Is anyone qualified to weigh in on the academic robustness of this?<p>I only scanned a few bits but I was surprised to see statements like "the male skeleton had a knee injury, thus conclusively proving it was Philip" and "the female skeleton was 18 therefore proving it was Cleopatra since sources say she was young". (Paraphrasing) Etc etc. Is that all it takes to "prove" something? Could it not just be coincidence and it was someone else with a knee injury and some other ~18 year old? Or is that as far as we need to go in archeology to prove something? Put 2 and 2 together and come up with Cleopatra?<p>There also seems to be some sort of almost personal/ad hominem type stuff later on about other researchers who apparently criticised the author's work which surprised me ("Prag, Musgrave, and Neave continue to argue that I remain silent about Cyna ... as if it is an important issue"...)<p>Is this legit research?
Picture of the remains of the tunic, since I didn't see one in the article:<p><a href="https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1tgABI.img" rel="nofollow">https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1t...</a><p>> The revered tunic is is in fragmentary state and many small pieces less than 6cm (2.3 inches). It's pictured here in a shot from its discovery at Vergina in 1977<p>Source: <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/other/alexander-the-great-s-lost-tunic-is-found-after-2-300-years/ar-AA1tgvKs" rel="nofollow">https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/other/alexander-the-great-s-l...</a>
Wow, this is huge.<p>There are so many other things described in ancient texts that have yet to be discovered. Herodotus for example is filled with references to places and things that were later discovered. However there are still many examples of pretty credible places and objects that remain undiscovered.<p>Also, fwiw, people for some reason think it’s ok or cool to criticize Herodotus’ history. It’s actually very good and he always says when he observed something for himself, or it’s something that is said by others and he felt it was important to document. However his assumptions and methods are always stated. I think honestly the main problem is it’s just a really long book so few ever read it.<p>Thucydides is even better.<p>It’s such a shame there is virtually nothing surviving from people who personally knew Alexander. His entire rise is foreshadowed all throughout Thucydides, which is amazing considering that it predates him considerably.
> the <i>sacred</i> Persian mesoleucon sarapis which belonged to Pharaoh and King Alexander the Great<p>[italicizing added]<p><i>sacred</i> means something religious or divine. While Alexander the Great is very famous, does or did anyone who came after consider Alexander to be divine? For example, while people very much admire Abraham Lincoln, nobody would associate Lincoln with divinity.<p>Another comment says that English may not be the first language of the author, so perhaps 'sacred' wasn't meant precisely. And it could be used, even by an English speaker, imprecisely (hopefully not in published research) or in an exaggerated fashion (also probably doesn't belong in published research).<p>Still, I find it interesting how a little overenthusiasm and subtle shift in terminology can change perceptions of someone.<p>EDIT: Better stated: Here is a modern historian calling the sarapis <i>sacred</i>. Why? Sacred to whom?
My summary: they claim (with evidence) that they found the sacred purple sarapis (tunic) of Alexander the Great, and possibly some of his other things.
This is a controversial claim, FWIW.<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/30/world/europe/alexander-the-great-tunic-cloth.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/30/world/europe/alexander-th...</a>
I would never expect such a Greek matter would become headline in here. Turns out that Alexander the Great was globally accepted.<p>But let me clarify from what I have read that it's just a conjecture and not a very strong one.
As usual, "Conjecture Presented as Fact in Headline"<p>They found a fabric in a royal tomb in Greece that fits the description of Alexander's famous sarapis.
What is more likely - that this is Alexander's sarapis itself or that a very rich guy had one made just like it?
Just in case anybody is interested in a bit more of a casual format, I had NotebookLM create a podcast from the paper.<p><a href="https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/0bef03c4-3ed5-4b13-90ab-ea48a7d70fec/audio" rel="nofollow">https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/0bef03c4-3ed5-4b13-90...</a>
This is awesome and very historic. I’m hoping it ends up in a glass case at Meta HQ though so many people can appreciate it rather than in a closet in Palo Alto.