Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf

by Amanda

  135 Arr., An. , 2.25.4-27.7; Curt., 4.6.7-30; Hegesias, FGrH, 142 F5; Diod., 17.48.7; Plu., Alex. , 24.4-5; Plu., mor. , 341b; Plb., 16.22a.3-6; D.H., Comp. , 18; Zonar., 4.10. Bosworth 1980, pp. 257-260; Atkinson 1980, pp. 337-343.

  From Abydus to Alexandria

  199

  control. The ancient authors routinely criticised successive Persian rulers

  for treating the native population with cruelty and for not respecting the

  country’s customs, culture and religion. The most notable example of this

  allegedly was the killing of the divine Apis bull, first by Cambyses and

  later also by Artaxerxes III. At least in the case of the first of these rulers

  Herodotus’s claim that he killed the Apis bull with his own hands is false

  for contemporary sources record how Cambyses honoured the divine bull.

  The accusations regarding Artaxerxes III are in turn a repeat of

  Herodotus’s topos of the sacrilegious ruler. Nevertheless, these incessantly

  repeated tales are not merely colourful decorations to accounts of exotic

  countries but a reflection of predominantly negative opinions of Persia in

  Egypt passed on to the Greeks by informers from the Egyptian priestly

  caste. Apart from the inevitable friction caused by differences in mentality

  and culture between the invader and a subjugated people, Cambyses, the

  first Persian ruler of Egypt, had deprived Egyptian temples of much of

  their revenues and privileges. Darius I did help to better establish Persian

  rule by founding new temples, codifying Egyptian law and building the

  ancient equivalent of the Suez Canal, indeed linking the Red Sea with the

  Mediterranean. However, in the 5th century subsequent Persian rulers

  stopped visiting Egypt and no longer cared as much as Darius I or even

  Cambyses for maintaining close relations with the political elite of that

  country. Instead they tried to keep Egypt loyal with numerous garrisons of

  Iranian, Semitic (in this number Jewish), Carian, Greek and Egyptian

  soldiers: in Elephantine, Thebes, Abydos, Memphis, Faiyum and several

  places in the Nile Delta. But neither they nor the bureaucratic and police

  apparatus, the king’s ‘eyes and ears’, were able to stop the revolt that in

  404 led to Egypt breaking away from the Persian Empire.136

  Despite the efforts of successive Persian rulers to recapture this rich

  province, over the next 60 years Egypt remained an independent state

  ruled by the last three native dynasties. For two generations the energetic

  pharaohs of the 28th-30th dynasties employed large armies of Greek

  mercenaries to protect Egypt’s sovereignty. As these mercenaries were

  used to being paid with money rather than in kind, the Egyptian rulers

  founded a large mint, probably in Memphis, producing such excellent

  copies of Athenian tetradrachms that for a long time modern numismatists

  were unable to distinguish them from the original. An unintended but

  important consequence of this was the acquainting of Egyptians to the use

  of coin money. With time at least the inhabitants of Memphis were even

  using bronze coins in minor transactions. Thus even before the

  136 Bresciani 1985, pp. 505-520; Ray 1988; Cuyler Young 1988, p. 51.

  200

  Chapter IV

  Macedonian conquest, the Egyptians had started to acquire the abilities

  and customs necessary for the functioning of a ‘modern’ 4th-century

  economy. It was Artaxerxes III who finally put an end to Egyptian

  independence in 343. The last Egyptian pharaoh, Nectanebo II, fled abroad

  – according to the Alexander Romance he went on to father the great

  Macedonian, Alexander. Greek authors paint a decidedly negative picture

  of Artaxerxes III’s rule in Egypt. Apart from demolishing the defensive

  walls of major cities, temples were allegedly robbed; there were acts of

  sacrilege and the theft of sacred scripts that were later sold back to the

  priests by the corrupt chiliarch Bagoas. Egyptian sources, however, are

  more equivocal. Some report the confiscation of land belonging to temples,

  plunder and disruption in the social order, while others report life

  continuing as normal and the temples being left undisturbed. As usual

  some of the Egyptian elite – both priestly and secular – were able to adapt

  quickly to the new situation and willingly cooperated with the new

  authority. Clear evidence of social dissatisfaction with Persian rule came

  with another rebellion when after the death of the active Artaxerxes III

  there was no successor of adequate strength of personality to control

  events. The rebel leader Khababash declared himself pharaoh and in the

  years 338-336 held power at least in some parts of Egypt, including the

  capital, Memphis. This rebellion, which was eventually quelled by Darius

  III, was the source of great chaos for even most Egyptians regarded

  Khababash to be a rebel rather than a monarch. He was not included in the

  lists of kings and thus virtually condemned to be totally forgotten. The

  Persian authority restored to Egypt by Darius III was strong and stable

  enough to withstand the usurpation by Amyntas in the winter of

  333/332.137

  The ancient sources do not inform us of the objectives behind

  Alexander’s expedition to Egypt – an expedition that delayed the final

  showdown with Darius III by almost a year. Modern historians assume

  that the conquest of this country was essential for the complete occupation

  of the eastern Mediterranean area before the planned expedition into the

  Asia interior. They note that the food resources of Syria and Palestine

  would have been exhausted after the prolonged presence of the

  Macedonian army. These resources had to be replenished before another

  massive army set off to the East. On the other hand, we do know from the

  ancient sources that Egypt made a great impression on Alexander. Like

  many other ancient Greeks, he admired the Egyptian monuments and

  137 Bresciani 1985, pp. 526-528; Lloyd 1994, p. 34; Briant 1996, p. 881; Le Rider

  1997, pp. 83-88; Le Rider 2003, pp. 220-227; Debord 1999, p. 412; Burstein 2000.

  From Abydus to Alexandria

  201

  towards the end of his life even planned to build a pyramid-shaped tomb

  for his father.138

  Gaza, which Alexander had captured in October 332, was 200 km

  away from the nearest Egyptian city of Pelusium (today Tell el-Farama).

  The route along the coast of the Sinai Peninsula was particularly

  inhospitable: initially barren desert with absolutely no vegetation, later the

  landscape changed into extensive coastal salt marshes. Rains in this part of

  the Mediterranean coast could not be expected before November, and what

  few wells there were had only small quantities of brackish water.

  According to Arrian, the Macedonian army reached Pelusium on the

  seventh day. No doubt the army marched so fast to minimise the time

  spent in a territory deprived of food and water. The sources do not provide

  any information about the logistic problems of this march but we know

  from other cases of large armies crossing Sinai (from Cambyses to

  Napoleon) that the previous preparation of food and water supplies was

  essential. The army’s long stay at G
aza made possible the setting up of

  provisions magazines on the coast. Provisions could also have been

  supplied by the fleet commanded by Hephaestion, which was floating

  towards Egypt alongside the Sinai shore. Once the army reached Egypt, it

  encountered no major problems. The sources do not record any resistance

  being put up the Persian satrap Mazaces, who approximately half a year

  earlier had defeated Amyntas’s mercenaries. We do not know what

  proportion of the Macedonian army accompanied Alexander to Egypt,

  though it is certain that considerable forces had to remain in Syria to

  protect this newly captured country against a possible Persian attack.

  Perhaps these forces were commanded by Parmenion for none of the

  ancient authors makes any mention of him being present in Egypt.

  Nevertheless, the superior strength of the invading Macedonian army was

  unquestioned and – also taking into account the unfavourable mood among

  the Egyptians – that is most probably why Mazaces surrendered Pelusium

  to Alexander.139

  The Macedonian fleet next sailed up the Nile from Pelusium to

  Memphis, while Alexander and the land army marched along the no longer

  existing Pelusium Nile Delta arm to Ōn (Heliopolis to the ancient Greeks

  and today a northeast suburb of Cairo). At Ōn the army crossed over to the

  138 Marasco 1964, p. 10; Seibert 1972, pp. 109-111; Schachermeyr 1973, p. 235;

  Dąbrowa 1988, pp. 63-64.

  139 Arr., An. , 3.1.1-3; Diod., 17.49.1; Curt., 4.7.2-3; Fragmentum Sabbaiticum, FGrH, 151 F1.8; Just., 11.11.1; It. Alex. , 48. Wilcken 1967, pp. 112-113; Lane Fox 1973, pp. 194-195; Engels 1978, pp. 59-60; Seibert 1985, pp. 84-85; Bosworth

  1988, pp. 68-70.

  202

  Chapter IV

  west bank of the Nile and marched 40 km up river to Memphis. Satrap

  Mazaces went out to greet Alexander and surrendered to him the capital

  and the whole of Egypt. The victor’s trophies included 800 talents from

  the satrap’s treasury. To celebrate the occupation of the capital of such an

  important satrapy Alexander organised gymnastics and musical contests.

  Greek artists were invited to perform in these events, and no doubt given a

  considerable amount of time to arrive. Apart from Alexander’s own

  soldiers, the spectators and audience must have included the so-called

  Hellenomemphitai, i.e. the members of a Greek community that had

  existed in Egypt since the 6th century and partly originated from the

  mercenaries who had served the 26th Dynasty. Recorded events in

  Memphis show that Alexander from the start took trouble to communicate

  with the Greek and Egyptian communities separately and in accordance

  with their different cultures. Apart from the Greek contests, Alexander

  also laid offerings before the Egyptian gods. The Greek sources mention

  Ammon-Ra (called by them Zeus), Osiris and Apis – deity known but

  alien to Greek culture. Unlike the offerings he laid before Tyrian god

  Melqart, whom he associated with Heracles, here Alexander only wished

  to officially honour the native people’s gods. In other words, he wished to

  fulfil the traditional religious obligations of the ruler and thus publicly

  legitimise his claim to authority. No doubt Alexander also laid offerings at

  a Greek temple (Hellenion) that was located in the Greek district of the

  city.140

  The pharaonic coronation of Alexander, tentatively dated to his first

  stay in Memphis in December 332 is a matter of scholarly debate. The

  only source to mention it directly is the Alexander Romance, whose

  account is vague and unclear but which is generally well informed about

  Egyptian affairs. According to the Romance, Alexander was led by

  Egyptian priests to the Temple of Hephaestus (Ptah) at Memphis, dressed

  in the garments of an Egyptian king and seated on a throne. In fact

  Egyptian documents issued in Alexander’s times bear dates according to

  regnal years of pharaoh Alexander. Numerous Egyptian reliefs present

  Alexander in traditional pharaoh attire, and his name is written in the royal

  cartouches as follows: ‘Horus, who conquered foreign lands; king of

  Upper and Lower Egypt, chosen by Ra, beloved by Ammon, the son of Ra,

  Alexandros.’ A noticeable lack of certain elements that normally appear in

  a pharaoh’s title has inclined some historians to reject the Alexander

  Romance claim that the Macedonian king was crowned in Egypt.

  140 Arr., An. , 3.1.3-4, 3.5.2; Curt., 4.7.3-4; Ps.-Callisth., 1.34.1-2. Wilcken 1967, pp.

  116-117; Bosworth 1980, pp. 262, 275; Thompson 1988, pp. 3-20, 83-84, 95-97,

  106; O’Brien 1992, p. 86; Stewart 1993, pp. 171-173; Bloedow 1988.

  From Abydus to Alexandria

  203

  Monarchs who had not even ever been in Egypt let alone crowned there

  were also recorded with pharaonic titles; Egyptian priests did that to give

  the fictitious sense of an unbroken succession of rightful rulers of Egypt,

  the interruption of which could upset the cosmic order and bring

  catastrophe to the country. We know that the Egyptian coronation

  ceremony was a long and tedious affair, which in the opinion of the

  sceptical modern historians would not have appealed to an impatient

  Alexander. Therefore they believe that he would have only agreed to

  engage in the bare minimum of cult activities that could be expected of a

  foreign ruler and keep the religious caste happy.141

  It is easy to notice that such argumentation, on the one hand, is based

  on a subjective understanding of Alexander’s personality and, on the other,

  it is also based on the fact that the principal sources remain silent about the

  whole subject. We should, however, remember just how few historical

  sources, both Greek and Egyptian, have actually survived. For example

  there is only one source for the full Egyptian title of the great

  Macedonian’s son, Alexander IV, and today we only have a mere copy of

  the original from over 200 years ago. Thorough analyses of Alexander’s

  royal title in Egyptian inscriptions show that it was abbreviated in various

  ways depending on the nature of the given document. Its most extended

  form includes three of the five elements of a pharaoh’s full title. Therefore

  Egyptian sources do not unequivocally refute Alexander’s legitimate claim

  to authority in Egypt. Indeed, any opinion on whether or not Alexander

  was genuinely installed as pharaoh will remain hypothetical. Nevertheless,

  a premise for an opinion can be formed by examining Alexander’s policy

  with regard to Egypt’s tradition, culture and religion and how it was

  received by the Egyptian priestly establishment, which was best educated

  and positioned to appreciate the nuances of the ruler’s government.

  Alexander ordered a shrine in the Temple of Thutmose III to be restored in

  his name. In 330 the high-priest of Thoth, Petosiris, collaborated with the

  king to rebuild a temple to his god at Hermopolis Magna. Alexander also

  funded the construction of a totally new religious edifice, the so-called

  Temple of the Barque, that is, a chapel where the god Ammon’s sacred

  boat was kept. This still extant structure is not significant on account of its

  141
Ps.-Callisth., 1.34.2; ‘1st year of pharaoh Alexander’ in document Hawara

  Papyrus 2 (Jasnow 1997, p. 95, n. 2). Wilcken 1967, pp. 113-114; Tarn 1948, I, p.

  41; Schachermeyr 1973, p. 236; Lane Fox 1973, pp. 196-197; Hamilton 1974, p.

  74; Green 1974, pp. 269-270. Tradition of Alexander’s Egyptian coronation

  rejected by: Badian 1985, p. 433; Bosworth 1988, pp. 70-71; Burstein 1991;

  Burstein 1994; Stewart 1993, p. 174. Egyptian titles of Alexander: Wilcken 1967,

  p. 114; Burstein 1991; Ladynin 1999.

  204

  Chapter IV

  size, for it is only 5.7 m by 7.8 m large, but because of it location and

  adornment. It is found in the central part of the Temple at Luxor, in an

  area that could only be accessed by the priests and over which they had

  total control. Although the building of the Temple of the Barque was

  financed by the king, decisions regarding its detailed design and

  ornaments were made by the priests of Ammon, who were the only people

  in Egypt able to appreciate the significance of the various elements. The

  temple’s walls are covered with reliefs depicting Alexander as a pharaoh

  in the company of Egyptian gods. Art historians stress that these reliefs

  strictly adhere to the classical Egyptian style, which can be distinguished

  from the vast majority of works of art of the Late Egyptian period. The

  fact that Egyptian priests made such an ideological and artistic decision

  shows that they fully recognised the temple’s financial patron as a

  legitimate ruler. Among his other investments was the reconstruction of

  temples that had been raised by Nectanebo II, the last native ruler of Egypt.

  Therefore Alexander did regard his Egyptian title seriously. He proclaimed

  himself a continuator of the Egyptian monarchy and thus ideologically

  distanced himself from the second Persian occupation of that country.142

  Both Greek and Egyptian sources mention that Alexander laid

  offerings to Egyptian gods, including those who took the incarnations of