Siwah - so bad

[agesilaos]

Just watched a Discovery programme on 'The Lost Tomb of Alexander'; in it some alleged academic has Alexander consulting the God at Siwah in the form of a statue of a ram with the priest talking from a hidden corridor behind it.

Now, maybe I am being dumb but doesn't Diodoros who is copying Kleitarchos, an Alexandrian author describe the method of consultation as the interpretation of the movements of a boat in response to questions and the image of the god as a rock, most likely a meteorite like the later Heliogabalus whose name Antoninus Bassianus took.

Maybe these shows don't have enough budget to give the speakers source books! I presume Messers Chugg and Saunders had bought their own.

[marcus]

Just watched a Discovery programme on 'The Lost Tomb of Alexander'; in it some alleged academic has Alexander consulting the God at Siwah in the form of a statue of a ram with the priest talking from a hidden corridor behind it.

Now, maybe I am being dumb but doesn't Diodoros who is copying Kleitarchos, an Alexandrian author describe the method of consultation as the interpretation of the movements of a boat in response to questions and the image of the god as a rock, most likely a meteorite like the later Heliogabalus whose name Antoninus Bassianus took.

Maybe these shows don't have enough budget to give the speakers source books! I presume Messers Chugg and Saunders had bought their own.

You're right about the "boat" being described.

At the temple in Siwah, however, there is indeed a small chamber behind the shrine from which it has been deduced the oracle was spoken. So I suppose they were using the archaeology to some extent, at least, even if they forgot to check the literary sources!

ATB

[Taphoi]

Hi Agesilaos,

I should say that I did not contribute to the Siwah part of this documentary.

However, to be fair, the sources themselves are not very consistent on what happened at Siwah. Arguably the nearest thing we have to an eyewitness is Strabo 17.1.43 quoting Callisthenes. This version does have the chief priest mimicking Zeus (=Zeus-Ammon?). Callisthenes also says that nobody but Alexander was present during his interview with the Oracle. Callisthenes and Plutarch are clear that the priest "told" Alexander that he was the Son of Zeus.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Here is the Strabo from Perseus

(43) Having before spoken at length of the temple of Ammon, we wish to add this only, that in ancient times divination in general and oracles were held in greater esteem than at present. Now they are greatly neglected ; for the Romans are satisfied with the oracles of the Sibyl, and with Tyrrhenian divination by the entrails of animals, the flight of birds, and portentous appearances. Hence the oracle of Ammon, which was formerly held in great esteem, is now nearly deserted. This [p. 259] appears chiefly from the historians who have recorded the actions of Alexander, adding, indeed, much that has the appearance of flattery, but yet relating what is worthy of credit. Callisthenes, for instance, says that Alexander was ambitious of the glory of visiting the oracle, because he knew that Perseus and Hercules had before performed the journey thither. He set out from Parætonium, although the south winds were blowing, and succeeded in his undertaking by vigour and perseverance. When out of his way on the road, he escaped being overwhelmed in a sand-storm by a fall of rain, and by the guidance of two crows, which directed his course. These things are stated by way of flattery, as also what follows: that the priest permitted the king alone to pass into the temple in his usual dress, whereas the others changed theirs; that all heard the oracles on the outside of the temple, except Alexander, who was in the interior of the building; that the answers were not given, as at Delphi and at Branchidæ, in words, but chiefly by nods and signs, as in Homer; `the son of Saturn nodded with his sable brows,'84 the prophet imitating Jupiter. This, however, the man told the king, in express terms, that he was the son of Jupiter. Callisthenes adds, (after the exaggerating style of tragedy,) that when Apollo had deserted the oracle among the Branchidæ, on the temple being plundered by the Branchidæ (who espoused the party of the Persians in the time of Xerxes,) and the spring had failed, it then re-appeared (on the arrival of Alexander); that the ambassadors also of the Milesians carried back to Memphis numerous answers of the oracle respecting the descent of Alexander from Jupiter, and the future victory which he should obtain at Arbela, the death of Darius, and the political changes at Lacedæmon. He says also that the Erythræan Athenais, who resembled the ancient Erythræan Sibyl, had declared the high descent of Alexander. Such are the accounts of historians.

Kallisthenes says it was by nods and signs, not some clown hiding in a corridor; the statement that he was the son of Zeus would be Strabo paraphrasing the story of the priest's greeting 'O pai Dion' rather than the purport of the private consultation. I interpret that as meaning that Alexander was able to ask his questions in private in the inner court.

The secret chamber game was quite common in Hellenistic temples I wonder if it was a later addition, although there are earlier Egyptian examples too, it does seem to betoken a change in the method of divination.

Andrew I was not accusing you of having anything to do with the Siwah part (the urge to rag you by name would have been irresistable!); it just seemed incongruous to have that tacked on at the beginning. Having Perdikkas die in battle one can allow but making Alexander, an arch manipulator, the dupe of a temple priest was hard to take.

For the record I do disagree with your interpretation but only on the grounds that Strabo places the Sema elsewhere and he had been there or am I mistaken; it is not my area of expertise. I just think the true site has been built over for centuries, if only the Sultan had had a Prince Charles to promote the interests of retro-chic in architecture!

[Taphoi]

For the record I do disagree with your interpretation but only on the grounds that Strabo places the Sema elsewhere and he had been there or am I mistaken; it is not my area of expertise. I just think the true site has been built over for centuries, if only the Sultan had had a Prince Charles to promote the interests of retro-chic in architecture!

And the city contains most beautiful public precincts and also the royal palaces, which constitute one-fourth or even one-third of the whole area within the walls of the city; for just as each of the kings, from love of splendour, was wont to add some adornment to the public monuments, so also he would invest himself at his own expense with a residence, in addition to those already built, so that now, to quote the words of the poet, "there is building upon building." All, however, are connected with one another and the harbour, even those that lie outside the harbour. The Museum is also a part of the royal palaces; it has a public walk, an Exedra with seats, and a large house, in which is the common mess-hall of the men of learning who share the Museum. This group of men not only hold property in common, but also have a priest in charge of the Museum, who formerly was appointed by the kings, but is now appointed by Caesar. The Soma also, as it is called, is a part of the royal palaces. This was the enclosure which contained the burial-places of the kings and that of Alexander.

Hi Agesilaos,

For the record, you are mistaken. One of the main drivers behind my theory is that it reconciles all the eyewitness sources (all the non-eyewitness sources as well actually.) What Strabo says is that the tomb was in the Royal part of Alexandria (Basileia = Kingston-upon-Alexandria). People have translated this as "Palaces" which is much too narrow, because it means all the Royal buildings collectively. Strabo also states that his Kingston district of Alexandria was between a quarter and a third of the entire city! The actual palaces (i.e. dwelling places of the kings) were barely a tenth of the city. My location is well within the scope of Strabo's Kingston. It is inevitable that Strabo's Kingston encompassed the central crossroads if he is correct about its size (and as you say: he was an eyewitness, so how could he be wrong?)

Best wishes,

Andrew

PS. All the manuscripts of Strabo read "Soma" - "Sema" is a gloss by modern editors and is very probably wrong.

[agesilaos]

Like I said not my aoe, thanks for the clarification; doesn't 'soma' mean 'living body'? As when Joseph of Arimethea asks Pilate for the Crucified Jesus? My koine is somewhat rusty.

[Taphoi]

doesn't 'soma' mean 'living body'? As when Joseph of Arimethea asks Pilate for the Crucified Jesus? My koine is somewhat rusty.

In Homer soma usually means a dead body, but later it came to mean either a living or dead body, especially as opposed to the soul: nekros was corpse. Soma can also mean a material body - much like body in English The reason we know that Soma was correct is that the early and accurate Armenian translation of the Alexander Romance also states that Alexander's tomb was called "Body of Alexander" (this passage is missing from other early manuscripts of the Romance.)

In The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great I have argued that Strabo's Soma enclosure was more or less identical with the Alpha Quarter of Alexandria. The Romance says that the five quarters (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta & Epsilon) were named after the initial letters of the phrase Alexandros Basileus Genos Dios Ektise polin aeimneston; hence the Alpha Quarter was "Alexander", just as it contained his actual body. Furthermore, I have suggested that this enclosure, which encompassed the central crossroads, may actually have been Alexander's original foundation of Alexandria. The city seen by Strabo was five kilometres wide - much too big to have been the initial bounds. Probably Alexander's enclosure rapidly became reserved for major temples, mausoleums and other large royal buildings as the city grew explosively in the 3rd century BC. The area I have proposed (based on ancient wall lines that survived into the 19th century) happens to be the shape of a chlamys cloak. One of the most common but mysterious ancient descriptions of Alexandria asserts that it was the shape of a chlamys, but this is very difficult to recognise in the outer defensive walls.

Hence you can see that the tomb enclosure may have been the Body of Alexander in multiple senses, which would have appealed to the Alexandrians who delighted in plays on words.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Fiona]

Very interesting posts in this thread, thank you, I enjoyed reading them.
I see that Strabo says that the others who were with Alexander had to change their clothes, whereas Alexander was permitted not to.
Presumably this was some kind of ceremonial dress - what would it have consisted of, do you think?
Fiona

[agesilaos]

It may just be that they had to don civilian clothes whereas Alexander was permitted to remain in arms, or even that he was allowed in in his dirty travelling clothes and they were not.

[amyntoros]

It may just be that they had to don civilian clothes whereas Alexander was permitted to remain in arms, or even that he was allowed in in his dirty travelling clothes and they were not.

I share your thoughts and I think either possibility is likely, or even both. In both Greece and Egypt there were strict rules for seeing an oracle and/or entering a temple, ritual cleanliness being paramount. Can't remember offhand exactly the number of days, but to consult the oracle at Delphi one had to go through a long process of "on site" preparation. I think it was at least four days of waiting and ritual, but might have been as long as a week (I can look it up if anyone is interested.) Anyway, the fact that Alexander was allowed to break more than one rule at Siwah seems to demonstrate exceptional treatment for the conqueror and a recognition of extremely high status.

Best regards,

[marcus]

Anyway, the fact that Alexander was allowed to break more than one rule at Siwah seems to demonstrate exceptional treatment for the conqueror and a recognition of extremely high status.

Or maybe they had heard about the way he manhandled the Pythia at Delphi, and decided not to take any chances!

ATB

[athenas owl]

Anyway, the fact that Alexander was allowed to break more than one rule at Siwah seems to demonstrate exceptional treatment for the conqueror and a recognition of extremely high status.

Or maybe they had heard about the way he manhandled the Pythia at Delphi, and decided not to take any chances!

ATB

Am I bad person because I thoroughly enjoy that story? The Pythia being dragged to the tripod by a young brat of a king just tickles me to no end. But then I think that Delphi had become quite the racket by ATG's time, so my sympathies are lessened...and nine days a year? Nice work if you can get it!

[Taphoi]

Am I bad person because I thoroughly enjoy that story? The Pythia being dragged to the tripod by a young brat of a king just tickles me to no end. But then I think that Delphi had become quite the racket by ATG's time, so my sympathies are lessened...and nine days a year? Nice work if you can get it!

[marcus]

Hi Andrew,

It's a nice picture - you've got quite a number from that "series", haven't you? - but he doesn't look very coercing; and she doesn't look very coerced!

ATB

[Fiona]

That's a good one!
Thank you for all the interesting thoughts, too.
Fiona

Or maybe they had heard about the way he manhandled the Pythia at Delphi, and decided not to take any chances!

ATB