pothos.org

Hello,
I know it might sound like a silly question but can anyone tell me why the mosaic of Alexander at Issus portrays him with brown hair?
Best wishes,
Dean

Is it really brown or is it dirty blonde? The one thing that has struck me about the color of his hair is how often he shampooed it and when. But mosaics are dependent upon the tiles used, and possibly that explains the colors.

Brown hair and bug-eyes! Yech. What an awful depiction. I prefer his sculptures.

Jan,How often he shampooed it, and when?Er... beg pardon? :-)M

HiIt begs the question how many true likenesses there were of Alexander? If indeed the Mosaic is one. The sculptures were surely not a representaion of how he looked.Chris

Hi Chris,"The sculptures were surely not a representation of how he looked"Well, it depends on what you mean by "a representation". They most definitely *were* a representation of sorts, but it does not necessarily follow, as I assume you mean, that they were "warts and all" representations.It is quite probable that they were massively idealised portraits, but it is unlikely, I think, that they would have strayed too far from the truth - otherwise it would be like putting a picture of Kylie Minogue (oops, there I go again) on a UK postage stamp and expecting people to believe it's the Queen.What we don't get from the sculpture, of course, is anything that suggests his colouring - and for that the best we have to go on is the descriptions in the sources. I certainly wouldn't use the Pompeian mosaic as the definitive representation.The pictures on coinage must not be forgotten, either, for they would work on the same analogy of the postage stamp. A portrait ain't going to work unless it bears at least some resemblance to the subject.All the bestMarcus

Another point about the colours of the mosaic is that it is 2000 yrs old and that chemical changes within the pigment change the colours. Sadly I am no expert but I know the paintings on the sarcophagus of Abdalonymus have changed over time purples becoming blues etc.True likenesses in the ancient world are much harder for us to discover than Marcus suggests. There was no mass media no developed dispersal of true likenesses. As an instance we can look at the portraits of Alexander on the tetradrachms of Lysimachos - who definitely knew what Alexander looked like - unfortunately he was carving the dies. In Roman times an official portrait would be circulated for copying but even with their degree of centralisation the portraits vary greatly with each mint. The Hellenistic kingdoms probably used a similar system but the lee-way for artistic interpretation was great.

Hi Karl,I'm certainly no expert on ancient art - I stopped going to my Greek art lectures three weeks after the lecturer stopped going, and avoided doing any coursework on it.No, I wasn't suggesting it is easy at all. But they would still have had to be recognisable as the person, and an element of conformity would have had to have been implemented so that people who had never seen Alexander (or whoever) could look at a statue and go "ooh! that's Alexander!" (or whatever).So, while we cannot look at a bust of Alexander and say that is exactly what he looked like, I'll bet that you haven't seen a picture of a bust of Alexander and *not* known who it was supposed to be.Add to that the fact that there would be people seeing sculptures who *did* know him, it follows that even idealised sculptures had to look at least a little like him - and, while we cannot come up with a 100% accurate picture of Alexander from sculpture, coins, mosaics etc. we can get a reasonable idea of his features.All the bestMarcus

That is true enough but if you have Helen Lund's book on Lysimachos look at the portrait bust and I'd say that was Alexander yet 'officially' it's Lysimachos. The standard way to identify the potraitee was with attributes; itself an indication of the accuracy of the portrait. I wonder how many busts of Leonnatos ,say, are in museums as Alexander.The best portrait would be the ivory from Vergina being contempory and in court use though colour, of course. In any case how important are his looks it was his deeds that make him Great. Chaire

Hi Marus, Just remembering the embedded reporters from Operation Enduring Freedom complaining about needing a shower...Did these robust Macedonians find many water falls in their adventurous travels? LO! Makes you understand why Jesus said that all had to be baptized, doesn't it?I am laughing, but actually color of hair often depends upon cleanliness.If you read Manfredi's book where Alexander's nails are starting to turn black, I understood the message that probably Sam Omar was trying to say with his dirty black nails. I noticed his nails before I read the book To the Ends of the Earth, but once I read that passage, I began to suspect he had either edited it, written it, or surely read it, or it is all just one strange coincidence!Well, life is one long mystery, isn't it?Jan

I believe tapestries and mosaics are supposed to be reprensative of the figures and characters, and are prone to exaggeration. I am convinced that the bug eyed look means that he is going to battle with his eyes wide open and is supposed to impart the intent, rage, and concentration that is seen by those around him. That scene always fascinates me, and the picture of Darius is even more interesting in his more relaxed, and confident appearance.Darius in his chariot and Alexander on horseback is quite fascinating to contemplate. Caesar liked to ride in a chariot also, and I understand that Ares is depicted riding in a chariot. A lot like the difference between harness racing and thoroughbred racing.Darius ran off, scared and frightened by the wide eyed and crazed looking Alexander.At any rate, it is all a matter of beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

The closest portraits would naturally be the ones that showed some warts - the Aboukir Medallion and the Azara Herm (although this is somewhat stylized in Lysippus' fashion, the Alexander[Pan and the Mosaic which is very exaggerated and is thought to have been taken from a painting. Recognize of course that there are certain limits to coloration depending on the medium. One should look closely at the stag hunt mosaic in Pella, which I believe to be Alexander also - note the similarities to the Aboukir medallion. When we discuss portraiture, Marcus is correct that certain definitive characteristics have to be there to have them identified as a certain individual.Short jutting forehead, deep lines across the forehead, large 'soft' eyes, large straight nose, thick lips, the anastole (otherwise known as bad hair day), round chin, the tilt of the head are all definitive characteristics of the King.

hi marcus you seem to be a friend of isa. can i meet you ?

I agree with Marcus. Another example of a face that is highly recognizable from his sculptures is Antinous. He was Hadrian's lover from ancient Rome, and you can recognize that face instantly. It is not a stylized version. It is obviously what he looked like. Alexander must have been a handsome and charismatic leader, so I tend to think the sculptures are very close indeed.

Hi Dean!I have to admit that when i saw this mosaic for the first time the question i wanted to ask was:
What the crack is this guy on?!!!!!!! ;)Glad to hear you have only the trouble with his hair's colour... :)My opinion - we have no idea what his hair colour was. "shrug"...