Land bridge to Tyre
- McDaniel, 2019
- This is the site of the ancient city of Tyre. As you can see, now it is on a peninsula attached to the mainland, but it was not originally. Originally, Tyre was on an island off the coast, but Alexander the Great, during his siege of Tyre in 332 BC, built a land bridge from the coast to the island.
- Kevin R. Henke, 1.III.2022
- McDaniel’s statements on the Tyre land bridge are brief and generally accurate. Marriner et al. (2007), Marriner et al. (2008) and Nir (1996) further discuss the geology of the land bridge, how Alexander and his troops probably constructed it, and how nature has modified it over time. Marriner et al. (2008) contains numerous radiocarbon dates, but none of them appear relevant to when Alexander the Great constructed the land bridge.
- Sources
- here cited by Henke
- Marriner, N., C. Morhange, and S. Meulé. 2007. “Holocene Morphogenesis of Alexander the Great’s Isthmus at Tyre in Lebanon”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 104, n. 22, pp. 9218-9223.
Marriner, N., J.P. Goiran, and C. Morhange. 2008. “Alexander the Great’s Tombolos at Tyre and Alexandria, Eastern Mediterranean”, Geomorphology, v. 100, pp. 377-400.
Nir, Y. 1996. “The City of Tyre, Lebanon and Its Semi-Artificial Tombolo”, Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, v. 11, n. 3, pp. 235-250.
- My reply
- No physical tie of the land bridge to that exact time.
The probability of Alexander constructing it comes from the written sources (see on these later) that Marriner et al. and also Nir were able to read.
Without this, the land bridge could have been from centuries earlier and later. There are arguably for later periods other written sources mentioning the land bridge as already existing, but with radical scepticism against history, as narrative from the past, that Henke displays, why would these be more sufficient than the extant land bridge as such?
Coins
- McDaniel, 2019
- Here is a silver coin with Alexander’s face on the obverse and his name clearly written on the reverse, minted c. 333 – c. 327 BC in Kilikia while Alexander was still alive:
- Kevin R. Henke, 1.III.2022
- McDaniel (2019), however, incorrectly states that the coins show Alexander’s face on them. Most experts think that the faces on the coins, such as those shown in the figures in McDaniel (2019), represent Hercules wearing a lion skin. The seated figure on the reverse side is Zeus (Kontes 2000; Gatzke 2021, pp. 98-99). Gatzke (2021) suggests reasons why Alexander the Great used the image of Hercules on his coins. ... I also fully recognize that mythical beings, such as Hercules or Harry Potter, sometimes appear on coins. My point is - it’s often not the image on the coin that is important, but who had the power and wealth to issue the coins. ... Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. (2000, p. 342) states that Alexander the Great established at least 31 mints in his Empire between 334 and 323 BC.
- Sources
- here cited by Henke
- Gatzke, A.F. 2021. “Heracles, Alexander, and Hellenistic Coinage”: Acta Classica, LXIV, pp. 98-123.
Kallithrakas-Kontes, N., A.A. Katsanos, and J. Tourastsoglou. 2000. “Trace Element Analysis of Alexander the Great’s Silver Tetradrachms Minted in Macedonia”: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research v. B 171, pp. 342-349.
Kontes, Z.S. 2000 “The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great”: The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great | Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology | Brown University (accessed February 27, 2022).
- My reply
- I would need to acknowledge that someone or something at the time of the coining referred to as Alexander existed.
That this entity disposed of a mint in Macedonia - and elsewhere in the budding Hellenistic world.
And even that around the time of Alexander coinage was changed for Amphictyonic league.
But that epigraphic evidence in itself does not feature the Alexandrou coins:
Realizing the importance of the Amphictionic League and Delphi to a ruler trying to establish himself as hegemon of Greece, we can understand the importance of these inscriptions. The new Amphictionic money was set up under Palaios, the last archon during the reign of Philip. The decisive battle of the Chaironeia essentially united all of Greece under Philip. It is not hard to imagine then that the striking of a new Amphictionic coinage would be at the behest of Philip, identifying himself as the hegemon. Following that then, as Marchetti argues, Alexander would have wanted to establish himself at Delphi as soon as possible upon his accession to the throne. The abrupt cessation of the newly created Amphictionic money must have been ordered by Alexander. If this money was stopped before the recasting of money on an Attic standard, as Marchetti has shown, then the use of the Attic standard cannot be separated from Alexander's use of the Attic standard for his own coinage. Therefore, Alexander's coinage must have already been in effect.
Thank you, Zoë Kontes, I agree, but you will have to admit that your argument does depend on the Alexander literature (Diodore to Arrian) for certain specifics and can therefore not establish these independently of the ancient narratives.
Art, Greco-Roman
- McDaniel, 2019
- mentions the sarcophagus
- Kevin R. Henke, 1.III.2022
- mentions the sarcophagus gets its name only from the art work
- My reply
- This would make the sarcophagus the earliest art work with Alexander motifs, but some interpret the battle scenes (there is no inscription stating "Alexandros") as mythological:
This identification has prompted some scholars to view the scene with an historicising approach as they have attempted to reconcile it with a real event from Alexander’s campaigns. Those in favour of identifying the sarcophagus’ owner as the Persian leader Mazaeus have suggested that the scene depicts the Battle of Gaugamela. However, it is most widely assumed to depict the Battle of Issus in 333BCE, a decisive military victory for Alexander which opened up much of the area around Sidon to his control. However, an alternative interpretation is that the scene is likely not intended as a direct record of a certain battle but is a semi-mythologised scene that alludes to a point in the military conquest. It has been noted that some of the figures are rendered in the nude. Nudity in ancient Greek art was used as a deliberate costume implying heroism, divinity or, in some contexts, mortal athleticism. The appearance of nude figures in an otherwise realistic battle scene can support the idea that the viewer is intended to view the scene within a partially mythic context, and not as an entirely historical depiction.
The So-Called 'Alexander' Sarcophagus: A Confluence of Cultures
Academus Education, Oct 26, 2020, 7 min read
https://www.academuseducation.co.uk/post/the-so-called-alexander-sarcophagus
In other words, no reliable record of a real life actual ruler, Alexander or otherwise - even if contemporary to the events given in the Alexander literature.
The marble statue is from 1st C. (reference later) either BC or AD. The mosaic is from 1st C. BC.
None of above could, independently of the Alexander literature or other kinds of memories of Alexander establish that he lived as a mortal both ruler of Macedon and conqueror of the Persian Empire.
If all examples, manuscript or printed, of the Alexander literature were somehow lost (say sth like the decrees and acts of Qin Shi Huang, 213 and 212 BC, according to narratives after the events) one would however be able to use these as some kind of confirmation of oral memories, since these are less easy to physically destroy.
But our knowledge of Alexander from these things depends on our knowledge of Alexander from narratives, not the other way round.
The coins, like Greek art in Bactria, would obviously testify to the unity of the Hellenistic world from around the time of Alexander, and my argument is, we trust the narratives of the Hellenistic world on how it started - like I also do with "post-Achaean unity" Greece or ancient Israel or the line of patriarchs - not to mention the Christian Church.
But Henke's too smart to believe (grosso modo) Homer or Genesis or Exodus or Gospels (where grosso modo would be a fair intro to believing them as inerrant, because of the divine intervention testified). Hence, he's blocking himself from this argument on the Hellenistic world too.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. John of God
8.III.2022
Granatae, in Hispania, sancti Joannis de Deo Confessoris, qui Ordinis Fratrum Hospitalitatis infirmorum fuit Institutor, ac misericordia in pauperes et sui despectu exstitit insignis; quem Leo Decimus tertius, Pontifex Maximus, caelestem omnium hospitalium et infirmorum Patronum renuntiavit.
To next post - Real Confirmation : Too Late and Too Little Outside Greco-Roman Sphere
RépondreSupprimer