exhibited at the Archaeological Museum of Veroia is the marble bust of the river god Olganos (Fig. 8), dated in the 3rd quarter of the 2nd c. AD. The bust was found in a field near the modern village of Kopanos (ancient Mieza). According to the 2nd century lexicographer Stephen of Byzantium, the river god Olganos was the son of Veris, mythical ancestor of the Macedonias and brother of Veroia and Mieza, who gave their names to two of the most important cities in ancient Imathia. This is the only known portrait of the river god in ancient Greek art. The idealized facial features betray both the influence of the imagery of Alexander the Great and the romanticism of the age of the Antonine emperors (2nd c. AD).

Author
Mario Agudo Villanueva

↧

Interview with Adrian Goldsworthy: "It is a mistake to see Augustus as essentially the same person in 44 BC as he was in 27 BC or AD 14"

December 5, 2014, 7:34 am

≫ Next: Article - Lingering misteries of the Amphipolis tomb

≪ Previous: Interview with Nektarios Poulakakis: "the ancient remains of a stoa together with three natural caves there were probably the area of the school of Aristotle at Mieza"

The spanish edition of the book, translated by José Miguel Parra

We have contacted to Adrian Goldsworthy, one of the most important historians about the Roman Empire, specially in Army questions. Recently, he has published the spanish version of his last book: Augustus: first Emperor of Rome. Edited in Spain by La Esfera de los Libros with the title Augusto: de Revolucionario a Emperador, translated by José Miguel Parra. Here is our conversation.

Question - Augustus was one of the most important historical figures in the world. What would you highlight regarding his personality?

Answer - His character changed and developed with experience. It is a mistake to see him as essentially the same person in 44 BC as he was in 27 BC or AD 14. We always need to remember just how long his career was. Early on he made mistakes, was sometimes tactless, but over time he learned from these errors. He was good at finding capable subordinates and on the whole keeping them loyal. There is a tendency to depict him as cold and unemotional, but this is wrong. He was a very passionate, emotional man, but over time did his best to control his temper - for instance silently reciting the alphabet before speaking when he was angry.

Question - Some historians have highlighted the ability of Augustus to go slowly taking steps to consolidate his power, almost without the rest notice it. Are you okay on this?

Answer - I do not believe anyone ever failed to notice his power. It was obvious and blatant - especially when the honours and powers were given to him as a person and not tied to a magistracy. His statues and images were everywhere, as were his monuments. His Mausoleum was far bigger than anything Rome had ever seen before. It is a modern myth to see his power as more veiled than that of Julius Caesar. The Romans of all classes wanted peace and he gave it to them. That mattered more that the nature of his power. Added to that, he was clearly making decisions for the wider good. Over time people simply got used to this and no one wanted to risk going back to the chaos and disorder of civil war. Augustus' power developed and changed in the way it was expressed because he was experimenting - should he be consul each year? He kept getting elected even when he did not stand & so had to decline it. At one point he suggested having three consuls so that he could be one, but two others still get the honour. The development had far more to do with searching for a practical way of making the system work and fulfilling all that needed to be done by magistrates in Rome and elsewhere than it did with a slow consolidation of power. As long as he controlled the army then he would always be in charge.

Question - You are an accomplished expert in army issues. What kind of changes made Augustus to improve the Roman legions and what extent these changes were important to the future of Rome?

Answer - I think the most striking thing was thinking about the Roman army before Augustus' reforms. It surprised me reading Cicero talking about rewarding the widows and dependents of Legio Martia and Legio IV in 43 BC. It is so easy for us to transfer back the familiar institutions of the army of the Principate to earlier periods and forget that it really only began to take this form under Augustus. The shape of the army and many of its structures were set by Augustus. One day I may write something on the army and warfare in the First Century BC and look in real detail at this transition, but it is difficult as we lack much of the evidence. Augustus more than anyone else set the size of the Roman army, contributed a lot to making the auxilia professional and permanent. However, many of his decisions were surely based on immediate requirements and not planned to stay the same for two centuries. It may have had more to do with his successors that the system stayed largely as it was and did not continue to develop.

Question - His wife Livia was certainly important, but what extent?

Answer - She was very important and at times had a public role, almost as princeps to the women of Rome. It is clear from the letters in Suetonius that she was consulted on family issues, and inscriptions tell of her acting as patron to provincial communities. She also accompanied Augustus on his many tours of the provinces. Much of her role was behind the scenes, but it was clearly important. One striking thing is that Augustus did not divorce her. She only became pregnant once during their marriage and lost the child. Perhaps she was hurt in the process, but for whatever reason never became pregnant again. Divorce was easy at Rome and when you think that Julius Caesar married three times and Pompey four times, and that Augustus clearly wanted a male heir it seems surprising that he stayed married to Livia for more than half a century. She was beautiful, clever and came from an aristocratic family so had some good connections, but there were surely other women in Rome who could match her in all of these things. Add in the strange circumstances of their marriage, and you have to wonder whether the really great romance of these years is not the one between Antony and Cleopatra, but Augustus and Livia.

Adrian Goldwworthy

Question - Do you think one of the secrets of Augustus was to have been surrounded by the best?

Answer - Yes, he was wise enough to make use of the talents of others and make them loyal to him, whether in a semi-private role like Maecenas or more publicly. Agrippa is the clearest example of the latter, but Drusus and Tiberius provide other examples - although in the case of Tiberius the relationship proved a difficult one and included his years of retirement. However, we should also remember that he made use of a lot of other men as governors and commanders, and not all of these choices worked out so well. On top of that, Augustus was himself always active, and spent more time in the provinces than in Italy. Even in his later years when he did not command armies in the field he often went to the theatre of operations to supervise.

Question - Could we say that Augustus fixed the bases of the success of Roman Empire?

Answer - He gave the empire stability, created the institutions that would run the Principate, and went a good way to setting down its size. All provinces became more organised under Augustus. What is less clear is whether he thought the system he was laying down would last for so long. It does seem to me that he planned to be succeeded not by one princeps, but by several principes - men who would help the main leader as Agrippa and others had helped him. This never really worked under his successors. Tiberius profoundly changed the way that the emperor ruled, most of all because he did not travel as Augustus had done, and then hid himself away on Capri. Apart from Hadrian, none of the successors travelled as much as Augustus until we get to the mobile emperors of the late third century. So the principate as it emerged was not quite the same as the Augustan model.

Author
Mario Agudo Villanueva

↧

Article - Lingering misteries of the Amphipolis tomb

December 6, 2014, 4:45 pm

≫ Next: Entrevista con Sandra Rubio: "solemos tener un importante prejuicio sobre los derechos de la mujer en la Antigüedad"

≪ Previous: Interview with Adrian Goldsworthy: "It is a mistake to see Augustus as essentially the same person in 44 BC as he was in 27 BC or AD 14"

Intriguing enigmas continue to envelop the story of the Amphipolis tomb. What was the gender of the occupant? When was the tomb sealed? Who was the architect of the monument? What event do the paintings depict? This article unravels them all.

What was the gender of the occupant?

There is an excellent chance that this question will be answered conclusively some time in the coming months through the promised laboratory investigation of the skeleton. However, Katerina Peristeri, head of the excavation, confirmed at the Ministry of Culture presentations on 29th November that nobody currently has any idea of the skeleton’s gender, because the bones were too fragmented for the archaeologists to be able to check the features that determine gender and because the remains were collected with the surrounding soil still partially encasing them in order best to preserve the evidence for the laboratory investigation. Nevertheless, she repeated her previous opinion that the occupant is most likely a male and one of Alexander’s generals based on the fact that the Amphipolis lion that once stood atop the mound is male and its base was decorated with shields.

This idea is not new, but has been the standard theory of scholars ever since the fragments of the lion monument were rediscovered more than a century ago. Parts of the shields can clearly be seen on some of the blocks now stored near the reconstructed lion monument near Amphipolis (Figure 1).

Fig. 1. A block with part of a shield from the lion monument that once crowned the Kasta Mound

But is it true that a monument with a male lion and shields necessarily commemorates a man? In the period of the Amphipolis tomb it happened that two royal women took a leading role in warfare. Firstly, Adea-Eurydike, who was a granddaughter of Alexander’s father, Philip, became the queen in 321BC by marrying PhilipArrhidaeus, the mentally retarded half-brother of Alexander, whom the troops had elected to the monarchy in Babylon on Alexander’s death. In 317BC Adea tried to win precedence for her husband over the official joint-king, Alexander IV, Alexander the Great’s 6-year-old son. This prompted Alexander IV’s grandmother, Olympias, to lead her nephew Aeacides’ army across the mountains from Epirus into Macedonia to defend her grandson’s rights. Athenaeus 560f describes the situation: “The first war waged between two women was that waged between Olympias and Adea-Eurydike, during which Olympias dressed rather like a Bacchant, to the accompaniment of tambourines, whereas Adea-Eurydike was armed from head to toe in Macedonian fashion, having been trained in military activities by Kynna, the princess from Illyria [and a wife of Philip II].” Olympias was victorious and received the epithet Stratonike, which mean’s “the army’s victory goddess”. A monument with shields would be entirely appropriate for either of these queens.

Olympias also had a claim to the lion as a personal badge as Plutarch, Life of Alexander 2.2 records: “After their marriage, Philip dreamt that he was putting a seal upon Olympias’s womb, and the device of the seal, as he imagined, was the figure of a lion. The other seers were led to suspect that Philip needed to keep a closer watch upon his marriage relations; but Aristander of Telmessus said that the woman was pregnant, since a seal was not put on that which was empty, and pregnant with a son whose nature would be bold and lion-like.”

Fig. 2. A tetradrachm of Alexander’s general Ptolemy minted in ~310BC with Athena bearing a shield and wielding a spear

Coins minted by Macedonians at that time also bear witness to the new phenomenon of warrior women. In Egypt, Alexander’s former general, Ptolemy, minted a series of silver tetradrachms with an image of the deified Alexander wearing an elephant scalp on the obverse and a representation of the goddess Athena bearing a shield and wielding a spear on its reverse (Figure 2). It is even possible that Ptolemy introduced this reverse to recognise the battle between the queens in his homeland of Macedon, because it first appeared within a year or two of that event. Though not properly a goddess like Athena, Olympias was the mother of a fully-fledged god at the time of her death: for example, the deified Alexander on the coins of Ptolemy was introduced in about 321BC. Furthermore, Alexander himself was recorded to have wished to make his mother a goddess after her death (Curtius 9.6.26-27). Finally, the epithet Olympias by which we know the queen was not her original name (that was probably Polyxena, although she was also later called Myrtale), but an honorific title meaning “one of the goddesses from Mount Olympus” awarded to her by King Philip at about the time that she gave birth to Alexander.

Fig. 3. Warrior weapons in the antechamber of the tomb of Philip II presumed to be the property of the queen buried within the same room.

Furthermore, one of Philip’s wives, perhaps Meda, was buried in the antechamber of his tomb at Aegae-Vergina. Historians now believe that the arms found in the antechamber belonged to this queen rather than to Philip. They included a golden gorytus (arrow quiver) and greaves (lower leg armour) – see Figure 3.

It should also be emphasised that all the symbolic decorations within the actual tomb chambers at Amphipolis are unambiguously female in character: the sphinxes, the caryatids/klodones and the figure of Persephone in the mosaic.

For all these reasons, it would not be surprising for a Macedonian queen and Olympias in particular to be commemorated by the lion monument decorated with warrior shields atop the mound at Amphipolis. It is therefore especially interesting that we learnt from Katerina Peristeri at the presentations on Saturday 29th November that she had partly been inspired to dig the Kasta Mound by stories from the local people that it was the tomb of a famous queen. Sometimes such legends harbour a germ of truth.

Fig. 4. An empty sarcophagus kept next to the stones salvaged from the lion monument at Amphipolis

There is also another tantalising possibility: that one of Alexander’s generals actually was entombed within the lion monument itself in addition to the tomb beneath the mound. There is one obvious candidate. One of Alexander’s eight somatophylakes, the king’s most senior staff officers, a Macedonian named Aristonous, who was the commander of Olympias’s army in her war with Cassander and was also the muchloved lord of Amphipolis. But Cassander arranged his murder at about the same time that he had Olympias killed. One intriguing observation is that a sarcophagus is kept amongst the group of stones salvaged from the lion monument stored next to the current partially reconstructed lion (Figure 4). I have no confirmation at present whether it is indeed itself from the monument, but it certainly merits future investigation.

When was the tomb sealed?

Understanding the history of the tomb at Amphipolis depends critically on determining when and by whom the intensive sealing operation was conducted. Sealing walls of massive, unmortared blocks seemingly taken from the peribolos wall were erected in front of both the caryatids and in front of the sphinxes and all three of the chambers within were sedulously filled with sand dredged from the bed of the nearby River Strymon. It was confirmed in the presentations of 29th November that the holes in the masonry near the level of the arched ceiling were used to carry sand into the interior after the sealing walls had been erected and were not made by looters.

However, the most intriguing statement made on 29th November was by architect Michael Lefantzis, who is reported to have said that the sealing walls were made and the backfilling was done in the Roman era, whilst also confirming that the sealing walls were manufactured from material removed from another part of the monument.

Fig- 5. Ancient paint on the capital of a pilaster in the façade beneath the sphinxes

The archaeologists also said that the tomb was open to visitors for some time and a Roman sealing might be taken to imply that visits to the tomb took place for at least several centuries. However, the archaeologists and the Ministry of Culture have previously published some evidence, mainly photographic, that could suggest that the tomb was only open for a relatively short period before being closed up:

1) Ancient paint survives on the façade, for example on the capitals of the pilasters either side of the portal beneath the sphinxes (Figure 5). Preferential weathering of exterior paint should be expected and centuries of weathering would normally completely remove paint, but the paint on the façade is in no worse condition than the paint within the first chamber.

Fig. 6. Blocks in the sealing wall erected in front of the portal of the sphinxes during their removal showing that the blocks were not mortared together

2) The masonry in the sealing walls was not mortared, but the stones were merely stacked on top of one another (Figure 6). This was normal in the Hellenistic period, but the Romans nearly always used mortar between the stones in their walls.

3) There are ancient steps in a couple of the released photos (e.g. Figure 7): although there is some chipping to the edges of these steps, they are nevertheless still sharp, crisp and flat in some central parts of their edges. Over centuries a smooth pattern of wear should be expected.

Fig. 7. Flooring of marble fragments in red cement without apparent wear and an ancient step with parts of its edge still sharp and unworn.

4) Neither the paving in the first chamber (Figure 7) nor the mosaic in the second chamber (Figure 8) shows any sign of the differential wearing to the areas where visitors would predominantly have trodden (the damage to the centre of the mosaic must have been due to an event at the time of sealing or only just before, since it is reported that loose pieces were found still in place during the

excavation.)

Fig. 8. The section of the Persephone mosaic adjoining the entrance to the second chamber exhibits little sign of wear

There may be answers to some of these points: e.g. it has been suggested that the entrance might have had a roof over it (although that would have made the interior of chamber 2 very dark). However, collectively there is an implication from these points that the tomb chambers may not have been open to visitors for as long as centuries.

The other difficulty with a Roman era sealing is the question of motive. It will have been expensive and time-consuming to build the sealing walls and to dredge and transport thousands of tonnes of sand. Also, since there were no grave goods left, the only thing of possible value inside the tomb was the bones themselves. Yet these bones were left scattered about in and out of the grave slot. If the sealer was concerned to protect the bones, why did he/she not tidy them up before sealing the tomb?

An easy way to remove doubt on the sealing date would be to announce Roman dating evidence found within the sealing wall erected in front of the sphinxes. In fact Katerina Peristeri said on November 29th that there were no potsherds or coins in the main chamber, but that the archaeologists found a lot in other areas: “In the main chamber we do not have any grave goods. They have been taken away or maybe they were somewhere else. The geo-survey that we are doing may give us more info about what there might be elsewhere, but in the other areas (χωροι) we have pottery and coins that are being cleaned and studied. We simply haven’t shown them to you. The dating is in the last quarter of the fourth century B.C in one phase and we have coins from the 2nd century B.C, which is the era of the last Macedonians to protect their monument and from the Roman years from the 3rd century A.D.” Unfortunately, this remains ambiguous on the question of whether any of this evidence was found within the sealing wall erected in front of the sphinxes.

Consequently, the key question now is: what is the latest attributable date of anything datable found inside the sealing wall erected in front of the sphinxes? In general, the latest datable material is likely to be a good indication of when the tomb was finally sealed. If anything definitely Roman has been found inside that wall, then the final sealing was very probably Roman. In that case the parallel evidence that the tomb has only been lightly visited may imply that the sealing history is fairly complex, perhaps involving an early sealing, a later opening and a final re-sealing.

Who was the architect of the monument?

The archaeological team at the Amphipolis tomb have previously speculated about the identity of its architect and in their presentations on Saturday 29th November they confirmed that the whole monument was the work of a single architect with the exception of the cist grave and its slot, which is now confirmed to pre-date the rest of the monument. I am confident that the archaeologists are right on these points.

Fig. 9. The proposal of Deinocrates to Alexander to carve Mt Athos into his image

The most interesting name that the archaeologists have put forward in connection with the identity of the tomb’s designer is that of Alexander’s architect, Deinocrates (literally the “Master of Marvels”). He is widely referenced in the ancient sources and is also called Cheirocrates (“Hand Master”), Stasicrates, Deinochares and even Diocles. It has been suggested that Stasicrates was his real name and that Deinocrates was a nickname. He was the proposer of the project to sculpt Mount Athos into a giant statue of Alexander, although this was rejected by the king (see Figure 9). He is specified to have restored the temple of Artemis at Ephesus and Plutarch (Alexander 72.3) writes that Alexander “longed for Stasicrates” for the design and construction of Hephaistion’s pyre and monument. Most famously of all, Deinocrates was Alexander’s architect for Alexandria in Egypt. In my book, The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great, 2nd Edition, 2012, p.160, I made a link between the masonry of the most ancient fragments of the walls of Alexandria and the Lion Tomb at Amphipolis (i.e. the blocks from the structure that supported the lion, which was all that was known at that time):

“The blocks of limestone in the oldest parts of this fragment [of the walls of ancient Alexandria, located in the modern Shallalat Gardens] are crammed with shell fossils and the largest stones are over a metre wide, although they vary in size and proportions. They have a distinctive band of drafting around their edges, but the remainder of the face of each was left rough-cut. The Tower of the Romans in Alexandria was faced with the same style of blocks, including the bands of drafting.

Such blocks are particularly to be found in the context of high status early-Hellenistic architecture. Pertinent examples elsewhere include the blocks lining the Lion Tomb at Knidos and the original base blocks of another Lion Tomb from Amphipolis in Macedonia. Both most probably date to around the end of the fourth century BC and are best associated with Alexander’s immediate Successors.”

Fig. 10. Oldest remaining fragment of the walls of Alexandria (above) showing the same band of drafting around the edges of the blocks as the blocks in the peribolos wall of the Amphipolis mound (below).

The blocks from the oldest surviving part of the walls of Alexandria are also comparable with the blocks in the peribolos wall now uncovered at Amphipolis. Both have the distinctive band of drafting around the block edges with the stones being left rough-cut in their central reservations (Figure 10).

Fig. 11. The map of ancient Alexandria based on excavations in 1865 by Mahmoud Bey.

The archaeologists have put forward one slightly complicated argument in favour of Deinocrates having built the Amphipolis tomb based on a map of ancient Alexandria (Figure 11) drawn by Mahmoud Bey in 1866 following his extensive excavations across the site of the ancient city performed in 1865. Mahmoud reconstructed the street grid based on results at numerous dig sites. He inferred the size of a stade, the standard Greek measure of large distances, to have been 165m in Alexandria by noting that the separations of the roads in the street grid were fixed numbers of stades.

He also reconstructed the course of the ancient city walls on the basis of excavations on the eastern and southern sides, but in the west and to some extent on the northern side he had to guess their course in many places, due to modern developments having made the necessary excavation sites inaccessible. He came up with an overall perimeter for the walls of 96 Alexandrian stades or 15.84km (although Mahmoud himself actually wrote “around 15,800m” in his book.)

The Amphipolis archaeologists noticed that the Alexandrian wall circuit of Mahmoud Bey, which they supposed to have been planned by Deinocrates, is almost exactly one hundred times the diameter of the Kasta Mound as defined by its circular peribolos wall, which they have measured at 158.4m. They have suggested that this coincidence suggests that Deinocrates was the architect for the Amphipolis tomb as well as for Alexandria.

However, there are a few difficulties with this hypothesis:

1) There are three ancient writers that give the perimeter of Alexandria’s walls: Curtius at 80 stades, Pliny at 15 miles and Stephanus Byzantinus at 110 stades. All of these are significantly different to the modern 15.84km value from Mahmoud Bey.

2) It is doubtful whether all of Mahmoud’s wall line, especially in the west, can be accurate, since he did not actually find any definite traces of the wall over large stretches of his reconstructed perimeter.

3) It is doubtful whether the outer wall mapped by Mahmoud Bey was part of Deinocrates’ original plan for Alexandria. It is essentially the wall line of the city at its zenith around the time of Augustus. It is unlikely that Alexander founded the town to be 5km wide, so that it would have needed half a million inhabitants to fill it. The only fragment surviving now of early Ptolemaic wall is in the line of a much smaller circuit, near the middle of Mahmoud’s city and encompassing its central crossroads. That is a better candidate for Deinocrates’ handiwork.

4) To compare a perimeter with a diameter is not comparing like with like. It is the unit of large-scale measurement, the stade, which should really be compared between Alexandria and the Kasta Mound of the Amphipolis tomb.

Usually in Greek cities the stade was defined as measuring 600 feet. So for, example, in Athens a stade was 185m. However, Alexander the Great employed men called bematists (literally “pacers”) to measure the distances between the towns and cities that he passed through on his campaigns. We still have some of the lists of towns and the distances between them as measured by Alexander’s bematists (known as the stathmoi or “stages”). Since many of the places in these lists have known locations today it is possible to calculate from modern maps how long the stade used by Alexander’s bematists must have been and the answer is 157m (see Fred Hoyle, Astronomy, Rathbone Books Limited, London 1962.) That would require a foot of only 26cm, which would be extraordinarily small and well below the normal range. But it would of course have been impractical for the bematists to measure distances of hundreds of km between cities by putting their feet down heel to toe repeatedly, so they must have used paces instead of feet to define their stade. In fact we know that a Roman mile was defined as 1000 paces and that is 1481m, so it is likely that Alexander’s bematists were using a stade of 100 paces (of two steps per pace). Anyway, it is clear that the diameter of the Kasta Mound at Amphipolis is actually remarkably close to the stade used by Alexander’s bematists. And actually the Alexandrian stade of 165m is closer to the bematists’ stade than to the 600-foot stade of other cities. The conclusion could be that the architect of Alexandria and the architect of the Amphipolis tomb both paced out their plans in a fashion similar to Alexander’s bematists. So there is a slight link after all between Deinocrates, the known architect of Alexandria, and the architect of the Amphipolis tomb.

Furthermore, Deinocrates is associated with projects that were intended to impress through extraordinary size, so that is another good reason to consider Deinocrates to be a candidate in the case of the Kasta Mound. We can certainly say that an illustrious Greek architect designed the Kasta Mound and its Lion Tomb with a 100 pace diameter in order deliberately to impress through size and through a planned size of exactly one of Alexander’s bematists’ stades.

Deinocrates therefore remains a good candidate for the identity of the architect of the Amphipolis lion tomb. However, the evidence is largely circumstantial and it relies in particular on the correctness of the dating of the tomb to the last quarter of the 4th century BC. I see no reason to doubt this dating and the archaeologists invoked the style and execution of the mosaic in their presentations on 29th November to bolster the case for their late 4th century BC date. However, we will need to see a bit more dating evidence to be absolutely confident in assigning the tomb to a narrow quarter century time slot.

Fig. 12. A man and a woman wearing red belts dancing either side of a bull in a painting from the burial chamber of the Amphipolis tomb

What event do the paintings depict?

The Greek Ministry of Culture published photos of the paintings recently found decorating the architraves in the third (burial) chamber of the Amphipolis tomb on 3rd December 2014. They depict a man and a woman wearing red belts or sashes around their waists dancing either side of a bull (Figure 12) and a winged woman between a tall urn and a cauldron or brazier on a tripod (Figure 13). The press release also mentions that the marble roof beams in the chamber were painted with rosettes.

Fig. 14. A winged woman between a large urn and a brazier on a tall tripod in a painting from the burial chamber of the Amphipolis tomb

These scenes appear to be associated with some kind of cult activity and I will show that there are significant parallels with what we know of the activities at one particular cult site: the Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace, where the Mysteries of Samothrace were conducted. This island sanctuary was long patronised by the royal family of nearby Macedon and in the era of the Amphipolis tomb, the last quarter of the 4th century BC, that patronage is particularly linked to Queen Olympias. Notably Plutarch, Alexander 2.1 writes: “We are told that Philip, after being initiated into the mysteries at Samothrace at the same time as Olympias, he himself still being a youth

and she an orphan child, fell in love with her and betrothed himself to her at once with the consent of her brother, Arymbas.”

Fig. 14. Frieze with garlanded bulls’ heads and a rosette from the Arsinoe Rotunda in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace.

The first connection with the mysteries of Samothrace is the combination of bull sacrifice with rosettes. There is a sculpted relief from the early 3rd century BC Arsinoe Rotunda at the sanctuary on Samothrace, which depicts two garlanded bulls’ heads either side of a large 8-petal rosette (Figure 14). It has been assumed that it alludes to bull sacrifices during the mysteries. In fact it is known that a section of the ceremonies involved animal sacrifices and it is certain that this included bull sacrifices in the Roman period. It is therefore quite striking that the newly discovered paintings depict a possible bull sacrifice in the context of a chamber also decorated with similar rosettes.

Fig. 15. The Victory of Samothrace from the Sanctuary of the Great Gods

The second connection derives from the very strong association of the Sanctuary on Samothrace with Nike, the winged goddess of victory. Most famously, the wonderful “Victory of Samothrace”, now in the Louvre (Figure 15), was discovered in pieces around one of the ruined temple buildings in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods by Charles Champoiseau in March 1863. Additionally there is a votive stele dedicated to the Great Gods of the Samothrace Sanctuary found at Larissa in Thessaly by the

Heuzey and Daumet expedition (Figure 16) and that too depicts the goddess Nike as a central part of its composition. A winged woman in Greek art of the early Hellenistic period is usually a depiction of Nike, so we can reasonably assume that the winged woman in the newly discovered paintings is also the goddess of victory.

Fig. 16. A stele found at Larissa dedicated to the Great Gods of Samothrace including a central depiction of the winged goddess Nike

It is known as well that some of the ceremonies for the mysteries of Samothrace took place at night. A foundation was recovered at the Hieron within the Samothrace Sanctuary, which could have supported a giant torch, but maybe something like the tall brazier in the newly discovered paintings could have fulfilled the function of illuminating nocturnal ceremonies. More generally, the discovery of numerous lamps and torch supports throughout the Sanctuary of the Great Gods confirms the nocturnal nature of the initiation rites. Furthermore, it is suspected that initiates at Samothrace were promised a happy afterlife, as was also the case in the mysteries conducted at Eleusis near Athens. This would make scenes from the mysteries of Samothrace an excellent subject for decoration of an initiate’s tomb.

Finally, and perhaps most strikingly of all, we know from ancient reports (e.g. Varro’s Divine Antiquities) that a particular feature of the mysteries at Samothrace was that initiates wore red sashes around their waists. It is therefore rather noteworthy to see just such red sashes around the waists of the man and woman dancing either side of the bull in the newly discovered paintings from the burial chamber at Amphipolis.

If these associations between the burial chamber paintings and the mysteries at Samothrace are true, then this provides another strong indication that the occupant of the Amphipolis tomb could be Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great.

Author
Andrew Chugg, author of The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great and several academic papers on Alexander’s tomb (see https://independent.academia.edu/AndrewChugg and www.alexanderstomb.com)

↧

Entrevista con Sandra Rubio: "solemos tener un importante prejuicio sobre los derechos de la mujer en la Antigüedad"

December 12, 2014, 1:34 pm

≫ Next: Exhibition - Pointe-à-Callière presents a great exhibition on Ancient Greece from Agamemnon to Alexander the Great

≪ Previous: Article - Lingering misteries of the Amphipolis tomb

Sandra Rubio y la portada de su libro "Derechos de la mujer en la Antigüedad. Egipto-Grecia-Roma".

Uno de los aspectos más interesantes de las sociedades antiguas era el papel de la mujer. Normalmente se piensa que estaba en un importante plano de desigualdad con respecto al hombre, no sin falta de razón, pero partiendo de esta diferencia pueden observarse ciertos matices que ha sabido plasmar de una manera muy inteligente Sandra Rubio, autora de "Los derechos de la mujer en la Antigüedad: Egipto-Grecia-Roma", editado por Última Línea. Mediterráneo Antiguo ha querido conversar con su autora para conocer de primera mano el enfoque de su análisis.

Pregunta - Derechos de las mujeres en Egipto, Grecia y Roma. ¿En cuál de estas culturas era más fácil ser mujer?

Respuesta - Creo que esta pregunta podemos responderla fácilmente contestando a la siguiente cuestión: ¿en cuál de estas civilizaciones fue posible para una mujer gobernar en solitario? Cuando vemos que una persona accede al máximo poder político, social y económico del Estado sin altercados en la población nos indica que ésta consiente su liderazgo. Tal logro era posible en Egipto en cuanto que la mujer era un sujeto responsable, con derechos y deberes igual que los hombres. Esta independencia no solo se reflejaba en los famosos casos de las reinas faraón, sino que era un hecho visible en en el día a día de las egipcias. Hechos que nos parecen tan normales como el tener propiedades, heredar o accionar para defenderse en juicio eran impensable en otras culturas. Sin ir más lejos, hasta hace poquitos años en nuestro país se precisaba de la autorización del marido para que la mujer llevara a cabo ciertos actos. Por ello, la libertad de la que disfrutaban las egipcias no solo sorprendía a otras culturas de la época, sino que deberían maravillarnos también a nosotros. Muchos de estos derechos son logros recientes para nuestra sociedad occidental. Sin embargo, ya eran un hecho hace más de 4.000años. Nikotris, Sobek-Neferu, Hatsepsut o Cleopatra son ejemplos de ello.

Busto de Nefertiti. Neues Museum de Berlín.

Pregunta - ¿Existe alguna excepción dentro de estas culturas en la que la situación de la mujer fuera más equiparable a la del hombre?

Respuesta - Como decía anteriormente, las egipcias podían llegar a lo más alto del Estado y como quien puede lo más puede lo menos, tenían total libertad de movimientos. No solo eso, sino que eran enteramente libres de decidir con quién casarse, o si casarse. Puesto que no necesitaban de ningún hombre para realizar actividad alguna. Es la única cultura de estas tres en la que no existe la tutela en razón del sexo. Su protección frente a la ruptura del matrimonio no se acababa con recuperar la dote, sino que podían disponer de parte de los bienes obtenidos en el matrimonio, mientras que en Grecia y Roma eran en totalidad del hombre. Incluso, podían llevarse a cabo contratos matrimoniales para proteger en mayor medida sus intereses e inclinar la balanza más favorablemente aún para la mujer en caso de repudio, accidente o viudedad. Además, en el caso de que una viuda pasase necesidad estaba protegida por el mismo Estado egipcio, que tenía la obligación de dar de comer al hambriento, agua al sediento, vestir al desnudo y proteger a la viuda.

Pregunta - ¿Afectaba la clase social a la que pertenecían las mujeres a sus derechos?

Respuesta - En Egipto tenemos pruebas de que las mujeres no solo tenían los mismos derechos sino que recibían los mismos castigos que los hombres. En principio, parece razonable pensar que la clase social favorecía, pero tanto en Egipto como en Grecia y Roma parece que todos los hombres libres podían actuar en juicio y defender sus intereses. La diferencia es que en Egipto podemos hablar de hombres y mujeres pero en Grecia y Roma solo los hombres podían considerarse ciudadanos libres. Las mujeres no tenían nunca los mismos derechos, independientemente de la clase social, podemos decir que "las mujeres jugaban en otra liga". Toda mujer, rica o pobre, era considerada sujeto “irracional” o de “ánimo ligero”, que debía estar protegida y representada por un hombre en cualquier caso, ya fuese padre, marido o tutor. Sin embargo, conocemos casos de griegas y romanas que, a pesar de estas limitaciones fueron capaces de escalar intelectual y culturalmente. Bien es cierto que la mayoría de estos casos nos llegan de manos de mujeres de clases altas. Mi conclusión es que en Grecia y Roma era imprescindible que una mujer perteneciese a una clase social privilegiada para desarrollarse más allá del hogar. Mientras que en Egipto podía actuar de modo propio y defenderse tanto a sí misma como su patrimonio; ya fuese trabajadora, terrateniente, o del ambiente cortesano.

Pregunta - En las sociedades cazadoras-recolectoras y en las primeras sociedades neolíticas, la mujer parece tener un papel más importante que en el inicio de la civilización ¿a qué crees que se debe esta involución, si estás de acuerdo en que la hubo?

Respuesta - La idea de un matriarcado en estas civilización es muy discutida. Sí es cierto que en la etapa más ancestral de la cultura griega, en la transición del neolítico a la Edad de Bronce y antes incluso de la civilización minoica, se habla de asentamientos en los que el principal culto era el de la Gran Madre, diosa de la fertilidad, figura que solemos ver en muchas otras sociedades de estas épocas. Esto podría significar un matriarcado pero yo no estoy segura de que en ninguna de estas tres culturas hubiese en algún momento un matriarcado, a diferencia, por ejemplo, de lo que podrían ser los pueblos celtas. En algunos casos, la importancia de la madre a la hora de establecer la ciudadanía o la condición de los hijos podría inducir a pensar erróneamente en la reminiscencia de un matriarcado pero esto sería un error. Los romanos decían que “la madre siempre es cierta” pero que la mujer tenga un gran peso en la ciudadanía y condición de los hijos implica en realidad que la sociedad masculina estará recelosa ante un posible exceso de libertad de las mujeres en tanto que la importancia de obtener hijos legítimos es capital. Esto, en mi opinión, hizo que en Grecia y Roma la mujer estuviese menos favorecida en cuanto a libertad e independencia.

Estela funeraria encontrada en el Cerámico de Atenas. Foto: Mario Agudo Villanueva

Además, el que el antiguo culto a los ancestros de cada familia se heredase solo por línea masculina favoreció, por su vinculación con la tierra, que los hombres fuesen los herederos y así el pilar de la familia y del poder en la sociedad. Mientras tanto, en Egipto, cuna de la dualidad, el hombre y la mujer estaban en una mayor armonía tanto en la sociedad como en la religión. Por ejemplo, podemos apreciarlo en que el faraón, para celebrar la mayoría de los cultos, precisaba de la presencia de la reina recreando simbólicamente la pareja divina. De ahí que las representaciones de parejas con ofrendas sean tan abundantes y tengan tanta importancia. Por otra parte, había algo más de “flexibilidad” en las clases sociales egipcias. En el sentido de que una persona, hombre o mujer, era favorecido por casarse con alguien de mejor posición social y no a la inversa. Además, según prueban los censos encontrados, las casas egipcias estaban preparadas para albergar a una sola mujer, no había concubinas. A diferencia de Grecia y Roma, donde la esposa era la única capaz de proporcionar los hijos legítimos que perpetuasen la familia y asegurasen su patrimonio. Sin embargo, en Egipto, en el caso de que hubiesen hijos ilegítimos, era común representarlos en las tumbas funerarias como parte de la familia. Es, pues esta dualidad simbólica y religiosa la responsable de la situación privilegiada de las egipcias, junto con la mayor apertura en el entendimiento de los conceptos de ciudadanía y legitimidad.

Pregunta - Las mujeres aristocráticas participaban en matrimonios que eran diseñados para establecer alianzas o mejorar relaciones entre los pueblos ¿qué poder les confería esta práctica?

Respuesta - Depende, algunas personas entienden la existencia de estas esposas diplomáticas como parte de un harén al servicio del faraón. Yo personalmente defiendo la teoría de ser uniones meramente diplomáticas que eran muy cuidadas y estimadas en los países de acogida. Por supuesto su situación social era de las más privilegiadas y les permitía disfrutar de una vida tranquila, llena de riquezas y con una educación reservada al círculo del rey, tanto para ellas como para sus hijos. No se tiene constancia de que por regla general influyeran en la política del país más allá del ambiente real en el que se movían. A diferencia, por ejemplo, de la esposa real principal. Por ello, vemos a esposas que influyeron en la historia como: Nefertiti, clara protagonista, junto con su marido Akhenatón de la revolución amarniense; o incluso madres como fue Olimpia de Épiro, cuidando siempre de que el destino de su hijo fuera realmente ser el grande, Alejandro Magno.

Cabeza de estatua de la musa Polimnia. Foto: Mario Agudo Villanueva.

Pregunta - ¿Cómo era el acceso a la cultura de la mujer egipcia, la griega y la romana?

Respuesta - El acceso de la mujer a la cultura era directamente proporcional a su estatus social. Además de que una mujer de cierta posición se entendía que debía tener una educación acorde. Nos consta que hubieron mujeres muy cultas en estas civilizaciones por las profesiones que muchas llegaron a tener. En Egipto, algunas alcanzaron puestos en la administración del Estado, maestras en retórica en Grecia –como decían de Aspasia de Mileto–, o escritoras como la romana Sulspicia. Hay que tener en cuenta que el trabajo fuera del hogar no se entendía como ahora. En Roma el trabajo no era digno de un hombre libre y estos oficios privilegiados eran propios solo de mujeres de clases altas. Por ello, nos sorprenden ciertos descubrimientos que nos demuestran que mujeres modestas eran capaces de leer y escribir. Un ejemplo de ello son las cartas encontradas entre mujeres del poblado de trabajadores de Deir el-Medina, en Egipto. Por tanto, nos hace pensar que la cultura estaba algo más expandida de lo que podemos creer a primera vista guiándonos tan solo por la mayoría de documentos que llegan a nuestras manos, que suelen ser los oficiales y mejor guardados. Seguramente en la medida de lo posible, se intentaba transmitir una limitada educación en la sede interna de algunas familias.

Pregunta - Acabemos en Roma, ¿las mujeres de diferentes puntos del Imperio tenían derechos diferentes?

Respuesta - Exactamente, como hemos visto, la clase social influía en cuanto a sus posibilidades. Pero, respecto a sus derechos, tanto en Grecia como en Roma encontramos diferencias internas muy curiosas. Esto me gustaría destacarlo, ya que mis objetivos son: en primer lugar eliminar el prejuicio que solemos tener de que en la Antigüedad las mujeres carecían de derechos; y en segundo lugar que estas sociedades eran misóginas o machistas cuando en realidad, Grecia y Roma, eran patriarcales. Son precisamente las diferencias internas de derechos, las opiniones de grandes sabios defensores de la independencia de la mujer y la involución que dan los propios legisladores a instituciones tendentes a coartar su libertad lo que nos indica que en los años de vida de estos imperios siempre evolucionaron hacia la conquista de estos derechos. El mayor exponente de progreso en este sentido, es sin duda el Imperio Romano. Por un lado, en Grecia está el caso de las mujeres espartanas, mujeres admiradas tanto como por su belleza como por su fuerza. Se tiene constancia de que disfrutaban de mayor libertad y derechos. Por otro lado, imaginemos la sorpresa de las griegas al ver que una mujer en el Egipto ya conquistado por Grecia podía acceder al gobierno. El porqué una griega en Grecia apenas tenía libertad de movimientos y una griega en Egipto podía llegar incluso a reinar es un ejemplo de la influencia egipcia en la legislación y política occidental. Estas diferencias internas hacían cada vez más palpable la necesidad de cambio. En Roma ocurría exactamente igual, frente al deber de toda mujer de estar sometida a un hombre estaba la excepción de las Vírgenes Vestales; más tarde se van ampliando los derechos con la Ley de las XII Tablas, el Senadoconsulto Veleyano y el Ius Trium Liberorum, reformas que contribuyen a la emancipación de la mujer romana. Como vemos, el derecho está al servicio de la sociedad y la voluntad de adaptarse lo mejor posible a ella deviene de lo que todos los ordenamientos buscan: la Justicia. Por ello, que los ordenamientos nos puedan parecer mejores o peores desde nuestro punto de vista moderno es una opinión subjetiva y parcial. Ojalá pudiésemos despojarnos de los prejuicios y ponernos en el lugar de esas gentes de hace milenios, seguramente nos daríamos cuenta de que no somos tan diferentes.

Autor

Mario Agudo Villanueva

↧