The E-Sylum:  Volume 7, Number 49, December 5, 2004, Article 12

ALEXANDER AS HERAKLES

Michael Marotta writes: " In The E-Sylum, Vol.7, Nu. 48,
November 28, 2004, William Bischoff wrote: To clinch
the argument [about Afghan kings], consider the fact 
that even the portraits of Alexander were initially 
understood (if that is the right word) as pictures of
a god in his [Alexander's] image: up to that time the
Greeks had not pictured mortals on their coinage."

That depends on what we mean by "Greek" and what 
we mean by "mortal." The Greek National Museum has a coin
of the Persian satrap Tissaphernes that is an obvious portrait 
in the style of an Athenian "Owl." That coin comes from 400 BC. 
Other Carian and Lycian governors asserted their independence 
about 350 BC and struck coins carrying their own images, 
among them Perikle and Mithrapata. (For these and others, see Sear
" Greek Coins and Their Values=94, for instance.) Contact
between these "eastern" peoples and the Greeks went back 
to the time of the Illiad. Herodotus came from Halicarnassus, 
the site of the tomb of Mausallos.  About 350 BC Artabazus of 
Phrygia hired Athenian mercenaries in his quest for independence -
- if not the Persian crown. When defeated, he found refuge at
the court of Philip of Macedon. Philip betrothed his
"other" son, Arrhidaeus to the daughter of Pixodoros, the 
younger brother of Mausallos. So, there was attested
contact between the Macedonians and the Carians.  
Therefore, Alexander must have known that some men on
the rise put their own portraits on coins. In parallel
with all of that, Macedonian coins also carried portraits,
representations, and portrayals of the kings as Herakles 
(Amyntas II and Perkkidas III) and as Zeus (Philip II).  
Much of this hinges on the distinctions between Macedonian
and Hellenic traditions, a subject of intense debate today 
just as it was 2500 years ago.

Bischoff's point is both subtle and ponderous. In the instances 
of the satraps, they simply put their own faces
on coins. The Macedonian kings took the perhaps expedient 
route of allowing their images to be used as the models for 
gods. Whether Alexander considered himself divine is
 often questioned. The fact is that he hosted symposia
to rationally discuss his divinity four years before
the priests at Siwah declared him to be the son of Amon. 
All of that was laid out in "Portraits and Representations 
of Alexander the Great" which I co-authored with Ann M. Zakelj, 
for the July 2002 issue of The Celator. More recently, I 
delivered an update to that work at the recent conference 
"Coinage and Identities in the Ancient World" sponsored by 
the Nickle Arts Museum of Calgary (Nov. 4-6, 2004). This was 
a judged, peer reviewed paper. Also speaking at that conference 
were Andrew Meadows of the British Museum, Shailendra Bhandare of
the Ashmolean Museum, Haim Gitler (Israel Museum) and Edinburgh 
University's emeritus, Keith Rutter. Until The middle of the 20th century, 
our thesis, that Alexander purposely portrayed himself as Herakles, was
assumed to be true. Even in our age of doubt, it is
not dismissed out of hand by all serious scholars."

  Wayne Homren, Editor

	coinbooks.org Web

The Numismatic Bibliomania Society is a non-profit organization 
promoting numismatic literature. See our web site at coinbooks.org.

To submit items for publication in The E-Sylum, write to the Editor 
at this address: whomren@coinlibrary.com

To subscribe go to: https://my.binhost.com/lists/listinfo/esylum