pothos.org

Ok, i have a question.I had this since the first time i read about Alexander.Almost everywhere he is portrayed blond.Only in the mosaic found in pompey he is portrayed with dark hair. I cannot remember reading in the sources that Alexander was blond.I dont remember reading anything about his hair color in the sources.Is there something that i have overlooked?
Ok, i know that many macedonians were blonde but does this apply to Alexander too?His father Philip was probably dark haired(as he is portrayed in the face reconstruction made from his skull).His mother probably dark or brown haired too.So?
I do not know this may sound a silly matter but i had this question for a long time now and stil havent found an answer to it. Also,which of the busts in your oppinion are the most authentic ones in accurately portraying Alexander?I always found that the roman busts had a flavor of "roman style" on them thus not accurately depicting the faces.

This topic has indeed come up before. As it stands, there is no evidence to accurately describe Alexander's hair color. While Plutarch gives him a 'fair' and 'ruddy' skin pigmentation, he doesn't talk about hair color. Also, some sources such as Aelian claim Alexander was 'xanthein', but in ancient Greek that could also mean a light brown or auburn colour.Unless we find him, we cannot know for sure.

IMO the most true-to-life portrait is the Azara Herm in the Louvre, allegedly by Lysippus . It shows ATG as a mature man of around 30 years not the young prince as in other sculptures.

Look at the mosaics from Pella. All you need to know about Alexander's haircolor is there.We have no idea what color hair his mother had. We cannot prove Philip's haircolor from Tomb II since that's probably not him.

http://www.le.ac.uk/press/press/facingfacts.html As far as i know the only royal person that had an eye wound like this from that particular era and was burried in that spot was Philip.

The eye wound on the skull at Vergina II is conjectural due to the damaged condition of the bones; what is not conjectural, due to the stress fractures of said bones is that the bones were stripped of their flesh before cremation; this cannot be the case with Philip II but fits Philip III nicely as he was initially buried by Olympias and then exhumed and honourably cremated by Cassander.

If it isnt Philip II, could it be the grave of Antigonus the one eyed perhaps? Maybe his son Demetrius had his body buried in Macedonia after he became king.

There are always problems going in when you're told who a particular body is the try to 'make it' that person. Sloppy forensics in this case actually.

Although the actual hair color of Alexander is under debate, it is not fair to use the mosaic found at Pompeii in the House of the Faun. The mosaic is typically regarded as a copy of an original painting done for Cassander, the king of Macedonia at the time. The mosaic in Pompeii was done c.200 BC, more than 100 years after Alexander's death, and probably would have been done to replicate and depict the typical hair color of the Romans, but this is just speculation.

Hello,

rocktupac said,

The mosaic in Pompeii was done c.200 BC, more than 100 years after Alexander's death, and probably would have been done to replicate and depict the typical hair color of the Romans, but this is just speculation.

We take pretty much Arrian- the Roman, pretty much at face value maybe we can take the Mosaic too? I find the picture of the mosaic for me to be the genuine article but then again who knows, maybe he was blond.

Where did the idea come from in the first place that he had blond hair?

Was it just to keep in line with him being like his hero the definetely(?)Blond Achilles?
It is most curious how thanks to our beloved Homer we know Achilles was "yellow haired" yet we don't know Alexander- it is almost beyond belief..Iliad i.197, xxiii.141),

Best regards,
Dean

Yes Agesilaos, there is divergent opinion on the bones of Tomb II. The "wound" is seemingly not what it appears. And, knowing what you want can often lead to getting same. Not that I impugn the Uni's ethics. Just that one neeeds to be careful.

I too lean to Philip III.

As to Alexander's hair colour, one might assume - given there is no remark in the sources - that is was nothing terribly out of the usuall to draw such. Either that or it did not matter to the ancients one little squat.

Bit like myself really, a non issue. You need to have it to colour it...

According to Robin Lane Fox in his biography of Alexander (probably the pre-eminent publication) Alexander did not fit the norm for Macedonians.

"His skin was white on his body, a weathered red on is face: unlike his father...he kept his beard clean-shaven...His hair stood up of his brow and fell into a centeral parting; it framed his face, and grew long and low on his neck...In Pella's mosaic of a lion hunt he is shown with fair hair and dark eyes..."

Alexander's personal artist was Appeles, his sculptor was Lysippus. These images are probably the closest to the true image of Alexander. Suffice it to say that his features were "either too unusual or too commonplace to be artists' fictions."

As most of his images are similar to the infamous bust, that's probably what he looked like. His hair was probably a light brown with sun streaks through it. Not Nordic but not a traditional Greek or Macedonian other.

pankration wrote:According to Robin Lane Fox in his biography of Alexander (probably the pre-eminent publication) Alexander did not fit the norm for Macedonians..

The "pre-eminent" publication? Well, for some. It -- to me anyway -- is a "biography" rather redolent of a "boys' own" bent. Which is not to dismiss it out of hand, rather just to put it down, out of hand. To be taken up at some....well, other time. I surmise that -- as historical consultant -- Lane Fox might, in some way, be responsible for the rather insipid Alexander of Oliver Stone? Then again, he wasn't the director or producer so one shouldn't be too harsh. Even so, he might have asked for his name to be removed from the credits eh?

As to the description, Lane Fox saw Alexander? I think not. And that is the thing. We rely on evidence that tells us what exactly? That this might be a statue by Lysippus -- or -- is it a Roman copy? The mosaic is a copy of what exactly? Apelles' painting or the copy of a copy of that painting? How good was the artist?

The tumulus frescoe is a matter of strong scholarly debate. Definitive notions of hair colour in that milieu are presumptuous.

Hello,

I was pretty impressed with the way Robin Lane Fox transmitted his ideas and "history" in a pleasant and interesting way- I didn't get bored with it and found it quite entertaining.

Of course Fox didn't see Alexander and we all know that however he was as most other historians do hazarding a guess- Renault did the same but I don't think that Fox takes too many liberties. He is a well seasoned academic- he made suggestions in the film too some of which were taken up on and some which Stone chose to ignore but Stone was making a movie not a documentary so...

Best regards,
Dean

dean wrote:... Stone was making a movie not a documentary so...

Exactly! And I'm sure that Mr Stone is crying with remorse at having made his Alexander, rather than the specific image carried by each and every one of the rest of us (including Robin Lane Fox). I mean, what was the man playing at, for goodness' sake?

ATB