Mystery of Alexandria's largest coffin: Archaeologists unearth 8.6-foot-long sarcophagus buried in Egypt 2,000 years ago beside a massive stone head

[Cyclops]

Apparently during the Roman period some Roman aristocrats who moved to Egypt chose to be buried in the Egyptian style, so perhaps its one of them?

...or possibly Egyptian elites who took Roman names? Roman culture was very sticky and coated its conquered peoples in many places.

In a previous discussion there was a point made about Hellenistic portraits on urban elite burials in Egypt, where the majority of the burial accoutrements were pure Egyptian with a tasteful bit of Hellenistic painting bunged on the front. From my bible study days I recall that Saul of Tarsus, a faithful servant of the temple in Jerusalem and (while not a Zealot) very zealous in the Sadducee cause nevertheless took roman citizenship, and with it the Roman name Paulus.

i wonder what the uptake of Egyptian funerary rites was among Hellenistic and later Roman elites in Egypt. The cult of Isis was popular among some in the Roman elite classes in the Principate, but that was a morphed form, essentially a Hellenistic version of the old mystery cults with an Egyptian paint job. Were sarcophagi part of the Hellenistic Isis cult? The other route of transmission is the direct adoption of antique royal forms by the Ptolemies and their entourage clothing their arriviste dynasty in the raiment of hoary Kemet.

I guess the question I am waffling around the edges of is who would get a massive Egyptian coffin? Is it a Makedonian dressed up as a God King? A reburied Makedonian who thought he was a God King? Is it a Greek fake/upcycle for use in a rebirth rite in a New Age-ish mystery cult? Or a Roman citizen going for a little local flavour for his dirt nap?

[Spear Dog]

sumskilz, was burying a bust with sarcophagi usual? Is there anything to be said about it being alabaster? This late in the classical period it must have been known that the alabaster was less durable than marble or basalt and would deteriorate over time. Does the base of the bust look like it has been removed from another mount or even a full figure statue? The base does not look very substantial and the way it curves does not look particularly stable.

[Diocle]

I don't understnd the modality in which this grave has been set, the sculpted head is put on the sarcophagus in a pretty casual way, the features of the face seem to be carved away more than corroded, I may be wrong, but for me this grave belongs to a person not on the winning side of his historical time. Antonius? Cleopatra? Maybe some other once important forgotten loser. Fascinating find, we all live with this pain of the lost tomb of Alexander so when such a find come out we can't avoid starting dreaming ..

[sumskilz]

sumskilz, was burying a bust with sarcophagi usual?

Not really, there are some earlier practices based on placing objects for each aspect of the soul to reside in, but this burial seems very Roman or Roman influenced. We're not given any archaeological details, so I'm not sure why they're saying Ptolemaic. First issue, the Sarcophagus is not anthropoid. Second, the practice of placing a bust in a niche near or on the opening of a tomb is something the developed in the Near East under Roman influence.

I thought the Hellenistic period funerary or commemorative busts weren't placed in tombs, but maybe someone else knows if there were cases in which they were. That's not something I know much about.

Is there anything to be said about it being alabaster? This late in the classical period it must have been known that the alabaster was less durable than marble or basalt and would deteriorate over time. Does the base of the bust look like it has been removed from another mount or even a full figure statue? The base does not look very substantial and the way it curves does not look particularly stable.

The base of it looks damaged to me. Doesn't look inconsistent with erosion though. Except that some of the damage looks fresh (very white), like it was damaged in excavation, which happens all the time, because an edge sticking out looks the same as chunks of limestone in the ground. The same alabastor is used for making plaster floors, students and volunteers smash through them all the time without even noticing. Which I find infuriating, because it ruins the ability to date materials above and below the floor separately. You can only easily tell that it's happened after the fact by the white horizontal line in the bulk. Although it looks to me like there is a front edge to the base missing that probably wasn't cause by the excavation damage unless the damage is just obscured by dirt and/or shadow in the picture.

Marble is very rare in Egypt. The closest source is Paros, an Island in the Aegean. Alabaster was (and is) used for a lot of things that marble would be used for in Southern Europe. Herod the Great's massive building projects involved bringing in architects and engineers from the Roman Empire but almost everything was alabaster or limestone instead of marble. So the the columns and reliefs slowly melted in the rain. Alabaster kept in a dry tomb though can remain well preserved.

From two thousand years earlier:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

the features of the face seem to be carved away more than corroded

There is definitely water erosion damage. After the fact, it's impossible to say for certain that it wasn't roughly hewn or chipped away at, but the explanation is unnecessary. Alabaster is water soluble, the ground there would expand and contract seasonally with water content, causing the weight of the earth, sand, and small stones to grind against the surface in multiple directions. The fact that it's not just water flowing in one direction makes the pattern of damage less obvious than on alabaster exposed on the surface.

[Gaius Baltar]

A recent article of some archaeological work in Alexandria. More Roman remains. This site is much farther inland.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCont...exandria-.aspx

[sumskilz]

A recent article of some archaeological work in Alexandria. More Roman remains. This site is much farther inland.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCont...exandria-.aspx

That's cool...

Although that first picture captioned "Pots uncovered" isn't really a pot. It's an oil lamp. The hole on the left is where the wick goes in, and oil is poured in through the top center hole.

[Ludicus]

so I'm not sure why they're saying Ptolemaic. First issue, the Sarcophagus is not anthropoid.

sumskilz, in the Ptolemaic period the coffins were similar to those of the Late Period, right? I mean, both rectangular and anthropoid coffins were used in the Late/Preptolemaic/Ptolemaic period. Also, correct me If I'm wrong, stone coffins were used for kings/queens, and wooden coffins for most people who could afford them?

[Gaius Baltar]

I was looking at pictures of the sarcophagus, and it appears the visible portion on top has some imperfections, perhaps damage of some sort, but if you look at these "holes" it appears there is a silver metal beneath?

The site at the "foot" end looks like a design feature.

Also, though the resolution isnt good I think I see some writing near the "head" area?



In addition, the sarcophagus appears to be under a floor of some sort. I wonder what other structural features (buildings, walls, perhaps grave goods or other graves) are found in the immediate area?

[sumskilz]

sumskilz, in the Ptolemaic period the coffins were similar to those of the Late Period, right? I mean, both rectangular and anthropoid coffins were used in the Late/Preptolemaic/Ptolemaic period. Also, correct me If I'm wrong, stone coffins were used for kings/queens, and wooden coffins for most people who could afford them?

Correct in both cases, except the use of stone coffins was spread across the high echelons of society, so royalty and high level priests.

This is the sarcophagus of Wennefer, who was a priest of several goddesses just before the Ptolemaic period:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is the lid:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The engraved funerary literature, which is typical, is of the type that would have been for kings in the Late Kingdom. There would usually be a wooden anthropoid sarcophagus inside.

Compare that to one from the early Ptolemaic Period:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here's an inner coffin from the Ptolemaic Period:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Limestone would have been the least expensive, like this one that belonged to a royal scribe/priest in the Ptolemaic Period:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So who has the money for the highest quality coffin, but no engraving? Or maybe we just can't see it in the pictures? The engraving served a religious function. Will there be an wooden anthropoid inside? I'm thinking not, but it will be interesting if there is. For multiple reasons already discussed or alluded to, I'm thinking this may have been a foreigner or reflect a later syncretic practice, but that's based on the very little information we have. The article mentions next to nothing about the provenance.

In addition, the sarcophagus appears to be under a floor of some sort. I wonder what other structural features (buildings, walls, perhaps grave goods or other graves) are found in the immediate area?

You'd expect it to be in a tomb rather than a simple inhumation. Either they just opened it up and it was in a partially collapsed space, or they're excavating it like looters rather than archaeologists.

[Ludicus]

Thanks for clarifying.
---

So who has the money for the highest quality coffin, but no engraving? Or maybe we just can't see it in the pictures?

Waziri said,

the exterior of the sarcophagus does not have engravings or drawings. We will have to wait until we open the sarcophagus in the next few days and perhaps the answer lies inside. Maybe his name will be written inside or maybe there will be some inscriptions, and maybe we will find a mummy or wooden coffin, or maybe we will find nothing

[Gaius Baltar]

Some additional information. The weight of the sarcophagus is estimated at 30 metric tones, the lid alone at 15 metric tons. Heavy lift equipment is being brought up to assist with the opening. Specialists will be on hand to deal with any contents. Article suggest it is from the "early Ptolemaic " period.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...exandria-egypt

[Cyclops]

So who has the money for the highest quality coffin, but no engraving? Or maybe we just can't see it in the pictures? The engraving served a religious function...

...yep plenty to baffle us there. I'm just grasping at straws now, love to know how they dated the context, love to know if the granite coffin was a "blank' the royal undertakers had lying around. I mean they didn't run one of those up every time some royal died, surely they had stock...oh no, what if this is a test piece buried every few years by the royal undertakers? Or a funerary prank gone wrong "Hey Sinue, let me out! A joke's a joke man, this isn't funny!"

[Gaius Baltar]

A very interesting video. The author suggests that the sarcophagus may be much older than the Ptolemaic era and may have originated from Saqqara.

Watching this video you also get a sense of the real size of its construction when he shows you a sarcophagus of a priest with similar measurements (ex. around 3:12 in the video compare the size of the tourists with the sarcophagus).

[Ludicus]

Mostafa Waziri,secretary general of the government’s Supreme Council of Antiquities
New York Times.

People are saying it might contain Alexander or Cleopatra or Ramses. They don’t know what they are talking about.

Ok,let's wait and see.

[Spear Dog]

So, could contain a pig! Wouldn't the sealing mortar be the definitive dating tool?

[Roma_Victrix]

They're going to open it up and find a bunch of Playboy magazines from the 1970s in there with some disco vinyl records. Like a groovy time capsule. That's my hypothesis.

[Cyclops]

So, could contain a pig! Wouldn't the sealing mortar be the definitive dating tool?

Only if it contains carbon. There's some isotope analysis they use in palaeontology but that's like +/- 500K years IIRC, so hardly useful here (unless they are dinosaur era martian lizard-people pharaohs).

If it does contain a pig, what odds it also has the body of famous Roman chef Gaius Fierius? "Welcome to Flavouropolis!" Or should that be "Oppidum Flavoria"?

[Spear Dog]

^ my thought was that mortar 'recipes' change from time to time. Certainly here in Australia houses from different periods have different types of mortar. I surmise that a singular recipe surviving even 50 years in a river delta would be difficult. Local resources would deplete and be sourced elsewhere, so time and distance become a factor in what mix would be used. The Greeks would probably have had a say in their preference for mortar mix over that used by local tradesmen - at least initially - outside technology would have come in from surrounding regions, etc. How mortar is composed, mixed, ratios and portions are pretty obvious variables.

* I don't know if it would cause a carbon content in mortar, but shellfish shells have in the past been burnt to source lime for mortar. Ancient middens in the Nile delta would no doubt have been common.

[sumskilz]

People are saying it might contain Alexander or Cleopatra or Ramses. They don’t know what they are talking about.

These are just the only three names associated with ancient Egypt that they're familiar with. Amusingly, I think they're referring to Ramesses II. If he turned up in there, I'd suspect a prank.

Only if it contains carbon.

There would need to be a piece of straw or something stuck in it. Uncalibrated C-14 wouldn't be much help anyway, except in narrowing it down to the very broad time frame already assumed. The First Millennium BCE is a particularly bad time period for precise C-14 results. It works better if you have a local destruction layer anchored to a historical event that you can use to calibrate, even better if you have two. Almost all the absolute chronology estimates in the Eastern Mediterranean are dependent on the destruction sequences from sites in Israel, the interpretation of which is disputed for most of the Iron Age, and limited during the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods. We're developing a dendrochronology in Israel which should help a lot, as are archaeologists in Egypt, but they're way behind us. What that is for those who don't know, is a record of annual tree rings from the present back in time to establish an absolute chronology anchored to the present. Samples from specific rings associated with each year are then C-14 dated in order to establish a baseline for C-14 calibration of artifacts.

I assume the current estimate we're being told is simply based on the fact that the sarcophagus looks like those known to be from the Late through Ptolemaic periods, but because of the bust, and because it's Alexandria, they're saying Ptolemaic. You can't really date a tomb precisely by stratigraphy because it's intrusive. You know that anything datable immediately below the sarcophagus is older than the moment the sarcophagus was placed, but whether it's one minute or a thousand years you don't know, at least with this piece of information alone. It establishes a terminus post quem, the earliest possible date, and that's about it.

^ my thought was that mortar 'recipes' change from time to time. Certainly here in Australia houses from different periods have different types of mortar. I surmise that a singular recipe surviving even 50 years in a river delta would be difficult. Local resources would deplete and be sourced elsewhere, so time and distance become a factor in what mix would be used. The Greeks would probably have had a say in their preference for mortar mix over that used by local tradesmen - at least initially - outside technology would have come in from surrounding regions, etc. How mortar is composed, mixed, ratios and portions are pretty obvious variables.

* I don't know if it would cause a carbon content in mortar, but shellfish shells have in the past been burnt to source lime for mortar. Ancient middens in the Nile delta would no doubt have been common.

It's a good idea, but the background work hasn't been done as far as I know. The history of research looks pretty light in the few relevant papers I could find. It's sort of weird that it hasn't been, because the composition and sourcing of materials used in pottery production has been meticulously documented.

[Diocle]

Is there a way to establish if in that sarcophagus actually lies a Macedon or an Egyptian dignitary? Did they keep different methods and rites of burial?
I ask because I was thinking about that Ptolemaic General (was he named Achillas?) who fought against the Divine Julius ..