Andrew Chugg's 'Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great'

[susan]

I've recently read Andrew Chugg's book, and here is my review:To quote from the blurb on the back of the book:GÇ£The disappearance and fate of the tomb of Alexander the Great in Alexandria is among the most momentous and tantalising of all the mysteries we have inherited from the ancient world. Generations of archaeologists and historians have succumbed to the allure of the quest; yet have failed to find convincing answers. Now with the dawning of the 21st century new research is revealing hitherto unrecognised evidence and providing fresh insights, creating a frisson of renewed excitement in academic circles. This new title combines a detailed chronological account of the history of the tomb with the first publication of new discoveries. Finally, an intriguing new possibility is explored regarding the whereabouts of Alexander's mummified remains.GÇ¥This is an authoritative book on a subject that has only been scantily covered previously GÇô the location of the resting-places of AlexanderGÇÖs body since his death. It starts at the point where most modern & ancient sources end: at AlexanderGÇÖs death, and it concentrates heavily on the geographical and topographical (layout) aspects GÇô using lavish illustrations of ancient, medieval & modern plans, charts & engravings. AlexanderGÇÖs tomb was mentioned by many classical writers over a period of several hundred years, and this book does the excellent service of collecting these quotations in one place, and analysing them as a whole, so that a complete picture emerges.The main account is chronological, starting with AlexanderGÇÖs death in Babylon; speculation on where he wanted to be buried, description of his catafalque & account of PtolemyGÇÖs hijacking. He was initially entombed at Memphis, and Mr Chugg makes suggestions about the tombGÇÖs appearance & location, and the possible present-day location of the sarcophagus. A later Ptolemy moved it to Alexandria and constructed the Soma or tomb; its appearance can be gleaned from mosaics and other tombs of the same period.
Romans emperors were fascinated by Alexander, and used him as a prop for their imperial ambitions and grandeur. Mr Chugg describes their visits, including Caesar, Caligula & Hadrian and then tracks down the last references from late classical writers.
Sometime towards the end of the 4th century, the location of AlexanderGÇÖs tomb was lost. Mr Chugg speculates on how and why this might have occurred. There are a few references under the A

[susan]

There are a few references under the Arab rulers, then the Renaissance brought renewed interest in locating AlexanderGÇÖs tomb. Interest in the topography of ancient Alexandria has grown since then, partly spurred on by Napoleon. Modern archaeological discoveries are adding to the pictureA key point to determining the site of the Soma is its position close to the central crossroads of ancient Alexandria. The cityGÇÖs layout has changed greatly over the centuries, and Mr Chugg attempts to unravel the different phases of building, courses of the walls and topography, in order to try out to pinpoint the SomaGÇÖs exact location. The book then discusses recent developments and myths GÇô for instance the Alabaster tomb, the Greek waiter who spent all his hard-earned money on searching for it; the rumour of the underground crypt at Nebi Daniel - and puts them on a rational footing. It ends with speculation on where AlexanderGÇÖs body might be today GÇô a surprising twist which deserves further investigation.
I think that the bookGÇÖs strengths are:- the splendid quality and relevance of the illustrations, maps and old engravings. Including reconstructions of Babylonian ziggurats, HephaestionGÇÖs pyre, mosaics of Alexandria, Ptolemaic wall-fragments - the arguments are based on clear reasoning and backed-up by hard evidence with full references. Speculation is clearly separated from evidence - the evidence is exhaustive and well-structured GÇô quotes, mosaics, oil lamps, medieval maps all add to the picture - it covers an area that is previously little-explored -I canGÇÖt recall there being a study of AlexanderGÇÖs tomb in such depth before - it has an easy reading style, and wears its learning lightly.It is an essential book for serious Alexander historians and library collections; and general readers will learn about new aspects of Alexander, Alexandria & the classical world. It will appeal to anyone interested what happened to Alexander after his death, and how his glamour & legend persists until today. It adds depth to the study of AlexanderGÇÖs legend after his death, but graphically showing how his memory lived on in Alexandria for over two thousand years.It deserves to become the definitive work on the subject. Susan

[f9bob]

The main account is chronological, starting with AlexanderGÇÖs death in Babylon; speculation on where he wanted to be buried, description of his catafalque & account of PtolemyGÇÖs hijacking.
-He have not taken into the account that maybe Ptolomy have hijacked display body-not the real one.
I have allready given sugestion that for some time
there must have been preparation for his burial ground of masive scale,and that for secrecy of the burial this builders and tradesmans have been slain.
And Jes ,there are one event - have been recorded.

[ancientlibrary]

Kudos for writing up a review. Does someone
here now put that in the "static" area?Radio 4 did an interview/debate with Chugg and
Robin Lane Fox. Fox is respectful but
dismissive. See "Alexander the Great on the
Web > Alexander's Death > Is Alexander in
Venice?" Alexander's Death > Is Alexander in
Venice?" Alexander's Death > Is Alexander in
Venice?" Is Alexander in
Venice?" Is Alexander in
Venice?"http://isidore-of-seville.com/alexander/6.html#Is
Alexander'sinVenice?

[Taphoi]

Hi Tim. I agree with you that Robin Lane Fox was full of the wonderful rhetoric and bluster for which we love him in our interview on BBC Radio 4 in June and I thank you for linking to it on your site. I would point out however that Robin's main argument in that interview was that the Venice theory couldn't be true because he believed Alexander's body to have vanished in the 3rd century AD, whilst St Mark's body didn't appear until the 4th century AD. I responded that there is a newly discovered reference (in an oration by Libanius) to the effect that Alexander's body was on display in Alexandria in about AD390. Robin has largely conceded this point in his more recent interview with Archaeology. I also pointed out that Robin is not an entirely disinterested critic, because he has an incautious line in his book claiming that Alexander's body "will never be seen again" to defend. Strictly speaking this is not a correct assertion, because there is no evidence that Alexander's body was destroyed. Finally, I should like to repeat that I have only suggested the Venice theory as a significant possibility which could easily be tested using carbon-14 dating. I specifically state that it is not a probability. It is nevertheless the only significant possibility for the fate of the body that I have identified in 6 years of research, so I thank Susan for agreeing that it merits further investigation. Best wishes, Andrew

[Halil]

Hello AndrewI understand that you are taking some knocks for the theory and it does pose some problems to me, but maybe you answer them in your book. I'm looking forward to reading it.CheersHalil

[ancientlibrary]

Yes, I heard you mention that. Unfortuntely radio
isn't a very good medium for discussing textual
issues in Libanius, so you didn't get a chance to
spell your arguments out in any detail. (This is
true for any textual issue, but my-oh-my does
Libanius have a bogus, unreadable style!) .On "Alexander the Great on the Web" I link to the
Radio4 and The Independent article. (With Fox
calling it "slightly stale buns.") I'm now adding
the book on Amazon.co.uk. (Is American
publication planned?) That doesn't leave any
positive opinions up, except for your half of the
interview. I'd love to add some, if you know of
any online. For the archaeology reference, are
you talking about his "Riding with Alexander"
interview, which touches on the subject briefly?

[Taphoi]

Hi Tim. Yes, in the "Riding with Alexander" interview Robin says, "the studies of Chugg and others do encourage us all to look again at this old orthodoxy [that the body was lost in Alexandrian riots], and already we have newly recovered textual evidence that Alexander's tomb could be said, by some, to be still 'on show' in the AD360's, a century or so later than most of us believed." He is referring to the Libanius quote (though that actually dates to the end of the 380's and speaks of the corpse rather than the tomb being on show). I think I detect a fairly significant bit of back-pedalling here. You are seeing the old orthodoxy he mentions crumbling. Actually, Robin is the only person I know of to have made any negative comments so far. The Independent article says, "Paul Cartledge, Professor of Greek History at Cambridge and author of Alexander the Great: The Hunt for a New Past, was enthusiastic. 'There's certainly a chance it [the Venice theory] could be true, because there's a historical gap that needs to be filled,' he said. 'We all want to explain why the trail goes cold at the end of the 4th century. At that point, Christianity triumphs and nobody has a voice to say where this pre-Christian hero is buried. He just fades away.'" I think Paul's comments are very sensible and deserve as prominent a billing as Robin the back-pedaller. Best wishes, Andrew

[Taphoi]

Hi Tim. There is no current plan for a special US edition of The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great as far as I'm aware, though it's early days. However, various book dealers are distributing the UK edition of my book in the US. Some are listed under "More Buying Choices" on the page on my book at amazon.co.uk and there is also the David Brown Book Company at http://www.oxbowbooks.com/ who call my book "a real treat" in their description. Best wishes, Andrew

[nickw]

Hi Susan, hi Tim ---The review is in the static area now.With some hesitation I did put it in the "Diadochi" review area. I didn't want the "Alexander" area to become 'blogged' (there is already a lot in there) and the book doesn't deal that much with Alexander himself, as well as events after Alexander. Another option was to put it in "Ancient world", but the topic might be too specific for that broad category. (I can always replace it, of course.)Regards ---Nick