Was the Alexander Sarcophagus made for Mazaeus?

[Taphoi]

What do Pothosians make of Heckel's new conjecture that the Alexander Sarcophagus from the Royal Necropolis at Sidon was made for Mazaeus rather than for Abdalonymus? (Recently published in Historia, Band 55, Heft 4, 2006.)

I suppose he's to be applauded for bravery in trying to overthrow a virtual consensus reached among some very expert people and maintained for over a century, but do his arguments really hold up to scrutiny? I fear there may be some powerful objections.

To overly summarise the issue, he suggests that coin evidence shows that Mazaeus had been Satrap of the Sidon region and he may therefore have asked Alexander that he should be entombed there and that Alexander himself ordered the sarcophagus to be made when Mazaeus died in 328BC. In passing he also suggests that the long battle scene is Gaugamela rather than Issus.

Any thoughts?

Best wishes,

Andrew

[marcus]

What do Pothosians make of Heckel's new conjecture that the Alexander Sarcophagus from the Royal Necropolis at Sidon was made for Mazaeus rather than for Abdalonymus? (Recently published in Historia, Band 55, Heft 4, 2006.)

I suppose he's to be applauded for bravery in trying to overthrow a virtual consensus reached among some very expert people and maintained for over a century, but do his arguments really hold up to scrutiny? I fear there may be some powerful objections.

To overly summarise the issue, he suggests that coin evidence shows that Mazaeus had been Satrap of the Sidon region and he may therefore have asked Alexander that he should be entombed there and that Alexander himself ordered the sarcophagus to be made when Mazaeus died in 328BC. In passing he also suggests that the long battle scene is Gaugamela rather than Issus.

My initial reaction is "why not?", irrespective of the existing consensus. However, before passing a real judgement I'd need to read what Heckel actually says. After all, as you say you have "overly summarised" the issue, and it wouldn't be very good practice to go rubbishing a theory I haven't even read!

Therefore I would need to see if I could get hold of the issue of Historia, or at least the article itself, before making any comment.

What I will say is that the sarcophagus was found within a necropolis that held around 16 sarcophagi in total. Only one of these has been identified for certain as belonging to a Sidonian king (6th century BC), and that was in a room in an older, lower level part of the necropolis. Amongst the other sarcophagi, one has been called the "Satrap Sarcophagus", although I have to admit that I can't remember whether that is because it has been identified as being the sarcophagus of a satrap as opposed to a king.

The Satrap Sarcophagus (5th century) was found in Chamber VI, along with three others; the Alexander sarcophagus was in Chamber III, again with three others (all from 4th century).

Therefore, I don't see any reason why it can't be a satrap's sarcophagus, rather than a king's.

ATB

[Taphoi]

My initial reaction is "why not?"

Well, I do find myself confronted by one immediate difficulty.

A distinction between Mazaeus and Abdalonymus is that the former took part in the Battle of Issus, whereas the latter was still a gardener at the time. Consequently, we do not necessarily expect Abdalonymus to appear in the long battle scene, but Mazaeus would really have to be there. Indeed, part of Heckel's argument is that it represents Gaugamela, in which Mazaeus was one of the most prominent commanders on the Persian side. Consequently, Heckel asserts that the "Persian" cavalryman just to the right of centre, attacking an heroically nude Macedonian infantryman and partially obscured by "Hephaistion's" steed must be Mazaeus. He also says that the figure usually identified as Abdalonymus in the long hunt scene, both side panels and one of the gables is Mazaeus.

Now as you may know, traces of the original paint exist on the Alexander Sarcophagus, such that virtually the entire original colour scheme can be reconstructed. The "Abdalonymus" figure wears quite distinctive dress in such reconstructions: golden-brown tunic, bright green cloak, pinkish-tan leggings and headdress, off-white horse, bright green saddle-cloth with a golden-brown hem. It seems to be clear that the colour schemes for the dress were used consistently in all panels so that individuals could be recognised from one scene to another. However, none of the Persian cavalrymen in the long battle scene have dress with colours matching Abdalonymus/Mazaeus in the other panels. If the reconstructions of the colour scheme are indeed faithful to the evidence, then this may be a cardinal objection to Heckel's new theory. The cavalryman Heckel identifies as Mazaeus wears the uniformly pinkish-tan dress of rank and file Persians and has a grey horse in the long battle scene. (Nor am I entirely happy with the fact that the supposed Mazaeus figure is partially obscured by Hephaistion's horse.)

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

I think that the iconic representations make it difficult to give credence to the portrayal being of any specific battle. The Alexander and Hephaistion figures are shown wearing the long-sleeved “Persianized” clothing and I assume it is because this is how the sculptors/artists/advisors had seen them in life. I really doubt (and the sources support this) that Alexander had adopted Persian clothing as early as Issus or Gaugamela.

However, even if the battle scene is meant to be Gaugamela, I’m unconvinced that the occupant of the tomb would have been portrayed in said scene. It’s one to thing to show defeat in one panel and harmonious relations in the rest, but another to show one’s greatest personal defeat, IMO. For that reason alone I would think Abdalonymus to be the more likely occupant, never having participated in any battles with Alexander. On the other hand, if it was Alexander who ordered the building of the tomb for Mazaeus rather than Abdalonymus having it built for himself, then the inclusion of the battle scene does make more sense. But, as Marcus said, without reading the full article it is impossible for me to fully comment on Heckel’s theory.

Best regards,

[marcus]

It’s one to thing to show defeat in one panel and harmonious relations in the rest, but another to show one’s greatest personal defeat, IMO.

Interesting point - could it be considered Mazaeus' greatest defeat? Indeed, he only broke off the engagement at Gaugamela once Darius had fled, and if anything he was somewhat winning the fight on the Persian right wing (against Parmenion). Parmenion was barely holding his own and had, if you recall, sent a messenger off to request aid from Alexander. It was Alexander's return to bolster his left wing that perhaps prevented him from capturing Darius there and then (which I'm not sure I believe).

So if it is Mazaeus' sarcophagus, and if it does depict Gaugamela rather than Issus, I would tentatively suggest that the battle could be depicted with full honour to the occupant of the sarcophagus; especially as he was later held in high regard by Alexander and confirmed as satrap of Babylon.

That's not to say that I am prepared, at the moment, to go any further in my support or otherwise of either point of view ...

ATB

[athenas owl]

If it is Mazaeus' sarcophagus..then who is getting killed on the piedmont on the side? Darius?

Was there a hunt with Mazaeus? Could have been, don't know of one. I have read this idea before in passing for the last couple years...but never anything to explain why. Mazaeus was Satrap of Cilicia and then over on down south and east (Syria, iincluding Sidon)...but did he spend anytime in Sidon, was he from there? Anyone know, because I have been trying to find out anyway.

And as Taphoi said, if it is Mazaeus why isn't he front and center in the hunt, or Alexander..instead we have the fellow in that snazzy Boetian helmet.

[Taphoi]

If it is Mazaeus' sarcophagus..then who is getting killed on the piedmont on the side?

Heckel toys with the possibility that the bearded figure without a helmet standing to the right of the individual being murdered in the gable scene might be Philip II (or even a Mazaeus-turned-Greek-prince in his note 14, though he notes that this would be a "desperate solution"). He is usually identified as Philip III, because he wears a diadem as well as a beard. Heckel runs into a problem with the colour scheme again on this point, because the chap being murdered wears a pale mauve tunic, which matches the dress of the right-most cavalryman in the long battle scene. The colour scheme therefore supports the conventional idea that the victim is Perdiccas and appears to mitigate against the involvement of Philip II.

I am not sure to what extent the colour scheme is derived purely from paint traces or is additionally informed by leading theories about the identities of the figures. However, the reconstructed colours seem to come from the Turkish custodians of the sarcophagus and appear not to be very familiar to scholars, which suggests that they are probably mainly based on the paint traces.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[athenas owl]

Hmm...I'll give Heckel this..he at least tries to think outside the box. Though I agree, I don't see how it can be Philip ii or Mazaeus.

If it were Philip ii , who is being killed? And likewise with Mazaeus. If it were either of the two, I sure love to know the story of the central character.

You know, I have a huge picture of the bearded fellow and I never noticed the diadem, in fact I just looked again. I really have to get a good book on this thing. Is it just the angle I have or was it painted on?

[smittysmitty]

I'm pretty sure that anumber of orientalists expressed similar views several years ago. I think it was Margaret Cool Root, writing on Achaemenian art, suggests classicists have it all wrong regarding the sarcophagus. The image of the Persian king on the inside of the shield was what clinched it for her - if I remember correctly. Can't recall the exact argument - but it was an 'art historical piece' and sounded quite feasable at the time.

[athenas owl]

I would love to read her thoughts...do you have a publication or book you can recommend?

Mazaeus died in Babylon, right? Before Alexander got back...if I remember correctly (it is entirely possible I don't... ).

Isn't the Sarcophagus dated later than that? And why would he be buried in Sidon, I know he was satrap there for a bit, before that Cilicia, but he would have died as Satrap of Babylon...what would have been his reason to be buried in Sidon? Was he from there? And why would he put the mysterious Macedonian (identified as Hephaistion) in the center of the battle frieze...with ATG off to the side...?

[smittysmitty]

I may have been a little misleading with my last post. Margaret Cool Root does not give any specifics regarding the ownership of the sarcophagus - rather she states that the sarcophagus has been misappropriated by western scholars as a piece of 'Greek Art' and the associated iconography has been traditionally viewed from a Greek vantage point. What she suggests, is that the sarcophagus and its iconography should be seen from a Persian vantage point, as it depicts distinctive Persianisms.

'The paintings seem to link the Persian fighters on the sarcophagus to a whole system of aristocratic Achaemenid values of loyalty to the king and to the imagery expressing official dynastic ideology.' (Margaret Cool Root. 1991. pp.12-13).

A similar view is expressed by Margaret Cool Root regarding the 'Alexander Mosaic'. Her view is that this work of Art has also been misappropriated - and should be seen as a work performed for a Persian patron.

'The focus of the representation is on a dying Persian soldier who falls in the foreground as the apex of a triangle completed by Darius and Alexander. Darius reaches out despairingly, while two additional Persian men struggle in the foreground directly in front of their king's chariot. One of these soldiers is attempting to protect the king by thrusting his shield up against imminent attack. The other is caught in the final throes of death... one important level the painting prototype of the Alexander mosaic might more appropriately be interpreted from a Persian vantage point. Although it was executed by Greek artists in Greek style, the fourth century painting told, I would submit, a Persian story, in which Alexander was the wild eyed disheveled invader foreshadowing the descriptions of the Macedonian demon of the apocalypse found in the Bahman Yasht.' (Margaret Cool Root. 1991. pp. 11-12).

'From the Heart: Powerful Persianisms in the Art of the Western Empire.' in The Persian Empire in the West.Achaemenid History Vol. 6., ed. H. Sancisi-Weerddenburg, 1-25, Leiden: voor het Nabije Oosten, 1991.