DOCSLIB.ORG

2015–2016 Editorial Board

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2015–2016 Editorial Board 2015–2016 Editorial Board Jennifer Andre Jennifer Cha Brendan Coyne Stephen Freeman Kaitlyn Krall Maggie McDowell David O’Connor Sheridan Rosner Tianyi Tan Editors-in-Chief Irina Celentano Guido Guerra Joe Kelly The Man Who Would Be King: The Prophetic Iconography of Lysimachus’ Post-Ipsus Tetradrachms Abstract I aim to show how the iconography of the tetradrachm coin1 of Lysimachus of Thrace utilizes prophetic imagery to express his right to rule as Alexander the Great’s heir. Lysimachus started production of his tetradrachm after his victory at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C.E., and while he used iconographic elements found in the coins of Alexander and the other Successors, Lysimachus modified them circulate a message of his own future might. My interpretation is based on the idea that Lysimachus, unlike his peers, did not have a record of victories with which he could gain the military support to expand his territory. The obverse of Lysimachus’ tetradrachm features a dynamic portrait of Alexander the Great, depicted with his signature anastolé hairstyle, the ram’s horns of Zeus Ammon, and a royal fillet. My examination of extant primary sources and secondary scholarship, demonstrates that each of these attributes relate to Lysimachus’ prophesied rule. The reverse of Lysimachus’ tetradrachm depicts a reclining Athena holding a Nike. I compare Lysimachus’ coin to those of his peers, and argue that both Athena and Nike are derivative but uniquely presented; they reinforce the message on the obverse of future success by implying that Lysimachus is secure in his victory. Ultimately, Lysimachus’ tetradrachm demonstrates the importance how well literary and iconographic propaganda help to establish his right to rule. The overall success of this coin type will be briefly argued by discussing its continual minting well after the death of Lysimachus in 281 B.C.E. 1 All coin plates used with permission pursuant to the non-commercial regulations governing owning entities’ copyright policies. All coin plates © The Trustees of the British Museum or © American Numismatic Society. Introduction After the Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C.E., Lysimachus of Thrace began minting a silver tetradrachm coin that innovatively combined iconographic elements from the coinage of Alexander the Great and that of Lysimachus’ fellow Successors Ptolemy I Soter and Seleucus I.2 Ptolemy I Soter had begun minting his own variation on the Alexander III tetradrachms shortly after Alexander’s death,3 and Seleucus I followed Ptolemy’s example in 305 B.C.E.4 Ptolemy and Seleucus incorporated headdresses and Nikes into the iconography of their tetradrachms, just as Alexander had. These numismatic images may be interpreted as Ptolemy and Seleucus’ attempts to express their respective claims to Alexander’s empire by emphasizing their own military accomplishments and those of Alexander before them. The iconographic program of Lysimachus’ tetradrachm also contains these elements, but, until Ipsus, Lysimachus did not possess victories equal to those of 2 The tetradrachm was the most common silver coinage minted circulated during the Hellenistic period. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology (2nd ed.), a tetradrachm is a silver coin worth 4 drachmas. Brill’s New Pauly states that the weight ratios of coins was usually 1 talent= 60 minai, 1 mina = 50 staters, 1 stater= 2 drachmas, 1 drachma= 6 oboloi. This particular coin had lasting, widespread popularity: Bellinger 1962: 30 argues that the Lysimachean tetradrachm was so popular that originals and copies of the coin occur all over the Hellenistic World for centuries after Lysimachus’ death: See Thompson et al. 1973: nos.138, 141, 142, 144, 158, 163, 175, 176, 181, 332, 444, 448, 449, 454, 850, 867, 1292, 1293, 1299, 1302, 1303, 1356, 1369, 1403, 1423, 1450, 1529, 1537, 1735, 1764, 1766, 1768, 1772, and 1774. 3 These tetradrachms maintained the Alexander tetradrachm reverse, but replaced the Alexander/Heracles obverse with one depicting Alexander wearing an elephant scalp headdress. For the different dating traditions of this coin, see especially Zervos 1967, Lorber 2005, Hazzard 1995: 72, Green 1993: 13, Hölbl 2001: 15. 4 For in depth dating and discussion of the Successor’s coinage, see Mørkholm 1991, cf. Dahmen 2007, and Hadley 1965. Ptolemy, Seleucus, or Alexander.5 I propose that while Ptolemy and Seleucus’ iconography is primarily focused on the past victories of Alexander and their own present conquests, every aspect of Lysimachus’ numismatic program is designed to emphasize his future reign as Alexander’s heir. Lysimachus utilizes prophetic imagery such as the horns of Zeus Ammon, the royal filet, and the Nike on his tetradrachm to compensate for a past lack of military victory, by implying that his victories had not yet come. The deft combination of divine attributes on the obverse with Athena and Nike on the reverse, along with an examination of literary sources such as Curtius, Arrian, Appian, Plutarch, Justin and Aristotle to contextualize Lysimachus’ iconography, create the prophetic message of Lysimachus’ right to rule as Alexander’s heir. As a mid-level currency, the tetradrachm was not only worth more than bronze coinage, but also was physically larger, allowing for the use of more complex iconography. The iconography of the tetradrachm theoretically needed to be tailored to its specific audience, which posed a problem for Lysimachus, since his new tetradrachm, introduced after Ipsus in 297 B.C.E.,6 was primarily used to pay the wages of his mercenaries and soldiers.7 According to Aristotle (Pol. 5.10.8= 1310b 38 trans. Jowett), kings were individuals who “…have benefited… states and nations; some… have prevented the state from being enslaved in war; others… have given their country freedom, or have settled or gained territory…” The victory at Ipsus and the territory Lysimachus gained in that battle were the foundation of his claim to be the next βασιλεύς βασιλέων, but he did not have any other victories to show.8 The strength of a Macedonian king 5 Lysimachus’ reign in Thrace: Bosworth 2002: 269-72 cf. Lund 1992: 19- 50; Chamoux 2003: 61-62. 6 Thompson 1968, cf. Brown 1981:20 and Dahmen 2007: 49-50. 7 Lund 1992: 162, cf. Hadley 1974: 61; also Dahmen 2007 and Grainger 2007. For the role of silver coinage in particular, see Panagopoulou 2007. 8 For Lysimachus’ role under Alexander, see Heckel 1982 (“The Early Career of Lysimachos.”) For Lysimachus’ assignment to Thrace: Anson 2014: 25-26. Lysimachus’ reign in Thrace: Bosworth 2002: 269-72 cf. Lund 1992: 19-50; Chamoux 2003: 61-62. For Lysimachus’ internal wars depended on his military accomplishments, which allowed him to reward his army and maintain its loyalty.9 Without a strong military record Lysimachus may have had difficulty justifying his right to rule to his armies. Complicating matters further, Lysimachus was not the only one vying for Alexander’s former territories: he was one of over a dozen Diadochi or ‘Successors’ -those individuals who were competing to acquire portions of Alexander’s empire after his death in 323 B.C.E.10 Lysimachus had to contend with his fellow Successors for the loyalty of his troops, as it was not unheard of for one’s forces to change sides at the most inopportune moments.11 It is possible that a leader’s success in battle depended greatly on the satisfaction of his troops. Until 301 B.C.E., Lysimachus may have been caught in a dilemma: he did not have the forces necessary to expand his territory, but he also lacked the resources normally gained through territorial expansion to satisfy his troops. But after the Battle of Ipsus, Lysimachus gained new, rich territory, and was closer to controlling the entirety of Alexander’s empire than any of the other in Thrace: see especially Delev 2000 (“Lysimachus, the Getae, and Archaeology.”) 9 For further discussion of Macedonian kingship, see Samuel 1988. For Hellenistic kingship, see Chamoux 2003: 214-54. 10 Many of the Successors played small roles in the Diadochi Wars that ensued after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C.E.; The most well-known of the Successors are as follows: Antigonus I and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes; Cassander, son of Antipater; Lysimachus; Perdiccas; Ptolemy I; and Seleucus I. Secondary discussions of the Successors and their wars are myriad, but for discussion of the initial division of Alexander’s empire after his death in 323 B.C.E., see: Waterfield 2011: 16-22 & 25-6, Anson 2014: 25-28, Bosworth 2002: 29-63. For secondary source discussion of the rumors and propaganda surrounding the death of Alexander the Great, see Bosworth 1971: 112-136. 11 Plut. Pyrrh. 12.6: According to Plutarch, Lysimachus himself managed to sway the troops of Pyrrhus the ruler of Macedonia to his side by chiding them for following a foreigner Plut. Pyrrh. 12.6. Successors.12 He had the finances needed to attract followers, but not the military prowess to satisfy the Macedonian profile of a king,13 so he still needed to create propaganda to encourage others to follow him despite his sparse credentials. I propose that Lysimachus’ response to this problem was original, and demonstrates how a ruler without the qualifications necessary for kingship could utilize iconography to amass support that was otherwise unobtainable. Lysimachus did not possess a history of military victories comparable to those of his fellow Successors when he began minting his coinage in 297 B.C.E., so I suggest that in order to gain the support of his subjects, he utilized an innovative and subtly propagandistic numismatic program, which anticipates his inevitable inheritance of Alexander’s empire. Propaganda was not an incidental component of these coins, though they are primarily meant to function as currency.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult
    ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗ ΕΥΠΛΟΙΑ Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult Carlos Francis Robinson Bachelor of Arts (Hons. 1) A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2019 Historical and Philosophical Inquiry Abstract Queen Arsinoë II, the Maritime Aphrodite and Early Ptolemaic Ruler Cult By the early Hellenistic period a trend was emerging in which royal women were deified as Aphrodite. In a unique innovation, Queen Arsinoë II of Egypt (c. 316 – 270 BC) was deified as the maritime Aphrodite, and was associated with the cult titles Euploia, Akraia, and Galenaië. It was the important study of Robert (1966) which identified that the poets Posidippus and Callimachus were honouring Arsinoë II as the maritime Aphrodite. This thesis examines how this new third-century BC cult of ‘Arsinoë Aphrodite’ adopted aspects of Greek cults of the maritime Aphrodite, creating a new derivative cult. The main historical sources for this cult are the epigrams of Posidippus and Callimachus, including a relatively new epigram (Posidippus AB 39) published in 2001. This thesis demonstrates that the new cult of Arsinoë Aphrodite utilised existing traditions, such as: Aphrodite’s role as patron of fleets, the practice of dedications to Aphrodite by admirals, the use of invocations before sailing, and the practice of marine dedications such as shells. In this way the Ptolemies incorporated existing religious traditions into a new form of ruler cult. This study is the first attempt to trace the direct relationship between Ptolemaic ruler cult and existing traditions of the maritime Aphrodite, and deepens our understanding of the strategies of ruler cult adopted in the early Hellenistic period.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    Index Note : Geographical landmarks are listed under the proper name itself: for “Cape Sepias” or “Mt. Athos” see “Sepias” or “Athos.” When a people and a toponym share the same base, see under the toponym: for “Thessalians” see “Thessaly.” Romans are listed according to the nomen, i.e. C. Julius Caesar. With places or people mentioned once only, discretion has been used. Abdera 278 Aeaces II 110, 147 Abydus 222, 231 A egae 272–273 Acanthus 85, 207–208, 246 Aegina 101, 152, 157–158, 187–189, Acarnania 15, 189, 202, 204, 206, 251, 191, 200 347, 391, 393 Aegium 377, 389 Achaia 43, 54, 64 ; Peloponnesian Aegospotami 7, 220, 224, 228 Achaia, Achaian League 9–10, 12–13, Aemilius Paullus, L. 399, 404 54–56, 63, 70, 90, 250, 265, 283, 371, Aeolis 16–17, 55, 63, 145, 233 375–380, 388–390, 393, 397–399, 404, Aeschines 281, 285, 288 410 ; Phthiotic Achaia 16, 54, 279, Aeschylus 156, 163, 179 286 Aetoli Erxadieis 98–101 Achaian War 410 Aetolia, Aetolian League 12, 15, 70, Achaius 382–383, 385, 401 204, 250, 325, 329, 342, 347–348, Acilius Glabrio, M. 402 376, 378–380, 387, 390–391, 393, Acragas 119, COPYRIGHTED165, 259–261, 263, 266, 39MATERIAL6–397, 401–404 352–354, 358–359 Agariste 113, 117 Acrocorinth 377, 388–389 Agathocles (Lysimachus ’ son) 343, 345 ; Acrotatus 352, 355 (King of Sicily) 352–355, 358–359; Actium 410, 425 (King of Bactria) 413–414 Ada 297 Agelaus 391, 410 A History of Greece: 1300 to 30 BC, First Edition. Victor Parker.
    [Show full text]
  • The Antigonids and the Ruler Cult. Global and Local Perspectives?
    The Antigonids and the Ruler Cult Global and Local Perspectives? 1 Franca Landucci DOI – 10.7358/erga-2016-002-land AbsTRACT – Demetrius Poliorketes is considered by modern scholars the true founder of ruler cult. In particular the Athenians attributed him several divine honors between 307 and 290 BC. The ancient authors in general consider these honors in a negative perspec- tive, while offering words of appreciation about an ideal sovereignty intended as a glorious form of servitude and embodied in Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius Poliorketes’ son and heir. An analysis of the epigraphic evidences referring to this king leads to the conclusion that Antigonus Gonatas did not officially encourage the worship towards himself. KEYWORDS – Antigonids, Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius Poliorketes, Hellenism, ruler cult. Antigonidi, Antigono Gonata, culto del sovrano, Demetrio Poliorcete, ellenismo. Modern scholars consider Demetrius Poliorketes the true founder of ruler cult due to the impressively vast literary tradition on the divine honours bestowed upon this historical figure, especially by Athens, between the late fourth and the early third century BC 2. As evidenced also in modern bib- liography, these honours seem to climax in the celebration of Poliorketes as deus praesens in the well-known ithyphallus dedicated to him by the Athenians around 290 3. Documentation is however pervaded by a tone that is strongly hostile to the granting of such honours. Furthermore, despite the fact that it has been handed down to us through Roman Imperial writers like Diodorus, Plutarch and Athenaeus, the tradition reflects a tendency contemporary to the age of the Diadochi, since these same authors refer, often explicitly, to a 1 All dates are BC, unless otherwise stated.
    [Show full text]
  • The Successors: Alexander's Legacy
    The Successors: Alexander’s Legacy November 20-22, 2015 Committee Background Guide The Successors: Alexander’s Legacy 1 Table of Contents Committee Director Welcome Letter ...........................................................................................2 Summons to the Babylon Council ................................................................................................3 The History of Macedon and Alexander ......................................................................................4 The Rise of Macedon and the Reign of Philip II ..........................................................................4 The Persian Empire ......................................................................................................................5 The Wars of Alexander ................................................................................................................5 Alexander’s Plans and Death .......................................................................................................7 Key Topics ......................................................................................................................................8 Succession of the Throne .............................................................................................................8 Partition of the Satrapies ............................................................................................................10 Continuity and Governance ........................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander's Successors
    Perdiccas, 323-320 Antigonus (western Asia Minor) 288-285 Antipater (Macedonia) 301, after Ipsus Lysimachus (Anatolia, Thrace) Archon (Babylon) Lysimachus (Anatolia, Thrace) Ptolemy (Egypt) Asander (Caria) Ptolemy (Egypt) Seleucus (Babylonia, N. Syria) Persia to Alexander the Great Atropates (northern Media) 315-311 Alexander’s Seleucus (Babylonia, N. Syria) Eumenes (Cappadocia, Pontus) vs. 318-316 Cassander Cassander (Macedonia) Laomedon (Syria) Lysimachus Daniel 11:1-4 Antigonus Demetrius (Cyprus, Tyre, Demetrius (Macedonia, Cyprus, Leonnatus (Phrygia) Ptolemy Successors Cassander Sidon, Agaean islands) Tyre, Sidon, Agaean islands) Lysimachus (Thrace) Peithon Seleucus Menander (Lydia) Ptolemy Bythinia Bythinia Olympias (Epirus) vs. 332-260 BC Seleucus Epirus Epirus “And now I will tell you the truth. Behold, three more kings are going to arise Peithon (southern Media) Antigonus Greece Greece Philippus (Bactria) vs. Aristodemus Heraclean kingdom Heraclean kingdom Ptolemy (Egypt) Demetrius in Persia. Then a fourth will gain far more riches than all of them; as soon as Eumenes Paeonia Paeonia Stasanor (Aria) Nearchus Olympias Pontus Pontus and others . Peithon Polyperchon Rhodes Rhodes he becomes strong through his riches, he will arouse the whole empire against the realm of Greece. And a mighty king will arise, and he will rule with great authority and do as he pleases.” (Dan 11:2-3) 320 330310 300 290 280 270 260 250 Antipater, 320-319 Alcetas and Attalus (Pisidia ) Antigenes (Susiana) Antigonus (army in Asia) Arrhidaeus (Phrygia) Cassander
    [Show full text]
  • The Contest for Macedon
    The Contest for Macedon: A Study on the Conflict Between Cassander and Polyperchon (319 – 308 B.C.). Evan Pitt B.A. (Hons. I). Grad. Dip. This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Humanities University of Tasmania October 2016 Declaration of Originality This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgement is made in the text of the thesis, nor does this thesis contain any material that infringes copyright. Evan Pitt 27/10/2016 Authority of Access This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Evan Pitt 27/10/2016 ii Acknowledgements A doctoral dissertation is never completed alone, and I am forever grateful to my supervisor, mentor and friend, Dr Graeme Miles, who has unfailingly encouraged and supported me over the many years. I am also thankful to all members of staff at the University of Tasmania; especially to the members of the Classics Department, Dr Jonathan Wallis for putting up with my constant stream of questions with kindness and good grace and Dr Jayne Knight for her encouragement and support during the final stages of my candidature. The concept of this thesis was from my honours project in 2011. Dr Lara O’Sullivan from the University of Western Australia identified the potential for further academic investigation in this area; I sincerely thank her for the helpful comments and hope this work goes some way to fulfil the potential she saw.
    [Show full text]
  • STUDIES in the DEVELOPMENT of ROYAL AUTHORITY in ARGEAD MACEDONIA WILLIAM STEVEN GREENWALT Annandale, Virginia B.A., University
    STUDIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROYAL AUTHORITY IN ARGEAD MACEDONIA WILLIAM STEVEN GREENWALT Annandale, Virginia B.A., University of Virginia, 1975 M.A., University of Virginia, 1978 A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Corcoran Department of History University of Virginia May, ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the elements which defined Argead kingship from the mid-seventh until the late fourth centuries B.C. It begins by reviewing the Argead king list where it is argued that the official reckoning of the dynasty's past was exploited in order to secure the throne against rivals, including those who were Argeads. Chapter Two analyzes the principles of Argead succession and concludes that the current theories on the subject are unsatisfactory in face of the e v id enc e. Ra the r, the sources suggest that Argead succession was a function of status where many ingredients were considered before a candidate 1 eg it ima te 1 y ass urned the throne. Among the factors influencing the selection were, the status of a potential heir's mother, age, competence, order of birth, and in lieu of father to son succession, relation to the late monarch. Chapter Three outlines the development of the king's military, judicial, economic, and social responsibilities from the personal monarchy of the early period to the increa~ingly centralized realm of the fourth century. Chapter Four concentrates on the religious aspects of Argead kingship, reviewing the monarch's religious duties· and interpreting a widespread foundation myth as an attempt to distinguish Argead status by its divine origin and its specific cult responsibilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Macedonian Widows: Merry and Not Elizabeth D
    Royal Macedonian Widows: Merry and Not Elizabeth D. Carney RANZ LEHÁR’S OPERETTA Die lustig Witwe debuted in Vienna in December of 1905 and, as The Merry Widow, F from 1907 on, attracted large audiences in the English- speaking world. It proved an enduring international success, spawning generations of revivals as well as a spin-off ballet, a succession of films, and even a French television series. Lehár’s plot was set at a minor European court. It revolved around in- trigues aimed at preventing a widow, who had inherited her husband’s fortune, from remarrying someone from outside the principality, an eventuality that could somehow lead to financial disaster for the state. After some singing and dancing and a sub- plot involving more overt (and extra-marital) hanky-panky, love triumphs when the widow reveals that she will lose her fortune if she marries again, thus enabling the lover of her “youth” to marry her without looking like or actually being a fortune hunter.1 The operetta and especially its film variants depend on the intersection, however coyly displayed, of sex, wealth, and power, and, more specifically, on an understanding of widows, at least young ones, as particularly sexy.2 This aspect of the plot was especially apparent in the 1952 Technicolor Merry Widow in which Lana Turner, the eponymous widow, wore an equally 1 On Lehár and the operetta see B. Grun, Gold and Silver: The Life and Times of Franz Lehár (New York 1970). The1861 French play that helped to shape the plot of the operetta was Henri Meilhac’s L’Attaché d’ambassade (Grun 111– 112).
    [Show full text]
  • The Macedonian Patriot: the Diadoch Craterus Edward M
    The Macedonian Patriot: The Diadoch Craterus Edward M. Anson Much has been written concerning the man whom Alexander “honored most” (Plut. Alex. 47. 10) who was described as the king’s “most loyal follower” (Arr. Anab. 7. 12. 3), generally recognized as his closest companion after Hephaestion (Diod. 17. 114. 1-2), and among Alexander’s commanders “arguably the best” (Heckel 1992: 107), but who in the final analysis failed to become one of the major players in the aftermath of Alexander’s death. He has been termed “the right man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time” (Ashton 1993: 131); proclaimed that he “lacked that fine edge of ruthlessness necessary for supreme power” (Green 1990: 8). This paper will suggest that Craterus was not the victim of being in the wrong place at the critical time, caught between Macedonia and Babylon, nor did he lack the ability to be ruthless, but was in the final analysis a Macedonian patriot (as noted by Heckel 1992: 107), who was content to serve the royal family and his kingdom. As Plutarch (Alex. 47. 10) comments, Craterus was “king loving.” It was in defense of his king and country that Craterus could be quite ruthless. While Waldemar Heckel’s claim that the oft termed “Philotas Plot” against the life of Alexander was in reality a plot against the life of Philotas orchestrated by Craterus and others in part due to their personal ambitions (Heckel 1977: 9-21; 1992: 115-118; 2006: 27-33, 218-19), this is too strong an indictment of Craterus’ personal ruthlessness, but it is a clear example that the friend and Somaphylax was capable of savagery in defense of the crown.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spread of Coins in the Hellenistic World
    The Spread of Coins in the Hellenistic World Andrew Meadows Although coinage was first ‘invented’ in the archaic Greek period, and spread to a sig- nificant part of the Mediterranean world during the classical period, it remained a mar- ginal element within the economy. At very few cities or mints were coins produced regularly, and the issues of a vast majority of mints were sporadic, small and of coins ill- suited to daily transactions.1 Moreover there existed in the nature of early coinage inher- ent impediments to international use. Thus, while coinage can be said to be a financial innovation of the archaic and classical Greek world, it did not radically change eco- nomic behaviour. Significant changes in the nature and scale of coinage occurred only in the wake of Alexander’s world conquest, during the Hellenistic period. The Hellenistic period runs, as usually defined, from the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC to the Battle of Actium by which Roman superiority over the Greek world was finally established on 2nd September 31 BC. The period is defined by the world conquest of Alexander the Great, and the consequences of the division of his empire upon his death. The name ‘Hellenistic’ derives from the German term for the period, coined by J.G. Droysen in the 1830s in his Geschichte des Hellenismus (First edition, Hamburg 1836–1843). For Droysen, who had previously written a seminal study of Alexander the Great, the period of Hellenismus, was characterised by the Hellenisation of the world that Alexander had conquered. This world had largely been encompassed by the Achaemenid Persian Empire, but had comprised many different cultures in Asia Minor, the Near East, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran and beyond.2 1 On scale, see further below, section “Spread and Scale”.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Bones: the Human Skeletal Remains from Tombs I, II and III at Vergina
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2014-05-26 Understanding the Bones: The Human Skeletal Remains from Tombs I, II and III at Vergina McLeod, Jolene McLeod, J. (2014). Understanding the Bones: The Human Skeletal Remains from Tombs I, II and III at Vergina (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/28565 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/1562 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Understanding the Bones: The Human Skeletal Remains from Tombs I, II and III at Vergina by Jolene McLeod A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF GREEK AND ROMAN STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA MAY, 2 2014 © Jolene McLeod 2014 Abstract This thesis presents an examination of the publications about the human remains from Tombs I, II, and III at Vergina. An overview of the controversy surrounding this topic presents a starting point, and explains why the bones have become so contentious. Since most arguments about identity propose either Philip II or his son Arrhidaios, I have examined the historical context of both their murders and burials, and those of their wives Kleopatra and Adea-Eurydike.
    [Show full text]
  • Philia Networks in the Macedonian Court and the Long Accession of Alexander the Great*
    Karanos 3, 2020 59-83 Philia Networks in the Macedonian Court and the Long Accession of Alexander the Great* by Julius Guthrie University of Exeter [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper revaluates key moments in the court politics of Alexander the Great’s reign through the introduction of philia-networks governed by gift-exchange as a template for explaining the relationships between key participants. This approach makes it clear that Alexander initially held a passive role in the political life of his own court and was dependant on others for his succession. These dynamics shifted in the opening years of the Asian expedition as Alexander sought to break these philia- networks, building his own and surrounding his person with philoi of his own choosing. KEYWORDS Alexander the Great, philia, Aristotle, court politics, conspiracies. To be a ruler in the ancient world was to be involved in a never-ending game of political chicanery with the elite. The Argead family of Macedonia, although the ruling house from at least the turn of the sixth into the fifth century, were no exception, and neither was the household’s most famous name: Alexander III the Great.1 Alexander, when his father, Philip II, died in 336 was by no means assured of succession to the Macedonian kingship. That Alexander did succeed was due to his support from prominent men – especially Antipater and Parmenio– who controlled vast networks of philoi. The recognition of the role played by prominent political factions in Alexander’s court is itself nothing new and most recently Waldemar Heckel has argued for the existence of political factions centred on both Antipater and Parmenio at Alexander’s court2.
    [Show full text]