The roaring times of the Antigonid dynasty

The Wars of the Diadochi broke out after Alexander’s death in 323 BC and his huge Empire went to “the strongest” as he may have intended to say on his deathbed in Babylon. However, it did not go to one single ruler as none of his generals had his vision or charisma. 

After endless battles, intermarriages, and lots of intrigues, Alexander’s generals eliminated each other and, in the end, started four distinct dynasties. Ptolemy initiated the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt, and Seleucos the Seleucid dynasty in Asia. Cassander, the son of Antipater, founded the Antipatrid dynasty (the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia). In 306 BC, Antigonus Monophthalmus (the One-Eyed) declared himself and his son Demetrios kings. By doing so, the Antigonid dynasty replaced the Antipatrid dynasty. 

Antigonus may well have served under Philip II and lost an eye during the Siege of Perinthus in 340 BC. He later joined Alexander on his Persian campaign and was promoted to satrap of Phrygia in 334 BC. His main duty was to maintain Alexander’s line of communication and supply. As a result of the Partition of Babylon following Alexander’s death, he also received Pamphylia and Lycia. 

During the Wars of the Diadochi, Antigonus picked up momentum and managed to rule over all of Asia Minor, Greece, Syria, Phoenicia, and northern Mesopotamia. Fearing his increasing power, Seleucos, Ptolemy, Lysimachos, and Cassander joined forces against him. Antigonus was defeated and killed at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC after which his realm was split between Lysimachos and Seleucos. 

However, Antigonus’ son Demetrios Poliorcetes, by now having earned his stripes as Besieger survived said battle and took control of Macedonia in 294 BC. Cassander died in 297 BC without a successor as his sons had eliminated each other, paving the way for Demetrios to become King of Macedonia. Not for long because in 288 BC he was driven out by Pyrrhus and Lysimachos, and died as a prisoner of Seleucos. 

It was not until 277 BC that Demetrios’ son, Antigonus II Gonatas, regained the title of King of Macedonia. He ruled till about 239 BC, to be succeeded by Demetrios II Aetolicus, followed by Antigonus III Doson ten years later. 

Meanwhile, Rome became the rising power in the eastern Mediterranean, and soon the first conflicts with Antigonid Macedonia led by King Philip V (221-179 BC) erupted. His successor, Perseus, put up a fierce resistance against the expanding Roman Empire that coveted Macedonia’s wealth. The Romans conquered Antigonid Macedonia in 168 BC at the Battle of Pydna, turning Alexander’s homeland into a mere Roman Province. 

Although very eventful, the Antigonid dynasty was short-lived and lasted less than 150 years. 

Macedonia’s grand palaces of Aegae, Pella, Bylazora, and Dimitrias were thoroughly looted, and the houses of the wealthy Macedonians were plundered. Statues, paintings, jewelry, and other wonderful, precious artifacts from Greece and Asia were up for grabs. Roman generals and common soldiers alike took as much as they could carry. Only the gods know what happened to the collection of Macedonia’s precious libraries.

Planetarium of Archimedes?

A fragment from a complex mechanism was discovered by chance near Olbia, Sardinia, and it soon became clear that the dented gear wheel showed similarities with the mechanism of Anticythera. This fragment, however, was made of a brass alloy unknown otherwise at the time. 

[Kircher's reconstruction of the sphere of Archimedes]

Thanks to the detailed writings of Cicero in the 1^st century BC, we know that Archimedes constructed a Planetarium (Orrery). The celestial globe is mentioned by Ovid in the 1^st century BC and by Claudian, a 4^th-century Latin poet associated with the court of Emperor Honorius in Mediolanum (Milan). 

When, in 212 BC, the Romans sacked Syracuse, Consul Marcus Claudius Marcellus brought to Rome a device that was built by the famous mathematician. It represented the motion of the Sun, Moon, and the planets reproduced on a sphere. In short, a modern Planetarium. 

It was Gaius Sulpicius Gallus, who reported the story as he had seen the object personally and knew how to operate it. Cicero was amazed that Archimedes had been able to generate the motion of the individual planets starting from a single rotation. The Planetarium was placed inside a glass sphere. This corresponds to what Archimedes wrote in a now-lost treatise On Sphere-Making detailing the construction of the Planetarium. 

Livy, who died in 17 AD, wrote that before the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC, Gallus, an astronomer himself, used the Planetarium to predict a lunar eclipse on the night before the battle. The news was shared with his Roman legionnaires to prevent them from panicking, but the Macedonians freaked out. 

A first reconstruction based on the section of the gear wheel found near Olbia revealed that it counted 55 dents in total. Noteworthy is the shape of the dents, which is not triangular as in the case of the Anticythera mechanism but slightly curved as used in our modern gear wheels. This shape proves to be more efficient and allows a higher precision. In antiquity, these wheels were created manually and the craftsmen had to do without the use of our modern measuring and cutting tools, which emerged only a few centuries ago. 

Marcus Claudius Marcellus, owner of the Planetarium, was sent off to Spain to fight the Iberic Celts in 152 BC. It is reasonable to assume that Marcellus took the Planetarium with him – a sign of his status – and that his ship was wrecked in the region of Olbia, crashing the Planetarium. 

The Planetarium has been dated between the end of the 3^rd century BC and the mid-2^nd century BC. It thus predates the Anticythera mechanism from the 1^st century BC generally ascribed to Archimedes. However, the analog computer may well have been reproduced based on Archimedes’ description.

It must have been one of the marvels from Hellenistic times, many of which still remain to be discovered!

[the section found near Olbia is thoroughly discussed in this YouTube]

Endless fuss over the tomb of Alexander the Great

As theories about the final resting place of Alexander the Great abound, it may be a good time to summarize what we know. 

After being embalmed in Babylon, Alexander’s mummified body was transported with due pomp to Pella, where he was born and where all Macedonian kings were traditionally buried. However, Ptolemy, now ruling over Egypt, decided to intercept the splendid coffin as it passed through Syria. He said that Alexander had wanted to be buried in Egypt, in his first city of Alexandria. 

At that time, Alexandria was still under construction, and the king’s mummy was temporarily deposited in Memphis, the hitherto capital of Egypt. Ptolemy eventually transferred Alexander’s remains to Alexandria. Ancient sources are almost silent about the size and location of this first tomb. 

Ptolemy IV Philopator built a grand mausoleum for Alexander around 215-214 BC, probably as imagined by his great-grandfather, Ptolemy I. This Philopator transferred Alexander’s mummy during a splendidly organized ceremony. With Philopator’s lineage of predecessors, Alexander was put to rest somewhere in the center of Alexandria, later called the Soma, i.e., within the Palace District. 

At some point, the mummy was protected by a glass surrounding it. That is how Augustus, the first Roman Emperor, saw it. His example was followed by at least Caesar (assassinated in 41 BC), Caligula (ruled 12-41 AD), Hadrian (ruled 117-138 AD), Septimius Severus (ruled 193-211 AD), and Caracalla (ruled 198-217 AD), who were all great admirers of Alexander. After 391 AD, when paganism was entirely outlawed, history lost track of the mummy after being on display for almost seven centuries. 

Strangely, no picture and no full description of Alexander’s last resting place has survived – not even of the Soma and/or Royal Palace. However, we do have coins and mosaics representing the Pharos built by Ptolemy I. One would logically assume that the Soma was far more important than the lighthouse. It remains everyone’s guess why we don’t have any description of the Soma and its location inside Alexandria? 

Northern Africa suffered severely from a devastating earthquake in 365 AD, causing the entire coastline to drop by four meters (see: Apollonia in Cyrenaica (eastern Libya) after Alexander). The consequences of the ensuing tsunami may not have flooded the Soma immediately, and it may have sunk slowly till it disappeared around 391 AD, as mentioned above. The tomb of Alexander obviously drowned together with the Palace of the Ptolemies. 

The big question is, what happened to the remains of Alexander, supposing they could be saved, either from the flooding or from unrest inside Egypt? Theories are endless. 

The analysis made by Andrew Chugg centered around the Mosque of Nabi Daniel, which would have hidden Alexander’s corpse in a sarcophagus way beneath the present street level. Chugg claims that these remains were taken to Venice in 828 AD as being those of St Mark. They are now in St Mark’s Cathedral (see: The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great by Andrew Chugg). 

Greek archaeologist Liana Souvaltzi assumed that at some point, the king’s mummy was transferred to Siwah as Ptolemy fulfilled Alexander’s wish. The recorded visits of the Roman emperors to Alexandria, for instance, are merely ignored in her theory. Liana Souvaltzi started excavating the Temple of Amon-Ra in Siwah in 1989, but in 1995, the Greek and Egyptian governments suddenly blocked her permit. Today, she still fights to resume her excavations; however, without success. 

When the Kasta Hill tomb in Amphipolis was discovered a few years ago, one of the many supposed occupants was Alexander the Great (see: Amphipolis/Kasta Hill … here we go again!) Here is the list of possible candidates: 

Roxane, Alexander IV, the son of Alexander, Olympias, Cleopatra, sister of Alexander, Cassander (son of Antipater), Antigonus Monophthalmus, Hephaistion, Heracles (the illegitimate son of Alexander and Barsine), Polyandrion, Polyperchon, Philip-Arrhidaeus (half-brother of Alexander), Philip II (Alexander’s father, as many still doubt that he lies in the tumulus of Aegae).

The most recent theory here is that it was supposed to be the last resting place for Hephaistion. 

More news came from the Hellenic Institute for the Research of Alexandria Culture in 2017 (see: Magnificent Alexander statue found in Alexandria). They are working in the Shalallat Gardens area, where they claim to have located remains from the Royal Quarters of the Ptolemies. More exciting is the discovery of a unique marble statue of Alexander the Great in these gardens, fueling new theories about the king’s tomb once again.

Earlier this year, while discussing the presumed Tomb of Queen Olympias near Pydna (see: The tomb of Olympias found?), the leading Professor claimed that this tomb was similar to the one attributed to Alexander at Siwah.  

In the end, there have been many more theories, as I am not including those expressed in the widespread versions of the Alexander Romance (see: Le Roman d’Alexandre, traduit du grec par A Tallet-Bonvalot). None of them was satisfactory.

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.

There is more to Aegae than the Royal Palace and the Great Tumulus

Driving from modern Vergina towards the Royal Palace of Aegae, we take little notice of the open fields to our left, where the necropolis of ancient Aegae is waiting to be fully excavated. The very area is uninspiring as it consists of a succession of more or less conic bumps in the landscape. These are, in fact, mounds covering the tombs dating as far back as 1000 BC. The cemetery remained in use until the 2nd century BC. 

Proceeding further south, we encounter the Rhomaios Tomb and the Tomb of Eurydice, Alexander’s grandmother, a few meters onward. Further north lies an undefined Public Building and the so-called Hellenistic House and the Sanctuary of the Mother of the Gods to the west

With its 8.50 meters, the Rhomaios Tomb is one of the longest tombs. It consists of two rooms, an antechamber, and the chamber proper. The antechamber measures 4.50 x 2.50 m and is 2.20 m high. A narrow band runs around the walls and is painted with flowers. The colors alternate on the deep blue background using combinations of red-blue, white-blue, yellow-blue successively, and again red-blue, etc. A marble door separates the antechamber from the main vaulted chamber, which is square (4.50x4.50 m) and 4.45 m high. Here too, a dark blue band decorates the walls, but it is plain blue this time. An impressive marble throne stands in the back of the tomb with a footstand and a kind of bed. The throne is remarkable because of its large size. It is decorated with small painted friezes in the lower part, and its armrests display sculpted sphinxes. 

This tomb has been totally robbed in antiquity, making dating very difficult. However, comparing its features and style to those of the nearby Palace, it has been possible to date it to the first half of the 3rd century BC. Last, but not least, it is essential to note that this tomb was never covered by a tumulus and that its location so close to the village is puzzling.

Unknown author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The Tomb of Eurydice is another large burial monument, which appears to be the earliest known Macedonian tomb. As expected, this gravesite has been plundered in antiquity. However, based on the shards left behind, it could be dated to around 340 BC. The dating, the wealth of the tomb, and the dedications found in the nearby  Temple of Eukleia led us to believe that this grave belonged to Queen Eurydice, the mother of Alexander’s father. The monument is 10.60 m long and nearly 8m wide. It is divided into an antechamber and the chamber proper, which measures 5.50x4.40 m with a 5.80-meter-high vault. The chamber's back wall displays an elegant but straightforward Ionic façade of a Macedonian tomb whose stucco and architectural details have been well-preserved. The trompe-l’oeil painting reveals a central door flanked by two stucco windows separated by two pairs of Ionic half-columns. The frieze of flowers and the cornice of the entablature are painted in vivid blue, red, and green. Like in the Rhomaios Tomb, we find a richly decorated throne two meters high. The back of the seat surprises with a superbly painted panel showing the Underworld, with the gods Pluto and Persephone, standing in full majesty on a quadriga drawn by two white and two brown horses. The throne itself is decorated with reliefs, gilded flowers and animals, and even with statuettes of korai. 

Other remarkable tombs in the area are the Tomb of the Bella Farm (first half of the 3rd century BC) with its delicate facade paintings, the tomb on the Bloukas field (c. 200 BC), and the cist grave of Palatitsa (c. 350 BC) – none of which are open to the public. 

The Temple of Eukleia is situated some 80 meters north of Aegae’s theater and close to the road leading to the Palace. Not much of this sanctuary survived, but it could be established that it had a small pronaos of 4x2.5 m and a square naos of 4x4 m. Archaeologists assume that the pronaos was an open space because the bases for statues were found in the two corners of the naos and possibly flanking a sacrificial table. It is striking that the temple faced north. Along the west side of the temple, three bases for statues were found at regular intervals. On the face of the southernmost base, a valuable inscription was found, reading ΕΥΡΙΔΙΚΑ ΣΙΡΡΑ ΕΥΛΛΕΙΑ, in other words, ”Eurydice, daughter of Sirra (erected this statue) to Eukleia.” The finesse of the letter curving has helped to date the inscription to the second half of the 4th century BC. These elements indicate that Queen Eurydice dedicated her statue to the goddess Eukleia, worshiped in this temple. It is assumed that the other bases carried similar offerings by members of the royal family. 

Roughly 400 meters east of the Temple of Eukleia are the remains of the Sanctuary of the Mother of the Gods. This archaic deity had a close relationship with the cult of Dionysus. By the early 6th century BC, the Mother of the Gods was linked with her Asian counterpart, Cybele. The goddess was worshiped with orgiastic dances and music. On votive reliefs and terracotta statuettes, she is depicted holding a large libation bowl in one hand and a large drum for the orgiastic dances in the other. Her head is crowned with a kind of fortress, referring to her role as goddess of cities and fortification walls.

Together with the information left by ancient writers, the remains of this Sanctuary reveal the importance of the cult. A large square building of 32x32 m has been unearthed in recent years. It contained separate rooms playing an essential role during initiation and worship. Various terracotta figures of the goddess, incense burners, vases, coins, loom weights, and all kinds of architectural relics from the earlier building from the 4th century BC have been found. The excavation showed that this sanctuary, destroyed by a severe fire around 150 BC, dates from Hellenistic times. 

A recent article in the Archaeology News Network mentions new studies of a large building complex close to the northwest gate of Aegae and the “queen’s burial cluster.” However, it is not clear whether this is close to the tombs mentioned above or the sanctuaries, but I suppose it is the case. 

The building complex from the 4th century BC has been associated with the worship of the royal family. It was built with stone from the nearby Mount Vermion and set up in successive square and rectangular rooms reaching 100 square meters. They are organized around a large courtyard. The space on the east side resembles a temple with a very large antechamber and two Doric columns on the courtyard side.

More exciting are the stamps carrying the Macedonian shield, which were also used on the coins by the Macedonian kings in Hellenistic times. Importantly, roof panels bearing the inscriptions AMYNTOΥ. This may refer to King Amyntas III, the husband of Eurydice and grandfather of Alexander. In any case, it testifies of a close relationship with the Macedonian royal family. Other tiles are imprinted with ΠΕΛΛΗΣ, indicating that this particular sacred building must have belonged to Amyntas, who was given the status of hero. A similar cult is known to have existed in Pydna. Moreover, the presence of Eurydice in her nearby temple cannot be a coincidence. 

Despite the thorough looting by the Roman general Metellus in 148 BC, extensive renovations occurred under Philip V during the late 3rd/early 2nd century BC. For instance, the walls are covered with painted plaster. The favorite color was purple, with touches of green and ochre, and the scenes are divided with reliefs, not unlike those known from  Pompeii. The floors are inlaid with marble, as seen in the Palace of Aegae. However, it could be established that the cracks and irregularities in the floor levels were due to catastrophic landslides in the 1st century AD. After a period of decline, the city of Aegae disappeared under the debris.

 It is clear that the cult of Alexander was kept alive and that the building complex was a way to confirm and legitimize his power and that of his successors.

Massive plundering of art in the early years of the Roman Empire

The plundering and looting of artwork have been ongoing for centuries, and it was not Emperor Augustus’ scoop. In a previous blog, Wartime Looting in antiquity, I covered many ancient artifacts that changed owners over the centuries. This time, I want to focus on Augustus’ contribution, among which are some treasures related to Alexander the Great.

Octavian's conquest of Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean clearly went to his head. He was now the most powerful man on earth for all to see and respect. To underscore his role, he proclaimed himself emperor, taking the name of Augustus, which means majestic and venerable. Modesty was not his virtue.

The greatest treasures that fell into Octavian's hands came from Alexandria, where the Ptolemies had amassed many artworks from the most famous Greek artists like Apelles, Alexander’s privileged painter, and Antiphilus, a contemporary of Apelles and maybe a rival. However, he worked mainly for Philip II and for Ptolemy I. Egypt was an untouched trophy, and besides their Greek heritage, they had gathered spoils from Africa and collected other precious Orientalist Greek-Egyptian works of art, all to be added to their own centuries-old cultural heritage. Obviously, Octavian’s army helped itself during what must have been quite a rampage after the downfall of Cleopatra VII in 30 BC. Upon their return to Rome, blinded by the wealth that poured into the city, everybody of name and fame wanted a piece of the pie and acquired what they could by all possible means: from honest purchases and authentic gifts to robbery, haggling, blackmail, or bribery.

Egypt was not the first victim, and we will remember that only a good one hundred years before, the Romans had helped themselves to the treasures of Macedonia in 168 BC when they won the decisive Battle of Pydna. Aemilius Paulus took the royal library of Macedonia with him, and Sulla followed suit in 86 BC, helping himself to Aristotle’s personal library in Athens. Marc Antony simply dispatched the 200,000 parchment rolls from the Library of Pergamon to Cleopatra in 43 BC as a wedding gift. Papyri and parchment rolls were no booty to show off with, but paintings, statues, and jewelry enabled you to brag. As kingdoms like Macedonia and Pergamon were subdued by Rome, they became treasure troves for art lovers and the nouveau riche.

Julius Caesar was already a great “collector,” and Octavian, as the new Emperor Augustus, would not stay behind. With the increase of its wealth, Rome developed further refinement. Several private connoisseurs are known by name, like L. Lucinius Luculius and Novius Vindex, who highly appreciated Greek bronze and marble statues made by Lysippos (he acquired a statuette of Heracles, which was previously owned by Alexander, Hannibal, and Sulla), Praxiteles, Phidias, Skopas, and Polycleitus, and the paintings by Apelles were among their prized objects.

Augustus “bought” a famous painting of Aphrodite by Apelles, a controversial transaction that officially enabled the citizens of Cos to pay their outstanding taxes, but some obscure blackmail is more likely. The painting was exhibited for the opening of the Temple of the deified Julius Caesar in the Forum Romanum in 29 BC. Despite the eulogy written by several Latin poets, it remains unclear whether this Aphrodite was painted in the nude, rising from the sea and wringing her hair, or if only her upper body was showing. Two more paintings by Apelles were put on public display on the Forum, probably because they featured Alexander the Great. They were “Castor and Pollux with Victory and Alexander the Great” and “The Figure of War with his Hands tied behind him following the Triumphal Chariot of Alexander.”

Everything tied to Alexander was a prime possession as Augustus was a great admirer of the world conqueror and visited his tomb while he was in Alexandria. So it seems that the bronze Nike statues that supported each corner of the canopy over Alexander’s funeral chariot, as described by Diodorus, found their way to Rome as two of them were placed in front of the Temple of Mars Ultor and the two others stood in front of the Regia. These Nikes originally were covered with gold foil or gilt and not made of massive gold, as often assumed, for that would have made the statues too heavy for the funeral chariot.

Another close relation to Alexander was found in the Temple of Apollo Palatinus. According to Pliny the Elder, inside this temple stood a magnificent bronze chandelier “with the lights fixed like apples on a tree,” which had been taken by Alexander from Thebes in 335 BC (another earlier spoil of war!). Alexander had dedicated it as his votive offering after victory at the Battle of the Granicus.

The Alexandrian painter Antiphilus was another favorite artist of the Roman emperor. A group representing “Alexander with Philip and Athena” was placed in Rome’s Portico of Octavia with ”Noble Hesione.” In the nearby Portico of Philippi, three more works found a place: “Alexander portrayed in his early teens,” “Dionysus,” and the “Death of Hippolytos.”

Augustus’ greed was boundless, and he did not hesitate to confiscate the chryselephantine statue of Athena from Tegea, made by a certain Endoios, to place it on the Forum Augusti. At the time of his conquest of Egypt, he also seized the statue of Zeus made by Myron from Samos and moved it to the Capitol Hill in Rome.

These are, of course, only a few examples, for it is impossible to know how many works of art Augustus brought to Rome and how many pieces from previous acquisitions changed hands in those days. Yet the quantities and mainly their quality were unheard of, and we must thank Pliny the Elder for documenting the works displayed in Rome’s many public buildings and porticoes. Pausanias, also, during his extensive travels, highlighted the prized collection. Plutarch, in turn, had an eye for Cleopatra’s treasures, including precious metals, jewels, pearls, and ivory.

It is hard to imagine the wealth and luxury displayed in the heyday of Rome, for this is far beyond anything we can imagine. Opulence was the common good; the Romans ruled the world, and they showed it.

[The above is based on an article published by Academia.edu: Plundered art in the galleries of Augustan Rome, uploaded by Tomasz Polański. The pictures are mine.]

The Gold of Macedon. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki

As an exception, I am including this booklet about the gold collection from Macedonia which is an important section of the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki (The Gold of Macedon, ISBN 978-960-214-269-1).

Not only is this booklet a very useful tool while visiting this grand collection but it also provides a clear insight into the technology and use of gold, especially in the wake of Alexander’s conquests that triggered the circulation of huge amounts of this precious metal in the ancient world.

Of course, the presence of gold was known throughout the Mediterranean from early antiquity onward and, as a start, the museum as well as the book present a very useful map of the main gold mines. This is followed by an overview of the various uses for gold, from jewelry and coins to pure decorative items.

The third chapter is treating the technology involved from its mining, to the array of techniques developed in creating gold objects and in the process of gilding. Several examples are given, including drawings to illustrate the complexity of handling this malleable ore with splendid detailed photographs.

The booklet and the exhibition ends with the immense richness of the Macedonian cemeteries. Besides functional objects, there is a true wealth in artifacts that accompanied the dead into the afterlife no matter whether they were interred in simple pit-graves, cist-graves, or in elaborated tombs and sarcophagi. Noteworthy is the Macedonian cemeteries of Sindos (121 graves), Pydna (some 2,500 graves), Aghia Paraskevi about 500 burials), Nea Philadelphia (180 graves), Katerini, Aenea, Lete, Stavroupolis, Europos, Cassandreia, etc. But the major part of this collection comes from the Derveni cemeteries, northwest of Thessaloniki which yielded countless refined objects among which the world-famous Derveni Crater occupies a place of honor (part of Tomb B that yielded over one hundred objects alone).

This booklet not only provides an extremely useful insight into the exquisite artwork produced by the craftsmen of the 4^th and 3^rd centuries BC but it also gives an exceptional view of the wealth available after Alexander’s death.

The Histories by Polybius, A new translation by Robin Waterfield

The Histories by Polybius (ISBN 978-0199534708) are far less known than, for instance, The Histories by Herodotus and cover an entirely different period. As a result, the author and his book merit being put in a well-deserved spotlight.

Few people have ever heard of Polybius, and it may be useful to introduce him with a short biography. Polybius was born ca. 200 BC, probably in Megalopolis, the capital of the Achaean League (a federal organization of the Peloponnesus). His father played a leading political role, and Polybius, at the age of thirty, was elected deputy leader of the League. But his life changed dramatically when Macedonia lost its independence at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC. This had far-reaching consequences for the rest of Greece. The Achaean leaders were deported to Rome, including Polybius, who spent seventeen years in the capital.

However, as a highly educated Greek, he soon befriended Scipio Aemilianus, one of the most powerful men in Rome at that time. He also became friends with Prince Demetrius, held hostage in Rome, and managed to arrange his escape from the city in 162 BC in order to reclaim his place on the Seleucid throne.

Polybius accompanied Scipio during his campaign in Spain and went to Numidia, modern Tunisia. He tells us how he walked in the footsteps of Hannibal from Spain to Italy. In 149 BC, he was summoned to Carthage, where, using his diplomatic skills brought the Carthaginians to comply with the demands of Rome. Not for long, though, as two years later, Polybius joined Scipio again in his siege of Carthage. When that city fell, he traveled beyond Gibraltar to explore the coast of western Africa. For reasons that could not be determined, Achaea revolted against Rome in 146 BC and lost the battle; as a result, the League was dismantled, and proud Corinth was destroyed. Polybius apparently played an important role in the reconstruction of Greece, a gesture that was widely appreciated, as Pausanias tells us that many cities of the Peloponnesus erected statues in honor of their fellow countryman.

It is clear that Polybius led a very active life as a politician, general, and even as an explorer, and it makes one wonder when and how he found the time to write. Besides his Histories, he left us a study on tactics, a treatise on the habitability of the equatorial region, about the war of Rome against Numantia in Spain, and a biography of Philopoemen, a famous and skilled strategos of Achaea. Unfortunately, the largest part of his works has not survived.

Polybius’ Histories treat the rise of the Roman Empire in the Mediterranean in the period from 220 to 146 BC – a colossal job filling forty books of which only five have survived. Books 1 and 2 are basically an introduction to his work, leading to the battle for power between Rome and Carthage, which spills over into Book 3 with the victory of Hannibal in 216 BC. In Books 4 and 5, Polybius turns to the situation in Greece and the eastern Mediterranean before that same date in order to match the chronology in which he likes to report events. Of the following books, which are not necessarily straight history and treat, for instance of geography in Book 34, substantial excerpts also exist. From what transpires, he took the trouble to make a summary of his work in Book 40. So much precious information has, unfortunately, been lost over the centuries!

In his effort to explain what kind of constitutional structure Rome applied to conquer the world, it appears that in Book 6, Polybius developed a highly interesting theory about the recurrent cycle of government in which monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy alternate. In the same book, he described the constitution of Rome at length, giving us a unique insight into the great organizational skills of the Romans.

What makes Polybius stand out is his overall chronology reporting the events as they develop simultaneously in the eastern and western ends of the Mediterranean. It truly is a rare horizontal history and, what’s more, he is the only historian from the Hellenistic period whose work survived to such an extent.

Since the Punic Wars are treated in detail, I found this the best history I ever read without getting lost or confused one way or another in those repeated conflicts that lasted on and off for 118 years. To keep track of time, the year in which the events took place is handily quoted in the margin.

The translation made by Robin Waterfield is superb and reads with the clarity that is characteristic of him (see: Dividing the Spoils).

The book has a great Introduction without which the Histories would be very hard to understand. It also includes a handy chronology of the events covered in the book and a set of three maps, one of the Mediterranean and a detailed one for both Greece and Italy.