Equality of women and men in ancient Persia

The thought alone causes most people to frown their eyebrows and stare at me in utter disbelief. Who says this? 

Well, obviously not our Greek and later Roman historians for whom the Persians were the enemy. Persian sources, however, describe their women as enterprising, independent, and resolute. This has been widely researched by Robbert Bosschart in his book All Alexander’s Women on which I commented repeatedly (see: Persia’s historical memory of Alexander). An updated version, his 5^th edition is now available on Amazon. 

His study, based on the in-depth research published by such experts as professors Amélie Kuhrt, Maria Brosius, Jozef Wiesehöfer, Wouter Henkelman, and others is concentrated on the clay tablets found at Persepolis (see: Fire over Persepolis) and saved by the fire as mentioned in his chapter Biographical/Geographical Notes: 

“An unintended consequence of these fires was the preservation of clay archive tablets, cooked and hardened. About a hundred Treasury Archive texts from Persepolis, recording royal payments in silver in 492-458 BC were made available between 1948 and 1965. Other texts, published in 1970, were written in Aramaic. This coincided with the biggest windfall: the discovery of over 8,000 texts, dated between 509 and 493 BC and found on tablets in the Persepolis Fortification Archive. They deal with the royal administration of food commodities. About 7,000 are written in the Elamite language of Susa, with some incrustations of Old Persian. Another thousand were written in Aramaic, but there is also one in Greek, one in Frygian, and a few in Neo-Babylonian.” 

He further underscores how and where women are mentioned performing tasks we would expect were those of men:

 … “the archive tablets routinely register travel rations of wine, beer and grain issued to royal women for extensive journeys throughout the empire on their own behalf. And … to commoner women ... For example, one tablet (… dated to 493 BC), registers a journey by a woman employee from Susa, Mizapirzaka, who has to carry a letter to Persepolis. The text adds that she carries a personal seal (…) that authorizes her to claim provisions at the waystations.” 

Until recently, the ruling opinion was that the Greeks doubted how women “could obtain and exercise power in the Achaemenid monarchy.  How could an empire be ‘well ruled’ if women were influential and even exercised power over the king himself?”…

.. “with the publication, around 1970, of numerous tablet texts from the Persepolis Fortification site … Dr Maria Brosius identifies a particular category of women officials who carry the title of Arashara.  … specifically mentions four Arasharas by name: Dakma, Harbakka, Matmaba and Sadukka. Meat rations are rare, so the issuing of 4 complete sheep to each of these women supervisors confirms their important payment level. …

At least ten more tablets refer to the salary of Arasharas, showing that these highly qualified women were better paid than male personnel of lower professional rank. …

[Achaemenid, maybe Arashara statuette

from Bosschart's book]

750 measures of wine among 65 employees; three Arasharas receive 30 measures each, whereas a male scribe at the same workplace gets only 20. On another tablet we even see an Arashara being issued 50 measures. The sliding scale of payment in order of professional qualification (and not by gender distinction) … distributes wine rations: two men who are called ‘manual workers’ get 10 measures each; two other men who are “doorkeepers” by profession, get 20 measures each; and the Arashara is allotted 30 measures. The highest payment (in grain) of all the tablets in the archive also goes to an Arashara: 75 quarts per month…

… an exceptionally high number of Arasharas worked at the service of queen-mother Irdabama. The circa 7,000 archive texts that have been translated so far mention some 150 places in the region of Persepolis (and in a few cases, beyond) where royal ladies had storehouses or workshops. Usually the personnel working there was overseen by Arasharas.”

...

"The tablets show women in a wide range of occupations in Persepolis: woodworkers and stoneworkers, artisans, winemakers, furniture makers, treasury clerks, storekeepers, carriers, grain handlers. A tablet dated to 502 BC refers to ‘Indukka, mother of Tuku’, stating that she is “the chief of the merchants”. It registers the amount of tax she has paid -in silver- on “the business deal that she has managed”.

 

… “Irdabama regularly orders greater amounts of foodstuffs to be delivered at the palace from her own … storehouses … Irdabama has more personnel working at her various factories. On top, she can direct the royal treasury to make payments in silver” …

As Alexander traveled in the company of Queen-mother Sisygambis from Issus to Susa the equality of royals and commoners must have become apparent. His close company with Barsine undoubtedly confirmed and enhanced the role of women. Dr. Maria Brosius further writes:

“Persian queens were much more than consorts, or than queen-mothers supposedly ruling a palace harem. They had a huge influence in decisions about whom to promote, whom to punish, whom to execute, or whose life to spare. Sisygambis, queen-mother of Darius III, also wielded such power, even after her son had been replaced on the throne by Alexander the Great. He pointedly upheld her status as the most prominent woman in the empire, and treated her as if she were his own mother.” 

There is little doubt about the real meaning behind the mass-wedding in Susa as arranged by Alexander in 324 BC (see: Susa with its unique glazed brick walls). Lacking time and knowledge, he could not personally choose the brides-to-be for his Companions and close friends but Sisygambis could and did. The brides, many of them princesses in their own right, were selected with care, and probably well-prepared by Sisygambis for their new role as wife of one of Alexander’s marshals. Their independence would inevitably trickle down to their children and children’s children. What an ambitious vision! 

Alexander always led by example. His wedding with Stateira, the eldest daughter of King Darius III, and Parysatis, the youngest daughter of King Artaxerxes III was celebrated at the same time as that of 90 court members. Each of the newlywed couples received a dowry from the king and on this happy occasion, Alexander granted a gratuity to his Macedonians who had taken Asian wives during his campaigns. He paid out of his own pocket for the proper education of their children. 

The Susa celebration was Alexander’s first step towards uniting West and East, not limited to Greece and Persia but encompassing the entire then-known world. He laid the basis for one single world in which everybody was equal, East or West, man or woman. What we call today an emancipated woman existed for 2,500 years, not as a dream but a reality! So much time has been lost on the subject! 

Alexander was a visionary, but none of his generals or friends understood his vision. The one exception was Hephaistion, but he died shortly after the wedding, poisoned no doubt. As a result, Alexander’s plans were muffled and erased from history. 

When the king died one year later, his world died with him. Had Alexander lived long enough, we would all speak Greek. What’s more, for 2,500 years our world would have been one where men and women lived on the same foot, with the same rights and the same status. 

“To the strongest”

“To the strongest” are the last words Alexander pronounced on his deathbed in Babylon when pressed to name his successor. 

His Companions and generals were obviously panicking at the thought of being left behind so many miles away from Macedonia without their king to guide them. They desperately needed him. 

Ever since he became king in 336 BC Alexander had shown his commanders the way and led his men by example. He certainly did not expect to die at the age of 33 and not in his bed. How could he have foreseen to be incapacitated and unable to be his own self? 

The only person who had always been at his side and enjoyed his full confidence had died the previous year. Hephaistion had been officially appointed as his Chiliarch, his second in command. The sudden death of his dearest friend left him in total disarray and maddened by grief. He was truly alone at a time when he had to make the hardest decision of his life and elect a successor. “Who, Alexander? Tell us who!” are the words Oliver Stone put in the mouth of Ptolemy. How appropriate! 

“To the strongest” has often been understood as a weak and evasive statement, although, in reality, Alexander’s last words are one final proof of his genius! Had he not been so much afflicted by his illness and impaired by the high fever, he would have found the strength to elaborate a solution to the Succession with his close Companions. He would likely have appointed Perdiccas. Even so, Alexander’s decision may have lost its power two years onward, and the commanders would have taken the matter into their own hands anyway.

Of course, everyone around the king’s deathbed still hoped to be appointed and hear his name called out. However, matters were not as straightforward as one might think. On the one hand, he had to name an heir since, as King, he needed a successor, and on the other hand, as commander in chief of his army, he had to appoint a capable military leader. 

At this point, his most experienced generals were Craterus and Perdiccas. Yet, Craterus was in Cilicia taking 10,000 veterans back to Macedonia with Alexander’s instructions to replace Antipater as Regent in Pella. Perdiccas was in Babylon and took the king’s succession into his hands. 

Roxane was pregnant, but the child had not been born yet, and there was no guarantee it would be a boy. Alexander had never recognized Heracles, his son by Barsine. In any case, Roxane’s son and Heracles were too young to rule, and the generals would have to choose a Regent pending their coming of age. The next best option was to push Arrhideus forward. He was Alexander’s simple-minded half-brother and not capable of becoming the de facto ruler. As a result, Perdiccas was elected Regent at the Partition of Babylon. 

This implied, however, that he would rule over Alexander’s Companions and generals. Perdiccas’ success was short-lived, though, and in 321 BC he was sidelined at Triparadeisus as the commanders decided to divide the kingdom among themselves. When Perdiccas escorted Alexander’s remains to be buried in Macedonia, Ptolemy hijacked the mummified body and took it to Egypt. In a desperate attempt to recover his king’s remains, Perdiccas failed totally to march his men across the Nile. His losses were so excessive that his soldiers revolted and killed him. 

These were uncertain times for all the parties involved in the Succession Wars. They all had the ambition to rule over Alexander’s Empire and felt equally qualified to do so, but none shared Alexander’s vision. Ultimately, they eliminated each other until the empire was divided between Ptolemy, Seleucos, Antigonus, and Cassander (see: Dividing the Spoils. The War for Alexander’s Empire by Robin Waterfield).

None of the great men who fought alongside Alexander for almost twelve years emerged as the strongest. They all had learned a lot, but none could come close to Alexander’s charisma and exceptional genius.

Alexander’s Oriental Afterlife

This is the title of one of the many intriguing chapters in Robbert Bosschart’s book “All Alexander’s Women”. Beyond the widespread descriptions of Alexander’s life in our Western literature, the author hunted for Eastern sources. There are two key figures to consider, Ferdowsi and Nizami (see: Timeline of Main Arabic/ Persian Sources writing about Alexander). 

Ferdowsi is a Persian poet from the 10^th century who is still very much revered in Iran today, famous for his Shah-Nama, one of the longest epic poems in the world. It tells the (partially mythical) history of the Persian Empire from its creation until the end of the Sassanid rule in the 7^th century. 

The other prominent figure is Nizami, known as the greatest romantic poet in Persian literature. He lived in the 12^th century and described Alexander as a philosopher king and sage. 

It is not surprising that the Persians looked at Alexander from a very different angle as highlighted by R. Bosschart. Here are a few such examples, excerpts from his book: 

The vast popularity attained by the Alexander Romance over the centuries means that thousands of local storytellers have entertained millions of listeners in countless places with a marvelous or terrifying Alexander, made to measure for the taste of the audience.

But their tales were based on a very limited number of source texts. That is, whatever version of the Life and Deeds they might have heard or read, plus some (snippets of) local literature. For example, the 170 fake Alexander letters that circulated in Egypt from Ptolemaic times; or, in Persia, one of the contradictory Alexanders described in Ferdowsi’s Shah-Nama.

By the time this oral folklore became fixed in writing (a process that took obscure propaganda hacks and famous poets quite some centuries), an astonishing variety of Alexanders were living a fascinating afterlife. Most of them, just as an entertaining or educational sample of literary fantasy; but at least in two cases, with a profound social-political significance.

I am referring to the way in which the storytellers of Egypt and Persia appeased the bad conscience of their patriotic audience over the fact that their nation, with its ages-old, proud civilization, had submitted so meekly or even zealously to that young barbarian Alexander. Their solution was simple: they converted him to a ‘hidden’ son of a respectively Egyptian or Persian monarch, so that he could be welcomed back in ‘his true homeland’ as a liberator with full birthright to the throne.

…

The marriage of the daughter of Persia’s previous king to Alexander is a historical fact. During their negotiations after his first defeat, Darius III tells Alexander he can marry «one of my daughters». Years later, Alexander moreover receives the public approval of queen-mother Sisygambis to marry her granddaughter, the princess Barsine/Stateira.

But in his literary afterlife, the bride always is another princess: the insignificant Roxane, in the multiple versions based on the pseudo-Kallisthenes; or the magnificent, ‘divine’ Buran-dokht in a Persian tradition. However, in all these fantasied romances without exception, the reason why he marries her is the plea of the routed king Darius, who, with his dying breath, asks him to do so.

Only in the Persian version, Darius/Darab adds another petition to his deathbed plea. In Ferdowsi’s Shah-Nama, the routed king whispers in Alexander’s ear: «…Ask for my daughter’s hand in marriage; look after my children, my family, and my veiled wise women».

Who or what these wise women would be —so important that the High King in his last words before his death desperately wants to make sure they will be respected by the future ruler—, Ferdowsi sees no need to explain: he is sure that the (Persian) audience will understand.

This signifies two things. One: that wise women in the age of the Achaemenid empire were highly considered, and their rights were deemed worthy of the maximum protection. And two: as this oral tradition has been created to justify, to the eyes of a Persian audience, events in Alexander’s deeds which they recognized but needed to get explained, it follows that they knew that Alexander had wise Persian women at his side, and respected women’s rights. After all, such national sagas like the Shah-Nama and the Darab-Nama were intended as a reminder so that the Persians would not forget their glorious past.

… we are presented with an Oriental legend. Or rather, an embroidered version of a historic fact known to every Persian in the Achaemenid empire — and to many Jews, who revered Cyrus the Great because he had freed them from slavery in Babylon and sent them home to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem.

The fact is that in 530 BC Cyrus went to war against queen Tomyris of the Massagetai — and lost.

…

Tomyris sends a herald to Cyrus with her message: «Stop this war effort, because you cannot know if in the end it will do you any good. Be content to rule in peace over your own kingdom, and let me reign in mine. But of course, you will refuse my advice».

Cyrus indeed refuses to listen to her wise words, attacks – and dies on the battlefield. Now, it is a well-known theme that Alexander always tries to (and succeeds in) surpassing the feats of Cyrus. So here the Jews —who maintained good relations with Alexander throughout his reign, acting as loyal subjects— award him another victory: Alexander comes out a winner where Cyrus failed.

This is the beginning of a literary tradition – later represented so brilliantly by Nizami’s Iqbal-Nama— that describes Alexander as a philosopher king, Seeker of Knowledge, a sage whose only real aim is to learn wisdom.

...

Persia’s historical memory, as explained by the saga “Darab-Nama”, also remembers Alexander’s decision to promote mass-marriages for the better integration of conquerors and conquered into one realm. This is how the story in this popular saga was told to audiences all over Persia: 

Alexander and his army happen upon an island of women, and thousands of these invade the camp «searching for men». Alexander first suspects that they may be hostile, but soon understands they only want to make love —and then fears that his own men will “go berserk”, causing even worse problems. So he allows his wise chancellor –whose name is given as Plato— to apply a miracle-working solution.

Alexander and his wise chancellor Plato receive queen Sabaterah.

She reigns over an island where only women live, who all want

sex with men. Plato will ensure that they become legal spouses.

(Miniature from a 1720 AD manuscript of the Darab-Nama)

[Graciously shared by Robbert Bosschart]

Plato calls upon the women and asks them: «By the will of God, and so be all the Angels your witnesses, will you give yourselves in legal union to the men that will enter your city?» They agree. The storyteller concludes: «When the women were trying to seduce the men, it was the work of the Devil; but as soon as they were conveniently and legally married, it became God’s work, and Alexander could no longer be held responsible for any problems arising of their arrival».

Clearly, this is a remembrance of the mass-marriages (in reality, the legalization of de facto marriages) that Alexander organised in parallel with his double wedding at Susa in 324 BC. Out of his own purse, as Arrian reports in VII, 4, 8, he paid dowries for the Persian and other Oriental women who had taken up with his officers and soldiers, so they could be legally married. The list totalled some 10,000 dowries, and the classical sources say that Alexander disbursed over 10,000 talents of silver for them; an amount equivalent to 150 million dollars of today. It is understandable that these marriages, converting thousands of concubines into legal wives, left an indelible memory among the Persians.

Just as important was Alexander’s pledge that he would care for their offspring. Arrian notes in passing that he promised his veterans that their children from Oriental partners “will be educated as Macedonians”. But Diodoros tells more: he registers (in his Book XVII, 110, 3) that Alexander has set up a specific fund and appointed the necessary teachers to ensure that the 10,000 children his men have had with “women who were taken in war” will be educated “as is the right of free men”.

In Book XVIII, Diodoros adds that Alexander had decided to apply his integration policy on a much broader scale: «…he intended to establish cities and to transplant populations from Asia to Europe and in the opposite direction from Europe to Asia, in order to bring the largest continents to common unity and to friendly kinship by means of intermarriages and family ties».

Alexander’s intermarriage policy found lasting approval in Persia, as shown by the positive comment in the Darab-Nama on the “miraculous solution” devised by Plato.

For over a thousand years, Persian audiences have been listening again and again to this story in theaters, bazaars, harems and taverns. They must have agreed: after all, no storyteller makes a living by irritating his public.

How important was Barsine?

The question is actually double: How important was Barsine for Alexander? And how important was Barsine in the geopolitical world of her time? 

Authors from antiquity have not spent much ink on her, and she is only mentioned when she comes to the foreground, which isn’t often.  

Barsine was the daughter of Artabazus II, satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia in northwestern Turkey. Artabazus’ first wife was from Rhodes and was the sister of two capable generals, Mentor and Memnon. 

Artabazus revolted against the newly appointed Persian king, Artaxerxes III Ochus. Artaxerxes had ordered the dismantling of his mercenary army, which the satrap did not accept. Artabazus and his family (including Memnon) went into exile and found refuge at the court of Philip II in Pella. Barsine, who was fluent in Greek, must have met the younger Alexander during their stay. We don’t know the nature of their encounters or conversations, but we may safely assume that Alexander inquired about life and customs in Persia. After all, he impressed the Persian envoys at a young age as he questioned them pending his father’s return to the Palace. 

Three years later, Artabazus reconciled with the Persian king, and he returned to Persia, taking Barsine and his family with him. That happened in 343 BC, about one year after Aristotle arrived on the scene to teach Prince Alexander. Over the years, the entire company probably met the philosopher along with other distinguished visitors to the Macedonian court. 

Barsine married her uncle Mentor, a Greek mercenary general in Persian service, while she still was young. Mentor died soon afterward, leaving her with a daughter. In those circumstances, Memnon took her as his wife that same year, 338 BC. He already had several sons from a previous marriage. We can safely assume that Barsine’s opinion in these matters didn’t count. What’s more, she became a second mother to her husband's (teenage?) sons. Just as Mentor, Memnon led an army of mercenaries for the Great King. Having a lovely wife familiar with the Greek language and culture, no doubt, added to his prestige. 

In 334 BC, when Alexander, now king of Macedonia, faced the Persian army at the Granicus River, Memnon fought on the enemy’s side. Although the battle was lost, the general’s capabilities were recognized by Darius, and he was appointed as commander of the Persian fleet in the Aegean. This honor may be a questionable trust because, in exchange, Barsine had to stay at King Darius’ court with her father, Artabazus. 

A year later, during the siege of Lesbos Memnon fell ill and died. Barsine was widowed for a second time. 

Around that time, Alexander had reached Issus where he defeated Darius in November 333 BC. When Parmenion rode to Damascus to take hold of the Persian treasury, the baggage train, and the women of the aristocrats, he met Barsine and brought her to Alexander. 

Her relationship with Alexander lasted five or six years. I wonder whether she traveled with Darius’ mother, wife, and children, who had been taken in Issus. Alexander was constantly on the move, conquering the eastern Mediterranean and Egypt and marching to Babylon and Susa, where he finally installed the Persian Royal Family. Barsine stayed at Alexander’s side, and we can only guess which quarters she occupied when the army was on the road. 

During that time, Artabazus remained faithful to Darius until the Great King was murdered by Bessus, who then proclaimed himself the new king of Persia. Artabazus refused to submit to Bessus and left, taking his mercenaries with him. He joined Alexander, who rewarded him with the satrapy of Bactria. Here he was reunited with Barsine. 

She is mentioned again by ancient historians about 327 BC at the end of Alexander’s campaign in Sogdia. However, it is unclear in which order the events unfolded precisely. 

The fact is that Barsine became pregnant and gave birth to Heracles. Alexander never recognized his son, his first-born, although he must have loved him, giving him the name of his ancestors. Is it possible that Alexander resented Barsine for having Heracles without his consent? She and little Heracles stood in his way for his bigger plans, meaning to marry Princess Stateira as – probably – agreed with Sisygambis. Barsine must have known of those plans, so she had no excuse. 

It is, in any case, a strange coincidence that Alexander almost immediately married Roxane, the daughter of a local chieftain. This was not love at first sight, as most authors claim. It was a purely political move to end the three-year wars through Bactria and Sogdia. 

Artabazus requested to be relieved of his duties in Bactria because of his old age. Alexander accepted his resignation and Artabazus left for Pergamon taking Barsine and the little boy with him. Artabazus seems to have produced an elegant way to retire, and, at the same time, he created the best solution for Barsine since there was no longer a place for her at Alexander’s court. She had to say goodbye to the snow-topped mountains of the Hindu Kush after sharing so many miles with the Macedonian troops and her great love.

Barsine met Alexander again in 324 BC when she attended the mass wedding at Susa. Her daughter from Mentor married Nearchus. Two of her sisters were also given in marriage to Alexander’s companions, but the sources (Plutarch and Arrian) are at odds with each other about the names. 

Hardly a year later, Alexander died in Babylon. I wonder whether Barsine was still in nearby Susa, close enough to say her goodbyes to the man she once loved? If she returned to Pergamon after the wedding, she could never make it to Babylon in time. 

She and Heracles quietly spent the next decade in Pergamon. In 310 BC, Cassander as king of Macedonia, summoned Alexander IV, Alexander’s 14-year-old legitimate son with Roxane, to Pella to be poisoned. 

The news traveled fast and eventually reached Pergamon, as poor Heracles was now at the center stage in the drama of the Succession War. Initially, general Polyperchon had been defending the cause of the now 17-year-old Heracles, but in 309 BC, he fell into Cassander’s vicious trap. Cassander made many great promises of money and power in exchange for eliminating Heracles. For one hundred talents, Polyperchon tricked Heracles into accepting an invitation for dinner and poisoned him. Barsine, who had traveled with her son, was murdered shortly afterward, although some sources pretend she was murdered simultaneously. Sadly, Heracles didn’t even receive a proper burial in the cemetery of his ancestors, and neither did Barsine. 

Now about my questions formulated at the beginning of my post. How important was Barsine for Alexander? Well, she was important enough to keep her at his side for about six years. All this time, she managed not to get pregnant. Barsine knew that Alexander dearly wanted and needed an heir during those years of intimacy. She also knew that his plan was to marry a Persian princess. Barsine spoiled this by wanting a child of her own. Alexander had his principles and stuck to them. Nobody, not even sweet and gentle Barsine, was allowed to interfere. His sudden marriage to Roxane may be seen as a statement toward Barsine. Historians say Alexander fell in love with Roxane because of her beauty. In my mind, her beauty may be a nice bonus, but it was not the main reason. 

How important was Barsine in the geopolitical world of her time? Barsine was a beneficial source of information about the Persian court, Persian habits, and culture. After all, she had lived at least three years at the court of King Darius. Speaking Greek was an important asset to avoid misunderstandings. Alexander was an excellent judge of character, and having met Artabazus at Pella, he knew that he was a man of his word and could be trusted. Artabazus was loyal to Alexander. Having his daughter at the king’s side was a warranty that worked both ways. Barsine and her father contributed to Alexander’s larger plan. The birth of Heracles disturbed this goal – something Alexander never could or would accept. Barsine no longer fit his purpose in the new world he was building.

The tomb of Olympias found?

Last month, the Greek City Times published an article with the resonating title “Professor Bidas: Tomb of Alexander the Great’s mother was found in Korinos.” The news is worth making headlines, and I’m puzzled because it didn’t. 

It is all about one of the tombs of Korinos, some 13 kilometers south of Pydna. These tombs were discovered back in 1860 by the French archaeologists L Heuzey and H Domet, who named them A and B. Both tombs had been plundered in antiquity, and the artifacts left behind were recuperated by Heuzey to be sent to the Louvre in Paris. The tombs, which were covered by a tumulus, are dated to the 4th century BC. 

[Entrance to the tomb by Daumet 1855. Picture from Greek City Times]

In 1991, the Greek archaeologist, M Besios, restarted the excavations and concentrated on the largest tomb. The burial complex is 22 meters long compared to the 9.5 meters of King Philip’s tomb in Aegae. The size alone is enough to raise the question of the possible occupant of such a large gravesite. 

As he uncovered a rare construction of three consecutive burial chambers, M Besios concluded that the grave was intended for an important person. He found a marble case in the burial chamber that once held the vessel with the cremated remains on the east side. This result indicates that the remains belonged to a woman since women were buried with their heads facing east. 

The logical conclusion was that this tomb must have belonged to Queen Olympias. She had been assassinated by Cassander in 316 BC at the issue of the siege of Pydna and buried outside the city. 

At the tomb's entrance are the building remains of what seems to refer to a temple in honor of the deceased. Three epitaphs were found in the area. They mention the Aiakides, who were relatives of Olympias living in the outskirts of Pydna. A good reason for choosing this location for the burial. Remarkably, one of the epitaphs refers to a memorial dedicated to Neoptolemus I that stood opposite the tomb attributed to his daughter Olympias, the spouse of Philip II of Macedon. A wide road separated both constructions. 

In light of the above, Emeritus Professor Athanasios Bidas claimed to have located the tomb of Queen Olympias here in Korinos (see also: Is the Mother of Alexander the Great in the Tomb at Kasta Hill near Amphipolis?) The announcement was made public in December 2019, but competent authorities in Greece remain reticent to accept his argumentation. 

This lack of reaction is as surprising as the one that followed the discovery of the (doubtful) grave of Alexander the Great in Siwah in 1995. At that time, archaeologist Liana Souvaltzi substantiated her finds, but her digging permit was blocked by the Greek government as soon as she did. They sent an advisor of the Greek Embassy to the Egyptian government to withdraw her excavation permit and prevent her further excavations of the tomb. Twenty-five years later, Liana Souvaltzi still fights to return to Siwah and resume her excavations. 

It makes one wonder if nobody in the world wants to know the truth about what happened to the remains of Alexander the Great, his mother Olympias, his wife Roxane and their son Alexander IV, as well as those of Heracles and his mother, Barsine. Until now, it remains unsure whether the tomb of the young prince discovered next to the grave of Philip in Aegae belongs to Alexander IV.

A masterpiece of Hellenistic art

A while ago, the bronze statue of The Boxer at Rest made headlines in The Greek Reporter. It certainly is one of the most lifelike and realistic masterpieces from antiquity that has survived the recycling melting ovens.

Sadly, no picture of this exceptional bronze does any credit to what it truly embodies, neither the whole statue nor the details.

[Picture from The Greek Reporter]

Nowadays, this amazing sculpture is kept at the Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme in Rome, Italy. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find out how it is being presented as it certainly deserves a royal space of its own.

I was very fortunate to see it for myself a few years ago in Florence, Italy as part of the exhibition “Power and Pathos, Bronze Sculpture of the Hellenistic World”. The boxer left a deep impression as he commanded attention and respect.

He was placed on the floor like an occasional visitor, unwinding after the intense fight he just went through. His body showed the many scars and cuts left by his opponent. His hands were still wrapped in leather strips meant to protect them but also to inflict as many injuries as possible to his adversary. His oozing wounds colored red with blood (red bronze inserts) illustrated how fierce and unforgiving the fight must have been.

The combat apparently just finished, and the fighter starts to relax. Obviously, the adrenaline is still rushing through his veins and it seems he could jump into fighting mode at the first wrong sparkle from the onlookers. Walking around him, one has to tread with care. He is so life-like that he could look up at you at any moment! (see: A grand collection of Greek bronze masterpieces)

The bronze was found buried in the gardens of the Palazzo Quirinale in Rome in 1885. Admirers of art or lovers of boxing-fights may have wanted to safeguard the statue for better times, whatever their motives or circumstances. We know nothing about the origin of this marvelous boxer. The sculptor remains anonymous and the name of the commissioner, who must have been a wealthy man, is still unknown.

The statue has been dated to 330-50 BC, which is, in fact, the entire Hellenistic era. We have only a few such examples whereas Hellenism must have produced countless numbers of magnificent sculptures. 

With a twist of my mind, I am reminded of the lifelike statues of Alexander and Craterus on a lion hunt that stood in Delphi (see: An unexpected encounter with Alexander at Delphi). It is said that when Cassander visited this work of art and saw Alexander standing in the dim light, he became “so terrified that his body shuddered and trembled” according to Plutarch. Cassander is said to have nearly fainted as the lifelike Alexander undoubtedly stared back at him. Plutarch further adds that it took Cassander a long time to recover.

His fear for Alexander and his wrath must have run very deep. Of course, he had every reason to be afraid. After all, he had murdered Alexander’s mother Olympias, wife Roxane, son Alexander IV, his long-time mistress Barsine and her son Heracles. With so much blood on his hands, one may wonder whether Cassander could sleep at night. He was a profoundly frustrated and evil man and does not deserve any consideration or pity.