Alexander’s famous ban of the exposure of the corpses in Bactra has been long studied. Mostly the discussion has focused on the veracity of the account and his compliance with the Zoroastrian rites. The analysis of the reasons that led Alexander to the ban has hitherto been very superficial, only outlining the apparently exceptional character of that action. This paper tries to put this prohibition into a broader context. For this purpose, a look at the previous actions of Alexander in relation to the foreigners’ corpses must first be taken. Also, the extremely negative conception of the unburied in the Hellenic culture, religion, and politics needs to be properly assessed. Only after this analysis, the signification of the prohibition can be rightly apprehended and integrated into the wider context of Alexander’s conquest, and not regarding it as a mere king’s whim. This Bactrian episode stands for a good example of how the Macedonian campaign put face to face conflicting religious practices.
The presence and pre-eminence of settlers from the Northern Aegean world in early Hellenistic Bactria-Sogdiana have been tacitly accepted by scholars since Robert’s paper in 1968. The present article challenges the idea which backs up this assumption and also provides some new evidence with a greater focus on the Thracian and Thessalian cases. In this paper, it will be assessed that the hitherto accepted proofs are mostly circumstantial and not compelling. However, the dismissal of these pieces of evidence does not imply the total rebuttal of the possible presence of settlers from Thrace and Thessaly, but a reassessment of their importance and the times and circumstances of their arrival, proposing different migratory waves and purposes behind these populational movements. In consequence, this reassessment also implies new insight about how they would have been integrated into the complex multicultural mosaic of Bactria-Sogdiana.
The massacre of the Branchidae in Sogdiana still stands as one of the most controversial milestones of Alexander’s career. Modern assessments of this event have been highly polarized, but how was it perceived both by contemporary writers and the citizens of Miletus, the Branchidae’s homeland? Demodamas, as a writer and as a Milesian, gathers both aspects. Barely known through some inscriptions from Miletus and scattered fragments of his work, Demodamas is attested as a Seleucid officer in Central Asia – erecting an altar to Apollo Didymeus – and India, and he could have participated in Alexander’s expedition. It is plausible that he wrote his own version of the massacre and, therefore, he could be regarded as one of the earliest sources about the episode. This paper, first, aims to clarify if his version could be the origin of the extant traditions. Besides this, it seeks to address how the writer’s background could have shaped his version, and the place this story took in the history of Miletus and its somehow thorny dealings with Alexander. To sum up, this paper will assess how Demodamas could have conveyed this episode that happened in faraway Sogdiana and how it was incorporated into the Milesian collective memory.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.