Mosaic

[maciek]

HI companions!I found somewhere that mosaic from museum in Naples (the most famous one) can be made contemporary with Alexander's times... But some time ago I've herd that it is much younger... Hmm I'm little confused because if it is so old that it can remember Alexander's times then it is very important because as far as I know only one his image survived until now - small head of young Alexander - made from ivory
Maciek

[susan]

Hi MaciekThe mosaic is from Roman times but it's believed to be from a painting by Apelles, who was a contemporary of Alexander and certainly portrayed him from life. So the mosaic is important in that it is an image one step away from an image from a painter who had seen Alexander. There's a new theory about networking that measures how far apart two people are, in terms of their working lives and relationships, and it generally comes out to be about 6 steps at maximum - A is related to B, who is related to C, who is related to D up to F.So on this scale, A is Alexander; B is Apelles painting, C is the mosaic in Naples.There are many reasons why the mosaic may not be totally realistic - firstly the colours of the tesserae (tiles in the mosaic) may have changed over 2000 years, secondly an image in mosaic is obviously coarser in texture than a painting, thirdly, like Chinese whispers, an image of an image is going to get farther away from the original.I think the closest image is probably the Azara herm - I can imagine that face running an empire - followed by the Aboukir medallion. None of them looks like the current Hollywood contenders.Susan

[maciek]

Thanks Susan!
That is interesting.
What wandered me most is the facial hair which I didn't saw in any of his other images - except only in medieval paintings... or maybe I didn't saw all ancient?? well that was quite strange also that in this mosaic he is totally different then in any other image. Some reason can be what you wrote but his appearance is more different then just kind of material I think...Maciek

[susan]

I think that Alexander, or Hephaistion, as his spin-doctor ( my theory!) controlled his image carefully, and he would always be portrayed as the boy-wonder - so that everyone would be amazed at the successes of someone who appeared so young. Even now, the film publicity always refers to the 'young' conqueror.I think he liked to be portrayed as clean-shaven for the following reasons:1 - he appeared younger and so his successes were greater2 - he appeared more of a style icon - I believe that Achilles was usually shown without a beard, so were many of the Greek demi-gods.3 - it was a differentiator between him and his soldiers - he lived as hard a life as they did but still appeared immaculately turned out. It reminds me of stories of Britsh Chindit officers in the Second World War who always dressed for dinner in white dinner jackets, even in the Malayan jungle when pursued by Japanese troops - and their native troops thought the world of them.4 - I think it started as a means of separating him from Philip - who was probably much more on a level with his men - he drank with them, looked like them, behaved like them. By being clean-shaven Alexander was showing that he wasn't just like Philip.
On the other hand, Persian and Indian miniatures show Alexander as bearded, as being clean-shaven was the sign of a eunuch.I think that most of the portraits around are fairly useless - you've only got to look at them and ask yourself - "Could this person have conquered much of the known world?"Susan

[Me]

Were there not also some ancient "reviews" commenting that the colours in the mosaic were darker than were correct? That ALexander had been "Romanized"? I seem to recall this from somewhere.
There is also the problem with the fact that certain colours are "popular" at certain times- the ancient world was no less subject to fashion whims and fads. And yes, aging makes a difference- I recall one gentleman insisting the Persian army wore pink because that was the colour they were wearing on the Alexander sarcophagus! And of course, the Pella mosaics show yet another hair colour... People tend to portray their heroes as themselves, thus the Indian Alexander (and the Alexander in the Persian miniatures) looks like the artists. In some he looks quite Asian, even.
Another book recommend is Stewart's book analysis on the portrayal of ALexander in statuary. I don't agree with everything he says, but it makes for a good introduction- "Faces of Power" is the title.
And yes, Alexander wore sideburns at one time- I believe, if I recall correctly, that it was to show the Persians he COULD grow a beard if he had to

[Tre]

Hello Susan!The mosaic is thought to be from a famous painting, but it wasn't by Apelles. As for portraits most resembling the King, I agree with the ones you pick but also add the Stag Hunt Mosaic in Pella, which I believe depicts Alexander and Hephaistion. Note the similarity to the Aboukir Medallion. Also note the attempt to portray red-blonde hair with stones. The Alexander-Pan also bears a resemblance. I prefer to use portraits from the area he was from, as works would have been available there to copy, even in later portayals, all younger than the mosaic. While there were many, many portraits of the young Alexander and his father painted together by Apelles, unfortunately none survive. That Alexander went beardless (when he could considering his wandering lifestyle) is indicated in his histories. I think 'Me' makes a strong point as well - sideburns to show the Persians that even though he didn't have a beard, he was no Eunuch. It need not have been purely a Roman fancy.As for the mosaic itself, note all Roman depictions of Alexander show him with brown light/brown hair which shouldn't surprise anyone since one tends to cast heroes in their own image. I make particular note of the one where he stands next to Statiera, and after reviewing other portraits from that same room Alexander was clearly made to look like he was related to all the others. It isn't much of a stretch to figure the patron probably looked much like those faces.So unlike the movie officially endorsed by the Greek government (I shudder to think what that means), I would go with reddish blonde as the haircolor :-)Regards,Tre

[Tre]

Although I should add too that some Greek vases depict Alexander as bearded.Ah, the price of being fashionable rather than correct

[jan]

Using tiles to depict an appearance is quite challenging, but because of the nature of the stone, one must place less faith in resemblance to the subject than one would with a brush and paint. Tiles are thick and cumbersome, must be cut properly, and thus, the reason for the caricature look rather than the "real" or "actual" look.Plus, proportion to the entire panorama of the mosaic must be considered so certain aspects of the appearance will be exaggerated.Only people who work in mosaics will really appreciate the effort. I had a roommate who was an artist who worked with mosaics and that is how I know.

[maciek]

Susan when I said facial hair I meant whiskers - sideburns! I couldn't remind myself this word at work... I thought about it because this looks quite modern. I think if it was made some time after Alexander - so maybe the artist changed his hairs and added whiskers?
BTW I like his amour on this mosaic. Maciek

[susan]

There's a good chance that the breastplate shown in the mosaic is the one found in the tomb
at Vergina - they are very similar, and would have been rare. If it is the same, it means that the occupant of the tomb is most likely Philip Arrhidaeos, and that Alexander's ceremonial armour was buried with him - I'm sure Cassander would have been glad to have it safely out of the way.Also there would be a good chance that if the artist and mosaic-maker took the trouble to get the armour right, then they also took trouble to get the portrait right.I'll see if I can find a link to an image of the breastplate, if not I'll scan a picture in.Susan

[susan]

There's an image of the breastplate on:
http://www.rocky.edu/~moakm/macedonia.htmand the mosaic at
http://www.hackneys.com/alex_web/graphics/alxmecu.jpg
Susan

[maciek]

In a fact it looks similar. It's impressive that such great new facts are discovered on our eyes: First when archeologists found out that this tomb did not belong to Philip II - and now they are close to conclusion that Philip Arhidajos can be there... About that breastplate I have never noticed this similarity... shame on me. I looked so many times on the both and never noticed...
Thanks for that sites - It is good to see those places and items just after year after my visit there.Maciek

[Me]

Approach this carefully. Close examination of the breastplate from the tomb and the breastplate et al portrayed in the mosaic shows similarities (which would be expected), yet important differences in construction and material.

[Thalestris]

The Azara Herm, yes, Susan, I agree. How about the Pergamon Head? But for some reason, and this is only an opinion, I cannot visualize Alexander resembling the Pergamon Head. But I am confident he greatly resembled Olympias, and I wonder what she looked like.I agree with you Tre, regarding hair color. If it were natural or highlighted using chammomile, no one will ever know, but I visualize Alexander as neither brunette or blond, but of the auburn.But here we go again with "What did Alexander look like?" Answers will never be solved...unless we can find his body and extract DNA.Smiling,Amazon Queen

[smittyzback]

I read somewhere his breastplate was taken from his buriel place by Caligula, whilst in Egypt. Might have been another breastplate.