All rise! Long live the King! Long live Alexander!

Reading a random paragraph in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, we could easily picture the king solemnly entering the Throne Room of his imaginary Palace on the way to his birthday party. 

“He put on his helmet, but the rest of his armor he had on as he came from his tent, namely, a vest of Sicilian make girt about him, and over this a breastplate of two-ply linen from the spoils taken at Ipsus. His helmet was of iron, but gleamed like polished silver, a work of Theophilus; and there was fitted to this a gorget, likewise of iron, set with precious stones. He had a sword, too, of astonishing temper and lightness, a gift from the king of the Citieans,... He wore a belt also, which was too elaborate for the rest of his armor; for it was a work of Helicon the ancient, and a mark of honor from the city of Rhodes, which had given it to him”. 

Well, the event is much less romantic. Plutarch’s description fits Alexander as he is leaving his tent before the Battle of Gaugamela. 

Dressed to impress!              

                                Happy birthday, Alexander!

Saving documents and books in antiquity

Nowadays, saving our documents and information on our computers is very obvious. Before the digital era, we relied on typewriters and printers to distribute our pamphlets, advertisements, letters, and books. 

It is hard to imagine that in antiquity nothing of the kind existed, but then the needs were entirely different. Public information, laws, decrees, and other important notices were inscribed on stone slabs or posted on walls in conspicuous places throughout the city, and eventually shared with other cities.  

Exchanging documents and letters over longer distances, as during Alexander’s campaigns, required writing on papyrus, a lightweight material that could be easily transported. His correspondence with Antipater, Olympias, Aristotle, Sisygambis, governors, and generals all over his ever-growing empire required an active exchange of news and information.

Eumenes and Callisthenes, serving as Alexander’s secretaries, must have been very busy and very organized. We tend to forget that they also kept copies of Alexander’s correspondence, official documents, and perhaps private letters as well. This becomes apparent when Eumenes’ tent went up in flames after a conflict that arose as Nearchus was preparing the fleet to sail the Southern Sea. 

Alexander had exhausted his own treasury and had to borrow money from his friends, including Eumenes, to finance Nearchus’ expedition. His secretary was to contribute 300 talents, but being stingy, he gave only 100 talents. Alexander did not accept Eumenes’ excuse that it was not without difficulty and decided to set his friend’s tent on fire. He expected Eumenes to rush his money out, and thus admit he had been lying. The plan went wrong, and the tent burned down entirely, leaving a clump of smelted gold and silver worth one thousand talents. In the process, Alexander’s archives were reduced to ashes. It is Plutarch who tells us that Alexander asked several governors and generals to send Eumenes copies of the papers that had been destroyed. This proves that Alexander did indeed keep a record of his correspondence! 

We so often read of papers and books that have only partially survived or are only known second-hand or not at all, except for the title. This situation is inherent to the mindset of the time and to the degradation of the natural support used (papyrus). 

Papyrus is a vegetal product and a very practical writing support, but it is also fragile. It has been calculated that papyrus documents had a lifespan of a maximum of one hundred years. This may have suited the needs at the time, but the chances of having them still around two thousand years later are very slim. 

Chances of survival were greater if there were many copies of a text, like, for instance, for theater plays. Yet, professional writers were expensive, and the costs were borne by the author. In Roman times, wealthy citizens could afford to have certain scrolls copied for their own use, but they would hardly survive after the Fall of the Roman Empire. 

Under exceptional conditions, some scrolls or bits of papyrus, however, reached us. The most telling example is the scrolls that survived the fire in Herculaneum after the volcanic eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. Only recently have we been able to decipher their content without having to unroll the brittle carbonized scrolls (see: Reading the papyrus scrolls from Herculaneum). 

Another situation developed in Egypt. The garbage dump in Oxyrhynchus that served as fuel to the local population in the 19^th century appeared to contain a huge amount of hitherto unknown papyrus texts ranging from the Ptolemaic era to the Muslim conquests in the 7^th century AD. The papyri consist of private letters and public documents such as a variety of official correspondence, theater plays, records, sales, wills, and inventories. The deciphering of the papyri is ongoing, as only a handful of scholars are capable of recognizing where the bit of papyrus text belongs. 

When parchment was introduced in the 2^nd century BC, documents stood a better chance of survival, although even animal skins had their limits. However, parchment was extremely expensive to make. 

With the passage of time, interest and taste evolved and changed. Treatises, studies, analyses, and even books and poems went out of fashion and vanished altogether. 

As the writing supports were decaying, it is not surprising that documenting Alexander’s life is a nearly impossible task, despite the second-hand recordings by Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, and Plutarch, who could still access some original documents (see: Eyewitness accounts of Alexander’s life).

[Top picture Derveni papyrus 340 BC, Thessaloniki Museum.
Bottom picture from Archaeology News, Digs & Discoveries] 

Another aspect of Alexander’s personality?

Life is full of surprises and Alexander’s life is no exception. Our best sources are extant books by Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, Plutarch, and Justin, but contemporary documents are far more difficult to find (see: Eyewitness accounts of Alexander's life). Alexander’s Royal Journals carefully kept by Callisthenes and Eumenes have not survived, except for some rare fragments whose origins cannot be verified with certainty.

Browsing through Robinson’s book, The History of Alexander the Great and the Ephemerides of Alexander’s Expedition, I was intrigued by the few lines that survived Ephippus’ writing. 

Ephippus of Olynthus was a historian and contemporary of Alexander. It is unclear whether this man is the same as Ephippus of Chalcis, mentioned by Arrian as one of the superintendents Alexander installed in Egypt. The reason to link both names is that the city of Olynthus is part of Chalcis. Otherwise, our Ephippus may well have lived at the king’s court or shortly after his death. 

He is known as the author of a lost pamphlet “On the death (or funeral) of Alexander and Hephaistion,” as mentioned by Athenaeus of Naucratis, who lived about the end of the 2^nd/beginning of the 3^rd century AD. The document held an account of the burial of Hephaistion and Alexander as well as of the king’s death. 

Robinson is quoting Athenaeus in several separate issues, shedding a different light on Alexander than what other, usually Greek, sources tell us. 

According to Ephippus, Alexander spent one hundred minas on a dinner with his friends, i.e., sixty or seventy of them. It seems the author is reacting to some critics about Alexander’s expenses compared to those of the Persian king, who spent four hundred talents for his 15,000 invites. Converting the currencies, however, both expenditures come to the same amount per capita.

Another observation made by Ephippus is that the Macedonians never understood how to drink in moderation, but drank a lot of wine at the beginning of a feast. The case of Proteas of Macedonia, who was a sturdy guy, is highlighted because he drank a great deal all his life. Alexander, Ephippus said, once ordered a six-quart cup of wine, and after a drink, toasted Proteas, thereby extending a challenge to him. Proteas took the cup, sang praises to his king, and drank the rest of the wine under the wide applause of those present. A little later, Proteas ordered another such cup, toasted the king, and took a drink. Alexander then (accepting the challenge) took it but could not hold it, falling back on his cushion and dropping the cup from his hands. The king fell ill and died. 

This scene inspired Oliver Stone in his Alexander movie during a scene played in India. However, this is not how the king died, and the text puts serious question marks behind the assumption that Ephippus lived at Alexander's court at the time of his death. The truth about Alexander’s death, for me, lies elsewhere as I discussed on previous occasions (see: A personal approach to the cause of death for Alexander).

Regarding the luxury of Alexander, Ephippus tells us that the king had a golden throne, and couches with silver feet “on which he used to sit and transact business with his companions”. These couches are known from the Susa wedding party, but the link is not made in this text. 

Ephippus continues by stating that Alexander also wore “sacred vestments”, such as the purple robe, cloven sandals, and horns of Ammon as if he were a god. At times, he would imitate Artemis, wearing her dress while driving his chariot. Alexander also had a Persian robe and displayed the bow and javelin of the goddess above his shoulder. Sometimes, he dressed as Hermes, and sitting with his friends, he wore the god’s sandals and the petasus, holding the caduceus in his hand. In everyday use, he would appear wearing a purple riding cloak and a purple tunic with white stripes, and the Macedonian causia holding the royal diadem. Referring to Heracles, Alexander would wear a lion’s skin and carry the god’s club. 

To my own astonishment, Ephippus also says that Alexander used to have the floor sprinkled with perfumes and fragrant wine, while incense and myrrh were burnt in his presence. If this is true, I presume it would happen only while the king resided in one of the Persian palaces? The bystanders are said to remain silent out of fear of his violence, “with no regard for human life.” 

Athenaeus further quotes Ephippus, saying that Alexander arranged a festival for Dionysus at Ecbatana. He does not tell us when this sacrifice occurred but I would assume it was in 324 BC, maybe around the death of Hephaistion. 

The local satrap Satrabates had invited all the troops (just try to picture the scene!) for his lavish feast, and many speeches of praise and flattery were made to impress Alexander. As in Samarkand, some of these praises turned into insolence. However, with the king’s complicity one of his armorers totally went overboard by having the herald announce that he, Gorgus, would shower the son of Ammon with 3,000 gold coins; and whenever Alexander would besiege Athens, he would add 10,000 full suits of armor and as many catapults and other missiles needed for the war. 

Such words clearly illustrate how preposterous and absurd these flatteries of Alexander were! Freedom of speech? 

Shifting through Ephippus' lines, it is difficult and even impossible to determine what is correct and what is not. As always, opinions are divided. Ephippus’ version of the facts is examined in detail by Antony Spawforth in his article The Pamphleteer Ephippus, King Alexander and the Persian Royal Hunt.

Eyewitness accounts of Alexander’s life

Alexander's life and exploits are best known to us from the leading ancient historians, Arrian of Nicomedia, Diodorus Siculus, Curtius Rufus, and Plutarch. Their works, however, were written several centuries after the king's death and based mainly on books that are now mostly lost. 

Since these authors used a different source or a combination of the available material, we ended up having different versions of the same story, which, in turn, can be interpreted individually. 

The oldest eyewitness account was written by Anaximenes of Lampsacus, who lived from c. 380 until 320 BC. It is highly probable that his On Alexander, which included the Battle of Issus and more, was published during Alexander's lifetime. After all, he accompanied the king to Persia. Except for some fragments, the book is lost. Upon the invitation of Philip II, Anaximenes lived at the Royal Court of Pella and wrote the king's history, Philippica.  

Callisthenes of Olynthus (c.360 – c.327 BC) was a nephew of Aristotle, upon whose recommendation he was appointed to become Alexander's Court historian. He accompanied the king to Asia, where he kept the official records of Alexander's expeditions. Around 330 BC, he wrote his Deeds of Alexander up to the Battle of Gaugamela or possibly the death of Darius in 330 BC. In 327 BC, Callisthenes was implicated in a conspiracy to assassinate Alexander. He was imprisoned and died seven months later. Except for a few fragments, the book is lost. 

Ptolemy, undoubtedly the best-known eyewitness, wrote his account between 320 and 283 BC. Ptolemy had grown up at Philip's court and became one of Alexander's generals to join him on his Asian campaign. As a result, his book covered the entire reign of Alexander, particularly from the military point of view. Arrian widely used Ptolemy's history, which he thought was very trustworthy. Unfortunately, this account is also lost, except for fragments. After Alexander's death, Ptolemy became king of Egypt and founded the Ptolemaic dynasty that ended with Cleopatra VII in 30 BC. 

Very shortly after Alexander's death, Nearchus of Crete wrote his Indike about his Indian campaigns. Nearchus had been with Alexander from the beginning. As the king's admiral, he would have led the fleet to the Gates of Heracles – a plan that never materialized. Only fragments of this book have reached us; it is otherwise lost (see: The Ephemerides of Alexander's Expedition by C.A. Robinson). 

Onesicritus, Alexander's helmsman sailing down the Indus, also wrote a now-lost book, How Alexander was educated, shortly after the king's death. A philosopher himself, he presented Alexander as such. Onesicritus was often in competition with Nearchus, and his book had a reputation for not being reliable. Few fragments survived (see: The Ephemerides of Alexander's Expedition by C.A. Robinson). 

After Alexander's death, his chamberlain Chares also wrote an eyewitness account, Histories of Alexander. He covered the later years of Alexander's reign. This book is lost, except for some fragments. 

Aristobulus of Cassandreia, in turn, covered the entire reign of Alexander in a kind of autobiography. The book, whose title is unknown, was written shortly after the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC. Except for some fragments, it is lost. Aristobulus was one of the king's engineers and was put in charge of restoring Cyrus' tomb in Pasargadae. 

The most essential account was the Ephemerides, the Royal Diaries, the 'official' daily report that Eumenes of Cardia supposedly kept. He was appointed Alexander's personal secretary after having served Philip previously. There are serious doubts about the authenticity of these Royal Diaries because rumors circulate that the original document was later rewritten. Instead of having a book from Alexander's lifetime, it may well have become a forgery of a later date. The original is lost, except for fragments. The Ephemerides led to the Alexander Romance. 

The oldest known version of the Alexander Romance dates probably from the 3rd century AD, and its author is unknown, although it has been attributed to Pseudo-Callisthenes. The name has nothing to do with the Callisthenes mentioned above, who died before Alexander. The earliest version of the Romance was composed in Alexandria shortly after Alexander's death and related the story of his life, spiced with many fantastic tales that never happened. Over the centuries, the Romance was translated, truncated, embellished, and circulated throughout Europe and Asia. 

This list is incomplete; we know many other authors only by name. Their work is all lost, except for fragments or quotes by other historians. 

It is hard to believe that so few would have written about Alexander's exploits among the thousands of rulers, philosophers, generals, artists, and even ordinary soldiers who met him. The Persians and the Indians certainly shared their encounter with Alexander, yet barely any such documents surfaced until recently.

The hard reality is that even fragments of writing from Alexander's lifetime have survived. The most famous man in history would have disappeared had it not been for men like Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, and Plutarch.

Alexander's projects and future plans, including his conquest of the West, are also largely neglected. Yet every single one is worth mentioning, which I did in a separate post: Alexander’s missed voyage to conquer the West.

[Papyrus from Macedonian Archaeology Quota]

Latest update 30 January 2025

Rewriting the events leading to the Battle of Gaugamela

Our history of Alexander the Great is mainly based on what the Greek reporters tell us, picked up by later authors like Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, and Plutarch. We have ignored what Persian sources could say because of the difficulty deciphering the often fragmentary texts written on clay tablets from the Babylonia Library or on papyrus from the Oxyrhynchus site in Egypt.

Watching a documentary from 2009 of Michael Wood searching for the plain of Gaugamela in war-ridden northern Iraq revived the battle scenario of Alexander against Darius as seen from the Persian point of view, i.e., contemporary of Alexander. Michael Wood had an in-depth conversation with Prof. Irving Finkle of the British Museum handling several cuneiform tablets.  

These cuneiform clay tablets belong to the Astronomical Diaries kept in the temple of the Babylonian god Marduk. The diaries contain daily observations of the sky and all kinds of information about the current political events, the water level of the Euphrates and Tigris, the food prices and other various topics, and the meteorological records. Over the past two centuries, millions of these tablets have surfaced from all over Mesopotamia. The majority has not yet been deciphered, leaving us with wide lacunas. Therefore the work of Prof. Irving Finkle is very commendable. 

With Michael Wood, he concentrated on three lines on these tablets that require careful consideration in the case of Gaugamela. 

That month, the eleventh [corresponds to 18 September 331 BC], panic occurred in the camp before the king. The Macedonians encamped in front of the king [must be Darius at Arbela].

This inscription suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized or were reluctant to fight. 

The twenty-fourth [corresponds to 1 October 331 BC], in the morning, the king of the world [meaning Alexander as King of Asia] erected his standard [lacuna]. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops. The king, his troops deserted him and to their cities [they went] They fled to the land of the Guti [meaning the road to Ecbatana]

These lines shed a very different light on the battle as opposed to what Greek historians wrote about Darius turning his chariot around and leaving his soldiers behind (see: "The troops of the king deserted him"). If the Persian troops left their king, that would be a totally different situation.

Prof. Irving understands that “the king’s men deserted him” means, the Persians refused to fight. This may very well involve Mazaeus at Gaugamela, as he was holding the right flank facing Parmenion’s contingent. Was the confrontation on that end of the long Persian front really as fierce as our Greek narratives want us to believe with Parmenion’s flank crumbling down? Or was it mainly a show to save face vis-à-vis King Darius?

If the soldiers on that flank (the Persian right) were not ready to engage in a fight, Alexander could more easily concentrate on his own right flank. Thus executing his whirling move and ride towards Darius through the formed gap. Darius fled from the battlefield, but it transpired that many of his troops had turned back before their king did. 

We may wonder whether, instead of an act of bravery or military genius on Alexander’s part, the battle was won thanks to the bribes of some of Darius’ generals, including Mazaeus (see: Two key afterthoughts on Gaugamela). 

On the eleventh [corresponds to 18 October 331 BC], in Sippar [this is just north of Babylon] an order of Alexander to the Babylonians was sent as follows: 'Into your houses I shall not enter.'

Here, the tablets are quoting Alexander verbatim as he confirms that he would not enter the houses of Babylon. In other words, he officially declares that his troops will not plunder the city. This was clearly a pre-arranged gesture. 

The above calls for some further explanation. 

Let’s consider the nearly obvious bribe of Mazaeus. We have to go back to the banks of the Euphrates where Hephaistion was building two bridges over the Euphrates at its narrowest point near Thapsacus (see: Crossing the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers). The Persian general had arrived on the other side and watched Hephaistion’s construction progress for several days. Hephaistion stopped his operation short of the opposite river bank as he did not want to see the end of his bridges destroyed by Mazaeus. Work was at a stalemate till Alexander appeared with the bulk of his army, and Mazaeus turned around to scorch more earth in front of the enemy’s advance as ordered by Darius. 

Mazaeus had 2,000 Greek mercenaries at his services. They must have been happy to talk to the Macedonians on the opposite bank to exchange the latest news during the stalemate. Robin Lane Fox implies that Mazaeus (who, having been satrap of Cilicia, did speak Greek) at that time could have forged some agreement with Hephaistion in view of the upcoming battle. At first sight, this seems outlandish, but this is very plausible on second thought. Hephaistion was often sent on diplomatic missions by Alexander, and the events on the bank of the Euphrates may well have been one such occasion. While he was waiting, Hephaistion had ample time to consult Alexander, still marching towards him. Such a private agreement would inevitably shed totally new light on the upcoming fight at Gaugamela (see: Two key afterthoughts on Gaugamela). 

As soon as Darius left the battlefield, Mazaeus followed suit and rode to Babylon. When Alexander approached the city some three weeks later, he was met by Mazaeus, who surrendered himself and the city. This has been recorded by Curtius and certainly fits into the prearranged agreement! 

Babylon was a well-defended stronghold with a 68 km-long wall that would have been a tough nut to crack had Mazaeus not surrendered it to the new King of Asia (see: Babylon and Alexander’s reorganization of the army). 

In his search for the battlefield location, Michael Wood also talked to Lt General Sir Robert Fry, head of British Forces in Iraq, who was in charge of his security. The general is a historian and fervent admirer of Alexander the Great with his own views on the military aspect. He says that, in figures, the Battle of Gaugamela was perhaps the biggest in history until Napoleon! It decided the fate of Asia. 

He further adds that - like all great leaders in history - Alexander left no weapon unused – even the gods. Alexander did not make his last sacrifice to Phoebus because he was afraid, but he wished fear and terror on the Persians! True to his generalship, Robert Fry marvels at the logistics of bringing an army of 50,000 to Iraq, 80,000 to Persia, and even more to India. Imagine the long supply line! 

The general also looks at the upcoming battle from Darius’ side and confirms that he has taken all necessary precautions. He had a superior cavalry with heavier horses, had the strength of numbers, and the battle itself was well prepared. The plan of the Persian king was to breach the phalanx in order to break the cohesion of the Macedonian army at its center and then envelop the outnumbered Macedonians. Darius had not expected Alexander to stretch the army to his right and create an opening to ride straight at him. The battle was not about their numbers, the general continued, but it came down to the decisions of two individuals. 

These are fascinating statements and ideas. General Fry ends with words along the line of “Alexander’s idea of defeating the Persians may be his idea of linking the eastern and western empires by trade routes and by an army integrated in ethnic terms. These are extraordinary imaginative ideas! Alexander was a globalist. He would thoroughly understand the world today.” How true that is!

[Pictures 2 and 3 are from Oliver Stones' movie Alexander] 

Who decided on the mummification of Alexander?

Alexander’s death in Babylon and the cause of his death have been discussed before (see: A personal approach to the cause of death for Alexander the Great). This time, I would like to concentrate on his embalmment. 

Arrian does not mention what happened after Alexander’s death since the accounts of both Ptolemy and Aristobulus stopped at this point. However, he adds a splendid eulogy to the greatness of Alexander. Diodorus follows the same idea, stating that “He accomplished greater deeds than any, not only of the kings who had lived before him but also of those who were to come later down to our time.” 

Only Curtius’ history continues describing the mourning in the streets of Babylon by friend and foe, the earliest rivalry between the generals, and all kinds of intrigues that followed the king’s death. He is the only one to mention that Alexander lay unattended for seven days before his friends reentered the room. So much for a “friend,” right? He reports how his body did not show any sign of decay despite the Babylonian heat. As a result, the Egyptians and Chaldeans, "who were ordered” to care for the body, hesitated to handle it. It is only after they prayed to their gods for approval that “they emptied his body of entrails.” He goes on by saying that the gold coffin was filled with perfumes, yet nothing about the honey that covered Alexander’s body as seen by those who paid their respects to him years later in Alexandria. 

Several questions arise after reading these accounts. Curtius, for instance, is the only one to tell us about the widespread quarrel among the generals and troops alike (not yet about the matter of succession) and about the decision to embalm Alexander’s body. Plutarch casually remarks that the body remained unattended for several days. 

What transpires is that nobody stayed at Alexander’s bedside after he was declared dead. It is baffling and truly unacceptable vis-à-vis the King of Macedonia, the King of Kings, to be left without a single soul at his side to mourn him? Macedonia must have had a set procedure for treating the deceased king. Persia undoubtedly had a very ancient court protocol for such occasions! Yet, Alexander was left alone and unattended. Incredible! 

About a week later, the king’s entourage seemed to remember that their king was dead and required burial of some kind. According to Curtius, who appears the only source on this matter, “Egyptians and Chaldeans were ordered to care for the body.” Nobody says who issued such an order. The priests certainly would not act on their own to handle the remains of the King of Kings, the most powerful man of the world! Was there any discussion about the procedure and the choice of a funeral? 

In Macedonia, a king would be cremated on a fancy pyre, as was done for King Philip and even applied for Hephaistion. What did the Persian tradition prescribe? I suppose a burial since the Tomb of Cyrus contained his bodily remains, although we don’t know if the corpse had been embalmed or not. In ancient Mesopotamia, everything indicates that they buried the bodies in the earth since, according to their creation myth, Ea (Enki) had created humans out of the earth's soil. So they naturally 'return' the body to the earth once the person has died. However, in Alexander’s case, the priests “emptied his body of entrails,” which indicates an Egyptian tradition. 

How, then, was it decided that Alexander should be mummified? His body was originally to return to Macedonia. The royal tradition was that their lineage would simply die if the king was not buried in his homeland. At this stage, there were no known plans to bring the king’s corpse to Egypt at all. So, maybe it was decided to keep his body in good condition until it reached Macedonia, which actually meant years later. The only people of authority present in Babylon were Alexander’s generals, who seem, however, to have been more occupied with their own importance in the wake of their king’s death than with the proper burial – or any burial at all for that matter. 

I cannot imagine Perdiccas suggesting mummification, or Nearchus, or any other commander present, except maybe Ptolemy. At a very early stage, he had decided to take Egypt as his share. Not only that, but there were rumors that Ptolemy may have been an illegitimate son of Philip, making him Alexander’s half-brother. This has never been established, but the relationship was a public secret. At this stage, Ptolemy may have carried more weight than the other generals to suggest mummification. He will, however, have been careful not to disclose his secret plan to take Alexander to Egypt. Who knows? 

Another possibility is that the commanders were still fighting each other and had not decided where to bury their king despite leaving him unattended for about a week. The obvious place was Macedonia, but Babylon as the new capital of Alexander’s Empire may have been another candidate. Pending a final decision, it was wise to embalm the body to preserve it the best they could. 

But who performed the embalming on so short a notice? It is highly improbable that priests could have been summoned so quickly from Egypt. Maybe Alexander had some Egyptian doctors or priests in his entourage? That is not as far-fetched as it appears because at the time of the moon eclipse, shortly before the Battle of Gaugamela, when the army was wildly panicking, we know some Egyptian priests were present. They had told Alexander and his Macedonians that this was only an astronomical phenomenon - and hence, nothing to be worried about. This shows that he had kept Egyptian priests with him already then. These priests most certainly were familiar with the religious embalming process and able to preserve Alexander’s body for the long journey home. 

Craftsmen from across the empire created an unsurpassed funerary golden catafalque. Alexander’s preserved body was placed inside a gold sarcophagus inlaid with precious stones. It was covered with a purple funerary pall embroidered with gold, on top of which lay his armor and Trojan shield. After two years of careful and intense work, the shrine was ready, and the funeral cortege left Babylon for Pella.

As we know, the cortege never reached Macedonia since Ptolemy seized the catafalque in Syria and took it to Egypt. As the city of Alexandria was not yet entirely built, Alexander’s sarcophagus was temporarily kept in Memphis. We owe it to Ptolemy’s son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, to give Alexander his last resting place in his Alexandria. 

In the following centuries, the tomb was visited by many Roman emperors till it disappeared from history. That was between the mid-3rd century and the last quarter of the 4th century AD.

Travelling surprise in Greece

Knowing where to go and what to see is very important in any travel plan, but some surprises can turn out to be true gems. 

It so happened that I could visit the recently excavated cemetery of Akanthoy, near Ierissos, North Chalkidikis. The finds date roughly from the 7th-6th century BC, i.e., before Alexander and thus something he would have known.

According to Thucydides, the ancient city of Akanthos was founded as a colony of Andros, or, if we follow Plutarch, jointly by Andros and Chalkis in the middle of the 7th century BC. It sat on top of a prehistoric settlement. The city took the side of the Persians both in 499 BC (First Persian War) and 480 BC (Second Persian War) and sided with the Athenians in 431 BC during the Peloponnesian War. With the expansion of Macedonia under Philip and Alexander, Akanthos was incorporated into their kingdom. In 200 BC, the city was plundered by the Romans and became a mere province. 

The cemetery has been located underneath the modern city of Ierissos. It has yielded more than 14,000 findings confirming that the site was used all through the Roman age. The best artifacts have, of course, been moved to the Archaeological Museum of Polygyros. 

One of the fascinating spots I happen to stumble upon by chance is these lovingly cared-for tombs discovered in 2014, where everything is kept in situ. I admire the work of the archaeologists who managed to unearth these tombs from different eras in superposed layers while leaving each one undisturbed by the excavation of the others. 

Jars of all sizes and shapes (varying with time) alternate with small tombs, roofed or not. A few poignant small tombs still contain the cremated remains with their original grave goods on top – little earthen pots and jars that helped define the burial date. Also, skeletons of what seem to be young children are surrounded by toy horses and miniature vases. There also are many larger rectangular tombs in terracotta.

Outside, in front of an unmarked building, many larger pots have been collected, some wrapped in protective plastic. They are all waiting to be cataloged and studied together with smaller items filling colorful crates. Archaeology requires a lot of patience!