Category: Cleopatra

Cleopatra Tomb Update

~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ 2 Comments

There’s a lengthy Global Arab Network (and other sites) story kicking around about the dig at Tabusiris Magna … nothing really new other than we get the name of the site director: Dr Said Altalhawy. Perhaps more importantly, we also get (in the concluding paragraph) this:

The site is now closed for the summer, and the team will have to wait until at least January before they can continue the search for the resting place of Alexandria’s most venerated daughter.

… hmmm … that seems inordinately long, no?

From Sword to Asp

~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ 4 Comments

One of the ongoing problems I have with this whole ‘tomb of Cleopatra’ thing is the assumption — it appears — that not just Cleopatra but also Antony will be found in Egyptian-style sarcophagi, all mummied up. But as with Arsinoe, I’m still not sure of what the burial practices of the Ptolemies were. Consider when the young Octavian made his journey and visited the tomb of Alexander (according to Cassius Dio 51.16, via Lacus Curtius):

After this he viewed the body of Alexander and actually touched it, whereupon, it is said, a piece of the nose was broken off. But he declined to view the remains of the Ptolemies, though the Alexandrians were extremely eager to show them, remarking, “I wished to see a king, not corpses.”

See also Suetonius, Augustus 18 … Does that suggest that the Ptolemies may have been ‘on display’ in the same manner as Alexander? I honestly don’t know. I’m also bothered by the fact that all the focus seems to have been on the manner of Cleopatra’s death and relatively little attention has been paid to what happened between that time and Antony’s death (hence the title of this post), specifically as regards the corpse of Antony. As far as I am aware, the main source for such things is Plutarch’s Life of Antony (written a century or so after the events in question, of course). In chapter 82 (via Lacus Curtius) we are told:

As for Caesarion, then, he was afterwards put to death by Caesar,— after the death of Cleopatra; but as for Antony, though many generals and kings asked for his body that they might give it burial, Caesar would not take it away from Cleopatra, and it was buried by her hands in sumptuous and royal fashion, such things being granted her for the purpose as she desired.

Keeping in mind that we’re dealing with events happening in the first couple of weeks (give or take a few days) of August, 30 B.C., we clearly aren’t dealing with a mummification opportunity, even if it is done with Cleopatra’s own hands. And from the next mention of Antony a few chapters later (84), it is clear that the obsequies are pretty much complete; just prior to Octavian’s departure for Syria:

After Cleopatra had heard this, in the first place, she begged Caesar that she might be permitted to pour libations for Antony; and when the request was granted, she had herself carried to the tomb, and embracing the urn which held his ashes, in company with the women usually about her, she said: “Dear Antony, I buried thee but lately with hands still free; now, however, I pour libations for thee as a captive, and so carefully guarded that I cannot either with blows or tears disfigure this body of mine, which is a slave’s body, and closely watched that it may grace the triumph over thee. Do not expect other honours or libations; these are the last from Cleopatra the captive. For though in life nothing could part us from each other, in death we are likely to change places; thou, the Roman, lying buried here, while I, the hapless woman, lie in Italy, and get only so much of thy country as my portion. But if indeed there is any might or power in the gods of that country (for the gods of this country have betrayed us), do not abandon thine own wife while she lives, nor permit a triumph to be celebrated over myself in my person, but hide and bury me here with thyself, since out of all my innumerable ills not one is so great and dreadful as this short time that I have lived apart from thee.”

The next chapter opens:

After such lamentations, she wreathed and kissed the urn, and then ordered a bath to be prepared for herself.

A pretty elaborate account, to be sure, and one where the translator’s decision might make a difference in regards to how the passage is interpreted. In this case, the translator (Bernadotte Perrin) tells us that Antony’s remains are in an urn. John Dryden’s translation tells us that they’re in a tomb (as do most of the other public domain translations). If we take Perrin’s translation, we might suspect that Antony was cremated in the time-honoured Roman fashion. If we take the ‘tomb’ translation, we might not be so dogmatic. Here are the relevant Greek passages from Plutarch (hat tip to DM and DP for tracking these down for me; I’m cutting and pasting from this) … I’ve highlighted the word in question:

84.3 ἡ δ’ ἀκούσασα ταῦτα πρῶτον μὲν ἐδεήθη Καίσαρος, ὅπως αὐτὴν ἐάσῃ χοὰς ἐπενεγκεῖν Ἀντωνίῳ· καὶ συγχωρήσαντος, ἐπὶ τὸν τάφον κομισθεῖσα καὶ περιπεσοῦσα τῇ [4] σορῷ μετὰ τῶν συνήθων γυναικῶν “ὦ φίλ’ Ἀντώνιε” εἶπεν […]

85. Τοιαῦτ’ ὀλοφυραμένη καὶ στέψασα καὶ κατασπασαμένη τὴν σορόν, ἐκέλευσεν αὑτῇ λουτρὸν γενέσθαι. λουσαμένη δὲ καὶ κατακλιθεῖσα, λαμπρὸν ἄριστον ἠρίστα.

… where we clearly see the word used is “soros”, a wonderfully ambiguous word which usually does refer to an urn for cinerary ashes (according to L&S), but there are some usages which refer generally to a tomb.

If we look to Cassius Dio’s account (51.11), the obsequies for Antony are mentioned in passing:

Following out this plan, they obtained an audience with Cleopatra, and after discussing with her some moderate proposals they suddenly seized her before any agreement was reached. 5 After this they put out of her way everything by means of which she could cause her own death and allowed her to spend some days where she was, occupied in embalming Antony’s body; then they took her to the palace, but did not remove any of her accustomed retinue or attendants, in order that she should entertain more hope than ever of accomplishing all she desired, and so should do no harm to herself. At any rate, when she expressed a desire to appear before Caesar and to have an interview with him, she gained her request; and to deceive her still more, he promised that he would come to her himself.

… and the word Dio uses for ’embalming’ is ‘taricheuo’, which is indeed the word one uses for embalming in the Egyptian sense.

Turning to Latin sources, Suetonius merely mentions in passing that he allowed them to be buried together and for the tomb they had begun to be completed (Aug. 17 via the Latin Library).

Ambobus communem sepulturae honorem tribuit ac tumulum ab ipsis incohatum perfici iussit.

The gist of all this seems to me to suggest that, by the time Plutarch et al were recounting this, the story of Cleo’s death had become elaborated on in so many ways that no one really had any idea what the details were. The ancient sources were fascinated by that whole asp thing and seem to be making their own assumptions when it comes to the burial of both Antony and Cleopatra. What is interesting, though, is that the only suggestion that mummification might be involved comes from a passing word from the epitome of Cassius Dio …

rogueclassicism Review: Cleopatra: Portrait of a Killer

~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ 2 Comments

Editor’s note: you might want to read our previous thoughts on this program/claim/issue (made prior to viewing, obviously):

As a sort of followup to all the hype about this program, I thought it might be useful to provide a reviewish sort of thing of this program since it has appeared in pieces on YouTube. So I’ll intro each section, and perhaps give you some things to look for.

In part one we get the basic background to the tomb claimed to belong to Arsinoe. Outside of the host’s (Neil Oliver) penchant for carrying around a kerosene lamp (which I find to be very distracting; who does he think he is … a latter day Diogenes?), we should note here the discovery of the tomb in the 1920s. The bones are said to have been found in a sarcophagus full of water. When the archaeologists left, they “resealed” the sarcophagus. When Hilke Thur reentered the tomb much, much later (date not given, but obviously not “nearly a century later”), she tells us she found the bones ‘partly in one niche’ and ‘partly in the other niche’ of the barrel-vaulted tomb. The rest of the segment deals with the initial identification of the occupant as being Arsinoe, Rome’s growing interest in Egypt, and some Ptolemaic genealogy:

Part II opens with Cleo being sent into exile by her brother, then seeking Roman help to regain her position. We then get Fabian Kanz (UVienna) talking about the skeleton. There’s good forensic stuff going on here but I can’t help but wonder about the carbon dating now that we know that the bones were disturbed at some point (I honestly don’t know if this is an issue). I’m not sure it’s really relevant that the bones being of a ‘slender’ person is a significant tie to Cleopatra, but it is used as a segue to the story of Cleo smuggling herself back into the palace.

Part III returns to Ephesus and Fabian Kanz returning to the tomb “last summer” in the hopes of finding more bones which belong to the skeleton, which he did (amazingly enough). Still no skull, though. Then we hear of Dr Thur tracing the skull to Germany in the 1920s and subsequently disappearing during WWII –but some archaeologist had made measurements of the skull. He is said to have mentioned that the skull reminded him of skulls he had seen from Egypt. Whatever the case, the much-hyped reconstruction was made according to this archaeologist’s notes, photos, and measurements. Some important things to note here … the reconstruction is based on ‘remapping’ a similar skull of similar gender and ‘ethnicity’ (we are told, but it isn’t really explained); it’s not even a complete skull, the jaw is missing. Again, the beauty of the erstwhile owner of the skull is used as a link to Cleopatra and provide a segue to the little ‘war’ between adherents of Cleopatra and adherents of Ptolemy. The segue leads to the Pharos of Alexandria and eventually to Arsinoe’s proclamation as queen by the “rebels”.

Part IV opens back at the octagonal tomb in Ephesus and the question of the identity of its owner. The archaeologists back in the 1920s had taken some objects from the tomb back to Vienna, including an interesting ‘column’ torch holder thing which is clearly designed to look like a bundle of papyrus (suggesting, of course, an Egyptian owner). Meanwhile, Hilke Thur and a some engineers have been trying to track down bits of the tomb and are doing a virtual reconstruction of it (this is very interesting!). Eventually, we see that the connection is made between the Pharos of Alexandria (as a symbol of the Ptolemies) and the tomb as being belonged to Arsinoe. That’s the segue clue back to the events at the Pharos, with Caesar ultimately swimming for his life. And so, the Pharos becomes a symbol of Arsinoe’s victory. The ensuing political events are then related … culminating in Arsinoe being paraded (in front of a Pharos) in Caesar’s triumph back in Rome.

Part V opens with Caesar’s sparing of Arsinoe’s life and banishing her to Ephesus, specifically, to the Temple of Artemis. We then get a segment on the Temple, of course, including its popularity as a place for asylum. There follows the political events following the death of Julius Caesar, including Mark Antony’s partying in Ephesus and his eventual liaison with Cleo. It culminates with Cleopatra planning to get rid of Arsinoe.

The final segment returns to the present and the bones purported to belong to Arsinoe. Fabian Kanz notes that the bones belonged to a person who appeared to be healthy, had an easy life, and died young. Then, of course, we cut back to the ancient narrative and the murder of Arsinoe on Cleopatra’s request and Antony’s orders. It is characterized as “the biggest crime of this period” to violate the sanctuary of the Artemesion. We are then told that:

… this skeleton is the first forensic evidence of Cleopatra’s family ever found. The shape of the tomb, its similarity to the Pharos — these are all parts of a code and the whole of it comes together to make a complete picture. At last we can solve the mystery beyond doubt of who the skeleton actually is. None other than Cleopatra’s sister Arsinoe …

We then have to find out what she looked like and we get the ‘rebuilding’ of the skull. After Drs. Kanz and Thur marvel at the skull, we get the ‘big announcement’ that the skull is elongated but also has European features, and so indicates mixed ancestry. Oliver then announces:

Our revelation backs up the controversial theory that the princess, and therefore her sister Cleopatra, also had African blood.

Then comes the suicide of Cleopatra and the political results thereof. The program ends with a facial reconstruction of “what she might have looked like” (interestingly, the only use of speculative language in the program).

Unfortunately, the YouTube version doesn’t preserve the credits, so I can’t give any more detail on researchers etc. (if, as, and when I do get this info, I’ll add it). I can note that the woman playing Cleopatra (fwiw) actually matches my own conception of what Cleo probably looked like; the Caesar and Antony aren’t even close. It’s interesting to have the tale of Cleo narrated by the same guy who was the herald in HBO’s Rome series, but other than that, there was nothing in this program to change my mind from things already said. The most serious is that it ignores the fact that we do not know who Cleopatra’s mother was, but you can revisit my previous posts for the full picture.

Cleopatra Trailer Fest

~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ Leave a comment

While poking around YouTube for assorted items this past week, it came to my attention that I could put a little minifilm festival of Cleopatra movie trailers together here to start our weekend blogging off … so, in chronological order:

The 1934 DeMille version starring Claudette Colbert:

Possibly the worst ever … the 1945 version starring Vivien Leigh:

The 1963 version with Elizabeth Taylor:

Cleo’s ‘Tomb’ ~ Further Thoughts

~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ 3 Comments

This one’s starting to bother me, even though I’ve now seen the ‘mask’ being identified with varying degrees of certainty as ‘possibly’ Marcus Antonius. A correspondent sends in a nice video from the site (from a German version of Reuters; the video is in English), which I can’t embed, so here’s the link. What I find interesting here is that a year ago Zahi Hawass had the alabaster head and mask available to him and by June was saying in Al Ahram that “We have found nothing that indicates the presence of Cleopatra’s or Anthony’s tomb.” In the video, what appears to be causing Hawass’ change of face is the discovery of twenty or so rockcut tomb/burials near the temple, which he believes indicates the presence of the burial of someone “important” nearby. We then get a very good example of petitio principis in the claim that “no one would be buried beside a temple without a reason”. Let’s see, Dr. Hawass … do you think the connection between Isis and the burial/resurrection of some other well-known Egyptian divinity might not cause folks to want to be buried near her temple if possible (why is Augustus’ mausoleum in the same general area as the Isaeum in the Campus Martius, he said, thinking out loud. I’ll track that one down later)?  Why do these burials have to be connected to Tony and Cleo? Then come the artifacts found last year … we’ll note in passing that it’s interesting that the alabaster head has a hole drilled in it (why?).

That said, I’ve had correspondence with various folks (who desire to remain anonymous) on this and another question which seems to be bothering folks is the nature of the non-Hawass archaeologist’s — i.e. Kathleen Martinez’ —  qualifications. An AFP piece has also recently landed in my mailbox which makes you go hmmmmm:

The team, led by antiquities chief Zahi Hawass and Kathleen Martinez, an Egyptologist from the Dominican Republic, hopes that the site around the ancient temple of Taposiris Magna, erected to honour the Egyptian god Isis in around 300 BC, will soon reveal the legendary lovers’ final resting place.
The team has worked there for three years — the latest in a chain of digs since an expedition by Napoleon in the 19th century.
Martinez says that the find of a carved male head, a fragment of a mask with a cleft-chin, coins and other artifacts prove that this is Anthony’s burial site.
And she is convinced that Cleopatra’s body also lies somewhere on this rocky outcrop overlooking the Mediterranean, 50 kilometres (30 miles) east of Alexandria.
“There are historic proofs in the works of (Roman chronicler) Plutarch where he says Cleopatra was buried with Mark Anthony,” Martinez said.
A lawyer by training, Martinez said that trying to unravel the fate of the doomed lovers began as a hobby but has now become what Hawass said could be “one of the most important discoveries of the 21st century.”
Martinez said she “always had the conviction that the tomb of Anthony and Cleopatra was in this temple. We have been looking for the right tunnels, but so far we have only found the entrance to other chambers.
“I studied Cleopatra for 14 years, and I came up with the idea that her death was a religious act, to be bitten by this asp and buried in this temple, so I started searching for the temple,” she said.
“She couldn’t be buried in a different place from Mark Anthony and be protected by Isis.”
The theory was initially disparaged by experts, and after five years of research, it took another year for Martinez to get approval to dig.
But today even Egypt’s antiquities supremo Hawass enthusiastically endorses the hypothesis, which could lead to the greatest discovery in the country since Howard Carter found the tomb of the boy king Tutankhamun in 1922.
Martinez admitted that “beginner’s luck” may have played a part, as her team found a major clue in the form of a clay fragment linking the site to Isis just inches from where Hungarian archaeologists stopped working four years ago.
Using ground-penetrating radar, her own expedition discovered two large subterranean chambers and an intriguing passageway.

Well at least she wasn’t guided by snakes, but I’m finding it difficult to follow all the claims of evidence we’re being given now; Hawass’ petitio principis is building on Martinez’. And all of a sudden we’re hearing about a “carved male head” — photo please. And as for this “clay fragment” linking the site to Isis, that’s a first as well. It might be salutary to reference a National Geographic photo that was circulating last May:

National Geographic Photo
National Geographic Photo

The item in the upper left was identified as a bronze statue of Aphrodite (and, of course, Aphrodite and Isis are equatable); why isn’t that being mentioned in this context?

Whatever the case, one of my anonymous correspondents also suggests checking out Vörös, Gyozo (ed.), Taposiris Magna, (Egypt Excavation Society of Hungary  Publications).  My correspondent recalls an “Isis” (as it’s “identified” there) having previously “published” in one of the volumes and is now in  the possession of Martinez. I have no access to this, so if anyone out there would like to wade in on this, please leave a comment (or drop me a line if you wish your comments to remain anonymous).