"Alexander's Tomb" by N. Saunders

[Taphoi]

I have just read “Alexander’s Tomb” by Nicholas Saunders. What follows is not a review, but a warning delivered in a spirit of sadness.

1) On p.1 Saunders announces that the tomb of Alexander IV has “never been found”. In fact Tomb III at Vergina is generally accepted to be that of Alexander IV.
2) Saunders is confused about the reference to Alexander’s tomb in Zenobius, Proverbia 3.94. Saunders thinks there are two different references to the tomb in Zenobius. This is because he has contracted a reference to Zenobius in an article by Erskine to “Zenobius, Proverbia 1.81” (Saunders’ note 13 to Chapter 5), when Erskine’s original reference read “Zenob. 3.94 (Paroem. Gr. i, p.81)”. Saunders p.70 thinks that Zenobius states that the second Alexandrian tomb was “in a different place” than the first, but Zenobius makes no such statement. Saunders seems to think that Zenobius is actually the author of the “Proverbia”, but in fact (as its full manuscript title makes clear) he was just anthologising the works of two earlier and much more respected authors. One of these is Arius Didymus, who accompanied Octavian on his visit to Alexander’s tomb. He is probably the actual author of this reference.
3) Saunders p.199 states that “Strabo infers that the Soma (Alexander's tomb enclosure) was likely close to the inner palaces (endotero basileia)”, but there is no such inference in Strabo, who only states [17.1.8] that the walled enclosure of the Soma was part of the overall Royal Quarter (basileia), which he also says constituted between a quarter and a third of the entire city. The difference is crucial: the “endotero basileia” was a narrow strip along the eastern coast of the great harbour, whilst “basileia” was a huge area stretching from the great harbour southwards beyond the central crossroads.
4) Because Saunders wants to believe that the Soma was near the coast within the “endotero basileia”, he tries to refute the description of Alexandria by Achilles Tatius, which implies that the tomb was near the central crossroads. On pp. 68-9 Saunders states that Achilles “Tatius never saw the Soma because he never travelled to Alexandria.” In fact the manuscripts of Achilles Tatius state that the author was an Alexandrian. So too does the entry on Achilles Tatius in the Suda Lexicon. Furthermore, the description of Alexandria by Achilles Tatius is corroborated by modern archaeology and also by other ancient Egyptian sources. For example, the Sun Gate is also mentioned by John of Nikiu, a 7th century Egyptian bishop.
5) Saunders speculates on pp. 197-8 that the holes drilled in the sides of the sarcophagus of Nectanebo II were put there by Ptolemy IV, who thus adapted the sarcophagus to become part of a public fountain in Alexandria (he supposes). However, the holes pass straight through the inscribed hieroglyphic text of the Book Of What Is In The Underworld, a sacred Egyptian text. It is hardly credible that a Ptolemaic pharaoh, the incarnation of Horus on Earth, would desecrate a holy text, then display his sacrilege publicly in his capital. It is like suggesting that the Pope might order holes drilled in an antique bible, then put his handiwork on display in the Vatican museum.
6) Saunders thinks (p.200) that the Macedonian royal starburst was unknown until the tombs at Vergina were excavated by Andronikos in 1977. He states, “Andronikos was the first person to see the royal star probably since Roman times”. In fact this Star of Macedon is emblazoned on many of the Hellenistic coins of the Macedonian kings (i.e. Alexander’s successors), which have been known throughout history.

All books have some errors and Saunders is entitled to his opinions, but the above are examples of gross distortions and misrepresentations of the evidence on key points, which will utterly mislead Saunders’ unfortunate readership. Furthermore, they are just some of the worst examples – I have noted over a hundred errors altogether. Saunders has done for the story of Alexander’s tomb what Graham Phillips has done for the story of Alexander’s death. Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware.

[Callisto]

6) Saunders thinks (p.200) that the Macedonian royal starburst was unknown until the tombs at Vergina were excavated by Andronikos in 1977. He states, “Andronikos was the first person to see the royal star probably since Roman times”. In fact this Star of Macedon is emblazoned on many of the Hellenistic coins of the Macedonian kings (i.e. Alexander’s successors), which have been known throughout history.

Thats utter false. There were discovered Macedonian tombs in Greece prior to the Vergina tombs in 1977 that had the Macedonian royal starburst inside.

The macedonian tomb of Lysson and Kallikles was discovered in 1942 at Leucadia Emathias and anyone who has been inside could see whats on the wall.

http://alexander.macedonia.culture.gr/2 ... 1qn04.html

In reality the starburst was used widely in the ancient greek world besides ancient Macedonians.

For example, a small visit to the archaeological museum of Sparta will be informative.

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/6332 ... ent2wz.jpg

[Taphoi]

Hi Callisto,

Yes, indeed! In fact Saunders does the starburst error twice: on p.184-5 he asserts that "The Royal Macedonian star" was "Unknown before Andronikos discovered it embossed on the golden larnax of Tomb II at Vergina". This is notwithstanding the fact that the mural of Lyson & Kallikles, which you mention, is in my book, which Saunders claims to have read.

Many of the errors verge on the hilarious (I have to concede their entertainment value at least):

A) He fails to notice the elephant in "chryselephantine", when he defines it as meaning "gold and silver" on p.23 (it's actually gold & ivory of course).

B) Pothosians may be mildly surprised to learn from Saunders p.IX that Alexander crossed to Asia and visited the tomb of Achilles in 336BC, a few months after Philip's assassination.

C) Saunders p.147 notes that an Orthodox Russian priest "looked in vain" for Alexander's tomb in Alexandria in 1803 "seemingly unaware of Alexander's connections with the Nabi Daniel Mosque". In fact, it is hardly surprising that he couldn't find the Nabi Daniel Mosque, because it wasn't built for another 20 years!

D) Saunders has Mohammed Ali give Britain one of Cleopatra's Needles in 1875. It must have been during a seance, since Mohammed Ali died in 1849! (Actually the gift was made in about 1819)

E) Saunders says on p.39 that "Perdiccas's reaction on hearing that Ptolemy had snatched the hearse (i.e. Alexander's catafalque) can only be imagined." In fact there is no need to resort to imagination since a fragment of Arrian states, "The partisans of Perdiccas... told him that Arrhidaeus had deliberately given the body of Alexander to Ptolemy and was carrying it to Egypt. Then, even more, Perdiccas wanted to march to Egypt in order to take away the rule from Ptolemy, put a new man in his place and retrieve the body of Alexander."

Oh well! Ignorance is bliss (according to Big Brother).

[jan]

We sure needed this! Thanks. I appreciate it, as I found a few suspicious sounding tales in it...the woman who was trying to make it appear that she had found the tomb at Siwa...

[Callisto]

Hi! I assume you refer to the phenomenon of Liana Souvaltzis. Alone that the supposed tomb of Alexander was in Siwa, was by itself suspicious. Her whole case, was a collection of conjectures trying to get a story. I had examined carefully the photos she had in her website and you could find among them, a pic with some rays allegedly be the royal macedonian starburst, an inscription supposedly refering to "a God who drank the poison" while nowhere in the greek inscription is written even anything close to it , a "royal head", a lion guarding the "royal tomb" and with these, she concluded she found Alexander's tomb.

btw, speaking of the royal macedonian starburst, has anyone noticed that in vases & amphoras about Trojan war, Achaean heroes were portrayed having a similar starburst?

Achilles
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/ancientfi ... hilles.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v506/ ... Penthe.jpg

Diomedes
http://www.theoi.com/image/K10.18Aphrodite.jpg

[Taphoi]

We sure needed this! Thanks. I appreciate it, as I found a few suspicious sounding tales in it...the woman who was trying to make it appear that she had found the tomb at Siwa...

Hi Jan,

Well the Siwa lady is Liana Souvaltzi and Saunders isn’t quite so bad on reporting the facts in this instance. However, he does give the impression that he takes Souvaltzi’s theory more seriously than it merits by lavishing a disproportionate amount of attention upon it.

Saunders is particularly awful on issues of ancient history, which you will appreciate is a great problem when the subject is Alexander’s tomb. I will give a few more examples:

i) Saunders p.54 states that Heracles, Alexander’s illegitimate son, was killed a few months before Alexander IV, the legitimate heir. Now he is probably following Justin 15.2 on this (most likely indirectly), but anyone who knows Justin is aware that he regularly gets Heracles and Alexander IV confused, for example, putting the former into Pydna with Olympias, when it was actually the latter. Diodorus is a far better source on this period and he is quite clear that it was the murder of Alexander IV that gave rise to the attempt to place the bastard Heracles on the throne (as would also agree with simple logic).
ii) Saunders is careless over details: for example on p.27 he dates the banquet at which Alexander fell ill to early June, when it is uncontroversial that it actually took place at the end of May.
iii) Saunders p. 12 thinks that the Ptolemy who was left behind in Caria was Ptolemy Soter, but in fact he is generally believed to be another Ptolemy (e.g. he is Ptolemy 5 in Heckel’s Who’s Who, whereas Ptolemy Soter is Ptolemy 6).
iv) Saunders p. 119 calls the Alexander Romance “Ptolemaic in origin”, which is at least misleading, since it was undoubtedly first compiled in the 3rd century AD (some of its stories may be as old as the Ptolemaic period, but others are of Roman date and flavour).
v) Saunders p.35 asserts that Alexander “was a god in Asia, if only a peerless king in Macedonia and Greece”, whilst Arrian 7.23.2 says, “Embassies too came from Greece at this juncture and their envoys, crowned themselves, came forward and crowned Alexander with golden crowns, as if actually come on a sacred embassy to honour a god.”

I too am among Saunders’ victims. He suggests on p.199 that I have said that “An unknown church official, concerned for the safety of Alexander’s body, moved it from the ruined Soma to St Mark’s conveniently empty tomb nearby.” What I have actually said is that there is no reliable evidence that a tomb of St Mark existed in Alexandria until after Alexander’s body had disappeared. This is virtually the opposite of the words Saunders attributes to me with the evident aim of defaming my reputation. It is in fact a clear libel.

(By the way, I did my best to help Saunders. I answered his questions, showed him my collection of antique maps of Alexandria and allowed him to use 5 images of maps and coins from my collection in his book free of charge.)

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Tantalus]

I too am among Saunders’ victims.

So am I. I bought the book!

I bought it a couple weeks ago. When it arrived I was somewhat disappointed. A quick look through gave me the impression that this was "Alexander's Tomb Lite" And especially so when compared to Andrew's definitive "The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great". There's no comparison. And I was not aware of all the inaccuracies.

Maybe I'll read it "sometime"...

[marcus]

I too am among Saunders’ victims.

So am I. I bought the book!

I bought it a couple weeks ago. When it arrived I was somewhat disappointed. A quick look through gave me the impression that this was "Alexander's Tomb Lite" And especially so when compared to Andrew's definitive "The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great". There's no comparison. And I was not aware of all the inaccuracies.

Maybe I'll read it "sometime"...

Fortunately, thanks to the misfortune of others, I do not intend to become one of Saunders' victims. I wasted enough money on the Graham Phillips book on Alexander's "murder" and I don't intend to waste more money (or, more importantly, time) on more such nonsense.

ATB

[Taphoi]

So am I. I bought the book!

Hi Tantalus,

Commiserations on your purchase. Fortunately, a free copy of his book was the only stipulation I made in return for allowing Saunders to use my images, so I am not out of pocket at least. I suppose there is a chance that you might get a refund from the publishers, if you deploy some of the ammunition I’ve provided in preceding posts. They are:

Basic Books
The Perseus Book Group
387 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016
USA
Email: perseus.promos@perseusbooks.com

Another Saunders clanger, which I found particularly amusing, is his assertion on p.59 that “in the Ptolemaia of 275-274BC… camels appeared for the first time in Egypt”. Actually, there is evidence of single-hump camels in Egypt from the pre-dynastic period (before the pharaohs). What is more, one of the main internet pages on this topic is on the website of Saunders’ own university: http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/foodp ... camel.html

Alexander is said [e.g. Curtius 7.2.18] to have used camels for his emissaries sent to assassinate Parmenion. It is likely that his emissaries to Siwa on the matter of Hephaistion’s status as a hero rode on camels.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[marcus]

Another Saunders clanger, which I found particularly amusing, is his assertion on p.59 that “in the Ptolemaia of 275-274BC… camels appeared for the first time in Egypt”. Actually, there is evidence of single-hump camels in Egypt from the pre-dynastic period (before the pharaohs). What is more, one of the main internet pages on this topic is on the website of Saunders’ own university: http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/foodp ... camel.html

Alexander is said [e.g. Curtius 7.2.18] to have used camels for his emissaries sent to assassinate Parmenion. It is likely that his emissaries to Siwa on the matter of Hephaistion’s status as a hero rode on camels.

That is interesting, and I have to own to some sympathy with Saunders on that one, because I am in possession of at least one book (published some time in the 80s, I think, and written by some British Museum curator of Egyptian antiquities), which states categorically that there is no evidence of camels being used in Egypt prior to the Hellenistic period. Perhaps the evidence cited on that UCL page came to light more recently than at least that book, and perhaps Saunders was using old research to make his assertion. (Although I have to agree that, when the information is sitting on his own university's site, it's rather bonkers that he should miss it.)

ATB

[Callisto]

Another Saunders clanger, which I found particularly amusing, is his assertion on p.59 that “in the Ptolemaia of 275-274BC… camels appeared for the first time in Egypt”. Actually, there is evidence of single-hump camels in Egypt from the pre-dynastic period (before the pharaohs). What is more, one of the main internet pages on this topic is on the website of Saunders’ own university: http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/foodp ... camel.html

Alexander is said [e.g. Curtius 7.2.18] to have used camels for his emissaries sent to assassinate Parmenion. It is likely that his emissaries to Siwa on the matter of Hephaistion’s status as a hero rode on camels.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Hi Taphoi,

Most likely camels have been introduced to Egypt by Hyksos. Anyway, there are references from genesis xii 16 and exodus ix 3 indicating presence of Camels in Egypt.

"And he dealt well with Abram for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels."

"Then Jehovah said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell him "Thus saith Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. For if thou refuse to let them go, and wilt hold them still, behold, the hand of Jehovah is upon thy cattle which are in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the herds, and upon the flocks: there shall be a very grievous murrain."

At the time Cambyses conquered egypt he made use of camels and Herodotus say (VII 69-70, 125) 10,000 camels were used by Xerxes's army on the expedition in Europe. Most likely he would have used them also in the recapture of Egypt earlier.


P.S Your nick 'Taphoi' derives from the plural of taphos or it has another meaning?

[Taphoi]

Hi Callisto,

Yes. As Marcus suggests, Saunders seems to have latched on to a modern myth about camels arriving in Egypt under the Ptolemies. It's a good story, which is the important thing to Saunders, who has not been sufficiently concerned about its factual accuracy even to perform a 5-second Google search on it. Saunders rewrites history on a whim, when he thinks his revised version makes for a better story. For example, on p.157 Saunders states, "Hephaestion presented Abdalonymous personally to Alexander, who immediately deposed Straton and installed Abdalonymous." In fact the events happened the other way around, but it suits Saunders' theme of denigrating Hephaistion to twist the truth in this way.

My epithet is indeed the plural of tomb as in "Hoi taphoi tou Megalou Alexandrou." I suppose you are the nymph rather than the Jovian moon.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[dean]

Hi,

Yes I wouldn't have thought that you would need a university degree to work out that camels have been in Egypt or around that area for a good long while. The weather is just up their street.

As Callisto cites, the bible mentions several instances.(although it is not exactly the most historically accurate document in the world) and no doubt Callisthenes would have been great as one of its main writers.

I have not read any of Saunders work and thanks to this thread Ihave to confess that I am glad that I haven't.

Best regards,
Dean

[amyntoros]

Saunders rewrites history on a whim, when he thinks his revised version makes for a better story. For example, on p.157 Saunders states, "Hephaestion presented Abdalonymous personally to Alexander, who immediately deposed Straton and installed Abdalonymous." In fact the events happened the other way around, but it suits Saunders' theme of denigrating Hephaistion to twist the truth in this way.

While agreeing that the statement of Saunders isn't accurate, I don't quite understand how it "denigrates" Hephaistion. Perhaps it's more obvious in context?

Best regards,

Amyntoros

[Taphoi]

Hi Amyntoros,

Saunders had previously on p.18 written of Hephaistion's "petty spitefulness" and of how Alexander's "dilemma of Hephaestion's imperious behaviour remained unresolved."

In the Abdalonymus story, Saunders twists the facts to make Hephaistion's behaviour seem "imperious".

Best wishes,

Andrew