Tomb II and the hunting scene.My view.

[Efstathios]

I think that you all know about the hunting scene at tomb II.

Now, according to this site

http://tdpapazois.gr/en_mel/8.htm

Mr. Papazois believes that the man that is depicted on the right of Alexander as we see the painting, which is also on a horse, is Ptolemy, and not Philip II as Andronikos believed.Because as Papazois says Ptolemy may have been Philip's illegitimate son, so they resembled.We have discussed here on pothos this matter and came to the conclusion that Ptolemy was unlikely to have been Philip's son.But maybe he was.It doesnt matter, because in this paintning there are 2 other important leads, in my view.
The painting supposedly depicts a lion hunt that happened in Vactriani 9 years after Philip died.In the painting i see two things:

1) A young Alexander.Probably a teenager Alexander.The man that is on the middle on the horse, and is undoubtly Alexander does not resemble a man that is around 30 years old, as Alexander would have been at Vactriani.Of course the paitning may not be that accurate.And Alexander could have looked younger at the age of 30.But in my view, this is a teenage Alexander.Watch the paintning carefully.Then we have another lead.

2)Papazois said that in Vactriani happened the incident with the Royal youth who speared the lion before Alexander got to it, and he got angry at the youth.I dont see that in the painting, at least not exactly.What i see is the man that is supposed to be Ptolemy with the horse next to the lion as he is about to spear it.

Now watch carefully.Ptolemy is about to spear the lion.If the painting was supposed to show the Royal youth spearing the lion, the painter would have depicted him clearly, and maybe away from the others, as he got to the lion first.But here we see a royal youth to the left of the lion, and the man who is supposed to be Ptolemy at the right, and both have their spears ready to pierce the lion.Correct?

And notice something else.Two people are on horses.Alexander and the right one.And the horses are both on their two feet up.And mirror imaged.I think that the painter wanted to present the 2 main figures in this painting in this way.Which is Alexander and ... Ptolemy? I would say more, Alexander and Philip.

And in combination with the fact that Alexander looks like a teenager, i would say that the man at the right is Philip and not Ptolemy.

To sum it up: There are two main figures, both on horses, and both horses are standing on their feet, thus making these figures, the protagonists of the scene.Plus that Alexander is more to the left and farther than he lion, which depicts that the figure on the right on the horse who is nearest to the lion is a more dominant figure.So maybe it is Philip.

Of course Papazois also mentions that in the sources there is no evidence that in Macedonia there were lions.At least at that era.We remember of course Hercules and the lion.It was maybe thousands of years before Alexander, but it gives a picture that at some point in the Greek territory there were lions. (That of coure if Hercules confronded the lion at Greek territory and not somewhere else).

I want to hear your oppinions on this.

[amyntoros]

Of course Papazois also mentions that in the sources there is no evidence that in Macedonia there were lions.At least at that era.We remember of course Hercules and the lion.It was maybe thousands of years before Alexander, but it gives a picture that at some point in the Greek territory there were lions. (That of coure if Hercules confronded the lion at Greek territory and not somewhere else).

I recently picked up a copy of the November/December Biblical Archaeology Review for an article called "Did Theseus Slay the Minotaur?" There's a photograph ofa gold inlaid dagger found in Tomb A at Mycenae - a very beautiful and clear depiction of a lion hunt!

Closer to the time of Alexander there is this excerpt (and note) from Pliny 8.45, which I know we've discussed before although it was a long time ago:

Lions, he (Aristotle) says, are found in Europe, but only between the rivers Achelous and Nestus; being much superior in strength to those which are produced in Africa or Syria.*

*Herodotus, B. vii. c. 126, and Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 28, give a similar account of the district in which lions are found. – B. Littre remarks, that this statement of Pliny is probably formed, as originally suggested by M. Maury, upon the fact, that the lions of Europe, as we learn from Herodotus, attacked the camels of Xerxes, on his invasion of Europe.

So . . . perhaps there were still lions in Macedonia at the time of Philip and Alexander?

Best regards,

[Efstathios]

Yes, perhaps there were lions.Manfreddi puts the lion hunt in Macedonia, and near Pella.But it is also possible that they went northen for the hunt.

As i said, the rider on the right is next to the lion preparing to stab it.I dont think that the painter gave importance to what exactly happened in the hunt, and when.We see that the lion already has wounds on it and something like a broken spear or arrow.And the youth and the rider preparing to hit it again.

Also, if the painting depicted the incident with the royal youth hitting the lion before Alexander, then why it would depict Ptolemy also hitting the lion, again before Alexander?So it wasnt only the royal youth that got to the lion first and disrespected the King, but Ptolemy too? That's why i believe this is Philip.Andronikos must have been right about the painting.

So, if the painting depicts Philip and Alexander, then what happens with the tomb?

[amyntoros]

So, if the painting depicts Philip and Alexander, then what happens with the tomb?

It’s fascinating to read different people’s interpretation of artwork because there are so many variables. I’ve begun to reread Hammond’s Royal Pages, Personal Pages, and Boys Trained in the Macedonian Manner during the Period of the Temenid Monarchy (Historia, 39, 1990). He says:

We have learnt from the fresco of the royal hunt on Tomb II at Vergina that the only participants with the king were the princes and the Pages, no doubt because the danger of assassination was very great and they were trusted.

My first thought was that this can’t be true – surely there is literary evidence of other people at the hunt. And indeed, there is - Plutarch’s Life of Alexander (40.4) places both Craterus and a Spartan ambassador at a hunt!

The painting supposedly depicts a lion hunt that happened in Vactriani 9 years after Philip died.

Now, I don’t understand why anyone is so sure that they can date the actual hunt. The reliable Jona Lendering on his site says about the fresco that “The decoration, which shows a lion hunt, is unlikely to have been added before Alexander's eastern conquests, when this artistic motif was "discovered" by European artists.” Now, how can we know this to be true considering that there is a Mycenaen depiction of a lion hunt and according to Aristotle there were lions in Macedonia? It seems to me that on the one hand the artwork at Vergina is being used to identify the occupant, and on the other hand the presumed occupant is being used to identify location of the hunt and the figures on the artwork! It’s far from simple and I agree that an argument for depiction of a Macedonian hunt could suggest that the second rider is Philip. However, if we believe that the occupant of the tomb is Arrhidaeus then it wouldn't matter whether the fresco shows a hunt taking place in Macedonia or in Asia - either way it could be Arrhidaeus with Alexander!

Despite the various arguments about the frieze, I remain uncommitted. (I’ve a feeling of déjà vu that there have been other theories posted on Pothos.)

Best regards,

[Efstathios]

Arhideus could have well participated in the hunt, as his illness may have been not that serious after all.There is no mention that he was mentally ill.The most probable scenario is that of epilepsy., and a light form , providing that he became King after the death of Alexander.

But , would Arhideus be next to the lion when Alexander was farther,and was the King?And that applies to Ptolemy too.There is oly one person that could have been nearer to the lion than Alexander, and that is Philip.Also we see that apart from the man that may be Philip, there is a youth maybe, spearing the lion.And not Alexander next to his father.Why that?

Probably because one man couldnt kill the lion by himself, not even Philip, so a royal youth assisted him.And why not Alexander?Because maybe Philip wanted Alexander at a safer distance since he was young, so it was better for a youth to assist than the prince.And maybe this hunt was Alexander's first hunt and the purpose was more to see and learn,rather than attacking the lion byhimself.

How do you like that?

The overall image that i have for this scene is that the painter,depicted an image as he shaw it, or as it was proper.And the proper thing would be that Philip would be on the lion assisted by someone else maybe, and the prince, at a more safer distance, if it was indeed his first hunt.

I am just specculating of course.

But the main thing is that the man at the right cannot be Ptolemy or Arhiedus because he was on the lion first, before Alexander.

[amyntoros]

But the main thing is that the man at the right cannot be Ptolemy or Arhiedus because he was on the lion first, before Alexander.

Ah, but there are two men on foot as well, both also closer to the lion than "Alexander" - see Beth Carney's site on Aegae for a complete picture of the frieze. And it looks like the lion has already been speared at least once already. I don't see why the horse rider on the right couldn't be Arrhidaeus - if, as it has been claimed, it's his body in Tomb II then he would naturally be depicted as being closest to the lion! However, I don't quite understand the depiction of the so-called Alexander figure - he is the furthest away from any animal target and looks like he is about to spear the man on the ground! Not exactly how I would expect Alexander to be portrayed.

I know I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit here, but I'm just trying to show how it's all a matter of interpretation.

Best regards,

[Efstathios]

You are just adding more evidence to the conclusion that Alexander's role in the scene is more like of a stage actor.That's the impression that i get.There are people on the lion and on other animals, except Alexander.Of course this can just be random, or a matter of the perception of the positions by the painter.

But this is also explained from the theory that this is a young Alexander, who was somehow protected on his first hunt.

Now i remembered the clothes that Alexander wears on the painting.According to Papazois this is the Persian clothing.Papazois also mentions about the hats, and has an image of modern day kalas people that are wearing similar huts.Well i dont see the similarity of these hats with those that the youths wear.If they wear any hats, because i cant see them exactly.Probably they wear something, but it well could be a sort of diadem.

But i want to hear your oppinions about Alexander's clothing in the scene.Is it Persian?Or Greek? And of course it is not white as Papazois suggests ,but rather pink.Or maybe it was supposed to be white, or has changed colour during the centuries.

[pankration]

Alexander is not wearing Persian dress in that mural. It is a short chiton (Greek tunic). The strapping of his sandals is also Greek and different than the persian version.
Asian lions were considered extinct by about 100 AD in Europe so there were still plenty in Northern Greece and Asia Minor during Alexander's time. The killing of the boar was a coming of age ritual for Macedonian youth much like the killing of a lion for a Maasai youth in Africa (Kenya).
Killing a lion from horseback is questionable unless you have a rifle. More than likely, lions were driven by riders toward the hunters who were on foot. Greek vases show many hunts but the hunter is never on a horse (at least I haven't seen it).
From a naturalist's point of view, a horse is natural prey for the lion and it isn't likely that a horse would let itself be ridden within a lion's range. It would take a phenomenal rider to control his animal and try to spear a ferocious, pissed off beast at the same time.
Thoughts?

[amyntoros]

From a naturalist's point of view, a horse is natural prey for the lion and it isn't likely that a horse would let itself be ridden within a lion's range. It would take a phenomenal rider to control his animal and try to spear a ferocious, pissed off beast at the same time.
Thoughts?

Hmm, makes sense to me, although I'm sure they would have ridden horses to the hunt, i.e., until they cornered the lion. The lion-killing mosaic at Pella does show Alexander on foot, after all. Now someone may quite rightly point out that the Macedonians were phenomenal horsemen and may have been able to bring their mounts close to a lion, however I imagine it might have been thought cowardly to strike at the beast from the back of a horse. (And then there's the risk of the lion attacking the legs of the horse.)

However, all of the above begs the question: why then put Alexander on a horse in the fresco? It could be that it's an iconic motif - after all, the whole hunt scene is heavily romanticized, with boars, deer and lions all within spitting distance of one another. Efstathios has suggested that the portrayal may show a very young Alexander, and this also could explain why he is on horseback. But then how does one explain away the other mounted figure? Would Philip have hunted from the relative safety of horseback? From what we know of Arrhidaeus, I suggest that he may have done so. Now, has anyone ever considered that the young central figure is Alexander IV? Yes, I know that he would have been too young to have hunted with Arrhidaeus, but this is a work of art and not a history book that we're talking about. Just a thought . . .

And to Efstathios on the color of the tunic: Andrew Chugg in a previous thread remarked that the original color was probably the red-purple of ancient times that would signify Macedonian royalty. Over the centuries the color would have faded to the "pink" that we see today.

Best regards,

[pankration]

I like your analysis Amyntoros. The hunt was a critical part of Macedonian male society but there isn't a whole lot of information on it. I agree that the painting is probably iconic as you could never get all those animals within a hundred meters of each other in the wild. As for Alexander, I too have my doubts if that's actually him or a descendant.

[Efstathios]

Interesting.Alexander IV. Yes it could have been, but i find it more likely to be Alexander the Great, cause of the resemblence.Dont forget that Alexander IV was the son of Roxanne who probably had darker colors, and thus Alexander IV wouldnt be that blond and white in skin as Alexander was.Just a thought.

As for the horses, i dont think that the lion could easily attack them.The Macedonians probably used long spears or even Sarissas.Plus the horse is a big animal that maybe can intimidate the lion.I dont know if this is possible.I will do a research about this.

[Taphoi]

Andrew Chugg in a previous thread remarked that the original color was probably the red-purple of ancient times that would signify Macedonian royalty.

Not quite. I noted that Olga Palagia had suggested that Alexander's tunic was royal purple and that this was only adopted by the Macedonian kings after Alexander's invasion of Persia. I responded that Tomb I at Vergina, which most people agree antedates the invasion of Persia, also has royal and divine figures wearing robes of the same magenta (dark pink) colour as Alexander's chiton in the frieze on the facade of Tomb II. Therefore the tunic colour does not help the dating. I am using some of the better reproductions and reconstructions of all the friezes in "Vergina" by Manolis Andronicos. This is worth getting if you are interested in these tombs.

Alexander IV is particularly unlikely, because his royal status was revoked by Cassander when he was only six (Diodorus 19.52.4). In fact you would be dating the frieze to the same time that Alexander IV's royal status was revoked, yet the horseman wears a laurel wreath and presides over the centre of the frieze - was Cassander schizophrenic? It is also necessary to recall that the scene must have been readily understandable to its original viewers, so I think there are limits on how far our imagination can extend in its interpretation. I believe (he said cautiously) that both sides of the main argument accept that the central figure on the horse is probably Alexander. The dispute is over whether he was dead when it was painted. My problem is that he looks like a teenager and is wearing a sleeveless Greek-style chiton, whereas he wore a sleeved tunic later. Portraying Alexander as a youth has the effect of making the bearded king seem to be Philip II. This would have been a bit confusing for the tomb of Arrhidaeus.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Efstathios]

Portraying Alexander as a youth has the effect of making the bearded king seem to be Philip II. This would have been a bit confusing for the tomb of Arrhidaeus.

So because Alexander is probably a youth at this painting, then the other is Philip.It is really simple.I am puzzled though by the fact that Alexander is portrayed at the middle of the painting.Like a central figure, because no one else is near him.Was this deliberate by the painter?And what does it mean?

[Taphoi]

So because Alexander is probably a youth at this painting, then the other is Philip.It is really simple.I am puzzled though by the fact that Alexander is portrayed at the middle of the painting.Like a central figure, because no one else is near him.Was this deliberate by the painter?And what does it mean?

It will have been specified by Alexander. It means that he is now the King and Strategos Autokrator of the Hellenes and that he means to be at the centre of all things.

Cordially,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

It is also necessary to recall that the scene must have been readily understandable to its original viewers, so I think there are limits on how far our imagination can extend in its interpretation.

True, true that the scene would have been readily understandable to its original viewers. They, however, knew who was buried in the tomb! We don't - not for certain, anyway. Artifacts have been used to help date the tombs and tentatively identify the occupant, then the presumed identity of the occupant has been used to asist in the interpretation of the frieze. IMO, this situation invites continuing hypothesis - within reason of course.

Best regards,