Blonde Alexander?

[Tre]

We do have ancient sources that say Alexander was blonde and at least one says blue-eyed. Get a copy of Faces of Power by Stewart - he has an entire chapter that lists all the ancient desciptions of the man. He is portrayed in two mosaics in Pella as being blonde/red/blonde. Several ancient sources refer to his eyes being of different colors. Plutarch tells us he was light skinned, except for a ruddy tinge to his face/chest. He says Apelles painted him too dark, but of course the colors would have darkened over time. When the Alexander Sarcophagus was unearthed, traces of reddish paint were found on his hair. There were certainly those of light coloring as well as bondes, red heads and brunettes in Ancient Macedonia.There is no ancient reference that refers to Macedonians as a race of blonde-haired blue eyed people however. Although I do recall an ancient reference referring to one of their neighbors as being red-haired and green eyed.I am not convinced that the peoples who populate the mediterranean are the same ones there today. That would assume no one ever travelled anywhere over time, which is absurd. People travel because they have too for numerous reasons.

[maciek]

Well I'm not so sure now to be frank I'm a little confused. I have this Plutarchus description - it's in 19th chapter but after reading Yannis post I see that it is no proof also... I'm sure I read it somewhere and I received such thesis - seeing mosaics gave me another reason to believe in this.
I was in Greece three times and art there usually shows ancient people as black or white so It's not easy to imagine their real look. I saw those pictures in Your site. I'm not sure what was the purpose of those researches but it looks convinceing.

[susan]

Also, there's no reason really why Alexander's colouring should be the same as the normal Macedonian - centuries of dynastic marriages to princesses from neighbouring tribes could mean that his genetic mix was a-typical. Compare the European royal families of the last century - the similarity between the British and Russian royalty whereas the ordinary people looked quite different.As blonde hair and blonde colouring have traditionally been prized, it would not be at all surprising to find that royalty and aristocracy were fairer in colour than their subjects.I know we've had this discussion before, and I repeat what I said then - of Alexander's grandparents, Philip's father came from Macedonia, his mother from Illyria I think; Olympias's father from Epiros and her mother from who knows where - so his colouring could be from any of these, and there probably wasn't much southern Greek blood in him. If you like, you can compare Prince Philip - the husband of Queen Elizabeth - he was a prince of Greece but actually he is of Danish, German and English descent - and he is blond & blue-eyed.Susan

[jorgios]

I am in no way attempting to rule out the idea of blondes/red-heads/blue eyes in Ancient Greece, because these are all characteristics that also appear in Modern Greece. Specifically Blue or light eyes have an occurence of over 50% in some regions of Greece, and of course the most depigmented area of modern Greece is Greek Macedonia, then Epirus, where Alexander's mother was from.I will look for this book "Faces of Power", however i am of the belief that there are only a few sources that mayb have a hint of reliability in them, these are:Arr. Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. (bookstore)
Curt. Quintus Curtius Rufus. The History of Alexander. (bookstore)
D.S. Diodorus Siculus ("Diodorus of Sicily"). Library of History. Vol. VIII (16.66-17). (bookstore)
Plut. Plutarch. Lives of Demosthenes, Phocion, Alexander in The Age of Alexander. (bookstore) Of course you already knew this, but which one of these sources describes Alex as blonde? If they do do you know what word that they use? Not an English word, thats for sure. The word so far that is equivalent with "blonde" in Ancient Greek was "xanthos". However Xanthos was also used to describe the color fish turns when cooked, which is hardly "blonde". This color was used for a wide variety of shades, from auburn to dark brown of course. The term "glaukos" was the word used for light eyes, and the Ancient Greeks did not have the word "ruddy", this is an English possible equivalent of what one translator was trying to say.
Yes, Apelles painted Alexander's complexion to dark, afterall he was described as "Pale", but not "fair".I am curious about the Alexander Sarcophogus, but undecided of course.In regards to the Pella Mosaic, first of all, the mosaic is commonly attributed to be Alexander and Hephaeiston i believe, but in fact the men hunting the lion in the picture are unknown. Calling these figures "blonde or red headed" is subject to the same criticisms used on the Pompeii Mosaic; that is the artists were limited by the materials that will be visible on mosaic when the main object is set against its background. Then there is fading and wearing away of combinations of colors over centuries. For this reason mosaics are never a reliable source for determining specific characters specific characteristics. However, the Pella Mosaic is of undoubtabley more realistic nature when compared to the "Lion Hunt Mosaic"(if it even was meant to represent Alexander).Finally, no one ever

[jorgios]

I just wanted to see if anyone knew of any secondary sources that actaully referred to Alexander as blonde... he may well have been blonde.. especially due to his young age, the fact that his family was mostly from northern Greece, and also i have read that he used chamomile to lighten his hair.I also think that he MAY have had some southern Greek blood in him, though how much no oen can say. But it is a fact that the Royal House of Macedonia claimed descent from the Argives of the Peloponesos.

[jan]

Dear Jorge and all,On page seven of Alexander the Great is the following, authored by Arthur Weigall, 1933.The true Macedonians were a fair-haired, blue-eyed people, having much whiter complexions than those of the average Greeks. They were of northern blood, having come southwards from the lands beside the Danube before the dawn of history; and thus there was a remote kinship between them and the northern Greeks, for many of the latter were the descendants of the men of long ago who in the same series of migrations had but gone on farther southwards. The Greeks, however, were not at all ready to admit the connection, more especially since they could make no sense of the Macedonian language which had little more than a basic relationship to their own and possessed no literature by which it could be studied. The Macedonian royal court, however, spoke Attic Greek as a second tongue; and it seems probable that the highland princes of Lyncestis did so too, for their own Illyrian speech was unintelligible to their overlords.Now, one must always consider the author, his background, and his knowledge. That is how all our scholarship is based, each generation learning from a previous generation. Arthur Weigall is quite a respected historian. Jan

[Tre]

Now you're not really going to make me look for my copy of Faces of Power are you? It is extremely easy to depict brown hair with pebbles. If an artist wished to convey that coloring, he'd find it far easier than what is depicted. It is the head tilt that identifies these mosiacs as Alexander, since it was a trademark characteristic. Outside of the Azara Herm, no statue or mosaic identifies itself as being Alexander save for the coins. It is a matter of deduction, but cannot be reduced to a science.Jan, as for Weigall's comments, they are not historical, they are a matter of his opinion. One must always read scholars as well as source material with a critical eye, as well as understand the times they wrote in. For instance, Peter Green's book on Alexander is peppered with his opinions, not necessarily historical fact, i.e. his comments on Hephaistion. Regards,Tre

[jorgios]

thanks for the info, However:There still is no proof, it is a hypothesis by Weigall that as far as i can tell from the passage does not seem to be based on much proof, i would be curious to see what led him to this conclusion.
However, it is not big secret that many Macedonians were lighter than south Greeks. There were probably more Alpine racial types and less mediterranean types in Macedonian than in Greece proper, as is the case today.

[yiannis]

It seems that this subject always attracts much controversy!
Jorge, I'm also familiar of the work of Dieneces. Indeed he's made some excelent research and his site is very informative.Nicator, it's very peculiar that you saw many blondes in Greece. For example I was light blonde as a kid but after the age of 5-6 my hair started to turn brown. Today I'm a classical dark-brown Greek like the vast majority of us. If you mean blonde kids I can understand, otherwise...

[smittyzback]

Head Tilt!, seems most post Aleaxandrian historical figures adopted this characteristic. Plutarch writes on a number of his characters as having adopted the Head Tilt~!

[Me]

It seems to me that the article is explaining more about internal structure while NOT dismissing the likelihood of blondes, redheads and auburns in the Greek population. As the article itself says, "Nordics have not cornered the market on blondism". Even in isolated populations there is evidence of unexpected differentiation in hair color- as witness the red haired, green eyed exceptions that crop up in coastal American Indian populations; in lands where there is/was more potential for cross-breeding,more diversity in skin, eye and hair color can be expected. Susan rightfully points out the possibility for selection of specific physical attributes and characteristics being "bred" into a "royal" population- it happens today,I imagine it happened in the past, whichever way it traveled. Tre rightfully points out that the possibility for lighter skin and hair is real; not ALL funeral portraitures of ancient Greeks indicate dark hair. A predominance of any one characteristic does not imply absoluteness. And of course, no offense meant to anyone, but female slaves, from many lands, offered a wide range of possible offspring to bring into the general population, thus adding to the gene pool for possibilities.
Probably the best we can say is that, in discussions of human populations, there is nothing 100% certain, whatever nationalism, racism or ethnic bias might wish otherwise.

[jorgios]

Well, my point was simply to:a) Point out that there are no absolute primary or secondary sources that refer to Alex as blonde.b) Dispute the fact that the Ancient Greeks(in particular, the Macedonians) were a race of "blue-eyed blondes" and in that respect the modern Greeks/Macedonians are not radically different than the Ancients.Thats all.If one wishes to consider that ethnic bias, so be it, but i do not see how it is. I would defend the Persians against Manfredi's half-witted ethno-stereotypes of them as well.

[Me]

Please note I did not "accuse" you, in particular, of anything, but cautioned everyone against playing into any nationalistic, racist or ethnically biased views.
If you read my post carefully, you will see I imply it is likely there were ancient Greeks of several hues of hair, skin and eye. There is nothing in the primary or secondary sources to prove against this possibility.
It seems a small thing to argue about, to me, so long as no one attempts to use either point of view to establish any racial or ethnic superiority.

[jan]

Well, you had mentioned Nazism and HItler, so that is the reason I posted the paragraph. As far as proof, all philosophers have already expostulated on proofs of any kind. HItler seemed to have come into power shortly after this book was published, and that is why I gave you the date.As far as nations are developed according to racial lines, that is another study. Many people have written papers about conquests of nations, mostly accomplished by adventurers and explorers, like Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus. I believe Alexander heads the list of explorers and adventurers.The Macedonians as a group were a proud and tight knit group of men whose pride was in their heritage. That alone caused them some dismay when Alexander seemed to take on Persian trappings so easily. That study alone is worth the trouble of a great book.Why don't you tackle that one?

[jan]

Dear Jorge, I hope this doesn't get lost at this late date. I noticed a Persian portrait listed in Michael Wood's book on Following the Footsteps of Alexander in which the painting of Alexander makes him look like a version of Louis XIV to me. I mentioned it on that website because I found it a bit amusing and interesting to see the resemblances.Today, I happened to notice that the Foreign Minister of Afghanistan, Mr. Abdullah, looks a lot like the portrait of Alexander also. He appeared on Wolf Blitzer today on CNN.So my conclusion is that painters portray their subject as they want them to appear more than as they really look. I found that amusing too. :-)Thanks for the list which you have provided. I appreciate it.Jan