Upcoming Oxford Exhibit - Items from Aigai

[amyntoros]

This time it is England which will host a new exhibit next year - "From Hercules to Alexander: the Legend of Macedonia". I received notification in my mailbox today although I expect Rogueclassicism will be posting about the exhibit soon.

An exhibition on the ancient Macedonian royal lineage of Alexander the Great that presents evidence that his family and kingdom were firmly rooted in the culture and civilisation of ancient Greece will open in Oxford this April.
Titled: “From Hercules to Alexander: the Legend of Macedonia,” the exhibition will run from April 7th until August 29th. It features exhibits currently held at the Aigai Museum in northern Greece that have never before been allowed out of the country.

According to archaeologist Angeliki Kotaridis who worked on the digs at the palace in Aigai, it contains a: “series of finds which prove that Alexander the Great did not just spring out of nowhere to take over the whole world. He was a scion of the Temenides dynasty that ruled the Macedonian kingdom for three and half centuries and who were ‘descendants’ of Hercules and Zeus.”

The exhibition narrative will start from the genealogical tree claimed by the ancient Macedonian kings, stemming from Zeus and Hercules and reaching to Alexander the Great’s son, Alexander IV. It will not be academic in nature but will use all types of audiovisual media including video, photomosaics, 3-D digital reconstructions, and more.

The five sections of the exhibition are the following: the Temenides dynasty; War and hunting; Princesses, Queens and High Priestesses, the role of women in the Macedonian Court; the Symposium, a central event in the life of Macedonians; Aigai, the building plan of Philip II and the Palace.

Among the exhibits will be a marble bust of Alexander from Pella; the only find that does not originate from Aigai, and portraits of Philip and Alexander from the gold and ivory mortuary couch found in the royal tombs at Vergina.

It will feature items from the Aigai museum which have never before been allowed out of Greece?!! Wow. This time I'm jealous.

Best regards,

[athenas owl]

I would love to see this....it sounds wonderful.

Sadly, this:

“series of finds which prove that Alexander the Great did not just spring out of nowhere

rather irritates me. It isn't just an exhibit...though i won't go any further than that, except that I sense some politics.

[amyntoros]

I would love to see this....it sounds wonderful.

Sadly, this:

“series of finds which prove that Alexander the Great did not just spring out of nowhere

rather irritates me. It isn't just an exhibit...though i won't go any further than that, except that I sense some politics.

I know, I know, although it is true that when any attention is paid to ancient Macedonia it is always Alexander first and foremost, with even Philip usually running a distant second. If they are showing exhibts from earlier periods then their statement might not necessarily be about politics. I'm always hopeful. I do wonder, however, what they could possibly be exhibiting which would shed light on "the role of women in the Macedonian Court". Has anyone been to the museum in Aigai and could tell us the kind of items on show?

Best regards,

[athenas owl]

Oh I agree on all that...especially about the women in the Macedonian court.

I think I should have put this quote in...it lays out the politics a bit more clearly.

An exhibition on the ancient Macedonian royal lineage of Alexander the Great that presents evidence that his family and kingdom were firmly rooted in the culture and civilisation of ancient Greece

That said, an exhibit that focuses on the earlier Macedonian kings (and especially I would like to see about the earlier Macedonians period) is very exciting. They fascinate me and their tale is an interesting one...I agree that most often it's Alexander all the time pretty much. I think what really rubbed me the wrong way is that an exhibit used to prove something that is most assuredly because of modern politics (and that certainly works both ways). The big losers in all this are the actual ancient Macedonians. Again I have to stop there..you know why.

But I'd give my eye teeth to be able to go to the exhibit.

edit: if I stepped over the line I will be happy to edit out my comments.

[Nikas]

I think I should have put this quote in...it lays out the politics a bit more clearly.

An exhibition on the ancient Macedonian royal lineage of Alexander the Great that presents evidence that his family and kingdom were firmly rooted in the culture and civilisation of ancient Greece

Oh, what's wrong with this? I don't see anything "political" about this? That the exhibit may have artefacts that show that the "royal lineage of Alexander the Great" were rooted with the ancient civilization of Greece (not modern Greece) is hardly controversial, no?

[athenas owl]

Speaking to the larger archaeological question, I do not like any exhibit that sets out to "prove" anything, to present "evidence". An traveling exhibit should be just that. Not something created to make a point. I see it in "Biblical Archaeology" and here at home for me, in Native American exhibits (this was my actual field of study and where I have experience in field work*)...using archaeology as a political tool just bugs me to no end. The list is endless, of course...all over the world. Of course POV is inherent in any human action. But to openly state that this exhibit is doing such a thing...meh.

Interpretation is important, of course and interpreting for the casual visitor is an critical part. But again, a touring exhibit that mounts evidence to prove a particular POV just bugs me. Leaving aside other views in particular, really bugs me.

* See Kennewick Man. I saw the politics and exited tout suite (yeah, yeah..left out the "de"...maybe I should say "Toot Sweet"... ) because I hate that stuff. The fight (intratribal, intertribal and beyond) over Kennewick Man was and still is depressing. Kennewick Man, 10th and 9th century finds in Israel and Palestine and any other ancient culture should be able to speak for themselves. Preconceived POVs often do not hear what the "bones" are actually telling us. And our knowledge of the world is poorer for it.

Sorry for the rant.


Again, I'd still love to see this exhibit. It sounds fantastic.

[Paralus]

I think I should have put this quote in...it lays out the politics a bit more clearly.

An exhibition on the ancient Macedonian royal lineage of Alexander the Great that presents evidence that his family and kingdom were firmly rooted in the culture and civilisation of ancient Greece

Speaking to the larger archaeological question, I do not like any exhibit that sets out to "prove" anything, to present "evidence". An traveling exhibit should be just that. Not something created to make a point.

Can't agree more. The tennor of the language, unfortunately, leads me suspect it is so presented to suit a political point. Coming to any evidence with a pre-conceived outcome is unlikely to lead to anything being supported other than that outcome.

It's worth remebering that Alexander I went by the moniker "philhellene". For a Greek this is akin to describing Winston Churchill as an Anglophile.

[Nikas]

Speaking to the larger archaeological question, I do not like any exhibit that sets out to "prove" anything, to present "evidence". An traveling exhibit should be just that. Not something created to make a point. I see it in "Biblical Archaeology" and here at home for me, in Native American exhibits (this was my actual field of study and where I have experience in field work*)...using archaeology as a political tool just bugs me to no end. The list is endless, of course...all over the world. Of course POV is inherent in any human action. But to openly state that this exhibit is doing such a thing...meh.

Interpretation is important, of course and interpreting for the casual visitor is an critical part. But again, a touring exhibit that mounts evidence to prove a particular POV just bugs me. Leaving aside other views in particular, really bugs me.

* See Kennewick Man. I saw the politics and exited tout suite (yeah, yeah..left out the "de"...maybe I should say "Toot Sweet"... ) because I hate that stuff. The fight (intratribal, intertribal and beyond) over Kennewick Man was and still is depressing. Kennewick Man, 10th and 9th century finds in Israel and Palestine and any other ancient culture should be able to speak for themselves. Preconceived POVs often do not hear what the "bones" are actually telling us. And our knowledge of the world is poorer for it.

Sorry for the rant.


Again, I'd still love to see this exhibit. It sounds fantastic.

No worries, I see your point, I just happen to have a different perspective. If all the artifacts and "evidence" show, at least on a balance of a reasonable assessment, that their "thesis" is correct, well isn't it all right to present it that way? Isn't that the basis of a scientific method? To be perfectly honest, politics are inescapable under the present modern political issues but an exhibit on Henry VIII would not necessarily have to make the blatant point that Henry VIII was rooted in the culture of 16th century England, but I am sure all the "evidence" would prove pretty convincing? (My history here is hazy, maybe the French would have a case?)

And yes, I would love to see it too!

[Nikas]

It's worth remebering that Alexander I went by the moniker "philhellene". For a Greek this is akin to describing Winston Churchill as an Anglophile.

It is also worth remembering that Plato thought that the true Greek patriot was a "Philhellene" as did Xenophon who thought his good buddy Agesilaus was a great "Philhellene". Of course Isocrates believed Philip would be a great "Philhellene" if he just headed eastwards, and Evagoras and Hieron of Syracuse were also good old "Philhellenes".

Perhaps it is more apt to say that for a Greek, this is akin to describing Winston Churchill as a lover of England and a great English patriot.

[Paralus]

It is also worth remembering that Plato thought that the true Greek patriot was a "Philhellene" as did Xenophon who thought his good buddy Agesilaus was a great "Philhellene". Of course Isocrates believed Philip would be a great "Philhellene" if he just headed eastwards, and Evagoras and Hieron of Syracuse were also good old "Philhellenes".

Perhaps it is more apt to say that for a Greek, this is akin to describing Winston Churchill as a lover of England and a great English patriot.

It is perhaps more apt to say that Alexander I was called "Alexander Philhellene" as Ptolemy I was called "Ptolemy Soter" or Seleucus I as "Seleucus Nickator". Themistocles is never called "Themistocles Philhellene" nor is Leonidas. For that matter nor is the great Spartan imperialist, Agesilaos called "Agesilaos Philhellene". It's an apples v apples type of thing.

That Xenophon might describe his "idol" and fellow panhellenic traveller, Agesilaos, as a great Greek is utterly unsurpising. Ditto Isocrates with respect to Philip. One suspects Isocrates will have described an Illyrian capable of "uniting the Greeks" as such. He'd already wasted the words on Sparta and Jason of Pherae.

[Nikas]

It is perhaps more apt to say that Alexander I was called "Alexander Philhellene" as Ptolemy I was called "Ptolemy Soter" or Seleucus I as "Seleucus Nickator". Themistocles is never called "Themistocles Philhellene" nor is Leonidas. For that matter nor is the great Spartan imperialist, Agesilaos called "Agesilaos Philhellene". It's an apples v apples type of thing.

That Xenophon might describe his "idol" and fellow panhellenic traveller, Agesilaos, as a great Greek is utterly unsurpising. Ditto Isocrates with respect to Philip. One suspects Isocrates will have described an Illyrian capable of "uniting the Greeks" as such. He'd already wasted the words on Sparta and Jason of Pherae.

Not sure I follow your line of reasoning there, but I will risk assuming it goes something like this: A real Hellene could never be called a "Philhellene" and Alexander being specifically pegged as the "Philhellene", as opposed to say the "sot", the "uncommitted", the "ravager" or something could not be a true Hellene?

On the first point I think it is pretty apparent that both Plato and Xenophon believe and outright advocate for, in the Republic and Agesilaos respectively, that the best Greeks are Philhellenes, friends of Greeks and "lovers of Greece". Isocrates, wasted effort on tyrants notwithstanding, seems to have stuck with Greeks whether Athenians, Spartans, Thessalians or Macedonians as the need arose, all speculation aside. I suppose in his 90 plus years he could have picked Bardyllis if he truly had an Illyrian bend? Hieron, Aelian let's us know, was a real "Philhellene" and if only we could have given Jason a few more years to do some more "Philhellenizing", but hey.

On the second point, Alexander's specific appellation, I don't recall the details but I believe he didn't get the moniker until sometime in the Hellenistic Age to distinguish him from his very illustrious descendant, the one that gets forums named for him, or just plain old "Aniketos", "Magnes", or "Megas" as one fancies, not that that truly matters. Now, let's consider that this Alex is not a bad description for a reader well versed in Herodotus, a fellow who apparently very boldly risked his neck right under the Persians noses with his drag queen assassinations, or night time covert escapades to warn the Greeks and get back to his Persian masters in time to sneak a few zzz's. Wily Themi and the Laconian crew didn't have the Persians breathing over their shoulder, or the dread feeling of knowing they could relieve those same shoulders of a particular burden if said escapades were known at the time, so I can see how some Greek could see this as a pretty patriotic kinda guy, so I maintain that Alexander "The Patriot" is a pretty apt description.

[Paralus]

Not sure I follow your line of reasoning there, but I will risk assuming it goes something like this: A real Hellene could never be called a "Philhellene" and Alexander being specifically pegged as the "Philhellene", as opposed to say the "sot", the "uncommitted", the "ravager" or something could not be a true Hellene?

On the first point I think it is pretty apparent that both Plato and Xenophon believe and outright advocate for, in the Republic and Agesilaos respectively, that the best Greeks are Philhellenes, friends of Greeks and "lovers of Greece".

And we can proceed from here. You fail to see my use of "moniker". Alexander I "Philhelene" is an epithet: a descriptive accorded to him as was "saviour" (soter) et al to other kings. The fact is that Hellenes - such as Themistocles, or Agesilaos - are never accorded these epithets. Only the Macedonian (barbaroi) king is.

As an example, can you please indicate the source which states that Agesilaos was called "Agesilaos Philhellene"?

[athenas owl]

No worries, I see your point, I just happen to have a different perspective. If all the artifacts and "evidence" show, at least on a balance of a reasonable assessment, that their "thesis" is correct, well isn't it all right to present it that way? Isn't that the basis of a scientific method? To be perfectly honest, politics are inescapable under the present modern political issues but an exhibit on Henry VIII would not necessarily have to make the blatant point that Henry VIII was rooted in the culture of 16th century England, but I am sure all the "evidence" would prove pretty convincing? (My history here is hazy, maybe the French would have a case?)

And yes, I would love to see it too!

Well Henry was rooted in 16th century English culture. He was 16th century English culture. Your point might have more merit if an exhibit of Henry's family tree attempted to prove that the entire family was rooted in ancient English culture... The Tudors were Welsh. One could say they had been Anglised over the years. Owen Tudor, Henry VIII's great grandfather had been a page in Henry V's court and pulled quite the clever coup by marrying Henry V's widow. But they descended from Rhys ap Gruffydd....and until Owen came to the English court, he was known as Owain ap Maredudd ap Tewdwr or some such. The Welsh might take offense if they were described as rooted in the ancient culture and civilisation of England.

[Nikas]

Well Henry was rooted in 16th century English culture. He was 16th century English culture. Your point might have more merit if an exhibit of Henry's family tree attempted to prove that the entire family was rooted in ancient English culture... The Tudors were Welsh. One could say they had been Anglised over the years. Owen Tudor, Henry VIII's great grandfather had been a page in Henry V's court and pulled quite the clever coup by marrying Henry V's widow. But they descended from Rhys ap Gruffydd....and until Owen came to the English court, he was known as Owain ap Maredudd ap Tewdwr or some such. The Welsh might take offense if they were described as rooted in the ancient culture and civilisation of England.

Heh Heh, I told you I was a little hazy there! Nonetheless, I wouldn't argue that Henry wasn't rooted in the culture and civilization of the England of his time, just like the Macedonians were rooted in the culture and civilization of their time. We are not comparing England of the 16th century with the Celts of pre-Roman Britain.

[Nikas]

And we can proceed from here. You fail to see my use of "moniker". Alexander I "Philhelene" is an epithet: a descriptive accorded to him as was "saviour" (soter) et al to other kings. The fact is that Hellenes - such as Themistocles, or Agesilaos - are never accorded these epithets. Only the Macedonian (barbaroi) king is.

As an example, can you please indicate the source which states that Agesilaos was called "Agesilaos Philhellene"?

And you fail to see that your underlying argument is faulty. You are basically simply saying that a Hellene could not have the epithet "Philhellene", that only (as you put it) a "barbarian" could, but that is simply wrong. To do this, you have to prove that it was unheard of, or inconceivable for a Hellene to be potentially called a "Philhellene". It is not enough to say that just because Alexander had the epithet "Philhellene" that he was a "barbarian" by assumption. To put as an example, to the best of my knowledge there were only one each of Ptolemy "Philadelphus" or "Philometor" or "Euregetes", but I am sure there was more than one of the Ptolemies that loved their brother, or mother, or were a benefactor to someone. I can only recall one "The Just" but I am sure there had to be more than one that could have got that one, maybe Timoleon? I could also say that poor Philip II, or Themistocles, or Miltiades, or Epaminondas never got the good old "Great" tag to stick (or Caesar for that matter?) but I could certainly build a plausible case that they were pretty "Great". You can argue that Alexander was a "barbaroi" for a variety of other reasons, although we are definitely now treading in taboo waters as far as this forum's rules go, but I don't believe you can do it based on your current argument.

I will share a couple of examples that I believe pretty clearly show that not only was it entirely conceivable in Greek culture and consciousness, it was downright laudatory for a Greek to be a "Philhellene":

Regarding Agesilaus (I never said he had the epithet) Xenophon is very clearly talking about his hero here. I include the original Greek so you can clearly see that I am not misappropriating the "Philhellene" (if you can't read Greek my apologies but the translation follows):

"[4] εἴ γε μὴν αὖ Ἕλληνα ὄντα φιλέλληνα εἶναι, τίνα τις οἶδεν ἄλλον στρατηγὸν ἢ πόλιν οὐκ ἐθέλοντα αἱρεῖν, ὅταν οἴηται πορθήσειν, ἢ συμφορὰν νομίζοντα τὸ νικᾶν ἐν τῷ πρὸς Ἕλληνας πολέμῳ;

Again, if it is honourable in one who is a Greek to be a friend to the Greeks, what other general (Agesilaus) has the world seen unwilling to take a city when he thought that it would be sacked, or who looked on victory in a war against Greeks as a disaster?"

Xenophon, Agesilaos 7.4

Also:

οὐκοῦν καὶ ἀγαθοί τε καὶ ἥμεροι ἔσονται; σφόδρα γε.ἀλλ᾽ οὐ φιλέλληνες; οὐδὲ οἰκείαν τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἡγήσονται, οὐδὲ κοινωνήσουσιν ὧνπερ οἱ ἄλλοι ἱερῶν; καὶ σφόδρα γε.

“Will they then not be good and gentle?” “Indeed they will.” And won't they be philhellenes, lovers of Greeks, and will they not regard all Greece as their own and not renounce their part in the holy places common to all Greeks ?” “Most certainly.”

Plato, Republic 5.47

I could go on, but I don't really believe it can honestly be denied that for a Greek to be a "Philhellene" was at the very least extremely conceivable and most likely as well an entrenched and lauded honour in ancient Greek culture. Therefore, I continue to maintain that Alexander I the "Philhellene" was very appropriately given his moniker "The Patriot" given his deeds and reputation, and I further believe that the burden of proof falls on you to show that he was a "Philhellene" only, and only, because he was a "barbarian". Simply saying that because no other Greek got a similar moniker, is as saying that because no other Greek got the epithet "The Effiminate" does not mean there weren't any.