Still recovering ship rams from the Egadi Islands

Last year, the waters around the Egadi Islands were in the news after two bronze ship rams had been recovered, one of which was identified as being Carthaginian (see: Two more bronze ship rams recovered).

[Picture from the Archaeological News Network, Credit: RPM Nautical Foundation]

Two more rostrums have been retrieved from the sea this season, raising the counter to sixteen Roman and two Carthaginian rams. Besides these great finds, various other artifacts were brought to light, among which we count 68 Graeco-Italic, four Punic amphorae, and four plates.

Unusual was this year’s discovery of an iron sword that must have belonged to a soldier of either the Roman or the Carthaginian army. This sword is 70 centimeters long, and the blade is five centimeters wide. A closer study and restoration are required to gather more precise information about this rare piece.

It will be interesting to visit the Museum of the Battle of the Egadi in nearby Favignana to look at all the recently exposed testimonies left behind after the successive Punic Wars fought in the waters around the Egadi Islands. They fill a separate room, accompanied by spectacular multimedia elements.

More news from Anavarza, Roman Caesarea

Restoration works are still ongoing in Anavarza, and after exposing the impressive colonnaded street (see: A double highway in antiquity) of ancient Caesarea, archaeologists are now concentrating on the Triumphal Arch which the Romans built in the 3rd century BC.

[Picture from Huriyet Daily News]

This arch is 22.5 meters wide and 10.5 meters high, one of the largest such gates in the area. Judging by the pictures, this gate looks pretty poor but since many of its construction blocks are still laying around, experts are confident to restore it to its former glory. This Triumphal Arch is one of the three access gates of Caesarea.

Once this project is completed, they will concentrate on excavating the ancient theater.

The Alexander Mosaic

Needless to explain what I mean with “The Alexander Mosaic,” we are all familiar with the picture. The detailed images of Alexander facing Darius on the battlefield are common knowledge and widespread. However, to truly appreciate this mosaic, you have to see it for yourself.

Initially, this piece of art covered the floor of a Roman Villa in Pompeii, the city that was destroyed by the eruption of the Vesuvius in 79 AD. This villa is known today as the House of the Faun, where the lovely dancing and balancing bronze figure was found. This Faun stood in the atrium of the villa and has been replaced with a copy since the original is safely moved to the museum.

The “Alexander Mosaic,” created around 100 BC, is one of the largest ever found and most probably one of the finest also. It measures some 5m x 3m (the exact measurements vary according to the sources) and counts more than one million and a half tesserae made of stone and glass. This splendid piece of craftsmanship occupies a place of its own in the Archaeological Museum of Naples – very close to the Faun.

Scholars established that the composition is based on a wall painting created around 320 or 317 BC, most probably by Philoxenos of Eritrea, but Apelles, Alexander’s personal painter, is another candidate. 

Manolis Andronikos, who discovered and studied the Tomb of Philip in Vergina, made a rather convincing comparison between the hunting painting above the tomb’s entrance at Vergina and the original battle scene as later transposed onto the Alexander Mosaic. Both panels are about the same length, but the Vergina one is less than half in height. The composition of this hunting scene is very similar to that of the battle scene. Besides, both paintings have been executed in the typical style “of four colors” (yellow, red, black, and white), which was initiated by Apelles. Based on his study, Andronikos likes to attribute the painting that led to the mosaic to Philoxenus because he was a pupil of Nikomachos. This artist painted the fascinating Persephone that was discovered in the same Vergina tumulus. 

According to Pliny the Elder, the battle painting of Alexander and Darius was commissioned by Cassander, who was aspiring to become King of Macedonia at that time. It is a chilling thought that we owe such a masterpiece to Cassander, who had Alexander’s blood on his hands.  Hacking his way to the throne, he successively murdered Olympias, Alexander’s own mother, Roxane, his wife, Alexander IV, his son with Roxane, as well as Heracles, his son with his mistress Barsine. He used Alexander’s name and fame only as a means of propaganda to flatter his own ego. It makes you wonder which traits of Alexander he wanted to promote, considering his own brutality. It cannot have been too flattering, to say the least.

By 148 BC, however, Macedonia had been conquered by the Romans, who helped themselves to its many treasures. One of the key figures was Consul Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, who plundered Pella’s rich art collection and extensive Library. The original painting may well have been among his trophies to be used some fifty years later to create this mosaic. Many of Rome’s wealthy citizens, to escape the oppressing summer heat, could afford expensive seaside resorts in the Vesuvian area. Their villas were lavishly decorated with paintings, mosaics, and statues robbed or copied from the newly conquered Greek provinces.  

There have been some discussions as to which battle this mosaic is supposed to represent. But lately, scholars have agreed that we are looking at the Battle of Issus rather than the Battle of Gaugamela. The main argument leading to that conclusion is the dead tree behind Alexander. Marco Polo, on his trek with the caravans of Central Asia, learned that late Arabian sources knew the Battle of Issus as The Battle of the Dead Tree.

The dead tree, in fact, opens a whole new discussion as we find two similar dead trees in the Vergina painting. A few years ago, Frank Holt wrote an extensive article on the meaning of these strange lone trees (published by academia.edu under the title Alexander the Great, Lightning, and the Lone Dead Tree), but in the end, no theory was really conclusive. 

The entire setting is theatrical, with the central position of Darius’ turning chariot and horses. The dismounting figure just below Darius has been identified as his brother, Oxyathres. He is standing over his wounded horse (notice the front leg that has been chopped off above the hoof) as Alexander’s sarissa hits him. In reality, no mounted soldier ever carried a sarissa simply because it was too long and too heavy and needed both hands to handle. The cavalry, and in this case, Alexander on horseback, used spears. Well, we can explain this as artistic liberty, I suppose.

Each person and each animal is on the move, nothing is static, and the faces and bodies show an excellent understanding of the human form and anatomy. Connoisseurs speak of the outstanding use of foreshortening – an artistic way to reduce or distort objects and figures to produce a 3-D effect. How on earth did we lose that knowledge and technique in the dark Middle Ages! Stepping back for a moment, I am looking straight at the behind of a horse galloping away from me. Only a master artist is capable of creating such a realistic and daring composition!

It is quite exciting to study this monumental mosaic in all its minute details – of which there are very many. For a start, there is the layout of the tesserae themselves. The scientific name is opus vermiculatum, also known as “worm work,” because the tiny stones are set in a pattern resembling the slow motion of a worm. Studying the legs of the horses at my eye level, I realize that I can almost “feel” the texture of the horse’s robe.

Unbelievable! I also notice the detailed patterns on the pants of the Persians in the foreground, the harnesses of the horses, including the little bell on top of their head, the figures of ducks and lions applied on the bridles, and the thick tassel on their breast. Oxyathres’ pants are particularly elaborate, and I love the comfort of his low leather boots with the flaps. And then there is the gorgeous gold torque worn by the Persian next to Darius, holding his headwear as he is staring at Alexander.

Darius’ chariot is another subject worth to be scrutinized. The rims of its panels show motives of winged animals (dragons and aurochs) reminiscent of Babylon’s walls. I am amazed to see how the front wheel, with its border of beads, throws a shadow onto the body of the chariot. Darius’ large cloak is flung to the side by the sudden turn of his chariot, and I am surprised to find it trimmed with a Greek meander motif. Looking more closely, I even notice that the end of the horse’s tail is tied in an elegant knot. There is much determination in the face of the driver whipping the span he is leading in the turn. There even is a dialogue between two of the Persians in the back who raise their arms as if they are signaling to each other. Their eyes are meeting. There is fear on the face of the fallen Persian at the bottom right, looking up as he is on the point of being trampled by the horses around him. The Persian in the foreground watches his reflection in the Macedonian shield that he is pushing away to avoid being crushed underneath. The scene makes me think about what effect the reflection of hundreds of such shiny shields would have on a battlefield? It must be terrifying!

The Macedonian side of the mosaic is damaged to the point that there is close to nothing to tell about the army and their outfit. Luckily, the image of Alexander the Great has been spared. He has his wide eyes fixed on Darius. He is supposed to ride his black Bucephalus, but this horse is brown. Did that color look better in the picture? Who knows? On the other hand, Alexander’s outfit is correctly rendered with his off-white linen corselet and the lively Medusa head on his chest to avert the evil and the thunderbolts on his shoulder straps. His sword is still sheathed. The one officer behind Alexander is wearing a Thessalian helmet. Otherwise, the tesserae are gone. It makes me wonder if the visitors to the villa had eyes for Alexander only. After all, these were the days when those who could afford it went to Egypt to visit Alexander’s tomb – men like Caesar, Marc Antony, Augustus, Caligula, etc.

The space below the raging battle is filled technically with lost arms: a bow, a sword, a scabbard, and a javelin that still has the Ankyle, leather strip wrapped around its end (meant to increase the throwing distance). 

The commotion and the disarray of the battlefield are very palpable! The Persian spears in the background not only fill the space from an artistic point of view but also provide a line of focus toward Alexander. What a masterly composition!

It is unknown what led the owner of this villa to use this battle theme for his main floor, the one which every visitor would cross upon arrival. There are several theories. One is that the owner was a mercenary in Roman service during the war against King Perseus of Macedonia. Another is that one of his ancestors was involved in the fight against King Alexander of Epirus in Italy. Well, in both cases, they refer to close ties with Macedonia.

Whatever the speculations, this mosaic certainly is a rare piece of art that survived in close memory of Alexander. We still cannot imagine the immense wealth that the Romans hauled away from Macedonia - a wealth we owe to Alexander! 

Time to reconnect with Princess Amastris

Amastris is much less known than her cousins, Barsine/Stateira and Drypetis, although she too was the granddaughter of Queen Mother Sisygambis.

She was born as the daughter of Oxyathres, a younger brother of Darius, the later King Darius III. At the Susa Wedding in 324 BC, Alexander married her to Craterus. She was of true royal descent and as an infant, she had already been promised in marriage to ruling King Artaxerxes III, who died shortly afterward.

[Picture from Archaeology News Network]

As Craterus’ wife, she could look forward to a powerful life since the general had been appointed by Alexander to replace the old Antipater as Regent of Greece. We’ll remember that Craterus had not yet arrived in Pella when Alexander died, and Antipater may well have seized the opportunity to convince the general to consider their king’s plan voided by his death. Under the influence of Antipater, who wanted to have closer control over Craterus, he agreed to marry one of his daughters, Phila. Amastris had her pride and she refused to be pushed aside as a mere Persian concubine.

We don’t know exactly which strings she pulled, but Amastris married King Dionysios of Herakleia Pontus in 322 BC. Dionysios reportedly was a friend of Alexander’s sister Cleopatra who had pleaded for the king’s protection with her brother. After Dionysios’ death seventeen years later, Amastris ruled with excellence over the kingdom in Bithynia as a widowed queen.

With the War of Alexander’s Successors still raging, Lysimachos, by now king of Thracia, proposed to Amastris in 302 BC and she accepted. Not for long though. When Lysimachos decided to marry Arsinoe, daughter of Ptolemy Soter (or Ptolemy Philadelphus), Amastris left her husband and returned to Herakleia Pontus. It was at this time that she founded the city of Amastris on the coast of the Black Sea. The town was created through the fusion of four Ionian colonies, Sesamus, Cromma, Cytorus, and Tium (which detached itself from Amastris again later on). By 300 BC or so, she minted her own coins – no small matter for a woman!

This city of Amastris has been in the news recently when archaeologists discovered some columns and pillars that may have belonged to the queen’s sanctuary. Pending in-depth excavations, it has been established so far that the sanctuary was about five to six meters high. It will be quite interesting to see what treasures the archaeologists will uncover at this site of which so little is known but where great history was written.

Queen Amastris was killed by her own sons Dionysios, Clearchus, and Oxyathres, who coveted their mother’s power. They arranged for her to be drowned around 284 BC. It must be said, however, that Lysimachos avenged his former wife by killing the matricides, if not out of love or admiration for her, then to add Herakleia Pontus to his own adjacent realm.

About Alexander’s death – again!

With regular intervals, a new theory about the conqueror’s cause of death is thrown into the news. It is very hard to keep track, more so since every professor, physician, archaeologist, scientist, or dilettante is claiming that he is right.

The latest news on that front comes from a Professors of Medicine emeritus at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Dr. Thomas Gerasimidis. With such a name of great reputation, the reader is inclined to take his story seriously. This professor, who claims to have studied the cause of Alexander’s death for the past twenty-five years, is convinced that the king died of pancreatic necrosis. He does not explain how – if at all – such a condition would lead to Alexander’s losing his voice.

Only some of the previous causes of death have made it to my blog as I left out the most absurd ones. But for those who want to dig in a little further, I will refer to my post from January 2014, New theory about Alexander’s death, which talks about the white false hellebore plant as the culprit. In November 2017, I made a very tentative overview of the many theories in About the death of Alexander the Great. None of them was conclusive thought. And, more recently, in January 2019, I aired the theory Did Alexander the Great die from an infection, which is not convincing either.

This latest article from Dr. Thomas Gerasimidis was published in The Greek Reporter last October.

The search for shipwrecks in the Greek waters is still ongoing

Greece is really stepping up when it comes to underwater archaeological explorations (see also: Many ancient shipwrecks found in the Greek waters).

[Picture from Europaisches-Segel-Informationssystem]

This season, they concentrated on the depth around the four tiny islands of Levitha, Mavria, Glaros and Chinaros in the Dodecanese where traffic in antiquity was pretty intense. As a result, they discovered five major shipwrecks that were loaded with amphorae. They also recovered a sizable granite anchor pole of 400 kg at a depth of 45 meters. It is the largest such find in the Aegean to date and seems to belong to the 6^th century BC.

By far the most impressive results of 2019, was a wreck that held a mixed assortment of amphorae from Cnidos, Kos, and Rhodes, as well as Phoenicia and even Carthage, all dating back to the middle of the 3^rd century BC.

The shipwreck from Cnidos yielded another collection of amphorae from the 3^rd century BC. Two more wrecks contained amphorae originating from the North Aegean dating from the 1^st century BC. Another three wrecks held Cone and pseudo-Cone amphorae belonging to the 2^nd and 1^st centuries BC. A last shipwreck dates to the early Christian period.

Archaeological finds at the Metro of Thessaloniki

The main question is what to do with the antiquities that were found during the construction of Thessaloniki’s Metro, more in particular around the Venizelos Metro Station.

The excavations as well as the construction works turn out to be endless and at this point the opening date of the Metro is once again postponed from 2020 to 2023.

[Picture from The Greek Reporter]

With a change in government, discussions are again flaring up about the artifacts that have been found during the construction works. The previous government had opted to display the antiquities in the metro station closest to their discovery. The New Democracy government, however, prefers to exhibit them all together in a new to build museum as they fear that separate display at the Venizelos Metro station will needlessly delay the completion of the project. Besides, there are simply too many objects that have surfaced.

The opposition labels the removal of the antiquities to a separate museum as a “humiliating act for the city” and “a crime against the city”. Archaeologists, however, still want to stick to the earlier agreement implying that the presentation of antiquities at the metro station is not only technically feasible but in fact imperative to keep these unique highlights from Thessaloniki’s Byzantine past where they were found. Their argument is that the artifacts should be kept in situ as much as possible and not taken out of context.

It is, of course a matter of prestige and a political issue to get the metro line working as soon as possible. In the end, the discussions are still ongoing.

I discussed the subject already in an earlier blog, Thessaloniki keeps on writing history.