Hephaistion's pyre question

[Taphoi]

Obviously, I am to be shouted down. I shall close by re-stating that there is no evidence for anything excepot Diodorus's pyre and there is archaeological evidence for that pyre from Koldewey, the excavator of Babylon over 100 years ago. The described pyre was not impracticable by analogy with modern wooden structures. There is no reason why Diodorus's description should not be true. The objections are increasingly desperate and ridiculous and based on silence and inaccurate supposition. It is preposterous that Alexander would have required the size of his pyre to be limited by bone recovery. The pyre of Patroclus in Homer is a sufficient refutation of that...

[agesilaos]

Can you not find anything in Tolkien? It's about as historically relevant. as for being 'shouted down' it is more that you have resorted to supposition and declaration and have been found out, again. Personally, I can take the puerile remarks, but it is bad form and no argument; were it not that people do look here for sensible answers with references i would not trouble to argue but i think it is important to demonstrate a sound way to address the sources, which is reductively rather than synthetically; they are not of equal value and in the case of Alexander overlaid with hagiography and demonology almost immediately.

I am sure Delos13 can decide the merits of the various arguments for his or herself; and may choose to follow a personal view regardless. But the final jibe is particularly telling if the interpretation of funerary practices is correct and it seems so, then a concern to recover the bones would be paramount, all sources indicate Alexander's concern for religious observation, even the derogatory tradition has him observe the forms if not the spirit (eg. the ink message transferred to the victim's liver.)

[Paralus]

Obviously, I am to be shouted down.

No, reasoned argument and evidence have been presented counter to your assertions. Questions requesting evidence for your assertions have been asked (and still await answers). That you see such as being "shouted down" speaks eloquently to your incapacity to argue your case. The put-upon accusation of being "shouted down" is simply an exit strategy.

I shall close by re-stating that there is no evidence for anything excepot Diodorus's pyre and there is archaeological evidence for that pyre from Koldewey, the excavator of Babylon over 100 years ago. The described pyre was not impracticable by analogy with modern wooden structures. There is no reason why Diodorus's description should not be true.

Like the child who continually answers "because" you continue to restate your flat assertions. It is difficult to have a reasoned argument with such a mindset. Xenophon, in particular, has "shouted" the impossibility of such a construction (providing much evidence and detail) as well as an evidence based dismissal of your modern wooden examples. You have utterly refused to deal with any of it other than to restate your opinions and assertions as fact. You have stated that it is "hardly feasible" for Diodorus to contradict himself as he might seem to in this matter; I have provided several examples of exactly that (and they are just a quick few) which, it appears, I've "shouted" over your head. You have claimed that "Diodorus called Hephaestion an assistant to a god, which is not so different from a hero" when Diodorus claims he was to be worshiped as a God. When this was "shouted" at you, you altered your claim to stating "Alexander only authorised worship of Hephaistion as theo-paredros". Again, it is very difficult to have a reasoned argument with someone who misrepresents not only his own position but others' as well (as so well pointed out by Xenophon). But perhaps I'd best stop "shouting".

Xenophon is, I think, correct when he says "I suggest we leave those romantics who wish to believe all these legendary things about Alexander literally, to their flights of fancy". I imagine he includes yourself in "those romantics" and, on the basis of other views you've espoused hereabouts - especially the "loving half-brother", Ptolemy, motivated out of love for his dead semi-sibling - he would be correct. I believe you are the Barbara Cartland of Alexander historiography!

[amyntoros]

It is preposterous that Alexander would have required the size of his pyre to be limited by bone recovery. The pyre of Patroclus in Homer is a sufficient refutation of that...

I don't get the inference. Here's Homer's Iliad (translated by Robert Fitzgerald), Book 23.

"Son of Atreus, noblemen of Akhaia's host, begin
by wetting down the pyre with tawny wine
to quench whatever fire hangs on. Then come,
we'll comb the ashes for Patroklos’ bones!
They will be easy to pick out: he lay
alone, in the pyre's middle, and the rest were burnt apart from him, around the edge,
all jumbled in no order, men and horses.
Then we'll pack his bones in a golden urn
with sheepfat in a double fold, to keep
until I too go into undergloom.
No heavy labor at a heavy tomb
I ask - only a fitting one; in due course
build it wide and high, you who are left
behind me in the long ships of the oarsmen."

They did his will: dampened the pyre with wine
in every part where flame had licked its way
and a bed of ashes fallen. Shedding tears
for their mildhearted friend they gathered up
his bones in a golden urn and added
a double fold of fat, then withindoors
they set the urn and veiled it with fine linen.
Next they drew a circle for a mound
around the pyre, and laid stones on the line,
and made a mound of earth.

Yes, the pyre was enlarged "a hundred feet a side" but apparently it was low enough so that "On top of it with heavy hearts they laid the dead man down", in the center, as shown above. Homer says the pyre burned all night (with help from the gods). How long do you think Diodorus' pyre would have burned? Would have been days and days, conservatively. With Hephaistion in the center, either under or on top of that huge, high mass - it doesn't matter which because the building would have collapsed anyway -they never would have been able to quench the flames in time to save his bones. You may think it preposterous, but you've previously chided me with the statement "the past is a foreign country". Yes it is, but it is possible to study and learn about a foreign country, as much or as little as you would like. With extensive study of all aspects one can come to an understanding of that "foreign country". Where the past is concerned that understanding will never be complete, but that doesn't mean one should not bother to try. I try.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

How long do you think Diodorus' pyre would have burned? Would have been days and days, conservatively.

Funnily enough, I've been thinking on that. Even a small pyre will burn all night and, to do the job of burning the flesh, would need to so as to provide the correct temperature (Time Team recreated this at Birdoswald). This purported pyre - twenty storeys high and the size of a city block (at some 32,000 sq.m.) - will have burned for many a day. That is, if the copious quantities of water could be dried from the palms. This pyre as described, inside the walls and fully alight, would be a huge conflagration not easily forgotten; the ancient Babylonian equivalent of the London blitz.

With that in mind an earlier statement bears repeating: no source other than Diodorus mentions this spectacular conflagration over an area near twice the size of the storied Hanging Gardens. Both Arrian and Plutarch say that Alexander "reportedly ordered" or "proposed" (respectively) to construct such at the cost of 10-12,000 talents. Arrian, who goes into detail about Alexander's actions in and around Babylon and who quills much ink to page about a Brahman bar-b-q, has not a rho, gamma or sigma spent on this great conflagration. Nor does Plutarch. Claims that it is Arrian's "procedure to pare away any details connected with Alexander's private life" or that "Plutarch is also a brief 'life' and he does not stick with chronological order" will hardly do. Chronological order is irrelevant here and the Alexander Life is by far the fullest. In any case, both are comforting expedients to explain away the failure to correlate Diodorus' description.

A more mundane solution is available. A funerary pyre, of far more realistic magnitude, was constructed and Hephaestion cremated. This was not overly newsworthy and so did not make it much past the obituaries scroll in the Oikoumene Times. The notices in both Arrian and Plutarch denoting intention to spend 10-12,000 talents refer to a permanent "temple" to Hephaestion. Diodorus' source for book 18 notes that this was rejected after the conqueror's death along with a similarly costly monument to Philip II. Diodorus did not make up from whole cloth the story found at 17.115 and nor is there any cogent reason for postulating exaggeration on the Sicilian's behalf. He has taken this story from his source and has, if anything, summarised it down to its most sensational aspects. Diodorus' source, by error or design, has either conflated the funerary cremation and the subsequent monument or gone with exaggeration and sensationalism for effect. I rather suspect the opportunity was too good to pass up and Diodorus' source for 17.115 has given the story the News of The Oikoumene treatment.

[Taphoi]

Just to correct inaccurate assumptions:

1) The speed at which a fire burns does not decrease with increasing size of the fire (the opposite is more likely to be true)
2) The temperature of a fire depends upon the flame temperature of its material, not upon the size of the fire - a wood fire will not melt steel, however large it is - you need coke or charcoal for that
3) If it is a problem for anybody, there is no problem recovering bones from as large a wood fire as you wish, simply by encasing the body in a steel (or other high melting point) container or mesh
4) If Homer in the Iliad (Alexander's bible) thought exceptionally large pyres were correct for the exalted dead, it is unlikely in the extreme that Alexander would have disagreed with him

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

Just to correct inaccurate assumptions:

1) The speed at which a fire burns does not decrease with increasing size of the fire (the opposite is more likely to be true)
2) The temperature of a fire depends upon the flame temperature of its material, not upon the size of the fire - a wood fire will not melt steel, however large it is - you need coke or charcoal for that
3) If it is a problem for anybody, there is no problem recovering bones from as large a wood fire as you wish, simply by encasing the body in a steel (or other high melting point) container or mesh
4) If Homer in the Iliad (Alexander's bible) thought exceptionally large pyres were correct for the exalted dead, it is unlikely in the extreme that Alexander would have disagreed with him

1) If you build a camp fire with two or three logs the fire will be out l-o-n-g before a large log cabin that has been set ablaze and left to burn. The more fuel that is added to the the fire, the longer it will burn. Which means that Diodorus' "pyre", which could not possibly have been ignited all at the same time, would have continued to be fed as the structure collapsed on itself. It would have burned for a very long time.
3) I don't believe there is any evidence for steel mesh back then. If the body was encased in a steel "container" the flesh would have cooked and the fat in it melted, not burned away. The body being consumed by fire was the important part of the ritual.
4) Homer's large pyre allowed the bodies of four horses, two dogs and 12 Trojans to be burned alongside Patroclus without their bones being mixed up. Still, I also doubt Alexander would have disagreed with Homer and, yes, I'm using my intuition again, but then so are you! However, the difference between Homer's pyre and Diodorus' pyre is so far to the extreme that your statement adds nothing to the debate.

Regards,

[Paralus]

Just to correct inaccurate assumptions:

1) The speed at which a fire burns does not decrease with increasing size of the fire (the opposite is more likely to be true)
2) The temperature of a fire depends upon the flame temperature of its material, not upon the size of the fire - a wood fire will not melt steel, however large it is - you need coke or charcoal for that
3) If it is a problem for anybody, there is no problem recovering bones from as large a wood fire as you wish, simply by encasing the body in a steel (or other high melting point) container or mesh
4) If Homer in the Iliad (Alexander's bible) thought exceptionally large pyres were correct for the exalted dead, it is unlikely in the extreme that Alexander would have disagreed with him

Amyntoros has dealt with much of this but, whilst we're correcting assumptions...

The example I gave above (Birdoswald) was a small controlled test pyre. The cremated "hero" was, from memory, a side of pork (or large leg). The pyre was so constructed to keep it burning all night and to maintain a temperature to consume the flesh and render tendon and fat.

there is no problem recovering bones from as large a wood fire as you wish, simply by encasing the body in a steel (or other high melting point) container or mesh

Yes, well....

It is a problem to imagine Hephaestion's body encased in some sort of steel coffin - for the cogent reasons Amyntoros has stated and more. Just what grade of "steel" are we speaking of - certainly not stainless. Just what evidence do we have for the general use of steel in Alexander's time? (We won't bother with the more than speculative "mesh")

You are easily impressed as far as size goes. Homer's description of the pyre for the legendary Patroclus is of a 100 foot square construct. This would be a pyre of some 929 square metres. This impresses as "exceptionally large". Based on that yardstick, to exactly what level of hyperbole might you have to rise to describe Diodorus' 32,000 odd square metre pyre?

[Xenophon]

Smelting is the process by which iron is extracted from iron ore. When iron ore is heated in a charcoal fire, the iron ore begins to release some of its oxygen, which combines with carbon monoxide to form carbon dioxide. In this way, a spongy, porous mass of relatively pure iron is formed, intermixed with bits of charcoal and extraneous matter liberated from the ore, known as slag. (The separation of slag from the iron is facilitated by the addition of flux, that is, crushed seashells or limestone.) The formation of this 'bloom' of iron was as far as the iron age blacksmith got. He would remove this gooey mass from the furnace and hammer it on an anvil to drive out the cinders and slag and to compact the metallic particles. This was wrought iron (“wrought” means “worked,” that is, hammered) and contained generally from .02 to .08 percent of carbon (absorbed from the charcoal), just enough to make the metal both tough and malleable. Wrought iron was the most commonly produced metal through most of the Iron Age.

Steel on the other hand has a carbon content ranging from .2 to 1.5 percent, enough carbon to make it harder than wrought iron, but not so much as to make it as brittle as cast iron (which has a higher carbon content still). Its hardness combined with its flexibility and tensile strength make steel far more useful than either type of iron - it is more durable and holds a sharp edge better than the softer wrought iron, but it resists shock and tension better than the more brittle cast iron.

Steel requires the actual melting of iron ore, hence much higher temperatures, and hence coal- fired rather than charcoal furnaces. Steel could not be produced in quantity until the late Middle Ages when the ‘chimney blast furnace’ was invented in Europe. ( see “The Knight and the Blast Furnace” by Alan Williams).This brought about a revolution in weapon and armour quality, albeit at great expense and only affordable by the very wealthy.

However, until the mid 1800s, and the invention of the ‘Bessemer’ process, steel was difficult to manufacture and expensive, and the carbon content could not be controlled.

Thus, in Alexander’s time, true steel only existed in minute quantities, created by accident unwittingly, and hence may be said to be non-existent to all intents and purposes.

------------------------------------
The following is the response from AMYNTOROS who royally screwed up and edited Xenophon's post rather than quoting from it, as you all will see when you read the following messages. Sorry, Xenophon and everyone else.


Xenophon,

Not to argue with you, but to preempt refutations from elsewhere, there was possibly "wootz" steel as this site explains:

It is suggested by Parr[18] that real production of steel began as early as 500 BC in India. This material was referred to as wootz. By Alexander's time the production of wootz was a well established two step process using the crucible method. Two methods could be used, conversion from a cast iron form or conversion from a wrought iron form.

My point in bringing this up is that even if Alexander had the capability and knowledge within his followers to make enough steel to build a "coffin" for Hephaistion, if a steel enclosure was placed within Diodorus' "pyre" the body would simply have baked. Instead of having the long white bones for burial they would have had a human roast! I'm not being facetious here. There's a very big difference between placing a body on a pyre and allowing the fleshy parts to be reduced by the fire to smoke and ash and "cooking" the body in a closed container.

The same applies for any other metal or alloy that may be suggested. And as for steel "mesh" I suggest that it was way beyond the capabilities of the ancients.

Best regards,

Amyntoros

[amyntoros]

Okay, Xenophon, I've really screwed up here. It seems that I hit the edit button rather than the quote button. Many, many apologies. Do you have a copy of your original post because I can insert it at the top of my own post which now is appearing as one of your own?

Sincerely embarrased,

[Paralus]

With wootz steel and "Damascus" steel we are talking small amounts almost always used for blades. That is, if it was known to Alexander - a large "if". As Amyntoros points out, the body in a container defeats the purpose.

As for he speculation of steel mesh, I'm afraid that cannot even be said "to be based on instinct rather than evidence or facts"; imagination supplied with a surfeit of super-phosphate would be the source. Then again, perhaps this was how the Macedonians kept those prisoners after Gaugamela (more than 300,000)... behind steel mesh fences?

[Xenophon]

Hi Amyntoros.....not a major problem. Alas, it was an off-the-cuff reply direct in the reply box, and I don't have a copy, however this is as close an approximation as I can recollect.....

Smelting is the process by which iron is extracted from iron ore. When iron ore is heated in a charcoal fire, the iron ore begins to release some of its oxygen, which combines with carbon monoxide to form carbon dioxide. In this way, a spongy, porous mass of relatively pure iron is formed, intermixed with bits of charcoal and extraneous matter liberated from the ore, known as slag. (The separation of slag from the iron is facilitated by the addition of flux, that is, crushed seashells or limestone.) The formation of this 'bloom' of iron was as far as the iron age blacksmith got. He would remove this gooey mass from the furnace and hammer it on an anvil to drive out the cinders and slag and to compact the metallic particles. This was wrought iron (“wrought” means “worked,” that is, hammered) and contained generally from .02 to .08 percent of carbon (absorbed from the charcoal), just enough to make the metal both tough and malleable. Wrought iron was the most commonly produced metal through most of the Iron Age.

Steel on the other hand has a carbon content ranging from .2 to 1.5 percent, enough carbon to make it harder than wrought iron, but not so much as to make it as brittle as cast iron (which has a higher carbon content still). Its hardness combined with its flexibility and tensile strength make steel far more useful than either type of iron - it is more durable and holds a sharp edge better than the softer wrought iron, but it resists shock and tension better than the more brittle cast iron.

Steel requires the actual melting of iron ore, hence much higher temperatures, and hence coal- fired rather than charcoal furnaces. Steel could not be produced in quantity until the late Middle Ages when the ‘chimney blast furnace’ was invented in Europe. ( see “The Knight and the Blast Furnace” by Alan Williams).This brought about a revolution in weapon and armour quality, albeit at great expense and only affordable by the very wealthy.

However, until the mid 1800s, and the invention of the ‘Bessemer’ process, steel was difficult to manufacture and expensive, and the carbon content could not be controlled.

Thus, in Alexander’s time, true steel only existed in minute quantities, created by accident unwittingly, and hence may be said to be non-existent to all intents and purposes.

[Xenophon]

'Wootz' steel is not really steel at all, in most cases, early examples in particular. It is said to have been invented sometime after 300 BC, though legend has it invented by the Tamils as early as 500 BC. Legend also has it that Alexander was presented with a small quantity, regarded as more precious than gold, when he was in India, but AFIK there is no evidence to support this. Although all the secrets of its production are not known, it was produced by repeated forging of wrought iron, like 'pattern welding' which appeared in Roman times, only it was folded and hammered far more - up to 300 times. Analysis has shown that some at least was 'carbon reinforced' with organic carbon strands running through the metal - probably from organic plant material beaten into the metal.

This produced steel-like qualities in what was really still wrought iron. 'Wootz steel' and 'Damascus steel' only became widespread in mediaeval times. 'True' steel required far higher temperatures to melt the iron. ( around 1500 degrees celsius), generally only achievable later....

[Taphoi]

I don't believe there is any evidence for steel mesh back then. If the body was encased in a steel "container" the flesh would have cooked and the fat in it melted, not burned away. The body being consumed by fire was the important part of the ritual.

This is quite misleading and untrue, because, obviously, the container could have been perforated. Perforated vessels were found in the tombs at Aegae.

Regarding steel it was widely available:

Ancient steel
Steel was known in antiquity, and may have been produced by managing bloomeries, or iron-smelting facilities, in which the bloom contained carbon.
The earliest known production of steel is a piece of ironware excavated from an archaeological site in Anatolia (Kaman-Kalehoyuk) and is about 4,000 years old. Other ancient steel comes from East Africa, dating back to 1400 BC. In the 4th century BC steel weapons like the Falcata were produced in the Iberian Peninsula, while Noric steel was used by the Roman military.
Steel was produced in large quantities in Sparta around 650BC.
The Chinese of the Warring States (403–221 BC) had quench-hardened steel, while Chinese of the Han Dynasty (202 BC – 220 AD) created steel by melting together wrought iron with cast iron, gaining an ultimate product of a carbon-intermediate steel by the 1st century AD. The Haya people of East Africa invented a type of furnace they used to make carbon steel at 1,802 °C (3,276 °F) nearly 2,000 years ago.

However, it is not necessary to insist upon steel, because an open wood fire will not melt iron either (as Alexander would have known very well - iron smelting being something that happened within local communities back then).
This objection to the idea that bone irrecoverability makes the pyre impossible is quite unavoidable. I do not myself believe that Alexander necessarily used such a steel mesh or perforated iron container, but he could have, if he had been worried about bone recovery, so it would not have stopped him building a large pyre.

I believe the bone fragments would have been scattered within 15 metres of the centre of the pyre and could easily have been recovered by sifting the ash anyway. I believe that bone recovery would not have been Alexander's priority in the pyre design anyway. But the important thing is that the bone recovery objection to the pyre falls just as all other objections have been shown to be fatuous and without foundation in science or evidence. There is no sound objection. There is no reason to doubt the pyre except doubt itself.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Xenophon]

Taphoi wrote:

Regarding steel, it was widely available...

That claim/unsupported assertion is simply totally untrue. Steel did not become 'widely available' until the second half of the 19 C, as I referred to earlier ! A few minutes research on the web demonstrates such, and to assert otherwise demonstrates wilful blindness or wilful mendacity, neither of which is appropriate in this forum.You merely display a total lack of knowledge of the subject in making such a claim......

Sorry, Taphoi......that wikipaedia entry is complete nonsense. 'Noric' steel was not in widespread use in Roman times, ( like 'Wootz' steel and sub-Saharan 'steel', it was produced unknowingly in minute and very expensive quantities due to just the right amount of impurities in the ore, which was 'wrought'...) the Iberian 'falcata' was made of wrought iron, not steel, and there is no evidence that 'steel' was in use in Sparta in 650 BC etc

Matters pertaining to 'steel' are as per my earlier post.

Taphoi wrote:

"There is no reason to doubt the pyre except doubt itself." ?
.....and...
" I shall close by re-stating that there is no evidence for anything except Diodorus's pyre and there is archaeological evidence for that pyre from Koldewey, the excavator of Babylon over 100 years ago. The described pyre was not impracticable by analogy with modern wooden structures. There is no reason why Diodorus's description should not be true."

On that basis, I take it you accept the 'talking snakes as guides', alternately the guiding crows episode [Arrian II.4] as literally true?
["There is no evidence to the contrary.... and no reason why it should not be true...." ]
In the famous words of Spock: "Illogical, Captain..." That type of argument is a common fallacy often referred to as 'ad ignorandum' - "X is true because we don't know/can't prove it isn't "....

Archaeology at Babylon has been and is very imperfect, and Koldewey at the turn of the 19 C and after was another German amateur very much in the mould of Schliemann....he 'found' whatever he was looking for....and the mud-brick platform he claimed was the 'pyre' of Hephaistion was re-interpreted by another, and later, German archaeologist ( Schmidt, 1941) as the 'agora'/market of Babylon.

So much for your so-called archaeological evidence! And to simply 'shout' your un-supported assertion ( again !!??!!), with no evidence whatsoever, that a free-standing wooden structure over a city block in size and over 20 stories in height could exist ( apparently within the city of Babylon itself ! ), when the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary ( for a large number of reasons, see ante 'ad nauseum') is of the childish " yes,tis....no, tisn't" form of argument lampooned in "Monty Python."

If you actually have some factual evidence to put forward beyond bland assertion, or 'ad ignorandum' arguments, then do so by all means....otherwise....

Lastly, the perforated bronze lamp, with iron support in the base to hold a terracotta lamp from the Philip II tomb, is hardly evidence for a 'steel mesh coffin' you postulated earlier !!!!!