Original statue of Alexander was found, built by Lysippos

[Cyrus Shahmiri]

http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=23376

[marcus]

http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=23376

Thanks for the link, Cyrus. I have to say that I'm somewhat dubious - how do they know it's Alexander, and by Lysippos? To be honest, it looks more like Augustus to me!

ATB

[Cyrus Shahmiri]

I think it is enough to know where it has been found.

http://www.aftab.ir/travel/iran/khozest ... figure.php (This Persian website talk about it)

[Paralus]

I think it is enough to know where it has been found.

No, I'd think not. Its provenance will require a little more to trace other than the place in which it was found. One might as well declare that an Attic potter was at work in the Black Sea towns of the fifth century BC due to the amount of pottery and sherds collected. That it had more to do with Athenian grain trading would be closer to the point.

Alexander, according to the sources, did not overly bother himself with Susa. That is not to say he did not spend time there. He travelled the old Persian capitals over his last eighteen months. Even so, Babylon would have been the city of the court.

There were likely many copies of these statues over time. The Romans were, in fact, the first great "cut-and-pasters" - particularly when it came to Greek art.

There would need to be some compelling evidence to boldy declare this an original Lysippus. Your evidence is nought more than a statement.

[amyntoros]

We generally look for several indications that an image is Alexander - bulging forehead, leonine hair (in Hellenistic art), the anastole/cowlick, eyes gazing upwards, and the leaning (rather than twisting) of the neck. It's difficult to be sure with this piece, but it does not look as if the eyes have an upwards turn and the damage makes it impossible to know if the head was inclined. The forehead and hair are evident, but as all the earliest images of Alexander show him with shorter hair I'd be inclined to believe that this is not a work by Lysippus, even if it IS Alexander.

I tried to find some further information on the Web in English, but there's nought to be found. The National Museum of Iran has a webpage with an English link, but none of the internal links seem to be working.

Best regards,

[Cyrus Shahmiri]

No, I'd think not.

Why? Isn't it enough that we know this region was never conquered by westerners except Macedonians and this is certainly not an Iranian statue? Of course there are several other evidences which prove this is a statue of Alexander, in fact it has been found in a Greek/Macedonian temple, including several other ancient objects.

Alexander, according to the sources, did not overly bother himself with Susa. That is not to say he did not spend time there. He travelled the old Persian capitals over his last eighteen months. Even so, Babylon would have been the city of the court.

Susa, as the major capital of the Persian empire, was the most important and largest city in that period, capturing this city meant conquering the whole of the huge Persian empire, I don't know why people think Babylon could be just important for Alexander!!

[amyntoros]

Why? Isn't it enough that we know this region was never conquered by westerners except Macedonians and this is certainly not an Iranian statue? Of course there are several other evidences which prove this is a statue of Alexander, in fact it has been found in a Greek/Macedonian temple, including several other ancient objects.

I still don't see that it automatically follows that the statue was made by Lysippus. As you said, the region was never conquered except by the Macedonians - which means that it could have been made any time during the Seleucid period, could it not?

Best regards,

[Phoebus]

I actually think it looks like good old Seleucos, myself...

[amyntoros]

I actually think it looks like good old Seleucos, myself...

As in the image on this site? Good call, by the way. I didn't make the connection myself, but something bothered me about the mouth on the bronze - the upper lip seems just a little too thin for Alexander. It is, however, a good match for Seleucus.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

Why? Isn't it enough that we know this region was never conquered by westerners except Macedonians and this is certainly not an Iranian statue? Of course there are several other evidences which prove this is a statue of Alexander, in fact it has been found in a Greek/Macedonian temple, including several other ancient objects.

The Seleucid angle has been addressed adequately. You ignore it with "Of course there are several other evidences which prove this is a statue of Alexander..." Such as?

Even if this were a statue of Alexander, what concrete evidence supports the bald assertion that it is an original Lysippus?

Susa, as the major capital of the Persian empire, was the most important and largest city in that period, capturing this city meant conquering the whole of the huge Persian empire, I don't know why people think Babylon could be just important for Alexander!!

Susawas the major capital of the Elamite/Neo Elamite kingdom. The propaganda/power centre of the Persian Empire was Persepolis. The buildings proclaim it loudly. Alexander, given the resistance he faced in Persis, recognised this enough to allow the sack of the city and its subsequent rape and pillage. He also considered the destruction of palace complex - the erasure of the Persian "New York Times" - a worthwhile lesson.

As to why "people" think Babylon was "important" to Alexander, I suppose the location of his court there rather than Persepolis, Pasargadae or, for that matter, Susa might have something to do with it. He evidently saw it as the "capital" of his new empire as a succession of Great Kings saw Persepolis.

Strangely enough, the Hellenistic monarchs from Antigonus, Seleucus onwards, also saw little need to settle themselves in Susa. Babylon, it seems, had assumed the role of Persepolis. Its proximity to the trans-Euphrates will have helped.

[marcus]

Why? Isn't it enough that we know this region was never conquered by westerners except Macedonians and this is certainly not an Iranian statue? Of course there are several other evidences which prove this is a statue of Alexander, in fact it has been found in a Greek/Macedonian temple, including several other ancient objects.

The Seleucid angle has been addressed adequately. You ignore it with "Of course there are several other evidences which prove this is a statue of Alexander..." Such as?

Even if this were a statue of Alexander, what concrete evidence supports the bald assertion that it is an original Lysippus?

Susa, as the major capital of the Persian empire, was the most important and largest city in that period, capturing this city meant conquering the whole of the huge Persian empire, I don't know why people think Babylon could be just important for Alexander!!

Susawas the major capital of the Elamite/Neo Elamite kingdom. The propaganda/power centre of the Persian Empire was Persepolis. The buildings proclaim it loudly. Alexander, given the resistance he faced in Persis, recognised this enough to allow the sack of the city and its subsequent rape and pillage. He also considered the destruction of palace complex - the erasure of the Persian "New York Times" - a worthwhile lesson.

As to why "people" think Babylon was "important" to Alexander, I suppose the location of his court there rather than Persepolis, Pasargadae or, for that matter, Susa might have something to do with it. He evidently saw it as the "capital" of his new empire as a succession of Great Kings saw Persepolis.

Strangely enough, the Hellenistic monarchs from Antigonus, Seleucus onwards, also saw little need to settle themselves in Susa. Babylon, it seems, had assumed the role of Persepolis. Its proximity to the trans-Euphrates will have helped.

Thanks, Paralus - this saves me the trouble of writing a post myself!

ATB

[marcus]

... in fact it has been found in a Greek/Macedonian temple, including several other ancient objects.

Which proves nothing, least of all that it is of Alexander and most certainly not that it is a Lysippus original.

ATB

[Paralus]

Thanks, Paralus - this saves me the trouble of writing a post myself!

Any time good sir, any time. My rates are most affordable: a decent glass of shiraz!

[agesilaos]

Like Marcus I would say it looks like Augustus, although Tiberius is another possibility. Augustus had alot of diplomatic traffic with the Parthians concerning the recovery of Crassus' lost eagles among other things and the settlement in Armenia; it would not be incongruous to find a statue of him in the East and the natural place for it would be in a temple of the indigenous Greek population.

It does not look like Seleukos to me and the statue on the French site is either a modern attempt or a Roman copy the only certain portrait is the obverse of a tetradrachm though I cannot recall the reverse off hand possibly Boukephalos with horns?

[Cyrus Shahmiri]

This is something Iranian archaeologists say, not me.

Lets compare:





Coins and pics of Alexander: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/a ... _pics.html


Typical coin of Alexander, showing him as Heracles
(Struck at Alexandria, between 326 and 323)

Coins of Seleucid Kings: http://www.livius.org/se-sg/seleucids/s ... kings.html

Look at this again:



Characteristics of bronze staute of Alexander, by Lysippos: http://archaeology.suite101.com/article ... _the_great

1. turn of the neck (leaning the head towards the right)
2. slightly parted lips
3. aspiring glance
4. the anastole (flip of the hair)

The hair standing up over the forehead like a lion's mane: