Questions about Alexander's tomb

[nick111]

Hi. I'm new on these boards. It's a great website by the way. I just finished reading the book about Alexander's tomb, by Nicholas J. Saunders, and it was very interesting. I knew about Alexander, but I wasn't aware of all the stories regarding his tomb. After reading it some questions and thoughts came to my mind, and although I don't think someone would be able to give me an answer I'd like to share them in case someone thinks the same.

How come there isn't any faithful painting or depiction of how Alexandria looked during the Ptolemaic era? The same happens with Alexander's first or second mausoleum, if it was supposed to be Alexandria's most representative feature how come there isn't any description or drawing or anything that could lead us to see how this wonderful work of art looked like? Some think that it was based on the Mausoleum in Halicarnassus, and that Roman Emperors Augustus and Adrian were inspired by Alexander's Mausoleum to design their own ones, which still stand nowadays.

The second thought that came to my mind is the lack of information about Alexandria since the Christian riots of 391(about when the tomb dissappears) till the Arab domination period of the 7th century (a.d.). That's almost 300 years. I can't believe nothing was written or recorded in such a long time.

Does the Caesareum temple still exist(or its ruins?) I read that it survived for many years. In the book it says it was turned into Alexandria's first cathedral, and that in 912 an earthquake leveled it.

Is it possible that the tomb may lie under the sea? In the book it says that the soma was close to the royal palaces which were located in the Lochias peninsula, which today is just a promontory. Has any search been conducted under the water?

Is there any clues that can lead us to where the Necanebo Sarcophagus came from? All we know is that is was revered by muslims at the Attarine Mosque, but how come did it get there?

And most importantly. There is not any record of the destruction of the tomb(or body). How come something so important in Alexandria just dissappeared like that. How come nobody noticed it or left any information that could lead us to its fate? I mean there must be some historian, visitor or writer living in Alexandria at the time. I find it very strange that no one has ever written anything about this.

Thanks for your replies

[jasonxx]

Nick Hi

I would reckomend you read Andrew Chuggs book. The lost tomb of Alexandere.

In it he offers one very curious theory. He says that the Tomb of Alexander was basically destroyed by Christain Purges on Pagan Images etc. Theres one tantalizing theory. That at about the excat same time that the Apearance of St Marks Tomb appeared was the time Alexanders went missing and its also stated that Saint Mark was actually destroyed by fire.

The Tomb or Body is now in Vienna or Venice. Loot to Google for Images of St Marks Tomb. There is a slight Chance that it could be Alexander.

kenny

[Efstathios]

This isnt something of a surprise.In an another case, the only information about the jews prior to the 1st century a.d comes from Jossipus.Because everything else was destroyed by the Romans mainly.Jossipus became a Roman citizen, migrated to Rome, and then wrote some if his histories from which we get information about the jews and Israel of his time and before.

In the same manner, a lot was destroyed in Alexandria.The library was burned three times.Much was destroyed by Theodosius, and also by the Arabs, who used scrolls and maybe even paintings as fuel for fire.

So it is possible that if there were accounts of Alexander's tomb and it's destruction, to have been also lost.

The tomb is said to be under an Orthodox church in Alexandria, or maybe even underwater as you said.I dont know if there have been any researches in the area of the port, but i guess that it is something that requires a lot of money and enough proof would be needed to start the whole search there.

[marcus]

Hi nick111, and welcome to Pothos! Always lovely to get new devotees joining us.

How come there isn't any faithful painting or depiction of how Alexandria looked during the Ptolemaic era? The same happens with Alexander's first or second mausoleum, if it was supposed to be Alexandria's most representative feature how come there isn't any description or drawing or anything that could lead us to see how this wonderful work of art looked like?

I wonder whether the answer to this lies to some extent in the very fact that it was there for all to see - or at least for those in power, or by special invitation, to see. Therefore there was no need to draw pictures of it.

However, although there are no contemporary representations of it, there are snippets of description; so that, although we don't know exactly what it looked like, there are some elements that we can surmise. As others have already said, have a look at Andrew Chugg's book.

Andrew's book, apart from being very interesting, contains plenty of marvellous illustrations (many from his own large collection of prints, maps, etc. of Alexandria). If I recall correctly, without actually taking it down from the shelf, Andrew provides some very good ideas of what the tomb looked like.

ATB

[Taphoi]

How come there isn't any faithful painting or depiction of how Alexandria looked during the Ptolemaic era? ... Some think that it was based on the Mausoleum in Halicarnassus.

Accurate cityscapes from the ancient world are generally rare. They don't seem to have made them in media that have survived (stone, mosaic...). That being said, some of the architectural paintings from Pompeii are thought to represent parts of Alexandria. At any rate they incorporate Alexandrian architectural features, such as Corinthian capitals and split pediments. The problem is also to recognise the Soma when we see a representation of it. I am one of the main advocates of the Mausoleum as the model for the Soma (Saunders may be getting that idea from me). I have pointed out that there are very large numbers of Hellenistic Mausoleums of this type and they are clustered in the Levant and N Africa.

The second thought that came to my mind is the lack of information about Alexandria since the Christian riots of 391(about when the tomb dissappears) till the Arab domination period of the 7th century (a.d.). That's almost 300 years. I can't believe nothing was written or recorded in such a long time.... There is not any record of the destruction of the tomb(or body). How come something so important in Alexandria just dissappeared like that. How come nobody noticed it or left any information that could lead us to its fate? I mean there must be some historian, visitor or writer living in Alexandria at the time. I find it very strange that no one has ever written anything about this.

My theory is that the Alexandrian tomb of St Mark was fabricated to replace Alexander's tomb when worship of Alexander became illegal in the Empire in AD391. It is therefore a possibility that they used Alexander's mummy for the spurious mummy of St Mark. One of the attractions of this idea is that it explains the subsequent silence concerning the fate of Alexander's corpse.

Does the Caesareum temple still exist(or its ruins?) I read that it survived for many years. In the book it says it was turned into Alexandria's first cathedral, and that in 912 an earthquake leveled it.

Saunders (p.117) is misleading you about the fate of the Caesareum. It actually burnt down. There were many earthquakes, but the nearest were in 885 and 935. This is one of many errors in Saunders' book. Some others are listed in my earlier post (currently on page 3 of the Pothos Forum). Cleopatra's Needles (now in London and New York) guarded the entrance of the Caesareum. Some traces of the foundations of the building have tentatively been identified in recent archaeological investigations.

Is it possible that the tomb may lie under the sea? In the book it says that the soma was close to the royal palaces which were located in the Lochias peninsula, which today is just a promontory. Has any search been conducted under the water?.

Saunders is misleading you on this point. No source says that Alexander's tomb lay among the palaces on the coast. This is a deliberate distortion of Strabo, who says that the enclosure of the tomb was part of the Royal District of Alexandria, but he also defines this Royal District as comprising "between a quarter and a third of the city". Most of it will have been far from the coast and it must have stretched across the central crossroads, which is where other sources place Alexander's tomb. Strabo calls the palaces on the coast the "Inner Royal District" and he makes no mention of Alexander's tomb when he describes them.

Is there any clues that can lead us to where the Necanebo Sarcophagus came from? All we know is that is was revered by muslims at the Attarine Mosque, but how come did it get there? ?.

It will probably have started out at the royal cemetery of the 30th dynasty pharaohs. I have shown in an academic paper in Greece & Rome and in my book that this is likely to have been at the Memphite Serapeum - though this is still not confirmed. I have suggested that it got to Alexandria, because it was used for Alexander's corpse. Saunders' view that the Ptolemies made it into a fountain would have been sacrilege, since it is covered with hieroglyphs from the Amduat. Whoever bored the holes straight through these hieroglyphs didn't regard the text as holy. That is why all Egyptologists and scholars (except for Saunders) believe that the holes were drilled by the Arabs.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[nick111]

Thanks for all your replies. It was quite good cause I wasn't sure I was going to get any answers. For what I see a lot of information has been missing.
I understand that because the Mausoleum was such a known place and easily recognizable nobody cared about painting it or describing it, although it sounds strange to me, there are descriptions more or less accurate about how other buildings of the Ancient era looked like(e.g. some of the 7 wonders of the world)
Is it possible that the Mausoleum( 1st one) had a conic rooftop as it has been described? How tall do you think it would have been? Was it the tallest building in Alexandria?(apart from the Pharos)
Now that I've read your answers I've come up with another question. After the Soma was cosntructed, Alexander's first mausoleum was still used as a place of cult. Was it destroyed at the same time as the Soma, before, or later?
I can't remember if Saunders describes this in his book, but do we know how the Soma looked like? Was it something subterranean rather than an elevated place? How did it look from the outside?

Regarding what you say about the Nectanebo sarcophagus, Why would Ptolemy use someone else's sarcophagus to bury Alexander in? I thought Alexander's original sarcophagus was made of gold, that later was melt down.

So was the destruction/dissappearance of the Tomb an unofficial act? I mean, if pagan cult was prohibited in the Empire was there an order to destroy the tomb? I suppose we don't have that information today, but do you think it was the general Christian population who destroyed it, or was it a group of soldiers/workers appointed from the government to do this? At the time of the destruction, did the Soma have any type surveillance to care for the goods that were inside or was it totally abandoned? If that was the case I think it's very easily that someone might have stolen the body, or destroyed it.

Andrew, thanks very much for your answers. It's a pleasure to talk to someone who knows so much about Alexander.I'm looking forward to reading your book. I cannot find it in my town, so maybe I'll have to buy it online.
Cheers

[Taphoi]

I understand that because the Mausoleum was such a known place and easily recognizable nobody cared about painting it or describing it, although it sounds strange to me, there are descriptions more or less accurate about how other buildings of the Ancient era looked like(e.g. some of the 7 wonders of the world))

I'm sure images were produced, but they have mostly not survived. The murals of Pompeii, the architecture of Petra and Pergamum etc may include glimpses/echoes of Alexandria's major public buildings, but how would we recognise a glimpse of the Soma Mausoleum? The important feature of the Tomb for the ancients may have been narrower than the entire building. Pseudo-Callisthenes speaks of a Grand Altar of Alexander and such a Grand Altar appears on some of the Roman drachms of Alexandria.

Is it possible that the Mausoleum( 1st one) had a conic rooftop as it has been described? How tall do you think it would have been? Was it the tallest building in Alexandria?(apart from the Pharos). I can't remember if Saunders describes this in his book, but do we know how the Soma looked like? Was it something subterranean rather than an elevated place? How did it look from the outside?

A conical roof is possible, but unlikely. The rectangular tower with a pyramidal roof is the dominant form for high status Hellenistic mausoleums in Egypt and its vicinity. The cylindrical form belongs to Rome and Algeria. Lucan describes the Ptolemaic mausoleums in Alexandria as being surmounted by pyramids. Lucan calls these mausoleums "loftily constructed edifices" so they were indeed tall - forty or fifty metres perhaps to judge by Halicarnassus. The actual tomb chamber at Halicarnassus was subterranean and Lucan speaks of Caesar descending into the grotto of Alexander's tomb.

After the Soma was cosntructed, Alexander's first mausoleum was still used as a place of cult. Was it destroyed at the same time as the Soma, before, or later?

This sounds like more Saunders nonsense I'm afraid. We know virtually nothing about the first tomb in Alexandria. What Saunders writes is wild and ill-informed speculation.

Regarding what you say about the Nectanebo sarcophagus, Why would Ptolemy use someone else's sarcophagus to bury Alexander in? I thought Alexander's original sarcophagus was made of gold, that later was melt down.

Ptolemy needed a tomb for Alexander at short notice, because he had hijacked the corpse. We know that Nectanebo's tomb was available in a vacant state. It was probably also useful for Ptolemy to associate Alexander with the previous Egyptian dynasty of pharaohs. The gold case was a coffin "of hammered gold fitted to the body" like a mummy case as Diodorus says. It would have fitted inside the Nectanebo sarcophagus.

So was the destruction/dissappearance of the Tomb an unofficial act? I mean, if pagan cult was prohibited in the Empire was there an order to destroy the tomb? I suppose we don't have that information today, but do you think it was the general Christian population who destroyed it, or was it a group of soldiers/workers appointed from the government to do this? At the time of the destruction, did the Soma have any type surveillance to care for the goods that were inside or was it totally abandoned? If that was the case I think it's very easily that someone might have stolen the body, or destroyed it.

The context is a power struggle between the Christians, led by the Patriarch, and the pagans with the Imperial Prefect trying to act as referee and keep order. However, in AD391 Emperor Theodosius decisively outlawed all religion except Christianity in the Roman Empire. The Prefect was forced to support the Patriarch who took the opportunity to arrange the ransacking and destruction of the Serapeum, the principal pagan temple. The Soma may already have been ruined by the very large earthquake and tsunami, which struck Alexandria in AD365, but Libanius states that Alexander's corpse was on display in the city in about AD390 (plus or minus a year or so). That is the last we ever hear of it. Between the late 390's and his death in 407, John Chrysostom asserted that Alexander's tomb had become lost and Theodoret makes the same statement in about 430. So Alexander's corpse was not just ignored, it positively and suddenly disappeared some time in the 390's.

Andrew, thanks very much for your answers. It's a pleasure to talk to someone who knows so much about Alexander.I'm looking forward to reading your book. I cannot find it in my town, so maybe I'll have to buy it online.
Cheers

To save you time and money, my book, The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great, is available at a low price from www.oxbowbooks.com at the moment. They have branches in the UK and the US and they should ship internationally.

Merry Christmas!

Andrew

[egrgr]

Hi all,

maybe I can ask few more questions on this (old) topic. I recently bought the few available books on Alexander's tomb and I find the subject very interesting. There are few things that are not clear to me. For instance, I had a first read of the books by A. Chugg and N. Saunders and one thing I found limited information on was why the absence of evidence is not considered somehow as an evidence?

And when I am saying "absence of evidence" I am not talking about accounts for the tomb that were lost (eg. due to the destruction of the libray of Alexandria etc.). I am talking about the fact that almost all accounts we have on the Soma, even from Strabo, are 1-2 sentence descriptions. Nobody bothered to write something more, for what both authors assume that it was the highlight of the city. What does this say to us? Maybe that the Soma was not as big or significant as inferred?

Some sources refer to the Soma as a large in size construction: but isnt the word "large" a bit to general and maybe has a different meaning depending on the context, the situation and the personal perpective? Eg. there are many temples in Greece that can be regarded as "large", but they seem like miniatures in front of Egyptian pyramids. Overall, how can we be so sure about Alexander's tomb being a grand mausoleum, when most surviving accounts seem to mention it in the text just for ... completeness, when one of the writers (who may have been living in Alexandria - cant recall his name) simply refers to the tomb by "...a road named after Alexander". Doesnt this show some kind of ignorance?

Also, how developed was Alexandria and the Palaces district when Soma was built? If the Soma was as large as inferred in the diagrams by A. Chugg, it seems to me that they would have had either to demolish a significant part of a district or extend the city and its walls, just for the Soma, assuming that the existing space was covered by other grand buildings.


Finally, a stupid question (maybe). Strabo, writes:

"The Soma also, as it is called, is a part of the royal district. This was the walled enclosure, which contained the burial-places of the kings and that of Alexander."

Why does he say "was the walled enclosure" and not "is the walled enclosure" given that the Soma existed at his time?

Thanks in advance!

[Taphoi]

...almost all accounts we have on the Soma, even from Strabo, are 1-2 sentence descriptions. Nobody bothered to write something more, for what both authors assume that it was the highlight of the city.

But if you looked in a modern library in London, hardly any of the books would describe the Palace of Westminster in detail. Remember that probably less than 1% of books written by the ancients survive. Strabo was writing an account of the geography of the entire known world, hence his mention of the Soma had to be brief.

Overall, how can we be so sure about Alexander's tomb being a grand mausoleum...

Diodorus who saw it in about 50BC wrote (of the enclosure) that it was of a size and magnificence worthy of the glory of Alexander. Diodorus was familiar with many great buildings in the ancient world, so it must have been quite impressive to elicit such a description from him. The word peribolos that is translated as "walled enclosure" normally meant the defensive wall of a medium-sized town.

one of the writers (who may have been living in Alexandria - cant recall his name) simply refers to the tomb by "...a road named after Alexander". Doesnt this show some kind of ignorance?

I think you mean Achilles Tatius, who was indeed an Alexandrian. He simply mentions a district near the middle of the city which was named after Alexander. It is an inference that this was the Soma Enclosure. Achilles Tatius was writing a romantic novel and only describes Alexandria in passing.

Also, how developed was Alexandria and the Palaces district when Soma was built? If the Soma was as large as inferred in the diagrams by A. Chugg, it seems to me that they would have had either to demolish a significant part of a district or extend the city and its walls, just for the Soma, assuming that the existing space was covered by other grand buildings.

My theory is that the Soma Enclosure was the original Alexandria founded by Alexander, which became a district dedicated to temples, altars and tombs as the city splurged across a much larger area in the 3rd century BC.

Finally, a stupid question (maybe). Strabo, writes:

"The Soma also, as it is called, is a part of the royal district. This was the walled enclosure, which contained the burial-places of the kings and that of Alexander."

Why does he say "was the walled enclosure" and not "is the walled enclosure" given that the Soma existed at his time?

The translation (from the Loeb edition) is not all that good. I think the past tense of the verb "to be" as used by Strabo refers to the fact that the burials had been created in the past.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Could you post the Greek, even transliterated, or the reference please Andrew I think there's a Greek Strabo online. Cheers

[amyntoros]

Finally, a stupid question (maybe). Strabo, writes:

"The Soma also, as it is called, is a part of the royal district. This was the walled enclosure, which contained the burial-places of the kings and that of Alexander."

Why does he say "was the walled enclosure" and not "is the walled enclosure" given that the Soma existed at his time?

The translation (from the Loeb edition) is not all that good. I think the past tense of the verb "to be" as used by Strabo refers to the fact that the burials had been created in the past.

Interesting observation and question from egrgr; I've never noticed the tense before. Why does the translation also say "which contained the burial places of the kings and that of Alexander" - another verb in the past tense? Strabo goes on to say that Ptolemy deposited the body of Alexander "where it now lies" so that use of the past tense above is indeed confusing. I took a quick look at my transcribed Strabo, taken from an 1856 volume translated by W. Falconer:

A part belonging to the palaces consists of that called Sema, an enclosure, which contained the tombs of the kings and that of Alexander (the Great).

Different wording and probably not the best translation considering its age, but once again there's the use of the past tense as in "contained". Curious.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

Could you post the Greek, even transliterated, or the reference please Andrew I think there's a Greek Strabo online. Cheers

The reference is 17.1.8. The online Perseus version only seems to be willing to show me books 6 to 14 in Greek, but you're welcome to try to coax 17 out of it. Obviously, I have the Loeb text in Greek. As I tried to say above, the verb with peribolos is "was" (eta-nu). The word translated as "burial places" and "tombs" (taphai) can also have a meaning like our word funeral, so the past tense is not necessarily wrong.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[egrgr]

The original text is here:

http://books.google.de/books?id=x6RJkXe ... &q&f=false

[agesilaos]

Thanks egrgr,

meros de twn basileiwn, esti kai to kaloumenon Sema, ho peribolos en, en ph ai twn basilewn taphai kai e Alexandrou.

I read ho peribolos en as a subsidiary clause meaning 'there used to be a surrounding wall' en can be both singular and plural and the imperfect can be renderered as 'used to' as readily as 'was'. Which does leave taphai governed by a singular verb, estin, but this is allowed by a figure of speech known as a zeugma. So I would translate

'Also in the Royal quarter is the so-called Sema, there used to be a surrounding wall, which contains the Royal tombs and that of Alexander'.

Alexandria had been fought over by the Romans so maybe Caesar or Octavian were responsible for demolishing the peribolos, I don't recall any such mention but our sources are not very full for that specific period. The wall may have been rebuilt later nor need the whole thing have been torn down. I'll check my thinking with the local Classics graduate on the Greek but Andrew probably knows if the wall is mentioned in the campaign narratives my sources are out of reach due to Spring cleaning so I cannot check Appian, Plutarch or Dio.

[Taphoi]

Hi Agesilaos,

You are up against the translations of a couple of well-known classicists and I don't think there is any literary evidence for demolition of these walls before Strabo's time (25BC). However, there is another way that you could be right. Strabo has previously described Alexander's original foundation of Alexandria as a peribolos in 17.1.6. I have hypothesised in The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great (page 184) that Alexander's peribolos became the Soma enclosure as the city grew beyond its bounds. If you are right, then it is possible that Strabo is trying to say exactly that. Therefore the correct translation could be:

'Also in the Royal quarter is the so-called Soma, which used to be the Enclosure Wall [of the city], which contains the Royal tombs and that of Alexander'.


Best wishes,

Andrew

P.S. Sema is an incorrect gloss by modern editors - all the manuscripts of Strabo read Soma.