The reason we are sure there are no mammals in the pre-Cambrian is firstly that a very comprehensive search of pre-Cambrian rocks has been undertaken. Such a search result is in itself evidence of absence, because it shows that the absence is significant. Evidently no comprehensive search has been performed by Stewart (or his reference on the matter: Comparanda, Morrow, 1985). Secondly, the theory of Evolution, for which there is a huge body of evidence, tells us that there will not be any mammal fossils in pre-Cambrian rocks.agesilaos wrote:Sounds like a logical position; but, were I to say that there were mammals in the Pre-Cambrian we just have not found their fossils, the absurdity of the assertion is apparent. I also think Stewart is being rather more specific in his stylistic description than you are allowing, he is talking about a very specific form of boot. Similarly where is your evidence, Taphers, that the originals were Fourth century? Erant fortes ante postque Agamemnon.
You have also missed the point of the identikit costumes. It is not Hephaistion who is being aped but Alexander, whose imitation was a standard trope, even down to Pompeius' sobriquet Magnus. These two are not fine products of Hellenistic art but either later pieces or low grade IMHO. Stewart actually provides a reasonable solution quite incidentally. He mentions this from Plutarch's 'Antony' 54 iii
He only mentions viii, but here we have Ptolemy identified with Macedonia and surely Alexander; the portrayal of the actual Alexander son of Antony as the Persian king speaks to the present ambitions of Antony. If the second figure is a teenager it might explain the lesser stature. The boots are also associated with Dionysos and him with Antony, a well known potator.3 He was hated, too, for the distribution which he made to his children in Alexandria; it was seen to be theatrical and arrogant, and to evince hatred of Rome. For after filling the gymnasium with a throng and placing on a tribunal of silver two thrones of gold, one for himself and the other for Cleopatra, and other lower thrones for his sons, 4 in the first place he declared Cleopatra Queen of Egypt, Cyprus, Libya, and Coele Syria, and she was to share her throne with Caesarion. Caesarion was believed to be a son of the former Caesar, by whom Cleopatra was left pregnant. In the second place, he proclaimed his own sons by Cleopatra Kings of Kings, and to Alexander he allotted Armenia, Media and Parthia (when he should have subdued it), to Ptolemy Phoenicia, Syria, and Cilicia.5 At the same time he also produced his sons, Alexander arrayed in Median garb, which included a tiara and upright head-dress, Ptolemy in boots, short cloak, and broad-brimmed hat surmounted by a diadem. For the latter was the dress of the kings who followed Alexander, the former that of Medes and Armenians. 6 And when the boys had embraced their parents, one was given a bodyguard of Armenians, the other of Macedonians. Cleopatra, indeed, both then and at other times when she appeared in public, assumed a robe sacred to Isis, and was addressed as the New Isis.
The identical costumes in late 4th century style would suggest to any viewer that Alexander's companion was one of his contemporaries. Any later king or prince being portrayed with Alexander would surely have shown himself in his own typical attire in order to make himself recognisable and not invite confusion with Alexander's lover and the inevitable jokes. The Hephaistion figure is not wearing a hat or a diadem or krepides, so he is evidently not Ptolemy being dressed up as a Macedonian prince by Antony for the Donations. Ptolemy was born around 36BC, so he was a toddler only about 3 years old at the time of the Donations.
What is actually implied by the fact that the Demetrio statues are modest quality, smaller than life-size and yet in perfectly accurate dress for Alexander's visit to Egypt in 332-331BC is that they are later copies of a major life-size work which was produced not long after the foundation of Alexandria to adorn the city. It is interesting, for example, that the one standard element that is missing from Alexander's costume is the diadem, which he probably did not adopt until after the final defeat of Darius a couple of years later (or possibly post-Arbela, when he made himself king of Asia). This would fit with the original statues being part of a contemporaneous depiction of Alexander's foundation of Alexandria accompanied by Hephaistion.
The Hephaistion figure is 79cm tall and the Alexander is 82cm tall. Since these are poor quality copies, an inch of difference in height may not have any significance at all or it may just reflect an artistic convention of showing the more senior figure with slightly greater stature.