sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aeschines, Agathon, Amyntor (mythology), Apelles, Archelaus (Heraclid), Aristophanes

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Departament de Ciències de l’Antiguitat i l’Edat Mitjana

Karanos BULLETIN OF

ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES

http://revistes.uab.cat/karanos 03 ), ),

online

(

3521

-

2604 ISSN

e 2020

(), (paper),

6199 -

2604

,ISSN

20

20

,

3 Vol.

Karanos

Bulletin of Ancient Macedonian Studies

Vol. 3 (2020)

President of Honor Secretary F. J. Gómez Espelosín, Marc Mendoza Sanahuja (Universitat Autònoma (Universidad de Alcalá) de Barcelona)

Director Edition Borja Antela-Bernárdez, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) Departament de Ciències de l’Antiguitat i l’Edat Mitjana Editorial Board 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona). Borja Antela-Bernárdez Tel.: 93 581 47 87. Antonio Ignacio Molina Marín Fax: 93 581 31 14 (Universidad de Alcalá) karanos@uab. Mario Agudo Villanueva http://revistes.uab.cat/karanos (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) Layout: Borja Antela-Bernárdez Advisory Board F. Landucci (Università Cattolica del Printing Sacro Cuore) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona E. Carney (Clemson University) Servei de Publicacions D. Mirón (Universidad de Granada) 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona). Spain C. Rosillo (Universidad Pablo de Olavide) [email protected] F. Pownall (University of Alberta) http://publicacions.uab.cat/ W. L. Adams (University of Utah) N. Akamatis (International Hellenic University) ISSN: 2604-6199 (paper) V. Alonso-Troncoso (Universidad de A Coruña) eISSN 2604-3521 (online) A. Domínguez Monedero (Universidad Dipòsit legal: B 26.673-2018 Autónoma de Madrid) F. J. Gómez Espelosín (Universidad de Alcalá) Printed in Spain W. . Greenwalt (Santa Clara University) Printed in Ecologic paper M. Hatzopoulos (National Hellenic Research Foundation) S. Müller (Philipps-Universität Marburg) M. Jan Olbrycht (University of Rzeszów) O. Palagia (National & Kapodistrian University of ) J. Roisman (Colby College) G. Squillace (Universitá di ) T. Howe (St. Olaf College)

c

Karanos is an Academic Journal focused in the Historical, Socioeconomical and Cultural perspectives related with Ancient , from the to the Hellenistic Macedonian Kingdoms (Seleucids, , Antigonids, among others) and the of Macedonia. Karanos publish double-blind peer-reviewed related with these topics, including Historical, Archaeological, Philological, Epigraphical, or Numismatical approaches, and any other kind of cultural analysis on the Ancient Macedonia and its historical appearances like the Hellenistic Kingdoms and the relation with other peoples and cultures, including and Classical Reception Studies. Karanos also accepts reviews of , reports and interviews that can be considered of interest for the Ancient Macedonian Studies.

The opinions expressed in papers, notes, reviews or any other research published in Karanos is a responsibility in exclusive of their authors.

In order to support a Gender-friendly peer-review policy, avoiding preponderances, Karanos uses to keep equality concerning the referee’s election of each paper.

Karanos is published under the Creative Commons within the following License: Attribution (by): This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.

I NDEX

EDITORIAL 5-7

PAPERS

Becoming Macedonian: Mapping and Ethnic Identity. 11-37 The Case of Hephaistion by J. REAMES

Forever Young 39-57 The strange youth of the Macedonian Kings by A. I. MOLINA MARÍN

Philia Networks in the Macedonian Court 59-83 and the Long Accession of the Great by V. J. GUTHRIE

Cherchez la femme: 85-101 Power and Female Agency in at the dawn of the Hellenistic Age by M. FERRARIO

Terrible . Another Study in Method 103-129 by B. ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

Historiografía y arqueología -bactrianas: Una breve guía 131-158 by M. MENDOZA

FLASHBACKS

Philip II et les dieux 161-171 by S. LE BOHEC

MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES

Elizabeth D. Carney 175-180 by A. I. MOLINA MARÍN

REVIEWS

Antonio Ignacio Molina Marín, Alejandro Magno (1916-2015). 183-184 Un siglo de estudios sobre Macedonia antigua by B. ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

Pat Wheatley – Charlotte Dunn, the Besieger 185-186 by A. I. MOLINA MARÍN

Christian Thrue Djurslev, in the early Christian tradition: 187-188 Classical Reception and Patristic by F. J. MOLINA MARÍN

John Boardman, Alexander the Great: From his Death to the Present Day 189-190 by A. I. MOLINA MARÍN

Waldemar Heckel – Johannes Heinrichs – Sabine Müller – Frances Pownall (eds.), 191-192 Lexicon of Argead Macedonia by B. ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

Karanos 3, 2020 5-7

E DITORIAL

In the last issue of Karanos, I began the Editorial talking about surviving, and the difficulty of such a quest. Then, times went weirdly mad and our world has become seriously ill and almost dystopic since then. But I still feel the pride of surviving, and the need to keep active our research and focused on maintaining our compromise with our own days’ worries and threats. There is pride in surviving, but also grief. But against the pleasure of being still alive, knowing that your dear people is fine and safe too, sorrow is in the . Live and death, in an endless circle of what existence simply means, has now become a day-to-day concern, and I guess anyone reading these words can feel the common pain of our relatives, friends, comrades and fellow human beings. May hope be with us. It is time to think in the future. But future is just an imagination, in the sense Spinoza gave to the perception of time. Past is also a construction, a picture composed of many elements, mainly collective but also, to some extent, individual. As , our concern is with the past, but our scope, our final target is, consciously or not, with the future. When we study facts, aspects, situations or behaviours in the past, we are feeding collective imagination concerning the possible worlds we can face, and thus, we help our world to build new chances of understanding our reality for the future. Of course, Arts and are not involved in saving human lifes, in a literal sense, nor to find a cure for dangerous illnesses, as Covid-19, but our compromise with life is essential, and despite we can not save humanity from such menaces, our words in books, classes, conferences or speeches (on-site or online) usually help people to keep themselves alive, to understand the world, to put some meaning or even a few drops of poetical view in their life experience. Our significant mission within the harsh reality many of our communities are living right now is to remember that life is, after all, around us, and while bodies are confined in different kind of levels, our minds still can travel to imagine and understand our world and transform it into a better one. Covid-19 is, to a great extent, now the principal actor of 2020. How tough these many days have been for everyone of us. I can not forget, not for even a second, not even while the Editorial for an academic journal such as Karanos, all the people suffering around me and you, all of us also enduring difficult and challenging changes. Weird times now will bring us hard realities, and I can not forget nor avoid mentioning here all the persons around me who are forced to face scarcity, shortage of the principal means of life or painful and emotional thrills. And I know I am not alone, nor it is just a feeling of mine, but of everybody everywhere. Care must be thus put in the center of our attention. Care in front of the illness. Self- care against the Covid-19, care to keep ourselves and our people out of risk, care in our work, both in teaching our knowledge and in preserving our research at a high level of quality, to still be useful for our audiences in front of the dark that, as the judges of , devour the gift life now means.

eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199 EDITORIAL

Care is also a usual topic in the fieldwork of Gender Studies. Since its birth, quite recent indeed, Karanos has been strongly compromised with Gender questions. The best example of that double-gender reviews for the choice of the blind peer referees for any paper received at Karanos. Thus, I feel happily surprised how this new issue of the journal has a great presence of woman voices. This issue’s Flashback is devoted to a masterly paper about of Macedon and the gods by the prominent Prof. Sylvia Le Bohec-Bouhet. The Main Voice in Ancient Macedonian Studies presents an interview with the brilliant Elizabeth Donnelly Carney, who shares her views on the studies about Macedonian women and the future of these perspectives. Finally, a paper of my own, which I guess will have a controversial reception, reviews the rough judgements that historiography has devoted to Olympias of , frequently observed without a faithful criticism of the sources or the data already demonstrated by scholarship in the last decades. And I am wondering if now we can trace any relationship between the usual binomial of women and care, when Covid-19 and the strong need to attend to the importance of care responsibilities drive us all to a new point of view about what life means and deserves to. Despite the impact of the pandemic, a new better world is still possible, and I want to believe we have already begun to build it. This issue of Karanos has been, however, very difficult to raise. Nor the lack of libraries to work nor the emotional thrills everyone had to face up kept us all off from the clearness of mind needed to think and perceive research. Although each new issue of Karanos used to be published every year in the same date, November 8th (the date, indeed, when I am writing this lines), this third number of our journal has had to wait some weeks more, until December 1st, and it was, in the end, possible thanks to the Herculean efforts of the authors and, mainly, of the Editorial Board of the journal. These people around me are, I promise, the main reason why the journal is alive. And if we have to judge the present volume, I can say there is, one more time, a splendid collection of inspiring papers, and most of this research will surely become referential works in our fieldwork. I don’t want to miss the chance to point out our compromise with young scholars with promising research ideas to show and discuss, and in the present number like Marco Ferrario or Julius Guthrie share our index of contents with some brilliant masters in their fields, as Jeanne Reames exemplifies with her chapter, which I am sure will be the reference concerning for the next decades. Along with them, again, this number is completed with chapters signed by names close to the Editorial Team of Karanos, with Marc Mendoza and, of course, Antonio Ignacio Molina. All of them, and the hard work and support of Mario Agudo, help this number become a reality. The pride to be alive is such a life-giving emotion. It helps to fight against sadness, misery and loneliness, three feelings so linked with death. Of course, death has many faces. Weakness is not a quality very appreciated in our lifetime. But when weakness is a common feature of every one of us, care is, again, the answer. And there is hope in the dark. Many threads weaving in the private spaces of our homes, our schools, our (even digital) communities arise to show how can we care of ourselves and connect our lives, ideas and dreams. Personally, I want to take many of these threads with my hands, so used to write my thoughts, and to feel that these threads can drive me out of the monster’s labyrinth. May Ariadna be on my . Coming back to the beginning, once more, like in a labyrinth’s travel, life and death are nowadays as close as past and future. Our present is at our hands, like the threads I would like to keep close to me. To live is a challenging thrill. This third issue of Karanos has been a thrilling experience, and I guess we have succeeded again. And I consider the result as a beautiful clue that, against all odds, research and life together, Karanos 3/2020

6

EDITORIAL

hand by hand, is the way we choose for putting some hope and care in the world, so much needed now. So, fingers crossed by every human being, philoxenos and empathic, in front of the difficult days we may face, let me say “for now I just want you not to stand in the sun”. And let life be fully lived, with care.

BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ Director of Karanos. Bulletin of Ancient Macedonian Studies [email protected]

Bellaterra (Barcelona), November 8th 2019

Karanos 2/2019

P APERS

Karanos 3, 2020 11-37

Becoming Macedonian: Name Mapping and Ethnic Identity. The Case of Hephaistion*

by Jeanne Reames University of Nebraska at Omaha [email protected]

With the Digital Assistance of Jason Heppler and Cory Starman

ABSTRACT An epigraphical survey (with digital mapping component) of and reveals a pattern as to where Hephais-based names appear, up through the second century BCE. Spelled with an /eta/, these names are almost exclusively Attic-Ionian, while Haphēs-based names, spelled with an alpha, are Doric-Aeolian, and much fewer in number. There is virtually no overlap, except at the Panhellenic site of , and in a few colonies around the . Furthermore, cult for the god Hephaistos –long recognized as a non-Greek borrowing– was popular primarily in Attic-Ionian and “Pelasgian” , precisely the same areas where we find Hephais-root names. The only area where Haphēs-based names appear in any quantity, , also had an important cult related to the god. Otherwise, Hephaistos was not a terribly important in Doric-Aeolian populations. This epigraphic (and religious) record calls into question the assumed Macedonian ethnicity of the king’s best friend and alter-ego, Hephaistion. According to Tataki, Macedonian naming patterns followed distinctively non-Attic patterns, and cult for the god Hephaistos is absent in Macedonia (outside ). A recently published 4th century from could, however, provide a clue as to why a Macedonian Companion had such a uniquely Attic-Ionian name. If Hephaistion’s ancestry was not, in fact, ethnically Macedonian, this may offer us an interesting insight into fluidity of Macedonian identity under the monarchy, and thereby, to ancient conceptualizations of ethnicity more broadly.

KEYWORDS Hephaistion, Hephaestion, , Macedonian names, ethnic identity, ethnic identities, Pydna, , , Alexander the Great, , digital , digital mapping, Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, Hephaistos, Kerberoi, Hephaistos cult, , Athens, , , Ionian Greek, , Northwestern Greek, Aeolian Greek, Black Sea Colonies, Ionia.

* This paper constitutes a reworking of a section from my dissertation from twenty+ years ago. I’ve included a great deal more epigraphical material, name variants, an assessment of Hephaistos cult, as well as discoveries published since, including an important curse tablet from Pydna. If my most basic conclusions have not changed, I think I can offer considerably more nuance and a better guess regarding Hephaistion’s family origin. eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199 JEANNE REAMES

Hephaistion Amyntoros, best friend and chief marshal of Alexander the Great, bore an unusual name for Macedonia. Several diverse pieces of evidence suggest that his family was not ethnically Macedonian by origin, but of Attic or Ionian extraction. How far in the past that connection occurred is far from clear, but it might tell us something interesting about cultural identification in these borderland areas of . Two passages from (An. 6.28.4, Ind. 18.3) identify Hephaistion as from Pella. The first lists Alexander’s current seven at the time of Peukestas’s special appointment as an eighth, and the second is a list of trierarchs in . This list also gives his father’s name, although nowhere else are we told anything of his family. No siblings or cousins are mentioned, directly or by marriage, and his mother is never named. At the court, he appears to have been somewhat isolated, but this could be a function of our sources’ laser focus on Alexander himself. He was co-assigned with Perdikkas of several times, and Perdikkas stepped into his shoes after his death (if not formally as ), so an alliance and perhaps friendship between the two could have existed in the campaign’s latter years1. That said, they do not appear to be related2. We would have no reason to doubt the Arrian passages identifying Hephaistion as from Pella, except that both passages also name Leonnatos as from Pella, although we know he hailed from Lynkestis ( s.v. Λεόvvατoς = Arr. Succ. 12; also Curt. 17.7.8). Why list Lynkestian Leonnatos as “Pellais”? Heckel suggests it owed to having been raised at court due to his relation to Eurydike, Philip’s mother3. Yet these lists’ assignment of Leonnatos to Pella mean we cannot be certain Hephaistion was born there, either, although, like Leonnatos, he may well have grown up there. The peculiarity of his name suggests he was another “transplant”. The spelling is dialect-specific. Hephaistion, with an eta, is Attic-Ionic, and far more common, lasting well into the Roman Imperial era. Haphaistion, with an alpha, is Doric-Aeolic, and disappears after the middle Hellenistic era. Nor does Haphaistion appear at all in , and only occasionally in Ionic areas where they overlap with Doric-Aeolic colonization. By contrast, Attic-Ionic Hephaistion is not found in Doric- Aeolic areas. Both are rare-to-nonexistent in the northern border regions of Macedonia, Epiros, or , as is worship of the god Hephaistos. The absence matches Hephaistion’s apparent isolation at Alexander’s court. Only one Classical-era or earlier epigraphical attestation of the name comes from Macedonia, a dedication by to the Hephaistion, found at Pella4. And of course, that is “our” Hephaistion. Amyntor was also unusual for the area, with only two examples confirmed as Macedonian: Amyntor, Hephaistion’s father, and an Amyntor living in Kolophon in the latter 4th century (ΑΜΥΝΤΩΡ ΓΕΡΟΝΤΟΣ ΜΑΚΕΔΩΝ)5. Other occurrences of the

1 Vid. REAMES 2010 for an assessment of Hephaistion’s career, including mention of his assignments with Perdikkas. I specify latter years here, as we must be careful not to project backward either alliances, or conflicts. In addition, MŰLLER 2012 has argued that Hephaistion and may have been friends due to Ptolemy’s treatment of Hephaistion’s memory in his history, a theory I find plausible. 2 If conceivable that they had some distant relation, one would think Perdikkas might have used that in the Successor Wars to bolster his own position. 3 For a more complete discussion of Leonnatos’s relations, see HECKEL 1992, 91ff. (updated: 2016, 107ff); CARNEY 2019, 23-24, for Eurydike’s Lynkestian roots. 4 SEG XL, 547 (= TATAKI 1998, 155 nº 48): ΔΙΟΓΕΝΗΣ ΗΦΑΙΣΤΙΩΝΙ ΗΡΩΙ. See also VOUTYRAS 1990. 5 MAIER 1950, 69 = TATAKI 1998, 238 nº 128, vid. MERITT 1935, 361-71, no. 1, 139. Personal correspondence, Argyro Tataki, 1/27/16, and TATAKI 1998, above. In my dissertation (REAMES- ZIMMERMAN 1998), I theorized that “gerontos” might mean “son of the elder [Amyntor]”, and this could be a (younger) brother to Hephaistion. I no longer think that (see discussion below).

Karanos 3/2020 12

BECOMING MACEDONIAN: THE CASE OF HEPHAISTION

name are found only in Greek areas outside Macedonia, or in Greek foundations under Macedonian control. We may suppose Amyntor a member of the Hetairoi, and thus, Hephaistion probably a syntrophos of the prince6, but as a person, Hephaistion remains largely a cypher7. In itself, the absence of evidence proves nothing, especially in an area under active excavation and where the “epigraphic habit” began late8. Yet other peculiarities suggest there might be more to it all –a freight of evidence, or consilience9. Heckel (1991) proposed a tentative stemma for him based on IG II2 405, making him a cousin to Demetrios, son of Althaimenes, a Companion hipparch under Hephaistion’s general command in India. The inscription references Amyntor Demetriou. Demetrios is a panhellenic name, and the hipparch Demetrios had his command before Hephaistion did10, although as Heckel notes, he is the only hipparch to attain prominence in the second half of Alexander’s expedition, perhaps giving some weight to Heckel’s theory. In any case, IG II2 405, inscribed on a piece of Pentelic from the , only the right side preserved, records ’s proposal to grant and to one Amyntor Demetriou and his descendants in return for Amyntor’s display of eunoia to the Athenian people. Neither the nature of the eunoia nor Amyntor‘s place of origin is preserved. Schwenk (1985, 134) argued, “Demades as proposer does not require that Amyntor be Macedonian or have Macedonian connections”. Yet Heckel argues (1991, 66-70) the proposal’s date of 334/5, shortly after Alexander’s 335 razing of Thebes and march on Athens, does imply Macedonian connections, not least because we happen to know a Macedonian Amyntor whose son was close to the king11. A similar example can be found in an inscription recovered in 1981, recording a grant of proxeny from the Theban League to Athaneos son of Damonikos, a Macedonian. As Roesch (1984, 58-59) points out, a Demonikos son of Athenaios is appointed trirarch in Alexander’s fleet in 326, and is probably the son12.

6 That Hephaistion attended school with Alexander at under is commonly assumed. Curtius (3.12.16) –our longest description of Hephaistion in any of the sources– says they were coevals and educated together, although he does not specify at Mieza. According to Diogenes Laertus (5.27), Aristotle wrote letters to Hephaistion, the only one of Alexander’s marshals to receive such. Taken together, I think it reasonable to assume Hephaistion was at Mieza. Whether they knew each other prior is impossible to say, but were Hephaistion truly raised in Pella, perhaps they did. 7 MÜLLER 2011, 453-454 states that Hephaistion is barely a palpable person in the Alexander , with much later overlay. If we may differ somewhat in our estimation of how much is overlay, I agree with her basic point. 8 For Macedonian epigraphy, see HATZOPOULOS 1994, but especially HATZOPOULOS 1996, 40ff. Any glance at Tataki’s onomastic epigraphic collections reveals the same issues: the vast bulk of Macedonian epigraphy is late Classical and Hellenistic. Yet recent excavations at Methone suggests earlier Greco- Macedonian contact –and writing– than previously thought: BESSIOS – TZIFOPOULOS – KOTSONAS 2012; CLAY – MALKIN – TZIFOPOULOS 2017. 9 See WILSON 1998. The term consilience was coined by the British polymath William Whewell in of the Inductive , published in 1840. 10 In keeping with usual Greek naming patterns, if this Demetrios were Hephaistion’s cousin, he is likely the eldest son of Amyntor’s elder brother, making him older than Hephaistion, so a prior appointment is not surprising. 11 Demades’s links to the Macedonian court were long-standing and extensive; see for instance Green’s remarks (1991, 77-79). It was Demades who, from his prisoners’ cage, scolded Philip after Chaironea, “King, when fortune casts you in the role of Agamemnon, are you not ashamed to Thersites?” (D.S. 16.87.1-2, trans. WELLES). Humiliated, Philip freed him and made him envoy to the defeated Athenians. Later, it was Demades who would propose divine honors for Alexander (Plu. Mor. 187e, 804b, 842d). 12 Of additional interest: Roesche explains that Athaneos is the Boeotian form of the name Athenaios, like the Boeotian Haphēstion, where an alpha replaces an eta, and an eta replaces the alpha-iota dipthong.

Karanos 3/2020 13

JEANNE REAMES

This grant then provides similar evidence for an important family at the Macedonian court being honored by a southern . While nothing can be said for certain about IG II2 405, I follow Heckel in counting the Amyntor in question as Hephaistion’s father, whether or not the hipparch Demetrios was a cousin. Heckel suggests that Amyntor was granted his proxeny and citizenship as a result of helping to convince Alexander to treat Athens leniently in 335, using his own son’s friendship with the king as leverage. The interesting question is why Amyntor would care what became of Athens in the first place. A fragment from Marsyas (FGrH 135.F2) tells of ’s attempt to reconcile with Alexander by sending , a personal friend, to ask Hephaistion to mediate between himself and the king. (3.160-62) alludes to the event, but leaves out Demosthenes’s contact13. Hephaistion had no cause to love Demosthenes, so on the face of it, these two make strange bed-partners, yet Demosthenes also appealed to Olympias for assistance. Heckel notes that, aside from the affection in which Alexander held them both, Olympias and Hephaistion shared something else: families honored by Athens, if, of course, we accept the Amyntor of IG II2 405 as Hephaistion’s father14. Perhaps Amyntor’s grant of proxeny and citizenship lay behind Demosthenes’s petition, or perhaps he appealed to Amyntor’s son for the same reasons Amyntor had cared what happened to Athens in 335. Did the family have Greek, and specifically Attic-Ionian ties? Several ancient sources mention Archelaos’s invitation to famous Athenians –artists, intellectuals, others– to settle in Macedonia during his reign15. Among these was Sokrates who, according to Aristotle, refused in no uncertain terms (Rh. 1398a.24). Others accepted: the playwrights and , the poet Choirilos, and the painter . There were certainly more, artisans and merchants who would not have enjoyed so high a social profile. Might Amyntor and his son have numbered among those descendants, living in Pella and integrated into Macedonian society just two generations later?16 Conversely, and to my mind more likely, they could have hailed from a Greek foundation in the north, eaten by Philip II’s ever-expanding borders. Other foreign-born figures accepted into the Hetairoi class during Alexander’s reign include Nearchos, Erigyios, and Laomedon. If further along the chain of acceptance than the still-Greek Eumenes17, their Greek origins were remembered even if they were

13 Referring to the later Harpalos affair, GOLDSTEIN 1968, 42 n. 33, denies Badian’s conclusion (1961, 34), that Hephaistion was Demosthenes’s protector at the court, but the Marsyas fragment argues to the contrary, and one need not deny Hephaistion as protector, in order to challenge the rest of Badian’s argument. 14 Both Olympias’s uncle, , and her great-grandfather, Tharyps, had been granted citizenship; see GHI II 173, Thuc. 2.80.5; 17.3.11. HERMAN 1987, 130-142 states that a proxenos was obligated to further the interests of the polis who had honored him but specifies one cannot be proxenos to another man. Therefore, Demosthenes would have appealed to Hephaistion as a fellow citizen, not an Athenian proxenos. 15 For a fuller discussion of Archelaos’s policy towards , vid. BORZA 1990, 162-163; 1993. 16 BADIAN 1982, 38: “At Philip’s Court, Greeks and seem to have been completely integrated”. While he is speaking of the Greeks Philip brought there, it applies equally to the Greeks Archelaos brought. One might ask why the descendent of an Athenian ex-patriot would need a grant of Athenian citizenship, but see SINCLAIR 1988, especially 24-76, on citizenship restrictions; also PATTERSON 1981. 17 His inability to speak Makedonistí is often argued from his sending of Xennias to address foot troops during the Successor Wars (PSI XII 1284); for , see Badian 1982b, especially n. 41. Yet what Makedonistí means is unclear: simply a dialect of Greek rather than a separate language? See CROSSLAND 1982; HALL 2001; and now O’NEIL 2020. If had been at the court from the reign

Karanos 3/2020 14

BECOMING MACEDONIAN: THE CASE OF HEPHAISTION

now connected to towns in the north. Arrian (18.10) lists Nearkhos as Amphipolitan, although his Cretan ethnicity is well attested18. Likewise, Erigyios and Laomedon, two sons of Larikhos, are also listed as from (Arr. An. 3.6.5; 3.11.10; Ind. 18.4), but originated in Mytilene19. Lysimakhos, son of Agothokles, and his brothers, may present a closer parallel to Hephaistion. Also called “Pellais” in the same list from the Indica which so-names Leonnatos and Hephaistion, Lysimakhos appears to have been Thessalian. Heckel (1992, 267-68) discusses the evidence from later sources, suggesting that Philip brought Agothokles to court and granted the family citizenship, perhaps even made him a Companion, whatever Theopompos’s claim (FGrHist 115.F81) that he was a flatterer and born a slave. If this reconstruction is true, Lysimakhos and Hephaistion could both represent a stage of incorporation beyond that of Nearkhos, Erigyios, and Laomedon. That, in turn, could tell us something about the process of immigrant naturalization in Macedonia, at least under Philip. Ergo, Hephaistion’s later isolation at the court owed to a lack of family ties, even if his “postal code” read Pella.

HEPHAISTOS CULT AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE

Not only is Hephaistion’s name rare-to-nonexistent in Macedonia, but the lacks religious cult for Hephaistos, as well. Finding no names that reference an absent god should not, then, surprise us. Yet Hephaistos did have significant cult on two northern : and Samothrace20. At least by the mid-4th century, Macedonian and Epirote courts had evinced interest in Samothrace, and both Philip and Olympias were initiated into the Mysteries there (Plu. Alex. 2.1), albeit perhaps for political reasons. Burkert calls the Samothracian Kabeiroi the sons or grandsons of Lemnian Hephaistos (1985, 167, 281-85), and named them Pelasgian (2.51). Certainly Hephaistos himself is not a native Greek deity. Like Lemnos, the indigenous population of Samothrace was considered Pelasgian (D.S. 5.47.3), and Attika, associated with the in both our literary and archaeological record, also had prominent cults to Hephaistos21. Thebes had a cult for the Kabeiroi, with, again, indigenous connections22. Hephaistos also had cults in at Mt. Etna, Erys, and the Islands, probably

of Philip on, I find it unlikely he spoke no Makedonistí. The fact he sent a native speaker probably owed to politics, showing (among other things) that he had the support of an unquestionably Macedonian commander. Yet the upshot is the same: he was still viewed as an outsider. 18 Also perhaps 18.4, though Brunt considers it a gloss (see BRUNT 1976, loc. cit. Arr. An. 2.358 n. 4); D.S. 19.69.1; Poly. 5.35; Syll3 266. 19 The ethnic is applied only once to Erigyios (D.S. 17.57.3), but several times to his brother Laomedon (D.S. 18.3.1, 18.39.6; Arr. Succ. 1b.2, 1.34; Justin 13.4.12). Indica 18.4 is the same list calling Hephaistion Pellais. 20 One attestation of Hephaistion comes from Samothrace (IG XII [8] 170), mid-100s, the end of my allotted period. 21 Athens: Paus. 1.14.6, 1.26.5, Cic. Nat. Deo 1.24, Suidas s.v. Χαλκεία, and Λάμπαδος, naming the Hephaistia, a festival involving torches that may be the same referenced by Hdt. 8.98.2, although he doesn’t give a locale. Lemnos: Hom. 8.267ff., Her. 6.140.1, Apol. Argon. 1.857ff., , Meta. 13.314ff. and 3.81ff., Quin. Smyr. 9.365. Paus. 5.14.6, also mentions an altar to Hephaistos at Olympia, but then says the Eleans call it the Warlike (e.g., it probably was not Hephaistos at all). BURKERT 1985, 167-168. 22 BURKERT 1985, 281-282, and for a complete discussion, SCHACHTER 2003, 112-142.

Karanos 3/2020 15

JEANNE REAMES

related to the indigenous Sicilian fire god Hadranus (Ael. NA 11.3). Burkert notes that association with was secondary to association with fire23. As early as 1909, both Farnell and Fick independently called his name Pelasgian (1909, 388ff.; 1909, 46), and Cook agreed (1940, 226-9). Burkert (1985, 167, 281) says the independent Lemnian population were Tyrsenoi, identified with the Etruscans, or sometimes the Pelasgians, but in any case, Hephaistos was “obviously non-Greek”24. Linguist Beekes considers Hephaistos’s name pre-Greek (2009, 47), a term I prefer to Pelasgian25. Despite being hailed as one of the Twelve, Hephaistos cult was rather patchy in Greece and Magna Graecia. In an article about Philip II’s initial meeting with Olympias, Greenwalt notes that the sanctuary had substantial developments from Philip’s reign forward (2008, 79-82), but interest in the cult is not older the Philip or his brother Perdikkas, and probably reflect political rather than religious reasons26. It would have been unlikely to result in a widespread burst of religious fervor for Hephaistos, a point aptly reflected in the continued dearth of Hephais-root names, or cult for Hephaistos in Macedonia. The Dorian and Aeolian version of the god’s name was Haphaistos: beginning with an aspirated alpha not eta27, and in Boeotia, the dipthong “ai” converts to either an “ei” or an eta. While there are a variety of Hephais-based names, many fewer Haphēs-based names28 occur –only 28 compared to 128 Hephais-based, and they show less variation. Of these, more than a third are from Boeotia, the site of a rather significant cult to the Kabeiroi, the grandsons of Hephaistos; this is akin to the very large number of Hephais- based names in Attika. In addition, all Haphēs-based names are Hellenistic or earlier, so as time progressed, the Attic spelling replaced the Doric-Aeolian29. For our inquiry, however, the divergent alpha-spelling remains. As we shall see in the maps, there is not much overlap. In some areas, such as Athens, only the eta form is found, and in Boeotia, only the alpha form is found. The only exceptions are Delphi, which as a panhellenic site might be expected to show both variations, and Kallatis, on the Black Sea, where we find three of the alpha and one of the eta30. Ergo, the mere fact that Hephaistion’s name appears with an eta, not alpha, is noteworthy. If by the late 4th century, at least the Macedonian court employed Attic Greek for official correspondence (BRIXHE – PANAYOTOU 1988, 245-60; BORZA 1990,

23 Sicily: Pseudo-Apol. Bib. 2.111, Ael. Animals 11.3, Cic. Nat. Deo. 3.22; vid. BURKERT 1985, 168. Sicily also has five attestations of the name Hephaistion, although two appear on similar objects () as “belonging to Hephaistion” and might reference the same individual. Many of these are undated, yet I did include them in my mapping, primarily due to the Hephaistos cult there. 24 COOK 1940, 228-235 has a fair bit to say about Lemnian Hephaistos and myths associated with him. In discussing ’s origins and name, WEST 1997, 56-57, notes the odd connection to Kythera might rest on a Western Semitic craftman god, Kuthar, who was identified with Hephaistos in antiquity, and whose name later became Hellenized as “Kuthera”. While interesting to explain the connection, Hephaistos cult in Greece would seem to owe more to pre-Greek indigenous influence. 25 BEEKES 2009, 25, citing FURNÉE 1979, dismissed theories of “Pelasgian” as Indo-European, and keeps the term “pre-Greek” when speaking of non-Greek elements in Greek. BEEKES 2005 also considers the Kabeiroi pre-Greek. 26 See the rest of Greenwalt’s discussion: GREENWALT 2008, 82 ff. 27 BURKERT 1985, 161 ft. 1. 28 While Haphais-, Hapheis-, and Haphēs- are all used, in this paper, I will regularize to Haphēs- simply to distinguish it for the reader’s eye from Hephais- names. 29 A couple had difficult dating and were “suggested” as Hellenistic; given other evidence, that seems a safe bet. The slow death of Doric-Aeolic spellings in favor of Attic may owe to the rise of Koine in Hellenistic/later eras. 30 As Kallatis is a trading colony of a Doric trading colony, to find three Doric versions, and one Ionic is unsurprising.

Karanos 3/2020 16

BECOMING MACEDONIAN: THE CASE OF HEPHAISTION

94), a strong argument has been made for use of Doric Greek earlier31. For our purposes, Tataki’s onomastic studies, particularly her massive work on Beroea, conclude that distinctively Macedonian names did not take Attic forms: “Greek names that have phonetic or morphological elements different from what one would expect in accordance with the rules of contemporary Attic, are also interpreted as local [Macedonian] names” (1988, 335)32. So it stands to reason that if we did see names related to the god of the forge in Macedonia, we might expect a Doric-Aeolic form33. Yet no Haphēs-based names appear, early or late34. In the 4th century or earlier, we find only “our” Hephaistion, and into the Hellenistic era, it remains extremely rare35. If we must recognize the role of chance in what survives, I find all this to be rather more than mere chance. The name Hephaistion, spelt with an eta, is strongly regional, appearing in areas with heavy Ionian or Attic populations. Of her methodology, Tataki says, “Comparisons with the Prosopographia Attika have revealed that, if a name known in Macedonia is not found at all in Athens in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C., it is very often Macedonian” (TATAKI 1988, 335). I have employed this same principle in reverse. Hephaistion probably never needed to use a qualifying patronymic at the Macedonian court. Like the rock star Sting, there was only the one.

MAPPING THE EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

Greek naming patterns were (and still are) strongly traditional, unlike fad-names in English-speaking countries that owe to pop-culture icons. So I do not assume Hellenistic occurrences of Hephaistion reflect a tribute to Alexander’s best friend, but owe rather to Attic-Ionic emigration. Unsurprisingly, Hephais- and Haphais-root names occur in regions with notable cult for the god, or areas colonized by these. In my onomastic search, I included all names with an Hephais- or Haphais-root, not just “Hephaistion”, as we are seeking patterns.

31 O’NEIL 2020, 200: “The one moderately long inscription, the curse tablet, shows a dialect which is definitely West Greek, but seems to have some features distinct from the dialects found to the south of Macedon, Thessalian and Northwest Greek, as well as features in common with them. It also shares some features with the Macedonian glosses preserved in late authors and with a few inscriptions in standard Greek from Macedon”. Although he goes on to say there is not sufficient evidence to be certain. 32 So also O’NEIL 2020, 200: “Greek names found in Macedon in the classical period tend to be Doric in their formation and these four inscriptions suggest this was because a Doric dialect was spoken in Macedon, rather than because Greek names had been borrowed from a Doric milieu”. 33 Even a quick perusal of the lists in all her Macedonian onomastic collections show a large number of names beginning with alpha (aspirated or not), and relatively few beginning with eta. Tataki further notes that some names occur only once, or a rare name may occur several times in just one city or region (TATAKI 1988, 411-412), but the only other “Hephaistion” to appear in Macedonia, albeit a century and a half after Hephaistion Amyntoros, is connected to Thessaloniki, not Pella. 34 In her on names from Macedonian (TATAKI 1994, 83), she does give examples of names that alternate eta and alpha versions: Δημέας and Δαμέας, Δημᾶς and Δαμᾶς, etc. So the fact we have an Attic version of Hephaistion early, even if only “our” Hephaistion, but no alternative alpha version, is likely significant. 35 While tempting to point to the Pella dedication made to the Hero Hephaistion shortly after his death (n. 5) in order to confirm that he employed the Attic spelling, O’NEIL 2020, 200-201 points out that by the late 4th century, all Macedonian inscriptions use Attic forms, so the use of an eta there, if certainly worth noting, may not be the smoking gun it could seem. Again, it is the freight of evidence together, not any single piece, that is suggestive.

Karanos 3/2020 17

JEANNE REAMES

By far the largest number of Hephais-root names are found in Attika, and while this certainly reflects available evidence, it should also be remembered that, beyond Lemnos and Lemnian-influenced areas, Attika had one of the more significant cults to Hephaistos. Ergo, the frequency of Hephais-root names may owe to more than just high rates of inscriptional survival. The other place with a relatively high number of names is Boeotia, albeit the Haphēs- version, and Boeotia was also center to a cult of the Kabeiroi.

HEPHAIS-ROOT NAMES

Ἡφαιστίων (63), Hephaistion Ἡφαιστία (1), Hephaistia Ἡφαιστόδωρος (26), Hephaistodoros Ἡφαιστᾶς (1), Hephaistas Ἡφαίστιος (20), Hephaistios Ἡφαιστικῶν (1), Hephaistikon Ἡφαιστόδοτος (3), Hephaistodotos Ἡφαιστόλεως (1), Hephaistoleos Ἡαιστοκλῆς (4), Hephaistokles Ἡφαιστοκράτης (1), Hephaistokrates Ἡφαιστῆς (2), Hephaistes Ἡφαιστόπολις (1), Hephaistopolis Ἡφαιστιάδης (2), Hephaistiades Ἡφήστιχος (1), Hephestikhos Ἡφαιστόδημος (1), Hephaistodemos

HAPHĒS-ROOT NAMES

Ἀφαιστίων (11), Haphaistion Ἁφειστίων (2), Hapheistion Ἁφαιστόδωρος (2), Haphaistodoros Ἁφηστίων (6), Haphestion Ἀφαίστιος (2), Haphaistios Ἁφηστόδωρος (1), Hephestodoros Ἅφαιστος (2), Haphaistos Ἁφηστία (1), Haphestia Ἀφαιστίς (1), Haphaistis

My chief focus has been the 6th through mid-3rd centuries BCE, but I included attestations up to the mid-2nd century BCE, the time of the Roman conquest of Macedonia and Greece. It provided a logical terminus ante quem. The Hellenistic era saw much greater movement not only from and to Macedonia, but all around the Greek world36. Our earliest Hephais- name comes from , mid-late 6th century, followed by Attica in the late 5th century, but the bulk of our evidence begins in the 300s. Our earliest Haphais-root names come from Sicily (600-400) and Boeotia (530-20), but they terminate altogether before the Imperial era, whereas another hundred-plus Hephais- root names extend into Imperial times. Several areas had undatable inscriptions. I have excluded these but recognize they do represent wild cards. Yet what even the exclusions and late inscriptions would not change are the holes. Certain regions –particularly the entirety of the Peloponnesos, , and the majority of the Dorian islands– had no attestations of Hephais- names. Not just no attestations from my time frame, but no attestations in any time frame. Only four

36 So also TATAKI 1988, 334; she speaks to changes from the reign of Philip II with Macedonian emigration, and then even further changes in Macedonia with the Roman victory at Pydna in 168 BCE.

Karanos 3/2020 18

BECOMING MACEDONIAN: THE CASE OF HEPHAISTION

attestations occur in all of , and are uniformly late or undatable. A few Haphēs- names appear, but except in Boeotia and Sicily, are rare. I find these holes to be significant. To produce the maps for my online digital project, I utilized not only print collections such as Tataki’s on Macedonia and The Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (LGPN)37, but also the LGPN online (http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/), and Packard Humanities Institute’s Searchable Greek Inscriptions (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/), in an effort to be as complete as possible and to cross-check dating. If there are some dating disagreements, they did not significantly impact my larger parameters. For locating cities (some obscure), I utilized both Barrington’s of the Greek and Roman World and ToposText (https://topostext.org/). The digital project was built by Cory Starman, under the direction of my UNO colleague, digital Dr. Jason Heppler, using the R programming language, Leaflet map library, and hosted by RStudio’s Shiny web application environment. Not only does it demonstrate the distribution of names across time, but has searchable parameters by date, name form, and region, as well as links to online collections so visitors can see each inscription for themselves. In order to streamline the paper narrative, all epigraphical data appears in the appendix38.

https://unolibraries.shinyapps.io/mappingidentity/

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

The number of inscriptions anywhere with Hephais-/Haphēs-root names rises from the late 4th/early 3rd century, matching the general proliferation of inscriptions. We should especially consider areas where we find more than one Hephais- name (any version) prior to the 3rd century. Attika had the most, followed by north and Ionia (none south of Miletos), the island of Samos, and Ionian-founded cities on the northern and southern edges of the Black Sea. For Haphēs- names, it is Boeotia. Based on the epigraphical evidence then, we find that “Hephaistion” and other Hephais-root names belong to Attic-Ionian populations. Outside Boeotia, Doric- and Aeolic-speaking areas generally did not employ names referencing the god by a 1-to- 4.5 margin. Given all of this, we can say with some confidence that “Hephaistion” (with an eta) would be quite a peculiar name to give an ethnically Macedonian boy.

37 TATAKI 1988; 1994; 1998. FRASER – MATTHEWS 1987; 1994; 1997; 2000; 2005; 2010; 2014. 38

Karanos 3/2020 19

JEANNE REAMES

EPIGRAPHY AND AMYNTOR

We should also consider Hephaistion’s father’s name as Amyntor is a southern Greek form of the very popular Macedonian name Amyntas, as Mary is to Maria. Unlike Hephaistion, Amyntor is both more common and not tied to any specific Greek dialect. It appears as early as Greek epic: one of the suitors in ’s . A geographical survey yields no significant results, except as related to Macedonia and Thessaly. According to The Greek Lexicon of Personal Names, Amyntōr/our occurs sixteen times in Macedonia, and five in Thessaly prior to 3 CE, in coastal Greek colonies such as Byzantion, Amphipolis, and Odessa. By contrast, 100+ entries occur for Amyntas/ēs

Karanos 3/2020 20

BECOMING MACEDONIAN: THE CASE OF HEPHAISTION

in Macedonia and 90 in Thessaly39. No doubt quite a few of these reference Macedonian royalty, and thus name a single individual multiple times rather than multiple people, yet the numerical discrepancy is notable. I think it safe to say “Amyntor” was not a particularly Macedonian name either. Together with hints of ties to the Greek world (Athens especially), we may postulate that this family was not ethnically Macedonian. In my dissertation (1998), I suggested they might be Athenian expatriates, but a recently published katadesmos from Pydna offers an alternative closer to home, and thus, one more probable. Before we consider the curse tablet, however, we should discuss two other inscriptions. The first comes from Kolophon (MAIER 1950, 69), which Maier (1950, 227) dates to 313/306, but Meritt (1935, 371) dates to 334. Found in the Sanctuary of the Mother, it concerns a building decree for walls, a list of contributors, and their respective amounts. Among these is one “Amyntor Gerontos Makedon” who donated 500,000 pieces. Normally, this would read “son of Gerōn”, but Gerōn is quite rare40. Afterall, naming a baby “old man” is a tad odd. Therefore, in my dissertation, I proposed that gerontos might be read as “son of the elder [Amyntor]”, even without an attendant article. Was the Kolophon Amyntor a brother of Hephaistion, living high on his inheritance in Anatolia during the early years of the Successors? Yet a 4th century inscription from Ephesos has since changed my mind, suggesting there was a fellow named Gerōn in Macedonia whose two sons followed Alexander to and wound up later in Ionia41. At Ephesos, we find an honorary decree to Nikarkhos Gerontos Makedon (IEph 1432), dated to the second half of the 4th century. If we cannot date the Ephesos inscription as precisely as the one from Kolophon, two Macedonians in Ionian cities so close geographically, both sons of a man with a rare name, suggests a pair of brothers, likely veterans of Alexander’s campaign if Meritt’s dating is correct. Certainly Amyntor was quite well to do, and Nikarkhos probably as well, if honored by the capital of Ionia. The upshot is that we have a second appearance in the late 4th century of a man named “Amyntor” called a Macedonian.

A CURIOUS CURSE TABLET

In a 2002/3 article, Jaime Curbera and discuss a katadesmos from Pydna (SEG 52.617 IV, col b.1), one of six tablets with 66 names total (109-27). Tablet IV is fairly standard for the 4th century: a name list, but no specific cursing verb. The main target is one Euippos, while the others, including an Amyntor, were apparently Euippos’s allies. No specifics are given as to why the individuals were targeted, but three of the six in the cache involved legal/business cases (109). The authors state that Amyntor “is a typically Macedonian” (118), so I emailed Curbera to ask if he could further narrow down the grave dates, and if he knew of other occurrences of “Amyntor” in Macedonia. Unfortunately, he had no narrower date and cited the same examples I had found: Hephaistion’s father, and the son of Geron in Kolophon. I did,

39 FRASER – MATTHEWS 2000, III.B, 30: ΑΜΥΝΤΩΡ and ΑΜΥΝΤΟΥΡ, 29-30: ΑΜΥΝΤΑΣ only; FRASER – MATTHEWS 2005, IV, 23: ΑΜΥΝΤΩΡ only, 22: ΑΜΥΝΤΑΣ and ΑΜΥΝΤΗΣ. 40 Only 30 examples occur in all volumes of LGPN, and two of those 30 are this and another discussed immediately after (http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/ accessed Jan. 17, 2016). 41 It is possible Gerōn was a nickname rather than his birthname.

Karanos 3/2020 21

JEANNE REAMES

however, find mention of the same excavation in another paper, which dated the graves to the first half of the 4th century (PSAROUDAKĒS 2008, 198)42. The Amyntor of the tablet has no patronymic nor other distinguishing characteristic, and Euippos is not otherwise known at the Macedonian court, either under Alexander or Philip, so connecting Amyntor in the Pydna tablet with Hephaistion’s father might seem like a stretch… except for three other names on the same tablet: Sitalkas, Polemokrates and Kleandros.

A Polemokrates fathered Koinos, among the more significant marshals at Alexander’s court (Arr. An. 1.14.2; DITTENBERGER Syll.3 332, 7-8), and Kleandros, an infantry commander, was also son of a Polemokrates (Arr. An. 1,24.2) and is usually identified as Koinos’s brother43. Philip awarded land in the Khalkidike to both Koinos and Polemokrates (DITTENBERGER, Syll.3, 332)44. If the Polemokrates and Kleandros on this tablet are the same as those at court, and “Sitalkas” is a regional variant or just misspelling of the royal Thracian name Σιτάλκης, this tablet may date to Philip’s reign any time after the spring of 342, following Kersebleptes’s capitulation to Philip (D.S. 16.71. 1-2; Aesch. 2.89-93)45. While that is early in the second half of the 4th century, and the tombs in which the tablets were found belong to the first half, the dating is not exact. Sitalkes is not mentioned by name until Alexander’s Asian campaign, in command of the Thracian men (Arr. 1.28.4),

42 Personal correspondence, Oct. 20, 2015. I did make an effort to track down the excavator himself, Manthos Besios, but could find no contact information. PSAROUDAKĒS 2008 cites Banou (ΜΠΆΝΟΥ 1997) for the dating. 43 Cf. BERVE II.204 n. 422, and HECKEL 1992, 343 n. 6.2; 2006, 85-86. All are assumed to be Elimeian nobility as Koinos commanded the Elimeian brigaide, although it is nowhere explicitly stated. For a full discussion, vid. HECKEL 1992, 58, esp. n. 2-3. 44 The annexation and settlement of Amphipolis by Macedonians occurred between 356-36: ELLIS 1986, 66. 45 Vid. also ARCHIBALD 1997, 231-235; BORZA 1992, 214-215; HODDINOTT 1981, 121-122. Aeschines says Philip took an (unnamed) son hostage; Sitalkes may have been that son, if not heir. Vid. HECKEL 2006, 251-252. The tablet could also date early in Alexander’s reign, after his subduing of Thracian insurrections in the spring of 335 (D.S. 17.8.1), but I would favor an earlier date, which would match the grave dating Psaroudakēs uses. Sitalkes might even have formed Macedonian business ties prior to Philip’s success against Kersobleptes, as Philip had earlier (347) arbitrated a quarrel between Kersobleptes and Amadokos, indicating they were at then. Thracian-Macedonian ties were not uncommon among the .

Karanos 3/2020 22

BECOMING MACEDONIAN: THE CASE OF HEPHAISTION

but from 333 forward, he often appeared under . He was also part of the group who, under Kleandros, would kill Parmenion, and later suffered the same fate as Kleandros (Arr. 6.27.4; Curt. 10.1.1). His ties to Kleandros could, and probably did, date further back. To be fair, Koinos’s name does not appear on the tablet, and Polemokrates and Kleandros occupy separate . While the tablet is in four pieces, the writing seems complete with only two letters lost to damage, so we probably are not missing names. In a footnote, Curbera and Jordan warn against assuming names on the defixiones associated with royal or aristocratic families necessarily mean the named individuals are royal or aristocratic, as onomastic studies show names have wide distribution (CURBERA – JORDAN 2003, 126 n. 41). This is quite true. Yet the confluence of three names we know, from other sources, held positions at Alexander’s court and had ties to each other does suggest we may be looking at exactly who we think we are46. Add Amyntor and, if we have no direct connection between him or his son with the other three47, the likelihood rises that these are Philip’s officers. What ties might a Thracian prince and Elimeian nobility have to each other, and Pydna? From to Kersobleptes, Odrysian fortunes aligned not infrequently with Athenian, and such prominent Athenians as Iphikrates were influential at the Odrysian court48. Much of that concerned Amphipolis, and the Athenian need for timber. And of course, Amphipolis is where Polemokrates and his son would later own land once it fell under Philip’s control49. So linking Sitalkes to Polemokrates and son(s) has support from later evidence in the Alexander histories, as well as pre-Philip Odrysian history. But what does Pydna have to do with it all?

SHIP-BUILDING

We must recall Pydna’s long (sometimes hostile) history with Athens (Thuc. 1.61.2-3; 1.137.1; Plu. Them. 25), including Athens’s use of it to acquire timber with Arkhelaos’s blessing ( 2.11). In 364/3, under , Athens claimed Pydna again, along with Methone and Potidaia (Din. 1.14; D. 4.4; D.S. 15.47.2), and it remained in Athenian hands till Philip took it back in 357, the year before Alexander’s birth (D.S. 16.8.3, D. 1.5, 1.12)50.

46 A Kallias also appears in the list, and while this might be the same as the Kalis involved in the plot with Demetrios the Bodyguard, I find it unlikely. I suspect Kallias is simply an unknown individual. 47 During the incident, both Koinos and Hephaistion are part of the group who, along with Krateros, tortured Philotas to get a confession. As I have argued elsewhere (REAMES 2010), Krateros had been gunning for Philotas for a while, and Koinos needed to separate himself from the family of Parmenion. Hephaistion’s reasons for joining them were likely sentimental (his best friend threatened), but it could be that he, too, needed to prove his loyalty if his father had ties to Polemokrates who, like his son Koinos, had ties to Parmenion. I find that unnecessarily convoluted (affection for the king is reason enough), but given the highly speculative nature of the reconstruction, all possibilities should be placed on the table. 48 SEARS 2013. 49 ARCHIBALD 1998, 213-222, 231-234. Citizenship and proxenia were quite probably possessed by the three successors of Kotys and their descendants, see ARCHIBALD 1998, 231 for a discussion. Albeit impossible to verify –and again, assuming the names on the tablet are officers at the Macedonian court– we could even speculate that Sitalkes’s rise in Alexander’s army owed to his ties to Polemokrates’s family. 50 Pydna has popularly been viewed as a Greek city, and it did have independent coinage by the 6th century: PETSAS 1976, “Pydna”. Yet recent shows the site inhabited already in the Age so it may not have been Greek at all, but an early northern port with which the Euboian Greek foundation of Methone competed.

Karanos 3/2020 23

JEANNE REAMES

This may be where Amyntor enters the picture. As the other curse tablets involve business matters, and as Polemokrates and Sitalkes owned land in timber-rich areas, perhaps this concerned timber contracts51. If this Amyntor is “our” Amyntor, he probably belonged to Polemokrates’s generation. Did they meet at Philip’s court and form a business alliance for timber that included Euippos and others from Pydna? It is, of course, highly speculative, resting on a coincidence of four names known to be prominent at the Macedonian court, three of which had later ties. But perhaps archaeology has thrown us a bone, affording a small peek into non-royal business under the Argeads. It might also help to explain why a boy with an Attic-Ionian name should rise so high at the Macedonian court. Like Amphipolis, Pydna was linked to Athens, subject of a tug-of-war between Athens and Macedon dating from Alexander I (Thuc. 1.137.1) down to Archelaos and then Philip II, after which it remained securely Macedonian52. According to Demosthenes (1.5), a pro-Macedonian faction had opened the city gates to Philip in 357.

CONCLUSIONS

This leaves two tantalizing possibilities. — Was Amyntor a member of the pro-Macedonian faction in the city? And did his son become one of the prince’s syntrophoi in exchange for Amyntor’s aid in retaking Pydna, just before Alexander was born? — Or was Amyntor a high-placed member of the pro-Athenian faction, and after, his son was taken to Pella as a hostage for his father’s good behavior? Either is possible.

Seeing Polemokrates and Kleandros on the tablet too probably suggests Amyntor was pro-Macedonian. Yet as discussed above, the tablet likely dates somewhat later, by which point he could have changed his allegiance. And if this Amyntor is Amyntor Demetriou, previous pro-Athenian leanings could have led him to intervene for Athens in 334/3. Certainly, if Hephaistion had spent his youth in Pella, either as a hostage or as a reward for Amyntor’s loyalty, being identified by Arrian as “Pellais”, like Leonnatos, is to be expected. So if Amyntor were originally a Greek from Pydna, the specifically Attic-Ionian roots of his son’s name, as well as his own Greek version of the Macedonian Amyntas, would be neatly explained without looking as far back as the influx of Athenian expatriots under Arkhelaos. Yet this is simply one tantalizing possibility. Other northern Greek cities such as Amphipolis present too. We could argue that an Amphipolitan Amyntor was Polemokrates and son’s link to timber traders in Pydna, without Amyntor being from Pydna himself –assuming the Amyntor on the tablet is “our” Amyntor in the first place. Yet all of this returns us to the fluidity of Macedonian identity under the monarchy. Macedon’s borders fluctuated, wildly at times, until, by Philip II, previously independent Upper Macedonian cantons had been absorbed, as well as Paionia and

51 ARCHIBALD 1998, 222-231 for a discussion of links in Odryssian . 52 Thuc. 1.137.1, 1.61.1-3, D.S. 13.49.1-2; v. also BORZA 1992, 213ff.; ELLIS 1986, 66-67; EDSON 1970, 24 n. 6; HAMMOND 1972, 128-129.

Karanos 3/2020 24

BECOMING MACEDONIAN: THE CASE OF HEPHAISTION

chunks of Thrace. We might fairly ask if Elimeians, Lynkestians, or Paionians wanted to be considered “Macedonian”? This fluidity may be even older, however. Given exciting findings from Methone53, Macedonian interaction with Greeks, Phoenicians, and others in the northern Aegean is earlier than we knew, dating to the same period as Greek and Phoenician interaction with western Italian tribes at Pithokousai and . Certainly, it predates Alexander I’s opportunistic expansion after the Greco-Persian Wars. That begs the question of just how long Greeks have been making their way inland from coastal Greek foundations to Macedonian towns, and even the court? It did not begin with Archelaos, nor even Alexander the Golden. How many of those Greek traders put down roots, married Macedonians, and became Macedonian with time? Citing Hall, Graninger states, “ethnic groups had been (and therefore must continually be) narrated into existence”54 –a phrasing I find particularly apt. Over time, transplanted Greeks narrated themselves into Macedonian identity, or were narrated so by later sources. In his collection on ethnic boundaries, Barth explains (1969, 15) that perceived socially relevant factors are the diagnostic criteria for membership in an ethnic group, as opposed to “objective” differences. In short, ethnicity depends on what we perceive as relevant. Furthermore, when a person, family, or group changes ethnic identification, it creates automatic ambiguity, as ethnic identity owes to origin as well as self-ascription (29). This would explain why “becoming Macedonian” required time, as an individual or family’s origin was gradually forgotten in favor of subsequent identification. Figures at the Macedonian court still in transition, such as Nearchos, and Erigyios and Laomedon –even Lysimakhos– are sometimes identified by their new Macedonian identity, and sometimes by their Greek origin. Now, finally, we can position the case of Hephaistion (and his father). Whatever one makes of the curse tablet, the distinctively Attic-Ionian form of his name remains. With Hephaistion, we have a brief window into the process of Macedonian naturalization, and a hint at degrees of inclusion. By the end of Alexander’s reign, Hephaistion was remembered –”narrated”– as Macedonian in our extant sources, any Greek ties forgotten by writers of later generations, even if vestiges of his foreignness remained in his isolation at the court, and, fatefully, in his name.

53 CLAY – MALKIN – TZIFOPOULOS 2017 and the earlier BESSIOS – TZIFOPOULOS – KOTSONAS 2012, which bears out ’s dating of the city’s founding in the second half of the eighth century (Plu. Mor. 293a-b). 54 GRANINGER 2015, 23; HALL 1997, 17-32.

Karanos 3/2020 25

JEANNE REAMES

Appendix of Epigraphical Data

Each name type is organized below by region with, first, a brief statistical summary, then the data itself. Details about the cities appear in footnotes in the first section, but if cities repeat in the second section, I’ve not repeated those footnotes.

HEPHAIS-BASED NAMES

BLACK SEA/THRACE

Settlements around the Black Sea, colonized by Ionian Greeks, have attestations not only for Hephaistion (3), but also Hephaistikon (1), Hephaistios (4), Hephaistodōros (2), Hephaistodotos (1), Hephaistokles (1), and Hephaistas (1), making a total of 13. These are found in the Cimmerian Bosporos, , and Scythia Minor. In the Cimmerian Bosporos, we have an Hephaistios at Harmonassa (CIRB 1069) in the 4th or 3rd century, and an Hephaistion, son of Kotytion, at , in the 3rd century55. In Scythia, Hephaistikon, father of Dioskourides, appears at - on a vase in the 3rd century (IGDOlbia 84; DUBOIS 1996), while Hephaistodoros appears twice in the same city, once also on a black-glaze skyphos dating to the 5th century (SEG.41 622 = IGDOlbia 31), and another is mentioned as the son of Diogenes in the late 3rd century (IOlba 26, 3). Hephaistios appears on a weight at in the middle of the 4th century (GOLOVKO 1966, 80 n. 26). Both Olbia- Borysthenes and Nikonian were settled by Miletos56, Nymphaion by Ionic towns in Asia Minor (with ties to Athens: Aeschin. 3.171-172)57, and Harmonassa is also Ionian generally58. Scythia Minor yields the most references to men with Hephais-root names in this region. Hephaistion, son of Matris, appears at Kallatis, dating to the 3rd century (ISM 1:9, 4, 18). At Istros-, Hephaistios appears on a curse tablet from the 3rd/2nd century (AVRAM 2003, defixio 4, 2); Hephaistokles father of Auxesileo from the 4th century (ISM I, 240); and two Hephaistodoroses, one, son of Apollonios, from the 3rd century (ISM I, 119) and one, father of Polyainetos, in 250-150 (ISM I 46, 2). Istros was also founded by Miletos59, and Kallatis by Herakleia Pontika, which had been founded by , or Boeotia (a disputed point, although 5.26.7 names Megara)60. So again, we have Ionian-Attic connections for Istros, although Herakleia Pontika was a Doric foundation; as we’ll see Kallatis and Chersonesos (another foundation of Herakleia Pontika) have three Doric versions of the name, rather than just one Ionian. Farther south in Thrace, the foundations of - on the Black Sea dates to the , but had an influx of new populations from the Ionian cities of Asia

55 For Hephaistion: TSETSKHLADZE 2001, 314, f. 7.3; cf. TOKHTAS’EV – KATZ 1997, 376. 56 DIMITRIEVITCH 2003, 397-398; BOARDMAN 1999, 242; MILLER 2013, 165-166, 15.4 (“ and Colonies”). 57 YUREVNA 2003, 759-760, 764-765; BOARDMAN 1999, 253. 58 ILYINITCHNA 2003, 1016ff. 59 AVRAM 2003, 279; BOARDMAN 1999, 242. 60 BURCU 2003, 1403-1404; BOARDMAN 1999, 243, naming Megara.

Karanos 3/2020 26

BECOMING MACEDONIAN: THE CASE OF HEPHAISTION

Minor in the 7th century61. We find an Hephaistios there in the late 5th/4th century, father of Apollas (IGBulg I2 433), and also an Hephaist-, husband of Ada, same time frame (IGBulg I2 415), possibly the same person. In the Malak Porovets area inland, south of the , we find Hephaist– dating to 325-250 (SEG 40.573,4), a police officer or guard? There are no other attestations in our time frame, although quite a few Hephaistions appear at Odessos in the Imperial and late-Imperial era.

ANATOLIA

Moving to the coastal regions of Anatolia, we find particular concentrations of Hephais- root names in Ionian cities, but not exclusive to them. Besides Hephaistion (17), names include Hephaistēs (1), Hephaistios (13), Hephaistoleōs (1), Hephaistodōros (3), Hephaistoklēs (1), and Hephaistopolis (1). From the north around the , in , , dating 350-25, we find Hephaistoleōs62, and in 208, in Parion, Hephaistion (FD 111 [4] 134 I.17), plus another Hephaistion generally in the region (IIlion 64, 68), 3rd/2nd century. Abydos as a Greek foundation is Milesian (Strab. 1.1.22), and Parion is Eretrian –both Ionian63. Moving east into , at , we have one Hephaistion dated to the generally (IPerg 504 n. 46), and another dated between 175-108 (Perg. Forsch. 11 II, 203). In the region, we find Hephaistios at Kromna in 349- 11 (SEG 53.796)64. At Sinope on the Black Sea, founded by Miletus65, several occurrences of Hephais- names appear, some securely Classical. Hephaistios has nine relevant entries, perhaps most, given their dates, from a family of potters (a son of Poseidōnios, another of Theodōros, another of Exēkestas, and another of Estiaios)66 all between the 5th and 2nd centuries, and both Hephaistion father of Serapiōn (CIA 111 3633, 2 = SEG 28.309), and Hephaistodoros father of Posideios (an astynomos), probably early-Hellenistic67. In addition, a couple Sinopian amphorai, found around Scythia Minor, list a Hephaistios as their maker, almost surely someone from this family68. Unsurprisingly, several Hephais-based names in differing places are linked to potters.

61 DMITRI – KRISTINA 2003, 95-6; BOARDMAN 1999, 246-247. 62 SNG München Troas- 11-12 (); LE RIDER 1963, 51-3 (date). 63 BASARON 2015. 64 Kromna’s foundation is uncertain, but neighboring cities in the Chersonese are foundations either of Miletus or Megara, both Ionian or Attic: POSAMENTIR – COLEMAN 2011, 395-396. 65 Xen. Anab. 6.1.15; D.S. 14.31.2; Strab. 12.545 66 The earliest is late 5th-early 4th century and the latest c. 205-185: ISinope 21, 22, 7,15; GRAKOV 1929, 154 n. 1; GARLAN 2004, 24-26; 73-75; 97-160-164-181-199 (one person, multiple entries: a potter); and another potter, 286-327-338-353-372-379-390-398-484-522-526-559-573-613 (given the dates, this latter may be the grandson of the former potter), and finally, GARLAN 2004, 149 n. 17 (which arguably may be the same as the previous). 67 GARLAN 2004, 92-96. In addition, Sinopian pottery stamps show up in coastal cities of Asia Minor and even inland bearing Posideios Hephaistodorou as astynomos, Histria: SEG 55.810, 16 (d. 310-05); Kallatis: SEG 30.809, 29 (250-150); SEG 48.975bis, 76 (d. 333-296). LGPN places Hephaistodoros in the second half of the 4th century, but given the dates, even assuming the pots outlived the harbor official, early Hellenistic is more likely. 68 This can be counted as one of those times archaeology tells a story about people not in the history books. Given the variety of places his/their pots turn up around the Black Sea –Kallatis, Histria, Malak Provets area south of the Danube– the family must have done well. Kallatis: SEG 51.946, 56 (222-11); SEG 48.975bis, 100 (undated). Histria: Histria VIII 2, 237, 261, 287, 310, 425-426 (279-58, 4 pieces in Group IV, 257-190, in Group Vb). Malak Provets: SEG 40.573, 4 (325-250).

Karanos 3/2020 27

JEANNE REAMES

In Ionia in the relevant period, we have two Hephaistions at in the 2nd century, one the son of Eupolemos (ISmyrna 688 II, 11), the other the father of Apollōnios and Artemidoros (ISmyrna 689 I, 6, 8-9). A Hephaistēs father of Philoklēs, and Hephaistoklēs father of Kronios, as well as three Hephaistions69, appear at Kolophon in 311-306, and at , we find Hephaistion father of Mnaseas in the 2nd century (IEph 3429, 18). At Miletos, the southernmost of the Ionian League70, we find Hephaistios twice, dating to 405 and 240-30 (Milet I [3] 122 II, 9; 141, 4) both father to a Timopolis suggesting a family across generations, and Hephaistidoros father of Pithēkis once in the 4th century (EHRHARDT – GÜNTHER 2010, 398 n. 1). South and east of Ionia71, has a large collection of attestations for Hephaistion, but all are late, the earliest dating to the early 2nd century. In , Lydia, in the early 2nd century, we find Hephaistion, son of Menekratos (SEG 28.907; SEG 57.1189). Likewise several areas in , , , and show Hephais-root names (mostly Hephaistion), these are also mid-late Hellenistic down into the Imperial era. Inland, in Tabai in Rhodian Caria, 188-67, we find the father of an , and in nearby Lomeis72, Hephaistion appears twice in the 3rd century, one a son of Artimidoros and the other father to Diodotos (Hautes terres de Carie 61, 2 & 1.8). In Halikarnassos in 201-196, we find Hephaistion the father of Straton, son of another Straton (SEG 52.1042 = WILHELM 1908, 63, l. 9), and later in the 2nd century, we find Hephaistion, son of Apollonas and father of another Apollonas (IHallikarnassos 319b). In , Pamphylia in the 3rd-2nd BCE, we find Hephaistion son of Eumēlos (IG XII3 831 = II2 8391), and Hephaistodoros, a sculptor, son of Theon appears at Megasos-Antiocheia in the 3rd-2nd BCE (MOUTERDE 1921, 213.5).

AEGEAN ISLANDS/NORTH

As for the , we find Hephaistion (16), Hephaistēs (1), Hephaistopolis (1), and Hephaistodōros (1). Beginning with the Northern Aegean islands, at , Lesbos in the 2nd century, we find a Hephaistion father of Sosias (SEG 27.486 = SEG 32.818), on , Hephaistēs in 440-420 (IG I3 1345), and on Samos73 in the 6th century, we have an Hephaistion (DUNST 1972, 138, 4), as well as two more on dedications at the Heraion (a bronze hare and cauldron) dating to the second half of that century74, another in 500

69 Three of these appear on the very long decree for walls mentioned elsewhere in this paper: MERITT 1935, 361-371 n. 1: Hephaistēs: 394; Hephaistoklēs: 872; and Hephaistion father of Thrasumēdes: 427. Hephaistion also appears in SEG 4.584 (Hellenistic), and as the father of Athenagoras, III/II BCE (SCHUCHHARDT 1886, 426.4). 70 HERDA 2016, for Miletus’s foundation and connections with Megara, and with Ionian . 71 Places range from Carian villages to possibly Argolid foundations: JONES 2004, 49-50; LANG 2003, 442. 72 I could find no location on any map for Lomeis/Loma, but it is in the region of Caria annexed later by , one of several inland communities north of on the coast, JONES 2004, 50; on the map, I used the same coordinates as for Tabai, as they belonged to the same group, along with nearby . As they all date around the same time, the father of the archon from Tabai might be one of those from Lomeis. 73 The popularity of Hephais-based names on Samos may owe to the prominence of cult on the island, as she was Hephaistos’s mother in myth. But Hera enjoyed prominent cult in the , at least in the Argolid (which was arguably Ionian), while Hephais-based names did not. Ergo, I am more inclined to connect the names’ popularity there to its Ionian population rather than to worship of Hera. 74 Hare: Samos 200 = IG XII [6] 2:547 = CIG 2.2247; cauldron: Samos 223 = IG XII [6] 2:541 = DUNST 1972, 138, XX 4.

Karanos 3/2020 28

BECOMING MACEDONIAN: THE CASE OF HEPHAISTION

(DGE 715, 2= JEFFERY 1961 [1990], 342, 15), a Hephaistopolis father of Iadmōn in the 5th century (Hdt. 2.134), and last, Hephaistion, magistrate in the Athenian , 350 (IG XII6 1:262)75. The is predictably thin, with only two Hephaistions, both on Rhodes, both late, one in 200 (OLCAY-SEYRIG 1965, 459-464) and another in 175- 50 (GRACE 1947, 450 fig. 8). At Dystros on Euboia, we have one Hephaistion father of Amphalkos in 308-04 (IG XII [9] 240, 17), and at Histiaia, another, son of Xenokarēs in the 3rd century (IG XII [9] 249 A, 150). At on Euboia, two Hellenistic appearances of Hephaistion (IG XII [9] 372), one the son of Olympichos (IG XII [9] 106), and Hephaistodoros father of Xaritōn is dated to the late 4th or 3rd century (IG XII [9] 246 A, 29). On , center of Ionian cult, we find two Hephaistions, one dated to 192 (ID 399 a, 43)76. On Keos in the 3rd century, we have Hephaistion son of Heraklides (IF XII [5] 596, 2). At Melos, Hephaistion father of Sylosōn is attested in the 4th/3rd century (IG XII [3] 1215). And finally, at , we have one attestation of Hephaistion in the (perhaps) 4th century (SEG XX, 736.10)77. All of these except Melos and Rhodes are Ionian-Attic, either directly or by colonization. The Rhodian inscriptions are Hellenistic but the Melian is Classical. Like Rhodes, Melos was Doric –until the siege of 416, when Athens deported the population and colonized it themselves, only to be expelled later by the Spartans, who repatriated some surviving Melians (Thuc. 5.84-116; Xen. Hel. 2.2.9; Plu. Lys. 14.3). How complete this expulsion was may be questioned. I think we should allow that at least some Athenians may have remained on the island, so we could have a mixed Dorian- Attic population post-.

SOUTHERN MAINLAND GREECE/ATTIKA

Turning to the Greek mainland itself south of Macedonia, besides Hephaistion (17), we find Hephaistios (2), Hephaistodemos (2), Hephaistodōros (16), Hephaistodotos (3), Hephēstikhos (1), Hephaistoklēs (2), Hephaistiadēs (2) Hephaistokrates (1), and a woman: Hephaistia (1) –the bulk of these in Attika. In Attika and the Saronic Gulf, names referencing Hephaistos come in the greatest variety and number. Of course, this may owe to the fact so much of our epigraphical evidence (like other types of evidence) is from Attika/Athens. The oldest attestations are late 5th century, all from Athens for Hephaistodōros, the oldest dates to 415 (PA 6563; IG I3 421, 10)78, another of the tribe Erechtheis in a casualty list, 411 (SEG LII, 60.19), and another, father of Timagora, to 410-390 (PA 6564; IG II2 6446); and last, a slave, dating between 413-05 (IG I3 1032, 117). The first and second were spelt with an epsilon not eta, and three omicrons instead of two omicrons and an omega. All other Hephais-based names belong to the fourth century or after, so none is particularly early even if they offer the greatest variety. Among these we find the sole woman, Hephaistia, daughter of Kairedēmos from Acherdous dating to the middle of

75 I debated whether to include him with the Athenian list or place him here, but finally decided to place him here as a colonist. It matters somewhat less with Samos, as both the island and Athens are Attic- Ionian populations. 76 Quite a few of Hephaistion on Delos were undatable; at least some of these may fall in our range. 77 The online PHI database dates this inscription much later, to the 1st century BC-1st century AD; I am inclined to accept this down-dating, as it is very much an outlier, but still include it. 78 He is included among the men whose property was confiscated due to the mutilation of herms in Athens.

Karanos 3/2020 29

JEANNE REAMES

the 4th century (IG II2 7189). One (probable) Hephaistiadēs dates to 378/7-350 (IG II2 1895), and the other, father of Panaitios, of Leukonoion, lived in the 2nd century (IG II2 6742 = PA 6548). We then have Hephaistios, father of , mother of a polemarch, from Aigina after the 5th century (IG IV 85), and another Hephastios, father of Satyros, of Athens, dating to the 3rd-2nd century (IG II2 4030 = PA 6549). For the moment, I’ll pass over Hephaistion (who has quite a list), and move to Hephaistodēmos, father of Euthegenēs, of Kephisia, 322/2179. We have three of Hephaistodotos, the first from Halai Aixonides, 303/4 (AG XV 61, 194); a second, an ephebe running a torch race to Marathon80, son of Dōrotheos of Ikarion, 176/5 (IG II3 1313, 166 = Ag. Inv. 7529 [unp.]); and last, an Eleusinian victor, 165-50 (I 227, 17). For Hephaistoklēs, we have two from Halai, possibly related and/or the same person. The first dates to 318/1781 (SEG XXVIII, 155 [XXXVI, 155.19]); and the second, father of Demaratos, dates to 303/2 (AG. XV 62, 217). Hephaistokratēs, father of Aristophanēs, hails from Kydathenaion, and lived in 400-375 (IG II2 6566, add. p. 891). Finally, we turn to the two most popular names, Hephaistion with 17 occurrences and Hephaistodōros with 16. Most Hephaistions appear in, or probably in Athens. Certainly from Athens, we have a sculptor, son of Myron and father of Eutykhidēs, living in the 2nd century82, and the father of Dionysios, from the Philaidai in 343-40 (IG II2 1747, 3 = 1749, 17; Ag. XV 36, 4; 38, 17; PA 6561). Nine other Hephaistions may also have been from Athens. A Hephaistion from the 4th century (IG II2 2349, 4); another, father of Athēnais, from the middle 4th (IG II2 10581), another dating to 365/4 (SEG XXVI, 203, I)83; a fourth, dating to the 4th/3rd century (SEG XXIV, 223.5); and a tantalizing “son of Hephaistion” dated before 190/80 (SEG XXXIII, 245). We have a potter, dating to 225-175 (Ag. XXII 83); and another from the middle 2nd century, probably from the Kerameikos84 (Ag. IV 638; 862 = Kerameikos , 166ff., JŐAI 73 [2004] 145). On Crete at we find an Hephaistion identified as an Athenian, dating to the 3rd century (SEG 44.730bis, B). Hephaistion father of Apollonios dates to 166/5, right at the end of our range (IG II2 2316). Finally, we have a metic, dated to 333-32885. Being a metic, we cannot say where he was born, but looking at our general pattern, Ionia or one of the Ionic islands would be a good guess. I have counted him among the Athenian Hephaistions simply for convenience. Hephaistions in Attika outside Athens in our date range include Ankyle 183/2 (IG II2 2332, 216 = PA 6555), two in Erchia, almost certainly from the same family and likely a grandfather and grandson: one the son of a Philēmōn, dating sometime in the 2nd

79 SEG XXI, 302.3; IG II2 371, 4; IG II2 383, 17; IG II2 375, 3-4; IG II2 376, 3 = PA 6562. 80 PARKER 2007, 469-470 discusses the race. The third-to-last letter is restored, and while both the print and online versions of the LGPN give this as Hephaistodotos, the online PHI searchable epigraphic database has it as the slightly more common name Hephaistodōros (which also changes the ο to an ω, so I reject it), and the PAA 8, p. 280, restores it as Hephaistodokos. I will follow the LGPN, but for my arguments, any of the three would apply. 81 Here, I have followed the date given in the Online Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (which is more recently updated), rather than the older print version, which gave the dates as 332/1. When dates conflict, I tend to prefer the most recent, but they are rarely so greatly divergent as to impact my general time frames. 82 ID 1634, 7; 1647, 8; 1870, 8; 1966, 6; 2007, 5; 2008, 5; 2076, 9; 2498; 1500-I; cf. MARCADÉ 1953, II, 59ff. (PA 6553). 83 The online PHI inscriptions dates this a century later to the late 3th, early 2nd, but I will, here, follow LGPN. 84 Most of the name has been restored, with only the Hephai- visible; so it is possible the name is another variant, but for our purposes, it is still a Hephais-based name. 85 IG II2 1672, 121; 1673 + SEG XXXIV, 122.38 + I.Eleusis 159, 38.

Karanos 3/2020 30

BECOMING MACEDONIAN: THE CASE OF HEPHAISTION

century (IG II2 6113), and the other –probably the elder– the father of a Philēmōn, dating to 188/7 (IG II2 892 = IG II3, I 1276 = PA 6557). Another came from Halai in the 4th/3rd century86; and another from the tribe Antiochis in 246/5 (IG II2 681, II, 27; PA 6554). The earliest name is Hephaistodōros, four of which I mentioned above. We have three more in Athens, father of Plathanē, dating to the first half of the 4th century (IG II2 7728; cf. APF 13374), another from the first half of the 4th century, son of one Aiskylos and father of another (IG II2 2346, 19, 22; PA 6564a), and last, an Hephaistodōros who apparently served as basileus in the middle 4th century (IG II2 5901). In Attika outside Athens, we find more Hephaistodōroses. In Axione, in 200 BCE (Ag. XV 151, 29, IG II3 1235, 29); in Besa in the middle 4th century (IG II2 5901); in Cholargos, father of Eucharistos 210/9 (SEG XXII, 101.18); and three from Leukonoia, all 3rd century, and again, likely part of the same family, as we have a father of a Hephaistodōros and the son of one in the second half of the 3rd century87, and then a third, dated to 212/11, who may be the same son or a grandson (IG II2 848, frag, II,11; Ag. XV 129, 84). At Potomos, in c. 333 (IG II3 417, 65; SEG XXVIII, 52.65); at Steiria in the second half of the 4th century we find the son of Arizēlos (Ag. XV 32, 43; PA 6566); and last, in the tribe of Oineis, in 246/5 (IG II2 681 II, 16)88. Moving north into Boeotia and Thessaly. We have only one inscription at Delphi, which had a veritable warehouse of dedications from all over the Greek world. Together with the fact there are no “Hephais-” based names at Olympia on dedications, I find this lack curious89. In any case, we do find Hephaistion, son of Parianos at Delphi dating c. 208 (FD III 4.134.17). There are two attestations of names with the Hephais-root at : Hephaistion (IG II2 6113=FRA 7343) in the 2nd century, and Hephaistodoros, father of Nikomakhos (IG VII 381 = IOrop 29). A Hephēstikhos (a variation on -phai-) can be found in in the 3rd century (IG VII 108) in the 3rd or 2nd century. But both Oropos and Tanagra are border towns between Boeotia and Attika, which might explain the “ai” shift to an eta. In Thessaly at Melitaia, we find a dedication to Ino the , aunt of Dionysos, given by Xenon, grandson of a Hephaistion, dated to the last half of the 3rd century (SEG 26.683), and an undated reference to a Hephaistion at Demetrias in , although probably Hellenistic or later90.

86 IG II2 2686 = FINLEY 1951, 128 no. 28,5 f. (PA 6556). 87 IG II2 6735; IG II2 1299, 82 = PA 6565; IG II2 2346, 19-24 and IG II2 6745; vid. also I.Eleusis 196, col 1.82, Athenian soldiers in Eleusis in 234. I am counting this instance as one of these three. 88 -ōros is missing from the end, so it may be a different name, but Hephaistodōros is most likely. 89 This may be an artifact of social class. As we have seen, Hephais-based names were popular among potters (and perhaps also blacksmiths) who, as craftsmen, probably did not have the funds available for the expensive training regimen required of top-level athletes who competed on the Circuit. 90 A reference to Hephaistos, the god, also appears at Demetrias in 250 (ΑΡΒΑΝΙΤΌΠΟΥΛΟΣ 1934- 1940, 12, 1).

Karanos 3/2020 31

JEANNE REAMES

MACEDONIA

Let us move finally to Macedonia itself. As already noted, no Hephais-root names appear before the 4th century, and then only the dedication to “our” Hephaistion in Pella, c. 315-300 (SEG XL, 547). In the early 2nd century on Delos, we find a votive offering from Athenion, son of Hephaistion of Macedon (IG XI, 4 1273.3-4, TATAKI 1998, 225 nº 45). And a Hephaistion, son of Theod-? appears in Thessaloniki somewhere between 200-166 (IG X2 1, 26 = HATZOPOULOS 1996, II [Epig. App.], 71). Given the rarity of the name in the region and the dating of both inscriptions, it is possible the father of Athenion is the Hephaistion in Thessaloniki.

HAPHĒS-BASED NAMES

BLACK SEA/THRACE & ANATOLIA

Settlements around the Black Sea have only 3 attestations total, for Haphaistios (1), Haphaistiōn (1), and Haphaistodōros (2). These are found in Scythia Minor and . Only Haphaistiōn (1) appears in all of Anatolia, in the Pontos In Scythia Minor, a Haphaistiōn, son of Skuthas, is found at Kallatis (ISM III 35 B, 38) in the second half of the 3rd century. The same city also had a Hephaistion in the same time-frame. In Tauris at the Chersonesos, we find a Haphaistodoros in the first half of the 3rd century (SEG XL, 615 B, 2-4), and a Haphaistios mentioned on a vase, dating to the Hellenistic period (GAKh 383). As mentioned above, both Kallatis and Chersonesos were founded by Herakleia Pontika, which was a Doric Megaran foundation. No eta- versions of the name appear in the Chersonesos, nor in Herakleia Pontika. Significantly, the only appearance in Anatolia is from Herakleia, Haphaistiōn a potter, dating somewhere between 390-7091. Again, as a Megaran (or possibly Boeotian) foundation, Herakleia Ponika and its colonies should produce Doric versions of the name, although, as noted in the section above, there is one instance of Hephaistion with an eta in Kallatis.

AEGEAN ISLANDS

Haphaistiōn appears in the Dodecanese 4 times, 2 from the same family92. We also have an Haphaistis (1) on Aeolian Lesbos. has the family, dating to the third century, the father of Apollōnios (IDorIns 88, 20-1), and the son (IDorIns 88, 44). Rhodes has two instances of the name, one generic, 3rd century (KONTORINI 1975, 116, II, l. 6), and the other in the Argeioi clan from , father of Euklēs, c. 325 (IG XII [1] 761, 22). Haphaistis, daughter of Theodōros, is found in Eresos on Lesbos in the Hellenistic Era, our first of two females with the alpha version (IG XII [2] 535).

91 IHeraclea p. 128; GRAKOV 1926, 186; TELEAGA 2003, 77 no. 19 92 The LGPN has a 5th listed at Nēsos, which is part of the archipelago in Akarnania, but as there are a few names in that general region, I will save that name for Akarnania/Achaia, as it more likely fits there.

Karanos 3/2020 32

BECOMING MACEDONIAN: THE CASE OF HEPHAISTION

PELOPONNESOS, WEST GREECE, ITALY & SICILY

Several versions occur in these regions: Haphaistiōn (4), Haphaistios (1), Haphaistos (1). Again, all appear in Aeolic-Doric contexts. Haphaistiōn, son of Nikandros, appears at Nēsos harbor in the 3rd century (IG XII [2] 646 a, 13 + Suppl. p. 51), and Hephaistios in Stratos, 6th-5th century (ΜΑΣΤΡΟΚΏΣΤΑΣ 1967, 323). Both are in Akarnania. And in Dyme, Achaia just to the south, we find Haphaistiōn, father of Phintōn, 3rd century (ROBINSON 1910, 399 nº 74 b, 3), and Haphaistos, son of Aristoklēs, c. 219 (RIZAKIS 1990, 124). Turning further west, we have two Haphaistiōns, one in Sicily at Silenous in the 6th- 5th century (MANGANARO 1997, 18, 1), and the other, son of Dameas, at /Tarentum, dated to 26793. Taras, of course, is famously ’s sole colony (Paus. 10.10.8), and Selinous was founded by Megara Hyblaia, in turn a colony of Megara, so again, Doric (Thuc. 6.4.7).

BOEOTIA/

Here, we find the largest number and greatest variation of alpha-versions of the name, and also here is where we find the largest cult related to Hephaistos (the Kabeiroi) in an Aeolic region. Haphaistiōn in Lokris (1), Hapheistiōn in Boeotia (2), Haphēstiōn in Boeotia (6), Haphēstodorōs in Boeotia (1), Haphēstia in Boeotia (1), and Haphaistos (1) at the of Delphi. We find Haphaistiōn at Naupaktos in Lokris, c. 200-180 (IG IX (1) 2 (3) 624 f., 17); Naupaktos was the supposed site of the Herakleidai invasion of the Peloponnesos (Paus. 10.38.10; Apollod. 2.8.2). All other occurrences come from Boeotia itself, where we also find a spelling shift in the middle of the name, replacing the /ai/ dipthong with either an /ei/ or an eta. In , we find two Hapheistiōns, which, given the dating and use of /ei/ may hail from the same family. We have the father of Zenokratēs, c. 245-35 (ROESCH IThesp 94, 11; KΕΡΑΜΟΠΟΥΛΛΟΥ 1936, Chr. 38 nº 209), and the father of Lousōn, c. 210 (SEG XXIII, 271, 80; KNOEPFLER 1992, 468 nº 98). We then move to alpha-phi-eta versions, of which Haphēstiōn is clearly the most popular with six attestations. One appears at Orchomenos, c. 285-89, the son of Lukinos (IG VII 3175, 35) and another at Anthedon, c. 235-30 (IG VII 4172, 4). Four from Thespis, the father of Aganōr, 3rd century (IG VII 1752, 8), the son of Damatrios, c. 214-10 (KΕΡΑΜΟΠΟΥΛΛΟΥ 1936, Chron. 28, nº 195, 21), the son of Phlistos (KΕΡΑΜΟΠΟΥΛΛΟΥ 1936, Chron. 28, nº 195, 22), and finally the father of Lokhagos, c. 210 (SEG XXIII, 271, 28; KNOEPFLER 1992, 468 nº 98). Clearly, however one spells it, Hapheistiōn/Haphēstiōn was popular in Thespis with the largest concentration of any alpha-based version of the name. In Thisbe, we find our other female example of the name, Haphēstia, probably Hellenistic (IG VII 2264). And in Thebes itself, we have Haphēstodorōs, son of Lukiskos, second half of the 3rd century (IG VII 2433 I, 16). Finally, at Delphi, we find another Haphaistos, c. 530-20 (BRINKMANN 1985, 87 N1; SEG 35.429). As it appears at a Panhellenic site, we cannot place his origin as that was

93 SEG XXVII, 1114 A, 8 (PP 17003a; STEPHANIS 1988: 1124), although it has also been reconstructed as [῾Ηφαι]στίων: s. Δαμέας, with the eta.

Karanos 3/2020 33

JEANNE REAMES

not preserved, nor any patronymic, but the spelling fits with the Doric version, and may suggest he was local.

This concludes the survey of epigraphical evidence used in the mapping.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARCHIBALD, Z. H. (1998): The of Thrace: Unmasked, . ΑΡΒΑΝΙΤΌΠΟΥΛΟΣ, Θ.Σ. (1934-40): “Θεσσαλικων Επιγραφων νεαι αναγνωσεισ και συμπληρωσεισ”, Polemon 2: 1-67. AVRAM, A. (2003): “Histria”, in D. V. GRAMMENOS – E. K. PETROPOULOS (eds.): Colonies in the Black Sea, Vol. 1, Thessalonike: 279-340. BADIAN, E. (1961): “”, JHS 81: 16-43. — (1982): “Greeks and Macedonians”, in B. BARR-SHARRAR – E. N. BORZA (eds.): Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times. Washington: 33-51. BARTH, F. (1969): “Introduction”, F. BARTH (ed.): Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: the Social Organization of Culture Difference, Propect Heights, IL. BASARON, C. (2015): Parion: the Flourishing City of Ancient Troad, Vienna. BEEKES, R. S. P. (2005): “The Origin of the Kabeiroi”, 57.4: 465-477. — (2009): Etymological Dictionary of Greek, 2 vols, Leiden. BERVE, H. (1926): Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlag, 2 vols, München. BESSIOS, M. –TZIFOPOULOS, Y. – KOTSONAS, A. (2012): Methone I: Inscriptions, and Trademarks on Geometric and Archaic Pottery from the ‘Ypogeio, Thessaloniki. BILLOWS, R. A. (1990): Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Macedonian State, Berkeley. BOARDMAN, J. (1999): The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade, London. BORZA, E. N. (1990): In the Shadow of , Princeton (rev. ed.). — (1993): “The of Archelaus”, AM 5.1: 237-244. BRINKMANN, V. (1985): “Die aufgemalten Namensbeischriften an Nord- und Ostfries des Siphnierschatzhauses”, BCH 109: 77-130. BRIXHE, C. – PANAYOTOU, A. (1988): “L’Atticisation de la Macédoine”, Verbum 11.245: 245-260. BRUNT, P. A. (1976): Arrian I. Anabasis Alexandri. Books I-IV, , Cambridge. BURCU, E. D. (2001): “Heracleia Pontica – Amastris”, in D. V. GRAMMENOS – E. K. PETROPOULOS (eds.): Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, vol. 2, Thessalonike: 1403-1425. BURKHERT, W. (1985): Greek Religion, Harvard. CARNEY, E. D. (2019): Eurydice and the Birth of Macedonian Power, New York.

Karanos 3/2020 34

BECOMING MACEDONIAN: THE CASE OF HEPHAISTION

CLAY, J. S. – Malkin, I. – TZIFOPOULOS, Y. Z. (eds.) (2017): Panhellenes at Methone: graphê in Late Geometric and Protoarchaic Methone, Berlin. COOK, A. B. (1940): Zeus, a Study in Ancient Religion, vol. 3, Cambridge. CUBERA, J. – JORDAN, D. (2002/2003): “Curse Tablets from Pydna”, GRBS 43: 109- 127. DIMITRIEVITCH, K. S. et al. (2003): “Olbia-Berezan”, in D. V. GRAMMENOS – E. K. PETROPOULOS (eds.): Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, vol. 1, Thessalonike: 389-505. DMITRI, N. – KRISTINA, P. (2001): “Apollonia Pontica”, in D. V. GRAMMENOS – E. K. PETROPOULOS (eds.): Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, vol. 1, Thessalonike: 95-155. DUBOIS, L. (1996), Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont, Geneva. DUNST, G. (1972): “Archaische Inschriften und Dokumente der Pentekontaetie am Samos”, AM 87: 99-163. EDSON, C. F. (1970): “Early Macedonia”, AM 1: 17-44. ELLIS, J. R. (1986): Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism, Princeton. EHRHARDT, N.; GÜNTHER, W. (2010): “Neue Grabinschriften aus Milet”, Chiron 40: 397-426. FARNELL, L. R. (1909): Cults of Greek States, Oxford. FICK, A. (1909): Hattiden und Danubier in Griechenland, Göttingen. FINLEY, M. (1951): Studies in land and credit in ancient Athens, 500-200 B.C.: The Horos-inscriptions, New Brunswick, N.J. FRASER, P. M. – MATTHEWS, E. (1987/1994/1997/2000/2005/2010/2014): A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vols. I-Vb, Oxford. FURNEE, E. J. (1979): Vorgriechisch-Kartvelisches: Studium zum ostmediterranen Subtrat nebst einem Versuch zu einer neuen pelasgischen Theorie, Leuven. GARLAN, Y. (2004): Les timbres céramiques sinopéens sur amphores et sur tuiles trouvés à Sinope. Présentation et catalogue, Paris. GOLDSTEIN, J. A. (1968): The Letters of Demosthenes, New York. GOLOVKO, I. D. (1996): “Ėpigrafičeskie nachodki (Epigraphische Funde)”, MASP 5: 77-88. GRACE, V. (1947): “ Jars”, CJ 42.8: 443-452. GRAKOV, B.N. (1926): “Englifi cheskie kleima na gorlakh nekotorykh ellinisticheskikh ostrodonnykh amfor”, Trudy Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia 1. М: 165-206. — (1929): Drevnegrecheskie keramicheskie kleima s imenami astinomo, Москва́. GRANINGER, D. (2015): “Ethnicity and Ethne”, in J. VALEVA – E. NANKOV – D. GRANINGER (eds.): A Companion to Ancient Thrace, Hoboken NJ. GREEN, P. (1991): Alexander of Macedon: 356-323 BC, Berkeley. GREENWALT, W. (2008): “Philip II and Olympias on Samothrace: a Clue to Macedonian Politics During the 360s”, in T. HOWE – J. REAMES (eds.): Macedonian Legacies: Studies in Ancient Macedonian History and Culture in Honor of Eugene N. Borza, Claremont CA: 79-106.

Karanos 3/2020 35

JEANNE REAMES

HAMMOND, N. G. L. (1972): A History of Macedonia, vol. I, Oxford. HALL, J. (1997): Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge. — (2001): “Contested ethnicities: perceptions of Macedonia within evolving definitions of Greek identity”, in I. Malkin (ed.): Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Washington DC: 159-186. HATZOPOULOS, M. B. (1994): Cultes et rites de passage Macédoine, Athens. — (1996): Macedonian Institutions under the Kings I-II, Athens. HECKEL, W. (1991): “Hephaistion ‘The Athenian’”, ZPE 87: 39-41. — (1992): The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire, New York. — (2006): Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great, Malden, MA–Oxford. HERDA, A. (2016): “Megara and Miletos: Colonising with Apollo. A Structural Comparison of Religious and Political Institutions in Two Archaic Greek Polis States”, in A. ROBU – I. BÎRZESCU (eds.): Mégarika: Nouvelles recherches sur Mégare, les cités de la Propontide et du Pont-Euxin. Archéologie, épigraphie, histoire, Paris: 15-127. HERMAN, G. (1987): Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City, Cambridge. HODDINOTT, R. F. (1981): The , London. ILYINITCHNA, F. S. (2001): “”, in D. V. GRAMMENOS – E. K. PETROPOULO (eds.): Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, vol. 2, Thessalonike: 1007-1045. JEFFERY, L. H. (1961 [1990]): The Local Scripts of . A Study of the Origin of and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C. Revised edition with a Supplement by A.W. Johnston, Oxford. JONES, A. H. M. (2004): Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Eugene OR (2nd ed.). KΕΡΑΜΟΠΟΥΛΛΟΥ, A. Δ. (1936): “Eπιγραφαι εκ βοιωτιασ”, ArchEph : Chron. 23-47. KNOEPFLER, D. (1992): “Sept années de recherches sur l'épigraphie de la Béotie (1985- 1991)”, Chiron 22: 411-504. KONTORINI, V. N. (1975): “Les concours des Grands Eréthimia à Rhodes”, BCH 99: 97-117. LANG, G. (2003): Klassische antike Stätten Anatoliens, Band II: -, Norderstedt. LE RIDER, G. (1963), Deux trésors de monnaies grecques de la Propontide (IVe siècle avant J.-C.), Paris. MAIER, F. G. (1950): Griechische Mauerbauinschiften, I, Texte und Kommentare, Heidelburg. MANGANARO, G. (1997): “Nuove tavolette di piombo inscritte siceliote”, PdelP 44, 8.1: 306-348. MARCADÉ, J. (1953): Recueil des signatures de sculpteurs grecs, Paris. ΜΑΣΤΡΟΚΏΣΤΑΣ, Ε. (1967): “Αρχαιοτητεσ Και Μνημεια Αιτωλοακαρνανιασ”, AD 22.B Chron.: 318-324. MERITT, B. D. (1935): “Inscriptions of ”, AJPh 56.2: 358-397. ΜΠΆΝΟΥ, O. (1997): “Ὁ δίαυλος τῆς Πύδνας”, in Ἀρχαία ἑλληνικὴ τεχνολογία. Πρακτικὰ 1ου ∆ιεθνοῦς Συνεδροίυ, Thessaloniki: 519-523. MERRITT, B. D. (1935): “Inscriptions of Colophon”, AJP 56: 358-397.

Karanos 3/2020 36

BECOMING MACEDONIAN: THE CASE OF HEPHAISTION

MILLER, D. G. (2013): and Early Authors, Berlin. MOUTERDE, R. (1921): “Inscriptions grecques et latines du Musée d'Adana”, 2: 207-220. Μπάνου, Ο. (1997): “Οδίαυλος της Πύδνας”, in Αρχαία ελληνική τεχνολογία. Πρακτικά του1ουδιεθνούς συνεδρίου, Θεσσαλονίκη, 4-7 Σεπτεμβρίου 1997, Θεσσαλονίκη: 519-524. MÜLLER, S. (2011): “In Abhängigkeit von Alexander: Hephaistion bei Alexanderhistoriographen”, 118.5: 429-456. O’NEIL, J. L. (2020): “Doric Forms in Macedonian Inscriptions”, Glotta 82: 192-210. OLCAY, N. – SEYRIG, H. (1965): Le Trésor de Mektepini en Phrygie. Trésors Monétaires Séleucides no. 1, Paris. PARKER, R. (2007): and Society at Athens, New York. PATTERSON, C. (1981): ’ Citizenship Law of 451-50 B.C., New York. PETSAS, P. M. (1976). “Pydna”, in R. STILLWELL- W. L. MACDONALD – M. H. MCALISTER The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, Princeton N.J. POSAMENTIR, R. – Coleman, R. (2011): The Polychrome Grave Stelai from the Early Hellenistic Necropolis, Austin TX. PSAROUDAKĒS, S. (2008): “The aulos of Pydna”, in A. A. BOTH – R. EICHMANN E. HICKMANN – L.-C. KOCH (eds.): Studien zur Musikarchäologie VI. Challenges and objectives in music archaeology. Papers from the 5th of the International Study Group on Music Archaeology at the Ethnological Museum, State Museums Berlin, 19-23 September 2006, Rahden, Westfalia: 197-216. REAMES, J. (2008): “Crisis and Opportunity: the Philotas Affair…Again”, in T. HOWE – J. REAMES (eds.): Macedonian Legacies: Studies in Ancient Macedonian History and Culture in Honor of Eugene N. Borza, Claremont CA: 165-181. — (2010): “The Cult of Hephaistion”, in P. CARTLEDGE – F. GREENLAND (eds.): Responses to Oliver Stone’s Alexander, Madison: 183-217. REAMES-ZIMMERMAN, J. (1998): Hephaistion Amyntoros: Éminence Grise at the Court of Alexander the Great, [Diss.] The Pennsylvania State University. RIZAKIS, A. (1990): “La dans les cites de la acbeene (Tafel 15)”, Tyché 5: 109-134. ROBINSON, D. M. (1910): “New Greek Inscriptions from Attica, Achaia, Lydia”, AJPh 31.4: 377-403. ROESCH, P. (1984): “Un dicret inédit de la Ligue thébaine: et la flotte d’”, REG 97: 45-60. SEARS, M. A. (2013): Athens, Thrace, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership, Cambridge. SCHUCHHARDT, C. (1886): “Kolophon, und Klaros”, AM 11: 398-434. SINCLAIR, R. K. (1988): and Participation in Athens, Cambridge. SCHACHTER, A. (2004): “Evolutions of a Mystery Cult: the Theban Kabiroi”, in M. B. COSMOPOULOS (ed.): Greek Mysteries: The Archaeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults. New York: 315-343. SCHWENK, C. J. (1985): Athens in the Age of Alexander, Chicago.

Karanos 3/2020 37

JEANNE REAMES

TATAKI, A. B. (1988): Ancient Beroea: Prosopography and Society, Athens. — (1994): Macedonian Edessa: Prosopography and Onomasticon, Athens. — (1998): Macedonians Abroad: a Contribution to the Prosopography of Ancient Macedonia, Athens. TELEAGA, E. (2003): “Beiträge zur chronologie der Amphorenstempel und der amphoren von Heraklea Pontike”, MBAH 22: 69-113. TOD, M. N. (1948): A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, vol. II: 403-323 B.C., Oxford. TOKHTAS’EV, S. – KATZ, V. I. (1997): “Ceramic Stamps of Tauric (The Determinant Catalogue). – 170 стр. + Таблицы (ross.)”, Hyperboreus 3-4.2: 362- 404. TSETSKHLADZE, G. R. (2001): North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and Studies, Leiden. VOUTYRAS, E. (1990): “Ηφαιστιων ηρωσ”, Egnatia 2: 123-173. WALKER, K. G. (2004): Archaic Eretria. A Political and Social History from the Earliest Times to 490 BC, London. WEST, M. L. (1997): East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth, Oxford. WILHELM, A. (1908): “Inschriften aus Halikarnassos und ”, JÖAI 11: 53-100. WILSON, E. (1998): Consilience: the unity of knowledge, New York. YUREVNA, S. O. (2003): “”, in D. V. GRAMMENOS – E: K. PETROPOULOS (eds.): Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, vol. 2, Thessalonike: 759-802.

Karanos 3/2020 38

Karanos 3, 2020 39-57

Forever Young The strange youth of the Macedonian Kings*

by Antonio Ignacio Molina Marín Universidad de Alcalá de Henares [email protected]

ABSTRACT Traditionally, the belief has been that the Hellenistic kings began to shave their beards following the example of Alexander the Great. This paper proposes a new vision of this idea, given that explains the shaven face of Alexander through the youngness of the Macedonian kings. In our opinion, the sovereigns of Macedonia were presented many times by their fathers or regents like eternal teenagers in order to remain in power for as long as possible. Thus, the only way for any member of the Argead dynasty to achieve complete autonomy and to be fully free was to be seated on the throne. The same happen during the lifetime of popular generals (Parmenion) or advisers (Aratus). The royal created by the Diadochoi was a symbol of power through which they could govern, never was an imitation of a real one. However, this royal portrait was inspired by Macedonian models that presented the Argead prince as inexpert and weak when they were unbearded.

KEYWORDS Argead Dynasty, Hellenistic kings, Alexander the Great, , Power, Beard.

The unforgettable Stephan Zweig (The world of yesterday: An autobiography1) said that maturity had always been the model sought by European man until the 20th century: “The newspapers recommended preparations which hastened the growth of the beard, and twenty-four- and twenty-five-year-old doctors, who had just finished their examinations, wore mighty beards and gold spectacles even if their eyes did not need them, so that they could make an impression of “experience” upon their first patients. Men wore long black frock coats and walked at a leisurely pace, and whenever possible acquired a slight embonpoint in order to personify the desired sedateness; and those who were ambitious strove, at least outwardly, to belie their youth, since the young were suspected of instability”. Young men bought powders to whiten their beards and thus appear older than they really were. This was logical in a geontocratic society in which only men who had achieved maturity were entitled to participate in politics.

* The idea for this article arose from my stay at Santa Clara University in the summer of 2018, with W. S. Greenwalt as my supervisor. I am grateful for the support and advice of Professor Greenwalt, who did so much to broaden our field with his research and his love for Macedonian studies. This does not, in any way, mean that the author agrees with everything that we said. 1 ZWEIG 1964, 34. eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199 ANTONIO IGNACIO MOLINA MARÍN

Present-day society has lost this model, since what is sought is to appear younger than we really are. Modernity wishes to overcome death, prolonging as long as possible the youth of those who live in and endure this time. Clothing rarely distinguishes and marks the life stages. This represented a radical change compared with traditional ideals. The myth of Oedipus (Apol. 3.5.8) presented us with the only three generational groups that were recognized2: paides (children); andres (men); gerontes (elderly). You were a pais (child) until the age of 18. However, there was an intermediate group, the andres, also called neaniskoi, who were those who had undertaken the ephebía, service. They were 20 years old and some were still beardless young men (meirakoi). All Greek males aspired to be recognized as andres in order to fully enjoy their rights as an adult and citizen. Once this objective had been obtained, they could begin the career which would lead them to hold the positions of power which tended to be in the hands of men between the ages of 30 and 40. Becoming an adult did not imply having power. This remained in the hands of the elderly who justified the preservation of this power in their greater experience. Taking into account how short life expectancy was in the Greco-Roman world, it is striking how late power was attained. There were, however, some exceptions, such as , who at a very young age was appointed of Athens during the Sicilian expedition. Nevertheless, we can find one curious example which represents an exception: the unusual youth of the members of the Argead dynasty of Macedonia. As will be observed throughout this article, there are so many cases in which the youth of the Macedonian sovereigns is described or exaggerated that they cannot simply be considered as anecdotal. We understand that all these cases should be studied as elements which reflect a pattern and the message of a dynasty and never as a mere anecdote, since they respond to a dual circumstance: how these kings wanted to be seen and how their subjects expected them to be.

THE CHILD KINGS OF MACEDONIA

Daniel Ogden recently drew our attention to the tender age of Macedonian kings3. Tripodi (2010) previously studied certain cases and concluded that an infant or a baby could be king, because for the Macedonians there was no age limit for the proclamation of a monarch. An infant king is king by right because he is a necessary king; this is quite different from when they will begin to be de facto king. The first example that we can find is that of I, founder of the royal house of Macedonia according to Herodotus. He is described as the youngest of three brothers (νεώτατος Hdt. 8.138.1), although the characteristic term that Herodotus uses to refer to him is “ὁ δὲ παῖς” that is to say lad or boy (Hdt. 8.137.3, 5; 138.1). However, despite his youth he is the only one of the brothers who succeeded in deceiving the king of Lebaia and acceding, by the will of the gods, to the throne of Macedonia (Hdt. 8.137.5). Herodotus provides examples in which the youngest of three brothers acquired the throne, such as in the Scythian logos:

“During the reign of the three brothers, gold objects fell from the heavens (specifically, a plough, a yoke, a sagaris and a cup), falling on Scythia. The eldest

2 CAMBINO 1993, 103. 3 OGDEN 2017, 60-1.

Karanos 3/2020 40

FOREVER YOUNG: THE STRANGE YOUTH OF THE MACEDONIAN KINGS

brother, who was the first to see them, approached with the aim of seizing them; but, on drawing near, the gold became red hot. When the older brother went away, the second made his way toward them, but the gold did the same again. Thus, the gold, on becoming red hot, rejected the first two; however, when in third place the youngest brother (τῷ νεωτάτῳ) approached, the incandescence was extinguished and the boy took it to his house. Faced with these wonders, the older brothers agreed to hand over the entire kingdom to the younger” (Hdt. 4.5; my own translation).

However, despite all the parallelisms existing with the history of Perdiccas, the youngest was never described as παῖς, simply being younger than his brothers, even at an old age. The paradigmatic case is offered by Zeus. Despite the fact that the father of the gods was younger than his brothers and , he was able to defeat all his rivals (Cronos, and ) and be appointed sovereign of men and gods (Hes. Theog. 881-885). The right of the firstborn does not appear to exist in the myths or in the founding legends of Macedonia. If the younger son had better attitudes than the firstborn, he could succeed his father4. The model of Zeus must have been an example for the Argeads who, through , were also descendants of the king of the gods5. Youth, courage and astuteness appear to have been the most recurrent characteristics of Greek heroes6. These are the traits of Perdiccas, also shared by another of the founders of the royal house of Macedonia: Archelaus. There is a well-known anecdote of how he threw the king of Thrace, , into a pit of burning coals (Hig. Fab. 219.3-4). This stratagem was repeated in the (Recensio Alpha 1.14). We do not know the age of Archelaus in relation to his brothers, but he must have been very young too. In a fragment from the work of the same name by Euripides, the mythical ancestor of the dynasty is called pai: “The priestess of Dione, namesake of Zeus (God), said this to Temenus: “O child (o pai) born of the stock of Heracles, Zeus gives you a son, I prophesy, who must be called Archelaus” (Eur. Archelaus F228a TrGF = F2a Harder = P. 118a. OGDEN 2011, 69). Ogden draws our attention to how close the vocative pai is to the genitive God, in such a way that the word son of Zeus can almost be formed in the mind of the listener or of the reader7. This play on words is very similar to that used by Alexander’s propaganda during his visit to Siwa (cf. infra). Aeropus I (VI BC) is an extreme case since, despite being a baby, he is considered to be a legitimate king. Justin tells the story which demonstrates that the trust of the Macedonians in their kings was greater than anything known:

“The , however, despising the boyhood of a king under age (infantiam regis pupilli), attacked the Macedonians, who, being worsted in the field, brought out their king with them in his cradle, and, placing him behind the front lines, renewed the fight with greater vigour, as if they had been defeated before, because the fortune of their prince was not with them in the battle, and would now certainly

4 Cf. HATZOPOULOS 1986: the heir to the throne was the first male child of the monarch after his proclamation; FERNÁNDEZ NIETO 2005 highlighted that there was not a firstborn heir and that in general the king's favourite was appointed as heir irrespective of their age. 5 LE BOHEC 2002. 6 Astuteness: Hector (Hom. Il. 7.47; 11.200); Nestor (Hom. Il. 3.18); (Hom. Od. 1.1; 10.330). Youth: ; . 7 OGDEN 2011, 69.

Karanos 3/2020 41

ANTONIO IGNACIO MOLINA MARÍN

conquer, because, from this superstitious fancy, they had conceived a confidence of victory; while compassion for the infant (infantis), also, moved them, as, if they were overcome, they seemed likely to transform him from a king into a captive. Engaging in battle, therefore, they routed the Illyrians with great slaughter, and showed their enemies, that, in the former encounter, it was a king, and not valour, that was wanting to the Macedonians, make war against the Macedonians (ostenderuntque hostibus suis priore bello regem Macedonibus, non virtutem defuisse)” (Just. 7.2.7-13; trans. WATSON 1853).

Despite being a rex pupillus, Aeropus is an essential element in the victory of the Macedonians over the Illyrians. The story, although possibly fictitious, leaves us with one detail to bear in mind: there was no minimum age to be proclaimed king in Macedonia, even if they had to have an epítropos until reaching adulthood. The first historical king about whom we have news, Alexander I Philhellene, was also called o pai in the famous banquet in which the Persian ambassadors are murdered when he was a prince. The age of Alexander I at that time is unknown, but he must have been very young since he is called νέος (Hdt. 5.19.1) and his father fears that he will be carried away by his youthful zeal if he abandons the room (Hdt. 5.19.2, νεώτερα πρήγματα). When Amyntas I and Alexander are talking, we find this exchange of words: “My son (ὦ παῖ), you are angered, and if I guess your meaning correctly, you are sending me away so that you may do some violent deed” (Hdt. 5.19.2, trans. GODLEY 1920). Subsequently, Alexander introduces young beardless Macedonians into the banquet hall, with whom he does not appear to clash in view of his age, and he kills the Persian ambassadors. It could be argued that Alexander is not king, but when he sends his father away from the banquet he takes on his functions and even arranges the marriage of his sister with the general of Xerxes. For some reason Macedonian tradition or Alexander I himself wanted to present him as a beardless young man at the time of taking power. , son of the deceased Archelaus, is also defined as a child (παῖς ὤν, Diod. 14.37.6; 84.6; 89.2; 15.60.3). This is logical, since he acceded to the throne as a minor and required a regent. In the words of Borza, his reign began a “historiographical nightmare”, being one of the most turbulent and unstable periods in Macedonian history8. This crisis only ended when Philip II came to power, but before this occurred we find another two examples of child kings. The death of the young and fearless Alexander II made way for his brother Perdiccas III. The latter must also have been very young, since he needed a prostates or regent, Ptolemy of Aloros, who appears to have been behind the death of the previous king. Critics have always understood that the regency was due to youth and not for other reasons. Moreover, in a famous passage from a speech by Aeschines, the youth of Perdiccas and of his brother Philip is again highlighted:

“For shortly after the death of Amyntas, and of Alexander, the eldest of the brothers, while Perdiccas and Philip were still children (παίδων), when their mother Eurydice had been betrayed by those who professed to be their friends, and when Pausanias was coming back to contend for the throne… When had come into this region—with a few ships at first, for the purpose of examining into the situation rather than of laying siege to the city— “Then,” said I, “your

8 BORZA 1990, 180: “The events of the first half of the fourth century B. C. present a historiographical nightmare for the historian of Macedonia”.

Karanos 3/2020 42

FOREVER YOUNG: THE STRANGE YOUTH OF THE MACEDONIAN KINGS

mother Eurydice sent for him, and according to the testimony of all who were present, she put your brother Perdiccas into the arms of Iphicrates, and set you upon his knees—for you were a little boy (παιδίον) —and said, ‘Amyntas, the father of these little children (παιδίων), when he was alive, made you his son,1 and enjoyed the friendship of the city of Athens; we have a right therefore to consider you in your private capacity a brother of these boys (παίδων), and in your public capacity a friend to us.’ After this she at once began to make earnest entreaty in your behalf and in her own, and for the maintenance of the throne—in a word for full protection. When Iphicrates had heard all this, he drove Pausanias out of Macedonia and preserved the dynasty for you.” (καὶ τὴν δυναστείαν ὑμῖν ἔσωσε)” (Aeschin. 2.26, 28-29; trans. ADAMS 1919.).

The aim of the speech by Aeschines is to remind Philip of his links and debt to Athens on the occasion of the help of Iphicrates provided in the past. This event dates back to 368 BC, when Philip, born in around 382 BC, was a sufficiently developed adolescent to be considered almost an adult according to the standards of Antiquity, when a 40- year-old man was seen as old, but never as a child who could be sitting on someone’s knees. The young age of both of them is emphasized in order to give more pathos and heroism to the action by Iphicrates, who is presented as an older brother who protects his “little siblings”. From the point of view of Aeschines, Athens continued to be a protective brother of Macedonia and was presented as the protector of the supplicants, a traditional image of the city. Bearing this circumstance in mind, it is understood that both are represented as children and that it is said that they were placed in the hands and in the lap of the Athenian general as if they were supplicants9. (Iphi. 3.2) also considers the two children of Eurydice to be infants at this time, since he calls them pueri. It is striking that it is said that they were both present, when we know that at that time Philip was a hostage in Thebes10. The fact that Philip is one of the two kings of Macedonia who we know were called paidion, like Alexander, cannot be purely anecdotal. Also, the play on words in the by Euripides, Archelaus, should not be forgotten. The works of Euripides were well-known both in Macedonia and in Athens. It is therefore very possible that Aeschines was consciously choosing an expression with which another king of Macedonia had previously been associated. This would be a way of making Philip familiar to the Athenians. The well-known inscription by Eurydice to the refers to the children of the kingdom11:

Εὐρυδίκη Σίρρα πολιήτισι τόνδ᾽ ἀνέθηκε Μούσαις εὔιστον ψυχῇ ἑλοῦσα πόθον. γράμματα γὰρ μνημεῖα λόγων μήτηρ γεγαυῖα παίδων ἡβώντων ἐξεπόνησε μαθεῖν.

“Eurydice, daughter of Sirrhas, offers this gift to the Muses, For the dear wish of her heart granted by them to her prayer, After the sons whom she bore had come to threshold of manhood

9 CARNEY 2019, 74-75: “The ahistorical juvenalization of Philip and his older brother Perdiccas (whether part of Aeschines original speech or added in 343), so as to enable Eurydice to put them into Iphicrates’ hands and lap, is clearly a play for sympathy”. 10 CARNEY 2019, 67: “Philip cannot have been physically present in Macedonia since ’ first trip to Macedonia (while Alexander II was still alive) had ended with Philip’s departure to Thebes as a hostage. Nonetheless, Aeschines’ account is generally accepted as historical”. 11 MOLINA MARÍN 2017, 22-23.

Karanos 3/2020 43

ANTONIO IGNACIO MOLINA MARÍN

Painfully did she achived learning, letters recorders of words, how to write and to read” (My own translation, following MACURDY 1927, 212. Cf. WILHEM 1949). It is highly likely that the inscription can be dated to the reign between the regency of Ptolemy and the rise to power of Perdiccas III (365-360/ 59)12, and therefore likewise the expression παίδων ἡβώντων does not seem suited to the real age of both Perdiccas and Philip.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

One member of the Argead dynasty who has been rejuvenated or presented as an eternal adolescent is Alexander the Great. His sculptural representations show the image of a beardless young man on whom time has not taken its toll. However, there are also many passages in the sources in which we find how his youth is highlighted, in stark contrast with his . When the Persian ambassadors come to Macedonia and Philip cannot receive them, Alexander does so in his place, asking questions which are inappropriate for someone so young and never any “childish question” (ἐρώτημα παιδικὸν, Plu. Alex. 5.1)13. When Philip and the adults fail to tame the wild horse Bucephalus, Alexander succeeds where they did not. This leads to the final dialogue between father and son: “My son (ὦ παῖ), seek a kingdom because you do not fit in Macedonia” (Plu. Alex. 6.5). There are parallelisms between the confrontation between Philip and Alexander and the one previously mentioned between Amyntas I and Alexander I. In both, the father’s failure gives the son’s triumph greater legitimacy, and in one way or another the latter’s actions represent a that they are prepared to reign. It is highly likely that the passage from Plutarch was written following Herodotus. They both establish a pattern: the Argead prince comes of age when he challenges and conquers his father’s authority. In a certain way, coming of age is linked to the head of the Argead clan, who is the king. If the prince demonstrates that he is capable of challenging him or proves that he has better qualities than his father, then this is a sign that he is ready to be king. With Philip dead, there are numerous episodes in which Alexander is called a child or boy despite having become the monarch. Words are attributed to the Macedonian, in which he complained about the attitude of Demosthenes, who had called him a child (παῖδα) while he was fighting with the Illyrians and , then a beardless adolescent (μειράκιον) when he was in Thessaly, and therefore now that he was in front of the walls of Athens he wanted to show him that he was truly a man (ἀνὴρ. Cf. Plu. Alex. 11.2). On this occasion, it is the king’s enemies who exaggerate his youth to belittle his behaviour as a monarch, and he strives to demonstrate otherwise. It seems that Demosthenes had characterized Alexander’s Homeric ideals, calling him Margites: “ἐπωνυμίαν δ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ Μαργίτην ἐτίθετο”14. Margites is the central character of an epic poem falsely attributed to Homer which we know, from the few fragments

12 OIKONOMIDES 1983, 64, after the death of Amyntas III, since he is not basilissa, but rather politis; Mortensen 1992: 164, during the regency of Ptolemy of Aloros; CARNEY 2019, 81: “I would suggest a date sometime after the elimination of Ptolemy, during the independent reign of Perdiccas III”. 13 HAMILTON 1969: 13. Cf. Plu. Mor. 342 b-c indicates that he did not ask about the wine or the clothing of the Great King, but rather about the Persian army. 14 Aeschin. In Ctes. 160. Cf. HAMILTON 1969, 29.

Karanos 3/2020 44

FOREVER YOUNG: THE STRANGE YOUTH OF THE MACEDONIAN KINGS

conserved, was a parody of the Homeric ideal prevailing in the royal house of Macedonia15. Before leaving for Asia, Alexander consulted the of Delphi. Since the refused to answer him as it was not a day for public consultation, Alexander grabbed her by the arm and took her to the place where the consultation had to take place. On this journey, the Pythia apparently said: “You are invincible, son” (‘ἀνίκητος εἶ, ὦ παῖ’; Plu. Alex. 14.4) or “boy, you are invincible” (“μειράκιον, ἀνίκητον εἶ”; fragment sabaítico 7). The term μειράκιον catches our attention since it refers to a person whose beard has not yet appeared, which did not apply to Alexander who at that time was 20 years old. Both versions highlight his youth and his impetuous nature but, whoever the author of this story is, it appears to be clear that it never took place16. It is, however, of great importance to understand the Siwa episode:

“And some say that the prophet, wishing to show his friendliness by addressing him with ‘O paidion,’ or O my son, in his foreign pronunciation ended the words with ‘s’ instead of ‘n,’ and said, ‘O paidios,’ and that Alexander was pleased at the slip in pronunciation, and a story became current that the god had addressed him with ‘O pai Dios,’ or O son of Zeus” (Plu. Alex. 27.9; trans. PERRIN 1917).

It is possible that the king dialogued with the in Greek without the help of an interpreter, since it was frequently visited by the Greek community of Cyrene. Greek must, therefore, have been a language in common use in Siwa. It is, however, striking that there is a similar play on words to that which we saw in the tragedy Archelaus by Euripides and that Alexander is called paidion, little boy, the same term used for Philip in the speech On the Embassy by Aeschines. Paidion is a highly inadequate name for Alexander, since it was used exclusively for nursing children, a stage of his life that the Macedonian, who was 24 years old, had long ago left behind. Philotas was the firstborn son of Parmenion, the trusted general of Philip II who became the most powerful man in Macedonia together with after Alexander acceded to the throne. Plutarch (Alex. 48.5) attributes him with having called the king a beardless young man (μειράκιον) who had risen to power thanks to his father’s efforts: Ἀλέξανδρον δὲ μειράκιον ἀπεκάλει δι᾽ αὐτοὺς τὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς ὄνομα καρπούμενον. The conspiracy took place in 330 BC, when Alexander was about 25/26 years old. At that time he was a man who had reached maturity according to both our modern standards and ancient standards. This indicates that this type of comments did not have to be in line with a person’s age17. Whenever there was some kind of dependence you could receive epithets such as pais, even if you were elderly18. Philotas apparently belittled the merits of Alexander, not so much because of his age, but rather assuming that it was his father who really governed. In a certain way, Parmenion was like a tutor for the king and while he lived rivalled him in popularity among the soldiers. Curiously, royal propaganda presented Parmenion as a senile old man who never understood the true

15 Plat. Alc. 147a: “He knew many things, but he knew them all badly”. On the influence of the Homeric ideal in Macedonia cf. CARLIER 2000. 16 PRANDI 1990; MENDOZA 2019. 17 It was said of that he obtained his first triumph even before his beard appeared, although he was 24 or 25 years old. The first time that Octavian shaved took place in 39 B.C., when he was 23 or 24 years old (Dio. 48.34.3). Plutarch (Cic. 28.2) also says the same about Clodius, although he was in his thirties. 18 (Wasps 1299) does not hesitate to call an old slave pais, since he lacks rights: “it is fair to call someone who receives blows dim-witted (παῖδα), even if he is old”.

Karanos 3/2020 45

ANTONIO IGNACIO MOLINA MARÍN

intentions of the monarch19, while the general’s family exaggerated the king’s youth in order to continue to justify his influence due to the king’s lack of experience. We do not find any other similar references after the conspiracy of Philotas, but in the Alexander Romance, in the words of C. Joaunno its main character is an eternal child who never grows up20, characterized by his curiosity and his .

OTHER KINGS OF MACEDONIA

Alexander IV Aegos (323-309 BC) was another child king. He became king following the death of Alexander the Great, although we do not know whether he was ever officially proclaimed as such. He appears to have had many legal guardians: Perdiccas, Antipater, Olympias and . He was king in name, but never governed. He lived for as long as he was necessary, but following peace in 311 BC, Cassander had him poisoned with the backing of the other Diadochi who wished to take the royal diadem. Even after the Argead dynasty disappeared, we continue to find examples of great youth among the Antigonids. It is said (Plu. Demetr. 6.1) that, when Antigonus heard about the victories of Ptolemy I in Gaza against his son Demetrius I, he downplayed them saying that they had been obtained by defeating beardless young men (ageneious nenikekota) but that now he would have to fight against real men. The Roman sources highlight the youth of Philip V. stresses his inexperience through his age:

“The king gave the final decision, if that decision may be called the king's: for it is not reasonable to suppose that a mere boy (παῖδα) should be able to come to a decision on matters of such moment” (Plb. 4.24.1; trans. SHUCKBURGH 1889 [1962]).

“Perhaps, however, one ought not to lay all the blame for what was done on that occasion on Philip, taking his age into consideration (τὴν αἰτίαν διὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν); but chiefly on his friends, who were in attendance upon him and co-operating with him, among whom were Aratus and Demetrius of Pharos” (Plb. 5.12.5; trans. SHUCKBURGH 1889 [1962]).

“young (νέῳ) as he was on his succeeding to the government of Macedonia, than they had ever been to any of his predecessors” (Plb. 7.12.4; trans. SHUCKBURGH 1889 [1962]).

“For Philip would seem to have undergone a very great and inexplicable change,1 in that from a gentle prince and chaste youth (μειρακίου) he became a lascivious man and a pernicious ” (Plu. Arat. 51.4; trans. PERRIN 1917).

Polybius consequently assumes that Philip V was simply a young man controlled by his counsellors, since his young age made him depend excessively on his counsellors Aratus and Demetrius of Pharos. In Macedonia, with both Argeads and Antigonids it was common for the new king to inherit the trusted men of the previous king after

19 Granicus (Plu. Alex. 16.3); Darius’ peace proposal (Plu. Alex. 29.7-9); burning of (Arr. An. 3.18.11-2). Cf. BAYNHAM 2000, 263-85; ZAHRNT 2011. 20 JOAUNNO 1995, 269-289.

Karanos 3/2020 46

FOREVER YOUNG: THE STRANGE YOUTH OF THE MACEDONIAN KINGS

acceding to the throne21. During a good part of his reign, Alexander’s main generals were those of his father, Philip II. They also continued to have regents or prostates who governed like kings while the successor was still a minor22. Antigonus III Doson was indeed the guardian of Philip V until he died in an expedition against the Illyrians. Aratus was Philip’s main counsellor, being capable of exerting considerable influence over his opinion, thus earning him the envy of the other courtesans. It is said that Philip had him poisoned in order to free himself from his influence (Plu. Arat. 52), a rumour which was probably based on the power that Aratus had over the monarch. We again have a young king whose inexperience is exaggerated by the people around him and his enemies in order to weaken his power, and the sovereign’s reaction is, presumably, to eliminate them in order to achieve full independence.

BEARDED KING VS BEARDLESS KING

The appearance of the beard marked the difference between man and child. The beard even distinguished men from eunuchs (Luc. Eun. 9). One of the first Greeks to shave his beard was Alcibiades (Pl. Prt. 309a). It has been suggested that Macedonian society was still anchored in the standards and norms of the Homeric world and that it was reluctant to adopt the shaving and hair cut habits of the Athenians23. (6.260e- f = , FGrH 115F 225b) includes a parody of Theopompus about the sexual habits of the hetairoi on indicating that they appeared more like hetairai on not using the beard as a reference in homoerotic relations, as occurred with the Greek póleis24. The fact that many of them had a shaved face like the Athenian prostitutes could have led to this play on words. It has traditionally been said that the first king to shave his beard was Alexander. We do not have of Macedonian kings prior to Philip in order to be able to corroborate this fact, but we do have some images of Philip II in which he is bearded. There is also a well-known anecdote according to which Lucius Mummius, who famously destroyed (146 BC), mistook a portrait of Philip II for one of Zeus25. This could not have happened if he did not have a beard, since the father of the gods was never represented beardless26. Alexander therefore represented a break with his father in this respect, appearing as an eternal adolescent in his portraits. This custom spread among his officials and soldiers. Athenaeus, citing Chrysippus, mentions that shaving one’s beard began to spread in the times of Alexander: “The custom of shaving one’s beard increased with Alexander, although the majority of men did not follow it” (Ath. 13.565a). Plutarch (Mor. 180a-b) mentions a discussion between Alexander and Parmenion on the desirability of shaving one’s beard, and we should therefore understand that not all the

21 HABICHT 1958. 22 ANSON 1992, 41, stresses that the Greek sources use the words próstates, epimeletes and epítropos as synonyms, although próstates must have been the term that the Macedonians used: “The prostates was the traditional title of the regent or guardian of a king; epimeletes and epitropos were generic terms used to describe the functions, but were not traditional Macedonian titles”. 23 ALONSO TRONCOSO 2010: 17. 24 FLOWER 1994: 108. 25 Chrys. 3.42. Cf. OIKONOMIDES 1985, 272. 26 At least until the Hellenistic period when the portrait of Zeus changed under the influence of that of Alexander. Cf. SCHWARZENBERG 1976, 262: “Zeus and Alexander have often been confused, because the portraiture of Alexander influenced the iconography of that god”.

Karanos 3/2020 47

ANTONIO IGNACIO MOLINA MARÍN

members of his military staff followed this guideline. Consequently, news such as this from Plutarch on a formal and categorical ban should be considered as false:

“And Alexander of Macedon doubtless understood this when, as they say, he ordered his generals to have the beards of their Macedonians shaved, since these afforded the readiest hold in battle” (Plu. Tes. 5.4; trans. PERRIN 1917).

This decree recalls other similar decrees of doubtful credibility in which Alexander ordered that he should only be portrayed by and (Hor. 2.1.232-44; V. Max.8.1 ext.2; Plin. NH 7.125; 35.85). Stewart (1993, 25-27) has denied the truth of this and, like many other stories, it appears to have simply been an explanation post eventum in order to explain the origin of an iconographic model of the governor. It is well-known that the old and the new Macedonia coexisted in Alexander’s army and that they were not all inclined to accept his opinions on Persian customs. We know that there were bans on shaven faces in certain cities, such as Rhodes and (Ath. 13.565c-d), and therefore it would appear to be difficult to understand that Alexander could impose his criterion on such a thorny issue throughout his vast empire. This news arose as a result of the court portrait which became common during the Hellenistic period. This portrait was characterized by the anastolé, the turning of the neck, leonine hair and a shaven face. The result did not have a precedent in Greek iconography. Its origin appears to have been in Lysippos. would also appear to have painted an Alexander puer in the company of Philip (Plin. HN 35.114). However, this does not permit us to specify the time of the , since the Romans could use the term puer to refer to anyone under the age of 17. There are anomalies, such as the vases of in which the Macedonian is represented with a moustache and beard, although it is taken for granted that this is a mistake by the painter. There is consensus that Philip III did not follow this custom, and that he preferred to keep his beard, given that “the royal paradigm would be the father, not the unbearded half brother” (ALONSO TRONCOSO 2010, 22). The Hellenistic monarchs appeared with their face shaven or unshaved, at their own discretion. Thus, while Demetrius Poliorcetes imitated Alexander’s iconographic model, other Antigonid kings, like Philip V or Perseus, followed that of Philip II. There does not ever appear to have been a single way of representing royalty. Obviously, the degree of dependency on tradition was greater when the position of the monarch was weaker. As Alonso Troncoso indicates, the absence or presence of facial hair was not so much an indicator of age as of the status of the individual. It reflected whether they were married and their entry into the world of citizens or even their wisdom, since it became an iconographic trait of the . Doing away with the beard could be considered as a sign of femininity (Ath. 13.565a-d). What implications did it have for a king to appear before his subjects beardless? Recently, Lorber and Iossif (2009) have drawn our attention to the fact that, with the exception of Demetrius II in his second reign, the Seleucid kings were normally represented shaved on their . However, several Seleucids had a beard on some of their monetary portraits. These authors maintain that such a transient beard was the external sign of a vow made before a military campaign, shaving it off after its successful completion. Beards were associated with specific types of campaigns, in the Orient, when they involved invaders, usurpers and dynastic rivals. The to which each Seleucid offered his vows may be those represented on the coins on which their bearded effigy appears.

Karanos 3/2020 48

FOREVER YOUNG: THE STRANGE YOUTH OF THE MACEDONIAN KINGS

We can likewise find coins of the kings of Macedonia on which Heracles is not bearded and others on which he is. A clear example is the bronze coins produced by Amyntas III on which the shaven face of the young demigod can be seen (cf. Image 1). Heracles had previously appeared on the coins of Archelaus, a way of being linked to the last great king of the dynasty. The same occurred with the coinage of Perdiccas III, to such an extent that it is tempting to wonder whether the young king associates himself with the model of his father or identifies with the founder of his dynasty through his youth27 (cf. Image 2). The same image appears on the gold, and bronze coins of Philip II (cf. Image 3). These representations coexist with others in which a bearded Heracles is found. There is no explanation for this fact, because we do not have a clear chronology of these coins. They were moreover reused according to the needs of the time, and it is therefore impossible to know whether the coins with the beardless Heracles appeared at the beginning or at the end of each monarch’s reign. In any case, this iconographic motif may refer to Heracles’ effort to achieve virtue. However, the image of the beardless Heracles was associated with the mythological character performing his tasks, that is to say with the hero who had to undertake a mission to achieve the greatest recognition: the attainment of his divinity. Heracles became a model of behaviour among thinkers of the 4th century BC, having achieved virtue through effort (D. L. 6.2). In a sense, the Macedonian king is another Heraclid who seeks excellence with the same vigour. Philip did not hesitate to the parts of his body necessary in his search for the arete (D. 18.67). Olympias had asked Alexander to perform feats worthy of his birth (Plu. Alex. 3.3) and one of Alexander’s Boeotian soldiers reminded him through a verse of that “for him who has done a deed the suffering (παθεῖν) is payment” (Arr. An. 6.13.5.). There is, apparently, a symbolism which equated the actions of the king of Macedonia with those of Heracles, thus coming closer to the feats of his ancestor, and indicating that the path to follow should be the same: achieve glory through effort and pain28. We maintain that the bearded or shaven images of the kings of Macedonia should be associated with the historical context of their reign, and that the images of the bearded Heracles only appeared when their “labours” had reached the end, that is to say when their power was consolidated. Amyntas used the iconographic model of the bearded Heracles after defeating those who had usurped his throne29. Perdiccas III possibly used it after killing his regent, the murderer of his brother, Ptolemy of Aloros (Diod. 16.2.2). Philip II, after having consolidated his power and having defeated all of the enemies who were besieging Macedonia after he acceded to the throne, abandoned the coinage with a beardless Heracles in order to be associated with Zeus. Alexander also began his reign by resorting to the beardless Heracles. However, his early death prevented us from observing whether a change was going to take place. From the beginning of his reign until the date of his death he was in a continuous, uninterrupted military campaign. Consequently, it is possible that his shaven face was not just an imitation of Achilles and that it had some value as an ex-voto. It should be recalled that sacrificed the hair of his son Achilles to the River Spercheios, so that he would return safe and sound from Troy (Hom. Il. 23.140-151; Plat. Rep. 391b), or that the famous Queen Berenice

27 GREENWALT 1994, 131: “Was Perdiccas thereby thrusting his own youthful mien into the Heracles type as it had appeared on his father’s largest coins? Was he now identifying with the Hero/Founder as his royal predecessors had done?”. 28 FREDRICKSMEYER 1958, 273: “Alexander’s understanding of his own deeds and accomplishments as labors (ponoi) suggests that he patterned his own life on the ideal set by his great ancestor, the incessant labors which finally raised him to the gods”. 29 D.S. 14.92.3-4; 15.19.2-3.

Karanos 3/2020 49

ANTONIO IGNACIO MOLINA MARÍN

promised a lock of her hair for the safe return of her husband Ptolemy III (, Aitia 4.110). Hair may, consequently, have had some ritual meaning for the kings of Macedonia which our lack of evidence and fixation with Alexander the Great prevents us from observing. It makes little sense to state that a mature Alexander could have maintained his youthful and boyish image forever. It was the Diadochi who once and for all developed the image and the myth of the king which has come down to us, especially Ptolemy, Seleucus and . The images of Alexander as , with the skin of a panther or elephant, are not his own creations, but rather those of his generals. Producing a coin different to that of the deceased monarch was a sign of independence which depicted the division of the empire. On the contrary, the decision of Antigonus to maintain the previous coins was a way of demonstrating continuity and setting out his claims over the whole empire (THOMPSON 1982, 114). If we accept that the royal portrait was created by the Diadochi, we must ask ourselves the purpose of presenting the king as an eternal beardless adolescent. The message transmitted by these images is that of a monarch who has died, but who at the same time has overcome death, since he does not age. The beardless Alexander that the Diadochi disseminated was a king who did not reign. It was a reminder of great authority and impression, a symbol of power rather than a specific and real being. It was a king with , but without potestas, like his son and successor Alexander IV. It was a king who was present, but sufficiently absent for them to be able to govern on his behalf, as if he were a perpetual minor.

COMING OF AGE: RITES OF PASSAGE IN MACEDONIA.

Becoming a man in Macedonia was a different process to that of the Greek poleis. Athenaeus (1.18a) reminds us that no Macedonian could eat sitting on a bed without having killed a wild boar with a and without the help of nets. Even king Cassander had to experience this tough custom in the flesh, since due to his health he was never capable of hunting this animal, according to these rules30. According to Aristotle (Arist. Pol. 1324b11) there was a custom, which was not practised in his time, which was that of becoming a man by killing an enemy. Given this circumstance, it is logical to wonder when a member of the Macedonian royal house reached adulthood. A citizen from the poleis did so through several important events in the life of a man: sex, the consumption of wine, participation in a war and marriage31. However, when it came to hold public office the minimum age was around 40. Le Bohec (1993) has stated that coming of age was at the age of 20, but much earlier they began to hold office and positions which in the Greek world were reserved for people with greater experience. The Argead princes participated in the first two events very early. We know that the Macedonians drank pure wine, without mixing it, and that the king matched his subjects, demonstrating that he was a heavy drinker. The Athenian

30 LANDUCCI 2003, 37 considers that this passage of Athenaeus “sottolinea il suo stato di “inferiorità” visto che non era riuscito a portare a termine il cimento venatorio”. 31 CAMBINO 1993, 118: “Sex was another decisive factor to determine who could be an adult citizen”; 111: “With marriage, the woman more than the man underwent a radical change of situation”; 118: “Access to wine represented the first step toward integration in the world of adults”.

Karanos 3/2020 50

FOREVER YOUNG: THE STRANGE YOUTH OF THE MACEDONIAN KINGS

ambassadors said that Philip of Macedonia was the heaviest drinker that they had ever seen, to such an extent that Demosthenes said that he resembled a sponge (Plu. Dem. 16.2). His son Alexander followed his father’s model, which was certainly the behaviour characteristic of a king from the Argead dynasty, since he was capable of emptying the so-called cup of Heracles (Ath. 10.434a-b). This cup had a capacity of some 2 congi, that is to say approximately 6.5 litres. All of the princes appear to have entered the world of war at a very early age. The legend of Aeropus indicates that he participated in a skirmish against the Illyrians while still a baby. It is known that Alexander, when barely 16 years old, crushed an uprising by a tribe of Paeonians (Plu. Alex. 9.1), and that at the age of 18 (Diod. 16.86) he led the attack against the Sacred Band of Thebes, which decided the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC). Cynane, the daughter of Philip II and , participated in the Scythian campaign when she was barely 18, during which she supposedly killed a rival queen in a duel32. Demetrius also took on great responsibility in war at a very young age (Plu. Demetr. 5.2: νέος καὶ ἄπειρος), the most famous example being the Battle of Gaza. They also married at a younger age than the majority of the inhabitants of the Greek poleis33. However, the final decision about their marriage lay with the king or the prostates. Philip’s anger with Alexander in the so-called Pixodarus affair appears to have occurred in part on having taken on a power which lay solely with the king as the head of the Argead clan: to arrange the marriage of the members of the clan34. This was what Philip did with his nephew Amyntas and his daughter Cynane (Arr. Succ 1.22), or with his brother-in-law Alexander of Epirus and his daughter (Diod. 16.91.4- 6; Just. 9.6.1-3). Subsequently, the marriages of his sisters would appear to have been ordered by Alexander, and he would appear to have been the main person responsible for some of them not marrying. One example is his promise to hand over Cynane, one of his sisters, in marriage to Langarus, the leader of the Agrianians (Arr. An 1.5.4-5). Consequently, the members of the Argead clan are minors in relation to the king or to his guardian irrespective of their age. This degree of dependence does not end until the death of whoever is subjecting them. Becoming king is also a rite of passage, a change which transmutes the nature of the person, since it involves becoming the leader of the clan, the head of the family. You are not born an Argead king; you become king when the clan decides that you have reached adulthood, and this only occurs with the death of the guardian. Minor kings reach their fullness following the death of their guardian (Philip V) or on killing him (Perdiccas III). It is in this context that we understand the relations of rivalry and admiration that could exist between the princes and the king35. The only way for any member of the Argead dynasty to achieve complete autonomy and to be fully free was to be seated on the throne. Polygamy and complex amphimetric relations caused true carnage in each

32 Pol. Strat. 8.60. Cf. HECKEL 2006, 100. 33 GREENWALT 1988, 93-95: “Potentially at odds with the evidence suggesting that males of Philip's household customarily married in their early twenties is the case of Alexander the Great (…) with the probable exception of Sparta, it seems to have been common for Greek men to marry at about age thirty and for Greek women to do the same in their mid-teens… In contrast, a bridegroom of Philip's household could count on a much less significant age gap between himself and at least his first spouse if he had more than one. The main reason why this was so had to do with politics, not economics”. 34 RUZICKA 2010, 9: “Alexander’s marriage diplomacy thus represented a usurpation of Philip’s royal prerogative and an assertion of Alexander’s independent status”. 35 FREDRICKSMEYER 1990, 309: “Alexander was moved by the rivalry with Philip which had first been instilled in his childhood. This rivalry was not inspirational and reverential, as was Alexander's emulation of the long (and conveniently) dead Heracles and Achilles, but compelling and traumatic”.

Karanos 3/2020 51

ANTONIO IGNACIO MOLINA MARÍN

succession from which you could only definitely escape by being seated on the throne of blood that you had fought to conquer36. However, this full freedom was not consumed simply on acceding to the throne, given that the new king inherited the hetairoi or the counsellors of the previous king. The style and the political guidelines of the predecessor persisted until the new king had sufficient power to do away with them and appoint people in whom he had full confidence. Alexander was proclaimed king in 336 BC, but was not fully independent until he disposed of his father’s most important general in 330 BC, Parmenion37. Due to the personal nature of the Macedonian monarchy, irrespective of whether they were constitutional or absolutist, the beginnings of the reign were always difficult, and left the new kings with less manoeuvrability. The political lines traced by the previous king continued to exist through their trusted men. The new sovereign, who aspired to be completely independent, had to do away with them but, until he had accumulated sufficient power to do so, had to act like a young man listening to the voice of his elders.

CONCLUSION

Any clan-based society is by nature conservative and traditional. However, we see how in Macedonia there is a heroic ideal which leads to a youthful representation of the monarch, and which at the same time predisposes him to share the power with the relations of patronage that he has created or inherited from the previous sovereign. The king wants to be young, like the heroes whom his elders have taught him to emulate, but at the same time he aspires to behave with the full autonomy which comes with maturity. This paradox may be due to several reasons:

— 1) The Homeric ideal which existed in Macedonia invited them to seek the arete, emulating and competing with the heroes of the past. With some exceptions, such as Odysseus, these heroes are young men who perish in the prime of life. The king therefore tends to fight on the front line of battle, dying young or leaving an heir who is even younger (Perdiccas III, , Demetrius II, Antigonus III). The Argead king is a second Heracles, who throughout his reign carries out arduous tasks like his ancestor with a view to obtaining glory. It should also be borne in mind that Heracles, when he achieved the much sought-after immortality, was betrothed to , the goddess of youth (Hom. Od. 11.602-604; Hes. Teog. 950-955; Eur. Heraclid. 915-6; Ov. Met. 9.400-1; Apollod. 2.7.7) and that one of the enemies that he defeated was Geras, old age (Hes. Theog. 225)38.

— 2) This youthful ideal was reinforced by the relations of patronage and by the clan-based conception of power. The nobles and other members of the clan were interested in the king being someone young. It was thus easier to influence him and to hold on to the power, at least temporarily, while he continued to be an

36 OGDEN 1999, the concept amphimetor, to share the same father, but to have a different mother, explains many of the situations which occurred in the courts of the Macedonian kings. 37 MÜLLER 2003, stresses that Alexander was a weak king dependent on his counsellors, especially Antipater and Parmenion, until the battle of (333 BC). 38 We would like to thank Mario Agudo Villanueva for having shown us the importance of this passage. Cf. BEAULIEU 2016, 51: “By crossing beyond the night and defeating her son Geras, Heracles passes beyond the limited time allotted to mortals to attain eternity”.

Karanos 3/2020 52

FOREVER YOUNG: THE STRANGE YOUTH OF THE MACEDONIAN KINGS

inexperienced young boy. Consequently, it was interesting for those who aspired to power for the king to have a second youth, if necessary, since it was characteristic for a young hero to listen to his counsellors and to let himself be guided by those who know. The search for the arete may have been encouraged by the clan and by the guardians of the prince or king in order to establish the idea or belief that they had something to achieve or demonstrate. Someone who has to prove something to his people is a governor who is dependent on those around him and who has to listen to them. All young men have to have a Nestor on whom to rely (Hom. Il. 3.150-152). This resolved a peculiarity of Macedonian history: only the members of a dynasty could govern. Thus, the Argeads continued to be the only ones who reigned, although they became necessary instruments of those who had some longing for power.

— 3) The figures of the regents played an important role in this process of infantilization of the king. Despite life expectancy being so short at that time, the Macedonian oligarchy was not in a hurry to make the young heirs de facto kings. The alacrity with which they participated in war, started to drink wine or married contrasts with the delay in rising to the throne or governing without guardians. There is no example in which the prince is proclaimed king with the regent still living. The same occurred with the kings. Even in the cases in which the kings could associate their children with the throne and share power to the extent of being able to talk about a diarchy, as in the case of Seleucus I and Antiochus I (Plu. Demtr. 38.8), or of Antigonus and Demetrius (Diod. 20.53), one of them always had more power and authority. And it was always the senior king. This circumstance meant that the relations between those who held the power and those who aspired to hold it in Macedonia were never easy. The best way to remain as a regent was extending the cause which prevented them from becoming king for as long as possible; this inexperience was clear in their absence of facial hair.

— 4) This process of infantilization is reflected in the epithets with which the Argead princes and kings are designated in our sources: pais, neos, paidion, meirakion or agenos. These expressions are present in the way in which they address each other: “‘ὦ παῖδες, πάντα προλήψεται ὁ πατήρ ἐμοὶ δὲ οὐδὲν ἀπολείψει μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἔργον ἀποδείξασθαι μέγα καὶ λαμπρόν/ Boys, my father will anticipate everything; and for me he will leave no great or brilliant achievement to be displayed to the world with your aid” (Plu. Alex. 5.2). It is highly likely that the basilikoi paides, the royal pages, addressed each other using similar terms. Although this institution was reformed by Philip, he was not its creator and it had existed for a long time39. We can also see this in the iconography and in the aesthetics of the court. The portraits of mature men or gods coexist with those of others who are beardless and which were considered to a certain extent to be an alter ego of the monarch, since there are no numismatic portraits of Macedonian kings until the reign of Demetrius I Poliorcetes40. As already mentioned, it is impossible to offer a definitive explanation for the existence of two iconographic models of some kings: Amyntas III, Perdiccas III and Philip II. However, if the hetairoi shaved

39 KOTTARIDI 2005. 40 KAKAVAS 2016, 74.

Karanos 3/2020 53

ANTONIO IGNACIO MOLINA MARÍN

their beards we must imagine that they were emulating trends of the Argeads, since in all societies it is the elites who establish the trends in fashion and appearance, because all is, as W. Jaeger said, aristocratic culture. It has always been taken for granted that Alexander was the creator of his portrait, but it should be borne in mind that he was born in the context of the Sacred War41, and that Philip, champion and avenger of Apollo, could have presented his son in accordance with the iconographic model of the god. It was, however, certainly his money with which Lysippos was paid. For us it is also inconceivable that Alexander planned to look like an adolescent once he attained maturity and even less in old age. If his iconographic model was perpetuated, this was because it favoured the interests of those Diadochi who aspired to govern independently. The images of the Diadochi were syncretized, in such a way that it is not possible for us to know whether the portraits belong to Alexander or to one of his generals, such as Seleucus (FULINSKA 2011, 128). A deceased king represented with the features of an adult can more easily be confused with a living one. The Diadochi sought to create a symbol of power through which they could govern, never a rival. After all, it is characteristic for a young man to listen to his elders.

— 5) We can conclude that there was no minimum or maximum age to be king of Macedonia. However, you are sovereign pleno iure when you have the power to seize it from those who dispute it. Power is something that is conquered and which, as the moribund Alexander said, is only handed over to the strongest42. Philip III himself was a minor for his generals, despite being an adult man, due to his mental condition. Taking his state into account, it was somewhat superfluous whether or not he left his beard.

Also, we should not overlook homoerotic relations, which were very common in Macedonia43, if we want to fully understand the complicated system of relations existing between the Macedonian prince and his counsellors. Young boys (erómenoi) tended to become the lovers of mature men (erastés) who guided them in their process of entering the adult world. The relationship came to an end with the appearance of the first of a beard. To a certain extent, a beardless king did not cease to be an erómenos for the regents, who see him as a young man who needs to be guided due to his lack of experience. The próstates or epítropos is a sort of equivalent to the erastés who knows that his control over the prince will disappear as soon as the first traces of a beard are glimpsed. That is why they continue to be called meirakios despite the fact that in view of their ages it was impossible that they were. It should not be forgotten that the images of the beardless Heracles that we mentioned are associated with the first works of the demigod in which he captures or kills animals or monstrous beings at the command of his cousin Eurystheus. The ancestor of the Argeads was in the service of this king for some 10 years following a decision of the Oracle of Delphi. It was his relative who imposed the labours on him and who decided that he had achieved the maturity which would represent Heracles attaining immortality. (2.5.1) uses the following words to describe how

41 We would like to thank Dr. Borja Antela Bernárdez for having stressed the importance of this fact. 42 D.S. 17.117.4; Arr. An. 7.26.3. Cf. ANTELA BERNÁRDEZ 2009. 43 MORTENSEN 2007, highlights that there were differences between Greek and Macedonian homosexuality due to the existence of the monarchy and to the greater hierarchy of society; ANTELA BERNÁRDEZ 2010; MOLINA MARÍN 2018, 238.

Karanos 3/2020 54

FOREVER YOUNG: THE STRANGE YOUTH OF THE MACEDONIAN KINGS

the son of Zeus came to serve Eurystheus: “καὶ τὸ προσταττόμενον ὑπὸ Εὐρυσθέως ἐτέλει”/ “and fulfilled what Eurystheus ordered”. We know that Heracles was the model of behaviour for the kings of Macedonia, and if another was needed for the regent or próstates we have to conclude that Eurystheus was a mythical archetype who could be used to give a legal basis to the period during which the Argead prince or king was under guardianship. Also, we must understand that the process of infantilization of the king was not only of interest to his counsellors and regents. It was especially useful for the other members of the Argead clan who did not at all consider themselves to be inferior to the current king. The monarch was thus reminded that he was just another member of the clan and that he should listen to and work alongside the other Argeads with a common goal: the preservation and enlargement of the clan. The destiny of an Argead king who did not listen to his clan and to his counsellors and who did not let himself be directed by them was death. This was the fate of Alexander II44. They may have reached true maturity, but achieving it depended on their elders and not on them, the only way to shake off the yoke which oppressed them and to become men being to kill their rivals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAMS, C. D. (trans.) (1919): The Speeches of Aeschines, London. ALONSO TRONCOSO, V. (2010): “The bearded king and the beardless hero: From Philip II to Alexander the Great”, in E. D. CARNEY – D. OGDEN (eds.): Philip II and Alexander the Great. Father and son, lives and afterlives, Oxford: 13-24. ANSON, E. M. (1992): “ and the prostasia”, CPh 87.1: 38-43. BEAULIEU, M. C. (2016): The Sea in the Greek Imagination, . ANTELA-BERNARDEZ, B. (2009): “Sucesión y victoria: Una aproximación a la guerra helenística”, Gerión 27.1: 161-177. — (2010): “ Alejandro Homoerótico. Homosexualidad en la corte Macedonia”, 92.2: 331-343. BORZA, E. N. (1990): In the shadow of Olympus. The emergence of Macedon, Princeton. CAMBINO, G. (1993): “Hacerse hombre”, in J.-P. VERNANT (ed.): El hombre griego, Madrid: 103-137. CARLIER, P. (2000): “Homeric and Macedonian kingship”, in R. BROCK – S. HODKINSON (eds.): Alternatives to Athens, Oxford: 259-268. CARNEY, E. D. (2019): Eurydice and the birth of the Macedonian power, Oxford. FERNANDEZ NIETO, F. J. (2005): “La designación del sucesor en el antiguo reino de Macedonia”, in V. ALONSO TRONCOSO (coord.): Diadochos tes basileas. La figura del sucesor en la realeza helenística, Madrid: 29-44. FLOWER, M. A. (1994): Theopompus of Chios. History and in the fourth century BC, Oxford.

44 GREENWALT 2017, 90.

Karanos 3/2020 55

ANTONIO IGNACIO MOLINA MARÍN

FREDRICKSMEYER, E. A. (1958). The religion of Alexander the Great, (Diss.) University of Wisconsin. — (1990): “Alexander and Philip: Emulation and resentment”, CJ 85.1: 300-315. FULINSKA, A. (2011): “The god Alexander and his emulators”, Classica Cracoviensa 14: 125-135. GODLEY, A. D. (trans.) (1920): of Herodotus, Cambridge. GREENWALT, W. S. (1988): “The marriageability age at the Argead court: 360-317 B.C.”, CW 82, 93-97. — (1994): “The production of coinage from Archelaus to Perdiccas III and the evolution of Argead Macedonia”, in I. WORTHINGTON (ed.), Ventures into Greek history, Oxford: 105-133. — (2017): “Alexander II of Macedon”, in T. HOWE – S. MÜLLER – R. STONEMAN (eds.): Ancient Historiography on War and Empire, Oxford: 80-91. HABICHT, C. (1958): “Die herrschende Gesellschaft in den hellenistischen Monarchien”, Vier Soz Wirt. 45.1: 1-16. HAMILTON, J. R. (1969): Plutarch, Alexander: A commentary, Oxford. HATZOPOULOS, M. B. (1986): “Succession and regency in classical Macedonia”, Ancient Macedonia 4: 279-292. HECKEL, W. (2006): Who’s who in the age of Alexander the Great. Prosopography of Alexander’s empire, Oxford. JOUANNO, C. (1995): “Le ‘Roman d’Alexandre’ ou L’enfance d’un héros”, in F. JOUAN (ed.): Enfants et enfances dans les mythologies. Actes du VII colloque du Centre de recherches mythologies de l’université de Paris-X (Chantilly 16-18 septiembre 1992), Paris: 269-289. KAKAVAS, G. (2016): “Hellenistic royal portraitures on coins”, in C. A. PICÓN – S. HEMINGWAY (eds.): Pergamon and the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the Ancient World, New York: 70-76. KOTTARIDI, A. (2005): “Domination et résistance dans la cour d’Alexandre: le cas des basilikoi paides”, in V. ANASTASIADIS – P. DOUKELLIS (eds.): Esclavage antique et discriminations socio-culturelles, Bern: 167-182. LANDUCCI, F. (2003): L'arte del potere. Vita e opere di Cassandro di Macedonia, Stuttgart. LE BOHEC, S. (1993): “Remarques sur l'âge de la majorité chez les rois de Macédoine”, Ancient Macedonia 5.2: 779-788. — (2002): “The kings of Macedon and the cult of Zeus in the Hellenistic period”, in D. OGDEN (ed.): The Hellenistic world: new perspectives, Swansea: 41-58. MACURDY, G. H. (1927): “Queen Eurydice and the Evidence for Woman Power in Early Macedonia”, AJPh 48.3: 201-214. MENDOZA, M. (2019): La irreligiosidad de Alejandro Magno, Alcalá de Henares. MOLINA MARIN, A. I. (2017): “Póthos y musas.: El anhelo de los reyes de Macedonia”, Minerva: Revista de filología clásica 30: 13-34. — (2018): Alejandro Magno (1916-2015). Un siglo de estudios sobre Macedonia antigua, Zaragoza.

Karanos 3/2020 56

FOREVER YOUNG: THE STRANGE YOUTH OF THE MACEDONIAN KINGS

MORTENSEN, K. (2007): “Homosexuality at the Macedonian court and the death of Philip II”, Ancient Macedonia 7: 371-387. MÜLLER, S. (2003): Maßnahmender Herrschaftssicherung gegenüber der makedonischen Opposition bei Alexander dem Grossen, Bern–Frankfurt am Main. OGDEN, D. (1999): Polygamy, prostitutes and death: the Hellenistic dynasties, London. — (2011): Alexander the Great. Myth, genesis and sexuality, Exeter. — (2017): The legend of Seleucus. Kingship, Narrative and mythmaking in the ancient world, Cambridge. OIKONOMIDES, A. N. (1985): “A portrait from Thespiae, L. Mummius Achaicus and the numismatic portrait of Philip II of Macedon”, in La Béotie antique, Paris: 271- 276. PRANDI, L. (1990): “Gli oracoli spedizione asiatica di Alessandro”, Chiron 20: 345-369. PERRIN, B. (trans.) (1917): Plutarch: Lives, London. LORBER, C. C.; IOSSIF, P. P. (2009): “Seleucid Campaign Beards”, AC 78: 87-115. SHUCKBURGH, E. S. (trans.) (1889 [1962]): The Histories of Polybius, London. THOMPSON, M. (1982): “The coinage of Philip II and Alexander III”, in B. BARR- SHARRALL – E. N. BORZA (eds.): Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Washington: 113-121. TRIPODI, B. (2010): “Due re bambini nella Macedonia antica: Oreste e Perdicca III”, in M. CACCAMO CALTABIANO – C. RACCUIA – E. SANTAGATI (eds.): Tyrannis, Basileia, . Forme, prassi e simboli del potere politico nel mondo greco e romano. Giornate seminariali in onore di S. Nerina Consolo Langher, , 17-19 Dicembre 2007, Messina: 209-217. WATSON, J. S. (trans.) (1853): Justin: Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, London. WILHEIM, A. (1949): “Ein Weihgedicht der Grossmutter Alexanders des Grossen”, in Pankarpeia. Mélanges Henri Grégoire, vol. I, Brussels: 625-633. ZAHRNT, M. (2011): “Der zweifache Mord an Parmenion: ein Beitrag zur Überlieferung über den Alexanderzug”, Klio 93.1: 66-83. ZWEIG, S. (1964): The world of yesterday: An autobiography, Lincoln–London 1964.

Karanos 3/2020 57

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. Furthermore, Heckel’s presentation of the struggles between the two groups and the king has been echoed by Strootman, who in his study of Hellenistic courts ties the culture back to the example of the later Argeads.3 Nonetheless, neither of these two

* This paper has had a very long gestation, with the central thesis originally the product of an undergraduate paper written in 2016. My thanks go to Lynette Mitchell, the convenor of that excellent module, not only for starting me on this journey but for her endless encouragement in many endeavours since. 1 There has been some debate about the exact origins of the Argead household, for which Herodotus (8.137-8) and (2.99.2) in rare alignment are the cause. See: MARI 2015, 81; contra HAMMOND 1972, 430-40, who also discusses the roots of the Argeads and Temenids. 2 HECKEL 2003, divides the power at Alexander’s court into Antipatrid, Parmenion- and Alexander factions, although HECKEL (202-3) underplays the power of Parmenio’s philoi. 3 STROOTMAN 2014, 118-126. eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199 JULIUS GUTHRIE

lines of argument can fully explain the deadly struggles that occurred between Alexander’s accession and the death of Parmenio in 330. It is the aim of this paper to provide a new explanation to these struggles through the introduction of philia- networks as a template for understanding what have been termed as political factions by others. This paper will proceed firstly by outlining that the Greek conception of philia in a political context, most persuasively defined by Aristotle, can be applied to the court of Alexander. Indeed, philia was a core precept of elite Macedonian political life. After establishing this, it will be shown how a new, philia-network approach to the “factional politics” of Alexander’s court allows a more nuanced understanding of the political position of the king when he began his conquest of the in 334, and how this position evolved as power dynamics shifted until a new phase of philia- networking began in 229, when Alexander’s own philoi sought to build their own networks. It shall be argued that at the outset of his rule Alexander was beholden to the power-dynamics which had secured the throne for him and that, demonstrating a great deal of political acumen, Alexander redressed this power balance in order to stem the influence of philia-networks. This was done, largely, by utilising the notion of gift- exchange in both material (land) and immaterial (status, favours) means to create new bonds within the political elite that favoured the king. Naturally, this last element also included promoting and expanding his own network of philoi.

PHILIA IN MACEDONIAN COURT CULTURE

It is no great leap to state that the majority of Greek political life was conducted by the elite. Nonetheless, even within this narrow group no elite family could seek to gain political power without the co-option or coercion of fellow elites in order to build a broader base for their dominance4. Both the extent and duration of the factional politics which often resulted from tensions between elite families are demonstrated well by a cursory glance at the tensions between the ousters of the Peisistratids: and . Herodotus (5.66) informs us that there was a power struggle between the two men in the vacuum created after the ousting of the Peisistratids tyranny, a power struggle in which Isagoras initially won the upper hand.5 However, Isagoras did not hold the archonship at this time having already done so in 525/4, therefore, and as Greg Anderson has noted, the primacy of Isagoras was not from electoral outcomes but from his wider political support6. It is this type of factional support, a loose and fluid congregation of men associated with Isagoras, which also prevailed elsewhere, and which can be termed a philia-network. The relationship through which factions such as those who supported Isagoras and Cleisthenes were united was a bond of philia. Aristotle gives an insight, albeit from a philosophical standpoint, on the role philia played in civic life which demonstrates contemporary awareness the role philia played in politics. Aristotle (Pol. 1280b38-9)

4 The relationship between rulers and elites in the Macedonian context has been examined in some detail by CARNEY 2015; KING 2010 and WEBER 2009. For elite-ruler relations more generally see MITCHELL 2013, who notes similarities between Macedonian kingship and others. 5 Although Isagoras initially won supremacy over Athens, his period of prominence was short lived. Herodotus (5.69-73.1) goes on to demonstrate how Cleisthenes drove Isagoras’ faction out of Athens and into the hands of of Sparta. cf. AP 20.1-4. 6 ANDERSON 2005, 181-2 argues that holding the Archonship was not a way of gaining power but a reflection of who already held power in Athens at that time.

Karanos 3/2020 60

PHILIA NETWORKS IN THE MACEDONIAN COURT AND THE LONG ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

states that philia is an essential feature of the polis and forms the bedrock on which civic institutions are built. Of course, not all philiai were the same and Aristotle categorised philoi into three groups: kin, comrades and xenoi7. Additionally, philia itself could be subdivided into deep-rooted bonds of virtue, bonds of pleasure and, most relevant for this study, bonds of utility8. Aristotle (Nic Eth. 1156a24-26) states that bonds of utility are most evident in political life and uses the example of sailors who needed to rely on each other to reach their destination safely, but whose bond is then broken upon their return home to emphasise the expedient nature of this kind of relationship. It is likely that the supporters of Isagoras and Cleisthenes would have primarily bound by this utilitarian conception of philia, with the supporters of either man to numerous in number to have all been linked by bonds of kinship. Why the supporters of men such as Isagoras or Cleisthenes should have been philoi in the first place is itself a question which must be answered. It is once again Aristotle (Nic. Eth. 1158b1-5) who illuminates us when he introduces the notion of reciprocal exchange as the core mechanism which governed these philia-networks and allowed them to propagate and be retained for the future. Lynette Mitchell has examined the use of gift-giving and exchange in a political context and has argued that there existed two categories of reciprocal relationship.9 The first, termed the vertical axis of exchange, accounts for the flow of goods and services along the social ladder between philoi of unequal social standing. The second, naturally termed the horizontal axis of exchange, is the provision of goods and services by men of roughly equal social rank. The importance of both of these levels of exchange, and the tensions between them, is well elaborated by ’s (Mem 2.3.11-14) tale of a debate between and Chaerecrates, his brother. Socrates berates his brother for his conduct and points out that the most importance element of philia is its reciprocal nature. Even more importantly, it is essential that the man who wishes to make the acquaintance offer his services first; such an action creates a debt which must be repaid10. Of course, both Aristotle and Xenophon were presenting ideal types in their analysis of the role philia played in relationships, be they political or social. Nonetheless, the issues at stake in both of their conceptions can be witnessed in the archonship election of 508/7, when Cleisthenes kinsman Alcmeon was appointed, and the events which followed11. Herodotus (5.69) is certainly in no doubt as to the supremacy of Cleisthenes at this time despite the fact he was not in office. Cleisthenes influence was a product of his philia-network and Alcmeon’s election can be viewed on both horizontal and vertical axes of exchange. The horizontal was naturally Cleisthenes support for Alcmeon, although as a superior partner, with Cleisthenes presumably gaining access to the power that the archonship had to offer through his kin as his end of the bargain. Their kinship should not obscure from the fact that in the political arena they still required a degree of utilitarian benefits from one another, it is merely that as kin we should be less surprised of their alliance. The vertical axis of exchange comes into play when it is considered that we are discussing an election. In exchange for support, Cleisthenes could offer his politically lesser philoi some sort of seat at the table of

7 Kin: Nic Eth. 8,1157b 1-5. Comrades: Nic Eth 8,1161a25-7, 1161b33a1. Xenoi: Nic Eth. 1161b15-20. 8 This distinction is repeated several times but is most notable at Aristot. Nic Eth. 8, 1156a6-10 9 The horizontal axis of exchange is described in MITCHELL 1997, 42-6. For the vertical axis see: 46-51. 10 There are numerous other examples of this sort of reciprocal relationship in practice, Homer (Il. 6.120- 232) provides perhaps the earliest example. 11 Poll. Onom. 8.110 cf. ANDERSON 2005, 182 who has examined this incident from a political perspective.

Karanos 3/2020 61

JULIUS GUTHRIE

power –in Cleisthenes case this was through a series of reforms to the Athenian tribal structure12. The utilisation of philia-networks witnessed in late sixth-century Athens can be translated into the distinct context of the Macedonian court, albeit complicated by the presence of the king at the centre of all political activity13. The complication implicit in monarchy comes from the unequal status between the monarch and his (or occasionally her) philos which sits in direct contrast to equality, which was the concept at the very centre of Aristotelian philia14. Nonetheless the problem of inequality between philoi is dealt with by Aristotle himself, who was aware that not all relationships could be equal in practice. Furthermore, Aristotle explicitly cites the relationship between the ruler and the ruled in his discussion of how unequal relationships worked (Nic. Eth. 1158b7- 1159b25). Aristotle (Nic. Eth. 1161a10-22) later takes this point further, likening the relationship between a ruler and those he rules to that between a shepherd and his flock and a father and his children. In both cases, Aristotle is keen to point out that the benefits for the ruled outweigh the benefits for the ruler, who is honoured and held in esteem in exchange for offering the benefits of his philia. Aristotle’s view of unequal relationships is to a degree typical of the view of the ruler put forward by Xenophon, who in his Hiero (most explicitly: 11.14-15) stresses that a good ruler should aim to be loved by his people for his generosity. Aristotle’s view, however, is more practically applicable than this. Aristotle notes (Nic. Eth. 1161a33-34) that if the inferior philos has nothing to offer, no philia can hope to exist between them. This statement is an acknowledgement of the practicalities of ruling and demonstrates that philia has a place in the court politics of a king in the fifth and early fourth centuries. Indeed, the practical nature of philiai between rulers and their philoi can be seen in the tempestuous rivalry for the ear of Xerxes between Artabanus, his uncle, and , son of Gobyras, a leading proponent of the invasion of Greece15. Xerxes relationship with his uncle is continually challenged due to the failure of Artabanus to provide a useful service to him –although, Herodotus is being ironic here and much of Artabanus’ advice is sound and therefore mistakenly ignored by a bad king Xerxes– and, therefore, Artabanus’ philia with Xerxes inevitably breaks down. Precisely the role philia networks played in the unique Macedonian context can only be guessed at prior to the death of Philip II, due to the dearth of evidence16. However, an analysis of the movements of various individuals in the wake of Philip’s murder reveals clear patterns that demonstrate philia networks did indeed have a major role in the Macedonian court17. This is not the place at attempt a fresh answer to the question

12 On the reforms of Cleisthenes see DE STE. CROIX 2004a; 2004b. 13 The nature of the Macedonian monarchy continues to be the subject of a debate between the followers of either DE FRANCISCI 1948, who believed the Argeads to be highly autocratic, versus the followers of GRANIER 1931, who invented the constitutionalist stance. More recently, HATZOPOULOS 1996 has provided a compelling version of Macedonian monarchy as a national monarchy. See also: MITCHELL 2013. 14 Aristotle (1157b35) makes the importance of equality in reciprocal exchange clear: “λέγεται γάρ φιλότηϛ ἰσότηϛ,” cf. MITCHELL 1997, 8-9. 15 The pro-war and anti-war factions which these two men represent in Herodotus seems entirely legitimate, even if the speeches and the intense nature of the rivalry between them has the potential to be exaggerated. Their quarrel begins immediately upon Xerxes accession at 7.5 and continues through to 7.53 when Artabanus is sent back to . 16 RHODES 2010 provides a good summary of the problems relating to the evidence of the period. Cf. MARI 2011. 17 STROOTMAN 2014 has argued that gift-exchange prevailed as the primary currency between the king and his philoi in the context of Hellenistic royal courts. This can certainly be projected back.

Karanos 3/2020 62

PHILIA NETWORKS IN THE MACEDONIAN COURT AND THE LONG ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

of who killed Philip II, however, it is Philip’s murder which illuminates two important roles that these philia networks held18. Firstly, the immediate aftermath of Philip’s murder demonstrates that the primary aim of philia networks amongst the Macedonian elite was to gain access to the person of the king and in doing so to exert influence over the core decision making centre of the Macedonian political system19. The second, more specific to Alexander III, is that Alexander does not appear to have controlled, but was controlled by, these powerful political forces in the earliest phase of his reign. Additionally, both patterns remained prevalent throughout Alexander’s later rule as new groups of philoi emerged to compete for the king’s ear (dealt with in the second half of this paper). The first of these two points, the desire to be at the heart of the decision-making process, is evidenced in the movements and the formations of the philia-networks existing in 336. In the year prior to his murder Philip II had made a conscious decision to publicly expand his network of philoi through marriage to Cleopatra, daughter of Attalus20. As Carney has correctly noted, whilst this decision would have caused natural angst amongst Alexander’s supporters, it was nothing out of the ordinary in a polygamous ruling family such as the Argeads21. However, this is not the entire story. Curtius (6.19.6) informs us that Attalus had married the daughter of Parmenio, a wedding which must pre-date Philip’s death only on account of Attalus’ position as one of the two commanders (the other Parmenio himself) leading the advanced guard in Asia Minor at the time Philip was murdered22. The unification of these two families through a formal bond of marriage, making them kin, transformed two already powerful individuals with their own philia-networks into an extremely potent bloc within Macedonian elite society (see Figure 1 and Appendix A). Furthermore, this horizontal exchange had a lot to offer each of its participants in the long term and, therefore, must have appeared particularly potent with the potential for the philia to extend for a lengthy duration23.

18 The majority of the events discussed here occurred after Philip was murdered. Whoever killed Philip II either kept their role in the murder private, aside from the assailant Pausanias himself, or as BOSWORTH 1971, 102 has suggested, Alexander suppressed the identity of the killer for political purposes. Of course, the murderer(s) had the advantage of knowing Philip’s death was imminent and, therefore, had an advantage in the factional infighting that followed. Nonetheless, the murderer(s) had no guarantee that their plot would succeed and, if their role(s) was indeed kept private then, they could not openly benefit from them. Excellent discussions of Philip’s death include BADIAN 1963 [2012]; 2000 [2012], who views Alexander III as the likely culprit. CARNEY 2015, who discredits the notion of Olympias’ involvement in detail. Additionally, CARNEY 2015 has discussed the possible role of the Lyncestian Alexander, who she states must have played a more dominant role than is often assumed. This view can be seen in tandem with BOSWORTH 1971, who places tensions between Upper and Lower Macedonians at the root of the matter. ANTELA-BERNARDEZ 2012 has made note of Attalus’ involvement. All arguments have merits. 19 HECKEL 2003, 206-7 in particular, notes the importance of proximity to the king. For this reason, Heckel places the somatophylakes as the position of highest status in the court. Additionally, see SPAWFORTH 2007, 87-8 who highlights the importance of proximity to the king for influence and BRIANT 1996, 200-4, who notes how ’s mobile court system effected such matters. 20 D.S. 17.2.3; Ath 13.560c. CARNEY 2015, 170 has noted that Philip probably wished to take Alexander and Amyntas to Asia and it was therefore expedient to re-marry prior to departure. However, Philip could well have produced a successor with one of his pre-existing wives instead and therefore the marriage must have been political. 21 CARNEY 2015, 167. Cf. LANE FOX 2011, 386 who believes Just. 9.7.3 and 11.2.3 can be used to provide evidence that Cleopatra did indeed have a son named Caranos. OGDEN 1999 discussed the implications of polygamy in more general terms. 22 D.S 16.93.8-9 and Justin 9.5.8-9 inform us of Attalus’ role in the campaign. 23 If claims that Attalus wished to rule as regent are to have any substance to them, then Attalus surely needed Parmenio’s prestige amongst the troops to stabilise the situation. Parmenio also had friends

Karanos 3/2020 63

JULIUS GUTHRIE

Much like his long-time acquaintance Parmenio, Antipater, son of Iolus, was equally involved in the internecine struggles of the Macedonian elite to secure their preferred candidate on the throne after Philip’s death24. The ‘Antipatrid-Antigonid Group’, as it has been coined by Waldemar Heckel, appears to have played an equally significant role in the politics of Alexander’s succession (See Appendix B)25. In this case, the links between the group appear more difficult to draw out due to the deaths of many potential protagonists. Nonetheless, it can be said with relative certainty that Antipater’s philoi included amongst their number: the Lyncestian Alexander, who was related through marriage his to Antipater’s daughter and whose role shall be elaborated further below; Alexander of Lyncestis’ brothers; Balagros, one of Philip’s somatophylakes and Antigonus, who was much closer in age to Antipater than Alexander26. In the middle of this political web was Alexander, who appears to have been at the mercy of those greater forces around him. Even though Alexander’s previous actions at Chaeronea (Plu. Alex 9.2-3) had proven his right to rule by din of his charisma, certainly -à-vis the other candidates, and despite Alexander being surrounded by his own web of philoi, his position was precarious. Olympias, being brother to Alexander of Molossia and having been involved in the politics of Philip’s court for considerable time, was probably the best placed of Alexander’s allies to press his claim27.

Fig. 1: The philiai of Parmenio and Attalus.

The accession of Alexander as king of Macedonia was a result of the power struggle between the Antipater and Parmenio philia-networks, and brings discussion to point two: Alexander was controlled by these networks in the earliest parts of his reign. When Philip was murdered, whoever murdered him, there was an immediate scramble amongst the Upper Macedonians, appearing to have links with the sons of Andromenes, eg. Arr. An. 3.27.1. 24 HECKEL 2003, 200 has gone further and stated that Antipater’s political involvement at this time was in reaction to the Parmenio-Attalus faction. However, the swiftness of political action after Philip’s death and the large scale of these philia networks must have required some bonds to already have been in place. Antipater was to important to have been politically unaligned. CARNEY 2015, 127-140 has argued that Antipater was but one player in a wider group led instead by the Lyncestian sons of Aëropus. There was clearly a bond between these men, yet, to say which was the more important prior to Alexander’s accession is difficult. What can be said is that Antipater emerged as the dominant force. 25 HECKEL 2003, 196. 26 On the relationship between Antigonus and Antipater see HECKEL 2006, 32-33. Much of the evidence for their philia post-dates Alexander, nonetheless, the treatment of Antigonus by Alexander is suggestive of a philia existing between the two at this time –see below. 27 Little can be said of Alexander’s hetairoi at this time.

Karanos 3/2020 64

PHILIA NETWORKS IN THE MACEDONIAN COURT AND THE LONG ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

amongst the elite to ensure that their preferred candidate ended up on the throne28. Clearly, the Parmenio-Attalus philia network would have supported the claims of any child born to Cleopatra. Even if the child were a girl, a suitable match could have been found or Cleopatra remarried to a suitable candidate29. Furthermore, and as argued by Bosworth, the comments placed into the mouth of Alexander by Curtius (6.8.16) that Philotas had supported the claims of Amyntas cannot be ruled out entirely. It is possible that after the murder of Cleopatra Parmenio switched his support to Amyntas before ultimately falling on the side of Alexander. The ambitions of the Parmenio-Attalus philia had ramifications also for those on the other side. For someone like Antipater, whose status surely demanded a seat at the highest table, allowing Parmenio and Attalus such influence could only come at his own expense. In this situation Antipater’s options were limited; Alexander, eldest son and certainly the only candidate to have conclusively proven his aretē on the field of battle or Amyntas, son of Perdiccas III, who appears to have either siezed the opportunity or, as is suggested by Plutarch (Mor. 327c), to have been nominated as a figurehead by others with ambition30. That Antipater chose the former over the latter may have come down to a combination of Antipater’s personal experiences with Alexander and Alexander’s relative youth vis-à-vis the other candidates31. Alongside this, Alexander may have had the benefit of being the only candidate present (excluding Philip Arrhidaeus). It is far from a leap to assume that Antipater would prefer a king he could influence over one he could not, that was, after all, the point of all infighting amongst the elites after Philip’s death. Alexander’s greatest debt to Antipater was not merely Antipater’s support for his claim, but Antipater’s ability persuade the Lyncestian Alexander to join his cause at the detriment of his brothers. Carney has made note of the power that the Lyncestian sons of Aëropus may have held at court and has speculated that it was the sons of Aëropus who had pushed the claim of Amyntas as a rival to the throne32. The case for Lyncestian involvement is compelling and if the sons of Aëropus did indeed back Amyntas over Alexander it would have created a formidable power-bloc comprising of Amyntas himself, the three Lyncestian brothers and their adherents in (from which many military units came) and any of Amyntas’ own philoi33. Nonetheless, the decision of Lyncestian Alexander to publicly declare for Alexander III still warrants

28 The death of Philip II and its aftermath has been the subject of numerous debates, see: BADIAN 1963 [2012]; 2007 [2012], who has placed Alexander III as the chief culprit; BOSWORTH 1971, has highlighted the role of the Lyncestian faction; CARNEY 2015, 167-178 examines the death of Philip from a polygamous perspective and points out the difficulties with providing a credible reason for any to commit the murder –all had motive but all had much to lose. In addition: LANE FOX 1973, 17-25 and 503-505 who builds on Diodorus; contra HATZOPOULOS 2005, 43-65 who doubts Diodorus as a source. 29 D.S. 17.2.3 explicitly refers to Attalus as a rival for the throne. HECKEL 1991, 5 rightly notes that he had no obvious legal claim to be king and it seems likely that Diodorus’ meaning here is his implied rule through his niece. The remarriage of Cleopatra would have been perfectly acceptable, fitting the model of levirate marriage followed by Macedonian successor states and already in operation as early as 478 in Sicily where Polyzalus married his brother’s wife Demarete in a bid to further his claims for the rule of Syracuse. For levirate marriage generally, see OGDEN 1999, xix-xxv. 30 That Amyntas was not behind Philip’s murder has been argued convincingly by CARNEY 2015, 177 who notes that Amyntas had little to gain and a lot to lose by committing such a crime. Nonetheless, a group must have supported him. 31 Just. 9.4.3 informs us that Antipater had accompanied Alexander to Athens after Chaeronea. Additionally, (Ep. 4) and Plutarch (Alex 9.1) both inform us that Antipater had been regent in Macedonia during Philip’s absences. That Antipater and Alexander had a form of philia is thus highly likely. 32 CARNEY 2015, 128-131 cf. BOSWORTH 1971. 33 WORTHINGTON 2003 offers the best overview of Amyntas’ role.

Karanos 3/2020 65

JULIUS GUTHRIE

fresh assessment through the model of philia-networks. Lyncestian Alexander had married the daughter of Antipater which, if pre-dating the events of 366, demonstrates that both men already had a strong political relationship. The horizontal exchange here is also clear to see, with Alexander, son of Aëropus, married into a distinguished family with influence at the centre of Philip’s court. In return Antipater widened his philia- network to encompass a man with influence in the less-securely controlled regions to the north34. Such a marriage was all the more pertinent if it is also accepted that Parmenio had friends in the regions of Upper Macedonia and, therefore, Antipater was seeking to redress the political imbalance in that region. In any case, what had begun as a relatively typical political marriage in Philip’s lifetime became a vital relationship after his death. Antipater needed to ensure his own position was stable and supporting Alexander appears to have been his preferred choice35. Lyncestian Alexander, whose brothers had chosen to back another, was forced to break one of the two competing bonds of philia. That he chose to side with Antipater can be explained, once again, in terms of a horizontal exchange of services: Alexander, son of Aëropus, declares for Alexander, son of Philip and splits the Lyncestian support for Amyntas. In return Antipater ensures that Alexander III appropriately rewards his namesake, who was in a stroke uncontested as the leading Lyncestian at court36. Whatever support remained for Amyntas quickly crumbled and Justin (12.6.14; cf. Arr. An. 1.5.4) informs us that Alexander was able to dispose of his challenger permanently in 335. However, is turn of events was not as assured as it now appears. Even with support amongst Upper Macedonia split Amyntas remained a perfectly viable candidate for the throne and his claim should have been strengthened further when Cleopatra, daughter of Attalus, was murdered by Alexander’s philoi, severing Attalus’ connection with the royal household and effectively ending his philia with Parmenio37. Parmenio now had to choose a new side. That he entertained the notion of supporting Amyntas comes from a comment put into the mouth of Alexander by Curtius (6.9.16) where it is stated that Philotas had supported Amyntas against Alexander. The only way to reconcile this comment with the philia-networks that had developed at this time is to assume that after Cleopatra was killed, Philotas had been in discussion with Amyntas about supporting his claim. The reason why the support for Amyntas crumbled quickly after this point can be placed at a decision by Parmenio to instead lend his support to Alexander, concluding, for various reasons but likely due to a lack of military support for Amyntas, that Alexander was the better option for his own future. Parmenio’s later assassination of Attalus was surely a bid to provide a service to Alexander in exchange for his own exoneration in Attalus’ plotting and a continuation of his status as the leading commander in Macedonia. To some extent this was also an inevitable outcome, Parmenio was at that time at the head of a large

34 The marriage of Alexander and Antipater’s daughter is attested in Curt 7.1.7; Justin 11.7.1; 12.14.1. 35 This is easy to understand if it is accepted that Antipater served in the capacity of a mentor while Alexander was left as regent of Macedonia during Philip’s campaigns. 36 CARNEY 2015, 130 is quite right to state that Alexander of Lyncestis was too important to be killed. His pardon was not a gift, but merely part of the exchange of services between the two Alexanders. The killing of the rest of Aëropus’ sons was adequate public action for the death of or the support of a rival claimant to the throne. 37 Just. 9.7.8-9 claims that the murder was committed by Olympias. While she was surely capable of such action, Justin’s narrative of the episode is part of a wider attempt to portray Olympias as the murder of Philip and should not be taken at face value. It was politically expedient to murder Cleopatra and any among Alexander’s adherents could have done so; Alexander certainly did not intervene.

Karanos 3/2020 66

PHILIA NETWORKS IN THE MACEDONIAN COURT AND THE LONG ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

advanced force with very little to tie it to the new king, it was mutually beneficial for Parmenio to retain his prominence. The power of philia-networks was not broken, but rather strengthened in the events which followed Philip’s death and continued to retain its importance in the years leading up to the invasion of Asia Minor in 334. When Alexander marched against the Triballians he did so with Philotas in command of his (Arr. An. 1.2.5). Even with Alexander’s great displays of prowess both in the north and south in Greece, the makeup of Alexander’s forces travelling into Asia Minor in 334 were tribute to his continued embroilment in the philia-networks that had secured his succession. The philoi of Antipater had been greatly rewarded in the composition of the command structure (Appendix B): Lyncestian Alexander was a hipparch, and moreover in command of the formidable and important Thessalian cavalry; Antigonus commanded some 7,000 Greek and Balagros remained a somatophylax, the most intimate of positions. Antipater himself was to stay behind, but in the unprecedented role of Strategos Autocrator which appears to have allowed great freedom of action38. Likewise, the high-status roles given to the philoi of Parmenio (Appendix A) also demonstrated the dominance of these political groupings at court: Amyntas, son of Andromenes was a taxiarch; , son of Harpalus was a hipparch; Cleander clearly held a military posting, but its nature in 334 is unclear; Hegelochus commanded the ; commanded in the ; Philotas was hipparch of the Companions; was a taxiarch and Parmenio himself was Alexander’s senior commander. The positions held by each of these men were more prominent than the roles assumed by men who could be called members of Alexander’s own philia-network with the exceptions of Cleitus, son of Dropides, and Craterus (see Appendix C). In addition to holding prestigious commands, the philoi of Antipater and Parmenio clearly had a great deal of access to the king which, as outlined previously, was itself a marker of distinction and the aim of court politics in the first place. Particularly well placed amongst Antipater’s philoi were Balagros and Lyncestian Alexander, whom Arrian (An. 1.25.1) makes it clear enjoyed personal access to the king. In the case of Parmenio’s grouping, personal access was the privilege of Parmenio himself, of Philotas whose physical closeness to the king is encapsulated by Curtius’ (6.9.26-7) statement at the moment of Philotas’ downfall that the troops were shocked to see a man usually by the kings side in a feast now on trial before them, and of Demetrius, a somatophylax about whom little is known39.

PHILIA POLITICS IN THE PERSIAN CAMPAIGN

Alexander’s attempts to break his political encirclement will form the basis of the rest of this paper. That Alexander was politically astute has not always been taken for granted and his attempts to play at politics in the court of Philip II, most notably through his attempts to sabotage the marriage of his half-brother to the daughter of Pixodarus

38 Antipater’s dealing with the Spartan revolt of 331 displayed the widespread nature of his authority and is attested by Arr. An. 1.11.3 and D.S. 17.62-3. 39 HECKEL 2006, 108 correctly resists conflating this Demetrius the brother of Antigonus Monophthalmus. If the two men were indeed kin it is odd that Antigonus’ career suffers no detriment post-Philotas’ murder. The only references to this Demetrius come when he is removed from office and Arrian’s suspicion (An. 3.27.3) that he was executed for his association with Philotas appears to hold cf. Curt. 6.7.15.

Karanos 3/2020 67

JULIUS GUTHRIE

of Caria, have often been held as evidence that Alexander was naive in the political arena40. Nonetheless, Alexander had grown up at the court of the most powerful man of his generation and had personally experienced the benefits of being in the king’s presence and the detriments of exile. It is foolish to assume that Alexander did not gain some nous from his experiences, even if he had made mistakes in earlier life. Furthermore, the exile of Erygius, Harpalus, and Ptolemy for their parts in the Pixadarus affair demonstrates that Alexander had his own philoi and was himself playing at philia politics. As could be expected when your philos is the king, each of these men was hastily recalled when Philip died and would go on to prominence (see Appendix C and discussion below). Alexander had also shown that he was far from naïve in what it meant to be a king. Although he certainly remained constricted in his scope for political action by the philia-networks that surrounded him, Alexander had already begun to show his awareness of self-representation as a crucial facet of his rule. The one moment of Alexander’s accession which was conclusively of his own making had been his speech to the assembled troops pledging his loyalty to them, to his father’s mode of rule and abolishing taxes for them41. Furthermore, after his crushing of the Theban-led rebellion to his rule in Greece, Alexander had utilised the festival at to put on a demonstration of his power. Diodorus (17.17.3-4) gives an account of the events which make the festival sound distinctly similar to that of a Hellenistic king, nonetheless there is no reason suggest that Diodorus is incorrect about the events, especially given Philip’s increasingly lavish self-representation prior to his death42. Additionally, as Spawforth has noted, Alexander made use of similar displays at , and Memphis later in his rule to display his power43. Alexander understood kingship well, he merely had to reshape the politics of his court in order to pursue it as he wished. This process of reclaiming the power at court began immediately for Alexander, although almost certainly unintentionally, with the removal of Antipater from Alexander’s presence through Antipater’s own advancement to Strategos Autocrator44. Nonetheless, what had happened to Antipater was to happen to, although with far less prestige, his philoi serving Alexander in 334. It was not a coincidence that many of the earliest Achaemenid satrapies captured by Alexander were given to philoi of Antipater45. Arrian (An. 1.29.3) informs us that was given to Antigonus, Lydia to (An. 1.17.7) and Cilicia to Balagros in 333/2 (An. 2.12). Playing upon the vertical axis of exchange and the desire amongst the elite to gain prestige, Alexander systematically promoted Antipater’s philoi to the command of satrapies. The exchange was prestige in return for loyalty, with the bonus of separation from court of those Alexander did not want in his inner circle and men desperate to prove their worth placed into strategic positions. Ultimately, the reward of a satrapy placed the office-holder into a debt they were unlikely to repay without exceptional conduct and the efficacy of this

40 Eg. RUZICKA 2010, 9-10. 41 D.S. 17.2.2-3. Only Alexander could have made the speech, therefore, his agency is clear at this time. 42 P. Oxy 15. 1798 cf. SPAWFORTH 2007, 90; contra FREDRICKSMEYER 2000, 191. Other instances include Philip’s statue: D.S. 15.92.5, and more generally his hospitality at Aeschin. 2.41-2; 47; 51-2. 43 SPAWFORTH 2007, 92-3. 44 The unprecedented power of the position suggests Antipater was not being removed from influence, rather this was a genuine reward for services rendered and, even if Alexander felt constrained by Antipater’s presence and that of his philoi, Alexander must have trusted Antipater’s ability to carry out the role. 45 HECKEL 2003, 210 has made passing reference to the use of promotion for political reasons with regards to Antipater’s philoi.

Karanos 3/2020 68

PHILIA NETWORKS IN THE MACEDONIAN COURT AND THE LONG ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

arrangement was shown by the success of Antigonus’ wars in the Taurus Mountains46. Alexander’s later willingness to punish ineffective or openly abusive , if already the case, certainly would have encouraged such behaviour47. Alexander’s desire to remove those he did not fully trust from positions of privilege is also evidenced in the changing composition of the somatophylakes. To be a somatophylax was to have access and, better still, public acknowledgement of your elevated status. It is then less a surprise than an inevitability that almost all of Alexander’s closest philoi, his hetairoi, were appointed (see also Appendix C). By 329, the somatophylakes were: Aristonus, Hephaestion, , Lysimachus, , Perdiccas and Ptolemy. Alexander’s bodyguard had become a reflection of who he trusted and had given official status to go with the informal influence that many of these men must already have held; membership of the somatophylakes served as a mark of the king favour and trust. The changes to the somatophylakes provide a stark contrast to the movements of Antipater’s philoi. Of course, there are always exceptions and the exception amongst the philoi of Antipater was Alexander, son of Aëropus. Nonetheless, when viewed through the prism of philia-networks Alexander’s grizzly demise must be understood as a product of the rivalries between the philia-networks of Alexander’s court. Alexander owed, at least in part, his position as king to the acceptance of his Lyncestian namesake and Alexander had rewarded him with command of the Thessalian Cavalry and a prominent position at court. Nonetheless, there remains two important features regarding Alexander, son of Aëropus, and his relationship with Alexander, the king. The first, is that Lyncestian Alexander cannot have been above suspicion for his role in the bid of Amyntas for the throne in 336/5. He may have been able to rehabilitate his standing with the king, but he the actions of his brothers and his potential to have been involved was a mark he would have to carry forward. Secondly, Lyncestian Alexander’s most prominent political ally was Antipater, who was not only increasingly at odds with Alexander, but was also geographically distant48. In the game of court politics, Lyncestian Alexander was an easy target. The declining position of Lyncestian Alexander was exacerbated and made considerably worse by the choices Alexander (the king) had made to fill the void left by the removal of Antipater’s other philoi. Alexander’s own close adherents, men such as Hephaestion, were attaining prominence at this time and beginning to receive official positions. The decision to allow Hephaestion to choose the king of the Sidonians in the winter of 333/2 and his appointment as a somatophylax are both evidence of his increasingly public political role at the time49. In tandem with the rise of Alexander’s own philoi was the continuing power of Parmenio. Alexander had split his forces in the early stages of the campaign, with himself leading half and Parmenio trusted to lead the other half. Such responsibility was not awarded lightly and, whilst the two were to grow estranged later, what the two men had to offer each at this stage far outweighed any

46 Curt. 3.1.22, cf. Curt. 4.5.13 for Balagros’ role. 47 Alexander was not beyond punishing his satraps for misconduct eg. Arr. An. 6.27.4. 48 The importance of geographical distance in this affair has been noted by CARNEY 2015, 131f. Carney also makes note of the potential involvement of Olympias and Parmenio, both of whom had motives to see Lyncestian Alexander removed. BADIAN 2000 [2012], 434 blames Alexander himself and calls it a false conspiracy. 49 Hephaestion’s role in the appointment of the king is recorded in Curt. 4.1.15-26; Plu. Mor. 340c-d and D.S. 17.46.6. His first official position was to ferry goods between Tyre and Gaza as attested by Curt. 4.5.10.

Karanos 3/2020 69

JULIUS GUTHRIE

enmity. In this case the horizontal axis of exchange can be witnessed in operation, with a service bound relationship flourishing. This leads to the supposed plot itself. Arrian states (An. 1.25.3; cf. Curt. 3.7.12, who names Nabazanes in place of Darius) Lyncestian Alexander had been in negotiation with Darius III about assassinating King Alexander. The messenger who was bringing the terms of the agreement to Lyncestian Alexander, Sisines, was caught and interrogated by Parmenio, who established Lyncestian Alexander’s guilt. Next, Alexander, having arrested his namesake, called a council (An. 1.25.5) at which it was decided that Lyncestian Alexander was not only untrustworthy, but that he was too popular with the Thessalians whom he commanded to be left in control. has claimed that this entire plot was invented by Alexander to remove his namesake for political reasons; he was not trusted, and he was in Alexander’s way50. In contrast, Waldemar Heckel has argued that the plot must in fact have been real51. Heckel makes the case that the year in which the plot occurred, 333 (following the dating from Arr. An 1.25.1-10), was the year in which Alexander appears to have been at his most dependent on the philoi of Antipater; this was the year of Antigonus’ and Balagros’ campaigns in the Taurus Mountains and the year in which Agis III of Sparta began his open revolt against Macedonian in Greece52. However, this explanation is incomplete and does not give credence enough to the role of gift- exchange in reshaping philia-networks continually. That Alexander had a dependence on men such as Antigonus at that moment is indisputable, however, to call these men philoi of Antipater at that same moment is to miss the subtleties of philia-networking. The bond between Antipater and his philoi had not been broken, however, these same men now had a debt to repay for Alexander, who had given them their newly acquired status. Furthermore, men such as Antigonus may have been philoi of Antipater, but that did not require them to have the same relationship with each other. Philia politics was not so neat: what did Antigonus care of the fate of Alexander, son of Aëropus? Those among Antipater’s philoi who had been rewarded with satrapies were expected to carry out their roles as functionaries of the king and it was in their interests to do so. The next key moment is recorded by Arrian (1.25.5), who states that Alexander consulted a council before coming to his decision. Arrian gives us no hint of who was included in this meeting; however, Hephaestion was almost certainly present in his new capacity as a somatophylax and it seems likely that Craterus, another ambitious philos of the king was present, as it was his brother who took the verbal message to arrest Lyncestian Alexander to the guard (An. 1.25.9-10). In addition, Parmenio had sent Sisines to Alexander for questioning (1.25.4) and, it seems likely, that Philotas would have played some role if he were not with his father at this time, although this cannot be proven. Charting the philiai of those involved suggests that Lyncestian Alexander was probably the victim of the dynamics of a violent court in which he had few philoi. The entire affair appears to have occurred very swiftly, Arrian makes no comment of Lyncestian Alexander being given the opportunity to defend himself, and Curtius’ account (7.1.6-10) suggests that he was only given the opportunity some three years

50 BADIAN 2000 [2012], 56-60. 51 HECKEL 2003 [2012], 213 n.68. However, the individual Alexander most relied upon, Antigonus, had no reason not to serve Alexander well in this year regardless of any personal convictions. Alexander had given him his position and if Alexander’s campaign was to prove unsuccessful, Antigonus would certainly have lost his satrapy, and the wealth and status it came with, to the advancing army of Darius. Additionally, Alexander remained sufficiently close and sufficiently powerful to extract revenge. 52 HECKEL 2003, 213 n. 68. For Antigonus’ war in Cilicia see: Curt. 4.1.35. For Balagros: Curt. 4.5.13- 4. For Agis III: D.S. 17.48.1; 62.8-63.4; Arr. An. 1.11.3.

Karanos 3/2020 70

PHILIA NETWORKS IN THE MACEDONIAN COURT AND THE LONG ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

later, prior to his long-delayed execution. Ultimately, the truth of the tale, as with the death of Philip, is less important than the role it played in the power dynamics between the competing philia-networks of Alexander’s court. Antipater’s philoi suffered from their patron’s absence and their lack of connections with other networks. The pattern of Alexander’s reign had been set firmly, the king would do what was necessary to break his political fetters. Of course, Alexander’s engagement with philia-networks was not restricted to a systematic removal of Antipater’s philoi, but extended to philoi of Parmenio also. Understandably, much of the focus regarding the downfall of Parmenio has related to the “Philotas Affair” of 330, however, Parmenio’s philia-network was vast and the “Philotas Affair” must be contextualised as the culmination of a process which, as noted by Badian, had begun much earlier53. The philia between Alexander and Parmenio had begun as one of utility. Parmenio had killed Attalus, both exonerating himself of conspiracy and removing Alexander’s remaining adversary in a demonstration of loyalty by Parmenio. Alexander, in turn, needed both Parmenio’s generalship and his political presence as a counter-weight to Antipater at a time when he simply could not promote his own philoi without overt nepotism and neglecting the man to whom he was indebted. Nonetheless, with each satrapy awarded to a philos of Antipater, Alexander’s political reliance on Parmenio was reduced and with each military victory, his own increasing status made Parmenio’s popularity amongst the men a hindrance rather than a help54. Several flashpoints between Alexander and Parmenio, as well as their respective philoi, demonstrated the growing tensions that would eventually break their philia. The earliest attested incident was at Granicus in 334, where Parmenio attempted to dissuade Alexander from launching his assault late in the day (Arr. An. 1.13.2-13; Plu. Alex. 16.3) and, although this confrontation was hardly a major incident, it remains a useful marker from which to chart the growing disconnect between a youthful and impetuous king and his conservatively minded general. The next episode occurred in , where Arrian (An. 3.26.1) states that Philotas was saved by his father from charges of treason. This episode, far more serious than the first, showed how the tension between Alexander and Parmenio was paralleled in the tensions between Alexander’s and Parmenio’s philoi, who were undoubtedly competing factions by this time55. Philotas had probably always been unpopular. Certainly, the plot to oust him in Egypt appears to have been orchestrated by Craterus, who was in political ascendancy at that time56. Nonetheless, the basis of Craterus’ accusations –the notion that Philotas had spoken ill of Alexander and his divine pretensions post-Siwa– were certainly in keeping with the conservative Macedonian outlook espoused by Philotas’ father, Parmenio, and thus the root of the tale is believable. Additionally, if Curtius’ Hegelochus conspiracy (Curt. 6.11.22-29) is indeed historical, Philotas’ views appear even more typical of the philoi

53 BADIAN 1960 [2012], 327. However, Badian’s argument, based on Arr. An. 3.11.10 that Parmenio was disgraced through inglorious roles on the battlefield is an oversimplification. Parmenio’s role in the infantry can just as easily be placed as a tactical necessity on account of Parmenio’s brilliance as a general coupled with Alexander’s own preference for cavalry command. 54 Popularity demonstrated when the troops revolted upon Parmenio’s death: D.S 17.80 cf. Curt. 7.2.35. Alexander’s desire to change the character of his rule was also important in the shaping his relationship with Parmenio. These matters have been discussed numerously: for the visit to the Zeus Ammon oracle at Siwa see BADIAN 1981 [2012], 27-71; FREDRICKSMEYER 2003, 270-78; LANE FOX 1973, 200-18. 55 The notion of Alexander’s philoi seeing Parmenio’s faction, and Philotas in particular, as a block to their own advancement has already been well established: HECKEL 2003, 98-99, 56 See Plu. Alex. 59; Curt. 6.8.2.

Karanos 3/2020 71

JULIUS GUTHRIE

of Parmenio and thus Craterus’ accusations even more believable. It is not difficult to understand why the continued presence of Philotas at the highest level of Alexander’s court frustrated his own philoi. In addition to these two major incidents several other moments of tension are recorded in the sources: Parmenio’s desire to accept peace (Plu. Alex 29.7-9; Arr. An. 2.25.1; D.S. 17.54; Curt. 4.11.1-14 and Justin 11.12.1-10); Parmenio’s attempts to persuade Alexander to fight by night at Gaugamela (Arr. An. 3.10.1-2 cf. Curt. 4.13.4) and most famously Parmanio’s recall of Alexander at Gaugamela (Arr. An. 3.15.1-2) Despite the fact that all these incidents, as Heckel has noted, appear to fit within a tradition set against Parmenio, it is clear that he and Alexander were at a crossroads in their relationship by 33057. The events of 330, in which Parmenio and Philotas both lost their lives, serve to demonstrate the lethal nature of philia politics and the depth of the rivalry between Alexander’s and Parmenio’s philoi. The first major moment was Alexander’s decision to leave Parmenio in before advancing east. Viewed as a gift-exchange, the position in Ecbatana served as a suitable reward for the services that Parmenio had rendered for Alexander in the campaign to that point58. Indeed, if the station were to be permanent, such a vital position could be represented as an adequate match for the role Antipater was performing in , with Alexander due to continue east. Nonetheless, it cannot escape notice that the decision to leave Parmenio in Ecbatana at the point where the philia between himself and Alexander was at its most stretched appears very similar to Alexander’s use to satrapal appointments to separate himself from the philoi of Antipater in Asia Minor. The removal of Parmenio from court was to be followed by the execution of Philotas on charges of treason, and by Parmenio’s own demise later that year. Both deaths were the result of changing balances of power among philia-networks in a highly charged and militarised environment, and both occurred with Alexander’s blessing. The philoi of Parmenio lost a great deal of security with the removal of their chief benefactor from court. Men such as , the sons of Andromenes and most importantly Philotas were outside of the direct favour of Alexander and clearly set against the rising political power of men such as Hephaestion, Leonnatus, Craterus and Ptolemy. The increasing status of Alexander’s own philoi had been never more apparent, with the appointment of Hephaestion (Arr. An. 1.22.4) and Leonnatus (3.5.5) as somatophylakes and Craterus’ command of a substantial body of infantry at Issus (2.8.4). Importantly, the appointment of Hephaestion and Leonnatus as somatophylakes must have had the important effect of controlling access to the king, at the very least ensuring their own access to the king, to the detriment of Parmenio’s philoi. Such a situation emboldened Alexander’s philoi and could only lead to infighting. These were the politics that led to Philotas’ downfall. The “Philotas Affair”, as the incident is commonly known, must have been the result of a real conspiracy59. Nonetheless, the downfall of Philotas as a collaborator in the conspiracy was certainly the work of Alexander’s philoi. It is impossible, as with the murder of Philip, to come

57 HECKEL 2006, 191 and n. 516 where it is noted that the tradition likely originates in the immediate aftermath of Alexander’s death with one of the first historians of events. 58 That Parmenio was never supposed to join the expedition again cannot be known for certain, however, Alexander had proceeded as far as Phrada, which was a considerable distance from Ecbatana, and this does not suggest that Alexander had any intention to waiting for his general to catch up. Additionally, the fact that Alexander and Parmenio’s relationship had soured does not mean Parmenio could not be trusted to play his part at Ecbatana; any suggestion Parmenio would commit treason is surely overblown. 59 The view of HECKEL 2003, 216-19; contra BADIAN 2000 [2012], 66-70.

Karanos 3/2020 72

PHILIA NETWORKS IN THE MACEDONIAN COURT AND THE LONG ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

to a clear conclusion of the actual events that occurred due to the contrary nature of the source material. Nonetheless, the evidence from the aftermath of the conspiracy reveals a conspiracy of its own, hatched by philoi of the king to remove a rival for their own benefit. Curtius (6.2.8) places the decision to execute Philotas into the mouth of Craterus, and whilst the tale itself cannot be corroborated Curtius’ version of events sits neatly with the philia politics of the moment. As noted above, the enmity between Craterus and Philotas was evident as early as Egypt and can only have grown since. Alongside this, the chief beneficiaries of the execution of Philotas were Hephaestion and Cleitus, son of Dropides, who attain joint leadership of the (Arr. An. 3.27.4), two of Alexander’s closest philoi and certainly not men who appear to have openly rivalled Craterus at this time60. Alongside the trial of Philotas himself a number of other men were either prosecuted or put on trial by Alexander for their roles in the supposed conspiracy against him. Once again, the connections of the majority of those involved suggests that the prime motivator for these trials was court politics rather than the conspiracy of Dimnus. Arrian (An. 3.27.1-3) states that the sons of Andromenes –Amyntas, Attalus, Polemon and Simmias– were tried, but Amyntas, Attalus and Simmias were found to be innocent and Polemon, who had fled the scene, was acquitted upon his return. The decision to attempt prosecution of the sons of Andromenes was itself the result of philia-networking, with all those closely associated with Philotas, and by extension Parmenio, being bought to trial61. In particular, the trial of Amyntas –who appears closest to Philotas– discredited any potential defence of Philotas through besmirching Amyntas’ name. Nonetheless, that the sons of Andromenes were bound to escape prosecution has been alluded to by Waldemar Heckel, who notes the link between Andromenes and Polyperchon, son of Simias, meant that the sons of Andromenes could have had supporters from as many as one-third of the Macedonian infantry62. Once again the intertangled webs caused by philia-networking can be seen at play. The sons of Andromenes may have been connected with Philotas on one side, but they also had support and loyalty amongst entirely different networks who were sufficiently important to ensure their survival. Alexander may have been content to sanction murder of Philotas as it gave him an excuse to be rid of Parmenio, but this would have been a dangerous moment to test further the loyalty of the army. Whilst the politics of philia had resulted in the death of Philotas and Parmenio, it had also saved the sons of Andromenes. The political ramifications of the Dimnus Plot did not end here. Parmenio and Philotas both counted amongst their philoi the brothers Coenus and Cleander, with the former married to Parmenio’s daughter63. It is telling that neither brother spoke in defence of their philos and both appear to have benefited from his downfall. In Arrian’s (An. 4.17.3) narrative Coenus emerges next in the historical record as the commander of a detachment subjugating Sogdiana and continues to hold prominent positions within

60 Although later Hephaestion and Craterus were to come to blows, most famously being separated by Alexander himself. 61 Arrian’s statement (An. 3.27.2) that the flight of Polemon added credence to the theory that a plot had taken place and, presumably also adding weight to the charges that the sons of Andromenes were involved is intriguing and probably reflects how the incident of Polemon’s flight must have appeared. However, it is just as likely that Polemon, much like Coenus (see below), could sense the way that the wind was blowing and took the opportunity to flee. If Polemon were guilty of the plot itself it seems unlikely he would have been acquitted, Alexander had been content to remove the brothers of Alexander, son of Aëropus, whilst leaving Alexander himself untouched to maintain the balance of power required at court in 336. 62 See HECKEL 2006, 25. 63 HECKEL 1991, 15; Curt. 6.8.17.

Karanos 3/2020 73

JULIUS GUTHRIE

the army throughout the rest of his life, eventually dying on the return of India (Arr. An. 6.1.1, 2.1; cf. 5.29.5; Curt 9.3.20).64 Meanwhile, Arrian (An. 3.26.3) directly implicates Cleander in the murder of Parmenio, stating that he orchestrated events in Ecbatana. When Cleander next surfaces, it is to face crimes of maladministration for which he faced execution (Arr. An. 6.27.4; Curt 10.1.1-7), having remained in when Alexander continued to India. The success of the sons of Polemocrates after a plot in which they were likely to have been implicated must be the result of an exchange of services between the brothers and Alexander, or the brothers and Alexander’s philoi; likely both. Cleander was, ironically, in a similar position to Parmenio in 336, turning his back on his philos in order to save his own life and position. In return for his part in the murder, he was exonerated for his previous association. Coenus’ position was even more tenuous in 330. He was physically at court and implicating him in the murder would have been the simple solution to be rid of him. Additionally, due to his kinship with Philotas his involvement would have been believable. In return for his life, he could be expected to remain loyal to the king and in return for that loyalty status would steadily follow. Alexander had repositioned the loyalty of the sons of Polemocrates, placing them into his ever increasing philia-network. The extent to which the conviction of Philotas was also a turning point in the philia politics of Alexander’s court cannot be overstated. It comes as no surprise that the members of Alexander’s council –Coenus, Craterus, , Hephaestion and Leonnatus– almost all attained great success in the years that followed (See Appendix C). For example, Hephaestion was not only a somatophylax but had become a hipparch of the Companion Cavalry after the execution of Philotas (Arr. An. 2.27.4). Prior to this, Hephaestion’s only military role is given to us by Curtius (4.5.10) who states that Hephaestion had been given command of the supply fleet sending siege equipment from Tyre to Gaza. Nonetheless, even this early command demonstrates philia politics in action. At the time, Alexander’s chief naval officer appears to have been Hegelochus, a philos of Parmenio. Nonetheless, the substantial gap between Hephaestion’s command in the Mediterranean and his command of the Companions is testament to the hold on offices Parmenio’s philoi held. Later, Hephaestion would become chiliarch (Arr. An. 7.14.10) and the most powerful of Alexander’s philoi completing the process of surrounding himself with men he trusted. Much like Hephaestion, Craterus owed his great position in Macedonian society to Alexander. A commander of the pezhetairoi at Granicus in 334, by 332 Craterus had an independent command –overseeing the siege of Tyre in the absence of Alexander65. Additionally, both Arrian (An. 3.18.4-8) and Curtius (5.4.14-34) place Craterus as the commander who led an entire portion (the greater portion) of the army whilst Alexander outflanked Ariobarzanes at the Persian Gates. This was a command which could quite conceivably have been given to Parmenio and as such the decision to give it to Craterus was political as much as it was military; the decision to promote Craterus to the role and leave Parmenio in Ecbatana was not the same as leaving Craterus in command of the siege of Tyre. Alexander had not begun the project and left to settle other affairs, taking Parmenio with him in the process and thus denying him command through having need of him elsewhere. In this instance, Alexander was sending a clear statement about the future roles of the two men in his forces: Parmenio’s time on the battlefield

64 Of course, the death of Coenus has been viewed with suspicion on account of its convenient timing, once again demonstrating that the political networks in Alexander’s court were extremely fluid. See BADIAN 1961 [2012], 22-3 who casts doubts on the death not only of Coenus, but also of Cleander. 65 Curt. 4.3.1.

Karanos 3/2020 74

PHILIA NETWORKS IN THE MACEDONIAN COURT AND THE LONG ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

was over and Craterus’ time to lead had arrived. It was time for one of Alexander’s own philoi to occupy the role. The reciprocal exchange between Alexander and Craterus is also clear: Alexander had given Craterus everything, loyalty was what he expected in return. Craterus’ desire to demonstrate this loyalty may also have played a part in his longing to see Philotas, whom he had suspected since Egypt, to be removed from the king’s presence. There is nothing to suggest that his own hatred of Philotas and his sense of duty to Alexander were mutually exclusive, both could have been motivators. Alexander may have promoted the interests of his philoi more vigorously than was necessary of a king, perhaps due to the insecurity that the early parts of his life and reign had imbedded in him, but Alexander always acted with a high degree of political acumen in the period until 32866. For example, Hephaestion was promoted to command the Companions, but Cleitus was promoted alongside him and presumably carried out the role in practice67. In the shadow of Alexander’s calculated treatment of others, the peculiar career of Harpalus, son of Machatas, becomes even more curious. Harpalus had been a philos of Alexander since youth and had evidently supported his philos in his bid to claim the daughter of Pixodarus in marriage in 336 (Arr. An. 3.6.5; Plu. Alex. 10.4). Harpalus’ support for Alexander at this early stage in his life was not forgotten, with Harpalus returning to accompany Alexander into Asia before fleeing prior to the with a large bulk of money68. Harpalus then returned to Alexander, apparently forgiven, and was instated as treasurer to the king at Ecbatana. Harpalus must also have played a role in carrying out the murder of Parmenio, once again lending his support to Alexander in a difficult moment69. Events after this are not of concern here, but the fact that Harpalus’ behaviour in his second stint as treasurer was even worse can surely not have surprised Alexander. Yet, Alexander was willing to continue to promote Harpalus’ interests even when it was clearly to the detriment of his own rule. Harpalus, and his deviant behaviour, is testament to the weakness of philia-networks as a method of conducting court politics. As Aristotle (eg. 1161a33-34) makes clear, bonds of philia were nearly always fluid, especially if they were philiai of utility. It appears that the bond between Alexander and Harpalus ran much deeper, although the sources do not reveal any details to substantiate the claim beyond the fact that Harpalus was involved in the ‘Pixodarus affair’ and Alexander forgave him for fleeing prior to Issus. Nonetheless, this is the only explanation that accounts for Alexander’s actions. Harpalus was the exception that proved the rule when it came to Alexander’s careful utilisation of philia-networks, and simultaneously a portent of what was to come later in Alexander’s reign as the king’s struggles with his own ambitious philoi grew70. By the time Alexander defeated Satibarzarnes in early 329 the makeup of his military command and court was radically different to the one which had set out in 334. In 334

66 328 saw the murder of Cleitus, perhaps the first sign of Alexander losing firm control over his own philoi. The politics of the period from 328-323 were marked by power-struggles between Craterus and Hephaestion, attempts to reorganise the empire, revolts and attempts by Alexander to fuse the Argead and Achaemenid models of rule. On the murder of Cleitus see TRITLE 2000, 56-61; BADIAN 2000 [2012], 69-71. 67 See Arr. An. 3.27.4. 68 Arr. An. 3.6.4-7. 69 A detailed analysis of Harpalus’ role in Alexander’s court is given by BADIAN 1961 [2012], 23-4. 70 Events later than the immediate fallout of the Dinmus plot are outside of the scope of this article. Alexander’s control of his philoi was to eventually disintegrate, perhaps due to his failure to balance them against each other and his desire to support those who supported his more Achaemenid presentation. This was to lead to a confrontation between Hephaestion and Craterus in India where the king himself had to intervene: cf. Plu. Alex. 47.11-12.

Karanos 3/2020 75

JULIUS GUTHRIE

Alexander was a king who had proven himself to be charismatic on the field of battle, but also a king who was indebted to key figures of his father’s reign who had chosen to support him. By the time the dust had settled on the plot of Dimnus Alexander’s court reflected the desires and prejudices of the king himself, who now firmly sat atop the political ladder. Philia-networks based upon reciprocal relationships were key to the political life of the Macedonian court in Alexander’s reign. The elite could only hope to exercise power through the king, which required proximity to his person. This could only be attained through advancement, especially in Alexander’s highly militarised court-on-the-move, and advancement only came from Alexander. Therefore, to advance was to have philoi in high places who could make a case for your own progress and in return a philos must do a favour. Alexander’s success at manipulating this social mechanism and placing his own philoi in power can be summarised through listing the names of the men still surviving when the king died who had also been present for either the ‘Pixodarus Affair’ or were on Alexander’s council in the trial of Philotas: Craterus, Leonnatus, Nearchus and Ptolemy; all four were to be major players in the aftermath of the king’s demise, a suitable exchange in return for their loyalty?

Karanos 3/2020 76

PHILIA NETWORKS IN THE MACEDONIAN COURT AND THE LONG ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

APPENDIX A: PHILOI OF PARMENIO

NAME POSITION(S) SPRING 334, POSITION(S) 331, POSITION(S) 329, END INITIAL EXPEDITIONARY PRIOR TO GAUGAMELA OF SUMMER FORCE PARMENIO Conducted operations in Commanded the left Placed in charge of Asia Minor (e.g. Siege of wing at Granicus Media and then : D.S. 17.17.9). (Arr. An. 1.14.1). murdered. Again, at Issus Commander of the Infantry (Arr. An. 2.8.9-10; Curt. (Arr. An. 1.11.6; 3.9.8-10) D.S. 17.17.3). and at Gaugamela (Arr. An. 3.11.10) AMYNTAS, SON Taxiarch Sent for reinforcements Killed in action OF ANDROMENES (Arr. An. 1.8.2.). in Macedonia (Arr. An. 3.27.3). (D.S. 17.49.1; Curt. 7.1.15; 37-8).

ATTALUS Killed. — — (PATRONYMIC UNKNOWN) ATTALUS, SON OF somatophylax? Unknown. Unknown ANDROMENES (D.S. 16.94.4). (would later serve as taxiarch). CALAS, SON OF Hipparch of the Thessalian of Hellespontine No Change. HARPALUS Cavalry (D.S. 17.17.4). Phygia (Arr. An 1.17.1-2). CLEANDER, SON Assumed to have a Recruiting mission Unknown OF military role. (Arr. An. 1.24.2; Curt. (later executed). POLEMOCRATES 3.1.1.).

Commander of mercenaries (Arr. An. 3.6.8; 3.12.2). COENUS, SON OF Commander as early as Sent on a recruiting One of the POLEMOCRATES 335 mission commanders at the (Arr. An. 1.6.9). (Arr. An. 1.24.1-2). Persian Gates (Arr. An. 3.18.6) Commanded troops at Issus (Arr. An. 2.8.3; Curt. 3.9.7) and Gaugamela (Arr. An. 3.11.9; Curt. 4.13.28; D.S. 17.57.2). HECTOR, SON OF No office. Drowned in the — PARMENIO (Curt. 4.8.7-8; 6.9.27). HEGELOCHUS, Commanded in the hippeis Joint commander of the — SON OF prodromoi fleet HIPPOSTRATUS (Arr. An. 1.12.7). (Arr. An. 3.2.6). Died at Gaugamela (Arr. An. 3.11.8). NICANOR, SON OF Commanded the No change. Died of illness PARMENIO hypaspists in the Getic war (continued role attested (Arr. An. 3.25.4; (Arr. An. 1.4.2). in Arr. An. 1.14.2; Curt. 6.6.18). 2.8.3; 3.11.9; cf. Curt. 3.9.7; 4.13.27).

Karanos 3/2020 77

JULIUS GUTHRIE

PHILOTAS, SON Cavalry Command in the No change, commanded Executed. OF PARMENIO Triballian campaign the Companions at (Arr. An. 1.2.5). Gaugamela (Arr. An. 3.11.8; Commander of the Curt. 4.13.26; Companion Cavalry D.S. 17.57.1). (Curt. 6.9.21; D.S. 17.17.4). POLEMON, SON — — Member of the Paides OF ANDROMENES Basilikoi (Curt. 7.2.4). POLYPERCHON, Unknown. Taxiarch No change attested. SON OF SIMMIAS (D.S. 17.57.2). SIMMIAS, SON OF Unknown. Likely commanded Unknown. ANDROMENES Amyntas’ troops at Gaugamela (Arr. An. 3.11.9; D.S. 17.57.3).

Karanos 3/2020 78

PHILIA NETWORKS IN THE MACEDONIAN COURT AND THE LONG ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

APPENDIX B: PHILOI OF ANTIPATER

NAME POSITION(S) SPRING POSITION(S) 331, POSITION(S) 329, END 334, INITIAL PRIOR TO OF SUMMER EXPEDITIONARY GUAGAMELA FORCE ANTIPATER, SON OF Strategos in Europe No change. No change. IOLAS (Arr. An. 1.11.3; Curt 4.1.39; Justin. 11.7.1; D.S. 18.12.1). ALEXANDER, SON OF Hipparch, Thessalian Imprisoned Executed. AEROPUS Cavalry (Arr. An. 1.25.3-10; (Curt. 7.1.5-9; D.S. (Arr. An. 1.25.2). Diod. 17.32). 17.80.2; Just. 12.14.1) AMYNTAS, SON OF Commanded a scouting Commands the left- Unknown. ARRHEBAEUS party of from the wing at Sagalassus hippeis prodromoi (Arr. An. 1.28.4) (Arr. An. 1.12.7). ANTIGONUS Commanded 7,000 Satrap of Phyrgia. No Change. MONOPHTHALMUS, Greek mercenaries (Arr. An. 1.29.3; Curt. SON OF PHILIP (D.S. 17.17.3). 4.1.35 states Lydia). BALAGROS somatophylax Satrap of Cilicia Either no change or (BALACRUS) SON OF (Arr. An. 2.12.2; D.S. perished in NICANOR 18.22.1). (Curt. 4.5.13). CASSSANDER, SON OF — — — ANTIPATER IOLUS, SON OF — — Paides Basilikoi ANTIPATER (Justin. 12.14.6-9). PHILIP, SON OF — — Paides Basilikoi ANTIPATER (Justin. 12.14.6-9).

Karanos 3/2020 79

JULIUS GUTHRIE

APPENDIX C: PHILOI OF ALEXANDER

NAME. POSITION(S) SPRING POSITION(S) 331, POSITION(S) 329, END OF 334, INITIAL PRIOR TO SUMMER EXPEDITIONARY FORCE GAUGAMELA CLEITUS, SON OF Ilarch of the Ile Basilike No Change. Hipparch of the DROPIDAS (Arr. An. 1.15). Companion Cavalry (Arr. An. 2.27.4). CRATERUS, SON Commander of the Commander of Held a string of OF ALEXANDER pezhetairoi infantry at Issus independent commands (Arr. An. 1.14). (Arr. An. 2.8.4). (e.g. Oversaw a siege: Arr. An. 4.2.2; Curt. 7.6.16). DEMETRIUS, SON Ilarch? Ilarch Unknown, next seen as a OF (Arr. An. 3.11.8). hipparch in 327 ALTHAEMENES (Arr. An. 4.27.5). ERIGYIUS, SON Possibly commanded a Commander of the Command against OF LARICHUS cavalry force Thessalian Cavalry Satibarzanes (D.S. 17.17.4). and then (Arr. An. 3.28.2-3; Peloponnesian allies Curt. 7.4.32-4). (Arr. An. 3.11.10; Curt. 4.13.29; D.S. 17.57.4). HARPALUS, SON Treasurer Absconded and Left in Ecbatana with OF MACHATAS (Arr. An. 3.6.4-7). returned Parmenio, exact role (Arr. An. 3.6.4). undefined (Arr. An. 3.19.7; cf. Curt. 10.1.1ff) HEPHAESTION, No formal role attested. Asked to choose a Commander of the SON OF king for the Sidonians Companion Cavalry AMYNTOR (Curt. 4.1.15-26; (Arr. An. 3.27.4). Plu. Mor. 340c-d; D.S. 17.46.6).

Oversaw logistics of the (Curt. 4.5.10).

somatophylax (Arr. An. 1.22.4,7 informs us of the death of Ptolemy, a somatophylax, and provides a likely date.) LEONNATUS, SON somatophylax to Philip II Appointed a No commands, prominent OF ANTEAS (D.S. 16.94.4). somatophylax to later. Alexander (Arr. An. 3.5.5). LYSIMACHUS, Unknown. Likely period of appointment as somatophylax SON OF (explicitly so: Arr. An. 5.24.5, 6.28.4, certainly by AGATHOCLES 328: Curt. 8.1.13-17). NEARCHUS, SON No Role. Satrap of Lycia and No change, prominent OF ANDROTIMUS Pamphylia later. (Arr. An. 3.6.6; Just. 13.4.15).

Karanos 3/2020 80

PHILIA NETWORKS IN THE MACEDONIAN COURT AND THE LONG ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

PERDICCAS, SON Commanded a taxis in the Commanded a taxis at No change, hipparch OF ORONTES European conflicts both Issus and shortly after. (Arr. 1.6.9, 1.8.1-3; Gaugamela D.S. 17.12.3). (Arr. An. 2.8.3; 3.11.9; Curt. 3.9.7, 4.13.28).

somatophylax (Arr. An. 3.16.9; cf. Curt. 6.8.16). , SON Prominence out of period. OF ALEXANDER PTOLEMY, SON Unknown. Unknown. First command OF LAGUS (Arr. An. .3.18.9).

Appointed somatophylax (Arr. An. 3.27.5).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANDERSON, G. (2005): “Before turannoi were : Rethinking a Chapter of Early Greek History”, CA 24.2: 173-222. ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ, A. (2012): “Philip and Pausanias: A Deadly Love in Macedonian Politics”, CQ 62.2: 859-861. BADIAN, E. (1960 [2012]): “The Death of Parmenio”, TAPA 91: 324-338 (Repr. in E. BADIAN: Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, London: 36-47). — (1961 [2012]): “Harpalus”, JHS 81: 16-43 (Repr. in E. BADIAN: Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, London: 58-95). — (1963 [2012]): “The Death of Philip II”, 17: 244-250 (Reprinted in E. BADIAN: Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, London: 106-112. — (1964 [2012]): “Alexander the Great and the loneliness of power”, in E. BADIAN: Studies in Greek and Roman History, Oxford: 192-205 (Repr. in E. BADIAN: Collected papers on Alexander the Great, London: 96-105). — (1981 [2012]): “The Deification of Alexander the Great”, in E. N. BORZA – H. DELL (eds.): Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles. F. Edson, Thessaloniki: 27-71 (Repr. in E. BADIAN: Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, London: 244-281). — (2000 [2012]): “Conspiracies”, in A. B. BOSWORTH – E. BAYNHAM (eds.): Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford: 50-95 (Repr. in E. BADIAN: Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, London: 434-439). BOSWORTH, A. B. (1971): “Philip II and Upper Macedonia”, CQ 21/1: 93-105. — (1983): “The Indian Satrapies under Alexander”, Antichthon 17: 37-46. BRIANT, P. (2002): From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, Winona Lake. — (2009): “Alexander and the Persian Empire, between ‘decline’ and ‘renovation’”, in

Karanos 3/2020 81

JULIUS GUTHRIE

W. HECKEL – L. A. TRITLE (eds.): Alexander the Great: A New History, London: 26- 52. BROSIUS, M. (2003): “Alexander and the ”, in J. Roisman (ed.): Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great, Leiden: 169-193. CARNEY, E. (2010): “Macedonian Women”, in J. ROISMAN – I. WORTHINGTON (eds.): A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, Oxford: 409-427. — (2015): King and Court in Ancient Macedonia: Rivalry, Treason and Conspiracy, Swansea. DE FRANCISCI, P. (1948): Arcana Imperii, 2 vols, Milano. DE STE. CROIX, G. E. M. (2004a): “Cleisthenes I: The Constitution”, in D. HARVEY – R. PARKER (eds.): Athenian Democratic Origins: and Other Essays, Oxford: 129- 180. — (2004b): “Cleisthenes II: , and Strategoi”, in D. HARVEY – R. PARKER (eds.): Athenian Democratic Origins: and Other Essays, Oxford: 181- 233. ERRINGTON, R. M. (1978): “The Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchy”, Chiron 8: 77-133. FREDRICKSMAYER, E. (2000): “Alexander the Great and the Kingship of Asia”, in A. B. BOSWORTH – E. BAYNHAM (eds.): Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford: 137-166. — (2002): “Alexander’s Religion and Divinity”, in J. ROISMAN (ed.): Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great, Leiden: 256-278. HAMMOND, N. G. L. (1972): A History of Macedonia, vol. I, Oxford. HATZOPOULOS, M. B. (1996): Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, 2 vols, Athens. HECKEL, W. (1977): “The Conspiracy against Philotas”, Phoenix 31.1: 9-21. — (1986): “Somatophylakia. A Macedonian ‘’”, Phoenix 40.3: 279- 294. — (1992): The Marshall’s of Empire, London. — (2003): “King and ‘Companions’: Observations on the nature of power in the reign of Alexander”, in J. ROISMAN (ed.): Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great, Leiden: 195-225. — (2006): Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great, London. — (2009): “Alexander’s Conquest of Asia”, in W. HECKEL – L. A. TRITLE (eds.) Alexander the Great: A New History, London: 26-52. — (2012): The Conquests of Alexander the Great, Cambridge. KING, C. (2010): “Macedonian kingship and other political institutions”, in J. ROISMAN – I. WORTHINGTON (eds.): A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, Oxford: 373- 391. LANE FOX, R. (1973): Alexander the Great, London MARI, M. (2011): “Archaic and Early Classic Macedon”, in R. LANE FOX (ed.): Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon¸ Leiden: 79-92. MITCHELL, L. (1998): Greek’s Bearing Gifts: The public use of private relationships in the Greek World, 435-323 BC, Cambridge.

Karanos 3/2020 82

PHILIA NETWORKS IN THE MACEDONIAN COURT AND THE LONG ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

— (2009): “The Rules of the Game: Three studies in friendship, equality and politics”, in L. MITCHELL – L. RUBENSTEIN (eds.): Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in honour of P. J. Rhodes, Swansea: 1-32. — (2013): The Heroic Rulers of Archaic and , London–New York. MITCHELL, L.; RHODES, P. (1996): “Friends and Enemies in Athenian Politics”, G&R 43.1: 11-30. OGDEN, D. (1999): Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties, London. RHODES, P. J. (2010): “The Literary and Epigraphic Evidence to the Roman Conquest”, in J. ROISMAN – I. WORTHINGTON (eds.): A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, Oxford: 23-40. RIESBECK, D. (2016): Aristotle on Political Community, Cambridge. ROISMAN, J. (2003): “Honor in Alexander’s Campaign”, in J. ROISMAN (ed.): Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great, Leiden: 279-321. RUZICKA, S. (2010): “The Pixadaros Affair”, in D. OGDEN – E. CARNEY (eds.): Philip II and Alexander the Great. Father and Son, lives and afterlives, Oxford: 3-12. SAMUEL, A. (1988): “Philip and Alexander as Kings: Macedonian Monarchy and Merovingian Parallels”, AHR 93.5: 1270-1286. SPAWFORTH, A. (2007): “The Court of Alexander the Great between Europe and Asia”, in A. SPAWFORTH (ed.): The Court and Court Society of Ancient Monarchies, Cambridge: 82-120. STRAUSS, B. (2003): “Alexander: The military campaign”, in J. ROISMAN (ed.): Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great, Leiden: 134-157. STROOTMAN, R. (2014): Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires: The After the Achaemenids c.330 to 30 BCE, Edinburgh. TRITLE, L. (2003): “Alexander and the Killing of ”, in W. HECKEL- L. A. TRITLE (eds.): Crossroads of History. The Age of Alexander, Claremont CA: 127-146. WEBER, G. (2009): “The Court of Alexander the Great as a social system”, in W. HECKEL – L. A. TRITLE (eds.): Alexander the Great: A New History, London: 83- 98. WIRTH, G. (1985): Philip II. Geschichte Makedoniens 1, Stuttgart. WORTHINGTON, I. (2003): Alexander the Great: A Reader, London.

Karanos 3/2020 83

Karanos 3, 2020 85-101

Cherchez la femme: Power and Female Agency in Bactria at the dawn of the Hellenistic Age*

by Marco Ferrario Università degli Studi di [email protected]

ABSTRACT Due prominently to the scanty nature of evidence on the ground attesting to an imperial presence which, however, historiographical sources claim to have been real and lasting over time, the satrapy of Bactria (roughly embracing northeastern , southern and western ) to this day still struggles to free itself of some prejudices, despite some extremely important discoveries and a more general scholarly reevaluation of previous conclusions. Possibly the most stubborn among these is the image of an ungovernable province, constantly on the brink of dynastic revolts (cf. Hdt. 9.113) or threatened by northern barbarians (against whom Cyrus found his end and whom Darius boasts of having subjected in the famous Bīsutūn inscription. With the recently published Aramaic from Ancient Bactria, however, we have acquired an incredibly valuable source regarding the functioning of the satrapy at a crucial period in its history (the late 4th century BCE until the years immediately following Alexander). The present study is based primarily on the following: 1) this documentation, 2) the results of some recent and very significant studies on the Persepolis archive and 3) some methodological reflections on the relationship between empire and the local élite(s) suggested by the comparative analysis of the functioning of this relationship in a different phase of ’s imperial history (the 1930s). The study is intended, on the one hand, as a first step towards a new appreciation of the role Bactria and Sogdiana played in the delicate transitional phase

* I would like to thank the organizers of the CCC 2019 meeting as well as those of the Panel which I had the pleasure to attend (Borja Antela Bernárdez, Marc Mendoza Sanahuja and Eran Almagor) for the opportunity of presenting a shorter version of this paper as well as the anonymous reviewers, who contributed greatly to the refinement of the arguments presented here, for shortcomings of which I of course bear full responsibility. To Maurizio Giangiulio, Elena Franchi and Giorgia Proietti I owe the enduring example of unparalleled mentoring and human warmth that nowadays few contexts, including the academic field, are able to offer. Mark Marsh-Hunn stood by me with courtesy and helpfulness during a difficult semester and was willing to turn this article into a linguistically acceptable piece of writing. As I was myself in Sogdiana some time ago, I had the opportunity to experience wonderful (and royal in spirit if not in status) tables with some friends, to whom I would like to dedicate these pages:, Ирода, Озода, Шахноза, Исмаилжан, Бобур, Анвар, Шохида and миразиз. A special mention for Yılan and Anna (who were with me in Afrāsyāb and at Tīmūr’s gates) and for, last but never the least, Tommaso. Эльвирa, as always since the first time we met, although I was never able to express this as I would have liked to, deserves a mention on her own. To this extraordinary young Russian (and Tajik, and Tatar, and much more) belongs this paper as much as anything else of worth which I was and will be ever able to bring to light. Потому что она стала, стает и будеть ставать Жизнью и Судбой. eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199 MARCO FERRARIO

from Achaemenid to Macedonian hegemony in the upper satrapies. On the other hand, it seeks to raise some hypotheses about the reasons behind the position held during the stormy years of Alexander’s Bactrian campaign and in the subsequent, no less troubled years by two protagonists of these crucial events, who are however still relatively unrecognized in their role as historical agents: the Bactrio-Sogdian princesses Roxane and Apama.

KEYWORDS Achaemenids, Agency, Bactria, Hellenistic Age, Royal Women.

1. INTRODUCTION: DO YOU KNOW THE ENEMY?

Despite, or perhaps paradoxically precisely because of, some important documentary and archaeological discoveries and, consequently, of a renewed research interest in the region, the historiographic image of the Achaemenid satrapy of Bactria today still lies between the anvil and the of a contradictory dichotomy. This is so in spite of the cautions formulated almost four decades ago by Pierre Briant in several studies of this region of the Persian East which still deserve cautious reading1. On the anvil side, thanks both to Wouter Henkelman’s work on the Persepolis archive and to the recent publication of scraps of what –according to the editors as well as the majority of scholars today– probably was the archive of one of the last Bactrian satraps of Achaemenid history in Central Asia, we now have a body of primary sources which allows us to reconstruct the image of an extremely sophisticated . This system appears to have been able to mobilize men and resources on a trans-regional scale (individuals explicitly designated as ‘Arachosian’, ‘Bactrian’ or ‘Sogdian’ are attested as working in the area of the Persian Gulf, to give just one example) and to have been at the head of a system of territorial control rooted even in the most remote (from the point of view of the administration itself) and inaccessible (from the geo- ecological perspective) niches of the entire satrapy and neighboring territories (including the steppes)2. The study of this documentary corpus not only provides the scholar with a remarkable picture of the empire’s organizational capacity and political solidity (and this even in times of supposed ‘crisis’, for example during the reign of Darius III); it also supplies relevant material supporting the view of a perfectly successful integration of the eastern satrapies within the imperial body, and finally points at the high regard (attested by the quantity and quality of the travel rations provided to the Bactrian and Sogdian kurtaš) in which the Central Asian populations were kept by the imperial administration. This high regard was probably due in part to their technical skills, for instance in the field of hydraulic engineering: this, indeed, appears to be reason for the presence of some of them in the Būšehr peninsula3. On the side of the hammer is the opposite image, vigorously outlined by Xin over the last decade on the basis of a detailed study of another primary source: the glyptic corpus composed in particular of the seals also found in Persepolis4. The study

1 BRIANT 1983, 181-238; 1984; 2002, 743-754. 2 Cf. especially HENKELMAN 2017; 2018. Concerning the Aramaic corpus (known as and on which more will be said below), cf. the (NAVEH – SHAKED 2012) as well as the recent studies of Margaretha L. FOLMER (2017) Jan TAVERNIER (2017a; 2017b) and Christopher J. TUPLIN (2017). 3 Cf. BRIANT 2009 and HENKELMAN 2018, 230 (Central Asians employed in the Persian Gulf area). 4 See especially WU 2005, 40-100; 2010; 2012; 2014.

Karanos 3/2020 86

POWER AND FEMALE AGENCY IN BACTRIA AT THE DAWN OF THE HELLENISTIC AGE

of the numerous depictions of war that seem to portray, with particular attention to ethnographic detail (e.g. clothing and weaponry), armed clashes between representatives of the imperial elite (in particular the , Elamites and Persians) on the one hand, and a large number of Central Asian populations (Bactrians, Parthians, Chorasmians and their Sakā allies) on the other, has led the Chinese scholar to the conclusion that, throughout the entire history of the Achaemenid imperial presence in Bactria, relations with the locals were constantly characterized by acute tensions, thus making the inhabitants of the Upper satrapies the enemies ‘par excellence’ of the Persian empire, to the point that military engagement in Central Asia would have become a proxy for an individual’s status symbol striving to enter into the imperial ‘ethno-classe dominante’5. The purpose of this study is an attempt to negotiate a middle path between these two contrasting positions: while recognizing in the results of the analysis conducted by Henkelman a ‘framework of possibilities’ within which the various social actors involved in the sociopolitical arena of satrapy were in some ways forced, but in some others (by virtue of the opportunities it offered) eager to move within this framework, the following pages will examine, on the one hand, some of the most relevant socio- political ‘governmentality’ devices within what Henkelman has called the Achaemenid ‘imperial paradigm’6. At same time, however, it will try to highlight the room for manoeuvre this very paradigm made available to local elites for the pursuit of agendas that were not always congruent with, and sometimes in open opposition to, that of the satrapal (which is to say imperial) administration. Beginning with these premises, the fourth and last paragraph attempts, through a closer examination of the position assumed within the Brave New (Hellenistic) World by two figures, namely Apama and Roxane, to put forward some hypotheses regarding the capacities of some particularly prominent representatives of the Bactrio-Sogdian elite. Their main goal, I argue, was to fully exploit the tactical advantage deriving from being simultaneously members of the imperial ruling class and of strictly regional power groups during the most difficult socio-political repositioning of their lives, i.e. the two-year military campaign led by Alexander the Great in Central Asia. Before moving on to the analysis of the key features of the Achaemenid imperial paradigm, it is nevertheless advisable to briefly discuss an example which, in my view, clearly shows both the coercive capacity of the ‘framework of possibilities’ developed –for distinctively socio-political and economic porpoises of territorial control and resource extraction– by a political entity such as an empire within a given territory in view of both the potential that this very entity makes available to certain social groups at a strictly local level in order to negotiate their own political positioning both in relation to the imperial government and, most importantly in this context, within the local political arena itself, that is, in relation to other, competing social groups. The importance of this brief ethnographic digression lies in the fact that it shows how the hypothesis of a model of 1) widespread and 2) enduring conflict between ‘the’ empire and ‘the’ peoples of Central Asia is highly unlikely, and this for two reasons: first of all, because it does not adequately take into account the internal complexity of the latter

5 WU 2014, 259-271. Cf. also WU 2017. 6 HENKELMAN 2017 on the Achaemenid ‘imperial paradigm’. Most recently, MEIER 2020 has been able to show in much detail how important the sociopolitical and economic structures of a polity such as , Byzantium, the Sāsānian Empire (and, I would therefore argue, the Achaemenids) were also for the internal organization of polities such as the Vandals, the and even the or the Avars – supposed ‘archenemies’ of a given empire. This seriously questions the plausibility of an eminently oppositional model of cultural contacts such as that developed by Wu Xin.

Karanos 3/2020 87

MARCO FERRARIO

and, secondly, because it ignores the adaptive capacity of these communities and of their representatives facing both an adversary and a partner which, although impossible to remove from the political chessboard, could nevertheless be navigated –at least in part– to one’s own advantage, both on the ‘local’ as well on the ‘global’ (i.e. ‘imperial’) scale.

2. TAMING THE OXUS: IMPERIAL NEEDS AND LOCAL μῆτις

The third book of Herodotus’ History contains the story describing how the Great King of Persia had succeeded, through monopolistic control of resources, in securing for himself tribute, social order and political supremacy in a large region of Central Asia7. Leaving aside some unmistakably Herodotean rhetorical colores, it is remarkable to note that in the scholarly opinion, exemplarily represented by Briant, the historical value of this passage for our perception of some of the characteristics of the Achaemenid strategies of sociopolitical control in Central Asia has never been seriously questioned8. And yet, an approach of this kind runs the risk of making the imperial administration the only social actor within a scenario that was undoubtedly much more complex than Herodotus describes it. Moreover, by focusing exclusively on imperial interests, it underestimates one aspect of paramount importance, namely how, for the very purpose of pursuing these interests, the empire itself was deeply dependent on factors such as the technical competence and territorial knowledge of the local population, to say nothing of the capability of the latter’s representatives to mobilize it in the service of the satrap. A few years ago, James Scott summed up all these factors within the concept of μῆτις, and was able to convincingly demonstrate the extent to which such know-how can be an extremely effective asset available to a given state’s subjects in order to negotiate their position within it9. The following discussion is intended to show the heuristic potential of Scott’s analysis applied to the context of Achaemenid Central Asia. Take Bactria as an example: a king or a satrap who wanted to behave in that region according to Herodotus’ model, could not do otherwise than take control of the course of the Āmū Dāryā (ancient Oxus), which was however much easier said than done. For especially the first is in fact a river extremely difficult to manage, and its canalization has challenged –and defeated– the most talented engineers who have ever ventured into the enterprise, at least from the nineteenth century onwards, according to the technical reports that have reached us10. However, since the lives of entire communities on either side of the modern Uzbek-Turkmen border depended on the mastery over that river’s course, despite their status as ‘barbarian’ and ‘uncivilized’ nomads, the only ones with the appropriate skills to profitably exploit the Āmū Dāryā’s were (and continue to be) the local populations. Fayzulla Xo’jayev (1896-1938), a prominent figure of the Uzbek Communist Party, was well aware of this. A few months before his arrest at the height of the Ežovščina (1937-1939), he was charged by Stalin himself with the thorny task of preventing a flood that threatened to destroy the neighbouring cotton fields, and with them the entire local ruling class, including himself. The situation seemed particularly desperate

7 Hdt. 3.117. 8 BRIANT 2002, 415-417. 9 SCOTT 1998, 309-341. 10 WESTERMAN 2002, 176.

Karanos 3/2020 88

POWER AND FEMALE AGENCY IN BACTRIA AT THE DAWN OF THE HELLENISTIC AGE

because, despite the astronomical sums invested by Moscow –which was now beginning to ask for the bill– in the construction of dams, containment canals and other infrastructure, nothing had thus far succeeded in containing the Āmū Dāryā’s floods. Fully realizing that he would have paid for a failure with his life, but also that in case of success he could have got rid of his rivals within the party (at local and perhaps even -Soviet level), Xo’jayev did not hesitate to disband the teams of the most prestigious engineers in charge of the dams and hastened to hire in their place, thanks to the valuable help given him by members of his entourage, a handful of local experts (shepherds, village chiefs, semi-sedentary farmers). Against all expectation, the flood was thwarted. In different times, such a result would have enabled Xo’jayev to dispose of all his opponents –of whom he had several– within the party, while at the same time ensuring huge dividends in terms of local power to the members of his faction, whose ecological expertise had proved to be indispensable for the protection of a strategic asset, namely Uzbek cotton11. Similar stories abounded also within the Tajik SSR whose president, Abdurraxim Xodšibaev, informed Moscow that, in 1932, the camel still represented by far the most effective means of transportation in the entire ; and as if this was not enough, the tragicomic attempt to build a colossal dam in the – then– remote Vaxš valley (a strategic region in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic period) clearly shows how both trained engineers and workers sent from Moscow and Dušanbe had to rely on the generosity and resources of the local inhabitants (in this case, again, mostly mobile shepherds) in order to navigate through extremely hostile territory12. The importance of these anecdotes lies in the fact that they make it possible to (re)read Herodotus (3.117) in the light of Xo’jayev’s hydraulic triumph: the Persian ‘κράτος’ in Central Asia might therefore rather be interpreted as the result of negotiations with representatives of the local communities, who alone (1) possessed the knowledge and skills needed to make economic profit (or at least avoid cataclysms) from a river such as the Āmū Dāryā, and (2) were the only ones able to find and mobilize the necessary workforce13. To take up Briant’s terminology, the real stakeholders of the Central Asian ‘modes of production’, therefore, would not (or not only) be the imperial officials, but the Chorasmian (or Bactrian) elites: as for Darius, it appears reasonable to argue that, in exchange for the accessibility of that stretch of river flowing through Chorasmia, he transformed into imperial officials the (luckier) predecessors of Xo’jayev who, before the advent of the Achaemenid power, were nothing but modest local ‘big men’, likely accustomed to rivalry amongst themselves. The most evident benefit of this interpretation lies in the fact that, while sticking to the text, it offers a more complex sociopolitical picture of the mechanisms underlying the functioning of imperial power in a pre-modern context which takes into consideration the most recent critical trends concerning such phenomena14. It is in the light of this dialectic between imperial ambitions and local constraints that the present study aims to analyze more closely an institution of great socio-political importance within the Achaemenid Empire, namely the ‘Royal Table’, which grew out of a strategy of administering the King’s domains in Fārs, built on what Wouter Henkelman characterizes as

11 TEICHMANN 2016, 199-200. 12 TEICHMANN 2016, 140. 13 Cf. the category of ‘social relationship’ developed by William HONEYCHURCH (2015, 34-36) in the context of his study on the co-dependent and mutually conditioned rise and organization of the hàn and xiōngnú empires. 14 ANDO 2017a.

Karanos 3/2020 89

MARCO FERRARIO

“A pyramidal model describing assets, human resources, production and transactions in an ascending hierarchy: a basis that is formed by the Persepolis economy at large, upper layers consisting of the royal domain in the strictest sense, i.e. the House of the King and the estates of royal women, and intermediate layers that are ‘royal’ in a more general sense”15.

Two aspects of this definition deserve emphasis. The first concerns the nature of the administrative model (not only an example of courtly lavishness and aristocratic consumption) of an institution such as the royal table, as well as the economy it generated. Like other administrative devices (e.g. the treasuries and the archives), the table can therefore be interpreted as part of a well-thought-out strategy of territorial government showing a ‘systematic attitude’, capable of manoeuvering ‘between deployment of templates and locally-determined flexibility’ which characterizes, in Henkelman’s view, the distinctive feature of the Achaemenid ‘institutional landscape’, even in its eastern provinces16. The second concerns the role played within that institution by actors other than the Great King or the satrap (on whom the sources, especially the Graeco-Roman ones, tend to focus), that is to say, the princesses of the royal house. In exploring the scope of action of some exponents of the Persian aristocracy in Fārs as it emerges from the Persepolis archives, the next paragraph seeks to highlight some structural aspects of the administration of the empire’s territories that (1) according to the sources could be managed, with a wide margin of freedom, even by individuals who were not the sovereign or the satrap and (2) show interesting affinities with the ADAB corpus. Based on these convergences, the third paragraph suggests that, by virtue of the effectiveness of such a device as the royal table in terms of socio-economic control, it could have been adopted also outside Fārs (after all, this was one of the paramount goals behind the development of the ‘imperial paradigm itself’) by representatives of the Central Asian elites in order (1) to advertise, through imitation of the King’s household, their affiliation to the imperial ‘ethno-classe dominante’ of the empire and (2) to take advantage of the instruments of socio-economic control (e.g. redistribution mechanisms) that such an institution offered for purposes of internal political struggle (e.g. against rival elites)17. Taking up an observation by Brian Bosworth, according to whom Alexander was pushed to the famous marriage with Roxane because already in 336

“He had had a painful object lesson in his wooing of the daughter of Pixodarus of Caria, and the result of that episode had been the demonstration that with the princess went the satrapy”18.

The last paragraph puts forward a hypothesis about the importance, not only in terms of social of symbolic capital, but also of real socio-economic power, of some of the Central Asian magnates’ daughters, especially ’ and Spitamenes’, which could

15 HENKELMAN 2010, 673. 16 HENKELMAN 2017, 149 and 186. 17 HENKELMAN, 712 explicitly notes that, at least in Ēlām, individuals are attested (a certain Karkiš, satrap in Kurmana) who 1) had his own households, 2) as a satrap had his own table and 3) ‘consciously imitated’ the King’s court: cf. also BRIANT 2002, 194-195. 18 BOSWORTH 1980, 11.

Karanos 3/2020 90

POWER AND FEMALE AGENCY IN BACTRIA AT THE DAWN OF THE HELLENISTIC AGE

have been decisive in orienting the diplomatic and marital strategies of both Alexander and Seleukos, probably the shrewdest among the contenders to the latter’s inheritance.19

3. THAT LAND BECAME OURS: PARADIGMS OF POWER

We start with the Persian royal women: as the archives make clear, their role within the mechanisms of the itinerant court was of great importance, for among other things they enabled the diversification of precious logistical resources by controlling through regular visits different imperial νoμοί ( dahạyāva) at the same time. This was, for example, clearly the case with Irdabama, presumably the mother of Darius I or, according to some sources, one of his wives20. Irdabama’s court appears to have had at its disposal a dedicated economy. She had an estate at Šullaggi, in the surroundings of Persepolis, and, interestingly enough, she had at her disposal an entire entourage of puhu (‘servants’, ‘pages’) as well as of kurtaš (coming from various regions, for example from Lycia)21. Some of her kurtaš teams amounted to no less than 490 men, and some of them even received ducks as food rations, a striking exception which may point either to Irdabama’s liberality or to some kind of hierarchy among the kurtaš, be it related to the work they were performing or to their origin22. Given the fact that it is known from other tablets within the archive that parties of Bactrian kurtaš were given similar rations of ‘luxury food’, one is left wondering whether Bactrians were included among Irdabama’s workers.23 Irdabama had control of large quantities of commodities, such as the 2220 qts. of ‘apples of Irdabama’ mentioned in one of the Persepolis tablets24. The mention of the apple is of some interest if compared with the grīv of

19 Cf. VAN OPPEN DE RUITER 2014 as well as VAN OPPEN DE RUITER 2020 for analogous considerations concerning, on the one hand, the conflicting interests of the Diadochi and of their wives after the Susan nuptials, on the other, the very concrete example of Amastris, a former royal princess who also was able to live and act, in his words, as “the first Hellenistic Queen”. 20 HENKELMAN 2010 p. 693. She is not known to Classical sources. 21 PF 1002, PF 1005. In PF 1947 Bactrians and are attested as working within the same group: could it be possible that Irdabama had Bactrian kurtaš at her service as well? 22 PF 1028, PF NN 0845. 23 Henkelman records the allocation of 46 sheep or goats to a group of Bactrian kurtaš (PF NN1507). This is virtually unparalleled in the entire Persepolitan corpus. From other tablets it is known that meat was reserved for the royal court, high-ranking officials and people with certain professional skills, such as the hallinup mentioned in Fort. 0472-101. Dependent workers very rarely received meat rations and only at special occasions, such as large sacrificial feasts (Cf. HENKELMAN 2005). In addition, their portions usually are relatively small. The Parikānans of PF NN0646, for example, had to share a single sheep (maybe it was a goat) among their group of 40 men, which makes the 46 sheep given to the Bactrians all the more remarkable. Other texts mention daily allowances of only portions of animals

(1/10, 1/20, 1/30 and 1/100: Cf. HENKELMAN 2018). By contrast, the Bactrians received no less than a (admittedly small) herd of animals. In theory, this could imply a very large group (one daily portion for 1000-4000 individuals), as well as an extended period of time. However, according to Henkelman, “the absence of a ration list renders both these scenarios less likely”. Worth mentioning is also the particular phrasing of the text, which does not say that the livestock were given, but that they were ‘paid to’, or ‘put at the disposal’ of, the Bactrian kurtaš. Though the implications of this kind of phrasing cannot be fully understood, the text seems to hint at a certain level of autonomy and internal organization. “Some groups strike one as special in the sense that the administration allocated bulk amounts of commodities to them; the members of such groups may be described as Bactrian kurtaš or merely as Bactrians. The use of the ethnonym here gains new force, as it alone serves as justification for the undifferentiated allocation of relatively large quantities of beer, flour and animals” (HENKELMAN 2018, 242). What is striking here is the fact that, apparently, ‘Bactrian’ by itself seems to have indicated a well-defined community with internal cohesion, perhaps consisting of specialists like Irdabama’s puhu. 24 PF NN1849.

Karanos 3/2020 91

MARCO FERRARIO

plums (wrdwš) delivered to a certain B[ys] (possibly the Greek Βήσσος) as attested in the ADAB corpus: fruit and dried-fruits were delicacies often related with the Royal court25. Thus, it is all the more remarkable to see that the Persepolitan administration provided a group of Bactrians with a yearly apple provision26. We know that Irdabama had the authority to give commands to the administrative hierarchy working in her estates, at Šullaggi as well as at Tirazziš, in the modern Šīrāz province27. She sealed documents with her personal seal (PFS 0051) and issued order letters. From one of those letters, we gain the impression that, in Henkelman’s words,

“Irdabama’s own administrative staff was able to link up with the intricate Persepolis administration on various levels and in various languages”28.

She seems to have enjoined a ‘Royal Table’ for herself, since we know of goods “Irdabama tibba makka” (that is ‘consumed before Irdabama’), and we are informed that products such as flour, various cereals and barley, as well as sheep, goats, lamb, wine and even beer were consumed/poured in her presence29. Irdabama used to travel quite a lot. We know of commodities consumed ‘before her’ in different localities in Fārs, such as Hidali, Kandama, Liduma and Persepolis, Susa, Šursunkiri and Tandari30. In only two cases, at Persepolis and at Susa, we have evidence that the king may have (but he may equally have not) been present at the same place and at the same time. It is highly unlikely that this was due to chance: Irdabama appears in fact to have had her own staff, her own table, her own court, thus acting as a representative of the king and therefore making the ‘imperial signature’ even more visible through the Achaemenid territory31. Given the position of the royal ‘big men’ such as those aristocrats we encounter in the narrative of Alexander expedition through Central Asia, one may ask if there was something similar going on in Bactria as well. After all, if the B[ys] mentioned in the ADAB corpus really was Bessus, he was a member of the imperial family and, consequently, these practices must have been well known to him. Moreover, we know that Stateira, one of Darius III’s daughters and would-be wife of Alexander, also used to travel the entire empire32. It may be suggested that this way of administering power by means of the physical presence on the imperial territory of some representative of the royal aristocracy was characteristic of the eastern satraps, who had to rule over geographically as well as ethnically heterogeneous territories, where the presence of pastoral-nomads was particularly significant. If we look at the evidence coming from Fārs, it seems that the network of estates owned by royal women was a very effective instrument of both social and political control as well as of economic exploitation, which consequently may have been willingly adopted by representatives of the local elite (one need only think of the fortresses (πέτραι)

25 NAVEH – SHAKED 2012,174ff. C1 (=Khalili A21, l.18). 26 Fort. 2319-101. 27 PF NN1946. 28 HENKELMAN 2010, 694. 29 E. g. PF NN 0641, PF 0737, PF 0738, PF 0740, PF NN 0855, PF NN 1332, PF NN 1773. 30 HENKELMAN 2010, 714ff. 31 HENKELMAN 2010, 697: “Documents like the one drafted at Susa and sealed with PFS 0051 in any case shows that Irdabama was surrounded by a private staff that travelled with her, just as the holders of seals PFS 0007*, PFS 0066a, b, c* and PFS 0093*, who were responsible for the King’s Table, accompanied the migrant court”. 32 Plu. Art. 5.3.

Karanos 3/2020 92

POWER AND FEMALE AGENCY IN BACTRIA AT THE DAWN OF THE HELLENISTIC AGE

described by the historians of Alexander, some of which, for example that of Arimazes, were clearly built according to ‘royal’ parameters, for example in terms of size)33. Worth noting is the fact that Irdabama’s was not an isolated case. Just like her, Irtaštuna (Gr. Ἀρτυστώνη, possibly one of Darius’ wives) used her own seal, which has been recognized on eight letter orders. In nine other documents, commodities ‘consumed before Irtaštuna’ are listed as well34. The documentation pertaining to Irtaštuna shows that prominent figures like her possessed estates which were at least partially autonomous from the Persepolis economy: this is why they appear only rarely in the Fortification texts. This remark should serve as a methodological caveat when drawing conclusions from the evidence (or the absence thereof) relating to regions of the empire other than Persepolis. Since in fact (1) the royal table was an important institution of the Achaemenid court, (2) high-ranking women appear to have taken part in the administration of this institution in the absence of the sovereign or administrated another ‘queenly table’ on their own, and finally (3) given the fact that local elites (beginning with the satraps) can be shown to have been extremely receptive throughout Achaemenid history in adapting the customs and institutions of the Persian court to their own socio-political context, it is not too far-fetched to put forward the hypothesis that figures similar to Irdabama or Irtaštuna also existed in other regions of the empire, including the upper satrapies, and that they fulfilled functions similar to those we see entrusted to the former in the Persepolis’ documents35. A good example may be Spitamenes’ wife who, according to the historiographic tradition at least, was able to interact on an equal footing with Alexander. It is true that, at the moment, the available evidence (including the ADAB) does not directly attest to the existence of land properties managed by female representatives of the local aristocracy, but this fact could, paradoxically, provide an element in favour of the hypothesis that such properties did indeed exist, for also in the case of Irdabama and Irtaštuna their names are underrepresented in the archives not because of their minor importance (or because they did not administer their own estates, which they did), but precisely because they enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy, which implied that they had their own administration, which consequently made their mention in the Persepolis archive superfluous36. Based on this premise, the ADAB’s silence could therefore be justified by the structural parallel with the properties of the Fārs’ princesses: as in their case, the administrative autonomy of their Central Asian counterparts could have placed them beyond the horizon within which the administration of the Bactrian archive as we have it was moving. This may, for example, have been the case with Apama (whose social standing as the daughter of Spitamenes, who was not a gang leader, but an Achaemenid official, and a high ranking one at that), for her estates (or those of her father, which he, following Irdabama’s example, helped to administrate) would have been located mostly around the Zarafšān

33 On Arimazes’ rock cf. e. g. Curt. 7.11.1-29, Epit. Mett. 15-18, Polyaen. Strat. 4.3.29; Strab. 11.11.4. 34 PFS 0038. Cf. HENKELMAN 2010, 699ff. 35 One could of course argue that the portrait of Spitamenes’ wife drawn by Greek and Roman sources is nothing more than a literary construction, whose purpose is to represent a society ‘upside down’, summarized in the outrageous behaviour of a woman who moves within the political space of her husband and goes so far as to physically eliminate him. However, one could respond to this by referring to the ethnographic evidence collected by anthropologists in Central Asia (e.g. DAVID 1976), which shows that, in fact, within local societies (and not least within mobile ones, whose environment was undoubtedly known to Spitamenes: cf. RAPIN 2018) women played many roles of great importance, including political ones. On Spitamenes’ wife cf. e.g. Arr. An. 4.17.7 and Curt. 8.3.1-16. 36 Cf. PF 0733; PF 0724; PF 2035.

Karanos 3/2020 93

MARCO FERRARIO

valley (one of Spitamenes’ power-bases), and thus out of reach for the Bactrian archives, in which there is no mention of territories north of Šahr-e Sabsz37. Let us return for a moment to what we know about the administration of the ‘queen’s table’ in Fārs. On the basis of the tablet’s text’s phrasing, Henkelman has argued that, in order to feed the economy of their properties (including of course their tables), both Irtaštuna and Irdabama drew from resources outside their own domain. Some of the receipts connected with Irtaštuna’s name are in fact acknowledgements of debts38. This provides an interesting parallel with a section of the ADAB corpus which, although it has so far received less attention than, for example, the exchange of letters between Axvamazdā –perhaps one of the last satraps of Achaemenid Bactria– and his subordinate Bagavant, is nevertheless extremely valuable material39. I am referring to a small database of 18 wooden sticks, which as in the case of Irtaštuna’s, were also debt acknowledgements: although, for the reasons given earlier, we do not have –say– Apama’s name (or that of Spitamenes’ wife) on the tallies, their existence at the very least shows that, just like in Fārs, also in Bactria not all land and/or the resources drawn from it were considered as royal or of satrapal pertinence40. Another example of the semi-autonomous units such as Irtaštuna’s estates is provided by Ušaya, the wine supplier of a man from Naširma named Karkiš, who is well recorded in the Persepolis archive41. In Fort. 3544, an employee of Ušaya is mentioned as mardam (O. P. *varda- , ‘workman’): in every context in which it is mentioned, the word seems to denote a direct relation between a high-ranking Persian and a subordinate of the type we also see attested in the ADAB (for instance in C1 ll.46-47), where a supply chain involving Vahya-ātar, Vakhšubandāka and ‘the ration providers’ (ptpky’, from O. P. piθva-kāna-) is attested42. The most conspicuous parallel case in the Persepolis archive is however that of the Patischorians: here mardam seems to indicate a particular legal as well as social status. In Henkelman’s words,

“It denotes personnel or other subordinates of high-ranking Persians who acted directly on behalf of their masters and who fell under their patron’s jurisdiction. In other words, people referred to as ‘mardam of PN’ belong to the external sphere of the Persepolis institution and are indicative of semi-autonomous units, i. e. probably the houses of Noble Persians and their supporters”43.

As a consequence of the evidence discussed so far, it follows the necessity, for the empire’s lieutenants in the upper satrapies, of negotiating the remuneration terms with the holder of these estates, who in the Central Asian context can be identified with men such as Chorienes, Sisimithres, Arimazes (and of course, Spitamenes and Oxyartes), who held the famous πέτραι which cost Alexander so much effort to conquer.

37 According to Arr. An. 4.15.7, Alexander put a new (and unnamed) satrap at the head of Sogdiana, which probably helped a great deal in causing Spitamenes’ revolt, for he was likely either, according to RAPIN 2018, 276, the (now dispossessed) Achaemenid satrap or a distinct member of the local aristocracy who felt put aside by other, internal rivals (one thinks of Artabazus) as well as by the Macedonians. So, if Spitamenes was an Achaemenid satrap and if we know of other satraps (such as the above-mentioned Karkiš) as administering ‘royal’ tables in Ēlām, why should that not be possible in Central Asia? 38 E. g. PF 0732. 39 HENKELMAN – FOLMER 2016. 40 HENKELMAN 2010, 701. 41 PF NN 0306; PF 0683. Cf. HENKELMAN 2010, 710. It is unclear whether he may have been the same person attested as satrap in Ēlām. 42 NAVEH – SHAKED 2012, 174ff. C1 (=Khalili IA21). 43 HENKELMAN 2010, 711. On the Patischorians cf. HENKELMAN – STOLPER 2008, 286ff.

Karanos 3/2020 94

POWER AND FEMALE AGENCY IN BACTRIA AT THE DAWN OF THE HELLENISTIC AGE

4. ROYAL TABLES IN BACTRIA? THE ADAB CORPUS SEEN THROUGH THE LENS OF THE ‘IMPERIAL PARADIGM’

Already mentioned several times in the previous pages, at this point the 48 documents (30 on the 18 tallies) that make up the corpus of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria (ADAB) deserve a closer look, based on the following questions. Firstly: is it possible to find in this documentation evidence of local administrators’ estates that can be compared with what we know from the Persepolis archives? Secondly: is there any trace in this corpus of the involvement of individuals belonging to the local ruling class and whom we can reasonably compare with Irdamaba or Irtaštuna? As far as the first question is concerned, the answer can only be positive. From the correspondence between Axvamazdā and a direct (but occasionally undisciplined) subordinate of his named Bagavant –in all probability a local notable who, judging from a very harsh letter forwarded to him by Axvamazdā (ADAB A1), from which can be deduced that the former has been extremely well connected sociopolitically with other important individuals within the local context (ADAB A1 recto ll.1-2 mentions some – unnamed– ‘magistrates’) to the point that he could act in his own interests regardless of the complaints that flocked to the court of his superior– we know of the existence of numerous land properties, from those of the satrap, which Bagavant has culpably neglected, to the point that now the roofs of the barns are in disrepair and the fields at risk of being invaded by grasshoppers, to those of Bagavant himself, which Axvamazdā threatens to mortgage if his orders are not executed in the near future44. Equally important is a group of texts (section C) cataloguing supplies and travel rations made available in the Bactrian territory. In one of them, the aforementioned ADAB C1, we are confronted with a long list of such provisions made available by the local administration for a certain B[ys], whom scholars have identified with the regicidal satrap of Bactria45 One of the most interesting aspects in this parchment is the mention, in the very first line, of a ‘king Artaxerxes’ in whose year the document is dated, which immediately precedes the reference to Ba[yāsa]. Recently, Rachel Mairs convincingly put forward the hypothesis of recognizing in this apparent anthroponomic redundancy (if we assume the man in question was Bessus, he was already King Artaxerxes V, as the text can be dated to 330 B.C.; so why did he choose to call himself other than with the royal name?) two conflicting needs the issuing authority was trying to harmonize. On the one hand, that of being recognized as the legitimate sovereign (“in the first year of Artaxerxes the King”), and on the other hand, that of continuing to act on the territory as Ba[yāsa] because it was from this second identity –not from the first– that he was able to draw the resources by which he was able to distinguish himself among his peers until he ascended to the imperial throne46. Seen from this perspective, the allocations of ADAB C1 thus gain new significance. A former satrap now acting as a king against another claimant who accused him of regicide, Bessus may have tried to mobilize the economic resources the institutions he (like Karkiš and many others) controlled as a satrap –including the king-like table– in order to strengthen his political position in a time of dire need. This may not have been the first time something akin to this happened, for during Darius’ civil war in the last

44 Cf. NAVEH – SHAKED 2012, 76ff. A2 (=Khalili IA4) as well as NAVEH – SHAKED 2012, 112ff. A6 (=Khalili IA5). 45 NAVEH – SHAKED 2012, 174ff. C1 (=Khalili IA21). 46 MAIRS 2016.

Karanos 3/2020 95

MARCO FERRARIO

quarter of the 6th century we know from the Bīsutūn inscription of a certain Vivāna (“satrap in ”), owning a (fortified) irmatam, that is an estate which closely resembles Axvamazdā’s one in the ADAB and which was “possibly included in an institutional network and possibly subjected to service or tax obligations”. This estate, “Vivāna’s personal ” as Paul Bernard has called it, was targeted by some of Darius’ most dangerous enemies (Vahêyazdāta’s troops), which emphasizes, in Henkelman’s view, “the satrap’s ex officio tenure of it. As part of the local institutional system it was an appropriate symbol of satrapal and state power, in both economic and political sense”. The case of Vivāna’s irmatam is strong evidence that such entities existed in Arachosia even before Darius came to power; given his prominent role in repressing the turmoil of 522-521 in the east alongside Vivāna, it seems fair to assume that Dādêṛšiš, the satrap of Bactria at the time, could have had similar estates as well. Furthermore, since in the Persepolis archive the irmatam appears to have been “thoroughly embedded in the overall administrative network”, the existence of similar structures in Arachosia, and probably in Bactria-Sogdiana, “gives us one more probable element of the local institutional landscape”, which the Achaemenids appear to have developed not in vacuo, but starting from precedents deeply rooted in the socio- economic and political context of each region of the would-be empire, thus effectively transforming into ‘global’ actors (i.e. operating on an imperial scale) those who before the 6th century were nothing more than petty local potentates, thus enormously increasing the position of the latter, in following a dialectic which, as the case of Bessus and, on a smaller scale, that of Bagavant, clearly show, could constitute for the empire a precious resource as much as a danger for the stability of its territorial control47. For the purposes of the present argument, however, the most important aspect is to be able to support with a reasonable degree of confidence the possibility that, even in Bactria, the ‘imperial paradigm’ has been reproduced –among other things in the form of the royal table– as useful to a very large number of social actors: the King, the satrap, his entourage and those depending on it down to the countless anonymous people who, as is clear from the Persepolis archives, saw in the activities generated by these devices of royal (and satrapal, and local-elitarian) self-representation an immense flywheel for the economy of their community (consider, for instance, the sacrificial animals required for religious ceremonies). As for the possibility of finding in the ADAB traces of female political agency even comparable to that of Irdabama or Irtaštuna, it must be admitted that, despite the methodological caveat made in the previous pages, the documentary situation is extremely unfavourable. However, this is not, perhaps, a completely dead-end perspective. A dramatically mutilated snippet within the corpus, in fact, mentions Bagavant’s wife (as said, a minor officer within the hierarchy that can be reconstructed using the ADAB’s, but still endowed with a certain influence) interacting in the name and on behalf of her husband with another individual, whose precise role the terminology adopted to describe him (“judge of the drugs”?) makes extremely difficult to understand –but which must nevertheless have been a magistrate of some importance, given Bagavant’s social position in order to negotiate an economic transaction48. It is to me perfectly clear that such a fragile documentary basis makes any hypothesis

47 HENKELMAN 2017, 166-167. Cf. the text in DBe 3.30-2: “Then, the man whom Vahêyazdāta had made leader of the troops, fled with a few mounted men and went (to) a fortress named Ṛšādā, (in) Harauvatiš, an estate of Vivāna”. In the other versions of the inscription (DBp 3.70-2, DBb 82 f, Dbe 59f.), Ṛšādā is mentioned only as a fortress. 48 NAVEH – SHAKED 2012, 122ff. A9 (=Khalili IA 15).

Karanos 3/2020 96

POWER AND FEMALE AGENCY IN BACTRIA AT THE DAWN OF THE HELLENISTIC AGE

extremely risky, but by virtue of the figure of Bagavant as it emerges from his correspondence with Axvamazdā, the fact that his wife was able to perform administrative functions (from the context of the document it does not appear to have had been a private transaction) should at least raise the question about the socio-political role (1) within their community and (2) in the wider context of the Achaemenid empire of young princesses, such as Apama and Roxane, whose belonging to the highest strata of Persian provincial society is beyond question; moreover, economic reasons behind this ‘social capital’ help explain, at least in the case of the future Seleukid queen mother, the role apparently played by the latter during her spouse’s expedition to Central Asia49.

5. ALEXANDER AND SELEUKOS, ROXANE AND APAMA: SOME FINAL EDUCATED GUESSES

In a recent contribution, Branko van Oppen re-examined the information available to us about the Susa wedding, convincingly showing not only that the communis opinio still firmly circulating in historiography about the exceptional nature of Seleukos’ marriage with his Iranian bride is not supported by the sources, but also that Alexander’s heirs had considerable interest in using their Persian spouses also by virtue of their political abilities50. The most sensational case we know of to date, as discussed by him in another study, is that of Amastris, who went as far as minting money in her name and calling herself ‘queen’ (acting both on her own as well as in Lysimachus’ interests), and it is legitimate to wonder whether similar agency should not be assumed for the other Persian princesses, beginning with Apama and Roxane51. The purpose of this contribution was to suggest other reasons (1) not mutually exclusive, but complementary to, concepts such as ‘prestige’, ‘influence’ or ‘ideological capital’ and (2) more closely linked to the socio-political and cultural context of the origin of the Macedonians' spouses that might help explain the position they seem to have enjoyed within the new environment they came to live in, and this despite extremely fierce competition (it should not be forgotten that, at the time of Alexander’s death, the possible heir to the throne would have been the son of Roxane and not, for example, one of Darius’ III daughters). The case of Apama is particularly interesting in this respect: although it cannot in fact be excluded a dynastic legend was born that around the Sogdian princess –possibly built and put into circulation by the Seleukid court itself– with the intention of reinforcing, (also) from a genealogical point of view, Seleukos’ right to the inheritance of the upper satrapies, the case of Amastris (to say nothing of Irdabama and Irtaštuna) shows beyond any doubt the decision-making autonomy and the capacity for influence –at supra-regional level and even more so within their own context of origin– of these

49 According to Plu. Artax. 27, Artaxerxes II had a daughter called Apama, and a second one is known as the bride of Ptolemy at Susa (Plu. Eum. 1.7). In Arr. An. 7.4.6 she is called Artakama, which may have been her first name. A third Apama is known to . AJ. 11.49 as one of Darius’ mistresses. Contrary to the image given to us by the Greek stereotype of a decadent and luxurious Persian court, these courtesans played a role of absolute prestige within the king’s entourage. For example, they were allowed to join him during the royal hunts: see FGrHist 689 F 1 and FGrHist 690 F 27. The fact that they could not be of Persian origin (BROSIUS 1996, 31-32) makes plausible the hypothesis that, had it not been for Alexander’s campaign, Apama or Roxane could someday have been part of such a courtly milieu. On Apama’s role during Seleukos’ campaign cf. also KOSMIN 2014, 59-68. 50 VAN OPPEN DE RUITER 2014. 51 VAN OPPEN DE RUITER 2020, 27.

Karanos 3/2020 97

MARCO FERRARIO

exponents of the Achaemenid aristocracy, as well as the clear existence of different agendas (which went so far as to include the economic sphere) pursued by them52. Hopefully, a more in-depth study –not least from a comparative point of view– of the ADAB corpus on the one hand and, on the other, the pursuit of research on the Persepolis’ archives, will make it possible in the near future to shed further light on the dynamics of the socio-political and economic dialectic involving the –indeed much more numerous as the dichotomy between ‘center’ and ‘satrapy’ or ‘imperial’ and ‘local’ would suggest– social actors within the empire (among them, as it has been argued in these pages, the wives and daughters of the local ‘big men’ appear in the foreground) also in the upper satrapies, without having to resort to the two models we sketched at the beginning, opposite but equally –and excessively– simplifying. That is, on the one hand, the idea of an imperial administration understood as primus (and sometimes solus) movens of the socio-political dynamics within the satrapies; on the other hand, the picture of an anachronistic and stereotyped image of Bactria and its inhabitants as ‘enemies of the empire’, worthy of historiographical attention not as such but only by virtue of their oppositional role towards the governmental –and without doubt often repressive– apparatus of the Achaemenid empire53.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANDO, C. (2017): “Introduction: States and State Power in Antiquity”, in C. ANDO – S. RICHARDSON (eds.): Ancient States and Infrastructural Power. Europe, Asia, and America, Philadelphia: 1-17. BOSWORTH, B. A. (1980): “Alexander and the Iranians”, JHS 100:1-21. BRIANT, P. (1983): État et pasteurs au Moyen Orient ancien, Paris. — (1984): L’Asie centrale et les royaumes proche-orientaux du premier millénaire (c. viiiᵉ-ivᵉ siècles av. notre ère), Paris. — (2002): From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire, Winona Lake. — (2009): “The empire of Darius III in perspective”, in W. HECKEL – L. TRITLE (eds.): Alexander the Great. A ew history, London: 141-170. BROSIUS, M. (1996): Women in Ancient Persia, Oxford. COŞKUN, A. – MCAULEY, P. J. A. (2016): “The Study of Seleukid Royal Women. An Introduction”, in A. COŞKUN – A. J. P. MCAULEY (eds.): Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire. Papers Chosen from Seleukid Study Day IV (McGill University, Montreal, 20-23 February 2013), Stuttgart: 17-22.

52 Apama’s dynastic legend: ENGELS – ERICKSON 2016; ENGELS 2017, 220-227. See however RAMSEY 2016 for a detailed study of the multiple levels of Apama’s agency potential within the context of her homeland and the ways in which this might have influenced Seleukid strategies in the east. 53 That the latter in particular is a rather pressing imperative is shown in an exemplary way by a recent study by HOLT 2005 (repr. 2012), which builds the entire narrative of Alexander’s Central Asian campaign from a parallel between the Bactrio-Sogdian-Sakā coalition and the Basmači uprisings of the 1930s in the and Central Asia (Басмачество) on the one hand and the Afghan mujāhidīn on the other, according to an analogy as misleading as it is widespread, not only among the (مجاهدين) general public: cf. HOWE 2016 for a careful reassessment of the question.

Karanos 3/2020 98

POWER AND FEMALE AGENCY IN BACTRIA AT THE DAWN OF THE HELLENISTIC AGE

DAVID, T. (1976): “La position de la femme en Asia centrale”, DHA 2: 563-571. ENGELS, D. – ERICKSON, K. (2016): “Apama and Stratonike – Marriage and Legitimacy”, in A. COŞKUN – A. J. P. MCAULEY (eds.): Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire. Papers Chosen from Seleukid Study Day IV (McGill University, Montreal, 20-23 February 2013), Stuttgart: 39–67. — (2017): Benefactors, kings, rulers: studies on the Seleukid Empire between East and West, Leuven. FOLMER, L. M. (2017): “Bactria and Egypt. Administration as mirrored in the Aramaic sources”, in B. JACOBS – W. F. M. HENKELMAN – M. W. STOLPER (eds.): The Administration in the Achaemenid Empire / Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich. Imperiale Muster und Strukturen, Wiesbaden: 413-455. HARDERS, K. A. (2016): “The Making of a Queen – Seleukos Nikator and His Wives”, in A. COŞKUN – A. J. P. MCAULEY (eds.): Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire. Papers Chosen from Seleukid Study Day IV (McGill University, Montreal, 20-23 February 2013), Stuttgart: 25-38. HENKELMAN, M. F. W. (2010): “Consumed before the King. The Table of Darius, that of Irdabama and Irtaštuna, and that of his Satrap, Karkiš”, in R. ROLLINGER – R. B. JACOBS (eds.): Der Achämenidenhof / The Achaemenid Court, Wiesbaden: 667-775. — (2017): “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm: Achaemenid administrative structure and system across and beyond the Iranian plateau”, in B. JACOBS – W. F. M. HENKELMAN – M. W. STOLPER (eds.): The Administration in the Achaemenid Empire / Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich. Imperiale Muster und Strukturen, Wiesbaden: 246–256. — (2018): “Bactrians in Persepolis – Persians in Bactria”, in J. LHUILLIER – N. BOROFFKA (eds.): A Millennium of History.The in southern Central Asia (2nd and 1st Millennia BC). Proceedings of the conference held in Berlin (June 23-25, 2014). Dedicated to the memory of Viktor Ivanovich Sarianidi, Berlin: 223–257. HENKELMAN, M. F. W. – FOLMER, L. M. (2016): “Your Tally is Full! On Wooden Credit Records in and After the Achaemenid Empire”, in K. KLEBER – R. PIRNGRUBER (eds.): Silver, Money and Credit. A Tribute to Robartus J. Van der Spek on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on 18th September 2014, Leiden: 133- 239. HOLT, F. L. (2005): Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan, Berkeley. HONEYCHURCH, W. (2015): and the Spatial Politics of Empire, New York. HOWE, T. (2016): “Alexander and ‘Afghan Insurcency’: A Reassessment”, in T. HOWE – L. L. BRICE (eds.): Brill’s Companion to Insurgency and Terrorism in the Ancient Mediterranean, Leiden: 151-182.

Karanos 3/2020 99

MARCO FERRARIO

KOSMIN, J. P. (2014): The Land of the Elephant Kings. Space, Territory, and Ideology in the , Cambridge (Mass.). MEIER, M. (2020): Geschichte der Völkerwanderung: , Asien und Afrika vom 3. bis zum 8. Jahrhundert n. Chr., München. MAIRS, R. R. (2016): “New discoveries of documentary texts from Bactria: political and cultural change, administrative continuity”, 27th International Congress of Papirology, 29 Jul.-3 Aug. 2013, Warsaw, , Warsaw: 2025-2057. NAVEH, J. – SHAKED, S. (2012): Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria (Fourth Century B.C.E.) from the Khalili Collections, London. RAMSEY, C. G. (2016): The Diplomacy of Seleukid Women: Apama and Stratonike. In A. Coşkun, A. J. P. McAuley (eds.) Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire. Papers Chosen from Seleukid Study Day IV (McGill University, Montreal, 20-23 February 2013). Stuttgart: 87–107. RAPIN, C. (2018): “On the way to Roxane 2. Satraps and hyparchs between Bactra and Zariaspa – Maracanda”, in J. LHUILLIER – N. BOROFFKA (eds.): A Millennium of History.The Iron Age in southern Central Asia (2nd and 1st Millennia BC). Proceedings of the conference held in Berlin (June 23-25, 2014). Dedicated to the memory of Viktor Ivanovich Sarianidi, Berlin: 257-299. SCOTT, C. J. (1998): Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed, New Haven. TAVERNIER, J. (2017a): “The Use of Languages on the Various Levels of Administration in the Achaemenid Empire”, in B. JACOBS – W. F. M. HENKELMAN – M. W. STOLPER (eds.): The Administration in the Achaemenid Empire-Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich. Imperiale Muster und Strukturen, Wiesbaden: 337-412. — (2017b): “Religious Aspects in the Aramaic Texts from Bactria”, in B. JACOBS – W. F. M. HENKELMAN – M. W. STOLPER (eds.): The Administration in the Achaemenid Empire / Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich. Imperiale Muster und Strukturen, Wiesbaden: 97-124. TEICHMANN, C. (2016): Macht der Unordnung. Stalins Herrschaft in Zentralasien 1920-1950, Hamburg. TUPLIN, J. C. (2017): “Serving the Satrap. Lower-rank officials viewed through Greek and Aramaic sources”, in B. JACOBS – W. F. M. HENKELMAN – M. W. STOLPER (eds.): The Administration in the Achaemenid Empire-Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich. Imperiale Muster und Strukturen, Wiesbaden: 613-677. VAN OPPEN DE RUITER, F. B. (2014): “The Susa Marriages: a Historiographical Note”, AncSoc 44: 25-41. — (2020): “Amastris. The First Hellenistic Queen”, Historia 69: 17-37. WESTERMAN, F. (2002): Engineers of the Soul, New York. WU, X. (2005): Central Asia in the context of the Achaemenid Persian Empire (6th to 4th centuries B.C.), [Diss.] University of Pennsylvania.

Karanos 3/2020 100

POWER AND FEMALE AGENCY IN BACTRIA AT THE DAWN OF THE HELLENISTIC AGE

— (2007): “Persian and Central Asian Elements in the Social Landscape of the Early Nomads at Pazyryk, Southern ”, in M. L. POPOVA – W. C. HARTLEY – A. T. SMITH (eds.): Social Orders and Social Landscapes, Cambridge: 120-150. — (2010): “Enemies of Empire: A Historical Reconstruction of Political Conflicts between Central Asia and the Persian Empire”, in J. CURTIS – J. SIMPSON (eds.): The World of Achaemenid Persia. History, Art and Society in and the , London–New York: 545-606. — (2012): “Violence and power visualized: Representations of military engagements between Central Asia and the Achaemenid Persian Empire”, in C. HARTLEY – G. BIKE YAZICIOĞLU – A. T. SMITH (eds.): The archaeology of power and politics in : Regimes and revolutions, Cambridge: 78–90. — (2014): “O Young Man… Make Known of What Kind You Are: Warfare, History and Elite Ideology of the Achaemenid Persian Empire”, Iranica Antiqua 49: 209-299. — (2017): “Land of the Unrule-ables: Bactria in the Achaemenid Period”, in O. K. WEBER – E. HITE – L. KHATCHADOURIAN – A. T. SMITH (eds.): Fitful Histories and Unruly Publics. Rethinking Temporality and Community in Eurasian Archaeology, Leiden: 258-291. — (2018): “Exploiting the Virgin Land. Kyzyltepa and the Effects of the Achaemenid Persian Empire on its Central Asian Frontier”, in J. LHUILLIER – N. BOROFFKA (eds.): A Millennium of History. The Iron Age in southern Central Asia (2nd and 1st Millennia BC). Proceedings of the conference held in Berlin (June 23-25, 2014). Dedicated to the memory of Viktor Ivanovich Sarianidi, Berlin: 189-215.

Karanos 3/2020 101

Karanos 3, 2020 103-129

Terrible Olympias Another Study in Method*

by Borja Antela-Bernárdez Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona [email protected]

“Scholarship has shown a marked tendency to blame the demise of the dynasty which ruled Macedonia from its historical beginnings on the actions of several women (most notably Olympias and Adea Eurydice), and scholars have not infrequently characterized the actions of these women as inference, driven only by revenge. Behind both notions lie unexamined assumptions” Elizabeth D. Carney1.

“What everyone knows is imprecise” M. Finley2

“The common man may still believe in fabulous comets crossing outer space, or in prehistoric monsters living at the earth’s core, but astronomers and geologists don’t swallow such fairy tales”. J. Verne, Vingt mille lieues sous les mers (Chapter 4: Ned Land [1869]).

To my mother, Mª Carmen Bernárdez Lorenzo

ABSTRACT Olympias of Epirus is one of the main characters in the history of the emergency of Macedonia as an international power with Philip II and Alexander. Nevertheless, despite the many books, papers and studies that had been improving our knowledge about Argead Macedonia in times of the great Macedonian conquerors, the historians of the XIXth and XXth centuries treated Olympias in the same terms of the ancient sources. This uncritical perspective denotes a clear tendency and aims to reproduce gender stereotypes that comes to our own days.

KEYWORDS Olympias of Epirus, Historiography, Gender Studies, Polygamy.

* The title of this paper is clearly concerned with two other previous works, as they are the brilliant masterpiece of BADIAN 1958 and the excellent work of CARNEY 2010a. In a methodological perspective, I follow here my own previous works: ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ 2014; 2018; 2020; ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ – ZARAGOZÀ 2019. I am very grateful with the help and comments by E. Carney and D. Mirón. All the errors in this paper are mine. 1 CARNEY 1994, 357. 2 FINLEY 1983, 54. eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199 BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

Among the many historical figures around the character of Alexander the Great, his mother Olympias of Epirus is probably the most controversial. Ancient sources are certainly very hostile with Olympias, who was the victim of harsh defamatory propaganda by her enemies after her son’s death. Many of the statements recorded by Greco-Roman tradition are clearly dubious in the light of our contemporary interpretation of the facts and our present knowledge of Argead Macedonia, and different studies during the last few years have shown that in general the information from the evidence must be analysed with care and prudence. However, it seems difficult to assess to what extent the image of Olympias was built under the scope of the influence of Ancient Historiography until the great works about Alexander in our own days, despite the methodology of academic History, the criticism of the sources and the diffusion of many of the studies and papers that question the usual perceptions, so biased and blurred, concerning her life and historical value3. A brief survey about the words of the most classical Modern authors about Alexander displays a strong series of judgements, inherited from the ancient writers, that strongly remains against Olympias4. Far from exhaustive, our approach tries to observe some of these judgements and the clichés behind them. To begin with, Ulrich Wilcken’s Alexander the Great has often been considered as the most balanced study among the various biographies and studies concerning Alexander. A great Master of , Wilcken was nevertheless far from a specialist (at least in our own days’ notion) on Alexander, and his view of Olympias was definitely unbalanced:

“His mother Olympias, whom Philip made his lawful wife in 357, was the daughter of king of the , whose dynasty was traced back to the son of Achilles and was therefore looked on as Greek, though the Molossians themselves, a tribe of Epirus, seem to have been barbarians, and were probably related to the Illyrians. In 356 Olympias, who was about twenty years old, gave birth to Alexander, and next year to his sister Cleopatra: there were no further issue to this marriage. So Alexander was not a pure Macedonian but had a dash of barbarian blood in his veins” (WILCKEN 1967, 53. My italics).

In the historical presentation of the character of Olympias, Wilcken first highlighted the barbarian nature of Olympias, and as a result, Alexander’s lack of pure Macedonian blood. To accuse Wilcken of being close to Nazi ideology concerning the ideas of race and Arianism is absolutely incorrect, if we bear in mind both his personal trajectory and the date of publication of his book (1931), although it seems probable that some ideas of his lifetime found a small place in his work. Some of them, like this pure blood assessment, seem to have had some historical importance in his time, but if we bear in mind that Philip himself, Alexander’s father, was actually the son of an Illyrian woman, Wilcken’s statement lacked any kind of historical meaning to understand the Argead court in the age of Olympias, Philip or Alexander. On the other hand, it is quite surprising to read the description of the consideration of Olympias as Philip’s lawful wife. We will go back to this later. Wilcken continues:

3 CARNEY 1993, 29: “Surviving sources on Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great and wife of Philip II of Macedon, display a level of hostility toward her perhaps equaled only by the source tradition about Cleopatra VII and Clodia. (...) Judgments of Olympias’ career and motivation, her role in Macedonian political history, and her public prestige continue to reproduce the views of ancient sources uncritically”. 4 On Olympias, vid. CARNEY 2006. Of relevant interest to our approach is CARNEY 2010a.

Karanos 3/2020 104

TERRIBLE OLYMPIAS. ANOTHER STUDY IN METHOD

“Both Philip and Olympias were unusually strong and impulsive in temperament. Philip’s acts bear witness to tireless energy and strength of will, and to an indominate pertinacity in following his own purposes. His body, covered with scars, showed his bravery and a delight in battle which almost amounted to foolhardiness. These are all qualities which, perhaps even to a higher power, manifest themselves in Alexander. If, on the other hand, Philip is described to us in his private life as an unbridled voluptuary who gave himself up without restraint to the satisfaction of his sensual temperament, those of the contradictory authorities which represent Alexander as of a cool nature in amatory affairs are probably right. At any rate, the love of women never played a leading part in Alexander’s life, and he never allowed it to exert any influence on the prosecution of his great ambitions; it was simply to explain this that fictions were told of his love of boys. When he appears as a man of demonic passion, we may to a large extent trace here the inheritance of his mother Olympias, in whom this quality was intensified to the highest degree. But it is part of the wonderful combination of opposites in Alexander’s nature, that by the side of this passion he also exhibits a quite surprisingly cool and calm discretion” (Wilcken 1967, 54. My italics).

We can appreciate, in my opinion, two principal elements in this fragment. First, that the nature of Philip, despite his passion, is regarded as positive, in opposition to the kind of passion related to Olympias, whose nature is not just vindictive, but even demoniac (“demonic”!)5: a very simple judgement for a historian of the level of Wilcken. Secondly, we find that the cause of Alexander’s personality, and consequently the reason for his success, his greatness and historical impact, results from the opposition between the different passional nature of his parents. Wilcken fell here in an old trap, that of the Ancient Greek thought about the opposition of contraries. Wilcken’s description about Olympias is thus deeply revelatory.

“Since heredity alone cannot explain his character, the question that influence education had on him [Alexander] is all the more worthy of interest. Philip, who from the first saw his successor in Alexander, the offspring of Olympias, beside whom he had other wives, devoted himself to his boy’s education with great love and care” (WILCKEN 1967, 54).

This passage raises two questions that deserve attention. The first one is that Philip considered Alexander as his heir, a question always assured in the work until the final crisis and Philip’s murder, something to which we will return later. The second one is the fact that Olympias was not the only wife of Philip. We can then note the problematics of the reconstruction of the past made by Wilcken (and many others), depicting Olympias as a lawful wife and simply mentioning the rest of Philip’s wives

5 CARNEY 1993, 30: “The ancient sources, biased or not, are not always the basis for this assignment of motivation. Indeed, unpleasant motivation attributed to Olympias, while similar in ancient sources and modern scholarship, is not identical. Ancient sources tend to depict Olympias as motivated primarily by her difficult personality (they often imply that she liked to make trouble for trouble's sake) and by her natural nastiness, whereas modern scholarship tends to stress vengeance and something very close to madness, despite the fact that no ancient source characterizes Olympias' actions as mad and that very little stress is put on vengeance as her motivation. The actions of male contemporaries of Olympias, however brutal, are narrated in neutral fashion and their motivation is not usually pursued, although apparently it is assumed to be rational if ruthless host of negative adjectives and adverbs and are assumed (although rarely argued) to be emotionally motivated”.

Karanos 3/2020 105

BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

with a very brief outline. Nothing is said here about the polygamy of the Argead Kings6, leading the reader to assume a known structure, that of monogamy and marital relationships in modern times (at least, in Wilcken’s days) and one’s own reality in relation to this important feature in Philip and Olympias’ history, thus provoking a great distance between the understanding of the reader and the distant historical reality the historian has to describe and explain. Although alien to the reader or even to the historian, this historical but distant reality deserves to be dealt with and not being judged in a self-conscious manner in modern or personal terms, and validated as a historical feature of other cultures and times, as valid as our own, through the task and eyes of the historians.

“These pleasant relations between father and son came to an end, when Philip, son after his return from the Congress of Corinth (337), was seized by a passion for a fair Macedonian, Cleopatra, the niece of Attalus, and made her his lawful consort. This implied the repudiation of Olympias, and might ever endanger Alexander’s claim to the succession” (WILCKEN 1967, 59).

As we can see, through the revision of the works of the authors chosen in this paper, the theme of Olympias’ repudiation by Philip is a recurrent one in the interpretation of the facts. Nevertheless, just one of our sources, Justin, an author we can even consider to be of minor value within the collection of ancient historians on Alexander, recorded this information, which is not only dubious in itself but also seems to be the consequence of a specific scheme for conceiving marital relationships, from heteronormal binarism, and mostly from monogamy. Thus, if Philip took a new wife, Cleopatra, she must substitute, in this scheme of conception, from a monogamic point of view, Olympias as the lawful consort. Ancient Macedonian reality seems to have been more complex than this. Likewise, I still wonder about the credibility some historians show concerning the role passion played in Philip’s, or even Alexander’s, love life. Always depicted by Modern historians as a man of cold rationality and manipulative personality, Philip, the genius of military strategy and Politics, is subdued by irrationality when he fell in the arms of love’s effects. This perception of Romantic Love that Wilcken records in the word “passion” invalidates Philip’s self-control or skill, and drives him to a new scenario, if we follow the traditional explanations: to reject Olympias, to start a conflict against Alexander, to call into question Alexander’s succession as his father’s heir, and consequently, the murder of Philip. Passion is thus the ruin of men, according to this stereotypical, oversimplified view of the facts7. If we just look at logical historical interpretation, the son of Cleopatra and Philip who could

6 My friend Mª Engracia Muñoz Santos claimed my attention on the fact that although we know the Macedonian Kings were polygamous, we do not know if polygamy was a common feature in Epirus. If we follow, for example, the genealogical tree of the Molossian Kings made by LÉVEQUE 1957, 85, no clue of polygamy can be traced in the Epirot royal family before Pyrrhus. On the other hand, I guess no one among modern scholarship has tried to understand the impact of the Argead polygamy on those foreign women married with the Macedonian Kings, but a lot of words have been written about how jealousy (i.e., Olympias’) can be a cause to understood and interpret historical facts. On Argead poligamy, cf. GREENWALT 1989; CARNEY 2000; 2015; MÜLLER 2015, 469-475. 7 The idea that the conflict between Olympias and Philip was the cause of the break between father and son drives me to consider this kind of explanations as clearly patriarchal, where historians do not concede to Olympias the public ability to manage her confrontation with her husband by cause of being a woman, needing the intervention of another man, her son, to protect her, arbitrate and fight for her interests. Historians, then, create a scenario of man against man due to a woman. The world is actually full of this kind of simplified explanations, as fictitious as unfair with the complex experience of human life.

Karanos 3/2020 106

TERRIBLE OLYMPIAS. ANOTHER STUDY IN METHOD

endanger Alexander’s succession to the throne of Macedon would be twenty years younger than the crown prince Alexander. On the other hand, the aim of linking Philip’s repudiation of Alexander’s mother with the conflict between father and son again means a transgression of the substantial number of cases throughout the history of Humanity in the relationships between fathers and sons where conflict came from many other reasons different that those caused by how a father threated his mother’s sons. While avoiding focusing on the detailed analysis of the facts, I think that reflections and categorical assessments like those that we find in the explanations of the facts that concern the final relationship between Alexander and his father must be left out, in order to open our mind to broad interpretative options. As historians, we have to be very careful about how we articulate our explanations, evading oversimplification of the reality that we choose to describe. Moreover, if we stop for a while to consider the idea that Alexander’s greatness is a result of the combination of the opposing forces of his parents’ nature, we can note how this interpretation has had a long-lasting impact on historiography. Many years after Wilcken, for example, Margarete Bieber wrote her Alexander the Great in Greek and (1964), where she wrote the same idea as the key to her understanding of Alexander’s personality and image in art:

“The historians describe her [Olympias] as arrogant, meddlesome, fierce, passionate, dramatic, and romantic (Plutarch, Life of Alexander, IX; Arrian, Anabasis, VII, 12). She was an ardent follower of the orphic and bacchic mysteries. She had snakes as pets and let them wind around the sacred staff of . (…) The passionate nature and romantic beauty of the remarkable woman are not expressed in these late minor works of art, but they may be found as her legacy in the portraits of her son Alexander. (…) From his father, Philip, Alexander inherited is military virtues; from his mother, Olympias, he received his fiery and passionate nature, his ambition, his good looks, and romantic personality” (BIEBER 1964, 22-24).

Coming back to Wilcken, finally we can read how he described Olympias’ involvement in Philip’s murder:

“After all that had passed between Philip and Olympias, the suspicion was bound to arise that she either was privy to the murder or had instigated it. Her complicity cannot be at all confirmed, natural as it might seem in the case of so vindicative a character. But we must decidely reject the idea that Alexander was implicated. That is a mere calumny of his enemies” (WILCKEN 1967, 60. My italics).

A character such as Olympias, whom Wilcken described so superficially, with adjectives like demonic and so vindictive,8 can perfectly take on the enormous responsibility of having planned Philip’s murder. Again, passion, and not explanations concerning politics, seems to take control of the interpretation of the facts. Likewise, the double yardstick is worthy of mention: although Alexander’s implication in the conspiracy against his father was a clear calumny of his enemies, Olympias’ participation in the magnicide of her husband was, at least, less dubious. This kind of judgement allows historians to keep maintaining a strong responsibility of Olympias in

8 WILCKEN 1967, 268 got back to the use of the same concept for Olympias: “King Philip Arrhidaeus was murdered by the vindictive Olympias (317)”.

Karanos 3/2020 107

BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

relation to facts that the scholars do not want to attribute to Alexander himself, the hero, at any rate in the historians’ works.

“But he [Alexander] was annoyed, when Olympias, to satisfy her hatred for her rival, murdered the infant daugter, to which Cleopatra had recently given birth, in the arms of her mother, and forced the mother to commit suicide. The conflicts of the past, for which Alexander was not to blame, caused much bloodshed” (WILCKEN 1967, 62-63. My italics).

The innocent Alexander and the bloody, ruthless Olympias. To a certain extent, we face a good example of the Achilles’ complex here. Another idea that must demand our attention is, thus, the pleasure provoked by violence and death to Olympias. There is nothing new in the usual historiographical portrait of the cliché of the demoniac personality of Olympias9. As we can see, the place of Olympias in the academic scholarship on Alexander is very restricted, and she is just mentioned in relation to the shaping of Alexander’s personality and his character, often more for his vices and faults than for his virtues, to which we must also add the conflict between father and son, understood as the reason for Philip’s murder, and lastly the episode of Alexander’s visit to Siwa and his aim of being recognized as Amon’s son.

“The effort of the Greeks to analyse the idea of divine sonship in a rationalistic way led to the tale that Amon himself in the form of his sacred serpent had had intercourse with Olympias. Others again knew that Olympias had confessed this intercourse to her husband Philip, whereupon he repudiated her as an adulteress” (WILCKEN 1967, 129).

Here we can see in Wilcken the shadow of the western tradition about the rational nature of Greek thought, even in a question as irrational as religious feelings and thoughts. This is not the place to deal with this topic, but I want at least to point it out. However, again we can observe the responsibility attributed to Olympias, first in Alexander’s aim to present himself as the son of the god, and secondly in the fact of being repudiated by Philip. Nevertheless, chronological details are not borne in mind here: if Amon had sexual intercourse with Olympias, it had to happen in 357/6 BC, when Alexander was conceived, and nothing seems to allow us to consider any kind of difficulty in the relationship between Philip and Olympias at that time. If she confessed to intercourse with the god to Philip and he decided to reject her because of her adultery, this maybe did not happen until 337/6, during the months preceding Philip’s murder, and no Modern author has studied the fact that in ancient Greek culture this kind of reaction by Philip would probably mean a clear case of hybris, an aggression against the god’s will, which would probably drive Philip to some kind of punishment (as his murder can be understood in the eyes of the Greeks for refusing a woman chosen by a god to have children. Our accounts on mythology contain plenty of this kind of stories). Finally, and mainly, if Alexander visited Siwah in 331, it is possible that the story of his mother’s intercourse with the god would be a result of Alexander’s propaganda during the campaign against Persia, and by no means can this be considered as ever really

9 CARNEY 1993, 30: “Whereas the current historiographical trend in scholarship about the reign of Alexander disdains biography and resists speculation about the motivation of the great conqueror, most of those who deal with Olympias confidently assign motives to her actions, motives which are usually negative and almost always personal rather than political”.

Karanos 3/2020 108

TERRIBLE OLYMPIAS. ANOTHER STUDY IN METHOD

having happened10. All this kind of discussion and evident incoherence in interpreting the account of the conflict between Olympias and Philip does not, however, have any place in many of Alexander’s Modern biographies by brilliant scholars. Oversimplification again subdues the criticism of the data and our knowledge of the facts. Sometimes I have personally considered Wilcken’s book as a breaking point, due to the influence it has had on the Anglo-Saxon scholarship about Alexander. My views often drove me to consider serious distances between Wilcken and the previous German tradition since Droysen. Olympias, in this case, can be considered as an exception, as far as we can trace in Wilcken the steps of what, in his own time, Droysen wrote in his stepping stone about Alexander in Modern Historiography.

“His exact opposite was his wife Olympias, daughter of the Epeirote king Neoptolemos, descended from Achilles. As a young man, Philip had met her at the mysteries celebrated on Samothrace and married her with the permission of her uncle and guardian Arybbas. Beautiful, secretive, glowing with banked fires, she was deeply devoted to the mysterious rites of Orpheus and Bacchos, the dark magical arts of Thracian women. In the nocturnal orgies, it is reported, one saw her leading all the rest in wild enthusiasm, brandishing thyrsos and snake, storming through the mountains. Her dreams reproduced the fantastic images that thronged her mind; in the night before her wedding she dreamt that a powerful thunderstorm was raging around her, that a bolt of lightning flew flaming into her womb and a wild fire shot out and spread farther and farther in consuming flames” (DROYSEN 2012, 62).

Droysen’s portrait of Olympias, which came directly, unfiltered and with no Quellenforschung, from Plutarch, was elaborated from a clearly fictional and fantastic point of view. There was no detailed discussion by Droysen about the Bacchic cults, or about the responsibility of the royal family in relation to these public cults or their functions in the management of collective religious features11, or even about the kind of secret cults that the Ancient Greeks experienced (and here Olympias was not an exception, despite what Droysen seems to insinuate) within the context of mysteric religious practices. The reader is far from being informed about all these details, and the historian let anyone reading understand, from a self-understanding and Eurocentric, bourgeois, normative and patriarchal point of view: the portrait of Olympias is elaborated under this kind of judgement of a woman who did not fit in with the 19th- century ideals of expected feminine behaviour. On the other hand, the tone used to describe Olympias’ relationship with religion and her personality stresses the idea of a possessed woman, a witch, almost mad, with a whimsical mind. We find no warnings about the possibility that many of the stories about Alexander’s conception came from his own propaganda as King, once involved in the war against Persia. Even so, an implicit judgement about feminine pleasure is included here, with this description of the flame and the thunder in her womb, probably provoking the delightful fantasies of Droysen’s male readers who looked more for fantasy than for the facts and truth about what really happened. As I have been pointing out, every one of these assessments and narrative lacks any kind of criticism or specific reflection about the very fictional

10 On Siwah, Amon, Olympias and Alexander, see BOSWORTH 1977; JOUANNO 1995, both with discussion of the main details. 11 See CARNEY 2010b, 46-47.

Karanos 3/2020 109

BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

account of the Ancient authors, which in some points Droysen clearly replicates, as we can see in his words on Philip’s death:

“The crowd breaks up in wild confusion. Everyone is aghast; everything is in ferment. Who shall receive the realm? Who shall save it? Alexander is the king’s first born. But they fear his mother’s wild hatred, toward whom, to please the king, not a few of them have shown contempt and disrespect. She is already in to hold her husband’s funeral; she seems to have suspected these dreadful things, to have known in advance. They say that the murder of the king is her doing and that she kept the horses ready for the murderer. yet another sign that he is and born by black ; that explains the king’s loathing of him and his savage mother” (DROYSEN 2012, 68).

There are so many elements here worthy of comment, all of them far from any kind of aim to explain the facts, and built under a novelistic fantasy, where Olympias rather represents a kind of role, an archetype, than her own historical place and value. We retain the words (fear, wild hatred, dreadful things, black magic, Alexander’s loathing of himself, savage mother) which are used as tools by Droysen to depict her, words that belong more to the historian than to History. Droysen’s historical description of Olympias as a witch and mad, which, however, has very little presence in his book, is a finely constructed character, despite the brief mentions of her to the readers, who have to use the elements in their own perception about women, motherhood, gender and marital relationships to understand her, using the helpful stereotypical parameters of the femme fatale:

“The men recalled the nocturnal orgies Olympias had celebrated in her native mountains; they knew about her magical arts, for which King Philip had put her aside” (DROYSEN 2012, 191).

This Olympia is clearly very close to many other stereotypical Ancient female characters, subdued by tough judgements based on the negative propaganda of the sources, such as Cleopatra or Fulvia. Intriguing Olympias did not feel any respect for the blood ties, says Droysen, although what we know about this kind of relationship does not allow us to accept this kind of interpretation12. Scanty information, and no place for discussion and controversy, comes into play when judging Olympias.

“Alexander’s god-like quality would be ascribed, not to Olympias’s confabulations about his birth, but rather to what Kallisthenes’s own historical work would tell the world” (DROYSEN 2012, 327).

Again, Olympias is held responsible for lying, as she was for intrigues, and our author says nothing about the probable attribution of these stories about the divine claims of Alexander to the pen of Calisthenes, to quote the main example. Olympias is accused of having a kind of agency which, on the other hand, is the reason for the main critics against her, and she is held responsible for everything that can be condemnable. However, neither Alexander nor his close male comrades suffered from such a kind of harsh treatment or judgement.

12 For example, against this kind of views, it is surprising to remember how Olympias took care of Thessalonike, a daughter of Philip with another of his wives (Nicesipolis), a clear clue to her respect for family ties and even a counterpoint to many opinions about her behaviour and personality.

Karanos 3/2020 110

TERRIBLE OLYMPIAS. ANOTHER STUDY IN METHOD

“The secret contact he took up with the Aitolians after his son-in-law Philotas was executed was reason for that had been vested contact he took up with the Aitolians after executed was reason for caution, even if Olympias’s and warnings” (DROYSEN 2012, 397).

Once again, this is a harsh portrait which invalidates and despises Olympias and her opinions. Droysen did not leave aside the question of Argead polygamy, but his explanation once again lacked the necessary complexity for the reader to accept or understand a reality so distant from one’s own, contemporary reality, and he shows here the same interpretative paths that we have noted in Wilcken, with a century between them.

“Illyrian Audata and Elymiot Phila probably died before 357, the year in which Philip married Olympias. Satyros says of the two Thessalian women merely that Philip begat children with them; they therefore were not his lawful wives” (DROYSEN 2012, 443 n. 61).

We again face the cliché of the lawful wife already observed in Wilcken. Although Droysen mentioned the rest of Philip’s wives, his opinion resulted from a monogamous view, with a clear moral judgement of the existence of multiple wives, with no aim to present the complexity of this Argead cultural feature or to validate realities different from one’s own. If we leave here the German, nineteen-century tradition, from Droysen to Wilcken, and we focus our attention on the Anglo-Saxon branch of Historiographical Alexander, the first author of interest to us is W. W. Tarn. Notorious for many idyllic assessments and for the encomiastic tone of his biography about Alexander, the work of Tarn reproduced almost literally most of the aspects and tendencies we already noted until now.

“Though both his parents claimed Greek descent, he certady had from his father, and probably from his mother, some Illyrian, i.e. Albanian, blood13. When his son was thirteen, Philip invited Aristotle to Macedonia to be his tutor; and, so far as his character was influenced by others, it was influenced by Aristotle and Olympias, by a philosopher who taught that moderatio alone could hold a kingdom together1 and by a woman to whom any sort of moderation was unknown. Olympias was proud and terribly passionate, with an emotional side which made her a devotee of the orgiastic worships of Thrace; but she kept her son’s love all his life, and, though he inherited from Philip the solid qualities of capacity for affairs and military talent, his nature was largely hers, though not his mind. For if his nature was passionate, his mind was practical” (TARN 1948, I, 1. My italics).

No more comments need to be added about Tarn’s words to everything that I have just noted in the pages before concerning Wilcken and Droysen. Again, the contrast between body/emotion/passion vs. mind is stressed, as is the opposition between male moderation and female lack of it. Once again, the character or nature of Alexander’s personality is explained as a combination of elements from his father (positive) and his mother (negative). Olympias is still depicted as the fervent, terrible and passional adept to some rites, whose details and kind we hear no explanation about, despite this seems

13 In the same terms, HOGARTH 1897, 163-164.

Karanos 3/2020 111

BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

to deserve great attention if we bear in mind their influence and presence in the life and religious policies of Alexander. Tarn continued:

“Relations between Philip and Olympias had long been strained, for Olympias was not the woman to tolerate Philips harem” (TARN 1949, I,1).

Clearly, we return to a vision of monogamy, and to a very novelistic judgement about Philip’s polygamy and Olympias’ relations with it. Also, the idea of a harem seems more than strange, because it places Philip close to the Great King of Persia, and at the same time stresses his lack of moderation, consequently provoking the immoderate anger of Olympias. Here I can not avoid feeling surprised by the fact that a woman, in a context of masculine polygamy such as that of the Argead Kings, could have felt shocked, after years and years of marriage and of sharing space with other wives of her husband, by the fact that her husband took a new wife, as in the case of Philip and Cleopatra. The contextual historical reality contradicts all these judgements, fabricated once again from the Modern contemporaneity of a perspective that does not leave much place to explain some well-known Macedonian traditions to the readers. Tarn’s judgement about Olympias was harsh and recurrent:

“He [Alexander] left Antipater with (probably) 9,000 foot and a few horses as his general in Europe, to govern Macedonia and Thrace, act as deputy Hegemon of the in his place, supervise the affairs of Greece, and keep Olympias quiet, a more difficult task” (TARN 1948, I, 10).

This is a strange appraisal. According to Tarn, for Alexander to keep his mother under control would have represented a more distressing task than the management of Macedonian rule over Greece and the preparations for the Persian campaign. Such a trivialization, besides devaluating History, the facts we know, our sources and even historical criticism, shows a trivialized picture of Olympias to the reader. This perception is also stressed in Tarn’s description of Alexander after murdering Clitus:

“The son of Olympias was bound to be shaken by devastating gusts of passion; but though this showed in impatience, in irritability, in decisions repented of later, only once, apparently, did he absolutely lose control; then his wrath swept to its goal in total disregard of every other consideration, human or divine” (TARN 1948, I, 123).

We must note here that, in Tarn’s words, the person responsible for the crime was not actually Alexander, but “the son of Olympias”, implying that Olympias was ultimately guilty of Clitus’ death, more than her son, who was actually a victim after being conceived by such a mother14. Despite this harsh treatment by Tarn, in clear coherence with what we have been underlining in other authors, the presence of Olympias in his book is quite small. This little space for Olympias, probably a way of despising her and her importance, is quite shocking if we confront it with the main role the author gave her in Alexander’s personal nature and character. A central example is the work by George Cawkwell

14 Cf. CARNEY 2010a,189-190. On Tarn’s view about Alexander’s sex life, with a close revision of Tarn’s Alexander and full bibliography, see MENDOZA 2021.

Karanos 3/2020 112

TERRIBLE OLYMPIAS. ANOTHER STUDY IN METHOD

about Philip (1978), where Olympias is mentioned in not much more than 4 passages15. Master of masters, Cawkwell did not prove his skills as a researcher in his approach to Olympias, and he must be added to those using simple stereotypical views and generalizations that we have been reviewing in the last pages.

“All monarchies in less advanced societies are liable to the disorders caused by pretenders, but Macedon was particularly vulnerable by reason of the practice of polygamy. Speaking generally, polygamy was not practised in Greece. (…) So polygamy may not have been practised in Macedon by the ruling house alone, where it was regular. Philip had seven wives, none of whom appears to have divorced (save perhaps the mother of Alexander on grounds of adultery). (…) There was of course nothing peculiar to Macedon in such marriages other tan polygamy which allowed the Macedonian Kings more frequently so to marry without offending those previous placated. But polygamy increased the number of heirs to the throne and the rivalry of factions at the court” (CAWKWELL 1978, 23- 24).

The opinion in almost every sentence is clearly negative. Cawkwell did not inquire much, like many others, about female mortality during pregnancy in Antiquity, or neonatal mortality, or many other details of life itself in the time he was studying. The centre of his work, politics and warfare, stays far from daily human life, and Philip can be observed in Cawkwell’s work over 187 pages with almost no place or attention by the historian for the female characters surrounding the Macedonian king. The in this kind of methodology and in Cawkwell’s portrait of Olympias occurs in his account of the murder of Philip, linked by Cawkwell, as usual in the kind of tradition we are reviewing here, to the result of passional emotions, female (Olympias’) jealousy, and, of course, polygamy.

“Philip had seven wives. The sixth was the daughter of a Thracian king and the marriage set the seal of the Thracian campaign of the late 340s. Her arrival at the court in no way incommoded Olympias, who understood the needs of imperial policy. The seventh was different. (…) The marriage was an affair of the heart and instantly menaced the position of Olympias at court, and not only Olympias” (CAWKWELL 1978, 78).

“Olympias, however, was finished with Philip and Philip with her. If she was to regain her power and influence, it could be only when Philip had been replaced by her son” (CAWKWELL 1978, 179).

“There were two direct beneficiaries of the deed [of Philip’s death]. Alexander gained the throne and Olympias regained her influence. So some believed that one or the other incited Pausanias. Olympias was said to have returned promptly enough and publicly honoured the murderer’s corpse, through if she did she may have done so out of gratitude for her return” (CAWKWELL 1978, 180).

15 Cawkwell seems to have followed here the steps of David G. Hogarth’s Philip II and Alexander of Macedon (HOGARTH 1897), in my opinion one of the founders of the English academic research and scientific tradition on Alexander, who scarcely mentioned Olympias in his book (7 mentions in 304 pages!), and when he did it he simply quoted (as Carney pointed out: see n. 18) the ancient sources’ judgements without criticism, depicting Olympias as Jezabel (HOGARTH 1897, 137). On Hogarth, see BORZA 1978; LOCK 1990.

Karanos 3/2020 113

BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

In the next passage, the double yardstick between acts of men (Alexander) and acts of women (Olympias) is powerfully eloquent. Olympias is again portrayed as a bloodthirsty person:

“As one of the first acts of his reign, Alexander had Attalus murdered, just as his mother spilled her spite in the blood of the seventh wife’s baby” (CAWKWELL 1978, 180).

To a certain extent, in his work about Philip, Cawkwell wrote a history of men only, where women like Olympias and others, despite being close and intimate with the protagonists of his account, almost have no place reserved for them. His work can perfectly be marked as the type of traditional history. Perhaps, for this reason, we can observe some distance between him and some of the most relevant authors about Alexander from the 60s and 70s until today, such as R. D. Milns, and , all of them close, at least in their treatment of Olympias, to the scheme we reviewed in Tarn, not so very different actually from that of Droysen or Wilcken. The book by Milns, published in 1968, does not represent any kind of surprise, but just a general continuity for what we stressed in previous authors:

“On the sixth day of the Macedonian month Loüs, 356 (26th July) a son was born to King Philip and his wife Olympias. (…) The marriage between Philip and Olympias had taken place about a year before this. They had met at a celebration of the wild mystery religion that was performed in Samothrace. (…) The two fell in love at the first meeting and requested the consent of Olympias’ guardian to the marriage. Such an Alliance had strong political possibilities for the Epirote King and Arrybas gladly gave his consent” (MILNS 1968, 17).

The position between the infatuation of Philip and Olympias and the background of political utility is notable. Again, the strange use of romance as a historical explanation that seems to enunciate part of the explanation about the relationship between the characters of Olympias and Philip, even in the works of some of the most notorious historians, is absolutely shocking.

“The love-match between Philip and his wife, which Plutarch describes, was not destined to be of lengthily duration. Philip was an excellent general and a shrewd politician, but in his private life was much addicted to drink and to sexual licence. Whatever may have been the Macedonian law of marriage, Philip was not a believer in monogamy, though it must be stated that most of his marriages were of a political nature, formed for the purpose of cementing some desired alliance” (MILNS 1968, 18. My italics).

Evidently, Milns justified the different marriages of Philip, after criticizing his character and his non-monogamous tendencies, but did not warn the readers that this kind of behaviour was common among the Argeads, and not just a result of his Philip’s portray as a dissolute person. A monogamous Argead king would have really been a strange thing. The code of from which the historian looked at the past and its characters has less in common with a complex and honest understanding of the facts, and much to do with the judgement of the present time. The message also invalidates any other option concerning emotional relationships among the many we know in our own days, and when Milns freely criticised other forms of love and relationship in a former time

Karanos 3/2020 114

TERRIBLE OLYMPIAS. ANOTHER STUDY IN METHOD

he was, probably unconsciously, enforcing heteronormativity and monogamy in the way Western and European culture conceives and practises it.

“Through Olympias’ illustrious descent and forceful personality secured her predominance in his harem at least down to 337 – it is likely that she was the legal wife, while the technical status of the others was that of concubine – she was a woman of great pride and a passionate disposition, and it seems probable that she viewed Philip’s marriages and amours with a considerable resentment and wounded vanity. Philip, for his part, found his wife’s domineering and violent nature irksome. Besides, there was something frightening and mysterious in her unrestrained participation in the wild and orgiastic mystery religious. When the rift between the pair began cannot be said; but the hatred which was unleashed by her repudiation in 337 indicates a bitterness and odium on Olympias’ part towards her husband that was not newly formed. Thus the young Alexander was brought up in an atmosphere of mutual dislike between his parents” (MILNS 1968, 19. My italics).

This view of the mysteries as wild, underlined by Milns in his description of Samothrace, is quite distant from most of what we know about ancient mysteric rites. I guess it is a clue for us to show the tendency to confer a passional and emotional, mystic and violent personality on Olympias, very helpful in the way of portraying her with the usual cliché as a person full of hate. Likewise, we return to the contrast between the Modern interpretation about the legal wife and the harem in the matrimonial and sexual relations of the Argead kings16. Lastly, Alexander’s personality is once again depicted as a result of the opposition of his parent’s antagonistic natures. Here, again, Olympia’s influence is clearly considered concerning the negative elements of Alexander’s character.

“Some indication of the influence she exerted over her son’s outlook during his childhood – an influence from which Alexander never completely broke free…” (MILNS 1968, 19).

Indeed, it seemed easier to make Olympias responsible for Alexander’s faults than to attribute to him the real weight of his decision and actions:

“Not only did Olympias encourage Alexander to believe in an outstanding destiny; but she also seems to have tried to turn the boy against his father, perhaps by belittling his achievements and pouring scorn on his moral laxity. Certainly in the later years of Philip’s life there was a deep dislike – even hatred – between father and son, and Alexander himself was eager, when King, to disclaim the parentage of Philip. Olympias, on the other hand, he always held in the deepest respect and admiration and some of her most horrible atrocities were passed over with Little more than a mild rebuke. The reluctance – called by some restraint – that

16 MÜLLER 2015, 470: “This exclusively monogamous view of the Greek writers causes misunderstand- ings of the polygamous structures and erroneous judgments on the legal and social status of the Great King’s wives and children. In Greek eyes, obviously, there could only be one legal wife with legitimate children. More wives with more children disturbed their world view and were considered as in some way illegitimate or at least of lower rank. This seems to be a misunderstanding. Of course, in polygamous structures, wives are ranked according to status. However, all of the women the king had married were his acknowledged wives and all of their children he had acknowledged were legitimate”. As we have seen through these pages, this was not just a common custom of ancient Greek writers, but also of Modern historians.

Karanos 3/2020 115

BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

Alexander showed with regard to sexual matters may well stem from the deep hold that Olympias exerted during the first twelve years of his life and from the dislike of his father she instilled in him. One hesitates to indulge in the technical jargon of modern psychology, but there are many indications in Alexander’s life of the notorious Oedipus complex” (MILNS 1968, 20).

These are tough judgements, and very superficial, that now add a new element to the construction of the historiographical portrait of Olympias and her influence over Alexander: the sexual dimension and the Oedipus’ complex17. Again, in these oversimple interpretations, Olympias is blamed for almost everything wrong in Macedonia. Milns continued along the path of many of the clichés we have already noted on these pages:

“One reason for this unpopularity may have lain in the fact that Alexander was not of pure Macedonian birth, the nobility wanting a full-blooded Macedonian to the throne. (…) The main reason is in all probability the hatred with which the arrogant overbearing Olympias was regarded by the nobility – and Alexander was clearly very much attached to his mother and deeply influenced by her; so much so, that his attitude towards Philip was strongly coloured by Olympias’ detestation of her husband. To the nobility, then, the prospect of Alexander as King, with the dowager Olympias ruling through him, was unbearable” (MILNS 1968, 27).

These statements are actually almost unbelievable to anyone who knows a little about the history we are dealing with here. This is first, as we have stressed, due to the argument of blood, which is unsustainable; second, due to the uncritical fidelity to a corpus of sources heavily loaded with a misogynistic view about women, especially harsh to those who dealt with power; and finally, due to the origin of much of this information, which came from the hostile production against Olympias by her political enemies18. The idea of Milns that the Macedonians could not accept Alexander as their king due to the influence his mother would gain is absolutely shocking. Against it, we must remember the fervent respect the Macedonians showed to Olympias in many occasions, such as the episode of the Battle of Evia clearly shows19. As usual, the ending and highest point of Olympias’ negative portrait crystallise in the account of the murder of Philip:

“In 337 he [Philip] formally divorced Olympias – “a jealous and evil-tempered woman”, as Plutarch calls her – and took as is lawful wife Cleopatra” (MILNS 1968, 27. My italics).

We do not know if a divorce was an option in the royal court of the Argeads, but all the historians we have been analysing followed the dubious information recorded by Justin (Pompeius Trogus), although that this source’s view was strongly conditioned by the Roman view and way of life, with divorces and concrete matrimonial features that

17 About Alexander’s sex life, vid. OGDEN 2010, with bibliography. Cf. also ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ 2010. 18 CARNEY 1993, 31: “Moreover, perhaps because of this unwarranted confidence in ascribing motivation to Olympias, modern scholarship sometimes supplements the already subjective judgments of antiquity. Scenarios and assumptions about Olympias have emerged that have little or no foundation in the ancient evidence”. 19 On this battle, see ZARAGOZÀ 2015.

Karanos 3/2020 116

TERRIBLE OLYMPIAS. ANOTHER STUDY IN METHOD

probably had little in common with what we would find in the Argead kings’ polygamy. On the other hand, here we return (again) to the difficulty of the historians of Alexander to confront and explain polygamy, and the need to always choose a lawful wife of Philip, which irremissibly drives them to the conception of Philip’s marriage with Cleopatra as a substitution of Olympias. To justify this argument of substitution, and in the line of everything we have stressed here, Milns added:

“Olympias had shown as little regard for matrimonial fidelity as her erstwhile husband” (MILNS 1968, 28).

The judgement on female sexuality is opposed here to the acceptance of masculine desire, turning this supposed infidelity of Olympias into a condemnable fact, which finally resulted in great misfortunes and , but Philip’s arguable infidelity is accepted with no further comments. Indeed, we still do not know anything about these infidelities of Olympias (in the text of Milns at least), beyond the fact that they were taken for granted by the historians, although the only possible infidelity known for Olympias would be her intercourse with Amon. I do not want to return to this again, but in my opinion, all these explanations based on causes like this kind of episodes, which had nothing to do with what probably happened, are still incorporated in the modern historical accounts with no reviews or reflections and argued as valid explanations of the facts. We can now observe the question of Philip’s murder:

“Plutarch says that ‘most of the blame devoted upon Olympias, on the ground that she had added her exhortations to the young man’s anger and incited him to the deed; but a certain amount of accusation attached itself to Alexander also”. Justin says that ‘it was also believed that Pausanias had been instigated by Olympias the mother of Alexander, and that Alexander himself was not without knowledge of his father’s murder’. In fact, it does appear highly likely – though, of course, it can never be proved conclusively – that Olympias and Alexander were the forces that impelled Pausanias to the deed” (MILNS 1968, 30-31).

The fact of showing shared responsibility between Olympias and Alexander may perhaps be linked, with the attribution by Milns, to the Oedipus’ Complex of Alexander, another stereotypical explanation that has found some echo even in films. On the other hand, despite this responsibility of Alexander in the death of his father Philip, the description of Olympias after Philip’s death still stresses her violent and vindictive nature:

“Olympias returned to Macedonia, filled with hatred and burning for vengeance. To her savagery Alexander gladly sacrificed Cleopatra, Philip’s recent bride, and her baby daughter” (MILNS 1968, 33).

Among divine, monstrous and savage, Olympias appears as a goddess to whom Alexander offered . Everything is very academic, elaborated from a dubious critical approach. Beyond Philip, in the scarce mentions Milns made of her, Olympias’ image is portrayed in the same usual terms:

“[Antipater], a man who had been the subject of a continuous barrage of complaints and slander by Olympias” (MILNS 1968, 249).

Karanos 3/2020 117

BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

“Alexander’s terrible mother, Olympias, seized control of both Macedonia and Arrhidaeus for a brief while Antipater’s death. After murdering Arrhidaeus and instituting a Reign of Terror against the supporters of Antipater, she was herself put to death by Antipater’s ruthless son, Cassander” (MILNS 1968, 269).

About the end of Olympias’ life, a new element of clearly novelistic invention arises, when Milns stated at some point the idea that only someone worse than her could finally beat Olympias. How sad it is to observe, thus, the unjustified arguments (i.e. “Reign of Terror”) used by Milns and the others to flavour the information transmitted to the reader, unaware of the real complexity that the facts actually had. If we now focus our attention on the work of (1970), a book that enjoyed great prestige and recognition over time, we find the same ingredients in the history of Olympias that we noted before.

“Best to all, on about 20 July, his [Philip’s] wife Myrtale – better known to us by her adopted name Olympias – had given birth to a son: his name was Alexander” (GREEN 1970, 19).

From the very first instance, Olympias (his wife) is a deeply secondary character, in the shadow of a story about men and addressed to them. Green also coincided with his predecessors in his judgement about Argead polygamy, with words that can recall those of Cawkwell and the other authors of this paper’s tradition:

“Feudal societies such as Macedonia, Thrace and (in contrast to the political more develped Greek city-states) operated in a tribal system of kinship and reciprocal obligations. For them dynastic marriage, as an instrument of political self-insurance, stood second only to dynastic murder. (…) During his comparatively short life he [Philip] took no fewer tan five wives” (GREEN 1970, 28).

“In the autumn of 357 the Regent of Macedonia married his Epirot princess. For the first time in his life he found that he had taken on rather more than he could handle. Olympias was not yet eighteen [My italics!], but already, it is clear, a forceful, not to say eccentric, personality. She was, among other things, passionately devoted to the orgiastic rites of Dionysus, and her Maenadic frenzies can scarcely have been conducive to peaceful domestic life. One of her more outré habits was keeping an assortment of large tame snakes as pets. Our sources, while admitting Olympias’ beauty, describe her variously as sullen, jealous, blood- minded, arrogant, headstrong and meddlesome. To these attributes we may add towering political ambition and a quite literally murderous temper. She was determined to be Queen in something more than name: this did not endear her to the Macedonian barons and was later to involve Philip in the most serious crisis of his career” (GREEN 1970, 28).

A slave –like the rest of the authors here– to the sources despite their clear bias and their determining value, every assessment of Green about Olympias, so freely stressed, can be perfectly applied to many other male characters around her, such as Philip or even Alexander, but just in the case of Olympias her behaviour and reactions seem subject to critical judgement.

Karanos 3/2020 118

TERRIBLE OLYMPIAS. ANOTHER STUDY IN METHOD

“Philip decided, wisely, that what with political intrigues and the ubiquitous influence of Olympias, Pella was no place for the young prince at this stage of his career” (GREEN 1970, 39).

“The story does much to discredit that quasi-Freudian element which modern scholars have professed to discover in the relationship between Alexander and Olympias. The truth is less romantic, but of considerable significance for future events. Even at this age Alexander’s one over-riding obsession (and, indeed, his mother’s) was with his future status as King. If he had any kind of Oedipus complex it came a very por second to the burning dynastic ambition which Olympias so sedulously fostered in him” (GREEN 1970, 39-40. My italics).

Even Alexander’s ambition is related to Olympias’ responsibility, and she is also guilty here of the oedipal relation with her son: Alexander is unharmed by Green’s Freudian observation about a complex that, on the other hand, we must recall used to affect sons and not mothers. This fact is, however, beyond Green’s perception. The clichés of our tradition can be seen in Green’s words.

“His [Alexander’s] claim to succession remained beyond challenge – until, that is, Philip suddenly put away Olympia son the grounds of suspected adultery, and began to encourage rumours that Alexander himself was illegitimate. At this point his latest marital adventure took on a new and ominous complexion” (GREEN 1970, 56).

Again, Green’s opinions and reflections followed the steps of the previous authors. Likewise, what is reprehensible in a woman is not evaluated in the same tone in a male:

“Philip, as we have seen, never confused marriage with mere casual amours. Even if Cleopatra, like Anne Boleyn, held out for marriage or nothing20, there was still no conceivable reason why Philip should repudiate Olympias much less Alexander, whom he had spent nearly twenty years in training as his chosen successor. There is one motive, and one only, which could have riven Philip to act as he did: the belief –whether justified or not – that Alexander and Olympias were engaged in a treasonable plot to bring about his overthrow. (…) So much seems clear. But the crucial point for the modern reader is whether or not Philip’s suspicions were in fact justified, and here the only possible veredict is ‘non-proven’. At the same time, it is not hard to see how such suspicions could have been arisen. From the very beginning, Olympias had encouraged Alexander to think of himself as King in his own right, rather than as Philip’s eventual successor. This, we need not doubt, was the main source of those ‘great quarrels’ between father and son, which the Queen’s jealous temper actively encouraged, and in which she invariably took Alexander’s side” (GREEN 1970, 62. My italics).

Once again, Olympias is solely responsible, guilty due to her temperament, according to Green, for every bad thing in Philip and Alexander’s history, with special attention to the conflicts between father and son. These stereotypical observations about Olympias, repeated almost verbatim in the authors mentioned, acquired an aggravated tone in the work of Robin Lane Fox, published for the first time in 1974, a true benchmark in Alexander’s scholarship, the

20 A clear example of the academic inability to explain Argead polygamy: Anne Boleyn’s case is not comparable to the case of Philip’s women, because he did not need to divorce to marry again (!).

Karanos 3/2020 119

BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

best-seller among the biographies about Alexander21. To begin with, we can trace how Lane Fox used the same traditional elements and explanations we have noted in this paper:

“Olympias was a woman of wild emotion, who would later show no scruple in murdering the family rivals who threatened her” (LANE FOX 2004, 23).

The wild emotions of Olympias’ depiction in Lane Fox made her the perfect scapegoat for any responsibility at a political level, exonerating Alexander. This provoked a new brutal assessment against the queen mother:

“He [Alexander] was living under the disgrace of Olympias’s dismissal” (LANE FOX 2004, 23).

“She was asking a high Price of his [Alexander’s] patience in return for the nine months she had taken to bear him. There can be no doubt that Alexander’s mother was both violent and headstrong. She was seldom, however, without provocation” (LANE FOX 2004, 45. My italics).

“The influence of this highly emotional character on Alexander’s development can be guessed but never demonstrated” (LANE FOX 2004, 45. My italics).

Alexander is here understood as a victim of the disgrace he had to suffer from having a mother like Olympias. There is a strong tendency about the idea of “bad mothers” which affected Olympias in historiographical terms, with a traceable history in Modern Historiography about Alexander22.

“Eurycide [Cleopatra] was a Macedonian, and an affair of the heart; children from a Macedonian girl, not a foreign Epirote princess, could upset Olympias’s plans for her own son’s succession, and as soon as the two wives’ families had met for the wedding banquet, that very suggestion had been voiced by Eurydice’s uncle (…). It seemed now for Olympias to return to her old authority” (LANE FOX 2004, 18).

The explanation about Philip’s marriage with Cleopatra as a consequence of love is poor, as we have already seen. If we also review the murder of Philip, we see that Lane Fox blamed Olympias in order to justify possible territorial links between her and the killer Pausanias, although the argument absolutely lacked historical reliability:

“But Epirus was Olympias’s home and place of refuge: she could claim past kinship with Pausanias’s people, accessible even in her exile, and she might not have found it hard to work on a nobleman whom Philip had recruited away from his local friendships” (LANE FOX 2004, 22).

21 Badian harshly criticise the dubious scholar quality of the book. Cf. BADIAN 1976, 230: “There is not a chapter without similar gross errors and . This book astoundingly fails to fulfil its announced purpose. The author has neither the training nor the inclination for serious scholarship. Despite the displays of “erudition” and the arrogant polemics against scholars whose work he appropriates, this is essentially “a good yarn”, though rather long: an adventure story mid-way between historical journalism and ”. 22 CARNEY 2010a, 189.

Karanos 3/2020 120

TERRIBLE OLYMPIAS. ANOTHER STUDY IN METHOD

Here, Lane Fox avoided offering the reader information about the many other cases when Argead kings were killed by close relatives, so similar to Philip’s murder, or a critical portrait about the territorial relationships within the kingdom of Macedonia, and nonetheless the author ventured to formulate a strange familiarity between Epirots and the people of Upper Macedonia, like Pausanias, reinforcing Olympias’ involvement in Philip’s death. This is a clue to the long path of the clichés, with their long shadow23.

“For Olympias, the murder had been timed and planned ideally” (LANE FOX 2004, 22).

Once more, Olympia is presented as the main party guilty for Philip’s death, although she did not hold the weapon. Of course, the consequence of this assessment is the exoneration of the rest of the characters involved, even the murderer himself, free from any kind of penalty or negative view. All this weight falls, with not much justification and a great deal of literature, on Olympias. Despite what seems to be evident, i.e. that it was Alexander who mostly benefited from his father’s death, Lane Fox prefered to maintain the tone against his mother:

“Arguments from timing and benefit make Olympias’s guilt a probability, Alexander’s only a speculation” (LANE FOX 2004, 24).

“It is Olympias who remains most suspect; her guilt will never be proved, and the role of her son should not be guessed, but it isa ll too plausible that Philip was murdered by the wife he tried to discard” (LANE FOX 2004, 25).

Passion and love affairs are again the key elements in this historical explanation of the facts, when we deal with Olympias, as we can read in the first attempt by Lane Fox to describe the marriage liaison with Philip.

“There was also a dispute about his [Alexander’s] parents. Much of this was posthumous legend; later fitted Alexander into their own line of kings by a story that Olympias had visited the Persian court, where the King made love to her and then sent her back to Macedonian because her breath smell appallingly bad. There was more to the argument that nationalist romance, Olympias, it was said, probably by Alexander’s own court historians, spread wild stories about the manner of Alexander’s birth and referred his origins to a god: this will raise acute problems later in his life, but for the moment it is enough to remember that Olympias was a divorced woman who might well disown the husband who betrayed her. Her past behaviour and her character, itself a problem, make this only too plausible” (LANE FOX 2004, 44. My italics).

23 CARNEY 1993, 35-36: “Not all the problems with hostility toward Olympias lie in the sources, nor does the nature of the sources explain why they have so frequently been read uncritically. We must recognize the fact that the image of the virago remains an extremely potent one in our own culture and it is very hard to give up a figure we so love to hate. The likes of the traditional figure of Olympias can be found virtually any night on television soap , wearing shoulder-pads, scheming, and making the plot go. In the past women so depicted were often royal –Eleanor of Aquitaine for instance– for because royal women were often the only prominent women and certainly the only ones with a modicum of political power. What we have here is a kind of topos, which like many other topoi continues to have powerful appeal. I shall refrain from considering exactly why we continue to be troubled by the association of women with power and why stereotypes associated with such women persist, but it is essential that we recognize and resist this fatal attraction”.

Karanos 3/2020 121

BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

For any researcher who has studied Alexander’s lifetime in depth, the paragraph sounds like pure fantasy, making some very condemnable judgements that stress the idea of historical reality (the assessment of Olympias as a separated woman is actually an authentic summum) that clearly intended to assure certain moral norms about life in present times, which are indeed not only reprehensible but absolutely inappropriate from someone like Lane Fox, who considers himself an academic. From the point of view chosen by Lane Fox, to abandon the path of what really happened and enter this fantasy requires just one more step:

“Olympias was an orphan under her uncle’s guardianship when Philip first met her; they caught each other’s eye, so the story went, while they were being initiated into a mystery religion of underworld demons [My italics!] on the island of Samothrace; falling in love, they promptly married” (LANE FOX 2004, 44).

Love, which leads to passion, is the common thread to understand the relationship24. However, to someone who knows not much about the mysteries of Samothrace, to read Lane Fox’s description of them as dedicated to underworld demons surely has the effect of feeding a negative idea (demons) that lately would fall directly on Olympias, leaving Philip unharmed:

“stories of her wild behaviour multiplied beyond the point of verification. They turned, mostly, on religion. Worship of Dionysus, Greek god of nature’s vital forces, had long been established in Macedonia, and the processions which led to the slaughter of a goat and the drinking of its blood, or even in extreme cases to a human sacrifice, were nothing new to the women of the country. To the Greeks, Olympia was known as a devoted Bacchant, or reveller in the god’s honour, and there must be truth in their exaggerations; she would lead the processions herself, and on Philip’s Macedonian coins, as never before, the portrait of Heracles, ancestor of the kings, is often combined with the grapes and cups of Dionysus, a deity honoured in Macedonia but surely also a reference to the religious preferences of the queen. (…) Again, there is truth in this, for according to , Olympias kept her own pet snake, and snake-handling is a known practice in the wilder sorts of Greek religion. (…) ‘Whereas others sacrifice tens and hundreds of animals’, wrote Aristotle’s most intelligent pupil, ‘Olympias sacrifices them by the thousand or ten-thousand’. Theophrastus would have known Olympias personally, and although he had cause to slander her his remark confirms her strong attachment to religious ritual which letters and stories of doubtful authorship suggest. On Alexander this example would not be wasted. His mother’s wild mysticism was also combined with a quarrelsome temper and a reputation, at least partly deserved, for atrocity, certainly, she quarrelled with royal officials and other women of the family, and whatever the truth of Philip’s murder, she showed herself as capable as any other Macedonian of killing family rivals who threatened her. The methods and numbers of these murders were enlarged upon by Greek gossip, whereas in Macedonia they were not inexplicable, but here too gossip was founded on truth” (Lane Fox 2004, 44-45. My italics).

24 MÜLLER 2015, 470: “political reasons are almost completely neglected by the Greek and Roman sources that tend to ascribe personal reasons to the kings who were polygamous: an enormous and perverted sex drive (a common feature of the Greek image of the tyrant who lacks sophrosyne). Very often, the polygamous kings are depicted as fools for love (often as too old to fall in love and marry and thus even more out of control) whose women exercise considerable and devastating influence on them”.

Karanos 3/2020 122

TERRIBLE OLYMPIAS. ANOTHER STUDY IN METHOD

The text, that would probably deserve a great level of comments, places us, with a fierce aim, in the framework of the clichés that we have been describing, with no use of critical judgement or contextual reflection. Again, Olympias appears, in the usual negative fashion, as related to religion, and this leads us to the question of Alexander and Amon:

“‘Alexander’s fame’, wrote Callisthenes, very probably, ‘depends on me and history, not in the lies which Olympias spread about his parentage’. The lies, then, were a fact” (LANE FOX 2004, 214).

Here we can definitively see part of Lane Fox’s hermeneutic methodology: he quoted Callisthenes, although he casted some doubts saying saying “very probably”, inviting us to believe that this was what he really wrote. However, no specific quotation of the sources was included, and due to this, the statement seems to be more a result of Lane Fox’s rhetoric than of the surviving written evidence about Alexander from Antiquity. Nevertheless, although this rhetoric was not based on historical proof, Lane Fox infered that Olympias’ lies were indeed a real fact. Literature is here dressed up as History in order to mislead itself, and consequently, also the reader.

“Though mother of a promising son, she had been dismissed from court in favour of a noble Macedonian wife and she had seen her son’s succession threatened. Like Dionysus’ mother, she was a foreigner; she was also a queen of heroic ancestry in her own right. Disappointed in her marriage or keen to assert her superiority over Philip’s many other women, she might well have spread a story that her son was special because he owed nothing to Philip and was child of the Greek god Zeus. Sexual knowledge in the ancient world was not enough to refute her, for the role of the female in conception was unknown, as it remained until the nineteenth century, and if mares in Thessaly could be believed to conceive through he agencies of a brisk west wind there was no reason why the queen of Macedonia could not have been visited by Zeus in equivalent disguise. The kings and heroes of myth and of Homer’s epic were agreed to be children of Zeus: Alexander, like many, may have come to believe of himself what he had begun reading of others. (…) Psychologists, too, would willingly see Alexander’s love for Hephaistion as a search for a father-figure, later found in Zeus” (LANE FOX 2004, 215-216).

Leaving aside the oversimplification of Alexander’s homosexuality, treated here by Lane Fox as a psychological complex, in a mockery of Freudian tone, the weight of the criticism was still on Olympias, on whom absolute responsibility always falls, even when we deal with those beliefs of her son that Modern historiography can hardly handle. The entire book is full of fantasy, and at least in the aspect we deal with here, a high level of misinterpretation and falsity is present, mostly in Olympias’ portrait, in order to give rise to a harsh image of her which, on a terminological level, coincides so much with what we have noted in the rest of our authors. Nevertheless, the degree of interpretative licences taken by Lane Fox is very impressive, such as when he assured that Olympias was the Queen of Macedonia during Alexander’s absence:

“His mother Olympias was to act as Macedonia’s queen” (LANE FOX 2004, 91).

“Their surplus was sent to Olympias as queen of Macedonia” (LANE FOX 2004, 123).

Karanos 3/2020 123

BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

“Olympia the queen regent” (LANE FOX 2004, 147).

“While Olympias was queen and Antipater mere general” (LANE FOX 2004, 452).

In my opinion, our information from the sources does not allow us to sustain this kind of statements. To some degree, Lane Fox seems very far away from what we can read in the ancient authors. The interpretative licences of Lane Fox, however, show us how not only is the path of the clichés about Olympias have been maintained over time, but also it is continued, mostly word by word, in later authors of more recent years, in the English Historiography on Alexander, as we can see for example in the case of Paul Cartledge and his Alexander the Great. The Hunt for a New Past (2004), which came back to the same steps of the tradition with which we are dealing:

“Fingers of suspicion were pointed at Philip’s estranged wife Olympias, Alexander’s mother, and indeed at Alexander himself, perhaps with some reason” (CARTLEDGE 2004, 13).

“Beginning at the beginning, we may wish to especulate –there is no other way– about the characteristics, aptitudes and predilections Alexander inherited from his parents, Philip and Olympias. Here, for example, is Plutarch on the latter’s alleged enthusiasm for ecstatic religious mysticism...” (CARTLEDGE 2004, 19).

“Or perhaps Alexander suffered from a repressed Oeipus complex (his relationship with his mother is one of the great unresolved puzzles of his life). This at any rate is more plausible than the suggestions that he was either impotent or/and a preferred homosexual” (CARTLEDGE 2004, 19).

“More important to him that women, or than sex with women anyway, was his religion. Alexander was the classic daisidaimôn (Superstitious Man)” (CARTLEDGE 2004, 20).

“Both the neutral and the hostile sources paint a picture of Alexander as degenerating morally throughout his reign” (CARTLEDGE 2004, 20).

“And Philip’s union of body ith Olympia is thought, plausibly, to have had something to do with Alexander’s own peculiarly potent combination of leadership qualities and passionate mysticism. On the other hand, the disunion of hearts between his parents was to lead to his estrangement from his father - a threat, as he apprehended it, to his succession to the Macedonian throne. And it probably also helped to foster a permanent deep-seated sense of insecurity for which he compensated in a variety of ways, not all of them pleasant or positive” (CARTLEDGE 2004, 50).

“His mother Olympias would have done nothing to discourage the idea [of Alexander?] that he [Alexander] was destined by heaven as well as by nature to succeed Philip –not least because this put her in the position of senior among Philip’s several (eventually seven in all) wives and queens” (CARTLEDGE 2004, 50).

“It is at least worth considering the hypothesis – graphically depicted by the novelist - that he was put off the act by the sight of his hirsute, battle-

Karanos 3/2020 124

TERRIBLE OLYMPIAS. ANOTHER STUDY IN METHOD

scared, one-eyed father making violent love [My italics] to his mother. Alternatively, as already suggested, Alexander – appropriately for one who modelled himself on the Greek heroes of the mythical past – may have suffered from a repressed Oedipus complex”. (CARTLEDGE 2004, 207).

“On the other hand, there is equally no proof that Alexander was impotent, or a preferred homosexual”. (CARTLEGDE 2004, 207. My italics).

“(…) If sex did not thrill Alexander, religion certainly did. This facet of is character may well have been, in significant part, an inheritance from Olympias” (Cartledge 2004, 208. My italics).

In Cartledge, as in the other authors within our scope, Alexander’s personality was explained as a result of his parent’s mixed natures. Thus, his deep religious feeling and his supposed sexual behaviour were the responsibility of his mother, and her influence on Alexander is shown as clearly dangerous and harmful. We can also note a lack of the required accuracy in the explanations about the character of Olympias or even the Macedonian royal system and its forms of succession. Although we could still observe many other authors or works, much of what we would probably find is the same as what we have been commenting here. On the other hand, although many of the authors under our analysis were well-known and notorious scholars on Alexander, I would like to look for some hope in the main masters on Ancient Macedonia during the XXth Century, such as, for example, N. G. L. Hammond or A. B. Bosworth, in order to see if they also oversimplified the complex historical character of Olympias. In this respect, Hammond indeed exposed the lack of value of many of the clichés we have been showing here:

“In writing about the Macedonians we have to be on our guard against using modern terms which imply modern standards of outlook and criticism. Thus it is too easy to label the powers of a Macedonian king as tyrannical, whereas they were in historical fact constitutional; to condemn Philip as profligate for taking a seventh wife in the hope of another heir, unless we recall that the only competent heir, Alexander, had led the cavalry charge at Chaeronea and was expected to lead others in Asia; to select one wife as queen and call the others prostitutes, as Greek writers did; and to speak of divorce between Philip and Olympias, the mother of Alexander, when she withdrew to the Molossian court m Epirus”. (HAMMOND 1989, 16).

“The love-life of royalty attracts the sensationalist writer of every period. That of Philip and his seven or eight wives is no exception, and some of the stories about them deserve as much credit as a modern strip-cartoon” (HAMMOND 1989, 35- 36)25.

25 So similar to ELLIS 1976, 62: “In a polygamous situation there is no need to assume that she replaced Philip’s existing wives, Phila, Audata and Philinna; neither the morality nor the politics of the occasion demanded it. (...) Olympia was later to enjoy the superior status accorded the mother of the heir apparent”; 212: “Out of a wish to preserve for Olympias a position befitting the mother of Alexander the Great, commentators have commonly attempted to introduce artificial distinctions between ‘wives’ and ‘mistresses’. Philip’s morals have been more questionable than Alexander’s birth! Thus we often find the notion that when Philip married Kleopatra (which cannot be doubted) he must previously have ‘divorced’ Olympias, who (in turn) must hitherto have been his only surviving wife, her predecessors having conveniently died, been divorced into obscurity or been really concubines all along. The difficulty

Karanos 3/2020 125

BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

“Ancient and modern writers have studied various aspects of Alexander’s personality. His sexual life, for instance, has been the subject of wild speculation. Some have supposed that his closeness to his mother and his continence in the presence of Darius’ mother, wife, and daughters were signs of sexual impotence; others just the opposite, that he travelled with a harem which provided him with a different girl each night of the year; and others that he had homosexual affairs with herds of eunuchs, Hephaestion, Hector, and a Persian boy. The truth is not attainable nor of much importance; for in the Macedonian court homosexual and heterosexual attachments were equally reputable, and the sexual life of Philip, for instance, seems to have had no effect on his achievements in war and politics. Disappointingly for sensationalist writers Alexander’s relations with women seem to have been normal enough for a Macedonian king” (HAMMOND 1989, 269).

“Justin 9.5.8-9.6.8 and 9.7.1-3 reported the divorce of Olympias for suspected sexual depravacy (‘ropter stupri suspitionem’), the subsequent marriage of Philip to Cleopatra, the assassination of Philip by Pausanias, the background of Pausanias’ action, and the ‘belief’ (‘creditum est’) that Pausanias had been instigated by Olympia, not without the knowledge of Alexander. (...) What is the value of such analyses? A modern writer who accepts all the material in Diodorus and Justin at its face value has no criterion of judgement but simply chooses those details, incidents and comments which appeal to his concept of probability and his sense of what Philip intended and could have achieved. His version is inevitably subjective” (HAMMOND 1994, 14-15).

“Many features of the Macedonian court seemed strange to city-state Greeks. Whereas they were monogamous, the king was polygamous. He married ‘with war in mind’, or as we should say with policy in mind, since we are not almost continually at war. For that reason he usually married members of a foreign dynasty. His wives were all queens, and is children by them were all princes and princesses. Philip had taken four wives – none from the old kingdom – by 357. is that we have no shred of evidence for such a distinction between these liaisons, or, in the one instance for which we have much evidence at all, any sign that Olympias was divorced in order to make room for Kleopatras”; 215: “The question remains: why did Philip decide to take a new wife? Did he conceive a grande passion for a young girl, and, since she was too well born to take second place, find himself obligated to divorce Olympias, the mother of the next king? This will not do. (...) To accept the view that Philip moved [marring Kleopatra] to replace his son because he suspected the youth and his mother of plotting to overthrow him follows largely from the prior assumption that they were plausibly incriminated later in his assassination; and, while circumstantial case may be made out for the latter, the former does not accord well with Philip’s own actions during the previous or following months”. Ellis is probably the most objective observer in the topics about Olympia, and he also dealt with the evidence from Justin about Olympia’s divorce, in 303, n. 12: “In the ancient world [Philip and Olympia’s divorce is recorded] only by Justin (9.5.9, 7.2, 11.11.5), but when here in not implying divorce in any modern sense), n. 20 (“Justin refers at 9.5.9 to the banishment of Olympias on suspicion of adultery (expulsa... Olympiade propter stupri suspicionem) and at 9.7.2 to her resentment over her repudium and the preferent of Kleopatra. At 11.11.3ff. he alleges that Alexander consulted the oracle of Ammon in 332/1 to inquire inter alia into his own birth, and explains this as the result of Philip’s denial of paternity and his divorce of Olympias for adultery. But, first, Arrian (3.3.2), Diodoros (17.51.3) and Curtius (4.7.27ff.), who all refer to the same incident, interpret the request quite differently – as an inquiry into his divine descent, not his immediate paternity. Justin’s rationalization therefore appears to be an interpolation designed to explain a query which was misunderstood in the first place. Secondly, debatable as the facts of Philip’s last year or so may be, it is absolutely impossible to credit that he denied paternity, which, apart from being Justin’s explicit affirmation, is in any case implicit in a charge of adultery against Olympias. Thirdly, the only sources we have for the time in question (and these admittedly are poor) have Olympias in Macedon during the wedding festivities, which strongly suggest that she had not been repudiated: Plu. Alex. 9.5; Justin 9.7.)”.

Karanos 3/2020 126

TERRIBLE OLYMPIAS. ANOTHER STUDY IN METHOD

Before he died, he took three or four more, of whom only one was of the old kingdom. Philip has ‘many sons recognised in accordance with royal custom’. The leading lady at court was the Queen Mother. She played a prominent part in public life, as we have seen in the case of Philip’s mother, Eurydice. The mother of the king’s chosen heir might have herself airs, as Olympias probably did but her position was still unofficial” (HAMMOND 1994, 40-41).

Finding such a demonstration of methodological accuracy and interpretative warnings is a calming balsam that feeds hope. However, our hopes quickly vanish when we read Hammond’s treatment of the facts where Olympias is involved, where he fell again into the usual clichés:

“so Olympias, the legitimate wife’ (HAMMOND 1994, 172).

“to judge from the passionate and violent emotions and behaviour of Olympias in later life (…). His [Alexander] mother’s tears mattered most, and he went with her to Molossia. The previous trust between father and son was replaced wth suspicion” (Hammond 1994, 173. My italics).

“Alexander and his jealous mother, Olympias” (HAMMOND 1989, 36).

“The story [about the ‘Pixodarus’ affair’] ran that Olympias got wind of this, worked Alexander into a fit of jealousy and suggested that Philip was making the half-wit his heir.” (HAMMOND 1989, 65).

Compared with Hammond, Bosworth has usually been considered as an intense reviewer of the perception of Alexander. Nevertheless, in his brilliant Conquest and Empire (1988), an immediate masterpiece in Historiography on Alexander, Bosworth paid scarce attention to Olympias, something that seems quite strange and, when she appears in the book, the critical skills of Bosworth seem to be disallowed, and again clichés appear:

“Unashamedly polygamous, Philip…” (BOSWORTH 1988, 6).

“That situation changed abruptly in 337, when Philip decided on another dynastic marriage, this time to a lady of Macedon proper: Cleopatra (…). She was also (it is alleged) married for love, not for political reasons (as was the Elimiote princess Phila, the only other wife of Philip who could be said to be of Macedonian extraction). That alienated Olympias, and a deep rift developed in the royal house. It was an insult direct, aimed at Olympias’ marital fidelity and also her non- Macedonian origins” (BOSWORTH 1988, 21).

“Alexander’s mother had returned from her self-imposed exile in Epirus at the news of Philip’s death12 and was less inhibited in showing her satisfaction at the event. While Alexander was temporarily away from the capital she barbarously did to death both infant and mother” (BOSWORTH 1988, 27).

After this brief survey of contemporary tradition, mainly through English-speaking production, about Olympias, we realize first the clichés we have been noting through these pages, and their validity in many works of recognized success, both for public audiences and academic scholarship, up to the present day. We can consider these views about Olympias to be a clue to the usual perception of women –ancient and modern– in

Karanos 3/2020 127

BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ

history (at least), produced during the XIXth and XXth centuries as a result of the mentalities of their authors’ own times. However, it is indefensible, at least in my opinion, to keep maintaining these views, in close continuity with those of the previous authors, in our own days, and to perpetuate them in the books and thoughts of our own age, in an acritical interpretation. Secondly, through these pages it seems evident how Olympias and the historical accounts about her, affected by apriorism and Modern conceptions on gender, are not only useful to sustain poorly elaborated images and archetypes about her and her son Alexander, but also to show discourses in which women are subdued in History, and to maintain a traditional view about the forms and kinds of relationships of gender models, to perpetuate them in our present daily life.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ, B. (2010): “El Alejandro homoerótico. Homosexualidad en la corte macedonia”, Klio 92: 331-343. — (2014): “World is not enough. Alexander the Great in Sogdiana: A study in Historiography”, in B. ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ – J. VIDAL (eds.): Central Asia in Antiquity: Interdisciplinary Approaches, Oxford: 77-84. — (2018): “La religión de los antiguos persas en las filosofías de la historia”, Rihao 19: 81-91. — (2020): El mundo helenístico en la guerra fría”, in C. NÚÑEZ – C. SIERRA (eds.): La influencia de Marx y el marxismo en los estudios sobre la Antigüedad, Buenos Aires: 97-115. ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ, B.; ZARAGOZÀ, C. (2019): “Los persas como esclavos en la historiografía”, in A. ALVAR (ed.): Historiografía de la esclavitud, Madrid: 207- 220. BADIAN, E. (1958): “The Eunuch Bagoas: A Study in Method”, CQ 8: 144-157. — (1976): “[Review] R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great”, JHS 96: 229-230. BIEBER, M. (1964): Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art, Chicago. BORZA, E. N. (1978): “. Eighty Years After”, AncW 1: 94-101. BOSWORTH, A. B. (1977): “Alexander and Amon”, in K. H. KINZL (ed.): Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in and Prehistory, Berlin–New York: 51-75. BOSWORTH, A. B. (1988): Conquest and Empire, Cambridge. CARNEY, E. (1993): “Olympias and the Image of the Virago”, Phoenix 47: 29-55. — (1994): “Olympia, Adea Euridice, and the End of the Argead Dynasty”, in I. WORTHINGTON (ed.): Ventures into Greek History, Oxford: 357-380. — (2000): Women and Monarchy in Macedon, Norman. — (2006): Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great, New York–London. — (2010a): “Alexander and his ‘Terrible Mother’”, in W. HECKEL – L. A. TRITLE (eds.): Alexander the Great. A New History, Oxford: 189-202.

Karanos 3/2020 128

TERRIBLE OLYMPIAS. ANOTHER STUDY IN METHOD

— (2010b): “Putting Women in Their Place Women in Public under Philip II and Alexander III and the Last Argeads”, in D. OGDEN – E. CARNEY (eds.): Philip II and Alexander the Great. Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives, Oxford: 43-53. — (2015): “The Politics of Polygamy: Olympias, Alexander and the murder of Philip”, in E. CARNEY, King and Court in Ancient Macedonia, Swansea: 167-188. CARTLEDGE, P. (2004), Alexander the Great. The Hunt for a New Past, London. CAWKWELL, G. (1978): Philip of Macedon, London. DROYSEN, J. G. (2012), History of Alexander the Great, Philadelphia. ELLIS, J. R. (1976): Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism, London. FINLEY, M. (1983): Politics in the Ancient World, Cambridge. GREEN, P. (1970), Alexander the Great, New York & Washington. GREENWALT, W. S. (1989): “Polygamy and Succession in Argead Macedonia”, Arethusa 22: 19-45. HAMMOND, N. G. L. (1989): Alexander the Great. King, Commander and Statesman, London. — (1994): Philip of Macedon, London. HOGARTH, D. G. (1897): Philip II and Alexander the Great, New York. JOUANNO, C. (1995): “Alexandre et Olympias: de l’histoire au mythe”, BAGB 3: 211- 230. LANE FOX, R. (2004), Alexander the Great, London. LÉVEQUE, P. (1957): Pyrrhos, Paris. LOCK, P. (1990): “D. G. Hogarth (1862-1927): ... A Specialist in the of Archaeology”, ABSA 85: 175-200. MENDOZA, M. (2021): “Alexander the Straight: W. W. Tarn and Alexander’s sexuality”, in B. ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ – M. MENDOZA (eds.): Historiographical Alexander. Approaches to the Historiography on Alexander the Great during the XIXth and mainly XXth Centuries, Wiesbaden: [in print] MILNS, R. D. (1968), Alexander the Great, London. MÜLLER, S. 2015: “A History of Misunderstandings? Macedonian Politics and Persian Prototypes in Greek Polis-Centered Perspective”, in R. ROLLINGER – E. VAN DONGEN (eds.): in the Ancient World. Impact, Continuities, Parallels Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium of the Melammu Project Held in Obergurgl, , November 4–8, 2013, Münster: 459-480. OGDEN, D. (2010): “Alexander’s Sex Life”, in D. OGDEN – E. CARNEY (eds): Philip II and Alexander the Great. Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives, Oxford: 203-217. TARN, W. W. (1948): Alexander the Great, Cambridge. WILCKEN, U. (1967), Alexander the Great, New York. ZARAGOZÀ, C. (2015): “La presència d’elements dionisíacs a la batalla d’Evia (317 a.C.)”, in J. VIDAL – B. ANTELA (eds.): Guerra y Religión en el Mundo Antiguo, Zaragoza: 123-134.

Karanos 3/2020 129

Karanos 3, 2020 131-158

Historiografía y arqueología greco-bactrianas: Una breve guía*

by Marc Mendoza Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona [email protected]

ABSTRACT The Greco-Bactrian kingdom is probably the most unknown of the main Hellenistic realms by the public and a significant part of the academic community. The contributions to this field by Spanish-speaking researchers has been anecdotal in comparison with other historiographical traditions. This paper aims to be an initiation guide in Spanish with the objective to provide resources (with abundant bibliography) to any researcher who looks for a first approach to these studies. Since its beginnings as a numismatic office work (with the foundational work by T. S. Bayer) to the current multiplicity of archaeological projects, this article tries to show a complete view of the historical evolution of this discipline and how the geopolitical changes in Central Asia have influenced it.

KEYWORDS Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, Central Asia, Hellenism, Historiography, Archaeology.

HISTORIOGRAFÍA

Cuando desapareció el Reino Greco-Bactriano en la segunda mitad del s. II aC, su recuerdo inició un largo periplo por las sombras de la historia, que no se empezaron a disolver hasta la primera mitad del siglo XVIII. Las fuentes antiguas son bastante escasas en sus menciones a los diferentes avatares que marcaron la breve, pero convulsa existencia de este reino helenístico en los confines del mundo conocido por los griegos. De ellas solamente se puede extraer la existencia de siete reyes y algunos episodios puntuales que surgen tangencialmente a raíz de intereses no suscitados directamente por Bactria.

* Este artículo realiza su última actualización en abril de 2020, por lo que no se recoge bibliografía posterior a esa fecha. Aunque el objetivo es hacer un recogido exhaustivo resulta inevitable pasar por alto algún trabajo o proyecto, especialmente los de fecha más reciente. El objetivo de este trabajo es el de constituir una guía útil en lengua castellana para cualquier investigador que quiera iniciarse en el estudio de este ámbito, ya sea a nivel general o con un interés más específico. Así mismo, también remitimos a otras publicaciones que han abordado, desde diferentes enfoques este campo de investigación, para completar este acercamiento. Una historia completa de la investigación puede leerse en HOLT 2012. Con un carácter más bibliográfico: MAIRS 2011 (vid. n. 41). Enfocado exclusivamente en la numismática: GLENN 2016. En castellano, vid. GÓMEZ ESPELOSÍN 2015, 248-272 (con una especial atención a los viajeros que rastreaban los pasos de Alejandro, tanto en el siglo XIX como en el XX). eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199 MARC MENDOZA

En primer lugar, la mayoría de menciones aparecen muy estrechamente vinculadas con otras entidades políticas de mayor potencia1. Por un lado, están las relacionadas con los seléucidas, como la campaña de Antíoco III, que incluye la batalla del río Ario (208 aC) o el prolongado asedio de la ciudad de Bactra (208-206 aC)2. Por otro lado, están los paralelismos establecidos con la vecina Partia. Esto tiene lógica si tenemos en consideración que los autores que se han conservado escribieron bajo la hegemonía romana y que los partos fueron sus enemigos más notables en Oriente. Por tanto, el interés por comprender a este adversario suscita que, de manera colateral, se haga mención a sus vecinos más inmediatos: los greco-macedonios de la Bactriana. Así, muchos de los sucesos que han pervivido sobre la historia del Reino aparecen en estrecha analogía con sucesos de los partos3. Así, la independencia de ambos Estados se solía ubicar en un mismo momento cronológico4. El tercer motivo de aparición del Reino en las fuentes clásicas es la India. De nuevo, aquí vuelve a converger con el interés romano, dado que mantenía contactos comerciales con el territorio indio5, sin olvidar su reiterativa aparición a lo largo de la Antigüedad como tierra de maravillas y milagros, que fascinaba al lector profundamente6. La historia de los griegos que gobernaron sobre partes de la India era conocida por los antiguos y la pervivencia de su legado suele ser un lugar común en estos textos, con figuras como Menandro y Eucrátides que serían, en cierta manera, célebres en aquel momento. Este último monarca fue otro de los motivos recurrentes de las menciones al reino bactriano. Su trágico destino, con la muerte a manos de un anónimo hijo suyo, es un relato morboso y, por lo tanto, atractivo7. De nuevo, la influencia romana no puede ser minusvalorada para entender el relativo éxito de esta historia. La muerte de Eucrátides y el trato que recibe su cadáver posteriormente puede ser comparada con la historia de Servio Tulio8, el sexto rey de Roma, sobre todo en cuanto a la profanación del cuerpo con un carro. Es necesario hacer un paréntesis en la evolución de la historiografía occidental9 para mencionar la existencia de fuentes literarias contemporáneas chinas e sobre Bactria y los griegos allí asentados. Una de las más destacadas es el Milinda Panha (“Las preguntas de Milinda”). La primera traducción inglesa es de 1890, realizada por Thomas Williams Rhys Davids10. Se trata de una obra filosófica de alrededor del 100 aC, en la que un tal rey Milinda conversa con un sabio budista, Nagasena, que consigue convertir a su fe al monarca. Milinda se ha identificado tradicionalmente con el soberano indo-griego Menandro I. A parte de este rey, aparecen otros personajes griegos como sus consejeros (Antíoco y Demetrio) y quinientos soldados a su cargo. En otros textos11 (por ejemplo el Mahabharata), aparecen los términos (prácrito) o Yavana (sánscrito) que sirven para designar a los griegos y otros pueblos occidentales. Por otro lado, disponemos de las fuentes chinas. En este caso, empero, las más antiguas

1 En HOLT 1999, App. D se puede encontrar una compilación de estas fuentes clásicas. 2 Plb. 10.49, 11.34.1-10 3 Str. 11.11.1-2; 15.1.3, Iust. 41.1.8-9, 4.5, 8-9, Prol. 41. 4 Cf. JAKOBSSON 2007. 5 Una buena muestra sería el anónimo Periplo del Mar Eritreo 47. 6 Cf. KARTTUNEN 1989; GÓMEZ ESPELOSÍN 1996. 7 Iust. 41.6.1-5. 8 Liv. 1.48. 9 Otras referencias: Ael. HA. 15.8; Plu. Mor. 821d-e. 10 La obra apareció en dos volúmenes. La primera parte, de 1890, se centraba en los tres primeros libros y la mitad del cuarto. La segunda, que se publicó en 1894, completaba el cuarto libro y traducía también los tres restantes. Véase también: TARN 1938, 414-436; BOPEARACHCHI 1990. 11 TARN 1938, 452-459; RAY 1988; KARTTUNEN 1994.

Karanos 3/2020 132

HISTORIOGRAFÍA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA GRECO-BACTRIANAS: UNA BREVE GUÍA

son inmediatamente posteriores a la invasión nómada del Reino Greco-Bactriano. Pese a ello, y debido a situarse en un momento reciente de la desaparición del Reino, se pueden extraer datos extrapolables al período de dominio helenístico. El legado más importante procede del testimonio de Chang K’ien, un embajador del emperador chino que llega a la zona hacia el 128 aC. También conservamos la de Fan Ye, que pese a vivir en el siglo V dC, recoge noticias anteriores a su época12. La tragedia de Eucrátides será el único elemento que pervivirá en la tradición occidental más allá de la Antigüedad. En la Edad Media13 la desgracia de este monarca aparecerá en diferentes relatos con pequeñas variantes. El primero del que tenemos constancia se halla en las páginas de las Chronica Polonorum de Vincenzo Kadlubeck, (1150-1223). Su versión añade una serpiente a la historia. Uno de los autores más célebres del siglo XIV, (1313-1375), incluye la mala fortuna del rey Eucrátides y su rivalidad con Demetrio, monarca de los indios, en sus De casibus virorum illustrium. Derivadas directamente del escritor italiano, existen tres versiones más: la francesa de Laurent de Permierfait de 1409, la inglesa de John Lydgate de 1435 y la castellana de Pero López de Ayala (1332-1407). La traducción de Lydgate no fue la única mención en lengua inglesa. En una de las obras fundamentales de la literatura británica como son los Cuentos de Canterbury de Geoffrey Chaucer (1340-1400), podemos leer un poema dedicado a un rey indio llamado Emetreo. Muy probablemente se trate de una deformación del nombre de Demetrio. La descripción del personaje evoca más la de un europeo que no la de un indio, dando así firmeza a la identificación con el monarca indo-griego adversario de Eucrátides. Así pues, el legado del Reino Greco-Bactriano (y también de los indo-griegos) no desapareció completamente a nivel literario, aunque los límites entre ficción y realidad se irían desdibujando. Este es el panorama en qué se encontraba la memoria del Reino en el siglo XVIII cuando hacen aparición los primeros estudios históricos modernos sobre la Bactria helenística. El primer gran trabajo llegó en 1738, aunque en 1725 ya había habido una primera y breve aproximación. El francés Jean Foy Vaillant (1632-1706) en una obra póstuma dedicada a los reyes de Partia (Arsacidarum Imperium) deduce a partir de las menciones de los autores antiguos la existencia de los comentados siete monarcas griegos de la Bactriana. El verdadero iniciador de los estudios, empero, fue Theophilus Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738), un estudioso alemán, versado en Sinología, asentado en San Petersburgo14. En la Academia de Ciencias de la ciudad había dos monedas que le sirvieron como punto de partida en su investigación sobre los reyes griegos de Bactria y la India. Estas piezas eran un bronce de Menandro (pese a estar mal identificada como una emisión de Diodoto) y un tetradracma de Eucrátides I15. Esta última emisión había estado incorporada en 1735 a la colección por el Conde Jacob Daniel Bruce, un ruso de padre escocés. Sus estudios culminaron con la publicación en el año de su muerte de la Historia Regni Graecorum Bactriani: in qua simul graecarum in India coloniarum vetus memoria (Historia del Reino Bactriano de los Griegos, junto con la antigua tradición de las Colonias griegas en la India). Con este largo título se inicia con la historiografía moderna greco-bactriana. Es una obra que amplía las informaciones aportadas por Vaillant e incluye datos de lingüística y geografía. Esta publicación, que tuvo una notable difusión en su época, desenterró del olvido al Reino Greco-Bactriano

12 TARN 1938, 513-315. Para una traducción de los textos: WYLIE 1874; 1876; 1881; 1882; HILL 2003. Vid. también KORDOSIS 1994. 13 Sobre la tradición medieval HINCKLEY 1933; BIVAR 1951; COLORU 2008; HOLT 2012a, 20-21. 14 Sobre la recepción de la obra de Bayer y su génesis: COLORU 2009, 33-40; HOLT 2012a, 10-14; MAIRS 2014b. Sobre Bayer más allá de su contribución a la historiografía greco-bactriana: LUNDBÆK 1986. 15 BROWNE 2003; HOLT 2010.

Karanos 3/2020 133

MARC MENDOZA

y fue la chispa que desencadenó una especie de fiebre del oro en búsqueda de más monedas de sus reyes, especialmente en el siglo XIX. También supuso la revisión de los catálogos de las colecciones numismáticas a la caza de acuñaciones mal identificadas. Como decíamos, en el siglo XIX surge un ávido interés en las monedas greco- bactrianas16. Estamos en el momento del Great Game en qué los intereses estratégicos de rusos y británicos son vitales para entender el devenir de Asia Central. A lo largo del siglo aparecen numerosos aventureros y oficiales (Charles Masson (1800-1853)17, Sir Alexander “Bokhara” Burnes (1805-1841)18, James G. Gerard, William Moorcroft (1767-1825)19) que se atreven a viajar por el peligroso Afganistán del momento. Son personajes casi novelescos, que podrían haber protagonizado perfectamente The man who would be king, de Rudyard Kipling20. Son ellos los que consiguieron encontrar nuevas tipologías monetales, incluyendo las de monarcas desconocidos por las fuentes greco-latinas. La lista real bactriana e indo-griega crece notablemente. Antes de 1830 se tenía constancia de diez soberanos. Después de esta fecha la cifra se dobla o triplica. Todas estas novedades hicieron necesario que se estudiase con mayor profundidad la historia de estos reinos, mucho más complicada de lo que se podía deducir de los testimonios clásicos. En este contexto aparecen figuras como sir Alexander Cunningham (1814-1893)21, (1808-1884)22 o Alfred von Sallet (1842-1897) 23, que polemizan sobre las interpretaciones históricas que elaboran a partir de las evidencias numismáticas. Debido a los múltiples hallazgos, los modelos explicativos están en un estado de modificación continua para responder a las novedades. Arqueológicamente, el hecho más destacado fue el descubrimiento en 1877 del denominado Tesoro del Oxo, de una magnitud y riqueza inigualables, que acabó en el Museo Británico24. También durante estos prolíficos años se produce la misteriosa aparición del Eucratidion, digna de una novela de Arthur Conan Doyle. Esta moneda es la pieza monetaria de oro más grande del mundo antiguo, con 169,2 gramos de peso. De lo poco de cierto que se sabe es que en julio de 1867 llegó a la Bibliothéque Impériale de París25.

16 En la colección del Museo Arqueológico Nacional también hay dos monedas greco-bactrianas (un tetradracma de Demetrio y otro de Eutidemo II), pero su adquisición es mucho más reciente, el año 2000, a Jesús Vico, S.A. Agradecemos al MAN la información e imágenes facilitadas sobre las piezas. 17 Charles Masson, alias de James Lewis, es uno de los personajes más atractivos de este período. Su vida (él mismo relató sus viajes, que fueron reeditados en 1977: MASSON 1842-1843 [1977]) y sus descubrimientos arqueológicos (publicados fundamentalmente en la Journal of the Asiatic Society) han generado una significativa literatura, monografía incluida: WHITTERIDGE 1986; ERRINGTON 1999; 2001; 2002a; 2002b; OMRANI 2008; GÓMEZ ESPELOSÍN 2015, 251-252. 18 BURNES 1834; 1843. Véase PRINSEP 1833; LUNT 1969; OMRANI 2006; GÓMEZ ESPELOSÍN 2015, 250- 251. Complementariamente a sus relatos, es posible contrastar la visión de su secretario indio, MOHAN 1846. 19 ALDER 1985. 20 Cf. BALL 2012. 21 Cunningham publicó numerosos artículos, pero probablemente su obra más destacada al respecto fuese CUNNINGHAM 1884. 22 Droysen dedica algunas páginas de sus obras a la problemática bactriana: DROYSEN 1836, 90, 108; 1843, 760-764. 23 VON SALLET 1879; 1881. 24 DALTON 1905; CURTIS 2012. El tesoro se encontró no muy lejos del Templo del Oxo (vid. infra), con lo que se ha especulado que podrían estar conectados. 25 El propio conservador numismático de la Bibliothéque, Anatole Chabouillet, tampoco ayudó a esclarecer la procedencia exacta, que supuestamente también desconocía: CHABOUILLET 1867.

Karanos 3/2020 134

HISTORIOGRAFÍA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA GRECO-BACTRIANAS: UNA BREVE GUÍA

La historia de sus orígenes y su adquisición se enmarañan en una complicada trama26. La moneda fue acuñada por el rey Eucrátides I, cuyo retrato figura en el anverso, mientras que en el reverso aparecen los Dioscuros galopando. Hallazgos de piezas tan extraordinarias como esta dispararon inmediatamente la imaginación del mundo occidental, imbuido por el Romanticismo, haciendo florecer la imagen de un reino antiguo de una riqueza inimaginable perdido en las profundidades de Oriente. Con este panorama se llegó al siglo XX. Pese a las numerosas monedas recuperadas, los diferentes episodios de la historia greco-bactriana e indo-griega seguían siendo narraciones aisladas, sin un relato completo. El primer trabajo significativo en este sentido lo realizó Hugh George Rawlinson (1880-1957), que escribió Bactria: The History of a Forgotten Empire, un ensayo que fue reconocido con el premio Hare de la Universidad de Cambridge en 190927. Se trata de un libro que, a pesar de su brevedad (169 páginas de texto, divididas en ocho capítulos y cinco apéndices, además de imágenes al final28), consigue realizar una propuesta de integración de todos los datos hasta entonces conocidos en un mismo discurso29. Sin embargo, no es hasta 1938 cuando aparece la primera gran historia general sobre los reinos greco-bactriano e indo-griegos, obra de William Woodthorpe Tarn (1869- 1957). Su The Greeks in Bactria and India, aunque superada en muchos aspectos, sigue siendo uno de los grandes hitos de la historiografía greco-bactriana. Tarn no era un recién llegado a este campo de estudio, dado que ya había hecho sus primeros acercamientos a éste tiempo atrás sobre problemáticas concretas30. En su enfoque, consideró necesaria una separación más clara entre Historia y Numismática, buscando priorizar la primera disciplina por encima de la segunda. Además, enfatiza el carácter helenístico de este ámbito, contraponiéndolo al acento orientalista que había predominado hasta entonces31. En su trabajo, los diferentes personajes estudiados se presentan desde un influjo claramente helenista, equiparándolos a las grandes figuras históricas griegas y macedonias. Así, Tarn busca en cierta manera trasladar el reino hacia Occidente, considerándolo no una especie de isla, sino una entidad con vínculos e influencia directa del mundo helenístico, en especial del ámbito seléucida, tanto en su conformación como en todo su devenir histórico. La obra de Tarn se convirtió rápidamente en una referencia fundamental y fue reeditada en 1951. Su trabajo generó estudios como el de Marie-Thérèse Allouche-Le Page en 1956, que con un acercamiento parecido también entró en otros temas que Tarn no se había atrevido a abordar, como la Historia del Arte o la religión32. Pero, evidentemente, también generó ciertas corrientes críticas con obras que proponían otros posibles enfoques. Por ejemplo, rechazando el acento predominantemente greco- macedonio de W. W. Tarn, aparece el énfasis en el influjo iranio del alemán Franz

26 Una de las primeras versiones acerca de la misteriosa adquisición de la moneda llegó a las páginas del New York Times. El artículo se reprodujo ese mismo año 1879 en la American Journal of , and Bulletin of the American Numismatic and Archaeological Society (AJN 1879). Para una visión más reciente de toda la historia: BOPEARACHCHI – FLANDRIN 2005, 19-33; HOLT 2012, 50-66. 27 El ensayo fue publicado tres años después: RAWLINSON 1912. 28 La historia greco-bactriana en sí misma no empieza hasta la página 50. 29 Es interesante revisar la parte dedicada a la bibliografía por el propio Rawlinson (RAWLINSON 1912, xv-xxiii). 30 TARN 1901; 1902. 31 Como HOLT (2012, 70) señala, el libro de H. G. Rawlinson se publicó dentro de la Probstbain’s Oriental Series. 32 ALLOUCHE-LE PAGE 1956.

Karanos 3/2020 135

MARC MENDOZA

Altheim33 (1898-1976), para quien los seléucidas son sustituidos por los partos como protagonistas necesarios en los diferentes episodios de la historia del Reino. La última línea básica de enfoque será la indocéntrica34 que tiene a Awadh Kishore Narain (1925-2013) como su máximo exponente. Este autor, pupilo de Richard Bertram Whitehead (1879-1967), sigue la estela de su mentor y ve debilidades metodológicas en la reconstrucción de Tarn. Aunque acepta la necesaria separación entre historia y numismática, considera que hay que dar un mayor peso a esta última disciplina, ya que permite una aproximación más científica, al contrario que la historia, más semejante a la literatura. En 1957 ve la luz el fruto de sus trabajos: The Indo-Greeks. ¿Pero eran realmente ciencia los estudios basados en numismática por aquel entonces? Para entender como realizan el paso de la moneda al relato histórico todos estos autores hay que considerar la influencia ejercida sobre todos ellos por Edward T. Newell (1886- 1941). En 1937 aparece su obra Royal Greek Portrait Coins, que se convertirá en una guía básica para los estudios monetarios desde entonces. Su premisa básica era que a partir de los retratos se podía llegar a conocer el carácter real del representado, como si de un espejo del alma se tratase. Por lo tanto, a partir únicamente de las imágenes se consideraba que era posible articular una interpretación histórica en base al carácter que se le atribuyese al personaje en cuestión. Evidentemente, esto implicaba a una subjetividad enorme que conducía a visiones totalmente opuestas en base a la psicología que se le atribuyese al individuo. Además, para Newell, las producciones greco- bactrianas, de una gran factura artística, presentaban un nivel de perfección que resultaba inalcanzable para los autóctonos y, por lo tanto, solamente podía ser obra de artesanos de origen helénico. Todas estas consideraciones produjeron unas tradiciones interpretativas que todavía influyen en los estudios numismáticos contemporáneos sobre la Bactriana antigua, pese a que puedan parecer razonamientos ya caducos. Hasta la relativamente reciente introducción de una ciencia numismática cognitiva, más analítica, no se han empezado a demoler estos paradigmas profundamente asentados en la tradición historiográfica35. En los últimos años, también se han escrito numerosas monografías que vienen a actualizar y ampliar los trabajos de Rawlinson o Tarn. Quizás la figura más mediática, con diversos libros publicados sobre Bactria, sea el norteamericano Frank Lee Holt36. Junto a él, encontramos otras propuestas de largo alcance, como los trabajos de Homayun Sidky37, Omar Coloru38 o François Widemann39. También merece la pena destacar la figura de Rachel Mairs. Más allá de sus trabajos centrados especialmente en cuestiones de identidad40, ha promovido diversas iniciativas para establecer una red de investigadores del “Hellenistic ”, con tal de facilitar el conocimiento de los diferentes trabajos e investigadores actuales sobre el tema. De esta manera, en 2011 realizó el primer compendio exhaustivo de bibliografía de este campo y desde entonces

33 ALTHEIM 1947-1948. Tarn, en la reedición de 1951, vuelve a reivindicar su enfoque frente al propuesto por Altheim. Sobre Altheim y el mundo helenístico, vid. ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ 2020. 34 Sobre la historiografía desarrollada en la India, vid. MAIRS 2006. 35 Un buen planteamiento metodológico con aplicación al registro greco-bactriano es el libro de GUILLAUME 1990. Véase también recientemente BORDEAUX 2018, para un estudio histórico de los reinos greco-bactriano e indo-griegos a partir del análisis numismático. 36 HOLT 1988; 1999; 2005. Los trabajos de 1988 y 2005 se centran fundamentalmente en el paso de Alejandro por Asia Central, mientras que en el de 1999 su foco de interés se encuentra en los reyes greco- bactrianos a partir de sus acuñaciones. 37 SIDKY 2000. 38 COLORU 2009. 39 WIDEMANN 2009. 40 Además de múltiples artículos, ha publicado un libro al respecto: MAIRS 2014a.

Karanos 3/2020 136

HISTORIOGRAFÍA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA GRECO-BACTRIANAS: UNA BREVE GUÍA

ha ido publicando suplementos anuales para actualizarlo y ampliarlo41. Por otro lado, la profesora Mairs fue la organizadora del primer congreso de la Hellenistic Central Asia Research Network, celebrado en la Universidad de Reading en abril de 2016, así como coorganizadora del segundo, que tuvo lugar en el Deutsches Archäologisches Institut de Berlín en noviembre de 201742 y del tercero, en la Universidad Carlos de Praga en noviembre de 201843. Está previsto que el cuarto congreso se celebre en Friburgo en fechas próximas.

ARQUEOLOGÍA44

Aunque la arqueología tal y como la entendemos actualmente no apareció hasta la década de los años 20 del siglo XX, existe algún precedente ya en el siglo XIX. Sin entrar en aspectos metodológicos, a lo largo del siglo XIX se efectuó una importante tarea en cuanto a la identificación y sondeo de sitios y monumentos arqueológicos del Afganistán45. Quizás lo más destacable serían los trabajos de Charles Masson, alias de James Lewis (1800-1853), uno de esos aventureros que se movieron por el país en el contexto del Great Game. Su actividad se centró básicamente en Bergram46. Allí encontró indicios de recintos de muros que delimitan el perímetro de un gran asentamiento, con una ocupación prolongada desde el siglo IV aC hasta el XIII dC. Aparte de estas estructuras, el registro se completa con numerosos hallazgos de cerámica, sellos, flechas, anillos, amuletos y, sobre todo, monedas. Masson señaló que cada año se rescataban unas 30.000 piezas en la zona, de las cuales él acabaría adquiriendo hasta 60.000. No obstante, hijo de su época, Masson no se preocupó de dotar sus investigaciones de una metodología científica y documentar minuciosamente los progresos y descubrimientos. Las excavaciones eran, simplemente, cazas del tesoro. Si obviamos estos trabajos poco sistemáticos del XIX, es posible señalar el inicio de la investigación arqueológica de la antigua Bactria en 1922. El 9 de setiembre de aquel año, por iniciativa del rey afgano Amanullah Khan (en el trono entre 1919 y 1929), se

41 MAIRS 2011. Tanto el compendio inicial como los múltiples suplementos, pueden encontrarse en https://hellenisticfareast.wordpress.com (fecha de consulta: 04/04/2018). 42 En esta ocasión con la organización principal de Gunvor Lindström y Kristina Juncker. Sobre este segundo encuentro, véase: https://archeorient.hypotheses.org/7982 (fecha de consulta: 04/04/2018). Está prevista la publicación de las actas de este congreso. 43 El tercer encuentro fue organizado por Ladislav Stančo, con la colaboración de Anna Augustinová, Cejnarová, Jakub Havlík y Tůmová, además de las mencionadas Rachel Mairs y Gunvor Lindström. 44 Ball y Gardin compendiaron en 1982 todos los trabajos arqueológicos hasta la fecha en una obra en dos tomos: BALL – GARDIN 1982. En 2019, Ball publicó una versión actualizada del compendio. Un resumen de la historia de la investigación puede hallarse en: BALL 2019a, 94-96 (disponible online en http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/excavations-ii, fecha de consulta: 28/02/2018). Con un carácter no tan enciclopédico, puede encontrarse también el trabajo de ALLCHIN – HAMMOND 1978. En 2019, apareció una reedición de dicho libro (a cargo de Hammond y Ball, tras el fallecimiento de Allchin en 2010) que reunía nuevos ensayos sobre la arqueología afgana desde el Paleolítico hasta época de los mogoles. 45 Ball calcula que de los 1.300 yacimientos que él documenta en su Archaeological Gazeteer de 1980 (BALL 2019b), alrededor del 40% (más de 500) ya habían sido registrados antes de 1922. Fueron muy importantes las aportaciones de las Afghan Boundary Comissions que, en su tarea de delimitar las fronteras del país con el Imperio Ruso, documentaron por primera vez un gran número de lugares (especialmente en Sistán, Herat, el centro y el noroeste de Afganistán): BALL – GARDIN 1982, 19; BALL 2008, 136-137. 46 Vid. n. 17.

Karanos 3/2020 137

MARC MENDOZA

constituye la Délegation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan (DAFA)47. Este acuerdo franco-afgano daba prácticamente la exclusividad de excavar en el país a los arqueólogos galos48. El único límite se encontraba en el artículo 11 del acuerdo por el cual se permitía que equipos de otros orígenes pudiesen intervenir allí donde la DAFA no tuviera planeado trabajar en los siguientes cinco años. Cabe señalar que la DAFA no se ha centrado exclusivamente en la Antigüedad, sino que también ha emprendido proyectos que van desde época prehistórica hasta el período islámico. El primer director de la misión fue Alfred Foucher (1865-1952), interesado especialmente en el arte greco-budista o de y que había participado en las negociaciones para constituir la DAFA, fue puesto al mando en 1922 por la Comission Archéologique de l’Afghanistan49 y se mantuvo en el terreno hasta 192550. Entre 1922 y 1923, se iniciaron las primeras investigaciones en yacimientos budistas del sudeste de Afganistán. Pero recibió órdenes de la Comission de emprender la excavación de Bactra/ en busca de restos helenísticos y, aunque él era renuente, consciente de las dificultades del proyecto y las limitaciones existentes, inició la fracasada campaña en la antigua capital51. En los trabajos sobre el terreno, que duraron dieciocho meses entre enero de 1924 y julio de 192552, no fueron capaces de localizar ninguna estructura de época helenística. La decepción a causa de estos resultados condujo a la frustración de todos los anhelos de Foucher y a hablar de “mirage bactrien”, negando la posibilidad de recuperar nunca cualquier resto de esa época del esplendor helenístico53. Ciertamente, la suerte le fue esquiva, pero no sería sincero achacarlo todo a la fortuna. Además, Foucher no contaba, por aquel entonces, con la necesaria experiencia arqueológica y, además, hubiese preferidos proseguir con sus trabajos en el sur de Afganistán. Foucher no tenía ningún interés personal en recuperar restos griegos y buena muestra de ello es el hecho que los primeros trabajos se centraron en excavar el estupa de Top-e Rostam, al sur de Balkh. La mala elección de los sitios de excavación tuvo un impacto determinante, así como la inexperiencia de un Foucher resignado, pesimista y empeñado en encontrar edificaciones en piedra, donde solo podían ser de adobe54. En esta etapa inicial, la DAFA carecía de grandes recursos económicos, materiales y humanos, lo que limitó aún más sus posibilidades. Foucher emprendió tan magna tarea prácticamente solo, sin ningún colega con el que compartir el peso de la responsabilidad ni con el que departir sobre el progreso de la excavación. Más allá de unas pocas visitas esporádicas, solamente pudo contar con su mujer, Eugénie “Ena” Bazin-Foucher (1889-1952)55. La frustración, el escepticismo y el hastío de Foucher se

47 Para una visión global de los trabajos desarrollados por la DAFA, vid. OLIVIER-UTARD 1997; BERNARD 2002; FENET 2011a; BENDEZU-SARMIENTO 2017. 48 Sobre los motivos de esa exclusividad, vid. BERNARD 2002, 1288-1291; MAIRS 2014a, 17. Foucher, el representante francés en la negociación con las autoridades afganas, intentó conseguir, al menos, que se concedieran dos excepciones: sir Aurel Stein y Ernst Herzfeld. Pero ni los políticos franceses ni los locales aceptaron esa propuesta. 49 Para una relación de los miembros de esta Comission, vid. BERNARD 2002, 1294 n. 8. 50 Sobre la etapa de Foucher como director de la DAFA: BERNARD 2002, 1291; 2007. Para los diferentes directores de la DAFA, también resultan muy útiles las breves biografías recogidas en su web: http://dafa.fr/index.php/fr/presentation/histoire/anciens-directeurs (fecha de consulta: 14/04/2018). 51 OLIVIER-UTARD 1997, 59. 52 Aunque los meses de excavación reales fueron muchos menos a causa de las numerosas interrupciones causadas por el riguroso clima. 53 FOUCHER – BAZIN-FOUCHER 1942-1947, I.55-141. 54 La elección de la ciudadela de Balkh, reocupada una y otra vez a lo largo de los siglos, implicaba tener que lidiar con una gran cantidad de restos más recientes que habrían afectado necesariamente a los más antiguos, hechos en adobe: BERNARD 2007, 1823-1824. 55 Sobre la carrera de Eugénie, vid. FENET 2011b.

Karanos 3/2020 138

HISTORIOGRAFÍA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA GRECO-BACTRIANAS: UNA BREVE GUÍA

transmiten en su publicación de los trabajos arqueológicos realizados en Balkh que, significativamente, tardó diecisiete años en presentar. Su sucesor en el cargo56, Joseph Hackin (1886-194157), centró sus esfuerzos en Begram, Fondukistán, Bamiyán y Kabul, aunque teniendo en mira fundamentalmente el arte de Gandhara de los primeros siglos de nuestra era. Sin duda, las campañas en Begram (1937-1940) granjearon el descubrimiento más espectacular: el hallazgo de un depósito de época kushán de centenares de objetos preciosos del Mediterráneo, Oriente Medio, India y China58. Más allá de Afganistán, en territorio bajo soberanía británica, entre los trabajos de los años previos a la Segunda Guerra Mundial, cabe destacar el yacimiento de Taxila59. Una vez finalizada la Gran Guerra, se inició una nueva etapa en la investigación arqueológica bactriana. Uno de los grandes personajes del momento fue el conocido arqueólogo sir (1890-1976). Su trabajo se desarrolló fundamentalmente en la India y Pakistán (fue director general del Servicio Arqueológico de la India entre 1944 y 1948), pero también realizó aportaciones en territorio afgano60. Criticó la metodología empleada en Balkh, considerando que lo que había conducido al fracaso al equipo francés había sido una mala elección de la zona de excavación. Wheeler intentó convencer a las autoridades del país para concertar una expedición conjunta entre británicos, indios y franceses, pero nunca consiguió el beneplácito oficial. Los años 50 y 60 representaron un gran impulso sobre todo para la arqueología de Pakistán y la India. Wheeler trabajó en el yacimiento de Charsadda/Bala Hisar (la antigua Peucealotis) y en 1958 descubrió lo que podría ser una ciudad helenística en la cercana colina de Shaikhan61. En 1956, se instauró la Misión Arqueológica Italiana, liderada en sus inicios por Giuseppe Tucci (1894-1984) y Domenico Faccenna (1923- 2008). En los primeros años, por ejemplo, excavaron en Butkara, una ciudad gandhara- budista fundada en el siglo III aC. El valle del Swat (Pakistán) ha sido desde entonces una zona bajo la supervisión de equipos arqueológicos italianos62.

56 Si bien Foucher no abandonó el cargo hasta después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, nunca volvió a Afganistán tras su marcha en 1925. Hackin se ocupó de facto de la DAFA sobre el terreno por el vacío generado ante la ausencia de Foucher, especialmente a partir de 1934. 57 Hackin falleció, junto a su esposa y colaboradora Ria, en febrero de 1941 al ser torpedeado el barco en el que viajaba con destino a la India frente a Finisterre. El año anterior había dimitido de su cargo, oponiéndose al régimen de Vichy, y se había marchado a Londres. Para unas reseñas biográficas y profesionales, vid. LODS 1944; LANTIER 1945; OLIVIER-UTARD 2012. 58 Vid. HACKIN 1939; 1954; GHIRSHMAN 1946. Hackin, al marchar a Inglaterra, se llevó consigo los registros y documentación, lo que permitió la publicación de la monografía de 1954. 59 Los trabajos en Taxila fueron dirigidos por sir John Marshall (1876-1958) durante más de veinte años. Los resultados fueron publicados en MARSHALL 1951; 1960. 60 Ya entre 1944 y 1945 había estado excavando en Taxila, aunque los resultados de esas campañas no han sido nunca publicados. Sobre Afganistán, vid. WHEELER 1947 (tras su visita de 1946). 61 Los resultados de Wheeler se pueden consultar en WHEELER 1962. Desde 1993 ha habido un par de proyectos que han reemprendido los trabajos en el sitio, resultando en una revaluación de las conclusiones de Wheeler: ALI et al. 1998; CONINGHAM – ALI 2007. En Saikhan, los trabajos arqueológicos no han pasado de un estudio preliminar: DANI 1965-1966. 62 TUCCI 1958; 1963; FACCENNA 1964; 1980. Los diferentes proyectos han sido desarrollados por la Misión Arqueológica en Pakistán de la Associazione Internazionale di Studi sul Mediterraneo e l’Oriente (IsMEO), actualmente Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (IsIAO). El presente director de la misión es Luca Maria Olivieri. El único paréntesis destacado en la investigación se produjo entre 2007 y 2010, cuando la presencia talibán en la zona obligó a cancelar los trabajos. Para una visión de la historia de la misión y una bibliografía de los trabajos arqueológicos hasta 2006: 2006a, b.

Karanos 3/2020 139

MARC MENDOZA

Mientras, en Afganistán, los equipos arqueológicos seguían sin ser capaces de hallar una ciudad plenamente helenística. La DAFA, bajo la dirección de Daniel Schlumberger63 (1904-1972) tras la guerra64, continuó trabajando sobre el territorio y amplió sus campos de estudio, cubriendo desde la pre/protohistoria hasta la época islámica. Pero el nuevo director también mostró su voluntad expresa de recuperar los arrinconados estudios sobre el helenismo bactriano. Entre 1947 y 1949, reemprendió los sondeos en Balkh. En 1951, se produjo el importante descubrimiento de , la capital del período kushán, que fue excavada en múltiples campañas que se prolongaron hasta 196365. Las inscripciones halladas escritas en la lengua autóctona, pero utilizando el alfabeto griego, sirvieron para confirmar que el impacto de la presencia griega se extendió más allá de su dominio político y ratificando la profundidad de su influencia. Complementariamente, investigadores como Marc Le Berre (1904-1977) y Jean-Claude Gardin (1925-2013) realizaron de manera intermitente sondeos en la zona de Bamiyán y el Afganistán septentrional desde la década de los 50. Bajo la dirección de Schlumberger se concibió y empezó a ejecutar el proyecto de crear una carta arqueológica completa66. Tras la guerra, se modificó el tratado y se terminó el monopolio francés, lo que facilitó la entrada de investigadores de otras nacionalidades en el país. Por ejemplo, Balkh fue objeto de diversas campañas de la DAFA en los años 50 y 6067, así como de otra en las murallas por el norteamericano Rodney S. Young (1907-1974), de la Universidad de Pennsylvania, en 195368. Progresivamente, se fueron desarrollando proyectos japoneses69, italianos70, indios71 y alemanes72, en gran parte sondeos y reconocimientos sobre el terreno de períodos más tardíos. En 1972, se estableció la British Institute of Afghan Studies en Kabul, la primera misión permanente tras la DAFA73. Entre 1974 y 1978, desarrolló su investigación en , bajo la dirección

63 Sobre la vida y obra de Schlumberger: FUSSMAN 1973; WILL 1973; GELIN 2010. 64 Entre 1941 y 1942, ocupó el cargo brevemente Roman Ghirshman (1895-1979), también al mando de la delegación homóloga en Irán (DAFI). Su designación fue revocada por Vichy en 1942, ya que Ghrishman se había pasado a la Francia libre. Aun así se mantuvo un año más en Afganistán, donde prosiguió con las excavaciones en Begram: BERNARD 2002, 1309; YAZDANI 2012. Tras la guerra, finalmente, Foucher dejó de ostentar de manera oficial el puesto. 65 Sobre Surkh Khotal, vid. SCHLUMBERGER 1961; SCHLUMBERGER et al. 1983. 66 También merece la pena destacar la publicación conjunta de los estudios sobre dos tesoros monetarios: el de Tchaman-i-Hazouri y el de Mir Zakah. El primero es de época aqueménida (ca. 380 aC) y se compone de un gran número de monedas griegas, además de piezas persas e indias. El segundo se compone fundamentalmente de acuñaciones de reyes indo-griegos: CURIEL – SCHLUMBERGER 1953. 67 SCHLUMBERGER 1949; GARDIN 1957; LE BERRE – SCHLUMBERGER 1964. 68 YOUNG 1955. Diversos investigadores estadounidenses (Fairservis, Kolb, Coon, Dales, Trousdale) trabajaron sobre el terreno entre los 50 y los 70, pero mayoritariamente se centraron en época prehistórica. 69 Centrados básicamente en un período más tardío y en el ámbito budista cayeron bajo la responsabilidad de la Universidad de , con la dirección de S. Mizuno y T. Higuchi. Las primeras campañas tuvieron lugar en 1959. 70 Las campañas italianas tuvieron lugar en Ghazni y Tepe Sardar (a sólo cuatro kms del primero). Los investigadores también pertenecían al IsMEO, como en Pakistán. Los trabajos en Ghazni fueron dirigidos por Bombaci y Scerrato, mientras que en Tepe Sardar se alternaron Adamesteanu, Puglisi y Taddei, respectivamente. Ambos sitios son de cronologías muy tardías. 71 T. N. Ramachandran e Y. D. Sharma, del Archaeological Survey of India, llevaron a cabo un extenso reconocimiento sobre el territorio, documentando un gran número de yacimientos: RAMACHANDRAN – SHARMA 1956. 72 Klaus Fischer (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst) focalizó su trabajo en el período islámico. 73 Además de los intentos de Wheeler, Beatrice de Cardi realizó sondeos en el sur del país en 1949: DE CARDI 1950.

Karanos 3/2020 140

HISTORIOGRAFÍA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA GRECO-BACTRIANAS: UNA BREVE GUÍA

de David B. Whitehouse (1941-2013), Anthony McNicoll (1943-1985) y Svend Helms (?- 2011)74. Aunque como hemos visto la mayor parte de los investigadores eran foráneos, también hubo algunos trabajos de arqueólogos afganos. En 1946, Ahmad Ali Kohzad (1907-1983) realizó un amplio sondeo en la zona del centro y el oeste del país75. Entre 1965 y 1979, el Instituto Afgano de Arqueología estuvo al cargo de las excavaciones en el Tepe Shutur de Hadda, un yacimiento de época Kushán y Sasánida, bajo la dirección inicial de Shahibye Mustamandi (que también estaba al mando del Instituto) y la posterior de Zemaryalai Tarzi, que lideraría el Instituto entre 1972 y 1978. Mención aparte merecen los investigadores rusos y posteriormente soviéticos. El Imperio Ruso anexionó los territorios de Asia Central en las décadas de 1860 y 1870, momento en el que se desarrolló el ya mencionado Great Game entre estos y los británicos. Desde ese momento, se inició un comercio continuo de antigüedades que normalmente acababan en dirección oeste a manos de coleccionistas rusos y europeos. Previos a la Revolución de 1917, encontramos los primeros trabajos arqueológicos, en un inicio centrados mayoritariamente en Afrasiab/Maracanda (Samarcanda)76. Los trabajos preliminares sobre el terreno fueron encargados al mayor Borzenkov (1874) y a Vsevolod V. Krestovskij (1883) por parte de los gobernadores militares de la región. En 1884 y 1895, Nicolai I. Veselovskii (1848-1918), de la Universidad de San Petersburgo, fue enviado por la Comisión Arqueológica de la capital, aunque actuó más como un cazador de tesoros que como un arqueólogo científico. En la década de 1890, los franceses Edouard Blanc (1858-1923) y Jean Chaffanjon (1854-1913), beneficiándose de la alianza franco-rusa, trabajaron también en Afrasiab auspiciados por las autoridades77. El primero, en una campaña bastante superficial, fue capaz de recuperar algunos objetos, como monedas greco-bactrianas e indo-escitas78. Chaffanjon, por su parte, trabajó con la autorización especial de la Comisión arqueológica imperial rusa, aunque no obtuvo resultados significativos e, incluso, llegó a emplear dinamita para abrirse paso por el terreno79. Todas estas intervenciones e inspecciones extranjeras resultan excepcionales y fueron en su mayor parte de alcance muy limitado. En la práctica, todo el territorio de Asia Central fue un monopolio ruso80.

74 WHITEHOUSE 1978; MCNICOLL 1978; HELMS 1979, 1982, 1997; MCNICOLL – BALL 1996. 75 Publicó diferentes artículos en los siguientes años en la revista Afghanistan divulgando sus resultados. 76 Sobre esta primera etapa en Afrasiab, vid. GORSHENINA – LAMBERT 1999 (sobre todo para la figura de Jean Chaffanjon); GRENET 2004; GORSHENINA 2017, 155-170. 77 DE UJFALVY DE MEZÖ-KÖVESD 1897, 81-82 también recoge la recuperación de objetos antiguos en el emplazamiento de Afrasiab. 78 BLANC 1893, 827-830. Edouard Blanc también visitó . 79 CHAFFANJON 1899, 57-58. Sobre la metodología de estas primeras excavaciones: GORSHENINA 2001, 24-26. 80 GORSHENINA 2001, 15-17; 2012, 199-200. Por ejemplo, en la década de 1890, se niegan los permisos para realizar excavaciones arqueológicas a ocho extranjeros, incluyendo al español “Saturnino Gimenes Ekrikh” en 1892. Este no puede ser otro que Saturnino Ximénez Enrich (1853-1933). Nacido en Maó, como reportero cubrió la Tercera Guerra Carlista y la Guerra Ruso-Turca. Casado con la hija de un general ruso, se estableció en la actual Bielorrusia. Entre sus viajes encontramos una o dos misiones a la frontera de Afganistán con la India británica. Pla (1969, 529-530) insinúa que sus estudios arqueológicos centrados en el estudio de las migraciones de los antiguos pueblos de Asia Central eran una tapadera para sus trabajos de espionaje contra el Intelligence Service británico en la India. Ciertamente, tenía un buen conocimiento de estos temas, como demuestra alguno de sus escritos y su erudición no era fingida: XIMÉNEZ 1925, 256-266. En la página 10 del diario La Vanguardia del 15 de julio de 1919 puede leerse un texto de Ximénez sobre la situación de Afganistán. Se relacionó con importantes tan destacados como Antón Chéjov (del cual fue el primer traductor al castellano), Francesc Cambó o el mencionado Josep Pla (que le dedica uno de sus Homenots). Autor de diversos libros, su publicación más destacada para

Karanos 3/2020 141

MARC MENDOZA

En 1895, se estableció el Círculo de Aficionados de la Arqueología del Turquestán (Turkestanskii Kruzhok Lyubitelei Arkheologii) en Tashkent, con una publicación propia entre 1896 y 191681. A partir de 1904, Vasiliy L. Viatkin (1869-1932), fundador del Museo de Samarcanda en 1896, y Vasiliy V. Bartol’d (1869-1930), realizaron múltiples trabajos en la zona de Samarcanda que se prolongaron hasta comienzos de los años 30. En esta época, también encontramos en la región al francés naturalizado ruso Joseph-Antoine Castagné (1875-1958). Entre 1913 y 1916, explora diferentes sitios arqueológicos, entre los que cabe destacar para nuestro interés Erkurgan, que él identificó como la antigua ciudad de Nautaca, que aparece en la historia de Alejandro82. Tras la Revolución, la arqueología de la región se profesionalizó definitivamente con múltiples expediciones en los años 20 y 30. A nivel teórico, los arqueólogos no introdujeron los modelos teóricos marxistas hasta la década de 1930, cuando se produjo una renovación, en algunos casos forzosa, de los investigadores anteriores. A partir de entonces, se observan algunas novedades, como priorizar el estudio de los estratos de las sociedades antiguas frente a los grandes personajes, las relaciones de producción, la inexistencia de influencias extranjeras o una evolución histórica basada en los modos de producción83. En , entre 1936 y 1938 se constituyó un equipo multidisciplinar84 bajo la dirección de Mikhail E. Masson (1897-1986), que desde 1924 había ocupado diversos cargos académicos y culturales en Tashkent. Desde la cátedra de arqueología de su universidad, impulsó la creación de una escuela arqueológica, convirtiéndose así en el padre de la disciplina en la región. El panorama que dejó el final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial con dos grandes bloques antagónicos hizo de Afganistán, como zona fronteriza con la Unión Soviética, un posible punto de fricción. La situación post-bélica no hizo más que acentuar una tendencia previa hacia el hermetismo que hizo que la arqueología soviética y la occidental vivieran durante mucho tiempo de espaldas la una de la otra85. Con tal de evitar posibles problemas, el área del antiguo río Oxo (actual ), la más cercana al límite territorial entre ambos Estados, quedó como competencia de profesionales soviéticos y locales. Esta separación moderna, inexistente en el pasado, parcializó el conocimiento, impidiendo comprender adecuadamente las dinámicas históricas que se habían dado a ambos lados de ese telón de acero. En 1967, se estableció una misión conjunta entre la Unión Soviética y Afganistán. Entre 1969 y 1977, un equipo liderado por Irina T. Kruglikova (1917-2008) excavó en Dilberjin, 40 km al noroeste de Balkh. En este centro urbano fortificado se encontró una fase

nuestros intereses fue L’Asie Mineure en ruines, de 1925, prologado por Bernard Haussoullier, donde relata el viaje por Grecia y Anatolia junto a su amigo Cambó en el yate Catalonia, aportando datos sobre los yacimientos y monumentos que visitaron, con frecuentes digresiones historiográficas. Tuvo una traducción al inglés poco después. Sobre este personaje: HERNÁNDEZ 1952; PLA 1969, 519-558; PASTOR PETIT 1988, 57-62. En estos momentos, el autor está en proceso de redacción de un artículo sobre la faceta arqueológica de Saturnino Ximénez. 81 GORSHENINA 2012, 203-204; MAIRS 2014a, 14-15. 82 Otros investigadores la han identificado con la Jenipa de Curcio. Castagné también polemizó con Bartol’d acerca de la ubicación de Cirópolis. Sobre este personaje, véase GORSHENINA 1997, con una bibliografía completa al final del artículo. 83 Véase RAPIN – GORSHENINA 2011. 84 De hecho, las diferentes misiones arqueológicas pusieron un gran interés en ese carácter multidisciplinar. 85 Sobre la arqueología soviética en Asia Central, vid. GORSHENINA 2013, 26-29.

Karanos 3/2020 142

HISTORIOGRAFÍA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA GRECO-BACTRIANAS: UNA BREVE GUÍA

helenística, incluyendo un templo del siglo II aC, quizás dedicado a los Dioscuros, de los cuales se conservaría una representación parcial en una pintura mural86. Los territorios del antiguo Reino Greco-Bactriano que quedaban en zona de algunas de las Repúblicas Soviéticas como Uzbekistán87 o Tayikistán, fueron también espacio vedado para las misiones extranjeras. Entre 1945 y 1948, Aleksej I. Terenozkin (1907- 1981) reemprendió los trabajos en Afrasiab y delimitó doce niveles de materiales. Desde 1958, la investigación del yacimiento se reinició con un mayor vigor bajo la dirección de Vasiliy A. Shishkin (1894-1966), que a su muerte fue reemplazado por Galina V. Shishkina, que condujo los trabajos a lo largo de los años 7088. En 1989, se establece una Misión Franco-Uzbeka (MAFOuz), codirigida por Frantz Grenet y Muhammadjon Isamiddinov89. Todos estos trabajos han revelado una ciudad fundada antes de la llegada de los persas con unas impresionantes fortificaciones. De época helenística se conservan dos fases, separadas por una posible invasión nómada. En este período habría sido, posiblemente, un puesto de defensa avanzada. También se han descubierto un almacén de grano y zonas de producción. Entre 1976 y 1991, un equipo encabezado por Boris A. Litvinskij (1923-2010) e Igor R. Pichikyan (1940-1997) excavó en Takht-i Sangin90, al sud de Tayikistán, el denominado templo del Oxo. Más allá del impresionante edificio, una de las piezas más destacadas es una estatuilla del dios fluvial Marsias, identificado con el local río Oxo, dedicada por un tal Atrosokes, claramente un nombre iranio91. También se ha recuperado una de las mayores colecciones de armamento helenístico. Desde finales de los años 90, se han realizado nuevas campañas, bajo la dirección de Anjelina P. Drujinina92. En 1982, el arqueólogo uzbeko Edvard V. Rtveladze inició los trabajos de excavación de Kampyr-tepe, que siguen como parte de la Tocharistan Expedition93. Allí se ha descubierto un notable recinto fortificado a las orillas del antiguo río Oxo, que en ocasiones se ha identificado con Alejandría Oxiana. Si bien la gran mayoría de los hallazgos publicados datan de época kushán, también hay interesantísimas piezas de

86 Sobre este yacimiento y la misión conjunta, más allá de las publicaciones en ruso, vid. KRUGLIKOVA – MUSTAMANDI 1970; KRUGLIKOVA 1977; BERNARD – FRANCFORT 1979; LO MUZIO 1999. 87 Aunque posterior a nuestro marco cronológico también merece la pena destacar los trabajos liderados por Galina A. Pugachenkova (1915-2007) en (1959-1963), que sacaron a la luz un grupo de esculturas de gran factura estética: PUGACHENKONVA 1965. 88 Vid. SHISHKINA 1986; 1994. 89 BERNARD et al. 1990; 1992; RAPIN 1994; BERNARD 1996; MARTINEZ-SÈVE 2003; GRENET 2004. La misión arqueológica no se ha limitado a la ciudad de Samarcanda, sino que ha trabajado en múltiples sitios de los alrededores, como Koktepe o Derbent. Una bibliografía completa de los resultados de esta misión conjunta puede consultarse en la página web del proyecto: http://www.archeo.ens.fr/IMG/pdf/ 1bibliomafouzsogd1d.pdf (fecha de consulta: 07/03/2018). 90 Los diferentes hallazgos han sido objeto de estudios específicos. Para una visión global de los resultados de la investigación arqueológica: LITVINSKIJ – PICHIKYAN 1980; 1981a; 1981b; 1994; 2002; LITVINSKIJ 1995. 91 Cf. BERNARD 1987. El lugar ya había sido sondeado con anterioridad por Denike (1928), Diakonoff (1950) y Mandleshtam (1956); vid. MAIRS 2014a, 16. 92 Más allá de las publicaciones en ruso, vid. DRUJININA 2001; DRUJININA – BOROFFKA 2006; DRUJININA et al. 2009; 2010; 2011. 93 A lo largo de los años, en la región han colaborado equipos de diferentes orígenes, como el soviético dirigido por Valerii P. Nikonorov procedente de la Academia de Ciencias de Leningrado. Gran parte de los resultados de la Tocharistan Expedition se fueron publicando en diferentes volúmenes en ruso a partir del año 2000.

Karanos 3/2020 143

MARC MENDOZA

adscripción helénica, como algunas inscripciones en caracteres griegos o armaduras greco-bactrianas94. La investigación de la Bactriana y la Sogdiana antigua en ruso ha ido evolucionando casi de manera independiente respecto a las realizadas en otras lenguas. Si bien es cierto que en el mundo posterior a la disolución de la Unión Soviética se ha producido una mayor apertura, aún resulta complicado acceder a las publicaciones arqueológicas de los sitios excavados por las misiones soviéticas. El impedimento de la lengua también resulta notable, ya que muy pocas obras se han traducido a otros idiomas95. La tan anhelada gran ciudad helenística en Afganistán no apareció hasta 1961. El rey afgano Muhammad Zahir Shah (1914-2007, reinando entre 1933 y 1973) reportó a la DAFA que en el trascurso de una cacería en el extremo norte de sus dominios se había encontrado con algunas estructuras de factura helenística, destacando unas columnas de estilo corintio. Esos hallazgos se habían localizado cerca de un pequeño poblado llamado Aï Khanoum, en la conjunción entre los ríos Amu Darya (el antiguo Oxo) y Kokcha. No era una zona totalmente ignota. Ya en 1838 el escocés John Wood (1818-1878) había pasado por allí y en 1927 el geólogo Jules Barthoux (1881-1965) había recomendado a Foucher excavar en el lugar, pero nunca se llegaron a iniciar los trabajos96. Con el nuevo descubrimiento, la DAFA emprendió una serie de campañas de excavación entre 1964 y 1978 bajo la dirección de Paul Bernard (1929-2015)97. En los trabajos arqueológicos participaron investigadores de la talla de Franz Grenet, Henri-Paul Francfort, Claude Rapin y Olivier Guillaume. Debido a su proximidad con la frontera soviética, también se invitó a colaborar a investigadores de ese estado, como Koshlenko, Munchaev, Kruglikova o Litvinskij. El conjunto de datos obtenidos se ha ido publicando a lo largo de nueve volúmenes hasta el momento98. La ciudad preserva notables edificios, como un palacio/complejo administrativo, un gran templo, un heróon al fundador Cineas (con una inscripción de las máximas délficas), un mausoleo, un teatro de gran capacidad, un gimnasio, unos propileos, un arsenal y sus murallas. En la acrópolis se conservan los restos de una plataforma escalonada (probablemente de culto local), la ciudadela y unas pocas casas. Fuera de las murallas, se encuentra un segundo templo y la necrópolis. Además, se halló el pie de una estatua de Zeus y un disco de Cibeles en el templo principal, ostraka inscritos, restos de pergaminos99 y un gran número de monedas, entre otros, convirtiendo a Aï Khanoum en la joya de la corona de la arqueología greco-bactriana100. Los estudios no se limitaron al perímetro

94 Sobre el yacimiento en conjunto y algunas de sus piezas destacadas, vid. NIKONOROV – SAVCHUK 1992; RTVELADZE 1994; 1995; 1999; 2009; RUSANOV 1994; AZIMOV 2001; DVURECHENSKAYA 2017. 95 Por ejemplo, pese a que en los años 70 y 80 se realizaron campañas en Escaté (Khojend- Leninabad, Tayikistán) sólo hemos sido capaces de encontrar un breve resumen en inglés: NEGMATOV 1986. 96 Sobre estas visitas previas: BERNARD – FRANCFORT 1978, 33-38; TARZI 1996. 97 En 1964, el director de la DAFA seguía siendo Daniel Schlumberger. Al año siguiente, dejó el cargo y fue sucedido por el propio Bernard. Sobre el impacto historiográfico del descubrimiento: MAIRS 2014a, 19-25. 98 BERNARD et al. 1973; GUILLAUME et al. 1983; FRANCFORT et al.1984; BERNARD 1985; LERICHE 1986; VEUVE 1987 et al.; GUILLAUME et al. 1987; RAPIN et al. 1992; LECUYOT 2013. Además de los nueve volúmenes, se fueron publicando diferentes artículos en Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres (CRAI) desgranando los resultados de las sucesivas campañas de excavación: BERNARD 1966; 1967; 1968; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1972; 1974; 1975; 1976; 1978; 1980. 99 Los textos son accesibles en http://claude.rapin.free.fr/2Textes_litt_et_inscr.htm (fecha de consulta: 04/04/2018). 100 Para una bibliografía detallada y desglosada de todas las estructuras y hallazgos, cf. COHEN 2016, 228-244.

Karanos 3/2020 144

HISTORIOGRAFÍA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA GRECO-BACTRIANAS: UNA BREVE GUÍA

estricto de la ciudad, sino que también se realizaron en el territorio circundante, sobre todo a cargo de Jean-Claude Gardin (1925-2013) y Pierre Gentelle (1933-2010)101. Esta época dorada de la arqueología greco-bactriana se interrumpe bruscamente a finales de los años 70, tras la revolución de 1978 y la posterior invasión soviética de Afganistán. Como consecuencia de todo ello, el gobierno afgano de aquel entonces decidió clausurar la DAFA el 15 de setiembre de 1982, después de seis décadas de misión arqueológica102. La intervención de la URSS, la guerra civil afgana y el régimen talibán no frenaron únicamente las investigaciones, sino que también causaron un destacable daño sobre el patrimonio. En esos convulsos años, se produjeron episodios de pillaje en diferentes yacimientos, algunos tan importantes como , Aï Khanoum, Balkh o Kandahar, así como en el Museo de Kabul. Durante el gobierno talibán, la situación se agravó, especialmente a partir de febrero de 2001, cuando el mulá Omar firmó un decreto que consignaba la destrucción del patrimonio no islámico. Posiblemente el episodio más recordado de esta espiral destructiva sea la voladura perpetrada por los talibanes de los grandes Budas de Bamiyán el 10 de marzo de 2001. A finales de ese mismo año, se produjo la invasión norteamericana103. A nivel arqueológico, una buena noticia de los nuevos tiempos es la restitución de la DAFA en 2002, bajo la dirección de Roland Besenval (1947-2014)104. Pero el panorama que se encontró fue desolador y totalmente diferente respecto al que dejó al disolverse veinte años atrás. Se calcula que, aproximadamente, el 70% del fondo del Museo Nacional de Kabul ha desaparecido. Aï Khanoum estaba irreconocible y elementos arquitectónicos, joyas, monedas y otros objetos históricos fueron robados de manera sistemática105. Desde el 2002, la restaurada DAFA ha vuelto a emprender numerosos proyectos sobre el territorio106. De la misma manera, la Universidad de Chicago ha estado desarrollando diferentes proyectos desde el año 2012 centrados en la conservación del patrimonio afgano, bajo la coordinación general de Gil Stein. El programa, cuyo director de campo en Kabul es el español Alejandro Gallego, ya ha cosechado numerosos éxitos con los que poco a poco se recupera y se asegura el futuro del legado de Afganistán107. Pero incluso en este período oscuro ha habido descubrimientos importantes. Durante la Guerra Civil afgana, entre 1992 y 1993, unos excavadores clandestinos localizaron en Balkh los primeros rastros de arquitectura helenística en Tepe Zargaran, a poco más

101 GARDIN – GENTELLE 1976; 1979; GENTELLE 1978; 1985; GARDIN 1980. 102 En ese momento el director era Jean-Claude Gardin, que había ascendido al cargo en 1980. Aunque la clausura se demoró hasta 1982, la actividad arqueológica había estado virtualmente parada desde 1979. Ante las negras perspectivas, se empezó un paulatino proceso de traslado de piezas y archivos a lugares seguros, ya que se habían estado produciendo los primeros episodios de pillaje. 103 Para un repaso cronológico de los principales hechos de esos años, vid. BESENVAL 2013. 104 Tras él, han ostentado el cargo Philippe Marquis, entre 2009 y 2014, y Julio Cesar Bendezu Sarmiento, entre 2014 y 2018, volviendo al cargo Philippe Marquis desde entonces. 105 BERNARD 2001a; 2001b; HOLT 2009. BOPEARACHCHI 2005 recoge algunas piezas procedentes de Aï Khanoum que llegaron al mercado, tanto publicadas como inéditas. Algunas columnas helenísticas del yacimiento fueron reutilizadas para decorar la casa del té en Khwaja Bahuddin. 106 Los diferentes proyectos pueden consultarse en http://dafa.fr/index.php/fr/travaux/les-projets-de- 2002-a-aujourd-hui (fecha de consulta: 04/04/2018). Véase también BESENVAL 2013, 84-89. 107 No hace mucho, en marzo de 2018, se restituyó al Museo el pie de Zeus de Aï Khanoum. Otras piezas pudieron ser salvadas gracias a los trabajadores del museo, que las escondieron tanto fuera como dentro del país. En la web del proyecto se pueden consultar las publicaciones e informes de sus trabajos de conservación: https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/projects/oi-nma-partnership#Bibliography (fecha de consulta: 14/05/2019).

Karanos 3/2020 145

MARC MENDOZA

de un kilómetro al sudeste de las antiguas excavaciones francesas. En otoño de 2004, la DAFA emprendió los primeros trabajos propiamente arqueológicos en ese sitio108. La situación en Afganistán hizo que las repúblicas soviéticas cobrasen mayor importancia, más allá de los excavadores locales. Jean-Claude Gardin fundó en 1983 la sucesora “espiritual” de la DAFA, la Mission Archéologique Française en Asie Centrale (MAFAC)109, así como la ya mencionada MAFOuz en 1989110, que en 1993 creó una “submisión”: la Mission archéologique franco-ouzbeque de Bactriane du Nord111. Esta última ha estado al cargo de la excavación, entre otros, de Termez. En esta ciudad, ubicada a las orillas del Amu Darya, las intermitentes excavaciones emprendidas a lo largo del siglo XX ya habían sacado a la luz sus niveles más recientes112, pero no fue hasta los 80 que los primeros restos helenísticos fueron descubiertos. Los trabajos de la misión, dirigida por Pierre Leriche junto a Shakir R. Pidaev113 y Tukhtash Annaev (ambos del Instituto de Arqueología de Uzbekistán), han hecho patente la importancia de ese enclave en época greco-bactriana, con una de las ciudadelas fortificadas más notables del período114. En estas repúblicas de Asia Central también se produjo un claro punto de inflexión tras la desintegración de la URSS a principios de la década de 1990115. La desintegración de este Estado comportó la aparición de nuevos países independientes y en el marco de la investigación esto supuso una renovación historiográfica y una abertura a equipos internacionales116. En Uzbekistán, por ejemplo, desde entonces se han establecido diferentes misiones, tanto locales117 como mixtas (japoneses, alemanes, italianos, franceses, rusos, checos, australianos, catalanes118), que han podido continuar

108 BESENVAL et al. 2002, 1403-1411; BERNARD et al. 2006; BESENVAL – MARQUIS 2007; 2008. Entre 2004 y 2009, se realizaron siete campañas en Bactra. 109 Aunque también realizó proyectos fuera de Asia Central propiamente dicha, como en India, Pakistán, o Irán. Jean-Claude Gardin había sido designado director de la DAFA en 1980 y, gracias a las colaboraciones previas con los arqueólogos soviéticos, fue posible establecer esta misión tras la clausura de la Delegación en Afganistán. Sobre las actividades de esta misión, vid. FRANCFORT 2013. 110 Vid. n. 89. 111 Un resumen de sus proyectos puede verse en LERICHE – ANNAEV 1996; LERICHE – PIDAEV 2001; LERICHE 2013. Todos los informes de cada campaña, así como muchos de los artículos citados en esta y en la siguiente nota, pueden encontrarse online en HAL: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ search/index/q/*/keyword_t/Termez/ (fecha de consulta: 13/05/2019). 112 El primer artículo se lo debemos a CASTAGNÉ (1925; vid. n. 82). Al año siguiente, se iniciaría la primera excavación rusa, a cargo de Boris P. Denike, que duraría hasta 1928 (la memoria completa nunca fue publicada). Posteriormente, habría nuevas campañas, como la ya mencionada bajo la dirección de Mikhail E. Masson entre 1936 y 1938. 113 Pidaev había estado trabajando en Termez desde 1979. 114 Sobre Termez, véase LERICHE et al. 2001 (actas de un congreso celebrado en 1997 con Termez en el centro de la discusión); KARAMATOV – RTVELADZE 2001; LERICHE – PIDAEV 2007; 2008; LERICHE 2010; 2015. Vid. n. 118. 115 Vid. RAPIN – GOSHERNINA 2011. 116 Para una relación completa hasta el momento de los proyectos de cooperación: GORSHENINA 2013, 29-35. 117 Entre los arqueólogos locales, quizás la figura más destacada sea Edvard Rtvelazde de la Universidad de Samarcanda. 118 Josep Maria Gurt (UB) y Shakir R. Pidaev (Academia de las Ciencias de Uzbekistán) han dirigido esta misión conjunta, centrada especialmente en el entorno de Termez, en el área de Surkhan-darya, bajo el nombre de International Pluridisciplinary Archaeological Expedition to Bactria (IPAEB). Los resultados de las sucesivas campañas (2006-2010) pueden descargarse en https://www.recercat.cat/browse?value=Gurt%2C+Josep+M.+%28Josep+Maria%29%2C+1951-&type =author (fecha de consulta: 04/04/2018). Colateralmente, se desarrolla el proyecto Simulpast, dirigido por Marco Madella y con participación de múltiples departamentos de universidades e instituciones catalanas, además de la Universidad de Burgos: http://simulpast.imf.csic.es/index.php# (fecha de

Karanos 3/2020 146

HISTORIOGRAFÍA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA GRECO-BACTRIANAS: UNA BREVE GUÍA

los trabajos y/o abrir nuevos espacios de investigación en lugares como Maracanda, Koktepe, Kampyr Tepe, Kurganzol o Derbent. En Turkmenistán se han desarrollado también proyectos entre arqueólogos autóctonos y extranjeros, como los sondeos del delta del Murghab con participación italiana o las excavaciones de Merv y , con británicos y alemanes, respectivamente, además de diversos proyectos franceses. En Tayikistán, una misión del DAI, establecida en 2013 y dirigida por Gunvor Lindström, ha sacado a la luz un santuario helenístico en Torbulok119. Con una proyección más global, en 1993 se creó el Institut français d’études sur l’Asie centrale (IFEAC) dependiente del ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores galo y que sirve desde entonces como sostén para los investigadores con proyectos en las cinco repúblicas exsoviéticas, Afganistán, y las regiones centroasiáticas de Irán, Rusia y China120. La situación actual, pues, supone una mejora innegable respecto al hermetismo y a las fronteras blindadas de la Guerra Fría. De esta manera, es posible empezar a entender Asia Central como un todo, como era en la Antigüedad, sin delimitaciones inexistentes entonces. Sólo así comprenderemos las dinámicas de un mundo en que la interacción entre lo rural y lo urbano, lo nómada y lo sedentario conformaba su esencia básica. Los tres congresos de la Hellenistic Central Asia Research Network han puesto de relieve la revitalización de los estudios sobre ese territorio en la Antigüedad. En el marco de estos encuentros, se han podido presentar numerosos descubrimientos arqueológicos y nuevas propuestas historiográficas. La heterogeneidad de sus participantes es una buena muestra de un interés renovado por Asia Central en todo el mundo121. Así pues, pese a que difícilmente se podrá revertir el daño causado tras décadas de expolio y destrucción, la arqueología greco-bactriana sigue aún en pie y con la intención de desvelar los misterios de ese reino olvidado.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AJN (1879): “A Coin of Eucratides”, AJN 14.1: 18-20. ALDER, G (1985): Beyond Bokhara: The Life of William Moorcroft, Asian Explorer and Pioneer Veterinary Surgeon, London. ALI, T. – CONINGHAM, R. A. E. – DURRANI, M. A. – KHAN, G. R. (1998): “Preliminary report of two seasons of archaeological investigations at the Bala Hisar of Charsadda”, Ancient Pakistan 12: 1-34.

consulta: 04/04/2018). El objetivo es realizar simulaciones por ordenador de las dinámicas de las sociedades humanas y su interacción con el medio físico. Uno de los casos de estudio es, precisamente, el de los oasis de Asia Central. 119 Los resultados del proyecto pueden consultarse en: https://www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project- display/56724 (fecha de consulta: 04/04/2018). El DAI también está involucrado en las excavaciones del mencionado yacimiento de Kurganzol, con Leonid M. Sverchkov y Nikolaus Boroffka como cabezas visibles. Sobre este sitio arqueológico, en que destaca su fortaleza: SVERCHKOV 2008 (además de una monografía en ruso de 2013). 120 La sede central se encuentra en Tashkent y edita la publicación de Cahiers d’Asie Centrale, que ha dedicado algunos de sus números monográficos a la arqueología de Asia Central. Para más información, véase https://ifeac.hypotheses.org/institut/structure (fecha de consulta: 06/04/2018). 121 Desde abril de 2018 se publica la revista Afghanistan, editada desde la Universidad de Edimburgo. La revista aspira a ser una nueva revista de referencia en el ámbito de los estudios de Asia Central.

Karanos 3/2020 147

MARC MENDOZA

ALLCHIN, F. R. – HAMMOND, N. (1978): The archaeology of Afghanistan from earliest times to the Timurid period, London. ALLCHIN, F. R – HAMMOND, N. – BALL, W. (2019): The archaeology of Afghanistan: from earliest times to the Timurid period. Edinburgh. ALLOUCHE-LEPAGE, M.-T.(1956): L’art monétaire des royaumes bactriens: Essai d’interpretation de la symbolique religieuse gréco-orientale du IIIe au Ier s. av. J.-C., Paris. ALTHEIM, F. (1947-1948): Weltgeschichte Asiens im griechischen Zeitalter, 2 vols, Halle. ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ, B. (2020): “Alejandro ante el nazismo: Franz Altheim”, in A. GONZALES (ed.): Praxis e Ideologías de la Violencia. Para una anatomía de las sociedades patriarcales esclavistas desde la Antigüedad. XXXVIII Coloquio del GIREA, Bordeaux: 599-617. AZIMOV, I. (2001): “Essai de reconstruction graphique de la citadelle de Kampyr- Tepe”, in P. LERICHE – C. PIDAEV – M. GELIN – K. ABDOULLAEV – V. FOURNIAU (eds.): La Bactriane au carrefour des routes et des civilisations de l’Asie centrale: Termez et les villes de Bactriane-Tokharestan: Actes du colloque de Termez 1997, Paris: 235-240. BALL, W. (2008): The monuments of Afghanistan history, archaeology and architecture, London. — (2012): “Some Talk of Alexander: Myth and Politics in the North-West Frontier of British India”, in R. STONEMAN – K. ERICKSON – I. NETTON (eds.): The Alexander Romance in Persia and the East, Groningen: 121-152. — (2019a): “Excavations II. In Afghanistan”, Encyclopaedia Iranica IX/1: 94-96: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/excavations-ii. — (2019b [1980]): Archaeological Gazetteer of Afghanistan: Revised Edition, Oxford. BALL, W. – GARDIN, J.-C. (1982): Archaeological gazetteer of Afghanistan = Catalogue des sites archéologiques d’Afghanistan, 2 vols, Paris. BENDEZU-SARMIENTO, J. (2017): “Recherches archéologiques en Afghanistan, l’expertise historique française dans le reconstruction du pays”, Les Nouvelles d’Afghanistan 156: 21-24. BERNARD, P. (1966): “Première campagne de fouilles d’Aï Khanoum”, CRAI 110.1: 127-133. — (1967) “Deuxième campagne de fouilles d’Aï Khanoum”, CRAI 111.2: 306-324. — (1968): “Troisième campagne de fouilles d’Aï Khanoum”, CRAI 112.2: 263-279. — (1969): “Quatrième campagne de fouilles à Aï Khanoum (Bactriane)”, CRAI 113.3: 313-355. — (1970): “Campagne de fouilles 1969 à Aï Khanoum en Afghanistan”, CRAI 114.2: 301- 349. — (1971): “La campagne de fouilles de 1970 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan)”, CRAI 115.2: 385-452. — (1972): “Campagne de fouilles à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan)”, CRAI 116.4: 605- 632.

Karanos 3/2020 148

HISTORIOGRAFÍA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA GRECO-BACTRIANAS: UNA BREVE GUÍA

— (1974): “Fouilles de Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan), campagnes de 1972 et 1973”, CRAI 118.2: 280-308. — (1975): “Campagne de fouilles 1974 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan)”, CRAI 119.2: 167-197. — (1976): “Campagne de fouilles 1975 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan)”, CRAI 120.2: 287- 322. — (1978): “Campagne de fouilles 1976-1977 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan)”, CRAI 122.2: 421-463. — (1980): “Campagne de fouilles 1978 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan)”, CRAI 124.2: 435-459. — (1985): Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, Vol. IV: Les monnaies hors trésors. Questions d’histoire gréco-bactrienne, Paris. — (1987): “Le Marsyas d’Apamée, l’Oxus et la colonisation séleucide en Bactriane”, Studia Iranica 16: 103-115. — (1996): “Maracanda-Afrasiab colonie grecque,” in La Persia e l’Asia centrale da Alessandro al X secolo: Roma: 331-365. — (2001a): “Découverte, fouille et pillage d’un site archéologique: la cité gréco- bactrienne d’Aï Khanoum en Afghanistan”, in Afghanistan, patrimoine en péril. Actes d’une Journée d’étude, UNESCO, 24 février 2001, Paris: 71-96. — (2001b): “Aï Khanoum en Afghanistan hier (1964-1978) et aujourd’hui (2001): un site en péril. Perspectives d’avenir (information)”, CRAI 145.2: 971-1029. — (2002): “L’oeuvre de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan (1922- 1982)”, CRAI 146.4: 1287-1323. — (2007): “La mission d’Alfred Foucher en Afghanistan”, CRAI 151.4: 1797-1845. BERNARD, P. – BESENVAL, R. – MARQUIS, P. (2006): “Du “mirage bactrien” aux réalités archéologiques: nouvelles fouilles de la DAFA à Bactres”, CRAI 150.2:1175- 1254. BERNARD, P. – FRANCFORT, H.-P. (1978): Études de géographie historique sur la plaine d’Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan), Paris. BERNARD, P. – FRANCFORT, H.-P. (1979): “Nouvelles découvertes dans la Bactriane afghane”, (archeol.) 39: 117-148 BERNARD, P et al. (1973): Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, Vol. I: Campagnes 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, Paris. BERNARD, P. – GRENET, P. – ISAMIDDINOV, M. (1990): “Fouilles de la mission franco- soviétique à l’ancienne (Afrasiab): première campagne, 1989”, CRAI 134.2: 356-380. BERNARD, P. – GRENET, F. – ISAMIDDINOV, M. (1992): “Fouilles de la mission franco- ouzbèque à l’ancienne Samarkand (Afrasiab): deuxième et troisième campagnes (1990-1991)”, CRAI 136.2: 275-311. BESENVAL, R. (2013): “Les années noires du patrimoine archéologique d’Afghanistan (1980-2001). Chronologie d’un désastre”, Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 21/22: 69-91.

Karanos 3/2020 149

MARC MENDOZA

BESENVAL, R. – BERNARD, P. – JARRIGE, J.-F. (2002): “Carnet de route en images d’un voyage sur les sites archéologiques de la Bactriane afghane (mai 2002)”, CRAI 146.4: 1385-1428. BESENVAL, R. – MARQUIS, P. (2007): “Le rêve accompli d’Alfred Foucher à Bactres: nouvelles fouilles de la DAFA 2002-2007”, CRAI 151.4: 1847-1874. — (2008): “Les travaux de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan (DAFA): résultats des campagnies de l’automne 2007-printemps 2008 en Bactrian et à Kaboul”, CRAI 152.3: 973-995. BIVAR, A. D. H. (1951): “The Death of Eucratides in Medieval Tradition”, JAS 82: 7- 13. BLANC, E. (1893): “Notes de voyage en Asie centrale – Samarkande”, Revue des Deux Mondes 115: 796-838. BOPEARACHCHI, O. (1990): “King Milinda’s Conversion to Buddhism: Fact or Fiction?”, Ancient Ceylon: Journal of the Archaeological Survey Department of Sri Lanka 1: 1-14. — (2005): “Contribution of Greeks to the Art and Culture of Bactria and India: New Archaeological Evidence”, Indian Historical Review 32: 103-125 BOPEARACHCHI, O. – FLANDRIN, P. (2005): Le portrait d’Alexandre le Grand: Histoire d’une découverte pour l’humanité, Monaco. BORDEAUX, O. (2018): Les Grecs en Inde : politiques et pratiques monétaires (IIIe s.a.C.-Ier s.p.C.), Bordeaux. BROWNE, G. M. (2003): “Bayer’s coin of Eucratides”, ZPE 145: 212. BURNES, A. (1834): Travels into Bokhara, 3 vols, London. — (1843): Cabool: a personal narrative of a journey to and residence in that city in the years 1836, 7, and 8, Philadelphia. CHABOUILLET, A. (1867): “L’Eucratidion: Dissertation sur une médaille d’or inédite d’Eucratide, roi de la Bactriane,” RN 12: 382-415. CASTAGNÉ, J. (1925): “Les ruines de Termez”, Revue des arts asiatiques 2: 49-57. CHAFFANJON, J. (1899): “Rapport sur une mission scientifique dans l’Asie centrale et la Sibérie”, Nouvelles archive des missions scientifiques et littéraires 9: 55-133. COHEN, G. M. (2016): The Hellenistic settlements in the East from and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India. Berkeley. COLORU, O. (2008): “Reminiscenze dei re greco-battriani nella letteratura medievale e nella science fiction Americana”, Studi Ellenistici 20: 519-539. — (2009): Da Alessandro a Menandro: il regno greco di Battriana, –Roma. CONINGHAM, R. – ALI, I. (2007): Charsadda: The British-Pakistani excavations at the Bala Hisar, Oxford. CUNNINGHAM, A. (1884): Coins of Alexander’s Successors in the East, the Greeks and Indo-, London. CURIEL, R. – SCHLUMBERGER, D. (1953): Trésors monétaires d’Afghanistan, Paris. CURTIS, J. (2012): The , London.

Karanos 3/2020 150

HISTORIOGRAFÍA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA GRECO-BACTRIANAS: UNA BREVE GUÍA

DALTON, O. M. (1905): Franks’ Bequest: the treasure of the Oxus with other objects from ancient Persia and India bequethed to the trustees of the by Sir Wollaston Franks, London. DANI, A. H. (1965-1966): “Shaikhan Dheri Excavation (1963 and 1964 Seasons)”, Ancient Pakistan 2: 17-21. , T. W. R. (1890): The questions of King Milinda, Part 1: Books 1-4, Oxford. — (1894): The questions of King Milinda, Part 2: Books 4-7, Oxford. DE CARDI, B. (1950): “On the borders of Pakistan: Recent Exploration”, Art and Letters 24.2: 52-57. DE UJFALVY DE MEZÖ-KÖVESD, Ch.-E. (1887): Le Syr-Daria. Le Zérafchanc. Le pays des sept-rivières et la Sibérie occidentale. Paris. DROYSEN, J. G. (1836): Briefwechsel. vol. I, Stuttgart. — (1843): Geschichte des Hellenismus, vol. II, Geschichte der Bildung des hellenistischen Staatensystemes, Hamburg. DRUJININA, A. P. (2001): “Die Ausgrabungen in Taxt-i Sangin im Oxos-Tempelbereich (Süd-Tadzikistan). Vorbericht der Kampagnen 1998-1999”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 33: 257-292. DRUJININA, A. P. – BOROFFKA, N. R. (2006): “First preliminary report on the excavations in Takht-i Sangin 2004”, Bulletin of the Miho Museum 6: 57-69. DRUJININA, A. P. – INAGAKI, H. –HUDJAGELDIEV, T. – ROTT, F. (2009): “Excavations of Takht-i Sangin City,Territory of Oxus ”, Bulletin of the Miho Museum 9: 59-84. DRUJININA, A. P. – KHUDZHAGELDIEV, T. U. – INAGAKI, H. (2010): “Report of the Excavations of the Oxus Temple in Takht-i Sangin Settlement Site in 2007”, Bulletin of the Miho Museum 10: 63-89. — (2011) “The Results of the Archaeological Excavations at Takht-i Sangin in 2008,” Bulletin of the Miho Museum 11: 13-36. DVURECHENSKAYA, N. (2017): “Decor of Bactrian Ceramic Ware of the Hellenistic Era”, San’at: Journal of the Academy of Arts of Uzbekistan 2017: 10-15. ERRINGTON, E. (1999): “Rediscovering the collections of Charles Masson”, in M. ALRAM – KLIMBURG-SALTER, D. E. (eds.): Coins, Art and Chronology. Essays on the pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, Vienna: 207-237. — (2001 [2003]): “Charles Masson and Begram”, Topoi (Lyon) 11.1: 1-53. — (2002a): “Ancient Afghanistan through the eyes of Charles Masson: the Masson Project at the British Museum”, International Institute for Asian Studies Newsletter March: 8-9. — (2002b): “Discovering ancient Afghanistan. The Masson Collection”, Minerva 13.6: 53-55. FACCENNA, D. (1964): A guide to the excavations in Swat (Pakistan) 1956-1962, Roma. — (1980): Butkara I (Swat, Pakistan) 1956-1962, 5 vols, Roma. FENET, A. (2011a): “Perse, Afghanistan, Extrême-Orient. Politiques archéologiques françaises en Orient dans le premier quart du XXe siècle, d’après les archives de

Karanos 3/2020 151

MARC MENDOZA

la Société Asiatique”, Les Nouvelles de l’archéologie nº 126 : Archéologie(s) en situation coloniale 1. Paradigmes et situations comparées: 60-64. — (2011b): “De la Sorbonne à l’Asie. Routes orientalistes d’Ena Bazin-Foucher (1889- 1952)”, Genre & Histoire [En ligne] 9 (http://journals.openedition.org/ genrehistoire/1441). FOUCHER, A. – BAZIN-FOUCHER, E. (1942/47): La vieille route de l’Inde de Bactres à Taxila, Paris. FRANCFORT, H.-P. (2013): “Le rôle de la Mission archéologique française en Asie centrale (MAFAC) dans l’évolution de la recherche archéologique”, Cahiers d’Asie centrale 21/22: 99-111. FRANCFORT, H.-P. et al. (1984): Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, Vol. III: Le sanctuaire du temple à niches indentées, Paris. FUSSMAN, G. (1973): “Daniel Schlumberger (1904-1972)”, Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 60: 411-422. GARDIN, J.-C. (1957): Céramiques de Bactres, Paris. — (1980): “L’archéologie du paysage bactrien”, CRAI 124.3: 480-501. GARDIN, J.-C. – GENTELLE, P. (1976): “Irrigation et peuplement dans la plaine d’Aï Khanoum, de l’époque achéménide à l’époque musulmane”, Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême Orient 63: 59-110. — (1979): “L’exploitation du sol en Bactriane antique”, Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême Orient 66: 1-29. GELIN, M. (2010): Daniel Schlumberger, l’Occident a la rencontre de l’Orient, Beyrouth. GENTELLE, P. (1978): Étude géographique de la plaine d’Aï Khanoum et de son irrigation depuis les temps antiques, Paris. — (1985): “Déterminants écologiques de l’irrigation ancienne en Bactriane orientale”, in M. S. ASIMOV et al. (eds.): L’archéologie de la Bactriane ancienne. Actes du Colloque francosoviétique, Dushanbe (U.R.S.S.), 27 octobre - 3 novembre 1982, Paris: 159-167. GHIRSHMAN, R. B. (1946): Recherches archéologiques et historiques sur les Kouchans, Cairo. GLENN, S. (2016): Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Coins: A Bibliography of the Numismatics of the Hellenistic Far East (https://hellenisticfareast.files. wordpress.com/2016/10/glenn-2016-hfe-numismatic-bibliography.pdf). GÓMEZ ESPELOSÍN, F. J. (1996): Paradoxógrafos griegos: rarezas y maravillas, Madrid. — (2015): En busca de Alejandro: historia de una obsesión, Alcalá. GORSHENINA, S. (1997): “Un précurseur de l’archéologie et de l’ethnologie françaises en Asie Centrale: Joseph-Antoine Castagné (1875-1958)”, CRAI 141.1: 255-272. — (2001): “De l’archéologie touristique à l’archéologie scientifique. L’archéologie en Asie centrale de la conquête russe du Turkestan à l’aube de l’époque soviétique : la “non-archéologie” occidentale?”, ISIMU 4: 11-28.

Karanos 3/2020 152

HISTORIOGRAFÍA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA GRECO-BACTRIANAS: UNA BREVE GUÍA

— (2012): “L’archéologie russe en Asie centrale en situation coloniale: quelques approches”, EL 1-2: 183-222. — (2013): “L’archéologie française dans l’Asie Centrale soviétique et post-soviétique”, Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 21/22: 25-40. — (2017): “Alexandre le Grand et les Russes: un regard sur le conquérant porté depuis l’Asie centrale”, in C. ANTONETTI – P. BIAGI (eds.): With Alexander in India and Central Asia: Moving east and back to west, Oxford: 152-193. GORSHENINA, S. – LAMBERT, Y. (1999): “Premiers pas des archéologues russes et français dans le Turkestan russe (1870-1890): Méthodes de recherche et destin des collections”, in Cahiers du monde russe : Russie, Empire russe, Union soviétique, États indépendants 40/3: 365-384. GRENET, F. (2004): “Maracanda/Samarkand, une métropole pré-mongole: Sources écrites et archéologie”, Annales (HSS) 59.5: 1043-1067. GUILLAUME, O. et al. (1983): Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, Vol. II: Les propylées de la rue principale, Paris. — (1987): Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, Vol. VII: Les petits objets, Paris. GUILLAUME, O. (1990): Analysis of reasonings in archaeology: The case of Graeco- Bactrian and Indo-Greek numismatics, Delhi. HACKIN, J. (1939): Recherches archéologiques à Bégram: Chantier no. 2, 2 vols, Paris. — (1954): Nouvelles recherché archéologiques à Bégram (1939-1940), 2 vols, Paris. HELMS, S. W. (1979): “Old Kandahar Excavations 1976: Preliminary Report”, Afghan Studies 2: 1-8. — (1982): “Excavations at ‘The City and the Famous Fortress of Kandahar, the Foremost Place in all of Asia’”, Afghan Studies 3.4: 1-24. — (1997): Excavations at Old Kandahar in Afghanistan 1976-1978: Conducted on Behalf of the Society for South Asian Studies (Society for Afghan Studies). Stratigraphy, Pottery and Other Finds, Oxford. HERNÁNDEZ MORA, J. (1952): De la vida del sabio aventurero mahonés Saturnino Ximénez, Mahón. HILL, J. E. (trad.) (2003): The Western Regions according to the “Hou Hanshu”. The Xiyu juan “Chapter on the Western regions” from Hou Hanshu 88. Translated by. 2nd ed., revised with additional notes and appendices, http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/hhshu/hou_han_shu.html. HINCKLEY, H. B. (1933): “The Grete Emetreus the King of Inde”, MLN 48: 148-149. HOLT, F. L. (1988): Alexander the Great and Bactria: The Formation of a Greek Frontier in Central Asia, Leiden–New York. — (1999): Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bactria, Berkeley. — (2005): Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan, Berkeley. — (2009): “The and Treasures of Afghanistan,” American Scientist 97/3: 248-249. — (2010): “Bayer’s coin of Eucratides: a miscalculation corrected”, ZPE 174: 289-290. — (2012): Lost World of the Golden King: In search of ancient Afghanistan, Berkeley.

Karanos 3/2020 153

MARC MENDOZA

JAKOBSSON, J. (2007): “The Greeks of Afghanistan Revisited”, Nomismatika Khronika 26: 51-70. KARAMATOV, H. – RTVELADZE, E. V. (2001): . An Ancient and Modern City at an Important Crossroads, Tashkent:. KARTTUNEN, K. (1989): India in early . Helsinki. — (1994): “, Yavanas, and related matter in Indian Epigraphy”, in A. PARPOLA – P. KOSKIKALLIO (eds.): South Asian Archaeology 1993: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, Helsinki: 329-336. KORDOSIS, M. (1994): “China and the Greek World: An Introduction to Greek-Chinese Studies with Special Reference to the Chinese Sources,” Historikogeographika 4: 253-304. KRUGLIKOVA, I. (1977): “Les Fouilles de la mission archéologique soviéto-afghane sur le site gréco-kushan de Dilberdjin en Bactriane (Afghanistan)”, CRAI 121.2: 407- 427. KRUGLIKOVA, I. T. – MUSTAMANDI, S. (1970): “Résultats préliminaires des travaux de l’Expedition archéologique Afghano-Soviétique en 1969”, Afghanistan 23: 84- 97. LANTIER, R. (1945): “Joseph Hackin (1887-1941)”, RA 23: 126-128. LE BERRE, M. – SCHLUMBERGER, D. (1964): “Observations sur les remparts de Bactres”, in B. DAGENS – M. LE BERRE – D. SCHLUMBERGER (eds.): Monuments préislamiques d’Afghanistan, Paris: 61-102. LECUYOT, G. ( 2013): Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, Vol. IX: L’habitat, Paris. LERICHE, P. . Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, Vol. V: Les remparts et les monuments associés, Paris. — (2002): “Termez fondation d’Alexandre?”, JA 290: 411-415. — (2010): “L’Ancienne Termez dans l’Antiquité”, Journal of Historical, Philological and Cultural Studies 27: 153-190. — (2013): “L’apport de la Mission archéologique franco-ouzbeque (MAFOuz) de Bactriane du Nord à l’histoire de l’Asie centrale”, Cahiers d’Asie centrale, 21/22: 135-164. — (2015): “La decouverte de l’Ancienne Termez, metropole de la Bactriane du Nord”, 22: 47-85. LERICHE, P. – ANNAEV, T. (1996): “Bilan des travaux de la MAFOUZ de Bactriane (Mission archéologique franco-ouzbèque de Bactriane septentrionale)”, in La Persia e l’Asia Centrale da Alessandro al X secolo, Roma: 277-303. LERICHE, P. – PIDAEV, Š. (2001): “L’action de la Mission Archéologique Franco- Ouzbèque de Bactriane”, Cahiers d’Asie centrale 9: 243-248. — (2007): “Termez in Antiquity”, in J. CRIBB – G. HERRMANN (eds.): After Alexander: Central Asia Before Islam, Oxford: 179-211. — (2008): Termez sur Oxus. Cité capitale d’Asie Centrale, Paris. LERICHE, P. – PIDAEV, Š. – GELIN, M. – ABDOULLAEV, K. – FOURNIAU, V. (eds.) (2001): La Bactriane au carrefour des routes et des civilisations de l’Asie centrale:

Karanos 3/2020 154

HISTORIOGRAFÍA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA GRECO-BACTRIANAS: UNA BREVE GUÍA

Termez et les villes de Bactriane-Tokharestan: Actes du colloque de Termez 1997, Paris. LITVINSKIJ, B. A. (1995): “Ancient Tajikistan Studies in History, Archaeology and Culture (1980-1991)”, Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 1: 289-304. LITVISKIJ, B. A. – PICHIKYAN, I. R. (1980): “Monuments of Art from the Sanctuary of Oxus (Northern Bactria)”, AAntHung 28: 25-83 — (1981a): “The Temple of the Oxus”, JAS 1981.2: 133-167. — (1981b): “Découvertes dans un sanctuaire du dieu Oxus de la Bactriane septentrionale”, RA 1981.2: 195-216. — (1994): “The Hellenistic Architecture and Art of the Temple of the Oxus”, Bulletin of the Asia Institute, New Series (Studies from the Former Soviet Union) 8: 47- 66. — (2002): Takt-i Sangin, Der Oxos-Tempel. Grabungsbefund, Stratigraphie und Architektur (Archaologie in Iran und Turan 4), Mainz. LODS, A. (1944): “Éloge Funèbre de M. Joseph Hackin, Correspondant de l’Académie”, CRAI 88.3: 406-412. LO MUZIO, C. (1999): “The Dioscuri at Dilberjin (Northern Afghanistan)”, Studia Iranica 28: 41-71. LUNDBÆK, K. (1986): T.S. Bayer, 1694-1738: Pioneer Sinologist, London. LUNT, J. D. (1969): Bokhara Burnes, London. MAIRS, R. (2006): “Hellenistic India”, New Voices in Classical Reception 1: 19-30. — (2011): The Archaeology of the Hellenistic Far East: A Survey. Bactria, Central Asia and the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, c. 300 BC - AD 100, Oxford. — (2014a): The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language and Identity in Greek Central Asia, Berkeley. — (2014b), “The Reception of T. S. Bayer’s Historia Regni Graecorum Bactriani (1738)”, Anabasis: Studia Classica et Orientalia 4: 255-262. MARSHALL, J. H. (1951): Taxila: An Illustrated Account, Cambridge. — (1960): A Guide to Taxila, Cambridge. MARTINEZ-SÈVE, L. (2003): “L’occupation grecque à Samarcande et en Sogdiane : Nouvelles Découvertes”, RA 1: 202-205. MASSON, C. (1842-1843 [1977]): Narrative of various journeys in Balochistan, Afghanistan, the Panjab, and Kalat, Karachi. MCNICOLL, A. (1978): “Excavations at Kandahar, 1975: Second Interim Report”, Afghan Studies 1: 41-66. MCNICOLL, A. – BALL, W. (1996): Excavations at Kandahar 1974 and 1975: The First Two Seasons at Shahr-i Kohna (Old Kandahar). Conducted by the British Institute of Afghan Studies, Oxford. MOHAN, L. (1846): Travels in the , Afghanistan and to Balk, Bokhara and Herat, London. NARAIN, A. K. (1957), The Indo-Greeks, Oxford. NEGMATOV, N. N. (1986): “Archaic Khojent - Alexandria Eschata (To the Problem of Syr-Darya Basin Urbanization)”, Journal of Central Asia 9: 41-54.

Karanos 3/2020 155

MARC MENDOZA

NEWELL, E. T. (1937): Royal Greek portrait coins, New York. NIKONOROV, V. P. – SAVCHUK, S. A. (1992): “New Data on Ancient Bactrian Body- Armour (In the Light of Finds from Kampyr Tepe)”, Iran 30: 49-54. OLIVIER-UTARD, F. (1997): Politique et archéologie: Histoire de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan (1922-1982), Paris. — (2012): “HACKIN, Joseph”, in F. POUILLON (ed.): Dictionnaire des orientalistes de langue française, Paris: 503-504. OLIVIERI, L. M. (2006a): “Outline History of the IsIAO Italian Archaeological Mission in Pakistan (1956-2006)”, E&W 56.1/3: 23-41. — (2006b): “The IsIAO Italian Archaeological Mission in Pakistan: A Selected Bibliography (1956-2006)”, E&W 56.1/3: 301-318 OMRANI, B. (2006): “‘Will we make it to Jalalabad?’ 19th century travels in Afghanistan”, Royal Society for Asian Affairs 37.2: 161-174. — (2008): “Charles Masson of Afghanistan: Deserter, Scholar, Spy”, Royal Society for Asian Affairs 39/2: 199-216. PLA, J. (1969): Homenots. Primera Serie, Barcelona. PRINSEP, J. (1833): “Notes on Lieutenant Burnes’ Collection of Ancient Coins”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 2: 310-318. PUGACHENKOVA, G. A. (1965): “La de Khaltchayan”, IA 5: 116-127. RAMACHANDRAN, T. N. – SHARMA, Y. D. (1956): Archaeological Reconnaissance in Afghanistan: Preliminary Report of the Indian Archaeological Delegation, New Delhi. RAWLINSON, H. G. (1912): Bactria: The History of a Forgotten Empire, London. RAPIN, C. (1994): “Fortifications hellénistiques de Samarcande (Samarkand- Afrasiab)”, Topoi (Lyon) 4: 547-565. RAPIN, C. et al. (1992): Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, Vol. VIII: La trésorerie du palais hellénistique d’Aï Khanoum, Paris. RAPIN, C – GORSHENINA, S. (2011): “De l’archéologie ruso-soviétique en situation coloniale à l’archéologie postcoloniale en Asie centrale”, Les Nouvelles de l’archéologie (Archéologie(s) en situation coloniale 1. Paradigmes et situations comparées) 126: 29-32. RAY, H. P. (1988): “The Yavana Presence in Ancient India”, JESHO 31: 311-325. RTVELADZE, E. V. (1994): “Kampir-Tepe: Structures, Written Documents, and Coins,” in B. A. LITVINSKIJ – C. ALTMAN-BROMBERG (eds.): The Archaeology and Art of Central Asia: Studies from the Former Soviet Union, Bloomfield Hills: 141-154. — (1995): “Découvertes en numismatique et épigraphie gréco-bactriennes à Kampyr- Tepe (Bactriane du nord)”, RN 6: 20-24. — (1999): “Kampyr Tepe-Pandokheïon”, Dossiers d’Archéologie 247: 56-57. — (2009): “Kampyr-Tepe-Pandocheion - Alexandria Oxiana”, in S. HANSEN – A. WIECZOREK – M. TELLENBACH (eds.): Alexander der Grosse und die Öffnung der Welt : Asiens Kulturen im Wandel, Regensburg: 169-175.

Karanos 3/2020 156

HISTORIOGRAFÍA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA GRECO-BACTRIANAS: UNA BREVE GUÍA

RUSANOV, D. V. (1994): “The Fortifications of Kampir-Tepe: A Reconstruction”, in B. A. LITVINSKIJ – C. ALTMAN-BROMBERG (eds.): The Archaeology and Art of Central Asia: Studies from the Former Soviet Union, Bloomfield Hills: 155-160: SCHLUMBERGER, D. (1949): “La prospection archéologique de Bactres (printemps 1947) Rapport sommaire”, Syria 26: 173-190. SCHLUMBERGER, D. (1961): Excavations at Surkh Kotal and the Problem of Hellenism in Bactria and India, London. SCHLUMBERGER, D. – LE BERRE, M. – FUSSMAN, G. (1983): Surkh Kotal en Bactriane, Paris. SHISHKINA, G. V. (1986): “Les remparts de Samarcande à l’époque hellénistique”, in P. LERICHE – H. TRÉZINY (eds.): La fortification dans l’histoire du monde grec, Paris: 71-78. — (1994): “Ancient Samarkand: Capital of Soghd”, Bulletin of the Asia Institute 8: 81- 99. SIDKY, H. (2000): The Greek kingdom of Bactria: from Alexander to Eucratides the great, Lanham. SVERCHKOV. L. M. (2008): “The Kurganzol Fortress (on the in the Hellenistic Era)”, Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 14: 123-191. TARN, W. W. (1901): “Patrocles and the Oxo-Caspian Trade Route”, JHS 21: 10-29. — (1902): “Notes on Hellenism in Bactria and India”, JHS 22: 268-293. — (1938): The Greeks in Bactria and India, Cambridge. TARZI, Z. (1996): “Jules Barthoux : le découvreur oublié d’Aï Khanoum”, CRAI 140.2: 595-611. TUCCI, G. (1958): “Preliminary Report on an Archaeological Survey in Swat”, E&W 9.4: 279-348. — (1963): La via dello Svat, . VEUVE, S. et al. (1987): Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, Vol. VI: Le Gymnase. Architecture, céramique, sculpture, Paris. VON SALLET, A. (1879): Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen in Baktrien und Indien, Berlin. — (1881): “Alexander der Grosse als Gründer der baktrisch-indischen Reiche”, Zeitschrift für Numismatik 8: 279-280. WHEELER, M. (1947): “Archaeology in Afghanistan”, Antiquity 21: 57-65. — (1962): Charsada: A Metropolis of the North-West Frontier, Oxford. WHITEHOUSE, D. (1978): “Excavations at Kandahar, 1974: First Interim Report”, Afghan Studies 1: 9-39. WHITTERIDGE, G. (1986): Charles Masson of Afghanistan: explorer, archaeologist, numismatist and intelligence agent, Warminster. WIDEMANN, F. (2009): Les successeurs d’Alexandre en Asie centrale et leur héritage culturel: essai, Paris. WILL, E. (1973): “Daniel Schlumberger (19 Décembre 1904-21 Octobre 1972)”, Syria 50.3/4: 267-276.

Karanos 3/2020 157

MARC MENDOZA

WYLIE, A (trad.). (1874): “History of the Heung-Noo in Their Relations with China (Translated from the Tseen-Han-Shoo)”, The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 3: 401-52. — (1876): “History of the Heung-Noo in Their Relations with China. Translated from the Tseen-Han-Shoo”, The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 5: 41-80. — (1881): “Notes on the Western Regions (Translated from the Tseen-Han-Shoo, Book 96, Part 1)”, The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 10: 20-73. — (1882): “Notes on the Western Regions. Translated from the “Tseen Han Shoo,” Book 96, Part 2”, The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 11: 83-115. XIMÉNEZ, S. (1925). L’Asie Mineure en ruines, Paris. YAZDANI, M. (2012), “GHIRSHMAN, Roman”, in F. POUILLON (ed.): Dictionnaire des orientalistes de langue française, Paris: 468-470. YOUNG, R. S. (1955): “The South Wall of Balkh-Bactra” AJA 59: 267-276.

Karanos 3/2020 158

F LASHBACKS

F LASHBACKS Karanos 3, 2020 161-170

Philippe II et les dieux*

by Sylvie Le Bohec Université de Rouen [email protected]

ABSTRACT Macedonian kings kept close bonds with the divine sphere. They considered themselves as Heraklids (and, in consequence, they traced back their lineage to Zeus himself) and the kingship kept noteworthy religious functions. Philip II made wide use of this religious side and it became a key element of his public image and propaganda, both inside and outside the kingdom of Macedonia. It was especially important the relation Philip established with Panhellenic shrines, like Delphi and Olympia, in close connection with his aspiration for hegemony all over Greece. Philip also regarded his coinage as useful political tools and the religious motives engraved are very telling about the king’s claims and objectives.

KEYWORDS Philip II, Macedonia, Delphi, Olympia, coinage, Zeus.

Les rois de Macédoine se disent descendants de Zeus et d’Héraclès1 et les fonctions religieuses font partie de leurs attributions2. Philippe II, fils du roi Amyntas III, n’a pas failli à cette tradition. Si la question de la divinisation de Philippe II ou des honneurs divins qu’il a pu recevoir a passionné ou passionne encore les historiens3, celle des rapports qu’il a entretenus avec les dieux a été moins abordée. Par conséquent, cette étude n’est pas un article de plus sur la divinisation éventuelle du souverain. Elle porte, avant tout, sur Philippe et les dieux, c’est-à-dire sur les manifestations de sa piété, sur les divinités qu’il a le plus spécialement choisies d’honorer, bref sur son comportement et sa familiarité vis-à-vis du monde divin. Nous possédons quelques renseignements sur les actes de piété de Philippe II. A plusieurs reprises, Diodore de Sicile mentionne la piété de Philippe envers les dieux, son eusébeia, une piété qui impressionne les Grecs4. Il faut toutefois noter que cette mention est faite, dans tous les cas, à la suite de son intervention victorieuse en 352 contre les Phocidiens dans la troisième guerre sacrée5. Cet épisode a entraîné pour le roi une hausse de prestige considérable. Diodore nous dit: “il a châtié les profanateurs

* Originally published in Ancient Macedonia / Archaia Makedonia VII (Papers Read at the Seventh International Symposium held in Thessaloniki by the Institute of Balkan Studies (Greece): LE BOHEC 2007. Published in Karanos by kind permission of the author and the Institute for Balkan Studies. 1 DASKALAKIS 1970; LE BOHEC 2002. 2 HAMMOND 1989, 22-23. 3 En dernier lieu, BAYNHAM 1994, où on trouvera la bibliographie antérieure. 4 D.S. 16.1.4, 38; 2.60.3, 64.3. 5 Sur la troisième guerre sacrée, BUCKLER 1989. eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199 SYLVIE LE BOHEC

et délivré l’oracle”6. De même, Justin écrit: “c’était lui qui avait vengé la religion”7. Après sa victoire, Philippe fait pendre Onomarchos, le chef des Phocidiens, et jeter à la mer tous ses hommes car, écrit Diodore, “ils sont coupables de sacrilèges”8. Pour les Grecs, le châtiment des sacrilèges est une chose importante et nécessaire. Quelques années plus tard, Philippe présente son expédition contre les Perses9 comme une vengeance contre ces derniers qui avaient commis des sacrilèges lors des guerres médiques. Diodore écrit: “il fit répandre le bruit qu’il voulait déclarer la guerre aux pour venger les Grecs des profanations que les Barbares avaient commises dans les de la Grèce”10. Les préoccupations religieuses ne sont certainement pas absentes de son esprit, mais Philippe a l’habilité de s’en servir pour augmenter encore son prestige. Il faut cependant rappeler que le roi n’eut pas toujours cette noble attitude. Lui-même aurait pillé le temple d’Hadès près de Byzance alors qu’il faisait le siège de la ville11. De nombreux devins font partie de l’entourage de Philippe II et le roi peut ainsi les consulter quand il le souhaite. Plutarque rapporte que Philippe venant de prendre Potidée en 356 reçoit trois bonnes nouvelles presque en même temps: la victoire de son général Parménion sur les Illyriens, la victoire d’un de ses chevaux de courses aux concours d’Olympie et la naissance d’un fils, Alexandre. Plutarque ajoute: “tout cela lui causa naturellement beaucoup de joie et son exaltation fut encore augmentée par les devins, selon qui l’enfant dont la naissance coïncidait avec trois victoires serait invincible”12. Deux de ces devins sortent de l’anonymat: Diognète et Aristandros. Selon une tradition connue tardivement, Philippe tentait parfois d’atteindre à coup de flèches les étoiles filantes. Le devin Diognète en aurait déduit qu’il serait le maître de nombreux peuples13. Aristandros de , devin qui accompagna ensuite Alexandre le Grand dans son expédition14, faisait déjà partie de l’entourage de Philippe et jouissait d’une grande autorité. Ses avis paraissent plus assurés que ceux de ses collègues15. Lorsque Philippe fait part aux devins du songe dans lequel il se voit mettant un sceau représentant un lion sur le ventre de sa femme, la plupart d’entre eux sont inquiets. Seul, Aristandros donne une explication réfléchie. Il dit que “la femme était enceinte puisqu’on ne scelle point ce qui est vide, et qu’elle l’était d’un enfant au grand courage et à la nature de lion”16. Philippe II, comme ses contemporains, consulte les . Parmi les nombreuses consultations faites par le roi, trois apparaissent dans nos sources. Pir des raisons qui nous échappent, Philippe II a consulté l’oracle de Trophonios à Lébadée. Le dieu dans sa réponse, lui enjoint “de faire attention au char”. Elien qui rapporte ce fait ajoute que le roi ne montait jamais sur un char et que deux explications ont été fournies: la plus répandue disait que l’épée de Pausanias, l’assassin de Philippe, portait une image de char dans l’ivoire de la poignée. L’autre, peu connue, rapportait que Philippe fut tué

6 D.S. 16.1.4: τοὺς δὲ τὸ ἐν Δελφοῖς ἱερὸν συλήσαντας καταπολεμήσας καὶ τῷ μαντείῳ βοηθήσας. 7 Justin 8.2.6: illum uindicem sacrilegii, illum ultorem religionum. 8 D.S. 16.35.6: ὁ δὲ Φίλιππος τὸν μὲν Ὀνόμαρχον ἐκρέμασε, τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλους ὡς ἱεροσύλους κατεπόντισεν. Voir DUCREY 1968, 69 n. 2. 9 Sur la guerre contre les Perses, HAMMOND 1994, 165-170 où on trouvera la bibliographie antérieure. 10 D.S. 16.89.2. 11 Dion.Byz. 14 (ed. GÜNGERICH 1927, 6); LONG 1987, 154. 12 Plu. Alex. 3.8-9 (trans. FLACELIÈRE – CHAMBRY 1975). 13 Photios 149a = n. 190 Ptolémée Héphaistion; CORVISIER 2002, 70. 14 Curt. 2.14; vid. 5.4.1; Arr. An. 3.2. 15 Les Telmessiens étaient célèbres pour leur art d’interpréter les présages: Hdt. 1.78; Arr. An. 2.3.3. Sur Aristandros, BERVE 1928, 117. 16 Plu. Alex. 2.4-5 (trad. FLACELIERE – CHAMBRY 1975).

Karanos 3/2020 F LASHBACKS 162

PHILIPPE II ET LES DIEUX

alors qu’il contournait le lac thébain appelé Char17. Les deux autres consultations ont été faites auprès de l’oracle de Delphes, oracle tenu en haute rapport avec l’autorité que le roi a obtenue sur le sanctuaire après sa victoire sur les Phocidiens18. Lorsque Philippe doit prendre des décisions graves, il a recours à l’avis de l’oracle. La première consultation a lieu aprés son mariage avec Olympias19. En effect, troublé d’avoir vu un serpent éntendu près d’Olympias endormie, Philippe envoie Chairon de Mégalopolis interroger Apollon. En réponse, la Pythie lui recommande de sacrifier à Ammon et de vénérer ce dieu entre tous. L’oracle ajoutait que Philippe perdrait un de ses yeux, celui qu’il avait appliqué à la fente de la porte pour épier le dieu qui, sous forme de serpent, était couché avec sa femme20. On sait que Philippe perdra un oeil au siège de Méthonè en 354. Avant de prendere part personnellement à l’expédition contre les Perses, alors que Parménion et Attale sont déja en Asie, Philippe a besoin de l’assentiment des dieux. Là encore, c’est l’Apollon de Delphes qui est interrogé. Le souverain fait demander à la Pythie s’il sera vainqueur des Perses. L’oracle répond: “Le taureau est couronné, les apprêts son finis, celui qui doit l’immoler attend”. Philippe interprète l’oracle à son avantage considérant que le Grand Roi, tel un taureau prêt pour le sacrifice, allait être égorgé et il se réjouit de l’appui des dieux21. En tant que grand prêtre, Philippe se doit d’accomplir un grand nombre de rites. Les sources n’en citent malheureusement que quelques uns: des sacrifices, des concours, une procession. Philippe, comme tous les rois argéades, faisait de nombreux sacrifices. Nos sources mentionnent, à plusieurs reprises, ceus accomplis par Alexandre. Ces sacrifices sont souvent qualifiés de “conformes à la tradition”, “d’habituels”22 et ces indications montrent bien qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une innovation d’Alexandre. En ce qui concerne Philippe, Plutarque, dans un passage déjà cité23, rapporte que l’oracle de Delphes prescrit au roi de faire des sacrifices à Ammon. Les autres sacrifices de Philippe que nous connaissons sons tous des sacrifices d’action de grâces: le souverain accomplit ce rite pour remercier les dieux de lui avoir accordé la victoire. Selon Dion Chrysostome, Philippe et Alexandre avaient l’habitude, après leurs victoires, de célébrer à Dion des sacrifices somptueux en l’honneur de Zeus et des Muses24. Démosthène et Diodore fon état de tels sacrifices après la prise d’Olynthe en 34825 et, en remerciement pour la victoire à Chéronée en 338. Diodore dit que Philippe “a offert aux dieux des sacrifices”26. Enfin, avant de partir pour l’Asie, afin de remercier les dieux qui, croit-il, l’encouragent dans ce sens, Philippe ordonne d’accomplir de magnifiques sacrifices en leur honneur27. Ces sacrifices s’accompagnent très souvent de concours. Après la prise d’Olynthe, en plus des sacrifices déjà cités, Philippe fait célébrer des concours olympiques28 qui

17 Ael. VH 3.45. 18 Ci-dessus n. 5. Sur les rapports entre Philippe II et le sanctuaire de Delphes, voir: LEFEVRE 1998, 95; SANCHEZ 2001, chap. VII; MARI 2002, 136-142. 19 Sur Olympias voir en dernier lieu: CARNEY 2000, 62-67, 85-88, 119-123. 20 Plu. Alex. 2.6-9; 3.1-2; voir ΚΑΡΑΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ1987, 131-133 (in Greek). 21 D.S. 16.91.2-4, voir aussi Paus. 8.7.6; Val. Max. 1.8, ext. 9; FONTEROSE 1978, 213-214, 337-338; ΚΑΡΑΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ 1987, 133. 22 Sur les sacrifices d’Alexandre, voir HAMMOND 1989, 22-23 et nn. 32, 33. 23 Plu. Alex. 3.1; ci-dessus n. 20. 24 D. Chr. 2.2; MARI 1998, 143 n.1 rejette ce passage. 25 D. 19.192; D.S. 16.55.1. 26 D.S. 16.86.6: ἐπινίκια τοῖς θεοῖς ἔθυσε. 27 D.S. 16.91.4: θυσίας μεγαλοπρεπεῖς ἐπετέλει τοῖς θεοῖς. 28 D. 19.192; D.S. 16.55.1.

Karanos 3/2020 F LASHBACKS 163

SYLVIE LE BOHEC

ont vraisemblablement lieu dans le grand sanctuaire de Zeus à Dion29. Diodore les qualifie de λαμπροί, de “splendides”30. De même, pour remercier les dieux de leur appui pour son expédition en Asie et célébrer les noces de sa fille Cléopâtre, Philippe organise des concours “magnifiques” (μεγαλοπρεπεῖς) à Aigai31. Le roi souhaite aussi attirer une grande foule de Macédoniens et d’autres Grecs. C’est Philippe lui-même qui veille à leur organisation et décide de leur déroulement. Ainsi, le banquet ayant duré plus longtemps que prévu, le roi remet les concours au lendemain32. Les différentes épreuves de ces concours ne sont pas connues; nous savons seulement qu’au moins certaines d’entre elles avaient lieu au théâtre et qu’il y avait notamment des concours musicaux33. Rappelons aussi que, vainqueur des Phocidiens, Philippe se voit confier par l’amphictionie l’organisation des Pythia qui devaient se dérouler à Delphes cette année là34. Toutefois les circonstances sont différentes: ce n’est pas le roi lui-même qui décidé de les organiser. Une procession (pompè) est évoquée par Diodore, c’est celle qui a lieu lors de la grande fête, déjà mentionnée, organisée par le roi à Aigai pour célébrer deux événements, les noces de sa fille Cléopâtre et son départ pour l’Asie. Elle se déroule, en partie, dans le théâtre35 et a été préparée avec soin. Dans le cortège, Philippe fait porter les statues des douze dieux auxquelles il en a fait ajouter une treizième, la sienne. Ces statues étaient artistement et richement travaillées. Celle de Philippe es décrite ainsi: “et parmi celles-ci, on promenait en procession une treizième statue, digne d’un dieu, celle de Philippe lui-même, le roi se montrant lui-même trônant avec les douze dieux”36. Toutes ces statues semblent avoir été confectionnées pour la circonstance37. Nous ignorons le point de départ de cette procession et son trajet précis ; la seule information donnée par Diodore est qu’elle passe par le théâtre où la foule assemblée l’admire38. Nous ne savons pas non plus quels étaient les autres éléments de cette pompè que Diodore dit magnifiques. Cette statue de Philippe II présente aux côtés des douze dieux a fait couler beaucoup d’encre39. Il n’est pas dans notre propos de reprendre une fois de plus cette question: quelques remarques suffiront afin d’attirer l’attention sur certains points. En premier lieu, il est rare, dans le monde grec, de voir une procession avec les représentations des douze dieux. Ch. Long en signale seulement une autre, à Magnésie du Méandre, beaucoup plus tardive dans le temps puisque le texte qui la mentionne date de 196 avant J.-C.40. Le mot utilisé par Diodore n’est pas agalma, lequel, on le sait, désigne une statue cultuelle, mais eidolon41. Cette dernière constatation irait bien avec l’hypothèse que Philippe ne s’est pas considéré comme un dieu. On peut toutefois se demander si Diodore a vraiment le souci du terme exact. Comme l’ont déjà fait remarquer plusieurs commentateurs, ce que souhaitait montrer le roi par la présence de sa propre statue

29 Sur ces Olympia voir en dernier lieu MARI 1998, 137-169. 30 D.S. 16.55.1. 31 D.S. 16.91.5; Justin 9.6.3. 32 D.S. 16.92.5. 33 D.S. 16.91.5: ἀγῶνάς τε μουσικοὺς. 34 D.S. 16.60; voir ci-dessus n. 18. 35 Sur le théâtre d’Aigai, voir DROUGOU 1999. 36 D.S. 16.92.5. 37 LONG 1987, 212. 38 D.S. 16.92.5. 39 Certains historiens ont contesté l’authenticité de ce passage: voir sur ce point la bibliographie citée par LONG 1987, 207 n. 121: on y ajoutera BAYNHAM 1994, 36-37. 40 LONG 1987, 211. 41 NOCK 1930, 57 (= NOCK 1972, 247).

Karanos 3/2020 F LASHBACKS 164

PHILIPPE II ET LES DIEUX

parmi celle des douze dieux, c’est qu’il était plus qu’un homme et que les dieux le soutenaient dans sa domination sur le monde grec et pour son expédition contre les Perses42. En tout cas, c’est Philippe II lui-même qui a veillé à l’organisation de cette procession et qui supervisé son bon déroulement43. Philippe a aussi certainement consacré aux dieux de nombreuses offrandes dans les sanctuaires; la plus connue est le érigé dans l’Altis d’Olympie sur lequel nous reviendrons plus loin44. Si nous examinons maintenant les divinités que Philippe II a particulièrement honorées, une place de choix doit être réservée à Zeus. C’est la tête laurée de ce dieu que le roi a fait placer au droit de ses tétradrachmes45. Zeus qui règne sur l’Olympe, montagne familière aux Macédoniens, et qui est le père de Makedôn46, héros éponyme de la Macédoine, a toujours été très honoré dans cette région47. De plus, en tant qu’ancêtre de la famille des Argéades, Zeus a aussi été très vénéré par les souverains macédoniens48. La présence de Zeus sur les monnaies n’est donc pas, en soi, un fait surprenant. Ce qui l’est davantage, c’est que ce soit la tête même du dieu qui y figure. En effect, les prédécesseurs de Philippe II n’avaient jamais fait représenter le dieu lui- même: seul, son animal familier, l’aigle, était présent comme on peut le voir sur les monnaies d’Archélaos Ier, d’Amyntas III et de Perdiccas II49. Il faut donc s’interroger sur les raisons précises qui ont poussé Philippe II à mettre la tête du dieu lui-même au droit de ses tétradrachmes. G. Le Rider envisage deux possibilités50. Comme la tête d’Apollon ornait les tétradrachmes des Chalcidiens et comme le roi avait abandonné l’étalon persique pout l’étalon thraco-macédonien utilisé notamment par les Chalcidiens, il n’est pas interdit de penser que Philippe ait souhaité une représentation “en quelque sorte parallèle sur ses propes monnaies”51. Une autre explication possible est que Philippe II, passioné de courses de chevaux, vouait un culte particulier à Zeus protecteur à la fois des Olympia de Dion et des concours olympiques en Elide. A. M. Prestianni-Giallombardo considère que la tête de Zeus sur les tétradrachmes de Philippe a d’abord un aspect macédonien et qu’ensuite, ce type a pu prendre un aspect panhellénique52. Le fait que, dans le traité juré entre Philippe et les Chalcidiens en 35653, Zeus soit invoqué et que des sacrifices soient accomplis en son honneur n’est pas à mentionner pour notre propos car Zeus est habituellement présent parmi les divinités protectrices des serments54. Nous laisserons aussi de côté les autels de Zeus Philippeios construits par la cité d’Eréros55 car la décision de leur érection n’émane pas du roi.

42 En dernier lieu, voir Griffith in HAMMOND – GRIFFITH 1979, 683; LONG 1987, 210; BAYNHAM 1994, 36-37; BORZA 1999, 66-68. 43 BAYNHAM 1994, 40 suppose que Philippe avait au moins l’appui de ses hétairoi et peut-être aussi celui d’une grande partie des Macédoniens. 44 Vid. infra. 45 Sur les monnaies de Philippe II, voir LE RIDER 1977; 1996b où on trouvera la bibliographie antérieure. 46 Hes. Frg. 25 (éd. RZACH 1902). 47 BAEGE 1913, 1-9; DULL 1977 (ne concerne que la partie ex-yougoslave et bulgare de la Macédoine); DASKAPOULOS 1993, 309-364; ΧΡΥΣΟΣΤΟΜΟΥ 1989-1991 [1996]; VOUTIRAS 2006. 48 Voir LE BOHEC 2002, ou on trouvera la bibliographie antérieure. 49 GAEBLER 1935, Pl. xxix, 16,1,7,17; LE RIDER 1977, 363-364. 50 LE RIDER 1977, 364. 51 Sur le monnayage de la Ligue chalcidienne, WESTERMAK 1988; PSOMA 2001. 52 PRESTIANNI-GIALLOMBARDO 1982, 524 et n. 30. 53 HATZOPOULOS 1996, II nº2, 15. 54 PLESCIA 1970. 55 IG XII 2, 52a; HABICHT 1970, 14-16; LONG 1987, 207 n.122; BAYHAM 1994, 38; BADIAN 1996 [2012], 13.

Karanos 3/2020 F LASHBACKS 165

SYLVIE LE BOHEC

Deux sanctuaires de Zeus ont bénéficié d’une grande attention de la part du roi celui de Dion en Macédoine et celui d’Olympie en Elide. Le sanctuaire de Zeus à Dion au pied de l’Olympe, est le grand sanctuaire de la dynastie argéade56. C’est dans ce hiéron que Philippe, on l’a vu précédement57, a accompli des sacrifices et organisé des concours après ses victoires. C’est aussi dans ce sanctuaire que les souverains macédoniens avaient coutume d’exposer les documents officiels58. Philippe n’a pas failli à la tradition puisque, dans le traité conclu avec les Chalcidiens, il est prescrit qu’un exemplaire de ce document sera exposé dans le sanctuaire de Dion59. Le sanctuaire de Zeus à Olympie, célèbre dans tout le monde grec pour ses concours, a été l’object d’une grande vénération de la part de Philippe II. On a déjà mentionné le goût du roi pour les courses de chevaux et aussi ses victoires remportées dans les épreuves des concours d’Olympie, notament celle de 356 qui coïncidait avec la naissance de son fils Alexandre60. Selon une suggestion de G. Macurdy, ce serait pour commémorer ces deux événements que Philippe aurait donné à son épouse Polyxène, le nom d’Olympias61. Les thèmes agonistiques qui figurent sur beaucoup de ses monnaies commémorent certainement ses victoires dans les concours, notamment celles remportées à Olympie. Sur certains tétradrachmes qui présentent au revers Philippe II à cheval, un ornement apparaît sur l’encolure du cheval. G. Le Rider pense qu’il pourrait s’agir, selon toute vraisemblance, de la marque d’une victoire remportée par le cheval dans un concours62. Le cavalier portant la palme du vainqueur, autre type de revers choisi par le roi, commémore certainement une des victoires du souverain dans un concours63. Plutarque dit aussi que Philippe faisait graver sur ses monnaies les victoires de ses chars à Olympie64 et au revers de ses statères d’or figure un bige au galop qui rappelle sans aucun doute une victoire aux concours65. Philippe II, on le sait, n’est pas le premier roi argéade à avoir participé à de tels concours; c’est son ancêtre Alexandre Ier qui avait obtenu des Hellanodices la participation des rois de Macédoine aux épreuves des concours olympiques66. En tout cas, Philippe II a tenu à faire concourir plus d’une fois un cheval et des attelages dans ces grands rassemblements qu’étaient les concours d’Olympie67. L’attachement de Philippe II pour ce sanctuaire se manifeste aussi par l’édification d’un bâtiment qui porte son nom, le Philippeion. C’est après sa victoire remportée à Chéronée que le roi fait constuire dans l’Altis un monument circulaire ou qui abritait sa statue, celle d’Amyntas et d’Eurydice, ses parents, celle de son épouse Olympias et celle de son fils Alexandre. Le sculpteur Léocharès avait été chargé de leur réalisation68. Les raisons véritables de l’édification de cette tholos ne sont pas connues

56 Sur Dion, en dernier lieu, PANDERMALIS 2000, où on trouvera la bibliographie antérieure.; sur les Olympia de Dion: MARI 2002, 51-60. 57 Vid. supra. 58 HATZOPOULOS 1998, 1191-1195. 59 HATZOPOULOS 1996, II, nº 2, 1.9. 60 Vid. supra. 61 MACURDY 1932, 24; sur les différents noms d’Olympias, voir HECKEL 1981, 84-85; PRESTIANNI- GIALLOMBARDO 1982, 525 et n. 32. CARNEY 2000, 62-63 et n. 52; MARI 2002, 82 n. 2. 62 LE RIDER 1977, 365. 63 LE RIDER 1977, 366. 64 Plu. Alex. 4.9. 65 LE RIDER 1977, 413; ROMANO 1990, 66-67. 66 Hdt. 5.22, ROMANO 1990, 64-65; MARI 2002, 31-36. 67 MORETTI 1957, 124 nº 434, 439, 445; MARI 2002, 80-82. 68 Paus. 5.20.9-10; sur le Philippeion, voir MILLER 1973, 189-218; HUWENDIEK 1996, 155-159; MARI 2002, 183-188.

Karanos 3/2020 F LASHBACKS 166

PHILIPPE II ET LES DIEUX

et de nombreuses hypothèses ont été fomulées à ce sujet69. Il n’est pas dans notre propos de les examiner à nouveau ici. Nous voudrions simplement attirer l’attention sur quelques points qui montrent l’intérêt de Philippe pour ce sanctuaire et pour Zeus lui- même. Le choix d’Olympie pour la construction d’un tel édificie confirme l’importance attachée par ce roi au culte de Zeus Olympien. L’emplacement même du Philippeion à l’intérieur du sanctuaire est à remarquer car il n’est sans doute pas été choisi au hasard. Situé non loin de l’entrée principale, à proximité du temple d’Hera, il est surtout peu éloigné du tombeau de Pélops, héros fondateur du sanctuaire et grand père d’Héraclès que les souverains argéades considèrent comme leur ancêtre70. Les statues contenues dans cette tholos étaient chryséléphantines. L’emploi de l’or et de l’ivoire était réservé aux statues des dieux et on pense à celle de Zeus sculptée par pour le grand temple tout proche du Philippeion. Toutefois, il paraît difficile de croire que ces statues aient été des statues de culte et que Philippe ait voulu fatre du bâtiment un lieu de culte. A. D. Nock a bien fait remarquer que Pausanias utilise le mot eikones et non agalmata71. Apparemment, ce que Philippe II souhaitait, c’était d’abord commémorer sa victoire de Chéronée et remercier le dieu72, et d’autre part, manifester sa prééminence parmi les Grecs73. Dire qu’il a cherché en outre à établir sa propre déification paraît peu assuré74. Un autre aspect de Zeus dans le culte que lui rend Philippe II, c’est celui de Zeus Ammon. On a vu que l’oracle de Delphes avait recommandé à Philippe de faire des sacrifices à ce dieu75 qui n’apparaît plus ensuite dans nos sources. Un seul sanctuaire consacré à cette divinité est connu en Macédoine, c’est celui d’Aphytis76. Comme les vestiges retrouvés du temple sont datés de la deuxième moitié du IVème siècle, on peut penser, mais ce n’est qu’une hypothèse non vérifiable pour l’instant, que Philippe II a pu intervenir pour la construction de ce temple d’Ammon. Comme tous le rois de la dynastie argéade, Philippe considérait Héraclès comme son ancêstre77 et devait tout particulièrement le vénérer. La présence de la tête d’Héraclès imberbe, coiffé de la peau de lion sur un certain nombre de monnaies de Philippe II (didrachmes et drachmes, hémistatères d’or, quarts et huitième de statères)78 ne surprend donc pas et ne constitue pas une nouveauté. En effet, plusieurs de ses prédécesseurs comme Perdiccas II, Archélaos, Amyntas III, Perdiccas III avaient déjà placé la tête du dieu coiffé de la léontè79, tantôt imberbe, tantôt imberbe, tantôt barbu. La protomé de lion, l’arc et massue qui apparaissent sur les monnaies d’or de Philippe II “se rapportent de toute évidence à Héraclès”80. Rappelons que dans le sanctuaire d’Olympie, là où Philippe a fait ériger le Philippeion81, Héraclès était honoré comme le

69 Voir notamment LONG 1987, 208 n. 124; BAYNHAM 1994, 38 et n.26. 70 LONG 1987, 208; ROMANO 1990, 68-71. 71 NOCK 1930, 1-3, 21; GRIFFITH 1979, 683 n. 2; MARI 2002, 186-187. 72 TOMLISON 1972, 63. 73 MILLER 1973, 192; BAYNHAM 1994, 39. 74 Voir le point de vue de BADIAN 1981 [2012], 71. Contra E. A. FREDRICKSMEYER 1979; 1981; BAYNHAM 1994, 35-43; BORZA 1994, 66-68; MARI 2002, 186-188. 75 Plu. Alex 3.1; vid. supra. Cf. PARKE – WORMELL 1956, 240 considèrent que récit es légendaire et que le rapport entre Zeus Ammon et le serpent n’a été fait qu’après la visite de Alexandre à l’oasis de Siwah; de même HAMILTON 1969, 6 (loc. cit. Plu. Alex. 3.1). 76 LEVENTOPOULOU-GIOURI 1971, 356-367; voir aussi VOUTIRAS 2000. Sur le culte d’Ammon en Grèce avant 331 avant J.-C., vid. CLASSEN 1959, 349-355 (Le sanctuaire d’ n’y est pas mentionné car, à cette date, il n’avait pas été découvert). 77 DASKALAKIS 1970. 78 LE RIDER 1977, 367, 413. 79 LE RIDER 1977, 367 n.4. 80 LE RIDER 1977, 413. 81 Vid. supra.

Karanos 3/2020 F LASHBACKS 167

SYLVIE LE BOHEC

fondateur des concours. Nous ignorons si les exhortations d’Isocrate proposant à Philippe II Héraclès comme modèle ont eu sur le roi une certaine influence82. En tout cas, une brève anecdote de Plutarque montre Philippe invoquant son ancêtre: le roi se rendant à la palestre et voyant l’empreinte de son corps sur le sol se serait alors écrié: “O Héraclès, tandis que nous occupons une si petite portion du sol, nous espérons avant tout l’univers”83. Si Apollon reçoit un culte en Macédoine, il ne figure jamais sur les monnaies des souverains avant l’époque de Philippe II84. Ce dernier roi a fait placer au droit de ses statères d’or la tête laurée d’Apollon85, type “qui n’as pas de précédent dans le monnayage royal macédonien comme l’ecrit G. Le Rider86. Cette présence est peut-être à mettre en rapport avec l’intervention du roi dans la troisième guerre sacrée. Philippe II a alors écrasé les Phocidiens, ce qui lui a permis d’entrer à l’amphictionie delphique où il dispose de deux voix et d’obtenir la présidence des concours pythiques87. Philippe II est considéré comme le vengeur d’Apollon et, à ce titre, il a reçu préséance et honneurs, notamment une statue dorée88. C’est peut-être pour entretenir cette image à laquelle il tient que le roi a fait placer la tête d’Apollon sur ses statéres89. Un monnayage à tête d’Artémis paraît occasionnel et, selon G. Le Rider, serait frappé en relation avec la Thrace90. Enfin, il faut rappeler que Philippe encore adolescent s’est fait initier aux Mystères des Grands Dieux de Samothrace et que, si l’on en croit Plutarque, c’est dans ce sanctuaire qu’il aurait rencontré sa future épouse Olympias91. Quelques années plus tard, le roi aurait fait construire, dans ce même sanctuaire, un téménos, enclos fermé de hauts murs auquel on accédait par une porte monumentale et contenant deux autels utilisés lors des cérémonies secrètes. Ce bâtiment dont les substructions et certains éléments architecturaux ont été retrouvés pourrait avoir été réalisé par Scopas92. En conclusion de cette étude, nous pouvons dire que Philippe I a fait preuve d’une grande piété envers les dieux. Il a accordé une importance particulière au culte de Zeus et a beaucoup contribué à développer les honneurs rendus à ce dieu. Le tête de Zeus figure au droit de ses tétradrachmes et Philippe célébre avec faste ses victoires dans le sanctuaire de ce dieu à Dion. Cette divinité continuera d’être très honorée par son fils Alexandre qui, on le sait, considère Zeus comme son père et par ses successeurs, notament par les Antigonides93. Même si son intérêt pour Zeus d’Olympie revêt des aspects politiques, il n’en demeure pas moins que Philippe II était très attaché à ce sanctuaire comme en témoignent ses participations aux concours olympiques et la construction du Philippeion. Le fait de placer sa propre statue parmi celle des douze dieux lors d’une grande fête à Aigai contitue une grande originalité: il manifeste la familiarité du souverain avec les dieux et son désir de dépasser le commun des mortels.

82 Isocr. 5.105-110. 83 Plu. De exilio 8 (Mor. 602D). 84 Contra WESTERMARK 1994, 149-154 qui voit dans la tête juvénile ceinte d’un bandeau qui apparaît sous Archélaos vers 410 une tête d’Apollon 85 LE RIDER 1977, 412-413. 86 LE RIDER 1977, 412. 87 CAWKWELL 1981, 78-79; Lefévre 1998, 94-95; MARI 2002, 83-128. 88 Athen. 13.591b; voir JACQUEMIN 1999, 139. 89 Les avis des numismates son très divers en ce qui concerne la date d’apparition des premiers statères d’or de Philippe II; voir en dernier LE RIDER 1996a. 90 LE RIDER 1977, 396. 91 Plu. Alex. 2.2. 92 LEHMANN – SPITTLE 1982; MARI 2001, n. 164-165. 93 LE BOHEC 2002.

Karanos 3/2020 F LASHBACKS 168

PHILIPPE II ET LES DIEUX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BADIAN, E. (1981 [2012]): “The Deification of Alexander the Great”, in H. DELL (ed.): Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Ch. F. Edson, Thessaloniki: 27-71 (Repr. in E. BADIAN: Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, London: 244- 281). — (1996 [2012]): “Alexander the Great between Two Thrones and Heaven: Variations on an Old Theme”, in D. FISHWICK – A. SMALL (eds): Subject and Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in , R.A. Suppl. 17: 11-26 (Repr. in E. BADIAN: Collected Papers on Alexander the Great, London: 365-385). BAEGE, W. (1913): De Macedonum sacris, (Diss.) Halle. BAYNHAM, E. (1994): “The Question of Macedonian Divine Honours for Philip II”, MedA 7: 35-43. BERVE, H. (1928): Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 2 vols, München. BORZA, E. N. (1999): Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedonia, Claremont, California. BUCKLER, J. (1989): Philip II and the Sacred War, Leiden. CARNEY, E. (2000): Women and Monarchy in Macedonia, Norman. CAWKWELL, G. (1981): “Philippe et l’amphictionie”, in M. B. HATZOPOULOS – L. LOUKOPOULOU (eds): Philippe de Macédoine, Athens: 78-79. ΧΡΥΣΟΣΤΟΜΟΥ, Π (1989-1991 [1996]): “Η λατρεία του Δία ως καιρικού θεού στη Θεσσαλία και τη Μακεδονία”, AD 44-46: 21-72, pl. 7-14. CORVISIER, J. N. (2002): Philippe II de Macédoine, Paris. DASKALAKIS, A. P. (1970): “L’origine de la maison royale de Macédoine et les légendes relatives de l’Antiquité”, Ancient Macedonia 1: 155-161. DASKAPOULOS, M. (1993): Divinités et cultes en Macédoine dans l’Antiquité, (Diss,) Tours. DUCREY, P. (1968): Le traitement des prisonniers de guerre dans la Grèce antique des origines à la conquête romaine, Paris. DULL, S. (1977): Die Götterkulte Nordmajedoniens in römische Zeit, München. FLACELIERE, R. – CHAMBRY, E. (trad.) (1975): Plutarque, Vies. Tome IX : Alexandre- César, Paris. FONTEROSE, J. (1978): The Delphic Oracles. Its Reponses and Operations, Berkeley– London. FREDRICKSMEYER, E. A. (1979): “Divine Honors for Philip II”, TAPhA 109: 39-61. — (1981): “On the Background of the Ruler Cult”, in H. DELL (ed.): Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Ch. F. Edson, Thessaloniki: 145-156. GRIFFITH, G. T. (1979): “Decline and Fall (337-336)”, in N. G. L. HAMMOND – G. T. GRIFFITH: A History of Macedonia. Vol II, Oxford: 675-698. GÜNGERICH, R. (ed.) (1927 [1958]): Dionysii Byzantii Anaplus. Bospori, Berlin. HABICHT, Ch. (1970): Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte, München.

Karanos 3/2020 F LASHBACKS 169

SYLVIE LE BOHEC

HAMILTON, J. R. (1969): Plutarch Alexander. A commentary, Oxford. HAMMOND, N. G. L. (1989): The Macedonian State, Oxford. — (1994): Philip of Macedon, London. HATZOPOULOS, M. B. (1996): Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, 2 vols, Athens. — (1998): “Récentes découvertes épigrafiques et gloses macédoniennes l’Hésychius”, CRAI 142: 1189-1218. HECKEL, W. (1981): “Polyxena, the Mother of Alexander the Great”, Chiron 11: 79- 86. HUWENDIEK, G. (1996): “Zur Interpretation des Philippeion in Olympia”, Boreas 19: 155-159. JACQUEMIN, A. (1999): Offrandes monumentales à Delphes, Paris. ΚΑΡΑΔΗΜΗΤΡΊΟΥ, Α. Κ. (1987): “Οι Μακεδόνες βασιλείς και οι χρησμοί”, Makedonika 26: 126-138 [with an English Summary]. Λεβεντοπούλου – Γιούρη, Ε. (1971): “Το ιερόν του άμμωνος Διός παρά την Άφυτιν”, AAA 3: 356-367. LE BOHEC, S. (2002): “The Kings of Macedonia and the Cult of Zeus in The Hellenistic Period”, in D. OGDEN (ed.): The Hellenistic World: New Perspectives, Swansea: 41-57. — (2007): “Philippe et les dieux”, Ancient Macedonia 7: 333-344. LE RIDER, G. (1977): Le monnayage d’argent et d’or de Philippe II de Macédoine de 359 à 294, Paris. — (1996a): “La date des premiers statères d’or de Philippe II”, Χαρακτήρ. Αφιέρωμα στη Μάντω Οικονομίδου, Athens: 261-270. — (1996b): Monnayage et finances de Philippe II. Un état de la question, Athens. LEFÈVRE, F. (1998): L’amphictionie pyléo-delphique: histoire et institutions, Athens. LEHMANN, P. W. – SPITTLE, D. (1982): Samothrace 5. The , Princeton. LONG, C. R. (1987): The Twelve Gods of Greece and Rome, Leiden. MACURDY, G. (1932): Hellenistic Queens: A Study of Woman-Power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria and Ptolemaïc Egypt, Baltimore. MARI, M. (1998): “Le Olimpie Macedoni di Dion tra Archelao e l’età romana”, RFIC 126: 137-169. — (2001): “Gli studi sul santurio e i culti di Samotracia: prospettive e problema”, in S. RIBICHINI – M. ROCCHI – P. XELLA (eds.): La questione delle influenze vicino- orientali sulla religione greca. Stato degli studi e prospettive della ricerca. Atti del Colloquio internationale Rome CNR 20-22/5/1999, Roma: 155-187. — (2002): Al di là dell’ Olimpo. Macedoni e grandi santuari della Grecia dall’età arcaica al primo ellenismo, Athens. MILLER, S. G. (1973): “The Philippeion and Macedonian hellenistic Architecture”, AM 88: 189-218. MORETTI, L. (1957): Olympionikai. I vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici, Roma. NOCK, A. D. (1930 [1972]): “Synnaos theos”, HarvStClPhil 41 [Reprinted in Essays on Religion and the Ancient World I, Oxford: 720-735]. ΠΑΝΤΕΡΜΑΛΗΣ, Δ. (2000): Δίον: Η ανακάλυψη, Athens. PARKE, H. W. – WORMELL, D. E. W. (1956): The Delphic Oracle, vol 1, Oxford.

Karanos 3/2020 F LASHBACKS 170

PHILIPPE II ET LES DIEUX

PLESCIA, J. (1970): The Oath and Perjury in , Tallahassee. PRESTIANNI-GIALLOMBARDO, A. M. (1982): “Lucio Mummio, Zeus e Filippo II (Favorin. Corinth, 42 – Dio Chrys., 37, 42 (466)”, AnnPisa 3.12: 513-532. PSOMA, S. (2001): Olynthe et les Chalcidiens de Thrace. Etudes de numismatique et d’histoire, Stuttgart. ROMANO, D. G. (1990): “Philip of Macedon, Alexander the Great and the ”, in E. C. DANIEN (ed.): The World of Philip and Alexander. A Symposium on Greek Life and Times, Philadelphia: 61-79. DROUGOU, S. (1999): Το αρχαίο θέατρο της Βεργίνας, Thessaloniki. SANCHEZ, P. (2001): L’amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes: Recherches sur son rôle historique des origines au II. Siècke de notre ère, Stuttgart. TOMLISON, R. A. (1972): Greek Sanctuaries, London. VOUTIRAS, E. (2000): “Το ιερ του ∆ιονσουστηνφυτη”, in Μρτος. Μελτες στη µνµη της Ιουλας Βοκοτο̟ολου, Thessaloniki,631-640. — (2006): “Le culte de Zeus en Macédoine avant la conquête romaine”, in A. M. GUIMIER-SORBETS – M. B. HATZOPOULOS – Y. MORIZOT (eds): Rois, cites, nécropoles. Institutions, rites et monuments en Macédoine. Actes des colloques de Nanterre (décembre 2002) et d’Athènes (janvier 2004), Athens: 333-346. WESTERMAK, U. (1988): “The Coinage of the reconsidered”, in A. DAMSGAARD-MADSEN et al. (eds.): Studies in Ancient History and Numismatics Presented to Rudi Thomsen, Århus: 91-103. — (1994): “Apollo in Macedonia”, in E. RYSTEDT et al. (ed.): Opus Mixtum. Essays in. Ancient Art and Society, : 149-154. ZACH, A. R (1902): Hesiodi Carmina, accedit Homeri et Hesiodi Certamen, .

Karanos 3/2020 F LASHBACKS 171

M AIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN S TUDIES

MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES Karanos 3, 2020 175-180

ELIZABETH D. CARNEY Clemson University

Interviewed by

A. I. MOLINA MARÍN Universidad de Alcalá de Henares [email protected]

D. MOLINA VERDEJO Universidad de Murcia [email protected]

Elizabeth Donnelly Carney is one of the most renowned scholars on Ancient Macedonia. Carney’s research has contributed to open the studies about Ancient Macedonia to the scope of Gender Studies. Her influence in many modern interpretations concerning the complex relations of power and court network in Argead Macedonia also includes topics like mutiny, social performances (like royal banquets) and court groups (like the Royal Pages). Her scope is wide, and she usually focuses on concrete topics from multiple perspectives. Books like Women and Monarchy in Macedonia (2000), or the recent Eurydice and the Birth of Macedonian Power (2019) (completing the works devoted to three generations of Macedonian Royal women with her Olympias (2006) and Arsinoë of Egypt and Macedon: A Royal Life (2013)) are now must-to works for world-wide researchers concerning Ancient Greece and Macedon. Among her many skills, the Editorial Board of Karanos wants to remark her kind proximity and her usual predisposition to comment and help, with her experience, to improve discussions, projects and papers with admirable knowledge. In 1975, she got her PhD with a dissertation named “Alexander the Great and the Macedonian aristocracy” in 1975. From 1973 to our days, she has been affiliated with Clemson University, where she has developed her ground-breaking research career. Elizabeth D. Carney has introduced new perspectives into the Macedonian studies, highlighting the traditionally undervalued role of Macedonia and Hellenistic women, and breaking with some out-fashioned, but long-living assumptions. It is hard to select just a few of her pioneering works, but “The Sisters of Alexander the Great: Royal Relicts” (Historia 37, 1988), “Alexander and the Persian Women” (AJPh 117, 1996), and many others are unavoidable reference readings in the field. Worth of mention are eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199 ELIZABETH D. CARNEY

the papers about Olympias from Epirus: “Women and Basileia: Legitimacy and Female Political Action in Macedonia”, “The Politics of Polygamy: Olympias, Alexander, and the Murder of Philip”, Olympias and the Image of the Virago”, among many others. Her rich contribution to the Ancient Macedonian Studies means a breaking step concerning the view of Royal and Court Relationships and the place of women in Argead Macedonia and Beyond. She has just edited with Sabine Müller The Routledge Companion to Women and Monarchy in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Also, in the last weeks, it has been published Affective Relations and Personal Bonds in Hellenistic Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Elizabeth D. Carney, edited by Monica d’Agostini, Edward M. Anson and Frances Pownall, that gathers together articles by the most reputed scholars on Ancient Macedonia, including Joseph Roisman and William Greenwalt, interviewed in the previous issues of this journal.

[INTERVIEWER]: Prof. Carney, can you start by telling us some biographical information about you?

[CARNEY]: I grew up in the northeastern US (New Jersey, Pennsylvania). I did a BA in ancient studies at Smith College (1969) and then did my graduate work at Duke University, working primarily with John Oates, though also with Philip Stadter at the University of North Carolina. I finished the doctorate in 1975, but, before I had completed my doctorate, took a job in the history department at Clemson University in 1973, mainly because I’d changed my dissertation topic (was doing something on Polybius) and had run out of fellowship money. What I expected to be a temporary job became a career long one. I married another academic (William Aarnes, now emeritus at Furman University), and we have one daughter, Emma Aarnes, currently an administrator at .

Could you also highlight some important moments of your professional life? What do you think has made you get to where you are today?

I took a seminar with Philip Stadter on the Alexander historians and wrote a seminar paper for that class on the murder of Cleitus. That, ultimately, was the origin of my dissertation. Work on the Macedonian elite led me look at various individuals in Alexander’s court. In the summer of 1981 I began to work on Olympias. An important Alexander scholar became hostile to my work early on, preventing my first monograph from being published. To cope with that semi-black listing, I began to publish in European journals rather than American ones. Though his actions nearly cost me tenure and thus my position, they also led me to learn to deal with disapproval and just keep working. Gene Borza and Peter Green helped to get my first book published. After that, things became easier. Especially after you’ve published one book, it often proves easier to publish another than to get articles published. I went to my first Macedonian conference in 1987 and that introduced me to other Macedonian scholars, an event that contributed to my thinking of myself as a Macedonian scholar. Plus, it was fun and fascinating.

How you first become interested in becoming an expert about gender studies or particularly Macedonian studies?

Karanos 3/2020 MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES 176

MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES

Both were accidental developments. In the 1970s, people didn’t much talk or think about Macedonian studies; doing work on Alexander was doing Greek history. The discovery of the tombs really changed things. I found myself less and less interested in Alexander himself and more interested in the world that had produced him and in the people around him. The material history of the region fascinated me. Like many women classicists of my generation, I began teaching a Women in Antiquity course (didn’t call it gender studies yet), first in 1977, but did not expect that interest to have anything to do with my Macedonian scholarship. In the summer of 1980, working my way around people in Alexander’s court, I came to Olympias and discovered that little had been done on her and what had was hopelessly sexist. Within another year or two, I had begun to look at other Argead women (Adea Eurydice came next), and gradually I realized that I had a general topic and that I was interested in the role of women in monarchy, Argead and otherwise. I did a paper for the Berkshire Women’s History conference on the emergence of a title for women (Bill Greenwalt was part of that session) and that really influenced me, as did Bill’s work, especially his article on polygamy. I should add that early on doing political women’s history/gender work seemed odd to other people working on women and gender; they often saw it as elitist, and just a bit tawdry and kind of Victorian, “great women” instead of “great men,” but not much better. That isn’t true any longer, but early on it was an issue.

Your first publications were focused on Alexander the Great and his aristocracy. Could you tell me why you took such a big step to continue studying the women of the royal Macedonian house?

I think I’ve already explained that though perhaps I should add that thinking about the female burials at Vergina (and elsewhere in Macedonia) contributed to it as well. The first burials at Vergina most consider royal were found in 1977 and 1978 and I think they had an impact on me. Also, I was the first woman in my department hired for a tenure track job and the 1970s and 1980s were not an easy time for me or other academic women; being the only woman in the room was not fun. I was co-chair of the Women’s Classical Caucus 1989-90 and that job was a lesson in how common many of the problems I had personally encountered were. I did not consciously think to myself that these royal women were also women living and acting in a male dominated world (mainly I thought it was interesting and that nobody much had done it), but I suspect that an unconscious connection was an element in my interest.

Could you please let me ask you for one of these exceptional women such as Olympias?

What do you like most about her? Would you tell me which were her strengths and weaknesses? Well, granted our sources, it’s virtually impossible to know what she was like in specific ways, but I suppose, judging more by her actions than what the sources say about her personality, I like her strength, bravery, and loyalty (she seems to have inspired loyalty as well, as shown by Aeacides and Eumenes).

Olympias was astonishingly assertive, in public, as several different Athenian speeches make clear. She was, obviously, quite murderous (probably including murdering Cleopatra and the baby), much as Alexander was and Philip too. I don’t think Cassander defeated her because she had many followers of Cassander killed, but it didn’t help, and, in doing so, she prized the short term over the long-term advantage. Olympias,

Karanos 3/2020 MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES 177

ELIZABETH D. CARNEY

pretty much literally, took no prisoners; sometimes that worked and sometimes not. It’s clear, after the death of Alexander, she was aware of how much danger she’d be in if she returned to Macedonia, but she did it anyway. Ancient sources tend to want to give famous people appropriate deaths, so it’s hard to know how much credence to give to her defiant end, as described by Diodorus and Justin, but it does suit her earlier actions.

In your paper “Olympias and the image of the virago” (Phoenix, 1993), which is one of my favourite articles, you stated:

“Whereas the current historiographical trend in scholarship about the reign of Alexander disdains biography and resists speculation about the motivation of the great conqueror, most of those who deal with Olympias confidently assign motives to her actions, motives which are usually negative and almost always personal rather than political” (p. 30).

Are you of the same mind? Or have you changed that point of view?

No, I haven’t changed my point of view, particularly about rejecting that stereotype of Olympias as witchy and bitchy and murderous without cause. I still think the expectation of “niceness” about her and other political women is insidious and remains powerful in contemporary culture.

I wonder if you could provide us some information about any views or thoughts on how scholarship has changed with respect to the Argead women?

Well, a lot more people are doing it and that is a good thing and I think that the understanding has become general that they are part, not apart, from Argead monarchy. There’s been a tremendous increase in scholarship about Hellenistic royal women— particularly Seleucid—and that helps to put Argead women (for whom there is much less evidence) in some sort of broader context. Court studies help too, though they are more relevant for the Antigonid era than the Argead. My colleague Caroline Dunn (a medievalist) and I organized a conference here in South Carolina, via the Kings and Queens network, that contained many more ancient papers than was usual for that group, and forced people dealing with very different cultures and periods to look at each other’s work (we edited a volume of papers from that conference).

Do you consider yourself as the forerunner of the gender studies in ancient Macedonia? If that were not the case, who should take this prominent place in our field?

Grace Harriet Macurdy should come first (Barbara McManus wrote an intriguing book about her), flawed though her scholarship was in many ways. Bill Greenwalt is important; he and I began working at much the same time; originally, he and I were going to do Women and Monarchy in Macedonia together. Daniel Ogden’s Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death came out the year before my book; he and I had not seen each other’s , but we shared a number of assumptions, though we often reached different conclusions. Sylvie Le Bohec’s work in the 1980s and 1990s is important. I co-directed Kate Mortensen’s dissertation on Olympias and she certainly influenced my own thinking. I think, in other words, that it was more or less a generational thing, I suppose a boomer thing, if of a rather specific sort.

Karanos 3/2020 MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES 178

MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES

Do you think there is sexism in our discipline when we analyze female personalities such as Olympia or Eurydice??

It even, if you will allow me, could you specify why or give us some examples? Yes, partly because of continuing issues people have about political women (e.g. Hillary Clinton), but also because our sources are so negative about them. I think one of the most insidious problems, though, is that people assume that something found in ancient source couldn’t be true because it violates what they believe to be true about Greek women generally and so conclude it isn’t; often the assumed norm is Athenian. I’m not sure exactly what Olympias meant when she told the Athenians that “Molossia is mine,” but her assertion speaks to a rather un-Athenian world view. Similarly, I see no reason to reject Diodorus’ assertion that both Olympias and Antipater demanded Harpalus’ extradition from the Athenians; Athenian speeches picture Olympias as aggressive. Oddly, scholarship has sometimes been more reluctant than ancient authors to recognize the agency of women.

Recently, you have published a book about Eurydice, what could you tell us or highlight about it?

Is Eurydice from your point of view the first historical female personality of ancient Macedonia? Well the first part of the book is a kind of what happened after what, complicated a lot by the fact that we don’t know what happened after what, and so different scenarios are possible, since we cannot always tell if someone is reacting to something or causing something to happen. Still, I feel confident that she did act (perhaps stage is a better word) a public request for the Athenian Iphicrates to come to her son’s aid; I think the material remains related to her confirm this, that is to say that she created a public persona as a good mother and woman. I’d love it if the tomb Andronikos attributed to her were actually hers because it is such a remarkable structure, but I consider it unlikely. I’m about fifty/fifty on whether Eurydice married for a second time, to the man who killed her eldest son. She is certainly the first female personality in Macedonia we know anything about; I doubt that she was the first, though I do think that link between her individual career and that of Macedonia made for greater possibilities.

What was the difference between Macedonian and Greek women? Would you point out anything in particular?

Sylvie Le Bohec concluded, based on insciptions, that ordinary Macedonian women, as widows, could act more independently than women in similar circumstance in southern and central Greece. Past that, it is hard to say much about ordinary women. Royal women, however, were elevated along with monarchy itself. It’s difficult to know whether Macedonian aristocratic women shared in this situation, but the career of Phila, daughter of Antipater, suggests that they may have. If you begin by assuming that women had some agency in their lives and affairs, you find some evidence to support that view; if you begin with the opposite assumption, you may not see the evidence that way. Property ownership seems more directly to involve elite Macedonian women than women further south.

What line of work or what projects are you currently working on??

Karanos 3/2020 MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES 179

ELIZABETH D. CARNEY

Sabine Müller and I are coediting a companion volume for Routledge on women and monarchy around the ancient Mediterranean world. I am interested in Molossian monarchy and the role of women in it. Elizabeth Meyer’s book is stimulating, though she seems oddly hostile to royal Molossian women. I wonder about the role of women in Aeacid genealogy, power sharing (male and female), the end of Molossian monarchy, and the role of women in commemorating the dynasty.

I have also developed an interest in the impact of American and British missionaries on the (there is a lot of work on that, though mainly for Anatolia and elsewhere, not Greece), particularly on the brief but intriguing effort to convert the Sephardic population of Thessaloniki (the majority of the population of the city until the twentieth century). One of my ancestors died in Thessaloniki in 1849, having committed to this peculiar mission. After only a few months, he went to see the region of with a friend and they both, having been twice becalmed and bothered by mosquitos, soon died of malaria. He is buried in Thessaloniki, in the Protestant graveyard, with a lengthy inscription. I have seventeen of his letters, written from the city, including a fascinating ten page description of his trip to Olympus. In U.S. history, this is known as the period of the Second Great Awakening (particularly a revival of Jonathan Edwards’ views) and that is the main motivator for this surprising failed event/effort. I am intrigued by this material and by my access to a number of other family letters (not the sort of material an ancient historian gets to work with) from other members of his immediate family. Ultimately, these papers will go to Amherst College’s missionary archive (my ancestor, Eliphal Maynard, was an Amherst graduate), but I may do something with them first.

Karanos 3/2020 MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES 180

R EVIEWS

REVIEWS Karanos 3, 2020 183-184

REVIEWS

Antonio Ignacio Molina Marín, Alejandro Magno (1916-2015). Un siglo de estudios sobre Macedonia antigua, Zaragoza, Pórtico, 2018, 772 pp. [ISBN 9788479561758].

No one who has not experienced the challenge of trying to drive a research about the Ancient Greek world, and more concretely, about the Macedonian context, in a country like Spain, where a tradition of exists but these are not actually a main strategic axis, can understand the complex difficulty that means for a researcher to keep himself updated, first-ranked at an International level, with access to bibliographical resources and sources of information, and with the ability and skills to still publish ground-breaking papers about the different thematic areas of the actual tendencies in our fieldwork. To these factors, if we add the fact that, beyond Universities, the academic networks, funding and scholarships, the public and private resources, and even the time to research, at least in Spain, is not very friendly concerning Hellenic and Hellenistic/Macedonian times, we can then value the work by Antonio Ignacio Molina as an heroic, personal achievement, worthy of the heroes and epopees of an Ancient Myth. During the very long tradition of studies about Alexander, and the more recent attention to the Macedonian Studies, some attempts have existed to develop projects that, with different formats, trying to collect the huge quantity of bibliography about Alexander and the Argeads that any researcher must know in order to face a deep historical analysis. The more recurrent bibliographies until a recent date had been those of Jakob Seibert (Alexander der Grosse, 1972) and, even more, Helmut Berve (Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 2 vols, München, 1926). More recent attempts to gather an extensive bibliography focused in our fieldwork have been done during the last decades, implicitly or explicitly, by A. B. Bosworth’s Conquest and Empire (1988), F. J. Gómez Espelosín (La leyenda de Alejandro. Mito, historiografía, propaganda, 2007), and even Heckel’s Who is who in the age of Alexander the Great (2006). Some websites had also triyed to offer a updated bibliographic list in detail, and here we must miss the the work made by Waldemar Heckel, very useful but now offline, or the Hellenistic Bibliography (but currently limited actually to Alexander the Great) 1 compilated by Martine Cuypers (Trinity College) that collects works from 2008-2012. However, the researcher on Alexander, Ancient Macedonia and the Hellenistic world still can feel as Robin Lane Fox when in the prologue of his Alexander the Great (1972) he assures that:

1 https://sites.google.com/site/hellenisticbibliography/history/alexander-the-great?authuser=0 eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199

REVIEWS

“1,472 books and articles are known to me on the subject in the past century and a half, many of which adopt a confident tone and can be dismissed for that alone” (LANE FOX 1975, 11).

Nowadays, the Ancient Macedonian Studies live a time of wide growth and development, as anyone can observe in front of some recent books, like the Lexicon of Argead Macedonia (Heckel, Heinrich, Müller and Foxhall, 2020), to quote the best example. In this context, the book Alejandro Magno (1916-2015). Un siglo de estudios sobre Macedonia Antigua by Antonio Ignacio Molina becomes an essential tool, at the same level as the main tools we count with to help us in our fieldwork. The reasons are clear: first, because it is an absolutely unusual and incredible effort to organize and solve the clear problem of the enormous amount of available works concerning Alexander, Ancient Macedonia and the Hellenistic World any researcher has to keep in mind. Lately, many researchers who, like my own case, are not anglophone, observe with a certain concern how much of what has been assessed, discussed and even demonstrated in many different previous studies (published in Italian, German, French, or even Spanish) is revisited back again in English papers that are mostly unaware of the trends of previous discussion about the topic in other languages (and please, do not misunderstood me on this: I bless the Gods for such a lingua franca!). Secondly, because just a brilliant and well-organized mind could indeed carry out such a catalogue, so thorough and detailed as Antonio Ignacio Molina offers in his book. In fact, beyond the bibliography itself, the main part of this book offers also an invitation to review, by thematic order, the main aspects of the Macedonian Studies. In the first sections of the book, then, we can find some explanations and a clear order about the basic contents and topics about our fieldwork. Likewise, each bibliographical reference has its own brief explanation, which allows us to suspect that the author has really reviewed every bibliographical entrance he includes in his collection, showing thus an amazing knowledge, an incredible tenacity and, among these, the obstinate determination of someone who has decided to face this bibliographical challenge as an essential need for our fieldwork. The gift of such a basic tool, now available also for free by the author2, is probably the best clue to assures that the main masters of our discipline are not only brave and wise scholars, but also generous human beings who sacrifices their time to create resources that makes our work easy and allows us to think better, deeper, harder, in order to push ourselves to improve knowledge and Scholarship.

B. ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona [email protected]

2 https://www.academia.edu/36538597/Alejandro_Magno_1916_2015_Un_siglo_de_estudios_sobre _Macedonia_antigua

Karanos 2/2019 184

REVIEWS Karanos 3, 2020 185-186

Pat Wheatley – Charlotte Dunn, Demetrius the Besieger, Oxford, , 2020, 528 pp [ISBN 9780198836049].

Desde 1990 todos los generales de Alejandro habían sido merecedores de una biografía o estudio monográfico, algunos de ellos incluso varias1. El único que quedaba sin recibir este honor era Demetrio Poliorcetes, pese a ser un personaje de un interés y fascinación incuestionable. La única monografía sobre Demetrio era la de Eugenio Manni, Demetrio Poliorcete, Roma: A. Signorelli 1951, y la sección de la obra de Claude Wehrli, Antigone et Démétrios, Geneva 1968. Resulta sorprendente “to discover that no scholarly biography has ever been written on Demetrius in English” (p. 3), al menos hasta la fecha. Pat Wheatley (University of Otago) y Charlotte Dunn (University of Tasmania) nos ofrecen una voluminosa monografía sobre Demetrio Poliorcetes. Alumno de Brian Bosworth, Wheatley comenzó a investigar sobre este Diádoco en 1994, una labor que el define como “Tolkienian” y que ha requerido de un segundo colaborador, su estudiante, ahora profesor, Charlotte Dunn. El libro consta de 28 capítulos que siguen un claro orden cronológico, aunque el trabajo de ambos investigadores no puede catalogarse meramente como una biografía, ya que es también un estudio de una época a través de la figura de uno de los Diádocos. Los tres primeros capítulos (1. The Young Demetrius Poliorcetes; 2. Demetrius and Phila; 3. A Diadoch's Apprenticeship) se centran en la juventud o período formativo de Demetrio, un tiempo que forjaría al futuro Diádoco. Los tres siguientes analizan el antes y después de la batalla de Gazah, (4. Demetrius in Syria, 315-312 BC; 5. The Battle of Gaza; 6. The Aftermath of Gaza) la primera batalla del protagonista y que se saldaría con una derrota. La pérdida de la satrapía de Babilonia a manos de Seleuco supone también otro momento importante en la vida de Demetrio (7. Demetrius in ; 8. The Silent Years: 310-308 BC). Sin duda un punto de inflexión en su vida fue la ciudad de Atenas (9. The Antigonid 'Liberation' of Athens in 307 BC; 10. Demetrius in Athens). Allí fue adorado como un dios y conoció a quien sería uno de sus grandes amores, la hetaira . Los tres siguientes se centran en los acontecimientos que desembocaron en el asedio de Rodas (11. The Antigonid Campaign in , 306 BC; 12. The Fruits of Victory: Kingship, Lamia, Africa; 13. The Great Siege of Rhodes), uno de los más grandes de la historia y que sería el que le haría ganar el sobrenombre de Poliorcetes. Los autores rechazan algunas interpretaciones que explicaban el origen de este apodo como una mofa (Heckel) ya que Demetrio nunca habría tomado ninguna ciudad. Los capítulos 14 y 15 estudian la segunda estancia del Diádoco en la ciudad de Atenas (14. Demetrius' Return to Greece, 304-303 BC; 15. The Mysteries and the League). El antes y el después de la batalla de Ipso (301. a.C) significó otra etapa

1 Lisímaco: H. LUND (1992): Lysimachus: A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship, London; C. FRANCO (1993): Il regno di Lisimaco: Strutture amministrative e rapporti con le città, Pisa. Ptolomeo: I. WORTHINGTON (2016): Ptolemy I. King and Pharaoh of Egypt, Oxford; T. HOWE (ed.) (2018): . A Self-Made Man, Oxford. Seleuco: J. D. GRAINGER (1990): Seleukos Nikator: Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom, London; D. Ogden (2017): The Legend of Seleucus: Kingship, Narrative and Mythmaking in the Ancient World, Cambridge–New York. Casandro: F. LANDUCCI GATTINONI (2003): L’Arte del Potere. Vita e Opere di Casandro di Macedonia, Wiesbaden. eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199

REVIEWS

importante en su vida. Al contrario que Billows (1990), Wheatley se muestra más comprensivo con Demetrio y no le achaca la culpa de la derrota: “Modern analysis, however, suggests that this places too much blame on Demetrius himself. The thinning of the flank equally could have been the result of a coalition strategy to lure Demetrius away from the battlefield” (p. 249). Lejos de ello alaba su capacidad para sobrevivir a todas las adversidades y reponerse de los golpes del destino. Un ejemplo de ello fue su habilidad para volver a tomar Atenas, pese a las reticencias de esta ciudad a admitirlo (19. Demetrius and Athens. Again). El mundo helenístico se asombró cuando el rey sin reino consiguió adueñarse de Macedonia (20. The Acquisition of Macedonia; 21. King of the Macedonians), estableciendo así la dinastía de los Antigónidas, la última que gobernó en ese reino. Esto nos demuestra que “Demetrius retained the style of ‘king’ for the rest of his life, even though his vicissitudes meant that at various stages he held only minimal territory and in fact ‘ruled’ from his flagship. Demetrius’ claim to the title was personal and could not be revoked” (p. 439). Su nueva posición de poder fue también posible gracias a la alianza con los Seléucidas: “The alliance between the Antigonids and Seleucids was a great stroke of fortune for Demetrius, and was an important turning point for his recovery after ” (p. 292). Sobre la deificación de Demetrio, los autores se muestran menos escépticos que otros investigadores, pero concluyen que: “But even in a society where religious conviction was sincere and genuine, it seems that when it came to the Hellenistic kings, these honours were often understood to be formalities, and were politically rather than religiously motivated” (p. 350). (cf. 22. Demetrius the Living God). Los últimos planes de Demetrio son discutidos y analizados (23. A New Anabasis?) y explicados con el cambio de fortuna del Diádoco (24. Wolves at the Door: 288-285 BC; 25. Demetrius' Fortunes Unravel; 26. The Final Campaign; 27. The End of the Reign of Demetrius Poliorcetes). Se nos explica cómo se pasó en pocos años de gozar de una posición de árbitro a terminar sus días preso por su yerno Seleuco. La obra se cierra con una conclusión (28. Conclusion) que nos transmite una valoración en términos generales muy positiva de Demetrio, hijo de Antígono: “he was the outstanding general of the time” (p. 2); “It is customary to now end this biography with the claim that our subject was indeed the greatest of the Successors” (p. 437). Se incluyen dos apéndices sobre el Coloso de Rodas y la cronología (Appendix 1: The Colossus of Rhodes; Appendix 2: Chronology of the Life of Demetrius Poliorcetes (336-282 BC). Es inevitable que tras un largo período de tiempo estudiando un personaje, el autor tienda a disculpar el comportamiento de su objeto de análisis, pero tras tantos años el resultado ha justificado la espera: Demetrio Poliorcetes por fin ha encontrado los biógrafos que se merecía.

A. I. MOLINA MARÍN Universidad de Alcalá de Henares [email protected]

Karanos 2/2019 186

REVIEWS Karanos 3, 2020 187-188

Christian Thrue Djurslev, Alexander the Great in the early Christian tradition: Classical Reception and Patristic Literature, London, Bloomsbury, 2019, 240 pp [ISBN 9781788311649].

En la bibliografía dedicada a Alejandro de Macedonia siguen existiendo vacíos pese a la ingente cantidad de estudios que hemos acumulado en los últimos dos siglos. Una de esas carencias era el devenir de la imagen del conquistador en el mundo tardoantiguo. Por supuesto que existen trabajos sobre este período, pero suelen centrarse en la estrecha relación entre el macedonio y los emperadores romanos, es decir, el fenómeno conocido como imitatio Alexandri. Pocas páginas se habían dedicado hasta la fecha a la relación entre el legado de Alejandro y el pensamiento cristiano en el mundo tardoantiguo. Pese a que es una creencia muy extendida que el cristianismo no habría podido extenderse sin las conquistas de Alejandro el tema no ha llamado especialmente la atención de los investigadores más allá de algún autor como Flavio Josefo o el Romance de Alejandro. Pueden citarse algunos trabajos como los de Torrey (1925), Ehrhardt (1945), Gero (1993), y Angliviel (2003)1. Christian Th. Djurslev llena este vacío mediante una obra que es el fruto de su tesis doctoral, “Christian Alexander” (2015) dirigida por Daniel Ogden (University of Exeter) y que estudia por primera vez y de forma global la imagen de Alejandro Magno en los pensadores cristianos, que se vieron impelidos a reflexionar sobre él, ya que “Alexander was so popular at every level of society that virtually any person with basic training in rhetoric would have encountered a certain set of ideas revolving around him” (p. 10). El libro está dividido en una introducción (pp. 1-19), cuatro extensos capítulos, pero que contienen numerosos subapartados: 1. “Apologists and Co.” (pp. 21-34), el autor sostiene que “these three centuries marked the formative stage. The period constitutes a self- contained unit, as most of the Christian ideas about Alexander were generated at that time.” (p. 3). Se recogen los autores cristianos que mencionaron a Alejandro desde Taciano el Sirio (ca. 120- ca. 180) a Jerónimo de Estridón (340-420 d.C); 2. “Classical Themes and Christian Tradition” (pp. 35-82), este capítulo es en nuestra opinión el más logrado del libro. En él se exploran los tres principales temas que los autores cristianos recibieron de la tradición pagana: la educación del macedonio, sus cartas y su deseo de deificación. Llama profundamente la atención la ausencia de Diógenes en la tradición cristiana que prefirió centrarse en otros sabios como los brahmanes. Tampoco se criticó especialmente los deseos de deificación del monarca macedonio: “we saw that Christians missed a great opportunity to find fault with Alexander’s own deification” (p. 192); 3. “Tales from Judea and the ” (pp. 83-144), esta sección estudia la herencia judía en los autores cristianos. Djurslev considera que “this is the place in which the most profound changes to Alexander’s prior legacy occur, for it is here that the king becomes directly relevant to the Christian world” (p. 19). El Libro de Daniel (pp. 95-128), que convirtió a Alejandro en una figura apocalíptica, y Flavio Josefo (pp.

1 C. C. TORREY (1925): “Alexander the Great in the Old Testament Prophecies”, BZAW 41: 281-286; A. T. T. EHRHARDT (1945): “ Christ and Alexander the Great”, Journal of Theological Studies 46: 45- 51; S. GERO (1993): “The Legend of Alexander the Great in the Christian Orient”, Bulletin of John Rylands Library 75: 3-9; :L. ANGLIVIEL (2003 ): “ Alexandre le Grand au IVe siècle apr. J.-C.”, Metis n.s. 1: 271-288. eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199

REVIEWS

128-140) reciben especial atención; 4. History and Rhetoric (pp. 145-190), en el último capítulo se analiza como el cristianismo tuvo que ensamblar ambas tradiciones sobre Alejandro Magno, la clásica y la judía, creando su propia interpretación sobre el tema. La obra se finaliza con una conclusión (pp. 191-198), que resume el contenido de los capítulos y destaca algunos puntos centrales pertenecientes a Alejandro a través del corpus cristiano hasta Constantino. Djurslev considera que “no matter what we do with the data, we cannot accuse the Christians of single-handedly causing the complete distortion of Alexander’s image.” (p. 197). Se añade un breve epílogo, “: Writing Alexander, Writing Constantine” (pp. 199-202) en el que se compara la Vida de Constantino de Eusebio de Cesarea con la tradición sobre Alejandro. Una extensa bibliografía (pp. 203-214) cierra este trabajo en la que se pueden echar en falta algunos trabajos clásicos sobre la tardoantigüedad (Dodds; Cochrane), pero hay que tener en cuenta que por motivos editoriales el autor ha tenido que acortar sensiblemente su tesis doctoral de 384 páginas y enfrentarse al reto de llevar una obra especializada al gran público. Entre muchos investigadores existe una costumbre detestable: repetir la tradición aportando lo justo para evitar el riesgo y la crítica, no acometer grandes trabajos por miedo al fracaso. Nadie criticará a Christian Th. Djurslev por haber tenido más arrojo que la mayoría.

A. I. MOLINA MARÍN Universidad de Alcalá de Henares [email protected]

Karanos 2/2019 188

REVIEWS Karanos 3, 2020 189-190

John Boardman, Alexander the Great: From his Death to the Present Day, Princeton, Press, 2019, 171 pp [ISBN 9780691181752].

Existe cierta tradición que invita a los nos especialistas en un campo a escribir sobre un gran tema. En los estudios sobre Alejandro de Macedonia podemos encontrar numerosos ejemplos de este fenómeno. Médicos, periodistas, novelistas, políticos y militares se han sentido obligados hasta cierto punto a escribir sobre este personaje. John Boardman es un conocido investigador británico, la mayor eminencia viva en arte grecorromano, pero hasta la fecha no tenía ninguna publicación sobre Alejandro. Nos sorprende, por lo tanto, con una pequeña obra destinada a explicar a los lectores de habla inglesa la leyenda y el legado del conquistador. El título no debe conducirnos al error, ésta no es otra biografía sobre Alejandro, ya que está centrada en “stories told about him after his death” (p. 1). En otras palabras el objeto de estudio de Boardman es el “mythical (and dead) Alexander and the way he has been treated by authors and artists since antiquity” (p. 4). Boardman es plenamente consciente de que es un proceso sumamente complejo y que podemos observar como “one imaginative story can generate many more” (p. 5). La obra se divide en nueve capítulos: I. “His Biographers” (pp. 13-22) se estudia a autores antiguos contemporáneos de Alejandro (Calístenes, Onesícrito, Aristóbulo y Ptolomeo) y posteriores como Polibio, Curcio, Plutarco y Arriano. II. “His Body and Burial” (pp. 23-37) Se pasa revista al devenir del cuerpo del difunto desde que fue momificado hasta que fue enterrado en Alejandría y el paradero de su tumba, que nos es desconocido tras el saqueo de Diocleciano. El capítulo concluye con los intentos de encontrar su cuerpo durante el siglo XX. Se recoge también la teoría de A. Chugg que defiende que la momia de Alejandro fue trasladada por los venecianos a la Basílica de San Marcos cuando intentaron recuperar los restos del apóstol. El capítulo incluye un gran número de imágenes que no suelen verse en las monografías sobre el macedonio, destacan los tapices fotografiados por Julia Boardman del palacio de Blenheim (Oxford). III. “The Alexander Portraits in Antiquity” (pp. 38-52) Boardman da paso a su enorme conocimiento sobre el arte griego y nos regala una sección sobre el retrato de Alejandro y su trascendencia en la posterioridad. El llamado mosaico de Issos es una de las representaciones artísticas que mayor atención reciben. IV. The Alexander Romances in the (pp. 53-85) Siguiendo de cerca los trabajos de Richard Stoneman estudia algunos episodios del Romance de Alejandro tales como el viaje por los cielos, su inmersión al fondo de los mares y sus amantes. Boardman es consciente de la importancia del Romance como fuente histórica, pero no sin cierto humor añade: “I am an archaeologist/art-historian, not a -lover. Inevitably, this account is incomplete. But the Romances can offer everything and more than you need to know about “Alexander,” even his last will and testament” (p. 57). La versión francesa, inglesa, alemana y española son también comentadas. V. “The Persian Alexander/Iskander” (pp. 86-97) Al contrario de lo que se podría pensar de una región que en los últimos años ha hecho gala de su pasado aqueménida, Persia también contó con su propia versión del Romance de Alejandro, destacando el

eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199

REVIEWS

Iskandarnamah y el Shahnameh de Firdusi. A pesar del título del capítulo, también se analiza la Phyllada, la versión en griego del Romance de Alejandro. VI. “The Indian Alexander” (pp. 98-103). A pesar de lo profundamente ligado que está el nombre de Alejandro con la India “there is no real reflection of him in the arts of Gandara in the early centuries AD” (p. 98). Algunos autores extranjeros reforzaron ese vínculo como Corsali y Anquetil-Duperron, pero sería Kipling quien reforzaría ese vínculo mediante la obra “The Man Who Would Be King” (1889). Era inevitable que este tipo de comparaciones surgiesen con la conquista inglesa de la India. VII. “The Alexander Story in the and Down to the Present Day” (pp. 104-137). El autor distingue entre el Renacimiento inglés y el europeo. Esto le permite tocar autores como Chaucer, Hayes y Shakespeare. En el caso europeo se estudian tanto las apariciones en la literatura (Dante, Domenico Falugio) como en el arte (Ghirlandaio, Medallón del Papa Paulo III, Verrochio). Durante el Barroco, los autores franceses tuvieron un mayor protagonismo a la hora de representar a Alejandro, siendo el más importante Le Brun, con sus pinturas encargadas por Luis XIV quien “to place his own and Alexander’s achievements on a par” (p. 118). Fruto del interés del monarca también surgió la obra de Racine. La era napoleónica supuso un revival del mito de Alejandro entre los intelectuales del periodo. Buen ejemplo de ello son los versos de Lord Byron y Robert Browning. En el arte también destacaron la de A. Ottin (, París) y el Alexander and his horse de John Robert Steell (Edimburgo). Los años siguientes vieron una eclosión de la imagen de Alejandro en los libros ilustrados. VIII. “Alexander, Star of Film, Stage, and ” (pp. 138-146) Este capítulo se centra en la presencia de Alejandro en los grandes medios de la modernidad, es decir, en el cine con las grandes producciones de Robert Rossen (1956) y Oliver Stone (2004). En las novelas se destacan las trilogías de Renault y Manfredi. IX. “Fellow Travellers, Marco Polo to TV” (pp. 147-153) El último capítulo se centra en viajeros que siguieron la ruta del macedonio. Algunos de ellos antiguos como Marco Polo, otros modernos como Arnold Toynbee y Freya Stark. La obra se cierra sin conclusiones y sin una bibliografía final. Boardman ha citado los principales trabajos que ha usado en la sección “Abbreviations”, pero al ser una obra divulgativa no ha creído necesario recoger todos sus trabajos en un apartado final. En cualquier caso, el resultado final es un libro muy entretenido, escrito de forma desenfadada y no carente de humor británico en ocasiones. Comentábamos al principio la costumbre que invita a un investigador a sumergirse en los llamados grandes temas. Ignoramos si es algo bueno o malo, pero si estos trabajos son tan sugerentes y válidos como el de J. Boardman bienvenidos sean.

A. I. MOLINA MARÍN Universidad de Alcalá de Henares [email protected]

Karanos 2/2019 190

REVIEWS Karanos 3, 2020 191-192

Waldemar Heckel – Johannes Heinrichs – Sabine Müller – Frances Pownall (eds.), Lexicon of Argead Macedonia, Berlin, Frank&Timme, 2020, 538 pp [ISBN 978- 3732904051].

Some authors stand out in the scene of the scholarship y about Antiquity due to the elaboration of masterpieces that help to go in a rich and complex depth in the many different topics and themes of study. However, just a few of them gain recognition, beyond the usual academic studies, by the creation of works that turn into indispensable tools for the rest of the scholars. In the field of the Ancient Macedonian Studies, these tools have, also, the added value that, in a more reduced sphere of research and with so many darkness still waiting to be solved, they become essential for the advance and improvement of our work and knowledge. In a time like the present, books that turn simultaneously into tools and masterpieces, so rare, are indeed a demonstration of generosity and a bet for the future. This is in fact the case of the Lexicon of Argead Macedonia, edited under the coordination of Waldemar Heckel, Johannes Heinrich, Sabine Müller and Frances Pownall. In his academic career, Waldemar Heckel has accustomed us to constant proofs of this generosity. His Marshals of Alexander’s Empire (1992; reedited and updated in 2005), in some way a precedent of his essential Who is who in the Age of Alexander the great (2006), with which Heckel substitutes the until-then referent of H. Berve (Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 2 vols, München, 2016). Thus, Heckel’s Who is who can be observed as the germ of this Lexicon. In this sense, Prosopography, an infrequent historiographical genre despite its clear utility, shows here all its splendour, side by side with its deep compromise with History. In this titanic task of coordinating a Lexicon, Heckel shares duties and responsibilities with well-known names of the Argead Macedonia’s scholarship, like the excellent Sabine Müller (who, due to her recent efforts and publishing, is now gaining a deserved worth and a charismatic voice in our fieldwork), Frances Pownall (multitalented, with her usual critical view and wide interest in connecting many different topics apparently unconnected), and Johannes Heinrichs (a main voice in Prosopography, and the heir of a great tradition of Ancient Macedonia’s German Historians, like the brilliant master G. Wirth). Everyone of these are first-rank names at an international level, and they all have clearly showed their skills and abilities to improve knowledge and to set new understandings and perceptions on many problems and topics concerning the Ancient World. This excellent team counted also with the help, work and support of the more recognized names in the study of Argead Macedonia anyone can list for our own days, every of them referential authors and with a prominent career, again another clue of the quality of the entrances collected in the Lexicon. The book, with a and careful format by the press, is to me a kind of net of threads to follow in order to visit, review, connect and study the information about many Macedonian characters in their entrances of the Lexicon. I also use to open the book as an invitation to think, contrast and go deeper in many aspects and details of the Argead age. Surprisingly, to the prosopographical format, the editors added also many other kind of thematic entries about concrete aspects of the society and culture of the Argead Macedonia (like the Recepetion of the Argeads, in western art, or Women,

eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199

REVIEWS

Persian, to quote two of my favourite), side by side with entries about cities with an important role (like, for example, Amphipolis) in the History of the Argead Macedonia. Through this alphabetic order of persons, cities and thematic entries, this Lexicon is, actually, almost a kind of Encyclopaedia about Ancient Argead Macedonia. Each entry is fulfilled too with the quotation of the sources related with, inviting the reader to revisit the ancient evidences, and a brief abridged bibliographical list that again allows the reader to follow the previous interpretations and the different controversial academic discussions. In my opinion, I miss the editors loose the chance here to publish, as the perfect complement, a complete bibliography, in order to recover the efforts made by Heckel during some years in a website, now offline, but to be honest this appendix would surely duplicate, at least, the extension of the book, and maybe we have to find another way to keep ourselves bibliographically updated. On the other hand, no objections can be done, in my opinion, to a book that is since its very date of publishing an essential referent and an immediate classic. I can hardly imagine the time needed to finish such a challenging task, with its deep perspective and high quality. Certainly, as it is stressed in the back cover, this is the “the first lexicon focusing exclusively on Argead Makedonia”. I guess anyone reading the Lexicon and provided with a full knowledge about Argead Macedonia can find here and there a missing entry or a name that deserved to be included, but the profuse abundancy of data collected in each entry, and the exactitude and tone of the texts, carefully detailed and rich in critical explanations of the available information, confer to this first attempt of an Argead Lexicon a charismatic value, not just for the prestige of those involved in the redaction and Edition, but also for the utility that such a book can have in aiming new research, interpretations and studies. In a difficult and sad year as the one we lived in 2020, a book like this allows to firmly believe in the generosity as the base of our work, and in the need to share and discuss our ideas as one of the main and more enjoyable facts that life gifts to us.

B. ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona [email protected]

Karanos 2/2019 192

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Departament de Ciències de l’Antiguitat i l’Edat Mitjana

Karanos BULLETIN OF ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES

Vol. 3, 2020 ISSN 2604-6199 (paper), eISSN 2604-3521 (online) http://revistes.uab.cat/karanos

Papers

Reames, Jeanne. Becoming Macedonian: Name Mapping and Ethnic Identity. The Case of Hephaistion Molina Marín, Antonio Ignacio. Forever Young. The strange youth of the Macedonian Kings. Guthrie, V. Julius. Philia Networks in the Macedonian Court and the Long Accession of Alexander the Great. Ferrario, Marco. Cherchez la femme: Power and Female Agency in Bactria at the dawn of the Hellenistic Age. Antela-Bernárdez, Borja. Terrible Olympias. Another Study in Method. Mendoza, Marc. Historiografía y Arqueología greco-bactrianas: una breve guía.

Flashbacks

Le Bohec, Sylvie. Philip II et les dieux.

Main Voices in Ancient Macedonian Studies

Molina Marín, Antonio Ignacio. Elizabeth D. Carney.