Sidon Sarcophagus in Technicolour

[Taphoi]

Anyone seen this? It makes Amyntoros' new avatar seem subdued!



See also http://travel.webshots.com/photo/216404 ... 1156NuvqUO

Dedicated to anyone who still sees Alexander in black & white terms

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

Hi Taphoi,

Karen had Googled this image (and some others) back in February on this thread.

My most recent avatar is constructed from a scan I made of a photograph in an old book. Such books often fail to give proper credit or sufficient information on their illustrations, but I suspect it is a recreation of the colors based on the paint chips as they found them and therefore faded with age. I'd have been happy to make an avator showing the brighter, original colors, but I wouldn't want to bring the copyright police down on Pothos.

Best regards,

[marcus]

See also http://travel.webshots.com/photo/216404 ... 1156NuvqUO

Dedicated to anyone who still sees Alexander in black & white terms

Best wishes,

Andrew

Last time I was in Istanbul, last summer, I saw the mock-up of Alexander - as the URL you posted also shows. It's a shame the Turks don't have the rest of it in mock-up. But when you see the sarcophagus you can see the traces of colour on the stone, so you can see that they haven't just plucked these colours out of thin air (well, not all of them, anyway).

For anyone who hasn't been to the archaeological museum in Istanbul, I heartily recommend it. As well as the sarcophagus they have the Pergamum Head of Alexander, plus two other busts. It's great!

ATB

[Taphoi]

My most recent avatar is constructed from a scan I made of a photograph in an old book.

Hi Amyntoros,

I must have missed the February thread.

Judging by the lighting, your new avatar looks like it may have come ultimately from a set of albumen photos of the Alexander Sarcophagus taken in about 1890. I was very fortunate to be able to acquire an actual set of the albumens with all four sides earlier this year. I have put scans of them on my website at http://www.alexanderstomb.com/main/imag ... /index.htm

These images are important, because it seems that there is not enough room to get an undistorted photo of the long sides where the Sarcophagus is currently housed.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

Ancient bits were very severe and to use one of these ancient bits to break any would have caused drastic injury...

Well there are various ancient bits on display in the new colour models of the Alexander Sarcophagus, but not from the horse's mouth, so to speak

It is true that there are clear traces of the harnesses around the horses' heads in my albumen photos, but I don't think they've added them to the models yet.

Perhaps you could post your images directly into a Pothos message, so everyone can see them. You just need to upload them to the web via one of the free image-hosting sites and cross reference them using the Img button.

Bucephalus seems now to be a chestnut in the new models

It is also interesting that the new models seem to have a rather different colour scheme than previous reconstructions. Presumably they are assuming some colour changes due to pigment aging. Does anyone have a reference to a technical explanation of the new research?

Best wishes,

Andrew

[marcus]

These images are important, because it seems that there is not enough room to get an undistorted photo of the long sides where the Sarcophagus is currently housed.

Only because the sides are very long. There's plenty of room around the sarcophagus, but you wouldn't get a particularly detailed photo if you took the entirety of each side. Plus, as it's all surrounded by glass, it's almost impossible to get a photo without a load of reflection - even though I wasn't using flash when I took my photos (and you're not allowed to, anyway), my reflection crops up in many of them.

ATB

[jasonxx]

Can You Adam And Eve it.

Those silly Ancient Sculpures. Depicting Macedonian and Greek soldiers naked . Not a breast Plate Skirt or piece of Armour anywhere. Dont you think they should be more realistic in there art.... Who knows some sill y film maker might do the same thing and depict Spartan Soldiers in trunks and nothiing more than a shield.... An that wont go down well with the history buffs.

I guess those Greeks should have been more reaslistic than Symbolic of how they viewed there warriors... Saves The 300 blushes ... I mean Leonidas Statue at thermopalie another nude couldnt they be more true for the benefit of future Scholars.

[amyntoros]

It is also interesting that the new models seem to have a rather different colour scheme than previous reconstructions. Presumably they are assuming some colour changes due to pigment aging. Does anyone have a reference to a technical explanation of the new research?

The following is from the introductory page describing the Gods in Color exhibit at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens. (This thanks to one of our members, Coral, who posted the links in the earlier thread.)

Technology of the time, though, did little to help researchers get an idea of the color which had been destroyed. Today, UV lighting and strong raking light have revealed many more details. Based on this technology and beginning in 1982, the University of Munich began researching the coloring of ancient artwork. Out of the many colored copies realized for experimental purposes, 21 casts were exhibited in the Glyptothek München in 2004, followed by exhibitions at other museums in Europe. These casts are exactly those shown in this exhibition, with the very interesting fact that they are accompanied by 51 original artwork, property of the Museum itself. This exhibition is extended to the rest of the Museum's galleries and the visitor is, with special signs, directed to more originals where traces of the original pigments have been preserved.

As said by Mr. Vinzenz Brigmann, archaeologist of the Munich Sculpture Gallery, during the exhibition’s opening ceremony, "We offer an experiment, or, still better, an approach to what the ancient coloring must have looked like applied to marble." We are not absolutely certain that the proposed paintings, using natural pigments and binder, is a faithful reproduction of the originals. As stated by Mr. Kaltsas, Director of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens and General Supervisor of the exhibition project, "We have a lot of questions about coloring of the ancient Greek marble monuments." Specifically, how were the pigments exactly applied onto the marble surface? Is it possible that ancient Greeks used anti-realistic coloring, on the grounds that the statues were only to be seen from afar? What techniques did they use? Is it possible they made mixtures of the natural basic pigments that we used to color the casts, in which case the aesthetic result would be altogether different? This is a question impossible to answer by studying the preserved traces of colors on the originals. Archaeology, together with sister sciences and technology, might, some day in the future, provide more information on the polychromy of the ancient marble monuments.

And here is a link to the page with photographs of the natural colored pigments used.

Best regards,

[beausefaless]

Deleted

[jasonxx]

Andrew Hail

I know I bang on a bit about 300. I mentioned the Nudes to put one up the academics for Lambasting 300 for the Missing out of Armour etc.It outlines the way so called Hitorical buffs have to stick with historical facts and seldom think outside the box.

Its quite clear that even the classical Grreks who we accept as great thinkers were also with great symbolic ideas and fantasy. Many Including you Andrew with great respect I know hate 300. But if one digs deep down the whole ethos and thoughts about warefare are spot on in the movie.

Some argue its Racist undertones. Well if the idea of slaughtering another army aint in someway racist then we fool ourselves.

War is propoganda. Saying to your foes. Your a bunch of wealthy freaks. Pussies etc etc.

Whilst we Greeks and Spartans are real men. Tough hard and pure muscle. As you correctly say a Phallanx of Macedonian Nmaked soldiers. The Temptation to grab them by the balls really makes a good point

I would say irf society Peoples Historians view warfare any different are living in a utopian wonderland

kenny.

[amyntoros]

Here's a link to a site about color on ancient Persian reliefs including reference to Darius I and Persepolis.

Archaeologist and former member of the Parseh and Pasargadae Research Foundation (PPRF) Mohammad-Taqi Ataii gave a series of new details on the amazing discovery of ancient paint remnants on the Achaemenid royal tombs at Naqsh-e Rustam in southern Iran's Fars Province.

The discovery was made in 2003 when a group of experts was working on the tombs -- particularly the tomb of Darius the Great -- in order to clean calcareous layers caused by rainfall from their surfaces, Ataii told the Persian service of CHN on Wednesday.
The operation was carried out by a team led by PPRF archaeologist Hassan Rahsaz based on a theory proposed by Majid Ayasi.

According to Ataii, no details have previously been published on the discovery.
"Letters of all the cuneiform inscriptions at the site have been colored azure and most of the bas-reliefs, particularly the Darius the Great bas-relief in his tomb at Naqsh-e Rustam, had been painted," Ataii said.

"For example, Darius’s beard and moustache were azure in the bas-relief. We previously knew about the use of colors in Achaemenid sites as well as in the bas-reliefs depicting Darius. On the Darius bas-relief at Persepolis, the entire beard had been made of lapis lazuli, but unfortunately it was plundered by the Macedonians," he explained.

"In the bas-relief of Naqsh-e Rustam, Darius has black hair. His eyes were red and framed in black. The lips and shoes are red and various colors were used for his clothes."
Archaeologists say that some colored architectural elements of the Naqsh-e Rustam monuments have great similarities with the color motifs used for the ancient structures of Persepolis.

"Since, the corridor of the Darius tomb has been built based on a plan, which is similar to the one used for the corridors of Persepolis, thus we can restore the corridors by drawing the structures on a paper with the original colors… The restoration of the colors could help us create a plan from the corridors and even help us imagine the original appearance of Persepolis," Ataii said …

And another on the exhibition which includes the recreated colored Alexander sarcophagus. It has now found its way to Harvard University and will be there until early January. Hmm, anyone in the east of the U.S. fancy a road-trip?

As Ebbinghaus explained, the Greeks of the classical period often represented the Trojans as Persians, whose armies they had successfully repelled in the early fifth century B.C. Persian warriors were generally shown as exotic and a bit overdressed compared with the manly and largely naked Greeks.

The contrast between Greeks and Persians can be seen in another reconstruction, that of the so-called "Alexander Sarcophagus," discovered in Lebanon in 1887. Here the Greek warriors fight entirely naked except for a bronze helmet (apparently taking precautions against head injuries did not reflect badly on one's valor). The Persians, on the other hand, are garbed like Venetian revelers during Carnevale. Did the Greeks actually fight in their birthday suits? Ebbinghaus was asked. "Oh, no," she replied. “They were armed to the teeth.”

The above leads me to comment on other remarks in this thread – that if a Greek/Macedonian warrior did fight naked (obviously they did not) then it would be easy to grab their private parts. This can be equated with Alexander's instructions to his Macedonians to shave their beards in order to prevent the enemy from grabbing a hold. I've always believed this was an excuse on Alexander's part for his preference to be clean shaven. Logically, if an enemy is close enough to grab a beard or any other part of the anatomy then he had better have disarmed his opponent first, otherwise he'd lose his arm or take a sword in the ribs! And with a disarmed opponent, one can strike anywhere – no need to grab a hold. Plus – and I can't believe I'm saying this – clothed or unclothed, it wouldn't have made any difference. The thin wool of a chiton hardly acted as a deterrent, disguise, or protection for the lower parts of the anatomy!

The portrayal of Greek and Macedonian soldiers fighting naked is artistic symbolism, i.e., they were so brave and such good warriors that they didn't need to hide behind clothing. And as Greek men exercised naked in the gymnasium and ran naked in sports events, portraying them as naked in battle illustrated– as mentioned in the quote above – how manly they were compared to their enemies.

Yes, the director of 300 used similar symbolism, except that he obviously couldn't portray the Spartans as completely naked. As far as I know, no one had objections to this eye-candy, except I must add that they do look unavoidably like WWE wrestlers.

Best regards,

[Fiona]

Judging by the lighting, your new avatar looks like it may have come ultimately from a set of albumen photos of the Alexander Sarcophagus taken in about 1890. I was very fortunate to be able to acquire an actual set of the albumens with all four sides earlier this year. I have put scans of them on my website at http://www.alexanderstomb.com/main/imag ... /index.htm

These images are important, because it seems that there is not enough room to get an undistorted photo of the long sides where the Sarcophagus is currently housed.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Thank you very much for the link to the photos on your website. In books, you so often see small sections, and it's hard to figure out what goes where. I think, thanks to you, I've finally got my head round it.
The coloured reconstruction is amazing. I have seen if before, but it makes more sense now, having read all the things that you and others have posted.
It's fascinating how detailed it is, because you just can't see all of that with the naked eye, at least not from photographs. When you saw it yourself, was it possible to see any trace of, for example, the detail on the horse blanket, or are these things only visible under UV light?
I don't think I've realised before, either, what a huge thing the sarcophagus is. What are its dimensions, would you say? (roughly)

Fiona

[Semiramis]

Its quite clear that even the classical Grreks who we accept as great thinkers were also with great symbolic ideas and fantasy. Many Including you Andrew with great respect I know hate 300. But if one digs deep down the whole ethos and thoughts about warefare are spot on in the movie. Rolling Eyes

Some argue its Racist undertones. Well if the idea of slaughtering another army aint in someway racist then we fool ourselves. Cool

War is propoganda. Saying to your foes. Your a bunch of wealthy freaks. Pussies etc etc.

Ahh... Kenny... You agitator you. Yes, of course Greeks had their war propaganda against those "effiminate" Persians. It's intersting that Persian nobles would carry parasols around but when this fashion was introduced into Athens, only wealthy women would use them. Greek males were not ashamed to be naked in public (during athletics at least), but for a female to expose herself in public would've been an extremely shameful act. Persians, culturally speaking, would've found it a shameful and humiliating act to be stripped of one's clothes in Public too. The point for mentioning all this is that, anti-Persian propaganda focused a lot on the "effiminacy" of the Persians. This could be symbolized in art.

Amyntoros makes a good point about Trojans being depicted as Persians. That's been discussed in the forum with regard to Alexander and Xerxes' Homeric theatrics before their respective invasions also.

However, based on that, I'm not sure you can call Greek propaganda against Persians "racist". The parts I might label "racist" in '300' were all inventions of the creators.

I can see how the one-eyed Delios would describe his Persian enemy as a bunch of girly men in girly trousers... Not a single one man enough to wear a skirt even. But he wouldn't say "Oh! And the messenger Leonidas threw down the well didn't look Persian. He looked like an Aethiop. As did the guy who bribed our Ephors! As did the messenger we chopped the arms off after he got lilppy!" Because this wouldn't serve to further demonise the enemy to his Greek compatriots. So, what I'm saying is - sure a Greek guy might've hated all Persians at the height of some war. But he didn't hate the Persians by imagining them to be black-skinned.

Greeks did not associate dark skin or African features with a "evil", "slavishness" or "weakened sexual restraint". It's the movie that seems to associate both deformity and dark skin with the "decrepid soul" of the "threatening Other".

A couple of months ago, I finished reading a book by an author called 'Frank Snowden' with the title of Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience. Throughout his career Snowden had done a great job of cataloguing ancient Greek and Roman art including paintingg, statues, reliefs etc. showing black and part-black people. Snowden also goes through recorded mentions of "Aethiops" (ie. "burnt-faced") and other black-skinned Africans during different historical periods of these cultures.

Much of the Greek art of black or part-black people was lovingly done, with apparent appreciation for the beauty of their subjects. He quotes Herodotus as describing the Aethiops as "the talles and handsomest men on Earth". Later Greek travellers were to assign the astronomical and spiritual learnings of Egypt as borrowings from her Nubian neighbours. A degree of achievement many colonial-era scientists would've been horrified to even contemplate.

Overall, Snowden draws a convincing picture that ancient Greeks and Romans weren't burdened with what he calls "colour prejudice" the way some modern societies are. "Modern" for the book is 1960s. Although in black and white, the book is worth checking out for the pictures alone. Having been written in the 60s, one doesn't come across the post-colonial theories that have been developed since then. A shortcoming the author can't be held reponsible for.

So, Delios' "vision" in '300' shouldn't be blamed on the ancient Greeks. It seems this type of belief has more currency in our world than it would've in theirs. Sure, the nude statues might justify the idea that perfectly chiselled abs and pecs should be the vehicles to display the Spartan triumph of will. But nothing in ancient Greek history justifies the skin-colour obsession of '300'.

Check out this review of the movie. I liked it. The reviewer is not to be confused with the Micheal Wood who wrote "In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great" http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n08/wood01_.html

Take care

[Phoebus]

However, based on that, I'm not sure you can call Greek propaganda against Persians "racist". The parts I might label "racist" in '300' were all inventions of the creators.
...
Greeks did not associate dark skin or African features with a "evil", "slavishness" or "weakened sexual restraint". It's the movie that seems to associate both deformity and dark skin with the "decrepid soul" of the "threatening Other".

This is an unfortunate impression of "300", and it saddens me because Frank Miller, whose work was copied faithfully where the Persian characters are concerned (excluding the harem characters, the Immortals, and the Executioner), is hardly racist.

I really have to ask, though, Semiramis: you put quotes around the word racist insofar as how you felt about the movie, and you also used the word "might". How racist did you think the portrayal of Persians as "dark-skinned" people was, and do you honestly think that Miller's motivations were racially driven?

To be frankly honest with you, I think a line needs to be drawn at some point, where people have to realize that a gut reaction of someone being offensive (not necessarily yours, per se) and someone actually being offensive is not necessarily the same thing. At some point, people have to realize that movies are meant to be entertainment, but that there's no real guarantee that one will be entertained. My personal philosophy? I'd much rather eschew dry drama and tame war movies that try to moralize and relativize, or set up the "there's no bad guy" theme (a-la "Kingdom of Heaven"), and see gripping movies told from the POV of the other side.

To that end, I would gladly go see a "Salah'ad'din" movie or an epic film of Persian conquest. To anyone who says such a venture wouldn't be profitable given American tastes, I say this: neither have been movie attempts to keep things neutral--and any such movie would almost certainly still do financially well overseas.

[jasonxx]

Phoebus

I gus to find a movie with the war theme. And having a relative equal look from both sides. I guess would be pretty difficult. As human beings are invariably brought up with steriotypes and prejudice. Our hopes for movies I gues is to see the goodies and baddies. I guess as you say its much easier if the distinction can be very clearly made.

But philosophically goodies and badies can be impossible to specify. Is a serial killer the real baddie or is it the fact he may have been badly abused etc as a child. Is a baddie the product of his enviroment and up bringing.

I guess the real baddies in war and that Includes both Alexander and Darius.Kings. Arms manufacturers.

The real baddies are those who make them and cause them.

I have many years admired soldiers and there valour. Honour etc etc. But to be real honest my opinion about any soldier is that they are basically mugs. Fighting and dying in huge numbers for another mans say so.

I have watched movies on Napoleonic wars and see rows upon rows of soldiers slowly walking into battle to be shot down like dicks. at the Command of wellington ans Napoleon. The first world War brave people Shot for cowardice for not commiting suicideagainst some German Machine gun in a bunker. Whilst those pompous gits command and order them to do it.

The real cowrds are those who cause wars sit way behind and send ours your men to be massacred.

kenny